ML20205C769
| ML20205C769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-340 ML, NUDOCS 8608130222 | |
| Download: ML20205C769 (500) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:OR GINA'_ ' O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO- 50-346-ML TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station) O LOCATION: SANDUSKY, OHIO PAGES: 567 - 972 DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 0 o ( - ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 s509130:?:';, to ,: ( 02W3M r nw AUnck O' ): $ g g
l
. 567 I
) 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGUL AT OR Y COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 5 IN THE MATTER OF: : l 6 TOLEDO EDISON CO., ET AL. : DOCKET NUMBER ;
- 50-346-ML '
7 (DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION): 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X l 9 SANDUSKY HIGH SCHOOL l' ROOM 300 10 2130 HAYES AVENUE SANDUSKY, OHIO 11 THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 12 ( ) THE HEARING IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER 13 CONVENED AT 9:30 A.M. 14 BEFORE: 15 dUDGE HELEN F. H0YT, CHAIRMAN 16 dUDGE d. R. KLINE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD 17 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 18 19 20 21 22 d() 24 25
. 568 ) 1 APPEARANCES:
2 RR_EEHALE_RE_LLRER1EEA_lRLEER_EELLER_RE : 3 DAY E. SILBERG, ESQ. DAVID R.A. LEWIS, ESQ. 4 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M STREET, N.W. 5 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 6 PRESENT: TED MYERS, DIRECTOR OF LICENSING, TOLEDO 7 EDISON CO. KENNETH MAUER, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, TOLEDO 8 EDISON CO. 9 QR_EEHALE_RE_IME_11 ALE _RE_adla, LEAE_LRIERYERRR: 10 ANTHONY d. CELEBREZZE, JR., ESQ. 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OHIO (() 12 BY JACK .A. VAN KLEY, ESQ. SHARON SIGLER, ESQ. 13 ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL STATE OFFICE TOWER 14 30 EAST BROAD STREET, 17TH FLOOR COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 15 BY EDWARD LYNCH, ESQ. 16 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 0.D.N.R., DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE 17 FOUNTAIN S QU ARE , BUILDING C COLUMBUS, OHIO 43224 18 RR_EEHALE_RE_1.2.1 _AME_IME_ERRERRERE 19 LEAERE_RE_adLQ: 20 GENEVIEVE COOK ARNOLD GLEISSER 21 CLEVELAND, OHIO 22 ER_EEd&LE_RE_REllERR_RESERYE_ALLLAMRE: 1 23 DON SHOM 24 - - - 25
583 G~ Q 1 C_a_R_I_E_R_I_1 2 RLINE11: REELREC1 (SILRERG) 3 BRIDEN 575/619/621/629 I HERDENDORF 577/586/587/589/593/595/599 4 WASILK 578/580/588/594/598/620/623 SWIM 579/583 5 HENDRON 582/587/591/598/600/603/622 JACKSON 596 6 REUTTER 602 BENNETT 618/621/629 7 WALLACE 623 8 2LREC1 C&R11 REELREC1 RECRail EXAd (PANEL) 639 9 MARSHALL 736 753 758 756
- PAVEY 680 801 887/957 970 10 VOYTEK 699/720 830 890/957 GUY 657 779 885 894 11 REERIIAL
.h 12 RLIRE11: ELRECI CRail REELREC1 RECRail EXAd 13 JACKSON 761 766 777 14 15 WASILK 904/934 936/942 HENDRON 906/907 938/943 16 TILL 906 17 LLdLIER_AEEEARANCE_11AIEEERIE 18 EEEAKER EAEE 19 WALTER E. CAREY 731 20 PAUL DORNBUSCH 897 21 EXMLElli: RECELYER STATE'S EXHIBITS A -H 902 .
22 l 23 LAY-IN, PREFILED STATE TESTIMONY, PAGE 638 q... ATTACHMENTS: REPORT PREPARED BY OHIO RADI0 ACTIVE 24 MATERIALS USERS GROUP 25
570 2 1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S 2 - - - 3 .dVDGE H0YT: THE HEARING WILL 4 NOW COME TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT 5 ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE HEARING HAVE RETURNED i 6 AND ARE AT THE COUNSEL TABLE. WE HAVE TO BEGIN 7 THE HEARINGS THIS MORNING WITH THE LIMITED 8 APPEARANCE OF ONE GENTLEMAN WHO HAD I'N D I C A T E D HE
- 9 WISHED TO MAKE ONE HERE THIS MORNING. BECAUSE WE 10 HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE EVIDENTIARY PART OF THIS 11 CASE, IT EXTENDED OVER FROM YESTERDAY, WE WILL 12 CONTINUE THAT THIS MORNING, AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH s- 13 THE CROSS-EXAMINATION CORRECTION --
ON THE 14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ! 15 LICENSEE. i 16 AT THE COMPLETION OF THAT, WE WILL THEN 17 CONTINUE WITH THE STATE OF OHIO AND OTHER i 18 INTERVENORS CASE IN CHIEF. WILL THE GENTLEMAN 19 PLEASE COME FORWARD, SIR. 20 JUDGE H0YT: GOOD MORNING, SIR. 21 IF YOU WOULD JUST HAVE A SEAT THERE. 22 COULD WE HAVE YOUR NAME? ! 23 MR. ZATROCH: MY NAME GEORGE i l 24 ZATROCH. I LIVE AT 3595 EAST LAKE ROAD, SHEFFIELD ;
- s. . ',
1 25 L /. !: E , OHIO 44054. I i i 1
. 571 p3 1 JUDGE H0YT: HOW DO YOU SPELL o y 2 THAT?.
I 3 MR. ZATROCH: Z-A-T-R-0-C-H. ! 4 WHEREAS, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE NRC TO 1 5 PLACE, REGULATE AND ENFORCE ALL ASPECTS OF THE i 6 LICENSE GRANTED TO THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. 7 WHEREAS, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THE i l 8 DA V I S -B E S S E PLANT IS ON LAND OWNED BY TOLEDO I l 9 EDISON, ET AL., AS INDICATED IN,THE FEDERAL
, 10 REGISTER, VOLUME 50, PAGE NUMBER 412651.
11 WHEREAS, ALL LANDS AND WATER WASTE WITHIN 12 THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF OHIO ARE UNDER THE 13 JURISDICTION OF THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF OHIO. 14 THIS IS UNDER THE STATE RIGHTS, UNDER THE 10TH 15 AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 16 STATES. 17 WHEREAS, THE MAJOR SOURCE OF DRINKING 18 WATER IS FROM LAKE ERIE FOR MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN 19 THE NORTHERN OHIO ENDANGERING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE 20 0F THE STATE OF OHIO. I l 21 WHEREAS, ANY OR ALL CONTAMINAllVN OF THE 1 22 NARVARRE MARSH TO SAUT CREEK (PHONETIC), SETTLING 23 POTS OR ANY OR ALL LANDS OCCUPIED BY THE 24 DAVIS-BESSE PROPERTY ENDANGER THE HEALTH AND
- b. <: ,
- 25 WEL
- ARE OF EVERY PERSON IN THE LAKE ERIE AREA.
l
. 572 I
f 1 WHEREAS, ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL 2 REGISTER, VOLUME 50, PAGE 41267, COLUMN 2, 3 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED. THE CONVENTION 4 STAFF REVIEW THE LICENSEE'S REQUEST AND HAS NOT 5 CONSULTED OTHER AGENCIES OR PERSONS, AND FINDING 6 NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. 7 WHEREAS, THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED 8 NOT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION. 10 BASED UPON THE FOREGOING E'N V I R O N M E N T A L 11 ASSESSMENT, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES THAT THE 12 PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT H A VE A SIGNIFICANT AFFECT 13 ON THE QUALITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT. 1F ONE 14 CAN BELIEVE THIS LAST STATEMENT, HE CAN AS WELL
. 15 BCLICVE THAT THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE.
16 IF A PERSON IS ILL AND HIS DOCTOR TELLS 17 HIM HE MUST SUBMIT TO A SERIOUS OPERATION, IT IS 18 PRUDENT THAT HE GETS A SECOND OPINION. THE FACT i 19 THE COMMISSION FAILED TO DO SO BY NOT CONSULTING 20 OTHER AGENCIES OR PERSONS, AS ON PAGE 41267, 21 COLUMN 2, OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRY, THE COMMISSION 22 PROSTITUTED THEIR DUTIES. 23 JUDGE H0YT: DO YOU HAVE 24 ANYThING ELSE, SIR? 25 MR. ZATROCH: IS THERE ANYTHING l l I
- - , 573
, fmg 1 ELSE THAT YOU WOULD WANT? I GAVE MY --
WHEN MR. YsI i 2 SILBERG ASKED THAT I NOT- BE GIVEN INTERVENORS' , 3 PERMISSION DUE TO THE FACT THAT I WAS 53 MILES 4 FROM DA VI S-B ES S E PLANT; BUT I HAVE RECORD THE 5 NORTHWEST STORMS, A BODY OF A SAILOR WAS WASHED 6 ASHORE UPON MY BEACH. BOTH FROM THE SANDUSKY 7 AREA -- 8 JUDGE H0YT: I BELIEVE YOU PUT l 9 THAT IN THE RECORD EARLIER IN A LETTER TO ME, DID ) 10 YOU?
! 11 MR. ZATROCH: YES.
12 JUDGE HOYT: I THINK THAT I HAVE i
}
{Nd 13 ALREADY*PLACED THAT INFORMATION IN THE RECORD. 14 MR. ZATROCH: OH, OKAY.. THAT 15 WILL BE SUFFICIENT, THEN. THAT IS ALL; BUT I JUST 16 WANT TO STATE -- WELL, WE'LL LEAVE IT GO. ANY 17 OTHER QUESTIONS? 18 JUDGE H0YT: I HAVE NO QUESTIONS 19 FOR YOU, SIR, AND THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 20 WE THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. 21 MR. ZATROCH: THANK YOU, JUDGE. 22 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. I THINK 23 WE CAN NOW RESUME WITH THE REDIRECT EXAMINATION. 24 WHICH ONES OF YOUR WITNESSES, MR. 25 SILEERG, ARE YOU GOING TO NEED ON THIS REDIRECT, l
, 574 !
1 l g;g 1 IF ALL? 2 MR. SILBERG: I SUSPECT IT MAY 3 WELL BE ALL. I HAVEN'T DONE A HEAD COUNT, SO WHY 4 DON'T WE ASK THOSE THAT ARE HERE TO RESUME THEIR 5 SEATS. 6 JUDGE H0YT: ASSIGNED SEATS, 4 7 SIR. 8 MR. SILBERG: ASSIGNED SEATS. 9 THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE. 10 JUDGE H0YT: WE HAVE ACQUIRED 11 ONE ADDITIONAL COUNSELOR. MR. SHOM, WOULD YOU ', 12 LIKE TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE ON THE RECORD AT THIS q Y 13 TIME.
; 14 MR. SHOM: YOUR HONOR, THE l
15 WESTERN RESERVE ALLIANCE HAS CONTENDED -- 16 dUDGE HOYT: I DIDN'T WANT A ] } 17 STATEMENT. I JUST WANT YOU TO MAKE YOUR 18 APPEARANCE. YOU ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE i 19 WESTERN RESERVE ALLIANCE? 20 MR. SHOM: MY NAME IS DON 21 SHOM. I'M REPRESENTING THE WESTERN RESERVE 22 ALLIANCE. 23 JUDGE HOYT I BELIEVE YOU ARE 24 AN ASSOCIATE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 25 PRCCECT IN WASHINGTON.
, 575 g- 1 MR. SHOM: THAT'S RIGHT.
U 2 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. THE 3 APPEARANCE IS SO ORDERED. ALL RIGHT, MR. SILBERG. 4 - . _ 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. SILBERG: 7 Q. MR. BRIDEN, ON TUESDAY YOU STATED IN 8, RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT THE LAST RESIN 9 DISCHARGE WAS IN JUNE OF 1985. 10 DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER? 11 A. (MR. BRIDEN) YES, I D0. AND I WAS 12 THINKING WHEN THE PLANT SHUT DOWN. THE CORRECT O vs* 13 ANSWER IS THE LAST RESIN THAT WENT OUT TO THE 14 SETTLING BASIN WAS ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 1985. 15 Q. THANK YOU. MR. VAN KLEY ASKED YOU SOME 16 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAMPLING METHOD FOR THE RESIN 17 SAMPLE THAT YOU WERE DEALING WITH. 18 COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR YOUR 1 19 CONCLUSION THAT THAT SAMPLE IS A REPRESENTATIVE 20 ONE? 21 A. OKAY. THE PURPOSE OF THAT DEMONSTRATION 22 WAS TO ILLUSTRATE THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE THAT 3 23 RADIOACTIVITY WITH A SURVEY METER THAT WAS BEING ' ,() 24 USED, AND THIS WAS TYPICAL OF ALL OF THE SAMPLES v1 25 Th/~ WE HAD COLLECTED, THOSE WHICH WERE CORE BORES
570
, c 1 THROUGH THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE RESIN SLUDGE.
2 NONE OF THEM WERE SEEN, AND WAS TYPICAL 3 0F REPRESENTING OF ANY SAMPLE THAT WE HAD. A 4 Q. AT TRANSCRIPT PAGE 163, YOU WERE ASKED A 5 QUESTION BY MR. VAN KLEY WHETHER YOU WERE AWARE .i 6 WITHIN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY RADON EMISSIONS 7 FROM GRANITE HAVE PRESENTED A VERY GRAVE HEALTH 8 PROBLEM. AND I BELIEVE YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION 9 YES. I 10 HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER 11 THAT ANSWER, AND WOULD YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES IN i 12 THAT ANSWER AT THIS TIME? 13 A. WITH RESPECT TO THE WORD " GRAVE", I DON'T 14 BELIEVE IT'S A GRAVE CONCERN. I BELIEVE_IT'S A ) 1 15 CONCERN. 16 Q. AND AT PAGE, TRANSCRIPT PAGE 165, I 17 BELIEVE, YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU 18 WERE AWARE THAT IN THE PAST PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN 19 WEARING WATCHES WITH RADIUM ALUMINATED DIALS HAVE 20 DEVELOPED SKIN CANCER AS A RESULTANT. AND YOU j 21 SAID, "I'M AWARE OF THAT." 22 ARE YOU IN FACT AWARE OF ANY CASES OF 1 i 23 SKIN CANCER DEVELOPED BY -- FROM RADIUM ALUMINATED 24 WATCH DIALS? 25 A. I'M NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE CASE OF SKIN l l
. 577 f.;,g 1 CANCER FROM A PERSON WEARING A RADIUM LUMINESCE U 2 DIAL WATCH.
3 I WAS THINKING, THERE AGAIN, ABOUT THE 4 PEOPLE OR THE WORKERS WHO WERE THE MANUFACTURERS 5 0F THOSE WATCHES AND PUT THE RADIUM, PAINTED IT ON 6 THE DIAL FACE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY INCIDENTS WHERE 7 I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN CANCER DEVELOPED. I 8 Q. DR. HERDENDORF, YOU WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT 9 FIGURE l-1 IN OUR TESTIMONY AND WERE ASKED A 10 NUMBER OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING A TRIANGULAR-SHAPED 11 AREA IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THE BURIAL CELLS. 12 ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ' ()
%s 13 THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?
i i 14 A. (DR. HERDENDORF) YES, I AM FAMILIAR WITH ) 15 THE TRIANGULAR AREA IN THE REFERENCE.
! 16 Q. IS THAT TRIANGULAR AREA AN INTEGRAL PART i
1 17 0F THE NAVARRE MARSH? 18 A. NO, IT IS NOT. 19 Q. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT IN TERMS OF ITS 20 QUALITY AS A MARSH OR WETLAND? 21 A. IT DEFINITELY IS A WETLAND. THE FACT 22 THAT IT DOES CONTAIN WETLAND VEGETATION, PRIMARILY 23 0F THE EMERGENT TYPE OR EXCLUSIVELY OF THE 24 EMERGENT TYPE. 25 IT DOESN'T CONTAIN A FULL RANGE OF
. 578 gg 1 AQUATIC PLANTS THAT A WELL-DEVELOPED MARSH, SUCH U 2 AS THE N A VA R R E MARSH, CONTAINS. IT ACTUALLY SITS 1 3 IN A SMALL DEPRESSION, AND I WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS 4 AN EPHEMERAL, SHORT-TERM MARSH AND THE FACT THAT 5 IT CONTAINS WATER IS PART OF THE FACT --
IN FACT 6 MY LAST VISIT TO THE SITE, IT DID NOT CONTAIN ANY 7 STANDING WATER, ALTHOUGH THE AQUATIC VEGETATION IS 8 STILL PERSISTING. - 9 Q. MISS WASILK, WITH RESPECT TO THAT 4 l 10 TRIANGULAR AREA, IS THE WATER LEVEL IN THAT AREA 11 BEING CONTROLLED AT THIS TIME BY TOLEDO EDISON; 12
~
AND, IF SO, WHAT WILL THE WATER LEVEL IN THAT AREA (he) 13 BE? 14 A. (MS. WASILK) THE WATER LEVEL AS A RESULT
; 15 0F THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW DIKE ALONG THE 1
16 TOUSSAINT RIVER IS BEING CONTROLLED IN THAT AREA. 17 THAT PARTICULAR AREA, THE TRIANGULAR AREA, MOST OF
; 18 THAT NOW IS GOING TO BE DRAINED OR IS DRAINED, AND
- 19 WILL REVERT TO MORE OF AN U P L AND-T Y P E VEGETATION 20 AREA OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO.
21 Q. MR. SWIM, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON 22 TUESDAY WITH REGARD TO THE ONE-CELL BURIAL CELL i 23 UNIT AS BEING 25 FEET FROM THE MARSH. 24 IN WHAT ORDER WOULD THE BURIAL CELLS BE { 25 CCNETRUCTED WITH RESPECT, PARTICULARLY TO THE
. 573
, 1 SINGLE CELL?
2 A. (MR. SWIM) THE SINGLE CELL WOULD BE THE 3 LAST CELL CONSTRUCTED. WE WOULD BEGIN ! 4 CONSTRUCTION WITH THE THREE-CELL UNIT. THEN 5 (*ROCEED TO THE TWO-CELL UNIT, AND THE SINGLE CELL 6 WOULD BE THE LAST CELL CONSTRUCTED. 7 Q. SO IF IT TURNED OUT THAT TOLEDO EDISON 8 DID NOT NEED TC EMPTY THE SETTLING BASIN SIX 9 TIMES, BUT LESS THAN SIX TIMES, WOULD THAT SINGLE 10 CELL BE CONSTRUCTED? 11 A. NO, IT WOULD NOT. 12 Q. AND IF THAT WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED, HOW n 4:- 13 CLOSE TO A -- TO THAT TRIANGULAR AREA WOULD THE i 14 NEXT CELL BE LOCATED? 15 A. APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET. 1 16 Q. MR. SWIM, YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT 17 WHETHER YOU WERE A GEOLOGIST, AND I BELIEVE YOU l 18 CORRECTLY ANSWERED THAT YOU WERE NOT A GEOLOGIST. 19 IF THAT IS THE CASE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN 20 THE BASIS FOR YOUR STATEMENT ON PAGE 17 0F THE 21 TESTIMONY THAT THE BURIAL GROUND IS SITUATED IN AN 22 AREA WITH FAVORABLE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS? 23 A. WELL, IN MY DEPARTMENT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE
. 24 THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE REQUIRED, WE OFTEN RESULT 25 TO CONSULTANTS. AND THAT IS THE CASE IN THIS l 4
l
580 ( 1 SITUATION. 2 THIS WAS A DETERMINATION BY OUR 3 CONSULTANT WHO WORKED WITH -- WOULD REQUIRE 4 CONSULTANTS. 5 Q. THOSE WERE WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION 6 AND CONTROL OF TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY? 7 A. YES.
~
8 Q. MS. WASILK, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, A 9 QUESTION BY MR. LODGE CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY 10 THAT WATER WELLS MIGHT BE DRILLED CLOSER TO A I 11 THOUSAND FOOT OF THE BURIAL CELLS SINCE THE 12 PROPERTY LINE IS ONLY ABOUT 400 FEET AWAY. i
'b) 13 COULD YOU TELL ME THE INFORMATION ON THE 14 QUALITY OF THE GROUNDWATER WHICH MIGHT EFFECT
- 15 WHETHER OR NOT SUCH WATER WELLS WOULD BE DRILLED 1
i 16 CLOSER THAN A THOUSAND FEET? 17 A. (MS. WASILK) YES. IT'S UNLIKELY THAT 18 WATER WELLS WILL BE DRILLED CLOSER THAN 1,000 FEET
- 19 BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF THE WATER, THE GROUNDWATER, j 20 IS VERY POOR IN THIS AREA. .,
i 21 AND I HAVE SOME INFORMATION HERE I WOULD l4 ' 22 LIKE TO SHARE. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION THAT I 23 WE HAVE IN THE UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, 15 24 SAMPLES OF GROUNDWATER TAKEN IN THE VICINITY OF 25 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE AND ALSO INFORMATION THAT WE
-- - - - . _ -- . _ _ _ _ - ._ . . _ . -. -. - i
. 581
, 1 HAVE FROM WELL LOG AND DRILLING REPORTS FROM THE
~
2 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL-RESOURCES, THE QUALITY 3 OF THE WATER SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF ITS SULFATE 4 CONTENT AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONTENT MAKES 5 THE WATER IN THE VICINITY VERY POOR. 6 FOR INSTANCE, IN SULFATES, THE UPPER 7 LIMIT OF THE EECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS IS 8 250 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER. AND ACCORDING TO THE 9 DATA FROM OUR 15; SAMPLES, THE FINDINGS WERE OF 800 10 TO 1700 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER SULFATE IN THE WATER. 11 FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, THE SECONDARY 12 DRINKING STANDARD LIMITS ARE 500 MILLIGRAMS PER
?
tc# 13 LITER. WHAT WE FOUND WAS 2,045 MILLIGRAMS PER 14 LITER. 15 IN TERMS OF THE SULFATES, THE LAXATIVE 16 EFFECT OF SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS IN THAT RANGE 17 WOULD MAKE THAT WATER UNACCEPTABLE. SULFATES 18 NORMALLY ARE NOT REMOVED BY ANY KIND OF , 19 CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT PROCESS, AND SO 20 NORMAL ORDINARY DOMESTIC WELLS WOULD NOT BE l 21 EXPECTED TO REMOVE SULFATES FROM THE WATER TO MAKE l 22 IT MORE COVERABLE. l 4 23 THE TOTAL DISSOLVES SOLIDS ARE MORE OF AN 24 AESTHETIC VALUE AFFECTING THE TASTE OF THE WATER. 25 Aht, AGAIN, WE ARE BETWEEN FIVE AND TEN TIMES
582
, 1 ABOVE THE SECONDARY LIMITS ON BOTH OF THESE; AND U,4 2 ACCORDING TO THE U.S. E.P.A., THIS MAKES THE WATER 3 IN THE CATEGORY OF VERY POOR.
4 Q. WOULD ,THE KIND OF WATER TREATMENT THAT 5 MR. BIMBER WAS DISCUSSING YESTERDAY THAT YOU CAN 6 BUY AT SEARS, WOULD THAT REMOVE THE SULFATES FROM 7 THE WATER? 8 A. NO. SULFATES -- SULFATES TEND TO REQUIRE 9 MUCH MORE, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE EXOTIC TYPE OF
~
10 REMOVAL WITH MEMBRANE FILTERS. l 11 Q. MR. HENDRON, YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION BY 12 MISS SIGLER AS TO WHETHER THERE WERE PLANS TO w 13 CONDUCT ANY LEACHATE TESTS ON THE SYNTHETIC AND 14 PERVIOUS MEMBRANE, AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU 15 INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO PLANS TO CONDUCT 16 THOSE TESTS. 3 17 COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY SUCH TESTS ARE NOT 18 CONTEMPLATED? 19 A. (MR. HENDRON) YEAH. THE -- WE DID
- 20 TESTIFY THAT WE PLANNED TO CONDUCT COMPATIBILITY 21 TEST BETWEEN THE WASTE AND THE LAND MATERIAL. THE 22 WASTE HAS CONCENTRATIONS OF WHATEVER CHEMICALS i
j 23 THAT WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AT HIGHER [ 24 CONCENTRATIONS THAN WE'D EXPECT IN THE LEACHATE; j l 25 SC THAT, IN FACT, BY TESTING THE WASTE, WE'RE
. 583 gw 1 TESTING THE WORSE CASE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE BETWEEN U 2 THE WASTE AND THE LAND.
3 Q. MR. SWIM, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION BY 4 MR. LODGE CONCERNING THE -- WHETHER THERE WAS 5 ENOUGH VOLUME IN THE CELLS TO ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER 6 EXPANSION MIGHT BE CAUSED BY ADDING CEMENT KILN 7 DUST TO THE SLUDGE IN THE RESIN, .I S THERE ENOUGH 8 VOLUME TO ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER EXPANSION MIGHT 9 TAKE PLACE? 10 A. (MR. SWIM) YES, THERE 15. 11 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? 12 A. FROM THE VOLUME THAT WE HAVE CALCULATED n TW 13 FOR THE CELL AND THE VOLUMES THAT WE'VE CALCULATED 14 FOR THE AMOUNT OF SLUDGE WE'VE HAD, THE CELLS ARE 15 CONSERVATIVE DESIGN ALLOWING FOR A POSSIBLE l 16 EXPANSION. 17 Q. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IN MOVING THE 18 MATERIAL TO THE CELLS IT TURNED OUT THAT THEY WERE 19 FILLING UP FASTER THAN YOU ANTICIPATED? l 20 A. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD STOP 21 REMOVING THE SLUDGE MATERIAL AND FILL THEM ONLY TO 22 THE DESIGN LEVEL THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE SHOWING. !
'* l 23 Q. OKAY. DR. TILL, DR. HERDENDORF WAS ASKED 24 A QUESTION BY MR. VAN KLEY, ! BELIEVE, WHETHER HE
.e.
25 KNEi 0F ANY LANDFILL WHICH CONTAINED RADIOACTIVE
584 gg 1 WASTE AND WAS SITED WITHIN 25 FEET FROM WETLAND OR j G 2 MARSHES. 1 3 DO THE NRC REGULATIONS PERMIT RADIOACTIVE 4 WASTE TO BE DISCHARGED TO MUNICIPAL SEWAGE 5 TREATMENT SYSTEMS? ; 6 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, I THINK j 7 I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION. I THINK , 8 IT'S PURELY A LEGAL CONCLUSION. AND I THINK THE ) 1 J
! 9 NRC IS WELL EQUIPPED TO JUDGE WHAT IT'S OWN 10 REGULATIONS SAY.
11 JUDGE H0YT: LET ME HAVE THE ) i 12 QUESTION AGAIN, MR. SILBERG. Oc5 13 MR. SILBERG: I'M ASKING WHETHER 14 NRC REGULATIONS PERMIT RADIOACTIVE WASTE TO BE I 15 DISCHARGED TO MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SYSTEMS. THAT'S ; 16 ONE QUESTION. AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER QUESTION 1 17 TO ASK HOW THE LIMITS IN NRC REGULATIONS COMPARE 18 WITH THE AMOUNTS OF MATERIALS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT l 19 HERE. JUST SETTING THE STAGE. I CAN ASK IT IN 20 ONE -- 1 21 JUDGE H0YT: I BELIEVE THESE ARE 22 EXPERT WITNESSES AND HE IS ENTITLED TO EXPRESS HIS 23 OPINION ON THAT. 24 MR. VAN KLEY: A L'L RIGHT. t 25 dUDGE H0YT THE OBJECTION IS 1 l
. 585
,_ g 1 OVERRULED. PROCEED.
2 THE WITNESS: THE ANSWER TO THE 3 QUESTION IS YES. THE REGULATIONS DO PERMIT THE
; 4 DISCHARGE OF RADIONUCLIDES TO SANITARY SEWAGE 5 SYSTEMS. TCFR 20, SECTION 303, PERMITS A LICENSEE 6 TO DISCHARGE UP TO A CURIE OF ACTIVITY A YEAR, 7 PROVIDED THE CONCENTRATIONS OF THE RADIONUCLIDES 8 DON'T EXCEED THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX B, 9 WHICH ARE THE MPC LIMITS.
10 BY MR. SILBERG: 11 Q. AND HOW DO THE CONCENTRATIONS OR THE 12 TOTAL ACTIVITIES ALLOWED BY THE NRC REGS COMPARE VJ 13 TO THE QUANTITIES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF 14 RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN 15 THIS PROCEEDING? . i 16 A. OF COURSE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY 17 IS LESS, CERTAINLY LESS THAN A CURIE, AND THE -- 18 IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT THE CONCENTRATIONS 5 19 , WHICH MIGHT BE RELEASED FROM THE SLUDGE COULD 20 EXCEED THE LIMITS IN APPENDIX B. 21 Q. THANK YOU. 22 DR. HERDENDORF, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION i 4 23 BY MR. VAN KLEY ON THE FLOODING FROM THE TOUSSAINT 24 OF THE BURIAL GROUNDS DUE TO HEAVY RAINS, IS THERE l 25 AFv EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOODING OF THE TOUSSAINT
. 586 pg 1 COULD FLOOD THE BURIAL SITE?
b 2 A. (DR. H ER DE N DOR F) I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO 3 DETERMINE ANY RECORDS THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT 4 THAT IS THE CASE. 5 A LARGE RAINFALL OVER THE DRAINAGE BASIN, 6 WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 143 SQUARE MILES, COULD 4 7 RESULT IN A RISE, A DEFINITE RISE, IN A LOCALIZED 8 FLOODING EVENT; BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO 9 DETERMINE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH. 10 Q. ASSUMING THAT FLOODING FROM THE TOUSSAINT 11 MIGHT REACH THE BURIAL SITE, WHAT EFFECT WOULD 12 THAT HAVE ON THE BURIAL CELLS AND THE BURIAL SITE? 13 A. IT WOULD BE THE SAME KIND OF EFFECT THAT j 14 WE WOULD EXPECT FROM THE LAKE FLOODING EVENT. THE I 15 AVENUE OF WATER TRANSGRESSING THE AREA WOULD j l 16 LIKELY BE THE SAME, AGAIN, FROM THE TOUSSAINT 17 RIVER THROUGH THE DRAINAGE DITCH AREAS, AND I 18 WOULD NOT EXPECT TO FIND RAPID FLOW. 19 Q. OKAY. MR. HENDRON, YOU WERE ASKED A 20 QUESTION BY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE WHETHER OR NOT 21 THERE WERE ANY WATER WELLS IN THE SAND DEPOSIT AT 4 22 SAND BEACH, AND I BELIEVE WE ANSWERED THE QUESTION j 23 AFFIRMATIVELY. 24 IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACT THAT BURIAL l N.
- 25 OF THE WASTES AT DAVIS-BESSE COULD CAUSE ON WATER e -- --
- e y -y' v_-ey m*4--t----w-- y - --------% - , - - - - m - - - <
- e ,---,--a- ,m n- y -----y - ----g p-r-y c -wy g +--i
. 587
,,. 1 QUALITY IN THOSE WELLS?
k 2 A. (MR. HENDRON) NO. 3 Q. WHY IS THAT? 4 A. THE WATER IN THOSE WELLS PRINCIPALLY 5 COMES FROM THE CONTACT THAT THE SAND DEPOSIT THAT 6 THEY DRAW FROM HAS CONTACT WITH THE LAKE. AND I 7 THINK WE'VE TESTIFIED THAT THERE IS NO POTENTIAL 8 FOR CONTAMINANTS FROM THE LANDFILL TO GET INTO THE 9 LAKE SO, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WOULD BE NO POTENTIAL
< 10 FOR THESE CONTAMINANTS TO GET TO THE WELLS AT SAND 11 BEACH.
12 Q. DR. HERDENDORF, YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS I) C' 13 CONCERNING THE DIKES BETWEEN THE NAVARRE MARSH AND 14 LAKE ERIE, AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT, OR 4 15 AGREED WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT 30 TO 40 16 PERCENT OF THOSE DIKES WERE NOT ARMORED. 17 IF THOSE DIKES ARE NOT ARMORED, HOW IS 18 THE BURIAL SITE AND THE MARSH PROTECTED? 19 A. (DR. HERDENDORF) ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT 20 ARMORED, PROBABLY THE REASON FOR THAT DESERVES 21 SOME EXPLANATION.
- 22 THERE IS A STRONG BARR.IER BEACH THAT DOES 23 SEPARATE THE LAKE AREA FROM THE INTERIOR MARSHES, 24 AND THAT'S PART OF THE AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING 25 KIT'- THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE THAT THERE BE 1
588 1 MAINTAINED A PROTECTIVE BARRIER, W' ETHER IT BE A i 2 DIKE OR NATURAL BARRIER BEACH FEATURE. 3 THE BARRIER BEACH STANDS AT AN ELEVATION 4 ABOVE 575, AND IT DOES FROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE t 5 INTERIOR MARSHES. 6 Q. MS. WASILK, WHAT IS TOLEDO EDISON'S 7 OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THOSE DIKES AT SAND BEACH, 8 EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT ARMORED? 9 A. (MS. WASILK) THE TOLEDO EDISON 10 OBLIGATION, AS FAR AS MAINTAINING THE DIKES, IS 11 CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN THE LEASE AGREEMENTS THAT 12 THEY HAVE WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. t- 13 WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAINTAIN THE ENTIRE
! 14 LAKESIDE BARRIER BEACH ALONG THE PROPERTY AND l 15 MAINTAINING AT ITS PRESENT ELEVATION.
1 i 16 JUDGE H0YT: MR. SILBERG, DO YOU l 17 THINK WE COULD GET THE REFERENCE INTO THE RECORD 18 0F WHERE THAT LEASE AGREEMENT, SOME CITATION TO 19 IT? 20 THE WITNESS: THAT IS LEASE 21 NbMBER 386 AND LEASE NUMBER 385. 22 BY MR. SILBERG 23 Q. WHAT ARE THE DATES OF THOSE. DOCUMENTS?
. 24 A. THE DATES, OCTOBER 1976 FOR THE --
FOR 1 25 NUf:L ER 386. AND NOVEMBER 1968 FOR NUMBER 385
589
- 1 JUDGE H0YT
- THOSE LEASES ARE t 2 WITH THE --
3 MR. SILBERG: BETWEEN THE TOLEDO ! 4 EDISON COMPANY AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE ' 5 SERVICE. 6 THE WITNESS: BETWEEN THE TOLEDO 7 EDISON SERVICE AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. l 8 BY MR. SILBERG: l 9 Q. DR. HERDENDORF, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION 10 ABOUT THE TOUSSAINT, THE DIKES ALONG THE TOUSSAINT l 11 RIVER, AND WHETHER THOSE DIKES WERE OR WERE NOT 12 DESIGNED TO TAKE AN OPEN WATER ATTACK. I i hO. v 13 DO THOSE DIKES NEED TO BE DESIGNED FOR 4 1 14 OPEN WATER ATTACK? - 15 A. (DR. HERDENDORF) NO, THEY WOULD NOT BE 16 EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE THE FULL BRUNT OF A LAKE I 17 STORM COMING IN. THEY ARE NOT COASTAL FEATURES. l 18 THEY ARE INTERIOR IN THE ESTUARINE PORTION OF THE ] 19 TOUSSAINT RIVER; HOWEVER, THEY ARE ARMORED, AND 20 THEY CAN WITHSTAND THE KIND OF WAVE ATTACK THAT 21 WOULD BE EXPECTED WITHIN THAT REALM OF THE ! 22 ESTUARY. 23 Q. THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION BY MR. VAN KLEY 24 CONCERNING THE MAXIMUM WIND SET-UP THAT MIGHT ! 25 OCCLR ON THE LAKE. l l l l
. 590 1 I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE MAXIMUM 2 EXPERIENCE WIND SET-UP TO DATE WAS 4.2 FEET.
3 THERE WERE FURTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING 4 WHETHER THE LAKE LEVEL AT THE PRESENT TIME WAS 5 HIGHER THAN THE LAKE LEVEL AT THE TIME THAT 6 MAXIMUM WIND SET-UP OCCURRED. 7 I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT INDEED IT 8 WAS HIGHER. 9 WOULD-THE HIGHER LAKE LEVEL TODAY HAVE 10 ANY RELEVANCE dN THE MAXIMUM WIND SET-UP HEIGHT 11 THAT MIGHT BE -- THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN A STORM? 1 12 A. NO. THE WIND SET-UP IS ACTUALLY THAT
)
i
- t. 13 PILING UP OF WATER ON TOP OF THE STILL WATER j 14 LEVEL, SO THAT WHATEVER THE LAKE IS STANDING, AT !
I I J 15 WHATEVER ELEVATION IT IS STANDING AT, THAT THIS IS 1 l 16 AN INCREASE ABOVE THAT LEVEL. 17 SO SPEAKING OF WIND SET-UP, IT IS 18 STRICTLY THAT WIND FORCE EXTRA WATER ABOVE STILL 19 WATER LEVEL. 20 Q. IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE ANY REASON TO 21 EXPECT A WIND SET-UP HIGHER THAT THAN THAT 4.2 1 22 FOOT MAXIMUM? l 23 A. CONCEIVABLY THAT COULD OCCUR IF WE HAD j 24 STRONGER FORCES THAN THOSE THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE l6'- 25 RECC RD LEVEL OCCURRED; BUT BY VIRTUE OF THE LAKE i
SS1 gmg 1 BEING HIGHER, ONE W O.U L D NOT EXPECT THE k) 2 RELATIONSHIP TO CHANGE. 3 Q. THANK YOU. 4 MR. HENDRON, YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF 5 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CARLYSS, C-A-R-L-Y-S-S, 6 LOUISIANA HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE. 7 I BELIEVE THERE WERE A QUESTIONS 8 CONCERNING A FLOOD, A FISH KILL AND OFF-SITE 9 CONTAMINATION. i 10 HAVE YOU OBTAINED FURTHER INFORMATION ON 11 THE CARLYSS SITE SINCE THOSE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED? 12 A. (MR. HENDRON) YES, I HAVE. (%<') 13 COULD YOU PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR Q. 14 US? 15 A. YES. I SPOKE YESTERDAY WITH ACTUALLY TWO 16 SOURCES. ONE WAS A COMPANY SOURCE, AND THE OTHER 1 17 WAS A SOURCE WITH THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
- l 18 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, I BELIEVE. HIS NAME IS 19 GEORGE CRAMER.
l 20 . AS FAR AS THE FLOOD IS CONCERNED, THE i 21 INTERIOR OF THE SITE, IN FACT, DURING LARGE 22 RAINFALL, DID BECOME FLOODED IN THE 1979 OR 1980 23 TIMEFRAME, BUT THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN 24 OF THE SITE. AS FAR AS CAN BE DETERMINED, THE
~.:
l l 25 WATER WAS TESTED AND WASM -- WAS PUMPED OUT FROM l l _ - -. _ __ _- -_- .- . . -
SS2 m 1 INSIDE THE DIKED AREA, NOT FROM THE' CELLS, OUTSIDE 2- OF THE AREA WHERE THE WASTE DISPOSAL WAS 3 CONCERNED, ACCORDING TO THE NPDS PERMIT FOR THE 4 SITE WITH NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. ) 5 SO FAR AS THE FISH KILL IS CONCERNED, 6 THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT DID COME UP DURING THE 7 PERMIT HEARINGS AND, IN FACT, IT WAS NEVER 8 DOCUMENTED BY ANYBODY FROM THE STATE THAT THERE 9 WAS A FISH KILL. IF YOU WILL, THEY WENT OUT AND 10 LOOKED AND THEY DID NOT FIND A FISH KILL. SO AS 11 FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED, THERE WAS NOT A I 12 FISH KI L L . 13 AND AS FAR AS THE O F F'- S'I T E CONTAMINATION, 14 MY INFORMATION SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS AN. 15 AGRICULTURAL WELL CLOSE TO THE SITE WHERE IT HAS j 16 BEEN ALLEGED THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN OCCURRENCE OF 17 PHENYLIC COMPOUNDS, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN BE 18 ANYMORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT. 19 THE STATE HAS REQUESTED AND HAS NOT YET 20 RECEIVED ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PERSON 21 THAT HAS MADE THE ALLEGATIONS TO SUPPORT THE 22 CHARGE, IF YOU WILL, THAT PHENYL COMPOUNDS ARE 23 PRESENT IN THE WELL; AND AS FAR AS THE . STATE IS I. 24 CONCERNED, THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF Q. l 25 OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION FROM THIS SITE. l l
. 5S3 , 1 AND I MIGHT ADD, THAT THIS SITE IS 6
2 MONITORED BY FORMAL MONITOR WELLS IN ALL THE 3 PERVIOUS ZONES, AND NONE OF THESE WELLS HdVE ANY 4 INDICATION OF EVEN ON-SITE CONTAMINATION OUTSIDE
. 5 THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA.
6 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 7 THE OHIO REGULATIONS, STATE OF OHIO REGULATIONS, 8 ON HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO 9 LOCATING SITES IN FLOODPLAINS? 10 A. I AM, YES. 11 Q. AND DO THOSE REGULATIONS PERMIT A ar'\ 12 FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN THE HUNDRED YEAR E *13 FLOODPLAIN? 14 A. AS I READ THEM, YES. 15 Q. THANK YOU. 16 DR. HERDENDORF, YOU WERE ASKED TO TRY TO 17 CALCULATE FROM A STATE EXHIBIT, I BELIEVE IT WAS 18 EXHIBIT A, THE DISTANCE FROM THE TWO-UNIT BURIAL 19 CELL TO THE TOUSSAINT RIVER, AND I BELIEVE YOU 20 CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF ABOUT 354 FEET. 21 H A VE YOU SUBSEQUENTLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY 22 TO GO BACK AND CONFIRM THAT ACCURACY OF THAT l 23 MEASUREMENT? 24 A. (DR. HER DENDOR F) YES. THE AERIAL m 25 PHC OGRAPH HAD A SKETCH OF THE CELLS O N' THEM WHICH l l l __ _ . - - - - . - - _ - - - - - -
594 geg 1 APPEAR TO BE PLACED BY FREEHAND WITHOUT VIRTUE OF V 2 A DETAIL SURVEY MAP. 3 I USED THE SURVEY ILLUSTRATIONS THAT WERE 4 PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY AT TOLEDO EDISON, AND 5 DETERMINED THAT THE DISTANCE WAS APPROXIMATELY 426 6 FEET FROM THE TOUSSAINT RIVER. 7 Q. MS. WASILK, WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION 8 NUMBER 5, BOARD QUESTION, PRESIDING OFFICER'S 9 QUESTION NUMBER 5, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 10 QUESTIONS CONCERNING WHETHER FARMING COULD MASK 11 SURFACE EROSION ON THE FACILITY. 12 WHEN DID TOLEDO EDISON BUY THE PROPERTY O3:* 13 WHICH INCLUDES THE BURIAL SITE? 14 A. (MS. WASILK) APPROXIMATELY 1968 THROUGH 15 1970. 16 Q. AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY FARMING ON THAT 17 PROPERTY SINCE THAT TIME? l l 18 A. NO, THER'E HAS NOT BEEN ANY FARMING ON 19 THAT PIECE OF LAND. 20 Q. YOU INDICATED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL 21 MONITORING PERSONNEL DRIVE PAST THE BURIAL SITE 22 ABOUT THREE TIMES A WEEK; IS THAT CORRECT? 23 A. THAT IS CORRECT. p), T% 24 e Q. HAVE THEY OBSERVED ANY FLOODING OF THAT 25 SI E DURING THE PERIOD THAT THOSE OBSERVATIONS
l 535
,gg 1 HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE?
N~ 2 A. THE ONLY FLOODING THAT THEY HAVE SEEN ON l l 3 A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS HAS BEEN WATER THAT'S BACKED 4 UP FROM THE TOUSSAINT RIVER INTO THE CORNER -- THE 5 CORNER AREA OF ONE OF THE DISPOSAL SITES THAT SIT 6 ADdACENT TO THAT TRIANGULAR WETLAND AREA, AND IT 7 MAYBE IS A 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT AREA THAT THEY HAVE 8 SEEN BACKED UP. 9 Q. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE HAS BEEN NO 1 10 OBSERVED FLOODING TO THE BURIAL SITE? ' 11 A. NO, WE HAVE NOT OBSERVED ANY. l 12 Q. DURING WHAT PERIOD OF TIME HAVE THOSE 60ts 13 OBSERVATIONS BEEN TAKING PLACE? 14 A. APPROXIMATELY THE LAST THREE YEARS. 15 Q. DR. HERDENDORF, WITH RESPECT TO TABLE 4-1 16 OF THE TESTIMONY, DO EACH OF THE DATES IDENTIFIED 17 ON THOSE TABLES REPRESENT YOUR CALCULATION THAT 18 FLOODING WOULD OCCUR ON THE BURIAL SITE UNDER 19 THOSE CONDITIONS? 20 A. (DR. HERDENDORF) JUST THOSE THAT ARE 21 INDICATED WITH AN ASTERISK, WHICH ABOUT 25. 22 Q. AND ARE THE -- IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THOSE 23 THAT ARE ASTERISKED -- THAT THAT CALCULATION , 24 REPRESENTING THOSE THAT ARE ASTERISKS, MIGHT 25 OVERSTATE THE NUMBER OF FLOO' DINGS WHICH MIGHT
596 i 1 ACTUALLY OCCUR? 2 A. I TRIED TO USE THE MOST CONSERVATIVE l7 3 ESTIMATE THAT I C O U L D', AND SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT 4 THESE WOULD BE, AS I SAY, VERY CONSERVATIVE IN THE 5 LIKELIHOOD OF -- FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF A FLOODING. l AND I SUSPECT THAT ON SOME OF THOSE DATES THAT I 6 7 PREDICTED FLOODING DID NOT OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE 8 PROTRACTED' LIFETIME. 9 Q. DR. JACKSON, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WERE 10 ASKED CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY THAT PLANT ROOTS l'1 MIGHT PENETRATE THE CAP OF THE BURIAL CELL. 12 WOULD YOU EXPECT ROOTS TO PENETRATE 13 THROUGH THE SAND AND GRAVEL LAYER UNDERNEATH THE 14 TOPSOIL? _ 15 A. (DR. JACKSON) I WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT TO 16 BE A COMMON PHENOMENON. THE RATIONALE BEING THAT 17 PLANT ROOTS GROW, EXTEND THEMSELVES INTO AREAS 18 WHERE THERE IS MOISTURE AND NUTRIENTS, AND THE 19 TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN IS THAT THIS SAND 20 AND GRAVEL LAYER IS A DRAINAGE LAYER; THAT IS A 21 I LAYER WHICH -- THROUGH WHICH ANY MOISTURE WHICH { 22 HAD ACCUMULATED OVER THE CAP WOULD BE DRAWN OFF SO 23 THAT THIS WOULD BE NOT A LAYER OF MOISTURE, BUT
,j 24 RATHER A VERY XERIC LAYER, A LAYER THAT AN x.z .
25 ENY:RONMENT, WHICH WOULD INHIBIT, RATHER THAN l J
597 1 STIMULATE THE GROWTH OF PLANT ROOTS; SO THAT I O 2 WOULD EXPECT THE PLANT ROOTS WOULD SPREAD 3 LATERALLY ABOVE THAT DRAINAGE LAYER OF SAND AND 4 GRAVEL RATHER THAN PENETRATING IT. t 5 Q. COULD YOU SPELL XERIC? 6 A. X-E-R-I-C, MEANING VERY DRY. 7 Q. THERE ARE ALSO QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE 8 POSSIBILITY OF INSECTS BURROWING INTO THE CAP OVER 9 THE BURIAL CELLS. 10 WOULD YOU EXPECT INSECTS TO BURROW 11 THROUGH THE SAND AND GRAVEL FILTER LAYER? 12 A. NO, I WOULD NOT BECAUSE THIS IS AN MEDIUM i -r m b 13 WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH ANY KIND OF 14 TUNNEL STRUCTURE IN. THE GRANULES WOULD COLLAPSE 15 UPON THE ORGANISMS. THE CLAY A,B O VE THAT MAKES FAR 16 BETTER MATERIAL TO TUNNEL INTO. 17 Q. I'M SORRY, YOU MEANT THE TOPSOIL? 18 A. THE TOPSOIL IS MUCH BETTER MATERIAL TO 19 TUNNEL INTO; AND THE SAND AND GRAVEL WOULD NOT BE. 20 Q. I HESITATE TO ASK THE NEXT SET OF 21 QUESTIONS. 22 JUDGE HOYT: WE KNEW-IT WAS 23 COMING. WE ALREADY ANTICIPATED IT. GO AHEAD AND
,' 24 ASK IT. I V,3 -
25 SY ! :. R . SILBERG: l
598
.m 1 Q. MS. WASILK, DO WE EkPECT TO FIND 2 GROUNDHOGS IN AND AROUND THE BURIAL SITE?
3 A. (MS. WASILK) YES, WE DO. 4 Q. WHAT WOULD WE INTEND-TO DO WITH THEM OR S TO THEM? 6 A. WE WOULD TREAT THEM WITH THE SAME METHOD 7 THAT WE TREAT THE GROUNDHOGS THAT INHABIT THE DIKE 8 AREAS PROTECTING THE WILDLIFE REFUGE.- WE 9 VIGOROUSLY PURSUE A PROGRAM OF ERADICATION UNDER 10 THE DIRECTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN 11 CONSULTATION WITH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 12 RESOURCES. w 13 Q. MR. HENDRON, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF 14 GROUNDHOGS WOULD SOMEHOW PENETRATE THE CAP OF A 15 BURIAL CELL? 16 A. (MR. HENDRON) WELL, THE IMPACT WOULD BE 17 SMALL BECAUSE THE CAP IS SLOPED FOR RUN-OFF OF 18 WATER AND, YOU KNOW, PRESUMING THAT TOLEDO EDISON 19 DOES UNDERTAKE THE PERIODIC SURVEY, IF A HOLE 20 WOULD HAPPEN TO OCCUR IN A COVER, VERY LITTLE, IF 21 ANY, RUN-OFF WOULD OCCUR IN THE HOLE DURING THE 22 TIME THAT IT WAS WAS OPEN. 23 Q. DR. HERDENDORF, YOU WERE ASKED SOME 24 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE l 25 DES:GNING THE VEGETATIVE COVER FOR THE CAPS TO THE 9 t.
SS3 yeg 1 BURIAL CELLS. U 2 IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, IS THE 3 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY 4 TO DESIGN VEGETATIVE COVERS TO EROSION? 5 A. (DR. HERDENDORF) YES. THIS IS -- THEIR 6 LEGISLATIVE MISSION IS TO CONTROL EROSION AND 7 PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE WITH 8 EROSION PROBLEMS AND SOIL STABILIZATION PROBLEMS. 9 Q. I BELIEVE YOU ALSO INDICATED IN ANSWER TO l 10 A QUESTION THAT EROSION WAS A POSSIBILITY. ' 11 IN YOUR JUDGMENT, IS IT LIKELY TO OCCUR? 12 A. IT WOULD BE A -- NOT A SIGNIFICANT Qb 13 PROBLEM. 14 Q. WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT EROSION OR 15 DEPOSITION WOULD BE THE MORE LIKELY PHENOMENON? 16 A. BECAUSE, AS I TESTIFIED EARLIER, 17 ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE VERY SLOW FLOWS IN 18 THIS AREA, AND ACTUALLY THERE WOULD BE A BACKWATER 19 AREA DURING THE FLOODING EVENT, I WOULD EXPECT THE 20 DEPOSITION OF MATERIAL HELD WITHIN THE WATER WOULD 21 BE THE PRIMARY PROCESS. l l 22 Q. MR. HENDRON, MR. VAN KLEY ASKED YOU A 23 NUMBER OF QUESTIONS STARTING OFF A DISCUSSION ON 24 PRESIDING OFFICER'S QUESTION NUMBER 6 CONCERNING l 25 YOLT QUALIFICATIONS, AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . - - . - l
60.0
- 1 YOU WERE A GEOTECHNICAL ENGI'NEER.
2 DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR STAFF GEOLOGISTS, 3 HYDROLOGISTS AND HYDROGEOLOGISTS? t 4 A. (MR. HENDRON) YES, WE DO. 5 Q. ARE THEY UNDER YOUR SUPERVISION AND 6 CONTROL? 7 A. THAT'S CORRECT. 8 Q. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHETHER OR NOT IT IS 9 APPROPRIATE FOR A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, A PART 10 FROM THE SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES, TO ADDRESS 11 QUESTIONS INVOLVING GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY AND 12 HYDROGEOLOGY? t 13 A. YES, IT IS. AS A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, 14 WE ARE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH THREE MATERIALS, SOIL ROCK AND WATER. 15 AND IN DEALING.WITH THESE 16 PROBLEMS, ONE OF THE CRITICAL TYPES OF PROJECTS 17 THAT MOST OF US, AND MYSELF IN PARTICULAR, GET 18 INVOLVED IN TO A HIGH DEGREE ARE EARTH TO EARTH 19 ROCK DAMS, AND THIS INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT WORK WITH , 20 SOIL, ROCK AND WATER. 21 IN TERMS OF EDUCATION, AS A GEOTECHNICAL 22 ENGINEER, WE WERE REQUIRED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF l 23 ILLINOIS, AS WELL AS MOST UNIVERSITIES THAT DEAL
', 24 IN THIS SPECIALTY, TO TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF gQ:
25 COURSE WORK IN GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER OR s : l __. _ _. - .. _ _ - -
801 eg 1 HYDROLOGY OR HYDROGEOLOGY. I USE THE TERM' O 2 SOMEWHAT INTERCHANGEABLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S 3 THE WAY THAT SOCIETY SOMETIMES LOOKS AT IT, AND 4 ALSO VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE TOOK A SUBSTANTIAL 5 AMOUNT OF WHAT AT THE TIME WE CALLED GROUNDWATER 6 WORK IN OUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. 7 IN ADDITION TO THIS, AS A GEOTECHNICAL 8 ENGINEER, WE GET INVOLVED, AND I HAVE BEEN 9 INVOLVED IN GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, 10 GROUNDWATER, REGIONAL AND LOCAL GROUNDWATER 11 STUDIES .FOR SUCH THINGS AS POWER PLANT 12 DEVELOPMENTS, AND THIS HAS LED ME INTO THE AREA 0F i 13 USING MY EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIDNAL 14 BACKGROUND IN THE AREA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 15 PROJECTS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE, IN FACT, l 16 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ARE AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 17 ASPECT OF BEING ABLE TO DESIGN FACILITIES THAT 18 PREVENT, OR AT LEAST ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, TO 19 PREVENT THE LOSS OF CONTAINMENT OF THE WASTE IN 20 THE ENVIRONMENT. 21 Q. THANK YOU. l 22 DR. REUTTER, MR. HENDRON WAS ASKED 23 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LOCATION OF THE BEDROCK
. 24 OUTCROPS IN LAKE ERIE WHERE THE GROUNDWATER g.
l 25 DISCHARGES INTO THE LAKE, AND I BELIEVE HE
. h.
7
602 jq l INDICATED THAT THOSE REEFS WERE A WALLEYE SPAWNING b 2 AREA. 3 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT THAT IS A 4 WALLEYE SPAWNING AREA? 5 A. (DR. REUTTER) YES, I WOULD, DEFINITELY. 6 PROBABLY 80 PERCENT OF THE SPAWNING IN THE WESTERN 7 BASIN OCCURS ON THOSE REEFS. 8 Q. WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT ON WALLEYES AND 9 WALLEYE SPAWNING BE IF WE POSTULATE THAT SOMETHING 10 FROM THE BURIAL CELLS GETS INTO THE GROUNDWATER? 11 A. WELL, DR. TILL'HAS ADDRESSED THE 12 RADIOLOGICAL CONCERNS IN THAT AREA. I'LL LIMIT MY
+# 13 RESPONSE TO THE NONRADIOLOGICAL ISSUES; AND I 14 W O U L D' EXPECT ABSOLUTELY ZERO IMPACT. A COUPLE OF 15 REASONS FOR THAT.
r . 16 IT'S BEEN SHOWN THAT IT IS BELOW E.P.A. 17 TOXICITY LIMITS. IT IS ALSO BELOW E.P.A. -- THE 18 LEACHATE IS BELOW E.P.A. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, 19 WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT AQUATIC LIFE, AND l 20 THAT IS EVEN AT THE FOUR-DAY EXPOSURE LEVELS, 21 WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE ONE-HOUR 22 EXPOSURE LEVELS. 23 7 THINK IT ALSO SHOULD BE POINTED OUT 24 THAT IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THAT 25 MATERIAL, ANY LEACHATE IS GOING TO GET OUT THAT l y-
.i 803 .sw 1 FAR; BUT BECAUSE THE LEACHATE IS LOWER, EVEN IF WE 2 TRANSPORTED THE --
WELL, FOR INSTANCE, IF SOME l 3 MECHANISM PICKED UP THE ENTIRE SLAB AND DROPPED IT l 4 OUT INTO THE LAKE, I WOULD NOT EXPECT AN ADVERSE 1 5 IMPACT DUE TO THE LEACHATE ON WALLEYES. l l 6 THE SEDIMENTS WITHIN THE LAKE ITSELF HAVE 7 HIGHER METAL CONCENTRATIONS THAN THE SLAB DOES. i l 8 Q. MR. HENDRON, YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF i 9 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE STATE'S EXHIBIT D, WHICH 10 ARE THE BORING LOGS, PREPARED BY EOWS'ER-MORNER, OF 11 THE FIVE BORINGS TAKEN AT THE BURIAL SITE AREA. 12 AND YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING E 13 WHETHER CONTINUOUS SAMPLES WERE TAKEN BY THE 14 SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER METHOD, AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID 15 THAT NO CONTINUOUS SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 16 ARE SUCH CONTINUOUS SAMPLES NEEDED IN 17 ORDER TO REACH THE CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU HAVE 18 REACHED ON THE SITE? 19 A. (MR. HENDRON) NO. 20 Q. WHY NOT? 21 A. WELL, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. THE 22 SAMPLING THAT WAS DONE WAS DONE AT A HIGHER 23 FREQUENCY OR HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE BORE HOLE 24 WAS SAMPLED THEN WE TYPICALLY SAMPLED, AND I SAID l 25 50 PERCENT. IN MY REVIEW OF THE BORING LOGS LAST l _-. %' __ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - .-
604
,73 1 EVENING, I THINK THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE IS ABOVE 50 2 PERCENT.
3 THE DEPOSITS ARE RELATIVELY UNIFORM, AND 4 I DON'T BELIEVE THAT CONTINUOUS SAMPLING IS NEEDED 5 IN THIS CASE BECAUSE, IN FACT, WE HAVE A WEALTH OF - 6 INFORMATION FROM OTHER BORE HOLES THAT WERE 7 CONTINUOUSLY SAMPLED AT THE SITE, PLUS PAST AND 8 PRESENT OBSERVATIONS OF LARGE CUTS THROUGH THE 9 MATERIAL WHICH IN EFFECT ARE CONTINUOUS SAMPLES 10 WHICH DON'T SHOW US THE N ON -U N I F O R'M I T I E S THAT YOU 11 WOULD LOOK FOR IN A CONTINUOUS SAMPLING PROGRAM. 12 SO THAT REALLY FORMS THE BASIS FOR MY OPINION THAT ? ' 13 IT IS NOT A DEFECT NOT TO HAVE CONTINUOUSLY
- i 14 SAMPLED BORE HOLES. -
15 Q. YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE -- YOU 16 CHARACTERIZED THE SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLES AS DISTURBED 17 SAMPLES. 18 DOES THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DISTURBED 19 SAMPLES IN ANY WAY REDUCE YOUR ABILITY TO USE THEM 20 AS THE BASIS FOR THE VALUES SET OUT IN TABLE 6-1 21 OF THE TESTIMONY? 22 A. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALUE WITH RESPECT 23 TO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE GIVEN ON THAT TABLE, [, 24 EXPECT THE PERMEABILITY VALUES. I WOULD NOT RUN .i . 25 PEEfEABILITY TESTS ON THESE DISTURBED SAMPLES.
\
605 1 Q. HOW D'I D YOU RUN PERMEABILITY TESTS? 2 A. IN ADDITION TO THE SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLES j l 3 OR SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLES, THERE WERE ALSO SEVERAL 1 4 UNDI S TR UB ED SAMPLES TAKEN WITH A THIN-WALLED l 5 SAMPLER THAT WAS PUSHED INTO THE SOIL. THESE 6 SAMPLES ARE CALLED SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES. AND THERE 7 IS AN ASTM PROCEDURE TO TAKE THEM, AND THERE IS 8 ALSO AN ASTM PROCEDURE OR REQUIREMENT FOR THE 9 TUBES THEMSELVES.
~
10 THE PERMEABILITY TESTING THAT WAS DONE i 11 WAS DONE ON INTACT SAMPLES TAKEN USING THE SHELBY 12 TUBE METHOD. 13 Q. AND THAT IS A STANDARD METHOD FOR TAKING 14 PERMEABILITY -- RUNNING PERMEABILITY TESTS IN THIS 15 KIND OF GEOLOGY? 16 A. THAT'S CORRECT. 17 Q. AGAIN, CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 18 STATE'S EXHIBIT D, THE BOWSER-MORNER BORING LOGS. 19 ON LOGS FOR BORINGS NUMBER 3 AND 5, THERE ARE 20 OBSERVATIONS THAT SHOW WATER OBSERVED AT 5.5 FEET 21 AND 8.5 FEET. 22 COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THESE OBSERVATIONS 23 MEAN IN TERMS OF GROUNDWATER IN THE TILL AND THE 24 GLACIOLACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS? 90-25 A. I THINK THAT I TESTIFIED YESTERDAY IS _ _ . _ . _ , - _ . . ._- _ i .'_ _ _ . - . _. - - -. - - _ .__ -- - . -
606 7, 1 WHAT THEY MEAN, IS THIS IS SMALL ACCUMULATIONS OF 2 FLUID IN THE SOIL DEPOSITS AT THE CONTACT BETWEEN 3 THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE AND THE TILL DEPOSITS IN BOTH 4 OF THESE CASES; AND GENERALLY THAT'S WHAT WE FIND. 5 IF THERE IS ANY ACCUMULATION OF FLUID IN SUCH 6 DEPOSITS, THIS IS TYPICALLY WHERE WE FIND THAT 7 THEY OCCUR, AT THE CONTACT BETWEEN THE TWO. 8 THEY DIDN'T OCCUR IN ALL THE BORE HOLES, 3 NOR HAVE THEY OCCURRED IN UNIFORMLY IN ANY OF T,H E j 10 BORINGS OR TEST PITS OR ANY OF THE OTHER WORK WE 11 HAVE DONE AT THE SITE, WHICH LEADS US TO THE 12 CONCLUSION THAT THEY ARE VERY INTERMITTENT AT THE 13 SITE AND NOT CONTINUOUS. 14 Q. WOULD THOSE INDICATIONS OF WATER IN ANY 15 WAY INDICATE THAT AN AQUIFER WAS PRESENT AT THAT 16 LOCATION? 17 A. IN TERMS OF -- IN TERMS OF USABLE, IN 18 TERMS OF PUTTING A WELL DOWN TO GET USABLE 19 QUANTITIES OF WATER, NO. 20 Q. Y.O U WERE ALSO ASKED WHETHER ANY IN SITU 21 PERMEABILITY TESTING WAS DONE AT THE BURIAL SITE, 22 AND I BELIEVE YOU STATED THAT IT WAS NOT. 23 IN YOUR JUDGMENT, IS SUCH TESTING NEEDED 24 AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION?
\a 25 A. NO, NOT FOR THE JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
-_. . . - _ - . _ __ __ -. - -. _ . _ ~ _ _ .
607 1 MADE. 2 Q. WHY NOT? 3 A. .BECAUSE WE HAVE FAR BETTER INFORMATION IN 4 TERMS OF THE PREVIOUS DATA WE HAD FROM THE SITE 5 OBSERVATIONS OF CUTS THROUGH THIS MATERIAL, PLUS 6 THE RECENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE THOUSAND F O O T' - L O N G l 7 CUT THROUGH THE MATERIAL WHERE, IN FACT, A 8 SIGNIFICANT HYDRAULIC PRESSURE WAS PUT ON THE BASE 9 OF THE TILL DEPOSIT, AND WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF 10 PERMEATION OF THE GROUND FLUIDS UP THROUGH THE 11 STRUCTURE OF THE GLACIAL TILL DEPOSIT. 12 Q. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR tj~} t 13 USE OF DATA D E'V E L O P E D IN CONNECTION WITH 14 CONSTRUCTION OF DAVIS-BESSE UNIT ONE, AND I 15 BELIEVE YOU STATED THAT THAT DATA WAS DEVELOPED 16 FOR UNIT ONE CONSTRUCTION AND OBVIOUSLY NOT FOR 17 WASTE DISPOSAL PURPOSES. 18 DID YOU USE THE UNIT ONE DATA FOR 19 EVALUATING THIS SITE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL? 20 A. YES, WE DID. 21 Q. IS THAT DATA APPROPRIATE FOR MAKING THOSE 22 EVALUATIONS? 23 A. YES, IT IS. 24 Q. WHY?
-i .;
25 A. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DATA TO MAKE __---_--.4..-, - - , - , , _ _ _ - - . _ __ _ __,___,.7 __%-- --,,.,,-,,,_y_ _ ,_ - - , - _- -_ _ _ - - -
608 1 THE JUDGMENT FOR WASTE DISPOSAL AT THIS SITE. WE C- 2 USED THE DATA AND WE SIMPLY LOOKED AT THE DATA IN 3 LIGHT OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF 4 PATHWAYS AND THE OCCURRENCE OF GROUNDWATER AT THE 5 SITE. 6 THIS WASN'T REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE 7 FOUNDATION STUDIES THAT WE DID PREVIOUSLY, BUT THE 8 DATA ARE STILL USABLE AND VALID. 9 Q. YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS 10 CONCERNING YOUR FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF ZERO 11 GROUNDWATER FLOW DURING UNIT ONE CONSTRUCTION, AND 12 I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO (! 13 DEWATERING RECORDS SHOWING ZERO FLOW. 14 WHY WERE THERE NO DEWATERING RECORDS 15 SHOWING ZERO FLOW? 16 A. WELL, AS I STATED, WE DID NOT SEND 17 SOMEONE OUT TO CREATE A DATA SHEET OR MAKE A DATA 18 SHEET FOR ZERO FLOW. 19 IT IS A PROFESSIONAL OBSERVATION ON THE 20 PART OF MYSELF AND THE OTHER ENGINEERS "ND 21 GEOLOGISTS THAT WERE W O R K I llG , AND IT'S A VA L I D 22 DATA POINT. . 23 Q. WERE ANY INSTRUMENTS SET UP TO MEASURE 24 THAT GROUNDWATER FLOW? 25 A. WELL, IT WAS ZERO FLOW OR IT WAS NO FLOW
i
\
\
609
\ l
\ l 1 CONDITIONS. 50, NO, WE DIDN'T SET UP\ ANY
(.) 2 OBSERVATION POINTS TO, IF YOU W I L L'. , DOCUMENT THAT t 3 WE HAD NO FLOW. 4 Q. YOU ALSO INDICATED IN RESPpNSE TO A 5 QUESTION THAT THERE'WERE VERY INFRE UENT SAND 6 LAYERS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE G L A C I O t, A C U S T R I N E i 7 SEDIMENTS. \
. i 8 WOULD THESE RESULT IN A F L OW FIA T H FOR
\
9 GROUNDWATER? 10 A. NO. 11 Q. WHY NOT? 12 A. WELL, BECAUSE OF THEIR' VERY INFREQUENT O;L NATURE. 13 I THINK I QUANTIFIED THAT IN YESTERDAY'S 14 TESTIMONY. AND THE FACT THAT WE FOUND NO 15 SYSTEMATIC CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SAND LENSES OR 16 SAND LAYERS THAT WE FOUND IN OUR OBSERVATIONS. 17 Q. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED WHETHER ANY IN SITU 18 PERMEABILITY TESTING HAD BEEN DONE ON JOINTS AND 19 FISSURES THAT HAD BEEN NOTED, AND YOU INDICATED 20 THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO SUCH TESTING. 21 IS THAT KIND OF TESTING NEEDED IN THIS 22 KIND OF SITUATION? j 23 A. WELL, I THINK MY ANSWER WAS WITH RESPECT l,C) 24 TO T ri E BURIAL CELL OR AT THE SITE; AND THE ANSWER ! l 25 IS, NO, WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF,
610 I js 1 DETERMINING THE PERMEABILITY OF THE FRACTURES; BUT 2 AGAIN,'I,N FACT, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS DATA 3 WE HAVE, AS WELL AS THE RECENT DATA, THERE IN FACT 4 WAS A GOOD PERMEABILITY TEST MADE ON THE TILL 5 DEPOSIT THAT WE OBSERVED. AND THIS PERMEABILITY 6 TEST SHOWED THAT THESE FRACTURES HAVE A VERY LOW 7 PERMEABILITY. THEY ARE TIGHT. 8 Q. WHAT WAS THAT TEST THAT YOU ARE REFERRING 9 TO? 10 A. THE TEST WAS IN AN EXCAVATION ABOUT A 11 MILE -- EXCUSE ME -- ABOUT A HALF A MILE FROM THE 12 DAVIS-BESSE SITE. AND THE TEST ACTUALLY WAS AN E- 13 OPEN EX C A VAT I ON THAT EXPOSED THE TILL DEPOSIT AND 14 APPLIED A PRESSURE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE TILL 15 DEPOSIT OF ABOUT 12 FEET OF BEDROCK WATER OVER A ' 16 THREE TO FOUR FOOT SECTION OF THE TILL DEPOSIT; 17 AND WE FOUND -- WE FOUND NO LEAKAGE THROUGH THE 18 JOINTS THAT WE SAW ON THE TILL ON THE BOTTOM OF 19 THAT EXCAVATION. 20 Q. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS 21 CONCERNING TREE ROOTS, AND I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED 10 22 THAT, OR AT LEAST DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE J 23 POSSIBILITY THAT TREE ROOTS COULD GO DOWN TEN
,, 24 FEET. l J
l 25 WHAT IMPACT WOULD TREE ROOTS HAVE ON THE 1 : l 1
._. ~ . . . . - . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ . .__ _ _ . _- ._ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ __
611 r- 1 PERMEABILITY OF THE DEPOSITS? b. 2 A. IN FACT, WE DID OBSERVE ROOTS AT A DEPTH 3 OF 15' FEET OR SO ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXCAVATION 4 THAT WE OBSERVED. 5 THE ROOTS WERE SMALL, AND I WILL 6 CHARACTERIZE THEM AS SMALL AND QUANTIFY THAT BY 7 SAYING THAT THEIR DIAMETER WAS OF THE ORDER OF A 8 THIRTY-SECOND OR MAYBE A SIXTY-FOURTH O'F AN INCH. t 9 SOME OF THESE TREE ROOTS EXISTED AS 10 REPLACED ORGANIC MATERIAL. WHAT WE OBSERVED WAS 11 THE ORGANIC MATERIAL THAT WAS THERE HAD BEEN 12 REPLACED BY EITHER GYPSUM OR CALCITE -- WE SUSPECT
'4 13 GYPSUM --
AND, IN FACT, T.H E TREE ROOTS EXISTED ON 14 THE BOTTOM THAT WE OBSERVED IN THE CANAL _ 15 E X C A VAT I ON . AND THERE WAS NO WATER COMING UP 16 THROUGH ANY SYSTEMS OF EITHER THE FRACTURES OR THE 17 ROOT SYSTEMS THAT WERE THERE. 18 Q. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED WHETHER YOU WERE 19 FAMILIAR WITH HAIRLINE FRACTURE NETWORKS THAT HAD 20 BEEN FOUND IN THE MIDWEST. 21 HAVE ANY OF THOSE BEEN SEEN AT THE SITEP 22 A. WELL, I THINK WE'RE CLEAR THAT THERE 23 IS -- THERE IS FRACTURES, OR THERE ARE FRACTURES, l O 24 PRESENT IN BOTH THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE AND THE TILL 25 DEPCSIT AT THE SITE.
612 js 1 Q. DO THOSE FORM PATHWAYS FOR GROUNDWATER ( 2 MIGRATION? 3 A. NOT THAT WE CAN DETERMINE. 4 Q. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED A QUESTION AS TO 5 WHETHER THE BOWSER-MORNER BORINGS WERE VERTICAL OR 6 ANGLED. 7 WHY WOULD YOU -- AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID 8 THEY WERE STRAIGHT OR VERTICAL. 9 WHY WOULD YOU DO, PERFORM ANGLED BORINGS? 10 A. YOU WOULD PERFORM ANGLED BORINGS TO MAKE 11 A DETERMINATION WHETHER THERE WOULD BE VERTICAL 12 FRACTURES IN THE DEPOSITS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING OR h o 13 NOT. 14 Q. AND HOW DID WE DETERMINE WHETHER THERE 15 WERE OR WERE NOT VERTICAL FRACTURES IN THE 16 DEPOSITS? 17 A. WE DETERMINED THAT BY LOOKING AT 18 WIDE-OPEN EXCAVATIONS OF THE MATERIAL, WHICH IS 19 REALLY A MUCH BETTER WAY -- IF YOU COULD DO IT, 20 IT'S A MUCH BETTER WAY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. 21 Q. AND WHAT DID YOU FIND? 22 A. WELL, AS TESTIFIED, WE FOUND THE PRESENCE 23 0F FRACTURES.
'<:) - . 24 Q. DID ANY OF THOSE FRACTURES CONSTITUTE A 25 P A T E ti A Y FOR GROUNDWATER?
l 613 l
)
1 A. NO. - 0 2 Q. YOU ALSO WERE ASKED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF 3 SURFACE CRACKS AT THE BURIAL SITE, AND I BELIEVE , l 4 YOU INDICATED THAT EITHER THERE WERE OR YOU i 5 WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE WERE. 6 WHAT RELEVANCE DOES SUCH CRACKS HAVE TO 7 THE INTEGRITY OF THE BURIAL SITE, THE SUITABILITY 8 0F THE BURIAL SITE? 9 A. THE OVERALL RELEVANCE, NOT ONLY TO THIS 10 SITE BUT TO OTHER SITES THAT WE LOOK AT, IS THAT 11 THEY -- IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THEY COULD BE 12 PATHWAYS. AND IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT AT THIS s; 13 SITE, AS WELL AS OTHERS, THAT WE REMOVE THE SOILS 14 THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SHRINK-SWELL. CRACKING, 15 SEASONAL SHRINK-SWELL CRACKING, WHICH WILL BE DONE 16 AT THIS SITE. 17 Q. LET ME JUST GO BACK TO FOR A MINUTE TO , 18 YOUR DISCUSSION 3N GYPSUM THAT WAS FOUND ON THE 19 BOTTOM OF THE BEDROCK. I 20 WOULD GYPSUM TEND TO SEAL OFF ANY 21 POTENTIAL PATHWAYS LEFT BY ROOTS AND FISSURES? 22 A. IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE FOUND IT, YES, 23 IT WOULD. IT WOULD HEAL, IF YOU WILL, AND SEAL 24 THESE -- THESE STRUCTURES. 25 C, . YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
61'4 1 CONCERNING THE STATE'S EXHIBIT G, WHICH IS AN 2 EXCERPT FROM TOLEDO EDISON'S APPLICATION TO THE 3 OHIO POWER SITING COMMISSION SEVERAL YEARS AGO 4 WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS 5 AS FISSURED AND ALSO CHARACTERIZED THE TILL . 6 DEPOSIT AS FISSURED. l 7 DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE 8 CHARACTERIZATIONS? l 9 A. YES. l l 10 Q. IS THAT CHARACTERIZATION OR ARE THOSE : 11 CHARACTERIZATIONS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR TESTIMONY? 12 A. I BELIEVE THEY CERTAINLY ARE. 13 Q. THE STATE'S EXHIBITS E AND F ARE TWO 14 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, ONE AN INFRARED PHOTOGRAPH AND 15 THE OTHER A BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPH, AND I 16 BELIEVE THE STATE WAS ASKING WHETHER THOSE 17 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWED THE PRESENCE OF LINEAMENTS. 18 IN YOUR REVIEW OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, DO 19 YOU SEE ANY LINEAMENTS AT THE BURIAL SITE? 20 A. NO, I DON'T. 21 Q. ASSUMING THAT THERE WERE LINEAMENTS 22 THERE, WHAT EFFECT WOULD THOSE HAVE ON THE BURIAL ; 23 CELLS OR THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR BURIAL OF 4.c3 24 THE MATERIAL? '
~
i 25 A. WELL, GAIN, TO RESTATE THAT THIS IS AN 1
1 615 f 1 AN A,SSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, THERE, AND L]J 2 GOING BACK TO WHAT WE TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, WE 3 BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE AN INDICATION OF 4 POTENTIAL SOLUTION ACTIVITY IN THE BEDROCK 5 UNDERNEATH THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO LOOK l 6 FOR THAT. { 7 AND WE WOULD SUSPECT THAT IF WE LOOK FOR 8 IT AND WE FOUND ANY, IT WOULD BE MINOR AND OF NO 9 IMPACT TO THE BURIAL OF WASTES AT THE SITE. l 10 Q. IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS CONCERNING 11 QUESTION NUMBER 8, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT A PERCHED 12 WATER TABLE. sv 13 IS THE PERCHED WATER TABLE CONSIDERED A - 14 TRUE WATER TABLE? 15 A. I D O N '.T BELIEVE IT IS, NO. 16 Q. AND WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT CONCLUSION ON? 17 A. WELL, IT'S BASED ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. 18 ONE OF THE BETTER KNOWN TEXT IN THE AREA OF 19 GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY IS ONE BY JOHN CHERRY, 20 AND I REVIEWED THAT LAST NIGHT, AGAIN, RE-REVIEWED 21 IT, AND ON PAGE 45 HE DEFINES DERCHED WATER TABLE. 22 AND IF I COULD JUST READ A SECTION OUT OF 11 ' 23 HIS BOOK ON PERCHED WATER TABLE. l t
-() 24 Q. THAT'S FREEZE AND CHERRY, THE AUTHORS?
l l "L. ) 25 A. YES, FREEZE AND CHERRY. THE TITLE OF THE l
616 1 TEXT IS GROUNDWATER. AND I'M TRYING TO GET A DATE dgm 2 ON THIS. IT'S 1979 BY PRENTICE HALL. 3 THEY IDENTIFY A PERCHED WATER TABLE ABOVE 4 WHAT HE CALLS THE TRUE WATER TABLE, AND IT SHOWS 5 AN UNSATURATED ZONE ABOVE AND BELOW THIS PERCHED t 6 WATER TABLE. 7 I THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD DEFINITION OF 8 PERCHED WATER TABLE. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT,.THE 9 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE HAS WRITTEN A SOIL 10 SURVEY FOR OTTAWA COUNTY, AND IN THAT THEY 11 IDENTIFY THAT THE WATER TABLE, SEASONAL HIGH WATER 1 12 TABLE IN THESE SOILS, IS. PERCHED. AND WHEN YOU 13 LOOK AT THEIR DEFINITION OF PERCHED, WHICH IS ON, 14 I BELIEVE PAGE 42 0F THE TEXT, THEY IDENTIFY 15 PERCHED, "A PERCHED WATER TABLE IS WATER STANDING 16 ABOVE AN UNSATURATED ZONE." 17 50, AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THAT INDICATES 18 THAT IT IS NOT REALLY THE TRUE WATER TABLE. 19 Q. MR. HENDRON, YOU WERE ALSO ASKED WHETHER 20 TENSIOMETERS OR WHETHER A TENSIOMETER HAD BEEN l 21 INSTALLED TO DETERMINE GROUNDWATER FLOW, AND I 22 B E L I E VE YOU SAID THAT SUCH AN INSTRUMENT HAD NOT l 23 BEEN INSTALLED. O ( . 24 WHAT DOES SUCH AN INSTRUMENT MEASURE? 25 A. IT MEASURES THE SOIL SUCTION PRESSURE. l ___J
617 1 Q. AND IS SUCH AN INSTRUMENT OR INSTRUMENTS aO 2 NEEDED AT THIS SITE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATIONS 3 THAT YOU'VE MADE? 4 A. NO. 5 Q. WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? 6 A. BECAUSE WE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT, 7 IN FACT, THE SOIL IS UNSATURATED BY CALCULATION, 8 AND THAT'S A VALID MEANS TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU 9 HAVE SATURATION IN THE SOIL OR NOT. 10 TENSIOMETER IS AN INSTRUMENT THAT MAKES 11 THAT SAME DETERMINATION, IF YOU WILL. IT'S AN 12 INSTRUMENT THAT AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE TYPICALLY USE to L- - 13 TO MEASURE SOIL SATURATION ON IRRIGATION PROJECTS. 14 Q. YOUR ATTENTION, MR. HENDRON, WAS ALSO 15 CALLED TO A STATEMENT IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 16 STATEMENT OF MARSH 1973 AT PAGE 2-28, THAT THE 17 GROUNDWATER TABLE FOLLOWS LAKE LEVEL. 18 I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT THE CUR' RENT DATA 19 DOES NOT FIT THAT CONCLUSION. 20 WHAT DATA WERE YOU REFERRING TO? l 21 A. WE MADE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS IN FOUR 22 WELLS VERY RECENTLY. I'D SAY SINCE THIS HEARING ! 23 HAS STARTED THIS WEEK FOR SURE. AND THE WATER l O 24 LEVELS IN THESE FOUR MONITOR WELLS ARE AROUND l 25 ELE \ATION 571.
- . . . . . . . . . . . - . -. . .. . .. . - . . . . . - . ~ . . ...._ . - . - . ~ . ..-
618 s 1 THE LAKE LEVEL, AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, IS 2 AT 573.5 OR 6, SO THAT WHEN YOU COMPARE THE MOST. 3 RECENT WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT -- AND I STRESS THE 4 TERM MEASUREMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PERIOD OF 5 RECORD ON IT -- AND YOU COMPARE THAT WITH LAKE 6 LEVEL, IT DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTERIZATION IN 7 THAT DOCUMENT. 8 Q. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHETHER OR 9 NOT GROUNDWATER LEVELS WOULD FOLLOW LAKE LEVELS?
~
10 A. WELL, REALLY IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE TO 11 THE JUDGMENT ON THIS PROJECT. I l 12 Q. DR. BENNETT, MR. BRIDEN WAS ASKED WHETHER D 13 THE SLUDGE WAS DILUTED. 14 DOES THE PRESENCE OF WATER IN THE SLUDGE 15 MEAN THAT IT IS DILUTED? 16 A. (DR. BENNETT) WHAT SLUDGE IS REALLY A 17 SUSPENSION OF SOLIDS IN WATER. THE SLUDGE 18 DISCHARGE FROM THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROBABLY 19 1.5 PERCENT SOLIDS. 20 WHEN IT ENTERS THE SETTLING BASIN, THE
- 21 SOLIDS SETTLE TO THE BOTTOM AND THE SLUDGE IN THE 22 BOTTOM OF THAT BASIN, AS EVIDENCED BY MR. BRIDEN'S l
23 SAMPLE, WHICH WAS CHARACTERISTIC OF WATER
.O 24 TREATMENT SLUDGES THAT HAVE SETTLED, IS ABOUT 20 v.
25 PEECENT. f
619 l 1 IF I TOOK THAT SLUDGE AND FURTHER 2 DEWATERED IT WITH A CENTRIFUGE OR A FILTER PRESS, 3 I COULD YNCREASE THE SOLIDS CONTENT TO HALF WATER 4 AND HALF SOLIDS. SO SLUDGE IS REALLY 5 CHARACTERISTICALLY A SUSPENSION OF SOLIDS IN 6 WATER, AND WATER IS A NORMAL COMPONENT OF THAT l 7 SLUDGE. I 8 Q. MR. BRIDEN, IS THE ANALYSIS THAT IS l l 9 PERFORMED OF THE RESINS BEFORE THEY ARE DISCHARGED 10 TO THE SETTLING BASINS OR ALTERNATIVELY SHIPPED 11 0FF-SITE, IS THAT ANALYSIS PERFORMED BEFORE OR t 12 AFTER THE 10,000 GALLONS OF WATER YOU MENTIONED IS i OA- 13 ADDED TO IT? 14 A. ( M R'. BRIDEN) FIRST, TO COLLECT THE 15 SAMPLE, WE HAVE TO INSURE THAT ALL THE RESIN IS i 16 MIXED UP IN THE 10,000 GALLONS. THEN WE COLLECT l
- l 17 THE SAMPLE AND WE DRAIN THE WATER OFF OR DECANT l l 18 THE WATER OFF THE RESIN, 50 WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY l l 19 COUNTING IS DEWATERED RESIN, !
20 Q. MR. BENNETT, DR. BENNETT -- DO YOU 21 BELIEVE THAT THE SAMPLE, TH5 TESTING YOU 22 DESCRIBED, 0'AS REPRESENTATIVE OF OHAT WILL GO INTO ' 23 THE BURIAL CELL? ' r^T 24 A. (DR. BENNETT) VERY MUCH SO. [w -h/ j l 25 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH-THE DEFINITION IN i
. . _ . . - - _ , _ , _ _ . - , _ _ m- - __ _ _ _ . . _ . - - - - , - _ _ -
620 g 1 THE OHIO REGULATIONS, SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS,
%/
2 THAT DEFINE SLUDGE AS INCLUDING BOTH SOLID, 3 SEMI-SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS 6 CONCERNING C0NSTITUENTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AT 7 TABLE 17-1 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, AND ASKED WHETHER 8 THOSE CONSTITUENTS WERE PRESENT IN THE SLUDGE. 9 DOES THE PRESENCE OF THOSE CONSTITUENTS 10 INDICATE THAT THE SLUDGE IS A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL? 11 'A. THEY DO NOT, AND THE SLUDGE IS NOT 12 HAZARDOUS. L 13 Q. MISS WASILK, THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED 14 CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF WATER TREATMENT SLUDGE 15 AT TOLEDO AND WHETHER THE LAGOONS AT TOLEDO WERE 12 16 COMPARABLE TO THE SETTLING BASIN AT THE' TOLEDO 17 EDISON FACILITY HERE, 18 ARE THOSE LAGOONS EQUIVALENT TO THE 19 TOLEDO EDISON SETTLING BASIN, THE DAVIS-BESSE 20 SETTLING BASIN? - 21 A. (MS. WASILK) NO, THEY ARE NOT. 22 Q. WHY NOT? 23 A. THE EQUIVALENT TO THE SETTLING BASIN AT l- - 24 DAVIS-BESSE ARE THE SETTLING BASINS THAT THE CITY n. 25 OF TOLEDO HAS.
621 ! l 1 THE E Q U'I V A L E N T OF THE LAGOON AT THE CITY O 2 OF TOLEDO WATER TREATMENT PLANT, COLLINS PARK 3 PLANT, IS THE BURIAL SITE THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING 4 PUTTING THE RESINS AND THE SLUDGE INTO. 5 Q. MR. BRIDEN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON -- 6 BETWEEN YOU AND MISS SIGLER ON THE MONITORING OF 7 WATER WHICH WOULD BE DECANTED OFF THE SETTLING 8 BASIN BEFORE IT IS DISCHARGED TO LAKE ERIE. 9 IS WATER FROM THE SETTLING BASIN 10 MONITORED FOR RADIOACTIVITY? 11 A. (MR. B R I DEN) YES, IT IS. ALL THE WATER 12 THAT IS DISCHARGED FROM THE SETTLING BASIN IS I9 13 CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED BY LIQUID AFFLUENT MONITOR. 14 Q. THANK YOU. 15 DR. BENNETT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 16 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF CEMENT AND/OR 17 CEMENT KILN DUST FOR A S0LIDIFYING OR IMMOBILIZING 18 AGENT. 19 IS KILN DUST SUITABLE FOR SOLIDIFYING AND 20 IMMOBILIZING THE KIND OF WASTE THAT WE ARE TALKING 21 ABOUT~HERE? 22 A. (DR. BENNETT) IT IS, AND IT IS BEING 23 INCREASINGLY USED AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR 07' 24 IMMCBILIZATION OF WASTE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY 25 HAIARDOUS WASTE. 4
l 622 1 Q. AND WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE ANY 2 DEGRADATION TO THE RESINS RESULTING FROM MIXING 3 THEM WITH CEMENT KILN DUST? 4 A. I WOULD NOT. 5 Q. WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT CONCLUSION ON? 6 A. THE COMPOSITION OF KILN DUST IS 7 PREDOMINANTLY CALCIUM CARBONATE WITH SOME MILD OF 8 CALCIUM SILICATE AND SOME MILD CALCIUM ALUMINATE, 9 CALCIUM SULFATE AND A MINOR AMOUNT OF LIME. 10 IF YOU HAVE LISTENED TO THAT RECITATION 11 OF THOSE CHEMICAL FORMULAE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE 12 PREDOMINANT ION IS CALCIUM, AND THE RESINS HAVE I t> 13 BEEN DISCHARGED TO THE SETTLING BASIN WITH THE 14 WATER TREATMENT SLUDGE, WHICH IS HIGH IN CALCIUM 15 CONTENT; THEREFORE, WE ARE ADDING A MIXTURE OF e 16 PREDOMINANTLY CALCIUM MATERIALS TO THE RESINS 17 ALREADY EMERSED IN CALCIUM MATERIAL. 18 Q. MR. HENDRON, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON i 19 CLOSING THE BURIAL CELLS AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF 20 IT WAS RAINING BEFORE THE CAP WAS PUT ON. 21 WHAT IMPACT WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO.BE 22 IF IT RAINS BEFORE THE CAP IS PUT ON A BURIAL CELL 23 AFTER WASTE HAS BEEN IN PLACE?
/ .s,. ' ' , 24 A. (MR. HENDRON) NONE. THE REASON BEING i
25 THA~ THIS IS PART OF THE DESIGN OF NOT ONLY THE
623 1 CELL, BUT ALSO THE OPERATING PROCEDURE. IN THIS (S
%)
2 AREA OF THE WORLD, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THERE 3 WILL BE A RAINFALL OCCUR, AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE 4 IN THE DESIGN TO HANDLE THAT. 5 AS I TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, 6 THERE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND A FOOT SCHEMATICALLY 7 SHOWN. THAT FINAL FIGURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE 8 DECIDED AS PART OF THE DESIGN. AND I THINK THAT 9 WE MADE A COMMITMENT YESTERDAY THAT THAT'S GOING 10 TO BE DONE. 11 Q. MISS WASILK, DO THE STATE REGULATIONS FOR 12 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES OR HAZARDOUS WASTE
'C/ 13 FACILITIES INCLUDE ANY PROVISIONS FOR THE TIME 14 BEFORE WHICH ONE MUST PUT A COVER ON THOSE WASTES?
15 A. (MS. W AS IL K) I BELIEVE MR. WALLACE WOULD 16 LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. 17 Q. I'M SORRY. 18 A. (MR. WALLACE) ACCORDING TO OHIO E.P.A. 19 REGS 3745-27-10 ON PAGE 15, E. P. 20-10, " CLOSURE 20 OF SANITARY LANDFILLS." A CLOSURE OF SANITARY 21 LANDFILL SHALL DEEM TO OCCUR IF WE DECLARE IT TO 22 BE CLOSED. AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHEN WE HAVE IT 23 FILLED. AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE HAVE TO CLOSE
+
(. , 24 THAT FILL NOT LATER THAN 30 DAYS -- WE HAVE TO CAP l 25 IT NOT LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSURE. l
I 624 f 1 AND FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, WE'LL kJ ' 2 HAVE IT DONE CONSIDERABLY BEFORE THAT -- EXCUSE 3 ME -- 60 DAYS. 4 Q. IS THERE A SIMILAR PROVISION FOR 5 HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES? 6 A. YES, THERE IS. ON CLOSURE TIME ALLOCATED 7 FOR CLOSURE, IT MUST BE CLOSED WITHIN 90 DAYS
\
8 AFTER RECEIVING THE FINAL VOLUME OF HAZARDOUS 9 WASTE. 10 Q. MR. HENDRON, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 11 QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED CONCERNING THE FINALITY 12 OF THE DESIGN FOR THE BURIAL CELLS, AND I THINK IT j 13 WAS INDICATED BY YOU AND OTHER WITNESSES THAT 14 THERE WERE ASPECTS WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN 15 COMPLETED. ) 16 IN YOUR JUDGMENT IS THE DESIGN l l 17 SUFFICIENTLY FINAL TO ALLOW YOU TO REACH THE 18 CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU HAVE REACHED ON THE 19 ACCEPTABILITY OF THIS DESIGN AND THIS SITE? 20 A. YES. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CITE WHAT 21 PARAMETERS ARE REALLY OF IMPORT'TO US TO MAKE THE 22 JUDGMENT. 23 ONE, IS WE KNOW THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A 24 COMPOSITE LINER BELOW THE WASTE. COMPOSITE w, 25 MEALING CLAY UNDER A MEMBRANE LINER. WE KNOW WE
625 1 ARE GOING TO HAVE AN INTERNAL DRAIN IN THERE TO ic 2 REMOVE THE LEACHATE, WHICH IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT; 3 AND, THIRDLY, IN TERMS OF THE WASTE, WE KNOW IT IS 4 GOING TO BE SOLIDIFIED, 50 IT IS NOT GOING TO 5 CONVEY WATER FOR THE LONGER PERIOD. 6 WE ALSO KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE A 7 COVER, COMPACTED CLAY, AND A DRAIN ON TOP OF THAT 8 COVER AND VEGETATION THAT WILL WITHSTAND ANY . 9 EROSIVE FORCES THAT WE EXPECT TO HAVE. SO WHILE 10 THE DETAIL IN DESIGN IS NOT DONE, THE SCHEMATIC 11 DESIGN IS DONE TO A POINT WHERE WE KNOW AND HAVE . 12 . COMMITTED TO THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WHAT THE 13(7,J 1 3' FINAL DESIGN WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS. 14 MR. SILBERG: WE HAVE NO FURTHER 15 REDIRECT. 16 JUDGE H0YT: I WOULD LIKE TO 17 PICK UP ONE POINT ON THE FINAL ANSWER, AND THAT 18 IS: WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED TIME FOR THE 19 COMPLETION OF THE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND 20 THE MATERIALS USED AND VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE 21 CONTRACTS AND MATERIALS, WHEN WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE 22 HAVING IT FINISHED?
- 23 THE WITNESS
- YOU ARE TALKING l 24 ABOUT THE FINAL DESIGN?
l 25 JUDGE H0YT: YES. THE FINAL
628 1 i
<- 1 DESIGN AND THE INCLUSION IN THAT FINAL DESIGN OF ~ k.
2 THE MATERIALS, THE SELECTION OF THOSE MATERIALS. l 3 I UNDERSTAND THE MEMBRANES WOULD HAVE TO BE 4 SELECTED TO MEET CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS, AND IF I 5 RECALL THE TESTIMONY, THOSE MEMBRANES HAD NOT BEEN 6 SELECTED, FOR EXAMPLE? I 7 THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT. ! l 8 THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT I HAVE l 9 HAD WITH THE COMPANY ON WHEN THE FINAL DESIGN IS 1 10 TO BE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETE. 11 MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS FACILITY 12 WILL NOT BE NEEDED FOR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, TWO d' 13 OR THREE YEARS. i 14 NOW, I' DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERMIT l 1 15 SCHEDULE IS, BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE l
! 16 THIS FINAL DESIGN IN PRETTY FINAL STAGES AS PART 17 0F THE PERMIT THAT WE SUBMIT TO THE STATE. THAT'S 18 OUR TYPICAL PROCEDURE AROUND THE COUNTRY. STATES 19 LIKE TO SEE THIS SORT OF THING.
20 JUDGE HOYT: DID YOU HAVE 21 SOMETHING, MR. SILBERG? 22 MR. SILBERG: NO. 1 23 JUDGE H0YT: THANK YOU, SIR. I 24 HEARD NO QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR 6 25 CRCES-EXAMINATION. ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE
627 , l l 1 ADDRESSED HERE THIS MORNING HAD BEEN RAISED BY 2 VIRTUE OF YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION, COUNSELOR. 3 AND IF YOU COULD POINT TO THOSE SPECIFIC 4 AREAS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THEM IN ADVANCE 5 BEFORE YOU ASK THE. QUESTION. 6 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, THE i 7 QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED TODAY W.E R E AIMED AT 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT I DID YESTERDAY, ALTHOUGH 9 THE INFORMATION THAT I CAME OUT IS BRAND-NEW.
^ ; 10 JUDGE HOYT: WELL, COUNSELOR, ,
i ' 11 THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO A VERY THOROUGH 12 JOB OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF 13 YOUR OWN EXPERTISE. ) 14 MR. VAN KLEY: I'M SORT OF 15 FLATTERED, BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP US AS FAR AS 16 GETTING AT THE TOTAL FACTS OUT THAT WE HAD NO i 17 OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT YESTERDAY. 18 JUDGE H0YT: I HAVE TO DISAGREE i 19 WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION, MR. VAN KLEY. THESE 20 WERE CLEARLY QUESTIONS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR i 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION. 22 UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC AREA, A
- l l 23 SPECIFIC QUESTION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT l g. 24 IT IS IN ADVANCE OF YOUR ASKING IT.
25 MR. VAN KLEY: WHY DON'T I TELL
628 gg 1 YOU WHAT I INTENDED TO ASK. b 2 dUDGE HOYT: WHAT AREA, WHAT 3 QUESTION DO YOU HAVE ON? 4 MR. VAN KLEY: THE MAJOR QUESTIONS 5 WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE -- 6 dUDGE HOYT: LET'S START WITH 7 THE FIRST MAJOR AND SEE HOW WE DO WITH THAT ONE. l 8 MR. VAN KLEY: ALL RIGHT. 9 WHAT I 'M DOING, YOUR HONOR, IS I'M GOING 10 OVER THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AS MUCH AS I HAVE 11 WRITTEN OUT, AND I HAVE A LIST OF 10 OR 12 12 ALREADY -- i O 13 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. COULD I I 14 SUGGEST WE TAKE A SHORT BREAK, AND IF THAT WOULD 15 HELP MR. VAN KLEY, IT MIGHT HELP SOME OF OUR A 16 WITNESSES. 17 dUDGE HOYT: I UNDERSTAND, MR. 18 SILBERG. WE WILL RECESS. 19 _ _ _ 20 (RECESS TAKEN) 21 - - - 22 23 e 24 (:. ' 25
i 629 O 2 J l JUDGE H0YT: LET THE RECORD 2 REFLECT THAT ALL THE PARTIES WHO WERE HERE AND 3 PRESENT WHEN WE RECESSED ARE AGAIN PRESENT IN THE 4 HEARING ROOM, AND THAT THE WITNESSES HAVE ALL i 5 TAKEN THEIR ASSIGNED SEATS. MR. SILBERG, YOU 6 INDICATED YOU HAD TWO ADDITIONAL PIECES OF : 1 I 7 INFORMATION FROM THE MORNING SESSION. IF YOU
- 8 WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AT THIS TIME. 1 9 MR. SILBERG: THANK YOU.
10 - - - 11 BY MR. SILBERG: 12 Q. DR. BENNETT, HAVE YOU R E C E I .V E D 13 INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LAGOONS FOR 14 THE CITY OF TOLED0'S WATER TREATMENT FACILITY I 15 SLUDGE ARE LOCATED WITHIN OR WITHOUT A FLOODPLAIN? 16 A. (DR. BENNETT) I HAVE, SIR. LAGOON "A", j I 17 WHICH IS ADdACENT TO OTTER CREEK, IS WITHIN THE j l 18 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. ! 19 Q. THANK YOU. MR. BRIDEN, JUDGE H0YT ASKED 20 US TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE PARTICLE SIZE OF 21 THE RESINS USED AT DAVIS-BESSE SECONDARY SIDE 22 DEMINERALIZATION. COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THAT 23 INFORMATION? 24- A. (MR. BRIDEN) POWDERED ION-EXCHANGE 25 f.ilNS ARE GROUND RESIN BEADS AND HAVE A PARTICLE
. - ._. - ._ _ - _ - -l
630 A 1 SIZE OF 7 TO 200 MICRONS. 2 MR. SILBERG: THANK YOU. 3 JUDGE HOYT: DOES THAT COMPLETE 4 YOUR REDIRECT, MR. SILBERG? 5 MR. SILBERG: YES, IT DOES, 6 JUDGE. 7 JUDGE H0YT: I HAD AN INDICATION 8 THAT SOMEONE HAD WANTED TO MAKE A LIMITED 9 APPEARANCE STATEMENT AT ABOUT 10:30. THIS IS THE 10 FIRST OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS. IF 11 THEY ARE HERE AT THIS MOMENT, WE'LL TAKE THE 12 IN DI VI D U AL AND -- I BEG YOUR PARDON? 13 FROM THE FLOOR: THE MAN WAS IN THE 14 PARKING LOT. YOU WANT ME TO GO LOOK? 15 JUDGE HOYT: I'M NOT GOING TO 16 MOVE OUT TO THE PARKING LOT. IF YOU WANT TO BRING 17 HIM IN, WE'LL TAKE HIM. I BELIEVE HIS NAME IS 18 THOMAS MURRAY. 19 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, WHILE 20 SHE IS GOING LOOKING FOR HIM, DO YOU WANT TO GO 21 OVER THE AREAS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT I 22 PROMISED TO TELL YOU ABOUT?
. 23 JUDGE HOYT: YES.
t.. 24 MR. VAN KLEY: WHAT I HAVE DONE IS 25 I'/E TRIED TRY TO ELIMINATE MOST OF THE QUESTIONS l \ _ . .. - . - _,. - .
631 - () 1 THAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED AND JUST CONCENTRATE ON 2 THE IMPORTANT AREAS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SOUND YOU
~
3 OUT ON SOME OF THESE. 4 THE FIRST AREA WOULO BE AIMED AT MR. 5 HENDRON CONCERNING THE CARLYSS SITE. I WAS KIND 6 0F SURPRISED TO HEAR IT BROUGHT UP TODAY BECAUSE I 7 THOUGHT WE HAD AGEED YESTERDAY THAT NO OTHER 8 FURTHER INFORMATION WAS RELEVANT. 9 JUDGE H0YT: I BELIEVE YOU 10 INITIATED THAT QUESTION YESTERDAY IN YOUR 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND THE QUESTION THIS MORNING 12 WAS S'I M P L Y , I BELIEVE, IN RESPONSE TO THAT AFTER 13 THE WITNESS HAD HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN 14 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 15 MR. VAN KLEY: THAT IS TRUE, YOUR , 16 HONOR. WHAT I WANTED TO GET INTO IS -- FRANKLY, 17 THE CONVERSATIONS THAT MY OFFICE HAD WITH 18 LOUISIANNA, THE STATE OF LOUISIANNA, SHOWED THE 19 OPPOSITE RESULTS FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD TODAY IN 20 TESTIMONY, AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD INQUIRE l 21 INTO SOME OF THE BASIS OF -- 22 JUDGE H0YT: NOR DOES THIS GO f: L 23 24 EITHER THAT WAS INTO THE D I R E CT-EX AMI N AT I ON OR ON THE CROSS INITIATED YESTERDAY AND IF THIS WITNESS 25 i _LD HAVE THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THE STATE OF
632 O 1 LOUISIANNA'S OPINIONS WOULD BE, AND IF YOU WANT TO 2 INTRODUCE THAT THROUGH SOME OTHER METHOD, YOU MAY 3 DO S0. I DON'T THINK THIS WITNESS IS AN 4 APPROPRIATE WITNESS FOR THAT. 5 MR. VAN KLEY: I REALIZE THAT 6 WE'RE REALLY GETTING INTO A LOT OF HEARSAY HERE 7 AND THAT THAT'S THE NATURE OF INFORMAL HEARING, 8 AT LEAST THERE'S SOME -- 9 JUDGE H0YT: I THINK AN INFORMAL 10 HEARING, WE MAY BE RELAXED, BUT WHEN HEARSAY IS 1 11 MERELY S P E C U L A T I V E ., I CAN'T SEE THAT AS ANY 12 SUBSTANTIVE THING EVEN IN THE MOST INFORMAL 13 HEARING. IN CONVERSATION, PERHAPS, BETWEEN AN
, 14 I N DI VI D U AL , BUT NOT IN A HEARING SETTING OF ANY 15 NATURE.
16 ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS THE NEXT AREA? 17 MR. VAN KLEY: ALL RIGHT. THE 18 NEXT AREA CONCERNED -- l 19 JUDGE H0YT: I'M NOT GOING TO 20 PERMIT YOU TO EXAMINE ON THAT AREA -- ON THE 21 LOUISIANNA. THAT ONE IS OUT. WHAT'S NEXT? 22 MR. VAN KLEY: THE SECOND AREA
) 23 CONCERNS MR. HENDRON'S STATEMENTS THAT HE WAS 24 RELYING ON OPINIONS FROM HIS GEOLOGISTS THAT ARE I
25 ' HIS STAFF. _ . ._ . .- -. -__ . ._ . .I
i 633 l 1 I GUESS I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHY THE 2 PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH THE GEOLOGICAL I 3 OPINIONS HERE WEREN'T TESTIFYING INSTEAD OF 4 SOMEONE WHO ADMITTEDLY IS NOT A GEOLOGIST. 5 JUDGE H0YT: I THINK HE BROUGHT 1 6 THAT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION YESTERDAY, AND THE 7 ELECTION AS TO WHAT METHODS THE LICENSEE MAY 8 CHOOSE TO PRESENT HIS CASE IS THEIR 9 RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT'S NEXT? 10 MR. VAN KLEY: THE NEXT AREA ALSO 11 CONCERNS MR. HENDRON. I SEEM TO BE PICKING ON HIM 12 QUITE A BIT HERE. THE NEXT THING CONCERNED HIS 13 OPINION THAT CONTINUOUS SAMPLING WAS NOT NEEDED 14 BECAUSE THE SOIL WAS UNIFORM. 15 WHAT I WANTED TO ASK HIM IS WHETHER OR j 16 NOT IT WASN'T TRUE THAT THE PUPPOSE OF THE SAMPLES 17 TO BEGIN WITH WAS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE SOIL WAS i 18 UNIFORM, AND WHY, THEN, DID HE LIMIT THE SAMPLING 19 BECAUSE OF A PREDISPOSED OPINION THAT IT WAS 20 UNIFORM. IT'S KIND OF A CATCH-22 SITUATION, IT 21 SEEMS TO ME, AND I WANTED TO GO INTO THAT AND FIND 22 OUT WHY INDEED HE HAD THAT OPINION BEFORE HE TOOK 23 THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO FORMULATE THE OPINION. 24 JUDGE H0YT: DIDN'T YOU HAVE 25 7-
.T OPPORTUNITY YESTERDAY? I DON'T THINK THERE'S
634 A 1 ANYTHING TO BE BROUGHT UP TODAY. 2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS, ANY REBUTTAL 3 QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD BE PERMITTED TODAY, MR. 4 VAN KLEY, WAS TO COVER ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT 5 MAY HAVE BEEN DERIVED THROUGH THE REDIRECT 6 EXAMINATION, WHICH IS REALLY THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 7 THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESSES. 8 MR. VAN KLEY: LET ME TRY ONE MORE i 9 LAST AREA TO SEE IF I MIGHT BE O FOR 4 FOR THE i 10 DAY. IT'S A GOOD THING I'M NOT A BASEBALL PLAYER. I j 11 JUDGE H0YT: AND I'M NOT SCORING 12 IT AS SUCH, EITHER. GO AHEAD. 13 MR. VAN KLEY: ALL RIGHT. THE 14 LAST AREA CONCERNED, AGAIN, MR. HENDRON. I WANTED ! 15 TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS EXCAVATION THAT HE TALKED 16 ABOUT TODAY. 17 YESTERDAY I ASKED HIM FOR A LIST OF ALL 18 THE INVESTIGATIONS HE HAD DONE TO INVESTIGATE THE 3 19 GEOLOGY OF THE SITE, AND IT IS MY RECOLLECTION i 20 THAT HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EXCAVATION THAT WAS 21 LOCATED SOME DISTANCE FROM THE SITE AS A BASIS FOR 22 ANY OF HIS OPINIONS.
) 23 JUDGE H0YT: IS THAT THE ONE Q
24 W H E r. E HE MADE THE CROSS-CUT AND THEN REGULAR CUT 25 i THE LONG GASH AND HE READ THAT?
635 O 1 MR. VAN KLEY: NO, I DON'T THINK 2 S0. I HAVE AN IDEA THAT IT WAS A LARGE HOLE IN 3 THE GROUND AND HE LOOKED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE -- 4 HE USED THAT HOLE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE NO 5 CONNECTIONS OF THE FISSURES OR JOINTS WITH THE 6 BEDROCK. l 7 I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS IT ABOUT 8 THAT EXCAVATION, WHICH I DIDN'T HAVE THE i 9 OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT YESTERDAY, THAT i 10 CAUSED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THE FISSURES WEREN'T 11 CONNECTED TO THE BEDROCK. t 12 MR. SILBERG dUDGE H0YT, THAT IS 13 THE SAME EXCAVATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT SOME 14 LENGTH YESTERDAY -- INCLUDING IN THE TRANSCRIPT ON 15 PAGE 56 -- IT WAS A THOUSAND-FOOT LONG CUT. 16 dUDGE H0YT: PAGE 56 0F ] 17 YESTERDAY'S TRANSCRIPT. j 18 MR. SILBERG YES. i 19 JUDGE H0YT: WHY DON'T YOU CHECK 20 THAT, MR. VAN KLEY, AND SEE IF THAT DOESN'T -- 21 PAGE 56 OF YESTERDAY'S TRANSCRIPT. 22 MR. VAN KLEY: 156? 23 JUDGE H0YT: 56. THESE i
: - l 24 T R A ts SCRIPTS NORMALLY IN THIS AGENCY ARE ALL IN ,
25 F'quENTIAL OR DER , [UT THE REPORTERS HAVE NEVER
636 (b 1 REPORTED N.R.C. HEARINGS BEFORE AND, THEREFORE, , l 2 THEY HAVE NUMBERED BEGINNING WITH PAGE 1 EACH ONE ) 3 0F THE TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS. AND TO KEEP IT ; i 4 CONSECUTIVE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE HEARINGS FOR 5 TODAY AND START WITH PAGE 1, SO YOU HAVE TO CITE i 6 AT TRANSCRIPT PAGE SO AND SO AND THE DATE OF THAT ) 7 TRANSCRIPT. I 8 MR. SILBERG: THERE IS A 9 DISCUSSION AT THAT PAGE ON JOINTS AND FISSURES AND 10 A CUT, AND TH AT ' S THE SAME ISSUE WE WERE TALKING i 11 ABOUT TODAY. 12 MR. VAN KLEY: ALL RIGHT. I DO , 13 SEE THE REFERENCE TO THE EXCAVATION. IT WASN'T 14 OBVIOUS TO ME OR APPARENT AT ALL THAT IT WAS THE 15 SAME EXCAVATION. 16 dUDGE H0YT YOU ACCEPT THE i 17 REPRESENTATION, COUNSEL, THAT THAT IS THE SAME? 18 MR. VAN KLEY: YES, I WILL. i 19 JUDGE H0YT: THEN I'M AFRAID, 20 THEN, THAT YOU ARE 21 MR. VAN KLEY: 0 FOR 4. I 22 JUDGE H0YT: -- 0 FOR 4. ()
. s .,
23 ALL RIGHT. WE WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANY 24 LINITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS TO BE MADE HERE THIS 25 f .NING.
637 O 1 MR. SILBERG: CAN WE JUST ASK NOW 2 THAT THE WITNESSES NOW BE DISMISSED? 3 JUDGE H0YT: YES. ARE YOU 4 RESTING YOUR CASE? I WILL GIVE YOU UNTIL AFTER S THAT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT IF YOU WANT TO REST YOUR 6 CASE NOW. 7 MR. S I LB ERG: IF WE FINISHED WITH 8 REDIRECT AND NO RECROSS, THEN WE WOULD REST OUR 9 CASE. 10 WE RETAIN THE RIGHT, OF COURSE, TO PUT ON 11 SOME LIMITED REBUTTAL AFTER THE STATE'S EVIDENCE 12 COMES IN. i 13 JUDGE H0YT: POSSIBLY THE SAME i 14 WITNESSES? . 15 MR. SILBERG: YES, IT WOULD BE 16 WITH SOME OF THESE SAME PEOPLE. 17 JUDGE H0YT: AND YOU WANT TO 18 DISMISS THEM AS A PANEL AT THIS TIME? 19 MR. SIGLER: YES. 20 JUDGE H0YT: IT 'S YOUR 21 RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THESE PEOPLE IN THE 22 AREA IN THE EVENT THAT YOU NEED TO USE THEM. 23 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOR 24 Y O U r. APPEARANCE HERE. WE APPRECIATE IT. SORRY 25 JUT THE SMALL AMOUNT OF ROOM THAT EACH OF YOU
638 n. 1 HAD WITH ALL OF YOUR PAPERS, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE 2 DONE AN ADMIRABLE JOB. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND 3 THE PANEL AND EACH OF THE WITNESSES ON THAT 13-MAN 4 PANEL IS NOW EXCUSED. 5 NOW, IS ANYBODY HERE FOR A LIMITED 6 APPEARANCE STATEMENT THIS MORNING? YOU DIDN'T 7 FIND THE MAN IN THE PARKING LOT. WE'LL PROCEED, i 8 THEN, WITH THE STATE'S CASE IF THEY ARE READY TO 9 BEGIN. 10 MR. LYNCH: WE WOULD LIKE TO 11 STIPULATE TO THE TESTIMONY AS PREVIOUSLY FILED. 12 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. WE WILL , 13 ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE STATE OF OHIO AS 14 PREVIOUSLY FILED. WE WILL HAVE YOU GIVE THOSE TO 15 THE REPORTER, AND THEY WILL BE BOUND INTO THE l 16 TRAr4 SCRIPT AT THIS POINT. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF 1 17 THAT, MR. SILBERG? 18 MR. S ILB ERG: YES. 19 JUDGE H0YT: DO ANY OF THE 20 INTERVENORS HAVE COPIES OF THAT? DO YOU HAVE A 21 COPY FOR HER? GIVE THOSE COPIES TO THE REPORTER. 22 IF YOU DON'T, YOU LADIES CAN SHARE. YOU HAVE YOUR , l) 23 COPY? DID YOU RECEIVE IT? THIS IS THE STATE OF
- 24 OH I C . VERY WELL.
! 25 (THE DOCUHENT FOLLOWS:)
k 1
)
i t l l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i l Before Administrative Judce Helen F. Hoyt In the Matter of ) i TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-346-ML (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Station, Unit No. 1) Waste Disposal Permit ) ! PREFILED TESTIMONY OF INTERVENOR STATE OF OHIO i l j 4 i O i I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ([4fh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judoe Helen F. Hoyt In the Matter of ) TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-346-ML (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Station, Unit No. 1) Waste Disposal Permit ) PREFILED TESTIMONY Attached for prefiling is the direct testimony of Donald E. Guy, Richard R. Pavey, John H. Marshall, and John Voytek, Jr. l The State reserves any right it may have to call additional witnesses during its case in chief should Toledo Edison's prefiled testimony contain newly obtained evidence not previously disclosed to the State.
- {e - '
It should be noted that the majority of the information requested by pages 5-7 of the Order of May 30, 1986 is knowledge available only to Toledo Edison. Therefore, the State was unable to address all of these questions. The State's prefiled testimony addresses those questions for which the State presently has information. Respectfully submitted, ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, JR.
, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OHIO M Tm 7M JAqR VAN KLEY gf-EDWARD LYNCH l
SHARON S. SIGLER Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Enforcement Section
. 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor
%. Columbus, Ohio 43266-0410
f 1 i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing i ! Prefiled Testimony was sent via regular U.S. Mail, postage 1 prepaid this /fUCE day of July, 1986 to the following: Helen F. Hoyt, Esq. 1 Administrative Judge 3' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, EW-439 t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay E. Silberg Save Our State Shaw, Pitman, Potts & Trowbridge Consumers League of Ohio
! 1800 M. Street, N.W. Arnold Glossier l Washington, D.C. 20036 5005 S. Barton i Lyndhurst, Ohio 44145
!. (f]
'c_
Terry J. Lodge 618 N. Michigan St., Toledo, Ohio 43624 Suite 105 Genevieve S. Cook 25296 Hall Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Western Reserve Alliance c/o Donald L. Schlemmer Docket & Service Section i 1616 P Street, N.W. Office of the Secretary Suite 160 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555
? M Im 7#- ;
JNdK VAN KLEY Assistant Attorney General 1 O s. 1
I i( DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DONALD E. GUY, JR. , GEOLOGIST, OHIO
; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
! Donald E. Guy, Jr. , being duly sworn, states as follows. l QUALIFICATIONS- , l My employment with the Division of Geological Survey began j in March 1973. Since then I have been assigned to the Lake l Erie Section, where I have been involved in geologic studies in i all of the lakeshore counties. This involvement has included i collection, compilation, and interpretation of data related to shore-erosion urocesses, shore-recession rates, lake levels,
- nearshore bathymetry, nearshore sediment, and sub-bottom j sediment. In addition to being the principal compiler of
! recession-line maps for the Ohio lakeshore, I have authored } or co-authored 14 publications and 12 presentations for j professional meetings. l I, received a BA in geology from Earlham College in 1971 and l an MS in geology from Bowling Green State University in 1983. My MS thesis dealt with the origin and evolution of Bay Point,
; a sand spit located on Lake Erie at the mouth of Sandusky Bay.
My professional affiliations include membership in the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the j International Association of Great Lakes Research, the Ohio
- j( Academy of Science, and the Society of Economic Paleontologists j ( and Mineralogists.
l TESTIMONY-j Introduction - My testimony addresses questions 4 and 5 in the ; i Memorandum and Order issued 29 May 1986 by Helen F. Hoyt, j Administrative Judge. These questions are j What is the observed flooding frequency at the waste burial site, and r l What soil erosion from storms has been actually observed ' { at or near the disposal site? i Before beginning my discussion of flooding and erosion, l l I would like to provide some elevations for reference and f ! perspective in the ensuing discussion. l ! The ground elevation at the proposed disposal site l l is 575 feet (USGS). l } Extensive flooding occurred during a storm on ; j 14-16 November 19 72. During this storm, northeast : ! winds set up the lake to 577.5 feet (USGS) at I f Toledo and to 576.9 feet (USGS) at Marblehead. ! l The level at Davis-Besse probably was midway ' ! between the elevations for Toledo and Marblehead, lO u.- or about 577.2 feet (USGS). The elevation of the lake prior to the storm was about 573.7 feet (USGS).
-n n--n---, - - , - - , - - - - - - , , , - - - - . -----,-n------,----,,-,--en- -e -m n -
4 l 2 i l I (2>'s Elevation of the 10 , 50 ,100 , and 500-year
'% ) floods, as calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1977), are 576.3 feet (USGS), 577.2 feet
^ (USGS), 577.5 feet (USGS), and 578.2 feet (USGS), respectively. A 500-year flood, with an elevation of 578.2 feet (USGS), would flood 23,000 acres of Ottawa County.
- Flooding -- Low lying areas along the lakeshore are flooded j whenever the elevation of the lake rises above the elevation of
- the land surface. These rises in elevation of the lake may be long term, intermediate term (annual) , or short term. Long-term changes and intermediate-term changes involve changes in lake l volume due to long-term and annual changes in precipitation, run off, and evaporation. Short-term changes involve displacement of water in the basin, but no change in volume. The most
! significant short-term changes are due to wind stress. During a storm, winds push water to the downwind side of the lake
! causing lake level to be set up. When the wind stress abates , { a seiche (inertial return surge) occurs. Long-term changes in lake level take place over many years i in response to climatic changes. For example , mean annual lake
! level has risen 4.5 feet since 1934 Over this same time period, i annual precipitation in the Great Lakes basin has increased by 1
two inches. 1 1 At present, lake level continues on an upward trend that began in 1965. Annual mean lake level reached a record high of 5 74.2 feet (USGS) in 1973, and then dropped slightly during ~ the late 1970's. In 1985, the lake rose again; the annual mean for 1985 was 574.1 feet (USGS). Between 1973 and 1986, lake i level has remained more than 1.5 feet above its long-term mean. l This prolonged period of abnormally high levels results from excessive precipitation over the Great Lakes basin in 15 of the last 18 years. Throughout this period, low lying areas near ] Davis Besse have been flooded. Periodicity of long-term changes in lake level is a much debated topic. Laymen speak of "20-year" cycles, and researchers have analyzed lake level records in search of cycles. One study, a spectral analysis of Great Lakes water levels by Cohn
- and Robinson (1976), revealed the presence of prominent cycles with periods lasting 1,11, 22, and 36 years . Extreme high lake levels occur when the peaks of these cycles coincide. The analy' sis by Cohn and Robinson (1976) predicted that in the late 1970 s lake level would drop slightly from the record high of l 1973 and then return to record-high levels in the mid 1980's.
l This predicted pattern matches the general pattern of lake level changes recorded during the past decade and gives credence to the prediction that the lake will rise to even higher levels
- in the mid 1990 's . If the lake rises in the mid 1990 's , flooding .
, 3 due to long-term changes in lake level will reoccur. After the
- t mid 1990's, peaks in the cycles will be out of phase and lake
- levels should begin to drop.
i
~, - - - - - _ . - _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ ~ - . _ , _ . _ . . - - - . ._ , _ . - _ - , . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ , - - _ . - - - - . - _ . ~ ,-
1
- 3 i
i i ! .4 As noted earlier, precipitation in the Great Lakes basin j has increased gradually since the Dust Bowl Era of the 1930's. ' 1 Dr. Frank Quinn (NCAA, GLERL) feels that precipitation for the l past 50 years has been below normal and that precipitation is ! j ust now reaching a level normal for the Great Lakes region. j If this is the case, then the present trend of rising lake ! level will continue and low lying areas will remain flooded. l Annual lake level changes occur in response to seasonal variations in precipitation, run off, and evaporation. Although the magnitude of change varies from year to year, the average change from mid-winter low to mid-summer high is about 1. 2 feet . I Changes in monthly mean lake level through the course of the i year record this annual cycle. In some years the maximun
- monthly mean may be quite high. In June 1973, the monthly mean 4 level was 575.0 feet (USGS), the same elevation as the proposed
! disposal site . In June 1986, the monthly mean level was 575.2 { feet (USGS) , 0.2 feet above the elevation of the proposed i disposal site. If long-term mean lake level remains abnormally { high, there is a good probability that the maximum monthly mean i l in any given year will exceed or be within inches of 575 feet I ( US GS) . t I Short term changes in lake level last a few minutes to a few days. The most significant of these short term changes are those due to storm winds. Of particular concern in western Lake Erie are set ups produced by northeast winds. ' (} There is no periodicity to storm set uns in western Lake i Erie, although there is a higher incidence' of set ups between ' September and May. An analysis of storm set ups at Toledo was performed by Carter (1986) . Between 1939 and 1980, set ups exceeding i foot occurred 1-7 times per year, and 95% of these i set ups occurred between September and May. Forty-seven percent ! of the set ups were 2-3 feet in hel@t, and 15% were 3-4 feet in height. The height of set u i correlation with lake level.p showed no temporal pattern and no In contrast to the lack of periodicity in set ups, seiches l ' f (the inertial subside) surfasairly do have of water which regular periods.occur when Along storm the long winds axis i of the lake, seiches have a period of 14 hours. Seiches along i the long axis occur after northeast winds have set up the lake l at Toledo. ! Long-term and annual changes in lake level are presently j aroducing flood conditions along low lying areas in western 1ake Erie. However, it is the short-term changes caused by northeast storm winds that produce the most devastating floods. The best documented recent flood occurred on 14-16 November 1972. Many areas of Ottawa County, including the Davis-Besse site were flooded, " Widespread flooding took i n water breached dikes protecting low place lyingwhere areas.waves State and high2, Route ! V near the entrance to Sand Beach, was barely passable more than ,Q* a day after the storm. The elevation there is about 575 feet....
- _ ~ _ . _ _ . . - . _ _
4 The ground was covered by water to a depth of several feet for
'T h,('O many days . " (Carter, 1973) During the first day of the storm Davis-Besse was inaccessible for a day, and this prevented Davis-Besse officials from assessing damage at the site (Sandusky Register, 15 November 1972).
The Carter report indicates that the flood water from the November 1972 storm could not percolate through the clay soils. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the water was unable to percolate into the ground water through joints and non-clay materials in the soil (see the testimony of Richard Pavey). Among factors contributing to slow drainage of flood water from the Sand Beach area following the storm are high precipitation during the months preceding the November 1972 storm and the low relief. Precipitation at Toledo was 117% of normal, about 5.3 inches above normal, during the 1972 water year (October 1971-September 1972) . During September 1972 precipitation was about 305% of normal and during November precipitation was about 150% of normal. This high precipitation saturated .he ground so that little or no flood water could be absorbed. Much of the land near Sand Beach, and in fact all around the Davis-Besse plant. is nearly flat. As a result, surface water (flood water) ran off slowly. The maximum _ lake level reached during the November 1972 storm is only about 2.0 feet above present lake level; therefore, a storm with a set up of 2.0 feet would produce a lake elevation i similar to that which caused major flooding in 1972. There have ([c)- been at least 20 such set ups since November 1972, and they normally occur 1-2 times per year. The 500-year flood level would be reached if lake level was set up 3 feet above present lake level, or 4.7 feet above the j mean lake level of the past 13 years. Set ups of 3 feet occur
- every 2-3 years, and set ups of 4.5-5.0 feet occur about once
! every 33 years (Pore, Perrotti, and Richardson, 1975) .
Erosion - Soil crosion (shore erosion) occurs when waves attack the shore. As the shore erodes, the shore or shoreline recedes. l The following examples of shore erosion and damages occurred during storms within the past two decades. On 14-16 November 1972, a severe storm with strong northeast winds struck Lake Erie. During this storm, waves attacked the shore with sufficient force to move 200 cound blocks of concrete.
"In areas such as Sand Beach. . . , waves cut into sand and clay banks for as much as 10 feet, partially destroying the natural barriers and eroding much valuable land" (Carter, 1973). At
" Sand Beach, waves carried so much sand over protective dikes ,
dunes, and seawalls that roads were covered by up to 3 feet of sand," and wave attack was so severe that dikes were breached (Carter, 1973). Breaching of dikes was not confined to j ust the l lakesho re. At Toussaint Wildlife Area, located on the Toussaint , T River about 3.5 miles upstream from the Davis-Besse site, 300 feet , / of dike was destroyed. This damage is described in a Damage
-> Survey Repert prepared on 21 December 1972 by Daniel R. Stowers (ODNR) .
1
5 i Data are unavailable to quantify recession of the Davis-Besse shoreline during a single storm event. However, data are (^E7') s_/ available (Benson, in preparation) to quantify recession of the Davis-Besse shoreline between 1968 to 1973, a period during _which there were four maj or northeast-wind storms. These storms occurred on 4 July 1969,14-16 November 1972, 16-17 March 1973, and 8-9 April 19 73. Between 1968 and 1973, the Davis-Besse shoreline receded 20-60 feet, the range in recession rates was 4.0-12.0 feet per year and the weighted-average recession rate was 7.1 feet per year. Erosion due to single storm events (northeast-wind storms) has been measured at two sites near Davis-Besse. One site is located on the south shore of upper Sandusky Bay, about 15 miles to the southeast, and the other site is located on the south shore of Maumee Bay, about 17 miles to the west. The shore at both sites is a low-relief bank, 7 and 2 feet high respectively, composed of glaciolacustrine clay. The Sandusky Bay site receives relatively low amounts of wave energy during northeast-wind storms because the fetch (open water distance) to the
, northeast is only 2 miles. The Maumee Bay site receives
^ moderate to high amounts of wave energy during northeast-wind storms because the 32-mile fetch to the northeast enables the ~ wind to generate large waves. At both sites northeast-storm winds set up the lake. At the Sandusky Bay site, the bank face retreated 1. 5, 1. 7,
, (Y')N and 1. 8 feet during storms of 4 April 1976, 24-25 April 1976,
( and 6- 7 Augus t 1976, respectively (Carter and Guy, in preparation). This erosion occurred at a relatively low energy site during storms which had a maximum lake level and a wind set up 1-2 feet lower than the November 1972 storm. The erodible nature of the glaciolacustrine clay is illustrated by these erosion rates. Measurements made at Maumee Bay by J. A. Fuller (ODGS) record the amount of erosion that took place during a storm on 5-6 April 1982. The measurements were made within 20 feet of - the shoreline and show that erosion lowered the surface of the ~ undisturbed glaciolacustrine clay 0.8 feet (10 inches). The storm which caused this erosion had a maximum lake level and a wind set up comparabia to the Novemb r 1972 storm. Summarv - The Davis-Besse site has low relief, erodible shore materials, and a history of flooding. These factors suggest that the proposed disposal site is located in a geologically hazardous area. Dikes both existing and under construction will probably prevent flooding and erosion during most storms but during a severe storm, such as the November 1972 storm, these dikes could be breached.. It should be emphasized that the 1972 i flood was only a 50-year-flood event. If dikes failed during a 500-year flood event, which would be one foot higher than the l November 1972 storm, the disposal site would be flooded along I'T with 23,000 acres of Ottawa County. Flooding of and erosion at
, ")'l the proposed disposal site could disperse waste material over a wide area. Therefore, burial of waste material at Davis-Besse's proposed site is ill advised.
I
1 l
\
6 ; l 1
. REFERENCES CITED- -
)
Benson, D.J. , in preparation, Lake Erie shore erosion and l flooding, Ottawa County, Ohio : Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations. Carter, C.H., 1973, The November 1972 st6rm on Lake Erie: Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Information Circular No. 39, 12 p. 19 86, Frequency, magnitude, and duration of s' corm surges at the west end of Lake Erie: International Association of Great Lakes Research, 29th Conference on Great Lakes Research. Toronto, Ontario, p. 28. , Carter, C.H. , and Guy, D.E. , Jr. , f.n jpreparation, Lake Erie shore erosion: a -dctailed field study ,of processes; and i rates in the wave erosion i:one, 1976-1980. Cohn, B.P., and Robinson, J .E. , 1976, A forecast model for l Great Lakes water levels: Journal of Geology, v. 84, l
- p. 455-465.
- Pore, N.A., Perrotti, H.P., and Richardson, W.S., 1975, 1 Climatology of Lake Erie storm surges at Buffalo and Toledo:
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TDL-54, 28 p. . l U.S . Army Corps of Engineers , 1977, Report on Great 1:akes open-coast flood levels: Federal Insurance Administration, J( Department of Housing and Urban Development, 9 p. ,
.A s
. : n;.*t. *
/.* '
Donald E. Guy, Jr. Sworn to before me this 17th day of July,1986
.1;'L.u(.(.. i. 11. .
i \ SURLEY1 CARRCu, Notary fue: Stateof05to My Comrmsson Empres July 12,1990
<O l l
I t -. _.
(p.3 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICHARD R. PAVEY, GEOLOGIST,
~g ODNR, DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I am here today as a representative of the State of Ohio, in support of the State's petition to intervene in the waste burial plan proposed for the Davis-Besse site. My objective is to show the Commission that Toledo Edison's minimal, oversimplified presentation of the burial site's geology represents a fatal flaw in accurately assessing groundwater flow paths and the potential environmental effects resulting from this proposed plan.
My professional specialty for the past six years has been the study of glacial sediments. This experie6ce has included the examination of these sediments in six Midwestern states, including detailed thesis w'ork using modern research techniques which led to my Master of Science degree in geology at Purdue University in 1983. Since then, I have been employed by the Ohio Department of . Natural Resources' Division of Geoiogical Survey. My work involves detailed field and laboratory research in the glacial sediments of north-central Ohio. In this capacity, I have examined, in inch-by-inch detail, hundreds of exposures and excavations in glacial material, and thus I probably have a better working knowledge of this area's glacial and glaciolacustrine sediment deposition than any other geologist in the region. Based on my experience, I was recently promoted to coordinator of the Survey's glacial geology group of seven geologists. LO
I l( It is this experience with the region's geology that caused 'O immediate concern upon my initial reading at Toledo Edison's application for a waste disposal site at Davis-Besse. The company's assumption is that approximately 20 feet of
" impermeable" glacial sediments cover and protect the highly permeable bedrock. Toledo Edison's description of the sediments as a "glaciolacustrine deposit" over a "till deposit" is so oversimplified that it defies refutation. There is no specific data to refute, since no specific site work has been done. The geology of a site must be well-known before one can determine groundwater flows and water tables. Therefore, since properly collected and described data does not exist, I will describe the potential characteristics of the glacial sediments that may be found at the site and their potential impact on what could be multiple groundwater flow paths and multiple groundwater tables, based on my site-specific knowledge of the region which brackets the Davis-Besse site in all directions.
This area was covered by at least six distinct ice advances, leaving at least six distinctly different till deposits. A till deposit consists of sand, stones, and other materials deposited by glaciers as they advanced. In near-shore, shallow-bedrock areas like Davis-Besse's site, at least two or more tills are generally found. The tills are often separated by lake- or river-deposited sediments which I will describe later. Exposures of . these tills almost always i contain prominent, closely-spaced open joints, along which
- D v water flows. This flow is often indicated by rusty-brown l
1
(, oxidized zones bordering the joir~n in the otherwise gray mass of till. These joints are dominantly vertical, but can trend in any direction. They are often the sites of modern water seeps and springs, and are a source of water table recharge. In fact, the top of the totally saturated zone in these joints represents a water table. The individual till units are non-homogenous entities. They often contain coarse sand and gravel ' lenses, pipes, or seams that were formed by water that melted at the bottom of a glacier during till deposition. This water, under high pressure due to the weight of the ice, was squeezed to the edges of the glacier. As the faater was forced to the edges, it washed away the finer-grained constiteent of the till, creating
, paths in the soil. These highly permeable paths through the till can now serve as groundwater flow paths.
Besides containing till deposits, the Davis-Besse area also contains glaciolacustrine, or lake, sediments. Glaciolacustrine sediments were deposited between each ice advance in this region, since this land was a basin bounded by the watershed divide to the south and west and the next-advancing ice sheet to the north and east. These lake-deposited sediments are less compacted than the glacial tills, which were compressed by the weight of a mile-thick l l ice-sheet. Sediments deposited by a glacial lake (glaciolacustrine deposits) vary from nearly-impermeable pure clay to cobble (O deposits with pores big enough to thread a garden hose through
h.,h them. Fine-grained sediments, such as clay, were deposited in deep, still water. At progessively shallower depths, the coarser materials, from silt through sand to gravel, were deposited. Wave-eroded sand, gravel, or . cobbles were emplaced near the lake shores, their location being dependent on wave energy and the availability of erodible source materials. All of these sediments are present along the modern Lake Erie shores. Each sediment is commonly found in the area ' f ormerly covered by the glacial lakes, in which the Davis-Besse site was contained. In addition, streams flowing northward into the glacial lakes eroded upland tills and bedrock, providing coarse material for delta, estuary, and floodplain deposition in o,r near the lakes. At least a dozen lakes at different elevations occupied the Erie basin following the last ice advance that covered the Davis-Besse site. At least once, and probably several times between ice advances, the site was an area of potential j coarse-grained, permeable shoreline sediment deposition as lake levels dropped to and below modern Lake Erie. In addition, the Toussaint River may have deposited floodplain, delta, or estuary materials (silt, sand, or gravel) from upland erosion sources. Thus, there are several available mechanisms for deposition of thin, discontinuous, interconnecting layers in l the glaciolacustrine deposits that are coarser and more i permeable than clay. In addition, the low lake levels below modern Lake Erie provided a setting for the drying and I J E' desiccation of the fine-grained sediments, which produced l ' y27 cracks and joints in these deposits that could allow - high groundwater flow. All of the pertseable pathways discussed above may be thin and could have been missed by Toledo Edison's superficial investigation of the site's glacial sediments. However, nearly all of the water flow and recharge of the bedrock and intermediate water tables is probably through these interconnected paths. Toledo Edison contends that the geological characteristics of the site were determined in conjunction with reactor licensing. It must be stressed, however, that this previous study was undertaken primarily to determine geologic and
- g. groundwater parameters that would affect building construction, 9%
such as very large water inflows, and was not intended to address geologic factors that affect waste disposal. However, even within Toledo Edison's own inadequate geclogic descriptions and data, there are indications that the complexity of the glacial deposits and the associated water tables has not been understood. (See Exhibit J of the State's petition, hereby incorporated by reference.) As a trained glacial geologist, one needs only to look at the oversimplified boring logs in Toledo Edison's " Response to Items 7 & 12" (hereby attached) to find hints of this complexity. For example, boring B-124 reported "first water in hole" while still augering the glacial sediments. Where did this water come from? Is it the top of a water table in a joint? As
- noted in the State's petition, Toledo Edison has reported l
i hp " fissures" in the " gray and brown" glacial sediment. Do these Q represent brown oxidized zones of water movement along a joint ) 1 or some sediment of high permeability? Unfortunately, the j p, ! augering method used chewed up and blended potentially j different materials. Similarly, the " traces" of sand in the i i upper part of borings B-125 and B-130 may have been discrete ! thin sand layers in la'custrine material, but the sampling method masked their presence. With the inadequate unit descriptions in these logs, no actual analyses of samp'es, and _ no other data available, it is impossible to say that the glacial geology 6f the disposal site, and thus its groundwater system, is well understood. I hope that this ~ discussion has helped point out the need for the relief actions requestad in the State's petition. I thank the Commission for this opportunity to testify in the State's behalf. 2 RICHARD R. PAVEY C/ Sworn to before me this 18th day of July, 1986. _om CNt NOTARY PUBLIC l Penelope D. Hilton l Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 318 83 3_0 l
i i .:- (40 l l l Supporting Information
=.
. In Response to Items 7 & 12
/ I
,0..
l t ' l l .I WOODWARD.MOORRUUSE & ASSOCIATES INC. - Q
?- ;
CONSULTING ENCir4EERS AND GECLOGISTS , J
,e w -
1.0G OF 8ORING ,,_$ -]8. Y,,,,, SNEIT 5 0F 9 i f
'Qs *=sa c' e.a4 cv mo e
% DAVIS BESSE NPS. UNITS ? & 3
- =. r sec192 78 .
m...... LOCUST POINT. DH10 5 72. G o ZGLB
~ - - - .......... .....
.I,f.ealt.e l; ck. c.q . Ill. .
A.y .. .,1 O be.< 4 2 I f 7,r
~ ~ . - ..
/5vr i _ .. ..
c.t r.d. \ rtie .-s E..yi r ~d - 55 l
.ta .e C+ . /.p . o Ff.
i " W"QCf %/ ./ a. a,,-l MrCr.9 4* .Js.en b@ ' NO. S AMPLES I*'" - l "*" '* 715 l
. CASING Y sn b cI. 37[Lcl C aJ en A WATE R LEVE Ll'4*,'M 4 N"- o " ** /.1#
CASING MAMME R: IWEIGet7 " l CRep * *** "**ess% 0'"'fFM .I sAuett n - b-ier-l 44.r= ag m .. . , .. saustemw w ura. lwe ewt - iee- Taais J h. N CIv'n
' SWPLES '
.: r cam 85 " 4 g2' 3
* (Y E! EV.
V* {j j DECRFTION g ! . ;: g.jj gom:LL No flu:O. DUTH OF CAsl .
,, a. O I I -Is CASING BLOWS. FLuto LCSS. ETC .
L dr ll.s .7 1330 Leg l
.. _ D'.4 I -
l , -
- : i k f r,) A l'a'l ""N , 1
_ .pg 3m . w/ V m.. aq'c 1
- m s.sc . 9 Ill ~
~
^-
_- . .' __ '1 __ M8187 .
- : E 94+7 (m~. ;..
ym - . w y .+ J d l-t - l _._ 3 3 F.. g--- - J i j
-2.
_~' ~_
~
.- .s70 br el 0ran s.li 'CLhY Y _
- A ac%.a 0 -
- 3 _7 _
l _- . Sf g
- p. - n .s . Hf c.LAv :
(t A c.u si tida') 4 -- - WW _
~~
- St,B ~ ^
_ W GEM 5_ m OM
&J L l l b ;- ; ; 7 et.
b 6_ _ l.m e.m uS _ h m y,, ,. .
= ==
l
l
}* -
. .t .
.f' .. '
- l. '
WOODWARD.MOORHOUSE & ASSOCIATES, INC; $5- . . . CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS hN le.- LOG OF SORING. 3-M
- SHEET _ 21 OF i ~
SAMPLFS _I { m=; . OEPTH REMRO . d ELEV. gj DESCRIPTION SMLE - (DRILLING PLulO, DEPTM QF CASING,
)
- a. g CASING SLOWS, F*,UID LQK. ETCJ
-[
L
~"
6v.. n 'seIt y CJ.AY . .-
- 3 ij l ('u ,,cds, rsr nra) l l
56S - , \ i sc.4 - -
. 9}.,
$% -3, ) rl C.L.) V b "*' Cf/ A ! j
- * /
Vr= -$~ :
-9 b: .
f-r~*. _~_
- , - cy J , r. g w te ,- i o . . *
- iT
- s s ) ...
- 563 ,
'l S .ll t Cu..,) '
s.r. :
-f , _- ~
- r. -
._ g; g ff 4 se . L. 5 -
~
~
s; g o. 3'% sa. 6.L
.s $g 2, - -
g.e $t Y #4 I de Cf) h-st t It g
// -
Qt Ce*T* T8*=~r'*V '"
- 12. Y f*
- . pu t w ,.a g ll. 7 %
aews. No .!! 1 !* 54/ i Agye l'. lJ.o it r e .P 1 rau. : , I g, sr., a gs - .. : 1 ~ uns wer t.g. 3o. .g
- ( - ,
S 1 ns - % -
.e .
a -
. 5 g't'M, % ..t L.I<.
b ~ r M7 s ** .
~
~h'- Mr.h - ~ --
~
$1 ~
j o%L g S,e ' So - St.o - - - E ct a ,b Aet. m / ,ec
- 4 <.
- , y . Q /y m. t r>< . s.
, 53 - ;l 3 & eqsa sr e o _,,j3 - y-m- - -
is.. srast .M H2 - 2 r- no T,o.1n T'9. m -
** w n. v-s.
} } g u
b"1* *l};* Cee s ~j' c7 - 559 <r (drop
%, ,,*~. h.-
, X N
9.. p 6 p,ld k7 g L;.+ 61 - ' J . + . .' .,, jY_- f ,
&c - - --
c: s vo- - s't- L -- \v S$8 9 % IS - 7 3
.j '
a
--l5. - -- i.e. p:/ .
- - a >
';3 .
p- - - .:- a - \
- cs : : 3 ? A k d6scr.h-l{~q-557 & 7 ,
=j t$ g t. E3J!, rdt 2 2 e$
.__.J u :
Y 1 ( i r- , .2s.1 r
~
~'/Q r- --
3: - C 2 i-
WOODWARD MOORHOUSE & ASSOCIATES,INC. i* CONSULTING ENGINEER $ AND CEOLOGISTS LOG O F S O R I N G,,,,3,, ,/,&,3 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SHEET 1 OF //
**OA c I eeoA t t es.
ir , DAVIS BESSE NPS, UNITS 2 & 3 asc /92 51
' 'N soca s .o. oo.sv I.(T ...u LOCUST POINT. OHIO
.u.. .o g eo, .
f gg g
..... .-.o AM . A CSd/*<INC. . ff/ D if. Mb Pst f S . I N D IA *//, .20 Feb./97Y 2l &J. /97 *-
a u . ~... < ca ... ... .ac. w,. f40 BILE D2/LL i d o .'7 6 L. B -b / l00.! fcel W l kI i *" "* "" *' **' .2. k_ 1N . 1M ! n W Ster., A n f.-if* r o. sAr.,etnS
*'" 8' l"'*'"- ** 7 / . ~
CASING ll ; >/. IT) STEf L P't oE WATER LEVEL **as',p,g q, 7 , , , , 3* -ja,, ,j, CASING MAMMER:
~
WE IGH T - l L?RC# - sAvats n a.,e vp csi r7- R/;pri No Eszfry/e %k <_- 84,el. .,s:, . .S YG t/P- -- WA R N ER S AMPt.8 A M Auve n- l wg icwy /ug / A , l ,c,e Jy/j/, f. E.?s g,e J < L/r
. : % "TLES I w2 E DEPTH -
RD N
*3 (; ELEV. !! j V*
DESCRIPTION gg ! ; 3 jj! (DRILLING FLutO. CEPTH OF CASING,
+ O f I
[ t I sg CASING BLOWS, FLUlO LCSS. ETC.) youa:.,. L.::.> ',.,a c.co u ,~> -t ,
-5?O D/t' 37' o A N/& Cs/ 1 -
u 7748 c1.syt(p,ij gpre,n/}
, - 5, cf 552 b i
. Bo w; oWa,hY s
.5/oc .
SSa
> i - -
- .crm"A:n.?ei.va.U~/T!%
s J C. .f % Ms SAMflC S Ee:.4 V.w _ g,- 3.:fo e e - Pt n// /?+.~en:, oewirrin nm uger -
- -595 t er7To oig s -
J - M m m e j l - __3.-
- 577 ,
luim m N m pum gum Im eum im m DW m 4_ _ Z-5FC
- .Empimu, Hu- .ms
- M ,
M _ _ 5_
- 565 IWImulump enumme m GImu 9_ -Ery m _
l s- -
- 1. ._
3 . . .
WOOOWARD MOORHOUSE & ASSOCIATES,INC. CCNSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLCGISTS LOG OF BORINGJ /'.4.,f SHEET _ .'l OF. // SAMPLES k.< J.-[-g ., Z DEPTH REMARKS 1
'*O g ELEV. j g{j DESCRIPTION -
SCALE (DRILLING FLUID, DEPTH OF CASING.
- n. O CASING 8 LOWS, FLUID LOSS, ETC.)
- _3g3 pk Br ovy. HIC 5'Ify : :
{
~
Ch'/ g// m TemL _--
$cscrid7)~ ort frors dup c
- cu?TQs_ c/owrr 5 tY '
rji;~spp[/eg v/ere 2ecaver . ' - _- g _ t _ , _ i _ 79 j _g. A u s r ok i _ _ _
-5 82. -
=/__
_-st/ - _ /O-
- _seo
_ = 6.zO . __
- .=_
.tj_ -
./ / _
- _ g 71
- I
_-l '2. _
-57S -
- 13 _-
b'S I b 5 NY M
- : : c7;rt con nn nous SmF! -
~ ,a -
ing, arlYocim ' 5- s7c N M Std-bro"n - - - - - . CI!)Y 5 g g y .zz u Mcg x CH), fx Ne T /%sse n e#r* R r
+C If BM >+.1Tsf
-jgl ) % 9 vuc w rLa.* co-ru ci*6 l
l r -- 57S : I g u cy str.I_acew 1 q.. - _- , fx ! T - 0 l
- _ _ > \
M
& 57a + : g ;/.r. !. . L ae.<.a. c.1 *y - a ul us ?:%! I = f' -
\
.,..- . WOODWARD-MOORHOUSE & AOSOCIATES,INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS LOG OF BORING,,,,,$,,--/,,(, ,g,,,, , SHEET J, O F,,,,// f'[ q e*f g ELEV.
=
e u:. 3 jgj DESCRIPTION , DEPTH SCALE SAMPLES REMARKS (DRILLING FLUID.DEPTM OF CASING. J &0 CASING BLOWS FLUID LOSS.ETCJ
= " ~
- ll43d. TVy brnni CAAtf -
ky l.
(,"y,'Twwe<
*^
3o Frw c4aeT ~ , , fu a w-- se to" le - - %e j3 T V ---
--17-- 0 facker PexefromeTer '.
.,,., T . c: - . M- . -
u 4 < ,7 y > +.s rs,=
%q ,
u
~
~
c 22 7 -
/7
.sn q, M1 q - !.w.-v n c u y 5 , e ie (cn,) -
n to ek'ar- P ae, , ,am-
=
=
=
- (z ? .a. " s.o -rs
= ~ -
It- i , cL 5-571 S E E N /0 m - - c
- : : c
- - /w,
' .g o -
) - . 6E -no %%' t% sq E E M
"= e 4 :- cuyccn - -
p
'*"""'T~'*'
- Q 3
- 2. s nr
- = 4 h
_ -A/ _ _ i .
--se -
- : M f 5 N
. . g ,.
- E E c 8 m
5-SCt 5 5 '" A
//as.d Y Y.3,,an 5,jf-U - -
y eseicer Penc % ~eY'" c
~
Y(Y i
!^"
3 d -to f'4 fr-el _ .e 3 f -
~
,9 TV 'f. 5 "T*:F I
- -Sc 7
% D.s$ '
73
~ ~ ~
=
- _- 4 /f
_- . - t 'l -
- Cuy Lcy tu eu - -
^
4 nc k& f* * * " '* ' h_^ f ~ s u ' to Q' ^ _ _y iI op >, v.s 1.2f
- -scg -
n~f :
- n q(, a, qu u i
~_
q $2 /. .
. == .
)
l __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ -- J
..%,w..,......u...,...... , . . . . . . . . . . , , . . .
CONSUt.TlfdC ENGINGC n3 AND GEOLCGISTS - LOG OF 00ftlNG s# - / 2 '"' _ SHEET .@._OF // C A?. PL ES [rfi ,.- u - REMARKS
$' rl C DEPTH ELEV. {g j,, DESORIPTION SCALE IDnit.LI 4G FlutD. DCPTH CF CASINO.
v.
, u.c g CASitdG 8 LOWS. FLUlO t.CO3 ETC.)
3;y &' fq brm %. S - { 5 4 ,
)v , 7 gh.., p ,
_ Cws a-), / Tace - - _ t rc:wr & mmne Cu -u. 5: '~E ' A { { 'A f'*MMC~Ts~i=
- ?. _
. t\
xq . V, cf.y>
- - - 1 s .
sg3 -
~
- .e .
g ,
'~~
~
p.4 ps. - f rn.m. 510g ~'W - g z. , a ? SGt : : < zo-Fe b- 74'
- i. y ,i -
wk,.- ",r
. b - -
6'. ' 3 s7ap S m y=/.5'y /5cc k
. s- .
i .-
.V - -
su. d<s,- *>~"e:ve .i r ro!. Q~. Al' tMy ,,,. nsa, _q_ - ccR/NJ S&fc:rl/1$ GN
,1/ ,red 7y 0 9 +' C .J n
'2 ~-SC/ -
- - O * '-* * ' N : :
- f.
2 w .acu ,rhr c ,.
~~
,, - . .,c_ .
k.'.^ (;- - - pu erns.ons x R. ca,.c w,u.ar _ 3 , H.
%_ - ~, tr~ y . s
~ g 's.
~
// -
_cco
;E (m d / Vc,;, a',a ) - -
=
r'
~
/O ~ .-- :: piar - e A s. u t _ _
~
r
~
I '0 *
-
- liv e s.u s o & : : **
/c - -es .
/>- ec.
. -3/.-
'5 ~ 559 % : : G g
/7- - -
..g
[ 14- - -: ec - c
,- " , g : E b N -
j
? .:- - 37 % . ,
25 - --- % - - .
.S5 c- q*,
s-py- c
- s
/o _ ~n - , & c- v. ~
%. u .
/.- .: .
~
~
/ 5-77 - ssy Qi - -
- s : :
/C - -
i fu- -
/ .r. -
l - ::
-37
-^ - ~
ff[ -- c c. cc
/C - : : -
/7- - -
1 ? -i % l
? : *
-/ .T---l ._t
, e.
p -o S '- e
4' , . . . , . WOODWARD.MOORHOUSE & ASSOCIATES,INC,
;4 . * .
{ CONSULT 1NG ENGINEERS AND CEO,LOGISTS t.OG OF 80 RING _8* / 32,,,,,,,* .. SHEET 1 ~ O F._d? c ,=an ct
. cs .o -
w: T DAVIS BESSE NPS. UNITS 2 & 3 p'9(V ,=. LOCUST POINT, OHIO . ... . .. 4,6c / 9262 g 74, 9 ( zg t o) , A7~2 ASSO - 1~/-) C l .-., .7"n/.%anA< :md & , I 8 F~e b co ... .~.1
. L to &4.14 -
Nof;f.e. Ds'tI s -So 70.0 //. I?.8/J.
*""* "" ** *'2 n : ~r B he //eu.) We-, de&g # o h .. / NO. SAMPL ES *'
6 N "My// f 1
. :- - CASING CASING HAMME R:
- d. [,,,
,,,g
[WElGHT - l DRCe' .-- WATER LEVEL l * * * * ' = = '
'**? , / '
"/.*p [I SAunt.E n ?s.. An s.:/,V **cmu - N C de ra b+ rre l ***Y
.n:ro.
fi s A r r-sauptenwauvea-I weicwr /45 //s. l emea 30 a D . Me /* / Svstes
=! '
w-CEPTH - REMARKS h h SCALE ! r h h!l (DRILLING FLUID. OEPTH CF CASING, J a. U 3 : g ZI3 CASING BLOWS. FLUID LCSS. ETC.) Nh I77W .5"/ ,. [ BO 11.Xr 1.oc./>d** Coo 4.i .an 5 SM z y- gggy
-~
;Cl- Y W ),
- bk -
G. 9 seg
, 1 % g edg :/u.4 M ,
O 4 / 34 CSrs . /J' F#4. ') < (? . .f~ ' H.g Q_ r 73 . : : # e. , x c. 4 g yt. pr
- r's
- 3 >. ^. ,
#4/r1. .O.M [ bd ouco s:~ a c - s w e i
[ g g*yer,y.,,c, w
+
/rn.c p j
.:= f . -
1 8 f7 7,, f N~, ll
. g c . z ,, y,3 c 2 : i % 4 3,,
- t-) g g g p o Cht"f f E '". ' ,, . c.v f 7/ h. * '
T ~
'ClV/ Y Y -4_ .
ctAy (ct),'hst et h. } } g
? ~
Ed '% ^ ^ ' ' ' N 18 no - - 7 p ., ,, s. rs e
- -s- , y g Putr F.*s.~,u.
_- n g 4
//
.e .
. 5y -
- / Z-
~:
-6
,w .d K CLAY :
I:L), "Irac &
- b N: zt
~ _ _- Q a..
d &, ,$,L J '
- 1 .
-....t = z. . ei !" M* ..
^'*s '
. WOOOWARD-MOORHOUSE & ASSOCIATES,INC-. ? '
CONSULTING ENQiNEERS AND GEOLocisTs LOG OF BORING $ - / 3.Q - SHEET 2 OF 8 (;.i .: SAMPLES ELEV. IE DESCRIPTION DEPTH E - gj SCALE (DRILLING FLutD, DEPTH OF CASING,
. a.g ,
CASING SLOWS, FLUID LOSS, ETCJ
-i f4
,e . -
- 50 i-
- - m ig
~~
p.,a % cLWG-L)-
~~
8- - 5.
.sm (~ pavJ. ' 5 -
5 9
, \
- : : if N = 4 z. l scs , . - -
7: m me Qs zr e,) [*e . 4 S* *s a poc,ar g ~cr e use-w
=
=
=
_ co r . -
- - er i
~~
/*d Am*'- C< l$ ~~I# _ -
8 cL4y (ct)S 1%ck : : g tt:la/na-SA
,4~ ~ 5 _ a g fye.$$.0L.e.t r.r-
-ea .ii . - a L,
- ? E 4 s.:i s~.g , ~e^ '~'
g -- - _ u .r a n . ii. w i o'~ : : y}2~ i :./.i,4d aA a- ee, - - iruin. is,aa. u.
- 8. - -
de'I/raf -f rsj dd f. 7 : : (Q. ~'. 1
- lb ~ - - '
l
/4 -
~
5" ge/,,J u eA of4 '//l l .: -
-ig - .s
- ' ' ' . " '4 n n a n c.
s bC vironmental HNH[MdRSHNL Affairs Specialist io Division of Wildlife WO .
- ' ' ' . " '4 n n a n c.
I i i ) h 1
f',% DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHN VOYTEK, JR., CPG, CGWP w.;_ ADMINISTRATOR AND PRINCIPAL HYDROGEOLOGIST, DIVISION OF WATER, GROUND WATER SECTION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I come before the Commission as a representative of the State of Ohio, supporting the State's petition to intervene in the proposed burial of radioactive waste at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant. I am here to support the State's E contention that the proposed burial of this radioactive waste l can pose a significant danger to the environment, especially to l the area's ground wat,er resources. I hope that my testimony will assist the Commission to understand the complex nature of f ' ground water at the Davis-Besse site. My testimony will primarily address questions 6, 7, and 8 of the Order of May 3'O, 1986. Placing our wastes in the ground is no longer taken lightly. These past waste handling practices of burying waste and then forgetting our responsibilities to the environment has finally stopped, but only after the pollution of much of our ground water. Landfills built in the early 70's, using the most sophisticated technology known at the time, now degrade the ground water resource that lies below them. We have only begun to understand the complexity of our ground water resource. QUALIFICATIONS
.g
~
I hold a Bachelor's of Science degree in Geology and have over eleven years of experience, practicing the science of
O ground water. The American Institute of Professional Geologist (AIPG) has certified me as a Certified Professional Geologist. My certification number is 4777 and was issued August, 1980. l AIPG grants ne the privilege to use the initials " CPG" after my name, indicating that I meet all of the requirements set forth in their constitution and by-laws. As an AIPG member, I abide by the code of professional ethics set by my peers and colleagues. I am also a charter member of a group of individuals that have earned the title cf " Certified Ground Water Professional" (CGWP). This honor was bestowed on me after I demonstrated to the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers
- g. (AGWSE), a Division of the National Water Well Association 4
(NWWA), that I meet their standards and requirements as an expert in the science of ground water. I have authored nearly a dozen articles on the subject of ground water, co-authored many ground water research reports, ! assisted in the writing of two textboo.ks on ground water and l have lectured at many universities and colleges in North America on the subject of ground water. A listing of the l articles and textbooks that I have published is attached to this document (see Attachment A]. Currently, I am the administrator and principal hydrogeologist for the Ground Water Section of the Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The section is
. charged with the duty of collecting scientific information about and reporting on the State's ground water resources.
hl Before I became the administrator of the Ground Water
, Section, I was the Director of Technical Services for the National Water Well Association and the Association of Ground Water Scientist and Engineers. My duties as the Technical
- Services Director included teaching and lecturing about ground water, performing timely research on ground water related i problems, writing technical articles for three ground water periodicals published by the Association, reviewing many technical articles that were submitted to these periodicals as j to their technical content and accuracy, a'ad finally, answering
- thousands of technical inquiries that were received by the i .
l Association. l , Prior to my position at NWWA, 'I was a technical \ (.}, ~ {' representative for a' manufacturer of ground water equipment, an environmental scientist and hydrogeologist for a major international engineering consulting firm, the NW district
~ geologist for the Ohio EPA and a graduate assistant at Bowling i
Green State University, Department of Geology i GENERAL l I would like to begin my testimony by quoting Judge Holmes ; in his concurring remarks of Cline v. American Accrecates ' t ] Corp., a major decision of Ohio water law, decided by the i Supreme Court of Ohio on December 31, 1984.
" Scientific knowledge in the field of hydrology has 1
advanced in the past decade to the point that water
! tables and sources are more readily discoverable, i
-O rai- x e t as- c-relationship of t 6ti a the tapping of underground water to ta- c=- a re ce the existing water level."
i
l (DQ During my eleven years in the ground water industry, I have witnessed the rapid advancement of knowledge and understanding to which Judge Holmes was referring. Not only can this new t knowledge predict cause and effect relationships for removing ground water out of the ground, but it can also predict the l effects to the ground water resource resulting from placing wastes at or below the ground surface. It is difficult to summarize all that we have learned about our ground water resource during this past decade. We have learned one unforgettable lesson though. The once accepted-practice of burying our wastes beneath the ground is no longer a viable option without first fully understanding the geology and the ground water conditions of the area. C.. . The scientific journals and news media are filled with examples of failure after failure of landfills, lagoons and impoundments, the results of which degrade the local ground water supply to the point of concern for the public's health. j Experts such as Dr. Jay Lehr have appeared before Congress and testified that over 5% of our ground water is already polluted. That figure may double or triple within the next five years as more of our past mistakes are discovered. The Commission should take note though, that when wastes were buried, the decision to do so was based on the most current, most advanced technology at the time. We can not eliminate the actions of the past, but we can not condone or
,e repeat them either.
Q 1
'[To Over 50% of Ohio's population relies on ground water as its
'O source of fresh, potable drinking water. Ground water accounts for over 95% of all of the fresh water on the face of the Earth. Once polluted, the expense of removing the contaminant from the ground water is extremely costly.
GROUND WATER LEVELS AND MOVEMENT AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE Toledo Edison has demonstrated a very limited knowledge of the geology and hydrogeology of the site upon which they plan to bury wastes. Their knowlege is based on a few soil borings that were taken during the construction phase of the project, over 15 years ago. These borings were not conducted as part of a hydrogeologic investigation.
.. _j Ground water at this site is a very dynamic system. Ground water levels and ground water flow patterns respond to many factors such as climatic conditions, lake and river levels, the amount of vegetation present, and ground water use in the area. At the Davis-Besse site, water levels are in constant flux with nature. The Toussaint River, the flavarre Marsh, and Lake Erie, as well as general ground water usage, all cause the local ground water system to be in a constant state of change, depending upon the season. Because of this constant change and because the aquifer system is very complex, the ground water flow direction and the general ground water level in the area will need some explanation.
There are two distinct aquifer systems present at the O Davis-Besse site, the upper unconsolidated till aquifer system
l l ci,
- W$ and the deeper regional limestone aquifer system. I would like U to describe the upper consolidated till aquifer system first.
The till aquifer system is the aquifer which is the closest to the surface. The till aquifer system consists of thin, but i significant, lenses or layers of permeable sandy deposits of l l glacial and lacustrine (or lake) deposits interbedded with clay soils. The till aquifers range in thickness from 15 to 30 feet 1 i thick in the area. I During the dry summer months, the uppermost portion of the I till aquifer is typically depleted until precipitation occurs at the site. During the wet spring and winter months, water levels will be very close to the surface, responding to i
. rainfalls which are more than adequate to replenish them.
4 During these periods of rainfall, the till aquifers are capable of accepting only a limited amount of water. The remainder of the water is left as surface water until it seeps into the ground or is evaporated into the atmosphere. The water levels in the upper unconsolidated aquifers will also respond to the water levels of large bodies of water such I I as the Toussaint River and Lake Erie. During periods of high ) lake levels, peak discharge of the river, or flooding, water levels in the till aquifers will rise in response to bank storage. Bank storage is water that is collected by the till aquifers during these periods of high water levels, then slowly released back to the river during periods of low water levels. j
- The presence of a till aquifer system at the Davis-Besse io site has been documented by Toledo Edison in the log of boring I 1
f. h number B-125. A copy of the boring is attached to this document [see attachment B]. The log describes traces of fine sand and gravel lenses in the till soil. These individual lenses are probably interconnected to each other and will act as one of the recharge mechanisms for the deeper, regional aquifer. The water levels in these thin sandy deposits have not been accurately recorded during the drilling of these test borings. Davis-Besse has not providod'any Wat5r level data on the upper aquifer sys tem. ' a t the site, but f rom "experienc'e with other similar sites along the lake, water levels will enerally be very close to the surface most of the year. , The Department of Natural Resources soil survey of Ottawa County shows the soil in the Davis-Besse area to be'one of two types: Nappanee silty clay loam or Toledo silty clay. The seasonal high sater table for Nappanee 'ciity cla loam stands between depths of one and two feet in the winter, spring, and extended wet periods. The seasonal high water table for Toledo silty clay is near or above the surface of the ground during the winter, spring, and extended wet periods. Toledo soils are rated as' unsuitable for landfills due to ponding. Both soi1~ types .have severe limitations for landfill siting due to the wetness of the soil. The actual surface direction of the movement of the ground water in this upper unconsolidated aquifer will be dictated by the aquifer its, elf as well as~the head or driving force.that is exerted on the aquifer. The ground , vater movement in the till
l l i l h.5% aquifer system at the Davis-Besse site generally flows ! y !
\
northeast towards Lake Erie and Navarre Marsh or south towards the Toussaint River, depending on the particular portion of the Davis-Besse site considered. This general movement can be reversed if Lake Erie and the Toussaint River are at higher than normal levels, since high water levels in one or the other will drive the ground water flow in the opposite direction. The ground water at the proposed burial site-itself could flow in either direction. The second aquifer is the deeper limestone regional aquifer. The deeper limestone regional aquifer is recharged primarily from the water that is stored and collected in the upper aquifer system. As water enters the upper aquifer system, it is held temporarily in storage by the soils. The water begins to travel downward in response to gravity, until it reaches the water table or the zone in which all materials are saturated with water. From there, the water can move in any general surface direction while simultaneously moving straight downward. As water in the upper aquifer accumulates, the head or pressure in the upper aquifer is higher than that of the deeper aquifer. This difference in head will result in a net movement of water from the upper aquifer to the deeper aquifer. At the Davis-Besse site, this movement can be slow because the head in the upper aquifer and the deeper aquifer are similar most of the year, but the net result of water movement will be from the i l l 1 l
I l h% upper aquifer to the lower aquifer over a lengthy period of l time. The- deeper regional limestone aquifer system supplies nearly the entire Northwest section of Ohio with ground water. Its resource is valuable 'not only as the most important source of drinking water for the people of Northwestern Ohio, but also creates curiosities such as the Blue Hole, a natural ground water phenomenon located just minutes from this room. The water level at the Drvis-Besse site for the deeper limestone aquifer is controlled primarily by Lake Erie. During periods of high lake levels, the water level will rise in response and lake water will replenish the aquifer. During normal lake levels, the water level will drop somewhat and flow h%Q out into the lake, discharging ground water into Lake Erie. Other factors such as heavy ground water pumping in the area may cause the water levels for the site to change.
. i Generally, the head or water level in this deeper aquifer lies about 10 to 20 feet below ground level. This level can be different at different locations in the area, and is dependent on the elevation of the ground from which it is measured.
Water levels in the area for the deeper aquifer will never fall more than a few feet below the level of the lake. Therefore, the ground water at Davis-Besse's proposed burial site can move in several directions. The water in the upper aquifer, which at this site is likely. to be near or at the surface during some seasons of the year, will flow north ( Yf3 V toward Lake Erie and Navarre Fiarsh, or south toward the _9 E.
i l l Toussaint River. It also flows downward into the deeper aquifer. The deeper aquifer flows toward Lake Erie during low water levels and away from the lake during high water levels. Thus, any contaminants reaching the upper aquifer are likely to travel into the deeper aquifer, Lake Erie, Navarre Marsh, and/or the Toussaint River. The speed with which the water, and the contaminant in the water, flow through the soil or the aquifer depends on the permeability of the aquifer. Generally speaking, the coarser a material is, the higher permeability will be. Permeability is usually measured in units of cm/sec. The deeper aquifer below the Davis-Besse site is a very
- g. good aquifer due to its high degree of secondary permeability.
Q;;h () This aquifer is highly permeable due to the cracks, crevices and solution channels that have formed in the rock over time, allowing ground water to flow through it more freely and more quickly. In fact, some of the most rapid ground water flows on record have been measured in aquifers similar to the one below Davis-Besse. Toledo Edison's records confirm the permeability of the deeper aquifer. According to Toledo Edison's 1970 Environmental Report, "The bedrock is quite pervious, mainly in the upper 30-50 feet and contains open joints and bedding planes. In some locations, the joints and bedding planes have been enlarged to solution." l Simply put, the bedrock is highly fractured, providing a (h-rapid movement of ground water once it reaches the aquifer. If l
i l 1 l 1 r- I (Q a contarinant were to escape from the site and travel through w/ the till aquifers and into the deeper limestone aquifer, the l l contaminant would move rapidly with the local regional ground i water flow. An illustration of how these ground water principles affect I the operation of landfills can be taken from the case study of a landfill that was constructed in Wisconsin. Although Wisconsin is some distance away from the Davis-Besse site, it I is in the same geologic province as Ohio, hence the geology and hydrogeology of the areas are similar. In 1984, Gordon and Huebner (see Attachment C) reported on the failure of several " zone-of-saturation" landfills located
, c.
in Wisconsin. A " zone-of-saturation" landfill is a landfill i 5:b V that is constructed into the saturated portion of the soils (also called the water table). This is similar to the action that Toledo Edison has proposed. The Wisconsin sites are similar in hydrogeology and climate to the Davis-Besse site. They contain many of the same type of glaciolacustrine soils and glacial tills, which were deposited under geologic environments similar to that at the Davis-Besse site. The investigation by Gordon and Huebner found that many so-called " homogeneous" clay sites were in fact not homogeneous at all. They discove.ed a one to three order of magnitude I difference between the permeability of these so-called
" homogeneous" clay soils as reported from laboratory analyses in the late 70's and the permeability that was measured in-situ Of. by relatively new technology of the mid 1980's. During the
i
)
. i Q. laboratory testing typically performed in the 1970's, the fine sand layers were mixed together with the clay soils, reducing !
the permeability of the soil as measured in the laboratory and ; providing a false reading. Although the laboratory analysec l had previously shown the soils to be impermeable, the landfills ; were leaking. These drastic differences between the reported laboratory results and the measurements made under actual field conditions can be attributed to very thin sand seams and lenses in the soil and/or fractures and cracks in the clay. Lake Erie at one time covered the entire county, making the presence of these sand lenses ever more likely to occur. The q :. sand beach that is currently at the interface of lake and , shoreline had to pass over the site at least once and perhaps several times during the last 10,000 years. As the interfaces l I passed over the site, beach sand was surely deposited on the l site. As the lake level became deeper, the sediments became l finer and clay sized particles were deposited. As the lake 1 l level retreated, the sand beach was again deposited at the site. This sequence occurred over and over again. , In addition to leakage through naturally formed sand lenses, cracks and fractures in the clay can form due to a 1 reaction between saturated clay and the waste from a landfill. This reaction removes water molecules from the clay structure. I l When this happends, once saturated clays become dehydrated and i shrink, forming cracks and fractures in the clay, much like a i c0 -- mud puddle does after a rain shower. This chemical exchange (
. _ . _ _ _ _ . __ _ . - - _ _ _ ._ __ _ . _ _ - ~ . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-h can be permanent, even if the dehydrated clays are soaked in fresh water.
Better, more extensive site investigations than the one that took place at Davis-Besse have in the past missed enormous ! underground structures that played a significant role in polluting local ground water . An example of this was reported by Gordon and Huebner in 1984. At one of the Wisconsin sites they studied, an excavation revealed an extensive ancient buried beach ridge, consisting of permeable coarse sand deposits buried within the till soil. They discovered this feature in an excavation AFTER 46 soil borings were drilled at the site, all of which missed this significant structure.
, , , A dolomite aquifer at this Wisconsin site, similar to the gh h limestone aquifer that is below Davis-Besse, is now polluted.
Pollution occurred less than one year after the landfill began receiving wastes. Gordon and Huebner (1984) also discovered that the till soil at this site in Wisconsin was indeed stratified, containing very small seams of sand and silt and even tiny fractures and joints. These fractures or cracks in the clay remain even af ter the clayey tills become saturated with water again. Johnson (et al., 1984) and Pollock (et al., 1983), (see Attachments D and E) in separate studies of landfills located in the same geologic province as Ohio and in glacial material similar to the Davis-Besse site, discovered this same one to
;. O three orders of magnitude difference between field and i
I m. l (.,K? laboratory measurements of soil permeability. The laboratory measurements were consistently lower. Texas A & M University studies (Attachment F) have found that clay soil and clay liners have leaked many times faster than designers intended the= to. According to Dr. Kirk Brown,
. . . some of the chemicals that are being placed in landfills could cause them (clay liners) to leak 1,000 ' times faster than designers anticipated."
Based on our knowledge of the Davis-Besse area, it is likely that water and water contaminants will move through the
~
soil into the upper and deeper aquifers. Although the soil in the area is predominantly clay, this clay contains joints and
, . . coarse sand materials, as explained earlier, which are more k(,A) permeable. This is explained in more detail in Rick Pavey's i testimony. A landfill placed* into soil of this nature is i
likely to pollute the ground water as rainfall or other surface water passes through the landfill and carries contaminants with t it as it percolates into the ground water. In areas such as Davis-Besse, where the water tables are close to the surface during certain seasons, the landfill will actually be sitting in the ground water at times gathering contaminants. Toledo Edison argues that clay at the disposal site will prevent the waste from seeping into the ground water. In its response to the State's Petition, the company assigns a permeability value of less than 1 x 10 -6 cm/see to the soils at the Davis-Besse site. The company fails to mention, ll however, how that permeability was determined, whether it was ( I
l l l c. M- meaaured in-situ or in a laboratory, or what methodology was used to determine that number. Therefore, if the company's estimate resulted from laboratory testing, the company's estimate of permeability could be too low by an order of ' magnitude of 1 to 3. To phrase this in more easily understood )
-6 terms, 1 x 10 cm/sec is approximately 0.0028 feet / day. If the permeability of the soil in question is incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude as suggested by current research, the permeability vould jump to 2.83 feet / day.
Toledo Edison stated in its response that sand seams are not evident at this site. However, one of Toledo Edison's own documents indicates the presence of sand layers at Davis-Besse. Attachment B is a log of boring number B-125, , Lg,.-;~ drilled in 1974 by ATEC and Associates, Inc. It indicates several sand layers at elevations 576, 574, 568, and 566, to name a few. Once waste is in the sandy layers or in the fractures and cracks in the clay, waste products move quickly through the soil horizon. According to the 1970 Environmental Report (ER) for the Davis-Besse Plant (a portion of which is Attachment G)', the combined thickness of the soils at Davis-Besse is only on the order of 20 feet. This 20 feet of soil will be of little consequence if sand lenses and fractures are indeed present. It will take little time for a waste product to migrate into the underlying bedrock aquifer. Once in this aquifer, the contaminant will be difficult to co trace. This is due to the fractures in the rock and the
bedding planes that were mentioned in the Environmental Report. The tainted ground water will follow these fractures and bedding planes, offering a path of lowest resistance to flow. We are unable to predict where these bedding planes outcrop ) under the lake. Perhaps the discharge point is near one of the numerous drinking water supply intakes. We do not know the answer to that question. Toledo Edison argues that the radioactive content of this waste is not of any great consequence. However, when large 1 amounts of waste are buried in one location, the enviromental risk multiplies. When a plume of water passes through a small y, amount of waste and picks up its contaminants, these contaminants may not be carried in cerncentrations high enough to harm the environment. However, if the plume passed through a larger amount of waste, it is likely to absorb more contamination. Therefore, even though the larger amount of waste contained contaminants in concentrations no greater than that of the smaller amount of waste, the water passing through the larger amount is likely to become more polluted.
SUMMARY
I hope that I have provided the Commission with some insight into why the State is concerned about this matter. Ground water is a complex science. Toledo Edison says it has providt' an extensive geologic and hydrologic study of the site ( p( / at the time of construction. It is my professional judgment
,r.
Q^ and opinion that Toledo Edison does not fully understand the 1 ground water situation that exists below its facility. This is not the first time Toledo Edison has promised that the solid waste produced by the plant would not harm the public. In a 1970 licensing hearing, Toledo Edison opposed the. intervention of a citizen who was concerned about burial of waste at the Davis-Besse site. The lawyer for Toledo Edison said that waste disposal was a topic more properly addressed in another proceeding. However, he also promised that solid waste would not be buried at the Davis-Besse plant. These are the l words he used: l There will be no disposal of solid wastes at this particular facility, nor will there be any disposal of
, . . solid wastes performed under the proposed construction f, permit or operating license for which we,have applied.
See Attachment H, which is an excerpt from the transcript of that hearing. The State of Ohio already has two facilities which are polluting ground waters with radioactive wastes. The Fernald Feed Materials Processing Center at the borders of Hamilton and Butler Counties and the Goodyear Uranium Processing Plant near Piketon, Ohio are threatening the public's health by polluting the local ground waters with , radioactive wastes. We do not need another polluting facility.
(-)'[p I wish to thank the Commission for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State.
/,I
~ !/ ,
)
, JOHN VO K, .
,/
Sworn to before me this 18th day of July, 1986. _Once . paM NOTARY PUBLit Penelope D. Hilton Notary Pub!!c, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 318 88 (,:L-l l I
g+9 y 1Q3 ATTACHMENT A
D
\s)
SUMMARY
OF JOHN VOYTEK'S QUALIFICATIONS l
- Certified Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional Geologist. ;
- Certified as a Ground Water Professional by the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers j l
- Co-Chairperson of NWWA/NACE Task Force on Water Well
- Corrosion.
- Member of the National Water Well Association.
- Editor for the Ohio Section Newsletter of AIPG. ;
l
- Licensed Water Treatment Plant Operator (Class I-Ohio)
TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND ADDITIONAL TRAINING l Ground Water Training Course, Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN. Over 300 hours of practical problem solving experience. 1977. ,gzso Ground Water and Water Well DevelopNent. University of Wisconsin Extension. A five day training course in the design and construction of water wells. 1984. Water Well Design and Construction. National Water Well Association. A three day training course for Professional Engineers. Not only did Mr. Voytek participate in the course, but he also taught sections of this course four times. 1984 to 1985. Ground Water and Well Technology. National Water Well Association. A three day short course on the fundamentals of ground water. Not only did Mr. Voytek participate in the course, but he also taught sections of this course seven times. 1984 to 1986. Design, Installation and Sampling of Monitoring Wells. National Water Well Association. A three day short course on the design and installation of ground water monitoring wells. Not only did Mr. Voytek participate in the course, but he also taught sections of this course three times. 1984 to 1986. Safety at Hazardous Waste Sites. National Water Well Association. A five day short course on safety to hazardous
])
. waste sites. Not only did Mr. Voytek participate in the course, but he also taught sections of this course twice.
1984 :: 1986.
bg Underground Storage Tank Management. National Water Well Association. A three day short course on the fundamentals of managing underground storage tanks. Not only did Mr. Voytek participate in the course, but he also taught sections of this course twice. 1985 to 1986. Hydrogeology Summer Field Program. Ohio University, Athens, OH. Instructor, 1982. i 1 Wat'er Well Completion and Testing Technology Course. ! University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Instructor, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982. Summer Field Programs. Wright State University, Dayton, OH. Instructor, 1982 and 1983. PUBLICATIONS "Hard Drilling Through Hard Rock." The Water Well Journal, February, 1986.
"From Jeremiah's Well." (a monthly column) The Water (f., Well Journal, since February, 1986.
"How Deadly." Water Well Journal, April 1985.
" Consideration in the Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells." Ground Water Monitoring Review, Volume 3, Number 1.
" Transport and Recovery of Hydrocarbons in the Subsurface Environment- a slide show." American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
"The Earth-Coupled Heat Pump." The New England Builder, December, 1984
" Monitoring and Evaluating Your Well's Performance."
Proceedings of the AWWA 1984 Annual Conference.
" Application of Downhole Geophysical Methods in Ground Water Monitoring." Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration. NWWA.
l Textbooks
" Groundwater and Wells." Johnson Division of UOP, St.
Paul, MN, 1986. Dr. Fletcher Driscoll Editor. l " Water Well Design Handbook" Currently being written for ! Van Nostrand Reinehold Publishers, New York, NY. Scott Hurlbert, Editor.
l t
. . s,.g I -
.-n i,
i 1 i 4 i a i 1 4 1 l 1 1 I J f
)
i (f': .. 1 sY i ATTACHMENT B i. O I 1 l 1
! 1 1
i 4 t O I 4 i i
- i i
1 i 1 l c!O t
. .. .. .., .v.
/ CONSULTING ENGINEER $ AND CEOLOGISTS r . e- .....11... ==
7 F*0 A CT
%f'h DAVIS BESSE NPS. UNITS 2 & 3 paedCthe "
V . , , , . . . . . . . . . . . , -
/ LOCUSTPOINT OHIO g g, .
...u .c. . ........... ..... . ..
A .1~ e. AC 1 fl
- f. INC ll. HA ?st. /.S / A) /).9 A .20 f.o.S. /
- T.;
na.u.c a ow-=e a , c.a Yc.h . /?7Y' :oca/
.ei.o.ea... e ,t.
} f*eh A V.S In 4 *"*~' "
M m. Hm n t/ cm r Artf]-iL*_____ _
CASING M * >/ . II) $783 L P *n 0 E WAI
~
CASING MAMME R: WEIGH T - l t,'RC# ---" ***** -
,.s ~
s Aunt.s n -.e / FD %. .u i -n u - L No
. e. .u.
us u r* ;esoo e e_m Jern. C ..v w :. ] . s,:.., ;. : e i '] tu2 .= 0 CE.:TH 5'" RE.VARXS - 3
" j(
ELEV. [* j CE3CRIFTICN gggLg ! , g g,jf [0gitync sLUlO. CEPTH OF CASING. " , V c'. 0 I j t I sg CASING 6 LOWS. 8LulO LCSS. ETC.) 4 . .a L. .i : u .; s 2 : w .aa c.:: zu>,~>.c ,
- 4
~4 '
9It' 37 oYoA s iY/C' .;">/t/
- 590
~
~
u= 774 8 cl-Ay'(fi// MATertol) Es9st2 l =
=
=
. a,,~; oldtM' a,G/soi!'
,_ 1
.St:c.c ,
j - - - S6 ,, - -
.rO p.7"Auep ri.va J R~/T!%.
JYo SAMfs/c 5 EC:s,1 VJ/'2d, e S - Se ,fon g /q 't~r/l A.75,5)i.
.u.
~
2 -muuuu - -
- .a D e. ! c. r! F' Tot'n ?!:'m A U O t* Y '
p. C st7To a:g C, N W Wuid W W
=
um Suu 8"' luu. mm 3-- -
~
amm
- 577 _.
~
um.
~
ami y N M WW Wuu
.u.
8" me. eum um. m luumulum. 15
.muummum O
===u*
ff
- Q%s u-. m
=.
M m
- muu -
las a 4 m p IW m S- -
=
g# - ens 05 - mW gug
- N emummu
- bug m 7 . , -
WW ens
- 6_
T 2 .gru : : e' h
=
,u.
.mu.
m &
'g: . . , . .
wouuWARD-MOOnHOUSE & ASSOCI ATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS LOG OF BO RING .,8.. ,,,/,,3. d .. ,,,,, SH E ET, 4 0 F,,,/,],,,, {..- >. ._s-; SAP.iP L E S g, d ,, u. DEPTH REMARKS
/- g ELEV. jg{ j DESCRIPTION -
SCALE (OPILLING FLulO, OEPTH CF CASING, g o- y CASING 8 LOWS.FLulO LCSS ETCJ
<4
- -O O b h y S e or-or.u v tc . softy -
h'e$ cart,C//0/f [TO M d20$i
~
- C!s'/ FJ/ M Ter'^I- ~--
cu17H sJ go w>< io / Y r jti~spurles v/ erd Perse
? - S --
To~~tta.Aufsr ok f
/
4 _ _ :,_ ss, _ _ 7-
- _s r/
_ _ lo--
- _seo : :
l. _ __ f f _
- _ f rv
__11. -. _
-sn _
-l2 _
5 '77 W i wM
~
} _
Al.frok-
\
- : : cr;, r een M uou c sne
~ '
4 _ -
--/a, t'1, ar /+00 k ,
- . s7c //4 614 -brom C L A)' : : g y , xx k
~
lb lf "h h." M ' A .
~'-
escicar Peanonism 1
' .+ sa~L- -
vsu,e...r vu rsf
)w mw w9
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 1yO. -
~ 15_~ wemuw*
-57S : : cert a m 1 _- _
. /s-o i - : : %s j-
_ _ v l1 l 3, e - .+ :g d.n /t 4, e.~ c L:/ /C pl el 3! , l / ; '? _ .,, . ..., ,_. . y
. e,.sut,W.eu .v G0Fincuse G A: 3CCi.% TES, INC.
/
CONSULTING ENGINEE RS ANO GEOLOGISTS LO G O F B O R I N G ,,,,g,,- /,,s ,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,*,,,,,,,, SH E ET,,,,3,,,,,,,,,O F,,,,/,[,,,, (;.N ws a
- DEPTH SAMPLSS '
REMARKS
- s d ELEV. 8: e DESCRIPTION SCAlg' (ORILLING FLUlO, OEPTH OF CASING.
/ F 'b 02 u! CASING BLOWS, FLulO LOSS. ETC.)
,e a
% '~
. Ns'" '30'" < ^" ' "'I %
- Ha d,r:>v,.
+ , s ,.: m C U y
- : ky :
~
' y l3 '
(CN) PacNeT* PexdromeTer Q 1!"S !' Y(.,: g
-573 *
./ Q~ cL :
7 L) ; l7 o'p > +.s r.c,= 0
% h n y
y
. - - - % v
_jp
.i : 'd?.YNf9rpt u
.fr:n CAAf : : ya 12 e is J G .' - - :
_- _- y ra, c.sy Pe nd><,m e ri-(CH) _, 1 2 '~ _ : (;. c, our 3 0
- - - y.
_-/ f-- i
,-0 A
- - 4 <
-57 / /0 t
- - - q.
- - - f>.
.t o (3 :
Ve)$$/ (ny fm si//g : : N' 8
- "M :
N x rocket Penenamen? cu y cc'> v. =. a w 3[>Q -
~
r q 3
-A/l-. i M
-q g s
- 54'1 n 5 o
. - - q, 8
./ s ~, .:,
)
- -SCt flo'A Q - Aroun SE* :
Y g ,g,7 p e n g ,,,,,,a ra e C u y c c s )' k Gu. j': y ln
- : \ su Y. .s -rei=
- /
- - u -
% /O N. ~Co 4 --
-SC 7
- f. fA"'A- --U 2
- t y 6 h /3 j
\
~ -
m , 4 /1 l
-j
. -n_
5-sac pnul p^0-sa a. TAy - 5 \ 7 y N'M ne xc roarro mis er.
- C. LAY (Cf) , IIA ct -
- y s
-+ e Ld +o s ;ga - -
\.1 < ll cp > %S i:e
- tS-- ..
1 O
-sh- v'hAd -
Q1. a. <,, a,
*4 i
., lpi, 1i _
t.OG OF DORING --..-/2C 3 SHEET Mi. OF ./../
/
. . i S M.? PL E S e '7 REMARKS
(;. .
~
8 d ' DESCRIPTION OEPTH (ortiLLittG FLuto,ocPrH ca c:str< ELEV. 'f :- -5 SCALE "3 }o. " vf V a CASit4G 8Lo.W. FLUID LC ;.ET J i
%1 Slid, : -
l l
~
5y h'I & -broi 0 : -- - Q.
$ N=7f/JI1,s CtA u cc)t tra c.c
-- !s . % & n strorriete4-
.I 3g f' ever y,5 .7,,::
l
" ),9
~
dcMe. G - _ -- N
-L - c:; c .
I. : : h d.,
}5G 3 _
c. s . I - -
] -
'E l'
?
- N'L f^g-bro #S!ft -
g z. ,,, a ao ns-r
} >-
i.-
-l~* ..
= -
CLA yle t >.fou
' -c p
c<-u sa 6 d., >
=/.,'v y is n>J./
erk
~ -"
sfari%'.CAane D=C : ~-
/ /- CCS/NF SDrfc:: Hit *]
q_~
~
/:- .-
Y, NW s
- e : R' RAR of+= 4 i -
sci .. ': D a-o 2 :
/~- . '! - n T
~~
2ae5 2cc . ,hr., c 7
// ~ :.5 - -
fc. , - .
-30 d,
~
* $* MM W Lui" p~y
) f.....
--c.
Hu i vs'tt.e u s
- ~i k c.
N (m < i s X ,;, a's.: )
// % 4 n k .
Sco -
,o - ,, C.: f.i/ A4
- C iA.L LA A
- ~q .
,. o - - s, l *= ' ' '
, /N C t.V a l 'r *so.5 - -
/c - -ee .
, ,- s -3 /.-
e-, pe- = = .
-ffC' :le 2 - D (.N, .
/ 7- ,,
~
g , 'Q
- l
/**/* - ,,,,,,, ,::
$ C' \ .
/ .:s
#6 . - -
</ _ s. -
k e.m.m. [ " 32-T .2 5 - _ :4 - - _.Sa c, .
- - s, Ry- 1 .
- - % 10 n )
~ """"
., ( '
t<,' v""*. 8
, h *"
q w. .
/ s,,_- .
j y- - :
.?3- .
tr - s - 7 -337 - ,-x:. .
- Q .
i
,' /C - .
u _/2- -. 1 N
, It:
fst - geesN cc s /6 - .
, / *7 -
/P- -: a - -
n :: -
- / ,,- ?S
- l. , ,
- 6 *
% t & -P, *e.
b- y l l l 1 {.h. .
. ATTACHMENT C 1
l l I
L . _ l t Innovative Means of Dealing With Potential Sources of Ground Water Contamination Proceedings of the Seventh National Ground Water Quality Symposium
- p. September 26-28,1984 ~
~O Las Vegas, Nevada i
Sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 National Water Well Association
- Published by l National Water Well Association
! 500 W. Wilson Bridge Road l Worthington, Ohio 43085 12
.{i
^ .
"O AN EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ZONE OF SATURATION LANDFILLS IN WISCONSIN By Mark E. Gordon and Paul M. Huebner D2gineer and Hydrogeologist, respectively, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster Street, GEF II, Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Abstract A typical " zone-of-saturation" landfill in Wisconsin is developed oy excavating into a saturated clay soil environment. The excavation functions as a discharge site by creating a depression in the water ll table, but does not fill with ground water because evaporation exceeds the rate of seepage from low-permeability clay deposits. Once the base and sidewalls of the excavation are covered with refuse ground water (Ut<f ) inflow and percolation from rainfall must be removed by the leachate The potential for leachate migration away from this collection system. type of landfill is pinimized as long as inward hydraulic gradients are maintains 4 at the base and perimeter of the facility. Recent investigations have revealed that many zone-of-saturation sites are not situated in a " homogeneous" clay environment. Also, the unexpected buildup of Ivachate within several of the 12 landfills approved in Wisconsin using this design concept has led to the develgement of outward gradients. This paper provides a detailed perfornance evaluation of three of these sites where ground water cents - ination ir occurring. Based on this evaluation, supplemented by data anc observations from several of the other sites, recommendations are made for the investigation, design and operation of a zone-of-saturation landfill. Although there is insufficient data to fully evaluate their effectiveness, it is concluded that implementation of these recommendations will provide for an acceptable level of ground water protection at landfills using this design concept. Introduction In the late 1960's and early 1970's, as public concern for environmental protection mounted, regulatory agencies intensified their scrutiny of solid waste disposal sites. In Wisconsin, the State's (. Department of Natural Resources required site owners and operators to 411 h _a--- _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)'
determina what offset thair sites c ro having cn surfcco watcr and grtund
+j, water quality. The subsequent investigations documented that landfin s s
.% situated in clay environments were developed in saturated soils, a fact which had not been recognized when these sites were inician y constructed.
3 This discovery exposed a conflict between Wisconsin's existing j 1andfill siting approach, which called for a minimum distance of 10 feet 3 (3 m) between the base of a landfill and the water table, and actual t practice in clay sites, where soils are typically saturated at or near
& the ground surface. Designers sought a way to retain the attenuative As a 4 capacity of the clays and supply on-site cover material for wastes.
result of these efforts, in 1975 the Department of Natural Resources developed guidelines which allowed landfin s to be operated within the zone-of-saturation under controlled conditions (Glebs, 1980). Guidelines call for a physical setting of homogeneous clay deposits f with an in situ hydraulic cceductivity of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec or less,
.{ maximum excavation of 30 feet (9.1 m), a minimum of 30 feet (9.1 m) of d
I clay between the base of the fill and the water supply aquifer, a detailed hydrogeologic inve: tigation, a leachate collection system and a
.$ 'eachate manage =ent plan.
V8 The reasoning behind the 1975 guidelines can be summarited as 3 b 'onows: The hydraulic conductivity guideline of 1 x 10-6 cm/see
+- represents a value where ground water will seep into an excavation at a rate which is less than or equal to the rate of evaporation in
.h Wisconsin. ~his ensures that when a saturated clay site is developed, major devatering of the excavation will not be necessary. The depth of (Dr? (g . cut and the thickness of clay remaining beneath the base of the site aye j important for a number of reasons. First, while the guidelines can for
" homogeneous" clay deposits, in practice this is seldom the case (Hendry, p 1982; Prudic,1982; Sterett and Edil,1982; Fetter,1980; Grisak et al. ,
1976; William and Farvolden, 1967). Geologic discontinuities (till is % joints and/or permeable seams of sand and silt) are commonly found in r clayey glacial till and lacustrine deposits which can allow for rapid h migration of contaminants away from a site in a saturated environment. M., D e possibility of a direct connection to the water supply aquifer is reduced by specifying a relatively large thickness of clay beneath the li % base of the site. Second, limiting the depth Third, of excavation minimizes because the clay is 'j J uplift pressures on the base and sidewalls. T ." saturated its attenuative capacity is greatly reduced over unsaturated This requires an added thickness of clay. A detailed @ soils. hydrogeologic investigation should define the variability existing within g-s the clay deposits. An efficient leachate collection system and a plan for the ultimate disposal of the collected liquid are critical to ensure t that leachate head buildup is minimized because zone-of-saturation sites p ,g win begin producing leachate almost immediately. M.y Since 1975, the Department of Natural Resources has approved 12 5.,; landfills utilizing the zone-of-saturation design concept. Figure 1 P's 85 shows the general location of these sites. In general, all 12 of the sites are located in saturated clay environments comprised of glacial b.-
i
; }
- s. .e
)
,* D a
A s2627 t I g -. i I e I 2937
*2873 e e 2975 !
2568 1 4
*J484
*6i l(k . *23s8 -
! 1 ! e 1678
- ions i
i'
*sn
' eins i i l FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF THE 12 MAJOR ZONE OF- 1 SATURATION LANDFILLS i'l l 1 I l 413 ,.9 C ...,-, - - , - ..
till and associated lacustrine deposits over fractured sedimentary or crystalline rock.
^
hm i This paper documents problems concerning the unexpected buildup of ( leachate and ground water contamination which have developed at a number .j of these sites. Recommendations are made based on either a qualitative { evaluation or actual field data for the investigation, design and operation of a zone-of-saturation landfill. If these recommendations are implemented, the potential for leachate head buildup and ground water contamination should be minimized. Additional work is necessary to evaluate the sensitivity of the design parameters affecting site j performance (Quinn, 1983). l Development of A Zone-of-Saturation Landfill A zone-of-saturation landfill is developed by excavaring into a saturated clay soil environment. The excavation remains dry because the l rate of evaporation exceeds ground water seepage from tight clay deposits (Figure 2). Once the base and sidewalls of'the excavation are covered with refuse inflowing ground water and percolation from rainfall have to be removed to maintain inward gradients. Theoretically, as long as both vertical and horizontal gradients remain towards the landfill, the potential for ground water contamination is eliminated. Water levels in observation wells were used to construct a wate. . table map for the Omega Hills South site (#1648) where the excavation had # h, '..p already taken place but the leachate collection system had not yet been
'( installed (Figure 3). The water' table sloped principally to the q
southeast prior to excavation of the site. The excavation has ' significantly altered the shallow ground water system so that now flow is radially inward. Typical Design Variables and General Site Characteristics Figure 4 shows a cross section of a zone-of-saturation landfill. The data represents the typical range of site variables from the 12 zone-of-saturation sites approved using the 1975 guidelines. The most significant variation occurs in the g situ hydraulic conductivity of the clayey glacial till and lacustrine deposits. The results of laboratory and field tests used to characterize the glacial sediments at these sites are presented in Table 1. This table shows that actual hydraulic conductivities of the glacial deposits are 1 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than values obtained from laboratory tests on either undisturbed or recompacted samples. Stratified drift (outwash and/or ice contact deposits of well-sorted sand and gravel) seams of sand and silt and/or secondary porosity from joints in the saturated clayey glacial till and lacustrine deposits account for these differences. Table 2 summarizes additional information on each site. CO ' 414
i n. i fc! - I..; g 1 e 1 ( 5$ 5; ee G$
- c. Ey
'P <3 g
. ~!
ss
. , ;;: 8_g
- C '.q?- 3;
;. - <~
~
.g :. UE
=y
- m. ;g
=. p -
gg
'- ~ .
._ 'd h
~
hf \',
~
* ~ ;M
- r, '. . , ~
, l' # ~ h
- iX : , -
0
,~ 'k# - 5 h,q,g' (g .~-l_
s;w S
=z
- Ch^d
,/ f -
/ I = s 6',- is l E 1El
,. a m-= ._8 % se d',o/f .
3
;e R *. ? ,c 4
- m =
// -on,p -
*z l
. E s t ? yg i,
~
p* l 5, 5 3a 4ae". e= a: T .. T l?ETe
../ /
Ir
- /
\! = ?.:
\
l 25353.i!5
?::all .Ille:
;l. j rm j : I
,/ t N -: . .
?riI ..jI i;ti e.e J -l (
) .
.I : : i-I ;
/ \ l1 ,
I.' ~f \\ J.)
. fl =,
- ,I / j I L e'. ; j \ (J B? l O I_: .'] l ifLp 7- w !j
\ s s
) Y.
- l. '
~
l 'E c. l E. T s s :E s "is
.:~*1) is I. 'e " - ;,,l i.
f( ia. l of, n-
.ij.
. m-
;s g
.p[
n II ( [: ll 55 l.it.g9 EH j p ) x i E! s-
~ v3 c- tu gw e.LI l r- D ,
-: .- 22 ow
=;li k \
?: "a.- ,O .il me i
i a Se z c$ st a ,, ,.of?
- - /
ll\ ao e
,'q -
L. Eg=g c,, r- / , / .0 1
,\ < --
wa< EeW k' )a-l Aw- -.s 7 .p- . _ . r.Z . g . _ . - .9 oww I
]
\J <
c' E I a . E
- 0 u.
416 i
f.h '
%q l
i r Refuse Land sunace (K = 10 ' to 10 ' em/ se:.) L Destn to water
+ 4 y 9 tasie De:tn of (0 20l average) ex:avation (20 30,- g- , Leacnate neae ieve!
__i T7 (010' average) average) a
; Cay tills anc/cr -
-. Wr'ation / r.oe*Nmgl " 5I'*'
cesesits (K = Base sicoe / - (200 409' -a, 0'sunce (1% average) sveragel i 10 to P (20 50' average) cm/sec.) 9 _ _ _
\D\\NY\YNYNNYNYN\bbkhNbbb\\\\N hNNY\\' ' .
shb\YYk\bkhk%N h\YdekrceRMhkkkk kbYk Y
%%%%%%%%%\%%%%%\%%%%%%%%%%\\t Not to scate FIGURE 4: CROSS-SECTION OF A ZONE 0F SATURATION, LANOFILL AND THE TYPICAL RANGE OF SITE VARIABLES
.;O t
417 la ---
f; *i*m M ? .JW r i i
= e e e e e a e e e = =
'o 'o 'o b 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o g n 1 1
=
1
=
7 a 1
=
7
. n 7
'.o 1 1 1
1
=
_I .e .e .e .e , .o .e .e .o .e r t; t? et .: - t ?? ?? -- -t t:
} -} f o :2 :
22 Se 2 :: :s as 2: 2* 22 2 22 22 22 tt 22 29 a a: :: :: :s az ::
!,2; , . . ~ , . . e I a.- - . .= . ?. . - , . .
_5 .
. e ! . a a =
I m k a a
= .o .e .e .o .e .o .e .e
- a .e. .e .e E ? it -t ;; t: ?? : ve te vt -t 1 92 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
- 44 44 : 24 24 aa 44 t i. . o(
. =
44 44 : A
- 2. :
}28 .
R e - . . . - o ~ ~ 4 _o
=
_ _c e e a e _ _o g _. g _i_;;f 9 9 E
@ Y o
Y $ o 9 Y : Y Y.
.. o e t - . . ; _
4
,, :t ..
V :-a1 5 f 2* 3 O 3 % 0 : : I_
=
f 2 2 2 2 R 2 R t
!,:.. f o 2
= : ; y
; e e ; ; ; ; e 4 : a = = = :- : A 2 =
}: *I *-
a an _ e
= .
. S
. e e.
3 a _E ; = 2 : {
- . 3, I R E R R R S I
- 2 j -08 .
O : : y 3 S 3 - g
! = A a
4 4 4 A, . A .a e. ? a
-3 2,,
*I 9 - a
- Gil : m ~
e s : R i I
~
4 4 2 : : E 3 :
- 3
- 8 . l. 8
- 8 I 8 - ~
0 13 = 8- 2, a
?
T T T I I * *
- a
= -
= R I -
2 : : 4 2 3.. 2
- 3 3 3 3 R a
- 2 5 3_ : e Q
*. D_I p
, { g 5 3 8 e I *~
- 5
- ..3 F, d
S I a33 J h r 3 g I. Ej
* *I 1 _. e 1 E2
-.z 1 8
I
.b
.m t G5 8
=
I a. 5
,:.9 y !' 3 : R a g 2 3 R : : .. . : : : :: a _ : : 2 2 418
..c"O ,
21 1 g:- R 2 2
- R C S E R R l 8
.2 -8 i 8
i t s ". *
. 2 : .2 2 2 3 : R 2 '
- .t - E r 2 2 -
- 8 2 2 :
t -j 2 2 g & 4 : c & 2 2 & 28
- t t e a e 1 i
?
}-
8
= = = = = = =
=
I i 3 :I ! 2: l a
~
t i y 2
- E
= = = =
.. . - = .
, A,b
= -a 6 !
i% 2
.: 2 5 :, -
. 2: I E E g ..
-2 9 9 9 9 9 9. 9 4
- 9 9 9
- r. 9 i j
Il j j 3 g 3 A
,$ L: K z 9" x g 3 s 9 3
- S x j
=
3 B & 8 s
- I s
}If 2
- s-i
=
's
= s s 2 5 's ,
e -
= = = 9 a e-m = * = ~ ,
~
=
=
e o y * ~ e e .n .= -. a .e .e - e .- Y 1 = 1 0
= . -2
- x s : a 1
- 1 , - : : s -s . g ** $
t k 4 a1 jJ $ ,[ 12 18* l 18 *- 3
* , 3- I-a i I' I:
3 k i a
-va ar8 E al 2* =3 2e
-j]
m
~- g .
3 3 - . .. ~
"E 3I I E R 3 ' E 2
- R a I
- ~ ~ ~ ~ -
- .S. ~
3
~
3 3- : ,E 1 l O I 419
)
Documentation of Problems f-. XI' Recent hydrogeologic investigations have documented that many zone-of-saturation sites are not situated in a " homogeneous" clay environment. Also, the unexpected buildup of leachate within several of the 12 landfin sites approved since 1975 using this design concept has led to the development of outward gradients and severe ground water contamination. nree of these sites - Omega Hills North, Outagamie County and Winnebago County have been selected to illustrate these l problems and are discussed in detail below. In all three cases the site 1 owners have implemented remedial actions to help aneviate the environmental impacts. Studies are in progress to define the existing site conditions in more detail and to develop cleanup programs which will include design and/or operational changes. Omega Hills North The Omega Hins North landfill (#1678) provides an excenent example of the problems which can develop at a zone-of-saturation land' fill. The site has been licensed since 1971. In early 1978, the Department of Natural Resources completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which concluded that the 83 acre (33.6 ha) site was suitable for an additional 6 million cubic yards (4.6 minion m3) of municipal and industrial wastes, some of which were classified as hazardous. The site is situated in glacial till deposits primarily consisting of
, silt and clay-sized materials. Site investigations revealed some lenses ' q and more extensive glaciofluvial deposits of sand and gravel. The D unconsolidated glacial sediments are typicany saturated to within 10 feet (3 m) of the land surface. Shallow ground water flow generally follows the topography and was in a southeasterly direction prior to site development.
The uppermost bedrock unit beneath the site consists of Niagaran dolomite of Silurian age. The dolomite is moderately fractured and up to 200 feet thick. Private wells in the vicinity of the site tap the bedrock aquifer for their water supply. The approval for the Omega Hills landfill required that permeable deposits encountered during site construction or base soil certification be excavated a =inimum of 5 feet (1.5 m) and be backfilled with compacted clay. In many cases permeable deposits were identified by ground water j [ discharge, their large areal extent or changes in soil color. In one area of the site sandy deposits were not properly sealed with clay and leachate escaped into the bedrock aquifer. Figure 5 is a generalized cross section of this area following implementation of temporary remedial actions in August, 1982. The cross section shows that the erosional surface of the bedrock is , much closer to the base of the site than originan y thought in 1978. The l surface of the dolomite drops off sharply. to the east, west and ' south
- which may explain why it was not discovered during earlier site investigations.
l 420
- m m..
=-
m- < I C? ?.%_. s
+ 2:
w* periorama NM=4 aso-7,,,,,,,,,,, cutan was
}
f /
/,
/
,////'!
% su,,s.,
~-==3 h //') / /
.s y; ?.m :n;%. . J*.L ,Apx' c..- ;>
. ... .. .: :.. :.;. . ,...3. . .
,.;n, ,, **tuu ato -
l} Y y, c
;; . :.v.
$7_*.*.
- . c . ;. . ...
' -:;; . ... .- .g.
- \
.. .;.~.*;.~..=.;.s, <
,7,
., \
v,'. ,t a.N' - - . , .'. .: :i.-l. :*.Ui .W ' 'y@ : l
)
^
goo
- '\
%:?.*.Gra? sumo ;:l. ; .*?
.. . aj ' /'49.;'$,
.'s.
@h:,
.: .:.n..;*. . ~y:.i: . : a:. -. ..~.P ; *.:;.*:
....r. ..... , , .
n:./
. . '-i
;: . ..s:i... .... ... ..:.!;.
Natues, car sus c
. ..:.. T..G.r.
%- . l/'a
,.. u
' '*/.'.,,
M- i5i
' ..i*:.:$Q:llG~
, .. .y :, >
.h. ' ' , - ,,',l?,bIV* '.
- i. .
/
1.
-. : ..,~,
.. . \. :.:.
. i,. .,,, ,y/ .' v-i 5.;.:
rso- m . .;.:,2N~; ;; ;Iin
~ * '
~
f . .
- Y::L...y.*c~ . ~g .
h
*'-*/7.g
'.~4j ' .
},[,[. ',-.:
- N !1 -
hh ( h ~- Y 77Q--- M ,l$ t 3 c ? cg
=
t 760 - 2L M:
~ :
3i 2 .: 7so-
$i:
74o - O Sanc, little gravel (SP.SM) E Silty sand (SM) c-:. Silty c:ay (CL) r ,- 2 Dolomite Dearock
- d E" Wellstreen with Dentonite seal
=
FIGURE 5: GENERAL CROSS-SECTION THROUGH WELL NEST
'- N-22 AND RISER NR 5 SHOWING GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND TEMPORARY REMEDIAL WORK 421
l l l Uatar quality results fres wall niet N-22 shcwn in Figuro 5 and en unaf fected upgradient well (N-3) document that ground water has been severely contaminated in this area (Iable 3). Placement of a clay cutoff (.2:he\
"" 5' wall and removal of leachate have resulted in some improvement in ground water quality, however, significant contamination still remains.
The Omega Hills landfill also represents an example of a zone-of-saturation site where inward ground water gradients have not been maintained. Figure 6 depicts the water table as it existed in October, 1982. Water levels in leachate head wells installed through the refuse to the base of the fill (Figure 7) were also used to draw the water table map because the base grades for a majority of the site are within the zone-of-saturation. The acceptance of large quantities of liquid waste and the lack of leachate management alternatives were the major factors leading to the development of an excessive leachate head within the landfill and subsequent outward gradients. Outara=le County An example of a zone-of-saturation site where joints have rendered fairly unifor= clayey glacial till and lacustrine deposits relatively permeable is the Outagamie County landfill (#2484). The Department of Natural Resources licensed the site in 1975. Ini-tially, 26 acres (10.5 ha) were used for disposal of nonshredded and shredded solid wastes and large quantities of paper =ill sludge. In late 1981, the landfill was l expanded to approximately 47 acres (19 ha) and the total design capacity ' was increased to about 3.2 =illion cubic yards (2.45 =1111on m3 ), The site is located in an area of relatively flat and gently sloping ; i topography with no prominent relief features. Two clayey glacial till units dominate the subsurface stratigraphy. A relatively thin Jayer of varved glaciolacustrine silty clay with thin to medium seams of peat and pieces of partially decayed wood (Twocreekan Age forest bed deposit) separates the 2 till units. Underlying the unconsolidated glacial sediments at a depth of 55 to 70 feet (16.8 to 23.3 m) are dolomites of Ordivician age. Water table observation wells indicate that saturated conditions exist within 10 feet (3 m) of the land surface. Ground water within the unconsolidated glacial deposits primarily flows to the south-southeast. Vertical ground water gradients within the clay soils generally range between 0.6 and 0.9 f t/f t downward, although values in excess of 1 have been recorded. The median jgt situ hydraulic conductivity of the clayey glacial deposits is 3 orders of magnitude greater than that predicted by laboratory permeability tests. Test pits excavated in the proposed 21 acre (8.5 ha) expansion area in March, 1981 revealed joints in the glacial deposits. Based on this evidence and the results of several in-field permeability tests, the approval for the landfill expansion required overezcavation and recompaction of the base and sidewalls of the site to provide a uniform clay barrier with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/see between the vaste and the- surrounding saturated () environment. Excavation of the expansion area exposed vertical sets of 422
L . i.. 3% 4' ' TAGLE 3: WATER CUALjfT f M WELL NC$7 N-22 A@ LEAOuTE (luALITY IN Ri$(R ast-6 SameI1a9 Ostes 12/14/58 t/18/02 6/15/82 7/13/82 F/28/82 9/02 18/10/82 12/82 wtLL M-22 DM 4.2 6.3 6.34 6.47 6.4 Coaductivity 8,440 6,999 7,050 6,000 3.200 D er188 1,240 872 706 276 64
@ 0,910 10,000 0.850 9,230 2,270 Total Alkallaity 6,520 2,340 2,526 3.366- 447 Total aeroness 4.640 5,600 3,167 4,710 1,600 Su Ha4 5 5 13.7 5 TOC 4,250 2.600 3,045 3.842 8,440 Olssolves area 101.5 122 20.6 42.1 Soelva 593 398 240 190 120 N a98a*** 3.27 3.23 142 1.06 1.12 vfLL m-27A 8"
6.42 6.50 6.4 Conovettelty 1,530 1,450 i 1,600 Derlee 25 193 16
@ 43.9 2 47 jm Total AlmoitaltY 850 f 050 834
.*. Total Maroness 790 990 096 Svilste 60 5.0 44 TUC 24 18 2.3 Olssoewe ir.* 24 20.6 16.8 Soeia 3.33 3.14 6.0 Mengaaese 0.90 0.64 0.64 WELL h-228 8"
6.48 6.63 . 4.4 ConevetteltY 1,360 1.t30 1,330 Olwles 10 5 7 COO 14.6 10 29 Total Alkalinity 775 745
- 721 Total Maroness 731 773 334 m 58H84 54 53 75 TOC 124 5.8 2,4 Olssosw e iroa 8.34 4.27 4.44 Soetus 4,92 0.5 5.0 Manganes*
0.66 0.64 0.05 - RISER 88-6 ' W 6.55 6.55 ConewetivItY 20,000 19,000 C00 29,000 3,440 Total Alkallaity 10,000 -- Total Maroness 1,393 4,770 Total Iron 402 300 Joe 25,s00 12.900 3914R
'?p a
423
m hD m-s l ."*= I.\. I.
=
I
\.
.t..
.u. N, _ , ,
f ,
\
;;;'a ,.i'{. I. 't "#,7
..n ,_n . \ l l
p"$ . .1 =-sa
*** N ,U" m2 l
1:it.,f- ~ % . ._^~2 ,; ;;t,2 *
.s n ,
u i l *=- r a , -no ,..n . < mu > a . t
- ".;\g;, ra^ s u
, ., =-3, f
k u t-SA mt-44 \E h , l$ I A A
*~'*
'\ =&
i =t-enu u "f7 7 , 1
=.-s
* . N.
@ mos g m2 "4 [4
= . _4.m.,p, . , . _'.'S' --
.a.-.-.
s- si noo ""4*st * =o.m g I
,7=..
N
--- Site bouncary
-rso- Water tanie (Oct.,1982)
==-3 Grounawater onservanon well
" * " (Location, numoer, & water level)
A a.-u Leacnate nead well (Location, numoer & licued level) A =.-s Leacnate extraction point (Locaton, number & licuid level) v Direction of grounawater flow (- - - - RGURE 6: OMEGA HILLS NORTH WATER TABLE MAP SHOWING OUTWARD GRADIENTS i 424 __ ______ >c
s u ' Protective steer casmg anc lect Ventec cao
Concrete (smoec to promon cramage away Lanc surface trom wes. approx.
.. I')
- n. . .
;.n 5:n.:.7 *. .' , %..* . . -s. . ... ..s kch, ;
%e:=M. :.^~ T<'hin,'
5Sh$ *.**;$ ld( 'I E*Y e
'd,
. x. . v N
-f e ',
/s e, :/**-y(.'..'p,
#i/. .
N N;jp j ///
,',f u/ jM,W, . ;.\. seas
//
K.\,N' .,,s,, taporox.5'. Santonite penet nunsnum 3-) 6" en11 rion l Senecum 40 PVC ' casmg - (mmanum 2" g, N , cameter)
. g
'!...** ,;*.1\gN's
. .I.[b l k , $.*, \\\
t * *. . ! y\ \\ s Nxq x x- .; .* r i'i
'. ; .~. . '. - -
.; NNN N' Ng\g
. 1. . .e . <
' .- '- s Sattee schecute N -
40 Pv:: screen s . ?*..' Eh . t ;,'. . ' ' . .,anc/or
. .(NN'\\$N gravei cean seica sana
?. * . * ..
... 3.. -
LEACHATE HEAD a m. ..-
, r* ,s
.- ; .',.;, ..* ss~
s . N 4 s $,.v W S .w' '.'*;$.".,;. . :. ;'.' }n t
.1 mot to sea.
C FIGURE 7: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF A LEACHATE HEAD MONITORING WELL 425 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 1 orthogonal joints, with apertures ranging from 0.06 to 0.375 inches (0.15 CO to 0.95 cm) wide extending down through the interglacial layer of peat h-Q (Figure 8) to a depth of at least 20 feet (6 m). Available data show that gas pressures as high as 15 pounds per square inch (267.8 Kg/m 2 ) and 1eachate head buildup within the initial 26 acre (10.5 ha) fill area have led to the development of outward gradients and ground water contamination in the immediate vicinity of the site. The acceptance of large quantities of papermill sludge with an average solids content of 20%, use of clay soils for daily and intermediate cover, and inadequate removal of leachate led to these problems. l l Winnebago County The Winnebago County landf111 (#611) is also experiencing problems due to excessive leachate head buildup. At the time of this writing, 71 acres (28.7 ha) are filled to capacity with another 8 acres (3.2 ha) 3 active. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards (2,300 m ) of municipal and industrial waste are disposed of at the site daily. Of that total, almost 960 cubic yards (730 m 3 ) consist of sludges generated by paper industries within the county. (F.svironmental problems at several private papermill sludge sites resu1ted in their closure in the late 70's. This 1ed to co-disposal of the sludges with municipal waste at the County facility). hO F1at topography, characteristic of a glacial lake plain, dominates the 1eca1 1andscaFe. c1ac1a1 t111 and 1acust=1ne sediments ef reddish-brown to brown s11ty clay overlie overconso11 dated stratified and unstratified drift. The silty clay ranges in thickness from 5 feet to over 20 feet (1.5 to 6.1 m). The underlying drif t is very heterogeneous in nature and consists of a grey to grey-brown sandy silt to silty sandy clay till. Excavations completed in 1983 exposed an extensive buried beach ridge consisting of coarse sand capped by wave-washed gravel. This extremely permeable glacial 1ake deposit was missed by 'the initial site investigations which consisted of 46 soil borings. Ordivician age dolomite is 1ocated 40 to 50 feet (12.2 to 15.2 m) below the land surface. The bedrock surface dips generally to the south-southeast at approximately 2%. Most private wells in the area utilize the dolomite aquifer for domestic water supplies. The water table is present within 10 feet (3 m) of the land surface and slopes to the northwest. The site has been used for solid waste disposal since 1971 when 25 acres (10.1 ha) were licensed. The fill area was expanded by an additional 30 acres (12.1 ha) in 1977 and by 40 acres (16.2 ha) in 1981. l The first area to be designed with base grades below the water tab 1e j (Site B) is divided into 4 distinct ce11s. The approval for Site B required a minimum base slope of 1%, a maximum leachate flow distance of 150 feet (45.7 m) and leachate removal at a race sufficient to maintain a r '
" dry base" condition. The first 2 cells (B-1 and B-2) were used for
! % disposal of primarily municipal solid waste. Head wells installed in these 2 cells show leachate levels from 0 to 12 feet (0 to 3.7 m) above 426 1 A
e... r -
+- '
_{. ,.- ;-.._.-.--.~ .
;k_ s, ,- -
yg; . ! .
}:L %-- 1 rW o- , .
I* ,: g'*.{ .- ~ ?' - U., -
=-
_ ,. P Diavr3 Q
-. w.- .
(h.$
~
! 3
.._ Q -(
4.-,
;d s
v
,1 _
M -: >. 6 _a . w {'.*i:.. O E s s-FIGURE 8: FRACTURED CLAY DEPOSITS AT THE OUTAGAMIE
<. COUNTY LANDFILL SITE y
i-
#w
the base of the cens (Table 4).. In Cens B-3 and B-4, levels in
~
leachate head vens exceed 25 feet (7.6 m) in places. Well LMB-4A is g installed directly over a leachate collection line which probably accounts for the minimal head buildup of less than 2 feet (0.61 m). The development of leachate head buildup in Site B (Figure 9) led to a concern for ground water quality impacts. Figures 10 and 11 are plots of the ground water quality in ve n nest P-5, located approximately 25 feet (7.6 m) northwest of Can 3-4 Wens P-5-20 and P-5-40 are both s screened within the silty sandy clay till at 19.5 and 29.5 feet (5.9 and , 9 m) below the land surface. Well P-5-60 is screened within the dolomite = bedrock appror % tely 48 feet below the ground surface. It is readily b apparent from the graphs that the Freund water in the vicinity of these wells is contaninated. Ground water degradation in the area of the P-3 ven nest began about 1 year after disposal operations began in Cell 3-4 This contamination led to additienal investigations of head levels which confirmed the excessive buildup of leachate in Site B. Although - the degradation of ground water in well nest P-5 occurred at about the
- same time as the leachate head buildup began'in Site B, the contamination
=ay be coming from eithe: Cen B-4, Site A-1 or both. The high leachate j-
- heacs within the site are attributed to the disposal of large volumes of - papermill sludge. Not only did these wastes add additional liquids to the site, but the sludge has likely reduced the overan per=eability of the waste mass, which in turn would reduce the efficiency of the leachate collection system. t 'N ., Discussion __ ^ O This paper documents 2 major problems currently exist at several rene-of-saturation landfins in Wisconsin. First, on-site investigations at :nany of these sites have shown that they are not situated in a
" homogeneous" clay environment. Second, inward hydraulic gradients, which are basic to the design of zone-of-saturation landfills, do not exist in a number of cases. These factors have led to ground water contamination at a number of facilities and to concern about potential ground water deterioration at several others.
Rinaldo-Lee and Nichols (1979) documented that ground water impacts from a :ene-of-saturation landfill situated in uniform glacial clay l sediments was confined within 100 feet (30.5 m) along a flow line from , the refuse. However, in the previous section we presented information which confirms that leachate will migrate preferentially through permeable discontinuities present in clayey glacial till and lacustrine I deposits. For this reason, it is essential that the heterogeneities in a saturated clay soil environment be defined as accurately as possible l prior to site development. If site investigations document that extensive permeable deposits such as sand and silt are not present, the site may be suitable for development under the zone-of-saturation design concept. While a detailed hydrogeologic investigation should define any major permeable deposits, it will not detect all of the minor discontinuities. Therefore, the best method for ensuring that a uniform clay barrier 428
- m. ,,
li ,l l 1 i l(l. llJl g ,r
.a O tC, il y s 3
r 1 a 0
/ D G 2 1 1 0 7
s 9 y
.D 4
2
/
y r D s a G 3 3 2 1 6 s a G 2 3 1 a G 9 0 9 3 r D ot 1 0 6 9 9 Br0 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 y s 3 s 2 9 l r a 5 0 a 5 0 1
/ D G G 3 e 0 9
2 7 7 1 0 1 1 6 1 8 9 7 9 7 b y 5 s 2 5 a _ 2
/
r D G 9 1
- e 0l
-a . 7 2 9 s 3 s s 0 5
. 3 y r a 2 S. a $. a 1
/ D G S G 8 G 8 9
2 9 2 9 2 e 6 7 7 1 7 7
. 8 7 0 9 4 2 91 s 2 s 1 8
. 2 y s 0 a a DO0 1
/
r c a G 1 G 9 6 G 0 9 8 9 ' 8 0 7 7 1 nn s y e 7 7
% 4 s 7 1 e ~
e 4 7 5 1 4 5 r G oH 7 I
/ D G 0 4 6 1 8 0
~ 7 8 6 6 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 ~ y s 3 % 9
. 5 7 3 s 2 r a 7 e / D G 0 4 7 6 7 0 8 7
7 lut9 r1 1 4 y 3 0 2 9 2 r 0 9 3 0 2
/ D 1 9 1 0 6 7 70 6 8 9 7 7 7 7 % 7 7
I 1 I 4 I l 0 4 t / 7 8 1 7 _ 8 it W ds y
,* A 5 r 0 0
,f' L 8 C 1 4
/
0 O T 2 7 1 7 7 I N ODIn C U O S ry 5 I D 2 D(
/
9 7 A B 7 4 4 7
. IN 1 3
I / W 1 1 0 7 8 (t 9 1 5 I 8 1 2 7
, I / 7 A 6 8 y 6 E 6 r 2 T C I /0 60 S 6 6 7la N I y y 7
6 7 2 D r v o (> 1
/
I t l 3 2 I 6 g G I 7 y 7 m i t 1
/ r y
r o W D r 2 1 D f Wl
- I y e g
go 1 t 6 D r 9 n a E 2 0 r v 7 gp > i 0
/
9 7 8 L 6 9 y 9 e 0 1 6 l A 1 r l D 1 $
- f o / 0 6 7 1 e E l I
pS A t 2 y y s e uA 1 O r D r d pogP E
/
3 a r l g e s l 2 4: A A 8 C C a A C 8 e B R t IA 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 l A 4 S 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 S t e L . - - - - M M M M
- l 1 9
sO1 ' A I t weaa M L H l M L H t. M L M L ( ( L L lI 3 yla*
,4'o
( dJP f m* I ll! '
/['j$ - . V ,
a y, ,., _._..._._. ..no.ar .. . _._
. mm) =l ""
., e ,
1 1 # l l. I g i _=a,, , l l .
- PROPOSED l e SITE C e gt l l l l S I i,nE DcTyEr l i . -*
= r.l., l
-=
l .~m
. 1 ,
I Q-> a 4 ...T!4
'52U F -----'T~
- SITE A-2 l T-2, u,. . .
Pfft qg.g,QM t e No u-ase SITE A-I . l
~"
I =
- 'W.f**
. ,, m* g ,
i
*Is-i cEgi,. ,.,,,1 z i
@g, ..,. . ,, . ~ , i .
,cc ~=k. . _ . _ . _ . .). Mn m
8 # {j N
- * - Procetty boundary
--- Site bouncary
******* Cell bouncary
-rro-- Water table (June,1982) ss Groundwater monitonng well
*~*' (Location, numoer & water !evel)
Aus-su Leacnate head well
*" (Location, numoer & licute level)
- Direction of grounewater t
D]
< FIGURE 9: WINNEBAGO COUNTY WATER TABLE MAP SHOWING OUTWARD GRADIENTS IN SITE B l l
\
l l 430 l
m ...-.
@O,
~
...) .
8.2 -- 0 8 l
- 7. -
=
7.8 - 7 D g ,
/
1 7*4] \ *
=
7.2 i 5 74 4 s.8 -l 8 f + 6 s.s 3, - s.4k M s.2 , , , , 1975
, , , 1977 1976
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,', , , , , : , , , , [ ,
1975 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 C P-5-20 + P-5-40 o P-5-50 O. O . 3.5 - . j i i 30 {l > h 2.5 - b W o 2 8 Es
$* 1.5 4 1]
O.5 g C g i O 1975 1976 1977 1973 1979 1980 1981 1982 1953 1984 C P-5-20 + P-5-40
- P-5-so (h
l FIGURE 10: VARIATIONS OF pH AND HARDNESS IN WELL NEST P-5 AT THE WINNEBAGO COUNTY LANDFILL SITE 431 ' i
-_ - _ _A
7 E C.y.::.p,, z 8 x s- 1 1 E I s US 4-zi u.8 5
' 'l 85 z-o u ,
u,, 2- , j / 1-Q , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1s51 19a2 1983 1984
)
l C P-5-20 + P-s-40 o P-s-60 ! l i 10 (!'4- s-O a-7q G. , s- . , E E. s- I. ci o= uO l s-2- i-I o i ,,,,r
. , . rr
,r
^
^
-r rr -
,r . , , , , , , , ,- , , , *, ,
ts7s is7s i s77 is7a is7s isso isai iss2 isas iss4 o P-s-20 + P-s-4o . P-s-so FIGURE 11: VARIATIONS IN SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE AND CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN WELL NEST P-5 AT THE WINNEBAGO e- COUNTY LANDFILL SITE
.j j 432 l
c__ _M w- ---.m _. s , as---_r - - - -_eus _ - s-sw m - ara .w. - - m en.7 -" 'I'
'T ' w ==.*"f- d~.r "m == 7
_ _ _ - --___=_=_-2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .
St exists between the waste and surrounding saturated environment is to
\(Ye'^%overexcavate and recompact the base and sidewalls of the excavation.
\ laboratory tests must first be conducted on representative soil samples to confirm that the on-site materials possess the qualities necessary to remain in a low permeability recompacted state.
Leachate buildup within zone-of-saturation landfills is also a major problem. This is due to factors such as: the disposal of excessive volumes of liquids or sludges, the lack of leachate management alternatives, the use of clay soils for daily and intermediate cover and inadecuate removal of leachate. To limit leachate buildup in a new or expanding zone-of-saturation landfill the DNR's Bureau of Solid Waste Management now requires granular drainage blankets to be placed on the recompacted base and sidewalls of the facility. The performance of these drainage blankets has not been ' thoroughly documented. However, investigations performed at the Weyerhaeuser sludge landfill (#2873) illustrate that a 1 foot (0.3 m) ) thick sand blanket is effectively maintaining " dry base" conditions. A drainage analysis performed during the design of the northern most trench predicted that a base slope of 1% to 1.5% and a maximum leachate flow distance of 100 feet (30.5 =) would maintain leachate head levels within l the sand blanket. A follow-up evaluation of the collection system was undertaken prior to ultimate closure of the site. This evaluation I revealed that while the sludge is saturated to within 1 foot (0.3 m) of {q2,,) the the fill surface, sand blanketinitial weremeasurements fromindicates dry (Table 5). This 4 standpipes installed into a " dry base"
condition is being maintained at these locations.
Water induced into the s tandpipes shortly af ter installation rapidly dissipated documenting that the sand blanket has a permeability of 1 x 10-3 cm/see or greater. These results are significant because they show that even though the sludge is essentially saturated the driving head on the clay base is typically less than 1 foot (0.3 m). One of the most important variables in analyzing the efficiency of the collection system and its ability to limit leachate head buildup is the volume of leachate and ground water which must be removed. These 1 volumes can be estimated using water balance calculations (Gee,1983; l Fenn et al.,1975; Thornthwaite and Mather,1957) and ground water inflow i equations (Cedergren,1977). While the water balance method is generally well accepted, the assumptions upon which the predictions are based can lead to questions regarding the accuracy of the results (Kmet, 1982). Table 6 lists engineered landfills in Wisconsin for which field data on the volumes of leachate collected are summarized. The first landfills are zone-of-saturation sites and the last clay-lined sites located above the water table. Data from the clay-lined sites are presented for comparative purposes. The available data can be used to draw some general conclusions. First, the data suggest that leachate collection volumes for zone-of-saturation sites fall in the range of 200 to 500 gallons per acre r[f)perday(1.9to4.7m3/ha/ day). Two notable exceptions are Winnebago County and WMI-Omega Hills. The higher volumes at Winnebago County may be due to the acceptance of large quantities of high liquid content , l 1 433 _- -_=
h,*fl f o . r n e . t o g ee gt r i n a g e . l i w infoa t nf . o l d i d C d nf d l d 8 e d a o n s n d r a t a n s a ; d e s s t oe t s a s r n sl t s n u e t o l u o s. r e t el t a n t l e a f el e gi el e t h a f a e m e at a r g f
- 0. 7 f g u w e y 3 n y o
We r 0 5 0 0 5 i d 02 2 1 r 2 1 m n
, , f ,f t e ,f 7 , ,
n n o n oaw n o3 n 2 o o o o o n iai nof i n r h i . i t r a e i o t t t o e t a c n lai o lait s l t t l t t f l e a k r l t a w ladi t d ladi t t d o o ladi t d r a l t a T r a sf s a s af s a e s . m n o n n n t n t e I i r I r5 I r a I n R s e e2 e w e . r n e o rt ef rt ef l rt ef g r e mn ni t l t a t a t a n t o s f l f f , f i f d n a ag a r e a r e e r a r d e n a n a c o y yt yt t yt a y b s D2 r5 r a r a a r a t r A i D w D w w D w s D f W o , 5 y 1 8 0 2 ea cD
- y y - 6 1 a 6 r r - 1 l n
- D D - P o l
o l d r nG . a , e g t . led l 1 5 rd (f v u e8 2 ot el c - pL L S a6 f 0
- 4 e R ,
r w r e o u0
- - - - , - s nt t l S 1 a o ig a n WD s t
( el D u
" s 1
5 0 n 8 y y 2 y o 0 D r D r 2 8 1 r 1.C D 0 S 1 9 T 1 S r , oe . t y a W ". l hL t 8 7 6 1 6 ,l pd 7 h i 4 3 8 3 e n 1 1 2 1 2 lcf d D aS p n r a eL n P l o d a i n s t a e 8 8 1 8 81 1 8 81 a o p l t - - - - - . s l a 2 2 2 2 8 Di aD 2 2 2 2 - t s 9
- - - - 0 .D n
9 9 9 1 n e n g I ad r mu h t t
) 4 5 0 3 1 leSt pf 6 9 4 9 9 l,l e( 1 1 2 1 l D .i I T M I
I e p . r S f e tper loa p E d it 1 2 3 4 5 WP R L B nm a u
- - - - - 4 P P P P P ) 1 A t H S S S S S l 9 T S ( 3 i
D py l
E l h ( 1 TASLE 6: LDC4A71 C:EtCTION VOLtMS F#0M WlSCCNSIN LAACIPILLS Auere9e Aree License Total Leecnete Contriewtlag To Leeeste Leecnete home Collected Leecitate Generation Collected
# Year (Gallonsi Collected l (Aeress Galloas/Dev Gallons / Acre /Dev 24 4 Cete9.ie im 369.000 a i County 1978 . ,0i0 30.,
L 638.800 26 1979 6t7,200 f. 750 47.3 1 26 1,693 1980 1,073.900 26 63.0 l 1981 933,250 2,942 113.2 e 26 1982 4,375,250 2.562 98.6 32 11,850 1983 7.310,400 37 370.3 20,028 124.0 ell elaaeesco 1978 7,038.330 27 Cowafy 1979 69.283 714.2 12.215,900 34 1980 6.903,000 33.468 984.4 1988 41.5 18.982 455.7 12,006,000 48.5 32,895 1982 678.2 20.086.200 15.0 15.036 1983 (Jea.-Merca 14) 4,936.660 1000.6 SS 67,629 1229.6 1679 Wla 1978 (June 16-Oecesoor) I,083.803 33 S,446 Qu9e Mllis 8979 1.848.560 33 165.0 theste a 5tsteel f980 2.196,171 33 S.065 153.5 1981 6,0!? 182.3 2,530,750 33 1982 3,454.000 6.934 210.3 1983 33 9,463 31,942.160 286.8 33 84,513 2,631.9 1678 mia 1981 (August 3 M W eneers ! 247,700 to 1,998 Omega M141s 1982 (Jeaverv- w e 71 316.500 199.8 (Eastera Systema 1983 may 9-Oecomeerl to 2,493 9.634.630 10 245.3 22.905 2,290.3 2S73 meverasevser Comoeay 1979 (Novem6er 1-Oeceseerl 638.$00 1980 S.S 10,467 i,903.8 1981 2.461.000 7.5 6, 74 2 640.900 7.3 899.0 1982 676,900 f . ?S6 234.1 Q #983 799,050 7.5 7.3 f.853 2,889 247.8 294.9 1999 *l= t981 4.844,400 17 astro 1982 2,405,l50 8.635 506.0 17 6,589 toestern Systeel 1983 (Jeawary=Mey) 923,600 387.6 17 6,$17 j$9.8 572 Lead 1982 (Apef t 19-Oscemoer) 213,200 80 Rectemets o a 1983 1,230,000 837 83.7 10 3.370 334 2569 Bro.a 1977 County 29,900 9 1978 234,350 82 16.4 East 1979 10.3 643 901,990 17 68.2 1980 237,255 1.386 81.5 17 705 1983 376,801 28 as.) 1982 592,837 I,032 49.2 1983 24 1.624 828,007 24 67.7 2.269 94.5 282 t (se Cielre 1979 100,040 County 1980 3.S 296 676,500 7.0 84.6 190s 976,000 1.840 262.8 1982 7.0 1 166.7 824,000 10.1 2,257 167 1983 t,389,000 14.0 2t$.0 3,80$ 274.8 2822 Clev of 1979 Jeaesvillo 1980 S.S SSS 10.0 1981 29,200 3.3 0.19 1982 14.0 80 9.7 IC2 t15 18.0 290 1983 11.5 149.950 18,0 41t 22.6 2895
- la 1988 700,070 6.5 Nsaego 1982 aus,000 3,918 141.0 13,6 1.315 1983 76.9 17.3 2.380 105.3 2892 Merethon 1981 267,224 CouM y 1982 4.S 732
$77.148 9.0 162.7 1983 1,581 t,036,470 14.0 4 75. 7 2.840 202.0 e
435
(ybys sludge wastes, the collection of large volumes of surface water from open WQ% cells and/or inaccurate pumping data. The substantial increase in id leachate volumes at the WMI-Omega Hills site is due to the extensive remedial action being undertaken. Four of the 5 clay-lined sites have values which fall in the range of 50 to 300 gallons per acre per day (0.5 to 3.1 m 3/ha/ day). The City of Janesville landfill (#2822) has collected substantially less leachate, which may be due to perching of leachate on an interim clay cover layer or to a malfunction of the leachate collection system. Therefore, the data from the City of Janesville site should not be regarded as representative of actual leachate collection volumes from clay-lined sites. Imachate collection volumes vary ;reatly with zone-of-saturation sites generating somewhat higher volumes then clay-lined facilities located above the water table. Although ground water inflow is important, the acceptance of large volumes of liquids and sludges is more critical in accounting for the greater collection volumes. These data, used in conjunction with a detailed water balance and ground water inflow analysis, should be used to design an efficient leachate . collection and . removal syste=. I Recommendations A number of recommendations for limiting leachate head buildup and TE),' minimizing the potential for ground water contamination at landfills l' located in a saturated clay soil environment are outlined below: Site Investigations
- 1. Drill an adequate number of soil borings on a uniform grid pattern across the site to at least 30 feet (9.1 m) below the anticipated base grade in order to characterize the clay deposits at depth.
- 2. Excavate backhoe pits to a depth of at least 15 feet (4.5 m) on a uniform grid pattern across the site to determine if the saturated clay deposits possess the composition necessary to limit ground water inflow to less than the rate of evaporation and to reveal any structure or permeable zones not readily identifiable in borings.
- 3. Install a sufficient number of water table observation wells and nested piezemeters to define both the horizontal and vertical ground j water flow directions. Recommended well construction details are given in Appendix A.
(
- 4. Place the well screens in the most permeable zones encountered beneath the site. Also, conduct single well response tests (slug or baildown) on all on-site wells to determine the in, situ hydraulic conductivities.
- 5. Perform laboratory permeability tests on remolded samples to determine if the saturated clay soils possess the necessary composition and structure to maintain a permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/see or less. l i
i 436 m.
I l
;;h OBSERVATION WELL Protective steet PIEZ0 METER casing and lock vented cad Concrete (sloped :
f ,/ to promote s_ f orainage away .'. i d _ A trom wett soorox. 2-)
- g. $
NbNkkh$ <* h$hhNh2INbilN[hk$ ,;
?II
; b-
?,0 ',: Bentenrte peliet 9 '$ ; p:
seat (approx. 5*. d , '/: Permeace sacxfin - *'"** II ' i 7 '
!' WATER TABLE Senecuie 40 PV" -
Packing matenal Casing snouac extenc l '
% j (minimum 2" h - '
t 2' aceve too of *)'j I.* .*.' . ciameter) screen. ..
;!:.;l ,':
A.h: - Sectorute stum
. :, t -
Sicttee senecue - .*: .
.[ .
a0 PVC screen l '. t (10-15') .
, *l l*. ';
k,?.;-rfs . . ;; Csean sa ca sana ; .. . ' 5 anc/or gravet l *f. * :
.,, ; s 3..*.*2 .* '
Y
- PIE 20 METRIC SURFACE 8
'-l 4
tin area of cownwarc Eevaten
, . ; gracents)
Cetterence netween Well screens (15-27) Bentofute pellet
.7 g[ seal
'g;
//
g3 (tranenum r)
//
? '
.J Packittg thalertal Swies seneeue
;~;N [-5 *. -
should extend t r som too a a0 PVC screen fo- *' J '.;a screen. (2 $') .
- Clean sdeCa sand 2**'
- anctor gravet Not to scale APPENDIX A: TYPICAL OBSERVATION WELL AND PIEZ0 METER CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 437
- 6. Determine Atterberg limits on representative samples to define
@w the moisture range at which the clay sediments can be properly
- recompacted in the field.
Site Design
- 1. Provide a uniform low permeability clay barrier between the waste and surrounding saturated environment by overezcavating and recompacting
- the base and sidewalls of the excavation. In addition to a permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/see or less, the clay barrier should meet the following specifications
a) Classification: CL or CH under the Unified Soil Classificattien System b) Thickness: Minimum 5 feet (1.5 m) c) Liquid Limit: 30 or greater d) Plasticity Inder: 15 or greater e) Compaction: Minimum 95% standard or 90% modified Proctor density f) Grain Size: Minimum P200 content of 50% by weight g) Clay Content (.002 mm): Minimum 25% by weight *
- 2. Place a minimum 1 foot (0.3 m) thick granular drainage blanket over the recompacted base and sidewalls of the site to improve the efficiency of the leachate collection syste=. Sidewalls should be constructed at a maximum of 3:1 (horizental to vertical) to provide stability for the granular drainage blanket.
- 3. Perform an analysis using an appropriate analytical model to determine the pipe spacing necessary to maintain the leachate head level within the granular drainage blanket. Do not exceed 100 feet for the maximum leachate flow distance.
- 4. Slope the landfill base a mini =um of 2% to provide positive drainage towards the collection pipes.
Site Onerations l 1. Do not dispose of liquid wastes at zone-of-saturation sites.
- 2. In municipal landfills, limit the volume of sludge wastes to provide at least a 10:1 mixing ratio (gate yards of refuse to gate yards of sludge). Also, in municipal landfills, do not place sludges around the perimeter of the fill area or directly on the granular drainage blanket.
- 3. Do not use clay for daily cover on the first lift of refuse in order to prevent fines from washing onto the granular drainage blanket.
Remove any intermediate clay soil cover from all subsequent lif ts or use an alternate source of granular material to ensure that the waste is hydraulically connected to the underlying leachate collection system. p 4. Monitor leachate collection volumes and head levels monthly so [ that problems can be identified early. 438
' c MLM M wp ~
5 Conclusions The problems identified and discussed document that Wisconsin's original 1975 guidelines for allowing landfills to be developed within the zone-of-saturation are not adequate to provide an acceptable level of ground water protection. Implementation of the recommendations outlined above should limit the potential for serious leachate head buildup and/or ground water contamination problems to develop at a landfill utilizing the zone-of-saturation design concept. References Cedergren, H.E. 1977. Seepage , Drainage , and Flow Nets. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 534 pp. Fenn, D. G. , K.J. Hanley and T.V. DeGeare. 1975. Use of the Water Balance Method for Predicting Imachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites. EPA /530/SW-168. U.S. EPA, Cincinna ti, OH. 40 pp. Fetter, C.W., Jr. 1980. Applied Hydrogeology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. , Columbus , OH. 488 pp. Gee, J.R. 1983. The Prediction of Imachate Generation in landfills a New Method. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste. pp. 201-224. Glebs, R.T. 1980. Under Right Conditions Landfills Can Extend Below e Gro pp.und Water Table. 50-59. Solid Wastes Management. February 1980. Grisak, G.E. , J. A. Cherry, J. A. Vonhof and J.P. Blumele. 1976. Hydrogeologie and Hydrochemical Properties of Fractured Till in the Interior Plains Region. In Glacial Till: An Interdisciplinary Study. Royal Society of Canada Special Publication 12. pp. 304-333. Hendry, J.J. 1982. Hydraulic Conductivity of a Glacial Till in Alberta. Ground Water. v. 20, no. 2, pp.162-169. Kmet, P. 1982. EPA's 1975 Water Balance Method - it's Use and ~ Limitations. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Unpublished Paper. 48 pp. Prudie, D.E. 1982. Hydraulic Conductivity of a Fine-Grained Till, Cattaraugus County, New York. Ground Water. v. 20, no. 2, pp. 194-204 Quinn, K.J.1983. Designs. Numerical Simulation of Zone of Saturation Landfill In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste. pp. 225-241. Rinaldo-Lee , M.B. and D.G. Nichols. 1979. Impacts on Ground and Surface Water Quality of a Iandfill Incated in a Clay Env ronment: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste. pp. 431-443. S terett, R.J. and T.B. Edil. 1982. Ground Water Flow Systems and Stability of a Slope. Ground Water. v. 20, no. 1, pp. 5-11. Ihornthwaite , C.W. and J.R. Mather. 1957. Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance. Drexel Institute of TechnoloFy, laboratory of Climatology. Publications in Climatology. v. 10, no. 3, pp. 185-311. 439
m, my .- .. c . . Williams , R.E. and R.N. Farvolden. 1967. The influence of Joints on the Journal of Hydrology, l F.f}x- Movement of Ground Water Through Olacial Till.
- v. 5, pp. 163-170.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' Files. 1 Mark E. Gordon, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box < 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707 l ' Mr. Gordon has a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Madison Since receiving his degree he has been employed as an ! (1979). environmental engineer with the Bureau of Solid Waste Management,Mr. Gordon is r Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. reviewing engineering plans for new disposal facilities and for i evaluating sites. remedial action plans for ground water cleanup o Mr. Gordon is a Registered Professional National Water Well Association. . Engineer in the State of Wisconsin. Paul M. Huebner, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources , P.O. Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Mr. Huebner has been employed as a hydrogeologist with the Bureau of t Solid Waste Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources since C 1980. He is responsible for reviewing and evaluating geologic and
$lf ) hydrogeologic reports for proposed and existing disposal sites, preparation of environmental impact assessments and conditions of site feasibility. Mr. Huebner was previously employed by Sauk County inHe holds a Bac Baraboo, Wisconsin as their solid waste manager.
Science degree in Natural Resources from the University of W Madison (1977). Association since 1979, l
,o 440 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
__a__..__. .nA---. - a - &.-- " *--*"L--= * - - - - - - " - " '
* " ' = ~
^~- -~ - ~ ~
Gi;, M. 1 i l 4 I I ; .., , ATTACHMENT D i 1 i l l l c.O.. l l
i m Proceedings O of the Third National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring May 25-27,1983 The Fawcett Center, Columbus, Ohio 40 Edited by David M. Nielsen. Director of Research I National Water Well Association Worthington, Ohio Sponsors NationalWater Well Association National Center for Ground-Water Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Published by NationalWater Well Association 500 W. Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, Ohio 43085 Produced by Water Well Journal Publishing Company 500 W. Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, Ohio 43085
a l 1 f N 9: 1 ; k i
~
Hydrogeologic Investigations of Failure Mechanisrns and Migration of Organic Chemicals at Wilsonville, Illinois by Thomas M. Johnson, Robert A. Griffin, Keros Cartwright. Leon R. Follmer, Beverly L Herzog, Walter J. Morse. Paul B. DuMontelle, Myrna M- till cecosit native to the site for natural attenuation of Killey, Christopher J. Stohr and Randall E. Hughes any teachate. A compacted clav liner was used to supplement native tillin at least on'e of the trenenes. The
. Introduction company had applied for and received a permst from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to This stucy was initiated after the Illinois Suoreme dispose of industrial and hazardous wastes at the site.
Court affirmed a trial court order requiring the exhuma-Several months after the landfill was in operation, tne D'- tion and removalof wastes at a hazardous waste disposal facility near Wilsonville. I!!inois (Macoupin County). citizens of Wdsonville became alarmed at the disposal
'- of hazardous wastes in the proximity of their community.
The reason for the order was the proximity of the site to They filed suit to stop the disposal of wastes and to have Wilsonvdle and potential for harm to the town from continueo operation of the site.The order provided a them removed from the site. A lengthy court battle ensued, and Earthline continued to burv wastes. In ur ique opportunity to examine in detail the effects of the wa:tes on soils below and adjacent to the site and to March 1982, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the measure the migration of contaminants from the May 1981 trial court's ruling that the hazardous wastes buried in the approximately 26 trenches teach 10 to 20 trenches. Work is currently in progress; however, preliminary results have been obtained. These prelimi- feet deep,50 feet wide, and 250 to 350 feet long) at nary results and a description of the approach are Wilsonville must be exhumed and removed from the presented here because they may be useful to others site. SCA Services Inc. announced in March 1982 that evaluating hazardous waste disposal sites. they were dropping further appeals and would comply The study of the site is a cooperative effort between with the court order. The preparations began in the summer of 1982, and the actual exhumation and removal several agencies and the site owner. The U.S. EPA has supplied a major part of the funding through a coopera-process, begun September 7,1982, is expected to continue over a four-year period. tive agreement with the Illinois State GeologicalSurvey* whose personnelare performing a majonty of the work. Earlier that year,in February 1982, the IEPA discov-The Illinois EPA has provided a drill rig and crew for the ered that routine monitoring of wells at the site had field studies and is performing organic analyses on soil shown migration of organic pollutants as far as 50 feet and water samples from the site. The site owner, SCA from the trenches in a three-year period.This discovery Services Inc., has provided access to the site, safety was a separate issue from the court proceedings and training and a substantial amount of the materials for exhumation order. The migration rates were 100 to l.000 construction of the monitoring wells. times faster than predicted. Two obvious questions were posed: (1) Why were these organic compouncs Background Events migrating faster than predicted, and (2) What are the implications to land disposal of similar wastes at other Earthline Corp., a subsidiary of SCA Services Inc., sitesf This research project was designed to provide began operating a 130-acre landfill near Wilsonville, Illinois, on Novemoer 15,1976. The operation was a answers to these and many other questions regarding the impact o f land disposal of hazardous wastes, particu-trench.and-fil! crocedure that relied on a clayey glacial larly organicliquids. 413
.8 '
~
1 Objectives "f The project aims to determine why several organic , , _ _ _ _, _3 b contaminants detectedin monitoringwells around the
- V ranches t are migrating faster than predicted and what
,Z' =
the implications are to land disposal of similar wastes at
- s -- .- - a. ,a j"
ni* n f i In vd othtr sites. The scope of work includes studies of h a .O* ",' several aspects of site behavior. ,, 8-T 4 m e Site characterization-Detailed descriptions of grologicmaterials geomorphologyandhydrogeology; i _ , i j j [ , , , %* _ _ _ __ ;,- ,. i ; : !!:ilei! h-~~ comparison of field and laboratory measurements of hydraulic conducivity and effective porosity; signifi-l f'j"j"[*/%'hy yl _b. , aa l cance of fracture flow. l % "*"*
}i' = = -
e Organicchemicaleffects-Measurement of actual I h,'l ! e migration rates of organic enemicais through soils at tne site; laboratory studies to determine effecs of 'f. , 2Q# u.6j i g, 7 organic enemicals on permeability and pore structure
,,,,,,___'.712 _
; SP _ e __.,
of clay soils. e Clay liner construcion-Effecs of waste leachate s j on 5-foot recompacted clay liner in Trench No. 24. ye e e Acic mine drainage-Effects of acidity and high inorganic salt content of leachate from adjacent coai refuse pile on clay soils. figure 1. Site map showing water-table elevation on e Condition of trench covers-Observations of August 2.1982, and the location of the cross section, as well as locations of trench areas Condition of trench Covers rtiativt to surfact trosson and difierential settlement. and SCA monitoring wells and bonngs in e Condition of drums and wastes-Photograpn, ic relation to project well nests and profiles i documentation of effecs of leachate on drums. explosive gas meter. A fire truck is on-site at a!! times. 2. Other routine and special safety precautions ara also ( estarch Plan employed as deemed appropriate. A ultidisciplinary Approach and Safety Procedures Y A multidisciplinary/multiagency approach was Geological Characterization adopted early in tne planning of this project. Co. An extensive geologicinvestigation and description l a operation with the site operators improved access to of the site is being carried out to place this site in the I ig tne site and reduced legal problems. Consolidation of proper regional geologic framework and to collect ' efforts also reduced the number of borings, samples t, sufficient baseline data for extrapelating the results B 4 and anal yses. from our investigation to other sites. The multidisciplinary nature of the project and the o ! The geologic characterization is being carried out uncertainty over the potential hazards that would be by four principal means: (1) examination of all pre. i encountered at the site demanded detailed prepara-j viously gathered data and information,(2) investigation u tions for the field work. These involved organizational of outcrops and exposures at and in the vicinity of the mectings with representatives of the three government a site, (3) study of the trench walls themselves and e i agehcies and tne operators of the site to delineate areas I backhoe pits at selected locations on and around the of responsibility, liability and allocation of resources. . f site and (4) study of drill samples collected on and 5 o , Sorcial safety measures prescribed for all on-site staff around the site. ad were: (1) successful completion of an eight-hour first- A map of the site study area and the overall drilling aid training course,(2) instruction in use of protective plan appear in Figure 1. The drilling inclue:es 11 nests of V i breathing apparatus and (3) a thorough medical exam- piezometers and monitoring wells labeled A through K ination before eeginning field work. In addition, a rd and two profiles of monitoring wells labeled V and W, a ; 1 j special first-aid kit was prepared, and the route from tr
' total of more than 70 holes. The deepest hole at each :,
the site to the nearest hospital emergency room was nest and profile location was continuously sampled L of u-travsitd by the field team. Protecive clothing routinely using push tubes near the surface and split spoon worn during field work includes hard hat, disposable I df methods for the deeper samples. The samples were s p( coveralls, rubber boots and protective gloves appro- logged in the field, preserved in core boxes and priate for the particular task. Organic vapors are E pp t'ransported to the laboratory,where detailed sampling I es monitored during drilling and otner activities, and and descriptions are being carried out. Sixteen loca-
, Qtn concentrations exceed 100 ppm, protective 2 sti tions at the site were continuously sampled for strati- 3 wq Ceathing apparatus is worn. Positive pressure breathing graphic, geologic and chemical characerization. These
' apparatus is worn at all times when working in the wc 16 holes were commonly 30 to 45 feet deep, but some t bd tranches Explosive gas mixwres are monitored with an holes were deeper, including a deep stratigraphic
[ 2 53 414 A _ m 4
E
.e; .
~
~~~
~
t
) e.e. s==l,,'3*-
w-n ' T l. ll
- ' - ~ ~
s~
~*
c _s y ,, I i .,. 4 h ' x D h i 6,:.ir.: a ( _ -N k. I
% ~
I k(I h 7 t ; ~ - - - > - v
,fr i6 6 Ii i i . .,- .~. m * .
K s-- - //
.-s <5. -w w - mf .,.,, ,i, ,, r -/ l/,~~; / L M%nm a A p i
l b i i !
; .r.- ,
I t iss - i- ' i
.y . .---*- -
N, p,,,,,,,,,, .. : m.
- u '
!/
i : - rrr - . - I
!, I . =a T, .. J--
s ? L Figure 2. Schernatic cross section of Wilsonville site showing the secuence of geologic materials interpreted from
} protect bonngs and the water-table elevation in relation to trench areas. Elevations are aoproximate control hole at nest I that was continuousiv sampled to locally highly jointed. In cores these joints were 5-92 feet, where bedrock .vas encountered. Solit. spoon typically stained with iron. were predominantly hori-O samples were also coilected at intermittent de;yhs zontal and dissipated with depth. The major f:ctors in from all the other heies drilled at the site.- joint development within the till are thought n be g.3 The Wiisnnville site :s underlain by 50 to 100 fee of related crimarily to suess release sna to .he weathenng
- r glacial drift that o serlies Pennsvivanian age shale bed-
~
0 rock.The sequence of unconsoiidated materials uncer- l *:- *
- . 7- 7,. .5'~- * . ---
e ; lying the site is illustrated in Figure 2. a cross section of - -- *==
} : 1 , ..a-the site, and in the generalized stratigraphic column in i s
Figure 3. Figure 3 also indicates the average texture of .
! , g;-.
l each of the geologic units underlying the site. l q%,,,@ - t A coal refuse pile covers about 10 acres of the site j mf[.d , , _ , , with aeproximately 15 to 30 feet of rock debris from an j lC :: n. -
'~ ~
undergrou nd coal mine. The surficial geologic materials ,,f : at the site consist of 2 to 8 feet of windblown silt .,,-;.. deposits, the Peoria Loess and Roxana Silt. Beneath the II3.1 mantle of loess is a thics sequence of glacial tills with ! @ only occasional thin, discontinuous lenses of silt, sand i ['-f' -f . :: ,., - , , , , , ,,,,,, , , , , , ,
' ~ ~ ~
and gravel. l "L--*: The uppermost glacial till at Wilsonville is the , j,. . Vandalia Till Member or tr'e Clasford Formation, which t
...J.:
ranges from 25 to 60 feet in thickness. The disposal *,-', }- j trenches at the site were excavated into this unit to ,, , ('. ; depths of approximatetv 10 to 20 feet (Figure 2). The } '"? ' ' * *
},",;~{
upper portion of the Vandalia Till is weathered to a ,t,, ;, depth of as much as 15 to 20 feet. The upper weathered , portion constitutes the Sangamon Soil profile formed j "j.d.f} g '. prior to loess deposition. The Vandalia Till typically " y.fl21 consists of four zones: 11 weathered, leached, clayey, tg-g ~ stiff ablation till(Sangamon Paleese.!); underlain by 2) h2,,,: ,, _ , , , , , , weathered, leached, loamy, soft abinon till: 3) partly - weathered, calcartous, ;oamy, britt!e, fractured, denst figure 3. Idealized stratigraphic column, results of
.. basal till; and 4) u nweathered, calcareous, loamy, stiff, field and laboratory tests of hydrauIic V. semi-plastic, dense basal till.
conductivity and tex:ure of geologic The zone of fractured basal till was found to be materials at Wilsonville site. Actual trench l depths generally ranged from 10 to 20 feet 415 I j - p .g ,7. g . ,, y'. y p.e. g m.,p g .7 g y .5,7 p:. , p.$. yp >y bi % 17. y: .<='......i.is F-M. - aa hrsm .
I M'E@Ed
~
processes of oxidation and carbonate cementation. term piezometric surface and in turn the hydraulic 30 Iiiese f actors appear to make the upper basal material gradient and flow across the site. Core samples from hd ore brittle than the lower basal till. these borings will be used for chemical analysis. Water w -{M The underlying unweathered, basal tili phase of the chemistry will not be analyzed because of interference p;q ndalia Till was generally unfractured. Between the caused by the addition of water during the hydraulk y base of the Vandalia Till and the underlying shale conductivity slug tests. tief bedrock is a sequence of older, fine-grained glacial tills A separate set of monitoring wells has been con- for of the Banner Formation. structed for water chemistry samples. These include at fad Lenses of silt, sand and gravel are present locally least two monitoring wells at each nest and up to 22 ar( throughout the glacial drift sequence. Although these wells positioned in a geometric progression from the wd Iznses are typically less than 2 inches thick,6 feet of trenches along two lines. These lines have been desig- l citan gravel was found in one boring. Where present. nated as V and W in Figure 1. Cores and disturbed si thesalenses are commonly found between stratigraphic samples from the drilling will be si bjected to hydraulic 2. units and subunits; however, there appears to be no conductivity and chemical measurements, th - significant lateral continuity of these lenses. The elevation of the water table at the site measured au-Special emphasis has been placed on assessing the in pre-existing monitoring wells at the site on August 2, se normal pedologic and geologic features (f acies change 1982, is shown in Figure 1, and in the cros. secion, a r-phenomena, soil horizonation, etc.) in and around the Figure 2. The effect of the coai refuse pile on shallow Sh-trenches to develop a classification for materials that ground water flow pattern is evident. A ground-water 2 i. distinguishes classes of normal and disturbed materials. mound is present beneath the coal refuse pile resulting cri Assuming that all materials within the trenched area are in shallow ground-water flow toward secure trench be' disturbed to some degree, sites away frem the trenches area B to the west and secure trench area A to the fin have been sought to establish the normal relationships. south. Disposal trenches in each area were apparently co For increased confidence in the stratigraphic inter- excavated below the water table; however,tne trenenes eu pretations, cores from the surrounding region are may have remained relatively dry during the disposal wa being collected ar.d evaluated. In addition, more than operation due to the very low hydraulic conouctivity of - led seven backhoe pits in undisturbed locations adjacent the surrounding glacial till. The presence of tne by. to the trenched area have been examined to comple-mint the study of the exposures produce f by the ground-water mound beneath the coal refuse pile is also significant because of the unknown effects of jg sa hv (h 1
- nch excavations.
The geologic characterization is focusing particular acidic. highly mineralized coal refuse leachate on the geologic materials and wastes of the disposal site. j i bM attention on morphological changes in the soil mate- Vertical fracture permeability will be measured by I hvs rials because it is suspec*ed that organic solvents may angle drilling at separate locations. Three nests con- & C affec soil strucure. Mese- and micro-morphological taining three to four holes per nest will be drillad on an ; ce features will be stuoied at selected distances from the trenen walls and bottoms. These features will be angle to intersect possible vertical fractures. In situ hydraulic conductivity measurements will be carried j' hv 3 Th compared with those of normal samples to determine oat, and the results will be compared with previous - m, wnsther the wastes have imparted patterns of enange measurements of vertical and horizontal hydraulic ; ved into the morphologies of exposed soils. conductivity. Measurements of effective porosity will j inq Detailed physical and chemical laboratory character- be attempted wnere feasible. . tio( izations are also being conducted on selected samples The construction of the monitoring wells, screened gm from the drilling and trench samp'ing programs.These piezcmeters and open hole piezometers is shown in l sad include particle-size analysis, clay and mineralogical Figure 4. Monitoring wells were constructed by boring i saw characterization, petrographic (micro-morphologici evaluation, hydraulic conductivity, pore size distri-a hole to a selected depth with a hollow-stem auger drill rig. A 2-inch ID well enrg with a slotted well jt cmj cop bution, surface area, pore volume, moisture, density screen was lowered to the iCJ sm of the hole through f bas and other geologic and engineering tests as appropri- the hollow-stem ausnt. O!
- Il screens were 2 feet i ord tre. Complete chemical charac erization includes long, and screen rnt wina aterials were stainless bei i
analyses of volatile and semivolatile organics and 30 to steel for monitoriqy ,c., en screw-joint PVC was g frad 45 inorganic parameters. used for screened piezometers. fraj Following placement of the casing and screen,the :g me ( Hydrogeologic/ Geochemical Studies hollow-stem auger was withdrawn from the hole, and p hyd An extensive hydrogeologic and geochemicat invest- clean medium silica sand was placed to approximately ; reeg igation of the site is under way and includes borings of 1.0 foot above the well screen. A plug of 2 to 5 feet of y 11 piezometer nests (nests A to K,in Figure l) with three expanding cement was then placed above the sand g baw to six pie 2ometers per nest. These piezometers are pack. Expanding cement was used for sealing, rather n zos
, ing used initially for in situ hycraulic conductivity than bentonite,to preciude the possibility of cracking ][ rese ts at the various deaths of the pie 2cmeters. Later because of the presence of organicsolvents. A mixture J ( are
(%ese piezometers will de used to establishcontaining the long-70 percent (by volume) clean silica sand and jr hos
~
'iE reie 416
? l. $Y $ ch N f.?h' h i .h}h hh hj., ,
Table 1 failure mtchanism because any reduction in the effective Ccncentrations'of Velatile, thickness of the soil cover by external or internal Organic Priority Pollutants in Ground Water crosion or by cracking because of waste subsidence from SCA Monitoring Wells, w uld increase the amount of water percolating into Wilsonville Site.(SCA1982) the cells may be due to increased hydraulic nead on the
' # N * *
[ Number of Concentration wells (of bottom and side walls of the trenches. The condition of (ug/t.) the cover will be studied in place and as it is removed to possible 12)
- determine the eytent to which external examination Benzene 18 1 can identify such problems.
Chlorobenzene 10 1. Chicroform The number and condition of the crums and their 53 1 centents relative to other wastes will be investigated 1,2 Dichloroethane 42 - 228,100 12 during the waste removal process. This information will Methylene chloride 12 - 89 4 help interpret the observed effects on soiis in tne Toluene 11 - 1,030 4 context of predicting whether maximum leachate 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 79 - 10,650 6 strength has occwred. The information will aiso heio Trichlorofluoromethane 10 1 estimate the effective service life of steel crums in landfill cells in this environment. Table 2 in conjunction with the trenen investigations anc Maximum Concentrations of Purgeable, sampling, the condition of drums and backfill in tne Volatile Or8anic Compounds in SoilSamP les trenches will be recorded by still ohotography, emoioy. from Project Borings (Analyses by IEPA) ing techniques for stereograpnic recording. Stereo-grams have oeen made of the features in the surrace or one trench cover and are being applied to stucies of Concentration features in the trenches. (pob) To better extrapolate the measurements taken in the 1 Bromo. 2-chloroethane 14 trenen and to record the location of samoies taken a Chloroform 430 2-foot aluminum cube with notes dnitea on centers will Carbontetrachloride 400 be incorporated into stereograpnic pnotographic pairs Dichloroethane 100 and trsgiicates. Plumbing and orientation of the cuoe Dichlorcethylene 120 EthyI benzene 360 s,- - . M
" Trichloroethane 30 '""" ' ' " " " 8"""
Trichloroethylene 150 "" ~~""""' Tetrachloroethylene 130 ~ Toluene -:N
%p
,g 1.300 yh
, 4 lt 0
e
* -- er.::
.. 3-7 Engineering Geology Investigations *
~
J,a] --
;y-1,,
The engineering geology investigations inclu de: (1) ,,,,,,,,
. - :- 4 -
e measurement of surface response to potential coal ~~~""""* ~ ! -- mine subsidence at the site,(2) measurement of settle- .
~
i ment and condition of trench covers,(3) determination - of physical properties and characteristics of geologic ; materials composing strata and fill at the site, (4) recording of trench conditions using close-range photo-j
?
grammetry, stereograms and mapping, and (5) obtain- ' ing and using aerial photography to prepare a model '*"' i for the final base map of the site and to interpret l geologic features. 1 Measurement of surface and near-surface response j to subsidence of the underground coal mine workings j involves careful construction of monuments and pre-cise surveying measurement. The construction of the survey monuments and settlement probes is illustrated in Figure S.
. ~ -
. . l'~~~~~--------
-'=8
Trench cover settlement data from this phase of the . . s .
, s study will provide unique information in this regard. *'
These data will be of particula ' value in designing ' * . Iimited-infiltration, multiple-layered earth trench covers figure S Diagram illustrating the construction of the , that appear likely to be sensitive to settlement stresses. settlement probe and monument The concition of the cover is important as a potential installations used at the sit e 418
+
a
. 9 . ' , . , =
,} . .~
iC 30 ptretnt granular bentonita was used to backfill the yy*y'",Q[N,'er open. hole pieatmzter 9 hole to within approximately 4 feet of the surface. If ~~
,,,,g n, ~ ,
~
I water was standing in the hole above the lower cement cr, 4, ' plug at the time of construcion, a 5-gallon pail of ~ cement d bentonite pellets was occasionally used.To avoid ver- - 2 tical cross contamination, drill cuttings were not used
,- for backfill. The annulus was then plugged to the sur- met.i or
.,_ ' V C '8"'
at , face with expancing cement and mounded slightly 22 't around the casing to promote drainage away from the Re j well ,Q'M -+- '5- $ The open-hole piezometer was constructed in a pd j similar manner. After drilling to the desired depth, a 2.5-inch ID PVC glue joint castng was lowered through oc ) l the hollow-stem auger to the bottom of the hole. The _ s.aa . een toas t e ._
""Y ed augers were then withdrawn from the hole.the bottom
- 2. sealed with 2 to 5 feet of expanding cement as a plug, 9, and tne hole backfilled as described above. A 2-inch
" Shelby tube was then lowered through the casing, and a . .
l . 2-foot long sample was pushed and retrieved with the escaaa'as ! 2r
- drill rig, leaving a 2-inch x 2-foot open hole at the L
[g
- ~
~
bottom. The hole and casing were then immediately ~ _ ne o.c= fn filled to the top with water, and the in situ hydraulic i.,s ,,7,,,
- e .l 7 conouctivity slug was initiated. The immediate intro- .
I ducion of water applied a positive pressure to the soil, imoby tuoe moie- *- I which kept the hole from caving in. Changes in water I I
~~
', levels were recorded as a function of time, and the e hydraulic conducivity was computed. The Shelby tube Figure 4. Diarram illustrating construcion or sampie was sealed and taken to the laboratory for man:toring wells. screened piezameters
) hydraul_ci conducivity measurements, which can later and open-hole piezometers used Jr the site be compared witn field tests at each depth in each nest.
e laboratory tests of materials of such low hydraulic Preiiminary results of the in situ field tests of y [L/ hydraulic conductivity calculated using the methods of Cooper et al. (1967) and Papadopulos et al. (1973) are conductivities. The similarity between field- andlaboratory derived
- values of hydraulic conductivity of the Sangamon Soil a compared to the results of reported laboratory tests of developed in ablation till is probably due to the clayey, a hydraulic conducivity of similar materials in Figure 3.
relatively homogeneoussnature of thisweathered zone. d The hycraulic conductivity of the Vandalia Till deter. mined from laboratory tests of recompacted samples is Although the water quality monitoring wells in-s , stalled for this project have not yet been sampled,
@ very low,especially for apparently uniractured basal till.
monitoring weils previously installed by the site operator il The hydraulic conductivity calculated from field injec-in the vicinity of the trenches have been routinely tion (slug) tests, however, is generally significantly sampled and analyzed by the operator and the IEPA. As greater than that calculated from laboratory tests for the indicated previously, subsequent to the court order same apparent mater;al. Laboratory derived values for requiring exhumation of these wastes, contamination of samples of Vandalia Till were all reported to be 2.0 x 10 7 ground water by organic pollutants was discovered by j em/sec or less. Field measurements of the hydraulic the lEPA in several monitoring wells as far as 50 feet from i l conductivity of intervals of ablation till and fractured basal till, however, were found to be as much as three the trenches. Table 1 presents the range of concen-e trations of U.S. EPA priority pollutants found in ground 2 orders of magnitude greater. In the ablation till, this may water from 12 PVC monitoring wells in the vicinity of be due to very thin sand seams or small interconnected secure trencn area B. Further sampling will be required fractures within the relatively soft till. The locally highly fractured nature of the upper portion of the underlying, to accurately determine the extent of ground-water contamination in the vicinity of the site. more dense basal till probably results in much greater The preliminary results of chemical analyses of soil hydraulic conductivity values than those observed in samples collected for this project indicate that organic recompaced samples of the same material, The results of field tests of apparently unfractured pollutants are present at various depths in several locations. Table 2 presents the range of concentrations basal till are significantly lower than the over!ying till of purgeable, volatile, organic compounds found to zones; however, they are still much greater than the date in soil samples. results of corresponding laboratory tests. The reasons are not clear for this discrepancy in the apparently (',. homogeneous, uniractured till; the difference may be related to the range of accuracy of both field and I 417 I & -cx . - ~ ~ .: ~ .
+ ~
, : . x. m. x , . . , .
1
$hml $ '
)
will enabla researchers to orient dirtctions in space. lic conductivity of clays and as aids in intuoreting the I Ntgatives can be placid into a stereopiotte to make fidd observations and measurements. If the resuits of exac measurements of thickness and area. In aedition, these studies correlate with the erfects coserved in the wnere joints occur, measurements of slope magnituce trencnes, these tests could be used for post-ciosure tests i anc direcion can be mace where the use of a clino- at other facilities. meter would be clumsv or impracicai. The authors antiopate that organic soivents will play Aenal photographs of the stucy site will be obtained a maior rolein the migration of pollutants tnrougn earth for use as a base mao and for interpretation of geologic materiais at the site. The reason is that large increases in i features. An effort will be made to cifferentiate cecrock permeaciinty to organic liquids in lancfill liners coulc from glacial features. Lineaments of unknown origin possibly develop by at least two conceivaole mecha-will be examinec by fielo studies. The autnors are nisms: (1) interlayer col lapse of ciay minerais because of attempting by this stucy to incorporate into waste cehydration or (2) flocculation re$uiting from changes disposai site seiecion tne current photointerpretation in surface properties of clay minerais. A test eithe cause techniques used for mineral. cai and gas exploration and of these f ailures is essential. If the succen increase in structurai geologic mapping. permeability is cue to flocculation of ciav particles, a viscositV test could provide an exceilent means of Laboratory Investigations cuantiiving the effec. Changes in viscosirv of ciav Hydraulic Conductivitv Studies suspensions can De related cireclv to cegree of floccu-Lacoratorv stucies are cesignec to provice data to lation of the suspension. A viscosity test will allow a hem interpret fieic measurements anc obsersations. rapid screenin5 of cif3erent chemicals. give a cuick test These stuc:es invoise tacoratory measurements of ny. of svnergistic interaction between enemicais anc pro-craulic concyctiv!tv using seieCec 3Cueous anc organic vice an evaiyation of any Corrective acior's. Viscosity
!icuids. These results will ce compared with those tests can ce run on all earth materiais, anc exoerimental ootainec m the fieic. In accition. we weil measure tne consistency can be maintained bv accing water or clav e' recs of varving concentrations of an organic solvent to achieve a comparabie starting viscosity for eace test.
such as methuene cmonce: on hverauiic concuctivitv. A measure oitne filtration rate of iicuics from cilute Tnese cata wrii neto nterpret tne in situ nvaraulic suspensions of ciay materiais couic aiso ce usec to stucy concucivitv measurements anc correlate iaboratory the faiiure of ciav liners. A fiirration rate expenment is y measurements with 'ie*c cata for precictrve purposes. probabiv a better simulation of the response of a ciay j Accitiona! !acoratorv stucies will inciuce cetermi. liner matertai, out the 'est cannot be usec to cistinguish nation o' moisture retease curves, measuiements of between permeability cnanges resulting rrom floccula-erfecive porosity anc cenneation or unsaturatec flow tion anc those owing to snnnkage or the c:ays causec by 9}j
- characenstics of soil materiais from the site. These measurements wiii ce carnec out in acueous media and organic-incutec cenveration inc interiaver collapse of
~
clays. Once the mecnanism of failure is cianfied. a as a funcion of organic soivent concentration. filtration rate measurement could represent a rapid method of screening numerous chemicals anc ciavs. Screening Test for Leachate Effects on Clay if part or all of the increased permeacility isvneresis A relatec cuestion that this pro.iec will attempt to effect) that is due to organic chemicals resuits from
-] answe' is how can tne potential for cias liner faliure shrinkage of clav5 (because oi cehvoration anc replace-
; trom leacnate attack De icentifiec at operating anc ment of associated interlayer water), this pnenomenon closec f aciities. Because it is cifficult to predic ieacnate should be measura bie by X-rav diffraction. This experi-I compos tion Iparticulariv for mrxec-waste faalities), ment would be carned out using smectite clav and anc because leachate compos; tion changes gracuaily 'ndigenous materials. Approonate quantities of organic with time, it is possible that incompaticie waste /Ciav chemiCais wil! be accec to the test samples, anc X-ray liner combinations may fail to be identified cunng the ciffracion will be used to check replacement of inter-
; cesign of the faciity. If reference samples of the clav are c vstalline water If the rate of replacerrent is deter-taken dunng construcion anc preservec. then testing mined to be a significant factor, this variable will also be can be concucec cunng faality operation or atte'r measurec with ciffraction tecnnicues.
closure using sampies or leachate taken at those times. If All of the above field and lacoratory cata will serve approonate tests nave been previousiv identified and as input for computer modeis that will be used to correlated with the benavior of clays in the fieid, tnen attemot cuantitative predicions of water balance, the potential for clav liner failure can be evaluated with ground-water movement and pollutant migration
, greater conficence than is possible during the design across the site. Predictions made with the computer q phase of a faality. In this project, samples of currently moceis will be compared with actual ficid measure-procuced leachate, affeced clavs from the faciity and ments, and the implications of predicting future migra-unaffected clavs from outside the f aality are avaliable. tion of contaminants from the site will be discussed.
This situation presents a unique opportunity to evaluate O'screpancies between precicted and actual observa-O the feasibility of ceveloping a screening test for clay tions will be interpreted with respect to the cesign of liner failure. earthen liners and covers for landfills, anc with regard Measureme-ts of the viscosity and filtration rates of to the implicanons to the permit process for new waste leachate-cas smspensions will be evaluated for use as a disposai sites anc post-cosure processes for existing screenm g :e~ :: identify leachate effects on the nycrau, sites. 419
. . . _m.
w TMd s Current Status and computer modeling of contaminant migration The major efforts of this project to date have been resulting from the disposal of hazardous chemical 5 the installation of wells and the collectica of samples wastes and low-level radioactive waste. He also has .@ outside of the disposal pits. Soil borings and installation experience in the monitoring of contamination and of monitoring wells have been completed. Analyses of modeling of soii-water movement in the unsaturated water, leachate and soil samples are continuing. Pre- zone and is working on a project to design and test liminary examination of samples from the soil borings infiltration-lirniting covers for waste disposal sites. and observations made in backhoe pits on and around the site indicate that sandy layers within the clay till are not continuous and thus cannot account entirely for the observed contaminant migration. The significance of discontinuities and joints exposed in the till by backhoe pits remains to be determined. Laboratory studies of hydraulic conductivity, contaminant adsorp-tion and screening tests for lea chate attack on clays are currently being initiated. Acknowledgments P.B. DuMontelle, C.J. Stohr, M.M. Killey and R.E. Hughes of the Illinois State Geological Survey are conducting significant portions of the investigation described in this report. The authors wish to acknowledge partial support of this project by SCA Chemical Services Inc., Wilsonville, Illinois, the !!!inois Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, . Cincinnati. Ohio, under Cooperative Agreement No. , R810442-01. " The authors also gratefully acknowledge 5. Otto.J. e
^
{. 0 H.arley, D. Tolan and K. Bosie of the Illinois Environ- , ;A V mental Protection Agency and C. Kush, J. DiNapoli x f.; and V. Poland of SCA Services Inc. for their assistance during this project. Y
?[,
Dr. Michael Roulier was the U.S. EPA project officer. ; References 'i Cooper, H.H., J.D. Bredehoeft and 1.5. Papadopulos. 4 1%7. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instan. I taneous change of water. Water Resources Research, i 1
- v. 3, no.1. pp. 263-269.
a i Papadopulos,5.5., J.D. Bredehoeft and H.H. Cooper. i ! 1973. On analysis of " slug test" data. Water Re- _ . .{ sources Research, v. 9, no. 4. pp.1087-1081 E s SCA Chemical Services Inc.1982. Comprehensive { ; report: nydrogeology of the Earthline site, Wilson- , { ville, Macoupin County, Illinois. SCA Chemical _
; r i
Services Inc., Boston, Massachusetts. 40 pp. plus l-appendices, , I i 1+ i a e Biographical Sketch Si 1# r-g p Thomas M. Johnson is an associate geologist in the Hydrogeology and Geophysics Section of the Illinois
.)j %. tc State Geological 5urvey where he has worked for eight j Q. si ytars. He obtained his B.A. from Augustana College ; }h pi
; ai; s' llinois), M.S. in geology and w ster resources manage-R~ j sa ent from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and is completing a Ph.D. in geology at the University of i. '
at Illinois. In his work at tne survey and in part time ] ht consulting, Johnson s ecalizes in field investigations . th d l. w
6g . ATTACHMENT E f M '
Proceedings of the Third National Symposium . on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring May 25-27,1983 _ The Fawcett Center, Columbus, Ohio s
~
Edited by David M. Nielsen, Director of Research National Water Well Association Worthington, Ohio Sponsors NationalWater Well Association National Center for Ground-Water Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Published by National Water Well Association 500 W. Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, Ohio 43085 Produced by Water Well Joornal Publishing Company 500 W. Wilson Bridge Road
- 7) Worthington, Ohio 43085
r E 'b L Ground-Water Monitoring in Clay-Rich Strata Techniques, Difficulties and Potential Solutions
" by Clifford R. Pollock, Gary A. Robbins and northwest.This lake occupies part of the initial box cut Christopher C. Mathewson of the original mine. Two other wells were sited 1.000 7 feet apart near the center of the site and on a line Introduction parallel to the lake's longer dimension. Small ponds border the site to the north, east and southwest. After The characterization of ground-water conditions in clay-rich strata is essential in siting of waste disposal mining, the land in this part of the mine was left as y
facilities, determining surface mining impacts and invest-g, igating subsurface conditions at construcion s;tes. MON!TORING SITE Fl Locations underlain by clay-rich strata are favored by o BH-2
- t federal and state guidelines for the siting of waste -
disposal facilities. Clayey sites are preferred due to their low permeability and high contaminant adsorption potential. Surface mining regulations mandate that i g i both pre- and post-mining ground-water conditions be 4 characterized. These surface mines are commonly ,
@* 3 located in clayey terrain. With respec to construcion sites, ground-water conditions in clays can have a significant bearing on settlement, excavation stability and seepage.
Ground-water characterization entails the defini-
- 2 tion of hydraulic properties, determination of in situ o BH-l ground-water quality, and establishment of a monitor-
- ing system to detect pollutants. The techniques that are LAKE most commonly used were developed for monitoring r- programs in sand or gravel aquifers.While developing a monitoring program in clay-rich mine spoil, we have found that these techniques may be difficult to apply.
This paper emphasizes inherent difficulties in character- g ,ggg izing in situ ground-water quality and detecing con. *' taminants in clay-rich strata, and it proposes methods for their resolution. N
- MONITORING WELL Monitoring Site @ COMBINED SOREHOLE AND WELL Ground-water conditions in resaturated mine spoil o soREHOLE were studied at a Gulf Coast surface coal mine. Four monitoring wells were installed in an area that had been Figure 7. Plan view o/ study area. showing location o/
mined more than 25 years ago (Figure 1). Two of these monitoring wells and lake. Ponds that bor-wells were placed aiong a spoil ridge beside a large der the site on the north, east and southwest runoff colleci.e .ake that bounds the site on the are not shown 347
Bastd on this data and the surf aca ce,Irvations of thalaka
- parall:1 rows of spoil ridges siparated by derp narrow and ponds, there appezts to be a ground-wartr ridg2 l
valleys. Tha lind at the monitoring sita has sinca been b;nzath th2 site. Figure 3 is a schtmatic cross sIction leveled, leaving oniv a thin strip of spoil ridges alongsid through a the spoil perpendicular to the ground wattr the lake. ridge. West of the ridge crest, ground water discharges
'p,,E Sediments in the mine overburden were depositedto the lake. East of the crest, flow is toward the southeast.
in a clay rich interchannel basin between major distrib- This configuration has been induced by the recent
% utaries of an ancient delta system. The overburden lowering of the lake level by the mine operators. Based consists of thick sequences of delta plain claystoneson and topographic analysis and water levels in nearby ~
siltstones with a few coal seams and thin, discontinuous wells,it appears that the potentiometric surface origin- ' sandstone deposits. These layers are randomly mixed ally sloped uniformly to the southeast. during the mining process to produce a homogenized and unconsolidated fill, or mine spoil. Pollock (1982) found that this spoil contains gravel- to cobble-sized i 8".a es o chunks of overburden in a clav/ silt matrix. Many of the
- spoil samples are sand-silt-c ays with approximately '
y equal weights of sand , silt and clay-sized grains. The '
'j rest are clayey silts and a few silty clays or sandy clays. .o ( y, The mine is located within the geographic recharge zone of a major aquifer, but little recharge enters this p/ .
, // '
aquifer through the clay-rich overburden. Most of the .e , ,, recharge occurs outside the mine boundaries where :.. thick sandstones crop out at the surface.The snailowest significant aquifer at the mine lies at least 60 feet
/.
y ;' beneath the mine floor. This aquifer, which contains 2,
I^ - g thick channel sandstones and occasional shale lenses,is -y I;W separated from the mine spoil by dense claystones and i
E -i 6. ' N snales. NG.' 7M y-;; d i'\ Field Investigation !-M q oml.__ l ,_
' k,C During the field investigation, test holes were drilled to serve four purposes:
- e-t s
(,,,, ijspM~j y\ gg ,y
- 1. To determine the piezo' metric surface and the nEY L- _., .
direction of local ground-water flow. g ,,m,,e ,tal :-,
- 2. To assess thelong-termimpacts of surface mining 8 ""14"j g / 5Ar on ground-water quality. g a.m., p9
- 3. To evaluate hydraulic properties of the mine _
**"'* [ *'"
spoil. _d "' '" g,i
- 4. To collect borehole samples and develop a "7 me or car [~.y~ .
detailed geologic section of mine spoil at the site. The test holes were drilled using an air rotary rig so e,: O., ## "' ,N that water-bearing zones could be readily identified as y they were encountered. Mine spoil was found to be saturated below a depth of 20 to 25 feet in each hole. The holes were completed to the mine floor at depths of figure 2. Geologic section through study area, show 43 to 70 feet using water instead of air. To avoid ing typical profiles of mine spoil and introducing contaminants to the ground water, drilling underburden muds were not used. At each test hole,4-inch PVC starie waTra tevst- auty mei slotted screen and casing were installed.The wells were , 3, gravel-packed and developed by surging, jetting and
; I, ml
,,,,,!, ,, o Ni air-lift pumping. Submersible pumps were placed in i j each well for water quality sampling and well pumping son l T"* i "f
tests ' Continuous samples of mine spoil were collected I "NoY" ~ from each test hole using thin-walled push tube samp- { "*', , fers. As shown in Figure 2, sandy claystones with shale chunks and clayey siltstones with chunks of sandstone Q gs,vge,c,o,
-s t g hc and shale make up much of the spoil. Both of these fill ! j u, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,*ere ,,,,,,,,,,,,
materials have a similar clay / silt texture. In effect, the ois'a=:s , , , , , , , , , _ mining precess has created a singlelayer of homogen-ized. fine ~aned, unconsolidated fill. figure 3. Cross section through resaturatedinine
%= evels in the test wells were allowed to spoil eqv .e for several days and were then measured.
wn
l r Spoil Hydraulics procedure used here to sample wells invc!vad a
. The resaturated mine spoil exhibits characteristics systematic collection of water samples following inter-of both water-table and confined systems. Hydraulic mittent pumping.The pH, temperature and electrical properties were evaluated using slug tests and pumping conductivity were measured after each pumping tests. The spoil has a very low specific yield of 0.02 to interval to determine if these parameters had stabil-e 0.04, a low transmissivity of 50 to 250 square feet / day ized. Temperature and pH stabilized quickly, but the r h?'
and a mean hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of electrical conductivity took much longer to stabilize. 10-3 to 10" cm/second, or approximately 5 feet / day. When all of these parameters did stabilize, samples The hydraulic conductivity is strongly anisotropic.- were collected for chemical analysis. Pumping tests using the Neuman (1975) method yield The ground water in the clayey mine spoil was an average horizontal permeability of 10-3 to found to be a highly mineralized, essentially neutral 10" cm/second (8 feet / day) and an average vertical pH water of the Ca-(Mg).Na-50,-HCO 3-Cl type. Its permeability of 104 cm/second (0.00s feet / day). Slug general characteristics are given in Table 1. This water tests yielded an average horizontal permeability of 10-4 has a high suspended solids content, particularly of f' cm/second (4 feet / day). The maximum ground-water clay-sized particles. Cations and trace elements were L flow velocity is computed to be 3 to 30 m/ year (10 to 100 measured using carefully filtered aliquots that had feet / year) in a southeasterly direction. been acidified for preservation using concentrated To furtner assess the permeability of mine spoil, nitric acid. Despite repeated filtration using 0.045 falling head permeameter tests were conducted in the millipore paper,all of the suspended solids could not laboratory. These tests measured the hydraulic con. be removed. Thus, acidification of particulates may ducivity of undisturbed spoil samples taken at various have influenced the concentrations of certain heavy borehole depths. Prior to testing, e.ch sample was metal trace elements. C consolidated for 24 hours under a load that was The commonly used well volume approach for computed to be eouilvalent to the in situ effective collecing representative water-cuality sa,mples works stress. Average values of hydraulic conductivity ranged poorly in clay rich strata. This crocedure calls for the from 104 to 10.a cm/second. This is the same range as withdrawal of a specific number of well volumes of that measured in the field for the vertical permeability. water from monitoring wells prior to sampling. Schuller Given the orders of-magnitude difference between and others (1991) suggest that withdrawing 4 to 6 weil
, laboratory and field results, the use of laboratory results volumes prior to sampling will remove stagnant water i to predict fieid conditions in clay-rich strata appears to from the well and produce a sampic representat.Te of be highly cuestionable. Differences between labor. in situ ground water. A representative sample may be "3 atory and field results are probably due to the measure- collected quickly from a monitoring well in a high-i ment oi cifferent flow directions and to the elimination yielding sand or gravel aquifer, but this method takes of fracture flow in the laboratory samples. much longer for wells in low-yielding clays. Monitoring During pumping tests, the water table drew down wells in the clayey mine spoil pumped down quickly
= quickly and recovered very slowly. In one test, a and took up to 24 hours to fully recover. Therefore,it drawdown of 40 feet was measured during an interval could conceivably take days to obtain a representative of a few minutes; full recovery took almost 24 hours. sample by the well volume procedure. A pumping rate of 13 gallons / minute was used for The concept of a representative sample assumes _ that test.Since the spoil has such a low yield. very low that in situ ground water quality is homogeneous due pumping rates were required to prevent such rapid to rapid mixing within the aquifer. This assumption is drawdown. Effective pumping rates of less than 1 gallon / minute were used during most of the tests. Despite the low pumping rate, rapid siltation still caused problems during pumping tests at one of the Table 1 monitoring wells. Water Quality of Resaturated Mine Spoil Water-Quality Sampling Parameter Data Water-quality samples were collected using the standard sampling procedure of the U.S. Geological pH 6.e - 6.9 Survey for pumping wells. This procedure is discussed TDS (mg/L) 3,300 - 3,700 by Wood (1976) and calls fcir frequ ent in situ measure- Dominant cations (mg/L)
;; ment of electrical conductivity, temperature and pH Calcium 380 600 until these parameters stabilize; then a water sample Magnesium 125 165 is collected for chemical analysis. Schmidt (1982) Sodium 265 - 550 notes that monitoring wells need to be pumped 30 t
, .g 60 minutes at rates of 20 to 50 gallons / minute before Dominant anions (mg/L)
Bicarbonate 700 - 900 ( these parameters normally stabilize. Low well yields Sulfate 750 - 1,100 m clay-rich strata can commonly restrict pumping g Chloride 500 - 900 rates to much less : nan 20 gallons / minute. Effective h pumping rates c; to 5 gallons / minute were typical Type water Ca-Na-50fHCO -Ci 3 [ for monitorm: v. ells in the clayey mine spoil. The 349
probably not valid for saturated clay-rich strata where Table 2 mixing is slow and zones or layers of differing water Water-Quality Data From Well Pumping Test quality can evolve. Table 2 shows the effect of well pumping on ground-water quality in the clayey spoil. Cumulative gallons pumped The water chemistry is seen to vary as a function of the Parameter 23 29 35 52 cumulative volume withdrawn, with changes in the '9' major constituents of a few percent to 30 percent.This g; jg
,; Calcium 387 378 431 385 data represents approximately 2 well volumes of water Magnesium 136 129 153 138 withdrawn over a period of several hours.The observed Sodium 692 654 570 530 chemical changes raise an important question: What 10 Potassium 10 11 10 does the data reflect-well effects or actual variations Total tron 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 in in situ water quality?
Anions (mg/1.) Water-Quality Mapping Bicarbonate - 789 752 900 876 Sulfate 1,398 1,200 1,186 :tel The authors attribute the well pumping chemical changes to systematic variations in the in situ ground-Chloride 668 625 699 703 water quality. To examine these variations, concentra. Others tion contour maps were prepared for each major Silica (mg/L) 50 54 35 33 TDS (mg/l.) 4,200 3,900 4.050 3,700 constituent. The concentrations of most major consti. tuents have been found to vary systematically as a Temp. (*C) 22.5 24.8 26.4 28.1 function of distance from the lake. Figure 4 is the pH 6.85 6.70 6.85 6.75 concentration contour map for chloride. Each contour line represents an effective chloride concentration, or Note: 1 well volume = 23 gallons activity, in milliecuivalents/ liter. It is clear that the chloride values decrease with distance from the lake. The activity profiles for chloride, sodium and caicium Similar maps show that sodium, sulf ate and bicarbonate are shown in Figure 5. Each profile was crawn along a concentrations increase with distance from the lake. line from the lake's edge through monitoring we!is 3 while calcium and magnesium concentrations decrease. and 4. Systematic variations are aoparent in each Activity profiles were used to discern systematic profile.The chloride profile resembles the cattern that variations in these geochemical trends,if any did exist. results from the simple dispersion of a nonreative solute. Similarly, the profiles for sodium and calcium (. '.
~.
are like those that result from ion exchange. The CHLORIDE ACTIVITY CONTOURS anomalous pattern from 0 to 100m is most probably due to a localized reversal in ground-water flow that began several years ago when the lake was lowered to its present elevation. The effect is restricted to only 100m by the slow ground water flow velocity, whien is only 3 to 30m/ year.
.- 3'
/ ' ACTIVITY PROFILES
,, e' 20r ct-t w r l *' / 16
/
Nc'
- L l l
!. '2p f LAKE O [ ~
5l g er cau l I oispERsteN - ci-di CEsoRPTloN- No* 0 2-o ADSORPTION- Co" frttterg ln (.O. s
- Monitoring weri N o e 100 2o0 3co 4o0 Soo M Contours :' :Norede in milhequivoients per hier OlsTANCE ALoNG PROFILE (m)
Figure S. Typical activity profiles of in situ ground Figure ( Ce :e:tration contour map for chloride water 350
M To furthzr assess th2 svidInca for syst:matie varia- ACTIVITY - DISTANCE
. tiensin ground wat:r quality.lintar r;grgssion analysis was ustd. Data from th2 m nit: ring wills was anityzId zar in - ,
with respect to well depth and distance from the lake. it L L was assumed, for the purpose of analysis, that the lake _,
- E[f was the primary source of recharge for ground water in 5i , [
[% d
~
the clayey spoil. Figure 6 shows the activity-distance analyses for most of the major ground water consti-i I
. s-f ,[t 3 [
!' .tuents. Also plotted but not used in the analyses is the water chemistry of the lake. Linear regression analysis
*h o o f
, n ,ac y, was used to ot tain a first order approximation of oisTanet(mi oisTANCE (m) hydrochemical trends. It is recognized that purely linear variations in ionic species do not exist. However, iz. 12,-
regression analysis does provide a simple tool to L L examine these trends and see how spoil water may E Ef [ [*. evolve from lake water. T t Regression analysis reveals that the sodium, bicar- ~. I $ bonate anc sulfate concentrations systematically in-crease as a function of distance from the lake. Likewise, "f '[L - the calcium and chloride concentrations show a sys- o o ,an ,, rematic decrease. Comparing the lak e chemistry to the oisTanet (m) oisTANCE (m) projections of the original concentrations on the diagrams provides insight into how the ground water is 24 .- evolving. it is evident that the ground water is depleted - L ., , in sodium with respect to lake water; enriched in ,,,,. , calcium, sulfate. and bicarbonate: and unchanged for c i chloride. The same trends would result from chloride [P l dispersion and the exchange of calcium ions for 3 er sodium ions on clay particles in the saturated zone of h the clayey mine spoil. Bicarbonate and sulfate enrich- [ , o{ go , i
;m ment probably result from interactions among the oisTauct (m) - () processes of gypsum dissolution, pyrite and organic j oxidation, and the dissolution of carbonates in the Frgure 6. Acivity-distance diagrams for maior
\ presence of free acids. ground-water constituents i Our findings on spoil water trends are consistent with those reported by Henry and others (1980) for strata is characterized by high TDS and systematic ground water in the unmined formation. On a regional variations in chemical quality. These characeristics can basis, ground water evolves from a highly mineralized make it very difficult to detect contaminants. Monitoring water at shallow depths through a Na Ca HCO3 -CI-type problems can include the masking of contamination water with moderate total dissolved solids (TDS) at plumes or haloes, the potential masking of organic or intermediate depths to a Na-HCOrCl-type water with heavy metal tracers used to detect contamination, and lower TDS below 1,000 feet as it flows to the southeast. false indications of temporal variations in the in situ lon exchange, sulfate reducion and chloride dispersion water quality. have been identified as the primary geochemical pro- Contamination at sanitary landfills is commonly cesses active in the saturated zone. Our regression detected by higher than normalchloride and alkalinity analyses suggest that similar processes are acive in the concentrations in the ground water. The haloes or young spoil ground water. Pollock (1983) predicts that plumes that form generally stand out against the lower spoil water will evolve into a Na-Ca HCOs CI-type background concentrations in sand or gravel aquifers. water with moderate TDS as it flows slowly through the Plume delineation may be much more difficult in clayey mine to the southeast. At depths of150 to 200 feet at the strata. Here, the characteristically high TDS and alkalinity downdip mine boundary, it should resemble ground can make it difficult to distinguish contamination from water at the same depth in the unmined formation. background conditions. In the same manner, organic It is apparent from our studies that ground-water contamination may be difficult to detect in clayey strata. quality in clay-rich strata will usually not be homogene- Many clay deposits have formed in organic rich environ-ous. Instead,in situ water quality should vary systematic- ments such as swamps and floodplains. Organic com-ally between local recharge and discharge zones. Thi5 pounds like phenols may be a common constituent of ( 'O. may create significant problems in detecting ground. these clays. Unfortunately, little has been reported in i- water contamination. the literature on the organic composition of ground I water in clay deposits. Also, clays may have relatively i Contaminant Detection Problems high concentrations of trace elements. Ground water in Our study re uis that ground water in clay rich the clayey mine spoil contained high iron, zinc, nickel
- __ -- - . _ . _ 351 . _ _ __ _. _._. _,
and stianium concentrations comparw to water in INCR. CONC. sancy aquifars in the unmined formation. p WITH TIME Low yitids and spatial vananons in wattr quality can / creat2 other monitoring problems in clav-rich strata. Figure 7 is a senematic diagram of a monitoring wellin a Hj --- saturatec clav. Areal patterns of chemical quality are present in the in situ ground water. As water with a low concentration of a certain constituent is pumped out,it M t,. D --- - is replaced by water that will have a higner concentra- N tion of tnat constituent. As pumping continues. time-series sampling wouid reveai an increasing concentra-tion with time for this constituent. Proof that tn.s ! e
/
situation can hapoen is provided bv the well pumoing , results of Tabie 2. As pumping canonued, the concen-Figure ? Conceptual result o/ chemical ome-senes trations of sodium and sulfate decreasec while that of sampUng in clapoch wara chlonde increasec. This data apoarentiv reverses the geocnemical trencs shown in Figures 5 anc 6. However these accarent trencs can ce exoiainec bv reference to Figure 7. i' ne concentration recresentec in the ciagram is that fu chlonce. tnen cononuec pumping wou;c procuce tne effec of increasing cniorice concentrations witn ame. Simpis reversing ne nign- anc low-concen-tration zones on Ogure 7 wouta procuce tne ettec q ooservec :n Taoie : cata for socium or suifate. In eacn case. chemical time-senes samoung wouic give a mis- DISTANE ieacing :ncication of .n situ grounc-wate" cualits near tne monitoonst wel 5sstemanclanations in water cualits may concea [ o f the earls arnvai or a contaminant at a monitonng weilin j clavev strata. Figure 3 snows a simple monitoring system for a waste ciscosai site containing the hypctnetical f l , contaminant, M. This site is located in clav-ncn strata f f H e e 0
)
between a iocai recnarge source tthe iakel ano cischarge y-e source (the streami. A standarc one-uogradient and three-cowngradient pattern of wells has been used. ; ^ ,OW H' The bacmground concentration of v in the en situ #K_ - O grounc wate' increases with cistance from the lake. If 5_. soatiai s ariations in wate" cuality are unknown prior to the start of sampiing, tne results may oe very difficult to interpret correctiv. In the situation shown in Figure 8. ,,_ the eariv arnvai of the contaminant M at the down- - gradient weils couic easiiv remain uncetecec. Likewise. - it the concentration of M systematically decreased away irom tne recharge source time-senes sampiing might { { taise v indicate tnat contamination was occurnng wnen i in tac it was not. This couic resuit from the use of early figure 8 Well gnd concept applied to a simNe mons-time-senes samphng at the wells to cetine the back- tonng system grounc concentration of M in the in situ ground water. Later sampiing wouid then show an increasing concen- present senous monitonng problems. Low well vields tration of M with time. The addition of a few mere and anisotropic hydraulic properties can complicate monitonng wells in a wider gnd can solve both of these pumping tests and water-quality sampling. The use~of problems. The open arcles on Figure 8 represent a gnd su bmersible pumps rs advisable for water-cuality samp-of wells that has been sitec with respect to the local ling, but low withdrawal rates should be anucipated. recharge and cischarge zones These few extra wells can The quality of in situ ground water may varv substan-greatly simpiify the probiem or detecting contaminants tially and systematically in both a lateral and honzontal by revealing the areal pattern of water quaisty in the in direction in order to effectively monitor contaminant situ ground water Then, tne contamination piume of M sources in clay-nch strata, an intensive well sampling --g can be readily seen as ar anomalv in the background program should be used to define the areal distribution distribution or v of ground-water quality. In addition to locanng monitor-ing wells close to a potential contaminant source, a few Conclusions more wells should be spaced in a wider gnd that has Grouncw . condinons in clav-nch strata can been sited with respect to local recharge and discharge 152
nU W7ED M**aunwnswvwung wm svsemmwnga , patt:rns cf ch:mical quality in th2 in situ gr:und water nucl:ar facilities and in radioactiva and chemical wasta i ar d enhance th2 d;t:ctinn of contaminants. Additional disposal. Pres:ntly, R obbins is investigating th 2 por:ntial insight can be gained by analyzing ch;mical tr:nds in for grcund-wat:r contamination from th2 disposal of
, the in situ ground water and comparin5 them to lignite power plant waste. He has a 8.5. degree in regional ground-water trends. The well volume ap- geology from Brooklyn College, an M.S. degree in .. proach to sample collecion should generally be avoided geology / geochemistry from Brown University and is k,p. in view of the characteristically low yields of clayey . currently pursuing a docoral degree in engineering U strata. However, a sampling procedure that is based on geology at Texas A&M University.
the measurement of seleced parameters at the well Dr. Christopher C. Mathewson is a professor of discharge prior to sample collection should produce geology and leader of the Engineering Geosciences . representative samples. Research Program at Texas A&M University. Dr. Mathewson has a B.S. degree in civil engineerins from i References Case Western Reserve University, and his advanced Henry, C.D., J.M. Basciano and T.W. Duex.1980. Hydrol- degrees in geological engineering from the University ogy and water quality of the Eocene Wilcox Croup:
~
of Arizona. Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M significance for lignite development in east Texas. University, he served for five years as a commissioned Bureau of Economic Ceology Circular 80-3. U niversity officer in the National Ocean Survey. Dr. Mathewson is of Texas. Austin, Texas. 9 pp. the author of more than 50 publications in the field or, Neuman. 5.P.1975. Analysis of pumping test data from engineering geology and is the editor of the Bulletin of anisotropic unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resources Research. v.11, no. 2. pp. 329-342. Pollock, C.R 1982. Ground-water hydrogeology and Q. Would you please elaborate on the concentra-geochemistry of a reclaimed lignite surface mine. tion profiles near the lake in the mine spoil. Why co M.S. thesis. Texas A&M University. Department of these trends occur! Ceology. College Station. Texas.152 pp. A. The concentration profiles near the lake are an Pollock.C.R.1983. Long term impacts of surface mining anomalous pattern reflecing a localized reversal n on ground water in Texas delta f air ognite mines. ground-water flow direcion. This began three or four Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Ccologists. years ago when the lake level was sharply lowered. lt is
- v. XX. no.1, pp.1-4. now a local ground water sink. For the previous 20
-L Schmidt, K.D.1982. How representative are water years, the lake was the primary recharge source for the kh samples colleced from wells? Proceedings of Second mine spoil.
M National Symposium on Aquifer Restor tion and Ground Water Monitoring.May 26-28, 1982. Edited Q. What was the P200 content of the clay rich soils, by D.M. Nielsen. National Water Well Association. clay size content and structure? Were these spoils frac-Wortnington, Ohio, pp. 117 128. tured due to settlement and dessication? What is the Schuller, R.M., J.P. Gibb and R.A. Griffin.1981. Neuman method for determining in-field K's? Recommended sampling procedures for monitor. A. The P200 content ranged from 55 percent for ing wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review. v.1, clayey sands to 95 percent for silty clays, and averaged 80 no.1, pp. 42 46. to 90 percent.Dessication cracks are common near the Wood,W.W.1976. Guidelines for collection and field surface; studies indicate that some degree of settlement analysis of ground water samples for selected un- occurs in the spoil following placement after mining. stable constituents. Techniques of water resources The Neuman method is 6 type-curve matching method investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey. Book designed for non-steady state pumping of fully pene-1 Chapter D2, pp. 24. trating wells in water table aquifers.The method is des-cribed in detail in Neuman's paper which is listed in the Biographical Sketches Clifford R. Pollock is an exploration geologist with Q. Your difficulty filtering suspended material from B: con Construction Co., Mining Services Group, in samples may have implications for standard filtering Hcuston, Texas. Previously he served for eight years as procedures.What pore size filter paper was used? Have an officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pollock is the unfilterable suspended solids been identifiedi
.' a registered professional engineer a nd has a B.S. degree A. We used a standard 45 micron millipore paper in in geological engineering from Colorado School of a suction filtration device. The unfilterable suspended Mines and an M.S. degree in engineering geology from solids have not been positively identified. We believe Tcxas A&M University.His engineering geologic experi* that colloidal sodium montmorillonite clays comprise Once has primarily been in ground-water investigations much of the suspended solids.
t 4and coal surface mine excioration. Cary A. Robbins is an instructor of engineerms Q. My experience with acid mine drainage from g; ology at Texas AS Y '. neversity. Previously, he was a sulfide ore tailings in northern Idaho was that interpreta-senior geologist e tne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 353
water cont:nm:w.. u. --,- .. .- . .. . ti:ns cf spatial and t;mporal quality changes was c m-
. plicated by tha h:avy influ;nc2 et reducing c:nditi:ns Q. Itwouldseemth tthadisturbednatura f mina
' (presumably du2 to sulfur utilizing bact:ria). Did y:u spoil would result in much gr:ater releasacf dissrived n:t2 this influence? Did y:u hav2 th? cpportunity to solids than would occur in natural clay. Hav2 y:u had factor in redox measurements into your datal any experience in analyzing water quality in undis-A. At the time the study was done,we did not use turbed clay in your areat if so, what results?
dox measurements.We plan to use them in our con- A. We have not been able to make water quality (2]:{ nuing studies.We agree that reducing conditions can analyses in undisturbed clays in our area. However, the have a significant influence on spatial / temporal varia- literature contains numerous examples of measure-tions in water quality. However, we have observed that ments in clay-rich overburdens at similar surface coal these inf!uences tend to be systematic in nature. mines of the northern Great Plains and eastern U. 5. Water quality in the undisturbed clays tends to resem-Q. K values of 10-3 cm/sec are very high for clays. ble that present in our clayey mine spoil. Ara these materials fractured? If so, did you consider the large area you would be drawing water from during l i pumping and how diffusion out of the matrix may result in changes in chemistry with time? A. We attribute the relatively high K values to frac-ture permeability. Much of the mine spoil is composed of expansive clays; dessication cracks are common. Based on our closely spaced observation wells, it appears that the area of influence of pumping wells is vIry small. Q. It appears that the lake is a discharge area from Srouno-water gradients - the water table should be adjusted after f our or five years. Do you have any stage ricords on the lake? A. Stage records on the lake were not kept untiltwo yrars ago. However,the lake elevation was determined Ch for a topographic survey five years ago. At that time,the h y
- take level was 14 feet higher than it now is.
Q, in a low permeable, and therefore a low flow velocity water bearing zone, geochemical equilibrium is mostly diffusion controlled. In heterogeneous mine spoil, wouldn't you expect highly variable water quality rather than homogeneous water qualityi in other words, well effects are not as important as formation effects. A. Our studies have shown that water quality in the mine spoil is highly variable, although it varies in a systematic manner.We agree that formation effects are much more important than well effects. Q. Please comment on the utility of the USGS recommended procedure calling for stabilization of parameters at the wellhead prior to sampling.Was this procedure appropriate in your studyf A. This topic is discussed at great length in the paper. We believe that the USGS procedure yields bet-ter results (i.e., representative water samples) than blind adherence to a well volume approach.This procedure was more appropriate than the wellvolume approach in our studies in clayey mine spoil. Q. Given the inherent uncertainties in monitoring -
- g. fine-grained deposits, would you recommend that ;
e more " exotic" analyses such as stable isotopic analysis l j be used? ' A. Definiteh. V. e believe that stable isotopic analy-sis would be z. i as a tracer tool to detect ground. 1 354
, I i I SN I l i 9 (a* ATTACHMENT F
.u. .O
,s d ,
- ;< r e
- % v 5.~ h piA ese -l:. as T u 4 This story by Michael Courtncy 11/30/81 COLLEGE STATION--A Texas A&M University study has found that clay soil liners used to contain chemicals in be:Ardous waste disposal sitos leak many times f aster than c.xports had celieved.
Cte of the resenrcher.= who conducted the study warned that tne
'.ecksge :hreatens to contaminate f resh wr.te" r/.pplies near heavily industrialized areas where the disposal siter; are located.
" All clay liners will eventually leak, aren if they were just
( - .oring wate r ," said Dr. KitP. Brown, a so il and crop scientist, "but i I some cf the chemicals that are being placed in landfills could cause O
'ti j to leak ,000 tinos f aster than designers anticipated."
"'hore are n.cre than 2,000 hazardous waste disposal sitec in i
. the country, Brown said, and there may be many more sites that have b2Gn buried and forgotton. In a half-million-dollar analysis of the technique used to line disposal sites, Drown and graduate assictnn: David Anderson found the linces are r.iore permeabic than most experts had believed. The racecrch, in which the scientists created simulated chemical holding tanks and measured leakage under controlled conditions, was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. A second part of the study mecsured seepage from five-foot-squ.are clay pits in field tests. Test results in both cases showed significant leakage.
"We rely on these clay liners to keep the waste materials fron L "But the designs "oping into ground water rupplice," said Brown.
,-mord-Tema: ; /A Unsvers.ty Off ce of Puohe informahon Coile9e Sta'. son TX 77843 713/845-4641
74 Yi 1 have been developed using water instead of. the chemicals that are cetually going in the landfills." The researchers said many of the hazardous chemicals placed in waste disposal sites greatly increase the permeability of the clay liners. The tests were conducted at the Texas Acricultural Experiment 5tation, and involved eight chemicals including acetone, xylene and haptane. Many wastes stored in disposal sites are by-products of
=anuf acturing solvents, plastics, synthe tic fibers, paints, cosmetics and of agricultural r.nd petrochemical industrics.
B rc -r. said because many of the sites are located in
$ustrialized areas, improper management has created a potential hfu-J An throat to tne drinking water supplies for large populations.
estimated 40 million metric tons of ha:ardous wastes are generated in the United States each year. Somewhere between 0.2 and 2 percent of the usable ground water may already be contaminated, he'. said .
"That might not sound like very much ground water," Brown said, "but if you lived in an area where the water has been tainted, and needed for drinking, crcps or livestock, you'd think dif ferently."
Brown said the method of testing clays used for disposal sites should be changed to include tests of the chemicals that will be disposed. He said although chemicals are of ten put in barrels before they are discarded, those barrels will eventually give way to corrosion and chemicals ultimately end up in places not intended. 'q -0 . The researchers said new methods should be designed to
-more-
i
- l
. i
.i a 4.i;/ ~ ' d d 2 -
%~)
eliminate such wastes instead of storing them. our present day technology for getting rid ci l
"We know that the chemicals needs improving , " said Brown, "and we have a improve it."
res.c onsibility to move quickly to include recyclin,g more of e He said alternative methods might them in above-ground mounds with drainage ena acces er storing contamination of groundwater. Another alternative
! cystems := prevent for eliminating organic wastes might be to till the vastes in to so il l In addition, Brown said and allow soil microbes to decompose them.
some of the chemicals could be incinerated. a number of pecple
" Changing the disposal methods will af fect n including eng ineers w ho dealgn , C4d1ssociated with the 1.andfill industry, the disposal sites, people who build and operate them and government But the socner we make the change the egencies that control then.
be tter of f we will be," he said. I r
)
i l 1'
** i I
- i ,C i l
\p .
- . . . -. . . .- . - . - - . - - . - - - . - . - . _ -_ ~ . - . . _ - , - - - . , , , - , v. - . , -- . , , - . . . , - - - . . , - - - -
b & b Q .*,- l i e 1 1 eR% ATTACH!ENT G l i t i i (v; s www----,----e- e, . - +------- , ,- - - ~ ~-,---,--- - - - - .n,-- - e-- - -- - ~, w ,,--,-m.,-,, , - - - - - -- - - - ~ ~ - - - - - -- - - - - ,
6%
, \v t; y.s -a C.A".2S CF A.!ECCA A"'OCO M COleCSSICK
)
~: 2.s Matter cf )
)
]
TEZ M I":ISCN C3GA3! )
) Decket No. 70-3h6 and
)
)
TEE Chm 0D r.F~"T -mimG CCMPA3! ) I Davis-3 esse Nuclear Pcver Stad:n ) i l l i N r s i%,..- l i NI I sum 4 CONsuuwiCN FIRMIT STAGE i i 1 1 J e nw g *aw ane Vbee. ., 4 Iw i 7 i, . .
# *" O l
l O
, . , - , , , , - - - - - , . . . - . , - - . - . _ - - _ , . - - , , - , . , , v_-- -,.,,,, , _ . , . . - , , . - - - _ - , - . , _ , ,,_,.,---,--e--_ .. . . . , e- -~ ,,,,-n- . -
ups tre s: *==. its = cut . No va er vill he eiter taken fr:= cr .iischarged (%fD b i::: .:is stres= fer use 1: -lis s a::1c= i:ri g cperati=. 2e headwata-s cf de 2:ussa1= Oreek have a -=h eleva.ics :" ahc= 69 fee aheve ME1. Sis stres= has a 1 ai age sees cf shou: 1h2 s quare ' ' as a=d a average s1=;e of shc= Ove fee: per d ' e. S e 1:ver siz d ' es =" -le stres= are -" vida: ha ce r=-=# -d=- a=d, as a ree:lt, its level 1= dis vider s ee.' = is -. "ed by de level c" *ake Iria I: cis vider see:1c= 1: .1 " vs av de lake Irie ma: icy lake level cf 568.5 feet abcve MEL. Se U. S. Cec 1=gical 5 :vey operates a spe check stres= f1=v statics at a ;ci : ahcut ik =iles vest of Linestene, Chic. S e Ocussai : Creek at tis fiev sta.ics Laics shcu: =e-half cf the :::a1 L-ai sge a. es cf the total stress flev. Duri=g peak periods cf precipita:1== ce ficvs
. s..
.4
.e '. t2 in this strea= vill be higher. Ecwever, dere is o histcrical reecrd :" cis stres= causing ."1 ceding at ce statics site. GROUN%*A".IR Se site is underlain by a glaciclacustrine de;csit a=d a ti*.1 depcsi: vhich cverlie sedi=entary beLeck. Se scil de;csits , which essentially
- sist of silty clay, have very lov per=eability asi are ce= side.-ed i= pervious. Seir ::=ized -lick ess is c: ce c.-der " 20 *t. Se bed-
. ct ec=sists :" -le Ty=ch ee f:=azi= : darisis b7 -le Gree = field f:=ati:=. 2ese f:::a.ie:s ::: sis cf early heri:=:a1 beds c' argiliscec=s 1:1=ite vic shale, gy;st=, and a=7drite, := a de;.h of a: less- 2CC ft.
1 belev grou d surface. Se prese=e Of -le i=pervi:us scia depcsits has produced an artesian groundwater ec:ditics in de bedrock, which is de aquifer in the site locality. {a ' , A-6 - _ _ _ _ .
' !"S 2 de statics area, de ==hined di+ess of de scil de;csits is
%~( app--r'-a:ely 17 ft. Se bedr==h is q=i e parvicus , =ai:1y 1: -le :;;;er :0
;c 30 ft. , a:d cc:.ai=s cpen j '-:s a=i ieiding planes . 2 sc=e 1=ca:1c:s, the j=1sts and iedding pla:es have tee: enlarged to sc1 :1=.
2 the s ati= area and vest of te static: a ea, -le .. =d surface is a: apprezi=stely eleva:i= 576. 3crt, east, a:d sc=2 et ce s .a:i= ares dere are marshes. 3eyc i te marshes , scr-2 s=d ess; of de s .a-i= area and separated fr== -le =arshes by a sa:d tar, is lake I.rie. Sect of d e sta ic: area, beycnd -le =arshes , is de Toussai=t River, isater levels is Lake Irie, the Tcussai= 21wtr, a:d de =arshes are searly de sa=e. hfc=stics was gathered by revievi g the literature c: -le grc=i-i vater ceniitic s is the site 1:cality, i= erviev1=g represe::stives =f de Depart =ent of Natural Rescurces cf de State of Chic, a:d studyi=g 32 i
' @(,/ icgs cf vens existi=g is the site locality.' h additics, evners cf 16 ve11s i
located vicin approx 1=stely two =iles of te static: area vere i terviewed. AH k:=vn ve11s are drilled into the bedrock aquifer and supply water for certain dc=estic or fa= tses. There are so wells te:veen the statics area j and *.,ake I.rie is a screensterly to souceasterly diree:1c . Se c1cses: 2 l ven us ed fcr -"-4 cipal su;;;171: 00:ava Cous:7 is at Ce:ca appr xi ste'.y
- 6 =iles fr:= te site.
h te site hes*17, -le eleva:ics cf -le ..-==dva:er tah* e genera *.17 is a few feet hip.er ta: -le *ake Irie level. S e =ea: lake I.rie
- evel is a elevatic 5 :: . 3 varies siish 17 vi-2 -2e sense:s , tu: .h e
! greatest variatic=s ccer dris; s:cr=s whe: lake T.rie *.evel =ay ris e severs *. l feet. Se elevatics of .he grou=dvater table toucvs the fluctuatic s of the lake level a:d varies with the vet and dry periods. The groundvater
,(
s table gradie= s are sman and do not exceed a few feet per mile. They are similar :: the gradient of the local rivers and creeks which are approximately 1 l two te- per mile. l -- - - _ _ __ . __ _ . __ - - - - - A _7
l
- l i
l
)
de stati: n.res, de elevatics of the bed::ck s= face is == -le l _ :)N i 1 I :-der cf ten fee: '.:ver d as d e eleva:ic: of La.ke Irie. 3eca:se -le bed-
- ck is quite pervicus a i =e :verl;ri=g scil ds;csi.s are i=perri:us -le fee:
bedr:ck sq ifer is ::sfi.:ed a:i = der as ar:esiam head =f nic=. to: I aheve de ::p cf te bed::ck seface. ) 4 A: -le site, -le g:- =drater table is relatively heri:::.a.1. Ms.zi=== l l he:1:: a1 gradier:s of shc=
- ft/=L :o 3 ft/=1 :=vard te lake er .^:::.
te lake van =easrei is 1963 a=d 1969 "e ..:=dwa:e is -le bedrock i ' l aquifor f*. vs u: der vs.-/ s an gradien s ge=erally frc: -le szazic: area 4 i l.
' teward ce lake; hevenr, driss d./ periods or when ce lake leni is high de fuv is rew-sed, i.e. , .h te lake toward the statics area a:d site healit/ . 3e ; adie:.a vere =easured in the vertical diree.ics.
In ce site beslity, vater es==ct be su;, plied .% ce scil de;csits (-l.v.;( - ca ' because der are ec:aidend impervicus. *4 ster ca: be supplied fr== vens i j drined into te bedrock aquifer. Ge:erany, the vens are less ts:
) 100 feet deep; hevever, sc=a are deeper. Of an ve11s studied, -le is;-2 1
4 I drined into bedrock varied .% 2 feet Oc apprezi=ately 265 feet. 4 ce site 1:calit/, van yields range fr:m several galle=s per i =inu.e Oc a few tens of gall::s per =1=cte. Sc=a - d =1;al veils is ce
- d-ed galle=s per d -" e.
T:ussais: ?.iver tasis have . ieids of a few h* -
*4ater fr== ce ve'is is used f : !sr= irrd gast= asi :emai: '- esti:
i j pur;cses. */e:/ 11.le is used fer washi:g, cocking, er dri: kiss be s se .he i va er is usual *y :::,0:ahle. A=cus ce 15 veils i:spected,12 are bei:( I l used, f : ce =cs: part 1:ter=it e=:17, and e are se bager used. l { AREA WATER SUPP'.,Y I ... The ( 'Ihe pri=ary source. cf potable water in the area is Lake Erie. nearest pcst.ble water intakes serve Camp Per:-/, the Erie Industrial Park,
6 CO ATTACHMENT H i
\.D:.-
AVW V
~>
. . p .. p,;..,.
,. m -
- s-3;. s
'9 .
- g.
v,,
- s. a..g. :~; .
a w; g 3 +.. ( i Jg .
. : <.av 7. - t -7 v
..e
.._.. 4 - .
. a- . . .g,. ..;w
.x .v
.r +. ,n u. s< . 9 -
v u. sAJ
- > .. - . . 3= a 7 . .
Ef, Y ' '
.. .:s;}? . Y.. - ..
~'c.,
. .$ l
. .; {':~3 3lm. 3 ;
#'~
.s ,;,
f s' > Q ,,. s.'-l.' ) a . l'y ' y .. , e , Jil . [ ~ p _q. ,
'R 6,
'~
%." RR , . v W,4 " MS W. .fl 3 n n.m w.
.. q' p-M .. , . .
.p.
- v. ,.
- > x,
$p b
- m 1 y
v;. , pn:A .
~ ^. .r:. . . ?:.. . .u%px.r
. - < :.b'.;4. 4 ,
+ .*
l'
- ifR O ; C. 10 4 MI55 :
lW;.[4 * % UNITED 5TATES f T M IC }
.i . Jr.y.. >;g y c:#,..%Mti.K:J.
T*. er%%h . _:
..g.W .c~ ~y e,
's
- f. o. ** . ,, .l .; {.J . 1.q,j . D . g,.y a ,,
. .;,, y y.;.y.,} f .. s:
, _ 3
.W'e. . h y; T u ':.- t.m
' 7 l} U J..%
. . . m .fe,,', ., .
C
.e. . . w . . . ;. . e h,. ..
.. .;- 8 ..;
IN THE AAATTER OF: . /.y. - - i.; >, . .V' .',f..a::;.7. . . . = e.;$ *W-4.f* ..N.P . .; N-w
. :v . .. ~ a.-
.{. . . A ,, , ;:y'. j^
. . . ' i t'-
8 TQJ 90 EDIi'O!,' s'O . [*!D * - ~'*
. --.,. A ,, ',. e j,%. .Xi;.
% ?-
f *
.. r .
Y < ',: %p., ,N3 ' " _. . v -x.,- . { Tt.t. CLO'll1 \NC I"Cf".IC IIACMENATIl{C CJ. 4
~.4 ; re-9 T-I
' Dr.vi:t -30. "2 : c : ..ia: Pcnvor Station L* nit !!o.1) s .
4 .... {.,C. .%
. < m. ;4 '" .- y .
C,:. ' } g Docke't. .:;.y m. No'.' 50-346 2- h t j,: .[Y
. .,%.f
.*. . " ; ; . . .. f *: '
. ,. &. $,O->. . '.c.,
9
- p. .
. t
* * ; n,
. .y
. g < . z t.Ws .
.~
.-' . ' ' .4 ..- * ,'$ : .".'1
* , . ~
Place - gg ctigon, g;o .
. . . et -
Date - P89es 69 ,242 ":'. .. 8 Cues.m. b 3: 1973 '
,, s.
. 9.g' .
p -
,, 2 .
.* 'r *l, <
e ; ...g. ,3 ..(_ . N . a.;*. '. l twl'LICATION OR t'OPYING OF Tills' TWAN%CRff'T, .q4. , g
' !\Y Pfl0TOGRAtlllC ELECTROSTATIC DR 07HER ' %.';)N&. -S ,
n, F.1C11MILI: MRANS is FRONinlTED BY T'tE ORDER -*' .
$ \ "'
s FUMM AGREEMENT . . . 't .Q Yji ' Q %.*45 , . :q}.TW ,.*'
\. *.'.y*. ,$ .2
- g'/ *.* ..,,1lE5 't,
. . :h.*;. ea.j.?es * "u.'s s:.. m,1f(' - '
4%,Z.i.
- .Y i
,, i . y s:.- . .
~"(; .$<_, .s. . .***:an W O_ -l .
-l'k.'.!Gl-?. '$
.INh!h;.?.d.sk 6 DEC 151970
- Ta' - -
m o. un., " '
. ACE'. FEDERAt. g jp . g. y. g ,
q w, mue - . : + :. ,
.>q N s.t +
* % .; . .:;%gge.,.
., .. yr -
;h,4p..qn.w+.a.f. -
.. n. ":.-
. - ... . :n
\,*
W- ' ."l'TJ l' stroRE: -
. - m u o % .M.. n. ' h.
15
.' . iv . . s, ,.... tit. 9 . AfW'
's*/ : .*'. M.) M 4 3 4'.
.WAI.TER E SKAILERUP," JR. ,Chai.zaan of 4?
' DR, ..' HAITER' l2 k l-- $'* *:L. :,I:%*+';$fi$ RE' JORDANj;Mafaber7 . d~'!T." T C 'N 1e s ?. ., ,
4 5 -- 11 . ,
. 6 O l'0'I~.' Y ' * $R l* '[ k, .5^t
- . - DR, C11ARI.E3 .E. ' '? ~
-4
?69 ;_4j. .,y y Y d gg ,,
APPEARANCES *-tr.r, .N. 3 .w. p- M 19 - . * * -. . .2
,'7.'% GERALD'
_ _ _n ---- C ~ f'.ShaWrL _.-7 N to,
,, f',',f,' ,. , . .
- e. s 4.g ;;:C _ _ ,
21 ,p
.g ,y ,RJ - -
- - 7. --
. h . . - "_i(2 ,. ---
+:.- '.
._j.9,4,..
i v ... it , j w ,,,s. ---___w ,
-~
~
_ m 25
..N. . M.I.. .. . ,W ~
(t?.p
. v . _
_ c. 5. =
. L
. . 3, .. .
. A4-e ,
.- .- ev'
,r *{W;,N( fr
.. [ , dh t ( % ~ , 1
.. .,4 ... d 4 o .a+
g .. -
c'
- 9 , - - g ,
~
t ' li .
- ,:&4 *
.l , ?f , Y0' .
~ '
(f .*
,,l h ',
~ g. - -2,.,,.>. . g,, -
,E -
l.
*Q'? .
fpz,.:
, ..';: _ .t'
. . a. . . , ; ,
^ '
= l
; S',. t .. . ,
7 i . :4,+?; : &; o 1 - l 3
.- s, s
; 5 '. .' .*/ - e,.e *,
<7,
... }li* ' . .
ff'_ , gwv ^7 V_
" *j.f.: ;
..y
~)
F 7, ,,
.m. ,3 .~,r;;;
- K'off _ M y{. tat.fo'd3'- But I .
y I :; 4 1
-Toledgo,.
s 2 O
. .snlo',. 'e Joh iMaWof'.; 3r.[GlermM.
