ML20199C961
| ML20199C961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199C716 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-313 2-94-036, 2-94-36, NUDOCS 9711200210 | |
| Download: ML20199C961 (39) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' @ffichol Transcript of Procccdings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
In the matter of Interview of David M. Czufin Docket Number: 2 94-036 Location: Crys'al River, Florida Date: November 29,1995 Work Order No.: NRC-429 Pages 1-37 $ mea < 12lt'll15 o,, c NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. E#ilBil )- / 2-94 -036 washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 / OF 3 9 PAGE(S) PAGE 1 m, w 711,z 9, e LIAW97-313 PDR
4 1 . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCL2AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++ 4 .4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5 INTERVIEW 6 ~~------------~~~-----------------x l -7 IN THE MATTER OP: 8 INTERVIEW OF. Docket No. 9 DAVID M. CZUFIN 2-94-036 10~ 8 11 ---~~--
~~--------~~----x 12 Wednesday, November 29, 1995 13' 14 Crystal River Plant 15 Administration Building 16
.5760 W. Power Line Street 17. Crystal River, Florfda 18 19 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 20 1:38 p.m.. 21 BEFORE: 22 ' JAMES DOCKERY Senior Investigator ^ 23 JIM VORSE Senior Investigator 24- . CURT RAPP Reactor Engineer f a lA/IS/fb ggy on 1
_.. ~ _
- =
2 i 1 APPEARANCES:- 2 On Behalf of'the-Nuclear Regulatory. Commission 3 JAMES DOCKERY,. Senior Investigator 4 Region.II -)CIC Office of Investigations 5 401 Marietta Street 6 Atlanta,-Georgia 30323 7 JAMES VORSS, Senior Investigator 8 Region II NRC Office of Investigations 9 401 Marietta Street 10 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 11 CURT RAPP, Reactor Engineer i 12 Region II NRC 13 401 Marietta Street 14 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ~ 15 -16 On Behalf of-the Interviewee, David M. C:ufin 17 MORRIS " SANDY" WEINBERG, JR., ESQUIRE 18 Corporate Counsel - Florida Power Corporation 19- .101 East Kennedy-Boulevard, Suite 3140 -20 Tampa, Florida 33602 21 DANIEL F. STENGER, ESQUIRE 1 22 Corporate Counsel - Florida-Power Corporation 23 1400 L Street, N.W. i [ 24 Washington,- D.C. 20005-3502 25 l ~ _..
t 3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2-MR. DOCKERY:' For the record today's'date is 3 November the 29th, 1995. The time is approximately_1:38 4 p. m.=. My nTme'is' James D. Duckery. I'm a Senior 5 -Investigator with the NRC Office of Investigations. 6. During this proceeding, which is bef>3 recorded -7 for transcription, the NRC Office of Investiver..ons will 8 conduct an interview-of David M. Czufin. This interview -9 pertains to OI investigation number 2-94-036. The
- 10. location of this interview is'the Administration Building, 11 Crystal River Nuclear Plant.
'12 There are others in retendance at this interview 13 and I will ask them to-identify themselves and their 14 affiliations, starting with Mr. Rapp. 15 MP. RAPP: My name is Curt Rapp, R-A-P-P. I am 16 a Reactor Inspector with Region II NRC in Atlanta, 17 Georgia. 18 MR. VORSE: My name is Jim Vorse. I'm an 19 Investigator with the NRC Office of Investighuions, 20 Atlanta, Georgia. 21' MR. STENGER: Dan Stenger, attorney with Winston -22 & Strawn in Washington, D.C. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I'm " Sandy" Weinberg with 24.Zuckerman, Spaeder in Tampa.- And both Mr. Stenger and I 25 are here on' behalf of Florida Power. i + ,.-~ , ~,,.. ,m, y.,., _ _ _ _. _.,
4' 4 1 MR. DOCKERY: Mr. Czufin, woe.1d you raise your 2 right hand, please. 3 THE WITNESS: (Complies.) 4 Whereupon, 5 DAVID M. CZUFIN, 6 being first duly sworn by the Investigator, was examined 7 and testified as follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 MR. DOCKERY: Would you state your full name for 10 the record, please. 11 THE WITNESS. David Miller Czufin. 12 MR. DOCKERY: Okay. And your date of birth and 13 Social Security number. 14 THE WITNESS: Social Security 15 number is b., 16 MR. DOCKERY4 - Okay. Before we went on the 17 record here today Mr. Vorse and I identified ourselves to 18 you as investigators with the NRC Office of 19 Investigations. Is that correct? 20 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 21 MR. DOCKERY: And I also provided you with a 22 copy of Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code 23 and explained that that is applicable during this 24 proceeding. Do you understand that? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. C-
a 5- .i 1-MR. DOCKERY: Okay. Mr. Czufin, what is your-2 current position? 3 THE WITNESS: My current position 'is inechanical 4-shop manager., 5 -MR. DOCKERY: And what -- Since most.of the t 4 events that we're considering here occurred during 1994 7.what'was.your position at that time? f I 8' THE WITNESS: From January through August.13th, 9 1994, I was primary systems engineering supervisor. 10 Starting August.15th, 1994, I became mechanical shop 11 manager. 12. MR, DOCKERY: Okay. Mr. Czufin, are you a 13 degreed engineer? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. 15 MR. DOCKERY: Mr. Rapp, I'll let you take it up l l-16 from here if you're ready. l. l 17 MR. RAPP: Okay, sure. 18 I want to kind of like go back over the history, 19 or your understanding of the history of the Curve 8 l-20 hydrogen overpressure issue. And if you could just kind l l 21' of talk about that. l
- d. '+ yem k
22 THE WITNESS: I really don't know -- I'vc n0'? r-If a.S N C-se. 23 Curve 8. I don't know wAW Curve 8 4e. I do know-mc 940. 9u e., 24 the issue. It's-been around for a while, and if -- you
- 25. said.the issue.
I would say it's the issue of the l L l i x J
6 1 potential to have gas binding in the makeup pump suction. 2 MR. RAPP: Okay. Were - - Since you were in the 3 primary system engineering area were you aware of the 4 operators concerns about the response of plant systems, 5 specifically the makeup tank relative to the information 6 provided by Engineering? 7 THE WITNESS: You mean back in '94? 8 MR. RAPP: '94, right. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes and no. I -- I was familiar 10 with'the problem that occurred when SP-630 was performed. 11 That is the SP during the last refueling outage where the 12 makeup pumps cavitated. 13 And I know that tnere was a -- a concern that 14 that was correlated to hydrogen. And I know that Mr. 15 Hinman spent -- who was the system engineer, Pat Hinman -- 16 he spert several weeks trying to prove or disprove that 17 theory. And based on what he came up with and the 18 investigation he did, he concluded, and I agreed with it 19 that it was not related. 20 MR. DOCKERY: Did he work for you at the time? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 22 MR. RAPP: How did you come to that conclusion? 23 THE WITNESS: Based on reviewing what he had 24 written up ar.3 it was also design engineers that _ had 25 reviewed what he had -- his synopsis of what he had done,
. - - ~. 7 1 his investigation, and --lbased on that review. .2 MR. RAPP Who werefthe. design engineers e 3 involved?- 4 THE' WITNESS: Terry Austin and -- that's the 9 5-only.one-that comes to mind right now. 6 MR. DOCKERY: Mr. Czufin, so you recall at what 7 point date wise you -- that conclusion was reached and you 8 agr'eed with it? To the'best of -- I realize it's been a 9 while. 10 THE WITNESS: It -- the -- The refueling outage 11 ended, it had to be within about 30 days of the end of the - 12 last refuel-ing outage. Which would have been early July or late' July or early August, I believe. Refueling 13 14 outage ended, oh, it ended in-June. So it might have been 15 a little earlier than-that. 16 MR. RAPP: What was -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. '17 MR. DOCKERY: Possibly as early as the beginning 18 of August? 19-THE WITNESS: .Yes,-and this is'the SP-630. This 20 is SP-630, which is the -- when we attempted to run the - 21 makeun pumps.during the outage-there-was evidence of-22 cavitation during thtt performance of.that test. And -- 23 MR.'DOCKERY: ~And -- go ahead. ' 24 THE WITNESS: And the operators were -- voiced-l 25 concerns that that'was related to the bigger issue of l: L.-., ~.-.
...~._.. _ _ _ - -l 4 8 1-potentially get hydrogen-into'the makeup system. '2-MR.oRAPPi ~When the operators - -Following 3..SP-630 when this concern.was raised by the Operations 4-staff or particular operators, was Engineering aware of 5 the safety significance of the. issue? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. Engineering has been 7 aware that the fact that if you get hydrogen or gas-8 binding in a-safety related pump, that that is a 9 isignificant; phenomena. 10-MR. RAPP: How did Engineering -- or how was the 11 conclusion reached that the cavitation of the makeup pumps 12 was not related to the hydrogen overpressure issue? 13 THE WITNESS: It was based on data that was 14 pulled from the.REDAS system and it was based on 15 essentially the collection of data and plant. Based on 16 the data that was-there and the investigation that was 17 performed. And it was documented in a problem report. 18 MR. RAPP: Documented in which problem report? 19 THE WITNESS: I don't know'the number. The 20 whole' event had a problem report and it'sLvery-thoroughly 21 documented in that problem report. 22 MR. RAPP: Would it be 94149?' ~ ~ THE WITNESS: I don't know that. 23 -24. MR. RAPP: When was, to-the best that you know, problem report-94149' closed out? 2 5 -- when was-94 + -n., +:,-- -,n -. ~ - -. - - -, - - ,. + <..--n ,n, w
i 9 -1~ THE-WITNEoS: -I do not know. 2 MR. WEINBERG: -Do.you even'know what 94149: Is? j
- 3 THE WITNESS:
I don't know. I presume it'sL-- a d SP 6%O QNCs - 4 941 la the one that deals with MUV-60,Ywhich is where-we 5 went into MUV-60 to see if we did-maintenance on:MUV-60. 6 And that's what we think caused this evolution. But I - do -- 7.not know what that problem report is,.by that-number. 8 MR. RAPP: Okay. I believe 149 -- PR94-149 was 9 written in response to the observations made during 10 SP-630, 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. RAPP: You still don't know when that 13.particular issue was closed? 14 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. Was this an on-going 15 MR. RAPP: Was that 16 issue when you left-the Systems Engineering area? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 18 MR. RAPP: Okay. I have here you.- interview 19 summary that was. conducted with FPC as part of their 20 internal investigation here. -And it states in bare, it 21 'says, Specifically recalls Hinman telling him -- you -- '22 that he had two sets of data to work with. .23 -Did. Pat-Hinman relate to you'how he came about .24-with! two sets of data? and this was 25-THE WITNESS: He told me that
10 1 [later, this was after I approached him <. gain -- that:he 2 -had--- 4 3 MR. WEINBERGMR: When'you say approached him 4-again, this was -- 5 THE WITNESS: At that time he did not tell me 6 how he came across two sets of data. 7 101. WEINBERG: But a year later, this July when 8 this came up again -- '9 MR. RAPP July of '95. 10 MR. WEINBERG.: July of '95 -- ~~ 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. WEINBERG: In response to your question he 13 can explain what Hinman told him. 14 MR. RAPP:. Okay. So at the time this interview 15 took place -- I'm sorry. Prior to this interview taking 16 place Mr. Hinman had.not related to you how he came across 17' two sets of data. Say like in September lith or something 18 like that of '94? 19 THE WITNESS: No, no. No, not that I recall. 20 MR. RAPP: Okay. So then later on he told you 21 'how he came about this two sets of data? 22 THE WITNESS: Later -- Later on I approached 23 Mr. Hinman and osked him if there had been two, two - 24 separate: tests. He caid yes. I asked him how he knew '25 that. He told me that-he had pulled REDAS data and it had ,._y.~,. ,..,-.y-,,,..,_.,, - ,...g w .ey ---~,,
11 1 shown two similar type of trends. And he said that one 2 trend looked to be more severe than the other, 3 MR. RAPP: Did Mr. Hinman say what prompted him 4 to look for additional data sets other than -- 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 6 MR. RAPP: And what was that? 7 THE WITNESS: He said that he did not know -- I ~ 8 believe Mr..Hinman at this time was also -- had also 9 changed positions and was now in the mechanical shop as a 10 shop engineer. And he did not know the exact date that 11 the test had been performed. So he took a window of data 12 over several days just to see what had transpired. 13 MR. WEINBERG: And in the process came across 14 both of them; is that what you're saying? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. Took a window of more than 16 one day and in that window there were two ble -- two 17 indicators. 18 MR. DOCKERY: Do you recall those dates? As we 19 sit here today do you recall what those dates were? 20 THE WITNESS: As far as I know, based on my 21 discussion in July I believe they were on the 4th of 22 September and the 5th of September, 23 MR. RAPP: Did -- Did -- I mean, it's pretty 24 well documented what date this thing occurred, this 25 evolution occurred, this September 5th.
. -.. - ~ ~ ..-.,. - ~. .. ~ k 12 1 MR. WEINBERG . Yeah,- Dut.not on the~- -justLto-2'- interrupi - - 3 MR. RAPP:. .Okay. 4. MR.'WEINBERG: On the problem----if you look at 5.the problem report'it doesn't say September.5th.- So I 6 believe what he's trying to explain to-you.is that Hinman, 7 since the problem report didn't say September-the 5th, was ~ 8 trying to figure out what day it really happened on.and -9 take a look at th REDAS data..And in looking at a space -10 of time over a few days came upon similar data for the 11 4th. JSo--he figured out that it was the 4th and the 5th. ~12 KR.: STENGER: The problem report says the event 13 date was September 7th. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Seventh. 15 MR, RAPP: Okay. All right, that explains it. 16-When -- My understanding is that when the OI 17 initial. report came out that Pat Hinman came to you'and 18 said,'there's no mention of the second or the first data 19 set in this-report. Is that correct? 20 THE WITNESC: No, that's not correct. 21-MR. RAPP: Okay. 22 MR. STENGER: I think you meant the NRC 23-inspection report, Curt. You said OI report. 24~ MR. RAPP: Okay,'maybe it was NRC inspection 25 report.
13 I had a safety meeting in 1 THE WITNESS: I 2 the Machine Shop, which is what I -- my job, on -- it was 3 either July 12th or July 13th, and the discussion came up 4 about the makeup tank issue. And I discussed what I knew 5 about it, which was not a whole lot. And when I walked 6 downstairs Pat Hinman said, have you seen the NRC's 7 report. And I said no. And he said, I have a copy, you 8 canIreview it. And I took it home and reviewed it. 9 And after reviewing that report it became obvious 10 to me that NRC did not know that there was more than one 11 test. 12 MR. RAPP: And do you recall approximately what 13 time frame this was' 14 THE WITNESS: It was at my house on July 13th, 15 because it was my J 16 MR. WEINBERG: Can't get much more exact than 17 that I guess, right? 18 MR. DOCKERY: Guess it kind of stuck in your 19 mind, right? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, uh-huh. 21 MR. STENGER: I'll be honest with you. I 22 THE WITNESS: I 23 was in a situation that I knew information and I had to do 24 something about-it. 25 MR. RAPP: Did you feel it necessary or feel any 7C P
.. =. - -.--..
- s. x a.
i N -- 14 l 1. responsibility to report this second set'of-data when Mr-2 Hinman first informed you of it?' 3- .THE WITNESS: No, I'-- when Mr. Hinman'first -4 ' informed me ofuit it was -- I don't recall the_ exact-time,- 5 tut I believe it was when the initial investigation. "as 6 going on in the Fall of 1994. 7' MR. WEINBERG: You mean by Management? 8 THE WITNESS: -Yes, by Management. 9. MR.iRAPP: You mean the investigation by_FPC 10' Management? 11-THE' WITNESS: Yes. '12 10L.WEINBERG: Yeah, by the Management Review 13 Committee, that what ~ 4 14 MR. RAPP: Oh, the management review, okay. And I had -- I was no 15 THE WITNESS: =And Mr. 16 longer in the -- my engineering position; I was now in a 17 new role.in maintenance, which I was having a little 18 difficulty' absorbing, or coming _ proficient at. 'And Mr. 19 Hinman informed me of this in passing _as he was going 20 to go_be. interviewed. 'He was on his way to.be 21 interviewed. And he informed me that he was going to be 22 out of the shop and would not be available to be. shop 23. engineer _for-some time until this was done. 24 And so I felt fairl; comfortable that things were 9MC 25 in hand,-that an. investigation was being done and that any 4 .-.v
15 1 -- any information would be determined. 2 MR. RAPP: So you were left with the 3 understanding or feeling that Mr. Hinman was going to 4 discuss this -- 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. RAPP: -- first set of data during his 7 interview? 8 TiiE WITNESS: Right. 9 MR. RAPP: Was he ever interviewed, do your 10 know/ 11 THE WITNESS: No, he was not', to my knowledge. 12 MR. RAPP: When did you find out that Pat Hinman was not interviewed? 13 was not 14 THE WITNESS: I do not know. I don't think it 15 was immediately after that. I think it was probably in 16 19S5. I don't recall him telling me right after that. 17 MR. RAPP: Did Mr. Hinman ever tell you or 18 discuss with you the necessity to bring this first set of 19 data to Management's attention? 20 THE WITNESS: The fact that there were two 21 tests? 22 MR. RAPP: Right. 23 THE WITNESS: Mr. Hinman and I talked about it 24 on July 14th after I had read the report at my house and 25 decided that I needed to conclusively determine if there
4 16 1 had been two tests. He told me yes, there had been. He 2 showed me the REDAS graph and he asked me what he needed 3 to do 4 MR. RAPP: What about prior to that, were there 5 any discussions? Li%:: right after this management review J board or panel? 7 THE WITNESS: No. I don't -- I don't recall 8 any. 9 MR. VORSE: 10 11 THE WITNESS: 12 13 14 15 MR. RAPP: 16 17 18 THE WITNESS: 19 20 21 22 23 24 ( 25 MR. VORSE: G c jy,funa
_ - -.. ~ -... -. -. -.. - - - - - ,z 21 m 1 MR. RAPP:- How long were you the manager of 2 Primary Systems Engineering?~ 3 THE WITNESS: It was' supervisor -- 4 MR. RAPP:- Supervisor. 5 THE. WITNESS: -- of Primary Systems-Engineering. 6. I-started in.-- it was either later 1991 or -- it.was-7 1991,. In the Fall of 1991. 8 MR. RAPP: Were you involved with any of the 9 discussions that were taking place concerning raising the 10 dissolved hydrogen value to 25 cc's per kg? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MR. RAPP: And how were you involved in those 13 discussions? 14 THE. WITNESS: I was involved as a -- there were 15 s'ome meetings tnat were involved. I participated in those ec 's kg 16 meetings. The issue of raising to the 25 +mP1r per er h G4 17 (sic)- is primarily a EPRI recommendation and it was a 18 water chemistry parameter that we were essentially gciing 19 to do. And it was because of water chemistry guidelines. 20 And we had been tasked to do it. . 21' MR. RAPP: Was -- To your knowledge was 22 Chemistry coming out and saying that we've got too much 23 - dissolved oxygen in the system, we need to have a higher 24-hydrogen concentration? 25 THE WITNE3S: Chemistry had always. supported, to m
g -1: myl knowledge, increasing _the hydrogen concentration. 2-MR. RAPP: During these --_during these meetings 3-what levels of management were present? -Was it just 4 basically-between-Engineering and Chemistry or were senior- -5 managers involved?- 6 THE WITNESS:- No, I don't -- I do not believe 7 senior managers were involved. It was more of a 8 supervisory or possibly the department manager would_ be 9 involved. But it was normally-at a lower level. 10 MR. RAPP: It was more of a working level? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MR. RAPP: Okay. Were there any conceras raised 13 by the Engineering staff that needing this higher hydrogen 14 concentration would -- would'it be pushing the envelope on 15 system design-and system operability?- 16 THE WITNESS: I do know that there -- there were 17 -concerns raised with the fact that raising the hydrogen 18 concentration required increasing the hydrogen pressure, 19 which indirectly _ reduces the time or directly-reduces the 20- time available before you would have a potential for the 21 gas-binding in a makeup pump. 22 MR. RAPP: How did that affect Curve 8? The 23 ' limit, the-operations limit? 24 THE WITNESS: I do not know the answer to that. 25-MR. RAPP: Did-Engineering have to supply a new ____m_---_____m_._
.. ~ 23 curve-to the-operations staff _-- 2 THE-WITNESS:= Yes. to implement _thisl higher hydrogen?- 3-MR. RAPP: 4-4- THE WITNESS: Yes, and-that was done through the
- 5. design engineering organization that was produced in_St.
6 Pete. 7 MR. RAPP: So your group, the primary system 8 engineering group did not have any review or input or -- 9 .THE WITNESS: No, I believe Pat Hinman reviewed-10 and input -- had input to that curve. 11 MR. RAPP: Was that discussed with you at any 1 12 point, say like routine meetings with -- with the people 13 you were supervising was on status of work? 14 THE WITNESS: The details of it, what -- what 15 was driving that work was primarily the design engineering 16 schedule, what they could perform in their -- based on 17 their resources. And we supported them with that. 18 MR. RAPP: Was anybody'from the management side 19 of the house or Management-staff saying, when are you 20 going to get this new operating curve back to the 21 operations staff, we want to get this established ASAP, 2:2 what's the delay? Was there any -- 23 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that. I don't. 24: MR. RAPP: - Did you routinely go to the plan of 25 the day meetings? ,.g~' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - -. _ - -. _ - - _ _ _ - _. - ~ - - _ _ _
'I g - 1= - THE' WITNESS: -Do-I? 2 MR. RAPP:. Yes. -3 THE WITNESS: No. t 4-MR. RAPP:' As_a - _even-in the' capacity as-a' 5 supervisor' of Primary. Systems Engineering?- 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7. MR. RAPP: Did your supervisor ever discuss that 8. with you? 9-THE WITNESS: My -- The manager of System 10 Engineering would, yes.. 11 MR.HRAPP:- Okay. Did he ever' discuss -- did 12 there --_there's a question as to why'there's a delay or 1 13 why this=-- why is this taking so long to get a curve to 14 the Operations staff? 15 THE WITNESS: No, not that I recall. 16 MR. DOCKERY: I'm unclear on something. Are we 17 referring to the old Curve 8 or a new Curve 8? 18 MR. RAPP: The Curve 8 that had to be revised in 19 order to meet 25 cc's per kg prior to September-Sth of 20- 1994. 21 MR. DOCKERY: Okay. And that's -- .So a:now 22 curve was actually in the works. Is that.your testimony? 12 3 MR. WEINBERG: Do you know? 24 THE WITNESS: 'I don't know. I believe it'was _ 25 ILknow that at one time the design engineering group was m
25 1 working on a curve. And I know that there was a MAR that as done that essentially had alarm point that followed 2 w 3 that curve. 4 MR. DOCKERY: What is a MAR? 5 THE WITNESS: A modification approval record. 6 MR. STENGER: M-A-R. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Well, who would most that, 8 because I think you said earlier you don't really know, ~ 9 you never looked at Curve 8 -- 10 THE WITNESS: Right. so who would be -- who 11 MR. WEINBERG: 12 would -- 13 THE WITNESS: I think Pat Hinman would be the 14 best one for that. 15 MR. DOCKERY: Mr. Czufin, during the time that 16 you. were a supervisor in Systems Engineering and this 17 issue was an issue with Curve 8, who was most identifiable 18 among the Ops, the Operations people with that -- with the 19 Curve 8 issue, to your knowledge? 20 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge that would be Mr. 21 Van Sicklen. 22 MR. DOCKERY: Van Sicklen? 23 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. (Af firmative response. ) 24 MR. DOCKERY: Was there any friction or 25 animosity between Engineering and Operations regarding
26 1 -that curve? 2 -THE WITNESS: I-believe there was, 3 .MR. DOCKERY:- Could you elaborate on that for-j 4 us. 5 THE WITNESS: I did attendione meeting where Mr. 6 Van Sic -- it was a meeting to discuss going to the 25-7 cc's per kg. And Mr -Van _Sicklen was there. And he came t 8 up with several concerns that he had with going to this, 9. And Mr. Hinman-took them all down and attempted to meet 10 with Mark Van Sicklen and, I believe, Carl Bergstrom to go 11 over the concerns. And he also included Terry Austin, who 12 was the design engineer. And he I believe he met-with 13 Mr Van Sicklen and addresced the concerns. 14 MR. RAPP: What time frame would this have been? 15 -THE WITNESS: The would have been -- I don't 16 know. I do not know the answer to that. 17 MR, RAPP: Would that have been prior to the 18 SP-630 issue coming up? 19 THE WITNESS: I believe so. 20 MR. RAPP: So that would have been sometime in, 21 say, '93? 22 THE WITNESS: Probably. 23 MR. RAPP: Probably so. 24 When you said Mr. Van Sicklen, or Mark Van 25-Sicklen had some concerns about going to this higher-4 -M5 - ,4, u,- .r-
- -c
9 27 1 pressure, what -- do you recall specifically what his 2 concerns were? 3 THE WITNESS: I recall one was that the -- when 4 the makeup tank and the BWST compete for each other. They 5 compete for-the suction. And when you go to the higher 6 pressure, that means that the -- that there's a difference 7 in when the makeup tank -- when the BWST takes over and ~ 8 the makeup tank doesn't. I know that was one concern. 9 And his concern was based primarily on emergency 10
- boration, We have two emergency boration flow paths.
One 11 is makeup pumps and the other is I believe from the BASTS, 12 which is the boric acid storage tanks. And I do recall 13 that one. 14 MR. RAPP: At this time though there was no 15 issue about the accuracy of the -- this Curve 8 foll -- 16 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge that never -- 17 MR. RAPP: Okay. -- following plant response. 18 Okay. 19 013 -- Was this emergency boration issue seen as 20 a safety issue, a high priority issue, or was that a lower 21 level? Mr. Hinman took the It 22 THE WITNESS: Mr. 23 concerns and actively worked on them. 24 MR. RAPP: Well, what did that -- I mean, 25 obviously there has to be some sort of priority assigned
-. ~..... - -. - - , a 28 -l' to work, otherwise-you get peopleldoing things:that don't 2 meet the; goals lof1the plant or the necessary; day;tofday-g '3. operations.-.How was-that work assigned? When-Mr.-Hinman l 4-had this concern, plus-'he probably had several'other 51 issues' going on with this system?. ~6 THE WITNESS: Right. 'How-was-7- MR. RAPP:- How did --- How was that 8 this particular concern integrated in with the rest of his 9 workload? THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what his -- wo 10 11 called it a-punch list. I can't tell you what it had at .12 that~ time. 13 MR. P. APP: It wasn't assigned like a priority, 14 this was like a priority four' item or something like that? 15-It just Unfortunately, with the way 16 THE WITNESS: It 17~ the System Engineers workload is, if you assign a priority 18 and-they have a problem in the plant today, that becomes 19 their number one priority. And so their. priorities change 20 daily. 21 MR. RAPP: Okay. Let me kind of switch over 22 here a little bit just to-discuss some engineering-23 aspects. ~ 24. One of.the' things that's come out during these 25 discussions is that the reason that the operators observed .. ~.
- ...,m.__.,....
