ML20033F248
| ML20033F248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1990 |
| From: | Saxon R PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10052 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190082 | |
| Download: ML20033F248 (9) | |
Text
>f g
[ [.
Phy icicns, for Socicl-Re:ponsibility 8 March 1990 K
1431 Ocean Avenue, Suite B J
Santa Monica, CA--90401-
%K{IC0 gC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E
NUCLEAR REGULA70RY COMMISSION ff!C[ Of $ECRETARY u
NIOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSItG BOARD
$((.['"MN
[
1 Sefore Administrative Judge:
peter B. Bloch I'.
\\
k 1
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 70-25 ' M b ROCKWELL IIITERNATIONAL CORPORATION
)
Rocketdyne Division
)
ASLBP NO. 89-594-01-ML
-(Special Nuclear Materials License
)
License No. SNM -21)
)~
)
)
1 s
- RESPONSE BY IDS ANGELES PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPOSIBILITY 10 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL'S M7 PION 3D SfRIKE
'l INTRODUCTION Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") has moved to strike;
- five of our concerns largely on the basis that we have allegedly failed to refer in-each specific instance to deficiencies in its Applicatiton for relicensing. While we discuss each allegation in Rockwell's motion with l
particularity below, we would like to emphasize at the outset that not only j
U may Rockwell's renewal request be denied on the basis that Application i
documentation is deficient, it must.also be denied if the Commission does not determine that:
(1) the applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience to use the material for the purpose requested and (2) the applicant's proposed equipment, f acilities and procedures are adequate to j
protect health and minimize danger to life o_r_ property.
10 CFR 70.23 9003190082 900308
.DR ADOCK 0700 5
)
n
- x
.y p
. - 3, N.
4
[
7.!(a)(2)-(4j.? : Where the Application is' misleading,. we have soJ indicated;-
b where the qualifications,of the' Applicant-itself are at issue, we have--also.
so indicated... Our discussion - regarding Rockwell's ' record and practices is bp therefore' clearly relevant to the disposition of this licensing proceeding.,
fp f
DISCUSSION Concern 1.
This concern questions Rockwell's ability to comply with radiation standards to protect the public' in light of'their record; p
.Rockwell correctly notes that we have not referred to specific-deficiences in~iEs Application document.- This is precisely because we are questioning Rockwell's record. While the Application contains statistics that may be an indication of Rockwell's record, our main argament contests the reliability p
of these statistics due to Rockwell's inadequate monitoring procedures, pointing out the gravity of the release of even small amounts of plutonium, and questioning Rockwell's record in light of their history at Rocky Flats-and the-EPA report of July 28,'1989.
- l We are-well aware that 10 CFR 2.1233(c) states ' that written q'
- presentations of a party should dascribe "any deficiency or ommission in the
. license application." To conclude,.. however, that the sole basis upon.which a license disposition can be made is the applicant's application ignores.
other pertinent NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act, 10 CFR 70.22 sets forth the standards for applications, but 10 CFR 70.23 sets forth the requirements for approval of licenses.
.The latter regulation clearly does
~
not confine the Commission's determination to consideration of the words and
~l charts of the Application.
The Atomic Energy Act states that applications l
shall be granted or denied based in part upon the character of the applicant, as well as other qualifications the Commission may deem 2
i
g-
.r q.;
':dppropkiatd. 4 2 ' U.S.C.
2232..
Th3;1ogical-intorpretation of 10'CFR i
,2.1233(c) L inLlight of 10 CFR 70.23 -and - 42 U.S.C.
2232 is that written-kg representatibns must describe lany ' deficiency or, ommission in an application c
F. 4
' only when it is appropriate.(i.e., when_an ommission or deficiency is the e
tintervenor's ' concern).
Because we question Rockwell's record of corplying with radiation standards we necessarily need to refer to surveys and reports
~
F of'outside: agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the
.r
. Department._of Energy. -
l Concern 2.
This concern addresses the increased population density a
'around the Santa SusanaiFacility. Although Rockwell states that it responds I
n to this concern in its discussion of the Susana Knolls Homeowners
~
Association's (SKHA) brief, in that discussion Rockwell asks that SKHA be dismissed from these hearings on grounds that SKHA was not admitted to these-p
' proceedings with this concern.
LAPSR was admitted-with this-concern,
['
however, and SKHA was admitted as a party with the concerns of all the other
. parties.'(Memorandum and Order, dated November.29,1989, p. 2; Memorandum and ' Order, cdated December 7,.1989, p. 6).
SKHA's discussion of this
. concern was incorporated by reference in our brief so that this concern
- would remain in the proceedings in the event that SKHA was dismissed, as well as to avoid.a duplicative discussion of the same concern.
Futhermore, - any objection to concerns being similar should have been raised months ago when they.were -filed and admitted by Judge Bloch; Rockwell
- s failed to respond at all then and any such objection is now entirely untimely. Motions to oppose admission of specific concerns to be litigated
.by individual parties must be submitted when those concerns are filed; motions to strike portions of the direct evidentiary case of a party must show why the profferred evidence in support of the already-admitted concerns
~
. is impermissible.
(We note also that Rockwell does not cite any portion of 3
F
m gn y,3 ikt r* '
Lthe4 regulations: that prohibits individual parties f rom 'having similar' concerns ' in : a proceeding.)
. To the extent Rockwell raises issues about the-p, f concerns themselves, it is untimely; and Rockwell has failed to raise any--
n
. legitimate objections' to the evidentiary filing itself in support of the
]3
' concerns that the. presiding. officer'last ' year admitted.-
3'
_ Concern 3.
LApSR was admitted. to-this. proceeding. with aDconcern about y.
accidental plutonium release.. Now Rockwel1 moves to strike concern #3,
(,
~
n
~ on grounds that 'it -is allegedly duplicative of concern #1 in the Committee
= to Bridge the Gap's (CIB7G) Direct Case. If Rockwell believes we cannot have g
i4 similar concerns to other parties (a' position unsupported by regulation or.
w,
logic), Rockwell was obligated to object when.the matter of the_ admission s
y Lof the concerns was being litigated. It filed no response whatsoever to any J
parties'1 petition at the time, and cannot compensate by attempting to
.g.,
." piggyback".impermissibly late objections.to the admission of the. concerns
_ onto a motion purportedly designed to strike evidence on behalf of. those concerns.
The concerns have already been admitted, -without objection.
m In addition,.we believe that our discussion in'our' direct case merely
' serves.to emphasize the consequences of Rockwell's failure to take fire, and thelresulting likely-loss'of of the HEPA filters, into account in its accident scenario.
To make the gravity of this failure understandable we (compared the level of radioactive exposure. that would occur were fire and j
- the loss'of'the-HEPA filters. taken into account with - the level of l
radioactive exposure of a modern two-sided x-ray.
Our discussion underscores certain points made by the CTBTG, but it is not cumulative,
{
a
- attacking the issues from different angles.
]
- W would. also like to point out that the cumulative standard in 10 CFR 2.1233(e) applies to cumulative evidence presented by a single party. To Y
w 4
. 'h r
r_
A
7 V
y4 '
- int:rptct 10 CFR 2.1233(o) otherwiciwould,mean that cach party would hava F
(
- to collaborate with each other party on the complete writing of 'each aspect
~
p%;
- of every one of their. briefs, knowing precisely each specific fact each =
W
.other intervenor is going to raise in briefs not yet even written. - While we '
h, did note in our Direct Case that the accident release-scenario was being y.
l discussed in greater detail by the CTBTG and the Southern California
~
f
' Federation of. Scientists-(SCFS), our discussion serves to further h-
[
-- substantiate matters-they. raised in different ways as well as to elaborate on a few 'important points of which medical doctors would have special knowledge.
Rockwell may respond to the points we have raised in its response-to the CTBTG's discussion of this concern, but we m'ove that our.
L;
< discussion not-be dismissed, o
L-Concern 4_.
Our' discussion of this concern, which relates to the-h cumulative impact of radioactive and hazardous chemicals waste disposal sites and contamination, is clearly relevant to Rockwell's ability to protect health and minimize danger to-life or property in accordance with 10 CFR 7 0.2 3 ( a )( 2 )-( 4 ). - Rockwell's arguments that it complies with c ppropriate standards ' are contested-by us.
More importantly, such a
arguments--with_ appropriate support--may be appropriate for Rockwell's
? evidentiary rebuttal-but are entirely inappropriate grounds for a motion to strike our evidentiary pleading.
j concern 5.
This concern relates to worker health and safety.
Rockwell j
asserts in its ' Motion to-Strike that it is in compliance with the standards
' iset forth in ~ 10. CFR 20.01 to 20.108.
This is an evidentiary assertion which we dispute; it is not grounds for a motion to strike.
We reiterate the E
point. made -in our Direct Case:
Rockwell employees might be overexposed.
3 HoW else are the number of workers compensation cases that have been filed
~
against Rockwell. to be explained?
l 1
3 a
(~ ;,
r J
o h.
.-Rockwell also asserts that'its Radiological' Contingency' Plan-(RCP) v E
L eontiains measur'er, to mitig' ate. radiation doses to protect workers in the-
~
~
g event ~of an accident. _ This also. is an evidentiary claim by Rockwell, rather P
6 y! han a legal objection to our Direct Case. We question' the effectiveness j
t F
b and reliability of these measures in light of the fact that nowhere int the -
=j L
- i
{
RCP is there'an estimate of doses workers are likely to receive. Without 1
[
knowl.ng what: workers need _ to be protected f rom,.it is ~at most wishful-0 thinking to believe that the mitigation measures Rockwell-has adopted will i
adequately protect its employees and comply with radiation protection f
standards.
}
l There '.is: no legal basis for this concern to be dismissed:
regulatory
_ authority has been cited (10 CFR.70.22(i)(3)(v) and 10 CFR 70.23(a)(3) and-I (4)), a deficiency in the application has been noted, and worker safety is
<i P
clearly relevant to whether Rockwell's license should be renewed.
j
~
CONCLUSION Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility respectfully: suggests -
that much of Rockwell's motion to strike is frivolous and untimely, and that-i in the rest it has_ failed to meet its burden in support of ;its' motion.
When
'LAPSR,- to' avoid being unduly repetitive of material also being included by e
other parties,
-incorporates by reference their arguments and' data on a y
shared concern (e.g.,
SKHA -material on demography, a LAPSR concern),
Rockwell moves to strike both presentations.
When we do put forward y
our own material which touches on matters raised in other presentations by-Lintervenors with similar concerns, putting forward dif ferent but related-I
- arguments, Rockwell moves to strike-as repetitive. They can't have it both ways.. It is apparent that what Rockwell wants to strike is not duplicative 6
- 1; M
n
ptv I
t,)
mat riel--which occurs very litt13 if' at 011 in the pl:adings and which is t
. easy to respond to--but new material to which they have little factual
. response available.
We close with the following point.
The primary purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the public safety can be adequately i.
' protected were Rockwell's request for a license granted. We believe that the decision to strike material f rom the record should be made with this question foremost in. mind:
will this action proposed by Rockwell to eliminate substantial portions of the record contribute to the ability of f
. the tribunal to make an appropriate safety decision?
We can see how eliminating information embarrassing to Rockwell can help Rockwell's case; but the elimination of embarrassing evidence is not a grounds to strike, and does not serve the public interest, which is centrally a matter of protecting public health.
We respectfully urge that all of the concerns and the material supporting them in our Direct Case should be retained in the licensing proceeding.
Respectfully submittei, Richard Saxon, M.D.
'date this 8 th day of March,1990
'at Los Angefes, California 7
y
- e[
.i y,
s 00YQC BEFORE THE u
A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING IOARD U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION 9() MR 12 P4 ;47 l
In'the Matter of.
)
)
Docket No. 7 g h sfCy I g -
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
)
v
)
BRANCH (Rocketdyne Division, Special
)
'i Nuclear Materials License StE-21)
)
,{
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
,I' hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
- RESPONSE BY LOS ANGELES PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBIITY TO ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL'S MOTION 'IO STRIKE 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 2.712.
-Administrative Judge
- Office of the General Counsel
- l Peter B. Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Presiding Officer.
Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety.& Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Docketing & Service Section(3)*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Administrative Judge
- Washington, DC 20555
-Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Special Assistant-Prof. Jerome E. Raskin, et al.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 18350 Los Alimos U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Northridge, CA 91326-Washington, D.C. 20555 P.D. Rutherford *-
. Administrative Judge
- Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Reliability Engineering i
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Rocketdyne Division
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-6633 Canoga Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Administrative Judge
- Dr. Estelle Lit Howard A. Wilber 18233 Bermuda Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Northridge, CA 91326
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.:20555' John Scott 6 Roundup Road Administrative Judge
- Bell Canyon, CA 91307 G. Paul Bollwerk, III Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Dr. Sheldon C. Plotkin l-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern California Federation Washington, D.C. 20555 of Scientists 3318 Colbert Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066
o y.-
., # I ib..
I* '
3[..
//-
'Cecelia Riddle.
Senior Librarian-Chatsworth Branch Library 21052 Devonshire Street Chatsworth, CA 91311'-
-e li.'
. Barbara Johnson.
President'
[
- Susana Knolls Homeowners Ass'n H.
c/o 6714 Clear Springs Road i
Susana Knolls, CA 93063 0
Daniel Hirsch Comittee-to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Los Angeles, CA 90025 t,
- by express or messenger 8
i
//
N i
l i
Dated at
- t. -
this. _th day of
, 1990 m
i l s.
t s
_