230 kv north loop assessment...a9 -2 1.74 1977 1946 *wood poles with egret 38 69 a1-4 2.08 1977 1948...

HNF-59075Revision 0

230 kV North Loop Assessment Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management

Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-AC06-09RL14728

P.O. Box 650 Richland, Washington 99352

Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited

HNF-59075Revision 0

EDC#: ECR-15-001014

230 kV North Loop Assessment Project No: L-612 Document Type: TR

C. E. CarlsonMission Support Alliance

Date PublishedAugust 2015

Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management

Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-AC06-09RL14728

P.O. Box 650 Richland, Washington 99352

Release Approval Date Release Stamp

Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited

By Ashley R Jenkins at 1:54 pm, Aug 10, 2015

Aug 10, 2015DATE:

HNF-59075Revision 0

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors orsubcontractors.

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy.

Printed in the United States of America

Total pages: 38

1

Jenkins, Ashley R

From: Schofield, LaMont CSent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:37 AMTo: Jenkins, Ashley RCc: ^Information ClearanceSubject: RE: HNF-59075 Rev. 0 - Ready to Review

I have reviewed the subject document and have no security concerns with its public release.

LaMont Schofield Information Security Manager & MSC Classification Officer MSA Safeguards & Security (509) 373-7398

From: Jenkins, Ashley R Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:29 AM To: Schofield, LaMont C Cc: ^Information Clearance Subject: HNF‐59075 Rev. 0 ‐ Ready to Review

Good morning LaMont,

Please review the subject document for public release and provide your comments or approval via email. The IDMS link is provided below.

HNF‐59075 has been submitted in CDM and is ready for your review.

HNF‐59075 can be found in the following folder:

Thanks,

Ashley R. Jenkins Information Clearance 2420 Stevens Center/457 509.376.6146

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page i of ii

230 kV North Loop Assessment

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page ii of ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 HISTORY ................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 4

5.0 BPA AGED BASED RANKING ............................................................................. 4

6.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 9

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 9

Appendix A – 230 kV North Loop Wood Pole Structure Field Assessment ................... 10

Appendix B – 230 kV North Loop Steel Tower Field Assessment .................................. 19

Appendix C – 230 kV North Loop Craft Field Assessment ............................................. 22

Figure 1 - EU 230 kV Transmission System Map .............................................................. 1

Figure 2 - Deteriorated Armor Rod .................................................................................... 2

Figure 3 - Damaged 795 kcmil ACSR (Drake) .................................................................. 3

Figure 4 - EU Crews performing corrective maintenance on 100K Towers ...................... 3

Table 1 - North Loop Asset Attributes ............................................................................... 5

Table 2 - BPA Asset Age Ranking System ........................................................................ 6

Table 3 - Assessment Ranking Summary (Wood Poles) .................................................... 7

Table 4 - Assessment Ranking Summary (Steel Towers) .................................................. 8

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 1 of 32

1.0 PURPOSE

Evaluate the structural condition of the Hanford Electrical Utilities (EU) 230 kilo-volt

(kV) transmission lines from the Midway Substation to the Ashe Switching Station. There

is a need to determine their capability to supply reliable power for present and future loads

of the Central Plateau mission to 2060 and possibly beyond. This evaluation will

determine what actions are required to ensure the North Loop can sustain the Central

Plateau mission until permanently shut down.

2.0 HISTORY

The EU 230 kV transmission system is a loop-type system that was built as two separate

lines. The subject of this assessment, the North Loop transmission line from the Midway

Substation to the Ashe Switching Station (Ashe Tap), was built in the 1940’s to support

the Hanford facilities along the Columbia River. The second line, the South Loop was

built later. These lines are commonly referred to as the North and South Loop as seen in

the map below.

Figure 1 - EU 230 kV Transmission System Map

There has been a growing concern over the age of 230 kV North Loop and its asset

condition. In 2006, Project L-612 was originally initiated to repair the conductor supports

of approximately 3.8 miles of the 100K 230 kV North Loop lattice steel towers in line

sections A2-7-2, A7-9, and A9-1, (in the 100K Area). Project L-612 has now become the

230 kV North Loop replacement project.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 2 of 32

In June 2014, EU took a proactive approach for transmission line maintenance and

authorized the procurement of spare materials for fifteen (15) tangent structures. This

included five (5) of each of the three different conductor sizes in use in the transmission

lines. One (1) steel H-Frame structure, to back up a wood pole H-Frame, was also procured.

