Many Voices Working for the Community
Approved September 14, 2011 Meeting Minutes
The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 14, 2011, at the DOE Information Center, 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
Liaisons and Federal Coordinator Present
Dave Adler, DOE Liaison and Acting Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Office (DOE-ORO)
Pat Halsey, ORSSAB Federal Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Connie Jones, Liaison, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4
John Owsley, Liaison, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
Mark Ferri, UCOR (URS|CH2M Oak Ridge, LLC)
Spencer Gross, ORSSAB Support Office
Susan Gawarecki, Local Oversight Committee (LOC)
Norman Mulvenon, LOC Citizens’ Advisory Panel
Melyssa Noe, DOE-ORO
Pete Osborne, ORSSAB Support Office
Leo Sain, UCOR
Sixteen members of the public were present.
Mr. Adler – A number of changes will be made regarding staffing of ORSSAB and its committees by DOE personnel. After this meeting Ms. Halsey will be replaced by Ms. Noe as the board’s federal coordinator. At the committee level, Mr. Adler will be the DOE liaison for the Executive Committee. Joy Sager will be the liaison for the Stewardship Committee. Ben Williams will be the liaison for the Public Outreach Committee. Delisa Atwater will be the liaison for the Board Finance & Process Committee. Alan Stokes will be the liaison for the Environmental Management Budget & Prioritization Committee. Mr. Adler said no one has been named as the permanent Environmental Management (EM) Committee liaison, but Karen Ott will be the interim liaison until someone is named.
Work began on Tuesday, September 13 to remove Tank W-1A and contaminated soil from the Central Campus of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Mr. Adler said this area is the most significant source of groundwater contamination at the lab and has been a difficult problem to address and prepare for remediation.
Mr. Bell asked if Tank W-1A was empty. Mr. Adler replied that it is empty. It received waste from Building 3019. It was emptied and the contents sent to the Melton Valley Storage Tanks. Mr. Adler said there was some leakage into the tank from surrounding soil. The inlet pipe to the tank had become detached and the soil around the tank has significant contamination.
Mr. Bell asked if the contents of the tank were the source of the soil contamination. Mr. Adler said it was not. The contamination was the result of liquid effluent from 3019 that did not get in the tank because of the detached inlet pipe. Mr. Adler said the contaminated soil will be packaged and sent to the Nevada National Security Site. The tank will be transported to East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) to IMPACT Services, cut up in smaller pieces, and packaged for shipment to the Nevada site. If any of the waste is determined to be transuranic it will be processed through the Transuranic Waste Processing Center and disposed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.
Mr. Bell asked if Tank W-1A is the first tank to be removed in the DOE complex. Mr. Adler said it will be the first radioactive waste tank to be removed from the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). There have been a number of tanks that have been emptied and filled with grout and set aside for later decisions. He said Tank W-1A could be the first such tank removed from the complex; he was not aware of any other such tanks that have been dug up.
All field work has been completed on the Bethel Valley Burial Grounds project. The work included hydrologic isolation, interception trenches, a cap on the burial grounds, and other systems designed to depress the water table and increase the space between waste and groundwater and minimize the influx of shallow groundwater and rainwater through the waste in the burial grounds. The expectation is significant improvement in surface water and shallow groundwater in the area. The area will be monitored to determine how well the remediation works.
Mr. Adler reviewed responses to recent ORSSAB recommendations. He said since the board last met in July DOE has responded to three recommendations.
Response to Recommendation 197 on
the FY 2013 DOE-Oak Ridge EM Budget Request
Mr. Adler said that response, which was included in the September board meeting packets, thanked the board for its input and noted that the board’s recommendation had been forwarded to DOE EM Headquarters.
Response to Recommendation 199 to
Remove Uncontaminated Areas of the ORR from the National Priorities List
The response was included in the September meeting packets. Mr. Adler said the recommendation was for DOE to proceed with removing areas of the ORR from the National Priorities List. DOE is proceeding with that process.
Recommendation 200 on Siting a
Second Waste Disposal Facility on the ORR
The response to that recommendation was distributed at this meeting (Attachment 1). Mr. Adler said the recommendation basically said DOE should consider both on and off site locations for a second disposal facility. He said DOE is currently evaluating possible locations.
Mr. Adler said there are two outstanding recommendations. One is Recommendation 201 on the Liquid Low-level Waste Pipelines Northern Characterization Study Area. Mr. Adler said he had signed a response to that recommendation but it had not yet been sent to the board. He said the response indicates that there will not be sufficient funding to excavate the waste pipelines. That project will likely be combined with other soils excavation at a later date.
The other outstanding recommendation is Recommendation 202 on the Salt Removal at the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Mr. Adler said the response needs one more signature in the concurrence chain. The response will follow the board’s suggestion that DOE find a path for disposal of the remaining salt as well as an alternative path for disposal and to utilize the experience for former workers on the project to understand problems that have plagued the removal of the salt over the last few years.
Mr. Owsley – no comments.
Ms. Jones – Ms. Jones said she toured ETTP on this date and was pleased with the progress of debris removal from the K-33 Building demolition. She was also very pleased that a section of the east wing of the K-25 Building had been removed isolating the technetium-99 contaminated southern end of the east wing allowing demolition to proceed with the non-contaminated part of the wing.
Mr. Mulvenon, speaking as chair of the Citizens’ Advisory Panel of the LOC, offered a brief explanation as to why the LOC as it previously operated will change. He said some of the LOC board members did not like the way the LOC was operating and one was concerned about possible financial liabilities with the LOC’s 501c3 designation. Mr. Mulvenon said a resolution has been made changing the way the LOC is set up. The resolution has not been approved, but Mr. Mulvenon expected that it will be.
Mr. Mulvenon said he was pleased that demolition had begun again on the K-25 Building, but said he wouldn’t be pleased with the final cost of the project. He also had reservations about not continuing to foam piping and process equipment. Ms. C. Jones said the idea to no longer foam has not been formally presented to the regulators. She said the contractors were looking into alternatives to foaming, and the regulators would evaluate any alternatives.
Ms. Gawarecki explained that the LOC was chartered as part of the Tennessee Oversight Agreement in 1992 as way for the City of Oak Ridge, Anderson County and other counties downstream of the ORR to provide input into DOE cleanup decisions. The LOC’s mission has expanded to include emergency management coordination, mission-related issues, anything that affects the health and well-being of the community, and historic preservation. She said the LOC board of directors has voted to transition the organization from a 501c3 organization to the auspices of one of the local governments, which has yet to be determined. She said such a change may not impact the way the organization operates. She said the LOC’s Citizens’ Advisory Panel interfaces with ORSSAB. A number of the panel members are also members of ORSSAB committees. She noted that Ms. Martin is also a member of the LOC advisory panel.
Mr. Tewes said he hoped there would be some memorialization of the S-50 Plant at ETTP that, for about a year and a half during World War II, enriched uranium using a liquid diffusion process. The S-50 Plant was demolished many years ago.
Mr. Sain began his presentation explaining that UCOR is a partnership with URS and CH2MHill. Restoration Services, Inc. is a subcontractor to UCOR (Attachment 2, page 2). UCOR is the prime cleanup contractor for the DOE-ORO, with work focused at ETTP and some operations and surveillance and maintenance work at ORNL and Y-12 National Security Complex. URS and CH2MHill have been and are teamed up on several other projects around the country. Restoration Services has been involved in characterization work at ETTP for the last 12 years.
Mr. Sain reviewed the UCOR management team (Attachment 2, page 3).
He reviewed briefly some of the projects URS and CH2MHill have been involved in at Rocky Flats, Colo., Idaho, Hanford, Wash., Miamisburg, Ohio, and Savannah River (Attachment 2, page 4).
Mr. Sain said safety is a top priority in doing cleanup work. He reviewed a chart indicating FY 2010 safety rankings for DOE projects around the country. Projects highlighted in yellow are URS/CH2MHill projects. He said his goal was to move the ETTP safety ranking to the top of the list.
Attachment 2 page 7 notes UCOR’s approach to doing work at ETTP. One approach is to remove institutional barriers that hinder progress. Addressing Mr. Mulvenon’s concern about no longer foaming process piping and equipment, Mr. Sain said foaming is expensive and is a fire hazard. He said UCOR should look at technically feasible ways to accomplish the same task without foaming. He said UCOR will use the safest most cost effective methods using proven decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) techniques.
UCOR’s basic scope in Oak Ridge is to complete the D&D of K-25, K-27, and the Poplar Creek Facilities at ETTP and complete the removal of Tank W-1A and surrounding contaminated soil at ORNL, and open new scope where possible (Attachment 2, page 8). Mr. Sain said money saved in doing projects will be applied to additional projects.
Current UCOR scope includes ongoing operations and surveillance and maintenance at ORNL and Y-12, including operation of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) at Y-12 and the two sanitary landfills on Chestnut Ridge at Y-12.
UCOR’s approach to its scope, noted on page 9 of Attachment 2, includes challenging the status quo, leveraging safety to enhance productivity, make waste management an enabler of remediation and D&D, get paperwork off the critical path and establish a backlog of work, and focus resources on achieving progress. Mr. Sain said paperwork that is holding up projects must be completed. By establishing a backlog of work, if a project is halted for some reason there is another project identified where work can be done.
The status of current projects at ETTP is noted on page 10 of Attachment 2. Buildings shaded in yellow have been demolished. Those in orange will remain. Buildings shaded in blue are demolition ready, and those in green are currently being demolished. The most important project is the D&D of the K-25 Building. Mr. Sain said the goal is to complete demolition of K-25 by July 2014. Addressing Mr. Mulvenon’s comments about the cost of taking down K-25, Mr. Sain said the price is already enormous. Anything that delays the demolition of the building adds to the cost.
Mr. Sain asked Mr. Ferri to provide an overview of the work to be done at K-25 (Attachment 2, page 12). Mr. Ferri said a decision related to historic preservation of the K-25 North Tower needs to be made soon. He said work on the east wing of the building is moving north toward the North Tower and if work has stop because no decision has been reached it will only delay the work.
Regarding maximization of waste disposed on site, Mr. Ferri said the plan is to ship technetium and uranium-235 contaminated waste to either Nevada National Security Site or Clive, Utah, All other waste is destined for the EMWMF.
Mr. Ferri said the basic strategy is to develop a new approach to reduce or eliminate the use of foam in process equipment, employ an assembly line approach for work, and eliminate lag time by employing waste management specialists in the field.
Mr. Ferri said the critical path is in the North Tower. He said there is a lot of equipment that needs to be removed from the vaults and there are ‘monoliths’ in the building that need to be disposed. By the time work reaches the North Tower the decontamination of the technetium contaminated south end of the east wing should be complete so demolition can begin there. When demolition is complete at K-25 work will move to the K-27 Building.
Regarding technetium contamination in the south end, Mr. Ferri said technetium-99 is a low energy beta emitter, but he said it’s not the worst contaminant to deal with. He said other isotopes like cobalt-60, strontiuim-90, plutonium-238 are more dangerous. He said technetium-99 can be a problem, though, if it gets into the environment. It is an internal problem for workers if inhaled or ingested. The strategy for handling technetium is noted on page 14 of Attachment 2.
Mr. Ferri showed a slide of the separation that has been made between the technetium contaminated south end of the east wing and the rest of the wing (Attachment 2, page 15).
Mr. Sain said when the work is finished at K-25 the same strategies used will be applied at the K-27 Building (Attachment 2, page 17). He said the goal is to not foam in K-27, although he acknowledged that DOE and the regulators will be have to be convinced that a technologically feasible option is acceptable.
Other key parts of UCOR’s work in Oak Ridge are noted on page 18 of Attachment 2. Mr. Sain said that at this time the Poplar Creek Facilities D&D has not been funded. He said the hope is to save money from other projects that can be applied to the Poplar Creek Facilities. Regarding operations and surveillance and maintenance, Mr. Sain said he was surprised at the amount of waste that is piled up around ORNL. He said UCOR was on a mission to get rid of that waste and clean it up. He also said there is waste at ETTP that needs to be shipped off site. Eliminating that residual waste will save money because it doesn’t have to sampled and surveyed periodically. Mr. Sain said DOE has authorized UCOR to take facilities that are under surveillance and maintenance to a status of ‘cold, dark, and dry.’ By doing so will eliminate surveillance and maintenance costs.
