ML19208B169
| ML19208B169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1979 |
| From: | Donaldson D, Mulleavy T Metropolitan Edison Co, NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement (IE Region I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 7909190176 | |
| Download: ML19208B169 (72) | |
Text
F 4 b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
i
'J In the Matter of:
2!
IE TMI INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW i
31 of Thomas L. Mulleavy Supervisor, Radiation Protection 4:
5 61 7!
8!
Trailer #203 9
NRC Investigation Site TMI Nuclear Power Plant 10!
Middletown, Pennsylvania
~
11:
June 4, 1979 12!
(Date of Interview) 13i July 6, 1979 14!
(0 ate Transcript Typec) 300
, c:
(Tape Numcert,s))
~.
16i I
17:
18!
19' t
20 21i NRC PERSCNNEL:
22:
Cale E. Donaldson 23l Gregory P. Yuhas Cwen C. Shackleton 98,8, 3JD 25i 7909'90)7h
[7 4
e
g 4
{
l 1!
SHACKLETON:
The person speaking is Owen C. Shackleton, the time is now 2j 12:55 a.m., pardon me, p.m., eastern daylight time, June the Fourth, 1979.
l This is an interview of Mr. Thomas, middle initial L and in Law, Mulleavy, 3
41 last name is spelled M as in Mike, U-L-L-E-A-V-Y.
Mr. Mulleavy is a Super-g; visor, Radiation Protection, Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, i
Gi empi yed by the Metropolitan Edison company.
Present to conduct this 7f interview from the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Mr. Dale E.
8 Donaldson, first name usual spelling, O as is David, A-L-E, middle initial E, as in Easy, last name, Donaldson, O as in David, 0-N-A-L-0-S-0-N.
Mr.
g Donaldson is a Radiation Specialist assigned to Region I. Also prment is Mr. Gregory P. Yuhas.
First name G as in George, R-E-G-0-R-Y, middle initial P as in Peter, last name Yuhas, Y as in Yellow, U-H-A-5.
Mr. Yuhas is a Radiation Specialist assigned to Region I.
My name Owen C. Shackleton, 13,i the first name 0 as in Oboe, W-E-N, middle initial C as in Charlie, last name Shackleton, 5 as in Sam, H-A-C-K-L-E-T-0-N, I am an investigator assigned to Region 5.
This interview is taking place in trailer 203 which
, S, A
is parked on the south side of the south security gate at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station.
Just prior to this interview I discussed with Mr. Mulleavy the two page document that we originally showed him from 19!
the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which he initially signed on the 20 first interview on April 24, 1979 in which it advised Mr. Mulleavy of the 21:
authority of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct this inves-22!
l tigation, its scope and also his rights to refuse to be interviewed or to 231 submit any form of a signed statement.
Mr. Mulleavy do you still still 24!
understand the information contained in this document and understand that 2Si it still prevails at this time.
?
I,
[
2 f
MULLEAVY:
Yes I do.
I 2l i
3!
SHACXLETON:
And do we the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have per-4; mission to tape this interview?
Si 6!
MULLEAVY:
Yes sir.
l 7!
8 SHACXLETON:
And would you like a copy of the tape and or a copy of the g,
transcript?
101 MULLEAVY:
I would 'ike a copy of the tape and the transcript.
12!
3{
SHACXLETON:
Alright sir that will be provided to you.
14'
"" Y ""
15i 16:
SHACKLETON:
Also at the, prior to going on tape I presented to Mr. Mulleavy a one page document which explains to him Section 1001, Title 18, U. S.
Code concerning fraud and false statements and Mr. Mulleavy also signed this document that he understood the paragraph contained on this one page 20:.
document.
And now gentlemen I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Yuhas to 21t conduct the initial part of the interview or is that the way you would like l
to do it gentlemen?
23l 24r 1
25i C: L, C
<1
l 3
lj YUHAS/DONALDSON:
Alright, fine.
l 2:
00NALDSON:
I want to clear up just a quick point on emergency accounta-3 4j bility procedures. On going through some of the documentation, there were t
5{
several memoiandums issued regarding accountability, one of which was 6l signed by yourself dated October 13, 1978, that outlined a procedure to be 7;i followed for a revised accountability technique, I'm going to show you a 8l c py f that memo at this time, and ask you to tell me whether or not you i
recogni::e that and acknowledge that you did in fact issue that memo.
g 10i MULLEAVY:
Yes, I did.
11::
i 12l l
DONALDSON:
Ok, I'd like to call your attention to the bottom area that's 13!
highlighted in red and reads, "The proper procedures would be changed to reflect the new accountability of non essential personnel."
16:
MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
17!
18i DONALDSON:
To your knowledge was that procedure ever updated and correct'ed?
_w 20t MULLEAVY:
I can' t tell you that right now, I don' t know, I'd have to look.
21!
22l t
DONALDSON:
Do you know who's responsibility it was to change that procedure?
23!
24!
25!
a I
s
I l
1 i
4 1
MULLEAVY:
Len Landry was handling changes and instrumental in changing the gj procedure.
3:
4 DONALDSON:
Is it a normal practice to issue a memorandum to supercede an Si existing procedure.
Si MULLEAVY: No it isn't.
p 8l 00NALDSON: What is the requirement regarding the Emergency Plan Imple-g, 10; menting Procedures, prior to implementation?
11!
MULLEAVY:
Either a TCN or PCR.
g 13i y
DONALDSON:
And had that been, had a TCN or PRC, that is a Temporary Change Notice or a Permanent Change Request been issued at the time this memo was distributed.
17i MULLEAVY:
I can't be sure.
18i 19!
DONALDSON:
Let me ask you now, I'll call your attention to another memoran-21]
dum dated November 3, 1978, and it was issued by W. J. Busansky, Assistant Site Protection Supervisor and it also outlines in somewhat more detail the 22i texts of your memorandum of October 13, have you ever seen that memorandum l
before?
24!
25i
s s
4 N'
s a
s s
g p.
3
\\
s s
s 4
es s
s s
N s
s s
6s x
? g s4 4 N M;nqf+M u&w.c;,%#s.c,+g,.
yb d
4
,r g k$ m % %iit f f p y@&*~d w:f$wh T<@
w 2{
1 M69g d
n c
O 9.d;g% 3e.s'9%
3.
h r<g.%sWp$p@6 w
~
V hpfw
%w
%4 i
4 C fQ;:
/3" i; w&p4MhwQ s. K Wd4 '
h\\
. e WC M q?t;?r:d L % jew q* r t
y y
% gyggy%p@Q D
si i
fp A W3 t ~ x ;.
m.~
l y
y 2
h 21 t *4 k5k
- a n%y L:D%'hQ t7{-x8 m
k X
$4MI
.g n, %N.s.
9 t d M S y $ H pM 4 4 m:
- N WONm MpMQQsC.4 uM.
1 y, n a Q
sw.4m7w4g&l{
P 5Q.
w&g M;:%g 9e N:yyD4 Q; a, 5 0 g{ s % si f n %m p h d
/
9 y'
r U d % kp s m q.
5 4, ;
MA q? S.
q.
N M%9 h E m
y
$$ghmgw$g
! k f {h E s ig$
mgp$eCh a
h w,~'
^
3 jDwg S
.',s h
p s
g{ik
- y 4
hv yk e
?
.mI9 @$p f't4:sX l3
- q m$ e,s;gaa$$
~
n
.e.
2:.4 g
- .+
E j
5' jff g
3
.,. f;y 4m $jh fo
- g,g;g,gi;s ;yeT pew $g;jih.+
,~N q
y g~.f h4ppgpksMahkly w
4
- y,.
%g gm4a h 1
4
- [cy.
4 y
f,~ w
' k?'1 gnH'urp. im
+
d w
^
'p',
a, wyl@g[w% wp,w xegn iD
.'yy['Mgj{fgr,.mmgy.pgm M
W V[y a
. AA :
s w
.-y ;3.
n.
3,*
w y,
- + y
.s' 4
3
.: 4 p>,y,.gM gg n
o 7,
-ga
. ;g N
^.,
i )y 7
{,M, :
y r y f* p' P ga p:o s
C x
r
..t.
t' g
A+e+
g!%o s'+
s eEEv <e 1,em TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l# BH Ela g m gy 5!Eg=5 l.l t.
L8 1.25 1.4 1.6 6-
=
4%
+ '/b
- 47offr-
'4kh4%
43.F,,
M(
O
\\++F so
/
\\
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 5EnEM yljLE I.I
[" lilM l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 c
III/
>i,
<k
' //
W'>?t>,
gh*M%
f/
s+
\\\\\\\\
IMAGE EVALUATION NNNN TEST TARGET (MT-3)
' En L24 d
1.0 y,ylE I.l
['a LM l.8 1.25 1.4 ll 1.6 6~
h
'l O /%
4
- N:Vh?
h?h+p O
5,7
t j
5 llj MULLEAVY:
Yes I have. Ok, yeah.
I 2:
l 3j O_0NALDSON:
Did you inquire or pursue that memorandum at that time to 4
determine whether or not the procedures had in fact been upgraded?
5l l
6j MULLEAVY:
No.
i 7l DONALDSON:
8 The exist'ing procedure that I have with a date on it for Proca-gj dure 1670.7 entitled Emergency Assembly Accountability and Evacuation, was
- j datec 2/15/78 and is Revision 3, I'm sure your familar with it but again y
I'll let you take a look at it, now supposedly this is a controlled copy,
]
copies of controlled procedures that we are on distributio.1 for.
Is that or would you have any way cf knowing whether that is a current procedure?
13t 14:
MULLEAVY:
I wouldn't have any way of knowing at this, this should be 15, stamped in red if it is a controlled copy.
17!
DONALDSON:
Ok, we received copies rather than the exact copy. In other words it is a controlled copy but it's not the original controlled as it 19j were.
20:
21!
MULLEAV :
If it is a control copy this should be the most recent one J
22!
[
according to Carol Nixdorf's group.
23l l
24j l
2Si fu\\
7 Q
5
{
6 1
DONALDSON: O k.
2i a
3 MULLEAVY:
That should be the one currently in effect.
4j gj DONALDSON: One final question regarding some activities that you were I
6i assigned prior to the twenty-eighth and I'm referring now to a memorandum 7j regarding radiation emergency drills, this was a memorandum issued to a i
8l number of individuals where actions items were assigned for resolution, g;
where the memorandum was issued over the signature of Mr. L. J. Landry, the 101 title he used at that time was Emergency Orill Coordinator, and there are g,
three action items listed on here that relate to you.
One is to insure y
that newly revised site maps have replaced those outdated, the second is 13 emergency monitoring equipment must have inventory and operational checkout prior to use, especially the SAM-2 ar.d the third item listed for your action was the change to accountability pract: dure 1670.7.
I'll show you g
this memorandum and ask you to comment on whether or not that action was 6
completed.
181 MULLEAVY:
The first two actions were, the third was not.
As far as...
19f 20 CONALDSON:
Are you acknowledging then, then it was as far as you were j
aware your responsbility to initiate the change to the accountability 2%
procedure?
23{
241 25!
go, e
f I
l i
7 1
MULLEAVY:
Yes sir.
I 2l 1
3f DONALDSON: And I would be correct in assuming that if the procedure were 4r current that scmeone else would have issued the change but to your knowledge 5
y u did not.
Si MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
7 8
DONALDSON:
One other question in the area.
. I'd like to get into training g
10l a little bit. There have been a number of interdepartment memorandum either either typed or handwritten relating to the development of, of 11 lesson plans for training in the emergency category, now I believe that the statement in your emergency plan is that there would be lesson plans developed 13 and that appropriate tests or assignments would be assigned for each indi-vidual or persons who attend the training.
In going through a number of, of memoranda which had been entered into the record as a group under the 16;!
number TM508, for reference purposes, I find a number of memos from the 17; I
training section basically Frank McCormick, starting sometime back around 18l June or July and going all the way up through the second of, I'm sorry through January, February of 1979 regarding the fact that the existing 401 21,l lesson plans were inadequate and that lesson plans to meet the requirements of the emergency plans were to be submitted.
To your knowledge were these 22l l
lesson plans ever completed and submitted?
231 2 41 25 t
Cj I
{
8 l
1!
MULLEAVY:
Yes they were.
I 2!
3; DONALDSON:
At approximately when were these lesson plans completed?
i 4!
g; MULLEAVY:
I can't give you the date, I really don't know.
That was handled 6l through Frank McCormick and Len Landry.
7\\
l DONALOSON:
Referring now there was a memorandum dated 9/21/78, this gj t
gj was a discussion with yourself, Mr. Beers, and Mr. McCormick, inat occurred n the twenty-first, and discusses the various requirements of training in 10 I
precedure 1670.9, and it indicated among other chings where training was g
still requi
. to meet the requirements of that procedure, it indicated the inadequacy of lesson plans that had been submitted, and that everyone 13 g
agreed that lesson plans must be upgraded to cover the requirements of
,y 1670.9.
Am I to assume then that the upgraded lesson plans did in fact take place sometime after that meeting?
16 17!
MULLEAVY:
I believe so.
181 lhi DONALDSON:
So would I also be correct in assuming then that any training that had been conducted prior to September 21 or the development of these i
lesson plans would have been conducted without a lesson plan?
22l l
23!
MULLEAVY:
I believe you're saying, was the inadequacies in the lesson plan 241 there.
What are you asking me?
I'm not sure.
25i i
qql 0 0 "-
i~
i 9
If DONALDSON:
It, it had been determined that the lesson plans did not result 2,
in training that met the requirements....
I 3;
MULLEAVY:
No no, no no.
It said the lesson plan was inadequate, it didn't 4;
3; say the training was inadequate.
That the lesson plan he was using could have been inadequate as stated or as written.
I don't believe it said the 6
training was inadequate.
7 I
81 DONALDSON:
It stated that.
indicated inades af ?essor plans sub-g mitted for the section.
Of 11!
MULLEAVY:
Rignt, right.
That's a paperwork item.
y 13 1+[
DONALDSON: Ok.
Then I guess what I'm saying is that the guidance that the individual used for conducting that training... could have been outside of the bounds that is described by the plan, in other words the general areas to be covered may not have been covered?
17!
18l MULLEAVY:
May not have been cevered completely, on tne lesson plan itself.
20:
DONALDSON:
Or in the training?
21!
22l l
MULLEAVY:
No, I can't say in the training?
23!
24i 25i qqo 001
?
l f
[
10 00NALDSON:
1,l How would we, how would we know whether or not the training 2:
that was conducted did in fact meet the requiremen's.
Is there some nota-i 31 tion somewhere made of what was presented and what documents were used?
4j gj MULLEAVY:
I believe in looking over the particular records, the material t
6l that was in the document was presented, I would have to take a look at the 7
lesson plan to see where the inadequacies are.
81 DONALDSON:
How would you find out what lesson plan or what items had been g
10l covered in the training.
i 11l MULLEAVY: Going through the lesson plan.
ui DONALDSON:
How would you know whether that lesson plan was in fact.
15:
MULLEAVY: And speaking to the instructor himself.
17l DONALDSON: Ok.
Call y;ur attentien to a training program administrative 18;.
form.
ibis is more or less for example.
l 20!
MULLEAVY:
Right.
21!
22l DONALDSON:
I'm sure your familar with these forms...
23l 24j 1
25i
^\\
e,
J i
f 11 i
lj MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
2i I
31 DONALDSON:
For example und Section 8 after the signature of the trair.ing I
4f coordinator, there's a statement that says, ' attached lesson outlinas and
$l items covered."
l 6i 7
MULLEAVY:
Right.
I 8!
gi DONALDSON:
Do you routinely do this?
10; yy!
MULLEAVY:
Not on each one, no.
There is a genaral outline, and then every y
subsequent class we just refer +.o that.
13l DONALDSON:
g Ok, I note on this one for example, there is no reference.
What, what outline or lesson outline or tepics would you have covered in 16i
""U*"#7 #*E* " *" Y
- " "9 17!
MULLEAVY:
18; There is a lesson plan, there is an outline, I can't tell you 19!-
right at the moment what it is, but it's the grouping, I believe it's the grouoing of where the individuals come, where there clothing is, wnat is expected of them, the emergency exposures that they could receive...
21!
22 DONALDSON:
O k...
23l 24:
25!
DO a;
,+
e i
i 12 i
1:
MULLEAVY: Where they form, I'm...
2!
3l 00NALDSON: You would have no way of knowing what it is, you would have no.
4 l
5l t
Sj MULLEAVY:
... Not be knowing with what you have there, no.
i 71 g
DONALDSON: O k.
What... as an instructor in a course under the Emergency g
Plan, what is your requirement or pro (:edure when someone notifies youthat 10.
the training tnat they have had appears to be problematic, that is they yg don't feel they've gotten what they should have gotten out of it, or they feel incapable of doing wnat they're suppose to do after that training has been conducted?
13 14!
MULLEAVY:
Sy procedure?
16:
17:
DONALDSON:
By procedure.
18!
MULLEAVY:
I don't believe there is anything by procedure, is there? No doubt there must be.
20; 21l CONALDSON: We'll go to the...
23j l
MULLEAVY:
Is he reaching for the procedure?
2 41 i
25!
U '" "
cg, e
f i
13 i
1:
DONALDSON: Training procedure ?670.9...
l 2'
3f MUL.:.EAVY:
If a guy comes in, we'll talk to him usually.
4l gj DONALDSON:
I'm reading from section 3 of 1670.9, entitled Emergency Training i
Si and Emergency Drills, under paragraph 3, Training Programs, the highlighted 7
text here states that the identification and correction of weak areas, as g
identified in each program will be the responsibility of each instructor.
gj I wonder if you could briefly tell me how you identify, and correct weak 101 areas in uaining when you conduct it?
11ly MULLEAVY:
If I'm conducting it myself and if I go off on a tangent what they want to hear, that's very hard to list that in a lesson plan, but if they feel an area is weak, we go cff with that group and correct that, that
,4 J.
might not be a weak area in another group.
16; 00NALDSON:
17; Has anyone approached you, either within the last year any time stating that they felt the training that they had had in a particular area
,8l l
regarding the emergency plan deficient and they absolutely needed to have some additicnal training in order to perform their duties?
21!
MULLEAVY:
No not specified that way, no.
231 00NALOSON:
How was it specified?
24l 25j c; G.
A r
I
t i
l 14 i
1.f MULLEAVY:
There had been complaints on training, yes indeed, there are 2:
complaints always on training.
That there never is enougn.
31 4l 00NALDSON:
Ok, whec were the nature of these complaints, who made these gj complaints?
i 6i 7j MULLEAVY: Oh I can't tell you really.
I...
I 81 DONALDSON:
You~didn't think enough to write them down, or or, they weren't g;
that significant, or.
101 11!
MULLEAVY:
No, in your speaking of emergency repair party, if they were y3j that significant, it was reported back to their particular department who at the time, was conducting that training.
p 15; DONALDSON: What about other areas, did you have any, obviously I don't 16t know if you had any compiaints...
17,:
18!
MULLEAVY:
Yes there were some, as a matter of fact now that you think about it there were auxiliary operators who felt that they were inade-quately trained on the SAM-2's.
This was oiscussed, I do recall this one is discussed with Len and we thought about either giving it maybe twice a year, rather than on a requal program and we got Len involved in the requal 23l training on the SAM-2's because he was running the calibration of them.
24l 25i
^
s
(,
4 s
f
(
15 i
i 1.'
00NALDSON: Were there any other individuals outside of the auxiliary 4
2l operators who expressed the need for additional trainirg in the area of the 3!
SAM-2?
4I 5
MULLEAVY:
Yas, our own people.
I Si 7l 00NALDSON:
Ok, and how were those comments handira?
Si MULLEAVY:
Those comments at the time I believe we had one shift, we said gg 10 that shift would be getting that particular training, we did not however 11; gat to it.
12l DONALDSON:
13 You did, you did not make the corrective training or you just p;
did not get around.
15; 9'
"9' 16i 7;
that had not specifically had the formal training.
