Many Voices Working for the Community

Oak Ridge
Site Specific Advisory Board

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

Approved September 12, 2001, Meeting Minutes

The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 12, 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
Jeanne Bonner
Ryan Burton1
Donna Campbell
Heather Cothron
Mary Lynn Fletcher
Luther Gibson, Jr., Chair
Pat Hill
John Kennerly
Alix King1
Steve Kopp
Steve Lewis
Bob McLeod
John Million
David Mosby, Vice Chair
E.W. Seals
Peery Shaffer
Coralie Staley, Secretary
Kerry Trammell
Scott Vowell
Charles Washington

1Student representative

Members Absent

Luis Revilla

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officios Present

Pat Halsey, DOE-Oak Ridge Offices (DOE-ORO)
John Owsley, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
Bill Seay, DOE-ORO (acting for Rod Nelson)

Ex-Officios Absent

Connie Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Others Present

Bill Biloski, Reindustrialization Program, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC
Susan Cange, DOE-ORO
Todd Martin, Hanford Advisory Board
Pete Osborne, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

Nine members of the public attended the meeting.


Ms. Cange opened her discussion of DOE’s Reindustrialization Program by asking the Board to take away two messages from her presentation: (1) that reindustrialization is a viable program in Oak Ridge and (2) that tenants are protected through program initiatives. A copy of Ms. Cange’s overheads is included as Attachment 1.

Reindustrialization is defined as an innovative method to accomplish cleanup of underutilized facilities and equipment and make them available for productive use by the commercial sector. Reindustrialization is achieved through contracting, bartering, and leasing.

An example of contracting would be BNFL’s fixed-price contract to decontaminate and decommission (D&D) three large buildings at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). In total, contracting saves more than $477M over traditional approaches and creates more than 900 new jobs.

Bartering involves the use of equipment and/or facilities at reduced rates in exchange for cleanup services. Current savings to DOE through bartering arrangements total over $4.64M in current year dollars.

Leasing of existing facilities to private interests reduces building surveillance and maintenance (S&M) and utility expenses. A total of 72 leases have been signed with 36 companies to occupy space on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The combined savings for these leases over a 30-year period is estimated at $165M.

To assure worker and tenant safety, DOE provides controls in the areas of site access and emergency preparedness, health and safety programs, radiological protection, and facility modifications. All lessees are required to complete ETTP Park Worker Training prior to site access and are required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Lessees must prepare and comply with a health and safety plan and follow a facility modification procedure that requires DOE approval prior to modification of leased spaces.

After the presentation, the following paraphrased questions were asked by members of the Board and the public, and the following responses were given by Ms. Cange.


Response (abridged)

