ML20209A907

Affidavit of JW Mckay.* Provides Minor Corrections to 861017 Affidavit.Corrections Should Be Made to Allegation on Undercut Tolerances for Holes Drilled to Receive maxi-bolt Anchors.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20209A907
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/28/1987
From:	Mckay J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20209A869	List: ML20209A863 ML20209A907
References
2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8702030473
Download: ML20209A907 (4)

Text

7

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION in the Matter of CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN Docket No. 50-8400 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (10 C.F.R. 2.206)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH W. MCKAY County of Wake 33, State of North Carolina Joseph W. McKay, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as fol;ows:

1. On December 15, 1986, I provided an affidavit to address the issues raised in section lli of " Wells Eddleman and Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris Petition Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206," dated October 17, 1986. Upon further review of the information provided in that affidavit, I have identified a

) correction which should be made in my discussion of the allega-tion on undercut tolerances for holes drilled to receive

" maxi-bolt" anchors.

2. In paragraph 12, on page 10 of the affidavit, replace the text beginning with "From March until . . . " on the fourth line, through the word " acceptable";" on the fourteenth line, with the following:

8702030473 870129

{DR ADOCK 05000400PDR

v In late 1984, C.I. began using calibrated undercutter tools to verify that the undercut was within specifications. Prior to that time the undercut was verified by one or more of the following methods:

visual inspection; use of a measuring tape; use of an undercutting tool. Maxi-bolt an-chors installed during this period are con-sidered acceptable based on the following:

1) the undercut was verified as noted above; . ....

3. For convenience, a replacement copy of page 10, with the correction made, is attached to this affidavit. This cor-rection to the chronology regarding the checking of undercut tolerances for Maxi-bolt anchor holes does not alter my previ-ous conclusion that the installed Maxi-bolt anchors are accept-able. The tests of Maxi-bolt expansion anchors performed after my December 15, 1986 affidavit have confirmed this conclusion.

The results of these tests were filed with " Supplement to Licensees' Response to CASH /Eddleman Show Cause Petition,"

dated January 6,1987.

)

N o~ #u.2r-5? X

'_ / Joseph W. McKa f f

..Y

- w' Subscribe this g d { day and of sworn to before me January,1987.

v wf_ ,l Liv Notary Public My Commission expires 3 N .

y%

4

12. CP&L did not fail to check undercut tolerances for holes drilled to receive " maxi-bolt" anchors as alleged by Peti-tioners. See Petition at 14. The installation program for Maxi-bolt expansion anchors began in March of 1983. In late 1984, C.I. began using calibrated undercutter tools to verify that the undercut was within specificaticns. Prior to that time the undercut was verified by one or more of the following meth-ods: visual inspection; use of a measuring tape; use of an undercutting tool. Maxi-bolt anchors installed during this period are considered acceptable based on the following: 1) the undercut was verified as noted above; (2) the Maxi-bolt was in-stalled in these holes to a setting load (pre-load) of approxi-mately twice that of the anchor design loads; 3) all of these Maxi-bolts have been inspected by C.I. with acceptable results; and 4) as the preload is the highest load the anchor will ever experience, there is no possibility of failure at the lower de-sign loads. In addition, FCR-AS-7744 was written and approved in early 1985 to increase the Maxi-bolt undercut tolerances to allow greater wear on the undercut blades, and thus to increase the useful service life of the undercutting tools. All Maxi-bolt an-chor diameters were retested and requalified at these expanded tolerances. The test results indicated that the anchors perform satisfactorily at these greatly N

s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Second Sup-plement to Licensees' Response to CASH /Eddleman Show Cause Peti-tion" were served by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 29th day of January, 1987, to the following:

Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission gE og Washington, D.C. 20555 q{

Mr. Bart Buckley  ;; ~

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulaticn E I l'J'.

I b# '"

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

D Karen D. Cyr, Esquire '

b)

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman 812 Yancey Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Coalition fo[ Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH) 604 W. Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Mr. David M. Verrelli U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303

%~ k. ..

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

-_ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _