ML19343D447
| ML19343D447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Ian Porter METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040506 | |
| Download: ML19343D447 (19) | |
Text
'
s' 1
ar a
S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1)
, ~ '.
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(/
2j 43f--------------------x
( \\
(_/
4; In the matter of:
l 5j METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY e
R 4
N G
6-(Three Mile Island Unit 2) e N
9 7;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x I
Nj 8i Meeting Room D-4 Howard Johnston Motel d
9; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania N
E 10 ;
dednesday, September 24, 1980 E=
3 11j i
INTERVIEW OF IVAN PORTER,
- j 12 )
commenced at 1:00 p.m.
=
i es I
13 5
APPEARANCES:
14 !
5
~
15h NORMAN MOSELEY,
)
9 E
l Office of Inspection & Enforcement
)
J 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
G Washinggon, D.C.
)
On behalf i
d 17
)
5 TERRY HARPSTER,
)
s Office of Inspection & Enforcement
)
of the E
18 5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
(
19,
Washington, D.C.
)
a
)
NRC q
20$
JOHN CRAIG,
)
i Office of Inspection & Enforcement
)
21)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
~'
)
Washingtsn, D.C.
)
r~'s 22 4
)
I DAVID GAMBLE,
)
23 !
Office of Inspector & Auditor
)
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
(~~'
24 Washington, D.C.
)
l vs i
25 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I' ar2 2
. jj (Appearances, continued:)
()
RICHARD *i3EFLING, ESQ.,
)
2 Office of the~ Executive. Legal Director)
On' behalf 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
Washington, D.C.
)
of the NRC 4
e 5
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.,
y LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae j
61 1333-New Hampshire Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C.
20036 n
5 7
MICHAEL F. MC BRIDE, ESQ.,
8 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby'& MacRae I
1333 New Hampshire Avenue Northwest
- 1 9
Washington, D.C.
20036 E
10 SMITH B.
GEPHART, ESO.,
5 Killian & Gephart 5
11 216-218 Pine Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 d
12 JANE G. PENNY, ESQ.,
l
( )
5 13 i Killian & Gephart E
l 216-218 Pine Street E
14 i Harrisburg, Pent.sylvania 17108 l
l E
i E
15 5
jg i N
i i
i 17 i 6
G 18
=
19 j
^
l 20 i 21 C) 22 3 23!
1 s
(2) 24q 4
25j i
- t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l ar3 8
3 l
I PEQQEEglEgg 2
MR. GAMBLE:
This interview is being conducted as a 3
portion of the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's investigation
[vD 4!
into the exchange of information between Metropolitan Edison e
5 Company and NRC on March 28th, 1979.
E i
t n
8 6l Would you please raise your right hand so I can e
7 administer the oath.
s E
8; Whereupon, i
d
=
9 IVAN PORTER 3.
E 10 l was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5
l' was examined and testified as follows:
5 11
's d
12
_E _X A M _I _N A _T _I O _N g
. O
=
i3 81 xR. cxx8tE:
l l
14 I Q
Would you please state your full name for the record?
u 3::
E 15 A
Ivan Dean Porter, Jr.
5 l
I 16 l MR. GAMBLE:
Will counsel present-please identify A
l 17 ;
yourselves for the record?
- a n
l M
18 MR. VOIGT:
I am Harry H.
Voigt
' the firm of
=
i=
{
19 ;
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae in Washington, D.C.
5 20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I am Michael F. McBride of the firm l
21l of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae.
22 MS. PENNY:
I am Jane G. Penny from the Harrisburg 23 law firm of Killian & Gephart.
l 24l MR. CEPiART:
Smith B.
Gephart.
25 MR. GAMBLE:' Thank you.
i t
u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
4 ar4 l BY MR. CRAIG:
1 1
1
()
2{
Q Mr. Porter, I am going to reference-some of your 3 l previous testimony, and I have a copy here if you would like to
()
4 refer to it.
Our review of this testimony before the e -
5 Inspection & Enforcement investigators that was done on May 21st, R.
8 6;
1979 indicates that you looked at the computer printout of e
f7 core exit thermocouples and reported these readings to Garry
~
8 8
Miller on the day of the accident, 3/28/79.
d d
9j You have also testified in the same interview that Y
10 l the readings were over 700 degrees as indicated by cuestion z
i j
11 '
marks on the computer printout.
B
- j 12 '
Additionally, you have also testified -- again
=
1
(]) !
13 referring to the IE transcript -- that you had some in strunent
=
i j
14 !
technicians go to the cable spreading room to read the core 9=
2 15 f exit thermocouples and portable instruments?.
x=
l 16 A
That's right.
j A
g 17 '
Q You testified that you only witnessed three or four,
=
E 13,
a few of the measurements made with the portable instruments E
I 19 !
of the core exit thermocouples, and were not present for the 1
5 20 )
whole period of time during an entire set of readings.
i A
That's right.
21 1
i 22 O
wno did you direct to take the core exit thermo-(}
a 233 couple readings in the cable spreading room?
i
('N 24 i A-Well, I guess Skip Bennett was the lead foreman
(-)
25) involved in that.
There were three or four fellows involved,
.i 9
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.]
aro j
o l
I f but I dealt runinly with Skip.
r#?
'/
2 Q
When you arrived in the cable spreading room, were s
3l the operators already in the process of taking the readings?
a k /-
4l A
The three, four, five, whichever it was that I t
g 5j personally saw, were hooked up to the readout device when I got 6l j
there.
G b
5 7
Q Who was present at that time?
E l
j 8l A
Skip, Jim Wright, I believe Bill Yeager was'there, d
9!
and I'm not sure if Bob Gilbert was there at that time or not.
z O
l b
10 l 0
How long were you present during the time the readings l
5 II were being.taken?
's 12 E
A Three, four, five minutes; something like that, maybe.
=
)
13 0
Was somebody recording data?
I m
i 5
I4 !
A Not at that time, no.
l j
15 i g
1.m going to ask a series of questions to try to
[
j 16l get a feel for each step when you went down.
i N
I7 h So you went down and the instrument was already 5
{
18 j
hooked up, and you saw a few readings, three or four; is that c8 I9 m
correct?
n v
20 A
Yes.
f 2I l 0
Why did you leave the cable spreading room?
I
( ')
22 -l A
I went back to report the readings to Mr Miller.
23!
Q Did anyone leave with you when you went?
A
("N 24}
A I don't believe so, no.
%-[
3 25 i 0
And you went from the cable spreading room to the 3i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ar6 6
s 1 !
control room or the shift supervisor's-office?
ry l
'/
2l A
Yes.
3 I
Q Do you remember, was Garry Miller in the shift t
/^T
(~/
4 supervisor's office?
i s
5 A
I believe so, yes.
E j
6 Q
Did you return to that cable spreading room after you
.ii i
n 7
made the report of the three or four readings that you.had seen?
s
^
8 A
I don't believe I did, no.
g G
- )
9 Q
Another person that we have interviewed, Mr. Gilbert,
?
5 10 has testified that he and Bennett arrived near the time when El 11 the readings were being completed, and that you had the data you u
j 12 wanted on a sheet of paper, and that you carried it up to the 1
()
13 I control room.
i h
14 He also states that you went to brief Miller, and b
=
i 15 i that the portable equipment was disconnected, and everyone left.
.g i
j 16 !
You have testified that readings could have been I
17 continued to be taken for up to an hour af ter you lef t, - and E
18 you indicated that you didn't go back down.
?
{
19 Could you explain this conflict in the testimony?
i I-20 MR. VOIGT:
Which conflict?
i 21 !
MR. CRAIG:
The fact that Bennett says when he l
({}
22 l left, the equipment was disconnected and the complete set of 23]
readings had been taken, and you had, as he interpreted it, all !
(])
24j the data that you wanted, and that it had been recorded on a 1
25 !
sheet of paper.
d~
li.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t.
ar7 7
i 1 1 THE WITNESS:
Bennett or Gilbert?
(~'T I
2 BY MR. CRAIG:
3 Q
Bennett.
Excuse me.
And he left with you when you O
4 left.
e 5
A First of all, I'm quite sure I didn't take any N
j 6l readings upstairs written down on paper, and as I recall, I.left R
e 7
him there.
First we -- I insisted they use the direct readout aj 8
device to hook up'to the thermocouples.
We got the four or
'J o;
9 five readings on the direct readout device, discussed whether 3
10 it was worth going to that much trouble for any more readings, 11l and I told them considering the disparity in the readings, it 3
l 12 l wasn't worth it, and I believe I left and went back to the j
4
(
13 control room.
I was not there for the time it took to take 52 z
14 readings.
5 h
2 g
Q Do you know why additional readings were taken?
Did 15
=
y 16 you direct additional readings to be taken?
^
I 6
17 '
A I don't think I directed it.
I think Skip and I E
f 18 discussed it, and I told him it was his option, if he wanted to, C"
19 and to go ahead and use the millivolt reader to take the readings..
m5 20 But I didn't see the value we were going to get from the readings 2I considering the spread of values we were getting, and I knew t-(_j) 22 we had readings that were too low to be real.
23 Q
You have testified before the Inspection & Enforcement rm 24 !
investigators on July 2nd, 1979 that, and I quote:
()
I 25j "I think everybody_was concerned about the core."
.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ar8) 8 l/
1 vou go on to state, and I quote again:
l e~
k-2 "I was thinking slightly uncovered, or 10 percent i
3 /
uncovered, or 50 percent uncovered, or whatever.
To 4
me, the indications were that we couldn't have water i
I 5j in the hotleg, and I don't recall" -- and there's a s
E j
6l pause -
"being rather upset at anything I was seeing."
5 n
7 With whom did you discuss your concern that part a
j 8
or some percentage of the core might be uncovered?
J 9l A
I don't believe I discussed with anybody the part, 3
10,
percentage, or whatever.
5 11 Q
Is there a reason why that you didn't talk about a
j 12 j that?
=
i 13 !
()
A I guess I'm not sure that I remember the statement i
14 !
on my testimony quite the way you read it back.
15 l
{
MR. GEPHART:
What page are you on?
=
g' 10 MR. CRAIG:
Page 20, 21.
A N
17 BY MR. CRAIG:
x=
{
18 Q
Okay, your answer is on -- I'll show you this, this P
l 19 '
g testimony from July 2nd, 1979, and this is the question, and n
20 your answer on the bottom of.20, top of page 21.
t 2I l A
(Witness examining document.)
k
+Ld. I sE.h tL*w; 22 I didn't say what=I=said when I can't even begin-(
4 23l to think that I was thinking it was slightly uncovered or 10 4
24
(])
percent uncovered.
I believe that's true.
What I -- as I stated 25.!
here, right here, the problem I did have was that I couldn't s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.-v
I ar9 9
I 4
I' reconcile the temperatures we had on the hotleg RTDs and still 2
have water in the hotleg.
3l Q
Does that mean that you can -- well, what does that
()
4 mean, that you concluded about the readings or the hotleg?
I g
5l A
That there was not water up in the hotleg where the 9
3 0!
RTDs were.
i E
7l n
l 0
But we're talking about the core exit thermocouples n
j 85 now.
J q
9 MR. VOIGT:
What's your question?
?-
10 BY MR. CRAIG:
II Q
Are you saying you don't believe that they were s
I I2 covered by water either?
i 5
I
( ) f 13 l
A No, I don't think I've stated I reached any conclu-
=
E I4 sions, based on the core thermocouples, because of the disparity I
]
15 in the readings.
=
j 16 What I said was that based on the readings we were A
l I7 getting on the TH RTDs that I could not reconcile having water I
18 '
f in the hotlegs.
G 3
i '
20f Q
So you concluded that they were steam-filled?
2I A
Yes.
22
()
Q
-- is that correct.
MR. MC BRIDE:
"They" being the hotlegs?
.1 24
(])
^
MR. MOSELEY:
"They" being the hotlegs.
25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j arlo - ).
10 1
BY MR. MOSELEY:
[)
2I Q
Did you make any inferences.concerning superheat
- N/
1 3l.basedonthistemperatureandthepressures?
4k A
I don't recall thinking superheat as such.
It's i
5(
obvious that the. pressures and tamperatures were -- you know, s
n 6l would not correlate, but.I guess the problem I have with super-'
G E
7 heat is that I normally associate that with a high steam flow sj 8
condition and stuff, and we didn't --se didn't have that.
So I d
9l
-- I don't recall just thinking superheat itself.
z O
I y
10 Q
What did you believe to be the source of the high 3_
j 11 temperatures in the hotleg?
1 l
12 A
I guess I don't know.
I didn't know.if it-was a
~
i ()
13 condition then or a condition that was left over because we
=
i z
5 I4 !
were stagnant.
As I say, the conclusion I drew was that we l
I j
15 l just didn't have water up in the hotlegs, and that's the only
=
i i
j 16 l way that we could have that high temperature.
l l
17 ;
0 And you made no assumptions or calculations or what-E y
18 ever to associate the temperatures that you were measuring G
19 l with a heat source?
a a
20 !
.R.
MC BRIDE:
Is that a question?
M i
2Il MR. MOSELEY:
Yes.
f
( )_
22 f THE WITNESS:
I guess, you know, that it's logical l
23 the only source of heat was going to be the vessel, and I
! - ])
24 )
(
can't say I didn't associate it with the vessel, no.
25 ;
i l
Ih-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i L _.
4 1
11 arll
?
jj BY MR. MOSELEY:
()
0 Did you associate the. fact that the temperatures 2
3 at that magnitude would require core uncovery?
h_)
4 A
I don't think I did, no, as such.
What we we're 5l really trying to do was -- I didn't spend a lot of time actually
~
e G
I n
d 6
dwelling on the magnitude.
What we were doing more was monitoring o
n 8
7 for a change.
I was just looking for anything that would r
n S
8 change and look like we were going in the right direction.
I n
d
?.
9l wasn't, you know,' dwelling on the actual number we had.
d E
10 BY MR. CRAIG:
E 5
11 Q
Was partial core uncovery discussed, either by you d
12,
or in your presence on 3/28/79?
z 1
(])
h 13 l A
Not that I recall.
E A
14 l 0
What discussions did you have with Skip Bennett O
l
=
i 2
15 '
after you were both back up in the control room?
That is after
[i 16 you had returned from the cable spreading room with three or four 2
l p
17 '
readings?
5 5
18 A
I don't recall what discussions I had with Skip.
I I
5
{
19 l do know that I believe he said he was leaving when they evacuated 5
i 20l the personnel from Unit 2.
i 21l Q
Did you have any discussions with Bennett, either 22 in the control room or in the cable spreading room, concerning
()
23 the readings that had been taken, the core exit thermocouple a
l y^s 24[
readings that had been taken?
r s
1 25]
A We had discussions, yes, but I just don't remember l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
ar12 i 12 I
what was talked about.
O 2
Q Did Mr. Bennett~ inform you that a complete set of 3
readings had been taken?
()
4l A
I don't recall that he did.
e 5
0 When did you learn that a complete set had been E3 0
taken?
i E
6 7
A I believe it was May 7th.
M 8
a i
0 You have testified in the IE interview from 5/21/79, d
9 page 19, that you believe the core exit thermocouples had been E
10 3
destroyed.
What was the content of your report to Garry Miller t.
E II h
concerning --
5.
I A
Where did I say that?
Excuse me.
(
13 0
5/21/79 interview.
Let me show it to you.
Page 19.
i z
i N
I4 The discussion starts on page 18, actually.
It's about line 15.
E P
15 'i O
A (Witness examining document.)
I0 I think that the opinion of being physically destroyed,
h I probably formed later than the 28th.
It's my personal opinion E
18 li z
-- I am personally of the opinion now that we probably melted s
E 19 them down.
g 20 However, on the 28th, my opinion was that the 200 21!
}
degree readings and the 2000 degree spread in the readings,
()
they just weren't working properly.
They weren't safety-grade 23 instruments.
We have steam environment in the building, so s
()
on and so forth, so I -- essentially the readings were destroyed.
25 )!
I think my response there was somewhat affected by d
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I ar13i 13 l
1!
what I have learned since the 28th.
As far as the physical
\\
.f) 2i condition of the in-core thermocouples themselves.
3 Q
Did you describe on 3/28/79 a mechanism or an explana-(D N'
4 tion to Garry Miller.concerning the belief that the readings t
e 5
weren't any good?
?
j 6
A-I believe I told him'in the spread we had, that we R
7 had numbers I knew that couldn't be good, and I didn't know what sj 8
we could da with the numbers at all.
You know, I didn't see how d
[
9 they could help us.
?
10 0
You didn't explain or discuss a mechanism which E
h 11 would explain why the readings were invalid?
a
- j 12 A
I don't think I did, no.
=
(,,)
13 0
When did you first discuss new junction formation?
=
z 5
14 A
This is tough, because I discussed those things 12
{
15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> a day for weeks.
I think it was Friday actual new
=
l j
16,
junction formation, but I am not sure.
A I
l y
17 ;
MR. VOIGT:
Referring to Friday, March 30th?
y 18l!
C THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I'm sorry.
5 19 ll BY MR. CRAIG:
M l
20 !
Q Can you exclude the day of the accident, 3/28/79?
21 A
I cadiexclude it, but I don't recall it.
F
()
22 ]
Q To the best of your belief, did you discuss new l
23 junction formation on 3/28/79?
j I
()
24 A
I think I said I don't recall that I did.
I don't 25 believe I did at that day.
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l arl4
)
14 t
i 1j Q
Other Metropolitan Edison employees have testified
\\
2; that on the afternoon of 3/28/79, after the pressure spike, 3
the 30-pound. pressure spike, which occurred at approximately 1:50 f
4i p.m.,
that an order was given to not start electrical equipment.
I I
Do you know who gave that order?
5 5l e
h 6l A
I'm not aware of that order being given.
a M
7 Q
On 3/28 or ever?
Any day?
f8 A
No, I'm not aware of the order being given.
I'm h
aware by Friday they had already isolated the equipment in the 9
j 10 reactor building and were worrying about that, yes.
But I'm not j
11 aware of hearing an order be given.
4
's j_
12 Q
Were you in the control room on the afternoon of
\\
O
=
i3 i i
3/28/292
=
i l
14 '
A Yeah.
E 15 0
If the order had been given, do you believe you N
16 would have had knowledge of it being given?
x l
p 17 ;
A Well, not necessarily.
I mean, I was behind the h
18 l panels, and I was occasionally in the instrument shop, and E
~
(
~
19 j occasionally downstairs at the breakers for the reactor coolant n
I t-20 !
pumps.
I mean I was in and out.
It could have happened without 21 me hearing it, but --
j,..
Q 22 BY MR. HOEFLING:
23'1 Were you in the control room on 3/29, the afternoon Q
]
24 of 3/29?
l 25 A
Yes.
l i
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
i
+
.i l
arli 15-1 Il 0
The evening of 3/29?
2, A
Until some time in the evening, yes'.
I'm not quite 3
sure what time it was, 7: 00, 8:00 o' clock, something like that, I g
1 4
believe.
c 5
BY MR. HARPSTER:
g j
6l 0
Let me ask Ivan a question.
y 7ll G
Ivan, we've poured over this thing a lot of times U
l g
8; to try to understand it, and I'm sure you have, too.
When you
'J 9
got the TH upscale on your bridge later in the morning, when you
?
10 l had some of these, did you ever have reason to go back and use 5
II any of these as confirming indications to try and interpret the is y
12 l thermocouples, or were you beyond that then?
m 5
U 13 i A
Not back to the thermocouples.
f 14 Q
One of the things we have a hard time understanding E
i j
15 is a lot of the things we find people know of isolated things,
=
3l 16 l but we can't get them put together, and some cf the things, in x
17 our mind, at least in retrospect, are certainly confirming of 18 things you added later.
i I
19 l MR. VOIGT:
Is there a question there?
20 MR. HARPSTER:
No, I think it's the original question, 21l were they ever able to use any of these as confirming indications i
f to go back and look at some of their earlier judgments in the a
23j morning.
- O 24; 1s,,1,ssss, 1 esem.,,,,,cx,,,se,mec,,,1,,,,11 25j the morning of the 29th, when the NRC people were back on the 1
i d
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I ar16 j
16 i
o(Rv II thermocouples or under the thermocouples, whichever.
As I say,
()
2 after I -- as you know, the thermocouples are all in one plane, and:
3, they are on the exit side of the core, and when I saw 2000
(~'l l
)
4l
' degrees reading and 200 degree readings, I just didn't see what e
5l they were going to do for us.
i j
6I BY MR. HARPSTER:
l E
6 7
0 one other question.
Did anyone ever ask your opinion s
j 8
of the containment pressure spike, whether or not it was possible i
d 9
~.
with the redundancy and diversity in that instrumentation, that
?
10 it was real or instrument failure?
=
5 II A
Not that day.
Not that day, no.
It's going to come up W
f I2 in one of my interviews, but not that day.
I don't think I was
.(
13 in the control room when that happened, personally.
5 I4 MR. CRAIG:
Well, that's the end of the interview.
j 15 i Thank you for coming to talk to us, and we will send a copy of I
=
E I6 l the transcript to you in a few days.
1 A
I h
II !
(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m.,
the interview a
i 3
I0 i
was concluded.)
C I
19 l l
A 20 i
21 !
t l (:)
22 3 i
23 "
([]
24 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
O noctexa arautaroar cosarssron This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the if. S. MfirLPAf? REGULATORY COMMTSSTON in the matter of: Metropolitan Edison Co [TMI Unit 2)
Date of Proceeding: Wednesday, 24 September 1980 Docket !! umber: DEPO. OF IVAN PORTER p
Place of Proceeding:,narrisburo, Pennsv1vania were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
ANN RILEY Official Reporter (Typed)
O d_16h
~
Official Reporter (Signature)
I i
i e'
s O.,
a l
l l
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Corrections to the September 24, 1980,. Interview of Ivan D. Porter:
- _Page, Line Change To Read
/13 21 I can exclude I can't exclude vi6 1
or under the or after the
]8 22 (change sentence I-didn't say that.
I said then, to read)
"I can't even begin...".
Ivan D. Porter 0,- & f f, / P M Date