ML20237K304

Transcript of 850926 Investigative Interview of Wf Colbert in Newport,Mi Re 850702 Reactor Operator Error at Plant

ML20237K304
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	09/26/1985
From:	Colbert W DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20237J518	List: IA-86-245, Discusses 850912 Interview of AB Davis Re 850702 Operator Error at Facility.Davis Would Have Recommended Postponement of NRC Vote for Full Power License If Known of Premature Criticality IR 05000341/1985007 ML20237J515 ML20237J542 ML20237J566 ML20237J587 ML20237J620 ML20237J639 ML20237J686 ML20237J708 ML20237J722 ML20237J726 ML20237J741 ML20237J781 ML20237J797 ML20237J810 ML20237J839 ML20237J848 ML20237J890 ML20237J911 ML20237J920 ML20237J948 ML20237J973 ML20237J979 ML20237J991 ML20237K175 ML20237K193 ML20237K199 ML20237K212 ML20237K218 ML20237K226 ML20237K238 ML20237K250 ML20237K263 ML20237K290 ML20237K304 ML20237K316 ML20237K345 ML20237K353 ML20237K370 ML20237K384
References
FOIA-86-245 NUDOCS 8708270134
Download: ML20237K304 (23)

Text

'.-

.y UNITED STATE 3 OF AMERICA

r.,

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

)

4 In the Matter of

)

)

5 INVESTIGATIVE INTFAVIEN

)

)

e

-of-

)

)

7 6

)

)

8 l

l g

The Deposition of M LLIAN F. N M RT l

10 taken pursuant to Notice before me, Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans, J

11 Notary Public in and for the County of Wayne (acting in Monroe 12 County), at Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, 6400 North Dixie Highway, 13 Newport, Michigan, 48166, on Thursday, Sep*=har 26, 1985, L'

14 commencing at about 12:40 p.m.

l l

15 l

APPEARANCES:

16 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

17 Office of Investigations Fisld. Office Region III 18 799 Roosevelt Road j

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 j

Ig (By:

James M. Balkanan, Esq.)

20 Appearing on behalf of United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

21 l

22

=

24 (continued) i 4

=

EXHlBlT A8 b 8708270134 870B19 Q ~) N'O '~; (' 4 d

/

~

PDR FOIA

"'"c PUNTENN86-245 PDR

. ~.

/-

-l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

3

)

I 4

In the Matter of:

)

f

)

l

)

5 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW

)

l

)

6

-of-

)

)

)

7 GAA4-AA0AA

)

)

8 l

9 The Deposition of LLIAM F. COLBERT

\\

taken pursuant to Notice before me, Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans /

j to i

11 Notary Public in and for the County of Wayne (acting in Monroe l

12 County), at Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, 6400 North Dixie Highway,'

i 13 Newport, Michigan, 48166, on Thursday, September 26, 1985, l

14 commencing at about 12:40 p.m.

I l

t I

15 APPEARANCES:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 17 Office of Investigations 1

Field Offices Region III I

18 799 Roosevelt Road i

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 l

19 (By:

James N. Kalkman, Esq. )

l 20 Appearing on behalf of United States Nuclear i

Regulatory Commission 21 22 23 24 (Continued) 25

_____---m_

4 i

1 APPEARANCES:

(continued)

JOHN H. FLYNN, ESQ.

2 Senior Staff Attorney 3

Legal Department 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 5

Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison j

6 PETER MARQUARDT, ESQ.

General Attorney Nuclear Environmental l

7 1

2000 Second Avenue l

Detroit, Michigan 48226 I

Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison THOMAS RANDAZZO, ESO.

6400 North Dixie Highway l

Newport, Michigan 48166 Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison 4

13,

l(

l 14 15 Elizabeth Diann Ferguson-Evans, CSR-1347 Cartified Shorthand Reporter 6

17 0

is l

i

's 1

h j

5 f

21 j

e 22 23 24 25 2

8 a

4

- I N

D E.

X 1

.(

2 WITNESS PAGE 3

WILLIAM F. COLBERT 4

Examination by Mr. Kalkman 4

5 6

'7 8

9 10 11 12 13 lk 14 l

15 I

i 16 l=

t-l5 17 I !.

i.,

18 1

l1 l

le i

l ll 19 l8 I

i.

I

' t 21

. y i

i 22 23 24 25 3

9

J

(

NGwport, Michigan 1

Thursday, September 26, 1985 2

l at about 12:40 p.m.

3 1

l 4

MR. KALKMAN:

For the record, this is l

5 an interview with William Colbert, who is employed by the 6

1 l

Detroit Edison Company; the location of this interview is 7

the Fermi II Nuclear Power Station, Newport, Michigan.

)

8 Present at this interview are Detroit l

g Edison Counsels, Mr. Marguardt, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Randazzo; f

10 and NRC investigator Mr. Kalkman.

3, I

The subject matter of this interview 12 concerns a reactor operator error which occurred at the 33

(

Fermi II Nuclear Power Station on July 2, 1985.

j, Mr. Colbert, would you please stand and 15 ra se your dgM hanM 16 l

17 WILLIAM F.

COLBERT, jg I

af ter having first been duly sworn to tell the truth, 39 the whole truth and nothiag'but the truth, testified g

up n his oath as follows:

21 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. KALKMAN:

24 Q

Mr. Colbert, what.is your position at Detroit Edison?

25 4

I 1

A I am Director of Nuclear Engineering in Nuclear Operations.

Q How long have you held that position?

I 1

l A

About two years.

3 Q

So you were in that position on July 1 & 2, 19857 i

6 A

Yes.

6 l

Q Do you recall any involvement in the reactor operator error 3

7 l

and the premature criticality that occurred on the early

) ;

I l

8 morning of July 2, 19857 I

l 9

A Well, can.you narrow that a bit?

I don't understand the i

10 question.

Ii I obviously am involved, because I ij 12 I

,,here.

13 0

Well, when is the first time you became aware of the l'

incident that I just referred to?

16 A

As best as I can recall, several days later.

16 0

How did you become aware of that incident?

A As I remember, it was a question asked of whether or not 18 the plant had gone critical on the start up.

l' Q

Did you question this or somehow you became aware of the 20 incident, did someone contact you?

21 3

y,,,

22 Q

Who was that?

23 A

Dr. Jens.

24 O

What specifically did Dr. Jens ask you or relate to you?

25 A

As I recall, it was a question in his mind'or there was a 5

J l

i qu:20 tion of wh3ther or not the plent had or had not gene

(

2 critical; and he asked for the help of oar Nuclear j

3 Engineering Section'to help him in that determination.

4 Q

Were you given an assignment or directed to do something?

5 A

Well, just that did it or did it not go critical..

6 Q

What did you do to make that determination?

7 A

I turned to my Nuclear Engineering Field Section and asked a

them to make a check to see whether the information that 9

they had or could obtain would be able to help make that 1

10 determination.

{

j i

i 11 Q

Who in particular did you ask?

I 12 A

I went to the supervisor of that group, Mel Batch.

13 O

So you asked Mr. Batch to look into the matter, yes?

(

~

14 A

Yes, and come up with some type of findings.

15 Q

Did you ask him to relate his findings to you?

16 A

Yes, I did, a

17 Q

Did you give him a time period disposition date?

O i

18 A

No, I didn't.

I h

g 19 At that point, I did not know what 20 information -- I did not have a feel for how long it would 1

21 take.

Sometime that day, though, I expected it sometime l

22 that day.

23 Q

Did Mr. Batch get back to you?

24 A

Yes, he did.

25 Q

What were his findings?

6

,e go.

• =

w--_

.l I

^3 A

His findings as he rep rted to me were that the plant had 2

.gone critical.

3 Q.

Do you know what date that was?

I 4

A No, I don't recall.

l 5

0 Would it have been within a day or two akter the event, i

I 6

the rod pull error?

I 7

A I really don't recall.

I earlier answered some several 8

days af t.or the event, but I don't know.

9 Q

Was it within a week of the event?

10 A

I'm sorry, I really don't know.

11 Q

Okay.

12 Is there some way you could determine

'3 l..

when that information came to you?

K A

Not from any records that I maintained, no.

15 Q

What did you.do with the information when you received it is from Mr. Batch?

a 5

'7 A

I attempted to transmit it to Dr. Jens at that time that S

'8 g

I received it.

d Q

Do you mean immediately or --

20 A

Yes, at the time I received it.

It was later that same day, a

21 Q

How 'did you attempt to do that?

~

~

A By phone.

23 Q

And were you successful?

24 g

y,,

25 Q

What happened?

