[Home]  [Master Table of Contents]

Date: 30 June 1999

Time: 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.

Place: Parsons Engineering Science, Austin, Texas

Subject: Project Kickoff

Attendees:

Minutes prepared by Julie Burdey, Parsons ES

The agenda for this meeting is attached (attachment 1). Parsons ES personnel attended portions of the meeting as noted in the agenda.

The meeting was opened with brief introductions. The purpose of the meeting, kickoff for the RL83 project, as well as updates on all environmental work at CSSA and how it fits in with requirements of the 3008(H) Order, was stated. Task managers for RL83 were introduced.

Julie Burdey provided a brief overview of the project. The RL83 project includes 18 tasks, as listed in the table below:

Each task manager was asked to give a brief description of their tasks, which are summarized below. A breakdown of the subtasks included in each task was provided in the "RL83 Project Status" handout.

Tasks 1, 2, 8, and 11 will not have an individual task manager. Tasks 1 and 2 are Project Management and Meetings, respectively. A total of six meetings are planned, including this kick-off meeting. Task 11, Encyclopedia Updates, is essentially a follow-on to a similar task included in the RL74 project. Task 8 is Quarterly Progress Reports. The first progress report is due to EPA on August 2, 1999; therefore, this task will be initiated immediately. Brian Murphy asked that an example of the format that will be used be sent in mid-July to Greg Lyssy of EPA for his approval.

Tasks 3, 4, and 7 will be managed by Scott Pearson. Well research will initially be done by Banks Information Solutions, Inc. The information regarding private wells in the vicinity of CSSA which was gathered in 1995 and 1996 by Parsons will be used; however, based on the amount of development in the area, it is anticipated that there are quite a few new wells to the west of CSSA. After that information has been gathered, Parsons ES will do a field visit to the identified wells. Scott said that he would like to set up a data sheet for each well that is evaluated. The data sheet would include a photograph, coordinates (obtained with CSSA’s GPS unit), estimated elevation (estimated from topographic map elevation contours), and other info. Parsons assumed that CSSA would assist in obtaining Camp Bullis’ well information. Chris Beale noted that a 1992 paper by Watterus includes a lot of well information. Susan Roberts replied that the paper was included in research for the June 1996 groundwater and source characterization assessment report.

The hydrogeologic conceptual site model (CSM) will build the framework for the groundwater model. The CSM will include tops and bottoms of lithologic units, structure info, groundwater flow info, etc. Also, it is anticipated that the boundaries of the model (e.g., ¼-mile radius, watershed, etc.) will also be defined, in cooperation with Steve Rossello as part of the groundwater model identification task under RL74. Scott added that groundwater flow information from the off-site wells may also be included.

Next, Scott described how the cluster wells would be installed. It is estimated that each cluster will take approximately 18 to 20 days to install. It was decided that a meeting should be held with EPA to determine well locations. In preparation for this meeting, Parsons will initiate tasks 3 and 4. Brian Murphy asked Scott to look into how the pumps for the wells should be designed. CSSA will be ordering these pumps. Scott suggested that pre-cut tubing be ordered, since it is difficult to measure out hundreds of feet of tubing in the field. Scott asked Brian if he would like to keep a core at CSSA for future reference purposes. Parsons will research to see if any area universities or groundwater organizations (such as Edwards Aquifer Authority, SAWS, etc.) has a core library which might be interested in uncontaminated CSSA cores. Jo Jean Mullen said that she will want Rene Hefner’s and Dr. Peebles’ input on well locations prior to making the final decisions on where to drill the bores.

Task 5, the B-3 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) operations and maintenance (O&M), will be managed by Brian Vanderglas. This is a follow-on to SVE O&M included in RL74. Included in the RL83 budget is diagnostic check and repair of the system. At the end of the 12 months (6 months under RL74 and 6 months under RL83), an SVE O&M Assessment Report will be prepared which will briefly evaluate and recommend remediation enhancements, such as hydrogen.

