Text

EDF-1466, Validation of Water Content in TMI-2 Canisters During Drying in the Hvds
	ML17298A767
Person / Time
Site:	07200020; (SNM-2508)
Issue date:	06/28/2000
From:	Christensen A; US Dept of Energy, Idaho Operations Office
To:	; Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML17298A771	List: ML17298A750; ML17298A767;
References
	EM-NRC-17-039
	Download: ML17298A767 (50)
	v • d • e

EDF-1466 Document ID:EDF-1466 Revision 10:2

Effective Date:6/28/2000 Validation of Water Content in TMl-2 Canisters During Drying in the HVDS J,.'

Form 412.14 10/05199 Rev. 02 I

431.02 08/12/98 Rev.06 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Functional File No. -----

EDF No.

1466. Revision 2 Page 1of1

1. Project File No. _______ 2. Project/Task...;T..:.;M.:.:..1--=2c..::.IS~F:....;S~l----------------

3. Subtask ______________________

4. Trtle: Validation of Water Content in TMl-2 Canisters During Drying in the HVDS

6. Distribution (complete package):

Independent Verification R

Barry O'Brien Request or A

Kenneth E Custer

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page1 Validation of Water Content in TMl-2 Canisters During Drying in the HVDS Table of Contents

1.

Problem--------------------------------

2.

Assumption:s---------------------------------4 2.1 HVDS Configuration,-------------------------4 2.2 Canister Configuration,------------------------4 2.3 Fuel Composition,--------------------------4 4

3.

Water Content in the Fuel Canister Defined by SAR Criticality Safety Requirements-----

4.

Water Content in TMl-2 Canister------------------------0 4.1 Definitions-----------------------------7 7

4.2 Constant and Falling Rate Drying----------------------

5.

Bound Water Content in Zirconium Dioxide and Uranium Oxide as a Function of Temperature and Pressure-----------------------------------,

8 5.1 Bound Water Content on Zirconium Dioxide1----------------o 9

5.2 Bound Water Content on Uranium Oxide-----------------

5.3 Estimated Bound Water Content on TMl-2 Core Debris:-----------10

6.

Water Content in the TMl-2 Fuel Canister Ucon Layer---------------10 6.1 Effect of Temperature on Bound Water Content of Ucon-----------11 6.2 Unbound Water Content of Ucon-------------------11 6.3 Maximum Water Content in Ucon-------------------12 6.4 Rate* of Water Removal From Ucon------------------13 7.0 Determining the Water Content:-------------------------14 7.1 Monitoring Pressure Increase During HVDS Drying:-------------14 7.2 Using Isolation Pressure Increases to Monitor Drying Rate----------15 7.3 Falling Rate Drying During Other HVDS Run,::s---------------16 7.4 Specific Run Requiremen,is----------------------17 7.4.1 System Operating Parameters,----------------17 7.4.2 Determination of Debris Water Content Approach to Equilibrium Water Content-------------------------18 7.4.2.1 Characterization of Maximally Loaded Debris Canisters----18 7.4.2.2 Documenting the Removal of Unbound Water--------19 20 7.4.3 Debris Temperature Limits Attained---------------

21 7.4.4 Falling Rate Drying During the First Characterization Run------.

23 References------------------------------~, Figures, Tables

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page2

1.

Problem INTEC will receive the TMl-2 core debris that is now stored at TAN, as part of an INEEL-wide fuel consolidation plan. The core debris was placed in canisters, shipped to TAN, and stored underwater at the storage pool there. This core debris will be placed into interim dry storage at INTEC until final disposition becomes available.

The TMl-2 core debris will be placed into a dry storage facility licensed by the NRC. The facility utilizes a modular storage system marketed under the copyright "NUHOMs". NUHOMs consists of rows of fabricated concrete vaults called "Horizontal Storage Modules" (HSMs). The core debris canisters are placed within large steel cylindrical canisters called Dry Shielded Canisters (DSC) and Inserted into the HSMs. The DSC contents must be dried because water in the DSC could radiolytically decompose to form potentially flammable mixtures, increase corrosion, affect nuclear reactivity, and transport radioactive materials.

The TMl-2 core debris canisters contain fuel damaged in the reactor accident. The fuel and cladding melted and agglomerated, resulting in a range of materials consisting of partial rods and assemblies, chunks, slag, and fines in the canisters. The void space within the canisters and core debris are filled with water. The storage canisters are required to provide the physical confinement normally provided by the intact fuel cladding.

The TMl-2 core debris canisters are removed from the TAN pool, drained on the dewatering skid, and dried within the Heated Vacuum Drying System (HVDS), a large cylindrical furnace containing heating elements and evacuated by a large vacuum pump. The vacuum pump removes the water vapor from the furnace. The applied heat accelerates the evaporation of water within the canisters.

The TMl-2 core debris must be dried and then verified to be dry. Dryness is verified by isolating the HVDS furnace from the vacuum pump and observing the pressure rise within. If liquid water remains In the HVDS, it will continue to vaporize, and pressurize the isolated furnace. The extent of pressurization is a measure of the quantity of water remaining within.

According to Reference 1, intact assemblies are normally vacuum dried until the pressure in the vessel declines below 1 torr (a measure of pressure equal to 1n00 standard atmosphere). The vessel is then isolated from the vacuum pump for 112 hour0.0013 days 0.0311 hours 1.851852e-4 weeks 4.2616e-5 months . If the vessel pressure attains an equilibrium pressure less than 3 torr during this time, the contents are regarded as dry. Because the TMl-2 core debris is severely defected fuel, this criteria was modified to a rise of less than 80 torr in 112 hour0.0013 days 0.0311 hours 1.851852e-4 weeks 4.2616e-5 months .

The authorization basis (Reference 2) for safely storing TMl-2 core debris required the free content water within the TMl-2 canisters to be removed. The original criticality safety evaluation (CSE) assumed water at a density less than 8.8 X 10-S gm/cm3 (Reference 2). This water content was selected because it slightly exceeded the density of water vapor at saturated conditions at 120 OF. This temperature is assumed to be the highest temperature attainable during storage at INTEC. This water content was assumed to occupy the entire core debris containment zone within th~ TMl-2 canisters. The total water content in a canister is therefore the water density times the volume of the core debris zone within the canister. The original criticality safety evaluation assumed moderator in the form of hydrogen also occupying the core debris zone at Standard Temperature and Pressure, or 273 OI( and 1 atm.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page3 The moderator assumptions in the original CSE did not consider water adsorbed onto the surface of solids, the quantity depending primarily on the solid configuration and the temperature of the system. Therefore a bed of solids saturated with water and also containing adsorbed water may be dried, but only down to an equilibrium water content defined by the temperature and pressure at which the fuel is dried. Since the adsorbed water content is affected by vapor pressure at extremely small vapor pressures below the limits where drying takes place, only temperature is considered in this evaluation.

Additional water can only be removed from the solids bed by increasing the temperature. Equilibrium is defined as the lack of change between phases (for HVDS drying, the phases are the adsorbed water in the solids and the surrounding water vapor). The drying rate depends on the remaining water content, declining as the removable water content declines. The original TMl-2 drying procedure did not consider the requirement for approaching equilibrium conditions during drying, leading to the possibility that the water content could exceed the original SAR limit CSE assumptions.

To take into account the effect of adsorbed water on the criticality safety of the TMl-2 fuel debris a second CSE (Reference

12) was completed. This CSE shows that significant amounts of moderator (water) can remain in the TMl-2 canisters without compromising criticality safety. Up to 8.0 L of water can be present in the fuel region of each TMl-2 canister. More moderator can be present as bound water if the water volume fraction is less than about 0.3-0.4. Bound water in this sense is water that can not migrate in the core debris at the worst case assumed storage storage conditions. To show that the water content of TMl-2 canisters in storage is less than allowed by the second CSE requires the information listed below:

1) Estimated bound water content of representative worst case canisters at the minimum drying temperature attained in the fuel debris

2) Acceptance criteria for removing essentially all the unbound water, and heated vacuum drying process data showing these criteria are met

3) Estimated water content that can be reacquired from the atmosphere during storage Item 1 is determined by this EDF, Reference 3, and heated vacuum drying process data. Reference 3 describes a thermal model developed for the heated vacuum drying process that predicts the minimum temperature attained in the core debris if selected process conditions are met. Essentially the conditions to be met are heating for a minimum time, at the process set point temperature, in a properly working system. An enveloping worst case debris load is assumed in the model. The possibility of having widely varying water content in each batch of TMl-2 canisters to be dried is accounted for by showing that essentially all the unbound water is gone and then applying the heat time at set point. This makes the temperature attained in the core debris independent of unbound water in the canisters at the start of drying. In the next section of this EDF is a calculation of the bound water in the contents of a hypothetical worst case canister as a function of the temperature attained in the core debris during drying. Based on Reference 3 and this EDF, a conservative enveloping bound water content will be documented.

Item 2 is determined by heated vacuum drying process data that shows essentially all unbound (free) water has been removed. This EDF also provides the basis for the acceptance criteria to make this determination. Essentially the acceptance criteria described in this EDF require that: a) selected process data be recorded that shows the drying equipment is working correctly (heaters, isolation valve, and instruments); b) minimum core debris temperature was attained; and c) equilibrium dryness was approached based on a plot of the rate of pressure increase with time during periodic vacuum furnace isolations.

Item 3 is determined by EDF-797 (Reference 10). EDF-797 conservatively shows that less than 1.0 L of water can be reacquired, in each TMl-2 canister from the atmosphere, in a 40-year storage period.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page4

2.

Assumptions The following assumptions are used in the evaluation.

2.1 HVDS Configuration Up to 4 TMl-2 canisters may be dried at the same time within the HVDS. It is assumed that the time required to dry 4 canisters envelopes the time necessary to dry fewer canisters. It is assumed that the fuel drying procedure TPR-1190, "TMl-2 Canister Drying", will be consistent with this EDF for subsequent HVDS batches.

2.2 Canister Configuration TMI core debris is stored in knockout, filter, or debris canisters. Bechtel drawings #1161301, 1161299, and 1161300 provide relevant details. The TMl-2 canister is a 14-in OD by 0.25" wall thickness stainless steel canister. Filter canisters contain fine materials that are collected on the filter elements, the knockout canisters contain larger pieces and some fine materials, and the debris canisters contain relatively large pieces of fuel debris with some partial fuel rods and core components. The debris canisters are designed with a square stainless steel/Boral insert that has internal dimensions 9" square by 136" long.

The space between the canister and insert wall is filled with a light-weight calcium aluminate concrete called "Ucon".

This evaluation assumes the debris canisters will take the longest to dry because the Ucon and insert act as barriers to heat transfer into the canister, and the Ucon is difficult to dry.

2.3 Fuel Composition The TMl-2 core debris configuration varies widely, therefore a configuration must be assumed which conservatively represents the TMl-2 debris. The assumed configuration selected for this evaluation was taken from the Fuel Receipt Questionnaire (Reference 4). From Section U, #1 the total uranium dioxide, zirconium, and stainless steel in the TMl-2 core was 94,030 kg, 23,200 kg, and 4,636 kg, respectively. The stainless steel was assumed to act similarly to zirconium, so that the total zirconium content was assumed to be 27,836 kg zirconium. The ratio of zirconium to uranium is assumed to be the same as the ratio 27,836 (Zr)/94,030 (U). The zirconium is assumed to be in the form zirconium oxide. Zirconium oxide is assumed to adsorb more water than the zircaloy, mostly because the zircaloy cladding has a much smaller surface, and therefore adsorptive capability, than zirconium oxide.

It is important to select a core debris content that conservatively represents the worst-case content in 12 canisters, which is the maximum number stored in a DSC. The average canister debris loading is the total core contents divided by the total canister number (344), for a debris load of 383 kg in an approximate proportion of 70% uranium dioxide and 30% zirconium oxide. The average debris load of the 12 heaviest debris canisters is 773 kg. Although knock-out canister K-506 contains a heavier payload then the 12 debris canisters used, the absence of a Ucon layer reduces heat transfer resistance, increases knock-out material temperature, and reduces the water content within. Therefore, this knock-out canister was not used in the weight average. Therefore using the same canister loading as the average of the 12 heaviest-loaded canisters for all 12 canisters in the DSC envelopes the debris content of any DSCs that could be stored at INTEC.

3.

Water Content in the Fuel Canister Defined by Original SAR CSE Assumptions In this section, the maximum water content in an average fuel canister defined by the original SAR CSE assumptions (Reference 2) is calculated. In Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4.2 the maximum water content is assumed to be 8.8 X 1 Q-5 gm/cm3 in the debris zone within the canister. The canister debris zone is the total volume within the stainless steel/Borel insert. In addition, the original SAR CSE assumes a molecular hydrogen content equivalent to 100% volume fraction at O oC and 1 atm pressure.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Pages Calculate the mass of debris in a canister with an average payload. The mass is used to calculated the debris water content, and to calculate the bound water content as a function of temperature.

Totzr :=27836*kg Totu02 :=94030*kg Tot can :=344 Tot Wt

=

zr zr Tot can Wt zr = 80.919*kg Totuo2 Wtuo2:=---

Totcan Wt U02 = 273.343*kg Calculate weight Zr02 from the zirconium weight. From Perry, et. al. "Chemical Engineers Handbook" (Reference 5),

MW

= 91.2* gm zr mole Wtzr Moles :=--

zr MW zr MW 02 := 32* gm mole Moles zr = 887.265 -mole One mole zirconium makes one mole zirconium dioxide:

Moles zr02 : =Moles zr MW zr02 : =MW zr-+MW 02 MW zr02== 123.2

gm mole Wtzr02 =109.31l*kg Total mass U02 and Zr02 in average-loaded canister:

Wt can :=Wt U02 +Wt zr02 Wt can= 382.654*kg Calculate the insert internal volume, assuming it is 9" square and 13625" long D insert :=9*2.54*cm Linsert := 136.25*2.54*cm

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page6 Total mass water in insert, when density is 8.8 X 10-s gm/cm3 p :=8.8* 10-S* gm cm3 Mass water : = p* Vol insert Mass water= 15.915 *gm Temperature canister :=273*K Calculate quantity of hydrogen as water in Insert. Using ideal gas equation from Reference 5.

Pressure canister : = 1 *a1m Pressure canister* Vol insert Moles hydrogen:=-------------

R idealgasconstanf Temperature canister Ridealgasconstant :=82.057-cm3* a1m mole*K Moles hydrogen = 8.073 -mole The hydrogen is assumed to be created by radiolysis from water. It takes one mole of water to create one mole hydrogen. Therefore 8.06 moles water are needed to produce the same amount of hydrogen. The molecular weight of water is 18.

MW water:= 18* gm mole Mass watertohydrogen :=Moles hydrogen.* MW water Mass totalwater : =Mass water+ Mass watertohydrogen Mass watertohydrogen = 145.317 *gm Mass totalwater = 161.232 *gm The water content of the fuel may be calculated by dividing the mass of the total water by the core debris mass:

Mass totalwater

-4 gm Watercontentfuel :-

Watercontentfuel =4.214*10

~~

gm The water content within an average TMl-2 canister assuming 8.8 X 10-S gmfcm3 water and the hydrogen as water is therefore 42 X 1 Q-4 gm/gm. In effect the maximum amount of water within the debris zone of an average canister considered by the original CSE was 161 gm, or less than 0.17 L. The second CSE conservatively envelopes the original CSE since it considers much larger amounts of water as moderator.

4.

Water Content in TMl-2 Canister Core Debris Water content within the TMl-2 core debris is defined by the chemistry of the debris materials, and the size and porosity of the debris itself. The water content needs to be determined because the nuclear reactivity of the fuel is affected by the quantity of moderator mixed with the fuel. Nuclear reactivity calculations are not concerned with the actual physical and chemical relationships between water and fuel; these calculations specify the water content to be the entire amount present that is mixed with the fuel.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page7 4.1 Definitions Several definitions shall be utilized to define the water content in the core debris (Reference 5, Chapter 20). The "free water content" is the water that is removable at a given drying temperature and pressure. The "free water content" may include both "bound" water and "unbound" water. The upper limit to the "bound" water content is normally called the saturation or equilibrium content. "Bound" water is physically or chemically adsorbed to the solid surface, with the amount determined by the material type, solid surface area, pressure, and temperature. The "bound" water content is described in Section 5 of this evaluation. Physically adsorbed water depends only on physical surface bonds between the water and solid, which are usually sufficiently weak to be broken at relatively low temperatures. Chemical bonds are stronger and require higher temperatures to break. "Bound" water may be removed, and become part of the "free water content" if the temperature of the material is increased sufficiently.

"Unbound" water is any water within the solid exceeding the saturation content of the bound water. "Unbound" water includes any water that could drain or drip from the solid, even though it may be within internal voids that are difficult to drain. The voidage may be due to the space between debris pieces, or cracks and pores within the pieces. TMl-2 core debris characterization studies indicate void fractions on the order of 20% (References 4 and 9). During storage underwater at TAN, this void space fills with water. Upon dewatering, much of this water may be removed but much will remain to be dried.

4.2 Constant and Falling Rate Drying When heat is uniformly applied to bulk liquid water, water will boil at a constant temperature defined by the pressure at a rate depending on the heating rate, until the water is boiled away. This is called "constant rate drying" (Reference 5, page 20-9).

Solid/water mixtures such TMl-2 core debris will dry similar to bulk water as long as the water remains close to saturation within the solid (Reference 5, page 20-9). At a water content known as the "critical water content", the boiling rate begins to decline at a rate proportional to the remaining water content and the heat applied. This is called "falling rate drying". The boiling rate falls because of resistances to flow of water and vapor within the solid.

Falling rate drying depends on the drying time in the following manner (Reference 5, equation 20-26):

W :=We+ (W c-W e)*ex:p(-a*t) where W, We, and We are the water content at drying time t, the critical water content (at which falling rate drying begins}, and the equilibrium bound water content. In all cases the water content is the weight of water per weight of dry solid. The equation shows that Initially the water content is the "critical water content", and at large times declines to the equilibrium value.

The constant "a" depends on the mechanism assumed for liquid transport within the solid. If liquid transport is by capillary movement, then a depends on the solid bed thickness and density, as well as on the heating rate. If liquid transport is by diffusion, then a depends on the solid bed thickness and diffusion coefficient of the liquid within the solid. It is possible that liquid transport by both mechanisms is taking place within the TMl-2 canister because of the variety of material configurations within. For either or for both mechanisms, however, the rate of water removal, and therefore of addition as a vapor to the furnace, is by a falling rate. The rate of decline provides a measure of the decline in unbound water content within the canister.

The derivative of W (dW} shoWs the following:

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page8 dW := (W c-W e)*(-a)-exp(-a*t)

Replacing CWc - WJ

exp(-a*t) in the derMtive with W - w. from the first equation yields (Reference 5, equation 20-22):

dW :=-a*(W-We)

Therefore the rate of falling rate drying (dW) is proportional to the amount of water remaining. When dW approaches 0, then W-w. also approaches 0, or W== w *.

The HVDS furnace pressure during drying increases because liquid water is boiling into water vapor. The rate of increase of the pressure must result in a decline in liquid water content. Therefore:

dP :=-f}-dW Or the rate of increase in the (water vapor) pressure is prc;>portional to the decline in solid water content W.

Combining this with the derivative of the water content yields:

dP :=f}*a*(W-We)

This relationship shows that during falling rate drying, the pressurization rate (assuming vacuum pump capacity and system flow requirements do not change) in the HVDS is proportional to the amount of water remaining in the solid bed.

5.0 Bound Water Content in Zirconium Dioxide and Uranium Oxide As a Function of Temperature and Pressure More water adsorbs on zirconium oxide then uranium oxide. In this section, adsorption data for both zirconium oxide and uranium dioxide are tabulated from other papers, and used to develop correlations with temperature and pressure. These correlations are then used to estimate bound water content for the hypothetical worst case canister at different temperatures.

5.1 Bound Water Content On Zirconium Oxide Adsorption data for zirconium oxide as a function of temperature and pressure were obtained from 25 to 400 oC from Reference 6. This paper also demonstrated that chemical reaction between the water and zirconium oxide surface was responsible for the water adsorption. The adsorption data data is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

The data was correlated in order to estimate adsorption at different temperatures. From Reference 7, the effect of temperature and pressure may be evaluated by referencing the adsorption partial pressure (P acW to the vapor pressure <Pv) of a pure substance, which in this case is pure water. The vapor pressure of water with temperature is easily correlated with temperature. Data obtained from Reference 5, Table 3-6 was fitted to the "Clapeyron" equation (Reference 5, Equation 4-250) using least squares regression, with the result shown in Figure 2.

p

=

[12 7-4734.8

]

vap exp

{273.16+T) where P vap and T are the vapor pressure (atm) and temperature {°C), respectively.

Plotting the relation TX log (Pv/Pads) with water content w produces a straight line over moderate temperature, as shown in Figure 3. The vapor pressure of water was taken from Figure 2. The slope and Intercept of the straight nne thus produced may be calculated by linear regression and used with the vapor pressure of pure water to calculate adsorption at other pressures and temperatures, as shown In Figure 4. The straight-line correlation of these variable, shown below, produces estimates that fit the data throughout the temperature range used to dry and store the fuel. Zirconium oxide water contents cannot be predicted for partial pressures above the vapor pressure at that temoerature. The correfation atso disotavs some error at 25 oC. oossiblv due fo fhe measurement error of the data

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page9 whm ~29.2-3.l&i(273.16+T)*i (~)))

where w is the water content (mg water/g solid), and PH20 is the water partial pressure (torr). The water partial pressure can never exceed the vapor pressure at the temperature calculated.

5.2 Bound Water Content On Uranium Dioxide Uranium dioxide adsorption data from room temperature to 2000 oC were obtained from Reference 8. Uranium dioxide fuel pellets, similar to intact TMl-2 fuel, had a total porosity of approximately 5%. Porosity plays a strong role in adsorption on fuel pellets, since it determines the surface area upon which adsorption occurs. The actual porosity of the TMl-2 core debris being dried has been determined from previous studies. From Reference 9, the average porosity is assumed to be 20%. Therefore, the adsorption values from Reference 8 were correlated with temperature and then increased by a factor of 4 (20/5} to account for the increased porosity in the TMl-2 core debris.

Uranium dioxide adsorption data is shown in Table 2.

The referenced adsorption tests were conducted under ambient air conditions using a heated microscale to measure weight changes in the uranium dioxide during heating. No affect of water vapor pressure on adsorption was determined. However, if the surrounding air was presumed to be air at 20 oC and a relative humidity of 70%, then the partial pressure of water vapor during these tests was approximately 13 torr, which Is similar to the drying pressure in the HVDS.

Because adsorption through chemical bonding was assumed, the Arrhennius equation (Reference 5 equation 4-3, 8) was used to relate water content with temperature. Water contents calculated using this equation are compared with measured values in Figure 5. The correlation was used to estimate water uptake on TMl-2 core debris as a function of temperature, and is shown below.

w

=o 35*

[

1359.s

]

U02.

exp (273.16+ T) where w002 is the uranium dioxide water content (microg water/g solid}

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 10 5.3 Estimated Bound Water Content on TMl-2 Core Debris The total bound water content as a function of drying temperature was calculated from the previously described adsorption estimates for zirconium oxide and uranium dioxide, assuming the debris weight for the heaviest loaded canister weight of 773 kg and a 70%130% uranium dioxide/zirconium oxide composition. Section 5.11imits the use of the zirconium oxide water content correlation to water partial pressures less than the vapor pressure at that temperature. Therefore the water partial pressure is assumed to be just less than the vapor pressure of the temperature for which the water content was calculated unless the temperature exceeded 48 oC {118 OF), when the partial pressure was assumed to be 80 torr. The bound water content in this hypothetical worst-case canister is shown in Figure 6 to depend strongly on temperature. Removal of the unbound water is described in Section 7. The water content in the surrounding Ucon does not need to be considered as long as it can not be transported to the fuel. This is described in Section 6.

The bound water content on TMl-2 core debris can be illustrated by looking at two different temperatures: {1) the water content remaining after drying in the HVOS, and {2) the water content the debris could reach in ambient storage conditions. If the debris temperature reaches approximately 270 Of' {149 oC), and if the unbound water ls mostly removed {see below), then the amount of bound water remaining {from Figure 6) in the TMl-2 canister is approximately 1.5 L. However, If the debris temperature during storage averages 104 Of' (40 CC), then the bound water content could eventually exceed 6.4 L per canister, if the fuel contents are allowed to reach equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. Since the bound water content of the dried debris ls less than this amount, then the TMl-2 core debris {and the Ucon) will act as a dessicant, that is it will adsorb water vapor from the air until equilibrium *1s reached.

Reference 10 shows that much less water than the 8 L per canister will be reacquired et the INTEC ISFSI over a 40-year storage period because of atmospheric conditions at the INEEL and the limited debris-outside air contact.

EDF-797 estimates that less than 0.9 L of water could be reacquired per canister. This estimate depends on the storage configuration vent area not changing significantly and no artificial increases in humidity in the storage vicinity.

6.0 Water Content in the TMl-2 Fuel Canister Licon Layer The TMl-2 debris canisters contain a layer of "Ucon" between the storage canister and an inner square stainless steel/Bora! insert "Ucon" ls a trade name for a light-weight concrete made of calcium aluminate cement (Alcoa product type CA-25C) and air-filled glass spheres. The core debris within the inner square insert cannot be dried much until the Ucon is dried, since the water within the Ucon will receiv most of the heat first. In this section, the total amount of Ucon and the amount of water within It will be described. The rate it dries will also be described to provide an estimate of time required to remove the water.

The TMI debris canisters containing the Ucon were stored in a pool, so that the Ucon was immersed in water. Like other concretes, Ucon contains pores and cracks which will fill with water. In addition, the cement forms hydrates with water. The water in the cracks and pores of the Ucon is unbound water, while adsorbed water and water in hydrates is bound. Both the bound and unbound water contents were measured and are described in Reference 11.

In this reference, Ucon samples core-drilled from the top and bottom surface of a TMI canister were used to determine water content. Weighed samples from these cores were placed In a vacuum oven set at different temperatures and the weight change measured with time. At long drying times, the remaining water content was assumed to be the remaining bound water. In addition, weighed samples were soaked In water, air-dried at ambient temperatures, and weighed to measure the unbound water content. The reference data is shown in Table 3.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 11 6.1 Affect of Temperature on Bound Water Content of Licon Figure 7 shows the bound water content in Ucon as a function of temperature. The two samples yielded identical water contents at temperatures above 100 oC (212 Of); below this temperature the water contents differed some, probably because of differences In the unbound water content. Most of the bound water is removed at temperatures above 500oC(approximately1000 OF). From this figure, the total bound water content is between 0.20 and 0.30 g water/g dry Ucon. A bound water content of 0.25 g water/g dry Licon was f!SSUmed in the next section.

6.2 Unbound Water Content of Licon The reference also measured the unbound water content in Ucon. Table 7 of the reference describes the weight change when a sample is saturated with water and then air dried.

Weight top sample before soak Weight top sample after soak Weight bottom sample before soak Weight bottom sample after soak wttopbefore := 16.8097*gm wttop after :=20.2534*gm wtbottombefore := 12.5164*gm wtbottom after : = 15.2041 *gm If the Ucon bound water content is 0.25 g water/g dry Ucon, the weight of dry Ucon in the samples prior to soaking is the total weight dMded by 123.

Bound water content wttop before wttop dry.

I +wb Dry Licon weight wttop dry= 13.448 *gm Weight unbound water in soaked Ucon wtbottom before wtbottom dry : =

l+wb wtbottom dry = 10.013 *gm watertop soaked : = wttop after-wttop before waterbottom. soaked : = wtbottom after-wtbottom before watertop soaked = 3.444 *gm waterbottom. soaked = 2.688 *gm

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 12 Water content unbound water watertop soaked watercontenttop Wlbmmd :=-----

wttop dry.

waterbottom soaked watercontentbottomWlboWld :=------

wtbottom dry watercontenttop WlboWld = 0.256 *gm gm watercontentbottom unbound = 0.268 *gm gm The average unbound water is 0.27 g water/g dry Ucon 6.3 Maximum water content in Licon The maximum water content in the Ucon of a TMl-2 debris canister may be estimated if the total volume of Ucon is present and the density is known. The Ucon density was measured from a sample received from the National Spent Fuel Program office. It had dimensions 2" X 2" X 1.965" and weighed 110 gm. From this data, the bulk density of Ucon containing bound, and presumably very little unbound water, was calculated.

Dimensions of Ucon block xL :=2*in YL :=2*in VohnneL :=xL'YL.zL MassL Density :=---

L VolumeL z L := l.965*in Volume L = 128.802 "IIlL Density L = 0.854 *gm mL The total weight of Ucon in a canister may be estimated if the Ucon volume inside is known. This volume will be calculated assuming the Ucon is enveloped by a canister of internal diameter 13.5" and square stainless steel/Boral insert of outer dimensions 9.255" square by 137.75" long.

Insidedi eter

- 13.5 ft Insid length

- 137.75 ft am canister *-12*

e canister *-12*

Volume canister:= 3*14.Jnsidediameter canister 2*Insidelengthcanister 4

Outsidedim

- 9.255 ft enston insert. - --*

12 Volwne canister= 11.405 oft3 Volume insert : = Outsidedimension insert 2* Insidelength canister Volume insert = 6.828 oft3 Volume Licon : =Volume canister-Volume insert Volume Licon= 1.296* 105 *mL

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 13 The weight of Ucon in the canister may now be estimated:

Weight Licon :=Volume Licon* Density L Weight Licon= 1.107* IO' *gm The bound and unbound water content will be calculated, by first calculating the weight of dry Ucon:

Weight Licon WeightdcyLicon :=----

1 + wb Weight bmmdwater :=Weight Licon - Weight dcyLicon Watercontent1lllbo1llldwater :=0.258* gm gm WeightdcyLicon =8.854*104 *gm Weight bmmdwater = 22.135*kg Weight Wlbo1llldwater : =Weight dcyLicon* Watercontent Wlboundwater Weight Wlbolllldwater = 22.844*kg The weight of the bound and unbound water in the Licon, in lbs, is Weight bo1llldwater = 48.8 *lb Weight Wlboundwater = 50.362 *lb The total weight of water in the Ucon is therefore about 97 lbs. The Licon water will absorb heat passing through and evaporate, reducing the heat transferred to the debris. The next section Illustrates the difficulty in drying the Ucon.

6.4 Rate of water removal from Licon Table 4 and Figure 8 (based on lab data from Reference 11) shows the rate of water removal from Licon with time and temperature. Increasing the temperature from 67 to 396 Of reduces the drying time from greater than 10 to no more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . The falling rate equation may be used to determine the effect different heating rates and solid bed thicknesses have on drying time since these are parameters affecting the drying constant a. In effect drying time is proportional to the thickness of the Licon layer being dried.

The Ucon slab inside the TMl-2 canister is assumed to dry radially Instead of axially. The Licon slab is approximately 137" long and up to 2" thick. It is doubtful that a very large Licon slab can ever dry. However, a case can be made that the TMl-2 canister Ucon slab effectively dries along its' smallest dimension. The Ucon was poured betwee,n the canister and Boral fuel insert and allowed to cure. The Licon shrinks as it cures, creating a small gap between the Ucon and canister wall. In addition the TMl-2 canister is heated radially Inwards, so that the canister wall may is hotter than the Ucon. The stainless steel canister wall will expand more than the Ucon because it is hotter and has a higher coefficient of expansion. Water vapor from the drying Ucon will flow through the gap between the Ucon and canister wall, and out of the canister. Therefore vapor transport through the Ucon is limited to the resistances imposed within the slab thickness, and not the slab length.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 14 The Ucon drying rate was measured for samples approximately 0.5 in. thick (verbal communication with author).

Therefore the drying time for a Ucon layer from 0 to 2 in. thick is 4 tirnes longer than for a layer 0.5 in. thick, or approximately 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months of heating.

7.0 Detennining the Water Content In this EDF, "dryness" is attained when essentially all unbound water has been shown to be removed and the temperature of the fuel debris can be inferred to be sufficiently high for the remaining bound water content to be acceptably low. An acceptably low bound water content, when added to the worst casre estimate of 0.9 L water that can be required from the atmosphere per canister (Reference 10) would be well below the 8.0 L per canister shown to be safe in the additional CSE.

In this section, three methods of measuring the pressure rise were examined and one method selected for monitoring the drying rate was specified. Then the rates of pressure rise during 4 HVDS drying runs were evaluated to demonstrate that falling rate drying has occurred. Criteria are then developed to: 1) measure the pressure rise; 2) trend the falling rate; and specify the requirements for measuring the removal of the unbound water. The runs were HVDC-005, -006, -008, and -009.

Four canisters were dried in runs HVDC-005 and -009, and three canisters were dried in runs HVDC-006 and -008. HVDC-005 and -006 contained filter canisters (no Ucon). HVDC-008 and -009 were the only runs described in this EDF where debris canisters containing Ucon were dried.

7.1 Monitoring Pressure Increase During HVDS Drying HVDS furnace pressures provide a limited qualitative indication of the progress toward dryness. The pressure is governed by many factors (heat input rate, canister type, system volumes and flow resistances, core debris loading, etc.) some of which are relatively constant from run to run. The primary factors are the water evaporation rate and the vacuum pump capacity. The vacuum pump capacity depends on the head pressure. This and the other factors have the effect of masking pressure trends but nonetheless the pressure does show an increase in initial boiling rate as the furnace is heated, followed by falling rate drying to an equilibirium value. TMl-2 core debris canisters containing reduced quantities of uranium were dried within the HVDS in run HVDC-005. HVDC-005 run data is shown in Table 3 and Figure 9. HVDS vessel pressure data is shown is Figure 9. The initial rise and then falling rate decline, although not pronounced, can be observed in this Figure.

A slightly better indication of drying progress may be observed during HVDS purge periods. Every hour during drying, an air inlet valve in the off-gas line between the furnace and pump is opened. A large volume of air purges the furnace and off-gas line of water vapor. Purge rates are a function of system resistances, air supply pressure, furnace pressure, etc. which tend to be similar from run to run but which add uncertainty to trends. During these short purges, water vapor continues to be generated within the furnace, causing the pressure to rise. Maximum purge pressures from run HVDC-005 are shown in Table 4 and Figure 10. The change in boiling rate is more pronounced. The maximum boiling rate is reached at approximately 6-12 hours after heater start-up, and then a clear falling rate begins, which levels off just past 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months . The decline resumes at roughly 30 hours3.472222e-4 days 0.00833 hours 4.960317e-5 weeks 1.1415e-5 months , continuing to a minimum by the end of the Furnace pressure run. Furnace pressure during purge intervals is still masked by pump operation, but not as significantly as during normal operation.

EDF~1466, Revision 2 Page 15

~--._J*~-

The optimal method for directly measuring the drying rate Is to Isolate the furnace and observe the pressure increase over e measured time interval. Run HVDC-005 isolation pressure increase data ere shown in Table 5 and Figure 11. If the rate of pressure increase Is calculated from each isolation, the pressure incr~ase over a specified isolation period may be plotted with drying time, as shown in Figure 12. The pressure increase, in torr, are shown for a 5 minute isolation period. The pressure rise is the strongest, and therefore the easiest to measure when the furnace is isolated. The pressure increase is not masked by vacuum pump capacity, end a series of isolations over the drying period may be compared within a run, and from run to run.

Figure 13 compares measured furnace pressure, purge pressure, and Isolation pressure increases. During HVDC-005, while the furnace purge pressure fluctuated over little more than a magnitude, the isolation pressure increase varied by three orders of magnitude.

7.2 Using Isolation Pressure Increases To Monitor Drying Rate The furnace pressure, furnace purge pressure, and rate of furnace pressure increase during furnace Isolation shown in Figure 13 show the same trends. Data for the first two, which were measured over the entire run, show an initial rise, a levelling at a maximum value, and then a falling rate. The rate of pressure Increase during isolation, which was measured for the last half of the run, shows a falling rate. Each is discussed in tum:

1.

Initial Rise The initial rise is caused by heating the TMl-2 canisters. As the temperature of the debris-water mixture increases, the vapor pressure of water also increases until the boiling point is reached.

2.

Level Maximum Value The pressure remains fairly constant for some time because the boiling rate depends on the canister pressure, which defines the temperature at which the water boils, and the heat generation rate. This period may be attributed to constant rate boiling, as bulk water or water within saturated solids boils. As stated previously, constant rate boiling will continue until the water content declines below a water content known as the "critical water content".

3.

Falling Rate Eventually the rate begins to decline, most significantly indicated by the isolation rate of pressure increase. In all cases the rate initially falls steeply, then levels off, indicating falling rate drying.

The TMl-2 debris appears to go through two falling rate periods, the first beginning at about 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months and the second about 34 hours3.935185e-4 days 0.00944 hours 5.621693e-5 weeks 1.2937e-5 months . The isolation rate of pressure increase, which Is proportional to the boiling rate, at 18 and 34 hours3.935185e-4 days 0.00944 hours 5.621693e-5 weeks 1.2937e-5 months are approximately 3 and 0.05 torr/min, respectively. Each falling rate period ends in a relatively flat plateau, indicating very little change in boiling rate. The two falling rate periods and their respective plateaus may be explained by the removal of first unbound and then bound water. This assumption is justified by the correspondence between the relative weights of the unbound/bound water contents with the relative isolation rates of pressure between the two falling rate periods.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 16 Estimates may be made of the amount of unbound and bound water within TMl-2 canisters. By far the largest amount of water in TMl-2 debris canisters is unbound water. During run HVDS-005, the total water removed from 4 canisters was 580 lb (by weight measurement), or 263 L. The bound water content was also estimated for the hypothetical worst-case canister payload during the initial (high) boiling period. The debris temperature remains relatively tow during the removal of most of the unbound water, because the high boiling rate carries the applied heatfrom the fuel, and because the debris water temperature is governed by the relatively low pressures within the TMl-2 canisters. The TMl-2 canister pressure is not known, but exceeds the furnace pressure of greater than 30 torr. If the TMl-2 canister pressure is assumed to be 60 torr, then the water boiling within has a temperature of 106 Of. At.this temperature the bound water is approximately 10.9 L per canister, or44 L total within the HVOS. The actual HVDC-005 run payload contents were approximately 116 that of the assumed payload in Figure

6. Therefore the amount of bound water in the 4 TMl-2 canisters dried during HVDC-005 was assumed to be 44 L.16, or 7.3 L.

This bound water still remains (except forthe bound water in the Ucon which dries up and heats up much sooner than the fuel debris), since It cannot be removed until the debris temperature Is significantly increased above 106 Of'. The ratio of the unbound to bound water content is therefore 263 l.17.3 L, or approximately 36.

The falling rate equation states that the drying rate is proportional to the remaining water content. Therefore the Isolation rate of pressures increases, which are proportional to the drying rate, may be used to estimate relative water contents remaining on the core debris. The Isolation pressure increases (over 5 minutes) at the two plateaus shown in Figure 12 are approximately 7.5 and 0.19 torr/minute, respectively. The ratio of the these plateaus is therefore 0.3/0.03, or 39. This corresponds with the ratio of the unbound/bound water content calculated above.

The correspondence between the ratios of the unbound/bound water content and the Isolation rate of pressure increases for the two plateaus indicate that the first falling rate drying period measures the removal of unbound water and the second the removal of bound water. Debris temperatures also demonstrate that the two falling rates indicate the removal of first unbound then bound water. Initially debris temperature must remain relatively low because the boiling temperature of the water within the debris is defined by the total pressure. As the unbound water is removed, leaving only bound water, the heat added to the debris will raise the temperature, thus removing Increasing amounts of the bound water content. As the fuel temperature increases, the bound water will also be removed, but at a much lower rate. Eventually any bound water will have been removed, leaving only small amounts of bound water which cannot be removed at the peak fuel debris temperature attained.

7.3 Falling Rate Drying During Other HVDS Runs HVDC-006 run isolation pressure increases and increase rates are shown on Figures 14and15. The HVDC-006 isolation pressure rates show the same pattern as HVDC-005. The first falling rate on both appear at roughly the same time, while the seCQnd falling rate of HVDC-006 appears approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months before the one in HVDC-005. HVOC-006 dried more rapidly because the total mass (3 canisters) was less than the mass in HVOC-005 (4 canisters).

HVOC-008 run isolation pressure increases and increase rates are shown on Figures 16 and 17. The same general trends as for HVOC-005 and -006 are seen in this run, except that only the beginning of the second falling rate is seen before the run ended.

HVOC-009 run isolation pressure increases and increase rates are shown on Figure 18and19. The same general trends as for the previous runs is also observed, except that only the beginning of the second falling rate is seen before the run ended..

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 17 7 A Specific Run Requirements It is important to be able to show that a predetennined minimum debris temperature has been exceeded after the point equilibrium is detennined since this temperature is the basis for the estimate of the maximum bound water that can remain in a hypothetical worst case canister. This worst case estimate of bound water, as a function of temperature, is given in Section 5 of this EDF. Since debris temperature cannot be measured directly, the results of heat transfer model runs reported in Reference 3 are used to infer the minimum required temperature has been exceeded. HVDS operating data is required to ensure the assumptions used in Reference 3 are met for each batch of canisters dried in the HVDS. The data shall document that 3 requirements have been met: 1) the system is operating properly; 2) the unbound water is removed; and 3) core debris temperature has been raised above 170 OF. Raising the fuel temperature to this prescribed amount requires some additional heating after the bulk of the unbound water has been removed. Specific justifications for these requirements are given below.

The heating time after most of the unbound water has been removed provides additional assurance of dryness. By documenting that the debris water content is approaching equilibrium conditions and then providing additional heating to insure specified debris temperatures are met, two independent parameters are documented to demonstrate adequate dryness.

HVDS drying runs may not always operate as described in this document. Certain run variations may require additional drying if the requirements described below are not met. However, it is also possible that such runs may be demonstrated to be sufficiently dry by means equivalent to those described below. For such runs, an equivalent justification may be submitted to document these requirements.

7.4.1 System Operating Parameters The HVDS must operate in accordance with the requirements of TPR-1190 Revision 15 and the technical basis defined by this EDF. This EDF defines normal HVOS system perfonnance during which runs HVDC-005 through-010 were made. HVOS operating procedure TPR-1190 Revision 15 specifies operating checks to assure that system instrument calibrations are current, and that "enabled" thennocouples (those selected to control the heaters), remain operational during the run. In addition, Work Order 29293 demonstrated HVDS heater perfonnance and isolation valve V-1 operability. These documents therefore define system performance under which this EDF was generated.

In the event that system operability changes from that assumed in TPR-1190 and Work Order 29293, an engineering evaluation shall be provided by the shipper and approved by the IFSFI manager, describing the change and justifying acceptance of the canisters dried under the changed operation.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 18 7 A.2 Detennination of Debris Water Content Approach to Equilibrium Water

~~~

The remaining unbound and bound water content can be monitored and controlled using Isolation pressure rate trends for HVDS runs described in this EDF. It Is only required to remove the unbound water and to demonstrate that the bound water is controlled within certain limits (see Section 7.4.3). However the runs evaluated to date have been for TMl-2 canisters containing low to Intermediate pay-loads. The maximally-loaded TMl-2 fuel debris canisters are assumed to be the most difficult to dry because: 1) the total mass that must be heated is significantly greater; 2) the Ucon layer limits heat transfer from the outside to the fuel debris within; and 3) the Ucon layer contains both unbound and bound water and win absorb heat.

Therefore this EDF assumes that qualification requirements will be developed for maximally-loaded debris canisters by characterizing the isolation pressure rates all the way to the removal of the bulk of the bound water. Following initial characterization of maximally loaded debris canisters, it may be sufficient to demonstrate that the dryness is approaching equilibrium conditions for enveloped canisters dried later.

1.

The method to demonstrate the unbound water content approach to equilibrium is to use a plot of the rate of pressure increase during periodic furnace isolations. The isolation rate of pressure increase is determined by physically isolating the furnace from the vacuum pump, and then recording the pressure Increase with time during the isolation. After the isolation is ended (and the HVDS is returned to normal operation), the rate of pressure increase during the isolation can be calculated, in torr/minute. The isolation rate of pressure increase Is then plotted on a graph with clock time when the isolation was initiated or ended, as long as a consistent method is established.

After essentially all the unbound water Is removed, the amount of bound water remaining Is a function of the actual debris temperature attained. During the removal of most of the unbound water, debris temperatures remain lower because the vaporization of water removes the heat added. Debris temperatures only increase significantly after most of the unbound water Is removed. Heating times after removal of most of the unbound water are determined using Reference 3.

The maximum water content in a canister of iMl-2 debris must be less than the maximum critically safe water content minus the maximum water content that can be reacquired during the storage life. Reference 12 defines a maximum critically safe canister debris zone water content of 8 L. Reference 10 demonstrates that less than 1 L water could. be adsorbed back onto the debris in each canister during it's storage life. Therefore the maximum safe debris water content after drying should not exceed 7 L water. Because of the uncertainties associated with the debris composition, Reference 3, Reference 10, and this EDF, the maximum allowed debris water content should be held to less than 1/3 the maximum safe water content. Therefore the maximum allowed debris water content following drying should not exceed about 2.3 L water. Based on the calculations in Section 5.0 of this EDF and Figure 6, this water content may be attained by removing essentially all of the unbound water, and then heating the debris to a temperature of at least 170 °F.

7A.2.1 Characterization of Loaded Debris Canisters and of those Containing Maximally Loaded Canisters Characterization needs to be performed on the next two HVDS batches containing debris canisters by drying until the isolation rate of pressure increase has declined well into the final flat portion of the curve. Using Figure 20 for HVDC-009 this is the area of the curve beyond 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months These two characterization runs are expected to show that the shape of the Isolation rate of pressure increase curve as described in Section 7.2 above is truly representative of debris canisters that have pay-loads less than assumed in Reference 3. Ultimately two characterization runs are needed using maximally loaded debris canisters to validate the isolation rate of pressure increase curve shape is representative of all debris canisters. Any HVDS run for which drying has continued until the isolation rate of pressure increase curve Is clearly in the final flat portion of the curve will meet dryness requirements.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 19 7 A.2.2 Documenting the Removal of Unbound Water The water content in any TMl-2 canisters may be shown to be less than the 2.3 L maximum by drying to the extent described in Section 7.4.2.1. However, drying the canister until the second plateau has been established is time consuming and may be unnecessary. It is sufficientto demonstrate that the unbound water has been removed and that a specified minimum debris temperature has been reached. Therefore, following the characterization runs, and if the Isolation rate of pressure increase plot vs drying time proves to be characteristic for such debris canisters, then removal of essentially all the unbound water for other canisters may be demonstrated by one of the methods below. The first two methods measure the change in slope of the falling rate curve, while the third measures the total decline in the falling rate.

1) The slope of the Isolation rate of pressure increase vs drying times meets the following requirements: 1) the plot shows a decline in at least 3 successive values taken atleast 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months apart; and 2) the difference between any two successive values is less than or equal to 0.1, or the difference between three successive values is less than or equal to 0.2, after rounding off to the nearest tenth. This method may be implemented by monitoring differences in the rate of pressure increase, as long as they are performed at uniform periods, preferably hourly. This method may be used the the initial falling rate indicating the removal of the unbound water is sufficiently slow to measure the slope change between two isolation intervals.

2) The falling rate undergoes three separate slope changes. The three slope changes are as follows: (1) an initial steep decline as the bulk of the unbound water is removed (steep slope); (2) a leveling off indicating that the unbound water has been removed, and the debris is starting to heat up, freeing bound water; and (3) a second steep decline indicating that temperatures are reaching steady state and little bound water is being freed (steep slope). This method may be used where the unbound water Is removed too quickly to measure the change in slope of the initial falling rate, such as with intact or near-intact fuel assemblies.

3) The total Isolation rate of pressure increase plot vs time declines to less than 10% of the initial value taken after falling rate drying begins as described in Section 7.2. Qualification consists of demonstrating that the initial value used is the first of 3 successive declining values taken at least one hour apart, and the rate of pressure increase for the last 2 isolations are less than 10% of the initial recorded falling rate value. This method may be time-consuming to Implement if Isolations are begun well after falling rate drying has begun. However, it may be the more efficient than method 1) if Isolations begin shortly after falling rate drying is observed. A curve showing the isolation rate of pressure increases over the entire run time was estimated to provide an example of the drying times required to reduce the water content to 10% or less of the critical water content.

' I EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page20 First, a correlation between furnace pressure and Isolation rate of pressure increases was made using HVOC-009 data. This is shown in Figure 21. Figure 21 was then used to estimate isolation rate of pressure increases for the period prior to actual isolations so that a curve could be extended back to the beginning of the run. This estimate of the isolation rate of pressure increase curve is shown in Figure 22 Figure 22 shows that 90% of the critical water content is removed at 31 hours3.587963e-4 days 0.00861 hours 5.125661e-5 weeks 1.17955e-5 months . The critical water content is much less than the saturated water content. The saturated water content is also much less than the initial water content in a canister. Removal of 90% of the critical water content represents a much higher percentage of the total water removed, and represents the removal of essentially all the unbound water.

The minimum heating time required after the criteria for either method is met {see Section 7.4.3 below) provides assurance that minimum debris temperatures are reached and additional assurance that essentially all the unbound water has been removed.

7 A.3 Debris Temperature Limits Are Attained The debris must be heated sufficiently long after the bulk of the unbound water has been removed to insure that the debris reaches a temperature in excess of 170 OF. The debris temperature may be estimated if the following two parameters are known; 1) the heating rate of the debris after the unbound water is removed; and 2) the debris temperature during the removal of the unbound water. This data was obtained from Reference 3, which estimates temperatures and heating times for a pay-load of 3500 lb and temperature data from HVDC-009. In Reference 3, a radial heat transfer model of 4 debris canisters within the HVDS was developed and then compared against HVDC-009 run temperatures. The EDF demonstrated conservative correspondence between model and run conditions for heating times up to 30 hours3.472222e-4 days 0.00833 hours 4.960317e-5 weeks 1.1415e-5 months . This period envelopes the removal of the bulk of the unbound water, and was therefore used to estimate the two parameters needed.

Figure 23 shows the heating rate approximately 1" from the debris centerline, toward the furnace periphery, for debris canisters similar to those dried in HVDC-009. This figure shows that debris temperatures climb only slowly during the first 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months of heating, and then begin to increase at a steadily higher rate. The estimate of the isolation rate of pressure increase for HVDC-009 given in Figure 22 shows that falling rate drying begins 8-1 O hours after heater start-up. The beginning of falling rate drying indicates that all the unbound water has been removed from at least part of the debris, permitting the debris temperature to increase. Therefore the break in the slope at 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months in Figure 23 indicates the onset of falling rate drying. Figure 22 indicates that falling rate drying proceeds until 'pproximately 31 hours3.587963e-4 days 0.00861 hours 5.125661e-5 weeks 1.17955e-5 months , when most of the unbound water has been removed.

Figure 23 shows thatthe debris temperature is 350 Of at the falling rate mid-point {between 10 and 31 hours3.587963e-4 days 0.00861 hours 5.125661e-5 weeks 1.17955e-5 months ) of 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months . In this analysis the average debris temperature before the additonal heating period begins is conservatively assumed to be 250 °F.

The debris temperature will actually be higher than 250 Of because it is additionally heated during the isolation periods used to demonstrate that essentially all the unbound water has been removed. The minimum additional heating period is the 1-hour period between two isolations used to show that the slope is less than 0.1. The heating rate u.sed is 20 Of/hour. This rate is taken from the 18 to 20 hour2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months range of Figure 23. This is within the time frame that the heat transfer model ifl Reference 3 conservatively predicts furnace temperatures. The additional heating increases the debris temperature from 250 Of {after essentially all the unbound water has been removed) to 270 Of. The debris water content at 270 Of is 1.5 L, which is significantly lower than the 2.3 L limit assumed here.

The requirements imposed in Section 7.4.2.2 above therefore insures that the bound water content remaining in the the debris, plus any credible atmospheric readsorption, Is much less than the 8 L limit imposed for criticality safety.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 21 7.4.4 Falling Rate Drying During the First Characterization Run The first characterization run, designated "HVDC-01 O" was performed in two stages. The first stage began 6/2112000 and ended 6122/2000 when the heaters stopped operating, prematurely ending the run. The run ended before procedurally required isolations to monitor the drying rate were begun. The run was resumed 612712000, and Isolations were subsequently initiated as required The four TMl-2 canisters containing core debris (described in the Table below) were dried in this run. The core debris consisted of intact and nearly Intact fuel assemblies. Therefore these canisters were not expected to contain very much debris, or the water between debris particles that would dry as a falling rate Canister#

D-280 0-281 D-211 D-173 Payload, lb 1090 1140 1004 1059 Isolations were performed hourly per procedure and the isolation data is shown in Table 11 and Figures 24 and 25. Figure 24 shows pressure increases during each isolation, and Figure 25 shows the rate of pressure increase calculated for each isolation trended with drying time. Isolation rate of pressure increases declined steeply before leveling somewhat for a short time. This part of the trend indicates that the rate fell abruptly as soon as most of the unbound water was removed, and that due to the more intact fuel, the boiling rate was not restricted by a large bed of solid debris particles. 'The very short initial plateau indicated that falling rate drying is not an Important factor when removing unbound water from intact or near-intact fuel assemblies. The second falling rate indicated that the heat-up rate of the debris slowed as the temperatures within approached a maximum and very liWe bound water was now being freed (or remained). The run ended on the second plateau at near zero, where essentially all the bound water was removed.

This run showed the importance of characterizing the removal of unbound water in TMl-2 core debris canisters by the start of the first plateau, indicating the unbound water has been removed and that the bound water is being released as the canister contents increase in temperature.

EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page23 References Ii

1. R. W. Knoll and E. R. Gilbert, "Evaluation of Cover Gas Impurities and Their Effects On the Dry Storage of LWR Spent Fuel", PNL-6365, November 1987

2. "Safety Analysis Report for the INEEL TMl-2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation", Revision 1, March 1999

3. Richard Ambrosek, "Temperature Benchmarking for Dryer Runs TMl-005 and TMl-009", EDF-1469, Jun 2000

4. K. E. Streeper letter KES-04-99 to R. A. Schiffern, "Final Transmittal for the Fuel Receipt Criteria Questionnaire for Three-Mile Island (TMI) Fuel, dated March 15, 1999

5. Perry and Chilton, "Chemical Engineers Handbook", 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill

6. H. F. Holmes, E. L. Fuller, and R. A. Beh, "Adsorption of Argon, Nitrogen, and Water Vapor on Zirconium Oxide",

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 47, No. 2, May 1974

7. Robert E. Treybal, "Mass-Transfer Operations", 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York

8. D. R. Olander, D. Sherman, and M. Balooch, "Retention and Release of Water By Sintered Uranium Dioxide",

Journal of Nuclear Materials, 107 (1982)

9. M.A. Ebner, "Potential for Uranium Discharge from TMI CAnisters During Dewatering, EDF-TAN0-99-13, Project File # 015239-1, dated 8/9/99

10. Joseph Palmer, "Water Ingress into TMI DSCs During Storage", EDF-797, Revision 0, dated March 1999

11. N. E. Russell and D. R. Trammell, "TMI Canister Licon Sampling/Testing", EDF# DCSP-59-DWS, Project File Number#015239, dated 6//1//97

12. M. N. Neeley, J.E. Huffer, and S.S. Kim, "Criticality Safety Evaluation of TMl-2 Canister Transportation and Storage", BBWI Internal Report INEELJINT-99-00126, Rev. 2, May2000 Figures Revision 2 EDF-1466, Page 1 EDF-1466 Figures 11

Attachment I Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page2 Figure 1. Bound (chemically adsorbed) water content on zirconium dioxide (Zr02) 16 l! 14 1f 112

-E ~ 10 0

<>25 deg c 0 en 8

c300 deg C u l::

._ GI 6

~

A400degC

.!! ~

v

~; 4 Cl 2 M

E ti:

A 0

A A 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 Water partial pressure, torr Figure 2. Water vapor pressure with temperature 250~~~~~---------~

~ 200+-------------_.,.....'*----1

/,r

~ 150 +------------__.,._/_* ---i

.,,.,, a 100 +------------+----'----!

0 Q. 50 +---------~*""-------I

~

0 +-<&-~--41>4~""'-""--r--.,.....--.---....-----1 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Temperature, deg C

+ Measured

---*Estimated 11 Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page3 18

- :s! 16 c-

.2 ~ 14

e. ~ 12 0 "Cl 10 Cll Cl "Cl "t:

8 as CD 6

.! ~ 4

== Cl 2 E o Figure 3. Temperature-compensated partial pressure of water Pads (referenced to equivalent vapor pressure of water Pv) with adsorbed water content on zirconium oxide 1

10 100 1000 T X ln(Pv/Pads)

Figure4. Cort1Jarison ct rmasured and estimated v.eter adsorption uptakes on zirconiLDTI dioxide (partial pressum less than vapor ~ure) 10000 25

-- 25 c estirmta:t c:,, a>

o:

!g 15 0 Cl

.,, "t:

,, G>

ca 'ti 10

~ ;t 1U Cl

e 5 0

0

[]... [].. ***[]*******-

~o---*~*-*--

5 10 15 25 Partial pressure water, tar

- - - -100 c estirmta:t 200 c estirmta:t

* *

300 c estirmted

-400 c estirmted 0

25 c l11!E5lJ8j a

300 c l11!E5lJ'ED

~ 400 c rreasua:I 11

Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page4 Figure 5. Water content on uranium oxide (5% porosity) as a function of temperature 30 25 5

0 Ill b

~-::-- -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500. 3000 Temperature, deg C

-- Eicperimental D

Activation energy of

2. 7 kcaVmole (from water content at temperatures below 500deg C)

Fg.Je61M2medbistnn:lvarartet(aane77Jl(:J dbisrm;q31i0~~~

14

~3+---;~~~~~~~~~~---i f&

~2+-~~oe-~~~~~~~~---i 0+-..--..--..--..--...-..--...-...--.-..--.-..---i fD m fil 2D 2D 3D 3D 4D 4D 5II 9D EID EID ID

~ci!gf 11

Attachment I Figures EDF-1466, Revision2 Pages 0.30 0.25 Jc 0.20 c 8

$ :::i 8.gi 0.15

... Ill fJ ;

ICll 0.10 0.05 0.00 0

Figure 7. Bound (equilibrium) water content in Licon

.A 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Temperature, deg F Figure 8. Licon water content with drying time 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 0

1111

,.k, tll IJ;;'

1 A

Ill Wl'J

~

&'1' "

e M

I o700deg F R67deg F

"'!!'.--;.; i A396deg F 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 Drying time, hours 11 Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page6 S>

Ci

4) t: :Ii 0

3) ff z;

s

= 3l e 15 A¢YY" Q. 10 5

0 0

5 A

A A.-.

vyv~

'"'A v

I\\ <>

v 10 15

3)

4)

Rntin'e, ta.rs (fran tater stat-lf))

Fagwe 10. HVDC005 fumace purge pressure 45 40 t: 35

.s 3) i 25

2) i 15 10 5

0 0

v A

v 5

v v

v y

y Q<>

¢Y A

6 9

10 15 25 35 40 R.ln time, hours (from heater start-up) 11 45

Attachment I Figures 11 EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page7 80 70 t: s 60 er 50

=

II I! 40 D. g 30 ii 0

20 Figure 11. HVDC-005 Isolation pressure increase curves Cl Cl Cl A

Day 2, 17:39 Cl A

A Cl Day 2, 20:40 Cl A

x A

_x ADay3,2:40 Cl A

x c

A x

XDay3,8:40 x

Cl A

x x

x E31Day 3, 11:41 0 Day 3, 15:44

~ lg It "'

~ Eg 131 00 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0

Isolation time, minutes Frgwe 12. ~

ftmace pressure increase over an Isolation period cl 5 rrinutes 5

v A

?

v

¢ 10 15

2) 25

3)

~

R.n tine, ha.l's (fromheala"start~)

A 40 45 Figures 11 EDF-1466, Revision 2 Pages c

'E ~

SS

'i tD

=!

~ e

0. =

Ill l!! a.

t:

0 -

I

! a.

Cl>

u ca E

I

u.

Figure 13. Comparison of HVDC-005 furnace drying and purge pressures, and isolation rate of pressure increases 100 10 1

0.1 0

v

~

()¢.()¢

~~

J!P'A ~

()¢

6. !:..

u

<:/>-

¢ a

a a

a 10 20 30 Drying time, hours 50

() F\\Jrge pressure a Isolation pressure rate t:.. ll"ying pressure Figure 14. HVDC-006 isolation pressure increases 100 10

~

~ 2nc1cay,17:25 a 2nd cay, 22:00

__J(l~

1 A 2nd Day, 23:14

i

+

x 3rd [By, 1:02 0.1

+

x 3rd cay, 2:30 0.01 0 3rd cay' 3:58 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16

+3rd [By, 5:18 Isolation time, minutes Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page9 Ii Figure 15. HVDC-006 Isolation rate of pressure increases c

10 e

t:

0 1

l!

0.1 e

J.

fl) fl) e 0.01 D..

0 100 t:

80

.s 60 f = 40 fl) fl) f 20 Q.

0 0

I 10 20 30 40 Run time, hours (from heater start-up)

Figure 16. HVDC-008 isolation pressure increases

Day 2, 18:11

Day 2, 20:32 fl. A

/;:,,.Day 2, 23:14 x

A X xDay3, 1:23

)K 0 4 0

+

)K Day 3, 3:15 0 Day3, 5:16 10 20 30 40 50 60 + Day3, 6:15 Isolation time, minutes Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 10 Figure 17. HVDC-008 isolation rate of pressure increases

{

10 9

8 7

e

s c 6

e e 'E 5

a. 0 4

c-o i 0

.!?

3 2

1 0

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 Drying time, hours (from heater start-up)

F1gure 18. HVDC-009 Isolation pressure increases

2rdlBJ, 1:2>

t: 100

.s

2rd CB/, 3:18 A 2rd CB/, 5:18 f

00

s

+~~~+

.2rd CB/, 7:'2!5 ti) ti) f 0

D2rD CB/, 9:10 Q.

0 10 2J :I) 40 00 00 lsolction time, minutes 0 2rd CB/, 11:10

+ 2rdlBJ, 13:10 11 Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 11 100 If e 10

s c

.,, E

! "t:

a....

c.e 1

0

~

0 11 Figie 19. HVDC<m isdcmCll rate cl pmsue irumses v

¢

¢ 8

6 4

2 0

v ¢¢¢ I

I I

0 5

10 15 Dyi11J time, hcxrs {fran hecter stat~)

Figure 20. HVDC-009 isolation rate of pressure increases showing two plateaus, at 33 and 39 hours4.513889e-4 days 0.0108 hours 6.448413e-5 weeks 1.48395e-5 months 40

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <<

~ ~ ~

Drying time, hours (from heater start-up)

Figures EDF-1466, Revision2 Page 12

~.;

Ill c !i 0.B i or

~ ~

g u c

0 Figure 21. Relationship between Isolation rate of pressure Increase, and furnace pressure Pl-5 (from HVDC-009) 7 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

