ML20033F250
| ML20033F250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1990 |
| From: | Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10053 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190087 | |
| Download: ML20033F250 (8) | |
Text
.
g o syc
~
e7 ttee t3 Bridge the Gap 1
l'
. Butler Avenue, suite 203 9 g g g990 i
Ios Angeles, California 90025 USNRC UNIED STATES OF AMERICA '90 f1AR 12 P4 :53 U.S. NUCLEAR REGUIKIORY Q)MMISSION '
i
^
CE OF SECRf TARY 00CKE hNG A 'it i"vlCf; Before Administrative Judge ERtncu Peter B. Bloch t
)
In the matter of
-)
}OCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
)
CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 70 /d Rocketdyne Division
)
J
)
ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML (Special Nuclear Materials
)
l License No. SIM-21)
)
)
r l
RESPONSE OF O'3MITNE '10 BRIDGE 'IBE GAP 'ID 10CKWELL'S M7fICE '!O STRIKE i
i Introduction The Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) hereby files in opposition to i
Rockwell'sMarch 1 Motion tcstrike.
The Rockwell motion appears not to touch upon CB3's Direct Case at all,
+
instead attempting to strike all or some of each of the other intervenor's t
cases. ' But since there is some contradictory language in the Rockwell brief regarding CBG,1 and'since.CBG has an interest in a full evidentiary record,
-i 1.
Whereas Rockvell discusses in detail-each intervenor in a separate
- l section of its brief, under the section for CBG, Rockwell states merely, "The Applicant files no motion with respect to this brief at this time.'
(Rockwell brief, p. 4.)
Indeed, in its proposed order for Judge Bloch appended to the end of the motion, summarizing the relief Rockwell is requesting, CBG is not identified as the object of any requested action.
However, a few lines above its statement on page 4 that it files no motion l
with regards CBG, it asks that CBG's and the Susana Homeowners briefs (but L
9003190087 900309 PDR ADOCK 07000025 1
i
7-l1
- y i
shares many of. the concerns of the other parties, and has relied upon their submissions, CBG joins them in opposing the Motion to Strike.
Argument SIMIIAR CONCERNS FROM SEPARATE INTERVEtORS' SHOULD !CT BE S 1.
Each Party _Has Separate Intervenor S_tatus t
Rockwell contends that The Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCPS) and the Susana Knolls Homeo Association (SKHA) petitioned for admission to these proceedings in pa;tnership and, therefore, the three parties should be limited to a single presentation.
(Motion to Strike, p. 4) This argument is simply untrue.
Ibwhere within the Petition to Intervene, dated November 29, 1989, does the request to intervene specify intervening as partners.
Rockwell's assertion that admission is in partnership is completely unfounded.
Additionally, Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order admitting the parties, dated December 7,1989, indicates that all three organizations have separate intervenor status.
The Order provides:
- lhe Petition of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Southern California Federation of Scientists, and the Susana Knolls Ho'meowners Association to Intervene as Parties License Renewal Proceeding is granted and these three organiziations shall be admitted as separate parties."
(emphasis added).
Clearly, each organization, pursuant to Judge Bloch's Order, has separate intervenor i
e not SCPS's) be stricken on grounds that all three groups have similar order ask that SCPS and the Homeowners, but not CBG, be stric concerns.
entirety, and that no motion is made with respect to CBG, we can only assume that the early reference to CD3 was an editorial error, r
2 1.
status.
Rockwell has cert inly waived their chility to r;futo Judge Bloch's Order because they have not respanded to the Order, dated December 7,1989, j
in a timely manner.
i 2.
Cumulative Evidence Restrictions are Within, not Between Briefs i
Rockwell's argument that cumulative concerns from separate intervenors should be stricken from their direct cases is completely unsupported by the l
regulations and logic.
10 CFR 2.1233 allows the licensing board to strike duplicative portions within an intervenor's brief.
10 CFR 2.1233 does not give the licensing board authority to strike portions of separate intervenors' briefs on the basis that they are cumulative.
Further, 10 CFR 2.1233(e) emphasiz s that '[s}trict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions under this section.' Rockwell is requesting that this licensing board apply strict rules.
This request should be denied.
3.
Denying Separate Intervenors The Ability to Express Their Concerns Is Contrary 'It The Purpose of Public Hearings.
Although the concerns may address similiar issues, the analysis and support will vary f rom intervenor to intervenor. The purpose of the full evidentiary statements is to provide Judge Bloch with a full understanding of the intervenors' concerns.
Striking similar concerns from separate intervenors stiffles the entire factual awareness process.
In the case at P
issue, the parties have stressed different reasons for their various
.i concerns. Certainly, some analysis may be similar, given the obvious safety
(~
problems with Rockwell, but each voice must be heard.
3 4
em
>.p 4.
'Jtie Rockwell Request is, Ingermissibly Untimely.
To the extent Rockwell or the presiding officer wished to limit participation of a party "in the interest of avoiding repetitive factual presentations and argument,' that is to be done in the ' order granting a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene."
Rockwell neither requested, nor did the presiding officer order, such limitation in response to any of the petitions for leave to intervene.
Rockwell had an obligation to raise any motion about allegedly duplicative concerns or desire to limit participation to avoid repetitive presentations at the time.those concerns and that participation was being litigated--when the petitions for leave to participate and the identification of the concerns were submitted last year.
Rockwell raised not a single objection to any of the parties' requests for full and separate party status nor to any of the proposed concerns.
The presiding officer admitted the proposed concerns, with a few exceptions, admitted the parties as separate parties, and made no restrictions on the participation. Rockwell, in addition to filing no opposition to any of the original petitions, filed no motion for reconsideration of the Board'c Orders granting ther...
The presiding officer in his Memorandum and order of 5 October:
Motions for reconsideration in this case will be timely only within ten days of the order as to which reconsideration is sought.
Otherwise, the order becomes part of the law of this case.
The relief Rockwell is thus now seeking is inpermissibly untinely.
5.
The Intervenors Have Done a Good Job of Avoiding R g titive Evidence.
Nothwithstanding the above, the intervenors have tried hard to avoid repeating in their briefs what other intervenors might be covering in theirs. This is not an easy matter to perform, as none of the briefs were 4
i r
j
, q-
[\\!
1, t
F
~ finished until the day they were filed, so all they had to go on was a rough
)
m division of labor based on stated intentions about what each intervenor would focus ~ on. In order to avoid duplication, intervenors with similar ooncerns would often not' repeat material in their brief which they thought another intervenor was going to cover, saying instead that they joined in' that presentation or included it by reference. Rockwell criticizes the parties for at times unavoidably mentioning the same evidence, moving thus to strike it; when intervenors, attempting to avoid that kind of duplication, refer to what another party is planning to proffer, Rockwell noves to strike it as.well. They can't have it both ways.
All in all, we think 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.
What Rockwell is really trying to eliminate is not-similar material, which is easy to address, just referring the reader to the points made in rebuttal to the other material said to be similar; what Rockwell really wishes to strike is as much as possible of the Direct Cases that points to their inadequacies and undergirds the parties' various arguteents against license renewal. The intereste of a full evidentiary record a.9 not served by such requests.
E a,;
Conclusion I
Rockwell's Motion to Strike should be denicd in its entirety.
Rockwell's rationale for their Motion to Strike is void of logic and regulatory support; its primary thrust (regarding allegedly duplicative I
concerns) is impermissibly untimely.
The parties have carefully and 5
i
.i
o4,7
[thodghtfully prepared Gxtensive Direct cases outlining cnd ctpporting their-
- safety concerns. These Direct Case uncovers many inadequancies at Rockwell 3, ~
r r
that should be addressed substantively, not in untimely legal gamesmanchip.
The Committe to Bridge the Gap respectfully requests that the Motion to Strike be denied and that the focus of the proceeding turn to the i
substantive addressing of the serious questions of safety and environmental risk's associated with Rockwell's pending request for license renewal.
p Respectfully submitted,
/
/-
)/
j
( L c./
.y, v
~-
Dan Hirsch '
M Yi n to Bridge the Gap dated at Ios Angeles, California r
1 I
r 6
5 Y
.r
(; y
-}
[E BE! ORE Tile l'OtKtlLD
'NIOMIC SAFl?l'Y AND LICCNSING IDAW L
U.S. NUCLEAlt HEGULA'lul(Y/CWMISSION -
[
'90 ISR 12 P4 53 grigegg{cgt}yy,{
In the Matter of'
)
s ROCKWELL IlfrERNATIONAL CORIORATION
)
Docket t$.
0-25-ML f
)
'[
(R'cketdyne Division, Special
)
o Nuclear Materials M cense SNM-21)
)
i- -
)
)
t CEIW STE OF SERVICE I
hereby cert ji y that copien of the foregoing C$d ley >oae h Wec./* W / hpto,4 % r74. M k have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mall, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of-10 CPR 2.712.
Administrative Judge
- Office of the General Counsel
- Peter B. Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pre. aiding Officer Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing. Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Docketing & Service Section(3)*
Washington, D.C. 20555 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Administrative Judge
- Washington, DC 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Special. Assistant Prof. Jerone E. Haskin, et al.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 18350 Los Alinos U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northridge, CA 91326 Washington, D.C. 20555
.j P.D. Rutherford
- Administrative Judge
- Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Christine N. Kohl, Chairmah Reliability Engineering Atomic Safety >& Licensing Appeal Board Rocketdyne Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 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 i
k
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
[
Washington, D.C. 20555 F
Dr. Sheldon C. Plotkin 4
Administrative Judge
- Southern California Federation G. Paul Bollwerk, III of Scientists Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board 3318 Colbert Avenue
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission tou Angeles, CA 90066 Washington, D.C. 20555 1
Se pp q
a s
j;;{-
41-.
p
+
Dr. ! Richard Saxon-Physicians for Social Responsibility 1431 Ocean Avenue, Suit.e B LCecelia Riddle-Senior Librarian
-Chatsworth Branch'1;ibrary'
- . 3
-21052 Devonshire Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Barbara Johnson President
-Susana Knolls llomeownera Ass'n c/o 6714 Clear Springa Road:
Susana Knolls, CA 93063 John Scott 6 Roundup Road Bell-Canyon, CA 91307-A Danief Hirsch n
! Dated at Los Angeles,. California this f day of M u cA.
, 1990
- by express y
i t
(.
eS 1
p i 1'I w
Al s
3