ML20141A240

Responds to FOIA Request for Records Re NRC Review of Unofficial Leak Rate Tests at Palo Verde Unit 1.No Documents Located Subj to Request.Nrc Does Not Review Unofficial Integrated Leak Rate Tests

ML20141A240
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	02/27/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Reytblatt Z ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO, IL
References
FOIA-86-21 NUDOCS 8604040421
Download: ML20141A240 (1)

Text

$- pde o/t, jo,, , UNITED STATES 8( o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 s...../

FEB 2 7 %

Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt Lewis College of Science and Letters Illinois Institute of Technology IN RESPONSE REFER Chicago, IL 60616 TO F0!A-86-21

Dear Dr. Reytblatt:

This is in response to your letter dated December 23, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), records regarding any NRC staff review of unofficial leak rate tests at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant.

The NRC has no documents subject to your F0IA request. The staff has informed us that it does not review " unofficial" integrated leak rate tests (that is, any tests not required by Commission regulations as specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J). The staff also informed us that Mr. Bernero's letter of November 18, 1985, does not state that a written product was prepared and there is no record regarding the review of the test report.

Sincerely, UY #

Q Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration l

1 l

1 I

I 9604040421 860227 PDR E Ta @ e6-21

a 4

[yQ Meg'o 8 UNITED STATES

'g

[

T,,

g E

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

.... NOV1s3933 ,

Docket No. 50-295 Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt Illinois Institute of Technology (Building El, Room 208) 10 West 32nd Street Chicago, Illinois 60616 Dear Dr. Reytblatt Your letter of July 31, 1985 makes a number of comments critical of this Agency's handling of your claims with respect to alleged inadequacies in the containment leak rate tests performed at light water reactor plants in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. You have pressed your claims cnd allegations with respect to containment leak rate testing with this Agency cver the last several years, and your submittals have received appropriate l technical review. This has also been the case with your July 31, 1985 letter. t We even held a public meeting with you on October 17, 1985 at the NRC .

Offices in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, to accommodate your request for a technical l discussion of the July 3, 1985 decision (00-85-10) on your petition, even though this Agency was not obligated to do so under 10 CFR 2.206. Enclosed .

is a copy of the verbatim transcript from that public meeting.

The NRC staff has reviewed your letter of July 31, 1985, including referenced correspondence, your collateral correspondence with other staff members and industry representatives that was related to the public meeting, and the  ;

transcript of the meeting (including a draf t resolution which you presented), i and determined that no new safety issues of significance have been raised. I With respect to the various comments and claims that you raise in your correspondence concerning prior actions by this Agency and decisions which i have been made, I view them as opinionated disagreements with the decisions.

Consequently, we do not intend to consider this matter further with you. l i

I would like to briefly respond, however, to your discussion, at the meeting, '

of the Palo Verde, Unit 1 pre-operational integrated leak rate test conducted in 1982. You have suggested that stabilization is a convenient way to eliminate data that would contribute to predicting a higher leak rate, e.g. ,

in the presence of a diurnal temperature cycle. My staff has reviewed the Palo Verde. Unit 1 test report and finds no evidence or aiurnai errects in

~

'the pressure and temperature plots. Also, we continue to maintain that the

• stabilization period prior to conducting the integrated leak rate test is a vital element in the test procedure, and will be retained. We note, too, that

• your slide purports to be a factual representation of the Palo Verde, Unit 1 test result, and to the uninitiated, the slide would appear to support your  ;

point of view. However, the data from the Palo Verde, Unit 1 test do not follow the curve you constructed.

)

~

Nd ))$ ' ['

f.s - - -

} v I Dr. Reytblatt gV16 W In my_ review of the transcript of our October 17, 1985r meeting I noted dozens 9f instances where you accused the NRC staff members pre:,ent,. and others;with

,- conduct ranging from ignorant statements, up through sham and deceit to fraudulent behavior. Such accusations have been a characteristic of your many pieces of correspondence and meetings with us on this subject. .Because of the gravity of these charges we have referred your claims to our Office of Inspector and Auditor for appropriate action. Nevertheless, I repeat what I said in our meeting (TR. pp. 90-91), " confine your remarks to the technical substance." Your habit of impugning peoples character, motives and actions is not scientific, and I consider 'it inappropriate and unprofessional.

Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc (w/ enclosure):

Mr. Dennis L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company L. Nuclear Licensing Department Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Regional Administrator Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Timothy W. Wright III Business and Profresional People for the Public Interest 109 North Dearborn (Suite 1300)

Chicago, Illinois 60602 j Dr. A. Sklar Illinois Institute of Technology 10 West 32nd Street -

Chicago, Illinois 60616 Mr. Edward M. Gogol 1 154 Linden Street Glencoe, Illinois 60022 i

.