ML20236K047
| ML20236K047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1975 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E585 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-235 NUDOCS 8708060388 | |
| Download: ML20236K047 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
p
,.c e
4
")
RB 2 8 fdd To Files The attached annotated chroaology concerna KentuAky's Project Report -
Six Month Study of Radiation Concentrations and Transport Mechanisms at the Maxey Flats Area of Fleming County, Kentucky". Appendix materials which are referenced can be found in the two loose leaf binders labeled "NECO Kentucky Additional information concerning our review of NECO's
" license and inspection files is contained in the 14th Kentucky pro 8 ram I
review report.
~
/9 I Paul H. Lohaus Agreements and Exports Branch
. Attachments as stated 1
t 1
- L?S9 8?P 87o724 MINTON87-235 PDR 1
)
' e r.c s
- s tunnana >
f
)
oars e
~. - ~.. - -
I osn AEC StF (Rev. P 5)) ABCM 0240 W v. s. novs nwa t=7 eneateae orrec ts * * **.sae.eee j
^
~.
l l
ANNOTATED CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS CONCERNING KENTUCKY'S PROJECT REPORT ON THEIR SIX-MONTH. STUDY OF RADIATION CONCENTRATIONS AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS AT THE NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INCORPORATED RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE AT MAXEY FLATS, KENTUCKY October 11 Meeting With Kentucky and Fuels and Materials Staff On October 11, 1974, Mr. Charles Hardin and Mr. Bobby Wilson of the Kentucky Radiological Health Program met with Mr. Smiley, Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Smith. The State representatives indicated that waste may be migrating from the Nuclear Engineering Company, Maxey Flats radioactive waste disposal site. They further indicated that their environmental monitoring program had detected plutonium in sludge from water samples taken from on-site test wells located near the burial trenches. They did not provide any values regarding the activi'ty found in the samples but discussed a report of their environmental monitoring program which they were planning to send to Secretary Laurel True, Department for Human Resources.
l October 21 Telecon-Wayne Kerr and Bobby Wilson j
On October 21, 1974, Mr. Wayne Kerr called Mr. Wilson to determine the status of their report.
Mr. Wilson stated that the report was to be i
forwarded to Dr. Stanley Hammons Commissioner, Bureau for Health Services on October 22, 1974.' Mr. Wilson also indicated that he had stressed to his supervisors the need for sending the report to the AEC as soon as possible. However, the State did not plan to do so until the Secretary approved such an action.
Mr. Wilson further indicated that five samples had been taken from test welig ranging in depth from 50 to 90 feet.
These samples showed average concentrations of 15.42 dpm per gram for plutonium 238 and 0.32 dpm per gram for plutonium-239. Mr. Wilson stated that background in that general vicinity is 0.016 dpm per gram for plutonium-238 and 0.022 dpm per gram for plutonium-239.
Mr. Wilson stated that the USGS was performing work at the site in conjunction with an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The USGS had conducted a gammalog on one test well, which at about 25 to 45 feet below the surface, revealed the presence of cesium-134, cesium-137 and cobalt-60.
November 5 Telecon-Paul Lohaus and Charles Hardin On November 5, Mr. Paul Lohaus called Kentucky and talked with Mr. Charles Hardin to determine the status of the release of the r report.
Mr. Lohaus
)
d learned that Bobby Wilson had left the States employ the preceeding week and that the State had met that day with Secretary True and Commissioner Hammons. As a result of this meeting, the Secretary had indicated that the first course of action should be to appraise the AEC of the problem.
Mr. Hardin discussed two approaches; 1) Have AEC representatives visit l
4 the State to review the report, or 2) Have representatives from the State of Kentucky visit the AEC to discuss contents of the report.
Mr. Hardin indicated the State would be looking to the AEC for technical advice and assistance concerning the report's conclusion and also for funding assistance to conduct a detailed hydro-geological study at the site.
- Mr. Hardin also indicated the State would like to discuss with the AEC possible future courses of action, further studies to determine the rate of migration, and methods for intercepting such migration. When l
questioned about sone of the details contained in the report, Mr. Hardin provided,the following information:
1.
The State has measured significant (MPC) levels of radioactivity at certain sampling points plus plutonium has been identified in cer-tain test well sludge samples.
2.
The USGS well logging has detected three ribbons of cesium and cobalt at various depth in a test well located fifty feet laterally from trench No. 40.
3.
The State believes that migration is taking place.
4.
Early in 1970 the State detected elevated levels of activity at certain sampling points.
These levels were way below MPC but the elevated levels continued through 1971 and 1972.
In late 1972 higher activities, particularly elevated levels of tritium were identified.
In November of 1973 the State, initiated a six-month study to determine the scope of elevated levels of activity measured at the site and to expand their environmental surveillance program to further access conditions at the site. The report entitled "Six-honth Study of Radiation Concentrations and Transport Mechanisms at the Maxey Flats Area of Flemming County, Kentucky" was a summary of the findings identified during the six-month study.
1 November 7 6 8 Meeting with Kentucky i
On November 7 and November 8, Mr. Paul Lohaus and Mr. R. Smith meet uith Mr. Charles Hardin and other State representatives in Kentucky to review and discuss the report. A visit by Mr. Lohaus and Mr. Smith to the Nuclear Engineering Ma7ey Flats Waste Disposal Site was also conducted on November 8.
Details of this meeting follow.
We first met with Mr. Charles Hardin, Program Manager for the l
Radiation and Product Safety Branch.
Mr. Hardin reviewed the new organization structure and the position of the Radiation Control Program within this structure.
Mr. Hardin stated that although the radiation control program has been operating witnin the new structure for about a year, the organization had not been officially approved by the Department.
- - - - - - - - * - - - - - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Hardin briefly reviewed the circumstances leading to the preparation of the report, the Federal and State Agencies presently involved, pre-sented a brief history of the NECO burial ground, and other information as follows:
1.
The US General Accounting Office has been reviewing State files on the Nuclear Engineering burial site for about a month in regard to their general review of waste burial activities throughout the country.
2.
The State has signed two contracts with the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). One contract, for $24,000 provides for environ-mental monitoring by the EPA and a preliminary hydrogeological study by the US Geological Survey under their ag'reement with EPA.
The second contract fo'r $15,000 provides for the compilation of information on the type and quantity of radioactive materials buried in each trench at the Nuclear Engineering site 3.
Mr. Hardin explained that there are two primary State Agencies involved in administrating operations at the site; the Department for Human Resources which has issued a license for the operation and the Kentucky Science and Technology Commission which owns the land leased to the company and which is responsible for perpetual care and maintenance of the site. Chuck further explained that the Kentucky Science and Technology Commission is a statutory Commission consisting of five members. Chuck indicated that the Escrow account administered by the Kentucky Science and Technology Commission for peTpetual care and maintenance at the site currently contains about
$160,000.
4.
The Nuclear Engineering Company has moved their main office from Walnut Creek, California to Louisville, Kentucky.
5.
Mr. Hardin indicated that the Maxey Flats site was chosen in 1961 from a number of sites based on a survey by the USGS, State Geolo-gist, an independent geologist hired by the Nuclear Engineering Company, the USAEC and the Publ'c Health Service.
6.
EMCON Associates, a geological und environmental consulting firm, has been hired by the Nuclear Engineering Company to conduct geolo-gical and hydrological analyses at the site, to develop a long O
l
- k e
-4_
range site. plan, and to develop a contingency plan for the site.
1 Mr. Hardin stated that one of Emcon's projects had been the drilling l
of about 15 new test wells on the perimeter of the site to check for possible migration of material.
7.
The Company, J. Leonard Associates, with which the Nuclear Engineering Company had contracted for development and installation of an evaporator system had been desolved. The. principal technical person of the
{
Company, Dr. James Leonard, is now a Vice President of the Nuclear Engi-heering Company.
8.
Mr. Hardin reviewed the situation which developed in lace 1972 re-sulting in their issuing an order against the Nuclear Engineering Company. The order was issued for failure to' remove water from trenches and for direct violation of their license and State regulations relating to pumping commercial liquid waste directly into solid waste burial trenches.
Based on the order the Company submitted a plan for cor-rective action'which included pumping water from the trenches, in-stallation of'an evaporator system fer consolidation of the water, the filing of a letter of credit for $500,000, the development of a long range site plan and the development of a contingency plan.
9.
Mr. Hardin indicated that from 1963 to 1971 no abnormal. activity levels were detected in their environmental surveillance program.
Beginning in 1971 and through 1972 elevated levels of activity, par-ticularly tritium, were detected on and offsite.
Based on these elevated levels the State initiated an intensive six-month environ-mental study.in November of 1973. The report was prepared by the State to summarize the result of their study and to present conclusions and recommendations for further action at the site.
10.
Mr. Hardin stated'that a reporter for the Kentucky Courier-Journal (Mr. Livingston Taylor) had either seen the report, had a copy of the report, or had talked to someone familar with the report and was applying pressure on the Department to make the report available i
to the public. The State declined to release the report stating that they wanted to review resultr. of the study with the Nuclear Engineering Company and the AEC prior to making the report available to the public.
i 11.. Mr. Hardin reviewed his understanding of geological and hydrological conditions at the site. He stated that the capping procedures used prior to 1972 itere not as good as capping procedures used after 1972. The poor capping procedures had resulted in infiltration of 1
water into the trenches.
Mr. Hardin stated that during 1972 the Company went back and recapped the old' trenches and he believed that percolation of water into the trenches was probably less now than'it was before. He again mentioned the order and the licensees l
plan for corrective action relating to' removal of water from completed and partially completed trenches.
l;
.~
- 12.
Mr. Hardin proposed that a task force be established to further study and access conditions at the site and to develop plans for any corrective action which may be necessary at the site. He suggested that representatives from the following organizations should participate on the task force:
1.
State: Department for Human Resources, Kentucky Geological Survey, Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environ-mental Protection, Kentucky Science and Technology Commission; 2.
NECO:
3.
13.
In response'to a question concerning the availability of background Information on the original licensing action, Mr. Hardin stated that their was little information concerning the analyses which were conducted prior to licensing. However, he believed that the site and application submitted by NECO were thoroughly reviewed and evaluated both by the State,' an indep. indent geologist, the AEC, and the Public Health Service prior to licensing.
14.
Mr. Hardin then gave us a copy of the report an3 discussed the five basic groupings of samples taken and analized during the study. These E series test wells, restricted area surface water, unrestricted were:
area water (non-control), unrestricted area water (control), and soils.
(A copy of the interium report is contained in Appendix A.
15.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Lohaus then proceeded to review the six-month re-port and other materials which were available in the Nuclear Engi-i neering Company files about the site. We found the report to be poorly prepared and not descriptive of the actual activities conducted during the six-month study. The actual results of the,six-month study were not presented in a manner which was understandable to the reader. We discussed certain of these observations with Mr.
Hardin and requested additional information which we might take back with us for further review and study as follows:
1.
A copy of the preoperational environmental survey.
2.
A copy of the geological surveys conducted by the USGS, the State geologist, and the independent geolcgist Mr. Ian Walker.
3.
Information on the water tables and acquifers in the site area.
4.
Results of the six-month study summarized by number and type of samples taken, sample station locations, number of samples analyzed, type of analyses performed and the results of analyses.
a
.S
. 5.
Site diagrams:
1.-
Area diagram showing the extent of land owned by the State and location of land' presently being used by NECO.
2.
Area diagram' showing offsite environmental monitoring stations.
3.
. Site diagra'm showing trenches and onsite monitoring stations
~
and test wells.
4.
Topographical and cross-section' diagram of site.
6.
Measurement uncertainties for values reported in the six-month survey.
7.
The six-month survey report d!? cussed the analyses of sludge from well samples. We requested informa, tion concerning analyses conducted.
on the water from these samples.
