ML20155J745
| ML20155J745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1980 |
| From: | Christopher R, Martin T NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L202 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605270185 | |
| Download: ML20155J745 (9) | |
Text
- . . _ - - _ . . . . -. . . . . . . . - . _ _ - - . . . - _ - - . . - . - - . . . _ _ - . . - . - . . - _ .
l ENCLOSURE 1 REPORT OF INTERVIEW BY IE/0!A WITH J. J. BLESSING ON APRIL 10, 1980 e
1 9605270185 860516 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P PDR
4 -H , ,
, O "
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHN BLESSING -
j
-- AS ~- RECORDED BY R. XEITH CHRISTOPHER INVESTIGATOR i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION __
On 4/10/80, Mr. John Blessing, a Control Room Operator with the Metropolitan Edison Company was interviewed comencing at 0810. The interview was 4
conducted at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station by Keith Christopher and Thomas T. Martin from i NRC Region I and Mr. James J. Cimnings, of the Office of Inspector and i Auditor, NRC Headquarters. Also present was a representative for Metropolitan
! Edison Company, Attomey at Law, Harry Glasspiegel. When asked if the aforementiored Attorney was present at his request, Mr. Blessing indicated l the presence of Mr. Glasspiegel was desired.
1 Blessing was questioned regarding the falsification of leak rate records in j
' the Reactor Coolant Inventory Surveillance Test for TMI #2. Blessing denied knowing of any specific instances in which the leak rate records j were intentionally falsified. k acknowledged that.it was comon practice s
i 1
by a large portion of the control . room operators to add. hydrogen. to the makeup tank while running the leak rate sune111ance test in order to assist in getting good leak rate results (i.e. msults that met technical 1
specification Pequirements). At this time, Blessing did not specifically i
identify individuals who had actually added hydrogen to the makeup tank, but reiterated that it was comon practice and we'l known to personnel at
! least up to the shift foreman level of management. Blessing was also asked
! to relate ways that he was personally aware of for falsifying leak rate l
test results. He responded by stating that in addition to adding hydrogen, j
! an qperator could add water tc the makeup tank without telling the.caeputer, This addition would result in an incorrect computer calculation showing I 1ess leakage in the reactor coolant inventory which could cause the leak 4
rate to fall within the technical specification requirements. Aless.ing '
said he was not aware of any instance where eter was intentionally added
! to the makeup tank without telling the computer for purposes of falsifying j~
leak rate test results. He continued with the statement that he did not i feel the addition of hydrogen was a falsification of the leak rate records
' because it "didn't do anything to the makeup tank level." He did acknowledge that on numerous occasions he had in fact added hydrogen to the inkaup tank 4
while running the leak rate surveillance test. He indicated this was because other operators, who he said he could not identify, had told him I
that adding hydrogen would affect the leak rate test calculations. He i; emphasized thaf on 9 out of 10 occasions the addition of hydrogen to the, makeup tank did not work and tnere was no management indication.that it was a forbidden practice to add hydrogen to the makeup tank while the reactor coolant inventory suneillance test was being run.
,I
?
l ,
i 1
2 lO i
The second area of questioning concerned the destruction of the reactor coolant inventory surveillance test records that failed to meet the technical.'
specification.~ requirements of 1 gallon per minute (GPM) for unidentified leakage.
- During questioning, Blessing acknowledge that he routinely destroyed-leak rate test records which wem " bad" (i.e. did not meet technical specification requirements) and acknowledged this was a common practice among the control room operators. Blessing was asked if he tes directed to destroy the bad i
leak rate calculations and he responsed by stating that the practice of throwing away of bad leak rate test calculations was " filtered down from the management people by shif t foremen." Blessing said he was unable to I
- i. specifically identify any one fdreman or supervisor who told him to destroy the bad leak rate calculations, and reiterated that it was more or less passed down through the ranks. He cited what he thought was the origination of this policy when on one occasion (date unknown) a bad leak rate calculation I
was left lying out in the control room. . Blessing said shortly after that incident he overheard two foremen (whom he could not/would not identify) talking in the control room, He said, to the best of his mcollection, he 1
heard them say that they (the foremen) didn't want the had leak rate records laying out where the NRC could see them and then ask why they (the plant) ,
were not shutdown. He again stated that he could not specifically identify i
any one particular management indivi&al idio directed him to throw away the ;
leak on rate the test calculations, stating that it was just something he learned shift.
