Many Voices Working for the Community
Approved April 13, 2011 Meeting Minutes
The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 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.
Ed Juarez, Secretary
Ron Murphree, Chair
Kevin Westervelt, Vice-chair
2Second consecutive absence
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)
Susan Gawarecki, Local Oversight Committee
Paul Golan, Acting Manager, DOE-ORO
Patsy Goldberg, Environmental Protection Agency, Region (EPA)
Spencer Gross, MCH Corp.
Pete Osborne, IIA
Fourteen members of the public were present.
DDFO and Liaison Comments
Mr. Eschenberg said the federal government received a week’s extension on Friday, April 8 on the continuing budget resolution to keep the federal government operating until the FY 2011 budget is signed. He said DOE EM complex-wide will likely see about a 5 percent reduction in budget for FY 2011. He said he thought the Oak Ridge EM program could see a $30-40 million reduction from the FY 2010 budget.
Mr. Eschenberg said the EM office is working with EPA, TDEC, and the board to formulate a budget request for FY 2013 even though guidance from DOE headquarters that provides budget targets has not been received yet.
Mr. Eschenberg showed some slides of the progress of the K-33 demolition at East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (Attachment 1). Demolition by LATA Sharp began December 18, 2010, and the building was completely demolished by April 12, 2011. Work demolishing the building and disposing of waste is about eight months ahead of schedule.
Mr. Eschenberg said while the demolition of K-33 was going well, a challenging project is the removal of Tank W-1A from Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL). An operational readiness review is underway, but the project is about four months behind schedule. He said removal of the tank and remediating the soil around it is the most dangerous job undertaken in the ORNL central campus.
Ms. Freeman asked if the slab from K-33 will be taken up and if there will be any remediation of the soil underneath. Mr. Eschenberg said the slab will be taken up and a modest amount of soil remediation will be done. When the property is cleared and remediated it will be turned over to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee.
Mr. Murphree asked if the Tank W-1A project will include remediation of soil between the tank and Building 3019. Mr. Eschenberg said the project will remediate some portion of the area called the north slope.
Mr. Adler – As a result of an impending government shutdown on Friday, April 8, the EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting scheduled for April 12-14 was cancelled. Mr. Adler said options are being considered to reschedule the meeting or perhaps conduct it as a video conference. A decision on rescheduling should be made by May.
Mr. Adler reported that a response to the board’s Recommendation 195: Recommendations Concerning Bear Creek Burial Grounds was included the board members’ meeting packets. He said a table regarding cost estimates to remediate Bear Creek Burial Grounds would be provided within six months.
DOE is working on a response to Recommendation 196: Revised Recommendations on Alternatives to Memorialize the K-25 Building at East Tennessee Technology Park. He said that recommendation is considered part of the input that DOE is currently receiving and will use in making a recommendation on memorializing K-25.
Mr. Owsley – TDEC and EPA are working closely with DOE in developing a scope of work for the FY 2013 DOE budget request. Mr. Owsley said that work is being done in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) and a 2008 dispute resolution agreement.
Regarding the Tank W-1A project, Mr. Owsley said the state views Tank W-1A the same as other tanks in the area that were remediated in place a number of years ago (the Gunite Tanks). Those tanks were drained and filled with concrete to prevent water infiltration. He said a final decision has not been made on those tanks. He said if it cannot be documented that the tanks are not a threat to groundwater, the state would ask that the tanks be removed.
Ms. Freeman asked if there was a timeline on making a decision to remove the tanks. Mr. Owsley said DOE’s preference is to delay that decision until other work is completed. The state would like to have more information to determine if that is the best path forward.
Mr. Bonner asked if the work to remove Tank W-1A is being driven by contamination in the soil around the tank or from contamination in the tank. Mr. Eschenberg said the tank has been emptied and cleaned and work has been done to determine levels of contamination in the tank. Mr. Adler said the work is being driven by all the contaminated soil around the tank. He said the tank itself is not a contributor to groundwater contamination, but the soil is a threat to groundwater. Mr. Eschenberg said one option was to remove the tank, remediate the soil, set the tank back down, and fill it with grout. The decision was made, however, to remove the tank, dispose of it, and remediate the soil.
Mr. Hatcher asked what contaminants are in the soils around the tank. Mr. Adler said the contamination is mostly fission products and transuranic wastes, but not much chemical contamination. The groundwater contaminants are mostly cesium and strontium.
Mr. Dixon asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Eschenberg said the milestone for completion is September 2011. He said a milestone has not been set for the north slope soil, but he anticipated it to be in the September 2012 timeframe.
Ms. Owen asked if some of the Gunite Tanks had the same levels of contamination as Tank W-1A. Mr. Owsley said he was not part of the Gunite Tank remediation, but his understanding was that they contained high activity low-level waste. He reiterated that the decision on the Gunite Tanks was an interim decision, not a final decision.
Mr. Bonner asked what the regulatory endpoint was for Tank W-1A. Mr. Adler said the existing interim record of decision (ROD) for the ORNL central campus was to create a zone free of contamination for the top 2 feet of soil; below 2 feet should have no groundwater contamination sources.
Ms. Goldberg – Ms. Goldberg, who was sitting in for ORSSAB EPA liaison Connie Jones, had no comments.
Mr. Mulvenon complimented the board on its new design of the board’s Advocate newsletter.
Ms. Gawarecki said an explanation of significant differences (ESD) for the Zone 1 ROD for ETTP allows for leaving a duct bank in place along a 1.6 mile corridor at ETTP and prohibits any excavation below 2 feet along the corridor. She said the end use for ETTP is an area for industrial redevelopment and having such a restriction could inhibit redevelopment. She went on to say that there is no way for the public to address the problem because ESDs are not required to have any public input. She said decisions to change a ROD, whether by amendment or ESD, are made by EPA and are based on whether there are any changes that could affect human health. She said when ESDs to RODs are proposed stakeholders should have an opportunity to meet with DOE and the regulators and discuss the ESD and be allowed to make comments and express concerns. She encouraged the board to look at the ESD for the Zone 1 ROD for ETTP as well as the larger issue of ESDs in general.
Ms. Goldberg said that an ESD does allow for public input. She said a ROD amendment is a fundamental change to a ROD and there is a 30-day notice for the public to provide input. She said an ESD doesn’t have the rigorous public notice requirement as a ROD amendment but there is a public notice through a fact sheet and there is opportunity for public input. Ms. Gawarecki said the fact sheet is published but there is never an address given as to where comments can be sent nor any indication as to how long comments will be considered. Ms. Goldberg said the ESD process is less formal because there is not a fundamental change to the ROD.
Mr. Tewes asked what is being done to memorialize the K-25 Building at ETTP. Mr. Adler said a process is underway under the National Historic Preservation Act to decide what to do about K-25. He said the process has been taking a long time, but should be coming to closure within the next few months. He said two feasibility studies about preserving K-25 and other areas of the reservation for historical preservation have been put before the signatory and consulting parties to a memorandum of agreement for site interpretation at K-25. In the meantime, DOE Oak Ridge will be developing a proposal about how to preserve the history of K-25 and the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Mr. Adler said that proposal should come out in six to eight weeks. The consulting parties will meet in the next few months to discuss the studies and DOE’s proposal. That will be an open meeting and the public will have an opportunity to provide input. A meeting date has not been set but Mr. Adler expected it to be in June.
Mr. Stow asked if the consulting parties will have any input to DOE’s proposal. Mr. Adler said the consulting parties would be provided a draft proposal before a meeting is scheduled.
Mr. Adler’s presentation was a summary of work that has been done to provide information to members of the board and help them prepare a recommendation on the FY 2013 DOE Oak Ridge EM budget request to DOE headquarters.
The process of developing a budget request also includes input from the regulators (EPA and TDEC). In meeting with the regulators, cleanup priorities were discussed for ORNL, Y-12, National Security Complex, and ETTP. In addition, DOE worked with the board’s Environmental Management Budget & Prioritization Committee in providing information on cleanup work to be done at the three sites.
Mr. Adler briefly reviewed the priorities at the three sites. At Y-12 the cleanup priority is to reduce the flux of mercury across the site. The western portion of the site used thousands of pounds of mercury for various process activities. Much of that mercury was lost in the environment, in soil and groundwater. A large amount of mercury made its way into East Fork Poplar Creek that runs through the plant, off the plant site, and through the city of Oak Ridge. Reducing the concentrations of mercury in the creek is a high priority. The strategy for cleaning up Y-12 is a west to east direction to clean up soils and tear down old, unneeded building and remove contaminated soils under those buildings. This strategy addresses the worst contamination first and minimizes any recontamination because work is moving in the flow direction of the creek.
An area of particular interest is the Old Salvage Yard in the western part of the plant. That area and the soil underneath are being cleaned up under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Beta 4 facility to the east of the scrap yard is also a cleanup priority for the site. Legacy waste is currently being removed from the building so it can be demolished. The Alpha 5 and Alpha 4 facilities are priority projects because they sit on top of contaminated soil and storm drain systems. The 8110 Area to the east of those facilities is also a cleanup priority.
Mr. Hatcher asked if there are buildings that will remain that have contamination underneath. Mr. Adler said, for the most part, that is not the case. The Alpha and Beta buildings have no further mission and will be demolished eventually so contaminated soil can be reached.
At ORNL the effort is minimize any effects from the old industrial central campus on the new facilities to the east. That effort is to eliminate any risk to groundwater in the central campus (such as removing Tank W-1A as noted above) and eliminating old, unneeded buildings. Mr. Adler said the regulators were interested in reducing groundwater plumes in valleys outside of the main ORNL campus, which could include monitoring wells in West Bethel Valley to better understand contamination and also wells to monitor a volatile organic compound plume in East Bethel Valley.
The agreed upon approach among DOE and the regulators to achieve a thorough cleanup was to remove old buildings in the area known as the Isotopes Facilities that contain a number of contaminated buildings. There are also some old reactors that need to be removed. The approach at ORNL is to work from uphill (the reactor area) to downhill to clean up contaminated soil. Mr. Adler said a number of actions at ORNL have already been taken to address acute problems.
At ETTP the priority is to remove all of the old gaseous diffusion plants, clean up the soil under the buildings, and clean up the remaining 1,400 acres of the site.
Mr. Adler then talked about the Dynamic Planning Model that has been developed that provides a way to analyze different sequences and funding of priorities across the ORR. He said the model allows estimating the relative merits of the different approaches to sequencing and funding levels for cleanup.
A series of hypothetical sequencing and funding scenarios has been developed so DOE, the regulators, and members of the Budget & Prioritization Committee could determine the most timely and cost effective approach to achieve cleanup. Mr. Adler reviewed each of the scenarios.
The first is the Unconstrained Budget Scenario (Attachment 2, page 1). This scenario assumes that Congress would provide all the money DOE would need to achieve the timeliest cleanup. While that is an unrealistic expectation, Mr. Adler said the interest was to determine how quickly the work could be done if money was unlimited. He noted that even though a great deal of work could be done within the next five to eight years it would still take more than 30 years to completely finish cleanup of the reservation. That is because some facilities cannot be demolished because they still provide a mission need. He also noted that a significant drop off in work from 2015 on would be detrimental to the local economy.
Mr. Adler said one thing that all the scenarios showed is that about 80 percent of funding is needed for building demolition (decontamination and decommissioning, D&D). Only about 20 percent of funding is needed for soil remediation. In order to get to most of the contaminated soil buildings have to be demolished. Consequently, to successfully clean up the ORR, a significant amount of money must be earmarked for D&D.
Mr. Adler said a number of projects have long-term costs (‘standing army’ costs) associated with them, such as surveillance and maintenance, security, utilities, etc. Those projects are ETTP (about $50 million a year), the Uranium-233 Disposition Project ($20 million), and the Transuranic Waste Disposition Project ($20 million). Because of those long-term carrying costs, the remaining scenarios focus on finishing those projects as quickly as possible. The estimated cost of completion (ETC) under this scenario is $13 billion.
