Minutes for Data quality objectives meeting

Contract No. F41624-00-D-8024, Task Orders 42 and 58

Parsons ES 740911.02000 and 740999.02000

Attendees

The agenda for this meeting is presented in Attachment 1, and the meeting sign-in sheet is in Attachment 2 (above).

Introductions

The meeting opened with brief introductions. Karuna Mirchandani reviewed the goals of the Data Quality Objectives meeting. Karuna reviewed the draft short forms for field sampling and the draft seven step (long form) DQO evaluation. Karuna suggested deferring discussion of non-analytical field issues until Brian Vanderglas and Scott Pearson join the meeting at mid morning.

Joe Fernando suggests making the Project Objectives more specific and less broad in the short form.

Chris Beal asked whether isopropyl alcohol (a listed analyte) will be reported as a Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) or an analyte. Tammy answered that it is an actual analyte for this TO, but because it is not on the standard list for method SW8260, the laboratory will determine this compound as a TIC.

Kyle questioned the specific analysis to be run when sampling and how many duplicates are required. He asks in quarterly versus monthly sampling for both on and off post samples, when should full confirmatory QC samples be obtained? The decision was made that non-quarterly and/or non-monthly off-post wells sampled will not require collection of MS/MSD samples when only a few wells are sampled.

Tammy asks whether monthly samples analyzed for PCE/TCE only need full QC. Discussion ensues over whether any monthly sampling for wells above 4.5 ppb (90% of MCL) need to be analyzed by APPL, with full QA/QC. Full QA/QC is necessary for all drinking water samples. The requirements of AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) of one Quality Control (QC) sample per 20 environmental samples were discussed. Joe suggests informing Teri of the outcome of our decisions today and giving her a chance to comment. TO 42 and TO 58 are covered by AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0), not CSSA QAPP.

NOTE: All Action Items and decisions made concerning sampling methods, QA/QC, laboratory % completeness, variances, etc., are pending approval by TNRCC and EPA. The December 2001 sampling event will not be affected. Pending approval of the DQOs by regulators, the goal will be to implement the decisions made in this meeting by the March 2002 sampling event.

Action Item - Send draft of DQO forms to Teri DuPriest for her review/approval.

Discussion of the purpose of the short DQO form as a tracking device for field personnel and for in-office, after sampling. Discussed whether this could be electronic or a paper form. Determined it doesn?t really matter, the information is collected either way. This is intended to simplify the applicable fieldwork for each type of DQO.

Joe discusses the last DQO meeting held and the meeting minutes that were produced. After today?s meeting, either he or Ed Brown would like to review the final DQOs. A brief discussion of the last DQO meeting on another TO ensued.

Action Item - Send draft of DQO forms to Joe or Ed Brown for review/approval.

Karuna and Susan suggested shifting to a discussion of the long-form DQO evaluation, since many of the questions being asked will be covered there. Discussion of the broad seven step process may be more productive prior to covering the short form/field sampling plan.

Joe discusses the natural attenuation parameters to be sampled for and suggests we include the full list of Natural Attenuation Parameters (NAPs) from the CSSA QAPP.

Review of the seven step DQO long form begins.

Step 1 - State the Problem

This draft form covers groundwater monitoring for the off-post private water wells only, which will be conducted under TO 42 and TO 58. Brian Vanderglas and Brian Murphy discuss whether this off-post groundwater monitoring DQO should be followed for six months and then reviewed for possible changes. Twenty discrete well locations (pre-GAC) will be sampled under DO 5084 through June 2002. All monthly and other GAC samples will be conducted under separate delivery orders with different DQOs.

One off-post sampling round was performed in September 2001. Twenty samples were collected. Only the wells with target analytes detected will be resampled. Discussion ensued of when off-post wells are to be ?dropped? from the sampling agenda. Should off-post wells be sampled semi-annually, even after a sample is non-detect? Joe suggests three quarters of non-detects before not sampling the well. A discussion of which 20 off-post wells should be sampled occurs. Joe asks how the well owners respond knowing that CSSA sampled their well once and then moved on. Brian Vanderglas states that one event with a non-detect result may be enough data to drop the well from sampling, when the well is in a group of other wells, which also report non-detectable amounts. This discussion of scheduling the off-post wells and the rationale for not sampling a well for further events should be included in the DQO evaluation.