Mr. Vowell: Who has jurisdiction over lessees? DOE has jurisdiction over the terms and conditions in the leases between DOE and the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET). However, if the tenant performs an activity regulated by the state of Tennessee, for example, then the state is the regulator for that activity.
Mr. Vowell: Does OSHA have any authority? Yes and no. There is a memorandum of understanding between DOE and OSHA that OSHA will regulate health and safety activities for tenants on clean parcels of land. At the Heritage Center (ETTP) DOE is performing that oversight.
Mr. Gibson: Please describe the sublease process. There is a clause in the CROET sublease that allows companies to further sublease their space or a portion of their space. This situation has happened. The original sublessee is still responsible for everything, though; they are not allow to pass down any requirements to their sublessee.
Mr. Vowell: Communication between lessees and the fire department has been poor in the past. Has communication with them improved? Yes, that communication is an integral part of our plan. The fire department walks the space with every lessee.
Mr. Washington: What is the cost of each job created? We recently calculated that we’ve saved approximately $11 or $12 for every dollar spent.
Mr. Washington: Would you say the overall operation of the facilities is less restrictive for lessees than for DOE operations? I don’t think it’s less restrictive—it’s a different set of requirements that are sometimes less restrictive and sometime not.
Mr. Washington: What is the percentage of the companies that have stayed versus those that have left? We don’t normally track that percentage. Some of the companies are startups, and for this reason it is not unusual for a percentage of businesses leasing space to not renew their leases. If I had to make a guess, I’d say the percentage is over 50%.
Mr. McLeod: Are the leasing savings of $165M in 2001- or 2030-year dollars? The savings of $165M is what has been estimated as a result of leasing activities. Specifically, the savings are realized because DOE does not have to pay for utilities and S&M activities once a facility has been leased. These savings are in current-year dollars. Also, all savings are submitted to the University of Tennessee for independent validation.
Ms. Hill: When the lessee performs D&D, is the waste disposed of in the same way as if DOE did the work? If the tenant performs D&D of a DOE facility then the work is performed in accordance with DOE requirements. This is because it’s legacy waste. In these cases, the lessee typically packages the waste, but DOE handles the management and disposition.
Ms. Hill: How extensive is contamination in these sites? That’s really a question for someone in the Environmental Management Program. However, we do risk assessments to make sure that it is safe to occupy leased space.
Mr. Shaffer: Did you say that the lessees are responsible for their own maintenance and inspection? CROET is responsible if the entire building has been leased. In other situations where there is shared leased space, the responsibility is shared by DOE and CROET.
Mr. Shaffer: Is there a requirement for collocated lessees that they have some sort of partitions or fire protection between them? I’m not familiar with local codes, but we have a process we go through to assure that one tenant’s activities will not affect another’s. In addition, the fire department performs a walk-through to assure fire safety.
Mr. Shaffer: Has OMI, Inc., reduced utility costs by the 15% to 25% promised over 3 years? Yes.
Mr. Shaffer: Are hazard assessments in place before the lessees take occupancy? Yes.
Mr. Shaffer: Who are tenants required to inform about change control? They notify CROET, and CROET notifies DOE.
Mr. Shaffer: What enforcement oversight do you have for change control? DOE/CROET provides oversight to ensure that modifications are performed in accordance with the approved plans.
Mr. Shaffer: Who provides emergency response for lessees? On-site sources respond, but tenants can call the city of Oak Ridge if they desire.
Mr. Shaffer: Do the on-site emergency response forces have the same authority as the city of Oak Ridge fire martial? Yes.
Mr. Kopp: Is the $477M in savings for BNFL before or after the metal recycling moratorium? These saving were calculated following the moratorium.
Ms. Fletcher: What are the criteria to determine if a start-up company will be supported? CROET performs due diligence and verifies a company’s financial situation, their business plan, and past operations (if they have any).
Ms. Fletcher: What happens when a company goes "belly up?" In that case the space is made available to another tenant.
Ms. Fletcher: Who is responsible for cleanup of those companies’ spaces? The lessees are responsible for returning the space to "as good or better condition" from when they first leased it.
Ms. Fletcher: Is it part of the business plan who will respond to emergencies? The business plans focuses on the companies planned operations. Normally, the site responds to emergencies. They are well trained and highly qualified.
Ms. Fletcher: What security checks are done on lessees? CROET does security checks as a part of the due diligence, and site security requirements must be met—for example, the requirements for admitting foreign nationals to ETTP.
Mr. Trammel: Can you give us some examples of companies on site? Examples include a die manufacturer that supports the automotive industry, a plastic mold injection manufacturer, a shelving unit manufacturer, a metals recycling firm, a waste treatment firm.
Ms. Hill: Are buildings not decontaminated before lessees move in? It depends somewhat on what the tenant proposes to do in the leased space. As an example, buildings may not be contaminant free if the lessee has a permit from the state to perform radiological activities. For the most part, all currently leased space is free from contamination.
Pat Rush: Published information says that CROET has received $30M. How much of that have they received? I’ll have to get an answer for you from CROET.
Pat Rush: How much has DOE spent per new employee at ETTP? Our annual budget for leasing activities has ranged from $6M to $8M per year for the past four years. But that’s not just for job creation; it’s also for accelerating cleanup. I can supply you a more complete answer later.
Pat Rush: When were the CROET materials in Board notebooks prepared? I did not supply the materials, so I’m not familiar with them.

