ML20239A269
| ML20239A269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| FVY-87-94, IEB-87-001, IEB-87-1, NUDOCS 8709170236 | |
| Download: ML20239A269 (18) | |
Text
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 1
FVY 87-94 l
RD 5, Box 169. Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 g,,Ly70 ENGINEERING OFFICE N
1671 WORCESTER ROAD I. m/
FRAMINGHAM, M MASSACHUSETTS 01701 TELE PHONE 617-672-8100 September 11, 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attn:
Mr. William T. Russell Regional Administrator
References:
a)
License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) b)
Letter, USNRC to All Licensees for Nuclear Power Plants Holding an Operating License or a Construction Permit, NVY 87-104, "NRC Bulletin No. 87-01: Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power Plants," deted 7/9/87
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Vermont Yankee Response to NRC Bulletin No. 87-01:
Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power Plants NRC Bulletin No. 87-01 [ Reference b)] requested that licensees submit information concerning their programs for monitoring the thickness of pipe walls in high-energy single-phase and two-phase carbon steel piping systeir-L Accordingly, Vermont Yankee herein responds to the subject bulle-tin as requested pursuant to the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In response to the subject bulletin request, information concerning Vermont Yankee's program for monitoring the wall thickness of pipes in con-densate, feedwater, steam, and connected high-energy piping systems, including all safety-related and non-safety-related piping systems fabri-cated of carbon steel, is provided as Enclosure 1 to this letter.
The results of Vermont Yankee's 1987 outage wall-thinning inspection program currently in progress will be provided within 90 days following stn tao.
\\
k
\\
8709170236 870911
/
i[
PDR ADOCK 05000271 G
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 11, 19C7 Page 2 We trust the enclosed information adequately addresses the subject bulletin request; however, should you have questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, VERM NT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
$44~--- 'kw?
Warren P. Murphy Vice Pre ident an Manager of Operations
/dm I
i' STATE OF VERMONT)
)ss WINDHAM COUNTY )
Then personally appeared before me, Warren P. Murphy, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President and Manager of Operations of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing document in the name and on the behalf of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and that the statements therein are tr'3 to the best of his knowledge and belief.
4 Diane M. McCue' l
Notary Public 1
My Commission Expires February 10, 1991 Q U. 5, Gb iJBUC ow 4/
+4At CDU. NT
ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY
Vermont. Yankee has a program in place to monitor wall thickness of steam or two-phase fluid flow piping and to repair or replace this piping when evidence of serious erosion conditions is observed.
Large diameter piping, such as turbine generator cross-around and steam separator piping and associated piping, have been visually monitored internally for " tiger striping" since 1980. Some of this large diameter piping was initially repaired and subsequently replaced.
In other areas, two-phase flow piping (heater drains and bypass piping) was replaced after leakage during operation.
In. response to the Oconee piping failure, Vermont Yankee developed a program of inspection for piping carrying steam and two-phase flow.
The inspec-tion program has been initiated during the 1987 refueling / maintenance outage.
These inspections are being performed with either an internal piping inspection device with capability to perform visual inspections, or by mapping a grid and performing an ultrasonic inspection on the exterior of the pipe.
In response to the Surry accident, Vermont Yankee initiated an engineering review of the as-built design of the condensate and feedwater piping to identify potentially susceptible piping sections where closeness of fittings may cause high local velocities. This review indicated that, for the most sensitive por-tion of the piping from the condenser to the feedwater pumps, the piping design was conservative, with average velocities well below the limits of good design
- practice for alloyed thin walled (% inch) carbon steel pipe.
For the heavy walled carbon steel piping downstream of the feedwater pumps, more detailed ana-lysis (finite difference) was performed for four potentially susceptible piping sections with bulk flow velocity greater than 16 feet per second.
These analy-ses showed local velocities in these piping sections greater than 30 feet per second. As a prudent measure, Vermont Yankee will inspect these piping sections during the 1987 refueling outage.
The results of these programs will be submitted to the NRC together with plans for any future actions, within 90 days following startup.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES REQUEST 1 Identify the codes or standards to which the piping was designed RESPONSE 1 The original piping outside of primary containment was designed, fabricated and installed to meet the requirements of USAS B31.1.0 for power piping, 1967.
Replacement piping and piping repairs outside of containment were also designed j
and installed to meet the same codes.
REQUEST 2 Describe the scope and extent of your programs for ensuring that pipe wall thicknesses are not reduced below the minimum allowable thickness.
Include in the description the criteria that you have established for.
l
l 1
Page 2 j
i a.
Selecting points at which.to make thickness measurements, b.
Determining how frequently to make thickness measurements.
c.
Selecting the methods used to make thickness measurements, l
d.
Making replacement / repair decisions.
{
RESPONSE 2 2.0 Vermont Yankee has performed monitoring programs for pipe wall thinning since 1978.
The original scope included steam and two-phase flow piping systems, involved ultrasonic testing and either repair (weld overlay) or replacement when evidence of erosion was identified.
The scope of moni-toring was increased in 1980 by visually inspecting for " tiger striping" on large bore piping such as turbine generator cross-around, steam separator piping and associated drains. The scope of the monitoring program for safety related piping is defined in Revision 9 of the Inservice Inspection Program for Vermont Yankee submitted via letter VYNPC to USNRC, NVY 87-29, dated July 1, 1987.
Finally, in response to the Surry accident, Vermont Yankee initiated an engineering review to define the scope of other areas of non-safety related piping susceptible to erosion / corrosion.
To more clearly respond to Request No. 2, we have separated our response as follows:
2.1 Liquid Flow Pipina The criteria used to identify potentially susceptible piping sections in the condensate and feedwater systems were:
o Fluid systems with significant amounts of stored energy, and tem-perature and pressure above the flash point of the liquid.
o Carbon steel piping and fittings with diameter ten-inches or greater.
o Bulk fluid velocity greater than 10 to 12 feet per second.
o Fittings less than ten pipe diameters apart.
For those locations where the bulk fluid velocity was greater than 10 to 12 feet per second and fittings were installed within ten diameters, a finite element analysis of the configuration was performed using the COMMIX-1A computer code developed by Argonne National Laboratories specifically for use in the nuclear power industry.
Because no algorithms are available to estimate wear rate in BWR piping, Vermont Yankee will inspect all poten-tially se.e.ceptible piping identified in the evaluation.
(The procedure provided by INPO to estimate wear rate, described in the EPRI report " Single-Phase Erosion-Corrosion of Carbon Steel Piping", by R.
Jones, et al., dated February 19, 1987, was specifically prepared for piping systems carrying high pH water.)
i Page 3 a.
The criteria identified above were used to select points to make thickness measurements. Analysis of piping systems to determine flow velocities was done by a consultant, who used flow diagrams (P&ID Drawings), piping layout drawings and information f.'om Figure 1.6-2 of the Vermont Yankee FSAR together with mass flow, pressure and temper-ature data recorded at the plant. The results of these analyses pro-vided the points at which inspections are recommended.
b.
The frequency of thickness measurements will be determined by the results of the inspections done this outage.
c.
The selection of methods to make thickness measurements depended upon accessibility as follows:
o When possible, pipe was visually inspected internally for signs of erosion / corrosion.
If no indications of erosion / corrosion were seen, no thickness measurements were taken, o
If internal inspection was not possible, insulation was removed, a close grid was plotted on the pipe and ultrasonic testing per-formed.
d.
The decision to repair / replace / accept inspected pipe will be made based upon the minimum acceptable wall thickness as determined by ana-lysis and subsequent acceptability by applicable codes. Consideration will also be given regarding rate of erosion / corrosion for accept-ability for the next operating cycle.
EPRI Report No. SIR-87-010, Revision 2, " Acceptance Guideline for Structural Evaluation of Erosion-Corrosion Thinning in Carbon Steel Piping" will be used as an analysis guideline.
2.2 Steam or Two-Phase Flow Pipina The criteria used to identify potentially susceptible piping in steam or two-phase fluid flow piping includes visual and ultrasonic inspection of pipe walls in piping which contains significant amounts of moisture with steam. After determination that the turbine cross-around and moisture separator piping were susceptible to erosion / corrosion, visual and UT inspections were used to ensure that minimum wall thickness was available for continual operation through a fuel cycle. For large diameter piping, direct visual observation was used to identify the extent of any need for repair or replacs:hbnt.
Piping was repaired or replaced as determined by engineering evaluation.
a.
The selection of sections of piping for inspection was based upon a review of piping which showed a history of erosion / corrosion. This included piping which carried significant moisture with the steam flow.
b.
When evidence of wall thinning occurred, it would be determined by engineering evaluation the frequency of future inspections.
Page 4 c.
For large diameter piping it was determined to be more efficient to provide visual inspection, and for smaller diameter piping or other inaccessible areas ultrasonic testing was performed.
d.
Piping was repaired or replaced as determined by an engineering eva-luation.
REQUEST 3 For liquid-phase systems, state specifically whether the following factors have been considered in establishing your cri-teria for selecting poiats at which to monitor piping thickness (Item 2a):
a.
Piping material (e.g., chromium content).
b.
Piping configuration (e.g., fittings less than ten pipe diameters apart),
c, pH of water in the system (e.g., pH less than ten),
d.
System temperature (e.g., between 190'F and 500*F).
Fluid bulk velocity (e.g., greater than ten ft/s).
e.
f.
Oxygen content in the system (e.g., oxygen content less than 50 ppb).
RESPONSE 3 3.0 Specific Factors considered in Establishing Criteria for liquid Phase Svstems In liquid phase systems, the specific criteria for selecting points at which to monitor included:
Piping configuration (fittings less than ten pipe diameters apart).
I o
o System temperature (between 190*F and 500'F).
Fluid bulk velocity (greater than 10 to 12 feet per second).
o All piping in the condensate and feedwater system is carbon steel. Valves are, in general, Cr-Mo steel.
For boiling water reactors with high purity, low conductivity water, con-densate and feedwater pH is not measured on a regular basis. Condensate and feedwater conductivity normally ranges from 0.055 to 0.065 mmho/cm.
In the reactor, nH is maintained near neutral. During the last fuel cycle, pH varied from 5.8 to 7.6.
The last fuel cycle is typical of station opera-tion for the past ten years.
Dissolved oxygen level in the feedxater and condensate piping generally ranges from 20 to 40 perts per billion. There have been individual readings with the dissolved oxygen as low a 10 and as high as 50 ppb, but no long-term excursions have occurred at these levels.
a.
All piping in the liquid phase systems is made of carbon steel, while the majority of valves are made from Cr-Mo steel.
See Table 1 for the l
specified materials used in these systems.
Page 5
.b.
Piping configuration (e.g.,' fittings less than ten diameters apart) was considered when selecting points for monitoring wall thickness.
c.
Vermont Yankee is a BWR that operates with the pH level of water in the neutral range. Therefore, as stated above, the pH level was not considered to be a critical factor in the selection of inspection locations, d.
The system temperature was considered in the selection process, however, piping systems which had temperatures outside the 190*F to 500'F range were also considered.
The fluid bulk velocities were considered when they exceeded to to 12 e.
ft/second, increased 1 cal velocities through fittings and valves were also considered in the selection process.
f.
The oxygen content levels are as stated above, however, oxygen content was not considered in the selection process.
REQUEST 4 Chronologically list and summarize the results of all inspections that have been performed, which were specifically conducted for the purpose of identifying pipe wall thinning, whether or not pipe wall thinning was discovered, and any other inspections where pipe wall thinning was discovered even though that was not the purpose of that inspection, a.
Briefly describe the inspection program and indicate whether it was specifically intended to measure wall thickness or whether wall thickness measurements were an incidental determination.
b.
Describe what piping was examined and how (e.g., describe the inspection instrument (s), test method, reference thickness, locations examined, means for locating measure-ment point (s) in subsequent inspections).
c.
Report thickness measurement results and note those that were identified as unacceptable and why.
d.
Describe actions already taken or planned for piping that has been fourd to have a nonconforming wall thickness.
If you have performed a failure analysis, include the results of that analysis.
Indicate whether the actions involve repair or replacement, including any change of materials.
RESPONSE 4 4.0 Pipe Wall Inspections l
4.1 Liquid Phase Pipina Inspections As previously indicated, no pipe wall thickness measurements were performed l
in the feedwater/ condensate piping prior to the 1967 outage; inspection is i
l now in progress, l
l I
Page 6 1
4 '. 2. Steam and Two-Phase Flow Pipino Inspections j
Ultrasonic pipe wall thickness measurements have been made, primarily in the turbine cross-around and moisture separator piping since 1978.
Pipe wall was marked to enable measurement to be made at'the same locations during subsequent outages.' These measurements do not show pipe wall ~degra-dation over time. Most of the measurements were,used by Vermont Yankee to demonstrate that pipe wall-thickness was adequate for operation during the next fuel cycle. After which either. repair or replacement of the piping negated,the. utility of the measurements for comparison purposes. A summary
-of the UT measurements made during this program is chronologically listed in Table 2.
A summary listing of the piping which has been replaced due'to.the
(
erosion-corrosion' failure, nonconformance, or because of expected poor per-formance is provided in Table 3.
a.
A brief description of inspection programs at Vermont Yankee are as follows:
o The large diameter cross-around piping was inspected. Where erosion / corrosion was noted, thickness measurements were taken.
Measurements were made by.either ultrasonic testing or by measuring the depth of pitting / gouging relative to the surrounding pipe, For smaller diameter piping when interr.a1 visual inspections were o
not possible (for example, the 6-inch diameter moisture separator drain lines), ultrasorde testing was used to determine pipe wall thickness, d
Pipe wall thickness measurems'ts were a specific. intent of the o
inspection programs only where evidence of erosion / corrosion was i
found.
b.
The piping which was examined is listed in Table 2.
As previously described, the test methods were primarily ultrasonic, and were used to demonstrate acceptability for the next operating cycle. Generally piping was either repaired or replaced, thus negating the requirement to relocate the measurements points in subsequent inspections. The pipe wall was marked when repeat inspections were required.
c.
Table 2 provides the results of thickness measurements. As previously stated, if the measurements were below minimum wall thickness, the pipe was either repaired or replaced.
d.
For piping that was found to have a nonconforming wall thickness, the following actions were taken:
For large diameter piping, accessible to a worker for repair:
o I
iL_ _
_a_______________-----_-__-_-____
)
1 i
i l
Page 7
]
I When indications show erosion / corrosion below minimum wall q
thickness, the pipe was repaired by weld overlay on the inside.
When indications show erosion /corosion in localized areas, pitting, small areas of " tiger-striping", etc., but minimum wall thickness criteria is not violated, then grinding is performed to smooth out the imperfections.
o For smaller diameter piping, the temporary repair consisted of weld ovelays applied to the exterior of the pipe, o
No failure analyses were performed.
l o
All repairs are considered temporary and certain steel piping which had nonconforming wall thickness has been or will be replaced with Cr-Mo piping.
REQUEST 5 Describe any plans either for revising the present or for deve-loping new or additional programs for monitoring pipe wall thickness.
RESPONSE 5 5.0 19fl Inspection Program During the 1987 refueling outage, Vermont Yankee will visually inspect the interior pipe wall of potentially susceptible liquid, steam and two-phase flow piping. The inspection will be performed using an Internal Piping Inspection Device (IPED). The device will be inserted and assembled inside an access point such as a valve or a removable fitting. The device is capabic of traversing the interior of the pipe while carrying a TV camera.
The camera is capable of identifying a 0.001-inch wire at the distance required for the inspection, and provide a free of motion view of the inspection surface. The device is also capable of performing a four-point ultrasonic inspection of the pipe wall at any pipe cross-sec+ ion.
5.1 Steam and Two-Phase Flow Pipina Inspection Proaram For the steam and two-phase flow piping, the internal visual inspections will be carried out at carbon steel piping sections, carrying wet steam, which are most susceptible to the erosion / corrosion phenomena. Analysis was performed to identify these pipe sections with wet stere.
In general, it is expected that erosion in steam piping is initiated on the downstream end l
of components such as elbows, tees, and reducers.
If visual evidence of erosion is noted further inspection will be performed on the Cr-Mo piping in the condenser to establish an erosion baseline for this material.
(Cr-Mo piping is expected to show minimal erosion during the plant lifetime.)
x Page 8 The steam and two-phase flow piping systems to be inspected during this outage are' listed in Tables 4 and 5.
5.2 'Liould Flow Pipino Inspection Proaram For the condensate and feedwater systems, n consultant performed.an engi-neering review of.the piping to identify all piping sections which are potentially susceptible to.the erosion / corrosion phenomena which caused pipe failure at Surry.- The INPO criteria provided in Significant Operating
.I Event Report'87-03'was used to perform this evaluation. The.results indi-cated that, in contrast to the Surry= piping, the %-inch thick condensate.
piping was conservatively. designed, with bulk flow velocity less than 5 feet per'second throughout..In the 1-inch. thick feedwater piping, however, four' piping sections were identified with bulk flow velocities greater than
.16 feet per second. Finite element analyses of these sections has indi-cated that because of close coupled fittings, local velocities are expected
- to exceed 30' feet per second. Because of the large amount of stored energy in these' piping sections, Vermont Yankee will visually inspect these sec-tions for evidence of erosion / corrosion during the 1987 outage.
If indica-tions of erosion-corrosion are found, or it is not possible to' perform visual' inspections, then grid mapping and external ultrasonic testing'will be performed.
The location of the feedwater piping sections which will be-inspected, are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 1 PIPING MATERIALS Pipe Line ID Material Schedule Reference 16" FDW-15 ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191157, Rev. 28 18" FDW-7 ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191157, Rev. 28 18" FDW-8 ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191157, Rev. 28 16" FDW-3.-
ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191157, Rev. 28 16" FDW-16 ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191167, Rev. 38 16" FDW-17 ASTM A106 Gr. B 120 G191167, Rev. 38 10" FDW-18 ASTM A106 Gr. B 80 G191167, Rev. 38 10" FDW-19 ASTM A106 Gr. B 80 G191167, Rev. 38 10" FDW-20 ASTM A106 Gr. B 80 G191167, Rev. 38 10" FDW-21 ASTM A106 Gr. B 80 G191167, Rev. 38 6" HD-11A,B,C,0 ASTM A106 Gr. B STD G191158, Rev. 12 6" HD-12A,B,C,D ASTM A106 Gr. B STD G191158, Rev. 12 6" HD-13A,B,C,D ASTM A106 Gr. L STD G191158, Rev. 12 6" HD-16A,B,C,0 ASTM A106 Gr. B XS G191158, Rev. 12 16" HD-78 ASTM A106 Gr. B STD G191158, Rev. 12 l
12" HD-3B ASTM A106 Gr. B STD G191158, Rev. 12 10" ES-2A ASTM A335 Gr. P11 or STD G191156, Rev. 13 ASTM A369 FP11 i
20" ES-3A, 3B ASTM A335 Gr. P11 or STD G191156, Rev. 13 i
ASTM A369 FP11 l
30" ES-4A, 4B ASTM A155 Gr. 1-1/4 Cr.375 G191156, Rev. 13 Class I 20" ES-5A,B,C,D ASTM A335 Gr. Pil or
.375 G191156, Rev. 13 L
ASTM A369 FP11 l
20" ES-5E,F,G,H ASTM A335 Gr. P11 or
.375 G191156, Rev. 13 ASTM A369 FP11 l
w_
4 TABLE 2
SUMMARY
OF UT MEASUREMENTS IN STEAM AND TWO-PHASE FLUID FLOW PIPINO l'
4
' A.
Piping adjacent to Moisture Separator Drain Valve (LCV-103-)
Results Piping.
Valve #
Location 23A-Inlet Only one test done, in 1983.
23A Outlet Only one test done, in 1981.
23B Inlet Inconsistent data, reading increase from 1981 to 1983*.
23B Outlet Unsure of consistent test locations but readings appear to have decreased
-: 1.0 from 1981 to 1983.
23C Inlet No apparent change from 1981 to 1983.
23C Outlet Unsure of consistent test locations but readings appear to have decreased
- 1.0 from 1981 to 1983.
23D Inlet No apparent change from 1981 to 1983.
230 Outlet Only one test done, in 1981.
-24A Inlet Inconsistent data, no apparent change-from 1981 to 1982, slight increase in 1983.
24A Outlet From 1981 to 1982, readings decreased
.03 to.11 depending on test loca-tion (there was actually great variance between data points at each given location).
24B-Inlet Readings decreased by
.01 from 1981 to 1982, but data is inconsistent and shows a slight increase in 1983.
24B Outlet Readings decreased - 0.85 to.05 depending on test location from 1981 to 1982.
.o i
e I
. f.
- Table 2 Page 2 t.'
24C
' Inlet l Unsure of consistent test location, readings appear to increase fran-1981.
to 1982.
24C Outlet Only one' test done,'in 1981.
24D Inlet No apparent change from 1981 tc 1983, but data appears inconsistent.
24D Outlet.
Only one test done, in.1981.
B.-
OTHER LINES ONLY TESTED ONCE Outage Year 85-86 Cross-around 36" line 86 FDW 4, 5, and 6:
4" FDW minimum flow-lines 84 Cross-around 2-30" lines 83 6" HD-128 and HD-120 83 6" HD-A 83
-30" ES-4B
- Inconsistent data developed from different programs conducted by different groups.
i l
N TABLE 3 PIPING REPLACED DUE TO EROSION-CORROSION Outaae Year Documentation Description Replacement 85-86 JO 86-35 Crossaround 30" A and D line.
85-86 JD 85-09 Feednater minimum flow lines 4" FDW 4,5, and 6 - approximately 100' total.
84 MR 84-1011 12" extraction steam elbow.
83 JO 83-41 Crossaround 36" A and D line.
83 MR 83-0036 House heating drain line downstream of HSCR-93C.
83 14" high pressure heater lines HD15-1A and HD16-1B.
63 MR 83-1589 2" line that supplies sealing steam to bypass valves from the steam piping to the moisture separator, 1 elbow and 6' of piping.
l 82 MR 82-0080 and Moisture separator 6" drain lines A and 0137 C.
80-81 Crossaround 36" B and C line.
78 Crossaround 36" partial line replacement.
pr --- --.
3 1
7 b
lV 1
TABLE 4 j
.VT. INSPECTION OF EXTRACTION
>: STEAM AND HEATER DRAIN PIPING i
.]
]
Pipe Line Approximate No. of Access to Location
~
10 No.
Inspection Areas Line-Valves of Access 6" HD-11Af 9
LCV-103-24A E1. 230' - Between LP HTR l
E-3-1A and LP HTR E-3-1B i
6"!HD-12A:
6 LCV-103-24A El. 230' - Between LP HTR 11 E-3-1A and LP HTR E-3-1B-l 6"'HD-13A-3 LCV-103-23A E1. 231' - Near North Condenser Wall
'6" HD-16A 2
LCV-103-23A El. 231' Near North Condenser Wall 76".HD-118 6
LCV-103-248 E1. 230' - Between LP HTR L
E-3-1A and LP HTR E-3-1B 6" HD-128 12 LCV-103-24B E1. 230' - Between LP HTR -
E-3-1A and LP HTR E-3-1B 6" HD-13B 4
LCV-103-23B El. 231' - Near North Condenser Wall 6" HD-16B 2
LCV-103-238 El. 231' Near North Condenser Wall 6" HD-11C 8
LCV-103-24C El. 230' - Between LP HTR E-3-1A and MS-1-1B 6" HD-12C 11 LCV-103-24C E1. 230' - Between LP'HTR E-3-1A and MS-1-1B 6" HD-13C 3
LCV-103-23C El. 231' - Near North Condenser Wall 6" HD-16C 2
LCV-103-23C El. 231' - Near North Condenser Wall 6" HD-110 8
LCV-103-240 El. 230' - Between LP HTR E-3-1 and MS-1-1B J
L(.
l Oi ff 1
M:
Table 4 Page 2 l 'N ~
v
- Pipe.Line
. Approximate ~No. of Access to Location l
ID No.
Inspection Areas' Line-Valves of Access
'6" HD-120-9~
LCV-103-240-El. 230' - Between LP HTR
~
l.t; E-3-1 and HS-1-1B 6" HD-130 3
LCV-103-23D El. 231' - Near North 1
Condenser Wall i
6".HD-160 2
LCV-103-23D
'E1. 231' - Near North Condenser Wall 16" HD-78 6
LCV-103-48-1 Off LP HTR E-5-1B (Up to Reducer) 12" HD-3B 4
V66-22B Near P-3-1B-(Up to Reducer) 20" ES-3A-4 RCV-V61-3A El. 248' - Near North Condenser Wall 30" ES-4B 6
RCV-V61-4B E1. 260' - Near North Condenser Wall
_di__________________
l
' TABLE 5 I-UT INSPECTION OF EXTRACTION STEAM AND HEATER ORAIN PIPING Inside Condenser E-6-18 Approximate Number of Pipe Line Number
_ Inspection Areas 20" ES-3B 5
30" ES-4B 6
20" ES-5E 3
20"'ES-5F 5
20" ES-50 3
20" ES-5H 3
I
.i l
q i
,! 3 :
i s '.
TABLE 6 VT'AND UT INSPECTION OF FEEDWATER PIPfNG i
l PR:0RITY 1 Pipe Line Approximate Number Access to Location ID No.'
of Inspection Areas Line-Valves of Access (VT) 4 16" FDW-15 V63-7B
-El. 256' - Off HP HTR E-1-1B-PRIORITY 2
. Pipe Line Approximate Number Access to Location i
ID No.
of Inspection Areas Line-Valves of Access 18" FDW-8
'(VT)?4 V63-16B~
El. 230' + South Side of P-1-1C 18" FDW-7 (VT) 4 V63-16A-
.El. 230' + South Side of P-1-1A PRIORITY 3 Pipe Line Approximate' Number Access-to Location-ID No,'
of Inspection Areas Line-Valves of Access 16" FDW-3 (VT) 4 V63-4C El. 231' - South Side of P-1-1C 16" FDW-1 (UT) 2 N/A N/A 16" FDW-2 PRIORITY 4 Pipe Line-Approximate Number Access to Location
_Ip No.
of Inspection Areas Line-Valves of Access 16" FDW Map and UT N/A N/A 10".FDW-19 around Tee
.10" FDW-21 16" FDW-17 Map and UT N/A N/A 10" FDW-18 around Tee 10" FDW-20 l
l t_ _ __ - -
. - - -