ML20235A160
| ML20235A160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Browns Ferry |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1984 |
| From: | Fox J, Harwell E, Woods T TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082420107 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709230224 | |
| Download: ML20235A160 (6) | |
Text
.
i M ETA LLU RGIC AL R EPO RT INSPECTION REPORT BROWNS FERRY MUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 MISCELLANEOUS DRAIN HEADER ULTRASONIC TEST EVALUATION Prepared By h
L Date L
Submitted h l Y k',i_ Y [f549W % ate
/ 10*3 G
Introduction A UT evaluation was performed on the subject header during the unit 1, cycle 5 outags to document the existing pipe wall integrity. This header is an equipment drain line which primarily carries residual shell afde high-pressure feedwater heater condensate to the equipment drain sump. The evaluation was requested because of a previous erosion-corrosion piping failure of this identical header on unit 2.
Erosion-corrosion may occur in the carbon steel piping if there is a pressure drop in the header (possibly caused by an open or leaking channel relier valve during operation) resulting in the condensate flashing to saturated steam with a relative low pH.
Unanticipated failures may cause injury to plant personnel and/or damage to plant components.
Discussion Ten locations were selected for the UT examination. These locations are found primarily in the unit 1 high-pressure feedwater heater rooms and condensate demineralized valve rooms. The piping varies from 3 to 4 inches in diameter throughout the run.
The minimum wall thickness value for continued operation was calculated for each pip'e diameter. This value is based on the following design parameters.
Design Temperature 3500F Design Pressure 125 psis Material Specification ASME SA106, Grade B Pipe Diameters Pipe Schedule
'3 to 4 inches 40 TVA Class C
ASME Corrosion Allowance 0.080 inch The calculated minimum wall values for the 3-and 4-inch-diameter piping are 0.095 and 0.099 inch, respectively. These values include the ASME corrosion allowance.
UT data generated from the locations examined did not show any appreciable wall degradation. Each individual square of the grids that were examined exceeded the minimum wall value required for continued operation.
Attached is a copy of the field data.
Conclusion The UT evaluation demonstrated that the structural integrity of the header j
still exists. It is concluded that erosion-corrosion is not occurring in this line, and that the previous failure on unit 2 was an isolated case l
which was probably caused by valve leakage. It is recommended that no further UT examinations be performed on this header unless additional
)
throughwall failures occur.
TRW:FSD l
Attachment 1/27/84 B.2026D.FD j
)
Q X R x 9, D l% Q K N, x X 'k k
e e
MEMQ@y i
QX 4 M X K Fq '4 f x %
'b x
4 x4WQXi -(
q
- 9xE.x4 D,%
4 i
Q 'A % d g jk qMQXix M
xqxa>8M 3
xgx e
3x a.q x' (k q 4a %
'w xqxRx4 t,
4 xn 4
44gRgW g k ;W4xqw 3
x a x. q >e th w x q s q R g, v it AqxaRa 8 R G. k.~: 44 9 %MS Xtx \\
!(e QNERQM 2 S
x 9 x a. W 9-a 4 xqW 3N4 s
- t x q >i a.N9 g N# RXk D\\
% 3, 7 %, k S X N R 9xiXQk
- il 4 x 9.x 8 x, q N-iq x N
fq x3xix +l
>g x g. *g>4q w
a R x s. x M
-m 4*q>Rxa. igx g H a* p PQ xixqx
=p y R
% K9 x A x 5. x.@, w %@ QkMX8x Wgle xqxaxi g
gg N
5 N-a x j'x Q X p
x p a. x g
g xax e.x,n.
N 93xqxa 4 g s.1-v axaxe %g b W.xaxqx s qxaxg* g ct.a xqxgW
-4 i
X 3 M q d q.
WqAjxq JMD
+
g 4 x a x.9
%xa m
m m i Aqxex 3 4%
x G.x.x q x e N@
x4x ax 3
4 x q. q xaxaAq Q
gg m
E x 4 '>4 9 sk
' :9 x a >e 9 x
- 9 A ;; g e s Q i
g i
w aa e a w c: e e o u u.
ee e c w u.
y w q, g,
'k b-4X@XS t, t 3,AQAq R (xQx s 'x, $
m 6
$ O~
d5M t x 5t x% x *3*
- Te x 9 M R
a x3xa q n v
eP t C t 9Rg*9 i t 4x4wgx
{?gB.
o a
o xixxx *q
- xaxqw q a xpg xw d Wa cF 4xqxq W k a w gx'a k
e gxqxg oq:
(
t t x % N r1 x q !r x W. x q x xtQ 21w i x% x R x y
8x% t qxx@g%NRR
=p\\ (y txqxqW e
3 s
y ej
'iX%X 4,I 4
k Q X q, X Q x' h kV g}y%d s
WNQXQ "Q3
.i x y X M 4
R N
=
g x 4x q's eqxgm a.
s lX@X@ *3 x 4, x
.e 3 X Q,g x xwxsx
.% g 3 g
'x Q X Q X
($ iMh*4N QX
- 4xMx co W s
X G, x 3 x Q
%g, ac 4x3 s3 v
W 9R Qx4 Q!
% x W >( q s Ne "
s l:ttxgx ga Mgl xqxas w n.
axg N'y w
w me w x e. xa m yxax g;w*
e
.mx%x *y
- x e.x q x 9
x q xa gq y 2
m
,xexg ng axqxy 3
I o
m 3x ax o nx;qw m
a=xa g
- :x q x e.m$:;
wx4x
.-. w s w n s @
g
=
x xaxq q
9 x a ><
s q
eucw eccow c e c c. m u.
N h-
%%M TN m
___,_,_,.------.------M
.I 1
OA R
4 d
b W
q tk 9
M p
4 D
h
?'
%R R
t e
e a
v OR R
h
~
~
N
>E D
b
%] jd a
g e
~
E Y.
n b
Ps EW Q
A b
st "N
R D
.h Q
R 0
t 3a 0
T D
% e$ -
4 en a
k s
s o
~
N N
Q N
x %.c %
is s
em 2
t
?
b 2
e 0
h EQ s'x~
k%
N5 ht h
h Wp
,n
~
s 1
e b
e
~
y IN S l 4 N N
N th h
h -g
)
3 M
S 0
0 7
t-4 M
hE73 ea t
xE mw o
n a
g
{
a
.st u
s
's t 0
~v i
~~
~
m Q
R n-N N
N N be ch h hd
=0 t
h +
q R
h n
1 g
w t
t t
n n
s a
w s
m
-'y, Eu m
u N
N 9h b
?
n
~
~
n
~
a a
~
R R
k uk u
~s w
u
~
~
,~
~
~
N N
h N
h y
Q h
n S
?
4 N 0
t h
g-g", R g
w v
n k
B
>M a
t E
l n
a n
,N m
k m-b a
,R a
"A 2
~t h
n a
n
~
R S
s e
t t
- '" ' 4 W ih 9eu9%
8 l
%mvg%
3'
ni. :.
Elf.1 H&k THINNING INSPECTION DATA PLANT:
8M UNIT:
d INSP. DATE:
d.A t8 / 7/ 8 SYSTEM:
~7ivt/~k 8 Mwd M11.
l d
MTL. CLASS./ REFERENCE THICKNESS:
G Su d
)
l 5 M e,> d
'. LOCATIONS INSPECTED:
l PURPOSE OF INSPECTION:
AlN S-t u M ~t_uu j
FOR WALL THINNING 7 da J
b khf INSPECTION DETAILS:
METHOD:
OT INSTRUMENTS:
GRIDS.:
IHSPECTION RESULTS:
I" 4,uf CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
C, S,sd REPAIR / REPLACEMENT 7 MATERIALS CHANGES 7 FAILURE ANALYSIS 7 DOCUMENTATION: Alcmnd 6/f Feo-... d%
6". E h.ic [/.
s.ch / Al t/ 19/1 ( L 2 9 7_e cs Vit rio ).
1
L29 830511 81 0 May 11, 1983 4
C.-R. Favreau 12140 CST 2-C.
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 - TURBINE EXHAUST PIPING EVALUATION Attached for your information is a copy of the inspection report pertaining to the subject piping.
l i
'E. F. Harwell l
OJP:TRW:WDA l
Attachment 3
cc (Attachment):
.-'(
NUC PR ARMS, 1520 CST 2-C l
This was prepared principally by Terry Woods.
B1125B.WA O
=8 f.
(.
L
-- -