, w .;. gi. g. - * ;%
l
, ,y
+ g ; J .?' ' - , .y . .
'v ' '
M' , t i ..;
,J.t.
2.- e , .
' n ~ ,
,, H % -
11 9 2.h ,n -. , .- q. [ g,- 8,. :: p r y, M ' T,. ... j g
*~- l M '.L.
4
~ ,
.$ih'*f f . 'e ,
l M:
, .h,.i y ,,, .
( n .: :..
\ .
33 [ ' "' h ~ in
.p., .: u . - - ,
? 1s .
~
. . Va .5e
.r.
.n ; .t y aj 4 : , .: . .
. .:3 . . .
;. 16 , c-: . - .-
f,e .r.
# a A l.b.;'.R ,' ? 3. k !-
., ._'~ .5 : . m. - . , . t,.- ex-
~
; . , ;' ~ ~ .. .f D :. '
~
.se - . .
. ;~ .; .3 . . .a i:
-$$ f ?p ' -.
~
';i .,3 -
l l' n '., lx j .?i) 'fW.'I',s.c . .: n. ',~ ~~P,,
,- .c'... , . , .m - - --
20
'E ' ~
p' +. k '#uN "'N'N ' v' 2 ! h* ' sE . . l y - .
., ' i,'W * *,y-Q*.. ,'
9_. 7. ,;. "f. ;g* g.;,j,d v4-
;.. y.' s.,
y' ' t . u c. .
^,
*%.%.7 w' S 8, (, , ,'.W a.4- y $ k ' h . )
27' Y 6% '% ",,...-'.' q", '*::. f l s, *W , r.33 p 1 g,. g 3 b , ! Is
- II.k' -
I m
.. h 7 I ,:
r. Y .< . n*. .: O a, . 2j ;.'- '. ,,, inI Y *
$ & ~ f.~% .
. %^ ' ** %y* * ' '
'[ Y . . }'
i
1
, ' /
P' ,
.e
. [ .. ; 5 1
,' f
~
c, q ..;,:,
%.;. < _( .
. .~; .
. ; . . L ?..
~ :Q . '
,. s c.* ' [:.d'.s e
. . ~
f ^ 41
.y. , q., :. % gG s; ,
' g' -[j.i. j g' y
'.7.t. 4 ,
- t; e.. . ; . f44 . . ;,6;j:.'y_,.. M J'.3 -.
- ., p, a< . .g X. . ;. . ,
[. ;.g3: . :: e ' " ' . < . d;; .(.'
~, 4 * :
(._- a .)
- d. .',, ' :. , "n,..
-.r . .,,:.
.~,
. . . ' . .'i $+ch,7 .- ,' -,,".* v$ pe.;' . W . . - . -
..g. -, , ,. b
,y. '..1Y
;- ' . . .*- 2. ., .
y,,Q )
;j' ,, j' '
.J j' l
' c. -2 G
.l' . .= .
r - _ v 8 f.;W I-
'. , e r * . ii.
b .h h','Nh -* U,' a fir ' 4= 0 lf. ...Q- .' I'f l
.*g.....,,
".?.'-
m-e .? ' _ ;, . g.. ,M. ,':.y((s.61unt
.- r :; _,.; ,, ,f.-
C.g.
. . . . "y y' -.. ,. ds?,jlChio'.Y:.
. .;g .y-
;rg. -
(
. c
..R.'*
e Dr . .Eugen e V; Perrin,, "e. Western Roserve. "
, n.
p , 15) .,.,.ey m 83 University.J '. ' ' M *; ... <. .~ .'. *
- ?
7
. ., -. n -
i.; .. L (, . A ' .,
. , g, i r., ,p; e; +W :p?
ff.'. ' 4 1
- j. 4 ' -
'! ::r, Jse.cs C. Wynd, Ohio Departmant of '
I' Heslt.h', Port Clintone Ohio'. 'f
%( .w. M 5,.i Y.5,.
4.. 41 ' u., . . 2.
, -w.... .
.;[. : lr. . T:.ctr.ha F. ' Pa l.a..Or , lla'f or o.? the s. M t;.p hw k'm.T 9[.*' 165 '.. .fy
? :/illage c' 02h Pa t:m .
-h'. ~
z: . . ; s .. Q ,", ~I- . i:.i.cs Kath .cte. Paunie . W. ling Green, . ~ ' l- :.g ij onic, '166 '
- .. . 'auc::::::: Mc!.crd C. ink . liel:nn. Chio, 172 ,
h"! - f tir . turt G . Ur'.:ena;;, I:taak tralton League, j W. 14 a M ohio D.1.vinion. 188 '
,1;
.,*w;.e.7.~ w-.. ,. ~v n..
r 't.. ,
..t..,'. a 1,
- :.. !!r. Itichard Wobb. . ; 191. .
. c. .
[.:.g O' . .i.. " *. g . tLe. Larry Noblitt, Port Clinton, Ohio 230
*hk . /.'
, 7, Z: . .. -
' ~ :. :" .)
II w;.
'I.' '
' ' . =. . 'I. .
tlias Jean renten Finkel, Lorain, Ohio -232 f.l .. - . '.,
. g.
' y [' bir. Lawrence J. Lucas. Chairman,. Local 197
-;,$,y.
J' .
?j UAti, Standa.'-d Products Unit .236 '
,' ; 3.'
s -:
-h F f
., . ' &.k
. if I w G~~
.s
~* s S'
s
- - . f. . .'.... . .
y . - .. agr p
... 4 .
k
.i
;l 4
. -l
- y. , . . -
[ . g a. .
' f. .. s. .c.Q,
.x. '
E. .;. . . > v 1, I . . . .
;- g
;.!-Q .. g p. s V'g, g
I ,,1 . :' . $~. '- . . . .
. $'.1 '
. ** . -se v:;;'. s y
- ~-*.. . .g r,- 3 O- y',.
4 .. ..- n~ l, e, l e
.y ,
, ,4 l"
.:o k y) h .
, .' . . . . - 1g.,
.A...','..
T'r 4
; - ;: )
e: g .w-. : .. . .. 2.t p, .T g g.. ;
.. .o . o.
__ _' _h, - d. .. h 'h __
$ } g. >/
,.,4,j :;
. 3r. c. Y. , pf -'
f .,th . I-
, q .K- .f' T ~',
.^ . .l
. >.[; c % .. .-
, .R. ...l ].f ~ -
.. . n '...<*
~ :. . ; - . . .
. fi ,_ ..:v ff -
' ' I'k
~ * -
2, N {. I e ' '
.; b e a t:;15 M .~? L ;
.-,. .v' .; . . . . ' ' .py;,;;gg; / ..
.. . . g. ,
+f,s-:- .. . . . ..um:ve. ..
w .. w,
.;.I..will ifocus ,, m ; .styy.remarfs, / '-
.. 1-gj; !*.R. C111 PSOFF F i Y is g,,
g.. i,y
- a. - =- _r# ?q:"??t. .Q,;}f.y;;'Q.ygy;_pe.5;. %
g^./.e.j- <.. 3 . . r.r. chair:.zan, on the contentions. that "are' set Torth in .s-
%_..f
.f
?, ..te.T.2t g.: v.:a;;;@.{.+g:-gg Q. . ,,. {
-h i
- 4 h;
;r . 1.au ' c ; eti e tern . There aro"four contentions set.- forth[r --
rg --[?.y?%
;2 The first deals with cooling tot.*ers and the M.h 5 h This
'R, .
i
'j allegation that they might overburdon the at:-osphere. :72
,. articular contentien relatos to an allecaticn t. hat is not ,
r . le . a:.t to thi s : re,c cdiner , ~r. Chairman, trhore .co are concerned with radiological considerationn. to Tha* being the casa, thir. co:*tention, that is the l j .-. il
;i j' fir:t contenticn. de :: not provide a basis fer admittinci ! '.
- r
,a 12 i, ;;r. Lau as an Intervenor. The contention Mo. 2, which dr .. f
- ', : rel.1tes te radioactiv.1 gas reicases, relates in general, cf .h 6 4 I
3'
- A u
' 14 : cource, to the mattr:e that are of concern to us in this I w.s)
- t. . .r
? "~-
n p ),":icular proconding , but it is simply a general allegation . 76
- 9. that radioactiva gases will be emitted; therefore, he has .
i/ ? ;ot some concern. . ... Dut it is an extremely general nonspecific, c is I - i
.f g nj noninformative contention which does not provide any basis for .W L i'
Q
- o ljl understandi g what the points in controversy are. w 2 [
rnd tais is illustrative of the kind of situation I h 22 $ t.".at might voll have been avoided had tir. Lau been present f h n , at the prehearing conference, because it is someuhat similar ll s a An nature to somo of the allegations that were contained in
.-q ..
# * 'i e e e eition to intervgnq FUfGLM9G3 b Lthe_ Coal _itiOn for _ _ _ _ _ -
.q. _ _. _ __ ,y.9 k msr . : .c y .
3 :' h g ~ ~. s
. n
~z . :h:
1 - .a 2 ,. .:;g m y. . . q2 , . '.,' . . . ' - ( (
,4 5. := ..
,y q'- (. ..; Y 9 h. .
? ,-
hk;
*[, 'ly,. s .u 3 .y.
1 .
.' .l . -
*c.' Q <
- E
-h :
)Q .
3.[. , .}; . . ; )
< g. . b,:. . y.. g , , . g.. . .. , r -
":. ' q, ,
gs ' ;g ,
- - , i ,
; e .,-
. .i
( : .. s . g.1 f ehn: m. -7;g ih.,-
=
.ner..snt b 6..
par. .-..+tled'lar
-2 4 on ,
gg
~
W, m WBNR - s p ., T=# 9 f:'iby.ssuesa
~
p.Q.F;h[3@,..'.24 y , .s e
-M.pC.? N;rhascnly &. T .rigapf sene k Q ..g3 d
%WgNTMI *cD'25$N te;MW&$.ph MA '( [/ whether or ac.t>we' *. fill be>h 9'
es ,;sThere.J. . !cr ( A .W . ~l % . r C . Vig 7.;:! 4 $@6a4.', M . WJy M Q 91M.... ' li in uo hero as io'
- tac' quasi lofthose'part5chlisr~st adddido) 3IidI M@
h* Y[-[{ET-} 6 . f . " -i.y
~
< .: .- ;;.p.
---3:(
f eertainl/, the simple allo <jation that wc will Lo releasing 4 .g . j ..
. , . ,. p .. .+ . , . -
$ - radiocctive r;;:.m u not a L:.0 tc f or ad..;ittinq !*r . Lau te !
l j r-,,=.
' .1
"- 2 ' ontation !c. 3 relat.ss to solid uc:t es , t<hich ,
\ . 4
,,~ to [, tir. Lau asserta vi'.1 andanger the poticioner, and they relate , _
il [ '. ',, 3; 9 to disposal of solid v u tas. Thera vill.be no disposal of i
; .e;
{i} .. .m tz y solid wastes at this particular f acility, nor uill there be i l 4 f$$ 13 h any dispo al of solid wactes perfor:ned under the proposed . i
. - . :lN&@
il 14 ,d construction permit or operating licenso for which we have k t r, , applied.
- 4
- }[
H
'j g 3
} ie So that this particular contention is irrelevant.
l Thore are other proceedings, other licenses obtained by 4::. N
.y [
mj ether persons with regard to transportation and disposal of 1',
~;
.. } . . .
! l 3, . vastos. And !!r. Lau's concern, it seems to me, is appropriately . t
. ,; Q *
- -- - i
_. 3
~
gn directed at those other proceedinge. . C. Finally, Contention No, d asserts that the 'N
- 1
~- ,
g
,.g.
l g construction plans and raterials are f aulty and in particular . ,! M
) h n' I
ne similarly citos they are the same materials that were kf i :.8 h used in another f acility, if used here, would endanger the ' re 3 a iscople in this particular area.
638 r. 1 MR. LYNCH: WOULD EACH OF THE 2 MEMBERS OF THE PANEL PLEASE STATE THEIR NAMES, 3 BUSINESS ADDRESSES AND OCCUPATION? ! l 4 JUDGE H0YT: FIRST, MAY I SWEAR I 5 THEM IN?
; 6 l v ,
7 JOHN H. MARSHALL, RICHARD R. PAVEY, l 8 JOHN E. VOYTEK, JR., DONALD E. GUY, JR. l 9 WERE CALLED AS WITNESSES AND, HAVING BEEN FIRST r 10 DULY SWORN, WERE EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS
} 11 FOLLOWS:
' 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. LYNCH:
,, 14 Q. WOULD EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL b
15 PLEASE STATE THEIR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND 16 OCCUPATION?
^
17 A. (MR. MARSHALL) MY NAME IS JOHN MARSHALL.
't 18 MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS BUILDING C-4, FOUNTAIN 19 SQUARE, COLUMBUS, OHIO.
20 I'M ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COOR DI N ATOR FOR l 21 THE OHIO DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE. 22 A. (MR. GUY) MY NAME IS DONALD GUY. I WORK
) 23 WITH THE OHIO DI VI S I ON OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. I 24 WORK IN SANDUSKY, AND MY MAILING ADDRESS IS P.O.
25 E ~ ;, 650, SANDUSKY 44870. I
640
~ l A. (RICHARD PAVEY) MY NAME IS RICHARD R.
2 PAVEY. I'M A GLACIAL G E O L O G I S'T AND GLACIAL 3 GEOLOGY COORDINATOR FOR THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
- 4 NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
5 . MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS BUILDING B, 6 FOUNTAIN SQUARE, C O L U M B L' S , OHIO 43224. 7 A. ( M R .- VOYTEK) MY NAME IS JOHN VOYTEK. 8 I'M THE ADMINISTRATOR AND PRINCIPAL HYDR 0 GEOLOGIST 9 IN THE DIVISION OF WATER, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 10 NATURAL RESOURCES, BUILDING E-3, COLUMBUS, OHIO 11 43324.
) 12 Q. WILL EACH OF YOU PLEASE STATE --
BRIEFLY , 13 STATE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AND BRIEFLY STATE YOUR 14 PARTICULAR AREA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TESTIFY TO 15 TODAY? 16 A. (MR. MARSHALL) I HOLD A BACHELOR OF 17 SCIENCE DEGREE IN NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 18 WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN FISHERIES MAf1 AG EM E N T FROM 19 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, AND A MASTER'S DEGREE 20 IN BOTONY WITH EMPHASIS ON WETLAND FLORI$ TICS, 21 ALSO FROM THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY. I'VE WORKED 22 IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE PAST () 23 EIGHT YEARS FOR THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 24 RESOURCES REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE 25 E'\ISION OF NATURAL AREAS AND PRESERVES AND THE
641 GD k- 1 DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE. I 2 PREVIOUS TO MY SERVICE WITH THE l l 3 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, I MANAGED A 4 RESEARCH STAFF AND CO-AUTHORED A MULTI-VOLUME 5 REPORT UNDER CONTRACT TO THE UNITED STATES FISH 6 AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENTITLED " FISH AND WILDLIFE 7 RESOURCES OF THE GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 8 WITHIN THE UNITED STATES." I WILL BE ADDRESSING 9 THE PRESIDING OFFICER'S QUESTIONS 3 AND 9. 10 A. (MR. GUY) I HAVE A BACHELOR OF ARTS 11 DEGREE FROM EARLHAM COLLEGE IN 1971, AND A , 4 k) 12 MASTER'S DEGREE IN GEOLOGY FROM BOWLING GREEN 13 STATE UNIVERSITY IN 1983. I WORKED WITH THE 14 DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SINCE 1973. 15 SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO 16 THE LAKE ERIE SECTION, WHERE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED 17 IN GEOLOGIC STUDIES IN ALL OF THE LAKESHORE' 18 COUNTIES. THIS INVOLVEMENT HAS INCLUDED 19 COLLECTION, COMPILATION, AND INTERPRETATION OF 20 DATA RELATED TO SHORE-PROCESSES, SHORE-RECESSION ! 21 RATES, LAKE LEVELS, NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY, 22 NEARSHORE SEDIMENTS, AND SUB-BOTTOM SEDIMENTS. I
) 23 AM THE PRINCIPAL COMPILER OF RECESSION-LINE MAPS 24 FOR THE OHIO LAKESHORE; AND I HAVE AUTHORED OR 25 Cr-AUTHORED 14 PUSLICATIONS AND 12 PRESENTATIONS
642 6>
- 1 RELATED TO GEOLOGY ALONG THE OHIO LAKESHORE. l l
2 A. (MR. PAVEY) MY P R O F E S S I 'O N AL SPECIALTY l 3 FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS HAS B E EN A STUDY OF GLACIAL j 4 SEDIMENTS. THIS EXPERIENCE HAS INCLUDED THE 1 5 EXAMINATION OF THESE SEDIMENTS IN SIX MID-WESTERN 6 STATES, INCLUDING DETAILED THESIS WORK USING , i 7 MODERN RESEARCH TECHNIQUES WHICH LED TO MY MASTER , 8 0F SCIENCE DEGREE IN GEOLOGY AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY 9 IN 1983. 10 SINCE THEN, I'VE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE 11 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATUAL RESOURCES' DI VI S I ON OF 12 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. MY WORK INVOLVES DETAILED 13 FIELD AND LABORATORY RESEARCH IN THE GLACIAL l 14 SEDIMENTS OF NORTH-CENTRAL OHIO. IN THIS l 15 CAPACITY, I'VE EXAMINED AN INCH-BY-INCH DETAIL, 16 HUNDREDS OF EXPOSURES AND EX C A V AT I ON S IN GLACIAL 17 MATERIAL, AND THUS I PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER 18 WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THIS AREA'S GLACIAL AND 19 GLACIOLACUSTRINE SEDIMENT DEPOSITION THAN ANY 20 OTHER GEOLOGIST IN THE REGION. BASED ON MY 21 EXPERIENCE, I WAS RECENTLY PROMOTED TO COORDINATOR I 22 0F THE SURVEY'S GLACIAL GEOLOGY GROUP OF SEVEN
) 23 GEOLOGISTS. I WILL ADDRESS THE PRESIDING 24 OFFICER'S QUESTIONS 6 AND 7.
25 4 (MR. VOYTEK) I HOLD A BACHELOR'S OF
643 o
- 1 SCIENCE DEGREE IN GEOLOGY AND HAVE HAD OVER 11 2 YEARS EXPERIENCE PRACTICING THE SCIENCE OF 3 GROUNDWATER. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF 4 PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST, COMMONLY CALLED AIPG, HAS 5 CERTIFIED ME AS A CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL 6 GEOLOGIST. MY CERTIFICATION NUMBER IS 4777. IT 7 W AS ISSUED IN AUGUST OF 1980. AIPG GRANTS ME THE 8 PRIVILEDGE TO USE INITIALS CPG AFTER MY NAME, 9 INDICATING THAT I MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET 10 FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS. AS AN AIPG 11 MEMBER, I ABIDE BY THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS 12 SET BY MY PEERS AND COLLEAGUES.
13 I AM ALSO A CHARTER MEMBER OF A GROUP OF 14 I N DI VI D U AL S THAT HAVE EARNED THE TITLE " CERTIFIED 15 GROUNDWATER PROFESSIONALS", CGWP. THIS HONOR WAS 16 BESTOWED ON ME AFTER I DEMONSTRATED TO THE 17 ASSOCIATION OF GROUNDWATER SCIENTISTS AND 18 ENGINEERS, A DI VI S I ON OF THE NATURAL WATER WELL 19 ASSOCIATION, THAT I MET THEIR STANDARDS AND ; l 20 REQUIREMENTS AS AN EXPERT IN THE SCIENCE AND 21 GROUNDWATER. I HAVE AUTHORED NEARLY A DOZEN l 22 ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT OF GROUNDWATER. e,() 23 CO-AUTHORED TWO TEXTBOOKS ON GROUNDWATER, AND HAVE
- q. ;
24 LECTURED AT MANY UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES IN 25 F ' F, T H AMERICA ON THE SUBJECT OF GROUNDWATER.
i 644 l 1 A LISTING OF THE ARTICLES AND TEXTBOOKS 2 THAT I HAVE PUBLISHED IS ATTACHED TO THIS 3 DOCUMENT. 4 CURRENTLY, I'M THE ADMINISTRATOR AND ) 5 PRINCIPAL HYDROGEOLOGIST OF THE GROUNDWATER 6 SECTION OF THE DI VI S I ON OF WATER, OHIO DEPARTMENT 7 OF NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS SECTION IS CHARGED 8 WITH THE DUTY OF COLLECTING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION j 9 ABOUT AND REPORTING ON THE STATE'S GROUNDWATER l 10 RESOURCES. BEFORE I BECAME THE ADMINISTRATOR OF 11 THE ~ GROUNDWATER SECTION, I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF h 12 TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR THE NATIONAL WATER WALL 13 ASSOCIATION AND'THE ASSOCIATION OF GROUNDWATER 14 SCIENTIST AND ENGINEERS. MY DUTIES AS THE [ 15 TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR INCLUDED TEACHING AND l 16 LECTURING ABOUT GROUNDWATER, PERFORMING TIMELY l 17 RESEARCH ON GROUNDWATER RELATED PROBLEMS, WRITING l 18 TECHNICAL ARTICLES FOR THREE GROUNDWATER 19 PERIODICALS PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION, AS WELL 20 AS REVIEWING MANY TECHNICAL ARTICLES THAT WERE 21 SUBMITTED TO THESE PERIODICALS AS TO THEIR 22 TECHNICAL CONTENT AND ACCURACY; AND, FINALLY, w(.-) 23 ANSWERING THOUSANDS OF TECHNICAL INQUIRIES THAT 24 WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 25 PRIOR TO MY POSITION IN NWWA, I WAS A l
645 _ D 1 TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR A MANUFACTURER OF 2 GROUNDWATER EQUIPMENT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST 3 AND HYDROGEOLOGIST FOR MAJOR INTERNATIONAL [ 4 CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM, AND NORTHWEST 5 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST FOR THE OHIO EPA AND A GRADUATE 6 ASSISTANT AT BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, _ 7 7 DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY. 8 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, PER OUR 9 AGREEMENT YESTERDAY, WE'LL TAKE MR. MARSHALL OUT 10 0F NORMAL SEQUENCE AND HE WILL TESTIFY FIRST 11 TODAY. 12 JUDGE HOYT: PROCEED. 13 BY MR. LYNCH: 14 Q. MR. MARSHALL, YOU'RE TO TESTIFY ABOUT 15 QUESTIONS 3 AND 9. THE ADMINISTATIVE OFFICER'S 16 QUESTION 3 IS THE FOLLOWING: IS THE WASTE BURIAL -- 17 SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF NAVARRE MARSH? E 18 PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE _ E 19 BURIAL SITE RELATIVE TO THE MARSH? - 2 20 AND QUESTION 9 IS: WHAT ENDANGERED 21 SPECIES OF PLANT OR ANIMAL HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY 22 OBSERVED AT THE D A VI S-B ES S E SITE? WHAT CRITICAL
) 23 HABITATS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES EXIST ON THE 24 DAVIS-BESSE SITE?
25 1 . (MR. MARSHALL) I COME BEFORE THIS
648 l l l 1 HEARING REPRESENTING THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
- 2 NATURAL RESOURCES' DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE, 1
3 SUPPORTING THE ST ATE 'S POSITION TO INTERVENE IN l 4 4 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACTION 5 PERMITTING THE ON-SITE BURIAL OF LOW-LEVEL 6 RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER j 7 STATION. I SUPPORT THE ST ATE 'S BELIEF THAT THE 8 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHOD COULD ADVERSELY EFFECT j 9 THE FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED BALD EAGLE, ! 10 KIRTLAND'S WARBLER, AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON, AND ) 11 OTHER RESIDENT MIGRATORY FISH. AND WILDLIFE, 12 INCLUDING STATE LISTED EN D ANG ER E D SPECIES, AND ] 13 DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE NAVARRE MARSH i i 14 ECOSYSTEM. t l 15 BECAUSE THE DAVIS-BESSE POWER STATION IS i 16 SITUATED IN THE MIDST OF INVALUABLE STATE FISH AND J 17 WILDLIFE RESOURCES, THE STATE OF OHIO HAS A VITAL 18 INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT CONDITIONS AT THE PLANT 4 1 19 DO NOT ENDANGER THESE NATURAL RESOURCES OR 20 JEOPARD 12E THE WELL-BEING OF OHIOANS WHO DEPEND Oli 21 THESE NATURAL RESOURCES. 22 BESIDES ITS PROXIMITY TO LAKE ERIE, THE g-() 23 NUCLEAR POWER STATION IS ALSO NEAR AN ARRAY OF x 24 RIVERS, WETLANDS, WILDLIFE REFUGES, PARKS, 25 V'DDLANDS, AND FARM AREAS. THE SANDUSKY, s
l 647 l 1 TOUSSAINT, MAUMEE, PORTAGE, AND OTHER RI VE RS AND 2 STREAMS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE DRAIN INTO THE LAKE IN 3 THIS REGION. THE OTTAWA, NAVARR2 AND DARBY MARSH 4 UNITS OF THE OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, 5 CRANE CREEK STATE PARK, MAGEE MARSH STATE WILDLIFE 6 AREA, TOUSSAINT CREEK STATE WILDLIFE AREA, AND 7 METZGER MARSH STATE WILDLIFE AREA ARE ALL LOCATED 8 WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PLANT. AT LEAST TWO 9 PRIVATE HUNTING CLUBS, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS 10 CAMPGROUNDS AND MARINAS ARE ALSO SITUATED NEAR THE 11 FACILITY. 12 MUCH OF THE NATURAL AREAS LOCATED NEAR 13 DAVIS-BESSE CONSIST OF WETLANDS. THESE WETLANDS 14 ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE STATE, AS CITED ON 15 PAGES 4 AND 5 OF THE STATE'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO l 16 INTERVENE. BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS ) 17 SERVED BY WETLANDS, PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER 18 11990, AND THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT HAVE I 19 MANDATED THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF l 20 WETLANDS. DESPITE THE IMPORTANCE OF WETLANDS, 21 HOWEVER, MUCH OF OHIO WETLANDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ] 22 DESTROYED BY FILLING, DRAINING AND OTHER l 23 DEGRADATION. l 24 BETWEEN 1954 AND 1974 ALONE, 5 1 25 4' ROXIMATELY 40 PERCENT OF THE WETLANDS ALONG ( l 1
648 b 1 LAKE ERIE HAVE DISAPPEARED. OBVIOUSLY, OHIO HAS A 2 GREAT STAKE IN PROTECTING THE REMAINING WETLANDS, 3 INCLUDING WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF DAVIS-BESSE. 4 THE RICHNESS OF THE WESTERN BASIN'S 5 RESOURCES IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE ABUNDANCE OF 6 AQUATIC LIFE, MAMMALS, AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, AND 7 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, WHICH HAVE BEEN 8 OBSERVED ON THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE AND IN REFUGES 9 NEAR THE SITE. THE DAVIS-BESSE AREA IS LOCATED ON 10 TWO MAJOR MIGRATORY FLYWAYS FOR W AT E R F OW L AND 11 OTHER BIRDS. AMONG THE RICH NATURAL RESOURCES IN 12 CLOSE PROXIMITY TO DAVIS-BESSE, SPECIAL MENTION 13 MUST BE MADE OF NAVARRE MARSH. NAVARRE MARSH IS 1 14 LOCATED ON THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, AND ADdOINS LAKE f 15 ERIE. THE TOUSSAINT RI VER ALSO FLOWS ALONG THE I 16 MARSH. 17 THE RESOURCE VALUES OF NAVARRE MARSH ARE 18 WELL-RECOGNIZED AS IT IS A COMPONENT OF THE 19 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, ADMINISTERED BY 20 THE OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. CANADA GOOSE 21 PRODUCTION ON THE NAVARRE MARSH HAS STEADILY 22 INCREASED, WITH THE NAVARRE SUB-FLOCK GROWING
.()
,g
.o 23 FASTER THAN THE OVERALL FLOCK. ESTIMATED 24 PRODUCTION INCREASES FROM THE 1978 '82 AVERAGE TO
'2 5 T'E 1983 TO '85 AVERAGE IS 71 PERCENT.
649 17 % d 1 DURING THE PERIOD, 1981 TO 1982, AVERAGE 2 BIWEEKLY MIGRATION SURVEYS CONDUCTED BETWEEN 3 SEPTEMBER 1 AND dANUARY 15, INDICATED THAT THE 4 MIGRATORY WATERFOWL USE OF THE NAVARRE MARSH 5 EXCEEDED 8,500 DUCKS AND 4,000 CANADA GEESE. 6 BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY OF NAVARRE MARSH TO THE 7 PROPOSED BURIAL SITE, CHEMICAL AFD/OR RADIOACTIVE 8 CONTAMINATION COULD MIGRATE FROM THE DI SPOS AL AREA 9 INTO THE MARSH THROUGH FLOODING, SURFACE WATER 10 RUNOFF, OR GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT. CONTAMINATION OF 11 THE MARSH WITH CHEMICAL OR RADIOACTIVE WASTE 12 COMPONENTS COULD ENTER THE FOOD CHAIN BY UPTAKE OF 13 PLANTS, ON THROUGH HERBIVORES, ULTIMATELY REACHING i 14 HIGHER LEVEL INSECTIVORES, CARNIVORES, AND 15 PISCIVORES, INCLUDING STATE AND FEDERALLY 16 ENDANGERED SPECIES. TERATOLOGICAL, GENERAL HEALTH l 17 AND REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS UPON ANIMALS CONSUMING 18 CONTAMINATED FORAGE WILL DEPEND ON THE EXACT 19 COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE MATERIAL AND RELATIVE 20 DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION THROUGH B I O- AC C UM UL AT I ON . 21 STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES WHICH CAN OCCUR 22 IN THE VICINITY OF NAVARRE MARSH INCLUDE: /I
) 23 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK, KING RAIL, UPLAND SANDPIPER, 24 AND COMMON TERN. FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED 25 E ECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR ON OR ABOUT THE DAVIS-BESSE 1
i l 650 l l 1 SITE INCLUDE KIRTLAND'S WARBLER, AMERICAN 2 PEREGRINE FALCON, AND THE BALD EAGLE. THE NAVARRE 3 MARSH ON THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE PROVIDES CRITICAL 4 HABITAT FOR THESE SPECIES, OFFERING FORAGING 5 OPPORTUNITY AND IMPORTANT SANCTUARY DURING l l 6 BIANNUAL MIGRATION FLIGHTS. 7 KIRTLAND'S WARBLERS, WITH A TOTAL KNOWN l 8 POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 500 IN DI VI DU ALS , i
)
9 MIGRATE THROUGH THE WESTERN LAKE ERIE MARSHES IN 10 BOTH SPRING AND FALL. WHILE NO DOCUMENTED 11 OCCURRENCE OF THIS SPECIES ON NAVARRE MARSH CAN BE 12 CITED, INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED WITHIN TWO 13 MILES OF THE SITE. 14 GIVEN THE FREE RANGING NATURE OF THIS 15 SPECIES, ITS HABITAT PREFERENCE, AND DOCUMENTED 16 OCCURRENCES NEAR THE SITE, IT IS LOGICAL TO ASSUME 17 THAT IT UTILIZES NAVARRE MARSH FOR RESTING AND 18 FORAGING DURING MIGRATION. LIKEWISE, AMERICAN 19 PEREGRINE FALCONS UTILIZE THE SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE 20 ERIE DURING SPRING AND FALL MIGRATION FLIGHTS. IN 21 SPRING, PEREGRINE FALCONS ON THEIR NORTHERLY 22 MIGRATION ARE KNOWN TO MOVE NORTH TO THE SHORE,
) 23 THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF LAKE ERIE, THENCE EASTERLY
( 24 ALONG THE SHORE BEFORE CONTINUING FURTHER NORTH TO 25 E'EEDING GROUNDS IN CANADA AND NEW ENGLAND.
651 k) 1 FALL MIGRATION ESSENTIALLY RETRACES THIS 2 PATTERN IN REVERSE, UTILIZING THE SHORELINE l 3 CORRIDOR FROM EAST TO WEST. AS THESE BIRDS MOVE 4 ALONG THE SHORELINE, THE MARSHES PROVIDE AN 5 IMPORTANT SOURCE OF FOOD IN THE FORM OF DUCKS, 6 GREBES, AND SHOREBIRDS. ADDITIONALLY, MARSHES 7 SUCH AS NAVARRE PROVIDE IMPORTANT RESTING SITES. 8 WITHIN A TWO-AND-A-HALF MILE RADIUS OF 9 DAVIS-BESSE, ARE TWO ESTABLISHED BREEDING PAIRS OF 10 BALD EAGLES. A THIRD PAIR ESTABLISHED A BREEDING 11 TERRITORY WITHIN THIS TWO-AND-A'-HALF MILE RADIUS 12 IN 1986; HOWEVER, THIS PAIR DID NOT SUCCESSFULLY 13 BREED. AS THIS PAIR CONSISTS OF YOUNG BIRDS, WE 14 ANTICIPATE SUCCESSFUL BREEDING IN SUBSEQUENT l 15 YEARS. 16 BALD EAGLES ARE OPPORTUNISTIC FEEDERS AND 17 RELY HEAVILY ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE 18 MARSHES, SUCH AS NAVARRE. PRINCIPAL SPRING AND 19 SUMMER FOOD FOR BALD EAGLES INCLUDE A WIDE VARIETY 20 OF FISH SPECIES, WHILE IN WINTER THE DIET CONSISTS 21 PRINCIPALLY OF WATERFOWL. BALD EAGLES ARE KNOWN 22 TO UTILIZE THE NAVARRE MARSH AS A FORAGING GROUND. j k 23 IN ADDITION TO THE UTILIZATION OF NAVARRE MARSH BY i 24 THE SIX PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED EAGLES, NAVARRE MARSH 25 $ 1 ALSO RECEIVE USE BY UNPAIRED, IMMATURE BIRDS,
652-b 1 AS THEY ARE CHARACTERISTICALLY WANDERERS, AND THEY 2 ARE ROUTINELY OBSERVED IN THE AREA. FURTHER, THE 3 WESTERN LAKE ERIE MARSHES PROVIDE CRITICAL 4 FORAGING RESOURCES FOR BALD EAGLES RESIDENT OF 5 MORE NORTHERN AREAS, WHICH WINTER IN WESTERN LAKE 6 ERIE MARSHES. 7 IN
SUMMARY
, THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER 8 STATION IS LOCATED IN A REGION OF EXCEPTIONAL 9 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE MARSHLANDS OF THE 10 REGION SUPPORT OHIO'S MAJOR CONCENTRATIONS OF 11 MIGRATORY W AT ER F 0W L , AS WELL AS LOCAL BREEDING O - 12 POPULATION OF DUCKS, GEESE, FURBEARING ANIMALS, 13 AND THE ENDANGERED BALD EAGLE. THE SIGNIFICANCE 14 0F NAVARRE MARSH, LOCATED ON THE SITE AT THE 15 D A VI S-B ES S E STATION, IS RECOGNIZED BY ITS 16 INCORPORATION INTO THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 17 SYSTEM. TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE LIES LAKE ERIE, 18 OHIO'S MOST EXTENSIVE, PRODUCTIVE AND ECONOMICALLY 19 SIGNIFICANT FISHEP.IES RESOURCE. BECAUSE THE 20 LICEN5EE FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATE THE 21 POTENTIAL FOR HARM TO FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 22 AND THEIR HABITATS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL g() 23 ASSESSMENT, THE STATE CONTENDS THAT THE r.u-24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS FLAWED. THEREFORE,
- l. 25 V'THOUT FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE RELATIVE POTENTIAL
653 3 1 FOR HARM TO FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES, INCLUDING
=
2 THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED BALD EAGLE, AMERICAN h ' 3 PEREGRINE FALCON, AND KIRTLAND'S WARBLER, THE > 4 N.R.C. HAS ERRED IN RELEASING A FINDING OF NO ,
, 5 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, IN THAT ALL PERTINENT : ,
6 INFORMATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED, NOR W ER E 7 APPROPRIATE RESOURCE AGENCIES ADEQUATELY CONSULTED i> 8 DURING THE PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AS RE QU IR E D BY 9 SECTION 1500.1 0F THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 10 QUALITY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED IN RESPONSE TO . 11 PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER 11991.
~
. =
I 12 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, IN 13 ADDITION, WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TH AT MAY 14 APPROPRIATELY AND PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED REBUTTAL,
')
15 BUT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT MR. JACKSON HAS TO 16 LEAVE, WE WOULD ASK THAT WE BE PERMITTED TO GO ~ 17 AHEAD AND STATE THOSE QUESTIONS. , 18 J U DG E HOYT: YES, I THINK THAT'S ~ \$
. L 19 A GOOD -- THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT. fj )
4' 20 BY MR. LYNCH: ( 21 Q. MR. MARSHALL, WOULD YOU FURTHER EXPLAIN I'F i$ ' h i' l, .- ? 22 THE DI V I S I ON OF WILDLIFE'S BALD EAGLET FOSTER
'Lp ; ;
^#
23 PARENT PROGRAM THAT WOULD INCLUDE NAVARRE MARSH? 24 A. THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE HAS BEEN - 25 1VELY INVOLVED IN REESTABLISHING THE BALD EAGLE : O
. 654
,c p -c. .-
f _ 1 POPULATION IN OHIO. AND THOSE EFFORTS HAVE
'^' -
~12: .
2 LARGELY CONCENTRATED ON THIS WESTERN LAKE ERIE 3 REGION, BECAUSE OF FAILURES IN NATURAL
~ ' ~' ~ ~
~
~ ~
4 R E"P R 0'D U'C"T'I'O N ,TE H A V E , 'OY E R' 'T H E' 'Y E A'R S , B E E N' '
5 INTRODUCING EAGLETS TO FOSTER PARENTS WHOSE 6 0FFSPRING HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED THAT YEAR. 7 IN ADDITION TO THOSE ACTIVITIES, WE'VE 8 ALSO BEEN EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF ARTIFICIAL 9 NESTING STRUCTURES. AND AS PART OF THAT EFFORT, 10 WE HAVE REVIEWED ALL POTENTIAL NESTING SITES 11 WITHIN THE WESTERN LAKE ERIE MARSHES, INCLUDING 12 NAVARRE MARSH, AS POTENTIAL SITES FOR ARTIFICIAL 13 NESTING STRUCTURES. 14 0, . AND DOES NAVARRE MARSH CONTAIN SOME 15 POTENTIAL NESTING SITES? l 16 A. YES, IT DOES. l 17 Q. AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU USED THE TERM 18 " CRITICAL HABITAT." IN LIGHT OF MR. JACKSON'S 19 TESTIMONY AND HIS DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT 4 20 CONTAINED IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, WOULD 21 Y ,0 U EXPLAIN YOUR USE OF THE TERM CRITICAL HABITAT? 22 A. CERTAINLY. MY USE OF THE TERM CRITICAL t a
'))
. 23 HABITAT IS MORE GENERAL IN NATURE, NOT REFERRING 24 SPECIFICALLY TO THE THE NARROW DEFINITION PROVIDED 25 I THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND IN NO WAY WOULD
655 1 INDICATE THAT WE HAVE PROCEEDED THROUGH THE 2 PROCEDURE FOR FEDERAL DESIGNATION AS CRITICAL 3 HABITAT. HOWEVER, T H I S'. A R E A IS CRITICAL FROM THE 1 i 4 STANDPOINT OF THE STATE'S LISTING OF THESE 5 FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES AS ENDANGERED IN THE 6 STATE, IN THAT THESE AREAS PROVIDE HABITAT NOT 7 FOUND ELSEWHERE IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OR QUALITY 8 TO SUPPORT THOSE SPECIES. 9 Q. ONE FURTHER QUESTION: HAVE YOU REVIEWED 10 THE WASTE THAT'S CONTAINED IN TABLE 17-1 IN TOLEDO 11 E DI S ON 'S TESTIMONY? 12 A. I 'M SORRY, WHAT TABLE? . 13 Q. TABLE 17-1 CONTAINS SOME POTENTIAL 14 POLLUTANTS IN THE -- IT'S JUST PAST PAGE 98? 1S A. YES, I HAVE. 16 Q. AND CAN THESI POLLUTANTS BE HARMFUL TO 17 THE BENTHIC MACROINVLATEBRATES ORGANISMS CONTAINED 18 ON THE RECENT LAKC ERIE WHICH TURNED OUTCROPS INTO 19 BEDROCK? 20 A '. THERE ARE LISTED HERE SOME' HEAVY METALS 21 WHICH DO EXHIBIT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON BENTHIC 22 ORGANISMS. 23 Q. CAN THESE ADVERSE EFFECTS HARM THE FISH 24 P O P L'L AT I ON ; SPECIFICALLY, WALLEYE AND PERCH WHICH 2S r'iED IN THOSE AREAS? i
656' O 1 A. IF THERE'S SUFFICIENT REDUCTION IN THE 2 DI VER S IT Y AND ABUNDANCE OF BENTHIC 3 MACROINVERTEBRATES, THAT COULD VERY DEFINITELY 4 ADVERSELY IMPACT FISH POP UL AT I ON S . 5 MR. LYNCH: WE HAVE NOTHING l 6 FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. 7 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. I THINK 8 WE'RE GOING TO TURN YOUR PANEL OVER TO THE ROOM 9 FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS 10 WITH THAT, MR. SILBERG7 11 MR. SILBERG: I 'M SORRY? 12 - JUDGE H0YT: I WAS ASKING 13 COUNSEL IF HE HAD ANY PROBLEMS, AND I'LL ASK YOU 14 THE SAME, WITH TURNING THE WITNESSES OVER AS A 15 PANEL TO YOU -- 16 MR. SILBERG: THAT'S FINE. 17 JUDGE HOYT: -- FOR 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION RATHER THAN DO IT IN DI VI DU ALL Y. 19 MR. SILBERG: THAT'S FINE WITH 20 ME. 21 JUDGE H0YT: WHICH IS THE WAY WE l 22 HAD DONE IT WITH THE LICENSEE'S WITNESSES. 23 MR. LYNCH: NOW, DOES INCLUDE 24 BECAUSE MR. JACKSON HAS TO LEAVE BECAUSE YOU , 25 \ 'TED EARLY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. MARSHALL. f; k .
l l 657 l l l 1 JUDGE HOYT: YES, THAT WAS THE 2 CONSIDERATION. 3 MR. S I LB ERG: YEAH, I THINK 4 BECAUSE WE'RE ABLE TO GET DR. JACKSON OUT OF HERE \ l 5 YESTERDAY AND HE WAS ABLE TO REARRANGE HIS TRAVEL ! 6 PLANS IN A WAY WHICH PARTIES HAVE HEARD ABOUT, HE 7 WON'T BE AVAILABLE FOR THE THE REST OF TODAY. IF 8 IT TURNS OUT THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO A CONFLICT 9 WITH THAT SCHEDULE, THEN I WOULD ASK TO BREAK IN 10 AND PUT DR. JACKSON BACK ON. 11 MR. LYNCH: I WAS UNDER THE 1 ("%-
\
12 IMPRESSION -- 13 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. I THINK 14 TO RETAIN CONTINUITY OF YOUR CASE, I WOULD PREFER 15 TO GO AHEAD, IF YOU CAN, COUNSEL. 16 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, OUR 17 NEXT WITNESS WILL BE MR. DON GUY. I I 18 WHEREUPON, 19 DONALD E. GUY, dR. 20 WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS AND, HAVING BEEN 21 PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED 22 AS FOLLOWS:
- r. 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 6Y P. R . LYNCH:
l 25 . MR. GUY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS I
l l 658 l l Ch l 1 QUESTIONS FOUR AND FIVE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER'S 2 LIST OF QUESTIONS. QUESTION 4 IS: WHAT IS THE 3 OBSERVED FLOODING FREQUENCY AT THE WASTE BURIAL 4 SITE? QUESTION 5 IS: WHAT SOIL EROSION FROM 5 STORMS HAS BEEN ACTUALLY OBSERVED AT OR NEAR THE 6 DISPOSAL SITE? 7 A. BEFORE BEGINNING MY DISCUSSION OF 8 FLOODING AND EROSION, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME 9 ELEVATIONS FOR REFERENCE AND PERSPECTIVE AND 10 PROCEDURES.-- 11 MR. VAN KLEY: SPEAK UP. O 12 JUDGE H0YT: WOULD YOU GET THE 13 MICROPHONE CLOSER. LET ME GO OFF THE RECORD FOR 14 JUST A MOMENT. 15 (OFF THE RECORD.) 16 JUDGE H0YT: THANK YOU VERY . 17 MUCH. 18 DURING THE OFF THE RECORD TIME, WE MADE 19 SOME CHANGES IN THE ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE 20 WITNESS IN A MORE COMFORTABLE MANNER, AND I DON'T 21 THINK ANY ADDITIONAL MATTERS OCCURRED DURING THAT l 22 0FF THE RECORD PERIOD. 23 IF YOU ARE READY TO CONTINUE YOUR 24 EXAF.INATION ON DIRECT. 25 E MR. LYNCH:
659 b 1 Q. MR. GUY, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REPEAT 2 THOSE QUESTION OR ARE YOU READY TO BEGIN? 3 A. (MR. GUY) I'M READY. 4 BEFORE BEGINNING MY DISCUSSION OF 5 FLOODING AND EROSION, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME 6 ELEVATIONS FOR REFERENCE AND PERSPECTIVE IN THE l 7 ENSUING DISCUSSION. THE GROUND ELEVATION AT THE l l 8 PROPOSED DISPOSAL SITE IS ABOUT IF 575 FEET, 9 U.S.G.S. THE EXTENSIVE FLOODING -- 10 Q. WOULD YOU STATE WHAT U.S.G.S. IS? 11 A. THAT'S U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 12 EXTENSIVE FLOODING OCCURRED DURING A 13 STORM ON THE 14, 16, NOVEMBER OF 1972. DURING 14 THIS STORM, NORTHEAST WINDS SET UP THE LAKE TO 15 577.5 FEET U.S.G.S. AT TOLEDO AND TO 576.9 FEET, 16 U.S.G.S., AT MARBLEHEAD. THE LEVEL AT D A VI S -B ES S E 17 PROBABLY WAS MIDWAY BETWEEN THE ELEVATIONS FOR 18 TOLEDO AND MARBLEHEAD, OR ABOUT 577.2 FEET, 19 U.S.G.S. 20 THE ELEVATION OF THE LAKE PRIOR TO THE 21 STORM WAS 573.7 FEET, U.S.G.S. ELEVATION OF THE 22 10 , 50 , 100 , AND 500-YEAR FLOODS, AS C A L C UL AT E D j e 23 BY THE U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN 1977, ARE
, C .-
24 576.3 FEET, U.S.G.S., 577.2 FEET, U.5.G.S., 577.5 25 efET, U.S.G.S., AND 57 8.2 FEET U.S.G.S.,
1 860 M 7 1 RESPECTIVELY. A 500-YEAR FLOOD, WITH AN ELEVATION 2 OF 57 8.2 FEET U.S.G.S., WOULD FLOOD'23,000 ACRES 3 OF ' OTTAWA COUNTY. NOW I'LL MOVE ON TO THE 4 DISCUSSION OF FLOODING. 5 LOW-LYING AREAS ALONG THE LAKESHORE ARE 6 FLOODED WHENEVER THE ELEVATION OF THE LAKE RISES 7 ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE LAND SURFACE. THESE 8 RISES IN ELEVATION OF THE LAKE MAY BE LONG TERM, j 9 INTERMEDIATE TERM OR ANNUAL, OR SHORT TERM. 10 LONG-TERM CH ANG ES AND INTERMEDIATE-TERM CHANGES 11 INVOLVE CHANGES IN LAKE VOLUME DUE TO LONG-TERM 12 AND ANNUAL CHANGES IN PRECIPTATION, RUNOFF AND 13 EVAPORATION. SHORT-TERM CHANGES INVOLVE 14 DISPLACEMENT OF W AT E R IN THE BASIN, BUT NO CHANGE 15 IN VOLUME. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SHORT-TERM 16 CHANGES ARE DUE TO WIND STRESS. DURING A STORM, 17 WINDS PUSH WATER TO THE DOWNWIND SIDE OF THE LAKE 18 CAUSING LAKE LEVEL TO BE SET UP. WHEN THE WIND 19 STRESS ABATES, A SEICH OR INERTIAL RETURN SURGE 20 OCCURS. 21 LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE LEVEL TAKE 22 PLACE OVER MANY YEARS IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATIC i ; 23 CHANGES. FOR EXAMPLE, MEAN ANNUAL LAKE LEVEL HAS
~. e l
- 24 R I'S E N 4.5 FEET SINCE 1934. OVER THIS SAME TIME 25 FERIOD, ANNUAL PRECIPTATION IN THE GREAT. LAKES
661 O 1 BASIN HAS INCREASED BY TWO INCHES. 2 AT PRESENT, LAKE LEVEL CONDITIONS -- 3 EXCUSE ME -- AT PRESENT, LAKE LEVELS CONTINUES ON 4 AN UPWARD TREND THAT BEGAN IN 1965. ANNUAL MEAN 5 LAKE LEVEL REACHED A RECORD HIGH OF 574.2 FEET 6 U.S.G.S. IN 1972, AND THEN DROPPED SLIGHTLY DURING ,
\
7 THE LATE 1970'S. IN 1985, THE LAKE ROSE AGAIN; 8 THE ANNUAL MEAN FOR 1985 WAS 574.1 FEET U.S.G.S. 9 BETWEEN 1973 AND 1986, LAKE LEVEL HAS REMAINED l 10 MORE THAN 1.5 FEET ABOVE IT 'S LONG-TERM MEAN. 11 THIS PROLONGED PERIOD OF ABNORMALLY HIGH LAKE ; 12 LEVELS RESULTS FROM EXCESSIVE PRECIPITATION O'V E R 13 THE GREAT LAKES BASIN IN 15 0F THE LAST 18 YEARS. 14 THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, L OW-L YI NG AREAS NEAR 15 DAVIS-BESSE HAVE BEEN FLOODED. 16 PERIODICITY OF LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE 17 LEVEL IS A MUCH DEBATED TOPIC,. LAYMEN SPEAK OF 18 "20-YEARS CYCLE", AND RESEARCHERS HAVE ANALYZED 19 LAKE LEVEL RECORDS IN SEARCH OF CYCLES. ONE 20 STUDY, A SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF GREAT LAKES W AT E R 21 LEVELS BY COHN AND ROBINSON, IN 1976 REVEALED THE l 22 PRESENCE OF PROMINENT CYCLES WITH PERIODS LASTING
.)
23 1, 11, 22, AND 36 YEARS. EXTREME HIGH LAKE LEVELS i 24 OCCUR WHEN THE PEAKS OF THESE CYCLES COINCIDE. l l 25 ~-E ANALYSIS BY KOHN AND ROBINSON PREDICTED THAT l
E 662 0 1 IN THE LATE 1970'S, LAKE LEVEL WOULD DROP SLIGHTLY 2 FROM THE RECORD HIGH OF 1973, AND THEN RETURN TO 3 RECORD-HIGH LEVELS IN THE MID 1980'S. THIS 4 PREDICTED PATTERN MATCHES THE GENERAL PATTERN OF 5 LAKE LEVEL CHANGES RECORDED DURING THE PAST DECADE 6 AND GIVES CREDENCE TO THE PREDICTION THAT THE LAKE 7 WILL RISE TO EVEN HIGHER LEVELS IN THE MID 1990'S. 8 IF THE LAKE RISES IN THE MI D 1990's, FLOODING DUE 9 TO LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE LEVEL WILL REOCCUR. 10 AFTER THE MID 1990'S, PEAKS IN THE CYCLES WILL BE 11 OUT OF PHASE AND LAKE LEVELS SHOULD BEGIN TO DROP. O 12 AS NOTED EARLIER, PRECIPTATION IN THE 13 GREAT LAKES BASIN HAS INCREASED GRADUALLY SINCE 14 THE DUST BOWL ERA 0F THE 1930'S. DR. FRANK QUINN 15 OF NOAA, THAT'S N-0-A-A, AND GREAT LAKES 16 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB, FEELS THAT THE 17 PRECIPTATION FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS HAS BEEN BELOW 18 NORMAL AND THAT PRECIPTATION IS JUST NOW REACHING 19 A LEVEL NORMAL FOR THE THE GREAT LAKES REGION. IF 20 THIS IS THE CASE, THEN THE PRESENT TREND OF RISING 21 LAKE LEVEL WILL CONTINUE AND LOW-LYING AREAS WILL 22 REMAIN FLOODED. ANNUAL LAKE LEVEL CH ANG ES OCCUR 23 IN RESPONSE TO SEASONAu VARIATIONS IN 24 PRECIPTATION, RUNOFF, AND EVAPORATION. ALTHOUGH 25 E MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR,
I 663 I D 1 THE AVERAGE CHANGE FROM MID-WINTER LOW TO 2 MID-SUMMER HIGH IS ABOUT 1.2 FEET. CHANGES IN 3 MONTHLY MEAN LAKE L E 'V E L THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE 4 YEAR RECORD THIS ANNUAL CYCLE. IN SOME YEARS, THE 5 MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN MAY BE QUITE HIGH. IN JUNE, 6 1973, THE 810 N T H L Y MEAN. LEVEL WAS 575.0 FEET 7 U.S.G.S., THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE PROPOSED 8 DISPOSAL SITE. 9 IN JUNE, 1986, THE MONTHLY MEAN LEVEL WAS 10 575.2 FEET U.S.G.S., 0.2 FEET AB O VE THE ELEVATION 11 0F THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL SITE. IF THE LONG-TERM 12 MEAN LAKE LEVEL REMAINS ABNORMALLY HIGH, THERE IS 13 A GOOD PROBABILITY THAT THE MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 14 IN ANY GI VEN YEAR WILL EXCEED OR BE WITHIN INCHES 15 OF 575 FEET U.S.G.S. SHORT-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE 16 LEVEL LAST A FEW MINUTES TO A FEW DAYS. THE MOST 17 SIGNIFICANT OF THESE SHORT-TERM CHANGES ARE THOSE 18 DUE TO STORM WINDS. OF PARTICULAR CONCERN IN 19 WESTERN LAKE ERIE ARE S'E T UPS PRODUCED BY 20 NORTHEAST WINDS. THERE IS NO PERIODICITY TO STORM f 21 SET UPS IN WESTERN LAKE ERIE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A i 22 HIGHER INCIDENCE OF SET UPS BETWEEN SEPTEMB ER AND c ) 23 MAY. AN ANALYSIS OF STORM SET UPS AT TOLEDO WAS 24 PERFORMED BY CARTER IN 1986. BETWEEN 1939 AND 25 : 00, SET UPS EXCEEDING ONE FOOT OCCURRED ONE TO
664 l l C 1 SEVEN TIMES PER YEAR, AND 95 PERCENT OF THESE SET 2 UPS OCCURRED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND MAY. 3 FOR'TY-SEVEN PERCENT OF THE SET UPS WERE TWO TO 8 4 THREE FEET IN HEIGHT, AND 15 PERCENT WERE THREE TO 5 FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. THE HEIGHT GF SET UP SHOWED 6 NO TEMPORAL PATTERN AND NO CORRELATION WITH LAKE 7 LEVEL. 8 IN CONTRAST TO THE L AC K OF P ER I O DI C I T Y IN 9 SET UPS, SEICHES, THAT IS THE THE INERTIAL SURGES 10 OF W AT E R WHICH OCCUR WHEN STORM WINDS SUBSIDE, DO 11 HAVE FAIRLY REGULAR PERIODS. ALONG THE LONG AXIS 12 OF THE' LAKE, SEICHES HAVE A PERIOD dF 14 HOURS. 13 SEICHES ALONG THE LONG AXIS OCCUR AFTER NORTHEAST 14 WINDS HAVE SET UP THE LAKE AT TOLEDO. 15 LONG-TERM AND ANNUAL CHANGES IN LAKE 16 LEVEL ARE PRESENTLY PRODUCING FLOOD CONDITIONS 17 ALONG LOW LYING AREAS IN WESTERN LAKE ERIE. ; i l 18 HOWEVER, IT IS THE SHORT-TERM CHANGES CAUSED BY l l l 19 NORTHEAST STORM WINDS THAT PRODUCE THE MOST 20 DEVASTATING FLOODS. THE BEST DOCUMENTED RECENT 21 FLOOD OCCURRED 14 AND 16 NOVEMBER 1972. MANY l 22 AREAS OF OTTAWA COUNTY INCLUDING THE DAVIS-BESSE 23 SITE WERE FLOODED. E 24 MANY AREAS OF OTTAWA COUNTY, INCLUDING l 25 'E DAVIS-BESSE SITE, WERE FLOODED. I QUOTE i
665 m l 1 " WIDESPREAD FLOODING TOOK PLACE WHERE WAVES AND 2 HIGH WATER BREACHED DI KES PROTECTING LOW-LYING 3 AREAS. STATE ROUTE 2, NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO SAND 4 BEACH, WAS BARELY PASSABLE MORE THAN A DAY AFTER S THE STORM. THE ELEVATION THERE IS ABOUT 575 FEET. 6 THE GROUND WAS COVERED BY WATER TO A DEPTH OF 7 SEVERAL FEET FOR MANY DAYS." THAT'S FROM CARTER 8 IN 1973. 9 DURING THE FIRST DAY OF THE STORM, 10 DAVIS-BESSE WAS INACCESSIBLE FOR A DAY AND THIS 11 PREVENTED DAVIS-BESSE OFFICIALS FROM ASSESSING 12 DAMAGE AT THE SITE. THIS IS FROM THE EAERESEl_ 13 REELilER, 15 NOVEMBER, 1972. THE CARTER REPORT 14 INDICATES THAT THE FLOOD WATER FROM THE NOVEMBER 15 1972 STORM COULD NOT PERCOLATE THROUGH THE CLAY 16 SOILS. THIS, H.OW E V E R , DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN 1 17 THAT WATER WAS UNABLE TO PERCOLATE INTO THE ' 18 GROUNDWATER THROUGH JOINTS AND NON-CLAY MATERIALS 19 IN THE SOIL, AND I 'M REFERRING TO THE TESTIMONY OF I 20 RICHARD PAVEY. 21 AMONG FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SLOW 22 DRAINAGE OF FLOOD WATER FROM THE SAND BEACH AREA
, ) 23 FOLLOWING THE STORM ARE HIGH PRECIPITATION DURING m-24 THE MONTHS PRECEDING THE NOVEMBER 1972 STORM AND 25 T-E LOW RELIEF. PRECIPITATION AT TOLEDO WAS 117
l 666
/2 D( 1 PERCENT OF NORMAL, ABOUT 5.3 INCHES ABOVE NORMAL, 2 DURING 'HE
- 1972 WATER YEAR, WHICH EXTENDS FROM 3 OCTOBER 1971 THROUGH S EPTEMB ER 1972. DURING 4 SEPTEMBER 1972, PRECIPITATION WAS ABOUT 3.5 5 PERCENT OF --
EXCUSE ME -- 305 PERCENT OF NORMAL, 6 AND DURING NOVEMBER, PRECIPITATION WAS ABOUT 150 7 PERCENT OF NORMAL. THIS HIGH PRECIPITATION 8 SATURATED THE GROUND SO THAT LITTLE OR NO FLOOD f l 9 WATER COULD BE ABSORBED. MUCH OF THE LAND NEAR , 10 SAND BEACH AND, IN FACT, ALL AROUND THE ! 11 DAVIS-BESSE PLANT IS NEARLY FLAT. AS A RESULT, 12 SURFACE WATER OR FLOOD WATER RAN OFF SLOWLY. 13 THE MAXIMUM LAKE LEVEL REACHED D U R I N G -T H E 14 NOVEMBER 1972 STORM IS ONLY ABOUT TWO FEET ABOVE 15 PRESENT LAKE LEVEL. THEREFORE, A STORM WITH A SET 16 UP OF TWO FEET WOULD PRODUCE A LAKE ELEVATION 17 SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH CAUSED MAJOR FLOODING IN 18 1972. THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 20 SUCH EVENTS -- 19 EXCUSE ME -- 20 SUCH SET UPS SINCE NOVEMBER 1972,
)
20 AND THEY NORMALLY OCCUR ONE TO TWO TIMES PER YEAR. l 21 THE 5_0 0 - Y E A R FLOOD LEVEL WOULD BE REACHED 22 IF LAKE LEVEL WAS SET UP THREE FEET ABOVE PRESENT (() 23 LAKE LEVEL, OR ABOUT 4.7 FEET AB O VE THE MEAN LAKE 24 LEVEL OF THE PAST 13 YEARS. SET UPS OF THREE FEET 25 C:;UR EVERY TWO TO THREE YEARS, AND SET UPS OF l
667 O 1 FOUR TO FIVE FEET OCCUR ONCE EVERY 33 YEARS. 2 THESE FIGURES ARE FROM PORE, P-0-R-E, PERROTTI, 3 P-E-R-R-0-T-T-I, AND RICHARDSON, 1975. l 4 I TURN NOW TO THE QUESTION OF EROSION. 5 SOIL EROSION OR SHORE EROSION OCCURS WHEN WAVES 6 ATTACK THE SHORE. AS THE SHORE ERODES, THE SHORE 7 OR SHORELINE RECEDES. THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES OF 8 SHORE EROSION AND DAMAGES OCCURRED DURING THE 9 STORMS WITHIN THE PAST TWO DECADES. 10 ON 14 TO 16 NOVEMBER, 1972, A SEVERE 11 STORM WITH STRONG NORTHEAST WINDS STRUCK LAKE 12 ERIE. DURING THIS STORM, WAVES ATTACKED THE STORE 13 WITH SUFFICIENT FORCE TO MOVE 200 POUND BLOCKS OF 14 CONCRETE, AND QUOTING " AREAS SUCH AS SAND BEACH, 15 WAVES CUT INTO SAND AND CLAY BANKS FOR AS MUCH AS 16 TEN FEET PARTIALLY DESTROYING THE NATURAL dARRIERS 17 AND ERODING MUCH VALUABLE LAND." THAT'S FROM 18 CARTER, 1973. QUOTING, AGAIN "AT SAND BEACH, 19 WAVES CARIED SO MUCH SAND OVER PROTECTIVE DIKES, l 20 DUNES AND SEAWALLS THAT ROADS WERE COVERED BY UP 21 TO THREE FEET OF SAND." AND WAVE ATTACK WAS SO 22 SEVERE THAT DIKES WERE BREACHED. 23 BREACHING OF DIKES WAS NOT CONFINED TO 24 JUST THE LAKESHORE. AT TOUSSAINT WILDLIFE AREA, 25 L';ATED ON THE TOUSSAINT RIVER ABOUT
668
.fQ U 1 THREE-AND-A-HALF MILES UPSTREAM FROM THE
- 2 DAVIS-BESSE SITE, 300 FEET OF DIKE WERE DESTROYED.
3 THIS DAMAGE IS DESCRIBED IN THE DAMAGE SURVEY ! 4 REPORT PREPARED ON 21 DECEMBER 1972 BY DANIEL R. 5 STOWERS OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL i 6 RESOURCES. DATA ARE UNAVAILABLE TO QUANTITY 7 RECESSION OF THE DAVIS-BESSE SHORELINE DURING A i 8 SINGLE STORM EVENT. HOWEVER, DATA ARE AVAILABLE ! 9 FROM A REPORT BY BENSON, IN PREPARATION, TO 10 QUANTIFY RECESSION OF THE DAVIS-BESSE SHORELINE 11 BETWEEN 1968 AND 1973, A PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE
) 12 WERE FOUR MAJOR NORTHEAST WIND STORMS. THESE 13 STORMS OCCURRED ON 4 JULY 1969, 14 TO 16 NOVEMBER 14 1972, 16 TO 17 MARCH 1973, AND 8 TO 9 APRIL 1973. ,
i 15 BETWEEN 1968 AND 1973, THE DAVIS-BESSE '9 16 SHORELINE RECEDED 20 TO 60 FEET. THE RANGE IN 17 RECESSION RATES WAS 4 TO 12 FEET PER YEAR, AND THE 18 WEIGHTED-AVERAGE RECESSION RATE WAS 7.1 FEET PER j 19 YEAR. 20 EROSION DUE TO SINGLE STORM EVENTS, IN I
! 21 PARTICULAR NORTHEAST WIND STORMS, HAS BEEN 22 met 3URED AT TWO SITES NEAR DAVIS-BESSE. ONE SITE l .- 23 IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF UPPER SANDUSKY i 24 BAY, ABOUT 15 MILES TO THE SOUTHEAST, AND THE ! 25 (~nER SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF MAUMEE
- e. --
669 O 1 BAY, ABOUT 17 MILES TO THE WEST. 2 THE SHORE AT BOTH SITES IS A LOW-RELIEF 3 BANK, SEVEN AND TWO FEET HIGH RESPECTIVELY, 4 COM0 POSED OF GLACIOLACUSTRINE CLAY. THE SANDUSKY 5 BAY SITE RECEI VES RELATIVELY LOW AMOUNTS OF WAVE 6 ENERGY DURING NORTHEAST WIND STORMS BECAUSE THE 7 FETCH, OR OPEN WATER DISTANCE, TO THE NORTHEAST IS 8 ONLY TWO MILES. THE MAUMEE BAY SITE RECEIVES 9 MODERATE TO HIGH AMOUNTS OF WAVE ENERGY DURING 10 NORTHEAST WIND STORMS BECAUSE THE 32-MILE FETCH TO 11 THE NORTHEAST ENABLES THE WIND TO GENERATE LARGER 12 WAVES. AT BOTH SITES, NORTHEAST STORM WINDS SET 13 UP THE LAKE. 14 AT THE SANDUSKY BAY SITE, THE BANK FACE 15 RETREATED 1.5, 1.7 AND 1.8 FEET DURING STORMS OF 16 APRIL 4TH, 1976, APRIL 24TH AND 25TH, 1976, AND 17 AUGUST 6TH TO 7TH, 1976. THIS EROSION OCCURRED AT 18 A RELATIVELY LOW ENERGY SITE DURING STORMS WHICH 19 HAD A MAXIMUM LAKE LEVEL AND A WIND SET UP OF ONE 20 TO TWO FEET LOWER THAN THE NOVEMBER, 1972 STORM. 21 THE ERODIBLE NATURE OF THE GLACI0 LACUSTRINE CLAY 22 IS ILLUSTRATED BY THESE RATES. . 23 MEASUREMENTS MADE AT MAUMEE BAY BY d. A. 24 FULLER OF THE DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 25 F: CORD THE AMOUNT OF EROSION THAT TOOK PLACE
670
$b Q l DURING A STORM ON APRIL STH AND 6TH, 1982. THE 2 MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE 3 SHORELINE AND SHOW THAT EROSION LOWERED THE 4 SURFACE OF THE UNDISTURBED GLACI0 LACUSTRINE CLAY l
5 0.8 FEET OR TEN INCHES. THE STORM WHICH CAUSED 6 THIS EROSION HAD A MAXIMUM LAKE LEVEL AND A WIND 7 SET UP COMPARABLE TO THE NOVEMBER 1972 STORM. 8 IN
SUMMARY
, THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE HAS LOW 9 RELIEF, ERODIBLE SHORE MATERIALS, AND A HISTORY OF 10 FLOODING. THESE FACTORS SUGGEST THAT THE PROPOSED 11 DISPOSAL SITE IS LOCATED IN A GEOLOGICALLY 12 HAZARDOUS AREA. DIKES BOTH EXISTING AND UNDER 13 CONSTRUCTION WILL PROBABLY PREVENT FLOODING AND _ 14 EROSION DURING MOST STORMS; BUT DURING A SEVERE 15 STORM, SUCH AS THE NOVEMBER 1972 STORM, THESE 16 DIKES COULD BE BREACHED. 17 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASISED THAT THE 1972 18 FLOOD WAS ONLY A 50-YEAR FLOOD EVENT. IF DIKES 19 FAILED DURING THE 500-YEAR FLOOD EVENT, WHICH 20 WOULD BE ONE FOOT HIGHER THAN THE NOVEMBER 1972 i 21 STORM, THE DISPOSAL SITE WOULD BE FLOODED ALONG 22 WITH 23,000 ACRES OF OTTAWA COUNTY. FLOODING OF
) 23 AND EROSION AT THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL SITE COULD 24 DISPERSE WASTE MATERIAL OVER A WIDE AREA.
25 -IREFORE, BURIAL OF WASTE AT DAVIS-BESSE'S l
i I B71 l O 1 PROPOSED SITE IS ILL ADVISED. 2 JUDGE HO YT : DOES THAT COMPLETE j 3 YOUR TESTIMONY? 4 THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM. l 5 JUDGE HOYT: IT APPEARS TO ME 6 THAT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 12:30, AND IF THERE'S 7 I SN 'T ANY NEED TO HAVE ANY LUNCH, WE CAN STOP AT 8 THIS POINT. 9 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, I HAD A 10 FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GUY. WE'LL BREAK FOR 11 LUNCH IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. 12 JUDGE H0YT: WE CAN EITHER BREAK 13 FOR LUNCH OR WE CAN SEND OUT FOR SOMETHING IF 14 SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY. 15 I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT GOING AS MUCH AS WE CAN, 16 TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BALANCE OF THE TIME THAT WE 17 HAVE HERE. 18 MR. SILBERG: WHATEVER THE JUDGE 19 WOULD LIKE TO DO IS FINE. ) I 20 MR. LYNCH: PERHAPS IF WE COULD , 1
- 21 JUST COMPLETE MR. GUY'S TESTIMONY.
)
22 JUDGE H0YT: YES, WE'LL COMPLETE
- 23 HIS AT THIS POINT. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE u,-
24 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS, I TAKE IT, TO THE DIRECT 25 FrEFILED TESTIMONY.
l 672 () 1 BY MR. LYNCH: 2 Q. MR. GUY, BRINGING YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO 3 THE MODEL YOU DESCRIBED CONCERNING THE LAKE ERIE 4 LEVELS, HAVE YOU DONE ANY STUDY OF THAT ON YOUR 5 OWN IN COMPARISON? 6 A. (MR. GUY) I HAVE NOT REANALYZED THEIR , i ) 7 DATA. WHAT I HAVE DONE IS TO TAKE THEIR PREDICTED 8 MODEL AND TO PLOT THAT AGAINST LAKE LEVELS SINCE j 9 1975. - I 10 Q. AND WHAT DOES THAT SHOW7 l 11 A. THE COMPARISON SHOWS THAT THERE IS A 12 SIMILARITY IN THE OVERALL TRENDS PREDICTED BY 13 THEIR MODEL AND WHAT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED IN 14 PRESENT LAKE DURING THE LAKE LEVEL RECORD OF THE 15 PAST TEN YEARS. 16 Q. SO IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT DOES THAT 17 ACTUALLY MEAN? l { 18 A. TO ME, IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS VALIDITY l 19 TO THEIR MODEL. THAT THERE IS SOME PERIODICITY 20 THAT CAN BE QUANTITFIED, LOOKING BACK, USING I 21 HISTORICAL RECORDS; AND FROM THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST 22 THAT THEIR PROJECTED HIGHER LEVELS OF THE 23 M I D-19 90 'S THE ONE LJs* IS PROBABLY WILL CORRECT. r 24 THING -- l ( 25 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME, JUDGE. l
673 N 1 I HA VEN 'T INTERRUPTED, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH 2 THERE IS, BUT THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE REBUTTAL TO 3 ANYTHING THAT WAS IN OUR TESTIMONY. 4 JUDGE H0YT: I DON'T THINK IT 5 WAS LABELED AS SUCH. I THOUGHT THAT WAS 6 ADDITIONAL DIRECT. IS THAT WHAT -- I 7 MR. LYNCH: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T 8 HEAR YOU. l 9 MR. SILBERG: I THOUGHT THE 10 ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THAT WAS BEING ADDUCED, AS IT l 11 WAS IN THE CASE OF MR. MARSHALL, WAS REBUTTAL AND 12 NOT ADDITIONAL DIRECT. 13 I DON'T H A'V E ANY OBJECTION TO PUTTING THE , 14 REBUTTAL ON, BUT I GUESS IF THERE IS A LOT OF 15 ADDITIONAL DIRECT, I DON'T THINK THAT IS 16 APPROPRIATE. 17 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, WE FEEL 18 THAT THIS IS IN ANSWER TO, REBUTTAL TO A LOT OF 19 THE TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR HERDENDORF CONCERNING 20 LAKE LEVELS, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE OTHER 21 GENTLEMAN'S NAME, BUT WHO DISCUSSED LAKE LEVELS 22 AND DISCUSSED THE SET UPS OF THE LAKE CONCERNING ,- 23 FLOODING.
- r. . r 24 JUDGE HOYT: I THOUGHT I l
25 L.DERSTOOD YOU TO SAY IT WAS DIRECT TESTIMONY.
)
674 l 10 0 1 MR. SIGLER, IF I T S REBUTTAL, THEN IT'S PERFECTLY 2 PROPER EXAMINATION. YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. 3 BY MR. LYNCH: 4 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF SET UPS ON 5 THE LAKE, ON EITHER END OF THE LAKE, WHICH HAVE 6 EXCEEDED YOUR ANTICIPATED -- THE SET UP PROJECTION 7 BY DR. HERDENDORF OF 4.7 FEET? 8 SPECIFICALLY, I'M THINKING OF AN INCIDENT 9 IN THE CITY OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 10 A. (MR. GUY) SET UPS CAN OCCUR ON LAKE ERIE 11 WHENEVER THERE'S WIND ACTION. THE MAXIMUM SET UPS 12 OCCUR AT THE EAST AND WEST ENDS OF THE LAKE IN 13 RESPONSE TO WINDS BLOWING ALONG THE AXIS OF THE 14 LAKE. 15 IN THE DEC EMB ER OF '85, THERE WAS A MAJOR 16 SET UP AT THE EAST END OF THE LAKE DUE TO STRONG l 17 WINDS BLOWING FROM SOUTHWEST TO NORTHEAST. THIS 18 SET UP WAS ABOUT SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET ABOVE 19 PRESTORM LAKE LEVELS. IF WE REVERSED WIND 20 DIRECTIONS AND HAVE NORTHEAST WINDS, IT IS 21 CONCEIVABLE THAT SIMILAR MAGNITUDE SET UPS COULD 1 l 22 OCCUR AT THE WEST END OF THE LAKE, ALTHOUGH, TO ! f., 23 DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED. \ u 24 Q. I'M NOW GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN 25 I - T. K E D AS STATE'S EXHIBIT A.
4 675 1 k) 1 DO YOU RECOGNIZE STATE'S EXHIBIT A? l 2 A. YES. ] 3 Q. WHAT IS STATE'S EXHIBIT A? 4 A. IT IS A -- 5 JUDGE HOYT: DO YOU HAVE A COPY 6 FOR THE OPPOSING COUNSEL TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH? 1 7 MR. LYNCH: YES. l 8 BY MR. LYNCH: 9 Q. WHAT IS STATE'S EXHIBIT A? j 10 A. THIS IS AN INFRARED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF f 11 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE TAKEN ON JUNE 2ND, 1982. s:- 12 Q. HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT? 13 A. BECAUSE IT IS STAMPED WITH A - 14 PHOTOGR APHER 'S DATE AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. 15 Q. HAVE YOU HAD TIME TO REVIEW STATE'S l
. I 16 EXHIBIT A? l l 17 A. I HAVE SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE.
18 Q. AND DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS, DESCRIBE THE l i 19 CONDITIONS THAT THAT SHOWS? 20 A. THE BLACK AND WHITE INFRARED ACCENTUATES 21 ALL WATER AS THE DARKER AREAS. ON HERE ARE MARKED 22 THE SEVERAL PROMINENT FEATURES OF THE DAVIS-BESSE { [ w 23 FACILITY, THE PROPOSED CELLS AND THE WETLAND AREA l 24 WHERE IT'S BEEN MARKED IN RED. 25
. AND FOR THAT PARTICULAR DATE THAT THAT
676 () 1 PHOTO WAS TAKEN, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO CHECK 2 THE WATER LEVELS OF LAKE ERIE? 3 A. YES. IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK 4 AGAIN AT THE CHART OF THIS. 5 Q. YES. 6 A. I CANNOT FIND THE CHART, BUT IT'S MY 7 RECOLLECTION THAT LAKE WAS 572.41 FEET, I.G.L.D. 8 Q. AND DID YOU CHECK THE LAKE SET UP FOR 9 THAT PARTICULAR DATE? l l 10 A. IT WAS ABOUT FOUR-HUNDREDTHS OF A FOOT. j 11 THE MEAN FOR THE MONTH, IF MEMORY SERVES ME l SO B A S'I C A L L Y , WE'RE LOOKING 12 CORRECTLY, IS 572.37. 13 AT STILL WATER CONDITION. - l 14 Q. 50 THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE IS AN i 15 CONSIDERATE -- FAIRLY ACCUARATE DESCRIPTION OF THE lE STILL WATER CONDITIONS AT DAVIS-BESSE AT THAT 17 LEVEL? 18 A. I WOULD SAY, YES. 19 Q. MR. GUY, HAVING HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF 20 MR. HENDRON CONCERNING HIS OPINION THAT THE 21 DEWATERING OF THE BEDROCK A QU I F ER DID NOT AFFECT 22 THE LEVELS OF WATER IN THE W AT ER IN THE BORROW
- . ) 23 PITS DURING CONSTRUCTION, IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT s ,
24 A SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THE 25 F , ;T THAT BORROW PITS WERE NOT DEWATERED BY THE _ __m
l 677 6C 1 DEWATERING OF THE AQUIFER? 2 A. I THINK THAT QUESTION MIGHT BE BETTER 3 ANSWERED BY EITHER RICK PAVEY OR JOHN VOYTEK. J i l 4 Q. OKAY. THIS WILL DO FOR NOW. DO YOU j l 5 AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE YESTERDAY 6 THAT NO DIKE IS UNDESTRUCTABLE? 7 A. YES. 8 Q. ARE UNARMORED DI KES MORE LIKELY TO FAIL 9 THAN ARMORED DIKES? 10 A. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? 11 Q. ARE UNARMORED DIKES MORE LIKELY TO FAIL n
'3 12 THAN ARMORED DIKES?
13 A. YES. 14 Q. WHY IS THAT? 15 A. I 'M SORRY -- AN ARMORED DI KE IS ONE THAT 16 HAD, IN MOST CASES, LARGE BLOCKS OF ROCK OR STONE 17 PLACED ON ITS FACE. THOSE ROCKS INCREASE THE i 18 RESISTANCE TO EROSION OF THE DIKE. IN THE CASE OF 19 AN UNARMORED DIKE THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH 20 CLAY MATERIALS, WHICH ARE VERY EASILY ERODED , 21 EITHER BY DIRECT WAVE OF ATTACK OR DURING THE CASE i 22 OF OVERTOPPING, BY WATER RUNNING ACROSS THE TOP OF 23 THE STRUCTURE. l x. 24 Q. ARE THERE ARMORED DIKES AT OR NEAR THE 25 C ; i' I S - B E S S E SITE?
678 C 1 A. YES. THERE ARE -- I'LL DESCRIBE IT AS 2 THREE SEGMENTS OF DIKE. THERE IS THE ONE THAT HAS 3 BEEN JUST COMPLETED ALONG THE NORTH BANK OF THE 4 TOUSSAINT RIVER. AND THEN ALONG THE LAKEFRONT, S THERE IS A SECTION OF DIKE AT THE VERY WESTERN END 6 OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN ANOTHER SECTION OF 7 ARMORED DIKE IN THE MIDDLE PORTION OF THE 8 LAKEFRONT. AND ROUGHLY 47 PERCENT, PLUS OR MINUS 9 A COUPLE PERCENT, ARE UNARMORED AT THE PRESENT 10 TIME. 11 Q. THE UNARMORED DI KE ON THE TOUSSAINT 04 12 RIVER, IS THAT CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE DIKE 13 YOU DESCRIBED THAT WAS BREACHED AT THE TOUSSAINT 14 WILDLIFE AREA? IS A. I'M SORRY? 16 Q. THE UNARMORED DIKE ALONG THE TOUSSAINT 17 RIVER THAT YOU DESCRIBED NEAR THE DAVIS-BESSE 18 SITE, THAT IS CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE DIKE 19 THAT WAS BREACHED DURING 1972 AT TOUSSAINT 20 WILDLIFE AREA? 21 A. WELL, THE DIKE ALONG THE NORTH BANK OF 1 22 THE TOUSSAINT RIVER IS AN ARMORED DIKE. IT HAS ( 23 BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE LAST MONTH OR SO, OR I 24 SHOULD SAY COMPLETED WITHIN THE LAST MONTH OR SO. 2S . HOW MUCH ARE UNARMORED AROUND THE
679 in L) 1 DAVIS-BESSE SITE? 2 A. THE UNARMORED PORTIONS ARE LOCATED ALONG 3 THE LAKEFRONT WHERE THEY WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO u 4 WAVE ATTACK AS WELL AS OVERTOPPING. AND BY , l 5 UNARMORED, I WOULD INCLUDE THOSE SECTIONS OF SHORE i 6 THAT DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY PARTICULAR DIKE, 7 EARTH MAN-MADE OR, LET'S SAY, A BARRIER BEACH. 8 ROUGHLY 47 PERCENT OF THE LAKEFRONT IS 9 UNPROTECTED. 10 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE NO FURTHER 11 QUESTIONS. 12 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. I THINK l11 13 THIS IS THE A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A BRIEF LUNCHEON 14 RECESS. I WONDER IF WE COULD GET BACK BY 1:30. 15 - - - 16 (LUNCHEON RECESS) 17 - - - 18 f 19 20 ) 21
- 22 23 l r.
i 24 l l 25
680 f%
\~
1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 3 JUDGE H0YT: THE HEARING WILL I 4 COME TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL 5 THE PARTIES TO THE HEARING WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN 6 THE HEARING RECESSED ARE AGAIN PRESENT IN THE 7 HEARING ROOM AND THE WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN THEIR 8 PLACE ON THE WITNESS STAND. GENTLEMEN, I WILL 9 REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN AN OATH AND YOU ARE 10 STILL UNDER THAT OATH. 11 AT THE CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE WE HAD COMPLETED THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO OF YOUR 12 13 WITNESSES. COUNSELOR, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 14 WHEREUPON, 15 RICHARD R. PAVEY 16 WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS AND, HAVING BEEN 17 PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIE3 18 AS FOLLOWS: 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LYNCH: 21 Q. MR. PAVEY, I BELIEVE YOU_WOULD LIKE TO )
; 22 ADDRESS QUESTIONS SIX AND SEVEN. QUESTION SIX 15:
.e,.
.( 23 WHAT IS THE DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW FROM THE l l
l 24 BURIAL SITE RELATING TO LAKE ERIE, NAVARRE MARSH, 25 A- D THE TOUSSAINT RIVER? -QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN t
l l 681 - 1 1 IS: WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF THE BEDROCK OF 2 UNSOLIDATED GLACIAL DEPOSITS AT THE BURIAL SITE? l l 3 A. (MR. PAVEY) I AM HERE TODAY AS A 4 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE OF OHIO IN SUPPORT OF 5 THE STATE'S PETITION TO INTERVENE IN THE WASTE 6 BURIAL PLAN PROPOSED FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. MY 7 OBJECTIVE IS TO SHOW THE COMMISSION THAT TOLEDO l 8 E DI S ON ' S MINIMAL OVER-SIMPLIFIED PRESENTATION OF 9 THE BURIAL SITE'S GEOLOGY REPRESENTS A FATAL FLAW 10 IN ACCURATELY ASSESSING GROUNDWATER FLOWPATHS AND 11 THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESULTING FROM 12 THIS PROPOSED PLAN. I 13 IT IS MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS REGION'S l 14 GEOLOGY THAT CAUSED ME CONCERN UPON MY INITIAL 15 READING AT TOLEDO EDISON'S APPLICATION FOR A WASTE 16 DISPOSAL SITE AT DAVIS-BESSE. THE COMPANY'S 17 ASSUMPTION IS THAT APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET OF 18 IMPERMEABLE GLACIAL SEDIMENT COVER AND PROTECT THE 19 HIGHLY PERMEABLE BEDROCK. TOLEDO EDI S ON ' S 20 DESCRIPTION OF THE SEDIMENTS AS A GLACI0 LACUSTRINE 21 DEPOSIT OVER A TILL DEPOSIT IS SO OVER-SIMPLIFIED 22 THAT IT DEFIES REFUTATION. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC
.- 23 DATA TO REFUTE, SINCE NO SPECIFIC SITE WORK HAS :. . ')
24 B E Ef, DONE. 25 THE GEOLOGY OF A SITE MUST BE WELL-KNOWN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1
b 1 682 (I) 1 BEFORE ONE CAN DETERMINE GROUNDWATER FLOWS AND 2 WATER TABLES. THEREFORE, SINCE PROPERLY COLLECTED 3 AND DESCRIBED DATA DOES NOT EXIST, I WILL DESCRIBE 4 THE POTENTIAL CHAR'ACTERISTICS OF THE GLACIAL 5 SEDIMENTS THAT MAY BE FOUND AT THE SITE AND THEIR 6 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON WHAT COULD BE AND MULTIPLE j 7 GROUNDWATER FLOWPATHS AND MULTIPLE GROUNDWATER
! 8 TABLES, BASED ON MY SITE-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE i ,
j 9 REGION WHICH BRACKETS THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE IN ALL i 10 DIRECTIONS.
; 11 THIS AREA WAS COVERED BY AT LEAST SIX 12 DISTINCT ICE ADVANCES, LEAVING AT LEAST SIX 13 DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT TILL DEPOSITS. A TILL l 14 DEPOSIT CONSISTS OF SAND, STONES, AND OTHER 15 MATERIALS DEPOSITED BY GLACIERS AS THEY ADVANCED.
f 16 IN NEAR-SHORE, SHALLOW-BEDROCK AREAS LIKE , l
- 17 DAVIS-BESSE'S SITE, AT LEAST TWO OR MORE TILLS ARE ,
I l l 18 GENERALLY FOUND. THE TILLS ARE OFTEN SEPARATED BY 19 LAKE OR RIVER-DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS WHICH I WILL i 20 DESCRIBE LATER. EXPOSURES OF THESE TILLS ALMOST 21 ALWAYS CONTAIN PROMINENT, CLOSELY-SPACED OPEN 22 JOINTS, ALONG WHICH WATER FLOWS. THIS FLOW IS 23 0FTEN INDICATED BY RUSTY-BROWN OXIDIZED ZONES l 24 BORDERING THE JOINTS IN THE OTHERWISE GRAY MASS OF l 25 T L. THESE JOINTS ARE DOMINANTLY VERTICAL, BUT
683 1 CAN TREND IN ANY DIRECTION. THEY ARE OFTEN THE 2 SITES OF MODERN WATER SEEPS AND SPRINGS, AND ARE A 3 SOURCE OF WATER TABLE RECHARGE. IN FACT, THE TOP 4 OF THE TOTALLY SATURATED ZONE IN THESE JOINTS 5 REPRESENTS A WATER TABLE. 6 THE INDI VIDU AL TILL UNITS ARE 7 NON-HOMOGENOUS ENTITIES. THEY OFTEN CONTAIN 8 COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL LENSES, PIPES, OR SEAMS 9 THAT WERE FORMED BY WATER THAT MELTED AT THE 10 BOTTOM OF A GLACIER DURING TILL DEPOSITION. THIS 11 WATER, UNDER HIGH PRESSURE DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF 12 THE ICE, WAS SQUEEZED TO THE EDGES OF THE GLACIER. 13 AS THE WATER WAS FORCED TO THE EDGES, IT WASHED 14 AWAY THE FINER-GRAINED CONSTITUENT OF THE TILL, 15 CREATING PATHS IN THE SOIL. THESE HIGHLY 16 PERMEABLE PATHS THROUGH THE TILL CAN NOW SERVE AS 17 GROUNDWATER FLOWPATHS. 18 BESIDES CONTAINING TILL DEPOSITS, THE 19 DAVIS-BESSE AREA ALSO CONTAINS GALC10 LACUSTRINE, 20 OR LAKE SEDIMENTS. GLACI0 LACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS 21 WERE DEPOSITED BETWEEN EACH ICE ADVANCE IN THIS 22 REGION, SINCE THIS LAND WAS A BASIN BOUNDED BY THE 23 WATERSHED DIVIDE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND THE
%d?
l 24 NEXT-ADVANCING ICE SHEET TO THE NORTH AND EAST. 25 -iSE LAKE-DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS ARE LESS COMPACTED
684 b 1 THAN THE GLACIAL TILLS, WHICH WERE COMPRESSED BY 2 THE WEIGHT OF A MILE-THICK ICE-SHEET. i 3 SEDIMENTS DEPOSITED BY A GLACIAL LAKE, 4 GLACI0 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS, VARY FROM 5 NEARLY-IMPERMEABLE PURE CLAY TO COBBLE DEPOSITS 6 WITH PORES BIG ENOUGH TO THREAD A GARDEN HOSE 7 THROUGH THEM. FINE-GRAINED SEDIMENTS, SUCH AS 8 CLAY, WERE DEPOSITED IN DEEP, STILL WATER. AT 9 PROGESSIVELY SHALLOWER DEPTHS, THE COARSER 10 MATERIALS, FROM SILT THROUGH SAND TO GRAVEL, WERE 11 DEPOSITED. WAVE-ERODED SAND, GRAVEL, OR COBBLES 12 WERE EMPLACED NEAR THE LAKE SHORES, THEI,R LOCATION 13 BEING DEPENDENT ON WAVE ENERGY AND THE { 14 AVAILABILITY OF ERODIBLE SOURCE MATERIALS. ALL OF f 15 THESE SEDIMENTS ARE PRESENT ALONG THE MODERN LAKE l 1 16 ERIE SHORES. EACH SEDIMENT IS COMMONLY FOUND IN 17 THE AREA FORMERLY COVERED BY THE GLACIAL LAKES, IN 18 WHICH THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE IS CONTAINED. IN 19 ADDITION, STREAMS FLOWING NORTHWARD INTO THE 20 GLACIAL LAKES ERODED UPLAND TILLS AND BEDROCK, 21 PROVIDING COARSE MATERIAL FOR DELTA, ESTUARY, AND 22 FL OODP L AI N DEPOSITION IN OR NEAR THE LAKES. 23 AT LEAST A DOZEN LAKES AT DIFFERENT 24 ELEVATIONS OCCUPIED THE ERIE BASIN FOLLOWING THE 25 L ET ICE ADVANCE THAT COVERED THE DA VI S -B E S S E ( 9
I 685
'43
~
7 1 SITE. AT LEAST ONCE, AND PROBABLY SEVERAL TIMES l 2 BETWEEN ICE ADVANCES, THE SITE WAS AN AREA OF l 3 POTENTIAL COARSE-GRAINED, PERMEABLE SHORELINE 4 SEDIMENT DEPOSITION AS LAKE LEVELS DROPPED TO AND 5 BELOW MODERN LAKE ERIE. 6 IN ADDITION, THE TOUSSAINT RIVER MAY HAVE 7 DEPOSITED FLOODPLAIN, DELTA, OR ESTUARY MATERIALS, 8 SILT, SAND, OR GRAVEL, FROM UPLAND EROSION 9 SOURCES. THUS, THERE ARE SEVERAL AVAILABLE 10 MECHANISMS FOR DEPOSITION OF THIN, DISCONTINUOUS, 11 INTERCONNECTING LAYERS IN THE GLACI0 LACUSTRINE 12 D E P O SI T S THAT ARE COARSER AND MORE PERMEABLE THAN
~
13 CLAY. IN ADDITION,,THE LOW LAKE LEVELS BELOW i 14 MODERN LAKE ERIE PROVIDED A SETTING FOR THE DR YI NG l l 15 AND DESICCATION OF THE FINE-GRAINED SEDIMENTS, l 16 WHICH PRODUCED CRACKS AND dOINTS IN THESE DEPOSITS l 17 THAT COULD ALLOW A HIGH GROUNDWATER FLOW. ' 18 ALL OF THE PERMEABLE PATHWAYS DISCUSSED 19 AB O VE MAY BE THIN AND COULD HAVE BEEN MISSED BY 20 TOLEDO EDISON'S SUPERFICIAL INVESTITIGATION OF THE 21 SITE'S GLACIAL SEDIMENTS. HOWEVER, NEARLY ALL OF i 22 THE WATER FLOW AND RECHARGE OF THE BEDROCK AND
) 23 INTERMEDIATE WATER TABLES IS PROBABLY THROUGH )
24 i THEEE INTERCONNECTED PATHS. 25 TOLEDO E DI S ON 'S CONTENDS THAT THE
680 EO 1 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE WERE 2 DETERMINED IN CONJUNCTION WITH REACTOR LICENSING. 3 IT MUST BE STRESSED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PREVIOUS 4 STUDY WAS UNDERTAKEN PRIMARILY TO DETERMINE 12 5 GEOLOGIC AND GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS THAT WOULD 6 AFFECT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AS VERY LARGE 7 WATER INFLOWS, AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS 8 GEOLOGIC FACTORS THAT AFFECT WASTE DISPOSAL. 9 HOWEVER, EVEN WITHIN TOLEDO E DI SON 'S OWN 10 INADEQUATE GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND DATA, THERE 11 ARE INDICATIONS THAT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GLACIAL E- 12 DEPOSITS AND THE ASSOCIATED WATER TABLES HAS NOT 13 BEEN UNDERSTOOD. SEE EXHIBIT d 0F THE STATE'S 14 PETITION, HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. 15 AS A TRAINED GLACIAL GEOLOGIST, ONE NEEDS 16 ONLY TO LOOK AT THE OVERSIMPLIFIED BORING LOGS IN 17 TOLEDO EDI S ON 'S RESPONSE TO ITEMS 7 AND 12 HEREBY 18 ATTACHED TO FIND HINTS OF THIS COMPLEXITY. 19 FOR EXAMPLE, BORING B-124 REPORTED FIRST 20 WATER IN HOLE WHILE STILL AUGERING THE GLACIAL 21 SEDIMENTS. WHERE DID THIS WATER COME FROM? IS IT 22 THE TOP OF A WATER TABLE IN A JOINT? AS NOTED IN 23 THE STATE'S PETITION, TOLEDO EDISON HAS REPORTED 24 FISSURES IN THE GRAY AND BROWN GLACIAL SEDIMENT. 25 E' THESE REPRESENT BROWN OXIDIZED ZONES OF WdTER
687 O 1 MOVEMENT ALONG A JOINT OR SOME SEDIMENT OF HIGH 2 PERMEABILITY? 3 UNFORTUNATELY, THE AUGERING. METHOD USED 4 CHEWED UP AND BLENDED POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT 5 MATERIALS. SIMILARLY, THE TRACES OF SAND IN THE I 6 UPPER PART OF BORINGS B-125 AND B-130 MAY HAVE 7 BEEN DISCRETE THIN SAND LAYERS IN LACUSTRINE 8 MATERIAL, BUT THE SAMPLING METHOD MASKED THEIR 9 PRESENCE. - 10 WITH THE INADEQUATE UNIT DESCRIPTIONS IN 11 THESE LOGS, NO ACTUAL ANALYSES OF SAMPLES, AND NO
)
12 OTHER DATA AVAILABLE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT 13 THE GLACIAL GEOLOGY OF THE DISPOSAL SITE, AND THUS ) I 14 ITS GOUNDWATER SYSTEM, IS WELL UNDERSTOOD. i 15 I HOPE THAT THIS DISCUSSION HAS HELPED 16 POINT OUT THE NEED FOR THE RELIEF ACTIONS 17 REQUESTED IN THE STATE'S PETITION. 18 I THANK THE COMMISSION FOR THIS 19 OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN THE STATE'S BEHALF. 20 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. 21 WE HAVE CHANGE OF THE REPORTER AT THIS 22 TIME.
,o.
2, . . . 24 25
688 ; 2 1 JUDGE H0YT: CONTINUE. 2 BY MR. LYNCH: 3 Q. MR. PAVEY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO 4 REVIEW THE FIVE BORING LOGS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO 5 THE STATE AND ARE NOW MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT D l 6 SINCE PROVIDING YOUR ORIGINAL TESTIMONY? 1 7 A. YES, I HAVE. 8 Q. AND IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT DO THESE SHOW7
. 9 DO THESE SHOW ANYTHING DI FFER ENT?
10 A. THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME STYLE OF 11 LOGS AS ONES THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO US EARLIER 12 THAT I CITED IN MY TESTIMONY. AND JUST GOING
%?
13 THRTUGH THEM, YOU CAN SEE TRACES OF THE SAME THING 14 THAT I MENTIONED IN MY TESTIMONY. 15 IN BORING NUMBER ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, A 16 TRACE OF SAND UP IN THE LACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS; NO 17 CLUE AS TO WHERE IT WOULD BE WITHIN A SAMPLE. 18 IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT TWO DESCRIPTIONS, 19 BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY SIX-AND-A-HALF FOOT AND 20 16-AND-A-HALF FOOT, YOU WILL SEE TWO DIFFERENT 21 DESCRIPTIONS WHICH PROBABLY REPRESENT TWO 22 DIFFERENT TILLS, AND THERE COULD HAVE BEEN
, () '
23 SOMETHING BETWEEN THESE TWO TILLS. 24 IF YOU LOOK AT THE SAMPLE DEPTHS FOR EACH 25 f i '.P L E , YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS GAPS BETWEEN EACH
689 O 1 SAMPLE THAT COULD CONTAIN INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO 2 THE CASE. TWO-AND-A-HALF TO FOUR FOOT IS MISSING, 3 FIVE-AND-A-HALF TO SIX IS MISSING, SO FORTH, ALL l 4 THE WAY DOWN THROUGH ALL OF THESE LOGS. l l 5 TURNING OVER TO BORING THREE, YOU CAN I l 6 NOTICE THAT THE SECOND DESCRIPTION DOWN BELOW THE 7 TOPSOIL, WOULD BE THE THIRD DESCRIPTION DOWN, IS A 8 HARD BROWN CLAY ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TEN-AND-A-HALF 9 FEET. 1 10 BROWN IS AN OXIDIZED COLOR REPRESENTING ! I 11 WEATHERING, 50 WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE WEATHERING DEPTHS l ( <- 12 EXTEN DI NG DOWN AT LEAST THIS FAR. , 13 YOU ALSO HAVE YOUR WATER OBSERVATIONS l 14 THAT SHOW DOWN IN THE BOTTOM OF THIS LOG IN THE 15 CENTER OF THE PAGE FIRST WATER AT FIVE-AND-A-HALF 16 FEET. 17 IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THESE PROBABLY DO 18 NOT REPRESENT AQUIFERS, BUT AQUIFERS ARE QUITE l 19 DIFFERENT FROM CONTAMINATION PATHS.
- 20 Q. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE?
21 A. AN AQUIFER IS SOMETHING THAT IS USED FOR 22 WATER SUPPLY, AS MR. VOYTEK WILL PROBABLY TESTIFY,
,( )
23 AND A CONTAMINATION PATH DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE
- s. .
TO SE. BIG ENOUGH TO SUPPLY WATER TO A DOMESTIC
~
24 25 P E' L OR ANYTHING.
. IT COULD BE JUST BIG ENOUGH,
BSO 1 JUST PERMEABLE ENOUGH TO TAKE LEACHATE AND PUT IT 2 INTO A W AT E R SUPPLY. 3 SO, ESSENTIALLY, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT 4 THE SAME KIND OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAD BEFORE, L 5 Q. YOU'VE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY OF HOW THE 6 SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. DOES THAT AFFECT ANYTHING 7 YOU'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY? 8 A. YES, IT WOULD. 9 AS I MENTIONED, THERE IS ONLY PARTIAL 10 SAMPLES ALL THE WAY DOWN. CONTINUOUS SAMPLING, l 11 CONTINUOUS CORES WOULD SHOW THE INFORMATION THAT l 12 YOU WOULQ GET THAT YOU WOULD NEED. . 13 THESE CONTINUOUS SAMPLES SHOULD ALSO BE 14 DONE ALONG ANGLED BORINGS SO THAT YOU WOULD BE 15 ABLE TO HIT ANY VERTICAL JOINTS THE DOMINANT 16 DIRECTION OF JOINING, AND WHEN YOU HAVE A JOINT, ( 17 IT SHOULD BE TESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. THERE HAS 18 BEEN NO ATTEMPT -- ALL THE JOINTS HAVE BEEN 19 MENTIONED IN THE TESTIMONY HERE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 20 ATTEMPT TO DO IN SITU PERMEABILITY ON ANY OF THESE 21 JOINTS. 22 Q. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IN SITU
,() 23 PERMEABILITY TESTING IS?
s/, 24 A. IN SITU PERMEABILITY TESTING IS TESTING 25 T'~ PERMEABILITY OF THE FEATURE IN THE HOLE THAT
6S1 l 1 C- 1 HAS BEEN DRILLED RATHER THAN IN THE LAB ON A SMALL l 2 SAMPLE. IT TAKE5'INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM 3 THAT IS PRESENT THERE RATHER THAN JUST A LITTLE 4 PIECE OF TH AT SYSTEM. 5 Q. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE TYPE OF TESTING 6 TH AT W AS USED? 7 A. AP P AR'E N T L Y ONLY LAB PERMEABILITY TESTS 8 HAVE BEEN RUN. I HAVE NOT RUN ACROSS ANY OTHERS, i 9 AND CERTAINLY THERE'S VERY LITTLE IN THE 10 GLACI0 LACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS IN G E,N E R A L OR TILL t 11 DEPOSITS. J 12 IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT TYPE OF RORING rgj. Q. i 13 SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED? 14 A. CONTINUOUS CORE BORING. 15 Q. IS THAT D,IFFERENT THAN THE TYPE OF BORING t i 16 THAT WAS DESCRIDED PREVIOUSLY? 17 A. YES. THESE WERE SPLIT-SPOON AND SHELBY 18 TUBE SAMPLES AT INFREQUENT INTERVALS. 19 Q. 'I ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY AS TO THE 20 DETERMINATION OF THE GEOLOGY'B) LOOKING AT 21 EXCAVATIONS. WOULD YOU'HAVE ANY COMMENT l 22 CONCERNING TH AT ? () h ' 23 A. MY IMPRESSION WOULD BE.THAT WHAT WAS 24 LOOKED AT PROBABLY REPRESENTS A SMEARED 1 25 E'OAVATION, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS LOOKED AT IN
BS2 O 1 CONdVNCTION WITH THIS HEARING OR VERY CLOSE TO IT. 2 WE ARE IN THE HIGHEST EVAPORATION PERIOD 3 0F THE SEASON, SO WH AT YOU'RE PROBABLY SEEING I3 4 SMALL SEEPS3 DISGUISED BY THE SMEARED MATERIAL AND 5 EVAPORATION OF THE WATER FROM THESE SEEPS BEFORE 6 YOU CAN EVEN GET IT TO THE SURFACE. 7 Q. OKAY. YOU DISCUSSED SMEARING OF SAMPLES 8 OR DEFORMING OF SAMPLES. THE TYPE OF BORING THAT 9 WAS DONE, WOULD THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THAT? 10 A. MOST OF THESE SAMPLES WERE S P L IT -S POON 11 SAMPLES, WHICH DO DEFORM, SMEAR THE OUTSIDE OF THE
, 12 SAMPLES. SO UNLESS ONE KNOWS HOW TO PROPERLY 13 BREAK IT OPEN AND INSPECT WHAT'S LEFT, ONES GOING 14 TO MISS MANY FEATURES.
15 FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE LOGS THERE IS NO 16 DESCRIPTION OR MENTION OF ANY STRUCTURE IN ANY OF 17 THESE MATERIALS, AND ALL MATERIALS HAVE A 18 STRUCTURE. 19 Q. AND WHAT ABOUT THE STRUCTURES? 20 A. STRUCTURES SUCH AS FARTINGS INTO BLOCKY 21 MATERIAL, THE LAYERS THAT THE LACUSTRINE MATERIAL 22 OCCURS IN AND SO FORTH. () 23 Q. WOULD THIS INCLUDE -- IF IT WAS DONE
- (:
24 PROPERLY, WOULD YOU, IN YOUR OPINION, BELIEVE l 25 T-ESE BORINGS WOULD SHOW FRACTURES, FISSURES OR
BS3 C 1 SAND, LENSES? 2 A. I'M ALMOST CERTAIN OF IT. 3 Q. I'M NOW GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT WAS 4 PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBITS E AND F. DO 5 YOU RECOGNIZE STATE'S EXHIBITS E AND F? 6 A. YES, I D0. 7 Q. AND WH AT ARE THEY, PLEASE? 3 8 A. EXHIBIT E IS -- EXHIBIT E IS AN INFRARED 9 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON JUNE 2ND, 1982, WHICH INCLUDES 10 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. WHAT I HAVE DONE IS MADE AN 11 OVERLAY SHOWING LINEATIONS -- LINEAMENTS THAT 12 OCCUR READILY CAN BE SEEN ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH. 13 Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY "READILY CAN BE 14 SEEN," HAVE YOU HAD ANY TRAINING IN THIS AREA IN 15 STUDYING THESE? 16 A. YES, I HAVE. I'VE HAD SEVERAL COURSES IN 17 AIR PHOTO INTERPRETATION. I'VE USED THEM IN 18 NEARLY EVERY PROJECT I'VE BEEN ON AND CONTINUE TO
, 19 USE THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS IN MY JOB. l I
20 Q. YOU SAID THERE WERE LINEAMENTS. WOULD 21 YOU EXPLAIN WHAT A LINEAMENT IS? 22 A. A LINEAMENT IS A FEATURE, OR MORE 23 PROPERLY, WE LIKE'T'O SEE A SET OF FEATURES THAT l h(,) l 24 REPRESENT A GEOLOGIC FEATURE OF SOME KIND; LINEAR l I 25 PATTERNS ON THE GROUND.
