ML19242D891
| ML19242D891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1979 |
| From: | Bronson F RADIATION MANAGEMENT CORP. (RMC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908280763 | |
| Download: ML19242D891 (39) | |
Text
'
,.l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
l 1!
In the Matter of:
i 2
IE TMI INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW 31 of Frazier L. Bronson, Vice President, Mid-West Division 1
of the Radiation Management Corporation 41 Si 6!
71 8!
Trailer #203 9i NRC Investigation Site TMI Nuclear Power Plant 1 01 Middletown, Pennsylvania 11l l
Mav 15, 1979 12!
(Date of Interview) i 13I Julv 1, 1979 14,l (Date Transcript Typed) l 195 15j (Tape Numcer(s))
16 17l 19!
19l 20l 21j NRC PERSONNEL:
'22l Robert Marsh Thomas H. Essig 23l 24l 25:
)f0[]N0lb3 n7 i O 3 :
I I
i 1f MARSH:
The date is May 15, 1979.
The time is 9:14 AM.
We are located 2'
in the offices of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion in Glen Ellyn, 3
I am Robert Marsh, that's MARSH, Investigator with the USNRC l
41 and we are here this morning to conduct a interview of Mr. Frazier L.
Bronson, BRONSON, Vice President, Mid-West Division of the Radiation 6f Management Corporation, that's located at 356 Commercial Avenue, North Brook, Illinois, 60062.
Before starting, I'd like each individual in 0
the room to identify themselves, spell their last name, and identify 9
their position.
Tom, if you would.
10l 11 ESSIG:
My name is Thomas H. as in Harold Essig, last name spelled 12 ESSIG.
My title is Chief, Environmental and Special Projects Section, 13l USNRC, Region III.
14!
15:
MARSH:
Okay, Mr. Bronson if you'd identify yourself.
16 17l BRONSON:
My name is Frazier Bronson and I am Vice President of the 18i Mid-West Division, Radiation Management Corporation.
19j 20l MARSH:
Okay.
I will ask that we pull that microphone a little bit 21f closer.
We'll try it like that and see how we do.
Mr. Bronson we 22i talked, or Mr. Bronson we talked for a few minutes before I turned the 23 tape on, regarding what we want to cover.
I would like you to go into 24!
your background, before we begin that I'd like to get a few things just 25[
r
,q?
[i Q _)
'V.'
2 It on the record.
The NRC is conducting an investigation of the Three Mile 2l 51and accident and as such we're going through quite a few interviews.
3 la the course of these interviews, we are using a tape recorder and if 41 j
this does present any problem to you, we can take written notes as w
~
opposed to a tape recorder.
If this is satisfactory to you, I'd like 6l your permission at this time to continue to tape the interview.
7 8
BRONSON:
That's satisfactory.
9l l
10 MARSH:
Fine.
If you so desire, at the conclusion of this interview I 11 will get you a copy of the tape and as the transcript is available I 12!
will provide you also a copy of that transcript.
13 14 BRONSON:
I'd appreciate that.
15!
t 16 MARSH-Okay.
Then at that point then, Mr. Bronson if you would, give 17 us some of your background with Radiation Management Corporation and 18!
your association with Metropolitan Edison and Three Mile Island.
19f 20; BRONSON:
Okay.
I have a Batchelor's Degree in iluclear Engineering from j
21l the University of Missouri i.n 1964, and in 1965 a Master's Degree in 22 Radiological Health from the University of Oaklahoma.
I worked for 4 l
23j years with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Recearch Institute in Bethesda, 24j Maryland as the head of their Radiological Measurements Laboratory and 2Si 07 t
() C j r )-
i t
i
l l
3 l
have then worked for 10 years with Radiation Management Corporation in 2'
various positions but always involving aspects of radiation measurement 3
both in samples and in environmental areas and in personnel such as 4l j
whole body counting.
We as, or one of many consultants involved with Si j
Metropolitan Edison and have performed various projects for them over 6
the past 5 or 10 years, including environmental monitoring at the Three 7
Mile Island site.
8l 9
MARSH:
Okay.
Tem you have some questions I believe.
10 11 ESSIG:
I'll be giving my name before this, before I ask the questions, 12!
so the gal transcribing can keep us straight.
This is Essig speaking.
13 Frazier, you indicated that you were a contractor, that Radiation Manage-14!
ment Corporation was a contractor with Metropolitan Edison, was that 15 true on the date in question here, March 28th through the 30th?
16:
17l BRONSON:
We, at that time were on the site with a contract for whole 18i body counting and have a portion of the environmental monitoring program.
19l That portion, I believe is the QA type portion of the program but not 20!
the major portion of the environmental monitoring program at the moment.
21l f
22!
ESSIG:
You were under a contracts for the Analytical Services that you 23j were providing on the dates in question, what are the other contracts 24j extended to cover that?
i.
25j 02 4 o veJ i VU l
{
4 l!
BRONSON:
That is true.
2f l
31 r
ESSIG:
Okay.
What time did you, time and date did you arrive onsite, 4:!
approximately could you recall?
i 5!
l Gl BRONSON:
I received a phone call on the, get my calendar here, on the Thursday.
Okay, on the morning of the 29th which was about 5:30 in the 8
morning, that's Chicago time and that was from our people in Philadelphia od and requesting that I go out there immediately and provide some assistance i
10 in sample measurement to several of our other people and with some of 11{
our other equipment that was on the way out there.
I called back to the ld!
station about a half an hour later and confirmed this and made reservations i
13 on the next plane going out which left roughly at 9 and got there roughly 14 at 1, so I think I was physically on the site about 2 in the afternoon 15!
on the 29th.
16f 17l ESSIG:
About 2 in the afternoon on the 29th.
18j 19!
BRONSON:
I'm not exactly sure of the times.
