ML19249B009
| ML19249B009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1979 |
| From: | Harner K METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908290160 | |
| Download: ML19249B009 (30) | |
Text
I I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1.
In the Matter of:
2; IE TMI.NVESTIGATION INTERVIEW 3\\
of I
Kerry L. Harner Chemistry Foreman, Unit 2 6
l 71 l
a Trailer #203 9
NRC Investigation Site TMI Nuclear Power Plant 10!
Middletown, Pennsylvania i
11!
l May 22, 1979 12l (Date of Interview) 13 Julv 5,1979 (Date Transcript Typed) 14 l
248 15i (Tape Number (s))
16 1
17f h;pfal@
- 19i, 1
20l
\\
l 21l NRC PERSONNEL:
22 Douglas M. Collins, Radiation Specialist 8gg
- 34 Larry J. Jackson, Radiation Specialist William H. Foster, Senior Inspector and Auditor 25 i
l l
1 FOSTER:
The following interview is being conducted of Mr. Kerry L.
j 2'
Harner.
Mr. Harner is a Chemistry Foreman, Unit 2, at the Three Mile 3
Island Nuclear Power facility.
The present time is 2:00 p.m.
Today's 4l date is May 22, 1979.
The place of the interview is Trailer 203, located 5
immediately outside the south gate of the Three Mile site.
Individuals 6
present for the interview, Douglas M. Collins and Larry J. Jackson.
7 Mr. Collins and Mr. Jackson are Radiation Specialists with Region II.
O My name is William H. Foster.
I'm a Senior Inspector and Auditor with 9
the Office of Inspector and Audit, NRC.
And I'll be monitoring the 10 interview.
Prior to the interview being recorded, Mr. Harner was provided 11 with the document explaining his rights concerning information to be 12 obtained regarding the incident at Three Mile Island.
In addition, 13 Mr. Harner was apprised of the purpose of the investigation, the scope 14 and authority by which the Congress authorizes the NRC to conduct the 15 investigation.
On the second page of the advisement document Mr. Harner 16 has answered three questions.
The questions and Mr. Harner's answers 17 will now be recorded as part of the interview.
Mr. Harner, do you 18l understand the document?
l 19 20 HARNER:
Yes.
21 22 FOSTER:
Will you give permission to tape the interview?
23 24 b9b Ibb 25 r
2 1.
l HARNER:
Yes.
2' 3
FOSTER:
And would you like a copy of the tape?
4 5
HARNER:
Yes, I would.
6 7
FOSTER:
- 0. K.
Kerry, at this time if you would provide us with a brief 8
summary of your academic background and your employment history as they 9
relate to the nuclear field?
10 11 HARNER:
Alright.
I h. ave a degree with a major in chemistry from Lebanon 12 Valley College, here in Pennsylvania.
I started working here at Three 13 Mile Island as a technician in 1974, which was near the completion of 14 the Unit 1 startup.
I worked as a technician for a year and a half, and 1
15 then I was promoted to Chemistry... Chemist, I guess first, is the 16 ti tl e.
I worked in there for a couple of months and then they... and I 17 was promoted to Chemistry Foreman.
And assigned to Unit 2, and I've 18 been down here for two... two and a half years on the Unit 2 startup, 19 in commercial operation.
20 21 FOSTER:
- 0. K.
Thank you, Kerry.
At this point I'm going to turn the 22 interview over to Mr. Collins and Mr. Jackson.
23!
24 896 156 25 I
I l
h l
6
3 1!
6 JACKSON:
Kerry, do you have a position in the emergency organization?
2' 3
HARNER:
Yes.
We were assigned to the emergency starting as a... I 4
guess it's title, Plant Chemist, or something like that, that we're 5
available for any type of sampling or advisement or anything like that, 6
in case of emergency.
7 JACKSON:
Were you here on the morning of the 3/28?
9' 10' HARNER:
When I came in, my normal starting time was 8 o' clock.
Yes.
11 12 JACKSON:
- 0. K.
Would you give us a rundown of what actions you took 13 that morning, as best as you can recall?
14l l
15!
HARNER:
Well, I got to the gate, I was met by one of the QC people.
i 16i And he told me that there had been a problem in the plant, and that most 17 of the people were being assigned to the Observation Center.
But knowing 18{
that my position, and what had to be done, I decided to come on in, 19l rather than go directly to the Observation Center, because I knew they 20" needed people.
So I came in, and... oh, gee... I think I went right 21 back to the lab, after going to my office, or someplace, and dropping 22 off my lunch box and things like that.
I went back to the lab and met 23 Gary Reed back there.
And he had told me that there was an accident in 24 Unit 2, and I got some information from him on what was going on.
Over 25l l
896 IS/
\\
l
)
4 1
there I checked in with my technicians and that, and we were talking 2'
about getting samples and things.
