Meeting Minutes Purcell NAGS RI/FS February 23, 2005

Transcription

1 Meeting Minutes Purcell NAGS RI/FS February 23, 2005 Location: 6th floor, ODEQ, Oklahoma City, OK Attendees: Mike Hunter, Morgan Ruther (USACE, Huntsville); Carol Weis, Michelle Rhodes (USACE, Tulsa); Noel Bennett (USEPA); David Highland, Michael Short, Julie Turrentine (Parsons); Hal Cantwell (ODEQ); Ron Suttles, Rex Umber (ODWC); Dean Heckathorn (USFWS); Dick Davis (DoC); Gerald Moody (CCSD) Prepared By: Julie Turrentine Topic: Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meeting Meeting Open 9:00 am David Highland, project manager with Parsons, opened the meeting by explaining the locations of the ODEQ building facilities and exits. All meeting attendees were asked to introduce themselves and the organizations they represented. A list of attendees and contact information is included in Attachment 1. He explained the meeting was called by Parsons to facilitate project planning involving the responsible party US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulators, and stakeholders. Attendees were encouraged to provide input and ask questions. Following the introductions, David gave an overview presentation discussing the Purcell Naval Air Gunners School (NAGS) history and current site conditions. He also presented the proposed RI/FS approach from site clearing activities to an overview of the response process for munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and munitions constituents (MC). He referenced figures indicating site locations (Plate 5), generalized brush clearance paths (Figure 1), and proposed geophysical transect lines (Figure 2) that were provided to each attendee. Parsons plans to make presentation slides from this meeting available on the project website, currently under construction. If you need them sooner, please contact David Highland. Questions & Comments Concerning the Introductory Presentation: Ron Suttles, ODWC, asked for clarification of the site investigation boundaries. David Highland explained that this investigation would be contained within the Lexington CONTRACT NO. DACA87-95-D-0018, ORDER

2 Wildlife Management Area, north of the Department of Corrections area. This is the area indicated on Figures 1 and 2 (aerial photos), and is a subset of the Purcell NAGS area indicated by the blue outline on Plate 5. Carol Wies, project manager with USACE, added that the portion of the Purcell NAGS site south of the Lexington Wildlife Management Area is subject to a separate investigation (ongoing) and and is a nonpublic use area. Dean Heckathorn, USFWS, asked if/how geophysically identified anomalies will be further identified as MEC. Mr Highland responded that UXO specialists will dig and identify potential UXO hits. Rex Umber, ODWC, asked how data will be acquired and if a vehicle will be used. Michael Short, Parsons, explained that in open areas the equipment may be pulled behind an ATV in cleared paths, but in brushy areas it may be pulled/carried by hand. Mr. Umber also asked if samples would be collected in Smith Lake. He added that Smith Lake is generally shallow (4-6 ft. deep). David Highland anwered that samples would be collected in that area, and that a boat or waders could be used if necessary. Carol Wies added that sediment samples may need to be taken at depths greater than 1 ft. to account for fill material in the lake. She also asked if the lake perimeter would be geophysically surveyed. Mr. Short responded that this is not currently planned. Mr. Heckathorn asked if a metal detector could be flown over the lake to identify large dumped materials. Mr. Short answered that this is also not planned, but could be considered if a removal phase is warranted. Mr. Umber suggested that hunting seasons be considered to determine the dates of field activities. Hunting seasons are from October 1 through January 31 and April 6 through May 6. Several attendees inquired about known MEC/MC sites and historical activities. Mr. Highland mentioned an Archive Search Report (ASR) had been completed by the USACE. Carol added that a public meeting was held in the Spring of 2004, and the USACE was unable to solicit any additional anecdotal information on dumping activities at the site. TPP Presentation Michael Short presented background information on the TPP process and explained that the TPP meeting is intended to bring together stakeholders to explore concerns and questions related to project activities. He explained that by formulating a closure statement that is agreed upon by all stakeholders during an early planning stage (today), concerns of attendees could be addressed and/or incorporated into project plans in the most effective manner. Michael presented slides introducing the phases involved in the TPP process and asked everyone to write a closure statement representative of his/her own background and concerns. He stated that all of the statements would be compiled into one, that would be presented for discussion after lunch. 2

