ML20202G680

Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement Re Facility Radioactive Waste Landfill.Unrestricted Use of Land on Which Sludge Disposed Opposed.Identities & Amounts of Buried Radioisotopes Speculative.Served on 860411

ML20202G680
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	04/05/1986
From:	Bimber R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#286-705 86-525-01-ML, 86-525-1-ML, ML, TAC-60875, NUDOCS 8604140461
Download: ML20202G680 (5)

Text

&'*I RM6-l Docketing and Service Branch Ahhff((0, 1986 Office of the Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H St., NW Washington, D. C. 20555 '86 APR 11 M0 58 Re: Docket No. 50-346-ML: ASLBP No. 86-525-01-MLhfh b (Davis-Besse Radioactive Waste Landfill) -

Egy' Q W gj; bk I have tried to state my thoughts and concerns in this matter fully enough that I do not want to be a Party unless that is necessary for this letter to be included in the Hearing File.

Except for Limited Appearrance Statements not being a part of the Hearing File, I would welcome Limited Appearrance status. My thoughts, and documents I've cited should be useful to other Parties in the proceeding. A phone call from the Administrative Judge, to clarify my status, would be welcome; my phone number is (216) 357-3137 (work, M-F, 8-5), or 352-1680 any other time.

I, Russell M. Bimber, reside at 10471 Prouty Road, Painesville, Ohio 44077. I am an MS chemist with more than thirty years experience in the chemical industry, including work with ion exchange resins and radioisotope labelled pesticides and their migration with groundwater. As a part time volunteer, I've been trained as a Lake County Radiological Officer for emergency response related to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

My interest in this proceeding is that I hope to reduce radioactive pollution of our total environment; air, water, and land, in the public interest, including that of generations yet unborn. More specifically, my home is served by Painesville City water, which comes from Lake Erie. Davis Besse pollutes the Lake.

My wife and I, our three children, and our grandchildren consume water containing radioactive waste from Davis Besse. There is a low probability that one of us may die from this. It seems certain that radioactivity in potable water from nuclear power plants around the Great Lakes will be shown to be killing people within a few decades. If I survive, I expect to bear some cost of these deaths, through governmental compensation programs, higher electric bills or insurance costs, or otherwise. I am a CEI residential electric customer, with no other financial interest in any of the CAPCO companies.

Most specifically, I object to the NRC's saying, in the Federal Register, Oct. 9, 1985, on page 41267, "At the time of decommissioning of the nuclear power plant, the land on which the sludge is di sposed is capable of being released for unrestricted use." The identities and amounts of radioisotopes to be buried there are speculative, and not subject to determination. Any release of the land should be based on a radiation survey after use as a dump has been ended.

I hope this proceeding will deny the onsite waste disposal permit, and/or rescind the (111ecal?) advance approval for release of the 8604140461 860405 DR ADOCK 0500 6 g c,g 3

. t' RMB4 dumpsite for unrestricted use. If so, I will feel less oppressed by the NRC and CAPCO. Any short term increase in my electric bills will be well worth it. I expect to live longer and save money by not having to compensate others for unnecessary deaths caused by my utility.

Regulation of radioactive materials is constantly changing: the Federal Register for January 9, 1986, page 1119, concerning proposed changes of 10 CFR 20, says the NRC may add about 500 radioisotopes to those it regulates. And NRC News Release No.

86-27 (3/14/86) renewed the NRC's request for the EPA to take the lead in developing federal guidelines for the unrestricted use of land, etc having residual radioactive contamination. At the time of any possible release of the dump site for unrestricted (or less restricted) use, three decades or so in the future, current regulations should be met. It may be adviseable to impose deed restrictions to preclude the dump site being excavated or used for residential purposes unless first surveyed for residual radiation and cleared by appropriate health authorities.

