ML19343D438
| ML19343D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Illjes T METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040483 | |
| Download: ML19343D438 (15) | |
Text
I 1
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMl!ISSION 3l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x i
O i
V 4!
In the matter of:
5l METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY i
e 5'
l (Three Mile Island Unit 2) j 6l
x g
5 7
~.j 8
Meeting Room D-4 Howard Johnson Motel 3
d 9
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Y
10 Wednesday, September 24, 1980 E
l 11 is ti 12 INTERVIEW OF THEODOt:E FRED ILLJES z=
i O j is i commeacea e ti=20 e.m.
j 14
'e i
E 15 !
APPEARANCES:
l 5
l 3[
16 l NORMAN MOSELEY,
)
(
Office of Inspection & Enforcement y
Q 17 l Nuclear Regulatatory Commission
)
E I
Wwshington, D. C.
)
E 18
)
y TERRY HARPSTER,
)
19 ;
Office of Inspection & Enforcement g
)
I-20 l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
On behalf I
21 JOHN CRAIG' of de Office of Inspection & Enforcement l
22 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
Nuclear Washington, D. C.
)
23 '
)
Regulatory 3
DAVID GAMBLE, y
24 Office of' Inspector & Auditor
)
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
l 25 Washington, D. C.
)
i i
Wosovd4ts e ""*P"""" ""
c N"f"i'"E-
JWB 2
I
.f 1f APPEARANCES (continued) :
1
-O 2
RICuARD HOErtzNG, Es2.,
)
On behe1f Office of the Executive Legal Director
)
3 Nuclear Regulato"/ Commission
)
of the NRC Washington, D. C.
)
HARRY H. VOIGT, Esq.,
)
e 5
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
)
h 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
)
6 Washington, D. C.
20036
)
b~
7 MICHAEL F. MC BRIDE, Esq.
h LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae j
8 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.' C.
20036 i
d 9'
i SMITH B.
GEPHART, Esq.
6 10 Killian & Gephart j
216-218 Pine Street j
11 1 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 is j
12 JANE G.
PENNY, Esq.
E Killiam & Gephart Q
- j 13 216-218 Pine Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 E
14 5
e r
15 w=
3 16 i
d 17 !
5 5
18 E
19 '
.i.
20l 1
21i 22 23 '
O 25 b
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I JWB #3 i 3-Illjes )
I P3QQEEDlHQS l
2 (11:20 a.m.)
3 MR. GAMBLE:
On the record.
4 This interview is being conducted as a portion of s
5 the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission's investigation into the g
6 ex :hange of information between Metropolitan Edison Company a
R b
7 and the NRC on March 28th, '979.
Aj 8l Would you please raise your right hand?
d 9
Whereupon, 3
i 10 THEODORE ILLJES z
1
=
11 was called as a witness in the above-entitled matter and,
's Y
I2 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
=
13 follows:
b I4 MR. GAMBLE:
Would you please state your full name b
I
=
1 15 g
for the record.
m d
I0 THE WITNESS:
Theodore Fred Illjes.
-A h
I7 MR. GAMBLE:
And counsel present, would you please I
=
E 18 identify yourselves?
E l
19 >
g i
MR. VOIGT:
I am Harg H. Voigt of LeBoeuf, Lamb, e
t 20 Leiby & MacRae in Washington, D. C.
2I MR. MC BRIDE:
I am Michael S. McBride of LeBoeuf, O
L,m,,
te1,y & y,cR,,,,,shiegton, o. c.
22 23 l MS. PENNY:
I am Jane G.
Penny, Killian & Gephart, O
4:
9 o 8 x 886, aerrisbure 17to8-25j MR. GEPHART :
I am Smith B. Gephart, Killian &
a i
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
3-2 JWB 4
1 !
Gephart.
l O.
2 MR. GAMBLE:
Thank you.
3 BY MR. HARPSTER:
4 G
Mr. Illjes, our review of your previous testimony e
5 to the I&E investigators on May 23rd,1979, has identified 4
6l some conflicts with the testimony of other Metropolitan Edison G
E 7
GPU employees.
If you will let me summarize these areas sj 8
briefly, I will attempt to straighten them out here.
d c;
9 While I am summarizing, let me give you a copy of 3
10 the I&E testimony I'll be referring to.
