Many Voices Working for the Community

Oak Ridge
Site Specific Advisory Board

4-c logo 100 pixels.JPG (11680 bytes)


Approved April 11, 2001, Meeting Minutes

The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Oak Ridge, beginning at 6:00 p.m. A video tape recording of the meeting was made and may be viewed by calling the SSAB support office at 865-241-3665.

Members Present

Jake Alexander
Shane Bellis1
Mary Lynn Fletcher
Luther Gibson, Jr., Chair
John Kennerly
Steve Kopp
Steve Lewis
John Million
David Mosby, Vice Chair
Bill Pardue
Pat Rush
Lorene Sigal
Kerry Trammell
Scott Vowell Charles Washington

1Student representative

Members Absent

Avalon Mansfield1
Peery Shaffer
Coralie Staley, Secretary

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officios Present

Rod Nelson, DOE-Oak Ridge Offices (DOE-ORO)
Pat Halsey, DOE-ORO
Connie Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Robert Jolley, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)

Others Present

Sheree Black, SSAB support office
Jason Darby, DOE-ORO
Chuck Jenkins, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC
Pete Osborne, SSAB support office

Five members of the public attended the meeting.

Presentation

Mr. Jason Darby of DOE-ORO delivered an overview of the 2001 Remediation Effectiveness Report/CERCLA Five-Year Review for the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE/OR/01-1941&D1). Mr. Darby opened his presentation with a description of the purposes of the Remediation Effectiveness Report (RER) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 5-Year Review process. The purposes are to (1) determine whether a remedy is protective of human health and the environment and (2) evaluate implementation and performance of remedies. A copy of Mr. Darby’s overheads is included as Attachment 1. The triggering event for the 5-year review was the anniversary of the first remediation action at the United Nuclear Corporation site in 1991. The report covers 52 actions, 35 of which are complete. A final report is expected by the end of October 2001. An open house to present the report to the public will be scheduled, probably in September.

Following the presentation, the following questions were asked by members of the Board and the public.

Questioner

Question

Response (abridged)*

Lorene Sigal In the executive summary, Table ES.1 says that some sites will be eliminated from the RER but will remain in the 5-year review. What do you mean by elimination? Where will future generations find information on these actions? We’ve found that the RER is growing year by year, so some actions, like removing a pipeline that doesn’t have stewardship requirements, have been excluded from the body of the document and will be listed in an appendix that will point folks to the appropriate decision document or last 5-year review in which they were mentioned.
In table 1.1, monitoring and stewardship requirements say "to be established in remedial design or remedial action, etc." as opposed to the Records of Decision (RODs) or other decision documents. We’ve recommended these requirements be discussed in the action memoranda or RODs rather than in the post-decision documents. The reason we have to date established stewardship requirements in post-decision documents is that we don’t fully understand those requirements until that point in the remediation.
In your on-site review sheets you ask "are stewardship requirements being met?" How will you review this if they’re not in the decision documents? In practice, we’re judging against decision documents where applicable. Stewardship actions are being performed right now, but they’re just not in the decision documents.
Is there a time limit on comments on the document? We’re responding to 2000 RER comments from the board now. When the 2001 document is final, public comments will be taken.
Steve Lewis Who’s doing the sampling? Watershed teams; primarily MDM, which is a subcontractor to BJC. Some maintenance is done by other organizations.
Are samples analyzed on site? We use the Sample Management Office, which employs a variety of resources.
Are all samples grab or composite? Have you compared those with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Radiation Monitoring Plan? Some are composites. We do try to coordinate with other collection programs to minimize duplication.
Bill Pardue You’ve not really supplied any of the results from the report, and not sharing at least some early results with the Board is unusual. Are there any glaring examples of where remedies are not working? The most significant finding is the K-1070-C/D interception system. Keeping it operational has been a challenge. Performance has dropped there.
John Million On slide 10 there seems to be a considerable difference in the removal of strontium in seeps C and D. Is this because of a difference in technology? One difference is the input of strontium, but the numbers, 99.5% and 99.9%, are actually very close. Also, one seep collection is via pump, and the other is gravity fed.
Mary Lynn Fletcher Why do you use different contractors? Our current prime contracting approach is to subcontract tasks to save money.
Are standards being maintained by this subcontracting approach? Do you check the monitoring they do? Routine surveillance is overseen by BJC project managers. (Mr. Nelson added that the Sample Management Office is a DOE program, and it assures consistency in results. Mr. Lewis added that the sampling program he works with has annual audits in which TDEC and EPA auditors physically inspect the operation and examine the program books.)
What is a subbase basin? It’s a further breakdown of a basin or watershed.
What happens when DOE pulls out of these activities 20 years from now? How will the public know monitoring is being done correctly? (Mr. Nelson responded to the question:) The DOE Grand Junction Office is responsible for long-term stewardship, so they’ll be responsible for the budget for monitoring, etc. DOE-ORO is working with Grand Junction now on long-term stewardship for Weldon Spring.
Lorene Sigal Sites that have been turned over to Grand Junction, such as Weldon Spring, have typically been closed facilities; has Weldon Spring been closed? (Mr. Nelson responded to the question:) DOE-ORO is in the process of closing it now.
Has it been cleaned up to EPA free-release standards? (Mr. Nelson responded to the question:) It’s cleaned up to what DOE and EPA have agree to in the ROD.
Is Weldon Spring different from Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action sites? (Mr. Nelson responded to the question:) Weldon Spring will be the first of the DOE processing complexes cleaned up. The disposal cell there should be closed by fall.
Pat Rush Will Oak Ridge be transferred to Grand Junction in chunks? (Mr. Nelson responded to the question:) We don’t know yet. I would imagine that as long as there’s a DOE presence here, I imagine there will always be a cleanup program of some sort.
Norman Mulvenon One of the things I’ve noticed during the site visits I made with you, Jason, is that we temporarily lost some of the remediation sites. They haven’t been visited in a few years, but nonetheless its disturbing to lose a site. In one case a building was constructed on top of a tank we were looking for. Was there anything said in the RER as far as lessons learned? We have made recommendations to that effect. This was the first time we made site visits for the RER, so it was a learning experience and a lesson on doing our research beforehand.
In discussions I’ve had with project personnel, not everyone said they were sending records to the DOE Document Management Center. Can you do something to bring some consistency in who’s sending things there? We noticed that inconsistency and are working to address it.
Bob Peelle Relative to the Clinch River Poplar Creek ROD, the Federal Facility Agreement parties agreed that there wasn’t much action that could be taken there and that the main action would be for another agency to notify fishermen. Have you come to terms with whether these notices work? We did a survey for awareness. The answer is "yes;" fishermen have been notified by signs and through brochures given out with fishing regulations.

