ML20236A797
| ML20236A797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/04/1986 |
| From: | Mulley G, Laura Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A784 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-611 NUDOCS 8903200171 | |
| Download: ML20236A797 (5) | |
Text
.
O O pm Rf Cp
- UNITED STATES
[j3 " c. 'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
- % l
>w 5" March 4, 1986
+....
MEMORANDUM REPORT
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENT BY NRC EMPLOYEE OIA N0: 186-12 BACKGROUND By letter dated December 19, 1985, (Attachment 1), to Sharon CONNELLY, Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC), Doctor Zinovy V. REYTBLATT, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, presented allegations against Harold R. DENTON, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), NRC. Appended to REYTBLATT's letter were an affidavit and letter to DENTON dated December 13, 1985, in which REYTBLATT provided the specifics of his allegations.
REYTBLATT's December 13, 1985 letter (Attachment 2) to DENTON, pertained to DENTON's Director's Decision regarding three petitions filed by Mr. Edward G. G0GOL, an intevenor, in which he presented allegations of inadequate leak rate testing of nuclear power reactor containments. The intervenor, in his petitions, referred to " Report 0183: Critique of Containment-System Test Requirements by Z. REYTBLATT, Extran Inc., P08 2849, Chicago, Illinois 60690." DENTON in his March 16, 1984 Director's Decision, allegedly referred to REYTBLATT's Critique Report as "Proprieta ry." REYTBLATT contended this statement was false in that his report was a public document. REYBLATT's letter further indicated that he had prepared this report in partial fulfillment of a subcontract with NRC.
The report had been provided the contractor, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (0RNL), in March 1983, thus it became a public document. A copy was provided to the NRC in March 1983 by ORNL and placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), in July 1983. REYTBLATT, in his letter, further l
stated that he considered DENTON's remark " libelous and slanderous," and, as a result, he incurred substantial moral and financial damage. He demanded that DENTON make a personal public apology and withdraw his remark in writing.
THIS REPORT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT R06M WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION, Freedom of Infonnation/ Privacy Act 5 USC 552(b)(6)(7)(C) 8903200171 89031S j PDR FOIA PDR j
REYTBLABO-611
q n l
2
{
In an affidavit dated December 26,1985, (Attachment 3), PEYTBLATT related l that as subcontractor of NRC, he prepared a report titled: " Critique of i
'The Containment Leak Rate Testing Requirements. '" The report was provided l to the contractor ORML, in March 1983. A copy of the report was provided to NRC by ORNL and was placed in the PDR in July 1983. REYTBLATT claimed ;
these actions clearly established the status of the report as a public I document. REYTBLATT stated his report proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the current methods of containment leak rate testing were faulty to the degree that any value of a leak rate could be " determined" from any set j of raw data using the present methodology. Additionally, as a consultant ,
to the " Citizens Against Nuclear Power (CANP), REYTBLATT had recommended that CANP present his report as evidence in support of their petition. In his recommendation to CANP, he emphasized that the report was a public -
document under consideration by NRC. REYTBLATT's in his affidavit asserted that in his Director's Decision regarding the CANP petition, DENTON referred to REYTBLATT's report as proprietary. REYTBLATT alleged that this .
was a false statement which was purposely made to avoid an NRC response to i bis critique which proved by examples that deceptive NRC testing practices l should be terminated i nmediately. As a result of DENTON's alleged false l statement, REYTBLATT claimed he incurred substantial financial and moral damage. Furthermore, REYTBLATT claimed that DENTON's refusal to consider the CANP evidence in his critique report made possible at least one i fraudulent test at the Zion Plant during December 1983. At the conclusion l of his affidavit, REYTBLATT stated he planned to initiate an investigation ;
against several additional NRC staff members and requested that his charge l j
against DENTON be investigated based on the available information, l'
During a conversation on January 3,1986, between REYTBLATT and OIA investigators, REYTBLATT advised that he had documented evidence of wrongdoing by NRC staff members. He stated that upon completion of the investigation into his false statement charge against DENTON, he would )
provide this additional information to 01A.
SUMMARY
E. Gunter ARDNT, Mechanical and Structural Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), was interviewed (Attachment 4) and !
stated that he received correspondence from REYTBLATT, dated April 7, 1983 l (Attachment 5), which transmitted two reports titled " Critique of I Containment System Leakage Rate Testing Requirements," and " Containment I Systems Leakage Test Requirements." Both reports were unsolicited by the NRC staff. REYTBLATT, in his letter, stated that both reports were proprietary; however, he gave NRC permission to use the reports free of charge for nonprofit purposes. On May 5,1983, ARDNT was present at a meeting attended by REYTBLATT and other NRC staff personnel. Various '
concerns of REYTBLATT were discussed including the proprietary restrictions placed by REYTBLATT on his Critique Report. As a result, REYTBLATT lifted ;
the restriction on the Critique Report; however, he retained the proprietary restriction on the second report. On June 27, 1983, the i j
Critique Report was placed in the Public Document Room (PDR). ARNDT infonned REYTBLATT of this action in a July 18, 1983 letter (Attachment l 6). ]
^
9 3
i By Petition, dated November 29, 1983, to the Chairman, NRC, Mr. Edward M.
G0GOL requested that emergency action be taken with respect to integrated leak rate testing of U.S. nuclear power reactor containments. He alleged '
that severe errors, defects, and loopholes in current leak rate testing methods existed. G0G0L further stated that his conclusions were supported by Dr. Zinovy REYTBLATT, a specialist in containment leak rate testing. As a footnote to his petition, GOGOL referenced " Report 0183: Critique of Containment System Test Requirements by Z. REYTBLATT, Extran Inc., P0B 2849, Chicago, Illinois 60690." In addition to the Chairman, NRC, G0GOL sent petitions to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the Director, NRR. Because all three petitions appeared to address the same licensing issues, they were consolidated by NRR and considered together under 10 CFR 2.206 (Attachment 7).
On March 16, 1984, in Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 by Denton (Attachment 8), the Petitioner's request for action was denied. The decision paper, although signed by DENTON, was authored by an NRR staff member. Page 5 of the paper stated that "In examining this first alleged '
defect, the NRC staff has reviewed both documents referred to in the Petitions. It should be noted that the NRC staff was aware of the content of these documents prior to the date on which these Petitions were filed. !
The NRC staff was also aware of the work of Dr. Zinovy REYTBLATT which is also referred to in the Petitions." Page 8 of the Director's Decision a reflected that "In fact, Dr. REYTBLATT has made a number of submittals to the NRC from May 26, 1982 to July 26, 1983, critiqueing ILRT [ Integrated Leak Rate Tests] methodology. These submittals were unsolicited and classified by Dr. REYTBLATT as proprietary. Consequently, no detailed discussion of these submittals is presented here."
Anthony (NMI) BOURNIA, Senior Project Manager, LaSalle Station, Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Division, NRR, was interviewed (Attachment 9) and related that he was not actively involved in the review of the petitions filed by GOG0L. He prepared the March 16, 1984 Director's Decision for the Director, NRR, based on input provided by the NRR staff members who ;
conducted the actual review. At the time he authored the decision paper, !
he was not personally aware of the status of REYTBLATT's Critique Report. g 4
Kathleen RUHLMAN, Reference Librarian, NRC PDR, was interviewed (Attachment i
- 10) and confirmed that REYTBLATT's report, " Critique of Containment Systems l Leak Rate Testing Requirements," was filed in the PDR. However, she i indicated that the report had been received from Dr. D. J. NAUSS, Oak Ridge -
(
National Laboratory, on September 7,1983. j John HUANG, Senior Mechanical Engineer, NRR, was interviewed (Attachment j
- 11) and related essentially that he conducted the NRC review of the !
Petitions filed by G0G0L, and his findings were reported in a February 17, )
1984 memorandum (Attachment 12). The memorandum was provided to BOURNIA )
for his use in preparation of the March 16, 1984 Director's Decision for i the Director, NRR signature. REYTBLATT's Critique Report had been reviewed and considered in the NRC decision to deny the petitioners request for action. His report was summarized in subparagraphs 1 through 4 on page 8
3 ^
3 J
4 of the Director's Decision. In his memorandum HUANG stated that "some" of i REYTBLATT's submittals were presented in the form of unsolicited proposals and classified as proprietary. BOURNIA, in extracting this information from the memorandum to prepare the Director's Decision, omitted the word "some." HUANG was not specifically aware of the status of REYTBLATT's l' Critique Report at the time he prepared the memorandum concerning his review findings.
On January 4, 1984, a meeting was held at the request of G0GOL which was attended by REYTBLATT and members of the NRC staff. REYTBLATT indicated L that he was representing himself, G0GOL, and the Citizens Against Nuclear Power (CANP) group. During the meeting, the NRC staff addressed specific concerns of REYTBLATT. When asked for his basis for concern that there would be substantial error in calculated leak rete testing due to the
) methods and practices now in use, REYTBLATT cited his April 7, 1983 submittal, " Critique of Containment Systems Test Requirements." Present at this meeting was HUANG, who was privy to the discussion of REYTBLATT's - I Critique Report (Attachment 13).
Edward C. SH0 MAKER, Attorney, Operations and Administrative Division, Office.of the Executive Legal Director, NRC, was interviewed and in a memorandum provided OIA a detailed chronology regarding the various ;
. documents submitted to NRC by REYTBLATT and his claims of proprietary '
treatment of these documents ( Attachment 14).
CONCLUSIONS This OIA inquiry resulted in the following conclusions:
Reytblatt's contention that his report, " Critique of Containment Systems Leak Rate Testing Requirements," was not proprietary and a public document at the time of the NRC review of the 10 CFR 2.206 petitions was substantiated. The Reytblatt Critique was proprietary at the time of its initial submission in April 1983, but the proprietary restriction was later lifted by Reytblatt.
Reytblatt's allegation that Denton, in his March 16, 1984 Director's Decision, falsely stated that Reytblatt's report, " Critique of Containment Systems Leak Rate Testing Requirements," was proprietary is unsubstantiated. The Director's Decision (at page 8) is accurate when it states that various submittals made between May 1982 and July '
1983 (including an early copy of the Critique) "were unsolicited and classified iy Dr. Reytibatt as proprietary." (Asnotedabove,the Critique was reoprietary at the time of its original submittal.) .
There is no expv tss reference to Reytblatt's Critique (as resubmitted with the November 29, 1983 petitions) as being either a proprietary or public document.
T 3 m, )
5 j l
Reytblatt's c_ontentions thou Denton deliberately characterized the Critique as proprietary to avoid addressing it and then refused to '
consider the petitioner's evidence are unsubstantiated. The
! i
'information developed during this investigation support. the comment at i page 5 of the Director's Decision that the NRC staff was aware of the 1 work of Reyt1batt which was referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions and !
the coment at page'8 that the submittal was reviewed. !
l
. A . W LfT6 B" Smith,' Investigator 0 fice of Inspector and Auditor 1
Georg 010 A. Mul ley, Jr. , A
'I ng Assistant '!
Dir tor for Investiga ons Office of Inspector and Auditor l 1
Attachments:
'1. Letter dated December 19, 1985, SUBJ: Investigation of Mr. DENTON's Allegations
- 2. Letter dated December 13, 1985, SUBJ: Personal Statements in Your !
Decision of March 16, 1984 J
- 3. Affidavit of REYTBLATT, dated December 26, 1985. ;
- 4. Report of Interview,.ARNDT, dated January 22., 1986
- 5. Letter from REYTBLATT to ARNDT, dated April 7, 1983 6.. Letter from ARNDT to REYTBLAri, dated July 18, 1983
- 7. Petitions' filed by G0GOL, dated November 29, 1983
- 8. Director's Decision, dated March 16, 1984
- 9. Report of Interview, BOURNIA, dated January 21, 1986
- 10. Report of Interview, RUHLMAN, dated January 8,1986
- 11. Report of Interview, HUANG, dated January 27,'1986
- 12. Memorandum Report of HUANG, dated February 17, 1984 j
- 13. Memorandum dated January 17, 1984, SUBJ: " Meeting with Dr. Z. REYTBLATT
- 14. Memorandum Statement of SH0 MAKER, dated January 24, 1986 J