ML20155C806
| ML20155C806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Jamarl Cummings, Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155C793 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-246 COMPB-81-9, NUDOCS 9811030013 | |
| Download: ML20155C806 (5) | |
Text
.-
3_ 3 7-_ _-
- - ~, -
g s,* sla co
'o# *
'o, UNITED STATES l 's, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M*
E W ASHtivC10N, O C 205t$
'c.% ' / /
J October 14, 1961
- I COMPB-81-9 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J.
Dircks, Executive Director for Operations James J.
Cummings, Director, OIA Leonard Bickwit, Jr.,
General Counsel FROM:
Samuel J.
Cnilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
I&EINVESTIGATIONOFSTEEg1 CHEMICAL COMPANY v
The Commission desires to be briefed by I&E, NMSS and OIA on the I&E investigation of the Stepan Che'mical Company.
The staff is requested to address de comments of Commissioners Bradford and Ahearne which are attached.
OGC should be prepared to discuss if any action against Please advise SECY by October 20, 1981 when this briefing can be accomplished.
Attachments:
As Stated cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Aheatne Commissioner Roberts OPE I&E NMSS 9C 1030013 981027 PDR FOIA DECARLO98-246 PDR
@// O 3 O C)6
-m.
au
.g ~... o SYNDPS:S licensee and the AEC of correspondence netween the As a result in the late 60's, AEC was aware that St epan Chemi cal CompanyIts in three sites on :ts property.
l had buried thorium wasteslicense for these sites expired in May 1972 and S a proper l
thereby possessing source material without renew it, A warehouse storing in 1975 without NRC knowledge.
license.
was built over the third burial siteto Stepan in 1976 to tell the licensee e
to renew its source material license.
The inspector had reviewed An NRC inspector was sent only two burial sites.
During there were the files and thought (Swanson), tney only the conversation with Stepan's manager correct him or indicate discussed two sites.
Swanson did not Subsequently, Stepan was cited the existence of a th rd site.
of thorium without a license for non-compliance for possessionlocations.*
On Maren 2,
- 1977, the two underground storage license.
Under the box at Stepan applied for a source materialmarked " Maximum Tota Swanson wrote:
"At two locations J
Have tn Hand At Any Time,"
thorien waste tailings are approximately 9,500 cubic yards ofa description of the processes in l
buried."
In the box asking for "Same material Swanson wrote:
which the material will be used, be used."
Swanoon signed two sites and will not information was true is buried at the the application under tha notation thatof knowledge and belief and that criminal l
sanctions apply to willful false statements and representations.1978 and correct to the best issued on Apr il 4,
The license was Licensees May Possess At Any One Time Under This License," the license read, "As contained in 9,500
" Maximum Amount That On February 21, 1980, Stepan l
tailings."
cubic yards of buried its license to delete a requirement of requested an amendment On September 16, 1980, NRC for annual radiological surveys.Stepan provi ded no inf ormation that tnat Stepan should responded by stating in support of its request and furthermore but should submit a plan for no longer store the material,
- disposal, On No" ember 12, 1980, Bickwit sent a memo to Stello This memo had law firm hired by Stepan.
In describing the third from a attaching a memo been mailed to Bi ckwit anonymously.
burial site, the law firm's memo says:
sites was mentioned in the first two
"...Only the mate r i alSwanson was unable to explain this.
in the application.however, tnat since the AEC apparently He did speculate, two sites, raised questions concerning only the firstvolunteer information that he nay have felt no need te seem interested in...."
tney did not in in 1967 for bu rying thorium waste In connection with
- Stepan had been cited a license.
two turial nites without that non-compliancc, Stepan said that li they nad ver;;.ed it was the first Comm1us2m, for a iicense to bury the waste material, taey certalaly would have perf ernoa the necessary necessary to apply to the paperwork.
. The memo also states that:
...We are agreed that, at some point soon, Stepan must the inf orm the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about third site.
Meier concurs.
We also agree that we should first contact a consultant with knowledge of NRC require-ments and concerns, both to obtain his views on how to and the NRC's likely response, approach the Commission, and to gather the factual data we will need to persuade the NRC to let Stepan continue its underground thorium Meier has authorized us to do so.
storage.
"Our goal is to prepare a case opposing the current transfer of thorium from any site, particularly the third, bef ore we apprcach the NRC...."
an unannounced inspection of Stepan starting on I&E made was The Gene ral Manage r, John O' Brien, November 19, 1980.
interviewed and stated that he was aware of only two burial sites.
The investigation report states that in view of subsequent imposition of legal restraints,* O'Brien was not recontacted.
Swanson was not inte rviewed until No.vember 24 and 25 because he was away on travel.
Stepan's lawyer, Miss Fread, was present at the interview.
Swanson stated J
lack of interest in view of the Commission's apparent he omitted it on the application.
that in the third burial site, that he and O'Brien had been monitoring the He pointed out third burial site on an annual basis.
Upon legal advice of Fread, Swanson declined to answer additional questions
)
concerning the third burial site.
Fread also would not j
permit NRC representatives in the warehouse without a written memo from NRC supervisors.
Accordingly, the interior surveyed.
At the conclusion of the of the warehouse was not Fread was informed "in confidence" by the I&E s
interview, internal memorandum.
investigator that NRC had received the1980 and said that a Fread was recontacted on December 3, been made to date regarding the legal determination had not propriety of permitting in-depth interviews of licensee personnel.
A survey of the premises was donc f or Stepan by a health pnysicist on November 22.
NRC knew of the existence of this survey on November 25, but the health physicist declined to make the survey available except through Fread's law fitm.
The survey was given to NRC on December 3, 1080.
On December 12, 1960, a meeting was The Stepan lawyers held between NRC and the lawyers f or Stepan.reinterviews and additional inte agreed to permit this reinterview on January 22, At as they could be present.
mention the existence of 1981, O'Brien conceded he did not testraint the request by
- I&E apparently viewed as a legalI&E suspend certain aspects ofthe Stepan's attorneys that investigation.
Subsequently, I&E did in fact reinterview O'Brien.
_ 3_
the third site since, among other things, he thought 5wanson should provide all the information.
Swansen in his reinterview denied that he had received guidance f rom company of ficials
.concerning the preparation of the application.
He denied the presence of the warehouse was a factor in the third site being excluded from the application.
Both Swanson and O'Brien signed sworn statements.
On April 16, 1981, Region I told Headquarters that wnile the violations would be Severity III under tne Interim Enf orcement Criteria,-Region I planned to classify the violations as i
Severity IV in accordance with guidance in tha Headquarters' memo of December 24, 1980_and EGM-81-ll.
One of the reasons Region I gave for not requesting a civil penalty was that the licensee had acted swif tly to attempt to correct tne j
items of non-compliance.
Region I did not discuss the fact that the law firm memo recommended withholding information f rom the NRC until Stepan could "prepa re a case....," and that it was only through the anonymous leak of tnis memo that the I&E investigation was commenced.
The licensee was cited for two Severity IV violations, one for bu rying material contrary to the license and the other for having radiation levels above the 2 millirem per hour requirement in 10 CFR 20.105(b).
By memo of June 25, 1981 to Cummings, OI A summa rized its meeting with the U.S. Attorney concerning the Stepan case.
The U.S.
Attorney's office stated that the prosecutional merits of this case were jeopardized by the manner in which the investigations l
we re conducted.
On August 7, 1981, Stello wrote to Cummings arguing that the investigation had been handled properly.
On August 4, 1981, the U.S. Attorney declined to take criminal action because NRC would have granted the license, regardless of the omission, and because NRC was aware of the third site.
There this case.
has been continuing Congressional concern about
.. List of Documents 1.
December 29, 1976 inspection report 2.
March 2, 1977 Stepan application for materials license 3.
April 4, 1976 materials license 4.
September 18, 1980 letter to Stepan from NMSS 5.
November 12, 1980 memo to Stello from bickwit attaching memo prepared by Stepan's attorney 6.
1&E inspection report No. 40-5610/81-01 7.
I&E inspection report No. 40-8610/81-02 8.
April 16, 1981 memo to Dudley Thompson from Grier 9.
June 24, 1961 letter to Grier from licensee's attorneys 10.
June 25, 1981 memo to Cummings f rom Resner attaching June 8, 1981 letter to U.S. Attorney f rom Cummings 11.
August 7, 1981 memo to Cummings from Stello 12.
September 8, 1981 memo to Cummings f rom Stel.o 13.
September 9, 1981 memo to Commissioners f rom Cummings attaching August 4, 1981 letter from U.S. Attorney 14.
September 15, 1981 memo to Stello from Cummings re Stepan Chemical i
s
.,