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio Comments

Mr. Seay reported on Rod Nelson’s trip to DOE-Headquarters last Wednesday to meet with Jessie Roberson. The trip was to "get acquainted" and was not necessarily related to the "top-to-bottom" review. Woody Cunningham, who will head the review, was present, however. The review should take place in a couple of months. The Oak Ridge presentations to Ms. Roberson were reportedly well received.

Ms. Susan Gawarecki, Local Oversight Committee Executive Director, asked Mr. Seay to report on the status of the 2003 budget and whether DOE-ORO or DOE-Headquarters is in control of the process. Mr. Seay replied that Headquarters is in charge. He also said that the House and Senate conference committees were slated to meet on the FY 2002 budget next week but that DOE is anticipating that the budget will be in a state of continuing resolution for 6 weeks or so. DOE-ORO will likely receive a portion of proposed funding during that time.

Ms. Fletcher asked if the portion of the proposed funding would be figured with or without the projected $91M shortfall. Mr. Seay replied that the portion would be based on the President’s budget, which shows the $91M reduction. Ms. Fletcher asked if any attempts had been made by Congress to restore funding. Mr. Seay replied that two funding proposals had been added: $20M for BNFL and $13M for ETTP soil cleanup.

Mr. Seay announced that DOE and regulatory parties concerned with K-25 historic preservation issues will meet in October, and he invited the SSAB to view the proceedings. Ms. Halsey offered to distribute a fact sheet on the historic preservation process to Board members and inform them when the historic preservation meeting is scheduled.

Ms. Halsey made three announcements:

• The spring 2002 SSAB Chairs’ Meeting will be hosted by the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board in March or April. The fall 2002 meeting will be hosted by ORSSAB, probably in October. Funding to sponsor the meetings is provided by DOE-Headquarters.

• DOE’s 5-year grants to the state for oversight and monitoring, Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) compliance, and emergency response will be awarded Friday. No layoffs at TDEC are anticipated.

• The FFA project managers had made a commitment to the Board at its May 2001 meeting to report to the Board on a quarterly basis on FFA activities. DOE and EPA managers were not available to report at this meeting but have agreed to do so in October. The FFA Mid-Managers Meeting Notes are being provided in the correspondence section of the monthly Board notebooks. The FFA managers will not meet in August or September.

In response to an action item from the August 23 Executive Committee meeting, Ms. Halsey explained protocols for the use of funds from DOE-Headquarters for intersite travel. According to regulations, travel to another site’s SSAB meeting, to the semiannual SSAB chairs’ meetings, or to a joint SSAB-sponsored workshop would be covered under EM-11 funds. Travel to a meeting not sponsored by EM-11 or an SSAB (e.g., the Grand Junction stewardship workshop) would not be paid for by EM-11 but rather by limited local discretionary funds.

Mr. Owsley echoed Ms. Halsey’s statement that DOE and the state had successfully negotiated the three state grants and that funding levels had been mutually agreed upon.

Mr. Washington asked Mr. Owsley if TDEC staff would remain the same. Mr. Owsley reported that significant cuts would be made in equipment and travel, and no new personnel would be added. However, because less cleanup work will likely be done in FY 2002, the resources the state needs to monitor DOE activities can be less as well; cuts in the state’s monitoring budget should still allow them to maintain responsibilities. It should be noted, though, that no negotiations on FFA milestones have taken place yet, and the state remains committed to cleanup of the reservation.

Public Comment


Announcements and Other Board Business

Mr. Gibson welcomed Todd Martin, Chair of the Hanford Advisory Board, who attended this evening’s meeting.

The next Board meeting will be Wednesday, October 10, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Oak Ridge. The tentative presentation is an overview of groundwater on the Oak Ridge Reservation.

Minutes of the August 3–4, 2001, annual planning retreat and annual Board meeting were approved without change.

The Board approved amended recommendations and comments on the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the K-25 and K-27 Buildings at ETTP, DOE/OR/01-1917&D3 (Attachment 2).

