ML19305A542
| ML19305A542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Mark Resner NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908300254 | |
| Download: ML19305A542 (19) | |
Text
_ -. __
I.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
i l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
1!
In the Matter of:
i 2
IE TMI INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW 3
of James J. Kottan, Radiation Specialist, USNRC, Region I 4
5' 6i t
7 8!
Trailer #203 9
NRC Investigation Site TMI Nuclear Power Plant 10 Middletown, Pennsylvania 11f r
May 7,1979 12l (Date of Interview)
II:
June 27, 1979 (0 ate Transcript Typeo) 162 15i (Tape Number (s))
16l 171 18l 19) 21; NRC PERSONNEL:
22 Thomas H. Essig
)
Mark E. Resner 24!
l 25l D
9 >
y e
p(
l t
RESNER:
The following is an interview of Mr. James J. Kottan.
Mr.
Kottan is a Radiation Specialist employed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I.
And the present time is 7:30 p.m. EDT.
And the 3
date is May 7, 1979.
This interview is being conducted in Trailer 203, wnich is located just-outside the south gate of the Three Mile 5
Island facility.
Individuals present for this interview are Mr.
Thomas H. Essig.
Mr. Essig is the Chief of the Environmental and Special Projects Se.ction, employed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0l in Region III.
Prior to taping this interview, Mr. Kottan was advised 9l l
in a two page document, which explained the purpose, scope and authority 10' to conduct this investigation.
On the second page of this document, 11l Mr. Kottan signed and dated it, indicating that he understands the 12.
document and he has also arswered three questions, which I'll now read 13 i
for the record.
Question Number One - do you understand the above?
141 And Mr. Kottan has checked yes, he does.
Is that correct, Mr. Kottan?
+
15i 16i KOTTAN:
Yes.
17!
l 18i RESNER:
Question Number Two, do we have your permission to tape the 19f interview? Mr. Kottan has also checked yes.
Is that correct?
20l 21 KOTTAN:
Yes.
22 23 RESNER:
Do you want a copy of the tape? AndMr.Kottanhasindicged, 24 b~~
that he does not want a copy of the tape? Is that correct, Mr. h ttan?
25; i
t
F l
1 t
i 2
}
i KOTTAN:
Yes.
i 2'
RESNER:
- 0. K.
If you would Mr. Kottan, for the benefit of those may listen to the tape in the future, would you please give us a brief j
resume of your experience in the nuclear field.
51 6
KOTTAN:
- 0. K.
I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1969 with a B.S. degree in Chemistry.
Anj I started working at the Shippingport 8
i Atomic Power Station for Duquesne Light Company, upon graduation.
And 9j t
I worked there for approximately five years.
While I was working 10 there, I was responsible for inplant chemistry and radio-chemistry, 11!
l including the use of a multi-channel analyzer, radiochemical analyses 12, on the reactor plant systems.
And in '73 I went to Beaver Valley, 13' which is also a Ouquesne Light Nuclear Power Station.
It was located 14:
right next store to Shippingport, in the same capacity.
Also, while I 15!
was working, I was going to graduate school part-time and I picked up 16i a masters degree in Radiation Health.
And this involved some additional 17l training in areas cf radiochemistry and gamma ray spectroscopy, I left 18l i
Duequene Light in 1975, and came to the NRC.
19l' 20 RESNER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Kottan.
I'll 'iow turn the questioning 2 11 over to, Mr. Essig.
~-
221 23 ESSIG:
Jim, when did you arrive on site? The date and time as,much 24 as you recall.
25
\\
t c)'.h' f
l I,
3 KOTTAN:
The time was about, I would say between 6:30 and 7:00 o' clock I
p.m.,
n Wednesday, the 28th, the date of the incident.
2 3
i ESSIG:
Had you been given before... I understand that, at the time the event happened, that you and your Section Chief, Phil Stohr, were in Millstone - at the Millstone site.
Is that correct?
Si 7
KOTTAN:
Yes, that's correct.
We were up there for a routine inspection.
And we had a call at approximately 8 o' clock that morning to return to Region I, and head for Three Mile Island.
11l l
ESSIG:
Were you given an indication of what.
well, first I 12' gather you were asked to bring the van here...
that was made quite clear.... the van, including your GeLi system and computer?
15l KOTTAN:
Yes, that's correct.
i 17 ESSIG:
And secondly, were you given an idea at that time... were 18[
ye': hWe to be more on a standby basis, or was it definitely indicated 19i that you would be analyzing samples that the licensee had or was going 20}
l to collect, or had - or were you given any idea?
21; 22I KOTTAN:
No, not at that time.
We were just told there had been a 23 general emergency declared at Three Mile Island, and to return with 2 41 l
mobile laborator".
25i I
856 1 83 i
(
f ESSIG:
- 0. K.
So then you arrived here that evening. What were some y
f the first things that you did?
2 3'
KOTTAN: Well, we stopped - we were told on our way down to drive past 4
I the regional office.
So, we did and we picked up some additional I
monitcring equipment portable survey equipment, primarily, and some 6l i:
air sampling equipment.
On the way down, we had turned on our survey meters, and when we got close to the site, particularly at the Turnpike interchange, driving through Highspire and Middletown, we got some radiation readings on the instruments.
So we drove slow and tried to 10{
ge'. an indication of what we were driving into.
i 11!
I 12!.
ESSIG:
Then you arri.ed on site and you started...
what were some 13 of the first things you did, as far as the mobile laboratory itself 14!
was concerned?
15i 16; i
KOTTAN:
Initially, we arrived on site and we went - we drove right to 17 the Observation Center because we had been told that the licensee had 18l set that up as his Emergency Control Center.
We parked the van and 19l l
went into his Control Center and let them know that we were here.
And 201 I told them what capability we had, and tried to get some information 21, as to what was going on.
And decided, since the licensee had sort of 22 abandoned his counting room, we were only gamma spectroscopy system 23 available.
So, we were going to set up in the parking lot at the j
24l Observation Center, and count some samples.
25l
.856 184
i.
I 5
l 1,l ESSIG: When you went into the Observation Center, do you recall who i
l you touched base with... of the Met Ed people?
\\
i 3'
KOTTAN:
No, I don't.
The gentleman who we touched based with was a.
y
.. ran the emergency.
I can describe him for you.
He had glasses;
-t he was bald.
I think he was the Vice President of...
6i 7
ESSIG:
Were the glasses on the top of his head?
9l KOTTAN:
Yes.
10 11{
l ESSIG:
That was probably Dave Limroth, who's the - I believe his 12; I
title is Technical Superintendent for the Station.
And I do recall 131 l
that in the early, early on, that he was stationed at the Observation 14!
Center.
Another question along the same line... did you know once 15i you got on site, that the licensee had - I mean, once you arrived at 16i i
the Observation Center, or prior getting to the Observation Center, 17!
l did you know that the licensee had essentially no counting capability?
18{
19I KOTTAN:
Yes, after we discussed ' with the people in the Observation 20l Center and were made aware that he had no counting capability.
But 21~
initially, we weren't aware of that.
22 23 ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Then did you offer... I guess what I'm trying to 241' establish is, did the licensee request that, when he found out that 25l 856 183 1,
I i
6 i
you had a mobile laboratory here, did he request you to analyze some samples, or did you offer, or which came first?
i 3
KOTTAN:
Well, we informed the licensee of our. capability, and he said 4l y
that was good because they didn't have any of that capability themselves.
m 6l And we said that we would be glad to do any samples that can help out I
during the emergency.
And they said they would take advantage of the 7l offer.
8 1
9l l
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Then, after you reported in the Observation Center and 10' informed the licensee of the capabilities we had on the mobile laboratory, 11!
did you... what happened then?
12 I
131 K0TTAN:
Well, after that, the licensee didn't have any samples for us 14!
immediately, so we initially planned to take some air samples of our 15i own offsite, using the van.
The van has an onboard generator, and all 16i our air samples run off 110 volts.
So we had to take the van to take 17 i
the air samples.
However, we had problems with the tires on the van.
1Si j
One went flat and the tread pulled off another, so we couldn't move 19l the van.
So we scratched the idea and instead, running off our 1
20I l
onboard generator, started up the system, and by then the licensee had 21i i
brought over some samples for us to count.
22l l
23l t
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Do you recall, approximately at what time that.was, that 24 the licensee had brought over some samples for you to count?
j 25 l
l 856 186 1
i
)
i
l 7
i KOTTAN:
I think it was about 9 o' clock, p.m.
