ML19242D906
| ML19242D906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1979 |
| From: | Carl D METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908280819 | |
| Download: ML19242D906 (28) | |
Text
l l
~^f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION i
I 1
1ll In the Matter of:
il 2
IE TMI INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW 3i, of Mr. David C. Carl, Environmental Scientist I
C:
1 6
7 I
i O!
l Trailer #203 9{i NRC Investigation Site TMI Nuclear Power Plant 10; Middletown, Pernsylvania ll!
May 18, 1979 12; (Date of Interview) 13 July 9, 1979 (Oate Transcript Typec) 1 41
- 219 15i (Tape Numcer(s))
16 17!
18i 19 20j 21!
l NRC PERSONNE'a 22; Mr. Thomas H. Essig l
Mrs. Corenthis B. Kelley 23l Mr. Cwen C. Shackleton zi;;
79W220s77 25I m.,
() o -O]
LJ d #
{
ll l
l I
1{
SHACKLETON:
This is an interview of Mr. David C. Carl.
Mr. Carl is 2
an environmental scientist for the Metropolitan Edison Company assigned 31 to the Three M' e Island nuclear station.
This interview is beginning 4j at 11:09 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 18, 1979.
Present to 5
conduct this interview from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 6j Mr. Thomas H. Essig.
Mr. Essig is the Chief, Environmental and Special Projects Section, assigned to Region III.
Also present is Mrs. Cccenthis B. Kelley.
Mrs. Kelley is an inspector auditor with the Office of 8
Inspector and Auditor for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
10; ass gne He ua ers, asMngton, E My name Owen L RacMeton.
I I am an investigator assigned to Region V.
This interview is taking place in trailer number 203 which is located just south of the south security gate at the Three Mile Island facility.
14!
Just prior to going on tape I presented to Mr. Carl a two page document
,5:
1 from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commssion which sets forth the scope i
and purpose of this investigation.
It 'urther identifies the authority 1/-
granted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Lommission by the United States 18:
Congress to conduct this investigation.
It also identifies Mr. Carl's 19' rights to refuse to be interviewed and to refuse to submit a signed 20j statement.
21l 22 On the second page of this two page document Mr. Carl answered three 23 I
questions that are listed there, all in the afirmative.
At this time 24l to make it a matter of record on tnis recording I'm going to ask 25:
Mr. Carl to respond orally to these questions.
[
C ', d n
r i
[l 2
y SHACKLETON:
Mr. Carl, did you understand the document that I am referring to?
3 i
4j CAPL:
Yes I did.
5 6l SHACKLETON:
And do we, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have.
7 your permission to tape this interview?
i 8!
CARL:
Yes.
g I
101 i
SHACKLETON:
And would you like a copy of the tape?
11l l
12}
l CARL:
Yes.
13; 14!
SHACALETON:
Alright sir.
That will be provided at the conclusion of 15-this interview.
And now Mr. Carl, to assist members of our investigative team as well as other persons who will be listening to your comments, 17!
t would you please give us briefly your educational and work experience 18!
as it rel-tes to the nuclear industry.
19i 20:
l CARL:
I'm a spring 1978 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, 21l when I received a Bachlor of Science degree in meteorology.
The Pil specific option that I picked within my major was air pollution metecrology 23l l
or environmental meteorology.
Most of the special courses that were 24!
involved in that option had to do with micro meteorology and air 25l v
i (e
s i
i l
l 3
i i
1 pollution meteorology.
I came to work for Met Ed in August of 1978 2{
and have been there to date.
I work in what is called Radiation i
3{
Safety and Environmental Engineering section of Generation Engineering 4j at Met Ed in production supervision.
l Sj SHACKLETON:
Thank you very much, Mr. Carl.
And now I'll turn the 6(
interview over to Mr. Essig.
7 I
ESSIG:
I think before we begin the questioning there is one term g'
which I'll define which we'll be using during the interview which I 10 will provide a definition of for the purpose of making transcription a i
little easier.
The term we'll be using is called chi over Q.
Designed 12,i by the greek letter chi, capital, divided by capital Q and it is defined as the atmospheric dispersion factor or atmospher ic dispersion 14!
parameter and can be typed X/Q and it is in units of normally of secrnds per cubic meter.
Now, to begin with the questioning.
Mr.
Carl, what I would like you to do for us is -- we are fccusing on the 17!
I st three days following the event of March 28.
In other words we 18!
will be talking avout activities that went on during the 28th, Wednescay, 19i Thursday the 29th and Friday the 30th through midnight.
What we'd 20:
like to establish first is exactly what you were called upon by your 21:
employer to do.
Whether or not you were based primarily in the corporate 22!
office, you stayed there during the entire period of time an.1 if so 23 what were you called upon to do?
Or if you did come to the site, any 2 41 telephone contacts that you made, liaison with the various contractors 25!
'3
+,
{ ; '<,1; O
t i
[
4 I
1l t:;at are used here on the site, that type of thing.
So if you could, i
2!
what I'd like you to do now as the best you recali we recognize that i
3i the trail is getting a little cold now since it was better than a 4
month ago...or a half ago that the event happened, we'd like as best d
you can to pretty much walk us through the three days following the q
6 event in terms of your activities and where you can, if possible, 7
assign a time to a p'rticular activ.cy that you might have done.
So, 8
could you start with the 28th and just sort of recall the best you can your actions during the first three days? And then I'll take it from t
g there.
10l 7.11 i
CARL:
Alright.
For the duration of the period in question for the 12 ',
three days I was located in the Reading office of Met Ed, the corporate i
office.
On the morning of the actual incident, May 28, I got to work 14!
roughly about eight o' clock and learned that Unit 2 had tripped off line, but no one had informed us, my group anyway, what really the severity of the situation was.
Roughly about nine o' clock, I would 17i say, in talking with Michael Buring, who works in the actual radiation 181 part of our group, radiation safety part, I learned that there had 19t been some releases to the atmosphere and tnere was a question over 20j l
actual meteorological conditions, wind speed, wind direction, how 21:
receptive was the atmos;here to mixing the actual release.
At that 22 time Mike made a request that I get in touch with Pickard, Lowe and 23 Garrett who is Met Ed's contractor as far as collecting and reducing 24!
i meteorological information from the island.
I did call there and, I 25!
,oc n'?
v i a,
s I l
l l
l 5
y believe, I spoke with -- I guess it would have to be either Tom Potter 2
or Mark Abrams.
I celieve my first contact was with Tom Potter.
I i
3l relayed to him that there was some sort of incident occurence, sort of release occurring at the island and we needed some meteorological 5
data, more or less right away -- wind speed, wind direction and some X/Q data to assess the mixing.
Like I said before, there wasn't 6
really a strong feeling for how serious the whole incident was going to become or really the nature of the incident yet.
He followed 8
through with my request and worked some calculations, I guess, off his g
computer that he has access to, at Picka"d, Lowe and Garrett and later 10!
11ll on in the day telecopied data to Met Ed's offices in Reading concerning l
the first few hours.
I believe I requested data from seven o' clock 12l a.m. through whenever he could finish the printout and telecopy it to As the day went on we realized that things were becoming a little me.
bit more serious than perhaps what we had originally understood.
I got a call later back from Tom saying that he had heard something on i
the radio as to the situation at TMI and that he was working on getting 17!
I data to me as fast as he could.
When I received the data from Pickard 18!
and Lowc later on in the day, I looked at it and spoke about it to 19t Mike Bur ng and assessing which sectors would be affected, where the 20!
wind was coming from, the nature of the mixing and that sort of thing.
21j I believe, right after that the data was fairly legible, I think; it 22f j
came over a telecopier.
What I did was, I took the data, reduced it 23!
l and sent it off to the island.
I got in touch with somebody from 24!
Health Physics, I believe it was Lynn Landry, who was in Unit l's 25; i
i
6 1!
control room at the time.
I believe Health Physics was wcrking out of Unit l's control room.
Informed him that I would be fowarding meteorological 2
3l data to him from roughly seven o' clock in the morning and that's 4
cxaccly what I did.
I kept the original copies that I had gotten over 5
the telecopier and sent that off to Lynn Landry.
Gi ESSIG:
Excuse me, do you recall about time that was that you sent the a
n y as R near 2 e end of G e..
8 CARL:
It was near the end of the day, if I recall correctly.
And it 10!
l 11l had data from roughly Leven o' clock a.m. through roughly one o' clock, two o' clock in the afternoon, roughly.
I have a record of it but I
,2 1
I can't think of it off hand.
13l I
14!
ESSIG:
Okay.
15.
16:
CARL:
All right.
As far as the first day is concerned, that was about the largest part that I contributed.
Just assessing it and 18J talking it over with Mike where the release was going and how it would 19e mix with the atmosphere.
As I recall the mixing conditions weren't 20!
l Very favorable at the time.
There weren't a great deal of strong 21:
winds and stability was such what it didn't lead to a lot of mixing. I 22 am just reading over the data. On the second day I continued to contact 24!
j Pickard and Lowe.
I believe ncw I was speaking to Mark Abrams.
We 24i had a little bit better feeling for the severity of what was going on 25!
l s
l l
l j
7 If with release to the c.tmosphere, that sort of thing.
We more or less 2{
set up a routine where he would request meteorological data from his i
3{
computer at Pickard and Lowe and telecopy it to me in Rr ding.
