ML20215D944
| ML20215D944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1985 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Connelly S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215D926 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-483 NUDOCS 8610140369 | |
| Download: ML20215D944 (1) | |
Text
-
3
'8, ,j@ H%&+'t
'& UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 '$ j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\....+/
OCT 1 e 1985 NOTE T0: Sharon Connelly The attached letter to Zinovy Reytblatt, along with his incoming letter to me, is being forwarded for your information.
/
/d Vic Stello Attachments: As stated
> 861014o369 860926 PDR FOIA REYTBLA86-483 PDR
. C@A- B
3 ( *
- q_- OCT 151985 Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt Illinois Institute of Technology IIT Center Chicago, IL 60616
Dear Dr. Reytblatt:
I have received your letter of September 23, 1985 acknowledging receipt of information I recently sent to you. This infomation concerned the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) consideration of proposed Appendix J Rule revisions and the associated draft Regulatory Guide being proposed by the staff for public comment. As you correctly indicated, the CRGR did recomend to the Executive Director fo: Operations (EDO) in favor of issue of the staff's pro-posal to provide for a public comment opportunity on this draft Regulatory Guide.
Your letter specifically asked (1) that the CRGR reverse its decision to allow the " Draft Regul.atory Guide" be published for public comment and (2) that the CRGR review an independently developed Draft Regulatory Guide and submit it for public coment if meritorious. The CRGR reaffirms its original recommendation to issue the staff's proposed package of Appendix J Rule revisions and the associated Regulatory Guide for public coment.
I would like to make it quite clear that issue of this proposed package should in no way infringe on your opportunity to provide comments or to offer an ,
alternative structure of the proposed Regulatory Guide should you elect to do so as part of the public comment process. Subsequent to the public comment period, the CRGR would expect to pursue the matter further during its review of the proposed final Rule and Regulatory Guide including the staff's proposed resolution of the public coments; which will take your coments into account.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements l '
i l Distribution:
MTaylor WJDircks VStello SECY HRDenton PDR (NRG/CRGR)
RBMinogue Central File i TRehm DEDR0GR cf l JHSniezek l CRGR Members pel 0R6fm %dmS w, i
'0FC : / :ROG /D : 0 : : : :
_____: ______: ______.: 4.,.__:.________...:____________:____________:___________
l NAME :MTaylor :JA 1 zek : p : : : :
- -____:____________:__& _j.______: .. ____.__:_________...:____________:____________:___________
!DATE :10/8/85 :10)h/85 :10/ /85 : : : :
,, a ,n t -r
$9xu tWGNT g 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ . - _ _ _ _
g' ,
1 ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Lewis College of Science and Letters Department of Mathematics September 23, 1985 Mr. V. Stello CRGR US NRC Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Stallo:
Thank you very much for sending me information. Based on these materials, I request (1) that the CRGR reverse its decision to allow the so-called " Draft Regulatory Guide" for public comment, and (2) that the CRGR review an independently developed Draft Regulatory Guide and submit it for public comment if meritorous.
Arguments in support of my requests are as follows:
1.1. The NRC prepared Draft does not resemble, even remotely, a Draft Guide in its format. The presented document is a poor collection of loosely connected mutually contradicting opinions, some of which very dangerous.
1.2. The submission of Draft was an act of " endorsement mechanics" (using Mr. T. Rehm's vocabulary) aimed at legalizing the faulty AN SI / AN S-56. 8-1981 wi thout responding to the comments that have been submitted in the last four years. Such actions are illegal.
In the particular case, they are extremely grave because the leak rate tests are the ultimate, and, practically, the only means for verifying that the nuclear containment systems would function as required in a case of an accident. In violation of Atomic Energy Act, all the US nuclear reactors are being operated under unknown (least to say) leak rates because the present testing methodologies (ANSI Standard, BN-TOP 1, etc), as established beyond any reasonable llT Center Chicago,il!!nois 60616 (312) 567-3162
_LM @ k p' --
~
doubt, allow to " determine" any desirable value of a leak rate from any set of the raw data. This was actua1 1y done during the fraudulent Zion tests.
1.3. Furthermore,the ACRS endorsement of Draft hardly can be regarded as lesal because it was made prior to the discussion of Draft on the i
meeting, and the discussion was reduced to a joke by allowing l Mr. Arndt to skip explanation of his " positions'; and by not allowing questions to Mr. Arndt.
l .4. I called Mr. Wink and I wrote to Mr. Rehm to secure an invitation to the CRGR Meeting concerned with the subject matter. I received no response from Mr. Rehm. Thus, the public was robbed of an oppotunity to confront Messrs. Arndt, Richardson, Huang, Shapaker and other authors of the document.
1.5. During our telephone co'nversation you attempted to justify the CRGR decision by tieing Draft Reg. Guide to Draft Appendix J. In fact, Draft Appendix J does not refer the Guide anywhere. In a clear violation of the Atomic Enerjy Act of 1954, Draf t Appendix J iritends to allow the use of any method of testing (including the faulty Standard, BN-TOP 1, etc) providing that a utility would notify the NRC about the utility choice of a method from the above variety of fraudulent or deficient methods. However strongly oppose I the passage of the illegal Draft Appendix J, I do not deny that this document meets formal technical requirments to similar documents. I have no objections to submission of Draft Appendix J. The situation with Draft Reg. Guide is entirely different. It is not tied to Draft Appendix J, and it does not resemble similar documents.
1.6. Not being written in the proper format and containing no guidance Draft Guide has no chance for passing"as is." The NRC has been working on Draft Guide for many years. The 1982 deadline was not met.
The 1983 deadline was not met. Draft Guide was presented in 1984 but itwaswithdrawnboyitsownauthortoavoidanopendiscussion.No Draf t Guide was presented in 1985; by crediting this title to a document prepared by Mr. Arndt, the CRGR committed a serious mistake.
Transcripts of the CRGR July meetings do not indicate that a serious discussion took place regarding the subject matter. It appears, your
m
.. I i Committee simply covered up the fact that in 10 years the NRC has accomplished nothing to improve the bad leak rate testing situation.
Whether, and if so, to what degree Mr. Arndt's actions and/or inactions to which your Committee gave an air of legitimacy, are of a criminal nature will have to be investigated. Systematic refusal of the NRC including your Committee,to discuss in public the situation, appear to indicate the existence of a conspiracy.
2.1 The independently developed Draft Reg. Guide is a must in the situation when no alternative existsdue to inability and/or sabotage of the NRC.
2.2. The independently developed Draft is a scientifically consistent -
document.
2.3. The document contains a substantial guiding material which is extremel) important for practitioners of the art.
2.4. The document takes in account the real situation and saves as much as possible of the present procedures, instrumentation etc. without compromising adequacy of testing.
I expect to hear from you soon.
Sincerely, J
Zinovy V. Reytblatt
f .
)
RCunningha:3, NMSS EJordan IE RDernero. NRR d.
l' JScinto ELD '
TIppolito (for J. Heltemes), A.E00 Ic k, R DFRoss, RES GArndt, RES F MErnst, RES ' /
1
, id )cf b t' 8
d},\' .N
\
s er@