At this time, Blessing was questioned regarding the addition of hydrogen to j
- the makeup tank in order to get good leak rate results for the surveillance test.
He again stated that he has in the past added hydrogen to the nakeup tank and stated to get a good leakthatrate.
adding this was something he would do as a last resort He again stated he picked up this suggestion to {
i add hydrogen frem other operators individual. He indicated that he knew but could not specify any particular i at least one other operator, name forgotten, who added hydrogen during a leak rate test. He emphasized that i
it was no secret that hydrogen was being added to the skeup tank during ,
the connon running of the reactor coolant surveillance test and it was a totally practice.
' t: ell aware of thisHe said it was his opinion supervisors and foremen were practice. He again reiterated that 9 out of 10 times j the issue.
hydrogen addition did not work and therefom was not pertinent to this i When specifically asked what foreman were aware of the hydrogen additions, he stated he was confident that Dick Hoyt, his Shif t Foreman was i
4 well aware of the hydrogen addition during the leak rate test. When asked about the other shif t foreman and supervisors in the plant he stated it was his opinion, that because it was such common knowledge, all of the foremen should have known about the practice. In referring to an operations department personnel roster he identified F. Scheiman, W. T. Conaway, C. D. Adams, A.
- W. Miller and. C L. Guthrte who are the Unit 2 Shift Foremen. Blessin not provide ary supportive infomation as a basis for this assertion. g did l
e ..nn - _- -- . . - . - - - ,
i 3 ,
)
O ~
i i
Bless'ing was then questioned about his understanding of the technical specifications that gave him 3 days (72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />) in which to get a good leak
- rate calculation for the reactor coolant inventory surveillance test. He
! stated that it was his understanding that he only had to have a good leak '
! rate result once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, irregardless of the fact that he might get - .
i satisfactoryunexplained subsequent leak rate result. " bad ones" during the period before getting the next i
He said the bad leak rate calculations were
! largely disregarded because he and the other operators felt the computer was not accurate. He said, particularly in the latter stages, just prior
~
to the accident, it became harder and harder to get good leak mtes, because
! the computer program errors made it difficult to get acceptable leak rates.
i Blessing said these computer problems were relayed to Mr. Falls for correction, but no imediate corrective action was taken. He also stated that he felt that the computer program was wrong because the computer would show a large amount of leakage in the reactor coolant inventory and yet the sump pump ;
- which collects the leakage frem the various reactor coolant system mechanisms I would not come on, so that it was his opinion that there was no way that '
l much water could be leaking from the reactor coolant system. He said these were the primary reasons why they, as operators, disregarded the bad leak rate data.
i He also stated that along with the computer calculated leak rates, he did many hand calculations and that he got "better ones" than the computer.
He also stated that he and Hal Hartman had made quite a few of these hand calculated leak rates. ,
hen the hand calculation was not a good one.He stated he could not remember a tim l He . continued that as the
- approach to the accident drew naamr it was more difficult to get good leak i
rates and there was increasing pressure to get them. (good leak rates
{'
although he did not specify management personnel areas or ways pressu)r,e was exerted.
He said he felt the computer was not picking up the increased t
leakage in the valves leading to the reactor coolant drain tank and for this reason it was causing bad calculations.
- He said it was also his j
i shift and that all of those results would have to be thrown aw -
j
! Blessing also related at this time that it was his personal knowledge that
! Hal Hartman had in fact added hydrogen to the makeup tanks to get good leak rates during the reactor coolant inventory surveillance test.
- regarding the other operator on his shif t, Ray Booher, he stated that heWhen questioned I could' not say for a fact whether or not Bocher had in fact added hydrogen
{ or water or in any other way falsified the leak rate.
Blessing exerted in was orderthen
_ to questioned get good leakregarding rates. management pmssure that was being He stated that he did not feel there was any direct upper management pressum but there was a strong desire to keep the plant on the line and that no one wanted to be the shift responsible forothe plant coming down. ,
from his personal since of duty to keep the plant on the line.He indicated the pres Again he I
tated that he did not feel the addition of hydrogen was a falsification of l l 1
-~----,w--.-----------w--- ,ry- - ' - - _ - -e---m.,-w- -- .--eew-----mmw-
4 i
!O '
leak rates Eecause it did not work mo'.t of the time. At this time he '
acknowledged that adding water to the tank would be a falsification, but -
stated that-he would not nomally add water without telling the computer.
He did indicate that this could happen for several reasons; for (1), the ._-
operator would just forget to add it to the computer. He also explained that the operator doing the leak rate test. was not responsible for inputting i
j any water additions to the reactor and that in the dialogue between the two, it very well could happen that the operator running the computer i program did not know the water was added. At this time Mr. Martin showed i
' John Blessing a leak rate calculation for 2-2-79, which reflected that during the period of time of the leak rate test, water was added to the 3 makeup tank. It was noted by Blessing that the log entry was made by Ray Booher. He also acknowledged that he had in fact signed the computer calculations for the leak rate tests. He denied intentionally adding water to the makaJp tank without telling the computer in order to get a good leak rate. He stated that he probably did not know that Ray Bocher had added water and for that reason he punched zero (0) into the computer calculation i
for operator induced change. l'e said that normally he would tell the panel l
operator not to add water when the leak rate test would be run, but then on
! some occasions it would be forgotten. He said in all probability it was his own error that resulted in water being added without the computer being told.
' He again denied that he intentionally neglected to record the water addition in order to falsify the leak rate calculations. At this time i
Blessing was : Sown another leak rate calculation dated 1/13/79, which also i
indicated an ado: Hon of water during the leak rate test. He again stated that his only explanation for the water addition without telling the computer was operator error.
He concluded by denying the he intentionally falsified any leak rate calculations by the addition of water or by any other means.
Blessing was then asked to of this interview; however, provide Blessing a sworn statement declined to provideregarding a swornthe details statement
- and the interview was teminated at 0945.
f(* ~ i : % . ' (
R. K. Christopher i
~. _ ' C . *, : y:~
i 1 T. T. Martin M[f: S i
I 4
. , . --.----.a---,--.. --c--.,-,--,.-..---.,-.-.-----.,n,__,- - - . , ~ , - . . . - , - . , - - - -... - _ ..
, - - - _ . .._= _ _
l j ..
I i l l
.. ~
r i ._
1 4
! ENCLOSURE 2 i
i SU!HARY OF TMI-2 LEAX RATE SURVEILLANCE DATA INVOLVING MR. BLESSING AND MR. 800HER BETWEEN 09/30/78-03/28/79 i
l l
f I
i l
1 I
l l
} !
' I j i s l
- 1 i
l l
I i
i i
i i e l
- h l
} .
1
- m,ic sesis ni im-2 INVOLVING J. J. BLESSING (09/30/78-03/28/79)
Test No. Date ' Start
- Stop* Test CR0 ' Coments**
C'g 34 11/03 0626 0726 Blessing Kidwell/
\g 0646 0746 No apparent problems.
Germer 41 11/22 .0217 0317 Gemer Blessing No apparent problems, -
_ _0217 0317 63 ? 12/15 1822 1922 Hartman Blessing LT Switch. Possible Tydrogen 2220 2320 1 at 1845. Approximately 3" chan however, decayed off be end of '
test.
65 12/16 2004 2104 Hartman Blessing No apparent problems.
0020# 0120#
f12/17/78 67 12/17 1528 1628 Hartman Blessing No apparent problems.
1525 1625 72 12/22 2326 0026# Hartman Blessing No aooarent problems.
2326 0026#
- 12/23/78 96 01/30 2206 2306 Blessing Blessing No apparent problems.
2206 2306 97 ? 02/02 0055 0155 Blessing __._ 1 Booher 0100 water addition of 300 gal.
'- 0225 0325 Logged in CR0 log but not in-cluded in calculation.
7 27 02/21 0836 0936 Blessing Hartman No apparent problems.
1006 1106 136 ? 03/02 1935 2035 Blessing Blessing 2030 jogged water addition of 0255# 0355#
60 gal. Not logged in CR0 log er included in calculation.
- 03/03/79 144 03/12 0132 0232 Booher Blessing 0132 0232 0150 jogged water addition of 60 gal. Not logged in CR0 log or included in calculation.
148 03/15 0450 0550 Bocher Blessing 0445 0545 0520 jogged watir addition of 150 gal. Not logged in CR0 log or included in calculation.
- - Start /Stoo - Top entry is clock time.
corresponds with the leak rate test clock The second entry is MUT strip chart time that time.
- - Time given in Coments section is clock time. i
? - Analysis results questionable. l Hydrogen additions:. I 1 LRTs on file involving Blessin 12 Unrecorded water additions: 1 LRTs involving water / hydrogen:g: 5 (42%)
! p ed water additions: 3 d (80%after01/30/79)
Questionable tests: 1 with Hartman 3 with Bocher 1 only Blessing involved
)
LEAK RATE TESTS AT TMI-2 INVOLVING R. B00HER (09/30/78-63/28/79)
Test No. Date Start
- Stop*fTest CR0 Comments 4 14/02 0728 0828 Ilartman Bocher No apparent problems. l 1258 1358 17 10/.20'-
0213 0313 Booher Germer CR0 Log: 0214 Vented MUT. 0230 Added 0203 0303 18# H2 to MUT. 0308 Added more.H
~2 -
No effect on LRT. .
68 12/18 1815 1915 Morch Booher Hand calculation. No apparent problem 1815 1915 75 12/25 0120 0220 Hartman Booher No apparent problems.
0120 0220 77 12/26 0249 0349 Booher Hartman 0305 H2added(2"effect)
. 0249 0349 0325 150 gal water addition. Not logg or included in calculation.
94 01/13 0937 1037 Hartman Booher 1000 water addition of 117 gal. Logge 0957 1057 in CR0 log but not included in calcui tion.
- 97 7 02/02 0055 0155 Blessing Booher 0100 water addition of 300 gal. Log;.-
0225 0325
- in CR0 log but not included in calcul O 128 ? 02/23 1107 1207 Hartman Bocher tion. ,
1135 water addition of 150 gal. Logge t 1237 1337 in CR0 log but not included in calcul tion. .
143 03/10 0351 0451 Hartman Bocher 0443 joooed addition of 80 cal. Not 0351 0451 logged in CR0 log or includ'e d in cal-culation.
. 144 03/12 0132 0232 Bocher Blessing 0150 jogged addition of 60 gal. Not 0132 0232 logged in CR0 log or included in cal-culation.
145 03/13 0200 0300 Hartman Booher 0230 jogged addition of 30 gal of wat 0140 0240 0250 jogged addition of 60 gal of wat Neither logged in CR0 log or included in calculation.
148 03/15 0450 0550 Bocher Blessing 0520 jogged additior of 150 gal of
- 0445 0545 water. Not logged in CR0 log or inclu ed in calculation.
l
- Start /Stop ,_ Top entry is clock time. The second entry is MUT stip chart time that corresponds with the leak rate test clock time.
O ? Analysis Summary:results LRTs onquestionable.
file involving Bocher - 12 LRTs involving water /H2 - 9 (75% overall)(100% for all tests after 12/2 ;
H2 additions 2 Tests with Hartman 7 total 5 questionable
! Batch water additions 4 Tests with Blessing 3 total 3 questionable Jogged water additions 4
= - - . . _ .- .. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_ _ _.
t s i I
ENCLOSURE 3 SWORN STATEMENT OF J. J. BLESSING TAKEN BY OI ON DECEMBER 14, 1984 e
e i .
j i
r
~
- m ;
i l
E
, . . . _ . . - - - , , _ - - - , . . , . _ - . - _ . , _ _ - _ - _ , _ _ _ . , . , - . _ . . - . _ _ . _ ,