Dave Adler, ExOfficio, DOE-Oak Ridge Offices (DOE-ORO)
Gerald Boyd, DOE-ORO, Deputy Designated Federal Official
Pat Halsey, Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Connie Jones, ExOfficio, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Owsley, ExOfficio, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)

Others Present

Jeff Crane, EPA
James McBrayer, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC)
Pete Osborne, BJC
Judy Ullmann, Temp Systems 

Six members of the public attended the meeting.

Presentation

Ms. Connie Jones, EPA Region 4, gave a presentation on the Draft September 2001 Sampling Report for the Scarboro Community. A copy of Ms. Jones= presentation is included as Attachment 1. 

After the presentation, the following questions were asked by members of the Board and the following responses were given by Ms. Jones. 

Question	Response (abridged)
Mr. Gibson – Please explain the meaning of the phrase “what is being emitted there now.” Are you looking at emissions at the Y-12 facility presently?	The study looked at current exposures at Y-12 and the emissions/discharges into the Scarboro Community. It was beyond the scope for an ecological viability study to be done; this study only looked at human health.
Mr. Washington - When looking at certain substances over the past 50 years, is there some kind of scientific rational for only sampling 6 inches deep?	For this study, EPA looked at human health exposure. When sampling for human health issues the top 6 inches of soil are tested.  However, for analyzing mercury and uranium samples the test sample is taken at 12 inches. Based on the findings from the EPA and DOE studies, the results indicate there is no threat to human health, and no further action is required at this time.
Ms. Cothron – What do you mean when you use the phrase “results due to process?”	It refers to the activities that are ongoing at Y-12, which include emissions and discharges into the Scarboro Community.
Ms. Bonner – Is there a reason why EPA did not go in at the beginning to do the sampling first?	It was a simple lack of coordination with DOE.  EPA does not do split samples any more. DOE is the lead agency. EPA uses laboratory validation to review data and compare data at twenty percent of the DOE sampling locations.
Ms. Bonner - Do you think EPA will resample for health effects or for remedial reasons?	Based on this sampling report, EPA is convinced that further samples will not be taken under the current scope.
Mr. Adams – In your opinion did the length of time between DOE sampling and EPA sampling and reviews cause a lack of confidence or concern in the data analysis?	The community and EPA were concerned at first, but the results from DOE sampling were similar to the results obtained by EPA sampling. The time lag did not impact the sampling analysis.
Mr. Kennerly – Does any of the surface water continually run out of the Scarboro Community?	Surface water samples were taken, and nothing was found. Samples were even taken from backyards of some residents. The creek connects to Lower East Fork Poplar Creek.

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio Comments

Mr. Boyd made eight announcements:

·         DOE released the interim reorganization of the DOE-ORO Environmental Management Program (EM) to meet the demands of the accelerated cleanup plan.

·         The extension and conversion of Bechtel Jacobs’s contract has not yet been approved. No authority has been given from Headquarters to negotiate an extension.

·         A “continuing resolution” by Congress to fund government agencies at the level of the previous fiscal year through January 11, 2003, will likely impact the accelerated work plans and project milestones.

·         The investigation report on the strontium-90 release from Oak Ridge National Laboratory is complete and available for public review. This report will be made available at the DOE Information Center.

·         The East Tennessee Technology Park Phase II Water Quality Report has been completed and will be released early next week.

·         Two reports will be forthcoming that might be of interest to the Board. The Corp of Engineers has completed their review of the life cycle baseline, and the report will be available within the next two weeks. The K-25 & K-27 Project Phase II is the removal of the equipment, which is the biggest part of the project. DOE did an independent analysis of that Request for Proposal (RFP) submitted by Bechtel Jacobs.  The National Facility D&D Initiative group located in Washington, DC, staffed by a group of technical personnel did that RFP review. The review has been completed and the report will go through security review before being released. Both reports are supportive of the DOE approach to closure.

·         The Materials and Chemistry Laboratory issue was addressed by DOE, and the demolition of building K-1006 will be placed at the very end of the demolition schedule.

·         DOE is always striving to better improve communication with the stakeholders and the community.  One suggestion was to sponsor a workshop that goes into the technical details of the life cycle baseline.

