Many Voices Working for the Community

Oak Ridge
Site Specific Advisory Board

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






The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at the DOE Information Center in 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 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

Darryl Bonner

John Coffman

Steve Dixon

Jenny Freeman

Brianna Goodlin1

Bob Hatcher

Betty Jones

Ted Lundy

David Martin

Lance Mezga

Ron Murphree, Chair

Gloria Mei

Josh Monroe1

Bob Olson

Maggie Owen

Steve Stow

Kevin Westervelt, Vice-chair


Members Absent

David Bolling

Charles Jensen

Ed Juarez, Secretary


1Student Representative


Deputy Designated Federal Officer (DDFO), Liaisons, and Federal Coordinator Present

Dave Adler, Liaison, Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Operations (DOE-ORO)

John Eschenberg, DDFO and DOE-ORO Assistant Manager for Environmental Management (EM)

Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, DOE-ORO

John Owsley, Liaison, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)


Others Present

Jimmy Bell

Fred Butterfield, DOE

Susan Gawarecki, Local Oversight Committee

Spencer Gross, MCH Corp.

John Krueger, DOE

Norman Mulvenon

Steve Mead

Pete Osborne, IIA

Bill Tewes


Fourteen members of the public were present.


DDFO and Liaison Comments

Mr. Eschenberg – Gerald Boyd, the manager of the DOE Oak Ridge Office, has announced his retirement from DOE effective April 3. Robert Brown, who had been the deputy manager, retired in February. Mr. Eschenberg is currently acting as deputy manager.


Mr. Eschenberg said Sue Cange is now the deputy assistant manager for EM replacing J.T. Howell, who has moved to Nuclear Fuel Supply.


He said the intent of the Budget and Prioritization Workshop held on February 24 was to help make the development of the FY 2013 DOE EM budget request to DOE Headquarters an open and transparent process. This was the first time such a workshop had been held but he said the intent is to do similar workshops in the future.


Mr. Eschenberg said the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution for FY 2011. He said there has been an extension of the resolution to March 18 and there are rumors of another two-week extension.


For FY 2012 the Oak Ridge budget for EM work is $401 million. Mr. Eschenberg said that is not the budget he believes is adequate for Oak Ridge. He said current work is being done with good project management to try to convince headquarters that Oak Ridge is deserving of increased cleanup budgets.


Mr. Eschenberg said he and Mr. Adler met with the law director of Anderson County on a site known as American Nuclear, which is across the Clinch River from the Oak Ridge marina. It operated in the 1970s but went out of business. The building is contaminated with cobalt and mixed fission products. It has a tank that has leaked and contaminated the surrounding soil. Anderson County approached EM seeking help on the problem. Mr. Eschenberg said he wasn’t sure how to help since that is not in EM’s scope for cleanup work. He suggested having Anderson County representatives talk to the board about American Nuclear and how DOE and the community might help.


Mr. Adler – Data has been received from monitoring wells in place across the Clinch River from Melton Valley. He said one sample from a well near the river indicates 1-2 picocuries per liter of strontium, which is slightly over the detection limit. Another well farther away from the river had a low level indication of technetium. In both cases levels are well below drinking water standards and close to detection limits. Samples taken by the state from both wells immediately afterwards did not show any indications of contamination. To be cautious, DOE has decided to provide water to residents in the area farther away from the river, about 1000 thousand feet. Another 15 homes will be asked to stop using their wells so groundwater flow will be stabilized allowing the monitoring wells to provide good data. It would also eliminate any concerns any residents might have about their drinking water.


Mr. Adler asked to meet with members of the EM Budget & Prioritization Committee during the board meeting break to set the committee’s next meeting time.


Mr. Martin asked if the recent rains had caused DOE any problems. Mr. Adler said the biggest problem he has seen was damage done to access roads. He said there have been no problems with re-distribution of contamination.


Mr. Adler reviewed the status of Recommendation 195: Recommendation on Mitigation of Contamination in Bear Creek Burial Grounds. The recommendation was to provide a table of alternatives for remediation of Bear Creek Burial Grounds. Mr. Adler said the department is agreeable to providing such a table and hopes to have it done within six months.


Mr. Owsley – Regarding the American Nuclear Site, Mr. Owsley said the site is owned by TDEC and is managed by the Division of Radiological Health. Anytime the division issues a permit it requires the company holding the permit to have a bond in case the company goes out of business. American Nuclear did go out of business and left TDEC with the bond and the responsibility of monitoring the site for surface or groundwater releases and any problems with the fence line. He said Anderson County has been seeking assistance to make the property more marketable.


Ms. Gawarecki asked if any discharges into the river are sampled or monitored. Mr. Owsley said he was confident that it was monitored but he did not know specifics of the monitoring. He said it would not be more than annually.


Public Comment

Mr. Mulvenon said he had reviewed the presentation material for this meeting and was struck by the estimated cost for the uranium-233 project to be $400 million.


Mr. Tewes said his prime interest is retaining history of the work done at Oak Ridge. He said it wasn’t clear to him if there are plans to save the Beta 3 Building and Building 9001-3 at Y-12 National Security Complex. He suggested plans should be made now on developing a history of Beta 3 because the best source of information is from people who worked there and the number of those people is diminishing.


Ms. Gawarecki said she had attended the recent Waste Management Symposia in Phoenix. She said while there were some presentations by Oak Ridge representatives, she felt the site was underrepresented. Oak Ridge will be featured at next year’s conference and she encouraged ORSSAB to plan a session or develop a presentation. She felt a higher Oak Ridge profile at conferences like the Waste Management Conference would help in budget allocations.


Mr. Mezga followed up on Ms. Gawarecki’s comments saying that at the conference next year there will be an all day session on Oak Ridge that will provide a good opportunity to inform participants what is taking place in Oak Ridge and what some of the accomplishments have been. He said he will be working with Mr. Eschenberg in the near future to discuss the focus of the presentation.


Mr. Murphree agreed that the board should have some presence at the conference next year and asked staff to put that project on the board’s work plan.



Mr. Krueger’s presentation was the disposition of uranium-233 from Building 3019 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). He began by explaining the drivers behind the project. In 1997 the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board published a recommendation expressing concerns about the stability of the U-233 as it is currently stored at ORNL. The board recommended that an inspection of the building and the material be made. After the inspection it was determined that the U-233 was excess to programmatic needs and a decision was made to dispose of it. A second driver to dispose of the material is the location of Building 3019, which is in the central campus of ORNL. It is a Category 2 nuclear facility with Category 1 security. It is the only Category 2 facility left at ORNL. Mr. Krueger said 3019 is a high hazard facility located just up wind for all the new buildings at the lab. He said 3019 no longer fits in with the current mission of science and technology of the lab.


Building 3019 was built in 1943 and was part of the Manhattan Engineering District. It is the oldest operating nuclear facility in the world. It sits next to the Graphite Reactor, and its original purpose was to take irradiated materials from the reactor for plutonium extraction. In 1962 the building was designated as the national repository for U-233. Most of the nation’s U-233 is stored there, about 450 kilograms embedded in two metric tons of uranium.


U-233 is man-made by irradiating thorium-232 (Attachment 1, page 4). It always has some U-232 contamination, which has two ‘bad actors’ in the decay chain, thallium-208 and radon-220. Thallium-208 emits high energy gamma rays, which requires storage in hot cells of thick fortified concrete. Radon-220 has a short half life, but it decays to a gas and has to be held long enough so it can be filtered prior to release. U-233 has nuclear properties similar to plutonium, but the chemistry of uranium. It is an inhalation hazard, is a direct penetrating radiation hazard, and is a weapons-usable fissile material that requires strict safeguards, security, and criticality controls.


The material is stored in almost 1,100 canisters in 94 tube vaults (Attachment 1, page 5). The inventory can be grouped into six categories (Attachment 1, page 5). The canister dose ranges from 1-300 rems per hour.