BS4 1 Q. AND COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE LINEAR 2 PATTERNS ON THE GROUND INDICATE TO YOU? 3 A. GIVEN THESE PARTICULAR ONES, MY JUDGMENT l 4 AS A GEOLOGIST IS THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST TWO SETS 5 OF PARALLEL FRACTURES PROBABLY REFLECTING BEDROCK 6 FRACTURING. 7 THE REASON YOU CAN SEE THEM ON THE 8 SURFACE, EVEN THROUGH 20 FEET OF GLACIAL COVER, IS 9 THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE THESE THINGS PROP AG AT E D UP 10 THROUGH THE GLACIAL COVER. IN OTHER WORDS, 11 COLLAPSE IN THE BEDROCK, AND WOULD BE REFLECTED BY 12 FRACTURES THROUGH THE T I .'. L , 50 TH AT YOU END UP 13 WITH A SLIGHTLY LOWER AREA ALONG THESE DARK 14 LINEARS, AND THE DARK COLOR REPRESENTS WETTER 15 GROUND. 16 Q. COULD YOU NOW TURN TO STATE'S EXHIBIT F. 17 WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT STATE'S EXHIBIT F IS? 18 A. STATE'S EXHIBIT F WAS PULLED OUT TO 19 REPRESENT THE AREA OBSCURE IN EXHIBIT E. 20 IF YOU NOTICE ON EXHIBIT E, THE AREA OF 21 THE SITE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY CLOUDS. 22 IT WAS THE BEST PHOTOGRAPH AVAILABLE. F
)
23 IS TAKEN OF A LESS -- WHAT DO I WANT TO SAY? -- 24 NOT AS GOOD A TIME OF YEAR TO SEE AS MUCH 25 f4 : .STURE, BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE THE LINEARS ON
BS5 i 1 HERE, PARTICULARLY THE ODD ONES. 2 Q. WHAT IS F, EXACTLY? IS IT ANOTHER 3 INCREMENT? 4 A. F IS A BLACK AND WHITE PHOTO TAKEN IN 5 NOVEMBER OF 1950, MUCH DRYER TIME OF THE YEAR. 6 Q. WHAT'S THE DI FF ER EN CE BETWEEN THE 7 INFRARED AND THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTO? 8 A. IN THIS CASE, VERY LITTLE. THE BLACK AND 9 WHITE PHOTO, THE DARK AREAS STILL REPRESENT 10 SATURATED GROUND. 11 Q. AND IN THE 1950 PHOTO, WHERE DO YOU SEE i . 12 LINEAMENTS? 13 A. I HAVE MARKED LINEAMENT "A" ON BOTH 14 PHOTOGRAPHS AS BEING ONE READILY ATTAINABLE TO 15 ALMOST ANYONE LOOKING AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND 16 LINEAMENT "B", ALSO VERY NEAR THE DAVIS-BESSE 17 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE. 18 AND WITH MY TRAINING, AND BACKED UP BY l 19 INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION BY TWO OTHER TRAINED 20 GEOLOGISTS WHO HAVE DONE AIR PHOTO INTERPRETATION, 21 HAVE M AR KED THE LINEARS THAT ARE APPARENT WITHIN 22 THE AREA OF THE CELLS. THESE PROBABLY REPRESENT BEDROCK FRACTURING AND COLLAPSE, SUBSEQUENT TILL [])
\; . e 23 24 C OL L AP S E , AND SO FORTH, IN AN AREA THAT OBVIOUSLY l 25 Of E SHOULD LOOK FOR IF ONE IS GOING TO PUT IN A t
l
BS6 l 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE. 2 Q. IN YOUR OPINION, AFTER VIEWING THESE 3 PHOTOS,-WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE IN CONSIDERING 4 THIS SITE? 5 A. I WOULD HAVE DONE ANGLED DRILLING AI ME D 6 AT THESE LINEAMENTS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT JOINTS 7 WERE PRESENT IN THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE MATERIALS, 8 THE TILLS, AND SO FORTH, AND DONE IN SITU 9 PERMEABILITY TESTING ON THEM. 10 Q. EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY YOU HEARD WHAT 11 WAS DEFINED AS A VUG. AS A GEOLOGIST, WOULD YOU l i
. 12 IDENTIFY WHAT A VUG IS?
w' 13 A. A VUG IS A SOLUTION CAVITY WITHIN CARBON 14 OR ROCKS USUALLY. 15 Q. WHEN YOU SAY " SOLUTION CAVITY", WHAT DO 16 YOU MEAN? 17 A. AN AREA -- A VOID WITHIN THE ROCK THAT 18 HAS BEEN DISSOLVED FROM THE ROCK BY GROUNDWATER. 19 Q. HOW DOES THAT DI FF ER FROM THE PREVIOUS 20 DEFINITION YOU HEARD? 21 A. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE FORMER DEFINITION. 22 Q. YOU HE AR D EARLIER TODAY THAT IN THE SITE I () 23 VISIT OF THE EXCAVATION, THAT THE SMALL SEAMS l 24 CREATED BY ROOTS AND OTHER THINGS WERE FILLED IN 1 l 25 E' GYPSUM. WHAT WOULD CAUSE THAT?
l I BS7 1 l l 1 A. GROUNDWATER PERCOLATING THROUGH THE 2 JOINTS WOULD DEPOSIT GYPSUM CRYSTALS THAT WOULD 3 PRECIPITATE OUT OF THE GROUNDWATER WHICH IS 4 PROBABLY SATURATED WITH RESPECT TO GYPSUM. 5 Q. WOULD THAT MAKE TH AT ~ AR E A IMPERMEABLE? 6 A. NOT NECESSARILY. IF YOU CAN FIND THE 7 I N DI V I D U AL CRYSTALS, THERE'S ROOM BETWEEN THE 8 CRYSTALS, AND WOULD STILL EXPEOT AN OR DER OF 9 MAGNITUDE FOR GREATER PERMEABILITY DIFFERENCE 10 BETWEEN THAT AND THE SURROUNDING TILL. 11 Q. HAVING HEARD THE TESTIMONY -- 12 MR. S I L B E R G :' EXCUSE ME. COULD 13 WE JUST HAVE THAT ANSWER READ BACK? IT 'S A LITTLE 14 HARD FOR US TO GET ALL THIS DOWN. 15 JUDGE HOYT: YOU WANT TO GIVE IT 16 OR HAVE IT READ BACK? 17 MR. S I LB ERG : IF THE REPORTER CAN 18 JUST READ IT BACK. 19 JUDGE HOYT: WILL YOU READ IT 20 BACK, PLEASE? 21 (LAST ANSWER WAS READ.) I 22 BY MR. LYNCH: I f)., 23 Q. I THINK YOU HEARD TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY 24 THAT THE SITE W AS AT ONE TIME MORE THAN LIKELY 25 F C r. R E S T E D AREA, AS MOST OF THIS AREA WAS.
u i 698 l C 1 WOULD YOU EXPECT THE SAME CONDITION ON l 2 THE SITE? l 3 A. YES, I WOULD. 4 Q. ARE YOU SAYING, THEREFORE, THEN, THAT 5 EVEN -- YOU WOULD HAVE THESE PERMEABLE RESULTS OF 6 ROOT FRACTURES ON THAT SITE ALSO? 7 A. YES, I WOULD. 8 Q. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN IN A LITTLE MORE 9 DETAIL? 10 A. IN MY FIELD WORK, I COMMONLY SEE TREE 11 ROOTS EXPOSED IN EXCAVATIONS AND OUTCROPS THAT GO ( 12 DOWN IN THE OR DER OF 50 FEET. I SEE NO REASON WHY 13 THEY SHOUL DN 'T GO COMPLETELY THROUGH THE GLACIAL 14 MATERIALS AT THIS SITE. 15 Q. WOULD THIS INCLUDE THE CLAY MATERIAL THAT 4 16 HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER? 17 A. YES, IT WOULD. IT WOULD FOLLOW THE 18 JOINTS. j 19 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE NO FURTHER l 20 QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. 21 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. YOU DO 22 HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS, THOUGH.
.( )
23 MR. LYNCH: MR. VOYTEK, YOU ARE 24 GOING TO ADDRESS QUESTION NUMBER 6, "WHAT IS THE 25 C~~ECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW FROM THE BURIAL SITE
BS9 c~ 1 RELATING TO LAKE ERIE, NAVARRE MARSH, AND THE 2 TOUSSAINT R I VER 7 " , AND QUESTION NUMBER 8, "WHAT IS 3 THE AVERAGE DEPTH AND UPPER AND LOWER RANGE OF THE 4 W AT E R TABLE AT THE DISPOSAL SITE?" 5 MR. VOYTEK: THAT'S CORRECT. 6 BEFORE I BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A 7 CORRECTION IN MY TESTIMONY SO I DON'T MISS 8 CONTINUITY. 9 ON PAGE 6, ON THE SECOND LINE, THE FIFTH 10 WORD, THAT WORD SHOULD BE " UNCONSOLIDATED" RATHER 11 THAN " CONSOLIDATED." 12 dVDGE HOYT: , WOULD THE REPORTER 13 PLEASE MAKE TH AT CORRECTION ON THE COPY OF THE 14 TESTIMONY AS BOUND AND PROVIDED? 15 MR. VOYTEK: THANK YOU, YOUR 16 HONOR. 17 JU DG E H0YT: THANK YOU. 18 WHEREUPON, , i 19 JOHN E. VOYTEK, JR. 20 W AS CALLED AS A WITNESS AND, HAVING BEEN 21 PREVIOUSLY FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 22 DIRECT TESTIMONY ()
.s' 23 MR. VO YT E K : I WOULD LIKE TO 24 BEGIN MY TESTIMONY BY QUOTING JUDGE HOLMES IN HIS 25 CC: CURRING REMARKS OF LLLEE_YEREM1_adERLCAR_
l l
< - 700 3
1 AEEREEAIE1_CRREERAllQE, A MAJOR DECISION OF OHIO 2 WATER LAW, DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ON 3 DECEMB ER 31ST, 1984. 4 " SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD OF 5 HYDROLOGY H AS ADVANCED IN THE PAST DECADE TO THE 6 POINT THAT WATER TABLES AND SOURCES ARE MORE 7 READILY DISCOVERABLE. THIS KNOWLEDGE CAN 8 ESTABLISH THE CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP OF 9 TAPPING OF UNDERGROUND WATER TO THE EXISTING WATER 10 LEVEL." 11 DURING MY PAST 11 YEARS IN THE
. 12 GROUNDWATER INDUSTRY, I HAVE WITNESSED THE RAPID c
13 ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING TO 14 WHICH JUDGE HOLMES IS REFERRING. NOT ONLY CAN 15 THIS NEW KNOWLEDGE PREDICT CAUSE AND EFFECT 16 RELAT'IONSHIP FOR REMOVING GROUNDWATER OUT OF THE 17 GROUND, BUT IT CAN ALSO PREDICT THE EFFECTS TO THE 18 GROUNDWATER RESOURCE RESULTING FROM PLACING WASTE 19 AT OR BELOW GROUND SURFACE. 20 IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUMMARIZE ALL THAT 21 WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT OUR GROUNDWATER RESOURCE 22 DURING THIS PAST DECADE. WE HAVE LEARNED ONE [)
.s _
23 UNFORGETTABLE LESSON THOUGH. THE ONCE ACCEPTED 24 PRACTICE OF BURYING OUR WASTE BENEATH THE GROUND 25 IE NO LONGER A VIABLE OPTION WITHOUT FIRST FULLY
I
. 701 l UNDERSTANDING THE GEOLOGY AND THE GROUNDWATER 2 C ON DI T I ON S OF THE AREA.
3 SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND NEWS MEDIA ARE f 4 FILLED WITH EXAMPLES OF FAILURE AFTER FAILURE OF J ! 5 LANDFILLS, LAGOONS AND IMPOUNDMENTS, THE RESULTS i 6 OF WHICH DEGRADE THE LOCAL G ROUN DW AT ER SUPPLY TO l 7 THE POINT OF CONCERN FOR THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH. 8 EXPERTS SUCH AS DR. JAY LEHR HAVE 9 APPEARED BEFORE CONGRESS AND HAVE TESTIFIED THAT i l 10 O'VER FIVE PERCENT OF OUR NATION'S G RO UN DW AT E R IS I I 11 ALREADY POLLUTED. THAT FIGURE MAY DOUBLE OR
- 12 TRIPLE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AS MORE OF OUR 13 PAST MISTAKES ARE DISCOVERED.
14 THE COMMISSION SHOULD TAKE NOTE, THOUGH, I 15 THAT WHEN THESE WASTES WERE BURIED, THE DECISION ) 16 TO DO SO WAS BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT AND THE , l l 17 MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME. WE CANNOT ) 18 ELIMINATE THE ACTIONS OF THE PAST, BUT WE CANNOT 19 CONDONE OR REPEAT THEM EITHER. i 20 OVER 50 PERCENT OF OHIO'S POPULATION I 21 RELIES ON GROUNDWATER AS A SOURCE OF FRESH POTABLE l I 22 DRINKING WATER. GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTS FOR OVER 95 j ) 23 PERCENT OF ALL OF OUR FRESH WATER ON THE FACE OF 24 THE EARTH. ONCE POLLUTED, THE EXPENSE OF REMOVING 5 25 'E CONTAMINATED -- CONTAMINANT FROM THE l
1 s 702. l 1 GROUNDWATER IS EXTREMELY COSTLY. 2 I'D LIKE NOW TO DIRECT MY COMMENTS TO THE 3 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT AT THE 4 DAVIS-BESSE SITE. 5 TOLEDO EDISON HAS DEMONSTRATED A VERY 6 LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 7 OF THE SITE UPON WHICH THEY PLAN TO BURY WASTES. 8 THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON A FEW SOIL BORINGS 9 THAT WERE TAKEN DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF 10 THE PROJECT OVER 15 YEARS AGO. THESE BORINGS WERE 11 NOT CONDUCTED AS PART OF A HYDROGEOLOGIC ( 12 INVESTIGATION. 13 G ROUN DW AT ER AT THIS SITE IS A VERY 14 DYNAMIC SYSTEM. GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND 15 GROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERNS RESPOND TO MANY FACTORS, 16 SUCH AS C l. I M A T I C CONDITIONS, LAKE AND RI VER 17 LEVELS, THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION PRESENT, AND 18 GROUNDWATER USE IN THE AREA. 19 AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, W AT E R LEVELS ARE 20 IN CONSTANT FLUX WITH NATURE. THE TOUSSAINT 21 RIVER, THE NAVARRE MARSH, AND LAKE ERIE, AS WELL 22 AS GENERAL GROUNDWATER USAGE, ALL CAUSE THE LOCAL '[) 23 G RO UN DW AT ER SYSTEM TO BE IN A CONSTANT STATE OF 24 CHANGE, DEPENDING UPON THE SEASON. 25 BECAUSE OF THIS CONSTANT CHANGE AND l l
l 703 fr% BECAUSE THE AQUIFER SYSTEM IS COMPLEX, THE 1 2 GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION, THE G EN ER AL ) l 3 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE AREA WILL NEED SOME 4 EXPLANATION. I' 5 THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT AQUIFER SYSTEMS 6 PRESENT AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE: THE UPPER 7 UNCONSOLIDATED TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM AND THE DEEPER 8 REGIONAL LIMESTONE A QU I F ER SYSTEM. 9 I WOULD LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE UPPER 10 UNCONSOLIDATED TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM FIRST. 11 THE TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM IS AN AQUIFER -- ( 12 IS THE A QU I F ER WHICH IS CLOSEST TO THE SURFACE. 13 THE TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM CONSISTS OF THIN BUT 14 SIGNIFICANT LENSES OR LAYERS OF PERMEABLE SANDY 15 DEPOSITS OF GLACIAL AND LACUSTRINE (OR ALSO CALLED ! 16 LAKE) DEPOSITS INTERBEDDED WITH CLAY SOILS. THE 17 TILL AQUIFERS RANGE IN THICKNESS FROM 15 TO 30 18 FEET IN THE AREA. 19 DURING THE DRY SUMMER MONTHS, THE UPPER 20 PORTION OF THE TILL AQUIFER'S TYPICALLY DEPLETED 21 UNTIL PRECIPITATION OCCURS AT THE SITE. DURING 22 THE WET SPRING AND WINTER MONTHS, WATER LEVELS CAN ,5 () 23 BE VERY CLOSE TO THE SURFACE RE S P ON DI NG TO 24 RAINFALLS WHICH ARE MORE.THAN ADEQUATE TO 25 FEFLENISH THEM.
704 1 DURING THESE PERIODS OF RAINFALL, THE I 2 TILL AQUIFERS ARE CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING ONLY A 3 LIMITED AMOUNT OF WATER. THE REMAINDER OF THE l 4 WATER IS LEFT AT THE SURFACE UNTIL IT SEEPS INTO 5 THE GROUND OR IS EVAPORATED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. 6 WATER LEVELS IN THE UPPER UNCONSOLIDATED 7 AQUIFERS WILL ALSO RESPOND TO WATER LEVELS OF 8 LARGE BODIES OF WATER SUCH AS THE TOUSSAINT RIVER 9 AND LAKE ERIE. 10 DURING PERIODS OF HIGH LAKE LEVELS, PEAK 11 DISCHARGE OF RIVER -- OF THE RI VER OR FLOODING, (; 12 WATER LEVELS IN THE TILL A QU,I F E R S WILL RISE IN 13 RESPONSE TO BANK STORAGE. 14 B AN K STORAGE IS WATER THAT IS COLLECTED 15 BY THE TILL AQUIFERS DURING THESE PEAK PERIODS OF 16 HIGH W AT E R LEVELS, THEN SLOWLY RELEASED BACK TO THE RIVER DURING THE PERIODS OF LOW WATER LEVELS. I 17 18 THE PRESENCE OF A TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM AT 19 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED BY TOLEDO l 20 EDISON IN THE LOG OF B OR I NG B-125. A COPY OF THE l 21 BORING IS ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. THE LOG 22 DESCRIBES TRACES OF FINE SAND AND GRAVEL LENSES IN
) 23 THE TILL SOIL. THESE I N DI VI DU AL LENSES ARE 24 PROBABLY INTERCONNECTED TO EACH OTHER AND WILL ACT 25 /E ONE OF THE RECHARGE MECHANISMS FOR THE DEEPER l I l \
l 705 m. kI 1 REGIONAL AQUIFER, 2 THE WATER LEVELS IN THESE TINY OR THIN 3 SANDY LENSES HAVE NOT BEEN ACCURATELY RECORDED 4 DURING THE DRILLING OF THESE TEST BORINGS. 5 DA VI S -B E S S E H AS NOT PROVIDED ANY WATER , 6 LEVEL DATA ON THE UPPER AQUIFER SYSTEM AT THIS 7 SITE. BUT FROM EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER SIMILAR 8 SITES ALONG THE LAKE, WATER LEVELS WILL GENERALLY 9 BE VERY CLOSE TG THE SURFACE MOST OF THE YEAR. 10 THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SOIL 11 SURVEY OF OTTAWA COUNTY SHOWS THAT THE SOIL IN THE (L. 12 DAVIS-BESSE AREA TO BE ONE OF TWO TYPES: THE 13 NAPPANEE SILTY CLAY LOAM OR THE TOLEDO SILTY CLAY. 14 THE SEASONAL HIGH W AT E R TABLE FOR THE 15 NAPPANEE SILTY CLAY ALONE STANDS BETWEEN THE 16 DEPTHS OF ONE AND TWO FEET IN THE WINTER, SPRING, 17 AND EXTENDED WET PERIODS. THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER 18 TABLE FOR THE TOLEDO SILTY CLAY IS NEAR OR ABOVE 19 THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND DURING THE WINTER, 20 SPRING, AND EXTENDED WET PERIODS. 21 TOLEDO SOILS ARE RATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR 22 LANDFILLS DUE TO PONDING. BOTH SOIL TYPES.HAVE 23 SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR LANDFILL SITING DUE TO THE 24 WETNESS OF THE SOIL. l 25 THE ACTUAL SURFACE DIRECTION OF THE
708 1 MOVEMENT OF GROUNDWATER IN THIS UPPER 2 UNCONSOLIDATED AQUIFER WILL BE DICTATED BY THE 3 AQUIFER ITSELF AS WELL AS THE HEAD WHERE THE 4 DRI VING FORCE IS EXERTED ON THE AQUIFER. 5 THE GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT IN THE TILL 6 AQUIFER SYSTEM AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE GENERALLY 7 FLOWS NORTHEAST TOWARDS LAKE ERIE AND THE NAVARRE 8 MARSH OR SOUTHWARD TOWARDS THE TOUSSAINT RI VER , 9 DEPENDING UPON THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE 10 DAVIS-BESSE SITE CONSIDERED. THIS GENERAL 11 MOVEMENT CAN BE REVERSED IF LAKE ERIE AND THE 12 TOUSSAINT RIVER ARE AT HIGHER THAN NORMAL LEVELS 13 SINCE HIGH WATER LEVELS IN ONE OR THE OTHER WILL 14 DRI VE THE GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE OPPOSITE 15 DIRECTION. 16 GROUNDWATER AT THE PROPOSED BURIAL SITE 17 ITSELF COULD FLOW IN EITHER DIRECTION. 18 THE SECOND AQUIFER IS A DEEPER LIMESTONE 19 REGIONAL AQUIFER. THE DEEPER LIMESTONE REGIONAL 20 AQUIFER IS RECHARGED PRIMARILY FROM THE WATER THAT 21 IS STORED AND COLLECTED IN THE UPPER AQUIFER l 22 SYSTEM. AS THIS WATER ENTERS THE UPPER AQUIFER
) 23 SYSTEM, IT IS HELD TEMPORARILY IN STORAGE BY THE THE WATER BEGINS TO TRAVEL DOWNWARD IN 24 SOILS. 1 25 FEEPONSE TO GRAVITY UNTIL IT REACHES THE WATER
._. -. . .a
i l
. 707 (sh s 1 TABLE OR ZONE OF WHICH ALL MATERIALS ARE SATURATED l 2 WITH WATER. FROM THERE, THE WATER CAN MOVE IN ANY 3 GENERAL SURFACE DIRECTION WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY I
4 MOVING STRAIGHT DOWNWARD. AS THIS WATER IN THE 5 UPPER A QU I F ER ACCUMULATES, THE HEAD OR PRESSURE IN 6 THE UPPER AQUIFER IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE f 7 DEEPER AQUIFER. THIS DIFFERENCE IN HEAD WILL i 8 RESULT IN A NET MOVEMENT OF WATER FROM THE UPPER l 9 A QU I F ER INTO THE DEEPER A QU I F ER . I 10 AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, THIS MOVEMENT 11 CAN BE SLOW BECAUSE THE HEAD IN THE UPPER AQUIFER (, 12 AND THE DEEPER AQUIFER ARE SIMILAR MOST OF THE 13 YEAR. BUT THE NET RESULT OF WATER MOVEMENT WILL 14 BE FROM THE UPPER AQUIFER TO THE LOWER AQUIFER 15 OVER A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME. 16 THE DEEPER REGIONAL LIMESTONE AQUIFER 17 SYSTEM SUPPLIES NEARLY THE ENTIRE NORTHWEST i 18 SECTION OF OHIO WITH GROUNDWATER. THIS RESOURCE i 19 IS VALUABLE NOT ONLY AS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE I 20 0F DRINKING W AT E R FOR THE PEOPLE OF NORTHWESTERN ! 21 OHIO, BUT ALSO CREATES CURIOSITY SUCH AS A BLUE i 22 HOLE, A NATURAL GROUNDWATER PHENOMENON LOCATED i 23 JUST MINUTES FROM THIS ROOM. l i (]) e 24 THE WATER LEVEL OF THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE ! 25 F C: THE DEEPER LIMESTONE A QU I F ER IS CONTROLLED e
l 708 1 PRIMARILY BY LAKE ERIE. DURING PERIODS OF H1GH 2 LAKE LEVELS, THE WATER LEVEL WILL RISE IN RESPONSE 3 TO THE LAKE WATER AND LAKE WATER WILL REPLENISH 4 THE AQUIFER. DURING NORMAL LAKE LEVELS, THE WATER 5 LEVEL WILL DROP SOMEWHAT AND FLOW OUT INTO THE 6 LAKE, DISCHARGING GROUNDWATER INTO LAKE ERIE. 7 OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS HEAVY GROUNDWATER 8 PUMPAGE -- PUMPING IN THE AREA MAY CAUSE WATER 9 LEVELS FOR THE SITE TO CHANGE. 10 GENERALLY THE HEAD OR WATER LEVEL IN THIS 11 DEEPER AQUIFER LIES AT ABOUT 10 TO 20 FEET BELOW 6( 12 GROUND LEVEL. THIS LEVEL CAN BE DIFFERENT AT 13 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE AREA AND IS AN -- AND 14 IS DEPENDENT ON THE EL E V AT I ON OF THE GROUND FROM 15 WHICH IT IS MEASURED. WATER LEVELS IN THE AREA 16 FOR THE DEEPER AQUIFER WILL NE VER FALL MORE THAN A 17 FEW FEET BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE. THEREFORE, 18 THE G RO U N DW AT E R AT THE DAVIS-BESSE PROPOSED BURIAL 19 SITE CAN MOVE IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS. 20 THE W AT E R IN THE UPPER AQUIFER, WHICH AT 21 THIS SITE IS LIKELY TO BE AT OR -- NEAR OR AT THE 22 SURFACE DURING SOME SEASONS OF THE YEAR WILL FLOW 23 NORTH TOWARDS LAKE ERIE AND NAVARRE MARSH OR SOUTH (
-).
~
24 TOWARDS THE TOUSSAINT RIVER. IT ALSO FLOWS 25 D C L' N W A R D INTO THE DEEPER AQUIFER.
. 703 A
(/ 1 THE DEEPER AQUIFER FLOWS NORTHWARD 2 TOWARDS LAKE ERIE DURING LOW W AT E R LEVELS AND AWAY 3 FROM LAKE ERIE DURING HIGH WATER LEVELS. THUS, j 4 ANY CONTAMINANTS REACHING THE UPPER AQUIFER ARE S LIKELY TO TRAVEL INTO THE DEEPER AQUIFER, LAKE 6 ERIE, NAVARRE MARSH AND/OR THE TOUSSAINT RI VER . 7 THE SPEED TO WHICH THE WATER AND 8 CONTAMINANTS IN THE W AT E R FLOW THROUGH THE SOIL OR 9 THE AQUIFER DEPENDS ON THE PERMEABILITY OF THE 10 AQUIFER. 11 GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE COARSER MATERIAL f 12 IS, THE HIGHER PERMEABILITY -- THE HIGHER 13 PERMEABILITY WILL BE. PERMEASILITY IS USUALLY 14 MEASURED IN UNITS OF CENTIMETERS PER SECOND. 1S THE DEEPER AQUIFER BELOW THE DAVIS-BESSE 16 SITE IS A VERY GOOD AQUIFER DUE TO ITS HIGH DEGREE 17 OF SECONDARY PERMEABILITY. THIS AQUIFER IS HIGHLY 18 PERMEABLE DUE TO THE CRACKS, CREVICES AND SOLUTION 1 19 CHANNELS THAT HAVE FORMED IN THE ROCK OVER TIME 20 ALLOWING G R OUN DW AT ER TO FLOW THROUGH IT MORE 21 FREELY AND MORE QUICKLY. IN FACT, SOME OF THE 22 MOST RAPID GROUNDWATER FLOWS HAVE BEEN -- ON () r 23 RECORD HAVE BEEN MEASURED IN AQUIFERS SIMILAR TO 24 THE ONE BELOW DAVIS-BESSE. 25 TOLEDO EDISON RECORDS CONFIRM THE
710 1 PERMEABILITY OF THE DEEPER AQUIFER. ACCORDING TO 2 THE TOLEDO EDISON'S 1970 EN VI R ON MENT AL REPORT, THE 3 BEDROCK IS QUITE PERVIOUS, MAINLY IN THE UPPER 30 4 TO 50 FEET, AND CONTAINS OPEN JOINTS AND BEDDING 5 PLANES. IN SOME LOCATIONS, THE JOINTS AND BEDDING 6 PLANES HAVE BEEN ENLARGED TO SOLUTION. SIMPLY 7 PUT, THE BEDROCK IS HIGHLY FRACTURED P RO VI DI NG 8 RAPID MOVEMENT OF GROUNDWATER ONCE IT REACHES THE 9 AQUIFER. IF A CONTAMINANT WERE TO ESCAPE FROM THE 10 SITE AND TRAVEL THROUGH THE TILL AQUIFERS AND INTO 11 THE DEEPER LIMESTONE AQUIFER, THE CONTAMINANT i (f 12 WOULD MOVE RAPIDLY WITH LOCAL REGIONAL GROUNDWATER 13 FLOW. 14 AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THESE WATER 15 P RIN C IPL ES AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE LANDFILLS 16 CAN BE TAKEN INTO CASE STUDY OF A LANDFILL THAT ) I 17 W AS CONSTRUCTED IN WISCONSIN. ALTHOUGH WISCONSIN j 18 IS SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, 19 IT IS IN THE SAME GEOLOGIC PROVINCE AS OHIO. 20 HENCE, THE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE AREAS 21 ARE SIMILAR. 22 IN 1984 GORDON AND HUEBNER -- THAT'S l
) 23 H-U-E-B-N-E-R --
AND I'VE ATTACHED THEIR REPORT -- l 24 REPORTED ON A FAILURE OF SEVERAL 25 I'.E-OF-SATURATION LANDFILLS LOCATED IN WISCONSIN. l
i , 711 A THE ZONE-OF-SATURATION LANDFILL IS LANDFILL THAT h/ 1 2 IS CONSTRUCTED INTO THE SATURATED PORTION OF THE l 3 SOILS, WHICH IS ALSO CALLED THE WATER TABLE, AND 4 THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ACTION THAT TOLEDO EDI SON 5 H AS PROPOSED. 6 THE WISCONSIN SITES ARE SIMILAR IN 7 HYDROGEOLOGY AND CLIMATE AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. 8 THEY MAY CONTAIN MANY OF THE SAME GLACIOLACUSTRINE 9 SOILS AND GLACIAL TILLS WHICH ARE DEPOSITED UNDER 10 GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENTS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE 11 DAVIS-BESSE SITE. r); sg 12 THE I N VE S T I G AT I ON BY GORDON AND'HUEBNER 13 FOUND THAT MANY OF THE Sn-CALLED " HOMOGENEOUS" 14 CLAY SITES WERE, IN FACT, NOT HOMOGENEOUS AT ALL. 15 THEY DISCOVERED A ONE TO THREE ORDER MAGNITUDE 16 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERMEABILITY OF THE 17 SO-CALLED HOMOGENEOUS CLAY SOILS AS REPORTED FROM 18 LABORATORY ANALYSIS IN THE LATE '70'S AND THE 1 19 PERMEABILITY THAT W AS MEASURED IN SITU BY 20 R EL AT I VEL Y NEW TECHNOLOGY OF THE MID '80'S. l 21 DURING A LABORATORY TESTING TYPICALLY 22 PERFORMED IN THE '70'S, THE FINE SAND LAYERS WERE
) 23 MIXED TOGETHER WITH CLAY SOILS REDUCING THE t.'
24 PERMEABILITY OF THE SOIL AS MEASURED IN THE 25 L t E OR ATOR Y AND PROVIDING A FALSE READING. ! I
712 (m () 1 ALTHOUGH THE LABORATORY ANALYSIS HAD PREVIOUSLY 2 SHOWN THE SOILS TO BE IMPERMEABLE, THE LANDFILLS 3 WERE LEAKING. 4 THESE DRASTIC DI FF ER EN CE S BETWEEN THE 5 REPORTED LABORATORY RESULTS AND THE MEASUREMENTS 6 MADE UNDER ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS CAN BE 7 ATTRIBUTED TO VERY THIN SAND SEAMS AND LENSES IN 8 THE SOIL AND/OR FRACTURES AND CRACKS IN THE CLAY. 9 LAKE ERIE AT ONE TIME COVERED THE ENTIRE 10 COUNTY MAKING THE PRESENCE OF THESE SAND LENSES 11 EVEN MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR. SAND BEACH THAT IS (. 12 CURRENTLY AT THE INTERFACE OF THE LAKE AND THE 13 SHORELINE HAD TO PASS OVER THE SITE AT LEAST ONCE 14 AND PERHAPS SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE PAST 10,000 15 YEARS. AS THE INTERFACE PASSED OVER THE SITE, 16 BEACH SAND WAS SURELY DEPOSITED ON THE SITE. AS 17 THE LAKE BECAME DEEPER, THE SEDIMENTS BECAME 18 FINER, AND CLAY-SIZED PARTICLES WERE DEPOSITED. l 19 AS THE LAKE LEVEL RETREATED, THE SAND BEACH WAS , 1 20 AG AI N DEPOSITED AT THE SITE. THIS SEQUENCE l 21 OCCURRED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 22 IN ADDITION TO LEAKAGE THROUGH NATURALLY l 23 FORMED SAND LENSES, CRACKS AND FRACTURES IN THE 7( )- 24 CLAY -- I'M SORRY. IN ADDITION TO THE LEAKAGE 25 T"r.OUGH NATURALLY FORMED SAND LENSES, CRACKS AND
. 713 4
0 1 FRACTURES IN THE CLAY CAN FORM DUE TO REACTION 1 2 BETWEEN SATURATED CLAY AND WASTE FROM A LANDFILL. l 3 THIS REACTION REMOVES WATER MOLECULES FROM THE 4 CLAY STRUCTURE. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, ONCE SATURATED 5 CLAYS BECOME DEHYDRATED AND SHRINK, FORMING CRACKS 6 AND FRACTURS IN THE CLAY, MUCH LIKE A MUD PUDDLE 7 DOES AFTER A RAIN SHOWER. THIS CHEMICAL EXCHANGE 8 CAN BE PERMANENT EVEN IF THE DEHYDRATED CLAYS ARE 9 SOAKED IN FRESH WATER. 10 BETTER, MORE EXTENSIVE SITE 4 11 INVESTIGATIONS THAN THE ONE THAT TOOK PLACE AT 12 DAVIS-BESSE HAVE MISSED ENORMOUS UNDERGROUND 13 STRUCTURES THAT PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN 14 POLLUTING LOCAL GROUNDWATER. 15 AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WAS REPORTED BY GORDON , 16 AND HUEBNER IN 1984. AT ONE OF THE WISCONSIN t 17 SITES THEY STUDIED, AN EXCAVATION REVEALED AN l 18 EXTENSIVE ANCIENT BURIED BEACH RIDGE, CONSISTING I l 19 OF PERMEABLE COARSE SAND DEPOSITS BURIED WITHIN l 20 THE TILL SOIL. THEY DISCOVERED THIS FEATURE IN AN l l 21 EX C A V AT I ON AFTER 46 SOIL BORINGS WERE DRILLED AT 22 THE SITE, ALL OF WHICH HAD MISSED THIS SIGNIFICANT 23 STRUCTURE. g' . 24 A DOLOMITE AQUIFER AT THIS WISCONSIN 25 SI E, SIMILAR TO THE LIMESTONE AQUIFER BELOW
714 1 DAVIS-BESSE, IS NOW POLLUTED. POLLUTION OCCURRED 2 LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE LANDFILL BEGAN 3 R E C EI VI NG WASTES. 4 GORDON AND HUEBNER ALSO DISCOVERED THAT 5 THE TILL SOIL AT THIS SITE OF WISCONSIN WAS INDEED 6 STRATIFIED CONTAINING SMALL -- VERY SMALL SEAMS OF l 7 SAND AND SILT AND EVEN TINY FRACTURES AND JOINTS. 8 THESE FRACTURES OR JOINTS IN THE CLAY REMAIN EVEN l 9 AFTER THE CLAYEY TILLS BECAME SATURATED WITH 1 10 W AT E R . 11 JOHNSON (ET AL., 1984) AND POLLOCK, ( 12 P-0-L-L ,0-C-K, (ET AL., 1983), WHICH ITEMS ARE 13 ATTACHED, IN SEPARATE STUDIES OF LANDFILLS LOCATED 14 IN THE SAME GEOLOGIC PROVINCE AS OHIO AND GLACIAL ) l 15 MATERIAL SIMILAR TO D A VI S -B ES S E SITE DISCOVERED 16 THIS SAME ONE TO THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE 17 DIFFERENCE B ETW EEN FIELD AND LABORATORY 18 MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL PERMEABILITY. THE LABORATORY l 19 MEASUREMENTS WERE CONSISTENTLY LOWER. 20 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY STUDIES, WHICH IS 21 ATTACHED, HAVE FOUND THAT CLAY SOIL AND CLAY 22 LINERS MAY LEAK MANY TIMES FASTER THAN THE
,() 23 DESIGNERS INTENDED THEM TO. AC C OR DI NG TO DR. KIRK i
24 BROWN, QUOTE, "SOME OF THE CHEMICALS THAT ARE 25 EE'NG PLACED IN LANDFILLS COULD CAUSE THEM [ CLAY
. 715 #4 k/ 1 LINERS] TO LEAK A THOUSAND TIMES FASTER'THAN 2 DESIGNERS ANTICIPATED."
3 BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE DAVIS-BESSE 4 AREA, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE WATER AND WATER 5 CONTAMINANTS WILL MOVE THROUGH THE SOIL INTO THE 6 UPPER AND DEEPER AQUIFERS. ALTHOUGH THE SOIL IN 7 THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY CLAY, THIS CLAY CONTAINS 8 JOINTS AND COARSER SAND MATERIALS, AS EXPLAINED 9 EARLIER, WHICH ARE MORE PERMEABLE. THIS HAS BEEN 10 EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL IN RICK PAVEY'S 11 TESTIMONY. () 12 A LANDFILL PLACED IN SOIL OF THIS NATURE 13 IS LIKELY TO POLLUTE GROUNDWATER AS RAINFALL AND 14 OTHER SURFACE W AT E R PASSES THROUGH THE LANDFILL 15 AND CARRIES CONTAMINANTS WITH IT AS IT PERCOLATES 16 INTO THE GROUNDWATER. AN AREA SUCH AS 17 DAVIS-BESSE, WHERE THE WATER T ABL ES ARE CLOSE TO 18 THE SURFACE DURING CERTAIN SEASONS, THE LANDFILL 19 WILL ACTUALLY BE SITTING IN GROUNDWATER AT TIMES ! 20 GATHERING CONTAMINANTS. 21 TOLEDO EDISON ARGUES THAT CLAY AT THE l l 22 DISPOSAL SITE WILL PREVENT WASTE FROM SEEPING INTO 23 THE GROUNDWATER. IN THIS -- IN ITS RESPONSE TO (]} e 24 THE STATE'S PETITION, THE COMPANY ASSIGNS 25 F E ~. M E A B I L I T Y VALUE LESS THAN ONE TO THE -- ONE l l l ,
716 7 1 TIMES TEN TO THE MINUS SIX CENTIMETERS PER SECOND 2 TO THE SOILS AT THE D A VI S -B ES S E SITE. THE COMPANY 3 FAILS TO MENTION, HOWEVER, HOW THAT PERMEABILITY 4 W AS DETERMINED, WHETHER IT WAS MEASURED IN SITU OR 5 IN A LABORATORY OR WHAT METHODOLOGY WAS USED TO 6 DETERMINE THAT NUMBER. THEREFORE, IF THE 7 COMPANY'S ESTIMATE RESULTS -- RESULTED FROM 8 LABORATORY TESTING, THE COMPANY'S ESTIMATE OF 9 PERMEABILITY COULD BE TOO LOW BY AN ORDER OF 10 MAGNITUDE OF ONE TO THREE. 11 TO PHRASE THIS IN A MORE EASILY ( 12 UNDERSTOOD TERM, ONE TIMES TEN TO THE MINUS SIX 13 CENTIMETERS PER SECOND IS APPROXIMATELY 0.0028 14 FEET PER DAY. THE PERMEABILITY OF THE SOIL IN 15 QUESTION IS INCORRECT BY THREE ORDERS OF l 16 MAGNITUDE, AS SUGGESTED BY CURRENT RESEARCH, THE 17 PERMEABILITY COULD JUMP TO 2.83 FEET PER DAY. 18 TOLEDO EDISON STATED IN ITS RESPONSE THAT 19 THE SAND SEAMS ARE NOT EVIDENT AT THIS SITE. 20 HOWEVER, ONE OF TOLEDO EDISON'S DOCUMENTS 21 INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF SAND LAYERS AT 22 DAVIS-BESSE. ATTACHMENT "B" IS A LOG OF BORING () 23 NUMBER B-125 DRILLED IN 1974 GY ATEC AND 24 ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED. IT INDICATES SEVERAL 25 E 4 '. D LAYERS AT ELEVATIONS 576, 574, 568 AND 566,
- 717
.e
- 1 TO NAME A FEW.
2 ONCE WASTE IS IN THESE SANDY LAYERS OR IN 3 THE FRACTURES AND CRACKS IN THE CLAY, WASTE 4 PRODUCTS MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THE SOIL HORIZON. 5 ACCORDING TO THE 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL 6 REPORT FOR DAVIS-BESSE, A PORTION OF WHICH IS 7 ATTACHED, THE COMBINED THICKNESS OF THE SOILS OF 8 DAVIS-BESSE IS ONLY ON THE ORDER OF 20 FEET. THIS S 20 FEET OF SOIL WILL BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE IF 10 SAND LENSES AND FRACTURES ARE INDEED PRESENT. IT 8 11 FILL TAKE LITTLE TIME FOR A WASTE PRODUCT TO () 12 MIGRATE INTO THE UNDERLYING BEDROCK AQUIFER. 13 ONCE IN THIS AQUIFER, THE CONTAMINANT 14 WILL BE DIFFICULT TO TRACE. THIS IS DUE TO THE 15 FRACTURES IN THE ROCK AND THE BEDDING PLANES THAT 16 WERE MENTIONED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. THE 17 TAINTED GROUNDWATER WILL FOLLOW THESE FRACTURES 18 AND BEDDING PLANES OFFERING A PATH OF LOWEST 19 RESISTANCE TO FLOW. 20 WE ARE UNABLE TO PREDICT WHERE THESE 21 BEDDING PLANES OUTCROP UNDER THE LAKE. PERHAPS 22 THE DI S CH AR G E POINT IS NEAR ONE OF THE NUMEROUS 23 DRINKING WATER SUPPLY INTAKES. WE D ON 'T KNOW THE
)
24 ANSVER TO THAT QUESTION. I 25 TOLEDO EDISON ARGUES THAT THE RADIOACTIVE l
718 ( l CONTENT OF THIS WASTE IS NOT OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE. 2 HOWEVER, WHEN LARGE AMOUNTS OF WASTE ARE BURIED AT 3 ONE LOCATION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS MULTIPLY. 4 WHEN A PLUME OF WATER PASSES THROUGH A 5 SMALL AMOUNT OF WASTE AND PICKS UP ITS 6 CONTAMINANTS, THESE CONTAMINANTS MAY NOT BE 7 CARRIED IN CONCENTRATIONS HIGH ENOUGH TO HARM THE 8 ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, IF A PLUME PASSES THROUGH A 9 LARGE AMOUNT OF WASTE, IT IS LIKELY TO ABSORB MORE
^
10 CONTAMINATION. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE LARGER 11 AMOUNT OF WASTE CONTAINED CONTAMINANTS IN (g 12 CONCENTRATIONS NO GREATER THAN THAT OF THE SM ALL ER 13 AMOUNT OF WASTE, THE WATER PASSING THROUGH THE 14 L ARGER AMOUNT IS LIKELY TO BECOME MORE POLLUTED. 15 IN
SUMMARY
, I HOPE I HAVE PROVIDED THE 16 COMMISSION WITH SOME INSIGHT AS TO WHY THE STATE 17 IS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS MATTER. G R OUN DW AT ER IS A 18 COMPLEX SCIENCE. 19 TOLEDO EDISON SAYS THAT IT'S PROVIDED AN 2C EXTENSIVE GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF THIS 21 SITE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS MY l 22 PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND OPINION THAT TOLEDO () 23 EDISON DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE GROUNDWATER 24 SITUATION THAT EXISTS BELOW ITS FACILITIES. 25 IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT -- IT'S NOT
719 t (s 1 THE FIRST TIME TOLEDO EDISON HAS PROMISED THAT 2 SOLID WASTE PRODUCED BY THE PLANT WOULD NOT HARM 3 THE PUBLIC. 4 IN A 1970 LICENSING HEARING, TOLEDO 5 EDISON OPPOSED THE INTERVENTION OF,A CITIZEN WHO 6 WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURIAL OF WASTE AT DAVIS-BESSE 7 SITE. A LAWYER FOR TOLEDO $DISON SAID'THAT THE 8 WASTE DISPOSAL WAS A TOPIC MORE PROPERLY ADDRESSED 9 IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, HE ALSO PROMISED 10 THE WASTE DISPOSAL WOULD NOT BE BURIED AT THE 11 DAVIS-BESSE SITE. THESE ARE THE WORDS HE USED: f'\ 12 "THERE WILL BE NO DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AT THIS ( ,9 13 PARTICULAR FACILITY, NOR WILL THERE BE ANY 14 DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE PERFORMED UNDER THE 15 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION P ERMIT- OR OPERATING LICENSE 16 FOR WHICH WE HAVE APPLIED." . 17 SEE ATTACHMENT TO THIS DOCUMENT WHICH IS 18 AN EXCERPT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT HEARING. 19 I WISH TO THANK T !iE COMMISSION FOR 20 ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF 21 0F THE STATE. 22 JUDGE H0YT: THANK'YOU. I THINK () 23 THAT COMPLETES YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION? 24 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE A FEW MORE 25 C'. i S T I O N S~. s
- . - , . , . -- , t - . . . - -
l 720
} 1 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL.
2 CONTINUE. l 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. LYNCH: 5 Q. MR. VOYTEK, YOU HEARD THE 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. HENDRON CONCERNING HIS 7 DEFINITIONS OF THE WATER TABLE BASING THEM ON 8 FREEZE AND CHERRY, THE TEXTBOOK WRITTEN BY FREEZE 9 AND CHERRY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS TEXTBOOK? 10 A. YES, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE TEXTBOOK 11 CALLED ERQMRkE&lER WRITTEN BY FREEZE AND CHERRY N THAT WAS ALLUDED TO EARLIER, AND I'D LIKE TO Au 12 13 FURTHER CLARIFY SOME OF THE BASIC PRIHCIPLES OF 14 HYDROGEOLOGY USING THAT TEXTBOOK. 15 IN TESTIMONY TUESDAY, IT WAS MENTIONED 16 THAT THE BEDROCK AQUIFER IS ARTESIAN, ALSO CALLED 17 A CONFINED AQUIFER. FURTHER TESTIMONY ON TUESDAY 18 STATED THAT THIS AQUIFER HAS GLACIAL SEDIMENT i ! 19 DEPOSITED ON TOP OF THAT AQUIFER AND THAT THESE 20 DEPOSITS ACT AS AN . A QU IT AR D . 21 IN TUESDAY'S TESTIMONY, THE WATER TABLE
- 22 WAS DESCRIBED AS A CONTACT BETWEEN THE UNSATURATED 23 AND SATURATED ZONE. ALTHOUGH THIS DEFINITION IS 24 TRUE FOR UNCONFINED AQUIFERS, IT WAS TESTIFIED 25 7'
-T
. DAY THA: THE AQUIFER WAS CONFINED.
721 1 FREEZE AND CHERRY 'S TEXTBOOK, 2 ERRREREAIER, WHICH WAS ALLUDED TO TODAY, STATES 3 TH AT THE LEVEL OF,-- LEVEL OF THE WATER' LEVEL IN A 4 CONF.INED AQUIFER WILL USUALLY RISE ABOVE THE TOP 5 OF THE AQUIFER. , j 6 OUR INFORMATION ON W AT E R LEVELS IN THE 7 AREA SURROUNDING DAVIS-BESSE INDICATES THAT IF THE
/
8 BEDROCK AQUIFER WERE TRULY CONFINED, THE AQUIFER
- 9 WOULD BE UNDER A FIVE-TO-TEN-FOOT HEAD OR 10 PRESSURE. THIS FACT IS SUPPORTED BY THE NEED TO l'1 REMOVE SOME EXCESS G R OUN DW AT ER DURING THE /~%
(g) 12 CONSTRUCTION PHASE AT D A VI S -B ES S E . THIS EQUATES 13 TO A WATER LEVEL IN THE BEDROCK AQUIFER COMING UP 14 TO ABOUT TWO TO FIVE FEET BELOW THE NATURAL LAND 15 SURFACE. 16 FREEZE AND CHERRY POINTS OUT THAT THE 17 BEST DEFINITION OF A WATER TABLE IS THE SURFACE OF 18 WATER AT WHICH FLUID PRESSURE IN THE AQUIFER IS AT 19 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE. ACCORDING TO FREEZE AND l 20 CHERRY, THEN, THE GROUNDWATER TABLE IS ONLY ABOUT 21 TWO TO FI VE FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND 22 AROUND DA VI S -- AROUND THE DA VI S -B ES S E SITE, NOT () N;. 23 THE 15 FEET BELOW GROUND AS WAS TESTIFIED. 24 FINALLY, THE TERM "AQUITARD" WAS USED TO 25 PEICRIBE THE OVERLYING SOILS. AN AQUITARD IS
722 I 1 DEFINED BY FREEZE AND CHERRY AS A LESS PERMEABLE 4 2 BED THAT IS PERMEABLE ENOUGH TO TRANSMIT WATER AND l 3 ARE -- AND I QUOTE --
"SIGNIFICANT IN THE STUDY OF 4 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW." CLOSE QUOTE.
5 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. COULD il9 i 6 WE HAVE THE PAGE REFERENCES TO FREEZE AND CHERRY 7 WHERE THOSE STATEMENTS COME FROM? .! 8 THE WITNESS: SURE. 9 I TAKE THAT BACK. I THOUGHT I HAD ) 10 WRITTEN THEM DOWN HERE. IF YOU WILL HAND ME A j j 11 BOOK, I WILL BE GLAD TO LOOK THEM UP. i 12 MR. SILBERG: PERHAPS WE C,A N DO 3 13 THAT WHILE SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON. l j 14 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL, IF THAT l 15 DOESN'T BREAK ANY OF THE CONTINUITY. THERE ARE 16 SEVERAL COPIES. I THINK THEY HAVE THEIR OWN. f 17 THEY HAVE THEIR OWN. l l 18 THE WITNESS: IT WILL ONLY TAKE 19 ME JUST A SECOND. I KNOW ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE. i 20 JUDGE H0YT: IF YOU CAN FIND IT, 1 21 MR. -- l 22 THE WITNESS: LET ME SEE. WHAT () 23 WAS THE FIRST ONE? WATER TABLE? l 24 MR. VAN KLEY: 47. I 25 THE WITNESS: OKAY. ON PAGE 39 j 1
l 723 l l f l (,D/ 1 IS THE DEFINITION OF WATER TABLE IN PARAGRAPH 2. 2 WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO QUOTE IT OUT OF THE BOOK? 3 MR. SILBERG: NO. ; 4 THE WITNESS: AND AQUITARD IS 3 5 DEFINED ON PAGE 47. 6 AND IS THAT ABOUT IT , OR WAS THERE 7 ANOTHER ONE? 8 JUDGE H 0 YT : DON'T WANT TO GIVE 9 YOU THE IMPRESSION I'M HURRYING YOU. TAKE YOUR 10 TIME. I THOUGHT PERHAPS THAT WAS THE LAST ONE. 11 GO AHEAD. ( ): 12 BY MR. (YNCH: - 13 Q. WHAT TYPE OF TESTING WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE 14 SHOULD BE DONE IN THE UNCONSOLIDATED SOILS AT 15 DAVIS-BESSc TO DETERMINE IF GROUNDWATER DOES 16 INDEED FLOW THROUGH THESE SOILS? 17 A. I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED AT LEAST ONE OR 1 18 POSSIBLY THREE OR MORE PIEZOMETER WELLS INSTALLED 19 IN THE UNCONSOLIDATED FORMATION TO, NUMBER ONE, 20 DETERMINE IF THERE IS A WATER SATURATION POINT IN I l 21 THE SOILS, AND, NUMBER TWO, TO SEE IF THERE IS f 22 SATURATION, WH AT THAT WATER LEVEL WOULD BE. THESE {} 23 WELLS WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE DEEPER CONSOLIDATED AQUIFER, 50 THERE WOULD BE NO 24 25 It ~ERFERENCE. l l
l l 724 1 Q. YOU'VE ALSO HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF MR. 2 HENDRON THIS MORNING CONCERNING HIS OPINION THAT 3 THE DEWATERING OF THE AQUIFER DID NOT AFFECT THE 4 LEVELS OF WATER IN THIS UPPER CONSOLIDATED TILL 5 BECAUSE THE LEVELS OF WATER IN THE BORROW PITS DID 6 NOT -- WERE is' O T LOWER DURING THIS TIME. IN YOUR 7 OPINION, IS THAT A SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND ANALYSIS 8 0F THIS SITUATION? 9 A. WELL, IT MAY NOT BE A SCI -- I DON'T I 10 BELIEVE IT WAS A SCIENTIFIC -- SCIENTIFICALLY 11 SOUND ANALYSIS OF THAT DESCRIPTION. l a 12 NUMBER ONE, THE UPPER AQUIFER HAS A LOW 13 PERMEABILITY. NO ONE WILL DENY THAT. AND THE 14 DI FFER EN CE OF PERMEABILITY FROM THE DEEPER AQUIFER ( ! 15 TO -- AND THE UPPER AQUIFER ARE A GREAT ORDER OF l 16 MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT l 17 IT STILL HAS SOME PERMEABILITY AND IT WILL STILL 18 LEAK AND IT WILL LEAK DOWNWARD. l l 19 IN A HIGHLY PERMEABLE AQUIFER SUCH AS THE 20 LIMESTONE AQUIFER, THE DOLOMITE A QU I F ER THAT IS l 21 BELOW THE SITE, THE PERMEABILITY IS SO HIGH THAT ( 22 THE NATURE OF THE A QU I F ER ITSELF WHEN PUMPED IS l ( 23 THAT THE AQUIFER WILL HAVE A SHALLOW DRAWDOWN AT 24 THE b! E L L , BUT HAVE A RADIUS OF INFLUENCE THAT IS l 25 \Fr Y GREAT IN THE AREA. I THINK MR. HENDRON l
725 f0 ss' 1 REPORTED ABOUT A MILE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE. 2 THE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE IS AFFECTED ALL 3 THROUGHOUT THAT RADIUS ONLY SEVERAL INCHES, SO 4 THAT AT THE 3,000 FOOT LEVEL, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS l l 5 TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, 3,000 FOOT AWAY FROM THE 6 ACTUAL WELLS OR OUT OF THE CIRCLE OF WELLS THAT 7 WAS USED TO DEWATER THE SITE, THE EFFECT -- AND 8 I'M POSTULATING HERE -- MAY ONLY BE A FEW INCHES. 9 COUPLE THAT WITH THE LOW PERMEABILITY 10 SOILS THAT THE POND WAS SITTING IN, AND REALIZING 11 THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE LAG TIME l k 12 BETWEEN THE RESPONSE OF THE WATER TABLE TO MOVE 13 DOWNWARD, A NOTATION OF SEVERAL INCHES, I DON'T 14 THINK, IS OBSERVABLE ON A DAILY BASIS. 15 Q. SO IN YOUR OPINION, THIS WOULD NOT BE 16 EVIDENCE THAT THE UPPER AQUIFER AND LOWER AQUIFER I 17 ARE NOT CONNECTED? 18 A. NOT WITH A CASUAL OBSERVATION. IF THERE 19 W AS A DEPTH STICK WHICH READINGS WERE TAKEN 20 PERIODICALLY, IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT CASE. 21 Q. YOU ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THIS MORNING 22 CONCERNING THE FACT THAT WATER FROM WELLS IN THE ( 23 AREA IS NOT POTABLE WATER. DO YOU HAVE ANY 24 C O M P. E N T S CONCERNING THAT? 25 t. I THINK THE ACTUAL QUOTE W AS THE WATER
726 Od' 1 WAS LCW-QUALITY. 2 I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF 3 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AT OHIO EPA TO REFRESH MY 4 MEMORY FROM THE TIME I WORKED THERE. 5 OVER 50 PERCENT OF THE NORTH -- OR OVER 6 50 PERCENT OF PUBLIC SUPPLIES THAT RECEIVE THEIR l 7 WATER FROM A CARBONATE AQUIFER DO NOT MEET THE 8 SULFATE REQUIREMENT THAT WAS ALLUDED TO OR SULFATE 9 RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS ALLUDED TO EARLIER TODAY. 10 THE SULFATE IS A SECONDARY STANDARD AND 11 IS NONENFORCEABLE IN A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY HERE IN t 12 THE STATE OF OHIO, AND IT DOES NOT RENDER THE 13 WATER USELESS. IT JUST -- IT JUST RENDERS THE 14 WATER LESS AESTHETIC AND LESS -- WELL, LESS OF A 15 TASTE FACTOR. ACTUALLY, MORE OF A TASTE FACTOR. 16 Q. THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HYDROGEN 17 SULFIDE AND THE SULFATES IN THE WATER. 18 WOULD YOU DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE OF 19 TREATMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO? 20 A. WELL, HYDROGEN SULFIDE IS A GAS, H25, AND 21 IS COMMONL) FOUND IN GROUNDWATERS OF THE STATE 22 FROM, AGAIN, CARBONATE, AND ALSO LIMESTONE, OR l ( 23 CARBONATE AND SHALE AQUIFERS THAT ARE FOUND IN THE 24 STATE, AND THERE ARE NO STANDARDS, NO HEALTH 25 E'.NDARDS SET FOR HYDROGEN SULFIDE, ALTHOUGH THE
727 O
\s#' 1 CHEMICAL OR THE --
THE GAS DOES MAKE THE WATER 2 FAIRLY UNPLEASANT TO BE AROUND IF YOU'RE NOT USED l10 3 TO THE SMELL. IT IMPOSES NO PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM 4 FOR PEOPLE DRINKING IT. 5 Q. THAT CAN BE TREATED THOUGH; ISN'T THAT 6 RIGHT? 7 A. IT CAN BE TREATED AS WELL AS SULFATES AND f } 8 MOST CHEMICALS -- OR MOST NATURAL CONTAMINANTS CAN 9 BE TREATED USING REVERSE OSMOSIS. THOSE UNITS ARE 10 FAIRLY READILY AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET FOR 11 TREATING WATER. 12 HIGH TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS MAY BE l 13 TREATED THROUGH EVEN MORE EASILY OBTAINABLE 14 TREATMENT SYSTEMS SUCH AS ZEOLITE SOFTENING. I 15 IRON, WHICH IS VFRY COMMON IN OHIO AND IS ALSO ON 16 THE SECONDARY STANDARD -- IRON IS, IN MOST CASES, 17 EXC E S S I VE IN MOST GROUNDWATERS OF THE STATE. IRON 18 CAN BE REMOVED BY READILY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY. 19 Q. I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. 20 WHAT EXACTLY IS THE GROUNDWATER 21 INFORMATION CENTER LIBRARY? 22 A. GROUNDWATER INFORMATION CENTER LIBRARY IS , 23 A U.S. EPA SPONSORED AND FUNDED LIBRARY. IT'S A 24 PUBLIC LIBRARY. IT'S IN DUBLIN, OHIO. AND IT IS 25 r:EMED A REPOSITORY FOR ALL GROUNDWATER
728 1 INFORMATION, PUBLISHED INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON 2 THE SUBJECT. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN D A T A --- COMPUTER 3 DATA BASE SYSTEM, AND SCIENTISTS AND OTHER 4 GROUNDWATER PROFESSIONALS CAN USE THE SYSTEM TO DO 5 SEARCHES OF THE LITERATURE AND TO DO SOME BASIC 6 RESEARCH 'N THE SITES OF GROUNDWATER. 7 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLICATIONS HELD IN THIS 8 REPOSITORY? 9 A. YES, I DO. 10 Q. HOW MANY DO YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY? 11 A. I -- k 12 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. I DON 'T u-13 KNOW WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. 14 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, I 15 BELIEVE THAT MR. HENDRON TESTIFIED YESTERDAY HE'D 16 NEVER HEARD OF IT. 17 MR. S U B ERG: THAT'S NOT 1 l 18 REBUTTAL. THE QUESTION W AS ASKED, AND HE SAID "I 19 HAVE NO INFORMATION." THERE IS NO TESTIMONY THAT 20 YOU ARE REBUTTING. AS TO WHETHER THIS WITNESS HAS 21 FUBLICATIONS IN IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. 22 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, I ()
.g#.,
23 BELIEVE IT GOES TO QUALIFICATIONS. IF HE'S 24 TESTIFYING THAT HE IS A GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGIST OR 25 A EOTECHNICAL EXPERT, AND WHICH INCLUDES
723 l O e' 1 HYDROLOGY -- HE HAS EXT EN SI VEL Y TALKED ABOUT HIS 2 QUALIFICATIONS. I BELIEVE THIS DOES GO TO HIS l 3 QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE PROPER REBUTTAL. 4 MR. SILBERG: IT MAY GO TO THIS 5 WITNESS'S QUALIFICATIONS AS TO HIS PUBLICATIONS. 6 IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T GO TO ANY OTHER WITNESS'S 7 QUALIFICATIONS. 8 JUDGE H0YT: WELL, I THINK THE Ng 9 QUESTION' IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THIS WITNESS 'S 10 QUALIFICATIONS, IS IT NOT? 11 MR. LYNCH: THIS QUESTION IS. O (f4 12 JUDGE H0YT: THAT'S WHAT I 13 UNDERETOOD IT TO BE. 14 YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. 15 BY MR. LYNCH: 16 Q. ARE ANY OF Y O U.R PUBLICATIONS CONTAINED IN 17 THIS REPOSITORY? 18 A. YES, I HAVE PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY LISTED 19 THERE. l l 20 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE NO FURTHER l l 21 QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ! l 22 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. WE hnVE
._) 23 NEXT CROSS-EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE DR.
24 CAREY HIM WHO HAD WRITTEN AND WHO HAS PATIENTLY 25 L .TED ALL TODAY TO MAKE HIS STATEMENT. l
. 730
\
@A /'h 1 DOCTOR CAREY, ARE YOU READY NOW?
I 2 I'M GOING TO BREAK INTO YOUR 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION, MR. SILBERG, AND PRESENT DR. 4 CAREY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS LIMITED 5 APPEARANCE STATEMENT. 6 YOU G EN TL EM E N CAN EITHER REMAIN OR LEAVE 7 AT YOUR LEISURE. 8 DOCTOR, IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO READ THIS J ENTIRE STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD? 10 DR. CAREY: NO. I HAVE LESS 11 THAN A TEN-MINUTE STATEMENT. () 12 JUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU 13 WANT THIS RECORDED? 14 DR. CAREY: I WOULD LIKE THAT 15 TO BE PART OF THE RECORD, THE FULL REPORT. 16 dUDGE H0YT: ALL RIGHT. 17 THE WITNESS TH AT ' S ABOUT TO TESTIFY ON 18 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT UNSWORN, NOT SUBJECT 19 TO CROSS-EXAMINE, AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS 20 EVIDENCE IN THIS HEARING, HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A 21 PAPER OF MULTIPLE PAGES, I BELIEVE 14, LABELED "A i 22 REPORT ON AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF RADIOLOGICAL
) 23 CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE LAND DISPOSAL OF ~
24 MATERIAL DREDGED FROM SETTLING BASINS AT THE l 25 C: s IS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION." IT WAS
i 731 ! FN i 1 PREPARED BY THE OHIO RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL -- l 2 MATERIALS USERS GROUP. THE PAPER WILL BE BOUND IN l 3 THE RECORD AT THIS POINT. AND YOU HAVE THE 4 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND. 5 DR. CAREY: YES. 1
- 6 1
7 UNSWORN LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 8 BY WALTER E. CAREY: 9 DR. CAREY: MY NAME IS WALTER l 10 E. CAREY. I REPRESENT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 11 THE OHIO R ADI O ACT I VE MATERIAL USERS GROUP, l d 12 GENERALLY KNOWN AS ORMUG. , I 13 ORMUG IS AN ASSOCIATION OF 28
- 14 CORPORATIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND IN DI VI DU ALS JOINED i
j 15 TOGETHER TO SUPPORT AND ASSIST PUBLIC AND PRIVATE l I 16 ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF I l 17 RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS. 18 ORMUG HAD ORIGINALLY PETITIONED TO ) 19 INTERVENE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE BELIEF THAT l j 20 PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF 21 SETTLING BASIN DREDGINGS MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED 22 BY LACK OF DETAIL ON ANALYSIS OF RADIOLOGICAL i () 23 CONSEQUENCES AS PUBLISHED IN THE OCT OB ER 15TH, I 24 1985 I S S.U E OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER. i
! 25 OR MUG ' S PROFFERED METHOD OF INTERVENTION
732 1 WAS TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE 2 POSSIBLE RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED 3 ACTIONS. THE WRITTEN REPORT OF SUCH AN ANALYSIS i ( 4 IS COMPLETE AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO JUDGE HGYT. 5 THE REMAINDER OF THIS ORAL TESTIMONY IS A
SUMMARY
6 OF THAT WRITTEN REPORT. 7 THE FIRST MAJOR ISSUE EXAMINED WAS THE 8 MAXIMUM INVENTORY OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL TO BE 9 PRESENT AT THE END OF THE PROPOSED 30-YEAR ACTIVE 10 PERIOD. 11 BY UTILIZING RADIOACTIVE DECAY f 12 CALCULATIONS AND ACCEPTING THE RATE OF GENERATION - 13 STATED IN THE PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED ISSUE OF THE 14 FEDERAL REGISTER, A MAXIMUM VALUE OF ABOUT 21 15 MILLICURIES WAS CALCULATED. THIS VALUE IS ABOUT 16 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE VALUE PUBLISHED IN THE 17 PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED ISSUE OF THE FEDERAL
- 11 18 REGISTER AND ABOUT 60 PERCENT GREATER THAN THE 19 VALUE ENTERED INTO THESE HEARINGS BY THE TOLEDO 20 E DI S ON COMPANY.
21 THE REPORT ATTEMPTS TO GAIN A PERSPECTIVE 22 ON THE RELATIVE HAZARD OF THIS QUANTITY OF
,() 23 R ADI O ACTI VIT Y BY NOTING THAT THE NATURALLY 24 OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE RADIUM IN THE MATERIAL TO BE 25 E: 'AVATED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE DREDGED MATERIAL
733 , 1 HAS GREATER RADIOT0XICITY THAN THE DREDGED 2 MATERIAL. 3 THE MAXIMUM RADIATION DOSE TO A PERSON 4 STANDING ON THE LAYER OF DREDGED MATERIAL WAS 5 CALCULATED TO BE ONLY 16 PERCENT GREATER THAN THE l 6 DOSE FROM NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION. FURTMER, 7 THIS WOULD ONLY OCCUR IF A PERSON STOOD ON THE 8 MATERIAL 24 HOURS PER DAY 365 DAYS PER YEAR. 9 THIS ESTIMATE IS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN ! 10 THE VALUE ENTERED INTO THESE PROCEEDINGS BY THE 11 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY. A MAJOR REASON FOR THIS I) 12 DIFFERENCE IS THAT TOLEDO EDISON'S VALUE CONSIDERS 13 THE RADIATION ATTENUATION PROPERTIES OF THE TWO i 14 FEET OF CL\Y OVERBURDEN, WHILE THE VALUE IN THIS 15 REPORT DEALS WITH A SITUATION OF A PERSON STANDING 16 DIRECTLY ON A TWO-FOOT THICK LAYER OF DREDGED i 17 MATERIAL. I 18 THE NEXT ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE REPORT 19 ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOTAL RELEASE OF THE 20 30-YEAR INVENTORY OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO EITHER 21 THE OPEN LAKE OR AN ON-SITE POND. i i 22 IN THE FORMER CASE, THE RADIOT0XICITY J) v 23 RESULTING IN SEVERAL DOWNSHORE LOCATIONS IS l 24 COMPARED TO THE RADIOTOXICITY OF EXISTING,
- 25 Li~URALLY-0CCURRING RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN THE l
734 1 LAKE. 2 CALCULATIONS SHOW THAT THE RADI0 TOXICITY 3 0F THE DREDGED MATERIAL WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT OF 4 THE RADIUM WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE RELEASE 5 POINT AND WOULD BE ABOUT FIVE PERCENT, AND TWO 6 PERCENT, AND LESS THAN ONE PERCENT AT PORT I 7 CLINTON, SANDUSKY, AND LORAIN, RESPECTIVELY. 8 THE LATTER CASE EXAMINED THE POSSIBLE { 9 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES TO INDIGENOUS ORGANISMS.
- 10 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS RADIOECOLOGICAL STUDIES 11 SHOWED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT RADIOLOGICAL
( 12 CONSEQUENCES WOULD RESULT FROM THE RELEASE OF THE 13 ENTIRE CONTENTS OF THE DISPOSAL SITE. 14 THE FINAL SECTION OF THE REPORT IS SIMPLY 15 ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO PUT THE PROPOSED ACTION INTO 16 APPROPRIATE PERSPECTIVE. IT POINTS OUT THAT AN 17 ONGOING PROCESS OVER WHICH CULTURAL CONTROL COULD 18 BE BUT IS NOT EXERTED WILL CERTAINLY ADD OVER ONE 19 TIME A -- A THOUSAND TIMES AS MUCH RADIOACTIVITY 20 TO THE W AT ER S OF LAKE ERIE THAN MIGHT BE ADDED BY 21 THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHODOLOGY. 22 IN
SUMMARY
, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
,() 23 RESULTS OF THE SEVERAL ANALYSES INCLUDED IN THE 24 WRITTEN REPORT, ORMUG CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED 25 C'-SITE DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM SETTLING
, 735 ca m ) 1 BASINS OF THE DA VI S-B ES S E NUCLEAR POWER STATION 2 POSES NEGLIGIBLY SMALL RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES i
i 3 AND IN THAT REGARD IS A SAFE AND PROPER DISPOSAL i 4 METHOD. 1 5 IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT A ] f 6 CORRECTION SHOULD BE MADE TO THE WRITTEN REPORT IN j 7 LINE 4 ON PAGE 6, THE WORD " RATE", R-A-T-E, RATE i 8 SHOULD BE DELETED. j 9 THANK YOU. i l 10 JUDGE H0YT: THANK YOU. THANK l l 11 YOU VERY MUCH, DR. CAREY.
.l ) 12 IF THE PANEL WILL TAKE THEIR ASSIGNED 13 SEATS AGAIN, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION.
i j 15 MR. S ILB ERG: THANK YOU, JUDGE j i 1 16 H0YT. 1 i ) 17 AS AGREED TO BY ALL THE PARTIES i 18 YESTERDAY, I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH l i 19 CROSS-EXAMINING MR. MARSHALL FIRST, AND THEN
! 20 BECAUSE OF DR. J AC KS ON 'S SCHEDULE, DEAL WITH ANY 21 REBUTTAL WE MIGHT HAVE FOR DR. JACKSON BEFORE I
! 22 PROCEED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION 0:' THE REMAINDER OF 1 23 THE PANEL.
'~
24 JUDGE H0YT: YES. I BELIEVE IT l
; 25 t.: AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES IN INFORMAL l
736 4 O l m 1 OFF-THE-RECORD CONFERENCE YESTERDAY THAT WAS AN 2 ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE, AND I DON'T THINK THERE ARE . 3 ANY OBJECTIONS. 4 PROCEED. 5 MR. SILBERG: THANK YOU. 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION j 7 BY MR. SILBERG: 8 Q. MR. MARSHALL, I NOTE THAT YOUR DEGREES i I 9 ARE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND B O TON Y; IS THAT ! 10 CORRECT? l 1 l 11 A. TH AT ' S CORRECT. ) ) 12 Q. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DEGREES IN ) 13 ORNITHOLOGY -- i
! 14 A. TH AT ' S CORRECT.
l 15 Q. -- OR MAMMALOGY? 16 I NOTICE IN ONE OF THE PUBLICATIONS i l
, 17 LISTED IN YOUR RESUME --
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE -l 18 DI DN 'T RECEIVE THIS UNTIL TODAY, SO I H A VEN 'T HAD i
; 19 THE OPPORTUNITY TO DIG UP ANY OF THESE --
THAT YOU 20 APPEAR AS A CO-AUTHOR WITH A C.E. HERDENDORF. 1 21 A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 22 Q. IS THAT THE SAME DR. HERDENDORF WHO'S l 23 BEEN TESTIFYING HERE?
}
j 24 A. YES, IT IS. 1 l 1 25 :. DID HE HIRE YOU FOR THAT STUDY?
737 n 1 A. YES, NE DID. 2 Q. I SEE. 3 WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN THAT STUDY? WAS IT 4 DEALING WITH BIRDS? 5 A. NO, IT WAS NOT. 6 Q. WHAT DID IT DEAL WITH? 7 A. IN -- IS THIS IN REFERENCE TO THE FISH 1 8 AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE GREAT LAKES COASTAL 9 W ETL AN DS? 10 Q. YES, T H AT ' S CORRECT. I 11 A. MY ROLE IN THAT STUDY WAS TO WRITE THE h) 12 SECTION ON VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS 13 COASTAL WETLANDS. AND I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE 14 WRITING AND ACCUMULATION OF INFORMATION REL AT I VE 15 TO SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION. 16 Q. IN LOOKING AT THE COURSES YOU'VE LISTED 17 ON YOUR RESUME, I ALSO NOTICE THERE ARE NO COURSES 18 LISTED IN ORNITHOLOGY. 19 A. THAT'S CORRECT. 20 Q. AND I ALSO NOTICE THAT NONE OF YOUR OTHER 21 PRESENTATIONS OR PUBLICATIONS DEAL WITH j
)
22 ORNITHOLOGY. ) 23 A. TH AT 'S CORRECT. 7(} Q. - ! 24 Q. YOU START OFF YOUR TESTIMONY BY SAYING 25 T - 1, T YOU SUPPORT THE STATE'S BELIEVE THAT THE
738
) 1 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHOD COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT 2 CERTAIN SPECIES OF BIRDS AND OTHER RESIDENT 3 MIGRATORY FISH AND WILDLIFE.
4 YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT IT WOULD AFFECT, I 5 TAKE IT. YOU'RE SAYING IT COULD AFFECT.
,12 6 A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
7 Q. WHEN YOU WROTE THAT, WHAT WAS YOUR 8 UNDER ST AN DI NG OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHOD? 9 A. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISPOSAL METHOD 10 AT THAT TIME DEALT ONLY WITH THAT WHICH WAS 11 PROVIDED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, I
@) 12 BELIEVE, OF OCTOBER 9 --
c 13 Q. IN OTHER WORDS -- 14 A. -- AND SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS. 15 Q. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE NOT REFERRING TO 16 A BURIAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS SEALED WITH A CLAY 17 LINER AND PROTECTED BY WAY OF DIKES, RIP-RAP AND 18 THE LIKE? 19 A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. t 20 Q. YOU H AVEN 'T DONE ANY CALCULATIONS OF OR l l 21 ANALYSES OF THE COMPOSITION Of THE WASTE MATERIAL, l l 22 HAVE YOU? 23 A. NO, I HAVE NOT.
)
'~
24 MR. LYNCH: OBJECTION, YOUR l 25 FI'OR. THAT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.
. - _ _ = _ _ . . - _ __ ________ _
l
739 1 MR. SILBERG: THE WITNESS i l 2 ANSWERED AND ALSO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE MIGRATION OF 3 3 CONTAMINATION -- { 4 JUDGE H0YT: MAY I HAVE THE 5 QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE? i i 6 MR. SILBERG: I ASKED -- WHY ! 7 DOESN 'T THE REPORTER READ IT BACK. 8 JUDGE H0YT: WOULD THE REPORTER 9 READ IT BACK? ] 10 (LAST QUESTION WAS READ.) i 11 JUDGE H0YT: I THIVK THAT 1 i () 12 QUESTION'S REASONABLE. 'CERTAINLY HE'S ENTITLED TO j 13 INQUIRE AS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE WITNESS. i l 14 I THINK THAT QUESTION WILL REMAIN. YOUR j - j 15 OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. i l 16 BY MR. S I LB ER G : j 17 Q. AND YOU HAVEN'T PERFORMED ANY ANALYSES OF i l 18 THE LEACHABILITY OF THIS MATERIAL, HAVE YOU? ) ! 19 A. NO, I HAVE NOT. 1 20 Q. SO YOUR STATEMENT THAT RADIOACTIVE l 4 21 CONTAMINATION OR CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION COULD 22 MIGRATE FROM THE DISPOSAL AREA INTO THE MARSH WAS (} i -. 23 NOT BASED ON ANY ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGN WHICH
- 24 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY?
i 25 4 NO, TH AT ' S CORRECT.
740 1 Q. THEN YOU GO ON TO ASK WHETHER -- OR TO 2 SAY THAT THE TERATOLOGICAL GENERAL HEALTH AND 3 REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS CONSUMING 4 CONTAMINATED FORAGE WILL DEPEND ON THE EXACT 5 COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE MATERIAL AND R EL ATI VE 6 DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION THROUGH B I O- AC C UMUL AT I ON . 7 HAVE YOU MADE ANY DETERMINATIONS AS TO 8 WHAT THE EXACT COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE MATERIAL j 9 IS? 10 A. NO, I HAVE NOT. 11 Q. OR THE RELATIVE DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION
')', 12 THROUGH BIO-ACCUMULATION THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITH 13 THAT WASTE MATERIAL?
14 A. NO. 15 Q. SO THERE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE ANY 16 EFFECT? 17 A. THAT'S CORRECT. 18 Q. AND YOU DON 'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WILL BE 19 OR NOT. , 20 A. EXACTLY. 21 Q. YOU SAY THAT STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES 22 SUCH AS THE SHARP-SHINNED HAWK, THE KING RAIL, THE {} 23 UPLAND SANDPIPER, AND THE COMMON TERN CAN OCCUR IN 24 THE VICINITY OF THE NAVARRE MARSH. 25 !. YES. l
l 741 l M s 1 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY DO OCCUR?
)
2 A. THEY DO OCCUR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF i 3 NAVARRE MARSH. 4 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY OCCUR IN THE 5 NAVARRE MARSH? 6 A. NO, I DO NOT. 7 Q. I OKAY WHEN YOU SAY THE VICINITY OF THE 8 NAVARRE MARSH, HOW BIG A VICINITY ARE WE TALKING 9 ABOUT? 10 A. THOSE SPECIES HAVE BEEN OBSERVED ON THE 11 CRANE CREEK WILDLIFE EXPERIMENT STATION IN MAGEE () 12 MARSH, WHICH LIES A MATTER ,0 F A COUPLE OF MILES 13 FROM THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. 14 Q. THE UPLAND S AN DP I P ER IS A GRASSLAND BIRD, 15 I SN 'T IT? 16 A. YES. 17 Q. AND THE SHARP-SHINNED HAWK IS PRIMARILY A 1 l
! 18 WOODLAND BIRD? \
j 19 A. YES. ) 20 Q. DOES THE COMMON TERN NEST IN MARSHLAND? I 21 NO. A. 22 Q. YOU MENTION THE HABITAT PREFERENCE FOR 23 THE KIRTLAND WARBLER. I SN 'T ITS PREFERENCE FOR 24 HABITAT PINE TREES? 25 !. YES. THAT WOULD BE THE BREEDING AND
l 742 1 SUMMER RANGE. l 2 Q. HOW LONG WOULD YOU EXPECT A KIRTLAND l l 3 WARBLER TO STAY IN THE AREA OF THE NAVARRE MARSH? 4 A. A MATTER OF A FEW DAYS. 5 Q. IS THE NAVARRE MARSH A PARTICULARLY 6 IMPORTANT SOURCE -- PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO THE 7 PEREGRINE FALCON? 8 A. IT LIES ALONG ITS MIGRATION ROUTE AND 9 COULD BE IMPORTANT TO ANY GIVEN IN DI VI DU AL 10 MIGRATING THROUGH THE AREA, YES. 11 Q. ARE THERE OTHER MARSHES IN THE AREA THAT ( ), 12 PROVIDE EQUAL FOOD FOR THE PEREGRINE FALCON? i 13 A. YES, INDEED, THERE ARE. 14 Q. DOES IT HAVE A PARTICULAR PREFERENCE FOR
]
I 15 DUCKS AND GREBES, OTHER WILDLIFE THAT MIGHT LIVE I 16 IN THE WILD -- IN THE NAVARRE MARSH AS OPPOSED TO 17 PIGEONS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN TOLEDO? 18 A. I THINK IT WOULD FEED ON ALL OF THOSE. 19 Q. DOES THE FALCON TEND TO REST IN A MARSH 7 20 A. IT WOULD -- THAT WOULD DEPEND UPON ITS -- 21 THE POINT OF ITS MIGRATION. IF IT'S IN A 22 MARSHLAND AREA, IT CERTAINLY MAY REST AT THAT
.( 23 POINT. IT MAY REST IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL.
~~
24 Q. BUT THE MARSH ISN'T A PREFERRED RESTING 25 P .' . N T ; IS THAT CORRECT? l i
l 743 A.
% ) 1 A. NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
2 Q. OKAY. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BALD EAGLE 3 PROGRAM, AND YOU SAID THAT THE NAVARRE MARSH 4 CONTAINS POTENTIAL NESTING SITES. 5 A. YES. I 6 Q. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING ARTIFICIAL l l 7 NESTING STRUCTURES? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY 8 POTENTIAL NESTING SITES? 9 A. BOTH THOSE AND NATURAL NESTING SITES. , 10 Q. I SEE. AND DO THE OTHER MARSHES IN THE 11 AREA ALSO CONTAIN POTENTIAL NESTING SITES? () 12 A. YES, THEY DO. 13 Q. AND HAVE ANY OF THESE POTENTIAL NESTING , 14 SITES BEEN ADOPTED BY YOUR PROGRAM TO SET UP 15 EAGLET OR EAGLE NESTS? 16 A. I KNOW OF ONE WHICH HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED. 17 TH AT ' S STILL IN AN EXPERIMENTAL STAGE. 18 Q. IN THE NAVARRE MARSH? 19 A. NO, NOT IN THE NAVARRE MARSH. 20 Q. I SEE. 50 THERE ARE NONE IN THE NAVARRE 21 MARSH. 22 A. NO. THAT'S CORRECT.
) 23 Q. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE NAVARRE MARSH IS 24 ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE MARSHES THAT ARE l 25 C' .TAINED IN ERIE AND OTTAWA COUNTIES?
1
744 1 A. I'D BE HARD PRESSED TO GI VE YOU A FIGURE. 2 IT IS IN THAT RANGE PERHAPS. 3 Q. BUT THERE ARE, I TAKE IT, A NUMBER OF 4 OTHER MARSHES IN THE VICINITY, INCLUDING OTTAWA, 1 5 DARBY, CRANE CREEK, MAGEE, TOUSSAINT, METZGER -- 13 6 THOSE ARE ALL OTHER MARSHES IN THE AREA? l 7 A. YES, THEY ARE. I 8 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE NAVARRE MARSH IS 9 PROTECTED BY THE DIKES THAT EXIST ALONG THE 10 LAKEFRONT? l 11 A. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE
'd ) 12 DIKES ALONG THE LAKEFRONT PROTECTING THE MARSH AS 13 WELL AS BURIAL BEACH IN TNAT AREA.
14 Q. AND IF THOSE DIKES WEREN'T THERE, WHAT IS 15 YOUR JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THE MARSH WOULD STILL 16 BE THERE TODAY? 17 A. UNDER THESE CURRENT LAKE LEVELS, I THINK . 18 THE EXTENT OF THE MARSH MAY BE SOMEWHAT REDUCED. 19 AT LEAST THAT AREA VEGETATED AND HERBACEOUS 20 WETLAND VEGETATION. j 21 Q. OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW WHO PUT THE DIKES 22 THERE?
,l ) 23 A. NO, I DON'T.
m j 24 Q. WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT TOLEDO EDISON l 25 E' LT THE DIKES? l
745 1 A. NOT AT ALL. ! 1 2 Q. YOU TALKED ABOUT CRITICAL HABITAT AS AN f l 3 AREA -- AN AREA TH AT 'S CRITICAL TO THE STATE'S -- l 4 WELL, LET ME NOT TRY TO REPEAT YOUR DEFINITION. 5 COULD YOU REPEAT IT FOR ME? I 'M NOT SURE 6 I G OT IT ALL DOWN. 7 A. I THINK I 'M -- I POINTED OUT THAT MY USE 8 0F THE TERM " CRITICAL HABITAT" HERE COULD EQUALLY 9 HAVE BEEN STATED "VERY IMPORTANT HABITAT." 10 CRITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT HABITATS OF THIS TYPE 11 ARE NOT WIDESPREAD IN THE STATE OF OHIO AND ARE h) 12 VERY IMPORTANT TO T H ErS P E C I E S MENTIONED. l 13 Q. BY "NOT WIDESPREAD", YOU'RE REFERRING TO 14 ALL THE MARSHES THAT ARE FOUND ALONG THIS STRETCH 15 0F LAKE ERIE? 16 A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THOSE ARE SIMILAR 17 HABITATS. 18 Q. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY STATE DESIGNATE -- 19 H AS THE STATE OF OHIO ESTABLISHED ANY PROCEDURES 20 FOR DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS CRITICAL HABITAT? 21 A. NO, WE HAVE N0T DEFINED THAT TERM i 22 LEGALLY. {}' 23 Q. ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU STATE 24 THAT THE LICENSEE FAILED TO.SPECIFICALLY f 25 I t' V E S T I G AT E THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM TO FISH AND
740 1 WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND THEIR HABITATS IN THE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. 3 "THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT," YOU'RE 4 REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 5 THE FEDERAL REGISTER? 6 A. I BELIEVE S0. 7 Q. WAS THAT DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE 8 LICENSEE, BY TOLEDO EDISON? 9 A. THE -- I'M NOT AWARE OF WHETHER TOLEDO 10 E DI S ON PREPARED THE EN VI R ONMENT AL ASSESSMENT. I 11 KNOW THE N.R.C. PREPARED THE FINDING OF NO f 12 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. , 13 Q. SO YOU DON 'T -- IF YOUR BASIS IS THE 14 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, YOU C AN 'T REALLY SAY THAT 15 THE LICENSEE FAILED TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING, CAN 16 YOU? 17 A. THAT MAY BE TRUE. 18 Q. OKAY. YOU REFERRED TO TABLE 17-1 IN 19 LICENSEE'S TESTIMONY AND WERE ASKED A SERIES OF 20 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE MATERIALS LISTED IN 21 THAT TABLE COULD BE HARMFUL AT THE OUTCROPS IN 22 LAKE ERIE; IS THAT CORRECT? gg 23 A. I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS IF THERE WERE 24 ANY MATERIALS LISTED IN THIS TABLE WHICH COULD BE 25 H r.MFUL TO BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, IF I'M NOT
747
~ ,Q -
1 MISTAKEN. f . 2 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW"WHERE THE SLUDGE COMES 3 FROM? , 4 A. YES, I DO. - 5 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME7 j 6 A. THE SLUDGE ASIDE FROM HE RESINS. I 7 ASSUME YOU'RE SPEAKING -- j 8 Q. YES. i 9 A. -- JUST OF THE SL U DG E . i 10 Q. YES. i l 11 A. IS FROM THE WATER PURIFICATION PLANT i
; 12 ON-SITE. -
13 Q. AND WATER THAT IS TREATED IN THE WATER 14 PURIFICATION PLANT COMES FROM WHERE? \ ) 15 A. LAKE ERIE.- l 16 Q. I SEE. 50 ALL 7HE POLLUTANTS THAT YOU i 17 LISTED AS BEING HARMFUL TO BENTHIC 18 MACROINVERTEBRATES ARE ALREADY IN LAKE ERIE; IS 19 THAT CORRECT? i 20 A. T H AT ' S CORRECT. , l 21 Q. SO WHEN YOU SAY THESE POLLUTANTS CAN BE 22 HARMFUL AT THE OUTCROP, THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE 23 LAKE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 24 A. THEY ARE IN THE LAKE IN LESSER 25 CPt CENTRATIONS THAT WOULD BE -- THAN WOULD BE
743 1 FOUND IN THE SLUDGE. 2 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? 3 A. BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE WATER 4 TREATMENT PROCESS, TO REMOVE THOSE FROM LARGE 5 VOLUMES OF WATER INTO SMALLER VOLUMES OF SLUDGE. 6 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CONCENTRATIONS 7 WOULD BE IF THOSE POLLUTANTS SOMEHOW FOUND THEIR 8 WAY TO THE OUTCROP? 9 A. I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT AT 10 THIS TIME. 11 Q. 50 YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WHAT WOULD COME OUT () 12 OF THE OUTCROP IN GROUNDWATER WOULD BE ANY MORE OR 13 LESS HAZARDOUS THAN LAKE WATER ITSELF, CAN YOU? 14 A. NO, I COULD NOT. 15 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CONCENTRATIONS OF , 16 THESE POLLUTANTS WOULD BE IN ANY LEACHATE THAT 17 MIGHT DEVELOP IN THE BURIAL CELLS? 18 A. NO, I D ON 'T . 19 Q. THAT COULD ALSO BE LOWER THAN THE LEVELS i 20 IN LAKE ERIE, COUL DN 'T IT? 21 A. T H AT ' S POSSIBLE. 22 Q. THE OUTCROPS THEMSELVES ARE BASICALLY 23 LIMESTONE AND SHALE; IS THAT RIGHT? f
~
24 A. IT 'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE 25 F EDOMINANTLY LIMESTONE. I
749 0,' 1 Q. WITH SOME SHALE? 2 'A. PERHAPS. I 'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. 3 Q. OKAY. THE KIND OF FLOODING -- AND I CALL 4 YOUR ATTENTION TO MR. GUY'S TESTIMONY WHERE HE ' 5 POSTULATES VERY HIGH WATER AND POTENTIALLY 6 FL OODI NG OF -- I BELIEVE IT'S 23,000 ACRES. YEAH. 7 -- 23,000 ACRES OF OTTAWA COUNTY IF THE DIKES i ! 8 FAIL. 9 DO YOU SEE THAT IN HIS TESTIMONY? 10 A. I HAVEN'T LOCATED IT YET. I DO RECALL 11 IT. () 12 Q. IT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5. 13 A. YES. 14 Q. WHAT WOULD THE EFFECT OF THAT KIND OF A l l 15 FLOOD BE ON THE NAVARRE MARSH? 16 A. THE NAVARRE MARSH WOULD BE INUNDATED AT 17 THAT POINT, I WOULD ASSUME, 18 Q. AND WHAT WOULD THE EFFECT BE ON OTHER i 19 MARSHES IN THE AREA? 20 A. THEY WOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY FLOODED AS 21 WELL. 22 Q. OKAY. AND WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT AS A 23 RESULT OF FLOODING 23,000 ACRES OF OTTAW'A COUNTY 7(]) 24 THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT IS 25 CLRRENTLY ON THE SURFACE OF THOSE 23,000 ACRES
750 1 THAT MIGHT BE WASHED AWAY AND ULTIMATELY FIND ITS 2 WAY BACK INTO THE LAKE? 3 A. I'M NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND YOUR 4 QUESTION. 5 Q. IF YOU HAD A FLOOD OF A MAGNITUDE THAT 14 6 MR. GUY IS POSTULATING, WOULDN'T THAT TEND TO 7 REMOVE A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT MIGHT BE PERHAPS 8 LYING LOOSE OR STORED IN PLACES AROUND OTTAWA 9 COUNTY? 10 A. YES, IT WOULD. 11 Q. AND THE EFFECT OF THAT MATERIAL GETTING j) 12 INTO THE LAKE COULD BE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT; 13 WOUL DN 'T YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 14 A. IN WHAT RESPECT? 15 Q. WELL, TO THE -- TO THE ANIMALS THAT LIVE 16 IN THE LAKE AND THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AND 17 OTHER CREATURES. 18 A. IT WOULD CERTAINLY CHANGE CONDITIONS. 19 Q. AND TH AT MIGHT INCLUDE A LOT OF 20 FERTILIZER THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED TO THE SOIL? 21 A. AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR, TH AT ' S A 22 DISTINCT POSSIBILITY. 23 MR. GUY: COULD I ADDRESS A POINT 24 ON THAT, IF I MAY? 25 MR. SILBERG: WELL, I'D REALLY TO
l 751 ! l
*! E .J s l- DEAL WITH MR. MARSHALL BECAUSE I WANT TO GET DR.
2 dACKSON ON AND OFF. 3 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, I 4 BELIEVE WE PERMITTED TOLEDO EDISON TO DO THE SAME 5 PROCEDURE YESTERDAY. IF MR. GUY HAS -- 6 dUDGE HOYT: YCAH, I WOULD LIKE 7 FOR HIM TO MAKE HIS COMMENT, MR. SILBERG. I THINK 8 IT'S -- 9 MR. SILBERG: WELL, I JUST DIDN'T 10 WANT TO -- 11 JUDGE HOYT: WE DID AFFORD YOU () 12 THAT OPPORTUNITY. 13 MR. SILBERG: I JUST DIDN'T WANT 14 TO GET INTO AN EXTENDED DISCUSSION ON ANOTHER 15 WITNESS BECAUSE WE'LL GET BACK TO HIM. 16 dUDGE HOYT: IT'S MY 17 UNDERSTANDING THE WITNESS HAD A BRIEF COMMENT. 18 MR. SILBERG: TH AT ' S FINE. 19 MR. GUY: I THINK MR. 20 HERDENDORF TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT PROBABLY MOST OF 21 THESE AREAS WOULD BE SLACK WATER AREAS OF 22 DEPOSITION. 23 I WOULD NOT EXPECT A GREAT DEAL OF
)
24 EROEION OF THE SURFACE SOILS. I THINK WE'RE GOING 25 TC BE DEALING PRIMARILY WITH STANDING WATER. l
752
) 1 BY MR. SILBERG:
2 Q. WOULD THAT INCLUDE DISSOLVING MATERIALS 3 TH AT MIGHT BE ON THE SURFACE? 4 A. (MR. MARSHALL) IS THAT DIRECTED TO MR. 5 GUY? 6 Q. WELL, EITHER ONE OF YOU. 7 A. (MR. GUY) NO, IT WOULD NOT. 8 Q. OKAY. THEN WHY ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT 9 THE BURIAL SITE? 10 A. (MR. MARSHALL) BECAUSE AT THE TIME OUR 11 TESTIMONY WAS WRITTEN, THERE WERE A GREAT MANY if 12 UNKNOWNS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THIS DISPOSAL SITE, 13 THE NATURE OF THE MATERIAL GOING IN IT, AND WE 14 FELT FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS WAS NECESSARY TO 15 FULLY EVALUATE THE WISDOM OF SITING THIS FACILITY l 16 AT THIS LOCATION. 17 Q. THANK YOU. 18 JUDGE HOYT: DO YOU HAVE ANY -- 19 MR. SILBERG: I'M JUST CHECKING 20 TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 21 BY MR. SILBERG: 1 22 Q. DO YOU KNOW HOW TERRESTRIAL PLANTS l
) 23 BIO-ACCUMULATE RADIONUCLIDES SUCH AS CESIUM-137?
24 A. (MR. MARSHALL) I DON'T THINK 25 E'0-ACCUMULATION AS USED IN MY TESTIMONY WOULD
753 . O,F'. 1 APPLY TO TERRESTRIAL PLANTS. IT WOULD BE A 2 PRIMARY FEATURE OF UPTAKE, AND BIO-ACCUMULATION 3 WOULD OCCUR THROUGH THE SUBSEQUENT CONSUMPTION OF 4 THOSE PLANTS AND SUBSEQUENT CONSUMPTION OF ANIMALS 5 CONSUMING THOSE PLANTS. 6 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE UPTAKE FRACTION OF , t 7 RADIONUCLIDES SUCH AS CESIUM-137 IS FOR '
=
8 TERRESTRIAL PLANTS? 9 A. NO, I D ON ' T . 10 Q. SO YOU HAVE DONE NO DOSE ESTIMATES IN ANY 11 WAY FOR EITHER HUMANS OR OTHER ANIMALS OR PLANTS; I() 12 IS THAT CORRECT? 13 A. NO. T H AT ' S WELL OUTSIDE OF MY AREA OF 14 EXPERTISE. 15 MR. SILBERG: I HAVE NO FURTHER - 16 QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS. 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION - 18 BY MR. LYNCH: 19 Q. MR. MARSHALL, YOU STATED YOU HAD NO 20 DEGREE IN ORNITHOLOGY. DO YOU THINK YOU NEED A 21 DEGREE IN ORNITHOLOGY? 22 A. NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MY PRESENTATION
,() 23 HERE TODAY OR IN FUNCTIONING IN MY POSITION WITH 24 THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, AS I HAVE ACCESS TO THE 25 FL;L STAFF OF THE DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE INCLUDING
l 754 ! k 1 ORNITHOLOGISTS. 2 Q. SO WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION 3 CONCERNING THIS? 4 A. MY INFORMATION CAME THROUGH THE STAFF OF 5 THE DI VI S I ON OF WILDLIFE. 6 Q. SPECIFICALLY. 7 A. CRANE CREEK WILDLIFE EXPERIMENTATION 8 STATION AND OUR NON-GAME ENDANGERED SPECIES 9 PROGRAM. 10 Q. YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT A PAPER THAT YOU 11 WROTE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROFESSOR HERDENDORF. () 12 HOW MUCH WORK DID YGU REALLY DO ON THAT 13 PAPER? 14 A. QUITE A BIT. 15 Q. HOW MUCH IS QUITE A BIT? 16 A. I'D BE HARD PRESSED TO SAY IN 17 PERCENTAGES. I WORKED AT IT FOR A COUPLE OF 18 YEARS. 19 Q. WOULD YOU SAY ALMOST ALL OF IT? l 20 A. NO. NO. MANY PEOPLE CONTRIBUTED. 21 Q. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LOSS OF NAVARRE 1 22 MARSH. I SN 'T IT TRUE THAT MOST MARSHES ARE LOST 23 IN INCREMENTAL PERCENTAGE, A SMALL PERCENTAGE AT A 24 TIME? 25 4 YES, THAT'S TRUE.
755 l 1 Q. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT FULLER, WHY THAT 2 MARSH IS SO IMPORTANT AND THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF 3 IT? 4 A. THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL THE COASTAL MARSHES 5 PRESENT IN OHIO TODAY BECOMES INCREASINGLY 6 SIGNIFICANT AS INCREMENTAL LOSSES OF THOSE MARSHES 7 OCCUR, AND WE'VE SEEN TREMENDOUS RE DU CT I ON IN 8 MARSH ACREAGE OVER THE YEARS THROUGH BOTH NATURAL 9 AND MAN-MADE OCCURRENCES, AND AS WE LOSE MORE AND 10 MORE MARSH ACREAGE, THAT WHICH REMAINS BECOMES 11 MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAY PREVIOUSLY -- IT MAY () 12 PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN. , 13 Q. HAVE LOSSES OF MARSHLANDS IN OHIO -- HAVE 14 WE LOST THEM ALL AT ONE TIME, OR HAS IT BEEN PIECE 15 BY PIECE, A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME, THROUGH l 16 DIFFERENT MAN-MADE THINGS? 17 A. WE'VE SEEN A CONTINUOUS LOSS OF WETLAND 18 HABITAT SINCE THE EARLIEST TIMES OF SETTLEMENT. A 19 GREAT DEAL OF WETLAND LOSS OCCURRED WITH THE 20 DRAINING OF THE SWAMPS OF NORTHWEST OHIO AND OTHER 21 AREAS IN OHIO AS THOSE AREAS WERE PUT INTO 22 AGRICULTURE. 23 CURRENT THREATS TO WETLAND ACREAGE EXIST 24 AND PERSIST THROUGH MARINA DEVELOPMENT AND FILLING 25 A r ~ 1 VITI ES RELATED TO HOUSING AND OTHER COMMERCIAL i l
756 1 DEVELOPMENTS. 2 Q. SO EVEN THOUGH WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR 3 TESTIMONY YOU DI DN 'T REALIZE THAT THE DAVIS-BESSE 4 PLANT WAS GOING TO COME UP WITH ALL THESE PLANS 5 WHICH HAVE CHANGED QUITE A FEW TIMES, YOUR REAL
- 15 6 CONCERN WAS FOR THE LOSS OF THESE WETLANDS; IS 7 THAT NOT TRUE?
8 A. THE LOSS OF THE WETLANDS, THE QUALITY OF 9 THEIR HABITAT AND THE SPECIES -- THE IMPACT OF THE 10 SPECIES THAT DEPEND ON THAT HABITAT. 11 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE NO FURTHER 12 QUESTIONS. , 13 JUDGE H0YT: WE WANT TO ASK A 14 QUESTION AT THIS TIME OF THIS WITNESS. 15 EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE KLINE: 17 Q. DO YOU NOW BELIEVE THAT THE WETLAND IS, 18 IN FACT, GOING TO BE LOST IN THE PROPOSAL THAT'S 19 BEFORE THIS BOARD? 20 A. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WETLAND l 21 ACREAGE WILL BE DIRECTLY LOST THROUGH ANY FILLING 22 ACTIVITY OR SITING OF THE WETLANDS. IT'S CLEAR f 23 THAT THE SITING OF THIS FACILITY WILL BE OUTSIDE 24 0F THE WETLAND AREA. 25 C. IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU NOW KNOW, RELATIVE
l 757 l 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, IS THERE 2 ANY PORTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WOULD NOW 3 CHANGE 7 ' 4 A. I BELIEVE THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE R'AISED / , 5 AS A PART OF MY TESTIMONY REMAIN VALID IN THAT I l 6 DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE 7 POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT, PRIMARILY BASED ON THE 8 TESTIMONY OFFERED BY MY FELLOW PANEL MEMBERS, 9 RELATING TO THE POTENTIAL FOR RELEASE OF THESE 10 MATERIALS TO THE ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO GEOLOGY
}
11 AND HYDROLOGY. () 12 Q. NOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT -- YOU HAVE USED 13 THE WORD "COULD" VERY FREQUENTLY, AND WE 14 UNDERSTAND ALL THAT COULD HAPPEN. OUR PROBLEM IS 15 MORE DIFFICULT THAN THAT, AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT 16 YOU BELIEVE IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, AND IN 17 PARTICULAR, AS STATED IN YOUR INTRODUCTION, DO YOU 18 CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S BELIEF THAT THE 19 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHOD COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT 20 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES? 21 A. I THINK THAT POSSIBILITY CONTINUES TO 22 EXIST, ALTHOUGH WITH THE CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF 23 NEW INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THESE LAST THREE 24 DAYS, THAT POSSIBILITY IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN 25 1- WAS AT MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE WRITING OF THIS g
758 1 TESTIMONY. 2 JUDGE KLINE: ALL RIGHT. THANK 3 YOU. 4 JUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. I 5 BELIEVE YOU HAD -- YES. 6 MR. SILBERG; CAN I ASK ONE OR l l 7 TWO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ON THE QUESTION OF MARSH 8 ACREAGE REDUCTION THAT MR. VAN KLEY MENTIONED? 9 JUDGE HOYT: L E T ',5 SEE WHAT THEY 10 ARE. j 11 MR. SILBERG: I JUST WANT TO KNOW r[ ) 12 IF ANY REDUCTION IN MARSH ACREAGE AT NAVARRE HAS 13 OCCURRED SINCE IT BECAME PART OF THE U.S. FISH AND 14 WILDLIFE SYSTEM IN THE EARLY 1970'S. 15 dUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. l 16 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, I l 17 BELIEVE HE'S ALREADY RESPONDED TO THOSE QUESTIONS. 18 JUDGE HOYT: IF HE HAS, THE 19 RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF, AND WE W ON 'T ALLOW 20 IT TO HAVE DONE ANY DAMAGE BY HAVING IT REPEATED, 21 WILL WE? 22 MR. LYNCH: NO, YOUR HONOR. (}p 23 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. 24 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 25 E MR. SILBERG:
759 l e%m l HAS THERE BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION 1 Q. l 2 IN THE ACREAGE OF THE NAVARRE MARSH SINCE THE 3 EARLY 1970'S, WHEN, IT BECAME A PART OF THE U.S. 4 FISH AND WILDLIFE SYSTEM? 5 A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A 6 REDUCTION. 7 Q. ARE YOU AWARE -- 8 MR. SILBERG: ONE OTHER QUESTION. 9 . MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR -- 10 MR. SILBERG: WHETHER HE IS 11 AWARE -- JUDGE HOYT: HE'S GOING TO ASK ( 12 13 ME FIRST." HOLD ON. 14 MR. LYNCH: WE WEREN'T -- 15 dUDGE HOYT: JUST A MINUTE. LET 16 ME HEAR THE QUESTION. 17 MR. SILBERG: THE QUESTION IS 18 WHETHER HE'S AWARE OF TOLEDO E DI S ON 'S INTENT TO 19 ADD 188 ACRES TO THE NAVARRE MARSH. , I 20 JUDGE HOYT: YOU'RE GETTING TOO l l 21 FAR AFIELD NOW, MR. SILBERG. 22 MR. SILBERG: FINE. l ,f} 23 JUDGE HOYT: YOUR OBJECTION ON 24 THAT QUESTION IS SUSTAINED. 25 MR. SILBERG: AT THIS TIME, WITH
760 l
<h
) 1 THE INDULGENCE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICERS AND THE 2 PARTIES, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT DR. JACKSON )
3 BE RECALLED TO THE STAND FOR BRIEF REBUTTAL. l l 4 JUDGE HOYT: YES, I BELIEVE THAT 5 WAS THE AGREEMENT. 6 MR. SILBERG: AND MR. LEWIS WILL 7 CONDUCT THAT REBUTTAL. 8 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. 9 GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STRETCH 10 YOUR LEGS. 11 ALL RIGHT, MR. LEWIS. () 12 - - - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 1 d[)
~
24 l 25 l
\
761 : l b,.a 1 REBUTTAL l 2 l 3 WHEREUPON, 4 DR. WILLIAM B. JACKSON 5 HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, RESUMED THE 6 STAND AND TESTIFIED AS FCLLOWS: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. S I LB ER G : 9 Q. DR. JACKSON, YOU HEARD MR. MARSHALL 10 TESTIFY THAT SEVERAL BIRDS ON THE OHIO ENDANGERED 11 SPECIES LIST COULD OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE ($ ) 12 NAVARRE MARSH. , O.N E OF THOSE BIRDS MENTIONED WAS 13 THE KING RAIL. 14 WOULD THE NAVARRE MARSH BE ANY MORE A 15 MARSH THE KING RAIL WOULD PREFER OVER OTHER 16 MARSHES IN THE VICINITY? 17 A. NO, I DON 'T BELIEVE SO. I 18 THE KING RAIL IS A VERY SECRETIVE RAIL, A 19 BIRD THAT IS PARTICULARLY AKIN TO RATHER DENSE 20 CATTAIL EMERGENT VEGETATION, SO THAT A MARSH WHICH 21 IS MANAGED FOR DUCK AND GOOSE FOOD, AS LARGE 22 PORTIONS OF THE NAVARRE MARSH ARE, WOULD NOT BE ,({) 23 PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR A BIRD SUCH AS THIS. 24 THERE ARE MANY OTHER AREAS IN THE MARSH 25 E;hGE ALONG LAKE ERIE WHICH ARE QUITE SUITABLE OR
762 1 AS SUITABLE AND MORE SUITABLE FOR THE RAIL. l 2 Q. ARE THERE -- WOULD MARSH MANAGEMENT HAVE 3 ANY OTHER EFFECTS ON THE KING R AIL 'S PREFERENCE? 4 A. WELL, AS I INDICATED, THE -- AT 5 DAVIS-BESSE, THE MARSH MANAGEMENT, UNDER THE 6 DIRECTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, IS ONE TO 7 DRAW DOWN THE WATER AT CERTAIN SEASONS, 8 PARTICULARLY FOR THE WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT, TO SEED 9 IN CERTAIN WEEDS WHICH ARE WATERFOWL FOOD, AND 10 THIS DESTRUCTION OF THE EMERGENT VEGETATION 11 ENVIRONMENTS WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT ENHANCE THE
;) 12 RAIL'S ENVIRONMENT.- A MARSH WHICH IS TO A LARGE 13 EXTENT FLOATING VEGETATION, OPEN WATER OR 14 PARTIALLY OPEN WATER IS NOT A GOOD RAIL HABITAT.
15 Q. YOU HAVE HEARD MR. MARSHALL TESTIFY THAT 16 THE NAVARRE MARSH WAS CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE 17 KIRTLAND WARBLER AND THE AMERICAN PEREGRINE 18 FALCON. 19 DOES THE WORD THE TERM " HABITAT" INCLUDE 20 MIGRATORY PATHS? 21 A. NOT IN THE WAY IN WHICH I PREFER TO USE 22 IT. I d 23 HABITAT REFERS TO THE EN VI R ONMENT THAT 16(() p 24 THAT ORGANISM MAKES USE OF IN ITS PRIMARY LIFE 1 1 25 F ETORY PATTERN. AND SO THE JACK PINE COMMUNITIES
763
.m 1 OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN WOULD BE THE PRIME BREEDING 2 HABITAT OF THE KIRTLAND'S WARBLER, AND THE ROCKY 3 CRAGS OF THE NORTHERN, NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT 4 WOULD BE THE BREEDING HABITAT FOR THE PEREGRINE 5 FALCON, AND PASSAGEWAYS BETWEEN A BREEDING RANGE 6 AND WINTERING RANGE ARE JUST THAT, THEY'RE 7 PASSAGEWAYS.
8 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE NAVARRE MARSH IS 9 CRITICAL TO THESE TWO MIGRATING BIRDS? 10 A. NO. NO. THE NAVARRE MARSH REPRESENTS 11 IMPORTANT WETLANDG HABITAT, BUT AS HAS BEEN () 12 INDICATED, IT'S A R EL AT I VEL Y SMALL PERCENT OF THE 13 TOTAL WETLANDS HABITAT AVAILABLE ALONG THE LAKE 14 ERIE SHORE. 15 Q. IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION, I BELIEVE MR. MARSHALL 17 SUGGESTED THAT THE PEREGRINE FALCON MIGHT REST IN 18 THE MARSH. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? 19 A. WELL, I WOULD NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD 20 REST IN THE MARSH ON THE CATTAILS, ON THE GROUND. 21 IT MIGHT REST ON A TALL TREE, A CRAGGY TREE, OF 22 WHICH THERE ARE ONLY A FEW IN NAVARRE MARSH PER
,() 23 SE. THERE ARE MANY MORE OF THESE KINDS OF SPOTS 24 IN SOME OF THE OTHER MARSH AREAS.
