ML19308C556
| ML19308C556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1979 |
| From: | Frampton G, Ian Porter METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280585 | |
| Download: ML19308C556 (39) | |
Text
. _
of
{
L O
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
1 IN THE MATTER OF:
~
i THREE MILE ISLAND i
SPECIAL INQUIRY DEPOSITIONS i
I DEPOSITION OF IVAN D.
PORTER O
J Place - Middletown, Pennsylvania Date -
Tuesday, October 30, 1979 Pages 1 - 38 1,
s l
i D
D
~
@M)_ngis
' p1 i
de d
m f
Telephone.
(202)347 3700 i
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponers 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY soot 28o 9 5 7
1 CR 7976 rco 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
{v^f30/79 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 4
In the Matter of:
5 THREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INQUIRY DEPOSITION 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7
DEPOSITION OF IVAN D.
PORTER 8
i Trailer #11 9
Three Mile Island Middletown, Pennsylvania 10 Tuesday, 30 October 1979 11 9:30 a.m.
12 APPEARANCES:
(')
13 GEORGE T.
- FRAMPTON, JR.,
ESQ., TMI/NRC Special Inquiry Group 14 R.
C. HAYNES, TMI/NRC Special Inquiry Group DENNIS P.
ALLISON, TMI/NRC Special Inquiry Group 15 CARLA DARISTA, TMI/NRC Special Inquiry Group 16 MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ, ESQ., Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N. W., Washington, D.
C.,
17 on behalf of Metropolitan Edison Company 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 V
Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 t
\\ -.
r I,
i 2
i.
' CR:-7976 CONTENTS 1
0/79
. WITNESS' EXAMINATION 2
3
.'Ivan D.. Porter.
3 5
1 I
6 7
8 9
j 10
-11
+
12 13 r
14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 4
21 22 23 24 w resers neporm a,Inc.
25 I
l
.. - - -, - -, - - _ - - - -.. ~.,. -.., _. -. _ - -...... -,. -
. ~,, - _
CR 7976 l
3 rca 10/30/79 1
PRQCEEDINQS 2
MR. FRAMPTON:
This is a deposition being taken 3
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Special Inquiry 4
Group on Three Mile Island at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, 5
on October 30, 1979, of Mr. Ivan Porter.
6 Present in addition to Mr. Porter are Mr. Diaz, representing 7
Metropolitan Edison and Mr. Haynes, Mr. Allison, Miss Darista, 8
and Mr. Frampton, all with the Special Inquiry Group.
9 Ron, would you swear the witness?
10 Whereupon, 1I IVAN D.
PORTER 12 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
['_)/
13 was examined and testified as follows:
x 14 liR. EAYNES:
Please state your full name for the 15 record.
16 THE WITNESS:
Ivan Dean Porter, Jr.
17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
19 Q
Mr. Porter, before we started, I showed you a one-page 20 Special Inquiry Group witness notification form that states 21 the purpose of our inquiry and your rights in connection 22 with it, including the caution that the transcript of the 23 deposition that we're doing today may well become public h.ce-F9ral Ceporters, Inc.
24 information at some point.
25 Do you have any questions about that?
4 1
A No.
r'3
(
)
2 Q
What was your position with Met Ed at the time of 3
the accident, March 28?
4 A
I was lead instrumentation and control engineer for 5
Unit 2.
6 Q
As I told you before we started, we have a very specific 7
area that we want to cover with you, and we do have the 8
benefit of testimony that you have given before the President's 9
Commission in a deposition and also transcripts of interviews 10 done with you by NRC's I&E investigators.
II According to that testimony, you were requested at around 12 8:00 o' clock on the morning of March 28 by Gary Miller to
()
13 determine in-core thermocouple temperatures; and as a result 14 of the readouts or non-readouts that you got, you instructed 15 some people to try to determine those readings with instruments 16 off the wires below the control room console; is that correct?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Did you go down to where those individuals were actually 19 taking the readings with the instruments?
20 A
Yes, I did.
21 Q
The first time that you went down there, what kind 22 of instrument were they using?
23 A
Well, we took two instruments with us.
One, we had 24 a DVM, digital volt meter, and we also took with us a AwF J Reorters, im.
25 fluke (igital thermocouple readout device which actually I
5 1
displays temperature and degrees Fahrenheit.
So we had both 2
instruments with us.
3 0
Which was used first to try to get some of these 4
readings?
5 A
Well, we hooked up -- I believe we had a brief 6
conversation over which one to use, and I asked them to use 7
the fluke digital readout device.
First, we went and 8
gathered the necessary paperwork and stuff to find the proper cables and so forth, and we went down and located the proper 9
10 computer cabinet.
And I believe in the interim, I went 11 back upstairs to the control room and came down a few 12 minutes thereafter, and they had, as I recall, four
()
13 thermocouples hooked up to the fluke.
14 It has selector buttons on the front of the instrument.
4 15 I believe it's capable of reading something like nine channels 16 at one time, and they selected the four readings.
And as I 17 said before, as I best recall now, two of the readings 18 were somewhere around 200 and some odd degrees and two 19 more in the neighborhood of 2300 degrees.
20 0
Who were the other people present when you returned 21 there and observed these readings on the fluke meter?
22 A
Skip Bennett, the instrument foreman, Jim Wright, 23 Bill Yeager were technicians, and I believe Bob Gilbert
()
24 was also down there, another foreman.
Aco Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Mr. Gilbert is another foreman?
-l
6 l
1 A
Yes.
p 5'
2 Q
Do you recall any readouts or values that were 3
substantially higher than 2400 degrees Fahrenheit?
4 A
No.
If I could talk a little bit about that --
5 Q
Please do.
6 A
-- I've seen what's been written in the paper about 7
3700 degree readings and stuff.
One point is the conversion 8
chart for chromel-Alumel thermocouples doesn't go about 9
2500 degrees.
The second point is, I had a test run on 10 that fluke thermocouple readout, and at 2462, it stops going 11 up and blinks at you.
So without making any personal attacks 12 on what anybody said, I don't think anybody just saw a 3700
( -)'
13
~
degree reading.
I mean, it wasn't something you could just 14 stand there, you know, there's 3700 degrees.
15 Q
So what you're saying is that from your test of the 16 fluke meter, if anybody saw values that high, it would have 17 to be an extrapolation from a voltage reading on the DVM?
18 A
Yes, but that would be outside of someone just standing 19 there, you know, I would think it would be just offhand in 20 the course of taking readings like that.
21 Q
I don't understand what you just said, " offhand"?
22 A
Well, an extrapolation to one and a half or 23 approaching two times the range, what you're dealing with is
()
24 Ace Fed'e'5) Reporters, Inc.
.not an easy e M apola don.
W s not eWapoladng beWeen 25 two points on the chart to a point slightly above the chart,
~
1 7
1 it's 50 percent above the chart.
(~)
2 O
You yourself observed, as best you can recall, four,
\\/
3 or about four readings on the digital readout; is that right?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Did you discuss with the people there what that meant?
6 A
I don't recall we did, no.
I certainly would think 7
it's likely we did, but I just don't recall if we did.
I 8
think, really, that what we saw there was consistent with-9 what we were seeing from the computer except maybe the higher 10 readings which are above the computer span maybe were 11 indicated.
12 The thing that was most, that bothered me I guess about
()
13 the validity readings was the fact of the range of them; 14 plus the 200 degrees, I didn't feel was in any way acceptable 15 or valid for what we were seeing elsewhere in the plant 16 conditions.
17 0
When you say you didn't think they were acceptable 18 or valid, can you explain?
19 A
Well, the in-core thermocouples, first place, they 20 aren't in the core.
They are above the core.
And they 21 are all in a single plane which is normally in a water l
22 space above the core, and it just didn' t seem reasonable to l
l 23 me for a 200 degree reading in the single plane and parallel l ()
24 with a 2300 degree reading.
Ace-Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 And we still, at that point in time, all of our hot leg I
8 1
v^3 instruments, as best I know, were still indicating off-scale,
~j 2
above 620 degrees.
And at least with the flow condition, 3
the temperatures for those thermocouples and hot leg RTDs 4
would be very, very close to the same.
I had had, prior 5
to going down to take the readings, I had the DVM which 6
I had mentioned -- not this DVM, but I had another DVM 7
hooked to the RTD itself.
The RTD was off-scale at 620, 8
but I had the DVM hooked up to it --
9 Q
Now you're talking about the RTD on the hot leg?
10 A
This is the hot leg RTD in the control room, and that, 11 I knew that that indication was telling us somewhere around 12 720 degrees.
I) 13 Q
So you would have expected values from the in-core 14 thermocouples not to be more than, say, 100 or 200 degrees 15 hotter than the hot leg temperature at most?
16 A
I don' t know if that's what I expected, but I wouldn' t 17 expect them to be 400 degrees colder.
If they had all been 18 1000 degrees, they had all been 2000 degrees, 200 degrees, 19 it just caused me to question whether the information was 20 any good or not.
21 Q
Putting aside whether you thought that the numbers 22 were likely to be very accurate, did they give you the 23 impression that portions of the core probably were very hot, Ace F'eNet Repo,te,s, Inc.
especially when this information was set against the hot leg 25 temperatures?
I'm trying to probe, as best you can recall, I
i l
I 9
\\
1 your state of mind at the time.
/^N k-)
2 A
I don' t know if they did or not.
I believe in one of 3
my NRC testimonies, I think I was afraid they were.
I guess 4
when you see 2300 degrees like that, it doesn't cheer you up 5
any.
Once again, I was looking at another temperature in 6
the same region that said 200.
7 Q
Let me show you the transcript of an interview that 8
was done with you by I&E on July 2nd, and there are some 9
questions and answers on this subject on page 6.
Maybe I 10 can just read this into the record as you read it, and the 11 question I'm going to ask you is whether the answers that 12 you gave during that interview, according to this transcript, i( )
13 are consistent with your recollection now.
14 You were asked during that interview whether you recalled 15 when the measurements were made that anyone said they felt 16 the core was uncovered.
And you answered that you did not know 17 that that statement was made.
Then the question is asked, 18 quote, So you don't recall if Mr. Wright, if Mr. Bennett, 19 or Mr. Yeager told you, together or separately, that they 20 felt that temperature indications indicated the core was 21 uncovered, question mark.
22 Your answer, quote, I don' t specifically remember them 23 saying that, no.
I'd -- I think everybody involved with it
(')
24 was probably concerned about the water level, and they were AceJud Reporters, Inc.
25 seeing, seeing the temperatures we were seeing.
But I' guess
~
i
10 1
I don't recall of anybody stating that specifically, but I k'O 2
might have myself, I guess.
I just don't recall that clearly 3
right now what anybody said at any given time.
4 Question:
You don't recall making any kind of a statement 5
like that to Mr. Miller?
6 Answer:
I don't believe I did, no.
7 And then your answer continues.
That's the end of the 8
quotation.
Is that consistent with your state of your recollection now?
9 10 A
I believe it is, yes.
I could say it a different 11 way, but I think it will all come out about the same.
12 O
Am I right in thinking that your testimony then is that
()
13 you don't specifically recall any conversation about the 14 core possibly being uncovered or having been uncovered, but 15 that it's possible that there was such a conversation at that 16 time with one or more of these technicians and foreman?
17 A
It's possible, although after I saw those four 18 readings -- and once again, this is my feeling, I don't 19 recall specifically -- one thing that the technicians 20 frequently like to do with this is to take a DVM and take a 21 voltage reading.
