ML19343D334
| ML19343D334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1981 |
| From: | Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040295 | |
| Download: ML19343D334 (33) | |
Text
I
^
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 0'
4 'i In the matter of:
e 5
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY 9
i j
6l (Three Mile Island, Unit 2) 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x A
j 8
Q Fifth Floor Hearing Room,
=,
9 4350 East-West Building, East-West Highway, G
10 Bethesda, Maryland.
E I'
Monday, January 12, 1981.
E d
12 3=
0 i is Degoeieion of:
h I4 GEORGE SMITH
$j 15 commenced at 1:00 p.m.,
pursuant to agreement of the
=
E I6 parties.
w h
I7,
APPEARANCES:
=
5 18 VICTOR STELLO, Director Office of f
Inspection & Enforce, U.S.
I9 g
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20 NORMAN MOSELEY, Office of Inspection 2I
& Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 22
-( )
Washington, D.C.
23,
JOHN CRAIG, Office of Inspection &
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear 24
()
Regulatory Commission,
~1ashington, D.C.
25!
[
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g
2 1
(Appearances, continued:)
lO 2
R1Ca-D noErt1No, Esa., ofrice or the l
Executive Legal Director, U.S.
3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
O 4
+
ROGER FORTUNA, Esq., Office of j
g 5
Inspection & Audit, U.S.
a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6
Washington, D.C.
i 3
I A
8 8
n l
d 9
i O
j 10 z
is d
12 3
=
O e 13 E
14 u
2 15 E
j 16 us
(
17 n
18 E
I 19 5n 20 21 22 0
23,
O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 I
_P _R _O _C _E E _D _I N_ _G _S
/~)
i
(_/
2 Whereupon, 3
4 was called as a witness on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 5
Commission and, having been first duly sworn, was examined g#j 6
and testified as follows:
R EMAMIEAT1Qg I
j 8
BY I4R. CRAIG:
d 2
9 z,
0 would you state your full name for the record, please?
.I O
i g
10 A
George Henry Smith.
II BY MR. MOSELEY:
B f
12 O
George, this same group interviewed you some time
()=
13 ago.
I believe it was June the lith.
This is a continuation l
14 of the investigation that we were conducting at that time, so 15 that's the purpose of us interviewing you here today.
j 16 What I would like to concentrate on is the early A
d 17 l morning time period, George, after -- let me say a few things 5
{
18 to sort of set the stage, a nd if I make mistakes, would you A
I9 please correct it.
5 20 After you came in and were informed that there was 21 an event going on at Three Mile Island, who were you informed
()
by?
22 23,
A Eldon Brunner.
()
24 Q
And subsequently your office was used to establish 25 I a communication line with the Three Mile Island site?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~..
4 I
A That is correct.
2 Q
And who was party to that discussion?
3 A
Originally Eldon Brunner and I.
As time proceeded, 4
additional people came in to the -- in to my office, principally e
5 from the health physics standpoint.
Greg Yuhas came in 9
j 6
and started acting as both a questioner and as a secretary G
7 taking notes on health physics standpoint.
A j
8 There were a number of other people.
I think Rick d
2 9
Kimmig came in.
Bud Crocker was in and out.
A number of E
h 10 people were in and out.
=
5 II Q
Okay.
At some point you contacted some people to k
g 12 put them on alert that they were going to be sent to Three
=
(m V'
g 13 Mile Island.
Do you recall about what time that occurred?
m l
14 A
It was probably right at 8:00 o' clock.
i 15 Q
Right at 8:00 o' clock?
j 16 A
Yes.
I w
17 i
Q Do you recall who those people were?
=
{
18 A
Yes, I do.
They were Karl Plumlee, chosen because C
"g 19 he was facility or assigned to the facility; Don Neely, who n
20 i
was chosen because he was definitely the lead health physicist 21 in Region I at the time, and he was put in charge of the group;
()
22 and Ron Nimitz, who was sent because of his knowledge and also 23 the fact he's young and has good legs.
1
()
24 Q
Were there others?
There were other people who went 25 to the site?
i.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5 I
A There were other people who went also.
One of them O
2 was Chic Gallina.
And the fifth one was an Operations man 3
who right now I can't recall his name.
4 Q
Higgins?
5 g
A Higgins, right.
9 j
6 Q
But do I understand that you didn't put either R*S 7
Gallina or Higgins on alert for this; that someone else did?
8 A
That's correct.
d 9
Q Did you call these people individually to put them zo g
10 on alert?
How did you put them on alert?
What mechanism did E
II you use?
3 f
I2 A
I came out of the office and, as I recall, essentially
(~1 5 13 s/
5 asked for them to be brought down immediately, to come down or m
m E
I4 come to my office immediately.
$j 15 0
You asked someone else to go to your office and
=
g 16 have them come to your office?
Is that your recollection?
w h
I7 A
As I recall, right.
Absolute recollection after x
}
18 two years is very difficult.
E I9 g
Q Okay.
Then were they to come directly or at some n
20 specified time to your office?
21 A
well, I think I asked for them right now.
(}
22 Q
Okay.
And did they then come to your office at 23 what --- what time, to your recollection?
About 8:15?
()
24 A
I would imagine that, yes.
25 0
And did they arrive essentially together, or i
1.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6 I
individually?
O 2
^
1 cen rece11 te1 kine to them in e eroug.
1e seems 3
it was a group of five at the time, and I don't know if this O
4 ie the firse time I te1ked to them or noe.
5 g
0 At this time, about 8:15, when these people gathered, a
6 was your telephone still being used, the speaker phone in your
~n b
7 office still being used to communicate with the site?
s j
8 A
Yes, as I recall, it was.
d
- s 9
Q Where as this meeting held, in that room or this --
z C
h 10 A
No, it was held <utside of my office.
Ycu're
=
Il aware of my office.
Out near the secretary's station.
s f
I2 Q
Okay.
And it's your recollection that the five f
13 people who then later went, were all gathered --
m 14 A
I can recall this meeting of the five, yes.
l 15 Q
Do you recall whether they were all there during i
x E
I0 that entire period or only part of the period?
us h
II A
Norm, I can't recall them all being there the entire x
18 period, no.
i:"
19
[
g Q
Okay.
Could you tell us to the best of your recolleca n
20 tion what you told these people when they assembled?
2I I know one of the things I told them was Neely was A
22 in charge.
23 I have here some notes that you provided us during Q
i 24 your last interview.
If I let you see those, would that be of 25 help to you?
1 ALDERiiON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~_
. - -. - ~ -, - -.
7 I
A Certainly.
2 (Witness examining documents.)
3 okay.
This is -- tb use are the notes that I O
4 originally took during the origiaal notification from --
5 y
Q And did you refer to these when you were talking N
6 h with or briefing these people?
n*"
7 A
I'm sure you didn't.
You mean actually have them in s
j 8
my hand?
d" 9
~.
Q Yes.
z O
h 10 A
No, I'm sure I referred to the knowledge of the
=
k II information that was here.
I had it with me, but I don't
's I2 recall actually referring to the notes.
()
13 0
Okay.
Then the question I had asked that preceding z
I4,
j my giving these, was your best recall of what it is you told
=j 15 these people at the time of the briefing?
=
16 A
Well, I (1) told them that Neely was in charge.
I h
II (2) told them that at the time there was no apparent release
=
l 10 from the facility.
This was from the information that had w
l 19 '
l i
been provided to us.
We had some readings.
There are n
20 additional notes that were taken by Greg Uhas.
We had some 21 !
readings.
l
()
Q Excuse me.
Readings of --
3l A
Internal.
()
Q Radiation rates, inside the facility?
25 '
l A
Yes.
Inside the containment vessel.
e
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 i
I I instructed them that they were to go at all haste 2
-- I can~ recall that -- to the sceme.
They were to determine 3
what was happening and' observe what the Licensee was doing,
()
4 report back to us, and determine if there was any hazard 5
j to health and safety, both to the public and those people 6
3 working in the facility.
N 8
7 I probably didn't use those words, but those were N
S 8
M my general instructions.
O d
9 j
Q Do you recall specific plant parameters that might O
10 have been given?
=2 11 g
A Well, I think there are some -- some here.
You mean d
12 Z
like pressure and temperature?
(
g Q
Yes.
Yes.
E 14 g
A I don't.
I would not have been that interested in z
9 15 E
that, Norm.
I know that they were being given.
x 16 y
Q What about containment pressure?
Do you recall 6
17 discussing containment pressure?
w=
18 A
I do recall some kind of numbers on containment
=
19 g
pressure, yes.
20 Q
Do you recall knowing those numbers, one?
21 A
Yes.
22 C,)s Q
And two, passing these on to these people?
23 A
No, this I don't.
I don't know for sure.
Here S
24 again, when I say recall knowing them, I have the problem of 25l!
was this 8:00 o' clock or 9:00 o' clock that I knew them.
But ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. _ ~ _.... - - -
I 9
I to the best of my knowledge, it was 8:00 o' clock, during the
()
2 time.
3 Do you have the -- yes, you do.
O 4
Q Maybe you should go ahead and continue that 5
j reference so that our record will be complete.
e.'
l 3
6 A
All right.
I'm looking at.the units of the message i
R cS 7
forms which were the notes that were taken by Yuhas and other i'
A j
8 people in the -- in my office at the time.