The Board approved the first reading of a proposed amendment to the ORSSAB mission statement. The proposed amendment is to add the word "independent" to the first sentence so that it reads "The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board is an independent, nonpartisan, broadly representative group of citizens with interests and concerns related to the environment at the Oak Ridge Reservation and surrounding areas." Because all amendments to the Board Bylaws require two readings, and a second reading will be made at the October Board meeting.

Mr. Alexander, Mr. Peery, and Mr. Washington gave reports on recent meetings of the Environmental Restoration, Stewardship, and Waste Management committees, respectively. Ms. Staley discussed Stewardship Education Subcommittee activities. Mr. Gibson reported on the Executive Committee and the recent SSAB Chairs’ Meeting in Santa Fe. Mr. Osborne gave a report on public outreach.

The Board discussed the land-use focus group recently formed by DOE to draft a roadmap for development on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The group will include representatives from the city of Oak Ridge, the Advocates for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Nature Conservancy, the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, among others. The Board voted to send a letter to Leah Dever asking that the SSAB be granted a seat on the group. Staff and the Chair are to draft the letter for distribution without further approval by the Board.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

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


Ms. Staley moved to approve the minutes of the August 3–4, 2001, annual planning retreat and annual Board meeting. Mr. Shaffer seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Kennerly and Mr. Vowell were absent for the vote.

Mr. Kopp moved to approve recommendations and comments on the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the K-25 and K-27 Buildings at ETTP, DOE/OR/01-1917&D3.

Mr. Alexander moved that the wording of the recommendations and comments be altered to state that DOE should respond to them in the Action Memorandum rather than the EE/CA since no further revisions to the EE/CA are anticipated. Mr. Kopp seconded the motion to amend, and the amendment was unanimously approved.

Mr. Alexander moved that the paragraph on cultural and historical issues be deleted from the comments. Mr. Million seconded the motion to amend, and the amendment was approved by a vote of nine in favor, five opposed, two abstentions. (A simple majority was needed for approval.)

No second was required for passage of the amended motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of 14 in favor, 2 opposed (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Washington). Ms. Fletcher, Mr. Kennerly, and Mr. Vowell were absent for all votes on motion M9/12/01.2.

The Board approved the first reading of a proposed amendment to the ORSSAB mission statement. The proposed amendment is to add the word "independent" to the first sentence so that it reads "The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board is an independent nonpartisan, broadly representative group of citizens with interests and concerns related to the environment at the Oak Ridge Reservation and surrounding areas."

Mr. Mosby moved to add a comma after the word independent. Mr. Kopp seconded the motion to amend, and the amendment was unanimously approved.

The amended motion was approved by a vote of 15 in favor, 2 opposed (Ms. Bonner and Mr. Washington). The amended motion will be voted on again at the October Board meeting.

Mr. Kennerly and Mr. Vowell were absent for both votes on motion M9/12/01.3.

Mr. Alexander moved that the SSAB send a letter to Leah Dever asking that the SSAB be granted a seat on the recently established land-use focus group. Mr. Shaffer seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Coralie A. Staley, Secretary


Attachments (3)

Action Items


1. Ms. Cange will provide Ms. Rush with answers to her questions on how much funding CROET has received and how much DOE has spent to create each new job at ETTP.

2. Ms. Halsey will distribute to Board members a fact sheet on the Building K-25 historic preservation process. Completed 9/13/01

3. Ms. Halsey will inform the Board when the Building K-25 historic preservation meeting is scheduled.

4. Staff and Mr. Gibson will draft a letter to Leah Dever asking that the SSAB be granted a seat on the land-use focus group. Completed 9/17/01. Attachment 3

5. Staff will provide a poster of the ORSSAB mission statement at Board meetings. (Carryover item from 8/4/01) Will be addressed following proposed revision to mission statement

6. Staff will incorporate suggestions for improving stakeholder communication into public outreach planning. (Carryover item from 8/4/01) In progress

1 Motion

ORSSAB Home List of Meeting Minutes