Many Voices Working for the Community Oak Ridge |
|
Approved October 12, 2005 Meeting Minutes
The Oak Ridge Site Specific
Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, October 12,
2005, at the
Members Present
Donna Campbell
Heather Cothron
Steve Dixon
Steve Douglas
Linda Grandage
Pat Hill
Wade Johnson
Tonya Justice1
Lance Mezga
Robert Olson
Ken Sadler
Members Absent
Chris Grove
Meredith James1
Tim Myrick2
1Student Representative
2Second
consecutive absence
Deputy Designated Federal Officer and Ex-Officios
Present
Martha Berry, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4
Pat Halsey, Federal
Coordinator, DOE-ORO
John Owsley,
Others Present
Susan Gawarecki, Executive
Director, Local Oversight Committee
Spencer Gross, Spectrum
Richard Lee, Bechtel Jacobs,
Co. (BJC)
Charlie Mansfield, BJC
Pete Osborne, Spectrum
8 members of the public were present.
Presentation
Charlie Mansfield, project
manager for the Bethel Valley Groundwater Engineering Study, began by saying
the presentation would describe the regulatory basis for the study, the purpose
and scope of the work, how the study was conducted, results, and conclusions.
He said the study was the
result of actions required by the 2002 Bethel Valley Interim Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROD called for completion of contamination source control actions
and to monitor the effectiveness of those actions. Additional information was
needed to finalize the control actions.
The purpose and scope of the
study is noted on page 5 of Attachment 1.
Mr. Mansfield then turned
the presentation over to Mr. Lee, task leader, who provided more detail on the
study, results, and conclusions.
He showed a map of the four
administrative areas of
The bulk of the work was
done in the central campus of ORNL. Mr. Lee said the work plan for the study
had identified 55 pre-design study areas (PDSAs) and the main campus was
divided into four sections.
The field work of the study
was conducted over 14 months and the activities undertaken are noted on page 8
of Attachment 1.
Mr. Lee said the result of
the study in the main campus area indicated that contamination was not as bad
as had been expected based on previous anecdotal evidence. He said the first
thought was that the investigation was missing something, but additional
information confirmed the study’s original findings.
Three areas, containing
about 6,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil, do contribute to groundwater
contamination that exceeds the industrial risk criteria stated in the ROD. One
area is in PDSA-41A, which is related to the tank W-1A, the source of the Core
Hole 8 plume (page 9, Attachment 1). The other two areas are within PDSAs 12,
16A, 24, and 25 (page 10, Attachment 1).
Mr. Lee said that discharges
of Core Hole 8 with its strontium-90 contaminant are unchanged from historic
information gathered in the mid-1990s. He said the Core Hole 8 plume is
migrating west from its source toward First Creek. Some of the contamination is
captured in an intercept system prior to reaching First Creek. Results of this
study area and conclusions are noted on page 13 of Attachment 1.
He said groundwater sampling
in the main campus area indicated small amounts of contamination during
low-flow conditions. During times of heavy discharges from rainfall,
contamination is much more diluted. He said segments of the process drain
system work like a French drain so that much of the contaminated groundwater is
caught and sent to a process plant for treatment. Other segments are catching
uncontaminated groundwater.
Work done in the 7000 Area
is noted on page 12 of attachment 1. Results of sampling in the 7000 Area are
also noted on page 12.
In
Mr. Lee was asked a number
of questions after his presentation. Following are abridged questions and
answers:
|
Question |
Answer |
|
Mr. Adams – Where does, or did, the
strontium come from? Are we still
making it or doing anything to increase the level of strontium? |
Mr. Lee – I’m not a radiochemist,
but strontium is a fission product that is prevalent at the lab. It’s mobile
in groundwater and is a risk driver. Mr. Adler – In the central campus
there are no operating reactors producing fission products. These are
essentially waste products associated with extraction technique experiments. Those
experiments are not underway in downtown ORNL anymore. |
|
Mr.