And I had specifically asked them to bring the fluke readout down to take that reading, and we did on 22 23 four of them.
( })
24 I believe, due to the disparity of the readings, I told Ace-Federd boorters, Inc.
25 them it was acceptable to go ahead and use the DVM.
Using the i
11 1
volt meter, they can take the readings just by putting the O
probes on the terminals and it takes 15 seconds to take a x_/
2 3
reading.
Using the fluke, you have to physically unhook the wires and the computer and reterminate them on the fluke 4
readout which probably takes three to five minutes or 5
something.
6 At that point in time, I left, so they were probably 7
down there, I don't know how long; it could have been another 8
hour after I went back upstairs.
And they might have said 9
jo almost anything after that, whether or not I was there.
I 11 don't know.
12 Q
Did you leave to go upstairs for the purpose of 13 reporting back to Gary Miller?
()
A Yes.
ja 15 Q
Did you report to him?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
What do you recall about your conversation with him?
A I believe it was very brief and just to the fact 18
~
that, you know, some readings were 200 and some were 2300, 19 and I didn't really myself know what to make of them at that 20 time or what they were going to do for it.
21 Q
Did you and he discuss whether they were accurate, 22 the high readings were accurate or likely to be accurate?
23
( )'
24 A
I don't believe we did then.
It's possible.
I Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 know at some point in time, thinking that that insulation is i
12 is not a safety-related type instrument type insulation, 7m 2
we had high humidity in the building and stuff, we may have 3
discussed what might affect the readings.
I don't recall right at that point in time.
I really think I just went 5
back in the shift supervisor's office and essentially told him 6
what I just said.
7 Q
In a statement that Mr. Miller prepared with the help 8
of other people some time ago, I think in April of this 9
year, there is some mention of the possibility that at the 10 time you reported to him, you described to him the 11 possibility that some of the thermocouples could have 12 melted or that heat could have joined some of the wires t
13 together, the junctions could have come together in some 14 way to give inaccurate readings.
Do you recall anything 15 about that?
Do you recall discussing any of that with him?
16 A
I don't that day, no.
Once again, I'm not saying 17 that it's not possible.
2300, of course, is -- without 18 having a lot of specific information on the metals in those 19 thermocouples -- it's approaching the melting point of steel 20 and a lot of things.
I don't know whether I said that that 21 day or not.
I know we got into those discussions the next 22 day, but whether I did on the 28th, it's too hard now, because 23 I just discussed those things with so many people over the
,-m i
)
24 Ace Feded Reporters, Inc.
days and then other people that came in to do neXt fGW 25 specific diagnostics on the thermocouples and stuff.
I
13 Il It is possible, but I just -- I could probably recall
~
2 20 conversations on those things with different people, but 3
I don't know what day it was.
4 Q
Do you recall any conversation with Gary Miller on 5
the 28th about the possibility that the core was uncovered 6
or had been uncovered?
7 A
Not myself, no.
I don't.
8 Q
Did you discuss the thermocouple readings with anyone 9
else other than Mr. Miller on the 28th that you can remember?
10 A
I don't specifically remember going back and spending 11 much or any time, I guess, specifically taking any 12 thermocouple readings after that first time in the morning
("J T
13 on the 28th.
I just don't specifically recall, but that 14 doesn't mean it didn't happen.
15 0
You don' t actually recall that subject coming up 16 in conversation with Mr. Kunder or Mr. Rogers, for example, l
17 or anyone else in the control room?
18 A
No.
Lee was, Rogers was in, I believe, in the shift 19 supervisor's office when I came back to Gary after taking 20 the initial readings.
But I don't recall it coming up again 21 on the 28th.
22 Q
After you reported these approximately four readings 23 to Gary Miller, did you go back downstairs to where the
(
rkee-Fij Reporters, Inc.
People Were continuing to take readings?
l 25 A
I'm 90 percent sure I didn't.
I don't recall going I
l
14 1
/~N back down there, no.
In this case, I'm pretty sure I didn't
\\_J '
3 because I was convinced that I just wasn't going to get good 3
data out of those thermocouples.
4 Q
What is it that gives you that ten percent uncertainty?
5 Is there something in particular that makes you think that 6
you might have?
Either something that someone else --
7 A
No.
In my mind, I'm certain I didn't go back down.
8 That doesn' t mean I didn' t run back down there again, I guess.
9 I'm certain I didn't.
10 Q
Have you had conversations with others or have you 11 heard about others saying something that leads you to 12 believe conceivable you did go back down there?
()
13 A
Ho.
14 Q
Your own recollection is that you didn't?
IS A
As I say, I'm fairly certain I did not go back down 16 there.
17
-Q Did you know that they were going to continue to take 18 readings over some period of time at the time that you left 19 and went up to talk to Mr. Miller?
20 A
I think I knew that they were probably going to go 21 ahead and take millivolt readings, but I don't know that I 22 instructed them to take them.
As best as I can recall, the 23 conversation was, is it necessary to unhook each one and hook
()
i 24 Ace Federd Reporters. Inc.
it up.
And I just told them, no, it wasn't.
I don't think l
25 I particularly cared if they took them or not.
15 1
t' }
I may have asked them to go ahead and finish taking them, but as I say, at that point in time, when I saw that there was 3
such a disparity in the readings, I didn't think I was going 4
to get that valuable of information from them anyway.
5 Q
Did any of the people that you left down there or 6
anyone else report to you later on March 28 that they had 7
taken a complete set of readings or a large number of 8
readings?
9 A
I didn't recall them saying that.
The fellows --
10 in conversations since then with Skip Bennett, they left 11 when they evacuated nonessential personnel.