0 2

4 6

8 Furnace presSiure, torr Figure 22. Estimate of isolation rate of pressure increase during HVDC-009 EStirn:t~ isdaticn p-essll'e rate.

10 a tveasi.rect isdaial p-essl.l'e rate 0 5 10 15 a> 25 ~ 35 40 Run time, hours (from heater s1art-up)

Ii I.

Attachment I Figures EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 13 11 Figure 23. Heat-up times near the debris centerline (Reference 3, node 1296, run TMl-4-009C) 400 350 A

IL 300

=

GI

250

'C 200

~ '

150 E

6

~

100 50 0

0 5

10 15 20 25

~n time, hours (from heater start-up)

Figure 24. HVDC-010 isolation pressure increases 100

--<>-Isolation #1, 10:30 t: 90 0

80

-o-lsolation #3, 12:30

-i 70

= 60 en

---tl-lsolation #5, 14:30 en 50 e

c. 40 CD

-x-lsolation #7, 16:30

()

30 ca:

x E 20

= 10

-x-lsolation #10, 19:30 IL I

0 l;l 0

2 4

6 8

10

-o-lsolation #14, ~3:35 Isolation time, minutes Figures EDF-1466, Revision2 Page 14 Figure 25. HVDC-01 O isolation rate of pressure increases s 12...---------------------------------------------------------.

s =

10--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 E

i:

~ 8--~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 s s 6+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 f

4-+-~~~~~~~--....~~~~~~~~-'----1 f = 2t-~~~~~~~~~~-=>l,__~~:::o:~::~

f 0

~

-+------------,....-----------....------....-----,-------,..--------1 8:30 10:30 12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30 20:30 22:30 0:30 Run time, hours (24-hour clock)

Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 1 EDF-1466, Revision 1 Tables Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page2

i.

Table 1 Water Adsorption on Zirconium Dioxide at Different Pressures and Temperatures (From Reference 6)

Water Water Water Water Partial Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption Pressure at at at 25 deg C 300 deg C 400deg C torr mg water/

mg water/

gZr02 gZr02 gZr02 0.7 5.7 1.82 0.8 1.4 6

1.95 0.93 3.5 9.5 2.08 1.06 8

10.5 2.22 1.2 15 15.3 2.32 1.3 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page3 Table 2 Water Adsorption on Uranium Oxide Pellets at Different Temperature (From Reference 8)

U02 Temperature degC 42 107 216 452 550 910 1125 1320 1680 2480 U02 Water Content microg/g water/

gU02 28.31 13.21 4.41 2.51 1.74 1.21 0.8 0.6 0,44 0.3 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page4 T~ EHlan SnPe V\\Bgt, degC g

2) 5.Em 1()4.

100 1CB 5.401 ar2 5.(65

21) 4.9?2 316 4.829 371 4.759 S38 4.EB>

816 4.Em Table 3 Licon Water Content With Temperature (From Reference 11 )**b EHlan EtAlcm EtAtcm Tq>

Tq>

S!l1'11e Tcta V\\tter SnPe SnPe Wigt V\\tter Aaiial Wjgt Wigt Lais Lais Lais g

g gwJ..m g

g gdyUan o.cm o.cm 0.2B 5.Em Q(JJ) 5.435 Q22J on 0.122 0.183 O.SJT 0.575 0.(8) 4.740 0.921 0.600 0.719 O.OC6 4.578 1.002 o.m 4.517 1.143 0.843 0.874 O.C121 4.6J/

1.184 0.916 0.947 o.cm 4.437 1m 0.913 0.974 o.cm 4.3B 12>7 Tq>

Tq>

Tcta Wter V\\tter Aaiial Lais g

gwJ..m gdyUcm o.cm 02})

0224 0246 0.914 o.cm um 0.046 1.174 O.Cl29 1.219 0.019 1Zi8 0.010 1.312 o.cm

a. Heating times were two hours for temperatures up to 371 deg C, and one hours from 538 to 816 deg C

b. Water Fraction determined by subtracting the maximum water loss from the water loss at temperature of Interest, and dividing the product by the minimum Licon sample weight.

~

V\\tter Aa:iioo gwJ..m gdyl.km 02D 0.182 QCB7 0.001 O.Cl29 QCI!)

O.<XB o.cm Tables EDF*1466, Revision 2 Page5 Sample Location top top top top top bottom bottom bottom bottom top top top top top top top top top top top top bottom bottom bottom bottom Table 4 Ucon Water Content With Time and Temperature (From Reference 11)

Temperature Heating Top Top Top Top Top Time Sample Water Water Water Water Weight Released Released Remaining Content in Licon g water/

deg F hours g

g g

g g dry solid 700 0

6.165 0.000 0.000 1.408 0.292 700 1

4.950 1.243 1.243 0.165 0.034 700 2

4.940 0.032 1.275 0.134 0.028 700 3

4.931 0.014 1.288 0.120.

0.025 700 4

4.929 0.009 1.298 0.111 0.023 700 0

6.895 0.000 0.000 1.100 0.201 700 1

6.256 0.914 0.914 0.186 0.034 700 2

6.230 0.041 0.956 0.144 0.026 700 3

6.209 0.017 0.972 0.128 0.023 67 0

8.097 0.000 0.000 3.204 0.655 67 1

7.815 0.282 0.282 2.922 0.597 67 2

7.619 0.195 0.477 2.726 0.557 67 3

7.408 0.211 0.689 2.515 0.514 67 4

7.154 0.254 0.943 2.261 0.462 67 5

6.898 0.256 1.199 2.005 0.410 67 6

6.691 0.208 1.406 1.798 0.367 67 7

5.584 0.107 1.513 1.691 0.346 67 8

6.469 0.115 1.628 1.576 0.322 67 9

6.401 0.068 1.696 1.508 0.308 67 10 6.349 0.052 1.748 1.456 0.298 67 96 6.217 0.132 1.880 1.324 0.271 396 0

5.400 0.000 0.000 0.979 0.211 396 1

5.122 0.489 0.489 0.490 0.105 396 2

5.073 0.057 0.546 0.433 0.093 396 3

5.055 0.029 0.575 0.404 0.087 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Pages Date From Run Start-up Time Table 5 Summary HVDC-005 Operating Parameters Time tmperature Temperature Temperature Temperature TC TIT-3 TC TIT-1 TC TlT-4 TC TI-1 days hours minutes deg F degF degF degF 0

20 43 154 85 70 0

21 33 133 105 70 0

22 34 128 117 71 0

22 36 169 126 117 71 0

23 5

148 106 117 71 0

23 8

146 105 116 71 0

23 32 453 413 149 81 1

0 33 527 439 251 90 1

1 11 558 462 296 98 1

2 11 618 510 348 105 1

3 12 632 488 383 109 1

4 12 698 566 426 114 1

5 13 721 574 452 116 1

6 9

732 562 482 118 1

7 10 768 593 508 121 1

8 14 n1 568 531 124 1

9 15 812 610 565 126 1

10 13 805 592 576 128 1

11 13 826 603 599 128 1

12 14 874 659 617 127 1

13 15 874 650 631 127 1

14 16 874 646 633 127 1

15 14 874 648 633 146 1

16 15 874 648 631 118 1

17 16 874 649 629 114 1

18 16 874 653 625 126 1

19 18 875 658 623 102 1

20 19 875 665 621 99 1

22 22 874 685 613 99 1

23 18 874 696 612 95 2

0 18 875 707 610 93 2

1 19 875 717 608 93 2

2 19 874 725 607 92 2

4 22 875 740 601 93 2

5 21 875 746 601 92 2

8 38 884 766 598 76 2

10 27 892 803 609 76 2

11 38 891 810 608 76 2

13 30 893 820 608 76 2

15 41 898 840 604 76 Furnace Heater

Valve Pressure Control Position Variable "O" closed torr maximum "1" open 760 0.0 0

760 0.0 0

760 3.0 0

760 100.0 0

760 100.0 1

1.6 100.0 1

15.2 100.0 1

17.3 100.0 1

18.6 100.0 1

18.7 100.0 1

19.7 100.0 1

19.6 100.0 1

20.1 100.0 1

20 100.0 1

20.6 100.0 1

20.3 100.0 1

20 100.0 1

19.5 100.0 1

18.7 91.7 1

19.1 78.3 1

18.1 54.6 1

16.7 76.9 1

15.7 52.7 1

17 48.1 1

12.5 41.0 1

12.1 40.7 1

11.2 36.7 1

10 35.0 1

10 34.6 1

9.9 37.7 1

10 34.5 1

9.8 38.8 1

9.7 31.2 1

12.3 31.5 1

2.6 39.0 1

1.8 31.9 1

1.4 33.7 1

1 28.9 1

Tables EDF*1466, Revision 2 Page7 Table 6 Summary HVDC-005 Purge Pressures, Isolation Rate of Pressure Increases, and Normal Drying Pressures Date From Run Start-up 1

1 1

1 2

2 2

Time Time hours minutes 1

14 2

14 3

15 4

15 5

16 6

17 9

18 10 18 11 18 12 19 14 21 15 22 16 23 17 24 17 39 18 24 19 23 20 40 1

27 2

40 3

26 7

28 8

40 10 32 11 33 11 41 15 44 Purge Pressure Normal Increase Drying torr torr/min.

torr 32.8 35.4 15.2 34.8 17.3 37.3 18.6 44.2 18.7 96 19.7 39.3 20.1 34.4 20 29.1 20.6 39.9 20.3 44.2 19.5 28.8 18.8 23.5 19.1 21.5 18.1 8.72 16.7 17.5 16 18.5 15.7 2.16 14.75 15.8 10 1.95 9.9 16.2 9.9 12.5 9.7 1.5 11 6.3 12.3 4

7.5 0.17 2.6 0.038 1.4 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 8 Time Isolation From pressure lso la tio n

1 lsoletion Start 17139/57

{hr/min/sec) minutes torr 0

1 5.6 2.62 2.6 5 36.7 2.67 2.72 3.27 5.23 5.29 5.37 5.43 5.95 7.85 7.97 8.0 7 8.1 5 8.62 10.51 10.59 10.7 7 10.87 11.28 1 3.27 13.49 13.58 13.97 14.03 15.95 16.1 9 1 6.32 16.62 16.65 1 8.62 1 8.8 19.03 19.25 19.3 21.3 21.49 21.67 21.9 21.93 23.99 2 4.1 24.4 24.55 24.58 26.7 26.79 27.03 27.2 29.38 29.4 7

29. 75 29.85 31.26 Table 7 Summary HVDC-005 Isolation Pressures Isolation lso la tio n lso la tio n pressure pressure pressure

2

3

4 lso la tio n Ste rt Isolation Start lso le tio n Sta rt 20/40/34 2140/58 8/40/48

{hr/min/sec)

(hr/min/sec) torr torr torr 1 2.5 10 6.5 11.4 20.5 26.1 17.7 25.7 31.8 21.8 29.6 36.2 2 4.9 33.6 40.6

27. 7 37.4 45.~

30.4 41.9 49.6 3 3.1 46.8 154.1 35.9 52 58.6 38.7 57.6 63.1 42 ii 3.8 67.6 45.5 7 0.1 73.3 Isolation pressure

5 Isolation S ta rt 11141133

{hr/m In/sec) torr 1.5 2

2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.6 6

Isolation pressure

6 lso la tio n Sta rt 15/44/17 (hr/min/sec) torr 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6

1. 7 1.8 1.9 2

2.1 2.2 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page9 Time Isolation From pressure Isolation

1 Isolation Start 17/25/08 (hr/min/sec) minutes torr 0

0 2.6 14.2 2.61 2.7 2.74 5.26 5.3 21.2 5.35 5.45 7.9 7.94 26.8 7.98 8.19 10.62 31.6 10.65 10.73 13.27 36.2 13.28 13.38 15.95 41.2 16.03 21.27 46.8 23.94 59.6 26.6 65.4 29.27 70.6 Table 8 Summary HVDC-006 Isolation Pressures Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure

2

3

4

5

6

7 Isolation Start* Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start 22/9/44 23/14/34 112/57 2/30/51 3/58/16 5/18/09 (hr/min/sec)

(hr/min/sec)

(hr/min/sec) torr torr torr torr torr torr 0

0 0

0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.7 1.8 0.9 1.6 1.5 2.2 2

0.7 2.7 1.3 2.2 1.2 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 10 Table 9 Summary HVD-008 Isolation Pressures Time Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation From

1

2

3

4

$5

'#6

7 Isolation Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start 18/11 20/32 23/14 1/23 0.20 0.31 0.40 (hr/min)

(hr/min)

(hr/min) minutes torr torr torr torr torr torr torr 0

0 0

0 2.62 28.8 2.65 4.4 1.7 2.67 1.7 2.7 6

5 5.25 49.7 5.3 16.1 5.31 12.1 5.34 8.5 5.35 28.2 5.37 8.1 5.4 7.5 7.95 69.4 7.96 16.1 7.98 23.1 8

12.1 8.02 37.1 10.5 8.08 10.3 10.62 94.6 13.43 52.4 16.06 34.9 18.85 16.2 21.25 28.1 21.48 78.5 24.1 22.6 24.17 17.8 26.73 45.7 32.03 50.5 35.03 21.6 42.58 39.3 48.32 31.1 23.6 Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 11 Table 10 Summary HVD-009 Isolation Pressures Time Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation Isolation From

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Isolation Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start Isolation Start 1/26 (hr/min) 3/18 (hr/min) 5/18 (hr/min) 7125 (hr/min) 9110 (hr/min) 11/10 (hr/min) 13110 (hr/min) minutes torr torr torr torr torr torr torr 0

0 0

0 2

9.1 6

4 29.9 5

13.6 9.3 5

6 10.7

7 33.4 26.1 9

50.7 10 20.1 12.7 8

11 15 12 46.4 33.8 14 68.2 15 25.1 15.3 10.1 16 18.6 17 60.9 43.2 20 29 17.5 11.9 21 21.6 22 72.7 49.6 25 33.1 19.4 14.7 26 24.2 27 57.1 30 36.4 21.1 14.7 31 26.5 32 62.5 35 39.9 22.7 15.9 36 28.7 37 69.4 40 24.2 17 41 30.9 45 25.5 18 46 32.8 50 26.9 19 51 34.5 55 28.1 20

)

Tables EDF-1466, Revision 2 Page 12 Table 11. HVDC-010 Isolation pressure Increases (values In torr)

Isolation #/

Isolation time, minutes time (hr) 0 5

10 1/10:39 10.5 60.1 88 2111:30 10.4 47.8 68.5 3/12:30 9.7 39.7 56 4/13:30 6

32.6 46.6 5/14:30 4.3 29.5 40.8 6/15:30 3.4 24.2 33.6 7/16:30 2.8 19 26 8/17:30 2.4 16.4 21.5 9/18:30 2.1 13.2 17.2 10/19:30 1.9 11.1 14.5 11/20:30 1.7 9.5 12.4 12121:35 1.4 8.1 10.7 13122:35 1.4 7.4 9.6

Person / Time
ML17298A767
Site:	07200020 (SNM-2508)
Issue date:	06/28/2000
From:	Christensen A US Dept of Energy, Idaho Operations Office
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML17298A771	List: ML17298A750 ML17298A767
References
EM-NRC-17-039
Download: ML17298A767 (50)
v • d • e

ML17298A767

Text

Navigation menu

Search