ML20246E184

Requests for Hearing of J Scott,E Lit & Je Raskins Et Al.* Forwards Requests for Hearing on 890525 Application of Rocketdyne Div of Rockwell Intl Corp for Renewal of License SNM-21 for Action,Per 10CFR2.772(j) & 2.1261

ML20246E184
Person / Time
Site:	07000025
Issue date:	08/17/1989
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#389-9071 ML, NUDOCS 8908290028
Download: ML20246E184 (10)

Text

_ _ _ - . - _ - - - - -

N - 00CK1ET ndMBE.R [pkb '

coon t OTIL FAC. . . -n*# \

s 0 q,y\

1. ,s @ 7E0 9'o,

+ -

UNITED STATES ,, ,

!' 3.,

',e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G u t 1 Os, .c p. F- :

L

'{a,,

.E j

w Ass:NGTON, D.C. 20555 ,, .gC::- ;;*C & [t m rus :n , % i c , .a ::L: gj

<,% . . d.

' ***** / \ v-AUG 171989 , ,, ,- g 'i,/

OFFICE OF THE _

y SECRETARY MEMORAMDUM FOR: B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

, . Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety ar Li ensing' Board Panel

~

FROM: Samuel J. Chilk retary

SUBJECT:

REQUESTS FOR H ING OF JON SCOTT,.ESTELLE LIT AND JEROME E. RASKINS ET. AL.

Attached are requests for an adjudicatory hearing submitted by Jon Scott and Estelle Lit, representing themselves and Jerome E.

Raskins the lead signatory on a letter to the Executive Director for Operations signed by thirty-seven individuals. The requestors desire a hearing on the application of the Rocketdyne Divison of Rockwell International Corporation for renewal of Special Material License Number SNM-21. The License renewal request was submitted to the Commission by letter dated May 25, 1989 (copy attached).

The hearing requests are being referred to you for appropriate action in accordance with 10 C.R.F. 2.772(j) and 2.1261.

Attachments:

As stated cc w/ attachments:

OGC EDO 17 MSS Jon Sectt Zstelle Lit Jerote E. Paskins R. T. Lancet, Director

-Nuclear Safety and Ljcensing Rocketdyna Division Rockwell International Corporation 890'3290028 890817 PDR ADOCK 07000025 C PDR

m

.9 x

1 I'

June 22, 1989 Mr. Victor Stello NRC Executive Director of Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear Mr. Stello,

I am writing to you in regard to an upcoming permit to be granted to the Rockwell International Testing Laboratories on June 30, 1989.

I am opposed to the granting of this permit for the following reasons;

1. Why am I interested?

I am a property owner in Bell Canyon, California and live and work within two (2) miles of the Rockwell International's nuclear research facility in the Simi Hills. On June 18, 1989 the Daily News reported

" extensive testing completed last September at the facility turned up several areas of radioactive contamination that were previously unknown, company officials say". The L.A.

Times also reported " Federal energy department officials Thursday. released documents showing that dozens of nuclear workers at Rockwell International in Canoga Park and it's Santa Susana Field Laboratory were exposed to excessive j radiation levels in the 1960's. The records reveal no overexposure in the subsequent years,  !

and an energy i decartment official described the 1960's events as minor l crerexposures' with 'no health consequences' for the workers.

But the records provided to the.. Times by'the Department.of Energy j!

under the Freedom of Information Act, do not include two I overexposure events that Rockwell officials have said took place in the 1970's and 1980's. The records also do not mention the fact that Rockwell recently paid settlements in at least three workers compensation cases involvin j allegedly caused by radiation exposure." g cancer deaths j

{

2. How permit?

are my interests effacted by the granting of the proposed t j

The health and well 'oeing of my f amily, my employees, and myself could very voll be at risk if Rockwell is allowed to coatinue nuclear recearch. Also, the property values in my community to light by themay drop as this matter is increasingly brought media.

3. What are the reasons for wanting a hearing?

stop the permit from being granted until the Isituationwould like to at Rockwell can be properly assessed.

4. Why is my request timely?

The plant is now actively seeking new nuclear areas contracts of costasimetica and sad recent mediaa=*d-'^-DOE surveys dealt with 10

^^ ^ " ^ i

!4$

1 page 2.

.Mr. Victor Stello citizen,f1;have been told.by the NRC, that'I.have the right to request a delay in the granting of a permit,.-if my objections are received within 30 days of the time Rockwell-applied for.the permit. Rockwell applied for the permit on May 25', 1989,- so I-am well within my rights to ask for a denial.of the-permit.

Sincerely, C. s c --.

Jon Scott JS:ls-cc: Madge Schaffer, County Supervisor Rockwell Santa-Susana Labs DOE George Bush, President Elton Galaghee Pete. Wilson, Senator, California f

Jon Scott 6 Roundup Road Bell Canyon, CA 91307-818 992-5432

/ V!

[

8902919 l

__ ____1_.___.__a.____---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _a

h__ ' .

..g 1

t 18233' Bermuda Street

Northridge. CA 91326 June 22, .1989 1 . United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 1717 "H" Street,-N.W.

Washington, D.C. , 20555

Dear Executive Director for Operations:

-As a retired professor of Teacher Educations Global ~Interde-pendence Education, as President of the D nited Nations Associa-tions' San Fernando Valley and as a member of homeowner and-environmental organizations, I have an intense interest in the quality of life, locally as well as globally. Locally, this virgin area in- the past forty years accumulated 78,000 people who live. within a 5 mile radius of the 40 year old plant and. 444,755 people within 10 miles. How safe are

-the evacuation plans?

I urge _you to call for a hering to consider whether Rockwell and'the Department of Energy at the Santa Site, 6633 Canoga Ave, Canoga Park, CA 91303, be allowed to renew its permit becanse of the following concerns.

The Daily News reported May 14, 1989 that the U.S. Department-of Energy had found 10 areas of potential toxic or radioactive contamination at ' the f acility :in the hills between Simi Valley and Chatsworth. The_ DOE report, based on a survey conducted a year ago, said there was no immediate threat to public health  ;

but called for further testing. Cancer results from a cumulative j long term threat so the previoun statement'ir. not reassuring. '

p There are three areas where radioactive contamination could .

have ocenrredt I The Sodium Burn; Pit. One acre, 3 miles west of Chataworth,= l vas!used from the early 1960's through 1978 for disposki of '

chemical waste, including solvents, metals and some radioactive

' wastes. Unauthorized radioactively contaminated equipment was buried-in trenches and scattered on the surface. Soils within ]

the burn pit area of the facilities are contaminated with t chlorinated organics, heavy metals and low levels of radioactivity, {

principally Cesium-137. Berms to prevent rain water that l

falls on the burn pit, from running off the side and down to j the Simi Valley,were deteriorated and would allow the runoff I to escape in a storm. '

Buildina 059. The survey found ground water seeping into the lower levels of Building 059 where small nuclear reactors were tested and where radioactive material and equipment remain.

It is unclear whether any radioactivity moved out of the build-l g J

l rn-ing before the seepage was discovered and pumping began.

Leach Field. Radioactive contamination remains in bed-rock at a leacn field, or pit, enabling wastewater to seep into the soil that served sewer lines from the company's Radioactive Materials Disposal Facility, where radioactive wastes were treated and packaged for shipment. The leach field was contaminated by mistake in 1975, DOE records show and a cleanup continued until 1978. The DOE consultant, Werner said that they scraped off all the surface dirt and jack-hammered through 10 feet all the surface dirt and jack-hammered through 10 feet of solid rock and it was still contaminated with radioactivity. They said they could not go any further.

Extensive testing was completed last September at Rockwell International's nuclear research facility at Santa Susanna site, four months after a Department of Energy survey team found 10 areas of potential toxic or radioactive contamina-tion.

Several areas of radioactive contamination that were previously unknown turned up in the soil and the equipment, company officials said. (Daily News, Sunday, June 18, 1989 by Tony Knight)

Rockwell has agreed to drill over a dozen wells to see if there is danger of contamination of the ground water. Wells from ground water furnish 15% of the drinking water of Los Angeles.

I don't consider this good management.

In addition, a few million gallona of treated waste water is d dumped into Bell Creek a few days each month. Who is monitor-ing this besides Rockwell management. I wouler how trust-worthy they are in their monitoring? Look at the criminal probe currently taking place by the FBI at Rockwell-DOE's Rocky Flats site near Denver, Colorado. The state of Colorad contends the 1

Dept. of Energe and Rockwell International did the followings Improperly stored hazardous and radioactive vastes.

2. Failed to adequately monitor ground water for contamination.

3: Stored hazardous wastas in leaking drums. (Daily News, June 8, 'E Sone governmental regulatory agencies stated that they were unaware that any nuclear activity was involved at the site.

How could this oversi ht 2 (mismanagement) take place?

I Today, the United States Congressman, Elton Gallegly has called l

for the U,S. Environment 1 Protection Agency to conduct a full scale review of contamination at Rockwell International's i nuclear research site near Chatsworth and Simi at Sante Susanna. "That's oeen my biggest. concern, that nobody knows who's in charge." Galleply said. "The meeting today forced the L issue. (Daily News, June 22, 1989) l l EPA has now agreed to become fully immersed in this, to take an independent and totally analytical look at the situation et Rockwell--Santa Susanna site.

With such uncertainty, I feel that a hearing is necessary i 1

1 before this plant receives a renewal of a nuclear permit.

Cordially, ,

- _ - _ ._l - - _- - - k - w' - '

1. 4 ._

..g -

7 .a. a .. .. .

'.'r.i t aa ,tu:Ja .' 012

..;;u 717 '.a. .:....

er, ,,w la ..a

. ; o .. i .. :s .. , . , . . ., ., o s c.,a r _...:en:ive .,iria:or . ver ti,as:

..e are viriting t . ask that a Punlic Hearin5 be called as to the.

reneuel of natorial. isockwell Int'l's Ca;.ifornia permit for nandling nuclear 3

is nozcowners, professionals, parants , and conosrnad citizens oe : re appalled at. Ine inrar ation that has a ppeared in tne oress ,

( ee Lai' y "ews of _;st :several useks !)

In' wrti x.lar, the 5 odium Pit ,

are areas itar2 :ura forsnowin.f Hock.< ell's incompepe:tence, insensitivity, and3utid public ;;alfare.

' Roes.all Jlniss'sarety . s aeen achared Jrc . 20MJ Jiuts , ,,olcrodo, ona wa rn ero :a s /et in vist of infor:s tion altety. t t n= ir :. ta t ed canca.ns for n . visa . of thase and for stian :h:2t a r.c ari othar n:7 . villinforsurely s tionrav3sl available end otill more in-

,e?n -i n ' as 221 'd w r.: t.e raquest =

t at a yublic r s 13rmity to .na "'y * ,' ils . ia s"f f'

.O n te c N g yge los ifl$270s Sb A 'h h i' y g a a mn c: & va 7, '}? h e. l'Ne -%k"

.a Y $ya e, %d st sny nr s, f.a. .9 o osr 4 H'7st()w l 4J#. N oac h . g r 1u$ly% &%

G.a ~ % uc,aFn s b- 9 rum has aos yw, n ;';fa ' 'Wf,glW Qt.i(w W f 4~ T Z >

p a V m' y s' , G . 7ik' (L G A M y

• O & @A ~'A k% cc. 9/2,y T4

• ac/

/t?e. '

f C!QfdgeL nuiu #n $5A du- 01'$ d u & W fk 14 u fry a6& JAV W3%2 p(oVq) _ _ _ _- -

D . e - f a go Y

• fOGO W ' Y vv -" YAW'E$/ '/..

Tk ik is oi (LM.!b 2b' "

h~0 0 "

hbrsns, T w  %.u.sv..

~

qc gm g ins, A-de n 9;c" na n  % u a a v,e L & sen GeeVu x dau 9a m g

g,y 9f s t m . ~ , ~. a.pyn muo sed < Ow OM w h E i) igizq p lun % sr 59 u g J.; q gy) n ,,u- ue me

[w 8uwq Q@% inf baatwo By se a/m N 3L79 h b ., b @ 4 gjyu

>M%a u <- <, + ,, ,, ,

%& d@w ther h0Ln O 7 4Mr 64W Oapq  % gREht&L k>g)CUL. q%n og g,,1 G sss -343:_

'n1 a

' la A b bM& ,2 m e4% y 4194n d M Wx y[

,&nj

& % mudf M 3 8 ] u w & lb r \} o s f , 4 & Ql t && r e nO%,w s t kk B&fansLsd'S 2h{ 97nw,h w &uDOuur a g w h q91,,% y

~

I ;l slp]%q im u dt r

ttx 27 w4 - an w x/% aa^n% en-

3 g

• NiI8 i o g s

pnegagg /

L 6 g USNRQ Rosamespo Dhrteten 3

i g.

~ MAY 26198 ,  ; m- w c'* *""*". EoCkwe11 saa3 C.noo.a.nu p PM, CaWene 9004

_- g$3%9 \' \

P N!.',SS InternallOn8 -[ g$.

REGU M , ,I J

l .wL Sgtn0% 77 ss10M -

w sas,tra i

g 900Kg ptERK -

RoCKETDYN CNPK SS U

g $s% g,?

m ,

% Ln P

- . ~ .

May 25, 1989 In reply refer to 89RC06668 Leland C. Rouse, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch office of' Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Application for Renewal of License No. SNM-21 Docket 70-25 issued to the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell. International Corporation

Reference:

1. NRC Letter, Island C. Rouse to Attn:

2.

Dr. M.E.'Realey, dated Earch 8, 1989.

RI Letter, M.E. Realey to Leland C. Rouse,

" Application for Amendment to License No. SNM-21", dated December 19, 1988.

Dear Mr. Rouse:

The expires subject June License, 30, 1989. as revised by Amendment 2 '(reference 1)

In accordance with TITLE 10, . Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70. Section 70.33, va pre subm3tting this application to expiration forofa 10 theyear renewal not less than thirty days prior enrrent license. Therefore., in accordance with this section, our current licence shall net expire until the application for a renewal has been finally determined by the Commission.

Environmental data and information to support the renewal application are provided as required by 10 CFR Part 51.

In accordance with Section 170.31 of 10 CFR 170, we have enclosed our ronewal.check for $150 to cover the application fee for the requested Sitt 70.21 copies (a) (2). of the application are provided as required by 10 CFR 70.22, we are In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR submitting the following attachments to the application:

3(9 -

pm 2ssos

.4 .

Rockwell Intemational 89RC06668

25 May, 1989-Page.2 (1)

Updated organization personnel. charts and resumes of key Rocketdyne (2)

An updated Health information for theand Safety . Report containing supporting application:

1989". ESG-82-33 revised May 19, of the Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-21, D issued to Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International". .

.This document Content follows the guidance in the " Standard Format and for the Health and Safety Sections

' Applications for Uranium Fuel -Fabrication Plants". of Renewal The hand margin. portions that have been changed are noted by bars in t This document contains as appendices the 1988 International Annual Report (A), the.1987 and 1988 Rockwell Annual Environmental Monitoring and Facility Effluent Reports (B) the Criticality Studies for Fuel Handling (C), and the 1986 ,

1987 and 1988 Annual-Reviews of Radiological Controls (D).

(3) Revised Material Controls Report, " Fundamental Material Controls for 15, 1989 issue.

Special Nucieer Materialsd RI/R9 86-190 April hand mergins. Cha.nc,em are indicated by bars in the right (4)  !

A supplement to RI/RD 86-190 "Special Nucisar fretarial Centrol program 1989. for Actinide Burner Program (TkUNP-S)" issuad May 10, (5)

Updated " Physical Security Plan for the Protection of Moderate Strategic Quantities Laboratories of of Special Nuclear Material at the Hot that Rocketdype  ;

Divirsiton of Rockwell International EFG 80-17, May 19, 1989 issue. Changas an indicated by hars in the right hand margin % i (s) A supplement. to the previcusly submitted envir' onmental j ass esst.wqts AI 76-21 and ESG-A2-32, " Environmental Assessment of Oport; ions at Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell Intel.71ational 3 Under Special 180 issued MayNuclear Materials License No. SNM-21" RI/RD 89-19, 1989.

4

Aw,\

Rockwell 89RC06668 25 May, 1989 Page 3.

(7) Updated

" Decontamination Plan for Rockstdyne Facilities Licensed 78-10, May Under Special 19, 1989 Nuclear Material License SNM-21" issue. AI-As identified in the application, cther materials have been included by reference, most nonble of which is RI/RD 88-206 the "On-Site Radiological Contingency Plan for Rockwell International operations Licensed Under Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-21".

This scopeapplication of licensedfor renewal does not include any increase in the activities.

changed except The possession limits have not been to clarify that the renewed license should cover only up to, but not including, formula quantities of U-235 and Pu.

If you call mehave any 718-3462.

at (818) questions or require additional information please Very truly yours,

~

R. T. Lancet, Director Nuclear Safety and Licensing Enc,1usures -

1. License Renewal Application (6 copies) 2.

l Check in the Amount of $150.00 i i

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .