Many Voices Working for the Community Oak Ridge |
|
Approved
The Oak Ridge Site Specific
Advisory Board (OR
Members Present
Donna Campbell
Heather Cothron
Amy DeMint
Pat Hill
Zach Ludwig1
Katie Meersman1
David Mosby
Tim Myrick
1Student representative
Members Absent
Christopher Smith
2Second consecutive absence
3Third consecutive absence
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officios
Present
Dave Adler, Ex Officio,
DOE-Oak Ridge Offices (DOE-ORO)
Pat Halsey, Federal
Coordinator, DOE-ORO
Connie Jones, Ex Officio,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Doug McCoy, on behalf of
John Owsley, Ex Officio, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC)
Others Present
Jeannie Brandstetter,
Spectrum
Larry Clark, DOE-ORO
Paul Clay, Bechtel Jacobs
Company (BJC)
Pete Osborne, Spectrum
Luis Revilla, former ORSSAB
member
Ken Skinner, BJC
Fifteen members of the
public attended the meeting.
Presentation
Mr. Ken Skinner of BJC gave
a presentation (Attachment 1) on the Dynamic Verification Strategy at ETTP Zone
1.
After the presentation, the
following questions were asked by members of the Board and the public, and the
following responses were given by Mr. Skinner.
|
Question |
Response (abridged) |
|
Ms. Hill – Is the word “dynamic” just an adjective up there?
Are you trying to rush up and overlook things you’ve done before? |
I
don’t think we’re trying to overlook things we’ve done before. It is, I
believe, a better way of doing business. The traditional way was to write a
work plan, sort of mindlessly collect the data, not really thinking about
what you’re getting or what you’re seeing. You missed something. You didn’t
get enough data for what you were doing. Then you’d have more reports, more
data collecting, and on and on. I’ve been on some sites where they went
through this cycle five and six times. The dynamic nature of it is if we go
out and find waste beyond where we expected, we write a brief saying we
didn’t find the boundary and add locations until we do find the boundary. It
shortens our schedule and gives us better confidence in the end product. |
|
Ms. Hill - Some of this stuff is old – is there any problem
with the age of those materials given the amount of rain we do have in
|
We have facility records
that indicate essentially how the site was used and we’ve gathered a very
high density of samples of soil across the quarry floor and to the north and
west. Those are analyzed for a full set of constituents to determine what the
chemicals are and then we gather more information to see how much
infiltration we think is going on. We do have the monitoring well there and
we have historical data from 1989 through 1995. We have information on that
water at that location. Our work also gives us the feel for if a well is in
the appropriate place. |
|
Mr. Gibson – There’s a seven-step data quality objective
process taught at |
I’ve been in that class twice. We follow DQOs to the letter and we develop DQO
packages which are very complete following Sebastian’s course. All the sample
locations on those maps are distributed using VSPs (Visual Sampling Plans) so
they’re distributed in plans using a systematic grid in a hot-spot criteria. |
|
Mr. Gibson
– One of the things you have to do in that is to establish false acceptance
and false rejection criteria. |
We define the gray zone. We
work with our core team members to define the confidence they want to have in
their data sets. You make a set of assumptions on what you think the
statistical variance is of the media you’re trying to characterize and based
on that you determine a number of sample locations that you have to sample to
have a 95 or 98 percent confidence level that your data is representative. We
far exceed that number because we’ve moved to a hot spot criteria and get a
higher sample density. |
|
Mr. Gibson – Do you use the same hypothesis for each of the
acreage classifications? |
They’re different. |
|
Mr. Gibson – Do you assume the area is dirty unless it’s
proved otherwise, or how do you typically apply that? |
Under the acreage
classification step, you’re essentially identifying whether it’s Class 1 or
Class 2, then you look to begin “stratifying the investigation area” under
Sebastian’s vernacular. That’s what we’re doing with the classification step
– essentially stratifying the area and saying “all this mass is one thing;
all this is another thing.” That is a very critical step. Then you have a
relatively homogeneous mass and then you do an evaluation on sample density
for confidence under that. If you have trenches, you can apply an aspect
ratio under VSP which will give you a squashed grid. |
|
Mr. Gibson - Is the Web page available only to the project
team? |
Right now, yes. |
|
Mr. Gibson – Any plans to make it available? |
The preliminary data is not
cleared for public release. When the project is finished with data that’s
being gathered right now, it will go to ORISE and at that point it’s cleared
essentially for release. |
|
Mr. Adams - Who is your employer? |
Bechtel Jacobs Company. |
|
Mr. Adams - What is your specific relationship to this
project? |
I’m the subject matter
expert. |
|
Mr. Myrick – The dynamic nature of this is really only if the
change in approach and approval process is fairly quick. What’s the history
