ML20214K089

Forwards 851114 Communication Rept Re Phase 1 & 2 of Independent Assessment Program Re Hilti Bolt Installation Procedure CEI-20

ML20214K089
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/10/1986
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
83090.029, NUDOCS 8608180112
Download: ML20214K089 (3)

Text

!

OGM l

.M

=-

pm-rsd soevess

.101 California Stre et. Suite 1000, San rrancisco, CA 941115894 415 397 5600 July 10,1M6 83090.029

[d4[, f Mrs. Juonito Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 7S224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal #9 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases I and 2 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job No. 83090

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find a communication report associated with the Phases I and 2 Ind pendent Assessment Program. This report had remained in draf t form for some time.

Cygno has no other unissued communications as of this date.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.

Very truly yours,

1. u, , -

[t I # l.L $&

N.H. Williams Project Manager NHW:jst Attochments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUCCO) w/ottochments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ottachments Mr. J. Finneren (TUCCO) w/ottochments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ottochments 8608180112 86071o PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR ej,b i

San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland g g i

Communications

,' 4L t i R3 port

,. l11lllll1111lll111111111lllll1 s

Company: g Telec n Conference Report Ten s Ud li d es

"' I * Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 83090 Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 o.te:

11/14/85 subject: Time:

10:00 a.m.

Hilti Bolt Installation Procedure CEI-20 piace:

CES - SFR0 Partscipants:

D. Rencher o, TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna of item Comments Reg'd Action By

Reference:

N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," 84056.052, dated October 30, 1985 D. Rencher called for some information relative to item 9, page 6 of the above referenced letter. Reference 2 under the subject heading "Hilti Embedment Length" references a 4/2/84 letter from H.C. Schmidt to B.J. Youngblood. Since he did not have ready access to a copy of that letter, he requested that I read the pertinent passage to him over the phone. I read him the following excerpt from page 2 of the letter:

Cygna suggested that anchor bolt embedment lengths should be removed from pipe support drawings.

This suggestion was made to ensure that there would be no confusion between the embedment length shown on the drawing and the embedment l length used for design calculations.

Installation procedure CEI-20 (Rev. 9,12/16/83),

" Installation of 'Hilti' Drilled-in Bolts,"

I requires that anchor bolts be embedded to a l minimum depth below the surface of the 4000 psi i

(28-day strength) structural concrete prior to setting (torquing). A table in the procedure provides the anchor bolt diameter and the minimum i embedment length for Hilti-Kwik and Super Kwik-l Bolts. (The minimum embedment length is approxi-mately 41 times the diameter of the bolt for Kwik-Bolts and 61 times the diameter of the bolt l

l for Suoer Kwik-Rolts.)

{

i Signed. /

h j[g Page 1 of 2 i

o,sinoot.on: N. ' William't, J. Reddin'g, JMinneran, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. El lis , A. Vietti-Lo0K,

. Communications dNi _

Report

.. .. I Item comments [cYoTYy The instruction has been revised to state that the minimum embedment length shall be that I specified in the anchor bolt installation proce-dure and that specified on the drawing. Quality control procedures ensure compliance to these instructions.

Original design calculations to ensure adequate qualification of the anchor bolt design assumes the minimum anchor bolt embedment lengths required based on the CEI-20 procedure. If, for an initial calcu-lation, a greater embedment depth is necessary than required by the CEI-20 procedure, the required depth is indicated on the design drawing.

I explained that it was Cygna's understanding a revision 10 would be made to CEI-20 which clearly instructed the installer to meet the greater of the two installation depths whenever there is a conflict between the drawing and CEI-20. We followed the item up during a site visit and found that CEI-20 had not been revised contrary to our understanding of TUGC0's commitment.

1 Page g of 2