Many Voices Working for the Community

Oak Ridge
Site Specific Advisory Board

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





Approved September 8, 2004, Meeting Minutes


The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 8, 2004, at the DOE Information Center in Oak Ridge, beginning at 6 p.m. A video of the meeting was made and may be viewed by phoning the Information Center at 865-241-4780.


Members Present


Ben Adams

Heather Cothron

Dick Berry

Rhonda Bogard, Secretary

Donna Campbell

Amy DeMint

Luther Gibson

Pat Hill

Stephanie Jernigan1

John Kennerly

Katie Meersman1

John Million

Norman Mulvenon

Christopher Smith

Kerry Trammell, Chair


1Student representative 


Members Absent

Jake Alexander

Zach Ludwig1

Bob McLeod, Vice Chair2

David Mosby


Luis Revilla


2Second consecutive absence      


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 Officio, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)


Others Present

Jeannie Brandstetter, Spectrum

Pete Osborne, Spectrum

Steve Wyatt, DOE-ORO

DiAnn Fields, DOE-ORO

Chuck Jenkins, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC)

Paul Clay, BJC

Joe Williams, BJC


20 members of the public attended the meeting.


Dave Adler, DOE ex officio for the Board, provided a presentation (Attachment 1) on a proposed haul road to transport wastes from Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup projects to the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) in Bear Creek Valley and Chestnut Ridge. Construction of the road would mitigate the risks of transporting waste from Melton Valley and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) to the waste management facility without traveling on public roads. The process to build a road got under way in 2003 after the BJC contract was negotiated, as a way to make the work safer. Mr. Adler noted that the topic would also be discussed at the EM Committee meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 22 and again at a public hearing when the environmental documentation for the project is released to the public (likely in late October). He noted that proceeding with the project under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 would not nullify DOE’s responsibility to fulfill substantive NEPA requirements. 


After the presentation, several questions were asked by members of the Board, and the following responses were given by Mr. Adler.





Response (abridged)

Mr. Adams – Slide #7 showed three different sections of bridge. All of them are open-sided. Would the bridges have sides?

We would expect to have sided bridges.


Mr. Adams – Were any other transportation modes considered – water or rail?

We’ve looked at that but have always settled on surface transportation as being as safe and cost-effective as any other means. Now we’re refining surface transportation options.

Ms. Hill – Will you be using the same mode of transportation you’re using now until (a haul road) is open?

For the most part, yes. There is the possibility that we could get the first leg of it open earlier. We’re looking at getting the leg of the road from ETTP to Bear Creek Road open to give us some advantages right away.

Ms. Hill – Will it be monitored even though it will not be used as public access road?


I’m talking about the pavement.

Sure. Trucks will be surveyed before they ever leave the site.



There will be state-funded oversight and some monitoring done on our own. Baseline monitoring would be done before waste shipments commence, then additionally during and after shipments are complete.

Ms. Hill – There are several criteria by which whichever route will be chosen. What exactly comes into play? Will it just come right down to cost-effectiveness?

In this case, my sense is it won’t be driven by cost-effectiveness. They’re all roughly the same price and all of them are attractive financially. I really don’t think the cost spread between alternatives will be a consideration.

Ms. DeMint – You mentioned something about in-commerce shipments. What does that mean, that you don’t have to follow DOT regulations?

In-commerce means transportation across public roadways. In either case, if you’re driving on a DOE road that’s in a controlled area that’s inaccessible to the public or if you’re driving on Highway 95, either way, DOE can’t allow leakage. We have orders in the case of on-reservation activities and orders and DOT regulations in the case of in-commerce shipments. It’s a slightly different set of measures taken. Some of the requirements associated with commercial shipping would not be applied because we wouldn’t be on a public roadway.

Ms. DeMint – And this is where most of the cost savings is coming from?

I think the cost savings actually comes from the improved turnaround times. (Less waiting for other traffic, decrease in paperwork and surveying)

Ms. DeMint – What’s the cost of the two bridges?

Less than $5 million.

Ms. DeMint – Have you considered using the existing bridge where Bear Creek Road loops around underneath?

We’ve really only looked hard at options that isolate our truck traffic from public traffic.

Mr. Gibson - Do you think you’ve already done the analyses that bound the impacts of this proposed activity?

