[Home]  [Master Table of Contents]

Date: July 26, 2000

Time: 9:00 am – 6:00 pm

Place: Parsons Engineering Science, Austin

Minutes prepared by Julie Burdey

    The meeting opened with a conference call initiated by SERDP regarding the Phosphate Induced Metals Stabilization demonstration project planned for SWMU B-20 sifted soils. Minutes for the conference call prepared by Cathy Vogel of SERDP/ESTCP are included in Attachment 1.

    David Maltby initiated this session of the meeting with a demonstration of some of the CSSA GIS features. David explained that the CSSA GIS consists of two components: 1) ArcView shape files, and 2) a SQL server database using the Spatial Data Standards (SDS) (formerly Tri-Services Spatial Data Standards, or TSSDS) structure. SQL server is necessary for the CSSA GIS due to the amount of data and number of tables that will be in the system. Mike Stimets explained that the entire SDS database structure consists of over 900 tables. Parsons has culled approximately 600 tables from the structure as they do not apply to CSSA’s environmental program at this time. Approximately 300 tables have been retained in the CSSA GIS. Of these, approximately 175 tables are domain (or look-up) tables. The remaining (approximately 125) tables relate to environmental investigations and environmental setting; a handout describing these 125 tables was distributed. Additional (non-environmental) tables will be added based on what is provided by USACE. Jo Jean indicated that the new USGS geology map of the area should be added to the GIS.

    Two main issues were discussed during this portion of the meeting: 1) a new system for submitting laboratory packages to AFCEE, and 2) AFCEE comments on the APPL background metals data package. Jo Jean explained that AFCEE reviews the data packages and data validation reports to ensure that the contractors are doing their job. Every package is not reviewed – AFCEE normally conducts a review of approximately 10% of the data for each sampling effort. It was agreed during the meeting that a sampling effort would consist of all of the samples collected on a delivery order (per event, per lab). Each groundwater monitoring event will be considered a separate sampling effort. All of the soil sampling conducted under each delivery order in March and April 2000 will be considered to be one sampling effort.

    Regarding the second issue, Bill Batschelet indicated that he found a few calculations that APPL made with regards to MS/MSDs that were incorrect. This error affects some of the APPL packages which include SW6010B metals analyses (8 of the 56 packages submitted to AFCEE to date corrected MS/MSD sheets were submitted for one package in June). The numerical value of the analytical result will not change, but some M flags may be removed as a result. Bill Batschelet also indicated that the name of the data validator and the date that the data were validated should be moved to the front of the data validation report.

    Parsons ES is initiating investigation/closure reports for the sites that were sampled in March and April 2000. A draft outline for these reports was distributed for comment. Jo Jean indicated that any information that is already in the encyclopedia should be referenced, not repeated. Julie Burdey responded that a draft report for one site would be submitted for AFCEE and CSSA’s approval in advance of all of the other site reports.

    Julie Burdey indicated that one potential issue related to completion of the investigation reports is the lack of approved revised background values. The revised background report is nearly complete; however, data flags may change given Bill Batschelet’s verbal comments during the previous meeting session. Parsons ES noted that the revised values have not yet been submitted or approved by EPA or TNRCC. Julie Burdey indicated that if TNRCC and EPA did not approve the revised background numbers and each of the reports had to be revised, significant rework may be necessary. Brian Murphy said that we could not wait for TNRCC and EPA approval, due to project schedule constraints. AFCEE and CSSA directed Parsons to go ahead and use the revised values.

    A second issue regarding the investigation/closure reports is what closure standards should be referenced. It was agreed during the meeting that the Risk Reduction Standards should be used, unless a site does not meet RRS1 (background) criteria. In those cases, sample results should be compared to the new Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) criteria.

    An example data summary table was distributed for comment. Jo Jean indicated that EPA would like to have all analytical results listed in the table. Julie responded that a table with a complete list of analytes would be included in an appendix to the report; the table distributed is only a summary of detected analytes. A footnote will be added to the table to reference the table in the appendix. Jo Jean added that SQLs should be added to the table.

    Parsons ES demonstrated the hyperlinked Encyclopedia for comment. Although Parsons ES investigated several options for generating the Encyclopedia, including Adobe Framemaker, direct HTML, and Dreamweaver, Microsoft void was selected due to its ease of use, wide availability, and its ability to meet the scope requirements of linking text, tables, and figures. Excel tables, particularly 11x17 tables, that have been imported into HTML (linkable) format using any of these software options result in a table that you must scroll through. One such table was shown to demonstrate the limitations. CSSA requested that, in these cases, several linking options be available: 1) the imported document in HTML (as demonstrated), 2) a downloadable PDF format (Adobe Acrobat Reader), and 3) Microsoft Excel 97.

    Jo Jean Mullen clarified that the ITIRs, which consist of the AFCEE forms, the list of variances, and the data validation summary reports, would be scanned onto CD by a SETA contractor. Brian Murphy indicated that only the documents in the Encyclopedia are to be hyperlinked. ITIRs are not included in the Encyclopedia; therefore, they will not be in the hyperlinked Encyclopedia.

    RL83 and DO23 budget impacts due to changes in EPA-required well construction specifications were presented in four summary tables, along with a summary table showing the groundwater monitoring schedule per delivery order. Parsons ES will submit reprogramming requests for each of these delivery orders.

    For RL83, Parsons ES proposed that five of the six groundwater monitoring events (Task 17) be descoped, and the funds moved to Task 07. For DO23, Parsons ES proposed to reprogram funds for remaining TIMs (Task 03), pump purchase and installation (Task 04), remaining well upgrade (Task 05), and preparation of cross-sections (Task 061), to Task 06. AFCEE and CSSA agreed to the proposed approach. Parsons ES will submit requests for reprogramming to the respective Contracting Officers.

    CSSA requested a draft copy of the cluster well work plan, which was supplied at the end of the meeting. CSSA and AFCEE indicated that the cluster well work plan should be submitted to the regulators, but that no location map be included, as these locations are being revised. Parsons ES asked CSSA and AFCEE if the team should plan to wait for EPA and TNRCC written approval of the cluster well work plan. Brian Murphy indicated that he could speak with EPA about providing approval, but that we will not wait for TNRCC approval since groundwater is EPA’s jurisdiction under the order. Given the need for reprogramming and EPA approval of the cluster well work plans, drilling is anticipated to start no earlier than September 2000.

    CSSA is making boxes for the core, and plans to deliver cores to UTSA. Scott Pearson and Brian Murphy agreed that cores should not be taken to UTSA until analytical results indicate that the cores are not contaminated.

    Julie Burdey expressed her concerns regarding meeting the project schedule, but added that it will be feasible if Parsons ES can proceed with the investigation/closure reports using the existing revised background numbers and if cluster well drilling commences within the next two months.

    Brian Murphy requested that Parsons ES look into some scheduling software to track contract milestones. Jo Jean Mullen suggested Microsoft Outlook. WPI is currently putting together a schedule in Microsoft Project for CSSA to track all of the order requirements.

    Brian Murphy and Jo Jean Mullen also requested that Parsons ES identify a Parsons point of contact. If that person cannot answer their questions, then the contact person will instruct the appropriate person to contact CSSA and/or AFCEE. Brian Murphy also reminded Parsons ES that WPI cannot request Parsons ES do any work.

    Scott Pearson demonstrated some of the capabilities of the GMS Modeling software by walking through the GMS tour on the Internet.

    The tour included a brief introduction to the layout of GMS, how the different modules function and interface with the MODFLOW code as well as other transport models. Particular attention was given to the GIS format of GMS and the tools that help graphically construct a MODFLOW conceptual model. Finally, a brief overview of the types of visualization and animation presentations included with GMS was shown.