ML20237J948
| ML20237J948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237J518 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-245 NUDOCS 8708260378 | |
| Download: ML20237J948 (30) | |
Text
l l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
i 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
)
In' the Mattar of:
)
)
1 5
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
)
j
)
]
6 of-
)
7 4thepheaefr
)
____________J The Doposition of M FLINT) taken
~
9 l
l 10 pursuant to Notice before me, Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans,
)
l 11 Notary Public in and for the County of Nayne (acting in Monroe 12 County), at Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, 6400 North Dixie Highway, 13 Newport, Michigan, 48166, on Thursday, Sep+==h=" 26, 1985,
)
l-18 commencing at about 3:40 p.m.
15 l
APPEARANCES:
16 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
17 Office of Investigations Fisld Office:
Region III 18 799 Roosevelt Road Glan Ellyn, Illinois 60137 18 (By:
James N. raikiman, Esq.)
20 Appearing on hahalf of United States Nuclear i
Angulatory Commission l
21 l
22 23 Information in this record was delettd 24 in accordance wit th e o{ot Intermation Act, ex ptions --
5 M_
25 FOIA --
4
I s
l
\\
l 1 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
l l
ll NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
l!
(
j 3 f--
i l
j In the Matter of:
)
d
)
1 l
5 INVESTIGATIVE IIITERVIEW, )
)
)
lgll
_of
)
l 6
)
7
)
i II'-------------)
e l
q TheDepositionofhROMEFLIN taken 9
'O pursuant to Notice before me, Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans, j
1 1,' Notary Public in and for the County of Wayne (acting in Monroe l'
4 12 County), at Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, 6400 North Dixie Highway 4
'3 Newport, Michigan, 48166, on Thursday, September 26,.1985, commencing at about 3:40 p.m.
'E i
. APPEARANCES:
16 f
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
17 )
Office of Investigations j
b Field Offices Region III i
j l
799 Roosevelt Road I
1e Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 l
19 (By:
James N. Kalkman, Esq.)
{
i j
20 i
Appearing on behalf of United States Nuclear
{
Regulatory Commission 1
21 2
22 23 i l
1 24 j; (continued) d
]
]
25
!l i:
i
1 l
i 1
i APPEARANCES:
(continued)
{
2 y JOHN H. FLYNN,' ESQ.
l j
f Senior Staf f Attorney i
l I
3 p Legal Department i
2000 Second Avenue f
4 Detroit, Michigan 48226 I
5 Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison I
6 PETER MARQUARDT, ESQ.
l General Attorney 7 f Nuclear Environmental l
2000 Second Avenue 8 I Detroit, Michigan 48226 i
9 Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison to THOMAS RANDAEZO, ESQ.
6400 North Dixie Highway e
11 l' Newport, Michigan 48166 l
12 l Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison 13 1
14
[ElizabethDiannFerguson-Evans,CSR-1347
'E
! Certified Shorthand Reporter 16 ;
i 17 i
isl ie; i
i 20 o
I 1
22 23 2A I
25 i
I 2 ;
o
-e s-1 2
N' D
_E
_X -
.)
- 2~
WITNESS PAGE'i i
l\\
3 JERONE FLINT 4
Examination by Mr. Kalkman 4
5 e
7 i
8' 9
I to 11
-- j i
12 l
1 13,'
1 i<
14 1
(
lt l
1 15 j
1 y
l 16
l 3
17 e
t.
18
.I i
19 1
/
's 20 ?
3 I,
lI e
21 8
i E
22 23 1
j 24 l
25
'I I
i i
3 i
y t
1 ll Newport, Michigan r,
2 Thursday, September 26, 198S I!
3 at about 3:40 p.m.
4 l
4 5
I MR. KALEMAN:
For the record, this is i
I l
the interview of Jerome Flint, who is employed by the 1
6 7 'l Detroit Edison Company; the location of this interview is J
I' the Fermi II Nuclear Power Station, Newport, Michigan.
8 I
Present at this interview are Detroit 9
10 Edison Counsels, Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Randazzo; 1
l 11 and NRC Investigator, Mr. Kalkman.
I 1
j The subject matter of this interview 12
'3 concerns a Reactor Operator error which occurred at the
'd Fermi II Nuclear Power Station on July 2, 1985.
