ML20215K739
Text
-
.d l:
.s A g 5
.l
- , j#" ""%
u s,Tsc' sie m y e-NUCLEAR REGdLA' 0FY COMMISSION j
'j WASHING 10N. C. C. 20555 a
s.,...../
/W R Gmmmb 1
l i
Mr. David S. Smith, Director Technology Assessment Division (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 J
l
Dear Mr. Smith:
,U", i *"
- '0r
,s a pid../ i,. jv, *
,We have reviewed the paper, " Preliminary Data on,the Occurrence of Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment at the Radioactive Waste Burial Site, Maxey Flats, Kentucky," and have several ccmnents which I
are enclosed for your information.
We have reviewed the paper principally from the standpoint of possible public reaction, clarity, and understanding of the ideas presented. We did not independently analyze the data presented in the report.
Please i
note e do not consider our ccruments to be a Nuclear Pegulatory Ccrnmission
]
concurrence in the content of the paper or the conclusions drawn from
-1 your' analysis of the' data presented, i
y o., o y ri,.... I L! l-0 The Maxey F ats burial ground' is solely regulated by the Ccrmonwalth f
of Fentu f and much of the data in the paper was obtained frcm the
{
State of Kentucky. We believe the-paper should be reviewd by i
Kentucky officials prior to its release.
'1
' Sincerely, 1
1 1
Richard E. Cunningham-Acting Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
Ccmtents 4F 8706250429 870616 PDR FOIA 8
MINTONB7-235 PDR,-
j l
L.
j i
n.
[ M' r
I e
i Ccmmnts on the EPA Paper " Preliminary Data on the Occurrence of Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment at the Radioactive Waste-Burial Site, Maxey Flats, Kentucky,"- Peceived with Iatter dated I
December' 22,'1975 frcm David S. Smith
- \\
General Ccmnents 1.
The EPA report should give recognition to the' fact that the j
Maxey Flats burial ground has been under a program of con-E tinuing evaluation since the tirte it was, first licensed.4mf'%
-l 4 % m ently, in addition to the KDHR six-month study'of December 1974, the NRC, at the request of Governor Carroll, L
conducted an independent review of the burial ground and 3
provided Governor Carroll with a report of our findings in July, 1975.
a 2.
Although the paper is primarily concerned with migration of
' Pu and its significance frcm a hydrogeological' and environ-1
~
mental perspective, we believe_ public interest will center on the public health significance of the data and conclusions presented.. The paper only mentions public health significance on page 4 where it contains a'singleisentence referring to several in progress studies. We believe.the paper should-discuss the public health significance of the' data and, where possible, relate the levels of radioactivity detected in the environment to appropriate public health standardsm ( '
7"*"g~
As-en-alternativer EPA may-wante to-cite 'the conclusions.
Y'
- "k' contained in the state's six-month report.and our (NRC)
A P "" 3 '
- report dated July 7,1975.m p /" -
1 3.
The abstract indicates that plutonium has moved frcm the facility via several pathways including surface water runoff, atmospheric fallout frcm the evaporator, lateral migration q
through the soil, and migration through jointed subsurface geologic formations. The last paragraph in Section 1.2 indi-cates that two objectives of the paper are to determine..if Pu is migrating frcm the burial site and if it is' migrating, to'.
determine how and by what pathways migration may be occurring.
The conclusions contained on pages 30 and 31 again discuss migration of plutonium via several pathways _ including surface l
. transport, interflow, subsurface movement and atmospheric ' fall-out. We believe use of the term migration should be limited to discussion of the movertent of material through the soil and underlying' geolcgic formations as it is used in the abstract.
It should not be used to characterize the movement of naterial via surface runoff or atmo'pheric fallout as it is used elsewhere in s
the paper.
Enclosurel uq
F s A General Coments (continued) 4.
We believe the paper should clearly distinguish between EPA
)
data and KDHR data and should also state whether the data analyses and conclusions presented are those of the EPA-or KDHR.
.j Specific Coments 1.
Page 1, Section 1.1,: Para. 2:
Item (1) should indicate that j
the "... increase in quantities of radioactive materials..."
1 were being received for burial at the site.
2.
Page 1,.Section 1.1, Para. 4:: We believe "However" should be deleted fran the second sentence since it implies that the state limited further burial of Pu based on the six-nonth study. We question whether this is true since the state amended the license prior to ccmpletion of the'six-nonth study.
i 3.
Page 3, Section 2.1, Para. 1: The first sentence should be reworded since it implies the burici ground was authorized to receive and bury liquid waste in other than " solid" (solioified) form.
- 4.
Page 3, Section 2.1,- Para. 2: We believe the third' sentence should explain that containnent by the packaging after burial is of minor concern since the geology, etc. is expected to contain the waste.
5.
Page 4, Section 2.2, Para. 2: The third sentence inplies that Pu may be migrating fran the evaporator. We consider release of material from the evaporator to be an effluent release and not migration.
6.
Page 11, Section 4.2: The underlined sentence at the top,of the page emphasizes the fact that no information is availablelon the chemical or physical character of the waste which has been buried at Maxey Flats.
Since this point has been emphasized, we'believe the paper should contain a rationale-for the enphasis.
7.
Page 11, Section 5.1, Para. 3: The last. sentence ' indicates ' that '
approximately_60 samples were analyzed for Pu. On page 13,
~
Section 5.2, the last paragraph states 50 Pu analyses..on page 14, Section'6.1, the first paragraph states 60l samples were collected i
- t
i i
. l Specific Caments (continued) 7.
(continued) -
for Pu analysis. The differences in sample numbers should be resolved. The KDHR report states that 5 E-Series suspended solid portion samples and 55 soil samples, which included 11 control samples,~were taken and analyzed during the course'of the study.
1 8.
Pages 11-12,'Section 5.1, Para. 4: The last sentence should 1
clearly distinguish between on-site, off-site, on-site (rectricted area), and on-site (unrestricted area). These terms should, in turn, be used consistently throughout the paper as they were in
]
the KDHR reirrt.
I l
9.
Page 14, Section 6.1, Para.1: The term "significant" used in (1) and (2) should be defined or deleted.
10.
Page 17, Section 6.4, Para. 1: The last two sentences are unclear and med to be reworded.
11.
Page 28, Section 7.3, Para. 1:
Item (2) appears to imply that the waste is intentionally placed in an unfavorable environmnt.
Na do not believe this is true.
)
- 12. Page 28, Section 7.3, Para. 2:
Itent (8) does not take into con-sideration the fact that the trench caps are maintained and periodically repaired.
h
- i jJ
~
x jb pg n
2 P
t N.
Y
't
_ :b
's m.Y%u\\x
?
i
\\
,\\
.V <m n\\x\\
,\\
E T
S 5
E I
D S
t F
E C
I M
TY AR R
HA D
S E
t XN d
T-OU R
f RO I
I PB S
A
,1
~
K L
k.
d5 2'
A R
S f
1,'
M0 N
f E
O T
/l P
E g2 S
.F
.0 0
I 0
0 D
0
'K 1
0 E
8 2
-~
[0 S
'=
R S
j 1
T E
t T
A A
1 '
E g
[
L V
M R
O F
E L
s T
I Y-N K
I E
)
R X
U A
O T
~
M N
of*'I&
g c
O g 0 f
C 0 0 F
0 8 O
W 8e go 1
0L N
se O
\\
c e, I
T A
s C
O
\\
L h5 5 '
SD Y F K Y
MC-K U
F T-C A
Ot U
E T
N K N
O N E
I K
Tl t Ai p
N C T~
,D L W qJ' r
BD!.. g$3' r
,ac$ F. '
j
\\
1
{q l
1 n!
g
.. ?
s
^
x)
~
1 N
j 1
t
=
j N
og
~
O t
A,,'
(
-"o
.s F
O g p)
N E
j C
N iaJ~,0.+[
S E
)
D I
}4 D
.S E
F
/
R 0
f q
M
(
/'f. \\
R O
~n$
S T
E AK l:
RC L T
T OA A I
E T S E S
/l E
AS O T F
V K
P S
4.w E
I E
L 0 S -
e, A
0 0
I
/
S 1
f'Df, -
R O
L E
A T
,\\
P V
- 2..