I would have 12 expected that Skip would have told me, but I don't specifically G(.m,/
13
-- I would expect that he would say, Well, you know, the 14 readings are in the computer book or whatever and gone on.
15 I don't recall him saying that.
He may have.
If he 16 said he told me he did, he probably did.
17 Q
In your conversations with him about this, has he 18 told you that he thinks he probably did or that he does recall 19 this?
20 A
I didn't even ask him.
21 Q
Do you remember actually seeing any additional readings 1
22 other than the first four, approximately four readings 23 during that day?
In the book or on a piece of paper or
().
24
>-F.$e a n. porters, inc.
anywhere else?
25 A
Not on the 28th.
I believe we did put the DVM on I
16 1
r~3 a couple more before I went back upstairs, down there, but
~'
2 don't recall the millivolts or even converting them or 3
anything.
4 Q
So you think that in addition to the four that you 5
saw on the meter readout, you may have had a couple more 6
millivolt readings in total, before you went up to talk to 7
Gary Miller?
Am I understanding you correctly?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
But after you went back upstairs, do you recall 10 seeing any additional large number of readings or hearing 11 of them from anyone on that day, the 28th?
12 A
No.
I'm convinced there were no more readings that
('
13 day other than what anybody might have taken from the 14 computer.
I believe by the afternoon, NRC people were taking 15 data out of the computer.
16 0
When you say there were no more readings, you now 17 know that the technicians did take millivolt readings and 18 wrote them in a book?
19 A
Oh, I know they took them after I came back up, but 20 say after 10:00 o' clock when they left the unit, I don't 21 think there were anymore taken, 22 Q
My question is whether you ?)ecame aware or to your 23 knowledge anyone else became aware, other than the people j
b 24
%.[a(3 %,,, %
who took the readings, of the numbers in that computer book 25 1
on March 20th?
l
17 i
A No.
I don't know of anybody else becoming aware of it.
2 O
You did not become aware of them?
You didn't open 3
the book and see what the readings were?
4 A
I didn't look at them.
I'm sure now that had I 5
looked at the readings laid out the way they were, they would 6
have meant something different to me, because it's obvious 7
that they start high and go low even with the disparity 8
in the readings when you can see the organization in the 9
readings, when you look at them.
10 I'm not saying that Skip didn't say, The readings are in 11 the book, we're leaving.
But I did not open the book and 12 review the readings.
~
()
13 Q
Do you remember any conversation with Skip or with 14 anyone else to the effect that, Yes, we took some more 15 readings and they are the same pattern as the first five, or 16 anything like that?
17 A
I'm sorry.
I just don't.
18 Q
Do you have any recollection of anyone from the NRC 19 or any outside people, even Met Ed management or GPU 20 management, asking for in-core thermocouple readings that first 21 day, March 28th?
22 A
No.
I'm not even sure how many people specifically were there available to take them.
Unit one, for instance, 23
[/')
24 we couldn't have gotten those' readings.
It would have had,
~
Ace Feder:J Reporters, Inc.
25 I think, gone from somebody that was up there maybe taking i
18 I
them from the computer, passing them out, any questions (3
N-from outsiders, for instance.
2 i
3' Q
Did the readings give you, the four or so readings that you did get, did they give you cause for concern?
5 Were you upset about it, or did you just write it off, if 6
you can remember how you reacted at the time?
7 A
I really think it just came across to me as another 8
piece of information that I just didn't see what I was 9
going to do with.
It was outside of what it is acceptable 10 to go down there and find, beit high or low or whatever.
11 As I say, I think that the fact that I had readings that 12 were so low to be reasonable, I just can't do anything with (v) these things.
14 Q
Did it cross your own mind that these readings might 15 indicate that the core had been uncovered and then recovered 16 or was uncovered at the time the readings were taken?
17 A
I don't think from the thermocouple measurements, 18 no.
I think in my own mind I was more concerned -- if 19 you want to talk about core covering, just based on the para-20 meters we had in the control room without reading the in-core 21 thermocouples, we already knew that the hot leg temperatures 22 were off-scale.
We tried to run 3
an RC pump and it didn't pump water.
I guess all that does cr doesn't say just what avel Ace al Reponen. l.
25 might be inside the reactor vessel itself.
But I don't think i
l
19 1
that I thought of these thermocouples as being the key to our
((v) 2 information.
3 MR. HAYNES:
I would like to ask you a few follow-up 4
questions if I may, Mr. Porter.
5 Were you aware of the computer output of question marks 6
for the in-core thermocouple readings at the time you 7
vent down to take the --
8 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I printed several readings 9
out when Gary first asked me what the thermocouples were 10 reading.
I went over and just printed several out, and some 11 of them were question marks.
12 MR. HAYNES:
What did the question marks mean to 13 you?
14 THE WITNESS:
Well, it means it's out of --
15 generally it means it's out of rM,.ge, out of the span.
16 MR. HAYNES:
And the span would be one direction 17 or two directions?
18 THE WITNESS:
I think at the time I would have 19 thought either direction, and I'm not sure now which it is, 20 quite frankly, whether it could be low or high.
The span 1
21 at that time they were calibrated was zero to '00.
I'm.Sure 22 I would have thought they were high since we had other 23 readings that were high.
f')
24 MR. HAYNES:
So a question mark nore than likely Ace F.J Reporters, Inc.
25 would mean that the temperature would be above 700 degrees; I
20 1
is that correct?
As opposed to below zero degrees?
(}
THE WITNESS:
Yes, although it could mean an open 3
cable or something like that, too.
I mean, thermocouples 4
is an extremely low-level signal.
We're only talking 30 to 5
40 millivolts, and it's not hard to get 30 to 40 millivolts 6
on a broken cable or something of that type.
You can get a 7
bum reading from more than just high readings.
8 That was the reason we went downstairs though, that we 9
even bothered to leave, just taking the control room 10 readings, and go downstairs to get the readings, because 11 we were getting question marks on the computer.
12 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
()
13 0
In order to make this complete, I think I want to 14 give you an opportunity to respond to other information 15 that we have that prompted these questions.
I want to read 16 to you some statements from transcripts of I&E interviews 17 of some of the people who were taking the readings that 18 indicate or purport to indicate what their recollections 19 were.
I want to make it clear, I'm not doing this to 20 impeach your testimony in any way.
You can only give us 21 your best recollection, but I want to do this in all fairness 22 to try to help us to basically get the best picture of the 23 facts that we can.
k..)
24
- Fens tgenm. ine.
One of the people who was taking the readings was 25 ' questioned by I&E interviewers and said as follows:
- Quote,
21 1
Ivan came down like I said when we were almost done taking the
(~s')
u y
first five readings.
And by looking at the one that was 2000 3
degrees, he, you know, he turned around and said to Ivan, 4
Look, you know it's uncovered, you've got 2000 degrees down 5
there.
But of course, you know, you can' t really make that 6
type of decision, but that's what he said.
7 And later, he says, by that, quote, By that time, Ivan 8
aircady knew that anyhow because he said, Yes, it doesn't 9
4 look good or something similar to that.
Like I said 10 we were doing quite a few things and quite hectic.
11 Do you have a recollection of those comments or something 12 like that in substance being said?
()
13 A
I don't remember the specifics about the core being 14 uncovered, no, or -- well, 2000 degrees was on the display, 15 so I guess that's obvious.
16 Q
One of the other people who was interviewed discussed 17 the fact that he and the others were talking before you 18 came down and were under the impression that the core had j
I 19 possibly been uncovered.
Then he was asked, quote, Did you 20 make a statement to Ivan Porter to that affect?
Answer:
21 Yes, I believe we did when he was down there, and we had
)
22 pretty much taken to believe the first reading we got up 23 around 200 degrees.
24 6.r.o.,a n. port.,,, inc.
Question:
What was his response?
Answer:
I don't really 25 remember what his verbal response was.
I have a feeling that L
22 1
~
he was more or less in agreement with everybody else that was
\\-
2 down there.
We had possibly uncovered the core was the 3
only way we could see that you could have obtained tempera-4 tures of that magnitude.
5 Do you remember -- does that refresa your recollection 6
about whether there was any conversation about, Well, gee, 7
what could be causing these if they are accurate?
8 A
I don' t recall those specifics in the conversation, 9
I have already said here today that I think we were no.
10 concerned about the core being covered based on the informa-11 tion we had in the control room.
I'm not saying whether 12 it was or wasn't uncovered, but I think we had enough I)
13 information up there that we were concerned about it, trying 14 to figure out just what it was.
15 Q
Let me read you a third quotation which is again 16 from a transcript of an interview which purports to 17 characterize the attitudes of the people who were taking the 18 readings, I guess you would say.
Quote, At that time, between 19 Mr. Bennett and myself, Mr. Wright, Mr. Gilbert, we had 20 pretty well come to the conclusion that the core was 21 uncovered.
I believe Ivan didn't really want to believe what 22 was really taking place.
I don't know whether it was an 23 attitude of, Hey, your measurements are wrong, you guys don't 7s
)
24 I
Ace FeberJ Reporters, loc.
know what the heck you're doing, or what not?
I think the 25 general consensus throughout the whole first day was, number i
23 1
one, nobody really knew what was actually happening.
Number Okl 2
two, some that had an inkling of what was happening didn't 3
really want to believe what was going on, end quote.
4 Do you have any response to that?
Do you think that's a 5
fair characterization of general attitudes or feelings of 6
people during that day, much of that first day?
7 A
I don't really want to comment on that.
I certainly 8
can' t say that people were happy about what was going on.
9 Q
Were you aware, when you went down to take these 10 readings, look at these readings, that you had had, in 11 effect, a loss of coolant accident, that the valve had been 12 stuck open for a long period of time and that a great deal
()
13 of coolant had been lost?
14 A
I knew that the electromatic had been opened.
I 15 think I didn't realize that it had been shut only a few i
16 minutes before I came in.
I, of course, pieced a great deal 17 together since then about, you know, about the length of 18 time the sump pumps had run and several things.
I don't 19
-- at different times, of course, you looked at building 20 temperatures and recorders and stuff, but relating that to 21 8:00 or 8:30, I'm not sure when I became aware of -- a 22 great deal happened in a very short period of time after I 23 got there.
()
24 I was only there 15 to 20 minutes before we declared the Ace Federd floporters, Inc.
25 first site emergency.
Within the next half hour, we had the
24 1
second level emergency, and then we hooked up the DVM to s'
2 the RTD, we started the RC pumps, and I was down at the 3
breakers for that evolution.
4 In the meantime, I was taking these readings here and trying 5
to get information out of the computer.
Say at 8:00 or 6l 8:30 in the morning, I don't know how much of that information 7
I acquired then, or, say, at 9:00 or 10:00 clock or whatever.
8 I did know the electromatic was stuck open and apparently 9
it got us into the problem.
I don't know that I knew it 10 was open for two hours and twenty minutes or whatever time 11 period it was.
12 O
In any event, you don't remember any conversation with 13 the people who were taking the readings about the core 14 possibly having been uncovered, as you have said here today?
15 A
No.
I certainly don't think we just went down there 16 and didn't talk to each other either.
17 Q
So you think it's possible that some conversation 18 about that may have taken place?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
But you don' t remember that being the subject of 21 any conversation that you had vith Gary Miller when you went 22 up to report the readings ta him?
23 A
No.
9er) Reporters, Inc.
24 Q
Okay.
Let's go on to the other subject that we wanted AceF 25 to ask you about which is the pressure spike in the containment i
25 i
building that occurred about 1:50 in the afternoon on March 28.
Did you become aware of that on that day, do you recall?
2 3
A March 28th?
4 Q
Right.
5 A
No.
6 Q
What do you remember about when you first learned 7
of it, and what can you tell us about any conversations that 8
you had with Gary Miller about it after the 28th?
9 A
Well, I think now the first time that I was aware the 10 building spray pumps had started, I think was on the 29th, 11 but it nay have been the 30th.
I'm fairly certain that in 12 the morning of the 30th, I became aware of the pressure spike
()
13 actually existing on the charts and discussed the instruments 14 involved and how, whether or not it had to be real and things 15 of that sort.
And I felt like the morning of the 30th, 16 that everybody in general was aware of what had happened.
17 It's quite possible, in looking into the spikes we saw 18 on the charts, that's when I became aware that the building 19 spray pumps had started, too.
20 Q
Now, what do you remember about conversations, if 21 any, with Gary Miller on this subject?
22 A
Well, sometime during the day after I was aware of l
23 the charts, I guess I thought it was from questions from I
("h outside about what was on the charts and whether they were l
(_/
24 l Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 real or not, he asked me to look at it and see what I thought.
t
26 1
And that was when I took out the wide-range reactor coolant LJ 2
system pressure chart which would be another instrument that 3
would be a redundant indication as to whether or not there was 4
a real pressure excursion.
And I looked at that chart, and I 5
saw a down blip on the chart at approximately the right 6
time, which is about as bert you can do with the charts and 7
speeds involved and so forth.
8 Q
As I understand it, the reactor coolant system pressure 9
instrumentation is set up relative to the reactor building 10 pressure; is that right?
11 l
A The pressure it's referenced against is just I
12 atmospheric pressure, building pressure.
Of course, when
[__\\
~
the referenced pressure would go up like that, the difference 14 between the two pressures would decrease.
15 Q
So if the reactor building pressure went way up, 16 you could see the instrument indicating reactor coolant 17 system going down by an equivalent amount?
18 A
Yes.
Now, it's not like where you see a full-scale 19 deflection on the other one, because that's a zero to 2500 20 pound chart, but you'll see a small --
21 Q
Small decrease?
22 A
Yes.
And well, several of us, we just had looked at 23 what we had available and agreed that it looked like there had
(_./
24 been an explosion or whatever in the building.
2.pe,a n omn.,,,,,m 25 0
When you say "several of us," Gary Miller was one of I
27
( those who participated in that or whom you can remember talking 2 with about it? 3 A I remember him specifically asking me to look at the 4 charts, I believe, to see if I thought that was a real 5 valid indication versus, say, a malfuntion of that pressure 6 recorder the instrument supplied or whatever, but at 7 that point in time whenever that was on the 30th, we had the 8 building pressure chart itself, we had the fact that the 9 building spray pumps were started, and they were started by 10 separate instruments from the recorder. And what appeared 11 to me to be the indication on the other reactor coolant 12 \\ system recorder which -- but that was, I think, sometime 13 well into the day on Friday the 29th. 14 0 When Mr. Miller asked you to look that over, was he asking you to confirm that it had been a valid indication 16 or did he seem to be still undecided himself at that point? 17 Was he looking for an answer or was he looking for a confirma-18 tion of something that he thought he already knew? If you 19 got an impression of that. 20 A My impression was, I think he had just learned of 21 it, and wanted me to look at the charts and stuff involved 22 and tell him what I saw. I don't know, but I felt it was 23 like somebody just told him that, You guys had a hydrogen ) 24 eXP osion, and he wanted me to take a look at the charts and l 4 pe,3 n,,,,, %, 25 stuff and tell him what I could find out from them. i T
i 28 1 Q Have you discussed this with Gary Miller in the last ) 2 few weeks, and if so, do you know what he recalls about this 3 from any discussions you have had with him? 4 A I haven't discussed these specifics with him. We've 5 talked about whether or not we were aware of the hydrogen 6 explosions and so forth. And of course, Brian Mehler's, 7 stuff that's come out on his testimony, and we've talked 8 in generalities. None of us remember being aware of 9 anything on the 28th with regard to hydrogen. 10 I haven' t discussed the specifics of him coming out and 11 asking me to look at the charts, me looking at the charts 12 and going back and whatever I told him. We haven't been ,n( ) 13 that specific. 14 MR. FRAMPTON: Okay. I don't think we have any 15 further questions. Thank you very much. We appreciate 16 your time and your cooperation. 17 THE WITNESS: Could I say a couple things? 18 MR. FRAMPTON: Absolutely. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, one of the things that's come 20 out, that's been said, and I think Tony Fasano brought it 21 up that the readings taken with the DVM on the thermocouples 22 were confirmatory readings; that really wasn't, in mi nind, 23 what was being done. They were taken with the DVM for ) 24 convenience, because the basic inaccuracy you get with taking Ace Fecieb) Reporters, Inc. 25 the DVM is the junction compensation difference which is, I
29 I in that case, the difference between 32 degrees and whatever i ') ~' 2 the temperature was in the relay room. 3 In my mind -- not then, and I don't think since -- they 4 weren't taken to confirm the other ones. It was using the 5 DVM versus the fluke just because it was a whole lot easier. 6 BY MR. FRAMPTON: 7 Q As I understand it, the fluke meter requires that 8 you actually u:iscrew some wires and screw them on to the 9 fluke whereas with the DVM you can just attach banana clips 10 or something -- II A Just the two leads there, you just take the probes 12 and go right down the terminal block. While in the other () 13 case, you have to take the wires and pull them out of Id the cable bundle and hook them up to the fluke. I had 15 insisted on using the fluke initially to get, to try to get 16 accurate readings. 17 Q That is a calibrated meter, is that it? Qualified 18 in some way? 19 A It displays temperature. It doesn't display voltage, 20 you don't have to go to the conversion chart. It's just zi get internal junction compensation. so it displays the true 22 reading. So I had insisted on using that initially until 23 we got, you know, 200 degrees and 2300, I didn't see the h 24 value in worrying about 40 degrees. Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 And I don't know, this business about two days before the i
30 NRC or whomever was aware that the temperatures might have 1 r (_ 2 been high enough to melt those thermocouples, but I took 3 readings on the morning of March 29th to specifically try to determine what the junction compensation, junction conditions 4 5 were. And I told -- I was getting a lot of questions from 6 specifically the NRC people as to why, say, some of the 7 thermocouples were indicating 200 degrees higher than other 8 ones. 9 Before that day was over, I had taken data and told them 10 that I was sure that they had been, the junctions had been 11 disrupted and probably by overheating. I took -- they are 12 grounded junction thermocouples. I took readings from the back l (~' (_) 13 of the computer from the lead to ground on both leads, and 14 then I took a ratio, because I felt even though I didn't 15 know if it was 200 feet of wire on one and 400 feet, but 16 the ratio from the chromel-Alumel should be a constant 17 number. And it wasn't. Some of them were two, some were 18 two and a half, some were three, three point four. l 19 And the specific numbers I took were the five thermocouples 20 that were reading well above the plant temperature plus 21 a couple more that were reading in the range of the plant 22 temperature. So I really don't feel that it was sometime 23 Friday or Saturday before, I wasn' t just sitting on that 24 information so to say. Ace Federd Reporters, Inc. 25 I believe that in my second interview -- well, in the I
31 I) first interview I told Jim Cresuell that I had contacted w 2' the fellow from Leeds Northrup and I discussed with him, could 3 we get higher readings if we had more than one junction, 4 could we get higher readings if we had a zirconium junction 5 or other metals that would come as a result of melting. 6 i Now, what day it was, I'm not sure. Jim, I know in the 7 second interview, he called Don Robertson to confirm I 8 talked to him. He used the 29th. I didn't think it was the 9 29th. I thought I tried to stand on my own so to speak i 10 for another day or two. But anyway, I did make the call 11 and ask those questions, so I really don't think it was two 12 days before I thought we had temperatures that high. g-iL_/ 13 Q Are there any other things that you haven't specifically 14 been asked about in connection with this matter, the taking 15 of in-core thermocouple temperatures, in any of the interviews 16 that you know that you think is important that nobody has 17 really brought out? 18 A I don't believe, no. The hardest part, I guess, is 19 trying to answer specific questions with specific answers. 20 I guess that's all I wanted to say. There's the list of 21 questions I prepared before I called the guy up. 22 MR. FRAMPTON: For the record, you are showing 23 us a handwritten list of questions that you prepared before , w) t 24 's you Called -- is it Mr. Robertson? Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, from Leeds Northrup. The I
32 1 answers were that if we had other metals involved and stuff, (m) / 2 yes. I think everybody realized that the most likely thing 3 you'll get is a low reading, but if you had foreign metals 4 or multiple junctions with circulating currents between the 5 junctions, you should get higher readings. 6 The problem I was having at this point in time, I asked the questicns because I was convinced that we could have 8 destroyed the thermocouples. The problem I was having 9 at the time was, Well, this one's five degrees or a hundred 10 degrees higher than that one, does that indicate a hot 11 spot. And I'm telling him, I can't tell you if it indicates 12 a hot spot. And that was what I was trying to find out, 3 / 13 is there a mechanism you can get a higher reading than the 14 actv11 reading. 15 I was convinced there was, but I wanted to get opinions 16 of somebody else. 17 BY MR. FRAMPTON: 18 Q And the opinion that you got was in substance that there were some circumstances in which that could happen? 20 A It's less likely than lower readings, but it is 21 possible. 22 O Less likely then that the result would be a lower 23 reading than actual? 73 \\~J 24 i A Right. I don't know that it means that much other AwFWwc Rmo,wrs, lm. 25 i than on the 29th, I was, I did take the readings to the ground l
33 I junction readings. I didn't just take millivolt readings. I '1 2 I took resistance to ground readings and other types of things. '~ 3 0 When was the first time that you can remember seeing 4 the numbers that were written down in the computer book? 5 A May 7th. It was a conversation with Skip Bennett; 6 I asked him if he or Bill or anybody down there had any 7 other readings, that I would like to have them, and he said, 8 Oh, they are all out in the computer book. That was on the 9 morning I was catching a plane to go to California to 10 work with EPRI. II MR. HAYNES: The core has been stable now for 12 several months and the thermocouples are still indicating () 13 temperatures, what's your assessment of the accuracy of 14 the thermocouples today? 15 THE WITNESS: I believe the thermocouples are 16 indicating trends in temperatures. I would not try to 17 tell anybody they are telling me the actual temperature out 18 there. I don't care who tells me what, we did not have 19 220 degrees in that core on the morning of the 28th, and two 20 feet away from one was the 2300 degrees. So I don't know 21 where the junctions are. They could be down in the core. 22 They could be open-ended wires. I don't know. 23 I think that generally when we got flow back on the core ( 24 .and they stablized, I think a thermocouple, be it no matter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 what metal, will indicate higher millivolts or lower i