The next scenario Mr. Adler discussed is the $550 Million Budget (Attachment 2, page 2). This scenario assumes that DOE Oak Ridge would receive an annual funding of about $550 million per year until cleanup is finished. He said this budget scenario is based on the commitment to achieve milestones set in the FFA. Under this scenario cleanup would end about 2037, but there would be an extension of the completion date because the onsite landfills would have to be capped and some soil cleanup would be done under buildings that can’t be torn down because of mission need. Base costs for ETTP, U-233, and the Transuranic Waste Disposition are eliminated by about 2020. The ETC for this scenario is $14.2 billion.
The third scenario Mr. Adler discussed is the ETTP Last Scenario (Attachment 2, page 3). This scenario assumes that there would be a concentration of other projects on the ORR prior to completion of work at ETTP. This scenario is not seriously considered but was done to illustrate a how the ‘standing army’ costs would significantly increase the ETC to $16.9 billion. This scenario makes the case for working off projects with standing army costs.
The next scenario is the $450 Million Budget Specific Project Start Scenario (Attachment 2, page 4). This scenario uses the recommendations made a year ago (before the Dynamic Planning Model was available) by EPA and TDEC for acceleration of some projects. This scenario illustrates how the funding would fluctuate over the years using those recommendations. Since seeing this scenario, Mr. Adler said EPA and TDEC have revised their recommendations. Those recommendations fill in the gap between 2020 and 2030. The ETC for this scenario is $14.7 billion.
The last scenario Mr. Adler reviewed was the $600 Million Budget Scenario (Attachment 2, page 6). He said this is a level of funding that would be acceptable to DOE-ORO and the regulators for a timely completion of work. With that level of funding ETTP would be finished by 2019, the U-233 Project and the Transuranic Waste Disposition Project would be finished about 2020, and progress would be made at Y-12 and ORNL on building D&D and soil cleanup. He said a more refined scenario would smooth some the gaps in funding. The ETC is $14.2 billion.
Mr. Adler noted that the Budget & Prioritization Committee did not have a lot of time to learn the priorities and understand the budget scenarios, and, as a result, the information in a draft recommendation to DOE states that the U-233 Project and the Central Gaseous Waste Stack in ORNL were not contained in any of the scenarios, when in fact they are. Mr. Adler noted on the chart where the U-233 and the Central Stack is included in the ORNL D&D.
The last chart Mr. Adler referenced (Attachment 2, pages 9-11) was a table developed by EPA and TDEC that lists all projects to be done on the ORR. The regulators identified all projects that have ‘scheduling discretions,’ i.e., costs are not fixed. The regulators then ranked all of the projects in the order of their priorities. The first priority is that existing FFA milestones are funded. Those milestones are focused on ETTP and are consistent with what DOE wants to do as well. From ETTP the priorities shift to other projects on the reservation that include some D&D and some environmental cleanup in areas beyond central plant sites. Mr. Adler said DOE project managers tend to want to focus on projects in areas where people work and areas of potential threat to plant missions.
Mr. Adler said DOE Oak Ridge will be taking the regulators’ recommendations and the board’s recommendations and developing its budget request to be submitted to DOE headquarters within a few weeks. He said the regulators’ and board’s budget recommendations will accompany the budget request submittal. After budget requests are submitted they are embargoed in Washington and the final budget requests will not be seen again until the president submits the administration’s budget proposal to Congress in February 2012.
After Mr. Adler’s presentation a number of questions were asked. Following are abridged questions and answers.
Ms. Jones – How are current budget cuts going to affect milestones? Mr. Adler – The fundamental truth is that when budgets go down, schedules are pushed out. But right now, our enforceable milestones are looking good because we received $755 million from the Recovery Act. For the next couple of years we’re in pretty shape with existing enforceable milestones (milestones set for the next three years in Appendix E of the FFA). Beyond 2014 if budgets are not what we hope for it becomes increasingly difficult to make milestones. Ms. Jones – So I wonder how we will prioritize not knowing what will happen. Mr. Adler – That’s right because you will prioritize differently at different funding levels. The push so far has been to finish ETTP and high mortgage facilities at ORNL and Y-12.
