ML20236A864
| ML20236A864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1986 |
| From: | Shomaker E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Laura Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A784 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-611 NUDOCS 8903200195 | |
| Download: ML20236A864 (3) | |
Text
_ -_
I
^'
.-[,
ta deu, O '
UNITED STATES O 1
- ! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- 74
- p
\+.***/
f J6nuary 24, 1986 i
l MEMORANDUM FOR: Lyle Smith, Investigator !
Office of Inspector and Auditor
- FROM
- Edward C. Shomaker, Attorney Operations and Administration Division Office of the Executive Legal Director i
SUBJECT:
STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGATIONS MADE BY .
ZINOVY REYTBLATT !
In a recent meeting you asked me to prepare a statement surrounding the various submittals of documents by Mr. Reytblatt to the Agency and his claims of proprietary treatment of these documents.
The documents in question were first submitted to the Agency by Dr. Reytblatt in-a letter dated April 7,1983. In that letter, he provided as attachments'-
two documents which he claimed to be proprietary and he established very restrictive use provisions for the subject documents. The first document in question is a critique on containment system leakage test requirements, which is a report prepared by Dr. Reytblatt in partial fulfillment of a contract he had with Dak Ridge National Lab (ORNL). The date on that document is March 14,
- 1983. Additionally,-Dr. Reytblatt submitted a document entitled Containment System Leakage Test Requirements, which is Dr. Reytblatt's own version of how leak rate testing ought to be performed. This document was claimed to be '
proprietary and was given the same limited'use permission in the document dated April 7, 1983. When the Agency received this April 7th submittal with its documentation and use restrictions, it became immediately apparent to Gunter Arndt, Mechanical Structural Engineering Branch, and to myself that these documents were not properly submitted to the Agency for proprietary treatment following the Comission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. 2.790, ard that the restrictive permission statements that Dr. Reytblatt had i provided were so restrictive that they would prevent the Agency from accurately and adequately. handling the various contentions in the documents and dealing with them in our normal course of business. !
In light of this, a meeting was set up on May 5,1983, between Mr. Gunter Arndt, Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt and myself. .The meeting took place in my office in the Maryland National Bank Building. At the May 5th meeting, I took i pains to explain to Mr. Reytblatt the Comission's procedures for handling i proprietary data and the proper methodology and forms to be used in submitting records under a claim that they are proprietary. We also clarified at that meeting which of the submittals by Dr. Reytblatt were entitled to a continued proprietary treatment and which documents were not.
The critique, which was the report in partial fulfillment of a contractor
~~
8903200195 890315 Jo hTB il
-611 PDR :
ATTACHMENT 14 5
A
^
O~
i I
with ORNL, was not considered at the end of the discussion to be proprietary to Dr. Reytblatt. He said that he would withdraw his proprietary claim as to that document and, in fact, he asked the Agency to place that document in the Public Document Room (PDR). He said that at a later date he would come in i and formally make his proprietary claim for the remaining document which was ,
his Containment System Leakage Test Requirements proprietary document. !
On May 23, 1983, Dr. Reytblatt wrote a letter which was an application for withholding proprietary information in conformity with 10 C.F.R. 2.790, and in that document he specifically directed that the Agency could use his )
proprietary claim document for its internal use and for use by our designated contractors. l The Agency still had not received, as of the end of May, anything in writing l which formally charged us with placing the critique document in the PDR. '
This led Gunter Arndt to place a telephone call to Zinovy Reytblatt on June 28, 1983, and to subsequently place the critique in the PDR. The. Agency .
received formal indication in writing from Zinovy Reytblatt tc clace the l critique in the PDR on July 5, 1983, and this was again a leter to Gunter !
Arndt from Zinovy Reytblatt dated July 5, 1983. In paragraph 3 of that letter, Dr. Reytblatt mentions that on April 7,1983, he had sent the Critique to the Agency mistakenly labeled as proprietary material and he states that its non-proprietary status was fully clarified during the above conference on May 5, 1983. He further states that "my authorization (which was not in fact needed), was given for sending it out for information and response." Clearly, in this July 5, 1983 transmittal, Dr. Reytblatt directed the Agency to place his cr itique of the leak rates standard testing in the PDR. Gunter Arndt formally responded to Dr. Reytblatt's July 5th letter on July 22, 1983. In that letter Gunter Arndt reiterated that the Critique of Containment System Leakage Test Requirements had been filed in the PDR; it was available there for public review and further action by the NRC is not appropriate until completion of the pending review by NRC of Dr. Reytblatt's comments and recommendations.
In my discussion with Mr. Lyle Smith on January 21, 1986, Mr. Smith asked if i I could confirm the status of these various documents when they were received by the NRC. As I've explained above, the status of these documents i f
was that they were submitted under a claim of. proprietary treatment by Dr. Reytblatt on April 7,1983, but that shortly thereafter, Dr. Reytblatt ;
clarified his position and only retained his proprietary claim for his own '
I standard of leak rate analysis- testing which was reference 3 in his l submittal of April 7, 1983, and he formally withdrew his claim of l proprietary treatment for what is called the Critique or Reference 2 of l his submittal of April 7, 1983.
As I understand it, in November of 1983, the Citizens Against Nuclear Power in relation to the LaSalle plant filed a 2.206 petition with the Agency claiming that there were incorrect or falsified leak rate analysis test results for the LaSalle facility. In that petition under 2.206 of our i
. ~
A .-
m -
3
)
i Regulations the Citizens Against Nuclear Power specifically reference !
Dr. Reytblatt's Critique which we call either the Critique or reference to '
the submittal of April 7.- 1983. Harold Denton answered this 2.206 Petition ~
in a letter to Dr. Reytblatt and the Citizens Against Nuclear Power in April of-1984. Dr. Reytblatt is apparently claiming that Mr. Denton in his-response did not properly clarify the status of this Critique and that so tehow this improper clarification of the public availability status of Dr. Reytblatt's Critique will cause some harm to Dr. Reytblatt. While it would be inappropriate for me to speculate as to either what harm
.Dr. Reytblatt has or has not received, I think I can say that the response that Mr. Denton gave in his formal written response was partially correct '
in that the Agency did receive the documents.in question and orginally l under a claim of propHetary treatment, but that document could have been a !
lot clearer in stating or clarifying that subsequent to receipt some of the documents retained their proprietary status and.other documents were removed from proprietary treatment by the Agency and in fact had been placed in the ;
PDR. !
The above statements are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and ability and I am available.to assist 01A or any other Agency office if they, have further questions in regard to the Agency's handling of Mr. Reytblatt !
and his various submittals of documentat? ion to this Agency. !
/. l
, uk '
EwardC.Shomaker, Attorney Operations and Administration Division
, Office of the Executive Legal Director
,, 7 Q"~ p' .-~.
..- EXTRAN. INC, s !
s m weuw. mer u w.e46,,n unc 4.ie uam,.
P. O. S C X 1C 4 9
,cl ' CHf C ACO. 8LLINCl3 810490 (a ta) acs.7sss ano (str)' art.ine '
]
i l
Mr. E. : Gunter Arndt Mechanical / Structural Engineering 3 ranch Office of Nuclear. Regitlatory Reser.rch ;
' } U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Washington, D.C. 20555 t
Dear Mr. Arndt:
Regardine yo'ur March 28, 1983 letter:
l For your convenience, your letter is partitioned as shew. in attachnent A and a pa- ;
ragraph in question is indicated by a numeral and a. letter (for examplo, 3(b)).
l In my letter of rebruary 28.1983 . I invited you to return ta a nor:na;l mede of, dis-cussion which would include restraint, abstentien of false persenal accusations snd i fact distortions. Unfortunately. */our letter con ^ains elonent.1 which are beneath ny I dignity to address. Hewever. since our co.respcndence is a natter of pt.olic record, !
I still address them separately ( Attachment S)
'(la)Thank you very much for clarification of the proprietary status of my materuls.
To set record straight.' J ne.or objec tad usine them for ynr review et F.tf.1. to !
the contrary, that was try o'ojective. Ecwaver, it is true, tha t ; objedted ar.d ' I .{
am objecting todrf to any. use of those matorisis which are protae'.ed L7 th e Cny-right Laws of the. U.S. A.3 for tr.e purpese of crea ti .c ne.w doer.ents whi::h . ay en I used:by orgsnisations oprating for profit (such as Reg. Guides) rithout ny cen-m nt. .L sm sure, that the legal depertmsnt of the NRC will ur.derstsed ry positten.
Two typteal permissions are attached to the present letter ( Att. 'C and Att. 7).
Ples.s e, no'te, that'these permissions are granted* to the NRC on the charge-free basis. j (1b) We do have criticism of Ref.1 and we do not have criticism of the "pecersm", '
unless you' use the term "proeram" in the comonly. acespted . meaning of the word '
" methodology". Sosseg find a torcerietory cowr14ted document. (Ref. 2.- M,t. )
een de 'ed eriticism of Ref.1 and3the permission to use ittfreel -
TAtt'.? . You statervent comes as a surprise materials and other evidence "to show that a probl;becauso you em really already exist" have such as:some you contrac t.ed with the CENL ("to look into the r. attar"):
you received my memo with a numerical example showine that the leak rato ten times highor thsn is pernitta,d. want undetected by Ref. is fj you sent no alotter thanking for correction "in gas mass calculation (NCTE to !
a layrani integrated leak rate (ILR) is, simply, a mass loss in percent in 24 hr).
verbally, you confirmed that the basic equation in Ref.1 is in error:
1 you reeived (January 1963) my como with the numerical axample showine that the leak rate about 40 tires larger than po-mitted went undetected by Ref.1.
What else evidence do you need to conceed that the problem exista If your require- I monts are such as stated in (?b), then you either do not understand cornenly accepted l engineering and .scientifie concepts or. nore likely, you are looking for an excuse )
~ to avoid reviewing field data 3which may lead to retesting of several nuclear power j plants. J (2a) You are quite correct on " selling" natters, as on my un.rillingnese "to provide the nee :'ssary material to substantiate enarges, ar cuse.tions". There are thres res..ons for thisi d)I do not believe in punishments (2) much of tno m.2terial is a proprietors
.o n n u an n /
o 7 " ' ' " "' If f' __ . . .N. . __. . . ._ _
ATTAQWENT5 ,
'/6}3 -
I c * .
p r%
information on release of which I have no legal rl=hte (which situation may change if the Ceurt will reouest such information); and (f a, concern for exxagerated publie
, recation which is not my aim. As to the evidence of unacceptibility of Ref.1 is
- concorned, this has been fully substantiated by presentinj nunerical exarples citad a bov e, By not challenging those exarples, you have accepted their validity.
(2b) Widely accepted engineering. scientifle and social norns require a temporary sus-pension of manufacturing, operating or testing involving public safety, if just one ev.acqlo .axkwere demonstra tes a rare possibility of noncompliance with the safety requirements, as a result of such manufac turing, cperattnq er testing activities. ,
I insist that the NRC should suspend the ILhT's on operatin:; plants and for the pur- l pose of issuing operating licenses on the ground that the nunerical exarolas (not hintst ) indicato that the possibility _ of underestimating lea'< rates when the Ref.1.
is used, is real. I seo two options, not nutually exclusive. in this situation:
@) accelerating a progran of creating valid regulatory doeunents, and d? reviewing the past tests on the basis of a tenporary doeunent identifying potentially hacar-duous nuclear power plants. .
(3a) I an satisfied with your s tatement. please, take my apology and shed sore light on the schedulo of the project. I ramember,almost a year ago you wrote that you were developing a Rec. Guide. Our experience su; gests that such a work should not take more than 1-2 ran-yests , a~d , therefore, your projec t must be near completion.
Pleaso, confirm or deny this. I am not satisfied with your avoiding, for the second time,to s tate your position'regarding a brief neeting with you "to establish the truth and corrective measures". I hope, you will agree with me,that the importance <
of problems justifies spending of about an hour of your time. I will return to this when discur. sing (4).
(3b) Yeur statement is not clear. What vill be put "as a proposed regulatory guide for public commant"? Your " opinion on the degree of acceptability of Ref.1.." or a cor-rected ver.eien of Ref. 17 pursusnt our telephone eenversatien in Cetober 1982. I am s enclosing the creerieterv. coc rrichted doewent (Ref. 3. AttT'E) snd the" perdission to use it on the free of charge ensis for not-for-profit purposes ( Att. .C). The more detailed s tudy of hef. 2. vill convince anyone skilled in the art. that a few, small corrections to Ref.1 vill not turn Ref.1 into a viable document. I suggest, that you vas ted ne tir.s en Ref.1 snd, ins taad, endersed Ref. 3 as a 'casis fer the r;ee.
Guid o. I reali:e that the docunent is net perfectisimply;because about 60+ of it,has been borrewed fren Ref.1 (naturally, this part of Ref. 3 is not covered by my copy-rights). In Ref. 3, such ieportant coneopts of ,the ILRT as sof tware calibration.
corroet equstiens, verification test methodology, recording etc. are either intro-duced or subs tantially inproved. '.'irtually, no section of the Standard escaped at least editorial improvements. The Ref. 3 guarantees detecting abnorcally high leak rates (which I challenge you to verify) and contains provisions aimed at closing various loopholos in Ref. 1. I feel, that I "have a specific, well-defined objective" of preparing a viable standard, and since our version of it (Ref. 3), obviously, is not inferior than Ref.1, your procodure should inclu'Je " forming an opinion on the degree of acceptability of" Ref. 3 as well as' "forning" the same of Ref.1.
(4) Thank you for inforning me en the possibility of the NRC sponsor .nq 4 the proposed meeting "if objectives and acorda of such a neeting are clearly identified". I am planning a trip to Washincton, D.C. in the lato April or early May and I an accepting "your long standing invitation to visit you at the !.7.C. " Objectives and agenda" can be discussed during my visit. please, inforn ne in writing what would be the most convenient time for you for a brief noeting (1/2 - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />).
N
\
=
- R R *
~
(5). (6) Can be resolved at the proposed brior neet.ing.
(7b) Plense, read the first sentence in which you succest "to pernit evaluation of its validity". Validity of what? Of technical data? 'ahat does this have to do with re-thodology? Also, s.s you know very well, Ref.1 does not require storing and archi-ving of some essential ILRT data which nakos your request inpossible to . oett Nev, read, please, the next sentence: "Then allow it to be reviewed to see whether . . . ."
To review what? The data? The " validity"? What does this hsve to do with methodology l Nothing! Evidently, your requirements are sinply attempts to build more obstacles to a neaningful chance in the ILRT nethodoloey, to postpone and to delay if not to
! reversa a process of preparation of a decent standard. Such an approach is not com-patible with the SRC goals as defined in its charter. The comenly accepted approach for initiation of a meaningful investigation of a given methodology may censist of the following steps: @ Correct equations governing the process in question are de-riv ed : @ Typical data satisfying these equations are assumed: @ The methodology in question is applied. If just one numerical example shows a substantial deviation of calculated values fropthe assuned values of just or.s variable, the nothodology is declared invalid mat )be correc ted (which, precisely, is the case with the metho-dology of Ref.1). Excuse me for teaching you those plain truths.
(8) Thank you very much for valuable information.
R E F E R E N C_E S.
1 " Containment Sys ten Leakage Testing Requirements", A'!S/ ANSI-56.8-1981 .
2 " Crit,ique of " Containment System Leaksge Teet Requirements"",- Repert No. 01 - 83 Copyright 196);to;Z;. Reytblatt 3
" Containment System Leakage Test Requirements" Copyright 1983 to Z. Reytblatt Thank you very c:uch and I hope to hear fron you soon. I Sincerely, s
Z. Reytblatt,# President. .
Enclosures
- 1. Attachment A. Your letter partitioned for easy referencing
- 2. Attachment B. "On personal matters". '
- 3. Attachment C. Ref. 2.
- 4. Attachment D. Fernission to use Ref. 2
- 5. Attachnent E. Ref. 3
- 6. Attachment F. Perraission to use Ref. 3 S
4 S
9
.~ L%Wmw. ;. & l 1
O R
' i'yt.utc% UNITED STATES
/ ,..t y%j NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMM135 TON )
f .Y ,
h% f f C WAsHINCioN. D. C. 205% l l
MAR 2 81933 !
% . ..a .s - /
Mr. Z. Rtytblatt, President EXTRAN, Inc. l Experimental and Theoretical Resuarch . ,.
and Analysis P.O. Box 2349 Chicago, Illitiois 60690 -
Dear Mr. Reytblatt:
I 1
Regarding your February 23, 1983 letter: -
(1) Men we talked on toe phone on January 14, 1981, it was pointed out that anj correspondence ' rom you would be a mattee ofpublicrecord,unlessyou(a) i wanted it labeled " proprietary". In.that case, I wculd orovide the proceduras !
for filing "peopri etary" You declined that alternative. I declined your of fer to send me correspondence marked " personal" or to send it tc my home adoress. It was aisc exclained that your comments on the ANS standard would ;
be nandled a; ouolic conments and used as inut for cur review of tha ANS i standard for andersementi Fcr the second time now, ycu have of fered ccm g" (
ments, then tr,9 c to ret"act tne 2nd refuso te b y thm W "withnot
. your consent" l ic' r consent was irrelieo when you sent them in without requestirg proprietary handling.
Your correspondence of puolic recero, and any future correspotence will also betoa cate catterisofa matter g,
]
public record, unless you request tnat it be handled as "crporieta v" and it meets th? criteria for such nand11ra. I Id you nave a s3 lid criticism of t.nr M 5 stancard anc the containc.ent in:agrated leak rate test (CILR-) rrugram, you should provide it in enough cetail, if jou have (j) it, to show that a proclem realiv dpos exist.
(2) As we discussed on January 14, 1983, the first step to be made in raising an issec vith anyonc, anywnerc, is to seli you- intenaea audience on the
, existance af a problem. Io chte, you have not this.andeitherhavebeen(d unable or unwillino to orovide the recesstrv natorial to substaat4 ate the s charges , accusatid.sGilind reauests 1:r e .,losment tiat you nave .made l We wili not ac:. tor you ano ask c51 to witncraw ANSI /A% 55.8-1981 on such ,)
incomplete information. Nor will we sus' ;erd CI'LRTs on operating plants /
on the tiasis of hints rather than substantive meterial.
g (3) Review of an ANSI :,tandard for endorsement in a regolatory guide does not (0) imply in. any way that' a faulty stanocrd would b? endorsed witnaut correction.
Your conjectured accusation of sucn a situation is unfounded and unwarranted.
Also, as indicated in my letter of Feoruary 23. 1?S3, the NRC has standard procedures for ensuring public revio and comnt on cesitions the NRC_,,gDff wishes to estaclish or revise. l Therefore, when tne t'hC stafi forms an opinien en the cegree of acceptability of ANSI /AN5 56.9-1981 for licensing M) purposes it will be out ce: 2: a crenosed reculaerv cuide for cublic conment. I Then everyone can see anc cor. ment on t.7e proposed NRC staf f position. This stao is still severai months eft for tha endorsement of J this ANSI standard. It will crovice ca. : portem ty for universal dis- f cussion on the subject. Unless you h6ve a specific, well-defined Q objective, I feel this procedere will previac tne general discussion y -
opportunity the NRC staft needs with regard to ANSI /M5 56.5-19.H.
.M h M .n hM AA A .A A M
.g
.Z Reytb1'att O 2 b i
1
(')4 It is not clear that it would be apprcoriate for the NRC to sponsor a meeting as you suggest, tieeting abiectivos and acenda have not been clearly identified. However, it has been suggested that I cend you the enclosed ,
material on having reetings sponsored by the NRC. The first is a notica l that was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER with inf.mation requirc:r.ents and l conditions for NRC .toonsored meetings. The rest is the paperwork that would be used for such a submittal. It should De pointed out, however,
, that this is directed at non-orofit organizations, and that EXTRAN, Inc. , '
as a commercial R&D firm, would not appear to be eligible for a grant to ,
sponsor the suggested meeting under this program.
(5),(6) Nct knowiilg cicarly what the objectives and agenda would be for such a meeting, it is difficult to sugger.t presentat;on material or attendees.
If, as you say, you wish to " return to a normal trode of discussion" it would l be helpful to discontinue hints, accusatioils, unsubstantiated charges, and l ger,cralized technicci cements that sea declarM certonal pro r .tv when ore- ;
sented fer raviev ! Instead, submit to the NRC and/or CRNL enough complete i f actua.1 and detailed technical data, occkground material, and field history to permit evaluation of its validitv. TSen alley it te ba reviewnd in <ne whethar
($) l I
grounds for action exist. linere are mary courses of action tnat can be taken i wr.en va61a ccm.r.ents are presenteo. However, as anywhere else, the action selected must be an appropriate resoonse to the proolem at nar.d. By oroviding comments !
to the NM as a memoer of the puolic, ano by contract with ORNL ynu have already been given two opportunities to cresent your problem in enough depth and clar i to arouse interc:t, if justified. How effectively such opportunities are used is up to you. !
(( As additional information, there will be two meetings at which the subject of CILRTs is expected to ccme uo. Or.e is the Elesentn Eienniel AN5 Tcpical fleeting on Reactor Operating Excerience, August 1-3, Scottsaale. Arizona.
Contact:
F. Wesley Hartley, c/o Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Ancther meeting, as yet unscheduled, will be a second Workshop on Containment Integrity, about.one year from now.
Contact:
W. A. von Riesemann, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Shuuld you wish to attend either of these, you would have to make your own ,
arrangements, at your own expense, for attendance. ,
Sincerely, 0
i E. G4 ter Arndt Hechdocial/ Structural Engineering Brcnch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Enclosures:
As stated
___./
s
+ . . . . . . . . . _ . .
g
. - Attachment B {
p n on Per nn1 % tt" m .
In ou'r correspondence several hints, charges and accusations related to cr/ personality hsve been naie. They concern (1) "r/ personality. 2 ny conpetence and 3 my modo of l discussion. Noodlest to say, that neither charre was substantiated by a precise qua- l
)
ta tion from a specific piece of correspondence or by a reference to a telephone conver- l sation.
Before answering every and each such charco in your letter of March 28,1983, let me preser,t my explanation supported by references, of the reasons for your personal attack on re. A personal attack has long been the last defence line in a discussion when no other argument can be presented to support a point. It is a natter of fact, that during our long discussion (almost a year longt ), the only argunent presented by Mr. Arndt in favor of continuing with the Ref.1., was his verbal statenent during our telepnene con-versation in Saotenber 1982 (I quote by nonory): " Changes will cost too much to the in-dustry". Despite the fact that crucial errors in Ref.1 were reported as early as Fall 1974, that tMay even the AN3 admits that " erratum" must be added to Ref.1, tha t nume-rical examplas known to Mr. Arndt clearly demonstrate inability of the Ref.1 to detect shnnemally huh leak rates, Mr. Arndt refuses to suspend the Ref.1 as a basic replato-ry doeurent for licensing nuclear power plants. Of course, i.ce-cat..ee is a centritu-ting rector to this decision (plesse, turn to statament (7b)where "r. Arndt relstos ee-thWolory prcblems with " evaluation of validity of... field history" etc. wich is ridi-culeus). In ny opinion, his decision was influenced also by motifs contrary to 'he in-terects of public safaty which raises questions of his suitability as an NRC staff mece-ber. I do not have any direct evidence of this and I wish I were wrong. My charge is based en the follev2ng indirect evidence:
1 Letters of the Spring and Summer of 1982 denying the inportance of the problen and r3 versing letters sugres ting that the CRNL started its study of the problem:
2 The telephone conversation queted abeve; 3 Mr. Arndt's persisting refusal to ceknowld e the fact that he was unable to dis-prove numerical examtles illustrating inability of de Ref.1 to detect hi;h leaks 4 Mr. Arndt's atter.7ts to nount preconditions for a discussien 'see (7b)) sun as eel lecting the field d2*a. which is 1: pcssible to do for =any reasons (one of the- is that the Ref.1 dees not require archiving of ser.e essential data!) Practically, he introduces a vicious circle - he deraads "coeplete factual...etc... and field his to ry...." to initiste consideration of problens vith Ref.1, whereas the def. 1 al-lows not to archive such datat ;
5 A year elapsM since (according to Mr. Arndt) the CPSL initiated its study. What -
are the results? When w1ll the'results be released? In the sane time, several ILRT's have been perfornM and several questionable licenses have been issuodt Questionable, because the Ref.1 does not provide a guarantee (as numeriesl exsepler have demonstratvi) that an ILR is within' the permitted specified limits. Mr. Arndt is responsible for the situation and it is logical to assume that this may be one of tha reasons for his slurring statoments.
I repeat, that I would like to be incorrcet in my assumption, and that I would like to examine any evidence disproving this statement. We turn now to Mr. Arndt's charges.
(ib) I never retracted s_n,v of the materials sent to the NRC. I quote fron my letter of February 23, 1983: "I did not request consideration of what you call "cor.nents" for '
preparation of a Pegulatory Guide. I opposed in the past and I an opposini in the present to any use of our caterials without our consent". Our consent was inplied for criticism of Ref.1. It seemed only natural to me to consider separately cases when my mterials nizht be used by organir.ations operating for profit. It appears ,
now that I lost rc/ right to control reviously submitted ntterials. Unfortunately, I was mislM by the statement in your Septenber letter: "NRC does not plan to use your materials without your consent". Can you reconcile this with the statements (la) and (ic) ?
s
. n m t (id) It is irplied usat t nay not have a valid criticisn of Ref.1 and, therefore, I an an incompetent person or, worse, havn dubious notifs. I am quoting from the letter of August 19.1932 <ritten by "r. Gillespio of the NdCi "Your corr.onts on gas mass calcula tions will be considered..." Your s tatenent irplies th at i did not provide evidence "in enough detail" What more do you need than demonstration of a failure of Rof.1 to detect a leak rate 10 times higher than permitted?
(2b) This is an absolutely slanderous statement. I provided necessary natorials to sub-stantiate ny request for employrent with the NRC and I an on the NRC file. ,
(7a) A good example of your tactics of distortions! I quote fron ny letter of Fevbruary 3 28, 1983: "I an sorry to say this, but our correspondones acquired a strange pat-- -
tern - questions raised by ne are not answered by you. I hope, we will return to a mermal rode of discussion" Anyone can see that you were polito1y invited to answer questions which is a normal thing to do. Unfortunately, my hope did not come tr,uo. It is suggested in your s tatenent that I should " discontinue hints, accusations, unsubstantiated charges, and generalized technics 1 cor.nents that are declaret property when presontai for review". It is not clorr, whether you should do the same. I pronise tha t I cladly will do so en the case to ease basis if you specify what particular hinta, wha t particular accusatives, wha *. unsubs tantiated charcas and what " generalized technical. . .. .pr9sented for review
- I should discon-tinue, makine tsferences to our correspondence in a fern of quotations. If you fail to present a concrete evidence to my request this vill mean that your charges are totally groundless and ralicious in nature. I offer you a more honorable option -
retract your statementt t
9
=
4 e
g 1
l l
e- ,
__m___-__ _ - -_-_._____m._ . . . _ _ _ _ _
c*.
. . . >A m ;
L i
l NOTE: j The " Proprietary 3R" designation on Attachment C has been volded by instructions given by Mr. Reytblatt in a May 5,1983 meeting between Mr. Reytblatt, Mr. E. Shomaker (ELD), and me in Bethesda, as well as l by'the May 23, 1983 letter received from Mr. Reytblatt that applies !
for proprietary status only for Attachment E (removed from this package).
I Allicopyright provisions, however,' remain intact for both Appendices C & E.
E. 2 Arndt ,
4 h a
} $
Q T h $f
- w: -:a. -- u - . :. a. -a.a ., ~.- - - - - ~. . --
- ~ . - - - - - - . v.-- , ,..m.,.a -
Y '.
- j . ? CX Clkry c$ 0 ;
=. .
.N%*
} s _
\
@l J03 3 83 REPORT h*o 01 - 83 00!!IGC OF CO'!?AI!.NE'IT 'sYS".'of !.L.'M AGE TES? P.EOUIPDf EtiT3
Prepared by E. Reytblstt -
i 0 Copyright 1933 Z. Raytblatt Caution: Any individual or organization are-here9/ wtrned that any use of the present doeur.9nt, includine reproduction.
, ,,. quota tien and transla tien, in part or in its entirity is subject to authorization by Z. Raytblatt. P. C. Box 28A9.
Chicago. IL 60690. U.S. A. '
i t
Revision 1 March 14,1983 0
D l
_O9e >>a A > "^ '
V.g y p 6J W M [ N 1
._ j
3-
', u, I
- g. ..
=
- s
- . . ' ~ e. -
w ps ~7l p 3
.\
Z. Reytblatt 4 j
EXTRAN, Inc. I P.O.-Box 2849 Chicago, Illinois 60690 '!
l
Dear Mr. Reytblatt:
1 In response to the three auestions/reauests in your July b,1983 letter:
- 1. An erroneous impression is given by the phrasing used in your letter. ;
ANS!/ANS 56.8-1981 has not yet been endorsed by the NRC through its regulatory guide program. Theref ore, instead of "no longer a basis", it is "not yet a basis" for licensing acceptance of containment leak rate tests.
a) Current criteria are: 10 CFR Part 60, Append 1x J, " Primary Reactor Containment ~
Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors", and each plant's Technical Specifications.
b) Yes, the organizations involved in ILR testing are aware of these criteria.
~ '
- 2. "'Ge r'e FMs'i% pour, non-proprietary .cor[espondence,,, including' "Criti.gue f ' Con'tainme]nt: System'1.eakage" Test Requirements" has been filed Tin' the~P ,
V "ument" Room. ' It is available there f or public review. Futher action by the i ARC"is'not appropriate until completion of the pending review by the NRC of your comments and recommendations. Since your material is on file in the Public Document Room, anyone interested can review it, and decide for themselves whether,- and to what degree, they wish to act on it.
In addition, your comments will be handled in the normal manner for public coments received in conjunction with an NRC review of a national standard. They will be considered during the review, and copies of all public coments received will be sent to all commentors following the of ficial public coment period on the dratt <
regulatory guide addressing that standard.
- 3. As stated in answer 2, your critiaue of ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 15 in the Public Docun'ent Room, and will be handled in accordance with normal NRC review practice.
No other commitments have been made regarding its distribution. The NRC mailings you request are not approp iate as noted above.
Sincerely, i
f E. Gunter Arndt Arndt/ Burns / Anderson /Shomaker N&lA$$W Jf ATTACHMENT 6 A
' i
,/
'9 ,
.p ,A l g .c. ,
4 \'
EXTRAN INC.
EsesmutNtat amo 7mtontfical Rt.tancw amo AN ALT.1$
P. O. box 2 8 4 9 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 606 90
~
}
(312) 269 7555 aNo (312) 477.t?70 July 5,1983 l
r.
E. riun ter Arnd t 1 j
"nchanieal/.;true tural Engineering Branch '
Office of lluelear Requiatory Research
.j
. U. S. !!uelear Reculatory Corr.ission L
'4ashirwton, D. C. 20555 t
' Dear "r. Arndt Pursuant our telephone conversation on June 28, 1933 and other developments, please, j ar.swer the fo11owin6 questions: *
~
- 1. In your correspondence and later, during our conference with Mr. Shor.aker on 5/5/8) 3 you stated that the Ref.1 is no longer a basis for licensing nuclear contain: rents regarding leakare rates.
OC:,STION 1. (a) 'dhat are the current criteria for licensing? Provide references.
(b) Are organizations involved in the ILR testing inforned about 'these ;
criterial' (
2.1 received alarning signals that several ILRT's performed in May-July 1983 were based on 'the Ref.') !
QUESTION 2. Have you inforr.ed organizations involved in the ILRT about .
(a) errors in the. Ref.1 7 : (b) possibility of-heavy financial Icsses due '
to a nocessity of additional testing?
- 3. April. 7. J ,we s.eptJ.
{tiallfe.i,t,1)S was mistaNenly.pp,Anyo.ur_ngquesb labeled bh.e AgM.Jer AustMtQg;34e, ;
titus was"fullf clabified during th,aseaabove proprietors conference. Myancisite material anon-proprieto:
~
authorization (which vas i no , fn*fsctf nesded) was given for sending it out for information and respor.se. Urge.k i of the natter is unquestionable. since the Ref. 2 provides scientific proof that abnorr. ally high leakace rates may not be detected when the Ref.1 is used for testir I obtained evidence that on the contrary to your cornitnents, the Ref. 2 has not yet been sent out.
hE;UEST: (a)'1 kindly request that the Ref. 2 be ir.r.ediately sent out to (1) all the recipients of the topical reports of the ORNL on your mailing list, and (2) all or-ganizations on your nailing list which are involved in the ILR testing (b) Please, send me the list of addressees with the mailing dates.
In view of importance of the ra tter and unjustified delays in the past,1 kindly reques that you give a due priority to these questions and inform ne on your actions ir.nediate:
, . . L 2.8 ,
Z. Reytblatt REFERENCES 1." Containment Systen Leakage Testing Requirer.ents". ANSI /A'IS- .
g2,.PCritiquef.of " Containment System Leakage Test Requirements"",
,J. .Reytblatt. Copyright TXu 125-957. 1983 '
~ a n avarunvn- n
- ..' sf' ~'b,j O UNITED STATES 5 / 4 d '7
.[
' ;, M p,
'j
' NCCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20533
(,
- i k..v jf a.% q December 14, 1983 i 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold'R. Denton, Director a Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: James Lieberman, Director ..
Regional Operations and Enforcement Division
SUBJECT:
PETITIONS OF EDWARD M. G0GOL FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF RE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE AND INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TESTING AT ALL U.S. NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS l INCLUDING LASALLE UNITS 1 AND 2 1
By a petition dated November 29, 1983, directed to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Edward M. Gogol requested that emergency action be i taken with respect to integrated leak rate testing of U.S. nuclear power reactor containments. Mr. Gogol alleges severe errors, defects and loopholes in the current methodology for conducting integrated leak rate testing. Mr.
Gogol,goes on to allege that his conclusions are supported by Dr. Zinovy.
Reytblatt, stated to be a specialist on containment leak rate testing. Also on November 29,-1983, Mr. Gogol directed a petition for emergency relief to the Regional. Administrator of Region 111 and to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The'same issues are raised in these petitions as in the ' y petition directed to the Conmission itself. The petitions request a variety j of relief, including placing LaSalle Unit 1 in cold shutdown, halting all further licensing activities on LaSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit 1, a moratorium on all further. integrated leak rate testing in the nuclear industry, and a reviev/ of integrated leak rate testing done to date to determine whether all reactors should be shut down. Mr. Gogol also requests that all documents supporting integrated leak rate tests performed at the facilities of Comon-wealth Edison Company be obtained by the NRC staff and made available to Mr.
Gogol for his independent review.
As all three petitions appear to address licensing issues within the province of NRR, it is recommended that the petitions be consolidated and treated together under 10 CFR 2.206. As all petitions solicit emergency relief, the immediate actions taken by the agency or an articulation of why such action need not be taken should be set out in the response to Mr. Gogol. Dick CONTACT: I Richard K. Hoefling, OELD x27013 a tQ l2 2.2@ l $ NA h
- _ _ ___ __m
.m; ~ - .
.A
^
l
... 4 l
Hoefling is working with your project man 69er to develop an appropriate l response. Enclosed for your use are:
- 1. A draf t notice of receipt of the petitions under 10 CFR 2.206 for ;
publication in the Federal Reoister.
- 2. The three original petitions submitted by Mr. Gogol. :
Should you determine, following review of these petitions, that additional information from the licensees regarding the subject of the request would be useful to you in the preparation of a Director's Decision, such additional information may be solicited from the licensees by utilizing 10 CFR 50.54(f) and section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Also, l Please provide us a copy of all documents related to the petitions. J please place our of fice on concurrence for all correspondence initiated by 1 the staff and related to these petitions.
l
.. James Lieberman
~
Director and Chief Counsel !
Regional Operations and Enforcement Division, OELD
Enclosures:
as stated cc: (w/encls.) 015TF.!BUT 10N R. DeYgung, IE E. Christenbury, OELD "
f,'RC ntral
'J. Keppler, Region III S. Lewis, Region III Rds.
Subj. (OP-83-31) .
bcc. Liebeman chron Anthony Sournia, NRR Hoef 1ng chron '
Murray info .
E00 13854 .
EDO 13855 2.206 chron Cuoco info CWoodhead info MYoung info 4
- O C~ :0E l ___:__k'f}'___ssfJL'.brman:__:____________:-___
ME : RH 12/\S /83 : :
7E :12/)4/83 :
ig I
L '
p o
,j ,
e .
a' , .
qq -
t
~.. [7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 REGARDING INTEGRATED CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES- j Notice-is hereby~given that, by three petitions dated November 29, 1983, {
Edward M. Gogol sought emergency relief and immediate action to remedy alleged inadequacies .in the conduct of ~ integrated leak' rate testing at U.S. nuclear power _ reactors, including specifically LaSalle Units 1 and 2 and Byron Units 1
'and 2. Severe errors, defects, and loopholes are alleged in the integrated i
. leak rate testing methodology _now in use. A variety of relief is requested including: placing LaSalle Unit 1 in cold shutdown, ceasing further construction
~
and licensing activities with respect to LaSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit 1, and -
shutting down. reactors with insufficient _ evidence of adequate' containment leak rate testing. .The petitions are being. treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's ~ regulations and, accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on these requests within a reasonable time. A' copy of the petitions are available.for1 inspection in the Commission's public document room, i717 .
H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the local public document room for the LaSalle Station, Units 1 and 2 at [ ] and Byron Units 1 and 2 at [ ].
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this .
day of December,1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
n O l 1
.1
. [7590-01] l l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 REGARDING INTEGRATED CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES Notice is hereby given that, by three petitions dated November 29, 1983, Edward M. Gogol sought emergency relief and immediate action to remedy alleged inadequacies in the conduct of integrated leak rate testing at U.S. nuclear power reactors, including specifically LaSalle Units 1 and 2 and Byron Units 1
'and 2. Severe errors, defects, and loopholes are alleged in the integrated leak rate testing methodology now in use. A variety of relief is requested including placing LaSalle Unit 1 in cold shutdown, ceasing further construction and licensing activities with respect to laSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit 1, and l l
shutting down reactors with insufficient evidence of adequate containment leak rate testino. The petitions are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Conmission's regulations and, accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on these requests within a reasonable time. A copy of the petitions are available for inspection in the Conmission's public document room, i717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the local public document room for the LaSalle Station, Units 1 and 2 at [ ] and Byron Units 1 and 2 at [ ].
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of December,1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
I
vn , ___ .
' Edward ())Gogol 154 Linden Glencoe IL 60022 (312) 835-3988
? .
November 29, 1983 PETITION FOR EMERGENCY REllEF RE:
Primary Containment Leakace and Inteorated leak Rate' Testing at all l U.S. nuclear power reactors l
Honorable Nunzio'Palladino l Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington OC 20555
Dear Mr,
Palladino:
I am writing to notify-you of an extremely serious and unsafe condition which now prevails with regard to Integrated Leak Rate Testing (ILRT) of U.S.
nuclear power reactor. containments, and to request emergency action on your Besides being a clear and present danger, part to correct this_ situation. f the Atomic
-this situation represents;a gross violation of the requirements o Energy Act and 10 CFR Part. 50.
Description of the situation:
1.
There are severe errors, defects, and loopholes in American National Standard N45.4-1972, Leakage Rate Testing of Containment-Structures for -l Nuclear Reactors", which Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that containment leak rate tests be conducted in accordance with.
2.
These errors, defects. and loopholes stand uncorrected in the document American National Standard Containment System Testing
" ANSI /ANS-E6.8 1981:
Requirements", which the American Nuclear Society is proposing as'a -
standard to replace the N45.4 standard.
- 3. The defects in"these documents include:
The ecuation used to calculate the containr,ent air mass at any given a .. This error is the result of an obvious and glaring time is wronq. This error was mistake made during the derivation of this equation. Errors resulting reported as early as 1969 (see References 1 and 2).
from the use of the wrong equation may become significant when temperature gradients throughout a containment are not small.
- b. A wide variety of ways in which the final _ calculated leak rate mal _be ;
f udged_. These include, but are not limited to: i
- 1. unjustified discarding of the first part of the mass curve; ii. unjustified discarding of data; iii. insufficient and unjustified placement of temperature and pressure sensors; iv. use of unjustified weighting coefficients; 1691a5 JO
/O N db @ g
=/ 4 m n w= 4 p g-gy. p
,. November I 29,-1983 5O- ,
O -
Honorable'Nunzio PalladinJ
- Page 2 1 ,
- v. Invalid and u'njustified_ blockage of leakage pathways; i vi. Invalid cod. ur. justified use of "B" and "C" type tests as verification of overall-containment leak rate; and vii. Errors in' verification tests.
- c. Loose requirements f'or permanent archiving of the ' actual raw. .l individual temperature and pressure sensor readings, as well as other l essential data. If-this data is not preserved, meaningful review of an.ILR test is impossible - especially in light-of the many 9
^
opportunities described above for. fudging-the calculateri result.
- d. It can be mathematically demonstrated that the errors' and loopholes in the standards allow the reporting of a leak-rate which may be one, or in _ q extreme cases as much ds two, orders of magnitude lower than the real leak rate.
)
- 5. Integrated leak rate tests at U.S. power reactors have been conducted in
' this f aulty manner since at least the 1960's. l
- 6. This situation has persisted, and persists-today, despite the fact that the Nuclear Reaulatory' Commission staf f. the' American Nuclear Society, Oak. >
Ridae National Laboratory, and Sargent and Lundy were notified of it years f ago. .j To sum up, the ILRT methodology now in use of f ers no guarantee that actual- !
. leak rates are ecceptably low. We simply do not know what the actual leak _ !
rates are. There is evidence,-however, that at-least one or several U.S. -!
containments may have drastically higher leak rates than has been reported, .
and than the technical specifications for these plants allow.
,I'f i Three Mile .lsland-type accident were to occur' at a reactor with an !
. unacceptably high containtrent leak rate;(one that had not been detected by a f aulty. ILR test), radioactive contamination of the ' surrounding area c'ould be severe. The immense fission product inventory of the core would not be contained to the degree mandated by law. ,
This unacceptable situation represents a fundamental violation 'of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which requires that reactor containment leak
. rates'be demonstrated to be within certain values for a' reactor to obtain and keep'an operating license. ,
l This situation also violates the Atomic Energy Act - indirectly since it violates 10 CFR Part 50, and directly since the Atomic Energy Act niandates that atomic reactors may only be licensed if such licensing is consistent with protecting the public health and safety.
1 1691a6 q l
Y~ November 29,;1983' A l Honorable Nunzio Palladitio1 Page 3 l
l)
Specific problems with laSalle L-11 1 ILRT:
In July: of this year. I filed w';h the NRC a freedom of.Information Act Request (f01A-83-384), asking fcr copies of any and all documents in the NRC's possession regarding Integrated Leak Rate Testing at the'LaSalle 1 and 2 and D.C. Cook.1 and 2 reactors, inciuding'any and all flaws or errors in these tests. The NRC responded,- af ter a very significant delay, by placing various documents regarding LaSalle in tne LaSalle Public Document Room, at which I was able to peruse and photocopy them. I have submitted these materials for review to Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt, a specialist on containment leak rate' testing.
t Dr. Rey'blatt informs me that these materials, which pertain to the spring 1982 ILRT conducted at LaSalle 1, are:
- a. insuf ficient to justif y the reported leak rate;
- b. insuf ficient to Drove that t".e kind of unjustifiable fudging of the data described above was not done; and c, insufficient to permit a mearinoful review of this test.
Necessary data not provided include:
- a. Precise location of te.tperature and pressure instruments;
- b. Compartment subvolume recalculations. It appears that the testing organization simply used temperature averaging over individual compartments;
- c. Individual sensor weign:ing f actors; I
- d. Individual temperature sensor readings;
- e. Back-up pressure gauge readings; and
.f. Containment ventilation. and cooling conditions in ef f ect .during the test. 1 No complete review can be done w'.:nout such information.
There is strong evidence, however, that the real leak rate may be in excess of the' reported value' simply because the local temperature range within the '
containment during.the test was at times greater than 40 degrees f. Another adverse factor is'a possibility cf actual weighting factors being'in excess of 0.1, which violates even the fau'ty standard, in addition, the materials recehed were f ragmentary, disordered, and in many cases illegible.
There appears, therefore, to be to justification whatever f or any conclusion that LaSalle Unit l's containmer.: leak rate is with'in acceptable limits. It appears that the NRC has never rt:eived f rom Commonwealth Edison any materials which can justif y any such conclusion.
1691a7 I
O
fNovember' 29, 1983 Honorable. Nun 810 Palladino h h Page 4 l Relief requested:
I therefore request that you immediately order:
- 1. that LaSalle Unit 1 be placed in cold shutdown until' Commonwealth Edison (CECO) has provided to the NRC valid proof that its containment leak rate is within the limit mandated by law;
- 2. that all further construction and licensing activities on LaSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit 1 be halted until CECO has provided to the NRC complete and valid proof that their-containment leak' rates are within the limit mandated by law;
- 3. that the NRC staff immediately order CECO to submit complete ILRT reports and all supporting documentation, of the wst recent ILRT's done at LaSalle Units 1 and 2, and Byron Unit 1;
- 4. that the NRC immediately release all such materials to me, including that described in "Necessary data not provided", points a-f above;
- 5. that a moratorium be placed on further Integrated leak Rate Testing until all errors and defectsiin the test methodology have been corrected;
-6. that the NRC notify all U.S. reactor owners of this unsafe situation;
- 7. that the NRC order all U.S. reactor owners to assemble all ILR test reports and supporting documents or computer media containing such supporting materials, including such documents or media which contain the actual raw test data; and to supply this material or copies thereof to the NRC;
- 8. That the NRC commence an urgent program to promulgate a correct, valid methoc' ology for Integrated leak Rate Testing; and initiate a rule-making procedure to obtain the adoption of this new methodology; and
- 9. that the most recent ILR tests done at all U.S. reactors be reviewed immediately, and reactors orderad closed where there is not sufficient' evidence of containment leak rates within the legal limits..
The public saf ety, as well as the law you are sworn to uphold, demands that this extremely serious situation be corrected. I shall expect to hear from you immediately.
Sincerely, CL~J b Edward M. Gogol
References:
- 1. See pages 33-34 of: BNWL-1028, UC-80, Reactor Technology: Air Leakaqa Rate Studies on the C.S.E. Containment Vessel. by M.E. Witherspoon and G.J. Rogers latte11e Memorial Institute i't 0 Crittaue of Containment System Test Requirements ZTe,,183:.ytbfait,:Extran Inc., P08 2849, Chicago IL 60690 1691a8 -
7.
+.,-
1 i[d.ard F N ogol'
~~4
- 154 L Lind, h
Glencoeill 60022
.(312) 835-3588 !
-November 29, 1983-
~-P(TIT 10N'f0R [MERGENCY REl'.[r EE: Primary Containment Lc2 Lace and Inteereted teet Fate Testino at all i U.S. nuclear-oower-reactors !
Honorable Harold Denton-Director Office'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor:rnission Washington DC 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
I am writing to notif y_ you of an' extremely ' serious and unsaf e condition which !
now prevails with regard to integrated Leak Rate Testing ()LRT).of U.S.
nuclear powerf reactor containments, and ~ to request emergency action on your
.part to correct tM !
r
. t u a t i o n ... Besides being a clear and present danger, I
~ thi s s it ua t ion r epr.<,ent sta g ros s v',ola tion of t he r e cu'.r ement s of t he ' Atomic Energy Ac: and 10 CFR Part 50.
tescriction of the situationj h
.1, The re a re s evere errors , def ec ts , a nd loc:'.cie s in' ' American National' (
Standard N45.4-1972, Leakage Rat e T est ing . cf Centa inmu.t S;ructures f or i Nuclear Reactors', which Appendix J of 10 CTR Fart 50 re:;uires that j containment leak rate tests be conducied '.n accorcance with. i
, - 2. These er ror s , def ects . and icopholes stand unc or rec t ed in the ' document
~* ANSI /ANS-56.S-1981: American National Stancerc Containment System Testing Requirements', which the American Nuclear Society is pr0 posing as a.
standard to replace the N45.4 standard.
- 3. The defects in theseJdocuments include:
- l
- a. The ecuation'used to calculate th? c ent a i nment a i r ma s s a t a ny civen time is wrone. .This error is the result of an obvious and glaring mistate made during the derivation of this ecuation. This error was reported as early as 1969 (see References 1 a'nc 2). Errors resulting f rom the use of the wrong ecuation rray become significant when temperature gradients throughout a containment are not small,
- b. A wide variety of ways in which the final calculated leak rate may be fudoed. These include, but are not limited to: 3
- 1. unjustified discarding of the first part of the mass curve; ,l ii. unjustified discarding of data; - .
iii. Linsuf ficient and unjustified placement of temperature and pressure sensors; Sv. use of un.ivstified weighting coefficients; Okoffy ena 0
L
,,. wow a m e yaq wsm e y,,g;-
Page 2 W
j,, i i
~
,v._ f nvalir) and unjustified blockage of leakage-pathways; -
vi. Invalid and- unjustified .use of- 'B' and 'C' type tests. as verification of overall containment. leak rate; and vij -[rrors in verification-tests.
- c. loose requirements f or oermanent archivino of .the actual raw.
individual temperature and pres sure sensor readines, as well as other essential data, if this data is' not preserved, meaningful review of
~
an-ILR test is impos5ible - especially in ~ light of the rnany i opportunities described above f or fut'ging the calculated result. !
l
.a. 'It. can be mathematically demonstrated that the errors and loccholes in the I stanC2rds allow the reoortino of a leak rate whicn c4v be one. or in :
- extreme cases as much as two. orders of macnitude Ic-er than the real leak ]
rate.
- 5. Inteorated leak rate tests at U.S. oower reactors have been conducted in this f aulty r.anner since at least the 1960's.
- 6. This situation has persisted, and persists today, despite the f act that
-the Nuclear Recula torv Cccrnis sion s ta f f , the Ame r ican Nuc lea r Society. Oak Ricce National laboratorv, and Sarcent and lunov were notified cf it years aco.
To sum up, the ]LRT methodology now in' use of f ers no guarar. tee that actual-leak rates are acceptably low. We simolv do not kno what the actual leak l rates are. There is evidence, ho ever, that at least one er several U.S.
conta',nments may have drastically higher leak rates than has been reported, !
and than the technical specifications f or these plants allow.
}f. a_ Three Mile Island-type accident were te occur at a reactor wilth an unacceptably high containment leak rate (c N that had not been detected by a faulty ILR test),_ radioactive contamination.of the surrounding area 'cbuld .be l
-severe. The irmense fission product 'nventory of the core would not be contained to the degree mandated by law.
This unacceptable situation represents a fundamental violation of the - 4 requirements of 10 CTR Part 50, which recuires that reactor containment leak l rates be demonstrated to be within certain values for a reactor to obtain and keep an operating license.
This situation also violates the Atomic Energy Act - indirectly since it violates _10 CFR Part 50, and directly since the Atomic Energy Act r.andates that . atomic reactors r.ay only be licensed if such licensing is consistent with protecting the public health and safety.
1691226
', sovemberL 29,- 19039 A -N !
Honorable Harold Denton'-
Page 3 .
l
' Soec ific' oroblems with leSalle ' Unit i ILRT:
]n July of this year, } filed Vith the -NRC a f reedom of information Act J Rec;ues t (f DI A-E3-3E4), asking f c, copies of any and all documents in the NRC's !
possession regarding Ir,tegrated Leat Rate Testing at the laSalle 1 and 2 and D.C, Cook 1 and 2 reactors, including any and all flaws or errors in these tests.
The-NRC respondeo, af ter a very significant delay, by placing various documents regarding LaSalle in the laSalle Public Document Room, at which I was able'to peruse and photocopy them. I have submitted these materials f or !
review to Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt, a specialist on containment leat rate testing. !
Dr. Reytblatt inf orms me that these materiais, which pertain to.the spring i 1982 ILRT concutted at laSalle 1, are:
l a, insufficient to $ustify the reoorted leak rate; ;
- b. insuf ficient to prove that the kind of unjustifiable fudcino of the data j described above was not done; and C. j n s u f f ', c i e n t t o pe rmit a mea n'.ncf ul r e v'.ew of t his te st. -l i
Necessary data not provided include:
~
- 2. Precise location cif temperature an: pressure instruments;
- b. C om;,a r tme n t subvolume recalculatient. ]t appears that the testing organization simply used temperature averaging over individual j compartments;
- c. )ncividual sensor weighting factors;
- d. Individual temperature sensor readings; y
- e. Eack-up pressure gauge readings; and
- f. Contair, ment ventila, ion and cooling ccr.ditions in ef f ect during the ,
test. '
No complete review can be done without such inf ormttion. '
There is strong evidence, however, that the real leak rate r.2y be in excess of the' reported value simply because the local temperature range within the containment during the test was at times greater than 40 degrees T. Another:
adverse f actor is a possibility of actual weighting f actors being in excess of 0.1~, which viola t es even the f a ulty s tanda rd, in addition, the tater'als received were f ragmentary, ciscrdered, and in many ,
cases illegible.
There appears, +heref ore, to be no justification whatever f or any conci-usion that LaSalle Unit l's containment leat rate is within acceptable limits. it q
l appears that the NRC has never received f rom Comensealth Edison any materials l l vhich can justif y any such conclusion.
,- 1691a?7
)
i l
4 3
?.
November- 29. 1983-n O
. Hon'orable Harold Denton l Page 4 !
l Relief recuested:
i E
] 'heref ore request that you irneciately order:
- 1. that laSalle Unit i be placed in cold shutdown until Ccmonwealth [dison (CECO) has provided to the NRC valid proof that its containment leat rate is within the limit trandated by law; 3
- 2. that all further construction and licensing activities on laSalle Unit 2 j and Byron Unit i be halted until CECO has provided to the NRC complete and valid proof that their containment leat rates are within the. limit l rJhdated by law; j
- 3. that the NRC staf f ircrnediately order CECO to submit complete ILRT reports and all supporting documentation, of the most recent ILRT's done at t.aSalle Units 1 and 2, and Byron Unit 1;
- 4. that the NRC irnediately release all sucn raterials to me, including that described in *Necessary data not provided', points a-f above;
- 5. that a moratorium be-placed on further Integrated Leak Rate Testing until ali errors and def ects'~in the tesi methodology have been correctec;
- 6. that the NRC notify all U.S. reactor owners of this unsaf e situatbon;
- 7. that the NRC order all 'U.S. reactor owners to as semble all ILR test reports and supporting cocuments or c omputer media containing such s upporting cra t e rials , inc luding suc h doc ument s or media which c entain the~
actual raw test data; and to supply this rrater*,al or ccpies thereof to the NRC; ,
- 8. That the NRC corrrnence an urgent program te promulgate a correct, . valid rnethodology f or integrated Leak Rate Testing; and initiate a rule ' making ,-
procedure to obtain the adoption of this new methodology; and 9.
that the most r'ecent'1LR tests done at all U.S. reactors be reviewed irrrnediately, and reactors ordered closed where there is not suf ficient evidence of containment leak rates within the legal limits.
The public saf ety, as well as the law you are sworn to uphold, derrands that this extremely serious situation be corrected. 1 shall expect to hear from you irmedia tely .
S i n'c e'r e l y ,
eL~J A!
Edwa rd M. Gogol Refere gns: . _ _. . .. _ ~
fP.3te Studies on the C.S.E..Contair. ment, vessel, by M.0; Witherspoon xand#
&*1.R6 r, e,9r s Ba t t->e lle Memo ri a l i n s t i t U t e
.. n 7, -
_r ea14 h ome ntv-5v s t em 4 e e r R Fo u W PMt nis
-Br+fe.^2Reytelattr f reesnMet*c"POB ?S4 ?",~ Chica gb~ It105M "
1691a28' ."'
-m.m__._____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
r; q
.e- '
p o
, y j a
n n I
SIAIf '
Glencoe IL 60022 -
DV (312) 835-3988 f.
g .-
-- I.
" . ,f I
i -q~
' ^
< No v e r-b e r 29, 1983 g5 ESA _FL ,-
KNF i jFile f /
PETITION FOR EK[RE[NCY R[llEF RE: Prirary Containment Leak Rate at taSalle Units l'and ?
00CCETS ND'. 50 373 and 50-374 Honoreble James (eppler l Director, Region 3 - l 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coccission 799 Roc,sevelt Road Glen Ellyn il 60137
Dear Kr. Keppler:
I arr. writing to notify you of an extremely serious and ur.saf e condi' tion which
now exists at LaSalle Unit 1.with regard to the ability of the prir.ary containment of that reactor to f ulfill its 6esign f uncticn and provide the level of containment of reactor fission products c.andated by law and the reactor's technical specif.ications. l There crists strong evidence that the Integrated Leak Rate Testiog (ILRT) done at tasalle Unit 1 in Spring,1982, provides no assurance whateveT that the containment ieak rate it within the required limit. s ,
Besides being a clear and present danger, this situation represents a gross violation of the retivirernents of the Atomic Energy Att and 10 CFR Part 50.
description of the situation:
- 1. There 'are' severe er rors, def ects , and loopholes in ' A .erican National St anda rd H4 5. 4 197?, Leatage Rate Testing of Containment Structures f or l Nuclear Reactors', vtich Appendit J of 10 CfR Part 50 requires that containrr.ent leak rate tests be conducted in accordance with. As a result, ILRT's are conducted in accordance with troodified versions of this standard stich have net been endorsed.
?. Most of these _ error $ 4 _ defects and loopholes stand uncorrected in the d oc urnent ' A NSI/ ANS- 56. 8 19 61 : American National Stancard Contairunent System Testing kequirerrents', which the Americ.en Nuclear Society is proposing as a standard to replate the N(5.4 standard, and which was basically f oliosed during the 1982 LaSalle test.
1691a1
$ $ 5 5 $ 5 $ $ Y- h ;
4 5
[ ' ,' . -
. A . OL I
. Ncvember. 29, 1983 konorabie' Jone s Keppler Pa g e. ' ?
- 1
)
'I
- 3. The def ects in these documents include-
- a. The ecuation used to calculate the containment air rass at any civen j time ig wrong. This error is the resuit of en cbvious end glesing l mistake made during the derivation of this equation. This error was 1 reported as early as 1969 (see Ref erences 1 and 2). Errors result'.ng j f rom the use of the wrong equation rey becone significant when temperature gradients throughout a containment are not small. )
1
- b. A lack of any -prohibition on a vide variety of ways in which the ~ ~ ~
final calculated leak rate may be f udced. These include, but are not limited to: j
- 1. unjustified discarding of the first part cf the rass curve; i
- 11. unjustified discarding of data; )
111. insuf ficient and unjustified placement of tencerature and i pressure sensors; )
iv. use of unjustified weighting coef ficients-
- v. Invalid and unjustified bloctage of leakage pathsays; vi. Invalid and unjustified use of 'B' and 'C' type tests as verification of overall containment leat rate; and vii. E r r o r s in 'vfr i f i c a t i on t e s t s .
1
- c. Loose recuirenents f or permane-* a rc hivinc of the ac tual rav, ' l ingividual tem 3erature and tressure sensor reae):es, as wt11 as othe'r )
._ essential data. If this data is not pr eserved, eeaningf ul review of j an ILR test is impossible - especially in light cf the many l opportunities described above f or f udging tne calculated result. j 1 ~ ,
- 4. ]t can be mathematically demonstrated that the errors and loonholet in the !
standards allow the reportino of a leak r a t e whi c n ta v be one, or in extreme ca ses as much as tve, orders of mJonitude lo<?r than the real leak j rate, j To sum up, the ILR1' methodology now in .use of f ers no guarantee that actual leak rates'are acceptably low. We sicolr do not Encv w+at the actual leak rates are. This is precisely the case with LaSalle Unit 1.
l This unacceptable situation represents a f undamental violation of the !
requirements of 10 Cf R Part 50, v$ich recuires that reactor containment leat
~
, rates be demonstrated to be withir certain values f or a reactor te obtain and -
I keep an operating license. I j
i 1691a?
i 1
A a
.' }. O l N eve rrbe r 29, 1983 Honorabie James Keppler Ea9e 3 ,
Specific probient with ta5alle Unit 1 ItRT:
In July of this year, I filed with the NRC a f reedom of Inf ormation Act Request (f 01 A-83-384), asting f or copies of any and all documents in the NRC's l
possession regarding Integrated Leak Rate Testing at the LaSalle 1 and ? and D.C. Cook 1 and 2 reactors, including any arid all inf ormation on flaws or ;
errors in these tests. The NRC responded, af ter a very significant delay, by. !
placing various documents regarding LaSalle in the LaSalle Public Docu=ent l Room, at which ! vas able to peru,te and photocopy then. I have subcitted I these inaterials f or review to Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt, a specialist on c ontain nent leak rate tes ting.
Dr. Reytblatt inf orms re that these rt.aterials, wtach pertain '
to the spring 1982 ]LRT conducted at tasalle 1, are:
- a. insuf fiti,en_t to justif y the reported leak rate;
- b. insufficient t o _p rove t ha t t he k i nd of unjustifiable f udcino of the data
~~~
desc ribed above was not done; and
- c. insufficient t o p e r mi t a r:>> e ni nc f ul r e v i rv of t h i s t e s t .
Nec essary data not or ovided include: s
- a. Precise location of temperature and pres sure instruments;
- b. Compa rtment s ubvolume r ecalc olat toru.: 3
- c. Individual sensor weighting factog P lt a; pears that the testing organization simply used tengerature averaging ever individual compartments; ,
{
f
- d. Individual temperature sensor readin.gs; .
- e. Back-up pressure gauge readings; and -
- f. Containment vent ilation and tooling conditions in ef f ect d' ring tid . l test.
No complete reviev'can be done v'ithout such inf ort:.ation. !
k There is strong evidente, havever, that the reel leak rate r.2y be in excess of the reported value simply because the local te Qerature range within the ;
containment during the test was at ,tthes greater than 40 degrees T. Anothe r !
adverse f actor is a possibility of actual weighting f actors being in' excess of i 0.1, wtoch violates even the faulty standard.
In addition, the ruterials received were f ragmer.tery, disordered, and in cany cases illegible, in contiusion, there appears to be no .) justification f or the contiusion that LaSalle Unit l's containment leak rate is within acceptable limits. It appears that the NRC has never received f rom Ccorren.talth Edison 'any materials 6toch can justif y any such conclusion.
1691a3
% - h ,
Novert.ber. 29 c = 1903 j Honorable JemeB Keppler Page 4 ,
Relief reouested:
I therefore request that you inrudiately 5er:
- 1. that LaSalle Unit 1 be placed in cold shutdown until Commonwealth Edison (CECO) can provide valid proof that its containtrent leak rate is within , [
the limit randated by law;
- 2. that CECO assemble and subrdt to the NRC all ILR test reports and supporting documents or computer media containing such supporting r*.J te r ials (inc luding r:.a t e r ial rela ting t o point s a-f a bove) pertaining to '
LaSalle Units 1 and ? and Byron Units 1 and 2. including such documents or media which contain the actual raw test data; j
- 3. that the NRC ir: mediately releasp copies of all this traterial to ne so that an inoepencent review can be done;
- 4. that the NRC imrnediately cortrnence its own review of these tests; and
- 5. that Cornonvesith Edison be ordered to conduct no f urther Inteoreted itat.
Rate lesting until all er r ors and def ec ts tr. the test tr.einodoio;y 'nay; been corrected. ,
The public interest , as well as 10 Cf R Part 50, derarrds -that this exf rkbly s er 'ious Tit uation be c or r ect ed . I shall e xpec t to hear f r om you 'irm'ed'iat.ely.
Sincerely, Edward _M. Gogo) cc. Congres>rr.an Sidney Yates ;
References:
- 1. See pages 33-34 of:
,8WWL-1028.mut-Bor.Reac t or Technology: Air leakane 4te Studies on-the -
C.f..I. CootAintnentrNesse d bylL )iWarJppgrLAnpAJuRogers, Reactor Engheering Department','
Pinirr AnAyggAptn,JrigiAixu,).en c..
Battelle Mernorial Institute, P4cif tc Nor1Mst Laboratories'.
@Tjfpi.7AM1r5 ,
- 2. Report 0183: _ Criticue_9f ,.C_93tainment Sys tem Test Requirements Bys2. Reytblatt. Extran Inc., POB 2849, Chicago It, 60690 1691a4 l
4 J
4
- - +
. . O O l
a.
00 6 UNITED STATES GF AMERICA .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. opp' ICE OF NUCEEAR REACTOR REGULATION
).' .. . .
.. Harold R. Denton, Director l
I In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 -]
- COMMONWEALTHEDISONCOMPANY l l
(La Salle County Station, (10CFR2.206) w Units 1 and 2)
.9
))I -)
j AND ALL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS 0! RECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION am J '
'On November 29, 1983, Edward M. Gogol (Petitioner) filed a " Petition for Emergency Relief re: Primary Containment Leakage and Integrated Leak Rate Testing at All U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors" with the ConTnission.
"~
A virtually-identical document, also dated November 29, 1983, was directed .I to the Office of Nuclea* Reactor Regulation. Finally, on November 29, 1983, the Petitioner submitted his " Petition for Emergency Relief re: Primary Containment Leak Rate at La Salle Units 1 and 2" to the Regional. Administrator for. Region III of 1;he Nuclear Regulatory Consnission.
All three petitions l
(hereinafter referred to as the Petitions) address substantially the same technical issue, specifically, the adequacy of the integrated leak rate testing which is conducted on U.S. nuclear power reactor containments.
Consequently, the Petitions have been consolidated and have been treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comnission's regulations. As the issue raised is primarily one related to the licensing standards for commercial nuclear reactor facilities, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has providet: the substantive response to all Petitions.
ATTACHMENT 8 d ..
q h '
1 2-l The Petitions allege that there a're severe errors, defects, and -
~ ' ~
]
igrated leaI[ rate testing (ILRT) methodo1'ogy now in loopholes,.if the.ij! e' l i
useincludingthes'tandar'dsof.the'hmericanNuclea'r'$ociety(ANS)and.the j
{
. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), specifically ANS N45.4-1972 l l
and ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981. It is alleged that the ILRT methodology now in use .l offers no guarantee that actual leak rates are acceptably low. The Petitions 4 j
' i
~
seek a variety of 3elief including requests;for innediate action such as l
placing the La Salle Unit 1 of the Commonwealth Edison Company in cold ]
> shutdown, ceasing further construction and licensing activities with respect i
to La Salle Unit 2 and' Byron Unit 1 (also of the Connonwealth Ediso'n Company), l 1
._, and shutting down reactors with insufficient evidence of adequate containment !
leak rate testing. For the reasons set forth in my letter to the Petitioner q l
of December 16, 1983, I declined at that time to take any innediate action i 1
based upon the preliminary evaluation conducted by the NRC staff of the i
Petitions and other relevant infonnation. I indicated at that time that the NRC staff would continue to review the Petitions and that the Office of '
Nuclear Reactor Regulation would issue a fonnal decision with regard to them in the reasonably near future. On January 6, 1984, the Petitioner submitted ;
an " Addendum to Petition for Emergency Relief" (Addendum) to the Office of I Nuclear Reactor Regulation, requesting documentation in the ILRT area. My l
i l
l I
i O ;
Q
- 3'-
letter to the Petitionen.of February 9,1984 informed him that the Addendun
- g. , , , ,
~
" would be treated ar an F0IA request to the extent it sought documents within ,,
the possession of the NRC. With respect to the request that all data from the ILRT tests of the la Salle, Byron and D. C. Cook plants not in the possession of the NRC be obtained and placed in the public document rooms to permit access for the general public, I declined to take such action at that time and stated that I would issue a formal decision regarding this matter in the reasonably near future. My decision in these matters follows.
DISCUSSION
. The Commission's requirements for integrated leak rate testing are set out in 10 CFR 50.54(o) and Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. These requirements call for preoperational and periodic leak rate testing of comercial nuclear. power plants in accordance with ANS N45.4-1972, ,
" Leakage Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors."
Experience gained with integrated leak rate testing of comercial nuclear facilities has been drawn together in an industry consensus doct. ment, specifically, ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981, " Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements", which provides detailed measures for performing the integrated leak rate testing required by Appendix J.
i
sa-+ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A , .
. - 4'- l s; The. Petitions allege.that there.are serious error's, defects, and l y,.. .. .
.t .-. . t C loopholes in both ANS N45.4-1972 and ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981,- and that the !
ILRT methodology now'in use offers no guarantee that actual leakage rates are acceptably . low. The specific defects alleged in the Petitions t
include: l (1) ' The equation used to calculate containment air mass at any
- 3. ,. ;
..3 ,
given time is wrong; (2) The final' calculated leakage rate may be " fudged" in a .
g Variety of ways to presumably yield an ipvalid leak rate; and 3
(3) There are " loose" requirements for the pennanent archiving of raw test data and other data essential for test evaluation.
b'ith regard to the first alleged defect, the equation presented in ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 for calculation of containment air mass is not wrong _
as alleged in the Petitions. The manner in which the mean containment temperature _is calculated for use in the equation, however, is important.
~
In this regard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 does not prescribe how to calculate the mean containment temperature. Either a mass-weighted mean temperature or a volume-weighted mean temperature would be acceptable. While the use of --
l a volume-weighted mean temperature is technically more correct, for reasonably well stabilized containment test conditions, as required by Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, the error that could result from using the mass-weighted mean temperature is not significant. To illustrate the point that either a mass-weighted mean temperature or a volume-weighted mean temperature would I
% l T
I e
I ,r
O .
O .
-; produ.ce. acceptable results, five, sets of data from the la Salle Unit 1 ILRT were analyzed using both techniques. The results are set out in Appendix A. ,
attached to this decision. The difference in the two methods is quite small; i.e., on the order of 0.35'R or about 0.06%. What is'neccessary is that _;
integrated leak rate testing be properly conducted to assure stable conditions and that the test data be properly evaluated.
- w. .
3 ,
fejeggijging this+first < alleged defect?the4MRC staff.thessreviewedd htgocuments referred-to in the; Petitions, d%J,shgq}itisD4te(f.that!the
'Mdfd8 awagepf s the content d
,r ,of_these2 ocuments' prior testheP;detW*6h' e
MMgggPytt.itjonspere;fi)ed. -The NRC Stdf is $1so aware ~ of the Wrkof*
Dr?ZinovyReytblattwhich'isalsoreferredtointhePetitions.
A properly conducted test of containment leak rate obviii.is not only the first concern raised in the Petitions with. respect to the equation used to calculate the containment air mass, but also the second deficiency alleged, namely that final calculated leakage rates may be
" fudged." A properly conducted test would not likely be flawed by the l types of deficiencies alleged in the Petitions such as unjustified discarding of data or the use of unjustified weighting coefficients. Such manipulation l of data would, of course, be a violation of the Connission's regulations and would subject licensees to NRC enforcement action. To ensure como11ance with )
the Connission's requirements regarding integrated leak rate testing, NRC inspectors regularly observe the tests conducted by licensees and document the I
l l
17, , _ results of ,t, heir obs,ervations. Jor example,,t,he integrated leak rate test s.
inspections for th'e' La S.a,lle Units,1 and 2 and the Bryon Unit 1 are documented in the following inspection reports: {
Inspection Report 50-373/82-25 (June 9, 1982) - La Salle Unit 1 Inspection Report 50-373/82-32 (July 29, 1982) - La Salle Unit 1 s,,
Inspection Report 50-373/83-28; 50-373/83-23 (DE) (July 28,1983)
- La Salle Unit 2 Inspection Reports 50-454/83-40 (DE); 50-455/83-30 (DE) (October 11, 1983) - Byron, Unit 1 Based on these inspections, the licensee's integrated leak rate testing
~
for both La Salle County Units 1 and 2 have been detennined to meet current regulatory requirements contrary to the allegations of the Petitions. Leak rates at these facilities are within acceptable limits.
~
. . - Although the inspection effort at Byron Unit 1 is not yet complete, the NRC staff will similarly deterinine the acceptability of that integrated leak rate testing. A similar inspection effort is undertaken with respect to
' integrSted leek rate testing on all other licensed comercial power reactors, thus providing assurance that the Comission's requirements ar6 met.
With respect to the third deficiency alleged by the Petitions, namely l
that requirements for permanent archiving of raw data and other data essential to test evaluation are insufficient, licensees of comercial power reactors are required to retain records which furnish evidence of
3, . . .
activities affecting_ quality of , safety related, items, including reactor z.
containment; pursuYnt to 10 CFR 50 71,10 CFR 50.34, and Criterion XVII of ,
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Furthemore, the technical specifications, which fom a part of the operating license for each plant, require the pemanent retention of records associated with in-service inspections and tests required by technical specifications. Integrated leak rate testing is one of the in-service inspections and tests called out in the technical specifications. Finally, the NRC staff has assured itself that records.do in fact exist and are being retained at the La Salle and Byron and Cook facilities.
With respect to access to records associated with ILRT, the NRC has access to all records of licensees related to their licenses as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
..- amended. See 10 CER 50.70(a). The bulk of such records are maintained by the licensees and unavailable for examination by the general public. With respect to licensees records related to ILRT, the Petitioner requested that such records be obtained by the NRC and placed in the public document rooms.
I see no clear benefit to Petitioner's request and consequently that request is denied. The volume of records maintained by licensees is enomous. To honor Petitioner's request would set in motion a practice that could eventually ovenvhelm the NRC files, both physically and financially with no clear benefit to the public. Remedies are available to the public should there be concerns with regard to a licensee's data or its evaluation. A petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 as filed by Mr. Gogol is one such remedy.
The NRC has pursued the ILRT matter and the records involved and assured itself that the Comission's regulations are being met. It will do
~
t . .
}
j' To honor I
} g.. . likewise whe,n other ,issubs are bropght to it for consideration.
Petitioner's~ request would incur substantial burdens,,and costs without a clear corresponding benefit. -
gan effort to more3 3 u11ysunderstandsthersoncerns::raisadeby f the actitions;and .at:the -suggestion. of Mr.-Gogo 16thCNRC " staff' net 4ith" t
,,,,,. .,,DgygjgtgpgJ4puaryd,c1984,~ A copy;of the summary of this'meetinFis* l aftac g g,ppp pdix J.m Atsthis meeting, Drr Raytblatt' expressed more fully
,AISgCMG,98,Mrwith eILRT, methodology and' made' specific? referencoidessairAMgue- >
prepared by'him of ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981. As can be seen from the sumery4f
- theimeetin'g 'with'Dr. Reytblatt,'a number of his concerns were resolved at tWe ;
~ ^
meeting 'itself. At the meeting, Dr. Reytblatt noted that many of his.concetns t
had~already' been provided to the Commission in documented submittals; In *"
factf Dr?Re~ytb1'att'has' made a' nunbeE of"submittals t'o' t'he' NRC from Me 20,' l;
~m . + . . m ,u- ..
._ 14tdJu170,+1983 critiquingILRTmethodolod. . Thesesubmittalsweri
-unsolicited and classified by Dr. Reytblatt as proprietary, Consequently;'no detailed discussion of these submittals is presented'hYrE. a44cwever,-thelRCT hassreviewed theseisubmittals and"the overall conclusions'of the?revi W W @ !
i (1) No safety issue has been identified by Dr. Reytblatt of which the )
NRC was unaware or which requires NRC action; ,
(2) Dr. Reytblatt's technical concerns are adequately accounted for if l the containment's test conditions are properly stabilized; (3) Dr. Reytblatt's assumptions on the range of parameters tc he l encountered during an ILRT cannot realistically be expected to occur; and (4) The calculated containment leak rate using current methods would not be significantly altered by use of Dr. Reytblatt's proposed technical refinements.
( : {.
, q p ,
h . . -
-=, . s. ...
W-.
Integrated leak rate-testing of nuclear. power __ plant reactor containment is a substantial undertaking. The testing itself is a major undertaking, as is the analysis of the test data. While the Comission's requirements'for integrated leak rate testing continue to provide reasonable .;
assurance that the public health and safety is adequately protected. these l l
L
- _ requirements areinow over ten years old and a substantial base of experience i exists to apply in seeking improvements to the regulations. In fact, one q l' modification to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J in the area of Type B tests was i i
recently made. See 45 Fed. Reg. 2330 (January 11,'1980)and.45 Fed. Reg.
(
y 62789(September 22,-1980). The NRC staff has under way a review of leak rate testing requirements with_a view to see whether other modifications to these f f
requirements are appropriate. Possible improvements could include l clarifi, cation of the procedures and' conditions governing the conduct of
~~
integrated leak ratei tests. Substantial efforts have been undertaken in this area. As noted above, an industry consensus document, ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981, has i been developed in this ar'ea. Both Petitioner and Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt are !
well aware of these activities and develop:nents from their participation in-i the activities of-Working Group ANS-56.8 of the Standards Comittee of the American Nuclear Society. The concerns raised in the Petitions' have been .
presented to the NRC staff on a number of occasions in the past in both oral and written manner by the Petitioner and Dr. Reytblatt. Consequently, both the nuclear industry and the NRC staff have long had the benefit of these l concerns. And, as noted above, consideration of these concerns could result in appropriate modifications to Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 at a future date. L 1
l J
, , D b i.' ~
The Comission has placed leak rate tes' ting for water-cooled power reactorsonitsRe[ulatoryAgenda.-48 Fed. Reg.52931(November 23,1983) and "NRC Regulatory Agenda" NUREG-0936, Vol. 2. No. 3 (November 1983).
At the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued, the Petitioner, along with other interested members of the public, will be given an
" opportunity to c6 ment. As a general. rule, the Director will not institute ;
proceedings in response to a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 to consider an issue the Ccmission is treating generically through rulemaking. See Maine Yankee Atomic' Power Company (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), DD-83-3, 17 NRC 327, 329 (1983) an'd cases there cited. To the extent the Petitioner sought initiation of a rulemaking, his Petitions were mis-directed. See 10 CFR 2.802. Should Petitioner wish the Comission to initiate a rulemaking in this, matter, the procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.802 should be followed.
~~
l However, as noted above, ILRT is already on the Comission's Regulatory Agenda.
CONCLUSION In sumary, compliance with the Comission's current regulations
! regarding integrated leak rate testing of comercial nuclear facilities provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety are !
l adequately protected. An important consideration in assuring compliance with these regulations is proper conduct of the tests and evaluation of the test data. To this end, the NRC staff has in place an inspection j
. program to monitor such testing and observe data reduction. NRC staff 1
. , ,. O A -
]
j
. * .1
. findings are routinely documented in inspection reports for the affected {
j
'f."
~
facilit'ies. ' Specific findings of~ these inspection efforts for La Salle Units l i
2- ..
\ 1 and 2 have been reviewe'd' and.the NRC staff has detemined the integrated leak rate testing for these facilities has been properly conducted and that these facilities are in compliance with the Conmission's regulations.in this area._ Requirements for archiving of data have also been reviewed and are
'~
satisfactory to ens 0re availability of data for future review should the need arise. Consequently, I conclude that the overall state of integrated leak i rate testing regarding commercial nuclear power facilities is adequate to assure the public health" and safety. Accordingly, I decline to taks any of
-, the actions solicited by the Petitions. For reasons stated above, I also decline to grant the request sought by Petitioner's Addendum, specifically "that all licensee's ILRT data be placed in the public document room.
The-Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied.. /.s provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this decision will be k
filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review. This decision is made without prejudice to the Petitioner's filing of a petition for rulemaking in accordance with 10 CFR 2.802. *
, Wl/'h* $4 %
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of March 1984.
li ,
D
^ '
- i. .
,. . . 6
'APPEfiDIX A l
), . .. .
~
. - - J.a"Salle Unit 1 .
1 Mean Containment Mean Containment 1 Temperature at Temperature from i Difference Date Set' Data Points La Salle Unit 1 Reytblatt-Method l k
1 2 556.41*R 556.10*R 0.31*R j i
3, . 2 4 .,) 556.45 556.14 0.31 {
3 42 556.91 556.57 0.34 4 86 557.24 556.90 0.34 5 142 .
557.69 557 33 0.36 e4 A
e emom o =
1 0
1 i
1 I
l
,.('
Distribution-m l
% ~'
!!r Central Files q CSB R/F ;I
- YHuang
!! JShapaker I N04 WButl er J RHouston l MEMORANDUM FOR: T. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM: R. W. Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, CSI
SUBJECT:
FINAL RESPONSE TO GOGOL'S PETITION RE: CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING (TACS NOS. 53466 AllD 53467)
Reference:
fiemorandum from W. Butler to A. Schwencer, dated December 15, 1983 In response to Technical Assistance Request, TACS fios. 53466 and 53467,.the Containment Systems Branch (CSB) has reviewed fir. Cogol's petition for emer-gency relief associated with our alleged inadequacy of the containment leak-rate testing programs; an initial response to the petition was provided in t l
Reference 1.
In the initial. response, the CSB addressed only the specific concerns iden-tified in the petition; namely:
The equation used to calculate the containment air mass at any given !
1.
time is wrong; l
- 2. The final cair.ulated leakage rate may be " fudged" by testing personnel; and, f
- 3. .There are loose requirements for permanent archiving of actual raw data and other essential data.
j Based on further review of these concerns and'e direct dialogue with Dr. r Reytblatt Gogol's technical consultant, we reaffirm our previous conclu-sion regarding the Gogol Petition, as follows:
- 1. The equation in ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 is not wrong; calculating the con-tainment mean temperature in a less riprous manner does not introduce significant errors for reasonably stabilized test conditions. To demonstrate this point, five sets of data from LaSalle, Unit 1, were -l; used. The calculated difference using both methods was found to be quite small, i.e., on the order of 0.36*R or about .06% (see Enclosure 1).