of going through the evaluation of what you need to change, getting the core
team together and coming back with a change and getting it implemented? Is
that months? |
We have our good days and
our bad days. On adding sample locations and analyses and extending surveys,
it’s been very quick; very responsive with good feedback from EPA, the state
and DOE. It works very well. When we get into more difficult issues it takes
longer to work through everybody’s concerns. The real program dynamics which
is to add samples and analyses has been working really well. As for
timeframe, when I make a proposal to add locations, it’s on the order of a
week or 10 days. |
|
Mr. Kennerly – Were the exposure units dynamic also? Did they
change during the course of this? |
No. They are established in
the ROD. They are fixed and they do not change. |
|
Ms. Hill – You said this is more cost-effective – what kind
of cost-effectiveness are we speaking of? |
We’ve saved about $2 million in laboratory costs
with the methods we’re using. Total program costs, using the
characterization/classification techniques, it’s fairly substantial – several
million dollars. |
|
Mr. Trammell – Based on the data you’ve collected so far, how
many acres would you have classified in Class 1 and Class 2. |
We worked about 740 acres
last year and of that I think we have 64 acres that was Class 1 and Class 2. |
|
Mr. Trammell – How would you break down the 1 and 2 within that? |
Much less Class 1 than
Class 2. You have eight or 10 acres of Class 2 and then you’ll have one or
two acres of Class 1. |
|
Mr. Trammell – What did the analysis of the Class 1 and Class 2 show
as it related to Waste Acceptance Criteria? |
What we’ve seen to date
will be acceptable at |
|
Mr. Mulvenon – How do you determine what sites are good candidates
for dynamic verification? |
The characterization strategy
is applicable to any effort – some sites are easier than others. |
|
Mr. Mulvenon – So the applicability is very broad? |
Yes. And the real value is
on those sites where you know very little. |
|
Mr. Mulvenon – Are you using Zone 1 as a test case or are we thinking
of doing for Zone 2 as well? |
Zone 1 is all soil, so it’s just kind of all one
thing. For Zone 2, we’ve talked about categorizing buildings and then classifying
within those categories. |
|
Mr. Mosby – How does it save money if you do more sampling or
have a denser sampling grid? |
It goes through acreage
classification so rather than doing a sample on every acre in 1,400 acres,
we’re down to doing sampling activities on 64 acres. Increased sample density
gives better boundary classification. You save not only money, but schedule,
and time is money. |
|
Ms. Cothron – I didn’t hear any mention of independent
verification sampling by an independent body. Is there going to be independent verification
of the data and when is it going to be done? |
Validation and verification
will be performed by SAIC. |
|
Ms. Hill – You keep mentioning that most of this is done
during the winter months. Is that simply so that you can see it better? |
The Class 3 and Class 4
assessments are sort of out in the woods. |
|
Ms. Hill – Does cold weather as opposed to hot weather have
any bearing on any of this that you might find contaminated? |
No. (In winter) it’s easier
to walk through all that stuff and it’s easier to see it and I think you get
a much better inspection and assessment. It doesn’t affect RAD activity, for
example. |
|
Ms. Hill – How far down do you go when you take the samples,
or does that depend on what you are sampling for? |
On the bio samples in the
3/4 area, we’re sampling zero to a foot. |
|
Mr. Mulvenon – I don’t see that you really have the tools to
manage uncertainty. If you think you do, why not describe that tools you have
to manage decision uncertainty? |
The program provides
several different means to do that. The use of a wide range of technologies
like – geophysics, radiological surveys, real-time methods of scanning core -
all those things help you to understand the nature and extent and type of
contamination and lets you understand the physical characteristics of a site.
The ability to review the data and discuss it with our core team allows us to
gather additional data and everyone has an understanding as we work through
this. In that process, we identify where people have concerns. As you stay
focused, you get a better understanding of that site. |
Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio
Comments
On Mr. McCracken’s behalf, Mr.
Adler announced the departure of Luis Revilla from the Board, thanking him for
his years of service to the OR
Mr. Adler discussed the
extension of the comment period (to Oct. 18) for the Zone 2 Proposed Plan at
ETTP (Attachment 2). DOE currently prefers Alternative 5 in the Plan, which
would leave in place classified burial ground K-1070-C&D.
In September, Board members discussed recommendations endorsing Alternative 5,
Alternative 2 (which calls for removal of that burial ground) and no
alternative with the stipulation that the end state allow for
reindustrialization of the area. All failed to pass.
Mr. Adler noted the concern
of the Board that the land be redeveloped for industrial use, and said that
even if the burial ground is not removed, the portion unavailable for
redevelopment would be approximately 30 of 2,200 acres.
DOE would like to have the
Board’s support for leaving the burial ground in place, and is willing to
accept the challenge of future protection of the site. He believes DOE has
systems in place to manage risk and prevent removal or tampering with the
material if left in place indefinitely.
He also noted the
availability of the Corrective Action Plans for the May 2004 incidents
involving the sodium fire at ETTP and the strontium spill on Highway 95. Mr.
Larry Clark presented information (Attachment 3) on the sodium fire and Mr.
Adler provided information (Attachment 4) on the strontium spill. Both plans
have yet to be approved.
Mr. McCoy drew attention to
an invitation at each place setting for the Oct. 18 celebration of completion
of clean-up work at Atomic City Auto Parts (Attachment 5). Ms. Halsey told
members an RSVP is needed by Oct. 15.
Ms. Jones announced that
Kenneth LaPierre has been named to replace Jon Johnson as the branch chief for
the Federal Facilities Branch of EPA. He has served as chief of a RCRA enforcement
section and as a RCRA permit writer. A colonel in the Air Force Reserves, he
just returned from six months’ deployment to
Mr. Trammell asked about the
status of the covenant deferral at ETTP, and Ms. Jones responded that her
knowledge is limited to a conversation suggesting that DOE has submitted it to
EPA, but she is unaware of its receipt. Mr. Adler said it was received, and
EPA’s regional administrator had approved it on Oct. 12. It will now go to the
state for approval by the governor and various persons throughout DOE.
Public Comment
None
Announcements and Other Board Business
The next Board meeting will
be
Minutes of the
The Board approved a
recommendation Comments on the Proposed
Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and subsurface Structures in Zone 2 at
ETTP (Attachment 6). The recommendation was not alternative-specific,
i.e., it did not identify a preferred option for remedial action. The board
voted to accept the report of technical advisor Gerald Eddlemon, which was
included as part of the recommendation.
The Board tabled discussion
concerning the two consecutive absences of board member Bob McLeod.
Committee
Reports
Board Finance - Mr. Mosby reported that
the
Environmental Management - Mr. Gibson reported that
the Environmental Management Committee had heard a presentation from Dick
Ketelle of BJC on the Remediation Effectiveness Report. The committee has also
discussed the proposed haul road in length, and plans to continue that
discussion on Oct. 20 before formulating a recommendation. He mentioned the
committee is still attempting to review a report on Corehole 8.
Public Outreach - Mr. Mulvenon reported
that Heather Cothron,
Executive - Mr. Trammell reported that
the previous committee meeting had focused on the material to be presented from
OR
Mr. Gibson reported on his
attendance with Mr. Smith at the Governors
Association Risk-Based End States Workshop in
Federal Coordinator Report
Ms. Halsey reported that the
Board membership count is down to 17. One appointment has been at headquarters
since January and is over at the White House for final consideration. Because
Steve McCracken can fill vacated positions, she is moving ahead to have two new
members appointed locally and hopes to have them in place prior to the November
meeting.
She also said the budget did
come in at $350,000 for fiscal year 2005, which is $50,000 more than FY 2004
but does not completely compensate for escalated costs from putting the 8a
contract for support in place. She is working on ways to stretch the budget and
has permission from her management to use innovative strategies to fill some
Board needs, so other than operating without a committee facilitator in October,
there are no glitches imminent.
Public Comment Period
·
Use of colloidal silica might be of interest for use in grouting of
Trenches 5 & 7,
·
·
Bechtel Corp. has received a contract to refurbish the U.S. Embassy in
The meeting adjourned at
Motions
Ms. Cothron was absent for
votes on all motions.
M10.13/04.1
Ms. Bogard moved to approve
the minutes of the
M10.13/04.2
Mr. Mulvenon sought to amend
the recommendation
AComments on the Proposed
Plan for Contaminated Soil, Buried Waste and subsurface Structures in Zone 2 at
ETTP,” to
identify Alternative 5 as the preferred method. The amendment passed by a vote of 10 to 3.
M10.13/04.3
Mr. Mulvenon moved to
approve the recommendation as amended. Ms. Hill seconded the motion, and the
amended motion failed by a vote of 10 to
3.
M10.13/04.4
Ms. Bogard moved to return
the original recommendation to the table. Mr. Mosby seconded, and the motion
was approved by a vote of
M10.13/04.5
Ms. Bogard moved to strike
the issue of Mr. McLeod’s absences from the agenda. The motion was approved by a voice vote of 12 to 1.
M10.13/04.6
Mr. Mosby moved to accept
the report of technical advisor Gerald Eddlemon. Mr. Mulvenon seconded, and the
motion was approved by a unanimous voice
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
RB/kjb
Attachments
(8) to these minutes are available on request from the OR