[Home]

[Meeting Minutes Index]

FINAL
TIM #1 Meeting Minutes
Treatability study for area of concern 65
Camp Stanley Storage Activity
F41624-00-D-8024/Delivery Order 0058
Parsons 740999.01000

Date:           December 5, 2001

Time:           1:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.

Place:           Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA)

Subject:        TIM #1 to discuss initial geophysical testing results 

Attendees:

Minutes prepared by Brian Vanderglas, Parsons.

These meeting minutes are organized in the order discussed.

General

The meeting was opened with presentation of the first two weeks of electrical resistivity testing conducted around Building 90.  Discussions included locations of seven profiles completed, the general performance of electrical resistivity in the identifying important or suspected subsurface features, and the potential interferences from buried utilities that appear to be exhibited at some locations. 

Locations for additional electrical resistivity testing and the potential use of other geophysical techniques were also discussed.  Some discussion ensued regarding the pending no cost modification currently being processed to perform other geophysical testing besides electrical resistivity and to expand this type of  testing.  Completion of this modification will enable Parsons to continue with additional electrical resistivity, plus microgravity, ground penetrating radar, and other geophysical testing in December 2001 through January 2002.  The contracting officer was not present at the meeting so other contracting issues were not discussed in detail.  

The status of the treatability study (wbs task 4) and removal action (wbs task 3) was also briefly discussed at the meeting. 

Results from Initial Resistivity

    A summary of the preliminary results were prepared by Gary Cobb, and are attached to these minutes.  The power point presentation presented figures of the seven profiles performed, and figures depicting the results from each profile.  These figures are included in the power point presentation attached to these minutes.  Most of the profiles were conducted in the vicinity of AOC 65 along the west side of Building 90.

    Gary indicated that the resistivities of the limestones were lower than expected, most likely due to the presence of shale and marl layers, fractures, and high moisture content following recent rains.  Anomalies with low resistivities were identified in all profiles, and Gary concluded that these low resistivities are likely associated with high water conditions, and could represent saturated fractures.

    Numerous conductive features were present in the two profiles performed parallel to Building 90.  When lined up with each other, the linear orientation of some of the conductive anomalies suggests saturated fractures or possibly faults trending ENE to WSW.  There was some significant interference (noise) in the profile conducted closest to the building due to the presence of a buried water line, poor ground coupling, and shallow high resistive anomalies associated with support pillars along the building’s outer dock.

    A series of four profiles were tested perpendicular to the building running generally east to west.  Each of these profiles indicated a significant anomaly under the overhead power lines at a depth of 20 feet.  Gary raised suspicions that this anomaly actually represented a geologic feature because its orientation did not agree with known fracture orientations at the site, yet the data sets indicated low errors suggesting no interference from utilities.  Upon further review with CSSA personnel and a tour of the grounds following the meeting, it was determined that an old, inactive power line was buried at an unknown depth below grade in the area represented by the linear anomaly.  

    A final profile was attempted from MW-8 to MW-10 using an 18-foot spacing.  This spacing was able to yield a depth of 175 feet compared to the 50 foot depths obtained from the two profiles parallel to the building using a 5-foot spacing and the approximately 25 foot depth obtained from the four perpendicular profiles near Building 90 using a 5-foot spacing.    The resolution of the deeper array is significantly reduced when compared to the 5-foot arrays.  It also appeared that the railroad tracks were a significant source of interference toward the southern end of the profile.

Future Geophysical Testing Activities

    It was recommended to check into the linear anomaly identified in the perpendicular profiles using microgravity, tentatively planned to begin December 10 pending award of the no cost modification.  However, an inspection of the area conducted after the meeting identified the buried inactive power line as the likely source of the anomaly.  CSSA indicated that they would remove the power line during the week from December 10-14, and Parsons would support as appropriate.  Parsons will attempt to perform microgravity and WADI testing beginning December 10.  Microgravity requires completion of an elevation survey prior to initiating the data collection.  CSSA indicated that they had a level scope and stick for measuring elevations.  Parsons will check to see if there are surveyed top of casing elevations for wells near Building 90 to obtain accurate elevations for the microgravity survey.

    Following removal of the buried inactive power line, Parsons will return during the week of December 17-21 to rerun electrical resistivity over at least some of the perpendicular profiles, in addition to testing some different orientations of profiles around Building 90.  As discussed at the meeting, Parsons will also attempt to run a portion of the profile between MW-8 and MW-10 using tighter spacing to improve resolution and to minimize the negative impact or interference from the railroad tracks and other probable utilities.

    Gary recommended that Parsons also place monuments at the ends of some of the profiles so that the true locations can be found in the field.  He stressed how important it is to have field references for measuring distances to identified anomalies because small errors could result in locating future treatability test wells designated to validate the geophysical data in the wrong location. 

Status of Other Tasks

    The status of the waste removal tasks and the treatability study task were discussed.  Primarily, Parsons was concerned with preparation of the plan documents when changes to the scope of these studies were pending.  AFCEE directed Parsons to prepare the plans to include the activities discussed at the technical planning meeting held on November 13, 2001.  

    Two plans are required under the contract, including an Environmental Cleanup Plan (A014) and a Treatability Study Test Plan (A015).   Parsons misunderstood the purpose of the Environmental Cleanup Plan, and thought that it referred primarily to the removal action, but AFCEE indicated that the Environmental Cleanup Plan is the Project Work Plan that discusses all activities that will be conducted at the site under this task order, including the removal action.  Parsons had already requested and received an extension from original due dates for these documents pending the completion of geophysical testing, but given the urgency of the cleanup at Building 90, CSSA requested that drafts of these documents be prepared and ready for review by CSSA and AFCEE by the end of January.  

    CSSA also requested that Parsons present the details of the plans to the TNRCC and EPA prior to initiating any fieldwork to give the regulatory community an opportunity to comment on the plans prior to starting implementation.  

Action items

There were no other action items.

Agenda for Technical Interchange Meeting #1 at Camp Stanley Storage Activity-Initial Preliminary Geophysical Testing Results
AOC 65 Treatability Study and Removal Action

Delivery Order 0058

Time:     1:30 p.m.- 5:00 p.m.

Place:     Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Proposed Order of Discussion

Figure:  Resistivity Imaging Profile Locations AOC-65

Figure:  Resistivity - AOC-65 North - South Profiles

Figure:  Resistivity Imaging Profile Locations Near Building 90

Figure:  Southwest Quardrant Resistivity Profile