ML12090A732

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Entergy Pre-Filed Hearing Exhibit ENT000428, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., G-Scan Assessment of Various Buried Piping (Nov. 16, 2009)
ML12090A732
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 11/16/2009
From: Chaney C
Structural Integrity Associates
To:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML12090A727 List:
References
RAS 22156, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 0900235.401.R0
Download: ML12090A732 (56)
v • d • e


Text

ENT000428 Submitted: March 30, 2012 6855 S. Havana Street Suite 350 Centennial, CO 80112-3868 PHONE: 303-792-0077 FAX: 303-792-2158 www.structint.com G-Scan Assessment of Various Buried Piping Inspection Dates: September 22nd and 23rd 2009 Submitted to:

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Energy Center November 2009

Report No. 0900235.401.R0 Revision: 0 Project No. 0900235.00 November 2009 G-Scan Assessment of Various Buried Piping Inspection Date: September 22nd and 23rd 2009 Prepared for:

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Energy Center Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Centennial, Colorado Prepared by: Date: 11/16/09 Craig Chaney Reviewed by: Date: 11/16/09 Ken Rach Reviewed by: Date: 11/16/09 Eric Kirkpatrick

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Document Number: 0900235.401.R0

Title:

G-Scan Assessment of Various Buried Piping Client: Entergy Nuclear - Indian Point Energy Center SI Project Number: 0900235.00 Section Pages Revision Date Comments All All Draft 10/26/09 Initial Issue All All Draft B 11/2/09 Responded to comments and corrections from plant staff All All Final 11/16/09

Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.............................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Piping Locations Inspected ........................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Importance of Piping Characteristics and Test Results.............................................. 1-2

2.0 G-SCAN TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 G-Scan Equipment ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Transducer Collar ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 G3 Pulsar ............................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Laptop and Analysis Software ................................................................................ 2-3

2.2 G-Scan Physics .......................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1 High Frequency Ultrasonic vs. G-Scan .................................................................. 2-4

2.2.2 Wave Propagation .................................................................................................. 2-5

2.2.3 Pipe Appurtenances Effects on Guided Waves ..................................................... 2-8

2.3 G-Scan Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.1 Analysis Screen .................................................................................................... 2-10

2.4 Test Distance ........................................................................................................... 2-11

2.5 Test Direction ........................................................................................................... 2-12

2.6 G-Scan as a Survey Tool ......................................................................................... 2-12

2.7 Equipment Checks ................................................................................................... 2-13

3.0 INSPECTION RESULTS ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Data Description ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Line Name .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 G-Scan Shot # ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.3 End of Test ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.4 Feature ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.5 Category ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.6 Location .................................................................................................................. 3-2

iii Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.1.7 Level Criteria .......................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.8 Notes ...................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Level Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Use of Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.1 Other Actions.......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.4 Pipe Test Results ....................................................................................................... 3-3

3.5 Location 1, Unit 2 Service Water Supply Header ....................................................... 3-3

3.5.1 Location Description ............................................................................................... 3-3

3.5.2 G-Scan Results below 18-Inch Blind Flange .......................................................... 3-5

3.5.3 G-Scan Results above the 18-Inch Blind Flange ................................................... 3-8

3.6 Location 2, Unit 3 Service Water Header Supply, Service Valve Pit ........................ 3-11

3.6.1 Location Description ............................................................................................. 3-11

3.7 Location 3, Unit 3 Condensate Return to CST, Bottom of Hill.................................. 3-15

3.7.1 Location Description ............................................................................................. 3-15

3.8 Location 4, U2 8-Inch Condensate Return in FRV Building ..................................... 3-19

3.8.1 Location Description ............................................................................................. 3-19

3.9 Location 5, Unit 2 12-Inch Condensate Supply to AFP Building .............................. 3-23

3.9.1 Location Description ............................................................................................. 3-23

3.10 Location 6, U3 CST to AFP Building, Bottom of Hill ................................................. 3-27

3.10.1 Location Description ......................................................................................... 3-27

iv Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

List of Tables Table Page Table E1: Summary of Locations of Tests ................................................................................... 1

Table E2: Level Evaluation Criteria for G-Scan Indications ......................................................... 1

Table E3: Summary of G-Scan Results ....................................................................................... 2

Table 1.1: Piping that was Inspected ........................................................................................ 1-1

Table 2.2: General Effects of Appurtenances on Guided Wave Testing ................................ 2-10

Table 3.1: Level Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3.2: Test Results of Location 1, Shot 2979 ..................................................................... 3-5

Table 3.3: Test Results for Location 1, Shot 2982 .................................................................... 3-8

Table 3.4: Test Result of Location 2, Shot 2983 ..................................................................... 3-12

Table 3.5: Test Result of Location 3, Shot 2984 ..................................................................... 3-16

Table 3.6: Test Result of Location 4, Shot 2991 ..................................................................... 3-20

Table 3.7: Test Result of Location 5, Shot 2993 ..................................................................... 3-24

Table 3.8: Test Result of Location 6, Shot 2995 ..................................................................... 3-28

v Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

List of Figures Figure Page Figure 2.1: G-Scan Components .............................................................................................. 2-1

Figure 2.2: GUL transducer collars ........................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2.3: GUL G3 Pulser ....................................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2.4: Screen shot of WavePro' software ........................................................................ 2-3

Figure 2.5: High Frequency Ultrasonics vs. G-Scan ................................................................. 2-4

Figure 2.6: Torsional (twisting) guided wave mode .................................................................. 2-5

Figure 2.7: The nature of a guided wave reflection from a change in cross sectional area ...... 2-6

Figure 2.8: Test results of a test loop showing the responses from girth welds........................ 2-6

Figure 2.9: Depiction of non-symmetric wall loss of a pipe ....................................................... 2-7

Figure 2.10: Symmetric (black) and non-symmetric (red) responses from a non-symmetric reflector .............................................................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 2.11: Depiction of a flexural wave from a non-symmetric reflector ................................ 2-7

Figure 2.12: Example of responses from symmetric and non-symmetric reflectors. ................ 2-8

Figure 2.13: A trace of an elbow showing the attenuation effects on the guided wave ............ 2-9