Mr. Sain reviewed the Tank W-1A project (Attachment 2, page 19). Readiness reviews have been completed and work to remove the tank and associated contaminated soils began earlier in the week.
After Mr. Sain’s presentation a number of questions were asked. Following are abridged questions and answers.
Ms. Mei: You mentioned that ORNL has RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators). Are they difficult to get rid of? Mr. Sain: There are already in containers. They just have to be loaded and shipped to Nevada.
Mr. Bell: When you talk about removing 98 percent of the technetium source term are you talking about nickel? Mr. Ferri: It’s our belief that the technetium is trapped in the converters and compressors. So that will be shipped out west. Mr. Bell: You talk about the possibility of nuclear criticality in your work. Is there any reasonable way you can think how anything there can be critically unsafe? Mr. Sain: One of the first things we took on was to see if we could determine criticality incredible and we did that. In this type of job if would be difficult to obtain criticality. Mr. Bell: How did technetium-99 become such a demanding source when it’s essentially benign radioactively? Mr. Sain: It’s better to get rid of the tech-99 than to try to prove that it would be OK for it to go to EMWMF. Mr. Owsley: I wanted to clarify that the problem with technetium is not because of worker safety but because of its disposal criteria. The waste acceptance criteria for onsite disposal of technetium-99 are very conservative, so it can’t be disposed onsite.
Mr. Hatcher: In your statement about percentage of cleanup does that include the percentage of tech-99 that has gone into groundwater or is that a separate thing? Mr. Sain: That’s a separate issue. What we’re talking about is the technetium in the components in K-25. We’re not talking about groundwater. The real driver should be that it’s water soluble and it continues to leak in the building a week after a rain. So if you want to stop it from getting in the water take the building down.
Mr. Paulus: You mentioned a number of times about reducing costs to apply to other work. Could explain more about that and contractually do you have the ability to do that? Mr. Sain: If we create some money, we have to work with DOE and get their agreement on what we’re going to spend it on. Mr. Paulus: Are you incentivizing your subcontractors in the same manner? Do you advise them on what things can be done cheaper, better, smarter? Mr. Sain: I wouldn’t say we incentivize subcontractors. They are already well paid. We encourage our employees and subcontractors to bring any kind of ideas that would help us all save money so we can get more work done. We knew that for FY 2012 we were going to have a $30 million problem. We started from day one doing the kinds of things I’m talking about to try to do things to save money. Right now we’ve recouped about half of that money. We’ve identified about $16 million in cost savings. DOE is encouraging and helping us to save money, because it’s in all our best interests.
Mr. Martin: You mentioned this miscellaneous waste at ORNL. Do have a list of what it is and where it’s located? Mr. Sain: Yes, we’ve had list made and have given it to DOE. We have to work with DOE because it has to be considered part of the contract. We’re working with DOE now to get the cleanup of that waste added to the contract. What we’re telling DOE is ‘you’re paying us to watch it. If you let us get rid of it you don’t have to pay us to watch it.’ Mr. Martin: Is this something DOE could share with the board? Mr. Adler: Yes, we can do that.
Mr. Stow: What is your schedule for completing demolition of the east wing of K-25 and then moving to the North Tower? Mr. Ferri: Everyone wants to know the last possible date about making a decision on the North Tower. I don’t know what that is, but the time to make a decision on historic preservation of the North Tower is within a few weeks. We could be moving faster on the east wing, and we could be taking the transite siding off of the North Tower but we’re not doing that yet. Mr. Sain: If you continue at the current rate, when will you finish the east wing? Mr. Ferri: At the current pace, in January or February. Mr. Sain: We really could triple the speed we’re going. Why would we speed up and then stop when we get to North Tower if no decision has been made about it?
