ML20214R687
| ML20214R687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1986 |
| From: | Seelinger J UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-829 LRP, NUDOCS 8609290249 | |
| Download: ML20214R687 (11) | |
Text
. _.
hM
@ME0ftMfMOMDENGE s.
00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNBC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD 16 sg) 23P2:35 0FFICE OF M d * *T'l 00C6ETlH'ia SEA BRANCH
)
i In the Matter of
)
)
j INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
i FALSIFICATION
)
)
3 PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES L.
SEELINGER 1
Introduction My name is James L. Seelinger.
I live in Palm Beach County, Florida.
I am 41 years old and am employed as Manager, Utility Operations and Environmental Affairs for Pratt &
Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation.
I have
)
been employed by Pratt & Whitney since November 1979.
In 1978, I was Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support
,i at Three Mile Island (TMI).
On or about December 1, 1978, I became Unit 1 Superintendent.
I left TMI in mid-October 1979 l
because the time commitments required of me by my job had been i
so great that I had not had sufficient time to devote to my i
family, and I did not feel this situation would improve significantly in the future.
I chose not to become a party to these proceedings because I am no longer involved in the nuclear industry and
)
have no present intention of becoming a part of that industry.
j f
g609290249 860923 PDR ADOCK 05000320 i
PDR T
O3 1
\\
l 1
My present commitments to my job, family, and church more than fill my time and are such that I do not have the desire to take on other responsibilities.
Nevertheless, when I became aware that the Presiding Board wanted to hear from me about leak rate matters at Three Mile Island, I chose to file prepared testimony.
Doing so has refreshed my recollection as to what I now recall and what I cannot recall of what happened in 1978 at Three Mile Island with respect to leak rate matters.
In October 1986 it will have been seven years since I was employed at Three Mile Island, and eight years since the events this testimony discusses.
I am certain that the Board will understand if I cannot recall everything that happened at that time.
1 Background
i' I grew up in Montana and was awarded an appointment to 1
i the U.S.
Naval Academy.
I enrolled at the Academy in June i
j 1963.
I graduated in June 1967 with a Bachelor of Science Degree.
My class standing was 6th out of approximately 900.
Upon graduation from the Academy, I was selected to attend the U.S.
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
I received a Master's Degree in Mathematics from the Postgraduate School in the early Spring o'f 1968.
While attending the Naval Postgraduate School, I was selected by 3
2 Admiral Rickover for service in the Naval Nuclear Program.
I t
i i
)
l i i
)
After participating in nuclear and submarine training from May 1968 to the Summer of 1969, I spent approximately the next five years, with the exception of a 6-month interlude for additional schooling, in the submarine service.
I received an honorable discharge from the Navy in the Spring of 1974.
I began my employment with Metropolitan Edison Company at Three Mile Island in June 1974.
My first assignment was as a Training Engineer.
Later in 1974, I became the Supervisor of Training.
I was Engineer Senior-1 from the Summer of 1975 to the end of 1976.
While an Engineer Senior-1, I reported to Mr. Herbein.
In December 1976, I took the Senior Reactor Operator license examination on Unit 1 and shortly thereafter became licensed on Unit 1.
In January 1977, I was interviewed by a group consisting of Messrs. Herbein, Miller, and Colitz for the job of Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
Shortly after the interview I was awarded the job.
Because I was very concerned about the number of hours I might end up working in this capacity due to what I observed of the approximate 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> per month Messrs. Herbein, Colitz, and Miller frequently worked, I brought a detailed and lengthy list of concerns to the interview with me.
One of these concerns dealt with the chain of command.
I was told that I would not be the Unit 2 1
Superintendent and that Mr. Floyd, the Unit 2 Supervisor of Operations (and thus the Operations Department) would not 1 6
)
report to me, but.rather would continue to report to Gary Miller, the Unit 2 Superintendent.
I was told that my position was a higher position than Mr. Floyd's, but not in the same line of command.
This reporting relationship existed for my entire term as Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support from i
i January 1977 through November 1978.
I did not have line responsibility or authority for the day-to-day management of TMI-2.
I was not designated as the " acting" superintendent of l
TMI-2, nor was I the " acting" superintendent of TMI-2.
The I'
only exceptions to this that I recall were (1) that on " duty"
)
weekends Mr. Miller and I sometimes filled in for each other and (2) I was authorized to sign procedures as Unit 2 l
Superintendent when Mr. Miller was not available.
Involvement in TMI-2 Leak j
Rate Testing I never performed a leak rate test in Unit 2.
I do I
not recall ever supervising the performance of such a test in Unit 2.
Therefore, I did not perform any false leak rate tests, and do not recall supervising the performance of any I
such tests.
The only reason that I cannot be certain that I never supervised a leak rate test is that on one day--in April 1978--since Mr. Floyd had been on site virtually the entire previous day and night, I filled in for him in the Unit 2 Control Room during the evolutions associated with initially t
j i
i I
_4_
4 l
l J.
i bringing the turbine generator on line.
I do not recall i
whether leak rate tests were performed that day.
i.
l Response to Mr. Gary P. Miller's I
Prepared Testimony
}
i In his prepared testimony in this proceeding, Mr. Miller stated or implied that I participated in daily calls h
from the Unit 2 Control Room shortly after 8 A.M. each day to j
update management in Reading on the status of the TMI Units.
1 As Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, as a matter of course, I was neither present for these calls nor did I i
j participate in them.
On rare occasions, I may have been present in Mr. Miller's of fice or the Unit 2 Control Room i
during a morning status call.
1 As Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, I did not routinely attend the monthly Shift Supervisor meetings Mr. Miller conducted, and I may have never attended such a i
j meeting while I was Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
l What actions I got out of the Operations Department I felt I i
got through either asking Mr. Floyd or his Operations Engineer, Mr. Marshall, or through having gained the personal respect of i
one or more shift supervisors.
I acted from the side and appealed to the Shift Supervisors' sense of good will and their respect for me to get items accomplished by them.
1 i
i l
1 i
i 1
i l 1
< I l
If Mr. Miller regarded me as the acting Unit 2 j
Superintendent, he did not share this with me (with the exceptions previously discussed).
My perception was that l
Mr. Miller regarded me as a very hard working and conscientious l
senior employee who, like himself, was consistently willing to i
make unreasonable personal sacrifices to get jobs done.
I routinely worked 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> per week during September-November d
1978, despite severe back problems.
By default and by having i
the nature to tackle what was there, I ended up with my plate of jobs more than full.
The last time that I had any involvement with Unit 2, i
l as Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, was in November i
j 1978.
To the best of my recollection, I had no knowledge of l
l any leak rate test problems at Unit 2 after November 1978, l
until I learned of the Hartman allegations in 1980.
1 i
Response to Mr. Donald R.
Haverkamp's Prepared Testimony
)
Mr. Haverkamp's testimony in this proceeding makes several points to which I wish to respond.
They are as follows:
4 l
(1)
That I was the acting Unit 2 Superintendent; (2)
That his role in the " rounding-off" issue was e
I minimal; 1
I (3)
That the corrective actions stated in LER 78-62/1T, "if adequately implemented, would have been i
i I
7 I
a i
sufficient to preclude recurrence of the problem as I understood it."
As to the first point, I was not the acting Unit 2 i
Superintendent.
As previously stated,14r. Gary Miller was the Unit-2 Superintendent; I was the Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
3 As to the second point, during a meeting with Mr. Haverkamp on October 18, 1978, he brought up the issue that 1
i we may not be taking full advantage of the leak rate Technical Specification, namely, that the Technical Specification limited I
unidentified leakage to 1 gpm, not 1.0 gpm.
I feel confident i
in stating that the rounding-off practice that was in place for approximately 7-10 days in October 1978 would not have been I
adopted had the issue not been brought up by the NRC.
I j
As to the LER, and before I discuss our implementation of the corrective actions described in it, I want the presiding Board to know that I am now aware that there are a number of i
f errors in the Narrative to that LER.
Some of those errors i
j relate to times and dates.
My recent review of a handwritten i
j version of the Narrative leads me to believe that I may have questioned the times and dates and that others provided the J
times and dates or did not correct the errors.
How those I
j errors got there, I am not sure.
Although the words in the Narrative about reducing i
unidentified leakage by identifying leaks do not appear to have I
i
! l
o k.
been a part of the Narrative before the Narrative was sent to Reading, I did believe that the operators were attempting to identify leaks.
I do not know how those words came to be a part of the Narrative.
In any event, I attempted to implement the corrective 4
actions described in the Narrative by assuring myself that i
Mr. Floyd followed Mr. Haverkamp's interpretation (which he i
appears to have done by issuing his Operations Memorandum dated October 20, 1978), by instructing Mr. Walter Marshall (by memorandum) to inform the operators of the correct interpretation, by discussing the matter in a plan-of-the-day 1
j (POD) meeting and again at a later date on second shift with a I
Shift Supervisor, by satisfying myself that appropriate computer changes had been made, by advising Mr. O'Hanlon (the i
i then-Unit 1 Superintendent), in October 1978, of the NRC's interpretation of the Action Statement requirement, and by f
assuring myself (after I became Unit 1 Superintendent) that Unit 1 operators would also take comparable action if unidentified leakage was greater than 1 gpm.
I believe that I
any fair-minded person would conclude that I tried to implement the corrective actions proposed in the Narrative.
i i
1 1 i
J i
l
,s I k.
1 i
l Conclusion i
I' I took a number of steps to implement the corrective 1
{
actions set forth in the Narrative to LER 78-62/1T.
Because I i
)
never performed or (so far as I can recall) supervised a leak a
l rate test at TMI-2, I never falsified such tests.
My I
reputation is extremely important to me; therefore I would i
i appreciate it if the Presiding Board would exonerate me of 1
involvement in leak rate test falsification.
I i
i l
1 l
1 1
i 1
e i
I I
i
)
i i
I I
I i
.i l
1 i
.i 1
i
0 gE14T.f.B CottMtoPONOL(4$,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 000METEf UINRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD 16 SEP 23 P2 :35 0FFILL & Si, 4r 00CXET!!L s R evict' DRAND4
)
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 Statement of James L.
Seelinger" by hand delivery or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons this 19th day of September 1986:
Administrative Judge James L.
Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Branch (3)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 James B. Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60602 l
Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
l Hunton & Williams l
l P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212
- Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt 200 North Church Street Parkesburg, PA 19365
- Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt P.O. Box 652 Lake Placid, NY 12946
- Edwin H. Stier, Esq.
11 East Cliff Street Somerville, NJ 08876
_.. w. jA.... a Jam (e;s W. Moeller v I
!