*All responses were supplied by Mr. Darby except where noted

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio Comments

Mr. Nelson made several announcements:

• The 2002 budget has been released. DOE-ORO has just started evaluating it and will update the Board on the ramifications soon.

• DOE has finished inspection of five fluorine tanks at Building K-1302—a shutdown facility where fluorine had been once been stored and which is scheduled for demolition this year. Two pinhole leaks have been patched.

• The deadline for membership applications is Friday.

• A groundbreaking ceremony for the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility will be held on April 19.

• The next Board meeting will be the last for the current student representatives. New representatives from Oak Ridge and Roane County high schools will be seated in May.

Mr. Pardue asked Mr. Nelson to respond to reports that Secretary Abraham is on record stating that the whole EM Program be reevaluated and that someone (not from within the administration) has suggested fencing off the sites and abandoning them. Mr. Nelson replied that the secretary did announce a review of the EM Program, and he understood that Carolyn Huntoon will head this up. No one at DOE-HQ has mentioned abandoning the sites to him.

Mr. Pardue asked Mr. Nelson to comment on how the new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) fits in with remediation plans at the Y-12 Plant. Mr. Nelson replied that "the interface is something we’re dealing with right now." DOE-ORO will continue to provide services to the NNSA. The EM Program will still be responsible for legacy areas at Y-12, although ongoing waste management activities may be taken over by the NNSA.

Mr. Jolley announced that Bill Rector has been appointed Assistant Director of the TDEC DOE Oversight Division.

Mr. Pardue asked Ms. Jones for an update on the planned EPA environmental sampling in the Scarboro Community. Ms. Jones responded that a meeting on the activity had been held last month, but she could give no details. She thought that EPA was hoping to "wrap Scarboro sampling into a larger activity."

Public Comment

Mr. Peelle asked Mr. Nelson to comment on DOE-ORO’s ability to dispose of newly generated wastes. Mr. Nelson was unable to supply specifics, but he offered to get an answer for Mr. Peelle.

Announcements and Other Board Business

The next Board meeting will be Wednesday, May 9, at the Garden Plaza Hotel. Dave Geiser, Acting Director of the DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship, has been invited to speak on the current status of DOE stewardship activities. (Mr. Geiser’s availability to attend is unconfirmed at this time.)

The Board formed an ad hoc committee to review how DOE responded to ORSSAB recommendations on the 2000 RER. Mr. Million will chair the committee. The date for the first meeting will be set at the April 17 Stewardship Committee meeting. Staff will inform all Board members about formation of the committee.

Minutes of the March 14, 2001, Board meeting were approved without change.

The Board approved comments on the draft Public Involvement Plan for CERCLA Activities at the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation, DOE/OR/01-1950 &D0, (Attachment 2).

The Board approved comments on the DOE-Headquarters "Revised Public Participation Guidance" (Attachment 3).

The Board approved comments on the EPA "Draft Public Involvement Policy" (Attachment 4).

The Board approved proposed changes to ORSSAB Bylaws V.B, "Annual Board Meetings" (Attachment 5).

The Board approved the first reading of proposed amendments to the following articles of Board Bylaws:

• Article III.D, "Conflict of Interest;"

• Article V.F, "Committee Meetings;"

• Article VI, "Executive Committee Composition;" and

• Article VII, "ORSSAB Committees—Definition and Duties."

The amendments will be given second reading at the May ORSSAB meeting.

The Board approved proposed amendments to Board Special Rules of Order I.B, "Process for Recommendations (Attachment 6)."

The Board approved proposed changes to the following portions of ORSSAB Standing Rules (Attachment 7):

• II, "Budget;"

• III, "Annual Work Plan;"

• V, "Technical Support;" and

• "Travel Request Form."

Proposed changes to Standing Rules IV, "Travel," were approved following amendment of item 4 to read "Traveler must submit a written trip report in order to receive outstanding travel expense reimbursement, except in extreme cases of illness or other emergency."

Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Sigal, Mr. Mosby, and Mr. Kopp gave reports on recent committee activities. Ms. Rush asked that her name be added to the attendees list of the minutes of the March 22, 2001, Environmental Restoration Committee meeting. Mr. Kopp asked that Mr. Kennerly’s name be added to the minutes of the March 21, 2001, Waste Management Committee meeting. Ms. Sigal informed the group that the 4th Annual Long-Term Stewardship Workshop would be held in Grand Junction, Colorado, on July 30 through August 2. Mr. Pardue gave a report on the Community Resource Organization of East Tennessee.

In his report on recent Board outreach activities, Mr. Osborne informed the group that Dolores Kopp had offered to meet with the Executive Committee and other interested Board members to review the Board’s public outreach presentation. The meeting will be held on April 25 from 11:30 to 12:30 at the Information Resource Center.

Mr. Pardue gave a status report on the Oak Ridge "success story" idea that he had first brought before the Board at its November 8, 2000, meeting. The scope of the project has broadened from a story about the Melton Valley Watershed ROD process into a more general explanation of the Oak Ridge environmental cleanup effort titled "Oak Ridge and the Environment." Mr. Pardue suggested that an ORSSAB member help write the piece and that ORSSAB ask DOE to pay for Doug Sarno’s contribution to the project. Mr. Gibson asked Mr. Pardue to present his suggestion as a formal recommendation at the May ORSSAB meeting. Mr. Pardue also suggested that the original concept for the Melton Valley Watershed ROD story be considered separately, and he suggested that the ORSSAB Environmental Restoration Committee overseeing completion of that project.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Attachments to these minutes are available upon request from the SSAB support office.

Motions

Ms. Fletcher, Mr. Kopp, and Mr. Vowell were absent for the vote on Motion M4/11/01.1.

Ms. Fletcher and Mr. Vowell were absent for all subsequent votes.

M4/11/01.1

Mr. Mosby moved to approve the amended minutes of the March 14, 2001, Board meeting. Ms. Rush seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M4/11/01.2

Ms. Sigal moved to approve comments on the draft Public Involvement Plan for CERCLA Activities at the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation, DOE/OR/01-1950 &D0. Ms. Rush seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M4/11/01.3

Mr. Kopp moved to approve comments on the DOE-Headquarters "Revised Public Participation Guidance." Ms. Sigal seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M4/11/01.4

Ms. Rush moved to approve comments on the comments on the EPA "Draft Public Involvement Policy." Ms. Sigal seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M4/11/01.5

Mr. Mosby moved to approve proposed changes to ORSSAB Bylaws V.B, "Annual Board Meetings."

No second was required for the motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of eleven in favor, one opposed (Mr. Washington).

M4/11/01.6

Mr. Mosby moved to approve the first reading of proposed amendments to the following articles of Board Bylaws: Article III.D, "Conflict of Interest;" Article V.F, "Committee Meetings;" Article VI, "Executive Committee Composition;" and Article VII, "ORSSAB Committees—Definition and Duties." No second was required for the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M4/11/01.7

Mr. Mosby moved to approve proposed amendments to Board Special Rules of Order I.B, "Process for Recommendations." No second was required for the motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of eleven in favor, one opposed (Mr. Washington).

M4/11/01.8

Mr. Mosby moved to approve proposed changes to ORSSAB Standing Rules II, "Budget;" III, "Annual Work Plan;" IV, "Travel;" V, "Technical Support;" and the "Travel Request Form." Mr. Kennerly moved to amend the travel section to say "outstanding" travel report. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion to amend, and the amended motion was uanimously approved.


Respectfully submitted,
Coralie A. Staley, Secretary

CAS/plo

Attachments (7)

Action Items

1. Mr. Nelson will supply Mr. Peelle with an answer to his question on waste disposition. Completed 4/11/01

2. The first meeting of the RER ad hoc committee will be set at the April 17 Stewardship Committee meeting. Completed. First meeting set for May 5, 5:00 p.m., at the IRC

3. Staff will inform all Board members about the new ad hoc committee. Completed 5/2/01

4. Staff will add Ms. Rush to the attendee list of the minutes of the March 22, 2001, Environmental Restoration Committee meeting and Mr. Kennerly to the attendee list of the minutes of the March 21, 2001, Waste Management Committee meeting. Completed 4/26/01

5. Mr. Pardue will develop a recommendation on the Oak Ridge Success Story project for Board consideration at the next meeting. Completed 4/25/01

1 Motion

ORSSAB Home List of Meeting Minutes