ML20024H508

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Directors Decision Under 10CFR2.206

ML20024H508
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/23/1991
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20024H507	List: ML20024H506 ML20024H508
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9106040318
Download: ML20024H508 (3)

Text

-

7590-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 6 2.206 V

hereby given that by Petition dated April 5,1991, Citizens f ur Fair

ulativ (CfUR) requested that the huclear Regulatory Cormission ta-h regard to the Texas Utilities Electric Cotpany's (TV Electric cr lice

_ senche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.

CFUR requsts that a supplec. ental environmental irp6ct stetement be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR i 51.20(a), and that the Commission take action against the licensee i

for violation of 10 CFR l 50.5.

CFUR asserts as bases for its request the following:

since 1974, Brown &

Root, Inc., the principal contractor for the Comanche Peek Steam Electric Station, and several subcentractors, maintained at least 15 and possibly 20 unlicensed waste dumps containing at least 157 types of toxic chemicals and construction waste, some of which are classified as Class I hazardous waste; fires or explosions could occur with the current mixture of wastes and methane gas in the waste dumps; the waste sites are unlined and three of them are at the edge of or in Squaw Creek Reservoir, which supplies cooling water to the licensee's nuclear plant and which mixes with surface water used by the public; the licensee has reported to the Texas Water Commission (TWC) that groundwater saraples recently taken from e monitoring well near the Squaw Creek Reservoir were found to contain carcinogens and other contaminants above reportable drinking water levels; toxic or hazardous materials could enter the plant's jW iBaM! M8Sjh5

f, 2

safety systems or could corrode vital ;omponents of the plant's cooling system; the tiRC decision to rely on the TWC to monitor the w6ste dumps was based on ir cortplete and inaccurate information supplied by the licensee to the NRC concerning the number and location of dumps and the types and amounts of hazardous (naterial, and, rnoreover, the TWC is not qualified to determine the safety significance of hazardous waste to a nuclear plant; the closure plan submitted by the licensee to TWC violates 40 CFR $ 265.111 because no removal er decontamination has been proposed; the licensee violated the national pollutant discharge emission system (NPDES) permit issued by the U.S. Environmental riotectiur. Agency (EPA) for the cooling water intake structure because the liceritee located unauthorized crc unrepor ted hczordous waste durrpt rxe r t! e ccol r9 woter intakt system; the licenset. v ioloted the Rescurce Conurvatich una Recovery Act (LCPA) land ban dispctal rt.stiictions; the lictnsee violated the Texas Acninistrative Code, Section 335.43, by f ailing to provide proper information regarding the waste dumps; in accordance with 10 CFR 5 51.53(a), the presence of the waste dunps reflects new information which the licensee was required to reveal to the NRC before the february 1990 grant of an operating license for Comanche Peak Unit No.1, and; the licensee did not reveal environmental and safety-related information that was material to the licensing of the Comanche Peak plant regarding the presence of unauthorized hazardous waste dumps, which violated 10 CFR $ 50.9.

The request is being treated nursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.206 of the Comission's regula tions.

As provided by 10 CFR $ 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable tiine.

l

.__ A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20555, and at the University of Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications / Maps, 701 South Cooper, P. O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May 1991.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/dtk G

frank ira

., Depu ty Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s

[

\\

, v J

Clll/l N5 iOk i AIR UTILITY K1 GUlATION b

d~i P.O. Ito X 1894

(*f I ORT \\X ORTil.11 X AS p

'6101 April 5, 1991 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor liegul a t ion i

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

Washington D.C.

20555 RE: Environmental Matters at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Facility and Request for Action Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation, on behalf of its members who live near the Comanche n'eak nuclear plant, request the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to take action to require that an environmental impact statement, specific to the issue of the multiple hazardous waste dumps in place at the Comanche Peak facility, be ordered for the reasons and according to the regulations as set out below.

If the Director is not the proper NRC official for this request, CFUR asks that this request be routed to the proper official and CFUR be notified as to who that person or group is.

Soretime following the onset of construction in 1974 and continuing through 1991, Brown & Root, Inc., principal con-tractor for the Comanche Peak nuclear plant owned and operated by TU Electric, formerly Texas Utilities, in Somervell County Texas, has maintained unlicensed, unauthorized and unpermit-ted hazardous waste dumps on the Comanche Peak site for the disposal of industrial construction waste, some of it clas-sified as Class I hazardous waste, generated during t..e con-struction phase of Units 1 and 2.

Unit 1 was licensed in February, 1990.

Unit 2 is under construction.

Subcontractors also used the waste sites for disposal of hazardous wastes.

The sites contain toxic chemicals, paints and solvents, asbestos, and lab pack waste, among other con-struction generated wastes.

157 hazardous chemicals have been identified in a report released in March of 1988 by McCulley, Frick, and Gillman, consultants hired by TU in November of 1987 to study the sites and report on the materials dumped in them.

No permit has been granted to TU, Brown &

Root, or any subcontractor or any company owned by or working for TU to dispose of hazardous wastes at the Comanche Peak site.

The waste sites are all unlined; two are at the edge of Squaw Creek Reservoir, and at least one may be in the reser-voir according to former workers.

Squaw Creek provides the O'

E

'I

-more-

'~,Iu-

CFUR, page 2 cooling water for the reactor, and further downstream mixes with surface waters used by the public.

TU began its internal investigation of the dumps around November, 1987, even though the dumps had been in place and in use for about 10 years.

In 1988, safeteam was notified of the dumps by Linda Porter, a former paint supervisor at the plant who was later terminated after she blew the whistle on behalf of workers in the paint department who had been exposed to hazardous working conditions.

Later in 1988, Ms.

Porter called the Arlington NRC office to alert the NRC to the presence of the dumps.

The NRC's Arlington office has told Ms. Porter that they have no record of her call.

CPUR believes that the NRC was notified about the dumps by TU sometime between June of 1989 and October of'1989.

According to a conversation between CPUh board member Betty Brink and Chris Grimes, head of the NRC's Office of Special Projects, in March, 1991, Mr. Grimes says he is not sure when the NRC was first told by TV about the dumps, but he thinks it may have been in October of 1989, four months before licensing.

Ms. Porter again told the NRC about the dumps in October, 1989, also.

However, CFUR believes that TU withheld vital information from the NRC staff concerning the numbers of dumps, their locations, and the amounts and types of hazardous materials involved.

The NRC staff with oversight of the Comanche Peak facility prior-to licensing has stated that it relied on the Texas Water Ccmmission to monitor the waste-dumps and their impact on the waters of Squaw Creek Reservoir, because the NRC did not believe that any issue of safety was involved. However, CFUR believes that the NRC based its decision on incomplete and inaccurate information provided by TU Electric.

Further, the NRC was lax in relying on the TWC to deter-m.ne any safety significance for the plant from the dumps.

The TWC has no nuclear expertise and is not qualified to de-termine the safety significance to a nuclear plant of hazard-ous materials in near proximity to its cooling water source.

At-the very least, the-NRC staff should have called for an

--environmental assessment-in conjunction with cooperating agencies such as the TWC and the EPA, in-order to determine I

the degree of contamination and if the materials should have been removed to protect the integrity of the plant vad to assure that the health and safety of the public and.he environment was protected prior to licensing.

The presence of the dumps certainly seems to CFUR to " reflect new information" as defined by 10 C FR 9 51. 5 3 (a), that is,information not found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the NRC-by TU.

-more-

~ A CPUR, page 3 The fallacy of the NRC's reliance on the 1WC is obvious today.

The TWC initially agreed to allow TU to apply for a hazardous waste facility permit after the fact.

Years after the fact as it turned out, and with no public notifica-tion or public hearing, as required by law.

In a July 28, 1989 letter to TV from the TWC, the TWC appeared to approve TV's closure plan (which would have left the hazardous wastes in place, in unlined pits, capped with clay and monitored for a period of 30 years, 10 years shy of the lifetime of the plant!)

Notice of the closure plan was published in the Glen Rose Reporter, a small, limited circulation weekly in Somervell County, on August 15, 1990, a month after the July letter approving the plan and six months after the NRC issued the plant a low power license.

public outcry coup]ed with formal requests from Linda Porter, the Government Accountability Project (gap), Citizens Associated for Sound Energy (CASE), CFUR, Texas Citizen Action, Texans United and the Hood County Taxpayers' Assocla-tion, as well as citizens who live near the plant and draw their drinking water from the aquifer which runs beneath the plaat and the waste dumps, forced a public hearing.

On December 18, 1990, a public meeting was held in Fort Worth by the TWC. (Summary attached.)

Following the meeting, the TWC ordered TU to respond to 18 allegations raised by persons who testified.

(TWC letter to TU, March 8, 1991, attached.)

The NRC did not attend the hearing in an official capacity.

Workers believe that there are at least 20 sites, possibly more, with hazardous wastes dumped in them, and that at-least one of those sites is in the reservoir itself, where wastes were disposed of before the lake filled up.

TU now admits

-to 15 sites.

Groundwater contamination has been found in recent samples taken from a 40' monitoring well in Landfill

1. 2, near the reservoir.

.In a letter from TU to the TWC dated March 5, 1991, TU reports that contaminants from that well were "above reportable drinking water levels."

Other contaminants, carcinogenic contaminants, have been found in samples taken.near Landfill h5.

(The identification of these contaminants and the entire McCulley, Frick, and Gillman report can be obtained from the TWC.)

During the course of the December 18-meeting, former worker Linda Porter, Owen Thero, a consultant for CASE who has access to the site and to some of TU's records, and GAP attorneys, all testified that their investigations into the landfills revealed that most of the landfills contain hazard-ous materials; that ignitable materials contained in leaking containers were dumped in the landfills; that incompatable materials have been disposed of together; that methane gas is building to dangerous levels in several of the landfills; that fires or explosions could occur with the current mix of wastes and methane;or any protection agaanst Sne of theeacning from a leachate collection that n landfills have liners

--morc~

1

• CFUR, page 4 systemi that overexcavation at the site during initial con-struction caused fissureu and subsurface faulting with the possible result that toxic or hazardous materials could find a pathway into the plants safety systems.

Specific concerns were raised by CASE regarding the possibility of toxics getting into the cooling waters of Squaw Creek and eventually causing corrosion of vital components of the plant's cooling systems.

CASE also raised the possibility of an ex-plosion or fire in a landfill located near the cooling water intake system, jeopardizing the coo]ing system.

CFUR has researched the TU environmental reports submit-ted to the NRC in 1978 and prior to licensing, and the NRC's Environmental Statements on CPSES. Nowhere in the documents made available to CPUR by the NRC 18 there any mention of these dumps.

There,is mention on page 8, App. A of CPSES/ER OL, Vol. II, regarding transmission lines, that "some temporary storage of brush, trees and other waste materials resulting from clearance...will occur (but)...will be removed com-pletely...for disposal." And, "a.

Waste materials from trans-mission line construction will be properly disposed of off site."

So there is recognition by TU that waste materials gener+

ated during construction need proper off-site disposal.

Yet, the environmental impact of these hazardous dumps is not addressed by TU or the NRC in the NRC's Final Environmental Statment Supplement to NUREG 0775, published in October of 1989, four months prior to licensing.

In TV and NRC documents the dumps do not exist.

Yet they did exist then and they still do today.

When the NRC found out about the dumps in the summer or fall of 1989, there was still time to require TU to address them.

Yet the record is silent.

It is not that TU did not already have a track record of with-holding vital information from the NRC over the years.

~

The fact that TU waited so long to notify the NRC of the

-dumps should have raised a red flag to the statf.

In the case of the unpermitted waste dumps, TU has managed to violate laws of every regulatory agency involved.-TU's NPDES permit issued by EPA under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act with regard to the cooling water intake structure, surely has been violated by the location of an unpermitted and unreported hazardous waste dump near the cooling water intake system; the Resource-Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land ban disposal restrictions have been violated; by failing to provide the TWC with proper information regarding the wastes in the landfills, TU han violated Texas Administrative Code, section 335.43; the closure plan submitted by TU violates section 265.111 of 40 CFR, because no removal or decontamination has been pro-posed.

And violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at a nuclear facility directly brings the NRC in-to play.

-more-

__m_

_. ~. _

j T

f CFUR, page 5 10 CFR SS1 Subpart A, imp]ements within NRC regulations section 102(2) of NEPA, "in a manner consistent with the i

NRCs domestic licensing and related regulatory. authority...."

Under 10 CFR 551.20 (a) " Licensing and regulatory actions requiring an environmental impact statement shall meet at least one of the following criteria:

(1) The proposed action is a major Federal action signifi-i contly affecting the quality of the human environment.

(2) The proposed action involves a matter which the Com-mission, in the excercise of its discretion, has determined should be covered by an environmental impact statement."

Further, 10 CFR 551.53 states, "(a) operating License Stage.

Each Applicant for a license...to operate a production or utilization facility covered by 551.20 shall submit with its application...a separate document entitled ' Supplement t

ta Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage' which will update (the original environmental report.)"

This supplement must be submitted according to $51.53 (a)

...in connection with the first licensing action authoriz-ing full power operation."

And "...shall discuss the same matters described in 551.45, 51.51, and 51.52...to the extent that they differ from those discussed or reficct new information in addition to that discussed in the final environ-mental impact statement prepared by the Commission in con-nection with the construction permit."

(Emphasis added.)

1he dumps are obviously "new information."

10 CFR 551.45 (c) requires that the " environmental report should contain sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development of an independent analysis."

(Emphasis added.)-

Under 10 CPR S50.9 (a) "Information provided to the Com-mission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regu-lations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by thec applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. (Emphasis added.)

CFUR believes that TU Electric failed to report significant environmental information to the Commission either by letter or as a supplement to its environmental report prior to the licensing of the plant in February, 1990, regarding the unpermitted hazardous waste dumps at the site.

CFUR believes that this information was material to licensing and the extent of the safety and environmental hazards posed by the toxic materials in the dump should have been known by the Commission.

CPUR believes that a supplemcntal environmental report would then have been ordered by the

-more-

t CPUR, page 6 i

Commission under S$1.20 (a) (1) or (2) in cooperation with the EPA and the FWC.

Further, 10 CFR S51.10 (b) states, "The Conunlasion recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct domestic licensing and related regulatory fonctions in a manner consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an indeperdent regulatory agency for protecting the radiological healtt 'ad safety of the public.

Accordingly, the Commission will:

2) Follow the provisions of 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6 tot ing to lead agencies, except that the Commission re-ser

.s the right to prepare an independent environmental im-pact statement whenever the NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over an activity even though the NRC has not been designated the lead agency for the preparation of the statement...."

While this section " recognizes that responsibility for Federal regulation of non-radiological pollutant discharges into the receiving waters rests by statuta with the EPA,"

CFUR would argue that the cooling water lake, in this case Squaw Creek Reservoir, is an integral part of the Comanche Peak facility, and that environmental hazards posed by the non-radiological wastes in near proximity to the lake could impact dangerously over time on uafety systems within the plant.

Decause Squaw Creek Reservoir is an integral part of the safety system of the Comanche Peak facility, it meets the criteria required for NRC regulatory authority and over-sight which includes an NRC environmental impact statement specific to the dumps.

CFUR believes that TU has violated 10 CFR 550.9 by with-nolding vital information from the NRC about the dumps and therefore did not submit information material to licensing that was " complete and accurate in all materia] respects."

For 611 of the reasons stated above, CFUR requests that the Commission, under its discretionary authority as granted in 10 CFR S51.20 (a) (2), require an Environmental Impact Statement specific to the hazardous waste dumps at the Comanche PeaA facility, publish notice of such in the Federal Register, and allow interesten persons to participate in the process.

Further, CFUR would ask that the NRC consider action against TU for its apparent vic,lation of 10 CFR 550.9.

Resptht f ully.atybmit ted.

- /

(

,)

Betty DrTnk, Boat Member, for CFUR CC: All Interested Parties

CFUR 1

1 CITIZl.Ns iok i AIR 11Ti!.1IT RIOUI ATioN l

PO 150X 1894 IOR'I WORTil. T1.X A5 76101 April 5, 1991 Copies of the enclosed request for action have been sent t.o the following:

The General Counsel's Office, f4RC EPA, Washington The Texas Water Commission The Texas Attorney General's Office Senator Lloyd Bentsen Congressman Joe Barton Congressman Pete Geren Congressman Edward Markey Federel Attorney, Fort Worth Federal Attorney, Waco 14RC Region 4, Arlington, Joe Gilliland Chris Grimes, Office of Special Projects Governor Ann Richard'e Ombudsman Office, Texas Richard Condit, GAP Linda Porter Lon Burnam, Texas Citizen Action Allene Van Pelt, llood County Taxpayers' Assoc.

'exans United Richard Griffin, Attorney for CFUR CFUR Board Members Kendall McCook, Tolar, Texas Charles Crabtree, Glen Rose, Texas and Various Media

9 TEXAS WATER COMMISSION 4

11. J. Wynne, fil, Chmrman John J. Vav, General C<r.nsel John 1111irdwell, Commissioner

.4+[tl Mit hael E. I icid, Chief Heannas I xonunti Cliff Johnson, Commuoner ilrrnda W. I oster, Chef Clerk Allen licinLc, Executive Director Fe! rucu "c 2 0 s J991 Mr. Betty Brink 7600 Anglin Drive Ft, Worth, Texas 76140 Re Texas Utilities Electric Company - Comanche Peak Solid Waste Registration No. 33306 Transcript of the Public Comment Hearing conducted on December 18, 1990

Dear Mr. Drink:

As a follow-up to your request that a copy of the transcript made of the public comment received during the above-referenced hearing be forwarded to you upon completion, we are unable to provide a transcript of that hearing due to the poor sound and reproductive quality of the tape used by the Commission during that hearing.

Therefore, we will not be able to provide a complete and accurate transcript of that hearing.

However, several members of the Texas Water Commission staff present during this hearing took notes of the proceeding.

Based on these written notes, I have executed a Summary of Public Comment roccived during the December 18, 1990 hearing on the Closure Plans submitted by Texas Utilities Electric Company.

I believe that, although not complete and comprehensive, this summary does fairly and accurately reflect the comments received during that hearing.

If you do not agree that this Summary accurately reflects the substance of the comments recejvod during the efore-mentioned hearing, please feel free to contact me.

The Commission would be happy to review any comments you might have regarding this Summary.

We apologize for not being able to provide you with a more complete and comprehensive transcription of this proceeding.

If you have any questions relating to this matter, please fool free to contact either myself or Mr. Jim Haley, Director of the Commission's Legal Division, at (512) 463-8069.

Sincerely,

/'l Michelle A. McFaddin Senior Attorney Texas Water Commission Enclosure P. O. Box 13087 Capitol Station

• 1/00 North Congrer.s Ave.

• Austin, Texas 787113087 e Area Code 512%17100 mmrn ovicvci t o r,m

4-l

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC COMMElil Public Comment Hearing held on Tr.xas Utilities Electric Cornpany-Comanche Peak Facility: Closure Plans December 18, 1990 1.

Ms. Linda Porter:

Ms. Porter initiated the public cominent session by thanking those citizens groups, the Government Accountability Project and individuals who have supported her efforts to address the

{

cnvironmental situation at the Texas Utilities Electric Company's (TU Electric l Cornanche Peak facility.

She stated that the landfills present at the TU Electric - Comanche Peak facility were illegal and unauthorized and as such should be removed entirely from the facility for off-site authorized dispo :al.

She then remarked that the Texas Water Commission has pursued selective enforceInent whir'h has allowed companies to blatantly violate the law and stat 3 that she believes that all of the landfills present at the facility have managed Class I hazardous waste in the past and are " unmarked graves" of to>:ic waste.

All of the known landfills present should therefore be closed as hazardous waste managment units and/or permitted as such.

In addition, she stated that the landfills had managed approximately 157 chemicals other than paint wastes and thinner, including lab pack waste materials, and that such disposal was intentional.

She went on to note that the $10,000 administrative penalty for use of unauthorized landfills at the Comanche Peak facility which was assessed in a 1989 Enforcement Order issued by the Commission was a

more clap on the wrist for intentional, illegal activities a.:d that the Commission has been lax on enforcement and has allowed TU Electric to continue illegal dumping activities.

She comment.ed on the groundwater contamination which has been documented adjacent to.andfill Unit $3, which she stated is built in Squaw Creek L

Reservoir, and stated that the waste removed f rom the landfill went to unauthorized disposal facilities, including a cement kiln in Midlothian, Texas.

She further remarked that th'b Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) takes environmental problems more seriously than does the Texas Water Commission, but requested us to pass on the facts to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

She believes that a new environmental impact study should be conducted by the NRC and that the Texas Water Commission has the moral obligation to cooperate in such additional studies.

She finalized her comments by wondering why post-closure care monitoring for hazardous vaste facilities only lasts for 30 years; she believes that this time frame is insufficient and concluded by stcting that closure of all of the landfills at

1 4.

'the TU Electric Comanche Peak facility should be accomplished by removal of all wastes and gases from the Comanche Pea): facility to an off-site disposal facility.

2.

Mr, Charles Crabtree Mr.

Crabtree was the second speal:er at the hearing and commenced by stating that he lived in close proxirnity to the Comanche Peak facility and is deeply concerned about the activities at the site.

He noted that he is an engineer and stated that he was particularly concerned about radioactive releases and other releases from the facility.

In addition, he was concerned about groundwater contamination.

He has a drinking water well which he relies on for water as do his neighbors and he believes that the Comanche peal: facility poses an unacceptabic risk to those water resources.

He also expressed concern about contamination getting into the coo'.ing water which feeds the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.

He believes that we should require TU Electric to remove all waste from the on-site landfills.

They should not be allowed to continue these illegal waste management activites.

3.

Mr. Kendall McCook Mr. McCook began his presentation by noting that he lives 3 1/2 miles downwind of the Comanche Peak facility.

He is concerned about the milk products being produced by nearby dairies and about the increased cancer risk posed oy this facility.

He was specifically outraged by a pamphlet which had been published and distributed oy TU Electric promoting recreation in Squaw Creek Reservoir.

He believes that-the agencies should be looking into the water quality of this Reservoir as well as testing the fish which are living in the Reservoir.

He stated that the agencies thus far had not been receptive to his concerns.

He also requested that his groundwater be tested.

He is afraid.

4.

Mr. Richard Condit, Government Accountabilitv Proiect Mr. Condit opened up his comments by expreusing his concern that the Commission was not in a position to supply detailed comments regarding the Closure Plans submitted by TU Electric Comanche Peak facility.'

He noted that the Commission appeared to have already decided to approve TU Electric's proposed closure activities and cited a July 28, 1989 letter from Russ Kimb)e approving an interim cap design for the landfill units and stated that he did not see how we could clain not to have already decided to aprove the closure plans calling for in-place capping and closure of the two hazardous waste landfill cells.

To further support his view that a decision had already been made, he noted that we had already sent out a Notice of Deficiency letter on the Closure Plans

._- _ - - - - _ _ ~. - -.- _. ~. -.

l

-t and that TU Electric had responded to this Notice of Deficiency letter.

[ Anne Dobbs responded to these remarks by stating that the July 28, 1989 letter approving the design of a cap for certain landfill units at the f acility was an approval for an interim cap to prevent rainfal1 runon and runoff and infiltration until such time as the

~

Commission could receive and approve a formal Closure Plan.

She also stated that to her knowledge we had not received any response from TU Electric on the Notice of Deficiency letter.)

Mr. Condit continued by stating that he believed that the hearing being conducted was biased and legally insufficient.

He stated that he had not been able to review al] of the records relating to the Comanche Peak facility and complained that only a small portion of-the Commission's records on the Comanche Peak facility had been released to the University of Arlington library.

He stated that the hearing was Texas illegal in terms of the applicable public participation requirements 'and he is concerned about our ' involvement in decisions made with respect to capping the landfills.

He stated that the public record is not clear on what our position over time has been.

He stated that the critical point of his comments was that TU Electric and Brown & Root should not be allowed to benefit from these illegal landfill activities.

He notes that the Closure Plans as currently drafted violate RCRA land ban requirements.

Companies are not permitted to put liquid - wastes into the ground for disposal purposes.

Deciding to allow TU Electric to leave the wastes in place is violative of these land ban requirements.

He believes that the decision to allow TU Electric to leave the wastes in place triggers land ban requirements and stated that he believes that this position is legally correct and supportable.

He also addressed the Commission's 1989 Enforcement Order issued to TU Electric for the use of unauthorized landfills and stated that the $10,000~ assessed penalty was preposterous.

He stated that fines like these encourage illegal dumping and do not provide any sort of disincentive.

He discussed the S25,000 per day penalties which can be assessed by the fedeal government for these types of violations and concluded that a-multi-million penalty would'have been more appropriate.

In addition, he noted that state penalties which could have been collected as a result of an action in court would have been greater.

The bottom line is that we are not doing our jobs in enforcing environmentsl regulations at the state level.

He remarked that criminal penalties had been ignored and stated that the Commission should h3ve sought criminal prosecution in this case.

Individuals need to be made accountable for their acts and the state needs to be more agressive.

. ~

~

o ~

Finally, he noted that we are looking too narrowly at the environmental issues posed.by the TU Electric nuclear' power plant.

There are more landfills than we have been informed of.

There may be a build-up of methane gas in the landfills which could cause an explosion risk and there is ground water contamination.

He again noted that he believes that the Commission has already made up its mind to approve the closure Plan which has been drafted by TU Electric for this facility and that we are biased.

5.

Mr. Mick Harrison, Government Accountability Proiect Mr. Harrison commenced by stating that the Commission has no authority to allow closure of these landfills under interim status regulations and standards.

TU Electric has failed to provide us with adequate information on the wastes contained within the landfills and does not qualify for interim status under 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) section 335.43 of our rules.

He stated that they need to get a permit authorizing their proposed closure activities and must go through a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act.

We need a more formal, adjudicatory process; they want an evidentiary hearing on this mattar as soon as possible.

He noted that even if interim status standards did apply to these landfill units, the closure plan should be rejected under 40 Ccde of Federal Regulation (CFR) section 265.111.

The Closure Plans as drafted do not prevent releases in a manner sufficiently protective of human health and the environment because no removal or decontamination is being provided for.

He noted that he has information that the lar.dfills contain ignitible wastes, which were disposed of in leaking containers, and incompatible wastes would be left in place under the current closure proposal such as bromoform /

-acetone and acido/ solvents.

He noted that these were routine disposal practices at Comanche Peak.

He also expressed his concern about the high levels of methane gas (up to 24% which could be higher than explosive levels).

The fact that there are ignitible and incompatible wastes present as well further complicates this situation.

This situation indicates that the closure performance standard of

" remove or decontaminate" cannot be met with the current waste materials in place in the Tandfill units.

He also believes that leaving the= wastes currently in these_ units in place is a violation of land disposal ban restrictions and noted that simple - capping and monitoring is not sufficient.

In place closure wculd mean that solvents would be allowed to continue migrating into the ground water beneath the facility.

He was concerned-that no scientific assessment and/or characterization of the materials in the landfills-has been conducted by anyone other than TU Electric and its contractors.

-. -.~.~.~.-

-.. ~ - - = - -. -.

6 He concluded his.

statement by remarking that the administrative record-in this matter does not support Closure Plan approval.

A fire-and/or explosion are likely with the current nix of wastes in the landfill units and this could lead to an environmental release.

Finally, allowing these closure activities could lead to interference with the nuclear power plant's operations.

6.

Mr. Owen L. Thero (?)

Mr. Thero initiated his comments by requesting that a' copy of this transcript be provided.

In addition, he wanted to introduce a

letter written by Ms.

Juanita

Ellis, a

representative of CASE, into the record.

The letter was received into the record.

He went on to state that environnental issues are within the purview. of CASE's concerns.

They are ccncerned about soil, surface water and groundwater contamination.

His position is that all hazardous materials at the Comanche Peak facility should be removed.

He requested that a

new environmental impact statement be prepared which studies these landfill units.

He went on to state that the closure activities proposed could af fect the nuclear power plant's operations and that we should coordinate with the NRC so that the NRC could do its job.

He requested that we again extend the comment period on TU Electric's closure plans until such time as CASE can finalize its investigation and submit a summary report.

He then described the responses that CASE has received, apparently at the.same time, from the Commission and from the NRC and noted that the NRC has abrogated its regulatory authority.

He is concerned about relying on us to do our job.

He stated that he believes that the documentation that he has reviewed clearly demonstrates that unauthorized disposal of hazardous waste has taken place and believes that -Landfill Unit Nos. 6 and 7 may also be a problem.

He thinks that the investigations that have been conducted are insufficient.

He is also concerned about the methane gas issue.

He believes I

that methane gas at detectable levels has been oenerated within the landfill units as the result of waste decomposition.-

This has created a very dangerouc situation; there needs to be venting or some other technical response to the presence of methane gas.' He also expressed concerns about

-the presence of ignitible and incompatible wartes in the l

landfill cells _

He thinks that there may be a prob 3em with the cooling water in Squaw Creek Reservoir. He noted that the landfills are located in close proximity to the cooling water intake system for the nuclear power plant and.is worried that an explosion occurring in the landfills could advursely affect the operations of the nuclear power plant equipment and associated piping.

This is a major safety problem.

In L

addition, he posed a concern about the effect thtt an l

explosion might have on the three major pipelines that ran n -<~

y

. ~

~

k

.through the comanche Peak facility.

He concluded by stating that TU Electric should be required to remove all of the waste off-site.

7.

Mr. Gatlin Mitchell Mr.

Mitchell introduced himself by stating that he is a landowner near the Comanche Peak facility and that he is outraged by the proposed Closure Plans.

He cannot believe that we would even consider allowing TU Electric to leave these landfills in place.

He stated that we need to do our jobs.

8.

Betty Brink. Citizens for Fair Utility Recrul a t i on Ms.

Brink commenced by stating that she would like an explanation of the July, 1989 approval letter for an interim cap for landfills at the Comanche Peak facility.

Sne stated that she could not believe that this letter would go into so much detail if it only related to en in.erim cap, unless the interim cap was to be in place throtyh final closure in-place of the waste.

She stated that we should require removal of the waste to an authorized hazardous waste management f acility and there should be a new investigation of the illegal dumping activities at the Comanche Peak facility.

She noted that the Commission had not interviewed workers at the Comanche Peak facility.

She went on to state that a 30-year post-closure care period is not sufficient and asked what would happen if groundwater was contaminated.

She noted that we could not fix that.

She remarked that over-excavation at the facility had resulted in subsurface faulting and the creation of fissures.

She also expressed concern about the potential f or an explosion due to the presence of methane gas and incompatible wastes.

She further remarked that the NRC has stepped aside in this matter and that the Commission now has the responsibility for these issues.

We need to conduct a more careful investigation at the f acility regarding the illegal dumping activities.

She stated that the sites: are not appropriate for hazardous waste -

management and we should not let TU Electric permit them for such activities at this point in time.

She requested an evidentiary hearing on any hermit for these units and stated that this should have been done-before waste was ever placed into these units.- She noted that there has been a regulatory breakdown.

TU Electric could not meet NRC criteria today with these illegal dumps and therefore would not be able to get a license to operate today.

She went on to state that TU Electric is not being adequately regulated; we should impose additional fines on them for the illegal dumping and none of the costs should be passed on to the ratepayer.

8.

Mr. Lon Burnam, Texas Citizen Action

_ -. _ _. ~

i W

Mr. Burnam opened up his-comments by stating that he is very unhappy with the Texas Water-Commission.

He stated that Rep.

Glasgow had an -aide present listening to the meeting and stated that the Commission is predisposed towards allowing polluters to shift the cost of polluting to the public at large.

He claimed that we are working with an elite group of regulated industry and that-we are therefore not to be

-trusted.

We are not doing our jobs and the entire agency needs to be overhauled.

He asked whether we were willing to support revolving door legislation and a cost reimbursement system for people like Linda Porter.

He stated that there is general discontent with TU Electric and that they are a criminal offender.

He believes that we are covering something up.

He also discussed the Juanita 'Ellis letter and our response to that letter.

He stated that he did not believe that we had not started a detailed review of the Closure Plans and quoted from a December 13, 1990 letter from Anne Dobbs disallowing further extension to the public comment period on the Comanche Peak Closurr Plans.

He believes that we are attempting to rush approval through before we have adequate information.

[ Anne Dobbs responded to these remarks by stating that we were evaluating this closure plan like any other closure plan and noted that we did not have the resources to conduct full investigation at every regulated site in the State.)

He stated that we have too narrowly construed our obligations an6 review of the TU Electric f acility and is unhappy with our decision on Landfill Unit Nos. 6 and 7.

He also stated that he wanted us to inform the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that costs associated with illegal dumping should not be allowed to be passed on to ratepayers.

He concluded by calling on-individual criminal investigations of the staff's activities in this matter and stated that we needed to clarify our position not only on the Closure Plans but also on our legislative policy goals.

9.

Mr. John David Parker Mr. Parker began by stating that the Commission is being watched very carefully. He ' stated that an environmental study should be conducted at the Comanche Peak facility.

He believes that there are problems with the 1987 McCulley, Frick investigations conducted at the Comanche Peak site and stated that there was no way we could make an intelligent decision related to closure before additional studies had been completed.

He noted that the area around Ft. Worth, Texas has unusual geology and that limestone subsurface fractures may exist and need to be evaluated.

In addition, he is worried that we do not know enough about contamination currently in and around the landfills and Squaw Creek Reservoir.

We need

.. -. ~.

e to know.how that contamination might af feet the nuclear power plant's operations.

He concluded by stating that we should not allow TU Electric to keep these landfills in place, thereby rewarding them for their illegal dumping activities, and that: we need to pay for these studies; not'TU Electric.

They should have to pay for the cleanup, without passing the costs on to the taxpayers.

10.

Jim Shembeck. Texans United Mr.

Shembeck commenced by remarking that he wishes this information about unauthorized landfills had been available to him before the NRC licensing hearing.

He went on to state that the Texas Water Commission is horrible and is not concerned about pollution.

He further stated that the Commission has willfully ignored and violated the law and that he'has no faith in our ability to carry out the law.

He addressed - the' issue of punishment by noting that the Texas Water Commission has proposed a $2,000,000 fine against a company in Dallas County for one illegal landfill and that this indicates that there is a clear double standard which should not be tolerated.

He stated that the Commission engages in discriminatory enforcement.

We should be protecting the citizens against TU Electric.

He expressed concern that we did not know _of the hazards presented by the other landfills at this site.

We have not properly investigated the site.

He expressed concerns about the cement kilns in Midlothian, Texas which have received hazardous waste generated by TU Electric and noted that the ash generated by the cement kilns has been disposed of in quarries, such disposal having resulted in both surface'and groundwater contamination.

He stated that there are more landfills at this site, then moved onto the issue of capping the landfills as a solution.

He noted that TU Electric's capping proposal fails to address leakage and/or leaching from the landfill units; leachate will only get more concentrated over time and we don't know what synergistic effects the chemical _ compounds in the landfills will be.

He addressed the methane gas problem and stated that the Texas Air Control Board needs to look at this issue.

He doesn't trust either the Texas Water Commission or TU Electric to adequately monitor the siltutation.

He further stated that he believes that the Commission has already_made_up its mind to approve the Comanche Peak Closure Plans and believes that we have avoided the hearings on this-matter required by law.

He stated that he felt that the

$10,000 dollar penalty assessed against TU Electric in 1989 was totally inadequate and suggested that a S2,000,000 penalty would have been more appropriate.

m.

)

He concluded by stating that the wastes should be removed f rom the Comanche Peak facility to an authorized of f-site f acility; additional investigation for unauthorized landfills that might be located at the facility should be undertaken; we need to ensure that the costs of such investigation and cleanup activities are not passed through to the ratepayer; and concluded by stating that our agency should be entirely reorganized with elected commissioners.

A broom needs to be taken after the Texas Water Commission so we do our jobs.

11.

Ms. Allene VanPelt Ms.

Van Pelt commenced by noting that the Texas Water Commissioners themselves should have been present at the hearing and that they should_be listening more closely to the people.

She stated that Hood County has been devastated by pollution.

The citizens of Hood County are concerned about air pollution and emissions and any resulting contamination from such emissions.

She is also concerned about the water quality in - Lake Granberry, which is their drinking water supply, and about the presence of hazardous constituents in their drinking water, which originates or derives from Squaw Creek Reservoir.

She stated that she believes that we are protecting TU Electric and that we should not allow illegal dumps to stay in place.

If we do, that shows that we are indeed corrupt.

She stated that we need to investigate TU Electric, but wants her comments directed where it counts - at our Commissioners.

She stated that she was part of a

statewide taxpayer's organization and they are working on an initiative / referendum to see to it that-our Commissioners are elected since the Commissioners appointed at the Texas Water Commission aren't being responsive to-the people.

She also expressed concern about the generation of methane gas in the landfill.

She does not think that waste should just be covered up and believes that we should fine TU Electric a lot.

The government should ' not be protecting big utilities.

She stated that Comanche Peak is not necessary.

If they don't remove the waste from their si'-

the entire facility should be closed down.