20,;
i 21{
ESSIG:
Approximately.
22l l
23l t
2 41 25i
.n7 1 n7
(... )
i u/
4
l I
l 5
i l!
BRONSON:
But you can check that by looking at the plane schedule.
2:
l 3l ESSIG:
Right.
To whom were you report:ng in Met Ed? Who was calling 4:l or, giving you most of your direction during your stay onsite?
5l' 6i BRONSON:
Well, ultimately'we had 3 or 4 different projects and each one 7
had more or less a different person in charge of them.
The various 8
people that were giving us direction were initially Sid Porter for 9
sample analysis and then people from the station in that same capacity, 10 Tcm Mulleavy and Dick Dubiel when they were available, but primarily 11l through Sid Porter on sample analysis.
Whale body counting was typically 12I done through existing station procedures and that contact ended up being 13 Dave Limroth or under other certain circumstances Sid when he was around 14 for that or involved in that part of it, and also in that category was 15!
Mike Buring on Bioassay Result Whole Body Counting.
16; i
17I ESSIG:
Now, you indicated there were several areas and I just want to 18!
make sure that I have these all straightened out.
We're talking about 19!
actual sample counting that was one area, whole body counting was another.
20l 21l BRONSON:
A third area which I didn't mention was respirator testing i
22' which was, I believe, after the, I believe that was into April and then 23 we were doing offsite environmental analysis which was not coordinated l
24l through me on the site.
That was done through the laboratories in l
25j Philadelphia.
1 Do
() r> 7 if j i Vd i
f N
6 l
i f
ESSIG:
Okay.
This would be the normal offsite, the QA portion of the "t
a environmental monitoring program?
3
- 'l BR0flSON:
Yes, and some portions of it I suspect which were augmented S{i because of the incident there.
6!
ESSIG:
Okay.
When did the whole body counting portion of your work 8
i begin?
9' 10' BRONSON:
Well, it was, the counter was there covering the outage from 11' Unit 1.
12!
I 13{
ESSIG:
Oh okay.
141 15-BRONS0ft:
And so when the incident occurred, the site was evacuated 16 including our operator and he got, he was there but we finally got 17 clearance to get the truck off the site.
About the same time I got 18!
there so, I think the truck was just leaving the gate about 2 o' clock in 19!
the afternoon on the 29th, when I got there.
We pulled it over to the 20i Electrical Substation, I forget the name of it, it's behind the hill f
21l behind the Observation Center.
22 c
23l i
24l i
i 25j 4
ng eo, 4
o a
a i
l
(
7 i
lt:
ESSIG:
It would be the 500 Kv Substation?
i 2;
I 31 BRONSON:
Yes, I think so.
4!
i i
5' l
ESSIG:
I tnink it's commonly referred to as that.
6i 7
BRONSON:
Yeh.
It's the one over the nill behind the Observation Center.
8l And, so we had the counters electrically connected ch within a couple of 9
hours and we washed it down because there was su'. face contamination on 10 it, the zenons read some of the dust particles so just a light washing 11l with a damp cloth knocked most of that down.
We were up counting 5 or 6 12l o' clock in the evening.
I 13j 14 ESSIG:
Now when you say zenons were observed on the dust particles, do 15 you actually, did you see zenon in your background then and the?
16; t
17l BRONSON:
Yes.
lSt i
19!
ESSIG:
In the whole body counter?
20l
)
21{
BRONSON:
Very much so.
22j 1
23f l
24l 25l i
1 i(
() i -b.
I I I
\\
i
{
8 t
l 1
1l ESSIG:
A very significant peak?
2' f
]i BRONSON:
Yes, a very significant peak and significant amounts at that 4!
time.
i Si 1
ESSIG:
And the wash down then, essentially that pretty much get rid of it or?
8 9
BRONSON:
Reduced it quite a bit and then what we werc left with was 10 things which were of an atmospheric nature, you could see.
Changes in 11!
the background going periodically, as I presumed the wina changed direc-i 12!
tions.
I 13l 14 ESSIG:
Okay.
I think that pretty much coincides with the experience of 15:
others onsite, that as the wind shifted, I know our cwn laboratory there 16 was seeing the zenon peak in the background.
Okay.
i 17i l
18f BRONSON:
Yeh and we were seeing it up in the other mobile lab too.
19l 20 ESSIG:
The whole body counting activities, were they under your direct 21j supervision or were you mostly in, on the, associated with the san.ple 22!
analysis?
23 24j t
25i I
-i l
'oJ i i j i
{
9 I
11 BRONSON:
I was, at the time I was there in charge of all of RMC's 2f personnel onsite, however, I did spend more of my time in the sample 3i analysis because I had another guy there, Herman D?.niel who was quite 4!
capable of the whole body counting and I could let him be in charge af 5'
most c_ that operation plus we had a good Whole Body Counting Tech there 6i too.
So, that was one area I could let them handie more of a direct 7l 8!
ESSIG:
That part of it pretty much ran itself then, as far as?
9l 10f BRONSON:
Well, there were some initial problems in getting set up to i
11 conveniently analyze, to conveniently let the computer analyze the bulk 12 of the data due to the high zenon contributions and we could, we have i
13l techniques to where we can operate under a predictable but varying 14 background.
One technique is you, you only look at things greater than 15I 300 Kev which includes, which means you can still see the iodines, but 16 it does tend to reduce the zenon contribution from the background signifi-17 cantly.
The second thing we can do is, if you have a pr dictable amount 18!
of, a predictable background spectra as we did there, which was due to 191 one peak, or due to one particular combination of nuclides, the zenons 20j and then was due to only two different circumstances, one where the 2
zenon clouds were in the vehicle itself and the second was when thev
~
22' were way up in the sky.