Mr. Adler announced that the Comprehensive Waste Disposition Plan is available in draft form at the DOE Information Center.  The plan identifies all waste streams and how DOE intends to dispose of the waste.

Ms. Halsey expressed appreciation to all the Board members for their attendance and participation in the recent SSAB Chairs Meeting.

Ms. Jones introduced Mr. Jeff Crane to the Board. Mr. Crane is the EPA FFA Project Manager.

Public Comment

No comments

Announcements and Other Board Business

The next Board meeting will be Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at the DOE Information Center. The presentation topic will be the Comprehensive Waste Disposition Plan.

Minutes of the October 9, 2002, Board meeting were approved with one amendment, which was to remove Mr. Trammell’s name from the list of members for the Environmental Safety & Health Ad Hoc Committee.

The Board approved a letter to Mr. Gerald Boyd, “Recommendations on Fact Sheets for Explanations of Significant Difference for CERCLA Records of Decision at the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation” (Attachment 2), with one amendment, which is to remove the last bullet on page two.

The Board approved a letter to Mr. Gerald Boyd, “Comments on the Land Use Control Implementation Plans (LUCIPs) for Melton Valley, Bethel Valley, and Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Characterization” Area (Attachment 3) with one amendment, to add “and record with the Registrar of Deeds in appropriate county” to the fifth paragraph, so that it reads, “The three tables included in each LUCIP provide the reviewer an informative snapshoot of the remedial actions, Land Use Controls and required monitoring of the Land Use Controls. The maps and associated text identify the areas under restriction; the survey plats filed with the City of Oak Ridge Community Development Department and recorded with the Registrar of Deeds in the appropriate county, after completion of all remedial actions will provide greater detail.”

The Board approved a letter to TDEC, Ms. Okoreeh-Baah, “Recommendation Concerning Department of Energy Oak Ridge Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part B Permit Renewal” (Attachment 4).

The Board approved a letter to Mr. David Allen, “Comments on the Environmental Assessment for Proposed Changes to the Sanitary Biosolids Land Application Program on the Oak Ridge Reservation” (Attachment 5).

Mr. Trammell, Mr. Million, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Mosby gave reports on recent activities of the Environmental Restoration, Stewardship, Waste Management, and Executive committees, respectively. Mr. Osborne reported on public outreach. Mr. Mulvenon discussed recent meetings of the Board Process and Environmental Safety and Health and the Scarboro Sampling Report Ad Hoc committees.

Mr. Berry reported that he and Mr. Washington met with Rex Lynch, Anderson County Executive. Mr. Lynch expressed concern about the accelerated cleanup schedule and how this accelerated plan would impact the employment status of many Anderson County residents. Mr. Lynch requested that someone from his board of commissioners be seated on the SSAB. The Board agreed to add his suggestion to the next Board Process Committee meeting agenda.

Mr. Alexander asked the Board for clarification on draft environmental assessments (EA’s). Has Oak Ridge established a new policy to distribute draft EA’s for public comment before they finalize it? Ms. Halsey stated that she would look into the procedures and processes on EA’s, and will share her findings with Mr. Alexander.

The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.

Motions

M11/13/02/02.1
Ms. Campbell moved to approve the amended minutes of the October 9, 2002, Board meeting. Mr. Mosby seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M11/13/02/02.2
Mr. Trammell moved to approve ARecommendations on Fact Sheets for Explanations of Significant Difference for CERCLA Records of Decision at the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation.@ No second was required on the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M11/13/02/02.3
Mr. Million moved to approve AComments on the Land Use Control Implementation Plans for Melton Valley, Bethel Valley, and Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Characterization Area.@ No second was required on the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M11/13/02/02.4
Mr. Gibson moved to approve ARecommendation Concerning Department of Energy Oak Ridge Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part B Permit Renewal.@ No second was required on the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

M11/13/02/02.5
Mr. Gibson moved to approve “Comments on the Environmental Assessment for Proposed Changes to the Sanitary Biosolids Land Application Program on the Oak Ridge Reservation.@ Mr. Adams seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna L. Campbell, Secretary

DLC/ju