/
E R
M S
0_
O E
I L
T D
N t
K e'.
c I
- t #
E S
R o.
T E
W ~' v a A
C T 0 S N 0,
T N
f L
t EE O
F C
N g
5
^
Y 0
8 E.
X
- a
- A 8
0
]
l y
M 0
/
9 Es 9
a>Is. #
g3 a oE
, ~ cs A;L 4'
g L..
. c,
. 4.,
O i
L e'
.)
C
+
r
_o p
\\
E q
u 7
f g,
i o,,ow\\w\\g ce r
o e
\\
8
~
l 4,+
s e
x xx i
a p. i i i i i i i,9 i i i i i n i N i i i i a i N N p/gku (' N x x ~ _.
s s
,Z
$ g-h y,,
)
)bg!ws. h-
{ -('
x j
s n
,=
a X/
\\
8
[
'4/__.2!ll/ [ Y:s D'1 s
I-M\\
}nd 7
\\\\ [p 67 g
'//e m m ssemsq 1
/
l
\\\\
(b/
s
(;
(:)s
)A-\\ls g\\ h, TtA=%
's mt~'h ';
/[i ', d * $,Q \\ 5
-i 8
i
'N 5
/ I s,% y
\\)-
,s l
k lN (j$Q N
h k
\\
((
g<
\\J E
W
\\\\%
\\
l o,
f
!\\ N 'k'4s\\!! Wtx
~
.)
<xst J{p/f
' x 8,,%y, '+
E gy s&q
>' I.
! i.
-V78Y 7vso q 1tOdS HON 3 H \\ ~ m \\,f
~. -..
s p
g
.g
- g g
(g j
s J\\NN
\\
aw l, jg.A-Wx\\,C%A_\\\\gfMR 4
)!V a
~
u
(
in 2 f is su i
s r-
-r t
r t
i < t ':.
r 4
a m.
[
t
{
FOR 11/1/77 MEETING WITH KENTUCKT REPRESENTATIVES BACKGROUND -ON MAXEY FLATS, KENTUCKY COMMERICAL WA'STE BURIAL GROUND OPERATED BY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY 1.
The Maxey Flats site began operations in 1963 under a license issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The site has'been continually regulated by Kentucky (an Agreement State). NRC'(AEC) has never been. the regulatory agency.
2.
The. burial ground'(20-25 acres) and adjacent area (total of 252 acres) i is owned by Kentucky.
3.
The Department-for Human Resources (represented by Mr. Charles Hardin) is the statefregulatory agency.
They license the operation of the site, conduct inspections and have conducted an. independent environmental monitoring program around the site s'inee prior to start up of operations.
(The licensee has conducted an independent environmental monitoring l
program since 1962).
4.
The Department of Finance and Administration (Secretary McClure, Mr. Sutten and Mr. Wichliffe) carries out the landlord functions, negotiates the lease with the operator and establishes the perpetual care funding requirements.
Dames and Moore made an assessment of the site and ongoing
, technical studies for Department of Finance and Administration in.1977.
5.
The State intensified its monitoring efforts in late 1973 because of increas!ng quantities of material being buried, State concern over water management at the site and some indications of small quantities of radioactivity being released to the local area from Maxey Flats.
Res ul ts j
published by the State in December 1974 concluded there was a release of j
activity to the environment, but that the activity did not create a public health hazard. Monitoring 'would be continued to determine the long term significance of the findings.
6.
On April 30, 1975, Governor Carroll requested the NRC to independently assess the situation.
