Many Voices Working for the Community Oak Ridge |
|
Approved
The Oak Ridge Site Specific
Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on
Members Present
Ben Adams
Jake Alexander
Dick Berry
Rhonda Bogard
Donna Campbell
Zach Ludwig1
Katie Meersman1
David Mosby, Chair
Norman Mulvenon, Vice Chair
Linda Murawski
Christopher Smith
Kerry Trammel
Members Absent
Amy DeMint
Pat Hill
Stephanie Jernigan1
1Student representative
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officios
Present
Dave Adler, Ex Officio,
DOE-Oak Ridge Offices (DOE-ORO)
Pat Halsey, Federal
Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Steve McCracken, Deputy
Designated Federal Official
Connie Jones, Ex Officio,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Owsley, Ex
Others Present
Jeannie Brandstetter,
Spectrum
Pete Osborne, Bechtel Jacobs
Company
Three members of the public
attended the meeting.
Connor Matthews, the
facilitator for the Aug. 7 Board retreat, was introduced. He discussed the
retreat agenda, Board member survey and the purpose of the event:
·
Where is the organization?
·
How is ORSSAB doing?
·
What could you be doing better?
·
What is focus for next year?
Three outputs are expected
from the retreat:
·
FY 2005 Work Plan
·
Organizational Structure
·
Increased participation
DOE, EPA and TDEC ex
officios presented to the Board each agency’s preferences for topics to be
studied in FY 2005.
Mr. Adler noted that the
·
Integration of Historic Preservation into Closure Activities
·
Oversight of ETTP Demolition/Disposition/Transportation
·
·
Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Soils Proposed Plan
·
CERCLA 5-Year Review/Institutional Control Status
·
Low Level Waste Disposition
·
CERCLA Waste Facility Expansion
After the presentation, the
following questions were asked by members of the Board, and the following
responses were given by Mr. Adler.
Question |
Response (abridged) |
Mr.
Adams –
Transportation is a major issue. Are you planning to build new roads or
routes that will keep K-25-type material off our roads? |
We
are evaluating alternatives to
existing public roads that would make it possible to minimize our use of
existing public roads. It’s a huge volume of material that we’re talking
about transferring from the ETTP area - thousands of truckloads. We are
looking at building a new road to make that operation safer. |
Mr.
Adams - Cut
us in on that process pretty early. |
Absolutely.
|
Mr.
Mosby –
If we were to limit the scope of what we pursue, are there any of these
(topics) that rate more importance? |
Oversight
of the ETTP building demo activities including transportation of building
disposition materials would be a significant priority for us. I’m reluctant
to prioritize because I don’t think they’re major tasks and I hope we can
kind of squeeze them onto your plate. Corehole 8 shouldn’t be a very big deal
- that’s a presentation or you can comment. I’d say that the decision-making
for the Y-12 site will be a pretty high priority for us. That’s a decision
that will determine the fate of tens of millions of dollars. The activities
are a few years down the road, but the decisions are near-term. The next one
I would list is oversight activities on low-level waste disposition
activities. Everything I’ve mentioned is in Tier 1. Everything else is in
Tier 2. I realize we can’t ask for too much. |
Mr.
Trammell
– One of the things we spent a lot of time and did a lot of work on was TRU
waste issues. I don’t see anything mentioned in here. |
That’s
not out of desire to prevent you from delving into that. One issue hasn’t
changed. We need a pathway for disposition of remote-handled TRU waste and
your continued interest in that is encouraged. Mr.
McCracken
– From a status standpoint, it should be something you would want us to
update you on. It’s not going to be an easy task and it’s an important one.
To ask for regular updates is a good idea, just to keep a light on it. |
Mr.
Gibson –
Are you getting waste that’s going to the TSCA incinerator in on the schedule
that you envisioned to begin to undergo closure in 2006? Not only the waste we
have locally but there are other sites that depend on it. |
I’m
not knowledgeable on the off-site waste situation, so I won’t speak to that,
but certainly disposition of some portion of the waste stream that we’re
trying to disposition by 2005 is dependent on incinerator operations. We
would want, as part of the 2005 disposition project oversight, involvement to
the oversight on the incinerator itself as one of the key disposition
pathways for some of the waste. |
Mr.
