DD-87-02, Informs That Secy Received Ltr from Professor Z Reytblatt Requesting Review by Commission of Director'S Decision DD-87-02.On Advice of Ofc of General Counsel,There Is No Adjudicatory Prohibition in Circulating Professor Ltr
| ML20246M262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Asselstine, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D710 | List:
|
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-87-02, DD-87-2, NUDOCS 8905190080 | |
| Download: ML20246M262 (1) | |
Text
_
Stello w,c.*:g'o
' Roe.
"g UNITED STATES y
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Rehm !
' 'I ; I' M.
-3 W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20655 Denton
't*+,, * #* * * * [ ~
Murray Taylor OFFICE OF THE .
March.24, 1987 BDavis SECRETARY .
EDO 2096 L
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Corunissioner Bernthal Commis n r Ca r FROM: John t
oyle, f cting Secretary
SUBJECT:
LETT R OF ZINOVY V. REYTBLATT REQUESTING COMMISSION REVIEW OF DD-87-2 On March 9, 1987, SECY received a letter from Professor Z.
Reytblatt requesting review by the Commission of DD-87-2.
In accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.206 (c) (2) , and after consultation with the General Counsel's office,' Professor Reytblatt was advised by letter dated March 11, 1987, that his petition would not be entertained by the Commission as part of the Commission review process.
Additionally, he was advised that the Commission review time expired on March 10, 1987 and that the Commission declined to take review of DD-87-2.
On March 17, 1987, I received a call from Professor Reytblatt, complaining of the decision not to circulate his letter to the Commission. Professor Reytblatt further took issue with the 2.206 (c) (2) prohibition against Commission entertainment of requests for review. On the advice of the Office of the General Counsel that there is no adjudicatory prohibition at this point in circulating the professor's letter, I have attached it for information purposes only.
Professor'Reytblatt has been advised that his letter is being provided to the Commission only for that purpose.
Attachments:
As Stated Copies:
EDO OGC (H Street) 8905190080 870521 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR MEETING 113 PDC
i
$ 00L4E TEC' UWiC ILLIN'OIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOk Mt -9 P3 51 Lewis College of Science and Letters Department of Mathernatics FFICE C5 - ': t i AF Y Ocgri <; s stevit.f.
March 2 19B ANC51 m .Mr. Chilk, Secretary
, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
REF: DD-87-02, Docket Nos. 50-295, 50-373, STN 50-454 The Petitioners living in the Chicago area commissioned me to prepare the enclosed letter to Commissioners, and to reques_t that the Commission, in accordance with 2.206, (c)(1) review this Decision in whole or in part to determine that the Director has grossly abused his discretion.
The Director misrepresented the Petition, has not responded to important points, and has deceived the Petitioners on most of the important points of the Petition.
I certify that Petitioners J. Aronov, D. Kraft, P.
Schaffner, and A. Sclar, and Prof. J. Kenevan have suggested that the Commonwealth Edison Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,show a_t, t the public hearing the basis for the Decision.
Please distribute copies of the enclosed letter to the Honorable Commissioners.
Please feel free contacting Petitioners, Professors, and
,. myself.
i Sincerely,
/ ;4t/
Zinovy V. Reytblatt Associate Professor Department of Mathematics Illinois Institute l of Technology Chicago, IL 60616 Tel.:(312) 567-5343 llT Center Chicago, Illinois 60616 (312) 567-3162 u_ _ __ _ _ a
2
.e . -
l l
March 2, 1987 !
The Honorable Lando Zech Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Honorable Sir:
REF: DD-87ff4 Docket Nos. 50-295, 50-373, STN 50-454 In accordance.with 2.206, (c)(1), we ask you to review the Director's Decision to determine if the Director abused his discretion.
INTRODUCTION The Petition was brougt before the Agency by citizens of Illinois on August 30, 1986.
Petitioners demanded that:
- 1. Leak rate tests at CECO nuclear containment systems be conducted in accordance with the applicable Regulations;
- 2. Records from these tests be made public docurents;
- 3. Computer programs be reviewed and be brousnt in compliance with Appendix J to 10 CFR;
- 4. Parametric studies be performed to determine conservative estimates of actual leak rates;
- 5. If such an estimate exceeds the allowable leak rate, a reactor be placed into a cold shut down for repair and retesting;
- 6. No new tests shall be conducted intil adjudication of the i Petition; 1
l 7. The D'irector issue an Order to Show Cause upo'n CECO to to initiate the relief.
L_ __1--- - . - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - .
L ,;
The Petition.was_cupported by offidavits of Profossers of the Illinois Institute-of-Technology, by computer program
( listing, and other materials.
' Almost cwo months af ter submission, the Director acknoviedged receipt of the Petition, however, he declined to take any immediate act-lons " based dpon the close
- monitoring of CILRT's ...by NRC inspectors....."
As examples of fraudulent 1982-3 Zion tests clearly demonstrated "close monitoring" alone may not be sufficient means to provide test compliance with appropriate Regulations.
On February 10, 1987 the Director issued his Decision denying the Petition.
4
, DISCUSSION The Petition via reference to Affidavits of Profs. Kenevan an'd Reytblatt suggested that:
5
- 1. Leak rate tests are done on an exemption basis using methodology that failed the NRC endorsement and is now being revired by ANS.
The Director's Decision does not address this statement.
- 2. Any value of leak rate can be " determined" using the pending methodology.This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt theoretically, by worked' examples and by '
fraudulent Zion tests of 1982 and 1983.
4 This statement is addressed. The Director falsely claims that he has already provided a technical response in his j DD-84-6. However, the DD-84-6 does not contain a technical
]
response which is conceded by its own author. To justify the .!
lack of technical discussion in DD-84-6, Mr. Denton referred -!
to a secret (" proprietary") review which he claims contains a technical discussion. An FOIA search, and the !
proceedings of the public meeting of October 17, 1985 showed l that no such review existed.
The Director abused his discretion by his attempt to deceive the Petitioners.
- 3. During the 1984 Zion leak rate test, a failed verification test was " reverified" afte'r a second (short duration) main test. The applicable Regulation requires that a valid main test be immediately followed by a valid ;
verification test. Such, clearly, was not the case during 4 the August, 1984, test.
_ _ - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -__-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ a
_=__ ____ ____ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tho Director's Decision addresses the issue. The Decision claims that "NRC inspectors reviewed the circumstances and concluded of the Zion CILRT." that the verification test confirmed acceptability matter further. The Director declines to discuss the An FOIA search, and .
the proceedings of the public meeting of October 17, 1985, showed that no such review existed.
The Director abused his discretion by withholding such review (if it exists) from the public or, more likely, by deceiving the public about existence of a mythical review.
- 4. The reason.for the failure of a verification test was quite obvious - there were wrong assumptions made on weight coefficients.
The Director's Decision does not deny that these coefficients were wrong, and does not address the issue directly. An assertion is made that under " stable conditions" the wrong weight coefficients can not induce an unacceptable error. An assertion is made further that this-follows from the parametric studies that NRC did using
.LaSalle test data, and Zion, 1983, data.
First, there is no relation between "temperattte stabilization" which in many instances is simply one of the means to " fudge" the test results, and the weight coefficients. The temperature is " stabilized" when the second deri.vative of what is called "the average temperature" with regard of time is small. " Temperature stabilization" can be achieved, therefore, with the wrong weight coefficients, and with the " calculated" leak rate being tens, and even hundreds times less than actual leak rate. Examples have been submitted to NRC in abundance.
Second, a parametric study with a particular choice of weighting coefficients proves nothing, especially when an
-ezample shows that a change in just one coefficient may misrepresent as an " acceptable." a real leak five times larger than allowable, Third, an FOIA search identified neither LaSalle data nor Zion computer program in the NRC possession. How could the NRC conduct a parametric study without data and computer prcgrams? Contemporary science denies such miracles.
The Director abused his discretion by deceiving the Petitioners about the nature of " temperature stabilization."
The Director abused the Petitioners either by deceiving them about the data being in NRC possession or by deceiving them about " parametric studies" or by a total deception.
l 1 ,
l I
t________.___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- J
L C.
l
, 5. The_real data ~can~te' substituted by something else using l fraudulent ' WIPE';and ' ERASE options.
The. Director's-Decision (1) admits that such. options exist but maintain that they are legitimate, and (2) claims that.
'the thrown out data are substituted by the weighted average temperature'of an adjacent subvolume.
' M Conspirators in ,$he Rehm-Bernero affair lona denied
1 the mere existence of such options. Obviously, there is no more legitimacy in replacing real data during leak. rate test than in replacing financial records,. legal statements, etc.
i 'The fact that the current Regulations do notiexplicilty forbid such manipulations, perhaps, is due to an implicit .
understanding (common in'all kinds of testing) that all measured quantities are really measured quantities.
