ML20215D586
| ML20215D586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1987 |
| From: | Austin D, Cook G, Gleisser A, Warne C CONSUMERS LEAGUE OF OHIO, SAVE OUR STATE FROM RADIOACTIVE WASTE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3751 86-525-01-ML, 86-525-1-ML, ML, TAC-52484, NUDOCS 8706190069 | |
| Download: ML20215D586 (60) | |
Text
.......
{g6
[.
Egiu th N;"
l L
THE UNIED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCNMISSION
'87 JLN 16 A9 :38 Before DOCK! ~ A '- !Md Helen F. Hoyt Bh ti h t*
Administrative Judge Jerry Kline Technical Advisor
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-346-ML
)
ASLBP No. 86-525-01-ML Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit No. I
)
j l
RESPONSE OF INTERVENORS TO THE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES H0YT & ELINE d
ON APRIL 15, 1987 TO ALIDW IOW-IEVEL i
RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ON THE
{
DAVIS-BESSE SITE
)
INTERVENOR GROUP l
I l
CONSUMERS IEAGUE OF OHIO SOS (SAVE OUR STATE FROM RADI0 ACTIVE l
WASTE)
President: Clinton Warne Chairman: Arnold Gleisser h
'lke 0gmsk.
Mfh i
Executive Secretary: Dorothy Austin Vice Chairman: Genevieve S. Cook iv
--br>?mkw S bed (Eb/-]/Vlb4' Hic'
[
//
JUNE 12, 1987
,)563 8706190069 870612 PDR ADDCK 05000346 O
PDR 1 v
t.
mi ei 9
--... -i um
-i-mi--
ISSUES AND DECISIONS On Oct. 9,1985 the NRC filed notice in the Federal Register (V.50-No.196 p.41265-7) i i
that it had authorized Toledo Edison to bury 1cv level radioactive vastes (LLRW) on i
the Davis-Besse nuclear site using a shallov land burial. Since environmental effects were considered to be very small, no alternatives to the procedure vere considered and i
i no environmental impact statement pn pared.
I Based on the NRC staff's environmental assessment, the Commissiontrs concluded that the proposed procedure would not have significant effect on the quality of the human envir-ment.
The vastes per year vere composed of about 5,800 ft.3 of sludge from the water treat-ment facility and about 1,000 ft.3 of radioactively contaminated secondary side demin-eralizer clean-up resins. Batches of these vastes vere deposited veekly in a crude settling pond or basin on the Davis-Besse site.
About every five years the settling basin vould be dredged and its contents, about 34,000 ft.3, vould be disposed of on land to a thickness of about 2 ft., covered with about 4 inches of clean soil and seeded. Total after 30 years---204,000 ft.3 estimated.
This announcement led to highly vocal opposition across northern Ohio. In the informal hearing which followed, the State of Ohio itself became an intervenor with 3 Deputy Attorneys General and 2 geologists, one hydrologist, and a biologist as vitnesses--all from the Department of Natural Resources. Attorney General Anthony Celebrezze and Dir-ector of Natural Resources, Joseph Sommers, both spoke of Ohio's great concern at the opening of the hearing. They were followed by the Deputy Director of the Ohio EPA, Virginia Aveni, who reviewed the Ohio requirements for burial of hazardous solid vaste.
The hearing convened in Sandusky on Aug. 5,6,7, 1986. Attending the hearing besides State officials were Davis-Besse neighbors, environmentalists, business men, fishermen, recreational enthusiasts, League of Women Voters and Audubon devotees.
1.
Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on the hearing were due in Washington from intervenors and licensee by Sept.8.
On April 15, 1987 Administrative Judges Hoyt and Kline, who served as technical advisor, issued a 66-page DECISION. This Decision affirmed the NRC authority granted to Toledo-Edison (TEC) on Oct.-1985 to bury water-treatment sludge and secondary side demineral-izer resins on the site of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The burial now, how-ever, ves to be in 6 clay cells, with which TEC had obviously had no previous experi-ence, since the design had not yet been completed, and the specifics of operation vere not yet all available. (DEC-p.65-16)(ExhibitE-p.4) TEC also would need a solid vaste disposal permit from the Ohio EPA.
OHIO CONCERNS Widespread public concern in Ohio is understandable when you remember that despite pub-lic protest, Davis-Besse was built on the 954 acre Navarre Marsh, which was part of the Ottava National Wildlife Refuge Sanctuary and also an International Bird Flyvay. This is flood plain area and subject to the high vinds and battering waves of Lake Erie's i
famous storms--a long history of them. Following the 1972 storm, Davis-Besse workmen had to reach the site by boat. There vere two breaks in the dike and 31/2 miles up the Toussaint River by the park 300 feet of dike vere destroyed.
Lake Erie and her coastal vetlands are considered Ohio's greatest natural resource with 5 state parks and 4 nature preserves. Fish spawning beds off-shore near the Davis-Besse area provide almost 12,000,000 lbs. of fish from Lake Erie every year for a thriv-ing industry. Recreation and tourism are also very profitable with camping, boating 3
and sport-fishing. At the Aug.-86 hearing the State of Ohiv intervencra made it quite i
clear that the hydrology and geology of the Davis-Besse site vere quite inappropriate l
for the disposal of LLRF. Both the shallow land burial and clay cell pose too great j
an environmental and public health risk.
2.
s It is interesting to note 'that on Aug.1,1986, (81/2 months before the Decision) the Midwest Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission (A 7_ state Commission of which Ohio is a member)' published a Sunnnavy Report of its Regional Management LLRW Plan. In Appendix A (10 CFR 61) we find a.section entitled " Disposal Site Suitability" (10 CFR 6150). Four of the 7 Criteria are in marked contrast to the Davis-Besse LLRW i
disposal plan:
- 1. The site should have relativeb simple geology and hydrology.
- 2. Areas of known natural resources should be avoided.
- 3. Areas where flooding could occur should be. avoided.
- 4. Areas of high tectonic activity should be avoided.
A11= of northern Ohio into Michigan was shaken up by the Jan.31,1986 earthquake in the
)
Perry Nuclear Facility area. Just a few days ago, another centered in southern Illinois V
i measured 5 on the Richter reale and was felt in 16 states, Ohio one of them.
A Davis-Besse Focus There were other ironic aspects of the Oct.-85 authorization and some reverberations from times past--1971-2. Small wonder that Ohicans found the NRC authorization incred-i ible.
{
- First of all Davis-Besse Nuclear Facility (a Babcock-Wilcox PWR creation)' had been shut j
down over h months with no immediate prospects of resuming operations following a close brush with a Class-9 accident and another episode of a stuck-open pressure relief valve (PORV). This was a reactor whose owners and operators had just been fined $900,000 by the NRC and $100,000 the year before for poor maintenance. Now they were to assume re-sponsibility for a LLRW dump on the site, surrounded by vetlands.
In 1971,2 TEC had promised it vould use only about 200 acres of the Navarre for the Davis-Besse facility and retain the rest as marsh and wildlife refuge. (FES-Oct.-1975-op) A statement to this effect was published just 11/2 years before Licensee applied for ALW authority for Davis-Besse Units II & III--hardly a sudden decision. They actu-ally planned 5 reactors for that site. Ohio Power Siting Commission vould have that information. Ground work was started for Units II & III (nov 2 vater-filled holes on the site), but they were canceled in 1981.
=
3,
i Another TEC public assurance is also vell-documented. TEC's operating license (No.NFF-3) j i
also (FSAR Vol.VI p.11-166-74 1973) (FES-co-1973-p.5-26,7) all speak of reprocessing hi6h level vastes and of shipping LLW to a licensed landfill within 300 miles (3 of them now closed). It further states there would be n_o_ significant effluent to the environment. During 1971-4 the public was constantly reassured there would no rad-vastes disposed of on site.
The Decision states that the NRC has authority to change its rules and policies as new information becomes available--especially policies made in 1970-3. (p.7-2) This proced-ure, repeated too often, could cast a shadow over the reliability of all NRC public assurances.
THE SITE The Decision (p.1) also states that TEC made application for this site disposal author-ization in a letter (July 14,1983). That letter from TEC's Richard Crouse to NRC's John Stolz contains J. Stewart Blande's 20 page plan for the settling basin with esti-mates of radiation doses. Only one sentence (p.8) refers to site disposal. Quote:
"With the planned retention of the dredged basin bottoms on the D-B site (i.e., no off-site disposal) actual doses to any individual of the public, if any, will be exceedingly small."
Not until the Crouse letter of July 30, 1984 are a few details of the proposed on-site shallow land burial presented.(P.6) Though a minimum thickness of 2-5 feet for the burial of 34,000 FT.3 of the dredged vaste material was planned, they intended to eval-unte potential radiation doses from a depth of one foot only. Public access to the site was not totally restricted by boundary fence, but the surrounding environmental charac-teristics "(i.e. Navarre Marsh in the southeast sector of the site)" provided restricted access.(Letter p.6)
"No uncontrolled areas on-site are frequented by members of the
~
public." The Toussaint River, located just south of the D-B reactor site and the southeast marsh area, flows easterly to Lake Erie.
4.
l Testimony quoted in the Decision (p.26,7) was not too clear about this triangular shaped south east sector of the Navarre Marsh, (p.27-19) which is worthy of note since at one point it would be within 25 ft. of the 6th single burial cell.
Apparently the Navarre Marsh is now about 660 acres to the north and vest of the Davis-Besse nuclear facility. It is still part of the TEC site but is managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as a unit of the Ottava National Wildlife Refuge. The Navarre Marsh referred to in #19 can be either the southeast triangular section or the northwest tract. Both the settling basin and the 6th burial cell are on the east side of the Davis-Besse site. The runoff referred to is a rav ditch about 20" vide and 28" deep, which runs along the site line, then angles down hill to the Toussaint River, which empties into Lake Erie. We vonder about the settling basin overflow route to Lake Erie, also. It has an emergency overflow route to the Toussaint. (Letter July 14, 1983-P.14)
Intervenors consider the crude settling basin to be part of the LLRW site disposal plan and thought it should be an issue in the hearing. They were not permitted to include it in their testimony, however, since it was ruled as being already authorized and in operation. The Crouse-Stolz letters reveal that the settling basin, like the shallnv land burial plan, resulted from correspondence, NRC staff assessment based on informa-tion sent, and the NRC Commissioners cooperation. Nobody in the azza knew the settling basin was on the D-B site and in operation. People question whether the process permit-ting it was le6al. Also, Ohio Rep. Wise, serving Sandusky and part of Seneca Counties, testified at the hearing that local people should have had some input in these decisions since they are the ones affected. (Tr-p.56)
Mr. Joseph Sommers, Director of the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, in his statement at the beginning of the hearing, refers to the settling basin as an "open-field lagoon i
l containing low level radioactive vaste." (Tr-p.18,9) He was very apprehensive about j
5
I ground water contamination as well as that of Lake Erie and the Toussaint. He cited innumerable failures of similar procedures around the country. The settling basin (only 10 ft. deep) has only a shallow clay base. Also to the east and southeast of the basin there is marsh vetland area with the lover portion downhill to the Toussaint River, which is only a half mile away.
Ohio has had experience with migrating radiation and spills, as well as ground water contamination, especially from DOE facilities: Fernald, Mounds, RMI, and even the Piketon ton Uranium Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Vital statistics studies nearby areas of two of these facilities show steady cancer increases among the neighboring populations.
THE HEARING Ohioans appreciated the opportunity afforded by the hearing to consider the issues in-volved in the site disposal of LLRW at Davis-Besse. However there were some complexi-ties for intervenors in the procedures, which resulted from requests by TEC for special accommodations. The hearing was originally scheduled for the last week in June. Peti-tions to intervene and contentions were cent. Accepted intervenors vere sent instruc-tions and copies of Judge Hoyt's 20 questions for consideration at the hearing. Inter-venors arranged for their vitnesses, and prefile statements were prepared based on ob-jections to the proposed shallow land burial.
Then they learned that TEC had requested a delay of the hearing (which was granted) because of a strike for fringe benefits by employees. Since Davis-Besse had been shut down for months, we thought the strike a bit odd. However TEC vas accommodated with extra time to get its prefile statements prepared from its 13 vitnesses and to get its battered and deteriorated dikes upgraded, according to fishermen in the area.
I f
The day before the hearing intervenors were permitted to tour part of the site to see the area to be used for the disposal and also the astonishingly crude settling basin.
Visitors vere provided a map of site installations and also a cross section drawing 6.
of a proposed cloy burial cell about vbich they had just recently beard. All during the hearing, details about the burial cells were added, but innumerable questions about the specifics of use procedures remainea unanswered.
(ExhibitE-p.4)(Decision-p65-16)
Anotber disadvantage for intervenors at tne beginning of the first day of the bearing was Judge Boyt's appointment of tue Toledo Coalition's Attorney--Terry Lodge--to speak for all the intervenors except the State of Ohio. This gave intervenors CLO/ SOS no time to confer with Mr. Lodge either before or during the bearing. Aleo the assignment of permanent seating for intervenors kept several intervenors too far from Mr. Lodge to confer. It gave citizen intervenors no opportunity to ask questions or object, especi-ally the last day vben Mr. Lodge was unable to attend bearing. For this reason, vben the Decision states,"Nobody objected," it refers only to the State of Ohio group.
This type of ruling may facilitate the progress of a bearing, but it can be a distinct limitation for some intervenors. Also it was not clear whether the assignment of Mr.
Lodge was to continue in the proceedings after the hearing. Mr. Lodge very graciously included CLO/ SOS in his excellent " Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
Unaware of his generosity, Miss Cook sent in another for the latter two groups. She prepared it in summary form for subsequent future use for public information. Four ;46es are more like-ly to be read than 46 or 94. Judge Hoyt graciously accepted both F-of-f statements.
(Decision p.3-1; Copies of the CLO/ SOS " Facts" have been widely distributed. Consumers League used it in a newsletter as a report to the members on the Davis-Besse hearing. Leaders of 5 counties Concerned Citizens groups have copies as well as Sierra Club activists and some League of Women Voters officers. Two multistate groups from all the Great Lakes states and two Canadian Provinces are actively opposing any disposal of any type of rad-ioactive materials along the shores of any of the Great Lakes. Tnese are Great Lakes
)
l United and The Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes. They have the CLO/ SOS " Facts."
T.
l j
1 In Sept.-1986 after the hearing;TEC sent intervenors Project Plan / Conceptual Design which provided details of the procedures for transferring the sludge from the settling basin to the burial cells. It left only a few questions. On p.13-4.7 TEC speaks of removing the leachate from the leachute collection system. Since the leachate collec-tion system is a layer of coarse gravel in the cell base structure and below the waste, we wonder just how this removal is done.
j i
Also, how would one mix 34,000 ft.3 of sludge-resin vaste with lime kiln dust without spilling it all over? Or can TEC assure us that if a weekly batch of sludge-resin vaste is a bit or more over the maximum in radiation levels, that some workman won't just dump it in the settling basin 19 stead of packaging it for shipment? After all Davis-Besse is 10 years old now, so that leaks and weeps in the secondary system would undoubt-edly occur more and more frequently. And all this messy procedure could hardly be justi-fled as saving workmen from greater radiation exposure. It doubles the bandling. Then tbere's the cesium in the resin batch, which Mr. Blande mentions.
With a half-life of 30 years, it will be radioactive for 300 years at least. A few months in a settling basin would not render it exactly harmless.
Equally important, does TEC really believe that no cracks will develop in the clay base, the dikes, and the cover material, especially if we have more tectonic action? Finally canTECreallyassurethattheradiationinthesettlinlbasinwon'twindupinthe Toussaint River instead of the burial cell? The basin is a crude bit of geo-technical engineering. There buve been innumerable reports from around the country of cl.ay cracks that went unnoticed for months and of splita in the membrane layer.
I GEOLOGY AND hTDROLOGY ALONG LAKE ERIE S110RES As one might expect, the largest part of the bearing was concerned with the burial site suitability, which in the case of the Davis-Besse area, presented some complex issues with its marshes, floods, lake level fluctuations, storms, winds, and wildlife concerns.
State officials and intervenors consider the site most unsuitable for rud-vaste disposal.
8.
Intervenors feel that in making their Decision to allow the Davis-Besse site disposal of radioactive sludge-resin wastes to proceed, Judges Hoyt and Kline gave a dispropor-tionate credibility and preferential weight to tne testimony of David Hendron, a TEC witness. Mr. Hendron was the geo-technical engineer who helped supervise tne excava-tion and de-watering in the construction of the Davis-Besse foundation work in 1970, almost 20 years ago. And as Mr. Pavey said,"He wasn't always there."