Staff members from the State Agreements Program, Radiological Assessment Branch (NRR), and Site Analysis Branch '(NRR) reviewed the situation (including (See SECY 75-392).
a site visit) and furnished a report to the Governor on July 14, 1975
.The staff concluded there was no significant public health problem associated with the reported releases of activity from the site.
Recomendations were made dealing 3
principally with methods for improving water management practices at the site. At the same time the-State was informed that the NRC could not provide financial assistance for certain State studies, but some technical assistance could be provided. Additionally, the NRC report concluded that the State had been taking appropriate regulatory action with. respect to health, safety and the environment.
(The NRC did not and has not reviewed j
in detail the financial aspects regarding this or any of the other burial 4
si tes.)
i 1
s
.2-7.
Subsequent studies and reports by EPA and the State have raised questions about the site, but none has indicated a significant public health problem to date from operation of the site. Most of these questions concerned long-term projections of site performance.
8.
The Kentucky Department of Human Resources, the regulators with technical and radiation safety expertise, have not indicated a need to close the site because of public health problems.
The following are several key issues which the State representatives may discuss:
1.
Kentucky Research proposal RES, NMSS and NRR staff met with Kentucky Department for Human Resources '
staff on September 8,1977 to discuss the preliminary research proposal submitted jointly by the Kentucky Department'for Human Resources and the Department of Finance and Administration.
The conclusions of that meeting were that some of the work proposed would be of interest to the NRC as part of a larger planned generic study of low-level was_te burial sites, assessing waste management practices,
radionuclide migration in soils and geologic structures and environmental impacts of low-level waste disposal alternatives.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is preparing a revised proposal for consideration by the NRC.
j i
2.
Shutdown of the Maxey Flats Site Secretary McClure recently announced intentions of the State to begin I
negotiations with NECO to shut the site down. They plan to continue to study the site to determine what has to be done to decommission the site and to evaluate any potential for future use of the site.
There may be NRC interest in research on methods and costs for decommission-ing low level waste burial sites.
NRC has work underway at Battelle relating to decommissioning and any potential studies at Maxey Flats j
regarding closing of the sfte would need to be coordinated wi,th that work.
]
3.
Fedtral Takeover of the Site
}
The issue of Federal takeover including Federal land ownership, regulation and perpetual care funding, was recently addressed in SECY 77-489.
The low-level waste implementation plan presented in this paper and approved by the Commission notes that a number of questions must be answered before a final decision on Federal takeover of the commercial burial grounds can
)
be made.
One question, long-term care of the sites, requires a better information base regarding which Federal agency should accrue long-term care funds, how much money will be needed, and what surveillance and monitoring activities should be carried out once the site is closed.
e
,: - 4.
New Site Management Methods-The >l977 Dames and Moore study conducted for.the Kentucky Department of Finance-and Administration recommended: improvements in site operations and investigation of.some alternative operating practices.-
The staff does not believe-itfis appropriate for NRC to. fund studies of this type since they.are oriented toward operational practices and
~ development of'the site. Our interest is more to-assessing the safety and potential environmental impact of the operational practices of licensees.
Attached is a March 18, 1977' letter to Congressman Perkins in.which the Chairman reviewed ~ the history of the Maxey Flats site.
i
)
s h
i y
4'
.e i
i STAFF ATTENDEES j
i William P. Bishop j
Assistant Director for Waste Management, NMSS Paul H. Lohaus Low-Level Waste Branch
)
Jared J. Davis Assistant Direc, tor for Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research,.RES i
1 Frank Swanberg Chief, Health and Environmental Research Branch i
1 G. Wayne Kerr
~
~
l Assistant Director for State Agreements Program, SP
]
)
o l
l
}
l f
up p
.;r /
.A f,t/ y t/
l pil. & pgL
}
.w - ciey.fq.pg y
~ fe-uavy tu L
.$)5&Mk fe r
V4 g A G 6 a w(vMA f
.5 "'4g a ~ an,,a<<~ n.se
.3 u
4.ib t,, l,}y
/f90 :Ma Cl,.,/ymJgcc:t+,+7anby
'~ 2'r/Mk2
"_rf-g h-g'I. M d W g
'+<A
&r,
/. n s -J./, - e/ m &
2L.u~.
t 9JdA?d4
,e3~4 f& 6%Us, a2/, a~A
.s & m/
es
-;e
, ~,,
/
Y hy$ l c-A A ct Y '
+ cu y n.y,& 4~.; c3f$
n
. r n p-m.r.
p#
OW.&c." A
'Af& h/,
\\
Af) 8 4
4 h
y A
t h
. pen.y wx&,-,i+.,
s dt rb, Sb b '
b
's b
,s u.a,, u,a 4 u,
ae v..,...,
~ l s $<J U,
y&ATM
,,ef i
l ase( proje p A,(Ms'ml,)
}
~psca p-nn 4'440
~
. d Q Mf fy -i-~?%, k y y
}
d g.a J=,
I,
' ghss( ;b >/p 19C REC en cann
&~,-%
f aW4
" asc a p s A u n u f
ed,at AJ,z OA f, j
i d~LdJ/
l
,y5jy'
~wi%.y /e-4 pkdy
?
n s,,.u l l=M w
.ya &p%
-em 1r
_ t,
,; IL
')
']
1
)
I t
s h
,[
to a d () -..j p )?g w w,- n MA ArL1z, yd avf t,4
/w Qi,} deakustpt > '.
O.umt)f3 ime-yo-LL untLy,$waQ -
3 ybr u y a 9 e d / q,:
.l l
e s.n, +,4 s,a, a eds.% d 4 1
s
^
uss e
< ~,x,
yfjlb&A / bQf$1 0.4t&
<t h
O v ~ 4 4 f '; m w, 4,
rb,skf.ywAm s
- wbw,
, d.7dj l
LMJ 3 ) 4 [y.,,
^ w _a 1 m.m g
OOJ dnp 4% sk,&
y gvi n
6w.(ph - m A
/Q y~a th Afn EPA
- 4 424
}
,a na a w a 7
A :/,S l efua,t p
y
(
,\\
. [4
___i
?x A
i
- g. 3 R
y B
_w l
1
\\
t l
-j t
ferl ffi Gfdbh (14 V
i f,.-
u, p;L w M d,aMfM
-g y
s
(,'l c;$( ~ y ;mi? $ L-, ~ $ /**d 6
- l Oc
= -fac, t,tdw
= gw
,.;, pp (fi", f f ivoi eI&sel{
}-
LJ co/l ie tl
+.
y A. a 3
bl rj,
4o
~ m _.. w~.
w
- 3 w,-
4 AIh cr g,
l
_W W
v yx 6 < e U5E.< nc~
~ %y, s
_g t
2 t,i;,M & % cp M ~, jt p
gy-1
_-v i y 6 3 - 19 '; 7 L
E g
yk) pe,ndus- (c p - 6 0 b A5
}
G Ph u
i
,flyW; / '
f,a,- 6 N",,
f.a v
=--
s4' on J,vu. - ku M c dv.3
- w t
y-x9 i
(5 t~ betL.q'cch. ;f /r'* [I%kn U l--
U a-s
?>+ydy,, gu=b :c,w_~,? fy)4;,w,d)
Eppn H
-^
,y f
h u 5t ; $'Ofl rbkIb ed" ",W ~
.n o
l
\\
YJin c% %
$sk h~ocn U,
4C y
flw % dlJ
! %t
$l w&n- /,y lau(dg1/
t j
.g. _%,
. s m,
c cc40R )1pd.
4 Nd ;) 'n. ci1 D a k h e. ted.-< c 3
c f
9 Au mA rv.f p<ll
!1
%ph4 1
EPAw.Ahcdhifd fr 4
s
@$62 Cam % k % a.1,57 h
g sa Fvc cca,tocAa.obf&
Ex,p4 k6luyM
.I smsag 1
0 n entb I
kbN',\\,
(% hh l (,3 c0h,, bl:.
k y
QW '
$)$ 0
+%E 3
bl41:
WO. Af/4 h a d f. g.P d u # % p J a. r f or wi
N i
{
, %t 6m hp2sg hdIh
- 757,
=
b' b.
f, (
eaar,a Pva car.s (a. Gn..:
1 y s, p,,
t g~
6M IJ A '14 de~ c(T^f <^r ybp!
i WuhllLwdOLe A
@,o
/
Nwl f /L
-::c OkvA, A4'o </w 7,_
(r
-n
'l i
/ni.,,,,,M l
^"
1 f.
'l (xn.J GL/
b_i x: c __
g a s "
.a z K
lh
- ,ll A
.7pri d,, h 4 4 ~ xas >
e -r-d[N 80 3
- l. 3 m
& )(+
lE%44 32 rdle
?
$4fs &pd,s> Ar/ ubl (?SS y
s t0 1
m
s nu=su j
i l
4J,Sm f d C.
2s P 3506 Tcylv; b4d,O,A 2S7-2XVI i
% d &o# g ) %,845 j
i Q - %,vt,). h 5 b d.L <$IN M'CfS l'~
.~
e so _ ss s%
l Aw<b-A0 f
j y mp,~2d j.
b
'L-2.! y x f.- re, A i
l nv. vo &# 64n j"
j h
,s3 fRP?
16 p 1 % s'y y es-y w
e ACC b 'd C
y, rcJer sA h>t U kW $
{0 h f' }
{ }{Ged( h*> ' ok 0;
I w,!I. :.,* yu '
+
n J USGe,&
gdi A [ wacga.2 /et< Mif,1~ d v5 Ge-P&dJ w
c 7a
m o_.
60% m s,,) m
,h' A6cyshsAcc ~b,m., d {\\$
(/f$$>
6 e tri,aeJul
' O ' D u t % J r. - s a r g s, j,
W
- i d.
.......__r
l 1
I F
f ***
I e
l b
i 4
i 1
e
.i I
e 0
s e...
e..._,_
..,~,..
._e.
..-e.
e a e e---
e.
e e
e
--+ao e
" C#.
S
- *., s...j. w e U. N.,,J y w. !
, g.... 4. k % g i 4. r,..k g.,s J,g j
, g
- %e i
.s
.4..
J...,
I
~
I I
...e.
l
..a,.,
h f-
' )
0 Y
f
\\
%4 l
t em, a
,g
- = =.
es
- .e'
, g
.=
c=-
t
'. +.
,.s ** w *v P *. ~ q
+
w
.. G%.
I e
g e
.--e-m.mm..
-,we.
-+
-ee-.=
,A'$
she
[
A W
.e
, +s g
\\.
u.
..,j h.
a e
if s e,
--.- g g e a
--M' O
bU %
8 w
e..
0 8
as
,e..
.u-_
.a.
...e.-
e j
9
...u..
..-w
<,e,ee..,u..-
l a
e._.ee
...... ~.
...u.
.,a 1
l
-u N
s t
..e
...,_.....u.
e-.
e.....,o....
.i..me.e.-
u.-.
9
..e.,
e.-
e e-
.e,ap go e
.#.e 4
a We
,%u.e gamum*
i.me,eusmeM-
- ma m
e.ee m.
.A,.+e
.s-wa a aea=
2ih mese.m s e&m.4 g-gousqm em=.<e 4-emmee mey.m.
e-ia
-eese emem
.=.
m-ea m-
,,e w wwye,.a m.
.gmen
< ee p
~.y,96 i
e
- eep'e'Me en omish. que meme.g.m am esee,d.ag 4 m es o.
poet.
mes.a=e e.
mea 4 dem.es, de,yeauivi en upw
- =
=
-m ampe.ee' s
a dance es.he*ep.
wmen e
-aw-*m ew eeem hem <i esog.mn-e.eW-a<mibe*-4.+ mem.
eow -e h w g mmmm r--.e'uneu e
,ee,wp
,my ee ne rge sa s epu.msemeag em e ypeduci esem.4%wh egy.,
a wr m.=.aene4mm.amew a
- r <ammeye mee, e enem memmeste e.pd.we seaes-guai
- me w.g eeseau
-.e.a m.mg.
seh emesep n-g-gree.ep.
q4 e ma p
6,.as sw. ep-emie-+t-'ae4
-me-es et aes,2 v.
n==yt,-ee.ame.y e.4-.e e2.,g,4,,ys.epe,w
.m, my 4
._m.
4 2
so me+
.we.
4meemre.v.
,.eum.'e e
-W*-eg_st+p.mm
- e
--4.*.
wma,-s
.see.e-e,e.,fme.A 4
9
-e.ge44
--e,-
e e, es. e e..we.u-e.g.e-,..am.
-e ae gg,penym e i..
newee e.w.-
ame gan'ewep.e 4 8.
abem -
4isu.
etr $
,wegs.
n 1 I f\\. 1 3._
=
ae:my eaim eges esame -a e
em 4.
s.
m
.e...
e.
eg 4, 9
,,,,.ummyn gne.,ge_
.y
,,e 9
g.seey meeeee.g gg e-fpag e s,,4s 44 go.
qs..
3.i'6-4 4a.m4h e
a.
ee.ve ene ad, man we, age,e. H e dyn-
.n ewe ++eew,s, mgange. deas4 -
+..ee t
- a. Este.
4
i BACXGROUND ON MAXEY FLATS Between 1963 and 1978, U.S. Ecology (formerly Nuclear Engineering Company) disposed of approximately 135,089 m3 of LLW containing more than 2.4 million curies of byproduct material, 240,000 kg of source material, 430 kg of special nuclear material, and 63 kg of plutonium.
The waste was disposed in over 40 trenches, numerous hot wells, and several special pits that were excavated 1
in clayey soils and weathered shale at the site.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky l
became concerned about the accumulation of water in the waste trenches in the early 1970's and concluded that the site was discharging radionuclides to the l
environment surrounding the site.
The site was closed on December 27, 1977.
{
Since 1978 the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has maintained and monitored the site to ensure continued protection of the public and the environment.
I The NRC and other federal agencies have provided the Commonwealth of Kentucky l
N with technical assistance on the Maxey Flats site since 1975.
After a series of radionuclide migration assessments, the NRC assisted Kentucky by reviewing j
a series of proposed decommissioning plans for the Maxey Flats site between i
August 1983 and April 1984 The review was conducted by a team of NRC technical experts from the offices of Research, State Programs, and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The review covered all aspects of the proposed remedial and decommissioning plans including geotechnical engineering, hydrogeology, materials science, transport pathway analysis, and risk to the general public.
Since 1984, the Maxey Flats disposal site has been placed on the National Priorities List for remediation to protect the public and the environment.
i Pursuant to CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act), EPA recently produced a draft workplan for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
EPA has also identified approximately 832 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), who may be liable for costs incurred by the U.S. Government in performing remedial measures at i
the site.
The list of PRPs include various federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the EPA, in addition to a long list of commercial parties.
EPA has encouraged the PRPs to provide oversight to the RI/FS study to ensure development of cost-effective remedial measures that will provide for public and environmental protection.
i NRC needs to be kept informed about the status and progress of the Maxey Flats CERCLA clean-up.
Resolution of issues associated with the Maxey Flats clean-up may have significant implications for States and Regional Compets, who are presently preparing to develop LLW disposal capabilities under the LLRWPAA.
State and Regional Compacts may consider long-term liabilities associated with potential CERCLA actions.are too great to proceed with development of LLW disposal capacity.
Such concerns may cause considerable delays by the States and Regional Compacts in developing disposal l
capabilities, thus potentially causing health and safety problems associated with extended LLW storage and improper management, q
,