'The Director abused his discretion by deceiving the Petitioners about lenitimacy of replacing a real data set by q something else. ,
(2) The NRC claim is incorrect. The_ program listing shows that the replacing array is sected by proximity of numbers, I and not necessarily by physical proximity as confirmed by j LaSalle and Zion sensor Exhibitions.
The Director abused his discretion by deceiving the Petitioners about description of what the computer program really does.
- 6. Public hearing of October 17,_1985 have fully substantiated Dr. Reytblatt's findings, and, in particular, his claim about fraudulent computer options in some of the computer programs for leak rate calculations and their effect on leak rate calculations.
The Director's Decision addresses the issue. It falsely claims that these findings have been responded to by Bernero on November 18, 1985. Bernero's letter, indeed, mentions that there exists a review. He does not attempt to discuss the subject in his l'etter nor does he even mention the issue of fraudulent computer programs!
An FOIA search identified no reviews by Bernero.
It should be noted that Rehm of NRC in his letter of February 20, 1985 denied existence of fraudulent options, based on calculations which according to an FOIA response, never existed. Likewise, Bernero presented a fraudulent
" example" in a failed attempt to cover up the existence of such options.
The Director abused his discretion by deceiving the Petitioners about Rehm-Bernero's affair.
4
l
. 7. Whereas the Director's Decioion makes a few correct remarks, the interpretation of such basically correct although insignificant observations, is deceptive.
(1) Dr. Reytblatt, indeed, in his 1985 Petition was confused by NRC in authorship of fraudulent computer programs. Incidentally, the VOLUMETRICS' computer program j vhom he incorrectly assumed to have authored the Zion j program, appears to have similar options. 1 (2) Dr. Kenevan, indeed, did not clearly express the fact that the legitimate data could have been erased by ' WIPE' for the purpose of leak rate calculations.
(3) Dr. Reytblatt, indeed, did not clearly express that the back-and-forth play with ' ERASE' option was in a low pressure test but the possibility of such illegal play is conveniently provided by the program.
The Director abused his discretion by giving importance to insignificant misinterpretations.
- 8. The Director's Decision is based on several actual errors and misunderstanding of current regulations which was firmly established at the October 17, 1985 meeting (such as 0.1 weight coefficient, see 4.4.7.1, 5% rejection, etc.) The Decision repeats absurd notions which the NRC itself was forced to recognize as absurd at the public hearing of October 17, 1985, (the wrong equation, " verification",
equalizing-stabilizing, etc.). Quite interesting is the beginning of the Page 10, where the Director claims that tests results are insensitive to wide variations in weight
~
coefficients (this absurd statement, of course,- can not be verified because, according to a FOIA response, the relevant data or the computer program are not in the NRC possession).
What the Decision does not say is that a simple and
- verifiable realistic example has been presented at the same meeting where change in only one coefficient caused a changed in calculated leak rate by several times total Zion leak rate.
The Director abused his discretion by basing his Decision on something that can not be verified, appears not to be correct, and if correct in some cases, definitely incorrect (absurd) in general.
- 9. The Director's Decision asser'.s observation of CILRT's by NRC inspectors is conducted, therefore Petitioners' claims have no technical or safety merit.
However, the fraudulent Zion tests of 1982-3, have been observed by NRC inspectors who "found no wrongdoing" (sic!),
and these tests have been passed as good tests.
., Tho Director abused hic discretion by ctteopting to deceivo ,
the Petitioners into a believe that solely by NRC !
inspectors' observations fraudulent tests can be avoided. j
- 10. The Director's Decision denies the Petitioners the records that are in the NRC possession. The Director had 1 addressed this issue in some previous Director's Decisions and had authorized the release of similar records from other plants. No specific reasons has ever been upelled out for exempting the records sought by Petitioners.
It appears that the solely reason for making the unfortunate exception is that the Director knows very well that the conservative estimates of the leak rate are abnormally high.
Parametric studies are routinely donr., are'very cheap, and help identification'of leaking contreinment system. The Director's Decision denies the Petitioner even this, very logical relief, although performance of CILRT at Zion after two openly fraudul,ent tests justifies additional inquiry.
The Director grossly abused his discretion by not allow an independent review of the suspicious tests. 4 CONCLUSION The Director grossly abused his discretion in making the Decision by multiple deception of the Petitioners, by not allowing an independent review of the tests, and, very likely, by covering-up of bad tests.