No, but we would have to complete all necessary analyses prior to filing a construction permit and operation. We still have some work to do.

Mr. Gibson – If you don’t characterize for transportation, how can we be sure you characterize for disposal?

That’s equally relevant with any activity you undertake. Either way, it needs to be properly characterized.

Mr. Gibson - Who will be using the road other than the fleet trucks hauling waste? Will other, smaller government vehicles use it?

Our hope is to use it exclusively for trucks hauling waste by trucks from Point A to Point B. Other personnel will use public roads (even in government vehicles.)

Mr. Gibson – What about getting waste from ORNL to the EMWMF? One issue might be the speed these vehicles are at.


It’s conceivable that we might want to grant controlled variances to that. If there’s a guard patrol that needs to go up and down that road, we would want to have them to be part of a trained, permitted cadre of folks allowed to use the road.

Mr. Gibson - What about route between ORNL and EMWMF? We haven’t talked much about that.

It’s there. It’s been upgraded. It involved upgrading an existing road completely – a significant upgrade. They took a fairly small road and graveled it and made it larger. It’s up and now in use.

Mr. Mulvenon – I’d like to reference this map on Page 8 of your slides. This separates the city of Oak Ridge from the reservation, the implication being that the reservation is not part of the city of Oak Ridge and we object. This is a consistent problem that keeps coming up. If the people at Bechtel Jacobs are not aware of that – I see their logo at the bottom – I suggest they study the current topographical map.

It’s a mistake. We’ll get it fixed.


Mr. Mulvenon – Luther pointed out these bounding impacts. We have the situation where the environmental impacts are so complicated that this may be a NEPA action rather than a CERCLA action. There are some serious environmental problems depending on which route is chosen and I would point out the question that was asked about the route from Bear Creek Road to ORNL. That was done as a categorical exclusion and there are members of the public who disagree with that. There are some impacts that include the whole subject of connected actions. Luther’s question about whether you’ve done the analysis and on the bounding of the analysis is correct.

We have to comply with applicable environmental laws to build this road.

Mr. Mulvenon – You mention the contractor’s landfill at Y-12. I assume we would just proceed from the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility area on Bear Creek Road to complete that transaction?

Yes. You’d have to hop onto Bear Creek Road to get up on Chestnut Ridge.

Mr. Mulvenon – You mention there’s a process for using ESDs that we follow here in Oak Ridge. The SSAB was the one who made the recommendation about doing ESDs. We’re very interested in doing this properly and legally. The object of course is to save money and be effective in our accelerated cleanup

Thank you.

Mr. Smith – I’ve made an assumption here. This will carry round-trip traffic?



Mr. Smith – You said it’s not the intention to allow other people to drive on the road. When and if that were changed, what would that do to the ROD?

It would erode the safety net associated with having separate roads to the different activities.

Mr. Smith – I didn’t phrase the question right. Two years from now when you decide you can joy ride on the haul road how do we keep track of that?

There would have to be controls on access to this road. There won’t be a lot of gravel roads leading to this road that would allow people to jump on. You’d have to pass by someone who says, ‘You’re permitted to drive on this road.’ The opportunity for trespass can be controlled just as we control access to all other roads on the reservation.

Mr. Smith – I’m not so concerned about trespass as I am a change in management philosophy that says ‘now a certain class of drivers can be on this road.’

The opening hope is to absolutely minimize that; to keep it strictly to truck traffic. If there were good reasons to vary from that, we would have to be quite vigilant that people who were on the road were properly trained to merge with the trucks.

Mr. Smith – The last thing is wetlands. You called them wetlands, you didn’t say swamp. I don’t know what they are by EPA definition, but are there not cost concerns? Replacing asphalt is one thing but getting into the water table and dispersing leaching is quite another.

The engineering challenges posed by building through that type of area. I think you’re talking about environmental impacts and we would have to work with appropriate elements – in this case, state government – to ensure that requirements for protection or mitigation of impact to wetlands are adhered to. In cases where you are actually destroying some significant area of wetlands because the road is there and the wetland isn’t, there are provisions that can require we actually build offsetting wetlands. The landfill itself was built over a wetland and we had to go somewhere else and build a wetland to offset that. All those requirements would have to be complied with.

Mr. Kennerly – Are you planning on using this road 24-7?