What were the circumstances?

l 7

1 A

Dr. Jens was not in his office and I was not able to make 2

a contact with him.

3 Q

Did you make subsequent attempts?

d A

No, I didn't, because somewhere along there, it became 1

5 general knowledge, I believe.

I think it became a moot l

6 point.

7 Q

You mean general knowledge at your level of management?

8 A

That's probably too broad.

9 The general knowledge in the people 10 that I would be dealing wich a day-to-day basis in my H

area of responsibility, let's put it that way.

12 Q

Well, I can assume, though, that you felt it was general 13

(

knowledge, general to the point that Dr. Jens would have 14 known about it without your contacting him?

15 A

I suppose that is what I must have thought.

I really didn't is think that much about it at that point in time.

?

5 17 At that point in time, it was not a 18 g

matter of great urgency or importance in the scheme of things 19 at that point, at least, not in my mind.

I 20 g

Q Well, what I am trying to establish is how often the'

@i 21-vice-president of the organization of Detroit Edison contacts e

s 22 you and asks you to find out something for him, and you 23 don't get back to h'im with the information.

24 A

Well, let's take the first part of the question:

25 At least on the average of once a week, 8

1 perhaps more of ten, usually on the basis of, "By the way, 2

did you know something or other; have you looked into such 3

and such; I heard from so and so; would you find out such and such," usually if it is a word or. a sentence, that is l

5 easily understood.

I will pass that back as a message.

6 If it is not trying to get a note or 7

something like that back to him, so it is not an unusual 8

circumstance for him to ask for information from Nuclear 9

l Engineering, because he is an engineer.

10 Q

Is it unusual for you not to respond, though?

5 11 A

Well, it is unusual not to respond, but I do not believe I 12 did not respond in this case.

I am saying it was general 13 knowledge.

14 0

Well --

15 A

I believe it was general knowledge.

16 Q

But that does not -- then you had to draw the assumption a

17 that Dr. Jens knew the answer to the question he asked you; 18 is that correct?

19 A

I really don't recall at what order it took place.

I might j

20 hrne made that assumption, but I really don't recall.

l 21 O

You physically did not contact Dr. Jens and relate the 22 information that Mr. Batch related to you?

23 A

I don't believe I ever did.

I certainly don't recall.

l 24 Q

Did you discuss Mr. Batch's findings with anyone else in 25 management?

9

__x.___m_m.-_.-_.__m.m._m.____

'1 A

I don't rCoall doing it, no.

I think that had to do with

~

2 the f act that other people who would have been involved were

(

3 part of the same -- their organizations were part of that 4

same review of the effect of whether or not it had been 5

critical.

6 At that point in time, it was drawn 7

together.

I knew that that had taken place that afternoon, e

and that is why I said it was general knowledge.

9 I am not sure who generally knew it, 10 but it was certainly more than myself.

ii Q

okay.

)

12 Mr. Batch was supervising Nuclear l

13 Engineer?

.(

L l

14 A

One of the Sections in Nuclear Engineering.

l 15 Q

Do the reactor engineers come under that Section?

16 A

They did not report to Mr. Batch, no.

i i7 Q

Okay.

i is It was my impression that the reactor i

,8 y

19 engineering had performed the analysis on criticality issues.

l 3

l8l 20 Would Mr. Batch had made an assignment 1

I *r l:

21 to the reactor engineering to analyze the incident?

lI*

22 A

He may have, but I think you may have a misunderstanding of 23 the organization and that is causing the problem, at least 24 it was at that time.

25 0

Well, could you clear it up?

(

10 w

1 L_

A umpefully.

3 l

(

'2 One of the Sectione of Nuclear 3

Engineering is Nuclear Fuel; and at that point in time,

(

it was composed of three sub Sections.

l 4

l One of which was' Nuclear Fuel Cycle,.

I 5

6.

which is not part of thist one was Nuclear Field Engineering, 7

and Mr. Batch's Section, and one was Reactor Engineering, g

which I think is the group that you were talking about.

9 Now, certainly they might have worked to together on the same side, they both, in turn, reported to i3 the general supervisor, but that could have well have been,-

i 12 but I don't know.

13 I do know that Mr. Batch took that i

34 problem into his Nuclear Field Engineering Section at the f

15 start ob that day.

j is Q

. Did Mr. Batch elaborate on how they came up with the finding

!O 17 of the criticality?