Figure 2.14: Typical G-Scan trace .......................................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2.15: Depiction of the end of test on G-Scan trace(arrows) ......................................... 2-12

Figure 3.1: Location 1, Service Water Header, Transformer Yard ............................................ 3-4

Figure 3.2: Location 1, Service Water Header, Under Insulation Corrosion ............................. 3-4

Figure 3.3: Shot 2979 Trace ..................................................................................................... 3-6

Figure 3.4: Location 1, Test Results of 2979 ............................................................................ 3-7

Figure 3.5: Trace of Shot 2982, Location 1 ............................................................................... 3-9

Figure 3.6: Location 1, Test Results from Shot 2982 .............................................................. 3-10

Figure 3.7: Location 2, Service Water Valve Pit ..................................................................... 3-11

Figure 3.8: Trace of Shot 2983, Location 2 ............................................................................. 3-13

Figure 3.9: Location 2, Test Results from Shot 2983 .............................................................. 3-14

Figure 3.10: Location 3, 8-inch Line from the AFW Building up to CST ................................. 3-15

Figure 3.11: Trace of Shot 2984, Location 3 ........................................................................... 3-17

Figure 3.12: Location 3, Test Results from Shot 2984 ............................................................ 3-18

Figure 3.13: Location 4, 8-inch Line in an excavation in the FRV Building ............................. 3-19

Figure 3.14: Trace of Shot 2991, Location 4 ........................................................................... 3-21

vi Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.15: Location 4, Test Results from Shot 2991 ............................................................ 3-22

Figure 3.16: Location 5, 12-inch Line in an excavation in the AFP Building ........................... 3-23

Figure 3.17: Trace of Shot 2993, Location 5 ........................................................................... 3-25

Figure 3.18: Location 5, Test Results from Shot 2993 ............................................................ 3-26

Figure 3.19: Location 6, 12-inch Line from CST to AFP Building ........................................... 3-27

Figure 3.20: Trace of Shot 2995, Location 6 ........................................................................... 3-29

Figure 3.21: Location 6, Test Results from Shot 2995 ............................................................ 3-30

vii Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SI) performed guided wave ultrasonic testing (G-Scan) at Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) on September 22nd and 23rd 2009.

Six locations on the service water and condensate piping were tested for wall loss as described in Table E1.

Table E1: Summary of Locations of Tests General Info Pipe Data Loc. Line G-Scan OD Internal Unit Line Name Location External Coating

  1. # Test # (inches) Lining Service Water Transformer Yard 2979 Coal Tar Enamel Mortar 1 2 408 24 Supply Header Area 2982 w/saturated asbestos Lined Service Water Service Water Valve Coal Tar Enamel Mortar 2 3 408 2983 24 Supply Header Pit w/saturated asbestos Lined Cond. Ret. To Unit 3 CST to AFW Coal Tar Enamel 3 3 1080 2984 8 None CST Bldg. Bottom of Hill w/saturated asbestos Cond. Ret. To Coal Tar Enamel 4 2 1509 FRV Bldg Excavation 2991 8 None CST w/saturated asbestos CST TO AFP Coal Tar Enamel 5 2 1505 FRV Bldg. Excavation 2993 12 None w/saturated asbestos Unit 3 CST to AFP Coal Tar Enamel 6 3 CST to AFP 1070 2995 12 None Bottom of Hill w/saturated asbestos The criteria for evaluating the indications regarding the locations are described in Table E2.

Table E2: Level Evaluation Criteria for G-Scan Indications Category Level Description Recommended Action Name Substantial Area is unique and indicative of indications that may Evaluate with NDE technique 1 Area of reduce pressure carrying capacity or leak tightness of and/or perform direct examinations Interest the pipe Area is somewhat unique and indicative of a level of Moderate If reasonably accessible explore degradation and/or better understanding of the area 2 Area of with another NDE technique or may improve the understanding of the condition of the Interest perform direct examination pipe and the overall assessment Area where it is not clear that the indication is degradation or is another type pipe feature such as Minor Area of Monitor the area with periodic 3 coating irregularities. These indications are relatively Interest subsequent tests to look for growth low in amplitude and degradation does not pose an immediate threat of leakage No need to monitor for its own Minimal Area The feature is likely not related to degradation of the sake. However if subsequent tests 4

of Interest pipe but is sufficiently unique to note. are performed feature should be evaluated for changes.

The summary of the findings are provided in Table E3.

ES-1 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table E3: Summary of G-Scan Results General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Indication Unit Location Scan External Coating

  1. Name # Levels Test #

The line had under insulation corrosion. The insulation appears to go below ground. No internal wall loss was detected from B-Scan tests.

Service Water Transformer 2979 1 2 408 2-3 There were several corrosion like indications Supply Yard Area 2982 in the buried sections of the piping. These Header indications could also be start and stop of coating or mortar discontinuities. Excavation would be necessary to confirm.

A bitumen coating on the pipe is 1/4" thick Service and caused significant attenuation of the Water Service Water 2 3 408 2983 3 shot. Level 3 indications were noted and are Supply Valve Pit recommended to be monitored over time.

Header This line had several Level 3 indications in Unit 3 CST to the buried section of the line. Recommend Cond. Ret.

3 3 1080 AFW Bldg. 2984 3 that these indications be monitoring over time To CST Bottom of Hill for growth.

This section of line had through wall leaks in February 2009. The leaking section of pipe was replaced in February 2009 and is the Cond. Ret. FRV Bldg 4 2 1509 2991 3 location of the transducer collar for this test.

To CST Excavation Minor corrosion indications were noted. This is a Level 3 area.

Several indications are observed in the piping CST TO towards the elbow. Because of the nature of FRV Bldg.

5 2 AFP 1505 2993 2 these indications they are categorized as Excavation Level 2 indications.

Minor corrosion of 0.025 deep was noted at the collar location. Several corrosion like Unit 3 CST to CST to indications were identified in the buried 6 3 1070 AFP Bottom of 2995 2 AFP sections of the pipe. These indications are Hill categorized as a Level 2.

It is recommended the Level 3 indications be monitored over time. The indications in the FRV building may be further explored with direct examination, pressure tested or monitored over time. This piping may benefit from localized cathodic protection to mitigate further degradation.

