ML20134K729
| ML20134K729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1995 |
| From: | Oconnell R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Larkins P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134K703 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-527 NUDOCS 9702140204 | |
| Download: ML20134K729 (20) | |
Text
- .. - - . - - - . - . . - - . .- _ .-- ._ . -.
4 pa St4 ,
h* UNITED STATES '
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- U mumoN. D.C. M1 k..**j[A.ooo3) e April 27, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Patricia M. Larkins Allegation Coordinator, OSP FROM: Robert L. O'Connell Allegation Coordinator, NMSS h :
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION - HYDRO RESOURCES, INC.
Attached is an allegation received by NMSS regarding a number of concerns involving Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI), which currently has an application pending in NMSS for a uranium recovery facility. The allegation also refers to HRI's parent company, Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI). We have attached a summary list of concerns. The allegation source documents, consisting of a ,
letter and portions of transcripts of public meetings, are also attached, with identities of individuals deleted.
The NMSS Allegation Review Board has determined that the concerns identified should be referred to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission for response. NMSS is therefore transferring this allegation to the Office of State Programs for forwarding to the State of Texas. The State should be requested to provide a response to each of the concerns to NRC. We will evaluate the State's response in connection with our review of the HRI application and will also provide the State's response to the allegers.
Attachment:
As stated 9702140204 970212 PDR FOIA
(~/ , , JORDAN 96-527 PDR
i Kydro Resources. Inc.
List of Concerns A number of concerns were raised regarding operations, radiological, environmental and other issues. The concerns are summarized as follows: !
- 1. Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI) may here followed a practice of lying to the State of Texas (Texas Natural Retkcrtes Conservation Commission) and been involved in covering up "accidenty." j
- 2. Environmental sampling and recordkeeping was not in accordance with l license conditions. !
- 3. Various spills and leaks from pipelines and evaporation ponds have been reported by URI. Delay of repairs to evaporation pond leaks was implied in two instances.
- 4. URI was " caught" by the State in " improperly disposing" of waste water ,
through land application without state authorization in June 1991. .
- 5. A Texas Dept. of Health inte. office memo recommends not granting a license amendment, alleging that URi disposed of prohibited byproduct material in i interim storage ponds at Rosita, in violation of a license condition. .
- 6. [ Transcript pp.85-86) URI has followed a practice of misrepresentation to the State of Texas about their operation.
- 7. [ Transcript pp.27-29) (a) Hydro Resources, Inc.'s (HRI's) process will destroy the drinking water, in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Companies have not been able to restore drinking water quality. The water still contains various secified metals. HRI and its parent company, URI, have a bad past record in Texas - spills, mining solution excursions, accidents, lack of proper monitoring, misrepresentation to the State.
T
. . a ..
l
- Hl.C ///9e>*~,
and rain which blankets ,
- These tailingw piles are exposed to vindaand ultimately sinks dowr. to ,
populaiton centers, grating grounds, ,
the groandvater er flows in the river, !
3.8%. this is unacceptable, most '
- rr.e economic impact for Dine' is for advancement and benefits JoDs vill be laL6r jobe with little rene vill be based un a false economy.
will not escape economic
- Gallup, NM, which is a tourist town isdependent disaster should an relenoc of contaminatan occur, Gallup upon tourist dullers, that uranium pricas have steadily failedis HRI
- Some reporth ludicate over tne past decade, specifically Highly Enriched Uranium, Mowaffect national production would golog to addrebb how new Nap tun t ura-2 37, or Flourir.e gas,
- 'ihereis nu mention of Polen1ue, 7609, Sec. 309), E.P.A. j
- Pursuant to Lhe Olean Air Act. (42and comment publically on the U.S.C. i Administrator is directed to review activittaa. includina actions which ctvironmental impacts of rederal involve ar. EIS, bond?, Because HRI Will What is ttie amount of HR2'e reclaimation it is not unreasonable tc reap most of the Linefits from the project, I
further issued until HR: agrees l request that no licenseasor leases beState of New Mexico, and the U.S. '
to indemnify the Navajo Nation, the any environmental damage and/or Government fur any and all costs ofactivJt'es, the Superfund should not enviromental emergency recponco De used et unnecessarily depleted, informat:on must be made clear by
- Tnts incomplete or unava:lable is essential to a reasoned tr.e NHC, BLM, and the DIA, this information forever change our lives.
caolce among these alternatives that enuld Inc., the parent company
- The past record of Uranium Resourceu, of misrepreocntation.
of NFJ indicates there is a clear pattezu of URI and deception, falso and misleading Statements on the part Resources worse, there are allegations on state of Texas Naturalfollowed a practice of Conservation Coesission that UNI may have
( raccc ) lyina to tne state and been invnived in covecing up "accidente",
(attacheent A),
/
^
/ i 4
.I
, - =. c.
j -
( URI - EING8VILLE DOME ALLSOED VIOLATIONS AND INCIDENTS NEEDING INVESTIGATION AND 5NFoRCENDrT SAFETY cone f
A. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 401 TEXAS HEALT DOCUMENTED IN THE TILE 8 OF THRCC files of J
The alleged violations listed below are identitled In many cases in theMost TNRCC for URI's licenses. f related of law violated, as specified by TNRCC documents.the ,
laws, rules and license conditions. l i since many of these alleged violations involved situations lted in wherel !
the violation likely continued for a number of daysfor or each resuinvestigation day l or from additional violations, we seek your appropriate penalties for all related violations and of violation. 1993 March 23, 1993 - Date of Inspection-January 24, Although required to ,
1 tinue violation of analyze process License Condition fluids 39: The l these tests, without priorfor radium,from approval URIthis decided Agency. to discon l violation continued for approximately 1 year. i l
28, 1993 1993 - Date of Inspection-January The March 23, physical 2.
Violation of TRCR 36.13 to andconduct required License Condition 31:
instrumentation utilized i radiation surveys and analyse wipe samples for contaminat on as required.
vere not calibrated at six-ponth intervals, 1992
- 3. May 6, 1992 - Date of Inspection-January 24, Documentation of daily Violation of License Condition 23: inspections for yellowc review by the Agency.
1991 April 16, 1992 - Date of Inspection-July 25, URI failed to maintain
- 4. a;.: id Violation of TRCR 36.2 et.
records to document compliance with the requirements specif e in Part 36 of the Texas Reaulations for Con
~
i 10).
1991
- 5. May 24, 1991 - Date of Inspection-March 21, sampling violation, Violations of Only License condition 39.As one sample was taken at each surface water including (a) Sediment samples were not taken at all surface source; (b) water locations as required.
1990 August 13, 1990 - Date of Inspection-June 13, URI failed to 6.
Violation of License Condition 45.A.:stored in severely repackage / dispose of waste materials (This also indicates that the required corroded drums.
~ -'
FEBRUARY 15,
' d p=e"
- _
Post-it' brand tax transmittat memo 75M w ==
Secretary JavoL Wole-"1 "' *
"y gt . c L.cf u t WeV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- a*=8 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch h ,0 0 ' D
- W " ' *"" ' ..,
~i ol 'ff f 9 '} f 7 I t Mr. Joseph J. Holonich, Chief High-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Materials, safety and Safeguard, Mail Stop TWFN 7J-9 RE: Docket No. 40-8968 Hydro Resources, Inc.
As a person whose interest would be affected by the approval of any licenses and leases to construct and operate the Crownpoint and Church Rock In situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Mining Project ("Profect"),
I hereby submit my ammended request that a public hearing Ibefurther held to review the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement (*DEIS").
request that the period for public commentbe extended 60 days beyond Feb. 28, 1995 for good cause as provided for in 10 CFR 2.711(a).
i i
f J
Under t'eh Atomic' Energy Act, 42 0.'S.C.A. 2239(a), T'am' entitled
~
to request a hearing prior to the granting of a license for the Project.
If the Project is approved as provided for in the DEIS, my interests will be adversely affected in various ways.
My concerns are based upon, but not limited tor
- The Dine' people reside within the 6 sacred mountains, ALL of the
~
land is considered our "Nother", all life is interrelated and connected spiritualy according to our beliefs. Our traditional way of life will l once again be threatend with change, (land, people, buildings, etc.), l yet our traditions and culture dictate that we remain on the land of i l
our ancestors.
- There is a dire need to translate the information contained in the DEIS from English to Dine' (Navajo), this will provide for decisions i
I
---~. ., .. .... . ........
G for 1992, although The first semi-annual release report 2.
complete, had not been sent to TDH within 60 days from July 1,)
1992 (Condition. 38) '
June 1988 caused by a leak URI reported a spill on 9, developing in the manifold. Approximately 8,000 gallons were 3.
spilled, contaminating soils.
limit in the dryer 4.
Airborne uranium exceeded the 200 mg/m3 for the week of April 1$ through the 22.
On April 21, 1989 a leak vas discovered in the south pond at 5.
the Kingsville Dome on April 20.
29, 1989 of approximately
- 6. A spill was reported by URI on March 3,000 gallons of Injection Solution.
1989 of approximately 7.