3 Questions & Comments Concerning the TPP Presentation: Rex Umber asked what would happen if a cultural site of historical or archeological significance were found. He knows of one such site that has been mapped. Mr. Short explained that field crews will be briefed before the start of field activities. Michael added that when these sites are encountered, planned activities are stopped or altered, and the proper authorities are notified. Carol Wies enquired about the potential for leachate from ordinance, such as those found at the site. Michael explained that the expected MEC/MC materials would be thickshelled. Oxidation may have occurred on the outer casing, but it would likely remain intact without leakage. However, if dumped materials of unknown status are uncovered, they may be spent, debris, or intact. Noel Bennett, USEPA, asked the typical constituents of 2.25 rockets. David explained that these rounds had solid metal heads with a rear chamber for mechanics and propellant. He explained that it is possible that some may have unused propellant. Schematics and photos of 20 mm and 2.25 rockets were passed around to each attendee. Mr. Umber asked if the occurrence of MEC/MC related chemicals in flora and fauna would be tested. David Highland explained that planned water and sediment samples would be analyzed first. These results will help determine if further sampling (fish sampling, etc.) will be necessary. He added that Parsons has that capability if needed. Mr. Bennett asked if there are any known target areas at the site. Michael explained that the known targets are south of this project s investigation area. This project is mostly searching for any longshots or dumped MEC/MC. This explains why parallel paths, or transects, were chosen as a cost effective data acquisition method that provides adequate coverage of the whole site. Dick Davis, Dept. of Corrections, pointed out that a seed plot for testing the electromagnetic equipment may not account for soil type variability. Michael agreed and said a geologist would be consulted to choose representative soil, or multiple test areas would be considered. Mr. Davis also mentioned that a wide range of MC may be found on site because, since WWII, the site has been used by the National Guard for training, as well as by hunters. Carol Wies explained that FUDS funds can only be used to cleanup MC dated prior to Carol Wies asked how anomalies ( hits ) would be recorded using the geophysical instruments. Michael explained that GPS locators may not always be used; this would depend on data necessities and the particular equipment used. PDAs and Bluetooth wireless GPS data loggers would be used during the data acquisition phase. Depth intervals and detection limits of equipment were briefly discussed, but the seeded test plot will ultimately determine which instrument will be used. He added that any UXO found at the site is expected to occur in shallow soil (a foot or so below the surface) or at Smith Lake. Gerald Moody, Cleveland Co. Sheriff s Dept., asked when site activities may start. It was agreed that site activities could start as early as May, following hunting season. 3

4 Mike Hunter, Technical Project Manager with USACE, inquired about the MEC/MC materials that have been found. Rex stated that in his 18 years of experience a couple of items had been found, but he has not personally found anything in Smith Lake. The most recent was found by a hunter a few years ago. Mr. Bennett requested an explanation of how found munitions will be characterized as live or dead and their disposal process. Michael Short explained that a wooden dowel can be inserted into the rocket to determine the chamber length, and this can be compared to known specifications to determine if propellent remains. UXO found during the investigation will be blown in place or moved, if necessary, for demolition. If UXO must be left overnight, the location will be guarded. Michael also mentioned that prior to the demolition of any UXO items, sandbags will be placed around the item for safety and to minimize disturbances. The hole is backfilled after the items are blown-in-place. Michael Short introduced the TPP worksheets before breaking for lunch. Project Closure Statement After lunch, the individual project closure statements from all attendees were compiled and agreed upon by all present. That statement is: Obtain data to sufficiently characterize and identify MEC/MC hazards at the Purcell NAGS site, and assess ecological and human risks in order to complete a defensible feasibility study. Concentrate on: Activities at Smith Lake, Hazards posed by 20 mm and 2.25 rockets, and Minimize removal efforts and costs. TPP Worksheet Suggestions All attendees were supplied with Purcell NAGS RI/FS TPP Worksheets. These worksheets were reviewed line by line, and stakeholders were invited to make suggestions and provide input: Proposed additional stakeholders: regulatory branch of the USACE and Oklahoma State Historical Commission. (page 1 Phase I MFR) Mr. Bennett did not know of any compliance documents that would need to be filed with the EPA. (page 1 Phase I MFR) Photographic analysis of aerial photos has been completed as part of the ASR. (page 1 & 2 Phase I MFR) The USACE will review this project every 5 yrs for changes in land use, remedial technology capabilities, etc. Rex Umber added that the site will continue to be used for wildlife for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, it is stipulated that the land will revert back to the federal government. (page 1 Phase I MFR) Michael Short explained the process of completing Most Probable Munition for the Explosive Safety Submission. At this site, 2.25 rockets have been more 4

5 commonly found, and would be considered the most probable find for this project. Since the submittal of this document involves an approximate 90-day process for approval, he suggested that this process begin prior to fieldwork. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Noel Bennett suggested that sediment be added to Media of Potential Concern. (page 2 Phase I MFR) He also asked that EPA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment be added to item #4 on the Project Objectives Worksheet. Hal Cantwell asked that the Regulators Perspectives section read, Ensure compliance with OK law and regulations. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Carol added that the surrounding community would have an interest in protecting a drinking water supply on the site. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Dean Heckathorn stated that there are no known endangered species on the site. American burrowing beatles should not be found in the county. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Michael explained that the primary remedy would be in place detonation. Mr. Davis pointed out that distance to nearby water supply wells should be considered. In the past, seismic disturbances have caused wells in that area to go dry. Michael responded that this would be considered, but fused ordinances must be detonated, and the size of probable munitions found should not impact local wells. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Michael and David clarified that a feasibility study would be completed prior to closeout, but it may be limited in scope. Also, Removal Action should be thought of as remediation. (page 2 Phase I MFR) Carol added that the USACE has procured a right of entry, and approximately 4 years remain. Rex added that 3-4 foot wide cleared paths should pose no problem for the ODWC. (page 3 Phase I MFR) Mr. Davis stated that with notification, evacuation and exclusion zones should not be a problem for the correctional facility, but the National Guard heliport should also be contacted. The state aviation contact may be Emory Fountain. (page 3 Phase I MFR) Hal and Noel agreed that a 30-day review period of the work plans would be reasonable for regulators. (page 3 Phase I MFR) David and Carol discussed funding constraints and FUDS limitations. It was agreed that funding may impact the schedule. (page 3 Phase I MFR) All agreed that specific site characterization tasks and objectives should be detailed in the work plan, rather than in today s meeting. (page 3 Phase I MFR) Hal Cantwell suggested that risk action levels and documentation be provided on the Data Need Worksheet. David asked if any other issues remained. Mr. Bennett asked if perchlorate had been found in any of the recovered rockets or propellent at the site. It was not known if 5

6 perchlorate was a constituent, but Michael and David agreed that this would be investigated. Mike Hunter agreed that he could research constituents of 2.25 and 20 mm rockets to possibly shorten the list of analytical methods required for analysis of samples. The sampling plan was reviewed one final time. Noel suggested that soil samples could be collected in locations with high concentrations of geophysically identified anomalies. This could help identify the degree of effort needed for random sampling. David added that locations of found munitions would be used in formulating the initial soil sampling plan. He also stated that the work plan will be worded to allow for flexible decision making dependent upon results of surface clearing and geophysical subsurface profiles. David Highland and Michael Short called the meeting to an end. David Highland will distribute meeting minutes and revised worksheets to all attendees. A second TPP meeting may be called if needed, but none is currently scheduled. Meeting Close - 2:15 pm 6