In July 2014, EU prepared a work package to assess the 3.8 miles of lattice steel towers

identified in the L-612 Project. Fire conditions prohibited performance of this work in July,

as EU vehicles must drive “off road” to reach these towers.

In November 2014, fire conditions permitted access to these towers and a routine line patrol

in the 100K Area discovered a failed lattice steel tower center phase conductor armor rod on

line section A9-1 (tower A9-1-5).

In response, EU obtained Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) authorization for an

outage of the North Loop between the A9 substation and Ashe Tap to perform maintenance.

At tower A9-5-1, the failed armor rod was replaced with a repair rod. The following are

photographs of their findings:

Figure 2 - Deteriorated Armor Rod

The armor rod on the “Better section” appears to still be intact. The “Worse section”

shows where the armor rod failed, and the transmission line conductor under the armor rod

was damaged. Broken strands of the conductor can be seen through the gaps in the armor

rod.

Even when the armor rod was removed from the “Better section,” it was noted that there

were a few instances of some broken conductors underneath.

The following photograph shows what was under the armor rod in the “Worse section.”

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 3 of 32

Figure 3 - Damaged 795 kcmil ACSR (Drake)

Some of the 795 ACSR (Drake) conductor outer stranding is damaged and broken.

Figure 4 - EU Crews performing corrective maintenance on 100K Towers

It was at this point that EU decided to take immediate action to repair all of the 100K Area

North Loop lattice steel tower tangent conductor supports, including the armor rod and

associated hardware (insulators, suspension clamps, etc.).

Once this repair effort was completed on the steel structures, the next step was to field

evaluate the North Loop H-Frame wood pole structures. The EU field evaluation

included:

• 10% of the North Loop wood pole structures, or 24 structures, were chosen for

sampling

• Inspection of the armor rods and associated hardware, repair or replacement as

needed

• The 636 ACSR (Egret) conductor was evaluated for damage

• Results were compiled and analyzed by Engineering

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 4 of 32

3.0 SCOPE

This assessment will compare the BPA asset ranking with the EU Field Assessment of the

230 kV North Loop. This assessment includes the 3.8 miles of lattice steel towers and the

21.4 miles of wood pole H-Frame structures that were field evaluated in November 2014.

1.7 miles of the North Loop lattice steel towers were not included in this assessment at this

time, as they were constructed in 1982, and are in culturally sensitive areas. 23.9 miles of

the South Loop were also not included in this assessment, as 17.2 miles were constructed

in 1982.

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS

The 230 kV North Loop needs to provide continued power support through the Central

Plateau D&D, which is assumed to be 2060. The following assumptions also apply:

1) Minimum ACSR conductor current rating to support the total capacity of the A6 & A8

substations.

2) Maintain the redundancy of the 230 kV Transmission System South Loop.

3) Maintain the third power delivery point at the Ashe Tap, with BPA and the Ashe

Substation.

4) Support the possibility of an additional 230 kV substation in the Central Plateau.

5.0 BPA AGED BASED RANKING

In 2010 BPA developed a Transmission Asset Management Strategy Sustain Program for

their wood pole lines. Once asset condition was established BPA could establish priorities

and planning to mitigate issues with their aged assets and improve overall system reliability.

At the time BPA developed this strategy, 40% of their approximately 5,000 miles of wood

pole transmission lines were 50 years or older.

In 2012 BPA developed a Steel Lines Sustain Program Asset Management Strategy as a tool

for determining the condition of their lattice steel tower lines. Once asset condition was

established, BPA could establish priorities and planning to mitigate issues with their aged

assets and improve overall system reliability. At the time BPA developed this strategy, 60%

of their 10,660 miles of their lattice steel tower transmission lines were 40 years or older.

The wood pole line ranking was based upon type and age of poles. The steel lines ranking

was based solely on age. There are some differences in opinion on pole life expectancy with

the BPA ranking. Since the damage that EU has noted has been restricted to the transmission

line components which support the conductor, regardless of the type of support structure, EU

adopted the BPA steel line ranking approach for all line ranking.

The following table represents the age of the North Loop structures and conductor. In

several sections of the North Loop, the structures were replaced and the conductor was

not. In several other sections, both the structures and the conductor have been replaced.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 5 of 32

Table 1 - North Loop Asset Attributes

Date Age

Line Section Miles Struct. Cond Description Line Cond

A1-1 0.51 1982 1982 Lattice Steel and Drake 33 33

A1-2 6.62 1982 1944 *Wood Poles with Egret 33 71

A1-3 1.06 2011 2011 New Wood Poles with Egret 4 4

A2-7-1 2.6 1982 1946 *Wood Poles with Egret 33 69

A2-7-2 1.49 1953 1953 Lattice Steel and Drake 62 62





A1-5 0.36 2012 2012 Wood Poles with Drake 3 3

A4-22-1 8.37 1982 1948 *Wood Poles with Egret 33 67

A4-22-2 1.15 1982 1982 Lattice Steel and Drake 33 33

Total 28.3

* - Estimated construction dates are based upon DMCS drawings.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 6 of 32

Table 2 - BPA Asset Age Ranking System

Note: 89% of the 230 kV North Loop assets are ranked IMPAIRED to POOR.

Component

Average Estimated Life Span

Age Range

"GOOD"Age Range

"FAIR"Age Range

"IMPAIRED"

Age Range

"POOR"** Wood Poles 60 =<30 1.4 6.2% 31-45 21.4 93.8% 46-60 >60

*** Steel

Towers 100 =<60 1.7 30.3% 61-80 3.8 69.7% 80-100 >100

* Conductors 70 =<40 3.1 10.9% 41-55 56-70 18.6 65.7% >70 6.6 23.3%* Insulator

Assemblies &

Associated 50 =<40 3.1 10.9% 41-50 51-60 18.6 65.7% >60 6.6 23.3%* Connectors 60 =<30 3.1 10.9% 31-45 46-60 18.6 65.7% >60 6.6 23.3%*** Footings 80 =<50 1.7 30.3% 51-65 3.8 69.7% 66-80 >80

* Counterpoise 80 =<50 1.7 5.9% 51-65 3.8 13.5% 66-80 22.8 80.7% >80

* - Percentages based upon overall 230 kV North Loop total length of 28.3 miles.

** - Percentages for Wood Poles are based upon 230 kV North Loop total length of 22.83 miles.

*** - Percentages for Steel Towers, Footings, and Counterpoise are based

upon 230 kV North Loop total length of 5.47 miles.

Circuit Miles

"GOOD"

Circuit Miles

"FAIR"Circuit Miles "IMPAIRED"

Circuit Miles

"POOR"

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 7 of 32

5.1 MSA 230 kV North Loop Wood Pole H-Frame Structure Field Assessment

The 230 kV North Loop field assessment covered 67.8% (137) of its total wood pole H-

Frame structures. Each of the 137 wood pole H-Frame structures were field inspected and

assessed. MSA craft assessment ranking was GOOD (10-15 year life), FAIR (5-10 year life),

and REPLACE (1-5 year life).

Table 3 - Assessment Ranking Summary (Wood Poles)

Component "GOOD" "FAIR" "REPLACE" Wood Pole Structure Overall 10.42% 89.58%

Egret ACSR Conductor 100.0%

Egret ACSR Under Amor Rod 97.98% 2.02%

Suspension Insulators 100.00%

Cross Arm Attachment 100.00%

Overall Attachment Points 14.00% 86.00%

Static and Hardware 42.48% 57.52%

Y Ball Fittings 100.00%

Percentages based upon the number of wood pole structures assessed.

The craft assessment actually had four (4) rankings of GOOD, GOOD-FAIR, FAIR, and

FAIR-REPLACE. The in between rankings were moved to the next higher ranking level to

save confusion, i.e. GOOD-FAIR was Ranked as FAIR and FAIR-REPLACE as REPLACE.

Based upon observation and experience, all of the 636 ACSR (Egret) was ranked REPLACE

due to extensive corona damage and the age of the conductor.

In the 24 wood pole H-Frame structures that the armor was replaced with repair rod, the

condition of the conductor under the armor rod was as expected due to the armor rod

protecting the conductor from corona, but there was still some conductor damage observed.

One of the key factors in not finding more conductor damage is that the wood pole H-Frame

structures have shorter span lengths, which vary from 400-600 ft. The shorter span lengths

reduce the hardware and conductor stresses at the supports, but does not preclude the fact that

the 636 ACSR (Egret) conductor is 67 to 71 years old.

Issues not mentioned specifically by the BPA assessment are the last four (4) items listed

above. Apparently the static wire (galvanize stranded steel wire) supports have been and are

an issue for concern. There have been a number of static wire support failures allowing the

static wire to drop down between the energized phases. This type of failure to date has not

caused an unplanned 230 kV outage, but is definitely a concern that it could.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 8 of 32

5.2 MSA 230 kV North Loop Lattice Steel Tower Field Assessment

The 230 kV North Loop lattice steel tower assessment covered 54.5% (18) of its 33 lattice

steel towers. Each of the 18 lattice steel towers were field inspected and assessed. This

assessment did not include the lattice steel towers that were constructed in 1982. MSA

experience craft assessment ranking was GOOD (10-15 year life), FAIR (5-10 year life), and

REPLACE (1-5 year life).

Table 4 - Assessment Ranking Summary (Steel Towers)

Component "GOOD" "FAIR" "REPLACE" Steel Tower Overall 27.27% 72.73%

Drake ACSR Conductor 100.0%

Drake ACSR Under Amor Rod 54.55% 45.45%

Suspension Insulators 90.91% 9.09%

Overall Attachment Points 27.27% 72.73%

Static and Hardware 90.91% 9.09%

Y Ball Fittings 100.00%

Percentages based upon the number of lattice steel towers assessed.

Again, the craft assessment actually had four (4) rankings of GOOD, GOOD-FAIR, FAIR,

and FAIR-REPLACE. The in between rankings were moved to the next higher ranking level

to save confusion, i.e. GOOD-FAIR was Ranked as FAIR and FAIR-REPLACE as

REPLACE.

18 of the 230 kV North Loop 100K tangent lattice steel tower conductor support armor rods

were replaced with repair rod to mitigate any further conductor damage.

Based upon observation and experience, the 795 ACSR (Drake) conductor was ranked FAIR

due to corona, conductor damage, and age of the conductor.

The condition of the conductor under the armor rod was ranked GOOD to FAIR due to the

amount of conductor damage found under both the un-damaged and damaged armor rod.

One of the key factors in finding conductor damage was the 1000 ft. span lengths, coupled

with the fact that steel towers are rigid support, which can increase active component wear.

The longer span lengths increase hardware and conductor stresses at the supports, plus the

fact that the 795 ACSR (Drake) conductor is over 60 years old.

Issues not mentioned specifically by the BPA assessment are the last four (4) items listed

above. Apparently the static wire (galvanize stranded steel wire) supports have been and are

an issue for concern. There have been a number of static wire support failures allowing the

static wire to drop down between the energized phases. This type of failure to date has not

caused an unplanned 230 kV outage, but is definitely a concern that it could.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 9 of 32

6.0 DISCUSSION

It is apparent, from the BPA ranking and EU field assessment, that the asset condition of the

230 kV North Loop will not support the required long term mission of the Central Plateau of

2060 and possibly beyond.

The risks of not doing anything will result in compromised reliability, active component

failures, and unplanned outages of the 230 kV North Loop. This will create repercussions

with the Central Plateau mission, WTP, BPA, Columbia Generating Station, and possible

WECC/NERC compliance issues.

Some possible options to ensure the long term mission support are as follows:

• Replace conductor and hardware on existing structures

• Rebuild and re-conductor

• Reroute and install new shortening overall circuit miles

Replacing the existing conductor and hardware does not solve the aged structural issues.

Although rebuild and re-conductor would solve the long term support requirement, it leaves a

considerable and unnecessary circuit mile foot print.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The best approach, and probably the most cost effective, is to re-route and re-build new

within the next five years. This approach is based upon the EU Field Assessment for

Replacement. The re-route and re-build new could reduce the circuit mile foot print by up to

10 miles, leaving a total 230 kV North Loop circuit length somewhere around 18 miles from

the Midway substation to the Ashe Tap. Repurposing the out of service 230 kV A3 line from

the A8 substation to the 100K, and radial feeding the A9 substation with it, may need to be

considered.

Recommend a 230 kV North Loop alternatives study be performed with structure type,

conductor size options, including design/construction estimates. Once the study has been

performed, a path forward can be established and budgeted.

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 10 of 32

Appendix A – 230 kV North Loop Wood Pole Structure Field Assessment

SI CAA OAP OS S&H WUAR Y Ball

Structure GOOD FAIR GOOD FAIR

GOOD FAIR

GOOD FAIR

GOOD

FAIR POOR

GOOD FAIR FAIR

A1-4 Pole X X X X X X X






A1-10 Pole X X X X X X














HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 11 of 32

A1-24 Pole

X X X X X X X




























HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 12 of 32

A1-52 Pole

X X X X X X X













A2-7-10 Pole X X X X X X X

A2-7-11 Pole X X X X X X














HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 13 of 32

A2-7-25 Pole

X X X X X X








A2-7-9 Pole X X X X

A4-ASHET-10 Pole X X X

A4-ASHET-18 Pole X

A4-ASHET-19 Pole X

A4-ASHET-20 Pole X X X X

A4-ASHET-21 Pole X



A4-ASHET-47 Pole X

A4-ASHET-48 Pole X

A4-ASHET-49 Pole X

A4-ASHET-50 Pole X

A4-ASHET-51 Pole X

A4-ASHET-52 Pole X

A4-ASHET-53 Pole X


A4-ASHET-55 Pole X

A4-ASHET-56 Pole X

A4-ASHET-57 Pole X

A4-ASHET-58 Pole X

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 14 of 32

A4-ASHET-59 Pole

X

A4-ASHET-60 Pole X

A4-ASHET-61 Pole X

A4-ASHET-62 Pole X


A4-ASHET-64 Pole X

A4-ASHET-65 Pole X

A4-ASHET-66 Pole X

A4-ASHET-67 Pole X

A4-ASHET-68 Pole X

A4-ASHET-69 Pole X


A4-ASHET-71 Pole X

A4-ASHET-72 Pole X

A4-ASHET-73 Pole X

A4-ASHET-74 Pole X

A4-ASHET-75 Pole X

A4-ASHET-76 Pole X


A4-ASHET-78 Pole X

A4-ASHET-79 Pole X

A4-ASHET-80 Pole X

A4-ASHET-81 Pole X


A4-ASHET-83 Pole X

A4-ASHET-84 Pole X

A4-ASHET-85 Pole X

A7-9-4A Pole X X X X X

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 15 of 32

A9-1-12 Pole

X X X X

A9-1-17 Pole X X X

A9-1-19 Pole X X X X

A9-1-26 Pole X X X

A1-4-17 Pole X X X

Good 0 0 14 10 48 97 0

Fair 84 84 86 86 0 2 85

Replace 65 0

Total 84 84 100 96 113 99 85

Good 0.00% 0.00% 14.00% 10.42% 42.48% 97.98% 0.00%

Fair 100.00

%

100.00%

86.00% 89.58% 0.00% 2.02% 100.00

%

Replace 57.52%

Total 100.00

%

100.00%

100.00

%

100.00%

100.00

%

100.00%

100.00%

CAA = Cross Arm Attachment Twelve Structures Re-Rod Midway to A9

OAP = Overall Attachment Points Twelve Structures Re-Rod A9 to ASHE

OS = Overall Structure

S&H = Static and Hardware 137 < Assessed

SI = Suspension Insulators 85 < Not Assessed

WIRE = Wire 222 < Total Wood Structures WUAR = Wire Under Amor

Rod

Y Ball = Y Ball

A1-4-2 Pole

A1-4-3 Pole

A1-4-4 Pole

A1-4-5 Pole

A1-4-6 Pole

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 16 of 32

A1-4-7 Pole

A1-4-8 Pole

A1-4-9 Pole

A1-4-10 Pole

A1-4-11 Pole

A1-4-13 Pole

A1-4-14 Pole

A1-4-15 Pole

A1-4-16 Pole

A1-4-18 Pole

A1-4-19 Pole

A1-4-20 Pole

A1-4-21 Pole

A1-73 Pole

A1-74 Pole

A1-75 Pole

A1-76 Pole

A1-77 Pole

A1-78 Pole

A1-79 Pole

A1-80 Pole

A1-81 Pole

A1-82 Pole

A1-83 Pole

A1-84 Pole

A1-85 Pole

A1-86 Pole

A1-87 Pole

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 17 of 32

A1-5-1 Pole

A1-5-2 Pole

A1-5-3 Pole

A1-5-4 Pole

A1-5-5 Pole

A1-5-6 Pole

A4-ASHET-05 Pole

A4-ASHET-06 Pole

A4-ASHET-07 Pole

A4-ASHET-08 Pole

A4-ASHET-09 Pole

A4-ASHET-11 Pole

A4-ASHET-12 Pole

A4-ASHET-13 Pole

A4-ASHET-14 Pole

A4-ASHET-15 Pole

A4-ASHET-16 Pole

A4-ASHET-17 Pole

A4-ASHET-22 Pole

A4-ASHET-23 Pole

A4-ASHET-24 Pole

A4-ASHET-25 Pole

A4-ASHET-26 Pole

A4-ASHET-28 Pole

A4-ASHET-29 Pole

A4-ASHET-30 Pole

A4-ASHET-31 Pole

A4-ASHET-32 Pole

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 18 of 32

A4-ASHET-33 Pole

A4-ASHET-34 Pole

A4-ASHET-35 Pole

A4-ASHET-37 Pole

A4-ASHET-38 Pole

A4-ASHET-39 Pole

A4-ASHET-40 Pole

A4-ASHET-41 Pole

A4-ASHET-42 Pole

A4-ASHET-43 Pole

A4-ASHET-44 Pole

A4-ASHET-45 Pole

A4-ASHET-46 Pole

A9-1-13 Pole

A9-1-14 Pole

A9-1-15 Pole

A9-1-16 Pole

A9-1-18 Pole

A9-1-20 Pole

A9-1-21 Pole

A9-1-22 Pole

A9-1-23 Pole

A9-1-24 Pole

A9-1-25 Pole

230 85 < Not Assessed

137 < Assessed

222 < Total Wood Structures

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 19 of 32

Appendix B – 230 kV North Loop Steel Tower Field Assessment

SI CAA OAP OS S&H TAP WUAR Y Ball

Structure G O O D FAIR GOOD F A I R GOOD F A I R GOOD F A I R GOOD FAIR REPLACE GOOD F A I R GOOD F A I R GOOD F A I R

A1-4-1 Tower X X X X X X X

A2-7-

35

Tower

A2-7-

36

Tower

A2-7-

37

Tower

A2-7-

38

Tower

X X X X X X X

A2-7-

39

Tower

X X X X X X X

A2-7-

40

Tower

X X X X X X X

A2-7-

41

Tower

X X X X X X X

A2-7-

42

Tower

X X X X X X X




A9-1-5 Tower

A9-1-6 Tower

A9-1-7 Tower


A9-1-9 Tower X X X X X X

A9-1-10

Tower

Good 10 0 3 3 10 0 6 0

Fair 1 1 8 8 0 10 5 10

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 20 of 32

Repla

ce 1

Total 11 1 11 11 11 10 11 10

Good 90.91% 0.00% 27.27% 27.27% 90.91% 0.00% 54.55% 0.00%

Fair 9.09% 100.00% 72.73% 72.73% 0.00% 100.00% 45.45% 100.00%

Repla

ce 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 0 0 .00 % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

CAA = Cross Arm Attachment Steel Towers Re-Rod K-Loop

OAP = Overall Attachment Points

OS = Overall Structure

S&H = Static and

Hardware 18 < Assessed

SI = Suspension

Insulators 15 < Not Assessed

WIRE = Wire 33 < Total Steel Towers

WUAR = Wire Under Amor Rod

Y Ball = Y Ball

A2-7-33

Tower

A2-7-

34

Tower

A2-7-43

Tower

A7-9-1 Tower

A-791-1

Tower

A-791-

14

Tower

A-791-2

Tower

A7-9-2 Tower

A7-9-3 Tower

A7-9-5 Tower

A7-9-6 Tower

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 21 of 32

A7-9-7 Tower

A9-1-1 Tower

A9-1-11

Tower

A9-1-2 Tower

15

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 22 of 32

Appendix C – 230 kV North Loop Craft Field Assessment

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 23 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 24 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 25 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 26 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 27 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 28 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 29 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 30 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 31 of 32

HNF-59075, Rev 0

Page 32 of 32

230 kv north loop assessment...a9 -2 1.74 1977 1946 *wood poles with egret 38 69 a1-4 2.08 1977 1948...

Documents