.. ~. -. ~ - -. - 29 1 a difference in the response of the plant versus Curve-8 2 is thatLbecaus'e Curve 8 was designed or was taken-from a 3 set of data-generated during a large break LOCA analysis. a ~4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5-MR '. RAPP: And the data that the operators were '6 taking was taken during a normal drain down or normal -7 routine bleed of the makeup tank. ~ 8 THE. WITNESS: Okay. 9 MR. RAPP: Is that an acceptable or a reasonable 10 explanation for the difference in the two, the two curves? If you want 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I 12 me to speculate, I can, but I don't know. 13 MR. RAPP: I'm a:: king - you as a -- as an 14 engineer. 15 THE WITNESS: As an engineer, I can tell you 16 that if I have a slow response -- well, I'll answer it 17 this way. j c,, 18 The NRC doesn't -h4ee the way we 'do our gen flood Co rt-19 valve. testing because it's too slow. And a pe** flood 9M' GM C-mva.Los coec. . 20 vclve accid:.t, p uu. flood valves will-go wide open and GMc 21 you'll have a massive amount of flow through there.- So 22 they think.our testing's inadequate, it doesn't give a ~ 23 -adequate test. 24 ~So,_ based on that analogy it is a possibility 25 that-I could see a different response on the curve.- 1
30 1- 'MR. RAPP 1 Okay. Let's -- + 2-THE WITNESS: I don't -- 3 -- M R.- R A P P : What's the --- 4-THE WITNESS: I: don' t know what - yo';c question - 5'--is. 6 MR. RAPP: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: You're asking me to~ speculate and-8 I d6n't --tif you want to show me graphs and curves and 9 give me actual data, I can give you an. engineering-10 -judgment. 11 MR. RAPP: .Let's put it this way. Would you 12 expect, from an engineering standpoint, would you expect 13 the behavior-of the liquid gas mixture in the makeup tank 14 to behave differently during a LOCA scenario versus a 15 normal routine bleed of the makeup tank? 16 THE WITNESS: Possibly. 17 MR. RAPP: And why would that be? - 18 THE WITNESS: Just due to the time factor. If I 19 have a sudden change it's like a water hammer. A water ' 20 hammer-occurs because of voids and velocities. If I \\e m c'- 21 slowly fill something over a very ch::t period of if I 9 90. 22 fill a pipe and-then vent it, I can avoid water hammer. - 'I'm doing-the.same,-I'm filling the pipe. So over a -- 1. 241 when I take the: impact factor and velocities and the 25 change of state of a-fluid I can have water hammer. And + y 1 er
8. x 31 11 alilI'm doing in--that case is filling a-pipe. 2f MR. RAPP: - What; pipe'sinot filling? 3 THE WITNESS: If I have a - Lif I have_a pipe 4 that's voided I can have a water hammer. And the: water 5 hammer in effect-is a result of filling that pipe too 6 quickly.- If I have a pipe that's voided and I fill it -7 slowly and vent it,-I don't have the water hammer. 8 So ILthink if you.have a -- a scenario where.you ^ 9 :have different conditions, you could have a different
- 10. response.
11' MR. RAPP: Okay. Let me clarify something then.
- 12. When you said piping not filled, is there some_ piping in 13 the_ makeup _ tank system --
14 THE-WITNESS: No, you asked -- 15 MR. RAPP: -- that is not filled?
- 16 THE WITNESS
Excuse me. You asked me to 117 speculate on a -- a series of data and that I have nothing 18 in front of me, and I gave you an analogy. And that 19 analogy was. strictly that. It has nothing to do with the 20 makeup tank or the makeup tank issue. 21 MR. RAPP: Okay_. All right. 22 MR. DOCKERY: Let me slip;a. question in here if-23 I may. 24' MR. RA' P : Okay. i' *i 25 MR DOCKERY: Mr. C:ufin, the curve number 8, m, :-. w- + -,m =v m- .m. ,,-e~ ,v,a
v
~~-e +, 4-m. e- ,e a ~-- >y
- w-
,v _ _ _. _ = -. .r 32 1- 'I'm-not sure' this will mean anything ~to you ' and that's the 2-point of my question,-to 'seeLif.it.does.- Curve number'8
- 3_ was generally thought by. Operations to be an 4
administrative curve or an operating curve.- It was 9 5 : subsequently found to be a design-basis curve.-.Are-you 6 aware of-that? e 7 THE WITNESS: I am at this-date. I was not-s ~ 8 aware of'that.before. 9-MR. DOCKELY:' What significance does that have-lL O - to you as an engineer?- ^ 11 THE WITNESS: As an; engineer? 12_ FUt. DOCKERY: (Nods affirmatively.) 13 THE WITNESS: I'think,.as an engineer, I think a 3-14. curve that you operate under, you should assume *. sat you 15 follow that curve. The significance means to me is that I ha.ve a curve and whether it's design basis or whatever,. 17 -that's the curve I'm supposed to follow. 18 MR. DOCKERY: Okay. The Operations. people _that 19 we've. spoken to regarding this have -- have all -- not 20- all', but generally it has been conceded that if we had 21 known this was an op.-- or a design basis curve as opposed 22: to operating curve we might-not have done what we did. We 1 It'would have-been. treated -- In other words, they 23 :-- 24 cfound a: lot'of significance in it. 25 Would it be your expectation, as an engineer and
- X
~.. ~
