Nuclear Safety
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
June 2014www.oecd-nea.org

cODAP Topical Report
Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC)
of Carbon Steel and Low Alloy
Steel Piping in Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants

Unclassified

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

20-Jan-2015________________________________________________________________________________________________________English text only
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYCOMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONSNEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Unclassified

Cancels & replaces the same document of 18 June 2014

CODAP TOPICAL REPORT
Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) of Carbon Steel & Low Alloy Steel Piping in Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants

JT03369511
English text only

Complete document available on OLIS in its original format
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation ofinternational frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, socialand environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help
governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and thechallenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international
policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of theOECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic,
social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

This work is published on the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General.
The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of
31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic ofKorea, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom
and the United States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:– to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, thescientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government
decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable
development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste
management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law
and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these andrelated tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it
has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation ofinternational frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2013
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia
products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of the OECD as source
and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for
permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at
info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.

2

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

Within the OECD framework, the NEA Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) is aninternational committee made of senior scientists and engineers, with broad responsibilities for safety
technology and research programmes, as well as representatives from regulatory authorities. It was set up
in 1973 to develop and co-ordinate the activities of the NEA concerning the technical aspects of the design,
construction and operation of nuclear installations insofar as they affect the safety of such installations.
The committee’s purpose is to foster international co-operation in nuclear safety amongst the NEA
member countries. The CSNI’s main tasks are to exchange technical information and to promotecollaboration between research, development, engineering and regulatory organisations; to review
operating experience and the state of knowledge on selected topics of nuclear safety technology and safetyassessment; to initiate and conduct programmes to overcome discrepancies, develop improvements andresearch consensus on technical issues; and to promote the co-ordination of work that serves to maintaincompetence in nuclear safety matters, including the establishment of joint undertakings.
The clear priority of the committee is on the safety of nuclear installations and the design and constructionof new reactors and installations. For advanced reactor designs the committee provides a forum for
improving safety related knowledge and a vehicle for joint research.
In implementing its programme, the CSNI establishes co-operate mechanisms with the NEA’s Committee
on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA) which is responsible for the programme of the Agency
concerning the regulation, licensing and inspection of nuclear installations with regard to safety. It also cooperates with the other NEA’s Standing Committees as well as with key international organisations (e.g.,
the IAEA) on matters of common interest.

3

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

4

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Structural integrity of piping systems is important for plant safety and operability. In recognition ofthis, information on degradation and failure of piping components and systems is collected and evaluatedby regulatory agencies, international organisations (e.g., OECD/NEA and IAEA) and industry
organisations worldwide to provide systematic feedback for example to reactor regulation and research anddevelopment programmes associated with non-destructive examination (NDE) technology, in-service
inspection (ISI) programmes, leak-before-break evaluations, risk-informed ISI, and probabilistic safetyassessment (PSA) applications involving passive component reliability.
Several NEA Member Countries have agreed to establish the OECD/NEA "Component Operational
Experience, Degradation & Ageing Programme" (CODAP) to encourage multilateral co-operation in thecollection and analysis of data relating to degradation and failure of metallic piping and non-piping
metallic passive components in commercial nuclear power plants. The scope of the data collection includes
service-induced wall thinning, part through-wall cracks, through-wall cracks with and without active
leakage, and instances of significant degradation of metallic passive components, including piping pressure
boundary integrity. The Project is organised under the OECD/NEA Committee on the Safety of Nuclear
Installations (CSNI).
CODAP is the continuation of the 2002–2011 "OECD/NEA Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project"(OPDE) and the Stress Corrosion Cracking Working Group of the 2006–2010 “OECD/NEA SCC and
Cable Ageing project” (SCAP). OPDE was formally launched in May 2002. Upon completion of the 3 rdTerm (May 2011), the OPDE project was officially closed to be succeeded by CODAP. SCAP was enabled
by a voluntary contribution from Japan. It was formally launched in June 2006 and officially closed withan international workshop held in Tokyo in May 2010. Majority of the member organizations of the two
projects were the same, often being represented by the same person. In May 2011, thirteen countries signed
the CODAP 1st Term agreement (Canada, Chinese Taipei, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany,
Korea (Republic of), Japan, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United States of America).
The 1st Term work plan includes the preparation of Topical Reports to foster technical cooperation and todeepen the understanding of national differences in ageing management. The Topical Reports constitute
CODAP Event Database and Knowledge Base insights reports and as such act as portals for future in-depth
studies of selected degradation mechanisms. This, the first Topical Report addresses flow accelerated
corrosion (FAC) of carbon steel and low alloy steel piping.
FAC involves wall thinning of carbon and low-alloy steel high-energy piping due to turbulent and fast
flowing water or wet steam that wears away the oxide layer (protective film) and leads to continued
corrosion of the underlying metal. FAC is a chemical effect that is primarily influenced by pH,hydrodynamics, oxygen content, and temperature. The geometric aspects of the system design and piping
layout play a key role in the occurrence of FAC-induced wall thinning and potential major structural
failures. FAC has caused sudden ruptures (break-before-leak, BBL) in high and moderate energy piping
systems, resulting in plant transients and affecting safety/non safety related equipment by leaking steam
and water (spatial effects). FAC also poses an occupational safety hazard. All reactor types haveexperienced some type of FAC related events in their piping systems. As a result, FAC management
programmes have been implemented to monitor and mitigate pipe wall thinning.
The CODAP Topical Report on "FAC of Carbon Steel and Low Alloy Steel Piping" includes a primer
on the environmental and operational factors affecting FAC-susceptibility, and evaluates service
experience data. Also included in the report are descriptions of the national FAC management programmeapproaches and a summary of other information collected in the CODAP Knowledge Base. The report has

5

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
been prepared by the CODAP Project Review Group, with support from the CODAP Operating Agent andthe CODAP Knowledge Base Coordinator.

6

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................5
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................................9
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................10
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...........................................................................................................11
1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................15
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2.

CODAP OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE .....................................................................................................19
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

3.

Project History ................................................................................................................................19
Data Collection Methodology .........................................................................................................21
FAC Failure Definitions..................................................................................................................22
CODAP Knowledge Base ...............................................................................................................23

FLOW ACCELERATED CORROSION PRIMER ...............................................................................25
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

4.

Technical Scope of CODAP Topical Report #1 .............................................................................15
Report Structure ..............................................................................................................................15
Historical Perspective .....................................................................................................................15
Safety Significance of FAC Induced Pipe Failures .........................................................................18

Effect of Temperature .....................................................................................................................25
Effect of Flow Velocity...................................................................................................................25
Effect of Fluid pH ...........................................................................................................................26
Effect of Oxygen .............................................................................................................................26
Effect of Alloy Additions ................................................................................................................26
The Entrance Effect ........................................................................................................................27

FAC MANAGEMENT & FAC MITIGATION STRATEGIES ............................................................29
4.1 Canada.............................................................................................................................................29
4.2 Chinese Taipei.................................................................................................................................30
4.3 Czech Republic ...............................................................................................................................31
4.4 Finland ............................................................................................................................................32
4.5 France ..............................................................................................................................................34
4.6 Germany ..........................................................................................................................................34
4.7 Japan ...............................................................................................................................................35
4.8 Korea (Republic of) ........................................................................................................................37
4.9 Slovak Republic ..............................................................................................................................38
4.10
Spain ..........................................................................................................................................39
4.11
Sweden ......................................................................................................................................40
4.12
Switzerland ................................................................................................................................41
4.12.1
NPP Leibstadt (BWR) ...............................................................................................................41

7

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
4.12.24.12.34.12.44.13
5.

FAC EVENT POPLATION DATA ......................................................................................................45
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

6.

Practical Data Analysis Guidelines .................................................................................................57
FAC Data Exploration ....................................................................................................................58
FAC-Specific Piping Reliability Parameter Estimation ..................................................................59

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................63
7.1
7.2

8.

Susceptible Piping Systems ............................................................................................................45
Reporting of FAC Events ................................................................................................................46
High-Level FAC Data Summary ....................................................................................................46
Completeness & Comprehensiveness of CODAP ..........................................................................52
Effectiveness of Programs for FAC Wear Rate Prediction .............................................................54
Operability & Safety Impacts of FAC Events.................................................................................55

FAC EVENT DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................57
6.1
6.2
6.3

7.

NPP Mühleberg (BWR).............................................................................................................42
NPP Gösgen (PWR) ..................................................................................................................42
NPP Beznau (PWR, 2 Units) .....................................................................................................42
USA ...........................................................................................................................................43

Summary .........................................................................................................................................63
Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................65

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX A SELECTED SIGNIFICANT FAC EVENT DESCRIPTIONS............................................73
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5

Feedwater Heater Drain Pipe Rupture at Trojan .............................................................................74
Feedwater Heater Extraction Steam Line Rupture at Hatch-2 ........................................................74
Main Feedwater Line Rupture at Surry Unit 2 ................................................................................75
Failed High-Pressure Extraction Line at Fort Calhoun ...................................................................76
Condensate System Pipe Rupture at Mihama-3 ..............................................................................77

APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS.............................................................................818

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Examples of Flow-Assisted Pipe Wall Thinning Mechanisms ..................................................... 15
Figure 2: FAC Event Records by Plant System ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 3: FAC Event Population by Pipe Size ............................................................................................. 49
Figure 4: FAC Event Population by ASME III Code Class ......................................................................... 50
Figure 5: FAC Event Records by Plant Type & Calendar Year ................................................................... 50
Figure 6: FAC Event Population (i) for 2000-2012 ..................................................................................... 51
Figure 7: FAC Event Population (ii) for 2000-2012 .................................................................................... 51
Figure 8: FAC Events as a Function of Component Age at the Time of Failure ......................................... 52
Figure 9: FAC Event Impact on Plant Operation ......................................................................................... 56
Figure 10: US FAC Experience .................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 11: Conditional Rupture Probability According to Empirical & Theoretical Studies ...................... 61
Figure 12: Results of Extraction Steam Piping Rupture Frequency Calculation ......................................... 62
Figure A-1: Ruptured Elbow in Feedwater Line at Surry 2 ......................................................................... 76
Figure A-2: Ruptured Long-Radius Elbow .................................................................................................. 77
Figure A-3: Mihama-3 Condensate Pipe Failure .......................................................................................... 799

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Scope of SEAS FAC Programme ................................................................................................... 38
Table 2: Swedish Control Group Matrix ...................................................................................................... 40
Table 3: FAC Event Population ................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4: Estimates of RC/F for Small-Bore FAC-Susceptible Piping ............................................................ 54
Table 5: Calculation Cases ........................................................................................................................... 60
Table 6: Summary of the National Approaches to FAC Management ......................................................... 63

10

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AEC

Atomic Energy Council (Chinese

COMSY Condition Oriented Ageing and Plant

Taipei)Life Monitoring System

AFCEN French Association for Design,

CRP

Construction and In-Service Inspection

Coordinated Research Project (by
IAEA)

Rules for Nuclear Island Components

CRP

Conditional Rupture Probability

AFW

Auxiliary Feedwater

CSA

Canadian Standards Association

ASME

American Society of Mechanical

CSN

Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear

Engineers

CSNI

Committee on the Safety of Nuclear

ASTM

American Society for Testing andInstallations

Materials (now "ASTM International"

DEGB

Double-Ended Guillotine BreakAll Volatile Treatment

DN

Nominal Diameter [mm]

B&PVC Boiler & Pressure Vessel CodeDO

Dissolved Oxygen

BBL

Break-Before-Leak

E/C

Erosion-Corrosion

BOP

Balance-of-Plant

E-C

Erosion-Cavitation

CHEC

Chexal-Horowitz-Erosion-Corrosion

EBS

Equivalent Break Size

CHUG

CHECWORKS® User Group

ECP

Electrochemical Corrosion Potential

CODAP Component Operational Experience,

EdF

Electricité de France

Degradation and Ageing Program

ENIQ

European Network for Inspection and

AVT

COG

CANDU Owners Group

CNSC

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Qualification

11

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
EPIX

Equipment Performance Information

LPH

Low Pressure Feedwater Heater

Exchange System

MBM

Moving Blanket Method

EPR

European Pressurized Reactor

MSR

Moisture Separator Reheater

FAC

Flow Accelerated Corrosion

NDE

Non-Destructive Examination

FEA

Finite Element Analysis

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

GALL

Generic Aging Lessons Learned

NEI

Nuclear Energy Institute

H-AVT High AVT

NPP

Nuclear Power Plant

HBD

Heat Balance Diagram

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

HELB

High Energy Line Break

NSSS

Nuclear Steam Supply System

HP

High Pressure

NWC

Normal Water Chemistry

HPCI

High Pressure Coolant Injection

OAR

Owner's Activity Report

HPH

High Pressure Feedwater Heater

OBE

Operating Basis Earthquake

HWC

Hydrogen Water Chemistry

NWC

Normal Water Chemistry

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

PHTS

Primary Heat Transport System

ID

Inside Diameter

PSA

Probabilistic Safety Assessment

INPO

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

RCPB

Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary

ISI

In-Service Inspection

RF

Refuelling Cycle

JSME

Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

RI-ISI

Risk Informed In-Service Inspection

KB

Knowledge BaseSCAP

Stress Corrosion Cracking and Cable

KEPCO Kansai Electric Power Company

Ageing Project

KHNP

Korea Hydro & Nuclear PowerSDP

Significance Determination Process

KKM

Kernkraftwerk Mühleberg

SEAS

Slovenské elektrárne, a.s

LBB

Leak-Before-BreakSGBD

Steam Generator Blowdown

LCF

Line Correction Factor

SNCT

Syndicat National de la Chaudronnerie,

LDIE

Liquid Droplet Impingement Erosion

de la Tôlerie et de la TuyauterieLP

Low Pressure

Industrielle
12

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
SSC

Systems, Structures, and Components

TPC

Taiwan Power Company

SSE

Safe Shutdown Earthquake

UT

Ultrasonic Inspection Technique

SSM

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority

VGB

Vereinigung der Großkraftwerk-

SOL

Safe Operating LifeTG

Turbine Generator

VT

Visual Inspection TechniqueTGSCC Transgranular Stress Corrosion

WPB

Weldable (carbon steel) Pipe Grade B

betreiber

Cracking
TOFD

Time of Flight Diffraction

13

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

14

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
1.

INTRODUCTION

Flow assisted material degradation occurs in a variety of carbon steel and low alloy steel piping
systems. There are two types of flow assisted material degradation: 1) erosion of pipe wall caused byphysical processes such as high liquid velocities, impinging flows or solid particle impacts; and 2) flowaccelerated corrosion (FAC). The FAC degradation mechanism can cause thinning of large areas (or very
gradual local thinning) of piping that can lead to sudden failure of a piping pressure boundary. This
Topical Report on FAC is an information resource developed by the CODAP Project Review Group. The
report summarizes an evaluation of the FAC-specific service experience data included in the CODAP
Event Database and information from the CODAP Knowledge Base.
1.1

Technical Scope of CODAP Topical Report #1

This CODAP Topical Report #1 addresses FAC of carbon steel and low-alloy steel piping systems.
FAC is one of many flow assisted degradation mechanisms that cause global or highly localized wall
thinning and through-wall flaws; Figure 1. The report summarizes insights from the analysis of service
experience data as included in the CODAP Event Database. In analyzing the event data, special database
screening criteria have been applied to screen out wall thinning mechanisms such as erosion-cavitation,
erosion-corrosion, liquid droplet impingement erosion, and solid particle erosion.
Destruction of ID Protective Oxide Layer
FAC
ErosionChemical Dissolution-- Cavitation Erosion-- Flashing Erosion-- Droplet Impingement (LDIE)-- Solid Particle Erosion

Cavitation Process (Static Pressure < Vapor Pressure)
Like Erosion-Cavitation w/o Bubble Collapse
Two-Phase Flow Conditions / Large Pressure Drop
MechanicallyFigure 1: Examples of Flow-Assisted Pipe Wall Thinning Mechanisms
1.2

Report StructureThis report is structured as follows. Section 1 includes a historical perspective on FAC and a summaryof the safety significance of FAC. Section 2 describes the CODAP Event Database and Knowledge Base. It
elaborates on the failure definitions used by CODAP, with specific reference to FAC events. Section 3 is aprimer on FAC theory addressing the different environmental variables that control FAC. Section 4
addresses the different FAC mitigation strategies. Section 5 summarizes the CODAP FAC event content
and Section 6 includes a FAC event data analysis. Section 7 includes a summary and conclusions. Finally,a list of references is included in Section 8. Appendix A includes descriptions of selected significant FAC
events. Finally, Appendix B is a glossary of terms.
1.3

Historical Perspective

As described explained by Robinson and Drews [1], FAC and erosion-corrosion (E/C) have been usedinterchangeably to describe similar material degradation processes. Both types of damage involve
destruction of a protective oxide film on the inside pipe wall. The removal of the oxide film is generally
referred to as the erosion process. This is followed by electrochemical oxidation, or corrosive attack of the15

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
underlying metal. The differences between FAC and E/C involve the mechanism by which the protective
film is removed from the metal surface. In the E/C-process the film is removed mechanically from thesurface. In contrast, in the FAC-process the oxide is dissolved or prevented from forming, allowing
corrosion of the unprotected metal. FAC occurs in two-phase flow conditions (e.g., water droplets in steam
or steam bubbles in water) as well as single-phase flow conditions.
Nuclear power plant operators have been monitoring FAC since early plant life and have performed
repairs and replacements as warranted by pipe wall wear rates and pipe failures. In CODAP, one of theearliest recorded FAC events occurred in 1972 when a 6-inch elbow in a High Pressure Coolant Injection(HPCI)1 system piping developed a through-wall leak. In CODAP the earliest recorded pipe rupture is fromMay 1976, when a BWR plant experienced an Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) bypass line rupture during unit
start-up.
In the early 1980s, FAC was considered to be mainly a problem in two-phase flow (e.g., wet steam)systems. The first case of single-phase FAC induced pipe failure was reported in 1985. On March 9, 1985,
Trojan Nuclear Power Plant2 was operating at 100% power when a DN350 (14-inch diameter) heater drain
pump discharge pipe made of SA-106 Grade B carbon steel failed catastrophically [2]. The failure caused
the release of a steam-water mixture of approximately 180°C into the turbine building. In addition to thefire suppression system actuation by heat sensors in the turbine building and damaged secondary plant
equipment, one member of the operating staff received first and second degree burns on 50% of his bodyfrom the high temperature fluid.
A second case of single-phase FAC-induced pipe failure was reported in 1986. On December 9, 1986,
a DN450 (18-inch diameter) suction line to the main feedwater pump for Surry-23 failed in a catastrophic
manner [3]. The line temperature at this location is approximately 185°C, with a pressure of approximately
2.55 MPa. The ruptured elbow was made of ASTM A-234 Grade WPB carbon steel. Water flashing fromthe severed pipe engulfed equipment and personnel in the area. Several workers were seriously burned.
Four of the eight men working nearby on another pipe were killed during the event. Within minutes of thepipe rupture, portions of the automatic fire protection system activated, opening 62 sprinklers to cool theatmosphere in the area of the rupture. The water from the sprinklers seeped into electrical panels, shortedout several electrical circuits that control other fire suppression equipment, and activated some systems
containing carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide combined with other fire retardants and seeped into thecontrol room.
These two events are of historical significance. They demonstrated that significant FAC-induced pipe
wall thinning can occur not only in wet steam lines (two-phase flow conditions) but also under single phaseflow conditions. From a FAC management perspective, the two events raised questions about theeffectiveness of the then existing non-destructive examination (NDE) programmes to monitor piping
integrity for wall thinning and prevention of pipe failure. In July 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) issued U.S. licensees Bulletin No. 87-01, "Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power
Plants." The Bulletin requested all licensees for nuclear power plants holding an operating license or
construction permit to submit information concerning their programmes for monitoring pipe wall
thickness. In summary, the following information was requested:The codes and standards to which piping in condensate, feedwater, steam, and connected highenergy piping systems, including all safety-related and non-safety-related carbon steel piping
systems is designed and fabricated.