1 A

Yes.

18 l

5 j

19 As I recall, he said -- I asked him v

i 20 the question of, you know, "How do you make the final io 21 determination?"

He said, "Well, we dug out the charts and lyb 22 from the charts, we pretty much were able to determine that 23 it had indicated being with a period.or gone critical, and 24 that it matched our model or computer model of what might

(,

25 have happened af ter those circumstances. "

l 11 a

1 Q

Did you cttend.any Eeeting0 relativo to this prematurG

(

2 criticality?

1 a

3 A

No.

4 0

So it's m/ understanding that the scenario as I understand r

5 it, is that you were asked by Dr. Jens to find out whether

]

e or not the plant was, in fact, critical as a result of the 7

operator error; and you asked Mr. Batch to conduct some a

type of review or analysis; and Mr. Batch, in. turn, contacted 9

with the results of their findings, the results of their-l io analysis.

I ti You did not relate that information 'to 12 Dr. Jens?

)

13 A

I attempted to relate the information to Dr. Jens, but l(

l 14 what I said is about it, right down to there.

15 Q

Okay.

16 A

Dr. Jens was not available that afternoon for some reason 8

6 17 that I cannot recall.

)

18 He may have been out of town, I really h

I 19 don't recall; but I had missed him, and that' was about it.

l 9

)

20 I put it aside to get back to him and by the time it came

)

j I

1 21 around again, that was it.

I

.i 22 Q

So apparently, Dr. Jens did not attempt to contact you, 23 make a second contact asking for the information?

24 A

No, he did not.

l I

2s Q

And you did not relate the information to any other management

{

12 l

i 1

peopis?

(

A WEll, I previously answered that, but the last p&rt of 2

~

that, I don't recall whether I did or not, and I added at 3

that time that it was not in my view of a matter of much 4

5 imPortance,. compared to the-items of other things that were going on in any one day.

6 l

j It was another item, in a busy day, 7

I did not sort this one out and say, 'Oh, boy, that is 8

9 something of a particular interest.

10 0

Well, were you contacted by any NRC representatives?

A Do you mean at any time?

it 12 0

Well, no.

13 Subsequent to your finding out that 34 the criticality had been achieved, from the time you is received the information from Mr. Batch to the date that.

16 the full power license was issued.

17 A

Well, what purpose would this NRC person have contacted me 0

for?

is

.h j

19 Q

Well, I have no idea, i

R 20 I am just asking you if one of the S

E 21 resident inspectors or some other --

8 8

s A

No resident inspector contacted me.

22 23 Q

Did anyone from Region 37 24 A

Not that I can recall.

No, but again, things are going on

(

25 at the same times whether or not any of that was in this 13

- os e w

\\

.1

~

l discussion, I do not recall any NRC person contacting me, 2

and specifically for this specific point.

l

/

3 Q

What was your impression of the operator error on the subsequent findings of criticality?

]

6 A

Well, you are going to give me an opportunity to probably i

6 look stupid, but let me do it:

I was a shift supervisor on a Nuclear 8

Reactor, Senior Reactor Operator; and frankly, I don't j

t think I would have done very much different that that

'O Nuclear Shift Supervisor did that night, after he had found where they were and they had restored the rods to 12 the position before the problem.

(

I would have informed my management with the information that I had at the time, to use what i

1 knowledge I had, and the input that I might have been able-16 to -- I would have had some input, made my judgment on what affect that might have had on the safety of the plant, and

'8 made a decision, probably on that night.

So I would have made the same decision I

l 20 he did.

21 That is probably why I am answering 22 your other series of questions the way I am because I did 23 not pick this out as a significant mattert nor did I really 24 believe anybody thought that too, Q

Now, where did you have your experience as a Nuclear Shif t 14

'1 cupervisor?

(

2 A

At Fermi I.

4 3

Q Now, when you were a shift supervisor, was an Operator l

l error or a premature criticality a reportable, NRC reportable 4

5 ites?

6 A

I really don't recall that.

That is some 25 years ago now, 7

20 to 25 years ago.

l 8

Q Okay.

9 A

But we certainly did track the route to criticality where y

to we were.

l 11 Q

Now, when Dr. Jens first contacted you, did it seem to you 12 that Dr. Jens perceived that as a significant issue, he i

13 wanted an answer right away?

i

(

14 A

Well, you have got to talk to Dr. Jens to be able to answe.r 15 that question.

Dr. Jens is perhaps one of the best 16 scientific minds that I know; so what he Perceives of that, i

i 17 as far as its importance, I don't know.

Also - ~well, sometimes his timing for answers is sometimes shorter than 18 s

j 19 I would like to be able to'get.the answer; I would love to ij 20 be able to get the answer back to him in the time that he o'

21 sometimes sets, so, yes, he would expect an answer back in 2

22 a short period of time, but he normally expects an answer 23 back in a shorter period of time.

24 In that light, I did not see anything

(

25 unusual about that.

15

4 a

1

'I Q

Wao his direction to you, did he giva ycu a time frame j

(

2 and say, "I would like to know in four hours, or sometime 3

today."?

4 A

No, he did not.

s I said before that he said, " Find out 6

whether it went critical or not," and some, yes, it did; 4

7 and some, no, it did not.

8 So he said, " Find out."

And I said, 9

"All right."

to Q

And it was your understanding that even though it was not 11 verbalized that he wanted an answer as soon as possible --

12 A

Yes.

]

13 Q

okay.

i 14 Did Dr. Jens relate his knowledge of 15 the incident to you?

16 A

No, he did not.

17 Q

Now, when Dr. Jens called you, did you know that the 18 operator error had occurred?

19 A

I am not sure.

I must have known because I understood why 20 somebody would say, "Did it go critical or didn't it go 21 critical," but as I said before, I was not sure when I 1

22 became aware of that incident taking place.

23 Q

So Dr. Jens did not have to explain the incident to you when 24 he asked you to perform some task?

25 A

Well, no, that is really not the whole answer, though.

He 16 I

1 did not have to explain the incident to me, but I really

_1

(

2 didn't know much more than the fact that it was a question 3

of whether or not we had achieved criticality due to some pulling of the rods out of sequence or -- well, out of 4

5 sequence or out of procedure.

6 I mean, the detail of it, I was not j

7 aware, at least, I don't believe I was at that point in 8

time.

9 Q

okay.

10 A

It's difficult to sort out when you actually became aware 11 of something, when you are looking back on a period of time.

12 Q

In any event, Dr. Jens did not relate in any detail the 13 event?

14 A

No.

15 This was a matter of a whole 30 seconds, 16 if it was that long.

?

8 17 I mean, he stopped by the door, I think

)

18 y

I was on the way out the door, and by the door we call it j

s 19

{

the opening of our office area; and he told me what he i

20 wanted and I said okay, and off he went.

21 Q

And you cannot put a time frame on that discussion?

22 A

No. I really can't.

It was in the same day, though; I l

23 believe that we have gotten the answer pretty well settled 24 that it had gone critical, and I reco11ept sort of like it

(

25 was in the morning of that day, and the answer was developed l

I l

17 f

d

_-m._

1 in the afternoon of that day.

(

1 2

)

That is about the best I can do of 3

which day it was or where it was.

It was a week day.

Q Do you have day-to-day contact with Greg Overbeck and 5

Bob Lenart?

6 A

Day-to-day, but not everyday, yes.

L 7

i Either by phone or by talking to them.

8 Q

Well, why would they have ' occasion to contact you?

8 A

Well, if they have a problem, that they need some information

'8 engineering help to resolve it, usually or they need a

.l l

representative at a problem-solving meeting, maybe they 12 want somebody there, you know, thereisalotofpieces

'3

(

of paper on review that is stuck someplace in my organization

'd and they need some help in getting out of any one of a 15 number of things that are pretty routine.

'8 O

Do you recall any discus? ions with Mr. Lenart and 3

Mr. Overbeck relating to the incident that we are talking h.

'8 about?

A Yes, I do, but I believe it was after this period with 19

i 20 Dr. Jens and Mr. Batch, s

21 Q

Okay.

i I

22 Shortly after or was it several weeks 23 after or --

i 24 A

I really don't recall.

I would think within the next few days 1

(

25 Q

What was the discussion about?

l 18

1 A

Nothing more than, you know, "Get the word from Mel that 2

we did go critical,* and the occurence, I guess, that was --

3 that, yes, they filled that out; that was about the time 4

I figured it was pretty general knowledge.

5 Q

So Mr. Lenart contacted you?

6 A

No, it was not a contact for that purpose.

We happened to 7

either be in a meeting or together for some other purpose 8

but certainly, not for that purpose.

9 Q

So it was Mr. Lenart?

10 A

Yes, it was Mr. Lanart.

11 Q

Did you have occasion to be. interacting with Leo Lessor?

12 A

Some, much less frequent than* with Bob Lenart.

'3

(

0 Were you aware of the fact the Mr. Lessor was conducting 14 an internal investigation of this operator error?

15 A

At what point in time?

Q Shortly after the operator error occurred'.

16 I

17 A

I don't think I was.

I don't recall it anyway.

{

i is May I atJk you a question?

19 Q

Sure.

20 A

What is shortly after?

[

21' O

Any time after the incident.

i*

22 A

Any time after?

23 0

Yes.

24 A

Well, I guess I became aware someplace down the line that

(

25 he had done that; but, no, I don't remember when that was.

19

1

~

"1

.Q N0w, when you talked to Mr. Lenart about.this particular 2

issue, did you think that Mr. Lanart might relate the 3

information to Dr. Jens?

f l

A I really don'ttrecall, but, no, I didn't"think he would 4

5 relate it to Dr. Jens.

6 Q

Okay.

l 7

A Remember what I said earlier is the reason he did not 8

pursue getting it back to Dr. Jens was that, did I suppose

[

that Dr. Jens knew someplace in that period of time, and 9

10 my answer was yes; and this was either in or af ter that period of time, right in all of that same period of time.

l 12 Q

Is there any documentation in the Nuclear Engineering 13 Department that you are aware of relating to this operator 14 error, whether resulting criticality?

18 A

Well, the only documentation that I an aware of that you 16 could call Nuclear Engineering would have been the Reactor l

Engineering logs that I saw afterwards; and the STA log for I

18 that period of time.

i 8

Q Did you receive --

20 A

And anything that Mel Batch may have put together as a 21 report on the file on what he had found.

22 I don't recall, though, that he did that.

I 8

23 He would know that, I don't know.

j i

24 Q

Mr. Colbert, when you were a Nuclear Shift Supervisor, I

h 25 would an event such as this operator error have been something i

I l

l 20 l

1 l

j.

{.

1 l

you would log in the shift supervisor's logs?

2 A

You are asking me to go back an awful long.way, Mr. Kalkman.

3 And to be perfectly honest with you, I 4

4 l-can't even remember -- I presume we did maintain a shift 5

supervisor's log, and if we did on that, we certainly would 8

have known that we pulled a rod; but that is quite a 7

different beast.

8 We would have known pretty quickly on

)

8 l

the charts, as I said before, you check yourself very

{

to t

carefully when you change a control position on that reactor.

12 0

okay.

'3 Mr. Colbert, have I or any othez NRC

'd l

representative here threatened you or either offered you I

15 any reward in return for your statement?

16 A

No.

l Q

l Have you given this statement freely and voluntarily?

'8 f

A Yes.

'8 Q

Is there anything further that you care to add for the 20 record?

A No.

22 Q

Thank you.

T 23 (Deposition concluded at 1.25 p.m.)

24 25 21 r

i

._ a

e 1

STATE OF MICEIGAN)) as.

(

2 COUNTY OF WAYNE

)

3 I, glizabeth Diana Ferguesa-Evans, do hereby oertify that the witness whose attached deposition uns taken befor 4

e 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 4

7 the truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony C@ntained 1

8 in said deposition was by me reduced to writing in the presence 9

of said witness by means Of Stenography and af terwards transcribed 10 upon a 4,i m itar.

yhe said deposition is a true and correct transcript of the whole of the testimony given by the said witness 11 12 aforesaid.

13 I do further certify that I em met connected

(

by blood or marriage with any of t.be parties or their agents, and 14 15 that I am not u employee of either of the, nor interested, 16 directly or indirectly, in the makter of controversy, either as 17

- nami, attorney, ageat or Qtherwise.

18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 19 hLad and affixed my notarial seal at Detroit, Michigan, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, this M yo mb~

20

, 1985.

T j

2i y

. [%$0%

22 u

~q

~

23 Elisabeth Diann Ferguaga-Evans, CSR-1347 Wotary Public, Wayne-County, Michigan 24 My Constission expires:

May 14, 1986 2s l

22

. - - - - - - - - _ _ _