A spill was reported by URI on March 29,12,000 gallons of reported J
1989, URI
- 8. On March 7, 1989 and on August 28, i exceedances in its release of Radon 222 The On December 27, 1989 six laaks were reported by URI.
l 9.
breaks resulted in the spilling of one 15,000 gallons of injection fluid or extraction fluid into surrounding soils.
in the south pond
- 10. On September 13, 1988, URI reported Isaksand not repaired until first detected by it on March 25, 1988 1 URI also reported leaks in the north pond.
7, 1988 and but did not j
July 15, 1988.
- URI identified the leaks on1988. June repair them until July 19, l
11.
In June 1991, the state caught URI improperly disposingThe of waste by Ic.ad application without state authorizatio of the action through an anonymous the state became aware complaint. The disposal of vaste and the f ailure to remediate violates Texas law and regulations governing uranium mines.
- 12. URI ceased pining operations on or before October 1990 and has f ailed to begin restoration as required by its licence and state law.
- 13. On July 8, 1994 and September 28, 1994, URI reported leaks in its south pond.
i
<. r~n .-
1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT AUSTIN TEXAS OF HEALTH l
INTER-OFFICE TO Phil Ehaver TROW Martivn Progese of URI'e tieenge Rocardine Interim $torace of Bvoroduct eVEJECT Egggest_ fo_r Amendeent 1
Material at Rosita I oppose the granting of amendment of license no.
' In reply to your memo of 2/14/9J,
! LO3653 12/2/92.
for the Rosita site (001) as requestedItby is a Mr. Ma materiale in the interLa storage pond which are specifically prohibited. dition for a licensee mockery of the Agency's efforts to regulate through license con license to know1'ngly violate a license condition and 'then request amendment of the i
condition so that " complete compliance with the license can be achieved."
l 7, dated 6/14/90, to allow interim Condition 53 was put into the license in Amendment ides and storage of specified bveroduct material from decommissioning of URI's Benavthat n j tongoria projecte because of URI's argumentAll of Condition 53 (Parcs A - L) Was that time (reitm aa's letter of 6/23/B9).
j carefully and deliberately written so as to restrict the types of byproduct materia to be placed in the interim storage pond and to require procedures which would not .
jeopardies the liner system and would faellitate retrieval of the byproduct material.
f Staff concerns about URI's 4/23/09 proposal are clearly indicated communication with URI in the2/33/90, license and files 5/32/90; documentation of te ep l h URI's letters dated 10/20/89, one Peliaca and me dated 1/16/9C and 5/7/94, C.D. Rao's memo discuestone between Kr. trip report memo dated 7/9/90; and my license review sheet Sill Price's dated 4/4/903 Mr. P.113:a was aware of the staff's concerns, understood what for tog no. 8-237-st.to be placed in the interim storage pond (e.g., his letter natorials were not The only of 2/13/90).
and agreed to the license condition (his letter of 5/16/90). license subsequent changes to Condition 53 ware nade in Arendment i
storage pond and inforwation regarding construction plans.
The license authorisation for interim storage at Resita expires 6/30/93 (condition
! 53A). By that tLme, all byproduct caterial in the interla storage53L and condition pond should should be be removed and disposed of in a licensed Atsposal site,I recoemend that the pro 4
complied with.intarim storage pond be allowed to remain untLL the other material is rem later than 6/30/93. This would avoid any possible damage to the linerURIsystem f rom However, should not be atterpting to remove the prohibited material before then.
relieved of any other enforcement action resulting from their violation of the license.
I With respect to the expiration date for the authorization of interim storage, The staff's recomnend that the Agency not grant any extension if requested theby URI. be temporary.
storage intention in granting the authorisation originally was that There are now available to URI both in-state and out-of-scate licensed byproduct i material disposal sites.
interim storage pond at Rosita beyond 6/30/93 conflicts with Any continued use of thefrom the U.s. Nuclear Regulatory commissien (sttached position tra guidancebecause off-site disposal options are available and because URI has not 9/6/91) Any request by URI to establish an on-site performed adequate site characterisation.
disposal facility would have to be directed to the Texas Water commission.
. . . - . .- . - . - _ . . = - . ._-
n- l 85 1 .
~
2 .
3 I
4 l
5 MODERATOR GILLEN: i l
6 STATEMENT OF 7 Good afternoon. My.name is 8
9 I want to comment on this book right here.
10 This is what it's all about. What you guys are talking ;
11 about today. My first comment comes from page "3-4, 12 Section 3.2.1, " Regional Languages." There's information ,
13 in here that tells you about the mine that HRI, Hydro ,
14 Resources wants to locate here. Going to be over here, 15 and over here on this side. It has some information in 16 here about Red Rock State Park. This is what they say 17 aLout Red Rock State Park.