I don’t think we’ve talked about nighttime use of the haul road. Correct, Paul?


Paul Clay – We’ve looked at two shifts but not necessarily working around the clock.

Mr. Kennerly – If you do use two shifts you’d need lighting. Would you have street lights?

No. We’d just have to have proper lighting on the trucks and they’d have to travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions, but it would create a pretty significant environmental impact to put in lamp posts.

Mr. Kennerly – If you translate the 100,000 trucks in three years, that’s a truck every 15 minutes on a 24-7 basis, and more than that if you aren’t working 24 hours a day. That’s not very much traffic a day. What are plans for closure when this project is closed out?

That has not been established – it will have to be worked out as part of remedial design for the road and its closure. Options range from leaving it as is and having a new road in place, to not doing that.

Mr. Kennerly – There was a study in late ’70s to build a coal conversion facility at K-25 to make gasoline. At that time the road would connect with Highway 58, and the study indicated there would be several deaths associated with having trucks collide with cars. I don’t remember how many, but it was significant, so I think there’s a great justification for having a haul road with bridges over both highways.

You’re correct. If there’s only one every 15 minutes… but there’s a lot of 15 minutes in a three-year time frame. If one of those involved one accident that’s way too much.

Ms. Cothron – Which plan do you prefer?


If you’re asking Dave’s thoughts, I think that we’re likely to pick the route that inconveniences workers the least, and impacts the environment the least with the exception of a Bear Creek Road closure. It will probably be construction of a gravel road on the north side of Bear Creek Road. I wouldn’t declare that as a decision made yet, but that seems to be the one that’s least offensive to the largest group of people.

Ms. Cothron – When will a decision be made?

In the Explanation of Significant Difference, in the October timeframe, we’ll be explaining what the general preferred alternative is.

Ms. Cothron – What precautions are you going to take between now and when road is open to make sure we don’t have any more spills? Above and beyond the precautions that were already taken?

Every precaution we can find to avoid a repeat of any spillage activity. We’ll comply with all DOE orders and with DOT requirements. There’s been a new transportation group established by Gerald Boyd to look at transportation issues and really try to maximize safety for those programs.

Mr. Trammell – How wide will the road be?

Thirty feet.

Mr. Trammell – Will any sections of it be paved?

No. If we went with the northern haul route, it would all be gravel.

Mr. Trammell – Will there be dust control?

There would have to be dust control measures on dusty days, just as there are on existing haul routes.

Mr. Trammell – Will any of it be fenced?

It’s all going to be on the reservation, so to that extent that the reservation is fenced, yes. I’m unaware of plans to build a fence up and down the sides of the road, so that’s a design issue.

Mr. Trammell – The section that would run along Bear Creek is not fenced. I can see weekend mountain bikers wanting to check the road out.

That’s true. That’s something to think about

Mr. Trammell – What would the speed limit be?

Thirty-five is what existing haul routes use.


Mr. Clay – There would be individual posted sections of the road.

Mr. Trammell – Will there be any turn-offs on the road?

Just where the truck fleet gets parked.

Mr. Trammell – The bridges – are they meant to be permanent? Once the project is over, we’ve got these two very unsightly bridges built very quickly for the rest of our lives with no purpose or use. I’d like to see that part of the plan to remove those. I think it would really take away from the looks of the area.

We’ll have to look at that.

Ms. Hill – Given the fact that this will be made of gravel and the possibility and probability of something falling off these trucks and onto this gravel, and given the high amount of rainfall in Oak Ridge, is there not going to be a problem with leaching?

Whenever we transport waste, we have contamination control challenges. The first challenge to make sure it stays in the truck. If something were to somehow get outside of our containment system, and rained vigorously, then yes, it could be spread into the road. For perspective, though, recall we’re taking this from an area open to the sky at present, digging up tens of thousands of cubic yards that are out there in open fields now.

Ms. Hill – So given the fact this will be monitored it probably won’t be a big factor?

It shouldn’t be. It wouldn’t be as big a deal as if it’s a public road.

Ms. Hill – Given the fact of the atmosphere in which we’re living, with terrorists, has security been updated or will it be updated?

This entire activity will have to be coordinated with security people. It probably offers security benefits with the basic shift from public roads to a private road.

Mr. Mulvenon – One last point is the cost. I am appalled at the cost and I am also thinking to myself that this money could be spent for remediation rather than building roads in sensitive areas of the reservation. I’m really concerned that this is a wise decision. As Amy pointed out, there are other ways of getting there that are more agreeable and less costly in the long run. We will watch that very carefully and we want to make sure that all avenues have been explored.


Mr. Adams – Are you going to control traffic across the bridges so you’ve got one truck at a time going across? Is it a one-lane bridge?

It’s a two-way bridge with load limits we would have to adhere to. I’m not sure how many trucks that amounts to. You wouldn’t be bottlenecking with respect to someone having to wait while someone else went across. The trucks would be spaced to avoid multiples on the bridge at the same time.

Ellen Smith, Environmental Quality Advisory Board – Is Flanagan Loop Road the road that a lot of us think of as the southern extension of Blair Road? There’s a part of the road over the ridge there that used to be publicly accessible – is that the road?

It’s the road that runs up into that transportation complex. Yes, that is it.

Ms. Smith – So if this were closed to public traffic, how would this affect the existing uses of that road?

We would be building a road that’s parallel to Blair Road but west of it so that it never actually comes in contact with that road.

Ms. Smith – I drive 95 regularly and I’ve been on Flanagan Loop Road and it impresses me that Flanagan Loop Road has a whole lot more grade on it. It’s not as bad between Bear Creek Road and 95. 

It goes across the ridge, that’s true. There are a couple of hills there but it would be hills that only our trucks are on as opposed to our trucks mixed with other passenger traffic.

Ms. Smith – Would you expect to grade that road to enhance the ability of trucks to make the turns safely?

I don’t think there would be much grading on the road. We were just out on it a couple of weeks ago and it’s pretty much ready to go. I don’t see changing the basic road bed. There’s probably some culvert work and surface treatment, but we’d probably use the road as is.

Ms. Smith – What sort of speeds do you anticipate trucks would be going on this road.

On flat straight stretches, as high as 35, but there are areas where we’d have to keep that down to keep things safe. I’d leave that to traffic safety specialists to set a safe speed.

Ms. Smith – I’m thinking about other ways this could be accomplished, and it seems to me that taking Flanagan Loop Road across the ridge probably isn’t a bad idea, but I’m wondering what the possibility would be of crossing the ridge combining private road with public road for part of the distances. There’s not a lot of traffic on Bear Creek Road at any time of day, particularly that western segment. There are a few exciting periods, but it’s not a heavily traveled route anymore. If you could take Flanagan Loop Road over the ridge and then run vehicles commingled with public traffic on Bear Creek Road with a stop light at the intersection of Bear Creek and 95, whether loss you’d experience wouldn’t be more than made up for by the higher than average speeds you could accomplish on that road.

It might, if those were the only considerations. Then there’s the whole list with qualitative things – the impact on an individual associated with an accident or a program associated with an accident is huge. The impact of any type of release on a public road is very significant too. It’s difficult to monetize those benefits, to put a price on things you hope won’t happen but know could, but if you take those into account, it starts to make the calculus much more attractive for a completely separate system.

Ms. Smith – We’ve seen what the bridges look like in the middle. I’m wondering what they look like on either end. What does it take to get to them? There’s going to be a pretty high bridge abutment and I’m wondering what’s going to be left behind if we take the bridge out. What is impact of building going to have on us who drive it every day? Are we going to be inconvenienced for a substantial period of time because of construction?

Joe Williams – The approaches to the bridges would be earth filled to get to the appropriate elevations to cross over the roads. We’re looking at temporary structures that are installed very easily and are very quick to come down when they need to be taking out of service.

Ms. Smith – Would there be large prefabricated assemblies brought in?

Mr. Williams – Right. As much as possible, to minimize impact on traffic during construction.