Originally the project was to be a thorium extraction project for producing medical isotopes. Thorium extraction was done from 2003 to 2006. In 2006, Congress ordered the project moved from Nuclear Energy to EM and directed that the U-233 be disposed. The assignment then became a dissolve and downblending project.


The current scope is modification to Building 3019, downblend the U-233 with depleted uranyl nitrate, construct an annex for drying and packaging the product, convert the downblended material to magnesium diuranate in a final waste form to be sent to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), and place 3019 in a safe, stable condition for future decontamination and demolition (Attachment 1, page 6).


Mr. Krueger said the project has had a number of delays, some of which have been caused by design maturation. He said this is a once-in-a-lifetime project and design has taken place as the project moves forward. As a result, adjustments to design have to be made. Programmatic impact also affected the progress of the project (Attachment 1, page 7).


The design of 3019 modifications is more than 90 percent complete. The design of the annex is 85-90 percent complete. The projected cost of the current project is about $400 million (Attachment 1, page 8). As a result of the project cost, the DOE Deputy Secretary commissioned an alternatives analysis (Attachment 1, page 9). A screening report was commissioned, which was completed recently and provided to DOE leadership. The report indentified conditions that have changed since the project began (Attachment 1, page 11).


Based on the changed conditions the project team considering alternatives decided to see if there were logical paths forward for the various categories of the material. The model for handling those categories is noted on page 12 of Attachment 1. Each category of material would be used through programmatic needs, disposed directly, or processed for disposal. About 15 percent of the material could be used through programmatic needs. About 403 canisters of Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Program material can be direct disposed at NNSS. Mr. Krueger said the only problem is that there is no approved container that can be used to ship the material; either a new container will have to be designed and manufactured or an existing container will be modified and approved. Mr. Krueger said direct disposal would take longer, but is much less expensive than processing.


Mr. Krueger noted a number of advantages for direct disposal (Attachment 1, page 19). Disposition would be accelerated, cost would be reduced, and processing time and risk would be reduced.


Even with direct disposal there will still be some categories of the material that will need to be processed, but with the elimination of most of the troublesome U-232, processing of the remaining material will be simplified. Seventeen processing approaches were examined, which were screened to two approaches:

·   Dry blending with existing ORNL hot cells (not in 3019 hot cells, because they are not in good enough condition to use)

·   Aqueous downblending with co-processing of downblended solution with Melton Valley Storage Tank sludges at the Transuranic Waste Processing Center (TWPC).


Mr. Krueger said the second alternative is the preference. The co-processing doesn’t negatively impact operations at the TWPC and eliminates the need to build a $50 million annex at 3019 that will be torn down at a later date.


Mr. Krueger reviewed the steps for dry-blending (Attachment 1, pages 21 and 22) and aqueous downblending (page 23). He reviewed the comparison between the two methods (pages 24 and 25).


Regarding the path forward, a number of recommendations have been made to DOE EM leadership (Attachment 1, page 26):

·   Complete the modification design for Building 3019

·   Suspend further design of the annex

·   Initiate planning for direct disposal operations

·   Complete the alternatives analysis and select the preferred processing approach (most likely aqueous downblending)

·   Possible timeline – program transfers in 2013; Consolidated Edison Uranium disposal 2015-2017; process remaining inventory 2015-2017.


After Mr. Krueger’s presentation a number of questions were asked. Following are abridged questions and answers.


Mr. Mezga – How long do you think it will take to ship the zero power reactor plates? Mr. Krueger – The limiting factor is how much safeguards will allow on the road at any time. Because they are very small gram quantities in each of the plates we can get quite a bit on the road at a time. They will require a Type B container but we believe there is one available we can use. There are enough available that we can do four or five campaigns and we’re finished. We still have to ensure that NNSS is prepared to take these canisters. So far they’ve said everything is fine but I want to make sure. Mr. Mezga – What is the cost comparison of the new alternative approach? Mr. Krueger- We’re talking about a Phase I Alternative Analysis that needs to be confirmed in Phase II, but we’re hoping to save $100-$120 million dollars over the lifecycle.


Mr. Stow – At Y-12 the government is spending billions to store fissile nuclear material. Has there been any thought to getting this material from Melton Valley and moving it to Bear Creek Valley and let someone else worry about it? Mr. Krueger – One of the first things we did was talk to Y-12. U-235 has a completely different radioactive signature than U-233 and inside the Highly Enriched Uranium Material Facility there is not enough shielding to handle U-233 nor is the safety basis or design criteria oriented to take U-233. When you roll up all the modifications that would have to be done at the material facility you’d better off building a new storage facility for U-233. Ultimately we decided not to engage Y-12. Mr. Stow – Could it programmatically addressed? Mr. Krueger – I don’t think that is the problem. The problem is capability and safety inside of the materials facility.

Mr. Olson – The dry downblending almost completely eliminates criticality risk. Did you talk with people who had done dry downblending? Mr. Krueger – The greatest proponents on the screening team for dry downblending came from Savannah River and Idaho and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. They are looking at a different waste for dry downblending at Savannah River. The issues I have for dry downblending are where we would do it. There are a number of problems with doing it at Building 2026 and it’s not practical to do it in Building 3019 either.


Ms. Freeman – Is Headquarters on board with this plan? Mr. Krueger – We have the go-ahead from the Deputy Secretary; in fact there is going to be a memo from him to the program secretarial officers nationwide announcing that we are doing this and asking for support from the various entities that need to team with us. One of the attractive things about this is an enterprise type of solution where the National Nuclear Security Administration is engaged, we’re engaged, and ORNL and multiple sites are engaged. In terms of budget a lot people are going to hear that DOE has zeroed out our funding category. But we have a capital project category that we’re putting on hold in order to move forward on the operational aspect of this. We do have the operational funding to do what we want to do in FY 2012.


Ms. Gawarecki – Last year I heard a presentation by a member of the isotope group at ORNL and they indicated that they would like to have a little bit of this and for political reasons they were told not to request it. Someone needs to be in contact with that group and find out if they will take a small portion. The modified Type B container that you need - who will have to approve that and what bureaucratic process will be involved? Mr. Krueger – EM internally has a certification capability. There are entities within the DOE family that are familiar with the design and certification of new Type B containers. We’re looking at those sources right now. The Department of Transportation is involved. Instead of being a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed cask it would be an EM-certified cask.


Ms. Gawarecki – I know NNSS is going to have a sitewide environmental impact statement released later this year. Will this type of shipment be analyzed in the impact statement? Mr. Krueger – I just heard from Frank Disanza (a member of the screening team from Nevada) on that point. He sent an email saying that it would be in the impact statement. Ms. Gawarecki – Following up on that, there are stakeholder groups in Nevada who are going to be active in commenting on that impact statement. It would be in ORSSAB’s interest to take a look at this national decision because Oak Ridge waste goes there. I hope you would put that on your agenda for the remainder of this year. I believe it’s due out in April and there would be a 120-day comment period.


Ms. Gawarecki – About the co-processing with the Melton Valley Storage Tanks waste, does this waste qualify as transuranic waste disposal? Mr. Krueger – No. Uranium is not transuranic and the transuranic radionuclide content by the time it’s downblended is well below the limit for being transuranic. Ms. Gawarecki – Let me re-phrase. Will blending in this waste cause any changes to the qualifications to the Melton Valley Tanks? Mr. Krueger – No. It goes to the NNSS as a cement monolith. Even though TWPC is handling them they are low level waste.


Ms. Gawarecki – We have about 800 drums of depleted uranium oxide stored at East Tennessee Technology Park. Right now DOE doesn’t have a disposal pathway for them. Is Oak Ridge responsible for disposing of them or does it go back Savannah River Site? Mr. Krueger – We would still use it. I don’t think we’re going to need all of it. If we cut the amount of processing in half we may not need as much of the depleted uranium as a blending stock as we would have if we process the entire inventory. We have to figure out how much we need and incorporate into this project the disposition of the remainder. Ms. Gawarecki – So it would be used to downblend the material aqueously that would go to the Melton Valley Storage Tanks? Mr. Krueger – Yes. Let me comment on your first comment about the isotope extraction. I don’t know what the politics are, but when we looked at the programmatic demand we did go to the Office of Science because you can find isolated cases where people have expressed interest, especially in the commercial sector. We asked if this was a genuine programmatic interest and the Office of Science has taken the position that rather than putting a limited amount of resources in extraction of the U-233 for purposes of actinium-225 and bismuth-231 production they would rather invest that resource in a sustainable isotope production technique. So they are looking at an accelerator-produced technique. They want to put their research and development money into that pathway as opposed sinking their money into ‘milking the thorium cow’ because that ‘cow’ will expire. You might get partway through a clinical trial, but you can’t treat enough people with that limited supply. So they would rather focus their resources on a sustainable supply.


Mr. Bonner – What about discharging this material into the ORNL liquid low-level waste system. Is the system prepared to handle it? Mr. Krueger – We are looking at that right now. The system is plumbed right up to Building 3019 and is capable of handling acidic waste. We need to look at connecting to it. We also have to look at all the piping up through Bethel Valley and Melton Valley and understand what this material does to the safety basis of those facilities and what, if any, modifications would have to be made in order to accommodate it. A worst case scenario is having to ventilate tanks in order to capture thoron and put in some filters. We’re also going to look at tanking the waste and avoiding the system. In the Phase II analysis that is a principle focus.


Ms. Mei – The original plan for the six categories was to dissolve it all. Now the six categories have different treatments. Have they been done or is there an effort to do them separately? Mr. Krueger – Let me make sure I haven’t confused anyone. We looked at different disposition pathways for the various categories of waste. We came up with program interests and direct disposal for Consolidates Edison Uranium, but for everything left over we’re proposing one processing technique – aqueous solution. Now if we were to go the dry downblending each individual waste form would have to be treated slightly differently. In the aqueous downblending, for what remains to be processed, which is about half the inventory, we would dissolve it all in nitric.


Mr. Butterfield – I’d like to add a bit of headquarters perspective. Even in light of projects like the Waste Treatment Plant in Hanford, Sodium Bearing Waste in Idaho, and Salt Waste Processing in Savannah River, the U-233 Project in Oak Ridge is a really big deal. There have been at least four meetings with the Deputy Secretary in the past 12 months. ‘Ecstatic’ might not be too strong of a word for Assistant Secretary Triay to use about this. Particularly that it allows us to move forward without constructing a single use annex that, immediately upon completion of the campaign, becomes an environmental liability that we’ll have to decontaminate and demolish. A problem over the years has been conceptualizing a single method to dispose the entire inventory. John has been able to lead us in decoupling from the notion that you have to take a heterogeneous inventory of U-233 and require a single homogeneous solution. It has become a model complex-wide of corporate cooperation. The result of the last report was simple ‘proceed.’


Mr. Mezga – It’s good to know that the Deputy Secretary is engaged in this and that the Assistant Secretary for EM is engaged in this. It’s a great opportunity for us to remind them, however, that no funding was provided when it was transferred into the EM program. It’s a good opportunity to show how really important this is to Oak Ridge by assuring that we have funding to complete the work.


Mr. Murphree – In transportation of the material to the TWPC, my contention would be that the simplest solution is the best. If it can be put on a truck and send it there, that is what I would try to do. I would think if you have problems with this process, that’s where your problems will be – at the back end of TWPC. Something tells me there will be some sort of issue there that is unforeseen at this point. Mr. Krueger – I can understand your comment. One of the things that make me feel better about the necessary integrations is that to a certain degree the schedules can be decoupled. They have sufficient capacity in their capacity increase tanks that we can send them our entire downblended solutions and have them put it in one tank and they can bleed it in as they need it. They don’t need to wait for us and we don’t need to wait for them. That helps with respect to the integration.


Mr. Bell – I was at ORNL for a long time in the chemical technology division when the material was prepared. With respect to downblending that sounds a lot like dilution for the purposes of disposal, which used to not be allowed. Could you comment on that? Mr. Krueger – It is dilution for the purposes of criticality safety and safeguards. The actual percent is driven by safeguards down to a safe isotopic content of U-233 so that it’s attractiveness as a terrorist target, theft, and that kind of thing goes away to the extent that our national security people are satisfied. Then even below that number is a criticality safe number. It’s processing of an excess material so that it can be a waste. Mr. Bell – Is there a legal problem of diluting for the purposes of disposal? Mr. Krueger – No. Mr. Bell – With respect to downblending enriched uranium down to natural uranium, which would be .7 percent U-235, but you don’t have that number in U-233. I don’t see how you can downblend this material to acceptable low-level waste criteria. Mr. Krueger – As an example, let’s take a Savannah River Oxide. It would be in a container that would have quantities of oxide powder. It would be dumped out and dissolved in nitric acid. At that point it’s U-233 nitrate with other isotopic compositions that came with the Savannah River oxide. That is put in a criticality safe tank then you bring depleted U-238 is sufficient quantities such that the isotopic percentage drops to .66 percent. We’re flooding it with uranyl nitrate that is composed of U-238. Mr. Bell – If I had the job of doing this I would have looked at taking those canisters up and moving them over to the TWPC. Why did you not consider that? Mr. Krueger – There were two barriers to doing that. One is the safeguards issues. There are individual canisters in this inventory that surpass the category 2 security threshold. That means TWPC would have to become a high-security facility to handle them or we would be forced to sub-divide the canisters before sending them over, which means we’d have to invest as much in 3019 as we will have to invest anyway. Also the shielding the TWPC hot cell is not as robust as the one in 3019, so they can’t handle the U-232 isotope as well as 3019 can in the quantities and concentrations that we would deal with.


Ms. Gawarecki – I would like to make a clarification about dilution. I attended a meeting with DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week, and the commission specifically says that blended waste, even if one seriously reduces the concentration of the other, is not considered dilution. Dilution is the introduction of water or other non-waste solution. So there is a definitional difference between dilution and downblending. Mr. Krueger – Thank you for that clarification.


Mr. Mezga suggested that the board consider writing a recommendation on the presentation. He said the EM Committee could take the task of writing a recommendation. Mr. Murphree agreed and directed staff to include that on the EM Committee agenda.


Committee Reports

Board Finance & Process – Mr. Dixon said the committee met on February 24. The committee examined board expenditures and determined they are in line with the board’s budget. He said DOE will provide the board’s budget allocation for FY 2012 at the March meeting.


The committee submitted its suggestions for top three issues from Oak Ridge for the Spring EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting in Nevada in April.


The committee will have its next meeting on March 24.

EM – Mr. Olson said the committee heard a report at its February meeting on radioactive wastes stored longer than one year at East Tennessee Technology Park. He said the committee was satisfied with the report and chose not to suggest any recommendation.


The committee reviewed a draft recommendation on siting alternatives for a new landfill on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Committee members had some questions about wording, but since the writer of the recommendation, Ms. Gawarecki, was not in attendance to explain, the recommendation was tabled until the March meeting.


The committee developed its suggestions for the top three issues for the Spring EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting.


At the March meeting the committee will get an update on activities to remove Tank W-1A at Oak Ridge National Lab.


EM Budget & Prioritization – Mr. Murphree said the committee reviewed some FY 2013 budget request scenarios that DOE ran through a computer model to determine the cost and duration of each scenario. DOE has finished the computer analysis and will share the results with the committee at a meeting scheduled for Friday, March 25 at 8 a.m. at the DOE Information Center. Mr. Murphree said the committee will use the results of the scenarios to develop a recommendation to DOE on its FY 2013 budget request.


Public Outreach – Ms. Jones said the committee met on February 22 at the ORSSAB exhibit at the American Museum of Science and Energy. It discussed ideas to update the display on the EM Waste Management Facility display.


The committee reviewed its six-month planning calendar and provided suggestions on the EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting top three issues.


The committee will meet via teleconference on March 22 at 5:30 p.m.


Stewardship – Mr. Bonner reported that the committee met on February 15 and heard a presentation on work that has been done to develop a geographical information system for the Oak Ridge Reservation. The committee had a related discussion on information sheets on parcels that will go in a reference book for the Stewardship Map.


The committee also reviewed some information that had been provided by Tish O’Conor, the Stewardship Point of Contact at EM Headquarters. From that information a recommendation has been drafted that will be reviewed at the March meeting.


The committee will meet again on March 15 and will discuss proposed changes to the National Priority List site boundary for the Oak Ridge Reservation.


Executive – Mr. Murphree said DOE has appointed a new member to the board, David Bolling, who is the city manager of Oliver Springs. He was unable to attend this meeting.


The committee reviewed suggestions from all the committees for top three issues to present at the EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting in Nevada in April. The committee selected:

·         current budget

·         long-term budget

·         potential off-site releases

Mr. Murphree noted that the Travel Opportunities table was in the March meeting packets, and he asked members to see if there are any conferences or meetings they would like to attend. He said the Executive Committee discussed having members travel to other board and committee meetings for additional education and to see how those organizations operate.


Announcements and Other Board Business

ORSSAB will have its next meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 6 p.m. at the DOE Information Center. The presentation will be determined.


Mr. Eschenberg recognized Steve Mead for his service to the board.


The minutes of the February 9, 2011, meeting were approved.


The Revised Recommendations on Alternatives to Memorialize the K-25 Building at East Tennessee Technology Park and Manhattan Project Exhibits was approved (Attachment 2).


Federal Coordinator Report

Ms. Halsey said Mr. Dixon and Mr. Murphree are planning on going to the EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 13-15. She said she would like to have at least one more member attend and encouraged members who would be available to go to request travel authorization.


She said in June about half of the current board members will be leaving the board for various reasons. She said there is concern about how to get new board members up to speed quickly. New training materials are being developed, and she encouraged members to help with that process or submit ideas on training new members.


Mr. Murphree added that a training workshop for new members is being discussed that would be held prior to the August board retreat.


Additions to the Agenda

No additions.





Mr. Olson moved to approve the meeting agenda. Mr. Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.



Ms. Freeman moved to approve minutes of the February 9, 2011, meeting. Mr. Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.



Mr. Stow moved to approve the Revised Recommendations on Alternatives to Memorialize the K-25 Building at East Tennessee Technology Park and Manhattan Project Exhibits. Mr. Lundy seconded and the motion passed unanimously.


The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.


 Action Items


  1. Staff will add to the work plan an item to develop a presentation for the 2012 Waste Management Symposia.
  2. The Environmental Management Committee will take the lead in writing a recommendation on the Uranium-233 Project.
  3. Mr. Adler will determine the components of the $19 million a year dedicated to stewardship on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Carryover from September 8 meeting.
  4. Mr. Adler will determine what contaminants escaped from one of the hot cells at the Transuranic Waste Processing Center. Carryover from October 13 meeting.
  5. Mr. Adler will research if the stacks at Oak Ridge National Lab meet applicable seismic standards. Carryover from November meeting.
  6. Mr. Adler will determine the amount of water and the levels of contamination in the water that goes through the central stack system as a result of condensation or other origins. Carryover from November meeting.



  1. Mr. Adler will check on the status of re-instituting the DOE EM Headquarters Five-year Plan. Closed. DOE Headquarters has no plans to re-establish the Five-year Plans.


Attachments (2) to these minutes are available on request from the ORSSAB support office.