This.is a copy of E
11 pages 6 through 10 of the I&E testimony on May 23rd, 1979.
3 y
12 (Handing document to witness.)
1
()
13 l You arrived in the Unit 2 control room at approxi-T i
E I4 mately 3:45 on March 28th, 1979.
At that time, you along with Ej 15 the foreman and two other control room operators were briefed
=
g' 16 by Joe Chowastic.
As part of that briefing and turnover, you i
f I7 l were told that they had a spike on both indications of the 5
18 f
reactor building pressure recorder, and that they had recovered c
I9 li from reactor building isolation, s
g n
20 There was discussion during that evening regarding 2I a hydrogen explosion as the possible cause of the spike.
It
()
22 0 was related to cycling of the electromagnetic relief valve.
t 23 '
Later that evening, copies were made of the spike.
'24
(])
Part of your certainty about the timing -- that is, that it was 25 j the evening of March 28th -- was based on the fact that you had 4
3 iI ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 3-3JWBl 5
l 1l learned that. evening that you had a hard bubble and that it I
()
2 k was hydrogen.
I 3.
Now before we proceeu to the question, would you I
-( ),
4 care to review those pages?
Or would you like me to just start e
5 in?
p 6l MR. VOIGT:
Why don't you go ahead.
e R
R 7
BY MR. HARPSTER:
t Ej 8:
G You previously testified that one of the control d
d 9
room operators briefed along with yourself that evening was 5
E 10 John Kidwell.
Do you recall who the other control room i_
5 11 operator or shift foreman was?
<w y
12 A
Chuck Mill was the other man on shift that evening.
E I
(]) l 13 i He was a trainee at the time, I believe.
i l
14 C
Can you recall who the shift foreman was?
E 15
( Paus e. )
5 y
16 A
We were operating, and I don't remember who the 7:
p 17 '
shift foreman was; no.
x 1
b 18 G
Examination of the reactor building pressure E
19
- recordings by the I&E Investigators as part of NUREG 0600 n
20,
determined that it was unlikely that the spike was Xeroxed 21,
on March 28th, 1979.
i I
/~'
22
{
Mr. Bensil has testified that it was af ter March
\\
l 23 28th, 1979, either Thursday or Friday.when he removed the
(~)
24 !
reactor building pressure recordings, and he testified to that
(/
q
-25 ]
in his Senate testimony.
Mr. Bensil's recollection is in 1
- l
!l d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
~
JWB 3-4l~
6 l
1l general agreement with the recollection of others in the I
.w j
(_)
2l control room as to the removal of those charts.
3 How do you explain the discrepancies between this
("T I
information and your prior testimony?
(_/
4i g
5, MR. VOIGT:
What " prior testimony" are you E
j 6!
referring to?
6 7
MR. HARPSTER:
His prior testimony to the fact that sj 8;
the spike was Xeroxed -- removed and Xeroxed on the evening of d
9 March 28th, 1979.
i Oh 10 MR. VOIGT:
Thank you.
s j
11 THE WITNESS:
Bad memory.
's j
12 BY MR. HARPSTER:
5 l
(])
13 I G
Do you still believe, then, that the spike was zg 14 Xernxed on the evening of March 28th, 1979?
2 15 A
To mv recollection.
x
=
j 16 !
G Is it still your recollection that hydrogen was
- i b
17 '
discussed on March 28th, 1979, as a possible cause of the 5
i E
18 '
pressure spike?
=
s 19 t A
To my recollection, we discussed the pressure spike.
g 20 G
Do you recall who you discussed it with?
21 A
The other two men in the control room at the time, i
22 and Joe Chowastic was sitting behind us, or in the near
{)
23,
vicinity.
I don't remember if he was in the conversation or
-)
24j not.
But the other two men on the shif t --
/
]
25 j G
That would be Mill and Kidwell?
i!
h f}
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 3-5 l JWB l
7 1
A.
Yes.
O 2l BY MR. HOEFLING:
I 31 0
Was hydrogen a part of those. discussions, do you O
4 recall?
g 5-A.
I don't remember.
y 6
When you said " pressure spike," you used that R
7 intentionally?
You were talking about the pressure spike?
Nj 8
A.
Yes.
d 0;
9 And not necessarily hydrogen?
?
10 A.
It's hard for me to separate all the discussion-11 that was made on that night.
I can't really say, because it is f
12 was discussed how many times thereafter, and that far apart 6
/N O
V 5
13 I can't relate the difference.
i a
5 I4 BY MR. HARPSTER:
15 Who else would have been aware, or might have gj 16 overheard the discussions relating to hydrogen or the pressure us j
N 17 I spike?
5 i
E 18 (Pause.)
c i-g 19,
A.
I can't picture everybody else that was there, 0
e 20 You know, there were other people there, but I' don't remember 21 l
them by name.
i i
22 f G
Is there anything else you can recall -- an event, 23 '
or anything else -- from that evening that might help us better 24 pinpoint in time, related to your discussions of hydrogen or 25) the Xeroxing of the spike, that we could work back from and try l
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 3-6JWB) 8
.I I
-to pinpoint that?
4 b*)
2 l
- A.
Not to my knowledge.
i 3
O.
Mr. Illjes, the other investigations into the O
4I:
accident have concluded that it was not until.af ter March 28th, 4
i g
5l 1979, that it was recognized that a hard bubble consisting of h3 1
6l primarily hydrogen remained in the reactor vessel. head.
How E
E 7
do ycm explain the discrepancy between these conclusions and aj 8
your recollection that you knew on the evening of March 28th, 4*
9
?.
1979, that a hydrogen bubble already existed in the reactor 10
-vessel head?
)
II
'A.
Would you say that again?
s 12 E
Q.
I'm sorry.
Let me restate it.
l O
i_ 13 i The'other investigations to date have concluded m
I4 l
that it was not until subsequent to March 28th, 1979 -- either
'=
{
15 late Thursday evening or early Friday morning sometime -- that
=
j 16 a realization took place that a hydrogen bubble cy' ced in
-A 17 the parimary system in the reactor vessel head, this noncon-2 18 3
densible bubble, i:"
19 3
You have previously testified -hat the reason you O
20 recall that you knew of the spike on March 28th, the evening 21 of March 28th, was that that same evening you became aware PQ 22 f that there was a hard bubble of hydrogen -- using your words 23 there -- which was in the reactor vessel head.
Q The discrepancy which I'm trying to resolve is the 25 contradiction in when you knew of the hydrogen bubble and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I JWB 3-7i 9
I I$
when the other investigations have concluded that there became r) i 2l gene.ral knowledge of the fact that a hydrogen bubble, or V
i 3
noncondensible gases s'till existed in that reactor system.
pd 4i Can you explain tie discrepancy between that?
l 5,
g j
A No.
q i
i
$3 6 i G
Is it still your recollection that you were aware
~
Et b
7 of a bubble of hydrogen, or noncondensible gases, which a
3 8
remained in the reactor vessel head on March 28th, 1979?
d c;
9 A
I can remember the bubble and the problem that we 3
5 10 had which we were trying to resolve at the time.
I can remember z
5 1
4 II the bubble being in the "noncondensible bubble," so to put it.
is Y
I2 I do remember that.
I 13 l BY MR. HOEFLING:
I E
I4 j G
You remember that as something you recollect Ei i
{
15{
knowledge of on the 28th?
E I
d Ib !
A.
(Nodding in the affirmative.)
x 17 '
G Could it have been the 29th?
Could your recollec-
{
18 l
=
l tion perhaps be faulty or. shaded ir. some way?
Could that not F
l I9 3
i have come to your attention until the 29th?
20 i g
The bubble?
Ne, it came to my recollection as we 2I[
were trying to restart the reactor coolant pumps and establish a
O 22 ;
,,,,,1,1,
,,,p,,,,,,1,,,.
i 23) g Wasn't that done on the 29th, as well?
t h
24f A
No.
I believe we started to establish a bubble t
25 j on the 28th.
3 3
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l JWB 3-8l
'10 1
G I realize that.
So that is the event you are (G>
2
-keying on in your recollection?
The ' starting of the' pump on 3-the 28 th?
()
4 A
That', and establishing a bubble.
e 5
G Establishing ' a bubble?
y 8
6 A
In the pressurizer.
In other words, turning the 4
R 8
7 heaters on.
At t6e tinte we came in, the pressurizer was full, N
E 8
or greater than 400 inches.
n d
d 9
MR. HOEFLING:
Okay.
Y E
10 BY MR. HARPSTER:
E_
5 11 G
Mr. Illjes, a great deal of controversy has
<M d
12 existed over an apparent order which some Met Ed personnel 3
()
13 have testified was given on March 28th-1979, to not energize i
j 14 l any unnecessary electrical equipment because of a concern b!
15 over sparking.
5 j
16 A
What was the date, again?
A y
17 {
G On the 28th, sir.
There was a concern over sparking 5
5 18 in the containment, and there apparently -- or some people E
19 have testified that there was an order given on March 28th, A
20 1979, not to start or energize any unnecessary electrical 21 equipment because of thac concern.
/~T 22 f Were you aware on March 28th, 1979, of such cut
(>
i
.23 '
order or a concern?
I
{)
24f A
I don't remember any.
25 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
?
JWB 3-9 11 I
BY MR. IIOEFLING:
1 2
~
G Do you recollect such an instruction being given at 3
any time -- the 2 8 th, 29th, or 30th,-in that range?
()
4 A
It's possible, sometime; I don't remember the order.
e 5
BY MR. MOSELEY:
N.
{
O If such an order were given, would your_ job 6
E S
7 responsibilities have indicated that you should have known aj 8
about it?
d 9l A
If an order was given, I would have followed it
?
E 10 g
out; yes.
E i
II j
G That's not my question.
My. question is:
Were your 12 j job responsibilities such that if such an order were given it E
I'/T 3
13 I
(_
=
would have come to you?
i 14 l A
It would have affected me because of the controls.
u O
15 h
I was operating.
Is that what you mean?
=
~
y 16 l G
Yes.
i 17 '
A Okay.
=
l 5
18 l G
So that the things you were doing, if such an order l
P I
l 19 :
j have been given, certainly it would have gone to you?
That's
'l. '
20 my question, l '*
21 A
True.
True.
("T-22 l s,/
G You recollect no such order on the 28th, 29 th ',- or 3
i 30th time frame?
()
A It's hard to separate the time.
I can't remember 25 specifically, but downline discussions it's possible that was k
s j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l JWB 3-10 12 I
I I
' brought up.
I can't remember somebody saying that order or, 2
you know, I can't remember writing it down on a turnover 3
sheet or something.
I don't remember.
4, BY MR. HOEFLING:
5ll 0
You can't recollect someone-having given it?
Or j
4 you having taken any actions based on it?
Nothing like that?
6 s,
E A.
Fometime thereafter, I don't remember, si 8l MR. HARPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Illjes.
I think that 5
d i
9i j
j will do it.
We will give you.a copy of the transcript for
~.
10 ll g
your review.
=
i 5
II l (Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m.,
the interview of s
d 12 z
Mr. Illjes was completed.)
O i is
=
14 b
E 15 i z
E g
16 l
2 6
17 m
E I
- n 18
=&
i E
19 x
5 L
20l 1
21 i
l O
22 23 O
4' 25]
al J
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the O
u.s. uucte^a'azout^ roar cosa ss ou in the =atter of:
Metropolitan Edison Co [TMI Unit 2]
- Date of ?roceeding: Wednesday, 24 September 1980 Docket !!u=b er :
DEPO. OF THEODORE FRED ILLJES
? lace of ?roceeding: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Ccesissic" JANE W.
BEACH Official Reporter (Typed)
/
(,.
]
- <LL
_j ign1_
Off,/cial Reporter (Signature) i
./
9 m
G Q
e J
.8'
.+
. I t.-
r-NUCLEAR) REGULATORY COMMISSION' OFFICE OF. INSPECTION:ANDJENFORCEffENT;,
Corrections to the September 24, 1980,/ Interview of Theodore F.
Illjes:-
.Page Line
' Change To-Read s
4 f
jT6)J I
k t
i J
u a
- O F
F i
i 1
b i
i 1
e 1
r I
1 i
LO 1
\\
6 u !.-alAk i
Theodore F.
I/lljes y
Date /,1 z//F6 L'
-g a
,t
-]
l
^
,,-.-..,...._.,_.~...u._,_,.-_.-.__,,_.~._.-...-._.--...-._..-_,____...--.-....-_._..~,.---.-.__.--.--_
.