'S Mr. Flint, would you please stand and i
16 raise your right hand.
.i 17 i
l l
18 l l
JEROME
- FLINT, g
19 after having first been duly sworn to tell the truth,
!I lj 20 :i the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified 1
21
]l upon his oath as follows:
l1 i
22 I' d
l 23 EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. KALKMAN:
i 25 Q
Mr. Flint, are you presently employed as an assistant l
l 4
l 1
shif t supervisor?
l A Yes, shift 3.
2 3
Q And you are a licensed Reactor Operator?
r 4
A Xes, senior operator-licensed.
L 5
0 And when did you receive your SRO?
6 A
December, 'that would be Decaster a year ago,1984.
I 7 !-0 19847
'l 8
jA Yes.
9 Q
And you have experience at any other Nuclear facility?
I lA Well, Natal Nuclear facility, non-consercial.
10
.I Q How long have you been -- what is the extent of your 11 92 experience?
93 A
I joined the Navy in 1970, so I started in about '72, I was
'd workin9 in the Nuclear Plant.
'S I stopped abou't a year and a half ago to 16 go to school.
g i
17 il Q Are you a degreed engineer?
ll 1
}
l 1B A
No, I am not.
3 I
19 j Q
Mr. Flint, you were on the evening shift of July 1st, 1985:
li i.
20 ;-
is that correct?
l
[
21 A
Yes, that is the date,.the night shift, midnight until
'i 1*
<t 22 8:00 in the morning.
l 23 O
And you were on the shif t where the operator error occurred, j 24 which resulted in the criticality.
1 25 !
Could you describe what you recall from a
5 I
1 l
.I
l i
l that particular shif t of the rod pull error?
j l
2 lA okay.
First off, I cannot say I was en the j
3 l
I shift with the criticality.
Our determination up there was
]
4 I
no, we had no problem with criticality.
i 3
0 Well, the issue of criticality?
i 6
y A
Right, the rod pull.
3[
We had our turnover meeting, s
l' was the Reactor Operator that we were going to leave on the g
603, which is engaged in pulling rods.
to l
jafterhehadreviewed j
I talked with ii what the on-going operator had, had a good feeling in my 12 li mind that he knew what his job function was, where we were 33 l
headed to.
34 l
Af ter the turnover meeting, I went in
' 15 the office to start on the paperwork that evening with 16 time cards, bi-weekly hourly reports, and shortly af ter 3
17 I
ll is l
that, I heard we had a rod pull incident.
lO Well, let's back up a little bit.
19 f
20 ll A Yes.
a a
hQ When; ptarted his rod pull or took over from l l 21 i
n il the prior shif t you ware present when he began his rod pull?
22 s
I think it 23 A
I am not exactly sure where I talked to -
)
was outside the conference room, which is next to the shift l
24 !
l l
25 supervisor's office.
t I
/
/
l 4
ll I as pretty sure it was after the 1
a turnover meeting and before he went out to relieve, I had 2
a fow words in passing with him.
3 ll I asked him where he was att how did he h,
i feel about it, and did it look like there were any problems 5
continuing; where -- were we close to the point of 6
l criticality as far as the pull sheets, compared to what we 7 0o had before; and the answers.I got back were of a positive i
e nature that there was a good feeling that Le had a handle.
on it, he was not walking into a bind.
i
,o Q
Did you know that, lhad not performed a criticality 33 1
4 l
before7 12 1
i A
I was aware that this was his first time actually pulling 1
33 f
rods in the plant, yes, j
i4 I
[Q Did that mean anything to you as far as --
15 33 lA well, that was a part of the reason why I talked to him,
'l okay?
This was one of my first start ups too, so I wanted I
37 I
l l'l to make sure we had everything in order.and we were not is i
o{
approaching it just like we do another revolution like 19 I
starting a pump or something.
20 [
21 ;Q What do you recall there?
How did you become aware of the 3
rod pull error?