And then I think I went over to...
3 now let's see, where was the ECS at that time... I think the ECS was 4
set up right there in the HP lab at that particular time.
And I checked 5
in, a man taking names and numbers, as we normally do for the emergency 6
procedures.
I checked in with him and I think Tom Mulleavy was running 7
things in the Emergency Center.
I checked in with him and then went 8
back to looking at more of the chemistry data.
There had been a sample 9
drawn.
Gary Reed and I reviewed that.
We looked at that, talked about 10 i t.
And soon after that, I think I went over to the Unit 2 Control 11 Room, where I met Dick Dubiel was over there.
I talked to him a little 12 1 bit.
He's my supervisor.
I tried to find out what was going on in the 13 Control Room, what I could do, or anything where I could be some type of 14 help of something.
And then I think I went back to the Chemistry lab, t
15 the ECS.
And somewhere in there, we decided to take a sample.
I think 16{
it was approximately 9 o' clock.
We took a coolant sample.
And I think 17 the activity... the gaseous activity from that raised the levels, plus 18 the gases that were coming from the Auxiliary Building, over into Unit 1, 19) plus I think it was from taking that sample, also.
That the background 20' levels went up in the ECS and we had to leave there, and then we went 21 over to the Unit 2 Control Room.
In the meantime, one of the technicians 22 was trying to run a boron number sample.
I waited to make sure that he 23 was out.
And Bob McCann was there also.
We waited to make sure all the 24 technicians were out and everybody was out of the Aux Building.
And we 25 896 158 i
i I
5 1
closed that area up and went over to the Unit 2 Control Room.
After 2
that I'm not really sure what happened.
I can't remember... it must 3
have been... by that time it must have been about eleven o' clock, or 4
something like that.
5 0
JACKSON:
- 0. K.
Now let me pursue the boron analyses, a little bit.
Of course you weren't here when the first sample or two were taken.
But 0
those numbars were low, and I believe the baron that was taken at...
9 later in the morning was low.
10 11 HARNER:
Yes.
And considerably low.
12 13 JACKSON:
And you stated that you and Reed reviewed some of the results.
14j Was that boron results?
i 15l 16' HARNER:
No, that was the isotopic.
17 18l JACKSON:
- 0. K.
Did you all discuss these low borons and try to arrive 19 at any conclusion as to why they were low?
20 21 HARNER:
Not at that particular time.
Later on I found out that they 22 had sodium hydroxide injection.
Afterwards it made sense that the baron 23 numbers were low.
But that particular time, we didn't have any knowledge 24 that they had sodium hydroxide injection.
And I'm not really sure I 25 896 1b9 i
I
6 1-even knew what the baron numbers were at that time.
I'm not sure when 2
they ran the samples or anything.
I don't remember getting involved in 3
any boron numbers at all that day.
41 5
JACKSON:
A system question... is it normal to get sodium hydroxide 6l injection on high pressure-injection?
7 HARNER:
It's not normal.
It's tied to... I think it's tied to a 9
building pressure signal right now.
We had in the past where it was 10 tied to coolant pressure, and we had a number of times... we had sodium 11 hydroxide injection.
And it really wasn't needed for any particular 12 reason at that time.
So I think they tied the signal to a building 13 pressure signal.
I don' t know, even when the sodium hydroxide injection 14l was.
I don't... I don't myself know if it was manual or automatic that 15f it came in.
Whether they initiated it or if the signal that it's supposed 16!
to get initiated.
I really don't know.
17 18!
JACKSON:
Do you know if that signal also works off a low level in the 19{
barated water storage tank?
2\\
21.
HARNER:
It shouldn't.
I don't know for a fact that it doesn't, but 22 I've never heard that it did.
23 24 893 160 25 l
l
7 1 4 JACKSON:
How long has it been since that modification was made to take 2
i the actuation off of the reactor system pressure and put it on that tank 3
pressure?
4' 5
HARNER:
Approximately three or four months, from what I know.
6 7
JACKSON:
Have you had any problems with getting sodium hydroxide into 8
the reector coolant system since then?
i 9'
10 HARNER:
Since then? No.
11l 12 JACKSON:
One of the questions that comes to mind based on that, is that 13 the containment, I believe isolation signal was late in the morning, 14:
like around 8 o' clock.
So, what I was trying to pull out here was 1
15!
is... could you have had a sodium hydroxide injection early in the 16 incident, earlier than 8 o' clock in the incident or how did the sodium 17I hydroxide get in there, for say those early samples... five o' clock?
I 18!
19 HARNER:
I really don't know.
I can't answer that at all.
I don't know 20f enough about what happened in the Control Room those first five or six 21l hours, to know when it even happened or how or anything else.
22 23 JACKSON:
But to your knowledge, you haven't had any problem with leaking 24 valves... with sodium hydroxide leaks in them?
i 25 89b 161
8 l'
HARNER:
No.
2 3
JACKSON:
In a line from the borated water storage tanks?
4 5
HARNER:
We've been, since our last instance, we've been pretty much 6
sodium free in the coolant' system, after the last time we cleaned it up.
7 8
JACKSON:
Were the technicians, when they started running these boron 9
samples, would they not normally check the pH before they started the 10 mannitol addition and subsequent titration?
11 12 HARNER:
Not normally.
You pipette a sample in till you put 5 mis in a 13 hundred of demin water.
Af ter you've done that, your pH, really you're 14 only working with 5 mls out of a 100, and your pH isn't active.
Ycur pH 15l takes over mostly what your demin water is.
So, after you've already 16f done your titrations into there, pH doesn't mean much.
And then after i
17 you add the mannitol, it suppresses the pH.
It drops the pH down and 18{
you start titrating it back up.
So unless somebody would suspect that 19 there was sodium hydroxide in there, they wouldn't pay a whole lot of 20!
attention to it, unless they were doing a complete set of analyses, in 21 which we do a pH.
At that particular time, they were just looking for a 22 boron number, and I imagine in the excitement, they just didn't think of 23 it.
It's not in the procedure to do a pH on the coolant before you do a 24 boron.
It's not a requirement.
25j 896 162 r
I i
9 1
JACKSON:
- 0. K.
Did you call, or did you and Reed get together, and call 2'
Ken Frederick that morning?
3 4'
HARNER:
I was trying to think about that the other day.
I think we 5
did.
I think we talked to him out in New Jersey or something like that.
He was at another plant with Bob Hopkins.
I think we did talk to him.
7 0
JACKSON:
He made a statement that you all called him, and I don't 9
recall off the top of my head if you said... how quick it was when you 10 called him....
11 12 HARNER:
We called him frequently... I don't know.
I imagine it was in 13 the afternoon before we ever got a chance to call him, and talk to him.
14 I know that....
15i 16 JACKSON:
Do you recall the nature of the discussion, or what you all 17 discussed?
18 i
19 HARNER:
Probably it as mostly what we found in the coolant system.
We 20' know GPU was... you know, were trying to get to us with some information, 21 so we were interested in getting back to either Ken or Bob Hopkins with 22 the little bit of chemistry that we did know.
And I think we called him 23 up and we mostly discussed the isotopic analysis; the iodine concen-24 trations and cesiums and things like that.
And discussed the fuel 25 895 163 i
10 L
failure and that type of think, and that's about all we knew at that 2l j
time, to begin with.
3t 4
JACKSON:
What kind of a... do you recall what kind of planning went 5
into taking the sample at nine... you said about 9 o' clock in the GI morning, I believe, when that boron sample
...?
7 HARNER:
When I came in, Gary showed the printout they had from the sample that they drew at 7 o' clock or 7:30, something in that order.
10 And at that time it showed, I think it was something like a 140 micro-11 curies, total activity.
And after being over in the Control Room, and 12{
seeing the state that we had over there and listening to some of the 13 conversations that were going on, I knew that we were going to need more 14-information about what was going on inside the core.
So I went back l
15l over and tried to get the technicians going on drawing another sample to 16 see what we had, and what was going on inside the core.
And I assigned 171 a couple of technicians to it, and with the aid of the Health Physics I
18{
people, they suited up, got Scott Air Packs and all that type of thing, 19l and they went in and did the sampling and prepared the sample for chem.
i 20l I
21!
JACKSON:
You all don't have any of these samples sitting around there 22 any more, do you?
23 24 896 164 25 i
t I
11 1
HARNER:
The one that was taken at 9 o' clock, I don't know if I did it 2!
l or not.
I can't remember.
But we have... we did a 1,000 to 1 dilution 3'
or something like that and that was too hot to count.
So we had to do 4
another dilution, and I think it ended up being something like 10,000 to 5
1.
And there wac a plastic marinelli beaker of that 1,000 to 1 dilution, 6
I think, sitting in the lab.
Now since then, we've had a number of 7
cleanup campaigns in the lab, and I don't know for a fact, that that 8
container is still there.
And that was of the 9 o' clock sample.
The sample that was taken later on, there is still some of that there, the 10 29th sample, I guess, it was.
11 12, JACKSON:
That would be the one that Houser took on.
13 t
14i HARNER:
Yes.
We've been doing that out.
People have wanted some of it l
15 for this, that and the other thing, and I'm not sure what quantity is 16' left of that anymore.
17 18f JACKSON:
I'm more interested in anything that came on early in the 19 work....
20 21' HARNER:
The data that we got from the 7 o' clock sample and tha 9 o' clock 22 sample, the printouts were taken to the Control Room and given to Dick 23l Dubiel and Jim Seelinger, who were up there at the time.
I looked at 24 the data and circumstances just kept me from keeping track of those 25l 896 165 t
12 1.
j sheets, and I just don't have them.
I don't know where they are.
Or if 2!
anybody has them.
That would be the only record of those two samples.
3 Other than, I remember the first one was a total of 140 microcuries per 4
ml; and the other, the second one, was something like 1180, I think, 5
microcuries per ml.
So, in the two hours, you had... going up to that 6
point.
And it showed... they both showed the same thing... the iodines, the cesium, the xenons... all high levels.
8 9
JACKSON:
So you did have data sheets, and took those to the Unit 2 10 Control Room.
11l l
12{
HARNER:
Yes.
Or we get a computer printout that's heat sensitive 13 paper, and it prints out olue on a white background...
Hewlett-Packard t
14 paper.
15!
I 16 JACKSON:
I'm interested in following up a little bit on the thought 17 process, involving these boron samples and the actions that were taken 18[
when those samples came out low.
Do you know... you say that you all 19 didn't discuss that very much... do you know who would have been involved 20 in the discussion there.
Would that have been between Reed and Dubiel 21 or
...?
22 23 HARNER:
Well, Gary... I don't know what time Gary got there, but he 24 was there when I got there.
And Ed Houser usually comes in at 7 o' clock.
25!
l 896 166 i,
13 1.
l So I would imagine those two and probably Dubiel, also.
Because he was 2l l
there early, I think.
I don't know what time Gary and Ed got there.
3r l
They were probably the ones that discussed them.
Like I said, but I 4{
don't remember much about boron numbers.
When I got there, we were more 51 l
interested in the activities that we were running.
I remember hearing 61 them say later on, that the borons weren't any good.
They were only 7
showing like 200 ppm.
By that time we couldn't get back in the lab to 8
do anything.
9 10' JACKSON:
From a Hea.;h Physics standpoint, who's involved in planning 11 to taKe these samples? For the 9 o' clock, what plans fere made to go in 12 there and take these samples?
It was getting hot by this time.
13 14 HARNER:
The technicians.
We just assigned a number of technicians to 15f go in and get the sample, and they were taking care of their own HP.
16f There are HP technicians also, besides Chemistry technicians and at the 17 time people were spread pretty thin, and they were more or less left on 18f their own to... to take care of their Health Physics aspects of getting 19l the sample, as they always do.
I 201 21 JACK 0N:
Yes, but you don't always have those kind of ' dose rates in 22I tr.ere....
23 896 16/
24 25j i
I i
14 ll' HARNER:
Well, at the time everynody was just not really expacting what 2l we found.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that was surprised.
3 41 i
JACKSON:
Doug, do you have anything you want to ask him, while I'm I
S thinking about some of this?
6 l
7'!
COLLINS:
You mentioned you brought us up to about eleven o' clock or 0
thereabouts, the first day.
Do you recall what else you did the rest of 9
that day, and in the subsequent two days?
10:
11 HARNER:
Not a whole lot.
I tried to do some of the things, soma of my 12I duties as'a themistry Foreman.
I reme.nber I made a tour of the secoadary 13 plant to see what was what.
I checked the polishers.
I tried to get in 14 tt:c chem lab.
I don't reme,ber if I got in the chem lah the first day i
15j or not.
I can't rer. ember what the levels were in tha;, area.
Whether we i
16!
got in there the first day or not.
We turned off the analyzers, things i
17 like that in the secondary chem lab.
Try to cr,+nk or feedwater chemistry.
18!
Just most of my normal duties that I try ar.d do and then, I spent some i
19f time in the Control Room in any type of job that,would ccme up that had 20f anything to do with that, we'd try and help out, wherever we could then.
I 21!
Listened a little bit on the... tried to oay attention to what was 22l going on on the outside.nonitoring teams, to see what we were... what 73 was being put out and what was being done on the cutside.
Because we
,I 24,"
had a lot of our people out there, and then we started getting help.
We 25 K
896 168 i
i f
s
15 1'
start filtering Aux operators out on different teams and things like 2
that.
And I tried to aid HP a little bit.
And after about that time, I 3
think I started working... aidinL more HP than Chemistry after that.
4 Because there wasn't a whole lot you could do.
We couldn't sample 5
primary and the secondary was basically shut down and on recirc.
So there wasn't a whole lot to do.
7 8
COLLINS:
Did you make any entries into the Aux building?
9 10 HgNER:
I did not.
No.
11 12{
COLLINS:
Were you assigned to any, or did you interface or take results 13 from any of the offsite or onsite survey teams?
14, 15i HARNER:
No.
I didn't operate any of the radios or phones or anything 16,i like that.
17 18j COLLINS:
Do you recall any secondary samples that were taken during the 19f first few days?
20 21:
HARNER:
I know what we did now.
We tried to get generator samples, 22 that's what we did.
While we were still over in Unit 1, Ed Houser had 23 the generators lined up.
We
- i to open two valves in Unit 2, in order 24 to line the generators
'nto Unit 1.
And they suspected leakage, 25 d' 9 $) lb9
16 1
p.:imary, secondary leakage.
So he had those valves lined up, and I 2
don't remember who got the samples.
I think he may have gotten them 3
himself, the samples off the A and 8 steam generator through the sample 4
lines located in the Unit 1 primary lab.
And at that time he grabbed 5
them.
I don't know how he counted them.
I don't know if he put them 6
under GeLi, or how he did it.
But we decided that the A_had activity 7
and the B didn't.
And when we called that information to the Control 8
Room, they said that doesn't make any sense with what we have up here.
9 So then I decided that there's only one place the sample lines may have 10 been crossed.
Because we have never used those lines before to take
,,-^j samples.
So, I decided the sample lines may have been crossed, but I 12 was sure of what the same b lines were in Unit 2, in the secondary lab.
12 So that's when I went over to Unit 2.
And I was working in the Sample 14!
Room, 1'ning up samples off the A and B steam generator.
When we got Ilk those samples, we checked them with a frisker, with an RM-14, this is 16 cur first preliminary check, and we found that the 8 just screamed it 17 right off scale and the A didn't do anything.
And then I took that 18(
information up to the Control Room and gave that information to them.
I 19 was sure of those two samples.
I wasn't sure of the ones that came out 20 of the primary lab.
21f 22 COLLINS:
Were those two samples run on a GeLi?
23 24 l]99 J /(j 25 1
l h
17 1
HARNER:
I don't know.
I would have to... well, the GeLi was... by 2
that time inoperable, because of being in a high background area.
3 4
COLLINS:
Do you know what happ ned to those two samples?
5 6
HARNER:
The last I saw them, they were in the Safety Room in Unit 2.
7 That's where they had set up an HP area in the Safety Room.
And they 0
were in there.
But they're no longer in there anymore, I'm sure of 9
that.
We went back in there and there was a lot of contaminated clothing 10 and things in there, and that since has been cleaned up.
And everything's 11 been taken out of there, and it's now a storage area.
I could go back 12 through the scans that we have to see if any of that was run out.
If it 13 was run the first day, or possibly the second day, it would have been 14 done by the NRC van.
Because they were the only ones on site that could 15 count, afternoon or something like that, the first day.
16 17 COLLINS:
You mentioned that you would go back through your scans, where 18l are these results normally filed?
Had they not been sent up to the 19 Unit 2 Control Room? Where would they have been filed?
20 21' HARNER:
They would be file for... we do all the counting in Unit 1, 22 and it was the only GeLi that was operable.
We then would take them and 23 put them in a file basket in Unit 1.
Unit l's would be filed in their 24 filing cabinets; Unit 2's would then be hand carried over to Unit 2, and 25 filed in their file.
896 171
18 1,
COLLINS:
There were many Unit 2 samples taken during the period of time 2
when Unit 2 HP area was not accessible.
Do you know where those sample 3
results were put for later filing?
4 5{
)
HARNER:
Those that were run on our GeLi after we pulled it out of 6
Unit 1 and took it down to-the circ water pump house, I set up a filing 7
system down there, where they were kept.
8 9
COLLINS:
This is at the circ water pump house?
10 11 HARNER:
Yes.
That's where it was.
It's no longer there.
We've now 12 moved it up to the sample coordinator's office.
13 14 JACKSON:
When was that set up down there at the circ water 15!
house?
i 16l
\\
17 HARNER:
It was probably the second day.
We had some people in here 181 from... gee, I don't know... I think they were from Salem.
An HP 19!
group plus their supervisor and they worked on
.. that was when Ken 20 Frederick was here, he helped move that thing.
So, I don't know when he 21:
got here, but ha helped move it, so it must have been as soon as he got 22 on site, we got the thing moved down there.
In the meantime, we were 23 using the NRC van, and RMC and SAI came on site.
24 25!
896 172
19 1.
COLLINS:
You mentioned that you remained in the Unit 1 HP and chem lab 2'
area while a technician ran a sample.
And then when he was through 3
doing his sample analyses, all three of you exited approximately the 4
same time.
Was there anyone left at the entrance to the Unit 1 Aux 5
building area?
6 HARNER:
Yes.
Bob McCann stayed there.
8 9
COLLINS:
Thank you.
Were you involved in any way in the taking or tne 10' analyses of any condenser vacuum samples during these first three days?
