ML20154G669
| ML20154G669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1998 |
| From: | Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Carmeli M, Decarlo J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154G673 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-246 NUDOCS 9810130271 | |
| Download: ML20154G669 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:j NRC FORM 464 Part i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA RESPONSE NUMBER 4 19981[%gh 98-246 4 [ FsESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF e INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)/ PRIVACY
RESPONSE
r ACT (PA) REQUEST TYPE J REQUESTER DATE Jacqueline DeCarlo/ Margaret Carmeli [SEP 2 91993 PART 1. -INFORMATION RELEASED [ No additional agency records subject to the request have been located. C Requested records are available through another public distribution prograrn. S ee Comments section. APPENOlcES Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the listed appendi ces are already available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room. APPENDICES Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the listed appendi ces are being made available for F, G public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room. Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for cop ying records located at the NRC Public j Document Room,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC. i FF APPENDICES NJ Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. yg ] referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination a nd direct r i Q We are continuing to process your request. [ See Comments. PART l.A - FEES ] You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed. ] None. Minimum fee threshold not met. nuouNT
- S
] You will receive a refund for the amount listed.[ Fees waived.
- uw-
\\ PART l.B -INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE No agency records subject to the request have been located. Q Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part II. Q This determination may be appealed within 30 days by writing to the FOIA/PA Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatury Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Clearly state on the envelope and in the letter tha t it is a "FOledi A Appeal." PART l.C COMMENTS (Use attached Comments continuation pace if reauired) In your September 1,1998, letter, you stated that three records addressed in our September 8,1998, letter to you were either incomplete or missing. Enclosed are complete copies of the records (C/1, C/15 and C/53). { /pI \\v t-J l SIGNATURE. FREIm'OOM OF INFDRMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT OFFICER Y u-v. M h Russbil A. Powett < w Ed 9810130271 900929 PDR FOIA DECARLO98-246 PDR WRC FORM 464 Pait 1 (61998) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was designed using informs 92'EW3 oz W
1 NRC F8RM 464 Part 11 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FotA/PA DATE t6-17N)ESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATIOff ~SEP 2 91998 98 246 ACT (FOIA)/ PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST PART ll.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS I8 Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendices are being withheld in their entrety or in part under the Exemption No.(s) of the PA and/or the FOIA as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552a and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)). ] Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958. ] Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the intemal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. [ Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by ttatute indicated. ] Sections 141 145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161 2165). ] Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167). i 41 U.S.C., Section 253(b), subsection (m)(1), prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals in the possession and control of an l executive agency to any person under section 552 of Title 5 U.S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal. ] Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated. The information is considered to be confidential business (proprietary) Informa tion. ] The information is considered to be proprietary because it concems a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(1). ] The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pu rsuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(2). ] Er mption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery during litigation. Applicable privileges: O Deliberative process: Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to in hibit the open and frank exchange of ide'as emsential to the deliberative process. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextncably intertwined with the predecisionalinformation. There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions because the release of the facts would permit an indirect inquiry into the predecisional process of the agencv. Attomey work-product privilege. (Documents prepared by an attomey in contemplation of litigation) ] Attomey4:lient prMlege. (Confidential communications between an attomey and his/her client) Q Exemption 6: The withheld information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclos ure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purpo ses and is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated. ] (A) focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to shield potential w Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding (e.g., it would reveal the scope, direction, and requirements from investigators). (C) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. ] (D) The information consists of namos of individuals and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential sources. 1 l ] (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investiga tions or prosecutions, ur guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. ] (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. OTHER (Specify) l PART ll.B - DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.25(g 9.25(h that the information withheld) is exem),pt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary interest. The person responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officials and the FOIANA Officer for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). l TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED $f*SEC DENYING OFFICIAL Ilubert J. Miller Regional Administrator, Region I Appendix G y i l IW -4 7 I l I I Appeal mt.st be made in writing within 30 days of receiret of this response. App eals should be mailed to the FOIA/ Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, for action by th e appropriate appellate official (s). You should clearly state on the envelope and letter that it is a "FOINPA Appeal." NRC FORM 464 Part il (61998) PRIN RED ON REC VCLED PAPER This forrn was designed using Informs
. - _ ~ L s 4 Re: FOIA-98-246 APPENDIX F RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNTV 1. 01/16/81 Letter from Rep. Marge Roukema to Mayor John Stewart, with enclosed press release. (3 pages) 2. 05/05/81 Letter from Rep. Marge Roukema to William Dircks, with attached 01/26/81 letter from Dircks to Roukema. (5 pages) 3. 05/14/81 Letter from Rep. Roukema to Joseph Hendrie, with attached chronology. (5 pages) 4. 05/20/81 Letter from Rep. Roukema to Carlton Kammerer. (1 page) 5. 06/05/81 Letter from Dircks to Rep. Roukema, with attached chronology. (4 pages) 6. 06/24/81 Letter from Rep. Roukema to William Dircks, with attached constituent letter. (2 pages) 7. 07/09/81 Letter from Rep. Roukema to Harold Thornburg, NMSS. (2 j pages)
l i 3 Re: FOlA-98-246 APPENDIX G RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN PART NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)/ EXEMPTIONS 1. 8/27/84 Letter to individuals from NRC Region I regarding radiation survey. (1 page) EX. 6 2. 10/26/84 Letter from NRC Region I to law firm Gelman & McNish, regarding Report No. 99990001/81-05. (1 page) EX. 6 3. 01/03/85 Letter from NRC Region I to DOE, enclosing correspondence on the surveys of properties in the Maywood area. (22 pages) EX. 6 4. 10/22/87 Letter from individual to NRC Region I, regarding contaminated soil at the Stepan Chemical Company. (1 page) EX. 6 5. 11/24/87 Letter from NRC Region I to individual regarding contaminated soil at the Stepan Chemical Company. (2 pages) EX. 6 6. Undated Note, attaching annotated draft letter regarding radiological health hazards on property. (4 pages) EX. 6 i ) 1
WR 'd (o f IP GIORDANo, HALLERAN & CIESLA JowM c. o.ono ANo. JM. NIChoL A S P. M APun JowNse.uALosnAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR ATION Lauma N.ANornsom ' " =."o ' *.".'t.. J a ATTORNEYS AT L AW 57."~.'El""'! .m.A.. ..A. ' ^ " " ' * ' ' " * ' ' I JowN A. A'.s L L o 125 HALF MILE ROAD J omose T'"o 'M V D Lv oh # M'ch Amo o chAsk an a nis o= AN a* POST OFFICE BOX 190
- E *" 8 "t o ^ a osomes J.
evkan orenA J. =veche,E N ="N A; *l"No.,,, o A MIDDLEToWN, NEW JERSEY 07748 ^ "c 08a^'a P L*L $DW Amo 6 RADRELT J. M ANDER SON sTE VEN M WERUN O (732)74l.3QQQ nu A nt s =s A. nuMr ca Aio s viaoio Phlk sp D FOALEN2A MiC H A E k J. C A NNiNG U FAX:1732 224 6599 ' " * "' ' ' ". ' 'T s E L L O eseC H A E L J vs PAW H # C M*'E '*E " ANtf A L. CH APDEL AtNE Moc Mg L E A. ouEnoug a D Avso P. c omaio AN D des E Anf et A rt STREET JacowEuest OsC ARLo EDwARO c. SER TWC40 JA A TR EN T ON. NE W.JE R SE Y 86 7 5 as4 col E Dt v AssE Y Ansona w s,. m Na seoes er.s. 3eco mamsamat a c Anuste OctnfFso crvt tseAL ArvoNeerv N UN T E. A NoC # 5.N A ctpfrEo CasmapsAL VneAL Af f oRNE Y PAut f. coLELL A PLE ASE REPLY TO M10DLETOWN S T E VE N J. Smooss A N ~* FILE NO. DIRECT DIAL NUMBER . m, A...c ouN a t.t.,. A N 11108/030 .c.. R OBE R Y E..L.INM 4N (732) 219-5484 .,o A NN. A< or co.N..m 8 YMoM A S G AGLI ANo June 16, 1998 ...C GIOR D AM o JoNN 9g VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS MM bMU AnsonOE B u<e Natalie O. Brown U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 FOIA Officer Branch Re: FOIA-98-033
Dear Ms. Brown:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, enclosed please find this firm's check for $904.99 in accordance with the enclosed Statement of Estimated Fees. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, please provide this office with the complete file on Stepan Chemical Company. Thank you for your attentio to Tis m< ater. d V ry t t 1
- oars, o
+] JJ A v Jacqueline .eCarlo, Esq. JD/ i Enclosures i cc: Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. Michael Gordon, Esq. l l l ,G n e ,ic,j m / d U//scis'
l J.% iiEOl.}681 ~ flf-o 2 2 ~ f: uwome" u.u w-GORDON AND GORDON ~ j__ A PROFESSION AL CORPORATION 80 MAIN STREET WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07052 IIARRISON J. GORDON
- TELEPI1ONE MICIIAEL GORDON (973) 736-0094 FAX (973) 736-2675
^" ^ ^ January 22,1998 . NJ NY & DC BARS Russell Powell Chief FOIA Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 RE: Stepan Chemical Company License No. STC-1333 Docket No. 40-8610 Our File No. 2152
Dear Mr. Powell:
Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act please provide this office with the complete file on Stepan Chemical Company. Prior to copying the file, please contact this office and advise us of the cost. ~~ Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very Truly Yours, GORDON & GORDON, '.C. j 1 / BY: 'l / I IDRI ANN I. ARSON 4_J7G1/ff95 j
3 r ~ i _wa v_.r;;;;- w- ~ g..g ... ::':""".":":'~'" Congress of tfje Eniteb fatates 'i'"'* ' * % '. 't't., ',=M.RfD ib r.,botP - ~,cyg
- L *j ' *
- 3 Wasb~ ston,EC. 20515
~ ~ )) '" ~' Eaa. - m .. w.:: r May 5, 1981 . e =am r. 7- __^^.IIep.AftWe ~.- u Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 E
Dear Mr. Dircks:
1 have been advised by Mr. Fred Combs, the Congressional Officer of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), that new infonnation has become available through the Region I office of the NRC (copy enclosed) regarding radioactive dump sites that have been recently discovered in the Maywood-Rochelle Park area. You infonned me in your letter of January 26,1981 (copy enclosed) ' ~ that the aerial survey of the area was to be conducted on January 27 and data from the thennoluminescent-dosimeters would be collected in early February. You also assured me in the l'etter that a report on the . initial surveys and in'vestigations was in final preparation. As of now. I have seen no evidence of this report, despite repeated calls to your " office. [... I am particularly concerned with the.recently discovered sites be-cause I understood the borders of the site to be well-defined, and areas outside the site to be at nonnal radioactive levels. Given the informa-tion that I have to date, I am not satisfied that the NRC is fulfilling -its obligation in this matter. .J The preliminary notification indicates that measurements taken on . property outside the border of the site revealed the following levels of. radioactivity. 1. Inside a residential structure -- 0.1 to 0.25 mrem /hr. 2. Locations within the yard of a residence--1.0 to 3.0 mrems/hr. ' 3. Within unoccupied lots -- up to 3.0 mrems/hr. In light of this disturbing new information. I would like to know exactly where these measurements were tden, when a complete report on the survey will be completed, whether the public has bedn infonned of these latest measurements, and what the NRC's next step will be in this r/* si tuation. g 4 7 g 7$ THIS ST ATIONCR Y f*Ri>(TP D ON *^**CH M*DC W8TW PRCCYCLCD F8 DE R8
T \\x mD
- e
. ~., ~ Mr. William J. Dircks ..s. May 5, 1981 Page Two' .. :.i - - %r? ...m.. S. n...:...,
- u.... n -
..m.
- .c.
...y....p.. gg.,,,, q.g.._.;,.y.. m.,.g... g.w.yg. gso.g..y ,w., .+.:.... .n........ ...m., .a ,. ~. n... I also understand from Mr. Conbs that a NRC meeting is taking place..i.-.. f., thks Thursday, May '7. to finalize the report of the investigation con J 7,'..."C. .cerning this matter. In th'e interests of the health and welfare of rest s... :..i dents of sqy district, I respectfully request that 1 or a menber of sqy staff' C participate in this meeting. Sincere 1y. (.t. ../ Marge Roukema Member of Congress MR:Jr ' Enclosures a.-. q.y.. .... ~.. .. c.; I .~.t,. ..a..
- 2. - A.
. y. ...y.... e.
,( jo UNITED STATES g g, g e(7 ; NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 l - Q"- \\ '***~ ' .t WA.SHINoToN, o. C. 20555 l l % '.u ..a l 1 JAN 2 61981 The Honorable Marge Roukema United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 bear Congresswoman Roukema: You expressed concern about the response of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the matter of the radioactive material in the Maywood-Rochelle Park area in your letter of January 16, 1981. In your letter and during the January 16 meeting with members of my staff, you asked for a written response to four specific items. The following responses are to these items as numbered in your letter., 1. At the time Mr. Fiore wrote his letter, the NRC had not received fTnal confirmation of the availability of the equipment needed to perform the aerial survey. Since this time, as discussed during our January 16, 1981 meeting, we have rearranged our priorities for this equipment so that this survey can be performed on January 27, 1981. The survey con-tractor took aerial photographs of the area during the first week in January to prepare for this flight. As we' explained, snow and ice cover conditions in the area may prohibit an accurate survey of the site and ~ surrounding areas on this date. If unfavorable conditions exist we will perform the survey at the earliest date conditions will permit after January 27. The equipment needed to perform.the Maywood-Rochelle Park e survey was made available by postponing a routine HRC-funded survey of another site. The cost of such a survey is about fifty thousand dollars. This cost will cover followup ground surveys of any additional radio-active areas found during the aerial survey and a technical report evaluating the survey results. Any radioactive areas that are found during the aerial survey will be confirmed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis and, if necessary, appropriate action will be taken immed-iately by the NRC to protect the health and safety of the public. 2. The NRC was aware of two burials on the Stepan property. These burials are currently under NRC license. The radioactivity discovered during the initial survey, however, was not associated with these licensed burials. NRC conducted an extensive ground survey of the Stepan Chemical Corporation site and a limited survey of adjoining property. In l addition, licensing records were researched and an investigation was performed of the circumstances surrounding the burials on Stepan property. The investigation revealed that a third burial had been made in addition to the two known and licensed buri,als on the Stepan property. 1 i l c z zseMF-3y.
The Honorable Msrge Roukema. Rad'f ation surveys have confirmed the presence of this burial and other spots of contamination on the Stepan property. Our investigation and surveys, to date, have not identified any additional contaminated areas adjacent to the Stepan property other than the area near Route 17 identified during the initial survey (November 13,1980). Results of these surveys indicate that there is no immediate health and safety hazard to members of the public. Reports of the surveys and investigation are in final preparation. Cepies of these reports will be forwarded to you when completed. The in-vr.stigation effort ha's resulted in the expenditure of about 160 staff hocs and the surveying-inspection effort has taken about 400 staff hours of Ni:C resources, including radiation surveys with hand-held instruments, water.vnpling, smear sampling, interviewing, investigative efforts, and public meetings. 3. Since January 6, NRC has placed about 12 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) around the Stepan site. We intend to leave these in place for another two weeks so that sufficient exposures to the devices can be made for the readings to be significant. In early February, these dosimeters will be collected for analysis and new ones installed. The doses recorded by these dosimeters will permit us to estimate radiation doses to individuals in the immediate area of the contamination. With the results from the TLD program and the aerial survey, NRC will be able to ditermine more ade~quately the radiation hazard to the health and safety of the public in the Maywood-Rochelle Park area from the waste material in the environment. 4. We believe that the coordination between the State of New Jersey t)epartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) and NRC has been very good to date. Region I of NRC has a State Liaison Officer who acts as the focal point for interaction with States and has appointed an individual j contact cognizant with the Mcvwood-Rochelle Park situation. New Jersey l DEP has also appointed cognizant contacts. These contacts are in direct communication with each other. We know of no shared funding responsi-bilities between the State and NRC. No specific funds have been appropriated for situations like Maywood-Rochelle Park. Funds for surveys come from the general operating funds of both agencies. I
~ * =l-The Honorable Marge Roukema. ( m. Hopefully, these replies are responsive to the questions raised in your January 12, 1981 letter. Be assured that NRC will take every action necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of Maywood and Roche11'e - Park. Sincerely, Cb:73 F. 2 4 kl. 11 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations .a G# $4 6 e' e e G e l i
(gvu - y x^- e /o^- P N ,o V tt A wAnos.nouttsuA +, s } ~==. = n y'=gg y .n. me m.= \\ ~4%^^* M %"I.'10 "" Congreggof tijeEnftebSprates e l n Jpouse of Ecpresentatibts .7. Masbington. D.C. 20515 IMAh 38l(,-sg c;; uss.einer a=. m l a.aanseuseanne May 14, 1981 l sth . Mb Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman u.a. nuclear negulatory commission fM '5 Needaington, D.C. 20555 fsN . -Dees chairman Hendrie: As a result of my continuing investigatica of the thorses contamination in Haywood, New Jersey it now appears i thjt3the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has failed to .fusfill its obligations in its handling of the case. Md. enclosed chronology and correspondence show clearly J '. ,.the,tt.the NRC has pursued a bureaucratic investigation; has at l ' me.f time taken the obvious initiative to work with the Depart ~ mo nte.Of Energy (DOE), and between November and early May apparently newar :even considered informing the Department of Energy of the l 'inves tigation, the extent of the contamination, and the test resulte. This, despite the fact that the NFC used DOE equipment i foy its tests.
- , ht is very difficult to understand in any rational way why thac. appropriate people at i
the Department of Energy were not commuated and were not kept advised in even the most routine of ' states reports. Not until las t Thursday did the Environmental . Safety and Engineering Division of DOE receive a completed report from WRC regional officials. Yet these of ficials advised see the nanttesy that the DOE should be an integral part of any remedial actica .. It is clear under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that the -DOB. is. appropriately involved in determining the nature and l .ma;teht.of such incidents of radioactive contanination and, f u r'.her, 'the, NBC willingly noted at a meeting with loca1 of ficials in 'NearJersey that the DOE has had jurisdiction in at least one similar case in Massachusetts. l I must again question the intentions of the NRC in this matter, as I did in my letter of January 12, 1981. The issue e THIS STA780NERY PRINTED ON PAPCM M AOC WITH MCCYCLED FlSCRS v v G' 7 / C h* c? In o a n r v i i
t i+^k, . surY
- peusepn n.
nunui
- , coaIlds May.143 1991 s
) .4 Raga /Two 4 "' Thssw%-not what agency should recei.ve public recognition for its s'efferts. The issue is the health and safety of the public. The NRCshas stated over and over that there is no immediate Q !to the public from the contamination in Maywood/ E _'lle Park dump sites. I w2.ll not argue dofinitions of "4athodiate. " I will argue acceptable lovels of radiation innr. the citizens in my district. And my argument is this. In the Grand Junction, Colorado gemeface&dences were found to be contaminated with radioactivity levelec resulting f rom uranium mill tailings. Regulations were C C'ybod es tablishing " the criteria for de termination by DOE -oF4& sinned for, priority of and selection of appropriate reme-diet. totton to limit the exposure of individuals... to radiation... " 410.C(F.R. 8712.1) These regulations recommend remedial action h Jgvels of external gamma radiation are greater than 0.1 mR/hr (lG C.F.A. 5712.6). It does not require a technical expert to see . het.the levels of radiation measured inside ore residence in Maywood t (0.10-Q.25 mR/hr) exceed the criteria for action in Grand Junction, . Color 4do. g-1
- 5 Fur ther, the design objective for nuclear power plants includes l
I a restriction that radioactive releases to the atmosphere shall not restit. in doses to unrestricted arcos "in excess of 10 mR/yr for , ggauna radiation or 20 mR/yr for beta radiation. " (10 C.P.R., Part 50, W.. ix I, Section 1, pgh B.1). In addition, according to section ~ $1.rotnthe staf f report of the Federal Radiation Council (Report # 1, Mey.43,.1960, " Background Material for the Developmont of Rad'iation l l P,cotection Standards") : ) C1t is' our basic recommendation that the yearly radiation easposure to the whole body of individuals in the general population (exclusive of natural background and the " deliberate exposure of patients by practitioners of the ' healing arts) should not exceed 0.5 Rom." Section 15.4 of the report s ta tes :
- Thus, we recommend the use of 0.17 Rem for yearly whole body exposure of average population groupt."
l l &ogording to the EPA, these recommendations were approved by the Pfes$6 ant and have been implemented by federal agencies since thens'. ...( pmC radiological test results within one residence in Maywood iindic4te radiation _ levels of up to 2190 Tr.R/y r, _ o r 2.19 Rem /yr.
\\ May '14, 1981
- .c page.9hree
'..:,:;.-J ' .'s. E u~ ~ ~ 1 ./
- [N ' '
,l* '. 4ihe levels of radiation in my district may somehow still be .aepqrtable to you, but they are unacceptable to me. The time for 'dlMmas. ion of jurisdiction is over. I must ask that you designate W entative to meet in my office Monday, May 18, wi th the DOE, 'M ironmental Protection Agency. and the New Jersey Department ,..JA$r;i3mbrironmantal Protection to resolve any remaining differenges
- apee,' -E9r:13 with remedial action.
4 ,.'y f, j.- Sincerely, p. ~,e + e4i 4. .44 W:,. Marge, Roukema .o, (l'. g^* g?Y.~+ ' Member of Congress ~ m :;w q.. .N.'.NM. ;. I. c6d540t'. Victor Stello Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and L 9#$ Morcement, NRC 4.Mr'. Marold D. Thornburg, Director, Safeguards and Radiological l-Q., Efl3nspection, NBC ~,;;;3',c.3tr..Boyce Grier, Director, Region I, NRC .';hr.. Leonard Bickwit, General Counsel, NRC . - MMr. Fred Combs, Congressional Officer, NRC l" [* T.?,, W. John Winder, Attorney Advisor, J ?j-((.Mk. Charles Warren, Regional Adminis tra tor, Region II, EPA EPA 'Me'. Michele B. Corash, General Counsel, EPA 7-.Dr. William E. Mott, Director, Environmental and Safety 4 R..4,h Angineering Division, DOE .',l,.&,Mr. Max L. Friedersdorf, Assistant to the President for '~ Legislative Affairs a Mr. George Tyler, Assistant Commissioner, New Jorsey Department si
- 4...
of Environmental Protection ~ heyor John Steuert, Borough of Maywood, New Jersey " h yor William E.
- Guthrie, Jr., Township of Rochelle Park, New Jersey
,1 e [ ~ ( ..g.. 8 ...-..~
e e e Basty M/SC The Borough of Maywood, the Township of Rochelle Park, The New Jersey State Bureau of Radiation Protection (DRP) S: and the NRC received anonymous information of abnormally 'i high radiation levels in the vicini ty of Stepan Chemical Company. The municipalities imediately referred the ~, matter to the BRP and NRC. .Midf.,/80 NRC testing confirmed abnormal radiation levels in the 1 ' ' ' ~ vicinity of Stepan chemical Company. 12M/89. Meeting held among officials of the NRC, the BRP, the the Borough of Maywood and the Township of Rochelle Park. '1/5/81 Maywood Borough a ttorney advised Congresswoman Roukema of the status of the investigation. (exhibit A) 1)'lt/8Y Congresswoman Roukema contacted John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the NRC regarding URC intenti o ns and ability to perform remedial action in Maywood. (exhibit B) . <3/16/41: Congresswoman Roukema met with representatives of the NRC, including H.D. Thornburg, Director of safeguards and I'i Radiological Safety Inspection, NRC. e... NRC stated that an aerial survey of the arca was scheduled for 1/27/81; there is no significant dangor to area resi-dents; and all intergovernmental responsibility questions ~ have been cleared up and that the matter now rests within the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -' t (. j,- (exhibit C) .)w : fl'/M/91 William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, responded to four items requested by Congrcsswoman Roukema. Noted no immediate health and saf ety hazard to members of of the public. Copies of the initial surveys and inves ti-gations were said to be in final preparation and would be forwarded to the Congresswoman when completed. (exhibit D) 'Sh4/$1'. - ~ NRC advised Congresswoman Roukema of the discovery of new .:, c,, radioactive dump sites in the Maywood area. 5/8/31 Congresswoman Roukema contacted Mr. Dircks regarding the new sites in the Mayrood area, requested a complete report ~ of the inves tiga tion and questiened whether NRC was f ul-filling its obliga tion. (exhibit 2:) 5/h81' Meeting held among of ficials of the NRC Washington and Region I staff, the EPA, and a member of Congresswoman Roukema's staff. 1:RC s tated that a " men.orandum of s. understanding" was being formulated between the NRC and the EPA in order to resolve any jurisdictional conflicts af fecting the clean-up activities, and that at least some sources of radiation should be removed. (exhibit F) t l
s l 5/9 ' ' ' /M Meeting in Maywood, New Jersey among of ficials of tho NRC, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protcotton, local officials, and Congresswoman Roukema. NRC officials stated that recorded radiation icvels were acceptable and that the Department of Encrgy would
- ', ~
have to be part of the " memorandum cf understanding" between the NRC and the EPA and suggoGted DOE involve-ment in cican-up of the sites. .,,.c. i j5/14/$1 congresswoman Roukema contacted DOP, requesting clarifjcation of authority for remedial action and any contractual .- t i' arrangements that DOE's predecessor agencies had with , ; V6 Maywood Chemical Company. (Exhibit G) &n .. y. 9 1 m s a 9 1' , g 3 "9 y e V 1 * 'e 9 e t s. l 'I. yg. i'd a 3 p 4
- -: :. r., :,.
g .g 4 g. O O ..I. l ~;G~'1*N ent~ssumefU w ~ * " 2 <? M r i
M ARGE ROUKEMA fq, r,, / , g {,, ,, />* m l k '},2* u t Ca.o %s ca..cc A 4. c t t ?*. " e=eita. Nr. state, j
- *. = a s' oai. OC 22511 SAN KING. F IN ANC C AND
- -{ g. '.. [' @
f g% - - f N * ) *25.-44 4 ! cow. m s s A s/ '
- ,O q;r. ;p p..
r ~ ...,..c.,,,u vn. ~ A., A,n s - *y4-t, i g i: r u-A.~. i* v
- e.... ~ c. s u.e, c,ns:
.,,.cc,.. m es. (2CO Wml MCVS'hGAND ? COngrC#6 Of tijc,0.,IntfCD c6tatts f/! ,,,; e ,f ',, ; cowww iv orve.e.wce s c e~o.. c...w r.e- $0tist of Representatibts T_- ;# m,... m......~. nso' WA o,_,, Gasfjington, D.C. 20515 6 i-Co J Coucivio~i~2c..o. ,V. - dL~, - -ru e n et c.,r.c4 =T,.c co~e.a v.~o Fav 20, 1981 ' WCCATIOMAL E.DUC.AttON 6,A p ps ST A ND A R O $ ,( _ / 1, ,*. A t-Y:. Carlton Ya.nerer, Director ,.<1 "'" " "jf i Office of Congressioral Affairs / Nuclear M:ulatory Comrission d' C d- .1717 H Street, E' Washington, D.C. 20555 Dsar Y:. Yrcerer: 7nis is to reiterate the carice.nt rade ' f Pr. H.D. Trornburg in r m./ Pay 18 meetine with the :?aclear Re;n'.latory comission (!Z), the Depart. ent of Enera..v (CG), the Envirome. tal Protection Agency (EPA), aM the New Jerse.v Depar' rent of Enviromental Protection (DEP) concernin. the thoritrn contamiration in ?LW, Ne Jersey. Tne tr will ecoperate completely with the DDE in providing all irforation that is needed in order for the D'I to properly and ergedi-tiuosly ex.ecate a cD=rehensive sun'ey of the rature ard e>: tent of the raiioactive sites in Payvx>f. Once the survey is completed, the correct ] forms of remedial action can be addressed. l In addi-ion, a Fanorandum of tnferstan?ing (McJ) between the EPA a.-d the !Z will soon be firalized, and the IE will provide ny office a co.r.e =.cn co c. letien. t In light of the clearly unacceptable levels of radiation present in Pa.v o:>d, I urge your co.~olete coooeration and re: pest that I be advised of arry new irforation relati >g to this case rrnediately. Trr.k you. Sincerely, @zj,,/ NOMA v Marge Rot:ke a ramber of Congress !G:Ec cc: P,r. y.i c'- = ' W;.lley, Decaty Assistant Seretary for HDuse Liaiscn, DDE Pr. :.Arry Ha-1c, ;cting Direc cr of the Cdfice of I.egislation, EF.1 Mr. Jack S An:cn, Direct 0r, Di'cisier cf Ercirc= ental Wa.lity, S N a T5 ey :- ~ J y t Wor W e 4mm}}