ML19308C454
| ML19308C454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1979 |
| From: | Chin R, Reilly M BURNS & ROE CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240612 | |
| Download: ML19308C454 (31) | |
Text
3656J. G/*
I I
N U CL E A R RE G U L ATO R'I CO MMI 5 5!O N O
IN THE M ATTER OF:
T!!REE MILE ISLAND i
l SPECIAL INQUIRY DEPOSITION I
i DEPOSITION OF:
MARGARET A.
REILLY O
l P00R'OREM.
RISBURG, PA.
Place.
IIAR Date -
September 19, 1979 Pages 1 thru 30 O
1>
(302)347 3700 ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficxslReponers 8 0 0 4M Nenh Ccpitel Street I 2g Washington, D.C. 20001
[
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-DAILY T
1 NOR-4895 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA bp 2
X 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S :
4 TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP O
5 ON 6
Ti!E ACCIDENT AT Ti!REE MILE. ISLAND :
7
___________________________________x 8
(Oral deposition of MARGARET A. REILLY) 9 10 11 APPEARANCES:
12 NRC's Special Inquiry Group 13 Robert Chin, Esquire O
ae1co1= trase 14 Frederick licrr Robert Schambcrger 15 Peter Sicilia, Jr.
16 17 TAKEN AT:
18 Iloliday Inn Town
2:30 p.m., Wednesday Second and Chestnut Streets September 19, 1979 19 liarrisburg, Pennsylvania 20 21 23
~
24 25 I
MO%sCK sigNOonaPHec erRVICE. 3413 OLD MILL RO AO. WTOMISSING. P A 99410
2 I
1EEEE 2
WITNESS:
EXAMINED BY:
PAGE NUMBER 3
Margaret A. Reilly Mr. Ernst 4 - 27 i
4 Mr. Chin 28 - 29 5
Mr. Schamberger 27 - 28 6
7 s
8 EXIIIDITS 9
Number Marked 10 1
Letter of confirmation to 3
Ms. Reilly from the NRC TMI jj Special Inquiry Group 2
12 One page resume entitled 4
" Margaret A. Reilly" 13 I
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
~
23 24 25 l
l MON 8CM STtNOGRAPHIC SERVICE, 1493 OLD MILL ROAD, WTO4f$$1NG P A letto I
I l
3 1
PEggEEglEQE 2
MARGARET A.
- REILLY, 3
was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, was 4
examined and testified as follows:
5 MR. ERNST:
State your full name and position.
6 Tile WITNESS:
My name is Margaret A. Reilly.
I am Chief of the Division of Environmental Radiation, Bureau of 7
8 Radiation Protection of the Department of Environmental 9
Resources.
10 (Exhibit No. 1 marked.)
11 MR. CllIN :
Ms. Reilly, I show you this document labeled Exhibit 1.
Is this a copy of the letter that we sent 12 s
n 13 to you about your deposition here today?
U 14 Ti!E WITNESS:
It is.
MR. CiiIN:
llave you read the document in full?
15 TiiE WITNESS:
Yes, I have.
16 MR. CllIN:
Do you understand the information set 37 forth in this lette'r' including the purpose of this inquiry 18 and the fact that you may have an attorney present if you 19 choose and the information you give today may ultimately becom e 20 public?
21 Tile WITNESS:
I understand that.
22 MR. CllIN:
Ms'. Reilly, are you accompanied by 23 counsel?
24 TIIE WITNESS:
No, I am not.
25 MONaCM $1E NOGR A PHsC SE RVICE. 1413 OLD M4L RO A D. WYOMIS$1NG. PA. 19610
4 1
MR. CHIN:
I would like to note for the record that 2
this witness is not represented by counsel today.
3 Ms. Reilly, if at any time during this interview you 4
feel that you need counsel or would like to have counsel 5
Present, please advise us and we will adjourn this interview 6
to make all the appropriate. arrangements.
Is this procedure 7
all right with you?
8 THE WITNESS:
That's right, fine.
9 MR. CHIN:
Ms. Reilly, did you bring a copy of your 10 resume with you today?
gj THE WITNESS:
I have.
12 MR. CHIN:
And that is Exhibit 2.
This is a one 13 Page document titled " Margaret A. Reilly."
This represents t
14 your resume?
HE I NESS:
That is correct.
15 1
16 (Exhibit No. 2 marked.)
17 BY MR. ERNST:
18 Q
Early on M' arch 2Sth, 7:40 a.m. or thereabouts, you.
19 were advised of the TMI general emergency by PEMA, I guess, 20 by Mr. Lamison.
At about 7:45, apparently you called PEMA 21 back and advised them that evacuation at Goldsboro and Brenner 22 Island might be necessary.
23 At some time after that you called back axi said that y
24 an evacuation would not be necessary, to call off the alert 25 for Goldsboro and Brenner Island.
i MONtCh STtNOGP APHIC Sent sCf. S e t s OLD MtLL RO A D. WYOMISSING. PA 19610
5 1
We were just wondering about what kind of time span 2
was there and what did you do to make the determination that 3
an evacuation alert was not necessary.
4 A
Probably the time span was to the order of a half 5
hour or thereabouts.
In retrospect, it seemed shorter than 6
that, but it would have to have been about a half hour.
7 The basis for calling it off was for off site 8
measurements taken by the licensee, I believe, to the effect 9
that the projected dose just wasn't there.
The mechanism for 10 coming up with the dose projection had to do with assuming 11 that you have the design basis pressure in the containment and 12 a reference inventory and a specified leak rate.
And you 13 place those projections -- is based on prevailing meteorologi-
,iO 14 cal conditions.
15 It was probably overly conservative at the time 16 even to make that estimate because the pressure in the contain--
j7 ment was, I would say, at best maybe a notch over atmospheric and not even certais that it was even that-But certainly 18 wasn't the tens of psi gauge you need to have the driving 39 f r e there.
20 21 Q
But the basis also was the direct measurement off 22 site and the fact that it was determined that there was no O
23 radiation off site?
24 A
Right.
The dose projected was to the order of 10R 25 and even being off by an order of magnitude in the estimate, MOhtCK htt NOGR APMsC &ERvsCE. 1413 OLO setLL RO A D. wv0 MISSING. PA.
39610
6 1
you couldn't miss that with a survey meter.
2 Q
How was this survey conducted?
3 A
By ground crews, I believe.
They were probably
(-
4 transported by choppers, but I don't know whose because it 5
would have taken.a long time to get from one side of the river 6
to the other because of the bridges.
7 Q
And that was not BRP personnel?
8 A
No.
/
9 Q
And this was Met-Ed?
10 A
I am not certain, but by that time, they might have ij had state police and possibly some of their own contractor 12 choppers around.
I know they had contract choppers later.
13 They may well have had them then.
O 14 Q
When did BRP personnel first perform off site 15 monitoring?
16 A
Around -- sometime after 10:00 o' clock when it began 17 to be evident that there was material escaping the facility.
18 Q
And by wliat mode,of transportation?
19 A
Automobile.
20 0
Were you getting or your office getting radiological 21 data from Met-Ed and NRC during the first three days?
22 A
Yes, we have a fair amount of especially licensee O
23 data.
They were going out on a routine basis.
They also had i
24 a lot of DOE data.
25 Q
From Met-Ed and NRC basically, what type 'of monitorirg l
MOh*CK STENOGR APHIC SE RVIC E, 14 9 3 OLD MIL L RO AD. WTOMtSSING. P A.
19410
7 I
were they doing?
2 A
The most abundant type of measurement was of bota/
3 gamma survey sort of measurement.
There were also air samples 4
taken.
Early -- I shouldn't say early.
Latein the morning of 5
the 28th, the licensee, as part of the realization that this 6
stuff was getting out, they sent out teams with air samplers 7
with field assay capabilitics associated with it.
The whole 8
setup is called a SAM-2.
Their teams took sampics and made 9
some measurements in the vicinity of the site in Goldsboro 10 and Middletown.
And they thcagl.t they were seeing airborne
~9 iodines to the order of 10-8 10 microCuries per cc.
11 12 Now, this we realized was not an imminent hazard 13 sort of thing even if it was real/ but the licensco asked us 14 if we could do some confirmatory measurements on the samples 15 since their own backgrounds had been shot due to noble gases.
16 They transported the sample to us by helicopter.
I j7 remember spending more time than I wished in trying to advise 18 II ly Spirit IIospitaT that there is a helicopter coming with j9 samples.
" Don't get your stretchers out.
It is air samples,"
20 We sent a runner over there to get the samples and then analyzed them.
And I belicyc our threshold of detection 21
~11 at that time was about 10 mics/cc, I-131.
We didn't see 22
- 0 23 anything -- I think in one of them we saw a tad of Rubidium 68 24 which would'suggest that there had been some I<rypton 88 hung 25 up in there.
But it sort of gave me some relief early on that
%ONIC K STE NOGN APHeC *Es'VICE.
1413 OLD MILL ACAD. wv0 massing. PA 195t0
8 1
it looks as if there isn't going to be an iodino problem, at 2
least for the present.
3 And to me th.is was a -- I was taken aback, you
()
4 might say, becaGre in all the years that I have been tryi.19 to 5
imagine reactor accidents, I could never imagine one where you 6
wouldn't have an iodine problem, especially with respect to 7
pasture.
So, I was sort of spinning on one foot wondering 8
where the iodine'ias because you are supposed to have iodine, 9
aren't you?
10 Q
The information that was checked -- and I imagine 11 there was a lot of it by Friday or thereabouts --
12 A
Yes.
13 0
-- to whom did'you transmit the information?
You gf 3 V
14 roccived a lot of it.
To whom did you transmit an analysis 15 of data?
To whom did you transmit this information?
16 A
With data that had to do with agricultural considera-17 tions, that was -- we had a lot going on agriculturally.
We have always had reas'onably tight ties with them because we get 18 19 to have a Chinese episode every few years and exercise our 20 relations then.
21 There -- some probably went to PEMA.
I remember also 22 relaying some of our data to NRC headquarters.
And they called 23 at 2:00 in the morning asking what is the latest milk sample?
24 And I think somewhere on the record there is the nasty response 25
'Why did you wake me up to ask me about a milk sample?"
M ONIC M Sf t NOGR APHIC S ERVICE. 1413 OLD MILL RO A D WYoueSSING. Pa 19600
9 1
And -- but I think there was a fair amount of infor-2 mation exchanged, especially among the fods who responded.
We 3
wound up with all the data plus there was a practice establish-
{}
4 ed early on -- I think it was Friday evening -- that there 5
would be a 5:00 o' clock briefing in Capitol City for all the 6
field people so that everybody would know what was going on 7
and who was doing what.
Let me post' late something.
We have been told a 8
Q u
9 number of times, I guess, that there was a problem in communi-10 cations from BRP to perhaps the state police and to PEMA and 11 maybe others and the media.
And there has been some dis-12 cussions that it might be useful to have BRP people stationed 13 at PEMA perhaps or maybe in the Governor's office or maybe O
14 some other places, maybe public information office to try and 15 improve the communications of technical data and jargon to 16 nontechnical people who do not understand the problem. ~
17 If that had been done, would that have beua in your 18 view a more useful employment of resources that BRP had than 19 what was being done by BRP at that time?
20 A
I think it -- had we had the resources, it would have 21 been a lovely thing to do.
And I think the -- something that 22 we might be pursuing is getting a PEMA-type over in our place O
23 so that there is double transplantation.
I don't think putting 24 our people, say in -- what was the word?
Places where the 25 news media were gathered, I don't think that would have really MOMCK S? t NOGR APHIC U Ryect. 14 8 3 OLD MIL L ROAD. wY0 MISSING. P A 19610
10 1
been a good u o of resources becausa you have to baar in mind 2
that PEMA was trying to describe what was going on, rainting 3
the big picture.
There just aren't too many of those around, 4
and you have to do it on a 24-hour basis.
The matter that l'V) 5 accidents go on for so long is one thing we learned.
That you 6
don' t throw everything at it at one time.
7 Something I think that really would have benefited 8
us would have been very early in the accident, in the single 9
digit hours of Wednesday morning, to have staged a press 10 conference right off the bat.
But things were just moving 11 too fast, and we almost got caught in a vacuum.
12 As a sequel to all of this, I have donc some staffinc 13 estimates as to what it would cost in terms of staff to run t
)
ja a shift.
And the bare bones minimum is 15. people.
And that 15 isn't putting somebody in the press place.
And that isn't 16 putting somebody in the Governor's office.
This is an incident.
j7 manager, which would be a Gerusky-type and the big picture 18 thing; a logistician, which is someone like myself, to keep j9 contact with all the -- with the state departments that we deal with.
And we need a plant in PEMA.
We need two field 20 teams of two each.
Need two people to run the field laboratory 21 22 Somebody to hang on the phone to keep the open line concept 23 g ing.
And it just keeps rolling.
24 And then bear in mind, if you want to run things f
25 24 hoirs a day, which is what this all evolves into, then you MONICst STENOCRAPHIC SERVsCE. 9413 OLD MILL AO AD. WTOMISSING. P A $9610 e
11 1
have to double 15, and you are into 30.
And that gets into 2
a fair number of high ticket people.
3 One thing it might be worth pointing out, when we 4
began to be stretched fairly thin, our management recruited 5
some of the r.anagers from other bureaus within the department, 6
people who didn't speak radiation fluently but understood how 7
the department works and how the state works and also had 8
their heads screwed on tight.
And these people were of 9
enormous help to us.
I don't know if I answered your question, 10 Go back in if I didn't.
11 Q
I think that gives me a perspective on the problem.
12 At some point in time, the Department of Agriculture 13 recommended that dairymen got their cattle inside and place
(
14 them on stored feed if they weren't already on stored feed.
15 We were wondering what the basis was for that 16 recommendation.
17 A
To the best of -- I know I didn't make the recommen-18 dation.
To the best of my knowledge, no one in our bureau did 19 But I think the Secretary of Agriculture, being recently 20 appointed to office, wanted to be as conservative as he 21 possibly could be in this whole issue.
22 And based on information he had from his own people, 23 from some of our past events, decided that maybe that would be 24 a decently conservative thing to do.
25 And it isn't -- putting the cows on stored feed isn' t nowc= struonnarwie gravice vais oto uito nono. wvomissimo. ra sesio
12 1
all that bad at that time of year from the standpoint that 2
about half of them are on stored feed all the time anyway.
3 Feed lot operations and that sort of thing.
Plus the fact that 4
half the time there isn't anything growing outside around here 5
a ny'.ay.