22 Well, the time frames on this are not really -- well, I 23 A
know it was sometime shortly after the turnover because I 24 was still doing my paperwork, 25 i
t i
l
/
i i p I am not sure how I knew something was l'
2 ;
going on, but I left the office and Dave Aniol the shift
)
i 3
supervisor, was already out there; and I 3emember talking i
I more or less at the doorway of the shift d
to i
5 supervisor's office where he went in the control room.
i 8
I think he was going for a cup of coffeas' y
and I asked him what was going on.
We had a small convar-7 8
sation, but the words, I cannot remember.
i 9
He described what had happened, whct l
corrective action had been taken; and as far as re-inserting l
10 l
l the rods.
11 12 Q
This was i
/
i 13 "A Yes.
14 ;
I believe I asked him questions concern-
- l
[
ing did the reactor go critical; and the answer I got was
' 15 i
16 a pretty positive no.
I 6
17 No problem, so I accepted that, and 18 I am not real positive.
I am pretty sure I talked to l
19 i
Dave Aniol af ter that, to see that he had a handle on what 2
j j
was going on, and was aware of it.
20 F
i 21 ji I did not stop and talk to Steve Burk j
22 who was the control room operator; and then what I did, I I
23 started going back, looking for text spec violations and 24 deportability; and an independent Check on what they had 25 going on out there; and subsequently, I reported to Dave Aniol l
1 a
t s
that I found nothing in.the test specs and I found nothing.
2 in the 10CFR on the deportability, and that I could not 3
think of anything that was reportable under, and we held a discussion and I know for a fact that he said that he was 6
j going to call Gene Preston, operations engineer.
6 It seemed kind of strange that this.
particular incident would not be covered under anything a
that would be automatically reportable, written down l
8 already.
'0 0
Did you discuss this particular incident with anyone.else on that shift?
j 12 A
I am sure I did.
3 i
As far as the evaluations, concerning 14 deportability or text psecs of what exactly had happened, I know I felt la my own mind that we had -- I actually a
16 l
found out what the error was, okay; and this was the first
{
l time I had discovered that they were under a reduced'nothe
'8 worth program myself, because I had not inspected the rod
{
l pull sheets real close, page by page.
2 i
/
I had looked at them and verified that 21 they were, in fact, the right ones and what was leaded on 22 the rod owrht minimizer.
l 23 David was my concern, giving him the 24 input I had.
l 25 O
Did you talk to the Reactor Engineer on that shif t?
9 i
1 i
A I don't know whether I did or not.
1 2
Q Now, sometime during that particular shif t, did you become 3
I aware of the f act that the Reactor Bagineer had logged that f
the reactor was critical?
5 A
No, it was not until weeks later that I found that out.
6 Q
Mr. Aniol did not advise you of that?
A No, not that he would be expected to.
I was providing him 7
e with input.
Q So you are aware of the fact that Mr. Aniol had called l
9 I
I 10 Mr. Preston?
l l
A Yes.
Q Af ter the telephone conversation, did you take any pirt in
]
12 13 the telephone conversations?
l A
I think I remember seeing him on the phone.
I was not
'd
'S actually on it.
i i
O So there was no speaker box in the office where several j
is 3
17 people could talk?
1 18 A
No.
g l
lQ In the conversation?
19 1I l
lj 20 A
No, he was in the office and I was outside the office, l.
' Il li either before a: after he said, "I'm going to call Preston,"
21 11
! t 22 or "I called Preston."
23 Q
Did you discuss the conversation with Mr, Aniol after --
24 A
More or Jess.
What I got out of it af terwards, was to generate the DER, have it documented, and whan, I am not l
25 l
l 10,
lf 1
sure if it was the next morning _when be came -- the next Il 2
~
time when Gene came in,-that it would get onto --
3 Q
So Preston's direction was to prepara a DER?
d IA well, I know for sure it was'to have -- I don't know
~
i 5
whether he said generate it, but that he'would look at the 6
DER and present it to Osrow ( phonetically), and I'am 7
pretty sure it was like the ASXt day's if not the neXt time a
he was in.
i 9
.Q Now, is it your impression that the DER would have been 10 prepared regardless of --
11 A
I think it was already half written by the time the-12 conversation took place, yes.
13
'Q Did you have any input into the DER?
i i! A No, I did not.
j 14 i
I 15 I may have see'n it that night, but to say, j
I 16 okay, that is what I know too, but I cannot tell you'for sure.
3 17 Q
Did anyone in the control room on that particular shift 18 express an opinion that the reactor may have been critical 18 or was critical?
i I
1 j
20 A
I would have to answer no to that.
I don't know that they I
\\
i 21 did, but --
l 22 O
You don't recall anyone --
23 A
Once I was aware of what it was, I made one' circuit through 24 the control room to find out, and then I was back in the office in text spect and then 10 CFR; so what conversation 25 l
l 11 j
l-
i i
1 1
took place, I
's really not sure.
2 I don't rama=her, in speaking with who, g
(
3 other than but I was lef t with a definite positive N
Y feeling that we had no problem with criticality.
4 s
It was a very tough int to call, so i
6 I reetwaber that I asked a couple of questions about it, 7
and I Came away with it that there was no problem there.
l 1
\\
t 6
0 What particular questions did you ask?
9 A
Well, increasing count, period, okay; I guess the biggest to concarn would be what period meter and what ha saw on that; j
11 but I don't know exactly what I said.
12 0,
Did you keep any type of a log?
O I
13
.A At that time, I did not.
I do now.
14 :O Do you know why this incident was not logged in the shif t c
15 i
supervisor's log?
16 A
No.
a 17 I really don't.
18 I have my own guess, and that is that n
19 when a shif t aupervisor gets busy out of the control room, 1
l l
(
sometimes he has a whole block of things that need logging; i
20 h
j 21 and that would be the only reason that I could tell you why 22 he did not get it logged.
23 Q
Do you know why it was not logged in the ramtM1 room 24 supervisor's -- I found out af ter the fact that Steve Burk, 25 the control room operator, was not aware of the incident at 12 l
I p
all.
hQ Well, since Mr. Burk is keeping the Reactor Operator's log, I
Y, isn't it someone's responsibility to notify him of the 3
b.
ll incident?
4 5
A It certainly is.
l And who should have notifled Mr. Burk of this incident?
E Q
- A The first notification should have came from the
~
s J
Second from myself or Dave; and the third from myself or E
l 9
Dave.
1C Q
And the reason that no notification was made was --
\\
J A
To the NRC --
'I Q
No, to Mr. Burk, so that he could log this event, was that --
'3 was there a reason for it?
12 A
I believe that everybody out there, including myself,
E assumed that Steve knew what was going on too; and Steve
'E was concerned with running the physical plant, skay, so I
he did not become closely involved.
i 1-I h,
15 d we all'made that assumption.
This is e
i h
hindsight once again.
'9 i
2o 0
Well, if you had been the shif t supervisor, would you have 2'
logged that?
Il 22 'A Well, I certainly hope I would have.
I guess I should jump up now and say it did not go completely unlogged or disregarded.
23 22 I rasnamher seeing sometime or another i
that night the pull sheets with long lines drawn through the 25 l
l ul 6,76,
1 rods that were pulled, initialed out in the column, and
]
i I
I 2
explaining a statement down at the bottom, that
.l
]
3 had filled out.
)
4 Q
Do you think there was a conscious effort not to 109 this?
5 A
No, I do not.
6 Q
By anyone in the Control room?
j i
7
! A No, sir, 3Bost definitely Dot.
8 0
So it was just a matter of circumstance that it was not 9
logged?
10 A
- Yes, j
i 11 Q
How do the responsibilities of an assistant shif t supervisor 12 differ from that of a shif t supervisor?
13 A
well, I am the assistant, I as there to help him out.
14 our organization today is a little bit
{
15 different than it was the night of the incident.
-l i
16 1 I will refer to it as it was on the i
17 night of the incident:
l I
h 18 The responsibility that Dave, Dave Aniol l
1 had, is towards the plant.
His desk sits next to the 19 i
I.
20 '!
window in the shift supervisor's office; he has direct P
21 j.
communication with the control room operator, visually as E
22 !!
well as with the phones.
23 The assistant, although he is included 24 in this also, in addition, he takes care of the administrative 25 items that I referred to earlier, bi-weekly worked hours, I
i 1
6,96
l' 1
documentation of facts, working less than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> a week, h
eight-hour - brsaks, time cards, concerning yourself with 2
3 the training requirements of employees, and providing all-d of this information for the shift supervisor so that he is 1'
5 free to take care of the plant.
6 At that time, it was not normal to 7
i spend a najority of the time in the control room; but rather, l
8 than to make tours through.
9 Does that answer your question?
'O O
Yes.
what would you do if you did not agree l
with the shif t supervisor, with his assessment of an error 12 I
0 or something of that nature?
'3 3
I i
[A Well, I would let him know about the disagreement.
Id 15 0
Is there some procedure that -- of a way to document your
'6 descenting opinion --
8 i
A Well, the only time that I would consider documentation is l!
i
'8 g
if the disagreement were to be something involving technical
'8
)
specifications, or deportability or the way to operate a
)
i i
j 20 "
piece of equipment; then it would be documented per the f
21 i
333.s direction.
I i
(
l 22 But as far as the disagreement goes, 23 that is a matter of my providing feed back to him, okay, 24 to let him know exactly how I feel and what I feel it should 25 be.
i l
I l
15
l l
i i
In the case of this incident, there i
2 was no disagreement, j
1 3
Q So you did not state how you became aware of the rod pull 4
error.
5 Did someone advise you of the error or 6
was it a matter of you stumbling onto this error?
7 A
Well, I guess I would have to be closer to stumbling and 8
looking out and seeing what was going on in the coutrol' 9
room.
.l 4
10 Most likely, I noticed that there were l
11 more poeple than usual standing up by the 603, okay, and.
12 well, that is not normal, so it is time to look into it.
13 lO Are you in the same office with the shift supervisor?
14
- A Yes, I am.
Y i
15 ll Q Now, it is my understanding that the STA in training advised h
16 '
David Aniol, came back to his office and advised him of the l:
I le 17 error.
lI l'-
18 Do you know if you were in --
]
19 A
Well, if Dave was in the office when he got advised, then, li ll j,
20 f I was in there with him at the time, d
i 21 o
However, you don't recall someone coming into the office s*
22 and --
i 23 A
No, because it would have been on a, " Hey, Daver we got a 24 problem.
Come on out." and we have had some physical things 25 in the plant like, "Now,"
and get the guy to run out there, 16 e.
I 4
1
.1 so I was not real concerned if he was asked to go out to the I
control room to look into something.
3 0
So getting back to your initial avaranans of this problem, you took certain actions 'and you talked to -- what l
]
E specifically did you do when you first became aware of this?
6 A
Okay.
t When I knew what we had, the rod pull, B
put them back, my first thought was 'What did we violate?
9 What do we have to do as a result of this?"
'O Once I was sure of the physical plant.
l l0 Well, before that, how did you know that there was a rod i
12 mispulled?
h i'
'3
,A Well --
6 O
Did you walk cut to the --
lA As I mentioned, I more or less met at the back of the control room and he may haveben goin for a cup of 16 17 coffee.
[
is I am pretty sure, and I am not positive, I
is but I am pretty sure that is when I got the first inclination 20 that there had been a problem.
il 3
{O So this was -- certainly he did not go get a cup of coffee 21 i
i 22 until he inserted the rods?
23 A
Correct.
24 g
Now, the situation was under control, and this was quite 25 sometime after the incident occurred?
j
1 J
l I
A well, as for the time frame, a frame of time, I am really I
i p
I d not certain.
i l
3 I would guess somewhere five to 10 minutes,
]
but I am not certain.
i O
And other than talking to ldidyoutalktoany j
~
r 6
STA or the SOA or the Reactor Engineer and get their i
analysis or opinions or whatever?
8 A
Specifically, I hcVe to answer no.
I 9
{
I know I went out in the control room;
'O I know I dug into it a little further to find out what had gone on, but wno I talked to or what was mentioned, I really y
t 1.
1 don't recall.
'2 Where I have my memory from is in speaking 1
~
tol I know at the time I was fully aware of what f
h
'6 had been done and what corrective action had been taken, and il that my boss, Dave Aniol.was aware of it; and my thought ll j
went to, "Okay, what did we violate?"
And we started looking-I.
'8
,1 into other assistings to the boss.
1 Were you involved with a meeting, a shift turnover, you know,1 IO 20 when your shift ended, did you have a meeting with Mr. Aniol 21 and Mr. Preston relating to this incident?
t 22 A
I don't believe there was any meeting held that night 23 aftarwards, no.
24 Q
Well, when was the DER given to Mr. Preston?
25 A
I cannot state positively.
18'
/
y
.'l 1
l It would have been routed the next 1
l!
2 i
working day, everyday except sometimes Sunday; the on-call I
3 staff, Gene Preston or Fred Ableson (phonetically) will i
come up and attend a turnover knd get the physical plant 4
5 status for themselves and ask questions.
6 That is when it would have been turned 7
directly oVer.
I Cannot say positively that happened the 8
next morning.
l 9
Q So you don't recall Mr. Preston came into the control room
]
10 and had a meeting with Mr. Aniol?
A I really am not certain.
1 l
Q So you would recall if you were in a meeting with Mr. Preston 12 i
13 and Mr. Aniol relating to this incident?
I; A
Not necessarily.
10 I have been involved in DER's since 1
s is then, and many of the same type turnovers.
17 We haVe a lot of things going On! so he h,
certainly could have been there, but I cannot recall that 18 l;
18 he was.
j 0
So you did not become aware of the Reactor Engineering Log 20 j
or that there was a differing opinion of the criticality 21 i
until sometime af ter that?
22 A
As a matter of fact, I think it was in one of the company's 23 presentations on what had happened that they gave to the 24 supervisors when I first became aware of that.
I don't know 25 19 i
i if it was part of the presentation or something that somebody said.
2
,Q Did you ever make entries into a shift supervisor's log?
3
,A once again, now, we are running it differently.
We did.
4 In the past, the shift supervisor's l
5 log would remain on his desk in the shift supervisor's 6
l office, mostly, and, yes, I have made entries in it before, 7
s 0
What would prompt you to make an entry rather than the i
shif t supervisor, in his absence?
g A
Well, for example, I would be in the office and I would io get a phone call, security is decå an event, microwave 33 l
f zone down.
I would go ahead and los the time and write it j
32 f
in there; and if the shif t supervisor log' was not up to 33 i
14 date, I would put it on a slip of paper.
If he had other f
P i
j; log entries to put in, I would put it right en his log 15 n
where it would be seen.
16
,[
37 0
Is that a conunon practice?
I is A
I can only say it was for our shif t, for me.
i ig Q
And you worked on the same shif t with Mr. Aniol normally?
l Yes.
l 20 tl A 23 Q
Are you saying that if you had several logs, many entries o
ll and you were busy, you would' just jot them down en a piece 22 i
of paper and leave them and at a later time complete the 23 24 log?
25 A
Well, that is my practice now, if I have a lot going on.
20 i
Actually, we have recorders provided,
. and I know -- we can record the time of the event as it-i 2
1 happens out in the control rooms there are times in the 3
i evening when you have something going on that you don't 4
want to walk away from, so you jot a time down, you would s
a rather stay right there on top of the' problem to make 6
l sure that it is being taken care of.
7 s
O Well, what is Mr. Aniol's -- how does he log entries?
9 Does he --
to A
Well, his handwriting is better'than sine, but as far as --
n Q
I mean does he do it as the events occur, or at the end of the shift or what is his normal practice?
4 12
-l i
lA Well, my guess would be that he logs it as it goes.
I 13 I
really don't recall,
]
14 9 l
l is Q
Well, you work with him everyday.
l 16 A
Right, what I am thinking <of is that the majority of the j
I time, when I went to make an entry like the one I told 17
,I 18 l
you about on the phone call, it was like, "Well, he logged
.i one 10 minutes ago, so I guess I can put mine in."
19
. Q So you would have talked to Barry Myers about this incident, 20 li 21 the Reactor Engineer that was on shif t when this occurred?
s*
I I don't believe I have talked to him specifically about it, 22 A
23 no.
24 Q
After you became aware of the reactor -- of the criticality, at least the DECO's position, that there was criticality, 25 21:
i t__
g have you talked to people on the shif t, to the SOA or STA 3
about that incident?
{
2 1
I 3
A Well, I guess I first became' aware of it, it would have
]
l l
been three weeks af ter the incident.