Mr. Hatcher – I’d like to know if other sites have a handle on their total costs for cleanup and how they compare with Oak Ridge. Mr. Adler – They have lifecycle baselines, which in some cases are more comprehensive than ours. Oak Ridge is a complicated site: three plants, multiple missions, a number of contaminants and waste management practices. The other sites have smaller numbers of huge problems. I think most sites have charted and scoped the rough costs associated with finishing their programs. I don’t think most, if any, engage in this level of regulatory and public interaction on different sequencing scenarios. For some of the outyear projects, the level of rigor associated with some of our cost estimates is not nearly as high as it is for the projects planned for the near term. We believe we have a strong valid baseline for ETTP. The certainty associated with some of the cost and schedules estimates for some of the other future D&D projects is lower.
Ms. Mei – You said with less money available some of the milestones will shift to the right. If some of the milestones shift can some of the bigger projects be re-examined for cost savings and still keep the milestones? Mr. Adler – We should always be keeping an eye toward reducing costs and finding efficiencies for more intelligent strategies for doing the work. I think the answer to your question is ‘yes’ for some of those projects and their projected costs potentially could be brought down by working smarter. The opportunities for better technology for D&D may not be as available as new technologies for other problems around the complex. But things like the reactor and process work there could be potential for better technologies. Every year as we scope a project we lay out how we’re going to get it done. We work very hard to drive the cost down as low as we can and still achieve the objective.
Ms. Freeman – Does the chart of regulators’ priorities link to any of the scenarios? Mr. Adler – The regulators’ priorities are somewhat linked with the $600 million scenario. There are other ways of spending the $600 million, but the scenario is based on how the regulators would like to spend it.
Mr. Bonner – What I don’t see is a worst case scenario where we don’t get any of the funding levels proposed. Is there any reason for that? Mr. Adler - We need to do a scenario where we look at even lower funding. If you look at something in the $350 million range then you get a program that runs out so far that costs really increase because you have standing army costs and maintenance costs to keep structures in a safe condition for eventual demolition.
Ms. Smith – It isn’t obvious why the cost of base operations at Y-12 and ORNL go up over time. Mr. Adler – I was looking at that before the meeting and I had the same question. I think the answer is as you move into large-scale D&D activities the operations rate at landfills go up and that is a big portion of base operations. Plus the costs are escalated over time at about 2.6 percent. Ms. Smith – Melton Valley doesn’t show up much in this. Melton Valley is where a lot the contamination is located and there are some offsite transport paths. I’m wondering if there is too much reliance on expectation of the interim actions taken some years ago are going to be effective forever and if some significant work in Melton Valley will need to be done years away. Mr. Adler – Your point is right at the center of discussions between DOE and the regulators right now. We are seeing significant benefits from the actions that have been taken and they continue to accrue. At the same time we have this curious data across the Clinch River that we’re trying to understand. We will be doing some planning documents to address next steps. Between now and 2012 the hydrogeologists will be getting together and engaging in data quality objectives to make sure we understand the data we have and determine what that data tell us to decide on appropriate next steps. Sometime in late 2012 we’re going to face some tough decisions. Do we spend millions of dollars drilling more monitoring wells or millions of dollars to tear down buildings? Those are the kinds of decisions that have to be made under tight budget conditions. In the meantime, we’re making sure that anyone across the river is out of harm’s way, basically cutting off exposure pathways through the provision of alternate water supplies and monitoring systems to determine if anything is getting over there at an appreciable level. To the extent that it is present, contamination is at levels below drinking water standard. The real risk is being dealt with. But we need to continue to look at what we need to do to continue to drive down the source of contamination in groundwater.
Ms. Freeman – I’ve seen a couple of presentations from Washington where all major cleanup in Oak Ridge will be done by 2020. I’m having hard time seeing how we are going to get to that based on what we’re seeing here. That’s just a comment and I don’t need you to answer but I think it’s something the board should be aware of.
At this point Mr. Olson presented a draft recommendation that had been written by the EM Budget & Prioritization Committee (Attachment 3). Mr. Olson went through the points of the recommendation. He recognized Mr. Adler’s comments that some portions of the recommendation related to the U-233 Project and the Central Stack at ORNL were no longer relevant and would have to be revised.
Lacking a quorum to consider recommendations, the recommendation was tabled until the May meeting.
Mr. Olson noted that he was the primary author of the recommendation with some input from Ms. Freeman, but he asked if any board members were willing to work with him to revise the recommendation prior to the next meeting. Ms. Freeman, Mr. Hatcher, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Stow volunteered to work on revisions. Mr. Mulvenon as a member of the public also volunteered. Mr. Olson said he would work with them to find a time to meet and revise the recommendation.
Board Finance & Process – Mr. Juarez said the committee met on March 24 and spent most of its time discussing planning for the 2011 board annual retreat. The retreat will be held Saturday, August 20 at the Whitestone Inn near Kingston, Tenn. There are plans for an informal Friday evening meeting. He encouraged members to attend that meeting as well. He said with a large number of new members on the board in August the Friday night session will be a good time for new and current members to become acquainted. Lori Isenberg will be the facilitator for the annual retreat. She facilitated last year’s meeting.
EM – Mr. Olson reported that the committee met on March 16 and heard a presentation on the Tank W-1A removal and the nearby north slope characterization project. He said the committee plans a recommendation on the north slope project.
Mr. Olson said the committee will discuss a recommendation on the U-233 Project at the April meeting.
At the April meeting the main presentation will be a discussion of onsite and offsite groundwater monitoring in Bethel and Melton Valleys.
The April meeting will be a joint meeting with the Stewardship Committee.
Public Outreach – Ms. Jones reported the committee met by teleconference on March 22. The committee reviewed the fiscal year planning calendar and discussed plans to meet with Oak Ridge City Manager Mark Watson on April 22. However, Ms. Jones said she understood Mr. Watson will not be able to meet on that date and will reschedule.
The committee discussed participation in the Oak
Ridge Earth Day celebration on Saturday,
The committee will meet again on Tuesday, April 26 via teleconference.
Stewardship – Mr. Bonner reported that the committee met on March 15 and approved a draft recommendation to establish a site transition process upon completion of remediation at ongoing mission sites. That recommendation will come before the board at the May meeting.
The committee discussed a white paper that was written describing the process for changing the National Priorities List boundaries for the ORR. The committee is currently working on a recommendation regarding the site boundary changes.
Mr. Bonner said Mr. Stow was elected vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Bonner reminded the board that the committee will meet with EM on April 20.
Executive – Mr. Murphree reported that the committee met on March 24 and discussed topics that were to be presented at the EM SSAB Chairs’ meeting, which was cancelled because of an impending government shutdown.
Mr. Murphree reminded the board that a preliminary report on a presidential blue ribbon commission to find an alternate disposal site for high-level waste is available at http://www.brc.gov/library/reports/BlueRibbon_Report-pages.pdf.
Mr. Stow reported that a contract is in place between the City of Oak Ridge and the Oak Ridge Public Library and videographer Keith McDaniel to conduct 100 oral histories for the Center for Oak Ridge Oral History over the next two years. A list of interviewees is being prioritized and scheduled.
He said an announcement will be made soon asking for volunteers to help index oral histories that are already recorded.
The library is being renovated and the oral history program will benefit from that renovation.
Announcements and Other Board Business
ORSSAB will have its next meeting on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 6 p.m. at the DOE Information Center. The presentation will be determined.
Mr. Eschenberg introduced Mr. Roberts as a new member to the board.
Mr. Eschenberg introduced Mr. Golan as the Acting Manager of the DOE Oak Ridge Office.
Mr. Eschenberg recognized Ms. Goodlin and Mr. Monroe for their service to the board as student representatives for 2010-2011.
The minutes of the March 9, 2011, meeting were approved.
Federal Coordinator Report
Additions to the Agenda
Mr. Olson moved to approve the meeting agenda. Ms. Freeman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Dixon and Ms. Freeman were not present for the following motion.
Mr. Juarez moved to approve minutes of the March 9 2011, meeting. Ms. Mei seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Attachments (3) to these minutes are available on request from the ORSSAB support office.