I l
4j would then look over tne data, discuss it with Mike Buring, this was 5
Thursday, I believe; and send it on to the island.
As far as the 1
6j second day sending it to the island, I believe, I contacted Mike t
7 Janouski who was also involved in health physics.
I went through the 8
same procedures again telecopied it to the island to Mike Janouski, i
That's about it for the second day.
g 10!
ESSIG:
Would you have telecopied it roughly at the same..near the end of the day again?
l 13l CARL:
That's correct.
15 ESSIG:
Okay.
And this time it was to Mike Janouski instead of Lynn r
Landry.
17' l
18; CARL:
That's correct.
19' 20 ESSIG:
Okay.
21; 22l l
CARL:
Friday again the data came in an along about Friday we 23l had -- I had tried to get a grip on things as far as a summary of the 24l
[
first few hours of things.
I started a summary function of meteorological 25!
i s
t i )
e i
l 8
1{
data in relation to where the wind was coming from, how strong were i
2{
the winds and what sector was affected.
That went for the actual date 3j and hour and what I've done with that was compiled it and made copies of it.
I have a record of that now, a full record in Reading and I've Si sent that to the data reduction and management group. As far as the 6
third day was concerned, again I believe I sent it to Mike Janouski fa 7
nealth physics, all the meteorological informa' ion; and other than that I can't think of anything really important as far as contacts at g
the island was concerned.
i 9) 10l 11'
-KELLEY:
David, I believe you referied to the incident date as being May 28.
Would you clarify it for the record that that actual month is 12; i
March?
131 14!
CARL:
That is correct.
I'm sorry.
It is March 28.
15 16; ESSIG:
Dave I would like to talk with you a little bit about a particular 17 procedure and I would like to first describe the procedure for the 18!
record and then talk with you a little about it.
The procedure to 19:
which I am referring is radiation e.r.ergency procedure 1670.4 and its 20!
title is, " Radiological Dose Calculations."
Have you seen this procedure 21!
before?
Are you..
22l l
23l l
CARL:
I have seen it but I'm act familiar with it.
24!
25!
I"
)b 9
0 l
f 9
i 1l ESSIG:
Okay, you have not.
Were you ever given an opportunity perhaps 2
to review it?
3; i
CARL:
No I was not.
4!
5l ESSIG:
You were not.
There is one particular section of the procedure 6
7 that I would like to talk with you about just a little bit.
Majbe I could just have you quickly look at it.
It's not very long.
This g
particular section to which I am referring, Section 4.3 called " Selection g
g of Overlay (Isopleths)." Would you have a look at that section there.
It's just a couple of things I want to ask you about it.
It just runs on the paragraph on this page and then down to well, not quite all of the second page.
IF
[ PAUSE OF ABCUT 30 SECONDS]
16!
ESSIG:
While Mr. Carl is reviewing that procedure for the record the 17i term that I just used, "isopleth," is spelled i s-o p-1 e-t-h and in 18!
this instance it's used to describe a transparent overlay which I have 19i setting in front of me.
Actually two overlays for two different 20i meteorological conditions, and the isopleths are plots of X/Q values 21:
which we previously defined as a function of dcwnwind distance for 22!
meteorological conditions called stable and unstable.
23, i
24!
I 25j f
7.n u,o i
( iu) d
i
(
10 1
ESSIG:
Have you finished.
l 2'
3l CARL:
Yes I have.
I ESSIG:
What I would like to do is just, somewhat for my own information 5
6 as I'm going through trying to evaluate the actions taken on site 7
here, what I'd like to do is -- I'm not by training in meteorologist, I'm a health physicist.
But I've had to use in the course of my g
g health physics duties, particularly in environmental assessment, I've 10 had to use X/Q valcx and I only have a very rough idea of how they're f
,1,;
generated.
So I'll probably be asking you same--what appear to be somewhat fundamental questions just more for n.y own information to help me as I'm going through.
I have in front of me riow a copy of the I
chart from the Unit I wind speed and direction recorder for the period 14!
of time that we are interested in -- March 28, 1979 through March 30.
15:
What I'd like to do is to discuss a couple of particular periods of 16!
17j times and how you feel, Mr. Carl, this procedure wauld or should have i
been applied.
i 18i 19' CARL:
Before you continue I'd like to say that as far as practical work with th.
sort of thing, implementation of this procedure and 21!
comparing strip charts, I have not in the past done that sort of 22!
thing.
I have not had oppertunity to be at the island and work with 23 this procedure and compare the strip charts.
So I don't feel as 24j l
though I could give a worthwhile answer as far as not having training 25
/ E, r; P'O o..a Ui s
I l
[
11
\\
lj in this sort of background.
The theory I understand, but as far as 2
the practical application and/or implementation of the procedure with I
3j strip charts, I don't fael as though I'm extreme u.. at all qualified i
4j to give you that information.
i Si ESSIG:
6 Maybe there is another individual in the plant that I should 7
ask that same question of, rigt.t?
8 CARL:
Perhaps the person or persons who is...
~
i 10 ESSIb:
Lan you suggest a name to me?
11;.
i 12; i
CARL:
I don' t know at the time who was monitoring the equipment in 13l t
the control room.
As far as actual I&E people, or I&C rather, they 14!
may have been the ones doing the actual monitoring, both at the meteorological station or in the control room during the incident.
But I r, ave had absolutely no application of this procedure with control room data.
17!
i 18!
'- Okay.
Well let me ask then a little bit more cf a -- maybe n> t get down to the actual specifics walking througn this particular 20t c art.
What I would like to do then instead is to -- As I understand 21l
[
it using the wind range as described in this procedure is a method of 2 21 calculating or estimating which stability class that we should consider 23 in the calculation and the other way of doing it is as stated here in 24!
the procedures, to use the vertical temperature difference as measured 25!
-uJ
} t)
l 12 i
lj between the 150 and the 50 foot levels on the meteorological tower.
t 2{
Now I believe in the particular instance here the method employed was i
3 in fact to use the wind range rather than the vertical temperature difference.
Both of which were available in the control room.
In 4
Sj y ur experience or given the background that you have, is it your i
6j opinion that the wind range in this case would have been an equally 7
valid method of determining stability or would have been a better 8
method of determining stability than would the vertical temperature difference?
gj 1
10 CARL:
I would only have to say in my opinion.
In my opinion and in my opinion alone, it would be -- the vertical temperature difference would probably be a better indication of stability.
That's only in my opinion.
14!
15-ESSIG:
Why would you say that, in your opinion?
17I I
CARL:
Because in all the work that I've done in my past education has 13; used wind -- excusa me -
vertical temperature difference as an indicacion 19 of stability class in selecting standard deviation s vertical and horizontal dispersion of pollutants.
In this case radioactive release.
21;l 22\\
l ESSIG: So would it be a fair conclusion based on what you have said 23{
that, if you were to have done this procedure you would have likely 24j recc mended using the delta T as being the primary indicator of stabi-25!
lity rather than the wind range?
l
[ I),
g I
t,. O a L_-
l l
l 13 I
1[
CARL:
Well, if I read the procedure where the actual implementation 2
o' the procedure does call for using wind range as a first choice.
3j And if the procedure was approved and a valid revision, then that's 4
the case that I would have foll:
id.
However, I have not used that in my previous experience or edua tion.
I bl 7f ESSIG:
The statement in the procedure in paragraph 4.3.3. where it Says to meabure the average extremes of the ivind direction. r the gj previous 20 minute period.
I'm trying to make a littie bit of sense out of that statement.
I'm trying to see exactly what it's telling It is followed by a parenthetical expression which says "do not me.
consider single peaks in determining the range" Do you have any idea i
12l cf what the writer of that statement really had in mind there? We're 13l talking about -- well, I guess I'll have to just come back to this chart momentarily.
Let's pretend for the moment that we' re just talking about the wind variability on any old day, act necessarily the 28th or the 30th.
When it says don't use single peaks, if I'm looking 17i at a section like is shown here on this chart from about 0940 to 10 18f o' clock in the morning.
It says don't use single peaks; then am I
_o, t
correct that the procedure is telling me to discard these two right 20 l
here and to discard this one, would you say?
I'm just trying to.
21:
22l l
CARL:
In my opinion, yes.
23i I
24l l
25 w. "-
1 y. )
6
14
{
ESSIG:
g Yeah, that's all I'm asking you for, is what...
I 2l l
ARU 3f In my opinion that would be the correct way to interpret that 4j statement.
The reason for elimin.-ting peaks is to more or less get a 5l trending sort of thing as to what was the average fluctuation of wind direction.
6 You would have, say sporadic blurbs here and there, perhaps; turbulence, whatever.
7 8!
l ESSIG:
These variations here, these peaks are in fact real?
To the 91 best of your knowledge, this type of thing would be expected to happen 10l
[
on occasion and particularly at low wind speeds, I gather?
11!
12l l
CARL:
Yes.
131 14; ESSIG:
I'm wondering if the 20 minutes here, if that was selected mainly because the major divisions on the chart here on the time speed 16-are at 20 minute intervals or if there is some technical bases for 17!
selecting 20 minutes.
Could you shed any light on that?