34 1 millivolts for a temperature trend. 2 MR. HAYNES: Is it true that today there is general 3 agreement between the several thermocouples on temperature? 4 THE WITNESS: I believe, yes. 5 MR. HAYNES: In other words the difference between 6 any two points is not a significant number of degrees? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not in a position to judge 8 what is significant. I haven' t been working in Unit two 9 anyway for three or four months, so I don't know what they 10 are indicating anymore. In general, by the 29th or the II 30th, they were fairly consistent, 288 degrees or something 12 with three or four more that were indicating 500 or 600. r) i 13 MR. ALLISON: Did I understand you correctly l s 14 that you feel that during all the conversations that you had 15 with NRC people on Thursday, March 29th, the purpose of 16 which was why are the thermocouples reading differently, 17 you had a. feeling that you must have made it known to them on 18 that day that the thermocouples had been a lot hotter the 19 day before? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe I did. Once again, 21 in my mind, I am convinced I did, but I didn't write the 22 conversations down or record them or anything. I couldn't 23 even tell you the individuals involved. () 24 MR. ALLISON: Do you recall any specifics now about Ace Federd Reporte,s, Inc. 25 that, about what you might have told somebody? I i
35 I) THE WITNESS: Well, what I'm saying is that I took V 2 the readings to the junction, I took the ratios. And at the 1 3 very least, it explained to me, that told me the junctions 4 were different than they were when they were installed in the 5 plant. And based on that, I couldn't tell them what the 6 accuracy might be of any one thermocouple. 7 And also, I know we discussed the fact that we had lower 8 readings, and they are on the computer. We had readings 9 that were considerably lower than the plant temperatures were 10 at that time. 11 MR. FRAMPTON: Okay. Thank you very much. 12 MR. DIAZ: I would like to ask a couple clarifying questions for the record. At the time just before you 14 went down on March 28, 8:00 o' clock in the morning, to take 15 the thermocouple readings, do you have any feelings as to 16 whether the core had been uncovered or was uncovered? 17 THE WITNESS: I guess I think my feeling was that 18 maybe it was difficult to understand, but it was not the 19 thermocouples, the RTDs, howke had water, say, between the 20 RTDs and the core and still had those readings. The other 21 thing I couldn't reconcile in my mind was how we had 700 22 or say 700 degrees, essentially a super-heated condition, 23 1 and a non-flow condition either. I have always been used to 1 24 associating super-heated steam with high flow conditions. AeFWwd Reorms, W. 25 You just can't fill the container with super-heated steam
36 1 (_m) and set it down and it stays super-heated steam. 2 Whatever concerns I had, I think, we based more on the 3 RTD readings up on the hot leg than they were on what the 4 thermocouples were saying then or what information I got 5 when I went down there. 6 MR. DIAZ: Had anybody discussed with you or 7 mentioned prior to your going down to take the thermocouple 8 readings the possibility that the core might have been 9 uncovered or was uncovered? 10 THE WITNESS: I don' t remember that being 11 specifically stated, no. 12 MR. DIAZ: So assume for the moment that while -) 13 you were down taking the readings that somebody may have 14 mentioned the possibility that the core was uncovered, 15 would that have been the first time that such a possibility 16 was mentioned to you? 17 THE WITNESS: It's possible that that would have 18 been the first time it was mentioned, yes. 19 MR. DIAZ : I realice, I'm just trying to 20 draw an inference here, but had it been the first time such 21 a possibility would have been mentioned to you, would that 22 fact have been enough to cause you concern or to trigger 23 something important in your mind? (~s 24 THE WITNESS: I guess I really don' t think, Am-Federd Reporters, Inc. 25 in my mind, that the number one consideration was whether the
37 <~x 1 (_) core was uncovered at that point or whether it had been 2 uncovered. The number one consideration was getting cooling 3 on the core and making sure that we were going in the right 4 direction. 5 I don' t think the number one thing that I was running 6 around thinking was, is the core ancovered or isn't the core 7 uncovered. I'm not sure that if it was, in fact, covered 8 but we didn't have flow and couldn' t get flow that I would 9 have been much more comfortable than I would knowing that 10 maybe it was partially uncovered. I don' t recall, you know, 11 I'm a hundred percent happy if the core is covered and I'm 12 a hundred percent unhappy if the core is uncovered. I'm trying to get control of the plant and get it in a 14 stable cooling-down condition, that was really what the 15 objective was. We weren' t -- well, we -- I or nobody that 16 I was with was sitting back as an analysis group trying 17 to decide if the core was uncovered. We went on about 18 ten different topics in a period of an hour or an hour and 19 a half or something. 20 I just can't answer that question. I don't remember at 21 8:00 o' clock in the morning that the number one consideration 22 was, is the core uncovered or covered. I was trying to get 23 ~ the plant headed in the right direction. Ace Federj Reporters, Inc. BY MR. FRAMPTON: 25 l Q Leaving aside the in-core thermocouple temperatures i l t
38 CR 7976 rre 1 altogether, it seems to me what you were saying is that from 1(ll0/79 2 the hot leg temperatures and the steam in the hot legs that 3 you drew a conclusion that you had a pretty serious problem i 4 with core cooling; is that fair to say? 5 A I think it's fair to say that. I was well convinced 6 that we had a temperature problem, yes. I don' t think that I 7 was unique in that situation either. 8 Q Temperature problem that could have been caused by 9 the core being partially uncovered for example? 10 A Yes. 11 Q That would be really the hot leg temperatures in the 12 system, not so much from looking at the in-core thermocouole 13 temperatures later on; is that fair to say? 14 A Yes. I continue to be amazed that everybody thinks 15 that we should have placed 100 percent reliance on 2300 and 16 tossed out 220. Now, I'll be the first one to admit, if 17 they are all laid out in the core mat, which we weren't 18 using then, I don't know that we even had available at that 19 time, laid them out in a nice orderly fashion that they might 20 have meant something different. But we went down and took 21 three or four readings, and they were just high and low and 22 every place, just like what the computer said. 23 Se we went on to somer: ling else. 24 MR. FRAMPTON: Okay. Thank you very much. Ace-Feder j Reporters, Inc. 25 (Whereupon, at 10 : 45 a.m., the taking of the deposition was concluded.) I}}