Text

:Licensee Documents ALION-CAL-STP for 12-10-12 Public Telecon GSI-191
	ML12335A177
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/26/2012
From:	Dyer L; South Texas
To:	Lyon C; Plant Licensing Branch IV
	Lyon C
Shared Package
ML12335A115	List: ML12335A174; ML12335A177; ML12335A184;
References
	TAC ME7735, TAC ME7736, GSI-191 ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06, Rev 2
	Download: ML12335A177 (72)
	v • d • e

Todd Anselmi 2012.11.26 13:02:40

-07'00'

Revision History Log Page 2 of 40 Document Number: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Revision: 2 Document

Title:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Revision Date Description 0 11/12/12 Original Document Revised the epoxy debris characteristics for use in the debris transport calculation 1 11/16/12 Updated Reference 10 to latest revision Included reactor cavity debris in the results section.

Revised the terms associated with Intumescent coatings to proper title See Cover 2 Updated Figure 1-6 to proper probability distribution Page Miscellaneous grammar revisions

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3 of 40 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Definitions and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 6 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 7 2 Design Input .......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Component Substrates ................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Component Substrate location ..................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Failure Fraction ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Failure Timing.............................................................................................................................. 10 2.5 Debris Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 10 3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4 Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 12 5 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Component Substrate Analysis ................................................................................................... 14 5.1.1 Reactor Cavity ..................................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Concrete Ceilings................................................................................................................. 14 5.1.3 Air Handling Units of the Reactor Containment Fan Coolers (RCFCs) ................................ 15 5.1.4 Electrical Terminal Boxes, Light fixtures, etc. ..................................................................... 15 5.1.5 Personnel Doors, Frames and Elevator Doors .................................................................... 15 5.1.6 Manual Operated Valves (2.5 and less)............................................................................. 15 5.1.7 Fire Protection Cabinet ....................................................................................................... 15 5.1.8 ASME III Valves .................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.9 Fire Hose Cabinets .............................................................................................................. 16 5.1.10 Monorails and Hoists .......................................................................................................... 16 5.1.11 Control Valves ..................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.12 Steel Embeds (Exterior Primary Shield Wall) ...................................................................... 16 5.1.13 Misc. Category I Steel Supports, Hangers, Restraints ......................................................... 16 5.1.14 Pumps and Motors .............................................................................................................. 16 5.1.15 Centrifugal Non-Safety Fans ............................................................................................... 16 5.1.16 Data Cabinets ...................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.17 Containment Liner Plate ..................................................................................................... 17 5.1.18 Large Bore Pipe ................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.19 Bolts, Threads, and Nuts ..................................................................................................... 18 5.1.20 Hot Surfaces ........................................................................................................................ 19 5.1.21 Misc. Steel Members .......................................................................................................... 19 5.1.22 SG Upper Lateral Supports .................................................................................................. 19 5.1.23 Unqualified Repairs on Overlap Areas of Pipe .................................................................... 19 5.1.24 Liner Plate (Room 501)........................................................................................................ 19 5.1.25 Polar Crane Rail Connection Bars........................................................................................ 19 5.1.26 Pipe Sleeves on B+R CWERs ............................................................................................... 19 5.1.27 Liner Plate behind Riser Duct .............................................................................................. 20 5.1.28 Temporary Attachments, Lifting Lugs, Etc. ......................................................................... 20

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 4 of 40 5.1.29 Hanger IA-1506 ................................................................................................................... 20 5.1.30 Valtek 3 Control Valves ..................................................................................................... 20 5.1.31 Instrument Valves ............................................................................................................... 20 5.1.32 Containment Valves ............................................................................................................ 20 5.1.33 Pipe Spool RC-1050 ............................................................................................................. 20 5.1.34 Fire Protection Valves ......................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Failure Fraction Analysis ............................................................................................................. 21 5.2.1 EPRI OEM Unqualified Coatings Testing ............................................................................. 21 5.2.2 Carboline Unqualified Coatings Testing .............................................................................. 22 5.2.3 Failure Fraction Conclusions ............................................................................................... 22 5.3 Failure Timing Analysis................................................................................................................ 25 5.4 Debris Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 31 5.4.1 IOZ ....................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4.2 Epoxy ................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4.3 Alkyd.................................................................................................................................... 32 5.4.4 Baked Enamel...................................................................................................................... 32 5.4.5 Intumescent ........................................................................................................................ 32 6 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 33 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 38 8 References .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1-Failure Fraction Probability Analysis ...................................................................................... 1-1 Appendix 2- Unqualified Density Calculations ........................................................................................... 2-1 Appendix 3- Failure Timing Probability Extrapolation ............................................................................... 3-1 Appendix 4- Epoxy Chip Characteristics Calculations ................................................................................ 4-1 Attachment A- System E Product Data Sheet ........................................................................................... A-1 Attachment B- Firetex M95 Safety Data Sheet ..........................................................................................B-1 List of Figures Figure 1-ZOI for Exposed IOZ Coating on Large Bore Pipes ........................................................................ 18 Figure 2-Alkyd Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction ....................................................................... 23 Figure 3-Epoxy Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction ...................................................................... 24 Figure 4-IOZ Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction .......................................................................... 25 Figure 5-EPRI Testing Removed Filters ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6-Qualitative Frequency of Failure .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 7-Failure Timing Histogram .............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 8-Normalized Failure Timing Histogram .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 9- Extrapolated Probability of Failure .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 10-Alkyd/Baked Enamel Failure Fraction Probability Distribution .................................................. 34 Figure 11-Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Distribution .......................................................................... 34 Figure 12-IOZ Failure Fraction Probability .................................................................................................. 35

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 5 of 40 List of Tables Table 1- Unqualified Coatings Substrate, Type, and Mass ........................................................................... 8 Table 2-EPRI Percent Detachment Design input ......................................................................................... 10 Table 3-Concrete Ceilings Unqualified Coatings Design Input .................................................................... 14 Table 4-EPRI test results for % Detachment ............................................................................................... 21 Table 5-Relative Frequency of failure ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 6-Failure Timing Probability .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 7-Epoxy Debris Size Distribution ....................................................................................................... 32 Table 8-Maximum Unqualified Coatings Debris ......................................................................................... 33 Table 9-Summary of Failure Timing Probability.......................................................................................... 36 Table 10-Debris Characteristics Summary .................................................................................................. 37

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 6 of 40 Definitions and Acronyms ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BWR Boiling Water Reactor BWROG Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group CS Containment Spray DBA Design Basis Accident DFT Dry Film Thickness ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IOZ Inorganic Zinc LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident NPSH Net Positive Suction Head NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer QA Quality Assurance RCS Reactor Coolant System STP South Texas Project STPNOC South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company ZOI Zone of Influence

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 7 of 40 1 Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to determine the amount of unqualified coatings debris after a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). There are several different types of unqualified coatings applied over a number of substrates. The type, failure fraction, failure timing, and location of the coating determines the amount of debris that will transport to the pool. This analysis determines the probability of the failure fraction and failure timing of the unqualified coatings: subsequent analysis will use these probabilities to determine the amount of debris that will reach the pool level. This information will subsequently be used for the risk-informed resolution of GSI-191.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 8 of 40 2 Design Input The design input used in this calculation is documented in this section.

2.1 Component Substrates The design input of the component substrates, the types of unqualified coatings, and the mass of the unqualified coatings is taken from the STP unqualified coatings documentation (1). The following table illustrates the design inputs from this reference:

Table 1- Unqualified Coatings Substrate, Type, and Mass Coating Mass Substrate # Substrate Name Coating System (lbm) 1 Reactor Cavity Epoxy 1574 Personnel Doors, Frames, Alkyd Primer and 2 68 and Elevator Doors Topcoats Terminal Boxes, Light 3 Baked Enamel 260 Fixtures, Etc.

Manual Operated Valves Alkyd (Zinc Rich 4 25 (2.5" and less) Primer) 5 Fire Protection Cabinet Intumescents 2 6 ASME III Valves IOZ 5 7 Fire Hose Cabinets Baked Enamel 7 Alkyd (Zinc Rich 8 Monorails and Hoists 134 Primer) 10 Control Valves Alkyd 0.27 12a Steel Embeds (Exterior IOZ primer 4 Primary Shield Wall) 12b Epoxy topcoats 10 Misc Cat. I Steel Supports, 13 IOZ 29 Hangers, Restraints 16a IOZ primer 1 Pumps and Motors 16b Epoxy topcoat 2 18a Alkyd Primer 12 Centrifugal Non-safety Fans 18b Epoxy topcoat 54 19 Data Cabinets Intumescents 35 20 Containment Liner Plate Epoxy 10 21 Large Bore Pipe IOZ 601 Alkyd (Zinc Rich 22 Bolts, Threads and Nuts 24 Primer) 23a Unqualified Coatings Applied IOZ primer 37

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 9 of 40 23b Over Hot Surfaces Epoxy topcoat 42 24 Misc Steel Members Epoxy 2 26a Steam Generator Upper IOZ primer 67 26b Lateral Supports Epoxy topcoat 110 Unqualified Repairs on 27 Epoxy 1 Overlap Areas of Pipe 28 Liner Plate (Room 501) Epoxy 7 Polar Crane Rail Connection 29 Epoxy 1 Bars 30a IOZ primer 4 Pipe Sleeves on B+R CWER's 30b Epoxy topcoat 5 31 Pipe Sleeves on B+R CWER's IOZ 17 32 Liner Plate Behind Riser Duct Epoxy 2 Temporary Attachments, 33 Epoxy 10 Lifting Lugs, etc.