Gibson - Is
the schedule in place such that you can close the incinerator on schedule? |
Mr.
McCracken
- For the purposes of our uses, yes. My direction is to close that facility
in ’06 and tear it down in ’08. That’s my baseline. That doesn’t mean other
people aren’t thinking about what future uses of the TSCA Incinerator might
be. If something changes, I’ll let you know. |
In her opening remarks, Connie
Jones, EPA Region 4, noted that although DOE requests appropriate levels of
funding, the budget does not fully fund ongoing projects. She encouraged the
Board assist DOE in attaining adequate funding for Oak Ridge Offices,
pointing out that any reduction in funding will slow cleanup progress.
Ms. Jones went on to cite four
other areas EPA would like the Board to study:
·
·
CERCLA Waste Facility Expansion
·
Land Use Control Implementation Plans/
·
Use of Innovative Information Technologies (in support of stakeholder
outreach, project planning/execution and land use controls
After the presentation, the
following response was given by Ms. Jones to a question from Mr. Adams.
Question |
Response (abridged) |
Mr.
Adams –
We’re not getting a lot out of headquarters on Long Term
|
We’ve
not been specifically asked. I can go back and see what assistance and
resources we have to help you in that endeavor. |
John Owsley, TDEC,
reiterated the point made by DOE and EPA that topics offered for addition to
the Work Plan are not intended to limit the Board’s efforts.
Topics suggested by the
state:
·
Long-Term
·
DOE’s Comprehensive Waste Disposition Plan for the ORR
·
Emergency Management Responsibilities
·
Spallation Neutron Source Waste Management/Environmental Monitoring
Plans
·
Environmental Monitoring of the ORR and environs
After the presentation, the
following questions were asked by members of the Board, and the following
responses were given by Mr. Owsley.
Question |
Response (abridged) |
Mr.
Gibson –
Some of the topics here, although they are covered in the Tennessee Oversight
Agreement, are probably not within the scope of this board. |
I
was warned of that exact issue and for the record, the Spallation Neutron
Source is not a DOE Environmental Management Program issue. Our Oversight
Agreement is with the Department of Energy so we have a mandate to look at
all impacts to public health and the environment. I didn’t ask permission to
put that up there. |
Mr.
Gibson – With
Emergency Management, the way you explained it, there may be something there,
but that’s one of the ones that’s been looked at and viewed as questionable |
Correct.
Of the two incidents most recently, one was directly from an Environmental
Management project; the other was not. It did occur at the Mr.
McCracken
– If there’s time on the agenda sometime next year it may be of interest to
this group to understand how we are set up to manage emergencies. It’s not an
insignificant thing we do and I don’t know if anyone’s ever talked about how
we stand up when an emergency occurs. You can think about it. |
Mr.
Mulvenon
– This question actually crosses over all agencies. I’ve been thinking about
core teams. A lot of the items that were listed depend on the cooperation
between all the agencies. I continue not to get the flavor that the core team
approach is working exactly like it should be. I’m asking all three agencies
to comment on that. |
From
my perspective the core teams are working very well. We have always worked
together. We have not always agreed. It is, in fact, cleanup by committee, so
there are some protracted negotiations during some of the more contested
decisions, but those negotiations have always conducted in professional and
courteous manner. To our own credit, we’ve gotten a great deal of work done
in the years we’ve been at it. We’ve turned the corner from studying to
actually getting in the field and doing some work. From the state of
|
Mr.
Mulvenon
- The Zone 2 Proposed Plan for ETTP was supposed to be released today and I
understand it’s been delayed. I’m confused about why delays of that type
occur with documents that have been “massaged” by the core teams. |
To
be perfectly honest, I wasn’t aware the document hadn’t been released, but
that’s not unusual. I’m confident that work is getting done. Ms.
Jones –
You’re right. I echo everything that John Owsley just said. All three parties
and those representatives to the core teams work very, very hard. Some
projects lend themselves to being a little more challenging. One of the big
issues is the lack of time we have, specifically at ETTP, to try to do things
in a very organized way based on the core team principles. It may appear that
we don’t fully address issues, but in any project whether it’s remediation or
a construction project there will be some things that inevitably come up at
the last minute. It doesn’t stop the progress. It may slow it a little bit, but
we work through those issues and that’s what we’re doing with the Zone 2
Proposed Plan. Specifically, these were not new issues. We thought we would
be able to work through them – we were trying to get the documents in and out
the door and one issue just didn’t quite cut it. It’s not a show-stopper;
we’ll offer options and try to get that document through. In terms of the
core teams, work is getting done. We may not have the luxury of time to tie
all the ribbons around as neatly but we are addressing issues as they come as
fast as we can to keep the projects moving Mr.
McCracken
– There is no conceivable way I can think of we would be where we are now
without the core team approach. It is so complicated when you’re dealing with
|
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio
Comments
Mr. McCracken made three
announcements:
·
With Jessie Roberson’s last day July 15, he expects Acting Assistant
Secretary for
·
The tentative date of July 15 for the public meeting on the two Type B
investigations has been shifted, since Gerald Boyd has not yet received the
reports. Mr. Boyd asked that the Board be assured that when received, the
reports will be issued to the public through a meeting facilitated by the
ORSSAB, and not before then.
·
Since the incident on Hwy. 95 there is increased interest in devising
methods for transporting waste from
Mr. McCracken said the leak
on Hwy. 95 had a huge impact on the community, yet from a health standpoint,
actual impact was negligible. The site shouldn’t allow such incidents to become
the concern of the community. The public needs to be able to focus on issues
that are genuine health concerns, and “that wasn’t it.” He said DOE intends to
involve the state and public in the process.
Ms. Bogard asked why waste
was being moved from ETTP to Y-12. Mr. McCracken said one component of cleanup
for every major cleanup site in the DOE system, with the exception of Rocky
Flats, is on-site disposal. The choice is whether you have an on-site
capability for the whole reservation or an on-site capability for each of those
valleys. The decision was made to have one on-site disposal facility for the
entire reservation because that’s an easier thing to manage - one spot instead
of three spots. He noted that it’s been common practice on the ORR to move
things “in commerce” when necessary and to experience no problems. Taking into
account the effects of the recent Hwy. 95 incident, Mr. McCracken said if
problems do occur, he’d prefer they happen on a DOE-owned, non-public road. Now
that DOE has to carry shipments “70,000 more times, what do you think the
chances are that we might slip again?”
Mr. Mulvenon said past
efforts by members of the public to prove that Oak Ridgers “don’t glow in the
dark” were harmed by the incident. He said Board members stand behind DOE in
its efforts to ensure no similar incidents ever occur. The Board’s offer to
assist and advise is open at all times.
Mr. Kennerly mentioned his
concern that intersections of a haul road be bridged with existing public roads
to minimize the potential for an accident. Mr. McCracken said DOE would likely
opt to go over or under existing roadways.
Mr. Adams asked that if a
funding shortfall occurs and a road construction diverts money from other
projects in the program, the Board be informed as soon as possible.
Mr. Adler made one
announcement. The aforementioned delay in the release of the Proposed Plan for
Zone 2 Soils at ETTP should be brief, and DOE expects the document to be ready
soon. He predicts a public meeting will be held early in August. He noted that
changes to the Proposed Plan don’t relate to a change in cleanup alternatives.
Ms. Jones made one
announcement. The ETTP core team had finished dynamic verification strategy. The
document is not finalized, but the team can provide information on that
approach if and when it is desired by the Board or one of its committees.
Mr. Owsley made one
announcement. A public hearing on the proposed Title V draft permits for DOE
Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
will be held at
Public Comment
Mr.
·
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Web site puts out a weekly
newsletter where plans for continued expansion are outlined. He suggested
members visit the site. (Two available sites are
www.wipp.ws/ and
www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/)
·
Procurement for
grouting of Trenches 5 and 7 in
·
The Civil
Engineers Association recently produced a book titled “Management of the
Hanford Engineering Works in World War II.” In terms of historic preservation,
he said it contains all the elements of a product the
·
He also offered
to loan out his official program of the 1975-76 Freedom Train.
·
TVA’s Annual
Environmental Report is available, and worth reading for its relation to air quality.
Announcements and Other Board Business
Mr. Mosby introduced Zach
Ludwig, a junior at
He omitted Item VII.D. from
the agenda.
Mr. Revilla presented the minutes
of the
After a presentation by Mr.
Mulvenon on behalf of the
Mr. Gibson put forth a draft
recommendation (Attachment 7) with editorial changes (Attachment 8) from the
Mr.
Mr. Adams asked if the Board
ought to pass on commenting, since DOE can not compel it to act. Mr. Mosby said
the decision is the Board’s to make. Mr. McCracken noted that he agreed with
Mr. Gibson’s concerns about the execution of the work and Mr.
Mr. Gibson said he intended
that DOE pay special attention to design and implementation of the remedy, and
agreed to reword the recommendation to remove references to “conditional”
approval and clarify the Board’s comments.
Mr. Gibson noted that the
recommendation will be copied to EPA and the state, and he hopes that if either
of those agencies has reservations about the method, ORSSAB will receive a
response to this recommendation.
The recommendation was passed
with planned changes to omit references to “conditionally” approve the remedy
option of grouting (Attachment 9).
Board Finance - Mr. Trammell said
discussion at the June 24 meeting focused on the 2005 budget. Staff support and
requests for technical advisors has increased the budget, but the Board is in
line with budget for this year and has no costs that are out of line. Mr.
Kennerly asked if having a $35,000 rollover might hurt the FY 2005 budget
request. Ms. Halsey said in 2005, the Board will spend its entire budget.
Environmental Management – Mr. Gibson reported that
the
The abbreviated committee
meeting was followed by a public meeting on the Proposed Plan for Amendment of the Record of Decision for Melton Valley
Interim Actions: Seepage Trenches 5 and 7.
Public Outreach – Mr. Mulvenon reported
that work continues on an exhibit for the
The committee has changed
standard meeting day from the first Tuesday of the month to the last Tuesday of
the month, and has begun crafting a work plan for the next fiscal year. The
committee’s next meeting is July 27.
Executive Committee - Mr. Mosby said the
Executive Committee has been discussing how the Board will handle committee
facilitation for the coming year. The contract with The Perspectives Group
expires in September. In addition, the current facilitator is several hundred
miles away and is “inflexible about meeting with committee chairs to help them
and expedite their agendas and their work plans,” and the committees might be
better served by having a facilitator who is closer. At a special meeting on
June 17, members established expectations and defined needs for a committee
facilitator for FY 2005. A follow-up meeting on July 12 set action items of
discussing with The Perspectives Group their ability/requirements for continued
work with the Board, and to investigate more accessible facilitator options. He
further noted that any new facilitator would be at a disadvantage for having
not attended the retreat and witnessed the structure of the work plan. Mr.
Nominating Committee – Mr. Adams, Mr. McLeod,
Mr.
Ms. Halsey made several
announcements:
·
The Public Involvement Plan, due on July 15, went to the regulators on
Monday, July 12. There is a copy of the D1 at the
·
There was a review of the ESD fact sheet for addition of facilities in
·
Mr. Osborne will be joining the Spectrum staff in late July. She had
asked him to stay with BJC to use funding still held by that company. Some
items to be funded by BJC include food for the retreat, technical advisor
support for the Zone 2 Proposed Plan and
·
On July 15, the information center offices and meeting space will be
utilized by a closed session for the first half of the day, closing access to
the ORSSAB.
The meeting adjourned at
Motions
Mr. Alexander was absent for votes on all motions.
M7/14/04.1
Mr. Revilla moved to approve
the minutes of the
M7/14/04.2
Mr. Mulvenon moved to approve the Annotated Outline for a Long-Term
M7/14/04.3
Mr. Gibson moved to approve
the revised “Recommendation on the Proposed
Plan for the Amendment of the ROD for Interim Action in Melton Valley: Revised
Remedial Action for Seepage Trenches 5 & 7”. Mr. Mulvenon moved to
strike the word “conditionally” from the recommendation and all related
references in the first paragraph of the “Recommendation” portion. Mr. McLeod seconded
the motion to amend, and the motion was approved by a vote of 14 in favor, 1
against (Mr. Adams) Mr. Trammell seconded the main motion, and it was approved by a vote of 14 in favor, 1
abstention (Mr. Adams).
M7/14/04.4
Mr. Revilla moved to close nominations for Board
officers. Ms. Murawski seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of 14 to 1 with Mr.
Gibson voting against.
Respectfully submitted,
LR/kjb
Attachments
(9) to these minutes are available on request from the ORSSAB support office.