Mr. Hendron is not a geologist, not a bydrologist, not a nuclear physicist, not a rad-iologist, and not a research chemist in ions and resins, although be spoke in an author-itative manner on issues in all these fields.
There were marked disagreements between Mr. Hendrori's views and those of the State of Ohio's two geologists (Mr. Pavey & Mr. Guy) and hydrologist (Mr. Voytek) 1. on soil permeability, 2. on underground aquifers in the TEC Navarre arca and their response to changes in Lake Erie water levels or to flooding, and 3. on types of soil layers. State witnesses were astonished that TEC had provided no hydrology study and no recent detailed j
geology study using newer methods and technologies. Ohio Attorney General Anthony Cele-brezze described TEC's geology studies as cursory, flawed, oversimplified, and superfic-(Tr.-p.49) ial.
Intervenors assume the State's response to the Decision will provide the details.
t.p9 Exhibit E gives a brief summarizing review of toe bearing debate on these issues, with l
4 their corflicting testimony. (Exhibit D-p.7 & 6)
With respect to destruction of wildlife habitat, we wish to make one comment. The dam-age has already been done the last 16 years by the construction and operation of the Davis-Besse facility. Fish spawning in the Toussaint is only 20% of what it was before.
l Many species of wildlife in the immediate area are reduced because of being forced to seek undisturbed habitat elsewhere. Much plant life and innumerable trees are permanent-ly gone, having been cleared for construction.
It's a tragic loss.
9
J.;
The other area of concern at the bearing was the sludge content---l. heavy metals' and toxic chemicals from' the Lake Erie water cleanup, 2. chemicals added for D-B use, 3
)
-type of cleanup resins and their possible inter-reaction with other chemicals, and 4.
estimates of radiation doses. Perhaps we should add 5.(where they're most likely to beexposedtothesedosesj State of Obo attorneys were well prepared to cross-exam-ine TEC's-witnesses on all these issues.
CLO/ SOS witness, Russell Bimber, has been an MS research chemist for 35 years vbo has y
done special work with ions and exchange resins used to remove radiation from contam-inated cooling water after a leax. Also be has worked with radioisotope-labelled pesticides and their migration through ground water. His work with chemical reactions
. between resins and types of fertilizers was an issue at the hearing. (Tr-II-p.228)
Mr. Biaber also helped write the Radiation Emergency Response Plan for the area around the Perry plant,and he is also trained as a Radiological Officer to aid the Lake _ County Health District.
Mr. Bimber's prefile statement for the Davis-Besse site disposal hearing was based on Judge Boyt s 20 questions, with which you are no doubt familiar. Also be charged that i
the radiation amounts published in the Federal Register (Oct.9,1985) in the announcement of the D-B shallow burial plan for the sludge vastes, were greatly under-estimated.
(Pref-p.2-3) (Tr-II-p.226,7) (Exhibit--C-p.4,5)
Mr. Bimber's second statement of July 31,1986 (Exhibit-B) came in too late to be part of of the hearing, although many of. the points were covered in the hearing the second day during testimony and direct and cross examination.(Tr-p.226,7) In this statement he responds to issues in the prefile statements of 8 TEC witnesses. He considers Dr. T111's i
dose estimates too low and challenges the validity of one statement. Some of Mr. Blande's statements he finds confusing. (Exb B-p.3,4) In discussing types of resins and their effects, such as Questran and Kayexalate, Mr. Bimber questions the accuracy fo some of Mr. Hetherington's statements. (Tr,-II-p.ll3,4)(Exhibit-B-p.5,6) 10.
This whole Davis-Besse site disposal issue (with its primitive settlin6 basin or la-goon and untried clay burial cells, combined with the uncertainty of the human elements in the implementation of this disposal project) leaves' only one possible answer for I
about 5 of Judge Boyt's 20 questions: NOBODY KNOWS.
The people in the area of the Davis-Besse plant already have faced and continue to face uncertainty and risk. Why add to it? Could this D-B disposal plan be another example of what one nuclear scientist described as: " Putting the financial concerns of a nuclear utility ahead of the health and welfare of the public and their environmental resources 17 Great Lakes area people had all these nuclear plants imposed on them because the nuclear industries and utilities needed their water for cooling. Now these people should not be stuck with the amateur handling of these rad-vastes and any more destruction of their natural resources.
de m t, W hv 15/$ab ' f anaes O O 000
< ca a Mf7 v
f GENEVIEVE S. C(X)KQ 2521M HALL DR 8
CLEVELAND.OH 44145 }* A
.c w
k.
g s o, a a.-
Shoreline management i f
nrublem is human uses of the shore-
//-
hae that are not sensluye to the natu.
/
ralcycles oflakelevels.
M l'k* l*= * ~t ****'"
The GreatLakes system with the St. Lawrence River as its oathe to the su. Instorically, the can be usedin w lake levels rise and fallin rough and BOARD OF CONTRIBUTORS somewhat unpredictable entes within.
the power of me WTBEMBd L. BARBER l a range of about seven feet.Causes of u
cyeus are to be tend nn wad and hydrologica i '
asishing haa'eas on Lake Erie, patterns, precipitation and evapora-
, and lake water tapping at the tica. m rh winda may tilt the lakaa.-
< first floors of high-rise lake-f nargly raka Eric hara= 11is no front candaminiums in Chicago are
.hann,.- r= Man take levels at one meeng the visible pieces of evidence end and lowernr them at the R5ir
' cf record high waters around the without a changein volume of water.
flow into the lakes on an emergency Great takes. In 1986, for the second Seasonal cycles involve changes in basis at the request of American auth-t'-
la a row, take levels set record volume, wig more pendictably crities.
for au the Great takes escept with generally lower levels in the win-Another tool of lake level manage-
- k.
ter and higher levels in the summer.
meet is the regulation of the outflow h ' governm. Demands are growing for ents to *do somethtag" -
'linee samaanal changes with the of water from Lake Superior and v speed.nsesy, belid dikes, drala the amont of rain and snow, rateof Ontario by the use of international f
evaporation from the serface and run-control structures. m International
- , Isheef. Yd a pressures moest for govern.. off le the watershed. These naanral Joint ihmmissian (IJC) is respannihle
, ; meets to act,thelevels have begun to factors - precipitation, evaporation forad the flow.But this regula-drop.jWhlieis the time for nor-and ruself - Quetaate over the dec-tion es the lake levels at most rissa, no record highs ades as won as aaaaanally. Hot sum-from one to four inchas, while the ree-
. mai n havebosssetenanyof thelakessince mers and yt shrank the lakes in ord levels experienced in 1985-86 have Jameery, and is March significantly the 1980s and 60s, while abnormally been 2% to 2% feet above the long-s hsB Ps"'P ada= thas average feu all high rainfall and low evaporation term average. Furthermort, it takes h
.ever the hesia. This breather makes it rates prevailed in the 50s and have as much as two years for increased
' apsed theeto assess theprehlem..
againInrecentyears..
retention in Lake Superior to make 72hegla at the beginning,the prob.
Human activities do affeet take itself feltin Lake Erie.
., kan b wrongly deoned in the levels, but so far in relatively minor Wealthy Chicago shoreline property
' adad. The problem is not lake ways. Water is diverted from Late owners are money to pressure leads.Estreme lake levels would be asinetynn at Chicago, with the anw4t Congress for an.
In the Chi-eleser to the saark, alace extreme controDed by the UA Suprenne CWut capo diversicaimm the present 3,200 4
- ls.e b the 1934s and 'tes emmed as as a result of suits brought by neigh-come feet per second (cfs) to 10,000 ameh enrepties of human activity as~ horing states. The' loss of water at;. efs. Rep. P. James Rannanbrenner Jr.,
y to estreme highs of the 'tes, 'Ms and,
such a bill. It is,
p.the presset. 8tEl. this is a hamanese, i Qdcago is nearly hataacad by diver. R Wis.; is aion af water lato Lake Superior at ' estimated t this increased diver-sian wouldiover the takeimis by an 4tm.s ame====t: highs and ha hee " 14.s 14e a.d ogoti, o t., to amut ant er harm efferent people's later-Panadian hydropower In inch an yar. While Congres would eats and uses of the lakes. The real,1986 Canada temporarlpduced this,, have the power to do this (in effect y re MMd&a(, dM E
c APERTURE r
. CARD
u\\
c
- answer to lake-level tilt!
l serious problem for a few years for < Ohio lost fedaal funds for shomiline 5
homeowners and communities with L management because the state structures built during low cycles. ~ > ernment refused to do the
'~
s m
ShOretine Shor,t-term help could be nvided, as -
,,,o,,am. othe, o, eat ta,a required to qualify for th
.g Mic 1,an has done wit modest es states 1"S that reSnect
- '**' P"E""* ^ ' W "t***
' 0 * * b * * * * *** ** U b ".
/
t'
._ subsidy is avallable to Michigan'l funds. Coastal some leg BOTOlOD/ Cal shelim hemers on loans up to <, islatka died again in the Jet session D
$25,000 to elevate or move their >
of the 0hio IAgislature, but persistapt
[OrceS.
bemes. to b.y ad3acent highe, and sen. Robert of ishtah.ia h.s drier property for that prpose, and to ! againintrodyhis bill,cr build (as a last resort) shore protec-by Sens. Lee Fisher and Charles Bugs tion structures. Partial grants are J of theClevelandarea.
available to Michigan sheline com d
. This legislation would provide apr f
munities for flood protection projects. O development of a comprehensive verruling the Supreme Court), such a' Last year Gov. Celeste anna'=ad / coastal management plan for the Oldo recedent would be unwise.
that a $785,000 fund had beeen alls / shore of Lake Erie. A 30-year eroeien The Great Lakes states would find 'h cated for matching grants for flood d hazard area would be established, within which permanent street,
it difficult to recover the water or / prevention projects in Ohio's Lake 5 educe the outflow when the lake i Erie communities. The Ohio Depart a could not be built. Technical evels drop again. Uses would become
' rnent of Natural Resources is workkg tance far shore eresico control naps-meteddornstream.Furthermore,the 6 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engl. l sures would be made available<to entinuing tilt toward sun-belt power l.neers to protect insofar as possible i aboreline communities aod n Congms through shifts in 1 Ohio's nine state parks,11 wildlife 6 owners. Counties and cit es wita g
lon would militate against the v areas and four nature on h castal find hasard areas weldh i
egalaing control of what Congress Flake Erie's shoreline. In ington ' required to participate in thgnatisgkl es given arsy.Indeed,such an action
'last month, Celeste proposed a five ' find insurance basard 4er ouldset a precedent foreven grander Jyear, $364 million joint federal 4 tate h alternatWy to meet,
PaWte dvmies of the region's water sup.
' program to attack Great Lakes ero- / required in that regra b
, access meds be era and
~
mch irresponsible schemes, only ? sion lems in ways pioneered by l plals made to h
,aegs o
Short of giving the lakes away in '
Mi an.
to thelake.
dnor adjustments of lake levels can
. To participate, states would be <o Owlegislatorsin Col
@ke required to define shoreline hazard ? move promptly on this Mll.
La
.e made through trying to e the areas where construction could not nkes themselves. N system far J, Erie coast is a resceres for allDe occur. This initiative is welcome iso vast to respond easily to our peoph of Ohio. Much caw wwk a
fforts tocontrollt.We abocM be able, because of its long range focus, o needs to be done not only tow &
> manage ourselves, however, and although under federal budget con.
current high lakelevels but '
merela lies the best solution: shoreline strahts and the puva!!ing idelogy of P the wise use and
.ser management.We cancontroland plas the New Federalism, the states are i fr gik shorella i er uses of the shoreline in ways that, i. likely tohave to carry me fuHcosts. [
?, ;.
thepowerof naturalmeteoro -(a for over a decade on coastal zone. Ohio has dragged its coDective feet' BarberispmfasseroM{ka J
and hydrologicalforces, Shoreline erosion will remain a g management legislation. In the 1970s onceatJa&aOstrollUshersi(r. [Qu6
- 7 (1sd Available On 2 D,
.THE PLAIN DEALER, THURSOAY, MAY 7, ISSF Aperture Card
gg, A THE PLAIN DEALER, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25,1976 Atomic plants in Scientist calls Ohio's.
/
seismic belt a hazard Mn gtCH-p a.m ham
.li scale, gestr_V on the Mercel.
event of COLUMBUS.- Ohio's nuclear wi.ich rocked houses and' power plant sites are squarely la alarmed many people." the scien.
an earthquake some. a miestis4 tist contlaued.
gt40
. here said yesterday.
Nottimier esplained that the 0
Hallas C. Nottimier, a geophysi-Mercalh scale ranks the extent of.
cist ht Ohio State University, said 4 estruction resulting from an l
,, g t four Ohio nuclear power plant earthquake and thus as dependent Cl#
silsa and most of the state's popu-upon the population density and lation lie la the earthquake-prone distance frem the earthquake 81.14wresas assamic belt.
epicenter.
The helt cuts diagonally across It is more useful than the.Richt.
The.earthq Ohio from northeast to southwest er scale becauw it can be used to 1.awrence in a trend extending from Quebec.
Canada, to Memphis. Tena.
~
evaluate earthquakes that occur.
stretches ac red beinre anodern nicasuring in.
terleks mark "Between Cleveland and Cincia.
marunwnts were invented.
clear power sati tied the western Ohio town of
. Citing a recent Bowling _ Green I"E***#
where 34 earthquakes have State Universty Rudy of, Ohio down i m n o s.
' recorded is the past 184 earthquakes. Nottimier said that S~ ears,* he sam.
few of the Anna cuakes were big It was felt
- One af Cleveland's most recent enes but a quake of intensity VilgM Chicago. Mil eaakes_Fis en Etay I'~H58, as l7a 937 damaged numerous build-
_ The OSU sc
>TI Al APERTURE SARD l
6 I
the Ohio River southeast of Cin-k cinnati, the Erie plant at Berlin O
Heights east of Sandusky and the
%F Perry plant east of Painesville Construction of the Perry pim.t G
ing that the nuclear. power plants 'was temporarily halted last fall, are is imminent danger from then permitted to resume when it major earthquakes, but he sasd was determined that a fault in the that the hazards must be noted so bedrock was caused by an ancient Ny that action can be taken to mini. glacier, not sa earthquake.
mise damage il major quakes dp k U.S. Geological Survey study occur.
He pointed out that about 34' concluded that the underground
(,tDI as PA' quakes of moderate magnitude fault posed no threat to the plant g0 occur each year in the United and a Nuclear Regulatory Com-States and that virtually hil of the mission engineer acted: "There states have had at least one earth, have been no known earthquakes
. quake in the past 200 years.
. dating to the 18th century in the Nottimier urges long range. "" Construction had earlier been
- planning for the location of popu.
kalted for a Imgu period but was lation centers, dams and suelear' resumed when Cleveland Electrie installations.
n u6, Illuminating Co the Perry plant tone St.
l.egislation to, create a coordi. builder, acquired mineral rights to
"". e d planning program to salt mines underneath 512 acres of ess Ohla. As.
Occellon af nu.
minimize earthquake damage is submerged land la front of the tml alica.