1

The HPCI system includes a turbine-driven pump. The steam supply/discharge piping to/from turbine-driven pump is susceptible to FAC.

2

Trojan NPP, an early 4-loop PWR designed by Westinghouse, was permanently shutdown in November 1992.

3

A 3-loop PWR designed by Westinghouse, the unit entered into commercial operation in May 1973.

16

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Description of the scope and extent of programmes for ensuring that pipe wall thicknesses are not
reduced below the minimum allowable.



For liquid-phase systems, identify the factors that are considered in establishing criteria for
selecting points at which to make thickness measurements.



Chronologically list and summarize the results of all inspections that have been performed, whichwere specifically conducted for the purpose of identifying pipe wall thinning.

Description of any plans for revising the present or for developing new or additional programmes
for monitoring pipe wall thickness.

All licensees responded to the bulletin and the NRC staff completed its review of the responses in
December 1987. Furthermore, at the end of September 1988, the NRC staff completed inspection of 10
plants to assess the licensees' efforts toward implementing their FAC monitoring programmes. NUREG1344 [4] summarizes the responses to Bulletin 87-01.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 1985 [5] issued a guideline for FAC inspection of
wet steam lines. The proposed FAC inspection programme addressed the parameters affecting FAC and atechnical basis for prioritizing the examinations. Consideration was given to using the empirical
relationship of pressure, velocity, and moisture content and Keller’s Equation [6] as methods for predicting
the rate of FAC in wet steam piping.
Subsequent to the above mentioned FAC failures in single-phase systems, EPRI developed the
CHEC® family of computer codes as predictive tools to assist plant operators in planning inspections andevaluating the inspection data to prevent pipe failures caused by FAC. In March 1987, the Nuclear
Management and Resources Council (NUMARC, now the Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI) established aworking group on FAC. The group developed a recommended industry programme to address single-phaseand two-phase FAC. NUMARC and EPRI developed a recommended inspection plan to monitor pipe wall
thinning problems. That programme is documented in “Recommendations for an Effective FlowAccelerated Corrosion Program,” NSAC-202L-R3 [7].
In May 1989, the NRC issued Generic Letter 89-08 [8], requesting all licensees to provide assurancesthat the NUMARC programme or another equally effective program had been implemented and that thestructural integrity of all high-energy (two phase as well as single phase) carbon steel systems wasmaintained. In case a FAC programme had not yet been implemented a scheduled implementation date wasto be provided.
The international nuclear safety community at large has been extensively involved in basic research
towards the development of FAC monitoring strategies. As an example, in 1982 Heitmann and Kastner [9]published the results of theoretical work on FAC phenomena and experiments. This work resulted in thedevelopment of the WATHEC computer code for the prediction of wall thinning in single- and two-phasewater/steam systems. A first version of this computer code was released in 1986. In addition, a computercode DASY was developed for recording, managing, evaluating and documenting the data obtained from
non-destructive examination of individual piping components. In 1998 the WATCHEC and DASY codes
were combined and further developed into the COMSY software program as an integrated tool for ageing
and plant management of mechanical components. In France, FAC-related research by EdF produced the
BRT-CICEROTM computer code for FAC wear rate prediction [10]. Since 2000, the use of this code is
mandatory for all operating nuclear power plants in France and applies to carbon steel piping > DN100.

17NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
In September 1994, the OECD/NEA organized the "Specialist Meeting on Erosion and Corrosion of
Nuclear Power Plant Materials" [11]. This meeting addressed FAC experience and the different FAC
monitoring and mitigation approaches. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has organizedspecialists meetings on FAC [12], and at the April 2009 meeting in Moscow [13] the Agency announced a
new Coordinated Research Project (CRP) entitled "Review and Benchmark of Calculation Methods ofPiping Wall Thinning due to Erosion-Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plants." Research work is currently
being performed in several countries including Japan.
1.4

Safety Significance of FAC Induced Pipe Failures

FAC-induced major structural pipe failures are energetic and sudden. The failures have break-beforeleak (BBL) rather than leak-before-break (LBB) characteristics. FAC-susceptible piping poses an
occupational safety hazard and can result in power reduction, manual or automatic reactor shutdown. The
spatial effects of FAC-induced pipe failure, including collateral equipment damage and area
spraying/flooding, can be considerable. Even a small steam leak can adversely affect the fire protection
system and electrical equipment adjacent to or in relatively close proximity to the leak location. Therefore
consideration of FAC is an integrated part of the current internal flooding probabilistic safety assessment(PSA) practice and modelling of high-energy line breaks (e.g., main feedwater line break initiating event
frequency). Significance determination process (SDP) assessments are concerned with determining the risk
significance of degraded/failed piping, including FAC-induced failures using PSA methodology. Riskinformed high-energy line break (HELB) analyses can be used to strengthen an existing FAC programme.
Despite the progress with implementation and maintenance of comprehensive inspection programmes,
FAC-induced pipe failures continue to cause power reductions and forced outages. These failures can beindicative of programmatic weaknesses as well as the challenges in identifying vulnerable locations. Also,
plant modernization and power uprate projects involving piping design changes may result in new regions
being susceptible to FAC.
The FAC event data collected by CODAP supports the full range of probabilistic evaluations ofpiping reliability. The event population and exposure term data provide input to pipe failure rate andrupture frequency calculations. An objective of this CODAP Topical Report is to summarize the FAC
service experience data and the national FAC inspection programmes. It is intended as a resource
document for future applications of the CODAP event database.

18

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
2.

CODAP OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

CODAP is the continuation of the 2002 – 2011 “OECD/NEA Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project”(OPDE) and the work by the Stress Corrosion Cracking Working Group of the 2006 – 2010 “OECD/NEA
SCC and Cable Ageing Project” (SCAP). OPDE was formally launched in May 2002. Upon completion of
the 3rd Term in May 2011 the OPDE project was officially closed. SCAP was enabled by a voluntary
contribution from Japan. It was formally launched in June 2006 and officially closed with an international
workshop held in Tokyo in May 2010. Most of the members of the two projects were the same, often being
represented by the same person. The scope of the CODAP is based on a combination of the concepts fromthe two projects. Thus it encompasses service experience data on metallic piping and non-piping passive
components and well as a Knowledge base as in SCAP but the full range of failure mechanisms as in
OPDE.
2.1

Project History

Reviews of service experience with safety-related and non safety-related piping systems have beenongoing ever since the first commercial nuclear power plants came on line in the 1960’s. In 1975 the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission established a Pipe Crack Study Group (PCSG) charged with the task ofevaluating the significance of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in boiling water reactors (BWRs) andpressurized water reactors (PWRs). Service experience review was a key aspect of the work by the PCSG.
Major condensate and feedwater piping failures (e.g., Trojan and Surry-2 in the U.S.) due to FAC resulted
in similar national and international initiatives to learn from service experience and to develop mitigation
strategies to prevent the recurrence of pipe failures. Early indications of the significance of thermal fatigue
phenomena evolved in the 1970s, and, again, systematic reviews of the service experience enabled theintroduction of improved piping design solutions, NDE methods, and operating practices.
The team of analysts responsible for the seminal Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) [14] performed
a limited evaluation of nuclear power plant piping reliability based on service experience from the then(early 1970s) approximately 150 U.S. commercial nuclear reactor operating years. This evaluation was
aimed at estimation of loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) frequencies for input to the two PSA models of
WASH-1400. After the publication of WASH-1400 in 1975 many other R&D projects have explored theroles of structural reliability models and statistical evaluation models in providing acceptable input to PSA.
Furthermore, during the past 20 years efforts have been directed towards establishment of comprehensive
pipe failure event databases as a foundation for exploratory research to better understand the capabilities
and limitations of today’s piping reliability analysis frameworks.
In parallel with these efforts to evaluate service experience data and to correlate the occurrence ofmaterial degradation with piping design and operational parameters, initiatives have been presented toestablish an international forum for the systematic collection and exchange of service experience data on
piping. An obstacle to the use of the database by other countries of national qualitative and quantitative
pipe failure information is that criteria and interpretations applied in the collection and analysis of eventsand data differ among the various countries. A further impediment is that the descriptions of reported
events and their root causes and underlying contributing factors, which are important to the assessment of
the events, are usually written in the native language of the countries where the events were observed.
To overcome these obstacles, the preparation for the OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange (OPDE)
Project was initiated in 1994 by the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI)4. In 1994 SKI launched a
5-year R&D project to explore the viability of creating an international pipe failure database and a related
4

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) as of July 1, 2008.

19

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
analytical basis for deriving reliability parameters for use in PSA. During this period SKI hosted meetings
to present results of the R&D and to discuss the principles of database development and maintenance. 5 In
September 2000 and, again in April 2001, the OECD/NEA organized preparatory meetings to explore thefeasibility and interest in forming an international cooperative effort to systematically collect, evaluate andexchange service experience data.
Since May 2002, the OECD/NEA has formally operated the project under the coordination of theCommittee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI). The starting point for the Project was an in-kind
contribution by SKI in the form of an international pipe failure database in Microsoft ® Access. This
database included pipe failure data for the period 1970 to 1998, and it contained approximately 2,300
records. During the first term of OPDE the emphasis was on validating the content of the SKI in-kind
contribution, improving and streamlining the database structure and data input format, and populating thedatabase with new failure data for the period 1999 to the present, as well as with pre-1998 records. The
data validation benefitted from multi-disciplinary considerations, including material science, structural
integrity and PSA. The first term of the Project covered the years 2002-2005, the second term covered theperiod 2005-2008 [15], and the final term covered the period 2008-2011 [16].
In 2006 the SCC and Cable Ageing Project (SCAP) was established under the auspices of the
OECD/NEA to assess, due to their implication on nuclear safety and their relevance for plant ageing
management, two subjects: stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and degradation of cable insulation. The
project ran successfully from June 2006 to June 2010 [17].
Following the completion of the SCAP project, SCC Working Group participants were interested insome form of continuation and discussions were initiated to explore possible alternatives. It wasrecognized that there are many aspects very similar to those existing in OPDE and the concept of a new
project was envisaged to combine the two projects into the “Component Operational Experience,
Degradation & Ageing Programme” (CODAP). The objective of CODAP is to collect information on
passive metallic component degradation and failures of the primary system, reactor pressure vesselinternals, main process and standby safety systems, and support systems (i.e., ASME Code Class 1, 2 and
3, or equivalent). It also covers non safety-related (non-Code) components with significant operational
impact. It is intended that CODAP will also include information on age-related degradation of buried tanks
and plastic piping.
In May 2011 the Project Review Group (PRG) approved the transition of OPDE to a new, expanded"OECD-NEA Component Operational Experience, Degradation & Ageing Program (CODAP)." A first
CODAP National Coordinators Meeting was held at NEA Headquarters in November 2011. The CODAP
PRG Membership corresponds to that of the OPDE (eleven member countries), with two additional
member countries (Slovak Republic and Chinese Taipei). The CODAP project builds on the success of
OPDE and a related OECD-NEA data project, the SCAP-SCC Working Group.
During the three OPDE Project Terms (2002-2011), the event database was maintained anddistributed as a Microsoft® Access database. This database was distributed on a CD to the National
Coordinators twice per calendar year. Towards the end of the first Project Term, a web-based databaseformat was developed to facilitate data exchange. The web-based OPDE resided on a secure server at the
NEA Headquarters. With the 2011 transition from OPDE to CODAP, a new and enhanced web-based
database format was implemented. As of mid-2012, the entire CODAP event database resides on a secure
server at NEA Headquarters. Provisions exist for online database interrogation (e.g., reviews, edits, QA,
queries, validation) as well as downloading selected event records or the entire database to a local
5

In September 1996 SKI organized the “Initial Meeting of the International Cooperative Group on Piping Performance” with participants fromthirteen countries. Again, in September 1997 SKI organized the “Seminar on Piping Reliability” (SKI Report 97:32); this time with participantsfrom eleven countries.

20

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
computer or computer network. The event database structure also includes a provision for uploading of
event-specific information such as photographs, isometric drawings and root cause analysis reports. In
addition to the event database, CODAP includes a web-based Knowledge Base (KB) that contains relevant
national and international reference material on passive metallic component damage and degradation
mechanisms. Included in the KB are codes and standards, R&D results, regulatory frameworks, andcountry-specific aging management programmes. As is the case for the event database, the KB also resides
on a secure server at NEA Headquarters.
2.2

Data Collection Methodology

The CODAP Project exchanges data on passive component degradation and failure, including serviceinduced wall thinning, non-through wall crack, leaking through-wall crack, pinhole leak, leak, rupture andseverance (pipe break caused by external impact). For non-through wall cracks the CODAP scope
encompasses degradation exceeding design code allowable for wall thickness or crack depth as well assuch degradation that could have generic implications regarding the reliability of in-service inspection (ISI)
techniques. The following failure modes are considered:

Non-through wall defects (e.g., cracks, wall thinning) interpreted as structurally significant
and/or exceeding design code allowable;

Loss of fracture toughness of cast austenitic stainless steel piping. The loss of fracture toughness
is attributed to thermal ageing embrittlement [18].

Through-wall defects without active leakage (leakage may be detected following a plant
operational mode change involving depressurization and cool-down, or as part of preparations fornon-destructive examination, NDE);

Small leaks (e.g., pinhole leak, drop leakage) resulting in piping repair or replacement;

Leaks (e.g., leak rates within Technical Specification limits);



Large leaks (e.g., flow rates in excess of Technical Specification limits);

Major structural failure (pressure boundary "breach" or "rupture").

In other words, the CODAP Event Database collects data on the full range of degraded conditions,from "precursors" to major structural failures. The structural integrity of a pressure boundary is determinedby multiple and interrelated reliability attributes and influence factors. Depending on the conjoint
requirements for damage and degradation, certain combinations of material, operating environment,loading conditions together with applicable design codes and standard, certain passive components aresubstantially more resistant to damage and degradation than others. As an example, for stabilized austenitic
stainless steel pressure boundary components, there are no recorded events involving active, through-wallleakage. By contrast, for unstabilized austenitic stainless steel, multiple events involving through-wallleakage have been recorded, albeit with relative minor leak rates. Flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC), if
unmonitored, is a relatively aggressive degradation mechanism that has produced major structural failures,
including double-ended guillotine breaks (DEGB). The types of pipe failure included in the CODAP Event
Database are:

Event-based failures that are attributed to damage mechanisms and local pipe stresses. Examples
include high-cycle vibration fatigue due to failed pipe support, and hydraulic transient (e.g.,
steam or water hammer) acting on a weld flaw (e.g., slag inclusion).
21

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6


Failures caused by environmental degradation such as stress corrosion cracking due to combined
effects of material properties, operating environment (e.g., corrosion potential, irradiation) andloading conditions.

The CODAP Event Database is a web based, relational database consisting of ca. 100 uniquely
defined data fields. It is a mix of free-format fields for detailed narrative information and fields defined bydrop-down menus with key words (or data filters) or related tables. The "related tables" include
information on material, location of damage or degradation, type of damage or degradation, system name,safety class, etc. The event database structure, database field definitions and data input requirements aredefined in a Coding Guideline, which is central to the project, including database maintenance, data
validation and quality control. The database design has benefitted from a multidisciplinary approach
involving chemistry, metallurgy, structural integrity and PSA.
2.3

FAC Failure Definitions

The CODAP Event Database includes FAC failure events involving non-through-wall and throughwall conditions. For non-through-wall event records, the minimum measured (tMeas) pipe wall thickness
must be equal to or less than the minimum allowable (tMin) thickness as defined in FAC Program Plans.
Pipe replacement should be performed when (or before) tMin has been reached. Periodic FAC inspections
are performed in order to estimate the FAC wear rate of the piping. Three methods are used to calculate thewear rate: 1) band method, 2) point-to-point method, and 3) moving blanket method (MBM). The "bandmethod" calculates wear rates by taking a band around the circumference of the pipe and subtracting theminimum wall thickness reading in the band from maximum wall thickness reading in the band. The"point-to-point" method calculates wear rates by subtracting the measurement taken at a grid point during acurrent refuelling outage from the measurement taken at the same grid point during a previous refuellingoutage. The MBM is a relatively new analysis procedure. It involves splitting the pipe wall thickness data
into smaller zones, averaging the wall thicknesses, and comparing against the other zones, with the zone
with the maximum calculated difference approximating the measured wear.
Different wall thickness criteria are used to determine an inspected piping component's safe operating
life (SOL). Determination of SOL is based on the calculated FAC wear rate. The "Owner-defined" FAC
programmes include SOL criteria to determine whether continued operation is acceptable or if a repair or
replacement must be implemented prior to return to service. Typical wall thickness criteria are:

Components with the calculated minimum wall thickness (tMin) above the minimum
manufacturing tolerances (tNom) are considered adequate for continued service beyond one
refuelling cycle.
tMin > 0.875 × tNom  Adequate Wall Thickness (1)Components with the measured wall thickness, tMeas, at or below tNom require further evaluation.
This evaluation will relate the measured wall thickness with the wall thickness required for thecomponent design pressure and temperature (tMin).
tMeas < 0.875 × tNom  Further Evaluation Required (2)The criterion of “87.5% of nominal wall thickness” originates from ASME Code Case N-4806. A
technical basis for calculating the minimum wall thickness is included in national codes and standards for
6

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case N-480: "Examination Requirements for Pipe Wall Thinning Due to Single
Phase Erosion and Corrosion, Section XI, Division 1," approved May 10, 1990, in 1992 Code C ases: Nuclear Components, p. 787,
July 1992.

22

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
piping design. As examples, Section 104 of ASME "Code for Pressure Piping, B31.1" [19] and Standard
RD EO -571-2006 [20] provide formulas for minimum wall thickness calculations.
2.4

CODAP Knowledge Base

The CODAP Knowledge Base has been established to reflect basic international technical informationof relevance to the project in a systematic manner. The KB is password protected and resides on a secure
server at NEA Headquarters in Paris, France. The KB is intended to provide a source of information ontechnical issues related to all the failure mechanisms covered by the Event Database. The type of
information collected includes regulations/ codes and standards, inspection/ monitoring/ qualification,
preventive maintenance/ mitigation, repair/ replacement, safety assessment, and R&D. The information isboth of a general nature and also more specific for the different degradation mechanisms. The KB is
intended to provide a source of systematically organised information for members, as well as input to the
topical reports the project is intending to prepare. There is a search function to facilitate retrieval of
information.
The KB is a web-based area of the CODAP project domain. It is organised as a hierarchical system offolders for general information, degradation specific information and a country folder for each project
member. The country folders have two purposes: to upload files for inclusion in the common KB and toprovide a means of organising documents of national interest and relevance. In the latter casedocumentation can be in the language of the country, with a title in English. In the other folders all
documents are in English.

23

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

24

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
3.

FLOW ACCELERATED CORROSION PRIMERThis chapter contains a short description of the major parameters and factors affecting FAC. It is notintended to be a complete state-of-the-art documentation of the mechanism but to highlight importantvariables which should be considered when evaluating FAC.
Flow accelerated corrosion (FAC, also termed flow-assisted corrosion, and sometimes wrongly
erosion-corrosion) leads to wall thinning (metal loss) of steel piping exposed to flowing water or wet
steam. The wall thinning is the result of the dissolution of the normally protective oxide layer formed on
the surfaces of carbon and low alloy steel piping. The rate of metal loss depends on a complex interplay ofseveral parameters including water chemistry, material composition, and hydrodynamics, but based on
operating experience the metal loss can be as high as 3 mm/yr. Carbon steel piping components that carry
wet steam are especially susceptible to FAC and represent an industry wide problem. The most dominantvariables are temperature, fluid velocity, fluid pH, the water amine, oxygen content, steam quality, void
fraction of the fluid, piping geometry, and the pipe material composition. This section describes thedifferent variable effects. It is important that FAC degradation is diagnosed correctly so that the correct
mitigation methods can be implemented. Historically the terminology was ambiguous since erosioncorrosion was used for both the chemical mechanism now known as FAC and the mechanisms in which theoxide is broken down mechanically by the impingement of particles, solids or gaseous bubbles. There arealso differences in the surface morphology of FAC and erosion-corrosion. Single phase FAC has ascalloped or orange-peel appearance and two phase damage often has a characteristic pattern known astiger striping. These surface features are absent in surfaces damaged by erosion mechanisms. Another
difference is that FAC is often more widespread than the localised erosion damage. It should also be notedthat most of the codes developed to predict wall thinning do not distinguish between FAC and erosioncorrosion. A complete glossary of the different mechanisms which can be confused can be found in
Appendix B.
FAC mainly affects the secondary circuit of pressurized water reactors, but also BWR feedwater
piping is susceptible to single phase FAC induced damage. In BWRs, several main steam line sub-systems,
including the high-pressure turbine exhaust piping, the turbine crossover piping, the extraction steam lines,
and certain straight portions of the steam lines are susceptible to two-phase FAC, Shah and MacDonald[21]. The moisture content in the main steam leaving the reactor pressure vessel is about 0.1 % andincreases as the steam reaches the main turbines. The high moisture content in the steam extraction andexhaust lines and turbine crossover lines makes these lines particularly susceptible to FAC. The main
steam line pipes are not susceptible to FAC unless moisture is present.
3.1

Effect of Temperature

An important variable affecting the FAC resistance of carbon and low alloy steels is temperature.
Most of the reported cases of FAC damage under single-phase conditions have occurred within thetemperature range of 80 to 230 °C, whereas the range is displaced to higher temperatures (140 to 260 °C)
under two-phase flow. The exact location of the maximum wear rate changes with pH, oxygen content, andother environmental variables. Experience has shown that the wear rate is highest at around 150oC andincreases with fluid velocity. Furthermore, FAC can occur in low temperature single phase systems underunusual and severe operating conditions.
3.2

Effect of Flow Velocity

Flow rate of the liquid has been found to have a linear effect on the FAC wear rate. As higher
velocities are experienced, higher wear rates are expected. Since the enhanced mass transfer associated25

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
with turbulent flows is the fundamental process in the accelerated dissolution of the pipe wall protectiveoxide layer, the effect of flow is best described in terms of the mass transfer coefficient, which is a functionof flow velocity and geometry. Local flow velocities can differ by a factor of 2 – 3 from the bulk flow
velocity.
3.3

Effect of Fluid pH

FAC wear rates are strongly dependent on pH. In general, increasing the pH value reduces the wear.
The FAC wear rate of carbon steels increases rapidly in the pH range of 7 – 9, and drops sharply above pH
9.2 Wu [4]. As the fluid becomes more acidic, more pipe wall losses are expected. The pH value can beaffected by the choice of control agents (e.g., morpholine or ammonia) and by impurities in the water. In
two-phase flows the critical parameter is the pH of the liquid phase. This can be significantly affected by
the partitioning of the control agent between the steam and liquid phase. There is no adjustment of pH
performed in BWR plants.
3.4

Effect of Oxygen

FAC rates are inversely affected by the amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the feedwater, and too
low an oxygen level is harmful to carbon steel piping. The FAC rate decrease rapidly when the watercontains more than 20 ppb oxygen [21], but the precise oxygen level required to prevent FAC depends onother factors such as pH and the presence of contaminants.
In BWRs, hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) can be applied with the main intention to suppress
intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) susceptibility and crack growth rate. The FAC rate has
been measured in a laboratory test to be higher for a time period of 8 months after starting HWC. After thistime the FAC rate appears to be similar to that in a reference normal water chemistry (NWC) environment.
General Electric guidelines consider an oxygen level of 20 to 50 ppb desirable for hydrogen for hydrogenwater chemistry. Some plants must add oxygen in their feedwater when using HWC, while others do not[21]. The effects of higher hydrogen levels under NWC conditions are plant specific and must be taken
into account as for HWC conditions. The use of noble metals to reduce the quantities of hydrogen required
to establish HWC conditions has to date not had a more pronounced effect on FAC than the application of
HWC itself.
Main steam lines made of carbon steel are susceptible to FAC in the steam phase because most of theoxygen, being a gas, remains in the steam phase and does not partition to the liquid. For the same reason
injection of oxygen into the wet steam will not prevent FAC. Injection of hydrogen peroxide has been
explored as a possible mitigation for FAC because most of the hydrogen peroxide partitions to the liquid
phase and spontaneously decomposes into oxygen and water and thus, enriches the liquid phase withoxygen. However, although the FAC rate is decreased, hydrogen peroxide injection is not as effective as a
remedy towards FAC as replacement of materials to low alloy steel (alloyed with chromium) or thepresence of a stainless steel coating.
3.5

Effect of Alloy Additions

The FAC rate is highest in carbon steel piping with very low levels of alloying elements. The
presence of chromium, copper and molybdenum, even at low percentage levels, reduces the FAC rateconsiderably. The relative corrosion rate of steels is reduced by 80 % at a chromium content as low as
0.2 %. The FAC rate is decreased by a factor of 4 with the steel type 2-1/4 % Cr and 1 % Mo (2-1/4 Cr- 1
Mo steel). Austenitic stainless steels are virtually immune to FAC [4].

26

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
3.6

The Entrance Effect

In the 1990s a new FAC wear effect was documented. This effect has been called the “leading edge
effect” or the “entrance effect.” This effect occurs when flow passes from a FAC-resistant material to a
non-resistant (susceptible) material, which causes a local increase in the corrosion rate. This effect isnormally manifested by a groove up- or downstream of the attachment weld between the corroding and theresistant material. In one, relatively recent example significant wear was detected in an expander. The area
in question consisted of a valve followed by a 150 mm by 200 mm expander attached to another 200 mm
by 400 mm expander. A number of FAC inspections had been performed before and after replacement of
the upstream expander with resistant material due high FAC wall thinning. An almost linear thinning rateof 1.77 mm per cycle was noted over the subsequent refuelling cycles (RF11-RF15); the downstream
expander was replaced during the RF15 outage. The CODAP Event Database includes several examples ofpipe damage caused by the entrance effect.
The effect of piping and piping component geometry is also a contributing factor to the occurrence of
FAC. The general layout of the piping such as the positioning of elbows, Tees and inner surface geometry
such as reduction of the internal diameter, surface finish of weld roots, flow changes in valve bodies,orifices, pressure reducers, areas where flow, pressure and temperature are measured, and regions where
the inner surface finish or geometry change over short distances, are all contributing factors to theoccurrence of FAC.

27

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)628

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
4.

FAC MANAGEMENT & FAC MITIGATION STRATEGIESThis section summarizes the FAC management and FAC mitigation strategies that have been
implemented by the CODAP member countries. Computer programs for tracking and predicting wear
include BRT-CICEROTM, CHECWORKS, COMSY, and WATHEC. Where computer codes are used
to monitor pipe wall thinning rate, the feedback of operating experience and inspection data isnecessary to improve the accuracy in the FAC wear predictions. The conjoint requirements for FAC
provide the basis for the formulation of mitigation strategies; e.g., changing the water chemistry or
material composition. This section summarizes the different national approaches to FAC mitigation.
4.1

CanadaFollowing the 1986 Surry FAC failure event, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
requested the Canadian utilities to implement monitoring and inspection programs for FAC.
Following the Mihama incident, utilities ensured that their inspection programs would addressdegradation such as experienced at Mihama. The 2009 edition of the Canadian Standards Association(CSA) Standard N285.4 introduced a new requirement (7.4.7) for assessment of flow accelerated
corrosion and consequent identification of inspection sites resulting from assessment. These
requirements are intended to access flow accelerated corrosion mechanisms that result in loss of
piping or component wall thickness, either locally or over a large area. Standard N285.4 requires thatthe assessments be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 5-years. This shall take into considerationequipment operational history and any modifications, repair or replacements. Feeder piping and steam
generator tubing are addressed separately in component specific periodic inspection as well as life
cycle (commonly referred to as ageing) management programmes. Furthermore, Standard CSA
N285.4 specify the parameters that shall be considered in the assessment, i.e., composition ofcomponent material (primarily ferrite material), operating temperatures, hydrodynamic conditions,component geometry, coolant quality, chemistry, and operating time at adverse conditions.
In Canada, the FAC programs are based on CANDU Owners Group (COG) and EPRI guidelines
in NSAC-202L “Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program.” Thegeneral approach to FAC management involves:

Assess susceptibility using CHECWORKS and conduct monitoring inspection at selected
sites



Monitoring of flow accelerated corrosion in feeders in accordance with requirements of
CSA N285.4 (Clause 13)Document and report findings in accordance with either CSA N285.4 (for nuclear grade
piping) or Canadian Regulatory Document RD-99.

The FAC programmes vary between utilities but in general they are intended to predict, detect,and monitor wall thinning in feeders, piping, tubing, fittings, valve bodies, feedwater heaters and heatexchangers, among safety significant systems and components. CHECWORKS, analytical stressanalyses and periodic examinations of locations that are most susceptible to wall thinning due to flow
accelerated corrosion are used to predict the amount of wall thinning. The FAC programmes include
analyses to determine critical locations, baseline inspections to determine the extent of thinning at
those critical locations, and follow-up inspections to confirm the predictions. Inspection are
performed using range on non-destructive techniques ranging from eddy-current, ultrasonic,
radiographic to visual and any other industry recognized reliable testing techniques capable ofdetecting wall thinning. Repairs and component replacements are performed on as needed basis.

29

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Operating experience reviews indicate that to date there have been no incidents at Canadian
nuclear power plants involving catastrophic failures due to FAC. Current FAC programs as
implemented by all utilities provide reasonable assurance that wall thinning aging effects areadequately managed so that intended functions of systems and components are maintained consistent
with the current licensing basis and internationally accepted practices.
4.2

Chinese Taipei

In 1989 the US NRC issued GL 89-08 [8] requiring all nuclear power plants in the United Statesto assess the impact of erosion-corrosion on carbon steel piping. The same year Taiwan Atomic
Energy Council (AEC) requested the Taiwan Power Company (TPC) to inspect wall thickness ofcarbon steel piping during the refuelling outage. TPC submitted a long term wall thickness inspection
plan for carbon steel piping to AEC in June 1989. In 1994 TPC introduced the EPRI CHEC family ofcomputer codes (encompassing CHECMATE, CHEC-NDE and CHEC-T) and also adopted EPRI
recommendations for the selection and assessment of piping susceptible to FAC. The piping which issusceptible to FAC under normal operating conditions can be evaluated using CHECMATE. The
calculated FAC wear rate and the remaining life of piping are taken as the major parameters to screen
piping to be inspected during the refuelling outage. For carbon steel piping not addressed by CHEC
the effect of FAC can be obtained by wall thickness measurements based on past inspection records,
plant operation and repair history as well as plant specific and international experience feedback. In
1995 TPC formally applied these tools for the inspection of carbon steel piping in Chinshan Unit 2. In
1998 TPC upgraded CHECMATE from the DOS version to a Windows based version. Currently,
CHECWORKS 3.0 sp 2 is being used to plan inspections for FAC.
FAC Inspection plan
The principles of pipe screening for the long-term monitoring were based on AEC approval of
the FAC inspection plan. The plan was developed by reviewing isometric drawings of the piping, its
geometrical configuration and taking into account the feasibility of performing in-situ measurements.
The FAC inspection plan consists of the following three parts in order to select the piping segments
adequately for inspection:


Piping addressed by CHEC Codeo

The calculated line correction factor (LCF) using CHEC Code is between 0.5 and 2.5,
and the remaining life is less than 26,280 hours.

oThe calculated LCF using CHEC Code is less than 0.5 or greater than 2.5, and the wall
thinning rate is greater than expected by CHEC Code.

Piping not addressed by CHEC Codeo

The residual life of a pipe segment is less than two fuel cycles.

oSampling piping segments for long term monitoring of piping systems.

oPiping replaced during the most recent refuelling outage.

o

Piping segments included in the next inspection cycle based on assessment results fromthe previous refuelling outage.

oExperience learned from historical inspection records, international and plant specificoperating experience.

oItems requested by the regulator, or identified by plant specific assessment.

30

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Large diameter pipe segments: pipes of 30 or 24 inch diameter with no isometric drawings
visual inspection (VT) of the inner surface is performed of instead of UT inspection. If wall
thinning is detected by VT, a UT measurement is performed.

Long-term inspection strategy for FAC
In response to the request from AEC concerning a long-term inspection strategy and based on theexperience gained from 1995 to 1998, TPC prepared the pipe wall thickness long-term inspection
strategy (FAC inspection plan) for NPPs in September 1998. Taking into consideration NSAC-202
Revision 2 [22] issued following the Mihama accident, the second edition of the FAC inspection plan
was issued. The third edition was later issued to include the Lung-men plant.
Based on inspection records and EPRI recommendations the FAC inspection plan developed by
TPC included the pre-screening of piping which exempts the following piping systems from the FAC
inspection plan.
Piping systems which are non-safety related and are not operating during normal operation.



The sea-water, fire water, sampling lines, plant ventilation, floor and equipment drains, gas,oil and fuel, and waste systems which are not located in the reactor building, turbine
building or reactor auxiliary building.



Piping with a diameter equal or larger than 3 inches and which operates during off-normal
conditions and operates at a temperature less than 93oC and a pressure of less than ~2 MPa.



Raw water, chemical control or vendor supply piping systems which will not affect the safe
operation of the plant.



Piping with a diameter equal or larger than 3 inches and not made of carbon steel or low
alloy steel.

The purpose of the FAC long-term inspection plan is to manage the FAC trending of piping
systems in an effective manner by appropriate and adequate selection of piping for examination
during refuelling outages. Basically there are two classes of piping systems that must be monitored
and included in the plan:
Class A piping screening criteria significantly affected by FAC: steam quality ≤ 99.5 %;operating temperature ≥ 93oC; per cent of operating time ≥ 2 %; material composition Cr <1.25 %; incomplete design and operational data necessary for the evaluation software.

Class B piping screening criteria that meets any of the following requirements: operating
temperatures below 93oC; per cent of operating time less than 2%; piping containing
superheated steam extracted from the low pressure turbine; incomplete design andoperational data.

In addition, the plant specific and other experience feedback and design changes are evaluatedand can lead to a revision of the FAC inspection plan. Feedback from the inspection records are also
taken into account.
4.3

Czech Republic

FAC events must be reported to the National Regulatory body of the Czech Republic (SÚJB) in
the following instances:

Failure in safety class piping

31

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6


Reduction of NPP powerGeneral information concerning replacement during an outage.

The FAC management programme in the Czech Republic is based on the EPRI program
CHECWORKS and on actual thickness measurements. The critical value for component thickness,
tmA, is based on a simple analytical evaluation of the thickness. It is calculated according to The Czech
Normative Codes, similar to the minimum value of piping thickness according to ASME, Section III –Division 1 –NC 3641 Class 2 components:
𝑝𝐷

0
𝑡𝑚𝐴 = 2(𝑆+𝑃𝑦)+𝐴(3)

Where:Do = Outside diameter
S = Allowable stress at temperature
P = Internal design pressurey = Additional thickness
A = Coefficient.
The critical thickness of the piping is based on fulfilling structural integrity stress conditions for
all defined loadings. A stress analysis using piping programs is usually used. The actual thickness ofthe piping is usually larger than the design dimensions of pipes, valves and other components installed
in a system. In some cases of local thinning and complicated replacements a detailed analysis isperformed to determine if there are sufficient safety margins. The following procedure is used:

If the thickness measurement is close to the critical value, which is based on a simple
analytical evaluation of the thickness, a more detailed analysis is performed if the thinning islocal. The analysis must include all regions with significant thickness reductions.



Detailed analysis of the stress limits are performed in accordance with the Czech Normative
Codes.



Piping programs are normally used to determine the influence of piping forces and momentson the areas with reduced thickness.



Detailed finite element analysis (FEA) of the areas with reduced thickness is performed
using the actual thickness measurements. For this detailed analysis the stress limits as
defined in the Czech Normative Codes are used. All limits for all stress categories must be
fulfilled.

Particular attention is paid to uncertainties with regard to significant thinning that has beenmeasured or is expected to occur such as locations with pipe supports, wall penetrations, pipe-whip
restraints, T-joints with reinforcing pads and generally inaccessible regions of piping.
4.4

Finland

The Finnish Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) prepares guidelines for design and operation of
nuclear power plants, but the responsibility for safe operation lies with the licensee. The YVL
guidelines, which can be found on the STUK website (www.stuk.fi), are under revision at the32

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
moment, thus some references in the following are to drafts of a guideline. Concerning wall thinning,i.e., flow-accelerated corrosion (in the guidelines also named flow-assisted corrosion) and erosioncorrosion, the following is stated:"Susceptibility to erosion-corrosion shall be limited by proper selection of materials and by
avoiding flow discontinuities and exceptionally high flow rates. The design shall also
consider phase changes of the fluid and the accumulation of non-condensable gases in thepiping." (In Guideline YVL.3.3, Nuclear Facility Piping [23]).

When considering the need for updating the stress analysis, this is needed also in thefollowing situations if: "1) modifications leading to unfavourable changes of pressure
equipment dimensions, material properties, supports, loadings or other factors; 2) designpressure or temperature rise or operational change giving rise to increased loadings; 3)loading increase, wall thinning, unexpected fracture toughness decrease or any otherdeviation from input data which tends to reduce the safety margins." (In Guideline YVL 3.5,
Ensuring the Strength of Nuclear Power Plant Pressure Equipment [24]).

Concerning nuclear aging management: "Aging means physical or technological aging
which may occur in nuclear plant structures, systems and components. Appendix A presents
typical aging mechanisms appearing in nuclear plants", and "Erosion-corrosion – In the caseof erosion-corrosion, the fluid flow rate that exceeds a critical value removes the oxide film
protecting the metal surface, thereby speeding up the corrosion." (In Guideline YVL A.8,
Nuclear Plant Aging Management, Draft [25]).

"Pressure vessels and their internals shall be designed in such a manner that the flow rates,
flow-induced vibration, as well as phase and temperature changes of the fluid will not cause
erosion, corrosion, flow-assisted corrosion, fatigue or other degradation." (In GuidelineYVL E.3, Pressure Vessels and Piping in Nuclear Plant, Draft [26]).

"Strength analyses shall be revised during the service life if the pressure component exhibits
load increases, reduction in wall thickness or decreasing fracture toughness values deviatingfrom the design bases. Revision may also become necessary due to an extension of service
life, periodic safety assessment or an event affecting safety due account of which could not
be taken during design." (In Guideline YVL E.5, Nuclear Pressure Equipment In-Service
Inspections by Non-Destructive Testing, Draft [27]).

"The assessment shall take into account the failure mechanisms specified in ASME B&PV
Code, Section XI, Non-Mandatory Appendix R1, Supplement 2, Table R-S2-1, such as
fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, and erosion-corrosion. Water hammer and otherexceptional loadings, as well as repairs, shall be considered in the risk assessment. If
structural reliability assessment is based on probabilistic fracture mechanics models, theyshall be evaluated by expert judgment in conformance with recommended practice ENIQ RP
9." (In Guideline YVL E.5 [27]).

To fulfil the requirements of the YVL guidelines and to secure safe and economic operation of
nuclear power plants, the licensees have their own plant life management programs including
procedures and technical instructions, as well as a systematic approach for monitoring wall thinningand planning for in-service inspection including NDE. All Finnish in-service inspection programs are
based on risk-informed in-service inspection (RI-ISI). The Loviisa power plant has applied AVT
secondary-side water chemistry suitable for a not fully copper-free secondary system. The COMSY
computer code is used to assist in plant life management. The same code has been selected for the
Olkiluoto-3 EPR power plant, which is currently under construction, and where the secondary-side
1

The Non-Mandatory Appendix R of ASME XI addresses "Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping."

33

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
water chemistry will be H-AVT. The COMSY code has been used by the plant supplier to identify
susceptible systems and locations as well as ascertain the material selections. The FAC program
includes pre-operational inspections as well as inspections during operation.
4.5

FranceIn-service inspection of safety related piping is performed according the RSE-M Code (2010
Edition with the 2012 Addendum) issued by the French Association for Design, Construction and InService Inspection Rules for Nuclear Island Components (AFCEN). The RSE-M Code takes into
account the French operating experience supplemented by some requirements stipulated by French
Law. For non-safety-related FAC-susceptible piping, a new "pressure vessel law" was issued by"Syndicat National de la Chaudronnerie, de la Tôlerie et de la Tuyauterie Industrielle" (SNCT) on
March 15, 2000. Initially, this law applied to piping > DN100 with an operating pressure > 0.5 bar. It
has subsequently been revised to apply to small-bore piping as well. According to the high-level
requirements of the pressure vessel law, the integrity of pressure bearing components must be
maintained continuously, and the plant operators have the ultimate responsibility for maintaining
structural integrity throughout the lifetime of the plant.
After the Mihama event in 2004, EDF re-examined its FAC inspection strategy. A new "National
Maintenance Rule" (RNM) for non-Code piping was issued in 2009 [28]. The main principles of the
RNM are as follows:

The selection of inspection locations is based entirely on predictions by the BRT-CICERO™
software developed by EDF.

Each pipe section modelled in BRT-CICERO™ and predicted to be below design wall
thickness at outage N+1 must either be inspected (by chromium and thickness
measurements) during outage N, or a written justification for continued operation must be
submitted to the Recognized Inspection Service (RIS)2 for review and approval. A special
inspection programme is required for welds that are assessed to be susceptible to FAC (e.g.,
locations immediately downstream of flow control valves, elbows, reducers).

For lines susceptible to FAC that are not yet modelled in BRT-CICERO™ (e.g., small-bore
piping), an inspection programme must be developed that includes the most sensitive areas
according to engineering evaluations that address local flow conditions, service experience,and base metal chromium content.

Weld root areas have been identified as a weak point indicating a need to develop and adapt aninspection method that enables the detection of wall thinning at or near welded pipe connections.
Since 2006 the ultrasonic "Time of Flight Diffraction" (TOFD) technique has been tested, and it was
qualified in 2009 for locating and characterizing FAC-induced defects in weld root regions. Based on
thousands of inspections, it has been determined that weld root areas with misalignments between
pipe fittings are susceptible to preferential FAC. References [10] and [29] provide additional details
on the FAC management approach at EDF.
4.6

Germany

In comparison to other corrosion mechanisms such as chloride-induced TGSCC or pitting
corrosion, flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) is not considered to be a major issue in German NPPs.
However, incidents of minor safety significance due to FAC, mainly in the area of the water-steam
cycle, have been observed from the very beginning in German PWRs as well as BWRs. Larger
dimension piping of the main feedwater and main condensate systems have to date not been seriously
affected by FAC. As a typical countermeasure to avoid the recurrence of FAC, affected pipe sections
2

Independent third party inspection organization.

34

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
have been replaced. Depending on the safety relevance of the system, materials with higher resistanceagainst FAC such as austenitic steels have been used.
The positive German operating experience regarding FAC is usually attributed to specific design
characteristics on the one hand, and to the implemented water chemistry on the other hand. The mostimportant design features of German NPPs with respect to mitigation of FAC are:

Lower average flow velocity,

Wider use of resistant materials (higher alloyed steel),Reduction of geometrically-induced turbulence.

Besides design features, a crucial approach to prevent FAC is the chemical treatment of thesecondary side. Here, the pH-value of the secondary side of PWRs and the oxygen concentration of
the water-steam cycle of BWRs are considered to be key-parameters. Since the mid-80s, all German
PRWs have been using the so-called High-AVT Treatment with pH > 9.8. The main prerequisite forthis chemical mode is a copper-free secondary side which has been achieved by using condenser tubes
made of titanium or stainless steel. If all requirements for High-AVT are met, the occurrence of FAC
on the secondary side of PWRs can be excluded to a large extent. In case of BWRs, High-AVT
Treatment is not applicable. Here, protection against FAC is achieved by controlling the oxygen
concentration in the water-steam cycle. According VGB Guideline R401 J [30], the oxygen
concentration in the main feedwater system has to be adjusted between 20-200 μg/kg during normal
operating conditions. As an important consequence of the chemical treatment modes outlined above,
the number of events due to FAC has decreased over the years.
In terms of in-service inspections, as far as GRS knows, visual inspections and ultrasonic wall
thickness measurements are carried out regularly in German NPPs. The spatial and temporalinspection frequency depends on the plant-specific experience and is fixed in the corresponding
inspection programmes. Computer codes such as COMSY are also used to perform a plant-wide
screening for identification of system areas which are sensitive to degradation mechanisms typicallyexperienced in nuclear power plants (FAC, corrosion fatigue, IGSCC, Pitting, etc.). Important criteria
for determination of FAC-relevant test areas are:

Carbon steel, low alloyed steel,Medium temperature between 80 – 250 °C,

Locally increased flow velocity.

The inspection programmes have been improved over the years taking into account lessons
learned from major events in foreign NPPs for example Surry-2 (1986) and Loviisa-1 (1990). An
assessment of operator’s inspection programmes in the context of the Mihama-3 event (2004)
indicated no deficiencies.
4.7

Japan

The Japanese "Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source material, Nuclear Fuel Material andReactors" [31] requires that the nuclear power reactor licensees maintain their facilities, including
components such as piping, to conform to the technical standards. FAC is managed as part of efforts
for pipe wall thinning management according to stipulations of related legislations, regulations andregulatory guides and requirements of academic societies and associations' codes. It is also necessary
to satisfy various requirements, including the measures against aging, for the piping and othercomponents during the design, operation and periodic evaluation of each plant.

35

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
The structure and integrity of piping conforming to these provisions are specified in the JSME
Code [32]. Specifically, for FAC, it is required that the thickness not be less than the minimum
required thickness (Tsr), and that pipe wall thinning management is performed to ensure this.
Licensees must perform periodical inspections and confirm that the facilities concerned conform to
the stipulated technical standards. According to the Rules for Commercial Power Reactors [33], themethods used for the periodic inspections must be carried out by non-destructive examinations andvisual inspections to check for damage, deformation, wear, or any abnormal condition. The methods,
frequency of inspection must be submitted to, and approved by the Japanese Nuclear Regulation
Authority prior to the commissioning of a commercial nuclear power plant. There are specific codes
for BWR [34] and PWR [35] plants concerning the management of pipe wall thinning that cover thescope and appropriate methods. In addition, the following must be taken into account: 1) Pipethinning phenomenon from the outside surface, 2) wall thickness management of branch connections,and 3) the method of wall thickness management from the first wll thickness measurement. Trend
monitoring of pipe wall thinning is performed continuously from the beginning of operation and is to
be based on the pipe wall thinning measurements.
Ageing management is based on a technical evaluation of nuclear power facilities and includes
the following:

A technical assessment of the ageing degradation of components and other elements whichhave aged 30 for years or more after commissioning for each subsequent 10 years (Ageing
management technical evaluation), and

Based on the technical assessment, the strategy for maintenance management to be
performed during the next 10 years (long-term maintenance management policy) isdeveloped and/or changed, if necessary.

The pipe wall thinning of ageing management technical evaluations is specified in the ageingmanagement implementation guide [36] as follows:

Since pipe wall thinning is a degradation phenomenon that should be managed by
performing an evaluation of its occurrence and thinning rate at all times, it is not necessary
to select the pipe wall thinning for measures other than ageing management:o

The ageing degradation phenomena that generate, or for which generation cannot be
excluded, on the components and structures included in the ageing management
technical evaluation, that are not covered by any of the above, ando

The aging degradation phenomena for which the deterioration degradation management
is performed appropriately, corresponding to the characteristic change over time withroutine maintenance management.

However, for the routine degradation management of pipe wall thinning the way of thinking,methods, plans, and records of deterioration for the surveillance of degradation tendencies
must be described in the ageing management technical evaluation report.

With regard to the seismic safety evaluation on pipe wall thinning, the example of process ofseismic-safety evaluation on the pipe wall thinning is shown in the Seismic Safety Evaluation ofReview Manual for Technical Evaluation of Measures for Aging Management [36]. This process is an
example of evaluation based on the technical standard on the pipe wall thinning of the JSME,
assuming the necessary uniform wall thickness against the service pressure at elbows, reducers andthe lower stream that are regarded as channeling portions.
Based on the aging management technical evaluation results, the strategy for maintenancemanagement (long term maintenance management policy) is developed and if necessary revised. This36

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
is a part of the application document for the operational safety program which must be approved by
the national government.
An example of the long-term maintenance management policy on the PWR pipe wall thinning is
as follows. For the corrosion (erosion-corrosion and erosion) from the header inner surface of carbon
steel piping, such as the Main Steam system piping, the following matters are performed. However,the policy is a short-term plan that should be started within five years and completed within 10 years
after development of the plan:

Based on the PWR Code [35] and the inspection results, the need for maintenance isdetermined, and the management guideline of the secondary-system pipe wall thickness isrevised when necessary.

For the piping other than the piping subject to the management guideline of the secondarysystem pipe wall thickness, in order to obtain further knowledge of pipe wall thinningphenomena, the wall-thickness is measured and the data are accumulated.



The wall-thinning trend is managed by the pipe wall thickness management system, the needfor maintenance is determined based on the wall-thinning trend data, and theimplementation plan is revised when necessary.

For the carbon steel piping (drain line piping) for which the seismic safety evaluation was
performed based on the actual wall-thickness measurements, the seismic safety is reevaluated based on the future wall-thinning progress estimated by the extrapolation of actual
measurements.

An example of the long-term maintenance management policy on the BWR pipe wall thinning is
as follows:

4.8



For the erosion corrosion and erosion of the inner surface of carbon steel piping and lowalloy-steel piping, based on the BWR Code [34], when the outcome of the safety
infrastructure research is obtained, the necessity of feedback to maintenance is determined,
and the in-company guideline is revised when necessary.

For the carbon steel piping (extraction system of gland steam system) for which the seismic
safety evaluation was performed based on the actual wall thickness measurements, theseismic safety is re-evaluated based on the future wall-thinning progress estimated byextrapolation of actual measurements.

When the outcome of the safety infrastructure research on the seismic safety evaluation
method supposing pipe wall thinning is obtained, the necessity of feedback to maintenanceis determined, and the implementation plan is developed when necessary.
Korea (Republic of)

The FAC management programme of carbon steel piping system is one of the augmented inservice inspection programmes in Korea. It was initially started in 1987 following the Surry-2 event in
the U.S.
Based on NSAC-202L [22], Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) developed the Corporate
Standard Procedure No. 10 “Thinned Pipe Management Program” to provide an integrated guideline.
It has been applied to the secondary side carbon steel piping system in all Korean NPPs (PWR and
PHWR) since 2002. It provides detailed procedures concerning susceptibility analysis, wear rate
prediction, component selection to be inspected, wall thickness measurement, remaining life
evaluation, follow-up actions including analytical integrity evaluation, repair/replacement, and37

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
documentation. The utility utilizes the CHECWORKS computer code for predicting wear rate. Wallthinning mechanisms (Cavitation, flashing, liquid drop impingement etc.) other than FAC can be also
considered in the component selection process for ISI based on operating experience. Effectiveness ofthe secondary side water chemistry programme in the connection with the FAC management
programme is also reviewed in accordance with the Steam Generator Management Programme.
For each plant, a FAC inspection plan is incorporated into the Long-Term ISI Plan. For carbon
steel piping systems in a newly constructed NPP, an initial thickness is measured and the FAC
database is established during the pre-service inspection period.
4.9

Slovak Republic

In response to recurring observations of wall thinning of the 5th to 8th stages of the steam
extraction piping at Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant (EBO), Slovenské elektrárne, a.s. (SEAS) began toaddress FAC systematically in 1992. Building on the experience with the EBO FAC programme, anequivalent FAC programme was implemented in 1996 for the Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant (EMO)prior to Unit 1 entering commercial operation in 1996 and Unit 2 in 2000. Listed in Table 1 are thesystems monitored for FAC according to the FAC Programme Guidelines of SEAS.
Table 1: Scope of SEAS FAC Programme
List of Pipe Lines Monitored for FAC
Steam from SG to TG

Heating condensate from separator to feedwater tank

Inlet of feedwater pumpHeating condensate from HPH

Outlet of feedwater pumpHeating condensate from LPH

Condensate from LPH to feedwater

Steam to deaeratorsthth5
tank-8 Extraction steam system of TG
Main condensate from 1st level

HP, LP gland steam
Drainage of steam pipelines

Steamcollector
0,7 MPa
condensate
to LPHIpump

Between 1992 and 1995, a mathematical model of the secondary circuit pipeline for EBO wasdeveloped and it was modified for the EMO in 1996. Initial analysis of the technical state of selected
pipelines systems was carried out and critical components with the highest corrosion rate wereidentified. The first measurements were carried out on the critical components, and components
selected on the basis of experience from other plants. SEAS began performing measurements ofcritical components in sufficient time which has resulted in there being enough time to planmanufacturing of new components and the replacement of critical components. Currently, SEAS
selects components for wall thickness measurements on the basis of the following criteria:


Minimum measured thickness < minimum allowable thickness + 2 mm (2 mm is the margin
for early detection in critical components, including the uncertainty of measurements)Calculated lifetime of components is sufficient for safe operation for at least 1 campaign

Engineering consideration and experienceComponent was evaluated as critical at the other unit or turbineThe component has not been measured for over 3 years

38

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
All the necessary information about the components monitored is stored in an aging management
database. Evaluation and selection of components is carried out using the software which is part of theaging management database.
Secondary-side piping at EBO and EMO is made of carbon steel with low concentrations (from0.00 to 0.03 %) of chromium, molybdenum, and copper. As a result, wall thinning problems werenoted initially in EBO in 1992. Sections of the carbon steel extraction steam piping were replacedwith piping of new material. The new material contained higher concentrations of chromium andmolybdenum. In the EMO the first leaks appeared on the extraction steam pipelines after 6 years
operation. In 2010, a project was initiated at EMO to replace components in the extraction steam
pipelines. New components were made from material with higher levels of chromium andmolybdenum (1.4 %). The replacement will be completed in 2014.
Also evaluated is the impact of chemical parameters on FAC. The main parameters monitored
are pH, concentration of ammonia, hydrazine and oxygen. The corrosion rate is to a certain extent
proportional to the concentration of iron in the feed water. Introduction of an ethanolamine regime at
pH of 9.2 instead of the ammonia-hydrazine regime has helped us decrease the concentration of iron.
Before power uprate at both EBO and EMO to 107 % the impact of a power increase on the lossof wall thickness pipelines secondary circuit by flow accelerated corrosion was evaluated. The
calculations show that after a thermal power increase to 107 % the rate of damage due to FAC will
also increase in most parts of the secondary circuit. This increase is expected to be negligible,
however.
In 2005, an effort began to assess the monitoring FAC by acoustic emission. This was done
within the research programme entitled “Development & Implementation of a System for the
Detection of Pipeline Damage Caused by Flowing Medium under Operational Conditions of the EBO
NPP.”
4.10

Spain

Spanish NPPs perform periodic surveillance of piping systems and components susceptible to thedegradation mechanism of flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) from the moment they come into
operation. Systems or parts thereof considered eligible for this degradation mechanism are those madeof carbon steel or low alloy steels, with circulating water or wet steam.
Surveillance programmes are developed following Generic Letter 89-08 of the USNRC [8] andEPRI report EPRI NSAC-202L-R3 [7]. Some plants also make use of the EdF guide “Corrosion desaciers dans la vapeur humide circulant à grande vitesse” (Corrosion of Steels Due to Wet Steam at
High Speed) [37].
These surveillance programmes are included in some cases in the In-service Inspection
Programme of the NPP, and in other cases they are developed as separate surveillance programmes
specific for this degradation mechanism, following the requirements of the CSN Guide IS-23 about
In-service Inspection [38]. These programmes specify the criteria for eligibility of systems andcomponents, the scope, the criteria for selecting the areas to be inspected at each refuelling outage, themethodology to follow during the performance of the inspections, assessment of the inspection
results, the acceptance criteria, as well as the steps to be followed in case the acceptance criteria areexceeded, that is to say, repair or replacement of such areas.
Recently, as a consequence of the development of the Ageing Management Plan (AMP) of the
Spanish NPPs, following the requirements of the CSN Guide IS-22 [39], all activities performed by
the plants related to prevention, mitigation, inspection or monitoring and control of this degradation
mechanism, have been assessed by CSN according to the attributes considered in chapter XI of
NUREG-1801 “Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report” Rev. 2 [40]. This assessment

39

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
introduced improvements in the FAC programmes in order to adapt them to the GALL report,
affecting the scope of the systems, the use of predictive codes, such as CHECKWORKS or othersimilar codes. These improvements are being implemented by all NPPs following the AMP.
4.11

SwedenThe Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM requires that the licensees should have a programfor management of ageing degradation and damage. With regard to reported FAC related events: inSweden, between 1970 and 2010, FAC has been the most frequent degradation mechanism. Powerupgrades and the fact that the plants are planning for long term operation will lead to these regulations
being tightened and the frequency of regulatory inspections with regard to ageing management will
increase. A combination of operational experience feedback and predictive FAC computer codes areexamples of important tools to manage FAC.
A qualitative approach to risk-informed in-service inspection (RI-ISI) has been applied for many
years in Sweden. It is based upon control grouping using a matrix combining potential risk of damage
occurring in a given system or component with the consequences of failure, and the anticipatedseverity of fuel damage and a subsequent radioactive release. The qualitatively based approach tocontrol groups for mechanical components is based on the assignment to an inspection group inaccordance with the magnitude of risk assessed for the specific component. Structural parts for which
the risks are assessed to be the highest are assigned to control group A, Those with lesser risk tocontrol group B, and those with the lowest risk to control group C. The percentage of a given control
group which must be inspected decreases with the risk. In principle 100% of control group A must be
examined, with a frequency not exceeding ten years. To determine the division into the control groups
the following risk matrix has been developed enabling the assignment of a damage index and aconsequence index to each component and parts thereof, see Table 2.
Table 2: Swedish Control Group Matrix
Consequence Index
Damage Index
High

MediumLow

High (I)A

A

B

Medium (II)

A

B

C

Low (III)

B

CC

The consequence index expresses in a qualitative manner the likelihood that a crack or otherdegradation process will result in fuel damage, discharge of large amounts of radioactive substances,or other forms of damage which could lead to health problems or an accident. The consequence index
is determined mainly by the margin to such consequences as the result of a break or malfunction of
the specific component or part of a system. Two aspects are important when determining theassignment of the consequence index:


System margins – how many systems or system circuits are essential in relation to thenumber available,



Thermal margins – how much the fuel can be heated up in relation to acceptable margins.

The damage index is determined by the loading conditions, environment and material in relation
to the dimensions of the component. Components or parts which may be exposed to loads or other40

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
conditions which experience has shown can result in damage or degradation should be assigned thehighest damage index. Components which experience has shown are not expected to be subjected toloads or other conditions which will result in damage are assigned damage index II, and components
exposed to minimal loads or other benign operational conditions are assigned damage index III.
Structural elements that may be exposed to FAC are often assigned to control group C. This ismainly due to the severity of the consequences to reactor safety of FAC damage in the systems where
this mechanism occurs. More detailed consequence analysis using PSA conducted by the Swedish
licensees has shown, however, that the current basis for assignment of consequence index may need tobe revised in particular for the plant cooling systems.
4.12

Switzerland

In Switzerland no major pipe failures due to FAC have been observed in recent years. For
components classified in terms of safety relevance an ageing surveillance programme has beenrequired by the regulatory authority since 1991. Within this programme a catalogue of ageing
mechanisms has been developed that addresses FAC among other material ageing phenomena. As
outlined below, for non-classified (non-Code) equipment all the utilities have developed their own
inspection and maintenance programmes to address potential wall thinning.
Identification of locations for wall thickness measurements is supported by predictive programs
such as WATHEC/COMSY. The following systems are typically evaluated for susceptibility to FAC:
Feedwater, Main Steam, drain lines (e.g., off heaters, reheaters, moisture separators), extraction lines,
auxiliary steam lines, sealing steam lines. Depending on the plant specific experience more or lesssystems are included in the FAC analysis. The FAC mitigation is supported by the control of waterchemistry. The following strategies are used by the Swiss NPPs.
4.12.1

NPP Leibstadt (BWR)

Since 1989 Leibstadt NPP has used the program WATHEC/COMSY by AREVA NP to assess
the relevance of FAC systematically. For the last two decades the annual in-service-inspection
programme has been determined by the EROSKO program. For this approach the measured wall
thickness results are used for the annual improvement of the computer-aided analysis.
The EROSKO analysis is conducted in two steps. In a first step (“screening analysis”) thesystems of the water-steam-cycle are analysed. For this analysis the EROSKO-program uses thefollowing parameters: operating time, temperature, pressure, piping material, isometrics, waterchemistry, etc. The simulation allows the exclusion of systems without the potential for FAC.
In a second step a detailed analysis of areas is performed, showing where loss of material could
occur theoretically in the system. The detailed analysis produces annual lists containing informationof critical areas of the systems which may be affected by FAC. The list includes the theoretical loss ofmaterial per year, a classification of the components of a system based on the hazard potential and arecommended date for an in-service-inspection to measure the wall thickness of the critical areas.
The results of the wall thickness measurements enable the "calibration" of the predictedsusceptibility for components. The "calibrated" calculation of the remaining service life of eachcomponent allows individual inspection intervals to be scheduled. This interactive approach improves
the year to year ability to predict (potential) susceptibility of piping components and particularly theeffectiveness of the inspection programme for the next refuelling outage.
The components under surveillance by the EROSKO-program have not yet shown significant
degradation. Therefore no refurbishment of these components has been necessary. Notwithstanding
that, KKL did replace small bore piping mainly degraded by droplet impingement. Those components
are out of scope of the EROSKO-program.

41

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
4.12.2

NPP Mühleberg (BWR)

Since 1998, periodic wall thickness measurements have been carried out on the piping of turbine
generator sets A and B. In 2006 a detailed study was carried out for KKM to classify all relevant
systems of the secondary coolant system and their piping parts systematically into risk groups.
The aim was to evaluate the stress level in the pipe system under operating conditions, as well as
during an earthquake considering Operating Basic Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake(SSE). The results show that the system during normal and bypass operation is at an acceptable stresslevel. The steam hammer load during turbine trip is also under control. OBE and SSE are in thepermissible range and no supplementary supports are required in the valve areas. This result waspossible only because the pipe systems modelled end at fixed points such as the turbine, condenser
and moisture separator reheater (MSR).
The evaluation of the pipe wall thickness is necessary to determine the most critical locations. In
order to have an overview of the stress behaviour in the pipe system during normal operation andbypass blow out, a pipe model for the steam lines from the penetration wall to the turbine/condenser
was generated and a structural analysis was carried out. The values of the minimum wall thicknesses
were calculated. The calculated stress levels indicate that the system is operating at a medium stresslevel.
Henceforth the study shall serve as a guideline for future periodic wall thickness measurements.
Locations and times of measurements will be documented and relevant conditions analysed anddocumented.
4.12.3

NPP Gösgen (PWR)

Since 2005, NPP Gösgen has used the program EROSKO (which is part of COMSY) by
AREVA NP to assess the relevance of FAC systematically in the complete secondary coolant system.
The purpose of the program is to locate areas with a high hazard potential due to an elevated loss ofmaterial. The in-service-inspection programme is adjusted to the results of the programme.
Previously, a Gösgen internal surveillance programme was implemented. NPP Gösgen has the same
methodology as NPP Beznau, which also uses the EROSKO program to identify the areas for
thickness measurements, see above. The results of the wall thickness measurements are used for therevision of the in-detail analysis. The revision of the analysis causes an adjustment of the component
classification and also recommends dates for the next wall thickness measurements.
In the refuelling-period 2007, based on the EROSKO-Analysis, an elevated loss of material was
detected in specific locations of the steam generator blowdown (SGBD) system. The wall-thickness
never fell below the minimum tolerable wall-thickness. Nevertheless, due to this elevated loss ofmaterial the affected piping sections were replaced.
4.12.4

NPP Beznau (PWR, 2 Units)

For all the piping of both units in which flow accelerated corrosion, erosion-corrosion or droplet
impingement cannot be ruled out a concept for a surveillance of these pipes regarding FAC has beencreated. Wear in other components such as tanks, heat exchangers, fittings or pumps are not coveredin this concept. The surveillance of these components is carried out by periodical inspections andmaintenance. Wear by erosion-corrosion induced by water drops on carbon steel pipes occurs mostoften in saturated and wet steam areas at NPP Beznau.
In 1989 the feed water and condensate main pipes were evaluated by Siemens using the
WATHEC program regarding the susceptibility to FAC-induced wall thinning. The wall thickness ofthe most susceptible areas according to the calculations has since been tested periodically and there
has not been any further wear recorded. AREVA has also tested the main steam elbow outside the42

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
containment in line A unit 1 with the new program COMSY. In their report they indicate an estimatedwear of a maximum 0.04mm per year. This is assessed as "very small". Basically it can be said, thatthe expected wear, and therefore the risk of damage by FAC, is very small.
Periodic wall thickness measurements are carried out of the susceptible areas to find out if there
has been any wear, and if so to what degree. The monitoring concept of the FAC programme at NPP
Beznau is extensive and covers areas for which exists plant-specific and industry wide experience
with FAC.
Further mitigation of FAC is achieved by changing the relevant factors. This is achieved throughthe water chemistry (pH-value and Oxygen-content), the steam moisture content at the exit of thesteam generator (improved moisture separators in the new steam generators) and the replacement ofcarbon steel pipes with stainless steel pipes. The quantities of sludge are recorded to assess theefficiency of the measures taken with the water chemistry and to have a better overview of the wear in
the secondary circuit. This applies to the filter of the waste water cleaning system, the sedimentationof the waste water tank and the removed sludge of the steam generator blow-down system. Since thereplacement of the steam generators and the introduction of the "high-AVT-chemistry" the recorded
quantities of sludge have been small when compared internationally.
All periodic inspections are governed by the ISI programmes at NPP Beznau. In addition to the
ISI programme a supplementary programme is scheduled every year at a team meeting. The
responsible supervisor for piping calls this meeting at the beginning of the year. All inspection results
are filed internally. The results of repeated measurements are recorded in a comparison table. Anychanges of one or more measuring points and the average per measurement plane are calculated inthis table. These tables serve to visualize the test results and the changes over a period of time, andserve as a base for the following programme. The tables are updated annually after the outages.
4.13

USA

Generic Letter 89-08 [8] requested that all licensees implement a long-term FAC detection
programme to prevent pipe failures in high-energy (single- and two-phase) carbon steel piping
systems. The programmes are developed by each utility using plant specific conditions, industry-wide
operating experience, engineering judgment, NDE techniques, and computer analysis of high energy
carbon steel piping systems. As stated in the NRC Inspection Manual, Procedure 49001 [41], “thelong term program must be well defined, with clearly documented results, and must include acomplete analysis of the susceptible systems, inspection of the most susceptible piping components,
repair or replacement of damaged piping components, trending of inspection data in order todetermine FAC rates, and continued analysis based on inspection findings.”
Most if not all U.S. utilities utilize the CHECWORKS computer code for tracking and predicting
wear. The EPRI Report NSAC-202L, "Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated
Corrosion Program" is used to select the most susceptible locations for inspection.
NUREG-1801, “Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report" [40], is referenced as atechnical basis document in NUREG-1800, “Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal
Applications for Nuclear Power Plants” (SRP-LR) [42]. The GALL Report identifies aging
management programmes (AMP) that were determined to be acceptable to manage aging effects ofsystems, structures and components (SSC) in the scope of license renewal, as required by 10 CFR Part54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” Section XI.M17,"Flow-Accelerated Corrosion" of NUREG-1801, contains guidance relative to an acceptable aging
management programme. The GALL report indicates that an applicant's FAC programme can bebased on the EPRI Guidelines in NSAC-202L. Furthermore, the GALL report indicates that an
acceptable FAC program "includes the use of a predictive code, such as CHECWORKS,"43

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

44

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
5.

FAC EVENT POPLATION DATAThe FAC event population in the CODAP Event Database is summarized in this section. This
event population includes non-through wall defects and through-wall defects. The former grouprepresents NDE results where the measured wall thickness is below the minimum wall thickness
allowed by the acceptance criteria as formulated in FAC programmes.
5.1

Susceptible Piping Systems

Available service experience data shows that piping components with complex geometries are
frequently susceptible to FAC. Typical components which have been most susceptible include thefollowing:Tees and branch connections



Expanders3 and reducers

Long- and short-radius elbows

Steam traps4



Exit nozzles



OrificesValve bodies with flow changes



Any significant inner surface discontinuity

Piping systems that are susceptible include safety related as well as balance-of-plant (BOP)
systems. BOP piping systems are not included in the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS). That is,
BOP piping is outside the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary, RCPB. Examples of carbon steel
piping systems which are typically monitored for FAC in nuclear power plants include the following:Feedwater; in BWR plants it consists of piping outside containment, in PWR plants it
consists of piping inside and outside containment.

CondensateFeedwater heater drains and vents

Moisture separator drains



Moisture separator reheater drains

Extraction steam

Steam generator blowdown (in PHWR and PWR plants)

3

A reducer with the flow from the small end to the large end.

4

A steam trap is used to drain condensate from a steam line. A drain pocket is welded to the bottom of the pipe to be drained.

45

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

5.2



Feeder lines that are integral part of the Primary Heat Transport System (PHTS) in
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs)[43][44].

High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) pump steam supply & drain (BWR)Main Steam; it consists of piping outside containment including turbine bypass piping

Auxiliary Steam

Auxiliary FeedwaterAuxiliary Feedwater pump steam supply

Cross around (large-diameter wet steam piping between HP turbine and moisture separator
reheater and (relatively) dry steam between moisture separator reheater and LP turbine).
Reporting of FAC Events

The FAC operating experience data is recorded in different types of information systems such as
Condition Reports, Work Orders, and databases for FAC inspection results. Reportable occurrence
reports or licensee event reports capture significant events. In addition, information notices (orequivalent documents) are issued by regulators to inform licensees about generic issues. Members of
the CHECWORKS® Users Group (CHUG) exchange operating experience data on a regular basis(twice annually). In the U.S., the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) operates theEquipment Performance and Information Exchange System (EPIX) which is used by plant operators
to exchange information on FAC related issues.
Data records on wall thinning are obtained from non-destructive examinations (NDEs). For
safety related piping included in ASME Section XI In-Service Inspection Program, items with flaws
and repair/replacement activities are recorded in the "Owners Activity Reports" (Form OAR-1, or
equivalent) and submitted to a regulatory agency.
5.3

High-Level FAC Data Summary

The total FAC event population in the CODAP Event Database consists of ca. 1,990 records
involving pipe wall thinning below minimum allowable wall thickness, through-wall leaks andruptures for the period 1970-2012; Table 3. The data records on "wall thinning" have resulted incorrective actions, including temporary repairs5 (e.g., weld build-up, welded patch, and engineered
clamp), in-kind pipe replacement or replacement with FAC-resistant material. Of the total event
population, ca. 80 % represents U.S. operating experience. The non-US data is limited to selected
representative events. Hence, the FAC event population is inhomogeneous, reflecting different raw
data screening criteria.

5

The term "temporary repair" (or non-Code repair) implies that a permanent repair is made within some pre-defined period. Different
regulatory positions apply to temporary repairs of pipe flaws. As an example, the NRC position (c.f. Generic Letter 90-05) is that such
repairs are applicable until the next scheduled outage exceeding 30 days, but no later than the next scheduled refueling outage. For safetyrelated piping a non-Code repair relief request must be submitted for review and approval.

46

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

Table 3: FAC Event Population
CODAP Event Database FAC Event Records
Plant
RegionFailure Mode

Total No. ofType

1970-79

1980-89

1990-99

2000-092010-12

138

3

72

17

44

2

183

30

43

45

52

12

Rupture

10

1

5

2

2

0

Wall Thinning

57

0

24

5

27

1

11

0

2

6

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1060

0

783

78

192

7

160

10

52

49

39

10

Rupture

35

0

19

12

4

0

Wall Thinning

18

0

0

7

10

1

11

1

2

2

6

0

Rupture

1

0

0

1

0

0

Wall Thinning

6

0

0

0

6

0

3

0

0

0

3

0

Rupture

1

0

0

0

1

0

Wall Thinning

32

0

0

15

15

2

7

0

3

1

3

0

2

0

0

1

1

0

Records
North

BWR

AmericaWall Thinning
Through-Wall
Leak

PHWR

Through-Wall
Leak
Rupture
PWR

Wall Thinning
Through-Wall
Leak

Asia

BWR

Through-Wall
Leak

PHWR

Through-Wall
Leak

PWR

Through-Wall
Leak
Rupture47

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
CODAP Event Database FAC Event Records
Plant
RegionFailure Mode

Total No. ofType

1970-79

1980-89

1990-99

2000-092010-12

62

2

10

38

11

1

48

1

22

7

17

1

Rupture

3

1

2

0

0

0

Wall Thinning

30

0

8

7

14

1

86

0

24

42

19

1

22

2

2

10

8

0

1987

52

1073

345

476

40

Records
EuropeBWR

Wall Thinning
Through-Wall
Leak

PWR

Through-Wall
Leak
RuptureTotals:In Figure 2, the total event population is organized according to mode of degradation/failure andthe affected plant system. The largest contributors to this event population are FAC in Extraction
Steam piping (two-phase flow) and FAC in Feedwater piping (single-phase flow). The PHTS event
population consists of small bore (≤ DN100) reactor outlet feed pipes of cold drawn carbon steel. This
event population is unique to PHWR plants.
In Figure 3 the total FAC event population is organized by pipe size ("small-bore" vs. "largebore" piping) and failure mode (wall thinning, through-wall leak and rupture). FAC programmes
typically define "small-bore" as piping of nominal size 100 mm (DN100) or less. In Figure 4, the total
FAC event population is organized by safety class (ASME III Code Class). The Code Class 1 event
population consists of wall thinning and minor through-wall defects in PHWR feeder outlet piping.
The Code Class 2 event population consists of wall thinning in PWR Feedwater piping insidecontainment.
In Figure 5 the FAC event population for the period 1990-2012 is organized by plant type andcalendar year. Figures 6 and 7 summarize the FAC event population data for the period 2000-2012. In
Figure 6 the event population data is organized by time period and failure mode, whereas in Figure 7
the event population data is organized by time period, plant type and failure mode. Finally, in Figure 8
the event population is organized by component age at the time of failure.

48

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 2.: FAC Event Records by Plant System
S/G-Blowdown

RCIC

PHTS

MSR

MS (incl. Cross-Around Piping)

HPCI
Wall Thinning

Heater-Drain/Vent

Through-Wall Leak
RuptureFW

EXT-STEAMCOND

AUX-Steam

AFW
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

No. of FAC Event Records

Figure 3: FAC Event Population by Pipe Size

RuptureThrough-Wall Leak

Large-Bore (> DN100)
Small-Bore (≤ DN100)

Wall Thinning

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Large-Bore (> DN100)

Wall Thinning
1138

Through-Wall Leak
217

Rupture50

Small-Bore (≤ DN100)

265

296

25

49

1200

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 4: FAC Event Population by ASME III Code ClassASME III Code Class

Non-Code3

Wall Thinning2

Through-Wall Leak
Rupture

1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Wall Thinning

1
17

2
144

3
40

Non-Code
1202

Through-Wall Leak

3

49

61

400

4

2

69

RuptureNo. of FAC Event Records

Figure 5: FAC Event Records by Plant Type & Calendar Year
FAC Experience 1990-2012
120

100

No. of FAC Event Records

80

60

40

20

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

BWR (278 Records)

5

13

9

10

5

9

7

27

22

12

23

11

18

12

15

20

5

18

14

6

4

7

6

PWR (535 Records)

17

29

46

22

6

11

19

13

17

35

26

38

25

29

37

68

37

23

8

6

8

8

7

PHWR/CANDU (52 Records)

4

2

1

2

2

10

8

10

9

All Plant Types (865) Records) 26

44

21

28

54

98

50

51

31

15

13

55

32

11

2
40

39

50

49

49

49

43

41

2
12

14

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 6: FAC Event Population (i) for 2000-2012
300

250

No. of FAC Event
Records

200

150
RuptureThrough-Wall Leak
Wall Thinning
100

50

0
Rupture2000-04

2005-099

7

2010-12

Through-Wall Leak

75

68

27

Wall Thinning

152

167

15

Figure 7: FAC Event Population (ii) for 2000-2012
250

No. of FAC Event Records

200

150

2010-12

2005-09
2000-0410050

0Wall Thinning Through-Wall
Leak
BWR

RuptureWall Thinning Through-Wall
Leak
PHWR

51

RuptureWall Thinning Through-Wall
Leak
PWR

RuptureNEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 8: FAC Events as a Function of Component Age at the Time of Failure
400

350

300

No. of FAC Events

250

BWR

200

PHWR

PWR
All Plant Types

150

100

50

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Component Age @ Time of Failure [Years]

In reviewing the FAC event population, the difference between the BWR- and PWR-specificservice experience is noteworthy. As described in Section 3, this difference is attributed to chemical
effects
5.4

Completeness & Comprehensiveness of CODAP

The CODAP Event Database is a relational database consisting of approximately 100 uniquely
defined database fields that capture various piping reliability attributes and influencing factors.
CODAP supports a wide range of applications, from high-level data analyses to identify global failure
trends and patterns, to advanced applications in support of structural reliability modelling and PSA.
The completeness and comprehensiveness of a database like CODAP are important factors indetermining the 'fitness-for-use.' Completeness and comprehensiveness of a service experience
database should be ensured through a sustained and systematic maintenance and updating process.
Completeness is an indication of whether or not all the data necessary to meet current and future
analysis demands are available within a database. The comprehensiveness of an event database isconcerned with how well its structure and content correctly capture key piping reliability attributes
and influence factors.
The data records on wall thinning due to FAC are obtained from non-destructive examinations.
According to Figure 3, for the small-bore (or small-diameter) piping, the population of wall thinning
data is less than that for through-wall leaks; i.e., 265:296 (ratio of non-through-wall to through-walldata records) vs. 1238:217 for large-bore piping. This observation points to potential data
incompleteness that is explained by the evolving nature of the FAC programmes. In general, pre-1995
there has not been a systematic effort to track data on high-wear locations for small-diameter piping.
Often, the FAC-inspections for this category of piping have been based on engineering judgment andinspection-for-cause whenever a through-wall leak has occurred. The event population for the two

52

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
categories of piping reflect different inspection practices and procedures, and an evolving FAC
management strategy.
For the small-bore piping, the event population in Figure 3 may not reflect the actual FACsusceptibility at any given piping location. In general, a point estimate of the frequency of pipe failure(where "failure" includes both small and large through-wall leaks but not wall thinning (tMeas < tMin)),, is given by the following expression:



nF
NT

(4)

Where:
nF = Number of failure events including both small and large leaks in the service data;
T = Total time over which FAC event data was collected;
N = Number of components that provided the observed FAC event data.
A point estimate of the total frequency of flaws, , is given by the following expression:


nC
nC
n
 F 

N  T  f  POD NT N  T  f  POD(5)

Where:
nC = Number of non-through-wall flaw eventsf= Fraction of FAC-susceptible locations inspected for pipe wall thinning

POD= Probability of detecting a flaw

Equation (5) accounts for the observed flaws as recorded in the database and the fact that only afraction of the small-bore FAC-susceptible piping is inspected. The equation also reflects the fact thateach failure in the database due to FAC has an additional flaw that eventually grew to produce thefailure, the exposure parameter of which is the entire small-bore FAC-susceptible piping population atrisk for failure. This is based on the insight that nearly all failures (i.e., through-wall leaks) are found
not through NDE but fortuitously during routine leak inspections. This is an important observation
because the entire piping population in the surveyed data is at risk for failure observation, but only asmall fraction is at risk for the observation of non-through flaws which can only be found from NDE
inspections. The ratio  / is the factor by which to multiply the pipe failure rate to obtain the flaw
(non-through wall crack) rate:
RC / F nC

1
 nF  f  POD(6)

Where:
RC/F = Number of non-through wall flaws per leak event:53

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Equation (4) together with an assumption about the inspection scope (f) makes it possible toestimate RC/F. Estimates of RC/F for the data set in Figure 3 are presented in Table 4 for different
assumptions about the fraction of small-bore FAC-susceptible pipe locations that are inspected. An
upper bound for f has been set to 25 % of small-bore FAC-susceptible pipe locations.
Table 4: Estimates of RC/F for Small-Bore FAC-Susceptible Pipingf (Assumed Fraction of

POD

FAC-Susceptible(Probability ofComponents Inspected)

Detection)

Number of Flaws

RC|F
Number of Leaks(Wall Thinning)

265

296

0.05

0.50

36.8

0.10

0.50

18.9

0.25

0.50

8.2

0.05

0.75

24.9

0.10

0.75

12.9

0.25

0.75

5.8

0.05

0.90

20.9

0.10

0.90

10.9

0.25

0.90

5.0

The estimate for the ratio of cracks to leaks obtained in Table 3 reflects the degree to which
certain small-bore piping is exposed to FAC. The evidence for the observed non-through-wall flaw
frequency is based on an assumed exposed population that is only about 5 to 25 % of the exposedcomponent population for failures as only the inspected pipe locations are available to produce thisevidence. This fact combined with the additional implicit flaw that must have existed prior to each of
the leak events, creates an underlying failure rate for non-through-wall flaws that is at least 5 times
higher than the underlying failure rate for leaks. This is true even though the observed number offlaws is actually less than the observed number of failure events.
5.5

Effectiveness of Programs for FAC Wear Rate Prediction

As stated in NSAC-202 [22]. “…Accurate inspections are the foundation of an effective FAC
program. Wall thickness measurements will establish the extent of wear in a given component,
provide data to help evaluate FAC trends, and provide data to refine the predictive model. Thoroughinspections are key to fulfilling these needs …..” The CODAP event database includes information on
ISI histories and ISI programmatic errors or weaknesses applicable to specific events. The objectiveof any FAC program is to predict wear rates and prevent through-wall flaws or BBL-events fromoccurring. Despite the dedicated efforts to comprehensively manage FAC, pipe failures do occur due
to less-than-adequate implementation of inspection plans. Included in the database are numerous
examples of programmatic deficiencies. Listed below are examples of recent FAC events that are
attributed programmatic deficiencies:

Through-Wall Leak Develops Prior to Next Scheduled Inspection. This could be indicativeof higher-than predicted wear rates. It also entails instances where pipe routing has been54

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
modified without corresponding change to FAC monitoring program. An example of thelatter type of deficiency is the failed extraction steam drain line in a Japanese BWR plant in2010. The turbine rotors had been replaced in 2009 to achieve higher thermal efficiency.
The design change involved rerouting the drain piping, which in turn resulted in an
increased drain flow and higher-than-anticipated wear rate.

5.6



Failure Occurs in a Location Identified by Predictive Program as Susceptible. However, thisinformation may not have been transferred to the inspection plan. An example of this type of
deficiency is the ruptured first stage extraction steam line at a U.S. PWR plant. The event
occurred during the first quarter of 2009. The failed line was listed in the FAC program
documentation as susceptible, but was not monitored at the failed location.



Failure Occurs Due to FAC Software Model Input Errors. During the 3rd quarter 2006, a
DN150 Moisture Separator Reheater drain line failed at a U.S PWR plant. The FAC
monitoring program included inaccurate wear prediction due to a computer softwaremodelling error that was due to “failure of the organization to establish a proper level ofverification.” It was also determined that the preparers, reviewers and approvers of the FAC
procedure did not recognize that a formal second level of verification was needed to ensure
a quality software model to ensure the safety of plant personnel and plant power generation
reliability.

Less-Than-Adequate FAC Program Implementation. In 1999, a U.S. PWR plant experienced
a rupture of a DN150 MSR drain line. The failure occurred in a straight section of pipe
immediately downstream a 45-degree elbow. A causal factor associated with this event is
the manner in which the FAC inspection program provided guidance for inspecting
downstream piping when performing fitting inspections. The program did not consider
downstream piping inspections as mandatory, although it is a common practice. However,this downstream piping was not inspected when the upstream 45 degree elbow was
inspected during previous refueling outages. Had this piping been previously inspected, it isprobable an abnormal wear rate would have been detected. A second causal factor
associated with this event was the perception that the upstream 45 degree elbow would be
the most susceptible component for failure due to FAC. This causal factor contributed to thedecisions made during previous refueling outages to not inspect the downstream piping
associated with this elbow.
Operability & Safety Impacts of FAC Events

A high-energy line break can cause serious flooding and excessive steam release to the extent
that safety related electrical and mechanical equipment functions are impaired; see for example
Appendix A. Specific examples include failures of auxiliary feedwater pumps, emergency diesel
generators, low- and high-voltage electrical safeguard buses, and safe shutdown panels. The
vulnerability to these types of impacts varies significantly from plant-to-plant. Based on CODAP,
Figure 9 is a high-level summary of the operational impact of FAC events. About 30% of the recorded
events have occurred during routine power operation. Almost 40% of recorded events have resulted in
unplanned outage work.

55

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 9: FAC Event Impact on Plant Operation
Cooldown (fr. Hot
Standby/Hot Shutdown),
0.2%

ESF/RPS Actuation Rx Trip, 2.3%

Expanded Outage Work
Scope, 32.2%

Unplanned Outage Work,
37.7%

LCO Entry, 2.8%

Power Reduction, 6.9%

N/A - No Impact on
Reactor Operation, 6.2%

Manual Shutdown, 11.7%

As stated in Section 1.3, FAC-induced major pipe failures tend to be sudden and energetic
causing collateral damage. Also, FAC poses an occupational safety hazard. Furthermore, the current
PSA practice includes detailed consideration of pipe failure due to FAC particularly in the context ofinternal flooding. As examples, the EPRI "Guidelines for Performing Internal Flooding Probabilistic
Risk Assessment" [45] addresses high-energy line break (HELB) scenarios, which can produce
flooding as well as other unique operability challenges to plant equipment. Similarly, the ASME/ANS"Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear
Power Plant Applications" [46] states that the identification of potential flood sources shall include
consideration of pressure boundary breaches in feedwater, condensate and steam systems. An event
data collection such as CODAP supports such evaluations. The operating experience embedded in the
CODAP database identifies BOP locations that are susceptible to FAC, and it supports the estimationof PSA model input parameters (see also Section 6).

56

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)66.

FAC EVENT DATA ANALYSIS6

Included in this section is an example of FAC event data analysis. In CODAP, all databaseapplications begin by querying the event database for specific information. It is the requirements of an
application that provide for database query specifications [47]. A query is a request for certain event
populations, for action on data, to perform calculations, to combine data from different tables, to add,change or delete data, or to create a new table that addresses a specific degradation mechanism suchas FAC. Queries that are used to retrieve data from a table or to make calculations are referred to as“select queries.” Queries that add, change, or delete data are called “action queries.” Database queries
facilitate the filtering and processing of event data according to user-defined application requirements.
6.1

Practical Data Analysis Guidelines

The ability of an event database like CODAP to support practical applications is closely linked toits completeness and comprehensiveness. Equally important is the knowledge and experience of ananalyst in interpreting and applying a database given a certain analysis specification. In principle,
CODAP supports three general categories of applications: 1) high-level, 2) risk-informed, and 3)
advanced database applications. Examples of risk-informed applications include:

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) initiating event frequency estimation.

Internal flooding PSA; e.g., derivation of internal flooding initiating event frequencies.



HELB Analysis. Consideration of HELB in PSA includes estimation of Main Steam andFeedwater line break initiating event frequency. As stated in Section 5.5, HELB is also
considered in internal flooding PSA.



Significance determination process and accident precursor analysis to determine the risksignificance of pipe degradation or failure.

Risk-informed in-service inspection (RI-ISI).

The quality of a data analysis task is a function of the analyst's knowledge and experience andhow a parameter estimation task is structured to adequately address a specific application
requirement. Guidelines and best practices for piping reliability analysis include the following
elements:
Knowledge: A fundamental basis for a qualified piping reliability analysis task rests on a
deep understanding of how, the typically robust metallic piping systems degrade and fail orsustain damage to various off-normal operating environments. Also of importance is a deep
understanding of piping system design principles, including the different piping
construction/fabrication practices.



Parameter Estimation Specifications: A chosen parameter estimation scheme must address
the requirements of an application. For an example, an application may involve estimating apipe rupture frequency as a function of equivalent break size or through-wall flow rate.
Risk-informed applications often include consideration of different degradation mitigation
strategies, in-service-inspection strategies, and leak inspection strategies. Hence, a large set

6Disclaimer: The CODAP PRG fully endorses the goals and objectives of the OECD/NEA database projects. Decisions about CODAP
applications, including methodology and analysis techniques, are taken at the national level. Using open literature sources, the purpose of
Section 6 is to provide an example of how CODAP can support the assessment of FAC-induced flooding scenarios. The analysis
methodology used in this example is but one of several different technical approaches for calculating internal flooding initiating event
frequencies.

57

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
of piping reliability parameter distributions may have to be generated to respond to thedemands of a given application.
Service Experience Data: Under what conditions can service experience data support
quantitative piping reliability analysis? The completeness and comprehensiveness of adatabase are essential characteristics for it to support the derivation of "robust" reliability
parameter estimates.

Qualitative Analysis Requirements: Database query functions are defined to extract event
populations and exposure term data from a comprehensive relational database. Often, aquery definition must address a complex set of reliability attributes and influence factors.
Furthermore, an iterative set of data processing steps may be required to obtain the input to aquantitative analysis.

Quantitative Analysis Requirements: Pipe failure rate calculation is based on event
populations that reflect different piping designs. Therefore, an established practice is to
apply Monte Carlo posterior weighting technique [48] to synthesize the variability in piping
element (e.g., weld, susceptible area) counts and DM susceptibility. Pipe rupture frequencies
are calculated for well-defined break sizes and resulting through-wall flow rates.
Conditional rupture probability (CRP) models [49][50] are required for a pre-defined set ofbreak size ranges according to parameter estimation specifications.

6.2

FAC Data Exploration

Before pursuing statistical parameter estimation it is essential to identify the different influencing
factors that act on metallic piping components. In this section the U.S. service experience with FAC isexplored as a precursor to estimation of HELB frequency. With CODAP, the following dataprocessing steps are recommended:As a first step, CODAP is downloaded to a local computer and converted to a Microsoft ®
Access relational database. Next, develop a US-centred, FAC-specific sub-table byscreening out all other database records. That is, non-US service experience data is screenedout.

Open the new FAC table and apply a data filter so that only the BWR-specific records are
displayed. Again, apply a data filter to the ‘Age’ column and sort data in ascending order.
Copy the two columns and paste onto a Microsoft® Excel worksheet. Add a ‘rank order’column to the worksheet.



Repeat the previous step for PWR plants.

In the Excel worksheet, split the four columns (BWR/PWR and Rank/Age) in such a waythat two pairs of columns are generated; one pair of columns includes failure date for period1970 through 1987 and another pair includes failure data for period 1988 through 2012. Rerank columns in ascending order. Next, for each record calculate the time to failure in hours.
In this example, failure is interpreted to mean any degraded condition, including instanceswhere tMin (minimum pipe wall thickness) has been exceeded (tMeas > tMin) and pre-emptive
pipe replacement is performed. This split of event data into two time period categories iswarranted by the U.S. industry response to the resolution of FAC concerns. In July 1987 the
U.S. NRC issued Bulletin 87-01 requesting all licensees to provide information to the NRC
on their FAC experience and monitoring programmes for single-phase and two-phase highenergy carbon steel piping systems. In response to Bulletin 87-01, all licensees performedbase-line inspections of all susceptible piping systems. The results of these inspections werereported to the NRC, and evaluations of inspection records were performed by EPRI. Basedon the U.S. FAC experience, two event populations have been developed using the above
58

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
data filtering process. One data pool represents FAC experience prior to implementing
formalized FAC programmes (inspection requirements and enhanced secondary side waterchemistry requirements). Another data pool is intended to depict the effect of improved FAC
management on the piping performance. NUREG-1344 [4] is a good summary of the historyof U.S. FAC experience.


In Excel, prepare a chart showing the cumulative number of failures versus the time todetection of pipe wall thickness below TMin. Figure 10 displays the total U.S. FAC event
population as recorded in CODAP. The plots of FAC events are consistent with the FAC
knowledge base. As an example, the pre-1988 BWR- and PWR-specific service experienceis fully consistent with the predicted FAC susceptibility reflecting the differences in oxygen
content and pH control. The post-1987 service experience shows the effects of improved
FAC programme management and water chemistry control. From a statistical perspective agood estimation strategy would be to establish an empirical Bayes prior failure rate
distribution using available service data and to update this prior using the post-1987 service
experience data.
Figure 10: US FAC Experience

900

800

700

600

No. of Failures

500
BWR: Post-1987 - 240 Records
PWR: Post-1987 - 315 Records

400

PWR: Pre-1988 - 862 Records
BWR: Pre-1988 - 172 Records

300

200

100

0
10000

1000001000000

Time to Detection of Wall Thickness Below Allowable [Hours]

6.3

FAC-Specific Piping Reliability Parameter Estimation

The example in this section is concerned with the estimation of Extraction Steam piping rupture
frequencies for application to a PWR HELB analysis as part of an internal flooding PSA study. To
support the baseline calculations and some sensitivity calculations that were selected to develop risk
management insights, a set of 6 analysis cases were devised as shown in Table 5. The variables used
to define these cases include the break size, and data screening assumptions.

59

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Table 5: Calculation Cases
Case

SystemPipe Size

1

Extraction Steam≥ DN50

Data Screening
Post-1988 data only – “good” FAC inspection
programme
Post-1988 data only – “good” FAC inspection

2

Extraction Steam> DN150
programme
Data up to 1988 only – limited FAC inspection

3

Extraction Steam≥ DN50programme
Data up to 1988 only – limited FAC inspection

4

Extraction Steam> DN150
programme
FAC events removed to simulate the case of FAC

5

Extraction Steam≥ DN50 inch

mitigation by replacing carbon steel with stainlesssteel piping
FAC events removed to simulate the case of FAC

6

Extraction Steam> DN150

mitigation by replacing carbon steel with stainlesssteel piping

A failure rate and a rupture frequency had to be developed for each case and, hence, a total of 12
parameter distributions were developed. The dominant degradation mechanism in Extraction Steampiping is flow accelerated corrosion (FAC). Based on analysis specifications, rupture frequencies
were developed for two rupture size cases: Ruptures with equivalent break sizes (EBS) between 50
and 150 mm diameter (EBS1), and ruptures with EBS > 150 mm in diameter (EBS2). The estimationof the rupture frequencies for each of these break size cases required the estimation of two
parameters: 1) a failure rate, and 2) a conditional rupture probability that the break would be in thespecified size range. The failure rate for each break size range is different because only pipes with apipe diameter of at least 150 mm can produce a break size greater than 150 mm, whereas pipes as
small as 50 mm in diameter can produce break sizes of 50 mm and greater. To support the estimationof these parameters, separate queries of the pipe failure database had to be made for pipe failures(cracks, leaks, wall-thinning, and ruptures) and ruptures in the prescribed break size ranges, and these
queries had to be matched up against the appropriate estimate of the pipe component population
exposure terms. A data-driven model of pipe rupture frequency is given by:
i / x 

EventPopul ation
 CRP
ExposureTerm

(7)

Where
ρi|x

= Rupture frequency for pipe component i for rupture mode x60

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
CRP= Conditional Rupture Probability

Based on success criteria as documented in the analysis specifications, for each set of failure
rates, two rupture modes had to be distinguished: those with equivalent break sizes between 50 mm
and 150", and those with break sizes in excess of 150 mm. Depending on the location of the pipe
break either or both of these rupture modes may contribute to a specific HELB-initiated internal
flooding initiating event. Separate conditional rupture probability models had to be developed to
distinguish these cases.
An event database like CODAP provides a valuable basis for developing conditional rupture
probability models. Included in Figure 11 are examples of conditional rupture probabilities derived
from operating experience (OE) data and theoretical studies. Results for the six calculation cases are
summarized in Figure 12.7 [49][50].
Figure 11: Conditional Rupture Probability According to Empirical & Theoretical Studies

7

The technical details are available on the Internet at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/; Accession Number ML053180483.

61

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure 12: Results of Extraction Steam Piping Rupture Frequency Calculation
1.0E-04

4.89E-05
2.29E-05

Rupture Frequency [1/m.yr]

1.0E-05

1.0E-06
2.53E-07 2.60E-07
EBS1

1.0E-07

EBS2

1.0E-08

5.90E-09 6.79E-09

1.0E-09

1.0E-10
Steam Extraction without FAC
ProgramSteam Extraction with FAC Program

62

Steam Extraction with FACResistant Material

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)67.

7.1

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) degradation mechanism was selected as the subject of thefirst CODAP Topical Report. All commercial nuclear power plants experience FAC of carbon steel
and low-alloy steel piping. Significant progress has been made in managing and mitigating FAC. FAC
management consists of a combination of analysis for susceptibility, non-destructive examination,
repair and replacement. The CODAP Event Database includes a large volume of data records on
significant pipe wall thinning, through-wall leakage and significant structural failures. The databaseincludes detailed technical information on about 70 significant pipe failures that are attributed to FAC.
All of these significant events have caused considerable collateral damage including flooding andspraying of equipment adjacent to a pipe break location.
Recent (2000-2012) operating experience demonstrates that FAC continues to cause damage tosafety-related and non-safety-related piping. A primary cause of this recent experience is attributed to
deficiencies in FAC programme implementation and management.
The CODAP Knowledge Base includes documentation on the national regulatory approaches to
FAC management. Table 6 summarizes the different national FAC management approaches. Also
included in the Knowledge Base are detailed descriptions of the different computer programs for theprediction of wear rates. Implementing plant-specific FAC monitoring strategies starts with
development of a heat balance diagram (HBD that provides details on pressure, temperature, enthalpy
and mass flow rate at every junction of the power generation cycle. Next, hydrodynamic, waterchemistry, and materials data are used to predict FAC wear rates.
Table 6: Summary of the National Approaches to FAC Management
FAC Management Approach
Country

Current

Beyond 2013CA

Managed FAC programs that are based on

With focus on PHTS feeder piping, extensive

plant-specific implementation of

R&D on FAC fundamentals. Evolving

CHECKWORKS. Selective pipe

approach - accounts for new R&D results,

replacement with improved materials

enhanced NDE technology.

Managed FAC programs that are based on

No information available at time of writingCH

plant-specific implementation of
WATHEC/COMSY. Selective pipe
replacement with improved materials.
CZ

Managed FAC programs that are based onplant-specific implementation of
CHECKWORKS. Selective pipe

63

No information available at time of writingNEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
FAC Management Approach
Country

Current

Beyond 2013

replacement with improved materials
DE

Inspection-for-cause, COMSY is also used to

No information available at time of writing

perform plant-wide screening for susceptible
locationsES

Managed FAC programs that are based on

No information available at time of writing

plant-specific implementation of
CHECKWORKS. Selective pipe
replacement with improved materials
FI

FR

JP

Managed FAC programs that are based on

For Olkiluoto-3 EPR the COMSY code has

plant-specific implementation of COMSY.

been used to identify susceptible systems andSelective pipe replacement with improved

locations as well as ascertain the materialmaterials.

selections.

Managed program based on plant-/design-

Evolving - accounts for new service

specific applications of BRT-CICERO.

experience, R&D results, progress with NDE

Selective pipe replacement with improved

technology. Development of requirements

materials

for "FAC-Free" BOP piping design.

Inspection-for-cause, selective pipe

Extensive R&D on FAC fundamentals.

replacement with improved materials

Gradual implementation of "enhanced
managed FAC programs"

KR

Managed FAC programs that are based on

Evolving - accounts for new service

plant-specific implementation ofexperience, R&D results, progress with NDECHECKWORKS. Selective pipe

technology

replacement with improved materials
SE

SK

Inspection-for-cause; in the case of PWR

Gradual implementation of managed FAC

units at Ringhals NPP, utilization of RI-ISI

programs. Full implementation of managed

insights. Selective pipe replacement with

FAC program (based on COMSY) at

improved materials

Forsmark NPP mid-2013

Inspection-for-cause, selective pipe

No information available at time of writing

64

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
FAC Management Approach
Country

Current

Beyond 2013

replacement with improved materials. Since
2005, monitoring of FAC by acoustic
emissions.
US

Managed FAC programs that are based on

Evolving - accounts for new service

plant-specific implementation ofexperience, R&D results, progress with NDECHECKWORKS. Selective pipe

technology

replacement with improved materials
TW

Managed FAC programs that are based on

Evolving - accounts for new service

plant-specific implementation ofexperience, R&D results, progress with NDECHECKWORKS. Selective pipe

technology

replacement with improved materials

7.2

Conclusions

The Topical Report on FAC explains the different parameters that affect the susceptibility ofcarbon and low-alloy steel piping to wall thinning. Parameters of interest include water chemistry,material composition and hydrodynamics. Next, the FAC management approaches of the thirteen
CODAP member countries are summarized. As recorded in the CODAP Event Database, a high-levelsummary is provided of the international operating experience with FAC. Finally, an example is givenof how the content of the CODAP Event Database may be processed in order to derive FAC-centric
piping reliability parameters for use in probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) applications.
Insights from the several decades of FAC program implementation and monitoring and current
R&D results are used in formulating FAC management strategies for new reactors. In theory,achievement of "FAC-free" piping systems is possible by taking into account the current state of FAC
knowledge during the initial stages of new plant design.

65

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

66

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)68.

[1]REFERENCES

Robinson, J.O. and Drews, T., "Resolving Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Problems in the
Industrial Steam Plant," Proc. 1999 NACE International, San Antonio, TX, April 25-30,
1999.

[2]

Cragnolino, G., Czajkowski, C. and Shack, W.J., Review of Erosion-Corrosion in SinglePhase Flows, NUREG/CR-5156, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,
June 1988.

[3]

Zahoor, A. and Gamble, R.M., Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Feedwater Line Failure at
Surry-2, NP-5462, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA), October 1987.

[4]

Wu, P.C., Erosion/Corrosion-Induced Pipe Wall Thinning in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,
NUREG-1344, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

[5]Delp, G.A., Robinson, J.D. and Sedlack, M.T., Erosion/Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plant
Steam Piping: Causes and Inspection Program Guidelines, NP-3944, Electric Power ResearchInstitute, Palo Alto, CA, April 1985.

[6]

Keller, V.H., "Erosion/Corrosion in Wet

Steam Turbines"(inGerman),VGB

Kraftwerkstechnik, 54:292-295, May 1974.
[7]

Munson, D. and Horowitz, J., Recommendations for an Effective Flow-Accelerated Corrosion
Program, NSAC-202L-R3, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, May 2006.

[8]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Erosion/Corrosion-Induced Pipe Wall Thinning,
Generic Letter 89-08, Washington, DC, May 1989.

[9]

Heitmann, H.G. and Kastner, W., “Erosionskorrosion in Wasser-Dampf-Kreisläufen –Ursachen und Gegenmassnahmen,” VGB Kraftwerkstechnik, 62:211-219, 1982.

[10]

Trevin, S., "Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) in Nuclear Power Plant Components,"
Nuclear Corrosion Science and Engineering, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford, UK, pp
186-229, 2012.
67

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6[11]

OECD/NEA, Specialist Meeting on Erosion and Corrosion of Nuclear Power Plant Materials,
NEA/CSNI/R(94)26, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 1994.

[12]

International Atomic Energy Agency, Corrosion and Erosion Aspects in Pressure Boundary
Components of Light Water Reactors, IWG-RRCP-88-1, Vienna, Austria, 1988.

[13]

International Atomic Energy Agency, Proc. Workshop on Erosion-Corrosion Including FlowAccelerated Corrosion and Environmentally Assisted Cracking Issues in Nuclear Power
Plants, Moscow, Russian Federation, April 21-23, 2009.

[14]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study. An Assessment of Accident
Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014),
Washington, DC.

[15]

Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD/NEA Piping Failure Data Exchange Project, 2002-2008
Status Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)19, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2009.

[16]

Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD/NEA Piping Failure Data Exchange Project (OECD/NEA
OPDE), Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2012)16, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2012.

[17]

Nuclear Energy Agency, Technical Basis for Commendable Practices on Ageing
Management – SCC and Cable Ageing Project (SCAP), NEA/CSNI/R(2010)5, 2010.

[18]

Nickell, R.E. and Rinckel, M.A., Evaluation of Thermal Aging Embrittlement of Cast
Austenitic Stainless Steel Components in LWR Reactor Coolant Systems, TR-106092,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1997.

[19]

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Power Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping,
B31, ASME B31.1-2001, New York, NY, 2001.

[20]

Rosenergoatom, Standards for Permissibility of Thickness of Pipeline Elements Made from
Carbon Steel, RD EO 0571-2006, Moscow, Russia, 2006.

[21]

Shah et al. Ageing and life extension of major light water components. Ed. V. N. Shah and P.
E. MacDonald. Elsevier Science Publication, 1993. 943 pp.

68

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6[22]

Electric Power Research Institute, Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated
Corrosion Program, NSAC-202L-R3 (Non-Proprietary Version), Palo Alto, CA, 2007.

[23]

STUK, Nuclear Facility Piping, Guideline YVL3.3, June 2006.

[24]

STUK, Ensuring the Strength of Nuclear Power Plant Pressure Equipment, Guideline
YVL3.5, April 2002.

[25]

STUK, Nuclear Plant Aging Management, Guideline A8 (Draft), 2013.

[26]

STUK, Pressure Vessels and Piping in Nuclear Plant, Guideline E.3 (Draft), 2013.

[27]

STUK, Nuclear Pressure Equipment In-Service Inspections by Non-Destructive Testing,
Guideline E.5 (Draft), 2013.

[28]

French National Maintenance Rule (RNM) for Non-Code Piping. 2009.

[29]

T. Knook et al, "Pipe Wall Thinning Management at Electricité de France," E-Journal ofAdvanced Maintenance, 2:1-13, 2011.

[30]

VGB PowerTech e.V., Feedwater, Boiler Water and Steam Quality for Power
Plants/Industrial Plants, Standard VGB-S-010-T-00/2011-12.EN, Essen, Germany, 2011.

[31]

Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and Reactors(Issuance: Act No. 166 of June 10, 1957, Final Revision: Act No. 47 of June 27, 2012,
Contents of revisions Act. No. 47 of June 2012 [enforced on July 8, 2013]) [Nuclear Reactor
Regulation Act], http://www.nsr.go.jp/english/.

[32]

JSME Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities, Rules on Design and Construction for
Nuclear Power Plants 2005 (2007).

[33]

Regulations for Establishment, Operation, Etc. of Commercial Power Reactors (1978:
Ordinance of the Ministry of Industrial Trade and Industries No. 77, amended on June 28,2013) [Rules for Commercial Power Reactors].

[34]

Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities, Rules on Pipe Wall Thinning Management
for BWR Power Plants," JSME S NHI-2006, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.

69

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6[35]

Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities, Rules on Pipe Wall Thinning Management
for PWR Power Plants," JSME S NGI-2006, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.

[36]

Review Manual for Aging Management, Technical Evaluation of Seismic Safety Evaluation,
JNES-SS-0513-03, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization.

[37]"'Corrosion des aciers dans la vapeur humide circulant à grande vitesse” (Corrosion of
Steels Due to Wet Steam at High Flow Rate). EdF Guide[38]

Nuclear Safety Council Instruction number IS-23 on in-service inspection at nuclear power
plants. Published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) number 208 of November 24th 2009.

[39]

Nuclear Safety Council Instruction number IS-22, of July 1st 2009, on safety requirements forthe management of ageing and long-term operation of nuclear power plants. Published in the
Official State Gazette (BOE) number 166 of July 10th 2009.

[40]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,
NUREG-1801, Revision 2, Washington, DC, 2010.

[41]

Inspection of Erosion/Corrosion Monitoring Programs. NRC Inspection Manual, Procedure
49001. 1998-11-12.

[42]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal
Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1800, Revision 2, Washington, DC, 2010.

[43]

Wang, M. et al, "Determination of Rupture Frequency for Feeders Subject to Flow
Accelerated Corrosion," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241:2234-2239, 2011.

[44]

Singh, J.L. et al, "Flow Accelerated Corrosion of Carbon Steel Feeder Pipes from Pressurized
Heavy Water Reactors," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 429:226-232, 2012.

[45]

Electric Power Research Institute, Guidelines for Performance of Internal Flooding
Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Product ID 3002000079, Palo Alto, CA, 2013.

70

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6[46]

American Society of Mechanical Engineers and American Nuclear Society, Standard forLevel 1/ Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power
Plant Applications, ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009, Ney York, NY, 2009.

[47]

Nuclear Energy Agency, CODAP Event Database Applications Handbook (CODAP-AH),
CODAP PR05, Restricted, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2013.

[48]

Fleming, K. and Lydell, B., "Database Development and Uncertainty Treatment for
Estimating Pipe Failure Rates and Rupture Frequencies," Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 86:227-246, 2004.

[49]

Lydell, B., "The Probability of Pipe Failure on the Basis of Operating Experience," Paper
26281, Proc. 2007 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, PVP-2007, San
Antonio, TX, July 22-26, 2007.

[50]

Lydell, B., Chrun, D. and Mosleh, A., "Enhanced Piping Reliability Models for Use In
Internal Flooding PSA," Paper 145, Proc. ANS PSA 2011 International Topical Meeting on
Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, Wilmington, NC, March 13-17, 2011.

71

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

72

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

APPENDIX A
SELECTED SIGNIFICANT FAC
EVENT DESCRIPTIONS89

8

The CODAP Event Database includes extensive pipe failure event narratives. The selected, abbreviated event descriptionsin Appendix A have been extracted from CODAP. Selection criteria include "safety significance of event," "resulting
regulatory action," and/or "quality of root cause information."
9

Photo credits: Figures A-1 & A-2 are reproduced from EPRI-1013249. Figure A-3 is reproduced courtesy of Japan Nuclear
Energy Safety Organization (JNES; on March 1, 2014 the technical support organization became part of the Nuclear
Regulatory Authority, NRA).

73

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

A.1

Feedwater Heater Drain Pipe Rupture at Trojan

CODAP EVENT ID 768: On March 9, 1985, a main feedwater isolation following a turbine trip
at the Trojan plant (PWR) produced a pressure pulse that reached a maximum total pressure of
approximately 6.0 MPa (875 psig) in the heater drain and feedwater system. The pressure surge
ruptured a 368-mm (14.5-in.) diameter section of SA-106 Grade B carbon steel pipe in the feedwater
heater drain pump discharge piping and released a steam-water mixture into the turbine building. The
system flow velocity was 6.1 to 7.3 m/s (20 to 24 ft/s), and the normal operating pressure andtemperature at the time of the break were about 3.1 MPa (450 psig) and 177°C (350°F), respectively.
The ruptured portion of the piping section had been thinned from a nominal thickness of 9.5 to about
2.5 mm (0.375 to about 0.098 in.). Some of the thinning may have occurred during rupture. One
worker received first and second-degree burns from the high-temperature fluid. Before this rupture, it
was believed that only piping carrying two-phase fluid was susceptible to flow-accelerated corrosion
and was, therefore, inspected in service. Because the ruptured drain pipe carried single-phase fluid, it
was not inspected. As a result of this failure, the entire secondary system of the Trojan plant wasevaluated to identify the sites susceptible to flow-accelerated corrosion, and then a sample of the sites
was included in the inspection programme and subsequently inspected by ultrasonic examination.
Repair and replacement of the damaged sections of piping were performed as necessary.
A.2

Feedwater Heater Extraction Steam Line Rupture at Hatch-2

CODAP EVENT ID 891: On April 24, 1986, Hatch Unit 2 (BWR) was in steady-state operation
at approximately 85 % of rated thermal power, plant personnel were investigating the report of a large
steam leak in the Condenser Bay Area. At that time, the "Generator or Exciter Field Ground Detection
Relay" actuated tripping the main turbine. Consequently, the reactor scrammed and both recirculation
pumps tripped due to a trip of the main turbine at greater than 30 % power. The relay, which islocated in the generator exciter housing, actuated due to moisture build-up from steam condensing in
the area around the main silicon control rectifier bridges which supply the main generator field. The
steam was from the steam leak under investigation when the scram occurred. The leak was due to athrough wall failure in the 6th stage feedwater heater extraction steam line at the downstream reducer
leading to the 6th stage feedwater heater. The through wall failure was 18 inches long by up to 1 inch
wide. The failure was caused by wet steam erosion.
The piping in the extraction steam lines is a carbon steel with a 0.3 to 0.6 % copper added("Yoloy" material16). Ultrasonic test inspections were performed in order to locate any additional
erosion in the extraction steam piping. The ultrasonic test inspections confirmed that no indications
were noted in the 4th, 7th, or 8thstage lines. Also, on the 6th stage lines, no indications were found in the
10-inch or l4-inch lines. However, a 12 inch by 5 inch area that was slightly below ANSI B31.1
minimum wall tolerances in the area of a back to back elbow was found on a 20-inch line.
An ongoing ultrasonic test inspection programme was in place at Plant Hatch which examines
approximately 30 points in the Extraction steam system during refuelling outages. This inspection had
been completed during the unit 1 refuelling outage which began 27 November 1987. However,following this event, five additional points on the extraction steam line on unit 1 were tested per theultrasonic test inspection programme with no indications found.
A new A-106B carbon steel reducer was installed to replace the failed "Yoloy" reducer on April
26, 1986. To correct the thin wall elbows, a weld overlay was performed on April 27, 1986 to bringthe minimum wall thickness back above acceptable limits (0.370 inches).

16"Yoloy" is the U.S. trade name for this low-alloy steel, which has high resistance to general atmospheric corrosion.

74

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
A.3

Main Feedwater Line Rupture at Surry Unit 2

CODAP EVENT ID 914: On December 9, 1986, a main steam isolation valve failed closed atSurry Unit 2 (PWR), and the resulting increased pressure in the steam generator collapsed the voids inthe water. This caused the system pressure to surge beyond the normal operating pressure and led to acatastrophic failure of a 90-degree carbon .steel (SA-234 Grade WPB) elbow in the suction line to themain feed pump, as shown in Figure A-1. The diameter of the elbow was 460 mm (18 in.), and thedesign thickness was 13 mm (OS-in.). At the time of the event, the reactor was at full power and thefeedwater was single phase, with a flow velocity of about 4.3 m/s (14 ft/s), a pH level in the range of
8.8 to 9.2, an oxygen content of about 4 ppb, and a coolant temperature and pressure of approximately
188°C (370°F) and 3.1 MPa (450 psig), respectively. Ammonia was used for the feedwater treatment.
The examination of the ruptured elbow showed that the wall thinning was relatively uniform except insome local areas.
The wall thickness of the elbow was reduced from a nominal 13 mm (0.5 in.) to 0.38- to 1.22mm (0.015- to 0.048-in.) in small local areas and to 2.3 mm (0.09 in.) in larger areas. Eight workers
were burned by flashing feedwater, four of whom subsequently died. The flashing feedwaterinteracted with and disrupted the fire protection, security, and electrical distribution systems (USNRC
1988b). As a result of the Surry accident, the NRC staff asked that all utilities with operating nuclear
power plants inspect their high-energy carbon steel piping.
New piping was installed at several locations in the Surry-2 feedwater system as a result of thepipe break. During the September 1988 outage, an elbow (installed in 1987) on the suction side of oneof the main feedwater pumps was found to have lost 20 % of its 13-mm (0.5-in.) thick wall in 1.2
years. The NRC preliminarily concluded that this abnormally high rate of wall thinning may havecoincided with a reduction in feedwater dissolved oxygen concentration. However, at the time theplant owner disagreed that the oxygen content was a major contributor. One explanation is that theaccelerated thinning could have been aggravated by feedwater flowing into the steam generators thatbypassed the feedwater heaters. This would have reduced the water temperature from its normal
190°C (370°F) to about 150°C (300°F). Later in the September 1988 outage, Virginia Power replaceda total of 125 piping segments with steel piping containing 2.5 wt % chromium.

75

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure A-1: Ruptured Elbow in Feedwater Line at Surry 2

A.4

Failed High-Pressure Extraction Line at Fort Calhoun

CODAP EVENT ID 2506: On April 7, 1997, a DN300 extraction steam line to a feedwater
heater ruptured in the turbine building. The rupture occurred in the 4th stage extraction steam piping,in a DN300 sweep elbow (radius equal to five times the pipe diameter). When operators heard a loudnoise from the turbine building, the reactor was manually tripped. The rupture (estimated by the plantowner to be approximately 0.9 m long) occurred at the outer edge of a large radius bend in theextraction steam line; see Figure A-2.
Significant steam impingement damage to balance-of-plant Motor Control Centers 4C3 and 4C5
occurred. Additionally, collateral damage was experienced in several cable trays and pipe hangers,
and insulation containing asbestos was blown throughout the turbine building. The fire suppression
system actuated in the area and was subsequently isolated. Intermittent electrical system grounds
occurred during the event. Insulation, containing asbestos, was blown throughout the turbine building.
No automatic safety-system actuations occurred during the event. However, portions of the fire
protection system were actuated throughout the turbine building due to the heat and temperature riseassociated with the steam rupture. The steam from the rupture caused seven wet pipe sprinkler heads
to actuate in the basement level of the turbine building. These sprinkler heads were in the immediate
vicinity of the steam leak and were designed to actuate at 160°F. The team noted that the steam in thevicinity of these sprinkler heads exceeded the actuation temperature of the sprinkler heads.
The deluge system for the turbine lube oil reservoir also actuated at the time of the event. Thissystem contains 15 deluge nozzles that sprayed water in the area of the reservoir and on the main lube
oil pumps. The system was actuated by a rate of temperature rise probe. (This device will cause adeluge actuation if a 15°F per minute temperature increase occurs.) The rate of temperature increasein the area of the steam rupture probably exceeded that required to actuate the detector. Due to thesprinkler and deluge system actuations, fire water system pressure decreased and caused the fire
suppression water pumps to start automatically.

76

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure A-2: Ruptured Long-Radius Elbow

Following activation of the fire suppression system, intermittent electrical grounds were received
on Vital DC Bus 1 and 480V Bus 1B4C, both of which are safety related. These grounds on thesafety-related buses were determined to be most likely due to grounds on the turbine building motorcontrol centers in the vicinity of the pipe rupture. These motor-control centers are fed by the safetyrelated buses and can be isolated by the tripping of the critical quality equipment feeder breakers
which isolate the non-safety-related loads from their safety-related source.
The failure of the piping in the fourth stage extraction steam system was most likely due to flow
accelerated corrosion. The design conditions of the fourth stage extraction system were 300
psig/425°F and the system was composed of primarily 12-inch diameter piping fabricated from
A 106B carbon steel with a nominal wall thickness of .375 inches. The "fishmouth" break, which
occurred, was approximately 4 feet long by 1 foot wide, and it was postulated that an approximately
2 - 4 inch wide by 4 foot long section of pipe was below minimum wall thickness before the rupture.
The failure location occurred on what is known as a "large radius elbow." The as-found readings on
the failed pipe revealed a minimum wall thickness of the rupture seam of .054 inches, whereas theminimum allowable pipe thickness was 0.126 inches. The failure location was modelled in thelicensee's erosion/corrosion programme but the actual wall thickness had never been measured using
non-destructive examination techniques. The licensee had relied on CHECWORKS to monitor thecondition of the large radius elbows in the extraction steam system. The CHECWORKS methodology
had predicted a lower wear rate on the large radius elbows relative to other potential wear locations
within the fourth stage extraction steam system.
A.5

Condensate System Pipe Rupture at Mihama-3

CODAP EVENT ID 2960: While Mihama Power Station, Unit 3, was in operation at the rated
thermal output, a fire alarm sounded in the central control room at 1522 hours on August 9, 2004. The
control room operators determined that the alarm-generated area was on the second floor of theturbine building and checked the area to find that the building was filled with steam. Thus, it was

77

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
judged that there was a high possibility of steam or high temperature water leakage from thesecondary piping. The operator started emergency load reduction. While those operations took place,a "3A SG Feedwater < Steam Flow Inconsistency Trip1" alarm was generated and the reactor andthen the turbine shut down automatically.
The operator made an inspection in the turbine building and confirmed a ruptured opening in an
A-loop condensate pipe (Figure A-3) at 1730 hours on August 9, 2004, which was the feedwater linefrom the 4th feedwater heater to the deaerator running near the ceiling on the deaerator side at the 2nd
floor of the turbine building. For the unit in question, the 21st periodical inspection was planned tostart on August 14, 2004. In the turbine building, a total of 105 workers of KEPCO (the plantowner/operator) and affiliated companies were doing preparatory work for the periodical inspection at
the time of occurrence of the accident. Of them, the affiliated company’s workers working near the
ruptured A-loop condensate pipe were exposed to the steam and high temperature water flowed out
from the ruptured opening, 5 were killed and 6 were injured.
According to the KEPCO Accident Report, two motor-driven auxiliary feed water pumps started
automatically at 1528 hours on the day of the accident, followed by an automatic start of one turbinedriven auxiliary feedwater pump due to the abnormal low water level of the steam generator. After
that, because the necessary flow rate of auxiliary feedwater was secured, so the auxiliary feedwaterflow control valves A, B and C in the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater lines were closed at 1532
hours to stop lowering the primary coolant temperature excessively.
After that, the water level of the steam generator was recovered and became stable, so theturbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump was stopped at 1712 hours. To put this pump in an automaticstandby condition, the operator tried to open the auxiliary flow control values A, B, and C at 1713
hours. However, the valves A and C stayed closed and no opening action took place. The operator
tried to open the valves A and C again the next day, and both valves opened.

78

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Figure A-3: Mihama-3 Condensate Pipe Failure

As a result of the root cause investigation, it was presumed that the backpressure of the valves inquestion exceeded the valve opening force while the pump was stopped, and this kind of system
condition was not assumed in the design conditions for the valve, which was taken to be a cause. As acountermeasure, it was decided to replace the valve opening spring with one having a larger spring
constant to provide the valve with a larger valve opening force than the maximum back pressure
assumed in the design.
According to the KEPCO Accident Report, it was estimated as a result of the situation survey on
the spot that high temperature water flowed out from the opening and then flowed down from thesecond floor to the first floor through the stairs and openings, and finally flowed into the turbine
sump. With regard to steam blown out from the opening, it is estimated that the steam rapidly
permeated almost the entire area of the turbine building immediately after the pipe rupture, andintruded into some portions of the control building, and the intermediate building adjacent to theturbine building.
In the region estimated to have touched high temperature water or steam that blew out from thepipe opening, there were the solenoid valves for main steam isolation valves, the control panels
installed in the central control room, the instrument power facilities, the DC power facilities and theturbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump as safety-related facilities. Of these, high temperature water
intruded into the terminal box of one of the three solenoid valves for the main steam isolation valves,and one-sided grounding formed in the DC circuit; however, it operated normally at the accident. A
trace of steam intrusion was found at the control panels installed in the central control room, theinstrument power facilities and the DC power facilities; however, they operated normally during theaccident.

79

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
According to the KEPCO Accident Report, Mihama-3 injects feedwater treatment chemicals
from downstream of the condensate treatment equipment for corrosion inhibition of all the secondary
piping and equipment. All volatile treatment (AVT) using ammonia (pH adjuster) and hydrazine(deoxidizer), as the feedwater treatment chemicals, has been used since the commissioning. As an
anticorrosion measure for the steam generator tubes, boron injection had been performed from the 10th
to the 15th operating cycles. From the 17th operating cycle, ethanolamine has been added as a pH
adjuster.
KEPCO investigated the water quality control history since the commissioning of Mihama-3;
and as a result, says that both the feed- and condensate water quality data have been maintained
within the water quality control values, and that there was no variation in pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.
Condenser tube leaks occurred twice in the past, and seawater flowed into the secondary coolingwater. However, these events are considered to have no effect because the copper alloy does notcorrode on the side in contact with the condensate water which was almost free of oxygen. The effectof boric acid on pipe wall thinning was investigated; however, no significant difference was observedin the thinning rate between with and without boron injection.

80

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6

APPENDIX BGLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

81

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
Analysis Line. An "Analysis Line" is one or more physical lines of piping that have been analyzed
together in the Predictive Plant Model of CHECWORKS™.
Cavitation. Cavitation damage may occur when there is a flowing liquid stream that experiences adrop in pressure followed by a pressure recovery. Such a pressure drop (i.e., the difference between the
upstream pressure and the downstream pressure) can occur in valve internals where the flow has toaccelerate through a small area. As the fluid moves through the restricted area, the fluid velocity increases
and the pressure decreases as shown by the momentum equation (i.e., Bernoulli’s theorem). If the local
pressure passes below the vapour pressure at the liquid temperature, then small bubbles are formed. Whenthe downstream pressure rises above the vapour pressure, these bubbles collapse. The collapse of the
bubbles causes high local pressures and very high local water jet velocities. If the collapsing bubbles areclose enough to a solid surface, damage to that surface will occur. The collapse of the numerous bubbles
generates noise and vibration. Most often, cavitation causes most of its damage by vibration (e.g., cracked
welds, broken instrument lines, loosened flanges). The erosion caused by cavitation also generates particles
that contaminate the process fluid.
Erosion Cavitation (E-C). This phenomenon occurs downstream of a directional change or in thepresence of an eddy. Evidence can be seen by round pits in the base metal and is often wrongly diagnosed
as FAC (see below). Like erosion, E-C involves fluids accelerating over the surface of a material; however,unlike erosion, the actual fluid is not doing the damage. Rather, cavitation results from small bubbles in aliquid striking a surface. Such bubbles form when the pressure of a fluid drops below the vapour pressure,the pressure at which a liquid becomes a gas. When these bubbles strike the surface, they collapse, or
implode. Although a single bubble imploding does not carry much force, over time, the small damage
caused by each bubble accumulates. The repeated impact of these implosions results in the formation ofpits. Also, like erosion, the presence of chemical corrosion enhances the damage and rate of material
removal. E-C has been observed in PWR stainless steel decay heat removal and charging system piping.
Erosion/Corrosion (E/C). “Erosion” is the destruction of metals by the abrasive action of moving
fluids, usually accelerated by the presence of solid particles or matter in suspension. When corrosion
occurs simultaneously, the term erosion-corrosion is used. In the CODAP Event Database, the term
“erosion/corrosion” applies only to moderate energy carbon steel piping (e.g., raw water piping).
Flashing. Flashing occurs when a high-pressure liquid flows through a valve or an orifice to a regionof greatly reduced pressure. If the pressure drops below the vapour pressure, some of the liquid will be
spontaneously converted to steam. The downstream velocity will be greatly increased due to a much lower
average density of the two-phase mixture. The impact of the high velocity liquid on piping or components
creates flashing damage.
Flow Accelerated (or Assisted) Corrosion (FAC). FAC is “a process whereby the normally protectiveoxide layer on carbon or low-alloy steel dissolves into a stream of flowing water or water-steam mixture.”
It can occur in both single phase and two phase regions. The cause of FAC is a specific set of waterchemistry conditions (e.g., pH, level of dissolved oxygen), and there is no mechanical contribution to thedissolution of the normally protective iron oxide (magnetite) layer on the inside pipe wall.
Heat Balance Diagram (HBD). A schematic representation of the steam/condensate flow streams
associated with the power generation cycle. The diagram contains information of steam properties (e.g.,pressure, temperature, enthalpy and steam mass flow rate) at every junction of the cycle. The HBD
provides input parameters to the development of a managed FAC program.
Line Correction Factor (LCF). According to the CHECKWORKS™ user's manual, the LCF is themedian value of the ratios of measured wear for a given component divided by its predicted wear for a82

NEA/CSNI/R(2014)6
given "Analysis Line." A LCF of 1.0 is considered ideal as the measured wear equals the predicted wear
(median value).
Liquid Droplet Impingement (LDI). Liquid droplet impingement is caused by the impact of highvelocity droplets or liquid jets. Normally, LDI occurs when a two-phase stream experiences a highpressure drop (e.g., across an orifice on a line to the condenser). When this occurs, there is an accelerationof both phases with the liquid velocity increasing to the point that, if the liquid strikes a metallic surface,damage to the surface will occur. The main distinction between flashing and LDI is that in flashing thefluid is of lower quality (mostly liquid with some steam), and with LDI, the fluid is of higher quality(mostly steam with some liquid).
Solid Particle Erosion (SPE). SPE is damage caused by particles transported by the fluid stream
rather than by liquid water or collapsing bubbles. If hard, large particles are present at sufficiently highvelocities, damage will occur. In contrast to LDI, the necessary velocities for SPE are quite low. Surfaces
damaged by SPE have a very variable morphology. Manifestations of SPE in service usually include
thinning of components, a macroscopic scooping appearance following the gas/particle flow field, surface
roughening (ranging from polishing to severe roughening, depending on particle size and velocity), lack of
the directional grooving characteristics of abrasion, and in some but not all cases, the formation of ripple
patterns on metals.
Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD). The TOFD method of ultrasonic testing (UT) uses a pair of UTprobes on opposite sides of a weld-joint or area of interest. A transmitter probe emits an ultrasonic pulse
which is picked up by the receiver probe on the opposite side. In an undamaged part, the signals picked upby the receiver probe are from two waves: one that travels along the surface (lateral wave) and one thatreflects off the far wall (back-wall reflection). When a discontinuity such as a crack is present, there is adiffraction of the ultrasonic sound wave from the top and bottom tips of the crack. Using the measured
time of flight of the pulse, the depth of the crack tips can be calculated automatically by trigonometry
application.

83