i. 33 , 1 supervisor,-that if one of the engineers under your 2 : control' were. assigned to look at curve 8, to analyze it 3- 'for validity,. whatever, that they might discover during ? 4 the course of that analysis that it was a design basis 5 curve versus an operatingLcurve?_ 6 THE WITNESS: That-can be one and the same. A 7 design basis curve can be an operating curve. 8 If your question -- you're going-to have to 19 repeat the question. 10 MR. DOCKERY:' Okay. If I worked for you and I'm 11 analyzing this perceived problem with Curve 8, Curve 8 - 12 it's our understanding was never characterized anywhere in 13-writing, that anybody looked at, as an operating cur -- as '4 a design basis curve. Would you expect that as part.of my 3 15 analysis as one of your engineers I might run across that 16 fact? 17 THE WITNESS: .Yes. Yes,- that's -- in the 18 analysis I think you might determine-that. 19 MR, DOCKERY: Might or should? 20 THE WITNESS: Depends on -- you said the problem 21-with the curve. I'd have to know what the problem with r the-curve was. 23 -MR, DOCKERY: Okay. I take it you weren't that 1 24 caught'up-in1the issue at.the' time to have gotten to that 25- ^ point, that it was determined what the problem was? Would ,P 4 T-rug-p N e'gi e - v-yey N y-4-.-{ ~ y'iw r -a era-e- 7 e-w w s- -t- -s e c-
0 34 1 that be fair to say? 2 THE WITNESS: I -- If -- We talked earlier 3 about the raising the pressure, and I do not know, I don't 4 know what the problem with the curve was. 4 5 MR. RAPP: Let me ask this, to kind of follow up 6 here. 1 7 Does System Engineering maintain the design basis cur' es or documents or limits or is that done by a 8 v 9 different group? 10 THE WITNESS: That's done by a different group. 11 MR. RAPP: Does System Engineering then know 12 what design basis limits or design basis values applied 13 calculations or informatien they're getting from this 14 other group? Not unless th6y Not 15 THE WITNESS: Not 16 had run across it before. The design basis documents do 17 ur some references that specify where that information 18 originally referenced from, but unless it was there or 19 they have run across it before they would not necessarily 20 know this information. They would have to run across it. 21 MR. RAPP: I take it this other group would be 22 Design Engineering. 23 THE WITNESS: It is a -- It's a form of -- it's 24 a part of Cesign engineering from the St. Pete office. 25 MR, RAPP: Not on-site?
35 1 THE WITNESS: They are on-site now, the St. 2 Pete -- 0 MR. EAPP: They're on-site now but at that time 4 they were not on-site? 5 THE WITNESS: Rignt, that's correct. 6 MR. RAPP: Okay. 7 MR. DOCKERY: Jim, do you have anything? MR. VORSE: No. 8 9 MR. DOCKERY: Mr. Czufin, I think there's a 10 possibility that you may know more about this than we're 11 able to question you about. And if that's the case, if 12 you have any observations you'd like te make or knowledge 13 you'd like to share with us regarding the issue I'd 14 certainly encourage you to do so at this time. Or if 15 there's any questions we haven't asked that you'd like to 16 address anyway? 17 THE WITNESS: The only thing I'd like to say is 18 that I feel Mr. Hinman was responsive to the operators' 19 requests. He often made time to support their requests. 20 He was -- he was working -- he was kind of the middle man 21 He had Operations giving him information and he was 22 relaying that to Design Engineering to try to resolve 23 their concerns. And I can tell you that a lot of what was 24 going on was either right before I left the group or after 25 I had left the group. That's all I have, t
~. 36 i 1 MR. DOCKERY: Anybody have anything they'd like 2 to raise? e i 3 MR. WEINBERG: That was actually the question I 4 was going to ask. 5 MR. DOCKERY: Mt. Crufin, I would like to point 6 out that the attorneys in attendance today, as they have 7 stated, represent Florida Power Company. And I want to 8 letlyouknowthatyoudohavetheright to meet with us 9 privately -- 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 MR. DOCKERY: -- at any time you desire. 12 TIIE WITNESS: Okay. 13 MR. DOCKERY: Is there anything you'd like to 14 add? 15 TIIE WITNESS: No, sir. 16 MR. DOCKERY: And I will go ahead and 17 acknowledge in advance tnat Mr. Weinberg's wish to review, 18 have you review your testimony here today. We will 19 accommodate that. 20 MR. WEINBERG: What that means is it that she'll 21 prepare a transcript and you'll have a chance to read it 22 just to make sure that it's accurate, in the sense that 23 the words you spoke were transcribed accurately as opposed 24 to -- 25 THE WIh ass: Okay. .~
_ = e 39 1 MR VORSE: There's a lot of acronyms and a lot 2 of technical terms -- 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Yeah, and it's, you know -- 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. WBINBERG: We'll get that to you in due 7 courso and you'll need to review it and if there's seme 8 corfections we'll have to note them. 9 MR. DOCKERY: If there's nothing further we'll 10 go off the record. 11 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded at 12 2:25 o' clock p.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 il 22 23 24 25 y
sp 9 i CERTIFICATE 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3 before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 4 the matter of: 5 Name of Proceeding: Interview of David M. Czufin 6 Docket Number (s) : 2-94-036 7 Place of Proceeding: Crystal River, Florida 8 9 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 10 transcript thereof for the file of the United States 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter 12 reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the reporting company, and that the transcript is a true 13 court 14 and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. 15 16 2nt2/x A. FN4 17 h S. May 18 Official Reporter 19 Neal R. Grons and Co., Inc. 20 21 22 23 24 25 n. ..-c --}}