Won Cagress.
p,,g 3;ge, g
. The nuclear poorer plant sites in It was feared that collapse of gis and knEking Ohio in the St. Lawrence getsmic the mines might endanger the belt are, the Davis-Besse plant pg,,g, h f'E 7):,'
begin o rat at year:
Construction also was delayed-three others to begin operation la.by a controversy over shore ero-Wst is not predact*
the 1980s - the Zimmer plant on sion at the site.
so Available On 9 7 O W 7 % W O E-
E I
. EXHIBITS--A--B--C f
MR. RUSSELL M. BIMBER WITNESS FOR CLO/ SOS DAVIS-BESSE SITE DISPOSAL i
HEARING
)
~
EXHIBIT A CURRICULUM VITAE ON RUSSELL BIMBER RESEARCH CHEMIST (35 yrs.) INCLUDING IONS AND RESINS CONSUUIANT--LAKE COUNTY DEPARD4ENT.0F HEAufH CONSUUIANT--LAKE COUNTY DISASTER SERVICE AGENCY SINCE 1974 WORKED ON PERRY EMEBGENCY PLANS TRAINED AS RADIOLOGICAL OFFICER--LAKE COUNTY EXHIBIT--B STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PREFILE STAIEMENTS OF 8 WITNESSES FOR July 31,1986 TOLEDO EDISON Introduced after prefile deadline date--not part of hearing record Parts in the transcript from testimony and cross examination &, direct p.1---Mr. Briden--steam geners. tor leaks p.2---Mr. Swim--volume estimates for burial cella p.2-3-Mr. Herdendorf-- Lake 4rie levels--storms and flooding p.3-- Mr. Hendron-- site geology--clay permeability p.3-4-Dr. Till--on radiation dose inventory p.3-4-Mr. Blande--Radiation dosa to person on burial cell Inadequacy of dose estimates in Federal Register--Oct.9, 1985 p.5---Dr. Linneman--HEIR vs. BEIR-III--linear hypothesis p.5-6-Mr. Hetherington--inaccuracies in his statements on exchange resins. Types, characteristics, and effects of resins Including exhibits from Physicians Desk Reference on Questran-p.lllo-1 1986 Edition Kayexalate-p.1913 EXHIBIT--C PREFILE STATEMENT OF RUSSELL BIMBER--June 13, 1986 Response to Judge Hoyt's 20 questions Reponse to Federal Register--Oct. 9, 1985 p.41265,6,7. V.50 No.196-Questions accuracy of doses to the public from shallow land burial TEC's underestimation of radiation amounts--p.5--last 2 paragraphs
/
GIRRICULIN VIDE May 28, 1986 Russell M. Bimber 10471 Prouty Road Painesville, Ohio 44077 216/352-1680 Mr ation:
Cbilege or University Degree hte Western Reserve University M.S. Ctraistry 1962 Antioch College B.S. Chemistry 1952 Professional Societies:
Anerican Chemical Society Division of Organic Chmistry Division of Irdustrial & Ergineering Crrnistry l
Division of Envirorynental Chemistry Board Canittee on CMmical Disasters (1969-1976)
(We relped establish CEMPPEC)
Steering arv3 Prcgram Ccranittees for tre first Central Regional ACS Meeting (1966-1968) 1981 Award for Outstanding Contrib.itions to Chemistry (Northeastern Ohio Section, AQ3)
Anerican Association for the Advancement of Science T4brk Experierce:
Oanpany Title rete SD3 BiotecVRicerca Research Associate 1930-Present
)
Diamord Shnrock Sr. Research Chemist 1 % 0-1980 Diamond Shamrcck Research C%nist 1952-1959 Stu$ent Co-co, 6 nos each; National Cash Register Pa:er Cc,ating Technicien 1951-1952 GlidSen Ccreany Hxlicinal Chraist 1950-1951 Merck & Ccznpany Microbiolcgy Technician 1949-1950 t
. ;f
}
i n
Curriculun Vitae Page 2.
- i Oancurrent Part-Time Professional Imolvement:
l Consultant' to Lake County Disaster Service Agency since 1974, and to
)
PRC Engineering, Inc. in 1982, helping plan responses to trajor leaks of J
radioactive material fran the Perry Nuclear Pcear Plant.
j Consultant to the Lake County Health 'ibard and Contractor with Penn' Central to
-l reduce the hazard of caustic soda residues frca a train derailment in 1969.
' Specialized Training:
~(burae IIcation thte Organic Chemistry University of Florida 1984 Radiation Manitoring for Geauga County 1984 Emergency Response (Ohio DSA 16 hr course)
.l Chesnical Engineering Research Center 1981 for Chemists A and B I.evel Management Research Center 1981 Developnent Programs (1978)
Strategy of Experinentation Willoughby, Ohio 1979 (Du Pont)
Econ rnics for Chemists Research Center 1978 High Performance Ligaid Research Center 1978 Chraratography (Waters)
Atomic Absorption Research Center 1977 Spectroscop/
Basic Ligaid Research Center 1977 Chroratcgraphy C-13 W4 for Cleveland, Ohio 1976 Organic Chemists Ecoromics of -
Research Center 1976 Chemical Prcoesses
.g I
Curriculum Vitae j
Page 3 Publications and Papers Presented at Wetings:
Bimber, Zercher, "The Importance of Nonenclature in CMmical Trans@rtation Emergencies", presented bf Bimber at the National ACS Meeting, Chicacy, August 29, 1973.
Bimber, " Preparation of Arcuatic Acid Chlorides by Chlorimtion of Alcotels",
presented at tre Gorcbn Conferenm on Orcanic Reactions and Processes,1967, and the Central Regional ACS Meeting, Akron, 1968.
Bluestone, Bimber, Berkey, aM Mandel, "Chloristed Derivatives of Butadiene Sulfone and Diels-Alder Reactions of 3,4-Dichlorothiophene-1,1-dioxide", J.
Org. Chem. 3, 346 (1961).
Presented b Bimber at tM National ACS Meeting,
/
Cleveland, April 14, 1960.
- 9.. S_:. Patents pg & Bixber, y g:
Patent No.
Subject Cb-Irwentors 4,570,021*
Preptration of Ketones R. Cryberg (fram 2 ketones) 4,528,400*
Precaration of Ketones R. Cryberg (fram ketone and acid) 4,286,091 Antihypertensive Pyridazirones R. Bachnan M. DePampei L. Pcwrs 3,887,657 Prosp?oramitthioate Esters R. Battershell J. Bungs 3,766,195 Polychlorcdicarboxypyridines P. Schuldt 3,652,637 All vapr Phase SyntMsis of Chlorimted Arcratic Nitriles 3,637,716 Polychlorocartexyptridines P. Schuldt 3,549,762 2,6-Dicyarotrichloropfr idine 3,522,291 1,2,2,2-Tetrachloroethyl Esters 3,325,503**
Polychloro Mxo and Dicyaropyridines 3,171,778 Biccidal Trithiane Derivatives P. Slezak
,(--
Curricultrn Vitae Page 4 3,140,246 ArcxTatic Acid Chlorides 3,136,782
&lothianaphtMne-1,1-dioxides E. Bluestone 3,130,199 Metrarothiarachthene CaTgounds H. B1t>estone I. Rsen 3,110,739 1,3-Cvelohexatenes 3,101,377 Sulfone Derivatives of R. Bluestone Mercaptoraloethylenes i
3,066,149 1,3,5-Trithianes F. Siezak 3,028,421 PolyhalotetrahySrophthslaT.ic Acids 3,001,860 Imidazolines for Controlling Pests 3,000,894 Chloral Derivatives of Amiroquirolines 2,994,637 Aminopfridine Fungicides 2,981,739 4-Raloal&hy3e Addrts of Ethylenethioureas 2,975,186 hioalkylolaniropfridines 1,973,366 Derivatives of Ox(thi)a2olidin(thilones 2,958,624 1,4-Diformyl-2,5-dimethyl Piperazine
'Ihe correspyding British Patents, ibs. 1,591,538-540, have been licensed to the Victor W:>1fe Ccngany (England)
- Sold to Dcw Respmsibilitics:
My daties inclu3e maintaining an a.areness of scientific activities elsehere ard naking specific proposals for research; also cordating and/or directir>g follow-through on approved or assigned projects on tLme, within b>$ et, and 9
reg >rting results, conclusions, and recarnendations.
- /{
Curricultyn Vitae Page 5 Accomplishments:
Deccnil ~
Was first at Diaxn3 to tse amoxidation to convert m-xylene to isophthalo-nitrile. (Research Report 1243) and first to chlorinate IPN to Damnil.
L Occasionally serve as an internal consultant on our comercial avoxidation and chlorim tion processes for Da mnil. Designed, operated, and sucervised operation of chlorination systens which produced 500 lb of Dao3 nil and related compounds at up to three lb/hr.
meet EPA registration regairements.Prephred radiocarbon-labelled Daconil to help DeTonstrated chlorination of armoxidation process vap3rs to Daconil, etc.
(U. S. Patent 3,652,637).
Conceived and denonstrated an extraction process for reuning PCB's fran Daconil.
Chlorocyartpyridines Used the armoxidation and chlorimtion technolcgy developH for Daconil to prepare revel chlorocyaropfridines C. S. Patent 3,325,503). In 1967, told the Patent Detartment that Dcw had begun using one of our patented comp 3 ands to make Tordan herbicide.
Dcw first licensed, then bought o.tr ptent, but didn't apply for a patent on their Tordon process mtil 1981, according to D. S. Patent 4,336,384.
i C
yl. pEL ET10 M O V 1% PRIETW
'"N## l
\\
'Ihiofarm Insecticide
{
Inproved the electrochemical pimm 1 prcass of U. S. Patent 3,497,430 by i
q eliminatire the ranbrane and close spacing of electrodes.
1 Inproved yields of pinaxlone fran electrccMmical pimcol bf flash distillation of the electrolyte fran sulfuric acid (Research Report 1605).
Co-discovered a revel route to piramlone. This catalytic reaction of acetone with pivalic acid was scaled up to 60 kg pimcolone/hr.
The prcass was extenSed to preparation of ctJer ketones, and patented.
i
4 4
8 Curriculum Vitae Page 6 Denonstrated the feasibility of ligaid phase monochlorination of piraalone; it replaced tM vapor I ase peccess tMn in use.
t Mia:ellareous Aided startup of Semi 'rbrks production of Nopx> cide 170 SliMcide (DS-649) and served as an interral consultant daring production.
Belped develop a prccess for chlorinating ethylene dichloride to tetrachlorc>-
ethines (Research Report 1521).
Belped goduce 20,000 lb of this trichlor-ethylene precursor at Semi-Wxks.
Denonstrated substitution of ethane for tM nore costly ethylene in cryhydro-chlorination to chloritated ethanes (Research Report 1549).
Discovered a process for preparing arcrratic acid chlorides rotentially useful for 1cw HG Dacthal (Research Report 1082).
It was never crrmercialized for this pargose, but it was used in preparing our first ton of Daconil.
Inproved the final step of tM Rcwtate herbicide peccess by reacting pMnyl isocynate with dimethylcyrrolidine in water instead of Mttane.
Incroved the diimide redrtions used to prepare candidate pesticides smh as DS-39264 by increTental a3dition of a nore soluble catalyst [Cu(CAc) instead of Cus01, reducing hyirazine usaae by a factor of ten. The reacti were 3
also na3e safer by substituting air for oxygen.
Prepared over 400 revel m wug>unds which were screened for possible LPeility.
Assisted preparation of test g2ntities (0.1-20 kg) of nareroas caMidate products.
M 777, h Signature
S v
- l RUSSELL M.
- BIMBER, 10471 PROUTY ROAD PAINESVILLE, OHIO'44077 Phone: ~(216) 357 3107.M-F 8-5, other times 352 1600 To:Intervenor. Group July 31, 1986 Res. Davis-Besse Onsite Radwaste Disposal, Docket 50-346-ML;
_My thoughts on the Licensee's testimony dated 7/19/86 follow l
Page 12: The last sentence of A6 i s, "The secondary system remains
-essentially non-radioactive."
This is' not true, as shown by Mr.
l Briden's'own testimony,-atoA9, where he tells of.a major steam p
generator tube leak, and also tells of minor leaks or weeps in the steam generator, due to thermal expansion and contraction.
This I
shows~ the engineered barrier for the contrcl of radioactive material hasn't always worked,.
even' though Davis-Besse has generated only a.very small fraction--
probably less. than i
one-tenth-- of the power 1the Licensees hope to get from it.-When
~
l the plant resumes. operation more' frequent leaks, both major and minor, are probable, especially as it nears the end of its useful life.
It would be more accurate to say, The secondary system is sugegsed_tg_temaig essentially non-radioactive.".
Page 13:
In A9, _
the latter part of the answer ' appears to.
contradict the second and third sentences.
The minor leaks and 1
weeps which Mr.
Briden attributed to thermal stresses seem unavoidable in a steam generator.
Don't the minor leaks and weeps in the steam generator make it probable that minor leaks in the steam..qenerator tuoes would go undetected?
Mr.
Briden may overlook small leaks and weeps'and say there had been __Og leakage or contamination, but I disagree.
Page 15: The last sentence of A13 As misleading, because the radioisotopes in the waste (Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137) do not occur naturally, and their detrimental involvement in lif e processes is much more likely than that of the uranium and thorium minerals likely to occur as impurities in granite.
Granite may be either more or less radioactive than the waste under discussion. here.
Granite can vary from no detectable L
radi oacti vi t y to dangerously radioactive.
It is not a suitable L
. standard for judging radioactive wastes, l
t l
Page 17:
The burial site is said to be over 1000 feet from any l
Water well (excluding the Licensees'),
in accord with Ohio
~
But one of the waste cell s is to be only about 400 requirements.
feet from a property line (eg, p 24, A3-2).
Unless there is a deed restriction to prevent installing a
water well on the adjoining property during the next century (which may be of concern), this statement can not be relied upon.
Page 20: In A2-4, Mr Swim makes the profound observation that the waste cells must be large enough to contain the waste, but then
5
- R B et -
f ails to state the volume of either.
The Federal Register, Oct.
9, 1985, pages 41265-7, indicates each periodic dredging will be about 34000 cubic feet.
I calculate the volume of the cell described in Mr. Swim's Fig.
2.2 as 40834 cubic feet, some 20%
excess, which may be adequate. But Mr. Hetherington (page 105) and i
Mr. Wallace (page 110) say the waste is to be mixed with cement kiln dust to solidify it. They did not say how much was to be added: have they done any tests?
The fact that the waste is all fine particles, high in calcium carbonate, and the tendency of l
ion exchange processes to be accompanied by changes in volume of the resin particles may make it difficult to make a long lasting solid of the waste, and require a lot of cement dust.
I would expect the cement might increase the volume of the waste by 20%.
The cells may not be large enough. Mr. Wallace may have realized
-this, in view of his response, A20-3, which seems to allow f or deviation from Mr. Swan's descripton of the cells.
Is the NRC willing to allow deviation f rom the description given in this hearing?
There should be some limit on the waste vol ume.
l Page 31:
Dr.
Herdendorf 's testimcny on water levels leaves much to be desired. A4.4 shows his testimony is based largely on water levels in Toledo Harbor, some 30 miles west of Davis-Besse. The water levels inside Maumee Bay, where Tol edo Harbor is, may be i
considerably dampened from any wind-driven effects on the open Western end of Lake Erie proper.
This might explain why his data does not include the June.2, 1986 flooding "on Route 2,
west of Port Cl i n t on " (around Davi s-Besse), attributed to winds on the i
Lake, described in the Lake County News-Herald of June 3,
- 1986, page 24.
1 Are there other mistakes in his extensive calculations? Perhaps he hasn't used the latest 100 year flood elevation.
- Also, Dr.
Herdendorf does not seem to have considered possible sheet runoff j
effects from locali:ed rainstorms. Combined effects of high Lake i
levels and runoff undoubtedly occur, but seem to have been ignored.
See, for example, the revision of the 100 year flood level for the Village of Bay View, at the eastern end of the Route 2 Bridge across Sandusky Bay, in the Federal Register for October
{
29, 1985, pages 43706-7.
This is about 8 miles f rom Davis-Besse, l
much closer than Toledo Harbor. I hope Ohio EPA will check further on the latest estimates of the 100 year flood levels in the vicinity of Da vi s-Bes se.
Dr. Herdendor f 's Table 4.1, clearly shows the ri sing trend in Lake I
Erie water levels which has been mentioned in recent news stories on lakeshore er osi on, yet he failed to mention it. 14 he wanted to help this hearing establish facts, rather than just earning his 4
consul ting f ee, he should have elaborated on his answer A4.3 to say more frequent and more severe flooding in the fukure should be i
anticipated.
He shows there was no flooding of Toledo Harbor, more than 6 feet above LWD, from 1936 through 1947; 8 floods of j
more than 6 feet, but less than seven feet from 1948 through 1971, 1
and 14 floods of more than 7 feet, including 3 of more than B f
feet, on through the first half of 1986.
And He evidently missed
]
w u.
-RB3-j
^
p the-flood report'd in the News-Herald of June 3, 1986. This trend-toward ever higher Lake water. level s probabl y should be projected 50 years into the future, if we want to predict whether the waste disposal si.te wil l. be fl ooded.
From the' maximum flood elevations on page 37, and the'
" Explanation" at.the end of Table 4.1, Dr.
Herdendorf appears to Lbe using.-a 100- year flood level of 577.5 feet (MUL) at Locust-Point, and the' News-Herald story appears to speak of a'
100. year
. flood-level of 578 feet (MSL?) at Port Clinton.
With any. flow at all in the Toussaint River, the ~1evel.at Locust Point should be higher-than at Fort Clinton.
-Pages 44-52: Mr.
Hendron seems inconsistent as to whether the glaciolacustrine clayey soil is essentially impermeable-to water
.(and:therefore saturated) (p49),
or just highly impermeable and only partially saturated (p44,.last par.), or unsaturated (p 52, I
AB-2).
- Pernaps this is because his information is based' on vertical-sampling at geol ogi c al features which tend to be horizontal--
a weakness which is readily apparent to. thinking' people. Thus, permeability-tests on vertical soil samples reveals
'the permeability of only the least permeable portion. Even the 5%
. sand noted on page 49 can provide significant permeability, i
depending on its distribution.
Page 53: Mr.
Hendron's testimony that the present water-table is some twenty feet below'the Lake level does not seem reasonable. He should specify the date of his determination, and if possible, the water l evel at Locust Point at that time. The latest estimate of the 100 year flood level at Locust Point would also be helpful.
Page 57: Dr. Till's testimony, in A9.5, beyond the first sentence, appears to be! designed to decieve.
He. should be. aware that~
Davi s-Besse is expected to discharge about'5 Curies / year directly j
to the Lake, without any contribution from this waste, and that j
Fermi II, Perry I
and II (not yet abandoned)- and other j
contributors to radioactive pollution of Lake Erie cannot be I
ignored!
Therefore the dilution of Davi s-Besse 's wastes which he suggests is preposterous! A more pertinent NRC regulation might be the annual. limit on di sposal-of radioactive material into
. sewerage being that
- which, if
- ingested, could result in a
l committed effective dose equivalent of 0.5 rem in a' year. to reference man (51 FR 1116, Jan 9,
1986).
I believe -this would preclude dumping the radioactiva ty in even one of the periodic dredgings into the lake.within a year.
I hope EPA will check-this.
(But if there 's a possi bl e probl em, I"m sure the NRC will give the utility special dispensation.)
Page 63: The last sentence of A10-1 should be deleted because the '
question asLed for the present inventory, not for a projection to some unspecified future date known onl y to Mr. Bl and.
Page 67:
Mr.
Bl and 's A11-1 estimate of 0.007 mr/yr seems to contradict his own. Page75: A14-1 estimate of 0.02 mr/yr radiation
- 1
-- R S 4 -
exposure to a person standing on the burial site.
(Does he think
- 0. 02-i s less than 0.007 7) Both are so far below my June 13th estimate of 933 mr/yr that something is grossly wrong!
I have rechecked my calculations and believe my estimate is as accuratecas possible. It is based on information in the 10/9/85 Federal Register,.page 41266, which may have been based in turn, on earlier calculations by Mr. Bland, or the NRC's own analysis of doses, such as those in Mr. Bland's May 1983 Report, which was attached to Mr. Crouse's July 14, 1983 letter to Mr. Stol: (letter from Toledo Edison to NRC). That May 1983 Report contains several contradictions wherein i
says something cannot
- happen, immediately-f ollowed by explanations of how it could happen!
In the Federal Register, the estimated 0.7 mr/yr was based on the acti vi ty in only the top 10 cm (4") of waste, which we now have discovered is to be 100" thick (Mr.
Swim's cell diagram, Fig.
2.2, following Page 22.).
The ISOSHLD program and computer equipment to run it are beyond the capabilities of part. time volunteers like'myself.
But I'm tr oubled by the fact that the
' Federal Register said the current wacte contains 8.5 millicuries, and Mr. Bland now says only-4.4 mci was ever sent to the settling basin!
i The 0.7 mr/yr was based on only 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> exposure per year, so it should'be multiplied by 87.6 to allow for full time exposure;-this gives an estimate of 61 mr/yr, which is far in excess of the 25 mr/yr limit for all radwaste disposal activities.
Page 80:
In A16-4, it is not conservative to assume that gooseflesh will contain no higher concentration of radioactivity than the vegetation they consume.
Biological concentration of radionuclides by factors of as much.as 300,000 has been documented, for example,.by fish, relative to the water they live in. Concentration from vegetation into cow's milk is perhaps the best known example. This point is relatively unimportant, except j
that it shows Mr. Bland's statement was not true.
Ltatement.
We should be trying to determine facts, and should be able to rely on the experts who are providing information.
Page 83, A16-6: Could Mr.
Bland explain why the dose could not d
recur for each remaining cell, as it begins significant leaking?
Page 84, A16-9:
Dr. Till's last five words are false, and should be corrected by something such as changing "do not" to "aren't expected to" and adding the word "significantly" after the word
" contribute". There are an abundance of radionuclides which could occur in ha:ardous amounts in this waste. It is impossible to be certain of the amounts of vari ous nuclides in a waste that has not yet been produced.
At least traces of other radioisotopes seem inevitable, and they will contribute to dose, however slightly.
a
'e
- RR lI ~
Page 06: The
" Report of the Interagency Task Force-on the Health Effects of Ioniring Radi ati on",in eight volumes published June 1979 by the US Dep't of HEW, has been overicoked.
Page 28 of the main volume says.they had the benefit of a May 2, 1979 draft of BEIR III, and it is f requently cited elsewhere in the Report, so HEIR should be regarded as just as current as BEIR III. The next
.t o last sentence on page 87 of Toledo Edison's July 19, 1986 1
tectimony should be corrected to show this.
Its findings are contrary to many of Dr. Linnemann's statements:
page 32 of the main volume says,
" Doses in the 0.2 to 20 rem range appear to increase the risk of childhood cancer."
pages 36-37 quotes some studies which say the linear, no threshold hypothesis may actually underestimate the risk of cancer by a factor of. ten or more.
Dr. Linnemann would have us believe it is
" conservative" (always _ overestimates the risk). Actually, this hypothesis is a " central" estimate of all the experts, and is clearly the best estimate available, according to HEIR.
page 54 indicates 10,000 person rems of low rate, low-linear energy transfer radiation' is expected to cause one excess cancer j
death. (This is onl y 100 excess cancer deaths per million person
{
rems, whereas, Dr. Linnemann used an esimate of 158 per million person rems-at the top of page 90.) From this and the linear i
hypothesis, any radiation exposure carries some risk of death from that exposure, and we can quantify the relationship:
the 0.1 rem normally received each year f rom unavoidable background radiation
]
has one chance in 100,000 of eventually causing death. (Its best l
estimate is that only 0.6 to 2.8 % of all US cancer deaths are due to background radiation, although some studies cited say it may be i
as high as 50 to 70 %.)
page 4 of the Report of the Work Group on Science
- says,
" Acute -effects involve various forms of radiation sickness occurring within a few days or weeks after exposure. Such illness usually develops after single whole body doses of about 100 rem or more." It goes on to say 100 rem received in small amounts over a period of time often produce no acute symptoms.
page 16 of the Report of the Work Group on Science says diagnostic X-rays may double the incidence of leukemia with as little as 10 rems exposure, although other studies indicate more than 100 rem is required.
i Page 93:
Dental and chest x-rays, and exposure to tritium dial watches are said to give whole body radiation exposures; I
l disagree. People often calculate what is considered a whole body i
equi val ent dose, but if that is what was meant, it should have been specified. (As long as part of the bone marrow is not irradiated, the body can tolerate much higher doses, so it is
. important to be specific.)
Page 102; A18/19-5: Mr. Hetherington misspoke about the function,
- dosage, inertness, and toxicity of Ouestran.
(Duestran is a
pol ymer i c amine,- resembling Epicor's PD-1 resin, but with the important difference that its anions are chloride rather than hydroxide, making it less toxic.)
According to the latest information in the 1986 edition of the Physician's Desk
i
-RB6-Reference, its function is not to prevent the formation of chol esterol, 'but to hast en its degradation to bile acids which are i
bound to the resin in the intestine and ercreted.
The dosage is 9 I
grams of Duestran,.containir.g 4 grams of resin, one to four times
.a day, so the maximum daily-dose. As lens than one ounce of resin, not 16 ounces!
Ion exchange resins must undergo i on - exchange I
(which is not being inert) if they are to serve their :useful purposes in medicine or elsewhern; the PDR warns that the l
chloride ions released by Duestran may cause
" hyperchloremic acidosis" (too much hydrochloric acid), especially in younger and smaller patients where the relative dosage may be higher. It'also i
warns that both tests in rats, and in a large, multiclinic study of men aged 35-59 over a period of seven years, gave an excess of alimentary' system cancers in the Questran groups.
l l
Kayexalate is a
polymeric sulfonic
- acid, exchanged to its
)
polysodium salt. Epicor's PD-3 is a similar polysulfonic acid, and i
their PD-2 is a similar polyammonium salt, both of'which;would be expected to be more toxic than their sodium form.
Kayexalate functions by' exchanging its sodium for potassium, thus helping remove potassium f rom the body. The maximum oral daily dosage is-15 grams multiplied by four doses, for a total of two ounces (not 16 here either!)..It is also mentioned as being used, with less effective results, in what must be a very infrequent practices 30 to 50 grams slurried in 100 ml (about three ounces) of water is admi ni ster ed as an
- enema, to be retained several hours if
- possible, and repeated every six hours. Even this involves a
maximum daily dose of less than 11 ounces of resin.
Side effects include gastric irritation,
- nausea, vomiting, either consti pat i on or diarrhea, etc. (An unreported side effect may be the justified assasination of cruel physi ci ans ! )
Page 102, A18/19-6: Mr. Hetherington is wrong again! My answer to the same question is a resounding, "Yes, certainly."
The high concentrations of exchangeable ions needed to complete the ion exchange in minutes are not required to achieve significant l
elution (release) of radioactive ions from the resins. This might i
even be inferred from Mr. Hetherington's use of ion exchange resins in his tomato patch. Whether or not he understood it, their purpose was to help keep any large applications of fertilizers from burning plants or leaching out, and to provide a sustained release to the. soil for uptake by the plants (and possibly improve soil texture).
As I said in the written testimony I
- offered, any fertilizer which might be used to help establish turf over the waste might leach down into it, and hasten release of radioactivity f rom the resi n.
Page 104, last paragraph: If Mr. Hetherington will only think for a moment, I believe he will change his " expectation" to agree with my contrary opinion.
The presence of residual ion exchange capacity would be expected to delay the release of r adi oac ti vi t y,
not prevent it.
l 1
I
I i
h-' Ii$ b Product infumIthn 1110 M*.cd Jrhnson L.bs,--Crnt.
- h' hTP"a'3tr'i'Y ** *ny of ias componenta ble lack at Precaudons nancy" e Based on his or her annouement of your medical needs, your Genersk Before matitutmg therapy mth QUESTRAN icho.
Pometre
'7 I l
doctor has premeribed this drug for you Do not swe h drug lentyramine remin),6acasas contnbuting to increased bloud itad, a / -
to anyone else.
cholesterol such as hypothyroi6sm, d.abetas melhtua no-In cal Lb D
Shown in Product identt/lcotum Serem poer 416 phrott symirome, dyeproteinemias and obstructive liver
- tyrs, dise.me should be looked for and speedically treated A favor' The M
'y-able trend in cholesterol reduction should occur durmg the d
,QUESTRANT POWDER B
first month of QUEETRAN therapy. The therapy should be continued to sustam cholesterol reduction If adequate cho-E'
$[
P"8 W8 }
lenterol reduct on is not attamed, QUMRAN therapy (Choleetyramine fleein Powed should be 6scontinued Deserlption: QUESTRAN Powder (chelestyramine resin Chrons use of QGFTRAN may be associated mth in-powder), the chloride salt of a basic anion eschange nom, a enamed bleeding tendency due to hypoprothrombinemia cholesterol lowering agent, w intended for oral administra.
assonated mth Vitamin K deficiency. This will usually re tion Choleetyramine reatn is quite hydrophibe. but insoluble spond promptly to pannteral Vit.amm K and recurrences i
in water The cholestyramine resta in QUEb7RAN m nos can be prmnted by oral administration of Vitamin K Re-i almorbed from the 6gestive tract. Nine grams of duction of serum or red ceu folate has been reported over QUESTRAN Powder contain 4 grama of anhydrous long term administration of QUESTRAN Supplementation rholestyramine resin Itis represented by the following mth folic ac d should be considered in these cases.
There,t is a chlor de form of anion exchange reetn, rnay pro
{
is a possibihty that prolonged use of QUESTRAN, structural formula, since i
=
=
duce hyperchloremic acidosis. This would especially be true
- **-- CM """"CHz --C H===O6==
in younger and smaller patients where the relative dosage 3
may be higher
/
QUESTRAN may produce or worsen pre existing constips.
tion. Dmage should be redumd or discontinued in such canon.
Fecal impaction and aggrevation of hemorrhoids may occur.
Every effort should be made to avert severe c.onstipation and I
a
...-c m - cu -... chase s19s i-c its inherent problems 6 kne patkets wM clim@ em
-S tomatic coronary artery disease,
=
Representation of structure of main polymeric groups Th a prortuct contams FD&C Yeuow No 5 (tartrarme) which Tlus product contains the followmg inactive ingrednnta-may cause allergie-type reactions fincluding bronchial acacia, citric acid, rueC Youow No. 5 'tartrarmo, FD&C anthrnal m cert,un susceptible indiv1 duals. Although the Yeuow No 6. flavor (natural and arttficiaD, polyearbete 80, overallincidence of FD&C Yeuow No 5 ftartrasme)sensitiv-propylene glycol aQmte, and sucrune.
ity in the general population is low, it is (wquently seen in Clinical Pharmwslogy Cholesterol is probably the sole patients who also have asoirin bypersensitivity.
precurner of ')Ue acida During normal 6gestion, bue acids infonneten fo. Potents: Inform yout physician if you an are secretan into the Wtines A najor portaan of the bue pregnant or plan ta b6come pregnant or are breast feeding.
acids.a absorbed fmen the ichstinal tract and returned to Dnnh plenty of fluids and mis each hvam dame of the liver via the encerchepatic circulation. Only very small QUCSTRAN Powder in at least 2 to 6 ounces of fluid before amounts of bile ac/s an found in contal serum.
taking 1UE%AN resin adsorbe d c.ra,th a with the ble wids Marstorg Tests Serum cholesterollevels should be deters in the intasune to iore w hur%bk rnpies e<tuch is es-mined frequently dunng the first few months of therapy and ereted in the feces Thia results in a partial nruoval of bile peno6cally thereafter Serum tnglycende levels should be i
acida from the enterehnpatic cirrulation by preventtag hir measured penodically to detect whether signancant changes j
absorption.
have occurred The increased fecal loss of bile acide due to QUEbTRAN e4 Drug internetene: QUESTRAN may delay or reduce the ministration leads to an increswd waids. tron of chr4eserol to absorption of concomitant oral medication such as phenylbur bile acida, a decrease in beta lipoprvtein or low density lip
- tazone, warfartn, chlorothiaride faci 6ct, as weU as tetraer 3
protein plasma levels ard a decrease in arrum cholenterol cJ,sw. penscillin G, phenobarbital, thyroid and thyroxine levels. Albush in man QtTMRWcholutyramine resin) preparations. and d gitaba. De discontmuance of produces an increase in hepatic tyothesis of cholesterol, QlMTRAN icholestyramme resini could pane a hazard to plasma cholesterol levels fau.
ha'Af a potentally touc drug such as detalis has been In patients wnh partial biliar obe:ruction, the reduction of tgrated to a maintenance level while the patient was aerum bile acid levels by QL ESTRAN reduces excess bile tu.ing QUESTRAK acida deposited in the dermal tissue with rwultant decname Becwe Matyramine binds bue acids. QUESTRAN may in pruntus.
inte+rv vith normal fat digwt on and absorption and thus j
indications sed Usage; !) QlWTRAN is in6cated as may revent absorption of fat soluble vitam.ns such as A L adjunctive thevpy to diet for the reduction of elevat4 aad K. When QUESTRAN is given for long periods of time, eerum cholesterW in patients mth p bypercholester-concomitant supplementation with water mincible for paren-olemia televatad low densit* lipoprotein Ll chol swroD terala form of ettamins A and D should be considered) who do not respond adequately to diet QUESTIM ',r.ay be SINCE QOESTR AN MAY BLND (ynIER DRUGS G! YEN unelul to lower LDL chclatemt in patients who also have CONCURRENTLY, PATIENE SHOULD TAKE (yn!ER j
hypertriglycendenum, but it is not indicated where hyprtri-DRUGS AT LEAST ONT HOUR BEFORE OR 44 HOURS lyceridemia is W abrarrwality of most concern.
AITER OutSTRAtd 40E Cl AS GREAT AN LNTERVAl. AA fn a large, placelecontrolM malti<hnic study, the UIC i.
CPIP, hypertMostemleiv subjects treated mth QLTS cercinogenes a, wrtegenents and impeirment of Fertitier in POSSIBLEiTD AVOIDCdPIDINGTHEIR ABSORFTION.
1#
TRAN had sign %av ewhetions to total and low <tersty sts. dies conducted in rats in wtuch choleetyramine resin = ras tipoprotem chobtecol #LDLC Over the seven year study used as a tool to investigste the role of various intestital penod the QU.TUtRM greap erperienced a 1M reduction by:ters. such as fat, bue malts and microbial flora in the de.
3 in the combinehti of coronary heart disease death pka velopment of inteet nal tumore indred by potent carcino.
1 non-fatal myocardial snfarction feumulatare incidences of gens. W incidence of sud tumors was observed to be glester 7% Questran acd 8.6% placebol ne subjects included in m cholestyramine resin treated rats than in control reta-J the study were middle-aged men (age 3bo9)with scrum cho-na relevance of this laborstory olmervstion from stu6es to j
toterol levels above 265 mg'd! and no previous history of rats to h chnical use of QUESTAA$ e not known in the a
l heart daense it a not clear to what ertent these findmgs can LRC.CPli study referrns tu alme. 4he total incidence of I
J be estrsp?Atad to other segments of the hypercholefterole-fatal and m.m fatal neopIAscs was similar in both treatment
/
j aue popWtion not stu6ed.
groups When the many dJferent catesonas of tumore are thetacy Wrapy specific for the type of hypert:poproteine-exammed. vanous thrnentary rystem cancers were soms-mu o 11e uutial treatment of choice Escess body wetht what more prevalent in the cholestyramme group. The ornall may be an important factor and calonc rutnetaan for we.ght numbere and the multiple categones prevent conclussons y
F normahrston should be addrwend pnor to drug thersty Lt from bemg drewu However,in new of the fact that choles-
/
l the overweight N use of drugs abould be wondered c>tdy tv amme tem is conf.ned to the GI tract and not absorbed, when reasonable attempts have been made to obtain satsa and m het of the anurm! etre.ments referred to above, factory results mth non4 rug methoda If the decison ul4 further follow up of h ULCCWT partae pants a planned mataly is to use drugs, the patient should to instructad that fut cause.epselfic mortahty sad.ancer morbi6ty the does not reduce die importance of adhenna to 6et.
Pregnancy Sines QUESTIMN a not absorbed eyetemk 21 QUESTRAN m indscated for the rehef of prurtius naard raDy, tt n not espected to cause fetal harm when admaus-ated mth partial bilary t,bstruction QUI 271LAN has been tered dunng pregnancy in recnemended dosages There ara, shown to have a vanable effect on serum cholesterol in t* wee however, oc adequate and weU contreued stu6as to pre patients Patients with prur.ary bihary cirrtas may eslubit nant awaer and the known iMerference mth absorptaon of an elevated cholesterol as part of their 6aanse fat ookt le vttamirm may be 4tr.monta! even in the presence i
Contraindicationa QUWI1RN is crotra.nr!,icated a of sgplemeetatwo patients mth crntplete bthary obstructaan who's bile a not mureN avethere Caution eher;&f pe eseer.aed when amerete ina the intestins and in those indinduals who have QUDi1T.O e admirastved to a nursand mother. N pass >
I
Em..
Wtt v.
c
- q.5 L V
PDR R% Gr>
R tito 9
Always consult revizitris pg (, f g /[
ble lack of proper vitanun absorption described e TdN OF REDUCTION IN CHOLESTEROL
, 'cher Pedistric Ues As esperience in mfants and cugg ~
9g REDUCTON IN CORON ARY HgART nancy" sectaan may have an effect on suremt g.,.
OtStASEMISK
'ad ited, a practical damage schedule has not bene Total in cafrulateg pediatne damage.44 4 mg a(
Cholesterol fleduction (Ch f /,
tyramine reem am watained in 100 mg of Q(g No.
Iowerms in CHD Risk The effects of long term drug admmatretaa..g 439 44%
10 9 %
effect la maintaining lowered cholesterol le%, e g 496 11.6 %
26.1 %
N ( [k}
patients, are unknown.
p 966 19.0 %
39.3 %
g Adverse Ranctions: The mcat commem eher.
12pul itenearch Clinics Coronary Pnmary Pm constipation. When used as a cholesteral looe,gg Itasults @ fleductmo in incidence d Cornary Pk, h h)f predispoems factors for encet complamts of
. @ The llelatimship d bduction in Ino
]
high dose and inenaard age (more than 80 yens et Coronary Heart Diseams to Cholesterol lowermg.
instances of ctrratipauon are mild, tranannt og
~) -
with conventional therary Some pahents regasea 251.351-374 4 gg [
h-January. I rary decnese in damage or decootmustion of thump a i
lass frequmt Adverse Ileactiors. Aixkamaal %
1 flatulence nausea vomitmg, diarrhea,hierthurssung
)
in&stetive feelms ano steatorrhea. bleedmg tumemeng
]
to bypep-thrombmemia IVit. amin K defxasarr e uniten ain)
Vitamin A (one case of night bimdrem reportad;est y
cionews, hyperchloremic acidcam in childna, emug j.
rash ardi irntauon of the skin, tongue and penemi One te a month old baby with biliary stress had as tion pi sumed to be due to QUISTRAN ichg resin) AP.er three days adminstration of 9 g ass 44 3 develoni acute intestinal sepam and died Occasional calesfied material has twen observed a en ary tri,e, meluding calctfication of the gall m te tients to whom cholatyramine tratn has been grim h ever,this may be a manifeststion of the trnr dassnesBG d:'ug related.
One peuent expenenced biliary cohc on each of theme sions on which he took QUESTRAN One pauses as acuta abdominal symptom comples we foamd to
~
" pasty maan"in the transverse colon on sfsf Other events (not necennarily drug-relatad; repared BW*
tients taking QUIFTRAN include Gastrointastinal-CI. rectal bleedmg. black sash W rhoidal bleeding, bleeding from known duemal ammati phagia, hiccupa, ularr attack. sour tasta, pancrumma W pain. diverticulita tiematologie-Decreased prothrombin time, entsuun anemia.
Hypereenaitivity-Urticana, asthma. wheestng. museast breath.
htusculaskeletal-Backache, muscle and punt pass see tm Neurologie-Headache, anxiety, vertigo ha***
tinnitus, syncope, drowsmens, femoral nerw pask sta.
Eye-Uveita llenaLHematuria, dysuria, burnt odor to arma %u8 Miscellaneou>- Weight loss, weight gain. Incrus ewolleti glanda, edema. dental bleedma Overdosage: Overdosage of QUIETMN bas 88,g, reported. Should overdosage ocrur. bowever. th* C tial harm would be otstruction of the gastrani8'"'8 The location of such potentta] otstrueuan. the struction, and the presence or absence of norton! #
would determine treatment Donage and Administration: The dose a one packet or one scoopful ap grans of Powder contain 4 ;; rams of anhydrous choiad.
one to sbt times daily Damage may be adjusted as p, meet the patient's needs.
QUE STR AN shouhd not be taken in its dev Nr*
QUESTRAN Powder wtth water or ot* #
ingesting: See Preparetton leestruettons.
f Preparation: The color of QUlFTRAN -
4 ream) may vary sotnewhat from batch to tem g,y -
ation does not aMeet the performance of the # d the contenta of one packet or one 'acal QUESTRAN in a glass or esp Add 3-4 ouo'8 h J
the nou. carbonated beverage of your chanan uniform consistency.
M QUIFTRAN may also be mixed with h4h!J pulpy fruits with a high mosture coctent such as or crumbed pineapple How Suppbed: QUESTRAN is avallatae 8 WP Sgram packets and in cana contamms 3 8 g grams of QUEFTRAN Powder contaie 4 grans cholestyramine restn.
NDC 008 WOO! Cartons of 50 packets NDC 00P7468C 06 Cann,3"8 gtn The NDI has concluded a 1 Clinical StuM==
domiand doubleblmd placetx>controLed sed "
research citrucs on the eMeet of lowerms pi88"*
on coronary heart 6sease ICHD) nak (the nsa d narf death or non. fatal myocardiaJ udarenan testerol was lowered by a enrnbinauen af a terol-towerms det and QUIFTRAN Tim 68' tionship between the amount of QUIFSAF the lowerms of total plasma cholesterol and L88 4 _,
i l%
~
~'
l$% 6Q 1914 Pr Winthr p-Broon--Ccnt.
LavoeHar DetrtDmad by Wmthrop4roon IMee Dmsion of Bterkna Drus Inc aluminum carbonate Magnesium hydroxide should not be New Ytrik. NY 10D16 administered with KAYEXALATE One case of grand mal Demer' Manufaceced b) Sterlms Pharmaceubcals setzure has been reported in a pauent with chronic hypocal.
8**
,ha:Wenn mm - --
m
,g cemia of renal failum uho was given KAYEXALATE mth if' magranium hydroxide as lazauve Also, the simultaneous oral administrabon of KAYEXALATE with nonabsorbable myN$ " tr W nde h
cauon<fonatmg antacids and lazauves may reduce the rue bra ' f esoposessoaos hyd Monde tatdets-m's ptassium exchange capabthty.
Ct*ENN', / g',
Prwemutions: Caution is advised when KAYEXALATE ynf e admmistered to patients who cannot tolerate even a small j
Each tab 61 con 10 mg or 15 mete o! hydro meresse m sodium loads tie, severe congestive beart failure,
$ kse cons / 4 oflackw.
severe hypertension, or marked edema). In such instances i
chlo petapedly terr b
saccr.arin audium, audi
>isulfate 4 per tablet as compensatory restriction of sodium intake from other I
anuosidarit starch M
sounts may be in6cated How'Euppb.
6ttle tolIfrom 10 to 20 mL of 70 percent syrup every two hours or ISUPREL (JOSSr!S 1 -
If mastipation occurs, patients should be treated with sorb >
E, 0'0MNt cNsbis is mg. bod e of 50 4
/
**d'd**'*d""'""'*"*'*l'*"Id**
/
sure which also reduces any tendency to focal impaction.
(
y.
degne of gastnc irritation Anorexia, nausea, vomitmg. and Adverse Reactions: KAYEXALATE may cauas some consupauon may occur especially tf high dames are given.
I KAYEX ALATE !
B Also, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, and signtficant so6um brand of sodium polystyrene suffonate. USP retention may occur Occasionauy diarrhas develops targe dames in elderly individuals may cause focal impaction taas hn.Enchange Reak Precauta ns). Tbs effect may be obviated through usage of the resin in enemas as desenbed under Damage and Adminas-tration.Intestmalobstrucuan due to concretions of alu-
==
Description:==
b drug.is a light brown to bron ftnel) minum hydroxide, when used in combination with ground, powdered form of so6um polystyrene sulfonate, a KAYERLATE, has bem mM cahoneschange rum prepared in the so6um phase with an edWhh dhW sa ntro anchange capacit) of approsimate!> 31 mEq lin nm approximately 1 mEq of potassium per g-am The edium should be freshly prepared and not stored beyond 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> content is approximately 100 mg (41 mEqi per gram of th, The average daily adult done of the resin is 15 g to 60 g Dus d
is best provided by administenng 15 g (appronmately 4 leuel A on: As the resin pannes along the mtestme or u r, teaspoons) of KAYEXALATE, one to four times daily. One tamed in the colon after admmistrat on b3 enema. the su gram of KAYEXALATE contains 41 mEq of sodium, one dium ions are partially released and are replaced by potas.
level teaspoon contains apprezimately 35 g of sium iora For the most part, this action occurs m the large KAYEXALATE and 15 mEq of so6um. (A heaping teaspoon intestine, o bch escretes potassium ions to a gnater degne may contain as much u 10 g to 12 g of KAYEXALATE, than does the smallintestine The efficiency of this process is brand of sodium polystyrene sulfonate.) Since the in mm hmited and unpre6etably variable It commonly approxi-efficiency of a sdium-potassium exchange resins is approzi-mates the order of 33 pernnt but the range is so larFe that mately 33 percent, about one tbrd of the resin's actual a>
defautive in6ces of electrolyte balance must be clearly om dium content is being dehvend to the body.
in smaller children and infants lower &mes should be ene dacation: KAYEXALATE is inacated for the treatment ployed by usmg as a guide a rate of 1 mEq of potassium per ce effective lowenng of scrum potassium gram d nma as the basis fu calculation.,
with KAYEXALATE ma) take hours to days treatment Each done should be given as a suspension m a small quan-with this drug alone may be insufficient in rapidly correct tay of water or, fw gnater palatabihty, in eynap. b severe hyperkalemia mm.ociated mth statte of rapid tissue amount of nuid usually ranges from 20 mL to 100 m!. de-Pendmg on the dame, or may be simply determined by allow-breakdown teg, burns and renal failure or hyperkdema ao i
marked as to consutute a medical emergency Therefore.
l mg 3 mL to 4 mL per gram of noin Sorbitol may be adminis-other dermitive measures,includmg 6alysa, should always i
tered in order to combat constipation.
be considered and may be imperative.
N resin may be introduced into the stomach through a Senous potassium deficiency can occur from plastic tube and. if desired, mixed mth a 6et appropriate for KAYEXALATE therapy. The effect must be carefully con-a pat ent in renal failure.
trolled by frequent serum pou asium determinstans mthin N resin may also t* given, although with less effecure i
i each 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> penod Smce intracellular potassium defi-resulta, in an enema consisting ifor adults) of 30 g to 50 g ev-j eiency is not always reflected by scrum potassium levels. th' ery au hours Each dose is admuustered as a warm emulsion level at which treatment with KAYEXALATE should be (at body temperature)in 100 mL of aqueous vehicle, such as i
i discontinued must be determined individually for each pa taent important aids m making this determmauon are the sorbito! The emulsion should be agitated gently dunng ad-l patienta clmical condition and electrocardgram Early ministrabon N enema should be retained as long as Po"b i
chnica! signs of severe hypokalemia include a pattern of ble and foUowed by a cleanning enema.
a irntable confusion and delayed thought proceanea Electro.
After an uuttal cleansing enema, a soft, large size (French l
car 6arraphically, nevere hypokalemia a oftn associated 2 rubber tube is insertad into the rectum for a distance of g
mth e lengthened Q T interval, mdenmg. ftstienmg. or m.
about 20 cm, with the tip well into the sigmoid colon, and l
version of the T asve, and prominent U a sves Also, car 6ae taped in place N resin is then suspended in the appropn-3 arrhythmias may occur, such as premature stna!. nodal. s.nd ate amount of equeous vehicle at body temperature and in-l ventricular contractions, and supreventneular and ventnc.
traduced by gravity, while the particles an kept in suspen-i ular tachycardias The tonie effects of 6gitalu are hkely to anon by stirnng N suspension is nushed mth 50 mL or 100 f
be exaggerated Marked hypokalemia can also be manifested mL of fluid. following which the tube is clamped and left in by severe muscle weaknee6. at times ertendmg into frank place !f back leakage occurs, the haps are elevated on piuows j
paralysis er a knee chest position is taken temporanly. A somewhat j
Like all cationeschange resins. KAYEXALATE is not t*
tbeker suspension may be used, but care should be taken I
tally eclective (for potaasumi in its artens, and small that no pnste is formed, because the latter has a greatly te I
amounts of other cations such as magnesiun and calenum duced eachnge surfan W d be MM bh d can also te last dunny treatment Accordagly, pet ents receiving KAYEXALATE should te monitoral for all apple de W W W W u N r w n b W W 0
cable electrolyte disturbanew Systemic alkalamis has b sigmoid colon for several hours, if possible. Nn. the colon n
[
trngated mth nonso6um containmg soluten at body tem-nportad after cation <achange reams were adnanists perature in order to remove the resta Two quarts of flushmg I
orally in combination eith nonabsorbable cat on4onstmg solution may be neceenary N returns are drained con-i antacids and latauves such as magnesiurr bydroxide an sta@ through a Y W me j
N miensity and durst on of therapy depend upon the so-
)
Continvect on next P8P' i
venty and resistance of hyperkalema EAYEXALATE brand of sodium polystyrene sulfonata.
