The meeting was held at the Austin office of Parsons ES, beginning at approximately 0900 hours on April 15, 1998.  This meeting was attended by representatives of CSSA, Air Force Center for  Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), and Parsons ES.  The following were in attendance:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the format of CSSA’s environmental encyclopedia.  The format had been discussed during several previous meetings and a mock copy of Volume 1 was delivered to CSSA and AFCEE in December 1997.  Comments on the mock copy were incorporated in the March 25 submittal.  However, CSSA’s recent receipt of the draft EPA 3008(h) order resulted in some desired changes to the encyclopedia format to meet some of EPA’s documentation requirements.

Meeting participants reviewed and discussed the table of contents for the encyclopedia in detail, and several changes were requested.  It was understood by all parties at the meeting that funds set aside for volume 1 of the encyclopedia were expended during preparation of the version that was submitted on March 25, 1998.  New revisions to volume 1 discussed during the April 15 meeting will require additional funding.  Furthermore, some of the additions to the other volumes of the encyclopedia were not budgeted in the recent modification to RL33.  It is possible that potential savings on RL53 from the aerial survey may be applied to the encyclopedia revisions.

Julie indicated during the meeting that a revised table of contents would be submitted to CSSA and AFCEE (Note:  resulting revised table of contents is attached.).  Once the revised table of contents have been approved, Parsons ES will prepare an estimate for completing the encyclopedia, taking into account funds already budgeted in RL33. 

Additional points discussed during the meeting include the following:

1.         The table of contents for the correspondence will include the date of the document, name of the document, and where it is located.  Some correspondence will be cross-referenced in other volumes.  Correspondence should be listed chronologically under separate sections for “EPA,” “TNRCC,” etc.

2.         A figure showing site location at CSSA should be included for each site in both Volumes 1 and 3.  The aerial photo showing SWMUs can be used.  All SWMUs can be shown in yellow, but SWMU of concern for that section should be in red. 

3.         A site map and site photograph should be included for each site in Volumes 1 and 3.  It was noted that site maps and photographs were not available for a few sites where no work has been done (B-2, B-3, B-4, etc.).  CSSA will consider adding these sites in the future.

4.         Brian would like to add reminder flags to geographic information system (GIS) for monthly bacteriological (BACT) sampling.

5.         A justification for the rationale for choosing analytes that were analyzed for at each site must be added for each site.  Booz-Allen & Hamilton is currently working on this.  They are going through the list of practical quantitation limits (PQLs), identifying what was found, what was tested for, and comparing that to what Environmental Assessment (EA) identified as potential contaminants of concern.

6.         There was a brief discussion regarding the AFCEE QAPP.  Brian asked if version 3.0 of the QAPP should be used for future analysis at CSSA.  Beth indicated that there will likely be fewer problems finding a laboratory if version 3 is used.  Brian added that Greg Lyssy (EPA) had suggested using CLP instead.  Jo advised Brian that CLP has its own shortcomings, and Beth added that it would be better to use version 3.0 of the QAPP.

7.         Jo said that all Informal Technical Information Reports (ITIRs) should be sequentially numbered (i.e., ITIR1, ITIR2, etc.), and that the contract number and order number should be on the cover.  The encyclopedia can then reference ITIR by number.  Brian asked if ITIRs could be put onto CDs, then he would only need one hard copy, plus the CD.

8.         Brian indicated that he would like to get the GIS on a CD also, along with ArcView, so he can send a copy to Greg Lyssy (EPA) and the TNRCC.  Julie answered that she didn’t think a copy of ArcView could be sent.  Beth suggested a run-time version of ArcView may be available.  She also added that it may be possible to make the GIS available through the Internet.  Jo asked Beth to discuss the viability of the Internet avenue with the appropriate people at AFCEE.

9.         Brian and Jo suggested that an introduction be added to the encyclopedia which describes how it meets regulatory requirements established for all applicable documents.  In other words, the introduction should describe how it meets requirements for waste analysis plan, current conditions report (?), etc.  In addition, Brian said that, in the future, Parsons may be scoped to give a presentation to the regulators on the encyclopedia, and how it meets the requirements.

10.     Brian asked if it would be appropriate to add SOWs to the encyclopedia.  Jo suggested that contractual information, such as SOWs, should not be included.  She noted that the H order requests that information, but suggested that Brian ask that specific information be deleted. 

11.     Volume 1 will be divided into Volumes 1-1 through 1-6 (as shown in the attached revised table of contents).  Appendices to the Work Plan Overview will be redistributed into these volumes.

12.     Julie asked if there were any comments on the page, figure, or table numbering system.  Brian and Jo said the system that was used is fine.

13.     The waste analysis plan will be retitled “An Addendum to the FSP and QAPP.”  All information that is provided elsewhere in the document will be referenced.  However, the format, which meets EPA requirements for waste analysis plans, will stay the same.  For example, paragraphs describing CSSA will be removed and the following will be added:  “Please see Volume 1-1, Background Information Report for a description of CSSA.”

14.     Jo indicated that the justification for using 14% Portland Cement for stabilization should be added to the plan.  Ken will add that information.

15.     There was a discussion regarding including the results of the bench-scale treatability study in the waste analysis plan (Addendum to FSP and QAPP).  It was decided that the results should not be included in the plan.  However, Ken added that if Malcom Ferris (TNRCC Region 13) requests the results, they could be provided.

