ML19332E091
| ML19332E091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1989 |
| From: | Werner J National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E092 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9566 89-594-01, ML, NUDOCS 8912060222 | |
| Download: ML19332E091 (14) | |
Text
l p6K h
h
Ntilllnll-RCS08IYGY i i!' ~; -
DCfellk' ColillCil 3
+
.-i r.o ue t..i 1:v u '1 z,
hadwt; ten i k ' lm G j
6'
- 9 DEC -4 P8 :03 2"2 m"'
1 c
y
+
1 n :a2 n ut ~.
im,
b J.
November 22,.1989 Admin'strative Judge i
Peter B. Bloch-il Presiding Officer
. Atomic Safety atLicensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s
RE: Docket No. 70-25-ML; ASLBP No. 89-594-01 e
Dear. Judge Bloch:
hi y
Per your. recommendation today on the telephone, I am enclosing a copy of our
" Response. to Information. Request from Presiding Officer," which was originally-
. mailed withLcertified service on October 6, 1989.
I am also sending copies to the; parties on. the certification of service list to whom copies were
- originally sent on that-date.
w Sin
- ely, k
[,/
.[
James D. Werne s
Pfoject Engineer t
ll~ l s
t V
I t
h..
10W7e RKueled haper.
Nete York Office:
\\Vestern Of(tcc:
Natural Resources
^
40 \\ Vest 20 tit Street 90 Netc.\\1ont conserv Defen+c Cotorcti
\\
'.Y:*-
Nete York Nete York 1001l 5<nt Franctuo. CA 9-l105 212.\\lerch. Int St.
l}(f 212 727-2700 415 777-0220 Suite 203 F d 212 7271773 Hern, lulu, III 9v813 Sud 5131073
,o 4
,9
~
?
hh Emem
- T Natumi Resources l
EmSG
- i Defense Council i
1350 New York Atr.. N.W.
89 KC -4 P 3 '9
- w. cC 20aas j
~
202 7&7J00 FAX 202 765917 In-the Matter of:
DOCKET NO. 70-25 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ASLBP No. 89-594-01 Rocketdyne Division SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 (Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-21)
PETITICN OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
AND TER IAS ANGELES CEAPTER OF THE PNiSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY r
In response to the Federal Reainter Notice from Judge Peter t
B. Bloch, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Los Angeles Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility (IAPSR) hereby petition to intervene in the proceeding to consider renewal of the Special Nuclear Materials handling l
license (No. SNM-21) for the Rockwell Hot Lab facility at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
By letter dated September 19, 1989, NRDC requested, on behalf of itself and IAPSR, an p
opportunity to present a petition to interv'ene as a party in.he
[
l above-captioned proceeding.
NRDC is a national environmental organization with more than 100,000 members and contributors and a staff of about 120
[
i 1
54 Ind. Eng. 38578, September 19, 1989.
100% Recycled Paper New York Office:
Western Office:
Natural Resources 40 West 20th Street 90 New Montgomerv Defense Councd
+
New York New York 10011 San Francisco. CA 94105 212 Merchant St.
212 727 2700 415 777 0220 Suite 203 FAX 212 727-1773 Honolulu. HI %813
- ~.. - - -
__ 808 S3330_75- _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
L 3
'A.
STANDINGt NRDC AND LAPSR MPET THE TESTS FOR INTERVENING AS A PAiril l
The presiding officer must consider three factors in i
determining whether a petitioner may intervene as an interested 2
party under 10 CFR Subpart L:
.j l
1.
The nature of the petitioner's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party; 2.
The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, l
financial, or'other interest in the proceeding; and i
n 3.
The possible effect of any order entered on the E
petitioner's interest.
L Two practical tests are used by NRC in reviewing a petitioner's intervention request.3 First, whether the petitioner will or might be injured in fact by one or more of the possible outcomes of'the proceeding.
Second,whtathertheassertedinterestofthe petitioner in achieving a particular result is at least arguably within the zone of interests. protected by the statute involved.
NRDC and LAPSR clearly meet both tests.
NRDC and LAPSR each have one or more members residing within 2 miles of the Hot Lab at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.'
The reissuance of the license at the Hot Lab could affect the physical and psychological health as well as the economic interests of these members as well as others near the facility.
Individuals could 2
Because this provision appears to be similar to 10 CFR 2.714, implementation should be similar.
3 Nuclear Engineering (Sheffield, Illinois Low Level Radioactive Wasta Site) ALAB 473, 7 NRC 737 (1978).
Mr. Jon Scott is an NRDC member residing at 6 Roundup Road, Bell Canyon, CA 94307.
- - ~
m,. m 4
5 the nearest resident was 1.3 miles (2.1 km) from the site', and that t2un 50-year dose commitment to the nearest resident from an l-accident would be approximately 0.1 ran to the whole body and 2.0 rem to the thyroid.
Although these dose estimates are below the i
EPA Protective Action Guides (PAG)," which were in effect at the i
time, they are four times and 25 times the emission standard q
established by EPA in 1985 for both NRC licensees and Department of Energy facilities for whole body and critical organ doses, respectively."
This data demonstrates that injury in fact could occur as an outcome of the NRDC proceedings on Rockwell's license renewal.
j The second test of establishing a petitioner's standing for intervening in an NRC proceeding is whether the petitioner's interests are within the zone of interests protected by the statute involved.
The NRC proceeding is governed by the Atomic Within the same document, however (NUREG-1077, at 4-9) NRC 1
staff used yet another distance, 1.4 miles (2.3 km), for calculating the impacts to the nearest resident of a release from the facility.
A third.NRC document released earlier in 1981 indicated that the nearest resident was 1.2 miles (2.0 km) from the facility.
(Jamison, J.D. and E.C. Watson, Environmental Conseauences of Postulated Plutonium Releases From Atonigg.
International's Nuclear Materials Develonment Facility. Santa Susana. California, as a Result of Severe Natural Phenomena.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, PNL, UC-41, November 1981, at 13.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents, EPA-520/1-75-001, Washington, DC, revision of June 1980.
" Emissions of radionuclides to air from facilities...shall not exceed those amounts that cause a dose equivalent of 25 mren/y to the whole body or 75 mram/y to the critical organ of any member of the public."
40 CFR 61.103.
y.-._
d
(
7 B.
A NtDmRR OF CRUCIAL ISSUES DESERVE NRC CONSIDERATION NRDC and LAPSR have petitioned to intervene because we believe a number of serious issues must be resolved before the NRC reissues the Special Nuclear Materials handling license (SNM-
- 21) for the Rockwell site at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
Among these issues are the increased population density around the Santa Susana Facility,-the questionable technical assumptions used for estimating the radiation' hazards from the facility, and the cumulative impacts of numerous adjacent radioactive and hazardous chemical waste disposal sites inside and out of the NRC-licensed area.
First, at the heart of the issue facing-the NRC decision to reissue the materials-handling license is-whether nuclear practices that were considered safe in the San Fernando Valley during the 1950s or even the 1970s can be considered to be safe today, or in the year 2000 when the reissued license would expire.
The NRC should consider the dramatic increase in population density that has occurred since the facility was first established.in the 1950s when Ventura County had a population of only 117,000 paople compared to the population projected for the year 2000 - 800,000 people."
The population within five miles of the facility has undergone a comparable boom increasing from
" Wood, Steven, Ventura County Planing Department, personal communication with Mr. Randy Booker, NRDC, September 22, 1989.
~
f' 9
of fire in.any accident is particularly important, given the frequency of brush fires that sweep across these mountains.
In this case, a failure in the integrity of the NEPA filters could cause a release resulting'in an off-site dose four times higher than the estimate given in'the 1984 Environmental Appraisal.
Hence, EPA's current emission standards for radionuclides, as well as the PAG guidelines use in the 1984 Appraisal would be exceeded.
Third, several waste disposal sites have recently been identified at the Rockwell but have not yet been fully characterized."
While some significant waste disposal sites L
such as the B/886 Burn Pit are located outside the Energy Department's Energy Technology Center (ETEC) and the lease-option area at the Rockwell facility, several waste sites are located nearby within this area.
We respect the view expressed by Judge Bloch, that while "10-CFR 70.11 appears to exempt from licensing any work done for the Department of Energy...(t]his does not appear to exempt Rockwell's Department of Energy activities from I
scrutiny in this proceeding should those activities be relevant to the pendJng request.""
In addition, several areas of reasonably;well-characterized ground water contamination have
~
Adler, K. & P. Olson, Phase II CERCLA Investigation of the Santa Susana Iaboratory, May 1987.
Rockwell International /Rocketdyne Division; DOE U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Audit, Environmental Survey Preliminary Report, Washington, D.C.,
May 1987.
"- Block, J.P.B., Memorandum & Order (Request for Information and Argument) Bethesda, MD. at 2, September 18, 1989.
b'
\\
11
~
TABLE 1 SELECTED NRDC INVOLVEMENT IN ISSUES ' BEFORE THE NUcin_R REtauLATORY CGi6iTESION AND PREDEMmSOR AGENCIER A.
RULEMAKING c
1.
Annlication of Enerav Research and Develonnent 1,
Administration. Proiact R&Dpaamant Cornaration and Tennessee Vallev= Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Planti No.
50-537 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, filed 1975).
2.
Ganaric Environ = ant' Statement on Miwad Oride Puel (GEBMO)
'No. RM-50-1 (Nuclear. Regulatory Commission, initiated 1976).
3.
Petition of NRDC (Pearaenev Safeauards For-Nuclear i
Facilities) Nos. 70-8, at al. (Nuclear Regulatory L
Commission, filed 1976).
4.
Petition of NRDC-(Radiation Protection Standards for Hot P$rticles) (Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, filed 1974).
)
i 5.
Petition of NRDC (Ernosure of Individuals to Radiation in
{.
Raatricted Areasi (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, filed 1975).
t B.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES 6.-
Petition of NRDC (Low-Level Radioactive Waste No. PRM-20-7 (Nuc.'. ear Regulatory Commission, filed 1976).
7.
' Petition of NRDC (Uranium Mill Tallinas') No. PRM-40-21 i
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission, filed 1975).
l l
C.
POWER " PLANTS t
8.
NRDC'v. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission, 547 F.2d 633 (D.C.
'\\
L Cir. 1976), cert. oranted sub nom. Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corn. v. NRDC, 429 U.S. 1090 (1977).
9.
NRDC v. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission, 547 F.2d 633 (D.C.
Cir. 1976) (Generic rulemaking on radioactive wastes).
1 10.
Annlication of Offshore Power Systems (Floatina Nuclear Power Plants) No. STN-50-437 (Atomic Energy Commission, NRDC intervention 1974).
l
. J. H T l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BORRD00,,~d f8 O i
In the Matter of:
DOCKET No. 70-25-ML i
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ASLBP No. 89-594-01 Rocketdyne Division OCTOBER 6, 1989 (Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-21)
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST FROM PRESIDING OFFICER
- On September 29, 1989 Judge Peter B.
Bloch requested that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Los Angeles Chapter of Physician's for Social Responsibility (LAPSR) submit information no later than October 6, 1989 regarding the following three questions:
(1)
Does a conflict of interest exist between James D.
~Werner's, participation in the above-captioned proceeding and his previous employment as a subcontractor to the Department of l.
' Energy (DOE)?
l l
(2)
What issue (s) do NRDC and LAPSR wish to pursue in this L
proceeding?
(3)
Which individuals reside close enough to be potentially affected by the Rockwell Hot Lab who are NRDC and LAPSR members,
_hr$/MfOd5 4
..-.c r<w-.-.--
+ -,
-w-
+-.=,---se e-.----
l 2
in addition to the person named in the petition, who is an i
independent party to the proceeding?
1.-
CONFLICT'OF INTEREST Judge Bloch has asked NRDC and LAPSR to address the question of whether there exists a conflict of interest between James D.
Werner's previous position as a subcontractor for the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and his current participation in the license renewal proceeding for Rockwell International Corporation's Hot Lab at the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory (SSFL).
No current-or potential conflict of interest is presented-by this situation because Mr. Werner was-a contractor for DOE and not a government employee.
As Mr. Werner represented at the prehearing conference on September 29, he was employed by a consulting firm, ICF Technology, from April 1984 to August 1984 and September 1985 to January 1989.
In May 1988, Mr. Werner visited the SSFL for two L
weeks as part of his work on a contract with DOE, Office of Environment Safety and Health, Washington, DC, which resulted in the preparation of Section 4.5 of thin Environmental Survey Preliminary - Recort (DOE /EV/OEV-33-P, May 1989).
During that HSurvey visit Mr. Werner toured the inside and outside of the Hot Lab for approximately two hours with a Rockwell International L
escort.
At that time Mr. Werner had a "Q"/ level-3 security clearance that enabled him to enter the Hot Lab.
4-., -
-n.-
-,,,.e.
n
-v-e
3 The only potentially applicable law governing this conflict of interest question is set forth in DOE regulations at 10 C.F.R.
I 1010.303.1 In essence, these regulations bar former government employees from representing third parties on any matter in which they were substantially involved and in which the United States is a party or has an interest.
This prohlhition lasts for a year following the termination of the employee's involvement in the particular matter.
These DOE regulations restrict the activities of former government employees.
Mr. Werner was an employee of a DOE i
subcontractor, and therefore is not subject to the regulation.
Moreover, even in the unlikely event that Mr. Werner could be t
Section 1010.303(a) provida that after government' employment has ceased, no former employee may:
(1)
Knowingly act as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the United States in connection with any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or.other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties in which the United States is a party or has an interest and in which the former employee participated personally and substantially for the Government through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, and (2)
Appear personally before any Government court, department or agency as agent or attorney for anyone other than the United States in connection with any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties in which the United States is a party or has an interest and which was within the bounds of the former employee's Government service, for a period of one year after termination of the employee's official responsibility for that matter.
~
/
4 l
considered an " employee" of the Department of Energy, his work for DOE was unrelated to this licensing proceeding,2 and occurred l
l more than a year before the licensing proceeding was begun, or even noticed.-
Mr. Werner's contractual obligation to comply with the
-" Organization Conflict of Interest" (OCI) provisions of the 3
Survey contract was investigated earlier this year by-DOE.
i DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health. referred the issue to the DOE Assistant General Counsel's Office of Procurement and Finance for a determination of whether Mr. Werner had violated OCI provisions of the contract.'
The DOE Office of Generrl Counsel did not find that Mr. Werner had violated the contract's OCI provisions.
Mr. Werner did not then, does not now, and.does not expect in the future, to have any financial or personal interest in the outcome of the proceeding on the renewal of Rockwell's Special Nuclear Materials handling license.
Mr. Werner continues to 2
The Survey was a three year DOE project to identify existing environmental problems and areas of environmental risk.
The DOE headquarters Office of Environment, Safety and Health sponsored this investigation of nearly 40 major DOE facilities.
Rockwell's failure to place the May 1989 Survey Report in the NRC docket implicitly suggests that it does not regard the Survey report as supporting documentation for the license renewal application.
3 The Survey was performed under contract no. DE-AC01-87EH79003 awarded to NUS Corporation.
ICF Technology served as a subcontractor to NUS Corporation..
Letter from Lawrence A. Weiner (DOE, EH-24, 202/586-4569) to Richard Burton (DOE, GC-34, 202/586-2440) and Arnold Gjerstad (DOE, MA-453.1, 202/586-1880), May 26, 1989.
e-
= e - er--
e
==w-p w.
e--
%+hs'"ee+w w
or c-srme w
w
--e-,4
~a-----
e
5 respect.his obligation not to reveal any classified or proprietary information obtained-during.the survey.
2.
OTHFR ISSUES NRDC AND LAPSR WISH TO RATSE IN THE PROCEEDING
.In its September 29, 1989 petition, NRDC and LAPSR-raised a number of issues that it may wish to pursue during the above-captioned NRC licensing proceeding.
NRDC and LAPSR believe that any.or all of these issues may be relevant to the proceeding.
In addition, NRDC and LAPSR would like to reserve the opportunity to raise additional issues as they become known through documents not now'available to NRDC and LAPSR.
The three primary issues NRDC and LAPSR wish to address are (1) the impact of local population increases on the relative safety of'the facility; (2) Rockwell's use of unreasonably optimistic assumptions in analyzing potential accident impacts; and (3) _ the aggregate impact of. the numerous waste disposal sites within the boundaries of, and close to, the NRC-licensed facility area.
In their September 19, 1989 Petition, NRDC and LAPSR also identified three other issues that they may wish-to pursue in the hearing: worker health and safety; reliability and completeness of information from the applicant; and, transportation risks.
Because of inadequate time to review the application docket, NRDC and LAPSR wish to reserve the opportunity to pursue any or all of these additional issues pending a complete review of relevant information.
1
+
-c,,,
..,erm
.,--~,-r,.,
9' 6
3.
~ ADDITIONAL NRDC AND IAPSR MENRPRS POTENTIAT.T.Y AFFECTED BY THE LICENSING PROCEEDING Judge Bloch requested that NRDC and IAPSR submit the names and addresses of an alternative member to the individual named in I
the September 29, 1989 petition.
NRDC members Jill and Richard Rubenstein reside at 39 Apaloosa Lane, Bell Canyon, CA 91307, approximately 2.7 miles (4.4 kilometers) from the Rockwell Hot tr Lab.
Respectfully submitted,
+
fames D. Werner (Environmental Engineer S. Jacob Scherr Senior Staff Attorney l
Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue, NW,. Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 783-7800 l
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 6th day of October, 1989.
1 l
l r
- -.... - ~.
.f
- i 0; g j..
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'
}'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOAR[9 O y,
$)Cfj [_ f In the Matter of:
DOCKET NO. 70-25-ML
%$, ' O ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ASLBP NO.
89-594-01 Rocketdyne Division OCTOBER 6, 1989 (Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-21)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing RESPONSE T0-IMiORMATION REQUEST.
FROM PRESIDING OFFICER have been served upon the following persons by U.S.
mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Administrative Judge Appeal Board Peter B. Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Presiding Officer
. Washington, D.C. 20555-Atomic Safety & Licensing Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Gustave' A. Linenberger, Jr.
l Special Assistant Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
R. T. Lancet Jon Scott l
Director 6 Roundup Road Rockwell Internation Corporation Bell Canyon, CA 91307 Rocketdyne Division 1
6633.Canoga Avenue Jerome E. Raskins, et al.
Canoga Park, CA 91304 c/o 18350 Los Alimos Northridge, CA 91326 g
L Estelle Lit L
.18233 Bermuda Street l
Northridge, CA 91326 l
l l
Dated at Washington, D.C. this
- [/-
E
/
i 6th day of October 1989 ames 0. Werner i
e
..e s--,
~,a-ww-
,,,-,-~-g-.,
.,,,m--~