Action Item - Include the rationale for selecting off-post wells for sampling in the DQO.

Brian M. reviews the sampling history and locations of the off-post wells for Joe?s benefit. Once a well has reported a non-detect result, Brian M. needs to re-assign sampling of that well to the southwest area to cover other wells that need to be sampled. A brief discussion occurred of plume 1 and its possible effect on JW-14 and plume 2 and its impact off-post and the area defined to date for plume 2.

Brian Murphy re-emphasizes to Joe that wells with detections of COCs will definitely be sampled each quarter. The rationale behind not sampling non-detect off-post wells is driven by the need to take that sample elsewhere off-post to evaluate the extent of plume 2. A discussion was held of the public?s reaction at the public meetings to the information that their well may only be sampled once. Most well owners understood the necessity for sampling other homes, also. Most members of the public understood that other sampling near their location would also have to take place and their particular well may not be sampled every quarter.

A Flowchart of the decision making process for sampling frequency of a well was worked out.

A discussion of whether off-post samples should be analyzed for metals ensued. Joe suggested that the rationale for metals analysis not being performed should be part of the DQO. No source areas were identified in the southwest corner of the post such that there is no reason to suspect metals contamination. On post monitoring wells and samples near Building 90 will be tested for metals.

Action Item - The reasoning for not including metals analysis should be added to the DQO long-form. Metals contamination is not a potential COC off-post.

A discussion of NAPs and their usefulness in off-post monitoring occurred. Joe suggested that CSSA could sample for NAPs for perimeter wells in the plume as it is defined at present. In addition, NAPs should be conducted on wells outside the perimeter, to be used as baseline numbers for future evaluations.

Brian Vanderglas discussed the TPH detected in soil from Building 90, and a discussion of whether TPH should be analyzed off-post occurred. Susan indicated BTEX constituents are included in the full list of VOCs, which should be adequate. The problem of detecting other releases from off-post sources could create complex issues. The full list of VOCs has been analyzed to date. A discussion of the benzene breakdown compounds that were detected in the past occurred. These compounds are potentially related to Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST) sites near the off-post well RFR-12. Joe suggests that the short list of VOCs should be acceptable for analysis, with the addition of any compounds that were detected in the past.

Tammy discussed whether the short list of analytes is more cost effective. The data verification process may be slightly cheaper for the short list. The laboratory costs are not greatly affected. Joe agrees that the short list is acceptable. The analytes determined to be the primary compounds of concern are PCE, TCE, cis- and trans-1,2 DCE and vinyl chloride for off-post sampling. (This list was amended later in the meeting to include 1,1-dichloroethene and methylene chloride.) The first samples collected from a well would require 100% data verification. The second sampling event will be 50% verification and then subsequently 25% verification.

More discussion of short list versus full list for VOCs occurred. Brian Murphy asked whether a definite reason was needed before changing to the short list. Joe suggests that three quarters of sampling be conducted with the full list and then change to the short list, using the lack of detections for other analytes as justification. Final decision: use the full list for two additional quarters for off-post samples and then reevaluate the DQOs to change to the limited list of analytes.

Action Item - Sample for the full list of VOCs in December 2001 and March 2002 and re-evaluate with regulators the possibility of changing to a short list of VOCs. Prepare a request to regulators regarding the COPCs.

A discussion of the percent completeness for the analytes of concern then occurred. Joe indicates that secondary parameters that are of less importance do not need 100% usability. Joe indicated Parsons can use the argument that other parameters (i.e. those that are not primary COCs) are of less concern and a tighter QC process should not be necessary for the secondary COCs.

A discussion of RSK 175 analysis and whether it is necessary was held. RSK 175 is an indicator of separate natural attenuation parameters, analyzing for ethane, ethene, methane, etc. Brian Vanderglas confirms that these constituents are indicators of chlorinated compound degradation.