2 ESSIG:
- 0. K.
9 o' clock p.m., on the 28th?
3 4!
i KOTTAN:
Correct.
Si l
Si i
ESSIG':
The samples that you had to count... the period that we're 71 exploring here is from approximately 4 o' clock in the morning on the 28th to midnight on the 30th.
That is, the first Wednesday, Thursday 9
and Friday.
During that period of time, as best you recall, did you 10 receive any samples from the licensee or.
let's leave it with 11; i
the samples that you received from the licensee.
Were you required to 12l count some samples in a geometry - counting geometry, that you weren't 13l calibrated for?
141 15i KOTTAN:
That's correct.
The licensee brought us samples and various 16i i
geometries:
1,000 ml polybottles... for example; liquid scintillation 17'
{
counting vial with 10 or 20 ml's, and 500 mi polybottles.... just a 181 l
variety of geometries' that we are not normally calibrated at.
19j 20l' ESSIG:
What typically, with respect to liquid samples and air samples, 21j charcoal cartridges, what are your normal counting volumes and distances 22 tha' you're typically calibrated for, for your GeLi system?
23 24 25f l
l
. h'
8 I
y KOTTAN:
For liquid samples we have 500 ml polybottle, which we count either at contact or various distances from the detector - 5 centimeters, I
10 centimeters, 20 centimeters. We also have the same distances for a 3l t
50 ml polybottle.
Also, calibrated for a 500 ml Marenelli beaker.
4,,
l Later, several days after the incident, we obtained an NBS standard Sl and calibrated it for a one liter poly bottle.
Also, we calibrated for charcoal cartridges at.5 centimeters.
We calibrated for gases in I
the 30 cc bulb.
And also in the BW off gas bulb, at various distances
... again, 5, 10, 20 centimeters.
i 10l l
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
The samples which you received, as you indicated, you 11!
i received several which were not in the normal counting geometry.
In 12!
other words, it was one for which you had not performed a specific 13 l
calibration.
How did you go about quantifying the activity of these 14!
particular samples?
15i 16i KOTTAN: Well, in some cases, for example, a liquid scinti'lation 17 counting vial, if we moved it far enough away from the detector, the 18i j
geometry factor becomes less important.
So that was one technique we 19!
used.
Some of the samples for example, a lot of the initial samples 20 were inplant samples, -like the steam generators hotwell samples, and 21' in those samples, we were just basically scanning to look for activity.
2'9 We weren't trying to quantify.
The licensee just wanted to know, in 23 some cases, if we had any activity in that portion of the plant.
l 25l Y.(
Q i
i i
l
f 9
ESSIG:
In other words, it was sort of a "go, or no go" type of analyses?
2, KOTTAN:
Correct.
31 4k ESSIG: Were some of the samples that you received in the first three days... you indicated that you received some from in the plant.
o
. were there some from out of plant, as well?
8 l
KOTTAN:
Yes.
Initially, during the first night we were here, we 9
obtained some environmental samples; soil, grass, and water of our 10' own.
And we counted those.
Plus, I believe, we also counted some 11 offsite charcoal cartridges taken by the licensee.
12 4 i
13l l
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
What was the - once you analyzed the sample during that 14!
first three days, the result then was - for those samples that you 15J i
quantified the activity in, or -let's leave it at - for those samples 16!
that you analyzed, what happened to the - what typically happened to 17!
l the results... as far as, if tney were licensee's samples do you 18l know how they got back to the licensee?
191 20!
KG. TAN:
Yes. Well, we kept a 109 of all the results and we logged 21i all the samples in.
Plus the results we also reported to - initally 22 we were doing primarily with Gary Reed, who is the plant's chemist, 23 and giving the results to him and calling them in.
24
\\
i l
10 ESSIG:
- 0. K.
You say then that initally then, that changed at some later time?
2:
31 KOTTAN:
Yes.
Shortly after that we were reporting to the Emergency 4l, Control Center.
The personnel in there were taking numbers.
I 6l ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Jim, at any time during the first three days, did you experience a problem with the counting background?
In other words, 8
did you find yourself caught up in a xenon plume from the plant, and 9
if so, was there - what did you do about it, as far as being able to 10 count samples?