Mr. Hardin provided certain of these materials. He indicated that he would officially request the AEC to review and. comment on the report. With his letter of request for us to review the report he-stated he would fo'rward the additional supporting materials we had requested.
On November 8, Mr. Paul Lohaus, Mr. R. Dale Smith, Mr. Charles Hardin and Mr. Irving Bell,.a'special assistant ~to Shelby Johnson, travelled to the
- Nuclear Engineering Waste' Disposal Site in Maxey Flats.
Upon our arrival at the site we met with Dr. Jim Leonard, Vice President, Mr. Arvil Crase, Regional Manager, Mr. Bruce Reich, Site Manager, and Mr. John Razor, Environmental Protection Officer.
Mr. Hardin briefly reviewed the purpose of our visit; a visit to the site as part of our normal review of the State's program.
Since the State had not discussed the report with the-licensee Mr. Hardin asked that we not discuss the report or information contained in it during our oite visit.
Mr. Crase and Mr. Reich briefly reviewed site operations and discussed at some length the operation of their evaporator. Following these
' discussions we proceeded to survey the site as follows:
1.
We observed a scraper digging a new trench in the new burial area.
The trenches are about 300 feet long, about 20 to 30 feet wide and about 30 to 40 feet deep.
The scraper removes dirt, places it in a clean area and the dirt is then used for backfilling of the trench.
j 4
4 e
f.
's-e
~ 2.
?Ws observed an active disposal trench in the new burial' area.. The
~
trench'was_about 1/8 filled and you could see waste packages and'
. barrels which formed a slope from the top to the bottom at abouc-45*.
There was a small amount of water in the trench and it was not in contact.with the waste.
3.
We observed the completed l trench area. The completed area had a good vegetation cover of grass and the markers were visible.
Sumps were noted at either the head or foot of the trenches. Pipes could be
seen lying around from various sumps to the storage area used by-NECO.
4.
We next reviewed the water storage area. /D11s consisted of a number of large steel tanks of approximately 10,000 to 35,000. gallon capacity where the water from the trenches is pumped and stored prior to.
processing in the evaporator system. The tanks we-set.on rail-road ties and.a relatively large quantity of water was contained in
.the berm constructed by the Company to contain any spilled water from the tanks.
(We later learned that about 800,000 gallons of water.was stored in the tanks and the' berm contained about 3,000 gallons.) Company representatives indicated that during an earlier labor problem, one of the tanks had been turned on and contaminated
- water allowed to flow into the berm. Company representatives stated they were planning'to pump the bera dry and to clean it out such that'they would not have to process rainwater which might-
' collect.in the berm.
5.
We next. observed operation of the evaporator system.- Water is pumped into settling tanks and'is-then processed through the evaporator.
Sludge from the operation is removed and stored in a tank. At the time we were at the site, representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency were pulling samples of the stack effluent' gases for analynis. '
This completed our site visit and we proceeded to the' Holiday Inn were we met and discussed a number of questions we had on the six-month study with Mr. David Clark, Kentucky Radiological Health Program.
November 11 Briefing of Mr. Muntzing On November 11, 1974, Mr. Muntzing was briefed by Mr. Nussbaumer on the site visit and result of the six-month study report. Others in atten-dance at the briefing were Mr. R. Dale Smith, Mr. G. Wayne Kerr and Mr. Paul 1H. Lohaus. Following Mr. Muntzing's briefing, an information summary was prepared and orally' presented to the Commission on November 13, 1974. A copy of the summary and other materials prepared for this briefing are attached as Appendix B.
l S
'i u
~'i-State Meetings With'NECO and the Kentucky Courier-Journal Following our meeting ~with the State, State representatives met with Nuclear Engineering Company officials to discuss and review the~
interim project report. The. State asked that.the Company review and j
submit. comments on the interim report.
On November 13, Mr. Livingston Taylor of the Kentucky Courier-Journal, Mr. Laurel True, Dr.' Stanley Hammons, Mr. Shelby Johnson and Gubernatorial Press Secretary, Mr. Thomas Preston met to discuss, release of the interim report to the public.
Secretary True instructed the Health Services' Bureau Officials to gather the comments of the Company-and the~AEC and i
.to release the report in ten days.
Mr. Livingston Taylor agreed to delay publishing an article on the report until the State had an opportunity to review and reflect in their report the comments of the' Nuclear Engineering Company and the AEC. However, on November 26, the State further delayed release of the report until December 13 to give them an
(
1
' opportunity to adequately consider and reflect the comments of the Company k
.and the AEC in the final report. Because of the delay Livingston Taylor published an article in the December 2, 1974, issue of the Kentucky Courier-Journal about the report. A copy of the article is attached as Appendix C.-
i November 15 Telecon-James Leonard and Wayne Kerr
.On November 15, 1974, Dr. James Leonard, NECO, after meeting with the State and after having been presented a copy of the report called Mr.
. Wayne Kerr.to discuss the burial site and the probable release of the Kentucky report. He indicated that.he understood the AEC has been provided some information by Kentucky officials regarding the State's env.ironmental monitoring data at'the site. He asked if it would be possible to meet with us to discuss t, heir own data which he" indicated covers a span of some ten years. He also stated that their data covers many more sampling locations and more fraquent sampling collections then the State's.
Dr. Leona'rd further stated that Kentucky had been provided a copy'of their data but he understood that it had not been made available to the AEC. Mr.Kerr asked Dr. Leonard if there were differences in the NECO data compared to the State's data.
Dr. Leonard stated he felt that there was a difference in the significance of the data and that NECO had extensive data which they felt was more indicative of the, actual ccnditions at the site than the States more limited sampling data.
Mr.
Kerr. informed Dr. Leonard that we usually do not deal 'directly with State-licensees on matters such as this. However, 11 NECO has data
.ubich they feel.should be brought to the attention of the AEC they should specifically request that the State provide it to us.
Dr. Leonard agreed to pursue this course of action.
Mr. Kerr also asked Dr. Leonard if NECO had split any samples with the State over the past several years.
1 I
L1 1
1 1
l Dr. Leonard-indicated they had on several occasions but it would take s'ome time to identify the specific samples.
4 Kentucky' Requests Comments of AEC and NECO By letter dated November 14,.1974 and received here on November 18, 1974, Mr. Charles Hardin requested that the AEC review and comment on the interim report by. November 22, 1974, a copy of this letter is attached as Appendix D.
Also attached to this letter was additional data which the State had indicated they would make available to us.
A separate letter was also sent to the Company by Mr. Hardin requesting-that they review and comment on the report by November 22, 1974.
NECO Requests AEC Assistance and Meeting During the week'of Novether 11 to 15, 1974, Nuclear Engineering Company officials contacted Chairman Ray and Mr. Muntzing to express their con-cern about the Gtate'n report and to request that the AEC meet with the State and Nuclear Engineering Company to assist in resolving the matter.
Chairman Ray and Mr. Muntzing agreed that the AEC would meet with the State and the Company to help resolve the situation. A meeting was scheduled in AEC offices in Bethesda, Maryland on October 18.
At 9:00 a.m.
on November 18, Mr. Nussbaumer, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Lohaus, Mr. Hardin, and
'Mr. Johnson met prior to meeting with the Company. We briefly discussed the report and the State inquired as to the nature of our comments on the report.
Mr. Lohaus indicated that he had not reviewed the report in great detail but that it appeared from his preliminary review that it was difficult to relate the samples taken by location and by analysis results reported in the report.
At 10:00 a.m. on November 18, 1974, AEC and State representatives meet with Nuclear Engineering Company officials. A list of persons in attendance at the meeting is attached as Appendix E.
Mr. James Neel, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer for NECO opened the discussion by attacking the State's report. He indicated that the report was damaging not only to NECO but also to the other States and other burial operations.
He stated that the Company,had not had a full opportunity to review the report or the backup data since they had received the report on November 12, and additional backup supporting data on November 16.
He stated that the data was not accurate and that the report contained distortions, misrepresentations and misstatements of facts. He felt that the licensee-should be able to respond to the report before it is released to the public. He further indicated that they had formally written to the State requesting.that they with hold the report since it is an interagency document, contains many misrepresentations and misstatements of facts, and there was not adequate data to support all the conclusions.
O b
~
. He stated that there is no public health and safety hazard at the Maxey Flats site and that the report did not include the results of hundreds of samples analyzed by NECO or the split samples analyzed by both NECO and the State. He stated that their data showed no levels greater than MPC activity offsite. He felt that the report did not scientifically treat the data and that no conclusions could be drawn because of the misrepresentation of the data. He indicated that the licensee has a long term site development plan and that the State and licensee had agreed on May 23, 1974, to coordinate the collection and analyses of data about the site. He further indicated that the report had many errors, used poor choice of words and terminology and that the report failed to mention many of the improvements made by the Nuclear Engineering Company over the years. He concluded by stating that the report would have a detrimental impact on the total waste burial industry and that the AEC should think about taking a look at this report to advise the State that it should withhold the report until all inconsistencies were resolved and a true statement of the facts is presented. He then turned the meeting over to Dr. James Leonard who distributed a document entitled
" Preliminary Draft. Comments by Nuclear Engineering Comapny, Inc. on Project Report, Six-Month Study of Radiation Concentrations and Transport
'Mechanisma at the Maxey Flats Area of Flemming County, Kentucky".
Dr.
Leonard reviewed a number of these preliminary comments where NECO felt the report was lacking information, misrepresented facts, or used words or terminology not appropriate for the report and pointed out the State's unscientific basis of analysis of the data.
Mr. Neel then stated that he felt the Kentucky radiation control program was not compatible with the AEC program and that the Kentucky program was treating the NECO facility differently than the AEC might treat a similar facility under their jurisdiction. He stated that the AEC has a responsibility under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act to closely look at this matter and to correct any deficiencies.
Mr. Muntzin'g responded and indicated that the AEC is interested in the national vaste disposal picture but that the AEC staff were not totally familiar with all of the data available to support the report. He indicated that the environmental monitoring system had worked and that it appeared to be providing an early warning of a potential problem at
{
the site. He stated that the AEC has a responsibility to evaluate programs of the Agreement States but that the State has cettsin regulatory responsibilities under their Agreement. He indicated the Ar,would J
provide the State with technical. advice and assistance, but that we should not, dictate how the State should run its program on a day'-to-day basis. Our role is not one of veto over the State's decision to prepare and release the report. He further indicated that if an unusual problem, j
such as this, were to arise and we were called upon to provide advice and assitance that we would expect that our advice and assistance would be considered and factored into the final decision made by the State.
He stated that,the AEC approach in a matter such as this would be
___o
4
- 11 to cleanup the report before release if there were problems so that a factual report of the monitoring program would be made available to the public since the public is not well served if it is misled.
Mr. Muntzing asked if the State desired to comment on the discussion.
Mr. Hardin indicated that he did not want to comment on the data at this time; but, he did agree th..t the data should be correct and factual in the report before it is released to the public. He stated that the report was written as an interagency document and that the attorneys in the State had interpreted that it should be released according to State statutes.
Mr. Muntzing stated that AEC staff would review and comment on the report.
Mr. Neel asked that an AEC representative be in attendance at a meeting the next day, November 19, with the Secretary, Department of Human Resources, NECO and State radiation control personnel to discuss the report.
Mr. Muntzing agreed that an AEC representative would attend the meeting.
Meeting in FrankforkKentucky-State, NECO, AEC On November 19, 1974 Mr. Nussbaumer net with representatives of the Nuclear Engineering Company and the State in Secretary Tr s office.
Following discussion by the Company that they did not believe the report fairly presented the facts of the monitoring program at the site or the actual situation in existence at the site, the Secretary agreed to delay release of the report until December.13, 1974. He directed the State.
to consider and factor in comments of the AEC and the Company in preparing the final document.
Mr. Nussbaumer agreed that the AEC would act as an independent referee in this matter to help the State and licensee resolve any,pcints of difference.