Susan Gawarecki, Local Oversight Committee – When I first heard of the haul road proposal and started asking around, it struck me that this is a lot of money to spend on something that makes a permanent impact for a three-year project. Where’s the payback? I’m assuming this will be part of Bechtel Jacobs’ scope? In talking to contractors in the transportation business, their assessment is that the cost savings will be avoidance of some DOT regulations by having a solely on-reservation road. I would like to hear explicitly what DOT regulations you will be able to avoid. Those should be factored into whether or not the public accepts this haul road. Further, in looking at the options, I don’t think traffic estimates are so heavy that it couldn’t be accommodated by Bear Creak Road going from the underpass at the west end of ETTP all the way through the commercial area to Bear Creek Road and the EMWMF and putting a stoplight in at State Route 95. That’s a direct, good quality road that’s very lightly trafficked. If in fact the  compromises on the DOT regulations are not acceptable to the public then you might go back and look at just using a direct route such as that. This business of closing a route is unnecessary and it’s only recently that DOE has had any concern for inconveniencing workers. Certainly when they closed Bethel Valley Road there was no concern about that at all and it was a huge inconvenience for a lot of people. With gravel roads too, you’re looking at a lot of dust and a lot of dust control. You will have water tanker trucks running up and down the roads. That will have environmental impacts. The dust itself will have environmental impacts. The gravel roads are susceptible to washboarding where there’s a lot of breaking action wherever you have significant curves or downhill runs where trucks would gain speed. I’d also like to know if there will be a weight limit on the trucks and if the road bed will be properly engineered to support that. There’s some concern about whether this will impact the area for the neighbor research; there are groups like that who count on having undisturbed resources to make long-term studies on which is a very good argument for not putting in roads for such a short-term project. I think there are a lot of questions at this point unanswered and I think a big one should be how Bechtel Jacobs thinks they’re going to make up $10 to $12 million… where their cost savings really are.

There’s a slide that I didn’t present that addresses the time and motion studies in a summary fashion – we can discuss that. As to the neighbor studies, Dave Watson, a researcher a the lab, has a background monitoring station in an area close to where this road might be built, and we’d have to build it in a way that it does not disrupt him. We’ve already had interaction with him.

Mr. Mulvenon – There’s been some cost growth in the repair of the roads from the Type B accident. The accident report that said it’s greater than $1 million has now grown to $1.5 million. I consider that greater than $1 million. Has it actually grown?

I’m not familiar with that cost estimate.


Mr. McCracken – The only number that I’ve heard is roughly $1.1 million, $1.2 million. That’s the number that I’ve been told and that’s the cost that we know that was incurred in the repair of the road by SEC and Bechtel Jacobs. I’m not sure where that ($1.5 million) came from.


Mr. Clay – What runs it up to approximately $1.5 million is the fact that one of the things that Bechtel Jacobs did after the event is we shut down many of our hauling operations in some cases for a period of several weeks. We had some impacts associated with the restart of those activities.

Mr. Mulvenon – I would assume we’ve had some discussions with the Wheat community regarding putting a road through that area. I’m also concerned about this greenway that’s going to be disturbed, but more concerned about the Wheat community itself. They tend to be rather strict in their beliefs about what goes on and it’s a tough group to argue with. I would like to be sure this is handled appropriately.


Mr. Adams – Has the study considered that a loaded truck reacts differently than an unloaded truck. You might have different speed limits or even different, parallel routes. You might also reconsider one-lane bridges two feet apart. Plus, there’s got to be some hard surface pavement on the approaches to the bridge. Monitoring trucks and water trucks will have to use the road.

I’m sure there are differences in the way a full truck and an empty truck behave and the requirements, but we know that either one can be the source of a bad accident. We had a horrific accident on the road in front of K-25 just a few weeks ago that involved an empty truck. It didn’t involve one of our trucks, but we’re really looking to minimize or eliminate interaction between public traffic and these trucks. The other items you mentioned are engineering issues that would have to be worked out during the design phase. Our thinking is for a two-lane bridge which I assume was based on engineering and cost considerations.

Mr. Trammell - I would remind everyone that you’ll be able to ask more questions at the EM meeting two weeks from today at 5:30 p.m.

We’ll make a point of looking over some of the notes from this meeting so we can answer some of the questions that we couldn’t tonight.

Mr. Kennerly – In response to the comment about using public roads for these trucks, I think the probability that you’ll have accidental deaths or injuries is astronomical for this many loads. We should have someone experienced in that kind of calculation do that – find out the impact and the justification would be clear for this expenditure. We cannot risk the possibility of killing even one person to offset spending $10 million. It’s unconscionable.


Mr. Berry – If anyone was serious about using other kinds of transportation, there’s all sorts of traffic monitored with GPS. This can be made active and informational so somebody sits at a board and watches them all. Spacing can be mandatory or you can shut down a truck’s engine. The question is whether you’re serious. I have a feeling that politics – maybe in Washington - said this is the way to go.



Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio Comments

Mr. McCracken welcomed Tim Myrick as a new member of the Board. Mr. Myrick will retire in October from his position as Director of Facilities Strategic Planning for UT-Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Most recently he has served as the program manager for the development of ORNL’s new research campus, but spent the bulk of his 27 years in Oak Ridge’s DOE community in environmental management and waste management activities.


Mr. McCracken also noted that the corrective action plans on the two Type B investigations (May 8 sodium fire at K-25, May 14 Strontium spill on Hwy. 95), are due to Gerald Boyd on Sept. 16. With his acceptance of those, they will be distributed. He said he was impressed with the knowledge of the public and their scrutiny of the reports.


Mr. Gibson asked about four employees working in an area at ORNL known as the Hot Storage Garden who had been exposed to unplanned doses of radiation. Mr. McCracken said the small area of pits was used at one time to store highly radioactive material. Material had been removed from steel tubes and to close that facility under CERCLA the tubes would be removed from the ground and a certain amount of demolition would take place. A radiation work permit was issued but during the course of the work, workers detected radiation levels exceeding those allowed by the permit. The incident is still under investigation by BJC, but Mr. McCracken said workers knew at some point that they had exceeded the radiation work permit and they kept working. They stepped away from work but returned to stabilize the area without proper personal protection equipment. He noted that adequate characterization of the material had not been completed. He said each and every worker should be pay attention to signs that problems exist with adequate control of radioactive materials and take measures to correct them. Issues have been addressed in a cure letter and fines assessed on the contractor.


Mr. Mulvenon noted that all parties involved bear some responsibility for the incident due to the culture problem that exists. Mr. McCracken said he believed the culture problem has been solved.


Mr. Kennerly noted that both incidents were primarily due to lack and failure of secondary containment, which could have prevented both incidents if it had been adequate in the first place. He said in the case of the strontium leak it didn’t exist and with the sodium fire it was poorly engineered. He also said too much blame was being assessed on administrators, with too few people “on the ground who knew what they were doing.”


Mr. McCracken said he believes cultural change is necessary from the top down to create change.


Mr. Berry said he was pleased to hear at the Aug. 31 public meeting that people on the ground will be empowered to make decisions. Mr. McCracken said the key is to making the “right” decisions.


Ms. Jones had no announcements, but offered to respond to questions.


Mr. Owsley alerted Board members that he will be absent from the October meeting; he has asked Doug McCoy to attend in his stead.


Public Comment




Announcements and Other Board Business

Mr. Trammell noted the removal of Item VII.D., “Two Consecutive Absences – Stephanie Jernigan” from the agenda.


Minutes of the August 7, 2004 (Attachment 2) Board meetings were unanimously approved.


A draft “Statistical Analysis of the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board 2004 Stakeholder Survey” was distributed (Attachment 3). The analysis was prepared by Redus and Associates, LLC.


The second reading of the Revision to ORSSAB Standing Rules-Technical Support (Attachment 3) was amended to clarify Section V.B.6., noting that selection of technical support suppliers be made through existing contract mechanisms.


The Board’s “Comments on the Proposed Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and Subsurface Structures in Zone 2, ETTP” failed to pass. An evaluation of the Proposed Plan was also submitted by the Environmental Management Committee’s Technical Advisor, Jerry Eddlemon. (Attachment 3)


The initial recommendation (Attachment 4) listed Alternative 5 (removal of contaminated soil to a depth of 10 ft, buried waste removal from K-1070-B regardless of depth, and partial removal of the K-1070-C/D burial ground) as the preferred alternative. It failed to pass with only eight of the 12 votes required to advance a recommendation.


Ms. Bogard offered an amendment by rewording the recommendation (Attachment 5) listing Alternative 2 (Removal of contaminated soil to a depth of 10 feet, and full removal of the K-1070-C/D and K-1070-B burial grounds). This amendment failed with only six of the seven votes required for an amendment.


A version of the recommendation that identified no specific alternative, but specified a preferred end state of the area, also failed to gain approval.


Mr. Trammell noted that he was looking for a more finely tuned, finished product than what we was supplied in the July 27 public meeting on Zone 2 and did not want to jeopardize clean-up efforts for the sake of cost savings. He also stated a concern that there is no existing concept for how the site will look. Several other members voiced concerns about leaving a “classified” landfill in place, both in terms of safety and eventual long-term costs.


Mr. Mulvenon, who said he favored Alternative 5, said he was uncertain of any party’s willingness to ever purchase and use the land, even if DOE opts to use Alternative 2 and excavate the entire classified burial ground.


At the close of voting, Mr. Trammell noted his disappointment at the Board’s inability to formulate a recommendation to send forward to DOE.


Committee Reports


Board Finance – Mr. Mosby was not present, so Mr. Trammell deferred members to the minutes in the packet and noted plans for travel to the Chairs meeting in Hanford, Washington during October. Ms. Halsey said the National Governor’s Association will meet Oct. 6-7 in Chicago and SSAB members have been invited to send members to that meeting as well. The Executive Committee has approved sending two members to that meeting. Mr. Gibson has agreed to attend and one other person (preferably from the Stewardship Committee) is being sought to attend.


Environmental Management – Mr. Gibson said the committee met on Aug. 18. He was elected chair and Mr. Mosby was elected vice chair of the committee. At its Sept. 22 meeting, the committee will continue the discussion about the proposed haul road and the 2004 Remediation Effectiveness Report.


Public Outreach – Mr. Mulvenon invited all members to join the committee, noting that action items and ongoing activities include the exhibit at the American Museum of Science and Energy.


Stewardship – Mr. Adams invited members to read Stewardship Committee minutes and said there would be more to report in October. The next meeting on Sept. 21 will focus on activities at ETTP.


Executive Committee - Mr. Trammell reported that the committee is still working on a plan for facilitation in this fiscal year. Facilitator David Bidwell’s back surgery pre-empted plans for him to meet with the committee and discuss plans for the upcoming year.


Mr. Trammell also alerted members to a memo in the packet outlining the chair’s responsibility to publicly comment on the Board’s behalf.


Federal Coordinator Report


Ms. Halsey made two announcements:

·         The final version of the Public Involvement Plan will be ready for distribution the week of Sept. 15.

·         Linda Murawski has tendered her letter of resignation to the Board to allow work on her doctorate to continue; DOE will make a selection for her replacement from the 19 applications received as quickly as possible.


Mr. Berry sought to bring up issues relating to Corehole 8 and transportation issues, but Mr. Trammell suggested the matters ought to have been added to the agenda, so the matters were dropped.


Mr. Gibson asked about a long-awaited report from a team that met in Oak Ridge to discuss Corehole 8, and Ms. Halsey indicated a member of the team will be available to attend an EM Committee meeting and offer a review of the findings.


The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.





Ms. Bogard moved to approve the draft minutes of the August 7 Board meeting. Mr. Adams seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.



Mr. Gibson moved to amend Section V.B.6 of the Proposed Revision to the ORSSAB Standing Rules-Technical Support. Mr. Mulvenon seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.



Ms. Bogard moved to approve on second reading the Revision to the ORSSAB Standing Rules-Technical Support as amended. Mr. Trammell seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.



Mr. Gibson moved to approve Comments on the Proposed Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and Subsurface Structures in Zone 2, ETTP. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion, and it failed by a vote of eight in favor (Mr. Trammell, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Myrick, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Berry, Ms. DeMint, Mr. Mulvenon, Mr. Smith) and five opposed.



Ms. Bogard moved to amend Comments on the Proposed Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and Subsurface Structures in Zone 2, ETTP to identify Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. The motion failed by a vote of six in favor (Mr. Trammell, Ms. Bogard, Ms. Cothron, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Adams, Mr. Kennerly) and seven opposed.



Mr. Gibson moved to approve Comments on the Proposed Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and Subsurface Structures in Zone 2, ETTP with the stipulation that no alternative be named, but future land use standards be clearly defined. Mr. Trammell seconded the motion, and it failed by a vote of 11 to one. Mr. Berry voted against, Ms. Hill abstained.


Respectfully submitted,


Rhonda Bogard, Secretary




Attachments (5) to these minutes are available on request from the ORSSAB support office.