2CAN129803, Forwards Supplemental Responses to NRC Questions Concerning Sample Selection & Expansion Criteria for SW Sys

Forwards Supplemental Responses to NRC Questions Concerning Sample Selection & Expansion Criteria for SW Sys

ML20206N374
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	12/08/1998
From:	Vandergrift J ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
2CAN129803, NUDOCS 9812160298
Download: ML20206N374 (20)

Text

M Entergy operations,Inc.

1448 SA 333 RussdMile, AR 72801

, , Td 501858-5000 December 8,1998 2CAN129803 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mail Station OPI-17 Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-368 License No. NPF-6 Additional Information to Support the Service Water System Portion of the Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection Pilot Application Gentlemen:

Entergy Operations submitted the results of the risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI) pilot plant application study for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), to the NRC by letters dated September 30,1997 (2CAN099706), and March 31,1998 (0CAU039809). The pilot plant application is to be used as an alternative, per 10CFR50.55(a)(3)(i), to certain ASME Code requirements for the remainder of ANO-2's second inspection interval (ending March 25,2000) and for the subsequent third inspection interval. A meeting was held with the NRC Staff to discuss the ongoing review of the application on September 9 and 10,1998.

During the meeting, draft responses to NRC questions on the application were discussed. The NRC Staff transmitted these questions in the meeting summary dated September 25,1998 (2CNA099801). Entergy Operations' response to the questions '

submitted October 8,1998 (2CAN109801). Fmther discussions were subsequently held a the Stafr on October 20,1998, October 27,1998, and November 12,1998. Based on these discussions, additional information was submitted to the NRC on November 25, 1998 j (2CANI19804). In the November 25, 1998, letter, Entergy Operations stated that f supplemental information concerning sample selection and expansion criteria for the service r 4tr system would be included in a separate submittal. This information concerning the i service water .ystem is attached.

Ifyou have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me.

9812160298 981208~

go\1 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P PDR ~~

s l

}

1 l

l

)

L ..

~

U. S. NRC

. December 8,1998 2CAN129803 Pag 22 l- Very truly yours, B

^

Ji D. Vand .

Director, Nuclear Safety

, JDVfid L attactanent I

( cc: Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff l Regional Administrator

! U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l RegionIV l 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One P.O. Box 310 London, AR72847 Mr. Chris Nolan i NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-2

! U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 >

! One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852.

I i

l 4

. Attachment to

. 2CAN129803 Page1of18 l

l Entergy Operations Response to NRC Questions Regarding Service Water for the Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection Pilot Plant Application l Supplement to NRC Question No. 4 l Descdbe the element selection and evaluation process for the service water system.

Entergy Operations Response:

Preface The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) topical report TR-106706 was published as an interim report to be used as a guide in the performnce of the EPRI risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI) pilot application studies. The pilot studies were conducted to validate the ,

EPRI RI-ISI methodology and to identify areas for enhancements. As indicated in the response to NRC Question No. 4.0, some aspects of the methodology were identified for enhancements as a result of application experience gainM during the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2),

project.

One of the observations made during the ANO-2 project was that the element selection approach prescribed by the methodology was not practical for application to systems exposed to localized corrosion phenomena. Localized corrosion is not confined to discrete areas like welds but can instead occur over large areas of systems such as service water. This concern was discussed with EPRI project management during the early stages of the project and a decision was made to develop an alternate approach to address this issue. The ANO-2 service water system (SWS) served as the model for the development of an alternate element selection process for localized corrosion. The process employed for element selections for the ANO-2 SWS will be included in the pending revision to the EPRI methodology which will incorporate lessons learned from the pilot applications.

Introduction The approach used for the element selection and evaluation process for the SWS at ANO-2 is summarized below. The selection process is described more completely in Section 4 of the StructuralIntegrity Associates report SIR-98-026.

- The " binary" evaluation of all potentially active degradation mechanisms described in EPRI report TR-106706 indicated that the potential exists for localized corrosion (i.e., microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) and pitting) and flow sensitive attack (i.e., erosion-cavitation) in the SWS at ANO-2. The element selection approach provided in TR-106706, which is also based l upon that binary evaluation, was considered impractical for application to a system like service

Attachment to

, 2CAN129803 Page 2 ofI8 water which is susceptible to localized corrosion mechanisms that can occur over large areas of the system.

Rather than selecting nme number or percentage of locations on a random basis, it was determined that a " finer screen" than used for the binary determination approach be used for the SWS. That approach allows the inspection process to focus on those portions of the system or j sub-system where degradation is most likely. Tids finer screen approach requires a determination '

of the temperature, flow, water chemistry, and water treatment variations throughout the system.

Results from prior inspections or monitoring are also used so that the system history becomes a l key input into the determination of potential degradation. By selecting locations that are most likely to be degraded, examining a reasonable number of inspections at those areas provides <

information that can be obtained to bound the prformance of the entire system.

l The emphasis in selection of specific elements was on those areas expected to exhibit the worst I' degradation. For example, regions of highest oxygen (or other oxidizing species such as biocide) and high flow may have the most aggressive pitting. Low flow areas will be the most susceptible l to underdeposit corrosion and MIC. Stagnant and intermittent flow areas may be particularly  ;

susceptible to MIC. Section changes, where fluid velocity can increase or decrease rapidly, or i geometries, where fluid changes direction abruptly are the areas most likely to experience erosion due to " scouring" by particulates. These areas are also susceptible to underdeposit corrosion or MIC where particu!ates and microbes settle during stagnation periods or peiiods orlow flow. l The results of this " finer screen" element selection process are included in Table 4-4 of report i SIR-98-026. From this selection of bounding locations, 63 elements were selected for UT thickness measurements. The locations selected include one element due to erosion-cavitation concerns (selected separate from the ANO-2 flow accelerated corroden program). Four additional locations in buried piping are to be examined by remote visual techniques. The majority of these specific locations should be representative of worst case degradation for the system. Several locat ions that are considered to be typical sections, generally in headers and other large diameter sections, are also included. In all cases, the inspection will encompass one or more one foot lengths in a spool piece or a specific fitting, based upon the criteria described in the paragraphs above. All of the locations in the SWS piping that are specified for ultrasonic thickness determinations in Table 4-4 will have a significant area examined: one foot of pipe length over 270* of are that includes the bottom 60* of the pipe. .

. As noted above, localized corrosion was identified as the predominant mechanism for degradation l' in the SWS. Specific locations were celected based upon a detailed review of the ANO-2 SWS that included prior failure history, design, operation, water chemistry, and water treatment. The intent was to select elements that would be representative of the most susceptible locations in the

system. Low flow, intermittent flow, and areas removed from the injection point for water treatment chemicals were emphasized. Those areas will be most susceptible to deposition and

microbial growth.

I 1

i n

. . Attachment to

, 2CAN129803 Page 3 of18 Revised Element Selection The original Table 4-4 provided in SIR-98-026 considered only susceptibility to localized corrosion. Consequence of failure, the other contributor to risk, was not considered in the original element selection.

A subsequent review of each of the dements in Table 4-4 was performed to determine if a high risk element with a similar estimated susceptibility might be substituted. In those cases where the difference in degradation susceptibility wasjudged to be small between given locations, the failure consequences were additionally considered. If the degradation susceptibility is comparable, the high risk region locations were chosen over medium / low risk region locations. The high risk region location selections were considered for distribution over the high risk piping segments. In general, consistent with the basic premise of the EPRI RI ISI methodology, inspection location adjustments were weighted toward the high risk region segments assuming that deterministic degradation susceptibility consideration:: were not controlling.

Revised Table 4-4, the result of that subsequent review, lists all of the original element selections, notes those that have been replaced (by strikethrough font), and describes the replacement elements (designated by bold and italics). Eight locations were subsequently changed from the medium risk category to the high risk category. No low risk category locations were changed.

ANO plans to inspect 67 locations in the service water system as part of the RI-ISI program.

The total number ofinspection locations for the current and proposed programs is as follows:

Program No. ofInspection Inspection Extent of Piping Basis Locations Frequency Inspected Current Section XI 4 Each Interval Class 2 SWIP 26 Every 2 Years Class 3 and Non-Code Proposed RI-ISI 67 Each Period Class 2,3 and Non-Code SWIP ' 26 Every 2 Years Class 3 and Non-Code

' Entergy intends to continue implementation of the existing Senice Water Integrity Program (SWIP) program inspections in addition to implementation of the proposed RI-ISI program inspections. These programs may be merged such that in the future a single program will be employed to manage the integrity of the senice water system.

Based on the selection process and examination locations discussed above for identifying high, medium, and low risk locations, Entergy Operations concludes that this service water inspection approach (considering both degradation mechanisms and risk insights) bounds the potential for service water failures in the high risk segments.

. Attachment to

. 2CAN129803 Page 4 ofI8 Inspection Criteria and Evaluation Inspections of the service water piping will be performed for the locations identified in the revised Table 4-4 of SIR-98-026. Prior to performing the inspections, initial screening criteria will be developed for each pipe location. The criteria will include values for the design nominal wall l thickness (T ) and the design minimum wall thickness (T,;,). Minimum wall thickness is determined using ASME Section III, Class 3 criteria, ND-3641.1 equation (3). Design minimum wall thickness will consider both the average measured wall thickness and wall thickness at the deepest pit. If the average wall thickness exceeds 87.5% of the nominal wall thicknen or the pit  !

does not violate the minimum wall thickness, then the pipe is acceptable as-found. If either of these values is violated, then the inspection information will be provided to design engineering to determine potential wall thickness acceptability and inspection expansion, if necessary.

If the service water pipe wall thickness initial screening criterion is exceeded, the. inspection results will be evaluated. In cases where the thinning is not severe, the stresses may be further I recalculated in accordance with ASME Code rules using the actual pipe wall thicknesses (plus allowance for further corrosion). If degradation is significant, the criteria of Generic Letter 90-05, "Guidancefor Performing Temporary Non-Code Repair of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping would be applied." Based on the flaw evaluation approach selected per Generic Letter 90-

05, the required structural integrity of the degraded pipe will be shown to have the required l stmetural integrity or appropriate corrective actions will be taken.

l Initial Examination l

The initial examination will have two objectives:

l 1. Determine whether significant localized corrosion is present in any of the locations examined, l and

2. Provide a thickness value that can be compared to the nominal thickness to provide an

, estimate of average corrosion rate and to establish a baseline value for subsequent l examinations.

Localized corrosion will be defined by any area that fails the inspection criteria noted above (i.e.,

average wall thickness < 87.5% of1, or any valid measurement < t, ;.).

Iflocalized corrosion is greater than the inspection criteria, the sample will be expanded by five locations per Generic Letter 90-05. The additional locations selected will take into consideration the opposite train counterpart pipe locations along with pipe locations having similar operating conditions such as flow characteristics and pipe sizes. Results of that expanded sample will be

! compared to the same criteria to determine whether the SWS population as a whole is affected by i

localized corrosion.

1 I

l

Attachment to

, 2CAN129803 Page 5 of18 Iflocalized corrosion is not detected in the SWS, it will be concluded that localized corrosion was  ;

not operative'or problematic from either recent or prior operation.

Subsequent Examinations l Subsequent examinations will expand upon the results of the initial examination to provide a further determination of the presence of active localized corrosion and to determine approximate rates of propagation of general and localized corrosion.

As for the initial examination, the presence oflocalized corrosion will be defined by any area that fails the inspection criteria noted above (i.e., average wall thickness < 87.5% of t or any valid measurement < te). Active localized corrosion will be defined by those pipe inspection location areas that fail the inspection criteria during the current inspection that were not similarly identified during the prior inspection. In addition to the inspection criteria, general pipe wall degradation will be evaluated for localized pipe wall thinning where it is greater than 5 mils per year.

If dive localized corrosion is greater than the inspection criteria, the sample will be expanded by five locations per Generic Letter 90-05 as discussed above. Results of that expanded sample will be compared to the same criteria to determine whether the SWS population as a whole is substantially affected by localized corrosion. In correcting the identified degradation, such things as water chemistry and other control processes will be evaluated for their effectiveness.

Inspections of the affected areas will be repeated during the subsequent examination period.

Unless significant degradation is identified, the additional five inspections will not become part of the inspection population for future inspections.

Revisions to Previously Submitted Information On October 8,1998, additional information was provided to the NRC based on requests for additional information. As a result of changes to the service water selection methodology along with several identified minor discrepancies, Tables 1-1, 27-2, and 27-3 have been modified and j are included below.  :

l 1

l

\ l j

t Attachment to 2CAN119804 ,

Page 6 ofI8 Revised Table 4-4 Element Selection  !

Ise Drawiss No. Risk Segment ID Risk Region Exama Method / Veleme No. Notes Descripties Inspecties Iecaties Pipe Sise Reesem for Selection 1 2HBC-32-1 Sh. I SWS-R-01A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60* i 2P-4A Discharge Spool 2 20* Typical Section ofSupply Hender 2 211BC-32-1 Sh. I SWS-R41C Medium IJr / One foot x 270* are that indvdes bottom 60*

2P-4B Discharge Spool 4 20* Typical Section ofSupply Hender 3 2! L*' 32 ' "' ! SWS-R6 Mednum LT !S fed x 2*? : : Se r' -f - H . Sa*

2P iC D:- '- ,,_ Speel-7 W T;;' ' SMr dru,_,_ j " '-

3R 2HBC-J2-1, SA.1 SFS-R-02A Medinum UT/ Omefeatx 270 *ere est heeinder W de

• Supplylie= der #2 vs. Simply bener Deecharge he Supply Spent 3 20* TypecatSecaea ofSupplyHeader #2 Needer #2 4 211BC-33-3 Sh. I SWS-R-01A Medium IJr / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply Hender #1 Spool 1 20* Typical Section ofSupply Hender i 5 2HBC-33-80 Sh. I SWS-R-04A Medium Ranote visual (when other activities' provide access I }

Supply Hender #1 Underground Section 20" Typical Section of Supply Hender 6 2HBC-33-1 Sh. I SWS-R-05A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottan 60*

SupplyIIceder #1 Spools I thru 3 (one required) 20* Typical Section ofSupplyIIeader 4 7 2HBC-33-1 Sh.1 SWS-R-06A Medium IJr / One foot x 270* arc that inclodes bottom 60*

(A,B) Supply Hender #I Spool 4 or 5 and Elbow (Itan 5) 20* Supply llender - Probable worst case deposition (two locations) area  !

8 2"~' 3 3 ' SE ' S"'" " ^5.^ ! %^. Medumn _ . . _ _ _ . - - _ ~ _ _ _ _ __ Substitute High Risk segment ,

Sw:j !'- '-"! S;- -: 5,5 :

• M T;;'

!S__ -. S S ,,', "

SR 2HBC-43-I, Sn.1 SWS-R-068 High UT/ D>eefeet x 270 ' enc abat & beatene 60

• None: 16" w. 20" SocS.ppeyfrene needer #2 Spenti er 2 16~ ryp.catSeeana ofSappey needer t

Attachment to 2CAN119804 ,

Page 7 of18 -

~

Revised Table 4-4 (Cont'd)

Elenient Selection Ise Drawing No. Risk Segeneet ID Risk Reglem Exaan Method / Velmane No. Neees .

Descripties Inspection Iscaties Pipe Stae Reassa for Se4ectima  !

9 2HBC-33-2 3h. I SWS-R-06A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply He=ler #1 Spool 1 -Tee and pipe that drops down 12" Supply Hender - Probable worst case deposition at 45* from 2HBC-33-20" to 2HBC-68 area (abrupt change in sectmn)  !

12"  ;

10 2'"O 33 2 Fl. ' SWFAWM Mednan LT!5 fd : 2?? = h Substitute High Risk segment  ;

I F _, ,'j " '-- *! "; '- ! 0 _ 5 (= :_q-__ ') 20*-d81 T;.pd Mn df- ;;'y " '-

10R 2HBC-64-1, Sh. 2 S96-R-068 High UT/Ommefeatx 270'ere not M homens 60

• NOTE: 3" su.18"/20" EDG& CR CeederSapply Speet i er 2 8" TypecalSednon ofSapply Heedar frene Hender #2 11 2HBC-33-2 Sh. I SWS-R-06A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Sapply Hender #1 Spool 5 - Between elbow (Item 7) and 18" Dead leg / Galvanic couple (HCC-283-3*) near valve 2CV-1530-1 transition to 2HBD-33-18" 12 2HBC-34-3 Sh. I SWS-R4iB Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply Header #2 Spool 2,3,4A or 4B 20' Typical Section of Supply He=ler 13 2HBC-34-80 Sh. I SWS-R-04B Medium Remote visual (what other activities provide access Supply Header #2 Spool 10 n-20 20" Typical Section ofSupply Hender l 14 2HBC-34-1 SWS-R-06B High UT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

Supply Header #2 Spools 5 thru 8 (one requimi) 20" Typical Section of Supply Header 15 2HBC-34-2 Sh. I SWS-R-06B High UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply He=ler #2 Spool 3 20' Typical SectariofSupply Hender 16 2HBC-68-1 Sh. I SWS-R.06A /16A Medium UT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

Supply Hender #1 to Spool 2 -Img herumtal run near 12" Worst Case Section of Supply to Imp 1 Contamment Cooling coils inaccessible penetration Contamment Coohng Coils

Attachment to 2CANI19804 .

Page 8 of18 -

~

Revised Table 4-4 (Cont'd)

Eleasent Selection Ise Drawing No. Risk Segament ID Risk Reglem Exana Method / Volusse No. Notes Description P ; - -:'- Escaties Pipe Sise Reeses for Selection 17 2"~' e ! SE ! SWM44A49 Medeuen W !^-- S :2 = - S L_' ' '-

_= Substitute High Risk segment with smular suscepthlity

_c .,

.n 1 - - . . _

e

.s_a g. _,

r.,,___._.________c,,_,._1__i<-

C" -

..x' C: ': ; Cd!: Oc;c':-; C d!:

17R 2HRD-51-1,Sh. I SN 5-K-128 High UT/ Oneefeat x 270

• arc not ancandes beneen 60

• NOTE: 18" vs.12" Sapply Hender #2 to SpenerI new5(onee , ;; - 18" TypicalSecuen ofSapplyHeader E2 Centamassent Ceeduqr Cedir I8 2!'"" 2 ! EF. ! SWS-R43A Medeun M '^ - M :2 " = S '__ ' ' ^^ _ e' _ Substitute High Risk segment h p;!y " '

- "! S Speel4 4# 3, ' ' 5: ^ -. ' E- ;;!y e L- p ! C Cesnaw= C: '..; C !: C: '_; C :':

1BR 2HBC-49-1, SA. I SWS-K-NB H(rt UT/ Onefeat x 278 *are aber socinder bestems de

• Sapply Hender 52 to Between FWs 4CI & 3Ci 12* TypecalSeenen ofAppply Header 52 se Censsuusener Ceehag Ceidt hw Cesang Caids ,

19 211BB-2-1 Sh. I SWS-R-18A Medium IJr / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply Header #1 to Spool 2 12* Typical Section of Supply to Imp 1 Contamment Contamment Cooling Coils Cooling Coils I

20 2HBC-103-1 Sh. I SWS-R-19A low ITTi One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

SupplyIIceder #1 to Spool 1/ 2 -Elbow (Item 11) 12' Worst Case Section of Supply to Imop 1 Contammmt Cooling Coils Contamment Cooling Coils i 21 2HBC-103-1 Sh. I SWS-R-19A IAw ITT / One foot x 270* arc that includes lyttom 60*

Supply Hender #1 to Spool 1 -Horuontal run 12' Worst Case Section ofSupply to Imop 1 l Contamment Cooling Coils Contamment Cooling Coils I

l 22 2HBC-59-1 Sh. 2 SWS-R-15A Medium ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

l Return from Shutdown Cooling Spool 1 - Between heet r-- _ noule 14* At/near location of known failure and heet

! ' Heat Exchanger to Hender #1 and valve 2SW-IIA --. '  ;= with nucrobiological fouling I

l 1

i i l t

Attachment to 2CAN119804 ,

Page 9 of18 -

Revised Table 4-4 (Cost'd)

Eleasent Selection Ise Drawing New Risk Segaseet ID Risk Reglem Exaan Method / Voimase Desedytten IAcaties Pipe Sine Reesem for Selection -

23 2HBC-59-1 Sh. 2 SWS-R-15A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes IWtorn 60*

(A B, Return fmn Shutdown Cooling Spool 2-Riser from valve, horuontal 14" Probable worst case locations C) IIcat Exchanger to Header #1 run, and -v-=iaa loop (nununum of three areas) I 24 211BC-59-1 Sh.2 SWS-R-15A Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bortom 60*

Return fan Shutdown Cooling Spool 5 - Downstream ofreducer(Item 16" Probable worst case location ,

Heat Exchanger to Hender #1 86)  !

25 2HBC-59-1 Sh.i SWS-R-15A Medium ITT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Return from Shutdown Cooling Spool 3 -I*sizontal nm and -v===ia= 14" Probable worst case locations ,

Heat Eveh== r to licader #1 loop (twolocations) 26 2HBC-59-1 Sh. 2 SWS-R-ISA Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Return fmm Shutdown Cooling Spool 4 -leng horuontal run and short 14" Probable worst caselocations l Heat Exchanger to Hender #1 vertical decline (minimurn of two areas required)  !

27 2HBC-60-1 Sh.1 SWS-R-ISB Medium UT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Retwn from Shutdown Cooling Spool 1 - At heat exchanger outlet and at 14" Probable worst case locations Heat Exchanger to Hender #2 bottom of short vertical run (two locations) 28 2HBC-60-1 Sh.1 SWS-R-ISB Medium UT / O-e foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return from Shutdown Cooling Spool 1 - Dissimilar metal welds (carbon 14" Probable worst case locations Heat Fra -- 2 to Header #2 steel to stamless steel) at flow oriSce 2FO-1456 29 2HBC-60-1 Sh. I SWS-R-15B Mediurn ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Return fan Shundewn Cooling Spools 3 and 4 (One L:ation each spool) 14" Probable worst case locations Heat Exchanger Hender #2

Attachment to 2CANI19804 .

Page 10 of18 -

~

Revised Table 4-4 (Cont'd)

Elesment Selectie Ise Drawing No. Risk Segment ID Risk Regies Exann Method / Vehame Na Notes Descripties Inspecties Imcatlee Pipe Sise Reassa for Selecties -

30 2HBC404-Sh-4 SWS-R-MB Medema LT ! ^= fe : 2"'3* = S E' ' ' - - _ e' Substitute High Risk segment

." , , :.r._1 T - _' ,,z _C _--u % Cp ' E "

d -- '- _- C^ _

W m Y 2 M 30R 2HBC-60-1,Sk i SN S-R-128 H4th UT/Oneefeatx270*areabatinwamar benene 60*

SDCReame to Header #2 Baneeen FN's SC2 & 6C1 16" hoheMe worst caseincomens 31 211BC-50-1 Sh.1 SWS-R-12A High ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return Hender #1 Spool 7 18" Typical Section ofRetum Hender 32 2HBC-50-1 Sh. I SWS-R-12A I!igh ITT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

Return Hender #1 Spool 5 or 6 I8' Typical Section of Retum IIceder 33 2HBC-50-2 Sh. I SWS-R-12A High UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return Hender #1 Spool 4-Dcce.A ofreducer(Item 16" Typical Section of Retum Hender (with velocity

21) ci:ange) 34 2HBC-50-2 Sh.1 SWS-R-12A High ITF / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

Return Hender #1 Spool 2 or 3 18" TypicalSection of Return Ileader 35 2HBC-51-1 Sh. I SWS-R-12B High ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Return IIceder #2 Spool 1 (two locations required) 18" TypicalSectionofReturn Header 36 2HBC-51-2 Sh. I SWS-R-12B Ifigh ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Retum Hender #2 Spool 6 16' Typical Section of Retum Hender 37 2HBC-83-81 Sh. I SWS-R-32 Imr Remote visual (when other activities provide =nen Return Henders #1 and #2 to Underground Section 30*

""I "

Emergency Coohng Pond Return Hender laatron (Maxunum distance from water treatment chemical injection point)

- _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ . - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ . _ - - - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - .___.-._._J

Attachment to 2CANI19804 ,

Page11 of18 -

Revised Table 4-4 (Cont'd)

Eleasent Selection Ise Drawing No. Risk Segmeest ID Risk Regles Exsan Method / Vehume Descripties Inspecties Iecaties Pipe Stae Reeses for Selection -

38 2HBC43-2 Sh. I SWS-R-32 Low IIT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return Henders #1 and #2 to Spool 2 30" Typical Return Hender i nenhon (Mimmum Emergency Cooling Pond concentration of water treatment chenucats ,

expected) 39 2HBC43-1 Sh. I SWS-R-32 low UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B) Return Headers #1 and #2 to Spool 1 - Downstream of reducer (Item 5) 30* Probable vmrst case depositio MIC locations in En-p.:y Cooling Pond and at tee to 211BC-51-18"(two return header where water treatment chemical locations) concentration is a mmimum 40 21IBC4340 Sh. I SWS-R-32 low Remote visual (when other activities provide =cren RetumIIceders #1 and #2 to Underground bection 30" *"I E ' ' )

Emergency Cooling Pond Return licah Imcation (Maximum distance from water treatment chenucal injectnen point) j 41 211BC45-1 Sh. I and 2 SWS-R-06A / NIA Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B, Supply Header #1 to Emergency Spools 14 thru 17 (three locations 6* Typical segments in a non-heat transfer system with C) Feed Pump required) a history oflocalized attack l 42 211BC46-1 Sh. I SWS46B High UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

(A,B, Supply Header #2 to "m Spools 1I thru 14 (three locations 6" Typical segments in a non-heat transfer system with C) Feed Pump required) a history oflocalized attack ,

43 2W 63 ' "11 $WSM4A MedMau 'E ! 5 f ^* 2r --- S '_ ' " - i ^^ 2.- e+ Substitute High Risk segment j

^^^'"-^^^^ with smular susceptibility ,

r m ij !' '-- *! e E x ! f; - - 5 E:L .. C^ c 33) 8" '~^

Jaelwt Cr 'r !'c' En *gr 43R 2H8C-dd-J,2. 2 S FS-R-ed8 High t/T/ meefear x 278 *are dat incendas Asesens de

• EDG & CR Cooler Snapply Speeli er 2 8" InrennanmentJieursposane frene Hender #2 44 2HBC-63-1 Sh. I SWS-R-2l A Medium ITT / One foot x 270* arc that includes bottom 60*

Supply Hender #1 to Diesel Spool 4 -E bow (Item 32) or 8* Intermittent flow system Jacket Cooler Heat Exchanger Spool 8 - Elbow (Item 26)

Attachment to 2CAN119804 ~

Page 12 of18

• i Revised Tatdc 4-4 (Cont'd)

Elesment Selection Iso Drawing No. . Risk Segsseet ID Risk Regies Exaan Meshed / Vehmase No. Noses Descripties *- ,- - ^' _ Imcaties Pipe Sine Reasse for Selecties -

45 2HBC-63-1 Sh. 2 SW-R-06A Medium ITT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Supply Hender #1 to Diesel Pipe (Item 24)or Spool 7 / 8 -Elbow 8' Intermittent flow system Jacket Cooler Heat Exchanger (Item 23)or riser pipe (Item 5) i 46 2HBC-64-2 Sh. I SWS-R-21B Medium Ur / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60* [

Supply IIceder #2 to Diesel Spool 2 -Elbow (Item 12) 8* Intermittent flow system  ;

Jacket Cooler Heat Exchanger 47 2"~' ?! ' S.. ' SWS443M43A Medeum

' " J* Substitute High Risk Segment I LT ! 5 fd : 2" = '9 E ' ' -

with similar ==cwNiity  !

m speel4 S1

__" ".::: :7 9 -

• _---

Geeler4:41.ader #1 __; ; - - '- ?j '

--_.~--.-(c_'

-_) ,

47R 2HBC 75-1, SL 2 SWS-R-12.4 High UT/ Onnefeat x 270

• arc sket inehadas benene 60 * .

EDG A CR Ceeder Asamen se Speel5 ('_, __ .-decanenfresse esber #* Isaser====te=']Em syssess - Asgeer sensperasesre ,

II.zader #1 SES-R-12A/ Speed 5 suspecaen -No. durang operutstry dassesessranens e- " ; norst _

r

1. ) case Jocessen) 48 2HBC-75-1 Sh. I SWS-R-23A Medium IJr / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Retum from Diesel Jacket Spool 2 - Elbow (Item i1) 8' Intermittent flow system - Probable high deposition Cooler to Hender #1 area (bottom of short vertical run) l l

49 211BC-75-1 Sh. 2 SWS-R-12A High UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*  ;

Return from DieselJacket Spool 5 8" Intermittent flow system Cooler to Healer #1 l 50 2HBC-76-1 Sh. I SWS-R-22B Medium Ur / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return from DieselJacket Spool 1 -Short heruantal run (Item 1) 8" Intermittent flow system - higher temperature Cooler to H,.aer #2 from heat exchanger, elbow (Item 15) or durms operability demonstrations (probable worst downcomer (Item 2) above penetration case location) i

.___ __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ - - . _ J

Attachment to 2CANI19804 .

Page 13 ofI8

~

Revised Table 4-4 (Cont'd)

Element Selection Iso Drawing h Risk Segment ID Risk Regles Exam Method / Volusse i Descripties Inspecties imcaties Pipe Sise Reesen for Se% ties -

51 2HBC-76-1 Sh. I SWS-R-23B Medium UT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Retun fmn Diesel Jacket Spool 3 - Elbow (Item I 8), vertical pipe 8" Intermittent flow system - higher temperature Cooler to Header #2 (Item 5), elbow (Item 19) or horuental during operability demonstrations (probable wrst run (Item 6) to valve 2CV-1504-2 case location) 52 2"~' 76 2 et. ' SWS-R-24R Medium 'R ! ^= fd. 2"* = S:' F:'- ' " -m $a* SubstituteIligh Risk segment Res= f. _. F - - ' ' " Speel4 82 '

^^ ' a= g - --- "f-" , _: =

Cooler 4 4(ender 42 '_ ._, :; - J 25; ' -

"-'J"

-m . . -

^

^:=)

52R 2HBC-76-2 3h.1 SWS-R-12B Nigh UT/ Onnefeat x 270 *are that M bennae 60 *

}tnaarnfrene DensetJacket Between FWs 3C2 & 12C1 8" Intwmflew syntene - higher senpermare Cooier se Needer #2 dormig.r --- " "-^-f dneseendreseems ir - ' '" "*r8f case fecernen) 53 2HBC-76-2 Sh. I SWS-R-24B Medium IIT / One foot x 270* are that includes bottom 60*

Return from Diesel Jacket Spool 5 - At fillet welded sleeve to hanger 8' Intermittent flow system - possible erst case Cooler to IIcader #2 2HBC-76-H9 (elevation 354'-8*) location fmn changes in material due t a welding of sleeve l

Single Location for Inspection of Erosion-Cavitation Degradaten Ise Drawleg h Risk Segmeent ID Risk Region Exaan Method / Velmane '

Descripties Inspection Iscaties Pipe Sise Reesem for Selection 54 2HBD-26-1 SWS-R-13-2 High UT/ One foot x full 360*

SW & ACW Return to Spool 1 -Immediately dc,w ^o of 30" Reservoir valve 2CV-1460 '

i i

Attachment to

- 2CAN119804 , i Page 14 of18 Table 1-1 ,

i RI-ISI Code Total HIGH RISK Medlemi Risk Im Risk Assessed Class Numsber Namiber Eleanent Selections Neunber Elemment Selections Nussber Eleaneet Sdections Piping of of Of Current Secties XI RI-ISI Of Current Secties XI RI-ISI Of Curret Secties XI RI-ISI Systeams Piping Elemments Eleanents Vel /Sur Sur Only Val Only Elesments Vel /Sur Sur Only Vel Only Elesments Vol/ Sur Sur Only Val Only HPSI 1 246 34 6 2 9 35 8 3 6 177 35 9 0 i 2 869 0 - - -

0 - - -

869 42 24 0 RCS 1 307 45 10 3 12 240 36 40 25 - 22 # 6 0 CVCS 1 114 10 2 6 4 83 0 14 9 21 0 5 0 2 70 0 - - -

0 - - -

70 0 0 0 CSS 2 374 0 - - -

33 0 0 4 341 21 0 0 LPSI I 24 11 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 2 350 0 - - -

184 14 1 19 166 10 0 0 EFW 2 93 0 - - -

26 0 0 3 67 0 0 0 3 476 0 - - -

0 - - -

476 0 0 0 NNS 83- 0 - - -

0 - - -

83 0 0 'O

. Attachment to -

2CANI19804 Paga 15 ofI8 '

Table 1-1 (coat) .

RI-ISI Code Total HIGH RISK Mediana Risk Im w Risk .

Aw Class Nussber Number Eiseneet Selections Museber an====t Selectises Number rw Selectie Piping of of Of Current Secties XI RI-ISI Of RI-ISI Currest Secties XI Of Current Secties XI RI-ISI Systeens Piping rR=====ts rW Vel / Sur Sur Only Vel Only rh Vel /Sur Sur Only Val Only Eh Vel /Sur Sur Only Val O nly MFW 2 65 65 12 0 6')4 0 - - -

0 - - -

MSS 2 124 59 10 1 0(') 0 - - -

65 3 1 0 3 68 0 - - -

0 - - -

68 0 0 0 SWS 2 24 0 - - -

24 4 0 1 0 - - -

3 1197 318 0 0 20 563 0 0 35 + 20) 316 0 0 5 + 2(')

NNS 159 38 0 0 2 121 0 0 0 0 - - -

(1) Both MFW and the MSS are susceptible to FAC and poruons of MFW are additionally sulgect to thennat stratification (TASCS) and susceptible to crevice corrosion (CC). A total of 6 selecuans are included in the ANO-2 subnuttal for the MFW system due to the TASCS and CC concerns. Any additional

• % for MFW and all selecuons for the MSS are addressed by the existing ANO-2 FAC Program.

(2) In addition to the 35 piping sections h for volumetnc exanunation, two additional secuons of underground piping have been selected for inspection by remote visual means if other activities permit access to any portion of the line.

(3) In addition to the 5 piping secuens selected for volumetnc exanunanon, two additional secuons of-- " y-- " pepmg have been selected for inspection by remote visual means if other activities pernut access to any poruon of the line.

Attachment to 2CANI19804' '

Page 16 of18 ,

Table 27-2: SummaIy of Pmposed RI-ISI Progrant Venus the Curtrat Section XI Pmgram '

(Neunberof"- ; -f per Risk Category)

IRebRhk Madhma Ridt Im Rhk j RI-ISI No. New Rhk Caengary 2 RadtCmA M3 Rhk Cmengary 4 Ridt Cmeegory5 Rhk Caesgery 6 Rhk Cunegory 7 r Aw et of Fhewet VetummetrGr Eammme 8h====* Vetummseste Esspim 8hm===* VeM Femena 5hemmet Vehmmmerte F- Whenome Vetamaseric F- Fhemed Volumnserk Fm-t Symeemum Seymemen Ehements Teemi Current RI-IM Teemt Current RI-ISI Teamt Curreme RI-ISI Toast Current RI-ISI Teeml Omrrusst RI-ISI Teemi Current RI-ISI CSS 31 374 - - - - - -

33 0 4 - - - 288 21 0 53 0 0 CVCS 12 184 10 2 4 - - - 83 0 9 - - - 81 0 0 10 0 0 '

EPW 29 652 - - - - - - - - - 26 0 3 276 0 0 350 0 0 HPSI 119 1115 34 6 9 - - - 8 0 2 27 8 4 1044 77 0 2 0 0 IESI ~23 374 11 3 3 - - -

187 14 19 - - - 176 14 0 - - -

MFW 8 65 - - -

65 FAC+12 FAC+6 - _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ -

l2l FAc+t'" rAc+f" (gj j 2 l22l M*'" FW l22l 3 4

[41] FAC+ 8'" FAC [41] 8 0 j l

MSS 26 192 - - - 59 FAC+10 FAC - - - - - -

24 3 0 109 0 0 l59] M*!** FAC [59] 10 0 t

RCS 40 307 45 10 12 - - -

227 34 23 13 2 2 22 0 0 - - -  !

I o

Attachment to '

2CANI19804 Page 17 of18 '

Table 27-2 (coet) : Santanary of Proposed RI-ISI Program Versus the Current Section XI Program (Number of" c' :per Risk Category) inghank weate-ank r- ank ,

RI-ISI No. No. shk Caesgery2 mhk Ouesgery3 Itisk Omeegory4 5thk Omtsgery 5 Mak Cheegory6 mhk Ostagery 7 Asasessa of of Daumsat Vetusmseste R===== 32=-==* Vetummseste R- Ba=--* Vehmenserte Esmsms 52====d Velmsmeeste R===== Baumment Vetummserte Ensums Easmsme Vetenserte Emmums symeman hg-==a= Elemammin Teemt Omrvant RI-ISI Teemt Currumt M-ISI Toast Omrvumt RI-ISI Teed Ourvumi M-Ist Carrumt M-Ist Teamt Teed Oursumt M-Ist SW 49 1380 356 m 22 " - - - - - -

708 * +4 M" 316

• 5" - - -

[356] e 22 "

[356] O O l70C] MIC+4'" 34 " l10Cf 4 0 (3Hf MIC 3m g3gg; o o Total

• 337 4643 456 21 28 124 FAC FAC 538 48 57 774 14 15 2227 13 7 0 524 0 0 e Total does not include locahons in plant FAC and MIC programs.

IIT In addimos se asuqr he ahep&mut FACprograum, esse weddr are ' , _M se she S=*== XI/M-ISIprogrant iEsy are esensased er h weddr wish abe crevece s. ~

andabersedffighgme dmunge h (Cassgery $

FT In addition to being in the plant FAC program, these welds are inspected in the Sechan XI / RI-ISI prognun. They are evaluated as additional welds with the thermal fatigue elemage mechanian(Category 5).

FN In addition to being in the plant FAC program, these welds are inspected in the Sechen XI program. They are evaluated as additional welds with no degrarlsrum mechanian present (Category 6).

MN fa edessen se Assqr s e abepisar FACprograms, abase weddr are supersed se she Seadsse A7 programs. 7&ey are centsased er M weddr wish me ' .. " ' h pr*88"' (C'88E*ry 4 SM These inspechons are part of the RI-ISI program for MIC that is currently in addition to the existing plant MIC prognun.

.SN In adensa se he6ig in depiant MICprograms, shame weddr me imagn=rmad se she Ca*== A7 pregnant fley are avslussed er =Mmma==f weddr wish me " . ' ' -

ase,4=====

fr888"'(0888E*ry 4

Attachment to

. 2CAN119804 l Pagel8ofl8 TABLE 27-3 Summary of Changes in Number ofinspections Risk Risk No. of No. of Risk c.e.e ry " "'

Resi Current Proposed Region Section XI RI-ISI fN -Old) Tel Inspections laspecti.as 1 N/A N/A N/A HIGH 2 21 28 +7 +7 3 FAC Program FAC Program 0 Applies Applies MEDIUM 4 48 57 +9 +10 5 14 15 +1 LOW 6 137 0 -137 -137 l

7 0 0 0 i l

._., -