Many Voices Working for the Community Oak Ridge |
|
Approved December 14, 2005 Meeting Minutes
The Oak Ridge Site Specific
Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, December 14,
2005, at the
Members Present
Ben Adams
Steve Dixon
Steve Douglas
Chris Grove
Norman Mulvenon
Tim Myrick
Robert Olson
Sandy Reagan, Secretary
Members Absent
Heather Cothron
Pat Hill1
Wade Johnson
1Second Consecutive Absence
2Student Representative
Deputy Designated Federal
Officer and Ex-Officios Present
Pat
Halsey, Federal Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Connie Jones, Ex-Officio,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4
John Owsley,
Steve McCracken, Deputy
Designated Federal Officer
Others Present
Beverly
Bannister, EPA
Peter Caswell, Restoration
Services, Inc.
Luther Gibson
Spencer Gross, Spectrum
Pete Osborne, Spectrum
Twelve
members of the public were present.
Presentation
Peter
Caswell, of Restoration Services, Inc., gave an overview of the
characterization program underway at East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). He
said the characterizations are required by the Zones 1 and 2 Records of
Decision (ROD) at ETTP.
He said the remedial action
objective for ETTP is unrestricted use within the top 10 feet of soil. Four
criteria must be met to achieve a no further action determination:
At this point, Mr. Mulvenon
asked Mr. Caswell to review the differences between how characterization was
done at Rocky Flats,
Mr. Bonner asked if maximum
RL took precedence over average levels in establishing action/no action
criteria. Mr. Caswell said all four criteria are of equal importance and all
must be met.
Mr. Douglas asked if RLs
were the same as EPA’s preliminary remediation goal levels. Mr. Caswell
said the levels are used as screening criteria in risk assessment but are not
used as the maximum RLs. He said the ROD would indicate how the RLs were
determined.
Mr. Caswell showed a graphic
of Zone 1, about 1,200 acres divided into 80 EUs (Attachment 1, page 7). He
showed another graphic of Zone 2, which includes 44 EUs. He said the RODs for
both zones have similar characterization and remedial action objectives. He
said that an action/no further action determination must be made on each of the
124 EUs.
Mr. Bonner asked how the EUs
were determined. Mr. Caswell the EUs were designed to be representative of a
standard industrial site, but the geophysical characteristics of the area also
determined how they were drawn. Each EU consists of 5 to 20 acres. Ms. Jones
said ETTP was divided into two zones because the area outside of the original
fence was less contaminated and easier to address, while the area inside the
fence was encumbered with buildings and process areas where there is more
contamination.
Mr. Caswell noted the
dynamic verification strategy approach used in the characterization of the area.
He noted the important points of each step:
He explained that in the
exposure assessment, the exposed population is the potential industrial worker
at ETTP. The exposure setting is the EU. It is assumed the worker will have
access to the soil to 10 feet. Mr. Caswell said if there is contaminated soil
anywhere within 10 feet, the exposure assessment assumes the worker will have
just as much exposure at depth as on the surface.
In September 2005, a phased construction completion report (PCCR) was
submitted to the regulators for K‑901 Duct
Mr. Caswell reviewed remediation
that has been done and what needs to be done in Zone 1. Finished projects
include cleanup of Blair Quarry and the K-895 cylinder destruct facility. Remediation
to be done includes K-770 Scrap and Soil area, the largest action required in
Zone 1, an area of about 30 acres.
The Imhoff Tanks will be
removed, and Mr. Caswell said the surveys indicated about 200 cubic yards of
soil must be removed from EU 38 on
In Zone 2, Mr. Caswell said
remediation needs to be done at the K-1070-B landfill. He said the K‑1070-C/D
pits are currently being characterized, but the assumption is some portions of
them will need remediation.
He said the area of the
K-1420 Building and Central Neutralization Facility needs to be excavated. He
also mentioned a couple of smaller areas that will require remediation. One is
an area near the haul road known as Rusty’s Mountain and another and the area
known as the ‘rabbit ears.’ Mr. Caswell said he expects that other smaller
areas will be found where there might have been some small spills or releases.
After Mr. Caswell’s
presentation a number of comments were made and questions asked by Board
members. Following are abridged comments, questions, and answers.
Comments/Questions |
Answer |
Mr. Myrick –You did not mention
independent verification (IV). Do you have any thoughts or comments about
that? |
Mr.
McCracken
– This is something that has been on the table, and the issue was raised
because of what happened at Rocky Flats. There has
been a lot of core team work and additional oversight that wasn’t typical in
earlier remediations. But I think the question of whether we need additional IV
has to be answered through some discussion in this group. I don’t think
IV is needed, but I have a responsibility to you to prove that the work has
been done. If that’s what I need to do I will certainly consider it. So I
would like to see a discussion in this group and the let us (DOE) decide. I’ve tried to
contact Eric Abelquist with Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education,
which has done IV for years. We asked him several months ago to become
knowledgeable with what we’ve done, and then to prepare a proposal of what he
thinks would be needed to do an IV. I have not been able to reach him yet,
but I will get that information from him and then I’d like to be part of the
discussion with this group. We have not
been on a path to do IV here, but that path can change if we feel there is a
need and if there are two good reasons to do it: One is
because we are not sure that we’ve found all the contamination, and two, do
we feel we need that additional confidence that IV will provide? |
Mr. Mezga – The Environmental
Management (EM) Committee is the group that has reviewed IV, and we are
anxious to make a recommendation, but we wanted to hear your response to
understand your position before we formulated a recommendation. So we will be
moving forward on that at the next meeting. |
Mr.
McCracken
– Perhaps we should ask Eric to attend so that whatever he would suggest you
would be knowledgeable of. |
Mr. Gibson – On the decision
criteria you mentioned on the Blair Quarry cleanup. Based on the maximum RL
exceedance and the average RL exceedance, you wouldn’t have excavated very
much. But based on the cumulative risk, which takes in the full sweep of
contaminants, not just those of concern, that you had to do a lot more. Does
that represent potential uncertainty in the amount of material going to
disposal facilities? |
Mr. Caswell – Overall what we’re
finding, at least as far as Zone 1 is concerned, is our volume forecast for
the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) is conservative.
The amount that had to be sent from Blair Quarry was below what is in the official
EMWMF forecast. There were 23,000 cubic yards in the forecast, and we shipped
13,000. But that was above what would have been excavated based on the first
two criteria. |
Mr.
McCracken
– The question I wanted to ask was, do we have any feel in Zone 1 yet for how
much of that area we’ll be able to clear to any depth as meeting the
industrial cleanup standard and not just to 10 feet |
Mr.
Caswell –
Yes. In the 901 Duct Island PCCR we put a table in there of areas we felt
like, based on our data, we didn’t need to have restrictions to any depth. The
only area that we saw where there was greater contamination at depth than at
10 feet was what was below 10 feet in the old 1070-A burial ground. Other
than that, we got through the waste and the soil below it and we didn’t think
there needed to be restrictions on any level. |
Mr. Myrick –Have you found any
evidence of stories that there has been radioactive airborne dust across the
site where you would find very low levels close to the surface, if not in
great amounts, but you would find contamination over wide areas that was
airborne related? |
Mr.
Caswell –
In Zone 1, no. The widest area of contamination in Zone 1 we found is down at
the powerhouse area, where the scrap used to sit. The forecast was for 2 feet
of that entire peninsula to come out. We’ve demonstrated it’s the top 6
inches, but that’s not airborne disposition; that’s just because of where the
scrap sat. We’re just now getting into the meat of the Zone 2 radiological
survey, so that’s something that will be potentially more of an issue. |
Ms. Bogard – If I were looking for
the data you’ve collected, is there a document we have access to? |
Mr.
Caswell –
Yes. You probably have the 901 Duct Island PCCR. That PCCR contains compact
discs with all the data broken down by exposure unit group, so you don’t have
to learn to use the Oak Ridge Health Information System database. Every
exposure unit group has a data summary and a data table for that unit with it
in the back of the PCCR. |
Deputy Designated Federal
Officer and Ex-Officio Comments
Mr. McCracken said that he
and a number of people present had come from a celebration at the Oak Ridge
Chamber Commerce commemorating the achievement of a major cleanup milestone – the
removal of legacy low level and mixed low level wastes from the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR). He said the focus now was achieving the next major milestone
in FY 2006 of finishing cleanup work in
Ms. Bogard asked if any
changes were being made to the BJC contract due to schedule slippages. Mr.
McCracken said nothing is being done to modify the contract, which calls for
the completion of work by 2008 for $2.5 billion. He said some money will be
owed to BJC because of additional scope of work, but that will be addressed at
a later date.
Mr. Mulvenon said he was
disappointed to learn that construction costs for the haul road were over
budget, and was particularly ‘taken aback’ that the explanation was primarily
underestimation. He wondered how professionals could underestimate the cost of
the road so much.
Mr. McCracken said he agreed
with Mr. Mulvenon and believed the Board was due a better explanation.
Mr. Mulvenon wondered if
there were additional cost overruns that would appear later for other projects
underway. Mr. McCracken replied that in any project there is a certain expectation
of cost growth and if contingencies are not figured into the estimates then
problems will be encountered. He said the work on the reservation involves construction
or destruction of facilities where problems are encountered daily that cause
work stoppages. He believes the cost of the reservation cleanup will not grow
in a manner that indicates a performance issue.
Mr. Alder reported that work
had resumed at Trenches 5 and 7 in
He said work at the New
Hydrofracture Facility was about restart. Readiness reviews had been completed
and work was expected to begin in January. Removal of waste from the facility
had been stopped in 2004 after some strontium-90 being shipped from the
facility for disposal at EMWMF leaked onto Highway 95.
Ms. Jones introduced several
members of the EPA Waste Management leadership staff: Harold Taylor, Jeff
Crane, Ken LaPierre, Alan Farmer, and Beverly Banister. She asked Ms.
Bannister, acting Waste Management Division Director, to make some comments.
Ms. Bannister said she was
impressed by the work the ORSSAB was doing, its interest in the cleanup work
going on at ETTP, and the collaboration among the ORSSAB, the state, the EPA,
and DOE. She mentioned she had seen the Stewardship Education Resource Kit and
was pleased that the Board had two student members.
She offered any assistance
EPA could provide the Board and Ms. Jones to support the work that was being
done.
Mr. Owsley noted members of
his management team had also been in town for the milestone celebration, but
had to return to
Public Comment
Mr. Gibson said he would be
glad when the haul road construction is finished, because people who had lost
their way as a result of detours were stopping by his house asking for
directions.
Announcements and Other
Board Business
The next Board meeting will
be Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 6 p.m. at the
The
minutes of the November 9, 2005, meeting were approved.
The Recommendations on the
Natural Resources Damage Assessment Process was approved (Attachment 2)
Committee Reports
Board Finance – Mr. Dixon said the
committee addressed all the items on its agenda except the carryover of money
from FY 2005 because the final carryover figures were not available.
EM – Mr. Mezga reported that
the committee heard reports on independent verification and progress of the
David Witherspoon cleanup project in
The
next meeting will include a presentation on the K-1007 Ponds Alternatives at
ETTP.
Mr. Myrick pointed out that
responsibility of newly generated waste (NGW) is about to be transferred from
DOE’s EM program to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at Y-12
National Security Complex. He said it might be an issue the EM committee and
perhaps the full Board would want to consider.
Mr. McCracken explained that
by law NGW is now the responsibility of NNSA but that EM is assisting in the
transfer of that responsibility. That will also involve the transfer of about
$22 million a year from the DOE EM budget to NNSA. He said that money will be
removed from the BJC cleanup contract. It would also affect some employees.
Public Outreach – Mr. Douglas reported that
the committee discussed the FY 2007 committee budget. He said the committee
also discussed various ways to extend outreach to the public, including working
with Scouts, the
Stewardship – Mr. Mulvenon reported that the education minute
for the meeting was on “Institutional Controls: A Citizen’s Guide to
Understanding Institutional Controls” provided by EPA.
He reported that he attended
the Intergovernmental Meeting in
He said the committee heard
a report on the upcoming teacher’s workshop in February for the Stewardship
Education Resource Kit.
He said the committee also
worked on revisions for the “Why Stewardship” presentation. The presentation
has been renamed “A Status Report for the Community on Long-Term Stewardship
for the Contaminated Areas on the Oak Ridge Reservation.”
The next meeting will
include additional discussion on formulating a long-term stewardship
implementation plan which will be put in place when remediation is complete on
the ORR.
Executive – Ms. Bogard reported that
the committee discussed how to improve presentations to the Board to achieve
maximum benefit for members. One idea was to have presentation materials
available ahead of time so they can be mailed with the meeting packets. Members
could review the materials and be able to formulate pertinent questions prior
to the meeting. She said the issue of improving presentations would likely be
assigned to Board Process for more consideration.
Ms. Bogard encouraged
members to review packets prior to meetings, including incoming correspondence,
the recommendation tracking chart, and any proposed recommendations.
Board Process – Ms. Reagan reported that
the committee did not meet in November, but will address the issue of the
process for making recommendations at the December meeting. She said the committee
will also review the progress of the mentoring program.
Federal Coordinator Report
Ms. Halsey
noted that the meeting packet included two fact sheets regarding proposed
explanations of significant differences (ESD) to the
Ms. Halsey
reported the recent recruiting campaign for Board membership had been very
successful with the receipt of 35 applications. She expected the two vacancies
on the Board would be filled by the end of the calendar year.
She said
progress was being made on securing a technical adviser to assist the EM
committee in studying the remedial investigation/feasibility study for the
upcoming site wide ROD for ETTP. A recommendation has also been made for a
committee facilitator. She said she hopes both of those positions will be
filled in January.
Additions to the Agenda
No
additions.
Motions
12/14/05.1
Mr. Adams move to approve
the agenda. Mr. Myrick seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
12/14/05.2
Mr. Mulvenon moved to
approve the minutes of the November 9 meeting. Mr. Bonner seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
12/14/05.3
Mr. Mezga moved to approve
the “Recommendation on the Natural Resources Damage Assessment Process.” Mr.
Mulvenon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Action Items
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Reagan, Secretary
Attachments (2) to these minutes are available on
request from the ORSSAB support office.