• Review the risk process used,• Study and evaluate the final alternatives

The Focus Group met with the SRS Salt Disposition Teamto understand the process they were using to winnow thenumber of alternatives and make a final decision on whatthe ITP replacement should be. In addition, the FocusGroup, using information developed by the Salt DispositionTeam, evaluated the four replacement alternatives to see ifthe selection process missed any key components that theFocus Group considered important.

The Focus Group was pleased that the Salt DispositionTeam had considered the long list of possible ideas andretained the elements of all the good ideas in the alterna-tives evaluated. The Focus Group reaction was verypositive to the process used. The Focus Group was im-pressed with the completeness and amount of detail used bythe Salt Disposition Team to select the top four candidates’processes. "We concluded that the methodology used wasvery good, appropriate for its intended use and appliedimpartially to all of the alternatives," said Karen Pattersonof the focus group.

In This Issue:

1 Board Beat

CAB Focus Group Evaluates ITP Replacement Process 1Essay Winner 2Oak Ridge/Pantex Visit 2Recommendations Update 3Focus on DOE Waste: High Level Waste 4Site Specific Adivisory Boards meet to discuss Low Level Waste 5CAB Process Retreat 6SRS CAB Hosts National Meeting 6Membership Spotlight 6Check out our Web Site 7SRS CAB Performance Receives Positive Evaluation 7SRS to Manage Surplus Plutonium Disposition 7SRS to prepare EIS for closure of High-Level Waste Tanks 7

continued on page 2...

In January 1998, DOE determined the In-Tank Precipitation Process (ITP) to separate radioactive cesium andsome transuranic elements out of the liquid High Level

Waste (HLW) was not viable. The ITP had been devel-oped and engineered to remove Cesium-137 from the HLWsalt solution to allow it to be vitrified in the Defense WasteProcessing Facility (DWPF). SRS immediately began asearch for a replacement for this function. A Salt Disposi-tion Team was formed to determine a suitable replacementprocess. In April 1998, during a briefing of the Environ-mental Restoration and Waste Management (ER&WM)Subcommittee of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board (CAB),DOE requested the CAB participation in the replacementselection process. The ER&WM Subcommittee decidedthat a citizen Focus Group should perform this function.The Focus Group was to interface with HLW personnel topromote greater stakeholder involvement with SRS’sselection of a replacement process for the ITP. A FocusGroup of citizen stakeholders was formed and six stake-holders were selected/volunteered to serve on this FocusGroup.

The charter for the Focus Group was as follows:• Interface with HLW personnel on the replacement ITP

selection process to promote greater stakeholderinvolvement

• Look at process being used for narrowing alternatives• Understand the assessment method used

Focus Group Evaluates ITP Replacement Process

ITP operations began in December 1995 and were suspendedthree months later when too much benzene was produced.

Savannah River Site

Citizens Advisory Board

Savannah River Site

Citizens Advisory Board

W i n t e r 1 9 9 9

Board Beat

2 Board Beat

Oak Ridge /Pantex Visit The Focus Group did identify several concerns:

• The Evaluation Criteria did not include a clear measureof public and political acceptance of the alternatives.The Focus Group judged public and political acceptanceto be important enough to affect project scheduling andcosts. The Group felt that this criteria should have beenincluded as an element in the evaluation process.

• More consideration should have been given initially tothe auxiliary waste streams (solid waste, liquid waste,and gaseous waste) generated by the alternativeprocess as these secondary waste streams will affectcosts, facility size, etc.

During the in-depth review of the four final alternatives, theFocus Group made several specific recommendations whichwere considered by SRS in making their final recommenda-tion on the replacement process. Those recommendationswere used as part of the final selection process. The FocusGroup documented their findings in a report to theER&WM Subcommittee and SRS in early October 1998.This completed the work of the adhoc Focus Group and itwas disbanded. SRS commended the Focus Group for itssupport and positive contributions to the selection process.

In November 1998, WSRC announced completion of thisselection process and provided a recommendation to DOEto continue with preliminary design on two of the final fourprocesses. DOE plans to prepare an EIS on the selection ofa replacement for the ITP process as conceptual designproceeds. Further plans for this EIS will be announcedsoon.

Article contributed by Wade Waters, member of the SRSCAB and ITP Focus Group.

ITP Replacement Process...continued from page 1

Members of the Oak Ridge and Pantex SiteSpecific Advisory Boards joined the SRS CAB inSeptember 1998. Oak Ridge Chair Bill Pardue

and members Charles Washington and Randy Gordonattended to learn more about SRS CAB subcommittee and

full Board operations. Noting the importance of intersiteinteractions, the Oak Ridge Chair expressed his thanks foran informative and beneficial exchange during the SRSCAB September Board meeting held in Augusta, Ga.

Seven members of the Amarillo, Texas-based PantexBoard also visited with the SRS CAB. Six staff membersand site representatives attended as well. Pantex Co-ChairSidney Blankenship noted how impressed Pantex memberswere with the timeliness and professionalism of SRS CABmembers as well as the civility and thoughtfulness ofdeliberations.

Board representatives from both sites joined SRS CABmembers in two separate tours of SRS, subcommitteemeetings and full Board discussions during the three-daymeeting.

Giavanni Middlebrook of the RichmondCounty Alternative School won the CAB-sponsored essay contest on his role inprotecting the environment. Walter Ashleywon second place. Both were awardedcertificates and passes to Fort Discovery inAugusta, Ga. at the September 1998 SRSCAB meeting.

Essay

Winner

"If we as people would make a realeffort to preserve our environment,the earth would be a better place formany years to come."

Giavanni Middlebrook

Richmond County Alternative School

Boardmemberslearn aboutgeo-siphonprocess atTNX.

Board Beat 3

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from SRSCERCLA Site in Trenches of SRS Low Level WasteDisposal FacilityA recommendation that EPA Region-IV and SCDHECdetermine under what conditions they would approvedisposal of CERCLA wastes (that meet the appropriatewaste acceptance criteria) in an SRS-operated, DOE-regulated waste disposal facility, and particularly if theywould approve disposing of CERCLA soils in the E Areatrenches.

SRL Seepage Basin Contaminated Soils DisposalThe Board recommended that SRS enact the preferredalternative of shipping contaminated soils from the SRLseepage basins to Utah and backfill to the original gradeeven though the CAB does not believe this is the mostefficient, cost effective option. The CAB did not want tofurther delay a cleanup action at this unit.

Selection of HLW Salt Disposition AlternativesThe Board reviewed the focus group report of thereplacement process for the ITP process and agrees withits recommendations and observations. The CAB con-cluded that the process developed and used by the SaltDisposition Team for evaluating the alternatives was welldeveloped, comprehensive and detailed, and that it wasfairly and consistently used.

Risks and FundingThe CAB requested that DOE prepare a priority list basedstrictly on health and safety risks to workers, the publicand the environment along with the traditional list preparedunder the budget system and a justification for differencesbetween the two lists.

Waste Management Programmatic EIS - Low Leveland Mixed Low Level WasteA recommendation on the disposal of low level waste andmixed low level waste addressed in the Waste Manage-ment Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

National Academy of Sciences Study of TreatmentOptions for SNFThe CAB recommended that DOE give its most carefulconsideration to the findings in a National Academy ofSciences Report on alternate technologies for managingspent nuclear fuel. The Board also requested a detaileddescription of how DOE considered the report.

Since the last publication of this newsletter, the following recommendations have been initiated by the SRSCitizens Advisory Board:

Remediation of F-Area Retention BasinRecommends a low-permeability cap for the basin, contin-ued groundwater monitoring and grouting the inside of thepipeline. This is less extensive remediation than currentlyproposed by SRS.

Recommendation on the Draft Surplus PlutoniumDisposition Environmental Impact StatementAn agreement with DOE that SRS is a reasonable site forsome or all of the proposed missions within the EIS.

Pilot Programs for Simulated Oversight of DOEfacilities by the Nuclear Regulatory CommissionA recommendation that NRC regulation be carefullyaddressed to weigh the benefits or possible disadvantagesthereof.

Political, Regulatory, and State Equity Issues andTreatment, Storage and Disposal of Defense-RelatedNuclear Wastes and MaterialsConcerned that DOE, the States, and regulators seemreluctant to actually confront issues and make decisions,the SRS CAB presented its position and recommendationto begin implementation by working on one action- bringingWest Valley vitrified high level waste to SRS.

Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) Seepage BasinsDisposal Of Contaminated Vegetation And SoilsRemediation AlternativeA recommendation that DOE, EPA and SCDHEC re-solve issues with the remediation of the SRL basin soilsand vegetation and report to the CAB the preferredalternative before the public comment period begins andprovide a revised remedial schedule.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding RequirementsA recommendation to provide sufficient funding in FY2000for the technical programs needed to assure successfulstabilization of Americium/Curium solutions; that fundingfor the new Plutonium Storage Project and the ActinidePackaging and Storage Facility be protected; that suffi-cient funding be provided for high level waste tank super-nate processing upgrades and that if funds are not avail-able, DOE-SR make a strong effort to fit these items intothe approved FY2000 funding level.

Recent Recommendations Highlighted

4 Board Beat

High level waste consists of spent fuel from com-mercial nuclear reactors, spent fuel from the navalnuclear propulsion program, and liquid chemical

waste from fuel and target reprocessing associated withweapons production. Most of the current inventory ofHLW in the United States has resulted from DOE activitiesand is a mixture of chemical and radioactive waste in liquidform stored in underground tanks. The Savannah RiverSite had 51 underground HLW storage tanks, until recentlywhen two were emptied and closed as part of site cleanupefforts.

Government operations from 1944 until the present havegenerated approximately 357,000 cubic meters of HLW,and it is estimated that another 21,000 cubic meters will begenerated in the future. The HLW is located at Hanford(63%), Savannah River (33%), Idaho National EngineeringLaboratories (3%) and West Valley (<1%). Although theHanford Site has the largest volume of HLW, the level ofradioactivity of the material at the Savannah River Siterepresents about 56% of all of the HLW radioactivity in theDOE complex, compared to 36% at Hanford.

Focus on DOE Waste Management

This Issue: High Level Waste

DOE is proceeding with plans to treat HLW by processingit into a solid form that cannot be readily dispersed into air,groundwater, or surface water. This process is calledvitrification, which simply speaking is the process of mixingthe waste with silica sand and heating it to a very hightemperature so that when it cools, it is in the form of glass.When DOE’s existing inventory of HLW is vitrified, thevitrified material will fill an estimated 21,600 canisters.Production of canisters has already begun at the WestValley Demonstration Project in New York and at theDefense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah RiverSite, and is planned at both the Hanford Site and at theIdaho Chemical Processing Plant. Eventually, the canistersare to be stored in a high level waste repository. TheYucca Mountain Site in Nevada is currently the only sitebeing considered for use as a high level waste repository.

The Savannah River Site currently has approximately152,000 cubic meters of HLW that will result in the genera-tion of approximately 5,700 canisters of HLW. TheSavannah River Site’s Defense Waste Processing Facility,which stabilizes high-level liquid radioactive waste in adurable glass form, has poured more than 525 canisterssince radioactive operations began in March 1996. Thesecanisters are temporarily being stored at SRS in the GlassWaste Storage Building. It is expected to take 20 to 25years to turn the entire site inventory of high-level wasteinto glass.

NEXT ISSUE: The three phases of waste management:storage, treatment and disposal.

Seventy canisters of high level waste have been vitrified in FY99 at SRS,as of 1/20/99.

Estimated TotalHLW Number of Canisters to

Site Volume (m3) Be Generated

Hanford 213,000 15,000

INEL 10,400 1,700

SRS 152,000 4,600

WVDP 2,200 340

Total 378,000 21,600

Board Beat 5

The Nevada Test Site Citizens Advisory Board sponsored aLow Level Waste (LLW) Seminar in August of 1998.Approximately 50 participants representing ten

Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs) attended the two-dayseminar. Although technical support personnel, observers andDOE staff were also in attendance, actual participation in theseminar was limited to the SSAB members. Brendolyn Jenkins,Karen Patterson and Bill Lawless represented the Savannah RiverCAB. Mike Schoener attended as a facilitator and Sonny Goldson(BNFL) and Virgil Sauls (DOE-SR) provided technical support.

The purpose of the seminar was to establish communicationamong SSAB participants so as to facilitate a continuing dialogue,obtain information on the LLW status and issues, discuss thebarriers associated with the DOE decision making process andformulate suggestions for overcoming the barriers.

The seminar began with DOE making presentations on the statusof the LLW program, options for LLW disposal, the performanceassessment process, and LLW transportation issues. Theseminar attendees worked through lunch, visited SSAB displaysand continued to share information. After lunch, a representativefrom each SSAB presented an overview of the respective site’sLLW program and their concerns related to the program.

The remainder of the seminar was spent in small-group breakoutsessions and plenary sessions to discuss the barriers related toDOE’s decision making process and identify potential solutions.

Site Specific Advisory Boards Meet toDiscuss Low Level Waste

These barriers and solutions were grouped in one of five differentareas: economic considerations, environmental/safety consider-ations, equity/inter-state/environmental justice considerations,system-wide considerations, and transportation considerations.At the completion of the seminar, the participants had identified17 broad-based suggestions in the five areas. These suggestionswere prioritized by the participants on the basis of importance tosolving LLW problems, and supportability by the SSABs.

Due to time constraints, the wording of the 17 suggestions wassomewhat broad and vague. However, they did identify commonareas of interest for the SSABs that could warrant future activityin the form of specific recommendations. The Savannah RiverCAB held a workshop in conjunction with its November meetingto review and categorize the 17 suggestions from the seminar.The SR CAB agreed with about 1/3 of the suggestions as written,

modified another 1/3, and disagreed with the other1/3. The SR CAB results were sent to the NevadaCAB to be included with other SSAB reviewresults. The combined results will be used toidentify areas of common interest and potentiallythe development of more detailed recommenda-tions.

As a result of the DOE presentations, BrendolynJenkins made a recommendation that the SSABsshould review the six options for dealing withLLW in response to the Waste ManagementProgrammatic Environmental Impact Statement(WM PEIS), and provide specific recommenda-tions to DOE regarding those options. Althoughthis recommendation was agreed to by the seminarparticipants, most SSABs have decided not toprovide this input because of concerns with theWM PEIS itself. The Environmental Restorationand Waste Management Subcommittee of theCAB held several public meetings to review theoptions. The resulting ranking of the options wasreviewed and approved at the November meetingof the SR CAB.

Although the various SSABs have participated in national forumsand discussions in the past, this is the first time the SSABs fromacross the DOE complex met as a group for the sole purpose ofdiscussing a particular issue. Getting a large group of people withvery diverse opinions together to discuss a single topic can bevery challenging, and this seminar was no exception. Overall thefeedback from the seminar participants was positive and it wasagreed that future seminars of this type will continue. TheFernald Citizens Advisory Board will be hosting a seminar ontransportation issues in the Spring of 1999.

Site Specific Advisory Board members tour the Nevada Test Site.

6 Board Beat

Arthur BelgeArthur is a health physics technician withGeorgia Power Company at Plant Vogtle inWaynesboro, Ga. He holds an B.S. with amajor in microbiology. Mr. Belge has basic

and intermediate health protection training and has studiedindustrial and personnel management. He resides inMartinez, Ga.

Ken GoadKen is a board member for the Commissionof Higher Education, South Carolina, TrusteeSouth Carolina Research Authority, and theASME-N0A-1 National Standards. He chairs

the South Carolina Technical & Vocational Board andholds a degree in zoology. Ken is vice-chair of the NuclearMaterials Management Subcommittee. He resides inAiken, SC.

Lola RichardsonLola is a college professor in the EnglishDepartment of a historically black college.She holds a B.A. in English and a M.A. inReading and an Ed. D. in Education Adminis-

tration. She is actively involved in her neighborhoodassociation and several women organizations. Dr.Richardson lives in Augusta, Ga.

Ed TantEd has retired from his job as DeputyDirector of the Charleston Naval SupplyCenter Fuel Department. His primary dutiesincluded providing fuel and defueling services

to military vessels and helicopters for the U.S. Navy,Coast Guard and Army as well as to foreign military shipsdocking at the Charleston Naval Base. Ed resides inNorth Charleston, S.C.

Rebecca Gaston-WitterRebecca is a retired middle school teacherwho holds a B.S. in Social Studies, a M.S. inElementary Education and a degree inPublic Administration. She is actively

involved in several organizations and other after schoolprograms and serves on the Board of Trustees of herchurch in Savannah, Ga.

MemberSpotlight

Process RetreatMembers of the Savannah River Citizens Advisory Boardparticipated in a process improvement retreat on Friday,January 8 and Saturday, January 9. The retreat took placeat the Middleton Inn in Charleston, SC. Board members aswell as ex-officio members from the Department of Energy(DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) andSouth Carolina Department of Health and EnvironmentalCompliance (SCDHEC) all attended. The Board Facilita-tor, Mike Schoener coordinated the activities.

The retreat began Friday evening with a dinner, an over-view of activities and completion of a confidential survey bythe participants. The results of the survey were presentedto the participants on Saturday morning. The participantswere divided into red, green and blue teams to discussOrganizational Structure, Recommendation Process,Meetings, Membership Involvement, Agency Interactionsand Outreach Activities. After small group discussions, allof the participants got together to discuss the ideas andagree on suggestions for improvement. A number ofsuggestions were made as a result of the retreat. Some ofthe suggestions will require additional discussions prior toimplementation; others were agreed on at the retreat.

Several major outcomes included:

• potential restructuring of issues-based subcommittees• fixed subcommittee meeting schedules• more stringent attendance requirements• development of an outreach plan

A plan and schedule is being developed to implement thechanges, and discussions will continue at future CABmeetings.

For additional information on the process retreat, contactMike Schoener at (803) 641-8166.

SRS CAB Hosts National Meeting

The SRS Citizens Advisory Board hosted a nationalmeeting of the Department of Energy’s Site SpecificAdvisory Board Chairs on Feb. 16-18, 1999. The three-day meeting included a tour of SRS; a 1-1/2 day Chairsmeeting and a training course on “Environmental Laws &Regulations.” Chairs from twelve citizens Boards, Boardadministrators and Federal Coordinators participated inthe meeting held at the Sheraton Hotel in Augusta, Ga.

Welcome to the Savannah River Site's

Citizens Advisory Board

Meeting Minutes Bylaws

Recommendations CAB Organization Chart

General Information CAB Member Biographies

Operations Update Other Related Sites of Interest

1997 Newsletter

Summer 1998 Newsletter

Board Beat 7

SRS to Manage Surplus Plutonium DispositionIn December 1998, SRS was named as the preferred sitefor building and operating a pit disassembly and conversionfacility, a decision welcomed by the SRS Citizens AdvisoryBoard. SRS will now be responsible for all activities relatedto the disposition of surplus weapons plutonium. Alreadythe preferred site for mixed oxide fuel fabrication andplutonium mobilization, co-locating the pit disassemblyfacility at SRS provides substantial savings to the Depart-ment of Energy. Current plans call for construction in2000-2004 with operations commencing in 2005. The SRSCAB noted in a July 1998 recommendation to DOE thatchoosing an alternate site for the pit conversion missionwould have created a new plutonium processing site withina system endeavoring to consolidate operations and wouldhave ultimately increased the amount of environmentalcleanup required.

SRS to Prepare EIS for Closure of High-Level Waste Tanks

The Department of Energy issued a notice of intent toprepare and environmental impact statement on closure ofits high level waste tanks at SRS. DOE proposes to closethese tanks to safely protect human health and the environ-ment by removing residual waste from the tanks to theextent feasible and then filling them with a reducing groutand structural material that will bind up any remainingresidual waste and prevent the tanks from collapsing.Public scoping meetings held in North Augusta and Colum-bia, S.C. in January 1999 were attended by approximately60 citizens who were asked to provide comment on thescope of the EIS.

On January 26, the SRS CAB questioned the need for anEIS on high-level waste tank closure. With the successfulclosure of Tanks 20 and 17 in 1997 and no evident impacton worker safety, public health or the environment, the SRSCAB suggests there are other avenues at significantly lesscost available under the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) toaddress any concerns related to tank closure. The Boardrecommended that DOE cancel plans to conduct an EIS.However, if plans continue, the Board suggests that DOEdevote the minimum amount of funds and time to completethe EIS by December 1999 and assure that EIS data andconclusions feed into the CERCLA process to save timeand costs.

Check out our "UPDATED"Web Site at www.srs.gov !

SRS CAB PerformanceReceives Positive Evaluation

DOE-Headquarters initiated a study of its twelve sitespecific advisory boards to evaluate their effectiveness in1998. Two researchers from the Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory conducted the program evaluationthrough a series of site visits and extensive interviews. Thepurpose of the study was to identify key factors affectingSSAB performance; describe ways in which each SSABoperates in relation to these factors and provide a basis forSSABs to learn from each other.

Five factors emerged as exerting a strong influence uponthe effectiveness of the Boards:• Community context• Board composition• Internal process and functions• Public engagement• DOE and regulator engagement

The SRS CAB portion of the SSAB Evaluation notedseveral key observations. Researchers remarked on theshared sense of purpose, pride in the board, camaraderieand sense of family exhibited by SRS CAB members.They noted good processes and an effective, experiencedChair that models respect for all members, ensuring theiropportunity to contribute to the functioning of the Board.DOE-Savannah River commitment was also discussed.The Board is a high priority for DOE and responsivenessand support are very strong at SRS. Key issues raisedincluded a need for greater public involvement in SRS CABactivities; concern that an anti-nuclear activist viewpoint ismissing; and concern that a small subset of members bearthe technical work load.

March 22-23 USC-Aiken Aiken, SC

May 24-25 Hilton Savannah DeSoto Savannah, Ga

July 26-27 Adam's Mark Hotel Columbia, SC

September 27-28 Savannah Rapids Pavilion Evans, Ga.

November 15-16 Sheraton Charleston Hotel Charleston, SC

Upcoming 1999 Board Meetings

Savannah River SiteCitizens Advisory BoardBuilding 742-A, Room 190Aiken, SC 29808

Name_________________________Address_______________________City__________________________State_____________ Zip_________

Add my name to mail list

Remove my name from mail list

Correct my address

Mailing List

Mail to:Savannah River SiteCitizens Advisory BoardBuilding 742-A, Room 190Aiken, SC 29808

Savannah River Site

Citizens Advisory Board

Key criteria for Board membership includes a time commitment,and the desire and ability to work towards better and informedrecommendations. To apply for membership to the CitizensAdvisory Board, please call 1-800-249-8155

"Board Beat" is published semi-annually by the Savannah River SiteCitizens Advisory Board. Content is provided by Board membersand support staff. Please send your comments and suggestions to:

Dawn HaygoodSRS Citizens Advisory BoardBuilding 742-A, Room 190Aiken, S.C.

Phone: 1-800-249-8155Fax: (803) 725-8057e-mail: dawn.haygood@srs.gov

Savannah River Site

Citizens Advisory Board