|
FULL
BOARD MEETING MINUTES Members
Present Members
Absent Approximately 10 spectators also attended the meeting, including members of the public and representatives from the Department of Energy and Fluor Fernald. Call
to Order 1.) Jane Harper attended the meeting. 2.) Gary Stegner committed to meet with committee members to discuss the relocation of the Public Environmental Information Center. General
Remarks and Announcements Susan Brechbill announced that she is retiring from DOE, effective May 3, after thirty-four years of service. Susan expressed fondness for Fernald and stated that the FCAB is one of the most progressive advisory boards in the DOE Complex. Susan’s successor has not yet been determined. Steve McCracken stated that implementation of long-term stewardship is underway at the Welden Springs site. He urged the FCAB to keep an eye on Welden Springs, because it is likely to influence what happens at Fernald regarding stewardship. DOE is not writing a definitive policy regarding long-term stewardship, but will instead rely on precedence set at individual sites. Jim stated that Dave Geiser presented many details of the Welden Springs stewardship plan at the SSAB Chairs meeting. Doug Sarno explained that the Stewardship Committee would review the stewardship criteria that were presented by Dave. SSAB
Chairs Meeting Jim reported that Gene Schmitt explained the Top-to-Bottom Review and reviewed the resulting proposed budget for Environmental Management. The proposed base EM budget is $5.9 billion. An $800 million fund has been proposed as a supplement for accelerating risk reduction and site closure. An additional $300 million may be available. Overall, the Chairs were not pleased with the review and its impact on the budget. Lisa Crawford expressed skepticism that cleanup sites would receive those funds. Susan cautioned the group that the revised baseline for Fernald is based on receiving a portion of the $800 million supplement. Jim further reported that the Chairs approved and signed the statements developed at the SSAB Groundwater Workshop. Jim also reported that the Chairs discussed public participation and the role of SSABs. In general, the Chairs were concerned that the impact of SSAB recommendations is poorly tracked. He stated that some Chairs were upset that Jessie Roberson did not attend the Chairs meeting. Jim Brannon of New Mexico will draft a letter to Roberson expressing the willingness of the SSAB Chairs to provide input on Complex-wide decisions to DOE. Lisa Crawford stated that she felt is was inappropriate for the DOE headquarters presenters at the SSAB Chairs meeting to place blame on a past DOE employee. Doug expressed concern that Dave Geiser may have painted too positive a picture of stewardship at Welden Springs. He suggested that some FCAB members visit Welden Springs in mid-summer. Steve urged the group to meet with all of the site’s stakeholder groups. Susan cautioned the group against relying too heavily on another site as a model for stewardship. Jim noted that Gene Schmitt’s presentation called for development of a common vision for risk reduction. Jim stated that a similar effort should be instigated to develop a common vision for long-term stewardship. Doug announced that DOE personnel attending the Chairs meeting indicated that Roberson intends to renew the national SSAB charter, which expires in May. In the near future, Roberson may schedule a video conference with the SSABs. The next Chairs meeting will be in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 14 to 16. The next SSAB Workshop will focus on transuranic waste and transportation issues and will be held in New Mexico in early 2003. 2006
Acceleration and FY03 Budget Dennis Carr stated that representatives from Fluor Fernald and DOE met with Jessie Roberson on April 12, uninterrupted for almost an hour, and that the meeting had gone well. He feels that Roberson now fully understands the site and the scope of work needed to reach closure. Dennis reported that Roberson offered assistance in the NRC license modification process being pursued for the silos projects. Dennis reviewed the information that was presented to Roberson, which included baseline budgets of $324 million and an alternate $350 million. An independent review team, currently examining the site proposal, will provide final funding recommendations to Roberson. A report is expected from this team by April 30. Dennis clarified some points from his presentation to Roberson. Lisa Crawford stated that some wording in the presentation could create false impressions at headquarters. Members also expressed concern that the revised baseline had been presented to Roberson before the completed version was presented to the FCAB. Pam Dunn inquired about funding for long-term stewardship, which prompted a general FCAB discussion regarding the lack of clarity for long-term stewardship funding. Steve and Susan reported that while there have been some efforts to identify funding, there are still many questions. Steve stated that preparations for stewardship should come from project funds, but specific funding needs have not been well defined. FCAB members expressed concern that Congress and the public do not understand that funds will be required beyond FY06 to complete the remediation and manage the site. One significant issue is the proper organization and disposition of records and photographs. This issue will be a significant focus of the June FCAB meeting. Silos
Projects 1) status of LRAD monitoring technology, 2) use of IP2 "super sacks" for Silo 3 wastes, 3) pretreatment of Silo 3 waste, 4) ROD and NRC license modifications, and 5) the build-design approach. LRAD IP2 "Super
Sack" Packaging for Silo 3 Waste Each sack would contain a plastic liner, with a fill spout that can be heat-sealed. This liner has been tested for its ability to contain radon. The group discussed the importance of using a surrogate material to test the system for filling and sealing of the bags. Lou Doll suggested using a traceable chemical in the surrogate in order to check for small leaks. Ray indicated that the site has requested funding for this kind of testing. Ray reported that transportation disasters are computer modeled. The modeled results of a worst-case scenario (total dispersal of the contents of a bag) remained within the allowable levels for human health risk. The assumptions used for this model are currently being reviewed and a sensitivity analysis is being conducted. Ray further reported that materials handling experts indicated that the Silo 3 materials settle quickly, so the airborne dispersal that was modeled in the worst-case scenario is unlikely. Doug requested that Ray bring any available Super Sack performance data and illustrative videos to the June FCAB meeting. Pretreatment
for Silo 3 Material Build-Design
Approach FCAB members cautioned the Silos Team that there are many opportunities for pitfalls to occur, asked for continuous updates on progress, and indicated that the CAT should be kept in place throughout the process. ROD
and NRC License Modifications Terry announced that the Record of Decision (ROD) would have to be amended to implement recent plans for Silo 3 materials, because proposed changes would eliminate treatment for RCRA metals. The site is working on a draft of this amendment, but a schedule has not been set until a decision is made on pretreatment. A definitive schedule is expected next month. The ROD for Silos 1 and 2 currently specifies disposal at NTS. The site would like to amend the ROD to allow disposal at NTS or a commercial facility, so Silos 1 and 2 wastes could be sent to Envirocare. This change could be made through an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), since it does not change the planned remedy. Although the site intended to include both of these changes in one document, the FCAB urged them to separate the two processes in order to eliminate delays of both projects if there was a problem with one. Terry agreed that the site would produce separate documents, but work on them concurrently. Terry also explained silos issues related to NRC. Fernald would like to dispose of Silo 3 wastes in the 11(e)2 cell at Envirocare, but disposition of the Super Sacks would require a modification of Envirocare’s 11(e)2 NRC license. While there appears to be no technical problems with this, an administrative issue has arisen concerning the definition of 11(e)2 waste that was generated prior to 1978. If DOE and NRC cannot reach agreement that this material is appropriate for the 11(e)2 cell, Terry explained, it could be placed in Envirocare’s low-level waste cell. He also reported that for Silos 1 and 2 waste, Envirocare would need a modification to their Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for radon. For political reasons, the State of Utah is reluctant to raise the radon WAC. Terry also reported that a group of Utahns are advocating an exponential increase in waste disposal fees. If these issues are not resolved, the most feasible option for disposal of Silos 1 and 2 wastes wold be NTS. Terry reported that DOE headquarters would pursue resolution of this issue. Education
Facility Design Charrette Recognition
of Susan Brechbill
I certify
that these minutes are an accurate account of the James
Bierer, Chair Gary
Stegner, Public Affairs Officer |