18 19:
CARL:
I really don't have a feeling for that because I didn't have 20:
21'j an input to the actual writing of the procedure.
22lI ESSIG: O k.
I guess another question on the proceoJre:
the wind range 23l method, do you know off the top of your head if less than 45 degrees --
24I I
is that a good definition of stable?
25!
l t
1
l l
{
15 i
l!
'A L As I have saic, my past or previous experience with i
2:
ESSIG:
Is all with delta T.
31 4j CARL:
Right.
Evaluatirig stability has been with delta T's.
5 6i ESSIG:
7l One other area that I'd like to ask you a question about on this procedure.
And I recognize that you're not familiar with it but g
this is more of a generic cuestion than anything else.
The...
g 10l 6
SHACKLETON:
Tcm you'd better hold right now and put your question on 11;i I
the other side of the tape if we may.
The time is now 11._.
c.m 12!
I eastern daylight tia.e and we'll cut the tape at this point and change 13l the cassette. This is a continuation of the interview of Mr. David C.
14' Carl.
The time is now 11:39 a.m. eastern daylight time May 18, 1979.
Please continue Mr. Essig.
17!
ESSIG:
Dave I'd like to ask you just a question or two about the page 18i to which I'm now referring, procedure 1670.4 again.
And the particular 19!
page is Enclosure 3, titled "Offsite Dose Calculation Sheet."
I guess 20; really there's only one question that I wanted to ask you on this.
In 2 11 this procedure it takes a step wise determination of the release rate, 22f l
the source term in the terms of c, ries per second; the X/Q value in 23' terms of seconds per cubic meter anc then the two are multiplied and 24; I
the concentration in terms of microcuries per CC in air is determined.
25!
1 n
n
,)
' ~
(
16 l{
And then it lists a space to put down the wind speed and then the 2
concentration then is to be divided by the wind speed to obtain a new i
3{
concentration in terms of microcuries per CC.
My question that I have for you is, once we determine a -- we go th w gh, we have a X/Q value, Sj we have a Q and that enables us to determine the aii concentration i
chi.
61 But I guess this question is more for my own edification to i
understand how this procedure is being implemented, but it seems to me then we are dividing by the wind speed and we are still ending up with g
a concentration..
Besides that, I have a problem with the units g
because now we've got microcuries per CC divided by miles per hour and 10!
according to this procedure we're still ending up with microcuries per 11l l
CC.
But in your training and background with making X/Q calculations, 12t I
is this particular calculation here one that's -- is it proper to 13]
employ to take the airborne concentration and divide by the windspeed 14; to come up with another airborne concentration?
15 16;
- 17i, CARL:
If I'm not mistaken, as I say I haven't had an intimate chance more or less to review and implement the procedure; but If I'm not 18i mistaken, I believe the X/Q values that are pulled either from tables 19i or ccmputers are assuming a wind speed of one meter per second?
I'm 20' not sure about that, but in order to convert it to the actual X/Q with 21!
the actual wind speed there would have to be some sort of conversion 22\\
l using the actual wind speed.
Perhaps if the data sheets were reviewed, 23l there would be a conversian there which make the units work out.
24!
25!
a
[
b e.. J
i l
17 i
llj ESSIG:
Okay.
That may explain then why it may be perhaps one meter 2
per second rather than one mile per hour?
To make tne..
l 3!
CARL:
4 Like you first said it would be one meter per second and undoubtedly, g
at first glance that does not on -- what is this, Enclosure 3 of the iame procedure -- it does not i-% like the units work out.
But 6
7j undoubtedly there's probably some sort of conversion on the actual data sheet per se.
g 9t ESSIG:
10I I'll see if I can't track down the author of this procedure l
i and see if that's what he intended You stated thc.t during your 11:
i involvement you liaison with Pickard, Lowe and Garrett and with the 12l emergency control station.
When you received the X/Q values, wind 13}
I direction and speed and so forth from Pickard, Lowe and Garrett roughly 14 at the end of each day and transmitted it to the emergency control station, did you just transmit that to the emergency control station or did you give them the instructions as to what you thought they 17!
should do with it or did you assume they knew what was to be done with 18i it?
Did they have any questions of you regarding the data?
19' 20l l
CARL:
Ok.
No, they didn't have any questions for me regardina che 21; j
data.
I assumed that the peo le working in health physics, in imple-r 22!
j menting this actual procedure 1670.4, did have a working knowledge of 23i j
what to do with meteorological conditions and X/Q data as it came in.
24i That was my impression.
After receiving the data, it was :n a form 25;
,r, l
(cz
- w' i
I
[
18 I
lj m re or lass rough not rough -- but a computer printout. type of form --
2{
and I wasn't sure whether or not people receiving it in health physics 1
3l at the island could interpret the data as printed out.