. l 18 " Red Rock State Park which is located just ten miles 19 west of Gallup." >
20 Ten miles west of Gallup, that's where they !
21 put Red Rock State Park. Red Rock State Park is about 22 four miles east of Gallup. Just the opposite of what 23_ they're saying in here. But this is what they are doing I
24 with the rest of the information. They make it sound very :
25 good, that they will have control over this mining i
4
o o 86 1 operation, when, in fact, the parent company, URI, Uranium ;
2 Resources, Incorporated, has experienced a lot of failure t 3 of the equipment that they use in this mining operation.
4 They havd a dismal track record. A very poor track i
S record. In regards to the accident, there's already a 6 report that we obtained that basically says this company j 7 has followed in practice of misrepresentation, of 8 practically lying to the State of Texas about their 9 operation.
10 But if we go back to what 1 just said, this is f f
11 what it's all about. The information that they give you ;
12 on the Red Rock State Park is absolutely wrong and it's 13 the same way with everything else. But they're not going l 14 to tell you that. Not any one of these officials up here l f
15 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Hydro Resources, 16 Incorporated. They're not going to tell you this.
17 But this draft Environmental Impact Statement, 18 Hydro Resources, Incorporated, this is their justification 19 to get at all that uranium. But they're going to say, 20 that we followed procedure, that we went to the public.
21 The same way wf. NRC Le,ce. They're going to say the same 22 thing.
23 24 25
. j 27 1 .
2 l l
3 l
l 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
17 18 19 20 STATEMENT OF 21
< 22 we've 23 24 decided that this project is most likely against 25 the Safe Driaking Water Act.
28 1 Page 3-18 states that HRI expects to place at l
2 least one Navajo tribal utility a thority well due to l 3 mining activities showing that it is expected that their 4 process will destroy the drinking water there. The Safe 5 Drinking Water Act states that underground injections must J
6 not endanger drinking water scurces.
l 7 Section 4.1.4 of the draft EIS demonstrates i
k 8 that neither HRI or Mobil has been able to restore the 9 purity of the groundwater.
10 Table 4.3 shows that after leach teet the so-11 called restored water sample had elevated levels of 12 arsenic, nanganese, solinium, radium, and uranium. Page 1 i
13 4-7 states that even after months of treatment mellidnium l 14 concentration remain above allowable standards.
I 3
15 The draft EIS does not discuss the presence of l 1 l 16 Thorium 230 in the mining solution. Thorium 230 is the 17 carcnt radio-nucleus high of Radium 226 and has a half-i j 18 life of 75,000 years. HRI's past record in Texas also i
2 19 shows numerous spills, mining solution excursions, 1
20 accidents, and lack of proper monitoring. According to 21 the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission spills l
22 are expected and they are require a spill map be filed 23 with them. .
\
j
- 24 Employees of the State of Texas have called I
25 HRI's parent company Uranium Resources Inc.'s track record l 1
- _ - r
29 I abominable. These employees have noted that URI's record 2 of misrepresentation of information to the state. This is j 3 an arid climate and everyone's groundwater is a precious 4 resource. Please don't gamble with it.
5 (Applause.)
6 (Statement given in English and translated into 7 Navajo.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 1!
le 1
1 e +
-.mm.. _~-. - e A & 4 .m - 2
.3 7 W e v 7A , + n- -
gr 4 4. ~ w ~ 2 e
- a , =.
& M'E%d a e pA uj L D. f = =
nAk-V *AAA 4 < ayyW 1 'T r f w T y . y - /-e- 4 M .{Tk lL< 4 'l : 1 ' 4 Ce. Og QRc3J l
%h rr M -
J ,_ .0 G c : r u 1 A bo d H, N M vM N < ~% Q /'<=2J A W w A 't -
_ w ztt- M w%
x 4 '# 4 M .
/%
~
I 30
Texas Natural Resource NTERDFTICETdEKiGRANDUM Conservation Commission To: Minor Hibbs, P.E., Director Date: Sept. 28, 1995 Industrial and Hazardous Waste Section Thru: Dale Kohler Uranium Team Leader
. Alice Hamilton Rogers, P.E.
Manager UIC, Uranium, and Radioactive Waste Section From: ictor W. Whadford, Health Physicist
Subject:
URI, Inc. Allegations t
.--.---%. ....,,..-.,.....-...-......_t.u----
..--,-.--%,m...p- -...._.,,w....g...,__2....%,. m... - - - - - . . . - - - . - - - - - - - - *
SUMMARY
This is in response to the May '.6, '995 request for information by .
Mr. Robert J. Ocda of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) involving Hydro Resources Inc. Hydro Resources Inc. is affHiated 1
with Uranium Rescurces Inc. and the Texas uranium mining company URI, Inc. URI, Inc. has been issued. Texas Natural Resource Consew ation Commission (TNRCC) license nummer RW3653 (Kingsville Dome and Rosita projects) and license nummer RW2704 (Benavides and Longoria projects). Specifically, Mr. Doda requested whether certain allegations could be proved or disproved.
1 A review of the license file RW3653 (inspection reports and other documentation) shows that the Texas Department of Health (TDH) did issue Nbtice of Violations (NOVs) to URI, Inc. It appears that the NOVs were handled through routine administrative processes. Although not a part of the Texas Regulations for the control of Radiation (TRCR) Part 43 until April 1990, spills and leaks were reported by the company to TDH. Apparently, there was a period of time before two leaking pond liners were repaired. The company responded to TDH inquiries concerning the pond 'iner repairs. _ An investigation by TDH was conducted concerning alleged, unauthorized disposal of byproduct II by irrigation. The investigation found that URI Inc. :
was not in violation.
Although an individual event /al'.egation may be proved true based on facts found in the file record, this does not necessarily prove an act of wrongdoing as defined by the NRC (NRC-0517-0415): ,
N
- s. 3 3
\
,fh -
l.
l "0415 Wronadoing. Wrongdoing consists of either (a) intentional violations of regulatory requirements or (b) violations resulting from careless disregard of or reckless indifference to regulatory requirements, or both (a) and :
(b) " . !
An investigator or agency must be able to prove that an allegation is not simply an error, poor judgement, or oversight. Allegations not considered wrongdoing are processed through regular administrative procedures such as NOVs. The allegation that the URI, Inc. has "followed a practice of lying to the State of Texas. . . ", " covered up" accidents, and "has followed a practice of misrepresentation..." was not proven with documents found in the license files.
i l
2
i
)
i i
l ATTACHMENT A 3
i 4
i 1
UR.., . nc.
Review cf Allegaticns This is in response to the May "6, 1995 request for information by .
Mr. Rcbert J. Ocda of the USh*RC involving Hydro Resources Inc.
Hydro Resources nc. is affilia ed with Uranium Resources Inc. and L ,.A, ..nc. has been t .u.e .exas uran .um = 1ng ccmpany . ...n , .nc.
- a. ,,. . . ..- ,, . .
. ..- a. . . ,
- y. w a. ,.a. n g .n.a - : -c .c. e
. . . . .".. .~ ~ - . .=.W s- 'i a' ' = a. . . a v ' ses
. a.nd ' ~..g o v ..4 a y.a,a
-v
. .s).
ca-. -
o.g.,, ..a '--"*
.. . -y.e..oe . . ., . . . . . a. .v. = .=. - a.c. .' s. a - . a. . . a r.s # a. .*-a.d ra.c."-.l a t o r'f .
2 A. ..u...
. .f
.c 2
... si.- . a...'... . -=<..,.a.-,' #-a .' .' .4 .' a ..s #-om . TH o
.P.% ,] f ,'.
..in...
. . o, n,,. . . .y n . .,,. m, n n
. . . a. .. . . . . ... . . .., Ln,.g .o.- .. . . . , . . . . . s ,,,,.,. ~ C e ,.,,.
. s
- ,c I
,s. a., - : . .: =. . . A a .v a. -.Aav.
a...ac.u.a.A ,. , e .u. a. . a e . a. .e . a
.e gm.. -a ,. v
. .. .. . .3 . .k. a. a3
. u. a. . . . n. a ., . g . - u.g .
. a. e. . e. . .
...=.. ..
....a,.o. g .~n ,. .= c m...a- .=-ac. , .-
.. . .. . .. y- -
. . . ... . s c. . . ,- . . . .; . . a A --
. u. . a. ....c
. . . .....a c
2 ..aw.
,.a...a. _.. A.
. .w. a. . s.u
.- - . a. . . s . . . . . ~ '-. .> ..,: ...=. . a..c
. 1 .'-=. .....- e.- . a- ...- ...a. .- a / . e w - .
4
- . . *; r a n i u.m R e s o u r c e s , Inc. .*~R ) may have followed a practice of
.ying to the State Of *exas (Texas Natural Resource Icnse vati:n Commission) and been involved in covering up
" accidents."
..a ea m . .. ...a w .. . . . .g. ..::. a.
... ,.,.,.: .. . . .. .: ;..a. ;.-
.... . . ... .; ... . . . . e.
-*- F a .a=. .,
. 1.% w - .A......we.....
2 .... a - . . . . . . . ....s . . . .. a ..
. .;.. .... a . .
...-..a..,.
y --.. : a. ...c. . .
n.- ..e.J, , . u. a , a. 4as ..'
- g . ,.; -.
.-A.;.. ........e.a.'. . . . v. .
. 2..... ...a. ... . . . a.,. .g
. .a,,,, a., p a,,, ,,., .. . . . a. a a u. a . . . d . ,
.a. . .
. ...y .. ..
..,,a
. . . . a.v ,. z. ..
_a,.,.,
i 1
1 w.
. . . s ,y,e, . . a
.g s.. .....y....a - . . . - ..s.- ...,a a- .ogoag
.- -- .*c.- ce --
.. . , :. a. a ,., .v .
.: .e i a
.. ... ..L. . . . . . . .... . .. ya.... v. 4 go . a. 2 i
. .a.c.e,... . . . . .-e. ~ . ..
4 ...
.a... . . . s S ., .a.,1 . e s. . . . , ; a... 4-..s,
.-...s..O4 .:.e . . O. . u. a. ....a Ayy. eare A
.7 .a .s .s...; .. .. .. .y a . A.e,f ...,
' a. . . . .
. - . , .' " a-
. . .c a.
a..a..- =.. u..
.. . b.
. a. 4...syec . .
- ....A
. . . a. .v a. .,. .= . y ,,., .e g w. a. ......y. .=...a.,
-- a ..ay wag .a a n . . .
...a.a. . . .,,
. .g , s. .- .;. .= a. a ..
- 2. .a... =... 3.s.. .. . . ..,. 7 g ;. ,.
. ; . . . s g y a.. ,... ,.,
. a . a.1.s a v.a.
,, :.,.A
. . . . - ... . . a.
... .1_... . _ _ =
. z. a_ n_ _. -__._ .
e _ _ , . _
.u
_..a_ o n. . e_ _ _1_
.: O. _g 4 . s_ . . . = .! = w ... .. ..;
. . g n . .p e. . B,3 & 4}.
._ - _ _. ". O. . FO. . ' .. . .. ". .b.a
.....,y.g.., . . .: , a. ,3 .
... n a .. . =. .e 7.. , . .a. ..
a . . , y, a. C
..;,.e.a
....a w . g.
-'--*J.
.. ..a. . . 2. "y..a.A
. - e. e. a. .g: .
.. ...4 a. ., a. . .
. a. p .7a.. . 3 .... . . . g : v__ m . ..g
..g . . . . . . . .- , . ....
. . . . .M...kh. . . . G .. ... . . .
p
. .$ 4-D
-M,,
.w w .. .. g
- ** * *(y
....wn. .. n .
...p. a. 4
~ . a. .=.
. .....a..y.
- ,* c c' a .a.
.-- a.= yw... a.=.. . . ,.
.. 3. a- y . . ..: ...... . n.,,,,.,,..oq.4 . .%c i
requires annual inspecticns, TDH inspected each facility.
every 6 months. There aere 10 Rosita facility inspecticns in the file for the period of interest (1988 through 1994); the findings were:
7 inspections -
no viciations
_ :nspect:cn - ene class . ,/ .
_ 4 ..s y e " . _" c 7. -
. . . a_ c_ _' a = s 7. .- ~. , n a_
. .' ass 'V -
_ inspectitn - One class :::, two class :VS
_- ) . C w ._. a .,
- c. . _ 4..4_._2....,
_ .. q. -. __ --o_r .... ;... .2,_.__. ..
.,. w .. . . ,
. . .. .c a .n.'/
was .#. ".d.
w
.o me _4n - . ..p ., .4 a . . c ._ .
-w...ove w,.-
_ . .._ _ .vs _" . . ,s v '_ _' _'
= .. ... a_ ..._=-ya__ _".. - .o- _". . . .". e _#__ 4 ' e.". . -
. .e. m ny a_ _ v _e _. 4.- ..J = , =. q . b. . - .
- - . . . . . . .b. .,n. .a .,. _ .. _, _,
_ . ._ 2_7.4eg . .7 ,.. . .,.y a .../
_ o_.e. y r ..s e s , . _ n" - o..._4s a_ w e . a- - e. _ _. _ m_ A.
. . . _m_._ _4. . 4 . _43 .1 C _' a s s _~ _~ _~
.a . .. .= _ ., ..._. _ a
--_2.,,....a . -: _.=o _- ,r- .. .. . _ _am - _; _ . s .
. -L.a.
e,1.3 .o- . e. _.. a. m. _ . . .e. y e -r. .- . . . .e =. - m_ .
.- ..e y - e_ _..__ _ _. . g .
. . ___=__.g ._.
e . , __ .
..y_.._ . .s -
--.=.
.. -_'=_=a-- - . '
- - . ._-.'a.-.. --
. a. a .".
~
_ . . s y o_ _.. . . _ ._.. . g _ .g , -_ . =-_ a-
. _ -< . . . .a__"_.s . aac..
a...,.y,._..-.. .: - . . - .. ,.
.-_ =a-
-- _ a _ _. -. . g
__ _ ._.._.a.-.
.....ya n.f .s.-
_ 2
._ -_. .=- ... , . .aa
- ....a
.. ....y __.=. _=_. .
- 2. Invironmental sampling and recordkeeping was not in accordance with license conditions.
.. .. e.a:r,e ' y_ a_ _c ..
..'". ". a
_ . . _' . _ ...- . . = r . n. . a_ a_ c. 4_ . . ~ .=.-. d
_....,r......_=_
. .-.. . . . . .:.a -. .-.y-- _ . . ._
._=_=.. _= m.
- ......x :
. . . - .. ;. 2 . .a
. .".. ..e ~. . s C -
- ..u.__,_... .
.. o 5. -'.=_
.. ".-._'=--.s
. _ _ . ---aa. .. . ". 2".r e .. =_ a_ a.
syy .
.- o. g ,- ..-- ..g
"- s-"saed
.a_..,
. . . . .2,._.
. . , _ . . _ _ =_a._. ._-..._ - e._
. . . as - - - -
.x.,...
- 2. - . . .
- a. ..arious s.p:..s
. ._ and leaks frem pipel.,nes and evaporatien ponds have been reported by "RI . Celay of repairs to evaporation pond ,eax.s was :=pliec in wo . nstances.
i 1
(
A. Leaks and spills from pipelines have been reported by.URI. ;
The Tevas Reculatic-s fer the control of Radiation (TRCR) 5 Part 43.3: (g) and ih) (attachment D) gives requirements for [
the licensee to notify the agency in case of leaks and i
spills. This section was incorporated into the TRCR effective in April *.990 according to Cynthia Cardwell of TDH, Bureau of Radiation Standards Branch. Prior to April 1990, companies used this format to report sptlls to TCH; however, it was not 1 d.volva.
a .t-u .i a . . . 7 . . ..'.a. .' n . = _ - . " . . . . .d . . 3
- e .".7 . q u e 4
. an .q extensive networks of ptpeline. Reports of breaks er spills a -a. . .c 'w
. . .s .4 d e .- a. d ' m' m~u a . . .- =..~./ ' a. c .4 1
. . . . 4 '.y u s i".g . ~w.k. 4 s me n ..od 1
- e ,. . 2 .f .s,. , _, __e.d or .ea c .4 _: _ w./ 4eo
., .s. . . a .,. 4 . . .. , , x t .a c .J . ,. .
r released by TNRCC and the U.S. "uclear Rec.ulatory Ccmmission, l
tne ccmcany must .cer Orm surveys, and any area contamtnated . .
. i w., ", 5 .* a d _d -
2 c " _4 v .4 * */ . .."s "a.
. . =. ~...a. d .d av a d. )
7
...2.,.
i
. 3 ew 3 . .W.. . . a., .
. ; .,1 _ . a ,. . s . .. .. 4
,, ,. . 3 .4 ,,
... ... ..y 4,; ,. a. s 43 a c y- a a . . o .".a v e *.be e .n
. =. ya.'.s _=ak_'.~; -,.".s. ~. . . a. . - a.
444 i
. . . . y,. . . . . , ;
t
. . ./ .: ._. . , ,. - a. ,e. . a,.
2.. . . . . . . . g .o .. --
.. e..... . . . . . . ..,..=... t i
- 4. TRI was " taught" by the State in " improperly disposing" of waste water through land applications without state authorization in une 1991.
.'4 .
.4 g ,.g .
.....v .. . . e. a. ..
. , ..$.",,* ..,...s.n..
. . . . . . .; ,1. ,) 4 c.w. .4 G .1 Je 3 .1 _9f,gg
. . _.w .*g
..2.
.,._ , . . ... .a =. = . -
. . a ....e
. . _.e4. . g .. *.._.4s ... .m w. . . m.
3...
, _ , =
. .. . . ... .u.
_ .. .. .. .. . . ' ~ a 6 _4
. , , .7 '. =. s a c ."... .e. . .
~- ' --
F "' 4,' . . . . y-..- . y' s .# # '. _ _ ' . . . =
. a.. . y . 2' .... = d ...2. .' .". a ,/ a e v. a . . w4 a..'-
. ..'.a.
... .yo3C . *
._. . . . .a. a . .. 3,...2 c .
.. . .3,s....,s
. aw.... .4.3 ... _4.w, A _J ./ _....1 3D Y.
- sA .
i e Q . .v ..._... . . . . _ . . . . .{ \
e ,, . . . . s.y .gou.4 .. . m4, . ..
. s
. .% C
., ....'23.
.. u. ._...
2 g4....
. . . . . . . . . . .u.m. ae ,t,., , ..
. . . ~. ~. u. .
a
..."v.=.-g.=....-
"- ...,. =. s . . . . = . .
. ...s .. . = . .c. . . 4 . . ~g .e. s c . 4 w. - ~. J a .". "6 3 ~ ^-
. "w =- .
- 4. a. . m. A.
. */.=..,.
- . . . . . .a. .. . . == - 4 )
- .2..._,.t g
.. ..k.a t .2 *J,ans, 1
w.._a 2 m n .n. : ...g ..
, .=e...
. ... 2., .,._ _ .. . . g n _' c_ a t _' n.
, .- ... .w _' " A a. d s i
i'
". a .- " .s
. . . ~y ra - =....' ":
.a- . . . . .."..a
". - a.d - ..".a. -- =v..as c a-"'a --
d--e 1
--_ ._. .... _- . =a_. ..__ - _ _ .
. .w..o._. ,
_.4 c e . ,, 4
.- - - - - - - _ _ -- _ .. ..3. 3 . ..
'5. A Texas repartment of Health :.ncerof fice memo recommends not granting a license a=endment, alleging that URI disposed of prohibited byproduct mater.al in interim storage ponds at Rosita, in violation of a '.icense condition.
..*.J. .3.4..., . g
.,,y,. ; g. . . .r
."b . . .b. a. . .- .... .'. . 3, _f.,.,..,
. .. ...c. .. k. a. . a. n. . ..
eg,
- L. . o..n.M ... e . ."
e
.=.
. 3. .v. . .3 ... c. . .
2.. ._
4..
. . . . 3.y.. . . . . ..
O w v.3 g e ,
e ywse. .4 .w 2
.'.g
?
?. .3.....A w
- 3 . . .; . .m...
... 4
. .. A.. ..... :. . eep. ... ... f..=
- 1. . -..b. o* ~~*M..
- V'"W JV I
i concerning this violatten and resulting correspondence is found in attachment G-2 thrcugh G.9. The license amendment for extension of the interim storage disposal pond was !
subsequently granted.
- 6. [ Transcript pp. 85-86] URI has followed a practice of misrepresentation to the State of Texas about their operation.
l A. Charges cf misrepresentation can have sericus censequences. t
.he accused may truthfully nc: have understood, may have been unaware, Or may have interpreted something differently. :
i
- 7. [ Transcript pp. 27-29] (a) Hydro Resources, Inc.'s (HRI's) ;
process will destroy the drinking water, in violation of the j safe Drinkin, Water Act. ~cmpanies have not been able to l restore drinking water qlality. The water still contains. ,
various specified =etals. HRI and its parent company, URI, l have a bad past record in Texas - spills, mining solution !
excursions, accidents, lack of proper monitoring, misrepresentation to the State.
., n .. .. .. , a .... .~.
.s . .. v. . . , .
..as .
.. . ....,/,,...,.
. ... . =,,e.a. . . e, .
._2.,s- t
.. .=....._...
.. . . . . . . . . .u. m. .y
, . a. . . , - . .:. .= ,. y . . . ~:
... .. ... ..,7 ... ;. i I
. .b. 2 . . .y.
. = . ., .. .L. a.D. .=y 34 3. .. f. . =. A
...C y.
- . .,, .r. 4 b.
., 2
..... . . c. g g "., J.,
. . . ..... =..g .
.*,. .., . . .4 4 .;,.i. . ., . L...s.
i .JJ. .* ,.a g e
- g.e.m.e. 3 . . ' ..aa J...4 -a.s. u. , . L.a
. . . . .n
. ............g 4. .. =. .y . .A.a. .v 3 . . . . 6. . , .. ,.....y
. .,. g ,f.. g
. f ,-
.. .g g .,. .....y a...34 .* .
.. .# 2. ,: . . -. . .. .. ,. ., .. .= . ,
A 4 . . , *
..a .4 . .m ,. g o. g. 1. .. . ' .
! ,,.....2
. . . .e . .. .
J
- 3. .... 24 .s ..
. . . . .. ,z .* "ye C ' * '... .". .
- a"*
.a 1 w
. m,. C .w4
... ...m.. .. * : .. .we. . . . .
. .=. r,3 g ...
. 4., .,._".o,
~.
- . s.. ...
4 t !
i l
d I
i F
k
_