ML20033F251
| ML20033F251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1990 |
| From: | Plotkin S SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10054 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190095 | |
| Download: ML20033F251 (12) | |
Text
(0 $f.
DOCKETED USNRC L
BEFORE THE
?
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARf90 E 12 P4 :58 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
nrncr cr srcRrTMv bg: 1pn
< i,<v' :
)
In the Matter of
)
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
)
Docket No. 70 / b CORPORATION
)
Rocketdyne Division
)
ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML
)
)
License No. SNM-21
)
)
Southern California Federation of Scientists Response to Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenors' Written Presentation and Brief by Rockwell International.
INTRODUCTION Rockwell's Motion to Strike should not prevail. Their contentions in response to our original Direct Case are insubstantial and inconsistent.
Rockwell would like to require intervenors to restate their application of the relevant statutes for each and every concern, even though SCFS has carefully defined the pertinent NRC codes at the beginning of the Direct Case.
Rockwell has not asserted that those cited regulations do not apply to any of our concerns.
On the other hand, Rockwell pleads for dismissal of any duplicate concerns set fcrth by independent intervenors, "Since there is no benefit in answering the same question more than once,... redundant concerns should be eliminated to permit more efficient and effective responses."
Rockwell argues that the word " cumulative" is " synonymous with redundant and repetitious", whereas a careful reading of the Direct Case reveals that while the independently stated concerns are often identical, the rationale for each Direct Case is different and merits separate responses.
9003190095 900309 ADDCK 070g5 DR
SCFS members are not attorneys, nor do we even have copies of all the NRC codes. All we have is the 10 CFR Part 70 copy supplied by Judge Bloch in his Memorandum and Order of October 5,1989 plus his statement that 10 CFR 2.1233 requires filing under oath or affirmation.
l o.
SCFS has provided a clear statement of our concerns and contentions pursuant to Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order and made our best effort to comply with his presentation requirements. Therefore, the Southern California Federation of Scientists respectfully requests that the Licensing Board disregard Rockwell's Motion to Strike and deny Rockwell's application to renew their license.
i GENERAL ARGUMENTS Rockwell alleges there are four reasons why the brief should be stricken.
[
A.
First, our concerns and rationale are identical to those of the Committee to Bridge the Gap's. This is true only with respect to the concerns filed in the original petition last year, after which Judge Bloch allowed separate -
intervenor status for SCFS, CBG, and SKHA.
We believe the probable basis for Judge Bloch's granting of the separate intervenor status was an anticipation of differing rationales for the similar concerns which, contrary to Rockwell's reading, is in fact contained in the Direct Cases. While Rockwell wants SCFS to state specific code violations with each concern contention, they violate that standard by not citing such code violations with each of their arguments.
We noted that there is no requirement within the regulations that a licensing Board throw out independent intervenor's concerns if they overlap; furthermore, any such motion should have been made when the concerns were originally submitted. The framers of the regulations obviously foresaw that separate intervenors may have overlapping concerns.
Rockwell's motion seeks to prevent independent intervenors from presenting differing rationale.
The reason for 2
i there differences are that each.intervenor has independent analyses within each similar concern. Simultaneous consideration of all rationale for these i
similar concerns is certainly in order, and Judge Bloch needs a complete explanation of each and has directed that these be supplied.
SCFS has been informed that there is another part to 10 CFR 2.1233(e) which Rockwell failed to quote in its Motion to Strike. Rockwell apparently seeks to mislead the Board by not quoting the first half of the pertinent code-section: namely, " Strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions under this section."
In asking the Board to strike the entire brief, Rockwell is clearly overstepping what is prescribed by the regulations.
B.
Rockwell's second argument is that SCFS's criticisms of the Radiological Contingency Plan, RCP, do not cite specific sections of the Application.
The RCP is part of Rockwell's application for renewal of their license.
We believe the rules allow us to make reference to any particular part or portion of the application; therefore, SCFS has met the requirement of this section as l
well as providing specific reasons why the RCP is deficient.
C.
Rockwell's third reason for asking dismissal of SCFS's intervention is j
that the Direct Case allegedly makes a blanket reference to 10 CFR 70.23 and does not list a specific standard for each specific concern, supposedly con-trary to Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order of October 5,1989.
As stated in our Direct Case (p.1), it is too burdensome and unnecessary to have the same phrases repeated over and over for each concern.
That indeed would be repeti-tious and cumulative. Rockwell does not argue that the overall regulatory references do not apply to each contention. This omission to argue that the regulatory references given do not directly apply indicates that Rockwell is merely grasping for straws in an attempt to dismiss SCFS as an intervenor.
Their statement that they intend to respond to the CBG brief and see no reason to respond to the SCFS brief as well indicates their lack of awareness that the 3
r i
rationale and contentions are quite different in the two briefs.
The regula-tions cited,10 CFR 70.23 (a) and (b), go to the heart of each of SCFS's contentions in that they petition that health and safety dangers be minimized and that reasonable assurances of protection be provided.
Rockwell concedes in their own Motion to Strike that "there is no benefit in answering the same question more than once".
They insist that SCFS repeat unnecessarily while i
Rockwell should not have to abide by the same standard.
D.
Another Rockwell reason given for dismissal of the Direct Case is their allegation that much of our discussion is irrelevant, repetitious, and unsub-stantiated.
We contend that Rockwell's claims are unsubstantiated in that they do not refer to any substantive parts of the Direct Case but merely state with usually one short sentence that Concerns No. 1,5,9,10,12,13,15,16,18-22,24-29, and 31-33 are allegedly unsubstantiated.
This is another application of Rockwell's double standard.
SCFS submitted a 19 page Direct Case with supporting analysis as to why the concerns are valid. To allow Rockwell to strike a concern simply by claim-ing that it is " unsubstantiated", would violate the intended hearing procedure.
SCFS has presented the Board with a carefully substantiated basis for their concerns.
Rockwell does not substantiate their claims, Judge Bloch's Memo and Order of October 5,1989, allows intervenors to ask questions and Rockwell is invited to supply answers (p.6).
Where intervenors have no discovery and the Local Public Document Room is practically devoid of the Applicant's historical background, any alleged unsubstantiated assertion should be regarded as a relevant question.
Intervenor's questions may be answered in whole or in part.
When they are not answered or are answered only in part, Rocketdyne should state its reasons for not responding (p,7),
t 4
CONCERN-BY-CONCERN ARGUMENTS Because Rockwell itemized each SCFS Concern, we will do likewise:
1.
Rockwell claims that the analysis by SCFS being based on 400 gm is un-suostantiated. Their claim that the additional 394 gm requested in their application is only a jurisdictional matter is bizarre. No substantiation is provided for their " jurisdictional" claim.
Rockwell has requested authority for 400 gm, and the granting of license renewal will allow Rockwell to possess 400 gm. One cannot jeopardize the safety of the surrounding community by "taking Rockwell's word" that they will not possess 400 gm but only 6 gm, even i
if authorized to possess 400 gm.
It is the req 9ested license that is being litigated, and that application is for 400 gm.
2.
Rockwell's refusal to legally bind itself to ending operation after Octo-ber,1990, raises serious questions about the forthrightness of the amended application which states that it will end TRUMP at that time.
We submit that this is not irrelevant.
t 3.
SCFS believes that Rockwell is probably violating CFR 70.23(a)(1)(4) which states that the license should be for "...the demonstration of the pratical value... for industrial or commercial purposes" (emphasis added). It seems i
to us that the claimed Rockwell purpose of using TRUMP-S for reducing waste from spent nuclear fuel rods is incorrect, because it can't be used for oxide fuel which is the only kind from U.S. nuclear power plants. That is what was meant by stating that TRUMP is a " flawed project", which is hardly an irrelevant concern, 4.
Agreed that this was not admitted originally as a relevant concern.
5.
Rockwell's own recent transportation accident in Pennsylvania proves that this is not an unsubstantiated concern. Additional rationale is included in our Direct Case.
l 1
5
- f. -
6.
The " extensive site contamination" is well known and exemplified by the large D&D cost estimates, particularly 69.48H for the Hot Lab alone.
As for the DHS discovered violations, there are no published records that we are aware of nor were any placed in the Public Document Room noting the action or detailing any reasons for dropping Count No.13.
This is an evidentiary rebuttal by Rockwell and is not grounds to strike.
Dur concerns remain un-changed and, as noted in our Direct CasG, additional information is in order.
l 7.
As noted above, the requirement for additional information is a very valid issue.
The identical evidence substantiating Concern No. 6 applies to No. 7 as well. The extensive contamination of the site over the years had to have come from somewhere within the f acility. The Hot Lab must have contributed its share.
Unauthorized radioactive releases is a credible concern and is not unsubstantiated as Rockwell alleges.
8.
Our Direct Case specified just exactly how throughput specifications can be very important factors in determining the actual total amounts of SNM to be on site over a one year period. Again, as in No.1, we refer to the actual application as substantiation for our concerns.
9.
Mention is made of the interaction between workers and management concern-ing health and safety.
These are valid concerns that we raised in our Direct Case.
Rockwell's simply alleging that they are unsubstantiated only shows their lack of awareness of such interaction.
10.
Details of Hot Lab operation were taken from Rockwell's RCP.
If this is
" unsubstantiated", as Rockwell alleges, we must question the validity of their own RCP.
Perhaps we should have questioned its authenticity. Filter testing, for example, was discussed specifically in the RCP and is simply quoted in our Direct Case. Information gleaned from the RCP is hardly conjecture unless Rockwell has published a document containing questionable information.
Rockwell officials have indicated in private that decontamination was to take L
6
place along with the TRUMP-S experiment, with decommissioning to take place later.
Our concern that these are technically incompatible activities is correct.
- 11. Agreed that this was not admitted as a relevant concern.
12.
In its Pennsylvania accident, Rockwell failed to provide adequate material packaging and radiation monitoring. The same material packaging requirements apply for the TRUMP project.
The SCFS concern is valid.
13.
Rockwell's RCP states that there will be no radioactive releases with TRUMP. Our concern is substantiated by the Rockwell publication.
Appendix C i
refers to a Battelle document which Rockwell now claims has no relevance to TRUMP but which is precisely Ref. 2 of their RCP discussion of TRUMP. Rockwell i
has used this reference to claim substantiation of the erroneous minimal release conclusions in their RCP, SCFS used these documents to specify our concerns about possible radioactive releases from TRUMP. To say that fires and earthquakes can destroy and/or bypass filters requires no substantiation.
The poss* ole "5% or so" Pu release is spelled out in some detail in Appendix C as n%g a realistic " worst-case" value.
Reference to that section in the Direct i
Ofse truly substantiates the number, which was derived from Rockwell's own reference.
- 14. Agreed that this concern was not admitted as relevant for this hearing.
15.
It is well known that tearing down buildings and hauling away toxic materials presents health hazards to the surrounding population. Our concern about Rockwell's specific D&D procedures is not " trivial", particularly with possible simultaneous TRUMP operation.
- 16. As noted in No.15 above, the relationship between TRUMP and D&D is a valid concern. Rockwell rights to reapply for another license extension later in the year is clearly relevant. The NRC Staff expects Rockwell to cease all nuclear activity at SSFL in October, 1990. The Rockwell statements to the 7
press have said the same thing.
But we now find that this may not be their intention.
The public has a right to know just exactly what Rockwell intends to do. The NRC Staff is stopping its environment and safety review.
If the Rockwell promise is not disingenuous, this elimination of their environment and safety review would be improper and premature. Appendixes A and B provide important background information and raise some very pertinent questions about this Rockwell license. These two appendices and Appendix C, which was dis-9 cussed above, are clearly relevant to this hearing.
17.
This concern was not denied as Rockwell claims, but merely ruled pre-mature until Judge Bloch heard from the NRC Staff.
18.
SCFS answers to the 394 gm SNM possibility are given above and are indeed relevant. The Pu releases from Rocky Flats have been widely reported by government investigators and scientists. It was noted in the Direct Case that the precise nature of the added 394 gm requested in the license application are not specified, so there is no reason why much of that material could not be Pu.
Rockwell should provide details rather than asking not to be questioned.
19.
Our response to Rockwell's allegation that our concern about the 394 gm of SNM requested in the application is unsubstantiated is spelled out above.
We believe it is well substantiated.
20.
The quoting of a recent EPA report provides good substantiation for our concern. The fact that this was contained in the original statement of concern does not detract from its validity.
21.
Rockwell's criticality controls remain relevant as long as Rockwell continues to request possession authority for 400 gm of SNM.
- 22. Appendices A,B and C specify sufficient details of what is involved with the TRUMP experiment to substantiate our concern for public safety. One of the purposes of the upcoming hearing shouldd be to answer the questions raised in the referenced appendices.
8
- 23. The SCFS experience with the UCLA relicensing, in which the NRC was also involved, revealed a completely inadequate security system.
While we cannot say initially whether or not the same applies to Rockwell, the concern is a pertinent and substantial one. Intervenor review of that system under proper 4
security restrictions is a reasonable concern.
- 24. The possibility of 400 gm of SNM being present in a worst-case accident is valid.
If Rockwell requests a license for 400 gm at the Hot Lab, it cannot accuse us of unsupported concern about that 400 gm.
Filter failures are always a real possibility in worst-case accidents. The 5% or so release frac-tion is substantiated by Rockwell's own reference.
In any worst-case scenario, the toxic releases are always assumed to be in their most hazardous form.
Information about Rockwell's test programs, filter changes, and circulation requirements are all contained in their RCP, This substantiates the SCFS Direct Case.
25.
The $9.48M estimated cost for Hot Lab D&D alone by the DOE plus the additional many millions of dollars leads directly to the our concern that there are record keeping problems as well as regulation adherence problems.
These concerns are relevant.
- 26. The concern about the 394 gm of SNM is substantiated above. The minute Pu releases contemplated by Rockwell in a worst-case scenario, the worst-case fire, and description of fire fighting systems are all contained in the RCP.
The " loose ends" aspects, as stated in the Direct Case, are from the Wallace-Rockwell exchanges which the Board already possess. Thus this concern is well substantiated.
27.
Substantiation of the 394 gm is treated above. This concern is well substantiated.
28 and 30. Rockwell safety management lapses over the years are obviously matters of public concern. The DOE estimate of more than $30M for the D&D of 9
l the entire SSFL facility with an estimated $9.48M for the Hot Lab indicates something is seriously wrong.
The Direct Case spelled this out in some detail.
+
Noting this excessive cost is indeed repetitious, but the repetition seems to be required. Retirement of Mr. Lancet, while probably not a problem, is a relevant concern which deserves a hearing.
29.
As stated in the Direct Case, additional information is required and, therefore, this concern is valid.
The potentially hazardous nature of D&D is treated above and is a very relevant and substantiated concern.
31.
Substantiation of this concern is stated in the Direct Case as being in Rockwell's own document, the RCP.
- 32. Hot Lab lifetime is a valid concern.
Its relevancy in shown in documenta-tion of contaminated nuclear facilities elsewhere, as stated in the Direct Case.
- 33. Nuclear reactor worst-case accident scenarios hardly need spelling out in the context of these hearings.
Earthquake triggering is almost always assumed as being the worst-case. Thus the substantiation is implicit and the relevancy is in the hazard to the proximate population.
CONCLUSIONS Because Rockwell had time to object to SCFS concerns themselves or the participation of SCFS in the proceedings in October, 1989, and did not do so, it is not proper to do so now in the form of a motion-to-strike.
The relevancy of SCFS concerns was decided upon in the October 5,1989 memorandum and order by Judge Bloch. That was the time for Rockwell to take action.
A motion-to-strike is not proper if any submission supporting the concern is reasonably relevant.
Because the safety of Rockwell's proposed activities is at the heart of every admitted concern, all the submissions presented bear q
relevance and are properly before the Board.
All of Rockwell's objections dealing with substance have to do with importance or seriousness of the 10
I i
evidence and is, therefore, not a proper basis for dismissal of either the concerns or the intervenor.
SCFS respectfully requests that the Botrd not strike any of the concerns as expressed in our Direct Case nor eliminate us as an intervenor.
FILING DECLARATION It is declared under penalty of perjury that the above response to i
Rockwell's Motion to Strike is true and correct to the best of our knowledge.
N f, fTiD
~
Date Sheldon C. Plotkin, Ph.D., P.E.
Member SCFS Executive Board b
i 11
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ]gil?
In the Matter of
)
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION )
Docket N507(hg5$ p4 58 l
(Rocketdyne Division, Special
)
Nuclear Materials License SNM-21
)
fo'cQMSLCREltsv CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Qi WlCI 1 hereby certify that copies of the forgoing Response by SCFS have been served upon the following persons by U.S. Mail, First Class, except as noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.712.
Administrative Judge
- Prof. Jerome E. Raskin Peter B. Bloch, Presiding Officer 18350 Los Alamos Street Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Northridge, CA 91326
[
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Estelle Lit i
18233 Bermuda Street Aministrative Judge
- Northridge, CA 91326 l'
Gustave A. Lineaberger, Jr., Special Asst.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Dr. Richani G. Saxon, PSR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1431 Ocean Avenue, Suite B o
I Washington, DC 20555 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Administrative Judge
- Cecelia Riddle, Senior Librarian Christine N. Kohl, Chair Chatsworth Branch Library l
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 21052 Devonshire Street-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chatsworth, CA 901311 Washington, DC 20555 Barbara Johnson, SKHA Abinistrative Judge
- 6714 Clear Springs Road Howard A. Wilber Susana Knolls,CA 93063 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jon Scott Washington, DC 20555 6 Roundup Road Bell Canyon, CA 91307 Aministrative Judge
- G. Paul Bollwerk, III Daniel Hirsch, CBG Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Los Angeles, CA 90025 l
Washington, DC 20555 l
P.D. Rutherford *, Manager Office of the General Counsel
- Nuclear Safety & Reliability Eng.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Rocketdyne Division Washington, DC 20555 6633 Canoga Avenue Canoga Park, CA 91304 Docket & Service Section*
Office of the Secretary l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- by Express Washington, DC 20555 k $, NW Date Sneldon C. Plotkin, Ph.D., P.E.
g