I loft for two weeks 4
vacation afterwards; and shortly after that, ws had the j
s 1
company presentation, having set it four days later that 6
j 7
the reactor is Criticall Since thm, I aR pretty sure that I talked to the STA that was on that. night, Tom Dong; we 8
9 have had extensive conversations.
Barry Myers, I don't believe I had 10 11 any direct -- any relation to the incident.
Most of the
)
12 people, yes, because I kind of wondered what was going on 3
1 13 when I got back.
II Q And what did Mr. Dong, what is his impression or his opinion?
14 li
)! A Of what?
15 I Q Of the criticality.
16 s
17 A
Well, I really can't say.
I 18 0
Did Mr. Dong say, "Well, I. suspected all along it was 1
l 19 critical," or something of that nature?
7 20 A
No, he never said anything along that line.
I do ramamher j
l i
21 him being worried about legal implications.
i 22 I guess that subject I talked about the 23 aost that bothered me the most was while -- I have the t
24 impression that they were doing a " Cover up investilpation,"
25 so I was kind of taken aback by that "They are doing a what?"
22 I
l J
I So naturally, I ctarted asking qu3ctio s 3
and I wanted to find out what was going on.
2 l
3 o
Have you talked to John Dewes, the STA in training about the incident?
4 5
A I as sure I have, but specific conversations, --
6 o
Well, I am trying to find out if you have talked to anyone 7
that was on that shift that has expressed an opinion relating a
to criticality, not particularly on that shift, but any I
9 time up until the last time you saw them.
io A
Well, I would have to answer that -- I have not talked to anyone since the incident that came back and said anything 11 12 like that, like. "Well, I, had concern, but it was not is addressed."
14 0
So you had the presence of mind when you talked to a
y f
on that shif t when the incident occurred, to ask him if there 15 is was a criticality?
I 17 A
What I remember saying, what I believe I said was, "Did the l
18 reactor go critical?"
And the answer was a positive not
{
a 19 and I know we $Xchanged words on indications but we talked i
l 20 about period nostly, as I sentioned before.
21 We did talk about increase count, but i
22 we talked about period mostly.
23 0
So pu based his answer on what?
24 A
Well, I could not tell'you what the definite basis was.
25 What I got was a positive impression, that is what I remember
)
l J
I a positive Lepression that, no, the reactor did not go j
t critical.
No problem ~1n that respect.
q 3
0 Well, why did you ask the questics to beyin with?
Was there
]
\\
something that you -- I mesn, a rod pull always --
l 4
I 6
A Well, I guess I associated --
l 6
Q Create the question of criticality?
7 A
Well, I guess it is a measure of where you stand in relation to the stability of the reactor, super critical,
)
l e
sub critical, just critical! and it is more or less a guide 9
as to how far along you are in the start up, and if we to pull rods out of sequence, well, how far out of sequence.
1 j
n 1
12 did we go?
I imagine that is where the question would L
come from.
13 t-ll Q So you knew what steps your shift was in in the procedure?
i4 l
p gA Not positively, 15 a
I O Well, you believe you were --
is i
17 A
We were a long ways --
I 1e Q
Did you know when the shift took over that they were at the end of theit group 2 rods?
19 l
20 A
I knew they were approaching the end of the group 2 rods, and we had group 3 and group 4 to go through for the 50 il 21 i*
Percent density.
22 23 0
Which would have been the point where the steps of criticality would have been achieved, right?
24 25 A
Well, I had not looked into it then, and I imagine it would 24 u
have gone'somewhere in group 3.
2 0
Did any one person perform an analysis to determine whether there was a criticality?
Did anyone look at the SRM charts, that sort of thing?
5 A
Well, in talking to the people out in the control room, I 6
know the charts were looked att but I don't know that this,
.i 1
i 7
for example, took them off of the recorder, laid thest all I
8 out or tried to do an analysis or a count rate.
1 i
There is no recorder for that period, i
i
'U that would have been a much, much batter indication of the I
state of the reactor at that moment.
i I
O Now, what was looked at?
What was on view?
1
'3 A
well; I am not positive what was all looked at; I was not g
I out there at the time that it initially happened or I was
)
1 h
there for a short period of time, and then I was back into f
16 the books.
l
'7 ll So I am not positive what was all looked 18 j
at and what questions were raised; or what determinations l
[
l were made other than the fact the reactor had not gone li 20 a
q critical.
