|
FULL
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Members
Present Members
Absent Approximately 20 spectators also attended the meeting, including members of the local community, and representatives from the Department of Energy (DOE) and Fluor Fernald (Fluor). 1. Call
to Order 2. General
Remarks and Announcements The SSAB Chairs held a conference call and unanimously support sending a letter to Secretary Abraham on funding issues. A new draft is available and the Board is asked to take action. After review, the Board voted unanimously to support the letter as written. Jim noted that some boards are sending individual letters expressing similar support because Hanford may have some trouble getting this letter approved in a timely fashion. The Board expressed the desire to send copies of the final letter to other individuals to ensure widespread knowledge of the issues. The board also would like to request that the Hanford CAB include a full distribution list. It is very important that this letter be completed by May 3 so that it can be presented at the Congressional cleanup briefing on that date. Jim distributed copies of letters from the Secretary of Energy to several Governors asking for coordination. It was noted that a lot of these arrangements are already in place. It was also noted that any reviews or committees that are put together should include stakeholders. Jim noted that Laverne Mayfield from AFL-CIO is still interested in the FCAB. She could not make this meeting, but will try to make future meetings. Lisa Blair is also still interested in participating, she is a student recommended by Gene Willeke and will try to come to a future meeting. Jim is still hoping to connect with Commissioner Portune. Support was expressed to keep Fawn Thompson involved with the CAB and seek ways to ensure her participation. There is a long-term stewardship workshop in Grand Junction Colorado planned for the end of July and the next SSAB Chairs meeting will be held in Santa Fe at the end of August. There will be an SSAB workshop on groundwater, November 8 –10 at Savannah River. 3. Ex-Officio
Announcements 4. Fernald
Health Effects Subcommittee 5. Waste
Pits There is an increased tonnage of approximately 125,000 tons due to higher moisture content than projected in the design. This will have both financial and scheduling impacts. Currently, funding is the primary limitation for processing, there is extra capacity though not enough to make up for the forecasted increase in volume. Railcar turnaround is the secondary limitation in increasing speed of the project. To date, the dryers have only been in operation about 25% of the time. With the newer pits that are to be excavated, the dryers will need to up as much as 80% of the time. The site is still working on the elevated radiological airborne levels. Operations have been studied individually to understand their contribution to the problem. The feed to the dryers will be controlled and an air handling system is being put into place at the pug mill to pull airborne contamination away. Once the system is in place, the limits on radiological feed rate can be removed. The workers break room and supervisor trailers were relocated. All potential impacts have been to worker health, and have not had impact outside the project. Gene Willeke noted that the FCAB concern has always been for the workers and is concerned about these issues as work moves to the more hazardous silos projects. Lojek noted that there have been issues with issuance of wrong respirators, presence of workers in the wrong areas, and that these issues are being addressed. It was questioned what level of independent oversight existed to ensure worker safety. Lojek noted that HQ has become interested in the health issues and are looking at the problems. Dennis Carr noted that the radiological control organization within Fluor is independent of the project. There is also an independent safety review organization that reports directly to the President and a facility representative organization that oversees the projects independently. These groups also look at the plans for future projects in the operational readiness review process. Jim Bierer asked about the approach to excavate Pit 5 and limiting airborne contamination and reducing standing water. Lojek noted that the water helps to limit airborne contamination and that the pit will be uncovered in a step-wise fashion to keep it as safe as possible. There are also plans to blend the dryer materials from other pits to achieve the needed moisture content. Lisa asked about the level of communication of the results of monitoring. Dennis Carr noted that there is a great deal of data collected every day and it is a massive effort to collect and analyze the data which are reported weekly and discussed at safety briefings. 6. Uranium
Water Remediation Levels Pam Dunn questioned whether the responsiveness summary was considered part of the legal record. There was no formal answer, but USEPA offered to find out. The ROD does indicate that the number was a proposed level, and there will be an ESD to make any change to the ROD a formal decision. Pam also asked how the change in Uranium levels impact the ability to capture all of the other contaminants. It was noted that Uranium was the target contaminant for soils and that there are other contaminants of concern in the soils, but that groundwater contamination is almost exclusively uranium. There is no change to the soil cleanup levels. Lisa asked what kind of money might be saved through this change. It was reported that the site would save roughly $7 to $10 million for each year that the pumping operation was no longer needed. The change will reduce the size of the plume from as large as 220 acres to a maximum of 180 acres. Gene Willeke
expressed support for the change, noting that there was no significant
change in risk. It was noted that cost is not an issue for the change,
the change is brought about by a change in regulation by EPA. Lisa
expressed concern that the CAB and Fernald community were not kept
informed of the pending change so that it was never put on the CAB’s
agenda. The CAB did hear about the issue in January for the first time
and asked to be involved. The CAB was assured that they would be involved
and yet did not hear anything until after a letter was already sent
to EPA. It was noted that much better communication is needed in similar
matters. The CAB will look at the issue further during the public comment
period for the ESD. It is DOE’s intent to support Fluor’s proposal to slow down soil excavation and on site disposal as they believe this is the best opportunity to achieve overall success. Initially Scenario 6 indicated a four year suspension of soils activities, current estimates show it may be as few as two years, but this is still under review. The FCAB evaluation pointed out that during years 2002 and 2003 where soils will be slowed down, most of the silos money is targeted for accelerated waste retrieval, so that it does not appear that the need for silos funding will really jeopardize the reopening of the disposal facility. Doug asked for elaboration on the shortened length of time for soils slowdown. Dennis Carr replied that concerns about too much work being pushed to the out years resulted in a review of the process and spreading the soils work out over a longer period. Steve noted that the key to getting soils work done is ensuring that the buildings are out of the way in time. Gene Willeke asked whether approaches such as phosphate amendment were being considered to help to prevent leaching of uranium into groundwater. Steve added that it is essential to keep excavations open for as short a period as possible to protect groundwater. No open excavations exist now. However, under Scenario 6 excavations would be open for a cumulative period of about 36 quarters, while under Scenario 3 excavations would be open for a cumulative period of about 47 quarters. Steve noted that the faster we are able to do the work, the less risk of contamination to the aquifer. Gene Jablonowski said that EPA does not consider a few hundred million dollars of potential savings in the out years to be a significant enough amount of money to be making these drastic decisions. EPA also does not believe there is HQ awareness or buy-in to the forward funding concepts. DOE as a whole never asked for adequate funding and that is the ultimate problem. The $290 million did not come from anyone associated with the project. The system in place to request funding has never worked properly. DOE should have asked Congress for adequate funding, that is a critical aspect of the consent agreement. Lisa asked what EPA could do. Gene responded that EPA cannot take action until after a milestone is missed or work is stopped. EPA also feels that $290 million is still a lot of money and there must be other options than to stop work on key projects. Lisa noted that there is a concern in the community that conducting the interim closure of the on site disposal facility with a "permanent" closure, increases the risk that it will never open again. She wondered whether there is a way to get some sort of written guarantee that the OSDF will be reopened. The community has given a lot over the years and compromised on a lot of things that they did not want to do. Graham noted that it comes down to funding, down the road, it is likely that more funding will be needed by the silos in future years and the concern is that when it comes time to open the cell, the money will not be available. Doug noted that the FCAB position is that while the FCAB does not want to shut down the OSDF, there is the need to face the reality of funding. Rather than provide an open-ended opportunity for closure of the OSDF, we need to search for an opportunity to make real progress, but if it does not work then the OSDF opens up anyway. A pre-determined endpoint of the soils slowdown is needed. Lisa said it is a challenge to Fluor to make this process work. Graham suggested that everyone should continue to push on the budget. Members of the FCAB agreed that this was important, however, it is still necessary to move forward with the funding that is in hand. Jim Bierer reiterated the FCAB’s challenge to continue to look for increased efficiencies to make the most of the money that is available. Graham asked for the CAB to provide some clarification and direction on their recommendations. The FCAB decided to write a letter to reiterate some of its key recommendations and request that DOE explore some way of ensuring that the suspension of soils and the OSDF is only for a defined period of time. The CAB wants to find a way to get back to a spirit of collaboration that has always been the hallmark of work at Fernald. 8.
Recommendations on Trails and Education Center 9. Public
Comment 10. Adjournment
I certify that these minutes are an accurate account of the April 19, 2001, meeting of the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board. James
Bierer, Chair Gary
Stegner, Public Affairs Officer |