ML20012C732
| ML20012C732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1990 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LIT, E., PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, RASKIN, J.E., ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTS, SUSANA KNOLLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10106 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, LBP-90-10, ML, NUDOCS 9003230136 | |
| Download: ML20012C732 (50) | |
Text
.
1 m
l0Iob 00LPETED USNHC LBP-90-10 l
March 19, 1990 1
90 WR 19 P2:34 i
NUCL M
IS ION N MAR lO E BRANCH i
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judge I
Peter B. Bloch In the Matter of Docket No. 70-25-lN b ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL Request to Renew CORPORATION To October 1990 Rocketdyne Division (Special Material License ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML Number SNM-21)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Strike)
On March 1, 1990, Rockwell International Corporation (Applicant) filed a " Motion to Strike Portions of Interve-
[
nors' Written Presentations and Brief in Support" (Mo-tion).'
In the Motion, Rockwell argued that all or por-tions of.the basic case filed by each of the intervenors was-cumulativo, irrelevant, immaterial or unreliable.2 It asked that each such portion b struck from the record and that
'Los' Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility and Jon Scott filed their " Response" on March 8, 1990.
Responses filed on March 9 are: Southern California Federation of Scientists, Estelle Lit and Jerome Raskin and Committee to Bridge the Gap.
1 210 CFR S 2.1233(e) states:
the presiding officer may, on motion.
strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to written question that is cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, or unreliable.
9003230136 900319
.~
PDR ADOCK 07000025
]pg0p C
PDR:
where all concerns of an intervenor were struck that the interJenor be dismissed.
Applicant argues that the criteria for written presen-tations in 10 CFR S 2.1233(c) are relevant to the determin-ation of its motion.
In particular, the presentation of parties is required to:
describe in detail any deficiency or omission in the license application, with references to any particular section or portion of the application considered deficient, give a detailed statement of reasons why any particular section or portion is deficient or why any omiccion is material, and describeindetailwhatreliefissoughpwith respect to each deficiency or omission I have reviewed each portion of Rockwell's motion and each of the answers to that motion.
My decisions and the reasons for them are set forth in this memorandum.
I.
Redundancy Applicant prepared a matrix of intervenors' concerns and attached it as Exhibit 1 to its motion.
It argues that the matrix shows "a large amount of redundancy."
As relief, Applicant seeks to have redundant concerns eliminated.
I agree with the intervenors in their several responses that it would be incorrect to grant this request.
Each of 3Applicants also cite a portion of my Memorandum and Order of October 5, 1989, that paraphrased the intent of the regulations and also required citation of a relevant reference to a licensing standard contained in 10 CFR Part 70.
o-
- the intervenors was admitted as a separate party, without consolidation of any of the intervenors.'
Applicant is arguing principally that, while some of the intervenors' individual filings suffered from redundancy, when placed side by side, they are so redundant that one of the filings should be struck.
Applicant's motion also states, without explanation of the process of selection in which they p
engaged or in which I should engage, which of the filings should be struck.
I have concluded, however, that intervenors are sepa-rate parties and that there was no requirement that they eliminate redundancy among their filings.
I am in agreement 5
with the Committee to Bridge the Gap that:
All in all, the parties did an excellent job in presenting their individual cases in a way that avoided unnecessary overlap, given the uncertainty in not really knowing in any detail what the other
(
parties were going to say in their briefs.
t I also find that this method of loose coordination among multiple intervenors is permissible in an informal proceeding of this nature.
Furthermore, in this case, Applicant has already con-i l
structed the matrix found in Exhibit 1, setting forth which portions of the different filings relate to one another.
I
'See, for example " Memorandum and Order (Admitting Committee to Bridge the Gap, Southern California Federation of Scientists, and Susana Knolls Homeowners Association)",
December 7, 1989 (unpublished) at 1.
5Response at S.
i
?
I 4_
l suggest that it can respond efficiently by responding to each concern, as it has been fleshed out in the written filings, and that it cover all material about the concern filed by each of the intervenors.
This may be done in any clear fashion, such as: discussing material. presented by one intervenor and footnoting the fact that another presented identical material; or discussing sequentially within a par-i ticular concern material presented by different intervenors.
Should I find that there is a need for oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, redundancy would of course be destructive of efficiency; and I would consider, at that time, appointing a lead intervenor for each concern or part of a concern (pursuant to the intervenors' own wishes).
II.
Applicability of Appendix B Because Rockwell has made the significant statement, in response to several concerns, that its application does not require a quality assurance plan, I find it appropriate to address that argument prior to reviewing the concerns sepa-l rately.
l It is ray conclusion
-- despite staff advice to the 6
i contrary that Appendix B did apply to the Rockwell license and apparently continues to apply to the extended
'See Colleen P. Woodhead (through Stuart A. Treby and Lawrence J. Chandler) memorandum to Peter B.
- Bloch, "Rockwell Board Orders of September 18 and October 4, 1989,"
November 30, 1989 (served December 7, 1989).
l i
i i
license.7 As the Staff stated in its memorandum, 10 CFR S 7 0.4 (r) provides i
" Plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant" means a plant in which the following operations or activities are conducted (1) operations for manufacture of reactor fuel containing plutonium including Any of the following:
(iv) recovery of scrap material; DI (2) research and L
development activities involving any of the operations described in paragraph (r) (1) of this section.
(Emphasis and indentation added.)
l Pursuant to this section, Rockwell appears to be running a
" plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant," however I
contrary this definition may be to the popular understanding of those words.
It is covered by this definition because it i
has been involved in recovery of scrap materials and --
under the TRUMP-S proposal as I now understand it -- may well continue to be involved in recovery of scrap material.
In addition, it is involved in research and development activities that involve recovery of scrap material and 7
The record is unclear about whether this proceeding relates to Rockwell's request to extend a previous license or whether the terms of the previous license are being amended to such an extent that this is really a new license applic-* ion.
I do not, however, plan to act on this' complex question without a motion from a party.
8Rockwell is not precluded from proving that it has not been involved in the recovery of scrap material or that it will not be involved in such recovery.
I note that the regulations have no further definition of the meaning of scrap recovery.
i I
- {
f appear, therefore, to be even more clearly qualified under prong (2)' of the regulatory definition.
i Because Rockwell is operating what appears to be a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant, as defined f
in the regulations, it is subject to 10 CFR S 70.22(f) and to footnote 2 to that section, requiring compliance with f
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
t In addition to Appendix B, Applicant also must comply with the rigorous quality requirements of 10 CFR S 70.57, relating to a measurement control program for special l
nuclear materials control and accounting and to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR S 70.59 relating to effluent releases.
III.
General Comments on Intervenors' Case In reviewing the many facets of intervenors' case, I became sympathetic to Rockwell's difficulty in having to respond to so many apparently unconnected points.
- However, closer analysis suggests that Rockwell can focus on the Direct Case of the Committee to Bridge the Gap" and of Jon Scott.
Those direct cases appear to state the. principal
' Prong (2) of the regulation is preceded by the disjunctive: or.
Hence, the definition is applicable if either of the two prongs is met.
" Applicant did not move to strike any portion of the written filing of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, except in what appears to be a typographical error.
See footnote 1 of Committee to Bridge the Gap's Response.
I i
' i l
g, argumonts for which relief might be granted.
(There are, of course, other arguments that will not be struck in this memorandum and order and that must, therefore, be answered.)
To summarize, the principal concerns of intervenors (restated in simplified form) appear to be 1.
Applicant has not demonstrated that it has approa priate character" -- as indicated by the care they have shown in their various activities at Santa Susana -- to i
properly fulfill its responsibilities under the license that it seekc."
l "See Houston Lichtina & Power Company, et al.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-799 (1985), 21 NRC 360 at 370-375; Housten Lichtina & Fower Comoany, et al.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-13 (1984), 19 NRC 659
- at 659-679.
"The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, S 182a.
As pointed out by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, at p.
2, the following regulatory standards are also relevant:
No license will be issued by the Commission to any L
person within the United States if the Commission finds that the issuance of such license would be L
inimical to the common defense and security or l
would constitute an unreasonable risk to the j
health and safety of the public.
10 CFR S i
70.31(d).
The applicant is qualified by reason of training l
and experience to use the material for the purpose p
requested in accordance with the regulations in this chapter.
10 CFR S 73.23(a)(2).
1
.The applicant's proposed equipment and facilities are adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life or property.
10 CFR S 70.23 (a) (3).
L The applicant's proposed procedures to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property are adequate.
10 CFR S 70.23 (a) (4).
(In this
-8 2.
Applicant has not demonstrated that it has taken adequate measures to prevent and control a fire or explosion that could cause a release of the special nuclear materials which it seeks to use or possess.
3.
There must be at least an agency finding of "No significant Impact" pursuant to 10 CFR S 51.32; and there must also be an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, S 4332(C) and 10 CFR S 51.20(7).
are adequate.
10 CFR S 70.23 (a) (4).
(In this regard I have already discussed, above, the applicability of the quality assurance require-l ments of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.)
(Licensee must) make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures, and releases of l'
radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as low as reasonably achievable.
10 CFR S 20.1(b).
Licensee has not adequately accounted for nuclear materials nor maintained appropriate security r
l procedures to protect against the loss of those materials.
10 CFR SS 70.58, 70.51, 70.22(k) and j
73.57.
j The principal thrust of intervenors' argument is that Rockwell has been careless in preventing the release of l
radioactive materials both in its licensed activities and l
its on-site DOE activities.and careless as well in monitor-ing and cleaning up its spills.
To deny a license on this
-ground, I would have to conclude that Rockwell has not demonstrated, in light of a record of carelessness, that there is an adequate assurance bf safety for it to be per-mitted to operate the Santa Susana Laboratory for the in-tended purpose.
P
+
t w
I
-9 l
IV.
Statements Not Supported by Reliable Evidence j
$ 2.1233 (d) and (e) govern my action on a motion to strike.
They states i
(d)
A party or S 2.1211(b) participant making an initial written presentation shall submit with its presentation or identify by reference to a gen-erally available publication or source, such as the hearing file, all documentary data, informational J
material, or other written evidence upon which it j
relies to support or illustrate each omission or deficiency complained of.
Thereafter, additional documentary data, informational material, or other written evidence may be submitted or referenced by any party, other than the NRC staff, or by any S 2,1211(b) participant in a written presentation or in response to a written question only as the pre-siding officer, in his or her discretion, permits.
l (e)
Strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions under this section, but the cresidina officer may, on motion or-en the cresidina officer's own initiative, strike any Dortion of a written cresentation or a resoonse to a written cuestion that is cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial or unreliable.
(Emphasis added.)
These sections suggests that I strike portions of the l
written filings which are founded on unreliable evidence.
Given the numerous parties involved and the complexity of the case, I have decided that it is appropriate to exercise l
my discretion in this fashion.
l-Rockwell has alleged that there are several such portions and I will address those allegations in this portion of my memorandum.
In my Scheduling Ordar, LBP-89-27, October 5, 1989, at pp.
6, 8,
I set forth a procedure through which intervenors may ask me to propose questions to Applicant.
It involved
10 -
two stages, the first of which was to state crucial areas of missing information and the second of which was -- at the time the intervenors analyze the record -- to " Discuss the need for me to ask.
. questions or to call witnesses."U That Order did not, however, address the relationship be-tween specifying areas for questions and submitting a written motion that would withstand a motion to strike.
I have concluded that whenever a concern remains in the case, the presentation of unsubstantiated arguments that may have been struck serves to outline a need for questions that may be followed up subsequently with more detailed discus-sion to persuade me to ask questions.
Hence, the striking of a relevant portion of a concern has the effect of pre-serving that portion for possible future questions.
In addition, striking of a concern that is relevant to a remaining concern of that intervenor may serve the same purpose: preserving an area in which other questions may be asked.
Should a party that remains in the case -- in an appropriate later filing -- substantiate an important safety "There was an analogous requirements for identifying questions imposed on Applicant at p. 9; however, on review there does not seem to be complete parallelism.
I intend, however, that Applicant shall identify areas in which it needs information in its Response and that if it needs questions answered or witnesses called at the time of its Analysis, that it must support its requests with reasons.
{
4 i
11 concern related to material struck in this order", I would i
consider reversing my decision to strike at that time.
I l
would note that decisions to strike are discretionary.
I am j
told by the regulations that I "may" strike, but not that I must.
S 2.1233(e).
Hence, I have the authority to reverse my decision subsequently for sufficient reason.
i A.
Concern 1 of LAPSR Applicant challenges Concern 1 of the Los Angeles Phys-icians for Social Responsibility (LAPSR).
In that concern, LAPSR generally challenges Rockwell's qualification to han-die special nuclear materials.
That general allegation, be-cause of a citation to one memorandum and a reference to filings of other intervenors shall not be struck.
However, other portions of the concern tre more suspect.
For example, LAPSR cites 40 CFR Part 190 (Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations), S 190.10 and 40 CPR Part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants),
S 61.102.
These sections establish maximum radiation doses to the public.
We agree with Applicant that LAPSR has not indi-
"In the sense that I am preserving a limited option to reinstate struck concerns, my order to strike may be con-sidered to be a provisional decision to strike.
Subsequent reinstatement will, of course, require more than just the documentation that was initially required and not supplied.
I must be persuaded through documentation that there is an important safety or environmental matter that requires de-termination.
E cated any portion of the application or any documentation that directly calls these limits into question, aside from general questions about Applicant's character.
Hence, these regulatory references shall be struck.
On the other hand, Applicant appears to concede in their notion that LAPSR has referenced the Memorandum from i
Gregg D. Dempsey of EPA, July 28, 1989, Jon Scott's Exhibit 1.
I find the reference to that report to be clear and conclude that it shall not be struck.
However, LAPSR's concern makes a broad hand wave toward an EPA Report of July 28, 1989, which is already in our file.
It says the report " stands, we believe as an indictment of the monitoring practices by Rockwell."
I have-concluded that the report is a complex one and that this general, unanalyzed reference does not show any connection between the report and the conclusion for which LAPSR argues.
While some might think the report an indictment, others might not.
Given the unanalyzed, conclusional state-ment, were Applicant to respond it would first have to de-termine the part of the document to which LAPSR was refer-ring.
I do not consider such a general reference, without specific discussion, to be adequate.
Hence, the reference to the EPA report is struck as unreliable.
Furthermore, everything after the first sentence in the full paragraph beginning near the top of page 4 is struck because there is no documentation concerning alleged state-
1 F
,4:
p.
E ments of Secretary Watkins about " nuclear culture", " sloppy practices and lax safety attitude" or a lack of qualifica-tion for Rockwell to handle plutonium in Colorado for the Department of Energy, i
i The entire section on plutonium risks also shall be struck because it is not related to anything in the appli-e cation or the regulations.
There is no doubt about the t
extreme toxicity of plutonium.
Furthermore, were this section related to the application -- as, for example, the Committee to Bridge the Gap has done in its written filing at pp. 7-11 -- it would have been admissible.
B.
Concern 2 of LAPSR This concern, relating to increased population density 1
1 near the Santa Susana Laboratory, is not separately ad-dressed in this written filing but relies on a portion of the written filing of the Susana Knolls Homeowner's Asso-l' ciation (Homeowners).
By referancing the discussion of L
population density in Homeowner's filing, LAPSR has not saved its concern.
Homeowners concludes that there are in l
excess of 100,000 people living within five miles of the Santa Susana Laboratory; and that figure does not seem to be inconsistent with the data utilized by Applicant.
(See section AM.,
below, discussing an analogous concern of Lit-t Raskin.)
There has been no linkage made between alleged population growth and an impermissible risk or radiation
i I
t
- l 4
I exposure.
Hence, this concern is unsubstantiated and shall be struck.
C.
Concern 3 of LAPSR There is no need to strike this concern, which relates to allegedly non-conservative practices in estimating pos-sible plutonium releases in the event of a fire. ' Applicant plans to address it by addressing the referenced concern of l
the Committee to Bridge the Gap.
t D.
Concern 4 of LAPSR There does not appear to be any regulations covering this concern about cumulative effects from radioactive and chemical subst3nces.
Nor does LAPSR provide any reason to t
believe that there are cumulative effects."
j "An environmental assessment would address the costs and-benefits of this project.
Similarly, an environmental assessment of a project involving toxic substances would address the costs and benefits of that project.
If there is some physical interaction among the projects (such as a hypothetical risk that a toxic chemical spill would cause workers to leave radioactive materials unattended) then those also would be addressed-in the appropriate environmental assessment.
Similarly, if it were known-that l
a person bearing a body dose of toxic chemicals (or L
prescription drugs) were more sensitive to radiation, then such an effect should be accounted for.
However, LAPSR has t
not produced any documentation in support of such a proposition and I am not aware of any such documentation; indeed, based on my general knowledge, it is my belief that unless the effect from a particular interaction were extra-l ordinarily large there would be little chance of measuring such an effect in a demographic study.
l 1
' i
)
I 10 CFR S 70.22(i) (3) (xiii), which requires certifica-tion of compliance with certain regulations affecting hat-i i
ardous chemicals, does not buttress any such claim of a cumulative effect.
However, Applicant should respond to this portion of the concern by indicating where in its application it has complied with this regulatory require-ment -- as there does not appear to be any section that makes this certification.
Since decontamination and decommissioning are not a part of this case and since LAPSR does not present any evidence concerning possible interference between the i
l proposed license activities and decontamination and decom-i missioning, paragraph h (on page 10), which deals with this subject, shall also be struck.
E.
Concern 5 of LAPSR l
This concern relates to worker health and safety.
However, LAPSR does not make appropriate reference to parti-cular parts of the application, to evidence or to the regu-lations.
Furthermore, they do not find fault with any of the measures taken to protect workers in an emergency.
The closest their concern comes to being substantiated is with respect to the allegation that the emergency plan does not estimate doses to workers in the event of an accident.
However, there is no requirement for an exercise in which i
Applicant would estimate the many possible accidents and the l
i I
[ i i
doses workers might receive in each.
That kind of fantasy i
)
play might have some value; but it is not required and would be expected to have very marginal value because of the many possible scenarios for specific accidents.
Hence, this i
concern is not reliably supported and chall be struck.
However, we shall treat the section as suggesting an area in which the Board might wish to inquire further: the j
need for an epidemiological study of workers.
In this t
regard, I note, however, that it is a weak plea because it is not supported by any evidence that would make me want to inquire further.
It rests entirely on an unsupported state-ment "about the Workers compensation cases that have been filed" without any evidence concerning the merits of any of those cases.
LAPSR would need to provide far more reason for me to inquire further into this area of concern.
4 4
It seems ironic to me that an organization of physicians is arguing that the filing of a suit indicates some form of culpability.
I do not assume that this is true for malpractice suits, even when there is more than one suit against the same doctor, and I also do not assume that it is true for a laboratory that handles toxic and radioactive chemicals.
The incidence of cancer is quite high in our society.
That a worker would suffer a cancer is not surprising.
That the same worker might think the cancer associated with his employment also is not surprising.
However, until the merits of the case are examined, it is very. difficult to say that a cancer was caused by the practices of an employer.
First, negligence must be shown.
Then causality must be shown.
In this instance, the nature of the alleged negligence has not even been described in LAPSR's written filing.
1 17 F.
Concern I of Jon Scott Although Applicant claims that this concern, relating to the adequacy of radiation E0nitoring equipment used by Applicant, is not in compliance with 10 CFR S 2.1233(c), I disagree.
That section requires that the initial written presentation of a party:
describe in detail any deficiency or omission in the license application, with references to any particular section or portion of the application considered deficient.
[ Emphasis added.)
As John Scott points out in his Response, at pp.
1-2, NRC regulations require affirmative findings about appli-cant's qualifications; therefore, a license may be denied even though an application is complete and accurate.
It seems to me clear that there is no intention to bar inter-venors from asserting reasons to deny a license merely be-cause those reasons are not directly related to a particular section of the application.
I also find that Jon Scott is very clear in stating this concern that he is addressing alleged inadequacies in the equipment used by Rockwell, citing 10 CFR S 70.23(a) (3) as his authority that there is a requirement that Rockwell's equipment and facilities are adequate to protect health and to minimize danger to life an property.
In his filing, Jon Scott states in detail, with citation to sources, why he thinks the equipment and facilities are inadequate; and his statement requires a response.
i i
It is not surprising that there is no specific section of the application that places the adequacy of equipment in the context in which Mr. Scott alleges that it should be placed.
t I also note that this concern is relevant to the intervenors' principal concern -- that Rockwell's alleged j
sloppiness reficcts on its character, allegedly making it an unsuitable licensee.
G.
Concern II of Jon Scott This concern alleges that Applicant's quality assurance program is deficient.
Applicant states, at p. 7 of its motion,-that quality assurance plans are required "only for
' plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants.'"
I have already ruled that, on the current state of the record, this application is covered by the Commission's quality assurance regulations; hence, this motion to strike shall be denied.
Applicant's failure to comply with applicable regula-tions could, of course, adversely affect a determination concerning.its character.
I also consider the Rockwell argument to strike to be incomplete, as Rockwell apparently would have to assure the safety of its projects in the event of earthquake or brush-fire under the general requirements of Part 70; see 10 CFR SS 70.22(2), (6), (7), and (8), also SS 70.23(a) (3) and (4).
Although Mr. Scott may not have cited these sections, I
i Ric.
s.
M$ ', -
1 q
-1
' W?
19 -
s CF
- 4
.would not dismiss a portion of the filing of a non-lawyer 1
o
~
i such as'Mr. Scott when there are relevant-sections in t
- 4 addition-toca section that=he cited, believing that it
' applied.
t s
H.
Phrtions of Concern'IIIA of.Jon, Scott i
.This concern alleges that Applicant has failed to take t
N,,
l appropriate soil'and water' tests to detect radiation and s
pp
-toxic substances on the licensed premises; A portion of the 1
concern relates-to a failure to detect beryllium.
(y n' Applicant argues.that since beryllium is non-radioac-tive that its procedures for monitoring its presence are not b
relevant do this license application.
However, I find that
~
--the"monitoringfof. toxic chemicals is relevant to a determin-ation concerning Applicant's character; hence,.this concern a
ic Land?similarly challenged portions-of concerns IIIB, IVA' IVB b
and V shall not be struck.II p,
y p
l I.
Concerns IVA and)IVB of Jon Scott Jon Scott's Concern IVA asserts-that Applicant has S
' failed to demonstrate.the safety of its facility in the 9v m
event of an. earthquake; and concern IVB asserts that 17However, Jon Scott has not provided any documentation for his assertion in his Response, at p.
2, that toxic l,"
materials present on the site could be dispersed in a major
-fire. -Hence, that assertion is struck both for its lateness
.and.for.its unreliability.
(
,(
~
1
$$$hb o
?,;;/
i i.
n
,. Applicant's facility is located in an extreme fire hazard
+-
-area.
Applicant argues, contrary to my tuling in Section II, above, that it is not requesting a license for a pluto-nium processing and fuel fabrication plant and that it is t
m therefore not covered by the earthquake or fire protection f
standards implicit in-10 CFR 570.22(f).
I find that this argument is not valid and deny the motion to strike for this reason.
I also consider the argument to be incomplete be-cause the general requirements.of Part 70 also would require that the possibility of earthquake or brushfire be ad-l dressed; see Section IV.G.,
above.
hv Rockwell also argues that its Hot Lab meets current Uniform Building Code standards.
However, I will not con-o
, sider that argument within the context of a motion to strike; it is proper rebuttal argument if supported by competent evidence."
This ground to strike is found to be invalid.
J.
Concern V of Jon Scott Jon. Scott alleges, as Applicant states on p. 9 of its motion, that "the Applicant has not adequately documented historical spills and incidents."
Applicant responds that "Jon Scott's rebuttal evidence on pp. 5-6 of his
-Response is not properly submitted at this time.
It may be submitted as rebuttal evidence if it meets the criterion for rebuttal evidence after Applicant's have filed their substantive response.
P l-
it has fully documented its entire history of spills and incidents in its submittals to me, dated September 27 and November 4, 1989.-
As I read Jon Scott's concern, however, this answer is not fully responsive.- Mr. Scott's evidence of incomplete reporting is based on recent findings of radioactive and hazardous materials on the site.
It is his apparent concern that there was an incomplete accounting for these materials before the materials were found, reflecting on the accuracy of records and reports of Applicant.
His concern, as I understand it,'is also that it is necessary to reconcile the j
amounts of radioactive and hazardous material on site --
l' after accurate assessment -- with reports of releases to find out how accurately Rockwell's historical representa-tions correspond to the amount of measured materials."
I'am not persuaded to strike Concern V of Jon Scott.
i K.
Concern 1 of SCFS Concern 1 of the Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCFS) relates to the release fraction for plutonium.
One issue it raises relates to the possible D
dispersion of the 394 gm of plutonium that licensee asks to "Jon Scott says, in his Response at p.
8, that "Rockwell.has-failed to present evidence that the spills reported in my case were documented."
He is looking for an accounting that starts with the spills and goes backward historically to acccunt for the extent of the spills quantitatively.
1 1 20 be permitted:to possess in the form of contamination that is, releases previously occurring on the site.
Although it is difficult for me to imagine'how this contamination could be released even in a worst-case accident, such as a fire, there does not seem to be any portion of the application that addresses the implications of_the full 400 grams Pu for a worst-case accident.
Therefore, this concern shall not be struck.
In addition, SCFS mentions " filter operation", a subject. covered in the on-site Radioloaical contincency Plan (RCP) at 3-7 to 3-8.
However, the RCP assumes the loss of 2/3 of the filter capacity -- not the " half" stated by SCFS
- -- and SCFS gives no reason to believe that the assumption is not sufficiently conservative.
Hence, SCFS has not
~
provided any reliable support for its concern.
l Appendices A and B, which are referenced in this l
L concern, do not relate.to it.
They do not have to do with l
release fractions.
(On the other hand, they do. relate to concern 17, which is discussed below in Section W; hence, these appendices are not struck even.though they are L
referenced in this portion of the written filing.)
With the one GFception just mentioned, SCFS Concern 1 is struck.
20SNM-21, Amendment No.
5, 70-25, March 9, 1990, p.
1.
m m.
I
- L.
SCFS Concern 2 i
This concern, relating to a possible application for a new license in the future, shall be struck.
Rockwell asks for a license until October 1990.
What it does beyond that date is entirely within its own responsibility.
While it may bargain with intervenors concerning its intentions be-yond October 1990 (see SCFS Concern 3), its willingness to bargain dess not introduce any new issue into this pro-ceeding.
M.
SCFS Concern 3 Applicant moves to strike ori the grounds of relevance.
However, the concern relates to whether Applicant's proposed L
activities have been described adequately in its Applica-L 21 tion pursuant to the regulations.
See On-Site Radioloci-cal Continaency Plan. Revised December 22, 1989 at 1-18 and l -
1-19.for the only description that has been filed; see also the entire On-Site Radiological. Contingency Plan,.through-out, for further information about procedures and equipment that will be used.
I find that the discussion in SCFS's written filing for concern 3 and the three referenced appendices appear to be 21 10 CFR S 70.22 (2) and (4) require, among other things, that the application include "the general plan for carrying out the activity," and "the name, amount, and specifications (including the chemical and physical form and, where applicable, isotopic content) of the special nuclear material the applicant proposes to use.
.)
~
.f,
- - relevcnt.
The difficulty is that the Appendices, which bear i
the= mark of thoughtful preparation, are not filed in affi-l 22 davit form and are not themselves evidence-and that Sheldon C.
- Plotkin, Ph.D.,
P.E., who filed the_ document, has not submitted his resume in an effort to demonstrate that he is himselffqualified to sponsor the statements made in the
' Appendix.
Providing that Dr. Plotkin (or another sponsoring scientist 23) files his resume and that the subject matter is within his field of expertise, I will find that the concern is well-founded and that I need not strike it.
SCFS may have up to seven days from the date of this order to submit their resume (s) and an affidavit that specified information in the filing represents their expert opinion.
J N.
Concern ~4 of SCFS This concern is struck as irrelevant, as I previously L
stated in footnote 7 of my Memorandum and Order of December 7 (unpublished) and as SCFS recognizes in its Response, at-p.
5.
m 22Because the deficiency here is solely one of legal technicality that relates to a passage that appears to have important safety significance, I find that it is appropriate to permit the intervenor to take appropriate remedial action.
23Another scientist would also have to file an affidavit stating that he or she knows and believes that the facts in the appendices are true.
t i
L 13.
Concern 5 of SCFS This concern is struck for lack of substantiation."
Regulations do not require that transport be " guaranteed safe'from accident."
They establish standards that must be met.
With the exception of an undocumented, non-specific, general reference to a newspaper article about a 1989 Pennsylvania Rockwell truck accident, there is no substance here.
Hence, this entire concern shall be struck.
I l
P.
Concern 6 of SCFS l-This concern alleges inadequate measurement of radio-active materials in case of an accident.
SCFS relies large-ly on an allegation of the California State Department of Health Services, particularly Count 13, which it quotes without providing'any supporting evidence.
Rockwell's response is that the particular allegation has been dropped.
Given'the inherent unreliability of citing an allegation that has not_been proved, I accept Rockwell's representation
" Contrary to the argument of SCFS, at 4, there is no requirement that the motion to strike be " substantiated."
- All Applicant needs to do is to communicate clearly its concern-about substantiation.
I would not be required to become creative in order to discern what Applicant is referring to; but I am permitted to compare what Applicant says to tne concern it is addressing.
That Applicant need not " substantiate" its motion is particularly clear in this setting, in which I am permitted to strike concerns on my "own initiative", without any motion from Applicant.
10 CFR S 2.1233 (e).
N 1
.o..
, that the charge has been dropped."
Hence, the allegation is struck.
t Q..
Concern 7 of SCFS Thic concern relates to release of radioactive materials during accidents due to faulty equipment or operator error.
As with Concern 6, I strike Count No. 13 and references to it.
R.
Concern 8 of SCFS There ist no reliable support for this concern, related to an alleged failure of the application to specify.
" throughput limitations"; and the concern shall therefore be struck.
1[t is my understanding, however, that Rockwell is g
i planning to work with a maximum of 6 gm of plutonium during the entire TRUMP-S project and that there is no additional throughput.
See On-Site-Radioloaical Continaency Plan.
L Revised December 22, 1989 at 1-18 (noting that 5 grams of V
1-DI am not persuaded by SCFS's argument that."there are no published records that we are aware of nor were any placed in the-Local Public. Document. Room noting the action or detailing any reasons for dropping. Count 13."
Response
at 6.
There is, in fact, nothing in our record.about the Department of Human Services allegations except what SCFS has put in the record itself.
Applicant is in a position to know that the allegation, which is at best very weak evi-
- dence, has been dropped.
That SCFS cannot confirm that it has been dropped does not persuade me to reject Applicant's assertion that it has been.
n
h 4
1
.o
- 27'-
~
plutonium have been received and not mentioning any plans to receive more).
)
S.
. Concern _9 of SCFS This concern, relating to alleged inadequate training of personnel,.is unsubstantiated.
If SCFS-knows of relevant-studies, it should have filed them; but it did not do so.
This concern shall be struck.
T.
Concern 10 of SCFS q
k#
SCFS has not documented specific pages or passages on which they rely'for their statement that the radiological contingency plan is inconsistent about the use of water for fire extinguishing.26 SCFS may file specific citations within seven days or its concern shall be struck.
BecauseLit is not represented by a lawyer, I am giving it-special opportunities.to provide i
I appropriate footnotes; however, I would have expected a 1:
scientist to know that footnotes were appropriate and to have been sufficiently courteous both to me-and to Applicant l
to supply adequate footnotes without being asked.
26The RCP, at 2-10, states that the glovebox will be inerted but it does not say that water will not be available for fighting fires.
The RCP, at 2-14, states that appropriate fire extinguishers will be available.
The RCP, at 5-4, mentions the use of water by fire protection backup personnel.
I see nothing inconsistent in any of this.
-- -=
i Li Allegations about D&D (decommissioning and decontamin-ation) shall be struck.
No reason has been given to believe that D&D will be conducted in such a way as to clog filters during TRUMP-S operations.
So that allegation shall be struck.
The references to Appendices A & B are retained.
The material in the appendices is relevant to my determination of whether the' application is adequately complete.
U.
Concern 12 of SCFS This concern relates to source packaging prior to the shipment of Pu to Applicant.
In its motion to strike, Rockwell admits that its Application does not address this questionlof-source packaging.
However, SCFS does not cite any regulatory authority for-the proposition that the source packaging must be a part of this application.
Furthermore, SCFS does not provide any specific documentation for its concern.
Its general citation of a newspaper article without citing a relevant part or producing the article is not enough to substantiate this concern.
The concern shall be struck.
V. Concern 13 of SCFS Although Concern 13 is not artfully stated and the premises are difficult to discern, there appear to be two separate issues addressed.
First, there is the possibility
s 5 I that liquid Pu handled at 500'c could cause " loss of
-plutonium oxide by entrainment of 3 to 50 millionths of a percent of the total."
(See Appendix C.)
However, given the procedures being used by Applicant, there is no sugges-tion of what is being done by Applicant-that is improper; hence, this aspect of the concern is unsubstantiated and shall be struck.
A second concern appears to be that there could be a vigorous fire on the site causing a release of Pu.
(See the last portion of Appendix C.)
Since this possibility does not appear to be addressed in the application, it shall not be struck "27 W.
Concern 15 of SCFS This concern, relating to alleged synergistic and additive effects of exposures to radiation and toxic L'
chemical, is undocumented and is not addressed to any-section of the regulations.
There is, in fact, no document cited.
Nor is a.iy reason given to consider the effects of L
decommissioning and decontamination on the TRUMP-S project.
The concern shall be struck, i'
l-l l-27We accept as a concern in this proceeding SCFS's assertion that the cited study does not subotantiate any release fraction less than five percent; and we therefore accept its " guess" that five percent may be released.
l
1
- t X.
Concern 16 of SCFS SCFS has not documented any serious omission or mis-statement-in the Application.
Hence, this concern shall be struck.2s Its concern also is redundant with other concerns discussed above; and I find, therefore, that it may also be struck for redundancy.
Y.
Concern 17 of SCFS This concern relates to the need for an environmental assessment.
I note that this is largely a regulatory concern that does not relate to specific facts and should be addressed in a legal brief.
If the Staff, which has not chosen to' prepare an environmental assessment, would like to address this point, it is welcome to do so.
In my order of December 7, 1989, in footnote 14, I stated that concern 17 would have to await the Staff L
environmental assessment.
However, we now know there will be no.such assessment."
It is now entirely appropriate for l
L l-intervenors to argue that the requestod license cannot properly be issued without an environmental assessment.
28The alleged failure to explain the use of Pu rather than U may be relevant to the environmental assessment concerns of SCFS and others.
" Letter of December 6, 1989, from Glen Sjoblom to me; and Letter of February 14, 1990, from Charles J. Haughney to Philip D. Rutherford, Rocketdyne Division.
But see " Safety Evaluation Report, License Amendment Application Dated December 22, 1989, Re Use of Plutonium in the Trump-S Program," Docket No. 70-25, March 9, 1990.
]
r
=e o
1
..- -l Therefore, Applicant is incorrect in stating that "This item was not admitted as a relevant concern."
Appendices A and B_
are considered by me to be relevant to this concern.
Z.
Concerns 18, 19 and 21 of SCFS These concerns relate to materials accountability, inadequate managerial and administrative controls and inadequate criticality. controls.
All are unsubstantiated and shall be struck.
The request for permission to possess 394 gm. of special nuclear materials in the form of_"contam-L ination distributed in the Rockwell International Hot Lab-oratory"30 may be interpreted as an admission that some a
waste may be found near that laboratory; but I do not understand it either to be an admission of the amount of waste noriof1 fault in depositing it there.
[
The statements'about Rocky Flats and about " critical-ity" are unsubstantiated; furthermore, I made it quite plain o
at the prehearing conference that I do not welcome unsub-
'stantiated allegations against any company or individual.
If the " study" that allegedly cites Rockwell is worth mentioning, then it is worth citing in detail and filing the relevant portions so that I can make an independent assess-ment of their worth.
30Letter from R.T. Lancet, Rocketdyne Division to Leland C. Rouse, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2, 1989.
F I~
t
- AA.
Concern 20 of SCPS This concern relates to the alleged inadequacy of Applicant's health physics program.
Since I recognize this text as relating to the Dempsey memorandum 31, despite SCFS's
. failure to mention it by name,.I do not consider it to be unsubstantiated and shall not strike it, t
AB.
Concern 22 of SCFS i
This concern' states that Rockwell has not specified the isotope (s) of Pu to be used.32 That concern shall not be struck.
However, the statement about U-238 is irrelevant to i
this concern and shall be struck.
AC.
Concern 23 of SCFS As Applicant points.out, the specifications for a security system _were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory q
l Commission as part of the application.
Furthermore, I l
L mentioned at the prehearing conference-that intervenors i
might gain access to non-public information such as the
)
l security plan by requesting me to issue a protective order.
However, that avenue was not pursued in a timely fashion for i
31Memorandum from Gregg D.
Dempsey, Environmental Protection Agency to Daniel M. Shane,-Rockwell/Rocketdyne, l
concerning " Site Visit to Santa Susana Field Laboratory,"
July 28, 1989; Exhibit 1 to Written Filing of Jon Scott.
32See, however, SNM-f, Amendment 5, March 9, 1990, at p.
1, which specifies Pu
(
E t
h3,
. the substantiation of concerns.
In addition, I note that there is no evidence of any breach of the security system.
Consequently, this concern shall be struck.
o AD.
Concern 24 of SCFS This concern relates to the alleged inadequacy of_
1 Applicant's radiological contingency plan.
The discussion l
of the concern relates to the appropriateness of the release fraction from which Applicant's calculated a worst-case accident; and it also raises the argument that the release fraction should be applied to all 400 gm.-of special nuclear i
material that Applicant may possess, including 394 grams Pu in'the form of'" contamination""
-- that is, releases of l
radioactive materials previously occurring on the site, a
Although it is difficult for me to imagine how this contamination could be released even in a worst-case acci-i '
dent, such as a fire, there does not seem to be any portion of the application that addresses the implications of the
-_ full 400 grams Pu for a worst-case accident. Therefore, this concern shall not be struck.
A sub-issue revolves around the possibility of higher s
releases than Applicant considers because an " earthquake-induced full-scale fire" might cause a failure of all the
- filters.
Applicant's claim with respect to filter failure "SNM-21,' Amendment No.
5, 70-25, March 9, 1990, p.
1.
)
r v
-*- is not well founded, at this time; should Applicant persuade
- r me that the lab is designed and run so that total filter failure is extremely unlikely, then it may prevail on this
[
issue.
But the issue may not be struck at this ti me.
I Applicant is correct in stating that a 5% release fraction for plutonium has not been directly substantiated by SCFS.
However, it is appropriate to interpret this alle-gation in light of the argument developed by SCPS in its Appendix C.
In that text,-I interpret the 5% estimate as'a "best guess" in the absence of any smaller fraction substantiated by a controlled study.
Therefore, this allegation shall not be struck.
I Applicant asks that I strike the " implicit assumption" s
that all releases remain airborne.
This I cannot do.
What I cannot see, I cannot strike.
If, however, Applicant has a counter-argument in which it demonstrates that this implicit L
assumption has been made and that it is incorrect, I will be highly attentive to its presentation.
1 Applicant asks-that I strike the assertion that l
" filters are changed ' frequent 1y'".
'That shall be done, as the assertion is undocumented.
Applicant also asks that the L
allegations concerning requirements for recirculation of air
. in'the hot cells should be stricken as unsubstantiated.
I have reviewed that allegation carefully, comparing the SCPS filing to SS 1.2.2.1 and 1.2.2.1.1.2 of the On-Site Radioloaical Continaency Plan, December 22, 1989.
I have l
lr l
P ;
concluded that SCFS has failed to present essential calcu-lations that might substantiate its finding.
Unless SCFS supplements its filing by express mail within seven days of E
the service date stamped on the first page of this memorandum, this section shall be struck.
If the supplementation occurs, Applicant may either move to strike the supplement within ten days or may wait to incorporate its answer in its general response.
AE.
Concern 25 of SCFS This concern, relating to allegedly poor record-keeping and.a " history of violations" is unsubstantiated.
There are no source materials cited and I am not obligated to do re-search:in order to find documents that might be relevant to this concern.
AF.
Concern 26 of SCFS This concern, relating to plans for fighting fires 4
involving plutonium, is unsubstantiated except for the possible release of Pu related to 394 gm. of contamination.
(See SCFS Concerns 1 and 24, above.)
I am aware that it is unusual that an applicant would be applying for a license to possess " contamination."
Nevertheless, this is a part of the activity to be performed in this license continuation request.
Hence, it appears to be necessary for Applicant to
s demonstrate that there will not be untoward releases froc this l'icense activity.
The claim within this concern about inconsistency A
concerning.the use of water is not accompanied by citations and is so unspecific that I consider it to be undocumented."
The allegation that "many loose ends still prevail" in Rockwell's radiological contingency plan is untimely -- as I had provided'a special deadline for response to the Rockwell filing -- and so lacking in specificity as to be unsubstantiated; hence, it shall be
~
a
' struck, t w AG.
Concern 27 of SCFS SCFS's concern that there will be emissions "from routine operations" is not substantiated by its claim that there may be emissions from the handling of 394 gm. of special nuclear material.
My understanding is that the, handling of that material will be covered by a decommis-sioning and decontamination (D&O) procedure and shall not occur pursuant to the license conditions I am called on to authorize.
Thus, the treatment of the 394 gm. of special nuclear material in D&D is not relevant to this case even though the possession of that material is covered by the
. " Compare this disposition to that of SCFS Concern 10, which was better documented.
See page 27, above.
q 4-1e I WP license bein'g sought.
Consequently, this concern shall be struck.
AH.
Concern.28 and 30 of SCFS-These concerns,-related to safety procedures for pro-
' taction of workers and the public, are unsubstantiated.
No
~'
source is cited.
There-is no basis for believing that the retirement of Mr. Lancet is a concern.
Hence, these con-cerns as stated by SCFS'shall be struck.
AI.
Concern 31.of SCFS i
This concern, alleging a failure to analyze accidents at other facilities, is undocumented and the text supporting the concern shall therefore be struck.
It does identify an arealof interest in which the presiding officer may subse-quently be prevailed on to ask questions, providing SCFS can provide a basis for my asking questions and persuade me to reverse my decinion to provisionally strike this concern.
I am naturally concerned that if there have been accidents at
. Rocky Flats using similar equipmect to that used at Santa Susana Laboratories, then Rocketdyne should have learned i
from the analogous experience elsewhere.
However, I do not f-
_u..
1 1'
e:U have before me any evidence that analogous events have occurred.35 AJ. - Concern 32 of SCFS s
r SCFS alleges that.the facilities at SCFS are aging and may not continue to be safe.
Since the Application does not address this problem at all and since the burden of proof is on'the Applicant, I find this allegation to be substantiated and it shall.not be struck.
Egg Committee to. Fill the Gap Concern 31.
AK.
Concern 33 of SCFS
.This. concern, related to safety from earthquakes, is unsubstantiated and shall be struck.
It does not provide any reason to believe that RCP S-2.1.3.4 is inadequate.
But see Committee to Bridge the Gap Concern 32, which stands.
AL. Concerns of Estelle Lit and Jerome Raskin The principal attack Applicant makes on these filings is that they do not adequately reference specific sections of the Application (or omissions from the application) nor give specific reasons why the Application is deficient.
However, after carefully studying this filing, I find myself 35Despite SCFS's assertion to the contrary in its Resp onse,-at p. 10, there does not appear to be anything in the RCP about analogous events at Rocky Flats.
f 7
- in disagreement, partially because I do not consider the re-quirement to reference sections to have established a mech-anical test that would exclude concerns if the references were not physically located within each concern.
I do not think any important purpose would be served by such a rigid application of this requirement; and I do not think the Com-mission intends to exclude important matters from a proceed-ing where they are expressed clearly in a concern and the sole objection is that a reference citation is found in a general section of the written filing rather than in each L
specific concern.
Although Lit and Raskin have stated several " concerns,"
on careful-analysis their concerns boil down to the follow-ing rather simple statement found in the " Amendment to 1
l Intervenors Evidentiary Filing," February 19, 1990:
Pursuant to 10 CFR S 70.23 (a) (3).and - (4), an application ~can be approved if the Commission determines, among other things, that the applicant's proposed equipment, procedures and l
facilities are " adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life or property."~ The NRC regulations further provide that:
No license will be issued by the L
Commission to any person within the United States if the Commission finds l
l-that the issuance of such license would be inimical to the common defense and security or would constitute an I
unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, 10 CFR S 70.31(d).
The regulations also require Rocketdyne to "make i
every reasonable effort to maintain radiation I
exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas." 10 CFR S 20.1(c).
Rocketdyne has violated these safeguards mandated by the regulations.
As stated in our l
'n.
r third and. fourth concerns, Rocketdyne's past failures to control radioactive contamination coupled with their problematic monitoring procedures indicate that Rocketdyne will not change its behavior.
Additionally, 10 CFR S 7
.9 requires that 0
Rocketdyne provide complete and accurate information to the Commission.
As stated in our original complaint, Rocketdyne has not supplied the Commission with complete and accurate'information.
It is my conclusion that this single explanation of the regulatory foundation for this complaint is adequate, as each of the " concerns" is but a prong for the overall argu-ment that it is. unsafe to license Rocketdyne because of spe-cified past practices.
s AM.
Concern A.2.
of Lit-Raskin In the population data that is part of this concern, Lit & Raskin focus cut page 3 of the " Environmental Restora-tion and Waste Management Site Specific Plan," which does not appear to be a part of the Application nor to be a part of the hearing file.
On the other hand, my review of the
" Environmental Assessment of Operations at Rocketdyne Division.
Under Special Nuclear Materials License No.
SNM-21," which is Attachment 6 to the Application, particu-
.larly at p. 10, indicates that Rockwell estimates 121,000
. people reside within 5 miles of its site -- a figure in excess of the number stated by Lit-Raskin, at p. 12."
"In their Response, at 8, Lit-Raskin attempt to introduce some new citations and an exhibit to provide grounds for their concern.
However, that filing is not an
I
._ f -
Furthermore, with respect to allegations of distance, there is no competent evidence cited -- no maps or affida-vits concerning measured mileage or citations to accepted sources.
Nor is there any effort to relate population claims-to an allegation that there are impermissible resulting risks or impermissible radiation exposures.
I conclude, therefore, that the Lit-Raskin claim about mis-statement of population figures-in the application is un-substantiated in the record of this case and shall be struck.37 AN.
Concern A3 of Lit-Raskin
-l
- This concern alleges that the extent of radioactive contamination already documented is not permissible.
This concern,is not objected to,.oxcept with respect to redun-y dancy among intervenors.
For reasons I stated previously, s
appropriate. place to make the new-arguments, which should H-have been filed'previously.
Nor do I see any way to use the City of Los Angeles 1989 Population Estimate _and Housing Inventory (which; finds, at p.
1, an annual population rate of growth in the San Fernando Valley _of 1.2 percent per year) to reach any conclusions about the 1989 projections used by_ Applicant.
As a result, I am not persuaded that there is such important safety significance in thema new data that I should take some discretionary action to permit late filing.
37To the extent that Lit-Raskin may be arguing that they honestly differ from-Applicant (rather than arguing just that Applicants have made a misstatement) about the impact of its operations on the health of nearby recre-ational users or residents, there is no reference to any regulatory standards, so such concerns also are unsubstan-tiated.
,;c' r
- 42 1
this concern therefore stands.
However, Lit-Raskin have not submitted for the: record all the documents they have cited and they must cure that deficiency within seven days of the
.datelof service _ stamped on the first page of this document by: ascertaining that the Staff will add those documents to
\\,
k the hearing _ record, by moving for me to order the Staff to lAl add those documents to the hearing record, or by filing the L
L documents themselves.
P AO.
Concern B of Lit-Raskin This concern relates to the implications of the recent L
report of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Committee of the National Academy of Sciences (Health 1
Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, 1989).
The report is, of course an important document about the health offects of radiation.
Applicant is,'how-ever, correct in moving that this s9ction be struck because it has not been substantiated by any relevant regulations of I
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.38 38Lit-Raskin probably will find my attitude " fright-ening," just as they found Applicant's attitude " frighten-ing" (Response, p. 9).
However, the biological effects of ionizing radiation have always been recognized by the Com-mission's regulations and there do not appear to be any new actions for Applicant to take.
g-i
I c ^
AP.
Susana Knolls Homeowner's Association (Homeowners)
For failure to comply with 10 CFR S 2.1233 (c) the Su-sana Knolls Homeowner's Association is dismissed from this case.
Tpplicant's motion to strike the entire brief is r
granted.
Although Homeowners apparently has worked hard to collect together a variety of materials that may tend in the direction in which they argue, they have not " describe [d) in detail any deficiency or omission in the license applica-tion" or "give(n) a detailed statement of reasons why any particular section or portion (of the Application) is deficient or why any omission is material.
One area of Homeowner's filing does merit separate analysis: the discussion of population in the vicinity of the Santa Susana Laboratory.
I find this discussion inade-quate because it does not reference any regulatory standard 7
which-is being violated because of the growth in local pop-L ulation."
There.is no link made by Homeowner's between the radiation 1.azard from Applicant's proposed activity and the population; and that link is necessary for Homeowner to allege a violation for which a remedy might be appropriate.
l I find that the remainder of the filing, other than
" Homeowner's alleges at page 3 that Applicant based its 1989 population figures on 1980 data.
However, as Homeowner's own Attachment A demonstrates, these data are
" projected" from the 1980 census, which often is the best that can be done for population data in between censuses.
l
'O b
i y
1 with respect to population, is comprised of unanalyzed lists of sources and is so lacking in detail that Applicant would, if it were to respond appropriately, have-to sift through the cited material and to decide in each instance what-portions of the cited documents are relevant.
This is an unfair burden to place on-Applicant, particularly in a pro-ceeding~in which the same or very similar points have been advanced by other intervenors and in which the substantive a
concerns will be addressed in a more orderly fashion by excluding these particular concerns.
In dismissing Homeowners as a party, I have not dis-missed many of the questions they have addressed in their basic case.
Those same questions were addressed by others who succeeded in assembling their case with greater pre-
.i cision and who will argue many of the same points about which Homeowners is concerned.
4 l
V.
Settlement 1
i The parties are asked to reassess their positions with respect to settlement and to consider reopening discussions.
I am prepared to be available either by telephone or in person for-the purpose of conferring with the parties to break-deadlines in negotiation.
Complete notes of my discussions with the parties will, of course, be kept and made public pursuant to ALAB-925.
9 5
- -- VI.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter,'it is this_19th day of March _1990, ORDERED, that:
1.
The following concerns are struck:
Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility:
portions of Concern 1' relating to maximum radiation' doses allowed to the public'_or to the EPA Report of July 28, 1989 or to alleged statements of Secre-tary Watkins or to the extreme toxicity of plutonium; Concern 2; portions of Concern 4 related J:
to interference between TRUMP-S and decontamination and decommissioning; Concern 4 when viewed as a separate concern (but not as it g
relates to Committee to Bridge the Gap Concerns 17 and 18);
Concern 5;"
Southern California Federation of Scientists:
The portion of Concern 1 relating to filter failure; Concern 2; Concern-4;
'"The material in this concern may, however, be viewed as outlining an area in which the intervenor wishes the presiding officer to inquire further.
l
r=r.
av:
-i
(
J*-
,1, es.' o-I' concern 5; Concern 6; Concern 7; but the text of this concern may be considered as outlining an area in which SCFS believes that information is needed; Concern 8; Concarn 9;
-The portion of Concern 10 dealing with decommissioning and decontamination is struck; the portion of Concern 10 4
dealing with the use of water forfireextinguishfngis placed on probation pursuant h
to the memorandum that accompanies this order; The portion of Concern 13 relating to releases from L
handling Pu at 500*C;
~
' Concern 15; L
1 Concern 16; Concern 18; Concern 19; L
Concern 21; 6
The portion of Concern-22 relating to U238; i
Concern 23; The portion of Concern 24 alleging that filters are changed frequently;
'"The terms of probation for any concern that is "placed on probation" may be found in the textual portion of this memorandum; those terms are incorporated into the order by reference.
yw I
i o
L c'
f o 40-The portion of concern 24 l
relating to recirculation of l
air to the hot cell is placed on probation!
I Concern 25; i
r Those portions of Concern 26 V
relating _to the availability of water for use in fire fighting 1
and to " loose ends" in the ra-diological contingency plan; i
q concern 27; Concern 28; Concern 30; i
concern 31; however, the
[
information in this part of the o_
l filing may be considered as raising an area in which SCFS may attempt to persuade me to l
ask questions; 1
Estelle Lit and Jerome Raskin:
t Concern A.2.;
Concern B; E
Susana Knolls Homeowner's Association:
l All concerns are struck and the Association is dismissed as a party because it no longer has any concerns pending.
42 2.
The Natural Resources Defence Council is dismissed 4
because it han withdrawn; and Don Wallace is dismissed for failure to file his basic case.
3.
Only those concerns or portions of' concerns dis-cussed in this Order are struck.
2The Natural Resources Defence Council, by Notice dated March 2, 1990, withdrew as a party.
-3.,-,
g e,.
-re--
p
^
Ac i
. 44 i
I 4.
Any motions for reconsideration of this order must be filed within ten days of the date stamped on the first 4
2 page as the date of service:.
5.
Appeals may be filed by parties that have been dis-missed within ten days of the service of this Order pursuant to.10 CFR SS 2.1205(n), 2.3253; see $$ 2.762, 2.763.
Par-t ties filing motions for reconsideration regarding their dis-missal as parties may defer filing an appeal until after the motion for reconsideration has been determined.
Gb
)
Peter B. Bloch Presiding Officer Dothesda, Maryland t
9 P
t 1
l '
1
+
I 1
UN!?ED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of i
1 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1
Docket No.(si 70-25-ML I
(Rocketdyne Division, Special i
Nuclear Materials License SNM-21)
I CERT!FICATE OF SERVICE l
I hertDv certif y that copies of the f oregoino LB H&D (MOT!ON TO STRIKEl 3/19
)
have been served Woon the f ollowing persons by U.S. mail, first class, except l
as otherwise noted and in accordance witn the reautrements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl. Chairman G. Paul Bollwerk, 111 Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber Peter B. Bloch Atoste Safety and Licensing Appeal Presiding Officer Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Special Assistant
~0ffice of the Seneral Counsel i
5 Atcale Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
Philip D. Rutherford Daniel Hirsch Manager President Nuclear Safety & Reliability Eng.
Consittee to Bridge the Gao 6633 Canoga Avenue, Mail Code HB07 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Los Angeles CA 90025 l
l 1
Jon Scott Estelle Lit 6 Roundup Road 18233 Bermuda Street Bell Canyon, CA 91307 Northridge, CA 91326 m--
Docket No.(s)70-25-ML LB M60 (MOTION TO STRIKE) 3/19 r
Sheldon C. Plotkin, Ph.D. P. E.
Executive Board Representative Jerome E. Raskins, et. al.
Southern California Federation of c/o 18350 Los Alisos Scientists Northrtege, CA 91326 3318 Colbert Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 Richard Saxon, M.D Barbara Johnson President President Los Angeles Physicians for Social Susana Knolls Homeowners Attociation Responsibility c/o 6714 Clear Springs Road 1431 Ocean Avenue Suite B Susana Knolls, CA 93063 Santa Monica,, CA 90401 Cecella Riddle Senior Librarian Chatsworth Branch Library 21052 Devanshire Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 19 day of March 1990
....h
. M...............
Office the Secretary of the Commissten i
!