ML20203B781

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rept of Interview W/La Moffatt Re Administrative Activities
ML20203B781
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 02/09/1995
From: Vorse J
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203B366 List:
References
FOIA-97-313 NUDOCS 9712150152
Download: ML20203B781 (3)
v • d • e


Text

.. ~ . -- ~

REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH LARRY A. MOFFATT On February 7,1995, M0FFATT,- Shift Operations Technical Advisor (SOTA),

Crystal River Nuclear Plant, was interviewed telephonically by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Senior Investigator James Y.

Vorse and Division'of Reactor Safety, Reactor Engineer, Curtis W. RAPP. l MOFFATT described his duties as twofold. First, conduct administrative activities related tc plant operations, and second, be avt.ilable to provide Feactor Operations advice to the shift supervisor if needed. M0FFATT

' explained the SOTA has to be in the centrol room rendering advice within 10 minutcs if summoned. M0FFATT stated that on the midnight shift, typically he would be mostly touring the plant _ and spending the remainder of the time in the Technical Support Office or Control Room. MOFFATT stated the first time he was aware that the midnight shift operators performed the evolution with the makeup tank curve was at approximately 6:00 a.m. when he went to the Control Room to check things before the shift turnover. M0FFATT could not' recall the date but did remember the incident. M0FFATT recalls that some of the operators to'id him about the evolution and how they found the mtkeup tank curve to be inaccurate. MOFFATT, at that time, wes not aware that any procedure violations had occurred or that a design basis had been violated.

M0FFATT w1s adamant that no one on the midnight shift told him they were going

~

to conduct the evolution and no one ever asked for any advice about the evolution.- M0FFATT stated he was aware there were disegreements between ,

Operations and Engineering about the accuracy of the curve perhaps as much as a week and a half to several days prior to the evolution. At that time, no one in Operations made any;nention about performing the evolution in the near future. M0FFATT stated he considered ths entire evolution as routine if it had not been a design basis curve. When asked if placing an operator in the I

auiliary t,uilding in anticontamination gear during an evolution to v.at the makeup tank in case of a-loss of coolant accident as routine, M0FFATT stated

. he thought this was routine.

l This repcrt of interview was prepared on February 9, 1995.

l

' L e4 .

J#es Y/)forse, Sr. Investigator G(fice 6f Investigations Field Office, Region II I

EXH1 BIT /I PAGE_ / OF / PAGE(S)

Case No. 2-94-036.

hp ( /,f W t LIAW97-313 PDR '

'Q i , em.w -a ~

r. ,
g REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH LARRY A. M0FFATT On February 7,1995, MOFFATT, Shift Operations Technical Advisor (S0TA),

-Crystal River Nuclear Plant, was interviewed telephonically by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Senior Investigator James Y.

Vorse and Division of Reactor Safety, Reactor Engineer, Curtis W. RAPP.

MOFFATT described his duties as twofold. First, conduct admin 4trative activities related to plant operations, and second, be available to provide Henctor. Operations advice to the shift supervisor if needed. M0FFATT explained the SOTA has to be in the control room rendering advice within 10 minutes if summoned. M0FFATT stated that on the midnight shift, typically he would be mostly touring the plant and spending the remainder of the time in the Technical Support Office or Control Room. M0FFATT stated the first time he was aware that the midnight shift operators performed the evolution with the makeup tank curve was at approximately 6:00 a.m. when he went to the Control Room to check things before the shift turnover. M0FFATT could not recall the date but did remember the incident. M0FFATT recalls that some of the operators told him about tha evolution and how they found the makeup tank curve to be inaccurate. M0FFATT, at that time, was not aware that any procedure violations had occurred or that a design basis had been violated.

M0FFATT was adamant that no one on the midnight shift told him they were going to conduct the evolution and no one ever asked for any. advice about the evolution. M0FFATT stated he was aware there were disagreements between Operations-and Engineering about the accuracy of the curve perhaps as much as a week and a half to several days prior to the evolution. At that time, no

( one in Operations made any mention about performing the evolution in the near future. M0FFATT stated he considered the entire evolution as routine if it had not been a design basis curve. When asked if placing an operator in the auxiliary building in anticontamination gear during an evolution to vent the makeup tank in case of a loss of coolant accident as routine, M0FFATT stated he thought this was routine.

This report of interview was prepared on February 9, 1995.

L eL -

Jpjlsbs Y/)forse, Sr. Investigator Gffice 6f Investigations Field Office, Region II 1

j/ EXHlBIT /I f PAGE / OF / PAGE(S)

Case No. 2-94-036 l l

?  ?

l.  : hk%)D f

(

i s

I l

J h EXHIBIT 15 l

l 1

i Y

a i

( /

.' Case No. 2-94-0365 EXHIBIT 15 d.p1fj'

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203B781&oldid=3332673"