Laserfiche WebLink
1 . Captain K wrath welcomed everyone to the inaugural meeting of the <br /> Technical 'Review Committee. He stated that this meeting is an important, <br /> milestone for JAVCOMMSTA Stockton's Environmental Program. The committee <br /> needs to get e!tarted in the right direction by identifying goals . <br /> 2 . LCDR Moreaiu explained the TRC has been established pursuant to Section 211 <br /> of the Superfuld Amendments and F'eauthor.iration Act of 1986. The role of the <br /> TRC Will be to A view and comment on results of field investigations and <br /> proposed interim and final remedial actions . The TRC Charter was reviewed . <br /> This Charter should provide a good working document so everyone is aware of <br /> our goals. The TRC will meet as needed and will include representatives from <br /> federal , state , and local regulatory agencies , The local community has been <br /> requested to appoint a representative , but no response has been received to <br /> date. LCDR Mor6au stressed that the TRC shall not be construed as in any way <br /> limiting the legal rights , obligations , or authority of any of the <br /> representatives agencies . All members were requested to review the TRC <br /> Charter and protide comments to NAVCOMMSTA Stockton as soon possible . The <br /> Charter should tie adopted at the next TRC meeting. <br /> 3. LCDR Moreauthenintroduced Dr. Robert Ellgas of The Mark Group. Dr . <br /> Ellgas provided all members with an overview of the RIN S Preliminary Scoping <br /> document for NAVCOMMSTA Stockton dated 23 August 1989. Dr. Ellgas gave an in- <br /> depth explanation of all areas covered in the document. <br /> 4 . The Mark Group has received the Navy's comments on the Preiiminary <br /> :;coping Document and is preparing a draft for review by all members of the <br /> TRC . Thi8 document should be ready for diot.ribution by 1 September 1989 . <br /> 5. Mr. Reents questioned what would be covered in the scoping document . He <br /> indicated that it appeared as though the Mark Group was taking a technical and <br /> conceptual approach which duplicates material Klienfeider & Assoc . had already <br /> covered. , Mr. Reents suggested that what is needed now is to take a site <br /> specific ,,approach. <br /> 6. Mr. Seraydarian explained that the review was to lay the groundwork for <br /> the TRC And to see that the committee starts off in the right direction. <br /> 7 Mr. Reents suggested that a workplan was needed . His specific concerns <br /> _cncl.uded:i <br /> a. d� termine what groundwater is controlled by the cn-site drainage <br /> system <br /> b. determine if the drainage system is causing any contamination in Burns <br /> Cut-off <br /> C. f$cus on effectiveness and time to remove surface contamination by <br /> existing drainage syst.emu . <br /> d. erasure that, the FS focuses on remediation of deeper contamination. <br /> 8. LCDR Mnreau assured Mr. Reents that a workplan was being initiated and <br /> should ansn"r a lot, of RWQCB's concerns . <br />