Brian Vanderglas discussed the discrete sampling conducted in open boreholes in the past that have indicated PCE ?high? in the water column and TCE at the ?bottom? of the water column. The possibility of whether dechlorination is occurring was discussed. These samples are from on-post well installations. This would be an on-post DQO factor that could be discussed, along with further sampling of NAPs, to determine whether attenuation is occurring.

Joe suggested that the perimeter of the known plume be sampled for NAPs as a baseline. Susan questioned whether protocols for NAP sampling should always include the center of the known plume, as well. The possibility of running six NAP samples for two or three quarters on off-post wells was discussed. Brian Vanderglas adds that other than RSK 175, the other NAPs are also important. Brian Vanderglas suggests taking RSK 175 samples as ?shotgun? samples to help decide whether to take additional NAPs. Brian Murphy asked how many sampling events are necessary to determine whether natural attenuation is occurring?

Joe suggested that NAPs might be more viable as an on-post sampling analyte. Brian Vanderglas points out that increased degradation is occurring on-post, close to the source areas. Brian V. states attenuation processes will be more active in the center of the plume. The final determination was that NAPs will be an on-post sampling item and not off-post.

Brian Vanderglas states that TCE data, for now, will be used to evaluate natural attenuation off-post. The suggestion that a separate meeting be held to discuss natural attenuation and investigation into these processes at CSSA was made.

Action Item - Schedule a natural attenuation discussion meeting.

Step 2 - Identify the Decision

The discussion moves to Step 2, Identify the Decision in the long form DQO. The possible approaches to the future problem of having greater than 20 impacted off-post wells to sample was discussed. A historical discussion of the source areas known (B-3, O-1) was held. Joe asked whether SVOCs had been analyzed at CSSA for groundwater. Brian Murphy indicated that TNRCC has sampled SVOCs from the drinking water wells every three years. Joe suggests that SVOCs be analyzed in groundwater.

Joe indicates that in the potential exposure routes not to include leaching. No soils have been sampled off-post. The question whether potential exposure routes be revised to include inhalation (showering, etc.) was discussed. Brian Murphy indicates that rough calculations from off-post data have indicated a potential inhalation exposure issue. Kyle asked whether surface water is an off-post concern or on-post. Brian Murphy discussed which wells off-post are to be added to the December 2001 event. Brian Murphy wants to follow a V-shaped area to the southwest from the concentrations that have been detected thus far at the southwest post corner. Are amendments to the well survey report necessary for the area southwest of wells affected by plume 2?

Action Item - Parsons will evaluate the possibility of conducting risk assessment of inhalation exposure under existing DOs.

Action Item - Parsons to provide additional research on privately owned wells to the southwest of wells affected by plume 2.

Step 3 - Identify Inputs

Step 4 - Define Study Boundaries

The discussion moved to Step #3 and then Step #4, Define the Study Boundaries. Brian Murphy suggested that a plumber should be contracted to install a wellhead tap. To date, 90 to 95% of the wells have needed a faucet, which included purchasing the parts and hiring a plumber to complete the installation.

Action Item - Evaluate whether Parsons or CSSA will hire an off-post subcontractor plumber for off-post well installations. Assess existing DOs with Parsons.

The study boundary specific for off-post well sampling needs to be addressed in this step, not the overall CSSA area. Include formerly sampled off-post wells and future wells. Funding is also discussed under Step 4.

Joe indicates that off-post wells need to have 100% completeness from the laboratory. After discussion, it is determined that only the primary COCs will require 100% completeness. Other parameters may be acceptable at 90% or 95% completeness.

Step 5 - Decision Rule

Action Item - The discussion of action levels from the off-post monitoring plan should be included in Sept 5, Decision Rule for the long from DQO evaluation.

A discussion ensued on whether a private off-post water well can be pulled and geophysical and down hole video collected and then the well re-installed with an e-line for detecting water levels. The discussion of the OFR-2 well as a candidate for this process was held. Brian Murphy suggested that the OFR-2 well owner would be glad to have the well working again, following re-installation. Kyle mentioned that there are possibly two windmill powered wells that could more easily be disconnected.

Action Item - A future discussion concerning an off-post soil gas survey and need for water levels off-post needs to be held.

Tammy Chang questions whether 100% completeness of the data can be met by STL for six to eight of the compounds of ?primary importance.? If one of the compounds is rejected as R-flagged, and all others pass, the laboratory will be responsible for approximately $2,000 of re-sampling costs. Karuna asks whether a modification to the laboratory contracts is necessary for them to know re-sampling costs will be required in that instance. Joe suggests Parsons work out with the subcontracting labs whether payment for flagged data will occur. A discussion of R flagged data and how often it occurs was held. The first step is letting the lab know what will be required (100% completeness for the primary COCs), and whether the laboratory increases costs to meet this requirement can be discussed at that time.

Action Item - Determine whether laboratories can meet 100% completeness for a selected short list of VOCs. Modify lab contracts if necessary.

A short discussion of insuring coolers through Fedex was held. Fedex will only pay for the cost of the cooler and its contents, and not for resampling. Fedex would not be responsible/liable for re-sampling costs.

A discussion of sample IDs and the nomenclature for sampling was discussed using designations such as GAC, post GAC, T-trailer, H-house. When the Customized Hybrid Environmental Restoration Program (CHERP) is online and everything can be done electronically, these details can be clearly stated.

Step 6 - Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors

The discussion returned to the defined short list (the primary COCs) for which 100% completeness will be required. A short list from a meeting held August 1999, at which Greg Lyssy approved these VOCs is obtained. This list has been used as the standard ?short list? for VOC analysis of CSSA groundwater and consists of the following analytes:

A question arises as to why methylene chloride, bromodichloromethane, chloroform and dibromochloromethane are included on this list. In the previously cited meeting, Greg Lyssy indicated that any analyte detected in the past should be included on the short list so these analytes were added. A suggestion is made that 100% completeness be required for only those analytes assigned MCL values under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Action Item - Evaluate whether the parameters on this list have been detected since Greg approved the list. Can the list be further shortened based on detections since the last time it was revised? The revised short list then needs to be given to Greg Lyssy for his approval. Also evaluate which parameters should be included in the 100% completeness requirement.

Joe asks whether any detections off-post for other parameters have occurred. None, besides the VOC compounds discussed. Joe asks about on-post detections. Trace amounts have occurred on-post, but this needs to be researched. The determination is made that not enough sampling has occurred off-post to justify to Greg Lyssy that a short list can be used off-post. The primary COCs should be required to be 100% complete, however, for off-post sampling.

Action Item - A modification for APPL to be able to meet 100% completeness for laboratory analysis of the primary COCs is needed.

Seven analytes are determined to have MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Only bromodichloromethane, chloroform and dibromochloromethane do not have assigned MCL values. The list defined as ?primary COCs? includes: 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, methylene chloride, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene and vinyl chloride.

Tammy points out that for water analysis the lab must perform an LCS and other batch QC each time a new analytical batch is needed. Because of this, the lab will incur increased costs if they must re-run a sample when they find they have not met 100% completeness.

Joe indicates that the DQO may be written such that only a CCV is required for a batch containing only reanalyses. Joe indicates that cost issues for 100% usability from the lab should not be prohibitive. Once approval is obtained from Greg Lyssy then find out whether the lab is willing to meet 100% completeness for the selected parameters.

A discussion of whether APPL can meet the 100% completeness requirement was held. APPL will be doing the quarterly events through June 2002. Tammy reiterates that the AFCEE QAPP is the highest standard and only requires 95% completeness, thus laboratories will balk at the request for 100% completeness. Joe indicates that no changes to the laboratory?s standard operating procedures will be required.

Joe requests a project summary be included with the DQO indicating why samples were collected. (i.e., What is the purpose of the sampling?) Susan asks whether AFCEE can give Parsons guidance for the format of the DQO summary submittal. Susan suggests avoiding time-consuming revisions involved in creating a new form. Joe states that the DQO process can be used to develop the form. The final write up of the DQOs can be summarized in bullet format to indicate the reason data was collected. The reason the data is being collected does change with each event. Susan requested that instead of creating a separate document, would it be acceptable for Parsons to submit the 3-page DQO evaluation form? Joe stated that the long-form DQO evaluation would be acceptable for his purposes.

Action Item - Once finalized, the long form DQO evaluation form will be included with the data packages submitted.

The collection of ambient blanks was determined to be unnecessary for off-post sampling. A discussion of SW-846 requirements for the collection of field duplicates was held. According to the AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) there should be one field duplicate collected per day or one per event. Joe suggests that field duplicates are not necessary. Will the EPA allow no field duplicates to be collected? Include this in the request to Greg Lyssy, for his approval.

Action Item - Request EPA approval on all DQOs, to include not collecting certain QC samples, such as field duplicates, at CSSA.

The field sampling procedures for on-post wells with pumps and off-post wells with taps was discussed. Kyle indicated that he purges each well and waits for temperature to drop and stabilize, while recording conductivity data. When field data indicates the water is from the formation, and the water column has been purged, he collects the samples.

Trip blanks and a discussion of whether they must be analyzed occurred. The suggestion was made that only running trip blanks when a hit occurs could save money. However, off-post wells to be re-sampled have had detections in the past, so this would not apply to off-post sampling.

The laboratory result reported is assumed to be within an error difference of +/- 5%. Joe discusses recent research that defends the decision not to collect field duplicates. If the field duplicate result is greater than 80% of the MCL, further sampling of that well would be necessary.

Joe suggests using previously collected results from field duplicates as a defense for not collecting further field duplicates, to obtain Greg Lyssy?s approval. No equipment blanks are necessary for off-post drinking water wells, as all wells are using dedicated equipment. Trip blanks must be submitted with each cooler.

Action Item - Prepare a question for Greg Lyssy regarding collection of field duplicates.

A discussion of MS/MSD samples was held. Joe indicates there is no need for MS/MSD analysis on off-post samples. Joe indicates that the EPA has concerns regarding MS/MSD sampling, and that surrogate recovery is being discussed as an alternative to MS/MSD analysis. Joe states it may be possible to get approval from the EPA not to collect MS/MSDs. However, this justification and approval process would take time and will not change the sampling requirements for the December 2001 event.

Joe and Tammy discuss the interpretation of the AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) for collecting one MS/MSD pair for every 20 environmental samples collected. The MS/MSD samples do not count as two of the 20 environmental samples. Tammy asks if you collect 21 environmental samples, do you collect two sets of MS/MSDs?

Joe answers that there is no hard and fast rule. He suggests collecting one MS/MSD pair for up to 30 environmental samples. Whenever the number of samples collected exceeds thirty two MS/MSD pairs should be collected. Again, Joe suggests getting Greg Lyssy?s approval on this issue.

Action Item - Add the question on number of MS/MSD pairs collected to the discussion for EPA/TNRCC approval.

For the off-post wells scheduled monthly, for less than five samples being collected, Parsons will not collect a field duplicate or MS/MSD samples. Joe states we should also get TNRCC permission for wells monitored off-post to have less QC (MS/MSD, duplicates, etc.). Since the TNRCC is concerned with Drinking Water standards, Tammy or Katherine should research the requirements for duplicates and MS/MSDs. MS/MSD samples will continue to be collected until the CSSA QAPP is approved. After the CSSA QAPP is approved, MS/MD samples will be required instead.

Action Item - Research TNRCC requirements for QA/QC under the SDWA.

The decision is made that the December 2001 event will follow the approach for sampling used in September 2001. For the March 2002 sampling event, the questions discussed in today?s meeting can be addressed and sampling procedures can be changed for the March 2002 event, if approved by the regulators.

Action Item - Start negotiating changes in sampling procedures with EPA and TNRCC, possibly arrange a meeting with them to review the DQOs. Propose to the EPA/TNRCC that the revised short list of VOCs begin to be used in the March 2002 sampling event.

Action Item - The DQOs must set out how the different types of on-post wells are separated (drinking/monitoring/screening/confirmation).

A discussion of the CHERP database and sampling nomenclature was held. The well, followed by a GAC designation (A or B) when there are two GACs, followed by a number (1 or 2) meaning after canister 1 or after canister 2, and then any other designation, Entry Point, Tap, Trailer, house, or trailer 1, trailer 2, etc. The possibility of Kyle drawing a map for each well area and photodocumenting the sample point so that future data collection points will be clear was discussed.

Final decisions regarding off-post drinking water well sampling

Step 7 - Optimize the Design

Reviews of the DQOs will be conducted in the future for any necessary changes.

The discussion moved to On-post well sampling:

There are two types of wells on-post, drinking water wells and monitoring wells.

On-post drinking water wells were discussed first:

On-post drinking water wells will have more COCs than off-post, thus more QA/QC. There have been metals hits detected on-post in the past. There will be different DQOs for the different wells present on-post. Samples collected from on-post GAC system wells will be analyzed for PCE and TCE only.

The on-post drinking water wells will be grouped with the off-post drinking water wells for QA/QC purposes. On-post drinking water wells will be sampled for full list VOCs with the primary COCs requiring 100% completeness, and the remainder of the analytes requiring only 95% completeness. Metals will also be analyzed, and will require 95% completeness. No ambient blanks, field duplicates or equipment blanks are necessary and these types of QC samples will not be collected on-post. A trip blank should be submitted with each cooler. One MS/MSD pair should be collected for every 20 environmental samples (including on-post and off-post drinking water samples).

Joe asks whether Parsons can group all data packages together for a quarter or an event, or for the types of samples. This would allow only one DVR and would simplify the approval process.

Tammy answers that one group of multiple data packages is sent for one event that may last several days. The laboratory reports from a single event would be designated as single ?group?, for example Group A. All lab data packages associated with that one quarterly event would be included in ?Group A? and would be submitted together as data packages A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.

Final decisions regarding on-post drinking water wells

The discussion moved to on-post monitoring wells:

For on-post wells, should the site designation be included with the MW for the name? For instance, AOC65-MW7-LGR-___(footage). A discussion of whether these wells should be designated VEW (Vapor Extraction Well), or PZ (Piezometer), when they are part of the treatability study or soil vapor extraction system. Susan indicates that consistency is very important in nomenclature when results will be combined across the post for data evaluation over more than ten years. The naming scheme should be kept consistent relative to the screened formations. When results are from the LGR, the depth interval of screening will be in the name, also. A review of the various types of wells installed to date was covered. The wells with casing down to LGR or CC are drinking water wells. The AOC65 wells have had two rounds of sampling conducted. The names of these wells need to be changed so they are consistent with other wells on-post.

Monitoring wells will be sampled quarterly and newly installed wells will be added to the sampling events as they are completed. Monitoring wells will be sampled for full list VOCs and metals. Joe suggests that metals can be dropped from sampling after a ?clean? event.

On-post monitoring wells require 95% completeness for VOCs and metals, according to AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) requirements. The first event should be full list of VOCs and metals with 100% data verification. The second sampling event will be 50% verification and then subsequently 25% verification. This is calculated PER INDIVIDUAL WELL. Some wells have been sampled already for three events or more, while other wells will begin the process with 100% data verification for their first event. On-post monitoring wells should not require collection of ambient blanks, field duplicates or equipment blanks.

The September 2001 event was the first off-post sampling event, so all samples were analyzed for full list VOCs and required 100% data verification. Katherine asks if the sampler group the wells being sampled according to the level of verification needed (1st sampling event, 2nd sampling event or subsequent sampling event). Kyle indicated that this would be reasonable if the sampler is provided with detailed instructions for each sampling event.

Brian Vanderglas discusses metals detections in MW-3, and whether metals will continue to be sampled. Should two rounds of data be collected for consideration? Metals can then be eliminated based on the results. Susan suggests that another flowchart be inserted in the DQOs at this point, to demonstrate how metals analysis will be eliminated for each well. Questions from the discussion included: Should metals be analyzed in wells near their MCLs for metals or near the post boundary? Is the detection of metals related to a rain event? Should we remove certain metals from the sampling list and include metals of concern?

Final decisions regarding on-post monitoring (quarterly sampling) wells

The discussion moves to on-post monitoring wells that are screening wells:

These wells, such as wells at AOC 65 (PZ, SVE wells) will be sampled with bailers. These wells typically run dry during purging and after prolonged droughts. A discussion of the drawdown experiment near AOC 65 was held.

Screening was discussed and a specific interpretation of that word. Screening analyses will be performed by DHL Laboratories and will only require the short list of VOCs. Scott indicated he thought the full list had been decided. Brian Murphy indicated that the short list is okay with him for screening purposes. Joe suggested the list of VOCs be evaluated based on the goal for the data. The goal is to evaluate the shallow groundwater, groundwater movement and contamination migration, the best approach to cleanup and treatability and whether future confirmation sampling is necessary. Joe asks how long sampling will be performed. Susan Roberts indicates one year of data will be collected and cost effectiveness of continuing to sample for different analytes will then be evaluated.

Brian Murphy asked what QA/QC would apply for DHL samples (screening samples)? All standard laboratory QC will be analyzed and reported by DHL, however, they will not be required to adhere to the AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) format and acceptance criteria. A minimum of 90% completeness is required for screening data. DHL?s laboratory specific tolerances, which are more stringent than TNRCC requirements, will be used in lieu of AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) requirements. The samples collected for screening data do not require full validation.

Action Item - Validation templates need to be prepared. This language should also go in the DQO evaluation form.

Joe suggests defining the specific verification and validation requirements for DHL (screening) to avoid concerns later. For screening, trip blanks will be collected. No duplicates or MS/MSDs will be required. Joe asked if AFCEE will review data from screening samples, and was answered yes, AFCEE would review all data.

Final decisions regarding on-post screening monitoring wells

The discussion moved to on-post groundwater sampled from discrete intervals in the open borehole and IDW samples (roll-off containerized water).

DHL will handle analysis of these samples (also called screening samples). Brian Murphy needs assurance from the lab that they will not adjust the MDL above the MCL when samples must be diluted.

Action Item - Be sure the screening laboratory (DHL) contract states that dilution cannot cause the MDL to be adjusted above the MCL.

Scott indicates that by watching the foam in the roll-off box and allowing it to settle before he collects his sample, this problem has been addressed.

A requirement of 90% completeness applies to sampling for IDW and discrete interval groundwater.

Brian Murphy asked why methylethylketone (MEK), isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and acetone are included in the short list. Scott indicated that the drilling foam contains ingredients that were of concern. Joe indicates that he brought a paper concerning IPA coming through the column in the laboratory and somehow causing hits for acetone. Brian M. gave the paper to Tammy, concerning the degradation of IPA ions. Acetone/IPA was initially detected during the installation of MW-8 in April 2001. The acetone/IPA problem continued through the end of the well installation work in September 2001.

A discussion of MEK detections in the past was held. Since a past sampling event with one detection, MEK has not been detected. Joe suggests removing MEK, IPA and acetone from the ?screening? list. Susan asks whether IPA should be tested as this compound is introduced during the drilling process? Joe states that the only way to answer that question for regulators is to show that a sample has been taken with no IPA present. Scott indicates that the drilling is an approved water well drilling product that is extensively used, so problems are highly unlikely.

Only samples from June and December have been collected since this problem occurred. Joe suggests running one sample for acetone/IPA to prove no problem is occurring.

Action Item - Collect a groundwater sample for acetone/IPA.

Discuss whether the term ?screening? can be replaced with something else. Characterization, perhaps? Susan indicates that characterization is a term used by the EPA for RFI and under the term characterization, short list sampling for VOCs wouldn?t be allowed. A discussion of the differences in data requirements from AFCEE QAPP (Version 3.0) and DHL laboratory specific tolerance levels is held.

Brian Murphy asks what is the comparative cost effectiveness of CSSA?s methods versus 90% completeness jumping to 95% completeness. Joe addresses Brian?s question.

A discussion of the data concerning pH, conductivity, temperature, and other field analyses and where that data should be stored. It is stored on the field form where it is recorded and then filed for future reference. This data is currently not recorded electronically. A discussion of whether future data should be recorded electronically is held.

Final decisions regarding IDW and discrete interval sampling

The discussion moved to well installation, soil/rock sampling issues:

This form includes discrete interval groundwater and IDW water sampling, and will be split into two separate forms. Soils will be sampled, and 90% completeness will be required for PCBs (mainly Building 90), TPH (Bldg 90), VOCs (which VOCs are site-specific) and metals. A matrix duplicate can be split from one container. A MS/MSD sample is needed one per 20 environmental samples.

Joe, Scott and Kyle discuss soil sampling decontamination procedures and the appropriate frequency to collect equipment blanks. Equipment blanks should be collected at a frequency of one per 20 or one per type of equipment, per day. For verification samples after excavation, an equipment blank should be collected at a frequency of one per 20 environmental samples.

Final decisions regarding soil/rock sampling during well installation

The discussion moved to Outstanding Issues:

Can some of the Bexar Shale wells be converted/moved for additional cluster well installations. There are currently two BS wells (6 and 9). Scott, Susan and Brian Murphy discussed whether to move a BS well south of wells H and I, between well 16 and well 1 or in the east pasture. Perhaps east of MW-5? Possible need for additional wells in the Cow Creek has been mentioned. Susan Roberts indicated we should start with the shallowest contamination, initially. Locations for these potential wells was discussed, including the locations of faults, newly reported faults and the creek to define contamination toward CS-1 (Camp Bullis). A discussion of a well at the intersection below the motor pool was held. Brian Murphy indicated that he must be able to defend any conclusion that groundwater contamination is not in the Bexar Shale. Susan pointed out that we don?t need to be ready to do that for another year or two. Scott suggested one additional Bexar Shale well in that area for the information it could provide.

Action Item - Parsons will evaluate in the future whether some Bexar Shale wells to be installed can be changed to LGR wells. A rational for the change in plan and alternative drilling locations needs to be prepared. A draft plan will be reviewd by CSSA/AFCEE and the final plan will go to the regulators.

Brian Murphy discussed the Groundwater Monitoring Reports and formats for both quarterly and for the annual summary. Brian Murphy and Brian Vanderglas discussed a format for cumulative analytical data, in the encyclopedia. The graph for each well could compare water levels to concentrations. The cumulative analytical data could be updated each quarter and be part of the encyclopedia. Brian Murphy stated this sounds like it addresses his concerns. Brian Murphy did want the on-post and off-post data to be separated in the tables.

Action Item - Parsons needs to get ?Groundwater Report? tabs for the encyclopedia.

A discussion of whether the off-post wells can have water levels taken ensued. The possibility of pulling out a private well for e-line installation and to run downhole video was discussed. The Fairco wells are going to need to be retrofited and the possibility of using them while they are being re-fit was suggested. New well installations for piezometers off-post would be less costly than potentially dealing with dissatisfied private well owners who feel their private water well has been harmed. Scott asked whether some private water wells with a pressure relief valve could be accessed to collect a water level. Kyle stated that the e-line would become tangled in the cables supplying electricity to the pump.

The collection of off-post water level measurements may be useful in refining water table gradient maps, calibrating groundwater flow models, and gaining a better understanding of local hydrologic conditions. Problems with collecting water level data from active drinking water wells include: the possibility of collecting erroneous or misleading water level data due to well draw down, problems with E-lines getting tangled with down-hole electrical cables, inaccuracies associated with air line measurements, and concerns regarding well owners who may conclude that collection of water level data has degraded their water quality.

Research into the cost-effectiveness of installing piezometers off-post for collecting water level data versus modifications to existing privately owned water wells and potential liability issues needs to be conducted.

A discussion of whether to include data verification reports (DVR) in the final closure reports was also held. It was decided that there was no reason to include the DVR and chain of custodies in the final closure reports.

Attachment 1 - Agenda for DQO Objectives Meeting

Monitoring Well Installation, Groundwater Monitoring, and Well Upgrades

Task Order 0042 and CSSA Treatability Study for AOC 65 Task Order 0058

Time: 9:00 am ? 4:00 pm

Place: Parsons Engineering Science, Austin, TX

Proposed Order of Discussion