|
Restoration
Advisory Board Radford Army
Ammunition
Plant (RFAAP) Meeting Minutes Attendance
Agenda Item #1. Introductory Remarks, Approve Minutes of 20 July 2000 Mr. Jim McKenna convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and asked if there were any comments or questions about the 20 July 2000 RAB meeting minutes. There were none, and the minutes were approved as written. Mr. McKenna introduced Ms. Llyn Sharp and Ms. Carol Zokaites. Ms. Sharp is the Assistant Director for the Virginia Tech Museum of Natural History. She learned about the RFAAP RAB through a New River Task Force meeting and is interested in becoming a member. Ms. Zokaites works for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Mr. Jerry Redder invited her to attend because of her interest in groundwater and karst geology. Mr. McKenna asked whether Ms. Zokaites would be interested in becoming a RAB member. Ms. Zokaites declined at this time, but she is interested in attending RAB meetings and learning more about the program. Mr. McKenna mentioned that he had met with Ms. Sharp earlier to give her a site tour and offered giving site tours to any other interested RAB members. Agenda Item #2. Election of RAB Member Mr. Joe Parrish nominated Ms. Sharp for RAB membership. Mr. Steve Cole seconded the motion, and Ms. Sharp was unanimously voted in as a new member. Agenda Item #3. Installation Action Plan Workshop Summary Mr. McKenna reported that RFAAP held its Installation Action Plan (IAP) workshop September 19–21, 2000. The purpose of the workshop was to review sites and future plans and then prioritize work and structure the budget accordingly. Mr. McKenna passed out copies of the 2001 IAP, the product of this workshop, to the RAB members. He explained that the IAP is the Army’s management tool for addressing (i.e., investigating, removing soil, and/or cleaning up sites as necessary) sites under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Such sites must be eligible for Environmental Restoration Account (ER, A) funding. The IAP includes summaries, projections, and a one-page site description for each site. It is updated annually in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. McKenna explained the "DSERTS to SWMU Conversion" found in the front of the plan, which is basically a list that cross references sites by both the Army identification number and the EPA identification number. The Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking System (DSERTS) number (e.g., RFAAP-001) is the Army number. The Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) number (e.g., SWMU 51) is the EPA number. Mr. McKenna reported that RFAAP initially proposed $95 million as the cost to complete budget, the funding used to address sites, which goes out 30 years. At the workshop, the cost to complete budget was set at about $43 million. The budget was lowered because some sites are not eligible for the program and some sites were determined after the investigation phase as needing no further action. Mr. McKenna explained that the sites that were not eligible for the program fell into two general categories. They were either 1) active sites (not eligible because the IRP addresses only inactive sites with contamination resulting from past operations) or 2) sites determined to have no hazardous material deposited or a released to the environment. These ineligible sites will be addressed using other programs and funding sources. Mr. David Allbee asked whether the IAP schedule was reasonable and whether RFAAP had capabilities to execute within that timeframe. Mr. McKenna replied that the IAP dates seem reasonable within the next three to four years and that there is more than enough funding programmed to execute the projects. He added that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Baltimore District brings additional resources so RFAAP will be better able meet this schedule. The IAP is updated annually so as more data is collected, the budget and schedule will be revised as needed. Mr. McKenna also explained that the Army is encouraging RFAAP to finish up as soon as possible and that IRP completion of all high-priority sites is scheduled to be done by 2014. Discussion among the meeting attendees followed regarding the IAP, no further action sites, and the cleanup schedule. Mr. Allen Boynton referenced RFAAP-002 SWMU No. 71, on page 3 of the IAP Site Descriptions. Under IRP Status, it states, "RRSE Rating: High Risk (1A)." Under Proposed Plan, it states, "No further action is anticipated." Mr. Boynton stated that this might cause questions (i.e., why would a site with a "high-risk rating" be set for no further action) by members of the public who read the IAP on the RFAAP website or from the information repository in the library. Mr. Redder responded that copies of the 2001 IAP have already been published. He suggested taking the comment into consideration at the next IAP workshop in May 2001. Mr. McKenna also mentioned that RFAAP could expand the Acronym description in the IAP to better explain "Relative Risk Site Evaluation" (RRSE). RRSE is used by the Army as an internal score to prioritize funding, it is not a risk assessment. He stated that the priority goes in descending order from "1A" as high, "2A" as medium, and "3A" as low. Mr. McKenna also indicated that most RFAAP sites are listed as "1A" in the IAP.
IRP Status Report Update Mr. McKenna then referenced the meeting handout, IRP Status Report Update. He reported that sampling has been conducted at SWMU 6. Mr. Robert Freis asked about the timeframe for the regional groundwater study. Mr. McKenna responded that the study is ongoing and provided a brief update of activities. Discussion among the meeting attendees followed regarding the groundwater study and planned activities. Agenda Item #4. Closing Remarks, Schedule Next Meeting, Adjourn Mr. McKenna adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The next RAB meeting will be held at RFAAP on Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7 p.m. Back to RAB Meeting Minutes Archives |
| Links | Site Map | Contact Us | Search |