6 And also at that time of year, the silos would have 7
boon in gr,od shape.
If it had happened the last week of May, 8
I think :hings would have been renoodled somewhat.
9 0
Was your office consulted at all regarding their 10 recommandations then, or was this just a unilateral decision?
11 A
The office may have been contacted.
I don't have 12 any recollections of dialogues along that line.
I really don't 13 take issue with it.
ja 0
Could you describe any prohibitions against Met-Ed 15 during the first several days regarding discharge of water.
16 A
Thursday, the 29th, I received a call from Dick 17 Dubiel, who is the !!calth Physics Supervisor at the Island, 18 and the IWTSIWPS, which is the industrial waste filter and 19 turbine sumps, had 4,000 gallons of water which, to the best 20 of their knowledge, was contaminated with noble gases.
They 21 were -- he was calling to find out if they discharged this, 22 would it give me heartache.
O V
23 The reason for needing to dump this was the fact that i
i 24 everything was filling up, and if they weren't dumped in a I
controlled manner through the pipe, that there was a good 25 MONICK SYtNOGRAPHIC SERvict 14 9 3 OL D MILL RO AD. W VOMIS$ LNG. PA. 19610
13 1
chance that the tanks would run over and go out in an uncon-2 trolled release through some portal or other.
3 It was indicated to me that the concentration of 4
noble gases in the sumps were Jess than those mpc's were 5
which were to be applied to the tech specs for facilities.
And all of this was in spite of the fr.ct that Part 20 doesn't 6
7 address noble gases in water.
8 I indicated that.it didn't give me heartache.
Does 9
it bother NRC?
No.
It didn't phase me from the standpoint that as soon as the noble gases were going to hit water, they 10 jj were going to be knocked out anyway.
I couldn't see that it was going to contribute to the atmospheric source turn at all.
12 Things went along fairly quietly until in the even-13
,O)
V ing when I learned that the -- a discharge had been terminated ja as a result of I think, action by Phil Stohr from region 1.
15 I think it was Phil Stohr.
And we said to the effect that you 16 need something more solid from the state than that.
17 18 As it turTis out., there is a condition in the water permits that requires that if you are discharging some contamir t-39 ate through the pipe ordinarily not intended to discharge that, 20 21 then you have to notify downstream users.
I can't think of 22 the acronym for -- MPDES permit.
23 Q
So this is with a pollutant other than whac is 24 described in the permit?
25 A
Something -- it was an administrative rathar than wohic= streeoanarnic sy nvice esis oto mett aoao. wrouessino. ca. iesto
14 1
a hazard sort of thing.
2 Q
So, since it was xenon, no --
3 A
Yes, it was radioactive material going out the IW P pe, and the IW pipe ordinarily was not intended -- it was i
4 5
not a monitored pipe per se.
.All they were sampling was the tank, the pipe itself before injection into the blow down.
It 6
7 was not monitored.
8 Q
So, it wasn't just xenon.
It was the other contami-9 nants --
A Also it was my understanding on Thursday was that 10 all that was in there was nobles.
Later on iodine cropped up.
ij Also at the time there was a lot of anxiety because somewhere 12 al ng the line the Governor supposedly had said he alone would 13
'O authorize any planned discharge.
Then several hours were spent 14 trying to reconcile the matter of the downstream user who had 15 to be notified.
The Press Secretary had to be notified.
A 16 Press relcase was going to go out, and that had to be orches-17 trated seven ways from Sunday.
18 So, eventually authorization was gained to restart 39 the discharge.
I think up until its first termination, it had 20 discharged something like 40,000 gallons, 10 percent of the 2
inventory.
In there too, because of the anxiety about dis-22 charging this, I had dialogue, I believe, with Bernie Weiss at 23 headquarters to get some kind of verification that indeed this 24 is not going to contribute to the source turn.
And my con-25 l
l l
un.ex m.oa...
.c.si v.ce. im oto m u noao.wrouis m..,.
...ie l
15 1
ception of how noble gases behave in water is not all that bad.
2 So, it had to get a lot of orchestration done in 3
order to authorize the --
r-)
4 0
Okay.
\\J 5
A It was.an extremely frustrating 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> because at 6
the time I was thinking, "Here we are messing around with a 7
little bit of nobic gas in water and we have a very bad 8
reactor down there."
9 0
Was this the only incident during the first few days 10 of water dumping problems?
A That is the only one that I would recognize as a 11 12 problem.
13 Q
Was the water permit ever lifted?
A Not to my knowledge?
ja Q
Temporarily?
15 A
No.
16 Q
W uld you have to be consulted -- that is part of 17 DER?
18 A
Water Quality issues the permit.
There is some j9 20 concern as to whether we can legally set criteria for water 21 in light of the Northern States Power versus Minnesota decision.
22 It could be the other way around.
(
23 0
If the permit had been lifted, would you have known 24 about it?
25 A
I would imagine so.
Water Quality by this time was M O N 8 C et ETE NOGnaPnte pEnveCE. 14 9 3 OLD MIL L RO A D. WYOMIS$8NG. P A 49610
16 1
l 1
getting to ba rather interested in the epicoda.
i 2
O In this release on Thursday -- well, I guess you i
3 already answered that the Governor's office did become 4
involved because you had to have releases -- press releases O
1 5
and things of that sort.
6 A
Yes, I think --
7 Q
Region one was involved, NRC --
8 A
Washington was involved a little bit with my dialogue 9
with Bernie Weiss.
I think I talked to somebody else down 10 there, too.
11 Q
What commitments did Met-Ed make during the reactor 12
-- NRC licensing process regarding the commitment to provide 13 training for tests or whatever of emergency response plan?
I
- i-A Commitments were made.
I don't knou specifically ja what they were.
We had -- Bill Dornsife and I took part in 15 16 the training session down there in April of '78, part of which 37 was geared towards meteorological considerations and how they 18 were going to make dose projections instead of using the 5-Pasquill stability classes.
19 Also as a part of that session was sort of a general 20 meeting of local government civil defense-types, the effort 21 being that every -- that it be made clear to everyone just 22 23 what their role in this sort of thing was.
Q This was in essence sponsored by Met-Ed?
24 A
Correct.
25 monien sirmoanapw e,ssavice. i4is oto uitt nono wvomissimo. em tesio
17 m.
1 Q
Or by Dauphin County?
2 A
I believe it was sponsored by Met-Ed.
It was held 3
at the site.
I seem to think the only entity not present was
[}
York County, and I don't know if it was because they weren't 4
5 invited.
But Lancaster and Dauphin County was there and a 6
number of state agencies.
7 Q
You characterize this as orientation, training or 8
testing?
9 A
I would say a combination of orientation and train-10 ing.
I think something like that would be useful on a routine l
11 basis all over the place as it were.
It goes quite far in 12 taking care of staff turnovers and things like that, especially 13 in local government.
O 14 Q
Do yon think it was an effective training session?
15 A
Yes, I think so.
I got the impression that people 16 came away feeling a little better about stuff.
It is handy 1
17 to get everybody together at one time so that everybody hears 18 the same pitch instbad of going around piecemeal.
It is 19 probably also more time effective.
20 Q
Is this the only training that you are aware of that 21 Met-Ed sponsored for local and state people?
22 A
I have heard allusionsto some kind of session early
()
23 in '79.
That may have been just locals.
I am not certain, 24 Q
Do you know if the emergency response plan was ever 25 exercised in any way by Met-Ed with the state or local people?
MOheCE stENOGM APHIC AERVICE. 1413 OLD MILL POAD. wvoMissaNo, PA testo
18 1
A With the annual re-uping drill, we have participated l
2 in them.
And in general, we go as far as the county.
Going 3
beyond that has been difficult from the standpoint that many 4
of the local emergency response people, the firemen, are 5
volunteers.
And if you want to stage a full-fledged drill, 6
you have got to pull these peopic out of work.
And many of 7
them are hourly workers.
So, unless you want to do it over 8
a weekend --
9 Part of the problem in '78, too, was that, if 10 memory serves, Met-Ed was planning to have its series of 11 drills at a time that was close to Dauphin County having a 12 mock disaster at the airport.
And the county didn't want to 13 get into much because they were going to be working on the 14 airport problem.
15 Q
In any of these tests, were there any deficiencies 16 noted by BRP in the communications area or --
A Yes, with the drill.
Until spring of '78, we tried j7 18 using some simple dsfense radios, and we got really solid 39 respect for train effects using that particular radio system.
20 We sent people up to the 18th floor trying to make contact with our people in northern York County.
And there is a lovely 21 hill there.
It is a humongous dead spot behind it, 22
(
i 23 With that, and also with the accident, we have come i
1 t' really respect docent communications.
And I have frequently 24 1
25 maintained that there are two important aspects of emergency M O*s iC K Sith0 GRAPHIC StaveCE. 1413 OL D MIL L RO AD, WYoue$blNG. P A.
19410
19 1
planning.
One is making good information available on the 2
state.
And the other is getting it to somebody who can use 3
it.
(G'T 4
With respect to the ancidents themselves, I have 5
always had trouble with the scenario that is selected to run 6
the drill.
It is always something ludicrous like the guy calls 7
up and says, "We have 14 percent failed fuel."
And that right 8
off the bat, you are operating with 14 percent failed fuel 9
just doesn't wash.
You have got to get something a little 10 more believable.
11 Q
Like 32 percent for --
12 A
There are rumors that it might be less than 10 13 because plutonium and uranium isn' t there to any great extent.
ja But anyway, I think some drills with consequences that are hard to -- off site consequences that are hard to 15 16 figure out would be nice instead of the great big, "We have broken a 36-inch pipe, double-ended guillotine break and the 17 real fulminating cl'rcumstances.
I don' t think accidents arn 18 going to go that way, and that was really expressed in this j9 accident here.
20 21 With drills, you go and play accident for an after-22 noon, and you have fulminating circumstances.
And you go pull 23 off your protective action, and it is all over in 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 24 maybe with little thought of, "llow are we going to handle the 25 press?
Ilow are we going to inform the Governor?"
MONeC R STI NOGR A PM'O S tnv eC E.
1419 OLD MILL ROAD. WTOMsSSING, P A 19410
20 1
We also figured it would be over -- with a nasty 2
enough accident, it would be over before the brass really got 3
into it.
4 0
Was this in essence a notification exercise or a
(}
5 notification in response of some individuals to --
6 A
It is sort of dependent on what else we have got 7
going at the time.
With the exercise in April, that was 8
actually an exercise of about half a dozen events coming one 9
day after the other.
And the feeling at the tLuc was, "We 10 have 9,000 X-ray machines ou?. there.
We had better look at 11 them."
From our end -- with one part of the exercise, we 12 13 sent a team out.
But for the rest of the exercises, within in U
the test itself, was one of commur.ications. and dose forecastinc 14 and accident assessment.
15 16 Q
Before March 28th, were you aware of any problem in 17 the emergency response area and whether it be planning or 18 training or communications or whatever?
You mentioned a 19 couple of -- I gauss one is the dead space in communication 20 with regard to your relations with TMI.
l 21 A
My general impressions with Met-Ed in emergency 22 planning has been one that if we tell them what we want them O
~
23 to do, they will do it.
Sometimes it is frequently the 24 problem of government getting its act together and telling 25 somebody what it is that they want done.
And I think that is l
MONICM SYt 40Gnapurc s* e,sCE.
1413 OL D M;LL RO AD. WTOMeS$1NG, PA 19610
21 1
a universal problem, inter-governmental and government, 2
industry and everything else.
3 But in general, they have been rather cooperative.
()
4 I don't know if it is because of the. proximity, but they would 5
be very high on the list of willingness to cooperate.
And I 6
have had a general impression that I was geuing the straight 7
scoop.
Some utilities tend to be a little clandestine, but 8
Met-Ed wasn't one of'them.-
1 9
Q Starting f rom March 28th onward for a few days, can 10 you comment on the affectiveness or believability of communica-11 tions with Met-Ed between yourselves and Met-Ed as time 12 progressed?
Was communication good or bad or whatever?
13 A
I think in general we tended to have a fairly high 14 level of credibility.
But along about Friday, things began 15 to get flaky between ourselves and PEMA.
I could speculate 16 that at one time there may have been three different Met-Ed 17 PeoP c on the horn talking to ourselves and PEMA.
And PEMA l
1 18 alleges that they had two simultaneous calls over there.
And 19 we had one going on.
I recollect the words that, "We have an 20 uncontrolled release going on."
21 Q
But how about the first couple of days?
A I think they told us what they thought was going on 22
(
at the time.
23 24 Q
Met-Ed?
25 A
Yes.
But the matter of, say, the hydrogen detonatior t MOMCK STENOGR APH*C %EmVICE. 14 8 3 OL D M4LL RO AD. wv0MistsNG. P4 19610
22 1
or whatever in the containment in the first day, I don't think 2
they were aware of that.
If they had noticed it, we would 3
have known.
4 rer o=e11r it 1 a a x=ow= th e the core O
5 covered for an hour, you would still by trying to pry me 6
unloose from the wall.
And I don' t think they knew that, and 7
it became rather clear.
8 0
So, you felt that communications were roughly com-patible with the degree of knowledge that existed at that time?
9 10 A
Yes, I think so.
Plus, NRC region-types were down 11 there, too.
I have known Gallina since graduate school.
So, there is a tendency to be straightforward there.
12 13 0
Do you have any perceptions with regard to the Met-
- (-)
V 14 Ed response to the emergency?
A I think they probably did as well as they could.
15 I think the whole thing caught an awful lot of people off 16 17 guard or adjusted perceptions.
That is why our limited edition T-shirt says, "TMI' Alumni Association."
18 But things will never quite be the same in emergency 19 p1 nning.
My great fear is it is going to be another battle 20 f paper to fix the thing.
I think the water can well be 2
muddied in the next few years.
p 22 d
One thing that emergencies do is bring people into 23 the act that don't know beans about radiation or don't know 24 beans about reactors or don't know beans about protective 25 MONICM STrh0GnaPHsC AEnVIC E.
1413 OL D MILL nOaO. W YOMsSSING. P A 19610
23 1
actions.
And that was abundantly manifested in the course of 2
the accident.
3 I think there is going to be a great effort made to v1ecete e11 tae e receio nether tuer ae erve 91 ceti 9 er O
4 5
not.
And we could well wind up with a mess.
6 Q
A couple of additional questions.
Were you aware of steam releases from the secondary side on Wednesday the 7
8 28th?
I think it was the morning of the 28th.
9 A
I have heard al.lusions to them, but I cannot remem-ber if I did at the time.
10 Q
Where did you think that the radiation was coming jj from, the release?
12 A
On Wednesday, my impression was the major source was 13 the water in the AUX building floor.
I remember talking to 14 Glen Landry who said they are going to try to put plastic down 15 to stop the effervescing or whatever the appropriate term is.
16 I remember saying, "Why don't you go pour some Crisco oil on j7 it or some other lohg-chain fatty acid.
That would really jg seal it up."
j9 I was still spinning on one heel at the time and 20 n t able to verbalize creative things like that.
21 O
On the next day, on Thursday, the plant operators 22 were venting the make-up tanks periodically.
When did you
~
23 first learn of this procedure, of venting, which was actually 24 the source of radioactive releases?
~ :w-25 MONtCM $1 E NOG R A PHIC '$ f RVIC E.
1413 OLD MILL RO A D, WVOMISSING. P A.
49510
24 1
A Well --
2 0
I will try and jog your memory.
Was it before 3
Friday, the release on Friday?
4 A
I don't remember.
(]}
5 0
I will.try to express it another way.
The release 6
that you heard about, the 1200 MR --
7 A
That was Friday.
8 0
-- on Friday.
Was this immediately related to the 9
venting, the make-up tank, in your mind?
A In my mind, it was related to gas jockeying.
They 10 were moving gases around in some way or another in my mundane n
way of looking at things.
And that was -- the net effect was 12 a leak in the system.
And they were losing some of the stuff.
13
.O And I knew that the 1200 MR was a bota/ gamma reading and it 1-4 was a chopper reading.
And that is why I couldn't understand 15 how headquarters did what they did.
16 17 0
Did you know at that time whether it was intormitten' 18 or continuous or co'ntrolled or uncontrolled?
19 A
It was described as uncontrolled by the individual 20 at the site that I talked to.
And in retrospect, one can get 21 into problems of semantics occasionally, and the word uncon-trolled to some people might mean unplanned, and to others it 22 23 might mean that there is no way we are going to stop this and 1
24 it is going to go on forever.
But the word used was uncon-trolled with the sort of connotation that it isn't going to bc 25 l
me icu strmonnapwec.senvies. i4is oto uitt noao. wvomissimo, ra. sesio
25 1
that long.
2 O
In the TMI licensing process, did you testify at all 3
or certify in any respect with regard to the adequacy of state
()
A plans for emergency?
5 A
No, there had been an emergency contention.
The individuals who testified in addressing that issue were Craig 6
being 7
Williamson and Kevin Molloy, the reason /that the contention 8
was phrased pretty much along the lines with the adequacy to 9
be able to evacuate people.
10 Q
Has nothing to do with the accident assessment.
11 I have just about finished.
We would be interested 12 if you had any lessons learned or any other thoughts of infor-mation that we might be aware of that might help us in the 13 O
14 inquiry.
A I have some lessons learned.
I don' t know how 15 16 useful they would be to you.. But anyway, of course, there is the communications bit.
Probably one never has enough when 37 18 you really get dowh'to it.
But we sure learned a lesson there.
But the other thing is that these things go on for 19 a long time, and to try to avoid throwing everything you have 20 at it or you are going to start feeling like saltwater taffy 21 at Rehobeth Beach.
That is a horrible feeling.
22
()
23 The field people, the DOE people and those people 24 that came, that angle worked out far better than my wildest 25 dream.
I always had visions of three little people coming in MON 8CM STENOCR APHeC SERveCE. tota OLD MALL Roan. WTOMISSING. PA 19610
[
26 1
from Brookhaven with a Geiger counter in one hand and saying, 2
"Where do you want us to go?"
That wasn' t the case.
They 3
knew what they were doing and just went out and did it.
They 4
set up.
It was really gratifying.
I wish there was some 5
mechanism to keep people in high places -- for the greater part in middle government -- out of stuff so that the grunts 6
7 can run it.
I had generated some nasty comments internally about Califano and some of. his emissaries that sort of thing, 8
9 people with outdated information, people who were never a 10 party to anybody's plan.
There is a need to protect your information sources.
11 Onething I would like to see as a result of all this 12 is the NRC headquarters plans.
They can review my plan when 13
<'Ov I can review theirs.
This is one of the reasons I have been 14 especially infatuated with the notion of concurrence.
I :.o n.
15 had a telephone dialogue down there a few days ago trying to 16 get a copy of a plan, and they don't have one.
And I guess 17 they aren' t going tb have one until a lot of these investiga-18 tions are over.
But they are completely planless.
They were 39 a party to no one's plans, and they did such a beautiful job 20 f sp king the whole damn place.
21 S mething that needs to be resolved, I guess every-22 one has recognized there is the matiter of the role of head-23 24 quarters.' It has been tradition that when the balloon goes 25 up, the BRP entity that is going to have to manage whatever it MOhtCM st E NOGR A PHIC.S E RvlC E. 1413 OLD MILL RO AD WYOMistlNG. P A 19610
27 l
1 is they did is the region, and headquarters will be above and 2
go off and do a lot of things.
When we have tried to write 3
the region into our plan,they say, "No, no, no.
We are going
()
4 to come and inspect regularly."
5 I could never believe that.
But in one paper that 6
is what they are supposed to do.
7 But on Friday, it really knocked us for a loop 8
when headquarters called in doing that dumb stuff, especially l
9 when, what appeared to us and still does, to be a studied j
1 l
attempt to avoid us and to go spooking th'c Governor and PEMA.
10 l
11 So, you can tell I am getting into emotional areas.
1 1
12 I thought I had gotten over that.
The whole issue keeps rear-13 ing its head.
0-14 MR. ERNST:
Thank you very much.- Any residual 15 questions?
l 16 MR. SCHAMBERGER:
I would just like uo go back to i
17 one question.
18 BY MR. SCHAMBERGER:
19 Q
In your discussion of your staffing and consideratior.
20 of how people would be assigned if there was another emergency 21 of a comparable magnitude, how do you now in your planning an-
['T 22 ticipate the federal environment to be supportive of you, and
(_)
23 how does this modify your role as compared to what it was?
24 A
I think the respective roles would remain the same 25 with the planned rewrite.
If memory serves, I.didn't spend a MONICat ST ENOGR APMsc SE RVIC E.
1413 OLD MILL RO AO. W YOnes stsNG, PA 19650 1
28 1
lot of time talking about the federal capability, the assump-2 tion being that things -- if this happened again, things would 3
be pretty much the same with respect to people in high places
{}
4 who like to get involved in this sort of thing.
I don't know 5
how you can fix that at all.
6 You know, the world being what it is, there is just 7
no way to fix it.
I wish there we.re.
8 Q
Do you then anticipate that the State of Pennsylvania 9
BRP will have adequate staff to handle a comparable event 10 without getting into the fatigue syndrome?
11 A
Our plans for the current year and next fiscal year 12 include picking up about 15 people.
The ultimate plan is to 13 have a nuclear engineer dedicated to each site.
This does not ja mean an on site inspector but rather an individual who speaks 15 that site fluently.
We are also getting communications equip-16 ment, some more lab folks.
17 I believe by the end of th'e second year we ought to 18 be pretty well squared away to be able to put 15 people on a shift.
I feel in my heart of hearts that 15 -- even that 39 w uld not be enough.
Fifteen in my opinion is bare bones. But 20 we w uld just about be able to do that by then.
21 MR. SCHAMBERGER:
That is all I have.
22 V
MR. CHIN:
I have two questions.
23 BY MR. CHIN:
24 0
Back on Friday morning, how did you associate a 1200 25 MOhiCM 51 E NOGR A PHIC *SERVIC E.
?4 t 3 OL D MIL L RO A D. WYOMISSING. P A 19610
29 1
MR reading with the gas jockeying?
2 A
Decause the 1200 MR came in around sometime -- the 3
information came in that there was an uncontrolled release 4
going on.
5 Q
They had told you about this?
6 A
We had been told -- I had been told that there was 7
an uncontrolled release going on.
8 Q
And that came from gas jockeying that you had known 9
about before, or at that time were you told?
10 A
I think I knew about the gas jockeying before I knew 11 about the 1200 MR reading.
I believe.
I could be wrong.
So, 12 take that with a grain of salt.
13 Q
Back earlier you mentioned that you had a conversa-14 tion with Dick Dubiel about the water damage.
After your con-15 versation with him, did you notify someone in the secretary's 16 office?
A I don't believe so.
17 18 Q
Anyone bebides you were informed of this information j9 and your approval?
A I don't have specific recollection of telling him, 20 but I thought, " Big deal," and went on to something else.
21 MR.
sNST:
I think in conclusion I want to say this 22 23 is an ongoing
- ssion, and although we have completed the 24 questions toda, there may well be another question or so we 25 would like to ask you.
We will not adjourn this but just put MOhtCM Sit NOGma PMac,SE myeC E.
14 9 3 OLD MILL RO A D. WYOMISSING. PA 19840
30 1
this deposition in recess.
2 Thank you very much.
We appreciate your time.
3 (Thereupon, the deposition of Ms. Reilly was
{~}
4 recessed.)
w 5
6 CERTIFICATE 7
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 8
are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me 9
on the hearing of the foregoing cause, and that this copy is 10 a correct transcript of the same.
11 12
%ty Nancy O'Fgill-Reusing, Reporte 13 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 14 MONICK STENOGRAPHIC SERVICE 15 My commission expires 16 December 13, 1982.
17 18 19 20 21 l
1 22 23 24 25 MONices Sf rmoGmaPMic gravect. 145 3 oto wiLL poao, wyoue$S4NG, PA 99660