The Petitioners kindly request that the Commission, in accordance with 2.206 (c)(1) review the Director's Decision.
The Petitioners kindly request that the Director meet with Petitioners at a public hearing similar to the meeting of
. October 17, 1985, which is referenced by the Director.
' ~ ~
e4 'o,, UNITED STATES E E IA0 ee. . .-
! 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (2,2O() ,
$ t WASHIN 37ON, D.C. 20555 00', KCIlC' g
- JSNRC g...../ .- arch 11,1987 omei o, rs 117 MR 11 P5:20 SECRETARY
~
Professor Zinovy V. Reytblatt \F[ Chi v" CI.
Department of Mathematics BRANCH Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, Illinois 60616 SERVED MAR 121987 Re: Petition for Comission Review of 00-87-2
Dear Professor Reytblatt:
On March 9,1987, the Office of the Secretary received your letter and enclosed petition for Comission review of D0-87-2, dated March 2, 1987. Please note that 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c)(2) addresses petitions such as yours as follows:
(2) No petition or other request for Comission review of a Director's decision under this section will be entertained by.the Comission.
The time in which the Commission may act to review DD-87-2 expired on March 10, 1987. The Comision declined as of that date to take review, making the decision final agency action on March 10, 1987.
The Office of the Secretary has provided a copy of your letter to the NRC Executive Director for Operations for whatever action he may deem appropriate.
Sincerely, b .
hn C. o e, Acting
. Se etary of the Commission m, v 3 l v o ( L I ()
j#* *'E%e,, UNITED STATES f ;, NUCLEAFt REGULATORY COMMISSION
-y 3- W ASHIN GTON. O.C. 20586 gg3[i[,;
%., :' arch 11, 10P7 "
/ .
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
'87 liar 11 PS:20 OFFCE OF 5ED :. #
Mr. Abe Sklar 80CKf.imG & 5EsvlCf.
BRANCH 5044 Maine Drive Chicago, Illinois 60640 RE: Docket Nos.' 50-295,50-373, 50-454 (2.206) S RVED MAR 12199
Dear Mr. Sklar:
This is to inform you that the time provided by NRC regulations within which the Comission may act to review the Director's Decision (0D-87-02) in this docket has expired. The Comission has declined any review. Accordingly, the decision became final agency action on March 10, 1987.
Sincerely,
- 6. -
hn C. H le . Acting S retary of ti omission cc: Service List i
() } l & O U
W&%E.
UNITED STATES
. [ gp . o NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?AMISSION W A SHIN G TON, C. 20555' Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt.
Associate Professor Department of Mathematics Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL 60616 IN RESPONSE REFER TO FOIA-86-483
Dear Dr. Reytb3att:
This is in regard to your request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, to which the NRC assigned the above number.
This is a partial response to your request. We-wil.1 notify you upon completion of search for. and review
.of any' additional-records subject'to.youi reduesti
_Z_ The staf.f has completed the search'for and review of.
records. subject to your request, and this is the final response to your request.
The NRC has no records subject to your request.
X
___ _., Records-subject to your request are available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, as noted on the enclosure (s). The PDR accession number is identified beside each record description.
_JL ,_
Records subject to your request are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in the PDR file folder under the above number and your name.
These records are listed on the enclosure (s).
_Z_ We are enclosing a notice that provides information about charges and procedures for obtaining records from the PDR.
Sincerely,
%e@ Donnie H. Grimsfey Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration Enclosure (s): As stated DISTRIBUTION: DRR r/f, DRR s/f, MBell, Creed, Robinson, PNo DR, Snierek, JBartlett ADM: ADM: dry g ADM:DRP,f.,A MBel CAReed# Robinso T G ey k 9/ /86 9/B 86 9/f/86 9/26/86 hl'-
\;
,e RE: F01A-86-483 APPENDIX A
- Documents Already in the PDR
- 1. '6/11/85 Letter to W. J. Dircks from D. A. Ward:
Subject:
ACRS ACTION ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO APPENDIX J OF 10 CFR 50 AND THE RELATED REGULATORY GUIDE. 8506170376
- 2. 8/12/85 . Memo for H.-R. Denton from S. G. Burns;
Subject:
REQUEST FROM DR. ZIN0VY REYTBLATT REGARDING CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING w/ ATTACHMENTS 8605150364
- 3. .10/15/85 Letter to Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt from V. Stello, Jr,;
Subject:
REGARDING CRGR RECOMMENDATION ON APPENDIX J RULE.