ES-2 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SI) performed guided wave ultrasonic testing (G-Scan) at Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) on September 22nd and 23rd 2009 on various buried piping systems. Early in 2009 the plant had a leak in a buried condensate line in the FRV building. The plant staff selected the locations of these inspections to determine other areas of degradation in the buried piping.

1.1 Piping Locations Inspected The piping systems and locations selected for inspection are described in the Table 1.1. The material and interior and exterior coatings of the pipe were provided by plant staff.

Table 1.1: Piping that was Inspected General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temp.

Service Coal Tar A-53 Water Transformer 2979 Enamel Mortar 150 psig 1 2 408 24 .375" Seamless Supply Yard Area 2982 w/saturated Lined 160°F Gr. B Header asbestos Service Coal Tar Service A-53 Water Enamel Mortar 150 psig 2 3 408 Water Valve 2983 24 .375" Seamless Supply w/saturated Lined 160°F Pit Gr. B Header asbestos Unit 3 CST Coal Tar Cond. to AFW 665 psig Enamel A-106 Gr.

3 3 Ret. To 1080 Bldg. 2984 8 40 None /

w/saturated B CST Bottom of 400°F asbestos Hill Coal Tar Cond.

FRV Bldg Enamel A-106 Gr. 665 psig 4 2 Ret. To 1509 2991 8 40 None Excavation w/saturated B 400°F CST asbestos Full CST Coal Tar A-53 vacuum TO FRV Bldg. Enamel Seamless 5 2 1505 2993 12 40 None to 150 AFP Excavation w/saturated or ERW, psig asbestos Gr. B 225 °F Full Unit 3 CST Coal Tar A-53 vacuum CST to to AFP Enamel Seamless 6 3 1070 2995 12 20 None to 150 AFP Bottom of w/saturated or ERW, psig Hill asbestos Gr. B 225 °F 1-1 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

1.2 Importance of Piping Characteristics and Test Results Many piping characteristics influence the G-Scan test results and are important to understand to the extent possible to aid in the interpretation of the test results. With the buried piping systems in this report the important factors were the presence or absence of external and internal coatings in conjunction with past test results. Future test readings can be compared to this baseline data to give a better understanding of the test data and condition of the pipe.

1-2 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

2.0 G-SCAN TECHNOLOGY To fully understand the use and findings of G-Scan testing an understanding of the technology is needed. This section of the report provides the necessary description of the equipment, the physics the technology is based upon and the methods of interpreting the G-Scan test results.

2.1 G-Scan Equipment Figure 2.1 shows the components of the GUL 1 G-Scan equipment. There are basically three components that are required to conduct a G-Scan test. They are the transducer collar, the pulser or G3, and a ruggedized laptop. The function of each of these components is discussed in the following sections of the report.

Figure 2.1: G-Scan Components 2.1.1 Transducer Collar There are two types of transducer collars in the G-Scan system; a hard or rigid collar, and an inflatable collar as shown in Figure 2.2. The hard collar is usually for pipe sizes from two to ten inches and the inflatable collars are for pipes ten inches and greater.

1 GUL: Guided Ultrasonics Limited, the manufacturer of the equipment 2-1 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

The collars are composed of 60 or more piezo electric transducers depending on the size of the collar. These transducers act as a sender and receiver for guided waves. The purpose of the collar is to create guided waves in the pipe and to detect reflected wave from pipe features such welds, wall loss, and pipe supports.

Figure 2.2: GUL transducer collars Usually no surface preparation or couplant is needed for the installation of the collar 2 . The collar takes a few minutes to be installed and needs about three inches of clearance around the pipe.

2.1.2 G3 Pulsar The GUL G3 pulsar is 3rd generation technology that provides signals and energy to the transducer collar. It performs the signal processing and conducts many diagnostic checks on both the collar and itself for each shot taken. It is connected to the laptop via an umbilical cord.

It is battery powered. The most significant capability of this piece of equipment is that it allows a single shot to be analyzed at a multitude of frequencies that greatly improves the interpretation of the test results.

2 Provided that the piping at the location of the collar has a smooth surface with or without paint.

However bitumastic type coatings need to be removed at the collar location for the transducers to couple with the pipe.

2-2 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 2.3: GUL G3 Pulser 2.1.3 Laptop and Analysis Software The G3 sends the test data in a file to the laptop for analysis by the technician. The laptop has specialized software that it is used to perform the analysis. The complete test results including the diagnostics and data collected at all test frequencies are stored in the laptop. The test file can be emailed and analyzed remotely. Figure 2.4 shows the report screen of the software.

Figure 2.4: Screen shot of WavePro' software 2-3 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

2.2 G-Scan Physics The wave propagation physics of G-Scan technology is complex and difficult to fully to understand. The physics are often explained in simplified terms that will illustrate the basic concepts. However, these concepts are often times incomplete and fall short or are misleading when explaining other than straight forward test results. Nevertheless these concepts are useful to have a fundamental understanding of the technology and are provided in the following sections.

2.2.1 High Frequency Ultrasonic vs. G-Scan Typical high frequency ultrasonics interrogates the material directly below the transducer. For wall thickness measurements it can provide readings typically within a few thousandths of an inch of the actual wall thickness. However, access to the actual location of the component to be interrogated is required. Also interrogating large surface areas is very time consuming.

As shown in Figure 2.5, G-Scan can inspect large surface areas beyond the transducer collar relatively rapidly allowing difficult to access sections of piping to be screened for wall loss that would be impractical with conventional techniques.

Transducer Region inspected Pipe Transducer Collar Flange or Wave propagation pipe end Region inspected Pipe Figure 2.5: High Frequency Ultrasonics vs. G-Scan 2-4 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table 2.1 compares some of the characteristics of conventional high frequency ultrasonics with G-Scan. Note that the detection characteristics for G-Scan are multi dimensional.

Table 2.1: Standard UT vs. G-Scan Characteristic Standard UT G-Scan Frequency High Low Wave Length Short Long Wave Mode Compression/Shear Guided Time of flight, wave mode, amplitude, pattern, response to Detection Characteristic Time of Flight frequency changes Propagation mode Pulse Echo Pulse Echo Measurement Type Point to Point Screening Change in Measurement Change in cross sectional area thickness Not beneath the transducer, many feet each side of Area of inspection Beneath transducer transducer collar including buried sections Relative Accuracy in measuring Estimates wall loss in some test situations. Not usually High wall thickness applicable in buried applications Relative examination area Small Large 2.2.2 Wave Propagation The transducers introduce a compressional wave into the pipe that has a length that is longer than the thickness of the pipe. This difference in dimensions causes the wave to convert to a guided wave. The guided waves fill the volume of the pipe wall 360° around the pipe. The wave mode that is typically used is a torsional wave that results in the twisting of the pipe as shown in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Torsional (twisting) guided wave mode The objective of the test is to send a uniform guided wave down the pipe with minimal other wave modes.

2-5 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

When a guided wave comes into contact with a change in cross sectional area, there is a corresponding change in the torsional stiffness of the pipe. This change in stiffness causes acoustic impedance and results in a portion of the energy being reflected back to the transducer collar as shown in Figure 2.7. The energy that is reflected back to the transducer collar is proportional to the change in cross sectional area. The energy that continues to propagate down the pipe is the total energy minus the reflected energy. This is one mechanism of signal attenuation that governs the length of pipe that can be screened during a test. The change in cross sectional area can be either an increase or a decrease to cause a reflection. The reflection almost always results in a torsional or symmetric wave to be reflected back to the collar.

Transducer Wall Loss Figure 2.7: The nature of a guided wave reflection from a change in cross sectional area Figure 2.8 shows the test results of a test loop. The peaks are from girth welds in the pipe.

Note that the peaks are symmetrical with only a small red trace corresponding to them. This indicates that the change in cross sectional area is uniform around the pipe circumference.

F F F Inclusions Inclusions Elbow Elbow Weld #1 Weld #2 Weld #3 Inclusion Weld #4 End of shot Support End of shot 20.0 15.0 Amp (Linear) 10.0 5.0 0.0

-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 2.8: Test results of a test loop showing the responses from girth welds Unlike girth welds, a non-symmetric feature is wall loss or gain that is not uniform around the major axis of the pipe as shown in Figure 2.9. It is important to understand the responses for 2-6 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

these types of features since most degradation is not symmetric and the understanding can assist in the interpretation of the test results.

Wall loss Figure 2.9: Depiction of non-symmetric wall loss of a pipe Reflections from such features are typically composed of both a torsional symmetric wave and a flexural wave as shown in Figures 2.10 and 2.11.

Transducer Wall Loss Figure 2.10: Symmetric (black) and non-symmetric (red) responses from a non-symmetric reflector Figure 2.11: Depiction of a flexural wave from a non-symmetric reflector 2-7 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Typically, the greater the non-symmetry of a feature, the greater the amplitude of the flexural response. The flexural response is depicted by a red trace. Figure 2.12 shows a comparison between a response from a symmetric girth weld and the response from a non-symmetric area of wall loss from corrosion. Note that the amplitude of the flexural response is much greater from the non-symmetric reflector.

The ratio of amplitudes is sometimes used to estimate the percent wall loss of a feature or the severity of the indication.

1.2

-F1 1.0 Amp (mV) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Distance (m) 4.0

-F2 3.0 Amp (mV) 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Distance (m)

Figure 2.12: Example of responses from symmetric and non-symmetric reflectors.

The upper graph is a symmetrical response from a girth weld and the lower graph is non-symmetrical response from wall loss caused by corrosion.

2.2.3 Pipe Appurtenances Effects on Guided Waves Pipe appurtenances such as elbows, branch connections, socket welded fittings and couplings, valves and flanges have an effect on guided wave propagation that influences the interpretation, detectability, and distance of a given test. Some of those effects are discussed in the following paragraphs.

2-8 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Guided waves can propagate through elbows. Figure 2.13 shows part of a trace from a test done on an above ground piece of pipe. The first peak is from the girth weld of the elbow and is the expected amplitude from the weld. The second peak is from the second girth weld of the elbow. Note the significant decrease (approximately 9 dB) in the amplitude of the weld caused by the guided wave propagating around the elbow. Also note the high flexural response (red line) at the second weld. This is caused by the guided wave no longer being axi-symmetric on the pipe as a result of the different metal path lengths between the intrados and extrados of the elbow. Hence guided waves can go through elbows but the strength and symmetry of the guided wave is lessened reducing the distance and detectability of the test. As a general rule of thumb a guided wave can go through two elbows on above ground pipe and one elbow on below ground pipe. However the guided wave analyst will be able to determine the distance of the inspection based on the actual test results.

End of shot 15.0 Elbow 1st Weld Near Zone Dead Zone Near Zone 10.0 Amp (Linear) 2nd Weld 5.0 0.0 0.0 Figure 2.13: A trace of an elbow showing the attenuation effects on the guided wave 2-9 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Other appurtenances can have a greater or lesser effect on test results depending on the size and location of appurtenances. Table 2.2 summarizes the general affects of various pipe appurtenances. However, it is important to understand that these are generalizations and the actual test results maybe different than what is presented in this table.

Table 2.2: General Effects of Appurtenances on Guided Wave Testing 3 Effects # that can be tested Appurtenances Attenuation Symmetry through 4 Long Seam Welds None None Indefinite Usually none or Girth Welds Low Many minor Supports - Resting None to low None to Low Indefinite Moderate to Supports - Welded Moderate to High Several High Branch Connections - 10% of Diameter Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Several Branch Connections - 100% of High Very High None Diameter Bends-90s Moderate High Two Bends - 45s High High None Socket Fittings Very High Depends on fitting Usually none Valves and Flanges 100% N/A None 2.3 G-Scan Analysis Once the test is conducted, all of the results from a single G-Scan shot are compiled into a single file that can be analyzed with assistance of the special software. The software presents the data. However its the technician that integrates interpretation of patterns, past experience, and physical features of the test situation to conduct the actual analysis. This analysis is best performed at the test site and may take ten minutes or an hour or longer depending on the complexity of the test situation.

The following sections explain the tools and methods for the analysis.

2.3.1 Analysis Screen Figure 2.14 shows the analysis screen with the various features of the screen labeled which are further described here.

The Dead Zone is the area directly beneath the transducer collar and is approximately a couple of feet wide. Pipe features such as internal wall loss cannot be detected within the dead zone.

3 General guidance only. Actual test results will vary from test to test 4

For above ground pipe. Below ground pipe divide by two for general guidance 2-10 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

The light grey area on each side of the dead zone is the near zone. Its width varies with frequency and pipe diameter and is usually on the order of three to five feet from the centerline of the transducer collar. Features that can be detected within the near zone though their amplitudes are not as reliable as outside the near zone and there is more likely to be false echoes in this zone.

The software determines and labels the location of the dead and near zones on each shot.

Iconic Representation of Pipe F

End of shot Reverbs Inclusions Elbow Support Weld #3 Weld #4 End of shot Weld #1 Weld #2 Reverbs 15.0 Elbow Girth Weld Near Zone Dead Zone Near Zone 10.0 Amp (Linear) 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 2.14: Typical G-Scan trace At the top of the screen is an iconic bar that shows the icons for the identified features. These features can be welds, bends, area of wall loss, etc. The features are identified and placed by the technician in the analysis process The grey areas on each end of the shot signify the end of the shot and are identified by the technician.

2.4 Test Distance The pipe characteristics have significant effect on the distance of any given test. In the piping that was tested at Indian Point the coating types both internal and external had effect on the 2-11 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

distance of the tests as well as elbows and other pipe fittings. Mortar and coal tar type of coatings are both very attenutive and combined together shorten the distance of the test.

U1 S1 W1 S2 S3 S5 R1 E1 E2 B2 S4 W2 E3 A1 B3 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 U2 2.5 2.0 Amp (Linear) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

-40 -20 0 20 Distance (ft)

Figure 2.15: Depiction of the end of test on G-Scan trace(arrows)

The distance of each test can vary dramatically depending upon the acoustic characteristics of the pipe, coating, and the amount of features that reflect energy back to the collar. For these tests the coating and soil greatly attenuated the sound and shortened the distance of the tests.

2.5 Test Direction Guided waves travel both upstream and downstream from the transducer collar and in many cases the pipe can be evaluated in both directions. For these tests the focus of the analysis was in the buried sections of the pipe.

2.6 G-Scan as a Survey Tool G-Scan is best used as a pipe survey tool. Estimates of the wall thickness change can be derived from the data, but accurate measurement of flaw dimensions require that the anomaly be inspected using a technique capable of more accurate quantitative measurements of wall thickness. SI uses B-Scan ultrasonic inspection to perform detailed examination of anomalies 2-12 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

detected by G-Scan on accessible pipe segments. ID versus OD corrosion cannot be distinguished with the G-Scan system.

2.7 Equipment Checks The G-Scan system performs equipment checks before each G-Scan shot is taken. There are no onsite calibrations that SI performs on this equipment. SI does periodically verify the proper operation of the G-Scan equipment using test loops at SIs offices.

2-13 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.0 INSPECTION RESULTS The results of G-Scan testing from each test area are reported separately in the following sections.

3.1 Data Description The following is the description of the individual data elements used to describe the test results.

3.1.1 Line Name The line names were provided by Indian Point staff.

3.1.2 G-Scan Shot #

Each G-Scan test has a unique sequential number that is assigned to the test results by the equipment software. This number is reflected in the test data file name.

3.1.3 End of Test The end of test was determined by the last identified feature or in the determination of the analyst where presence of reliable data ended.

3.1.4 Feature Anomalies and pipe features are labeled by the G-Scan software. The minus sign in front of the alpha numeric number indicates that the feature is on the negative side of the transducer collar and vice versa for features without the minus sign.

3.1.5 Category The G-Scan software has three categories of indications relating to wall loss. These categories are 1, 2 and 3 where 1 is an estimate of the greatest wall loss. Assignment of these categories to indications is performed by the G-Scan analyst based principally on the signal traces. The indication criteria described takes into account not only the category of the indication but other relevant piping information such as location in the shot, level of confidence in the indication, previous piping conditions etc.

3-1 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.1.6 Location Location is the distance the feature is from the transducer collar. A minus sign indicates that the feature is in the negative direction from the collar.

3.1.7 Level Criteria As described in Section 3.2 the anomalies are categorized as Level 1 through 4.

3.1.8 Notes Comments to provide further explanation of the test results are reported in the note section of the report.

3.2 Level Evaluation Criteria SI performed the tests and compiled the data in the report according to the criteria shown in Table 3.1. This criteria is not only based on the category of the indication in the signal trace, but also on the level of confidence in the indication, location of the indication in the trace, previous corrosion history of the piping, coating conditions, etc.

Table 3.1: Level Evaluation Criteria Category Level Description Recommended Action Name Substantial Area is unique and indicative of indications that Evaluate with other another NDE 1 Area of may reduce pressure carrying capacity or leak technique and or perform a direct Interest tightness of the pipe examination Area is somewhat unique and indicative of a level Moderate If reasonably accessible, explore of degradation and/or better understanding of the 2 Area of with another NDE technique or area may improve the overall assessment Interest perform direct examination understand of the condition of the subject pipe Area where it is not clear that the indication is degradation or other pipe feature such as coating Minor Area of Monitor the area with periodic 3 irregularities. Relatively low in amplitude and if Interest subsequent tests to look for growth degradation does not pose an immediate threat of leakage No need to monitor on its own.

Minimal Area Feature likely not related to degradation of the pipe However if subsequent tests are 4

of Interest but is sufficiently unique to note. performed, the feature should be evaluated for changes.

3.3 Use of Criteria The criteria developed for this analysis provide relative ranking of indications and assist plant staff in prioritizing follow up activities at various locations. None of these results should be used 3-2 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

to make operability determinations since G-Scan is used as a screening tool that identifies potential areas of degradation. Because results are influenced by number of factors other than reduction of wall loss, they are insufficient to be used as the basis of a structural analysis.

3.3.1 Other Actions There are other alternatives to respond effectively to G-Scan indications. These include but are not limited to:

x Integrate and monitor groundwater monitoring data with G-Scan data x Pressure test of the piping system x Above ground indirect monitoring surveys x Future G-Scan monitoring x Mitigating further corrosion 3.4 Pipe Test Results The following sections provide the test results of each test location. They are sequenced in the order of when the test was taken.

3.5 Location 1, Unit 2 Service Water Supply Header 3.5.1 Location Description General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature Service Coal Tar A-53 Water Yard 2979 Enamel Mortar 150 psig /

1 2 408 24 .375" Seamless Supply Area 2982 w/saturated Lined 160°F Gr. B Header asbestos Figure 3.1 shows Location 1 on a 24-inch service water header. Tests were conducted above and below the 18-inch blind flange. This line is insulated at least down to ground level and may be insulated partially underground. As can be seen in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, under insulation corrosion had occurred on the above ground section. The wall loss is estimated to be 0.070 to 0.080 inches deep.

3-3 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.1: Location 1, Service Water Header, Transformer Yard Figure 3.2: Location 1, Service Water Header, Under Insulation Corrosion 3-4 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.5.2 G-Scan Results below 18-Inch Blind Flange The detailed test results, trace and drawing of Location 1 is on the following pages. In summary there was an estimated 0.080 inches of wall loss from under insulation corrosion. Two indications were classified as Level 2 indications because of their pattern in the trace and because it would be helpful to understand if the mortar lining is causing the indications.

Table 3.2: Test Results of Location 1, Shot 2979 Test ID: G3-76#2979 Pipe: 24" SW 408 Ring: R2B24(1102)

Site: Indian Point Unit 2, 1, Config: 14.6FR, T(0,1)

Location: Transformer Yard Flange 25" Calibration: Automatic (8376.39 mV)

Size: 24 inch (.375") Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Tested: 22 Sept 2009 Client: Indian Point Tested by: Craig Chaney Procedure: GU 1.1 DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary:

Service water pipe that is reported to have a mortar lining. Above ground line is insulated and heat traced and had under insulation corrosion. Insulation appears to go below ground. Client reports a coal tar wrap but it could not be visually confirmed. Pipe to soil measurements -250mV which is consistent with no CP. B-Scan 0 to 90; 0.404", 90 to 180; 0.388", 180 to 270; 0.397", 270 to 0; 0.398" No internal wall loss detected from B-Scan.

Feature Location Class Notes E2 -0'5" Earth Visually confirmed E1 -1'8" Bitumen Assumed from trace and normal design practice Corrosion like indication. Could be start of coating also. Excavation A4 -2'5" Cat 2 would be necessary to confirm R1 -3'1" False Echo From large branch connection Assumed from information provided by plant staff. It may be shorter B1 -4'0" 1D Bend than a 1 D Indications are corrosion like. Could be location of mortar failure or A3 -15'9" Cat 1 coating failure, Level 2 Indications are corrosion like. Could be location of mortar failure or A2 -16'11" Cat 1 coating failure, Level 2 Indications are corrosion like. Could be location of mortar failure or A1 -23'9" Cat 1 coating failure, Level 3 U1 -24'11" End Estimated location of 3" to instrument air compressor from drawing F1 -36'5" Branch 9321-F-2700 F2 2'10" Y Visually confirmed Visual confirmed pitting. Approximately 0.080 inches deep or 20%

A5 5'0" Cat 3 wall loss.

U2 8'8" End 3-5 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

U1 A1 A2 A3 B1 R1 A4 E1 E2 F2 A5 U2 0.6 0.4 Amp (Linear) 0.2

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.3: Shot 2979 Trace 3-6 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.4: Location 1, Test Results of 2979 3-7 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.5.3 G-Scan Results above the 18-Inch Blind Flange The following table, figure, and drawing are of the test performed on the above ground portion of the service water header. Level 4 indications were identified further up the line.

Table 3.3: Test Results for Location 1, Shot 2982 Test ID: G3-76#2982 Pipe: 24" SW 408 Ring: R2B24(1102)

Site: Indian Point, Unit 2 Configuration: 12.0FR, T(0,1)

Location: 1, Transformer Yard Flange -26" Calibration: Automatic (2007.36 mV)

Size: 24 inch (.375") Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Client: Indian Point Tested: 22 Sept 2009 Procedure: GU 1.1 Tested by: Craig Chaney DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary:

Service water pipe that is reported to have mortar lining. Above ground line is insulated and heat traced. Under insulation corrosion visually confirmed. Reported noise problem in the shot is due to poor coupling of transducers on the corroded surface. No B-Scan readings were taken in this area due to the external corrosion and the inability to couple the transducer to the corroded surface. Shot distance and confidence level is low after shooting through the 18 inch branch connection. Under insulation corrosion is also expected above branch connection.

Feature Location Class Notes F1 -2'11" Y Visually confirmed E1 1'6" Sleeve Insulation R1 2'8" False Echo From 18 inch branch connection W1 6'0" Weld From signal trace A1 9'8" Cat 0 A2 11'2" Cat 3 From trace. Level 4 F2 12'11" Y 18" branch connection and reducer that goes into Aux Building A3 18'5" Cat 3 From trace. Level 4 A4 19'9" Cat 3 From trace. Level 4 A5 23'6" Cat 3 From trace. Level 4 B1 47'5" Bend Visually verified U2 54'5" End U1 -6'1" End 3-8 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

E1 A1 A3 U1 F1 R1 W1 A2 F2 A4 A5 B1 U2 0.6 0.4 Amp (Linear) 0.2 0.0

-20 0 20 40 60 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.5: Trace of Shot 2982, Location 1 3-9 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.6: Location 1, Test Results from Shot 2982 3-10 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.6 Location 2, Unit 3 Service Water Header Supply, Service Valve Pit 3.6.1 Location Description Figure 3.7 shows Location 2, a 24-inch service water header that was in the service water valve pit.

General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature Service Service Coal Tar A-53 Water Water Enamel Mortar 150 psig /

2 3 408 2983 24 .375 Seamless Supply Valve w/saturated Lined 160°F Gr. B Header Pit asbestos Figure 3.7: Location 2, Service Water Valve Pit 3-11 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table 3.4: Test Result of Location 2, Shot 2983 Test ID: G3-76#2983 Pipe: 24" SW 408 Ring: R2B24(1102)

Site: Indian Point, Unit 3 Configuration: 14.6FR, T(0,1)

Location: 2, SW Piping Vault, Wall 9" Calibration: Automatic (2599.73 mV)

Size: 24 inch (.375") Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Tested: 22 Sept 2009 Client: Indian Point Tested by: Craig Chaney Procedure: GU 1.1 DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary:

This shot was taken in the service water valve pit at Unit 3. The pipe ran through a concrete wall and then into soil.

The piping is reported to have a mortar lining. At the location of the collar the pipe had paint. A bitumen coating that was 1/4" thick was noted as the pipe entered the vault wall. B-Scan readings are 0 to 90; 0.388", 90 to 180; 0.393",

180 to 270; 0.393" 270 to 0; 0.389" No internal wall loss was detected from the B-Scan tests.

Feature Location Class Notes A6 19'1" Cat 2 Level 3 A5 7'4" Cat 0 Appears to be a change in mortar coating A4 6'2" Cat 2 Level 3 A3 5'2" Cat 0 Appears to be a change in mortar coating A2 2'9" Cat 0 Appears to be a change in mortar coating A1 -2'8" Cat 0 Variation caused by the mortar lining The location of the bend does not correspond with the drawing but was B1 9'7" 1D Bend selected here due to the initial weld response of the bend E4 2'0" Earth Assumed location of earth E3 1'0" Wall Assumed wall thickness from partial details shown on drawings.

E2 0'5" Bitumen 0.25" Thick E1 -2'2" Entrance Insulation visibly verified F2 -6'2" Branch F1 -8'5" T R1 -1'8" False Echo S1 1'8" Support Welded ring to seal the vault from water and soil shown on drawings.

U2 19'7" End W1 17'5" Weld From trace 3-12 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

F1 A1 E1 E2 S1 A6 U1 F2 R1 E3 E4 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 W1 U2 0.6 0.4 Amp (Linear) 0.2 0.0

-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.8: Trace of Shot 2983, Location 2 3-13 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.9: Location 2, Test Results from Shot 2983 3-14 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.7 Location 3, Unit 3 Condensate Return to CST, Bottom of Hill 3.7.1 Location Description Figure 3.10 shows Location 3 on an 8-inch line from service water storage tank to the auxiliary feedwater building at the bottom of the hill.

G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature Unit 3 Cond. Coal Tar AFW Ret. Enamel A-106 665 psig /

3 3 1080 Building 2984 8 40 None To w/saturated Gr. B 400°F up to CST asbestos CST Figure 3.10: Location 3, 8-inch Line from the AFW Building up to CST 3-15 Report No. 0900235.401.R0

Table 3.5: Test Result of Location 3, Shot 2984 Test ID: G3-76#2984 Pipe: IP3 - 8" CST Return Ring: R2B08(900)

Site: Indian Point Configuration: 3.3FR, T(0,1)

Location: 3, Bottom of Hill, Earth -45" Calibration: Automatic (1398.09 mV)

Size: 8 inch (.322") Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Tested: 23 Sept 2009 10:28 Client: Indian Point Tested by: Craig Chaney Procedure: GU 1.1 DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary:

Pipe #1080. This line runs up the hillside at a 65 degree angle on welded supports. In the other direction it runs into the earth and has a 65 degree bend approximately four feet below ground. Minor corrosion was observed in the trace above and below ground. This location has Level 3 indications.

Feature Location Class Notes W1 -21'10" Weld Identified from trace W2 27'4" Weld From Trace U1 -39'3" End U2 -20'2" Other Possible coating problem or thickness change U3 46'4" End S1 8'6" Weld. sup. Visually verified S2 25'3" Support Visually verified S3 41'3" Support Visually verified E1 -3'8" Earth Visually verified E2 -0'5" Entrance Hardened foam insulation visually verified E3 2'0" Entrance Hardened foam insulation visually verified B1 -9'0" Bend Identified from trace and drawing. It is a 65 degree bend.

B2 42'5" 45 deg Bend Visually verified, 45 degree bend.

B3 52'1" 45 deg Bend Identified from trace and drawing.

A1 -39'1" Cat 3 Level 3 A2 -26'2" Cat 3 Level 3 A3 -13'2" Cat 3 Level 3 A4 12'0" Cat 3 Level 3 A5 13'4" Cat 3 Level 3 A6 17'5" Cat 3 Level 3 3-16 Report No. 0900235.401.R0

F

-F6 +F3 +F8

-F8

-F9 -F7 -F5 -F4 -F3 -F2 -F1 +F1 +F2 +F4 +F5 +F6 +F7 +F9 +F10 2.0 1.5 1.0 Amp (Linear) 0.5 0.0

-40 -20 0 20 40 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.11: Trace of Shot 2984, Location 3 3-17 Report No. 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.12: Location 3, Test Results from Shot 2984 3-18 Report No. 0900235.401.R0

3.8 Location 4, U2 8-Inch Condensate Return in FRV Building 3.8.1 Location Description Figure 3.13 shows Location 4 on an 8-inch condensate return line to the condensate storage tank in an excavation in the feed regulator valve building.

General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature Cond. Coal Tar Ret. FRV Bldg Enamel A-106 665 psig /

4 2 1509 2991 8 40 None To Excavation w/saturated Gr. B 400°F CST asbestos Figure 3.13: Location 4, 8-inch Line in an excavation in the FRV Building 3-19 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table 3.6: Test Result of Location 4, Shot 2991 Test ID: G3-76#2991 Pipe: IP2 - 8" CST Return Ring: R2B08(900)

Site: Indian Point, Unit 2 Configuration: 3.3FR, T(0,1)

Location: Weld 1'5" Calibration: Automatic (2372.37 mV)

Size: 8 inch Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Client: Indian Point Tested: 23 Sept 2009 12:55 Procedure: GU 1.1 Tested by: Craig Chaney DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary: IP2-8" CST Return for Unit 2 in excavation that was in the feed regulator valve building. This section of line had through wall leaks in February 2009. This section of pipe was replaced in February 2009 and is the location of the transducer collar for this test. Minor corrosion indications were noted. This is a Level 3 test.

Feature Location Class Notes U1 -12'2" End B1 -10'3" Bend Assumed from piping configuration E1 -3'7" Bitumen Visually verified B2 -3'0" 1D Bend Visually verified B3 -0'5" 1D Bend Visually verified W1 1'5" Weld Visually verified W2 2'7" Weld Assumed from trace E2 2'6" Bitumen Visually verified E3 4'8" Earth Visually verified A1 6'8" Cat 3 Level 3 indication A2 9'3" Cat 3 Level 3 indication A3 19'4" Cat 3 Level 3 indication U2 26'3" End W3 33'3" Weld Assumed from trace.

3-20 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

B1 E1 U1 B2 B3 W1 E2 W2 E3 A1 A2 A3 U2 W3 4.0 3.0 Amp (Linear) 2.0 1.0

-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.14: Trace of Shot 2991, Location 4 3-21 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.15: Location 4, Test Results from Shot 2991 3-22 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.9 Location 5, Unit 2 12-Inch Condensate Supply to AFP Building 3.9.1 Location Description Figure 3.16 shows Location 5 on a 12-inch condensate supply line to the AFW pumps in an excavation in the auxiliary feed pump building.

General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature CST Coal Tar A-53 Full vacuum TO AFP Bldg. Enamel Seamless 5 2 1505 2993 12 40 None to 150 psig /

AFP Excavation w/saturated or ERW, 225 °F asbestos Gr. B Figure 3.16: Location 5, 12-inch Line in an excavation in the AFP Building 3-23 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table 3.7: Test Result of Location 5, Shot 2993 Test ID: G3-76#2993 Pipe: IP2 - 12" AFP Suction Ring: R2B12(1368)

Site: Indian Point Configuration: 7.4FR, T(0,1)

Location: Wall 3'0" Calibration: Automatic (6864.49 mV)

Size: 12 inch Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Tested: 23 Sept 2009 Client: Indian Point Tested by: Craig Chaney Procedure: GU 1.1 DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary: Unit 2 12" Aux Feed Pump Suction from CST in excavation. Several indications are observed in the piping towards the elbow. Because of the nature of these indications they are categorized as Level 2 indications.

Feature Location Class Notes E1 -3'7" Earth Visually verified E2 -1'5" Bitumen Visually verified E3 0'6" Bitumen Visually verified Visually verified Partial earth coverage of pipe approximately 90 E4 1'5" Earth degrees E5 3'2" Earth Visually verified Full coverage of pipe A3 4'1" Cat 2 Could be coating variation. Level 2 A4 5'1" Cat 1 Could be coating variation. Level 2 A5 6'5" Cat 3 Could be coating variation. Level 2 A6 7'4" Cat 1 Could be coating variation. Level 2 B1 9'3" Bend Level 3 U2 11'3" End Weld has a high flexural response recommend follow-up UT W2 -8'8" Weld examination, Level 3 A2 -22'11" Cat 2 Level 3 A1 -25'2" Cat 2 W1 -28'2" Weld Level 3 U1 -28'7" End 3-24 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

U1 E3 E5 A5 W1 A1 A2 W2 E1 E2 E4 A3 A4 A6 B1 U2 1.5 1.0 Amp (Linear) 0.5 0.0

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.17: Trace of Shot 2993, Location 5 3-25 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.18: Location 5, Test Results from Shot 2993 3-26 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3.10 Location 6, U3 CST to AFP Building, Bottom of Hill 3.10.1 Location Description Figure 3.19 shows Location 6 on a 12-inch line from condensate storage tank to the AFP building at the bottom of the hill.

General Info Pipe Data G-Loc. Line Line Scan OD External Internal Design Unit Location Schedule Material

  1. Name # Test (inches) Coating Lining Temperature Unit 3 CST to Coal Tar A-53 CST AFW Full vacuum Enamel Seamless 6 3 to 1070 Building 2995 12 20 None to 150 psig /

w/saturated or ERW, AFP at 225 °F asbestos Gr. B Bottom of Hill Figure 3.19: Location 6, 12-inch Line from CST to AFP Building 3-27 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Table 3.8: Test Result of Location 6, Shot 2995 Test ID: G3-76#2995 Pipe: IP3 - 12" AFW Suction Ring: R2B12(1368)

Site: Indian Point Configuration: 8.4FR, T(0,1)

Location: Earth +3'11" Calibration: Automatic (2571.19 mV)

Size: 12 inch (.250") Version: 3.97, Wavemaker G3-76 Tested: 23 Sept 2009 Client: Indian Point Tested by: Craig Chaney Procedure: GU 1.1 DACs: Call=10%, Weld=23%

Summary: IP3 - 12" AFP Suction shot taken in the yard going up the hill. Minor corrosion noted under the collars of 0.025". Several corrosion like indications were identified in the buried section of the pipe. These indications are categorized as a Level 2.

Feature Location Class Notes U1 -44'7" End B1 -59'3" 45 deg Bend B2 -43'1" 45 deg Bend Visually verified S1 -41'0" Support Visually verified W1 -32'5" Weld From trace S2 -25'0" Support Visually verified S3 -19'8" Support Feature appears to be a support although no support was visible S4 -18'2" Support Feature appears to be a support although no support was visible R1 -2'3" False Echo From weld S5 -8'10" Support Visually verified E1 0'9" Entrance Insulation begins, visually verified W2 2'2" Weld From trace E2 3'11" Earth Visually verified E3 4'2" Bitumen Assumed A1 5'6" Cat 2 Level 2 indications B3 8'4" 45 deg Bend Actually a 65 degree bend A2 8'5" Cat 2 Level 2 indications A3 13'1" Cat 2 Level 2 indications A4 14'3" Cat 2 Level 2 indications A5 17'1" Cat 3 Level 3 indications A6 20'1" Cat 3 Level 3 indications U2 20'6" End 3-28 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

S3 E1 E2 E3 A3 A6 U1 B2 S1 W1 S2 S4 S5 R1 A1 B3 A2 A4 A5 U2 W2 2.5 2.0 1.5 Amp (Linear) 1.0 0.5 0.0

-40 -20 0 20 Distance (ft)

Figure 3.20: Trace of Shot 2995, Location 6 3-29 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Figure 3.21: Location 6, Test Results from Shot 2995 3-30 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

3-31 Report No.: 0900235.401.R0

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12090A732&oldid=2463303"