We could treat those ;wo background spectra as 23 a standard and therefore, anaijze or eliminate them ftom the background i
24j so then after a day or so we were, I.hink after the second day, we were 25j able to count people with very little interference from the zenon background.
tj 7 i
iU) i I "
i
i i
f 10 1
ESSIG:
Is this something that you, did you program into your mini-computer l
2 to handle or was this a hand correction that you had to make?
3 4!
BRONSON:
No, after we got it in the computer, it was, the computer i
5 handled it all and then we could just visually observe to make sure that OI there weren'c any surprises in the data, visually observe the spectra.
7 8l ESSIG:
Did you during your, the whole body counts performed on the 29th 9
and the 30th encounter any positive iodine results?
10 11 BRONSON:
Yeh.
There were positiva iodine results on or in people.
The 12 bulk of them, as I recall, I made a summary about 5 or 7 days into the 3
13 incident, where we had courted by that time about a 150 different people 14{
and of the 150 there was only 1 confirmed and 1 suspected case where the 15j body content was greater than the investigation level fo-Iodine-131, 16!
the investigation level being 300 nanocuries.
And, although I don't 17l know, don't remember the exact numbers, it was approximately 10 to 15 of i
18[
them were between 20 and 30 of them were between 50 and 100 nanocuries 19l and the rest of them were all less than 50 nanocuries of iodine, half 2d!
being detectable, meaning between roughly 10 and 50 and the other half 21 cf the remainder of it being less than detectable.
So there were, 22 essentially negligable amounts of iodine in people.
There were a couple 23l of cases where it was definitely on people, like on their hands or 24 something like that which is not surprising.
But even those were rather 25i small amounts.
i
{
bU)
I I
i 11 1l l
ESSIG:
What techniques do you employ (excuse me) to determine whether 2'
the contamination is external or internal and how do you correct for 3
that?
4 c
~
BRONSON:
Okay.
There's two things that the computer ends up with, one 6
is a fifth parameter which is a quantitative estimate of the difference in spectral shape between the source when it's in the manner which it 8
was calibrated, say in the manner we expect it to be in the body, either 9
uniformly distributed or contained within the body versus the difference 10 between the source, the spectra of that source on the individual.
If 11' the activity is in a different position on the man, say on his hands or 12-on the outside of his body, then the spectral shape is different and 13 then therefore, the fifth paraaeter is larger than we normally expect, 14!
so that's our first clue.
And the second clue is in this particular 15!
kind of a counter, it's a scanning bed counter and we do look at gross 16l activity versus time, which means gross activity versus position.
So 17 then we have a positionally spectra which tells us where the activity is 181 on the person, so the most common things or where you have it on his 19!
hands and his hands are layed on his sides so you see large peak of 1
20{
activity down below the waist area as opposed to in the upper thorax 21' area which you would expect a fresh iodine inhalation to be.
22, l
23 24i l
25l i
1 4
)
12 ESSIG:
Then do you get...
2i i
e 3i i
BRONSON:
Well then the third way, you have for confirming it is not 41 j
legimate internal as by doing a recount and looking at how fast or how 5'
{
slowly the item goes away, I mean if you suspect it's on his hands, tell 6l him to go back and wash his hands.
7 8
ESSIG:
Is that a procedure that you ordinarily follow when you see, 9
from this profile, that it apoears to be external contamination?
Do you
(
10' ordinarily request tne individual to go wash and come back for a recount?
11; i
12 BRONSON:
The standing procedure at, well each plant has its own levels 131 which we as contractors adhere to and as I recall the particular level 14 at (excuse me) Three Mile Island was, that existed before the incident 15!
was notify station people when scmething is greater than an investigation 16i level and at that point then they will decide what action to take, suc.h 17l as showering and recounting.
If it's less than a investigation level, i
18i it's reported at the routine frequency.
19!
20l ESSIG:
Okay.
Do you, when counting for I-131 in the thyroid, I guess l
2 11 this is, we haven't establishered here, but it's my understanding, then f
I 22 confirm me, confirm this that you don't have a small detector that's 23 actually placed next to the thyroid, you do this by your bed?
24 25!
I O _
- sJ iVU-
I I
(
13 1
BRONSON:
Yeh.
Yeh.
First of all we are counting for Iodine-131 in the 2]
total body not in the thyroid.
31 4l!
ESSIG:
Okay.
5 6
BRONSON:
It's a total body counter.
7 8
ESSIG:
Okay.
And how do you then go..
9 10 BRONSON:
It uses a single 8 x 4 sodium iodine detector, that's for 11.
stationary, and the man moves underneath the detector.
12 13 ESSIG:
Okay.
And then how is the thyroid burden actually assessed?
14!
15!
BRONSON:
The body burden is the limiting factor which assumes that the 16:
nuclide is in the thyroid in the according distribution, so you don't i
17f directly assess a thyroid, burden ever, it's a total, s a whole body
'~
18j counter and the body burden is 700 microcuries assuming that it is 19l distributed in a matter which makes the thyroid as the critical organ.
20!
21 ESSIG:
Okay.
So the burdens you mentioned earlier, the investigation 22l level at 300 nanocuries was a total body burden.
23' 24l 25l l
o7 t i f
bbJ I 'J i
l
s l
(
14 l
!l!
l BRONSON:
Yes.
2!
31 i
ESSIG:
Okay.
4l 5
BRONSON:
Indirectly we, and that's another method we have of confirming that it is not an internal, of a, differentiating between external and 7
internal contribution.
There is a small shield, small in physical size 8
but of adequate thickness to stop the iodine, the 364 Kev gammas and 9
under certain cases, we can count the guy twice, once with the shield 10 over his thyroid and once without the shield over his thyroid and can by 11 the difference in those two counts determine how much iodine is in the 12 thyroid.
13 14!
ESSIG:
Did you have to employ that particular technique during the i
15 initial period following the incident?
15l I
17!
BRONSON:
Yeh, it was used on a _ouple of cases.