34 Hanger IA-1506 IOZ 0.06 Alkyd primer and 35 Valtek 3" Control Valves 4 topcoat 36 Instrument Valves Alkyd 0.25 37 Containment Valves IOZ 9 38a IOZ primer 1 Pipe Spool RC-1050 38b Epoxy 2 39a Alkyd primer 4 Fire Protection Valves 39b Epoxy primer 0.42 Additionally, design input for the concrete ceilings coated with unqualified coatings is taken from the painted surfaces in containment documentation (2).

2.2 Component Substrate location The locations of the component substrates that have an unqualified coating have been determined through various containment drawings (3; 4; 5; 6; 7). For the locations of substrates that were deemed indeterminate, it was conservatively assumed that they are at the pool elevation.

2.3 Failure Fraction The failure fraction of each of the different types of unqualified coatings has been developed through the test data of LOCA simulated conditions conducted by EPRI and Carboline (8; 9). The EPRI failure fraction tests conformed to the ASTM D3911 and ANSI N101.2-1972 standards for the DBA autoclave testing. Prior to the autoclave testing, the coating samples were subjected to radiation at the 3.2 x 108

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 10 of 40 rad level (8). This introduces a significant conservatism because containment will not experience this level of radiation unless the LOCA results in core damage. The data from the EPRI tests is summarized in the following table:

Table 2-EPRI Percent Detachment Design input

% Detachment after DBA With Radiation Coating Type Minimum Average Maximum Number of Samples Alkyd 1 34 98 14 Epoxy 0 11 50 9 IOZ 1 48 95 2 The raw data was used to develop probability distributions associated with the failure fraction of each of the different unqualified coatings types.

2.4 Failure Timing The time after the start of the LOCA event that the unqualified coating fails is determined through the data presented in the EPRI test report (8). The design input from EPRI was used to infer the probability of the time of failure (See Section 5.3).

2.5 Debris Characteristics The debris characteristics of the debris of each of the unqualified coating types has been developed through a review of several tests that have investigated this issue (10; 11; 12; 13).

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 11 of 40 3 Assumptions

1. It was assumed that all of the large bore pipes in containment are insulated. This is a reasonable assumption because the large bore pipes experience the higher temperature range that necessitates insulation.

2. It was assumed that the application of unqualified IOZ on the large bore pipes is uniform on all of the large bore pipes in containment. This is a reasonable assumption because the specific pipes that this unqualified IOZ is applied are not expressly given in the supporting documentation. This assumption is generally conservative as the unqualified coating may not be located under insulation that would be exposed to destruction due to jet impingement.

3. For any component substrate location that was indeterminate, it was assumed that the location was at the pool level allowing direct transport to the pool. This is the most conservative alternative.

4. The total surface area of large bore piping in one of the steam generator compartments is conservatively assumed to be 1/3 of the total surface area of large bore pipes in containment.

This is a reasonable assumption because there are two steam generator compartments (with two steam generators in each compartment), as well as large bore piping associated with residual heat removal, charging, and safety injection that are not located in these compartments (14). In addition, much of the destruction would be reduced due to shadows within the ZOI.

5. The debris characteristics and failure fraction of baked enamel is assumed to be the same as that for the unqualified alkyd coatings. This is a reasonable assumption because baked enamel is a common type of alkyd coating (11).

6. The failure fraction of intumescent coatings is conservatively assumed to be 100% due to the lack of supporting data.

7. The debris characteristics of intumescent coatings are assumed to be the same as epoxy. This is a reasonable assumption because many commercially available intumescent coatings are partially composed of epoxy (See Attachments A and B).

8. It was assumed that the total mass quantities formulated in this calculation are applicable to both STP units. This is a reasonable assumption because the containment buildings for STP Units 1 and 2 are essentially identical. See Section 5.1 for more discussion.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 12 of 40 4 Methodology The amount of unqualified coatings debris that is expected to reach the pool is calculated using a risk-informed approach. Any unqualified coatings debris that will reach the pool level could potentially contribute to the pool chemistry and head loss across the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) strainers. The factors that will affect the transport of unqualified coatings debris include the total amount of debris, the location of each unqualified coating, the failure fraction, and the failure timing.

The results of this analysis will generate the probability of the mass of coatings that will be available for transport to the pool. These results will be used in the risk-informed resolution of GSI-191 at STP.

There are four characteristics that will be evaluated for each of the unqualified coatings to determine the values of interest:

Component Substrate Analysis- The types, amounts, and locations of the unqualified coatings.

Failure Fraction Analysis- The percentage of the total mass of each unqualified coating type that will fall off of each substrate.

Failure Timing Analysis- The time into the LOCA event in which the coating will fall off of the component substrate.

Debris Characteristics- The type and size range of the failed unqualified coating debris.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 13 of 40 The basic methodology used for the STP unqualified coatings debris generation calculation is shown below:

1. Each component substrate with an unqualified coating has been investigated for the coating type, substrate location, and total mass of the coating.

2. The failure fraction of each coating type has been analyzed through a survey of applicable literature. The probability of failure fraction has been determined for each of the following coatings: IOZ, epoxy, alkyd, and baked enamel.

3. The failure timing of coatings has been evaluated and the probability of the coating failing prior to containment spray termination has been estimated.

4. The debris characteristics of each of the unqualified coatings have been analyzed through a survey of previous literature. The type and size of debris has been determined for each of the following coatings: IOZ, epoxy, alkyd, baked enamel, and intumescent coatings.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 14 of 40 5 Analysis The calculations outlined in the methodology section are executed in this section.

5.1 Component Substrate Analysis The type, total mass, and location of each unqualified coating are factors that determine the amount of debris that will transport to the pool. The panoptic list of component substrates and their unqualified coatings is developed from the unqualified coatings in containment documentation (1) and the painted surface area in containment documentation (2).

The masses and substrates presented in this calculation are taken from the unqualified coatings documentation of Unit 1 (1). The documentation of Unit 1 gives the total mass of unqualified coatings as 3183 lbm (1) and the documentation of Unit 2 gives the total mass of unqualified coatings as 2796 lbm (15). Though some of the substrates have different unqualified coatings mass associated with each (Unit 1 reactor cavity mass is 1574 lbm and Unit 2 reactor cavity mass is 1408 lbm), the overall unqualified coating mass is consistent between both plants. Therefore, the results from this analysis are assumed to be applicable to both units of STP.

5.1.1 Reactor Cavity The unqualified coating in the reactor cavity is an epoxy system; although these coatings were applied in a qualified manner with appropriate documentation, they are assumed to fail due to excess radiation.

The total mass of this unqualified epoxy coating is given as 1574 lbm (1). However, due to the limited flow paths from the reactor cavity to the pool, the coatings in the reactor cavity will not be transported except in the case of a reactor cavity break (16; 17).

5.1.2 Concrete Ceilings The concrete ceilings in containment are coated with an unqualified clear sealer to minimize concrete dusting (18). The clear sealer is a two-component, non-pigmented penetrating epoxy (2). The following table illustrates the design input for this unqualified epoxy coating (2; 19):

Table 3-Concrete Ceilings Unqualified Coatings Design Input Location Surface Area (ft2) DFT (mil) Density (lbm/ft3) Mass (lbm)

El. (-) 2'0" 4147 0.5 94 16 El. 19'0" 6221 0.5 94 24 El. 37'0" 2074 0.5 94 8 El. 52'0" 576 0.5 94 2 El. 68'0" 4838 0.5 94 19 There is uncertainty regarding the necessity of containment spray impact to dislodge the degraded coatings. However, the assumption that these coatings will fail even though they will not be impacted

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 15 of 40 by containment sprays is conservative. The (-) 20 elevation location will yield direct transfer of the coating debris to the containment pool. The debris in other elevation locations will need to be transported through the medium of containment spray from upper containment to lower containment.

Therefore, the failure percentage and timing of these locations of epoxy coatings will determine how much debris transports to the pool.

5.1.3 Air Handling Units of the Reactor Containment Fan Coolers (RCFCs)

The unqualified coatings on the air handling units of the RCFCs are a combination of an IOZ primer and epoxy topcoat (2). These coatings are considered unqualified because, although they are of nuclear grade and quality, the proper QA documentation does not exist. However, these coatings are applied on the inside of the ring-duct and will not transfer to the pool even in the unlikely event of failure.

5.1.4 Electrical Terminal Boxes, Light fixtures, etc.

The electrical terminal boxes, light fixtures, etc. are coated with a baked enamel coating system. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 260 lbm (1). These component substrates are located throughout containment. Therefore, the debris is conservatively assumed to be at the pool elevation.

5.1.5 Personnel Doors, Frames and Elevator Doors The personnel doors, frames, and elevator doors have an alkyd coating system. The total mass of this unqualified alkyd debris is given as 68 lbm (1). These doors are located throughout upper and lower containment. The coatings debris will be conservatively assumed to be at the pool elevation.

5.1.6 Manual Operated Valves (2.5 and less)

The manual operated valves that are 2.5 inches and less are coated with a zinc rich primer (alkyd). The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 25 lbm (1). It is difficult to quantify which valves are located in upper containment or lower containment. Therefore, the unqualified coating debris due to manual operated valves is assumed to be at the pool elevation.

5.1.7 Fire Protection Cabinet The fire protection cabinet is coated with an intumescent (fire retardant coating) coating system. The total mass on this component substrate is given as 2 lbm (1). The exact location of the fire protection cabinet is not known; therefore, the debris generated from this substrate is assumed to be at the pool elevation.

5.1.8 ASME III Valves The ASME III valves within containment are coated with an IOZ primer. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 5 lbm (1). These valves are located throughout containment. The debris generated from these valves is assumed to be at the pool elevation.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 16 of 40 5.1.9 Fire Hose Cabinets The fire hose cabinets in containment are coated with baked enamel. The total mass of the baked enamel is given as 7 lbm (1). The location of the majority of these component substrates is located on the pool level. Therefore, the failed debris is assumed to be at the pool elevation.

