Many Voices Working for the Community Oak Ridge |
|
Approved
The Oak Ridge Site Specific
Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on
Members Present
Amy DeMint
Steve Dixon
John Kennerly
James Miller
Norman Mulvenon
Tim Myrick
Members Absent
Dick Berry
Stephanie Jernigan1
Katie Meersman1
Zach Ludwig1
David Mosby
Christopher Smith
1Student representative
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officios
Present
Dave Adler, Ex Officio,
Department of Energy -
Pat Halsey, Federal
Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Steve McCracken, Deputy
Designated Federal Official, DOE-ORO
Others Present
Paul Clay, Bechtel Jacobs
Co. (BJC)
Charlie Frye, BJC
Fred Heacker, BJC
Four members of the public
were present
Presentation
Mr. Adler gave a Power Point
presentation (Attachment 1) on Waste Disposition Challenges on the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR).
The primary waste
disposition issue on the ORR is a large quantity of legacy low level wastes
(LLW). Legacy wastes are those defined as being generated prior to
Mr. Adler said he checked
with the Office of Science and Technical Information and the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) at the Y-12 National Security Complex and asked if
they were aware of any waste streams that would be generated in the next few
years that had no pathway for disposal.
NNSA was not aware of any such streams.
The Office of Science said there was one waste stream generated from the
High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) that could present a problem of
disposition. He said upkeep of the HFIR
generates .11 cubic yards of waste per year that has no path for disposal. That waste is currently going into storage.
Regarding disposition of
transuranic wastes (TRU), work is being done to secure permits to ship remote
handled and contact handle TRU waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in
Mr. Adler explained that BJC
has a contract with DOE to safely manage, treat, and dispose of all legacy LLW
currently stored on the ORR by
The disposition strategy of
legacy LLW includes characterization, treatment, and disposition of 1.2 million
cubic feet of LLW. Each container of
waste must be characterized to determine what it contains. Each container is visually inspected. In many instances, the containers must have the
contents sorted because they contain material that cannot be accepted by a
particular receiver. That material must
be removed and sent to a receiver that can accept such waste.
Mr. Adler showed a graph
(Attachment 1, page 5) of the disposition status of legacy LLW. He said disposition of the waste is a little
behind schedule, but recovery plans are in place to meet the September 30
deadline.
He also talked about mixed LLW
(MLLW), which is radioactive material but also contains some hazardous waste
material covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA
requires that hazardous waste be treated on site prior to disposal. While there is the added challenge of
treatment and disposal, there is a much smaller amount of MLLW on ORR to be
dealt with, about 16,000 cubic feet of material.
Disposition strategy of MLLW
is very similar to that of LLW, but includes the additional treatment
requirement. All MLLW is disposed
offsite at commercial facilities.
He said the disposition of
MLLW is also a little behind schedule, but he still expected the deadline will
be met. He said delays have been related
to finding facilities to treat the waste or, because of the nature of the waste,
existing treatment facilities are not allowed to accept it. Work is being done
to find pathways of disposal for this waste.
Mr. Adler said some of the
LLW currently has no pathway to disposal.
He said there are two radioisotope thermo-electric generators that
cannot be shipped because there is no approved shipping container to handle
them. There are also 29 vaults of remote
handled LLW. The vaults themselves do
not pass the standards set for shipping containers and there are no shipping
containers currently available the vaults can be placed in. He said some of the vaults may be eligible
for shipping if it can be demonstrated that the activity within the containers
is low enough that another type of shipping container can be used. Other vaults may be opened and the contents characterized
and placed in different shipping containers.
But he said ultimately there will be a few vaults that have no disposal
path.
He said there also
particular challenges with some of the MLLW. He noted several types of MLLW (Attachment 1,
page 10) that currently have no path to disposal. He said because it is MLLW and requires treatment
before disposal, the waste will be treated, but until some pathway for disposal
is found the waste will be stored on the ORR.
Mr. Adler concluded his
presentation by saying that 99.6 percent of all LLW and MLLW will be disposed
of by the
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio
Comments
Mr. McCracken said the memorandum of agreement (MOA) for historic preservation at East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) lacks only one more signature from the State Historic Preservation Office. He said with all the signatures in place DOE will be free to clean up ETTP. The north tower of the K-25 building will be preserved. He said some of the equipment will be preserved for now until it can be determined if the equipment can be decontaminated. A date of November 2006 has been set to have that decision final. He said the acceptance of the MOA is “huge” because there will be no more limitations on proceeding with the cleanup of ETTP or on proceeding with historical preservation at the site.
Mr. Trammell asked Mr. McCracken if there would be any
independent verification of compliance of cleanup work at ETTP. Mr. McCracken said BJC will submit a
certification package saying it has met cleanup objectives. DOE, the state of
Mr. Mulvenon asked Mr. McCracken to provide an update on A-76
activities currently underway within DOE offices in the Oak Ridge
Operation. A-76 refers to Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 that establishes Federal policy regarding
the performance of commercial activities. The circular establishes procedures
(cost comparisons) for determining whether commercial-type activities should be
performed under contract from commercial sources or in-house using government
personnel. Mr. McCracken said A-76 involves looking at the work Federal
employees do and determining if the work is inherently governmental; if it’s
commercial in nature but can’t be put out to bid, meaning it only makes sense
for governmental employees to do the work; or if it’s commercial in nature and
can be put out for bid. A study is being done at DOE-ORO to determine if
environmental engineering services, primarily the environmental management
program, could be put out for bid. He said it will be May before anything is
known about the results of the study.
Mr. Trammell
asked about the status of the transfer of ownership of Buildings K-1007,
K-1580, K-1330, and K-1225 at ETTP to the Community Reuse Organization of East
Tennessee. Mr. McCracken said the
transfer package has been signed by the Secretary of Energy and has been sent
to Congress for approval. There is a 60-day
waiting period, unless action is taken by Congress to shorten the waiting
period and move forward with the transfer.
Mr. Adler talked about some of the adjustments that had
been made on the
Ms.
Mr. Owsley commended DOE-ORO
He said the ETTP Zone 2 ROD is ready for signature by the state. He the state has asked DOE not to proceed with decontamination and decommissioning of the buildings K-25 and K-27 until it has complied with the State Historical Preservation Act.
Mr. Owsley said a change had been requested in release criteria set forth in the End State Vision at ETTP for buildings K-31 and K-33. That request is under review; however, he said the state expects the buildings to be sold and the new owner would be responsible for the contamination that remains. If the buildings are not sold the state would expect that the buildings be demolished prior to the final closure of ETTP. Mr. Gibson asked if new owners would have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the concern being unlicensed owners would undertake decontamination without proper controls. Mr. Owsley didn’t think the level of contamination was such to require licensure. He said controls through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) would address that concern.
Public Comment
None
Announcements and Other Board Business
The next Board meeting will
be Wednesday, April 13, at the
The minutes of the February
9 minutes were approved with two editorial changes. Two members of the Board voted not to approve
the minutes because they did not contain a question and answer table. Mr. Trammell said that issue had been
discussed at the Executive Committee, but no decision had been made to
reinstate the question and answer table to the minutes.
Board Finance – Mr. Trammell reported in
Mr. Mosby’s absence. He said the
committee discussed the allocation of the travel budget among the standing
committees. He expected no problems with
the current budget.
At the committee meeting, Mr.
Forrester noted that WIPP is preparing to receive newly generated waste but
current regulations prevent WIPP from accepting compacted wastes. So he said ORO should not compact any more
newly generated waste until regulations are modified.
The main topic of the
February meeting was an update on the Toxic Substance Control Act Incinerator
(TSCAI). Joy Sager, DOE-ORO, gave the
presentation. She talked about some of the permits regulating TSCAI, the
upcoming Maximum Achievable Control Technology Comprehensive Performance Test,
and risk assessments. She also talked
about the extended operation of the incinerator past the original closure date
of 2006.
Mr. Gibson said the presentation for the March
meeting will be a preview of the public presentation on the Proposed Plan for
the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek. A
public meeting on the plan will be held March 29 at
Mr. Gibson asked for clarification on some
issues related to the Remedial Action Work Plan dynamic verification strategy on
Zone 1 at ETTP, specifically related to the hazard index for Zone 1. Mr. McCracken explained that a hazard index
of 1 is generally considered "safe," but that a hazard index of 3 had
been established in the ROD for Zone 1.
Now, he said, EPA is concerned that is not consistent with what had been
established in the ROD for Zone 2 and elsewhere. He said the discussion is whether to go back
and change the Zone 1 ROD hazard index from 3 to 1. He said it probably won't make much
difference because when all the work is finished the hazard index will likely
be below 1.
Public Outreach – While the Public Outreach
Committee did not meet in February, Mr. Mulvenon provided a report of
activities. He began by commending DOE-ORO
and Ms. Halsey for the publication of the Cleanup Progress Annual Report. He said it is well done and encouraged Board
members to read it and share it with others.
He called attention to the
new coffee mugs and coasters that were in place for all the Board members. The mugs and coasters have the ORSSAB logo
and commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Board. He said there will be other activities coming
up later in the year related to the anniversary and encouraged members to
participate.
Mr. Mulvenon reported on the
grand opening activities of the new ORSSAB exhibit at the
Tim Myrick gave an
interactive presentation to an advanced placement environmental science class
at
On Monday, March 14 Mr.
Mulvenon will meet with Anderson County Mayor Rex Lynch to discuss cleanup
operations at ORR and how it relates to the various jurisdictions in which the
ORR resides.
On Thursday, March 17
members of the Board will participate in East Tennessee Public Television’s
telethon.
Executive – Mr.
Trammell said the committee discussed the annual retreat and turned the
planning of the event over to the
She suggested taking two Board meetings, May and June,
to go over all the changes made in the bylaws and work out any contentious
portions. Her hope is to be able to vote
on the bylaws as a package at the July meeting.
She noted that only three Board members attend the
Mr. Gibson said that the
Board had revised the bylaws on several occasions and never before had proposed
changes been put before the Board without taking amendments from the
floor. Mr. Trammell said that would be
the purpose of the May and June meetings.
Concerning Article V.G,
Quorum for Meetings, Ms. Bogard said the committee deleted the word “committee”
from the sentence describing a quorum.
If adopted, a quorum would not be needed to conduct business at the
committee level.
She said the committee also
reviewed the checklist for recommendations from the Board. The committee determined the checklist was
adequate, but probably has not been used properly for previous recommendations. She said sections III, VII, and VIII were
particularly important and should be properly addressed before sending a
recommendation to the Board for consideration.
She
said she has worked with Spectrum, Inc. to secure a facilitator for the
standing committees. She and the committee
chairs will meet with the facilitator prior to the next
She
reported that six members of the Board are eligible for reappointment and have
been asked if they desire reappointment.
Two members thus far have indicated they will not seek
reappointment. Four more members have
gone through their second reappointment process and, under the current bylaws,
will be leaving the Board at the end of June. She said she has enough applicants to fill the
positions, but the problem is how soon DOE Headquarters will move to get the
appointments in place. Mr. McCracken
noted that new appointments for Federal Advisory Committee Act groups go to the
White House for approval. He said one application for the Board has been in the
works for over a year. But he said he
talked to DOE Headquarters and was assured that with the new Secretary of
Energy in place things will start moving again. He urged that applications for
new appointments be sent to DOE Headquarters as soon as possible.
Ms.
Halsey said within the next week DOE will submit to EPA and TDEC its proposed
Appendix J, which are non-enforceable milestones. Appendix J looks at the fiscal year plus
three and beyond for the conclusion of work by
Additions to the Agenda
None
The
meeting adjourned at
Motions
Ms. DeMint was absent for the votes on all motions.
M3/09/05.1
Mr. Dixon moved to approve the February 9 minutes
with two corrections. Ms. Hill seconded
and the motion was approved by a
vote of 12 in favor and 2 opposed (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Kennerly).
Respectfully
submitted,
RB/rsg
Attachments (1) to these minutes are available on request from the
ORSSAB support office.