11 12 HARNER:
No.
That's not normally a chemistry function.
It's usually HP 13 and I didn't get involved in it at all for any reason.
14l 15 COLLINS:
You mentioned you were involved in some HP functions, since 16' the chemistry functions tailed off.
What specifically did you do?
Do 17 you recall?
i 18{
l 19 HARNER:
Mostly it was being a foreman.. and being a chemistry foreman.
20 I didn't have a whole lot of duties where all the HP people were extremely 21[
busy, so a lot of it I spent going around gathering materials, because I 22 was more or less a free man or a body at that time.
I can remember 23 carrying clothing in, wet suits, lookin1 for respirators, looking for 24 Scott Air Packs, carrying Scott Air Packs, just any type of thing that I 25; 89b 1/3 i
l i
20 1
could do to help out when they needed something.
I tried to either 2
round up people to do it, or do it myself.
3' 4
COLLINS:
In trying to locate Scott Air Packs, did you have any difficulty 5
finding Scott Air Packs where they were supposed to be stationed?
6 HARNER:
The places I was familiar with' Scott Air Packs being, I went 0
there and found some.
I don't know all the locations in the plant where 9
they're located, but places such as near the HP labs, certain stations 10 through the Turbine Building... those types of places, I knew where 11 they were and I went and got them.
12 13 COLLINS:
Did you get involved in any way in the takir.g of the primary 14 sample on the 29th? The one that Houser took.
I 15j i
16 HARNER:
No.
We split up.
I forget what time that was taken, but 17 somewhere in there I went home for a couple of hours, and then came back 18 in.
And maybe it was the third day or something like that, we decided 19 that we couldn't continue that way a second day.
And we started splitting 20 up.
And at the particular time that was taken, I must of either been 21 ready to leave, and I left.
I guess I was on day shift, from like 7 in 22 the morning till 7 at night, or something like that.
See that was the 23 29th.
I stayed... the ritst day was the 28th, right?
I stayed till 24 something like 10 o' clock at night.
I went home for a couple of hours; 25 896 1/4 i
t
21 1
got a shower, changed clothes, ate something.
Came back in about 4 in 2
the morning.
So then by 3 or 4 in the afternoon, I was getting pretty 3
tired, and I left.
And I think that's about the time Gary and Pete and 4
Ed were getting around to taking the sample.
5 6
COLLINS:
Do you recall any of your activities on the 30th? Were they similar to those on the 29th?
8 9
HARNER:
After that sample was taken, in fact I think I worked with you, 10 on getting that sample out.
We packaged up a ml, brought it over in a 11 powdex bucket, and we got a chopper in.
12 13 COLLINS:
I think that was Nimitz, wasn't it?
14; I
15I HARNER:
No.
It was some Collins.
You've got a couple of Collins, I 16f think in the NRC.
I'm not sure which one it was any more.
But they're 17 over in the trailer by the Observation Center.
And there was some kind 18f of mix up, I think on whether a particular portion of sample or something 19 got out the night before.
And then when I came back in, we got another 20' portion... I think Joe Deman actually took the sample.
And I handled 21 packaging it, and making sure it got over to the Observation Center.
22 Again, since I had a little freer movement than anybody else, I handled 23 that end of it.
Taking it over... over to the... over to the Observa-24 tion Center to be taken out by chopper.
25?
896 1/5 i
22 1
FOSTER:
We're going to break now and change the tapes.
The time is 2
2:29 p.m.
3l 4{
l FOSTER:
We are going to continue with the interview with Mr. Harner.
5 The time is 2:30 p.m.
6 7
COLLINS:
During this period of time did you keep any log or take any 8
notes or write down any results of the sample analyses or keep any j
record of any kind?
10' 11' HARNER:
I don't think so.
Working with chemistry is also numbers, 12 after five years now is kind of part of the job and you remember quite a 13 few in your head and I didn't bother writing them down.
I very seldom 3
14!.
work with notes.
Chemistry numbers just, they stick after you've been 15 trained to do it.
Such as the total activities, I remember them from 16l!
that day.
You just get a feel for it.
You know what to remember and 17 things like that and I don't remember writing anything cuwn.
As a 18 matter of fact, after we evacuated the chemistry lab, the Unit 1 HP 1$!
area, after that ECS was evacuated I changed clothing.
I took my street 20 clothing off and put on paper coveralls where there is no room to carry 21 anything so I definitely didr't have any notes with me.
And I did the 22 same thing the second day when I came in.
I changed as soon as I got in 23 and wore nothing but paper coveralls.
24 896 )/6 25j l
l f
23 1
JACKSON:
I would, like a broken record, go back to that boron analysis 2
for just a second.
I believe on the morning of the 28th there was a 3
sodium analysis run.
Do you recall the results of that sodium analysis, 4
or do you recall that analysis being run?
5 6
HARNER:
I vaguely recall it being run, but the results, no.
7 8
COLLINS:
There is a record in the chemistry log book showing...
9 10 HARNER:
Before you say anything, maybe 3 ppm, something like that, that 11 number, I don't know why.
12 13 JACKSON:
It's much lower than 3 ppm, I believe its six-tenths, nine-tenths, 14!
I don't recall the number exactly myself, but what I was getting at is
(
15!
do you know if anybody has looked at this level of sodium and tried to i
16!
compare that with the potential of sodium l.,
ixide injection?
17 18l HARNER:
I can tell you, we run anywhere frcm two-tenths to six-tenths 19l to eight-tenths normally in the core, and when you add a large amount of 20 boric acid, your specs on boric acid call for less than 1% sodium chloride 21 as contaminants.
When you add large quantities like ' hat auch as we did 22 from the BWST, you get a lot of sodium contamination and the last numbers 23 I remember seeing on sodium when the BWST was something like 2 ppm so if 24 you got a lot of boron influx you would have a little bit of addition of 25 896 177 i
24 1
l sodium into that.
But six-tenths of a ppm is the normal operating level 2'
or slightly above, not a great deal.
You always have some sodium coming 3
from your bleed tanks, from your boric acid.
4 t
5 JACKSON:
But at this level of concentration for sodium in there, a few 6
tenths of a ppm, wouldn't that not only be equivalent to a few ppm at 7
most, of boric acid, in other words, if the man were factoring boric 8
acid without backtitrating to a PH of 6 as the procedure says, the error induced by the few tenths of a ppm of sodium would not be the difference 10' between a thousand ppm boric acid and 700?
11, 12 HARNER:
As I said before, when you introduce mannitol to the solution, 13 it lowers the PH of the solution, so your mannitol would chew up any 14 type of caustic that was in there in very low levels.
Now, the procedure 15!
that we follow calls for any PH, gee, I can't remember if its greater 16 than six or greater than six and one-half, something on that order, 17 somewhere in that bracket, to titrate it back down with acid.
Now if 18{
you had six-tenths of a ppm sodium with 11 that boric acid in there it 19 would not give you anywhere overall like a PH of 5 or something like 20 that on a straight sample, so in a diluted sample of 5 to 100 you defin-21 itely wouldn't see any difference in PH or any difference in the titration.
22 Because your mannitol will neutralize caustic that is in there.
23 24 25{
bb b
i I
f
25 1
JACKSON:
Is it feasible that the technician ran the sodium or the 2
diluted sample and that actually you should have multiplied the results 3
by 20?
4 5
HARNER:
No, not likely.
No, when we do sodiums your first shot is 6
always run a straight sample.
If it's over your calibrated range then -
7 you dilute down.
To dilute a sample and run it is more or less a waste 8
of time.
Regular lab procedure calls for you to run it on a straight 9
sample.
10' 11 JACKSON:
I'm talking about an inadvertent type of action.
12 13 HARNER:
No.
14 l
15l JACKSON:
Maybe the guy wasn't thinking or something.
16 17 HARNER:
We'll run it right from a bottle or something when we run it.
1 We don't bother putting into beakers to run sodiums or anything.
19 20f JACKSON:
Okay.
I guess what the point I'm trying to make is, those 21 boron samples are low and it seems there is a possibility that there was 22 a sodium hydroxide injection which the technician wasn't aware of so he 23 did not make an initial PH correction.
However, a sodium analysis 24 doesn't confirm that there was a sodium hydroxide injection.
25 896 1/9 I
i
l 26 1
O HARNER:
It depends on what times your talking now.
I don't know when 2
the sodium hydroxide injection occurred, I don't know when the sodium 3
was run that you're talking about.
4 5
JACKSON:
Well, you got high pressure injection right off the bat when 6
the incident occurred, and'it was secured after I think only a couple of 7
minutes of injection and this was shortly after 4:00 in the morning and 8
then the next, the first boron sample I believe was around 5:00, so if 9
sodium hydroxide had gone in with high pressure injection for leaking 10' valves or whatever, then that sample should have reflected some sodium 11 hydroxide influx.
12 13 HARNER:
Well, you also have a problem with travel time on the sample i
14 lines.
You have a good 30 to 45 minutes travel time before you get a 15l fresh sample over into Unit 2.
So if you talking 4:30 and 5:00 that may I
16 or may not have been enough time to clear out the line to get a fresh 17 sample over into the sample sink in Unit 2.
18j i
19f JACKSON:
But the sample at 4:00 or at 5:00 was like 700 ppm.
Then the i
20 next sample which was what, an hour later, approximately, was like 21{
400 ppm.
