ML20207R826
| ML20207R826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Zion, LaSalle, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1987 |
| From: | Reytblatt Z ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO, IL |
| To: | Chilk NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2792 2.206, DD-87-02, DD-87-2, NUDOCS 8703180176 | |
| Download: ML20207R826 (7) | |
Text
,_
y 27W ocentTnu:m gez9s 373 pf 7
j/:
/
/
(2 ZDS CX F.E TEP UiNRC ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY g,.9 p 3 33 Lewis College of Science and Letters Department of Mathematics yg-March 2,bkkfs?C Mr. Chilk, Secretary United Statas 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 commissionned me to prepare the enclosed letter to Commissionners, and to request 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_ 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.
Sincerely, Q
r;lI p?'(..
G 1
Li Zinovy V. Reytblatt Associate Professor Department of Mathematics Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL 60616 Tel.:(312) 567-5343 8703180176 870302 PDR ADOCK 05000295 0
0 PDR lliCenter Chicago, Illinois 60616 (312) 567-3162
e d
March 2, 1987 The lionorable Lando Zech g
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 lionorable Sir:
REF: DD-87ff/, 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.
j 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; 4
2.
Records from these tests be made public documents;
~
- 3. Computer programs be reviewed and be brought in compliance with Appendix J to 10 CFR; 4
Parametric studies be performed to determine conscevative 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 Petition; 7.
The Director issue an Order to Show Cause upon CECO to to initiate the relief. __
The Petition was supported by affidavits of Professors of the Illinois Institute'of Technology, by computer program listing, and other materials.
Almost two months after submission, the Director acknowledged receipt of the Petition, however, he declined to take any immediate actions " based upon 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, 198/ the Director issued his Decision denying the Petition.
DISCUSSION The Petition via reference to Affidavits of Profs. Kenevan and Reytblatt suggested that:
- 1. Leak rate tests are done on an exemption basis using methodology that failed the NRC endorsement and is now being revised 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.
This statement is addressed. The Director falsely claims that he has already provided a technical response in his 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 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" after a second (short duration) main test. The applicable Regulation requires that a valid main test be immediately followed by a valid verification test. Soch, clearly, was not the case during the August, 1984, test.
i y
The Director's Decision addresses the issue. The Decision claims that "NRC inspectors reviewed the circumstances and concluded that the verification test confirmed acceptability of the Zion CILRT."
The Director declines to discuss the matter further.
An FOIA search, and the proceedin8s 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 quite obvious test was coefficients.
there were wrong assumptions made on weight The Director's Decision does not deny that these coefficients were wrong, and does not address the issue directiv. 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 " temperature 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 derivative 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 example shows that a change in just one coefficient may misrepresent a real leak five times larger than allowable, as an " acceptable."
Third, an FOIA search identified neither LaSalle data Zion computer nor program in the NRC possession. How could the NRC conduct a parametric study without data programs?
Contemporary science denies and computer 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.
I. _. - _ _ _ - -
- 5. The real data can be st'bstituted by something else using 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.
(1) Conspirators in the Rehm-Bernero affair long denied t
the mere existence of such options.
Obviously, there is no i
more legitimacy in replacing real data during leak rate test than in replacing financial records, legal statements, etc.
The fact that the current Regulations do not explicilty 1
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 something else.
(2) The NRC claim is incorrect. The program listing shows that the replacing array is sected by proximity of numbers, and not necessarily by physical proximity as confirmed by 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.
j
- 7. Whereas the Director's Decision makes a few correct remarks, the interpretation of such basically corro:t 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 prcgram whom he incorrectly assumed to have authored the Zion program, appears to have similar options.
(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 4.4.2.1, 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, v e r i f i c a t i o n ",
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 car. not be verified, appears not to be correct, and if correct in some cases, definitely incorrect (absurd) in general.
- 9. The Director's Decision asserts observation o f CII.RT '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. -
5 t
The Director abused his discretion by attempting to deceive the Petitioners into a believe that solely by NRC inspactors' observations fraudulent tests can be avoided.
- 10. The Director's Decision denies the Petitioners the records that are in the NRC possession. The Director had addressed this issue in some previous Director's Decisions and had authorized the release of similar records from other plants.
No specific reaso;as has ever been spelled 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 done, are'very cheap, and help identification of leaking containment 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.
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..