Ms. Gawarecki: Are the sodium shields stored at ETTP within the scope of your contract? Mr. Sain: Yes. Ms. Gawarecki: Have you developed an approach for managing them? Mr. Sain: We are working on that now. Mr. Ferri: The way our contract is set up we can only work on certain things at a time. So when we get K-25 done we’ll start working on that. When I was in the United Kingdom there was the largest sodium reactor in the world in Scotland. Our company got rid of thousands of tons of sodium, so we know how to handle it. Mr. Sain: That’s just not authorized work right now.
Mr. Murphree: One of the concerns the board had about the new cleanup contract was related to surveillance and maintenance related to the deteriorating condition of buildings that adds to the cost when time comes to D&D them. It appeared that a significant amount of responsibility was placed on the contractor for surveillance and maintenance. I don’t know where the funding comes from or how you’re identifying and prioritizing what surveillance and maintenance activities need to be accomplished. Mr. Sain: If a building has gotten to the state that it has become hazardous, you’ll find it’s not being occupied anyway, so the real answer is to take it cold, dark, and dry and lock it up. Now you’re not spending anything on it. Down the road when you get money you can demolish it.
Mr. Murphree: Previously the board has heard numerous presentations by the previous contractor concerning K-25 and at some point I think we began to lose some confidence in the ability of the contractor to accurately predict costs and schedules. That will be a significant point of interest with the board in the future. Mr. Sain: Our management team realizes that if we can’t predict the cost and meet or exceed milestones we’re not going to be here very long. We have about nine months to show that we can perform, and that means showing we can come in on or below budget.
Mr. Jensen: We had made the assumption that money should be put into maintaining these buildings in fairly good condition before they are demolished. In your experience is it worth investing anything in these buildings or is it just better to let them deteriorate and take them down when you get to them? Mr. Sain: It depends on what you’re doing with it. If you have a building that has no real function and it’s already deteriorated you ought to get out of it. If you have a building that has reasonable activity that the government has to continue then keep that building in operable state.
Board Finance & Process – Mr. Juarez said the committee focused on the board’s budget and encouraged the committees to carefully review what their expected budget needs will be and request committee budgets accordingly.
The committee asked staff to explore the possibility of streaming board meetings live over the internet.
Ms. Owen reported that the annual planning meeting was successful. She said she felt like it was a good introduction to the board’s operations for the new members. The planning committee held a conference call with facilitator Lori Isenberg last week and discussed what went well at the meeting and what could be improved. The planning committee will use that information for the next meeting in 2012.
EM – Mr. Hatcher said at the July meeting the committee heard information regarding the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for Y-12 National Security Complex. He said the LOC had requested a public meeting on the permit and such a meeting was held in August.
The committee did not meet in August. At the September meeting the committee will begin developing its FY 2012 work plan and elect a chair and vice chair for FY 2012.
Public Outreach – Ms. B. Jones said the committee reviewed its work plan and planning calendar at its August meeting. It also discussed a meeting recently with Oak Ridge City Manager Mark Watson. Mr. Watson mentioned a proposal to house a memorial for the K-25 Building in the fire station at ETTP.
The committee reviewed the results of the Public Environmental Survey. The committee reviewed the Advocate newsletter editorial plan and possible updates to the board’s exhibit at the American Museum of Science and Energy.
Stewardship – Mr. Stow said the committee believes the City of Oak Ridge should take more interest in stewardship on the ORR, since the reservation is in the city limits. He said the committee will continue its efforts with the city in that regard.
The committee will meet on September 20 and will hear a report on the Five-Year Review of stewardship activities on the ORR.
Executive – Mr. Murphree said topics were identified at the August annual meeting for the board’s committees to consider in FY 2012. The committees will begin developing their work plans in September based on those suggested topics.
The Executive Committee will have a work session in September and establish overall board goals for FY 2012. The Executive Committee will review the committee work plans and determine if they fit into board goals or if they need further refinement. The Executive Committee will also determine if additional committees, permanent or ad hoc, will be needed for FY 2012.
The plan is to finalize work plans in September and submit a board work plan to DOE in October.
Mr. Murphree asked for members interested in serving on the EM Budget & Prioritization Committee to contact him or staff. He said the committee needs to meet soon to develop its own schedule for drafting a recommendation to DOE-ORO on its FY 2014 EM budget request.