11l 12.
j KOTTAN:
At times, the background was so high we just literally couldn't 13 count samples.
We had several readings at times that were 20 mR per 14 hour1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />.
And at that time the deadtime on the detector went up to 100%.
15i l
So, we just couldn't count samples.
A lot of it depended uoan what we 16i
[
were counting, what we were looking for.
Many of the charcoal cart-171
(
ridges, for example, had xenon on them.
So it was difficult to count 18(
them.
But, many of the liquid samples, people were interested in 19l l
other isotopes such as iodine.
And we have a lot of xenon 133 at 80 20' kev.
The iodine at 364 really isn't interferred with that much.
So 21I you can still look for iodine, but you have a problem with high dead 22 time, which can sometimes really drag your counting out.
But if we 23 were looking for xenon, we just couldn't count.
24 25\\
s
\\
{
11 i
}
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Could you give a general idea of what your minimum detectable activities were for, specifically for iodine-131 in charcoal and in any liquid samples that - I'm saying iodine-131 because I have the impression that's that the principal nuclide that you were being I
4!
asked to look for?
5 6
KOTTAN:
Correct.
Initially, for charcoal cartridges in determining the minimum detectable levels, you have to consider the volume that flows through.
But, our number that, I think, would be reasonable 9
might be 1 x 10-9 microcuries/cc of I-131, 1 x 10-10.
Of course you 10 can always vary the counting time.
And increase it.
But, initially, 11l:
we had a lot of samples and we were counting for ten minutes.
12!
l"',
ESSIG:
And do you recall... perhaps this is an unfair question 14!
.because we can look at the records and I shouldn't really ask you to 15 recall results, but, do you recall finding any higher than above MDA 16i charcoal - charcoal that you had analyzed during the first... well, 17 the initial samples the first three days?
18) 19!
KOTTAN:
Initially, the first several samples we ran, no.
Nothing in 20 the environmental charcoals that we - we didn't see any iodine in 21) those.
I believe, maybe by the third day, we'd calibrated for - some 22l of the charcoals were so hot, we calibrated for ceiling geometry.
23 Just taped to the ceiling of our van over our detector.
And I believe 24 in some of the vent samples, we may of - we saw some iodine in those.
l 25l Again as you said, we can check the log, to be specific on what day.
I
12 i
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
When you say you calibrated for your - tape to the ceiling geometry - did you do that with you mentioned earlier a NBS standard.
Did you have a standard that you - or was that primarily for liquids?
5l l
KOTTAN:
Our ceiling calibration was done using~a charcoal cartridge 6!
spike with barium 133, which we obtained from the Department of Energy, Radiological Environmental Services Laboratory at Idaho Falls, Idaho.
And we also checked it with an NBS point source, at that distance.
9}
10-And we F. ave the data... you can take a look at it, if you want.
(
11; I
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Were the samples that you counted, I think that you 12!
indicated a little bit earlier, that some of them, y,u were, more or 13 l
less... the licensee, I think, was interested in a sort of "go-no 14:
go" anyalyses.
For those which you were asked to... those that you 15i were given to analyze, thera were some I believe that, by the initial 16!
j scan, you could tell if there was, I think, insufficient activity and 17; you didn't bother running the additional program which would quantify 18{
the activity present, but there are others where did run the radionuclide 19t library bit to quantify the activity present.
What did you use for, 20' or how to you decide when you would quantify, carry it all the way 21 through, to quantification of activity per sample or per volume, 22l versus those that you didn' t?'
23 l
24l 25!
a m
W, i
E
W f
13 l
j KOTTAN:
Initally, what we we did, on every sample we ran a - we have 1;
y a peak-search program, which runs through the spectrum and Ircates the peaks and identifies each peak as to energy.
And then by takieg a 4-.
look at this, I identified the isotopes that were present just by J
hand, and if we say something we were interested in, such as iodine, m
I then we would either quantify it, or tell the licensee that there was 6!
iodine in his sample or there wasn't.
8 t
ESSIG:
Would this peak-search program, say that you have a 364 KEV 9
full time present, is that the kind cf answer you would get?
10!
11!
KOTTAN:
It identifies the centroid... it finde the peak and then 12!
l identifies the centroid, and then using the linear equation for energy 13l
[
versus channel number identify the energy of the peaks.
And then, 14; based on that, you can determine the isotope.
15i 16!
j ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Did you think, generally, when you first arrived on 17!
l site, or before you got'here, that you would end up being essentially
~
18(
the laboratory for the licensee?
I think in our incident response 191 capability, we think in terms of maybe taking independent measurements, 20j but maybe we haven't thought of actually functioning as the laboratory 21!
l for the licensee.
Did that somewhat - did you find yourself in sort 22 of a funny situation there, or in a role you really weren't really 23 expecting to play? What was your reaction?
24 l
I gj3 '
3 e
i
'l i
14 KOTTAN: Well, initially we were told to report here, we didn't know g
what to expect.
I just think that the licensee had no capabilities.
i 3f The samples needed to be counted and, in many cases, there was misidenti-fication of isotopes, in terms of radiological health hazard, people I
weren't sure of what they were dealing with, and we were able to 51, provfde some help in that area. It was worthwhile.
61 i
7 ESSIG:
- 0. K.
When you say " misidentification of radio-nuclides," were these sample's which had been counted by the licensee, using a SAM 2 or ume similar determination, or do you know how it - what specifically i
the licensee was misidentifying and how he had analyzed for it?
11!
12l KOTTAN:
Correct.
Some of the samples for example, charcoal cartridges 13 l
which had a lot of xenon on them, if you gross count them, or if you 14!
try to use a SAM 2 and don't have the window properly set, can misiden-15i tified for iodine.
And we got.1ere, particularly we got inplant 16i i
samples, for example from the control room, where the radiation monitors 17!
were alarming.
And inside the control room they had continuous air 18l monitors. ari the licensee wanted to know whether everyone in the 19!
control room should wear a respirator or not.
And he had no way of 20i identif,ing what isotopes were on the cartridge, so we were able to do 21f that.
22' 23 l
[
ESSIG:
And by identifying the activity in the control room v: tat 1
241 basically did you find? Was it nobel gases that was giving you the 25l problem in the control room?
a j
Y
15 KOTTAN:
Yes.
Prit rily, xenon 133 and you don't.
. it's considered g
a submersion dose rather than... so you don't need a respirator for that.
And it was helpful, particularly if you have to work in a respirator for a long period of time.
l 5!
l ESSIG:
Right.
Jim, I think I've pretty well gone through the qvastions 61 that I wanted to cover with you.
I'll be down visiting you and getting some of the data that you had collected in the first three days.
Since we are talking ahcut - 1 think, in an area where we may have, so 1
9l l
to speak, plowed new ground in terms of our analyzing samplet for the licensee, our being first on the scene with gamma spectrosccpy capa-11j i
bility...
Are there any, in terms of lessons, that you think we've 12j j
learned, or we, the NRC, has learned, or the utility industry may have 13 learned from this, in terms of, specifically, gamma spectroscopy, if 14!
l there're any lessons learned that come to mind right now, would you 15i care to elaborate?
16i i
17!
i KOTTAN:
Well, I can think of perhaps maybe one or two.
Particularly 18(
l for releases offsite, I think it's a good idea to have some kind of 191 l
spectroscopy system available for identifying the nuclides released.
20l If you try to do gross counting and you have something that will ni 9
collect various isotopes, and the radiological health hazard from the 22'I various isotopes is quite different.
It pays to able to quantify them 23 properly and avoid panic situations and take action which are not 24i
@' %-)
l required.
So I think offsite gamma spectroscopy is worthwhile, 25i b
i
e 16 rather than grabbing gross measurements.
I think, since we did get here first, and we have the gamma isotopic capability, it was well used and we gained a lot of benefit from it.
It may be the role of the NRC in the future.
I'm ndt sure, but it seems like we can get there first and '.e can make the measurements.
I might add that air sampling, fro'a our point of view, is a problem anyway.
At times, we 6!
wanted to vrrify some licensee's offsite results and we had no portable air sampling equipment that couldn't'run without the van.
And when we had problems with the tires, we couldn't move it.
Although we had other vehicles... other cars... available we couldn't go off-10t site to take a sampling, to confirm the licensee's numbers, and do the 11 isotopic analyses, to give us an indication of the radiological health 12, hazard.
13 14!
l ESSIG:
Just one more question, along that line, Jim.
15l l
16i l
RESNER:
Excuse me.
At this time we break the tape and change sides.
171 The time is 7:59 p.m.
18[
191 RESNER:
This is a continuation of the interview of Mr. James J.
20l Kottan.
The time is now 8 p.m. EDT.
21l i
22i!
ESSIG:
Jim, there is one point that I guess I didn't establish earlier 23
... but the actual means by which the samples, some of which came 24 from inplant, and some which were environmental samples... how did 25; s@
i gh p
1 I
t7 l
p they actually get to the vans which were parked near the Observation Center? Did the licensee have a runner that would bring the samples over, or did we have to go get them? Or how did that work?
+
3t 4l e
censee r ug a
e samp es to ne van for counting.
5 I
Gl, I
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Then the samples were counted and initally the results were phoned over to the plant chemist, and then later to the Emergency Control Station, as I believe you said before.
What subsequently was Si l
done with the samples after you were through counting them.
101 11 l
KOTTAN: We gave them back to the licensee for storage, I believe.
12j l
13l t
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
One other area which may be worth exploring in terms of 14!
lessons learned, based on our interviews with various licensee's 15 personnel... they were not really prepared, as I think most licensees 16i probably wouldn't be.
The weren't prepared for a counting room, which 17 is uninhabitable, so to speak, in terms of background activity.
And 18!
l one of the thoughts then, in the way of hindsight then, would be, 191 perhaps the licensee should have had some kind of offsite counting 20 capability which he maintained in readiness.
I'm not saying that this 21 is a something that everybody has sort of concluded - I'm not sure 22 really that anybody has cor.cluded - but certainly it's a thought that 23 crosses one's mind.
Now that you've been through counting the samples, 24 as you said the NRC was first to show up with the analytical capability 25!
I AOf
\\'
b l
l 18 on site... would you, in your opinion, Jim, feel that the licensees, y
in general, - w uld it - do you think it would really be cost beneficial, 2
u n
n, to maintain some kind of counting capability? And I 3
think this counting capability would necessarily involve probably a i
germanium lithium detector and a multichannel analyzer off cite somewhere, I
which would have to be calibrated and maintained in the state of some 61 sort of readiness.
Do you think - does that seem to you to be a l
practical consideration?
8!
l 9l l
KOTTAN: Yes, I do.
I don't know if it necessarily has to be a GeLi 10l l
system.
There are many multichannel analyzers on the market today, 11{
j which are quite small~and portable, and'yet would do the job.
And 12' even, I think, a sodium iodide detector would be adequate to tell the 13 difference between, for example, iodine and xenons offsite.
And it 14 doesn't take a lot to calibrate one or maintain it.
And I think it 15i would be very useful.
16i I
17l ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Jim, I think that's all the questions I have. If you 18(
didn't have any further comments, I think we'll thank you for time and 19l consider the interview terminated, unless you have any further comments
?0i l
you wish to make for the record, at this time.
21l t
22' I
KOTTAN: Well, I just wanted to say that all the records are available 23f in the van - the log book, the time the samples came in, what samples 24{
and the results.
So, if you want to check for specific times and 25!
h N
4 k-o
19 g
specific results, which we may have crossed over here.
Also, in terms of time, for example, I have the Turnpike toll receipt, when we got off the Turnpike, which is stamped with the time, if you wanted to verify to a much closer degree, at what time we got here.
?
5l I
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
Si 7
KOTTAN:
No further comments.
t 91 i
ESSIG:
- 0. K.
And we will be checking the log book because some of 10!
those initial samples... what we're interested in doing is to...
11j l
knowitg what the licensee did with the results once they had them, 121 wn t xind of actions they took, once they knew, once they had a little 13 l
better gamma scrospectcopy data available than they were capable of 141 providing themselves... which is I think, as you said, essentially 15i the SAM 2 measurements.
So we're going to be looking a little bit at some of the - both the inplant a'nd the out of plant that were generated.
17 j
So, we'll be down to see those records.
- 0. K.
I think that's all I 18f have Mark.
19 i
20 RESNER:
- 0. K.
We'll conclude the interview with Mr. Kottan.
The time 21!
now is 8:05 p.m. EDT.
22I 23 24 25; g
l N
i h
W
\\
..