ML13323B201

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attachment 7: CHLE-014, Rev. 2, T2 LBLOCA Test Report.
ML13323B201
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 01/22/2013
From: Leavitt J
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML13323A673 List:
References
GSI-191, NOC-AE13003040, STI 33762096, TAC MF2400, TAC MF2401 CHLE-013, Rev 2
Download: ML13323B201 (37)
v • d • e


Text

NOC-AE-1 3003040 Attachment 7 CHLE-014: T2 LBLOCA Test Report

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION COVER PAGE Document No: CHLE-014 Revision: 2 Page 1 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Project: Corrosion/Head Loss Experiment (CHLE) Program FDate:12 January 2013 Client: South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company Summary/Purpose of Analysis or Calculation:

The Large Break (LB) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) tank test is one experiment within the Chemical Head Loss Experiment (CHLE) test program created to assess the generic safety issue (GSI) 191 chemical effects at the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STP) facility. The LBLOCA tank test is specifically designed to evaluate aluminum corrosion and the presence of chemical products formed as a function of key material corrosion and dissolution under STP conditions resulting from a 15" pipe break.

Chemical products did form under the simulated STP LBLOCA test conditions but primarily were adhered to the submerged galvanized steel coupons. However, the abundant product formed was not in agreement with those predicted using the WCAP-1 6530-NP equations [1]. This product was a crystalline zinc material which closely matched hopeite, a hydrated zinc phosphate mineral. It is likely that the zinc product did not form in solution, but nucleated and deposited onto other test materials. However evaluation of in-line membrane filters suggest small fractions of this material may have been released into solution as evident by the sporadic occurrence of zinc-phosphorus based particles, <

was the abundant chemical product formed in this test derived from a material previously determined not to significantly influence chemical product formation [1], the release of aluminum, calcium and silicon was greatly over predicted. Evaluation of the in-line membrane filters showed the diffuse presence of particles with calcium, silicon and aluminum constituents.

Finally, an increase in head loss measurements was observed using both the NEI- and blender-processed fiber detector beds with similar 48-hour increases of 0.2 inches of water. The 30-day head loss detected across the NEI-processed fiber bed ranged from 0.3 to 2 inches of water and may have been a function of both raw material particulate and chemical product loading. Therefore, the detector beds response to resulting chemical products merits further investigation.

Signatures: Name: Signature: Date:

Prepared by: Janet Leavitt < signed electronically > 01/14/2013 UNM review: Kerry Howe < signed electronically > 01/13/2013 STP review: Ernie Kee < signed electronically > 02/07/2013 Soteria review: Zahra Mohaghegh < signed electronically > 01/23/2013 Revision Date Description 1 01/14/2013 Original draft 2 01/22/2013 Oversight review

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Sum m ary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Continuous M easurem ents ......................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Head Loss M easurem ents through the Fiberglass Debris Beds .............................................. 6 3.2 Approach Velocity through Fiberglass Debris Beds ............................................................... 11 3.3 Tem perature ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Discrete M easurem ents .................................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Solution pH .................................................................................................................................. 16 4.2 Solution Turbidity ........................................................................................................................ 16 4.3 Soluble M etal Concentrations ............................................................................................... 17 5.0 Post Test Sam ple Analysis ......................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Alum inum Corrosion ................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Chem ical product ........................................................................................................................ 24 5.3 Fiber bed ..................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 In-line M em brane Filters ....................................................................................................... 34 5.5 Zeta Potential and Size Distribution ...................................................................................... 35 6.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 35 7.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 36 List of Figures Figure 1: NEI-processed (A) and blender-processed (b) debris beds used in this test ............................. 6 Figure 2: Tem perature plot of colum ns during the first hour ................................................................. 8 Figure 3: Temperature-corrected head loss through NEI-processed fiberglass debris bed .................... 8 Figure 4: Temperature corrected head loss measurements produced by the blender-processed beds ..... 9 Figure 5: SEM image of zinc used in testing (left) and product captured in-line membrane filter taken after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of testing (right). EDX analysis of capture material indicates it is likely zinc granules ...... 10 Figure 6: Sm all tears in zinc m esh bag along the seam .......................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Superficial filtration velocity through fiberglass debris beds used in this test ....................... 12 Figure 8: Comparison of initial minutes of simulated and experimental temperature profile.

Experimental temperature is measured in the center of the corrosion tank ....................................... 13 Document No: CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 2 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 9: Time periods used for the WCAP calculations for release predictions as compared the entire sim u lated p rofile o ve r ................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 10: Comparison of simulated and experimental temperature profile ....................................... 14 Figure 11: Difference between pool and columns and pool and vapor space temperatures over the test.

...................... .............................................................................................................................................. 1 5 Figure 12: T1 solution pH m easurem ents ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 13: T2 solution turbidity m easurem ents .................................................................................... 17 Figure 14: T1 measured and predicted aluminum concentration over time ......................................... 18 Figure 15: T1 measured and predicted calcium concentration over time ........................................... 19 Figure 16: TI measured and predicted silicon concentration over time ............................................... 20 Figure 17: T1 measured and predicted zinc concentration over time ................................................... 21 Figure 18: Submerged aluminum (A) and vapor space (B) XPS Al 2p spectra, both dominated by alum in um p hosphate .................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 19: Submerged galvanized steel coupons with white chemical deposit ..................................... 24 Figure 20: White chemical product located mainly in the areas directly below the submerged galvanized ste e l co u p o n s .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 21: White chemical product on the mesh envelope and on the zinc spheres it contained ..... 25 Figure 22: White chemical product galvanized steel and inorganic zinc coated steel observed in past te stin g [7 ] ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 23: SEM image of white chemical product with a 50 gm scale bar ............................................ 27 Figure 24: SEM image of rod shaped product captured on filter with equivalent composition as that scraped fro m co u po ns ................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 25: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon ..................................... 29 Figure 26: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 NE Corner Precipitate ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 NW Corner Precipitate ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 28: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 SW Corner Precipitate ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: NEI-processed beds LBLOCA C3 (left) and MBLOCA C3 (right) beds after exposure to test so lu tio n ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 30: Blender-process beds LBLOCA C2 (left) and MBLOCA C3 (right) beds after exposure to test so lu tio n ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 31: LBLOCA column 3 bottom of NEI-processed (left) and blender processed (right) beds after exposure to test so lutio n ............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 32: NEI-processed fiber bed bottom of column 1 (Left) and column 2 (right) with missing nodules

.................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 33: SEM images of a whitish (left), brownish (middle), and greyish particulate captured by the fib e r b e d s .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 34: Examples of particles captured by the in-line membrane filters .......................................... 34 Page 3 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 2 Page 3 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 35: Clean membrane (left) and example of coating observed on most membranes (left) evaluated fro m te st ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 List of Tables Table 1: Head loss measurements of the two detector beds ................................................................. 10 Table 2: WCAP calculation of material release during the spray phase of testing ................................ 13 Table 3: T-test results for aluminum measurements ............................................................................. 18 Table 4: T-test results for calcium measurem ents .................................................................................. 19 Table 5: T-test results for silicon m easurem ents .................................................................................... 21 Table 6: T-test results for zinc m easurem ents ...................................................................................... 22 Table 7: scale composition of pre- and post-test aluminum samples ................................................... 24 CHLE-014,4, Rev No: CHLE-01 Document No: Rev 22 Page 4 of 36 Document Page 4 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 1.0 Introduction The Large Break (LB) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) tank test is one experiment within the Chemical Head Loss Experiment (CHLE) test program created to assess the generic safety issue (GSI) 191 chemical effects at the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STP) facility. The LBLOCA tank test is specifically designed to evaluate aluminum corrosion and the presence chemical products formed as a function of key material corrosion and dissolution under STP conditions resulting from a 15" pipe break.

This 30-day tank test was conducted from October 4, 2012 to November 8, 2012 with the following characteristics [2]:

1. Temperature profile of a 15" cold leg LBLOCA predicted by MELCOR and Relap-5.
2. Fiberglass volume predicted by CASA for a 15" break with 41% of test fiber used in the columns to produce fiber beds equivalent to past testing [3, 4]and the remaining quantity submerged in the corrosion tank.
3. STP aluminum scaffolding as the source of aluminum corrosion material with 90% of the surface area in the tank vapor space and 10% submerged in the tank.
4. Submerged high purity zinc granules equivalent to the most conservative STP inorganic zinc estimate.
5. Submerged concrete aged longer than 28 days
6. Galvanized steel with 90% of the surface area in the tank vapor space and 10% submerged in the tank.
7. Material exposure to baseline chemicals of boric acid and lithium hydroxide from time zero with incremental additions of trisodium phosphate (TSP), hydrochloric acid and nitric acid.
8. Column approach velocity of 0.01 ft/s.
9. Two types of detector beds. The 30-day test was performed using the NEI-processed debris bed.

On day 30, columns were isolated and blender-processed beds were installed. After base-line head loss measurements were obtained, tank solution was allowed to circulate through the blender-processed beds for 2 days.

2.0 Summary of Results While the results of this test are detailed in the following sections, a summary of observations are presented below.

1. Differential pressure increased across all NEI-processed debris beds during the 30 day test.
2. All blender-processed debris bed head loss measurements increased from the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> base-line measurements after exposure to the test solution for 2 days.
3. The final measured aluminum concentration was approximately 0.07 mg/L which is below the reporting limit of 0.2 mg/L but above the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.01 mg/L.
4. The calcium concentration increased to approximately 1.7 mg/L by day 7 and remained at approximately at that concentration duration of the test.
5. The silicon concentration gradually increased to 2.7 mg/L over 30 days of testing.

Document No: CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 5 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report

6. The zinc concentration peaked at 0.65 mg/L by day 9 and remained close to this concentration for the duration of testing.
7. Filtered and total concentrations of calcium, aluminum and silicon for days 1 through 30 were determined to be statically equivalent.
8. Filtered and total concentrations of zinc days 1 through 30 were determined to be statically different.
9. Turbidity measurements peaked at the beginning of the test at approximately 0.7 NTU and gradually decreased about 0.5 units until the end of the test.
10. Chemical products were observed on the submerged galvanized steel, on the bottom of the tank, and slightly on the zinc granule mesh container.
11. Chemical products were observed on the in-line membrane filters.

3.0 Continuous Measurements Many parameters required to simulate the 15" LBLOCA test under STP conditions were monitored continuously using a CompactRlO acquisition system and LabVIEW program. Head loss, temperature, and velocity measurements were continuously monitored and saved every minute to a spread sheet for analysis. Results and discussion associated with these continuously monitored parameters are presented in the following sub-sections.

3.1 Head Loss Measurements through the Fiberglass Debris Beds Head loss measurements across two types of indicator beds are a tool from a suite of diagnostics used in the CHLE testing series [4] to assess the formation of chemical products. The first indicator bed used was the NEI-processed debris bed, which is thought to be more representative of what would occur during a LOCA. It served as a nucleation site for or a filter of possible chemical products that may form during the 30-day test, Figure 1A. Then a blender- processed bed was used at the end of testing. After thirty days of testing, test solution was filtered for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> through a base-lined blender-processed debris bed which is thought to be highly sensitive but not as likely to form as a function of test conditions, Figure lB.

Figure 1: NEI-processed (A) and blender-processed (b) debris beds used in this test.

Page 6 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 6 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Temperature affects density and viscosity which in turns affects the overall head loss measurement.

The maximum head loss discrepancy due to density as a function of temperature and equipment mounting [4] is small, -0.75 inches of water. However, the temperature effects on viscosity can have a significant impact on head loss. Head loss measurements were corrected for both viscosity and density using the equation listed below:

HL,C = (DPraw + (pt - Prt)g )(1) lit

Where,
  • H,,c is the corrected head loss
  • DPraw is the instrument differential pressure measurement
  • pt and pt are the densities at test temperature(t) and at room temperature (rt)

" g is the gravitational constant

  • h is the length of the PTFE tubing connecting the column to the DP cell
  • pt and pstd. are the viscosity at test temperature(t) and at standard temperature (std) of 20 0C It should be noted that the test temperature associated with density in the above equation is not measured but estimated to be equivalent to the column temperature. However, this temperature is likely lower due to equipment configurations [4]. Therefore, a negative differential pressure measurement at test initiation is not unexpected since this is the time period where the column temperature is likely to be much greater than the solution temperature used to determine a differential pressure measurement. As the test proceeds, the difference in the column temperature and the solution temperature used to determine a differential pressure measurements significantly decreases.

It should also be noted that during the first thirty minutes of testing, the columns did not receive equivalent flow as indicated by the temperature changes observed in the columns as shown by Figure 2.

Once the equipment configuration was adjusted to ensure equal flow through columns, the column temperature became equivalent at approximately one hour.

Page 7 of 36 Document No: CHLE-014, Document No: Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 7 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 80 lso_0_ ouo 60 40 -Column I

-Colunm 2 30 -Column 3 20 -0 40 30 4 50 f0 70 010 20 30 40 so 60 70 Time (min)

Figure 2: Temperature plot of columns during the first hour.

As seen in Figure 3, all columns experienced an increase of head loss across the NEI-process debris bed as a function of time. Column 2 had the largest final head loss final value of approximately 2.5 inches of water, while column 1 had the smallest head loss value of about 0.4 inches of water. Column 3 had a final head loss measurement of approximately 1.2 inches of water.

3.0 2-S 2. ,-Column1 Colu mn 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ljlll 2.0 - Colunm 2 1.5 0.0 0 5 10 1s 20 2S 30 Time (day)

Figure 3: Temperature-corrected head loss through NEI-processed fiberglass debris bed.

Page 8 of 36 Document No:

Document No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 CHLE-014, Rev 2 Page 8 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report After 30 days of testing, the blender-processed beds were installed in the same manner as that was used during the MBLCOA test [4]. The base-line head loss measurements of all the columns experienced little to no change during the 2 days of isolation as shown in Figure 4. The baseline head loss measurements of columns 1 and 2 were equivalent,- 0.65 inches of water, and approximately 0.3 inches of water less than the base-line measurements of column 3. After the columns were linked to the corrosion tank, the head loss measurements in all columns increased approximately 0.2 inches of water over two days.

2.0

-Colurm 1 1.6 t -Column 2

9. -Colurm 3 1.2 0.8 OA 0.0 30 31 32 33 34 35 Time (day)

Figure 4: Temperature corrected head loss measurements produced by the blender-processed beds.

The two detector beds used in testing are very different. While the magnitude of the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> blender-processed bed head loss measurements were more than 2 times larger than the NEI-processed head loss measurments (neglecting column 3 results), it should be noted that both detector beds registered a similar increase, -0.2 inches of water in 2 days, as a result of test solution filtering through the different beds as shown in Table 1. The magnitude of head loss detected may be associated with the baseline measurements of the detector beds and not with the response of the detector beds itself. Column 3 results were not in agreement with the trend indicated, but column 3 was inadvertently initally linked with a slightly different flow than columns 1 and 2. The thirty day increase in head loss measurments for the NEI-processed beds range from 0.4-2 inches of water which captures the variability associated the debris bed type.

Page 9 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-014,4, Rev No: CHLE-01 2 Page 9 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Table 1: Head loss measurements of the two detector beds Head loss across NEI bed ("H20) Head loss across blender bed ("H20)

Time C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 Baseline -0.01 0.37 -0.15 0.68 0.65 0.93 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> 0.21 0.58 -0.14 0.91 0.86 1.16 30 day 0.36 2.44 1.15 N/A N/A N/A Magnitude of 48 hr head Loss 0.22 0.21 0.01 0.23 0.21 0.23 The increase of head loss is evident; however the source is not. Zinc granules enclosed in a stainless steel mesh envelope were used in testing. While every effort was made to eliminate granules smaller than the mesh, some granules escaped and were captured by the in-line membrane filter, Figure 5.

Upon post-test analysis of the stainless steel mesh envelope, tears in the mesh were noted, Figure 6, which may have allowed granules larger than the mesh to also escape. While chemical products were observed and will be discussed further in later sections of this document, particulates (zinc granules) were circulating as early as test initiation and may have been caught in the debris beds influencing head loss measurements.

Figure 5: SEM image of zinc used in testing (left) and product captured in-line membrane filter taken after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of testing (right). EDX analysis of capture material Indicates it is likely zinc granules Page 10 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 22 Page 10 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 6: Small tears in zinc mesh bag along the seam.

3.2 Approach Velocity through Fiberglass Debris Beds The approach velocity was maintained near 0.01 ft/s in all three columns throughout testing, Figure 7.

Approach velocity for each column was adjusted by throttling a valve on the discharge side of the centrifugal pump followed by adjustment of the variable speed drive. This approach in velocity control prevents fiber buildup for occurring within the valve resulting in minimal disturbance of the velocity during testing.

Page 11 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 11 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 0.020

-Column 1 IM.oLS -Colunut2

-Coluwm 3 0.010 0.01 0 S 10 is 20 25 30 35 Time (day)

Figure 7: Superfidal filtration velocity through fiberglass debris beds used in this test 3.3 Temperature The test was designed to simulate the temperature profile of a 15-inch cold leg LBLOCA event as determined by MELCOR and Relap-S simulations [5]. The simulation predicts a large spike in temperature, 104.1 0 C (219.40 F) for approximately two minutes during the initial minutes of testing as seen in Figure 8. Before this initial high temperature spike, the solution temperature is predicted to be 48.7°C (119.6°F). After the two minute spike, the solution temperature returns to approximately 75.80 C (168.4°F) with a slight increase in temperature for a few minutes followed by a linear decrease. Since the initial behavior of the simulated profile cannot be experimentally achieved with the current configuration, it was decided to begin the test at the maximum equipment temperature of 850 C (1850 F),

followed by a controlled linear temperature decrease. During testing, it was observed that the test solution began to cool quicker than the simulated profile due to the insertion of room temperature test materials into the heated solution, the addition of 15-gallons of room temperature TSP solution, and linking of the room temperature columns. Therefore, the heaters were turned up to return the solution temperature to the temperature required by the simulated profile. Once the solution temperature was equivalent to the simulated profile required temperature, the heaters were operated to produce a slightly slower linear decrease in temperature than necessary during the spray phase to ensure the overall corrosion that occurred experimentally was greater than or equal to the corrosion expected to occur per the simulated profile.

Page 12 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 22 Page 12 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 120

15-inch break 100 S 80 j60 40 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Time (day)

Figure 8: Comparison of initial minutes of simulated and experimental temperature profile. Experimental temperature is measured in the center of the corrosion tank.

The WCAP-16530-NP calculations for predicting material release were used to evaluate whether the experimental deviation from the simulated temperature profile would affect the total material release.

The results of this analysis determined that the calculated overall material release expected to occur under experimental conditions is slightly higher than the WCAP-16530-NP predicted material release as shown by Table 2. The material release expected to occur during the spray phase of both profiles were determined using the time periods and temperatures shown by Figure 9. The higher calculated release of material under experimental conditions is due to the higher starting temperature of 85 0 C (1850 F) and the higher experimental temperature for approximately 300 minutes of the event as shown in Figure 8.

Table 2: WCAP calculation of material release during the spray phase of testing Ca Release Si Release Al Release Case (kg) (kg) (kg)

Experimental 1.19 1.72 0.86 Simulation 1.12 1.47 0.72 Page 13 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 2 Page 13 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 110

-Simulated Profile 100- - Experimental Profile 0 Simulated Estimate 90 - A Experimental Estimate 80 -

a, 70 E

a, 60 50 40 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (day)

Figure 9: Time periods used for the WCAP calculations for release predictions as compared the entire simulated profile over.

Once the spray phase ended, the experimental profile linearly decreased to the simulated profile within hours and then traced the simulated profile for the duration of the test as shown in Figure 10. During day 28 to 34, the experimental temperature oscillates around the simulated profile temperature which is a result of non-optimized heater controller operation.

105 95 - Simulated S 85 85 -Experimental 55 45 350 15 2 25 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 limo (day)

Figure 10: Comparison of simulated and experimental temperature profile.

The pool temperature appears to be slightly higher than the column as indicated by Figure 11. However the difference in temperature is only greater than 1'C for the first four days. As explained in previous Document No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 Page 14 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report reports [4] the temperatures difference below V°C are within the noise of the instrument and may not exist. Therefore, it is only certain that a slight temperature difference between the columns and the tank solution exist during the first few days of testing.

A difference between the tank solution temperature and tank vapor temperature of up to 4.50 C is also shown by Figure 11. The cycling associated with this difference (~0.5'C) is attributed to the change in room temperature from day to night since the cycling period is approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The large spikes in temperature differences at day 30 and 34 are due to the removal of the tank lid for experimental needs.

5.0 4.5 4.0 g 3 .5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 +~-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (day)

- Pool-Cl - Pool - C2 - Pool - C3 - Pool - VS Figure 11: Difference between pool and columns and pool and vapor space temperatures over the test.

4.0 Discrete Measurements While many parameters were continually measured, some parameters such as soluble metal concentration, pH and turbidity were measured on discrete time frames. Samples for soluble metal concentration measurements were taken daily for the first ten days, followed by three times a week until the end of testing. The test solution pH was monitored both continuously with an in-line pH meter and at discrete times with a bench top pH probe to monitor for in-line pH meter drift. The discrete pH measurements were performed on the same sampling schedule as the soluble metal concentration measurements. Tank turbidity measurements were taken daily while turbidity measurements at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger were taken on the same sampling schedule as the soluble metal concentration measurements. Results and discussion associated with these parameters are presented in the following sub-sections.

Document No: CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 15 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 4.1 Solution pH The solution pH was measured by both in-line and bench top automatic temperature correction (ATC) pH meters. The in-line pH meter only calibrates with a two-point curve and was calibrated using the pH 7 and the pH 10 standards. This two-point calibration results in unreliable measurements below pH 7 for this test. Therefore the starting solution pH was obtained using the bench top meter which was calibrated using a three point calibration of standard 4, 7 and 10. Above pH 7, the bench top and in-line pH results were within 0.1 pH units of each other. As determined by the bench top pH meter, the solution pH at test initiation was 4.5 and increased to 7.3 during the addition of TSP. The solution pH remained at 7.3+/- 0.1 for the duration of the test as shown by Figure 12. Post-test evaluation of the in-line pH meter showed that the in-line pH meter was not functioning correctly which provides explanation for the erratic behavior observed in Figure 12.

10 9 -On-Line pH E Bench Top pH 8

. . . . I . . . . .. -.. =

4--~ -I------ ---- ~---

0 S 10 15 20 25 30 3S Time (day)

Figure 12: TI solution pH measurements.

4.2 Solution Turbidity Turbidity measurements of the bulk test solution and solution from two locations in the heat exchanger loop (upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger) were collected. All turbidity measurements throughout the test were below the turbidity level which was shown to correlate well with 1 mg/L aluminum precipitate [3]. The turbidity was the highest on the first day of testing, -0.7 NTU, and gradually decreased over the thirty days of testing to -0.2 NTU, Figure 13. An increase in the tank turbidity measurement occurred when the blender beds were linked to the tank. This was likely due to loosely attached fiber and fiber-binder released from the new blender beds given that the tank turbidity measurements were constant during the new column isolation and no other source of particulate or chemical product was within the isolated columns. During the thirty days of testing, the solution Rev 2 Page 16of36 Document No:

Document No: CHLE-014, CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 16 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report turbidity when cooled by the heat exchanger remained relatively similar to the test-temperature solution turbidity, Figure 13.

1.0 A Tank 0 Pre-Heat Exchanger 0.8 0 Post-Heat Exchanger O.6 A 0.4 AA 0.2 l*11A

  • A* A*AAA& A*A 0.0 1 - - I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 limo (day)

Figure 13: T2 solution turbidity measurements 4.3 Soluble Metal Concentrations The total and filtered solution concentrations of aluminum, calcium, silicon and zinc were measured frequently during testing by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) analysis. While total concentration samples were immediately acidified for analysis, the filtered concentration samples were run through a 0.45 pm filter before acidification to remove particles larger than 0.45 jim from solution. The filtered and total concentrations for the individual analytes taken from day 1 to 30 were subjected to statistical analysis using a t-test for both a 1-tail and 2-tail test with a p-value < 0.05 to determine whether the measurements were statistically equivalent. Finally, the predicted releases of these materials generated from the WCAP-16530-NP equations were compared to the experimentally obtained release. Zinc material release predictions are not generated in this analysis because it was previously determined that it does not contribute significant material release to the system [1].

The final measured aluminum concentration was approximately 0.07 mg/L and was present at this concentration by Day 1 as seen in Figure 14. The aluminum concentration reported is less than the reporting detection limit of 0.2 mg/L, but is above the equipment MDL. Therefore there is a degree of uncertainty associated with the absolute values in Figure 14. While the submerged aluminum surface area in this test (0.31 ft 2) was about a third less than that in the MBLOCA test (0.47 ft 2), there was much less aluminum detected in this test when compared to the MBLOCA test [4]. The T-statistic value listed in Table 3 was calculated from the analysis of the measured total and filtered aluminum concentration and is less than the T-critical value; therefore the total and filtered sample concentrations are Page 17 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 2 Page 17 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report equivalent. Consequently, an aluminum product greater than 0.45 g.m is not expected to exist in solution.

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 - WCAP Prediction f

  • A[ Total S0.4 0.4 A Al Filtered 0.3 0.2 01 5mn 10 15 20 25 30 3 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (day)

Figure 14: TI measured and predicted aluminum concentration over time Table 3: T-test results for aluminum measurements Al Total (mg/L) Al Filtered (mg/L)

Mean 0.0682 0.0661 Variance 0.0001 0.0001 Observations 20 20 Pearson Correlation 0.6257 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.0000 df 19 t Statistic 1.1698 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1283 t Critical one-tail 1.7291 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2565 t Critical two-tail 2.0930 Also, the measured 30-day aluminum concentration is approximately eleven times less than that predicted by the WCAP equations [1]. This difference between the predicted and experimental release is much larger than that obtained when evaluating the MBLCOA test results with the same predictive tool. While the difference between the experimental and predicted aluminum increased significantly in the presence of zinc material during the LBLOCA test, predictions for both the MBLOCA and LBLOCA overestimated the aluminum material release. Although the predictive and experimental releases were Page 18 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 18 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report not in good numerical agreement, they were in agreement in that the release was to be very small, < 1 mg/L.

The calcium concentration after 30 days of testing was approximately 1.7 mg/L as shown by Figure 15.

Although this test contained about 2.5 times more fiberglass than the MBLCOA test [4], this concentration was very close to that measured at the end of the MBLOCA test (1.8 mg/I). Statistically the filtered concentrations were equivalent to the total concentrations given that the T-statistic value was less than the T-critical value as listed in Table 4. Therefore it is likely that a calcium product greater than 0.45 pim is not present in solution.

3.0 2.0 12*5 10.5 WCAP Prediction 01.5 N Ca Total A Ca Filtered 0.0 1 . .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 lime (day)

Figure 15: T1 measured and predicted calcium concentration over time Table 4: T-test results for calcium measurements Ca total (mg/L) Ca filtered (mg/L)

Mean 1.5850 1.5650 Variance 0.0108 0.0161 Observations 20 20 Pearson Correlation 0.8361 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.0000 df 19 t Statistic 1.2854 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1071 t Critical one-tail 1.7291 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2141 t Critical two-tail 2.0930 Page 19 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 2 Page 19 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report The experimentally obtained calcium concentration was approximately 70% of the predicted concentration obtained using the WCAP-16530 equations [1]. While the predictive equations under estimated the calcium release in the MBLOCA test [4], it over estimated the release of calcium in this test.

The measured silicon concentration was approximately 2.7 mg/L after 30 days of testing as shown by Figure 16. This concentration is approximately half of that measured at the end of the MBLCOA Test [4]

even though there was approximately 2.5 times more fiberglass in solution. The silicon concentration increased continually over the 30 days of testing. Statistical evaluation of the total and filtered sample concentrations were equivalent given that the T-statistic value is less than the t-critical value.

Therefore it is likely that a silicon product greater than 0.45 urm is not present in solution. Also, the difference between the experimentally obtained and WCAP-16530 predicted [1]silicon concentration was large as opposed to the very small difference observed for the MBLCOA.

12 10 16 54 2

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 11mT(day)

Figure 16: T1 measured and predicted silicon concentration over time Page 20 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 20 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Table 5: T-test results for silicon measurements Si total (mg/L) Si filtered (mg/L)

Mean 2.2500 2.2400 Variance 0.1153 0.1278 Observations 20 20 Pearson Correlation 0.9844 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.0000 df 19 t Statistic 0.6980 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2468 t Critical one-tail 1.7291 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4936 t Critical two-tail 2.0930 The zinc concentration peaked to 0.65 mg/L by day 9 and remained close to this concentration for the duration of testing as seen in Figure 17. Statistically, the filtered concentrations were different than the total concentrations given the t-statistic value is greater than the t-critical value as listed in Table 6. This may indicate that a zinc product (raw material or in-situ formed product) greater than 0.45 gim existed in solution. Zinc products were captured by the in-line membrane filters, but it is unknown whether this product was formed on a surface and brushed into solution or if this product is the result of a solubility limit existing in solution. It is also possible the product is a zinc granule that escaped from the mesh envelope.

1.0

  • Zn Total
  • Zn Filtered 0.8 ism l&w* mw rolw 0o5~

10.3 0.010 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 lIme (daV)

Figure 17: T1 measured and predicted zinc concentration over time Page 21 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 21 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Table 6: T-test results for zinc measurements Zn total ('mg/L) Zn filtered (mg/L)

Mean 0.5690 0.5560 Variance 0.0071 0.0095 Observations 20 20 Pearson Correlation 0.9793 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.0000 df 19 t Statistic 2.5573 P(T*=t) one-tail 0.0096 t Critical one-tail 1.7291 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0193 t Critical two-tail 2.0930 In conclusion, the total and filtered concentrations were statistically equivalent for calcium, silicon, and aluminum concentrations. However, there was a statistical difference in the total and filtered zinc concentrations. The analysis supports that only zinc chemical products or escaped granules > 0.45 jim are expected to exist in solution. The predicted material releases for all materials were larger than the experimental release. The difference between the predicted material release and experimentally obtained material release was much larger than that observed under the MBLOCA test conditions.

These results suggest that the presence of zinc in solution may have an effect on the overall release of material and therefore should be considered in future calculated predictions.

5.0 Post Test Sample Analysis 5.1 Aluminum Corrosion Aluminum corrosion is the sum of the aluminum mass released into solution and the mass assimilated into the scale layer on the corroded material itself as defined by equation 2. Once in solution, the corroded aluminum can remain in solution, precipitate and be separated from solution by sedimentation or filtration, or form scale on other surfaces in the system as shown by equation 3. The concentration of material remaining in solution is easily obtained by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) measurements. The mass of aluminum released into solution which does not remain in solution as a result of further chemical reaction can be estimated using a total aluminum mass balance of corroded aluminum. However, this mass balance requires the mass of corroded aluminum incorporated into the scale.

Alcorroded = Alscale + Alreleased (2)

Alreleased- = Alsoluble + Alprecipitated/scale (3)

To determine the mass of corroded aluminum that was incorporated into the scale layer on the material itself requires the knowledge of the original and final scale composition. Methods defined in the Document No: CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 22 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report MBLOCA test [41 were used to evaluate this mass. The results obtained from X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of the pre-test scale was in agreement with the results obtained from the MBLOCA test [4] confirming that the original scale on the aluminum sample was a combination of aluminum phosphate (AIPO 4) and aluminum (A120 3) as shown by Figure 18. However the distribution of the scale determined for the pre-test sample from the LBLCOA analysis was different than that determined from the pre-test MBLCOA sample. The analysis of the LBLOCA pre-test sample indicated that the initial scale was approximately 90/10 percent AIPO 4/ A120 3 as opposed to the MBLOCA pre-test sample indication of approximately 55/45 percent AIPO 4/ A120 3. Given that the samples analyzed were taken from the same source, further analysis on both samples were performed and it was determined that the MBLOCA results were erroneous due to charging issues. The original scale for the pre-test samples was confirmed to consist of approximately 90/10 percent AIPO 4/ A120 3.

A AIP0 4 B AIPO 4 I I' 14,,

5 5a A120 3 A120 3 4 44 No 'I 76 74 a2' I' 4' DnoingEney (eV) EneM g (eV)

Figure 18: Submerged aluminum (A) and vapor space (B) XPS Al 2p spectra, both dominated by aluminum phosphate.

Given that the pre-test sample already had a notable presence of phosphate, a review of alloys was performed to obtain more insight into the previously undefined plant sample provided. It is assumed that the aluminum specimen obtained from STP may have been subject a phosphate conversion coating

[6] which provides a mild wear resistance. However, the thickness of this coating is unknown. The XPS analysis of the LBLOCA post test samples showed a slight increase of the AIPO 4 within the scale composition. This the small increase, <2%, is less than the variability associated with multiple analyses of the same sample as seen in Table7. Since the change in scale composition is within the variability of the measurement approach and a pre-existing phosphate scale of unknown thickness exist, the attempt to determine aluminum corrosion converted to scale was abandoned. Therefore the final mass of corroded aluminum that occurred under these test conditions could not be estimated.

Page 23 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 23 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Table 7: scale composition of pre- and post-test aluminum samples LBLOCA MBLOCA Aluminum Aluminum Sample phosphate (%) Alumina (%) phosphate (%) Alumina (%)

Background Vapor 90.6 9.4 92.8 7.2 Background Submerged 93.1 6.9 100.0 0.0 Post Test Vapor 92.1 7.9 91.2 8.8 Post Test Submerged 94.6 5.4 90.1 9.9 5.2 Chemical product During testing, white product was observed on discrete areas of the submerged galvanized steel as shown by Figure 19 and on the tank floor below the submerged galvanized steel coupons as seen in Figure 20. After testing, a similar product was observed on small areas of the mesh envelope which housed the zinc granules as well as on the zinc granules themselves as shown by Figure 21. This product was not overtly evident on the fiber beds, therefore debris captured by the beds are not explored in this section. It should be noted that these type of white deposits on the galvanized steel or inorganic zinc coated coupon have been seen in past testing done under similar conditions [7] as shown by Figure 22.

However these deposits observed in past testing [7] were not subject of rigorous analysis.

Figure 19: Submerged galvanized steel coupons with white chemical deposit Page 24 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 22 Page 24 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 20: White chemical product located mainly in the areas directly below the submerged galvanized steel coupons Figure 21: White chemical product on the mesh envelope and on the zinc spheres it contained Document No: CHLE-014, Rev 2 Page 25 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Tr2OZ PREIPG GS -335- PREJPG FIgire 4-14. IOZ-79 submered. pr-test.

Figre 4-8. GS- submerged, prc-ts.

Figure 4-9. CA-W3 wubnuerged pest-WLu. Figure 4-15. IOZ-79 sbmerged pe*l.tst.

Figure 22: White chemical product galvanized steel and inorganic zinc coated steel observed In past testing[7]

The white chemical product was taken from the galvanized steel plates and subjected to analysis by scanning electron microcopy (SEM) with Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), XPS, and ICP-AES after acid digestion. This product was also evaluated by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Samples taken from the tank floor were also analyzed by XRD to determine the composition and morphology of the substance.

As seen in SEM image of the chemical product in Figure 23, it appears with a flake like consistency and has constituents of zinc (-25 atomic %), phosphorous (~19 atomic %), and oxygen (-56 atomic %). The size and shape of the product range and is likely a result of scraping the product from a surface. SEM analysis of in-line membrane (discussed in detail in the upcoming section) did capture rod shaped particulate with very similar composition to that of the material scraped from the coupons. These capture particulate were <10 p~m long and a 1-2 gim wide. An example of this product is shown by Figure 24 and may indicate the shape and size of such product that may be traveling within solution.

The ICP-AES results obtained from analysis of the digested product are in agreement that the metal associated with this material is zinc (99.7%). XPS analysis determined that the material was also composed of zinc (18.3 atomic %), phosphorous (8.4 atomic %) and oxygen (73.3 atomic %) but could not determine a stoichiometric formula from the biding energies.

Rev 2 Page 26 of 36 Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Document No: 4, Rev 2 Page 26 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 23: SEM image of white chemical product with a 50 pm scale bar Page 27 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 27 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 24: SEM image of rod shaped product captured on filter with equivalent composition as that scraped from coupons.

To further characterize the chemical product, it was evaluated by XRD analysis. The resulting diffraction patterns were analyzed using Jade 9.0 Plus software from by Materials Data, Incorporated. The Jade 9 software matches the diffractogram peaks obtained from the sample analyzed to standards found in the International Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD) database. It then assigns each match a Figure of Merit (FOM) value based on how well the experimental results compare to the standards. A FOM of zero indicates a perfect fit; while a FOM range of 0-20 is considered a close fit. The best FOM obtained from the analysis of the chemical product scraped from the submerged coupons was 9.6 and matched a synthetic Hopeite, Zn3(PO4) 2.4H 20. As seen in Figure 25, the 26 angle positions of the sample exactly match that of the standard and the sample intensity (indicated in black) slightly deviate from the standard intensities (indicated in green). This deviation in intensities is likely due to preferred particle orientation which explains why the FOM is not closer to 0. The stoichiometry of synthetic Hopeite, Zn3(PO 4)2.4H20, is also in close agreement with the percent atomic distribution determined by EDX analysis of the SEM image and the XPS results.

Page 28 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 28 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report I

I1 Figure 25: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon XRD analyses of samples taken from the north east, north west, and south west corners of the tank floor supports that the chemical product in these areas is equivalent to that found on the submerged coupons. It should be noted that the submerged galvanized steel coupons were located on the north side of the tank. The analysis of the product taken from the north east corner produced a diffraction pattern very close to synthetic hopeite (Figure 26) with a FOM of 9.6. The results obtained from the sample taken from the north west corner (Figure 27) also indicate that the product was hopeite. The best FOM of 2.9 determined from this match indicated that product was hopeite with a carbonate group, not the synthetic hopeite. However, the synthetic hopeite was also listed as a close match with a FOM of 4. The sample obtained from the south west corner was very close to the mass limit required for analysis and produced a FOM of 27.8. While this FOM indicates the match was between the sample and the identified standard was not very good, this was the best FOM obtained from the analysis and it identified the material as synthetic hopeite.

Page 29 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, Rev No: CHLE-014, Rev 22 Page 29 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report WVO T2 i~ GfC~ t~ *m flfiT.,,n, jSOf~ aeTo~..

S l

Figure 26: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 NE Comer Precipitate P5*40 fl 545 5*aS.O ~f C. VP

'I Figure 27: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 NW CornerPrecipitate Page 30 of 36 CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Document No: Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 30 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report I

Figure 28: XRD result of chemical product obtained from submerged coupon End Test 2 SW CornerPrecipitate The results from multiple analyses on the white chemical product indicate that it is a crystalline form of a zinc phosphate solid. This compound, Zn3(PO 4)2-4H20, also has a thermodynamic equilibrium dissolution coefficient (Log K) of -35.42 [8] which also supports that this compound is very insoluble.

Consequently, the chemical product observed in abundance on the galvanized coupons under LBOCA conditions is a compound that has not been previously identified as a compound of concern for head loss tests.

5.3 Fiber bed The NEI-processed fiber bed was collected on Day 30 and the blender-processed fiber bed was collected on Day 34. This test experienced a continually increasing head loss across the NEI-processed fiber bed which ranged from 0.4-2 inches of water and a head loss across the blender-processed fiber bed of approximately 0.2 inches of water. The appearance of the fiber beds at the end of testing were similar to that found at the end of the MBLOCA test [4] as shown by Figures Figure 29 and Figure 30. Both detector beds had a disperse collection of white, brown and greyish/black particulates on the tops of the beds. Particulate capture within the bed was not observed by the naked eye during dissection of the detector beds.

Rev 2 Page 31 of 36 Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-0 Document No: 14, Rev 2 Page 31 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 29: NEI-processed beds LBLOCA C3 (left) and MBLOCA C3 (right) beds after exposure to test solution Figure 30: Blender-process beds LBLOCA C2 (left) and MBLOCA C3 (right) beds after exposure to test solution The bottom of both detector beds have a similar pattern which has been observed in past testing as seen as seen in Figure 31. The pattern appears slightly more pronounced on the blender-proccessed fiber bed than on the NEI-processed fiber bed. When examining the bottom of the beds, areas of nodules appeared to have a slightly different texture than the others and in some cases small craters were noticed on the bottome of the bed as seen in Figure 32.

Page 32 of 36 Document No:

Document Rev 2 CHLE-01 4, Rev No: CHLE-014, 2 Page 32 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report Figure 31: LBLOCA column 3 bottom of NEI-processed (left) and blender processed (right) beds after exposure to test solution Figure 32: NEI-processed fiber bed bottom of column 1 (Left) and column 2 (right) with missing nodules Representative sample areas of fiber with particulate were the taken from the top of the debris beds and evaluated with SEM. As seen in past testing [4], the particulate capture on top of the detector beds had constituents of probable chemical products derived from the solution chemistry. Images of the particle capture are presented by Figure 33. Further details for the SEM analysis of the fiber bed particle capture can be found in Appendix 1.

Figure 33: SEM images of a whitish (left), brownish (middle), and greyish particulate captured by the fiber beds Document No: CHLE-01 4, Rev 2 Page 33 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 5.4 In-line Membrane Filters Test solution was run through a 0.1 jIm in-line membrane filter upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger to determine whether or not predicted temperature decreases caused precipitation to occur.

Filtering of upstream solution occurred first to establish a baseline of particles existing before the simulated temperature drop. Once the upstream membranes were obtained, solution was then filtered downstream of the heat exchangers to capture precipitation, if it occurred. During SEM evaluation of these in-line membrane filters, a visual difference between the upstream and downstream membranes was not noticed. This could be a result of the heat exchanger design which allowed for a majority of heat loss at high temperatures to occur in the lines before the heat exchanger or it could be due to the fact nothing precipitated as a function of temperature.

Regardless of location, the debris captured on the inline membrane filters had constituents indicative of both possible chemical products and equipment debris, Appendix 1. Particles captured appeared both amorphous and defined as shown by Figure 34. Also, most of the membranes evaluated appeared coated with material as seen in Figure 35.

Figure 34: Examples of partides captured by the in-line membrane filters Figure 35: Clean membrane (left) and example of coating observed on most membranes (left) evaluated from test Rev 2 Page 34 of 36 Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Document No: 4, Rev 2 Page 34 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 5.5 Zeta Potential and Size Distribution Samples were stored at the end of the test for size distribution and zeta potential analysis. However, the samples were not run until approximately two months after testing. Therefore any results obtained from this analysis are not included in this report and were only for internal use due to unquantifiable uncertainties that are associated with the results.

6.0 Conclusion Chemical products did form under the simulated STP LBLOCA test conditions but primarily were adhered to the galvanized coupons. However, the abundant product formed was not in agreement with those predicted using the WCAP-16530-NP equations [1]. This product was a crystalline zinc material which closely matched hopeite, a hydrated zinc phosphate mineral. It is likely that the zinc product did not form in solution, but nucleated and deposited onto other test materials. However evaluation of in-line membrane filters suggest small fractions of this material may have been released into solution as evident by the sporadic occurrence of zinc-phosphorus based particles, < 10 pm. Not only was the abundant chemical product formed in this test derived from a material previously determined not to significantly influence chemical product formation [1], the release of aluminum, calcium and silicon was greatly over predicted. Evaluation of the in-line membrane filters showed the diffuse presence of particles with calcium, silicon and aluminum constituents.

Finally, an increase in head loss measurements was observed using both the NEI- and blender-processed fiber detector beds with similar 48-hour increases of 0.2 inches of water. The 30-day head loss detected across the NEI-processed fiber bed ranged from 0.3 to 2 inches of water and may have been a function of both raw material particulate and chemical product loading. Therefore, the detector beds response to resulting chemical products merits further investigation.

Page 35 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 35 of 36

Title:

T2 LBLOCA Test Report 7.0 References

1. Lane, A.E., et al., Evaluationof Post-Accident Chemical Effects in ContainmentSump Fluids to Support GSi-191, 2006, Westinghouse Electric Company: Pittsburge, PA.
2. UNM, T2: Large Break LOCA Tank Test ParameterSummary, 2012, University of New Mexico.
3. UNM, CHLE Tank Test Results for Blended and NEI Fiber Beds with Aluminum Addition, 2012.
4. UNM, CHLE-012 T1 MBLCOA Test Report 2012, University of New Mexico: Albuquerque, NM.
5. UNM, Test 1: Medium Break LOCA Tank Test ParameterSummary, 2012, University of New Mexico.
6. Davis, J.R., ed. ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys (06610G). 1993, ASM International: Materials Park, OH.
7. Dallman, J., Letellier, B, Garcia, J., Klasky, M., Roesch, W., and Madrid, J., Integrated Chemical Effects Test ProjectL Test # Data Report; NUREG/CR-6914, Vol 3, 2006.
8. N IST, CriticallySelected Stability Constant of Metal Complex Database,ver. 8.0, 2004, US Department of Commerce,: Gaithersburg MD.

Page 36 of 36 Document No:

Document CHLE-014, No: CHLE-01 Rev 2 4, Rev 2 Page 36 of 36

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13323B201&oldid=2235631"