I'm not surc
, not I
18{
sure of the exact days of those cases whether they were within the first 19!
three or four days or the first two weeks that I was down there.
But 20l during that two week period, it was used several times.
21 22l ESSIG:
Would that have been detailed in this report that you had mentioned 23 that which covered the whole body countt, five to seven days post incident?
24 Would that, the individual, for example, the one you mentioned that was 25l i
i oc.
i i
15 1
l over the investigation level of 300 nanocuries, would that have been 2
used on him for example...
3!
l 4!
l BRONSON:
I'm certain that it would of for those high guys.
Generally, i
Si j
we use that if we're trying to differentiate between a relatively large i
6j external contamination versus the fairly small body burden level of 7
Iodine-131 and, although I can't, I didn't bring those records on whole 8
body counting with me, so I haven't reviewed them in a while, that's the 9!
normal technique we generally do on the higher ones anyway.
I 10 11' ESSIG:
- Okay, 12, 13 BRONSON:
I'm sure it was done on some that were less than the 300 14 nanocurie level to just because'they were the technologically important 15j ones at the time.
16!
17l ESSIG:
And the report that you mentionea..the summary?
18i 19l BRONSON:
It wasn't a report, it was a summary that I gathered for 20j
'aformation at a internal meeting.
I just went through all the records l
21[
and categorized.
22 23 24 i
25l l
f 7
4 to l
L, J
i iU l
16 lt j
ESSIG:
It was not something that was given to Met Ed then?
2!
3 BRONSON:
It was not a formal report that I gave to Met Ed.
- Somebody, 4
can't think of the name, somebody within the health physics support 5
group and I, Bob Labamonye, can't, that's why I can' t remember his name.
61 I
7I ESSIG:
No, it doesn't ring a bell.
8 9[
BRONSON:
He and I sat down and went through, in preparation for a 10 internal meeting that was held, went through all of the results that had 11l been held and categorized them into several different levels.
Just went 12 through the results that I had already looked at and approved and just 13{
got summarie<. of numbers of people within certain different ranges of 14 iodine activity.
15 16 ESSIG:
Okay.
When you say internal meeting, was this yourself and this 17{i fellow that you, whose name...
18:
19!
BRONSON:
In the meeting that he went to, that I didn' t go to.
20' i
21:
ESSIG:
Oh, I see.
But was the meeting presumable within, between Met 22{
Ed and their contractors?
Is that le. you said health physics support, 23 I assume that meant...
24l 25f 0X 1i9 (6 u.4 i;-
I r
17 l
I't BRONSON:
I'm not certain.
It's the contract health ohysics support 2
group that was over there and it was a meeting they were having.
I'm 3
not certain what the substance of the meeting was, it may have been an
]
internal meeting there, it may have been one of the daily meetings that 5l were held with, between them and Met Ed and the NRC.
I'm just not certain of what meeting it was.
7 8
ESSIG:
Do you have a copy either in your Chicago office or in your 9
Philadelphia office of that summary that you'd put together? Would that 10' be available, should we request it through Met Ed?
11' 12 BRONSON:
I know in preparation for that I wrote in a log book that i
13]
didn't start, okay so this meecing must of been well after the first 14 week.
It's when we had counted about 150 people, which I think was into 15!
the second week there.
I 16!
17 ESSIG:
Okay.
I think you'd indicated it summarized the first five to I
18!
seven days.
19 20 BRONSON:
It summarized the first 150 people and I'm not certain when 21 that occurred.
22 23 24 25!
i
,n (e Ij i "
6
l
{
18 1,
ESSIG:
Okay.
2 3
BRONSON:
It was after I started keeping a second record book, which 41 must of been about six or seven days later and in that record book I 5
summarized the data, priliminarly on my own.
Then ; think when the next 6I day, and there were probably a few more people counted in that interim, 7
Bob and I sat down and went through and did a formal summary on a form, O
or information that he had and I don't think I kept a copy, at least I'm 9
not certain where a copy is of that summary.
The original data is 10' there, so the summary could always go back and be reconstructed.
11 12; ESSIG:
Okay.
And the original data had been provided to Met Ed then?
13l 14 BRONSON:
I presume they have, although I have no direct knowledge of 15l it, I presume they have by now.
16I 17l ESSIG:
Okay.
18!
i 19{
BRONSON:
I didt,'t physically carry over, what I was there and give a 20j stack of data to Met Ed on all the whole body counts.
We notified them 1
21 when there were high results.
Typical 22 23 24 l
25' I
4, ;
g, I
bO) i '
l i
19 1.
E55IO:
Okay.
Greater than the investigation results?
2:
3 BRONSON:
Greater than the investigation.
Typically, then we go back of 4l the order of a month later, provide them the offical data and various SI kinds of summaries.
k 7
ESSIG:
Is this an arrangement which they had previously set up with 8
you, in other words, don't, only inform me orally of the counts greater 9
than the investigation level?
10 11I BRONSON:
Yes.
As I understand it, that was a standard standing arrange-12; ment with Met Ed.
13 14 ESSIG:
Okay.
How we doing on the tape there?
15i 16!
MARSH:
We're okay.
Fine, you may continue.
17 18f ESSIG:
I'd like to switch the emphasis at the moment to the gamma 19!
spectroscopy that was performed on samples that had been collected and 20!
maybe there might be a question or two with respect to the whole body 21!
counter that we could come back to and one of the reasons that I'm 22 focusing on the whole body counter is because it, I think it became 23 apparent to me at the beginning of the interviews that since I was gonna l
241 be the only one for the investigation team to speak to you that I better l
25!
l 1 OO ILb
(,
I
20 I
1 i
ask you some questions on the whole body counting too.
So, with respect 2
to the sample counting that you had to do onsite, I think you've established 3
that you were set up approximately at about 2 o' clack in the afternoon on the 29th to begin the counting.
5!
I 6l BRONSON:
That was with respect to whole body counting.
7 8
ESSIG:
That was with respect to whole body counting.
9 10f BRONSON:
Whole body count:ag I, 4ish or so in the afternoon or 5 in the i
lli afternoon.
The sample analysis lab was set up, oh roughly 7 or 8 or 9 l
12' in the evening, we could of begun counting then but we were in, we were 13 calibrating really up until roughly midnight, according to my records, 14 roughly midnight was about the first time a real sample was analyzed.
15 We could have counted it earlier had one been pre er.ted that was important 16!
enough.
17 18i ESSIG:
Were the samples that you were asked to count in, were they 19!
presented to you in a configuration which was, geometry that you are 20j normally calibrated for?
I 21!
22!
BRONSON:
Let's see.
We counted a variety of samples, many of them were 23 in geometries, we were easily configured, most of them were in geometries l
24l that were not different from geometries in which we were configured, you l
25j l
(, n,
,,J iu
?
l l
21 1
know, we could easily use an alternate geometry.
A few of them were in 2'
j some strange weird geometries that we could only give estimates on, but 3
those were by far the exception and they were.
4!
5 ESSIC:
Were these strange ones, were they liquid samples or?
6' 7
BRONSON:
Well initially 9a started receiving liquid samples in an 8
unusual geometry but we also had some liquid standards there which later 9f in that afternoon or later following these unusual sample geometries, we 10 then we recalibrated for that unusual geometry.
Like scme one liter 11 beakers we ended up placing on the side and then we calibrated in the 12l field for 3 1/2 liter Marinelli beaker geometry by also diluting a 13 master standard down to that geometry.
Both of those geometries we did 14 not have prepared when we, or we did not have calibrated for when we 15I went there.
The detector was already calibrated, it was one we've been 16i using very routinely in the Philadelphia labs so it came with a set of lY!
calibration curves and then we, first thing we did which is why it was 18i about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> before we were counting was to calibrate for some much 19!
higher activity samples because this is what we were told to expect 20!
would be the case.
And there were some quite hot samples so we were 21{
calibrating at 2, 3, 4, 5 feet, or 2, 3 and 4 feet away from the detector.
22f And we were spending quite a bit of time getting set up for that.
But 23 the bulk of the content type geometries were done ahead of time and 24f simply verified out there.
25 i
<(.7 1 9 I (i U _)
i L. "
I
i I
4 l
22 1
MARSH:
Okay.
We're at a break point, I'm going to stop this tape for a 2t j
moment.
The time being 9:44 and turn it over.
3l t
4!
MARSH:
The time is 9: 45.
We're picking up again, the meter reads 478 a
and Tom you were just asking some questions.
6 7
ESSIG:
Okay.
Frazier did you experience any problems with the background?
O!
I think you had already established that you were on the whole body 9f counter, I presume that extended to your other detector as well, the one 10 used for sample counting.
11l I
12l BRONSON:
Well, we were experiencing very definite background fluctuations 13 and background changes with a GeLi detector, however, they are not i
14!
nearly as significant of a problem per say because, first of all the i
15l nuclide of concern was not the zenons there and a GeLi detector has a 16 nice advantage of it being pretty selective, so even though you do have lI a high count rate of one nuclide, it still doesn't make it impossible to 18!
see other nuclides, especially if they're higher energy, which was the 19l case with the Indine-131.
Those cases when the background was very very 20i high, and we could not tell whether the zenon was on the sample or on 2
the, in the background, we so indicated on the report that, couldn' t 22f report it.
Fortunately, the kinds of samples that we were dealing with 23l were air samples and it's not certain what one does with the zenon 24 number on an air filter anyway.
25l I
-)
71 It
{
ESSIG:
Was there any attempt to your knowledge with either at that, at 2l' the suggestion of Metropolitan Edison or at your own suggestion to 31 remove the zenon from the charcoal by purging, just to reduce the back-4l ground, to better be able to be in a position to more easily quantify S{
the iodine or any iodine that may have been there?
6i 7
BRONSON:
I know we talked about it a week or so later, but I want to 8
emphasize the point I said earlier.
The zenon background did not interfere with the ability to detect iodine.
It interfered with the ability to 1
10' determine whether or not. zenon was in the background or on the sample 11 you were counting but didn't irce. hre with the ability to quantify 12-Iodine-131.
13 14 ESSIG:
Okay.
Could you summarize the different types of samples that 15' you were given to be counted as to their source, like you already estab-16I lished that you had charcoal cartridges, now were these from both in plant, i
IIl like effluent monitors and from out of plant or?
i 1Sf 19!
BRONSON:
The best that I can remember, the first few days the samples 20 were, that we were getting, were primarily air samples which were charcoal 2
,rtridges and particulate p,e-filters on the cartridges and they were 22' from three sources:
one and being the most important one, meaning the 23!
samples which we analyzed, first if they were there, were Control Room 24j air samples; second being other in plant breathing air type samples, the 25' i
I g ') Y e
/ f)
(-
(3(-
I
I 24 1!
Centrol Room samples or breathing air samples, other in plant or onsite f
samples, and the third ones were special offsite samples, special meaning 3
apparently not a part of the routine environmental monitoring program 4'
I but part of the emergency environmental monitoring program.
So those i
were the three best or major categories of air samples that were there 6l in the first three or four days.
And that was the bulk of the things that we analyzed.
I could go through the log book and see if there were Of anything different than that.
There were a few liquid samples, but the 9
bulk of samples were air samples, those first few days that we analyzed.
10' 11 ESSIG:
Were you asked to analyze any samples other than either air 12 samples, charcoal filter and or charcoal cartridge, a particular filter 13!
or liquid samples? Were you asked to analyzed any samples other than i
14!
those, in other words, say a vegetation sample, soil sample, that type 15 of thing?