These are the "C"
d 9
~.
forms.
Do we have the --
10 (Witness examining document.)
II Here are the readings inside of the containment B
d 12 z
dome, personnel airlock, containment operating floor.
These I
13 g
are the first readings we had at approximately 8:00 o' clock.
3 14 2
Q So at the time you would have known this information?
l b
A Yes.
=
j 16 Q
At the time you were talking with them, is contain-s ment pressure one of the things?
5 18 A
I'm looking.
Containment pressure is not in the 19 8
"R" forms.
I'll see if it's in the "C".
I don't see it, no.
n 20 1400 psi, pressure in primary.
There are pressures after that, I
but that's after the te~m had left also, so.
()
22 MR. CRAIG:
Are you trying to establish, Norm, 23 l that containment pressure was reported?
()
MR. MOSELEY:
I'm trying to establish whether it was 25 discussed.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
10 I
THE WITNESS:
At 0800, I have a note here, containmen:
2 pressure 1 psi, 900, 4 psi.
BY MR. MOSELEY:
v 4
Q Do you recall discussing this with the group?
5 A
I do not.
9 6
Q Do you recall a discussion of hydrogen in the EE 7
containment?
A k
0 A
I definitely do not recall a discussion of hydrogen.
d
]".
I knew of nothing of hydrogen at that time.
9 s
10 y
Q Do you recall a discussion with Plumlee at the
=
5 II conclusion of your briefing where he asked whether or not there 3
fI was hydrogen in the containment?
A I do not recall such a discussion.
E 14 y
Q So you -- your statement to us is that you knew --
x 9
15 2
did not know of hydrogen, or did you suspect hydrogen as a x
16 y
possibility at that time?
I A
At that time, no.
m 18 O
So it's your recollection that you neither knew of e-"
19 j
hydrogen nor did you discuss hydrogen in any way with either the total group or any individual within that group; is that i
correct?
O
^
rhet s correce.
rae firee true reco11ection seve 23l of discussion of the hydrogen problem occurred about three O
devs 1eeer when the hydroeen eusste suestion was gresented.
25l Now it's possible I have discussed it and it's possible that I l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 11 I
knew of it earlier, but my first recollection is Friday, I believe, :
2 is when the --
3 BY MR. CRAIG:
4 0
George, where were you when you first remember hearing 5
g hydrogen discussed as a problem?
9 3
0 A
I was at TMI.
R b
7 BY MR. MOSELEY:
i A
j 8
Q And when did you get to TMI?
d 9
A Friday afternoon.
E h10 0
Friday afternoon?
=
5 II A
Yes.
3 y
12 Q
About what time?
()E 13 A
3:30.
I flew in, Boyce and I flew in at the same I4 time.
$j 15 0
Okay.
=
E Ib BY MR. HOEFLING:
M h
II Q
From whom did you first learn of hydrogen?
=
b IO A
Oh, boy.
I think the first time I he4.* it was P"
19 8
in,the briefing we got right after we flew in, from Harold n
20 Denton.
2I BY MR. MOSELEY:
22
()
Q George, Plumlee has told us of a recall that he had 23 l where he thought he heard you say that there was 1.7, or rather I
()
24l
- 2. -- 2.2, 2.3 percent hydrogen in the containment at the --
25 in this initial briefing; and he further recalls that at the i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 I
end of the briefing, he asked you about this hydrogen, and your r~s k-)
2 statement, according to his recollection, was that you didn't 3
intend to say hydrogen, you had intended to say pressure.
4 You don't have any recall of this discussion?
5 g
A No.
That does not mean it didn't take place.
9 2'
6 However, I can't -- I don't recall it in any way.
Now 2.2 --
G 7
I don't even know where he would get that, because I see N
j 8
containment pressure was 1 psi at 8:00 o' clock.
d c;
9 Q
Okay.
Is it your belief that you passed on all the h
10 information that you had about the accident at that time to
=
II those people before they left?
3 f
I2 A
Yes.
I can think of no reason why I would withh0_d 1
k._3 3 13
/ 5 anything from them.
=
z 5
I4 Q
And further, that you provided them all that you 5j 15 had?
=
j 16 A
All that I had, yes.
w h
I7 i
0 Okay.
And that was your intention?
i
=
f 18 A
Definitely, yes.
I9 Q
Did you characterize the accident in your recall to n
0 them at that time?
21 3
7,m sure I did, but I can't recall what statement I
()
might have used.
2 23 ;
O Do you recall whether you used the term " accident" i
/~N 24 Q
or not?
25 A
Norm, I can't --
t l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, NC.
13 1
O The reason I asked that question --
2 A
I can't think of why I would or wouldn't.
3 Q
The reason why I asked that question is that there f'- /
4 may have been other times when events had gone on which had e
5 been characterized as events or incidents, without using the R
6 I term " accident," and I was wondering if by use of this term, i
R 7
there may have been some connotation of something more severe
~
j 8
than other things.
I'm just wondering if that may have motivated d
=;
9 it.
ze g
10 A
I can't -- I can't think why I wouldn't use the z=
5 II term " accident."
I also can't think why I would specifically 3
y 12 use the term " accident."
It has no connotations to me
=
()
13 generally, although I do attempt to use the term " incident" m
I4 j
or " event" mostly, though, when I am talking to the public, k]
15 rather than when I would be discussing this with my people.
y 16 Q
In your dealings with your own people, do you ---
s f
I7 what is your way of assessing what information should be passed f
3 18 along to them?
I'm trying to generalize beyond this particular cs I9 g
date.
Do you have a philosophy?
n 20 A
Personal philosophy?
2I Q
- Yes, or a method of operation that we can refer
(])
22 to.
23 :
A I attempt to inform my people of everything that
()
24l is happening, especially if I were to end somebody, in this 25lt i
case, as I was sending them into an incident.
Under no u
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
14 1
circumstances would I try to withhold anything from them, any
()
2 more than I would want anyone to try to withhold anything from 3
me.
No, definitely in this case, my philosophy is you tell 4
it to the point of nausea, perhaps, c
5 BY MR. CRAGI:
h j
6 Q
George, do you remember having any conversations R
R 7
with Mr. Plumlee about hydrogen content in the Unit 2 contain-Rj 8
ment atmosphere?
Jd 9
A Ever?
ie 10 0
Any time in March or early April 1979.
E g
11 A
Oh, I'm sure we discussed hydrogen.
I'm sure we 3
g 12 discussed the bubble.
I don't know -- I can't recall directly
(])
13 with Plumlee, but I'm sure that after we became concerned l
14 with the hydrogen bubble problem on March 29th, 30th, 31st, 2
15 I -- I cannot recall any specific conversations with Plumlee.
E j
16 BY MR. STELLO:
2 6
17 Q
George, you just said March 29, 30, 31.
A little l
5 M
18 earlier you said your first recollection of hydrogen was three 5{
19 days earlier when you got to the site on Friday.
Did you have 5
20 any discussion before you got to the site?
21 A
Not to my knowledge.
{-}
22 Q
Can you remember where the region first learned 23 ;
about the hydrogen problem?
24 A
I think it was when we got to the site, when Boyce
(}
25 and I got to the site, and were briefed by Denton is my
?
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 I
recollection, which was Friday.
()
2 O
Were you working in the regional office Thursday 3
night?
(w/3 4
A
- Yes, e
5 0
Till what titte?
?
6 A
Probably about midnight.
R
- S 7
Q About midnight?
And you had not heard any word Mj 8
from the site about a --
O c;
9 A
I don't recall hearing any.
z O
h 10 0
You don't recall.
=
5 II Did you have any conversation with Higgins regarding B
f I2 hydrogen, do you recall?
O
( } f 13 A
No, I did not talk to Higgins.
m E
I4 Q
How about Neely?
{
15 A
I did talk to Neely, yes.
m j
16 Q
About hydrogen?
A h
17 A
I don't recall talking to him about hydrogen.
=
5 18 That's while I was still at the region on Thursday night.
P" 19 8
Q On Thursday?
n 20 A
Yes.
I'm sure I discussed hydrogen with Neely after I
I got to TMI.
22 f}
Q And this discussion, bringing you back again to 23 ;
8:00 o' clock in the morning, March 28, how long did you talk 24
(])
to the group?
25 i A
I would imagine altogether no longer than 10 minutes.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
16 I
Q Did anyone ask you questions?
OV 2
A Yes.
3 Q
Do you remember who?
4 A
No.
O What were the questions?
6:
A What was the conditions of the facility.
What were n
8 7
7 they supposed to do when they got there.
What was their N2 8
M posture.
I know there were several questions along that line, d
d 9
].
Q Did Plumlee ask any questions, do you recall?
c h
10 A
Specifically, no.
I'm sure he did, though, knowing
=
II Karl.
k d
12 z
Q Was he apprehensive about going at all?
Did he c
(
I o
give you any indication that he was?
3 14 A
He did not.
Now it's possible he could be apprehen-x 9
15 g
sive and I wouldn't recognize it.
I wasn't -- I didn't know 16 g
him as well then as I know him now.
If I were to give him an f
17 l j
assignment now, and he was apprehensive, I would be able to sense z
M 18 it.
At that time I didn't know him well enough to know.
No
=
19 y
one gave me any negative, "No, I don't want to go."
20 Q
If you were going to report various kinds of 21 pressure, how would you present them to the group?
How 22
(,%)
would you characterize the numbers?
l 23 A
I don't -- you mean would I say to them, there's
()
an overpressure in the --
25 i
Q Yeah, that's what I'm looking for.
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
17 1
A Probably if I was aware there was an overpressure,
()
I would just give them a pressure number.
This group is --
3 Q
How would you give the pressure number?
_)
A So many psi have been reported in the containment.
Q PSI?
3 6
i A
Yes.
i n
8 7
Q If someone misunderstood whatever number you gave n9 8
5 them, they weren't sure whether you were talking about pressure, d
d 9
7,-
and you had stated -- instead of containment pressure, you were 10 g
talking about radiation levels or something else, and someone I
E 11 g
asked you to clarify it, you would not expect that you would c
12 E
have a recollection?
It would be a normal conversation or --
..d 13
()j A
That would be a normal conversation.
Most of the 14 g
things I remember best during this period at this late date 9
15 g
are things that irritated me.
That would not irritate me if I
~.
16 y
somebody asked for a clarification.
17 d
Q So Plumlee's recollection that he thought he heard
~
18 you say that you gave a hydrogen concentration, and to have s
E 19 g
you come back and say, "If you heard hydrogen, I clearly meant 20 to say pressure," that kind of a response would not be something you would think you would recall?
O A
No.
\\
23 l Q
It's fairly obviously fairly important that we
(]}
clarify whether there was any discussion at all, especially the 25l morning of the 28th, on the hydrogen.
Can you be reasonably I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 I
certain in your recollection that of all of the discussions that
()
2 took place on the 28th, you car. say with some certainty hydrogen 3
was not discussed?
4 A
I can say with absolute certainty I don't recall 5
y discussing hydrogen.
I can say with some certainty it was not e.'
0 discussed based mainly upon my discussions with other people i
R b
7
- also, s9 8
5 O
If it were discussed, is it likely you would recall i
d it?
A I think it is, because I would have been concerned.
=
II Q
Do they ever do a gas analysis, to the best of a
12 5
your knowledge, before they go into containment?
=
13 C_') g A
Yes, they do a gas analysis.
I'm not sure they z
h do it for hydrogen.
Do they do it for hydrogen?
x 9
15 g
Q What's the purpose of the gas analysis?
z E
0 A
Generally to determine what the airborne concentration A
d 17
.1s.
gm 18 Q
Oh, you mean to measure radioactivity, not gas
=H" 19 t
j concentration?
I meant it in terms of measuring oxygen levels 20 l or hydrogen.
21 A
Well, I think if you were concerned about oxygen, f '}
that's what I would be looking for.
23 !
l Q
Are you aware of that being routinely done?
1
()
A I am not.
25 l Q
You are not.
f I
(
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19 I
A It very possibly is, but I'm not aware of it.
(
2 Q-Were you aware they were attempting to get a gas 3
-- a containment air sample on the morning?
Were you aware of 4
that before?
5 g
A I'm aware of it now.
I was not aware of it then.
9 6
0 You don't have any notes that reflect that they R
eS 7
indicated --
Aj 8
A No.
O c;
9 Q
-- an attempt at getting a containment sample?
z O
g 10 A
Not notes that were taken at that time.
I am aware
=
II now that they attempted to take one.
E f
I2 Q
Do you have in your notes what the dome monitor o
Oi' was reedine?
I m
5 I4 A
Yes.
$j 15 Q
What was it?
z E
I0 A
At 0800, approximately 0800, the containment dome s
h I7 monitor was reading 200 R per hour.
m M
18 0
200 R per hour is what the notes say?
E I9 2
A Yes.
5 20 Q
Was there any discussion of a correction factor on 2I the 200 R per hour?
22
(}
A At that particular time I don't recall, at 0800.
I 23 l know there was much discussion later on that.
24
[]}
0 Was it before the group left or after?
25 A
It would be after the group left, to my knowledge.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 I
Q You don't recall any discussion of a correction O
2
,,cto,p,1o,to the,,oup 1e,ving, 3
A No, I don't.
/'_'T 4
(/
Q Would it have been -- would you have recognized 5
[,
that to be important if the correction factor were to be n
3 0
applied?
7 A
Yes, but not that important.
I think the dome M
j 8
monitor was indicative of the fact that we had a very serious 0
~
[".
9 problem; to be using it as an absolute measure, which
=
10 corrective -- correction factor would indicate, I don't think,
=
k II is that important.
E g
12 O
Why do you say that 200 R per hour is indicative c
13
(]) a of a very serious situation?
What caused you to say 'that?
14 A
To have a reading of this magnitude at the time j
15 of a containment vessel is -- let me say not normal.
=
j 16 0
If you had a loss of just primary coolant in the w
6 17 containment, would you expect the dome monitor to read -- would i
E 0
it be in that range, just from primary coolant activity?
s" 19 8
A It depends on what the primary coolant is.
You mean n
0 normal primary coolant without failed fuel, without a lot of --
21 Q
You have to have some failed fuel to get primary 22
(~}
coolant activity to begin with.
V 23l' A
Well, to get significant quantities of primary 24 i coolant.
(" }
25 '
Q What would you expect the dome monitor to read, l
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- -~
21 I
then?
()
2 A
By just getting the primary coolant into the 3
containment?
()
Q
- Yes, 5
g A
Vic, I don't know, but what does it read above a 3
6 i
reactor when you take the top off?
Surely it doesn't give n
8 7
you 200 R per hour at the dome monitor, and you are looking at 9
8 M
the primary coolant then.
No, I would not expect to see anything 4
f.
like that with just primary coolant on a regular facility, cF 10 g
routine facility.
=
fI Q
What would you expect it to be?
d 12 E
A I don't know.
9
():
13 g
Q Significant?
Would you expect it in the MR range E
14 y
or in the R range?
x 9
15 s
A I would expect it probably in the very low R per x
y.
16 hour1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> range, several hundred MR per hour, maybe an R per hour 6
17,
at the outside.
am M
18
=
Also of significance, this thing was going up.
At 19 l
800, it was 200; at 8:25, it was 600; 8:40, it'.was 1000.
This 20 is significant here to me.
You're going that way.
21 Q
Now I'm talking only now when the group was there.
22 A
Oh.
Okay, when the group was there.
[}
23 i
Q It was 200 MR.
A Yes.
25 f
MR. MOSELEY:
200 R?
1 I
i ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 I
j MR. STELLO:
I mean 200 R, excuse me, per hour.
2
()
BY MR. STELLO:
3 0
Well, a factor of 100 would make that 20,000 R per I")
4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, which would obviously make it considerably more serious.
v e
5 A
Yes.
El
${
0 Q
Do you now know whether a factor of 100 should have E"
7 been applied to the 200 MR?
N k
A Vic, I do, but I don't -- I can't recall.
As I d
}".
9 recall, it should have been.
Is that not correct?
E 10 g
Q I'm asking.
=
fII A
Yeah.
There's been a hell of a lot of water flowed d
12 E
under the bridge since then.
I believe the determination was
=
13 made that the correction factor should have been applied.
Yes.
~
z 5
I4 Q
Well, the later numbers you have then, the 8000
$j 15 or the number you were reading, was that with or without the z
j 16 hundred factor?
W d
17 l i
A These are without.
These are reported as GM with
- =
M 18 four inches of lead shield.
=u" 19 j
Q Okay.
Did you have a primary coolant activity and 20 primary coolant reported at that time?
21 A
No.
I 22 j
Q You did not?
23 A
No, sir.
O What's the normal primary coolant activity range 25j that you have seen?
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 I
A I forgot to study for this test.
I haven't inspected 2
a reactor for --
3 0
What are the tech spec values in that range?
()
4 A
I don't know.
5 g
Q Would a number of, say, from 10 to 100 microcuries 9
1 3
6 per milliliter --
R b
7 A
3ounds reasonable.
Aj 8
Q Sounds reasonable?
d
=;
9 A
Yes.
2 O
h 10 Q
How much of a change do you think you might get as a
=
11 result of a shutdown of a reactor?
Are you familiar with aj 12 iodine spiking, for instance?
i 5
13
(-) 5 rx A
Oh, yes.
14 Q
How much of a change do you get due to iodine xj 15 spiking?
x E
I6 A
When you dump a reactor?
M I
Q After you --- yeah, when you scram, right after a x
18 change, power change.
P 19 8
A That's a terrible question.
Oh, Vic,'I'm at a total n
20 loss, and I know it happens.
2I Q
Big numbers?
A factor of 10?
50?
22 A
I think about a factor of 5.
O 23 l Q
Factor of 5.
24 Would a number of 100 microcuries per CC give you 25 !
the impression that that was a reactor with major damage to a i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24 I
core?
A 100 microcuries per CC is a very high number.
3 O
It's what?
Ok-A It's a high number, it seems to me.
5 Q
Did you say very high, or just high?
9 ji l
A It's a high number.
6 9
7 0
would it be an indicator of - -
n E
8 n
A What do we have presently?
What did we have in the 0
d 9
7-core down there?
10 Q
Oh, I recall numbers of total cooling activity of z=
f 20, 30, 40 microcuries per CC tech spec values.
u d
12 Z
A I'm talking about there at TMI.
E 13 O
0 I believe it's a 117 microcuries per CC was the
=
E 14 y
first number reported.
m 9
15 g
A Right.
And then we were very close to a millicurie,
.T 16 y
weren't we?
H 17 G
Q The primary coolant sample that was taken later x
18 that day was measuring, as I recall, 1000 R per hour.
It was s
E 19 j
g very, very hot.
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
I'm just trying to see if 117 microcuries per CC would
(])
cause you to conclude a word like damage to fuel or. perforated --
23 some perforated fuel, you know, what level of seriousness
/.
24
-~
would you identify?
25[.
A 117 microcuries per CC, I would suspect damage ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
. - _. - _ =.. _ -
l 25 1
to fuel.
()
Q Damaged fuel, or perforated?
3 A
I've got a problem there.
Perforated fuel is
/~'s 4
V damaged.
e 5
g Q
Well, this record on TMI is filled with the word 3
6
" damage" being used to describe the state of the core as it n
R 7
exists now, as we now understand it, and I'm trying to make sure n
8 I
that there is a distinction between do you have damage to c
9 g
mean that kind of degradation of the core, or damage to mean E
10 y
a failed rod, a perforated rod?
E 11 g
A I think at that level we are talking about major d
12 damage to the core.
3
()!
Q At 117 microcuries per CC?
E 14 s
A Yes.
=
9 15 T.2 3 Q
I'm not sure I'm understanding why you are saying T
16 this, and I need to understand it a little bit more.
If the i
17 g
iodine spiking is on the order of, for your number, 5, and M
18
=
normal primary coolant activity is ---
C 19 s
A One.
20 0
-- one to 20 microcuries per CC --
21 A
It's more on the order of one, isn't it?
22
[' }
Q That depends on how much failed fuel there is.
A 23 l very small fraction, something considerably less than 1 percent, 24
(}
as I recall, can get you fsirly high concentration, well in 25 excess of 1 microcurie per CC, and you can get an iodine spiking i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
26 I
on top of that factor of five, and I think they are closer to a
()
2 factor of 50.
i 3
7.m not sure I understand why you would believe you
'.T)'
would have to have a severely damaged core.
I'm not sure 4
5 you used the word " severely" or not.
e j
6 g
7.m not sure that I feel very comfortable with your Rh7 line of questioning right now.
I'm not sure that my answers --
n5 8
n Q
Well, let me -- I don't want to surprise you.
The J
reason I'm asking these questions is that Plumlee indicated he c6 10 g
thought that 117 microcuries per CC was an indication -- and
=!
II does anyone recall his words, so that I don't try to s
12 i
characterize him in a way that's unfair?
9
()h MR.'MOSELEY:
I probably won't be able to find it,
I M
but I'll look.
M P
15 G
MR. STELLO:
Does anyone recall?
=
~
16 g
MR. CRAIG:
I think he said 117 -- 170 --- 117 was F
d 17 !
an indication to him of massive core damage.
m 5
18 BY MR. STELLO:
=
H" 19 j
Q I don't recall his language, but in any case, of a 20 core which is damaged in some significant way, and I'm trying to calibrate myself with would you react that way, too, or 22
(}
would you feel that if you had a rapid power change and you 23 '
had some severe pellet clad interaction, and you might have 24
(]}
failed some fuel, which we have had, if you recall, in some of 25 ',
the reactors where this has happened, in Region III, Quad I
r I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 Il Cities had a rather severe pellet clad interaction problem.
I
()
2 don't remember what the numbers got, do you?
3 MR. F.TSHER:
I don't recall them.
BY MR. STELLO:
j Q
But we have seen some fairly high primary coolant d
6 activity. As a result, I am trying to get the feeling from you e
n R
7 to calibrate myself as to how you would react to it.
n E
8 M
A I would react by asking one of my people who is e
d 9
j most familiar what the hell I should be expecting.
c h
10 z
Q Okay.
=
E 11 j
A Eight years ago I could have answered that question d
12 z
very easily.
3
(])5 0
I probably could have, too, or I wouldn't be asking.
E 14 A
My problem is I would like to feel very familiar e
9 15 g
with it, and I feel uncomfortable.
I would call Bill and ask
~
16 g
him.
p 17 x
Q Okay.
Let me try to get back to the hydrogen z
18
=
question again.
The -- if there were a discussion of hydrogen, 19 g
would you conclude that there would have had to have been 20 several people who would have had to have been aware of it?
21 Is it possible that only you could be aware of it and no one 22
(}
else?
23 ;
A No.
I 24
(}
Q Why do you say that so quickly?
25 A
I was never on the telephone receiving information l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
28 I
from TMI alone.
2
()
Q Okay.
So the only way you would have gotten the 3
information is through a telephone in your office?
4
()
A Right.
5 g
0 And that was on the sqauwk box?
4 3
6' e
A It was on a squawk box.
Eldon Brunner was there at G
=S 7
all times.
Greg Yuhas came in very early to report and 3*
8 5
started taking notes.
There were other people, as I said, d
{".
9 constantly in and out.
As a matter of fact, the place became quite --
=
II Q
So that if the information came, it had to come 3
e 12 3
through that communication link?
=
I A
Yes.
p'd x I#
Q And if it came through that communication link, it e
9 15 g
would have to be -- the names of people you have already
=
~
16 g
mentioned as a minimum would be aware of it?
f 17 A
Yes.
o=
18 Q
Who was on the other end of the phone, do you recall?
s" 19 8
A Dick DuBiel was one time.
The initial fellow was a n
20 fellow by the name of Don Warren, the lead mechanical engineer.
21 Gary Miller was on during this period.
22 Q
This is all before 200 o' clock?
23 '
A Before 8:00 a x e:
00, yes.
e4 '
~
l Q
Okay.
Assume ior me, for a moment, that for some 25 :
reason it was decided that the issue of hydrogen would not be l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
29 I
discussed.
Give me a motive or a reason for it,' assuming that 2
it would not be discussed or someone didn't want to discuss it, 3
what reason could you possibly give for not discussing it?
4 I want to make it very clear, I'm not suggesting 5
y that you did, but could you think of a reason why anyone 9
i j
6 would be reluctant?
u5 7
A The only thing that I could even guess at would be 3
8 8
the explosive potential.
d m;
9 Q
Because you didn't want others to know that?
z Og 10 A
Right.
II Q
Why?
a f
I2 A
I don't know.
You're saying one reason that I 3
g 13 can possibly think of that people would not want other people l
14 to know of the hydrogen problem.
The only thing I can think of
$j 15 is the explosion potential, why they wouldn't want others to x
E I0 know.
as h
I7 Q
Would they be afraid of frightening people?
=
{
18 A
Yeah, I guess the breach of containment and i:"
19 g
subsequent potential for release, the breach of the classical n
20 protective boundaries.
2I Q
So if someone were to tell you that, well, perhaps 22 a reason someone didn't want to say this is to avoid frightening 23 people, that that wo 1d certainly be possible?
24 A
Yes.
But I can assure you if I was sending people 25 down, as I was, and there was such a potential, they would ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
- = -
30 I
certainly know it.
()
2 Q
And perhaps even further, you might consider who 3
ought to go?
(])
4 A
That's correct.
5 0
And to give them special precaution?
n j
6 i
A I think I would have asked for volunteers if there R
^
7 was a potential for an explosion.
I would not have assigned n
8 8
people.
4 f.
9 Q
Okay.
What I was trying to understand, you would a
E 10
- j not find it unreasonable, then, for someone to say if they
=
5 II suspected that someone were not going to talk about hydrogen, a
12 E
that it would not be a far-fetched reason to say that they
=
13
(]).g=
were concerned that people would become frightened with that 3
14 2
information, if you --
u 9
15 g
A It's a scenario we could draw.
Yes.
16 M
Q It's not unreasonable?
z 17 d
A It's not that unreasonable.
I would fault their
=
18 reasoning, but it's not that unreasonable.
19 j
Q Okay.
Let me see if I can summarize for myself.
20 To your best recollection, there was no discussion 21 of hydrogen, nor was any information on hydrogen provided to 22
{}
you on the morning of the 28th?
23
?
A That is correct.
(}
Q If that information had been provided, you are 25 ?
j relatively sure that you would have passed it on?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 1
A That is correct.
Q 2
Q You do not know of anyone up at the region who, 3
aside from Plumlee, which you have already identified, who said 4
this, who suggested there was ever any discussion of hydrogen s
5 on the 28th?
O j
6 A
That is correct.
And if we had have had information R
7 on hydrogen, there are other people who would have been aware s
j 8
of it.
d 9
Q And if there were -- okay.
E 10 MR. STELLO:
That's it.
11 MR. MOSELEY:
Okay.
Thank you, George.
B y
12 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, George.
5 i
a 13 MR. MOSELEY:
We appreciate your efforts.
m 5
14 (Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m.,
the deposition was 5
15 adjourned.)
==
3 16 s
'A p
17 i
E 5
18 5
E 19 s
20 21 22 O
1 23 '
4 24 O
25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
O nuctria azoutaroar cosarssron This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Q
I&E Investigation Team in the matter of:
TMI, Unit 2 Date of Proceeding:
January 12, 1981 Docket fiumb er:
Place of Proceeding:
nnewnyan. na.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
ANN RILEY Official Reporter (Typed)
O-a_
1,_
t Official Reporter (Signature) l l
O O
n.--
-e
-