Date: March 20, 2002, continued on March 22, 2002
Time: 9:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Place: Parsons, Austin, Texas (3/20/02) and CSSA, Boerne, Texas (3/22/02)
Subject: Regulatory Meeting and DQO Meeting for Task Order 42
Attendees:
|
Date |
Attendee |
Organization |
Phone |
|
20/22 Mar 02 |
Brian K. Murphy |
CSSA ENV |
(210)698-5208 |
|
22 Mar 02 |
Chris Beal |
WPI/CSSA |
(210)295-7417 |
|
20 Mar 02 |
Susan Roberts |
Parsons |
(512)719-6051 |
|
20/22 Mar 02 |
Scott Pearson |
Parsons |
(512)719-6087 |
|
20 Mar 02 |
Ken Rice |
Parsons |
(512)719-6050 |
|
20/22 Mar 02 |
Karuna Mirchandani |
Parsons |
(512)719-6048 |
|
22 Mar 02 |
Samantha Elliott |
Parsons |
(512)805-6225 |
|
22 Mar 02 |
Kyle Caskey |
Parsons |
(512)805-6225 |
|
22 Mar 02 |
Kimberly Riley |
Parsons |
(512)719-6816 |
|
22 Mar 02 |
Joe Fernando |
Portage Env. |
(210)805-7471 |
Minutes prepared by Kimberly Riley, Parsons.
A summary of the decisions reached in the March 20, 2002, meeting regarding the IDW plan and management of drilling materials for CSSA is included in the attached letter from Parsons to Kirk Coulter, TNRCC-Austin (Attachment 1). This letter sets out the discussed topics during the March 5, 2002, meeting with the regulatory agency.
TIM #2 CONTINUATION MEETING AT CSSA:
Items discussed in TIM #2 March 20, 2002, were continued in a second meeting held March 22, 2002, at CSSA, Boerne, Texas. The second half of the meeting addressed the DQO draft proposed by CSSA and Parsons’ comments to the DQOs. The specific comments discussed by Parsons are set out in Parsons’ comments to DQOs included as Attachment 2. The overall DQO document with Parsons’ comments included is included as Attachment 3. CSSA will incorporate the discussed comments into the DQO document and provide the final version. Overall issues discussed not included in the responses to comments are set out below:
Action Item: CSSA to provide DQOs with comments of the team incorporated.
Brian Murphy requested general comments on the DQO process and the draft. Scott Pearson stated the money saved by the reduced casing costs should make the money expended to draft the DQOs worth the effort. A general discussion of the DQO process as a necessary way to refine and inform all parties of additional details of the scope of work was discussed.
Karuna Mirchandani stated that GIS information should stay separate for the GIS manual, and not to be included within DQOs. Brian M. concurred.
The current DQO draft is mostly TO 42-specific. Whatever is drafted on TO 58 in the future would be incorporated into this overall DQO document. Brian Vanderglas can use this overall DQO draft as a template to base his specific TO 58 DQOs on. Also, the Foster Wheeler/B-3 DQOs would be a sub-document to these overall DQOs.
Joe Fernando stated the DQOs are project specific in the sense of “groundwater monitoring,” “remediation” and “soil vapor extraction” as the separate projects, not related to projects separated by funding under different tasks.
Scott Pearson suggests noting after each item in the DQOs whether funding is currently available under an existing TO or whether it is to be funded in the future, etc.
Scott suggested sampling all off post wells once a year, across the board to ensure we have at least an annual sample from all wells. Brian M. stated that based on historical data he wants to know what time of the year is a “worst case scenario” time to sample. The goal is to obtain the worst concentration result that could be expected. Without having an idea of which quarter of the year the results would be “hottest” an annual sample date may not provide the needed information. Future monitoring results will be evaluated to attempt to determine which quarter would result in the highest concentration. As monitoring has only been conducted since September 2001, it is too early to make a determination.
Discussion on the telemetry issue (permanent equipment installed into wells) and the value to project should be postponed, nothing is being determined in this meeting as far as time and costs which could be saved with real-time data, etc. Brian Murphy pointed out the savings in personnel time by not having to collect water level measurements, but the issue of confirmation/calibration of the water level measurement was raised.
Brian Murphy and Joe Fernando proposed forwarding groundwater monitoring reports to Joe Fernando at Portage for review in draft form from now on, when delivered to Teri DuPriest at AFCEE. Joe also wants the groundwater data package delivered at the same time for ease in review. For the groundwater monitoring report to be delivered simultaneously with the data package submittal, the report will be written based on preliminary data only. The data package and data validation report will therefore be sent together to Portage, 60 days following the sampling date.
Action Item: Parsons to forward the quarterly groundwater monitoring reports to Portage Environmental in the same mailing as the data verification package submittal, 60 days after the sampling date.
Brian M. wants an Annual Groundwater Monitoring report to be submitted each year that discusses the last year of monitoring as a whole and covers future recommended actions. Brian M. suggested that each quarter, a meeting be held to discuss the draft groundwater monitoring reports and plan for the next quarterly sampling event.
Brian M. requested a schedule be prepared in MS Project which shows the schedule at which the groundwater monitoring reports will be drafted. Parsons to provide draft reports along with the data verification packages to CSSA 60 calendar days from the sample date for both on-post and off-post reports. Draft letters to the wells owners are also to be provided within 60 calendar days of the sampling date. The Final letters can be mailed as soon as AFCEE approves the data packages. The on- and off-post draft reports to be submitted for the March 2002 sampling event will attempt to meet this schedule.
Action Item: Parsons to provide an MS Project schedule for drafting groundwater monitoring reports.
Letter to TNRCC outlining IDW measures