L 2. The integrated leak rate tests for LaSalle, Units 1 and 2 were conducted properly, as determined from the surveillance efforts of the NRC's in-spectors;
' COWAm ng ATTACHMENT 12 It 9
. . . - ++ b +
, , . **e
-~~ (:1 D D m
W q ,,
T. Novak '
FEB 171984 3.' The actual raw test data are permanently archived on site in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B; and,
- 4. The safety significance of the issues identifled in the subject petition is minimal.
Atjhe. request of Mr. Gogol.,a remeting was arranged on~ January'4bl984.ito6 provjdeDr.
about;the,co..Reytblatt ntainment11eak withtesting an opportunity.'to, discuss program.'D0Fisi'ilir .thAbasisjot concorre emEetin,g..DrbRg'r'tblatta state (4 hat.he.lhad not determinednthat the J,aSCJe station.had!s coif 4fp leakspe? problem;audit.
forp ils& independent he stated that he In addition, would like to obtain;the raw' data h he contended:thetittisWisuW5
~
substantial' error in the ~ calculated leak rate due to 'tha methods and: practices ~
in use by the industry. : He indicated that the bas #d*oThis tion curpeitly'ded.
wefe.'provi f,n several prior submittals to G. Arndt of the'NRClsti '
titled:"The' Critiques ~of"and~ Proposed Changes ~ to th' 'eANSI /Al15.56.8-198 Contifmeint System 1,eakage Testing Requirements". The CS8 had.the benefit of revi4winig these prior submittals. We are urable"tii present'arfy'lingtliy dis-cussion"of our review of Dr. Reytblatt's submittals, becausesomejof the ,
subhittals were presented in the form of unsolicited proposals' and classified as ' proprietary. However, the overall conclusions of our review are: 7(1) naPsignificant' safety issue has been identified by Dr.~ Reytblatti(2) Dr.
im Reytblatt's'test tainment's' technical conditions concerns are only are properly of secondary stabilized; Dr. Reytblatt's (3)portance if the con assuPIptions on the range of parameters cannot realistically be expected to o occur; and (4) the calculated containment leak rate using current methods would not be significantly altered by use of Dr. Reytblatt's pmposed technical I refinements , l In view of the'hbove discussion, we reaffirm our previous recommendation that.
the Gogol Petition For Emergency Relief for 1.aSalle as well as for other nuclear facilities be denied. l OricinalSign:d By R. Way..? Hxsten R. W. Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Integration ec: R. flattson D. Eisenhut A. Schwencer A. Bournia R. Capra
- L 84 Q
-> g.psr.:Csa...[sJrhB... . . ps.t .: CsB .
?..pgg. ............. ............. ..........
~4 . . . ruugng. . ..ashappker..
..MBut)er.... .JRHH$ustonL.. ....... - - -
o^"> .... 2/.pl.8:$ ,,.2/.pfe,4, . . ,2/p/.84 .. . 2/j 7f 84. . ,. ... ... ..... .. . . ..
' .y"'n " , ' .it i'ia 1
- . ?-
4 ..
m.
1 3
, ENCLOSURE'1 s
o . .
LaSalle Unit 1 '
.. j H
- Containment
- - Weighting Factor
-Subvolume: for Subvolume {
1 0.01031 O.01746.
2 i
3 0.04130 1 4 , ,
-0.09628 5 -0.14063 6 -0.01797 7 0.25769 8 0.41836 i
i Data Points Mean Containment Mean Containment ' Difference Temperature from Temperature from LaSalle Unit 1. Reytblatt Method i
0 2 (Test Starts) 556.41 R 556.10 R 0.31 R
[
4 556.45 556.14 0.31 ,
42 556.91 556.57 0.34 85 557.24 556.90 0.34 142(TestEnds) 557.69 557.33 0.36 l
l
! I e :
l 6
rK -
6- *
,- / " N , '
~"
umTED STATES APPENDIX B
[ NUCLEAR REGUL8tTORY COMMISSION (
- 7. .:t WASMlHOTON D. C. 2050A l January 17,. I984 -
., '*\.... -
} '
$. .;.. . Docket No,s.:' 50-373/37'4 .r 7 ~ ., -
PETITIONER: Edward M. Gogol (11/29/83 ILRTPetikions)
FACILITY: La Salle County Station.. Units 1 and 2 i
SUBJECT:
SUPNARY OF JANUARY 4,1984, MEETING WITH DR. Z. REYTBLATT ON AVAILABLE DATA BASE FOR 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX J CONTAINMDff INTEGRATED LEAK TESTS AT LA SALLE
. w. .
'n .
Background' In three petitions to the NRC dated November 29, 1983, Edward M. Gogol, citin, a review by Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt of the La Salle Unit 1 Integrated Leak Rate 1 data available in the La Salle Public Document Room, conc 11ded Test-(ILRT)'ient that suffic infonnation was not available and that no complete (ind pendent) review of the reported leak rate could be done without such information. The NRC staff's initial response to Mr._ Gogol, dated December 16, 1983, declined to take the imediate actions sought in those petitions.
That letter stated that the NRC staff will continue to review these petitions and that a formal. decision with regard to' them would be issued in the reasonably near future.
Subsequently, the petitioner contacted the NRC staff and asked for an opportunity for Dr. Reytblatt to meet with the NRC staff to discuss his concerns about the inadequacy of the data available to him regarding the-l ILRT used to detennined containment leak rates.. In response to that request, a meeting was arranged on January 4, ISS4, to pennit Dr. Reytblatt to interact directly with members of the NRC staff who are knowledgeable about 10 CFR 50 Appendix J ILRTs, in general, and the La $alle ILRTs in particular.
Representatives of Commonwealth Edison were also present at this public meeting. An attendance list is attached.
~
Discussion l
Dr. Reytblatt indicated that he was representing himself Mr. Gogol, and Citizens Against Nuclear Power (CANP). He stated that based on an NRC response to .an FOIA request, he had reviewed the integrated leak rate data available in the files. at the La' Salle Public Document Room and could not come to an independent _ conclusion regarding the reported La Salle' leak rate based on these data.
'l He indicated that the type of infonnation he still needed, and wanted to request at this meeting, was listed in the petitions.
)
4
@,!O2220 j'8I #/[ ATTACIMENT 13
~P p-
. . . . -- - - * - ~
v ;
\
1 The' NRC staff then proceeded to respond to specific concerns raise.d by I Dr. Reytblatt at the meeting, as discussed below.
l T ., ., . ' With iegard to the-loc'ation ofr th'e tempera'ture and pressure gauges, he was .
" - shown this infoccation in a copy of the Unit I and Unit 2 ' test reports enclosed with Consnonwearlth Edison Company (Ceco) letters dated July'28,1982, and September 19, 1983, both of which are available in'the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C., and at the.La Salle local public his document room (LPDR). He indicated he had not seen these data during review. For convenience, a copy of these letters (without their enclosures) are shown in Attachment 2 and 3 of this meeting surinary.
With regard to containment ventilation and cooling conditions in effect
" during the test, he was infonned that the fans were never operated.during the tests and that NRC inspection practice when witnessing ILATs is not to permit-
" mixed data".
That is, if'the containment fans were to change state during the test (off to on or visa versa), the test would not be considered valid and would have to be rerun.
He was told that the real criterion involved here is to assure the stability of containment temperatures during the test. In this 40 F reported, he was told that this temperature differential was d a 3
spatial and individual RTD instrument differences, not a time variation. See
-. Attachment the NRC. 4, which is a data sheet provided to Dr. Reytblatt by Mr. Reyes of That sheet shows a total of 30 RTDs spread through the eight i subvolumes'of the containment. The maximum RTD reading was obtained from one
(#8).subvolume (#3) and the minimuin RTD reading a totally different'subvolume I With regard to potential differences in the method of calculating mean
.- containment temperatures, the NRC staff had earlier made the point in its December 16, 1983; letter to Mr. Gogol that either a mass-weighted mean temperature or a volume-weighted mean' temperature would be acceptable for. l reasonably well stabilized containment conditions. To emphasize this point,. l Mr. Reyes provided Dr. Reytblatt with a data sheet (Attachment 5) showing, for several data sets, that the calediated difference using both methods was quite small - on the order of 0.3 to 0.4*R or about 0.06%.
m DE1gtgetspacer#thMthere4MNMMdMyMN ggggny, gj rpmenta kte > 0ru ArndtWi thNhichlthe c._
ta 44 With regard to pressure gauge readings, he was told that there was no
" post-selection" of which readings to use but rather, the pressure value in the report was an average of the pressure gaug,e readings. He was told that two precision Bourdon tube pressure gau and that the readings wert very close. ges Dr.were usedwas Reytblatt in the La Sallethat reminded testsin connection with the earlier FOIA request, a few raw data sets which contain the individual pressure readings weg placed in the La Salle LPDR and, thus were available to him.
I
_. _ .m_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e ,
) '
O ..
n u
3 Dr. Reytblatt expressed a desire to obtain a full copy of the raw data which is not in the NRC ' staff's possession but is maintained by the licensee as
- i, . .
part of the pennanent plant records and available to the NRC staff for review f- at the pla,nt site
~
i The LRC staff indicated that based on the substantia'l amount of paper involved, and its initial and continuing availability to us, we do not maintain a cosy of these raw data in our record systest. Therefore, in i response to tie earlier FOIA request to Mr. Gogol, which deals only with i recards in the possession of the NRC,, except for a few data sets which were available and placed in the LPDR, these raw data were not available for release by the NRC,
~
In his closing ' remarks, Dr. Reytblatt emphasized that he is not saying that the La Salle Station is in any jeopardy, but would still like to have t'1ese additional raw data to be able to perfonn a completely independent audit, g
.!.n the staff's closing remarks, we indicated that we would censider his request for the raw data not in our possession and let him knew our l decision in' the reasonably near future. We also stated, based on the i give-and-take discussions at the meeting, that we do not believe we have misread Mr. Gogol's petition.
f \
l
), YM4kd4W' A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 (
- j Division of Licensing i Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page i
l I
l -
- ~ -
Q .. -
h
.. . j La Sal'le
,., 'Mr. Dennis L'. Farrar ,. ..
Q , ,.. _. Directo'r of Nuclear 4.icensing e -
.f-Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box'767 - - --
Chicago, Illinois 60690 cc: Philip P. Steptoe, Esquire i Suito 4200 -
0ne First National Plaza ;
Chicago, Illinois 60603 -
, , , . Dean' Hansel 1,, Esquire '
Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 l
- Chicago, Illinois 60601 l William G. Guldemand, Resident inspector LaSalle NPS, U.S.W.R.C.
P. O. Box 224 Marseilles, Illinois 61364 I
e a-I
?
r t
4 O
e i
q 4
e
1 A-Q
~ -
, R
. . , , 1
. l
~
ATTACHMENT 1
-ATTENDANCE LIST
, ,. . JANUARY 4, 1984
,, . . .- .r - -
,, l NAME -
j
. AFFILIATION U chwencer NRR/LB2 i
l A. J. Pressesky L. Reyes Am. Nuc. Soc. consultant - !
NRC/ Region III '
T. Haseerich Ceco C. Schroeder CECO
- 5. Black W. Butler NRR/DL :q NRR/CSB T. Novak i
~ NRR/DL J. Kudrick !
") - '
NRR/CSB R. Hoefling NRC/0 ELD Z. Reytblatt EXTRAN, Inc.
J. Shopaker NRR/CSB fd./Nuang- .
NRR/CSB-
. 1
-l e
1
,k i -
j F
\
l l
l !
J j
1 l
I I