## ![](media/image1.png){width="1.2291666666666667in" height="1.5902777777777777in"}[Full Board Meeting]{.smallcaps} 

## Ross Township Firehouse

##### 2565 Cincinnati-Brookville Road, Ross Township

## March 12, 2005

### Draft Minutes 

The Fernald Citizens Advisory Board met from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
Saturday, March 12, 2005 at the Ross Township Firehouse.

Members Present: Jim Bierer

> Lisa Crawford

Steve Depoe

Lou Doll

> Pam Dunn

Graham Mitchell

> Robert Tabor
>
> Bill Taylor
>
> Gene Willeke
>
> Gene Jablonowski
>
> Katie Brown

Members Absent: French Bell

Marvin Clawson

Critical Analysis Team: Todd Martin

Gail Bingham

Bob Roal

Designated Federal Official: Gary Stegner

The Perspectives Group Staff: David Bidwell

Stephanie Kavanaugh

Fluor Fernald Staff: Sue Walpole

Con Murphy

Approximately 15 spectators also attended the meeting, including members
of the public and representatives from the Department of Energy, Fluor
Fernald, and FRESH.

# Updates and Announcements

Jim Bierer called the meeting to order. Minutes from the December 04 and
January 05 FCAB meetings were approved.

**Chairs' Meetings** -- Jim explained that it would be another week
before he received the notes from the last Chairs' Meeting, where the
budget was discussed. Some documents, including the '06 budget request
to Congress, Golan's rollout presentation, and some security warnings
have been posted on the SSAB website under "SSAB correspondence." The
chairs are working on a proposal for DOE, which will hopefully be
approved at the April Board Meeting. Bob Tabor and Gary Stegner will
attend the next Chairs' Meeting April 27-29 at Savannah River. DOE will
send out the template on what each FCAB needs to present, which will
likely be the Board's 3 top issues.

**Project Updates**

**EM --** Bill Taylor provided the group with an update on site
projects. 189 of 255 buildings have been dismantled. 84 of 179 trailers
have been dismantled. Winter weather has made work on the On-Site
Disposal Facility (OSDF) difficult, but the project was still making
progress. On-site soils certification is 67% complete. Removal of the
outfall line under the Route 128 tunnel has taken longer than
anticipated. OSDF Cell 4 is complete. There were some complaints from
neighbors about noise and dust from all the truck traffic. The site
washed down the road and cleaned mailboxes. The site also spoke with
some of the drivers about slowing down and arriving at the gate on time.
A management assessment will be conducted for the new pump and treat
process in the Converted Advanced Wastewater Treatment (CAWWT) facility.
Silos 1 and 2 are emptied and grouted. Both have been downgraded from
Hazard Category 3 Nuclear Facilities to Radiological Facilities. The
silos had not been turned over to decontamination and demolition (D&D),
but the berms were being removed from around both of the Silos. There
was a false start in the Standard Startup Review and Readiness
Assessment for the Silos 1 and 2 remediation facilities. The review and
assessment were rescheduled for the end of March. 370 rail cars (900,000
tons of materials) had been removed from the site. Five unit trains are
expected to leave the site in March, which would be a record. 141 trains
have gone out to date. Soil pile 7 (SP7) of above Waste Acceptance
Criteria (WAC) material will be shipped out beginning in May, for which
additional cars have been purchased.

**Progress on NRD settlement** -- Bill announced there was some movement
in negotiations on March 11, when the Department of Justice responded to
a letter from the Attorney General of Ohio. The letter is confidential,
but Bill promised to check if could be released. DOE plans to settle the
claim by June '05.

**Silos** - Bill Taylor reported that the effort to secure a disposal
site for waste from Silos 1 and 2 is continuing. The Silo 3 facility
planned to conduct a management assessment on Monday, March 14, and DOE
expected to authorize Fluor to commence bagging material and sending it
to Envirocare after about a week. In order to certify that the waste
meets the State of Utah Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for Envirocare,
Fluor will have to take a sample from each bag.

Silos 1 & 2 should be ready to ship by April 30, 2005. The Silo 3
Transportation and Disposal Plan was approved, but plans for Silos 1 & 2
are still pending approval. There has been no communication between DOE
and State of Nevada regarding the dispute over disposal of Fernald silos
waste at the Nevada Test Site.

**Other updates --** Graham Mitchell is working with Johnny to plan
oversight for the rest of the project. They have to figure out how to
wind down the program and move people to other jobs and locations. There
is a lot of concern and tension on how to wind down a project on an
acceptable timeline. Graham Mitchell will be leaving state service by
September 6, 2006.

Graham stated that with Fernald winding down, there are a lot of lessons
that need to be transferred to Portsmouth. They have a huge D&D mission
at that site, which they are just beginning to think about. This summer
is the right time to transfer knowledge to them. Portsmouth managers are
really receptive to learning from the Fernald experience, but they do
not have any understanding of what it takes to bring local stakeholders
into the process and talk about waste disposal issues. These
stakeholders are concerned that on-site disposal will mean that they
will become even more of a dumping site for other DOE facilities.

EM is hoping to find salamanders in the vernal pools on site, as
indictors of environmental quality. Ohio EPA will monitor the presence
of salamanders through catch and release traps. Some have already been
found on site.

# Fluor Reports -- Con Murphy from Fluor gave the report. Overall solid progress has been made at the site and safety has improved. There was only one recordable injury this year (broken toe). Con reported that morale is good at the site. Silo assessments will be our next main focus. Con stated there has been a big improvement in service from Envirocare, especially the turnaround on train cars. Fluor hopes to complete shipping to Envirocare by the end of August. 

# Critical Analysis Team Updates -- The Critical Analysis Team (CAT) provided the group with a report on their observations of the Silos Projects. The Accelerated Waste Retrieval (AWR) process was a success. The CAT felt vindicated in discouraging the site from using a robotic arm. Silo 3 is ready to go, but the sampling process required by Envirocare is not an efficient way to sample. It isn't a horrible contamination risk, but it will eventually lead to elevated risks in some areas and slows the process down quite a bit. Currently the process has 13 steps, all of which happen in one room where the air gets exposed to waste. The CAT demonstrated an alternate process it recommended to Fluor. Envirocare requires this process because of Utah law, but it is worth looking into trying to change. The next step is to discuss this issue with Envirocare. 

A participant asked what the consequences would be if a bag of silo 3
waste was found to be over the WAC. The CAT stated that the 60,000
picocuries requirement would be averaged over the entire SeaLand
container, and that it is highly unlikely that many individual bags
would exceed the limit. Todd Martin went on to explain that the CAT is
very confident in the procedures for silo 3 waste removal, except for
turning the ventilation off in the tent covering the silo during hot
months. The CAT provided Fluor with recommendations on how to leave the
ventilation on.

The CAT regretted that they could not be present for the Integrated
Systems Operability Test (ISOT); however it is not clear to them that a
full ISOT was ever carried out. It will be important for the CAT to be
present for the upcoming readiness review so they can vouch for the
process. In addition, the CAT has some long-standing concerns that
prevent them from giving a "thumbs up" on the silos 1 or 2 treatment
facility. Con Murphy disagreed with the CAT's assertion that the entire
process hadn't ever been run from start to finish. He stated that the
CAT simply hadn't observed it. Todd explained that the CAT has
traditionally scheduled visits around activities on site and FCAB
meetings. Given the unpredictability of when processes can be carried
out, it's getting difficult to be there for both. David suggested the
CAT could be patched in via phone to give CAB reports, or schedule
meetings with CAB leadership when they are in town. The CAT also has
some concerns about its role and usefulness to the CAB. CAB members
responded that the CAT is still an essential component of their process,
and would be willing to work with them on dates when they can be on
site. Everyone agreed that the CAT's participation enhances CAB members'
comfort level significantly. Lisa Crawford stated that it was very
important to the group that the CAT observe every aspect of a cold run
of the silos 1 and 2 treatment facility before it goes "hot." The group
decided that the CAB should write a letter to Fluor strongly
recommending that the integration test be scheduled so that the full CAT
can be present.

Bill Taylor added that DOE is currently coordinating within their own
Risk Assessment team, and trying to coordinate that the Defense Nuclear
Facility Safety Board could attend the ISOT. He stated that it should be
easy to add the CAT to the list of desired ISOT attendees.

**Fernald Living History Update --** Next meeting on April 4^th^ at the
Crosby Senior Center at 7:00. The FLH, Inc. board planned to meet at
6:30pm, preceding full meeting.

**FRESH Update --** Next meeting on March 24 at the Ross Church.

**Closure Reports Fact Sheet --** The FCAB reviewed a fact sheet,
"Development of CERCLA Remedial Action Closeout Reports for the Fernald
Closure Project." There was some confusion in the group about the
purpose of the fact sheet. Johnny Reising explained that the fact sheet
is nothing more than an explanation of an administrative change in the
processing/format of closure reports to EPA for Operable Units (OU) 1-5.
These changes would better allow DOE to match the completion of
remediation projects to the paperwork needed for regulators.