16 l
17!
BRONSON:
Well first of all I didn't analyze every sample personally, I 18 have the log book, I could go through and look what's in the log book if 19i you wish right now, but I do not recall any environmental samples other 20i than air samples that we were analyzing, such as vegetation and soil, i
21l 22l ESSlG:
Could you take a minute and go through your log book and in 23 fact, while your doing that, I have a copy and I'll just read it for the 24l record.
It's a copy, I believe of a log book that you had started dated 25j 3^7 y
i
25 Ili 3/29/79 and starts with the word calibration, and proceeds to give then TMI Numbers for various calibrations and sample counts that you had 31 i
performed beginning on the 29th and...
4j 5
BRONSON:
'fes, that's the log book I, we started the day we were there.
6 ESSIG:
Okay.
So this is a copy of the same log book that you have 8
sitting in front of you?
9' 10' BRONSON:
Yes.
Now what was the, rephrase the question specifically, so 111 I know what to look for?
12 i
13 ESSIG:
Were there any samples that you were asked to count other than i
14 charcoal particulate filters for air samples and liquid samples from i
15!
in plant?
I think you said you had charcoal filters from both...
16j 17 BRONSON:
During the first three days.
i 18j 19I ESSIG:
During the first three days, right.
20r 1
21 BRONSON:
Okay.
It's gonna take me a minute or two to look these up.
22 23' 24 25, f
i
)
b') i_' s i eV
26 1
ESSIG:
The, we'll just let the tape run.
2!
l 31 BRONSON:
You're talking about samples as opposed to check sources, l
4i
-calibration sources that I brought or entered.
S 6l ESSIG:
Yes.
7 8
BRONSON:
Okay.
9l l
10 ESSIG:
There's one other thing that I'd like to ascertain to and that 11 is, if is my, the copy of your log that I have, is it reasonably complete?
12!
l 131 BRONSON:
Well, you can tell that by looking at the sequential numbers, l'+
are they all in order, is there anything missing.
i 15j 16i ESSIG:
Okay, twenty-five, thirty-four, thirty-five.
I 17 18l BRONSON:
Okay.
There was a gas sample, a 5 cc gas sample, that was an 19!
effluent sample.
Yes there were several effluent type samples which 20 had, which were also charcoal or particulate air samples.
One of them 21i here was a...
22 23 24 25
)
.g
, >q (i O )
i '
e i
27 l
ll!
ESSIG:
What number do you 21 BRONSON:
51.
TMI-0051.
4!
5 ESSIG:
Okay.
That's Waste Gas Decay Tank C, okay.
~
6 7
BRONSON:
And 53 likewise is Waste Gas Decay Tank B, that's a 5 cc.
8 9
ESSIG:
Okay.
10 11 BRONSON:
Is that in your...
12{
13 ESSIG:
Yes.
14; i
15i BRONSON:
That's one of them that's an answer to your question.
16!
I 17 ESSIG:
Yes.
18!
19)
BRONSON:
Okay.
2bl i
21l ESSIC:
There was one problem I had with your log here, it wasn't, I i
22l wasn't always clear to me what date I was...
I 23 24 25j i
'. " O s'
I l
28 1
l BRONSON:
Yes, that's true.
2!
i 31 ESSIG:
I was looking, I see the sample that was being counted and the 4l day it was collected but I wasn't sure of the date.
t 5l l
61 BRONSON:
Ok, what we tried to put on the log book was everything that 7
was on the sample.
Any writing that was on the side of the sample which 8
was the only information we had to go by, and then the counting time is 9
on the individual data sheet.
So what I can do for you, well...
10!
11, ESSIG:
Is it a good assumption to make the log number that you assigned l
12!
here as that's the order in which...
13 14 BRONSON:
Yes.
They are chronological order, that's the order in which 15!
they were counted and...
16j 17'!
ESSIG:
Okay.
I 18{
19j BRONSON:
If you just want to know specific dates 20t 21, ESSIG:
Yeh.
What I'd like to do is, the log that I have...
22l 23 24i i
25!
s (i,
,3 d
I I
I il
29 I
1:
BRONSON:
Okay.
Everything before sample number 5 is on March 29th.
2, 3!
j ESSIG:
Okay.
So on samples 1 through 4 then...
4ll i
f BRONSON:
1 through 5.
6 71 ESSIG:
Oh, 1 through 5.
Okay.
This is 3/29 then as 1 through 5.
8}
Okay.
9l 10 BRONSON:
6 through and including 87 are on the 30th.
11l 12 ESSIG:
6 through and including 87.
Okay.
I think as I go through here 13 I'll just make sure that I'm not missing any numbers.
There's 57, 64, 141 65, 72, 73 to 80, 81 through 87.
Okay.
f 15!
16 BRONSON:
Okay.
Do you want your exception list of the air and liquid 17j samples, effluent samptes such as those with RMA designations?
They are 18l air and charcoal and particulate samples.
19f 20!
ESSIG:
No, that won't be necessary.
21 I
22l BRONSON:
So you only want things up to sample number 87, un to and l
2 31 including the 30th.
24j 25l l
l 1
e,
{
30 1
Ill ESSIG:
Right.
Right.
Could you give me some idea of the turn a...,
7 once you...
31 41 BRONSON:
Well before you get into that, I've gone all the way through 5'
the 89th and don't see anything other than air and liquid samples other 6
than that one sample, which was a gas sample.
7 8
ESSIG:
Okay.
9 10 BRONSON:
I'm sorry for interrupting you.
11 12 ESSIG:
No, that's quite fine.
The turn around time en these samples, 13l could you give me some idea of what had it been running or was it variable 14 depending on how many samples were stacked up at the time?
t 15i 16!