Douglas –
As a result of your findings are you going to pump and treat the
contamination in the groundwater or are you going to rely on attenuation? Is there any
pump and treat happening right now? |
Mr. Lee – We haven’t made that
decision. It’s really not our decision to make. It requires more discussion. I
think it’s not a blanket decision. It has to be an item specific decision. There is at Core
Hole 8. |
|
Mr. Olson – Raccoon Creek appears
to be a long way from the old waste tank farm where the strontium might have
come from. And no one has indicated a plume going that far. I’m curious where
this is coming from. |
Mr. Lee – We believe it’s coming
from SWSA 3. But no, it’s not a long way by comparison of some of the other
plumes we have. It’s about the same as the others. |
|
Mr. Mezga – On PDSA 41-A, you said
a transfer line leak was a probable source. What was the transfer line
serving to reach the tank? |
Mr. Lee – It served the floor
drain in Building 3019. |
|
Ms. Hill – You took a well and
made three wells out of it at different depths. What were your findings at
the depths and were there marginal differences or were they all about the
same? Does this
give you some data from which you know where to start and what to do with the
lower or higher depth depending on where you’re talking about? Do you have a
timeline for it? The part about
continued monitoring at decreasing frequency depending on results. If you
find anything, it would appear to me that you should continue to monitor and
not discontinue monitoring. Does that frequency depend on what you find? |
Mr. Lee – I can’t quote numbers. I
can tell you that at the Raccoon Creek exit pathway well we had strikingly
decreasing contamination with depth, but the concentrations were nominally
low. In the case of the 7000 Area plume, concentrations increased with depth
markedly. In the case
of the exit pathway well, we’re going to monitor. There’s really no reason to
do anything because there is nothing there. In the case of the 7000 Area
plume, it’s premature at this point. There are some things we’d like to know
from a scientific standpoint before we get into that. These are new well
installations and they are ‘green,’ they haven’t matured yet. So it will take
some time for that to occur. I don’t have
a timeline. Our timeline is to receive comments from the regulators on this document
and finalize it. A decision as to what will be done will be made by others. Mr. Adler – We do have a timeframe
on the groundwater contamination, but it’s fairly protracted. There is a ROD
for groundwater for the lab scheduled for the 2012-13 timeframe. What I meant
to say was, depending on the result we will, or will not, monitor at a
different or changing frequency. |
|
Ms. Bogard – How does your data
compare with the sampling in the remediation effectiveness report (RER)? |
Mr. Lee – I have not looked at
the RER. The RER presents data that are reservation-wide. But just with
respect to the lab, it shows changing trends over time. We didn’t have any
real surprises in this investigation. So I’d say that the result of the data
that we obtained is probably within the range of data that you see in the
RER. Mr. Adler – My understanding from
Jason Darby who manages the RER is that the results are fairly consistent and
they use each other’s data a lot. Jason will be at the Environmental Management
Committee meeting next week and we’ll put that question to him. |
|
Mr.
Mulvenon
– I have no question; I’m just making a comment. It was a surprise that
concentrations were not as bad as we thought. I think you should stress that
there was a lot of anecdotal evidence. I think that is important because the Core
Hole 8 plume is not as bad as we thought. I think there are other issues in
downtown ORNL that make us thankful we did this study because it brought to
light some things that had a lot of anecdotal evidence behind it. |
|
|
Mr. Mezga – The conclusion is that
soil and groundwater contamination is not nearly as bad as anecdotal evidence
suggests. Do you attribute that to exaggerated anecdotal evidence or
effective remediation activities that have been implemented? What are the
implications for information on the land use restrictions in the zone in ORNL
which currently operates with a 2-foot limitation on excavation rather than
10-feet, as we have in other areas, and some with no limitation? |
Mr. Lee – We don’t know. You
speculate, inevitably. The first thing we speculated was ‘we’re missing
something.’ But we realized that wasn’t the case. We peppered some places
pretty heavily. We took 40-odd samples from the north tank farm. We went to
places where no one else would go in previous investigations. And I think you
have to consider the possibility that between the time of the development of
the anecdote and today, the contaminants have simply gone away. I can’t speak
to that. Mr. Adler – Our current ROD calls
for a general restriction on use below 2 feet at the lab because of concerns
of potential exposure below 2 feet. If because of this investigation or
others we can reliably determine that lower depths are free of contamination
then there would be a basis for lightening those restrictions. That type of
thing is happening at East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), but it would
have to be based on data. There will always be an opportunity to prove an
area is clean and then go to deeper depths once all concerns have been
resolved. |
|
Mr. Sadler – Were strontium-90 and
tricloroethene (TCE) the only two contaminants you looked at or were there
others that were above the risk-based industrial standard? You said with
Core Hole 8 you compared results with historical data. Did you look at other
areas; were there data that you could look to see if it had risen or fallen? |
Mr. Lee – We looked at a lot of
others. I can’t say we did a full sweep in every location because there was
no justification for it, but those were the two that jumped out. Yes, we looked
at those pretty hard, because you like to see a change over time; there is an
expectation that things should change. But the data are fairly noisy. Water
enters a storm drain when it rains. Depending on when it rained and how much
and when the sampler got there, the sample may be more or less dilute. |
|
Mr. Mezga – It was good to hear
about the Core Hole 8 plume and First Creek acting as a diversion of
migration farther to the west. Do you see the spring on the east side of the
plant acting the same way for the TCE plume; is that intercepting all western
migration? |
Mr. Lee – It appears to be. We
did some sampling analyses beyond the scope of the work plan and looked at
White Oak Creek and we didn’t find anything. |
|
Ms. Gawarecki – At the 7000 Area TCE
plume, you said there were higher concentrations at a greater depth. Do you
think there may be an undiscovered secondary deep source? Do you
anticipate that it will reappear elsewhere along a fault or some structure
that might bring it back toward the surface? |
Mr. Lee – No. We think that the
plume is behaving like the Core Hole 8 plume and is migrating near the
surface along a geologic strike and it’s migrating at depth on a long dip. No, we don’t.
There is a hydrochemical basement to the aquifer at the lab where the
groundwater becomes saline at about 300 feet. We believe from previous
investigations that that functions as a very effective basement, so we don’t
expect anything below that. With respect to a structure, there is nothing
nearby. This is pretty tight bedrock. It’s moving through a few cracks, both
at depth and along the strike near the surface. Finding those cracks, the
right ones, is a challenge. No, we
didn’t. They are present. We know that. They are particularly present on the
hill near Building 3019 and the Graphite Reactor. They are far less so in the
former impoundments area farther toward White Oak Creek. |
|
Mr. Bonner – You mentioned that
extraction wells were much more efficient of mass extraction than an
interceptor system. The current interceptor system was placed there under
what action? Can you more
fully explain the difference between an interceptor system and an extraction? Was there any
level of risk as a result of this study that would determine the priority of
action. |
Mr. Lee – It was an early action. An
interceptor system is a passive system like a hole in the ground or a French
drain that encourages water to passively enter. The problem is that it’s
connected to our storm drain system. So when it rains that system gets
flooded with uncontaminated water – millions of gallons a year that we send
to process and treat. There is very little contamination in it. An extraction
well is an active system, in which you lower a pump in a hole and pump at
some certain rate and volume to actively treat it. That’s not my
decision to make. |
Deputy Designated Federal Officer and Ex-Officio
Comments
Mr. Adler said the A-76
study, a governmental process to determine if some work performed by DOE
Environmental Management (EM) could be contracted to the private sector, has
been cancelled.
He said there had been an
incident on October 11 at the haul road construction site where an excavator boom
had been raised into a power line. No one was injured. An investigation is
underway to determine what happened and why.
Mr. Mulvenon asked Mr. Adler
if it was true that the haul road construction was over budget. Mr. Adler said the
construction is costing more than the original estimate of $11 million and is
now in the range of $15 to $20 million.
Mr. Adler referenced a
letter in the incoming correspondence table in the meeting packet requesting an
adjustment in the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the Environmental
Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) to accept some organic compounds
such as cyanide. He said DOE is working with TDEC and EPA to set risk-based
acceptance standards. He said no changes are being made concerning the safety
of the landfill. The standards set forth in the ROD for protection of
groundwater and hypothetical future users remain fixed.
Mr. Mulvenon asked how the
WAC would be handled. Mr. Adler said there was established protocol. He said it
involved taking the risk model for existing waste contaminants and applying the
model for new contaminants. Model results are presented to TDEC and EPA for
review and approval. Mr. Mulvenon asked what documentation was required. Mr.
Adler said documentation would be technical submissions from DOE to EPA and
TDEC and approval letters from TDEC and EPA which are publicly accessible. Mr.
Adler said the ROD for the waste cell would not have to be modified to change
the WAC.
Mr. Adler referenced another
letter in the incoming correspondence table concerning ponds at ETTP. Remediation
of the ponds, if necessary, is part of the ETTP sitewide cleanup plan. He said
until recently plans were to address the ponds as part of the ETTP sitewide
ROD. The contractor and DOE believe there is basis for accelerating the cleanup
of the ponds within a removal action to enhance the probability that the work
at ETTP would be completed on time. A proposal has been made and approved by
TDEC and EPA to address the ponds as a separate, high priority removal action scope
of work. Mr. Adler said an engineering evaluation/cost analysis has been scheduled
in the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) Appendix E to evaluate the various
cleanup options.
Mr. Trammell asked about
accelerated decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of additional
facilities that are no longer needed at the Y-12 National Security Complex and
at ORNL. Mr. Adler said there have been no significant new budgeting developments
other than work is planned.
Mr. Trammell asked about the
FY 2006 budget. Mr. Adler said he had no additional information regarding the budget
since the September meeting.
Mr. Trammell asked about a
new contractor to operate the Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator (TSCAI).
Mr. Adler said he did not know of any new developments, but he would find out
and report.
Mr. Douglas asked about the
status of contact-handled transuranic (CH TRU) processing. Mr. Adler said
Foster Wheeler is working through a readiness review to resume processing of CH
TRU. He said he would find out about the start up date and report.
Mr. Sadler asked about the
transfer of TRU waste from
Ms. Gawarecki asked about a
flare up of pyrophoric material at the 22 Trench Area in
Mr. Mezga asked Mr. Adler to
bring a video of the flare up to the Environmental Management Committee meeting
on October 19.
Ms.
She also said Beverly
Bannister was the new acting division director at EPA effective October 1,
replacing Winston Smith who has retired.
For TDEC, Mr. Owsley said he
has been working on the renewal of the Tennessee Oversight Agreement (TOA) with
DOE, a five-year agreement including participation in the FFA, the ambient
environmental monitoring program, and oversight of DOE’s compliance with
environmental regulations. He said DOE is self-regulating in dealing with
radioactive materials and waste management, but it allows TDEC to review and
comment on its activities. He said the oversight agreement also includes
emergency response preparedness planning. DOE provides funding to the Tennessee
Emergency Management Agency and TDEC for emergencies that could impact citizens
on- and off-site of the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). He
said DOE also provides funding to provide a better understanding by the local governments and the public
of the past and present operations at the ORR.
The agreement expires in
June 2006.
Mr. Owsley said he would not
be able to attend the November meeting, and Doug McCoy, the project manager for
environmental restoration, will be attending in his place.
Public Comment –
Announcements and Other Board Business
The next Board meeting will
be Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at the
The minutes of the September
14, 2005 meeting were approved.
The Recommendations for
Long-term Stewardship of Contaminated Areas on the Oak Ridge Reservation were
approved.
Mr. Adler presented a plaque
to Amy DeMint in recognition for her service to the Board. She recently resigned
from the Board, serving from April 2002 to August 2005.
Mr. Adler introduced Wade Johnson
as a new member to the Board.
Committee Reports
Board Finance – Mr. Dixon reported the
committee reviewed monthly expenditures and closure of the fiscal year. He said
about $63,000 remained unencumbered. Those funds were obligated to Spectrum for
Board use in FY 2006. He noted new travel guidelines that were distributed at
the meeting (Attachment 2). He said at the next Board Finance meeting on
October 27, the committee will work through allocation of 2006 funds among the
expense categories.
Mr. Miller asked why there
were two labor categories on the costs table included with the meeting minutes.
Ms. Halsey explained that at the beginning of the fiscal year, $264,000 had
been allotted for support staff provided by Spectrum. A request was made that
the Board set aside additional labor funding in 2005 to carry that support cost
into 2006, because the budget is never approved before October 1. That extra
funding would continue to pay for staff support in FY 2006 until the budget is
approved.
Environmental Management – Mr. Mezga said an update
was given on the transfer of TRU waste from
Public Outreach – Mr. Mulvenon reported for
Ms. Cothron. He said the ORSSAB 10th anniversary celebration had
been successful, but noted low turnout by former members. The committee
recommended that some of the materials from the celebration be put on display
at the
Stewardship – Mr. Mulvenon said the committee is working with
DOE in coordinating publicity about the Stewardship Education Resource Kit. He
said Jeff Crane of EPA had given a presentation on the delisting of certain
parcels on the ORR from the National Priorities List. The next meeting will be
Tuesday, October 18 at the
Executive – Mr. Trammell reported on
his recent trip to the SSAB Chairs’ meeting in
Mr. Trammell encouraged
members to study the correspondence table and the EM projects update table in the
meeting packets.
Board Process – Ms. Bogard reported for
Ms. Reagan. She said the committee looked at the results of the annual meeting
and prepared its work plan. The committee discussed the mentoring process and a
mentoring plan has been developed and sent to the Executive Committee for
comment.
Federal Coordinator Report
Ms. Halsey said
in FY 2005 ORSSAB travel had been handled through the DOE travel manager. At
the same time several changes were made within travel manager that were not
successful. As a result there had been many problems related to reimbursement
of travel expenses. She said more work has been done to alleviate the problems.
She, too, noted the updated travel guidelines and procedures (Attachment 2). She
noted a change in procedure that the travel voucher must be completed by the
traveler, with assistance of the travel coordinator, within five days of
completion of travel. She said Tina Pooler is now the new travel coordinator. Ms.
Halsey made no claim that traveler’s would be reimbursed within a certain
amount of time.
Ms. Halsey said she had
requested a facilitator for the Environmental Management and Stewardship
Committees. As contract officer representative she cannot direct Spectrum
concerning whom to select as a facilitator. Mr. Osborne is the point person in
finding a facilitator and is working with the chairs of the two committees.
Additions to the Agenda
No additions.
Motions
Mr. Johnson was absent for
all votes.
Ms. Cothron was absent for
votes on motions 10/12/05.2 and 10/12/05.3
10/12/05.1
Mr. Mulvenon moved to
approve the meeting agenda. Ms. Hill seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10/12/05.2
Ms. Hill moved to approve
minutes of the September 14 meeting, Mr. Olson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10/12/05.3
Mr. Mulvenon moved to approve
the Recommendations for Long-term Stewardship of Contaminated Areas on the Oak
Ridge Reservation. Mr. Bonner seconded, and motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at
8:52 p.m.
Action Items
- Mr. Adler to provide the current status/schedule for the major
readiness reviews underway/planned.
- Mr. Adler to provide the most current start up schedule for the
Foster Wheeler TRU waste processing facility. Status: Foster Wheeler is currently undergoing a Corporate
Operational Readiness Review. DOE will then do a Line Management
Assessment, followed by a DOE Operational Readiness Review, set to begin
November 14. Assuming no issues arise, CH solids processing would begin in
late November or early December.
- Mr. Adler to provide to the Environmental Management Committee a
video of the flame up at 22 Trench. Complete.
Video was shown at the October 19 meeting.
- Mr. Adler to determine status of acquiring new contractor to
operate TSCAI.
- Mr. Adler to ask Jason Darby how results
of the Bethel Valley Groundwater Engineering Study compared to the 2005
RER.
Attachments (2) to these minutes are available on request from the
ORSSAB support office.