In response to a question from Pam Dunn regarding OU6, Johnny explained
that a sixth operable unit was originally planned for Fernald, in order
to assess remaining risks at the site. Johnny explained that DOE and EPA
agreed in principle to remove the requirement for OU6 from the Consent
Agreement. Johnny provided the FCAB with another fact sheet that
explained this proposed action. He explained that DOE would have to
conduct a risk assessment for the site, as part of the RODs for OU3 and
OU5. Because OU5 will not be completed until the aquifer project has
been completed, DOE has committed to complete an interim risk assessment
for the site to fulfill the intent of OU6. Steve Depoe recommended that
the commitment to complete an interim risk assessment be added to the
table in the fact sheet. FCAB members were asked to send comments on the
fact sheets to David Bidwell by March 25, so an FCAB comment letter
could be submitted to DOE prior to April 11. Lisa Crawford suggested
that the FCAB members review Ohio EPA comments on the fact sheets.

Jane Powell assured the group that there will be CERCLA reviews every 5
years to address ongoing risk concerns, and that Legacy Management will
be monitoring constantly.

# EM Budget

Johnny Reising provided the FCAB members with a summary of the FY06
budget request; he also provided a detailed budget packet to Pam. The
summary is from Bob Warther's presentation to US EPA. The Fernald
funding profile is \$324 million a year. This could be modified based on
the needs of Legacy Management (LM) in FY 07. Requests will probably
have to be modified to address future requirements. The summary provided
by Johnny included a work breakdown structure and funding levels for
specific aspects of the project.

Johnny was not sure why safeguards and security funding were increased
for FY06. He also reviewed the funding for Community and Regulatory
Support, since public participation falls into this category.

# Perimeter Fence 

# Some CAB members questioned the removal of the perimeter fence surrounding the site, which occurred over the last month. This topic was discussed at length at the most recent Stewardship Committee Meeting, where there were differing perspectives on the extent to which this issue was discussed in the past. While there is no requirement for a perimeter security fence (only around radiation control areas) some CAB members were still concerned with maintaining security and safety without the perimeter fence. "No Trespassing" signs remain along with entire perimeter, and are placed close enough together that they are always in the view of anyone standing along the perimeter of the site. 

The group agreed that there are two main issues raised by this topic:

1.  The quality and process of communication as the site proceeds
    towards closure

2.  Security concerns now that the fence is taken down.

# Communications Issues -- David Bidwell provided documentation to the group of a March 2003 FCAB meeting where the removal of the fence was discussed, however, some members were not in attendance. Johnny also stated that he gave a presentation to the CAB at the October 2004 meeting where he warned that the fence was going to come down soon. His understanding was that members said it was okay to take the fence down, and the recent decision to remove it was related to concerns about workforce utilization. Fluor wanted to utilize their workforce to do whatever could be done while waiting for other processes to start. Johnny also pointed out that surrounding landowners were contacted about the fence removal and all were comfortable with it. 

It was agreed upon by the group that they were aware that the final plan
was to have no perimeter fence around the site, but that there would be
monitored security fences around areas of high risk. Some CAB members
pointed out that their main concern was with the timing of removing the
fence, and that they didn't expect it to be removed until the site had
reached closure. Most members agreed that improved lines of
communication are needed during this important time.

# Security Issue

There was no consensus within the group on the security issue, however
some members remained very concerned about safety and access issues
regarding fence removal. Concerns centered on a perceived lack of
deterrence from entering the site in the absence of the perimeter fence.

DOE staff pointed out that there are locked gates around areas of
radiation risk, and security cameras on those sites that are monitored
24 hours a day. In addition, Butler and Hamilton Police Departments
patrol the site's perimeter at intervals throughout the day and night.

Members, DOE staff and Fluor staff further discussed the pros and cons
of a perimeter fence post closure, the meaning of perimeter fences on
public land, and fence situations at other sites in the area. It became
clear that this conversation had ramifications for the vision of the
site post closure. Some of these issues have the potential to be cleared
up by the post closure land manager. However, FCAB members felt that the
Legacy Management and Institutional Controls Plan should address
security concerns in more detail. The group decided that a focused
discussion on future public access to the site is needed at the April
meeting.

David Bidwell reminded the group that there are going to be more
difficult times as the site nears closure; there will be permanent
changes, lots at stake for everyone involved, and a lot of pressures on
everyone. This will require a constant vigilance to communicate.

# Legacy Management Update from Jane Powell

A recent tour of the OSDF cells showed no major erosion and a big
difference in vegetation between cells 1 and 3. LM had a discussion with
the Hamilton Parks Board on what they would expect from the land
resource manager post closure. LM has created a matrix that addresses
real estate and personal property, and moving data from one system (EM)
to another (LM).

Jane handed out the Fernald Site Transition Plan (STP) and asked members
to remember that it is an internal DOE management document and had not
yet been signed by appropriate management personnel. She directed
members to give feedback if they wish, but warned that she isn't sure
she would be able to change anything anytime soon. Also, the same things
that would likely concern folks in this document could be addressed
through the LMIC. She directed members to look at the STP more as
something to advise your conversation about the LMIC. For example, do
CAB members see items in the STP that should also be included in the
LMIC? The STP is an assessment of what is needed to safely close the
site. It's a handbook for the DOE, and a contract between LM and EM. It
documents what DOE contractors believe is necessary to complete
transition successfully.

Jane also mentioned that she very much appreciates the CAB's comments on
the preliminary CIP, and they will be an attachment to volume 1 of the
LMIC. The next version of the LMIC was scheduled for release on April
15, one week after the next CAB meeting. FCAB members should get
comments to Gary Stegner on particular areas you want to hear about at
the April meeting. Fences will obviously be a big issue.

Audrey Berry plans to attend the FCAB meetings in April, in order to
continue the discussion of a Local Stakeholder Organization (LSO) for
Fernald. Jane explained that the current LSO concept document was
primarily focused on the Rocky Flats site. There is a drive within DOE
to set up a LSO as soon as possible for all sites, including Fernald.

# Photo Records

Photo records were also discussed at the recent Stewardship Committee
Meeting. David Bidwell stated that the group's main concern was with
ensuring that the photos remain accessible to the community, which
raises the question of the best body to assume final ownership: DOE or a
community organization? Would DOE be better since they will always be
attached to the site and could be held more accountable, or would a
community organization be better so that the community has more control
over the photos?

Steve Depoe emphasized his frustration with the categorization of photos
as records or non-records by DOE. The current process enables photos,
which show mission-related activities, to be classified as a non-record
if they do not have a matching negative, meaning that there is a risk of
them being destroyed.

David Bidwell asked the CAB if they felt like they should make a
recommendation regarding the management of the pre-1992 photos. Gary
Stegner responded that the intent of DOE is to establish a photo archive
and then make every effort to make sure the remaining balance of photos
go to the community. Pam Dunn stated that she would feel better if the
CAB got something in writing from the DOE on this matter. She also felt
that the DOE was a better final owner of the photo records, but that as
long as the photos were in no danger of being destroyed anytime soon,
the CAB did not need to decide the matter immediately. Steve Depoe
stated that his main concern was making sure that the photos categorized
as non-records did not get destroyed. He stated that storage space may
become an issue soon, if Fluor gets out of their lease for the
Springdale space.

David Bidwell summarized that the group wanted to wait to see what the
LMIC says about this matter, and then seek a solution that meets public
needs. Jane Powell warned that there may not be very much specificity on
this matter before the NRD settlement is finalized. Sue Walpole reminded
the group that anyone on the records management email list would be
notified before anything was destroyed.

# History Workshop, Educators' Workshop, and Website

David Bidwell told the group that there are three things The
Perspectives Group is working on currently that need further CAB
feedback and involvement.

1.  FCAB History Project -- Over the last few months PG has been putting
    together an outline for the history project, based on priorities
    given by the CAB. A handout of this outline was circulated. At past
    meetings the group had discussed the possibility of a DVD/website
    format. Steve Depoe, Gene Willeke, and Lisa Crawford volunteered to
    be involved in the development of text for this project.

2.  Educators' Workshop -- CAB members were asked to review an outline
    for a workshop to draw guidance from educators on the development of
    educational materials about the site and its history.

3.  History Roundtable -- CAB members were also asked to look through
    the outline for a roundtable for gathering input from
    representatives from historical societies and experts on preserving
    history on how to best present the story of the Fernald site to
    future generations and users of the site.

Both the History Roundtable and Educators' Workshop would be held on a
weeknight. PG would like to start to do the legwork on both these events
as soon as possible.

Members had the following comments regarding the History Roundtable
Outline:

-   Representatives from Los Alamos, Rocky Flats, NTS, or other sites
    should participate in the History Roundtable.

-   The Atomic Heritage Foundation should also be invited to the History
    Roundtable.

-   The fishbowl setup may not be the best approach, in order to allow
    interested non-experts to participate.

-   The Cincinnati Museum Center could be used as a technical resource.

David informed the group that there would not be a travel budget for
experts to participate in these events. He also encouraged the group to
think about the possibility of video-conferencing using area facilities
like the University of Cincinnati, Miami University, or Channel 48.
David told the group that he would email the group regarding potential
dates and locations for these events.

# SSAB Chairs' Meeting Materials

David Bidwell asked the group if they still wish to stick with their 3
major issues for the SSAB chairs meeting: site transition, post-closure
education and outreach, and disposal of silos materials. It was agreed
that these remain the top concerns of the group.

There was no public comment at the close of this meeting.

# Next Meetings

The next full meeting of the FCAB will be held at the Crosby Township
Senior Center on Saturday, April 9 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. A
Stewardship Committee meeting will be held in the Delta Building on
April 7 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.

James Bierer Date

Fernald Citizens Advisory Board Chairman

Gary Stegner Date

Deputy Designated Federal Official