ML20235P111
| ML20235P111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1987 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | Reytblatt Z ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO, IL |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235P114 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-324 2.206, NUDOCS 8707200344 | |
| Download: ML20235P111 (2) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _ -
j . , AESPONSE TYPt l' 3 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF g N'"^'
I l '^"'
%,e ssee
/ INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST gig g7 DOCKD NUM8tRtSi tM apptwaker LEOUESTEM i
~
t .
ae10VV &- "-
A.
/ PAR] i.iRECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked bonest No agency records subret to tt.e request have been located.
No t.dditional agency records subpect to the request have been located.
Agency records subject to the request that are identihed in Appendix are already available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC Agency recorde subject to the request that are identihed in Appe,ndia ' d are being made avaliable for public mspection end copymg m the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a ioider under this FolA number arid reauester name.
The nonpropnetary versson of the proposaHs) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made avadable for pubisc inspection and coying at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washmgton, DC, an a folder under this FOiA number and requester name.
Enclosed b informatn. on how you may obtam access to end the charges for copymg records placed in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington. DC.
Agency records cubpect to the request are enceosed. Any applicable charge vor copies of the records provided and paymern procedures are noted m the comments section.
Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federet agencyUes) for review and direct response '.o you.
In view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated PART ll.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Cert &in information in the requested rectwds is being wehheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described in and for the rossons stated in Part it, sec.
tons B. C, and D. Any released portons of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying m the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
Comments 8707200344 070716 PDR FDIA I REYlBLA87-324 PD.R n ,
slGNA . PIRECTOR, DfVtSION OHUt. ~ AND RE j0
/l AWW .
- (//wb4 s..~. . . . . . - ,;. . .: ..m :
g: , e
~ < <
f
,' / /
/% /
.,L(
s
, NIC FO%M 464 (Port H
\ WaN l
w__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
Re: F01 A- 87-324 APPENDIX A .
RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIO!1
- 1. 2/10/87 Letter from Harold R. Denton, NRC to MS Susan Michetti, et al with attached " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-87-02) f
- 2. 10/6/86 Internal memorandum from Commonwealth.Edision Co. J. Glover and j P. G. Kehel to P. C. LeBlond,.
Subject:
NLA's 10/6/86 request for comments on the 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Regarding Containment Leak Rate Practices, dated 10/27/86 with attachments -
4 p [
4 9
l
- l l
l
February 10, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-795, 50-373, 50-454 (10 CFR 2.205)
Ms. Suun Michetti P.O. Box 54 Kenosha, WI 53141 l
l
Dear.Ms. Michetti:
An Emergency Relief Petition dated August 13, 1986 was sponsored by a number of individuals including yourself. The Petition was submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and sought suspension of the operating licenses for Zion Unit 1, La Salle Unit I and Byron Unit I facilities of the Conrnonwealth Edison Company and other similarly situated facilities due to alleged inadequacies in the integrated leak rate testing performed for those facilities. On October 22, 1986, I acknowledged receipt of the Petition and informed you that I'would take appropriate action within a reasonable. time. For the reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 62.206." (DD-87-02), your Petition is denied.
Copies of this Decision will be filed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and in the local public document rooms for Zion, located at the Waukegan Public Library,128 N. County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085; for Byron, locatcd at the Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman Street, Pockford, Illinois 61103; and for La Salle, located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, Rural Route No.1, Ogelsby, Illinois 61348.
I have also enclosed a copy of a notice that will be filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
Sincerely, tw. . . .
[ y P. P 0 0 l j Harold R. Denton, Director '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RT:";r cc: See next page FOi -$-32Y j
} --
/ i l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
} 3 WV
- Novak mer 2/5/87 ' 2/t/87 ?/4/87 '87 '87 1/ /87
%/87 y to lan c 6 gy j i
.. ]
Docket Nos. 50-295, j -. l 50 373, &
50-454 /
(10 CFR 2.206) j/
l n .!
An Emergency Relief Petition dated Auoust 13, 1986 was sponsored by a number of individuals including yourself. The Petition was submitted oursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and sought suspension of the operating licenses for Zion Unit 1, La Salle Unit I and Byron Unit I facilities of the Commonwealth Edison Company and other similarly situated facilities due to alleged inadeouncies in the '
integrated leak rate testing perfonned for those facilities. On October 22, 1986, I acknowledged receipt of the Petition and informed you that I would take 1 appropriate action within a reasonable time. For the reasons stated in the '
l enclosed
- Director's Decision under 10 CFR 52.206," (DD ),yourPetit'ionis l l
denied.
Copies of this Decision will be filed in the Commission % Public Document Room !
at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and in the local public l document rooms fer Zion, located at the Vaukegan Public Library,128 N. County Strectk Waukegan, Illinois 60085; for Byron, located at the Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61103; and for La Salle, .
l located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, Rural Route No.1, Ogelsby, Illinois 61348.
I have also enclosed a copy of a notice that will be filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
l_
Sincerely, r
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE l
PDF3 PDf3 OGC PDf3 A/D:PWR-A NRR NRR l CVocan* LOlshan
- SVarge TNovak RVollmer HDenton
{ 2/5787 2/ /87 2/4/87 1/ /87 1/ /87 1/ /87 1/ /87 1
Docket Nos. 50-295, 50-373, i and STN 50-454 (10 CFR 2.206) !
l An Emergency Relief Petition dated August 13, 1986 was soonsored by a nunber of individuals including yourself. The Petition was submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and sour,ht suspension of the operating licenses for Zion Unit 1 La Salle Unit 1 and Byron Unit I facilities of the Commonwealth Edison Company and other similarly situated facilities due to alleged inadequacies in the integrated leak rate testing perfomed for those facilities. On October 2?,
1986, I. acknowledge receipt 'of the Petition and infomed you that I would take appropriate action within a reasonable time. For the reasons stated in the enclosed Director's Decision under 10 CFR 47.206, (DD ), your Petition is i denied. J Copies of this Decision will be filed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D C. 90555, and in the local public document rooms for Zion, located at the Waukegan Public Library, IP8 N. County Streetk Waukegan, Illinois 60085; for Byron, located at the Rockford Public -
l Library, 215 N. Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61103; and for La Salle, located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, Rural <
Route No.1, Ogelsby, Illinois 61348. I I have also enclosed a copy of a notice that will be filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
Sincerely, l
1
~
Harold R. Denton, Director
. Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated ;
cc: See next page ,
f l
PDf3 PDf3 5 PD*3 A/D:PWR-A NRR NPR CVogan LOlshan a
$ SVarga TNovak RVollmer HDenton p/5/87 1/ /87 F71I7 1/ /87 1/ /87 1/ /87 1/ /87 W Y
I . i
(
}- .
i l
l IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT T0:
)
1 )
i J
i Mr. Jack L. Edwards i
l l
Mr. Eckhard Festag ;
Mr. Jacob Aronov Hs. Pat Schaffner Mr. Lavid Kraft Mr. Abe Sklar l
l l
l l
1 .-
l l e l
l 1 l l
,. s DD 02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harcld R. Denton, Director In the Matter of ) ,
) Docket Nos. 50-295 !
COMMOFFEALTH EDISCN COMPANY ) 50-373 (Zion Nuclear Unit 1) ) STN 50-454 )
(Byron Nuclear Unit 1) ) ;
(LaSalle Nuclear Unit 1) ) (10 CFR I 2.206) l AND ALL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS ) j DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR I 2.206 INTRODUCTION i
An . emergency relief Petidon dated August 13, 1980 sponsored by a . 4 number of individuals (Petitioners) was submitted to my office pursuant to 10 CFR I 2.206. The Petition sought suspension of the operating licenses for j the Zion Nuclear Unit 1 LaSalle Nuclear Unit 1, and Byron Nuclear Unit 1
~
facilities of the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) and other similarly situated facilities due to alleged inadequacies in containment integrated leak a
rate test (CILRT) practices. It was alleged that the testing was at variance 4 with the ComNdssion's requirements for a CILRT, specifically 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. It was alleged that there were deficiencies in computer programs used during the testing and that certain data were improperly replaced by other data, allegedly in violation of the Commission'a requirements.
I acknowledged receipt of the Petition in my letter to certain Petitioners dated October 22, 1986. In that letter, I also addressed the Petitioners' re-quest for emergency action. I declined to take any immediate action with
' \'t f
~
2-respect to the facilities referenced in the Petition based upon the close monitoring of CILRT's at commercial nuclear facilities by NRC inspectors and the confirmatory calculations that are routinele performed by the NRC with respect to these tests. With respect to the fecilities referenced in the Petition, I noted that NRC inspection reports had been issued describing the j CILET's which have been performed and, based upon this NRC surveillance of the testing, I saw no need to take any emergency action as recuested in the Petition. I noted that the NRC staff would continue to review the Petition and that I wculd issue a formal decision with regard to it in the reasonably near fut'are. My decision in this matter follows.
DISCUSSION The Petition contains a number of issues with respect to containment integrated leak rate testing. The issues may be broadly placed into three categories: (1) allegations regarding the general niethodology associated with CILRT's, (2) allegations concerning the validity of certain CILRT's performed j 1
at the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, in 1982 and 1984, and (3) allega- l i
tfons related to certain computer programs employed by CECO in conducting CILRT's for the Zion, LaSalle and Byron Units.
s f
f 1
l i
l .;
I have had the opportunity to examine and evaluate allegations in the firct two categories in responding to previous Petitions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. 1 In DD-84-6, supra, I addressed allegations that there were serious er-rors, defects, and loopholes in the industry standards which provide detailed measures for performing the CILRT required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J. 2_/ The specific alleged defects which I addressed in that Decision included:
(1) the equation used to calculate containment air mass at any given time is wrong; (2) the final calculated leakage rete may be " fudged" in a variety of ways to presumably yield an invalid leak rate; and (3) there are " loose" requirements for the permanent archiving of raw I
test data and other data essential for test evaluatict.,
1 N
1/ Previous Decisions which I have issued regarding the adequacy of con-tainment integrated leah rate testing in general and, more specifically, with regard to certain facilities of Commonwealth Edison Company in-clude: Commonwealth Edison Company (LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 &
- 2) and All Light-Water Reactors, DD-84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984); Common-wealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), DD-85-2, l 21 NRC 270 (1985); Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Power l Station, Unit 1) and All Light-Water Reactors, DD-8 5-10, P2 NRC 143 I
(1985).
~
2/ The industry standards are specifically the American Nuclear Society l ( ANS) Standard N45.4-1972, " Leakage Rate Testing Of Containment Structures For Nuclear Reactora" and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ANS Standard 56.8-1981, " Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements".
i )
. < i j
j ji In concluding in that Decision that these so-called defects did not call into quertion the adequacy of the Commission's regulations with regard to l
CILR T's , I considered the claimr of Zinovy ,Reytblatt which were offered in support of the Petitions discussed in that Decision. I note this fact since !
Z. Reytblatt is a co-sponsor of the same allegations put forth in this latest Petition pursuant 10 C.F.R. I 2.206. See Exhibit A to the Reytblatt affidavit attached to the instant Petition . In sum, after considering the allegations l l
l l raised in the earlier Petitions including the claims of Z. Reytblatt, I concluded that current regulations regarding CILRT's of commercial nuclear facilities provided reasonable assurance that the public health and safety was cdecuately protected. As the cinims in the current Petition with respect to
, containment integrated leak rate testing methodology are essentially repetitive 1
of those I have already considered I do not intend to discuss them further.
With respect to the second category of allegations, specifically those dealing with the adequacy of a CILRT performed at' the Zion Nuc1 car facility, l 1 have considered the adequacy of containment Ieak rate testing for the Zion facility in two Director's Decisions, specifically DD-85-2 and DD-85-10, supra.
.In DD-85-2, I. noted that Regional inspection activities undertahen as a result l of the Petitioner's allegations in that matter, which were also supported by an effidavit of Z. Reytblatt, identified deficiencies in the CILRT performed for the Zion nuclear facility ',n 1981 and 19E3. As a consequence, CECO shut down the Zion facility and performed a valid CILRT, which were witnessed by Region III inr.pectors.
On March 6,1965, Z. Reytblatt himself submitted a Petition to my office l
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 regarding CILRT's. New issues raised in that l
1 i
I i
Petition concerned alleged inadequacies in certain software used by licensees to conduct CILRT's. Reytblatt suggested that such software might have been used with respect to Zion Unit I leak rate testing. The Petitioner also made allegations concerning the validity of the verification test performed for the July 1984 Zion CILRT.
