ML20033F259
| ML20033F259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1990 |
| From: | Johnson B SUSANA KNOLLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10058 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190117 | |
| Download: ML20033F259 (7) | |
Text
f(Q; s.%f March 8,! 1990 tg we pi; -Qp
~ 00CKETE0 USNitC UNITED STATcS Or AMEnICSO mR 12 P4 :35 -
NUCLF.AR REGUULA70RY COMMISSION -
A70MIC SAFLTY AND LICENSING '" ' ' Of SECREI/ M vuu o tNG !. Rhv!ct DRtWC'i Before Adminintrative10udge Peter B. Bloch
. ~ - - - -
. -. ~.. - -
)
In the' Matter of
)
Docket No. 70-25 ~ N ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
).
00RPORATION
).
Rocketdyne Division
)
ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML
)
(Special~ Nuclear Materials
)
0 License No. SNM-21)
)
)
)
RESPONSE OF SUSANA KNOLLS llOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO-ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL'S MOTION 70 STRIKE I.
Introduction Rockwell-has requested that all of the evidence in the Direct Case of -
[
-1 the Susana Knolls Homeowners Association (SKHA) be st.ricken and that we be.
' dismissed from these' proceedings. We believe that Rockwe3 3's allegations t
1
_are totally without. merit for the reasons given be3ow and therefore request o
that we remain in these proceedings to 11:igate our concerns.
]
l=
2' II.
Discussion E-RockweJJ's first contt'ntion in that we should be dismissed from these
. proceedings because SKHA allegedly does not address the concerns admitted j
in Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order, dated December 7,1989.
l-I t
)
9003190117 900308 I,
PDR ADOCK 0700002S o
L C
4
( Q, ',
9 U
We would like to make clear that we were admitted as a party to these'
{
promedings not only with our 33 specific concerns, but with the concerns of all the other intervenors.
(See Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order, dated December 7,1989). The Committee to Dridge the Gap (CBG), the Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCPS) and SKHA petition to intervene states that "we make cledr here that we share and associate ourselves with '
n the concerns expressed by the three individuals who have aiready been granted party status, and by the Los Angeles physicians for Social Responsibility, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Don Wallace.'
(Petition to Intervene, dated November 25, 1989, p. 32).
The ' Motion to Strike at p. 3 8 par. 2 incorrectly asserts that SKHA has i
failed to address any of the 33 admitted concerns. ClearJy we have addressed several of them. All of the concerns set forth in SKUNs Direct Case are imp 31citJy if not explicitly within 20 CFR 2.3233(c) and the Judge's Memorandum.
J The first concern addressed in our Direct Case was the effect of increased population density around the Santa Susana Facility. 'Ihe Los Ange3es Physicians for Socia] Responsibility was admitted as a party to this proceeding with this concern. (See Memorandum and Order, dated November 29, 1989, p. 2).
Because SxuA shares in the concerns of the other parcies, and this concern was admitted, it should not be stricken.
We futher note that any objection Rockwe)) may have to the sharing of concerns should have been raised months ago when our Petition to Intervene l
Was filed and admitted. Rockwe33 failed to respond and any objection it may l
now raise is untimely.
j o
The other concerns addressed in our Direct Case were clearly admitted in J6dge B30ch's order.
Our second concern was that. Rockwe)) cannot be U
t
.t U
1.
4 E
C
,. m '. ; c -
pc o
1 p
s trusted for. technical competence or good faith compliance with the N
y regu3ations.
This concern relates to concerns #27- #30 and #32 in Judge
~ Bloch's older admitting us to these proceedings.
Our third concern is that i
e Rockwell vioJates requirements for timely disc 30sure of complete and accurate information and f af 3s to make nececsary surveys of radiation
- {
bar,a rds.'
This third concern relates to concerns 66 and #16 in Judge Bloch's order.
i Based on the foregoing it is clear that Rockwe23's claim that we do not address concerns admitted in these proceedings is frivo3ous.
Rockwe33's second contention is that We have a]Jegedly failed to comply with 30 CPR 2.3233(c) by failing to cite to NRC regulations, relevant sections in the Application and deficiencies in the Application./ To the I
contrary, the SKHA brief cites to three re3evant provisions of the NRC regulations:
10 CFR 70.23(a)(3) & (4) and 10 CFR 70.3)(d).
(See Direct Case for SKHA, pp. 2 & 4).
[
1 The reference by Rockwe33 to the demographics quoted by SKHA goes solely to the weight of the evidence and is not a proper matter for this Motion.
/
i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1233(c), SKHA also cited to a relevant portion of the alplication, page RI/RD88-206 of the on-Site Radiologica]
Contingency P)an (RCP), which was included as Exhibit A of our Direct Case.
(See Direct Case for SKHA, p. 3).
r Futhermore, the SKHA brief does say why the App 3Jcation is deficient.
j Page 3 of the SKHA Direct Case st.ates that the RCP is based on 1980 census data with projected population growth rates. Rockwe.13's RCP states that 63,115 peop3e live within a fjve mile radius of the SSFL. Our irquiry has prod {ced a figure that is almost twice that figure. As citizens living j
withfn this five mile radius, we think that this information is highly 3
L l
.I
o
'i g i;
relevanti:
-lastly, Rockwe)) contends that newspaper articles are unreliable evidence, thereby violating 10 CFR 2.1233(e). Rockwe)J faiJs, however,. to.
quote the beginning of 10 CFR 2.}233(e), which states that *[s]trict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions under this section.' While ordinari3y newspaper articles may be considered hearsay, '{h}earsay evidence
~
i is generally admissible in adminjstrative proceedings." Duke Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 r. 2), AIAB-335, 4 NRC 397 (1976).
f In informal proceedings under.10 CPR Part 2 there is even more reason to admit hearsay. For the most part the news), aper articJes are based on governmental reports readily available in the hearing file and are therefor? easily h
verifiable.
The officials quoted in these :eports could certair,tly be called 4
to testify, therefore their quoted statements should also be admissible.
Other news articles relate to events such as accidental spills, or release I
i of re3ioactive waste water into ground waters, or failure to make pub 31c q
disc 3osure of known risks.
In short,each article refjects important
. evidentiary matter going to the character and experience or its unsafe practices. Further, the articles in their entirety refject-the state of mind 1
of Applicant, particular)y its lack of sensitivity to the documented violations and tend to show a Jack of character and experience whfch is a Concern set forth in the Direct care by SKHA at page 5 of its case, citing
l 4
III. Conclusion I
'l For all the foregoing reasons, the Susana Knolls Homeowners j
Association respectfu13y requests that all of the concerns in our Direct I
Case be retained in this licensing proceedjng.
l1
't I
l 4
~- _
fr.
'[t-
.x..
F-
[;j j ;j:,M-
.f up-M
}j.-
i-
=
Respectfully submitted ch '
< /#
' Barbara JoTTnson 7 dated March 8, 1990 a't Sus'ana Knolls, California e
a, i'
{
'l 4
i t
s s
4.e j[
r, x
- l. t
}
I 5
- t t
I 2:
r 4
y g
[fg,7 s.
%:p p,l 2
00LKETED BElORC Tile
%T ATOMIC SArIFY AND LICENSING TOARD USNRC O.S. NUCLEAR RIMULMORY COMMISSION L
6 W MAR 12 P4:35 In the Matter of
)
I Docket No. 70-hrne[r of SECRE1ARY i
3.
HOCKWELL 1m'ERNAT10NAL CORPORATION
)
)
' hen.itNG & Sli(VICI BRANC!i '
i-(Rocket.dync Djvision, Specia)
)
Q
~ Nuclear Materials License SNM-23)
')
h
)
).
)?
'~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-s I hereby~ cortify that copies of the foregoing RCSPONSE OF SUSANA KNOT.LS
~ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ROCKWET.L INTERNAT10NAT.'S MGTICtl '10 STRIK4 have F
been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as-otherwiso noted and in accordance with the requirements of '10 CFR 2.712.
I Office of the General'Counsc1*'
i L
Administrative Judge *
'i b
Peter B. Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
Presidjng Officer Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety & T.icensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conenission D W.ing & Servico Section(3)*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Off4ct of the Secretary U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
" Administrative Judge
- Washington, DC 20555 Guslavo A. Linenbergcr, Jr.
Special Assistant Prof. Jerome E. Raskin, et al.-
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 10350 Los Alimos' U.S._ Nuclear Regu3atory Commiccion Northridge, CA 91326 Washington, D.C. 20555 P.D. Rutherford
- Administrative Judge
- Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Chrjatine N. Kohl, Chairman Rc11 ability Digineering Atomic Safoty & Licensing Appeal Board Rocketdyne Division p:
U.S.'Nuc. lear Regulatory Commibsjon 6633 Canoga Avenue
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Canoga Park, CA 93304 F
Administrative Judgc*
Dr. Estelle Lit V
lloward A. Wilber 18233 Bermuda Street F
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ap[ cal Boatd. Northridge, CA 91326 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jon Scott 6 Roundup Road
~
Administrative Judge
- Bell Canyon, CA 91307 G. Paul Bollwerk, Ill C
Atomic Safely '& Licensing Appea) Board Dr. Sheldon C. PJotkin f
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern California Federalfon j
i Washington, D.C. 20555 of Scientists 3318 Colbert Avenuo Los Angeles, CA 90066 t
4
','g
ir%+-,. mpy;'-
p p
G _ $? '^
l m;
j V
Q: + '
>.i.
p,
-,s L'
.Cocella Itiddle.
- Senior Librat lan'-
Chatsworth Branch Library
^l -.21052 Devonshire Street 0 -
E
'.Chatsworth, CA 91311'
.f p
' Daniel 'llirsch II Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203-1
.Los Angeles, California 90025-
' j ;
.. h:
p h
F, IRichard Saxon, M.D.~
n
. Physicians for Socjal Responsibility b
-J431 ocean Avenue, sutte a Santa Monica, CA 90401 ji k
{
r
- by express Y,btt L
it g w Mtbara Johnson Dated at Susana Knolls,.Californja this 9th day of March, 1990
~
9
?
i ?
9 I'
- I e
e e
~~
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ - - _ - - - -