Minutes prepared by Julie Burdey, Parsons ES.

The agenda for this meeting and the meeting sign-in sheet are attached (Attachment 1).  These meeting minutes are organized in the order of the agenda, not necessarily in the order they were discussed.  Parsons ES personnel attended portions of the meeting which pertained to their work on the project.  Minutes for the conference call regarding laboratory status, which apply to other CSSA projects, are included separately as Attachment 4.

Environmental Encyclopedia (9:00 am – 10:15 am)

Goals of this portion of the meeting were to discuss:

1. CSSA comments on Volumes 1 and 2 of the encyclopedia;

2. Format for RFI Work Plan;

3. Content of Volume 3; and

4. Groundwater reports to include in Volume 5.

Parsons ES received CSSA’s comments on Volumes 1 and 2 via e-mail on March 5, 1999.  Several of the comments were discussed in detail during the meeting.  The complete list of comments provided by Brian Murphy on Volumes 1 and 2 are included as Attachment 2.

Julie described that the RFI Work Plan is part of the scope for RL74.  The 3008(H) order requires an RFI Work Plan for each SWMU and AOC at CSSA.  To fulfill this requirement, Parsons is planning on preparing RFI Work Plans for each of the sites at which no work is planned under the existing contracts.  All agreed that work plans prepared under RL17, RL33, and RL53 serve as RFI Work Plans for those sites being addressed by those contracts.  To demonstrate to EPA that all of the required information for the RFI Work Plan in the 3008(H) order is included in the enyclopedia, a cross-reference chart will be prepared to direct the reader to the location of the information.

No work is currently scoped for most of the AOCs and for several of the SWMUs.  Under RL74, RFI Work Plans will be prepared for these sites.  Two examples were presented; one for AOC 41 and one for RMU-1 (Attachment 3).  Brian pointed out that the map included with the AOC 41 work plan example is really the map for SWMU B-5.  SWMU B-5 is located within AOC 41.  Brian added that AOC 41 only needs a soil gas survey.  All of the AOCs around Well 16 were listed just for soil gas concerns.  Some of these AOCs have had soil gas surveys, and some have not.  For instance, all of AOC 38 has already been surveyed.  Parsons will cross-check the chronologies in Volumes 1-2 and 1-3 against the status table that Brian will be e-mailing to make sure they are consistent and to formulate a plan for work at the sites.  Regarding the RMU-1 work plan example, Brian noted that no work is planned for RMU-1 or RMU-2 as these sites are still active ranges.

Shavonne explained that our overall strategy for planning work at these sites will be to first collect samples in areas of concern (i.e., geophysical anomalies, trenches, mounds, stressed vegetation, etc.).  If no contamination is found in these biased samples, a closure report will be prepared.  If contamination is found, a second phase of sampling will be recommended to meet risk reduction standard sampling requirements, either residential or industrial.  Sampling for closure under the risk reduction standards is based on “exposure areas.”  To close under residential standards, the exposure area is 1/8 acre; and to close under industrial standards, the exposure area is typically ½ acre.

Rachey confirmed with Brian and Jo Jean that Volume 3, which will be submitted at the end of the month, will include a chronology (like that in Volume 1), photograph, site map (if available), and a list of relevant reports for each site.  Investigation reports are not available for any of the sites (except AOC 36) due to the ITS data problems.  These reports will be provided after resampling takes place. 

Brian requested that an F-14 tab also be added, and that the F-14 closure report be included in Volume 3-1.  He said that a CD containing the report could be placed in the binder, or the report itself, either one.  He also added that the existing B-20 reports should be put on a CD for inclusion in Volume 3-1.

Shavonne asked Jo Jean and Brian what groundwater reports they wanted to include in Volume 5.  It was agreed that all groundwater monitoring reports and investigation reports submitted after June 1996 would be included.  A list of previous monitoring and investigation reports will also be included.  Since the report titled “Groundwater Investigation and Associated Source Characterization”(Parsons ES, June 1996) includes a significant amount of information regarding the geology and hydrogeology of the site, a CD of the report will be prepared and included in the binder.  This report is too large and includes too many large color figures to reproduce in the encyclopedia.  Furthermore, the EPA and TNRCC already have copies.

Minutes for the laboratory status conference call, which addressed laboratory issues under other delivery orders, are included separately as Attachment 4.

Julie introduced this portion of the meeting as the “kickoff” meeting for the CSSA Web Site.  Parsons has also been working on CSSA’s GIS over the past couple of years, so there aren’t any pressing issues regarding the GIS.  However, there were a few items for discussion on the GIS.

Julie asked how the GIS would be handled now that Radian is also on board for environmental work at CSSA.  Jo Jean indicated that Radian will submit their data to us in the format that we specify.  In addition, there will be teaming meetings with AFCEE, CSSA, Radian, and Parsons.  Brian added that he would rather keep the data in one contractor’s hands.

David Maltby said that the GIS is based primarily on the TriServices Spatial Data System (TSSDS), and Radian is probably familiar with that.  Data handed over to Parsons must be in that format for inclusion in the CSSA GIS.  When appropriate, Parsons will provide a list of numbers that Radian should start with.  Parsons will also provide any other specifications, other than TSSDS, that Radian will need to follow so that their data can be inserted into the CSSA GIS.

