ML20033F252
| ML20033F252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1990 |
| From: | Jeffrey Scott SCOTT, J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10055 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190098 | |
| Download: ML20033F252 (11) | |
Text
O dkdi' DOCKETED USNRC arch 8, 1990 pric[ cr SiCRf;Trp juCK D!N'i4 N eild UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
!*lk" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judge Peter B.
Bloch i
In the Matter of I
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL I
CORPORATION I
Docket 70-25 -- 04 ks i
R;cketdyne Division (Cpecial Material License i
ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML Nurber SNM-21)
I
_____________________________I Response of Jon Scott To Rockwell International's Motion To Strike Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") has requested that concerns I, II, IV and V of my Direct Case be stricken from the record.
Rockwell first alleges that concerns I and V do not comply with 10 CFR 2.1233(c) by failing to refer to a speci fic deficient section of the Application.
Rockwell incorrectly assumes that the sole basis on which an Cpplicant's renewal request may be denied is a deficient application.
NRC regulations cannot be interpreted so narrowly.
Before a license may be grcnted the Commission has an affirmative duty to determine that:
1 (2) The applicant is quali fied by reason of training and l
experience-to use the material for the purpose requested in accordance with the regulations.
.(3) The applicant's proposed 1
9003190098 900308 PDR ADDCK 07000025 C
pg u
F" I
e equipment and facilities are adequate to protect health and minimi:e danger to life or property; (4) The applicant's proposed procedures to protect health and to minimize danger to li fe or property are adequate...
No where in the NRC regulations does the Commission appear obligated to don blinders to relevant evidence while reviewing a license request.
To the contrary, NRC regulations reflect the Commission's concern that nuclear COterials be used in such a way as to insure the public's wel f are.
As a cit:en concerned about the dangers of radioactivity at the SSFL, I have done my best to note inaccurate and misleading statements in the Application whcre possible.
However, where I have had cause to be concerned about the underlying methods by which Rockwell obtained its data I have had to cite-tho only sources at my disposal--outside agency reports and memoranda.
To the extent that the discussion in concerns I, III, IV and V refers to the dangers of toxic chemicals or hazardous waste, it has been included in concerns I, III and V to reflect on the character of the Applicant and, l
with repect to concern V, to show the added dangers from lack of planning for earthquakes and fires. One of the reasons I contend that toxic chcmicals and/or hazardous wastes including beryllium are a matter of great concern is that in the event of a major fire or earthquake, these chemicals l
lying about the SSFL in proximity to the Hot Cell Laboratory would contribute to an exponentially greater disaster when disbursed into the atmosphere or groundwater.and surrounding areas. Just as the NRC should not i
l license a reactor which is over an active earthquake fault, it should not cllow research with plutonium and storage of same in an area where if there ware a disaster such as an earthquake or fire, it would be tenfold greater j
bccause of the ha:ardous wastes and toxic chemicals on site.
These issues (toxic chemicals) were brought forth speci fically with the cpplicant's character and integrity in mind.
Since Rockwell has been issued 2
~
4 viclations by the state of Cali fornia Department of Health and those viclation have, in turn, been sent to the state Attorney General for review rcgarding toxic chemicals and the applicant's lack of compliance to state rules and regulations, it would seem plausible that these incidents would have direct bearing on whether the applicant's character and integrity is trustworthy.
Questions and concerns brought forward by agencies cited in cy direct case indicate that toxic chemicals found in and on the site could po sibly have affects on the public.
Although these are non-R/A issues th5y continue to relate back to the applicant's quali fications to adequately hcndle gar R/A or toxic materials. To thi s end, the applicant has been chtwn, through exhibits in my direct case, to have questionable quali fic ations, character and integrity regarding these issues.
If the cpplicant is irresponsible with respect to their activities with toxic ch:micals, what assurances do I have that they would be responsible in hcndling activities relating to R/A materials?
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1237 (b) "the applicant.
.has the burden of proof."
The Atomic Energy Act c1carly makes evidence of the Applicant's character relevant. Sec.42 U.S.C.
2232.
Rockwell also contents that it is required to provide a Quality cOcurance plan and provisions for protection against natural phenomena in ito Application on the basis that 10 CFR 70.22(f) only requires such plans for " plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants."
This issue has been d bated between Judge Bloch and Colleen Woodhead, counsel for NRC staff.
10 CFR 70.4 defines a " Plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant" as, cmong other things, "research and development activities involving any of tho operations described in paragraph Cr)(1) of this section.
The l
cetivities listed in paragraph (r)(1) include "(1) Operations for 3
l
c s
'4 manufacture of reactor fuel containing plutonium including f
(1 ) preparation of fuel material."
It is interesting to note that for the proposition that Rockwell is not o " plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant" Rockwell cites the Memorandum to Judge Bloch from Colleen Woodhead, dated November 30, 1989, but fails to mention Judge Bloch's response.
In his response, Judge Bloch l
cays that this memorandum f rom Colleen Woodhead has not resolved matters in hic mind, but has only led him to question why Rockwell's activities do not fit under the clear definition of a " plutonium processing and fuel fcbrication plant" in 10 CFR 70.4(r).
I also note that the NRC staf f's position upon which Rockwell relies so rcpetitively, is based upon Rockwell's former fuel decladding activity, which Rockwell has now stopped doing.
(See letter, Woodhead to Bloch, D:cember 13, 1999, response to Question 1.)
But it is the new TRUMP-S Cctivity about which the amended license renewal application is for, d tails of which were submitted by Rockwell only in late December. Whatever tho merits of the staf f's assertions about the applicability of 70.4(r) to tho former decladding efforts, it is clear that TRUMP-S does fit within 70.4(r), which pertains to R & D involving scrap recovery associated with plutonium fuel fabrication.
TRUMP-S, according to Rockwell i t sel f, is dGOigned to do research and development into recovery of plutonium from spcnt fuel and its recycle into reactors to burn it up.
Whereas one could parhaps argue, as the staff appears to d'o, that the fuel decladding opOrations did not apply because they were not related to scrap recovery for eventual reuse in plutonium-bearing fuels (only in uranium fuels), this to not the case with TRUMP-S, the very purpose of which is the recovery of ccrap plutonium for burn-up in reactors.
70.4(r) thus clearly applies to tho license renewal request.
4
.r~~
i I
i~
1 Rockwell's response to my concern IVA is a factual response showing no i
)
Cvidence for the response.
In Rockwell's motion to strike (page 8) they
]
ctcte "We believe it [the Hot Lab] does meet today's UBC standards.
B011eving does not necessarily make a statement factual.
Webster's Dictionary Library defines believe as "to suppose", suppose is defined as "to assume as true without proof".
Therefore Rockwell's statement is
)
unreliable..
Given the scenario of an earthquake, who can say precisely whOther a buildinD will withstand X amount of g accleration.
To understand tho exact amount of force involved, thorough examination of the crca must be undertaken with estimations of the length of each fault currounding the area, maximum slipage, magnitudes, movements hori:entally, ca well as, vertically.
Rockwell discusses only horizontal ground ccceleration, but' vertical movement can also occur during an earthquake.
l Such horizontal and vertical movement can affect hugh areas.
Ground dicplacement can tear apart buildings, roads and pipelines causing fires and Icndslides (Physical Geology, Plummer/McGeary, 2nd Ed.,
page 109).
At page 2 of the RI/RD89-139 it states "[t]he SSFL site is situated on.
.[A]
ccndstone bedrock".
Sandstone is a medium grained sedimentary rock form.
Further it states "Ct]he sur f ace consists o f unconsolidated Emeaning loose, scparate or unattached to one another] gravel, sand, silt and clay."
These pcrticles when mixed with water become unstable and are able to move freely 1
within water.
Rockwell states in the strike motion "[t]he hot lab stands l
on bedrock, not on alluvial sand.
At page 19 of the RI/RD89-139 l
l rolating to the groundwater systems at the site it states "a shallow, 1
unconfined system in the alluvial [ emphasis added] sur f ace mantle of the Burro Flats area and along the major drainage cha ruel s Alluvial or 5
p E
h
.C11uvium is mentioned four times in this paragraph.
Alluvial is defined by i
Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary as " clay, silt, sand, gravel or Oimilar detrital material deposited by running water. "
Furthermore in pcragraph two of the same report it states the the formation "is composed of sandstones with interbedded layers of sil tstone and cl avstone" Ccmphasis added].
Water displaced by an earthquake could cause the C dimEnts to become mud.
Rockwell claims in the strike motion "Ct]he Hot Lcb stands on bedrock
" what evidence is given that this is a true ctatement?
It also does not state what type of bedding.
The type of b;0 ding would make a great deal of di f ference during an earthquake.
S diment type of bedding would be more susceptible to earthquakes due to the pores or pore space within the sediment, where movement is allowable.
" Underground water can move through the pore space of a thick sequence of CCdiments" (supra Physical Geology, p.
110)
Rockwell states the formation
.10 composed-of siltstone and_claystone (supra RI/RD89-139).
Siltstone is fine grained, mostly silt with minor clay, and while I can find no reference or. definition as to what claystone is, it could be that it is much like mudstone which is more clay than siltstone and much like shale.
Shale is fine grained with a distinctive splitting ability, breaking into small, thin chips.
Thus i f the formation is a poorly sorted sandstone containing much cilt and clay (as Rockwell's report states) along with sand grains, this lowers the ability of the formation to hold fluids enabling the water to ruch in and turn the surface alluvial to mud and loose sand (supra Physical G3 ology at p.
117).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1237(b) "the applicant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof."
The applicant of this order hac not shown that earthquakes at the SSFL site is not a concern.
Further-Core, regarding the NRC-mandated retrofits statement made by Roc kwell, this 6
r i
i o
n ic_what is being contested and the presiding officer has the authority.
It to not up to the applicant to find that t'he claims of an intervenor are unrubstantiated and immaterial, this is a concern of the presiding of ficer.
In short, Rockwell has improperly used the motion to strike to argue the j
weight of the evidence.
Since the concerns of safety of operations have b; n admitted by the Board without timely opposition by Rockwell, this intervenor's questioning of earthquake sustainability is appropriate given Rockwell's undocumented blanket assertion of adequacy.
Therefore, all of this intervenor's contentions and concerns regarding questionable earthquake ecfety are appropriate and the statements of each are to be weighed by the tho _f act-finder.
Further, Rockwell's argument in its motion to strike chould be recognized as counter-evidence and a sly attempt to shift its burden of proof.
Intervenor has properly advanced evidentory matters on concerns that have been jurisdictionally found to be appropriate.
Concern IVB in Rockwell's motion to strike is extremely relevant and v0ry important given the area in which the SSFL is situated.
The evidence in my direct case is substantial and need not be repeated here.
The concern ctends on the evidence presented in the brief.
Rockwell has presented no ovidence to the contrary or that the concern it irrelevant.
Rockwell states at page 3 of it's strike motion that Econcerns]
"i nc l ude
. excessive redundancy and repetition both within and between briefs.
I respectfully submit that Rockwell is guilty of the same rcpetition that it suggests the intervenors are by repeatedly citing in three of my concerns (concern II, IVA, IVB) " plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants (Memorandum to Peter B.
Bloch f rom Colleen P.
Woodhead)."
Moreover, according to 10 CFR 2,1233(e) nowhere does it state that 7
4 i
cumulative evidence cannot exist within separate submissions.
It only
. strike any portion of g written Ctctes that "the presiding officer may.
prcsentation that is cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, or unreliable" (ccphasis added).
This can be especially true given 10 CFR 2.1231(d) whsre the rule states "a party or 2.1211(b) participant may not seek diccovery from any other party, 2.1211(b) participant.
Each party or pcrticipant can possess the same documents ( and do as evidenced by the briefs) and cite from these documents, but not be aware that they have done so at the time.
To strike the concerns just because they are similar or repetitive does not negate the importance of the concern.
In fact it could imply just the opposite,.that the concern is of such a magnitude that mnny have the same marked interest in that matter.
As the staff has stated in its response to Judge Bloch's questions from his December 1, 1989 M;aorandum and Order "CAJdditional guidance as to the content of the cpplication can be found in 10 CFR 70, subpart 70.22."
This is precisely tho subpart that was quoted in regards to those mattters.
Concern V As stated in my direct case, certain spills and leaks remain undocumented.
Rockwell has failed to present evidence that the spills rcported in my case were document,ed.
They have failed to answer the quOstions: what were the contents of the spills, when were they dumped, why were they dumped and when were they removed, i f at all?
Why should I provide additional incidents not documented when these direct questions hcVe yet to be answered?
The record is not established and completed.
Those questions again show that the burden of proof is on the applicant.
Rockwell's response to my concerns regarding earthquakes, fire and inodequate documentation of spills and accidents is not pertinent to whether 8
7 li"r-u l
cy evidence is " cumulative, irreleyant, immaterial, or unreliable" and thus t
cCaissible under the standards of 2.1233(e).
[
For all of the foregoing reasons, I respect fully urge that Rockwell's i
M; tion to Strike be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
[
7 bem o
Jon Scott r
doted.this 9th day of March-1990 at-Bell Canyon, Cali forni a.
I L
+
P t.
t I
}
9
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L'OthllED
-In the Matter of 1
I U$NRC i
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Doc Qt g.jgs M7%125-ML I
(Rocketdyne Division, Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-21)
Ort!cE OF 5[CRflARY DDCh[hNG & SL4 VIE i
BRANCH l
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! hereby certi fy that copies of the foregoing Response To Rockwell's Motion I
To Strike have been served upon the following persons by the U.S.
- mail,
.first class except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the rcquirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2s712.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Christina N.
Kohl, Chairman G. Paul Bo11werk, III Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wochington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge **
Howard A.
Wilber Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloc h Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Presiding Officer Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion Wschington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Guctave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Special Assistant Of fice of the General Counsel **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Wcchington, DC 20555 1
P. D. Rutherford M: nager, Nuclear Safety & Reltability Daniel Hirsch Rockwell International Corporation President.
Mail Code HB07 6633 Canoga Avenuu Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Canoga Park, CA 91303 Los Angelen, CA 90025 l
'? )
1, e y.... o-i.e.y
.1.?.
. *n;c: '
- j; f.s e?
.,...s -
~
1.
s;. ~ -
- ., ~ ". n
.ikht~No.(0) 70-25-ML
.tolle Lit Jerome E. Raskins, et. al.
233 Bermuda Street c/o 18350 Los Ali'mos rthridge, CA 91326 Northridge, CA 91326
.nold Wallace Mary Nichols, Esquire
'10 North Cold Canyon Road Counsel for Natural Resources sicbcsas, CA 91302 Defense Council
[
1350 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 7
toldon C. Plotkin, Ph.D. P.E.
Darbara Johnson
- Ocutive Board Representative President
.authern Cali f ornia Feder ation of Gusana Knolls Homeowners Association l
Scientists c/o 6714 Clear Springs Road 31B Colbert Avenue Susana Kno11c, CA 93063 33 Angeles, CA 90066 l
ccolia Riddle Richard Saxon, M.D.
cnier Librarian President hettworth Branch Library Los Angeles Physicians for Gocial 1052 Devonshire Street Responsibility hct owor t h, CA 91311 1431.0cean Avenue, Suite'B Ganta Monica, CA 90401 ockoting and Service Section f fice of the Secretary
..B.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ethi ngt on, DC 20555 l
8 Sated at Bell Canyon, CA this th day of March 1990 1
%)
L Jon Scott I-L 1
g> by express or messenger L
L
- J~py
- ,l.,,..n s,;;:yg.,..,...., p:a..,g..x yr:,..:;..:7 a j...!...y p p g g,.
- c....
pag u
.