Mr. Stow briefly described the Center for Oak Ridge Oral History for new members. The center is managed by the Oak Ridge Public Library and funded by DOE. The library is the repository for several hundred oral histories that have been recorded over the years. He said a contract is in place to have an additional 200 oral histories recorded and about a quarter of them have been recorded. The existing oral histories are being digitized and catalogued.
Mr. Tewes asked about the Non-classified Oak Ridge Oral Histories. Mr. Adler said he was not very familiar with the program other than it involved gathering oral histories from contractor staff and DOE staff. He said he would get more information on that and report later.
Announcements and Other Board Business
ORSSAB will have its next monthly meeting on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, at 6 p.m. at the DOEIC.
The minutes of the July 13, 2011, meeting were approved.
Mr. Adler introduced new members of the board to
the public. The new members in attendance were Mr. Bell, Ms. Hart, Mr.
Hemelright, Ms. Martin,
Mr. McKinney, and Mr. Paulus.
The board heard the first reading of amendments to the ORSSAB bylaws (Attachment 3).
The Recommendation on the Uranium-233 Project Re-Examination was approved (Attachment 4).
The EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation on Asset Retention was approved (Attachment 5).
The EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation on Using Rail Transport for Moving Waste was approved (Attachment 6).
The EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation on Authorizing Funds for Movement of Historical/Cultural Artifacts was approved (Attachment 7).
The board elected officers for FY 2012. They are: Maggie Owen, chair; Ed Juarez, vice chair; and Charles Jensen, secretary. They assumed their offices immediately following the meeting.
The response to Recommendation 200: Recommendation on the Decision Process for Siting a Second CERCLA Waste Disposal Facility was distributed (Attachment 1).
The EM Project Update table for July/August was distributed (Attachment 8).
Federal Coordinator Report
Mr. Adler reported for Ms. Halsey.
He commented on the EM budget request for FY 2012. He said both the U.S. House and Senate have considered DOE’s budget request. Both houses have indicated Oak Ridge EM allocations will be about $380 million compared to about $401 million requested by the president. He said president’s request is about $20 million below recent allocations. He said the Senate suggested taking money away from demolition work at ETTP and putting money toward the Uranium-233 Project at ORNL. He said regardless of how budget negotiations go between the two houses it’s certain that FY 2012 will be fiscally challenging for DOE Oak Ridge EM. The tight budget will affect how work is done and will have some marginal effects on the work of the board since there will be less EM work done on the reservation.
Mr. Adler said the board membership is currently at 19. Three more members are needed to bring the board to full membership. Applications will be reviewed to determine three more members. Selections by Deputy Designated Federal Officer John Eschenberg will be forwarded to DOE Headquarters for approval.
The EM SSAB Chairs videoconference will be held Thursday, October 20 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the DOE Information Center.
The Federal Facility Agreement and related appendices are now available on the UCOR website at http://www.ucor.com/ettp._ffa.html.
Additions to the Agenda
Mr. Hatcher moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Hemelright seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Juarez moved to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2011, meeting. Mr. Paulus seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hatcher moved to approve the Recommendation on the Uranium-233 Project Reexamination. Mr. Juarez seconded and the motion was approved 15-0. Mr. Bell did not vote
Mr. Martin moved to approve the EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation on Asset Retention. Mr. Stow seconded and the motion was approved 15-0. Mr. Bell did not vote.
Mr. Hemelright moved to approve the EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation on Using Rail Transport for Moving Waste. Ms. Mei seconded and the motion was approved 15-1, with Mr. Bell voting no.
Mr. Stow moved to approve the EM SSAB Chairs Recommendation Authorizing Funds for Movement of Historical/Cultural Artifacts. Mr. Hemelright seconded and the motion was approved 15-1, with Mr. Paulus voting no.
Mr. Martin moved to approve the slate of candidates for board officers for FY 2012. There being no other nominations from the floor, Mr. Hatcher seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Attachments (8) to these minutes are available on request from the ORSSAB support office.