I She concluded by asking whether it is 'our position that we l

l don't have. enough resourcef to investigate the Comanche Peak facility.

[ Anne Dobbs responded by stating that we typically expect the t

l company to conduct the investigations and we review the results anc*

j determine if adequate scientific investigations have been l'

completed.)

l Ms. Van Pelt's concluding comment was that the shareholders of i

TU Electric should be required to hire independent investigators to study the conditions at the site.

.- - - ~.

)

^

l 12.

Mr. Mick Harrison, Government Accountability Proiect (Supplemental Comments)

Mr. Harrison supplemented his earlier comments by noting that the landfill cells did not have liners or leachate collection systems and therefore TU Electric's closure plans should be rejected for failing to meet design and operational requirements.

He reminded us of his position that this hearing was 1cgally inadequate and that misrepresentations by the staff of the record is a criminal violation of RCRA.

He instructed the staff-that we would be protected if we decided to become whistleblowers.

He then asked a series of questions relating to the extent of the review that had been conducted on the Closure Plans submitted by TU Electric and then stated that he does not believe that a decision-has not already been made to approve a closure Plan that would result in wastes being left in place and capped, and pointed to the July, 1989 letter from Russ Kimble approving their interim cap desigr..

He concluded by stating that..

He called for an he believed that staff had misrepresented the record in this hearing.

evidentiary hearing on this matter after a NEPA environmental assessment had been completed for the Comanche Peak facility.

He thinks that we should require removal of all waste to an off-site authorized hazardous waste management facility.

13.

Mr. Lon Burnam, Texas Citizen Action (Supplemental Comments)

-He opened his supplemental comments by stating that he had calculated what.he believed to be appropriate penalties for the violations which have occurred at the TU Electric f acility and'had arrived at a figure of $350,000,000.

He wanted to know whether we would crntact the PUC regarding these illegal activities and said tnat he would call for a criminal inventigation of our activities.

(QUE5 TION-AND ANSWER SESSION AFTER CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT)

D i

_m.

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

.__.__-_=_....___-.__.~__._...m O

1 Attachment A i.

l 1

l--

.. o vv v g

e.a *v

< * - - +

s vt*

L (L i i / s G V s v s e *'I G { wev l

"..:;.Y.<

6 d' '

fghge; S4f tu...3:; nit'JLUck h.1 Sa 7e

?5,li. 7Mg h

<De & TAus Ps s o.iw 9 g e 2 n.c,Tt vs n '.y

- h. E:/ lIrv.c -

lb ?q tut 6:<w :< d>,:

,7~>c 2A0VV N.<//Whsh:ic $ fs2'

/Nf,r'b

,'/}

16 h p f'.

G. CO ' C C "

• In C -

/

c

/ 7RO LO es%', u Tw h e &c 9 IJ'7G

\\S w fit y Vc k I fh. hMk b 234 (h 6.0 )LdLL hk 4 60 hdhJ '75 t

,. bn ' ala<w iw uw cwo%cy 7 coo 7 h r. G e m,

o e s 182G wa. EUK6h. h {Lu,b

,. m e. cs c u ~

,.a

~n n.,

,, n nn,w V,o.

,( K G..., D r a t e<<

criuz. rec c ca vi gr v>cxtd yi

.,c,,he m

wasr, wa s aao 72.fch+d Ors'M ho M G, fM ; S 7co wek.,2c 2ccc>l L mck g a rag Nv. &KE }vLvW KRLD M (b.-

c>\\\\pgjF&

s L,,ukan7,c,%tk toerp <w,v,e,/

,> canoa. caeme ui s wa suuy, 7x-n,c q 2Y)/

l W.Si/

M Y b b_.

$'Ob* Y ih V500

. 17 f

ir fMw.? /k.cech fC5G)wawk'N Sr /%,.rir74 i <

r; D p d y e ei 2 00 i S rr 5t 3u A 4e&b,4 75:

aijv'E/gsv 7wf)]h T+, Wn/L J_

.-.::i/~$cW/Dn'tY(

'i6 60 % y(,h) (, I cd Tf 74 /v'o Ijc,& p/)'S&_7c$ o iki n' Die FtvTv ni c o

.x -

.xwn di visa h~$ m Mot Mbm 2%.

GLce. nrm- #s, yW/q#Wci 6/M 7

+ 2g a p n o e s; s u o re o n 7 m

. & & A 0 $ w A,e )'W6 5e dR Q f b pF,, W ! b p ies

& % f d v 4 { $

p c,/i n @ q, G o d u w' aVxs 7m e lI.

$NI O ' V ~ b' i

/l(* cm.J 1

00

(

O d

/,: y c

b g

w ;= 1,5=,r i g g ;... -

= =---

Swn p/s d

_.s

',s,5

./)?-f &.. _.

k$$YO E.

h%W

(,

5 %D CD.k 4.1.43,3 nli(o f,J

\\

M am

.1$l< %y 'cldw]-

l'5zo N M $s %0>- 7at3

- ny

,q nt-m ee s ew s,r,nao hN Y so /d 8 6 </A / 's40x-2N /L, W749 n [ erry /27 % tne 5'f" #3 4 #' #

A /a.> < 'yE 7#o/F

/d M.A*od

/OS T3eer r

/km de 7o.J 16 o/;

/.r. f3g/d'7f %46 a hs Jwcet woocCb_r._.-

[by QOC

@b O 11 fQ)

For+w) orth 7bl%l

\\

7 7 h / Q,u u s,- b 1, ~

t u) C-Di m 3 CD s o, Tp~.

n 3'

I'.

T.

+ - - -. - - - - -

17'y R t da3Ce MViLtde, Y ' b n'6 n.

.._.__9..!.

.. 72 d

9 e%

wame m

^

...-......B.((.N--.I?'II O Sch.

47$m h3 1il

,y._.

4 7;,

..,..... d..~ hl hq' m.

5/.T Eh a.

[3,!,

f

.e JW g

}

Mr

- -.w-u nrm m.e am;trra uc. s.u:m come me m

.h TEXAS WATER COMMISSION a

i B. J. Wpane. M. Qatman John J. Vay. Ceswra!Ccarsd s.-

l John E. B*sdwuG. Ccenmisslorar Mchael E. Fleid. Odef Hemnres br-*u-Csf Johnson. Carnrnissoner Glotta A. Vasummat. chf Cmk Amm w e boensDtroe.cr March 8, 1991 ggg777773 ggy3 PETURN RECEIFT REQUESTED Mr. Gerald Johnson, Manager j

Invironmental services Texas Utilities Generating company 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81

['

Dallas, Taras 75201 Re:

N xas Utilities Cenarating Company /Comancho Peak b p"'8 TWC Solid Waste Registration No. 33306 17 e#I

)

J' Two Bazardous Waste Landfi11m/TEC Fac. Nos. 01 an4 02and' Three Non-hazardous Wasta Landfills /W C Fac. Hon. 03, a4 and-l 05

\\',

Publisher's Affidavit Receipt and closure Plan Revi q.p49 Public Meeting Conocrns

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On August 15, 1990, the Texas Water Co=nission (NC) received your publisber's affidavit stating that Texas Utilities Ganarating company /Comancha Peak had published notice of closure en August 9, 1990 in the Glen Pese Reeortor.

The TWC roccived requests for a public hearing f. rom conearned citizens.

In response to this

-request, the TWC held a public neating en Doccaber 18, 1990 in the Tarrant County convention Center.

Numerous allegations involving the clocure were stated in this neating:

• all. the landfills contain hazardous vaste (#157 chemicals other than paint vastos and thinner, including lab pack waste materials');

e ignitabla caterials centained in laaking cantainers were disposed 4n the landfills; e incompatibla materials vara dispeced in the landfills;

• Insthans gas may build-up in the landfills;

• fi.re and/or explosion is likely with the current six or vastes in the landfill;

• RCRA land ban requirements have been violated; P. O. L:et 13087 Cr.;cci Str.::m

• 2700 Harth Ccq;ress Ave.

• Avn, Texas 7871130S7

• Am Ccds 512/463 7830 eeme.areveum wo

-- exc-ic 'st em 16:43 c:rz Ji%

E c cit 2) 4 & 22c6

xas r'as y

r lI Mr. Cerald Johnson l

Page 2 e the plans do not prevent releases in a mannar sufficiently protective of human health and the c.avironment because no renoval or docentamination was provided fort e the landfill cells do not have liners or loachate collection systems and thus do not nect design and operational requirements;

• over-excavatian at the facility had resulted in subsurface faulting and the creation of fissures; a the ground water is contaminated;

• the drinking vater contains bazardous const.ituants; the contamination has or could reach the surface waters; e

• Landfill No. 3 was built in Squaw creek Reservoir;

• Landfill Units 6 and 7 should be reeva.luated; a there are nero landfills at the facility; the capping preposal fails to address leakage and/or e

leaching from the landfill units; e the leachate vill only get mere concentrated over time; and

• 30 years post-closure care would be insufficient.

The concerned citizens feel strongly that the pressace of the landfilla threatens their cormmnity.

They are primarily requesting that all wastes be renoved or at a nininum all the landfills be closed as hazardous vasta landfills under the permitting process.

In response to these concerns, the TMC is requesting that Texas Utilities Generating co=pany - Comanche Peak provide a written response to the above allegatio::Js to the TWC, conduct an astessment of the necessary actions needed to conduct a clean closure of the subject landfills and subnit the resulting accescuent report to the TWC.

The informat.icn include, at a mininua,provided in the assecenent report should the methods for any treatment or renoval action, the piepoptd disposal site (s), an evaluation of the expocure riska due to removal of vastes and a detailed cocparison of the risk of renoval versus closure in placa.

All technical assumptions used to develop this report should be clearly identified and justified.

Cost information shculd also be included.

Texas Utilities Generating Company submit a written response to the allegations a/Conanche Peak must nd the assessr.cnt report to the TWC within 60 days fron your receipt of this letter.

=-

.j-.,-

r.re-ic 'st rON is us :s J LC:A-7:c. toncia) &nw nes.5 m e

Mr. sarald Jotuman Page 3 If you have any questienn please contact Mary Adrian or Linda Smith of the Ear.ardous and Soldd 'Wasto Enforeament section at (512) 463-8425.

Sincerely, f

Daniel 3. Eden, Director Essardous and solid Waste Division DJE/LLS:lla ec:

Linda Porter

?on g obleto, U.S. Environmental Protuction Agency (EH-PT)

Whalle McFaddin, TWC Legal Division

'118C District 3 office TWC Reports and Infarnation Management section e

9

~-

TEXAS WATER COMMISSION B. J. Wynne,111, Chairman 1

John J. Vay, General Counsel John L Birdwell, Commissioner Michael L Field, Chief Heanngs Examiner Cliff Johnson, Commissioner Brenda W. Foster, Chief Clerk Allen Beinke Executive Director February 20, 1991 Mr. Betty Brink 7600 Anglin Drive Ft. Worth, Texas 76140 Re:

Texas. Utilities Electric Company - Comanche Peak Solid Waste Registration No. 33306 Transcript of the Public Comment Hearing conducted on December 18, 1990

Dear Mr. Brink:

As a follow-up to your request that a copy of the transcript made of the public comment received during the above-referenced hearing be forwarded to you upon completion, we are unable to provide a transcript of that hearing due to the poor sound and reproductive l

quality of the tape used by the Commission during that hearing, Therefore, we will not be able to provide a complete and accurate f

transcript of that hearing.

1 Howe-ver,

several members of the Texas Water commission staff present during this hearing took notes of the proceeding.

Based on these written notes, I have executed a Summary of Public Comment received during the December 18, 1990 hearing on the Closure Plans submitted by Texas Utilities Electric Company.

I believe that, although not complete and comprehensive, this summary does fairly and accurately reflect the-comments received during that hearing.

If you do not agree that this Summary accurately reflects the i

substance ' of the comments received during the afore-mentioned I

hearing, please feel free to contact me.

The Commission would be happy to review any comments you might have regarding this Summary.

i t

j We apologize for not being able to provide you with a more complete l

and comprehensive transcription of this proceeding.

If you have j

any questions relating to this matter, please feel free to contact l

either myself or Mr. Jim Haley, Director of the Commission's Legal Division, at (512) 463-8069.

Sincerely,

)

k(-

Michelle A. McFaddin Senior Attorney Texas Water Commission Enclosure wa m

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Hearing held on Texas Utilities Electric Company-Comanche Peak racility: Closure Plans December 18, 1990 1.

Ms. Linda PortqE:

Ms. Porter initiated the public comment session by thanking those citizens groups, the Government Accountability Project and individuals who have supported her ef forts to address the environmental situation at the Texas Utilities Electric Company's (TU Electric) Comanche Peak facility.

She stated that the landfills present et the TU Electric - Comanche Peak facility were illegal and unauthorized and as such should be removed entirely from the facility for off-site authorized disposal.

She then remarked that the Texas Water Commission has pursued selective enforcement which has allowed companies to blatantly violate the law and stated that she believes that all of the landfills present at-the f acility have managed Class I hazardous waste in the past and are " unmarked graves" of toxic waste.

All of the known landfills present should theref ore be closed as hazardous waste managment units and/or permitted as such.

In addition, she stated that the landfills had managed approximately 157 chemicals other than paint wastes and thinner, including lab pack waste materials, and that such disposal was intentional.

She went on to note that the $10, s0 administrative penalty for use of unauthorized landfills at the Comanche Peak f acility which was assessed in a 1989 Enforcement Order issued by the Commission-was a

mere slap on the wrist for intentional, illegal activities and that the Commission has been lax on-enforcement and has allowed TU Electric to continue illegal dumping activities.

She commented on the groundwater contamination which has been documented adjacent to Landfill Unit $3, which she stated is built in Squaw Creek Reservoir, and stated that the waste removed f rom the landfill vent to unauthorized disposal facilities, including a cement kiln in Midlothian, Texas.

She further remarked that th'h Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes environmental problems more seriously than does the Texas Water Commission, but requested us to pass on the facts to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

She believes that a new environmental impact study should be conducted by the NRC and that the Texas Water Commission has the moral obligation to cooperate in such additional studies, l

She finalized her comments by wondering why post-closure care I

monitoring for hazardous waste facilities on3y lasts for 30 years; she believes that this time frame is insufficient and concluded by stating that closure of all of the landfills at

. ~. -

Comanche Peak facility should be the TU Electric accomplished by removal of all wastes and gases f ro:t the Comanche Peak facility to an off-site disposal facility.

2.

Mr. Charles Crabtree Mr.

Crabtree was the second speaker at the hearing and commenced by stating that he lived in close prc>:imity to the Comanche Peak facility and is deeply concerned about the activities at the site.

He noted that he is an engineer and stated that he was particularly concerned about radioactive releases and other releases from the facility.

In addition, he was concerned about groundwater contamination.

He has a drinking water well which he relies on for water as do his neighbors an' he believes that the Comanche peak facility poses an unac eptable risk to those water resources.

He also expressed concern about contamination getting into the cooling water which feeds the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.

He believes that we should require TU Electric to remove all waste from the on-site landfills.

They should not be allowed to continue these illegal waste management activites.

3.

Mr. Fenda11 McCook Mr. McCook began his presentation by noting that he lives 3 1/2 miles downwind ef the Comanche Peak facility.

He is concerned about the milk products being produced by nearby dairies and about the increased cancer risk posed by this facility.

He was specifically outraged by a pamphlet which had been published and distributed by TU Electric promoting recreation in Squaw Creek Reservoir.

He believes that the agencies should be looking into the water quality of this Reservoir as well as testing the fish which are living in the Reservoir.

He stated that the agencies thus far had not been receptive to his concerns.

He also requested that his groundwater be tested.

He is afraid.

4.

Mr. Richard Condit. Government Accountability Proiect Mr. Condit opened up his comments by expressing his concern that the Commission was not in a position to supply detailed comments regarding the Closure Plans submitted by TU Electric Comanche Peak facility."

He noted that the Commission appeared to have already decided to approve TU Electric's proposed closure activities and cited a July 28, 1989 letter from Russ Kimble approving an interim cap design for the landfill units and stated that he did not see how we could claim not to have already decided to aprove the closure plans calling for in-place capping and closure of the two hacardous waste landfill cells.

To further suppor'- his view that a decision had already been made, he noted that we had already sent out a Notice of Deficiency letter on the Closure Plans

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

and that TU Electric had responded to this Notice of Deficiency letter.

[ Anne Dobbs responded to these remarks by stating that the July 28, 1989 letter approving the design of a cap for certain landfill units at the f acility was an approval for an interim cap to prevent rainfall runon and runoff and infiltration until such time as the Commission could receive and approve a formal Closure Plan.

She also stated that to her knowledge we had not received any response from TU Electric on the Notice of Deficiency letter.)

Mr. Condit continued by stating that he believed that the hearing being conducted was biased and legally insufficient.

He stated that he had not been able to review all of the records relating to the Comanche Peak facility and complained that only a small portion of the Commission's records on the Comanche Peak facility had been released to the University of Arlington library.

He stated that the hearing was Texas illegal in terms of the applicable public participation requirements and he is concerned about our involvement in decisions made with Iespect to capping the landfills.

He stated that the public record is not clear on what our position over time has been.

He stated that the critical point of his comments was that TU Electric and Brown & Root should not be allowed to benefit from these illegal landfill activities.

He notes that the Closure Plens as currently drafted violate RCRA land ban requirements.

Companies are not permitted to put liquid wasten into the ground for disposal purposes.

Deciding to allow TU Electric to leave the wastes in place is violative of these land ban requirements.

He believes that the decision to allow TU Electric to leave the wastes in place triggers land ban requirements and stated that he believes that this position is legally correct and supportable.

He also addressed the Coraission's 1969 Enforcement Order issued to TP Electric for the use of unauthorized landfills and stated that the $10,000 assessed penalty was preposterous.

He stated that fines like these encourage illegal dumping and do not provide any sort of disincencive.

He discussed the

$25,000 per day penalties which can be assessed by the fedeal government for these types of violations and concluded that a multi-million penalty would'have been more appropriate.

In addition, he noted that state penalties which could have been collected as a result of an action in court would have been greater.

Thi bottom line is that we are not doing our jobs in enforcing environmental regulations at the state level.

He remarked that criminal penalties had been ignored and stated that the Corrission should have sought criminal prosecution in this case.

Individuals need to be made accountable for their acts and the state needs to be more agressive.

c Finally, he noted that we are looking too narrowly.at the environmental issues posed by the TU Electric nuclear power plant.

There are more landfills than we have been informed of.

There may be a build-up of methane gas in-the landfills which could cause an explosion risk and there is ground water contamination.

He again noted that he believes that the Commission has already made up its mind to approve the Closure Plan which has been drafted by TU Electric for this facility and that we are biased.

5.

Mr. Mick Harrison, Government Accountability Proiect Mr. Harrison' commenced by stating that the Commission has no authority to allow closure of these landfills under interin status regulations and standards.

TU Electric has failed to provide us with adequate information on the wastes contained within the landfills and does not qualify for interim status under 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) section 335.43 of our rules.

He stated that they need to get a permit authorizing their proposed closure activities and must go through a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act.

We need a more formal, adjudicatory process; they want

-an evidentiary hearing on this matter as soon as possible.

He noted that even if interim status standards did apply to these landfill units, the closure plan should be rejected under 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) section 265.111.

The Clocare Plans-as drafted do not prevent releases in a manner sufficiently protective of human health and the environment because no removal or decontamination is being provided for.

He noted that he has information that the landfills contain ignitible wastes, which-were disposed of in

. leaking-containers, and incompatible wastes would be left in place under the current closure proposal such as bromoform /

acetone and acido/ solvents.

He'noted that these were routine disposal practices at Comanche Peak.

He also. expressed his concern about the high levels of methane gas (up to 24% which could-be higher than explosive _ levels).

The - f act that there are ignitible and incompatible wastes present as well further complicates this situation.

This situation indicates that the closure performance standard of

" remove or decontaminate" cannot be met with the current waste materials in place in the Tandfill units.

He also believes that-leaving the wastes currently in these units in place is a violation of land disposal ban restrictions and noted that simple capping and monitoring is not sufficient.

In-place closure would mean that solvents would be allowed to continue migrating into the ground water beneath the facility.

He was concerned that no scientific assessment

_ and/or-characterization of the materials in the landfills has been conducted by anyone other than TU Electric and its contractors.

l l

He concluded his statement by remarking that the administrative record in this matter does not support Closure Plan approval.

A fire and/or explosion are likely with the current mix of wastes in the landfill ur.its and this could lead to an environmental release.

Finally, allowing these closure activities could lead to interf erence with the nuclear power plant's operations.

6.

Mr. Owen L. Thero (?)

Mr. Thero initiated his comments by requesting that a copy of this transcript be provided.

In addition, he wanted to introduce a

letter written by Ms.

Juanita

Ellis, a

representative of CASE, into the record.

The letter was received into the record.

He went on to state that environmental issues are within the purview of CASE's concerns.

They are concerned about soil, surface water and groundwater contamination. His position is that all hazardous materials at the Comanche Peak f acility should be removed.

He requested that a

new environmental impact statement be prepared which studies these landfill units.

He went on to state that the closure activities proposed could af fect the nuclear power plant's operations and that we should coordinate with the NRC so that the NRC could do its job.

He requested that we again extend the ccmment period on TU Electric's closure plans until such time as CASE can finalize its investigation and submit a summary report.

He then described the responses that CASE has received, apparently at the same time, from the Commission and from the NRC and noted that the NRC has abrogated its regulatory authcrity.

He is concerned about relying on us to do our job.

He stated that he believes that the documentation that he has reviewed clearly demonstrates that unauthorized disposal of hazardous waste has taken place and believes that Landfill Unit Nos. 6 and 7 may also be a problem.

He thinks that the investigations that have been conducted are insufficient.

He is also concerned about the methane gas issue.

He believes that methane gas at detectable levels has been generated within the landfill units as the result of waste decomposition.

This has created a very dangerous situation; there needs to be venting or some other technical response to the presence of methane gas." He also expressed concerns about the presence of ignitible and incompatible wastes in the landfill cells.

He thinks that there may be a problem with the cooling water in Squaw Creek Reservoir. He noted that the landfills are located in close proximity to the cooling water intake system for the nuclear power plant and is worried that an explosion occurring in the landfills could adversely af f ect the operations of the nuclear power plant equipment and associated piping.

This is a major safety problem.

In

addition, he posed a

concern about the effect that an

)

explosion might have on the three major pipelines that run

e through the Comanche Peak facility.

He concluded by stating that TU Electric should be required to remove all of the waste off-site.

7.

Mr. Gatlin Mitchell Mr.

Mitchell introduced himself by stating that he is a landowner near the Comanche Peak facility and that he is outraged by the proposed Closure Plans.

He cannot believe that we would even consider allowing TU Electric to leave these landfills in place.

He stated that we need to do our jobs.

8.

Betty Brink, Citizens for Fair Utility Reculation Ms.

Brink commenced by stating that she would like an explanation of the July, 1989 approval letter for an interim cap for landfills at the Comanche Peak facility.

She stated that she could not believe that this letter would go into so much detail if it only related to an interim cap, unless the interim c3p was to be in place through final closure in-place of the waste.

She stated that we should require removal of the waste to an authorized hazardous waste management facility and there should be a new investigation of the illegal dumping activities at the Comanche Peak facility.

She noted that the Commission had not interviewed workers at the Comanche Peak facility.

She went on to state that a 30-year post-closure care period is not sufficient and asked what would happen if groundwater was contaminated.

She noted that we could not fix that.

She remarked that over-excavation at the f acility had resulted in subsurface faulting and the creation of fissures.

She also expressed concern about the potential for an explosion due to i

the presence of methane gas and-incompatible wastes, i

She further remarked that the NRC has stepped aside in this

(

matter and that the Commission now has the responsibility for

(

these issues.

We need to conduct a more careful investigation at the f acility regarding the illegal dumping activities.

She stated that the sites are not appropriate for hazardous waste t

management and we should not let TU Electric permit them for l

such activities at this point in time.

She requested an evidentiary hearing on any Dernit for these units and stated that this should have been done before waste was ever placed into these units.

She noted that there has been a regulatory breakdown.

TU Electric could not meet NRC criteria today with

(

these illegal dumps and therefore would not be able to get a

l license to operate today.

She wen + on to state that TU Electric is not being adequately regulated; we should impose additional fines on them for the illegal dumping and none of the costs should be passed on to the ratepayer.

l l

8.

Mr. Lon Burnam, Texas citizen Action

r~

Mr. Burnam opened up his comments by stating that he is very unhappy with the Texas Water Commission.

He stated that Rep.

Glasgow had an aide present listening to the meeting and stated that the Commission is predisposed towards allowing polluters to shift the cost of polluting to tha public at large.

He clched that we are working with an elite group of regulated industry and that we are therefore not to be trusted.

We are not doing our jobs and the entire agency needs to be overhauled.

He asked whether we were willing to support revolving door legislation and a cost reimbursement system for people like Linda Porter.

He stated that there is general discontent with TU Electric and _ that they are a criminal offender.

He believes that we are covering something up.

He also discussed the Juanita Ellis letter and our response to that 3etter.

He stated that he did not believe that we had not started a detailed review of the Closure Plans and quoted from a December 13, 1990 letter from Anne Dobbs disallowing further extension to the public comment period on the Comanche Peak Closure Plans.

He believes that we are attempting to rush approval through before we have adequate information.

[ Anne Dobbs responded to these remarks by stating that we were evaluating this closure plan like any other closure plan and noted that we did not have the resources to conduct full investigation at every regulated site in the state.)

l He stated that we have too narrowly construed our obligations l

and review of the TU Electric f acility and is unhappy with our decision on Landfill Unit Nos. 6 and 7.

He also stated that he wanted us to inform the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that costs associated with illegal dumping should not be allowed to be passed on to ratepayers.

He concluded by calling on individual criminal investigations of the staff's activities in this matter and stated that we needed to clarify our position not only_on the Closure Plans j

but also on our legislative policy goals.

9.

Mr. John David Parker Mr.

Parker began by stating that the Commission is being watched very carefully.

Ho' stated that an environmental study should be conducted at the Comanche Penk facility.

He believes that there are problems with the 1987 McCulley, Frick investigations conducted at the Comanche Peak site and stated that there was no way we could make an intelligent decision related to closure before additional studies had been completed.

He noted that the area around Ft. Worth, Texe has unusual geology and that limestone subsurface fractures may exist and need to be evaluated.

In addition, he is worried that we do not know enough about contamination currently in and around the landfills and Squaw Creek Reservoir.

We need

k to know how that contamination might affect the nuclear power plant's operations.

He concluded by stating that we should not allow TU Electric to keep these landfills in place, thereby rewarding them for their illegal dumping r + 1vities,

and that we need to pay for these studies; not TU _lectric.

They should have to pay for the cleanup, without passing the costs on to the taxpayers.

10.

Jim Shembeck. Texans United Mr.

Shembeck commenced by remarking that he wishes this information about unauthorized landfills had been available to him before the NRC licensing hearing.

He went on to state that the Texas Water Commission is horrible and is not concerned about pollution.

He further stated that the Commission has willfully ignored and violated the law and that he has no faith in our ability to carry out the law.

He addressed the issue of punishment by noting that the Texas Water Commission has proposed a $2,000,000 fine against a company in Dallas County for one illegal landfill and that this indicates that there is a clear double standard which should not be tolerated.

He stated that the Commission engages in discriminatory enforcement.

We should be protecting the citizens against TU Electric.

He expressed concern that we did not know of the hazards presented by tne other landfills e.t this site.

We have not properly investigated the site.

He expressed concerns about the cement kilns in Midlothian, Texas which have received hazardous waste generated by TU Electric and noted that the ash generated by the cement kilns has been disposed of in quarries, such disposal having resulted in both surface and groundwater contamination.

He-stated that there are more landfills at this site, then moved onto the issue of capping the landfills as a solution.

He noted that TU Electric's capping proposal fails to address leakage and/or leaching from the landfill units; leachate will only get more concentrated over time and we don't know what synergistic effects the chemical compounds in the landfills will be.

He addressed the methane gas problem and stated that the Texas Air Control Board needs to look at this issue.

He doesn't trust either the Texas Water Commission or TU Electric to adequately monitor the situtation.

He further stated that he believcs that the Commission has already made up its mind to approve the Comanche peak Closure Plans and believes that we have avoided the hearings on this matter required by law.

He stated that he felt that the

$10,000 dollar penalty assessed against TU Electric in 1989 was totally inadequate and suggested that a S2,000,000 penalty would have been more appropriate.

l

c.

He concluded by stating that the wastes should be removed f rom the Comanche Peak f acility to an authorized of f-site f acility; additional investigation for unauthorized landfills that might be located at the facility should be undertaken; we need to ensure that the costs of such investigation and cleanup activi:1cs are not passed through to the ratepayer; and concluded by stating that our acency should be entirely reorganized with elected commissioners.

A broom needs to be taken after the Texas Water Commission so we do our jobs.

11.

Ms. Allene VanPelt Ms.

Van Pelt commenced by noting that the Texas Water Commissioners themselves should have been present at the hearing and that they should be listening more closely to the people.

She stated that Hood County has been devastated by pollution.

The citizens of Hood County are concerned about air pollution and emissions and any resulting contamination from such emissions.

She is also concerned about the water quality in Lake Granberry, which is their drinking water supply, and about the presence of hazardous constituents in their drinking water, which originates or derives from Squaw Creek Reservoir.

She stated that she believes that we are protecting TU Electric and that we should not allow illegal dumps to stay in place.

If we do, that shows that we are indeed corrupt.

She stated that we need to investigate TU Electric, but wants her comments directed where it counts - at our Commissionerr.

She stated that she was part of a

statewide taxpayer's organization _ and. hey are working on an initiative / referendum to see to it that our Commissioners are elected since the Commissioners appointed at the Texas Water Commission aren't being responsive to the people.

She also expressed concern about the generation of methane gas in the landfili.

She does not think that waste should just be covered up and believes that we should fine TU Electric - a lot.

The government should not be protecting big utilities.

She stated that Comanche Peak is not necessary.

If they don't remove the waste from their site, the entire facility should be closed down.

She concluded by asking whether it is our position that we don't have enough resources' to investigate the Comanche Peak facility.

[ Anne Dobbs responded by stating that we typically expect the company tc conduct the investigations and we review the results and determine if adequate scientific investigations have been completed.)

Ms. Van Pelt's concluding comment was that the shareholders of TU Electric should be required to hire independent investigators to study the conditions at the site.

12.

Mr. Mick Harrison. Government Accountability Proiect (Supplemental Comments)

Mr. Harrison supplemented his earlier comments by noting that the landfill cells did not have liners or leachate collection systems and therefore TU Electric's c.osure plans should be rejected for failing to meet design and operational requirements.

He reminded us of his position that this hearing was legally inadequate and that misrepresentations by the staff of the record is a criminal violation of RCRA.

He instructed the staff that we wculd be protected if we decided to become whistleblowers.

He than asked a series of questions relating to the extent of the review that had been conducted

-on the closure Plans submitted by TU Electric and then stated that he does not believe that a decision has not already been made to approve a closure Plan that would result in wastes being left in place and capped, and pointed to the July, 1989 letter from Russ Kimble approving their interim cap design.

He concluded by stating that he believed that staff had misrepresented the record-in this hearing.

He called for an evidentiary hearing on this matter after a NEPA environmental l

assessment had been completed for che Comanche Peak facility.

He thinks that we should require remova.1 of all waste to an off-site authorized hazardous waste management facility.

13.

Mr. Lon Burnar. Texas Citizen Action (Supplemental Comments)

He opened his supplemental comments by stating that he had j

calculated what he believed to be appropriate penalties for the violations which have occurred at the TU Electric f acility i

and had arrived at a figure of $350,000,000.

He wanted to l

know whether we would contact the PUC regarding these illegal l

activities and said that he would call for a

criminal l

investigation of our activities.

l l

(QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION AFTER CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT) l l

t I

l 1

l l

I t

i

r-4 Attachment A

+

1 s

I l

2 f

9 we--

-n v----,

men,,-o-,,,,,-,-v,,

,,.m.,ae.n.,._-.,,e,,-,,v,wec,,wm,,,,,-wn,,mmy,e

,,,yqwwwne n ewn e w ww-y..y,,, g-e n s+sm,, y ~,me e s e n-y

-r,-

c..i.v v.~~u is- ~

.~

r

" ' " 'Alpe ff Y.feT)T(f.:.lG"c#

6..L Sex ?r N/ sri l i ? M 74'

.'2 Ovo 4. 7Aer:

,4 an. //! 9 ci/ee b ve,it ?& v(3 c

-5.E:/Abn;.

lb hy. i:.ic

&<uisL,e

, 7~> > c Y r r

.Ya.

//Wh',

$A 00 99 d Pfy'b

?

/

1639 $

t 1

i a f h y t-6 I( c i ?Ro LO es%.on r-h e nk, Iy Pt co.c.e. Ine.

s h.

\\Q h I 4

E.1\\4 ( D w 3 U1A M 4 4 60 h dIO'"i

p. iD eb, ' (<}anet i 46I krch &rtollh '7Y 7c007

.hr.Ct>aeAb 'a ceG 1826 M.cgEL 9UhEb.)>mmbgh-

7. ysw.iu e csow-

,ar ca.,,sur.s.e.aris, m aso-

-l fITOL U N'

E f~ UWT ti.b.Ackfkk.

%Ilas Tmes SucJd ttot hEefe. '

iw ScL+wk Ou-Li W %E,N657w wd,2c2 ant mek gwema

.e l<v.

f @ E..<d ut v'ev' MRLD Od i..-

0 a Ib 5/M b

.:ic Lo.1 f.? una w) '~ry(:7i:miflik / Gdy/Vf f~DJWC,/

is canaan.

ci aerese er i w sus sussa-y, 7x ne g C Y'I C S A0 YA'

S~~/

SW bib l5_ SY'AA'?

ih VSOY'I 17 f

.;, 6 : s. w / A s w

.FC5G.,9waveh G-/L,xyg i i

rfbaM rE l.

?_ c>o I 6r o.-s $4 3 J k l 6 e o N.()..5 [ 7 J

..o Ut &

97tff GVW h, Ilik%

.--.pi /$cY' ion 'tJic

'i660 % ( h) kr.

Fu)TY 74 /Vo

.....%. Jud D 70~ Avciat Die %Tv ni c o

..n aax&i.) % 35N 7,wGm 2%.

% :,w 74wz Q', %

Rs, &f~t?ReicK aM 7

.s'

' a Erg. pt g 3gn r+. on70 a.k.ebu 8]$4lv.h.AG)dVfe5e4$>&f63/s9,,Wu

-u ye o o,an939,Gekby.aar 7xp<a erpy' 6,

' @ cit = y &

of4y;;

(________-____________--_________________________________-.

=%w dE%'T3Mna---4ku.'.%f

/

!!-w,, p,,',,j B6 <-- c.

. y

= / h. a w.

4 d d, ~ p.s e m, 5 K n fA0 At 6;%y 'I.) u).llyL 5 s O

• )

W "w a nbl n

..%f k n. P.x n).< ;-

L l%0

,ny,.c.,ff.72.*

n.so 6m g,,,=nen a,r, y ac, M b 2 f L / d. 8 ? 6 Air? b. d & ~. s L 4..,,

d.' e n y /M % w v u' m i/A /

--J

%, ~. ' s 7a o M

7, y ~ y e n a

.w s &,n iw oom o,

,J\\

> >..l 7 / 9,< / t' w,w w i.

i,

/Gyli Cloct ro, 4doh n I'lan

[

2. ns aut =n; --- -

Fo r4 W % g lW 7 6 / =.,1

~

7 7 y (YJg,wa,Lj:-

iac j), q 3 c.O u, y,;

[3

- O M4e. '.=

M.. b

,~ m o

/

I b

/

p..

, p' l? * }yI,!,, N t c/Ac-N ?Q.'cle, d-a.. da..,

!'l

-=4-p

. /&% d4L Fl

/

k

- f.',th ~c(.O- -(.

........~.../*

'l

&! ff

' Y ', ;.. _..

(/ (,'""

.s.-

1J

• h,_,._

4 7<.

qf,.,.

ge..

est he.seno==mme.e. e== 4 =Gie>

_--~...n.

m.

P j,,

/ '..

l,.

ei IN,

T$g --

5;, y -

l l

l

?

--r, end vi rad 16:48 m w;.n.L E to,a W 4563,6

.% 53 Pur 7

TEXAS WATER COMMISSION i

RJ, Wyans, fJ, Oakmm John J. Voy, Cears!Carnel x

M m L B*rth MI.Ccerrnindsw' MkheelL Pleid, Odef Henrras barmar Cliff Johneea.Carrnhower tuorts A vampas,oestcak An.mi MM= Exone.eDrumor March 8,1991 g

RETURN RECKIPT REQUESTED Er. Gnrald Johnson, Manager Environmental Services Texas Utilities Generating Company l

400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 f' fy*

Dallas, Taras 75201 g.'

Re Texas Utilities Consratiner Company /Conanche Paak b p.M N C Solid Wasts Reglytrat.on No. 33306 l*

17 oOs J'

Two Bazardous Waste Landfills /TWC Fac. Nos. 01 62and' Thraa Non-hazardous Wasta IAndfills/2VC rac. Nos.

, 04 and' 05 Publisher's Affidavit Receipt and closure Plan Revieth.4pp ' pn Public Meeting Concerna

Dear Mr. Joh:

wons On August 15, 1990, the Texas Water Ctz:mi.ssion (NC) received your publisber's affidavit stating that Texas Utilities senarating Company /Comancha Paak had published notice of closure en August 9, 1990 in the Glan PAsa MtDorter.

The TEC received requests for a public hearing fxon conearned citizens.

In response to this request, the MC hold a public nesting on D60 ember 18, 1990 in the Tarrant County Ccavention Canter.

Numarous allegations involving the closure vare stated in this masting:

• all the inndfills contain hazardous vaste

'157 chealcals otbar than pa. int vastes sad thinner, includin(g lab pack vaste materia 15');

e ignitabla materials contained in laaking containers va a illsposed $n the lancrilla; e inecespetible materials vara disposed in the landfills; e methane gas may build-up in the landfills; o fi.re and/or explosion is likely with the current six of wastes in the landfill; e RCRA land ban requiranants have been vjo14ted; P. O. Bar D087 Chscal sessm e noo b1h c:rgem Me.

• Aatn Taas 78711.S27

• Arm Code 07/44>7830 l

e ***** w

f

---

ext-a n rm aa; m

.r.v a cnnai.tn-::x4 ncs3 rea Mr. Gerald Johnson Page 2 e the plans do not prevent releases in a mannar sufficiently protective of human health and the environment because no reseval or docentamination was provided for; e the landfill cells do not have liners or loachata collection pyttees and thus do not meet design and operational requiranants;

• over-excavation at the facility had resulted in subsurface faulting and the creation of fissures; e h ground vatar is contaminated;

• the drinking vater contains hazardous const.itua.nts;

• the contamination has or svuld reach the surface waters;

• Landt11.1 No. 3 was built in Squaw creaX Reservoir; Landtill Units 6 and 7 should be reevaluated; there tra more : landfills at the f aci.1.ity; the capping preposal fails to address leakage and/or e

leaching from the landfill units; e the lanchata vill only got more concentrated over time; and

• so years post closure cars would be insufficient.

The concerned citizens feel strongly that the presonoe of the landfills threatens their comannity.

may are primarily requestdag that all wastes be removed or at a minimum all the landfills be closed as hazardeus wasta landfills undar the permitting process.

In response to these concerns, the TWC is requesting that Texas Utilities Generating Company - Comanche Peak provida a written response to the above allegations to the TWc, sonduct an assessment of the necessary actions needed to conduet a clean closure of the subject landfills and submit tha resulting assossmaat report to the TWC.

De information provided in the assoassent report shon1d include at a minimum, the methods for any treatment or removal cation,,the posed disposal site (s), an evaluatian of h exposure r duf to removal of vastes and a detailed oamparison cf the risk of removal varsus closure in place.

All taahnical ossumptions used to develop this report-abould be elaarly identified and justified.

Cost information should also be included.

Texas Utilities Generating company submit a written response to the allegations a/comancha Peak must nd the assessmaat report to the tyc within 60 days from your receipt of this letter.

rA-;C ' % tC, lgs 4 ::sii D\\.

M tcs sr., 8) c,=ytnt,

% ?J yo Mr. Garald Johnson Page 3 If you have any questionn please contact Mary Adrian or Linda Sr.ith of t.be Rar.ardous and solid Waste Enforcenant Section at (512) 463-8425.

Sincarely, f

Daniel 3. Edan, Director Nasardeus and Solid Waste Division DJE/LLStlim ect Linda Porter on o lato, U.S. Environmental Prottetion Agency (CI-PT) al.le McFaddin, TWC Lagal Division TWC District 3 Office TWC Reports and Infurnation Managa: ant sa: tion l

l l

I l

l l

1

Paluxy Tabernacle Information

• Poetry

• Prayer

• Music Concerning the THREAT of the COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT to Our Land l

l Guest Speakers

• Poets

• Musicians 8:00 P.M., Sunday, April 28,1991 Paluxy Tabernacle - Take IIighway 51 South (Paluxy liighway) Southwest out of Granbury Exit 144 off 377 - Then right on Morgan - Lef t at Billy's Market - to Paluxy - 15 Miles. Tabernacle in the town.

. _ -. _.. _. ~. - _ _ _. _..,.. _.. _. _ _. _. _ -. _... -. _ _ _.

f KLHDAlL McCooK RT. 1 BOX 70 IOlAR, TX 76476 4 APRll 1991 b1AT10N MANAGER PALSY PARR K.P. A.R. RADIO ST A110N f

GRANBURY, TEXAS 76048 DL /J MRS. PARR:

FIRST, LET ME SAY liiAT A LOCAL RADIO STAil0N SUCH AS YOURS PROVIDES A GREAT PUBLIC SERVICE.

1 APPLAUD YOU FOR YEARS OF SERVillG THE PUBLIC, AtlD 1 AM SORRY FOR THE HARD PL ACE THIS REQUEST PUTS YOU INJ HOWEVER, RECEf!T SERIOUS PROBLEMS AT THE PLANT, I fi-CLUDillG THE UNREPORlED LOCAL THREAT OF IflDENTIFIED T0X1C WAETE DUMPS ON Tile EDGE OfI$00AW CREEK RESERV0lR THREATEN US AlL-ESPECI All Y THE FISHERMEll AND SCUBA DIVERS WHO UTILIZE THE RECREATION AREAS YOU ADVER11SE SO GLOWINGLY.

THERE HAVE DEEll filNETEEN SHUT-DOWNS AT COMAtlCHE PLAK IU fl0T QUliE A YEAR -- T_WEl,VE SAFETY-RELATED.

I EllCLOSE A REs.ENT " BUZZARD DROPPINGS" SHUTDOWN RELEASED OVER ASSOCIATED PRESS WIRES.

WE MUST NO 1.ONGER delly THE POSSIB!I lTY OF PROBLEMS AT THAT POURLY MANAGED WAST EFUL SITE.

THI!'ll00D C0lifir! IAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION COMBINED WITH CITIZEllS FOR FAIR UllLITY REGULAT10ll, ARE SPONSORiflG A PUBLIC INFORMATION PRAYER MEETING AT THE PALUXY TABERNACLE ON THE fl!GHT OF APRIL 28TH.

THis IS A FORMAL, WRITTEli REQUEST FOR A PUBlIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMAT10N ON YOUR lEXAs UTIL1TY SPRollSORED LAKE COUNTRY REPORT, AS WEll. AS FOR ENOUGH PUBLIC SERVICE AtlNOUNCE-MENTS ABOUT THE EVENT TO ADVERTISE OUR FORUM.

I REQUEST A RESPONSE FROM YOU lfi WRITING.

THANK YOU, AND I W1SH YOU WELL, L

KEilDALL MCCOOK CC :-

CHRIS GRIMES, U.R.C. WASHINGTON D.C.

CONGRESSMAN JOE BART0f1 DAVID WEBB, REPORTER THF DALL AS OBSERVER MARY STEWART, W.F.A.A. TELEVISION DAVID FENFROCK, W. Pi. A. P.

EDITOR, FOR1 WORTH _ STAR.lELEGRAM l

.e KENDAll MCCOOK Rt. 1 box 70 101An, IX 7bl 76 i

11 APRit 1991 PUBL1 SHER I.l00D.CO.UfdY E WS DEAR PUBLISHER:

1 ENCLOSE A FLYER ADVERTIS1NG A PUBLIC 1flFORMAT 1011 f ORUM SPollSORED BY THE HOOD COUl;IY I AXPAYERS ASSOC 1 AT ION AllD ClT IZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULAT10flS AT THE PALUXY lABERilACLE.

SPEAKERS WITH IflFORMAT1011 ABOUT PROBl EMS AT THE PL ANT, IIlCt.UDillG BETTY BRINK, ALLENE VAN PELT, MlCKY DOW FROM STEPHENVill E, AND LINDA PO TER, THE WOMAN WHO FIRST INDEIMlFIED THE FIRST 10XIC WASTE DUMP YOUR PAPER.STill, HAS NOT REPORTED, WILL PRESENT Pf.RTiflEllT lHFORMAT10!1.

IHIS IS A FORMAL REQUEST FOR A LIST!flG Of THE EVENT !!!

PAPER S0 THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL AT LEAST BE !!1 FORMED OF THL MEETING.

l REQUEST A WRITTEN REPLY 1F YOU REFUSE THIS SERVICE.

I W1SH YOU WEl.L, KEtlDAlL MCCOOK CC:

CHRIS GRIMES, N.R.C.

t I

DAVID FENFROCK, W.B.A.P.

EDITOR, EORT WORTH SlAR JELEGRAM CO'!GRESSMAll JOE BARTON DAVID WEBB, REPORTER THE DALLAS OBSEPVER t

MARY STEWART, W.F.A.A7 TElEV!S10'N 1

8 L

f TU to pay S82&.OO to clean up (OMc Mtes 4

b kk,OI II%$ $ kld.l$ l$ $

e ee &s hae Iledethsk81sh4 (d gAAKitsb 4d 4+1th $t#sule 4'ed tilltf 6t*

d'14lstgAI$$ 1844 0 lbket (lif $ 6*th'kI34 lIdb filk tfd' garag;gioig pe grg gd &let 1,4ltig l

mil,

1489ttf $164'60 0

titeth h i PMie th 44t tieet 8itd44 (3rehisO (19844 on a. die o m.i,u.,p wami,e.m nes? ( 4ee kme ga e l) namd.au ie eeset wi=*i e S tu atid tet sip hnema pl&A taankeswind le.e i

at ener, i.Mu st.<, ac em w=41 an.ars..ba,ei 0.gr I,a66 D44 int Iftstp 19'$ thungh 14&%

lht J asel thtest:Ones 6 4firftsf listet nehsatsdioh d

hees IN. towsod sw=r thma e doette est lea sef

$Hf elig dfiert l$4d4 elf 4st i 856 gaskt lag IE ftstM hV f

W set tse (AWlQ ae 1 eu@

l rive =W i n ba. e a a # #a > } i vr ab N8f tje ggg d %spase ( #99 4 N 4 9 *W 14 e

gg begu## $8404 Retervtalt m Lgd1)(11111 lite kgl StWdjW4 $h eke r th p

051s t $8 r

1. i,,,,d r,m j

l ettelh 613 Msw ifowJn tie

• lbf Itroop a

• (

b5dl blFil tr ut R 1,nldInn im lht OS

, j'g

- /

.a. a d,,. d u n.,<..a.

s,, s f

uisi,im s au n, one onta ii.nea

+.

e' N I.\\

I hs tildely %s%

ltRl (tM di ihr erwyt,nf -- p higl. gMg n,,

..,I H lAute3rd ple fitM

-,a sma-.,,,n., um

.,.a. w o w,,

y y,

n era t ungamuni o. %*nder lVill hea tstestad s asuti gwh ku h66Hg

\\

• A,%,

.C N *

o.,m.%.no. u.mx i..o....a....um,,,

3 6.a.ni y 8 ve

.n A k.a4 <4 f t nwon had wwd it sh I O ( ksu. a#M Iwoon & Dime

$3 rae'l NbN I e Whlbl&6 (stdIpstil

• Est( veAllbdelpr$

4,dIk lab 5d $ (fedl (I hui6.M O9b I4tf tdftlit5

. ht tilstau f thI NEqu WT litW14Il hWIMd-DW Ntift$5HdIM \\ ht) Mt [ht 1, set g

f

..I h,4m A., h tin U 4 timne hase+=a ma a oc atelevated ne f -

~f 1910 ht4hn.b ou mkfed io4& to d

/

g.,,,,,,e g

g

,m..i vom,u.A rm i m,......, l.,,aw is,,,,.e m/

6m i j

~ m.ct't(. ' " * "_=*

mi

..m a..,

p mi, snee, r a ihe h.in iu m-pei,,, a i.,in.e Sewd. a L5.

4*

hget lawfi abisuttsq%l ifl ti f dynpag lg. thit

= = = *, ~4 l

e..., #,,

.<. u,i. wi n. de 4 h.

ii,g.. A km. 4 a.m, Ol ditt flautidl4}% Radt WCfI 1MN Rh' EnJjvf t tygg stfi [br ( OfflietE let l fdth

,g m d lFt $444f gand ledf el if*gtalettlig gggofg,-( gg ggrig gig l{speabaseH btg2 54) 1

\\

,f f

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m,,,

i., ii.

m,.uh

.mn..ni,d i.,

mi.