Brian asked if CSSA should continue to use Microsoft AccessÒ for their database, or if they should switch to Microsoft SQL ServerÒ.  David answered that Access can handle a lot of data, but has trouble handling a lot of tables (and TSSDS has hundreds of tables).  David indicated that if CSSA sticks with Access, many of the tables that aren’t being used, and that CSSA will probably never use, can be trimmed off.  Brian requested that David prepare an estimate for what it would cost to migrate from Access to SQL ServerÒ. 

Brian also mentioned that several of the SWMU and AOC locations were off on the site location map included in the encyclopedia.  It was agreed that Dave Maltby would go to CSSA on March 17 to correct these locations.

Regarding the Web Site, one of the first issues to resolve is who has access to what.  A matrix of data types, users, and data access methods was distributed at the meeting (Attachment 5).  Mike Stimets asked that CSSA and AFCEE mark up the matrix so that the Web Site can be designed appropriately.  Brian indicated that he would like to set up as many firewalls as possible while still making access to the Web Site convenient for the regulatory agencies, AFCEE, and contractors.  Jo Jean asked that GSEI contractors have access similar to AFCEE’s, and that SETA contractors have one-time access with authorization from CSSA.  Each user will have a user ID and password.  Teresa Anderson suggested that the Web Site be set up so that CSSA can track who is accessing the site.

Since CSSA will be the seat of the Web Site, it is important that it be backed up and stored in a place where it will not be destroyed (i.e. in a fireproof safe).

Mike also distributed an outline for the Web Site design document (Attachment 5) that will be prepared before the Web Site is actually designed.  Questions that will facilitate design of the document were also distributed (Attachment 5).  The purpose of the document will be to describe the intent of the Web Site, what CSSA would like to accomplish with the site, how the site will look (examples include encyclopedia format, mall format, etc.).  This document will be developed with input from AFCEE and CSSA before work on the Web Site is really initiated.  This will minimize major revisions to the site.

Brian indicated that he would send responses to the questions to Parsons by March 19.  To conclude this portion of the meeting, Katie Graham showed CSSA and AFCEE a possible layout of the encyclopedia in a hyperlinked document designed using TrellixÒ software.

Julie introduced this topic by describing how Parsons viewed the work to be conducted at O-1 as accomplishing two goals:  remediation of soils and investigation of bedrock.  Jo Jean agreed that the objective of the interim measures (IM) is to remove the soils, in addition we’ll characterize the extent of contamination.  Ken indicated that removal of soils might be presented to EPA as a “partial facility closure,” and that bedrock would be considered part of the groundwater “issue” or “operable unit.”

Several options for how the interim measures will be accomplished while still characterizing the extent of contamination in bedrock were discussed.  These options are included in Attachment 6.

During the meeting, it was decided a modification to “Scenario 1” would be the best approach.  CSSA equipment can be used to collect shallow soil samples around the pond.  After these samples delineate the extent of contamination in the soil, the contaminated soil will be removed, and then drilling into bedrock will be conducted (prior to backfilling the excavated area).

Parsons received comments from AFCEE over the phone last week regarding the O-1 Treatability Study Report.  Ken asked that Jo Jean clarify what she is expecting from the O-1 Treatability Study.  Jo Jean indicated the EPA allows treatability studies to provide specific data on remediation technologies as necessary to include in a corrective measures study (CMS).  Within the CMS, technologies are compared and the most appropriate technology is chosen.  Jo Jean added that CSSA chose to do this type of study voluntarily so that when EPA came on board with the order, some technologies would have already been tested and their appropriateness would be known. 

Jo Jean added that electrokinetics is just one part of the CMS.  Other treatability studies will be included as well.  Need cost per cubic yard, effectiveness, implementability, etc.  Also need a paragraph description of how technologies were selected.  Jo Jean concluded by saying that comments from WPI on the O-1 Treatability Study would be provided to Parsons ES soon.

1. Dave Maltby and Mike Stimets will go to CSSA on March 17, 1999 to update and correct SWMU and AOC locations on CSSA’s GIS.

2. Shavonne Gordon, Rachey Peten, and Julie Burdey will make changes to encyclopedia discussed during the meeting.  After AFCEE comments are received, corrected pages will be sent out for Brian’s and Jo Jean’s volumes, and additional volumes will be reproduced. 

3. Parsons will prepare work plan in accordance with meeting discussions. 

4. Action items resulting from the laboratory status conference call are included in Attachment 4.

5. Parsons will prepare web site design document based on input from AFCEE and CSSA.

6. Parsons will revise the O-1 Interim Measures Work Plan based on the meeting’s discussions.

7. Parsons will include information regarding effectiveness, implementability, etc. of electrokinetics in the O-1 Treatability Study.

1. AFCEE will provide comments on Volumes 1 and 2 of the environmental encyclopedia.

2. Jo Jean will forward WPI comments on the O-1 Treatability Study to Parsons.  Completed on March 12, 1999.

1. Brian Murphy will e-mail SWMU and AOC status tables to Parsons ES and AFCEE.  Completed on March 12, 1999.

2. Brian will provide information regarding Web Site access and answer to questions on Web Site design.