8510180097 t' 4 . -. '1/15/86 . Letter to Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt from W. S. Schwink;
,~ Subject.:. RESPONSE TO REYTBLATT'S CALL OF. 1/14/86 - - -
w/ Enclosure ' 8601220101.
' ~
I, i-s.
l
RE: F01A-86-483 APPENDIX B-Documents-Being Placed in the PDR.
- 1. 6/13/85 ED0 Principal Corres~pondence Control to Dircks from D. A. Ward;
Subject:
- ACRS ACTION ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS T0. APPENDIX J OF 10 CFR 50'AND THE RELATED REGULATORY GUIDE.
2.. 6/19/85 Letter for Chairman Palladino from R. E. Deem;
Subject:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NEW YORK AUTHORITY SOURCE TERM PRESENTATION - w/ Attachment.
- 3. 7/8/85 Memo for J. W. Roe from R. B. Minogue;
Subject:
RES Review of Appendix J - w/ Enclosure.
- 4. 10/3/85 ,- Note to Bob Bernero, Ed Jordan, Dick Cunningham, Denny Ross, Jack Heltemes-and Joe Scinto from Jim Sniezek;
Subject:
RESPONSE TO DR. ZIN0VY V. REYTBLATT REGARDING APPENDIX J '
AND' ASSOCIATE REGyLATORY,. GUIDE .w/ Enclosures .
~
S '. 10/1'/85 6 ' Note to'Sharon C'onnelly from V. Stello;
Subject:
EETTER'.
TO ZIN0VY REYTBLATT AND HI.S INCOMING LETTER - w/ Attachments.
- 6. 6/6/85 Note to CRGR from D. F. Ross;
Subject:
APPENDIX J PHILOSPHY - W/ Enclosures.
- 7. 6/20/85 Note to CRGR Members from Jim Sniezek;
Subject:
MEMO REGARDING REEXAMINATION OF THE APPENDIX J REGULATIONS. ,
- W/ Enclosures.
, c. 7/5/85 Note on /,ppendix J from Scinto.
- 9. 8/20/85 Memo for W. J. Dircks from Victor Stello, Jr.;
Subject:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 78 - w/ Enclosures.
4 l
1.
i
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ i
c
- i ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lewis College of Science and Letters Department of Mathematics June 20, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACT REQUEST Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr.*Grimsley:
WL h "N~ b N REF: RECORDS RELATED TO 79 MEETING OF CRGR OF JULY 3, 1985 In accordance with the FOIA, USC 552, as amended, and 10 CFR, the following records in the possession of NRC are kindly requested:
- 1. Transcripts of the discussion of the 5-th item on the aRenda of the above meeting (Appendix J and Reg. Guide).
In my telephone conversation with Mr. Schwink over 5 months, ago, Mr. Schwink confirmed the existence of these transcripts. He explained that they were being withheld temporarily on the order of the Honorable Commissioners. He promised that these records would be made available at the PDR in April, 1986. The PDR denies receiving these records.
- 2. List of all records in Messrs. Schwink-Ste11o's
~
. possession which relate,to preparation;. review,_ archiving,
' '4 and release of.the.a'bove.. transcripts. -
I kindly request that no fee be charged for the release of these records for the following reasons.
- 1. The.CRGR is under a statutory obligation to release the transcripts of its Meetings (10 CFR) into the public domain.
Therefore, the requested action of the CRGR-Division of Rules and Records is obligatory.
- 2. In my letter to the Honorable Commissioners an accusation has been set forth that there exists a conspiracy within the NRC to cover up faulty and/or fraudulent leak rate tests and to perpetuate the unsafe situation. It l appears that seme of the requested records may shed more l light onto these activities. It appears that there exists a
! connection between an unusualy lengthy period of l preparation of the Draft Appendix J, misrepresentation of i the Draft Regulatory Guide (it appears that no such Guide l was, in fact, submitted to CRGR), and attempts to perpetuate faulty and/or fraudulent testing.
ljT ,C, enter Chicago, Illinois 60616 (312) 567 3162
- s . _
.i '.
10 CFR does not allow operation of a Nuclear Power Plant whose containment system leak rate has not been adequately
. proven within the specified limits.
4
' It is, therefore, in the interests of the People of the United public.
States that these records be made available to the I shall expect to hear from you in 10 working days.
Sincerely, Z. Reytb1 t Assoc. Professor Dept. of Mathematics 4 4 4
m_ .m_.______.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _