ML20012E729
| ML20012E729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SANTA SUSANA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10181 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, LBP-90-11, ML, NUDOCS 9004060186 | |
| Download: ML20012E729 (11) | |
Text
,
,,c2
'l L85KE90(P11
.i MarchU3Wic 1990_
~
UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% APR -1, A10:10 l
ATOMIC-SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD grfCE OF EECRt:iARY DUCXEll'l3 A Si UVICE Before Administrative Judge N W'i Peter B.
Bloch
~
h APR 0 21990-
~
In~the Matter of
-Docket No. 70-25 ~/A b ROCKWELLEINTERNATIONAL Request to Renew CORPORATION.
To October 1990 Rocketdyne Division (Special Material. License ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML Number SNM-21).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Reconsideration: Homeowners and LAPSR)
On March 29, 1990, Santa Susana Homeowners Association (Homeowners) filed a " Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Santa Susana Homeowners Association as a Party to Proceeding" (Motion); and on March 24, the Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility (LAPSR) filed a
" Request to the Presiding Officer for Reinstatement of-E Struck Concerns of Direct Case of Physicians for Social Responsibility" (Request).
This Memorandum and-Order addresses both filings.
l I am very grateful to Homeowners tor its filing.
In reviewing my Memorandum and Order of March 19, 1990, in 1
light of Homeowners' comments, I have concluded that I 9004060186 900330 DR ADOCK 0700 5
}6
, w F
w erroneously. failed to admit two concerns and that I therefore-erroneously dismissed-Homeowners as a party.'
I.
Homeowner's Motion A.
Increased Population i
Both Homeowners and LAPSR have requested reconsidera-tion of the portions of my order in which I found:
Homeowners concludes that there are in excess of r
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-Raskin.)
There has been no linkage made between alleged population growth and imoermissible risk of radiation exposure.
Hence, this concern is unsubstantiated and shall be j
struck. [ Emphasis added.]
One area of-Homeowner's filing does merit L
separate analysis: the discussion of population in L
the< vicinity of the Santa Susana~ Laboratory.
I find this discussion inadequate because it does not reference any regulatory standard which is being violated because of the growth of the' local population.3 E[
In their motions for reconsideration, both LAPSR and Homeowners argue persuasively that there is a clear i
relationship between population and exposure and
'This Memorandum and Order is being. issued before Applicant has had a chance to respond.
Should Applicant wish to respond, its arguments would be fully considered.
However, that will be the end of it.
Homeowners and LAPSR, as proponents of a motion for reconsideration, may not reply i
to a filing which is in essence a response to their motion.
2At pages 14-15.
3Id at page 43.
D
~.'
.+
+
"- radiological' effects.
LAPSR correctly states that the measure of exposure to. radiation is " person-rads", which is derived by multiplying dose in rads by population.
The standard for permissible radiation exposure for individuals is set in 10 CFR Part 20, including SS 20.101-(Radiation Dose Standard for Individuals in Restricted Areas), 20.102 (Determination of Prior Dose), 20.103 (Expo-sure of Individuals to Concentrations of Radioactive Mater-ials in Air in Restricted Areas), 20.104 (Exposure of Mi-nors), 20.105 (Permissible Levels of Radiation in Unre-stricted Areas), and 20.106 (Radioactivity in Effluents to Unrestricted Areas).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not absolutely prohibit the use of radioactive materials in dense areas.
Indeed, there is a power plant operating in a populous por-tion of Westchester County, New York.
What the NRC does is to impose limits of exposure to radiation (see Part 20').
Failure to show that increased population results in viola-tion of the Part 20 standards is a failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
It was, therefore, an unsubstantiated claim.
I conclude that it was correct to dismiss Homeowner's discussion of population, which was unaccompanied by any
'That LAPSR is aware of Part 20 is evidenced by its citation to that Part on page 11 of its direct case.
9 1
. - computations of dose or exposure and also unaccompanied by any citation to Part 20.
B.
Homeowners Concern II.
Homeowners Concern II is:
II Rockwell International is unfit to possess a Special Nuclear Material License.
A.
Rockwell cannot be-trusted for tech-nical competence or good faith compliance-with the regulations.
B.
Rockwell violates requirements for timely disclosure of complete and accur-ate information and fails to make neces-sary surveys of radiation hazards.
In its Motion, Homeowners alleged that I had been arbitrary in admitting a concern of Jon-Scott that alleged
- an omission in the Application and in denying its concern
- about a similar matter: Applicant's fitness to be licensed.
As I reflected on this allegation, I became convinced that Homeowners was correct and that I had indeed made a mistake in.myfinitial ruling.
It is-true, as I stated in my earlier Memorandum, that Homeowners support for its concerns is primarily " comprised of unanalyzed lists of sources".5 Most, but not all of the sources that are cited are newspaper articles.
And these.
articles are, at best, hearsay evidence whose value depends on the truth of statements reported in the news.
Therefore, it would be helpful if Homeowners would have taken the
-5LBP 90-10 at 44.
- n..,..,i e
s.-
4
- trouble to analyze.these articles and to determine which of the reports'are particularly credible and which portions al'lege violations.
Instead, Homeowners made its own summary of-the articles without referencing particular sections to which Applicants must address an answer.
It then appended articles to its motion, but without page numbers or dates or any easy way to compare the cited articles to the appended articles.
This form of record is difficult to deal with, both for the presiding officer and for the Applicant who might have to respond to it.
It is, after all, neither Homeowner's summary nor even the articles-themselves that Applicant must deal-with -- but the underlying truth of the words reportedly said by the sources cited in the articles.
Despite my frustration at this form of filing, I have decided that in a Subpart L' proceeding -- in which' discovery is not permitted -- it.is appropriate that these summary references to newspaper articles, by a party that is not skilled in administrative proceedings and is not represented by a lawyer, should survive a motion to strike.
As 10 CFR S 2.1233(e) says: " Strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions under this section.
However, it is also appropriate -- in reversing my initial' determination -- to alleviate Applicant's burden in responding to this material.
Hence, Homeowners must deliver
=,
E.-.
1 y
Y to' Rockwell, within seven days,' a clearly cross-referenced set of copies of newspaper articles containing numbered 5-pages and dates of publication.
(Dates are very useful in evaluating the significance of a newspaper article.)
Rockwell need only respond to references that comply with
-the directions given in this paragraph.
i I am aware that Applicant is being asked to respond to secondary sources.
I am fully cognizant of the proper weight to be accorded to such sources, particularly when.
compared to direct evidence that Applicant may submit.
II.
Request of LAPSR A.
Concern 1 of LAPSR In reviewing LAPSR's Request, I have concluded that its direct case-was careless in omitting citations to specific portions of fully defined reference documents that would permit the reader to know the sources on which it was re-i lying.
However, doctors who are not lawyers may be excused in our proceedings for this-lapse -- even though failure to L
use citations also would violate proper practice for medical publications.
Consequently -- now that I am reminded by LAPSR of the origin of their incomplete citation on page 2 L
of their Direct Case, I shall reverse my determination to
'The clear cross-references and dates may be properly served in the docket promptly after having been served on Rockwell.
.m
lw :l.
\\
I 1 strike material from "the EPA report of July 28, 1989."
(
(There is no change in my decision to strike references to undocumented ~ remarks of Secretary-Watkins.)
1 B.
Plutonium Risks The potion of my decision for which LAPSR seeks reconsideration states:
The entire section on plutonium risks also shall be struck because it is not related to anything in the application or the regulations.
There is no doubt about the extreme toxicity of.
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 In its Request, at p.
2, LAPSR argues that, "It is not the toxicity of plutonium which is in question but the attitude of the Applicant in not assessing the risks properly.".With this statement, I am in complete agreement.
However, this concern does not link the risks of plutonium to any statements by Applicant's officials or to any actions of Applicant and therefore it shall be struck.
C.
Concern 2 Since LAPSR has not tied its arguments about population growth to the radiation protection standards of 10 CFR Part 7LBP 90-10 at 13.
c..
y+
r 20, discussed above, its arguments about population remain struck.
D.
Concern 4 This concern about the additive effects of toxic and radioactive materials makes a general reference to 10 CFR Part 20, but I do not know of any.section of that Part that covers combined effects of radioactive and toxic materials.
Hence, my decision.to strike shall stand.s E.
Concern 5
[
I agree with LAPSR that worker health and safety are-extremely important; however, LAPSR has still not provided any cognizable reason for believing that Applicant has acted improperly with respect to worker health and safety.
There is, in particular, no citation to support LAPSR's statement that the on-site-emergency plan must consider various levels of radiological contamination, i
L Consequently, Concern 5 remains struck.
l l
sIf an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, it would of course have to deal with all the environmental l
impacts of the project, including the impacts of toxic, non-radiological chemicals.
However, that is the only context in which such an analysis appears to be required; and this concern did not initially raise any questions about the need for. environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
. ~,..- _.
, ; ~ s, 4
o.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 30th day of March 1990, ORDERED, that:
1.
Santa Susana Homeowner's Association is restored to l
party status.
2.
Santa-Susana Homeowner's Association Concern II, shall be reinstated and shall not be struck in whole or in part.
3.
Santa Susana Homeowner's Association chall comply with the remedial action directed in the Memorandum.
News-paper articles that are not clearly cross-referenced or are not dated shall be struck.
4.
The portion of the Los Angeles Physicians for So-cial Responsibility's direct case dealing-with "the EPA re-i port of July 28, 1989" shall be restored and shall not be struck.
Respe tfully ORDERED, Peter B.
- Bloch, Presiding Officer
~
Bethesda, Maryland
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
In the Matter of I
1 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION I
Docket No.(s) 70-25-ML i
(Rocketdyne-Division Soecial i
' Nuclear Materials License SNM-21)
I 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-I hereby certif y that copies of the f oregoing LB Mk0 (RECON.
HOME0WNERS...)
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.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl, Chairman G. Paul Bollwerk, !!!
. Atomic Safety and Licensing 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 Atomic Saf ety 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 Judoe Bustave: A. Linenberger, Jr.
Special Assistant Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington,.DC 20555 Philip.D. Rutnerford Daniel Hirsch Manager President Nuclear Saf ety k Reliability Eng.
Committee to Bridge the Gap 6633 Canoga Avenue, Mail Code HB07 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Jon Scott Estelle Lit 6 Roundup Road 18233 Bermuda Street Bell Canyon, CA 91307 Northridge, CA 91326
V6,;.:.
Doc ke't ' No. (s) 70-25-ML ~
-LB.M60 (RECON.: HOME0WNERS...)
s Sheldon C..Plotkin, Ph.D P. E.
Executive Board Representative Jerome E. Raskins, et. al.
Southern California Federation of c/o 18350 Los~Alimos Scientists-Northridge, CA 91326 3318 Colbert Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 E
Richard Saxon, M.D Barbara.
Johnson President:
President Los Angeles Physicians for Social Susans Kno!!s Homeowners Association Responsibility c/o 6714 Clear Springs Road 1431 Ocean Avenue. Suite B
.Susana Knolls, CA 93063 Santa Monica,, CA' 90401 Cecelia Riddle Senior Librarian.
Chatsworth Branch Librarv-21052 Devanshire. Street Chatsworth. CA. 91311 f) f Dated at Rockville.'Md. this 2 day of April 1990 Office al the Secretary cf the Commission l-i l
.