Assuming that that was just sample time, travel time and 22 coming to the sample system or perhaps mixing time in the reactor coolant 23 system since we don't know kind of flow conditions we had in the reactor 24 coolant system at that time, even considering all that for the sodium to 25 l
896 180 f
l 27 1;
influence the boron numbers, it had to be in the same sample.
Do you 2
see what I'm saying?
3l 4
HARNER:
Yes.
5 6
JACKSON:
And there's a sodium analysis that shows the sodium to be very 7
low so....
8 b
HARNER:
But the sodium analysis... do you know the time of the sodium 10 analysis?
11 12 COLLINS:
The sodium analysis was done on a 6:02 sample, according to 13 the log book.
14, l
15l HARNER:
Well then, there's no... there would have to be some type of 16 dilution of some sort if indeed it was there, I don't know, I can't 17 answer that for you.
18l 19 COLLINS:
Okay.
20 21 JACKSON:
That was the point.
We're trying to determine if the sodium i
22 hydroxide was in there.
If you just take the baron results, it seems to 23 indicate that the sodium hydroxide was there, however, the sodium sample 24 at 6:00 seems to refute that.
Because that sample just indicates that 25 l
896 181
28 1,
there is not enough sodium hydroxide there to cause those types of 2
errors in the sodium and the baron analysis.
3 4-HARNER:
I really don' t know.
I don't remember anything that would...
5 I didn't discuss anything on borons either with the control room other 6
than later on we finally realized that the low numbers that they were 7
getting were due to the sodium hydroxide and we just more or less wrote 8
it off as that vs didn't titrate back down to get a good Doron number i
9 and that's when people started requesting the sample for baron analysis.
10 11 COLLINS:
Have you had any previous interviews with any other organiza-12 tions concerning this incident?
13 14l HARNER:
No.
I 15l 16' COLLINS:
Have you been coached or have you had any individual or any 17 people discuss with you what should be said at this interview?
18{
l 19f HARNER:
No.
Other than just, you know, we sit down after somebody 20 comes back they'll say well they were talking about 1.h i: or talking 21 about that, that's the only thing, but nobody has ever said anything.
22 23 COLLINS:
Do you have any reason to believe that anyone might have 24 purposely taken any action to damage the plant?
i 25 896 182 I
i
(
29 1
HARNER:
No, definitely not.
Not in my mind anyway.
I've worked the people in Unit 2.
I've worked with just about everyone of them here and 3
there isn't a one that I would say, you know, would think of doing that.
4 5
COLLINS:
Is there anything else you'd like to discuss concerning the 6
incident or anything else in the Health Physics Program?
7 8
HARNER:
Not that I can think of at this time, no.
9 10 JACKSON:
I have one question that may not be real appropriate to ask 11 right on such short notice because it might involve a very complex 12f answer but I'll go ahead and ask it.
There has been some discussion 13 lately that the activity levels in the steam generators have not in-14 creased and I've actually heard people discussing wnether or not there 15 was a leak, what type of leak you would have had to been to get the t
16' activity into the steam generator and then close up and not show any 17 further evidence of leaking undar the cc itions they have in the reactor 18 coolant system.
To your knowledge is there anyway to backfeed that 19 secondary or that steam generator from say a contaminated system, perhaps 20 an interconnection of sample lines or anything of that nature where 21 activity might get in that secondary side without having to come through 22 the tube leak?
23 896 183 24 25, 1
i i
i
(
30 1!
l HARNER:
Not that I can think of.
We've had in Unit 1...we've had 2t j
gaseous activity pulled into the steam generator through, and I'm not 3
exactly sure the pathway, but it was from somehow from the RC drain 4
tank.
With the-generator having a vacuum on it there was some method we 5
could pull also pull that vacuum that same vacuum on the heater drain 6
tank.
But in Unit 2 I've never come across that problem at all, that we 7
ever had activity due to that reason come into the generatcrs.
It's not 8
all that unusual if you consider a hole, a pinhole leak or something in 9
a tube that as the thing cooled it sealed itself.
We've had problems 10 with condensers that do that all the time.
You have a condenser leak 11 when you're getting circ water into the system, you shut down the plant 12 to try and find it or you cool, go down and drop power all your tempera-13 tures come down your tubes will then shrink and close off a little hole 14!
and it's very difficult to find.
It's my feeling that this is what 15l1 happened in the steam generators.
If it was some type of weld crack or 16l something it would either get larger or stay the same, but if it was a 17 hole in a tube, as the tube cooled it would very conceivably seal itself 18
- off, 19 20 JACKSON:
Okay.
I have no further questions.
21 22 FOSTER:
Thank you very much.
We wish to conclude this interview at 23 2:44 p.m.
24 89b 184 3,
I e
f 1