I ISf DONALDSON:
Tell me how do you evaluate whether or not in the case of SAM-2 training the individual has in fact grasped the purpose of the training program and whether or not he can operate the equipment when the training is over?
I 23!
MULLEAVY:
Questionning during the session and response to the training 24{
session.
25i Oki c,
c7
l i
{
16 I
I l'
DONALDSON:
So by questionning the person you find out that they can operate this piece of equipment?
3; 4
MULLEAVY:
We give them all the opportunity, we give all of them the oppor-Si tunity to run the equipment after the session, I can't tell you whether 6i everyone came up "hant -on", I know we generally end the session with 7l individuals grouped around the table where the instruments are and than we gj show them each step.
Now have them all turn the knobs, perhaps not.
9i 10j DONALDSON: Again there are, are comments that, in the training program 11:
relative to correction of weak areas, and there's also a statement that g
tests or assignments will be given to check the progress of the student.
What kind of tests do you give?
14' gj MULLEAVY:
One, I've forgotten which session, there are a couple of exams yg that we give the individuals written exams, the other tests on that parti-cular one on the SAM-2, rather than giving them a written exam we do provide 1gl that "harids on" if they want to take that opportunity, there.
19!
DONALDSON:
So you are willing to certify someone as qualified to perform l
lets say, radiological monitoring activities using the SAM-2 even though they may not have demonstrated an ability to use the equipment?
23j MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
Once they had been through that sessicn we felt they were able to recognize that equipment, and by procedure, to run it.
25i to,
U\\"
i
I 17 li DONAL0 SON:
Ok, then your, your evaluation of the effectiveness of the 2
training that you normally outline in your administrative form under Section 3
7, is more subjective than objective?
4!
I cl MULLEAVY:
That's true.
i M
7l DONALDSON:
How would you categorize the validity of any evaluation that I
gj might come based upon on that kind of su aective evaluation?
91 i
MULLEAVY:
0l In knowing the group that you' re teaching.
1 l
ll!
y DONALDSON:
Then if it could be determined later that in fact training was not adequate could we question the validity of that evaluation?
141 MULLEAVY: You could if an individual said no, afterwards that he didn't 15i feel he was qualified but at the time he felt he was...
17!
DONALDSON: Would that also be true if the individual...
1SI MULLEAVY:
It could happen...
20l 21!
DONALDSON:
... Demonstrated, demonstrated his inability to operate the 22l equipment, say through a drill, or something of that nature?
23l 24l 2t:
^
tu-J
L
(
18 l
l 1!
MULLEAVi Probably, if we took t.om out and drilled them they may not know senathing specifically, but i feel after the session tney should recog.1ize 2
3 whether they are able or not sura at the time.
4l i
5; DONALDSON:
Would you feel safe in saying though that after a session, you i
f could in fact definitely state, yes or no that each individual in..
S
. who p
had taken the training could operate or couldn't operate?
8!
g; MULLEAVY:
I think so, I think so, they would be at least be able to recognize 10 and by pr cedure, run the instrument.
11!
DONALDSON:
Ok, so then you would say ther tnat your evaluations, the evaluations that you have written would be accurate?
14l MULLEAVY:
I would hope so.
16i DONALDSON: O k.
181 YUHAS:
A couple of quick questions.
First off, are you familiar with an ir.ventory of 0 to 20r pocket dosimeters?
l 21l MULLEAVY:
Of an inventory?
22l l
23l 3
YUHAS:
I have reviewed your calibration records and I note that in January 24) you calibrated fifteen 0 to 20r packet dosimeters that apparently normally 25i you stored in the Unit i Chem HP area.
?
I
{
19 lj MULLEAVY:
In the, in the drawer in the lab area, yes.
l 2l l
3l YUHAS:
Do you know what became of those during the emergency?
4!
1 5{
MUI.LEAVY:
No I dcn't.
t Si 7j YUHAS:
Did you issue 0 to Sr pocket dosimeters to personnel when the ECS i
gj we.3 activitated on the morning of the twenty-eighth?
Si 10j MULLEAVY:
Not specifically to my knowledge did we hand them out, no.
All g
were wearing the other pocket dosimeters, w
I YUHAS:
131 I have results of airborne activity in the Unit I control room of
~7 10 14l:
microcuries per cc of iodine on the morning of the incident, do you what the basis of coming up with the iodine number was at that point?
16i MULLEAVY:
17!
That particular reading could have been on our particular GeLi analysis and if that was capable of being used.
I don't know what time that sample was taken.
20 YUHAS:
The time of the sample was the afternoon after the ECS had been evacuated to the control room, you were back in Unit I control room and this was like 11:00, 231 24j 25I 1
g) ; >
to
l
\\
i 20 0
l!
MULLEAVY:
This was in the control icom?
21 3j YUHAS:
This was in the control room.
4!
t 5
MULLEAVY:
Oh, alright, that was done on a SAM-2, I'm sure.
Si YUHAS: Where did the SAM-2 come from...
8!
MULLEAVY:
The SAM-2 we had brought up to the control room...
g; 10!
YUHAS:
g Do you know where it came from?
12!
MULLEAVY:
No I don't.
We asked to have something set up we could use.
13 141 YUHAS:
Briefly let me go over the availabilii.y of SAM-2's on the morning of the incident.
17!
-MULLEAVY:
I may be wrong.
18!
191 YUHAS:
Yo:J had four kits initially...
21.'
MULLEAVY:
Oh, I know where it came from..
23l YUHAS:
24i You had one kit in your office...
25i qi a s
.'4 a
I l
l 21 1
MULLEAVY:
Syd Porter brought it.
~
2 l
3; YUHAS:
No, Syd Porter wasn't there on the morning of the twenty eighth.
41 5l MULLEAVY:
Ok.
Si YUHAS:
Let me review the availability of SAM-2's.
You had one kit in your 7
g office, that apparently had a defective SAM-2.
9}
1g{
MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
11!
YUHAS:
You had three out in the proces; center, Egenrieder and another Tech went out, Dupes and they checkad these out, they found one of them had an inoperable SAM-2.
.15 !
MULLEAVY:
That's right, and that's when they called me to find out about i
the other one.
17!
18{
YUHAS:
Right, ok, so the first team that went out was an onsite team, they 191 took a kit with a good SAM-2.
The second team that went out was team Charlie, that went to Goldsboro, they took the kit with the bad SAM-2.
And 21; then the third team that went out, team Bravo, was Egenrieder and he took 22t t
the one remaining good SAM-2.
23 24 25l i
\\j
22
!lj MULLEAVY:
Umhum, ok.
I 2!
3j YUHAS:
So to the best of my knowledge, that was...
41 5
MULLEAVY: Wasn't one available.
Si 7{
YUHAS:
... depleted the whole inventory of SAM-2's available.
And I'm i
7 gl at a loss to explain where you came up with a 10 number for iodine becau gj to the best of my knowledge from interviews...
i 10!
I llj MULLEAVY:
No, I think all we had was a Ludlum up there.
i 12!
YUHAS:
That's right.
13 14!
l MULLEAVY:
Now that you mentioned, I didn't have it.
The only sample I ISi know was sent off was out to the, that one hospital, and that was an offsite l
dose.
First one I heard, I don't know where that came frem.
g I
18!
YUHAS:
In other words, we' re, we' re trying...
g 20!
MULLEAVY:
Yeah.
21;.
22!
YUHAS:
... To explain, one, why people were on masks, and two, where 23}
this huge iodine mill came from because the other indications were short 2 41 lived noble gases?
25i g\\ b I
ce l
l l
23 ilj MULLEAVY: Why they were on masks, I can answer that, because we were able i
2 to read particulate filters...
I 31 i
4j YUHAS:
Right.
Si 6l MULLEAVY:
And that's why we went to the masks, it was on particulate only, jj and we then later demonstrated that that wasn't necessary due to the decay g
which we ran samples continually...
91 i
YUHAS:
Do you remember about when you came off masks that dcy?
10l 11lg MULLEAVY:
We came off them in '_he afternoon and then we went back on for a y
while, because, and then we found out Unit 2 was also in masks and I discussed with Dick Dubeil who was over in Unit 2, '.::d I was in Unit l's control room... and it seems to me we came on early evening, we came out of the masks.
17!
YUHAS:
18!
The ti.ne you were in masks though, you did not have any charcoal absorbing cartridges available, is that correct?
20!
MULLEAVY: We had them available, but I couldn't read them.
22{
YUHAS: No, no, let me clarify that, I mean for the masks.
23i 24i 1
u\\i
<u t
~
2 1
(
24 I
lj MULLEAVY: Oh, for the masks, no, no, no, no.
I thought you meant a collec-2 tion charcoal.
I 3!
F l
YUHAS:
Let me change...
4 l
5!
6i MULLEAVY:
No we didn't.
7!
gl
'tUHAS:
Let me change the subject, are all Rad Chem Techs available to be gj assigned to the emergency environmental monitoring teams in the event of a 10j radiation emergency.
11:
MULLEAVY: Yes they are.
12 i
13j YUHAS:
O k.
You indicated earlier that one shift may not have received training in the SAM-2.
Do you know specifically who those individuals are?
16; MULLEAVY:
I think it was Pat Donnachie's shift, I'm not sure.
I believe it was his shift.
191 YUHAS:
When did you become aware that these individuals had not been received rather 22!
MULLEAVY: About a month before the accident?
2g 24l 251 l
n Qc.d u,
c s
I l
l f
25
,j YUHAS:
A month before the accident.
2l 3{
MULLEAVY: Yes.
4i 5
YUHAS:
O k.
Was... did you become aware of it because Donnachie complained i
6i to you or something...
7 MULLEAVY: Yes sir.
8 91 YUHAS:
10 Do you remember, or can you recall the, the connotations of his complaint?
g I
12l I
MULLEAVY:
I don't recall the exact words, no but I do recall that he made me aware of that fact that his, I believe it was his complete shift did not have the formal SAM-2 training.
16; 17j!
Who normally inputs training documentations that appear en the YUHAS:
station resumes, or the station... the individuals training records?
18(
19!
MULLEAVY:
That is a job that I have given to Pete Valez, wto is a Radiation 201
~
Protection Foreman.
21i 22f YUHAS:
In reviewing the training records, I have a whole stack of training 23l records here that were provided to me by the licensee and it's a computer 24 listing of training provided, and here's this, an example I'm showing you 25i now, this is a product of those input sheets, is it not?
<3 c u. a
I i
i
{
26 i
lj MULLEAVY: Yes it is.
l 2!
l YUHAS:
O k.
3l 4!
Sj MULLEAVY:
This is something I believe generated thrcugh the traininc I
6i department.
7' gj YUHAS:
Alright, ok.
The next document I'm going to show you is is g
something called " Training Program Administrative Form".
This fann 's
- 101, entitled " Operation and Use of the SAM-2", it indicates that this training g
was provided on 9/12, 9/13 and 9/14, the location was TMI, the course duration was a two hour session, which was a lecture, the instructors were 1y Mr. Tom Mulleavy and Syd Porter, lists numerous names of people in attendance, j
the signature of the instructor is T. Mulleavy, dated 9/16/77, signature of the training supervisor is Richard W. Zechman, and the date is not quite clear.
On the back of the form, the instructor's evaluation, the following comments appears, "All individuals were responsive to the material as it i
17!
was presented, they were allowed to use the equipment and each demonstrated 18t his ability to use the equipment", the instructor's signature is Thomas L.
191 Mulleavy dated 9/16/77.
Mr. Mulleavy did you in fact fill out that form?
l 21l MULLEAVY:
Yes I did.
22t i
23j YUHAS:
Did you list the names on that sheet?
Is that your handwriting?
24i 25i i
() (, I-c,,
s
l
(
27 l
l' MULLEAVY:
No.
No this isn't, that's... I'm not sure it looks like Pete 2l Valez's writing... the names.
i 3!
4!
YUHAS:
Did you sign that sheet on the back?
Si 6
MULLEAVY:
Yes I did.
y!
g{
YUHAS:
Did those people in fact receive that training on that date, Septem-gj ber 16, '77.
i 10f MULLEAVY:
9/12, 9/13 and 9/14.
I cannot be sure richt now whether all g
]
those individuals were or were not there.
I did sign this, I did make this 13l f rm uc with the instructors evaluation, I do recall the incident because y
Syd Porter was the one who set the classes up and I made this out for him 15.
- 9" 16:
l YUHAS:
So what you're saying is you do not know.
I 18l MULLEAVY:
The names, the names 201 YUHAS: Whether or not the people attended the course?
22?
MULLEAVY:
The names on there are not my writing.
23I 24i 251 f
l p
cV 1
t
28 1,j YUHAS:
Do you know if those people attended the course?
2.5 MULLEAVY
I can't tell you whether or not they did right now, it says here 3{
4; they did, and I assume this is correct, but I do see Donnachie's name here.
Si Gi DONALDSON:
Did you check the attendance list to find out if they had in 7!
fact attended before you signed the form indicating...
I 81 MULLEAVY:
I did not.
g 10l 00NALDSON:
Is this a common method of, of completing documentation of 11 h
training someone else fills out the attendance list for you if you've been g
13f the instructor?
14!
1; MULLEAVY:
No.
1Si DONALDSON:
And you sign it?
18f MULLEAVY:
It was filled out this way because Syd Porter is not here, and I did attend those three sessions, so therefore I made it out for him.
21!
YUHAS:
Procedure 1670.9, " Rad Mon, Monitor Team Training", in that course outline it says that the individuals suppose to be trained for the equipment located in the emergency kits.
You'll see on the training record in front 24{
of you that that was provided apparently 9/28/78 and I think you were the 25l instructor on that, is that correct?
s u
c
/
l
[
29 i
!,I MULLEAVY: Where are we n9w?
2l f
3j YUHAS:
Look at these up here, recent months.
4i 5
-MULL 2AVY:
Oh, ok.
Now what, what was your question? Did I teach this.
Si 7'
YUHAS:
Did, did you teach that course?
8; MULLEAVY:
g I may have, I don't know, I don't recall right off the bat.
10f f
YUHAS:
Ok, when you teach that course, Rad Monitor Team Training, does that include SAM-2 training?
13!
MULLEAVY:
Yes.
g 15, YUHAS:
At this time I'd like to show you a training program administrative I
form Rad Monitor Team Training, TMI, the training was reported 9/28/78, and 17j it lists the names of PyPe, Donnachie, Dimeler, Heilman, and Mulleavy, ISI 19!
MULLEAVY:
Ok.
20!
21!
l YUHAS:
Do you r9 member performing that that session?
22' 2l 00NALDSON:
Tom here's the second page of that I have on this...
24) i 25!
\\h-)
c.9
I I
{
30 l!
MULLEAVY:
Ok, maybe we did, I don't remember.-
I'd like to verify their 2
writing on that, that looks like they signed it, i
31
(
4f YUHAS:
Those individuals have indicated with the exception of yourself, 5l that they did in fact sign these sheets.
I Gi l
MULLEAVY:
They did, ok.
Alright.
7}
gl YUHAS: Did you sign your name to that sheet.
I a
101 iy MULLEAVY:
That is my writing, yes.
I 12l 73l YUHAS:
Did that, did that course follow the outline as described by the procedure?
p 15, 16l MULLEAVY-It should have, yes.
17!
YUHAS:
Did it include SAM-2 training?
i 19l MULLEAVY: Yeah, yeah... i f that's...
21f DONALDSON: Is it possible...
I 23i I
MULLEAVY: Wait, wait, now just...
24j i
25j
.o
\\ '
c.:
t
l
{
31 1
1l 00NALOSON:
Is it possible that someone else...
2l 1
3l MULLEAVY:
It is...
4j Sj DONALDSON:
... Filled this form out for you and handed it to you and i
6i told you what it it included and had you sign it? Who's writing would that 7
be on top where it says, Lesson Course the Rad Monitoring team training and g;
where it says, TMI, is that your writing?
91 10I MULLEAVY:
'lo it isn' t.
11:
l 2'
YUHAS:
Is the back page of that your writing...
13 MULLEAVY:
This is mine, yes.
15!
Y'JHAS:... The instructors evaluation?
17l MULLEAVY:
Yes, this is mine, but I'm not sure whether this 's 1690, or 18l 1670.9, I do remember a session in the lab which we went throtgh.
no, I know what this is, this is not that.
This session right here was on a response to the technicians to the emergency plan because there was scme 21.
question by this particular group on what s'd they do and who could take 23i over for myself, this was a structural thing, that's what this is.
i 24l 25j n
<(
c" i
l
(
{
32 1{
YUHAS:
So your indicating that thG, the form that you signed, is in fact 2!
not representative of what the training is describing according to procedure.
i 3!
l
.p MULLEAVY:
That's true, that's true.
This is not correct here.
Si 6
DONALDSON:
I wonder if you'd comment then on your instructors evaluation 7
which I'll read into the record, it states, " Individuals asked many questions g
and after the session I feel that they are now able to conduct themselves g;
in an emergency in an acceptable manner."
i 10l MULLEAVY:
Yes, alright fine.
Now, there, there are many things that they 11 h
must do in an emergency, and what brought this on is the fact that they t ld me, d Ig to the control room, do I stay here, what do I do when 13 you're not here, so that's what spurred this particular one... now what g
was the date on this? 9/20/78, yeah.
Cause this was before our drill last year. And this is what they had questions on and that's what we went over.
17!
DONALDSON:
Now you appear to be very responsive to their concerns about l
what they would do if you were not here... again I guess I wonder why 19i since their primary duty would be working offsite teams, and they had made
<.0 ;.
you aware of the fact that they didn't know how to operata the SAM-2...
i 22l MULLEAVY:
No their primary duties before they go offsite at night are 23{
where do they structually go, before the other individuals come in, who 24{
sends them offsite, where does the senior tech go, all of these things were 25j l
- n1 r,
cy :
33 1
questions in their minds, that's what spurred this on, we did it for others 2
but I don't know if it was documented.
There were other sessions like 3j this.
4I i
Si DONALDSON:
How many other session took place in 1978 where training forms 6
were filled out either after the fact, and may not have been representative 7
of the training that was provided or may indicate erroneusly, that certain g
people were trained as required yet had not been?
9i MULLEAVY:
I don't know, I can't say that there are any others than this 10y one.
The reference to the comment here, now that could have been made out h
by the training department, because we stated that this was for the radiation y
monitoring team, the bottom portion on occasion has been made out by the training department to correlate it with their training records and how they keep this data.
That could be erroneously the wrong reference.
That's probably what happened.
That was sent over there blank because not
,6 A
i., ;
knowing what their tracking system is for the training.
This was probably n
put in wrong. Where it says on the top, the lesson course, was radiation monitoring team training, and this was a special deal, this wasn't in 1670, it was something that they didn't know how to perform and what do we do in 20' the event you're not here, do I go to the control room, do I stay here, what haopens to the lab, who sets it up, they had valid questions, so these were special sessions, not stated in the plan... and we decided to take the credit for it.
241 25l C1I
'\\
ga
l 34
-l flj YUHAS: Who's responsibility is it to fill out this input information on 2:
the bottom of the sheet.
3 t, 4!
MULLEAVY: Whether it is the instructor or not I it probably is, the respon-3; sibility of the instructor, but I had asked, on occassion from the training Si department, what do we put down there, well you tell us what it is and 7
we'll put the tracking on there for you, under the comments.
That's a 8j tracking system but I see now it's important, isn't it.
Because it may 9t reference the wrorg thing.
10l y{
YUHAS:
Right, exactly...
l 12l MULLEAVY:
I think that's wnat happened.
3 141 YUHAS:
Do you...
16:
MULLEAVY:
Cause there should be others like this.
18!
YUHAS:
If these guidance, words of guidance were provided to you by the training department as to they will accept responsbility for filling this c0i out could you give us an idea of how frequently you sent forms in where the 21, bottom portion of course description is in fact course coding lecture and 22l l
whether it's time...
231 i
2 41 25 en cg; h
l.
l 35 1
MULLEAVY:
It could be almost all of them, I believe.
It could be, I'm not i
2 saying it was.
3i t
YUHAS:
4j Can you speak just to your personal reference...
Si 6i MULLEAVY:
If I put the, if I put the lesson course down there... and 7l such as this, this is Radiation Monitoring Team training, location at TMI, i
8j it could have been that they, that this... obviously it's different gf writing down there, that this form which was sent in and I filled out, well 10!
I put my name because I wanted credit for this, myself, and then making the ty evaluation which is a true evaluation of the group, but as far as correlating ig it with the computer system, that was done by the training department, now that was an incorrect reference.
3 14l f
YUHAS:
Do you remember the drill that was conducted in November of last 16 17l MULLEAVY:
Oh, we had many af them, yes.
19l YUHAS:
This would have been the drill that was audited by the NRC?
21:
MULLEAVY:
Yeah.
I 23!
l YUHAS:
Did you sit in on the critique of that drill?
24l l
25l c.
g s
i i
,a
l i
{
36 I
If MULLEAVY:
Yes.
2:
1 3[
YUHAS: Are you aware that both environmental monitoring teams did not 4
successfully use the SAM-2.
3 l
6i MULLEAVY:
I don't specifi ally remember that being a paramount thing at 7l that critique, no.
Because it would have been had it been... I'm not g
sure what you mean by successfully using, coming up with a final number, or g
the equipment didn't function, or what?
10i YUHAS:
They were unable to get the equipment to work.
12!
MULLEAVY:
No I don't remember that.
13l 14!
1:,l YUHAS:
The problem that we have here, is the training records that I'm showing you are the training records that Mr. Heilman, Mr. Ocnnachie, Mr.
j Pyke and Mr. Deimler, all their training records indicate that they in fact received training in the hi volume sampler and use of the SAM-2 instrument 18f on 9/14/77, ok.
It's been our findings of this investigation that they in fact did not receive training on the SAM-2 and have not yet received training with the exception of one individual who was personally tutored by Syd Porter after the incident, ok. All these individuals during the incident at 22!
nne point or another, were assigned to the environmental monitoring teams 23{
cr in fact they would likely be called on to use the SAM-2.
It is our 24i concern one, that the record is incorrect, ok,.
25}
[L y
a 9
37 l
MULLEAVY:
I, I will have to agree...
1{
2l t
3; YUHAS:
No we're going back, we talking, this input record that you signed 4
indicates that the guys received the training, and that they in fact, each 5l individual demonstrated his ability to use the equipment, ok.
We're very 6l concerned about that. These individuals have stated they did not attend 7j that training session.
81 MULLEAVY:
Umhum.
g; 10j YUHAS:
In addition, reviewing this form, the one regarding Rad Monitor 12l Team training in accordance with procedure 1670.9, you have just dascribed to us that that in fact lot what w#s provided?
14i MULLEAVY: That's correct according...
16i YUHAS:
It's something other than what's described on this perform, this form, which again, you signed.
19I MULLEAVY:
Umhum.
21; YUHAS:
Was not provided to these individuals.
22!
23!
I MULLEAVY:
Umhum.
2 41 25i uh >
o t
i I
f 38 i
1]
In reviewing the critique of the drill conducted on 11/8, we noted YUHAS:
2:
that these individuals were in fact assigned to the emergency menitoring i
3; team training and in fact were incapable of operating the SAM-2's as noted 4
by Mr. Ruppert who was observing one team from GPU and Ms. Good who was the gj observer of a different team.
These same individuals were assignec' ind 6
again could not operate the iAM-L You had indicated that these individua's 7f, complained to you in September of '78 that they had not received SAM-2 gl training, and were not capable of operating equipment and yet your procedure g
was revised in February of '79 indicating that only those individuals who 10i had been trained would in fact.
11:
MULLEAVY: Would operate...
i 13)
YUHAS:
... Be assigned to jobs that they had been trained to do.
And 14:
h now we find that the individuals were in fact assigned to operate the equipment or be on environmental survey teams during the incident and they had never received training even after they had brought it to the attention,.
of the respGnsible supervisor.
19i MULLEAVY:
That's correct.
20!
21:
YUHAS:
I'd like to give you this opportunity, opportunity for you to 22l comment on the fact that a, we're in a bit of a mess here?
23l t
24 25i g q-
I f
39 1l MULLEAVY:
It looks very much like we are, ah yes, I, I really can't comment, 2
I think you said an awful lot.
3!
4l YUHAS:
So to go back and in terms of the errors or' the form that you Si sigr,d dated 9/16/77, you did not list the names c' the individuals, is i
6; that.
71 1
gj MULLEAVY:
No I did not, that's, that's true, yes that is not my writing.
91 10j YUHAS:
Do you know who listed he names of the individuals?
11:
MULLEAVY:
12 I don't know, I can only surmise, I recogni::e the handvMting, 13 I believe, but I can't tell you for sure who that is.
14!
YUHAS: Who do you believe it is?
16!
MULLEAVY:
17 I believe that's Pete Valez's writing.
13r YUHAS:
For the record, on the training program administrative forms, you yourself are aware that more than one form has been submitted with the bottom section, that is t.he coding of the actual, the date and the fact, the catalogue number or the course, the duration of the course, whether it 22 was lecture or on the job, and the entry that goes onto, onto the individuals 2>
2%[
training records, is not in fact completed by the instructor?
25'
\\
e
I, f
40 l
i 1:
MULLEAVY:
That does not, or has not in this case been completed by the 2
instructor.
3!
4j YUHAS: Are you aware of other instances where it has not been completed by Si the instructor?
t Si MULLEAVY:
7, I can't give specifics, but I believe yes I have handed these in I
gg with;ut the categorization on the bottom completed, yes.
9i i
10j YUHAS:
Do you sup=, si;; t.'.; 'adisidual who is responsible for implerrenting if the, the input to the training records?
12:
.MULLEAVY:
Yes sir.
13 14 YUHAS:
At this time, I would like to provide you with a c0py of another 15!
training program administrative form and this form is called Unit 2 HP and lo.i j
Chem Startup at THI, and it lists numerous HP techs, the date of the form was 12/1/78, its classified as on the job training, and I'd like you to g
first read for us Item 7, which is tm instructor's comment from the form and then acknowledge whether or not you were involved in this were, aware
,<0 :,
Cf it prior to it or your comments on it now.
22l MULLEAVY:
Ok, this particular form was made out by Pete Valez who was the 23l l
instructor on this or the individual taking the creGit for the instruction, 24l this particular training that is recognized here was a C0mbination of f
V
( f
E l
(
41 1{
chemistry and health physics training, and that was on the job and as far gj as the HP portion of it, we had all the individuals go out into the fiald 3
and draw maps, which we hoped would familiarize them with the Unit 2 area, 4l and they drew 'em up my survey maps.
They also were asked to look up RMS gj systems and to go out into the field, his was mostly on their own, to go 6
out into the field, take maps, we gave each one of the i'ndividuals a set of 7'
maps for Unit 2, and they were to go out and find the RMS system, find gj sample points in chemistry, find out where the tanks were and so forth, g,
when they came back they did have the opportunity of discussion, with either myself or the foreman or Karrie Harner, who was also irstrumental in 10l this so it was a on the job, it w-inostly a self study with instructions given to go find these things, if you have problems come back, we'll go I
over some of the things with you, it was a familiarization area with, 13{
starting up at Unit 2.
Specifically chemistry because the chemical sample y
plants, they had to know where they were and so forth. So, 16; SHACKLETON:
This is a continuation of the interview of Mr. Thomas L.
17!
C leavy, the tape went off, the enf of the cassette at 1:42 p.m., we're re-beginning this side of the cassette at 1:43 p.m., eastern daylight time,
,9!
1 and we'll return back to the questioning when the tape went off.
i 21!
YUHAS:
Mr. Mulleavy you were just about to to read the instructor's comment 22!
and make you evaluation of that.
23!
24l 25i
(
c;
,I
{
42 ilj MULLEAVY:
On tnis particular form here we had the instructor training i
2:
evaluat on was written by Pete Valet, it says during the past six months 3
the Techa have been getting good instructions in both HP and Chemistry 4l aspects of the Unit 2 startup. My commert on that particular one is that Sj the instruction given was a self study course, more or less, we gave the 6;
individuals maps to follow, as far as the HP aspect, those particular maps 7f in conjunction with the maps there, road maps, system description, or not gj descriptions, but system piping diagrams and the individuals on the HP g
aspect were asked to draw survey maps of the areas, it was in hopes that 10l they w uld learn where the shield walls were, where the compartments were, 3
differcat tanks and so forth, possibility of looking for hot spots, RMS system, see where they were located and so forth, that was my hopes in y3{
getting individuals familiar with the area.
The chemistry aspects, they were asked to learn sample points, they were given the, again found in the 15l diagrams that were given to them sample points where the chem tanks were, g
samole points of the tanks that they may be asked to do, this was mostly a self study course, they were asked if they had problems to bring those problems back, we would then discuss them with then. and set them right on their track again.
That's what this depicts.
20l YUHAS:
Did each int 1vidual draw survey maps?
2 l
MULLEAVY:
Groups of them as the, as the test, or as the training group 231 came over to the HP area, they were asked to draw them, now whether each 24}
specific individual drew their own maps, no, I would say as one group left 25i m
j yD" t :
l l
43 i
l 1:
and a new group came on I would show them what was done and ask t.9 m to i
2:
continue on.
31 4j YUHAS: What method of evaluation was made to determine if each individual 5
was in fact familiar with the differences between Unit 1 and 2 and familiar i
Gi for instince with the radiation monitoring systems with Unit 2?
7k l
Si MULLEAVY:
There was no formal method established of determining whether g;
they were uptaking this material or not, there was no exams, only discussionc.
10 11l DONALDSON:
I just have a couple final questions regarding this emergency g
training.
Emergency director training is outlined and retraining procedure 13j also and I note that vast majority of the emergency director training is accomplished through reading assignments? Is that allowed by your procadure?
15i 16 17!
DONALDSON:
Thank you.
Anotner memorandum here which is dated February 1, 1979 and it's to you from Frank McCormick and again it's a hand written g
20!
memo, I note there a lot of internal hand written memos and the subject is
2 11 Ok, now I'm asking this kind of question relative 22!
to this in the contexts that and A08 who becomes an A0A all of a sudden becomes eligible to be a monitoring team member in an emergency.