25 . WHAT IS THE NESTING PREFERENCE OF THE l I
764 1 BALD EAGLE? 2 A. THE BALD EAGLE NESTS VERY TYPICALLY IN 3 VERY TALL TREES, VERY EXPOSED SINGLE TREES WHERE 4 THERE IS NOT A LOT OF OTHER VEGETATION AROUND, AND 5 IT BUILDS THESE M AS SI VE NESTS AND ACCUMULATES YEAR 6 AFTER YEAR, AND SOMETIMES THE NEST STRUCTURE GETS 7 SO BIG THAT THE TREE FALLS OVER FROM THE WEIGHT OF 8 IT. 9 IT GENERALLY NEEDS TO BE IN A RELATIVELY 10 ISOLATED AREA. 11 THERE USED TO BE A BALD EAGLE NEST UP AT h) 12 THE CRANE CREEK -AREA, AND PEOPLE WOULD COME UP 13 WITH STICKS AND KNOCK ON THE TRUNK OF IT AND SEE 14 IF THEY COULD GET THE BALD EAGLE TO FLY OFF, AND 15 OBVIOUSLY, THEY EVENTUALLY FLEW AND STAYED OFF. 16 AND SO NOW THE PROGRAM IN OHIO IS A VERY 17 CAREFUL ONE OF ISOLATING THESE NEST TREES AND 18 KEEPING THE PUBLIC AWAY FROM IT, AND THEY'VE BEEN 19 MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL IN THIS WHOLE PROGRAM OF 20 ISOLATION AND FOSTERING. 21 Q. WOULD YOU EXPECT THE BURIAL SITE 22 CONSTRUCTION OPERATION TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ANY 23 OF THE ENDANGERED OR THR'EATENED SPECIES THAT MR.
)
24 MARSHALL MENTIONED? 25 4 NO, I WOULD NOT.
765 a. 1 Q. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY NOT? 2 A. WELL, NONE OF THE SPECIES THAT WE ARE 3 TALKING ABOUT NESTS AT THE PORTION OF THE 4 DAVIS-BESSE SITE OR THE MARSH THAT IS GOING TO BE 5 PARTICULARLY INVOLVED IN THIS. MOST OF THE 6 SPECIES ARE MIGRATORY AND ARE JUST PASSING THROUGH 7 AND WOULD FLY OVER AND GO ON TO THE NEXT MARSH OR 8 AVOID IT. 9 THE TERNS ARE FEEDERS OVER OPEN WATER, 10 STREAMS, LAKE, OPEN MARSH. THE RAILS ARE BACK IN 11 THE VERY DENSE CATTAILS. KIRTLAND'S WARBLER IS
.A Q,) 12 JUST PASSING THROUGH AND IS GOING TO BE OFF INTO 13 WOODY VEGETATION. THE UPLAND --
OR THE 14 SANDPIPER -- WE USED TO CALL IT THE UPLAND 15 PLUPPER -- IS GOING TO BE UP IN WET, TALL 16 GRASSLAND AREAS. j 17 THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A f i 18 XERIC SITE. BY THE TIME YOU GET THE MOUND UP IN 19 THE AIR, IT'S GOING TO BE A DRY ENVIRONMENT ON TOP 20 OF THESE BEAUTIFUL MONUMENTS, AND IT'S -- IT'S NOT 21 G OI NG TO BE AN ENVIRONMENT SUITABLE FOR ANY OF 22 THESE SPECIES OTHER THAN OUR PROVERBIAL WOODCHUCK 23 TO GET INVOLVED IN. ({} 24 MR. SILBERG: I HAVE NO FURTHER 25 ( '. L S T I O N S .
766 l h) 1 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. DID YOU 2 HAVE SOMETHING? l l 3 MR. VAN KLEY: OH, YES, YOUR 4 HONOR. l 5 dUDGE HOYT: I HAD TO ASK. 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 8 Q. DR. JACKSON, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE 9 WITH ME THAT HABITAT LOSS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY, 10 IF NOT THE PRIMARY, CAUSES OF BIRD POPULATION 11 DECLINE IN UNITED STATES, WOULD YOU NOT? u ( 12 A. CHANGE OF HABITAT HAS IMPACTED SERIOUSLY 13 ON CERTAIN BIRD POPULATIONS. 14 Q. IT'S NOT ONLY CERTAIN POPULATIONS; IT IS 15 A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF POPULATIONS. ISN'T THAT 16 THE CASE? 17 A. IN SOME CASES, HABITAT CHANGES HAVE 18 FOSTERED INCREASES IN BIRDS; IN OTHER CASES HAVE 19 RESULTED IN DECREASES IN BIRDS. IN OTHER CASES 20 THERE'S BEEN RELATIVELY LITTLE IMPACT. IT DEPENDS 21 ON THE SPECIES AND THE SPECIFIC SITUATION THAT WE 22 ARE TALKING ABOUT. 23 Q. YEAH. IN THE CASES WHERE HABITAT CHANGE 24 HAS RESULTED IN THE INCREASE IN SPECIES, YOU'RE 25 FErERRING TO SPECIES SUCH AS HOUSE SPARROWS,
767
?.?'
D 1 PIGEONS, AND THAT TYPE OF BIRD, ARE YOU NOT? 2 A. AMONG OTHERS. 3 Q. YES. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF BIRDS THAT 4 ARE VERY TOLERANT TO THE EXISTENCE AND PRESENCE OF 5 MAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? l 6 A. IN SOME CASES. I l 7 Q. IN THE CASE OF THE -- IN THE MAJORITY OF i 8 CASES, THOUGH, WHERE HABITATS CHANGE HAS AFFECTED l 1 l 9 THE POPULATIONS OF BIRDS, THE CHANGE HAS BEEN j 10 ADVERSE TO THE BIRD POPULATIONS; ISN'T THAT THE 11 CASE? ( - 12 MR. LEWIS: JUDGE'HOYT, BEFORE 13 WE PROGRESS MUCH FURTHER, COULD I ASK IF WE COULD 14 HAVE AN EXPLANATION ON WHAT SORT OF HABITAT 15 PREFERENCE IS BEING DISCUSSED? I HAVEN'T HEARD 16 MUCH TESTIMONY ABOUT ANYTHING CHANGING THE 17 HABITAT. 18 JUDGE H0YT: I THINK THAT'S 19 FAIR. I THINK YOU SHOULD PUT THAT IN. 20 MR. VAN KLEY: YOU MEAN BE MORE 21 SPECIFIC ABOUT HABITAT? l 22 JUDGE HOYT: YEAH. ASK YOUR l
,j ) .
23 QUESTION, LAY A FOUNDATION FOR IT. 24 BY FR. VAN KLEY: l l 25 C. ALL RIGHT. MR. JACKSON, LET ME TALK !
768 f C >) 1 ABOUT MARSH HABITAT IN PARTICULAR. 17
- 2 ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT LOSS OF MARSH 3 HABITAT HAS ADVERSELY IMPACTED THE SPECIES OF --
4 HAS ADVERSELY IMPACTED THE POPULATIONS OF MANY 5 SPECIES OF BIRDS? l 6 A. THE SPECIES OF BIRDS WHICH ARE 7 CHARACTERISTIC OF MARSHLAND ENVIRONMENTS IN TERMS 8 OF THAT AS A NESTING HABITAT OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN 9 DECREASED IN NUMBERS AS THE MARSHLAND ENVIRONMENTS 10 HAVE BEEN DECREASED. 11 Q. UH-HUH. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT () 12 THE BIRDS THAT NEST IN MARSHES ARE ADVERSELY 13 IMPACTED BY THE LOSSES OF THOSE MARSHES? 14 A. SOME OF THEM. 15 Q. THE KING RAIL IS ONE OF THOSE BIRDS; 16 I SN 'T THAT THE CASE? 17 A. YES. 18 Q. THE KIRTLAND'S WARBLER. NOW, THAT'S A 19 BIRD THAT IS TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION; 20 ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 21 A. THERE ARE VERY FEW -- RELATIVELY FEW 22 NUMBERS OF THAT BIRD REMAINING.
,(() 23 Q. YEAH. IN FACT, THERE ARE ABOUT 424 OF N-J 24 THOSE BIRDS LEFT IN THE WORLD; ISN'T THAT THE 25 C;EE? -
l
769 .f.}
'- 1 A. I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE NUMBER IS 7 IN TERMS OF THE CENSUS LAST YEAR.
I 3 Q. JH-HUH. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS A FAIR l l 4 ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF THOSE BIRDS LEFT? 5 A. THE NUMBER IS IN TERMS OF HUNDREDS RATHER 6 THAN THOUSANDS. 7 Q. UH-HUH. CERTAINLY LESS THAN A THOUSAND 8 KIRTLAND WARBLERS LEFT IN THE WORLD? 9 A. YES. 10 Q. YOU'LL AGREE WITH ME ALSO, WON'T YOU, MR. 11 JACKSON, THAT HABITAT LOSS, WHEN IT HAS BEEN LOST, ( 12 USUALLY HAPPENS A SMALL PIECE AT A TIME? 13 MR. LEWIS: I WOULD OBJECT, 14 YOUR HONOR. ONCE AGAIN, THERE HAS BEEN NO BASIS 15 FOR ASSUMING ANY HABITAT WILL BE LOST. 16 THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MARSHALL WAS THAT HE 17 DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MARSH WOULD BE REDUCED OR 18 DESTROYED, AND THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THE 19 BURIAL SITE ITSELF IS HABITAT FOR ANY SPECIES. 20 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, IF I 21 COULD, MOST OF MR. J AC KS ON 'S DIRECT TESTIMONY HERE 22 WAS AIMED AT THE IMPLICAT4 JN THAT LOSS OF NAVARRE I
. 23 MARSH I SN 'T GOING TO HARM ANYTHING.
24 WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM MR. 25 cc :KSON. WE HEARD A LOT OF CROSS ON MR. MARSHALL
770 13 k_/ 1 WHICH TRIED TO IMPLY THAT THE LOSS OF THIS MARSH 2 I SN 'T REALLY GOING TO IMPACT THE TOTAL SCHEME OF j l 3 THINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING INTO. l 4 MR. LEWIS: I BELIEVE MY LINE l 5 0F QUESTIONING ON REBUTTAL WAS MORE TO THE EFFECT 6 THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT ON ANY OF THESE 7 BIRDS AND FEW OF THESE BIRDS USE THE NAVARRE MARSH 8 AS HABITAT. 9 JUDGE H0YT: OBJECTION 10 SUSTAINED. 11 8Y MR. VAN KLEY: ( 12 Q. MR. JACKSON, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 13 THE NORTHERN SHORE OF OHIO, JUST BEFORE YOU REACH l 14 LAKE ERIE, IS A VERY CRITICAL OR VERY IMPORTANT l 15 AREA FOR BIRDS THAT ARE MIGRATING ON THEIR WAY l 16 NORTH 9 17 MR. LEWIS: COULD WE HAVE THAT 18 QUESTION PHRASED AS EITHER CRITICAL OR IMPORTANT, 19 BUT NOT A COMPOUND? 20 MR. VAN KLEY: SURE. 21 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 22 Q. L ET 'S TAKE IMPORTANT. j
.( ) 23 A. WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
7', _- 24 Q. I'LL BE HAPPY TO. l l 25 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, MR. JACKSON,
771
l 24 A. IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I BELIEVE IN THEIR j 25 Ar ICLE THEY DO SAY THAT THEIR ESTIMATES ARE l I 782
- ' 1 CONSERVATIVE.
2 Q. AND THE CURRENT LAKE LEVEL IS WHAT?
3 A. CURRENT LAKE LEVEL RIGHT NOW IS RUNNING 4 ABOUT 5.1 TO 5.2 FEET ABOVE THE WATER DATA LEVEL.
5 Q. CAN YOU TRANSLATE THAT INTO THE SAME 6 UNITS THAT ARE USED IN FIGURE 7, PLEASE? IS IT 7 57 5?
8 A. NO. JUST A MOMENT.
9 BE 573.6 TO 573.7.
10 Q. FINE. THANK YOU.
11 WAS THE BURIAL SITE THAT WE'VE BEEN f) 12 TALKING ABOUT FLOODED IN JUNE OF 19867 l
13 A. I WAS NOT ON-SITE AT THE TIME. I CAN'T 14 ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
15 Q. YOU STATE ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR TESTIMONY 16 THAT THE MEAN --
MONTHLY MEAN LEVEL WAS .2 FEET 17 ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL SITE, 18 DO YOU NOT?
19 A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
20 Q. OKAY. WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THE 21 BURIAL SITE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLOODED.
22 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
,.( ) 23 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TIMES THAT lc~
24 THE BURIAL SITE HAS BEEN FLOODED?
25 4 NOVEMBER '72. I IMAGINE THE SPRING OF
783 l 1 1973.
2 Q. OKAY. YOU IMAGINE? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 3 REPORTS THAT INDICATE IT WAS FLOODED AT THAT TIME?
4 A. I CAME TO SANDUSKY IN MARCH OF 1973, AND 5 I RECALL SEVERAL OCCASIONS DRIVING TO CRANE CREEK 6 AND OB S E R VI NG WATER STANDING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 7 ROADWAY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ALONG THERE.
8 I CANNOT SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT I OBSERVED 9 THIS PARTICULAR ACREAGE, BUT THERE WAS STANDING 10 WATER ALONG THE ROADWAY UPON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
11 Q. BESIDE THOSE TWO OCCASIONS, ARE YOU AWARE (f 12 0F ANY HISTORIC FLOODING OF THE BURIAL SITE?
13 A. OTHER THAN THE NOVEMBER 1972 STORM, WHICH 14 IS WELL DOCUMENTED, I DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS.
15 BUT CERTAINLY THE ELEVATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN SOME 16 0F THE OTHER STORMS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO 17 FLOOD THE AREA.
18 Q. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT ACTUALLY 19 FLOODED?
20 A. I DO NOT HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND OBSERVATIONS, 21 NO.
22 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY SECONDHAND OBSERVATIONS g
() 23 THAT IT FLOODED?
24 A. NOT READILY AT HAND.
I e.
25 DO YOU HAVE ANY THAT ARE NOT-READILY AT
l 784 1 HAND?
I 2 A. I THINK IF I WERE TO LOOK IN SOME i
3 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, THERE MIGHT BE REFERENCE TO ;
4 FLOODING IN THIS AREA.
5 Q. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE?
6 A. AT THE MOMENT, I CANNOT STATE SO.
HAVE YOU EXAMINED THE BURIAL SITE !
7 Q.
l l 8 YOURSELF? '
9 A. YES, I HAVE.
10 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME THE NATURE OF THAT 11 EXAMINATION?
.f),
w 12 A. IT WAS A VERY CURSORY OBSERVATION UPON .
13 TWO OCCASIONS, ONE JUST FROM THE LOCUST POINT 14 ROADWAY LOOKING NORTH INTO THE PROPERTY, AND LATER ;
15 AN ON-SITE INVESTIGATION, JUST A SITE VISIT WITH 16 MR. MYERS.
17 Q. THE ON-SITE --
WHAT DID THE ON-SITE 18 INVESTIGATION ENTAIL?
19 A. BASICALLY POINTING OUT THE LOCATION OF
~20 20 THE SITE.
21 Q. YOU DIDN'T DO ANY SOILS TESTS OR TAKE ANY 22 SOIL SAMPLES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
23 A. NO.
24 Q. ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4 YOU'RE TALKING 25 A E' 0 U T THE NOVEMBER 1972 STORM. YOU TALK ABOUT THE i
-n -
785 1 WAVE ATTACK WAS SO SEVERE THE DIKES WERE BREACHED.
2 COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE DESIGN OF THE p 3 DIKES THAT WERE BREACHED?
4 A. SOME OF THE DIKES WERE CLAY CORE DIKES
~
5 UNARMORED. SOME OF THEM SUCH AS THE ONES A LITTLE 6 FARTHER WEST AT RENO BEACH WERE RIP-RAP FACED.
7 Q. WHAT KIND OF RIP-RAP? DO YOU KNOW?
[ 8 A. I DO NOT HAVE EXACT MEASUREMENTS.
9 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE PROTECTION OM 10 THOSE, THE DIKES THAT YOU SAID WERE PROTECTED, 11 WERE GABIONS?
12 A. NO. THEY WERE RIP-RAP FACED DIKES.
13 TH AT 'S THE STANDARD MATERIAL FOR THAT PURPOSE
, 14 ALONG LAKE ERIE.
c 15 Q. THE TOUSSAINT RIVER DIKES THAT YOU REFER 16 TO AT T H.E BOTTOM OF PAGE 4, YOU SAY 300 FEET OF 17 DIKE WAS DESTROYED. WHAT KIND OF DIKE WAS THAT?
18 A. THAT WAS A CLAY-CORE DIKE.
19 Q. NOT PROTECTED?
m 20 A. NO, SIR.
21 Q. ON PAGE 5 YOU TALK ABOUT SHORELINE 22 RECESSION.
,Jlh 23 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE TESTIMONY WE a.'
24 HEARD BEFORE THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY 25 5 : C- N I F I C A N T RECESSION OF THE SHORELINE AT NAVARRE
---um i
l 786 1 MARSH SINCE EARLY '70'S?
2 A. NO. RECESSION RATES ALONG THE SHORELINE 3 FROM 1980 TO 1986 HAVE BEEN AVERAGING FIVE TO SIX l
4 FEET PER YEAR OR ROUGHLY 30 TO 40 FEET.
5 Q. AT THE NAVARRE MARSH?
6 A. LAKEWARD AND TO THE TOUSSAINT RIVER, YES. i 7 Q. WOULD THAT BE THE AREA THE DIKES --
WOULD 8 THAT INCLUDE THE AREA PROTECTED BY THE ARMORED 9 DIKES?
10 A. THAT IS THE UNDIKED AREA.
j 11 Q. SO THE DIKED AREA HAS NOT RECEDED?
) 12 A. NOT. THAT --
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH 13 RECESSION THAT IT OAN BE RESOLVED IN AERIAL 14 PHOTOGRAPHS.
15 Q. THE SANDUSKY BAY STUDY THAT YOU REFERRED 16 TO, THAT STUDY WAS TERMINATED, WASN'T IT?
17 A. THE SITE WAS RIP-RAPPED, I BELIEVE, IN 18 1978.
19 Q. AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN IT WAS RIP-RAPPED?
20 A. THE RECESSION RATE STOPPED.
s 21 THE PURPOSE OF MY INCLUSION OF THAT IN l
22 THE TESTIMONY IS THAT IT'S A GLACI0 LACUSTRINE
[])
d.
23 MATERIAL AND IT PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION ON THE 24 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THIS MATERIAL TO WAVE EROSION.
25 C. THE OTHER STUDY, THE MAUMEE BAY SHORE
787 d 1 STUDY, THAT WAS UNPROTECTED AS WELL?
2 A. YES.
1 3 Q. IN THE SANDUSKY BAY STUDY, YOU STATE THAT 4 THE --
THAT THAT INVOLVED RELATIVELY LOW AMOUNTS 5 0F WAVE ENERGY BECAUSE THE FETCH WAS ONLY TWO 6 MILES.
7 A. CORRECT.
8 Q. WHAT IS THE FETCH AT THE BURIAL SITE?
9 A. IT DEPENDS ON THE LAKE LEVEL., IF THE --
10 RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO FETCH FOR THE BURIAL SITE 11 BECAUSE IT'S ALL DRY LAND. AS YOU INCREASE THE
() 12 WATER LEVELS, IF YOU INCREASE FLOODING, THE FETCH 13 DISTANCES INCREASE. -
4 14 Q. WHAT WOULD THE FETCH LEVEL BE AT THE 15 50-YEAR FLOODPLAIN?
16 A. WITHOUT A MAP READILY AT HAND, I'M NOT 17 SURE I CAN ACCURATELY GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE.
18 I WOULD SAY IT'S CERTAINLY LESS THAN HALF 19 A MILE.
20 Q. ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU TALK 21 ABOUT FLOODING OF THE DISPOSAL SITE COULD DISPERSE i
22 WASTE MATERIAL.
23 WHAT FORM OF WASTE MATERIAL MERE YOU 7(
i .,
)
~
24 REFERRING TO WHEN YOU WROTE THIS TESTIMONY?
25 4. ANYTHING THAT WAS BURIED IN THE GROUND,
i 788 l l
1 ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBJECTED TO WAVE ATTACK COULD 2 BE ERODED. I 3 Q. YOU WROTE THIS TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU HAD 4 SEEN THE LICENSEE'S TESTIMONY, DI DN 'T YOU?
5 A. TH AT ' S CORRECT.
6 Q. AND AT THAT TIME YOU WERE REFERRING TO
- 7 THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AS DESCRIBED IN THE l 8 OCTOBER '85 FEDERAL REGISTER?
i l 9 A .. YES, l
10 Q. WHEN YOU TALKED EARLIER TODAY ABOUT THE 11 LAKE SET-UPS, YOU TALKED ABOUT A 1985 --
DECEMBER r,f 12 1985 SET-UP AT THE EAST END OF LAKE ERIE.
13 WAS*THAT SEVEN TO EIGHT FOOT VALUE THAT i
14 YOU GAVE ABOVE THE STILL WATER LEVEL?
15 A. YES.
r l 16 MR. SILBERG: IF I COULD HAVE I
i 17 JUST A SECOND.
18 (PAUSE) 19 BY MR. SILBERG:
20 Q. WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM SET-UP THAT WAS EVER 21 RECORDED AT THE WEST END OF THE LAKE?
i ,
22 A. THE MAXIMUM RECORDED IS 5.3 FEET. i
) 23 Q. OKAY. AND IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT WIND 24 SET-UPS ARE TYPICALLY HIGHER AT THE EAST END OF 25 TF2 LAKE THAN THE WEST END OF THE LAKE?
783 A
% ) 1 A. THEY CAN BE HIGHER AT THE EAST END THAN 2 AT THE WEST.
3 Q. HAVEN'T THEY ALWAYS BEEN? ISN'T IT TRUE 4 THAT THE MAXIMUM SET-UP AT THE EAST END IS HIGHER l
5 THAN THE MAXIMUM SET-UP AT THE WEST END?
6 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
7 Q. AND ISN'T ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT 8 THAT THE EAST END IS DEEPER THAN THE WEST END?
9 A. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD HOLD.
10 IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF THE BASIN, 11 YOU WOULD HAVE MORE RETURN FLOW AT THE EAST END.
A I THINK WHAT IS PERHAPS A GREATER FACTOR 4,/ 12 ,
l 13 IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF THE EAST END OF THE 14 BASIN, YOU HAVE A FUNNEL SHAPE THAT FOCUSES WATER 15 COMING FROM A MUCH WIDER SURFACE OF THE LAKE INTO 16 A MUCH SMALLER AREA.
1 17 Q. SO THERE IS A HYDROLOGIC REASON WHY ONE
! 18 WOULD EXPECT THE EAST END TO HAVE HIGHER SET-UPS?
19 A. RIGHT.
20 Q. AND YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THE SET-UPS THAT 21 ARE NOT AT THE ENDS OF THE LAKE TO BE AS HIGH AS l
22 THE SET-UPS AT THE END OF THE LAKE; IS THAT h
V.
23 CORRECT?
24 A. WOULD,YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE?
25 C. WOULD YOU EXPECT THE SET-UPS AT A
7SO 1 LOCATION THAT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE, ALONG 2 THE SHORE AT THE MI DD L E OF THE LAKE, TO BE HIGHER 3 OR LOWER THAN THE SET-UPS AT THE ENDS OF THE LAKE?
4 A. THERE IS A GENERAL PATTERN OF INCREASING 5 SET-UP TOWARDS THE ENDS OF THE LAKE, BUT IT DOES 1
6 NOT ALWAYS HOLD TRUE.
7 Q. BUT IT GENERALLY HOLDS TRUE7 8 A. G'E N E R A L L Y .
9 Q. WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT A, WHO MARKED THE 10 FEATURES OF DAVIS-BESSE ON THAT EXHIBIT?
11 A. I DID NOT MARK THOSE FEATURES.
12 MR. P A VE Y; YOUR HONOR, I
%y 13 MARKED THOSE FEATURES.
14 MR. SILBERG: I'M SORRY?
15 MR. PAVEY: I'D LIKE TO SAY 16 THAT I MARKED THOSE FEATURES. I PUT THOSE MAPS
! 17 TOGETHER.
- 18 JUDGE HOYT
- THAT'S DR. PAVEY.
19 MR. PAVEY: MISTER. I'LL TAKE 20 IT IF YOU CAN GIVE IT.
l 21 MR. SILBERG: YOU ARE HEREBY 22 PROMOTED. ,
[) 23 BY MR. SILBERG:
24 Q. WERE THOSE FEATURES MARKED, MR. PAVEY, 25 E.EED ON THE SURVEY, OR IS THAT JUST YOUR ROUGH l
7Si 1 ESTIMATE OF WHERE THOSE FEATURES WOULD GO.
1 2 A. (MR. PAVEY) THOSE FEATURES WERE PUT ON 3 THE MAP --
I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE CELLS.
4 Q. WELL, ALL THE FEATURES THAT ARE MARKED ON 5 THE MAP, THE DAVIS-BESSE FEATURES.
l 6 A. ON "A."
7 Q. ON EXHIBIT A.
8 A. ON "A", I MARKED THE CELLS BY USING A 9 MAP-O-GRAPH, WHICH IS A MACHINE THAT CAN TRANSFER 10 ONE SCALE OF MAP ONTO ANOTHER SCALE OF MAP OR 11 PHOTO AND PUT DOWN THE EXACT LOCATIONS THAT (f) 12 DAVIS-BESSE HAD OR THE TOLEDO EDISON PEOPLE HAD 13 PUT ON THEIR FIGURE 1.1.
14 THE LAKE ITSELF IS AN APPROXIMATION OF 15 THE WATER-COVERED AREA AS SEEN ON THE PHOTOGRAPH.
16 Q. I 'M SORRY. THE LAKE ITSELF?
17 A. THE MARSH. I'M SORRY. IT LOOKS -- IT'S 18 QUITE A WATER-COVERED AREA IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
19 Q. ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT --
MR. GUY, DOES 20 THAT PICTURE OF THE MARSH REPRESENT THINGS AS IT 21 LOOKS TODAY OR HAVE THERE BEEN CHANGES MADE 22 SUBSEQUENT TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
,( ) 23 A. (MR. GUY) COULD YOU PROVIDE A PICTURE OF
- q. ;
24 EXHIEIT A? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
25 C, . ISN'T THAT IT?
7S2 1 A. NO.
2 JUDGE HOYT: NO. I THINK IT'S 3 F.
4 A. (MR. GUY) THE WETLAND AREA, THE LARGE l
ARE YOU READY?
5 RED AREA --
6 dUDGE HOYT: I DON 'T THINK HE 7 IS, IF YOU CAN HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.
8 MR. SILBERG: GO AHEAD.
9 JUDGE H0YT: DO YOU HAVE THE 10 COPY?
11 MR. SILBERG: YES, I DO.
f 12 A. (MR. GUY) I THINK IF YOU COMPARE THIS 13 FIGURE WITH THE LARGE SCALE PHOTOGRAPH IN THE 14 BACK, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE WETLAND AREAS IN 15 THIS VICINITY.
16 Q. THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
17 THE QUESTION IS: ARE THERE FEATURES IN l
18 AND AROUND THE MARSH THAT ARE DIFFERENT TODAY THAN I
19 THEY WERE WHEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH W AS TAKEN?
I 20 A. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
21 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ADDITIONAL DIKES BUILT 22 SINCE THIS?
23 A. OH, CERTAINLY. THE DIKE --
IF YOU LOOK
, s.
~
! 24 ON THE PHOTOGRAPH, OR EXHIBIT A, YOU'LL SEE THAT l 25 TF1RE IS A SUBMERGED DIKE ALONG WHAT WOULD BE THE 1
783
,n
- 1 NORTH BANK OF THE TOUSSAINT RIVER THAT HAS BEEN 2 RECONSTRUCTED.
3 THE LAKEWARD PORTION OF THE BARRIER BEACH 4 DUST NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE TOUSSAINT RIVER 5 WOULD BE CUT FARTHER BACK THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.
6 IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO ARMORED DIKED 7 AREAS BETWEEN THOSE TWO, THERE IS AN EROSIONAL 8 ABATEMENT THAT DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THIS 9 PHOTOGRAPH.
10 Q. WITH RESPECT TO THE --
11 MR. PAVEY: MAY I ADD SOMETHING 12 TO THAT, HAVING BEEN AT THE SITE AND KNOWING 13 SOMETHING ABOUT WHICH DIKES ARE THERE?
14 MR. SILBERG: SURE.
15 MR. PAVEY: IF YOU LOOK JUST TO 16 THE EAST OF THE WETLAND AREA THAT WE HAVE MARKED l 17 ON EXHIBIT A, YOU'LL SEE A CHANNEL ON THE NORTH 18 SIDE OF THE TOUSSAINT -- WELL, ACTUALLY THE DI KE 19 THAT WAS RECONSTRUCTED, I ASSUME, REPRESENTS THE 20 NORTH BANK OF THE TOUSSAINT. THEN YOU HAVE THE 21 WATER-COVERED AREA, THEN TWO DIKES.
22 THE MARSH TOUR --
THE NAVARRE MARSH TOUR 23 THAT WAS TAKEN WHEN THE STATE'S PEOPLE WERE UP AT fla{.) 24 DAVIS-BESSE WENT ALONG THE NORTHERN OF THOSE TWO 25 C: KES.
794 1 THE SOUTHERN OF THOSE TWO DIKES WAS 2 ALMOST COMPLETELY GONE, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS 3 CONTAINING THE OUTFALL FROM THE --
SOME OF THE --
3 4 I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE OF THE EFFLUENTS FROM R
5 THE STATION --
EITHER FROM THE STATION OR FROM THE 6 PONDS. IT IS DRAINAGE FOR THE D A VI S-B ES S E SITE.
7 BUT THE SOUTHERN OF THE TWO DIKES IS PRETTY MUCH 8 GONE.
9 Q. BUT THE DIKE ON THE NORTH BANK OF THE 10 TOUSSAINT RIVER IS PRETTY MUCH --
11 A. (MR. PAVEY) IT WAS UNDER RECONSTRUCTION h 12 WHEN WE WERE THERE.
m.
13 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE --
IF A 14 PHOTOGRAPH WERE TAKEN TODAY OF THE TRIANGULAR 15 SHAPE THAT'S MARKED ON THIS MAP, WHETHER THAT 16 TRIANGULAR SHAPE WOULD LOOK THE SAME AS IT DOES IN 17 THIS PICTURE, SAME COLOR, SAME SHAPE?
18 A. (MR. GUY) IF WE COULD LOOK AT YOUR 19 EXHIBIT IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, WHICH WAS TAKEN 20 JULY 1ST, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THAT, 21 WHICH IS THE LARGE-SCALE COLOR PHOTOGRAPH.
22 Q. HAVE YOU DONE THAT7 jll' 23 A. YES. IT IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT THERE IS
'3 -
'~~
24 A WETLAND IN THIS VICINITY.
25 "
. DOES IT LOOK THE SAME AS WHAT YOU'VE
l l
l 795 l
f,,
k- 1 DRAWN ON THIS PICTURE?
2 A. WELL, I DID NOT DRAW THIS WETLAND, BUT IT l
3 IS IN THE SAME AREA. THERE IS --
MY 4 INTERPRETATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH UP ON THE BACK 5 WALL IS THAT THE WETLAND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF l 6 B EI NG DEWATERED. THERE WAS AN EXPOSED MUD FLAP.
7 Q. SO IT WOULD BE SMALLER THAN IT IS IN THIS 8 PICTURE?
9 A. WELL, YES; IF YOU'RE DEWATERING, IT WOULD 10 BE SMALLER.
11 Q. WOULD IT BE YOUR REVIEW THAT THE BURIAL f 12 CELLS COULD BE ENGINEERED TO PROTECT AGAINST ANY 13 FLOODING THAT MIGHT OCCUR AT THE SITE?
14 A. LET ME QUALIFY THAT.
15 IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESIGN FOR ANY 16 EVENTUALITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ENGINEERING 17 RECORD CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF THINGS BEING 18 OVER-DESIGNED AND SUBSEQUENTLY FAILING, AND I CITE 19 AS JUST ONE EXAMPLE --
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT 20 REMOVED --
BUT THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUILT A 21 BREAKWATER IN PORTUGAL THAT WAS OVER-DESIGNED
~
2 22 CONSIDERABLY, AND IT FAILED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
[) 23 Q. I'M SORRY. FAILED BEFORE --
24 A. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED. IT 25 V43 DESTROYED.
7S6 l l
l 1 I MIGHT FURTHER QUALIFY THAT MOST 2 STRUCTURES LONG THE LAKESHORE HAVE A LIFESPAN OF 3 APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS.
! 4 Q. DOES THAT INCLUDE STRUCTURES MAINTAINED 5 BY THE STATE OF OHIO?
6 A. IT IS A BROAD SUMMARIZATION OF A SURVEY 7 DONE IN CANADA OF ALL STRUCTURES BUILT ALONG THE 8 LAKESHORE.
9 Q. DOES THE STATE OF OHIO MAINTAIN 10 STRUCTURES WHICH IT CONSTRUCTS AND OPERATES ALONG 11 LAKE ERIE?
12 A. THE STATE OF OHIO --
MOST OF T H'E LARGE 13 STRUCTURES BUILT ALONG THE LAKESHORE ARE 14 MAINTAINED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. AND 15 THERE IS A REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
16 Q. WHAT ABOUT --
DOES THE STATE OF OHIO HAVE 17 ANY STRUCTURES ALONG THE LAKE ERIE SHORE?
18 A. THEY DO HAVE SOME STRUCTURES, YES, AND 19 THEY ARE MAINTAINED.
20 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE JETTY AT EAST 21 HARBOR?
22 A. TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, YES.
[) 23 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED?
24 A. NO. THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE I CAME TO 25 C .O.
797 1 Q. ABOUT 1960? DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?
2 A. I WILL TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION. I DON'T 3 KNOW.
4 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHAPE THAT 5 STRUCTURE'S IN?
6 A. THE LAST TIME I WAS THERE, PORTIONS WERE 7 'I N NEED OF RTPAIR.
i 8 Q. IS THAT A STATE OF OHIO STRUCTURE? 1 l
9 A. I BELIEVE SO.
10 Q. YOU THINK THE STATE WILL PLAN TO REPAIR 11 IT?
( 12 A. I IMAGINE THERE IS ENOUGH INTEREST IN I
13 NAVIGATION IN EAST HARBOR THAT, YES, IT WILL BE 14 REPAIRED. !
i 15 Q. OKAY. DO YOU THINK THE SAME INTEREST 16 WOULD EXTEND TO THE DIKES FOR BURIAL CELLS THAT 17 TOLEDO EDISON MIGHT HAVE AN INTEREST IN 18 MAINTAINING?
19 A. MAINTENANCE IS A --
INVOLVES TWO ASPECTS.
20 ONE IS, OBVIOUSLY, REPAIR, AND THE OTHER IS, WHEN 21 YOU MAINTAIN A STRUCTURE, YOU DON 'T DO ANYTHING l 22 UNTIL THERE'S EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE. DEPENDING ON 23 THE TIME INTERVAL OVER WHICH THE DAMAGE OCCURRED,
.( )
w-24 YES, I IMAGINE IT WOULD BE REPAIRED. BUT THINGS ;
I 25 N C r. M A L L Y FAIL CATASTROPHICALLY RATHER THAN i
- ~ , , __m ,w-v - - . _ - _ _ - . -
- , - - , , , , - - , _ , - - - - - - , , - - . _ _ - - . - . - , - - . ,-.<m -
798 1 GRADUALLY.
2 Q. ARE YOU --
HAS THE JETTY AT EAST HARBOR 3 FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY?
4 A. A STRUCTURE THAT SIZE, PORTIONS OF IT ARE l
l 5 DAMAGED, BUT --
i 6 Q. HAS IT FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY?
7 A. THE STORM THAT HAVE RESHAPED OR REHANDLED i
i 8 THE RIP-RAP I THINK YOU MIGHT CALL A CATASTROPHIC 9 EVENT. THERE EITHER ARE WAVES MOVING THE PIECES l 10 AROUND OR THEY'RE STABLE.
11 Q. BUT THE STRUCTURE IS STILL THERE.
12 A. PORTIONS OF IT ARE, YES. IT IS NO LONGER 13 FORMING --
PERFORMING IN ITS PROPER FUNCTION.
14 Q. OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID THAT 15 STRUCTURE BEGIN TO SHOW DAMAGE?
16 A. I THINK THAT QUESTION MIGHT BE BETTER 17 DIRECTED TOWARD THE STATE ENGINEER. I DO NOT --
18 HAVE NOT ASSESSED THAT STRUCTURE ON A WEEKLY OR 19 MONTHLY OR ANNUAL BASIS.
, 20 Q. BUT IT HAS BEEN OVER SOME PERIOD OF TIME; 21 YOU'VE SAID YOU'VE BEEN BY IT A NUMBER OF 1
22 OCCASIONS.
23 A. OH, YES, I HAVE BEEN IN AND OUT OF THE l 24 EAST HARBOR CHANNEL.
25 UPON ONE OCCASION, IT APPEARED TO BE IN
l 799
#}
\_ 1 GOOD SHAPE, BUT I HAVE NOT --
I CANNOT TELL YOU 2 EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THE ARMOR ROCK HAS BEEN 3 DISPLACED, NOR HOW --
WHAT GIVEN LENGTH OF IT HAS l
4 BEEN IN IMMEDIATE NEED. I KNOW THAT THE OUTER I
5 ENDS OF THE STRUCTURE NEED REPAIR.
6 Q. DOES THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND STATE OF 7 OHIO PROGRAMS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR TAKE THAT 8 POSSIBILITY OF CATASTROPHIC FAILURE INTO ACCOUNT?
9 A. MOST OF THE REPAIR IS --
SOME OF IT DEALS 10 WITH STRUCTURES THAT HAVE FAILED DURING A STORM.
11 SOME OF IT IS ADDRESSED TOWARD, LET'S SAY, 12 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, GOING IN, ASSESSING ,
13 GRADUAL DETERIORATION, AND ALSO HANDLING THINGS l 14 THAT HAVE FAILED OVER A VERY S 'H O R T PERIOD OF TIME, 15 SUCH AS DURING ONE WINTER, ONE SEASON.
16 Q. IS ONE CAPABLE OF DESIGNING A PROGRAM OF 17 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE WHICH WOULD ASSURE THAT 18 THAT DEGRADATION DOESN'T OCCUR?
19 A. ONE CAN TRY. I MEAN THAT'S --
WE ALL 20 GIVE IT OUR BEST SHOT. BUT THE ONE THING WITH 21 DEALING WITH LAKE ERIE IS THAT IT IS VERY
, 22 UNPREDICTABLE.
I j[) 23 A REGULAR, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM V;
24 MIGMT CATCH MOST OF THE NECESSARY MAINTENANCE AND 25 M/:E IT A PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TYPE PROGRAM.
ik 5'0 O k>/1 1 IMAGE EVALUATION Me
////gfY[g&>g 4g^
h/7 [ $/// TEST TARGET (MT-3)
%777p '\k /jjj l.0 581 illa M
&m d=B
=
l,l W llb 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
5% + /4 W>,,b//
46W y
800 1 Q. THE KINDS OF CATASTROPHIC FAILURES YOU'RE I
} 2 TALKING ABOUT OCCURRED ON LAKE ERIE ITSELF?
3 A. YES.
4 Q. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANY K I N 'D S OF 5 CATASTROPHIC FAILURES IN SLACK WATER AREAS THAT 6 MIGHT BE FLOODED ON OCCASION, HAVE YOU?
7 A. SLACK WATER FLOODING NORMALLY DOES NOT 8 HAVE MUCH WAVE ENERGY INVOLVED. HOWEVER, I MIGHT 9 SAY THAT THE IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE --
OKAY.
10 GO AHEAD.
11 MR. SILBERG: I HAVE NO FURTHER
-a
) 12 - QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS.
13 I GUESS I'LL JUST GO ON WITH ALL THE 14 OTHER WITNESSES. IS THAT HOW YOU'D LIKE?
15 dUDGE H0YT: YEAH, QUICKLY, AS I 16 THINK WE'D LIKE --
WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END 17 0F THE DAY, AND I WANT TO LEAVE SOMETIME. I GUESS 18 YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME REBUTTAL.
19 MR. VAN KLEY: WE DON 'T KNOW YET.
20 THERE IS A POSSIBILITY. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING YET, 21 SO --
22 JUDGE H0YT: OH, WELL, VERY
)() 23 GOOD.
'c: 24 MR. SILBERG, IF YOU'RE READY WITH YOUR 25 F E; T EXAMINATION.
801 1 MR. SILBERG: YES.
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. SILBERG:
4 Q. MR. PAVEY, HAVE YOU EXAMINED IN 5 INCH-BY-INCH DETAIL THE DAVIS-BESSE BURIAL SITE?
6 A. I HAVE NOT HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY, NO.
7 Q. HAVE YOU EXAMINED IN INCH-BY-INCH DETAIL 8 THE D A VI S-B ES S E SITE ITSELF?
9 A. I BELIEVE TH AT ' S THE QUESTION YOU JUST ,
10 ASKED.
11 Q. NO. I TALKED ABOUT THE BURIAL SITE 12 FIRST.
3 13 A. OH. NO, I HAVE NOT.
14 Q. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE DAVIS-BESSE 15 SITE?
16 A. I'VE ONLY BEEN ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO 17 GO ON THE SITE ONCE FOR A SHORT TIME AND A SHORT
- 18 VISIT.
l 19 Q. OKAY. DID YOU EVER ASK TO GET ON THE 20 SITE AT ANY OTHER TIME?
21 A. NOT YET.
22 Q. I TAKE IT YOU WERE NOT AROUND AT THE TIME
( 23 THAT UNITS --
UNIT ONE WAS CONSTRUCTED OR THE 24
~
INITIAL SITE WORK ON UNITS TWO AND THREE WERE 25 C C '. S TRUCTE D?
802 1 A. NO, I WAS NOT.
2 Q. SO YOU NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE 3 THE EXCAVATIONS ON-SITE AND EXAMINE THE GEOLOGY AT 4 THAT TIME?
5 A. NO.
6 Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THE ONE THOUSAND FOOT LONG 7 EXCAVATION A HALF MILE NORTH OF THE DAVIS-BESSE 8 SITE THAT MR. HENDRON REFERRED TO?
9 A. NOT YET. ,
10 Q. DID YOU EVER EXAMINE THE CORES THEMSELVES 11 THAT WERE TAKEN AT THE BURIAL SITE?
() 12 A. IF I HAD, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO DETERMINE 13 WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE JOINT 9 IN THEM AS THE 14 REST OF THE AREA APPEARS TO HAVE.
15 Q. I SEE. BUT YOU HAVEN'T TRIED TO EXAMINE 16 THOSE?
17 A. NOT YET.
18 Q. WHAT ABOUT THE CORES THAT WERE TAKEN 19 DURING UNITS ONE, TWO AND THREE CONSTRUCTION?
20 A. NO. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY STILL 21 EXIST.
22 Q. HAVE YOU TRIED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY 23 EXIST 2
.O
,:y , .
24 A. NOT YET.
25 C. CAN YOU TELL ME --
ON PAGE 2 YOU TALK
803 l 1 ABOUT THE COMPANY'S ASSUMPTION THAT APPROXIMATELY 2 20 FEET OF, QUOTE, " IMPERMEABLE", UNQUOTE, GLACIAL 3 SEDIMENTS COVER AND PROTECT THE BEDROCK.
4 CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE WE SAID THOSE 5 SEDIMENTS WERE IMPERMEABLE?
6 A. THEY WERE CALLED, I BELIEVE, 7 NEARLY-IMPERMEABLE. I WAS PARAPHRASING FROM THE 8 STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE THAT WATER WAS NOT GOING
, 9 TO GET THROUGH THE GLACIAL MATERIALS INTO THE 10 BEDROCK.
11 Q. BUT YOU PUT THAT IN QUOTES, DIDN'T YOU?
12 A. YES, I DID.
13 Q. I ASSUME WHEN YOU DID THAT THAT YOU WERE ,
14 QUOTING FROM SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD SAID?
15 A. I WAS NOT DOING THAT FOR A QUOTE FROM 16 SOMEONE ELSE, NO.
17 Q. I SEE. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 18 IMPERMEABLE AND HIGHLY IMPERMEABLE?
l 19 A '. IF I COULD ADD TO THAT LAST ONE A LITTLE, 20 THERE IS A STATEMENT IN HERE CALLING IT IMPERVIOUS i
21 IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS, WHICH I READ AS 22 IMPERMEABLE.
) 23 Q. I SEE. DO YOU KNOW IF WHOEVER WROTE THAT 24 PREVIOUS DOCUMENT MEANT IMPERMEABLE TO MEAN THE 25 54SE AS IMP ER VI OUS?
~804 P
1 1 A. GIVEN THE GEOLOGIC DEFINITIONS OF THE 2 TERMS, I WOULD CALL THEM EQUAL.
3 Q. WAS THE DOCUMENT YOU WERE REFERRING TO A 4 GEOLOGIC OR G EOL OG I ST ' S DOCUMENT?
5 A. IT'S THE AP PLI C ANT 'S ENVIRONMENTAL 6 REPORT.
7 Q. OKAY. IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND 8 NOT A --
9 A. THOSE USUALLY INCLUDE --
GEOLOGISTS 10 PREPARE THE GEOLOGY SECTION. I WOULD HOPE IN THIS 11 CASE THAT HAD BEEN DONE.
; 12 Q. BUT YOU DON 'T KNOW. ,
13 A. OB VI OUSL Y.
14 Q. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY BORINGS WERE DONE ,
2 15 ON-SITE IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNIT ONE 16 CONSTRUCTION OR PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES?
17 A. I'VE ONLY BEEN PROVIDED THE BORINGS FOR 18 APPROXIMATELY A HALF A DOZEN OR 50. I WOULD HAVE 1 19 TO GO BACK AND COUNT THEM. I HAVE NO IDEA. THEY 20 WERE NOT NUMBERED AS TO LOCATION ON A MAP, AND THE 21 MAP APPARENTLY DID NOT INCLUDE ALL THE BORINGS.
22 Q. HAVE YOU READ THE INFORMATION IN THE i
((,);
23 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT OR THE UPDATED SAFETY 24 ANALYSIS REPORT ON SITE GEOLOGY? I I l 25 A. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I HAVE OR NOT. j
805 5
k 1 Q. OKAY. DO YOU THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT 2 TO KNOW THE SPECIFIC SITE DATA, THOUGH, BEFORE ONE 3 DRAWS CONCLUSIONS AS TO A SITE?
4 A. YES, I D0.
5 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC 6 SITE DATA?
7 A. IT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO US.
8 Q. AND YOU DIDN'T TRY TO OBTAIN IT ON YOUR 9 OWN?
10 A. I DI D EVERYTHING I COULD WITH THE FILES 11 THAT WERE AVAILABLE.
12 Q. S0 WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT -- -
13 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE 14 NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE REPORT THAT HE'S CITING l
15 IN HIS TESTIMONY. I WONDER IF COUNSEL COULD 16 EITHER PROVIDE US WITH A COPY OR --
17 JUDGE H0YT: YOU MEAN THE FINAL
) 18 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT?
l 19 MR. LYNCH: THE UPDATED SAFETY 20 ANALYSIS REPORT. l 21 MR. SILBERG: IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED 1
22 PROVIDED TO THE STATE OF OHIO.
() 23 JUDGE H0YT: YES, I THINK IT HAS 24 B E Ef4 PROVIDED TO YOU, TO THE STATE. IT'S A PUBLIC 25 D ' :. U M E N T . IT'S NOT --
I
L 806 1 MR. VAN KLEY: MAYBE WE CAN GET A 2 BETTER IDENTIFICATION OF IT. WHAT IS THE TITLE OF 3 THE DOCUMENT? ?
4 MR. SILBERG: ,
" UPDATED SAFETY 5 ANALYSIS REPORT," THE STANDARD N.R.C. DOCUMENT, A 6 STANDARD DOCUMENT REQUIRED BY THE N.R.C.
7 JUDGE H0YT: SUPPLEMENTAL F.S.A, 8 I THINK IS WHAT IT'S CALLED.
9 MR. SILBERG: THERE'S THE FINAL 10 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, THEN THE UTILITIES ARE 11 REQUIRED TO UPDATE THAT, AND THOSE UPDATES ARE NOW 12 CALLED UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS.
13 MR. LYNCH: WHAT YEAR ARE WE 14 TALKING ABOUT?
15 dUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. IS IT 16 AN UPDATE THAT YOU HAVE A YEAR ON?
17 MR. SILBERG: THE UPDATES ARE 18 MADE EVERY YEAR.
19 MR. LYNCH: WHICH UPDATE ARE WE 20 TALKING ABOUT?
21 JUDGE H0YT: WELL, I THINK HE'S 22 PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT THE ONE IN '85, ARE YOU 23 NOT?
((:)'
24 MR. SILBERG: WELL, THE 25 Cr GINAL --
807 rn
- 1 JUDGE H0YT: BECAUSE YOU 2 WOULDN'T HAVE FILED THE '86 ONE YET, WOULD YOU?
3 MR. SILBERG: NO. THE ORIGINAL 4 F.S.A.R. WAS FILED IN 1977. THE MOST RECENT 5 UPDATE OR THE UPDATED U.S.A.R. --
6 MR. MYERS: JULY 1986.
> 7 JUDGE H0YT: THEN YOU FILE THEM 8 IN JULY.
9 MR. MYERS: THAT'S CORRECT.
10 MR. VAN KLEY: WHEN WAS THE STATE
- 11 0F OHIO PROVIDED WITH THIS DOCUMENT?
() 12 MR. MYERS:
- THE STATE OF OHIO 13 WAS ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE ORIGINAL j 14 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AND I BELIEVE UPDATES I
; 15 THERETO.
l 16 dUDGE H0YT: I THINK THE 17 STATE'S, AS A MATTER OF COURTESY, EXTENDED THOSE 4
18 DOCUMENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR STATE GETS 19 THEM.
20 MR. VAN KLEY: IT COULD BE 21 ANYWHERE AMONG --
22 JUDGE H0YT: DO YOU HAVE A COPY 23 OF IT WITH THE DISTRIBUTION LIST ON IT?
(])
24 MR. SILBERG: I DOUBT THAT WE I
25 h4 ~E IT HERE. WE CAN CERTAINLY OFF THE RECORD GET i
808 1 THAT INFORMATION.
2 MR. VAN KLEY: IF HE HAS A COPY 3 WITH HIM, WE'D APPRECIATE LOOKING AT IT. IF HE'S 4 GOING TO QUESTION THE WITNESSABOUT THAT DOCUMENT, 5 I WOULD APPRECIATE HIM SUPPLYING THE WITNESS A 6 COPY.
7 MR. SILBERG: I'M NOT GOING TO 8 QUESTION HIM ABOUT IT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF 9 HE HAD SEEN IT.
10 JUDGE HOYT: IT'S A VERY COMMON 11 DISTRIBUTED DOCUMENT AND ALWAYS GOES TO THE
& 12 STATES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOURS HAS GONE, BUT 13
- YOU COULD FIND OUT FROM AT LEAST THE SECRETARY OF 14 THE COMMISSION.
i
- 15 MR. SILBERG
- I HAVE NO OTHER i
l 16 QUESTIONS ON THAT TOPIC. l 17 JUDGE H0YT: WHATEVER DOCUMENTS
- 18 YOU'RE USING TO QUESTION THIS WITNESS, IF YOU'LL f 19 PROVIDE IT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE HAS HIS REBUTTAL OR 20 REDIRECT.
21 MR. SILBERG CERTAINLY.
22 8Y MR. SILBERG:
()
23 Q. SO'IN THE ABSENCE OF SITE-SPECIFIC DATA, 24 YOU'RE RELYING ON THE POTENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS 25 TF.T MIGHT BE FOUND AT THE SITE?
803 ;
)
f 4
1 A. I'M RELYING ON THE POTENTIAL 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF EVERY OTHER OUTCROP IN A 3 SIMILAR SETTING COMPLETELY AROUND THE SITE THAT I 4 HAVE SEEN.
I 5 Q. WHAT'S THE CLOSEST OUTCROP THAT YOU'VE 6 SEEN TO THIS SITE?
7 A. I'D HAVE TO GET A MAP OUT FOR THAT.
8 Q. ABOUT HOW FAR?
9 A. I WOULD SAY LESS THAN A DOZEN MILES.
I 10 I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT I'VE LOOKED AT THE 11 GEOLOGY OVER APPROXIMATELY 1,000 TO 2,000 S Q U A R .E d) 12 MILES IN NORTH CENTRAL OHIO, AND IT IS RELATIVELY 13 CONSISTENT IN THE RESPECTS THAT I HAVE MENTIONED 14 IN MY TESTIMONY.
15 Q. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY LOCATION IN ALL THE 16 INCH-BY-INCH DETAIL THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT THAT HAS
; 17 LESS THAN SIX DIFFERENT TILL DEPOSITS?
18 A. OF COURSE.
i 19 Q. COULD YOU TELL US THE NAME OR . LOCATION OF l
20 THE SITE 12 MILES AWAY THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO 21 A MINUTE AGO?
22 A. SOUTH BASS ISLAND.
,() 23 Q. OKAY. WHAT'S THE NEAREST SITE ON THE 24 MAINLAND THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT?
1 25 4 I WOULD SAY IT'S ACROSS ON THE OTHER SIDE
810 1 0F SANDUSKY BAY IN THE AREA 0F WHITES LANDING.
2 Q. WHEN YOU SAY "THE OTHER SIDE", EAST OR 3 WEST?
4 A. ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SANDUSKY BAY. IT'S 5 THE EAST-WEST BAY.
6 OH, ONE MORE, I FORGOT. OUTCROPS IN THE 7 MARBLEHEAD AREA THAT I HAVE LOOKED AT.
8 Q. HOW FAR IS THAT FROM D A VI S -B ES S E ?
9 A. I'D SAY THAT'S ABOUT A DOZEN MILES, TOO.
10 Q. AND DID THOSE LOCATIONS EACH HAVE AT 11 LEAST SIX DIFFERENT TILL DEPOSITS?
;) 12 A. NO, THEY DID NOT, BUT MANY OF THEM HAD 13 MORE THAN ONE TILL OVER BEDROCK, PARTICULARLY IN 14 MARBLEHEAD AND ISLAND AREAS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO 15 THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
16 Q. BUT THOSE DI DN 'T HAVE AT LEAST SIX 17 DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT TILL DEPOSITS.
18 A. YOU ONLY FIND SIX DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT 19 TILL DEPOSITS WHEN YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENTLY THICK 20 AMOUNT OF GLACIAL MATERIAL AND A SUFFICIENT 21 DOWNCUTTING IN THE STREAM OR A SUFFICIENT 22 CONTINUOUS CORE BORING TO LOOK AT THE TILLS.
,() 23 Q. 50 WHEN YOU SAID THAT THEY'RE --
THIS 24 AREA HAS BEEN COVERED BY AT LEAST SIX DISTINCT ICE 25 l'.S LEAVING AT LEAST SIX DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT
l 811 O/' 1 TILL DEPOSITS, YOU'RE NOT IMPLYING THAT THAT 2 OCCURS EVERYWHERE IN THE AREA.
3 A. IT OCCURS --
THE SIX OR MORE ADVANCES 4 THAT HAVE BEEN ACROSS THE AREA WILL LEAVE POCKETS 5 0F THOSE PARTICULAR TILLS WHERE THEY DON'T GET 6 ERODED OFF BY THE NEXT ICE ADVANCE, SO THERE MAY 7 BE PLACES EVEN ON THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE WHERE YOU 8 COULD FIND THREE, FOUR, FIVE OR SIX TILLS.
9 Q. OR TWO OR ONE?
10 A. OR TWO OR ONE.
11 Q. HOW THICK IS THE TILL DEPOSIT ON SOUTH
) 12 BASS ISLAND?
13 A. IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ZERO TO 20 i 14 FEET.
15 Q. AND HOW MANY LAYER --
DIFFERENT LEVELS OR 16 LAYERS DOES THAT HAVE?
17 A. ON THE OUTCROPS I'VE EXAMINED SO FAR, WE 18 WERE LOOKING AT THREE DISTINCT TILLS.
19 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. MUSGRAVE AND 20 MR. DERRINGER OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
! 21 RESOURCES?
22 A. I 'M FAMILIAR WITH THEIR WORK.
i'
()
23 Q. IS THEIR WORK GENERALLY REPUTABLE? j l
24 A. I DO NOT KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW. '
25 "
. OKAY. BUT IT'S REPUTABLE ENOUGH TO BE l
812 1 PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES?
l 2 A. YES. l 3 Q. SO IF THEY SHOWED A TYPICAL PATTERN OF 4 SOILS THAT ONLY SHOWED A SINGLE TILL DEPOSIT, THAT 5 WOULD --
6 A. THEY HAVE OVER-GENERALIZED.
7 Q. I SEE. ,
i 8 A. THAT DOCUMENT IS MEANT FOR THE PUBLIC IN 9 DEALING WITH THE SOILS AND DOES NOT INTEND T,0 GO 10 INTO GEOLOGIC COMPLEXITY.
11 Q. BY "THAT DOCUMENT," YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
l
')e.
12 THE SOILS SURVEY OF OTTAWA COUNTY?
13 A. I 'M REFERRING TO THE SOILS SURVEY OF <
14 OTTAWA COUNTY OR ANY OTHER SOILS SURVEY.
15 Q. CAN YOU SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT 16 WHERE IT SAYS THIS IS AN OVER-SIMPLIFICATION?
17 A. ! WILL SHOW YOU IN THE DOCUMENT WHERE I
18 THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY'VE ONLY LOOKED AT THE TOP I
19 FIVE FEET OF SOIL IN THEIR DESCRIPTION OF SOIL. ,
20 Q. WELL, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOIL, ARE 21 WE? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE UNDERLYING SEDIMENTS
- 22 AND TILL.
l
,()
23 A. I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN CALLED SOIL BY THE l 24 ENGINEER IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT l
25 CrrINITIONS OF SOIL DEPENDING ON WHO YOU TALK TO.
813 1 IF YOU TALK TO THE AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE, THE SOIL l IS THE SOIL ON THE A AND 8 HORIZONS IN EACH SOIL l
2 3 DESCRIPTION THAT THEY DETERMINE WHICH REPRESENTS l 4 THE HOST ALTERED PORTION OF THE MATERIALS. IF YOU i 5 TALK TO AN ENGINEER, SOIL'S ANYTHING ABOVE 6 BEDROCK.
7 Q. AND CAN YOU SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN HERE 5
8 WHERE THEY SAY THEY'VE OVER-GENERALIZED BECAUSE 9 THIS IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED FOR THE PUBLIC7 10 A. THAT IS MY OPINION.
) 11 Q. I SEE.
1
() 12 YOU SAY ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2 THAT 13 TILLS ARE OFTEN SEPARATED BY LAKE OR RIVER l
14 DEPOSIT --
RIVER DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS.
15 ARE THEY ALWAYS SEPARATED BY LAKE OR
! 16 RIVER DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS?
i j 17 A. AGAIN, IN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE 18 PROTECTED FROM EROSION BY THE NEXT ICE-SHEET, !
1 19 WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BE PRESERVED. THERE ARE l
20 PLACES ON THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE BASED ON THEIR 21 BEDROCK TOPOGRAPHY MAP WHERE I WOULD EXPECT SUCH 22 PRESERVATION.
]
23 Q. BUT THERE ARE LOCATIONS WHERE YOU WOULD 24 NOT EXPECT SUCH --
25 . YES.
D 814 SEPARATION?
i 1 Q. --
2 A. THERE ARE PLACES WHERE ONE COULD SHOW 3 THAT THERE'S PROBABLY BEEN EROSION.
4 Q. WHAT SYSTEM DO YOU USE TO IDENTIFY 5 DIFFERENT TILLS?
i 6 A. WE HAVE A SYSTEM BASED ON LABORATORY
! 7 ANALYSIS AND FIELD IDENTIFICATION OF THE TILLS.
l 8 I WOULD MENTION THAT OUR LABORATORY 9 ANALYSIS INCLUDES GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, CARBON
]
10 ANALYSIS, CLAY ANALYSIS OF EVERY TILL SAMPLE WE 11 TAKE. WE ALSO RUN A.S.T.M. TESTS ON OUR MATERIALS
( 12 SO WE CAN TRANSLATE OTHER LOGS WE GET SUCH AS i 13 THESE AND TRY TO GET SOME INFORMATION OUT OF THEM.
1
! 14 Q. ARE THESE --
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 15 DIFFERENT TILLS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE l
16 WISCONSIN TILL AND ILLINOIS TILL?
17 A. MOST OF THE TILLS WE ARE LOOKING AT ARE l 18 DIFFERENT PULSES OF ICE WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE, 19 AND EVERY TIME YOU GOT AN ICE ADVANCE, YOU ADD IT i 20 FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION, YOU HAVE 21 SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS IN EACH TILL, AND 22 IF YOU KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR, YOU CAN TELL THEM i
l i
O 23 ^e^ar-24 Q. AND DO THEY.HAVE DIFFERENT ,
25 r:'MEABILITIES, FOR INSTANCE, OR ARE THEY MAINLY
. 815 l 1 AND GENERALLY ABOUT THE SAME LEVELS OF 2 PERMEABILITY?
3 A. I HAVE NOT TESTED THE PERMEABILITY IN 4 EACH TILL.
5 Q. WHEN YOU DID YOUR WORK AT SOUTH BASS i 6 ISLAND, I ASSUME YOU TOOK CONTINUOUS SAMPLES?
7 A. I WAS LOOKING AT CONTINUOUS OUTCROPS FROM
! 8 THE SURFACE OF BEDROCK ON THE LAKESHORE.
i 9 Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY BORINGS?
j 10 A. I DID NOT HAVE TO. I HAD CONTINUOUS 11 OUTCROP.
l 12 Q. OKAY. SO YOU C e.N. L O O K AT EXPOSED i 13 SURFACES; YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO BORINGS ALL THE 14 TIME.
~
15 A. ThESE EXPOSED SURFACES ARE ONES THAT HAVE 16 BEEN CLEANED OFF BY WAVES, SO THEY ARE NOT COVERED 17 BY THE BULLDOZER SMEAR OR OTHER SLUMP THAT YOU 18 WOULD GET IN MOST EXCAVATIONS.
19 Q. BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT NON-BORINGS, THINGS 20 OTHER THAN BORINGS TO MAKE GEOLOGIC JUDGMENTS, CAN l
21 YOU NOT?
1 22 A. IF ONE BOTHERS TO DIG THROUGH THE SLUMP '
- g
- ) 23 AND LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL, YES.
, 24 Q. WHAT EQUIPMENT 00 YOU USE TO TAKE
, 25 C T INUOUS CORES?
I___--_________ _ . _ .
i 816 1 A. WE HAVE A NEW CME-55 AUGER WHICH IS 2 CAPABLE OF TAKING CONTINUOUS CORE TO A DEPTH OF 3 100 FOOT.
t.
4 Q. DO YOU USE THAT EQUIPMENT YOURSELF?
5 A. YES, I D0.
1 6 Q. DO YOU --
YOU INVOLVED WITH APPROVING i 7 CORE BORING PROGRAMS FOR CONSTRUCTIONS --
! 8 CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE STATE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE 9 STATE PERMITS?
10 A. I AM INVOLVED IN RESEARCH WHICH INVOLVES 11 CORING TO DETERMINE WHAT MATERIALS ARE IN THE 12 STATE. -
13 Q. BUT WHAT ABOUT APPROVING PROJECTS THAT 14 THE STATE MIGHT HAVE TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR?
15 A. NO. WE ARE NOT A REGULATORY AGENCY.
16 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PRACTICE OF THE
! 17 REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE STATE OF OHIO IS WITH 18 REGARD TO TAKING SOIL SAMPLES, CORE BORINGS?
I 19 A. I THINK I'D BE AFRAID TO FIND OUT IN SOME 20 CASES. ;
21 Q. WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE STATE DOES 22 NOT INVARIABLY REQUIRE CONTINUOUS SAMPLES?
r
( 23 A. THERE ARE MANY OTHER STATES WHERE THIS IS
~
24 BEGINNING TO BECOME --
25 '
, EXCUSE ME. I'M TALKING ABOUT OHIO.
817 l i
*A L/ 1 A. ONCE THEY RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM, I'M SURE 2 THEY WILL.
3 Q. BUT THEY DON 'T NOW7 4 A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
5 Q. OKAY. DOES THE C.M.E. EQUIPMENT YOU'VE i 6 DESCRIBED CAUSE A HIGH DISTURBANCE IN TAKING THIS 7 OUT?
l 8 A. NO, IT DOES NOT.
9 WHAT WE DO IS TAKE THE SMALL DISTURBANCES I
10 ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CORE, ALL CORE GETS SMEARED, I
11 AND REMOVE IT, BREAK THE SAMPLES VERTICALLY DOWN
, f 12 THE MIDDLE, 50 THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL I
i 13 STRUCTURE WITHIN THE CORE.
14 Q. YOU SAY ON PAGE 3 THAT IN DI VI DU AL TILL 15 UNITS OFTEN CONTAIN COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL LENSES,
; 16 PIPES AND SEAMS.
) 17 DO THEY ALWAYS CONTAIN COARSE SAND AND 1
l 18 GRAVEL LENSES, PIPES AND SEAMS?
19 A. WHERE IN THE PARTICULAR TILL UNIT SHALL I I
20 POINT OUT?
I
- 21 THESE TILL UNITS ARE CONTINUOUS. IF I 22 LOOK AT A PARTICULAR TILL UNIT ACROSS ITS ENTIRF.
l 23 EXPOSURE, IT WOULD, YES.
7( )
1 e.
24 Q. WHEN YOU SAY " ENTIRE EXPOSURE", YOU MIGHT
! 25 E: TALKING ABOUT MILES OR --
818 1 A. ITS ENTIRE COVERAGE, YES.
2 Q. WHICH WOULD BE HOW LONG A DISTANCE, WHAT 3 GREAT --
HOW GREAT A DISTANCE?
4 A. IN THE STATE OF OHIO?
5 Q. YEAH.
6 A. PARTICULAR TILL UNITS IN THE STATE OF 7 OHIO EXTEND PROBABLY FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER 8 FROM NORTH CENTRAL TO SOUTHWEST.
9 Q. AND CERTAINLY IF YOU WENT ALL THE WAY 10 ACROSS THAT ENTIRE DISTANCE, YOU WOULD PROBABLY 11 FIND SOMEWHERE COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL?
[ 12 A. I WOULD FIND A WHOLE LOT OF THEM. l l
13 Q. ALL RIGHT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT A SMALLER 14 AREA, WOULD YOU ALWAYS FIND THOSE LENSES, PIPES 15 AND SEAMS?
16 A. I WOULD HAVE A HIGH PROBABILITY OF 17 FINDING THOSE, BETTER THAN 50 PERCENT.
18 Q. OKAY. BUT NOT ALL THE TIME.
19 A. NOT ALL THE TIME. DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF 20 THE EXPOSURE.
21 Q. AGAIN, YOU TALK ABOUT SEDIMENTS AND 22 GLACI0 LACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS VARY A LOT, ALL THE WAY
) 23 FROM COBBLE DEPOSITS WITH PORES BIG ENOUGH FOR A 24 G A F. C E N HOSE TO NEARLY-!MPERMEABLE PURE CLAY.
25 I TAKE IT THOSE VARIANCES OCCUR FROM
819 l
.O u>- 1 PLACE TO PLACE, AND IN SOME PLACES YOU MIGHT FIND 2 THESE GARDEN-HOSE-SIZE HOLES AND OTHER PLACES YOU
. 3 MIGHT NOT?
4 A. IT DEPENDS ON THE WAVE ENERGY THAT HAS 5 BEEN ACROSS THE SITE, DEPENDS ON WHICH LAYER 6 YOU'RE LOOKING AT. YOU COULD GET ALL OF THEM 7 LAYERED IN THE SAME PLACE DEPENDING ON THE HISTORY 8 0F THE SITE.
1 9 Q. AND YOU MIGHT NOT, DEPENDING ON THE 10 HISTORY OF THE SITE?
i 11 A. YES.
f 12 Q. YOU SAY THAT ALL OF THESE SEDIMENTS --
13 THIS IS ON THE TOP OF PAGE 4 --
ARE PRESENT ALONG 14 THE MODERN LAKE ERIE SHORES.
15 I ASSUME FROM YOUR LAST ANSWER THAT YOU 16 WOULDN'T SAY THAT ALL OF THEM ARE PRESENT AT EVER) 17 LOCATION ALONG MODERN LAKE ERIE.
18 A. THERE ARE EXAMPLES ALONG THE SHORE THAT 19 REPRESENT, ONCE ONE DETERMINES WHAT THEY ARE, WHAT 20 THE PROCESSES ARE THAT SEGREGATE OUT EACH ONE OF 21 THESE GRAIN SIZES.
l 22 Q. IN OTHER WORDS --
,()
23 A. 50 YOU'RE LOOKING AT MODERN ANALOGS TO 24 WHAT'S PRESENT ON THE REST OF THE LANDSCAPE.
25 '
. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT
820
,:O 4/ 1 NECESSARILY TO FIND ALL OF THESE AT EVERY 2 LOCATION?
3 A. NO, OF COURSE NOT.
4 Q. AND AGAIN, YOU TALK ABOUT THE SITE AS AN 5 AREA 0F POTENTIAL COARSE GRAIN PERMEABLE SHORELINE 6 SEDIMENT DEPOSITION.
7 AGAIN, THAT'S A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT.
8 YOU'RE SAYING IT 'S POSSIBLE, BUT IT 'S --
THAT IT 9 HAPPENED HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
10 A. WHAT PART OF THE TESTIMONY?
) 11 Q. IT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4.
12 A. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN?
y,.
13 Q. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE AREA AS ONE OF
! 14 HAVING A POTENTIAL FOR COARSE GRAIN PERMEABLE i
15 SHORELINE SEDIMENT DEPOSITION. IT ALSO IS 1
16 POSSIBLE THAT IT DI DN 'T HAVE THAT, THAT THAT 1 17 DIDN'T OCCUR AT THE SITE; IS THAT CORRECT?
18 A. KNOWING THAT THE LAKE SHORELINE MOVED
- 19 OVER THE SITE AS IT RECEDED DOWN TO MODERN LAKE 20 ERIE SEVERAL TIMES, OR BELOW LAKE ERIE, I WOULD i
21 EXPECT TO FIND COARSE GRAIN DEPOSITION, AT LEAST 22 THE SAND LAYERS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
i
() 23 Q. DOESN 'T THAT DEPEND ON THE SPEED AT WHICH 24 THE LAKE MOVES PAST THE SITE?
25 t . CERTAINLY, BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE l
821 N': 1 SAME SAND LAYERS ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE L/CUSTRINE 2 DEPOSITS IN THE ENTIRE NORTH CENTRAL REGION OF
'I 3 OHIO.
4 Q. ARE THEY PRESENT AT EVERY LOCATION WITHIN 5 THE ENTIRE NORTH CENTRAL REGION OF OHIO?
4 6 A. NEARLY.
7 Q. I'M SORRY. N0?
8 A. NEARLY.
! 9 Q. NEARLY; BUT NOT ALL.
i 10 Q. YOU ALSO SAID THE TOUSSAINT RIVER MAY 11 HAVE DEPOSITED MATERIALS FROM UPLAND EROSION
- 12 SOURCES.
13 I PRESUME YOU ALSO WOULD AGREE THAT IT 14 MAY NOT HAVE DEPOSITED THOSE MATERIALS AT THE )
15 BURIAL SITE?
16 A. AGAIN, I WAS JUST PRESENTING THE 17 POSSIBILITIES. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLORED.
18 Q. I SEE. AND THAT ALSO WOULD BE TRUE FOR 19 THE STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE AVAILABLE MECHANISMS 20 FOR DISCONTINUOUS INTERCONNECTING LAYERS OF
- 21 MATERIALS THAT ARE COARSE OR MORE PERMEABLE THAN l
, 22 CLAY. THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
23 A. YES.
24
~
Q. BUT NOT A SURETY? l 25 ! . NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
822 1 Q. ARE LINEAMENTS --
YOU DREW THE LINEAMENTS 2 ON THOSE EXHIBITS E AND F; IS THAT RIGHT?
3 A. YES, I DID.
4 Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT LINEAMENTS CAN BE --
5 CAN RESULT FROM CULTURAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS t
6 FARMING, ROADS, EARLY STRUCTURES?
7 A. I COULD POINT OUT SEVERAL ON THIS THAT F ARE. I BELIEVE THAT WITH MY TRAINING AND 9 EXPERIENCE I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
2 10 Q. BUT THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS RELATED TO 11 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES?
12 A. WH'ICH LINEAMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
13 Q. LINEAMENTS IN GENERAL.
14 A. I WAS IN THIS CASE MAPPING GEOLOGICALLY i 15 RELATED LINEAMENTS.
16 Q. BUT LINEAMENTS IN GENERAL CAN RESULT FROM 17 A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAUSES; CORRECT?
18 A. THE TERM " LINEAMENT" IN ITS ORIGINAL l
19 DEFINITION MERELY MEANS LINE.
20 Q. AND THE ONES YOU DREW THROUGH THE CELLS, i 21 YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY LESS SURE OF THOSE WITH ALL YOUR 22 EXPERT TRAINING IN READING AERIAL PHOTOS THAN YOU f) 23 ARE THE OTHERS. THAT'S WHY YOU PUT THEM IN AS 24 DASHES.
25 . ! ORIGINALLY PUT THEM IN AS DASHES AFTER
823 1 HAVING TWO OTHER GEOLOGISTS LOOK AT THEM AND 2 DECIDE THEY COULD SEE THEM TOO. I PRETTY MUCH 3 THINK THEY'RE THERE.
4 Q. YOU HAVEN'T GONE TO THE SITE TO LOOK FOR 5 ANY EVIDENCE THAT THOSE EXIST, HAVE YOU?
i 6 A. NOT IN THE LAST THREE DAYS.
7 Q. WHAT ABOUT THE PRECEDING NINE MONTHS?
q 8 A. NO, I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.
9 Q. YOU H AVEN 'T DONE ANY INFRARED AERIAL 10 PHOTOS TO TRY TO BETTER DEFINE THOSE EITHER, HAVE l
11 YOU?
( m, 12 A. I DO NOT PERSONALLY HAVE ACCESS TO AN
) 13 AIRPLANE AND A CAMERA.
14 MR. GUY: IF I COULD
! 15 CORROBORATE RICK'S STATEMENT, THERE'S NOT MUCH 16 DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE PATTERNS SHOWN AS DASHED 17 CAN BE FOLLOWED.
18 Q. I'M SORRY. CAN DE FOLLOWED?
19 MR. GUY: CAN BE FOLLOWED.
20 Q. LET ME JUST GO BACK TO ONE MATTER I ASKED 21 ABOUT EARLIER, AND THAT WAS THE REFERENCE IN YOUR 22 TESTIMONY TO --
THE VERY BEGINNING OF YOUR
) 23 TESTIMONY, PAGE 2, TO "!MPERMEABLE" AS BEING I 'f.
; 24 IMP ER VIOUS .
i' 25 ISN'T IT TRUE THAT~THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE i
824 O*
Nr 1 REFERRING TO DEFINES IMPERVIOUS AS BEING A VERY 2 LOW PERMEABILITY?
3 A. I HAVEN'T READ THE DOCUMENT.
4 Q. NO, THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CITED IN YOUR 5 TESTIMONY.
6 A. WHICH ONE IS THAT?
i l 7 Q. ON PAGE 2, YOU SAID THAT --
TALKING ABOUT 8 IMPERMEABLE, THAT THAT CAME FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL 9 REPORT. YOU SAYING YOU H A VEN 'T READ THAT?
10 A. THE TERM " IMPERVIOUS" DID. .
11 Q. AND YOU SAID YOU HADN'T READ THAT
~
12 DOCUMENT? .
; 13 A. I JUST SAW IT RIGHT HERE. I REMEMBER i
14 READING IT EARLIER.
15 Q. OKAY. DOESN'T THAT DOCUPENT TALK --
16 DESCRIBE " IMPERVIOUS" AS BEING A VERY LOW 7
17 PERMEABILITY?
18 A. NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION.
19 Q. DO YOU HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY?
20 A. YES, I DO. )
21 Q. WANT TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT G?
22 NO. I 'M SORRY. IS THAT G?
i
() '
23 MR. VOYTEK: TH AT 'S MY 24 TESTIMONY.
i l 25 '
. OH, I'M SORRY.
1
825 rb- 1 WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT G OF MR.
2 VOYTEK'S TESTIMONY, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE A6, 3 DOESN 'T IT SAY THE SOIL DEPOSITS WHICH ESSENTIALLY I i 4 CONSIST OF SILTY CLAY HAVE VERY LOW PERMEABILITY 5 AND ARE CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS?
6 A. I SEE THAT.
i 7 Q. IN TALKING ABOUT --
I GUESS IT WAS TREE 8 ROOTS BEFORE YOU MENTIONED GYPSUM. THAT GYPSUM 9 COMES FROM BEDROCK WATER, DOESN'T IT?
10 A. IT CAN ALSO COME FROM THE GLACIAL TILL 11 WHICH HAS ERODED A HECK OF A LOT OF THE SAME
, ('
I ( {) 12 BEDRO,CK AND PLACED IT OVER THE BEDROCK. IT HAS 13 ERODED BEDROCK FARTHER OUT IN THE LAKE AND BROUGHT
, 14 IT UP TO PLACE IT ON WHAT'S LEFT. SO THERE WOULD 15 BE --
I WOULD EXPECT TO FIND A LOT OF GYPSUM 16 WITHIN THE TILL WHERE, AS THE WATER PERC0LATES f
17 DOWN THROUGH IT, THE GYPSUM WOULD PRECIPITATE IN 18 THESE JOINTS. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH GETTING IT I 19 FROM A TILL.
20 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS FOR THAT OR IS THAT 21 JUST YOUR SPECULATION?
22 A. TH AT ' S BASED ON KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS j "-
(.
23 MATERIAL HAS BEEN ERODED OUT OF THE LAKE, THAT IT 24 DOES EXIST WITHIN THE TILLS, THAT THERE IS A VERY 25 C' SISTENT PATTERN OF SEEING BEDROCK MATERIALS I
826
'f
+& ' 1 WITHIN THE TILL.
l 2 Q. HAVE YOU DONE ANY TESTS OF THE SOILS AT l l
1 3 DAVIS-BESSE OR IMMEDIATELY AROUND IT THAT WOULD l l
4 INDICATE PRESENCE OF GYPSUM IN THE TILLS?
5 A. NOT YET.
6 Q. WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF THE GYPSUM 7 APPEARED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TILL UNIT AND NOT AT
! 8 THE TOP? l 9 A. NOT AT ALL. l
; 10 Q. WOULDN'T THAT INDICATE THAT IT WAS COMING 11 UP FROM THE BOTTOM AND NOT COMING DOWN FROM THE 12 TOP?
v 13 A. NOT NECESSARILY AT ALL.
14 Q. WHY IS THAT?
15 A. BECAUSE THAT MAY BE THE ZONE WHERE THE 16 BEDROCK OR THE GROUNDWATER SATURATION REACHES A j 17 POINT THAT CRYSTALS WOULD COME OUT.
18 YOU ALSO HAVE INTERACTION FROM TREE ROOTS 19 AND THE ORGANIC MATERIALS THAT MAY CATALYZE IT TO 20 THE POINT THAT AT THAT POINT THE GYPSUM WOULD COME 21 OUT.
22 THERE'S JUST TOO MANY FACTORS INVOLVED TO 23 SAY THAT IT'S COMING UP FROM THE BEDROCK.
24 Q. WELL, IF TH AT ' S THE AREA WHERE IT'S l 25 i:~URATED, WOULDN'T THAT INDICATE THAT THE AREA
827 l
1
.O kPJ 1 ABOVE THAT IS NOT SATURATED?
2 A. I SAID SATURATED WITH RESPECT TO GYPSUM, 3 NOT SATURATED WITH RESPECT TO WATER. THE WATER 4 ABOVE WOULD NOT BE SATURATED WITH RESPECT TO 5 GYPSUM. THE WATER BELOW WOULD. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE 6 GETTING THE GYPSUM CRYSTALS COMING OUT.
7 Q. BUT THE FACT THAT THE GYPSUM IS IN THE 8 LOWER PART OF THE TILL AND NOT THE UPPER PART OF 9 THE TILL IS IRRELEVANT TO YOUR CONCLUSION AS TO i
10 WHERE IT'S COMING FROM7 11 A. I DON 'T KNOW ENOUGH OF THE FACTORS TO 12 DETERMINE. I COULD SEE IT COMING FROM BOTH 13 DIRECTIONS.
14 Q. OR EITHER DIRECTION?
! 15 A. MAYBE IN THE SAME CASE BOTH. DEPENDS ON i 16 WHAT TIME OF THE YEAR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND l
j 17 WHAT DIRECTION THE WATER IS MOVING.
18 Q. YOU WOUL DN 'T ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY 19 THAT IT WOULD COME FROM THE BEDROCK.
20 A. PARTIALLY.
21 Q. YOU WOULD PARTIALLY ELIMINATE THE 22 POSSIBILITY?
) 23 A. I WOULD ACCOUNT --
I WOULD ALLOW THAT 24 PART OF IT COULD BE COMING FROM THE BEDROCK. ! l l
25 V C U L DN 'T KNOW WITHOUT A COMPLETE STUDY OF THE i
i l
828
\
[)*~' 1 SITUATION.
2 Q. AND YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT?
3 A. WH AT ' S THE QUESTION?
4 MR. VOYTEK: IF I CAN MAKE A j 5 COMMENT HERE, I THINK IN MY TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE 6 I'VE INDICATED THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS FLUCTUATED 7 WITH LAKE ERIE, SO AS GROUNDWATER LEVELS WOULD ,
8 RISE, THEY WOULD BE COMING UP FROM THE BEDROCK AND
- 9 GETTING INTO THE TILL AQUIFER, AND AS THEY WOULD 10 DECREASE, THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS WOULD THEN GO l
11~ BACK DOWN. SO YOU WOULD GET AN IN-AND-0UT MOTION
, , 12 OF GROUNDWATER AT THE INTERFACE.
w 13 QI AND IT WOULD BE COMING UP FROM THE 14 BEDROCK?
15 A. (MR. VOYTEK) IT COULD BE AT ONE TIME OF 16 THE YEAR, AND THEN ANOTHER TIME OF THE YEAR IT 17 WOULD BE GOING BACK DOWNWARD.
18 Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. .
1 19 ARE EVAPORATION RATES THE SAME IN THE 20 SUMMER AND THE WINTER?
21 A. (MR. PAVEY) NO, THEY'RE NOT.
22 Q. THEY'RE HIGHER IN THE SUMMER?
23 A. DUE TO HIGHER TEMPERATURE, YES.
(;.' :.
24 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS OF THE 25 F r '. M A T I O N OF ICE LENSES IN EXCAVATIONS?
823 l
l A"
b) 1 A. YES, I AM.
2 Q. AND THAT OCCURS IN THE WINTER?
3 A. YES.
4 Q. WHAT CAUSES THAT?
5 A. FREEZING OF GROUNDWATER WITHIN CRACKS IN 6 SOIL.
7 Q. AND THOSE ARE VISIBLE?
8 A. YES, THEY ARE. THAT'S THE MATERIAL YOU 9 HAVE TO REMOVE TO GET DOWN TO THE FRESH STUFF.
10 Q. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF MORE 11 KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE GLACIAL SEDIMENTS OF THIS 12 AREA THAN DR. JANE FORSYTHE OF BOWLING GREEN,
.e 13 UNIVERSITY?
14 A. WHEN I SAY THAT, I SAY WORKING KNOWLEDGE.
15 SHE IS NOT CURRENTLY DOING FIELD WORK ;
16 HERSELF, AND THE KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT 17 SHE WAS WORKING AND THE TIME THAT OUR PROGRAM l 18 STARTED HAS GAINED CONSIDERABLY, SO WE'RE USING 19 MANY MORE NEW TECHNIQUES AND COVERED A LOT MORE 20 EXPOSURE IN THE AREA THAN I BELIEVE SHE WOULD l 21 HAVE, YES.
22 Q. JUST NEVER MET SOMEONE WHO SAID THEY HAD 23 MORE KNOWLEDGE ON A SUBJECT THAN ANYONE ELSE IN
24 THE WORLD.
l 25 A . I LIMIT IT TO NORTH CENTRAL OHIO.
. . _ _ _ . . . , _ . . . . . . . , _ - . . _ _ ~ . _ - . . , . . - . . - - . . . . _ - _ . = - - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . .
830 1 Q. OH.
2 MR. SILBERG: NOW, IF WE CAN MOVE 3 ON TO MR. VOYTEK.
1 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. SILBERG:
6 Q. MR. VOYTEK, WHEN YOU EARNED THE TITLE OR 8
7 THE HONOR OF CERTIFIED GROUNDWATER PROFESSIONAL, 8 WAS THAT AT THE TIME WHEN YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF 9 TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF 10 GROUNDWATER SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS?
11 A. I HAD APPLIED FOR THE TITLE OF CERTIFIED
- d. 12 GROUNDWATER PROFESSIONAL WHILE I WAS EMPLOYED A T-9, 13 AWWA, AND WHILE I WAS EMPLOYED BY THE OHIO 14 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, THE COMMITTEE HAD 15 MET AND GAVE ME THAT TITLE AT THAT TIME.
16 Q. WHILE YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THE GROUP, 17 THEY GAVE YOU THE TITLE?
18 A. NO.
19 Q. OH. YOU APPLIED FOR IT.
20 A. I APPLIED FOR IT, AND IT WAS ABOUT A 21 SIX-MONTH LAG TIME. I BELIEVE I APPLIED IN 22 dANUARY, AND I'M STILL NOT CERTAIN OF THE EXACT c
() 23 DATE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE CERTIFICATES. IT'S THAT 24 NEW.
l 1
25 I BELIEVE IT WAS IN APRIL OR MAY OF 1986
831 O
4+ 1 THAT I HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED NOTICE THAT I'D 2 G OT T EN 6 HAT TITLE. l l
l 3 Q. OKAY. YOU INDICATED, I THINK, THAT YOU l
4 HAD WRITTEN TWO TEXTBOOKS ON GROUNDWATER?
l 5 A. NO, I DID NOT INDICATE I'D WRITTEN ANY 6 TEXTBOOKS. I HAVE COAUTHORED ONE TEXTBOOK CALLED 7 " GROUND WATER AND WELLS", EDITED BY FLETCHER 8 DRISCOLL, WHILE I WAS EMPLOYED AT JOHNSON AND 9 AFTERWARDS. AND I'M IN THE PROCESS OF COAUTHORING 10 ANOTHER TEXTBOOK EDITED BY SCOTT HERBERT CALLED 11 " WATER WELL DESIGN FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS" TO l BE PUBLISHED BY VANOST AND RINEHARDT. WE ARE
[Ad. 12 g
13 UNDER CONTRACT TO DO THAT.
14 Q. OKAY. YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS; 15 I THINK YOU SAID NEARLY A DOZEN. I COUNTED EIGHT.
16 BUT THE "dEREMIAH'S WELL" COLUMN, COULD 17 YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE KINDS OF 18 ISSUES --
19 A. SURE. I WANTED TO WRITE A "HOW TO" 20 COLUMN ON INSTALLING --
TO HELP VARIOUS PEOPLE IN 21 THE INDUSTRY TO INSTALL WATER WELLS, TO INSTALL l 22 PIEZ0 METERS, TO DRILL, TO MAKE WATER LEVEL 23 MEASUREMENTS.
t;-
24 I WANTED A GENERIC BECAUSE AT THE TIME 25 TF;T THE CONCEPT FOR THAT COLUMN CAME OUT, I WAS 1 _
832 1 EMPLOYED AS A DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. I 2 WAS ALREADY RECEIVING THREE TO 400 PHONE CALLS A 3 MONTH ANSWERING --
NOT THREE TO 400. I TAKE THAT l 4 BACK. ABOUT 100 PHONE CALLS A MONTH ANSWERING l
5 QUESTIONS, AND I DID NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW I 6 WAS WRITING THAT SO I COULD GET MORE QUESTIONS.
7 Q. OKAY. SO YOU WROTE IT?
8 A. I PEN NAMED IT, AND I AM UNDER 9 SUBCONTRACT WITH THE WATER WELL JOURNAL, YES.
10 Q. I SEE. THOSE, IF I COULD CHARACTERIZE 11 THEM, REALLY INVOLVE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW TO 12 DRILL A WELL. IS THAT HOW YOU'D CHARACTERIZE IT?
v/
13 A. NOT NECESSARILY.
14 THE LAST ARTICLE THAT WOULD BE PUBLISHED 15 TALKS ABOUT HYDROCRACKING ROCK WELLS TO INCREASE 16 YIELD.
17 I'VE WROTE ANOTHER. DEPENDS UPON THE 18 SUBJECT. HOW TO EXPLORE FOR GROUND WATER AS AN 19 EXAMPLE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
I 20 Q. OF COURSE, I READ THEM ALL, AND I DI DN 'T 21 SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THINGS ABOUT HOW TO DRILL l 22 WELLS.
i
()
V.
23 A. HOW TO DO THINGS IN THE GROUNDWATER
'< ' 24 INDUSTRY, YES; HOW TO GET THE JOB DONE.
25 '
. RIGHT. HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY ARTICLES
833
.Q* 1 THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO BE PEER REVIEWED?
2 A. PEER REVIEWED? I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF MY 3 RESUME. OH, YES I DO. I HAVE A COPY OF THE 4 ARTICLES.
5 THE " CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN AND 6 INSTALLATION OF MONITORING WELLS" IS A REFEREE 7 JOURNAL, GROUNDWATER MONITORING REVIEW.
8 " APPLICATION OF DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS IN 9 GROUND WATER' MONITORING" WAS A PAPER THAT WAS 10 GIVEN IN FRONT OF MY PEERS IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF 11 THE SECOND NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF RESTORATION.
12 Q. I'M TALKING ABOUT PUBLISHED ARTICLES.
v' 13 A. THAT IS PUBLISHED, REVIEWED BY MY PEERS 14 IN PUBLIC WHILE GIVING THAT TALK. AND " MONITORING 15 AND EVALUATING YOUR WELL'S PERFORMANCE" IS, AGAIN, 16 A PEER REVIEW IN PUBLIC OF PRESENTING A PAPER TO 17 MY PEERS AND THEN HAVING IT PUBLISHED IN THE 18 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.
l 19 THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE. I DON'T SEEM TO 20 SEE IT ON HERE. IT WAS CONSIDERATIONS --
I CAN'T 21 REMEMBER THE EXACT TITLE --
WAS CONSIDERATIONS IN 22 COAL MINE OR GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS --
l
,f ) 23 " GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS IN COAL C
24 MINES", AND THAT WAS, AGAIN, A PEER REVIEW ARTICLE l
2S G: 'J E N AT A SYMPOSIUM ON GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS
834 O
kl 1 IN COAL MINES.
2 Q. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESENTING 3 A PAPER TO A GROUP OF YOUR PEERS AND HAVING AN l
4 ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEW JOURNAL?
5 A. I THINK THERE IS. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT 6 WANT TO GET UP IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE AND PRESENT 7 ERRONEOUS INFORMATION BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THERE'S 8 ALSO QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, AND BASICALLY, YOU CAN 9 LOOK VERY BAD IN FRONT OF YOUR --
IN FRONT OF AN 10 AUDIENCE.
11 Q. YOU THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 12 PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE AND A PAPER?
13 A. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE --
A PEER REVIEW 14 ARTICLE CAN BE REVIEWED IN AN EDITORIAL SENSE AS 15 WELL AS WITH YOUR PEERS HEARING YOUR PAPER.
16 Q. I TAKE IT YOU BELIEVE --
YOU CITE DR. JAY 17 LEHR.
18 A. UH-HUH.
19 Q. AND YOU BELIEVE THAT HE'S AN EXPERT IN 20 THIS FIELD?
21 A. DR. LEHR?
22 Q. YES.
) 23 A. DR. LEHR, YES. UH-HUH.
'" 24 ; Q. AND YOU SAY THAT HE TESTIFIED THAT OVER 25 F: E PERCENT OF OUR GROUNDWATER IS ALREADY
835 k 1 POLLUTED.
2 A. YES. AND I BASE THAT --
AND IT'S NOT IN 3 QUOTES BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE THE EXACT QUOTATION.
4 I BASE THAT ON A CONVERSATION WITH HIM IN 5 JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AFTER HE HAD MADE MENTION OF 6 THAT IN A SEMINAR THAT HE WAS TEACHING AT .
7 Q. WELL, I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE PUBLISHED 8 V E R S I O *1 OF HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, AND WOULD 9
9 YOU BE SURPRISED IF HE SAID "THERE IS ALSO LITTLE 10 DISAGREEMENT THAT THE TOTAL OF OUR AVAILABLE 11 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN POLLUTED TO 12 DATE WOULD NOT REACH ONE PERCENT OF OUR AVAILABLE 13 SUPPLY."?
14 dUDGE HOYT: WHY DON'T YOU SHOW 15 THE DOCUMENT TO THE WITNESS?
16 MR. SILBERG: SURE.
17 JUDGE HOYT: AND COUNSEL, IF l
18 YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT, YOU MAY.
19 A. WHAT YEAR IS THIS?
20 Q. 1984.
21 A. OKAY. NO, THIS W ASN 'T THE ONE THAT I WAS 22 REFERRING TO. HIS WAS DONE IN 1968 AND 1969. AS
,I ) 23 IT TURNS OUT --
WELL, THAT WAS THE YEAR.
24 Q. SO THIS IS MORE RECENT THAN THE DOCUMENT 25 YC. WERE QUOTING.
o
836 f
4 1 A. YES.
2 Q. WERE YOU EMPLOYED BY THE NATIONAL WELL 3 WATER --
4 A. WATER WELL.
5 Q. I'M SORRY. --
NATIONAL WATER WELL 6 ASSOCIATION IN 1984, APRIL OF 1984?
7 A. I BELIEVE I WAS, YES.
8 Q. AND THAT WAS THE TIME WHEN HE PRESENTED 9 THIS TESTIMONY?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. WObLD YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HELPING
- f. 12 HIM PREPARE THAT TESTIMONY?
c 13 A. NO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I WASN'T AWARE OF 14 THAT TESTIMONY.
15 Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT IT'S DR. LEHR'S 16 POSITION THAT GROUNDWATER POLLUTION IS GETTING 17 BETTER AND NOT WORSE?
18 A. DR. L EHR 'S POSITION THE LAST TIME I 19 TALKED TO HIM ABOUT GROUNDWATER POLLUTION WAS THE 20 FACT THAT WE WERE STILL FINDING MORE OF OUR 21 PROBLEMS, BUT WERE UNDERSTANDING THOSE PROBLEMS 22 AND SOLVING THEM JUST ABOUT AS FAST AS WE'RE f) m '
23 FINDING THEM NOW.
"' 24 50, YES. HE HAS A GREAT ANALOGY. HE 25 ECLATES IT TO THE TIME THAT HE WAS IN THE NAVY,
I 837 9 1 AND HIS CAPTAIN WOULD TELL HIM TO TURN ABOUT THE 2 BOAT, AND IT WOULD TAKE HIM SEVERAL MILES OR 3 SEVERAL NAUTICAL MILES IN THE OCEAN TO FINALLY GET l 4 THE BOAT TURNED AROUND. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE 5 HE PUTS US, IS IN THAT TURN-AROUND PROCESS.
l 6 SO WE'RE STILL HEADING IN THE WRONG 7 DIRECTION IN SOME CASES, BUT WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST 3
8 TO TURN THAT ABOUT. AND THAT IS HIS ANALOGY.
9 Q. YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE
) 10 CALCULATED RADIOLOGICAL DOSES THAT PEOPLE MIGHT 3 11 R EC EI VE FROM THIS WASTE FACILITY, HAVE YOU NOT?
, 12 A. UH-HUH.
,:p 13 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO CHALLENGE THAT, 14 THOSE CALCULATIONS?
15 A. I 'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT, NO.
16 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW YOU A PAPER THAT DR.
17 LEHR PUBLISHED IN IEE_EAIER_RELL_d2ERRAL APRIL 18 1986. THAT'S THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE 19 NATIONAL WATER WELL ASSOCIATION?
20 A. THERE ARE THREE PUBLICATIONS OF THE 21 NATIONAL WATER WELL. THAT IS THE OFFICIAL 22 PUBLICATION FOR THE CONTRACTORS, YES.
h 23 Q. I SEE. LET ME SHOW YOU AN ARTICLE. l
' .2
' ' 24 THIS IS AN ARTICLE --
1 i
25 Z . OKAY. THIS IS AN EDITORIAL, AND THERE IS l
l
l 838
()
- 1 A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EDITORIAL AND AN ARTICLE.
2 Q. I 'M SHOWING YOU AN EDITOR -- ,
1 l
3 A. AN EDITORIAL ~.
4 Q. --
EDITORIAL BY DR. LEHR.
5 JUDGE H0YT: NOW, YOU FOLKS ARE l
6 GOING TO HAVE TO STAND ASIDE SO THE REPORTER CAN 7 HEAR AND SEE YOU. I DON 'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING 8 TO DO IT.
9 BY MR. SILBERG:
10 Q. AND DOES DR. LEHR STATE THAT A MAXIMUM 11 RADIATION EXPOSURE OF 70 MILLIRADS WOULD INCREASE
) 12 THE RISK OF CANCER BY ONE CHANCE IN SEVEN MILLION?
v 13 A. THAT'S WHAT IT STATES IN THE ARTICLE, 14 YES.
15 Q. AND THAT --
THAT IS ABOUT THE SAME RISK 16 AS ENCOUNTERED BY FI VE EXTRA STREET CROSSINGS OR 17 TWO MEDICAL CHEST X-RAYS?
18 A. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE.
19 Q. AND AS FAR AS YOU --
20 A. I DON 'T PARTICULARLY AGREE WITH THAT 21 SERIES. IT'S A SERIES OF FOUR ARTICLES, THE FOUR 22 EDITORIALS IN WHICH DR. LEHR IS EXPOUNDING ON HIS
.()
~.
23 BELIEFS AND IS TRYING TO MAKE SOME FOUNDATION IN
#' THEM, AND PERSONALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THEM.
24 25 :. OKAY. BUT YOU THINK DR. LEHR IS AN
839 1 EXPERT IN THIS AREA?
2 A. HE'S AN EXPERT IN GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY, 3 YES. HE IS NOT -- AS FAR AS I KNOW, DOES NOT HAVE 4 A PH.D. IN MEDICAL SCIENCE OR RADIOLOGICAL 5 TESTING.
6 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE DOES HAVE A 7 PH.D. IN?
8 A. GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY FROM THE 9 UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. HE'S THE FIRST ONE IN THE 10 UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE IT.
1; Q. I'M CURIOUS. IN THE BOOKS THAT YOU ARE b 12 WRITING CHAPTERS, IN WHAT CHAPTERS ARE YOU WRITING 13 OR DID YOU WRITE?
14 A. IN THE MOST RECENT PUBLICATION, " WATER 15 WELL DESIGN FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS," I HAVE 16 WROTE PARTS OF JUST ABOUT EVERY CHAPTER EXCEPT FOR 17 THE INTRODUCTION, WHICH IS RESERVED FOR DR. LEHR, 18 WHO IS ALSO A COAUTHOR, AND THE
SUMMARY
CHAPTER, i 19 WHICH IS WRITTEN BY A MISS BETSY GALLAGHER, WHICH 20 IS ALSO COAUTHOR. 21 AND IN WATER WELL --
" GROUND WATER AND 22 WELLS", IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT I KNOW ONE CRITICAL
!,() 23 CHAPTER THAT I REVIEWED WAS ON WATER WELL DESIGN
- 1. : '.
24 OR WATER WELL REHABILITATION AND SOME ON WATER 25 VEL DESIGN.
840 L 1 Q. I'M SORRY. THAT'S A CHAPTER YOU 2 REVIEWED? 3 A. IT WAS REVIEWED, YES, AND EDITED AND PUT 4 INFORMATION IN AS NEEDED. 5 HOW WE WROTE THE BOOK IS A BASIC OUTLINE 6 OF THE CHAPTER, THEN WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE l 7 INFORMATION, FILL IN, MAKE THE BOOK FLOW. j 8 Q. YOU SAY THAT OVER 50 PERCENT OF OH I O ' S 9 POPULATION RELIES ON GROUNDWATER AS ITS SOURCE OF 10 DRINKING WATER; IS THAT CORR'ECT? 11 A. T H AT ' S CORRECT. ( , 12 Q. I SN 'T IT TRUE THAT CLEVELAND GETS ITS es., 13 WATER FROM LAKE ERIE? 14 A. THAT'S CORRECT. 15 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT TOLEDO GETS ITS WATER 16 FROM LAKE ERIE? 17 A. THAT'S CORRECT. ) 18 Q. AND WHAT ABOUT AKRON? 19 A. AKRON. 20 Q. CANTON? 21 A. WELL, LET'S SEE. NO, AKRON DOESN'T GET 22 THEIR WATER FROM LAKE ERIE. WAS IT, OR FROM ( 23 SURFACE WATER? 24 Q. YOU SAY GROUNDWATER. 25 4 . NO, NO, NO. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR l l l 1
841
'10 1 QUESTION ABOUT AKRON.
2 Q. DOES AKRON GETS ITS DRINKING WATER FROM 3 GROUNDWATER? 4 A. FROM GROUNDWATER? 5 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, THAT 6 WASN'T THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. 7 THE WITNESS: YEAH. I 'M CONFUSED 8 0F THE QUESTION. WILL YOU PLEASE START OVER? 9 JUDGE H0YT: I THINK IT IS , 10 CONFUSING. I THINK YOU SHOULD REASK THAT.
; 11 BY MR. SILBERG:
12 Q. THE STATEMENT IN YOUR TESTIMONY SAYS 50 s' 13 PERCENT OF OHI O 'S POPULATION RELIES ON GROUNDWATER 14 AS ITS SOURCE OF FRESH POTABLE DRINI: ING WATER. 15 A. UH-HUH. 16 Q. OKAY. I SN 'T IT TRUE THAT THE CITIES 17 0F -- LET ME READ YOU A LIST OF CITIES AND YOU 18 TELL ME WHETHER ANY OF THEM GET THEIR DRINKING 19 WATER FROM GROUNDWATER. 20 AKRON, CANTON, YOUNGSTOWN. 21 A. CANTON HAS SOME WELLS, YES. 22 Q. SOME WELLS. HOW MUCH -- WHAT PERCENT OF f)~ 23 THEIR WATER COMES FROM -- DON'T KNOW THEIR SYSTEM INTIMATELY. 24 A. I 25 C. CLEVELAND, TOLEDO, DAYTOH.
, ,- e,---, - . - . - , - , - --- . - - - . . - . -
842 1 A. DAYTON IS COMPLETELY ON GROUNDWATER. IT 2 IS ONE OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN THE WORLD THAT 3 RELIES TOTALLY ON GROUNDWATER. 4 Q. COLUMBUS? 5 A. THEY HAVE ABOUT A THIRD OF THEIR SUPPLY 6 ON GROUNDWATER. 7 Q. CINCINNATI? 8 A. I THINK THEY'RE ALL ON SURFACE WATER. I 9 Q. SANQUSKY? 10 A. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT SANDUSKY'S SUPPLY. 11 Q. LORAIN? f:t,,- 12 A. LORAIN, I 'M NOT SURE ABOUT THEIR SUPPLY. 13 I THINK THEY PROBABLY BUY IT FROM CLEVELAND. 14 Q. WHICH WOULD BE SURFACE WATER, NOT 15 GROUNDWATER? 16 A. YES.
'17 NOW, WHENEVER YOU MENTION THESE CITIES, 18 ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INNERCITIES OR THE 19 SUBURB AREAS AROUND THEM? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE --
20 Q. WELL, WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR -- l 21 A. IT IS A DI VI S ION AL WATER STATISTIC AT THE 22 0.D.N.R. THERE ARE 1,600 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
) 23 THAT RELY ON GROUNDWATER, AND THERE ARE SOMEWHERE N.j' . ~
24 ABOUT 3,000 NON-COMMUNITY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES 25 T',T ALSO RELY ON GROUNDWATER AS WELL AS
843 l
\ l INDIVIDUAL HOMES IN OHIO.
2 THAT, AS FAR AS THE DI FFER EN CE OF WATER 3 IS CONCERNED, IS AN UNDISPUTED NUMBER, AND I 4 BELIEVE THE U.S.G.S. 2001 CIRCULAR PAPER ON WATER 5 USE IN THE UNITED STATES, OHIO IS LISTED AS 51 6 PERCENT. I 'M NOT POSITIVE ON THAT FIGURE, THOUGH. 7 Q. OKAY. BUT ALL THE CITIES I MENTIONED, 8 YOU'D SAY THAT CINCINNATI AND CLEVELAND CERTAINLY 9 HAVE A LARGE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF OHIO? 10 TOLED0? 11 A. WELL, DEPENDS UPON WHERE THEIR SYSTEMS 12 ARE. 13 THERE ARE AREAS IN THE CITY OF COLUMBUS, 14 AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT I KNOW OF THAT DO NOT HAVE 15 CITY WATER, AND THEY ARE WITHIN -- THEY ARE 16 SURROUNDED BY CITY PROPERTY. 17 SO IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, WHICH IS BASICALLY 18 MADE UP OF COLUMBUS, AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE l 19 PRIVATE WELLS. f 20 SO EVER YB ODY WITHIN THOSE METROPOLITAN 21 AREAS ARE NOT RECEIVING THAT RESOURCE OF CLEVELAND I 22 CITY WATER. I N DI VI DU AL COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE THE l (]) 23 SUBURB COMMUNITIES WILL HAVE THEIR OWN WATER 24 SUPPLY, AND THEY TAKE UP, AS I THINK YOU REALIZE, 25 TFE POPULATION FIGURES MASS ESTIMATES TO -- ARE l
844 1 THESE THINGS TRAINED TO COME AROUND WHEN YOU TALK 2 AND BUZZ, THE LITTLE FLIES? ONLY WHENEVER YOU 3 TALK DO THEY COME FLYING IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. 4 dUDGE HOYT: ONLY BY THE STATE. 5 THEY ARE HIGH ABOVE. 6 A. WELL, GETTING BACK, DEPENDING UPON WHAT 7 CITY AND WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS YOU TAKE AS AN 8 EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE IT WAS -- COLUMBUS HAS ABOUT A 9 1.5 METROPOLITAN AREA, AND NOT ALL THOSE PEOPLE 10 RECEIVE COLUMBUS WATER. 11 Q. OKAY. A LOT OF YOUR TESTIMONY ON 12 GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT SEEMS Tp APPLY GENERICALLY. U 13 WOULD YOU AGREE TO THAT? 14 A. THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 15 Q. OKAY. FOR INSTANCE, YOU SAID GROUNDWATER 16 AT THIS SITE IS A VERY DYNAMIC SYSTEM. 17 A. YES. 18 Q. HAVE YOU DONE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF THE l 19 GROUNDWATER AT THIS SITE? 20 A. NO, BECAUSE GROUNDWATER AT EVERY SITE IS 21 DYNAMIC. 22 Q. I SEE. AND THAT FLOW CONDITIONS RESPOND l ()
+;
23 TO MANY FACTORS. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A GENERIC
- '"' 24 STATEMENT, RIGHT?
l 25 '
. GROUNDWATER FLOW IS CONTROLLED BY VERY
845 1 MANY FACTORS, YES, ALL OF WHICH HAVE TO BE TAKEN 2 INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU TRY TO DETERMINE THE 3 GROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERN. 4 Q. OKAY. AND MOST OF -- IN FACT, MOST OF 5 YOUR TESTIMONY IS REALLY GENERIC; ISN'T THAT 6 RIGHT? I 7 A. GENERIC TO THE SENSE THAT DAVIS -- WELL, 8 TOLEDO EDISON HAS NOT PROVIDED US WITH ANY 9 HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT TO DISPUTE. 10 Q. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DATA TO 11 DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION ON THEN.
. .12 A. AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE?
13 Q. RIGHT. 14 A. AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, NO, I DON'T. 15 Q. HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE TERM " AQUIFER"? 16 A. WELL, THAT IS A -- IF I COULD DEFINE THE 17 WORD " AQUIFER", PEOPLE WOULD LIKE IT, AND IF I 18 COULD COPYRIGHT IT, I PROBABLY COULD BE A 19 MILLIONAIRE AND W OUL DN 'T BE SITTING HERE. . 20 IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE 21 TERM, AND THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT DEFINES IT, 22 AND THEY DEFINE AQUIFER, AND I 'M GOING TO STRAIN () 23 MY MEMORY HERE. I MAY NOT HAVE THE EXACT 24 QUOTATION, BUT THEY BASICALLY DEFINE IT AS ANY 25 PETMEABLE FORMATION CAPABLE OF YIELDING A
846 1 SUBSTANTIAL OR -- I THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL 2 AMOUNT OF WATER. l 3 IF YOU CAN DEFINE WHAT " SUBSTANTIAL" 4 MEANS, THEN YOU HAVE THE TERM OF AQUIFER. l 5 AND IT DEPENDS UPON WHERE YOU ARE. IF 6 YOU'RE IN A WATER-RICH AREA, AN AQUIFER -- A FINE 7 SAND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AQUIFER, BUT IF 8 YOU'RE IN A WATER-DRY AREA OR AN AREA WHERE WATER l 9 IS HARD TO FIND, SUCH AS DESERT, ANY SEAT MIGHT BE 10 CONSIDERED AN AQUIFER. 11 50 IT'S A VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM. THERE 11 - l n ,, 12 ARE NO SCIENTIFIC DEFINITIONS THAT I KNOW OF THAT ss- ) 13 ACCURATELY DESCRIBE GROUNDWATER -- 14 Q. WHAT'S -- I 15 A. -- OR AQUIFER. 16 Q. YEAH. WHAT'S THE HYDRAULIC GRADIENT AT 17 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE? 18 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HYDRAULIC GRADIENT l 19 IS IN THE UN -- I'M SORRY -- IN THE UNCONSOLIDATED I 20 TILL AQUIFER BECAUSE THERE ARE NO WELLS IN THAT 21 AQUIFER. AND USING TOLEDO E DI S ON 'S OWN 22 INFORMATION, I BELIEVE THERE'S ABOUT A ONE TO TWO l ()
#i t-23 FOOT PER MILE HYDRAULIC GRADIENT IN THE DOLOMITE l
24 AQUIFER. l ! 25 0. THE DOLOMITE IS THE BEDROCK AQUIFER,
847 k 1 ISN'T IT? 2 A. YES. 3 Q. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE UPPER AQUIFER. 4 A. RIGHT. 5 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE UPPER l 6 A QU I F ER CAN TRANSMIT SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF 7 WATER UNDER ORDINARY HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS? 8 A. PLEASE DEFINE "SIGNIFICANT." 9 Q. WELL, THAT SEEMS TO BE A DEFINITION THAT 10 FREEZE AND CHERRY HAVE ADOPTED IN THEIR BOOK. 11 HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINOR 12 QUANTITIES OF WATER? 13 A. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINOR 14 QUANTITIES OF WATER, BUT THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE l 15 THAT THOSE MINOR QUANTITIES OF WATER DO, IN FACT, , l 16 REACT AND MOVE DYNAMICALLY THROUGH A SYSTEM. j 17 I CAN EQUATE THAT TO A -- TO AN ANALOGY. l 18 IT WOULD BE MUCH LIKE SHINING A SPOT -- OR A 19 FLASHLIGHT ON THAT WALL, THAT BRICK WALL RIGHT 20 ABOVE JACK KEELY, AND THEN SHINING A FLOODLIGHT ON 21 THAT WALL ALSO. EVEN THOUGH THE EFFECT OF THE 22 FLASHLIGHT, WHICH IS SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING SHOWN ON () 23 THAT WALL, IS OVERSHADOWED BY THE S P O'T L I G H T , IT'S
24 STILL THERE.
SO THE AQUIFER SYSTEM IS STILL THERE. 25 l l
848 1 WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SIGNIFICANT IN ECONOMIC TERMS 2 FROM TODAY IS, I BELIEVE, FAIRLY IRRELEVANT. 3 Q. WELL, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE 4 THAT THE UPPER TILL HERE TRANSMITS SIGNIFICANT 5 QUANTITIES OF WATER, HAVE YOU? 6 A. AGAIN, WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT? I'VE SEEN 7 WATER IN THE TILL AQUIFER, YES. 8 Q. WHAT ABOUT A USEABLE QUANTITY FOR A WELL 9 OR A SPRING? 10 A. I HAVE DESIGNED WELLS AND AQUIFERS ONLY 11 SIX INCHES THICK. ( 12 Q. THE QUESTION HOW THICK THE AQUIFER IS OR
- 13 HOW MUCH WATER IS IN IT?
14 A. WELL, AGAIN, THEY ONLY PROVIDED ABOUT A 15 QUARTER OF A GALLON OF WATER PER MINUTE. 16 Q. IN THE WELLS YOU DESIGNED. 17 A. IN ONE WELL I DESIGNED, YES. 18 Q. YOU HAVE ANY BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE 19 UPPER TILL A QU I F ER THAT YOU INDICATE EXISTS HERE < 20 WOULD PROVIDE -- 1 21 A. I SEE NO EVIDENCE IN THE UPPER TILL 22 AQUIFER OF ANY HYDROGE0 LOGIC STUDY AS FAR AS i () 23 P U'T T I N G IN A PIEZOMETRIC WELL SYSTEM TO MEASURE 24 THE HYDRAULIC GRADIENT. I'VE SEEN NO PIEZ0 METRIC i 25 F: S OF THE AREA, OF THE UNCONSOLIDATED OR THE
_. - ~ _ . . .. - - 1 849 1 CONSOLIDATED AQUIFER. I'VE SEEN NO TENSIOMETERS 2 TO PROVE THAT THE WATER IS A VADOSE WATER AND NOT 3 A SATURATED GROUNDWATER, AND THUS DISPROVE MY 4 TESTIMONY. I'VE NOT SEEN ANY -- 5 Q. BUT WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY? 6 YOU SAID YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR THINKING THERE'S l 7 WATER THERE. NOW, WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR - 8 SAYING THERE IS? 9 A. THE BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THERE IS j 10 AQUIFERS? 11 Q. YEAH. 12 A. IS FROM THE BORING LOGS AND THE FACT THE 13 WATER DOES COME INTO THOSE BOREHOLES. ' i 14 Q. AND THAT TO YOU -- THE FACT THAT THOSE 15 BORING LOGS SA) ll AT ER MEANS THAT THERE IS A 16 SIGNIFICANT AM O Ul4 T OF WATER? 17 A. G R O U N D'd A T E R IS GROUNDWATER. GROUNDWATER i 18 IS ANYTHING BELOW THE GROUND, AND IT WILL ACT AS A 19 MEDIA TO TRANSFER POLLUTANTS FROM ONE AREA TO 20 ANOTHER AREA. 21 Q. SO ONE DROP OF WATER IS ENOUGH TO BE AN 22 A QUI F E R; IS THAT RIGHT?
,)
23 A. NO. FORMATION THAT CONTAINS GROUNDWATER 24 IS, YES. i ONE DROP? 25 C. HOW MUCH GROUNDWATER?
850
%> 1 A. I DON 'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF AN 2 AQUIFER IS.
3 Q. WELL, YOU USED IT. 4 A. HUH? 5 Q. YOU USED IT. 6 A. YES, AND IT'S USED ALSO IN OTHER 7 LITERATURE. 8 Q. WHAT DID YOU MEAN? 9 A. AN AQUIFER IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM. 10 Q. I SEE. 50 ANYTHING THAT'S GOT WATER IN 11 IT IS AN AQUIFER. l 12 A. ANYTHING THAT CAN TRANSMIT WATER IS AN s-1 13 AQUIFER, YES. 14 Q. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS FORMATION l l 15 CAN TRANSMIT WATER? 16 A. WELL, WE SEE IT ACCUMULATING IN THE 17 BOREHOLE. 18 Q. CAN BRICK TRANSMIT WATER? i 19 A. IT WOULD DEPEND. I MEAN I DON 'T -- I l l 20 MEAN, THERE'S CONCRETE BLOCKS THAT DO, YES. I HAD 21 A BASEMENT THAT TRANSMITTED A LOT OF WATER. 22 Q. SO DO I. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN OUR
, 1) 23 BASEMENTS ARE AQUIFERS, DOES IT?
'- 24 A. BUT THAT BRICK BY -- WELL, IT'S NOT A i 25 G ; LOGIC FORMATION, NO. A BRICK IS NOT A GEOLOGIC
851
\ 1 FORMATION. THAT IS THE KEY. IN RCRA STANDARDS, 2 THE DEFINITION OF AQUIFER, WHICH I USUALLY GO BY I
3 BECAUSE IT'S THE MOST RECENT FEDERAL DEFINITION, I 4 IS A GEOLOGIC FORMATION THAT TRANSMITS SIGNIFICANT l 5 AMOUNTS OF WATER, AND "SIGNIFICANT" IS SUBJECTIVE. 6 IN OHIO, THERE ARE SHALE AQUIFERS THAT 7 PRODUCE' GROUNDWATER FROM SHALE WHICH HAS VERY LOW 8 PERMEABILITY, AND PROBABLY 20 MILES AWAY THERE ARE 9 BURIED GLACIAL DEPOSITS THAT, MUCH LIKE RICK 10 DESCRIBED, YOU CAN THREAD A GARDEN HOSE THROUGH. 11 SO FROM ONE PART OF ONE COUNTY TO ANOTHER 12 PART OF ONE COUNTY, THE TERM AQUIFER IS 13 SUBJECTIVE. 14 Q. AND BASED ON TWO REFERENCES AND TWO 15 BORING LOGS, YOU'VE DECIDED THAT WE HAVE AN 16 AQUIFER AT THIS SITE? 17 A. THE POTENTIAL FOR THE AQUIFER AT THIS 18 SITE THROUGH THE BORING LOGS I'VE ATTACHED TO MY 19 TESTIMONY DOES EXIST, YES. l 20 Q. OKAY. NOW, THE RCRA DEFINITION -- IS ,
- 12 21 THIS RCRA?
22 MR. LEWIS: YES.
) 23 A. LIKE I SAID, I W ASN 'T QUOTING. I WAS 24 TRYING TO REMEMBER FROM MEMORY.
l 25 :. -- TALKS ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF I
n 852
<~T J Dvl 1 GROUNDWATER TO WELLS OR SPRINGS. WE DON'T SEE ANY j i
2 SPRINGS HERE, DO WE? l l 3 A. I DON'T THINK THAT THE TOPOGRAPHY WOULD 4 PERMIT A SPRING, NO. 5 Q. AND YOU THINK YOU COULD DRILL A WELL THAT 6 WOULD PRODUCE USEFUL AMOUNTS OF WATER INTO THAT 7 FORMATION? 8 A. ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, THERE HAS NEVER 9 BEEN A WELL EVEN ATTEMPTED TO BE INSTALLED AT 10 TOLEDO EDISON, 50 WE DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER. 11 Q. WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE EXCAVATIONS? WE 12 HAVE 'A THOUSAND-FOOT-LONG TRENCH? 13 A. IT COULD BE -- 14 Q. NO WATER SEEPING IN. 15 A. POSSIBILITIES COULD BE ENDLESS FOR THOSE. 16 TRANSPIRATION COULD TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE 17 SEEPING GROUNDWATER AND SMEARING. I THINK -- 18 RICK, DO YOU WANT TO -- 19 A. (MR. PAVEY) AGAIN, COMPARING THE 20 EXCAVATION TO A NATURAL CLEAN EXPOSURE, YOU CAN 21 SEE IN NATURAL EXPOSURES THE SEEPS WHERE THERE IS l 22 NOT A COVER, A DISTURBED COVER THAT WAS CREATED BY f) 23 MACHINES AND MAN. WHERE YOU SEE THESE SEEPS, YOU CAN SEE 24 2S T'E WATER COMING OUT AND EVAPORATING. THEY ONLY
853 1 RUN SO FAR DOWN THE OUTCROP BEFORE THEY EVAPORATE 2 INTO THE AIR, BUT THEY'RE PERENNIALLY WET, AND THE 3 WATER IS COMING OUT, AND -- 4 Q. AND THAT'S -- THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD GET 5 OUR ICELANDS -- 6 A. SURE. 7 YOU WOULD ALSO GET IT IN THE SATURATED 8 UPPER PORTION OF THE SOIL WHERE YOU HAVE THE 9 FREEZE-THAW EVERY WINTER OR ON THE SIDE OF THE CUT 10 WHERE YOU HAVE THE SAME DEPTH OF FREEZING AND 11 THAWING. h 12 A. (MR. VOYTEK) I DO WANT TO PUT OUT THAT I 13 LOOKE AT THE SYSTEM OR I LOOK AT THE 14 UNCONSOLIDATED TILL AS A SYSTEM, A SMALL -- 15 WHETHER OR NOT YOU CALL THEM AQUIFERS, BUT 16 COMBINED, THEY DO TRANSMIT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF 17 GROUNDWATER FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER. l 18 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR THIS SITE? 19 A. KNOWING THE NATURE OF TILLS, AND IN THE 20 INFORMATION THAT I HAVE :4 A D , I'VE TALKED'WITH MY 21 COLLEAGUES AND OTHER PEERS, AND UNDERSTANDING HOW 22 TILLS REALLY 00 FIT INTO THE GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLE OF () 23 THINGS, AND ALSO USING FREEZE AND CHERRY'S 24 DEFINITION OF AN AQUITARD AS BEING JUST A LESS 25 PET.MEABLE FORMATION THAT IS SIGNIFICANT IN THE
i 854 1 HYDROGEOLOGIC ASPECT OR HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY, I ; 2 HAVE BASED MY INFORMATION ON THAT, ON THOSE FACTS. 3 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH MR. 4 PAVEY'S INDICATION THAT THE INDICATIONS OF WATER 5 IN THE BORING LOGS THREE AND FIVE INDICATE A 6 PATHWAY BUT NOT AN AQUIFER? 7 A. I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE 8 QUESTION? 9 Q. SO YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH MR. PAVEY'S 10 CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE NOTATIONS ON BORING LOGS 11 THREE AND FIVE THAT REFERENCES TO WATER INDICATE A 12 PATHWAY BUT NOT AN AQUIFER. 13 MR. PAVEY: CAN I CLARIFY WHAT 14 I MEANT BY PATHWAY AND WHERE IT WOULD BE? 15 MR. SILBERG: CAN I JUST ASK THE 16 WITNESS, THEN YOU CAN CLARIFY. 17 A. (MR. VOYTEK) SO MR. P A VE Y 'S TESTIMONY 18 STATES THAT HE BELIEVES THEY ARE A PATHWAY? 19 Q. TH AT ' S WHAT HE STATED, AND NOT AN 20 AQUIFER. ( l 21 A. AN AQUIFER IS A PATHWAY THROUGH THE 22 GROUND.
,() 23 Q. DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY?
u.' l
'?
24 A. (MR. PAVEY) EACH ONE OF THESE PATHWAYS, l 25 V'EN TAKEN IN SUM TOTAL, REPRESENT THE AQUIFER
855 9 1 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 2 Q. AND WHAT -- WHAT IS YOUR BASIS THAT THESE 3 PATHWAYS ARE CONNECTED? 4 A. (MR. PAVEY) BY ALL INDICATIONS, WATER IN 5 THE GLACIAL SEDIMENTS ARE CONNECTED TO THE BEDROCK 6 THERE, THE FLUCTUATIONS THAT ARE THERE. 7 A. (MR. VOYTEK) I WILL POINT OUT WHY -- 8 WHERE SOME OF MY I N F O R M A'T I O N CAME FROM AND WHY I 9 BELIEVE THAT THESE SYSTEMS DO EXIST AT THIS SITE. 10 FIRST 'O F ALL, I PROVIDE'O WITH MY 11 TESTIMONY SEVERAL DOCUMENTED PAPERS OF THE SAME 12 GEOLOGIC PROVINCE THAT OHIO IS IN, O'U'T L I N I N G 13 SIMILAR -- WELL, SIMILAR TILL"S, SIMILAR GLACIAL 14 SETTINGS, IN WHICH THESE PROBLEMS HAVE OCCURRED, 15 PROBLEMS WITH CONTAMINATION,OF LOWER AQUIFER 16 SYSTEM GOING THROUGH TILLS. 17 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THOSE WERd? 18 A. WHERE THOSE WERE? r 19 Q. YEAH. , 20 A. WELL, ONE WAS IN WISCONSIN. ONE PAPER 21 WAS FROM WISCONSIN WHICH ANALYZED THREE LANDFILL 22 SITES, AND ONE WAS IN ILLINOIS. . h 23 Q. AND ONE WAS IN THE GULF COAST SURhACE
- iis, 24 COAL MINE?
25 4 YES. THERE WERE FOUR SITES THAT WERE
l l l 856 e 1 INVESTIGATED IN TWO PAPERS THAT I PRESENTED, YES. 2 Q. AND ALL THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME LIKE l 3 THE DAVIS-BESSE BURIAL SITE -- l 1 4 A. NO. I 5 Q. -- WHICH BUT YOU'VE NEVER EXAMINED? 6 A. NO. 7 Q. OKAY. 8 A. (MR. VOYTEK) I DO WANT TO FINISH THE 9 STATEMENT THAT I HAD STARTED B E F.O R E -- 10 Q. GO AHEAD. I 'M SORRY. I RUDELY 11 INTERRUPTED YOU. 12 A. (MR. VOYTEK) AS I SAID, I WOULD BASE MY Wr 13 INFORMATION ON SOME OF THOSE TILL AQUIFERS THAT 14 WERE DISCUSSED IN TWO PAPER -- THE FIRST TWO 15 PAPERS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN MY TESTIMONY, 16 BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY 17 AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT OF l 18 THIS AREA PROVIDED BY TOLEDO EDISON OR PROVIDED BY 1 19 ANYBODY TO THE CONTRARY. ; 20 SO ACCORDING TO THE BEST SCIENTIFIC < l 21 INFORMATION, THOSE SYSTEMS CONNECTING THE UPPER 22 SURFACE WITH THE LOWER BEDROCK UNIT SHOULD EXIST. .l () - 23 Q. CAN AN AQUITARD BE AN AQUIFER? ) 1 E 24 A. IF YOU WOULD TAKE THAT AQUITARD AND MOVE I 25 I~ TO THE SAHARA DESERT, YES, IT COULD.
i ' 857 C. 1 Q. WHAT ABOUT HERE IN THIS AREA? 2 A. IT'S GENERALLY CHEAPER AND EASIER TO GO 3 TO ~ A LOWER' LIMESTONE OR DOLOMITE FORMATION TO 4 OBTAIN YOUR GROUNDWATER. 5 Q. SO YOU WOUL DN 'T CONSIDER AN AQUITARD IN 6 THIS AREA -- 13 7 A. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS, AN 8 AQUIFER IS SOMETHING THEN YOU CAN MEASURE AND SEE E MOVEMENT IN, AND IF YOU DON'T AT LEAST RECOGNIZE 10 THAT THIS IS AN AQUIFER SYSTEM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A 11 VERY LOW PERMEABLE SYSTEM, IT'S THE FLASHLIGHT AND 12 THE SPOTLIGHT SYNDROME. IT SILL EXISTS AND IT 13 STILL CONNECTS THE SURFACE AC T I VI T Y WIT H THE LOWER 14 A QU I F E R SYSTEM. 15 Q. I DON'T THINK I GOT AN ANSWER TO MY l 16 QUESTION. CAN AN AQUITARD BE AN AQUIFER? 17 A. I SAID THAT IT -- BEING THAT AQUIFER IS A 18 SUBJECTIVE TERM, IT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE ) { i 19 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE ME. 20 IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, 21 IF YOU WOULD SAY "CAN I COMPLETE A WELL WITH 50 22 GALLONS A MINUTE IN IT?", NO, YOU PROBABLY l ,() 23 WOULDN'T WITH AN AQUIFER -- AQUITARD. v~ 24 Q. YOU INDICATE THAT TOLEDO SOILS -- T,H I S IS 25 Ob PAGE 7 -- ARE RELATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR l l
858 1 LANDFILLS DUE TO PONDING. 2 A. YES. 3 Q. WHO HAS MADE THAT RATING? 4 A. IT WAS MADE IN THE OTTAWA COUNTY SOIL 5 SURVEY. 6 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IT JUST SAYS THAT 7 IT'S -- THAT SOIL CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO 8 BE TAKEN CARE OF TO AVOID PONDING? 9 A. I'LL HAVE TO REREAD THE SECTION ON THAT. 10 WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR? 11 Q. YEAH. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THEY'RE 12 RATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR -- THE TOLEDO SOILS ARE -
<a 13 RATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR LANDFILLS?
14 A. THEY DON'T SAY THEY'RE UNSUITABLE. THEY 15 SAY THAT THERE'S SEVERE PONDING. 16 Q. DO THEY PROVIDE IN THEIR DEFINITION OF 17 " SEVERE" AN INDICATION THAT YOU CAN DESIGN AROUND 18 THOSE PROBLEMS APPROPRIATE -- BY APPROPRIATE l 19 DESIGN? 20 A. YES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF MY -- 21 ONE OF MY REFERENCES REFERS TO LANDFILLS THAT ARE 22 DESIGNED IN THOSE TYPES OF SOILS AND WHAT KIND OF () 23 SPECIAL PROBLEMS THEY RUN UP AGAINST AND WHAT KIND v 24 OF SPECIAL HYDRAULIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC NEEDS THAT 25 ArE NEEDED TO INSTALL LANDFILLS IN THOSE AREAS. l ~ -- - -- --. _. .. _ _ _ _ - . - _ ___
853 l 1 Q. OKAY. BUT ONE CAN OVERCOME THOSE 2 LIMITATIONS. 3 A. ACCORDING TO THE PAPER WHICH WAS 4 WRITTEN -- WE'LL GO BACK TO THIS WRITTEN -- AND 5 PRESENTED IN 1984, THEY CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF 6 RECOMMENDATIONS. 7 NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 WERE EVER PUT INTO FORCE AND USED IN THE FIELD, I 9 HAVE NOT SEEN A SUBSEQUENT FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE 10 PAPER THAT WAS GI VEN BY GORDON AND HUEBNER. 11 Q. NOW, THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING
^
; 12 TO FOR RATIN.G . SOILS AS UNSUITABLE FOR LANDFILLS -- -
13 WHICH YOU NOW AGREE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT -- THAT'S 14 THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH 15 MR. PAVEY, THE SOIL SURVEY OF OTTAWA COUNTY? 16 A. YES, TH AT ' S CORRECT. 17 Q. OKAY. THANK YOU. 18 A. THOSE SOILS THAT THEY MAP IN THERE, I DO 19 HAVE A KNOWLEDGE ON THAT, THEY MAP THOSE GENERALLY 20 ONLY DOWN, DEPENDING UPON THE PROBES THAT THEY 21 HAVE AND HOW FAR THEY CAN GET DOWN, ONLY DOWN TO A 22 LEVEL OF ABOUT FOUR FEET, AND THEY WILL GIVE YOU () 7'. ' 23 THE DIFFERENT SOIL RATINGS FOR DIFFERENT DEPTHS. SO THEY ARE A CURSORY EXAM OF SOILS THAT ARE
~
l 24 25 E'; STING IN THE COUNTY.
860 h 1 Q. OKAY. BUT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO RELY 2 ON. 3 A. GOOD ENOUGH TO GENERALIZE THE TOPSOIL OF 4 THE AREA, YES. 5 Q. YOU INDICATE ON THE TOP OF PAGE 9 THAT 6 THE GROUNDWATER IN THIS AREA IS THE MOST IMPORTANT 7 SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER FOR THE PEOPLE OF 8 NORTHWESTERN OHIO? 9 A. YES. AND I GUESS I WAS INSINUATING THE 10 RURAL PEOPLE OF NORTHWESTERN OHIO, BUT BY 11 POPULATION, THEY STILL FIT IN THE OVER 50 PERCENT 12 RANGE.
%7 13 Q. EVEN IN NORTHWESTERN OHIO?
14 A. YES, 15 Q. EVEN THOUGH THE CITIES THAT WE'RE TALKING I 16 ABOUT GET TAKE THEIR WATER FROM SURFACE? 17 A. TOLEDO AND A FEW OTHER MEDIUM SIZE CITIES 18 TAKE THEIRS -- MUST OF THE RESIDENTS IN NORTHWEST 1 19 OHIO ARE EITHER VERY SMALL COMMUNITIES WHO RELY ON 20 GROUNDWATER OR THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL FARM WELLS 21 WHICH RELY NOT ONLY ON DOMESTIC SUPPLIES, BUT ALSO 22 SUPPLIES FOR THEIR IRRIGATION, AGRICULTURAL AND j () 1'" 23 LIVESTOCK USE. R 24 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE NET MOVEMENT OF 25 TITER FROM THE UPPER AQUIFER TO THE DEEPER AQUIFER l
861
1 THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT IS ONLY POSSIBLE IF THE 2 UPPER PART OF OUR SOIL COLUMN IS SATURATED?
3 A. YES. 4 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA WHICH ESTABLISHES 5 THAT THAT'S THE CASE? 6 A. NO. 7 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA WHICH ESTABLISHES 8 THAT WHEN THE WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ERIE RISES, IT 9 WILL REPLENISH THE LIMESTONE AQUIFER? 10 A. WE HAVE A HYDROGRAPH AT CATAWBA ISLAND 11 WHICH DOES INDICATE THAT, YES. 12 Q. IT INDICATES THAT FOR CATAWBA ISLAND? 13 A. IT INDICATES THAT FOR THE LIMESTONE FOR 14 THE CARBONATE AQUIFERS. 15 Q. AND HOW FAR INLAND WOULD THAT EXTEND? 16 A. THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO -- QUESTION TO 17 ANSWER WITHOUT EITHER GETTING SITE-SPECIFIC AND 18 PROVIDING SOME GEOLOGIC INFORMATION OR -- WELL, 19 IT'S SITE-SPECIFIC, AND ALSO DEPENDS UPON THE 20 GEOLOGIC -- 21 Q. SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HAPPENED AT 22 THIS SITE. 23 A. NO. 24 Q. IS THERE ANY HEAVY GROUNDWATER PUMPING IN 25 ~'.S AREA?
t 862 I 1 A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO HEAVY EITHER I l 2 INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC OR COMMUNITY SUPPLIES. I l 3 Q. WHEN YOU USE THE TERM " WATER LEVEL" ON 4 PAGE 9, ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN IN THE SENTENCE, THAT 5 SAYS DURING PERIODS OF HIGH LAKE LEVEL, THE WATER l 6 LEVEL WILL RISE IN RESPONSE, YOU MEAN THAT AS THE I 7 PIEZOMETRIC LEVEL? 8 A. WELL, I 'M CALLING IT THE W AT E R LEVEL l 9 BECAUSE I THINK THAT BOTH OF THE SYSTEMS ARE , 14 l 4 10 INTERCONNECTED, AND I -- I REALLY CAN'T SEE THAT l l 11 THE TILL AQUIFER SYSTEM IS NOT SATURATED TO THE l 12 POINT THAT THE WATER LEVEL IN THE LOWER DOLOMITE QF ' 13 AQUIFER ALSO REFLECTS THAT IT'S FAIRLY NEAR A 14 WATER LEVEL IN THE UNCONSOLIDATED FORMATION. BUT 15 I DON 'T HAVE ANY HARD EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED 16 TO THE CONTRARY OR -- WELL, PRO OR CON. 17 Q. WHAT ABOUT -- DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY 18 THAT THIS THOUSAND-FOOT-LONG CUT WAS DRY? 19 WOULDN'T THAT BE INCONSISTENT? 20 A. WAS THAT THE SAME CUT THAT WAS ABOUT -- 21 Q. HALF MILE. 22 A. -- HALF MILE TO A MILE AWAY? ()
~
- 23 Q. YEAH. WOULDN'T THAT BE INCONSISTENT WITH
;y;.
" l' 24 THAT LAST STATEMENT OF YOURS?
! 25 4 I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CUT WOULD BE AND
o 863 1 I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT'S CONNECTED l 2 HYDR 0 GEOLOGICALLY TO THE SYSTEM. 3 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN 4 THE BEDROCK AQUIFER AND NAVARRE MARSH? 5 A. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CONNECTION, NO -- l 6 WELL, OTHER THAN INDIRECT CONNECTION THROUGH THE 7 SAME UNCONFINED, UNCONSOLIDATED A QU I F E R S THAT I 8 WAS TALKING ABOUT, YES. 9 Q. BUT UNDER YOUR THEORY, THAT WOULD BE A l 10 CONNECTION THAT FLOWS DOWNWARD AND NOT UPWARD. 11 A. WELL, IT WOULD FLOW IN MANY DIFFERENT 12 DIRECTIONS BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONTINUOUS COARSE 13 PERMEABLE MATERIAL THAT EXTENDS TO THE -- TO THE I 14 DEDROCK. 50 IT WOULD TAKE A ZIGZAG IN THREE 15 DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS GOING DOWNWARD. 16 Q. NOW, YOU TALK ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE 17 WATER DEPENDS ON THE PERMEABILITY OF THE -- 18 A. WHAT PAGE ARE WE ON? 19 Q. THIS IS ON PAGE 10. 20 A. AND WHAT PARAGRAPH? 21 Q. FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH. 22 A. UH-HUH. () 23 Q. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 24 PERMEABILITY AND VELOCITY? 25 4. YES. I
864 l 1 Q. SO YOU CAN HAVE LOW PERM -- WELL, I NEVER 2 KNOW WHETHER IT'S HIGH OR LOW. 3 A. HIGH MEANS YOU GET A LOT OF WATER. 4 Q. RIGHT. HIGH PERMEABILITY, BUT STILL LOW 5 VELOCITY? 6 A. SLOW VELOCITIES. 7 Q. YEAH. 8 A. SURE. VELOCITY'S PRIMARILY DETERMINED BY 9 THE HEAD AND THE PERMEABILITY OF THE FORMATION. i 10 Q. WHAT ABOUT THE GRADIENT? 11 A. WELL, TH AT 'S .T H E HEAD, THE HYDRAULIC I- 12 GRADIENT. Qf' 13 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS AT THIS AREA? 14 A. NO. I WAS NEVER P RO VI DE D ANY 15 INFORMATION. 16 Q. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU STATE ON THE TOP OF 17 PAGE 11 THAT THE CONTAMINANT WOULD MOVE RAPIDLY, 18 YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE THAT STATEMENT, CAN YOU? 19 A. WELL, IT WOULD MOVE RAPIDLY THROUGH THIS l 20 DEEPER LIMESTONE AQUIFER AS OPPOSED THROUGH THE 21 TILL AQUIFER, YES. *9 l 22 THAT WAS THE ANALOGY THAT I WAS TRYING TO 23 MAKE, IS THAT THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF THE 2 24 P E R f'E AB I L IT Y OF THE TWO SYSTEMS ARE VERY GREAT. 25 T' IRE IS A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
865 1 PERMEABILITY. 2 Q. BUT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE GRADIENT IS, 3 HOW CAN YOU -- 4 A. I'M BASING IT ALSO THE GRADIENT -- 5 GRADIENT THAT WAS PROVIDED AS ONE TO TWO FOOT PER 6 MILE, BUT ALSO, AGAIN, I'M MAKING THE ANALOGY OF 7 THE CONTAMINANT MOVING SLOWLY THROUGH THE TILL 8 AQUIFER THEN RAPIDLY THROUGH THE DOLOMITE AQUIFER. 9 Q. WELL, WHAT DOES SLOW AND RAPID MEAN IN 10 THAT CONTEXT? 11 A. I CAN'T ASSIGN NUMBERS TO THOSE. 12 Q. SO SLOW COULD BE IN THE ORDER OF 13 MILLIMETERS PER YEAR AND RAPID MIGHT BE IN THE = 14 ORDER OF A FOOT PER YEAR, PERHAPS? 15 A. WELL, IF THE LITERATURE THAT I'VE 16 ATTACHED TO MY TESTIMONY PROVES TRUE FOR THIS 17 SITE, WE WOULD FIND AN ORDER OF MAG -- ONE TO 18 THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE IN LABORATORY 19 PERMEABILITY TEST, 50, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD 20 PERMEABILITIES OF TEN TO THE MINUS SIX CENTIMETERS h 21 PER SECOND, AND IF WE TAKE A -- LET'S TAKE A THREE 22 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE. THAT WOULD E QU ATE () 23 TO ABOUT 2.83 FEET PER YEAR. 24 Q. BUT THAT'S MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT DATA 25 Y HAVE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY APPLY'TO
868 1 HERE? 2 A. THE DATA I HAVE FOR GEOLOGIC PROVINCES -- 3 IN THE SAME GEOLOGIC PROVINCE AS OHIO AND THE SAME 4 BASIC TYPES OF TILLS THAT IS AT THE SITE, YES. 5 Q. THE SAME GEOLOGIC PROVINCE THAT WE'RE 6 TALKING ABOUT WISCONSIN AND NOT OHIO, RIGHT? 7 A. WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS. 8 Q. AND THE GULF COAST? 9 A. NO. THE GULF COAST IS NOT ON THAT. 10 THE FIRST TWO PAPERS -- I BELIEVE THEY'RE 11 EXHIBITS B AND C -- ARE GEOLOGIC -- THE 12 ATTACHMENTS ARE -- C AND D ARE THE TWO PAPERS THAT 13 DEAL WITH FOUR LANDFILL FAILURES BASED UPON 14 FRACTURED AND SAND SEAMED TILL DEPOSITS IN THE 15 SAME GEOLOGIC PROVINCE. THAT'S WISCONSIN AND 16 ILLINOIS. THERE'S THREE IN WISCONSIN THAT ARE 17 DISCUSSED AND ONE IN ILLINOIS THAT IS DISCUSSED IN 18 DETAIL. BY " GEOLOGIC PROVINCE," WE MEAN THE 19 CENTRAL GLACIATED REGION IN THE UNITED STATES. 20 Q. HOW FAR DOES THAT REGION EXTEND? 21 A. THAT REGION EXTENDS THE ENTIRE AREA 0F j 22 THE GREAT LAKES DOWN TO THE AREA OF NONGLACIATION, ! i ()
- v. >
23 WHICH CAN VARY DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU ARE. 24 Q. HAVE YOU EVER WORKED IN ANY OF THOSE --
]
25 I' ILLINOIS OR WISCONSIN OR WITH THE TILL UNITS I N- !
- l l
1
867
'l 1 THOSE STATES?
2 A. I HAVE DONE TEST DRILLING AND SOIL 3 SAMPLING IN INDIANA. I HAVE DONE SOME GROUNDWATER l 4 WORK IN ILLINOIS AND DONE SOME EXTENSIVE ] i 5 GROUNDWATER WORK IN MINE DEWATERING IN WISCONSIN 6 AS WELL AS MINNESOTA. 7 Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN CORES IN THOSE TILL UNITS? 8 A. NOT IN ALL THE TILL UNITS AT THE SITES 9 I'VE BEEN AT, NO. 10 SOME OF THE PROJECTS DID NOT REQUIREiTHAT 11 THOSE BE TAKEN. 12 Q. I THOUGHT I HEARD WHEN YOU WERE READING 13 ON PAGE 11 0F YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE MIDDLE 21 5 14 PARAGRAPH, THE LAST SENTENCE, YOU SAID, REFERRING 15 TO THE WISCONSIN SITES, THEY MAY CONTAIN MANY OF 16 THE SAME TYPE OF GLACIOLACUSTRINE SOILS AND 17 GLACIAL TILLS AS AT DAVIS-BESSE. 18 A. SURE. 19 Q. OKAY. 20 A. THEY'RE ALL FORMED BY THE SAME GLACIERS, 21 ONLY, I MEAN, WHEN A GLACIER COMES DOWN FROM 22 CANADA, IT COMES DOWN AND REALLY HITS US.
- O
() 23 Q. SO YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S PRECISELY THE ! 24 SAME -- 25 4 NO.
868 l l l 1 Q. -- AS YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY SAYS. 2 A. NO. 3 Q. GORDON'S AND HUEBNER'S PAPER MAKE -- THEY 4 DON 'T CONCLUDE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE 5 DISPOSAL SITES IN ZONE-OF-SATURATION LOCATIONS, DO 6 THEY? I 7 A. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR? l l 8 Q. GORDON AND HUEBNER DO NOT CONCLUDE THAT 9 ONE SHOULD UNDER NO CONDITIONS HAVE DISPOSAL SITES 10 IN ZONE-OF-SATURATION LOCATIONS, DO THEY? 11 A. THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE THAT THE 12 ZONE-OF-SATURATION OF LANDFILL SITE IS STILL 13 POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 14 FROM THE SITE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE THREE SITES 15 THAT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED IN THEIR PAPER. AND SO 16 WHAT THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING IS THAT, "WELL, NOW l 17 WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT WRONG THE FIRST TIME. i 18 HERE IS A NEW SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE MAY I 19 HAVE TO INVESTIGATE AGAIN." THEY'RE NOT 20 CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THAT A ZONE-OF-SATURATION l 21 LANDFILL CAN BE ADEQUATELY INSTALLED AND I 22 MAINTAINED OVER THE LIFE OF THE LANDFILL.
,() 23 Q. OKAY. THEY DON 'T RECOMMEND SYNTHETIC
- t. .-
'd 24 IMPERVIOUS MEMBRANES, DO THEY, AS ONE OF THEIR 25 RE 0MMENDATIONS?
I I 889 : J 1 A. NO, BUT THEY DO RECOMMEND THAT YOU USE A 2 REMODELED SAMPLE OF SATURATED CLAY SOILS AND 3 RECOMPACT THEM AT THE SITE. IN OTHER WORDS, 4 OVERDIG AND RECOMPACT CLAY, AS WELL AS RUN 5 LABORATORY PERMEABILITY TESTS ON THE SAMPLES TO 6 MAKE SURE THE PERMEABILITY'S MAINTAINED AT TEN TO 7 THE MINUS SEVEN CENTIMETERS PER SECOND. THAT'S
! 8 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FIVE ON PAGE 436.
9 Q. I THINK IN MY DISCUSSION WITH MR. PAVEY, 10 HE INDICATED THAT HE COULDN'T SAY FOR SURE THAT 11 BEACH SANDS AND GRAVEL HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AT THIS b , 12 SPECIFIC SITE AS THE GLACIERS WENT BACK AND FORTH i 13 AND THE LAKE WENT BACK AND FORTH OVER THIS PART OF 14 THE COUNTRY. 15 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 16 MR. PAVEY: I BELIEVE WHAT I 17 SAID IN THAT CASE WAS THAT IT PROBABLY WAS; I 18 COULD NOT BE CERTAIN. 19 Q. MR. VOYTEK, CAN YOU BE CERTAIN? 20 A. (MR. VOYTEK) CAN I BE CERTAIN IF A BEACH 21 SAND IS PRESENT AT THE SITE? IS THAT THE 22 QUESTION?
,h 23 Q. YEAH.
24 A. NO. 25 f
. OKAY. 50 YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY l
, 870 1 ON PAGE 12 WHERE YOU SAY BEACH SAND WAS SURELY 2 DEPOSITED ON THE SITE? 3 A. MY TESTIMONY, I THINK, INDICATES THAT 4 " SURELY" IS A SUBJECTIVE. I MEAN, THE PROBABILITY l 5 0F THAT HAPPENING, BEING SO CLOSE TO THE INTERFACE 6 0F LAKE ERIE, IS EXTREMELY HIGH, BUT I DON'T HAVE 7 100 PERCENT CONFIDENCE, WHICH IS WHY I DID NOT SAY 8 THAT I KNOW 100 PERCENT THAT A BEACH SAND IS 9 DEPOSITED AT THAT SITE. , 10 Q. THAT DOESN'T DEPEND ON HOW FAST THE 11 INTERFACE MIGHT MOVE BACK AND FORTH OVER SITE. 12 A. WELL, DEPENDING UPON THE VELOCITY OF THAT 13 INTERFACE, WOULD. DEPEND UPON THE THICKNESS OF THE i 14 BEACH SAND DEPOSIT ITSELF. 15 50, YES, IF YOU HAVE A VERY FAST MOVING 16 INTERFACE, THAT VELOCITY OR THAT THICKNESS OF THAT 17 SAND DEPOSIT MAY ONLY BE A FEW MILLIMETERS, 18 WHEREAS IF YOU HAD A SLOW INTERFACING SHORELINE, 19 YOU CAN HAVE A DEPOSIT MAYBE SEVERAL FEET THICK, 20 WHICH IS -- BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY 21 HERE IS THAT THERE ARE THIN DEPOSITS OF SAND THAT 22 COULD EXIST AT THIS SITE GIVEN ITS LOCATION
) 23 ADUACENT TO LAKE ERIE.
L 24 Q. THAT COULD EXIST 7 25 4 THAT COULD EXIST. i
871 1 1 Q. BUT NOT NECESSARILY. i 1 2 A. I HAVE NO PROOF TO THE -- TO EITHER 3 EFFECT. 4 Q. OKAY. YOU TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY 5 THAT THE WASTE MIGHT REACT WITH SATURATED CLAY AND 6 SOMEHOW DAMAGE THE CLAY. 7 A. WELL, YES, Uli-HUH. l 8 Q. AND YOU REFER TO -- 9 A. THIS IS.ON PAGE -- i 10 Q. BOTTOM OF 12. 11 A. OKAY. 12 Q. I ASSUME YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE KIRK 13 BROWN PAPER WHICH YOU ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY. I 14 A. YES, THAT, AND ALSO THE PAPER -- I l 15 BELIEVE IT'S ATTACHMENT D, THE -- IS IT WILCONSON, i 16 ILLINOIS? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE PAPER. 17 MR. PAVEY: WILSONVILLE. 18 A. WILSONVILLE PAPER, WHICH THEY TALK QUITE 19 EXTENSIVELY OF CHEMICALS THAT WERE STORED IN 20 THEIR -- PAGE 419 0F THAT PAPER IN WHICH THEY TALK 21 ABOUT HOW ORGANIC POLLUTANTS REACTED WITH CLAY AND 22 POSSIBLY THROUGH TWO CONCEIVABLE MECHANISMS () 23 COLLAPSED THE INNER LAYERING CLAY MINERALS CAUSING 24 THEM TO DEHYDRATE AS WELL AS A FLOCCULATION 25 F*:ULTING IN CHANGES OF SURFACE PROPERTIES OF THE
872 i 1 CLAY MINERALS, THUS CAUSING A RAPID INCREASE IN 2 PERMEABILITY. 3 Q. LET'S FIRST TALK ABOUT THE KIRK BROWN I 4 PAPER. j i 5 HE TESTED ORGANIC CHEMICALS; IS THAT 6 TRUE? l l 7 A. YES. l l 8 Q. AND IN HIGHLY CONCENTRATED FORM? 9 A. I'M NOT SURE OF THE -- HIS TESTING
! 10 PROCEDURES THAT HE USED TO OBTAIN HIS RESULT.
11 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHICH CHEMICALS HE TESTED? f( 12 A. WELL, I DO KNOW GENERALLY FROM EXPERIENCE i J 13 IN READING THE LITERATURE THAT ORGANIC SOLVENTS i ! 14 ARE THE PRIMARY CULPRIT OF CLAY LINERS LEAKING, i 15 YES. 16 I WROTE THIS SECTION HERE OF MY REPORT 17 NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS BEING DEPOSITED, ONLY KNOWING l 18 WHAT WAS PRINTED IN THE N.R.C. DOCUMENT OR IN THE I 19 FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT. j 20 Q. ARE ANY OF THESE ORGANIC HIGHLY 21 CONCENTRATED CHEMICALS BEING -- j 22 A. THE DATA THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE DOES NOT 116() 23 INDICATE THEIR EXISTENCE. i 24 Q. SO YOU WOULDN'T BE , CONCERNED, THEN, WITH l l 25 T";S PARTICULAR PHENOMENON? I L . _ ._ __ _ _ -
873 1 A. WELL, AS I SAID, THE INFORMATION HERE , 2 DOES NOT CONFIRM THEIR EXISTENCE. 3 Q. ON TOP OF PAGE 15, WHERE YOU'RE TALKING 4 ABOUT LABORATORY TESTING, ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY 5 THAT ALL PERMEABILITY TESTING DONE IN A LABORATORY 6 IS THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE TOO LOW OR ONE TO 7 THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE TOO LOW? i 8 A. I 'M INSINUATING FROM EVERYTHING I'M 4 i 9 FINDING OUT NOW, FROM ALL THE INFORMATION AND ALL l 10 0F THE CASE STUDIES THAT ARE COMING OUT IN THE 11 SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, THAT LABORATORY PERMEABILITY 12 TESTING IS A LOW FIGURE OF PERMEABILITY. i %J 13 WHETHER YOU ASSIGN A NUMBER OF ONE ORDER 14 0F MAGNITUDE OR THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE OR TEN 15 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, I DON 'T KNOW. j 16 Q. BUT YOU'RE NOT -- TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, l i 17 YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT ALL LABORATORY TESTING IS i
~
I 18 NECESSARILY ONE TO THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE TOO 19 LOW, ARE YOU? I 20 A. I HAVE NO PROOF THAT ALL LABORATORY ( 21 TESTING IS AT LEAST ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE 22 DIFFERENCE, BUT IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THAT WOULD BE ().. 23 So, YES, JUST FROM THE NATURE OF SAMPLING AND HOW I~~ THE SAMPLES ARE NORMALLY RUN. 24 25 r. YOU ARE --
874 nk' 1 A. I MEAN, ESPECIALLY, IN ALL THE IN SITU 2 TESTING THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE TWO PAPERS I i 3 PRESENTED AT THE FOUR GITES, ALL THE IN SITU 4 PERMEABILITY TESTING HAVE FOUND AT LEAST A ONE 5 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE. SO BASED UPON 1 6 SOME -- I WOULD JUST HAZARD TO GUESS, PROBABLY 7 ABOUT SOME CHECKS OF THOSE SYSTEMS, YES, PROBABLY 8 ABOUT 20 OR 30 WELLS THAT WERE TESTED JUST IN 9 THESE PAPERS. 10 Q. YOU DON 'T KNOW WHAT TECHNIQUES WERE USED 11 IN THOSE OTHER SITES FOR THEIR LABORATORY TESTING, 12 DO YOU? -
~ , .
13 A. NO. IN THE PAPERS, THEY DESCRIBE 14 BASICALLY WHAT THEY EITHER KNEW OR BELIEVED TO 15 HAPPEN IN THE LABORATORY IN WHICH THERE WAS MIXING 16 OF THE SAMPLE BEFORE GOING INTO PERMEAMETER. 17 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC 18 EQUIPMENT THAT WAS USED AND -- 19 A. NO, I DON'T. 20 Q. YOU C OUL DN 'T SAY THAT WAS THE SAME 21 TECHNIQUES THAT WERE USED HERE? 22 A. NO, BECAUSE I DON 'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC () 23 TECHNIQUE THAT WAS USED HERE EITHER. 24 Q. WHEN YOU SAY IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 15 25 T"-T BORING LOG B-125, WHICH WAS DONE IN 1974,
875 i 1 INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF SAND LAYERS, ARE YOU 2 CONCLUDING THAT, IN FACT, SAND LAYERS WERE 3 PRESENT? IS THAT A DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION ON YOUR 4 PART? 5 A. I 'M CONCLUDING THAT THE PRESENCE OF SAND 6 LAYERS IS EXTREMELY HIGHLY PROBABLE BASED UPON 7 THAT LOG BORING. AND I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION, IF j 8 I MAY, TO SEVERAL OF YOUR BORINGS ON SHEET THREE 9 0F 11 IN WHICH A TWO-FOOT SAMPLE WAS TAKEN AND 10 RECOVERY OF ONLY 1.6 FOOT OF SAMPLE WAS RETURNED 11 TO THE SURFACE. ( 12 -Q. I'M SORRY. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 13 A. OKAY. AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PAGE THERE, I 14 IF YOU FOLLOW IN THE VERTICAL -- WELL, UNDERNEATH 15 THE COLUMN MARKED " SAMPLES" THERE ARE FOUR COLUMNS I WHICH IS WRITTEN VERTICALLY ON THE PAGE THERE, REC 16 17 EQUALS 1.6 FOOT. THAT, AT LEAST IN MY 18 UNDERSTANDING -- AND I WILL HAVE TO ASK FOR AN 19 EXPERT, I GUESS -- WAS IT ATEC THAT DRILLED THESE?
, 20 -- TO TESTIFY TO THAT, BUT IT BASICALLY MEANS THAT 21 YOU ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER TWO FEET OF SAMPLE, BUT 22 ONLY ACTUALLY GOT OUT 1.6 FEET OF SAMPLE. . 23 THE REST OF THAT COULD BE COMPACTED; c-24 FRACTURES COULD HAVE BEEN RECOMPACTED AT THAT 25 P'.NT.
I 876 : 1 IF YOU GO ON DOWN, THE NEXT AREA, AT 2 ABOUT 570, THERE IS A RECOVERY OF 1.3 FOOT OF 3 SAMPLE FROM A TWO-FOOT SAMPLING ATTEMPT. THAT 4 MEANS THAT THERE IS EITHER SOME EXTREME COMPACTION 5 0F THAT SAMPLE OR THE SAMPLE WAS LOST OUT OF THE 6 BOTTOM OF THE CORE BARREL OR OF THE SPLIT SPOON. 7 THERE'S NOT MADE MENTION IF A SAMPLE RETAINING 8 RING WAS EVER USED IN THESE TO HOLD COARSE 9 MATERIAL IN. WE DON'T KNOW IF THE WATER WAS-FULL 10 0F WATER AND WASHED SAMPLES OUT. 11 SO MY INFORMATION AS TO WHAT YOU'RE
/~3 ALLUDING TO IN MY TESTIMONY ON PAGE 15, I WOULD A._/ 12 ha 13 SAY IT'S EXTREMELY LIKELY THAT THOSE STRUCTURES OR 14 THOSE FEATURES DO APPEAR.
15 Q. NOW, YOU'RE SAYING BY THE FACT THAT 16 THERE'S DATA WHICH YOU ALLEGE IS MISSING, THAT 17 THAT DATA NECESSARILY HAS TO BE A SAND LAYER? 18 A. WELL, THERE'S THE -- THE SAND AND FINE 19 GRAVEL IS PRESENT IN SOME OF THOSE SAMPLES. 20 Q. SOME, BUT NOT ALL. 21 A. RIGHT. 22 MR. PAVEY: COULD I ADD () 23 SOMETHING TO THAT? 24 MR. SILBERG SURE. 25 MR. PAVEY: NORMALLY WHEN l
877 1 l 1 YOU'RE DOING SPLIT SPOON OR ANY KIND OF BORING, i 2 THE HARDEST MATERIAL TO HANG ONTO IS THE COARSE i 3 STUFF, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PROPER DRILLING 4 TECHNIQUE, THE PROPER DRILLER OR THE PROPER 5 EQUIPMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE YOUR SAND. IT 6 DOES NOT STICK IN THE SPLIT SPOON TUBE. i
! 7 Q. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A PROBLEM \
i 8 HERE. 9 A. (MR. PAVEY) ! WOULD SAY IT 'S HIGHLY ] 10 LIKELY. l 11 A. (MR. VOYTEK) WELL, NORMALLY, AT LEAST ON ( 12 THE LOGS THAT I HAVE HELPED OR HAVE BEEN AROUND, 13 WE'VE ALWAYS MADE MENTION THAT WE USE A SAMPLE i 14 RETAINING RING SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM ! 15 0F WONDERING IF WE USED IT AND WHY WE ONLY HAVE A 16 PARTIAL SAMPLE OBTAINED OF THE SURFACE. AND THERE l 17 IS COMPACTION. SOME OF THESE MAY BE LOOSELY j 18 DEPOSITED SAND LAYERS, AND WHEN THEY GET POUNDED 1 19 AND COMPACTED IN, THEY APPEAR TO BE MIXED WITH l 20 CLAY. i 21 50, YES, I THINK THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF l17 ! 22 THEM IS VERY LIKELY BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE OF () 23 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY AND INFORMATION THAT I 24 HAVE OF THE SEDIMENTS. 25 '
. 50 YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH MR. PAVEY WHO l
878 1 SAID THAT THAT SHOWS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN l 2 DISCRETE SAND LAYERS IN HIS TESTIMONY? 3 A. WELL, I THINK I SUPPORT MR. PAVEY IN THE 4 FACT THAT I WOULD MAKE A STRONGER STATEMENT AND 5 SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE POSSIBILITY THOSE LAYERS 6 ARE EXTREMELY HIGH, PROBABILITY WOULD -- WOULD BE i 7 THAT THEY EXIST. > 8 Q. ON PAGE 16 YOU INDICATE THAT THE BEDDING 9 PLANES OUTCROP UNDER THE LAKE, AND THEN YOU SAY 10 PERHAPS THE DISCHARGE POINT IS NEAR ONE OF THE 11 NUMEROUS DRINKING WATER SUPPLY INTAKES. () W' 12 I ASSUME YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH CONFIDENCE 13 IN PREDICTING THAT IT IS NEAR A DRINKING WATER 14 SUPPLY INTAKE. 15 A. NO. ; ) i 16 Q. I ALSO ASSUME YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY j 17 CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS OR DOSE ANALYSES TO 18 DETERMINE WHAT CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WASTES MIGHT 19 BE PICKED UP IF ANY WATER WERE TO MOVE THROUGH THE 20 BURIAL CELL 7 21 A. NO. IN ALL HONESTY, I WOULDN'T KNOW 22 WHERE TO BEGIN TO MAKE THOSE CALCULATIONS. () 23 Q. I WOULDN'T EITHER. I 24 PAGE 17 0F YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU TALK ABOUT 25 TFi STATEMENT MADE IN THE 1970 N.R.C. HEARINGS -- l
879 1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HEARINGS -- EXCUSE ME -- 2 INVOLVING THE BURIAL OF WASTE AT THE DAVIS-BESSE 3 SITE. 4 DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT KIND OF WASTE t 5 THAT ALLEGATION CONCERNS? 6 A. SURE. IN THE DOCUMENT THAT'S ATTACHED, l 7 IT'S DISCUSSED THAT THEIR INTERVENOR, I THINK HE 8 HAD FOUR POINTS, ONE OF THEM DEING THAT ANY SOLID 1 9 WASTE WOULD BE DEPOSITED, AND THE ENSUING ANSWER 10 WAS, QUOTE, "THERE WILL BE NO DISPOSAL OF SOLID 11 WASTE AT THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY." 12 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY DOCUMENT YOU 13 HAVE IS A CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THE INTERVENOR 14 SAID BY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE COMPANY? 15 A. YES. 16 Q. 50 YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID. 17 A. I DON'T HAVE THAT FULL DOCUMENT ATTACHED 18 TO THAT, NO. 19 Q. WHAT OF THE CONCENTRATIONS OF RADICACTIVE 20 WASTES AT THE FERNALD FACILITY IN THEIR STORAGE 21 AREA? t 22 A. I DID NOT ENTER THAT AS PART OF MY () 23 TEST!HONY BECAUSE OF WHAT JUDGE H0YT HAD MENTIONED 24 YESTERDAY OF NOT BRINGING UP OTHER SITUATIONS AND
- 25 0'.Y STICKING TO DAVIS-BESSE. IS THAT CORRECT,
880 1 MA'AM? 2 Q. OKAY. 50 THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 17 3 0F YOUR TESTIMONY SHOULD BE DELETED? 4 A. YES. I DID NOT READ THAT INTO THE 5 RECORD. 6 Q. OKAY. 50 I SUSPECT IT'S IN THE WRITTEN 7 DOCUMENT. 8 A. YES, IT IS IN THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT. 9 Q. BUT IT SHOULD BE STRICKEN THEN. ! 10 MR. MYERS: PAGE 17. 11 JUDGE H0YT: STARTING AT THE
! 12 VERY TOP?
b' ) i 13 MR. LYNCH: NO. STARTING AT
; 14 "THE STATE OF OHIO", YOUR HONOR, LAST PARAGRAPH.
15 MR. LYNCH: WOULD YOU HAVE THE i 16 COURT REPORTER NOTE THAT ON HER COPY ALS0? 17 JUDGE H0YT: YES. THE REPORTER 18 WILL DELETE ON PAGE 17 0F THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS l 19 VOYTEK THE FINAL PARAGRAPH BEGINNING WITH "THE 20 STATE OF OHIO ALREADY" AND ENDING WITH "ANOTHER 21 POLLUTING FACILITY" PERIOD. THAT PARAGRAPH WILL ] 22 BE DELETED FROM THE STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE ( 23 RECORD. TH AT ' S THE PRE-FILED TESTIMONY. 24 (RECESS TAKEN.) ) 25 JUDGE H0YT THE HEARING WILL
i 881 (')L 1 COME TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD REFLECT ALL THE 2 PARTIES TO THE H E A P. I N G WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN THE 3 HEARING ADJOURNED ARE AGAIN PRESENT IN THE HEARING i 4 ROOM. THE WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACE ON THE 5 WITNESS STAND. GENTLEMEN, I WILL REMIND YOU THAT 6 YOU HAVE TAKEN AN OATH HERE EARLIER AND YOU ARE 7 STILL UNDER THAT OATH. 8 MR. SILBERG, DID YOU SAY YOU WERE l i 9 FINISHED WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION? 1 10 MR. SILBERG: YOU MAY HAVE 11 THOUGHT YOU HEARD THAT, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T SAY
, 12 THAT.
l DO YOU HAVE VERY
~
13 JUDGE H0YT: 14 MUCH MORE? 15 MR. SILBERG: NO. i 16 BY MR. SILBERG: 17 Q. MR. VOYTEK, DO YOU HAVE A WATER SUPPLY 18 OPERATOR LICENSE FROM THE OHIO EPA? 19 A. YES, I DO. I HAVE A CLASS ONE LICENSE. 20 Q. OKAY. THAT'S THE LOWEST CLASS? l 21 A. THAT IS CORRECT. A SMALL COMMUNITY WATER 22 SUPPLY. IT DEPENDS UPON THE AMOUNT OF WATER YOU t. () 23 PUMP AND THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, BUT BASICALLY IT'S 24 SMALL PUBLIC SUPPLY.
; 25 c. OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT WATER WITH HIGH l
V 882 1 LEVELS OF SULFATES MIGHT RENDER THE WATER LESS 2 AESTHETIC. 3 A. YES. 4 Q. WOULD IT ALSO CAUSE THE WATER TO HAVE A l 5 LAXATIVE EFFECT? - 6 A. YES, IT WOULD. 7 Q. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE 8 PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE AS A DRINKING -- AS 9 THEIR DRINKING WATER? 10 A. THE WAY THE SULFATES OPERATE AND WHY 11 THEY'RE ONLY A SECONDARY NONENFORCEABLE STANDARD 12 IN OHIO IS THE FACT THAT IF YOU DRINK SULFATED *
%v 13 WATER, YOU WILL BECOME TOLERANT TO THAT LEVEL OF 14 SULFATE. IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR AUNT FROM NEW 15 YORK COMES AND VISIT YOU, SHE MAY BECOME AFFECTED, l
16 AND IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL DAYS FOR HER TO BECOME 17 ACCUSTOMED TO THAT WATER. 18 Q. DO YOU KNOW THE COST OF A REVERSE OSMOSIS 19 SYSTEM FOR HOME WATER? 20 A. GENERALLY A COST -- AND I'M GOING TO USE 21 GUESSES BECAUSE I JUST CAN NEVER REMEMBER WHERE 22 I'VE BEEN QUOTED PRICES AT FOR EQUIPMENT. ()
< w.
23 SOMEWHERE AROUND TWO TO $3,000. 24 Q. ALL RIGHT. 25 e. ABOUT THE SAME COST AS THIS WATER WELL.
1 883 . O 1 Q. AS A -- 2 A. WATER WELL. 3 Q. IF SOIL IS PARTIALLY SATURATED, WOULD THE ' 4 PORE PRESSURE IN THE SOIL COLUMN BE BELOW ' 5 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE? = 6 A. IT WOULD DEPEND IF THE SOIL WATER IS - 7 UNDER MOVEMENT. IF GROUND OR IF THE -- IN AN 8 UNSATURATED SITUATION, IF WATER IS MOVING THROUGH 9 THE SOIL, IT WILL EXERT A NEGATIVE PRESSURE, YES. 10 Q. AND IF IT'S NOT MOVING THROUGH THE SOIL 7
. 11 A. IT WOULD BE AT OR NEAR ATMOSPHERIC. IF 12 IT'S STAGNAN,T, IN OTHER WORDS.
13 Q. WHEN YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT T,H E K 14 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEWATERING OF.THE -- 3 15 DURING DAVIS-BESSE TWO AND THREE -- BETWEEN THE , 16 DEWATERING AT THE DAVIS-BESSE CONSTRUCTION AND THE 17 LEVEL OF WATER IN THE BORROW PITS -- 18 A. YES. - 19 Q. -- YOU SAID THE EFFECT MAY ONLY BE A FEW , 20 INCHES. '
, n 21 A. RIGHT.
22 Q. WERE YOU REFERRING TO THE EFFECT IN THE s f) 23 BEDROCK? , 24 A. THE EFFECT, PERHAPS, IN THE BEDROCK, AS 25 VE L AS THE EFFECT OF THE CONNECTING AQUIFERS, ,
884 1 YES. 2 THIS IS BASED UPON HIGH PERMEABLE 3 MATERIAL EXERTING A SMALL DRAWDOWN THAT REACHES 4 FAR AWAY FROM THE SOURCE. 5 NOW, THE DOLOMITE AQUIFER -- I WILL HAVE 6 TO QUALIFY THAT BY SAYING THE DOLOMITE AQUIFER CAN 7 EXERT FRACTURE -- A HIGHER DEGREE OF DRAWDOWN IN 8 THE FRACTURED ZONE AREAS THAN THE -- THAN IN OTHER 9 AREAS THAT ARE NOT FRACTURED. 10 Q. AND IF THERE WERE THAT HIGHER DEGREE OF 11 DRAWDOWN, THEN YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT THAT MIGHT I WELL SHOW UP IN A BORROW PIT, IN THE WATER LEVEL e) 12 13 IN THE BORROW PIT? 14 A. THAT WOULD CONCEIVABLY BE TRUE, YES. 15 Q. AND IF MEASUREMENTS ACTUALLY INDICATED 16 THAT THE DRAWDOWN AT THE AREA 0F THE BORROW PIT 17 WAS IN THE ORDER OF TENS OF FEET, WOULD THAT 18 CHANGE YOUR CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO LESSON TO 19 BE DRAWN FROM THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 20 DEWATERING AND THE BORROW PIT WATER LEVEL? 21 A. THAT WOULD -- YES, THAT WOULD CHANGE MY 22 OPINION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO LESSON TO BE []) t, ' . 23 LEARNED FROM THAT. 24 Q. AND WHAT WOULD THE LESSON WHICH YOU WOULD j i 25 L E A.R N BE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DRAWDOWN IN -- ' l
885 s 0" 1 THE M'EASURED DRAWDOWN IN THE BEDROCK AT THE 2 LOCATION OF THE BORROW PIT WAS AT 10 FEET OR 12 3 FEET? 4 A. I 'M GOING TO DEFER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE 5 THAT INVOLVES A LOT OF SPECULATION ON MY PART, AND 6 IF I HAD SOME INFORMATION SEEING REPLACEMENT OF 7 THAT WELL IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEWATERING WELLS, 8 KNOWING HOW MUCH THE DEWATERING WELLS WERE PUMPING 9 AND THE LOCATION OF THAT BORROW PIT, I WOULD MAKE 10 A JUDGMENT. 11 Q. BUT YOU WERE WILLING TO MAKE A JUDGMENT 12 WITH NONE OF THAT INFORMATION BEFORE, WEREN'T YOU? 13 A. WELL, THE JUDGHENT -- THE JUDGMENT THAT I 14 MADE WAS BASED UPON A JUDGMENT THAT THERE WAS NO 15 EFFECT, AND AGAIN, WITH NO PROOF FROM TOLEDO l 16 EDISON. 17 MR. SILBERG: I HAVE NO FURTHER 18 CROSS. 19 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. DO WE 20 NAVE ANY REDIRECT? ! 21 MR. VAN KLEY: YES. 22 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. () 23 WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. 24 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 25 E' MR. LYNCH:
886 1 Q. MR. GUY, Ln3 LIER YOU STATED THAT, WELL, 2 BESIDES THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RECITED TO MR. 3 SILBERG ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THAT WOULD INDICATE 4 THE WESTERN PART OF LAKE ERIE WAS SET UP NOT AS 5 HIGH AS THE EASTERN PART. 6 WHAT OTHER INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE -- 7' EXCUSE ME. AS HIGH AS THE EASTERN PART. 8 WHAT OTHER INFORMATION DID YOU TAKE INTO 9 ACCOUNT? 10 A. (MR. GUY) THE SET-UPS AT THE WESTERN END ll 0F THE LAKE TO DATE HAVE BEEN BASED PRIMARILY ON I) 12 RECORDED EVENTS, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL ESTIMATES m: 13 OF MAXIMUW EVENTS THAT COULD OCCUR, ONE BY DR. 14 QUINN AT ANN AR B OR . HE ESTIMATED A SET-UP OF 15 PERHAPS SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET ABOVE STILL WATER 16 LEVEL. AND IN THE D A VI S -B ES S E CERTIFICATE OF 17 APPLICATION, THEY ESTIMATE A SET-UP OF 9.3 FEET. 18 GIVEN THAT SITUATION, THE 9.3 FOOT SET-UP 19 ON TOP OF PRESENT HIGH LAKE LEVELS OR PERHAPS HIGH 20 LAKE LEVELS PROJECTED SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WOULD 21 PRODUCE A LAKE LEVEL IN EXCESS OF 14.3 FEET ABOVE 22 LOW WATER DATUM, WHICH EXCEEDS THE DESIGN HEIGHT , i 23 0F THE DISPOSAL FACILITY BY ABOUT THREE FEET. 24 ALSO INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECTION OF A ! 25 M'LIMUM SET-UP EVENT WERE THE ESTIMATES BY THE
887 1 DAVIS PEOPLE PREPARING THE CERTIFICATE THAT THE 2 WAVES IN NAVARRE MARSH COULD EXCEED SIX-AND-A-HALF 3 FEET, AND THEY PROJECTED AN EIGHT-AND-A-HALF FOOT 4 WAVE REGENERATING WITHIN THE MARSH. 5 EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THAT MAGNITUDE OR 6 SIZE OF WAVE IS TOO GREAT BY A FACTOR OF TWO, ANY 7 WAVES PROPAGATING THROUGH THE MARSH WOULD BE 8 PLUNGING ON TOP OF THE DIKE DISPOSAL FACILITY -- 9 OR THE DISPOSAL CELL, WHICH WOULD MEAN A MAJOR -- 10 A VERY HIGH INTENSITY OF WAVE ACT I VIT Y ON TOP OF 11 THE COVER MATERIAL COVERING THE SOIL SITE. AND AS 12 A RESULT, I WOULD EXPECT RATHER SEVERE, VERY RAPID, 13 EROSION OF ANY COVER MATERIAL. 14 Q. MR. PAVEY, YOU WERE ASKED EARLIER 15 CONCERNING BORING SITES NEEDED FOR REGULATORY 16 AGENCIES. IS THIS WHAT YOUR TESTIMONY WAS 17 CONCERNING AT ALL? 18 A. (MR. PAVEY) NO, IT WAS NOT. 19 Q. AND WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR TESTIMONY 20 CONCERNING WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT SPECIFIC TYPES OF 21 BORING THAT SHOULD BE DONE? 22 A. MY CONCERNS WERE THERE THAT THE ONLY ()
+ ='
23 INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TO DATE IS BASED ON l 24 BORINGS DONE,FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. l 25 WHAT IS NEEDED IN THIS CASE IS BORINGS 1
l 888 1 DONE FOR HYDROLOGIC PURPOSES WHERE ONE IS 2 SEARCHING FOR SAND SEAMS AND TILL JOINTS OR JOINTS 3 WITHIN LACUSTRINE MATERIAL TO SPECIFICALLY TEST 4 THE PERMEABILITY TO SEE WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM EXISTS 5 WITHIN THIS. IN OTHER WORDS, DESIGN OF A 6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION THAT ADDRESSES THE 7 LANDFILLS RATHER THAN JUST CONSTRUCTION OF 8 BUILDINGS. 9 Q. WHY AREN'T THOSE BORINGS SUFFICIENT IN 10 YOUR ESTIMATION? 11 A. BECAUSE NO IN SITU PERMEABILITY TESTS
) 12 HAVE BEEN RUN. ,THERE'S BEEN NO SYSTEMATIC LOOK e
13 FOR JOINTS OR SAND SEAMS. THERE'S BEEN NO ANGLED 14 HOLE DRILLING TO LOOK FOR VERTICAL JOINTS, AND A 15 NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT I'VE MENTIONED.
;19 16 Q. CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE LINEAMENTS ON THE 18 PICTURES, WHEN YOU MADE YOUR ESTIMATE OF THE 19 LINEAMENTS ON THE ACETATE OVER THE PICTURES, WHAT 20 WERE YOU LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY?
21 A. WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY WERE 22 THE DARK LINEAR ZONES ON THE PICTURES WHICH, IN MY () i-;;;. 23 TRAINING, REPRESENT THE LINEAMENTS THAT WE WERE
" 24 LOOKING FOR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LINEAMENTS 25 FErRESENTING A BEDROCK COLLAPSE PATTERN.
889 D 1 Q. DID YOU LOOK FOR ANY CULTURAL LINEAMENTS? 2 A. OF COURSE, YOU ALWAYS DO WHEN YOU DO A 3 LINEAMENT STUDY LIKE THIS, YOU DISCOUNT CULTURAL 4 PATTERNS. THERE'S SOME PRETTY EVIDENT ROWS IN THE 5 LINE -- FENCE LINE. EVEN THE ROWS IN A CORN FIELD 6 ALWAYS HAVE A SPECIFIC PATTERN THAT IS 7 RECOGNIZABLE BY ANY TRAINED OBSERVER. 8 Q. DID YOU MARK ANY OF THOSE? 9 A. THERE WAS NO REASON TO. MY INTENT WAS TO 10 MARK THE ONES THAT REFLECTED THE GEOLOGIC 11 STRUCTURE. 12 Q. MR. V O Y T F. K ,- I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU NOW THE f 13 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE 14 NUCLEAR POWER STATION, SPECIFICALLY PAGES A7 AND i 15 A8. j 16 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. WHAT 17 DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 18 MR. LYNCH: APPLICATION FOR 19 LICENSE FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 20 DATED AUGUST 3RD, 1970. l 21 MR. SILBERG: APPLICATION FOR l 22 LICENSE? () t. 23 MR. VOYTEK: I BELIEVE -- I 24 H A VEN 'T CHECKED A8 YET, BUT THAT'S ATTACHMENT G OF 25 F' -- I BELIEVE THAT'S ATTACHMENT G OF MY
890 1 TESTIMONY. YES. 2 MR. SILBERG: THAT'S 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE GOT 4 ATTACHED AS APPENDIX G. 5 MR. LYNCH: THAT'S NOT THE 6 APPLICATION. 7 MR. SILBERG: THAT'S NOT THE 8 APPLICATION. 9 MR. LYNCH: YEAH. THAT'S FROM 10 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ATTACHMENT. 11 BY MR. LYNCH: 4 d 12 Q. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS THERE 13 CONCERNING THE GROUNDWATER TABLE, AND 14 SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE THOSE STATEMENTS? 15 A. (MR. VOYTEK) COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC 16 ABOUT WHICH STATEMENTS? BECAUSE THEY DO TALK 17 QUITE A BIT ABOUT THE GROUNDWATER. l 18 Q. THE FLUCTUATIONS CONCERNING LAKE LEVEL. j 19 A. THAT THE GROUNDWATER TABLE GENERALLY IS A 20 FEW FEET HIGHER THAN THAT OF LAKE ERIE, COULD VARY 21 SLIGHTLY WITH SEASONS, BUT THE GREATEST VARIATION 22 OCCURS DURING STORMS WHEN LAKE ERIE'S LEVEL MAY
, ( 23 RISE SEVERAL FEET? THAT STATEMENT?
I' ' 24 Q. CORRECT. l 25 4. YES, I DO.
891 i 1 Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ON PAGE 2 A8 CONCERNING THE GROUNDWATER TABLE? { 3 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. WHAT 4 WE'RE DOING HERE IS READING INTO THE RECORD 5 ATTACHMENTS TO THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY. THAT'S 6 CERTAINLY NOT REBUTTAL. 7 JUDGE HOYT: I WONDER ABOUT THE 8 RELEVANCE OF THIS AS WELL. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 9 FACT THAT THE PERMIT STAGE -- WOULDN'T WE HAVE HAD 10 AN ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON THE OPERATING 11 LICENSE THAT WOULD BE MORE CURRENT THAN THIS? 12 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, IF I 13 REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS 14 CONCERNING THE GRADIENTS AND THE GROUNDWATER TABLE 15 ITSELF AND THE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE GROUNDWATER 16 TABLE, AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS REBUTTAL IS TO SHOW 17 THAT THE TOLEDO EDISON, IN FACT, AGREES WITH THE i 18 EARLIER STATEMENTS OF MR. VOYTEK. 19 JUDGE HOYT: WELL, THEY AGREED 1 20 WITH IT ON AUGUST THE 3RD, 1970, ASSUMING THAT IS j l 21 A CORRECT STATEMENT. ALSU IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL 22 STATEMENT IN THE OPERATING -- IN THE OPERATING 23 LICENSE PHASE OF THAT CA$E, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD (]) 24 ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT WOULD BE MORE CURRENT, 25 P E T: HAPS A BETTER REFLECTION OF THAT.
892 h) 1 MR. VAN KLEY: YOU'RE TALKING 2 ABOUT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT. 3 JUDGE H0YT: YEAH, EXACTLY. 4 MR. SILBERG: WELL, THAT'S ALSO 5 THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. 6 dUDGE H0YT: IS THAT THE SAME 7 STATEMENT? 8 MR. SILBERG: NO. THAT'S THE 9 F.E.S. FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, NOT THE 10 OPERATING LICENSE F.E.S. 11 JUDGE H0YT: WELL, I f(cs ) 12 MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING 13 ABOUT THE OPERATING LICENSE. l 14 MR. SILBERG: THE POINT IS THAT 15 IT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND WITNESSES HAVE 16 ALREADY DISCUSSED IT, AND I 'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE 17 GOING BACK -- 18 JUDGE HOYT: WELL, WE'RE NOT 19 GOING TO ARGUE THIS OUT, MR. SILBERG. WE HAVE 20 HEARD THE QUESTION AND GONE ON TO SEVERAL OTHERS. 21 I'M NOT GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO OVERRULE YOU JUST 22 IN THE INTEREST OF SIMPLE LOGISTICS. AND THAT'S A 1 () 23 NEW RULING. 24 GO AHEAD, COUNSELOR. 25 E MR. LYNCH:
8S3 1 I 1 Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT IN THE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WITH DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR 3 POWER STATION OF MARCH 1973 THAT THE GROUNDWATER i 4 TABLE IS RELATIVELY HORIZONTAL WITH THE GRADING OF 5 ONE TO THREE FEET PER MILE TOWARD THE LAKE? 6 A. YES. l 7 MR. LYNCH: NO FURTHER ) 8 QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. 9 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. FOR THE 10 ENTIRE PANEL? 11 MR. LYNCH: THAT'S CORRECT. () 12 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. WOULD 13 YOU LIKE TO DISMISS THESE WITNESSES? 14 MR. SILBERG: CAN I JUST ASK -- 15 JUDGE H0YT: WH AT ' S THE 16 QUESTION? 17 MR. SILBERG: MR. GUY TESTIFIED 18 ABOUT SOME NEW NUMBERS ON WAVE SET-UPS THAT WE HAD 19 NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK A 20 FEW QUESTIONS. 1 21 JUDGE H0YT: DID YOU FORGET IT? 22 DID YOU FORGET IT ON THE FIRST GO-ROUND? MR. HE HAD NEVER
) 23 SILBERG: NO.
24 MENTIONED THOSE NUMBERS. THEY WERE NOT IN HIS l 25 TELTIMONY. HE JUST' STATED THEM FOR THE FIRST i
894 1 TIME. 2 JUDGE H0YT: ALL RIGHT. l I 3 MR. LYNCH: YOUR HONOR, IF I 4 REMEMBER CORRECTLY -- 5 dUDGE HOYT: I'LL GIVE YOU A 6 CHANCE. I'M JUST TRYING TO COMPLETE IT THE 7 QUICKEST WAY POSSIBLE, AND I THINK THIS IS THE 8 EASIEST WAY. 9 LET'S GO AHEAD. ONE QUESTION, MR. 10 SILBERG, AND YOU BETTER GET IT ALL IN ON ONE. 11 MR. SILBERG: AND IF I GET AN d) 12 OBJECTION ON A COMPOUND QUESTION , 13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. SILBERG: 15 Q. MR. GUY, YOU REFERRED TO AN ESTIMATE OF A 16 9.3 FOOT WIND SET-UP AND AN EIGHT-AND-A-HALF FOOT 17 WAVES IN THE NAVARRE MARSH.
- 20 18 DID THOSE ESTIMATES COME OUT OF THE FINAL l
19 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AND ARE THOSE ESTIMATES, IF 20 IN THE FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, INTENDED TO 21 REPRESENT WORST CASE CONDITIONS FOR N.R.C. 22 ACCIDENT EVALUATIONS? 23 A. (MR. GUY) I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF
]
24 YOUR LATTER DOCUMENTS, BUT THESE COME FROM THE I 25 D- IS-BESSE CERTIFICATE APPLICATION. THEY ARE -- 1
l 895 Gh k_) 1 IT WAS CALLED A PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL 2 EVENT. 3 THE PLATSMEN -- JUST SUMMARIZING, THE 4 PROCEDURE DEVELOPED BY PLATSMEN WAS APPLIED TO 5 THIS STORM TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM WIND TIDE RISE 6 AT TOLEDO. THIS PROCEDURE WAS VERIFIED FOR THE 7 APPLICATION. 8 IT GOES FURTHER TO STATE THAT SINCE 9 DAVIS-BESSE IS LOCATED ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF THE WAY 10 FROM THE WIND TIDE NODE TO TOLdDO, WIND TIDE 11 VARIATIONS AT THE DAVIS-BESSE PLANT WERE REDUCED () 12, BY 20 PERCENT FROM THE TOLEDO WIND TIDES. THIS 13 PROCEDURE GIVES A MAXIMUM WIND TIDE RISE WITH 14 EAST-NORTHEAST WINDS OF 9.3 FEET. 15 Q. AND YOU -- YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE 16 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD IS A TERM OF ART USED FOR 17 N.R.C. PURPOSES TO CALCULATE THE WORST 18 CONCEIVABLE -- 19 A. OH, I REALIZE THIS IS THE WORST 20 CONCEIVABLE EVENT. 21 Q. THAT, INDEED, IS AN EVENT THAT ONE WOULD 22 ANTICIPATE NEVER OCCURRING WITHIN THE LIFE OF THIS 23 PLAPT? , C -~ 24 A. I THINK WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE PLANT, I'M 25 fJ C - SURE I CAN GIVE A STATISTICAL -- ARE WE
853 1 LOOKING AT ONE PERCENT, TWO PERCENT? I DON 'T KNOW 2 HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT. 3 MR. SILBERG: 1 HAVE NO OTHER 4 QUESTION. 5 MR. VAN KLEY: WE HAVE JUST ONE. 6 dUDGE HOYT: YOU CAN ASK THAT 7 SAME QUESTION. 8 MR. VAN KLEY: PARDON ME? 9 JUDGE HOYT: I WAS JUST 10 ADDRESSING ' COUNSEL. DID YOU HAVE ONE MORE YOU 11 WANTED?
$)
12 MR. VAN KLEY: YEAH, BASED ON HIS 13 LAST QUESTION. 14 JUDGE HOYT: I KNEW IT. 15 MR. VAN KLEY: CAN WE JUST HAVE A 16 MINUTE TO LOOK UP SOMETHING? 17 (SHORT RECESS.) 2 18 MR. VAN KLEY: NO MORE QUESTIONS. 19 MR. SILBERG: WE DON'T HAVE ANY 20 MORE QUESTIONS. 21 JUDGE H0YT: CAN WE DISMISS THE 22 P A~N E L ? () 23 MR. VAN KLEY: YES. k? 24 JUDGE H0YT: YOU ARE EXCUSED 25 GE.TLEMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET ME TAKE THIS
8S7 8NJ l GENTLEMAN'S LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT, AND 2 WE'LL HAVE YOU SIT BY THE MICROPHONE THERE. 3 4 (RECESS TAKEN) 5 6 dUDGE HOYT: THE HEARING WILL 7 COME TO ORDER. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER, WE'RE 8 GOING TO TAKE THE LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF 9 THE GENTLEMAN THAT IS.NOW AT THE WITNESS CHAIR. 10 AND, SIR, IF YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR NAME? 11 MR. DORNBUSCH: PAUL DORNBUSCH.
')
r 12 dUDGE HOYT: PROCEED, SIR? 13 - - - 14 UNSWORN LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 15 BY PAUL DORNBUSCH: 16 MR. DORNBUSCH: I OWN A HOUSE ABOUT 17 SIX MILES FROM DAVIS-BESSE. I HAVE A WELL ON 18 THERE. I GET MY DRINKING WATER FROM THAT WELL. 19 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT GROUNDWATER POLLUTION FROM THE 20 CONTAMINATES. 21 I'M NOT VERY EDUCATED, SO YOU HAVE TO 22 BEAR WITH ME. I DO KNOW THAT WATER MOVES THROUGH
,() 23 LIMESTONE AT ABOUT 16 INCHES A YEAR, AND TOLEDO 24 EDISON ASSURES ME THAT THEY ARE MONITORING THE 25 VE;LS IN THE AREA. WELL, IF WATER MOVES THROUGH
898 1 LIMESTONE AT 16 INCHES A YEAR, IT DOESN'T DO MUCH , 2 GOOD TO TEST A WELL FOUR MILES FROM DAVIS-BESSE 3 BECAUSE THAT RADIATION WOULDN'T BE THERE. 4 TOLEDO EDISON PROMISES A LOT OF STUFF 5 OVER THE YEARS. LOWER UTILITY RATES WAS ONE OF 6 THEM, AND THEY PROMISED NO ON-SITE STORAGE. NOW 7 THEY WANT TO BURY ON THE SITE FOR THE HIGHEST 8 UTILITY IN THE STATE OF OHIO. , 1 9 I BROUGHT MY DICTIONARY WITH ME AND I 10 LOOKED THE WORD CRIME, AND IT SAYS A " GRAVE 11 OFFENSE AGAINST MORALITY." AND ONE OF THEM, 12 TOLEDO EDISON HAS BEEN LYING TO THE PUBLIC FOR 13 YEARS AND YEARS, SO I'D SAY IT'S A CRIME.
- 14 AND IT SAYS " POISON IS A SUBSTANCE THAT 15 THROUGH ITS CHEMICAL ACTION KILLS, INJURIES, OR 16 CHANGES." T H AT ' S EXACTLY WHAT RADIATION DOES. SO l l
17 IT LOOKS LIKE POISON TO ME. ! 18 AND NOW THESE STRANGERS FROM ALL OVER THE 19 COUNTRY AND TOLEDO EDISON AND A LAW FIRM IN 20 WASHINGTON, D.C. WANTS TO LET THE NRC BURY POISON i 21 IN MY BACKYARD. I DON'T SEE WHY ANYBODY ELSE BUT 22 THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CARROLL TOWNSHIP SOULD 23 DECIDE ABOUT POISON BEING BURIED THERE. [ 24 I'VE HUNTED AND FISHED IN THE AREA MY l l 25 l :LE LIFE. I FEEL I HAVE A LOT OF RIGHTS OUT
8S9 ; 6?\ V 1 THERE. 2 WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT HEALTH 3 HAZARDS FROM CHEST X-RAYS ACROSS THE STREET AND 4 BRICK WALLS AND ALL THAT. WELL, T H AT ' S SOMEONE'S 5 CHOICE TO GET A CHEST X-RAY; AND WE DON'T HAVE 6 MUCH OF A CHOICE ABOUT BURYING THIS STUFF ON-SITE. 7 WE TALKED ABOUT THE FLOODING IN THE 8 DIKES. I WISH I COULD CROSS-EXAMINE ONE EXPERT 9 WITNESS. I'VE LI VE D OUT THERE. YOU PEOPLE HAVE 10 NEVER BEEN OUT THERE. 11 JUDGE H0YT, I WISH YOU WOULD GO THERE {) 12 WHEN THERE WAS A NORTHEAST WIND BLOWING AND SEE 13 THE DAMAGE AND THE DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY THE WAVES 14 AND POWER OF LAKE ERIE. THESE PEOPLE WHO TALKED 15 ABOUT THAT, THEY NEVER WITNESSED ONE STORM. 16 I'M AN E.M.T., AND A FIREMAN. I 'M DEPUTY 17 SHERIFF. I HAVE RESCUED PEOPLE DURING THESE 18 FLOODS. YOU PEOPLE WANT TO ASK SOME OF THESE 19 STUPID QUESTIONS. IF YOU WOULD BE OUT THERE AND 20 WATCH THE WAVE ACTION GO ON AND ON. 21 I HAVE SEEN ROCKS AND BOULDERS THE SIZE 22 OF A TANDEM DUMP TRUCK DISAPPEAR OVERNIGHT, AND 23 YOU TALK ABOUT THE DIKE BEING SAFE. I DON'T THINK
}
24 THEY'VE BUILT SUCH A DIKE YET; BUT YOU CAN SIT IN 25 VJEHINGTON AND SAY HOW SAFE IT IS AND, YES, WE'VE l
l 900; 1 GOT AN EXPERT THAT SAYS THIS AND A LAWYER WHO 2 DISAGREES BECAUSE HE'S WENT TO COLLEGE AND HAS A 3 LICENSE TO STEAL, SO HE CAN RAMBLE ON AND ON AND 4 ON. 5 I DON'T MUCH ELSE TO SAY OTHER THAN I 6 WISH THE SLUDGE WOULD NOT BE BURIED THERE. IT 7 LOOKS LIKE THE BEGINNING OF ON-SITE BURIAL. 8 IN 1972, MY COUSIN'S FARM FLOODED. IT'S 9 ABOUT A MILE-AND-A-HALF FROM DAVIS-BESSE, A 10 MILE-AND-A-QUARTER FROM LAKE ERIE. THE FIRST TIME 11 THE FARM HAD FLOODED IN 135 YEARS. SO WE TALK {) 12 ABOUT THE AREA NOT BEING FLOODED, BEING SAFE -- MY 13 COUSIN'S FARM WAS UNDER WATER. 14 I HAVE OTHER COUSINS IN THE SAME FAMILY 15 LOST THEIR HOME'S VALUABLE POSSESSION BECAUS2 THE 16 LAKE LEVEL CAME UP AND ALL THEIR DIKES DIDN'T 17 HOLD. 18 MY MOTHER GREW UP IN CRANE CREEK MARSH. 19 MY GRANDFATHER WAS THE CARETAKER OF IT BACK IN THE 20 EARLY 30'S. SHE WAS JUST A CHILD, GREW UP IN 21 CRANE CREEK MARSH, AND THAT FLOODED. THERE'S l 22 THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM WITH FLOODING.
,(}'
23 I HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT. I LOST IT NOW. 24 YOU SEE I'M REAL WELL-PREPARED FOR THIS. 2S I WAS VERY IMPRESSED TO GET LETTERS FROM
l 901 1 b(_/ 1 LAWYERS IN WASHINGTON NOT WANTING ME TO INTERVENE. 2 I 'M THE CLOSEST PERSON L I VI NG TO THE SITE, AND IT 3 REALLY ANNOYS ME THAT I'M ONLY ALLOWED FI VE 4 MINUTES TO VOICE MY OPINION ABOUT THE MATTER, 5 WHERE PEOPLE FROM WASHINGTON AND ALL OVER THE 6 COUNTRY GOT TONS OF TIME. AND THE TESTIMONY THAT 7 TOLEDO EDISON PRESENTED DIDN'T SEEM THAT STRONG -- 8 QUIBBLING FOR TEN MINUTES ABOUT WHAT AN AQUIFER 9 IS -- A THIRD-GRADER KNOWS THAT. 10 I JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I GUESS. 11 JUDGE HOYT: THANK YOU. DO WE
) 12 HAVE ANY OTHER LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS 13 WANTED TO BE MADE AT THIS TIME?
14 VERY WELL. WE'LL PROCEED, THEN, WITH THE 15 EVIDENTIARY PART OF THE HEARING AND TAKE THE -- I 16 BELIEVE YOU HAD SOME REPRESENTATIONS ON YOUR 17 EXHIBITS. 18 MR. VAN KLEY: YES, WE DO, YOUR 19 HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE INTO ADMISSION 20 EXHIBITS A THROUGH H, WHICH I THINK IS ALL OF OUR 21 EXHIBITS. 22 MR. SILBERG: WHAT IS H?
,(')
l- %. 23 MR. VAN KLEY: H WOULD BE THE NRC
~
24 LETTER. 25 dUDGE HOYT: IT WAS A LETTER t
902 1 THAT WAS USED IN SOME EXAMINATION. I ASKED THAT 2 IT BE PUT IN THE RECORD. 3 ANY OBJECTIONS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT ALL 4 THESE EXHIBITS ARE, MR. SILBERG?
- 5 MR. SILBERG
- I'M TRYING TO MAKE 6 SURE I DO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE --
3 7 CAN WE GO OFF THE RECORD? 8 - - - 9 (OFF RECORD) 10 - - - 11 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. WE'LL ( 12 GO BACK ON THE RECORD. . 13 DURING THE BRIEF OFF-THE-RECORD PERIOD, I 14 THE COUNSEL FOR THE LICENSEE WAS ABLE TO LOCATE 15 THE EXHIBITS, AND NOW HE IS SATISFIED AS TO THE 16 IDENTIFICATION OF ALL THE EXHIBITS. 17 THE STATE HAS MOVED INTO EVIDENCE STATE'S 18 EXHIBIT B THROUGH -- CORRECTION -- A, A AS ABLE, is THROUGH H. AND NO OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD, 20 THE EXHIBITS WILL BE RECEIVED IN E VI D ENCE . 21 - - - 22 (THEREUPON, STATE'S EXHIBITS A-H WERE RECEIVED 23
.(
s.. INTO EVIDENCE) 24 - - _ 25 MR. SILBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE
903 i
.Wh 1 ;S )
m 1 A LIMITED AMOUNT OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY THAT WE l 2 WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME. 3 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. 4 MR. SILBERG: I WOULD ASK MESSRS. 5 HENDRON, TILL, AND MISS WASILK. I THINK THAT'S 6 ALL I GOT. I HOPE I HAVEN'T LEFT ANrBODY OUT. 7 JUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. SIR, 8 YOU HAVE ASKED TO PRESENT SOME REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. J 9 REMEMBER THAT IT IS ONLY TO BE REBUTTED -- l 10 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. YOU HAVE RECALLED TO THE 11 STAND, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE, IDENTIFY THE () 12 WITNESSES. 13 MR. SILBERG: YES. I HAVE ASKED 14 DR. TILL ON THE LEFT, DR. HENDRON IN THE CENTER 15 AND MISS WASILK ON THE RIGHT. 16 dUDGE H0YT: LADIES AND 17 GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN AN OATH HERE 18 WITH THIS BOARD. I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE 19 STILL UNDER THAT OATH. 20 - - - 21 I 22 23 d u[>) 24 l l l 25 , l
904 1 REBUTTAL 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION l 3 BY MR. SILBERG: 4 Q. MS, WASILK, WAS THE BURIAL SITE FLOODED 5 IN JUNE 19867 6 A. (MS. WASILK) THE ONLY PORTION OF THE 7 BURIAL SITE THAT HAD ANY WATER FROM THE -- THE 8 BACKING UP FROM THE RIVER IN JUNE WAS -- YOU SAID, 9 1986, RIGHT? 10 Q. YES. l 11 A. -- W AS THE SMALL AREA THAT IS l 12 APPROXIMATELY A TEN FOOT BY TEN FOOT PATCH THAT h.a) 13 THE DITCH TO THE TOUSSAINT RIVER FLOWS INTO. 14 Q. IS THAT ON LAND THAT WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY 15 A BURIAL CELL? 16 A. IT IS SEVERAL FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE I 17 BURIAL CELL WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOCATED. 18 Q. MISS WASILK, MR. BIMBER YESTERDAY, WHEN l 19 HE WAS -- WHEN HE WAS TESTIFYING, STATED THAT THE 20 RESINS ARE POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS, AND l 21 SAID THAT OTHER CHEMICALS, SUCH AS DIOXIN, ARE l 22 ALSO POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS. i {} 23 DOES THE FACT THAT THE RESINS THAT THE
' 24 RESINS ARE POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IMPLY 25 T ' .T THEY ARE IN ANY WAY T0XIC?
l
905 D) N. 1 A. NOT NECESSARILY. IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY 2 POLYAROMATIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS WHICH ARE OF 3 BENEFIT. 4 THE FAMILY OF CHEMICALS CALLED 5 CATECHOLAMINES, OF WHICH NOREPINEPHRINE, ALSO 6 KNOWN AS NOREADRENALINE, AND EPINEPHRINE, ALSO 7 KNOWN AS ADRENALINE, ARE HORMONES THAT ARE 8 MANUFACTURED BY THE HUMAN BODY AND ARE OF BENEFIT. 9 CHOLESTEROL, WHICH IS A PRECURSOR FOR 10 ESTROGEN, TESTOSTERONE, PROGESTERONE, IS ANOTHER 11 FAMILY OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS. AND, () 12 0F COURSE, WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THOSE 13 PARTICULAR HORMONES BEING OF BENEFIT TO AND 14 MANUFACTURED BY THE HUMAN BODY. 15 AND POLYPEDTIDES, WHICH ARE THE 16 PRECURSORS TO THE PROTEINS, WHICH ARE THE BUILDING 17 BLOCKS OF THE HUMAN BODY, ARE ALSO POLYNUCLEAR 18 AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS. 19 THERE ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF ' 20 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS WHICH ARE NOT HARMFUL IN ANY WAY TO ANIMAL OR PLANT LIFE. I 21 i 22 Q. THANK YOU. 23 DR. HENDRON, THERE WAS DISCUSSION AS TO
}
24 THE EARRIER REEFS OFFSHORE WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED 25 AE AN OUT -- A DISCHARGE AREA FOR THE BEDROCK
906 i 1 A QU I F ER . 2 ARE THOSE OUTCROPS -- WHAT MATERIAL ARE
- 3 THOSE OUTCROPS COMPOSED OF?
4 A. (DR. HENDRON) THOSE OUTCROPS ARE OF THE 5 MATERIALS THAT WE SEE ON SHORE AT THE SITE IN SOME 6 CASES. AND THEY INCLUDE THE SLURRY AND DOLOMITE 7 FORMATIONS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY, BY THE GEOLOGIC , 8 MAP OF THE STATE OF OHIO, ARE'A COMBINATION OF 9 DOLOMITES, LIMESTONES AND SHALES, WITH SHALES 10 OCCURRING AS STRINGERS AND BEDS WITHIN THE 11 DOLOMITE AND LIMESTONE FORMATIONS. 12 Q. MR. TILL, HAVE'YOU MADE A DETERMINATION
)
13 AS TO -- IN ORDER TO COMPARE THE RADIOACTIVITY IN 14 LIMESTONE AND SHALE AS COMPARED TO THE 15 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE SLUDGES TO BE BURIED AT ! 16 DAVIS-BESSE? 17 A. (DR. TILL) YES, AND I THINK THAT'S A 18 P R OS P E CT I VE THAT WE ALL NEED TO KEEP IN MIND. 19 IF YOU LOOK AT TYPICAL ACTIVITY 20 CONCENTRATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN LIMESTONE, THE ! 21 ACTIVITIES ARE ON THE ORDER OF A FEW PIC0 CURIES 22 PER GRAM. 4 []) 23 FOR SHALE, THE ACTIVITIES ARE ON THE j 24 ORDER OF TENS OF PIC0 CURIES PER GRAM. FOR 25 E' MPLE, 15 TO 20. AND THAT, IN ITSELF, IS LESS _ . _ . ~ - - .
907 4R 1 THAN THE ACTI VITY IN THIS WASTE THAT IS TO BE l 2 BURIED AT THE BESSE SITE. 3 Q. I 'M SORRY? 4 A. I 'M SORRY. THE SHALE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS 5 MORE THAN THE ACTI VITY WHICH IS TO BE BURIED IN 6 THE WASTE AT THE 3 ESSE SITE. 7 Q. OKAY. DR. HENDRON, MR. PAVEY, AT PAGE 2 8 OF HIS TESTIMONY, STATES THAT TOLEDO EDISON 9 ASSUMES THAT THE GLACIAL SEDIMENTS ARE l 10 IMPERMEABLE. 11 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE l
-() 12 PERMEABILITY O' F THE GLACIAL SEDIMENTS?
l 13 A. (MR. HENDRON) WELL, WE WOULD NOT CLASSIFY 14 THEM AS IMPERMEABLE, NOR HAVE WE, AS IT IS STATED 1 . 15 IN MR. PAVEY'S TESTIMONY. WE'VE BEEN VERY CAREFUL i 16 TO CLASSIFY THEM AS HIGHLY IMPERMEABLE, WHICH i 17 CERTAINLY SUGGESTS THAT THEY HAVE A FINITE '4 I ! 18 MEASURABLE PERMEABILITY. ! 19 OF COURSE, THAT IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 20 DETERMINATION AS PART OF ONE OF THESE STUDIES. ! 21 Q. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH MR. P AVEY 'S 22 STATEMENT, PAGE 2 0F HIS TESTIMONY, THAT THE e () 23 DESCRIPTION OF THE SEDIMENTS AS A GLACI0 LACUSTRINE 24 DEPOSIT OVER TILL DEPOSIT IS OVERSIMPLIFIED? 25 ! . NO.
903 1 Q. WHY NOT? 2 A. WELL, THE SIMPLE FACT IS WE HAVE HAD VERY l 3 SHALLOW DEPOSITS, 15 OR SO FEET THICK, AND THOSE l l 4 ARE THE ONLY TWO DEPOSITS THAT WE'VE EVER FOUND AT ) 5 THE SITE. 6 WE'VE HAD GEOLOGISTS, ENGINEERS, 7 HYDROGEOLOGISTS, SPENDING HUNDREDS OF HOURS, AND 8 THEY ALL SEEM TO AGREE ON THAT. AND IN MR. 9 P AVEY 'S TESTIMONY TODAY, HE SAID THAT THERE ARE 10 DISTINCT DIFFERENCES IN THE SYSTEM THAT HE USES TO 11 CLASSIFY THE VARIOUS TILLS. 12 ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FIND IN THE , 13 TYPES OF TESTS THAT WE RUN, WHICH ARE THE INDEX 14 PROPERTY TEST, WE FIND A GREAT DEAL OF UNIFORMITY 15 IN THIS MATERIAL. SO I WOULD -- I WOULD SUGGEST 16 THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE PUT THE DATA ALTOGETHER, I 17 WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WILL FIND THAT THE 18 CLASSIFICATION OF GLACI0 LACUSTRINE OVER A SINGLE 19 TILL UNIT AT THE SITE IS PROPER AND CORRECT. 20 Q. MR. PAVEY, AT PAGE 2, STATES THAT NO SITE i 21 SPECIFIC WORK HAS BEEN DONE. 22 DO YOU AGREE? ! . 23 A. NO. 24 Q. WHY NOT? 25 A. WELL, AS I STATED, ALL THE DATA WE'VE l 1
903 1 GENERATED FOR DAVIS-BESSE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3, I 2 BELIEVE, ARE VALID, TO RELOOK AT THAT AND WE HAVE. 3 WE'VE DONE THE BORINGS AT THE BURIAL 4 SITE, WHICH WE'VE USED. WE'VE MADE OBSERVATIONS l 5 ON SITE CONDITIONS DURING UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION, AND 6 WE'VE MADE RECENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE SITE, AND ON 7 A VERY LONG EXCAVATED TRENCH VERY CLOSE TO THE 8 SITE; SO I THINK WE'VE DONE TOTALLY SUFFICIENT S WORK TO MAKE THE JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. 10 Q. ALSO, AT PAGE 2, MR. PAVEY STATES THAT I 11 THE SITE GEOLOGICAL DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE TO l () 12 DETERMINE GROUNDWATER FLOWS AND WATER TABLES. 13 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? 14 A. NO. 15 Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR YOUR 16 DISAGREEMENT? 17 A. WELL, THE BASES FOR THE DISAGREEMENT ARE 18 WE HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED LOG PENETRATIONS OF THE 19 GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT IN THE TILL AT THAT SITE, l 20 AND WE HAVE MADE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF 21 OBSERVATIONS OF WATER FLOW CONDITIONS IN THESE i 22 DEPOSITS AT ALL SEASONS OF TF'E YEAR, SUMMER, 23 WINTER, SPRING, FALL, FROZEN CONDITIONS, WHERE IF j} ( 24 WE /RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EVAPORATION, IT DOESN 'T 25 OC;UR. WE WOULD EXPECT ICE LENSES TO FORM, WE l
910 1 H AVEN 'T SEEN THOSE. 2 WE HAVE DONE THE DETAILED GEOLOGIC 3 LOGGINGS, OPEN EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE, AND NOW 4 WE'RE CLOSING THE SITE, AND WE JUST HAVEN'T -- WE 5 dust HAVEN'T SEEN THE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS THAT 6 THE STATE IS RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT WE 7 HAVEN'T SEEN THEM. 8 Q. MR. PAVEY, AT PAGE 2, REFERS TO THE 9 PRESENCE OF SIX DIFFERENT TILL DEPOSITS. 10 IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF MORE THAN ONE 11 TILL DEPOSIT AT THE SITE? 12 A. NO. 13 Q. HE ALSO REFERS TO LAKE OR RIVER DEPOSITED 14 SEDIMENTS SEPARATING TILLS. 15 IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT OCCURRING 1 16 AT THE SITE? 17 A. NO. 18 Q. MR. PAVEY ALSO INDICATES THAT EXPOSURE OF 19 TILLS ALMOST ALWAYS CONTAINS OPEN JOINTS ALONG 20 WHICH WATER FLOWS. i 21 HAVE YOU SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THOSE 22 JOINTS AT THE SITE? 23 A. NO.
'- 24 Q. IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT W AT E R MOVES 25 FREELY THROUGH THE TILLS MR. PAVEY SUGGESTS?
911 J 1 A. NO. , 2 Q. ARE THERE RUSTY-BROWN ZONES IN THE TILL? 3 A. YES. 4 Q. MR. PAVEY INDICATES THAT THESE ZONES'SHOW 5 THAT WATER FLOWS ARE OCCURRING IN THE TILL. - f 6 DO YOU AGREE? ' I l 7 A. WELL, THE RUSTY-BROWN' ZONES INDICATE ' l 8 OXIDATION AND WEATHERING OF THE TILL, AND WE WOULD
~
l 9 AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THAT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT; i I 10 BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TAKEN KIND OF'A WORSE CASE
~
11 ASSESSMENT, AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THOSE '- () 12 TILLS HAVE BEEN THERE, THE DEPTH OF WEATHERING l l 13 THAT WE SEE CORRESPONDS TO A JUDGHENT THAT'S
- i i
14 CONSISTENT WITH A PERMEABILITY OF THAT TILL OF 10 l 15 TO THE MINUS 7 OR 10 TO THE MINUS '8 CENTIMETERS ' 16 PER SECOND. AND TH AT ' S WHAT W E ' R' E MEASURING,'FOR - 17 ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, WITH OUR LABORATORY ,. 18 MEASUREMENTS. 19 SO MY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO 20 BE THAT THE -- JUST THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE 21 OXIDIZED ZONES DOESN 'T INDICATE THAT WATER FLOWS 22 THROUGH THESE OPEN JOINTS IN A RAPID MANNER.
,.() 23 IN FACT, I WOULD GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND o 24 SAY THAT OUR JUDGMENT WOULD BE THAT IT MOVES 25 T'10 UGH THESE JOINTS AS IF THE MATERIAL HAS THE
912 G'h
%/ 1 PERMEABILITY 10 TO THE MINUS 7 OR 10 TO THE MINUS
\
I i 2 8 CENTIMETERS PER SECOND. ) 3 Q. DOES THAT ANSWER ALSO APPLY TO THE 4 DESCRIPTION THAT APPEARS ON THE BORING LOG NUMBER ' 5 3 ON THE STATE'S EXHIBIT D WHERE BROWN IS SHOWN IN 6 A DEPTH DOWN TO 10 FEET? 7 A. YES. 8 Q. ON PAGE 3 0F HIS TESTIMONY, MR. PAVEY 9 INDICATES THAT TILL UNITS ARE NON-HOMOGENOUS 10 ENTITIES, THAT HIGHLY PERMEABLE PATHS IN THE TILL 11 CAN SERVE AS GROUNDWATER FLOWPATHS.
$)
uv 12 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION? 13 A. WELL, WITH RESPECT TO THE DETERMINATION 14 0F GROUNDWATER FLOWS, WE REALLY CHARACTERIZED THE 15 DAVIS-BESSE TILL AS A HOMOGENOUS UNIT. AND WE 16 HAVEN'T SEEN THE HIGHLY PERMEABLE PATHS THAT THE l 17 STATE IS CONCERNED ABOUT. l l 18 Q. AT PAGE 4 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. PAVEY l l 5 19 STATES THAT GLACIOLACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS TYPICALLY 20 CONTAIN COARSE MATERIALS, SUCH AS SAND, GRAVEL AND 21 COBBLES. 22 ARE THESE FOUND AT THE BURIAL SITE? l
) 23 A. ON MY TESTIMONY, WE GI VE THE AVERAGE I
24 GRACATION FOR THE TILL UNIT.. AND WHAT WE SHOW IS 25 TFERE'S 5 PERCENT SAND SIZE AND ABOVE, AND THE
- 913 1
W* 1 REST OF IT IS SILT AND CLAY. AND I SHOULD SAY l
>; i 2 THIS IS WITH RESPECT.TO THE GL'ACIOLACUSTRINE 3 DEPOSIT. WE ONLY SHOW 5 PERCENT SAND, AND THE 4 REST ARE SILT AND CLAY-SIZE PARTICLES. THIS IS 5 THE SIZE, THE GRADATION, THAT GIVES THE 6 IMPERMEABILITY.
7 Q. MR. PAVEY, IN HIS TESTIMONY, ALSO 8 SPECULATES THAT THERE COULD BE THIN -- 9 MR. VAN KLEY: OBJECTION, YOUR 10 HONOR, TO THE CHARACTERIZATION OF SPECULATION. IF 11 HE WANTS TO SAY STATED, HE CAN SO STAY.
,o tg/ 12 BY MR. SILBERG:
13 Q. MR. PAVEY STATED -- 14 JUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. 15 BY MR. SILBERG: 16 Q. MR. PAVEY STATED THAT THERE COULD BE 17 THIN, DISCONTINUOUS, INTERCONNECTING LAYERS IN THE 18 'GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS. 19 HAVE YOU SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THESE AT 20 THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE? 21 A. AS WE HAVE STATED MANY TIMES, NO, WE HAVE i 22 NOT SEEN THE INTERCONNECTING LAYERS THAT MR. PAVEY 23 IS CONCERNED ABOUT. 24 Q. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF FINDING THIN, 2S DfECONTINUOUS LAYERS AS TO THE ACCEPTABILITY OF l 1
914 1 THE SITE? 2 A. WELL, T H AT ' S WHAT WE'VE SEEN, AND WE'VE 3 CHARACTERIZED OUR OBSERVATIONS AS SUCH. THESE DO 4 NOT PROVIDE PATHWAYS. THE FACT IS THEY ARE THIN, 5 VERY, VERY INFREQUENT, AND WE'VE GOT NO EVIDENCE 6 0F INTERCONNECTION. SO THEY ARE NOT PATHWAYS FOR 7 WHOLESALE MIGRATION AND CONTAMINANTS FROM THE SITE 8 TO OFF-SITE AREAS OR TO THE BEDROCK AQUIFER. 9 Q. MR. PAVEY REFERS TO CRACKS AND JOINTS IN 10 THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS THAT COULD ALLOW A 11 HIGH GROUNDWATER FLOW. 12 HAVE THESE B.E E N OBSERVED AT DAVIS-BESSE? 13 A. AS WE HAVE INDICATED, WE HAVE SEEN AND 14 HAVE IDENTIFIED FISSURES; BUT, AGAIN, THERE HAS 15 BEEN NO FLOW AND THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THEY 16 ARE INTERCONNECTED. THEY APPEAR VERY TIGHT AND 17 IMPERMEABLE. , 18 Q. ON PAGE 5, MR. PAVEY SAYS THAT PERMEABLE , 19 PATHWAYS COULD HAVE BEEN MISSED BY TOLEDO EDISON'S 20 INVESTIGATIONS. 21 DO YOU AGREE? 22 A. NO, I DON'T AGREE. AND WITH ALL THE WORK i l ( 23 WE HAVE DONE AT THE SITE, IT'S JUST -- I'VE TRIED
" 24 TO COME UP WITH AN IDEA 0F HOW WE MAY HAVE MISSED l i
l 25 E'UETHING WITH THE DENSITY OF WORK THAT WE'VE DONE l
915 1 AT THE SITE, AND I JUST CAN'T CONCEIVE OF ANY WAY 2 WE COULD MISS A SIGNIFICANT GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE. 3 Q. AT PAGE 5, MR. PAVEY SAYS THAT THE 4 BEDROCK IN THIS AREA IS RECHARGED THROUGH THESE 5 INTERCONNECTED PATHS. 6 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION? 7 A. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE DON 'T AGREE THEY 1 8 ARE INTERCONNECTED, AND WE'RE ON RECORD ALMOST TOO 4 9 0FTEN ON THAT ONE; AND WE'RE NOT IN A RECHARGE 10 AREA, BUT A DISCHARGE ZONE OF THE BEDROCK AQUIFER. 11 THERE IS MANY LINES OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT. ( 12 THEORETICAL LINE 0F EVIDENCE IS INCLUDED 13 IN FREEZE AND CHERRY'S BOOK ON GROUNDWATER. I 14 MEAN IF YOU JUST DRAW A SIMPLE FLOW NET FOR THIS l 15 SLURRY AND BEDROCK SYSTEM AND YOU PUT LAKE ERIE ' 16 OUT THERE, YOU WILL HAVE TO SEE THAT WE ARE IN A 17 DISCHARGE, NOT A RECHARGE ZONE OF THE BEDROCK. 18 THERE'S HYDROGEN SULFIDE IN THE WATER. l 19 AND IF WE WERE, IN FACT, IN AN AREA WHERE WE HAD 20 F R E S HW AT E.. RECHARGE OF THE BEDROCK AQUIFER, WHICH I 21 OCCURS IN MANY AREAS OF THE MIDWEST IN THESE l 22 TILLS, YOU DO GET INTO A RECHARGE AREA; BUT, QUITE ( 23 FRANKLY, THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE BEDROCK AT k) 24 THAT POINT IS, IN MOST CASES, DRINKABLE WATER. l 25 THIS BEDROCK WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS
l 916 1 OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE, WHICH ALMOST BY ITSELF WOULD 2 SUGGEST THAT YOU GOT VERY LITTLE FRESHWATER 3 ENTERING THE SYSTEM. 4 WE BELIEVE WE HAVE AN UPWARD ARTESIAN 5 GRADING BETWEEN THE BEDROCK AND THE SOIL UNITS, AS 6 WE TESTIFIED. AND THE FACT IS, TOO, THAT WE FOUND 7 THE PRESENCE OF UNWEATHERED GYPSUM DOWN NEAR THE 8 BASE OF THE TILL UNIT. AND IF WE HAD A LOT OF 9 FRESHWATER MOVING FROM THE GROUND SURFACE DOWN 10 INTO THE BEDROCK, GYPSUM IS A READILY SOLUBLE 11 MINERAL, AND IT WOULD BE GONE PROBABLY, AND 12 C E R T A I N L'Y WE'D SEE EVIDENCE OF ITS REMOVAL AS THE 13 GROUNDWATER FLOW WENT THROUGH THE PROFILE. 14 Q. MR. PAVEY AT PAGE 5 MENTIONS INTERMEDIATE 15 WATER TABLES. l 16 IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH WATER 17 TABLES EXIST AT THE SITE? 18 A. WELL, NO, EXCEPT FOR WHAT WE HAVE l 19 IDENTIFIED AS A SEASONAL PERCH WATER TABLE. 20 Q. ALSO, ON PAGE 5, MR. PAVEY OBSERVES THAT l 21 TOLEDO EDISON'S ORIGINAL STUDIES WERE NOT INTENDED i 22 TO ADDRESS GEOLOGIC FACTORS THAT AFFECT WASTE I
.()
s1 23 DISPOSAL. 24 IS THAT AN ACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION? 25 4 . YES.
l 917 l 1 Q. HAVE YOU SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWED THE DATA 2 TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE ACCEPTABILITY j l 3 OF THIS SITE FOR WAS'TE DISPOSAL? 4 A. I THINK MY TESTIMONY WILL CLEARLY REFLECT 5 THAT WE DID REVIEW THE DATA IN LIGHT OF THE 6 PRESENT PROJECT. 7 Q. IS THE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE USE OF 8 THE SITE AS A LAND DISPOSAL AREA? l 9 A. YES. THE DATA -- THE RELEVANT 10 INFORMATION ON PERMEABILITY, PATHWAYS AND OTHER 11 ELEMENTS OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR TO 12 MAKE THESE JUDGMENTS. 13 Q. ON PAGE 5, MR. PAVEY REFERS TO BORING 14 B-124, AND ITS REPORT OF QUOTE "FIRST WATER IN 15 HOLE" CLOSE QUOTE. l 6 16 MR. PAVEY THEN ASKS A QUESTION AS TO 17 WHERE THIS WATER COMES FROM AND WHETHER IT IS THE 18 TOP OF A WATER TABLE. 19 WHAT IS THE IMPORT OF THIS NOTATION IN 20 BORING LOG FOR BORING B-124. 21 A. WELL, IT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THESE SORTS 22 OF INDICATIONS ON THE BORING LOGS ARE SUGGESTIONS
) 23 AND INDICATIONS OF I S O L AT E D AC'C U M U L AT I O N S OF WATER l i' THEY WILL 24 AND NOT A CONTINUOUS WATER TABLE.
25 FE RESENT MINOR AMOUNTS OF WATER.
913 i A 1 IT IS REALLY NOT UNUSUAL IN THESE GLACIAL 2 MATERIALS SUCH AS THIS TO RUN INTO THIS 3 CHARACTERIZATION. 4 AND THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT, I WOULD 5 LIKE TO POINT OUT, IS THAT WE FIND THIS IN MAYBE A 6 THIRD OR 30 TO 40 PERCENT OF THE BORINGS, WE'LL 7 FIND SOME INDICATION OF WATER, BUT CERTAINLY NOT 8 IN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THEM. 9 Q. WHAT IS THE INDICATION -- WHAT IS THE 10 RELEVANCE OF THE FACT THAT YOU FIND WATER IN SOME 11 BUT NOT ALL OF THEM?
) 12 A. WELL, IT'S, AGAIN, A STRONG INDICATION 13 THAT THESE ARE DISCONNECTED. THEY ARE NOT 14 INTERCONNECTED, AND DO NOT PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR 15 CONTAMINATE MIGRATION FROM THE SITE SHOULD THE 16 CONTAMINATES GET INTO THE ZONE.
17 Q. AT PAGE 6 0F HIS TESTIMONY, MR. PAVEY 18 ALSO REFERS TO REPORTS OF FISSURES IN THE GRAY AND 19 BROWN GLACIAL SEDIMENTS AND ASKS WHETHER THESE 20 REPRESENT OXIDIZED ZONES OF WATER MOVEMENT ALONG 21 THE JOINT TO SOME SEDIMENT OF HIGH PERMEABILITY. 22 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, OR WHAT IS ()' 23 YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. PAVEY'S QUESTION? 24 A. I THINK, AS I'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER, I 25 E2_IEVE THAT THE ZONE OF OXYGENATION WE HAVE IN
919 N 1 THIS PROFILE IS CONSISTENT WITH WATER MOVING 2 THROUGH A MATERIAL WITH A PERMEABILITY OF 10 TO 3 THE MINUS 7 CENTIMETERS PER SECOND OR LESS; SO IT 4 IS OF NO RELEVANCE. 5 WELL, IT'S OF RELEVANCE IN THE SENSE THAT 6 IT DOES VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT 7 WE DON 'T HAVE WHOLESALE WATER MOVEMENT THROUGH 8 VERTICAL PATHWAYS IN THE FORMATION. 9 Q. MR. PAVEY ALSO SAYS THAT THE SAMPLING 10 METHOD THAT WAS USED IN BORINGS B-125 AND B-130 11 MASKS THE PRESENCE OF THIN SAND LAYERS AND , 12 LACUSTRINE MATERIALS. 13 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 14 A. WE HAVE LOOKED AT BOTH OF THOSE BORING ; l 15 LOGS, AND ACTUALLY IT'S KIND OF IRONIC BECAUSE 16 BOTH OF THOSE BORING LOGS, WE GOT CONTINUOUS 17 SAMPLES IN BOTH OF THOSE LOGS. AND, OF COURSE, I 18 CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THAT'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE 19 TO DETECT SAND LAYERS SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN THERE. 20 Q. COULD YOU COMMENT ON MR. P A V E Y ' S' -- I , l 21 BELIEVE IT WAS MR. PAVEY'S SUGGESTION, THAT 22 MISSING MATERIAL IN SOME OF THE SAMPLES INDICATED p() 23 THAT THERE WERE SAND LENSES? 24 A. WELL, I WOULD SUSPECT IF WE WENT THROUGH 25 T~.SE SAMPLES WE WOULD HAVE FOUND, OR WE WOULD l
920 i 1 HAVE FOUND OR WILL FIND THAT ABOUT A HALF A FOOT 2 OF MOST OF THOSE SAMPLES DOESN'T COME BACK UP IN ! i 3 THE SAMPLER. IT IS NOT RECOVERED. l 4 4 GENERALLY WHAT THAT MEANS, IN THESE TYPE l 5 OF SOILS, IS AS THE SOIL ENTERS THE SAMPLER IT 6 FINALLY WEDGES IN THERE SO TIGHTLY THAT NO MORE l 7 SOIL CAN GO UP IN THE SAMPLER; BUT IT IS NOT A 8 SURE INDICATION AT ALL THAT WE HAD SAND DOWN 9 THERE. 10 MY JUDGMENT IS THAT WE RECOVER TYPICALLY 11 BETWEEN A FOOT AND A HALF AND TWO FEET OF SAMPLE, d 12 AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE TIGHTNESS OF THE CLAY W 13 DEPOSITS THAT WE WERE POUNDING THEM THROUGH THEY 14 EVENTUALLY JUST PLUG THE SAMPLER OFF. 15 Q. MR. PAVEY ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE 16 PHENOMENON OF SMEARING EITHER ON THE SIDES OF l 17 EXCAVATIONS OR ON SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BORINGS MIGHT 18 MASK THE TRUE GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE SOIL 19 COLUMN. 20 IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT SMEARING WAS A 21 PROBLEM OR INTERFERED WITH YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE 22 GEOLOGY IN THIS AREA? c
) r 2: A. WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A PROBLEM, AND '" I'VE TESTIFIED ACCORDINGLY; BUT IN BEING ABLE TO 24 25 TF;NK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT -- IN FACT, OUR
921 w 1 TYPICAL WAY OF LOOKING AT THESE EXCAVATIONS IS NOT 2 JUST TO LOOK UP AND LOOK AT AN EXCAVATION AS A 3 BROAD WAY. WE WENT UP, SCRAPED THE SURFACE OFF, l 4 LIKE ALL GOOD ROCKHOUNDS, I GUESS, IF NOT i 5 GEOLOGISTS, WE SCRAPED THE SURFACE OFF AND ; i 6 ACTUALLY TOOK A LOOK AT THE MATERIAL BEHIND THE
)
7 WALL, BEHIND THE WALL WE SCRAPED LOOSE. 8 Q. WHAT ABOUT SMEARING ON SPLIT TUBE SAMPLES 9 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES? 10 A. OUR STANDARD PRACTICE ON SPLIT BARREL 11 SAMPLES IS TO OPEN THE SAMPLER AND THEN SCRAP 12 AWAY. TAKE A SPATULA AND SIMPLY SCRAP THE SAMPLE 13 AWAY SO WE'RE.SURE WE'RE LOOKING AT A FRESH 14 SURFACE OUTSIDE THE ZONE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN 15 SMEARED. 16 Q. I BELIEVE MR. PAVEY SUGGESTED THAT -- j 17 STATED THAT WHEN HE TAKES CORES HE USES A CME 18 CONTINUOUS CORING MACHINE. 19 COULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A 20 MORE APPROPRIATE METHOD TO TAKE CORES THAN THE 21 TECHNIQUES THAT WERE USED AT DAVIS-BESSE? 22 A. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARILY ANY (); 23 BETTER OR ANY WORSE. , 24 WE'RE USING THAT EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW IN A l 25 E'E IN MICHIGAN WHERE THE TILLS ARE ABOUT A
4 922 4 1 HUNDRED AND -- 120 TO 150 FEET THICK. QUITE 2 FRANKLY, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE HAVING WITH THE 3 EQUIPMENT IS OUR SAMPLE RECOVERY IS ANYWHERE FROM 4 25 TO 50 PERCENT THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE PROFILE, 5 FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, SO SAMPLE RECOVERY IS 6 f40T GOING TO BE ANY BETTER. 7 AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT IS WE END UP 8 WITH A PHYSICALLY DISTURBED SAMPLE THAT'S GOOD FOR 4 7 9 LOOKING AT LITHOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY, BUT IN FACT 10 THE SAMPLE IS OF NO VALUE TO US IN TERMS OF 11 RUNNING PERMEABILITY TESTS, FOR INSTANCE, BECAUSE
.'(
v
) 12 THE SAMPLE COMES UP PRETTY DISTURBED.
13 Q. DID YOU HEAR THE DEFINITION OF A VUG THAT 14 WAS PROVIDED BY MR. PAVEY, I BELIEVE? 15 A. I THINK IT WAS MR. PAVEY THAT PROVIDED 16 THE DEFINITION, AND I CAN STAND CORRECTED ON THAT, 17 BUT I THINK IT WAS. AND, YES, I DID HEAR THAT. 18 Q. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT DEFINITION, 19 PLEASE? 20 A. WELL, I GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM THE 21 DEFINITION THAT IT WAS A SOLUTION FEATURE, AND I 22 DIDN'T BRING MY LIBRARY TEXT WITH ME. IT'S A 23 GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGIC TERMS; BUT I MADE A CALL TO [) 24 THE OFFICE AND HAD MY SECRETARY READ THE 25 DE: INITION TO ME OVER THE TELEPHONE AND -- IN
l l 923 (4/"N 1 FACT, THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP, IT WAS 2 ASKED BY THE HEARING OFFICER FOR ME TO COMMENT ON 3 THAT -- AND THE SPECIFIC DEFINITION IS A CAVITY IN 4 ROCK WITH A LINING OF MINERALS DIFFERENT THAN THAT 5 OF THE SURROUNDING ROCK. 6 AND ONE EXAMPLE THEY GAVE WAS A GEOID, IF 7 YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. AND I'M NOT GOING TO 8 RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE AREN'T SOME I 9 SOLUTION CREATED VUGS; BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S 10 A REPRECIPITATION OF MINERALS INSIDE A C A VI T Y OF 11 ROCK, IS REALLY WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO. 12 Q. OKAY. MOVING ON TO HYDROLOGY. 13 COULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER IN THE COURSE 14 OF THE UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION YOU PERFORMED 15 MEASUREMENTS AS TO THE DRAWDOWN IN THE BEDROCK 16 AQUIFER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PONDS THAT WE'VE 17 BEEN TALKING ABOUT? 18 A. YEAH. WE HAD A MONITOR WELL NETWORK, AND 19 THESE MONITOR WELLS WERE FOR WATER LEVELS AROUND 20 THE SITE WHICH ALLOWED US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION 21 OF THE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE OF THAT DEWATERING 22 SYSTEM IN THIS CONFINED AQUIFER. AND, OF COURSE, () 23 THAT INCLUDED THE AREAS WHERE THE BARRIERS WERE 24 LOCATED. 25 C. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THOSE
924 1 MEASUREMENTS? 2 A. WELL, AT THE DEWATERING SYSTEM ITSELF, WE 3 ACTUALLY DREW THE WATER DOWN ABOUT 50 FEET BELOW 4 ITS PRESENT POTENTI0 METRIC SURFACE OF ABOUT 570. 5 AND AT THE DEWATERING SYSTEM, WE HAD ABOUT 50 FEET 6 0F DRAWDOWN. AND AT THE DISTANCE OF ABOUT 2,000 7 FEET, WE CAN THEORETICALLY CALCULATE A DRAWDOWN OF 8 ABOUT 20 FEET. 9 MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE MEASURED 10 VERY CLOSE TO A THEORETICAL DRAWDOWN THROUGHOUT 11 THE SITE. AND AT 3,000 FEET, WE WOULD HAVE 12 M,EASURED A DRAWDOWN OF ABOUT 10 FEET OR 12 FEET IN O) 13 THE BEDROCK AQUIFER. AND I WAS IN CHARGE OF i 14 MAKING THE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS, AND I WAS 15 ALSO IN CHARGE OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM THAT 16 CAME UP WHEN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE 17 DECIDED THAT WE WERE AFFECTING THE WATER LEVEL IN 18 THEIR WELLS. 19 I WAS IN CHARGE OF MAKING A JUDGMENT OF 20 HOW FAR THIS EXTENDED OUT AND WHO HAD TO DE DEALT l 21 WITH. 22 MY ESTIMATE TODAY IS THAT WE EFFECTED l 23 ABOUT A 10 OR 12 FOOT DRAWDOWN UNDERNEATH THE 24 AREAS WHERE WE HAD THE BARRIERS. 25 '
. THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT
925 r k_%) 1 WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN UPPER A QU I F ER IN THE 2 SYSTEM, IN THE TILL OR IN THE GLACIOLACUSTRINE 3 SEDIMENTS. i 4 WHAT DOES THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 5 HAVE TO SAY, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF 6 WATER IN THOSE DEPOSITS? 7 A. WELL, WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS I 8 WITH THEM; BUT WE DID GET A COPY OF THE SOIL 9 SURVEY OF OTTAWA COUNTY, AND THEY HAVE A SECTION l ] 10 IN HERE DEALING WITH THE ABILITY OF THESE SURFACE 11 SOILS TO BE USED FOR VARIOUS AND SUNDRY PURPOSES, 12 AND THEY ALSO STATE LIMITATIONS. i 13 AND UNDER TABLE 14, UNDER LIMITATIONS FOR i 14 AQUIFER FED EXCAVATED PONDS, AND WHAT THIS MEANS I 15 IS IF A PERSON WANTED TO GO OUT AND DIG A HOLE IN 16 THE GROUND AND RELY ON GROUNDWATER TO SUPPLY THE 17 WATER FOR THE POND, THEY'VE STATED LIMITATIONS FOR 18 THAT AND FOR BOTH THE NAPPANEE SOIL AND TOLEDO 19 SOIL SERIES, THEY SAY THE SAME THINGS. 20 THE PROBLEMS, THE LIMITATIONS ARE SEVERE, 21 AND THE NOTATION IS NO WATER. VERY CLEAR. WE l 22 TALKED TO THEM, AND BASICALLY THEY CONFIRMED THAT l () L. 23 PEOPLE THAT EXCAVATE PONDS OR MAKE EXCAVATIONS FOR 24 PONDS HAVE TO RELY ON SURFACE WATER RUN-IN TO FILL l 25 T*IM, AND THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AN OUTLET BECAUSE
926 1 EVENTUALLY THESE SOILS ARE SO TIGHT THEY WILL 2 OVERFLOW. 3 IT'S CLEAR THAT THE SOIL CONSERVATION 4 SERVICE DOESN'T CONSIDER THESE MATERIALS AN 5 AQUIFER. 6 Q. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THAT l 7 WERE REFERRED TO FROM DOCUMENTS EARLY IN THE NRC i 8 A.E.C. LICENSING OF THIS SITE, WHICH STATED THAT 9 GROUNDWATER LEVELS ARE AT.OR ABOVE LAKE LEVELS. 10 IS IT YOUR UN DER ST AN DI NG FROM THE 11 DESCRIPTION, NOT DESCRIPTION, AND THE BACKGROUND ( DOCUMENTATION, THE REFERENCE TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS I w.) 12 13 MEANS THE ACTUAL WATER LEVELS OR THE PIEZOMETRIC 14 LEVEL? l 15 A. WELL, I REALLY SAW THAT SECTION FOR THE 16 FIRST TIME. , 17 AS FAR AS I KNOW, OUR FIRM DID NOT 18 PREPARE THAT SECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. 19 WE WENT BACK, THOUGH, TO THE SECTION IN THE PSAR 20 THAT WE DID PREPARE, AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT 21 WHEN IT WAS TRANSCRIBED FROM PSAR LANGUAGE INTO ER 22 LANGUAGE, WATER TABLE WAS EXCHANGED FOR THE TERM 8() 7 ;> 23 PIEZ0 METRIC OBSERVATIONS, WHICH IS BEDROCK WATER. 24 Q. IS THE FACT THAT BEDROCK WATER LEVELS 25 N ' '- H T FLUCTUATE WITH LAKE LEVELS CONSISTENT WITH
1 927 i 1 YOUR TESTIMONY HERE? l 2 A. I BELIEVE IT IS, YES. l 3 Q. ON PAGE 6, MR. VOYTEK STATES THAT BORING ) 4 B-125 DEMONSTRATES THE PRESENCE OF A TILL AQUIFER 5 SYSTEM. 6 DOES THAT BORING DEMONSTRATE THAT? 7 A. WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE BORING 125 DOES. 8 IT SHOWS TRACES OF SAND AND GRAVEL IN THIS -- AND
- 9 I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS YESTERDAY --
THE 10 REFERENCE AND THE USE OF THE WORD " GRAVEL LENSES" 11 IN MR. VO YTEK 'S TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE, HAS TAKEN
')
. 12 SOME LICENSE WITH WHAT WE ACTUALLY PUT ON THE 13
- BORING LOG.
i 14 AND I DID TESTIFY THAT SHOULD WE HAVE l 15 SEEN LENSES OR LAYERS THAT WOULD HAVE APPEARED ON l 16 THE BORING LOG, THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EVIDENCE OF I I I 3 17 INTERCONNECTION. IN PLACE, OUR EVIDENCE WOULD l 18 SUGGEST VERY STRONGLY NO INTERCONNECTION. 19 Q. OKAY. AT PAGE 7, AND I CONDUCTED SOME 1 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS, MR. VOYTEK STATES THAT 21 THE TOLEDO SOILS ARE RATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR 22 LANDFILLS.
.( ) 23 FIRST OF ALL, DO WE HAVE TOLEDO SOILS AT
- i. l 24 THE BURIAL SITE?
25 t. I BELIEVE WE D0. l l
928 l 1 Q. ARE THEY RATED AS UNSUITABLE? 1 2 A. NOT THAT I CAN SEE IN THE MANUAL THAT HE
, 3 REFERENCED. THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE l f
4 INDICATES THAT THERE'S A SEVERE LIMITATION OR 5 PROBLEM DUE TO PONDING, BUT CORRECTABLE, A i 6 CORRECTABLE ENGINEERING PROBLEM. j 7 WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THEM, AND 8 THAT'S THEIR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY 9 THAT LANGUAGE. 10 Q. IN YOUR JUDGMENT, ARE THE TOLEDO SOILS } 11 UNSUITABLE FOR LANDFILL OF THIS KIND? 12 A. ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND, IN FACT, THE f 13 PONDING OF WATER OVER THESE SOILS SUGGEST, AGAIN, 14 VERY STRONGLY THAT THE SOILS UNDERNEATH WHICH WE i 15 HAVE TO RELY ON TO PREVENT THE CONTAMINAT' ION ( l 16 MOVEMENT ARE VERY TIGHT SOILS. 17 Q. AT PAGE 7, MR. VOYTEK POINTS OUT THE 18 WETNESS OF THE SOIL AS A LIMITATION. 19 IS THAT A LIMITATION FOR OUR PURPOSES? i 20 A. WELL, AGAIN, NO. THE WETNESS OF THE SOIL l 21 IS A PROBLEM FOR FARMERS WANTING TO GET OUT THERE i 22 AND GET TO WORK ON IT; BUT ACTUALLY IN TERMS OF ! 23 LANDFILL USAGE, IT'S A POSITIVE INDICATION TO US r 24 THAT THE MATERIALS UNDERNEATH IT ARE TIGHT, AND l 25 TFIT'S WHAT WE LOOK FOR. i
923 1 Q. AT PAGE 8 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. VOYTEK 2 STATES THAT THE BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PRIMARILY 3 RECHARGED FROM WATER IN THE UPPER AQUIFER SYSTEM. 4 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? 5 A. WELL, CERTAINLY NOT AT THE SITE. ONE, WE 6 DON 'T AGREE THAT THERE'S AN UPPER TILL AQUIFER OR 7 AN UPPER AQUIFER, PER SE. WE'RE, AS I TESTIFIED, 8 WE'RE IN A DISCHARGE SITUATION WHERE, IN FACT, WE 9 BELIEVE, AND WE BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO 10 SHOW IT, THAT THE WATER MOVES THROUGH THE BEDROCK 11 INTO THE SOIL UNITS, NOT THE REVERSE. 12 . AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE WATER QUALITY, 13 AND I THINK TH AT 'S PRETTY WELL ON THE RECORD. 14 Q. AT PAGES 9 AND 10, MR. VOYTEK STATES THAT 15 GROUNDWATER MOVES IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS AT THE 16 BURIAL SITE, AND THAT THE BEDROCK AQUIFER FLOWS 17 TOWARDS LAKE ERIE DURING LOW WATER LEVELS AND AWAY 18 FROM THE LAKE DURING HIGH WATER LEVELS. 19 DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? 20 A. I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHAT 21 HE MEANS BY FLOWING AWAY FROM LAKE ERIE. IF WHAT 22 HE MEANS BY THAT, THERE'S A REVERSAL IN THE
, ()
23 DIRECTION OF FLOW IN THE BEDROCK, I DON'T AGREE 24 WITH THAT AT ALL. IT'S REALLY INCONSISTENT 25 F'iRODYNAMICALLY WITH THE STATE'S VIEW 1 HAT THE
930 1 BEDROCK WATER LEVELS MOVE UP AND DOWN FAIRLY 2 QUICKLY WITH THE LAKE. WHILE THE WATER PRESSURES 3 IN THE BEDROCK DO INCREASE WITH LAKE LEVEL, THAT 4 DOES NOT MEAN THAT FLOW OF WATER IN THE ROCK HAS S REVERSED. 6 Q. MR. VOYTEK CITES THE GORDON AND HUEBNER j 7 PAPER AS SHOWING PROBLEMS WITH LANDFILLS HAVING l 8 SIMILAR HYDROGEOLOGY TO DAVIS-BESSE. ' 9 DO YOU AGREE THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE 10 GORDON AND HUEBNER PAPER ARE RELEVANT TO THE 11 DAVIS-BESSE SITE? v
) 12 A. WELL, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT THAT 13 THE GEOLOGY AT THESE SITES IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF 14 DAVIS-BESSE.
15 THE TILLS IN THESE AREAS ARE MUCH 16 THICKER. THERE'S MORE THAN ONE TILL AT PROBABLY 17 MANY OF THESE SITES. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A 18 WISCONSIN VERSUS AN ILLINOISAN TILL IN THIS CASE. i 19 THE TILL UNITS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLEX. SO I THINK 20 I JUST DISAGREE WITH THE BASIC CONCLUSION THAT YOU ' 21 CAN MAKE ANY COMPARISONS BETWEEN THESE SITES IN 22 WISCONSIN AND THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. i 1 () 23 Q. THAT GORDON AND HUEBNER PAPER DISCUSSES A 24 DIFFERENCE OF ONE TO THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE IN l 25 T'E PERMEABILITY OF CLAY SOILS WHEN MEASURED IN
931 1 LABORATORY ANALYSES AND IN SITU TESTS. 2 DO YOU AGREE THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES EXIST 3 IN THE PERMEABILITIES THAT ARE REPORTED FOR 4 DAVIS-BESSE? 5 A. NO, I D ON ' T . THE DIFFERENCE THAT I THINK 6 EXISTS -- AND WE'LL OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO SHOW THIS AS 7 PART OF THE ONGOING PERMIT TO INSTALL -- BUT I 8 THINK WHEN ALL THE SMOKE IS CLEARED, WHAT WE'LL 9 SEE IS THAT THERE MAY BE A ZERO TO ONE ORDER OF 10 MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE B ETW E Ef4 FIELD AND LABORATORY. 9 11 AND, IN FACT, WE'VE ALREADY USED THE UPPER END OF , )' 12 THAT SCALE IN MAKING OUR JUDGMENT ABOUT THIS SITE. 13 WE'VE -- WE HAVE NOT TAKEN JUST THE 14 LABORATORY PERMEABILITY VALUES TO DECIDE THIS IS A 15 GOOD SITE. WE'VE FACTORED IN A POTENTIAL 16 DIFFERENCE OF AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE l 17 BETWEEN THE FIELD AND LAB PERMEABILITY. I 18 Q. AT PAGE 12, MR. VOYTEK STATES THAT THE 19 LAKE ERIE SHORELINE MAY HAVE PASSED OVER THE SITE 20 AT LEAST ONCE AND PERHAPS SEVERAL TIMES DEPOSITING 21 BEACH SAND WHICH BECAME SAND LENSES. 22 DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT OCCURRED?
) 23 A. NO, I DON 'T AGREE THAT THERE WERE SAND 24 LENSES THAT WERE DEPOSITED BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE NO 25 E'.DENCE OF THAT FACT BASED ON OUR EXTENSIVE SITE
932 1 INVESTIGATIONS AND EXCAVATIONS IN THE AREA, AND 2 THAT THE GEOLOGY SUGGESTS THAT THE LAKE LEVEL 3 RETRIEVES VERY QUICKLY, SO THAT THERE IS REALLY NO 4 NEAR SHORE DEPOSITIONAL ENVIORNMENT EXISTING AT 5 THE SITE. 6 Q. AT PAGE 12, MR. VOYTEK DISCUSSES j 7 FRACTURES IN THE CLAY DUE TO A REACTION OF 8 SATURATED CLAY AND THE WASTE IN THE LANDFILL. 9 WHAT RELEVANCE, IF ANY, DOES THIS 10 PHENOMENA HAVE TO THE PROPOSED DAVIS-BESSE BURIAL 11 CELLS? 12 NONE THAT I CAN SEE BECAUSE IT IS
- ( A.
13 ORGANICS THAT ARE ACCUSED OF CAUSING PROBLEMS, AND 14 WE DON 'T HAVE THOSE IN THE D A VI S -B ES S E LANDFILL. 15 dUDGE H0YT: MR. SILBERG, HOW 16 CLOSE ARE YOU TO FINISHING? 17 MR. SILBERG: TWO MORE QUESTIONS. i 18 8Y MR. SILBERG: 19 Q. ON PAGE 13, MR. VOYTEK CITES THE 20 EXPERIENCE AT A WISCONSIN SITE WHERE A SAND 21 DEPOSIT WAS DISCOVERED WHEN THE SITE WAS EXCAVATED 22 AFTER 46 SOIL BORINGS HAD BEEN DRILLED, AND HE l [ 23 SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN TO 24 DAVIS-BESSE. 25 DO YOU AGREE THAT'THAT'S LIKELY TO
l B33 , 1 HAPPEN. 2 A. I CAN'T CONCEIVE HOW IT WOULD HAPPEN. I 3 CAN'T COMMENT ON WHY THEY MISSED IT AT THE SITE AT 4 WISCONSIN WITH 46 BORINGS; BUT LOOKING AT
- 5 DAVIS-BESSE, WE HAVE GOT MORE INVESTIGATORY DATA 6 AT THAT SITE THAN WE COULD HOPE FOR AT MOST SITES l 7 AT THIS POINT. AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE l
{ 8 DEPOSIT, THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE DEPOSIT AND THE 9 NUMBER OF PENETRATIONS THAT WE HAVE OF IT, I 10 BELIEVE THAT THE INVESTIGATION DATA BASE THAT WE . 11 HAVE IS VERY EXTENSIVE AND IT JUST -- WE JUST ( 12 COULDN'T HAVE MISSED A MAJOR GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 13 THAT WOULD IMPACT DECISIONS ON THIS PROJECT. 14 Q. AT PAGE 14, MR. VOYTEK REFERS TO THE I ! 15 PAPER BY KIRK BROWN AS SHOWING THAT CLAY LINERS 16 LEAKED MUCH FASTER THAN THEIR DESIGNED. 17 WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT SUGGESTION? ! 18 A. YEAH. THAT PAPER HAS BEEN KIND OF RUN 19 AROUND THE MILL HERE IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE LAST
; 20 TWO OR THREE YEARSp AND MR. BROWN, DR. BROWN, USED i l
l 21 HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CONTACT
- 22 WITH COMPACTED SAMPLES OF SOIL AND, IN FACT, HAS I
,({) 23 BEEN, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS I'VE BEEN ON AND
- w 24 TESTIFIED THAT WHEN YOU USE EVEN DILUTE ORGANIC
', I { 25 E'_UTIONS, THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS i
934 1 THESE VERY CONCENTRATED SOLUTIONS HE USED. 2 SO IT'S, AGAIN, OF NO RELEVANCE TO 3 DECISIONS ON THIS PROJECT. OKAY. 4 Q. ONE MORE QUESTION, IF I MIGHT. 5 MISS WASILK, COULD YOU DESCRIBE SOME OF 6 THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE -- ON WHICH THE PROBABLE 7 MAXIMUM FLOOD ANALYSIS IS BASED AND HOW THOSE 8 RELATE TO CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OBSERVED AT 9 THE SITE? 10 A. (MS. WASILK) YES. THE MAXIMUM PROBABLE 11 METEOROLOGICAL EVENT, WHICH IS A DESIGN BASIS TYPE i 12 EVENT FOR D A VI S-B ES S E , IS BASED UPON WINDS OF 70 , <U 13 MILES AN HOUR AT THE SURFACE SUSTAINED FOR SIX 14 HOURS, SIX HOURS, AT AN AVERAGE WIND SPEED OF 70 15 MILES AN HOUR WITH, I BELIEVE, GUSTS UP TO 100 AN 16 HOUR. i 17 IN THE MORE THAN DECADE WORTH OF HOURLY ! 18 AVERAGES, HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL DATA THAT WE HAVE 19 FOR DAVIS-BESSE AT THE 10 METER LEVEL, THAT'S 365 20 DAYS A YEAR, 24 HOURS A DAY FOR MORE THAN A 21 DECADE, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN SUSTAINED HOURLY 22 AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS OF MORE THAN 45 MILES AN HOUR. ( 23 MR. SILBERG: I HAVE NO OTHER
24 l QUESTIONS.
i 25 dUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. WE ARE l . - - . __
935 1 GOING TO STOP, MR. SILBERG. 2 BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 3 ONLY THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE INTRODUCED ANY NEW 4 MATTER IN THIS HEARING, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE 5 REPORTER A RECESS, AND I THINK COUNSEL AS WELL. 6 7 (RECESS TAKEN) 8 9 JUDGE HOYT: THE HEARING WILL I l 10 COME TO ORDER. d 11 LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL THE
- 12 PARTIES TO THE HEARING WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN THE 13 HEARING RECESSED ARE AGAIN PRESENT IN THE HEARING 14 ROOM.
l
! 15 THE WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACES ON 16 THE WITNESS STAND.
17 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE REMINDED, a 18 HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME, THAT YOU ARE STILL 19 UNDER OATH. i 20 ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU HAD INDICATED, 21 MR. SILBERG, YOU HAD FINISHED? 22 MR. SILBERG: YES. () 23 JUDGE H0YT: AND l'LL ASK MR. t 24 VAN KLEY IF HE'S READY? 25 MR. VAN KLEY: YES, I AM, YOUR
936 1 HONOR. 2 JUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. 3 PROCEED. 4 _ _ _ 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. VAN KLEY: j 7 Q. I'M GOING TO START WITH MISS WASILK, A i 8 FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THE 9 PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EVENT. 10 NOW, AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBABLE 11 MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EVENT IS AN EVENT THAT CAN ( 12 COULD HAPPEN AT THE SITE? . 13 A. (MS. WASILK) THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE
; 14 MAXIMUM PROBABLE METEOROLOGICAL EVENT OCCURRING IS j - ! 15 VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL.
10 16 Q. 50 THE ANSWER IS YES; IS THAT RIGHT? 17 MR. SILBERG I THINK THE WITNESS 18 ANSWERED THE QUESTION. 19 MR. VAN KLEY: SHE HASN'T ANSWERED 20 THE QUESTION. 21 JUDGE H0YT: WE'RE NOT GOING TO 22 GENERATE INTO A QUARREL AT THIS LATE DATE; SO IF ( 23 THE WITNESS HAS AN ANSWER, YOU MAY RESPOND. 24 THE WITNESS: I H A VE ANSWERED THE 25 0 '. E S T I O N .
937 1 JUDGE H0YT: DO YOU HAVE ANY 2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT? 3 THE WITNESS: IF YOU WOULD GIVE 4 ME JUST ONE SECOND. 5 dUDGE H0YT: VERY WELL. TAKE 6 YOUR TIME. 7 THE WITNESS: THE PROBABILITY OF 8 THIS EVENT OCCURRING IS VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. 9 BY MR. VAN KLEY: i 10 Q. APPARENTLY TOLEDO EDISON THOUGHT IT WAS 11 NECESSARY TO PROTECT AGAINST THE PROBABLE MAXIMUM ( ) 12 METEOROLOGICAL EVENT WHEN IT WAS DESIGNING UNITS 2 13 AND 3; IS THAT CORRECT? 14 A. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. 15 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHAT THE 16 PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EVENT WAS USED
- 17 FOR?
18 A. I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM SECTION 2.4.1.2 19 0F THE PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE 20 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. IT SAYS, AND I i 21 QUOTE, "A PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EVENT 22 WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM RISE IN LAKE 23 LEVEL DUE TO WIND TIDES." t( ) 24 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR 25 U!:NG THAT EVENT? l
938 1 A. I SELIEVE I JUST STATED THAT. 2 MR. SILBERG: I THINK MR. HENDRON 3 MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 4 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 5 Q. ALL RIGHT. MR. HENDRON? 6 A. (MR. HENDRON) THE NRC REQUIRES THAT YOU 7 LOOK AT PROBABLE MAXIMUM EVENTS ON VARIOUS THINGS; 8 AND, BY DEFINITION, PROBABLE MAXIMUM EVENT IS AN 9 EVENT OF SUCH SIZE THAT IT HAS A ZERO PROBABILITY 10 OF EVER BEING EXCEEDED. 11 Q. SO THAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT, IF YOU i 12 CHOOSE, OF THE EVENTS, THAT YOU EXPECT TO OCCUR? 13 A. WELL, I THINK THE DEFINITION I GAVE IS I 14 DUST -- IT'S AN EVENT WITH A ZERO PROBABILITY
- 15 CHANCE OF BEING EXCEEDED.
16 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT MEANS THAT THAT IS 17 THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE EVENTS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO 18 OCCUR; IS THAT CORRECT? 19 A. NOT EXPECTED, NO. IT'S A CALCULATED 20 NUMBER. WHEN YOU USE THE TERM EXPECTED, YOU ARE i 21 USING A TERM THAT IMPLIES THAT THERE IS 1 22 STATISTICAL EVIDENCE THAT IT COULD HAPPEN, AND 23 THAT'S NOT THE APPROACH THAT WAS USED IN DESIGNING 24 THESE EVENTS. 25 '
. 50 YOU ARE LOOKING AT STATISTICAL
932 Y f 4/ 1 POSSIBILITIES; IS THAT RIGHT? l , 2 A. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU~WOULD , l 3 NECESSARILY BE LOOKING AT STATISTICAL i 4 PROBABILITIES BECAUSE THE' PROBABILITY Ok ZERO IS 5 ZERO. l 6 Q. MR. HENDRON, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER.THE ,. I J 7 UNITS 2 AND 3 WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND ' THE I , 8 PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EYENT?'
, i j 9 A. I KNOW THAT THE CATEGORY'1 STRUCTURES IN -
j 10 UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 IT'S R E'Q U I R E D THAT THEY BE 11 DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE IMPACTS OF PROBABLE 12 MAXIMUM EVENTS; AND THE OTHER EVENTS I'M AWARE OF 13 ARE THE SEISMIC EVENTS. ' IN TERMS OF OPERATING,
! l j 14 THERE IS A MUCH SMALLER EVENT THAT IS RE QU I R E D FOR 15 DESIGN.
16 Q. NOW, YOU ARE AWARE, OF COURSE, THAT THE 17 DIKE AT UNIT 1 IS AT ELEVATION 591? 18 A. WELL, I COULD STAND CORRECTED. MY 19 RECOLLECTION WAS 590, 591. 20 Q. THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH. l 21 AND THAT ELEVATION IS THE ELEVATION l 22 CALCULATED TO WITHSTAND THE PROBABLE MAXIMUM l
/
) 23 METEOROLOGICAL EVENT?
24 MR. SILBERG JUDGE H0YT, I 'M 25 I ! Ar' AID WE'RE STRAYING QUITE A b' A Y FROM THE REBUTTAL
l l 940 l l 1 TESTIMONY THAT MISS WASILK GAVE. 2 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, WE GOT l 3 A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM MR. S I LB ERG 'S REBUTTAL 4 HERE THAT, IN alt. FRANKNESS, WAS PRETTY MUCH 5 COVERED BEFORE; BUT THIS IS ONE AREA THAT HE GOT 6 INTO THAT I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO 7 CROSS ON TO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO THE 8 INFORMATION THAT HE HAS PUT INTO THE RECORD. 9 I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD BE FORECLOSED 10 FROM GOING INTO T.H E SAME THINGS THAT HE WENT INTO 11 ON DIRECT. 12 MR. SILBERG: WE HAD NO , 13 DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER ON REBUTTAL OF THE DESIGN OF 14 THE PLANTS TO MEET NRC REQUIREMENTS. 15 dUDGE HOYT: MR. VAN KLEY, I 16 THINK YOU ARE GETTING INTO AN AREA THAT THIS 17 HEARING, FRANKLY, I FIND WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE 18 BIT FAR AFIELD ON IT. 19 THESE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT WERE 20 INCORPORATED, WORSE SCENARIOS, ARE MATTERS THAT 21 ARE WELL SETTLED AS FAR AS THE OPERATION ON THE 22 LICENSING OF THIS PLANT IS CONCERNED, l
/])
s .; - . 23 THE FACT THAT IT WAS DONE HAS NOTHING TO I 24 DO WITH WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE BURIAL SITE ) 2S CF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BURIAL SITE.
941 1 I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE INFORMATION AND 2 QUESTIONS.AS MUCH ON TARGET AS POSSIBLE. I DON ' T 3 WANT TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM EXAMINING ON ANY ELEMENT 4 THAT MR. SILBERG HAD ON DIRECT, OF COURSE, THAT 5 ISN'T THE INTENTION TO LIMIT YOU; BUT I THINK THAT 6 THE INFORMATION THAT YOU AR E ; ATTEMPT I NG TO ELICIT 7 IS SIMPLY NOT PERTINENT TO THIS PARTICULAR HEARING 8 THAT ME'RE HAVING ON, LIMITED TO THAT BURIAL SITE. 9 BR. VAN KLEY: ALL RIGHT. YOUR 10 HONOR, COULD I GET AN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION 11 AND DROP IT? ( 12 JUDGE HOYT: CAN WE HAVE THE 13 QUESTION READ BACK TR CAN YOU GIVE IT TO US AGAIN. 14 MR. VAN KLEY: I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU 15 AGAIN. 16 JUDGE H0YT: PROBABLY WOULD BE 17 EASIER. 18 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 19 Q. IS IT TRUE THAT THE DIKE AT ELEVATION 591 20 IS DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WITHSTANDING THE 21 PROBABLE MAXIMUM METEOROLOGICAL EVENT? 22 A. I BELIEVE IT IS, YES. () 23 Q. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 24 MISS WASILK, I THINK YOU STATED THAT YOU 2S LC?KED AT TEN YEARS OF EVIDENCE TO SEE HOW HIGH ___J
942. 1 THE WIND SPEEDS WERE AT THE SITE; IS THAT RIGHT? 2 A. (MS. WASILK) WE HAVE MORE THAN A DECADE'S 3 WORTH. 4 Q. YOU HAVE MORE THAN A DECADE? 5 A. YES. 11 6 Q. LET ME SEE. I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE, 7 BUT IN MY CALCULATION A DECADE IS TEN YEARS; IS 8 THAT RIGHT? 9 A. YES. 10 Q. YOU HAVE SLIGHTLY MORE THEN TEN YEARS? 11 A. YES. fj 12 Q. SO YOUR -- THE DATA YOU LOOKED AT DOESN'T 13 GO BACK TO THE 1972 FLOOD, THEN, DOES IT? 14 A. THE DATA THAT WE HAVE GOES BACK TO THE 15 '72 '73 TIMEFRAME; BUT IN JUST SAYING WE HAD 16 ROUGHLY TEN YEARS WORTH OF DATA IS WHAT I WAS 17 CHARACTERIZING THAT. 18 Q. SO ROUGHLY TEN YEARS MEANS, OR ROUGHLY A 19 DECADE MEANS 16 YEARS IN YOUR CALCULATIONS, IS 20 THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? 21 A. ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO PRESENT 22 THAT WE HAD A VERY LARGE DATA BASE. J) 23 Q. LET ME GO TO MR. HENDRON. 24 MR. HENDRON,,YOU MENTIONED A MAP THAT YOU 25 LCSKED AT TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
943
- 1 REEF, IS THAT CORRECT?
2 A. (MR. HENDRON) THAT'S CORRECT. 3 Q. WOULD YOU IDENTIFY THAT MAP FOR US, 4 PLEASE? l 5 A. THE MAP IS THE GEOLOGIC MAP OF OHIO 6 COMPILED BY J. A. BOWNOCKER, I THINK IS THE NAME. 7 B-0-W-N-0-C-K-E-R. I I 8 Q. WH AT ' S THE DATE OF THAT MAP, PLEASE? 9 A. REPRINT WAS 1981, FIRST PRINTING WAS 10 1920, AND REPRINTED SEVERAL TIMES THEREAFTER. 11 Q. THIS MAP WAS FIRST DRAWN IN 19, WHAT, 12 1919? , 13 A. WELL, IT SAYS THE FIRST PRINTING WAS 14 1920. 15 Q. ALL RIGHT. 16 A. AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY 17 WORKED ON IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE THAT, 18 YEAH. 19 Q. OKAY. THIS MAP, THOUGH, HAS NOT BEEN 20 UPDATED SINCE THAT TIME, HAS IT? 21 A. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE ROCKS HAVE CHANGED, 22 EITHER. 23 v(:,) '~ Q. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME, THOUGH, THAT THE 24 STATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN GEOLOGY IS MORE ADVANCED NOW 25 TF N IT WAS BACK IN 1920?
944 1 A. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I THINK THEY 2 DID BETTER WORK IN GEOLOGY IN 1920 THAN THEY ARE 1 3 DOING TODAY ON SOME OF THESE THINGS, SIMPLY 4 BECAUSE THEY HAD MORE TIME TO SPEND IN THE FIELD 5 PUTTING THESE THINGS TOGETHER. AND I HAVE SEEN 6 THESE KIND OF MAPS AROUND THE WORLD. l 7 IF WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SAYING THAT THE 8 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE STATE OF OHIO IS NO LONGER 9 APPLICABLE, I WOULD BE QUITE SURPRISED IF YOU 10 COULD MAKE THAT STICK. 11 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYMORE RECENT STUDIES
$)
c 12 THAT HAVE DEALT WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 13 REEFS? 14 A. WELL, MY CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REEFS, 15 I'M SIMPLY KIND OF EXTRAPOLATING FROM THE 16 FORMATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE LAND SIDE OF 17 THINGS HERE TO GENERICALLY CONCLUDE, IF YOU WILL, 18 THAT THE FORMATIONS OUTCROP OFFSHORE. 19 I dM NOT COMPLETELY VERSED ON THE GEOLOGY 20 OF THE REEF AREAS. THE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN TO 21 INDICATE THAT, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE 22 WAS SOME SHALE THAT OUTCROPPED IN THE BOTTOM OF
.O 23 LAKE ERIE.
l 24 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE STUDY WHICH IS 25 E' i lTL ED " PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REEF l
945 l l 1 AREA OF WESTERN LAKE ERIE" BY CHARLES HERDENDORF 2 AND LAWRENCE BRAIDECH? 3 A. NO, I 'M NOT AWARE OF THAT PUBLICATION. 4 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE PROPORTION OF 5 LIMESTONE TO SHALE IS IN THE REEFS? 6 A. WELL, I'LL USE THE SAME METHOD I USED TO 7 MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT THEY WERE OUT THERE. 8 WHAT WE FOUND IN THE ROCKS AT THE SITE IS 9 THAT THE -- IN THE UPPER HUNDRED FEET OF THE ROCK 10 WE EXPLORED, I WOULD GUESS THAT MAYBE 10 PERCENT 11 0F IT WAS SHALE, AND THERE WAS ONE MAJOR SHALE 12 UNIT THAT EXISTED BETWEEN ABOUT THE ELEVATION 520 13 AND 530 AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. 14 Q. MR. SILBERG ASKED YOU A QUESTION ABOUT A 15 STATEMENT THAT APPEARED IN SOME REPORT BY TOLEDO 16 EDISON -- I CAN'T RIGHTLY RECALL WHICH EXACTLY 17 REPORT IT WAS -- BUT IT REFERRED TO THE STUDY AS 18 NOT BEING GEOLOGIC WHEN PERFORMED. 19 , DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY THAT YOU 20 GAVE? 21 A. I'M AFRAID I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 22 QUESTION THAT YOU'VE ASKED OR THE STATEMENT YOU 23 MADe. O.. 24 COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? 25 C. YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE WORK DONE
946 1 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 WAS 2 NOT PERFORMED FOR PURPOSES OF GEOLOGY; ISN'T THAT 3 CORRECT? 4 A. I DON 'T THINK IT IS. 5 Q. OKAY. WELL, IF I'M INCORRECT, WHY DON'T 6 YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU DID SAY SO THAT WE CAN BE 7 CORRECT ON THIS? 8 MR. SILBERG: CAN WE HAVE A 9 QUESTION? 10 MR. VAN KLEY: THAT IS A QUESTION. 11 MR. SILBERG: WHAT DID HE SAY ( 12 ABOUT WHAT? 13 JUDGE HOYT: DO YOU REMEMBER 14 WHAT DOCUMENT YOU HAD HIM TESTIFYING TO? 15 MR. SILBERG: THE PRECEDING 16 QUESTION I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT THAT 17 WAS REFERRING TO. 18 THE QUESTION I THINK THIS IS G OI NG TO IS 19 WHETHER THE -- SEE IF I CAN FIND MY NOTES. 20 MR. VAN KLEY, I THINK IN THE QUESTIONS I 21 WAS ASKING I WAS REFERRING TO A STATEMENT IN MR. 22 PAVEY'S TESTIMONY IN WHICH HE SAID THAT, "IT MUST ,.( ) 23 BE STRESSED THAT THIS PREVIOUS STUDY WAS is.:
~
24 UNDERTAKEN PRIMARILY TO DETERMINE GEOLOGIC AND 25 GrDUNDWATER PARAMETERS THAT WOULD AFFECT BUILDING
947 gr 1 CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AS VERY LARGE WATER INFLOWS, 2 AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS GEOLOGIC FACTORS 3 THAT AFFECT WASTE DISPOSAL." 4 I THINK I ASKED WHETHER THE WORK WAS 5 INITIALLY PERFORMED FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND THE 6 WITNESS STATED THAT IT WAS. AND THEN I SAID, "DID 7 YOU THEN GO BACK AND RE-REVIEW THAT DATA FOR THE 8 PURPOSE OF EVALUATING THIS SITE FOR WASTE 9 DISPOSAL. AND HE SAID THAT HE DID. AND I SAID, 10 "IS THAT DATA APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PURPOSE?" 11 MR. VAN KLEY: THAT IS THE AREA
@ 12 I'M INQUIRING INTO.
13 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 12 - 14 Q. MR. HENDRON, IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF 15 THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU JUST GAVE FOR THE RECORD? 16 A. YES. I 17 Q. SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS, THEN, THAT DURING l 18 THE TIME THE CONSTRUCTION WAS BEING DONE THESE ' l i 19 STUDIES WERE NOT BEING DONE AT THAT TIME FOR 20 PURPOSES OF STUDYING THE HYDROLOGY OF THE AREA; 21 I SN 'T THAT TRUE7 22 A. THEY WERE NOT DONE TO STUDY THE OLOGIES
) 23 TO BE USED IN A WASTE ASSESSMENT, A WASTE PROJECT i 24 ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ONLY DONE TO STUDY THE GEOLOGY 25 FC' A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. l
948 1 Q. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION? 2 A. UH-HUH. 3 Q. SO WHEN YOU THEN WENT BACK TO LOOK AT THE 4 STUDIES, YOU ONLY HAD WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY 5 GAVE YOU HAPPENED TO WRITE DOWN IN THOSE STUDIES, 6 I SN 'T THAT TRUE? 7 A. WELL, I AM STILL IN CHARGE OF THE FILE 8 FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE PROJECT. AND HAVING BEEN HERE 9 FOR 18 YEARS, I'VE GOT THREE FILE CABINETS FULL OF 10 DATA FROM THE STUDIES. 11 SO BASICALLY WHAT I DID IS I WENT BACK d 12 AND REOPENED ALL THE FILES AND WENT THROUGH AND
%)
13 EXTRACTED THE DATA I FELT WERE RELEVANT TO THIS 14 ASSESSMENT. 15 Q. BUT YOU WERE AT THE MERCY OF WHATEVER 16 HAPPENED TO BE IN THOSE FILES AS MARKED DOWN BY 17 PEOPLE THAT WERE LOOKING FOR TRAITS RELATIVE TO 18 THE CONSTRUCTION; I SN 'T THAT TRUE? 19 A. T H AT ' S CORRECT. 20 Q. IN YOUR RESPONSES TO MR. S I LB ERG 'S 21 QUESTIONS YOU REFERRED TO -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 22 CHARACTERIZATION WAS YOU USED -- BUT I THINK YOU ,j) < , ; .;n. 23 STATED YOU HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT YOU 24 WERE USING TO FORMULATE YOUR OPINIONS UPON; IS 25 T ' AT RIGHT?
949 1
~J l A. WELL, I THINK THE TESTIMONY WOULD 2 IDENTIFY THOSE THINGS I USED TO FORM THE OPINION 3 ON.
4 Q. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY ADDITIONAL i 5 EVIDENCE BESIDES THE FIVE BORINGS WHICH WERE 6 ACTUALLY PERFORMED ON THE SITE ITSELF7 7 A. PLUS THE OBSERVATION OF THE CUT, THE 8 CANAL CUT A HALF MILE FROM THE SITE. 9 Q. DO YOU HAVE A MAP OF THESE BORINGS, WHERE 10 THEY WERE TAKEN? 11 A. YEAH, I HAVE A PLAN TO SHOW WHERE THEY 6 12 WERE TAKEN. v 13 Q. YOU HAVE A PLAN, BUT YOU DIDN'T SUBMIT IT 14 TO US? 15 A. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO 16 YOU. I ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION, AND I GOT THAT 17 KIND OF DETAIL. 18 Q. CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THE BORINGS WERE 19 DRILLED? 20 MR. SILBERG: THIS SEEMS TO GO 21 WELL BEYOND REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. THIS COULD EASILY 22 HAVE BEEN GONE INTO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHERE HE
.( 23 TESTIFIED ABOUT, AT LENGTH, ABOUT THE ' ~
24 BOWSER-MORNER BORINGS. 25 I THINK WE'LL REALLY VERY FAR AFIELD FROM
950 O D' 1 REBUTTAL. 2 JUDGE HOYT: MAY BE AFIELD, MR. 3 SILBERG, BUT I'M GOING TO SEE HOW MUCH MORE OF 4 THIS COUNSEL HAS. 5 MR. VAN KLEY: I DON'T HAVE TOO 6 MUCH MORE. 7 JUDGE HOYT: HOW MUCH IS TOO 8 MUCH MORE? 9 MR. VAN KLEY: I HAVE ABOUT SIX OR 10 SEVEN QUESTIONS WRITTEN DOWN. 11 JUDGE HOYT: LET'S SEE IF WE CAN d 12 BOIL THEM DOWN TO MAYBE THREE. SEE IF YOU CAN GET 13 THE INFORMATION. THERE ARE HIGHLIGHTS IN HERE 14 THAT YOU REALLY WANT, AND A LOT OF THOSE WOULD NOT 15 BE -- 16 MR. VAN KLEY: COULD I ASK MR. 17 SILBERG'S COMPOUND QUESTION? 18 JUDGE HOYT: YOU CAN TRY. , 1 l 19 MR. SILBERG: YOU MAY GET MR. VAN 20 KLEY'S OBJECTION, HOWEVER. i 21 BY MR. VAN KLEY: 22 Q. MR. HENDRON, WHAT CALCULATIONS OR TESTS,
/) 23 IF ANY, DID YOU USE TO MEASURE THE DRAWDOWN FROM l e-24 THE DEWATERING WELLS, THE ESTIMATED DRAWDOWN, I'M l
25 E .RY? I 1
951 1 l 1 A. WHEN THEY TURNED THE WATER SYSTEM ON, WE 2 HAD AN HOURLY CIRCUIT OF, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY 3 MONITOR WELLS, BUT I ' t1 GOING TO ESTIMATE THAT WE , l 4 HAD BETWEEN 10 AND 20 MONITOR WELLS AT VARIOUS l
. 5 DISTANCES AWAY FROM THIS DEWATERING SYSTEM. AND ]
6 INITIALLY, WE MADE VERY FREQUENT MEASUREMENTS i i 7 USING AN ELECTRICAL MEASURING DEVISE TO FIND OUT 8 WHERE THE WATER WAS IN THOSE WELLS SO WE COULD l 9 WATCH THE DRAWDOWN WITH TIME. 10 EVENTUALLY, AFTER A PERIOD OF A DAY OR 11 SO, WE STARTED TAKING DAILY WATER LEVEL i 12 ME'ASUREMENTS. THAT WENT TO WEEKLY; AND EVENTUALLY 13 AFTER EVERYTHING STABLIZED, WE PROBABLY WERE DOING 14 MONTHLY MEASUREMENTS AROUND THE SITE. j 15 NOW, AS FAR AS CALCULATIONS ARE I l l 16 CONCERNED, THIS IS A CONFINED AQUIFER. THERE IS { l 17 ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION IN CHERRY'S BOOK ABOUT 18 HOW THE CALCULATIONS ARE MADE TO DETERMINE THE I j 19 VARIOUS SUCH THINGS AS RADIUS OF INFLUENCE FOR 20 DEWATERING SYSTEMS. l 21 WE DID NOT USE CHERRY SINCE THE BOOK i 22 W ASN 'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME; BUT WHAT WE DID USE
, () 23 IS A WELL-KNOWN GROUNDWATER TEXT FROM JOHNSON 24 WELSCREEN THAT WAS REFERRED TO. IT ACTUALLY HAD 25 S C ', E FAIRLY GOOD THINGS IN IT ABOUT HOW TO --
HOW
952
@oh/ 1 TO DEDUCE INFORMATION FROM PUMP TESTS.
2 Q. WHAT EQUATION DID YOU USE? 3 A. WE USED THE E QU AT I ONS FOR FLOW THROUGH A 4 CONFINED AQUIFER. I DON'T HAVE THEM MEMORIZED. 5 C AN 'T RECITE THEM. 6 Q. WAS THAT THE THIES EQUATIUN?
)
7 A. WE DI DN 'T USE THAT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T 8 INTERESTED IN THOSE DETAILS OF THE PARAMETERS; BUT 9 WE DID USE JUST THE SIMPLE EQUATION THAT RELATES 10 RADIUS OF INFLUENCE, TIME AND QUANTITY OF PUMPING 11 THE PERMEABILITY OF MATERIAL.
~ .O Ms/ 12 Q. I BELIEVE YOU MADE SOME STATEMENTS THAT e -
j 13 YOU BELIEVED YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE- l 14 BURIAL SITE IS.A DISCHARGE AREA. AND I THINK YOU 15 MADE ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH THE 16 GORDON AND HUEDNER PAPER ABOUT THE ONE TO THREE 17 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IN SITU TESTING AND LABORATORY 18 TESTING, AND STATED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW t 19 THIS TO GET THE PHEI. l 20 ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE NUCLEAR 21 REGULATORY COMMISSION DOESN'T NEED THIS 13 22 INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION [) 23 ON THIS APPLICATION?
- c. y' .
24 A. THIS MUST BE A COMPOUND QUESTION 25 EE AUSE --
953 i" ,) 1 Q. IT WAS, INDEED. 2 MR. SILBERG: AND I THINK YOU CAN 3 ANSWER IT. 4 THE WITNESS: THE DECISION IN 5 TERMS OF THE FEASIBILITY PROJECT CAN BE MADE 6 WITHOUT -- WITHOUT DOING ANYMORE WORK ON THE PART 7 OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT. 8 WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THIS WORK IN THE 9 TILLS AROUND THE MIDWEST FOR VARIOUS AND SUNDRY 10 SITES. WE HAVE DONE THE FIELD PERMEABILITY 11 TESTING, WE'VE DONE LABORATORY TESTING, WE'VE 12 COMPA, RED IT TO, WE'RE USING AND RELYING ON OUR 13 PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AT THIS POINT TO ADVISE THE 14 CLIENT THAT TH AT ' S NOT A PROBLEM AT THIS SITE. 15 MR. VAN KLEY: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE 16 NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS PANEL. 17 JUDGE HOYT: THANK YOU. VERY 18 WELL. WE'LL, I SUPPOSE, DISMISS THE -- OR EXCUSE 19 THE PANEL, MR. SILBERG? 20 MR. SILBERG: YES. 21 JUDGE H0YT: THANK YOU, LADIES j 22 AND GENTLEMEN. I THINK THAT DOES CONCLUDE YOUR j l) 23 TESTIMONY, AND I APPRECIATE IT. 24 NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER IN l 25 F. E L U T T A L , MR. SILBERG? l l -
954 1 MR. SILBERG: WE HAVE NOTHING 2 FURTHER. 3 JUDGE HOYT: DO YOU HAVE 4 ANYTHING FURTHER? 5 MR. VAN KLEY: WE HAVE JUST SOME 6 VERY SHORT TESTIMONY FROM TWO WITNESSES, YOUR 7 HONOR. 8 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. LET'S 9 PUT THEM ON NOW. 10 MR. SILBERG: CAN WE HAVE AN 11 EXPLANATION OF WHAT THIS TESTIMONY IS? l i) 12 JUDGE HOYT: WE'RE ABOUT TO FIND v 13 OUT AS SOON AS WE FIND OUT WHICH TWO OF THE 14 WITNESSES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD. 15 MR. VAN KLEY: MR. VOYTEK AND MR. 16 PAVEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE STAND AGAIN, AND WE'RE 17 GOING TO GO INTO THE SAME AREAS THAT MR. SILBERG 18 WENT IN ON, THE NEW AREAS MR. SILBERG WENT IN ON 19 DURING HIS REBUTTAL. 20 JUDGE HOYT: WHICH ARE? 21 MR. VAN KLEY: WE'RE GOING TO GO 22 INTO THE INDEX PROPERTY TEST THAT MR. HENDRON
,()
23 TALKED ABOUT FOR THE FIRST TIME. 9".+- 24 JUDGE HOYT: AND THE SECOND ONE? 25 MR. VAN KLEY: WE'RE GOING TO GO
l 955
% 1 INTO THE METHOD OF CALCULATING DRAWDOWN l 2 INFORMATION THAT MR. HENDRON TALKED ABOUT.
3 JUDGE HOYT: MR. HENDRON -- 4 MR. VAN KLEY: WE'RE GOING TO GO
\
5 INTO THE METHODS OF CALCULATING DRAWDOWN. 6 dUDGE HOYT: IT WAS NOT THE l 7 THIES EQUATION, SO WE DON 'T WANT ANY QUESTIONS ON i 8 THAT. 9 MR. VAN KLEY: . WHAT WE WOULD LIKE 10 TO ASK HIM IS WHETHER THE TYPE OF EQUATION THAT 11 MR. HENDRON REFERRED TO WAS APPROPRIATE AND f 12 WHETHER THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE TEST. 13 JUDGE HOYT: THAT IS-APPROPRIATE 14 AN QUESTION. 15 MR. SILBERG: JUDGE HOYT, I 'M 16 DUST CONCERNED, THE LICENSEE H A VE THE BURDEN OF 17 PROOF, THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO THE AREA WHERE 18 WE'RE ENTITLED TO SUR-SURREBUTTAL ON TOP OF THE 19 REBUTTAL -- 20 JUDGE HOYT: I'M CONCERNED ABOUT l I 21 THAT PROBABLY MORE THAN YOU, MR. SILBERG; BUT IT ' S 22 ON THE RECORD. I CERTAINLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF l
) ,() 23 FORECLOSING YOU FROM SURREBUTTAL IF WE WERE TO GET 24 INTO THAT CONFIGURATION, BUT I HOPEFULLY TIED 1
25 COUNSEL DOWN THAT THE TWO AREAS THAT HE INTENDS TO I
956
' 1 EXAMINE ON. THAT'S ALL HE'S GOING TO BE PERMITTED 2 TO EXAMINE ON BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE GETTING MUCH 3 TOO FAR AFIELD.
4 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. WE 5 TESTIFIED ABOUT THE INDEX PROPERTY TEST ISSUE 6 YESTERDAY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS -- 7 JUDGE HOYT: I THINK -- DIDN'T 8 YOU TESTIFY AGAIN ON IT TODAY? I'M FRANKLY NOT
. 9 CERTAIN.
10 MR. VAN KLEY: IF THEY TESTIFIED 11 ABOUT IT YESTERDAY, WHY DID WE HEAR THIS STUFF ! 12 TODAY? 13
- MR. SILBERG: IF COUNSEL FOR THE 14 STATE DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT AT THAT TIME, I'M NOT 15 SURE THAT THAT --
16 dUDGE HOYT: I'M GOING TO LET 17 HIM GO AHEAD AND MAKE THESE TWO POINTS. GO AHEAD, 18 COUNSEL, BUT I WANT YOU TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT 19 THIS IS A VERY LIMITED REBUTTAL. 20 MR. VAN KLEY: I UNDERSTAND.
~
21 JUDGE HOYT: BECAUSE I DON 'T 22 WANT TO GET INTO THE POSTURE OF HAVING THE j) y .,- . 23 SURREBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT, FROM THE LICENSEE, 24 WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IN THE EVENT THAT YOUR 25 CT,SS-EXAMINATION AT THIS POINT, REDIRECT
957 i % 1 REBUTTAL, WOULD BE TOO FAR AFIELD. 2 - - - 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. LYNCH: 5 Q. MR. PAVEY, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE 6 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INDEX PROPERTY TEST IN 7 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL TESTING? 8 A. (MR. PAVEY) THE INDEX PROPERTY TEST THAT 9 HE MENTIONED WAS PRIMARILY SET UP BY ASTM TO 10 HANDLE -- 11 Q. WHAT IS ASTM? ( 12 A. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS, 13 AMERICAN STANDARDS. 14 AT ANY RATE, WITH THE ASTM STANDARDS, YOU 15 ARE PRIMARILY DEALING WITH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 METHODOLOGY, THERE IS NOT A SET UP THAT I KNOW OF l 17 IN THERE FOR HANDLING PERMEABILITY, IN SITU 18 PERMEABILITY TESTING IN LANDFILLS. 19 Q. MR. VOYTEK, WOULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT OR 20 EXPLAIN THE CALCULATION ON THE AQUIFER DRAWDOWN AS 21 DISCUSSED BY MR. HENDRON? 22 A. (MR. VOYTEK) YES. MR. HENDRON, I l
,.( ) 23 BELIEVE, SAID THAT HE USED THE GROUNDWATER AND Q:.;
24 WELLS TEXTBOOK. THE EARLIER EDITION, THE 1966, 25 P : CH IS RIGHT HERE, AND THERE IS DISCUSSED ONLY
958 1 TWO BASIC FORMUL AS FOR CALCULATIONS, BOTH OF WHICH 2 RELY HEAVILY ON THIES FORMULA USING AN ASSUMPTION 3 THAT WATER BEARING FORMATIONS -- 4 MR. SILBERG: EXCUSE ME. I THINK 5 WE'RE GETTING INTO AN AREA THAT THE JUDGE RULED 6 OUT. l 7 JUDGE HOYT: EXACTLY. COUNSEL, 8 YOU BETTER SCHOOL YOUR WITNESS AND SHARPEN UP THE 9 QUESTION BECAUSE THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE 10 ANSWER. 11 IT REMAINS ON THE RECORD, BUT WE'LL 12 STRIKE IT FROM CONSIDERATION. - 13 BY MR. LYNCH: 14 Q. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON HIS PARTICULAR WAY? 15 A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO EQUATION FOR 16 THE CALCULATION OF DRAWDOWNS IN LIMESTONE AQUIFER 17 DUE TO THEIR NONUNIFORMITY. 18 MR. LYNCH: I HAVE NO FURTHER 19 QUESTIONS. 20 JUDGE H0YT: THANK YOU, 21 GENTLEMEN, FOR RETURNING TO THE STAND. I 22 APPRECIATE IT. 23 NOW, I THINK THAT COMPLETES THE 24 PRESENTATION OF ALL PARTIES AT THIS POINT. !
- 14 25 MR. SILBERG
- COULD I JUST HAVE A L ._ __ -
i 1 959
/) 1 SECOND.
2 JUDGE H0YT: WHAT I WANT TO DO 3 AT THIS TIME IS TO LOOK AT A DATE FOR THE FILING 4 OF YOUR FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. l 5 ORDINARILY WE WOULD GIVE ABOUT A MONTH. 6 I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO TAKING THIS INTO A PERIOD 7 OF ABOUT SEPTEMBER 8, WHICH WOULD BE A MONTH PLUS 8 ONE WEEKEND. I 9 MR. VAN KLEY: WE REALLY NEED 10 THOSE WEEKENDS SOMETIMES, JUDGE. 11 JUDGE HOYT: THAT WOULD BE L 12 MONDAY 8, SEPTEMBER, 1986, FOR THE FILING OF 13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 14 I HAVE NO DESIRED LIMIT OF PAGES IN 15 NUMBER. I THINK EVERYONE HERE IS WELL-EXPERIENCED I 16 ON THIS, SO WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO PAGE l 17 LIMITATIONS; HOWEVER, I THINK THE BRIEFS CAN BE 18 FRAMED AROUND THOSE 20 AREAS OF INTEREST THAT WE 19 EXPRESS IN THE ORDER SETTING THIS HEARING HERE 20 THAT WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LAST THREE DAYS. l 21 THERE ARE TWO AREAS OF CONCERN, HOWEVER, l 22 THdT IS QUITE APART FROM THE TESTIMONY ON THE () (.;::
~.
23 OTHER AREAS OF THIS, ON THIS APPLICATION FOR THE 24 PERMIT TO BURY THE WASTE AND MATERIAL LICENSE, 25 T'-AT I THINK WE WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
1 960 (' l 1 THIS IS THE FIRST OF THESE S0-CALLED 2 INFORMAL HEARINGS WHICH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE 3 CREATED, TO GIVE PEOPLE A VERY RAPID ACCESS TO THE 4 SYSTEM AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THESE VERY 5 QUICKLY HEARD. I THINK THIS CASE WOULD BE A 6 LIVING LEGEND THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY , 7 THESE THINGS G0; BUT THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION 8 DECIDED TO DO, SO THEY HAVE MADE THE DECISION AND j 9 NOW WE ARE HERE TO HEAR WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE TO ; 10 ADD TO IT. 11 THAT STILL MEANS, OF COURSE, THAT THE l
.. ) 12 LICENSEE HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THE -- ONE.OF i 13 THE CONCERNS THAT JUDGE KLINE AND I HAVE NOTED IN 14 THESE TWO DAYS THAT IS QUITE APART FROM ALL THE 15 OTHER TESTIMONY AND ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE 16 HEARING IS THAT WE DON 'T FIND ANY AREA WHERE THERE 17 IS A RECORD OF HOW THESE DISPOSAL CELLS WILL BE 18 BUILT.
19 WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY THAT THEY 20 WILL BE BUILT WITHIN PERMEABLE MEMBRANE, SO MANY 21 LAYERS OF GRAVEL, SO MANY LAYERS OF SAND, 50 MANY 22 LAYERS OF VARIOUS MATERIALS, BUT WE DO NOT KNOW () 23 PRECISELY THE MANNER OF MATERIAL, NOR DO WE KNOW 24 THE FLAMES, AND NEITHER HAVE SOME OF THESE 25 FJ ERIALS EVEN BEEN SELECTED. l . _ ,
961 T (^/ 4 1 WE HAVE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION HERE ON THE 2 MATERIAL THAT WILL BE USED IN THE SOLIDIFICATION 3 0F THIS DISPOSAL WASTE -- DISPOSAL WASTE OF RESIN. 4 AFTER THREE DAYS, RESINS COMPLETELY ESCAPED MY 5 MEMORY. WE WANT THAT MATERIAL OR WE WANT TO KNOW l 6 THE MATERIAL. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT 'S GOING TO ! 7 BE LIKE, AND WE WANT TO KNOW ITS PROPERTIES'. AND, l 8 I THINK, ASSUMING THAT THE LICENSEE CAN MAKE ITS 9 CASE ON OTHER GROUNDS, WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE , 10 VITAL TO THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION l
)
11 AVAILABLE. 12 WE GO INTO GREAT LENGTHS IN THE w 13 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INTO THE OPERATING 14 LICENSE AS TO HOW THESE PLANS ARE BUILT AND WE 15 KNOW EACH AND EVERY BOLT AND MATERIAL THAT GOES IN 16 THEM, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE 17 THAN JUST THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD HERE. 18 WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE SIZE. I 19 BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN GIVEN A DIAGRAM HERE, AND I 20 THINK INDEED IT IS IN THE RECORD. THERE WAS SOME ! l 21 PROBLEM WITH THE TESTIMONY ON THAT AS TO EXACTLY 22 HOW LARGE THE DIKE AROUND THAT CELL WOULD BE. l d ( 23 I WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT THAT CELL IS A
'~ '
24 UNIFORM DIKE AROUND ALL THE EDGES OF IT. IT WAS 25 T'E END EDGES THAT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED US, FOR
-,,-y_n. - - , , , . - - - - - . . - - .-. ,n. _ . . ~
962 {)3+ 1 EXAMPLE. 2 WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE THOSE ARE GOING TO 3 BE LOCATED PRECISELY ON THE PLANT SITE BECAUSE WE 4 WANT THOSE LOCATIONS TO BE RECORDED SOMEWHERE IN 5 THE LICENSE. REMEMBER, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME 6 WE'VE HAD A MATERIAL LICENSE GIVEN TO A PLANT THAT 7 IS OPERATING. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEEN 8 DONE BEFORE AND, VERY FRANKLY, I'M NOT CERTAIN 9 WHETHER WE CAN REQUIRE YOU TO DO THIS. 50 IT MAY 10 WELL BE NECESSARY THAT YOU BRIEF IN YOUR FINDINGS 11 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS TO WHETHER OR e 12 NOT THIS BOARD HAS THE JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE YOU 13 TO MAKE SUCH A RECORD OF THAT SITE. 14 HOWEVER, I THINK THE TESTIMONY HERE HAS 15 BEEN THAT THERE IS NOT A PERMANENT RECORD, AT 16 LEAST I CANNOT RECALL ANYWHERE IN THE TESTIMONY 17 THAT IT WAS INDICATED THAT A PERMANENT RECORD THAT l 18 THE SITE SHOULD BE AT SPOTS "X","Y" & "Z", AND 19 THEY WOULD BE MARKED AND SOMEHOW MEMORIALIZED FOR 20 PEOPLE 50 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WOULD KNOW THAT THAT 21 IS A BURIAL SITE. 22 I 'M NOT PROPOSING THAT YOU PUT UP A () 23 BRONZE PLAQUE, BUT I DO THINK THERE HAS TO BE 24 SOMETHING THERE, SOME WAY IN WHICH THE EVENTS i 25 F:ULD 9CCUR, ASSUMING YOU GET THE PERMIT THROUGH
963 1 ON OTHER GROUNDS THAT WOULD MEMORIALIZE THAT 2 INFORMATION. 3 I THINK THOSE PLANS -- I THINK, IN 4 ESSENCE, WHAT I AM REALLY LEADING UP IS THAT WE 5 WANT THE PLANS FOR THOSE CECLS TO BE PLACED IN THE 6 RECORDS OF THE PLAN AND IN THE NRC RECORDS. 7 THE SECOND AREA OF CONCERN IS TO PLACE 8 SQUARELY ON THE LICENSE THE LIMITATION, AND UPON 9 THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE DAVIS-BESSE PLANT, THE 10 DISPOSAL OF THESE LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL CELLS 11 WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE DECOMMISSION PROCESS. 12 TO ACCOMPLISH THE TWO THINGS THAT I HAVE 13 TALKED ABOUT HERE, WE BELIEVE THAT, ONE, THE 14 COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DETAILING HOW THE
- 15 15 CELLS WERE CONSTRUCTED, MATERIALS USED AND THEIR 16 ACCURATE AND MARKED LOCATIONS TO BE PLACED IN THE 17 RECORD OF THE LICENSEE, OF THE' LICENSE TO OPERATE 18 THIS NUCLEAR REACTOR AT DAVIS-BESSE; AND THE 19 SECOND IS WHETHER THAT AS A CONDITIONING --
20 CORRECTION -- AS A CONDITION OF DECOMMISSIONING 21 THE PLANT AT D A VI S -B ES S E , THAT THE LICENSEE AGREE 22 TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE BURIAL SITE () 23 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NRC REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT 24 THE TIME OF THE DECOMMISSIONING. 25 I THINK THAT'S A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF
964
' 1 INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
2 MR. SILBERG: IF I COULD MAKE -- 3 JUDGE HOYT: THOSE ARE THE TWO 4 AREAS THAT WE FOUND PROBLEMS WITH AFTER HEARING 5 THE TESTIMONY AND WHICH WE HAVE CONCERN ABOUT AND 6 WANTED BRIEFED. 7 MR. SILBERG: IF I COULD MAKE A 8 FEW COMMENTS, I'M NOT SURE I CAUGHT ALL OF IT AND 9 WE'LL, OF COURSE, REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT. 10 JUDGE HOYT: IF THERE IS 11 SOMETHING I H AVEN 'T EXPLAINED -- ADMITTEDLY, IT 12 WAS RAMBLED BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FORMALIZED THE NOTES 13 INTO ANY FORMALIZED PRESENTATION. 14 MR. SILBERG: WE DO HAVE l t 15 TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD THAT STATES THAT THE ) 16 PROJECT RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE DESIGN AND 17 CONSTRUCTION WILL BE RETAINED AS NRC PERMANENT 18 RECORDS AT THE PLANT. I THINK THAT IS ALREADY -- 19 JUDGE HOYT: I RECALL THAT, TOO. 20 MR. SILBERG: IN TERMS OF THE 21 INFORMATION ON THE FINAL DESIGN AND ALL THE 22 MATERIALS, I GUESS I SEE THIS AS PERHAPS BEING ONE O 23 STEP AHEAD OF THE PROCESS. 4" : i 24 AS WE'VE DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH, WE 25 t: E E D TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO INSTALL FROM THE STATE
965 1 0F OHIO; THEREFORE, NOTHING IN THE DESIGN IS FINAL 2 UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THE 3 STATE, IF IT APPROVES, MAY IMPOSE CONDITIONS WHICH 4 WOULD REQUIRE CHANGES IN THE DESIGN, POSSIBLE ; 5 CHANGES IN THE LOCATION, OTHER CHANGES. 6 dUDGE HOYT: DO YOU FORESEE, MR. 7 SILBERG, THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS l 8 THAT JUDGE KLINE AND I HAVE HERE, THAT THEY WANT ! 9 TO KNOW WHAT THOSE MATERIALS WERE -- THAT WOULD BE 10' USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE CELLS? 11 MR. SILBERG: I THINK THEY WILL.
! ) 12 JUDGE HOYT: WHY NOT PUT IT UP 13 FRONT WITH US AT THIS POINT IN TIME --
14 MR. SILBERG: BECAUSE -- 15 dVDGE HOYT: -- THEN TO WAIT. 16 MR. SILBERG: BECAUSE IT WON'T BE 17 FINAL UNTIL THE STATE HAS APPROVED. SO EVEN IF WE 18 GAVE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU, AND AS THE TESTIMONY 19 INDICATES, A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION HASN'T BEEN 20 DONE, AND I REALLY THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO DO IT 21 AT THIS TIME. l l 22 JUDGE HOYT: I THINK, MR.
)
(
- ?) 23 SILBERG, WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS WE WANT A --
WE 24 WANT THE PLAN. WE DON'T WANT IT ON SEVERAL j 25 H'LDRED PAGES OF TESTIMONY WHERE IT CAN BE
i 966 4 1 PROBABLY DUG OUT, BUT WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT 2 MATERIALS ARE GOING INTO IT, AND I THINK THAT YOU 3 HAVE TO HAVE THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF INFORMATION 4 WHEN YOU ARE TAKING ON A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. AND 5 I EQUATE WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS IN VIEW OF THE 6 FACT THAT THERE IS A CONSTRUCTION. I 7 LET ME JUST SHARE WITH YOU ONE THOUGHT, 8 AND WITH THE STATE AS WELL: WHEN I FIRST LOOKED 9 AT THIS CASE WHEN IT WAS ASSIGNED ON TO MY DOCKET, 10 AND I THOUGHT, THEY ARE GOING TO DIG A HOLE IN THE 1 11 GROUND AND PUT THE STUFF IN THERE. f 12 WE HAVE COME OUT AND WE'RE HAVING VERY l 13 TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A GROUP OF PEOPLE AS i l 14 TO WHAT MATERIALS WOULD ACTUALLY GO IN THERE. 15 THOSE ARE LAID OUT PLOTS, THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED 16 ACCORDING TO THE PLAN. I THINK THE VERY MINIMUM 17 THAT WE SHOULD BE EXPECTED TC DO, AND THE 18 COMMISSION MAY VERY WELL TELL ME, Y0U KNOW, "YOU , 19 SIMPLY OVERSTEPPED YOUR HEARING AUTHORITY ON THIS
; 20 CASE," AND SO BE IT; BUT I FEEL THAT THE MINIMUM l 21 NECESSARY IS THAT WE HAVE A PLAN.
1 22 I AGREE THAT IT MAY NOT BE THE FINAL l () 23 PLAN. YOU MAY TAKE GRAVEL NUMBER 22 IN THE PLAN, l 24 AND WHEN YOU ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT IT IT BECOMES l 25 G r. e V E L NUMBER 23 BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER MATERIAL 1 l
967 , l 1 TO USE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I CAN WELL 2 UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROCESS OF A PLAN WOULD BE A 3 DYNAMIC PROCESS, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE MUST 4 HAVE SOMETHING TO TAKE BACK AND LOOK AT AND SAY, 5 "THIS IS THE WAY THAT THE CELLS AT DAVIS-BESSE 6 WILL BE BUILT. THIS IS WHERE THEY WILL BE _, 7 LOCATED," AND THE INFORMATION WILL BE MEMORIALIZED 8 IN SOME OF THE RECORDS OF THIS PARTICULAR PLAN. 9 MR. SILBERG: WE HAVE NO 10 OBJECTION TO PUTTING THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER, 11 RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS, IN A SENSE, PRELIMINARY
- 12 AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ,
13 JUDGE H0YT: I THINK WE 14 RECOGNIZE IT WOULD BE PRELIMINARY BECAUSE I DON'T 15 THINK THERE WAS A PLAN BROUGHT AT THIS HEARING, 4 16 AND TH AT ' S THE THING THAT MOTIVATED ME TO WANT 17 THAT PLAN, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE REASON WE 18 WANT IT NOW INSTEAD OF LATER. 19 ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I THINK THAT WHEN YOU 20 GET INTO RECORD SEARCHING, AS WE ALL DO, IS, YES, l l 21 IT MAY BE IN ANOTHER LOCATION, BUT IF IT IS IN THE 22 LOCATION THAT UNIQUELY IS ITS OWN LITTLE NICHE,
.( ) 23 IT'S MUCH EASIER TO FIND.
Id , 24 MR. SILBERG: IN TERMS OF PUTTING 25 I~ IN THE LICENSE ITSELF, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY
968 O 1 INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERING. . 2 dUDGE HOYT: ARE YOU TALKING 3 ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING IT INTO THE , 4 LICENSE, A CONDITION OF DECOMMISSIONING? 5 MR. SILBERG: NO, NO, NO. 6 dUDGE HOYT: I DON'T EVEN THINK
;16 7 THAT THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. I THINK WE'RE 8 SUBJECT --
I THINK IT'S ALMOST COSMETIC IN NATURE. 9 MR. SILBERG: AS A MATTER OF LAW, 10 I THINK THAT'S UNNECESSARY BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS 11 SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS.
-{ 12 I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU PUTTING THE DETAILS i 13 OF THE LOCATION IN THE OPERATING LICENSE ITSELF7 14 JUDGE HOYT: NO, NO, I DID NOT 15 INTEND TO REFLECT THAT. IF I DID, T H AT ' S NOT WHAT l l
16 I WAS INTENDING TO SAY. 17 WHAT I WANT IS THE -- SAY THAT AGAIN SO 18 THAT I WILL BE SURE THAT J HAVE YOUR THOUGHT. 19 MR. SILBERG" I THOUGHT I HAD 20 HEARD YOU SAY THAT You WANTED PUT IN THE OPERATING 21 LICENSE ITSELF THE DETAILS ON THE LOCATION, ET l 22 CETERA. l (). 23 JUDGE HOYT: NO, I DON'T THINK 24 THAT THAT WAS IN THE -- WAS THE INTENT. AND IF I 25 E;:D IT, I CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO CONVEY THAT
-S69 ) 1 AND --
NO, 'I T DOESN'T BELONG IN THE LICENSE. I DO 2 BELIEVE IT BELONGS IN THE RECORDS OF THIS AGENCY 3 AND I BELIEVE IT BELONGS IN THE PERMANENT RECORDS 4 OF THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE. 5 MR. SILBERG: AND AS WE 6 TESTIFIED, IT WILL BE THERE. 7 dUDGE HOYT: AND WE'LL HAVE IT 8 FROM YOU IN THIS HEARING? 9 MR. SILBERG: RIGHT. , 10 JUDGE HOYT: VERY WELL. THAT ' l 11 WAS THE TWO AREAS THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. l 1 (% i) c 12 I HAVE NO OTHER PARTICULAR -- I'LL -- 13 MR. SILBERG: JUDGE HOYT, WE GOT 14 INTO THIS DISCUSSION WHILE I WAS STILL TRYING TO 15 FIGURE O U,T WHETHER WE HAD ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS 16 WITNESSES. 17 JUDGE HOYT: ALL RIGHT. 18 MR. SILBERG: AND I, HAVE ONE 19 QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AT THIS POINT. I l 20 CAN'T REMEMBER WHO I WANT TO ASK OF. CAN YOU l 21 REMEMBER THE QUESTION -- YES, IT DEALT WITH INDEX l 22 PROPERTY TEST. THAT WAS MR. PAVEY. ) 23 JUDGE HOYT: 'I ' L L
]) ONE LAST ONE.
"~ 24 LIMIT IT TO THAT AREA. 25 - - -
970 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. SILBERG: 3 Q. GRADATION TESTING IS AN INDEX PROPERTY 4 TEST, IS THAT CORRECT? 5 A. (PAVEY) GRADATION TESTING OF WHAT? 6 Q. OF TILLS, SOILS. 7 A. I BELIEVE SO. 8 Q. AND THAT'S AN ASTM PROCEDURE 7 9 A. YES.. 10 Q. AND HAVE YOU USED THAT PROCEDURE? 11 A. WE DON'T USE THAT PARTICULAR PROCEDURE. a ) 12 Q. YOU SAID YOU DO USE GRADATION TESTING? 13 A. I SAID I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE TEST. 14 MR. SILBERG: THE RECORD WILL SAY 15 WHATEVER IT IS YOU SAID. I HAVE NO OTHER 16 QUESTIONS OF THIS PANEL. 17 JUDGE HOYT: I AM GOING TO PASS 18 ON TO MR. SILBERG AND TO THE STATE THAT THE -- THE 19 CONCERN THAT WE REALLY HAD WAS THAT THESE RECORDS 20 AND THE RECORD OF A THING AS IMPORTANT AS A BURIAL 21 SITE ALBEIT, IF YOU WILL, OF RAW LEVEL WASTE IS 22 RECORDED ELSEWHERE IN MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS () a~ 23 AROUND, AND CERTAINLY IT IS BURIED IN THE HUNDREDS 24 OF PAGES OF TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE ACQUIRED IN THE 25 L4ET FEW DAYS, WHICH JUDGE KLINE POINTED OUT, AND {
971 1 I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD COMMENT, IS THAT 2 SOMETIMES THESE THINGS DROP THROUGH THE CRACK, AND 3 UNLESS YOU HAVE IT IN SOME PLACE WHERE IT IS 4 EASILY ACCESSIBLE, MANY TIMES THESE RECORDS OF 5 THINGS OF THESE NATURE ARE LOST, AND I WANT TO BE 6 SURE THAT WE HAVE NOT PERMITTED THAT TO HAPPEN IN 7 THIS CASE, ASSUMING THAT THE OTHER MATTERS ARE 8 APPROVED AND THE LICENSE IS ISSUED BY THE 9 COMMISSION. 10 THAT'S ALL I HAVE. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE 11 ANYTHING THEY WANT TO MENTION? I'LL GET THAT FROM
) 12 YOU, SIR, IF YOU JUST BE PATIENT.
13 DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? 14 MR. VAN KLEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. 15 JUDGE H0YT: I DON'T BELIEVE THE l 16 WESTERN RESERVE ALLIANCE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO 17 PRESENT ANYTHING. l 18 IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT ANYTHING IN 19 WRITING IN THE NATURE OF WH AT MIGHT BE A LIMITED 1 20 PERIOD STATEMENT, WE'LL PUT IT IN THE FILE AND YOU 21 CAN JUST FORWARD IT TO MY OFFICE. 22 ANY OTHER PERSONS WHO WANT TO SUBMIT ()' 23 SOMETHING LATER IN WRITING MAY DO SO JUST BY ! 24 ADDRESSING IT TO ME AT THE COMMISSION AT 25 V!SHINGTON, D.C. 20555. l __ _ . J
972 1 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND 2 PATIENCE, AND WE WISH TO HAVE THE RECORD REFLECT 3 THAT WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO THE SANDUSKY HIGH 4 SCHOOL PEOPLE FOR TOLERATING US DURING THESE PAST 5 DAYS AND BEING SURE THAT WE -- THAT THOSE 6 OFFICIALS HERE IN SANDUSKY WHO HAVE MADE THE 7 HEARING VERY EASY TO CONDUCT. THANK YOU. THE 8 HEARING IS ADdOURNED AND THE RECORD IS CLOSED. 9 10 (THEREUPON, THIS HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 9:05 11 P.M.) () 12 - - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
! 20 21 22 23
([) 24 l 25
O V 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 _ _ _ 3 WE, CYNTHIA J. NEFF, CATHERINE HARRISON, 4 AND KENDRA E. JOHNSTON, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL 5 REPORTERS AND NOTARIES PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE 6 0F OHIO, 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A 7 TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 8 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR 9 REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 10 BOARD, ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986, AS REPORTED BY 11 US IN STEN 0 TYPE AND TRANSCRIBED BY US OR UN D ER OUR 12 SUPERVISION. 14 06 4&& NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF OHIO 15 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: APRIL 20, 1988 16 - 17 I K ND A . Jo NS , R.P.R. 18 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF OHIO 19 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: JULY 13, 1987 20 __ ________ r_ __ 22 CY THIA J. EFF, R.P.R. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 23 THE STATE OF OHIO 24 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOVEMBER 8, 1986 25 - - - l
A Report on an Independent Analysis of Radiological Consequences Resulting from the Land Disposal of Material Dredged from Settling Basins at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Prepared by the Ohio Radioactive Materials Users Group (ORMUG) 9 e h
l CONTENTS h Topic Page No. I. Introduction 1 II. Comitment of Land Use 2 III. Maximum inventory of Radioactive Material 3 IV. Maximum Radiation Dose Rate 4 V. Potential Concentration in Water and Comparison with Anbient Concentrations 7 VI. Comparison with Annual K-40 Input from the Maumee River 12 VII. Summary 13 VIII. References 14
+
c9 5
I. Introduction The Board of Directors of the Ohio Radioactive Materials Users Group (ORMUG) first became aware of the intent to dispose of byproduct material by on-site burial when consideration of approval for such action was announced in the October 15, 1985 issue of the Federal Register. Initially, the Board's intuitive reaction was that this seemed to be a reasonable approach, particularly in consideration of the relatively small quantities of radioactivity involved and the relatively short half lives of the five radioisotopes anticipated to be in the material. When public concern was subsequently expressed, the Board felt a responsibility to become involved in the proceedings. Such involvement is consistent with certain provisions of ORMUG's Charter. Of particular pertinence is the statement that "... members of ORMUG will individually and collectively: ... Interact with,.and recommend actions to, legislative bodies and government agencies for effective and timely decisions on matters affecting the use, treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of radioactive material." Further consideration of concerns expressed in various resolutions and petitions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission-(USNRC) led to the hypothesis that the abbreviated nature of the analysis of possible radiological consequences, included in the Federal Register [ notice, was perhaps a contributing factor to the expressed concerns. A decision was then made to attempt to participate in the proceedings by conducting, and making available, an independent analysis of such consequences. The results of that ' analysis re included in the following sections of this report. ORMUG sincerely hopes that the infonnation presented will contribute, in a positive and constructive manner, to the resolution of this issue.
II. Comitment of Land Use
- h/
~
According to Volume 50, Number 196 (October 9, 1985) of the Federal Register, the Toledo Edison Company has proposed on-site burial of dredgings from on-site set-ling basins. The proposal is for dredging that will take place during a 30-year period. The company estimates that a total annual volume of dredged material will be 6,800 cubic feet. Then the total volume of dredged material for the 30-year period will be: (6,800 cu. ft./ year)(30 years)
= 204,000 cubic feet.
This seems to be a. very large number. However, the actual land a~rea comitted to the proposed purpose depends upon the depth of the exc.avation into which the material is to be placed. The company has proposed that the dredged " material would be disposed of on land, at a minimum thickness of two feet." If a volume of 204,000 cubic feet is divided by a thickness of two feet, the resulting area to be comitted to a disposal site is: 4 204,000 ft3
= 102,000 ft2, 2 ft J: r .
There are 43,560 square feet per acre. Therefore, the
.A total area to be comitted is:
102,000 ft2 43,560 fte/ acre = 2.34 acres. To develop a sense of scale for those readers who find it difficult to visualize 2.34 acres, consider a typical residential lot with a 50-ft frontage and a 150-ft depth. The area of the land occupied by this lot is 7,500 square feet. The land area proposed to ! be committed to the disposal of the dredged material is thus equivalent to: 7,500 ftz es dental lot
= 13.6 residental lots.
It should be further noted that this land area is less than 1% of the land owned and controlled by the Toledo Edison Company ; at the site of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. { It is the opinion of OPfiUG that this is a reasonable commitment of land use.
III. Maximum Inventory of Radioactive Material The total inventory of radioactive material present at the end of the proposed 30-year, active disposal period has been calculated by: i a) multiplying the estimated concentrations of each radioisotope, as stated in Table 1 of the previously referenced issue of the Federal Register, by the estimated five-year volume of material, then b) correcting for radioactive decay of each radioisotope , during the five-year interval between basin dredgings, and c) finally summing the activities remaining from each five-year placement'at the end of the 30-year active period.
. The result of these calculations is that at the end of j the 30-year active period, the total inventory in the burial site will i be approximately 21.4 millicuries. Individual-radioisotopic contributions j will be 15.4 millicuries of Cs-137, 2.8 millicuries of Cs-134, 0.2 millicurie of Co-60, 2.9 millicuries of Co-58 and 0.1 millicurie of Mn-54.
i To help the reader develop a sense of scale, it should
.{ be. noted that there are approximately 6.1 millicuries of naturally
-occurring Ra-226 in the 204',000 cubic feet of soil which must be excavated to make room for the dredged material. This estimate is i based on a natural Ra-226 concentration in soil of 0.7 picocurie per gram as reported in Environmental Radioactivity by Merril Eisenbud.
The estimate is also based on a typical density of 1.5 grams per cubic ;
; centimater for slightly compacted topsoil (personal communication with )
FrankHimes,Ph.D.). Further, the ingestion radiotoxicity of Ra-226 i is at least a factor of 100 greater than any of the five radioisotopes l proposed for on-site burial. The result is that the cumulative radiotoxicity of the dredged material is less than the material excavated to make room for it. i l 3-l
-..--.----.,,-.-,.--m---v-,,en----.----.,-.--w--r-n---.--..rr.,, . , ----er. ,,-,-.,-,-----,---,nw.-,,--,e-,-,-n...,.-------- - - , _ - - - - . - -
_ ._- . = . _ -- - _ _ _ _ . . _- - l l l IV. Maximum Radiation Dose Rate , To calculate the radiation exposure rate to persons i standing on the buried material, a " uniformly distributed, infinite
, slab" model was used. The mathematical equations used to represent this model are Equations 11.1 and 11.34 from Applied Radiation Protection
- and Control by J. J. Fitzgerald. The exposure rate was calculated for a point one meter above the surface of the contaminated " slab" of dredged material.
t !. The gamma ray energy flux emanating from the slab is
- calculated using Equation 11.34
I, = 2.96 X 109(Cy )(E) (Fy{b3 ,0} - F 1{b,0}) st where I, is the energy flux (MeV/cm2 /sec), Cy is the concentration of radioactive material (Ci/cm3), E is the photon ene,rgy per' disintegration (MeV), . l y is the linear at'tenuation coefficient (cm-1) of the material s i in which the radioactivity is dispersed, F1 is.a~ mathematical function incorporating mathematical ' f"(" integration estimates, , b is the product of the linear attenuation coefficient of the air above the slab surface multiplied by the distance between , the slab surface and the point of interest, and ' , "" # b is the product of the linear attenuation coefficient of the 3 slab multiplied by the slab thickness.,_.. The concentration, C , is calculated by dividing the total activity'by. the total volume 8f dredged material (see Sections l II & III of this report). l C 3 y = (2.04 X 10 3( 10'+ cm3/ft3) = 3.7 X 1092 Ci/cm c'
'The effective photon energy per disintegration, E, is less than the literature value of 0.66 MeV for gamma rays from Cs-137 because of transition probabilities, internal conversion interactions,
- and scattering interactions. Nevertheless, in the interest of 1 simplicity and conservatism, a value of 0.66 MeV is used.
i _ - - _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - . ._._...,. _ .__. _ ___ _ _ . - _ , - , _ - _ . _ _ - _ . . _ _ . _ _ , ~ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ _- - . . . _ _ , . - _ - . . _ _ _ .
To select a value for the attenuation cosfficient, y,, it is necessary to find a material with a chemical composition
.. w .similar to the dredged material, since no handbook values exist for
, i the specific materials to be dredged from the settling basins.- The dredged materials, including the organic components, should be similar to soil; and in a recent article published by Cutshall, et al. in Health 4 Physics, the authors approximated attenuation coefficients for soils by using attenuation coefficients for concrete. I This is a good approximation to use since mass attenuation H l coefficient values tabulated in the Radiological Health Handbook for ' i photons with 0.6 MeV of ener dioxide, carbon and oxygen the(gy firstare twoidentical for concrete, being major constituents silicon of l soil and concrete and the latter two being major constituents of l organicmaterial). The linear attenuation coefficient of a material is calculated by multiplying the mass attenuation coefficient by the bulk density of the material. The mass attenuation coefficient for ' O.66 MeV photons passing through concrete can be interpolated from l the previously referenced tables to be 0.076 cm2/gm. Using a density value of 1.5 gm/cm3 (see Section III of this report), the appropriate
! linear attenuation coefficient would be:
y = (0.076 cm2/gm)(1.5 gm/cm3) = 0.11 cm-1 ; s
.The values for F1(b3,0) and F 1(b,0) were taken from ;
Figures 11.14A and 11.14C of the previously referenced book by Fitzgerald. These values are 1.0 and 0.1, respectively. j k yields: Substituting all of these values into Equation 11.34 I n=2.96X109(3.7X10-12)(0.66)(57.1)(1.0-0.1) l
.. ~ . ,= 0,.37 MeV/cm2 /sec. ; Equation 11.1 from Fitzgerald's book is used to convert E energy flux to exposure rate. Equation 11.1 is: - . . !
R = (5.08 X 10-2)(p,)(Ig ) R/hr, where p is the linear attenuation coefficient for air. i The linear attenuafion coefficient of air for 0.66 MeV gamma rays is equal to l 9.8 X 10-s cm-1 The exposure rate is thus: , R = (5.08 X 10-2)(9.8 X 10-s)(0.37) = 1.8 X 10-3 i nr/hr: l Since the radiation being considered is ganna radiation, a milliroentgen (mr) is approximately equal to a millirem (mrem); and the equivalent dose rate for a person standing on the buried, dredged
- material would be
i I 1.8 X 10-3 mrem /hr. i -S- ! \ l i
Since the natural background radiation dose rate at I( j the proposed disposal site is about 0.011 mrem /hr, the calculated 0.0018 mrem /hr caused by the dredged material could add no more than 16% to the natural background radiation dose pote, and this would only be the result if a person stood on the dredged material 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Such a situation is too unlikely to be ; of significant concern. Further, a 16% increase in the background radiation dose rate would incorporate such a small potential health risk, that it should be of no regulatory concern.
--=e . . - - . . . _
e l
l L V. Potential Concentration in Water i
. and Comparison with Ambient Concentration l
Q This section analyzes two severe situations. In the l first, the assumption is made that the entire 30-year inventory is I somehow instantaneously transferred to the open lake. The second assumes that the entire 30-year inventory is somehow instantaneously transferred to the 315-acre pond within the dike that separates the i site from the open lake. The probability of occurrence of either I event is so low that it seems unprofitable to invest time and effort in the analysis. However, if the consequences of such events are I shown to be sufficiently small, it should preclude concern about ! leach rates and other mechanisms that involve smaller quantities of I radioactivity and muc'1 longer transport times. Release _t_o__Op_en Lake Many of the resolutions and petitions submitted to Administrative Judge Hoyt expressed concern about the possible
. contamination of drinking water supplies. The case of transfer to the open lake speaks to that concern.
The analysis assumes that if the material enters the r lake at the plant site, that it will move southeasterly along the 2 . lake shore, that the " plume" will be confined to a strip that is 800 meters (one half mile) wide along.the shore, that the average water depth is 1.5 meters (about five feet), and that there will be l complete mixing. This last assumption is assured by the nature of the l Western Basin of Lake Erie. As an example calculation, consider the concentration that would exist at a point one half mile downshore. The volume of water in which the radioactivity would be diluted is: (800 m)(800 m)(1.5 m) = 960,000 cubic meters. i The proposed 30-year inventory is 21.4 millicuries which is equal to 2.14 X 101n picocuries. So the concentrations is: X1 u c rs = 2.2 X 104 picocuries/ cubic meter. If the plume extends along the shoreline to Port Clinton, the concentration would be reduced to 1.1 X 103 pCi/m3 Extending the plume farther along the shoreline, concentrations cf 446 pCi/m3 and 186 pCi/m3 would occur at Sandusky and Lorain, respectively.
How do these concentrations compare with naturally
-occuring concentrations of radium? The December 20, 1974 Suoplement )
to Environmental Report; DBNPS Unit No. I states that the radium I s concentration of lake water is 1.2 picocuries/ liter. This value is l consistent with values reported by other studies for other locations l in Lake Erie. This concentration is equal to 1,200 pCi/m3 since there are 1,000 liters.in each cubic meter. This value must be multiplied by a factor of 20 to account for the greater biological effectiveness of the alpha particles emitted by radium as compared to the beta particles and gamma rays emitted from the five radioisotopes proposed for on-site disposal. The resulting equivalent radium concentration is 24,000 picocuries per cubic meter. The following table shows the comparisor, of potential l concentrations resulting from complete release of the total inventory with the existing concentration of radium for four locations along i the shoreline. , 1 i Location Concentration of Percentage of Released Material Existing, Effective (pC1/m3) Radium Concentration mile downshore 22,000 92% CD Port Clinton 1,100 4.6% l Sandusky 446 1.9% Lorain 186 0.78% ' I The values given in the preceeding table, and in particular the ones shown for Port Clinton, Sandusky and Lorain, are very conservative. Their conservative nature arises from the fact that no credit was taken for the major mitigating effects of plume spread and attachment to bottom sediments. Considering the small concentrations, the very conservative nature of the preceeding estimates, the effect of continuing dilution with time, and the low probability of occurrence, it is ORMUG's opinion that the potential radiological impacts on drinking water supplies, are negligible. l l l l 1 l
i Release to On-Site Pond Another concern expressed in several of the petitions to Judge Hoyt was the potential impacts on the plants and animals in adjacent wetlands. The next analysis is meant to be responsive to those concerns. The greatest impact will occur where the concentration is greatest. The maximum possible concentration would occur if the entire 30-year inventory were released to the 315-acre pond within the dike separating the site from the open lake. Since the pond contains about 180 million gallons (= 6.81 X 1011'ml) of water, the concentration of added radioactivity would be: h,y f " m1 = 3.1 X 10-8 pCi/ml. And since the density of water is 1.0 gm/ml, the concentration in the water would be: 3.1 X10-8 pC1/gm. Before analyzing the effect of this concentration on organisms, it should be noted that more than one concerned petitioner pointed out the richness and diversity of life forms in adjacent wetlands. It would be a formidable task to attempt to analyze potential radiological consequences for each and every species. Fortunately, that is not necessary. Since it is well known by {tJ J radioecologists that the radiosensitivity of an organism depends on the phylogenetic class to which the organism belongs, it is only necessary to analyze the potential conseque :ces to the most sensitive class. Consequences to organisms in any otner class will certainly be less. For the on-site pond habitat, the sensitive class is " fish" (Class: Osteichthyes). The major radiation dose would be caused by radiation emitted from radioactive material concentrated within the fish. Eisenbud gives a range of concentration factors for " freshwater fish." For the purpose of this analysis, a typical value of 5,000 has been used. The radioactivity concentration within the fish is calculated by multiplying the concentration in the water in which the fish lives by the appropriate concentration factor. In this case, X CF = (3.1 X 10-8 pCi/gm)(5,000) Cfish = Cwater
= 1.6 X 10- pCi/gm.
The radiation dose rate from beta particles is calculated with the simplified equation, taken from Radiation protection by Jacob Shapiro: DR=51(C)(E) ,
where DR is the dose rate in rads per day, C is the activity concentration in pCi/gm, E is the average energy of the beta particles in
- MeV per disintegration, and "51" is a conversion factor incorporating all the physical unit conversions incorporated in the simplified equation.
To determine the appropriate beta particle energy, it is necessary to specify the radioisotopes that are emitting the beta particles. For the purpose of this analysis, the radioisotope Cs-137 is considered to predominate since it will represent about 75% of the total inventory at the end of the active 30-year period, and will comprise 96% of the inventory five years later. 1 In this case, the appropriate average beta particle energy per nuclear decay is 0.2 MeV. When the other numerical values are entered into the equation, the resulting dose to the fish is j about 500 millirad per year. ! Calculation" of the dose from gamma rays can be more complicated since not all of the energy of the gama rays will be absorbed in the fish. However, if the simplifying and conservative assumption that all of the gama ray energy g absorbed in the fish,
, the radiation dose can be calculated by cor.verting the activity iD concentration to an energy release rate per gram. Using a gama ray energy of 0.66 MeV per nuclear decay, the energy release rate is:
3.9 MeV/sec/gm. 4 Converting MeV to ergs and seconds to years, gives a release rate of: 197 ergs /gm/ year. Assuming complete energy absorption, this converts to: 1,970 millirad per year. When the beta dose and gama dose are added, the approximate total dose to the fish would be: 2,500 millirad / year (=2.5 rad /yr). It should be noted that no credit has been taken for removal of radioactivity by settling'and attachment to bottom sediments, or removal by other organisms. l _ . . . _ .- __ _ . --__. --
The next question is whether or not such a radiation dose would produce a significant consequence in a population of fish. This can best be accomplished by comparing such a radiation dose to radiation doses experienced in studies at .many laboratories, including those at the University of Washington and at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. An artic}}