Tasks 9, 16, and 17 will be managed by Shavonne Gordon. Task 9, SWMU and AOC Investigations, will be initiated in July. Geophysical surveys at the AOCs are tentatively planned for the week of July 26, and it is estimated that they will take about 12 days to complete. The grid size for these surveys will vary according to the size of the site. Parsons is preparing maps showing grids for the work plans. Jo Jean Mullen asked that she be notified as far in advance of any planned field work. Susan Roberts also noted that the EPA Order requires that the EPA be notified at least 14 days in advance of any field work. Brian asked that Parsons update the access list before field work begins, and also said that Parsons needs to plan on longer security searches at the CSSA front gate due to more rigorous CSSA security procedures. Parsons research during RL83 proposal preparation indicated that the Army must determine what the ampoules at B-23A contain. Karuna Mirchandani spoke with the manager of a specialty lab in Chicago who indicated that, since the question has been raised as to what the ampoules contain, the Army must handle that initial identification. As soon as that has been completed, Parsons can collect surface soil samples, etc.

In regards to Task 16, GIS Enhancements and Database Updates, Parsons will initiate some of this work right away. Parsons will create some forms for collecting building data, stormwater data, etc. to make that data collection easier for CSSA personnel. Brian indicated that he and Chris would probably collect a lot of that information.

Task 17, Groundwater Sampling, addresses monitoring of new cluster wells which were not budgeted for in DO23 or RL74. A total of six rounds of groundwater sampling are currently budgeted.

Task 10, Soil Pile Disposition Assessment, will be managed by Ken Rice. This task will use information already gathered under RL33. The first step will be to characterize soil in piles at B-8, B-20, B-24, B-28, and DD. This characterization will also include metals speciation. Metals of concern include barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury. After the characterization is complete, an assessment report will be prepared. For budgeting purposes, it was assumed a treatment train consisting of physical separation and phytoremediation, would be appropriate. However, this may be modified based on the results of the assessment. After a suitable treatment method has been identified, the treatability study will be conducted, and a treatability study report will be prepared.

Task 12, Title V Non-applicability Demonstration, will be managed by Tony St. Clair. Tony indicated that Title V applies if a facility emits 10 tons or more of a listed contaminant, or 25 tons or more of a group of contaminants. This does not apply to CSSA. Tony will visit CSSA before preparing the demonstration to become familiar with the facility. It is estimated that this task will be initiated in August.

Task 13, the SPCC Plan update, will be managed by Christina Vail, who could not attend the meeting. It is anticipated that Christina and other San Antonio office staff will conduct most of this task. The SPCC Plan that Parsons created for CSSA a few years ago will be updated.

Task 14, the TPDES Permit Update, will be managed by Steve Schrader. Steve said that the update will include discharge from the granular activated carbon (GAC) unit and reuse of treated water for irrigation. The deadline for the application is October 1, 1999, so Parsons will be initiating work on this task in the very near future. Several items will be required for the application, including analytical results for the treated water, analytical results for soil at the planned irrigation sites, and well and landowner research. In Parsons’ cost proposal, it was assumed that CSSA would provide analytical results for the treated water. Steve will prepare a table of required analyses and estimated costs for CSSA. Brian and Chris will probably do the sampling.

Task 15, laboratory audits, was discussed later in the meeting.

Task 18, the Community Relations Plan, will be managed by Karuna Mirchandani. As part of this task, Parsons will develop a mailing list, conduct approximately 20 interviews, prepare postcards for mail-out, and complete the Community Relations Plan (CRP) that WPI initiated. The CRP is due to the EPA by September 1, so Parsons will initiate this task immediately. Brian Murphy indicated that Parsons should contact Shelley Wentworth of the Alamo Area Council of Governments regarding community relations. Julie also noted that the level of input that the Fort Sam Houston public affairs office wants to have must be determined. Brian indicated that if Fort Sam does want to be involved, then the encyclopedia will probably have to go into the San Antonio Library, as well as the Boerne Library.

Outstanding issues and general updates on the progress of the other CSSA delivery orders was discussed next.

Julie indicated that the TNRCC recently told Steve Schrader that the addition of discharge from the GAC unit will have to be included on the TPDES permit application. Our request for a modification, which was sent to TNRCC several months ago, has been denied. Therefore, it was decided during the meeting that the GAC unit would still be installed and used, but that, until the TPDES application has been approved, the discharge from the unit will be containerized.

Treatment and discharge for water generated during construction of deep wells was also discussed. Scott Pearson will look into options for containerizing the water before it is treated and discharged, due to the volume. CSSA may wish to purchase some tanks.

Julie said that a request for extension on pump installations will be sent to AMC. These pumps will be installed in the new DO23 wells, which have not yet been drilled.

The Current Conditions Report is due to EPA on August 2, 1999, and plans are due September 1. Parsons will send the draft Current Conditions Report (which Brian has commented on twice, and Jo Jean once) to CSSA, AFCEE, and WPI by July 7 (via e-mail). Comments must be returned to Parsons ES by July 14 to meet the August 2 deadline. For the August 2 deliverable, Parsons will also submit the Encyclopedia. However, any documents which are currently in "draft’ stage will not be included in EPA’s copy. There was also discussion regarding what the submittals to EPA should be called. Parsons has typically only budgeted a draft and a final. However, Jo Jean and Joe Hailer indicated that submittals to the EPA should be called draft final. It was decided that copies of EPA comments and Parsons/CSSA/AFCEE responses would be added to the encyclopedia, and individual pages would be replaced.

Regarding the GIS and Web Site task, Brian had indicated a few weeks ago that he would like to remove the Web site from the RL74 scope and replace it with preparation of a graphical user interface using Visual Basic to access the database. Brian indicated that he would rather gauge public interest in a Web site before investing money in it.

Ken gave an overview of the RL53 project status. Field work for this delivery order includes investigations at B-9, B-10, B-11, I-1, and Building 43. Work to be conducted included soil sampling and waste disposal. Modification 3, which has not yet been approved by AMC, includes a reduction in the number of meetings and the background metals statistics to account for unanticipated laboratory procurement costs.

Much of the work on RL33 has been completed. However, some analyses were conducted by ITS Laboratory, so some resampling will be conducted (as described later under RL17 and RL33 Rework). Disposal of the B-20 shot pile is scheduled for the week ending July 9. Jo Jean received verbal authorization from Nancy Stine at AMC for the notice of intent to subcontract Eagle for the hazardous waste disposal during the meeting. After a laboratory has been procured, drilling and sampling will be conducted at some of the RL33 sites. Brian asked that Parsons provide per-site costs for investigation, UXO removal, etc. An estimate will be acceptable, perhaps based on a percentage. Finally, Julie noted that some of the analyses conducted for the treatability studies were conducted by ITS Lab. Parsons will be evaluating the extent of these analyses. For instance, Phytotech did most of their analyses in house, except for the barium analyses, which they were not equipped to do themselves.

Susan gave the overview of the RL17 project status. This project was initiated in 1995, and was put on hold when the ITS laboratory problem was revealed. Several of the tasks on this project have been completed, including the SWMU O-1 Treatability Study and Report and the Integrated Waste Management and Spill Plan. Brian asked for the electronic files for the latter document; Parsons will send these files to him. Regarding the B-3 SVE treatability study report, Jo Jean indicated that Parsons should compare the ITS data to previous Chemron data from that site. Susan said that Brian Vanderglas already did that comparison, and found the results to be "comparable." Jo Jean said that, in that case, Parsons should use these results as screening data and finalize the report. She added that air results cannot be recaptured since the system has changed since the samples were collected. Finally, Susan said that a request for an extension beyond September 1999 will be made to AMC. In reviewing the SWMU matrix table, AFCEE and WPI asked Parsons to send the electronic file.

Susan gave a brief overview of the actions conducted to date regarding rework due to ITS data quality issues. As discussed in a response to the February 1999 AMC cure notice, Parsons ES has prepared draft plans for rework per site in accordance with the CSSA encyclopedia. Based on reviews of ITS foundational data, Parsons ES had planned to propose reanalysis of organic sample locations. However, in May 1999, EPA issued a letter stating that no ITS data would be acceptable for closure or cleanup. Therefore, Parsons ES is in the process of revising the rework plans to address all analytical methods previously run by ITS. It is anticipated that the final draft rework plans will be submitted to AFCEE and CSSA for review in July 1999.

The AFCEE –8136/DO23 project is a little over halfway to completion. Susan reviewed the tasks and work completed (project plan addenda, 6 out of 8 TIMs, 2 out of 5 monitoring quarters, upgrade of 3 water wells, and waste characterization and state notice of registration support). Outstanding issues are the need to extend the project beyond September 1999 to complete quarterly monitoring, installation of three 350-foot wells and reporting. Jo Jean needs a cost estimate to account for the extended period of performance and to complete the three wells as triple cased rather than open hole wells with total depth of the deepest bore to the bottom of the Cow Creek formation. Susan will submit this estimate by 16 July 1999. It was also agreed that the next quarter of groundwater monitoring will take place after a subcontract is executed between a laboratory (tentatively O’Brien & Gere) and Parsons ES. In discussion of quarterly monitoring events, AFCEE and WPI requested the table specifying which project is responsible for which portion of each of 8 events; Parsons ES will e-mail this file.

The status of four potential laboratories was discussed as follows:

O’Brien & Gere Laboratories – Karuna Mirchandani said that the lab audit conducted June 2-4, 1999 went very well. The audit report was completed and needed review and approval from both CSSA and AFCEE. Julie asked Jo Jean if AFCEE could provide an expedited review. Jo Jean said that the review could be done by Wednesday, July 7, 1999. Brian said that Parsons could then incorporate AFCEE’s comments into the audit report and send it to the lab by Friday, July 9, 1999.

Karuna mentioned that the lab will be given 10 working days from receipt of the audit report to respond with a corrective action response plan. After Parsons approves the plan, the lab will have 15 working days to demonstrate to Parsons that the corrective action plan is in place. If there are no complications with any of these deadlines, the earliest the groundwater sampling could take place would be during the second week in August.

APPL Laboratories, Quanterra Laboratories & Air Toxics – Joe Hailer asked why Parsons was trying to procure analytical services with other labs if O’Brien & Gere seemed capable (technical and capacity) of doing the work. Jo Jean mentioned that with all the ITS rework, RL 33, RL 53 and RL 74 work, there was too much work for one laboratory to handle. Susan also mentioned that Parsons did not want to put ‘all our eggs in one basket’ by just having one laboratory do all the CSSA work.

Tammy Chang said that the APPL (Fresno, CA) audit was scheduled for August 4-6, 1999. Parsons is going to try and audit Quanterra Labs (West Sacramento, CA) the week after the APPL audit. Both Jo Jean and Brian agreed it would be convenient to audit both these labs one right after the other due to their geographic proximity. Parsons plans on auditing only the explosives, dioxins and furans at Quanterra. The air analyses at Quanterra are performed in the Santa Ana lab. The Sacramento lab does not have the capability to perform air analyses. The audit of the Santa Ana lab would require another plane flight and would cost more. The other option presented by Parsons was to audit Air Toxics (Folsom, CA) for the air analyses. Folsom, CA is a short drive from Sacramento and it would be more cost effective to audit Air Toxics over Quanterra in Santa Ana.

Jo Jean mentioned that Dames and Moore had audited Air Toxics in the past, and she would try to get Parsons a copy of the final audit report. Karuna asked Tammy if the review of all the preliminary data packages from Quanterra (West Sacramento and Santa Ana) and Air Toxics (Folsom, CA) could be done before the beginning of August. Tammy mentioned neither of these laboratories (Quanterra and Air Toxics) were being very cooperative. Tammy also mentioned the possibility of asking these labs for any external audit reports done by the Navy or the Corps of Engineers. Jo Jean thought that would be a good idea and would give us a sense of the lab’s capability.

In concluding the discussion of the lab program, it was decided that if the preliminary data packages from Quanterra (West Sacramento) and Air Toxics were approved by Parsons and AFCEE before August 4, 1999, Parsons would schedule the Quanterra and Air Toxics audit for the week of August 9, 1999. Jo Jean also requested that future references to the QAPP be noted as the "CSSA QAPP" rather than the AFCEE QAPP.

For this portion of the meeting, Parsons presented print-outs for GANTT charts which had been prepared by both WPI and Parsons. WPI prepared GANTT charts for costing purposes for CSSA, as well as for overall schedule planning for Jo Jean. The dates used in WPI’s charts were guesses. Joe Hailer explained that Parsons is driving the content and dates on the schedule; WPI will add costs for CSSA, and will incorporate the CSSA info into Jo Jean’s GANTT chart.

Parsons presented three GANTT charts. One was a recently prepared GANTT chart showing all of the EPA order schedule requirements. The other two were the GANTT charts which were included in the RL74 and RL83 proposals.

CSSA and AFCEE would like the GANTT chart to be prepared with details of everything that must happen so that problems in meeting the EPA Order schedule requirements can be predicted well enough in advance so that an extension can be requested if necessary.

Information in all of the GANTT charts which were presented will be included in one chart. The chart will be divided into the major sections of the order: Interim Measures, RFI, CMS, and CMI. Another column will be added to the table to note what delivery order each task is under, or if the task is not currently funded. Parsons also asked CSSA and AFCEE to take copies of the charts to further review them to determine if any other changes are required.

RL83 Kickoff Meeting
Agenda
9:00 a.m., June 30, 1999