The memo 23J goes on to say...
24l 25!
'y>)
(
(
i
\\
{
44 i
lj MULLEAVY: Not, not all of a sudden becomes eligible...
2l
' I 3j DONALDSON: Well...
4!
3l MULLEAVY: They becom: eligible well, alright, I will agree with that.
g They become eligible but they are not sanctioned until they pass the course.
71 gj DONALDSON:
I'm interested to know then how you sanction them, do you keep g
a list of people who are currently qualified to perform various emergency duties, do you keep that list at the ECS somewhere?
10!
11:
MULLEAVY:
They have HP on their bcdge.
131 DONALDSON:
So you would just grab somebody with HP on their badge?.
15:
MULLEAVY:
Yes, umhum.
17l 00NALDSON:
That you realize of course, is not in the procedure, it states that all individuals within a given job category, in this case, rad chem techs, and A0A's will be assigned monitoring teams...
21!
MULLEAVY:
Umhum.
22}
i 23l 00NALDSON:
That was up until February when you had changed it and stated 24!
that those who are qualified, is that correct?
25i 0
\\
V
(.
j 45 I
lj MULLEAVY: Yes.
I 2:
i 3j DONALDSON:
Let me ask you how would you know if an HP were qualified or 4j not? He he wouldn't have that on his badge would he?
Si 6
MULLEAVY:
No he wouldn'c, no.
i 71 gl 00NALDSCN:
Back to the memo, the memo states, " you must include rad g,
monitoring team training in accordance with HPP-1670.9, must be clearly 101 identified as such in program outline in content detailed in lesson plan, g
not doing this leaves two options, either or which is desirable, one, run another special program for all A08's before they advance to A, or two, advance them to A without this training," and the parenthetical comment is
" boo, hiss bad, violation, citation" etc., etc., and the question to you 14, is, "How about it?" signed Fra k McCormick.
How about it, what happened?
16; MULLEAVY:
17I Nothing.
Nothing happened acout that par'S'Jlar one.
I talked to Len about it, we showed that, talked about it, but aid not act on it.
19l DONALDSON: When you say did not act, do you mean that either you did promote these individuals without the training, or the individuals were not 21!
promoted, what was the, what happened?
22 I
231 MULLEAVY:
Nothing happened in conjunction with that.
The individuals 24!
were neither promoted, we did not act on that memo at all.
25i k
i;\\) '
(,'
t
f 46 I
i 1l 00NALDSON: O k.
2!
3' YUHAS:
I'm going to read off a few names, an advanced health physics 4
training course was provided for several AO's to go from A08 to AGA and gj it's dated 6/27/78.
These individuals involved Mr. Demmy, Mr. Fountain, i
6i Mr. K hl, Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilson.
Do you remember instructing that course?
7 8t MULLEAVY:
Yes.
g 10!
g YUHAS:
This is indicated as a forty hour lecture course.
l 12l l
MULLEAVY:
Yes.
13) i 14l YUHAS:
I'm going to pass you that training program acministrative form, 15; and first ask you if the bottom is in fact your hand writing or someone elses?
17i 18!
MULLEAVY:
The bottom handwriting is someone elses.
19i 20:
YUHAS:
Did...
21l i
22l MULLEAVY:
In fact I didn't make this out at all.
231 24 25t i
n h\\, b s
t 47 i
ilj YUHAS:
You were the instructor though is that true?
i 2:
i 3j MULLEAVY:
Yes I was.
4i Sj YUHAS:
O k.
Did the course in fact run the full forty hours, or was it an 6
amended course?
7!
I gj MULLEAVY:
This was a forty hour course, yes, yeah.
9!
"^5
- " ' ' Y **"'
" ' Y "9 10l 11!
MULLEAVY:
Yes, yeah this one, if this was the last one... wait a minute 12!
I now.
131 14:
i YUHAS:
Have you, in a previous courses...
15i 16i MULLEAVY:
No, there was one after this.
18!
YUHAS:
Have you in a previous course amended the requirements far the A0 training?
20i 21!
MULLEAVY:
This particular course, excuse me, this one was an eighty, this 22l was a two week course, there was one after this that we did modify.
23l 24!
t ag' k\\ \\.
Lw!
\\)
[
k-1
l I
i i
I l
i 1:
YUHAS: Ok.
The course is normally eighty hours isn't that correct?
i 2!
3 MULLEAVY:
Yes it is.
4; 5l YUHAS:
Now you're indicating that that course was forty hours?
l Gi MULLEAVY:
No, no no.
I'm nut.
This has total of eighty hours here, gl Course duration is eighty.
Lecture hours was forty.
91 10 YUHAS:
Ok, right.
Excuse me.
Have you amended the scope of that course as described in procedure I think it's HP-1690 that lists very specifically 11l what these pecple are suppose to get for instance, use of various instruments, calibration scalers and shielding, have you changed the scope of the course?
13 14!
MULLEAVY:
Yes we did.
We did a pilot program on that as a modified advanced 15!
,6 program to see what the individuals would do with that particular one in 2
g the eighty hour course I found that there was too much free time and it 18!
could be condensed into a more meaningful program, this was a test group and thers was much talk about it and we did involve the training department, 196 we involved the operations crew, we involved Dick Dubeil, and so forth and 21:
on to see what their feeling was an we did a test group on this last session.
We found that they did receive the training rather well, we cut out scme of 23i the shielding calculations because we felt that that was a little heavier l
24l than what they really should have, and it got rather involved in the eighty hour program.
25i It would... felt that it wasn't necessary we did cut out l
h j
49 lj some of the field trips, we did give them the required, I felt, the required 2
training that was found in the eighty houf course, we cut out a lot of 3
their free time, study time on the job, and which they did ac::omplish, the 4;
exams were equally as good, as we had found with the eighty course, eighty 5
hour course and I feel that it went rather well.
We have not however 6
changed procedural documentation to reflect that the forty hour is equally 7l as well as the eighty hour.
But it was a test group and we felt that the i
g; last group did rather well.
9!
YUHAS:
10!
Did you... comensurate with co1 ducting this test did you issue a temporary change notice to the procedure 1690 indicating that a revised 1s,,!
lesson plan was going to be used.
13l MULLEAVY:
I did not.
g 15' YUHAS:
To meet as a test group?
17l MULLEAVY:
I did nat.
18t 19!
YUH/.S:
So someone reading the records then would assume that the full 20t course as provided in the health physics procedure was in fact provided...
22 MULLEAVY:
Structurally if they look at the training record I believe it 23{
does say a forty hour course and it's changed to a modified advanced and 24!
the lesson plan reflects that.
i 25i r)
C -
i
l
{
50 1.f YUHAS: And the people who passed the exam were in fact issued HP...
l 2:
i 3!
MULLEAVY:
Yes sir they were.
.4j g
YUHAS:
... Stickers for their badge?
61 7
. MULLEAVY: Yes they were.
i 8l YUHAS:
el The next one I'm gonna ask you to comment is the advanced HP recer-tification and it is dated 12/18/78.
And its a requal, I guess primarily 10;y for ops and HP certified AO's as best I can tell, why don't you take a look at that one and and comment on it, on what's going on there.
13i MULLEAVY: Well, first of all the list of names looks like the same hand-writing, so obviously one individual made that out, four hour requal program, 15 9' * # "~
16i ation says very good, whether that was based on the written test, probably was, and that is Pete Valez signature given on 12/18/78.
18r 19i YUHAS:
Did Mr. Valez fill out the front part of that form?
21!
MULLEAVY:
No Mr. Valez did not.
Looks like one individual filled that out, that's not his handwriting, no.
Usually one member of the group who I
was attending will fill it out.
It isn't indicated that one individual 2M must sign his own name.
25\\
nkd (v-s f
I-l i,
j 51 1
DONALDSON:
I'd like to show you another memorandum dated 9/8/78, and the 2j subject is Responsibility During a Rad Emergency on a Back Shift.
And it's 3
to Units 1 and 2 shift foreman, shift supervisors.
4l Sj MULLEAVY:
Yes.
Si 00NALDSON:
Are you familiar with that memorandum? Have you seen it before?
7 8'
gj MULLEAVY:
Oh yes, this came out of the operations crew didn't it? Yeah, 10l lli DONALDSON:
I note there that that particular memorandum assigns backshift emergency duties, to not only HP technicians, but also individuals who are operational in nature.
15; MULLEAVY: Yeah.
16; 17!
DONALDSON:
Was this memorandum, either coordinated with yourself or Mr.
Dubeil and was it, is it consistent with the discussions that you had with the C shift technicians that you mentioned earlier, Donnachie, Diemier, Heilman...
21l 1
22\\
l MULLEAVY:
Umhum.
Yes this, what th.s 9/8/78, and I believe my talk with 23!
them was after that, around that time.
That was part of this, I found 2 46 after talking to scme of the groups in their, in their training, that all 25i 1
ul!
i u
J
i
(
I 52 I
I 1:
of a sudden I found that there were some shifts doing things a little 2
differently. This shift supervisor would call his group here, this shift i
31 supervisor, oh he wouldn't do that maybe he'd do this ps:ticular thing, so 4
in an effort to, standardi:e, I did go to the operations people and say, Si ask them to come out with, and you know, let's get all these shift super-g visors together and play the game the same way as we're suppose to be 7
doing.
So this spurred this on and then we did take this to the groups.
i 8!
00NALDSON:
g; What is the normal procedure that is followed when you need to 10l either refine, change, or further describe the methods or procedures to be y
followed during an emergency? Do you make it a practice to issue memorandums to clarify change or modify the responses outlined in the procedures or g{
just exactly what do you do?
14!
f MULLEAVY:
Obviously we did it with a memorandum there the normal procedure should be to write a TCN if we wanted to follow it out right away write a 17;..
TCN to the existing procedure and then follow it with a PCR within 90 days if the change is going to be a permanent change.
191 DONALDSON:
In accordance with the emergency plan what indivicual has prime responsiblity for reviewing the emergency plan and initiating changes to the procedures? Maybe it would be the implementing of procedures.
I 23l MULLEAVY:
Well, we had a group set up supposedly, that Len was handling those particular things...I can't remember the.
25!
M,i
(
I
{
53 i
lj DONALDSON:
Let me clarify it this way, are the operations people responsible 2
for overseeing the operation on changes to tne response plan or is the 1
3; radiation protecticn chemistry group?
4:
gj MULLEAVY:
Radiation protection and chemistry group.
Gi 7{
DONALDSON:
I would note that this particular memorandum was signed by M.
g J. Ross, Unit 1, Supervisor of Operations.
Now according to your organir-gj ation what authority does Mr. Ross have over the control of operations in f
the direction of operations in Unit I? Could he be superceded by the Unit loty 2 Supervisor of Operations for example?
12l MULLEAVY:
Could be.
In the other Unit.
144 00NALDSON:
O k.
How should this procedure have been isssued?
16 MULLEAVY: Well if that was going to be something that we all followed and 17!
obviously I felt it was good because I presented it to the techs.
We should have gone through the aforementioned chain, TCN, PCR.
20r 00NALDSON:
I'm getting a feeling that a lot of little irritants were 21t constantly pointed up with the emergency planning program, either the 22!
j procedures themselves gave people problems in that they didn't know exactly 23\\
what to do, the training, the equipment, what happened to these comments...
24l they don't ever seem to have been translated into procedural changes and 25i AhI
\\)
C.
P
l i
54 I
l procedures seem to pretty much the same now n they were three four years 1
gj ago?
l 3t 4i MULLEAVY:
I believe the thing we're missing is a formal review when these Si things do come up and I'm sure that's part of the problem with the plan, is 6
the formal implementation of any changes that individuals see.
Obviously 7i having over 500 people there are that many different ideas as people see 8
them and how they relate to their own particular job'and when they come up gl and they are good they were implemented.
Now formally documented.
10!
11.l DONALDSON:
Has there ever been a program for formally revising the proce-dures? Let's put it this way, what is the normal procedure, do you have an g
organization on this station that reviews and approves emergency plan implementing procedures?
g 15:
MULLEAVY:
Do we have a group that normally does that.
Generally after a 1,/
drill there is a group formed that will implement any changes and so forth that is seen. An individual who is responsible to make sure that those changes are made.
19!
I don't believe there is a mechanism that states within such a time that those are made.
20; 21!
CONALD3CN:
Has there ever been a comment or sugjestion made by anyone that such a group be formed?
24l 25!
(h "
1 i
55 d
MULLEAVY:
Surely.
l 21 i
3l DONALDSON: Who are these comments made by?
41 5f MULLEAVY:
I believe it was yourself.
Si 7.
DONALDSON:
How many times have these comments been made?
8!
MULLEAVY:
Oh, I know of two anyway.
g 10l 00NALDSON:
3 What actions considered or reviewed by management to resolve these discrepancies or problems that were noted in the followup.'
13 MULLEAVY:
The formal review as I said after a dr
_:d so forth, the 141 formal review is set up at that particular time.
Followup is the problem.
16; DONALDSON:
Has this been an ongoing problem as far back as say 1976?
18!
MULLEAVY:
I believe so.
191 20!
l 00NALDSON:
One final question let's talk about drills for just a second.
21; l
I know that you run several,... call them on practice drills prior to 22; running a drill which ycu inform the NRC that you're about to conduct and I 231 believe last year you did in fact run six drills before the November 8th 241 l
Crill which you decided or determined would represent your official " drill 25i f'
c.
u
{ (J l
f I
f I
56 i
i 1:
to meet the requirements of your emergency plan".
Prior to the drill on 2
November 8th, & day before, a week before, two days b2 fore, were any indi-3 viduals given instruction as to what their specific duties would be on the 1
4j day of the drill that was to be observed by the NRC?
51 i
6l MULLEAVY:
Specific instructions to individuals?
7 DONALDSON:
For example, either you or yourself if you know if anyone did 8
g, would approach a technician, a auxiliary operator and say, you will be on a 10l ffsite tomorrow because we're having a drill and I would like you to be sure that your team member is so and so?
g l
12l MULLEAVY:
No. No, because I assigned those and what I generally would do which is to write them down in my little notebook that I carried around and then do that when I got there at the scene.
16i DONALDSON: What is your understanding of the purpose of conducting a drill?
ISt 19I MULLEAVY:
To look for spontaneous compliance with our plan as we saw it.
21i DONALDSON:
How spontaneous or how would you say the evaluation of a drill 22 on November 8th... would that be a valid indicator of the ability of the 23!
organization to function in a real emergency?
2 41 25i c
}
{2."
f l
57 l
l 1!
MULLEAVY:
No.
No, it would give you an idea on where to go, the thing 2j that I had found the only help in a drill is to know where the equipment 3
is.
It familiari:es you with what you're up against at the time.
But 4j spontaneity in one of those things really doesn't exist.
You't< waiting h
for the actual time to begin.
Generally it is known when the siren will go g
off.
And you're ready.
It's very difficult to get a spontaneity thing at 7f that particular point because you know it's going to happen.
Si DONALDSON:
Do you recall after any of the drilis the last series of drills g,
that you ran October, November of 1978 any discussions regarding the emergency g
organi:ation that had been established at Three Mile Island and the ability of that organization to deal with extensive inplant problems?
13l MULLEAVY:
No, I don't believe that we've ever discussed the ability of the g
organi:ation for extensive anything.
And I doubt if any plan really takes it that far.
i 17!
DONALDSON:
Had you discussed it in the context of the outline of your organi:ation whether or not tne organization allowed any form of inplant
,19 radiation protection or surveys, things of that nature to continue?
,40[
1 21:
MULLEAVY:
No.
No, it's very hard on a drill becaus ; the drills are over 22l in two or three hours.
That's what I found most difficult in the actual 23i event.
You just can't....
24l 25i
i
(
58 DONALDSON:
I guess what I'm hearing you say is that the drills negatively lj gj condition you?
I 31 4j MULLEAVY: Oh, no. No, I said before in other interviews conducted by 5;
yourself that without the one drill where we made this transition from the 6l primary ECS to the secondary ECS was most beneficial because I knew how to 7j do it.
It was very disgruntled that the first time that they made us go I
frem one to the other.
But by gum it sure helped me this time.
g 91 DONALDSON:
I believe there was a comment cr do you recall a comment rela-10 tive to the adequacy of washdown areas?
12!
13j MULLEAVY:
Adequacies of washcown areas.
I don't think that we've ever in a drill gone to the adequacy or inadecuacy of a washdcwn area. We knew where they were. We knGW what we would do in the OVent that We had to have one but we never did it. We never went tdat.far.
17l YUHAS:
Getting back to the November drill for the NRC.
You mentioned that you wrote down in a book the assignments that you were going to make.
Was this the day before the drill or scmething?
21; MULLEAVY:
This was the day before or generally that morning because I knew who was on shift and I knew who I wanted wnere.
23l 24l 25!
h)^
c] u -,
s
f i
59 l
If YUHAS:
Did you show that he.ok to your rad chem tecns?
i 2;
3l MULLEAVY:
No.
4j Sj YUHAS:
Did you discuss it with any of your rad chem techs?
i 61 MULLEAVY:
No.
7
\\
8\\,
YUHAS:
Ok. We've been told that you assigned individuais prior to the gj i
10l drill specifically what team they were going to be on who they were going to be with.
g 12' 13l HuuEAvY:
no.
14 M&
You feel conMen 2at you & nog 15 16; MULLEf/Y:
1/!
I feel confident that I did not.
I knew that an individual and I had told them 2 head of time that your in chemistry you stay in chemistry you guys are in HP. I want you here in HP.
20!
YUHAS:
But you did not say you will be an....
Not to the point letter designation but to the generic term of for instance you four fellows or you six fellows will be offsite environmental you fellows will be onsite envi-i 23l 24; renmental you fellows will be chemistry, did you do that sort of thing the day before?
25!
l c u..
s b
i 60 lj MULLEAV/:
I think I differentiated between chemistry and HP pecple.
2!
l 3j YUHAS:
But to the best of your reccliection to what extent...
4I 5l MULLEAVY:
I don't recall them assigning them different areas, no.
i 6i 7j YUHAS:
Have you ever had an unscheduled or unannounced drill?
8!
gj MULLEAVY:
No. No.
There ws.s one when they called at home early morning f r an acc untability to see who could come.
10l 11!
O,0NALDSON:
Had you every run a dril' on the backshift?
13l MULLEAVY:
Yes, there was a drill.
Yes, on the backshift.
y 1s YUHAS:
Do you require participation in drills, let's say if you're scheduling a drill for just arter normal working on the swing shift, in other words 17,;
that shift between four o' clock and midnight.
Ok, does that drill -hen you 18{
have your training drills do you require that people hold over for e vetime 19i and did they participate in the drill?
21I MULLEAVY:
Yes.
22!
23 l
YUHAS:
Do the individuals hold over or do they leave?
24i 25i
.,t)a
i 61 I
lf MULLEAVY:
There has_been occasion where they have held.
Some leave.
Say 2j they can't stay, l
3!
4; YUHAS:
Is that cleared through company management prior to initiation of 5
those individuals who would participate and those who are excused from I
Si participation?
i 7!
i 8j MULLEAVY:
It's cleared through our own department management.
91 10l YUHAS:
So you're cognizant of the fact whether or not people...
i ll, h
MULLEAVY:
Yes.
l 13)
YUHAS:
.... people actually went to the drill?
14 1si MULLEAVY:
Yes.
16 17!
YUHAS: Are the training records then accurate as to who participated and who didn't?
19!
20:
MULLEAVY:
I believe they are, yes.
That was taken from usually the..
made up during the critiques...
22;;
23!
YUHAS:
Are technicians invited to participate in the critiques?
25i u-l
(
62 1
MULLEAVY:
They are invited, yes.
2!
3 YUHAS:
Mcw is this invitation extended?
41 gj MULLEAVY:
There is a critique afterwards.
Any one who wishes to stay may 6i stay.
7l 8
DONALDSON:
Are comments from the participants at the technician level solicited?
e 10i y
MULLEAVY: Yes, they....uh.. solicited, they are entertained, whether they are solicited or not I can't be I can't be sure whether they are specifically 13l asked for comments.
14 DONALDSON:
I might mention that any critique I've every attended, the only ones to present Comments are the observers.
17l MULLEAVY:
If an individual has a comment he may comment.
They certainly do in other instances.
They are not discouraged.
20r YUHAS:
Just a couple of questions away from emergency planning.
Do you 21!
know Mr. Sill Allen, from Pennsylvania Pcwer and Light?
23!
MULLEAVY:
Yes.
241 l
25{
c',
)
o cV.
[
l l
I 63 i
1!
YUHAS:
Did Mr. Sill Allen come on site in the first three days to assist 2
you?
\\
31 6
4r MULLEAVY:
I don't believe in Unit l's Control Room.
In the first three 5
days?
61 7j YUHAS:
Yes.
l Sl MULLEAVY:
I can't rememcer.
He may have up in Unit 2's Control Room.
g 10f YUHAS: Was there something that mignt construe as a secondary ECS established at the Observation Crnter early in say the first later part of the first I
day?
13!
14!
MULLEAVY:
As far as manipulation of offsite teams, there could have very well been.
17!
YUHAS:
Do you know who was administrating that?
Is!
MULLEAVY:
No I don't.
20f 21; YUHAS:
Is there...do you know of any way of determining the numbers and 22l job descriptions of various outside health physics technicians that arrived i
23!
to support you in the first three days?
25i
@l e
Ch' I
I
(
64 I
1,'
MULLEAVY:
I have no idea.
I've stated before that I was told I've forgotten 2l how many days into the drill that I worked for someone else and I knew 3
nothing of this group.
l 41 g
YUHAS:
So essentially yourself, speaking for yourself and I guess having a 61 knowledge somewhat of Mr. Dubiel you people really were so involved in 7
inplant coordination of offsite activities that you had no idea that of the gj number and the types that for instance RPMs from different plants were g
arriving...
10l MULLEAVY:
I had not idea wnat that function of the Observation Center which I felt went haywire.
I had no idea that all these people were here.
13l l
YUHAS:
Had you had an idea of who was here and their capabilities, would f
you have used them in the plant?
16i i
MULLEAVY:
Certainly would have.
Yes.
Once the EB group and I recognized 17) those particular people they were most helpful.
But that was after we regrouped and went in over to Unit 2 and set up our HP office over there.
20!
YUHAS:
Who best could describe to me when the arrival of for instance 211 charcoal cartridges from MSA was delivered to the site? Do you know the 22; mechanism, were they just kind of loaded on the back of the truck and 23i dumped at the process center, do you know if it went, we're trying to....
24l 25f U
C c.
O~
P i
{
65
- lj MULLEAVY:
I don't believe that they...I know that I talked ta Dave Limroth 2j about that or was in a meeting when it was asked of him. And he was opera-3 ting out of the Observation Center and I don't know myself.
I know that t
4j they all of a sudden were available and it was my understanding or after 5l talking to Dave Limroth that these things... everybody had from the outside 6
just sensed them. And I am not sure when they arrived.
It just in my 7j recollection they were here all of a sudden.
i 81 YUHAS:
g, That was the evening of the 29th you first started seeing charcoal cartridges.
10 11!
MULLEAVY:
Yes, because I believe we began to have them on our hips then.
gj The respirator.
14!
OCNALDSON:
On the first day team training, the are two parts to that.
4 There's the requirement for the multi-media recertification which is every lo,,t three years and while certification is current they receive a review of the siti-media course aspects and also a requirement second part to review each year the contents of procedure 1670.11 which is amergency medical for injured or contaminated persons.
Did you conduct any of those courses during 1978?
22l 23l.
MULLEAVY:
Not for the first aid, no that's done by Earl Gee and his group, the safety group.
24\\
25i
_u o
c i
i
l 66 l
lj CONALDSON:
Does Earl Gee also review procedure 1670.11?
2!
l 3!
MULLEAVY:
He does not I believe review that particular procedure although i
4 we do have an annual drill which is our medical drill which is conducted by Si Radiation Maragement Corporation. We do have one session, the day before 6f the medical drill where we do invite operations personnel, HP personnel to 7j attend that evening I invite the... at the Observation Center our ambulence i
r gj crews from the area.
A letter on the call is sent to those particular g,
individuals indicating when it's going to be.
We generally have Radiation
.10l Management Corportion here to give them a session in the evening on their 11!
responses to medical emergencies.
The following morning Hersey Medical is sent a group, Radiation Management goes over there to conduct a session h
with them and then in the afternoon of the following day we usually have our drill.
~15i DONALDSON:
You mentioned that you invite operations people.
I believe the people assigned to the first aid rescue teams would be aux operator, A's again and rad chem technicians.
19i MULLEAVY:
That's right.
21l 00NALOSON:
You say invite.
And during that course you cover the procecures to be followed in the 1670.11 are infact all the people who are assigned to that team, do they attend?
24!
d 25i nv c
5 b
I
[
67 l
1!
MULLEAVY:
No, I don't believe all of them do because they're not all here 2
at that particular time and to have a session for each one of them we have i
3t not addressed that.
4!
Si DONALDSON:
Do all people who could potentially be assigned to that team j
61 participate in the drill?
i 7\\
gl MULLEAVY:
No.
t 9l DONALDSON:
O!
Then it would be conceivable that some of the individuals who y
are listed on this training record as being current in their training for first aid.
Is it possible that some of these individuals may have received g
the multi-media refresher yet not received a refresher in procedure 1670.11 i
or participated in the drill?
1 41 15 MULLEAVY:
I would have to see what those training records are.
I'm not sure whether 1670.11 is addressed with Earl Gee.
I don't believe so.
i 18(
00NALDSON:
In the past has it been your responsiblity to conduct the 1670.11 review?
20i 21;I MULLEAVY:
To conduct the drill.
22l 23{
DONALDSON:
To concuct the drill.
24i 25l d'
e i -
c i
~
{
68 i
1!
MULLEAVY:
Right.
2:
i 3j DONALDSON:
I don't have anymore questions.
4!,
gl YUHAS: Just one additional question and that is... having a lot of problems 6
trying to establish dose accountability in the first three days.
What 7l I've run up against is descrepancies between values that for instance g
appear in the ECS Log as the guy's dosimeter read out and indicated this or g;
an individual was standing in ECS and took his dosimeter over to read it i
10r ut because he had got a large exposure and he remembers that it reads this.
11 But ' hen I look at the form five, your computer printout, there's
]
not a good correlation between these other document values of what the 13f TLD's read and what appears on the form five.
When did you first get any y
kind of dose update for individuals from the TLD system, can you remember the date?
15!
16:
MULLEAVY:
Probably about a week after the incident when we began to get 17!
the forms from the TLD people which had bogie numbers on them.
It was 18t probably about a week afterwards.
20!
YUHAS:
In..when you were administering the ECS in that three or four day 21:
22l period what measures were taken so tnat individuals were aware of their dose?
23l I
24i 251 i
Qb^
l 4
(. 9
a u
I t
[
69 l!
MULLEAVY:
It was by those forms sent out on a shiftly basis I believe.
2 These were dose tracking forms. And they came to all the departments, well, 1
3j let's see operations came to us in the Unit 2 Control Room and they had a i
4 bogie number on them where an individual would not go above or supposedly Sj not go above that number, so that we could keep him well within limits for I
6; the quarter.
i I
7\\
YUHAS: This was during the first three days?
g 9I MULLEAVY:
No, no, no. The first week is the first time I saw that.
10 11' y
YUHAS:
Excuse me, let me clarify.
The period of time that I'm speaking of 3l is the majority of dose problems occured the morning of the 28th until really the night of the 30th.
p 15i MULLEAVY:
I saw nothing on any exposures at all during that time.
r 17 YUHAS:
So essentially the only method you had or you didn't have that the 18!
individual had was either if he keot track of it himself by note or if he 19t tried to rememoer how much he had accumulated based on verbal cantacts.
20!
21!
MULLEAVY:
Now that is correct.
22lj t
23{
MULLEAVY:
Now that was myself.
And that was my own situation that I did not know their particular exposures.
Other than you know what the guys 2Si OC
(. y.
/'
s l
{
70 I
lj were calling us in and saying I have so much we were asking tham what they 2
had on their dosimeters. That was the offsite teams and what they were 3j getting.
4l 3
YUHAS:
O k.
In the first period c time who was assigned responsiblity for i
6i dose accountability? TLDs or whicher it was pocket dosimeters...
7!
I gj MULLEAVY:
That whs taken away, rushed offsite and I don't even know who 9l was in charge of that group.
I do know, only because I had to go over to 101 the Observation Center to pickup my TLD, did I even see what kind of a g
complex was over there and who was running the show over tnere as far as I g
know Mike Buring was there and he had set up the TLD equipment all of the 131 equipment was taken offsite and being handled by the group offsite.
14!
Im[
YUHAS:
Yuhas...
16:
MULLEAVY:
I have nothing to do with that...during that time.
ISr YUHAS:
Again, I'm trying to confine my comments to the first three days and I don't from what you're describing setup and everything I think that must be later than the first three days.
I think the first couph days the TLD reader didn't leave the site until the 29th.
t think Egenrider...
23i 24l MULLEAVY:
Egenrider did do some reading...
25i pp 3
{h
.i o.
I i
71 1
lj YUHAS:
...was doing the only reading....
2!
l 3;
MULLEAVY:
... background was getting much..very high out there.
Cause I do 4
recall one comment of him mentioning the background there.
Then I believe w
gj that's when it was taken off. I'm not sure what day it was.
I Gi i
YUHAS:
7; I'd like to thank you for coming over Mr. Mulleavy, I don't think gj we have any further questions at this time.
9l SHACXLETON:
10!
This is the conclusion of this interview of Mr. Mulleavy.
7g Time is now 2:19 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time.
June 4, 1979.
12!
131 14i 15 16; 17'!
18!
19' 20i 21:
22l 23I 24l 2Si
<: M L