For example, I
there were decimal points missing and I had spoken with Pickard and 5
Lowe and they had said in the actual format of the printcut you have g
to divide the wind speed by 10 in order to obtain the real value and you have to divide the delta T figure by 10 in order to obtain the true value.
g Instead of attaching an explanation to every piece of data that went to the island and in order to make it more clearly, in g
10l fact, some of the telecopy didn't come through ry well, I transposed i
the data.
I took the actual computer print outs and made forms on my 11!
I own and either telecopied those to the island or sent the. ;irectly to
- 121, the island.
That way I felt comfortable sending data to tne i: land 13}
that I felt. everyone could pick up, read and understand as opposed to 14' somebody picking it up, seeing a wind speed of 100 when in actuality it. would be 10, thinking "ch my word, we have a hurricane going on here."
But more or less as far as sending data, I did assume that people receiving the meteorological and X/Q data on the island were 18i familiar with it's use.
19:
20 ESSIG:
New the actual data that you sent, and you may have said and I 21i i
don't recall, were they hourly X/Q values?
22l 23l CARL:
Yes.
24l 25\\
}
.)
t i
I 19 i
1 ESSIG:
So these would be then a., if I'm not mistaken, a Q/X value is i
I 2.
usually, is it not, the average X/Q value for a certain time interval?
3 i
4j CARL:
Well that Pickard, Lowe and Garrett had done for me via Mark 5
Abrams, had a buca table, so to speak, which included the hour, the wind 6!
direction, winu speed, the delta temperature indication,~a few status 7
computer codes and as far as X/Q data there was X/Q ground certerline 8
values, X/Q ground averages, deposition and depletion values that they sent up, that I forwarded to the island.
As far as the nitty gritty as g
to time periods used to calculate each of those values, I'm not extremely 10 familiar with that.
i 12!
ESSIG:
L ':ay.
Have you during the course of your work with the corporate 13!
office, have you been involved in the calibrations and maintenance of 14i the meteorological tower?
16; i
CARL:
I have not to date been involved with the actual engineering so 17l t
to speak, the actual hands on maintenance of the meteorological equipment.
18r I am responsi~sle for coordinating the setup between TMI people meetiag 19l with and acting as liaison to Pickard, Lowe and Garrett who do come in 20:
j and perform the meteorological instrument calibrations.
21t 22l l
ES5IG:
Okay.
Did you on any occasion dur'ng the first three days 23 perform or feel a need to perform any spot checks of the X/Q values Z,;
l being provided to you by Pickard, Lcwe and Garrett?
25l
)
s o,
3, f
t i
i
(
20 l!
CARL:
As far as a first glance type of review meaning for the most part 2
my attention wts on the actual meteorological conditions did...just out 3l of common sense feel for things and in my past experience...did the 4l temperature difference and the wind speed more or less agree; were low 5
wind speeds associated with a variable wind direction type of thing.
6l That's sort of what I would consider common sense meteorology.
As far 7
as the actual values for X/Q, naturally you'll have a smaller exponent 8
when you have a more stable condition and a larger exp.iient when you have more unstable conditions.
Common sense things like that I did pick g
10f up al ng the way and in fact reviewed everything, but as far as intense technical review of their calculations and the values they forwarded, no I do not perform that.
13{
i ESSIG:
You indicated that you did -- one of the things that you were attempting to perform during the three days was to try to make sense out of the wind -- just what the stability was.
To make sure that we were, or that the people in the control room were interpreting the data p*operly 17l' and in terms of the context of a very low wind speed and extreme variability, IS:
did you end up satisfying yourself that indeed that was the case that we're having low wind speeds and that the wind was as variable as the offsite measurements seemed to indicate that it was?
21l 22 CARL:
As far as comparing meteorological data available on paper and 23 familiarizing myself with the outside conditions in Reading, which were 24l I
very very similar to what is actually onsite here at TMI, yes I was 25i t..
,,J
I I
(
21 1!
satisfied with what I read and compared and the assessment that I had t
2!
made. And Pickard, Lowe and Garrett had made.
I was satisfied with what 3
I was reading.
4i ESSIG:
5 Could you state...I guess I should have asked you this probably 6
near the beginning of the intervieww...who your immediate supervisor is?
7!
CARL:
My immediate supervisor is James E. Mudge.
Jim Mudge.
g i
Si ESSIG:
And his title?
10j i
11l CARL:
Superviser, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering Section i
13!
ESSIG:
There are in the procedure that I have in front of me which is a 14!
j portion of the procedure 1670.9, it details a training program for 1c, division support personnel and it indicates that suorort personnel will include the following job classifications.
Supervisor of Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering.
That would be Dr. Mudge?
18t 19i CARL:
That's correct.
20; 21 ESSIG:
And then (b) Radiation Protection Specialist.
Do you know to 22l whom that would apply? Would that be Mr. Buring?
23 24 l
25!
i f
(.
Q
~
j QU3 i
22 i
i CARL:
lj I believe Mike's actual title is a Technical Analyst.
As far as 2,
a Radiation Protection Specialist, he would probably fit into that i
3i category if in fact that's what the procedure had indicated.
4{
5l ESSIG:
Okay.
By this procedure you personally don't appear to -- there i
6j is no requirement that you be trained in the accident and assessment...
7 If your title was Radiation Protection Specialist you would be required 8
to be given the same training as the accident assessment personnel Group II.
That includes training in such things as meteorological and g
radiation monitoring instrumentation, use of isopleths; offsite dose 10 calculations, protective action guides; onsite and offsite radiological controls.
I recognize that you don't have a requirement to have been trained in any of those.
The question that I have of you at this time
{
is, have you had any training in those or...?
And I guess I recognize that by virtue of your background you have training in, obviously in the meteorological me.itoring.
Has Met Ed provided you training in any of
,6 1
i these other areas?
17!
l 18:
CARL:
As far as.. Ok, I have a question, excuse me.
The number of 19!
the procedure you are referencing g
,?
20!
l 21; i
ESSIG:
That was 1670.9 and the procedure details training programs for 22j various plant people and in one paragraph refers to training for so-23' f
called division support personnel.
Now there are only two positions 24i listed as needing that training.
That would be your immediate supervisor, 25
- ^
G, ("
g $ J U'}
f
l i
l 23
\\
t 1{
Or. Mudge, and the other one would be apparently Mr. Buring.
Well, I'm f
3 just curious if even though not required if such training was provided i
3j to you.
For example, have you participated in an emergency plan drill i
4j during -
since your employment here of August 1978?
l Si i
6{
CARL:
No I haven't.
I believe Beverly Good was working more or less with Mike Buring.
As far as implementation of emergency plans and that 7
so d of W ng.
And I believe she recebed all ne Wa N ng necessa n to 8
implement those plans and your question is, have I received..
g I
10l ESSIG:
Did you receive, and I'm not saying that you were supposed to I
have, but did you receive any formal training from Met Ed in those 12t areas?
13 14I CARL:
Other than indoctrination as far as a meteorological tower and a 15J I
little bit about what was available in the control room.
No I haven't 16i received any formalized training in that.
17l l
18l ESSIG:
Have you..this may sound like a sort of a silly question..you've l$
been out to see out to see the met tower, have you not?
20' l
21l CARL:
That's correct.
Let me clarify one thing.
There is a basic 22l 23l health physics course that everyone must take to get onto the island and get issued special identification.
That involves three hours of training 24' as far as emergency signals, that sort of thing, evacuations.
That I
,o n ~ ',
ui n
l
[
24 1.
have neceived.
That was part of my initial training program.
I don't 2
know if that specifically references back to 1604.9, that procedure, but i
3i I did receive that, i
4l 5l ESSIG:
Okay.
I believe that's probably all we --- I appear to be at 6
the end of my list of questions that I had for you.
I just want to 7
quickly glance over and see if there are any additional areas where I might have any more questions.
8 ESSIG:
10[
Just one last area did you receive any input from the various federal agencies that were here assisting with various types of asses-i sments, performing offsite -" veys; for example, the Lawrence Livermore group was here running their large computer program...which they can do essentially plume tracking with.
Were you made aware of the results of the calculations that they were doing?
16:
CARL:
No I wasn't.
17 i
1Si ESSIG:
Was any of this provided to you?
20!
CARL:
No it wasn't.
In fact most of the information that I was mailing or telecopy "
eo the island was a source of a lot of regulatory agencies a.;sessments of what was going on.
In fact, it workeu in reverse.
I was 23i the source as opposed to a sink of information.
24l 25l l
i
(
)
U
I i
l 25 t
l{
ESSIG:
I don't believe you stated -- but to you have any direct capability 2
in Reading for readout of Met data or do you obtain this information 3
through Pickard, Lowe and Garrett; or can you get it directly from the site?
4, s!
CARL:
As far as real-time cutput of data, I have no mechanism for o!
obtaining that in Reading for the actual TMI site.
I can get it from Pickard and Lowe essentially as I had been, say, for the last few hours.
There was a system that Met Ed was to implement at the end of this year g
called, "The Environmental Monitoring and Control System," acronym EMACS t
10) that was supposedly to come on-line and to monitor... hook into, in other ll!
words..TMI both plant and meteorological tower information and would 12; l
provide a real-time output of both plant parameters, such as environmental 13i discharge, that sort of thing and meteorological information.
That, in 14!
light of the TMI incident, that installation of EMACS has been postponed roughly ut,til 1981.
17!
ESSIG:
I see. Okay, Mr. Ca rl.
I think I've gotten through my list of 18; questions and I'd like at this time, if you wish to do so, give you the 19!
opportunity to make any observations, any personal opinions that you may 20f f
have with respect to -
now that the incident is, at least the three day 211 period that we're looking at is long since past and the actions taken 22l and so cn are over.
Are there any things that you care to look back on 23 l
and -- say anything in the way of additional capability that you wish 24i l
you had; additional training; background; additional people that you 25i 1
i W
(M
~
i l
[
26 l!
wish you had; any observations of that nature that you care to make at 2
this time.
31 CARL:
Personally, an opinion that I had whic>i ws brought out in the 5{
course of the interview.
There should be perhaps in my area more overlap 6
between the corporate technical support people or person, myself with the Island meteorological collection, that sort of thing.
' Mve not been in the past required to actually give technical support for dose g
calculations or.ctual reading of strip charts, that sort of hands on g
l experience.
I sort of have a feeling that that will be the case in the near fu^ure.
That there will be a closer relationship between the 11, f
corporate technical support staff and the actual plant staff.
As far as 12, r
impressions go, for the first threa days..obviously because this is 13) 14!
more or less a one of a kind, first of a kind sort of thing...there were many, many possibilities for disorganization or confusion.
And that runs the whole spectrum all the way from Met Ed to every regulatory lo' agency that exists.
Just because the people involved with this sort of 1/,:
i thing don't do it every day or every week and it did materialize to the 18t large scale that it did.
But putting all of that aside I can't express 19i how impressed I was with the efforts put forth by the people at Met Ed 20i working late, late into the night which was necessary, of course.
But 21; 5
the cool-headedness, the professionalism that came across in my mind 22 being there less that. _ year, the professionalism with which I was 23l treated and the professionalism wnich the people exhibited at Met Ed 24i l
during the whole initial phases of the incident.
That will stick in my 25!
mind for a long time to come.
l r
~
,' ;, 9 LJ i
27 1!
ESSIG:
I would like to just draw for a mcment on a couple of points 2,
that you sort of triggered in my mind as you were giving your observa-I 3j tions.
First of all I believe you stated that one of the things that 4j was in your orinion might ought to be considered as_having a closer 5
w rking relationship between the corporate support pecole and the site i
6j pe ple.
Have you experienced an atmosphere on the part of the corporate 7l office where you've been discouraged frca establishing such a relationship?
g You say you are not required to do it but I guess what I'm trying to determine is have you been prevented frca doing so?
g!
101 i
CARL:
No I don't think that's been the case at all as far as discouraged.
11',
i No, in fact you are encouraged to make contacts with the Island people 12,,
l that do the functions that you are supposed to be familiar with.
As far 13l as what I would suggest, there aren't super formalized training procedures.
This would go perhaps en a supervisory level sayina, okay, here's ycur counterpart.
This is The supervisory people at the island saying to their staff, here's your counterpart in Reading and it would be to both 17l of your aavantages to get together every now and then and familiarize 18j yourself with each other's functions.
I think there is a need to do 19I that.
1 may have a little bit of a bias there because I am fairly new 20l working with Met Ed and as far as practical experience with the plant, 21 etc., I don't have a great deal of it at this time.
But I think there 22!
f is a need to do that.
To formalize contacts via management at both 23[
sites, both the corporate and the operating facility, to say "these are 24 your contacts."
25!
I p
(
~
28 if ESSIG:
Okay.
Just one last question very quickly.
On Friday morning, 2!
the 30th, at about 8:00 there was a radiation measurement performed in a 3
helicopter about elevation of roughly 300 feet above containment, at an elevation of 600 feet.
The radiation level measured was 1200 mr per 4
hour.
5 Were you -- and that that particular measurement caused a fair 6
stir both -- well primarily at NRC headquarters and it ended up that there was an evacuation reccamended based largely on that number because
/
it apparently supported some other calculations that were being made --
g did you get at all involved in any follow on calculations that day with 9!
iy that particular survey result? Were you asked to do any evaluation?
11l l
CARL:
No I did not.
No.
12j 13l ESSIG:
Okay.
I think that's the end of my questions.
1M 15:
SHACXLETON:
Also the end of the tape.
Thank you very much Mr. Carl on 16; behalf of the....
171 r
ISi 19!
201 i
21; 22ll 23!
24j 25 f0
,,i uo, i