AEC Sends Comments to State On November 22 By letter dated, November 22, 1974, Mr. Wayne Kerr transmitted our com-ments on the interim report to Mr. Hardin. By letter dated, November 22, 1974, Mr. Neel transmitted the Company's comments to Mr. Hardin and also sent a copy of his November 22, 1974, letter to Mr. Hardin with a copy of their comments to Chairman Ray, Mr. Muntzing, Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr. A copy of these letters are contained in Appendix F.
In our letter of November 22, 1974 we indicate that we did'not have an opportunity to review report references 1, 4, 5, and 6.
By letter dated, November 27, 1974, Mr. Hardin transmitted Report References 1, 4, 5, and 6 to 1
Mr. Kerr. These were received on December 6, 1974.
1 December 2 Article by the Kentucky Courier Journal J
On December 2, 1974, the Kentucky Courier-Journal published an article by Mr. Livingston Taylor, as noted earlier.
This article was discussed by telephone with Charles Ha'rdin, on Decembe-2, 1974 by Paul Lohaus.
- a a
e
' On Dece'mber 3, 1974 Mr. Frank Ingram, Information Services, was called and. informed about the news release.
Mr. Ingram indicated he would obtain a copy of the article.-
AEC Meeting With State and NECO to Resolve Com.aents On December 4, 5, 6 Mr. Lohaus travelled to Frankfort, Kentucky. He met with the State on December 4 to review additional data the State was using in support of the report.
He. met with the State and licensee on Dec' ember 5 and 6 to assist in resolving points of difference and to help the licensee and State arrive at a mutual agreeable position on the format and contens of the final report.
I.
December 4 - The writer, Mr. Lohaus first discussed the comments as contained in our November 22nd letter with Mr. Hardin.
Mr. Hardin did not appear to have fully considered the comments, nor did it appear that he planned to incorporate or reflect them in the final report. 1 ind,nated that the conclusions and recommendations contained in the discussion section of the report should not go beyond the purpose and scope of the study or beyond the analysis of data contained in the reoort.
I indicated that the conclusions and recommendations should be fully supported by the data and a rigorous analysis of the data.
I indicated that the terms used in the report should be defined and that the control samples taken and analyzed during the study shool' be clearly defined and described
,in the report and related to Lnose of the other categories of sampics taken.
I indicated that the report apper. red to lack depth in that there was insufficient explanation in many cases of exactly what was done and the various decisions made and how the data was related and analyzed to support the conclusions.
I reviewed many of the specific conclusions and recommendations contained in the report with Mr. Hardin.
l I then reviewed report references 1, 3, 5 and 6, the data developed during the state's routine environmental surveillance program, the six-month study, the chronological plots of data by sample
(
location, and the time series mean averages of activity level by j
sample location for each year.
j I discussed with Mr. David Clark and Mr. Bobby Wilson their program for developing ambient and background levels of radioactivity for the area. I particularly requested that they explain the relation of these background and ambient levels to the various sample results l
for the five categories of samples mentioned in the report. This discussion yielded the following information:
)
I l
~
e,
1.
Sample point number 13 has exceeded the MPC for gross beta and gross alpha for greater than two years and another sampling station (number 4) has shown greater than MPC levels on occasion for a period of time.
2.
Mr. Wilson stated that control sample stations 1, 18, 19 and 21 have shown increases in gross beta activity since 1971 and that control sample stations 1, 19 and 20 have shown increases in gross alpha activity since 1971.
3.
Determination of background levels from unrestricted area control sampling points. One hundred e-4 eighty seven samples were taken from eleven stations during tl period of the study. The mean for
,Each sampling station was calculated and the mean for each station for gross beta, gross alpha and tritiug were averaged.
The averaged mean for gross beta was 2.0 x 10 microcuires per ml.
SincethisvaluewasalreadyatMPClevel_gheStateadded the MPC for unspecified gross betg of 3.0 x 10 microcuires per ml. yielidng a total of 5.0 x 10 microcuires per ml as the background gross beta activity ~evel for the area. The averaged mean value fog gross alpha concentration at these eleven stations was 1.4 x 10 microcuires per ml.
The ambient tritium con-
-D centration at these eleven stations was determined to be 4.65 x 10 microcuires per ml.
Mr. Wilson stated that the'se values would change in their final report since they would be calculating their background for ambient levels from samples taken at these stations over a longer period of time.
(note #2 above) 4.
Calculation of test well designated mean concentrations.
The State took the most remote E series test wells which were Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 14E and calculated the average mean gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity concentrations in sagples taken from these wells. Gross beta yielded 473.4 x 10_9 microcuries per ml. and gross alpha yielded 368.5 x 10 microcuries per ml.
These values were used for comparison to the samples obtained from other test wells during the course of the study.
For tritium comparison they used the value obtained in item 3 above for unrestricted area control samples.
5.
For the plutonium background samples they took approximately 10 surface soil samples in Flemming and Franklin Counties during the six-month study. The average mean value of these samples was used as the ambient level for plutonium 238 and plutonium 239 in soils.
e f
1
.._...._._._______________w
i ^
A t
(
Following resiew of this additional data, several observations were noted:
Kentucky has,a lot of environmental data from 1963 through a.
1974; however, certain of'the sampling points were not sampled during the period 1964 throut;h 1969.
b.
The data as compiled in a book of sampling results appeared to be properly recorded and analyzed although some of the mean values for certain sampling points are. skewed high due to one or two unusually high sample result values.
Four. unrestricted area sampling points at two sampling locations c.
appear to be of primary importance to the State. Two of these sampling stations-are. numbers 13 and 6 which are two different stations-in about the same location. These sampling points have showed gross beta and gross alpha concentrations consistently in excess of MPC values for about two years.
The other two sampling points are numbers 4 and 4A (in about the same location) which have.shown a steady increase in gross beta and gross alpha concentrations toward MPC and at certain times in' excess of M2C.
d.
A review of the individual chronological points of data by sample station show that results appear to reach a peak in December of 1973 and January of 1974 and have been decreasing in activity since that time.
The time series mean' average plots.which the State has prepared e.
show a continuous increase in activity through 1974 due to the mean value averaging technique the State has used (i.e., the high values in December 1973 and January 1974 for individual sampling stations skew the other 1974 mean values high.)
f.
The environmental monitoring program and results certainly suggest that radioactive material is getting offsite.
II.
Meeting with the State and Nuclear Engineering C6mpany to discuss comments provided by the State and AEC on the report and to agree to a format and content for the final report.
Mr. Hardin opened the meeting and indicated that he would act as.
moderator. He stated that the purpose was to resolve any points of difference and to discuss comments provided by the State and AEC in arriving at a final format and content of the report. Persons in attendance at the meeting were:
l
1
~
~
- h Mr. Charles.Hardin Mr. John Razor Dr. James Leonard Mr. James Neel Mr. David Clark Mr. Bobby Wilson Mr. Richard Fry Mr. Paul Lohaus Mr. Lohaus stated that the purpose of the meeting was to resolve comments made on the report. He indicated that he hoped the State and the company could, through discussion, work out a mutually agreeable position concerning the contents, conclusions,and recommenda-tions to be made in the report.
He further indicated that the AIEC was interested in having a technically accurate and factual report issued and that we would assist the State and the company as necessary in resolving points of difference to arrive at a mutually agreeable position. He further indicated that our role at the meeting would be to make suggestions, as neceasary, which the State and company could accept or reject. He also stated that if necessary the AEC would act as an arbitrator in deciding upon a final decision for matters upon which neither the State nor the company could agree.
Mr. Neel stressed that the report should be accurate and factual.
He stated the'need for a good waste disposml industry. He pointed out that if an inaccurate report is put into the public record the intervenor's will pick it up,.take it out of context, and use it to damage the nuclear waste industry. He stated that he hoped that we could resolve all matters today and stated that he would accept the final decision of the AEC in matters where they could not agree.
Mr. Hardin indicated that there appeared to be three areas for discussion: 1) the data, 2) the conclusions, and 3) the recommendations.
He indicated that the report would be issued as a Department for Human Resources report. He stated the purpose was not to rewrite the report but to resolve any issues and comments of the company. He further sta,ted that he felt the report, as finally issued, would be significantly revised.
Mr. Neel interjected and asked if a good approach would be to consider the AEC comments first.
Mr. Lohaus agreed.Mr. Wilson stated that at the time of their meeting with Secretary True in considering the report, he had strongly recommended that a copy of the report be immediately sent to the company.
Mr.
Fry and Mr. Hardin indicated that pressure had been applied by the Courier-Journal and that the intent of the radiation control program was initially not to release the report but that it had leaked out.
Mr. Hardin referred to paragraph 1 of our November 22nd letter where we state that additional data, which we have not had an opportunity to review, was used in the preparation of the report.
He asked if 1 had had an opportunity to see all of the data used by e
5 u___.______
I 4
r t -
the State ln preparing the report.
I indicated that I had reviewed all of the data provided to me yesterday, including the report references and believed that I had reviewed all of the data which had been used in preparing the report.
Mr. Leonard stated that they had not been supplied this data nor the report references and i
had not had an opportunity to review it.
The suggestion was made that rather than attempt to address each individual comment on a point-by-point basis that a better approach might be to consider the conclusions and recommendations of the report first and if general agreement could be reached on the conclusions and recommendations, then many of the detailed points raised in both the AEC's and NECO's comments might be taken into consideration.
1 s.
Mr. Hardin then suggested that we all go t'o conclusion 1 of the report.
Mr. Lohaus made the comment that the conclusions and recommendations of the report should be fully supported by the data and an analysis of the data and that the conclusions and recommend-ations should not go beyond the scope of the six month study.
Mr.
Hardin asked for discussion on conclusion number 1, i.e.,
that the radioactive waste disposal facility at Maxey Fl'ats, Kentucky, is contributing ra. bioactivity to the local environment. The discussion that ensued was immediately tied up with technicalities and reference to detailed comments and analysis of the data as to whether or not the facility was contributing radioactivity to the environment.
The company indicated that every nuclear facility contributes a certain amount of radioactivity to the environment through normal operations. The company further stated that they believed there was no public health and safety problem at the site.
Mr. Wilson said he did not agree with that position and stated he believed there was a significant potential for a public health hazard at the site.
Hardin also indicated that he did not agree with the position of the company.
Mr. Lohaus indicated that the two statements - is the facility contributing radioactivity to the environment and-whether there is a public health and safety problem at the site should probably be separated since the first relates to findings of the State's six-month study and the second relates t'o a judgment made by the State following evaluation of the results of the six-month study.
Mr.
Neel asked if the AEC's review of data used by the State in preparing the report showed that there was a public health and safety problem.
Mr. Lohaus stated he would like to be able to answer Mr. Neel's question directly.
But, based upon his review of the data, he did not believe a definitive conclusion could be made that there was a public health and safety problem being created by the site or could a definitive conclusion be made that there was not a public
1 !
I l
I health and safety hazard being created by the site. He stated that the results of the study certainly pointed up the need for further 3
study at the site to define and assess the extent of the possible l
migration and to assess the findings of the study as to their significance in terms of a public health and safety hazard.
Mr.
Neel stated that their facility like any other nuclear facility was probably contributing small amounts of radioactivity to the environment, but he did not believe these levels were of public health significance.
Mr. Lohaus stated tha,t.the concept of routine facility releases could not be considered in relation to a waste disposal site except for certain site operations. The discussion at this point further deteriorated and was tied up with technicalities and detailed points relating to the data.
Mr. Neel then suggested that since it was getting on toward noon that they break for an early lunch l
since he had a number of important phone calls to make.
Everyone agreed and we broke for lunch.
j During lunch, Mr. Neel contacted Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr and indicated that the meeting was proceeding very slowly and asked that another representative from the U.S. AEC come down to assist in the arbitration. He stated he felt that the AEC representative should take a stronger p,osition and play a more active role in the meeting.
Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr then called Mr. Lohaus.
Mr.
Nussbaumer indicated that Mr. Neel had called and briefly reviewed the context of their conversation.
Mr. Lohaus indicated that he was trying to follow the guidance given to him prior to going to Kentucky.
Mr. Lohaus indicated he would play a more active role in the meeting in the afternoon.
Mr. Nussbaumer suggested using the second paragraph of our letter as a basis for opening the discussion in the afternoon.
Mr. Nussbaumer indicated a common point from which to begin the afternoon discussion might be to state that the study indicated that migration is occurring, referring to the specific sample analyses that were conducted. Next, state that the AEC does tuot believe there is a present health and safety hazard at the gite and more studies are necessary to define and assess the extent of the problem.
Mr. Lohaus stated that he would do so.
Mr. Lohaus opened the afternoon session indicating that the discussion in the morning had not proved very successful and felt that we needed a common point from which to proceed. He stated that both the company and State had asked us to act as a referee at the meeting and that he would like to present a referee position which, with some minor modifications, might be used as the basic conclusion of the report and from which discussion could proceed. He stated that,the study suggests, particularly the specific radionuclides analyses that were performed of certain selected samples, that migration of radioactivity is occurring at the site. He stated the
s.
~
.-- AEC does not believe there is a public health and safety hazard at present but that further studies were necessary to define and assess the problems in terms of its significance to the public health and safety.
Following much discussion, the following conclusion was agreed to by the company and the State: "The radioactive waste disposal site at Maxey Flats, Kentucky is contributing radioactivity to.the environment. The activity detected in the environment does not cr.eate a public health hazard. However, the level of activity detected demonstrates the need to intensify current monitoring activities to provide additional information to determine to what possible extent migration of radioactive material is occurring at the site and for assessing the long range ' significance of the j
findings in terms of public health and safety." After this basic conclusion was agreed to, the ensuing discussion flowed very smoothly and we were able to cover all conclusions and recommendations during the rest of the afternoon.
Following much debate on the " Discussion" section of the report, it was agreed that this section would be deleted from the final report.
The meeting concluded at about 6:00 p.m. with an agreement that a formal meeting might not be necessary the following day.
It was agreed that:
1.
The State would rewrite the conclusions and recommendations section of the report and transmit a copy to NECO before noon on December 6th.
2.
If, after review of the conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the State, the company felt a further meeting was necessary, State representatives and the AEC representative would travel to Louisville to meet with the company.
3.
The company would discuss with the State by phone additional comments they had on the rest of the report.
If general agreement on their comments could not be reached, the State, the licensee, and the AEC representative would meet in the afternoon.
III. December 6 - Mr. Lohaus and Mr. Hardin redrafted the " Conclusions" and " Recommendations" sections of the report and also a new section titled " Proposals for Further Action".
These were transmitted by wire to the licensee. At about 1:30 p.m. the Nuclear Engineering Company called the State and a conference call, Mr. Hardin, Mr.
Lohaus, Mr. Neel and Dr. Leonard ensued. The company had some minor comments on the " Conclusions," " Recommendations" and " Proposals
__-_--___--_------_----______----.---_------____-A
e '
q 1 '
for Further Action" sections of the report which were relatively quickly arbitrated. The company then proceeded to go through the rest of the' report page by page. All of the company's comments i
were satisfactorily negotiated except for four comments upon which neither the State nor the company could agree.
Since discussion was beginning to deteriorate again and since the company felt that the State had an advantage in the discussion (i.e., the AEC representatives were in their offices and not in NECO's offices), Mr. Lohaus suggested l
that the discussion be stopped at this point. He stated he would
?
like an opportunity to review the four outstanding items to see if i
a position could be agreed to, which would take into consideration the company's concern.
I Since it was getting late in the day, Mr. Lohaus called Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr to discuss the four outstanding items.
Following the discussion with Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr, Mr. Lohaus and Mr. Hardin called Dr. Leonard and Mr. Neel back.
Mr. Lohaus stated that since it was late in the day he had contacted Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Kerr to discuss the four outstanding items. He stated that the positions he would present would be the referee positions and he hoped they would be acceptable to the company and State.
The company agreed to all positi.ons except for the position relating to the plutonium concentrations,found in E-series test wells and soil samples. The company stated' they would accept the position but wanted to be on record as having stated that they felt these statements, (i.e, that plut, onium concentrations found in the E-series test well samples and soil samples were 2,000 and 200 times ambient levels respectively) would be of great concern to the public and would be unnecessarily alarming.
Mr. Lohaus then asked both the State and the Nuclear Engineering Company if there were any outstanding points which should be covered.
Both responded, "no".
However, the company stated that they would like an opportunity to review and comment upon the final report to be prepared by the State and that they expected the AEC to arbitrate any additional points of difference which might arise following their final review of the report.
Mr. Hardin stated that he would have a final report prepared by Wednesday, D'ecember lith and that he would meet with the company on either Wednesday after-noon or Thursday morning to give them an opportunity to review the report and make any final. comments.
If they could not agree they would contact the AEC by phone. for assistance in arbitrating any unresolveable comments.
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ ~
4.
j f.
State /NECO Meeting-Final Comments Resolved The State and licensee met on Wednesday, December lith and were able to resolve the minor. comments which the company had on the final report.
The final report reflecting the company's final comments was prepared by Mr. Hardin on Thursday, December 12th and the report was submitted to the Secretary, Department for Human Resources, on Thursday, December 12, 1974. The Secretary for the Department for Human Resources made the report available to the public on December 13, 1974.
Events from December 9 Through December 19, 1974 On December 9, Mr. Frank Ingrahm, Information Services, called me and indicated that Mr. C. Babcock of the Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Kentucky Courier-Journal had called him asking for a copy of our November 22nd letter to Mr. Hardin.
I told Frank that we had prepared the letter in response to a request from Kentucky that we review and comment on the State's internal report of their NECO environmental surveillance program.