TNs pmduct Jntormateon eres eWertwo es of December 2.
abould not be heated for to do so may alter the eschange foot on seer and orner products of wantsmoorso" propertae of the run
{,3borptones, gletehed information may be obtained on e Bow Supplied; Jar of 1 pound 453 6 g) gurrent bests br d# rect inquiry to the Pmfvessonaf Servaces alDC 0041(fl501 DepertmenL 00 Park Avenue. hirw Yora. NY 100to (212J Kw 2x 00y2g!6 l
d
)
THE PLAIN DEALER, SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1986 Lakes may rise even higher, l
expert says By JOHN DeWITT
[
TO
- Ci officials planning developments on breat Lakes water-ve!yleely Of QSSuming fronts should not count on current that currentleve/S are O
high waterlevels being as high as the
- g. ~--- -
lakes will go, a federal official warned hi hs to desi n for* '
S S
i V
yesterday.
f E 'i Dr. Frank Quinn of the Great Lakes Great Lake Er iron ent$i Environmental Research Laboratory gtg y' at Ann Arbor, Mich., said there was Research laboratory fu <
some reason to believe the lakes could M-rise substantially higher than they are i
S' now.
which is developing Cleveland's Inner pg1 "It is mstomary for us to think of Harbor on the lakefront downtown, v.N r i -
the 1900 to 1970 period as re re-said the development would have B..
senting the normal range of ake about four feet of freeboard above water levels," Quinn said. But, he current lake levels.
warned, when assessing water level Quinn debunked the idea of regulat-data dating back 2.500 years,it can be ing lake levels by cutting inflow or -
argued that the Great Lakes are in a increasing outflow from the system.
(
low phase.
He said the overwhelming determi-
/
In recent history, the lakes reacbed nant of lake level was the rainfall on alow pointin 1964 during a prolonged the lakes's watershed. Manmade dis-
'i'
^"
- s WR The mot rerd Wh level Mu bto the lak hve mhl t
until this year was in 1973, be said.
effeet, and man's attempts to increase in the Quinn said there had been a steady the flow out of the lakes down the St.
s progression toward higber lake levels Lawrence River are also relatively since 1940, and that during the past insignificant.
c 2,500 years there had been three pro-Quinn said it took 10 or more years 3 '
longed periods when lake levels were for diversion of water from the lakes three to five feet above their present to have their full effect on the lakes' r
S recordhighs."I would certainly be very leery of because by the time the effect is seen, levels. "You run into Murphy's Law, a
assuming that current levels are highs the conditions have changed and you to design for,If you had designed for may need the opposite effect," he said.
aSt today,"becautioned.the 1973 high, you'd be in trouble " Man has very httle ability to manip-ulate the lakes."
Quinn said he wasn't predicting that Quinn's observations on lake levels
.ipread use is take levels would go higher, only cau-came during the last morning of the i have the man-tioning that they may. He said there Water Works! conference of the Cen-8 at "-
were no c cles that predicted lake ter for the Great Lakes here. The i people will real-water leve. The closest correlations three-day corJerence offe.d U.S. and fills illegal without parallel the stock market and hem-Canadian civic leaders ed officials
- Ithem, lines, he said, tongue in ebeek.
an opportunity to survey and compare i
ot theBay Village Greg Balbiert, esecutive director ol the state of waterfront development
{
k said although the North Coast Development Corp.,
around the Great Lakes.
)
w diffleult at fint, t
e of the law is that
/
1_f:
pa g
1 1
Testimony of R.
M.
Bimber, Chemast, June 13,1986 prepared for the-Davis-Besse Onsite Redweste Disposal Hearing, U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 50-346-ML, Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel No. 86-525-01-ML Testimony of R.
M.
Bimber:
My timely, written request to participate in this hearing was rejected.
I thank the other intervenors f or giving me this
{
chance to testify.
I will respond to most of the twenty concerns in Judge Hoyt's Order of May
- 29th, but first I should tell you who I am, and Why I'm here.
I am an MS research chemi st with more than thirty-five years
)
experience in the chemical
- industry, i ncl udi ng work with ion exchange resins, and with' radioisotope : labelled pesticides, and j
their migration with groundwater. As a part time volunteer working
{
with Lake. County government since 1973, and briefly as a paid consultant to PRC
- Voorhees, I helped write the Lake County.
Radiation Emergency Plan for response to accidents at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
I have also been trained as Radiological Officer to aid the County Health District in such response.
1
.I built my own'home at 10471 Prouty Road, Pai nesvil l e, Ohio 44077, in 1953.
Now it is within the ten mile evacuation zone of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, which is operated by the Cl evel and j
Electric Illuminating Company.
CEI was the majority owner and co-licensee of Davis-Besse, even bef ore it joined Toledo Edison to i
f orm Centerior.
Any onsite waste disposal allowed at Davis-Besse seems li kely at Perry.
I, or a member of my f amily, may die from radioactive pollution from Davi s-Besse, or Perry, because our household water comes I
through the Painesville City system from Lake Erie. This water is also used on our large vegetable garden. In addition, we eat fish i
at least once a week, and many of them come from Lake Erie.
Approval of this redweste site would increase radioactive contamination of our food.
I Approval of Toledo Edison's dump may have its maximum impact in j
the first decade after it is scheduled to be r el eased for unrestricted use, perhaps thirty to fifty years from now.
I do not want anyone injured or killed by radioacti vi ty, fire, or toxic harards from Davis-Besse's radioactive resins. Generations yet unborn cannot pessibly speak here today. We want to pass on a more liveable world to them.
We ask Judge Hoyt to rescind the onsite waste di sposal permit, and/or the advance approval of rel ease of the dumpsite for unrestricted use at the time of decommi ssi oni ng.
J
4, A
e7 Judge Hoyt's twenty concerns and our responses follow:
q 4
1.
What final location on the Davis-Besse site has been selected for waste burial?-
We wish to introduce the Final Env2ronmental Statement related to the Construction of Davi s-Besse (USAEC, 1973) into the Hearing i
Fi l e.=
On pages 3-24 and 3-26, Section 3.4.3 says all solid radioactive wastes will be packaged and shipped offsite for burial.
Doesn't this represent a pledge by the licensees and the NRC that solid radioactive wastes will be handled that way?
It seems clear to us that no ensite burial should-be permitted.
Davis-Besse is already allowed to dump 3000 times as much, ie, 5 Curies / year, of radioisotopes similar to those in the resins we are concerned
- with, directly inte Lake Erie (FES-c on st r uc t i on,
page 3-21).
Now it wants to change the conditions of its construction permit, so it can dump solid radioactive waste near the Plant, and contaminate Lake Erie even more.
The Licensees may say the 8.5 millicuries in a
five year accumulation of this waste is only B.5 thousandths of a
Curie.
But a Curie is an enormous, irrational unit; 37 billion nuclear disintegrations per second!
The r,ew SI system of measurement favors a
more rational
- unit, the Becquerel, which is one disintegration per second. The 8.5 nil 11 curies estimated to be in each 5th year dredging is equal to 315 million Becquerels, which is 315 million ioni:ing radiations, or 315 million potentially cancer-causing bullets, oer second. It would take 19 million machine guns firing 1000 rounds a minute to shoot as fast!
8.5 mil 11 curies does present a serious health hazard, for a long time.
The FES-construction says any accident with l ow-l evel drummed waste would not be expected to result in significant exposure of personnel (page 7-9, Section 7.2.3).
Now Toledo Edison appears to be contradicting itself by requesting p ermi ssi on to avoid drumming the waste, and to dump it onsite to minimize exposures to their personnel.
This seems to be an admi ssi on that 8.5 mil 11 curies can hurt people!
The request should not be granted.
Nucl ear workers are expected to toler ate more exposure than other people.
Besides, they should be better informed and equipped to minimize both the intensity and duration of their exposures.
2.-9.
represent information the licensees should have been required to provide before the NRC etted on their request. I'll comment.on the 5th, then skip to the 10th.
5.
What soil erosion from storms has been actually observed at or near the site?
We believe the words "from storms" unduly limit this question, and respectfully request that Judge Hoyt consider deleting them.
Gradual erosion from wind, water, frost heaving, or
- whatever,
s 3
should be cause for concern.
Al so, erosion history may not i
reveal the future because ion exchange resins are gener al l y smooth'round particles, lets dense than soil, and subject to frost heaving if not buried below the frostline depth.
They are more eas2ly eroded than normal soil.
10.
L 11.
appear to be asking for an estimate of the most probable values, corresponding to the maximum values sought in similar questions 13 & 14.
We believe only the maximums have regulatory significance, so have combined our responses.
12.
What criteria will be used to decide whether resins will be buried on si te or transported to a licensed burial site in the event that resins become contaminated at higher than expected levels?
We congratulate the Judge for recognizing that a license without limits is a f arce! There must be some c ont ami nat i on l evel, above which the resins must be packaged and stored for offsite disposal.
No such limit has been set. But, "Di l ut i on is not the solution to pollution," even though Davis-Besse has taken this approach in the settling basins. Perhaps 8.5 millicuries and 34000 cubic f eet should be applied as individual l i mi t s,,to minimize the volume of waste. That is, there should be three limits: a maximum amount of radioactivity to be contained in a given volume, total activity, and total volume.
13.
What is the upper limit of radionuclide inventory which could exist on site after 30 years under the above criteria?
Since the Fermit has already been granted, the NRC should be telling the Polluter, not asking!
Based on the Federal Register of Oct.
9, 1985, a limit of 8.5 millicuries should be stated in the Permit. The actual inventory may exceed any limit in the permit because of undetected excursions, errors in sampling or measurement, or Judgement, plus equipment failures, etc.
And employees may deliberately exceed limits to benefit their employer because it is what their boss wants, or seems to want.
(Remember the example of overpriced aircraft turbine blades at TRW?)
No more than a specified amount of error, perheps 25%,
should be tol erat ed.
Limits were imposed on both the volume and the activity of sandblasting wastes to be buried at the Oconee Nuclear Pl ant,
as described in the Oct.
23, 1985 Federal Register, 50 FR 43043-5. Limits are needed here.
It is hard to estimate the
- volume, and to determine the radioactivity of a sludge which is not uniform over the bottom of a settling basin. Also, the first accumul ati on of resins may not be typical. The plant has operated sporadically, f ar below design, so resins have accumul ated sl owl y,
giving more time for radioactive decay and leaching from the settling basins.
More stress corrosion is likely as the reactor ages under neutron bombardment.
Judge Hoyt might ask whether the Licensee accepts the volume and activity in the Oct.
9, 1985 Federal Register as
t.
i limits on its Permit (50 Fr 41265-7).
If not, any higher limits they agree to should be used to estimate rad 2ation exposures, and i
to reconsider the Permit.
1 14 What is the estimated upper limit of dose to the whole body for an individual standing on the buri al site that could exist after 30 years under the above criteria?.
Perhaps the part of the question after the word "i ndi vi dual "
should be replaced by, "from the dump after it is released for other use?".
The number of periodi c burial s envisioned is not an exact number, nor is the time of closure.
If the dump were to be j
promptly released f or unrestricted use, it might be excavated,
- regraded, or disturbed in other weys which could effect exposures.
It seems necessary to assume no excavation of the site to estimate the dose limit.
Deed restrictions to prevent this do not appear to have been considered. Nor does deeper earth cover over j
the last burial; it might. reduce the upper limit of dose, and reduce the time interval required before other use, considerably.
If the land may be rel eased, for unrestricted
- use, it becomes necessary to consider the possibility of people sleeping on the
- ground, perhaps even digging a
"f oxhol e" for warmth in cold weather.
The duration of such exposures might amount to half-time for three months'per year for Scoutleaders, for example.
The largest exposures might occur to people living in a home l
built in the most recent waste, with regrading to-unkncwingly max i mi z e the radiation exposure.
These poor souls might also l
drink and bathe in well water from a
shallow well, and eat home-grown produce and fish caught nearby. In this case, It might be necessary to consider the radioactivity in the total thickness of'the waste, not just the top 10 centimeters, and full time, 8766' hour per year exposures, not just the 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per year considered by the Licensee (Table 1 of 50 FR 41266, Oct. 9, 1985).
The estimate in the Federal Register Notice was a
gross underestimate, for many reasons, which I will explains The radioactivity in more than a 10 centimeter (4")
thickness of waste should be used in estimating the dose, for several reasons:
a)
All the isotopes in Table I of the Federal Register notice emit highly penetrating gamma radiation.
b)
Ion exchange and groundwater movement may concentrate radioisotopes on the surf ace.*
c)
The maximum thickness of the batches of wastes does not appear to be on record.
When asked for this data, Richard Crouse, Vi ce Presi dent,
- Nuclear, of Toledo Edison, gave the minimum thickness as 2 to 5 feet, and said any thickness over one f oot would not increase exposures (l et t er Serial No. 1065, dated July 30, I
1984, at Attachment 1,
page 3, fourth paragraph, line 4). That is not true, because gamma radiation is very penetrating, and because of migration of radioisotopes j
l
e
~
to the surface, which will be explained shortly.
d)
There does not appear to be anything to prevent the wastes being buried in a deep
- hole, and subsequent
'l burials placed on top'of each preceding one,
--like a stack of pancakes. Could there be any other reason for so thin a covering over each burial?
"b" may require expl anati on:
The June 1986 National Geographic, pages 818-822 and 833, tells of using potassium fertilicers or seawater to displace radioactive cesium from Bikini Atoll.
Similarly, fertilizer used to establish turf or minerals in groundwater moving through the Davi s-Besse Dump can displace i
During dry
- periods, water can be drawn from great depths, evaporated, and the -assorted radioisotopes-left behind as dust.
The process is-known as efflorescence.
It can apply to all the radioisotopes on the resin.
The most f amiliar example may be deposits on masonry.
It has been known to move water sol ubl e degradation products of pesticides from depths below four feet to the
- surface, and leave normally crystalline materials as fine dust.
At the Davi s-Besse Dump,
this could greatly increase the radiation
- hazard, and also present a
lung hazard, both of which seem to have been overlooked.)
Since the nuclear industry likes to make any errors in the direction of increased safety, we should assume all the activity in a five foot (possible minimum) or greater thickness of waste is concentrated at the surface, as loose dust which might be inhaled by children playing in-the dirt on this (soon to be) unrestricted area.
If the site is ever to be releatzet for unrestricted use, exposures
-of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> / year are ridiculous!
Full time is 8766 hours0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> / year.
It may be of some interest that the USEPA has ast.umed authorities will maintain-active institutional control of even low-level radioactive waste disposal-sites for. 100 years after their closure; see 48 FR 39563, August 31, 1983. Unless there are deed restrictions on the site, --- for example, to prevent subdivision, excavation, or residential use, full time radiation exposures of 8766 hr/yr should be assumed.
The Licensee's estimate of 8.5 mil 12 curies, and the resulting exposures may be
- low, but merel y correcting two of their assumptions shows the exposures would be unacceptable.
Their estimated ' annual dose of 0.7 millirem should be multiplied by 15.2 to allow f or the greater thickness of waste (5 feet in 152 cm, not' 10 cm),
and by
- 87. 66 to allow for full time exposure, L
instead of just 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per year.
751s corrects the estimated exposures to 933 millirems / year. The Licensees claimed to have met an acceptance criteria of 1 mr/yr.
They cannot even meet the 25 mr/yr limit for the entire radioactive waste management industry (Federal Register for 9/19/85, whi ch cites 40 CFR 191.03).
Any j
thought of unrestricted use of the Dump, without a preliminary radiation survey, should be squelched !
- 4 6
15.-19. These are good questions, which the Licensee should ' lave been asked before the permit was granted.
We suggest the following related questions which Judge Hoyt may want to asks a) Does the supposedly nonradioactive, major portion of the waste going into the settling basins contain small enough amounts of toxic heavy metals to pass the USEFA "EP Toxicity Test" (46 FR 35247, J ul y 7,
1981)?
(The licensees could be evading USEPA requirements by mixing it with a waste regulated by another agency.)
b)
Are the
- resins, or other components of the total waste, flammable?
(The resins are usually modified polystyrenes, and may present a
- serious, unrealized fire hazard if not mixed with incombustible material.)
20.
Describe the Licensees plans f or site management during operation, for marking the burial site, and for recordkeeping at the burial site.
We believe it is desirable to impose deed restrictions on the dump site. We suggest it should not be subdi vided, excavated, or used for residential purposes unless it is first surveyed for residual radiation and cleared by the appropri ate heal th authori ties. Such a survey might confirm the expected leaching away from the site.
It might also reveal problems in the f orm of unexpected kinds or amounts of radioisotopes; NRC is considering adding 500 more radioisotopes to those it already regulates (51 FR 1119, January 9,
1986).
We remind the Judge that the FES-Construction says the applicant will have to comply with whatever regulations are in effect at the time of dec ommi ssi oni ng (page 8-10, Section 8.3.1).
The NRC was in error when it granted permission for release of the dump site for unrestricted future use (50 FR 41267, c ol umn 1,
paragraph (1)).
We do not believe the Licensees requested such permission, or would have expected to recei ve it, if they had.
The NRC recently renewed its request for the USEPA to take the lead in the area of developing guidelines for unrestricted release and possible use of lands, facilities, equipment and materials having residual contamination (NRC News Rel ease 86-27, dated March 14, 1986).
EPA is preparing to assume jurisdiction; see 51FR14558, item 2690 (April 21, 1986).
N.
Russell M.
Bimber cc: Charles Barth, Esquire Docketing & Service Branch Jay E.
Silberg, PC State of Ohio Toledo Coalition Western Reserve Alliance
EXHIBIT---D MR. TERRY J. LODGE: ATT0lWEY FOR INTERVENING CITIZEN GROUPS -- DAVIS-BESSE Site disposal-
' FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF IAW
- p. 1-5. Hearing preliminaries 1.
p.5-6. Burial cells--location on site p.-7-8' Site geology and hydrology-i
- p. 8..
a Site flooding
- p. 9-10 Radiation in Lake' Erie o
p.10-11 Radiation and health
- p. 11 Dangers with resins 1
9 i
.p. 12 Radiation dose calculations 4
' p.12-l3 Mobility of radiation
-]
p.13-14 Conclusions of law 1
i EXHIBIT---E j
- CLO/SOSFindingofFact-Davis-Besse site disposal i
Summary form Bird's eye. view of hearing issues
,m, Q
I 4
-/
September 5, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judge 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 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF INTERVENORS SAVE OUR STATE FROM RADIOACTIVE WASTE, TOLEDO COALITION FOR SAFE ENERGY, SUSAN A. CARTER, ARNOLD GLEISSER, GENEVIEVE S. COOK, AND CONSUMERS LEAGUE OF OHIO Terry Jonathan Lodge Counsel for Intervenors i
?
INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.754(a)(1), Intervenors Save our State from Radioactive Waste, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Susan A. Carter, Arnold Gleisser, Genevieve S. Cook and Consumers League of Ohio (hereinafter " Citizen Intervenors")
submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in this license modification proceeding.
I.
Summary These proposed findings and conclusions derive from a hearing convened on the application of Toledo Edison Company (hereinafter " Applicant") for approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter "NRC") of a procedure for the disposal at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (hereinafter " Davis-Besse") of low-level radioactive waste.
This decision concerns'the adequacy of the proposed procedures for the disposal of the material in a manner consonant with environmental, geolo-gical and topographical concerns.
Central to the decision are Applicant's provisions for the burial of certain somewhat radioactive dredgings of sludge from onsite settling basins in subsurface structures at the Davis-Besse complex. The purpose of this informal hearing has been to adduce evidence of the structual scope of the burial plans, and the poten-tial impacts upon the local and regional environment, including affected flora and fauna, prospective intrusions of irradiated materials into Lake Erie basin and tributaries, effects upon subsurface geology and underground water sources, and possibly adverse consequences to the regional human population.
In par tic ular,
the designated Administrative Law Judge was interested in 20 specific issues iden-tified in an NRC order dated May 30,1986.
The Administrative Law Judge has concluded that Applicant's proposed radio-active waste dumping and burial procedure is fundamentally and inherently unsound; that the dump, if approved, would be hi;h by subject to flooding and prone to sub-3 l
f surface radiation leaching and contaminating of water supplies; would likely and with high probability contribute to an undesirable elevation of radiation levels in the Lake Erie basin; and as such poses an intolerable threat to plant, animal and human life in the Great Lakes region.
The Judge's conclusion is based upon facts such as the extremely close prox-imity of the burial structure (25 feet at one point) to the recognized wetlands; the marginal elevation of the structures above even average water levels of nearby Lake Erie, much less high wave surges and flooding caused by storm turbulence on the lake; the existing probable accumulations of radiation in Lake Erie; and the disturbingly naive and superficial hydrological analysis of subsurface topography and geological formationsat Davis-Besse which was presented by the Applicant.
The evidence shows that Toledo Edison moved conceptually from proposing dumping of raw dredgings into unimproved holes, to the burial of semisolidified slurry into more sophisticated clay-lined burial cells.
Yet and still, the Edison pro-posal is highly chancy and questionable because the burial ground would be geolo-gically quite vulnerable and subject to severe and recurring flooding.
Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Applicant has not sat-isfactorily addressed most of the 20 issues of material fact raised in the May 30 prehearing order.
II.
Overview of the Sludge Burial Proposal A.
Sequence Leading to Issues of Material Fact Toledo Edison Company filed its request for low-Icvel waste burial approval on July 14, 1983 with the NRC.
Supplementary information was provided by the licensee by letters dated July 30, 1984 and January 29,1985.
On October 9, 1985, the NRC published an " Environmental Assessment and Findings of No Significent Impact".
1 50 Fed. Reg.41265 (10/9/85)
In it, the Commission proposed to approve Edison's proposed waste burial plan, specifically determining that no significant environmental impact would befall the environment of the burial site.
The Commission's staff based its conclusions solely on information provided by Toledo Edison, and consulted no other agencies 2
or persons.
Although no legal opportunity for a hearing was mentioned in the Commission's notice, a sizeable number of individual citizens, Ohio local governments, citizen groups, and even the Govenor of Ohio complained in opposition to the dump proposal.
By order dated February 20,'1986, the NRC instituted an informal hearing on the matter, appointing Administrative Judge liclen F. Iloyt presiding of ficer.
By
" Memorandum and Order" dated March 10, 1986, the Judge specified a format by which
. aggrieved parties might seek 1 cave to intervene in the hearing.
Numerous individuals, groups, and the State of Ohio sought this permission.
By order dated May 30, 1986, the Judge made initial determinations concerning party status, described 20 issues for hearing, and set a timetable for submission of prefiled testimony and hearings.
The 20 issues because the outline for litigation.
B.
Prefiled Testimony and Evidentuary llearing Pursuant to the May 30, 1986 order, direct testimony was prefiled in written fashion by all parties on July 18, 1986.
2 50 Fed. Reg. 41267 (10/9/85) 3 Intervenors Save Our State from Radioactive Waste, Arnold Gleisserg: Genevieve S. Cook, and Consumers League of Ohio prefiled on June 19,1986, adhering to the original deadline ordered.
Prefiling was delayed at Applicant's request due to a strike by Toledo Edison workers.
4 I
F t
At the hearing, Toledo Edison Company presented a panel of thirteen (13) witnesses, including a biochemist, a geotechnical engineer, health physicists, a zoologisg a biologist, a physician, a civil engineer, an environmental engineer, limnologists and a biochemical engineer.
The State of Ohio produced four (4) witnesses, two geologists, a hydrologist, and a botomist/ zoologist.
The Citizen Intervenors presented two (2) witnesses, a research chemist and a physician.
An evidentiary hearing was convened on August 5,6 and 7, 1986. Limited appearance statements by individuals were received into the record on August 6 and 7, 1986.
The Administrative Law Judge had undertaken a tour of the proposed sludge burial area at Davis-Besse on August 4, 1986.
In preparing this decision, the Administrative Law Judge considered the entire record and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties. Those proposed findings and conclusions not incorporated directly or referentially herein are rejected as being unsupported by the record of this case or as being unnecessary to the rendering of this decision.
C.
Governing Standards Toledo Edison's burial proposal is governed by the requirements of 10 CFRS20.302 of the NRC's regulations.
Moreover, the Administrative Law Judge has reviewed the record in light of whether the burial plan constitutes a real or potential, significant environmental impact.
Further the Commission is required by models e
s used to estimate radiation doses from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Revision 1, Octo'ber, 1977.
Further, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I counsels the use of techniques or tech-nologies to reduce radiationexposure levels"as low as reasonably achievable" at commercial nuclear facilities. As there is no other known regulatory guidance on an unprecedented issue of this sort, vis., onsite low-level radiation burial, the Commission must adopt a " reasonableness" test, to determine whether the dumping plan is a reasonably prudent approach to the particular disposal problem posed by radioactive resins.
In the discussion that follows, it will be clear that the j
proposal is not reasonable.
III. Weaknesses in the Dumping Scheme A.
The Burial Cells As previously mentioned, Toledo Edison originally had conceived of dumping 1
raw, untreated radioactive sludge into unimproved pits at the Davis-Besse site,
{
covering the filled holes with a few inches of topsoil.
By the time of the in-formal hearing, however, Applicant's vision had evolved to the construction of up to six (6) clay-lined cells, 4-foot linings interspersed with other layered materials, and a membrane of indeterminate composition.5 The material proposed for burial would be predominately condensate demineralizer resins used to clean f
t l
i 4
50 Fed. Reg. 41266 (10/9/85).
4 5
App. Pref. Test Fig 1-1; Pref. Test 18 (Swim).
up the secondary-side ( nonradioactive) pipes in the Davis-Besse reactor. These j
resins have become radiocative h om a 1981 steam generator tube leak and " minor" leaks or weeps in the steam generator caused by thermal expansion and contractions 6
in the system.
The Commission must doubt Toledo Edison's arguments that the radiation levels of the resins will prospectively remain deminimis. As established upon cross-examination, steam tube leaks in an aging reactor are a " probability".
There is thus no guarantee that irradiated material in excess of Applicant's current projections will not be buried in the cells, increasing potential exposures to life. Also, the sampling techniques for radiation levels in the sludge prior to dredging and dumping does not reflect the common sense conclusion that there will be " hot spots" and thus widespread sampling will be needed.
B.
Situs Problems Problems abound with the proposed locations of the six burial cells.
Applicant's witness admitted that at least one cell is only 25 feet from designated wetland area.
The cells are only a few hundred feet from designated State-managed marsh-land.
6 App. Pref. Test 14 ( Briden).
7 Tr. 155 (Briden), 8/5/86.
8 Tr. 162 (Briden),8/5/86.
9 Tr. 170-1 (Wasilk), 8/5/86.
10 Tr. 175 (Was11k), 8/5/86.
l Edison's own witness testified in some detail concerning an old dewatering pond very near the cell locations which was originally constructed in the 1970's to drain and evaporate groundwater so that foundations for plant-related structures could be built.
The witness described this pond as possessing constant stability of water level,and'certainly gave the lie to Applicant's contention that significant groundwater sources are 15 or more feet below the surface.
The State's witness demonstrated the severely limited hydrologic information base on which Edison is operating in his observation that Applicant grounded its conclusions about geology of the site on core drillings done during Davis-Besse's construction in the early 1970's, which were for construction purposes and not part of a hydrogeologic in-vestigation.
This expert testified quite authoritatively that groundwater levels all around the cell sites fluctuate constantly and significantly, and that rear-surface aquifers may be 15 to 30 feet thick.
As the witness observed, even Edison's own 15-year-old core drillings tend to prove the existence of large subsurface water supplies within a couple feet of the surface, because of the presence of fine sandy soil there.14 Testimony also showed conclusively that deep groundwater
)
flow (10 to 20 feet below the surface) almost certainly moves toward Lake Erie most of the year.
11 Tr. 182-3 (liendron),8/5/86; compare App. Pref. Test 46 (liendron) 12 State Pref. Test 5 (Voytek).
13 Id. at 5-6.
14 Id. at 7; Id. at Attachment B.
15 Id. at 10.
I' Finally, this witness went a long way tow.rd exploding the myth of impermeable clay such as is contemplated for the cell liners. 6 An additional State expert dismissed as " oversimplified" the Applicant's description of the soil sediments at the Davis-Besse site.'
This expert, who has mapped in intensive detail the southern shore of Lake Erie around Davis-Besse, seriously undermined the usefulness of the 15-year-old core borings of Toledo Edison, convincing the Judge of their uselessness in resolving the issue of groundwater location.
C.
Site Flooding Applicant adopted nonchalance about the flood potential of the buried sites, which would beartificially raised to a point about 6.5 to 7 feet above average water levels for Lake Erie.
A principal utility company witness calculated only the potential for Lake Erie flooding, and did not seriously consider flood problems from the Toussaint River, a broad, marshy tributary only 355 feet from the proposed burial cell site.
That witness acknowledged that the burial site was clearly within a zone which would be flooded at least every 50 years; that parts of the site could be expected to flood at least every 10 years; and that this site has flooded 25 times in 50 years, and 23 times in the last 15 years.20 l
16 M. at 11-12, 14-15.
j 17 State Pref. Test. 2 (Pavey).
1 18 M. at 5-6.
19 Tr. 217 (llerndorf), 8/5/86.
20 Id,. at 221-3.
k Incredibly, the Applicant's witness refused to acknowledge that the experience of that 15 years represented a trend, even though his own data revealed 8 floods of 6 to 7 feet from 1948 through 1971, and 14 floods of 7 feet, including 3 of more than 8 feet, from 1972 through 1986.
The State demonstrated, moreover, that the proposed burial site is located in a " geologically hazardous area, and that a 500-year flooding event would exceed the worst flood in recent memory (1972) by a foot.
D.
Radiation Accumulations in Lake Eric During the hearing, the Citizen Intervenors cross-examined one of Applicant's health physicists closely concerning his testimony that even if all of the proposed radioactive waste were to be discharged into Lake Erie at once, it would not raise radiation levels in excess of. NRC guidelines.
The witness admitted that he pro-jected the total radiation levels in the Lake Eric water were from this theoretical dump, and that his calculations did not factor in other radiation discharges from Davis-Besse.
At that point, the witness was asked if his computations included any factor representing radiation discharges into Lake Erie from the Fermi II reactor near Detroit, Michigan.
Then the Citizen Intervenors' counsel asked if the witness
/
21 M. at 224,235.
22 State Pref. Test 5 (Cuy).
23 Tr. 88 (Till), 8/6/86, examination concerning Till's Statement.
24 Tr. 88 (Till), 8/6/86.
25 M. at 89.
.r J
accounted for radiation from the Chernobyl, U.S.S.R.
nuclear accident or f rom bomb testing.
These latter two lines of questioning were objected to by the Applicant on the ground that they involved a radiation source other than Davis-Besse.
At the time of the hearing theAdministrative Judge sustained Applicant.
Upon re-flection, the Administrative Judge now believes those rulings were in error, since the Citizen Intervenors were attemptir:g to undermine the veracity of the expert's conclusion by proving that he did not account for accumulative amounts of radiation which do, in fact, permeate Lake Eric water.
Davis-Besse and Fermi are, in one sense, licensed to pollute radioactivity, a fact which may be officially noticed by the Judge.
The Chernobyl disaster, it is well known, sent radioactive debris quite literally around the globe and certainly into the air and waters of the State of Ohio. There is indeed a strong argument for cumulative radiation being present in Lake Erie even before the prospect of a taassive dump of radiation from the proposed cells, and it is inescapable that Applicant's cursory conclusion that a sudden release into the Lake would be harmless is highly superficial and unscientific, and can therefore be given no weight.
E.
Radiation Effects on Human Health Similarly, Applicant's physician witness was undermined.
He stated on direct that below 10 rem exposure, it is difficult to spot ill side effects on human or 98 animal populations.
However, he acknowledged the existence of conflicts in
~
27 Id. at 90, 92.
28 App. Pref. Test. 86 (Linneman).
medical literature over the number of people who die as a result of disease brought on by background radiation.
Moreover, he would not scientifically deny the possibility that deaths could, in fact, occur from this unnoticed source.
The Administrative Judge must conclude that the virtual certainty of ef fects on the i
human population from this proposed low-level radiation source cannot be disregarded, j
especially in light of the testimony of Citizen Intervenors' physician witness on the harmfulness of low levels.31 And since the Commission is bound to apply the
'i "as low as is reasonably achieveble" standard to the installation of controls on' radiation emissions, the Judge finds that the untested and experimental waste storage proposal does not pass regulatory muster.
F.
Dangers in the Resins Themselves A fact which was completely ignored by the Applicant was the cancer-inducing aspect of the resins which would comprise a.very large proportion of the burial sludge.
In some of the most beguiling and misleading testimony of the trial, an Applicant chemist from the company supplying the resins to Toledo Edison testified that the resins are so harmlessly inert that two appear on the market as prescription drugs for human consumption.
On cross examination, the witness acknowledged that a passage from the Physician's Desk Reference detailing one of the drugs, Questran, did outline Questran's significant cancer-causing tendencies in people.
29 Tr. 101 (l.inneman), 8/6/86.
30 Id. at 102.
31 Tr. 180-9 (Citlin), 8/6/86.
32 10 CFR Part 50, App.
1.
33 App. Pref. Test. 102 (Hetherington).
Tr$. 114 (Hetherington), 8/6/86; S.O.S. Exh.
1.
34 t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
The same witness also acknowledged that under certain conditions that the resins, which due to the icnization characteristics attract and hold radioactive molecules in a seemingly magnetic fashion, could nevertheless be caused on occasion: to release radioactive particules.
Far from being a stabilizing quality in the buried material, then, the resins, radioactive or not, pose at least two hazards to flora and fauna.
G.
Radioactive Dosage Calculations One of the Citizen Intervenors' witnesses differed greatly with Toledo Edison's radiation dose calculations.
He stated that the annual radiation dose figures were significantly underestimated by assuming only 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />' exposure per year, instead of the total number of hours in a year, 8,766.36 The research chemist also maintainell that it was f allacious to compute gamma radiation emmissions f rom only to top 10 centimeters of the waste, since the material would,in fact, be some 8 1/4 feet thick.37 His calculations suggested that the gamma radiation from the top 100 centimeters of waste might exceed Applicant's dose calculations by a factor of 877.
The chemist also criticized the Applicant's recalculated dose figures, based upon the clay cell disposal technique, as being too low since 5 gamma radiation-9 emitting elements would be buried in the sludge.
H. Mobilization of Radioactivity The same Citizen Intervenor witness cogently noted that the use of cement kiln dust to solidify the sludge might actually mobilize the radioactivity because 35 Id. at 118.
36 Cit. Int. Pref. Test. RMB-2, (Bimber).
37 Id.; Tr.I 227 (Bimber), 8/6/86.
38 Id. at RMB-3, (Bimber).
39 Tr. 227-8 (Simber), 8/6/86. _._
I O
the dust could be presumed to have many soluble alkaline materials in it.
It would appear that the seeds of undoing of this sophisticated cell structure are going to be buried with the waste.
IV. CONCLUSION The foregoing was not intended to serve as an exhaustive recounting of all of the facts which militate against allowing the proposed disposal plans to pro-ceed to implementation.
Nevertheless, the evidence is quite convincing that Toledo-Edison wishes to develop a simplistic short-term (i.e., 30 years or less) solution to a problem the scope of which the utility obviously does not even thoroughly know.
Perhaps the record is most disturbing for what it does not,rather than what it does,contain.
The utility does not have a firm grasp on the probability of certain types of radioisotopes being present in future waste dredgings.
This might stem in part from the bizarre and unpredictable operation of Davis-Besse.
The utility does not have adequate, current or task-oriented core drilling data which reveal anything but generalizations about subsurface materials at the site.
The utility does not have an adequate of comprehensive understanding of the flooding gotential of the site. Applicant does not have a meaningful hold on the leaching possibilities, the permeability of its clay liners, the presence / absence of groundwater sources.
In effect, Toledo Edison proposes to launch an experiment.
After much negative publicity, the utility finally evolved from the idea of a raw ditch type burial to a sophisticated clay-lined cell.
The Applicant has conducted no studies nor put on any evidence of the track record of storage of radioactive wastes in clay-liners, yet it blithely assumes that the concept will work.
40 TR. 233 (Bimber), 8/6/86. i
W I
Worst of all, the proposed burial site is in an obvious floodplain, and would be constructed in coLiincapable of providing any additional protection to the environment f
in the event of a breach of the cell's integrity. The result would mean yet another radioactive encroachment ori the fragile earth, water and plant and animal life i
along Lake Erie.
The proposal is not reasonable and is therefore denied.
Pursuant to the Commission's order of February 21,1986, this determination constitutes final agency action.
ilelen F. Hoyt j
Administrative Law Judge I
i CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing " Proposed Findings of Fact and I
Conclusions of oaw" was sent by me this 5th day of Sept 2mber, 1986, via regular U.S. Mail to each of the parties on the attached Service List (guaranteed mail or Federal Express to Administrative Law Judg'e).
l l
1
-1 j.G j I
$ltV Tekry j lodge 6
Counsel fo Save Our State, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Consumers League of Ohio, Susan Carter, Genevieve Cook, Arnold Gleisser i
1 q
1
=
. j
c.
I Sept. 8, 1986'
~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HELEN F. H0YT, ESQ.
I In the matter of:
)
l
- TOLEDO EDISON CO. and CLEVELAND
)
i ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
)
Docket No. 50-3%
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit I )
)
)
DAVIS-BESSE HEARING ON SITE DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE-RESIN LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES I
FINDING OF FACTS:
j
- 1. In.1968-9 TEC traded the small Darby Marsh for the 934 acre Navarre Marsh.
- 2. TEC did not inform the Department of the Interior that the Navarre Marsh was part of the Ottawa County Wildlife Refuge Sanctuary and an International Bird Flyway.
- 3. TEC promised to use about 200 acres of the marsh for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power i
Plant and to preserve the rest of the marsh as a wildlife refuge, altbough TEC al-~
. ready had plans to build' 5 reactors on this site along Lake Erie shores.
- 4. TEC also promis'ed at the construction license hearing that there would be no waste disposal on the site. TEC 's ' operating license (Docket No. 50-3%---NPF-3) speaks of the reprocessing of spent fuel.and of plans to package and ship low level wastes to a licensed landfill within 300 miles.
It also states there would be no effluent I
on site. Again these vaste plans are stated in the Davis-Besse~FSAR-1973 and also i
the FES-co-1973
' 5. In 1979 TEC had applied for Limited Advance Work Authority for Units II & III to be
(
built just south of Unit I.
These were cancelled in 1981, but account for two of
.the assortment of ponds on the site. TEC's borrow pits, numerous ponds, and drain-i age ditch have a run-off into the Toussaint River, which empties into Lake Erie.
We wonder if the settling basin does too.
k
- 6. In 1985 ve learn from the Federal Register (Oct.9,1985) that TEC planned a shallow
]
site burial of its sludge-resin vaste from its settling ponds--also that TEC already i
had received NRC permission since it was ruled as having no si nificant environmental 6
impact. This arrangement with the NBC was made by correspondence and telephone calls.
Again there was no mention of the special environmental issues. Ohio people were also shocked to learn that there was a settling pond on the Davis-Besse site already auth-orized and operating.
T. Widespread objections of countless Ohio organizations and individuals to this crude site disposal plan led to Governor Celeste's request tnat the State of Ohio be an intervenor in the bearing through the Office of toe Attorney General and toe Onio Department of Natural Resources.
- 8. The bearin'g was scheduled for tbc last week in June-1986, but TEC was granted a delay huause of a strike among its eenployees. Since tne Davis-Besse plant had not been wrating for over a year folL) wing the June-1985 serious malfunction, people thouant it' t hit odd that employees would be strising for fringe benefits at this time. The neau ns; was ' rescheduled for the first week in August with a tour Aug.4 of the Davis-Besse site for the intervenors.
)
1
- 9. Tha tour includrd a vicw of the incr2dibly primitiva ssttling ponds and of n field marked with red-flagged stakes to indicate the general location of the burial site.
Intervenors were provided no view of the dikes nor were they clearly labeled on the map. NBC's Judges Hoyt and Kline greeted the intervenors.
1
- 10. Ohioans objections to the site burial were manys
- a. Danger of further contamination of Lake Erie after 25 years of cleanup efforts.
{
l
- b. Danger to millions who depended on Lake Erie for water supplies and to north-l Western Ohioans whose essential ground water might be contaminated.
- c. Endangerment of Ohio's environmental resources, since this area bad many profit-able industries ubich might be adversely affected--especially the recreational, such as camping, sport-fishing and boating.
- d. Destruction of state wildlife preserves from loss of ve6etation and loss of wildlife habitats for many native species, including several birds on the en-dangered species list. Endangerment of migrating birds. Radiation in the food chain.
- e. Destruction of fish life since their spawning reefs are off-shore in this area. Reduction and contamination of fish with losses to the very profitable i
fish industry.
- f. Shock that the NRC would consider a marsh or floodplane area suitable for a low level waste dump and crude settling ponds, f
- g. Disgust that TEC is now pretending that the Navarre Marsh is only 400 acres i
east and north of the Davis-Besse site.
- 11. Our intervening group had been informed by area fishermen that the Davis-Besse dikesy after years of poundin6 waves, vere in very deteriorated condition. We made that one of our contentions. Fishermen later informed us that TEC had repaired and up-Graded the dikes during tne summer, before the hearing but after our contentions had been received.
1
- 12. The first day of the hearing Mr. Anthony Celebrezze, Ohio Attorney General, and Mr.
Joseph Sommer, Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, made very effec-tive presentations of the reasons for Ohio concerns. Then Mrs. Virginia Aveni, Dep-uty Director of Ohio EPA explained the responsibilities of Ohio EPA with respect to TEC's plans.
- 13. The main issues debated in tbe bearing were naturally:
- a. The unsuitable geology and bydrology of the Davis-Besse site for a low level shallow waste burial. The danger of both late and groundwater contamination.
- b. The local threat to public health and tne effect on the environment---the wild-Life refuge, migrating birds, the loss of commercial enterprises and the loss of state recreational areas.
- c. The destructive effect of frequent violent storms, winds and flooding, and their effect on erosion of the burial site and consequent migration of its bazardous contents.
- d. The chemistry and durability of the resins used to absorb the radionuclides from the secondary demineralizing system. Tne possible reaction of other substances with the resins (Ex. Kiln dust) and release of radionuclides into
)
the environment.
- e. The lack of testing and necessary specifics to assure safety in tue construc-tion and operation of thegcells.
banal J
I The State of Ohio was represented by 3 Deputy Attorneys General and 4 witnesses from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, vbose worn was very clearcut and effective.
TEC had 13 vitnesses-all vell renearsed-including several from its own staff. For most of the public present this was a first experience with an NhC hearing.
- 14. The State contended that TEC'u geology studies vere quite inadequate and revealed a limited understanding of indications of soil types, permeability, and water flow patterno at the Davis-Besse site. State also thought TEC should have made a thor-ough hydrology study.
- 15. Mr. Van Kley busily pried details out of TEC's vitnesses bit by bit until Mr. Hen-dron admitted that TEC's geology findings and hydrological observations were done in 1970 relating to the construction of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.
- 16. Tne State testified that there had been a mQor advancement the last decade in both knowledge in the fields of both geology and hydrology and understanding of soil in-dications. Greatly improved instruments and equipment were in use with advanced tecnniques. Also the process of deep excavation in the past usually smeared evi-dence of sand and gravel layers, of cracks, of soil permeability, and of tiny water flow patbvays. Bore logs were frequently deceptive vbere parts of the core were missing.
- 17. TEC contended that State's observations and references to studies of experts made their statements generic rather than specifically applicable to the Davis-Besse area in both geology and hydrology.
- 18. State pointed out the similarity of till, glaciolacustrine, clay and sand patterns of soils for the vbole Great Lakes area, and especially for Ottava County with its-videspread marsh areas. State reviewed evidence of early glacial movements in soil patterns. State contended there was an upper till aquifer vbich, vben saturated, drained into Lake Erie, the Navarre Marsh, and the Toussaint River. Also State cited indications of drainage pathways-some 3ateral and then down into the 6round water and bedrock lower aquifer. Mr. Pavey insisted that by all indications, the water in the glacial sediments connected to the bedrock--that tne fluctuations were there. State cited "The Soil Survey of Ottava County" by Gordon and Buebner in sup-port of its findings of cracks, fractures, thin seams, lenses, and fomer tree root flow paths (from the early forests) to account for drainage down to the ground water j
aquifer from the till above. Even one of TEC's own boring roles (B-125 from 1974--
j ATEC Assn.,Inc.) documented the presence of sand layers.
)
- 19. TEC insisted there was no upper aquifer and that layers of till and glaciolacustrine lacked any permeability. State cited inadequate TEC testing and toe deceptiveness of faulty bore cores with parts missing.
- 20. State contended that the vbole of northwestern Ohio depended on the same ground j
vater bedrock aquifer system, ubich included the entire Ottava Marsh area. TEC stated that well vater in the Davis-Besse area was unpleasant from sulfur content.
Several systems for sulfur removal were said to be successfully in use among those dependent on the veli vater.
- 21. Both sides agreed the limestone-dolomite bedrocc was highly permeable. Also the grot.nd water levels were responsive to veather, seasons, lake levels, river levels, and marsulands. When nigh northeast vinds raised the Late Erie water levels at the vest end, the ground water levels also rose. After the storm, the flow of both was gradually reversed. TEC verified the extent of the groundwater system and its pem-eability from the vide radius affected by its devatering procedures in early 1970's.
State observed that ground water was released into Lake Erie tnrouen tne permenDle bedrock that extended out into Lake Erie.
- 22. State challenged TEC's report of the average frequency of flooding incidents in the Ottawa area. When the number of incidents was averaged over a 25 year period, the problem appeared less menacing. This method bid the fact tnat with the present unprecedented high levels of Lake Erie, about 3/4 of the flooding episodes had occur-red during the preceding 6 or 8 years. In other words, flooding had markedly increased with high lake levels. Prognostications about future lake levels differed.
State's source anticipated a gradual continued level increase through 1994. TEC's vitnesses are sure that lake levels will recede back to normal average levels by 1994. Time will tell. The Davis-Besse site was flooded in both 1972 and 1973 Also following 4 northeast windstorms between 1968 and 1973, the Davis-Besse shore-line receded 20--60 feet. Shore property erosion is of major concern these days.
- 23. TEC plana 6 burial cells--a plan presented just before the hearing. The first is a triple cell unit, next a double unit, and finally a single cell about 162 byl62 ft.
The cells are southeast of the plant and close to the easterly marsh, and not far from the Toussaint, which empties into Lake Erie. TEC plans to fill one cell every 5 years. Eacn will be shaped like a square bowl with a 4 ft. liner composed of 2'6" of compacted clay, then a plastic membrane liner, plus a foot of a leachate collec-tion layer topped with 6" of clay. The sloping sides will be supported by a clay dike with rip-rap. The burial depth will be about 8 1/4 ft. to hold approximately 34 000 ft.3 of the 5 year accumulation of sludge-resin vaste. The topper vill be 3
4 ft. of clay in the center tapering in all directions to 2 ft. at the edges and overlapping the top of the outward sloping dike. The vaste is to be mixed with cement kila dust, which should harden the waste to compact clay consistency.
- 24. We don't know how the vastes will be pumped out of the settling pond. Or vbat or bow they'll dispose of the water that comes with it.
We don't know now they plan to mix 34,000 ft.3 of sludge with cement kiln dust or accide bow muen kiln dust is needed. We don't know the sind or thickness of tue membrane liner or whether it will split under tbe weight of a bulldozer or backhoe--even with large rubber tires.
We don't know whether the clay liner will hold up either or wnether it will crack wnen dried out.
- 25. TEC estimates 8 or 9 days to transfer the waste from settling basin to burial cell and mix it with kiln dust. Tnen the waste will be exposed for a couple cays to the weatber unile the cap is bein,applieu. We don't know unat tne enemical reaction will e
will be between tue kiln dust and the resin or how muen radiation could be released from tne resin to migrate about the area. We don't Enodtbe effect of Eround or water-contained chemicals reacting witn the resin. We d'on't know how long tne cell will remain intact under winds, storms, and flooding. We're not sure aoout the im-pulses of furry burrowing creatures. We don't know wnether TEC is creating another
" BATHTUB EFFECT." Ohioans would be grateful if the NBC would call a halt to it.
l Northern Ohioans would be eternally grateful also if tne NBC would take a good hard look at the even more bazanious primitive settling casin on the Davis-Besse site to see if they bonestly still thins "no significant environmental impact."
Sept.8,1986 Respectfully submitted on behalf of Intervenors:
Original received oy Consumers League of Obio Judge Helen F. Hoyt Save Our State from Nuclear Waste Sept.6,1986 Arnold Gleisser by Federal Express Genevieve S. Cook til4 f@
t
.]f -
m
"i I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
1 l.
Judge helen F. Boyt, Esq.
Ohio Assistant Attorneys General t.
' Administrative Judbe Jack A._ Van Kley U.S. Nuclear Red,ulatory Commission Sharon Sigler
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Boani Edward Lynch 4350 East-West Highway-- l+tb Floor Environmental Enforcement Section Bethesda,' Maryland 20814 30 East Broad St..
I; Columbus, Ohio 43215 Jay E. Silberg
. Terry J. Lodge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1600 M Street,'N.W.
618 North Micnigan St.
Suite 105 Washington, D.C., 20036 Toledo, Onio 43624 Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 g;
Docket & Service Section g
.a Office'of the Secretary.
.f 4,,
h cgd t
U.S. Nuclear Re6ulatory Commission
[
jf, Washington, D.C; 20555 Py cn F91 ra-
- s E*
"3:p -
di.
O t}w g
a i
ns&W \\
.