Assuming Toledo Edison's estimate of the radioisotopes in the waste may be correct, the annual radiation dose to a person who might stand on the waste was 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. Unrestricted use might involve full time exposures of 8766 hours0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> a year.

The radiation dose was also underestimated by considering only the radioactivity in the top 10 cm of the waste. The waste is to have a minimum thickness of 2 feet according to the Federal Register notice dated 10/9/85, or a minimum thickness of 2 to 5 feet, according to page 3 of Attachment i to Toledo Edison's letter of July 30, 1984. Radioactivity from a greater thickness should be considered for at least three reasons:

1. All the radioisotopes in Table I, page 41266 emit highly penetrating gamma radiation.

2. Ion exchange and groundwater movement may tend to concentrate radioisotopes on the surface.

3. The naximum thickness of the relocated waste is not on record.

The second reason may require further explanation. Soluble materials in the surrounding soil and in groundwater moving through the area would be expected to displace radioisotopes from the dredgings by ion exchange. For example, soluble potassium in any fertilizer used to help establish turf in the seeded soil covering (or in groundwater runoff from nearby farmland, etc) would be expected to displace cesium radioisotopes from the dredgings. The resulting soluble cesium would leach from the dredgings and move from its original location, in the direction of groundwater movement. Movement toward the lake would be expected to predominate. But in dry periods, evaporation could draw groundwater from the marshy subsoil and concentrate radioisotopes on the surface. I would expect that radioisotopes from the top 100 cm (3 1/4 feet) might become concentrated on the surface.

1 .

. f' l RMB9i i

i Toledo Edison's 7/14/83 letter consists essentially of a Report from a Consultant of questionable competence. The Report does not I

say whether he visited Davis Besse, or whether he is qualified by education or experience to discuss such topics as wind or water erosion, ground water tables, the chemistry of ion exchange resins, or radiation safety.

The Consultant does not appear to be aware of the past history of flooding around Davis Besse, or of the current threat of flooding in the area, as described in the rinclosed article f rom page 13A of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for 4/5/86.

In describing the settling basins, (page 6, third paragraph), the Consultant contradicts himself by saying there are no mechanisms that could release the basin bottoms to the lake or river, and ,

then describing just such a mechanism! Again on page 8, under  !

Environmental Eose Assessment, he contradicts himself in a similar l fashion. And on page 9, at the end of the first paragraph discussing Accidental Release, he said, " release offsite is not feasible", then the next two paragraphs discuss ways such a a release might actually occur. (Toledo Edison's letter of 7/30/84 rejected any fixed time schedule for covering or otherwise immobilizing the resins, so the possibilities of wind and water dispersal of the radioactive resins should both be considered.)-

The consultant does not appear to be aware of the possibility of the radioactive ions migrating away from the resin. Such release of the radioactive ions is probable, before much radioactive decay occurs. (The halflives involved range from 0.2 year for Co-58 to 30 years for Cs-137.) Migration of a significant fraction of the dissolved radioactive ions with the groundwater flow into Lake j Erie is virtually certain.

The consultant's mention, on page 7, of the NRC 10 CFR 20.306 Rule, concerning H-3 and C-14 (both weak beta emitters) seems not pertinent to the regulation of the gamma emitters which are of concern in this case.

Radioactive waste management should not give anyone a whole body exposure exceeding 25 mr/yr, according to the Federal Register for 9/19/85, page 38085, which cites 40 CFR 191.03. The proposed radwaste disposal at Davis-Besse appears likely to exceed this limit, if it is released for unrestricted use before the radioisotopes leach away, and/or decay. I estimate exposures 877 times Toledo Edison 's estimate of 0.7 millirem / year (i e , 614 mr/yr). I differ by considering radioactivity in the top 100 cm of the waste (not just 10), and full time, 8766 hr/yr exposure (not just 100 hr/yr). In any event, a radiation survey after the dump is closed, and not premature speculation. =hould be the basis for deciding whether the land can be released.