BRONSON:
I don't think during the first few days the sample turn around i
17) time within the lab was very long, the best of my recollection were in I
18(
the, rarely as short as an hour cause we usually hed a couple of samples 19!
backed up but, and we didn't have a very big place to store samples so 20l there couldn't of been more than 10 or 15 samples sitting there at time 21 which is, that's a few hours.
3 or 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> turn around time.
So my 22l!
guess is on the average, it was in that kind of range between maybe an 23 hour2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> and 3 or 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> between when we got the sample to the trailer and 24l when we had the result ready to be picked up.
25 l
h
s
{
31 l
1!
ESSIG:
Okay.
When you say result ready to be picked up, could you 2l elaborate a little bit, in other words, how is the result then communi-31 1
cated back to Met Ed?
4I c;
BRONSON:
Okay.
We filled out the, we counted the sample, the computer 6
printed out a, its data, we calculated the results on the computer printout sheet and then transcribed the appropriate portions of the 0
results and sample identification data similar to what you're holding i
right now.
Do you want to identify it?
10f 11!
ESSIG:
Okay.
I'm holding a sheet here called Sample Analysis Results, I
12I and it's labeled Radiation Management Corporation and it gives a sample I
13l identification, date and time collected, following the sample the time Ib of analysis, geometry, counting time and the analyst and then the tesult.
t 15i lh BRONSON:
Right.
Okay.
We transcribed information, the official reporting 17 information to that form and we had a bunch of biank forms made up, 18{
copied on the xerox machine and transcribed that information.
That was INi the official result that was given to somebody in the Observation Center 2dj and their system changed as we got farther into the incident, so I'm not 2i!
sure exactly you know within these first three or four days what system 22 was going but somebody in there received them.
It started out, somebody 23 up in the front area, I'm not sure what that area is called, the guys 24l with walkie-talkies..
25!
I l
r n 7, L
i
32 I
l' ESSIG:
Okay.
I know the area that where you...
2' i
i 3l BRONSON:
And then they radio the information over to the Unit, 1 or 2, 4
I'm not certain which Control Room, but somebody else in the Control Room was then receiving that information and disseminating it to wherever I
it was necessary and the hard copies were staying in the Observation Center.
Later they set up a group which was involv_ed in sample coordin-O ation and we gave them the information and then they gave us the samples.
9 I'm not sure when that later group got started, you know it was 2 or 3 10 or 4 days in.
11 12 ESSIG:
Okay.
Again referring to these Sample Analysis Result Sheets 13{i that I have in front of me, there were a couple of these that I had a i
14!
question and apparently you did also, I just want to establish for the 15 record whether or not the date, the collection date was unclear, you 16!
got, I'm looking here at a sample collected from location 5 as in South 17f S-21.
18 l
19!
BRONSON:
What's the sample number at the bottom?
201 i
21 ESSIG:
The TMI-34.
And you have noted here a date UNK which I assume 226 means stands for unknown and you have 3/29 and 3/30 indicated that.
23 l
24j 25!
I t
U L) J 3J s a h
I l
I
{
33 1!
l BRONSON:
Yeh.
It was either the 29th or the 30th.
There was no date 2
written on the cartridge and we tried to write that down on the sample 3
sheets so, if it was important to somebody when it was collected then they would try to find out the actual date.
5 6
ESSIG:
Okay.
Now in this particular one, I noticed that you have the 7
result for Iodine-131 on the charcoal and the particulate recorded as 8
I less than 1 x 10 to the minus 11 and less than 2 x 10 to the minus 11, 9
respectively.
And you originally had these recorded as 10 to the minus ldl 10, was that just a computation error which was corrected...
These are 11 your initials...
12!
13l BRONSON:
That's my initials underneath it.
I presume that is the case t
14 by looking at the record I can't recall, I can see what is sample 38...
15r 16l ESSIG:
Okay.
These are your initials.
17l 18!
BRONSON:
That is my initial.
194 20l ESSIG:
Which is a change that was made by you.
21f 2
BRONSON: Um hum (Positive Response).
23 24l 1
25j l
l f
~
1 l l
N q/ t t
m I
34 1
l ESSIG:
These results that I have here appear to all be less than your 2}'
MDA which was, well with one, no I was gonna say that was an exception.
31 You reported Zenon-133 on this, 133, 133M and Zenon-135 and Iodine-131 4
as being less than the MDA.
Did you, do you recall I think the sheets c*
bear this auc, at least the ones t.'.lt I have here, recall detecting any 61' iodine above MDA in any of the offsite samples that you had analyzed?
7 BRONSON:
As I recall I was very marketedly surprised at the lack of iodine in the offsite samples.
In fact, I think I don't recall the date 10}
of the first one but it was several, quite a few days into the incident 11' that we finally saw one sample which we thought we saw iodine in one of 12 the offsite samples and I was very surprised that it just wasn't there.
13 That's the best of my recollection.
I have not gone through the data i
14 specifically to say, to confirm, that we dion't see iodine but or to 15 confirm the actual date which we did see an iodine on and offsite samples.
16 As I recall there were very, very, very few of them, remarkable so.
17{l 18 ESSIG:
I notice that the less than value's here appear to range over 19!
more than an order of magnitude.
20j 21!
BRONSON:
So does the volume.
22 23 ESSIG:
Let me just, okay here you got one, I'm looking at sample desig-24l nation, as your number 60, TMI-60, SW-ll, you have volume of sample 25l
/r; 3 ~7 b U.>
j ;j f
I 35 1!
j unknown, could you state how it was that you came up with a concentration 2'
l on these particular sample? You have less than 6 x 10 to the minus 10 31 j
microcuries per cc for Iodine-133.
4j l
Si BRONSON:
Per cartridge.
6 7
ESSIG:
Okay, that is per, that activity is...
8 9
BRONSON:
That's what I would assume by looking at the data sheet.