.gtstg d st[anuti {A pglgg gggl]gsgtl lw1 lete b e a iriA1 swa (khfli t!als b Widt ik.at hgJ.

). %44fibe%E'fl&I %'ald klfR411 A b44 Is5 Shi$ pihrf heldidans% liedWf td41%

p>rval.uit /#6#tes ll#4#xh

(,t ja hwier shu mas idad oliinn N 4

.i

.... n d.

..a.,io i,,...

on,.,, a..n d.

m,a mu, y

g,,-

"q*ggq -,

avuwe a nwns it i.

o, p,..,,,,.n h.4n si = wd on j g N6 sg g\\

/,

. Amis shoe ti.41 i,goulu. sally les semisown amt ultrn tieduned wae6s

,,_,,1,,_,,_

~,,,,,.

-^

he h r. who uentenctlin usi%= tat

1. @.. i f;;,q $, t'D tu lee 6llaib weg litt A " 1514fnh e

'h m'w a'

..a um.. h ntoenm m iw m

..c.,,,....,

o... %,s d,.

.... o, i..na

. mum,,,,,,,,,,en., i. o m.,

- O

/ le h a64 htva.no hs l18 t h1tn. 64ed oqp ochant peem poh, wo el.or

.~,u,s,w.

iie.+.

.e n,,44,,m

.ym me the timita lot dahl e til w eel un' psent ItnsuCI sind nadu hlt Hi 4 sht Of Lg SWtalEM 86 ti aing tlftj itl (lIR itk lis)pCA lladt efit lid &et;g id jusid) 5:4f r4 th@ ll t st4 98td ba ll phn ilt%v +4I lht Ji d.. ts wet.iara the tw enqvist of * *=41dah t 4 M tto #6 t**

• a i'6s 681 d

a4hs.I 144 tr 4 k (LMthft1 e8 pangt ( ItHe gg.jtyd g g) ggggt

• g.sttidsatssgg%sitI ush}si 4dM 5 4 tlih48W 9(i'p884% 8 Iti' $ld8'O IO IC*88 '

EIN#

8 6

fggggy 4 ga w gj Jg gg;ggyg h l(at$

( ($l64 4 htr l'(48 '%

l'4P 4 f f-ta 'Wt FF) dl ih4 IJf)dItll% hat 16A%ft j ht 5 ggn8($-

N Mtd Ha. ) be t( ble U h '! k ' M' il lsfi k 4. illi $ellltt gNut4 l4111 4,9 Ilg h

i Ib' W Mi*l I 'H F Ihl-*[

• M i DO f

I 4 4 guts tIlen ll tetM fla,l l ' k l4Wi[

gjgjt pgj ).,gg h ggg. {g4] 38 y % l4 $

phild il Qfimth6SL d It AD 0 fab 4 h*\\j 16,4th 9

L add

• b8N $4 thf ll 446 96HHL dpDelb'l

• ll 5 4 9 #4) fl'C%Wd up #4 bled'in8h88 lIh "$ M i'd '#P8 ' #"* I 4 +4fedD I h. S $4 SH 4 MMlht Mbl(<

ggtry up sig g.s De 819 FMI bbl 404 IIde f

U dk3 I 'h' 8"lI UrT hY I48

• 'I jt 4 utlfi, t di M J <J $1U that pel%t N4f lglerd hgyph llgt ] g'I kWh llst 6dIt

} I 'l 4 ff'% (AI lkI k jr@6l pf CM tlf P8 5 H+ t " 4 Lat4bl im$rd

IItf 14@t 1.1, wn seg.i t 6 b.

If 3 i b l44 4LibVl4r gfd % 3rff ( gynn.nwiers pgu gpfg

&& qh g gt p6r gehap gt er ngs eig aptt, (h st ag g og fpujlle.t as J ifla:E h Ji%4l' Jh5 i

$I 4i5 St't$ d =34 fl b'#* 4E _

I'I

" ' 8'# b 5 b I'

k GL Il ud l dt b 9( 54fld%6144 'R 1 ujMC% je $4 Al'd l% II4f DJ) b4) jlbafiditif t g pgiji din) hM h4Bllyi 0

i 4 " dI O I '

l'(dA I tr e ewer l'Ith G,# hW 5 aI ti & ltti thnmaghanel F Per g(p !1 g hatf gy g gher 5f1 Sif

( WW4*t4tt

1. I si t.%4f f fllll%

k! 80 *i k*!

8'I' %EIO' %

,L Ut4I9Ill44fj llea414 lf >ty h dtf M e#}P glgesq g g gg it.t dl sdk ff h4Midl 56H t

$(Jillt4% 44d lltr qebl6' t ( Ly h I..I S k $ lful b MIDI S %

i t

t t

(J4% (SW llE$r45U( fidlI44.$ Ilel48) llpge gg t gjgg p lry gggg gfgr gog,gg jeg ggggg g ggigygggl g,,g g,(p.g g d p; gwig g lltgaggt f %.antt lin 4telepd if

• MllW l N + qa M L4 4 4 6g 4

.munenwQ " liderm) wiJ

• lt n a pegno (.,aig % 3 su,i IW leri e dith< Amuy h its sidW der p e i vi;i il of the hw is er laulu) ma4J the twd* N IM C i 8's h 5 *'8' N a"ad I ' T' 4 4*

9' mi ldni S 8

• 8st

~ smar eop fair 6he you eutilJ h+al innei ttic #1,.v.s,. d l'ma tria<st hs st r In 4 Lhtwiri he the cl.a, samt peasan, 64+rt i La AMli wtir surerh a se => 41 W 4 i

.*u~***.*

- uwwa mm.

. u,. i g,,,,e..wi..

.d,,,

i, ma. d o,,,

.. 1,.h.a u,

n, wi,.omai

.n--.ah o I ha' tilleal) $hle fd ktisli i ggt teggfg-ggyagr,gl3ing of a h4,g,$4an tn46f 41 UWd LlK L b Attdge pldh Wllt kW D the Fr el Har l$+>ddeHe D@D4 hN Ib4 #IIT*' E %'DJ bi#F "'I h I" * "

63 43 # 8 4h d'*!

p gg gtig gpgjlill gard (p 1 ksfittg flJ FOi ak' afI 1+16. tlet'ff d 'I i'h$ l f f 'd* * ' T hig $ } MMI SP4Ht sh elili magtts d gg ]b pygog at 4 t gug3 pg [ } ( g g(gsegL.

wpgegg ggjg Ito,nc

...a.u p.ia..u,,,e dgm,,,,,

we e n,a L.,

.,a,%onn.,

romr4 o.iochomt ni.o ia.s.4 i um

? nwim un o na ne.itt 4,,i, y, ao n6,,,,

.,,n,

pe a.! Ui.e Hw inU.lh M ' a ty fria at i %, osse ( frit w un i hWN ' t.ad I t t l %.a e %Nir Jiate w noc#6me,iungimaia 94 a kmges an 6,mi siv l'Lt ek-l n

.4 Ntth8 ptfiliidit4% fdh 144 tedir lIR ga p apyg gw Q h,q gmgippyMg j]g pg,gg gg pgy W pp $g g ggg,

' ja g g gnett gg pridr wh> (1:( tjyst taif (fm (lin H d a 141 46sts l it #f da ta*hed il Sikj W/

b U1 b Ld t*! $ 'h#E'" 8' kIMIP

'41he% befd IIis64 4L # di f rn4ut hi dG -

go, Ds,gngsgj g g 3 gyggij gtg.gg ; ph daq gfggg 4(g % g,,

a g

dh85 4 Ab M W

edrU h' 1

$!lf Ol'N b0lblS19 db I! fb'4 4 s f I pitsf4as

( tetM 44ande g't#% 416 bhAl d3410944j L A ef d 'IT MI4

h. t 60 2 ftf(Cial trk vs.4m' % fin g l.' hat j$g g,tl,adhr HI Ulr M f-f

( ' 9 't"II 58IE 44adts & g'nd%qpit ItW 4th \\t blatl I4%$ IE88(14It bef N AW# k ta445f(46%%4 4. lit ed4' lbi Ills N 'h 9 k 489L eet g4 ah f t44i gdan 14 MI N 344' h +. : i i i d 4 ' l kttf t. 4 !in h tuj4r$ '% Ch lf t-gl.ag gig gfystyg, g.ggi gm a pstyr.c ghaf 4f L.,gliill g jea age, pgag pe ft(.g[qt 4-ls. I f> ( llarset % O( t ri (htWI 4 H v u b, b.hed e t/idoki s

... a.o ' n r

4 M ja8tDCT !J lhelf[ khdil d l fIbNh.ID p),pquggg!q4 pot) ga ?gge ( tceg (of gegggh pg $'gggrt g,,,) jh;+ (mMytyngg.gt 39 f J Vfirig 44%h ta 1;4rittial 44l ) 440 Oh 4' ild lC 6 l' Allh # IE ;4-l' 'IK3 '

6 I O Aft iM W ft0lrM 6E8$I blh b hat stlUfHf4

((a(p(pt% hh gJ$$ k Mg l $3r g M a llsf Mgep$shgf%Q9 fHQ 3 $ etheyhm fM i E W lmg8 DMhM 4 II ef 4HD Olu

'* P"'C ' id*

• d' n ittoegd.wilypu p ooten i,gi, h,. vio..,...t i,a > gp,,s.

,,pmuuuss M d*% he Sen' t 1

V'

• I odA 'r# iWA 1 I'*l **

If r dgp f44 t het simp b+

Whl thef% IIat. 4bd e4% te e4I 4 k 48W ## k+5 M Ib

+ 4*i'

%6%sfl (N IttLSI tiene St1lIfut M 'j ht pg gjgr peghtse g ult ttittgittg 4 mig l hia tt'df klott%4fM t

I B% 19h bW4!8 E 9

d' I I*

II O Obt'4

" I'9 8 ) I4 A 44 $N44 Isle L O9(fdhg NE l* uf kefle.lIll%

gg tgigg gg drgg,gg g ggg g,p{0fb SfI f *ffl Nb' OfpfhM0W41 It"FE 0.'.8 ffMf

!9T A Ih t alk k Itih el b $ 4ri reth a des h8445Uhlill'}Tittp 4(ist 640%

ath ?td tyg %tgu ty,af.hg the g L meu,p,0 6]

IMt g,4dro pr igwsh el* d ie,atn

• d a r,,,g 4 j i r 4

') ga gs, thy ggggig Q,g gg g,( g,hj(Pgp

(,,gs pjpti, {d t hf4$UOf $ 6teIdp In Ahlf

{ D '1 %st.'s 94 mar (1 eb sb 4i 4df*ff I8 li's b t44#8'T b nd"ld i' 8% il em6. gal ped %ineltbf $444(Ldh n

gr trigslq l 39 1 ( $ lwt th il d, tl 5 -46 llM9 In-till Pte H Cft L*R e it kl "4 14 O du;t ( taHugipyg ag. (gg, ggid flhel H,g

!!k P al s A

,g 16 lg gd y ln gh' p(. ll g6, ll a

whMHe %c tb oaua m uw p w

,,a (n, g q.,,,y.,h. > w e i vtta

( AP s Wer hh,ed i eh h.e

.< 4 6 pi..tw i e.e

,d'=

r 4-i t s eri wr f

~ !!af to Aff g t t$t t he$i eb.D'1 ;

'8,d tlitstt a!

4 f $d M.49ILB441A la 'M ' f

• f thf?V 3bt Y'

%.h stM g 48 th 49 EIMl DE% {'ungs d titieuefe k hwr gazjpL f f 4 31 h hatDT 4t e' d%b t g*8lW 47 9

'l

$ 4,16 pet. *tutas, 4 A.g i. p e LI a gnf gy6$,3 seghu i 8

b) (,gh gng e g jwgejr g gigog qer ff.K,,$641, W Ffg d,3l Dsite.t gitm(galsa n p tie s'b. Wis) Det' O LA546ml S 44CI flf M -

I,,,,[

p a

i 1

i I

i i

i

---

n-h fj!

l-8 i

h 6 4

)

s k

r.j

\\

e p

g g%... -

p.;

's Qf

.t i

%d U

% [w

-f,7 n l

o D. gd T

$, 4r u kk.

N b

4

&b R9

% )*

u3 8dk

?

~.