ML20129H939
Text
-..
. -. ~..., -
h*:
1[42tatu -
UNITEO STATES
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(:/
g
~,
REGION 11 '
'v-0 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
.E
~
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
\\,,*~*
SEP 111991
- p. -
- 1. -
MEMORANDUM FOR: James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement FROM:'
George R. Jenkins, Director, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR V0GTLE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES QUESTIONS FROM L. ROBINS 0r', 01/RII PERTAINING TO CASH AND BOWLES 1.
Are you, 'as Unit Shift Supervisor / Operations Superintendent nr Shift, responsible for Dilution valve manipulation done during your shift.
2.
Were you aware of the manipulation, to the open position, of the RMWST valves 177 and 176 during your shift.
3.
Did you participate, in any manner, in the ordering and/or controlling the opening and closing of those dilution valves?
4.
Were you aware, prior to these manipulations, that these valves were tagged closed by procedure, and that a clearance had been installed on them?
..a Did it enter your mind that there might be a conflict in this 4
" planned evolution" 'off crud burst, when you found that the valves
, you needed to open to do it were tagged closed?
3.
What is the basis for the procedure that requires those valves to be tagged closed when it is intended to go below 25% cold calibrate pressurizer level? (Inadvertent criticality boron dilation)
~
6.
Were you below 25% cold calibrate pressurizer level when these valves were opened?.
7.
Under what mechanism did you open valves that were tagged closed?
(FunctionalTest)
- 3..
'isn't it a fact that you weren't doing any functional testing at all, but cather just using the functional test mechanism to consciously open valves that were tagged closed, in ~ order to load the " chem pot"?
9.
Do you do your own, independent,. informal, safety analysis before you use the functional test vehicle to manipulate tagged valves?
/'?
A y
96g g 31_960827 KOHN95-211; PDR
l'. e V
- y-
!I i
James Lieberman 2
r
- 10. Did you, or did you not think about the potential of boron dilution before you opened these dilution valves to load the chem pot?
(Yes,I knew I wasn't going to inject, so I wasn't going to dilute.)
- 11. So, you were aware of what you were doing when you opened the dilution valves that were tagged closed?
- 12. Was the use of the functional test form to open those valves a new idea that just came to you on your shif t when you had to load the chem pot, or f_
had that method of opening the valves been planned at an earlier time?
13.
If planned at an earlier time, who all was involved in this planning?
]
J
- 14. Were you aware of any NRC waiver of variance on TS 3.4.1.4.2 during IRI?
i QUESTIONS FROM A. HERDT, DRP/RI! PERTAINING TO KITCHENS 1.
When you were evaluating the T/S 3.4.1.4.2 action statement and the definition of imediately on October 12th, was any documentation formal or informal-generated? Wasn't there a formal system already in place and if so was it used?
2.
Why didn't you discuss this T/S interpretation issue with Mr. Bellemy or Mr. Buckhold since you had put a hold on an apparent critical path operation?
QUESTION FROM A. HERDT, DRP/RII PERTAINING TO UTILITY Since a " hold" was put on the Chemical addition to the RCS by Mr. Kitchens, why wasn't upper GPC management (plant manager to VP in Bimingham) involved?
If they was not involved, why not since this was discussed in the 7:00 a.m.
briefing.
org
. Je k ns 4
-. -