5.1.10 Monorails and Hoists The monorails and hoists are coated with a zinc rich alkyd primer. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 134 lbm (1). The location of these monorails and hoists are in upper containment with the lowest elevation being 158.5 (3). Therefore, the containment sprays will need to wash the failed unqualified coating debris to the pool level.

5.1.11 Control Valves The control valves are coated with a standard alkyd coating. The amount of coating attributed to these valves is negligible (0.27 lbm) (1).

5.1.12 Steel Embeds (Exterior Primary Shield Wall)

The steel embeds on the exterior of the primary shield wall are coated with an epoxy system. The mass of this coating is given as 14 lbm (1). The location of this unqualified coating is on the exterior of the primary shield wall from elevation 64 to elevation 83. If it fails it will remain in upper containment until containment sprays wash it to the pool level.

5.1.13 Misc. Category I Steel Supports, Hangers, Restraints The miscellaneous category I steel supports, hangers, and restraints have an IOZ coating. The total mass of the IOZ coating is given as 29 lbm (1). The location of these supports, hangers and restraints is throughout containment; therefore, it will be conservatively assumed to be located on the pool elevation. The failed debris generated from the supports, hangers, and restraints will fall directly into the pool.

5.1.14 Pumps and Motors The coating on miscellaneous pumps and motors in containment is an IOZ primer and an epoxy topcoat.

The mass of the IOZ is given as 1 lbm and the mass of the epoxy is given as 2 lbm (1). The location of these pumps and motors is indeterminate. Therefore, they will be assumed to be located on the basement floor and all failed debris will transport directly to the pool.

5.1.15 Centrifugal Non-Safety Fans The centrifugal non-safety fans are coated with an alkyd primer and an epoxy topcoat. The total mass of the alkyd primer is given as 12 lbm and the mass of the epoxy is given as 54 lbm (1). The location of the fans is at elevation 63 in upper containment (3). The debris will initially fail in upper containment and will potentially be washed down by containment sprays.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 17 of 40 5.1.16 Data Cabinets The data cabinets are coated with an intumescent (fire retardant coating) coating system. The mass of the unqualified coating is given as 35 lbm (1). These data cabinets are located in upper containment in inactive rooms (Room 401) (7) that will not be exposed to containment sprays. Therefore, the mass of the coating on the data cabinets will not contribute to the pool level debris.

5.1.17 Containment Liner Plate The portion of the containment liner plate with an unqualified coating is coated with an epoxy system.

The mass of this coating is given as 10 lbm (1). The location of this liner plate is above elevation 133 in upper containment. Therefore, the debris will not directly transport to the containment pool unless acted upon by containment sprays.

5.1.18 Large Bore Pipe The unqualified coating on the large bore pipes in containment is an IOZ primer. The total mass of the unqualified IOZ is given as 601 lbm (1). The coating is located throughout containment. All of the large bore pipes in containment are assumed to be insulated (see assumption 1). The unqualified coatings that are under intact insulation are not considered to fail (19). Therefore, only the unqualified IOZ coating under insulation within potential zone of influences (ZOIs) are assumed to fail. To arrive at a bounding quantity of IOZ coating that will be subject to failure through the removal of the protective insulation, an example ZOI on the hot leg of loop C of the RCS has been prepared through the use of CAD software (14). The insulation on the RCS is unjacketed NUKON with a 17D ZOI radius (20). The location of the ZOI has been determined to be bounding through visual inspection. Due to the size of the ZOI, nearly the entire steam generator compartment will be encompassed by the ZOI regardless of the break location. The following figure illustrates the ZOI of NUKON destruction on large bore pipes in containment:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 18 of 40 Figure 1-ZOI for Exposed IOZ Coating on Large Bore Pipes As can be seen from figure 1, the ZOI would affect most of the insulated pipes within the particular steam generator compartment. However due to the robust barrier of concrete structure, the insulation failure would be limited to only that steam generator compartment. The total surface area of these large bore pipes is conservatively assumed to be 1/3 of the total surface area of large bore pipes in containment. The unqualified IOZ primer on large bore pipes is assumed to be homogeneously applied over all large bore pipes in containment. Therefore, the unqualified IOZ coating on large bore pipes that will be exposed to failure mechanisms is only that within the insulation ZOI: 200 lbm. This coating will fail in upper containment and need containment sprays to wash down to the pool level.

5.1.19 Bolts, Threads, and Nuts The bolts, threads, and nuts throughout containment are coated with unqualified cold galvanized repair paint (zinc rich alkyd). The total mass of this paint is given as 24 lbm (1). The location of these bolts threads and nuts is throughout upper and lower containment. Therefore, the debris from this unqualified coating is conservatively assumed to fall directly into the pool.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 19 of 40 5.1.20 Hot Surfaces The unqualified coating applied over hot surfaces is an IOZ primer and epoxy topcoat. The mass of the IOZ is given as 37 lbm and the mass of the epoxy is given as 42 lbm (1). The temperature of surfaces in lower containment will not be considered hot since they are not in close proximity to the heat generating components. In addition, there are concrete barriers to shield the heat from lower containment. Therefore, this unqualified coating is assumed to fail in upper containment and needs containment sprays to wash down to the pool level.

5.1.21 Misc. Steel Members The miscellaneous steel members are coated with an epoxy system. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 2 lbm (1). The location of these steel members cannot be expressly determined:

therefore, the debris from these coatings will be conservatively assumed to transport directly to the containment pool level.

5.1.22 SG Upper Lateral Supports The steam generator upper lateral supports are coated with an IOZ primer and epoxy topcoat. The total mass of this unqualified coating is given as 67 lbm of IOZ and 110 lbm of epoxy (1). The upper lateral supports are located in upper containment (Room 201) (6). Containment spray will be necessary for debris transport to the pool.

5.1.23 Unqualified Repairs on Overlap Areas of Pipe The unqualified repairs on overlap areas of pipe use an epoxy coating. The mass of this coating is given as 1 lbm (1). The location of these repairs is not given in the supporting documentation. The debris from these coatings will be considered to transport directly to the pool.

5.1.24 Liner Plate (Room 501)

The liner plate in room 501 is coated with an unqualified epoxy. The mass of this coating is given as 7 lbm (1). The location of this room is at elevation 680 (6) in upper containment. Therefore, the debris will need to be washed down to lower containment via containment sprays.

5.1.25 Polar Crane Rail Connection Bars The polar crane rail connection bars have an unqualified epoxy coating. The mass of the unqualified coating is given as 1 lbm (1). These connection bars are located in upper containment around elevation 1410 (4). When the debris falls, it will land on the floor at elevation 680. Containment sprays will be needed to transport the debris to the pool level.

5.1.26 Pipe Sleeves on B+R CWERs The pipe sleeves on B+R CWERs are coated with an IOZ primer and epoxy topcoat. The total mass of the IOZ is given as 20 lbm and the mass of epoxy is given as 5 lbm (1). The pipe sleeves are located on the pool level and any debris will transfer directly to the pool.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 20 of 40 5.1.27 Liner Plate behind Riser Duct The liner plate behind the HVAC riser ducts is coated with an epoxy system. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 2 lbm (1). The lowest location of the HVAC riser duct is on the second level in upper containment (3) and it extends to around elevation 130 (7). Therefore, the debris will fall in upper containment and will be washed to the pool level by containment sprays.

5.1.28 Temporary Attachments, Lifting Lugs, Etc.

The temporary attachments, lifting lugs, etc. are coated with an epoxy system. The total mass of this coating is given as 10 lbm (1). Due to the indeterminate nature of their location, the debris from these component substrates is assumed to transport directly to the pool.

5.1.29 Hanger IA-1506 The Hanger IA-1506-HF5014 has an IOZ unqualified coating. The amount of mass attributed to the unqualified coating on this component substrate is negligible (0.06 lbm) (1).

5.1.30 Valtek 3 Control Valves The Valtek 3 Control Valves are coated with an alkyd primer and topcoat. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 4 lbm (1). These valves are distributed throughout containment. Therefore, the debris generated from these valves will conservatively be assumed to transport directly into the pool.

5.1.31 Instrument Valves The instrument valves not previously covered in this document have an unqualified vendor standard alkyd coating. The mass of coating on these component substrates is negligible (0.25 lbm) (1).

5.1.32 Containment Valves The containment valves have an unqualified IOZ coating. The total mass of this IOZ coating is given as 9 lbm (1). These valves are located throughout upper and lower containment. Due to the difficulty of quantifying how many are in upper containment, the entirety of debris generated from these valves is assumed to transport directly to the pool.

5.1.33 Pipe Spool RC-1050 The pipe spool RC-1050 has an IOZ primer and Epoxy topcoat coating system. The mass of this unqualified coating is given as 1 lbm IOZ and 2 lbm epoxy (1). The pipe spool is located on the rapid refuel cable tray bridge in upper containment (5) . Therefore, the unqualified coating debris will need to be transported to the pool by containment spray wash down.

5.1.34 Fire Protection Valves The majority of the fire protection valves are coated with an alkyd primer: a few of these valves have an epoxy primer. The mass of the alkyd is given as 4 lbm and the mass of the epoxy primer is negligible (0.42 lbm) (1). The exact location of these valves is not expressly presented in any supporting documentation; therefore, all of the debris generated from these fire protection valves is assumed to transport directly to the pool.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 21 of 40 5.2 Failure Fraction Analysis The failure fraction of each of the unqualified coatings determines the amount of coating that will completely fall off of the component substrate. The nuclear regulatory commission (NRC) safety evaluation suggests that 100 percent failure of unqualified coatings be assumed (21). However, there have been several studies of unqualified coatings failure fractions which indicate less than 100 percent failure.

5.2.1 EPRI OEM Unqualified Coatings Testing An EPRI sponsored testing of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) unqualified coatings showed that the 100 percent failure assumption is very conservative. Many different generic types of unqualified coatings that are found in STP were tested and identified through Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR): IOZ, epoxy, and alkyd. Only five of the 37 coatings that were tested showed greater than 80 percent failure (8). However, due to the variation of failure percentage among the same coating type, the NRC has stated that, based on this report alone, credit cannot be taken for a reduction of unqualified coating debris for IOZ and alkyds in deterministic analysis (22).

The EPRI sponsored testing of OEM unqualified coatings tested coatings in LOCA conditions for 172 hours0.00199 days 0.0478 hours 2.843915e-4 weeks 6.5446e-5 months . Each different type of OEM coatings were both irradiated and not irradiated before exposure to the 172 hour0.00199 days 0.0478 hours 2.843915e-4 weeks 6.5446e-5 months LOCA test. The ASTM D3911 and ANSI N101.2-1972 standards were used for the autoclave testing. The EPRI sponsored autoclave testing parameters bound the worst-case STP LOCA conditions.

The peak temperature of the EPRI autoclave testing is 307 0F (8): the maximum atmosphere temperature at STP is 260 0F (23). The peak pressure of the EPRI autoclave testing is 60 psi: the maximum peak containment pressure at STP is 41.2 psig (24). The EPRI test samples were subjected to radiation testing at the 3.2*108 rad level, which is representative of core damage conditions. Note that the degradation mechanisms that cause coatings to flake, blister, etc. were not specifically identified in the EPRI test program. However, since the test conditions were bounding, it is reasonable to use the results for STP.

The average percentage of the 37 coatings that were detached after the testing was 17.3% for non-irradiated panels and 20.4% for irradiated panels. The results of the testing of irradiated panels that is applicable to the types of unqualified coatings found at STP are summarized in the following table:

Table 4-EPRI test results for % Detachment

% Detachment after DBA With Radiation Coating Type Minimum Average Maximum Number of Samples Alkyd 1 34 98 14 Epoxy 0 11 50 9 IOZ 1 48 95 2

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 22 of 40 5.2.2 Carboline Unqualified Coatings Testing The boiling water reactor owners group (BWROG) supported unqualified coatings testing by Carboline (9). This test investigated unqualified coatings systems: although the coatings tested are design basis certified, the substrate surface preparation and coating dry film thickness (DFT) are not in accordance with the coating specifications. The types of coatings that are applicable to STP include epoxy, IOZ, and alkyd systems.

The tests simulated LOCA conditions in an autoclave after being subject to irradiation. These coatings were prepared with excessive thickness and poor surface preparation to ensure failure. There were a total of three tests with different exposure times in the autoclave: 30 minutes, 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months , and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months with a subsequent pressure drop. The conclusions that were drawn from the testing are as follows (9):

The epoxy system applied over poorly prepared (solvent wiped) galvanized steel failed after the 30 minute LOCA.

The epoxy system applied over poorly prepared (lightly blasted) steel survived all three LOCA tests: only various intact blisters occurred.

The IOZ system with improper thickness (inadequate) did not powder in the 30 minute test or the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months test with depressurization. The IOZ system did fail as particulate in the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months test without depressurization.

The IOZ/epoxy system that was applied with improper thickness (excessive) survived the 30 minute LOCA but failed in the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months LOCA.

The two alkyd systems that were tested survived all three of the LOCA tests: only exhibited intact blisters to various degrees.

5.2.3 Failure Fraction Conclusions The available data from the EPRI sponsored testing and the Carboline testing of unqualified coatings is used in part to form the probability distribution of failure fractions for each of the different coating types.

Alkyd The EPRI sponsored testing of OEM unqualified coatings sampled 14 different types of alkyd coatings with a failure fraction range of 1-98%. The Carboline testing shows that the range may extend to 0%

failure for alkyd coatings. Also, in reality, 100% failure is a possibility for any unqualified coating. This data, as well as an extrapolation correction (See Appendix 1), is used to form the probability distribution for the failure fraction of unqualified alkyd coatings:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 23 of 40 Alkyd 0.012 0.01 0.008 Probability 0.006 0.004 0.002 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 2-Alkyd Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction Epoxy The test data for epoxy coatings show a range of failure fractions. The EPRI sponsored testing sampled 9 different unqualified epoxy coatings with a range of failure from 0-50%. The Carboline testing showed that the range of failure of unqualified epoxy can be between 0-100%. This data, as well as the extrapolation correction (See Appendix 1), has been used to form the failure fraction of unqualified epoxy coatings:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 24 of 40 Epoxy 0.0250 0.0200 Probability 0.0150 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

% Failure Figure 3-Epoxy Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction IOZ There is not sufficient data for the IOZ failure fracture to perform the same statistical analysis as for alkyds and epoxy. The EPRI sponsored testing shows that the IOZ failure fraction ranges from 1 to 95%.

The Carboline testing also supports a similar range of failure: from 0 to 100%. This data, as well as the extrapolation correction (See Appendix 1), has been used to form the failure fraction of unqualified IOZ coatings:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 25 of 40 IOZ 0.03 0.025 0.02 Probability 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 4-IOZ Probability Distribution for Failure Fraction Baked Enamel Baked enamel is the common alkyd coating sold for metal finished products (11); therefore, the failure fraction of baked enamel is assumed to be the same as that for alkyds.

Intumescent Coatings There is no data available for the failure fraction of an intumescent coating in a post-LOCA environment.

Therefore, it will conservatively be assumed to be 100% for all cases.

5.3 Failure Timing Analysis The time at which an unqualified coating fails is important in the determination of debris that is transported to the pool level. The coatings in lower containment that fail will fall directly into the pool at the time of failure. The coatings in upper containment will be dependent on containment sprays to wash them to the pool level. If the coatings fail immediately, then the containment sprays will wash the debris to the containment floor. If the coatings fail after the containment sprays have been terminated, the coating will remain in upper containment for the remainder of the LOCA mitigation. Therefore, the amount of unqualified coating debris that reaches the pool may be reduced significantly based on the failure timing alone.

In the EPRI sponsored design basis accident (DBA) testing of OEM unqualified coatings (including a combination of epoxy, IOZ, and alkyds), a means of determining the timing of failure was present. The filters used in the autoclave to capture the failed debris were replaced over fifteen times in uneven time increments over the 172 hour0.00199 days 0.0478 hours 2.843915e-4 weeks 6.5446e-5 months test. The time at which these filters were replaced were at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months , 4

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 26 of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months , 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months , 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months , 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months , 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months , 97 hours0.00112 days 0.0269 hours 1.603836e-4 weeks 3.69085e-5 months , 98 hours0.00113 days 0.0272 hours 1.62037e-4 weeks 3.7289e-5 months , 99 hours0.00115 days 0.0275 hours 1.636905e-4 weeks 3.76695e-5 months , 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months , 124 hours0.00144 days 0.0344 hours 2.050265e-4 weeks 4.7182e-5 months , 148 hours0.00171 days 0.0411 hours 2.44709e-4 weeks 5.6314e-5 months , and 172 hours0.00199 days 0.0478 hours 2.843915e-4 weeks 6.5446e-5 months . These discarded filters provide a visual timetable of coatings failure. The following figure illustrates the filters that were removed from the autoclave: the filter removal time increases from left to right:

Figure 5-EPRI Testing Removed Filters Test 1 from the previous figure illustrates the filters that captured unqualified coatings debris from the panels that were subjected to irradiation. This test is more prototypical of containment conditions, as the coated surfaces in containment have been subjected to radiation for 10s of years. Therefore, the filters from Test 1 will be used to qualitatively determine the timing of failure.

As can be seen from the figure, significant failure of the unqualified OEM coatings starts with the sixth filter from the left: time between 24 and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months . The qualitative estimate of the failure frequency based on visual examination is illustrated in the following figure:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 27 of 40 Figure 6-Qualitative Frequency of Failure The most significant failure of coating happens after the 5th time interval (after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ). The following table contains the time interval and its relative frequency of failure:

Table 5-Relative Frequency of failure Time Interval Time Interval Relative Frequency

(#) (hours) of Failure 1 0-3 0.047 2 3-4 0.016 3 4-5 0.016 4 5-6 0.016 5 6-24 0.047 6 24-48 0.156 7 48-72 0.125 8 72-96 0.125 9 96-97 0.094 10 97-98 0.016 11 98-99 0.016 12 99-100 0.016 13 100-124 0.109 14 124-148 0.094 15 148-172 0.109 The following histogram shows the coatings failure per time interval as determined by visual inspection:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 28 of 40 0.18 0.16 Relative Frequency of Failure 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time Interval Figure 7-Failure Timing Histogram The time intervals are composed of different time steps. In order to gain a better understanding of the relative frequency of failure timing, the following figure provides an illustration of the normalized failure frequency over the entire 172 hour0.00199 days 0.0478 hours 2.843915e-4 weeks 6.5446e-5 months test (with time interval 9 outlier removed):

Figure 8-Normalized Failure Timing Histogram

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 29 of 40 This figure shows that although the failure seems to be decreasing, it does not taper off to 0% failure at the end of the 7 days. Therefore, this data has been extrapolated to include the entire 30 day mitigation schedule (See Appendix 3). The following figure illustrates this extrapolated data:

Figure 9- Extrapolated Probability of Failure The containment sprays at STP are terminated after approximately 6.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months (25). However, this may be subject to variation due to extenuating circumstances and plant procedures. All the failure of unqualified coatings in upper containment that occurs after the containment sprays are terminated will not be exposed to containment sprays and will not be washed down to the pool. The following table provides the inferred probability of the different time periods in which failure may occur:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 30 of 40 Table 6-Failure Timing Probability Time Relative Inferred Interval Frequency of Probability (hours) Failure 0-24 0.0604 6.0%

24-48 0.0671 6.7%

48-72 0.0537 5.4%

72-96 0.0537 5.4%

96-124 0.1074 10.7%

124-148 0.0403 4.0%

148-172 0.0470 4.7%

172-192 0.0403 4.0%

192-216 0.0403 4.0%

216-240 0.0403 4.0%

240-264 0.0336 3.4%

264-288 0.0336 3.4%

288-312 0.0336 3.4%

312-336 0.0336 3.4%

336-360 0.0268 2.7%

360-384 0.0268 2.7%

384-408 0.0268 2.7%

408-432 0.0268 2.7%

432-456 0.0268 2.7%

456-480 0.0201 2.0%

480-504 0.0201 2.0%

504-528 0.0201 2.0%

528-552 0.0201 2.0%

552-576 0.0201 2.0%

576-600 0.0134 1.3%

600-624 0.0134 1.3%

624-648 0.0134 1.3%

648-672 0.0134 1.3%

672-696 0.0134 1.3%

696-720 0.0134 1.3%

These results are expected and supported by information supplied in other independent evaluations.

The Utility Resolution Guide prepared by the BWROG states that unqualified coating failure, if at all, will occur after 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months into the LOCA event and before 4 days into the mitigation processes (12).

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 31 of 40 5.4 Debris Characteristics The debris characteristics of the failed unqualified coatings in STP are defined in this section. Different types of coating have different failure characteristics. Epoxy coatings are expected to fail as chips while IOZ and Alkyd coatings fail as particulate. The failure mode of each coating determines the debris transportability when exposed to containment sprays.

5.4.1 IOZ The IOZ unqualified coatings are expected to fail as particulate. Several studies have shown that the unqualified IOZ fails as powder on the order of 10 microns. The BWROG supported testing that indicated the size range of the IOZ failed coating debris is between 1 and 20 micron (13); with 80% less than 10 micron, and 50% less than 5 micron. Other testing supports these conclusions. The BWR utility resolution guide gives the size range of the failed IOZ coating between 4-20 micron (12). The density of a common IOZ coating (Carbozinc 11) is 208 lbm/ft3 (26). The average density of the unqualified IOZ coatings found at STP is 244 lbm/ft3 (See Appendix 2).

5.4.2 Epoxy The epoxy unqualified coatings are expected to fail as chips. There have been several studies to determine the failure mode and size of the epoxy debris. The BWROG supported generic testing that indicated that the thickness of these chips on average is 275 micron (11 mil) (13). Generally, the chip thickness is assumed to be the same as the applied dry film thickness (DFT). The weighted average of DFT for the unqualified epoxy coatings at STP is 15 mil (See Appendix 4). The Carboline unqualified coatings testing indicated that epoxy chips disbonded at lengths of up to 1 long (9). Moreover, the BWR utility resolution guide states that IOZ with an epoxy topcoat will fail as follows: the epoxy chips with be in the size range of 0.125 to 2.0 inches, while the IOZ will both adhere to the back of the chips and separate as small particulate (12). In addition to this general testing, plant specific testing has been conducted to determine the size distribution of the epoxy chips. Alion characterized samples from Comanche Peak that indicated the length of the failed epoxy chips range from around 6 mils to 2 inches (10). The following table illustrates the mass percentage of total for each of the size designations (See Appendix 4):

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 32 of 40 Table 7-Epoxy Debris Size Distribution Size Designation Size Range (inch) Percentage of Total Mass Fines (particles) 0.006 12.28%

Flat Fine Chips 0.0156 37.23%

Flat Small Chips 0.125-0.5 9.43%

Flat Large Chips 0.5-2.0 20.53%

Curled Chips 0.5-2.0 20.53%

The accepted density of epoxy coatings is given as 94 lbm/ft3 (19). The density of the specific unqualified epoxy coatings found at STP is 124 lbm/ft3 (See Appendix 2).

5.4.3 Alkyd The alkyd coatings are expected to fail as particulate. The debris characteristics of the alkyd coating are shown to be soft pliable pieces and particulate in the BWR utility resolution guide (12). In addition, unqualified alkyd coatings bench top testing conducted by Alion determined that the failure mode was potential delamination and release of particles into solution (11). This testing program showed that the particles were on the order of 10 micron. Due to the similar particle size of the alkyd coatings to IOZ coatings, the size distribution of the particles will be assumed to be the same as IOZ. The average density of the specific unqualified alkyd coatings found at STP is 207 lbm/ft3 (See Appendix 2).

5.4.4 Baked Enamel Baked enamels are assumed to have the same debris characteristics as an alkyd. This is because baked enamel is the common alkyd coating sold for metal finished products (11). The average density of the specific unqualified baked enamel coatings found at STP is 93 lbm/ft3 (See Appendix 2).

5.4.5 Intumescent Coatings There is currently no information on the debris characteristics of intumescent coatings. Therefore, it will be assumed to have the same debris characteristics as epoxy (See assumption 7). The average density of the intumescent coatings found at STP is 96 lbm/ft3 (See Appendix 2).

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 33 of 40 6 Results The amount of unqualified coating debris that reaches the pool level depends on several factors:

substrate location, failure timing, and failure fraction. This calculation has evaluated all of these factors using a risk-informed approach to determine a realistic range of debris. The value of interest in the unqualified coating debris is the amount of debris that reaches the pool level. This is because the debris that reaches the pool may affect debris head loss as well as chemical effects in the pool.

The maximum debris that reaches the pool occurs when there is 100% failure of all unqualified coatings, and the failure occurs within the first 6.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months of the LOCA event. Therefore, all of the debris that fails will transport to the pool level. Only the debris in upper containment shielded from containment sprays is neglected in the total. The following table illustrates the maximum amount of debris for each coating type:

Table 8-Maximum Unqualified Coatings Debris Total Mass (lbm)

Coating Type Upper Containment Lower Containment Reactor Cavity Total Epoxy 295 36 1574* 1905 IOZ 305 64 0 369 Alkyd 146 125 0 271 Baked Enamel 0 267 0 267 Intumescents 0 2 0 2

This debris quantity is only applicable in the event of a reactor cavity break.

However, due to the previously discussed factors, the actual amount of unqualified coatings debris that reaches the pool may be significantly reduced. The following figures illustrate the failure fraction of each of the coatings found in STP:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 34 of 40 Alkyd 0.012 0.01 0.008 Probability 0.006 0.004 0.002 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 10-Alkyd/Baked Enamel Failure Fraction Probability Distribution Epoxy 0.0250 0.0200 Probability 0.0150 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

% Failure Figure 11-Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Distribution

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 35 of 40 IOZ 0.03 0.025 0.02 Probability 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 12-IOZ Failure Fraction Probability The time of failure for each of the coatings is illustrated in the following table:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 36 of 40 Table 9-Summary of Failure Timing Probability Time Relative Inferred Interval Frequency of Probability (hours) Failure 0-24 0.0604 6.0%

24-48 0.0671 6.7%

48-72 0.0537 5.4%

72-96 0.0537 5.4%

96-124 0.1074 10.7%

124-148 0.0403 4.0%

148-172 0.0470 4.7%

172-192 0.0403 4.0%

192-216 0.0403 4.0%

216-240 0.0403 4.0%

240-264 0.0336 3.4%

264-288 0.0336 3.4%

288-312 0.0336 3.4%

312-336 0.0336 3.4%

336-360 0.0268 2.7%

360-384 0.0268 2.7%

384-408 0.0268 2.7%

408-432 0.0268 2.7%

432-456 0.0268 2.7%

456-480 0.0201 2.0%

480-504 0.0201 2.0%

504-528 0.0201 2.0%

528-552 0.0201 2.0%

552-576 0.0201 2.0%

576-600 0.0134 1.3%

600-624 0.0134 1.3%

624-648 0.0134 1.3%

648-672 0.0134 1.3%

672-696 0.0134 1.3%

696-720 0.0134 1.3%

The debris characteristics of each coating type are an important factor important in debris transport analysis. These characteristics are summarized in the following table:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 37 of 40 Table 10-Debris Characteristics Summary Coating Type Debris Type Size Range Density IOZ Particulate 4-20 micron 244 lbm/ft3 Epoxy Chips 10 mils-2 inches 124 lbm/ft3 Alkyd Particulate 4-20 micron 207 lbm/ft3 Baked Enamel Particulate 4-20 micron 93 lbm/ft3 Intumescents Chips 6 mils-2 inches 96 lbm/ft3

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 38 of 40 7 Conclusion This calculation has been prepared using a risk-informed approach. The risk associated with the unqualified coatings failure fraction and failure timing has been evaluated and incorporated into the results. An attempt was made to develop a reasonable estimate of unqualified coating debris that will reach the pool without using overly conservative assumptions. However, for practical reasons, this calculation does include conservatisms. The dominant conservatism in this calculation is assuming unqualified coatings with indeterminate locations transport directly to the pool at the time of failure. In reality, not all of that debris will transport directly to the pool. Additionally, a significant assumption was made about the surface area of large bore piping. It was assumed that the large bore piping surface area within one steam generator compartment is one third of the total large bore piping surface area.

In reality, for the majority of breaks, the area of large bore pipes would not be exposed since most ZOIs are relatively small and would not result in destruction of the insulation on the pipes. The mass of unqualified coatings as calculated here-in may be used in chemical effects and head loss analysis.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 39 of 40 8 References

1. South Texas Project Calculation 9AC5002#1. Quantification of Unqualified Coatings Inside Reactor Containment Building Unit 1. Revision 6 : s.n.

2. South Texas Project Calculation 9AC5001#1. Painted Surfaces inside R.C.B. #1. Revision 6 : s.n.

3. Bechtel Energy Corporation. Drawing No. 6C-18-9-N-5002. Revision 6 : January 1988.

4. . Drawing No. 6C-18-9-N-5007. Revision 6 : s.n.

5. . Drawing No. 9C-13-9-A-1023. Revision 3 : March 1986.

6. . Drawing No. 9C-13-9-A-1024. Revision 1 : March 1986.

7. . Drawing No. 9C-13-9-A-1026. Revision 0 : April 1983.

8. Electric Power Research Institute. Design Basis Accident Testing of Pressurized Water Reactor Unqualified Original Equipment Manufacturer Coatings. Final Report : September 2005.

9. Carboline Testing Project #03471. General Electric-BWR Group LOCA Test Project. Revision 0 : April 1998.

10. ALION-REP-LAB-TXU-4464-02. TXU Paint Chip Characterization. Revision 0 : October 2007.

11. ALION-REP-LAB-2352-225. Test Report of Unqualified Alkyd Coatings Bench Top Testing. Revision 0 :

February 2008.

12. BWR Owners' Group. Utility Resolution Guide for ECCS Suction Strainer Blockage: Volume 4. Revision 0 : October 1998.

13. Internal Letter from BWR Owners' Group Projects. BWR Owners' Group Containment Coatings Committee Meeting Report. Revision 0 : September 1998 .

14. ALION-SUM-WEST-2916-01. CAD Model Summary: South Texas Reactor Building CAD Model for Use in GSI-191 Analyses. Revision 2 : October 2011.

15. South Texas Project Calculation 9AC5002#2. Quantification of Unqualified Coatings Inside Reactor Containment Building, Unit 2. Revision 6 : s.n.

16. ALION-CAL-STPEGS-2916-005. GSI-191 Containment Recirculation Sump Evaluation: CFD Transport Analysis. Revision 3 : October 2008.

17. Bechtel Energy Corporation. 2N129MC5648 Analysis of Transport of Paint Chips to ECCS. Revision 0 :

May 1985.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 40 of 40

18. STPEGS UFSAR. 6.1 Engineered Safety Features Materials- Table 6.1.4. Revision 14 : s.n.

19. NEI 04-07 Volume 1. Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology.

Revision 0 : December 2004.

20. ALION-REP-ALION-2806-01. Insulation Debris Size Distribution for use in GSI-191 Resolution. Revision 3 : April 2006.

21. NEI 04-07 Volume 2. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to NRC Generic Letter 2004-02. Revision 0 : December 2004.

22. NRC Staff. NRC Staff Review Guidance Regarding Generic Letter 2004-02 Closure in the Area of Coatings Evaluation. Revision 0 : March 2008.

23. STPEGS UFSAR. Figure 6.2.1.1-34 Containment Temperatures LOCA-DEPSG Minimum SI, Minimum CHRS. Revision 13 : s.n.

24. . Table 6.2.1.1-2 Design Basis Accident Calculated Pressures For Containment. Revision 15 : s.n.

25. South Texas Project Electric Generating Station. 0POP05EOEO10EOP-Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolants. Revision 20 : April 2011.

26. ALION-CAL-STP-8511-03. STP Qualified Coatings Debris Generation. Revision 0 : 08/10/2012.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-1 of 1-7 Appendix 1-Failure Fraction Probability Analysis The probability of the failure fraction of each of the coatings is established in this appendix. The failure timing analysis has been extrapolated from the 7 days of data to accurately represent the full 30 day mitigation schedule. As a consequence of this extrapolation, a 152.52% increase of probability statistics was introduced to the failure timing relative frequency analysis (See Appendix 3). This increase in the failure timing analysis will affect the failure fraction probability. To account for this, the probability of 100% failure for each of the coating types is increased by 152.52%, and the rest of the distribution is fit to this correction with an attempt to keep prior inflection points. This is a significant conservatism because this skews the distribution towards 100% failure, despite the fact that the data shows this is unlikely. For each of the following coatings, the probability distribution based on the data from the Carboline and EPRI testing (8; 9) is provided in contrast to the corrected probability distribution that will be used in risk-informed analysis.

Epoxy The statistics for the failure fraction of unqualified epoxy coatings, based on the EPRI and Carboline analysis, is summarized in the following table:

Table 1-1: Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Statistics

% Failure Probability 0 0.0088 1 0.0088 5 0.0352 10 0.0088 20 0.0088 100 0.0088 The following figure illustrates the probability distribution of the failure fraction for the epoxy coatings based on the available data:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-2 of 1-7 Epoxy 0.0400 0.0350 0.0300 Probability 0.0250 0.0200 0.0150 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 1-1: Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Distribution The data supports the probability of 100% failure as 0.0088. Applying the 152.52% increase to correct for the failure timing extrapolation yields the probability of 100% failure as 0.0222. The rest of the probability distribution is fit to the 100% failure probability. The area under the probability distribution must be equal to 100%: this yields 0% probability of any failure fraction below 10.1%. The following table illustrates the corrected probability statistics that accounts for the failure timing extrapolation:

Table 1-2: Corrected Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Statistics

% Failure Probability 0.0 0.0000 10.1 0.0000 100.0 0.0222 These statistics yield the following corrected probability distribution for the failure fraction of unqualified epoxy coatings:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-3 of 1-7 Epoxy 0.0250 0.0200 Probability 0.0150 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

% Failure Figure 1-2: Corrected Epoxy Failure Fraction Probability Distribution Note the increase in probability of 100% failure did not allow for the inclusion of previous inflection points. However, the resulting distribution is conservatively skewed and therefore is acceptable.

Alkyd The probability statistics for the failure fraction of unqualified alkyd coatings based on the test data supplied by EPRI and Carboline is summarized in the following table:

Table 1-3: Alkyd Failure Fraction Probability Statistics

% Failure Probability 0 0.0000 1 0.0127 5 0.0317 20 0.0063 50 0.0127 55 0.0063 80 0.0063 95 0.0063 100 0.0063 The following figure illustrates the probability distribution of the failure fraction for the alkyd coatings based on the available data:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-4 of 1-7 Alkyd 0.0350 0.0300 0.0250 Probability 0.0200 0.0150 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 1-3: Alkyd Failure Fraction Probability Distribution This probability distribution was formulated with the current data available for the failure fraction of unqualified alkyd coatings. However, the two peaks in the distribution are not likely to occur in the natural failure of alkyd coatings. Therefore, the following probability distribution provides a more reasonable distribution (without the two peaks):

Alkyd 0.025 0.02 Probability 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 1-4: Revised Alkyd Failure Fraction Probability Distribution

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-5 of 1-7 The following table illustrates the corrected probability statistics that accounts for the failure timing extrapolation:

Table 1-4: Corrected Alkyd Failure Fraction Probability Statistics

% Failure Probability 0 0 5 0.0102074 100 0.010308 These statistics yield the following corrected probability distribution for the failure fraction of unqualified alkyd coatings:

Alkyd 0.012 0.01 0.008 Probability 0.006 0.004 0.002 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 1-5: Corrected Alkyd Failure Fraction Probability Distribution IOZ There is not sufficient data for the IOZ failure fracture to perform the same statistical analysis as for alkyds and epoxy. The EPRI sponsored testing shows that the IOZ failure fraction ranges from 1 to 95%.

The Carboline testing also supports a similar range of failure: from 0 to 100%. Therefore, the data supports the assertion that the failure fraction probability will be the same over the complete range from 0 to 100%. This yields the following probability distribution for the IOZ failure fraction:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-6 of 1-7 IOZ 0.012 0.01 0.008 Probability 0.006 0.004 0.002 0

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Failure Figure 1-6: IOZ Failure Fraction Probability Distribution The following table illustrates the corrected probability statistics that accounts for the failure timing extrapolation:

Table 1-5: Corrected IOZ Failure Fraction Probability Statistics

% Failure Probability 0 0 20.8 0 100 0.025254 Applying the correction to the 100% failure statistic yields the following corrected probability distribution for the failure fraction of unqualified IOZ coatings:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 1-7 of 1-7 IOZ 0.03 0.025 0.02 Probability 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Failure Figure 1-7: Corrected IOZ Failure Fraction Probability Distribution

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 2-1 of 2-4 Appendix 2- Unqualified Density Calculations Each component substrate has a different density associated with the unqualified coating. This has been documented in the unqualified coating in containment documentation (1). To determine a realistic density to apply to each type of unqualified coating, the weighted average of each substrate mass and density has been established. This analysis has used the total mass to provide a weight-averaged density, not the potentially reduced numbers presented in the results section.

The most reliable method of calculating the dry film density of a coating utilizes the liquid density, the percent solids by weight, and the percent solids by volume. This method is represented in the following equation:

Equation 2-1 Where:

df =the dry film density of the coating liquid =the liquid density of the coating

%Swt =the percent solids by weight

%Svol =the percent solids by volume This method applies the percent solids by weight to the mass term of the liquid density and the percent solids by volume to the volume term of the liquid density. This accounts for the loss of volume and weight due to evaporation as the coating dries; thus, yielding the dry film density. This is the formula used to calculate the mass of each unqualified coating mass in the supporting documentation (1).

The following table illustrates the weighted average of the IOZ unqualified coatings found in containment at STP. The substrate number is the number given in the design input section (1).

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 2-2 of 2-4 Table 2-1: Unqualified IOZ Weight-Averaged Density Dry Film Substrate Mass Density number (lbm) (lbm/ft3) 6 5.3 256.6 12a 4.3 121 13 29.1 256.6 16a 1.1 150.1 21 601.3 256.6 23a 37.2 256.6 26a 66.6 150.1 30a 3.5 150.1 31 16.9 150.1 37 8.7 256.6 38a 1.3 256.6 Weighted Average 243.7 The following table illustrates the weighted average of the alkyd unqualified coatings found in containment at STP:

Table 2-2: Unqualified Alkyd Weight-Averaged Density Dry Film Substrate Mass Density number (lbm) (lbm/ft3) 2a 13.5 120.4 2b 54.6 97.2 4 25 228.5 8 (zinc rich 133.8 268.5 alkyd) 18a 12.3 102.3 22(zinc rich 23.7 228.8 alkyd) 35a 1.5 120.4 35b 2.5 97.2 39a 4 120.4 Weighted Average 207.3

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 2-3 of 2-4 The following table illustrates the weighted average of the epoxy unqualified coatings found in containment at STP:

Table 2-3: Unqualified Epoxy Weight-Averaged Density Dry Film Substrate Mass Density Number (lbm) (lbm/ft3) 1a 381.2 113.0 1b 959.9 129.4 1c 233.4 138.5 12b 9.9 138.5 16b 1.7 108.5 18b 54.2 84.1 20 9.6 109.4 23b 42.2 109.4 24 2.1 109.4 26b 110.0 108.5 27 0.6 109.4 28 6.6 109.4 29 0.6 109.4 30b 4.8 102.5 32 2.3 109.4 33 10.4 109.4 38b 1.6 109.4 39b 0.4 93.5 Weighted Average 123.7 The following table illustrates the weighted average of the baked enamel unqualified coatings found in containment at STP:

Table 2-4: Unqualified Baked Enamel Weight-Averaged Density Dry Film Substrate Mass Density number (lbm) (lbm/ft3) 3 260 93.8 7 7.2 69.5 Weighted Average 93.1

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 2-4 of 2-4 The following table illustrates the weighted average of the unqualified intumescent coatings found in containment at STP:

Table 2-5: Unqualified Intumescent Coatings Weight-Averaged Density Dry Film Substrate Mass Density Number (lbm) (lbm/ft3) 5a 0.5 83.8 5b 1.8 97.2 19a 10.7 134.0 19b 19.5 75.3 19c 5.0 96.8 Weighted Average 96.0

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-1 of 3-9 Appendix 3- Failure Timing Probability Extrapolation The EPRI unqualified coatings testing provided data for seven days of autoclave testing. However, the mitigation schedule after a LOCA in containment is 30 days. Therefore, the data is extrapolated to define the probability of failure throughout the entire mitigation schedule.

The normalized failure fraction probability for the seven day test is illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 3-1: Normalized Relative Frequency of Failure Timing As can be seen from this figure, there is a slightly declining slope to the failure as time increases. These results have been extrapolated to represent the entire 30 day mitigation schedule. The following table illustrates the probability statistics for the extrapolation:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-2 of 3-9 Table 3-1-Failure Timing Statistics Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 37 0.00280 74 0.00224 1 0.00671 38 0.00280 75 0.00224 2 0.00671 39 0.00280 76 0.00224 3 0.00671 40 0.00280 77 0.00224 41 0.00280 78 0.00224 4 0.00671 5 0.00671 42 0.00280 79 0.00224 6 0.00671 43 0.00280 80 0.00224 7 0.00112 44 0.00280 81 0.00224 8 0.00112 45 0.00280 82 0.00224 9 0.00112 46 0.00280 83 0.00224 47 0.00280 84 0.00224 10 0.00112 11 0.00112 48 0.00280 85 0.00224 12 0.00112 49 0.00224 86 0.00224 13 0.00112 50 0.00224 87 0.00224 14 0.00112 51 0.00224 88 0.00224 15 0.00112 52 0.00224 89 0.00224 53 0.00224 90 0.00224 16 0.00112 17 0.00112 54 0.00224 91 0.00224 55 0.00224 92 0.00224 18 0.00112 19 0.00112 56 0.00224 93 0.00224 20 0.00112 57 0.00224 94 0.00224 21 0.00112 58 0.00224 95 0.00224 22 0.00112 59 0.00224 96 0.00224 60 0.00224 97 0.00671 23 0.00112 24 0.00112 61 0.00224 98 0.00671 25 0.00280 62 0.00224 99 0.00671 63 0.00224 100 0.00671 26 0.00280 27 0.00280 64 0.00224 101 0.00196 28 0.00280 65 0.00224 102 0.00196 29 0.00280 66 0.00224 103 0.00196 30 0.00280 67 0.00224 104 0.00196 31 0.00280 68 0.00224 105 0.00196 32 0.00280 69 0.00224 106 0.00196 70 0.00224 107 0.00196 33 0.00280 71 0.00224 108 0.00196 34 0.00280 35 0.00280 72 0.00224 109 0.00196 36 0.00280 73 0.00224 110 0.00196

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-3 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 111 0.00196 148 0.00168 185 0.00201 112 0.00196 149 0.00196 186 0.00201 113 0.00196 150 0.00196 187 0.00201 114 0.00196 151 0.00196 188 0.00201 115 0.00196 152 0.00196 189 0.00201 116 0.00196 153 0.00196 190 0.00201 117 0.00196 154 0.00196 191 0.00201 118 0.00196 155 0.00196 192 0.00201 119 0.00196 156 0.00196 193 0.00168 120 0.00196 157 0.00196 194 0.00168 121 0.00196 158 0.00196 195 0.00168 122 0.00196 159 0.00196 196 0.00168 123 0.00196 160 0.00196 197 0.00168 124 0.00196 161 0.00196 198 0.00168 125 0.00168 162 0.00196 199 0.00168 126 0.00168 163 0.00196 200 0.00168 127 0.00168 164 0.00196 201 0.00168 128 0.00168 165 0.00196 202 0.00168 129 0.00168 166 0.00196 203 0.00168 130 0.00168 167 0.00196 204 0.00168 131 0.00168 168 0.00196 205 0.00168 132 0.00168 169 0.00196 206 0.00168 133 0.00168 170 0.00196 207 0.00168 134 0.00168 171 0.00196 208 0.00168 135 0.00168 172 0.00196 209 0.00168 136 0.00168 173 0.00201 210 0.00168 137 0.00168 174 0.00201 211 0.00168 138 0.00168 175 0.00201 212 0.00168 139 0.00168 176 0.00201 213 0.00168 140 0.00168 177 0.00201 214 0.00168 141 0.00168 178 0.00201 215 0.00168 142 0.00168 179 0.00201 216 0.00168 143 0.00168 180 0.00201 217 0.00168 144 0.00168 181 0.00201 218 0.00168 145 0.00168 182 0.00201 219 0.00168 146 0.00168 183 0.00201 220 0.00168 147 0.00168 184 0.00201 221 0.00168

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-4 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 222 0.00168 259 0.00140 296 0.00140 223 0.00168 260 0.00140 297 0.00140 224 0.00168 261 0.00140 298 0.00140 225 0.00168 262 0.00140 299 0.00140 226 0.00168 263 0.00140 300 0.00140 227 0.00168 264 0.00140 301 0.00140 228 0.00168 265 0.00140 302 0.00140 229 0.00168 266 0.00140 303 0.00140 230 0.00168 267 0.00140 304 0.00140 231 0.00168 268 0.00140 305 0.00140 232 0.00168 269 0.00140 306 0.00140 233 0.00168 270 0.00140 307 0.00140 234 0.00168 271 0.00140 308 0.00140 235 0.00168 272 0.00140 309 0.00140 236 0.00168 273 0.00140 310 0.00140 237 0.00168 274 0.00140 311 0.00140 238 0.00168 275 0.00140 312 0.00140 239 0.00168 276 0.00140 313 0.00140 240 0.00168 277 0.00140 314 0.00140 241 0.00140 278 0.00140 315 0.00140 242 0.00140 279 0.00140 316 0.00140 243 0.00140 280 0.00140 317 0.00140 244 0.00140 281 0.00140 318 0.00140 245 0.00140 282 0.00140 319 0.00140 246 0.00140 283 0.00140 320 0.00140 247 0.00140 284 0.00140 321 0.00140 248 0.00140 285 0.00140 322 0.00140 249 0.00140 286 0.00140 323 0.00140 250 0.00140 287 0.00140 324 0.00140 251 0.00140 288 0.00140 325 0.00140 252 0.00140 289 0.00140 326 0.00140 253 0.00140 290 0.00140 327 0.00140 254 0.00140 291 0.00140 328 0.00140 255 0.00140 292 0.00140 329 0.00140 256 0.00140 293 0.00140 330 0.00140 257 0.00140 294 0.00140 331 0.00140 258 0.00140 295 0.00140 332 0.00140

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-5 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 333 0.00140 370 0.00112 407 0.00112 334 0.00140 371 0.00112 408 0.00112 335 0.00140 372 0.00112 409 0.00112 336 0.00140 373 0.00112 410 0.00112 337 0.00112 374 0.00112 411 0.00112 338 0.00112 375 0.00112 412 0.00112 339 0.00112 376 0.00112 413 0.00112 340 0.00112 377 0.00112 414 0.00112 341 0.00112 378 0.00112 415 0.00112 342 0.00112 379 0.00112 416 0.00112 343 0.00112 380 0.00112 417 0.00112 344 0.00112 381 0.00112 418 0.00112 345 0.00112 382 0.00112 419 0.00112 346 0.00112 383 0.00112 420 0.00112 347 0.00112 384 0.00112 421 0.00112 348 0.00112 385 0.00112 422 0.00112 349 0.00112 386 0.00112 423 0.00112 350 0.00112 387 0.00112 424 0.00112 351 0.00112 388 0.00112 425 0.00112 352 0.00112 389 0.00112 426 0.00112 353 0.00112 390 0.00112 427 0.00112 354 0.00112 391 0.00112 428 0.00112 355 0.00112 392 0.00112 429 0.00112 356 0.00112 393 0.00112 430 0.00112 357 0.00112 394 0.00112 431 0.00112 358 0.00112 395 0.00112 432 0.00112 359 0.00112 396 0.00112 433 0.00112 360 0.00112 397 0.00112 434 0.00112 361 0.00112 398 0.00112 435 0.00112 362 0.00112 399 0.00112 436 0.00112 363 0.00112 400 0.00112 437 0.00112 364 0.00112 401 0.00112 438 0.00112 365 0.00112 402 0.00112 439 0.00112 366 0.00112 403 0.00112 440 0.00112 367 0.00112 404 0.00112 441 0.00112 368 0.00112 405 0.00112 442 0.00112 369 0.00112 406 0.00112 443 0.00112

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-6 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 444 0.00112 481 0.00084 518 0.00084 445 0.00112 482 0.00084 519 0.00084 446 0.00112 483 0.00084 520 0.00084 447 0.00112 484 0.00084 521 0.00084 448 0.00112 485 0.00084 522 0.00084 449 0.00112 486 0.00084 523 0.00084 450 0.00112 487 0.00084 524 0.00084 451 0.00112 488 0.00084 525 0.00084 452 0.00112 489 0.00084 526 0.00084 453 0.00112 490 0.00084 527 0.00084 454 0.00112 491 0.00084 528 0.00084 455 0.00112 492 0.00084 529 0.00084 456 0.00112 493 0.00084 530 0.00084 457 0.00084 494 0.00084 531 0.00084 458 0.00084 495 0.00084 532 0.00084 459 0.00084 496 0.00084 533 0.00084 460 0.00084 497 0.00084 534 0.00084 461 0.00084 498 0.00084 535 0.00084 462 0.00084 499 0.00084 536 0.00084 463 0.00084 500 0.00084 537 0.00084 464 0.00084 501 0.00084 538 0.00084 465 0.00084 502 0.00084 539 0.00084 466 0.00084 503 0.00084 540 0.00084 467 0.00084 504 0.00084 541 0.00084 468 0.00084 505 0.00084 542 0.00084 469 0.00084 506 0.00084 543 0.00084 470 0.00084 507 0.00084 544 0.00084 471 0.00084 508 0.00084 545 0.00084 472 0.00084 509 0.00084 546 0.00084 473 0.00084 510 0.00084 547 0.00084 474 0.00084 511 0.00084 548 0.00084 475 0.00084 512 0.00084 549 0.00084 476 0.00084 513 0.00084 550 0.00084 477 0.00084 514 0.00084 551 0.00084 478 0.00084 515 0.00084 552 0.00084 479 0.00084 516 0.00084 553 0.00084 480 0.00084 517 0.00084 554 0.00084

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-7 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 555 0.00084 592 0.00056 629 0.00056 556 0.00084 593 0.00056 630 0.00056 557 0.00084 594 0.00056 631 0.00056 558 0.00084 595 0.00056 632 0.00056 559 0.00084 596 0.00056 633 0.00056 560 0.00084 597 0.00056 634 0.00056 561 0.00084 598 0.00056 635 0.00056 562 0.00084 599 0.00056 636 0.00056 563 0.00084 600 0.00056 637 0.00056 564 0.00084 601 0.00056 638 0.00056 565 0.00084 602 0.00056 639 0.00056 566 0.00084 603 0.00056 640 0.00056 567 0.00084 604 0.00056 641 0.00056 568 0.00084 605 0.00056 642 0.00056 569 0.00084 606 0.00056 643 0.00056 570 0.00084 607 0.00056 644 0.00056 571 0.00084 608 0.00056 645 0.00056 572 0.00084 609 0.00056 646 0.00056 573 0.00084 610 0.00056 647 0.00056 574 0.00084 611 0.00056 648 0.00056 575 0.00084 612 0.00056 649 0.00056 576 0.00084 613 0.00056 650 0.00056 577 0.00056 614 0.00056 651 0.00056 578 0.00056 615 0.00056 652 0.00056 579 0.00056 616 0.00056 653 0.00056 580 0.00056 617 0.00056 654 0.00056 581 0.00056 618 0.00056 655 0.00056 582 0.00056 619 0.00056 656 0.00056 583 0.00056 620 0.00056 657 0.00056 584 0.00056 621 0.00056 658 0.00056 585 0.00056 622 0.00056 659 0.00056 586 0.00056 623 0.00056 660 0.00056 587 0.00056 624 0.00056 661 0.00056 588 0.00056 625 0.00056 662 0.00056 589 0.00056 626 0.00056 663 0.00056 590 0.00056 627 0.00056 664 0.00056 591 0.00056 628 0.00056 665 0.00056

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-8 of 3-9 Time (hours) Probability Time (hours) Probability 666 0.00056 703 0.00056 667 0.00056 704 0.00056 668 0.00056 705 0.00056 669 0.00056 706 0.00056 670 0.00056 707 0.00056 671 0.00056 708 0.00056 672 0.00056 709 0.00056 673 0.00056 710 0.00056 674 0.00056 711 0.00056 675 0.00056 712 0.00056 676 0.00056 713 0.00056 677 0.00056 714 0.00056 678 0.00056 715 0.00056 679 0.00056 716 0.00056 680 0.00056 717 0.00056 681 0.00056 718 0.00056 682 0.00056 719 0.00056 683 0.00056 720 0.00056 684 0.00056 685 0.00056 686 0.00056 687 0.00056 688 0.00056 689 0.00056 690 0.00056 691 0.00056 692 0.00056 693 0.00056 694 0.00056 695 0.00056 696 0.00056 697 0.00056 698 0.00056 699 0.00056 700 0.00056 701 0.00056 702 0.00056

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 3-9 of 3-9 These statistics yield the following extrapolated probability of failure timing:

Figure 3-2: Extrapolated Probability of Failure Timing As a result of this extrapolation, the probability of failure at a time before seven days is 39.6% of the total probability. Therefore, there is a 152.5% increase in probability due to the extrapolation to the 30 day mitigation schedule. This increase in probability is applied to the 100% failure statistic of the failure fraction analysis to correct for the extrapolation (See Appendix 1). This results in a significant increase in the quantity of failed coatings. Additionally, all of the failed unqualified coatings in upper containment are assumed to be exposed to containment sprays. Therefore, all of the coatings in upper containment that fail when containment sprays are on will transport to the pool. This is conservative since some of the failed coatings in upper containment may be in locations that are shielded from containment sprays.

These conservative factors minimize the inherent risk of extrapolation.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 4-1 of 4-2 Appendix 4- Epoxy Chip Characteristics Calculations The characteristics of the failed unqualified epoxy coatings debris will be as chips. The thickness of the chips will depend on the dry film thickness (DFT) of the coating on the substrate. To determine a reasonable approximation of the thickness of the chips, the weighted average of the DFT is formulated from the DFT of each component substrates on which there is an unqualified epoxy coating (1). The following table illustrates the results:

Table 4-1: Weighted Average of Unqualified Epoxy DFT Substrate # Mass (lbm) DFT (mils) 1a 381.15 10 1b 959.86 22 1c 233.42 5 12b 9.9 11 16b 1.74 8 18b 54.2 8 20 9.57 14 23b 42.23 8 24 2.05 7 26b 110.01 8 27 0.57 6 28 6.55 6 29 0.57 6 30b 4.81 8 32 2.29 12 33 10.4 7 38b 1.56 8 39b 0.42 6.5 Weighted Average 15 Alion characterized samples from Comanche Peak that indicated the length of the failed epoxy chips range from around 6 mils to 2 inches (10). The following table illustrates these results:

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: 4-2 of 4-2 Table 4-2: Epoxy Debris Size Distribution by Mass Size Range of Coating Mass (g) Percentage of Total Mass 1-2 inch 3.4657 32.03%

0.5-1 inch 0.9784 9.04%

0.25-0.5 inch 0.4774 4.41%

0.125-0.25 inch 0.5434 5.02%

< 0.125 inch 5.3561 49.50%

Total 10.821 100.00%

The less than 0.125 inch size range includes fines and fine chips. Of the 49.50% of this size range, 12.275% are assumed to be 6 mil particles (fines) and 37.225% are assumed to be 1/64 inch (fine chips)

(26). Additionally, 50% of the chips above 0.5 inches are assumed to be curled (10). The following size distributions will be used in the risk-informed analysis:

Table 4-3: Epoxy Debris Size Distribution Size Designation Size Range (inch) Percentage of Total Mass Fines (particles) 0.006 12.28%

Flat Fine Chips 0.0156 37.23%

Flat Small Chips 0.125-0.5 9.43%

Flat Large Chips 0.5-2.0 20.53%

Curled Chips 0.5-2.0 20.53%

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: A-1 of A-2 Attachment A- System E Product Data Sheet This attachment illustrates the inclusion of epoxy in intumescent coatings.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: A-2 of A-2

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-1 of B-8 Attachment B- Firetex M95 Safety Data Sheet This attachment illustrates the inclusion of epoxy in intumescent coatings.

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-2 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-3 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-4 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-5 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-6 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-7 of B-8

STP Unqualified Coatings Debris Generation Document No: ALION-CAL-STP-8511-06 Rev: 2 Page: B-8 of B-8

v t e Letter Sequence Other
TAC:ME7735, (Open) TAC:ME7736, (Open)
Initiation Request Acceptance Administration Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting Questions Answers Results Approval... Other: ML120540570, ML120540610, ML120540667, ML120540727, ML120540816, ML120610068, ML120610074, ML120610102, ML12145A438, ML12145A466, ML12335A174, ML12335A177
MONTHYEAR2012-02-08 [Table View]

ML12335A177

Text

Title:

Navigation menu

Search