16.     Julie said that Brice Environmental, the subcontractor performing the soil washing treatability study, has indicated that acid leaching will not be cost effective for the CSSA soils due to their alkalinity.  Brice has asked if they can instead do a treatability study to test Encapco (information regarding Encapco is attached).  Encapco is a stabilization technique which produces a concrete material which can be used for roads, barricades, etc.  Jo said that Parsons has been contracted to do a soil washing treatability study, so Brice must provide evidence that soil washing is not appropriate.  Results of physical characteristics testing, costs to do acid leaching, etc., must be provided.  What is their evidence?  How did they come to that conclusion?  If Brice did a treatability study for Lackland AFB, their results might provide appropriate evidence.  Jo added that, if Brice does not have evidence, we will still have to do acid leaching test to prove to EPA that it doesn’t work, since soil washing is a recommended technology for metals-contaminated soils.  Julie suggested that they may be able to do both soil washing and Encapco, because two samples (one of B-20 mounds, one of B-20 shot disposal soils) were sent to Brice.  Jo added that Parsons should check into other types of soil washing (e.g. floatation).

17.     Brian indicated that dates the work plan was submitted to regulators should be added to the waste analysis plan (retitled Addendum).  Julie indicated that she didn’t think the plan had been sent to the agencies because it has never been finalized.  Jo and Brian recalled that it had been sent, but Brian said it would have been sent from Parsons.  Julie will look through files to determine if it was sent to regulators.

18.     Sites to be addressed in the waste analysis plan (B-20/21, B-31, B-32, B-33) will be listed in a table on a separate page, so adding sites in the future will require that only that page be revised.

19.     Since it will be a few months before encyclopedia will be submitted to the regulators, Brian and Jo suggested that the waste analysis plan (retitled addendum) be submitted to the regulators by itself, with copies of the appropriate referenced pages attached.

20.     Jo requested that AFCEE delivery order 23 tasks be added to the schedule in the Work Plan Overview.

21.     Julie asked if Brian or Jo had any comments on the SWMU status matrix that she e-mailed to them a couple of weeks ago.  Brian and Jo said they will review it.  Jo asked that a copy be resent to her via e-mail.

22.     Julie inquired how many copies of the encyclopedia would be required in the future.  The recent modification for RL33 included 8 copies, which apparently will not be enough.  Brian said he will need 5 copies (includes 1 for library-public record), Jo Jean said she needs 3 (2 for her, 1 for Rene Hefner), TNRCC needs 3, and EPA should get 2.  With 2 copies for Parsons, total is 15 copies.  Brian inquired if it would be possible to get CD copies in the future.

23.     Cover should be revised as follows:  Put volume number under title of volume.  The volume number should be larger so that it is easier to find on the bookshelf.  Move “Camp Stanley Storage Activity” above the Army symbol, and make it a larger font.

CLARIFICATIONS

Upon the revision of the encyclopedia table of contents after the meeting, the following questions arose:

1.         Regarding contractual correspondence:  should all contractual correspondence be included?  There is a lot of it, including document transmittal letters, requests for contract modifications and schedule changes, notifications of site visits, etc.

2.         It was agreed during the meeting that the work plan for AFCEE delivery order 23 would be moved to Volume 5.  Should SAP and HSP addenda for DO23 also be put in Volume 5?

3.         Should previous plans produced under the Armstrong Laboratory be included in Volume 1-6?

4.         Will existing groundwater monitoring reports and/or investigation reports be included in Volume 5?

ACTIONS

CSSA

·           Review and comment on or approve revised table of contents.

·           Review and comment on or approve SWMU status matrix format.

AFCEE

·           Send copy of written comments on encyclopedia which Jo Jean has at her office to Parsons.

·           Review and comment on or approve revised table of contents.

·           Review and comment on or approve SWMU status matrix format.

·           Review Parsons ES’ proposal for additional funding to revise encyclopedia.

·           Provide results of Booz-Allen & Hamilton’s research into CSSA data regarding PQLs, detects, etc. to Parsons for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  (Note:  Jo Jean provided diskette at meeting.)

·           Look into putting CSSA GIS on the Internet.

·           Address clarifications noted above.

Parsons ES

·           Prepare revised table of contents for CSSA and AFCEE approval.  (Note:  Revised table of contents is attached.)

·           E-mail SWMU status matrix to Jo Jean.  (Note:  SWMU status matrix was e-mailed to Jo Jean on April 16, 1998.)

·           After revised table of contents has been approved, prepare estimate for completing encyclopedia, taking into account funds already set aside for encyclopedia under RL33 and the increased number of copies (item 21).

·           Instruct GIS team to put BACT reminder flags into GIS.

·           Look into providing CSSA GIS and ArcView on CD to EPA.

·           Prepare justification for selection of analytes at each site.

·           Revise waste analysis plan (retitled Addendum) to incorporate comments.  Attach appropriate referenced pages.

·           Provide information on Encapco from Brice Environmental (Note:  Copy of information received from Brice is attached.).  Also, discuss other types of soil washing with Brice, and determine if they have evidence to support the fact that acid washing is not appropriate.  (Note:  Brice is preparing letter regarding inapplicability of soil washing, which will include experience at sites with similar soils.)

·           Provide justification in “Addendum to FSP and QAPP” for use of 14% Portland cement.

·           Add AFCEE delivery order 23 tasks to the Work Plan Overview schedule.

·           Revise cover of encyclopedia.

Attachment
Revised Table of Contents for Environmental Encyclopedia

Attachment
Information from Brice Environmental regarding Encapco Recycling Technology