Let 10' me go back and see if I can reconstruct that one, 60.
Volume according 11!
to my log sheet is unknown, 60.
I assume 10 to the 5th cc's which was l
12{
the common for that case.
13 14 ESSIG:
Okay.
15!
16!
BRONSON:
And it was not written on that Sample Sheet.
l 17l 18l ESSIG:
I'll make a note on here then that it was an assumed volume 19l equal 10 to the 5th cc.
Would you say that the MDA, you made a comment 20 a minute ago about the MDA being, when I said that appear to vary over 2f roughly an order of magnitude and you indicated that the volumes were 22 also, was that the, would you say that was the prime contributt to the 23 MDA varying, was a difference in sample volumes?
l 24l l
I 2Si i
i fl
f 36 1l l
BRONSON:
Well MOA can vary by several things:
one is counting efficiency, 21 the other is counting time and the last is how much material, in this 3
case, air flow is on the sample and we tried to keep the other two 4l constant.
Counting efficiency was for most samples, they were low Si j
enough that we could put it right in contact with the detectors.
So 6
therefore, efficiency was held constant and counting time was in general 7
pretty standard length of time at 300, sometimes 500 seconds.
Therefore, 8
the biggest contributor to ranges of MDA's are ranges in the air flow or 9
total air quantity on the sample, 10 11 ESSIG:
Okay.
I believe that takes me probably up to the end of the 12 questions I have on the gamma spectroscopy of samples that were collected.
13 I would like to come back just for 1 question on the whole body counting 14!
that was done.
What, could you describe what is the normal calibration 15 procedure for the whole b sy counter and when was it calibrated prior to 16:
the 28th? Or was it recalibrated during the event or?
17 18I BRONSON:
Okay.
That system is not operated out at my division so I 19i don't know exactly what was done.
I know the system was originally 20l calibrated using solutions of either N85 Standards where they were 1
21l available or typically whatever the best available source is, Amersham 22l is a very common one that we use when NBS Standards aren't available.
23 These liquid standards were distributed in a bottle phantom commonly 2A known as a 8cmab.
In the distribution that you would expect that nuclide 25i
'b
).)
g a j
[
~
{
37 l!
l to be in a body and so then the system was calibrated since, at that 2'
time.
At that time also, a cross calibration was made with a simpler 3
kind of a phantom which then can be reproduced easily and routirc.iy in 4l the field which consists of a point source and I think that one happened a
]
to be NBS Mixed Point Source, that it decayed enough so the dominant 6i things were cobalt and cesium, Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137.
That particular 7
source or any other known point source could be calibrated in this 8
reference phantom, can be counted in the referenced phantom and if you 9
end with the correct result, you know then the calibration has not i
10 changed since then and you don't need to do a recalibration.
It's done 11 with a primary calibration and then continuing a secondary calibration 12!
on a, routinely on a daily basis when you're in the field.
13 14 ESSIG:
Were these done on a daily basis during the period of time in 3 >i question to your knowledge?
16; I
17l BRONSON:
To the best of my knowledge, yes they were.
It's a routine 18!
experience and the guys have traditionally been very very good at it.
I 19!
know I saw quite a few of them over the next, over the first week anyway, 20)
I don't recall directly whether one was done on the first day.
But the 21!
system has historically been stable, 1+ just doesn't change calibration.
t 22l 23!
ESSIG:
Okay.
I think that pretty much takes care of the questions that 24 I had for you Frazier.
I think we have a few minutes left on the tape 25j to,
[
J I
i
I i
(
38 1l and I'd like to give you the opportunity if you so desire to make any t
2' j
comments you wish to make on the record in terms of your, you care to 3[1 offer a personal opinion as far as what you think we've learned as a 4!
result of the TMI Incident, and the followup of it, what we could of perhaps done better in terms of either personnel or in the form of 0
training or equipment or any such thing like that.
If there are c3y, 7
now that we have 20-20 hind sight, now looking back on the followup, are 8
they any things that you come, that come to your mind that you'd suggest that we do differently in the future?
Now we being the whole community, 10 the NRC, the licensees, contractors, the whole community.
11' 12 BRONSON:
I would like to comment on one thing which I think deserves to 13 be made known.
The first thing I was told when I got there was that any i
14!
data that I have or anything I'm collecting is to be completely shared 15 with any of the other regulatory people there, specifically the NRC.
So 16l that was essential the comment that was made when I walked up and I 17 think that kind of attitude during this kind of an emergency is one that 18!
has to always instilled in any sort of a situation.
The, I think one of 19i the things I hoped we've learned is that in an emergency plan, emergency 20i plan is only good as long as the people that are responsible for enforcing 21 it, are following it, and if people get into having a say so in an 22 emergency plan they're not familiar with all the preliminary thought i
23 that has gone into and are not routinely involved in part of the decision 2dj making chain, then it's very hard for them to utilize all of the planning 25l r
I u~
r I
[
39 l
1 l
and preliminary training that has gone into developing that emergency 2f i
plan.
Therefore, try to limit the responses, make sure the decision makers in any sort of an emergency plan are involved in its preparation 4
and keep anybody that isn't involved in it out of making decisions.
51
[
6 ESSIG:
Okay.
Seemed like a ccament well taken.
Any others that come 7
to mind that you care to put on the record?
8l 9
BRONSON:
None that I think of at the moment that would be best served 10 in this form.
11' 12; ESSIG:
Okay.
Very good Robert, I think we're done unless you have any 1
13l futher comment.
14' 15 MARSH:
No, I think that covers it all.
Just like to say thank you for 16; coming in sharing your time with us.
I know you're busy too especially 17 with a page on.
The time being 10:13 reading 905 on the meter, we'll 18i end this tape at this time.
19f L
20j i
21l 22 23 24' 25!
/o7 1 <1 7 UUJ i
'1 L h
[