Technical Interchange Meeting Minutes
Camp Stanley Storage Activity
F11623-94-D0024/RL83 TIM #6

Date:                        10 January 2002

Time:                        8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M.

Place:      Parsons – Austin, Texas, and
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Building D conference room

Subject:      Technical Interchange Meeting TIM for RL83

            Attendees:       

Minutes prepared by Julie Burdey.

Introduction

    The purpose of the meeting was to discuss background with TNRCC, and also to work on several issues related to various delivery orders, including GIS accuracy, the GIS Manual, a demonstration of the GUI, CSSA comments on the draft AOC-67 Report, the schedule for upcoming well installation, the draft fact sheet, and SWMU and AOC report comment questions.  Parsons personnel involved with each issue were present for their portion of the meeting only.  In the afternoon, Parsons and CSSA went to TNRCC to meet with Kirk Coulter and Peter Lodde.  When the meeting with TNRCC was completed, CSSA returned to the Parsons office to discuss the remaining issues.

Item 1: Background Metals Evaluation (8:00 am – 9:00 am)

    Richard Reynolds presented to Brian Murphy the findings of the revised background metals evaluation.  The background levels were recalculated using the “all soil types combined” dataset.  The methodology used and the assumptions of that methodology were consistent with other TNRCC-approved background metals studies like the Kelly Air Force Base study.  He suggested that we make a new table to take to the afternoon meeting with TNRCC that included just the “BtE” dataset.  He also asked how these new and lower UTL’s might affect ongoing closure activities at Camp Stanley.  A draft table which summarized the effect on several of the SWMUs was presented.

Item 2: GIS Accuracy (9:00 am-10:45 am)

Aerial Photography Accuracy

    The 1998 aerial photography included in the CSSA GIS has 2.4-foot pixel resolution with an aerial photo scale of 1’:1,500’.  The imagery is georeferenced to the UTM coordinate system to the NAD83 datum.

    Ken discussed that aerial photography produced by Tobin is accurate within the standards established for 1:1,500 scale images.  This standard is noticeable using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) vector data (roads, buildings) that we just received.  For example, the USACE roads show less than six meters difference between the roads and orthophotography.

    CSSA and Parsons discussed the possibility of having new orthophotography flown for Camp Stanley.  It was decided that this is not warranted for Camp Stanley’s current GIS purposes at this time.  Current orthophotography is used as a visualization tool for figures and maps and is helpful in determining locations.  The current photo scale and pixel resolution of the Camp Stanley imagery is sufficient for the necessary purposes of the imagery.

    Brian brought up Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) imagery that has been taken of Camp Stanley and area surrounding and inquired about acquiring photography from TxDOT as another source of recent photography.  Ken is looking into acquiring the photography from TxDot as well as their survey controls.

    Ken also discussed the possibility of having the Tobin orthophotography processed by Donn Rodekohr in the Denver office to see if the “building lean” could be removed.

    Data accuracy around Building 90 was discussed.  With the USACE building vector layers placed on the aerial photography, the GPS sample locations are correct in relation to the building.  Previously, it appeared that the GPS locations were inside of the buildings, however this is due to inaccuracies in the original building shapefiles, which are related to digitizing errors.  Using the more accurate building vector files from the USACE, which have a better accuracy than the previous shapefiles used, solves this problem.

Other Data Layers Accuracy

    Information received from the USACE regarding CSSA roads, building outlines, utilities, and fence lines will replace the currently used shapefiles once finalized.

    Problems associated with Bexar County Appraisal District Parcel Boundaries were discussed.  This shapefile was obtained from the county, and the accuracy of it cannot be determined.  Parsons will contact the appraisal district to determine if a new parcel boundary has been created.  An updated version may be purchased.

    The current creek shapefile has accuracy associated with 1:1,500 scale since it was digitized from the aerial photography.  USACE will provide some better creek data, but not all creeks that are currently in the GIS will be part of their dataset.  The possibility of future surveying (with GPS) of these creeks was discussed.

    The contours currently in the GIS were digitized from a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map.  This shapefile will be replaced with hypsography from USGS, which is available at no cost.  Although the hypsography is also based on 1:24,000 scale digital rastor graphics (DRGs), it is more accurate than hand-digitized contours.

Item 3: GIS Manual (10:45 am – 11:15 am)

    The outline and portions of the GIS manual were presented.  The outline includes an overview of the CSSA GIS and what it includes; information regarding projections, datums, and accuracy of spatial data; and detailed information regarding tables in the database and which tables/fields are required.  In addition, based on the October 2001 memorandum from Major General R.L. Van Antwerp and Brigadier General William G. Webster, a section on maintenance, storage, and distribution will also be included.  Brian asked that a step-by-step process for generating themes and maps also be included.  Currently, he has to recreate figures from scratch, although someone else may have already created a figure.  A directory tree would help to allow easy retrieval of figures already created.  In addition, he asked that a figure template be included.  The template should include footer with file location.  Templates should allow use of different paper sizes.

Item 4: Graphical User Interface Demonstration (11:15 am – 12:00 pm)

    Andrew Hands showed Brian the latest ArcGIS 8.1 SDS Extension incorporating SDS querying and filtering.  Brian repeated his request for facilitating map generation.  A template and symbology will be developed.  In addition, a protocol for storage and retrieval of maps will be developed.  Synchronization issues between Parsons maps and CSSA maps and methods to alleviate problem areas were discussed.  Regarding maps generated from the GUI, discussed further enhancement of information to be passed from sample data to be used in labeling wells.

    In addition, Brian asked what is the best way to incorporate screening data into the GIS database.  CSSA has been collecting quite a few samples over the past couple of years (grab samples during well installation, soil samples in trench near Building 90, perchlorate samples at B-20, etc.).  Parsons will create a mini-database so that CSSA can easily enter this data, and then transfer to Parsons for uploading into the big database.

Item 5: Meeting with TNRCC  (1:30 pm-3:30 pm)

    The purpose of the meeting with TNRCC was to discuss a letter sent to TNRCC on November 26, 2001 regarding the proposed pooling of soil data across soil types at CSSA.  Peter Lodde, a statistician at TNRCC, indicated that he didn’t have a problem with the proposed methodology.  However, he did point out a few problems in the T‑test that was presented in the letter, namely that the UTL’s probably weren’t normally distributed.  Kirk Coulter didn’t necessarily have a problem with pooling the data either; however, he indicated that he was awaiting the revised report providing approval.

    The biggest concern Mr. Lodde had in pooling the data was that when you do this you assume the variances are equivalent among soil types.  Richard Reynolds indicated that the variances were equal among soil types.  A rough “eyeball” of the data may indicate an apparent greater variance, however, this may be because they really were sampled from a lognormally distributed population.  The final background report will highlight the homogeneity of the variances among the soil type.  If the variances aren’t significantly different among the soil types, than they were sampled from the same population.

    Mr. Lodde reviewed lead values, particularly in Trinity and Frio soils which showed a high background value.  The data set used to determine this background data set was reviewed.  The high value is attributed to the lognormal distribution, and high detected values of 92 mg/kg and 212 mg/kg among the 10 samples.  Richard Reynolds explained that an outlier test was done, and these samples did not prove to be outliers.  Mr. Lodde suggested that we should run the numbers without this extreme value to see what the difference in the UTL would be.  It was speculated that the difference in UTLs would not be great.

    Julie Burdey explained that Parsons sent the November 26, 2001 letter to TNRCC to determine if TNRCC had any problems with pooling the data.  Neither Kirk Coulter nor Peter Lodde indicated that they disagreed with the pooling, but said they would like to review the revised background report when it is submitted.  Parsons indicated that the report would be submitted in several weeks.

    Following the background discussion, Mr. Lodde left the conference room.  Kirk Coulter discussed upcoming submission of SWMU and AOC RFI reports, of which there are almost 50.  Per Mr. Coulter’s agreement, these will be submitted to TNRCC at a rate of about 10 per month, which should take approximately two months for the sites that may be closed – the other reports will be sent for his records only and no review.  In addition, only reports that TNRCC must review will be submitted as hard copies (two copies).  These should be stand-alone documents (GBC-bound).  Mr. Coulter would like to continue receiving the CD of the hyperlinked encyclopedia, as well.

Item 6: Map Revisions (3:45 pm – 4:00 pm)

    Brian met with Chad Hutcherson and Garner Peterson to discuss needed revisions to the CSSA SWMU and AOC map.  The revisions noted below will be made by January 18, 2002:

In addition, the following updates will be made to the site boundaries:

ITEM 7:  AOC-67 Report (4:00 pm–4:30 pm)

    Brian Vanderglas and Brian Murphy briefly discussed required changes to the AOC-67 RFI Report.  Brian M. provided his marked-up copy of the report to Parsons.  The USACE building information should be used instead of the current building layer on all of the maps.  Parsons will review CSSA’s comments and revise the report.  These comments will also be incorporated into the AOC-65 report, to the extent appropriate, before that report is submitted for review.

ITEM 8:  Fact Sheets (4:30 pm–6:00 pm)

    Brian M. reviewed the draft Fact Sheet 5 covering the September 2001 groundwater sampling event to report the results to the public.  He made revisions and suggestions for placement of figures, tables, etc.  Additional sampling of specific wells through October 2001 need to be added (OFR-3, LS-2, LS-3 and RFR-11).  Brian M. does not want to appear to be withholding any timely information at the time the fact sheet is mailed.  These additional sampling events, conducted monthly or singly on one or two wells, are included in data package “F” that is to be submitted to AFCEE in mid-January.  He reiterated that all off-post data should be put on a high priority review and submitted to AFCEE at the earliest possible date.  Parsons will revise Fact Sheet 5 according to his comments and submit it to CSSA so that it can be sent for additional legal review necessary prior to mail-out. 

    Brian M. and Karuna discussed whether on-post results should also be presented in this Fact Sheet, but space is a problem.  Brian M. and Karuna discussed whether an additional Fact Sheet under TO 42 should be used to present on-post results to the public.  It was decided that the Fact Sheets should be used to present off-post results only, which is a higher priority issue for the public.  It was decided to include within the Fact Sheet information that the Environmental Encyclopedia housed at the library presents results for groundwater monitoring on-post. 

    Brian M. reiterated the importance of swift data validation of any and all off-site samples collected.  He stated that if AFCEE was taking a long time in approving data packages, Parsons was to send packages directly to Portage Environmental with a cover letter stating the importance of quick approval of the off-site groundwater data.

    Brian M. also wanted to know if APPL Laboratories would turn around data packages within 21 days as opposed to 30 days without a fee.  Karuna said she would ask Tammy to look into it, but was doubtful that APPL would make the change for free.

ITEM 9:  SWMU and AOC Reports (6:00 pm – 6:30 pm)

    Brian and Julie quickly discussed several CSSA comments on the reports.  Reports discussed included AOC-47, AOC-56, and SWMU B-23.  Responses to CSSA comments will incorporate the results of this discussion.  In addition, Julie indicated that Parsons needs copies of the B-20 perchlorate results.  Finally, it was agreed that the reports will include data verification reports as an appendix, but chain-of-custody forms (COCs) will not be included.  COCs are included in the data packages.

ACTION ITEMS

Parsons

Background

GIS Accuracy

GIS Manual

GUI Demonstration

Revisions to Map

AOC-67 Report

Fact Sheets

SWMU and AOC Report

CSSA