Text

Prepared Statement of Fj Scheimann Re Inquiry Into Leak Rate Data Falsification.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence
	ML20203L215
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/21/1986
From:	Scheimann F; GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT CONSULTANTS
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20203L206	List: ML20203L202; ML20203L207; ML20203L210; ML20203L215;
References
	LRP, NUDOCS 8608250221
	Download: ML20203L215 (7)
	v • d • e

.

sEMMD COut.srunnnGt 00CMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 A55 21 PS:d5 BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD OFFICE or SLCRETARY 00CMETit#G & SEPvlCE BRANCH

)

In.the Matter of

)

INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND

)

Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA

)

FALSIFICATION

)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. SCHEIMANN, JR.

My name is Frederick J.

Scheimann, Jr. and I reside in Crystal River, Florida.

I am currently employed as a training consultant at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant by Mechanical Equipment Consultants.

I was born born on March 27, 1946 in Cleveland, Ohio.

I attended West Technical High School in Cleveland and graduated in 1964.

I joined the United States Navy in November 1964 and remained in it until November 1972.

On March 5, 1973, I began work with the Metropolitan Edison Company at Three Mile Island Unit 1 as an auxiliary operator.

I remained employed in this capacity until August 11, 1975, when I became a control room operator at Unit 2.

On February 18, 1978, I was promoted to shift foreman and I remained in this position until May 1, 1980, when I became an administrator of nuclear technical training, also at Unit 2.

I remained in 8600250221 860821 PDR ADOCK 0S000320 POR T

this position until April 1, 1982, when I was again promoted',

this time to the position of supervisor, licensed operator training, TMI-2.

I left TMI-2 on September 15, 1983, and i

accepted a position as a senior engineer with the Wolf Creek Generating Station in Burlington, Kansas.

I remained at Wolf Creek for two years, and I accepted my current position on October 9, 1985.

1 While employed as shift foreman at Unit 2 from February, 1978 until March, 1979, I worked with what was known as "A"

shift.

Also working "A"

shift were William Zewe, shift supervisor, and Craig Faust and Edward Frederick, control room operators.

Following the accident in March 1979, Lynn Wright replaced Edward Frederick on my shift.

i' As shift foreman, my duties included directing-the operators in all phases of plant operation.

It was my job to ensure that the goals set for the plant on a daily basis were met.

I was responsible for approving surveillances, including the leak rate test.

My interpretation of the technical specification for leak rates was that we needed to get one " good" leak rate every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

A good leak rate test had unidentified leakage less than 1 gpm.

We took a conservative approach to implementing I

this technical specification by trying to run the leak rate l

test more frequently than required.

From the numbers assigned 4

to the surveillance (SP 2301-3D1), I believe that we ran a leak rate test on a daily basis, and I think that we tried to run a l

-2

\\

leak rate test every shift, if conditions permitted.

I remember that sometimes it was difficult to run a leak rate test, because the plant was not maintaining steady state conditions.

Generally, all leak rate tests conducted by my shift were placed on my desk.

I recall making some attempts to validate tests over 1 gpm; I did not automatically ignore them.

If operator error could be ruled out, the control tcom operators would automatically run another test.

On occasion, they would begin searching for leaks so that any existing leakage could be measured and added to the next leak rate test as identified leakage.

In deciding whether a computer printout was valid or invalid, I would attempt to scan various plant parameters.

I primarily remember reviewing makeup tank level and, less often, pressurizer level.

With these instruments, I could observe trends in water level.

If I then suspected that I had an invalid leak rate test, I would discard it.

I am sure that there were times when my shift could not get an acceptable leak rate test result.

When this occurred, I left the problem up to the next shift.

I suppose I might have turned over the unsuccessful tests, but my best recollection is that I informed the oncoming shift that we had not obtained a test, and if I knew the reason, why we had not been able to get a good test.

I do not remember encountering a period when I felt that I had a leakage problem that would have required me to enter the Action Statement..

1 I do not believe that I considered applying Exceptions and Deficiencies to leak rate tests.

While I remember applying these sheets to other surveillances, I do not recall adding "E's and D's" to leak rate tests.

On my shift, water was sometimes added to the makeup tank during leak rate tests, but the additions were recorded on the computer form.

I suppose it is possible that operators could have added water during leak rate tests to affect the result, but I have no recollection of having learned of or witnessed any intentionally unrecorded water additions.

I do not think that I ever heard the term " jogging" water before the accident, and I do not have any recollection of anything of that nature being done.

Hydrogen was sometimes added at the beginning of my shift, and these additions should have been logged.

I do not recall anyone deliberately adding hydrogen during the leak rate test, and I did not know that the addition of hydrogen could affect the leak rate test.

I did not learn anything about the effect of hydrogen until after Harold Hartman's allegations were publicized.

I do not specifically recall reading Licensee Event Report 78-62 or remembering what it said.

I do not remember it standing out from all the other material I was required to read during operations.

I recall being shown a copy of the LER, and I saw what appeared to be my initials on the cover sheet.

The fact that my initials appear indicates that I did read it in

-4

s

-A 1978, because I did try to read everything that I was required to initial.

I vaguely remember hearing that I should not leave bad leak rates lying around, but I cannot connect this with the issuance of the LER.

I remember seeing an_ Operations Memorandum that dealt with the computer rounding off numbers during leak rate' tests; I know that it existed, but I do not remember when it was that I saw it.

I think I remember being aware that another change was made to the test procedure for leak rates.

I can no longer associate that-memory with a temporary change notice issued in early 1979 of which I am now aware.

I have a great deal of difficulty recalling details about the leak rate practices my shift employed, because I genuinely think that we did not have major problems with the test.

If there was an error made on any of the tests filed by my shift, I believe it was inadvertent.

I thought that Craig Faust and Edward Frederick were good, conscientious operators.

Neither my operators nor I would have deliberately done something wrong.

To conclude, I would like the presiding Board to know that I am participating in these hearings because I would like to remain a nuclear consultant.

At some future date, I would also like to be able to study for an NRC license, because my family may prefer that I move to a permanent location.

I feel confident that the record will support my suitability for continued employment in the nuclear business.

IEL'.4TED connc.sruu.,wy

?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD 16 AUS 21 P5:05 0FFICE OF Shuan 00CKETING A s[py;cr

)

BRANCH In the Matter of

)

INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND

)

Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA

)

FALSIFICATION

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Prepared Statements of Kenneth R.

Hoyt, Brian A.

Mehler, and Frederick J.

Scheimann, Jr. by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by hand delivery, to the following persons this 21st day of August 1986:

Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.