In DD-85-10, the NRC determined that the software identified by Peti-With respect to the Pe-tioner had never been used .for the CILRT for Zion. ]
titioner's concerns regarding the July 1984 Zion Unit 1 CILRT , the staff reviewed the Petitioner's concerns and concluded that, contrary to the asser- i tions of the Petitioner, an appropriate test was conducted. With respect to the Petitioner's claims that an invalid verification test was conducted. NPC .
I inspectors reviewed the circumstances of the verification test and concluded that the test did confirm the acceptability of the CILRT performed for Zion l
l Unit 1. Thus, concerns raised in this' most recent Petition with respect to the methodology employed for the Zion CILRT have a'lready received NRC con-sideratit>n and I do not intend to discuss them further in this decision. b <
v 3/ The Petition also makes reference to a public meeting held on October 17, 1985 at the NR C's Region III Offices. The October 17, 1995, meeting was held in an attempt to engage Z. Reytblatt in a constructive technical review of his comments as he had requested. The Petition and specifically the affidavit of Reytblatt and its Exhibit D appear to suggest that the NRC represented at this meeting that a technical review would be conducted and that review never occurred.
Such a suggestion is incorrect. ;At that meeting, as Exhibit D correctly refleets, the NRC staff represented that it would study the entire record of the meeting and would correspond with Z. Reytblatt. This in fact occurred. On November 18, 1985 Mr. Robert Bernaro of the NRC staff l (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1
L-
-4 i
i i
The remaining allegations in the instant Petition specifically allege that I there were denciencies in the computer programs used during integrated leak rate testing at the CECO nuclear power plants in that certain test date were improperly replaced by' other data. An affidavit from 2. Reytblatt (Associate Professor at the Illinois Institute of Technobgy) submitted with the Petition in support of the allegation purports to show that subroutines of CECO com-puter programs can replace actual test data with other data, and that such
< manipulations have taken place in violation of the Commission's CILRT re-quirements , as connrmed by actual computer output. A letter from J.
Kenevan (Associate Professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology) is also submitted in support of the Petition.
The letter from J. Kenevan, dated July 7,1986, addresses the data 1
storage properties of a computer code which apparently was used by CECO in ;
the conduct of the CILRT at the Byron Station. The letter observes that two
~
program options, namely, ' EDIT DATA' and ' DELETE DATA FILE', when in-voked, result in modification of the date saved, and that with regard to the Intter option, the program leaves no record that data has been deleted.
Although J. Kenovan's brief statement is probably a factual assessment of the program capability, it also expresses what one would intuitively expect a dsta (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) corresponds.d with Z. Reytblatt and provided him with the st aff's assessment of the October 17, 1965 meeting. To the extent the Petition asserts that the NRC staff did n t review the matters ra' sed at the October 17, 1985 meeting and dic not so ir. form Z. Reyttlatt, those assertions are incorrect.
I
l 1
gethering computer program to offer in the way of options. Nevertheless. In j the context of the Petition, as discussed more fully below, the implication is that the proPram options are provided for the express purpose of malicicue i falsification of the test record. On the contrary, the subject options are a !
necessary part of the program; they literally permit the compilation of hona fide test dcta. Thus, the Kenevan letter does not substantiate the allegations ;
in the Petition. )
l The affidavit of Z. Reytblatt alleges that the CECO computer programs contain options (specifically an option called ' ERASE' or ' WIPE') to permit test ,
i data to be manipulated, and attempts to show, with the aid of test data, that )
inappropriate data manipulation in fact occurred. The affidavit includes two
- l Exhibits (R and C) which contain background information to rupport state-ments made in the body of the affidavit.
The affidavit claims, in part, that the CECO computer pmgrams contain en option that permits the discarding of data at the whim of the testing group, leaves no record that data was deleted and places no limitations on the p use of the option. Exhibit B of the affidavit is referenced to support this
' claim. Exhibit B consists of excerpted pages from a CECO program, which identifies the existence of an option (called ' WIPE') that supposedly permits such data manipulation, b 4/ The Petitioners also used the ' WIPE' option issue to claim that the dsts for the 1983 Zion 1 CILRT was fraudulently manipulated to obtain a neg-ative leak rate. A negative leak rate, per se, is not indicative of a (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) m's &
-E-All of the CECO programs contain an option of the type referred to above. Such an option has legitimate uses. The option may be used to purge erroneour data from storage, f.e. , sensor data that may have become garbled in transmission to storage memory. The option may a?no be used to clear the storage memory prior to the start of an actual test, and to facilitste the performance of parameter studies using archived data. The Petition is incorrect in stating that the program leaves no record that data was deleted.
The fact that data has been deleted can be readily ascertained by examining the time intervals between data sets. The time at which a data set is ob-tained Is not altered by the ' WIPE' option. Therefore, since data is acquired at preacribed, uniform intervals, missing data sets are easily detected. With
^
respect to Petitioners' claim that there are no limitations on the use of this option, it should be noted that current regulations are silent on the matter of the degree of 6ata rejection. Thus, the Petitioners are incorrect when they claim that current regulations do not allow discardin'g more than 5% of the test data.
t 1:
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) fraudulently conducted test , or la failed test, Rather, if the leak rate fluctuates amund the zero mark 8 is $ndicative of the exceptional leak tightness of the containment, and reDbets the statistical nature of the test date. Even though the Zion i measured leak rate was slightly neg-ative, test uceptance ic based or. the upper 95% confidence limit, which was 6 ' positive value. This leak' rate value was more that a factor of 30 lower than the maximum allowable leak rate, which is itself' set at 75% of the design lee.k rate.
i l l l 1 l
l _ _ _____
.- L !
_g-There are instances when data may be properly discarded. 5/ Exhibit B contains a comment statement that addresses the provision in the code for dealing with bad sensor values within a subvolume. Data rejection is i necessary when a malfunctioning sensor / channel is found. If, for example, a 1
temperature sensor in a subvolume fails and is locked out, the remaining sensors are used to determine the average dry bulb temperature of that sub-volume. In the extreme, if there are no temperature sensors remaining in a j i
cubvolume that are functional, then the aversgo temperature of an adjoining subvolume is used. This will, then, necessitate adjusting the calculational i procedure programmed into the code at the start of the test when all instru- )
ment channels were considered to be functioning properly to exclude the data from channels found unreliable. Alternatively, the test may be interrupted to reestablish an effective instrumentation system. Whatever the course of action taken by a licensee is, it must be justifiable tu NRC inspectors.
'Ihe treatment of test data in the manner described above is based on cecepted engineering practice. The iset that a containment subvolume weighting coefficient could exceed 0.1, which the Petitioners c.h.im is
. unacceptable , is not in violation of the requirements of Appendix J to i
j -5/ The Reytblatt affidavit contains unclear allegations concerning the
- rejection of CILRT da+a. The industry standard (ANSI /ANS 56.8-1961),
{ which Z. Reytblatt is apparently referring to, provides guidance on the rejection of containment air macs data and raw data on the functionally dependent parameters, and prescribes that the rejection of data should be documented. Adherence to this standkrd is not e regulatory requirement. Nevertheless, based on staff review of the CILRT's referred to by Z. Reytblatt, the utility'r, testing practices rela-tive to data rejection are in keeping with this guidance.
~
l t l}
10 C.F.R. Part 50, or ANSI N45.4-1972. The regulations do not prescribe leak testing practices to this level of detail. Rather, the regulations emphasize the importance of stable containment test conditions; with appropriate stabilization, test results are relatively insensitive to wide variations in the magnitude of the weight coefficients. This has been shown to be the case in the October 17, 1985 meeting attended by Z. Reytblatt.
l The Petitioners further charge that CECO computer programe can be 1
- I manipulated to reinstate previously discarded data. Exhibit C of the l Reytblatt affidavit is provided to demonstrate that this has been done. Ex- l l hibit C presents data sets from the July 1984 Zion 1 CILRT which purportedly !
l show that the readings from a " malfunctioning" sensor are suddenly declared valid. The Petitioners, however, errantly assumed that these data sets con- )
stituted bona fide data. On the contrary, they represent pre-test data ob-i itelned during the prepcratery stages of the test. In fact, as the data clearly I show, the . containment was not yet pressurized for the test. These data sets, then, were obtained when the containment and the data acquisition sys-tem were being prepared for the test. Furthermore, the data sets show a
. sensor being returned to service in the data acquisition system which is compatible with pre-test activities. Consequently, Exhibit C does not j support a claim that CILRT test data has been improperly manipulated.
The Reytblatt affidavit makes numercur. assertions of impropriety which appear to evolve from an imprecise understanding of the functions of certain options typleally provided for data contrcl in leak tesi computer codes, a mis-i interpretation of the Mformatinn Sppearing on printopts cf data sets and a l rnisunderCanding of regulatory regt'irements and induistry guidelines. In any 1
event, while the staff does not review and approve computer codes used in the industry for the leak rate testing of containment structures, as noted ,
above, NRC inspectors carefully scrutinize all aspects of such testing and i
obtain raw test data for analysis to independently assess the acceptability of l leak rate test results. This bas been done for each of the facilities identified by the Petitioners. NRC inspectors have observed CILRT's conducted by CECO and analyzed test data, and have found no evidence of wrongdoing on f The staff concludes, therefore, that the Petitioners' the part of CECO. l 1
l claims have no technical or safety rceri+.
h'ith respect to the technical assertions raised in this Petition and which were discussed above, the allegations raised in the Petition concerning the l application of certain CECO computer programs to containment leak rate test- l ing at CECO facilities are unsubstantiated. Rather, based upon CILRT's conducted by CECO for its LaSalle, Zion and Byron facilities, and the ]
independent review and oversight of these tests conducted by NRC inspec-tors, these facilities conform to the Comrbission's requirements with respect to I, containment leak rate testing.
l CONCLUSION _
' Based upon the insubstantial nature of the technical assertions made by the Petitioners, the relief requested' by the Petitioners based upon these assertions is tiented. Specifically, I' decline to require any further CILRT's i
at commercial nuclear power reactor! facilities, nor is it necessary to shut i
1 l
~
i d
l l down any facilities, or to undertake any studies and reviews such as those requested by Petitioner s. Fin ally, with respect to the Petitione.rs' request -l that records from CECO CILRT's, including raw data and computer programs, be made public documents, I have addressed this issue in previous Director's Decisions where the same relief had been requested. 6/ I decline such relief now for the same reasons as were stated there.
For the reasons stated in this Decision, the Petitioners' request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 has been denied. As provided by 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review.
f x Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this y day of February,1987. .
~
i o
I I
l
{
I t-l 6/ DD-84-6, supra,19 NRC 895-96; DD-85-2, supra, 21 NRC 272-73.
l L- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !
i
[7590-011 ti S. NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-295, 50-373, STN 50-454, C_0MMONVEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY j ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I l
BYRON STATION, UNIT 1 LA SALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 AND <
OTHER LIGHT-WATER REACTORS ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 j REGARDING INTEGRATED CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING AT COMMERICAl Nt: CLEAR POWER FACILITIES Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclerr Reactor Pegulation, hcs issued a " Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206" concerning a Petition for Emergency Relief dated August 13, 1986 filed by certain individuals reauesting emergency relief to remedy a11 edged deficiencies in the integrated leak rate tests conducted for 2 ion Nuclear Unit 1, la Salle Nuclear l
l Unit 2, and Byron Nuclear Unit 1, of the Commonwealth Edison Company and other l
'o similarly situated facilities. Suspension of the operating licenses for the
~
referenced facilities was requested. The Petition alleges errors in the computer program used to calculate data when performing the ir.tegrated containment leak rate test.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has detemined to !
deny the Petitioners' request purt,uant to 10 CFR 2.206. The reasons for this l
decision are explained in the " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-87-02) {
which is available for public inspection in the Comission's Public Document I
l 1
l M i 0
u: %
Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. P0555, and at the local public document rooms for Zion, located at the Waukegan Public Library, IP8 N. County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 63085; for Byron, located at the Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman, Rockford, Illinois, 63103; and for LaSalle, located at !
the Public Library of Illinois Valley Comunity College, Rural Route No.1, Ogelsby, Illinois 61348.
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary for Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR ?.?O6(ci.
~
Dated at Rethesda, Maryland this 10 day of February 19PJ.
i l
)
FOP. THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' cri;hnpeo u E R. De:: ton Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r
I i
l 1 o
/
l s I ? '
of
-( h
~
y/
PDP3 ce' ]?D93 F . WP-A N CVogan :/TL01shan NPR ovak a
mer 1/ 's /P7 1/71/87 3d 91 , /87 p/[/87 /87 PD on JJf/87