I also indicated to Frank that we had not placed a copy of our letter in the public document room and that I would let him know tomorrow about providing a copy to the Kentucky Courier Journal.
I called Mr. Hardin on December 9 to determine whether the State had any problems in our releasing a copy of.the letter to the Kentucky Courier Journal.
Mr.
Hardin indicated he did not believe so and felt that the letter would help justify the State's delay in releasing the report.
During our discussion, Mr. Hardin also raised two other points concerning the letter and their release of the report on December 13th. He asked that, before December 13th, we provide the State, with a lett or telegram making two statements: a) A statement that we agree, concur or substantially agree with the State's report, and b) A statement that,.
in our opinion, we agree with the State that it is in the public interest for the State to release the. report.
I discussed these two points on December 10th with Mr. Resner, Mr.
q Nussbaumer, Mr. Maynard, Mrs. Becker and Mr. Singer.
Mr. Maynard and Mrs. Becker indicated there was no' basis upon which we could withhold the November 22nd letter from public disclosure.
In addition, they did not believe we should provide a statement to Kentucky concerning whether we agree or disagree with the State's report and concerning our feelings regarding the State's plans to release the report. On December 10, 1974, I called Mr. Hardin and indicated that we were proceeding to release the letter.
I also told him that a preliminary consideration of his request indicated that we probably would not provide a letter with the two statements he wanted.
Mr. Hardin expressed concern over hearing this since he felt the release of our letter could reflect poorly on the final report. He asked that we write a second letter
]
l
o..
m 1
$' {
i i
stating that our comments, particularly our comment about there not being enough information in the report to justify the conclusions, were considered in the final report.
On December 11, 1974, a copy of our November 22, 1974 letter was provided to Mr. Ingram for release to the Kentucky Courier-Journal. A copy of our memo to Mr. Ingram is attached as Appendix G.
As noted in the memo, we stressed that Frank should inform the Kentucky Courier-Journal reporter that these comments were the AEC's comments on an interim report. And we felt they would be reflected in the final version of the report to be released by the State.
I called Mr. Hardin on December 11, 1974. He indicated that the State',
Dr. Leonard and Mr. Neel had met on December 10 and that they had. encountered no comments which they could not resolve.
Mr. Hardin stated he had prepared a final report and planned to start it through State channels on December 12th. He expected that Secretary True would have it in his hands by Friday, December 13th.
Mr. Hardin also stated the Nuclear
)
Engineering Company had filed a request with the State Attorney General which claimed that State regulations prohibited the release of the report.
The Attorney General had made a determination in the matter.
State regulations provide that internal documents may be withheld from public disclosure.
State statutes provide that information in State files should be made available to the public. The Attorney General made the determination that the regulations are valid - that the statutes do not override the regulations. However, there is a catch-all clause in the regulations which will permit the Secretary to release material if he so determines it is the public intereat to do so.
Mr. Hardin did not know what the Secretary planned to do but he expected that he would release the report on Friday, December 13th.
Mr. Hardin at this time.again asked whether we had made a final decision on sending the State a letter concerning their release of the final report.
On December 12, 1974, I called Mr. Hardin and read him the statement we had suggested that Mr. Ingram attach to the November 22nd letter when it was r'eleased to the Kentucky Courier-Journal.
Mr. Hardin was pleased with the statement. During this telephone conversation, I also asked Mr. Hardin what they planned to do following release of the report.
Mr.
Hardin stated he planned to send us the final report formally and would ask for our comments.
I suggested to Mr. Hardin that rather than our sending a letter to the State before Friday about the report, that it might be more appropria'te for us to send a letter following our review of the final report.
Chuck agreed that such an approach would be better.
1 l
A
O o s.
~
- k. j On' December 12, 1974, wa also transmitted back to Mr. James Neel all copies of their documents entitled " Preliminary Draft Comments by the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. on Project Repot Six Month Study of l
Radiation Concentrations and Transport Mechanisms at the Maxey Flats Area of Flemming County, Kentucky" and " Comments Submitted by Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc., 9200 Shelbyville Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40222, to the Kentucky Department for Human Resources, Bureau for Health Services, Office of Consumer Health Protection, Radiation and Product Safety Branch on Project Report Six Month Study of' Radiation Concentrations and Transport Mechanisms at the Maxey. Flats Area of Flemming County, Kentucky."
Both of these documents were stamped as " company confidential".
Since we had not made a Part 2 determination on the confidentiality of the material contained in these documents and since we had no further use for these documents, He had been decided to return all copies to the Nuclear Engineering Company.
I On December 13, 1974, I contacted Mr. Hardin concerning the report. He stated that the Secretary had decided to release the report and would make it available sorae time that day.
Mr. Hardin further indicated that he had notified each of the other Agreement States by phone which'had a radioactive waste disposal site in their State to indicate that the report was being released.
Mr. Hardin also indicated the he would be sending a copy to each State.
On December 16, 1974, 1 called and discussed release of the report with Mr. Richard Fry.
Mr. Fry indicated that they had attempted to contact Mr. Livingston Taylor on Friday to give him a copy of the report first.
Mr. Fry indicated that they were unable to contact Mr. Taylor and that he had been given a copy of the report earlier that day.
Mr. Fry also indicated that Mr. Hardin was in Moorhead, Kentucky for the day to participate in press conferences with local health officials and local news people with the company.
On December 17, 1974,. two articles appeared in local Kentucky papers; one in the Kentucky Courier-Journal, and the second in the Lexington Leader Blue Grass News. Copies of these articles are contained in Appendix H.
, Kentucky Radiation Control Program Review On December 17, 18, and 19, Mr. Paul Lohaus conducted a review of the Kentucky Radiation Control Program. As par *t of this review, he reviewed in detail Nuclear Engineering Co. and inspection files.
Details concerning the review of these files are contained in the Kentucky radiation control program review report. Our letter to Mr. Dawson, who replaced Mr. True as Secretary of the Department, following the review made four recommendations concerning NECO.
\\
%