, 21 ll 0 Was some analyeis performed by panoone, and you don't know Hi who that was?
23 A
I guess not, no.
24 0
Were you working a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shif t at that time?
25 A
Well, I am not sure if I was on the 12-hour day or not.
J y
s g56 l-I 4
4
,g u
Q Well, Mr. Aniol was on 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on and 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> off, and 2
I was wondering if you were on also.
A Well, I really don't remember for the day, it is possible 3
that he was working 12 and I was nots and if there was 8
another shift supervisor being substituted for that.
Q Well, what do the operations people use the STA and the SOA 8
for?
A Well, the shif t operations advisor at this plant is licensed 8
and'is here because he has experience at an operating plant.
8 i
He remembers things; he knows things that we may not have f
'U seen yet and provides that input to the operating shift.
12 The shift technical advisor is a degreed
<3 t
.i engineer in the control room.
He has knowledge of systems j
and how they work, controllers, a higher level of knowledge I
on prints, especially on electronics; he provides that is input for the shift.
l:
Q Now, when an incident occurred, such as a rod pull error,
'l are these people asked to provide any input relative to
'8 any decision made on your part,. on the operation. people's 19 l
- j 2
part?
21 A
y,,,
Q Do you know if the shif t, when this incident occurred, 22 23 whether the SOA or the STA provided any information?
24 A
No, I don't know if they did or not.
O So you did not seek any information from any of these 26
_m___.___
I advisory people?
2 A
I did not, no.
I 3
Q Do you know if Mr. Aniol did?
4 A
No, I am not certain if he did or not.
Do you recall the rod worth minimizar block occurring on 5
Q 6
that particular shift?
7 A
No, I don't.
B Q
Would you normally be advised of something of that nature 9
occurring?
10 A
That information would normally scs i.e it to the shift 1
-l l
supervisor; it would not have to go through me, j
11 l
12 l! Q Mr. Flint, have I or any other NRC representative threatened
{
li i
13 [
you in any manner or offered you any rewards in return for 14 pour statement?
!i l
15 lA No, you haven't.
16 Q
Have you given this statamant freely and voluntarily?
s 17 A
I havs.
I
^
18 I do have a concerns il l;
19 Some of the statements that I have li l
said, expressing what other people did or how they lj 20 F
i 21 investigated it, it me.y not be correct, simply because it j
22 l was such a long time ago, and I am trying to give my best j'
23 impression; so most of the things are not definite and i
24 :
positive.
I 25 0
I understand.
27 L
4-I 1
Is there anything further other than 2
what you have just mentioned that you care to add for the 3
I record?
A I cannot think of anything.
d l
5 O
Thank you.
l 6
(Deposition concluded at 4:25 p.m.)
7 I
l 8
9 10 i
11 12 f
13 ;'
14 i
15 j 16 f
+
i 17 I.
i 3
19 j
20 f.
i l
21 l
~
I 22 23 24 25 T
I 28 i I
kra.
i
'1 STATE OF MICHIGAN) 3
) ss.
1 2
COUNTY OF WAYNE ~ )
3 I, Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans, do hereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition was taken before 4
5 me, in the above-entitled matter, was by me first duly cautioned 6
and sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony contained 7
in said deposition was by se reduced to writing in the presence a
9 of said witness by means of stenography and af terwards transcribed to upon a typewriter.
The said deposition is a true and correct I
transcript of the whole fo the testimony given by the said witness 11 12 aforesaid.
I I
13 I do further certify that I am not connected i
[i by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their agents,. and 14 t
15 that I am not an employee of either of them, nor interested, directly or indirectly, in the matter of controversy, either as is a
3 17 counsel, attorney, agent or otherwise.
3
[
h IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my is hand and affixed my notarial seal at Detroit, Michigan, County of 19 20 Wayne, State of Michigan, this 3 ay o n\\4
, 1985 i8 3
21 b
Ee4An b l %%
- 22 v
uu 23 Elizabeth Diann Fergueen-Evans, CSR-1347 Notary Public, Wayne 90aaty, Michigan.
24 My Commission expires May 14, 1985 26 29
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _