ML19327B303
| ML19327B303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1989 |
| From: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327B302 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910300125 | |
| Download: ML19327B303 (1) | |
Text
--
q s.
1 V
OCT 181989 D
. MEMORANDUM FOR:
4 Gregory P. Yuhas, Chief Emergency Preparedness and t
' Radnlogical P-
'ction Branch Region v FROM:
Leland C. Rouse, (n."..
Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, HMSS
SUBJECT:
STATEMENTS BY DONALL W. WALLACE BEFORE JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH, ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL HEARING 1
Enclosed are several pages from tb transcripts of statements from the i
limited appearance session and the prehearing conference regarding the Hearing for the renewal of the Rockwell International Rocketdyne Division materials license. You are requested to review the Radiological Contingency Plan and related documents and take appropriate actions to de.termine if "...Rockwell has falsified its onsite radiological contingency plan...." as stated on page 219 of the transcript.
Because of the renewal process, this should be resolved promptly.
4 Mh Leland C. Rouse, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
Enclosures:
Transcript pp. 25 31, 218-221 Distribution w/encls.
Docket *70-25
<PDRr w NRC/ File. Center NMSS R/F IMUF R/F IMSB R/F VLTharpe" Region V CHooker, RV MHorn GHBidinger WSPennington OFC:IMUF:
IMU IMS
~
.........Nb..........hEt............
l NAME:GHBidinger:mh:
VETharpe:
L e:
bkTE10/f[fh9 lb/lYhb9 lbfh89 OFFICIAL REC 010 COPY
)
l 8910300125 891023 i
PDR ADOCK 07000025
-4 C.
PDC C,,,..
)
l
)
r **
j NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION
.........=...........................................
l-In.the Matter oft Met No.
ROCRWELL INTERNATIONAL ASLBP 85-594-01-ML CORPORATION, ROCKETDYNE DIVISION (SPECIAL MATERIAL LICENSE NUMBER SNM-21) s 1
e e
s I
Pages:
1 through 114 Places. Van ~Nuys, California Date:
September 28, 1989 t
/LA HERITAGE REPOkTING CORPORATION AghWNgenom 1230 L Serest. N.W., Seite det Washington. D.C. 30006
~
E74362.R N...M.;.,
)
@0042NON E
v etr
... -. -....,. -. - - --....-. _,--._,-. ~..,__.. - _ _. _ _
' 'T lL-
- r 1
t 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD FANEL
.t 3
4 In the Matter of:
')
)
5 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
) Docket No, i
CORPORATION,
) ASLBP85-594-01-ML 6
ROCKETDYNE DIVISION
)
)
7 (SPECIAL MATERIAL LICENSE
)
NUMBER SNM-21)-
)
1
- Thursday, 9
September 28, 1989 10 Van Nuys State Building 6150 Van Nuys Auditorium 33 Van Nuys, California-12 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 13 pursuant to Notice, at 7:05 p.m.
14 BEFORE:
JUDGE PETER B.
BLOCH 15 Administrative Law Judge 16 17 l
L 18 I
L 19-20 21
['
22 23 24 s
25
..-._,-_.l
i, 1,
5,
'4 25 i
I anything, and said everything was satisfactory and never 2
p mentioned the '83 report or any of the difficulties we're 3-having with-hazardous waste, toxic waste, dangerous L
4 cancer, and'so-forth, and said everything'is all right.
5 So how can we believe them when they do this, and L
6 even did not give this information to later studies being 7
made by the DOE and EPA in 1988, 1986, and now 1989.
8 Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Donald W. Wallace.
l 10 PRESENTATION BY MR. DONALD W. WALLACE 11 MR. WALLACE:
My name is Don Wallace, I live at 12 1710 North Cold Canyon Road in Calabasas, California 13 91302.
14 I'm a member of the Executive Board of the 15 Coalition for Clean Air, and have been authorized to rake 16 a statement in their behalf.
Additionally I am the 17 chairman of the Adhoc Group of home owners, and civic, and 18 environmental organizations formed to oppose the re-19 licensing of Rockwell International Corporation, Santa 20 Susanna Field Laboratory.
21 We oppose this re-licensing for all of the 22 reasons that you've heard to this point and for the other 23 reasons that you will hear later tonight.
24 We oppose also the re-licensing because the most
]
f toxic substance known \\o man is being trucked through our 25 t
f
1 26 neighborhoods.
2 w, oppos. the re-licensing because this 3
corporation has been cited for 58 violations'of Federal 4
Nuclear Regulations.
We oppose the re-licensing because 5
this corporation has been cited for 14 violations of 6-state, health and safety laws.
We oppose the.re-licensing 7
because this corporation has failed or refused to comply 6
with both federal and state reporting and disclosure laws 9
about nuclear accidents and exposures.
~
10 We oppose this re-licensing because they have 11 poorly designed, poorly executed inadequate and antiquated 12 excuse for a monitoring system.
We oppose the re-13 licensing because we think that our property values, our 1d investment in public works and emphastructure our 15 physical, emotional and psychological health are more 16 important than the equity of Rockwell shareholders, 17 We oppose the re-licensing because our lives and i
18 o
ur economic futures are compromised and threatened so 19 ithat this corporation can fully depreciate its capital 20 investment, but most of all we oppose this re-licensing 21 because this corporation has no credibility.
22 I do not believe Rockwell's assessment of the L
23 danger, their record of truthfulness is lacking.
I do not 24 believe Rockwell's denials, they have too often turned 25 into ad.rissions.
I do n believe Rockwell's assurances,
\\....-.
s.;,
27 they have too often proved them false.
2 A few days ago I had the opportunity to review a 3
document titled, "On site radiological contintiency plan l
4 for Rockwell International operations licensed under 5
special nuclear material license number SNM-21," dated 6
July.25th, 1986, and revised in May of this year.
7 This document is rife with false assurances.
6 This document is generally false and specifically folce.
9 The document purports to lay out a, plan to detect, 10
~
contain, resolve and recover from several different types 11 of nuclear accidents.
It spends most of its 100 or so 12 pages filling space with bureaucratic nonsense.
It lays 13 out the agreements and resources available to help 14 mitigate an accident and despite what the document says 15 and implies, there are no agreements to have many of these 16 resources respond to emergencies.
17 l
Now, I can speak with some knowledge about this 18 subject because I'm e; fire captain in Woodland Hills, 19 approximately five and a half miles from the site.
I have 20 checked on the accuracy of the document with respect to 21 the fire fighting section, and with respect to the 22 emergency medical section.
23 Page 1.3 of this document is a map depicting 24 locations of various facilities including emergency 25 resources like hospita
, and fire stations, and sheriff m
m
t
?
/
28 1
sub-stations, and police stations.
2 Page 1.4, or 1 4 details the facilities depicted 3
on the map.
Page 1.5 says, "The legend to figure.1.1, 4
which.is the map, also lists those-hospitals --
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Wallace, stop for a second.
I-6 want to make sure if I can get to that.
You're talking 7
about the on site radiological plant?
8 MR. WALLACE:
Yes, and I'll give you a copy of 9
the pertinent pages.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
I have the whole' document, 11 what page should I be looking at?
i 12 MR. WALLACE:
Start with 1.1.
Excuse me, page 1-13
'3.
l-14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Please, continue.
i 15 MR'. WALLACE:
Which is a map that has on it the 16 Rocketdyne headquarters, the Santa Susanna Field i
17 Laboratory and DeSota Headquarters.
It also has in i
18 circles several numbers, one through 14.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Fourteen.
20 MR. WALLACE:
Those circles depict what are on 21 page 1-4, if you'll turn to the next page.
1-4 sets forth 22 the legend that indicates what those numbers indicate, 23 which is the hospitals, fire stations, in Los Angeles
[
City, one Los Angeles County fire station, one Simi Valley
^4
/
25 fire station, three Los geles sheriff's divisions, which
c i
29 l
t 1
are actually L.A.
City _ police stations.
One Ventura 2
County. police station.
3 On page 1.5, the next page, it says 'at the bottom
(
4 of.the first paragraph, "The legend to figure 1.1 also i
t 5
lists those hospitals, Venture County sheriff's offices, c
6 and fire stations that are supportive in an emergency 7
situation that may arise at the Santa Susanna site."
8 It.also substantially repeats that statement at 9
the-bottom of the page.
It fills, space by saying it to again, to make the document longer and therefore it looks F
11 better.
12 Page 4.7, or 4-7, says that Rockwell'has, 13
" arrangements for emergency medical evacuation with Los 14 Angeles fire department, (LAFD), paramedic ambulances,"
is and then goes on, not pertinent to this.
4 16 Page 5-15 repeats that same statement-in a 17 slightly different form.
These statements about the 18 availability of Los Angeles City fire department resources 18 to respond to emergency nuclear accidents at this site are 20 false, there are no such agreements on record.
21 I called today and spoke to the chief of our 22 planning section, no such agreement has ever existed.
No 23 such agreement exists now.
24 The fire stations that are listed on page 1-4 are
\\
25 not even the closest fire stations to the Santa Susanna I
l i
30 i
sitt.
One of the fire stations which is listed, lists j
i 2
Paramedic Engine Company, that has not been'in existence 3
as Paramedic Engine company for approximately five years.
4 This plan goes on to state that this plan is i
5 updated and that records are kept of all the drills i
i 6
4 yearly.
This also is false.
There are other -- these are 7
demonstrable falsehoods in the document and they make the
{
8 remainder of the document suspect.
9 i
I ask that I be allowed to present further i
10 evidence of my veracity at your hearing tomorrow as a il requester, in short, what we want is for Rocketdyne, f
12 Rockwell to clean up and clear out.
Thank you for your
{
13 time and the opportunity to appear at the hearing.
i 14 r
JUDGE BLOCH:
The standards for being a requester j
15 require that you show how your personal interest has been i
16 hurt.
I don't know if you meet those standards, but 17 whether or not you are personally a requester, a 18 requester, if there is one, can, as a party, file an 19 affidavit by you, they can do that.
20 So I don't know whether you personally will meet 21 the standard to be a requester, that's different, you 22 would certainly meet the standard to be able to submit an 23 affidavit of personal knowledge.
2{
MR. WALLACE:
I did detail my personal -- I 25 believeIdetailedmypjrsonal, economic, social, mental, B
i
8.
\\
s'
' q.
i 31 1
emotional, and psychological health as certainly a 2
sufficient reason to beceme a requestor and I would ask 3
that you take that into consideration.
Thank you.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Sylvia Fliss.
5 PRESENTATION BY MS. SYLVIA FLISS 6
MS. FLISS How do you follow an act like that.
7 Good evening, Judge Bloch, I am a member of the United I
l 8
Nations Association, San Fernando Valley, in coalition 9
with the Rocketdyne clean up coalition.
10 Tonight's limited appearance session is 11 important.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rightly i
12 called for a national investigation of the Rockwell j
13 International Corporation nuclear activities and resulting 14 contamination as in the case of Rocky Flats, Colorado.
15 We in the San Fernando Valley are very concerned 16 because Rockwell International sits only three miles from 17 Chatsworth, not withstanding our concern for our neighbors 18 in Simi and Ventura County.
19 Half a million preside within a 10 mile radius of 20 that area.
There is a gray area I feel is germane in 21 piecing together what I see as a jigsaw puzzle.
One of 22 its missing parts represents trucking dispatch records of 23 material coming and going.
Are there accident records.
24 Residents in the area can see what we cannot, and 25 they talk about fear o accidents.
They uneasily witness t
4
f
-,s n
UNITED STATES j
?
IIIGULATOIIT COREREISSION j
l j
4.........................................................
In the Matter of:
g l
n i
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL ASLOP No.
l l
CORPORATION, ROCKETDYNE 85-594-01-ML DIVISION l
(Special Material License l
l Number SMN-21)
[
l
' ~..
,1
)
(
N
/
i i
Pages:
115 threveh 248 l
i PLaser Van Nuys, California l
Date:
September 29,~1989 I
}A%
c'i HERITAGE REPbRTING CORPORATION im.snun, e
wasungs.e,p.c.anges f....
- I l.--
I GED43 MESS
I I
4 4
JR 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RBGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 3
4 In the Matter of t
)
)
5 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
)
Docket No. 78-25 CORPORATION, ROCKETDYNE
)
ReqJest to Renew 6
DIVISION
)
for Ten Years l
)
7 (Special Material License
}
ASLSP Wo Number SNM-21)
)
85-594-01-ML l
8 l
VOLUME II 9
- Friday, 10 September 29, 1989 11 Van Nuys State Building Auditorium 12 6155 Van Nuys Boulevard Van Nuys, California e'
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing 14 pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m.
BEFORE:
PETER 3. BLOCH, 16 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 17 Daited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.C. 20555 19 20 21 22 23 24
\\
25 T
f b
I
7 s
218 1
the form'in which you're doing it.
So, if you wouldn' t 2
mind, I would like to have you file a written applicetion.
3 l
MS. SEPPIERI:
All right, I'd be happy to.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
5 Ms. SEPPIERI:
Okay.
6 JUDGE BLOCN:
Thank you very much.
You ' re 7
Donald Wallace?
8 MR. WALLACE:
I an.
9 JUDGE BLOCli And your address and distance from 10 the plant?
11 t
NR. WALLACE:
My address is 1718 North Cold 12 l
Canyon Road in Calabasas.
That's approximately nine point
(
13 sin alles away from the plant.
14 JUDGE BLOCN Thank you, it's not a plant.
15 MR. WALLACE:
I work at 6345 Fa11 brook Avenue, 18 which is approximately five point two or three or slightly
]
17 over five miles from the plant.
since I en a fireman, I i
is work there one-third of my life.
I own -- additionally, I i
i 19 own twelve acres of property approximately three and a 20 half miles from the plant, from the facility.
My health l
21 and, safety and my economic interest will be directly 1
22 effected by the outcome of these proceedings.
l 23 If you grant the relicensing, my health and 24 safety will be compromised and my health concerns include 25 the radiation effects from potential accidents, the radio
\\
\\
/
I 9
1
l g,
i a
p 219 r
1 effect -- radiation effects from transportation accidents 2
and radiaticn ef fects from transportation through my -
f 3
through and by my neighborhood.
i 4
Sconomic concarns include the offacts of l
1 5
relicensing on my property values.
I bought fourteen 6
acres of land about twnty-two years ago and I planned to j
i T
live there.
When that became impossible due to other 6
economic circumstances, I determined to hold on to the 9
land as a -- as an investment.
The value of my land will 10 be diminished by limiting the market for sale should you t
11 grant the relicensing.
Additionally, California law l
12 requires that the existsace of this nuclear waste facility
{
q 13 or this nuclear facility be disclosed to potential buyers 14 and my economic interest would be adversely affected by j
15 the relicensing of this facility through that device, r
to through the disclosure laws in the state of California
{
17 concerning real estate.
18 My concerns are, if granted the status of a
[
19 party to these proceedings, I will present evidence that 20 Rockwell International is not qualified to be licensed by 1
21 the NRC due to a demonstrated lack of willingness or i
22 ability to follow NRC rules concerning the handling ar.d 23 storage of nuclear products set forth in the license.
I 24 will present evidence that Rockwell has falsified its on-25 site radiological con ingency plan, particularly in its
- ' <}
3 220
)
i fire, BMs and population sections.
2 I will present evidence that mockwell's 3
engineered provisions for handling abnormal operations are 4
inadequate or outdated or inadequate and outdated.
I will 1
5 present evidence the Rockwell's organisation for the 6
control of radiological accidents are inadequate.
I will 7
present evidence that Rockwell's maintenance of a
radiologict.1 contingency prepared and its, capability is 9
inadequate ami does not actually asist as it is stated in i
10 its on-site contingency plan and is inadequate under 11 provisions for -- under the -- under the license 4
12 agreement.
13 I will present evidence that its reports and i
14 records are inadequate and I've just spoken to a person 15 knowledgeable in Workers' Compensation law in the state of I
t 16 California and I espect to be able to present evidence 17 that Rockwell does not meet the standards for relicensing 18 under the sections deallag with safety of its workers.
I 1e would also like to file additional concerns and present l
20 additional evidence after I've had an opportunity to 21 review the decaents which deve been distributed to l
22 requestors and the record.
23 I think that succinctly puts my concerns and my I
24 interests on the record and I would request that you grant 25 ne this status.
Thank u.
j
..~.--
~ -.
=
I t
i o
I O
221 j
(
1 JUDCE BLOCN Mr. Wallace, I suspect that with 2
respect to one or two of the last things that you wrapped
{
3 in there, that I need a little bit more about the way that i
it's germane to the application.
So, for example, the d
5 08MA -- whatever the standards are in Worker -- whatever 6
is wrong in the application about that, you might just j
7 want to file a supplement about that, so that I have 8
something more specific.
9 NR. WALLAct:
I will -- I will put these -- to i
i 10 the best of my ability, I will put these in writing and 11 submit them to you just as soon as I can get access to the l
12 documents that you have granted to the requesters to this
[
l ( ^,
13 point.
14 JUDes BLOCH:
Okay, and as I heard what you l
L 15 said, I heard that you incorporated by reference the 16 remarks you made last night when you talked about 1/
inaccuracies and inadequacies of the plan.
18 MR. WALLACE:
I do.
I would like those concerns
(
i 18 or those statements that I mods last night incorporated.
20 JUDGE BLOCN Maak you.
i 21 i
NR. WALL &CE:
Thank you.
l 22 i JUDGE BLOCN You might went to stay in case l
23 there's rebuttal to be done.
I don't know what --
24 MR. WALLACE:
I'm just freeing up the chair.
l 28 JUDGE BLOC I believe there's one more person,
.