1 The 8.5 mil 11 curies expected to be contained- in each 5 year dredging is small, compared to the 5 Curies per year (of similar materials) and 1000 Curies / year of tritium expected to be

- . - = _ _ . - . .. - . - - - _ - . . _

. l' ens-f 4

i 5

released into Lake Erie by Davis-Besse, during normal, planned ,

operation. (See the Final Environmental Statement on Davis-Besse, USAEC, March 1973, page 3-21.) Actual releases in water were well within these expectations, although power generation was only half that expected, through 1981 ; NUREG/CR 2907, vol. 2, June 1984.

A radioassay of samples from the dump, after it is closed, may reveal unexpected radioisotopes, or other unforseen problems.

Such after the fact sampling is absolutely essential to any honest j effort to protect the public.

j The Final Environmental Statement related to construction of Davis-Besse, USAEC, March 1973, included certain statements which

should be binding on the owners of the plant, and which should i make this hearing on the* waste disposal site unnecessary

1. Pages 3-24 + 3-26 say all radioactive wastes will be

} packaged and shipped offsite to a licensed disposal site.

l

2. Page8-12, in the first paragraph about Decommissioning, q says the licensee will be required to comply with 4 regulations then in effect. i 3

j Unless the NRC and the licensees renege on these solemn promises to the public, how can the waste disposal site be permitted, or j the prompt release for unrestricted use be promised?

Sincerely, Russell M. Bimber

]

4 i encli Plain Dealer item cited herein cc 3-Docketing & Service, i 1 each: Helen Hoyt, Administrative Judge, Toledo Edison Company, attn Lowell Roe, VP, Facilities,

$ Charles A. Barth, NRC Counsel.  :

i l

1 l

1 j

l t

• V ,,

r THE Pt.AIN DEALER. SATURDAY, APRIL 5, itse.'

! W13A ,*,",,,"

i Brimful . c

' EYle sr , .

sure .

ito'cause

! I fl6oding YF 701.EDO(AP)-It was a year ago hat week that Lake Erie caused the ,

. first major flood bere in more than a

' decade.

. $7his' r,'with the lake lev'el at a record ' officuk say floodmgis

{ laevitable this spring. .

a j' v UA Army Cerys of Dglesers'ree-t.

ords show that the monthly mean

+ leverle 6 leches above the reeerd of 4 i . $763 feet set in Martin 1971.De lake i f is about 1.5 feet above average levels for 1906-19tS, records abow. 4 j ,

i Thousands of sandbags are being

[ filled, evacuaties plans prepared and

-a wy shelters readied.

}~

Gov. Richard F. Celeste came north

. this week to tour the lakeekle couabes s and announced that Lake, Ottawa,

Erie, Lucas and Sandusky cosotles may be ehgible for 8785,000 is fleed protectum mmace. l

[ l

'My observation is there is a real f seed for more erosion controlthan we have the recodrees available," said i

e

! State Rep. Dwight Wise Jr, D45, of ,1 i Fremont, whose district includes San-l dusky County l Even if enough money were avail-able, changes in the way projects are funded would make it more difficult W

The federal government s

' the entire cost of projects.

state and local governmesta

- seektaustprimde15% of theeasts.

+. . . .

"Tm sore that's going to be a effi-ir E

Y 'shareof ci dt thing tae funding,"Wisesaid.;

- to come op with their

.c r e u. .

mn "Every time the governor goes set, the pubbe suspecta politicking bet there is a serious problem thert, and f the governor and the state of Otno are ' ,

trying te address it." 16,. -

4 .

l i Celeste said four projectsin Ottawa

• Cet sheeld be resebmitted for study the Corps of Engineers as g' ' possible sites for flood control work.

The four were among 35 proposals the i corps. rejected, saying the costs 6* outweighed the benefits

. _ . . , _ - . _ - . __ _ __ __ _ ._. - _ . _ _ . - .- -. -_ -, --