Text

Rev 1 to Evaluation of Potential Adverse Effects of Failure of Containment Coatings on Post-Accident Fluid Sys, Rept on License Condition 16
	ML20116N529
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/25/1985
From:	; LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20116N524	List: ML20116N529; W3P85-1149, Forwards Rev 1 to Evaluation of Potential Adverse Effects of Failure of Containment Coatings on Post-Accident Fluid Sys, Per Util 850227 Commitment.Explanatory Info on Three Dimension Analysis Provided in Sections IV & V of Rept;
References
	NUDOCS 8505070245
	Download: ML20116N529 (100)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. . t,$ ~?' 3.' o LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO WATERFORD SES NO. 3 REPORT ON LICENSE CONDITION NO. 16 EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE FAILURE,0F CONTAINMENT COATINGS ON POST ACCIDENT FLUID SYSTEMS S g.. REVISION 1 af

+ e' .o '/' / t s TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SECTION TITLE PAGE I Introduct' ion 1 II Conclusions 2 III Qualification of Paint 3 IV Paint Failure Modes 6 V Assumptions Used in Analysis 8 VI Evaluation of Far Field Paint Effects 9 VII Evaluation of Near Field Paint Effects 13 VIII Evaluation of Secondary Effects of Coating Failure on NSSS Equipment 19 II Evaluation of Secondary Effects of Coacing Failure on BOP Equipment 22 i X NPSH Available to HPSI and CS Pumps 25 XI Insulation Inside containment 27 XII Impact of Paint on TSP Baskets 30 XIII Testing and Surveillance 32 References 33 s i n

b d TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) 4 pl3LE TITLE 1 Containment Coating Materials Assumed to Fail FIGURE TITLE 1 SIS Sump Far Field Effects 2 SIS Sump Chip Motion With Constant Angle 3 SIS Sump Near Field Effects 4 SIS Sump Plan View 5 3-D Analysis Unblocked SIS Sump Screens - Horizontal Elevation -10.5' 6 3-D Analysis Unblocked SIS Sump Screens - Horizontal Elevation -3.0' 7 3-D Analysis Unblocked SIS Sump Screens - Vertical 8 3-D Analysis Blocked SIS Sump Screens - Horizontal Elevation -10.5' 9 3-D Analysis Blocked SIS Sump Screens - Vertical ii.

.i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) + 1 ATTACHMENT TITLE i 1 Sample Test. Reports Carboline Company 2 Sample Test Report Ameron Company 3 Ameron Intter 4 Telecen with Mr. J. Montle 5 Telcon with Mr. R. Brooksbank O e iii

I. INTRODUCTION The Waterford-3 Operating License (NPF-26, dated December 18, 1984) has a License Condition (Section 2.C.16) that states the following: " Prior to January 18, 1985, the licensee shall provide for staff review and approval an evaluation of the potential adverse effects of the failure of coatings inside of containment on post accident fluid systems." On January 17,1985 (Reference 5), the initial version of this report was submitted to the NRC to provide the evaluation specified by the License Condition. On February 11, 1985 a meeting was held with the NRC to discuss the submittal. As a result of that meeting, a February 27, 1985 letter (Reference 6) was sent to the NRC clarifying certain aspects of the report and committing to provide certain confirmatory information requested by the NRC. This revision includes information provided in the February 27, 1985 letter as well as the confirmatory information. ?. = a .II. CONCLUSIONS An evaluation of the potential adverse effects of the failure of coatings inside containment on post accident fluid systems was performed. Highly conservative assumptions were postulated in the evaluation. The evaluation determined that the Safety Injection System (SIS) and the Containment Spray System (CSS) will remain functional given the most conservative coating failure conditions. The far field and near field effects of coating failure were evaluated. The evaluation determined that pool velocities far from the SIS Sump are insufficient to transport coating particles to the SIS Sump region. Therefore, the SIS Sump screens are not susceptible to any clogging due to the far field effect of coating failure. The evaluation also determined that the near field effect of coating failure, coating falling into an area of the SIS Sump surface between 2.04 ft. and 3.42 ft, from the screen, results in about 34-1/2 percent of the vertical SIS screen area remaining unclogged (Two-Dimensional Analysis). This unclogged area is more than sufficient to prevent pump suction inlet vortering and to provide for adequate Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) to ensure proper pump operation. The secondary effects of the ingestion of paint chips by post accident fluid systems were also evaluated. The evaluation determined that there are no components in the post accident fluid systems that are susceptible to degradation resulting from paint debris. This part of the evaluation was predicated on the assumption that paint chips could reach the SIS Sump screen, pass through the screen, and enter the post accident fluid systems. The evaluation covered the SIS, CSS, and NSSS. Finally, the additional potential clogging due to insulation debris was evaluated. The findings indicate that there is no potential for SIS Sump blockage due to insulation debris. 3 l l [ I l i.

.'h. ~ III. QUALIFICATION OF PAINT General The protective coating systems and the applications at Waterford Unit 3 are considered to be substantially qualified, and the measures and corrective actions previously taken by LP&L provide substantial assurance that the paint coating system will not fail under DBA conditions. l FSAR Section 6.1.2.1 and FSAR Table 6.1-3 (Reference 2) and LP&L's response to NRC Question 281.2 (Reference 2) describe LP&L's program for, and inventories of, protective coatings. The NRC reviewed this information and concluded in SSER 1 thatfthe protective coating systems and the applications were acceptable and met the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B. Coatings DBA Tested and Qualified i LP&L conducted an evaluation of the paint coatings inside containment and determined that paint coatings applied to significant surface areas inside the containment are in substantial compliance with ANSI N101.2, N5.12, and N101.4. 3hese paint coatings were tested and qualified under DBA conditions. The coatings were' evaluated at independent laboratories i or at the coating manufacturer's laboratories for stability, radiation, chemical, and fire effects in accordance with the requirements of ANSI l N5.12 and N101.2. Also, the Quality Assurance during the manufacturing, transportation, and storage for field coating work was in compliance with ANSI N101.4, in conjunction with the general QA requirements of ANSI N45.2. Coatings applied to the approximately 91,900 ft2 of,te,1-2 containment vessel plates and the approximately 269,950 ft of-uninsulated piping and structural steel were tested and qualified under DBA conditions.. In addition, all coatings applied to concrete surfaces (approximately' 2 82,824 ft ) are in total-compliance with ANSI N101.2, N5.12, and 1 N101.4. These paint coatings were tested and qualified under DBA conditions. l _3_ -

'l.* Coatings Not DBA Tested and Not Qualified I The only source of paint coatings that LP&L considers not fully qualified are those paint coatings applied to equipment purchased prior to LP&L's commitment (March 1975) to the NRC Green Book, WASH-1309. These paint coatings were not DBA tested and did not require QA compliance. These paint coatings, however, were evaluated and were determined to be adequate for the intended function as recommended by the manufacturer. 4 The application in the shop was done in accordance with a written procedure as submitted for review and approval. Further, paint coatings applied to equipment in this category received an evaluation as soon as the equipment was delivered to the site, and where necessary, qualified coatings were reapplied in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.54 Approximately 13,950 ft2 of paint coatings received this level of evaluation and were applied to various equipment inside containment. Corrective Measures Substantial corrective measures have been taken by LP&L to correct any deficiencies in the paint coatings. Coating problems identified by Sline Industrial Painters Incorporated were documented in Ebasco Nonconformance Report W3-3648 and corrected by LP&L. LP&L directed Ebasco to conduct an evaluation of the entire coating system inside the Containment vessel. A thorough inspection and repair plan of the coating system was developed and fully implemented by LP&L and Ebasco. All defective areas were marked, hand tool cleaned, or 4 blast cleaned and recoated using approved specifications and procedures in accordance with ANSI N101.2, N5.12, and N101.4. The inspection and repair actions taken by LP&L were reported to the NRC in Significant Construction Deficiency (SCD) 56.

1 In addition, an in situ DBA test was conducted. Three containment liner surface areas were selected. Steam was applied on each area enclosed by a chamber at temperatures and pressures simulating DBA values. Also, borated water simulating the Containment Spray solution was poured into the chamber and allowed to come in contact with the paint coating. The paint coating surface area was examined af ter the test, and the coating system did not exhibit any failures. The in situ test and results were also reported to.the NRC in SCD $6. The NRC, based on 'the foregoing corrective actions, documented full j closure of SCD 56 in Inspection Report 84-24, dated July 3,1984. Amount of Paint Assumed to Fail A total of 1745 ft2 of paint was assumed to fall into the near field critical area as defined in the Two-Dimensional Analysis (Section VII). I-This was based on the assumption that all paint directly above the near field critical area would fall into the near field critical area. As a j benchmark only about 13,950 'ft2 of the Containment paint is considered by LP&L not to be qualified. The Two-Dimensional Analysis showed that approximately 99.5 percent of the assumed failed paint would fall in che I far field regions of the Containment (Section VII). Therefore, only 2 about 0.5 percent or about 70 f t of the paint considered by LP&L not 2 to be qualified (compared to 1745 ft assumed in the analysis) could be available to fall in the near field critical area. Further, a i significant amount of the paint dislodging directly above the near field region would be captured or blocked by intervening grating floors or structures. P l,-

i ~.. IV. PAINT FAILURE MODES Laboratory DBA' simulated tests conducted by the Carboline Company and the Ameron Company on the coating systems used on the steel surfaces of the Waterford 3 Containment Building showed that the-systems would satisfactorily perform under DBA conditions. Sample reports of tests conducted by the Carboline Company (Attachment 1) on the Carbozine II/Phenoline 305 system and by the Ameron Company (Attachment 2) on the Amercoat 71/90 system, indicate that the systems performed in an acceptable manner. The mode of failure found was by blisters or cracking and not by flaking or delamination. Therefore, if any failure occurs at the Waterford 3 site, it is expected to be in the form of blisters. This has been further confirmed by a letter from Ameron (Attachment 3) and by telecons with Mr. J. Montle, Technical Vice President of the Carboline Company (Attachment 4) and Mr. R. Brooksbank of the Oak Ridge National Testing Laboratory. (Attachment 5). LP&L's evaluation of the failure mode indicates that the paint chip sizes would range between 1/8" and 1" (0.125" to 1"). The area where the coating may disbond is the area of the blister and the largest size blister that is acceptable in a simulated DBA test is a No. 4 blister (per ASTM D714). In addition, as shown in the attached telecons with Messrs Montle and Brooksbank, they indicated that based on their evaluation of the mode of failure, the paint chip size would range between 1/16" and 1" (0.0625" to 1"). This is very close to the range indicated in the TUGC0 Report (Reference 1), Section 3.1, which gives a range of 1/8" to 1" (0.125" to 1"). Paint chips smaller than those indicated above are not expected to fall off as the topcoats.are water insoluble epoxy compounds which will not fail in powder form. Any chips that fall off are of a brittle nature and will not fold..

4 In order to provide NRC with a conservative worst-case scenario, it was - assumed that the paint particle size is 0.078" for conducting the SIS Sump blockage analysis. If the smallest size (0.0625") is used in the only value change to Equation 2 of Section VI is calculating VSlide d (0.0625" versus 0.078") which gives a V of 0.161 ft/sec. Slide V is not dependent on particle size (but on particle thickness) Tumble and thus is unchanged. In addition, the Two-Dimensional Analysis in Section VII does not depend on particle size (but on particle thickness) and thus its conclusions are unchanged. Therefore, the conclusions of Sections VI and VII would not be affected if the paint particle size were assumed to be 0.0625" instead of 0.078". The amount of paint available for ingestion by the RCS and the reactor core was determined by assuming that the paint coating failed in particles, all being 0.078" in size, and would pass through the SIS Sump vertical screens. This assumption thus provided a conservative basis for the ingestion evaluation. Based on the above test results and evaluation, LP&L considers the possibility of paint particles clogging the SIS Sump and degrading its performance and the performance of any paint systems to be non-existent. t

V. ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS The coating materials in the Containment at Waterford 3 are expected to withstand the service conditions during normal plant operation and post-LOCA operations. However, it is postulated that all the coating materials except coatings on the concrete surfaces inside the containment (which was applied to the requirements of ANSI N101.2, N5.12 and N101.4) would fail during a LOCA. This assumption, although unrealistic, provides a conservative groundwork for an analytical evaluation of the effects of the coating failures on plant safety systems. For the SIS Sump blockage analysis, another extremely conservative and equally unrealistic worst case assumption was made for the particle size distribution of the failed paint. For the paint debris transport ~ analysis, it was assumed that all the paint fails as 0.078" diameter disk shaped particles. This is the smallest particle size which cannot pass through the SIS Sump screens and is more transportable than larger particles. The SIS and the CSS will not be placed into recirculation mode operation immediately af ter a LOCA as the ECCS and the CSS vill be initially operated in injection mode using water from the Refueling Water Storage Pool. 1he SIS and the CSS will be switched to recirculation mode at the completion of the injection mode at which time the Containment floor will be flooded with water. The minimum flooded water level was determined as El. -3.67' and the maximum flooded level at El. +0.S'(Figure 3). The SIS Sump blockage can be analyzed by dividing the work into far field effects and near field effects. Far field effects concern paint and insulation that may be carried from anywhere in the Containment to the immediate sump region and then clog the SIS Sump screens. Near field _ effects concern only paint falling in a region adjacent to the SIS Sump j screens, from which calculations show that the paint could reach the screens and clog the vertical screen surfaces. 1

VI.. EVALUATION OF FAR FIELD PAINT EFFECTS At the initiation of the recirculation phase of the post-LOCA operation, dislodged paint is subject to a circulating water flow. Fluid velocity, debris density, and debris size were analyzed to determine if debris transport occurs. Paint Transport Velocity The transport velocity for paint particles was derived following the basic concepts of NUREG/CR-2791 (Reference 4). In addition, the 3 assumptions and derivations for generalized motion and transport of paint particles, that were developed in the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) Report (Reference 1), were utilized. As shown in the TUGC0 Report, with a model of forces balanced on a paint particle, the critical water velocity to initiate tumbling of a paint particle can be expressed as: 0.5 (1) V umble "

s( P - P ) t (2g )

T p y Cp Py ~ where: = static friction coefficient P = density of paint p P = density of water y t = thickness of particle s = Newton's constant e P C = drag coefficient p I Similarly, the critical water velocity to initiate sliding of a paint ) particle can be shown as: p-P)(r d/4) (2gej 0.5 (2) ? Md (P Valide w J,- (1+ #d) Cp Py . m where d = diameter of particle

d

= dynamic friction coefficient and the remaining parameters were the same as defined with Equation 1. In addition, in the TUGC0 Report, a sensitivity study was done on the.

paint particle size, density drag coefficient and friction coefficient. The following conclusions were drawn from the study: (a) The thickness of the paint particle has no effect on its transport velocity. (b) The smaller the paint particle size, the higher the potential for its transport. (c) The greater the relative density difference between the paint particle and the moving water, the lower the potential for transport. (d) The higher the drag coefficient between the paint particle and i the moving water, the higher the potential for transport. (e) Variation in the friction coefficient between paint particle and concrete floor of the Containment does not significantly affect the transport velocity. The paint particle size was assumed conservatively to be 0.078 inch, the smallest size that could clog the SIS Sump screens. The critical water velocities to initiate tumbling and sliding of this small paint particle were determined as: V umble 0.074 ft/sec = VS11de 0.181 ft/sec = In the calculation, the following conservative data were used: 0.005 in. t = T. P = 82.3 lbs/f t? p I Pw = 60 lba/f t3 (at 200*F) _.. _, _, ~.

e e i 0.6

s

= f C 1,1 y 0.42 }

d

= 1 The paint thickness and density are based on data in Table 1 and the SIS I Sump water temperature is a conservative estimate at the time of SIS / CSS recirculation. The friction and drag coefficients are the typical values used in the TUGC0 study. 1 For the purpose of performing a simple, yet still conservative evaluation of tle far field effects, it is further assumed that all the failed paint will find its way down to the Containment floor (El. -11') since all the upper elevation floors are gratings. By making this assumption it is only necessary to evaluate several critical locations at E1.-11'. To i calculate the local water velocity at the selected critical locations, i l the flow rates shown in FSAR Table 6.3-4 (Reference 2) for the SIS and I CSS during long-term recirculating mode were used. Four Regions, A, B, C and D, with potentially higher local velocities were identified in Figure I 1. Regions A and D were considered to see whether any paint debris can be transported from the First and Second Quadrants to the Third and i Fourth Quadrants. Regions B and C were considered to determine whether any paint debris from the Third and Fourth Quadrants can be transported l to the near sump regions (for potentially clogging the SIS Sump screens). In calculating the maximum local velocities at the given region, the break is always considered near the given region'to determine the highest value, while the Containment Spray flow is assumed to be uniformly distributed inside the containment. The maximum local velocity in Regions A and D is calculated as 0.126 f t/sec; Region B is 0.105 f t/sec; and Region C is 0.252 f t/sec. Since all the tumbling debris will eventually orient itself such that the maximum surface area is oriented parallel to the Containment floor (Reference 4), the critical slide velocity becomes the governing parameter for the debris transport along the Containment floor. By comparing the local water velocity against the critical slide velocity (0.181,ft/sec) and the critical tumble velocity (0.074 f t/sec) calculated earlier it can be concluded that although paint 11 i --_..r...,

= debris in Regions A, 3 and D can be tumbled by the water flow, it will not be transported to the other regions. Only the paint debris falling into Region C can possibly be transported into the region near the SIS Sump. However, based on the near field effects evaluation, the velocity at 3 feet away from the screens is merely 0.0227 f t/see which would not even tumble the smallest paint debris assumed. 'Iherefore, paint debris being transported from Region C to the region near the SIS Sump will settle at least 3 feet away from the SIS Sump screens and will not be transported further to clog the screens. Even if it is assumed that paint debris in Region C can be transported toward the SIS Sump screens, the TSP baskets (Section V) around the SIS Sump would block the paint debris from reaching the screens. Consequently, it is concluded that the SIS Sump screens will not be clogged by any paint debris falling into the far field regions. i t 44 -

VII. EVALUATION OF NEAR FIELD PAINT EFFECTS S This section of the report summarizes the results of the analysis done to study the behavior of paint fragments that become dislodged in the event of paint failure and fall to the surface of the pool of water surrounding the SIS Sump during the post-LOCA recirculation mode. Introduction j Motion of paint fragments through a pool of water is affected by many parameters, including fragment size, shape, density, and water velocity. For the purpose of this analysis, conservative assumptions (which allow for maximum clogging of the sump screens) were made. These include the following: (1) All paint covering the Containment dome, structural steel, and uninsulated piping is considered capable of falling off. A list is provided in Table 1. (2) The top of the SIS Sump screen is completely clogged. Only the sides of the screen are available. I (3) The failed paint is uniformly distributed throughout the Coatainment. (4) The paint detaches as particles shaped like a disk, with a diameter equal to the minimum hole size in the SIS Sump screen at the minimum thickness and minimum density possible. 1 (5) The maximum dras coefficient possible acts on the paint particles to minimize the settling velocity. d (6) The paint particles are horizontally oriented as they travel through the pool to minimize the settling velocity. .i i

(7) Paint notion is assumed to be the type of motion with constant angle - this is used to get the paint vertical velocity. (8) Maximum flooding level exists. (9) When the paint detaches, the particles align themselves one next to the other on the SIS Sump screens. Additionally, the following observations were made: (10) Ductwork above the SIS Sump screen at El. + 6.0' blocks the falling paint from falling onto the pool surface. (11) I-beams, below the pool surface supporting the grating at El. -4.0' collect the paint falling on the water surface above the beam and this prevents these chips from reaching the screen. Methodology The methodology used in analyzing this problem is the following: (1) The settling (vertical) velocity of the paint fragment is determined. (2) The average drift velocity of the water in the pool (moving towards the SIS Sump screens) is determined. (3) Using (1) and the SIS Sump depth, the time for the paint to reach the bottom of the SIS Sump screen (El. -11.0') is determined. j (4) Using (2) and (3) the ma~ximum and minimum distance from the SIS Susp screen for which paint can hit the screen are determined. (5) The amount of paint that falls into the area on the pool surface from which it can then hit the screen is determined..

(6) The amount of screen area blocked is determined. (7) Geometrical considerations that may shield some of the screen from being blocked are accounted for. 4 (8) A determinatica is made as to whether the area of the screen left unblocked is sufficient for proper pump operation. Two-Dimensional Analysis This analysis assumed that the paint fragment is a disk which hits the pool surface at any incident angle. Conservatively, small paint fragments are assumed to be momentarily arrested at the water surface, then to start their travel through the water at the angle of impact with zero initial velocity. Any angle of impact is equally probable since tumbling motion would be expected. However, as shown in Reference 1, the final paint vertical velocity is a minimum (which is conservative) for an incident angle (9) of 0'. Referring to Figure 2, the equation describing the vertical motion of the paint through the water when the pitch angle is assumed constant is the following: 2 P Y dt! " P Y g - Py V g -CD (c) P Aproj sin S W p p p p p y dt 2 2 (3) w A roj cos S W -CL (4) P p T where: W2= u2 + (y, _ y)2 A roj rd sin (4) = p 4 .x ;,t i l,

vertical component of the fragment velocity, defined and: u = as positive downward horizontal component of the fragment velocity v = Pp paint density P water density w = fragment relative velocity W = V velocity of pool toward the screen = o CD drag coefficient = C lift coefficient = L angle from pool surface to the velocity vector = V fragment volume = p thickness t = g acceleration of gravity = 1 0 Since a steady-state velocity is quickly reached and assuming S = 90, l Equation 3 reduces to: 0 = P, V g p, V g -CD (4) P A W2 (4) p p y proj i T Conservatively assuming that v = V, c = 90* and 6 = 0* and using the o conservative maximum CD = 1.9 from Reference 1, Equation 4 reduces to: 0=P d2 p tg - P Ird2 2 W2 (5) y tg - Cp Py rd 4j (4j 7 4 F u2 (6) or ( P -P)g=CD y p y Tt' 3 3 Using conservative values of P = 82.3 lbm/f t, P, = 60 lbm/f t, p t = 5 mils and Cp = 1.9 we have: u =.072 f t/sec Knowing the maximum pool height it can be calculated that the time to reach the SIS Sump screen bottom is 159.3 seconds. e. -

~ FSAR Section 6.2.2.2.2.1 (Reference 2) states that the water velocity at the screen is 0.13 f t/sec. Accounting for the open area of the screen and the pool depth, the drift velocity in the pool towards the screen is 0.0227 f t/sec. The maximum horizontal distance travelled by the paint is then 3.62 f t. From geometry, as shown on Figure 3, the minimum distance at the pool surface horizontally from the screen from which paint can reach the screen is 2.04 ft. However, a series of Trisodium Phosphate Dodecahydrate (TSP) baskets surrounding the screens interfere with some of the falling paint. As a result of blocking by the baskets, the maximum distance from which paint can hit the screens is reduced to 3.42 ft. Although the baskets would block paint frca reaching the bottom of the screens, gravity would bring down excess paint from the top of the screens to block the bottom also. Of all of the paint that is assumed to detach, a percentage of it (approximately 0.05 percent) would fall into a near field critical area on the pool surface from which it could reach the screen. This area surrounds the SIS Sump screens ber<een a distance of 2.04 f t and 3.42 f t. However, a significant portion of this area above the screens is blocked by I-beams and ductwork. The actual I situation is shown in Figure 4. r j There are I-beams supporting the grating at El. - 4.0' which, in effect, will produce a shadow on the screens by blocking the paint that falls on 4 them. Additionally, there is ductwork at El. +6.0' that shields part of the pool. The net effect of the shielding of the SIS Sump screens by the I-beams and ductwork is that approximately 34-1/2 percent of the vertical screens remain open. Reference 3 (which required that only 10 percent of the vertical screens remain open)shows that this amount of open area is more than sufficient to prevent vortering at the pump intakes and also allows for sufficient Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) to ensure proper pump operation.

d..-

Three-Dimensional Analysis In order to confirm the assumptions of the above calculation, a detailed-three-dimensional analysis of the fluid flow around the SIS Sump screens i,

was performed. The computer program TDiPEST (Reference 7) was utilized to calculate the velocities in the SIS Sump vicinity. This computer code solves the full three-dimensional equations of motion, continuity and heat transport for laminar or turbulent fluid flow using the finite-difference techniques. Turbulence is treated using a two-equation k-e model. In the Two-Dimensional Analysis, the horizontal (drif t) velocity was assumed directed toward the SIS Sump on the four sides of the screen. However, in the Three-Dimensional Analysis, the geometry of the SIS Sump, the location of the openings and the presence of the baskets give a more accurate flow field. Figures 5 and 6 show horizontal cross sections at Elevations -10.5' and -3.0' respectively and Figure 7 shows a vertical cross section for the case of unblocked screens. The results show that most of the flow comes from the right side because of the size of the opening and the presence of only two baskets. Figure 6 shows that the flow on tae left and top left is away from the screen, thus confirming that the screen on the left side remains unclogged even without taking credit for the presence of the duct on top. Also, the proximity of the baskets to the screen and their height (60 percent of the screen) gives more unblocked screen area due to the shading effect. Based on the above and the velocity profiles developed in the Three-Dimensional Analysis (which in some cases shows flows parallel to, or away from the screens), the 34-1/2 percent open area of the vertical SIS sump screens as developed by the Two-Dimensional Analysis is conservative. In addition, an analysis was performed that postulated that except for the vertical screen under the duct all other screens (vertical and horizontal) are blocked. The results shown in Figures 8 and 9 indicate that no additional paint fragments -(from the near field or the far field) can be swept up to block the open screen. .Q.w 1 ~ -

tr ViliI. EVALUATION OF SECONDARY EFFECTS OF COATING FAILURE ON NSSS EQUIPMENT As secondary effects, coating failure was also evaluated for small paint chips passing through the SIS Sump screen. In this case fine particles 1 (less than 0.078 in) enter the SIS and also the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). The effects of this type of coating failure on NSSS are summarized below. Source Ters 1 The maximum quantity of paint which could reach the SIS Sump, calculated f from the Two-Dimensional Analysis (Section VII), is approximately 115 lbs 3 j (1.39 ft ). To evaluate the potential adverse effects of this material on post-accident fluid systems, it must be assumed that this paint takes the form of fine particulate matter which mixes homogeneously with the recirculating coolant. The design of the SIS Sump screens ensures that i particulate matter greater than 0.078 inches in size cannot be ingested 1 into the SIS or the RCS. i 4 Identification of Concerns Two conditions of concern have been postulated with this particulate ~ matter suspended in recirculating coo 1 ant: (a) detrimental effect on the HPSI, LPSI, and CSS pumps or restriction of flow through the reactor i core, or (b) consequence of the paint fines settling in the fluid systems. i HPSI Pumps The HPSI pumps are used in the recirculation mode following any LOCA. The pump vendor has confirmed that particulate matter 0.090 inches in diameter will have no detrimental effect on operation of the HPSI pumps. p LPSI Pumps-l The LPSI pumps are not required during recirculation. However, for small breaks, it is possible that they would be used for shutdown cooling.,

The LPSI pumps are used in this mode. The pump vendor has confirmed that particulate matter 0.250 inches in diameter will have no detrimental effect on operation of the LPSI pumps. t. Reactor Core j. In the reactor core, the location of the smallest flow area (the .potentially limiting flow area) occurs at the fuel spacer grid-fuel rod l intersections. FSAR Section 4.2.2.1, FSAR Table 4.2-1, and FSAR Figures l 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 (Reference 2) depict the configuration and dimensions of I the fuel spacer grids. By design, particulate matter up to 0.090 inches l in size will not become lodged in this area. It should be noted that i i avoidance of the potential for flow blockage in the reactor core was the principal design basis considered in the sizing of the SIS Susp screen. The distance between fuel spacer grids on a fuel assembly is i approximately 15 inches. Berefore, even given the unrealistic l assumption that at the spacer grid-fuel rod intersection paint coating l - blockage did occur, there would be cross flow in the regions of the fuel t i assembly where there is no fuel spacer grids, and therefore there would 1 j be adequate cooling of the core. l Finally, an experimental and analytical program, described in FSAR ] Section 4.2.3.2.16 (Reference 2), was conducted to determine the effects l of fuel assembly coolant flow saldistribution during normal reactor operation. De program and results included the following: l a) The assembly inlet flow maldistribution caused by blockage of a core support plate flow hole. Evaluation of the flow recovery data indicated that even the complete blockage of a core support j plate flow hole would not produce a Waterford-3, Burnout Heat {- Flux Correlation, DNBR of less than 1.0 even though the reactor ~Y might be operating at a power sufficient to produce a DNBR of 1.3 without the blockage. i i l i i i f : [ a --..~.

b) The flow maldistribution within the assembly caused by complete blockage of one to nine channels was also evaluated. Flow distributions were measured at positions upstream and downstream j of a blockage of one to nine channels. The influence of the blockage diminished very rapidly in the upstream direction. Analysis of the data for a single channel blockage indicated that such a blockage would not produce a Waterford-3 DNBR of less than 1.0 downstream of the blockage even though the reactor might be operating at a power sufficient to produce a DNBR of 1.3 without the blockage. I The experimental and analytical program demonstrated that, even at normal power conditions, the influence of blockage in the core diminishes very

rapidly, i

i

t IX. EVALUATION OF SECONDARY EFFECTS OF COATING FAILURE ON BOP EQUIPMENT For the purpose of this portion of the analysis it is assumed that paint particles, of sizes less than 0.078 inches pass through the screen and l enter the SIS and CSS. The following is an evaluation of the impact of this paint intrusion on components of these systems. 4 Following a LOCA or MSLB, fluid escaping from the primary or secondary system break or discharged by the CSS, will accumulate in the SIS Susp and the lower level of the Containment. This water will contain any l failed paint that would be removed from its original location by either the environmental conditions present within the RCB and/or the impingement of fluid. The recirculation mode would transport paint particles that pass through the screens to the HPSI and CSS pumps for reinjection into the RCS and Containment, respectively. To ensure a complete evaluation, the LPSI pumps and SDCS have been included since their operation is conceivable during long-tera post-LOCA operations. There are various types of equipment that are utilized in these systems. l They are i valves (sate, globe, check, butterfly and stop-check) i t pumps (vertical and horizontal centrifugal) i l heat exchangers miscellaneous (orifices / flow elements, spray nozzles, vortez breakers and instrumentation). i l t Each of the above items have been evaluated for detrimental effects caused by the transported paint. The paint particles are not expected to present any erosion problems for any of the material in the equipment identified above (for erosion to take place it is necessary to have high j. flow velocity and some concentration of very hard abrasive particles in { the flow. - none of these conditions are present in the system following l LOCA)., m r

Concerning the potential of blockage due to an accunulation of paint, it is expected that particle settling will occur only in areas of low velocity. Based on this, flow blockage is not expected to occur in the individual pipelines or within any of the valves or pumps. The flow velocity within the tubes of the Shutdown Heat Exchanger is sufficiently f high to avoid plugging. Paint particles could accumulate in the low i velocity section of the heat exchanger's channel heads. However, this would not be detrimental as the buildup would not exceed the height of the tube openings on the tube sheet. Once the paint buildup approached this height, it would leave the low velocity region and thus be exposed to higher flow velocity. The Containment Spray Nozzle is not susceptible to blockage since the 4 I nozzle throat diameter is much greater than the paint particle (i.e., 0.375" is much greater than 0.078"). The vortex breaker is composed of grating plates of nimilar size to the sump trash rack. Each opening is approximately 1/2" x 1-1/4" and would not be susceptible to blockage. Instrumentation tafs are taken from the sides or top of the piping. Therefore, particle settling would not occur. Also, since the fluid in i these lines is stagnant, particle transportation required for blockage 4 2 conditions in the lines, would not occur. All orifices and flow elements are provided with bore sizes that greatly exceed the particle size that can pass through the screena. Another potential detrimental effect that can be attributed to failed coating is the loss of heat transfer through the Shutdown Heat Exchanger. In the in*.tial phases of an accident heat from the i Containment is removed by cooling the SIS Sump water before it is redischarged via the CSS. Cooling is accomplished at the Shutdown Heat I Exchanger where heat from the SIS Sump water is transferred to the Component Cooling Water' System via the tube material. Any fouling of the tubes would reduce the performance of the heat exchanger. Since the ~# j paint is not expected to decompose and the flow through the tubes is j ralatively high, no significant particulate fouling is expected. i l i 4 e.

- ~ LAlso considered was the potential for a loss of equipment performance due to paint particle transport. This would include loss of function and equipment damage. All valves have been reviewed to determine if an accumulation of paint could impair valve operation. The only valve type that could be affected is the gate valve. This valve has an area, known as the crotch, which could be susceptible to sediment accumulation. The crotch is located directly opposite the stem and accepts the outer portion of the disc as the valve is closed. If this area were significantly blocked, the disc could be prevented from fully seating and result in a partially open valve. This event could only occur if valve was open for an extended duration and then be required to close. A review of th's affected systems has shown that there are no gate valves, that are required to close after being open. All pumps have been examined for possible detrimental effects due to paint transportation. The Containment Spray Pumps were designed to pass particles of up to 1/4 inch in diameter. Each pump is provided with oil lubricated bearings. The mechanical seal water supply line is provided with an abrasive separator to remove particulates from the seal water. If a failure of the separator is assumed, the seal would either be exposed to abrasive fluid or a loss of sealing fluid. However, considering the design and construction of the seals, complete pump degradation or failure is unlikely. E I* M 1 I l \\ l l

X. 'NPSH AVAILABLE TO HPSI AND CS PUMPS NPSH evaluations assuming the clogging of SIS Sump screens have been previously performed, and the results of these evaluations have demonstrated that adequate NPSH is available to ensure proper operation of the HPSI and CS pumps. These evaluations are documented in the responses to NRC Questions 211.64 and 211.10 (Reference 2) and FSAR Sections 6.2.2.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2.2.3. (Reference 2). A basis for the NPSH information documented in the foregoing questions and sections is a full-scale hydraulic model test that was performed by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories (WCHL). i The test conducted by WCHL was a 1:1 scale model of the Waterford 3 SIS Sump, intakes, screen cage, and all containment geometry significantly affecting the approach flow conditions. The head lost tests were conducted with the top screen completely blocked and with 50 percent of the vertical screens blocked. Based on the WCIU., tests the maximum screen loss was found to be 0.098 f t. at 11,780 GPM flow and 50 percent screen blockage. For post LOCA recirculation mode, only the operation of the CS pump and the HPSI pump is required with the combined flow rate of 3140 GPM capacity. This flow is substantially less than the 11,780 GPM flow used to determine the maximum screen loss. Since the head loss through the screen is proportional to velocity head, measured screen loss can be extrapolated to 3140 GPM flow and 90 percent blocked screen, by the calculation shown here: Screen loss = ( 3,14 0)2 (0.098), (.9)2 0.0225 ft. (11,780)2 (.5)2 Thus, 0.0225 ft. is the screen loss at 90 percent blocked screen and 3140 GPM flow (the screen loss with 11,780 GPM flow and 90 percent screen -~ blockage is 0.317 ft.). 1 I

i e y The NPSH required and NPSH available are shown here, see FSAR Sections 6.2.2.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2.2.3 (Reference 2), for the CS and the HPSI pumps: } '; Pump Flow (GPM) NPSH (Available) NPSH Required Percent Margin CS 2250 27.27 14 94.8 25.35 18 40.8 HPSI 890 The NPSH margins available for the CS and HPSI pumps are 94.8 percent and 40.8 percent. Thus, the calculated screen loss of 0.0225 f t. represents an insignificant 0.2 percent of the NPSH available for the CS pump and even less for the HPSI pump. Therefore, 90 percent blockage of the SIS Sump screen has a minimal effect on pump NPSH. e 9 4 o i l v w ee e= I 26 - f 1

XI. INSULATION INSIDE CONTAINMENT Type and Description There are four types of insulation used inside the Containment. They are: 1. Metal Reflective, I l 2. Metal Encapsulated,- 3. Fiberglass Insulation Bacapsulated with glass cloth, and 4. Radiant Energy Shield (fire wrap). The metal reflective insulation is built of stainless steel panels. The panels consist of interior and exterior sheets. The exterior sheets are 24 gage austenitic steel, type 304. The interior material is three layers per inch of 0.002 inch thick waffled, type 304, stainless steel sheets. This insulation is manufactured by Transco..This insulation is attached, to the surface to be insulated, using either of two methods. One method is buckle fasteners (positive lock-quick release buckle fasteners). The other method is by using stainless steel, #14, self-tapping screws. It is estimated'that the total area of metal reflective insulation is approximately 3,500 square feet. This insulation is used on the Reactor Vessel, Reactor Head and Reactor Coolant Pumps. The second type of insulation is metal encapsulated. This insulation consists of Owens-Corning inner material and Transco's encapsulating material. Owene-Corning identifies this insulation as.TIW Type II, FG (fiberglass) encapsulated. This material conforms to the property requirements of government specifications: HH-1-558B (Amendment 3), Form B-Blanket and Felt Flexible, Type I Blankets, Flexible, Class 7 and 8; MIL-1-24244-Chemical Requirements and USCG 164.009/135/2. Transco provides the encapsulation material for the fiberglass insulation. The fiberglass is totally encapsulated. The method of attachment is buckle t l I i l. -.

fasteners (positive lock-quick release buckle fasteners). The construction of the totally encapsulated modules is exactly the same as for the reflective-type, except that non-reflective insulation (fiberglass) is used inside. It is estimated that approximately 7,400 linear feet of insulation is supplied for piping while another 15,000 square feet of insulation is supplied for equipment. This insulation is applied to the Steam Generators. Pressurizer and skirt, Regenerative Heat Exchanger and Quench Tank in addition to various piping systems. The third type of insulation is a fiberglass insulation fully encapsulated with glass cloth. 1he fiberglass cloth material is referred to as a Temp Mat insulation as manufactured by Alpha Company. This " donut" or " flexible collar" insulation is tied around the 91 CEDM j nozzles and 10 instrumentation nozzles. The collars are held together using two (2) levels of stainless steel wire. It is estimated that approximately 155 linear feet of this type of insulation is used inside Containment. The last type of insulation is the radiant energy shield. This shield is a ] a fire resistant ceramic fiber blanket fully encapsulated within a high j silica content fabric mesh. Final assembly includes an interior liner of fiberglass mat. The encapsulation is accomplished by joining outer layers with a quartz thread and a reinforced nylon thread. The radiant energy shield is formed by wrapping the assembly about conduit or electrical cable trays by the use of galvanized metal frames and is attached with galvanized threaded bolts and screws. It is estimated that approximately 200 linear feet of radiant energy shield is used inside Containment. ? Debris Generation i All four types of insulation are designed to remain intact when exposed to containment Spray, the only mechanism that would dislodge the insulation is jet impingement from a pipe break..-

All metal materials from the insulation will sink. In addition, the smallest metal part (rivet) has a diameter of 1/8 inch, this is larger than the fine screens (0.078 in). Although the fiberglass and ceramic mats may be lighter than water, the individual fibers have a specific gravity of at least 2.0 and thus would sink. In addition, individual fiberglass and ceramic filaments are approximately 5 mils in diameter. Therefore, although individual fibers could pass through the SIS Sump screens they would have no effect on SIS or CSS equipment. 4 Jet Impingement 0 I A review of the jet impingement drawings was conducted. None of the 1 Jets' destruction areas (7L/D criteria of NUREG-0897, Rev.1-Draft) are within the near field of the SIS Sump. Therefore, the results of the subject report remain valid considering the 7L/D criterion. i FSAR Figures 1.2-17 through 1.2-22 (Reference 2) provide General Arrangement Plans and Sections of the Reactor Building. As depicted by these figures, the RCS is surrounded with reinforced concrete. Also, the Main Steam Lines are more than 50 ft. horizontally and 50 ft. vertically from the SIS Sump, and there are intervening structures. 4 I FSAR Figures 1.2-18 and 1.2-20 (Reference 2) show blowout areas by each Reactor Coolant Pump. However, the closest break is more than 15 ft. j vertically and more than 35 ft. horizontally (around corners) from the i SIS Sump. Conclusion Although a pipe break with its resulting jet impingement cone could dislodge insulation, the insulation would sink and thus could not blo:k

the SIS Sump. In addition, no jet impingement cone would generate insulation debris near the SIS Sump. Therefore, there is no potential for SIS Sump blockage due to insulation debris.

l L

XII. IMPACT OF PAINI ON TSP BASKETS Postulated paint blockage of the TSP baskets is not expected to have any adverse effect since the TSP is expected to be substantially dissolved prior to the recirculation mode. TSP is used as a pH control agent for water circulated within containment following a LOCA. Borcted water from containment spray and safety injection tanks characteristically exhibit a pH below 5. TSP is utilized to raise and stabilize the pH to approximately 7 to reduce the possibility of chloride stress corrosion cracking. FSAR Figure 6.1-1 (Reference 2) shows the length of time necessary to reach a pH of 7 is between 2-3 hours depending on the boron concentration in the containment spray. The FSAR data was conservatively calculated using a water temperature of 120*F in the SIS Sump. Combustion Engineering has measured the dissolution rate of TSP in water under conditions much more conservative than would be encountered during Containment Spray System operation. TSP granules were compressed under a pressure of 20,000 psi into cylindrical pellets having dimensions of 0.53 inches in diameter by 0.78 inches in length and having a bulk density of 3 1.65 gm/cm, which is higher than the density of the crystalline TSP. This form of TSP has a lower surface area to volume ratio and lower solubility than the bulk chemical, so it represents a conservative form E for testing the rate of dissolution. In stagnant water at 85'F, the pellets dissolved in 375 seconds. At 200*F, dissolution time was reduced to 250 seconds. The report concludes that dissolution rate of TSP increases with temperature, and for granular TSP, the rate is almost instantaneous. FSAR Section 6.1.3 (Reference 2) indicates that the CS water will dissolve the TSP within 3 hours following CSAS, with approximately 1 ? j one-fourth dissolved during the injection mode. Even if the top and outward faces of the TSP baskets were to be completely covered with coating particles and flowthrough action were inhibited, it is evident from the solubility data that so long as the TSP is in contact with

vater, even in completely stagnant water, it will dissolve, and within a short period of time. Further, chloride stress corrosion cracking is a long-term effect. Even if partial blockage of the TSP beskets caused an increase in the time required to reach a pH of 7, the relative times involved would not decrease the effectiveness of the #1 control system. G

Q-W _-

= ~ XIII. TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE Surveillance and testing measures have already been implemented by LP&L. I As stated in Section III, the containment coatings are substantially qualified. Previously identified coating deficiencies have been evaluated, and corrective measuras have been taken, including a thorough inspection of coating systems and repair of all deficient areas in accordance with approved specifications and procedures pursuant to ANSI N101.2, N5.12, and N101.4. i Also, as stated in Section III, an in situ test of the containment coating was conducted by Ebasco. D e testing simulated DBA conditions in the containment and applied borated water, simulating the containment ~ spray solution. De testing demonstrated the integrity of the coating system. 1 i 4 + S 't l 1

REFERENCES 1. Report by Gibbs & Hill, Inc. for Texas Utilities Generating Company, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station " Evaluation and Insulation Debris Effects on Containment Emergency Sap Performance," Revision 1, October 1984. 2. Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Final Safety Analysis Report, Eocket No. 50-382. 3. Report by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories, LTD for Ebasco Services, Inc., Louisiana Power & Light Company, Waterford Unit No. 3 "Model Testing of the Safety Injection Sump," June 1982. (Submitted to NRC via LP&L Letter W3P82-1755, dated June 28, 1982). d 4. NUREG/CR-2791, " Methodology for Evaluation of Insulation Debris Effects," September 1982. 5. LP&L Letter W3P85-0130, dated January 17, 1985. 6. LP&L Letter W3P85-0449, dated February 27, 1985. 7. " TEMPEST. A Three-Dimensional Time-Dependent Computer Program for Hydrothermal Analysis," Battelle, PNL-4348 Vol. 1, Septenber 1983. J l.

TABLE 1 CONTAINMENT COATING MATERIALS ASSUMED TO FAIL Coated Primer and Thickness Dry Density Approximate ' Surface Topcoat * (mils) (1bm/ gal) Area (sq ft) Carbon steel exposed Dimetcote E-Z 2-7 16.0 275,825 to primary containment Dimetcote 6 2-7 16.0 atmosphere uninsulated Amercoat 71 2-18 11.0 piping, structural main Amercoat 90 5-11 11.0 equipment Containment vessel dome Carbozine 11 2-5 21.3 30,788 Phenoline 305 5-7 11.0 Miscellaneous touch up ZRC cold 3-4 17.8 8,000 on galvanized steel galvanizing compound Dimetcote E-Z, Dimetcote 6, Amercoat 71, and Carbozine 11 are Primers; Amercoat 90 and Phenoline 305 are Topcoats. Only one primer was used on any surface in preparing a surface for the application of a topcoat. 'i. i Page 1 of 1 l

1 -l

O 'o 3

s*Y f 7 je'1%. i s :, a ran sT ,\\ QUACRAwT \\ t QUAotANT M {w,g"/* SEcowo 4.[ \\ m ? !.,,,,,. ;. wp N S Y; fg 'i. 12 f lf \\ d 1',,- wo-n -r--, t,- r-, i q, V///i'/i FM/tiY//- t'b u /h7' //// 4 i utstion - ] ~ f / l s n.co g; . *'f* - 1 *..;C s3 lj l - - -15 ;o, pp TwRO o l,, // QVADRANT. f f, 3..~ [ h. QuAceauT POVRTH t. v 43, s f o / 7;

t

Det ~.

/ ~' + ~yf yft lq / / s;'i -; ydfs / ' ' < MB .s I =I _2 i r i

7..

.9: LOUIStANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. SIS SUMP Waterford Steam FAR FIELD EFFECTS 1 Electric Station

I Vo a V ', t e s 4 4 W v W y u t i 4 i LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. SIS SUMP Waterford Steam CHIP MOTION WITH CONSTANT ANGLE 2 Electric Station

\\ 3.4Z' . 2 04' t.47' WATER SURFACE i PAINT PATH 6 - 6.0 ' g6 0 TSP BASKET I / l I I ]S / /, / / l - 11. o ' /d .75' I. 0'

A.

LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. SIS SUMP 1 l Waterford Steam NEAR FIELD EFFECTS 3 Electric Station l l

j i s i WALL. uc.T i / E iu / j. i l 8 0 / /' x'e _f .i 3 = 8 9 9 9 l '[ 3*.6 a'; //0-i 17'6" j- / l i l ), \\ '_-5 Twine.. / I WALL I. / i [ / M I i .1 / s e OPENtWG i / i -6 I o / {' {. !s \\ ,/ g y I BEAM M- ? [ i N a,/ YN __ / { SUMP SCREEk1 I .g LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. SIS SUMP Woferford Steam PLAN VIEW 4 Electric Station -.. - - - l

e l'LCf AT TIME = 3000.8200hCS es/2sitt tra*tst vt' stem L:en:*tattt JJa sees as: e caratt; ct: 1984 mrm Sties to e f4 i e,.. u* 4, f f.,,, m' 6 A 4 4, i !** l' l'l lel lvl lv ' 1, I t in r r 1

1: ;

i4 ,s an i f e i w k e i f s .-~ ~ uer = 1 f T_ 4 i 8 4 e -r.. y,., i ej l8l jsj l8l lsl l, a f 8 e 4 = o,., ~ oo E$ ~ I e 0.00 27.2E LOUISIANA 3 D ANALYSIS POWER & LIGHT CO. UNBLOCKED SIS SUMP SCREENS - HORIZONTAL 5 Waterford Steam ELEVATION - 10.5' Electric Station

1 m

L:t 47 !!ME
tim ts: ef* sten Leaa:.3 *.6E ChCS r-e tart: Ja note=== 4 tu et: ct; so,e ms. ct.eeise ca.asi,s

.= f4 j t i i f f 'f i. 4 4 4 j j i '* 4 4 s t t t il 1 4 3 p ; ; ;- i $ i f* 4 ,r,,, e_ i i i i 48 g i ) p 9 99 9 0 .e. "I r i i

9 t

4.

o i

s ss +s4 +.. s ~. 4 & b bb b s g A 6 6 DD 4 s s e e. me s" e" *" ,, i.,, s, e e } g g. t c'. ct. 2 . -- ~ ---.- Figure LOUISIANA 3-D ANALYSIS POWER & LIGHT CO. UNBLOCKED SIS SUMP SCREENS - HORIZONTAL 6 Wateriord Steam ELEVATION - 3.0* Electric Station

i m 16tE *0 = XbWA e-a ( f f F y g v v 4 e f f v g } v v v 9 L v, v v g v 4 1 4 4 \\ i T T 4 4 1 k 2 v 4 4 4 w 4 4 4 4 4 ~ ) g v 4 4 4 4 l I i 4 4 4 4 X g 4 4 4 4 4 I v 4 4 4- = .,I Ti. 14 4 4 4 4 a. 4 4 g; 4 4 4 a r 1 4 1 y g Y Y A Y b "E w 4 4 4 4 A .y e o tu o s i t.t z t 00'O i LOUl51ANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. 3 D ANALYSIS Waterford Steam UNBLOCKED SIS SUMP SCREENS-VERTICAL 7 Electrie Station 4 m -<+m. -m m- ,,w.

l e e 0 e e S o8I Oeyv s E$y..h47E0 'g "g n i L I

b* 3 Eo k sg = 3 T.

gC *.. . {' 9' E ,,A A A A A A A A A A A A 4 y g> y 4 y 4 4 g 4 A. j A ~ 7 7 y , 4 6 > u,. 4 e' t 1 f V V 1 i W d A y 1 = w W e I ll 4 4 A A 4 O 8 A 4 O 4. t L9 O' 'A .l'N 4 4 4 4 3 O 4 4 f

b b

A ws t l 6, s 4 A 0 0 4 S 4 4 f A 4 It X U~ W A 4 A 4 4 l A t6i 9 g A A A 4 4 F l r J V V y V W 1 4 A 1 4 F ,J 4 4 n n 4 u y r W 4 T A 4 4 A d V A W g s 3A A A T s .. 4 h F g t k y A t A A A A 4 -

l 4 4
h F

F F t y y A A A j A A y O G O' ' d oo NN "m JO5G{4 % a. O 4z(_2Fm~m a.o% woe Jg2 8, e ~. s m,hMwO _m M ngGwwZmiZoEUO 4 o 8 k.B= aT J.8 W h<*_Oz I "de. i 8 w2Eru j... ir [ '\\

l m~ sstt o =xpr -n N l d i } } l 4 d + 4 } d + + 4 I I I I l 4 4 d 4 4 d y a s ?. 4 4 A e 4 I i a + + i s y I a f f i e a + f f I + f. f d v y f f = j! 4

5 4

I i ( / / g,l = 4 4 4 s -r v 4 E! o Ei o "d b l 1 i Lt *Et 00'0

=-

LOUISIANA Figure j POWER & LIGHT CO. 3-D ANALYSIS g Waterford Steam BLOCKED SIS SUMP SCR EENS - VERTICAL Electric Station ,--,-r ,, - -. - ~ ~ - s. -, - - - ~,

1 i 9 4 i O g 6 9 e e ATTACHMENT 1 SAMPLE TEST REPORTS - CARBOLINE COMPANY E e 'e

v <.+., i :,. .?.. \\ LABORATORY TEST REPORT w 3 r { October 1.1973/Page 1 TESTING PROJECT: 01228 Finst Reuort: 11 days. 2-3/4 hours

SUBJECT:

Evaluation of the Carboline and AB Alfort & Cronholm water-based epoxy surfacers for application in Nuclear Primary Containment cmploying the ANSI N101.2-1972 PWR Containment, BWR Dry Well and BWR Suppression Chamber Composit Curve.

REFERENCE:

Swedish Government Agency, Mr. Lars Thureson: Mr. H. D. Tarlas: ANSI N101.2-1972. PURPOSE: Comparison of the performance of the Alero Betongspackcl and Carbolinc X2191-158 water-based epoxy surfaccrs, each

being topcoated with Standard Phenoline 305 and develop-mental water-based epoxy finishes, after exposure to the time-temperature curve specified in the referenced test exposure and evaluated according to ANSI N101.2-1972 Section 4.5.

CONCLUSION: After completion of this 11-day, 2-3/4 hour test exposure, it can be concluded that:

1. The Carboline X2191-158 water-based epoxy surfacer has an excellent performance when topcoated.

2. The Alcro Betongspackel has an unacceptable perform-ance when topconted with cither of the two water-based epoxy finishes.

3. The Alero Betongspackel has an acceptable performance when topcoated with Phenoline 305 or Carboline 195 Surfaccr.

PROCEDURE: A. Test.Couoon 2" x 5" x la Clean Concrete Block .7 \\ t From tiie Casbolino nescarch & Development Laboratory

v.....,... i 4... t.... h.d...... a...........i. b.... i.. t o.. :. a... u,.....

m...- i r-- n q .,..............,......,.,i..d. cno lae1 nc i t- : 1 :--.- ~ ~.~.>..~. ,r-

_~_

o '. '

.\\ d*J ? * * * .... \\ LABORATORY TEST REPORT f D ~ { October 1,1973/Page 2 TESTING PROJECT: 01228 Final Report: 'll days. 2-3/4 hours PROCEDURE: " Continued" B. Systems Tested

Total Dry Film Thickness (DFT)

1. Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 25 - 35 h!il o

2. Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 2c. Carboline X2191-149 (High Build water-based epoxy finish) 25 - 35 hill

3. Ic Betongspackel 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 25 - 35 htil

4. Ic Detongspackle Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 10 - 60 hill

5. Ic Betongspackle Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 2c Carboline X2191-149 40 - 60 hill

6. Ic Betongspackle 2c Carboline X2191-149 25 - 35 hill

7. Ic Detongspackle 2c Carboline X2191-154 (Glossy water-based epoxy finish) 25 - 35 hill

8. Ic Carboline X2191-158 (water-based epoxy surfaccr) 2e Phenoline 305 Finish 25 - 35 h!il

9. Ic Carboline X2191-158 2c Carboline X2191-149 25 - 35 htil s

~ ~

10. Ic Carboline X2191-158 2c Carboline X2191-154 23 - 33 hill

~ From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory N } t 6...,6. :..: 4.. e....h 4....... d....... e. 6, b... i... t o.. I, d s. n....... F w rr.s ctwboIi:3e ..........i......,........ni.4.

m.. =.,.i u-j

^ ^

- y

.\\ .[.: ',.'. LABORATORY TEST REPORT .e-

f 3

TESTING PROJECT: 01228 Final Report: 11 days. 2-3/4 hours PROCEDURE: " Continued"

NOTE:

All film thickness values were obtained by measuring the Wet Film Thickness immediately after application of the coating and calculating the Dry Film Thickness from the Percent Solids for the material being applied. Please refer to Coatine Application in the " Discussion of Results". C. Cure Schedule Carboline 195 Surfaccr. 2 wecks + at R.T. Phenoline 305 Finit.h. 24 hrs. at R.T. between coats Carboline X2191-149. 24 hrs, at R.T. between costs Betongspackle. I week at R.T. Carboline X2191-154, 24 hrs, between coats Carboline X2191-156, 2 weeks at R.T. After appilcation of all the coating systems had been completed. they p received a final cure of 4 days at Room Temperature, followed by 2 days at 130*F. D. Exposure ~ ' ANSI N101.2. BWR-PWR: a, Water Chemistry: 1 liter demincralized water solution containing 17.3g Boric Acid 15.3g Sodium Thiosulfate and 6g Sodium !!ydroxide. b. Time-Temperature-Pressure Profile: Time Lapse Temperature Pressure 1second 260'F 35 psig 10 seconds 295'F 55 psig I min. 40 sec. 280*F 59 psig 16 min. 40 s'ce. 255cF 58 psig 2 hrs. 47 min. 245'F 30 psig 27 hrs. 47. min. 220'F 19 psig ,[ 5 days 180'F 17 psig Il days. 2 hrs.. s 40 min. 150'F 16 psig O From the Carboline Hescarch Se Development Laboratory

16... 6 6.. s... s..... k. 4....... a......... %. 6.... #... u... s.. H.......

F " ----m ,i..d. c n e'b o Ii n c ! y.~. :.-< ::v1 r.v.e*, _ =. :=

.,,..*. ','/ *, .j,. LABORATORY TEST REPORT ( D ~ TEST 1' G PROJECT: 01228 Final Re port: 11 days 2-3/4 hours PROCEDURE: "Contidued"

NOTE:

The samples were removed from the test exposure after 27 hrs. 47 min. and evaluated for an interim report. The coupons having an unacceptable performance were removed at this time, and the remaining samples returned to the test chamber for completien of the required time-temperature profile. o GRADING PROCEDURE: The test coupons were evaluated fer performance in the following areas:

1. !.laterial flaking off

2. Delamination between coats and/or peeling

3. Blistering of the topcoat

4. Chalking of the coating

5. Excessive cracking h

Grading procedures specified in Report I:101.2-1972 cf the American !;ational Standar:!s Institute-Protective Coatings for Light Water Nuclear Reacter Con-tainment Facilitics: 4.5 Methods of Examininu and Evaluatine the Exocsed Test Snee! mens The dynamic and/or static elevated temperature pressure and irradiation test panels shall be evaluated within 2 hours and again after 2 wechs a. iter removal from the test chamber for the following stirface defects: ilakin g, delamination and/or peeling blistering, and chalking. Defects listed in Subsections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 shall be dealt with as follows: 4.5.1 Flakinc. ASTM D772. Evaluating Degree of Resistence to Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints. Part 21. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Flaking shall not be permitted. ( 4.5.2 Delamination and/or Peeling. Delaminaticn and/or pceling shall not be permitted. 4.5.3 Blliitering. Blistering shall be limited to a few, intact blisters. Size No. 4. ASTM D714. Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering l of Paints. Part 21. American Society of Testing and Materials. Ph!!adelphia, Pa. 19103. The number and the size of blisters shcIl be recorded. b From the Carbolino Research & Development Laboratory ( ) ........... s......,.........., s...... 4 6.... s.. 6... i 4.. s....... t h... e k....i J.. e.....i 4.....,4.. pm, u: ee r4 yggg y - - -. - :- :.:.....

,i. . r i.

i-LABORATORY TEST REPORT s

3 F h October 1.1973/Page 5 TESTING PROJECT: 01228 Final Report: 11 days. 2-3/4 hours GRADING PROCEDURE: " Continued" 4.5.4 Chalkine. ASTM D659. Standat d Method of Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Chalking of Exterior Paints. Part 21. American Society of Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Heavy chalking shall not be permitted.

Any other changes in coating properties which are not also associated with the separation, or the release, of coating from the substrate sha!! not Le the cause for rejection.

ANSI Criteria N101.2-1972 Flaking ASTM D772 30 Delamination or Pecling None D!istering ASTM D714 4F l Chalking ASTM D659 Light (8) l l NOTE: Flaking is graded according to ASTM D772 with a rating of 10 indicating no Oaking was observed. 1 m s r b From the Cosbolino rter.carr.h T. Dnvelopment 1.nbonitory 4..s...... 4.......d........ i. is. 6..ei...n...i.4,. H....... A m " m.:--r.. % I e np)mllna

9. i. ka...

.,.........s....,.........,,.i.4.

-~ . - _ - - ~. -. _... - _.. - ~ - - - _ ~ _ _ _ - - - - ~. - f Octoteer 1.1973/ Pag;c 6 ] ggg.g.g.g. N. Dry Film Delamination I Performance . ~ ~ n. .ki Coatine System Thickness Flaking and/or Peeling Blistering Chalking Evaluation None. 10 10 Acceptable 1. Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 15-25 mils 10 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 5 mils /et. y 2. Ic Carboline !?5 Surfacer 15-25 mils 30 None 10 10 Acceptable i,-- n 2c Carboline X2191-149 5 mils /ct. Not, l. 2j 53. Ic Betongspackle 15-25 kiils 10 None le 10 Acceptable

{

3 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 5 mils /et. g 4. Ic Betoncspackle 15-25 mils 10 None le 10 Acceptable Ic Carboline 195 Surfacer 15-25 mils 3 i n ~ ~ 3'I E 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 5 mils /ct. g o_ 5. Ic Betongspackle 15-25 mils 10 None 10 10 Acceptable s cr K: j le Carboline 195 Surfacer 15-25 mils 2c Carbei%c X2191-149 5 mils /ct. Note 1. l j 2 a 6. le Betongspackle 15-25 mils 10 Severe delamina-Extensive & 10 Not Accept. r 8 2c Carboline X2191-149 5 mils /ct. tien of the large blister-able P,etongspackle ing of entire Note 2. E coupon

- o c

7. Ic Actongspackle 15-25 mits kloder-Severe delam. Severe blist. 10 Not Accept-2c Carboline X2191-154 5 mils /ct. ate

r. peel of the of entire cou-able F

i a I Betongspackle pon. not in-Note 2. ~ e o lact. g = lS. Ic Carboline X2191-158 15-25 mits 10 Nonc 10 10 Acceptable O 31 y 2c Phenoline 305 Finish 5 mils /ct. Ic Carboline X2191-158 15-25 mils 10 None 10 10 Acceptable, I .I S 9. c-2c Carboline X2191-149 5 mils /ct. Note 1. !10. Ic Carboline X2191-158 15-25 mils 10 i:one RSF. intact 10 Acceptable .D I over10*.of l is 2c Carboline X2191-154 4 mils /ct. the surface q -c 10 None 4F (, m f

.- 3 ~

I ote 1. TI.cre was a slight to moderate softening of the X2191-149 water based topcoat immediately after the re-I Acceptable Performance l .][ mos al of the coupon from immersion in the test solution. After cooling down to ambient temperature this m JC softness was no longer evident. (Re: 01228 o ( Note 2. These sarspies were removed from test after the initial 27 hrs. 47 min. of the exposure. O. - 2 2, Interim Report) } G

rb.

N Ei ~~

f...,

..a. ', M.s, t.5 Y LABORATORY TEST REPORT .tg ( 3 TING PROJECT: 01228 Final Reuert: 11 days 2-3/4 hours DISCUSSION OF REGULTS: Coating Application The Betongspackle and Carboline 195 Surfacer samples were sanded to a relatively smooth finish after each application. Areas on the panels where the sanding exposed the concrete received a touch-up with the topcoat which was to be applied. o After the second coat of Phenoline 305 Finish had been applied to samples 1.) and 3.), the coupons were touched-up by brushing on Phenoline 305 Finish to fill voids resulting from the uneven application of the sus facer.' This additional spot application of Phenoline 305 Finish did ng affect the overall performance of the systems. Costine Performnnec The Betongspackel Surfacer had an acceptable performance only when top-coated with a Phenoline 305 or Carboline 195 Surfacer. The apparent reason for this is the 195 and.405 have good water resistance and moisture does not penetrate to the Betongspackle. The water resistance. however, of the water-based topcoats is not as good and moisture penetrates to the Betongspackel, causing it to severely soften and crack. Please refer to Testing Project 01228. Interim Report for a photograph of each test coupon after exposure to the initial 27-3/4 hours of the specified test criteria. (~

&. m/./

~ 'O ./..<. Daniel R. Leritz' Testing Department DRJ rg 049/959/674/981/979/569/467/050 ,, OR: Testing Department ' XC: SLL/RRR/llDT/JFM/EWS/JDD/ Gild /SLS/JitL/ Lab Group Leaders / File o From the Caibolino Research & Development Lnhosatory j

v.,...... : 4... s. 4.i., J........ a........ e, ise 6.... #.. 6... i. <.. H.......

,,, m om.g a....,.e.......,..........p.4. cc *bolIt1t I s... .....'. o '

s .-) LACORATORY TEST REPORT I. * ' . ' (1) 3' ' ( ('# Tl!E ATTACllED Pl!OTOGPAPl!S S!!OW EACl! SYSTEM AFTER Tl!EY IIAVE BEE!! T EXPOSED TO Ti!E I:iITIAL TEST CitITEltIA Ill Tl!IS EPOI:T. Tl!EP.E IS EO"*II A TOP VIEW A!!D A SIDE VIEW OF EI.CI! TEST COUPON. Tile Pl!OTOG!tAPilS AP.E 1;UMBCP.ED TO COI!! CIDE WITl! T!!E SYSTEMS AS T!!EY ARE DISUCSSED I!!. l THE REPORT. b~ ,6 6 C.A!.80LINE CCV.PA'M (i I. ......w*. ) O le 195 g 2c 305 " * * - " ' * * *. =

4 l

L .i / \\- i .. s.,w .,, y .l p e s .,) A .*l ... _.... ~. _.... E. '. ;,.,., '.t.,. s., 0,T,"U %...<,s'~*"'""~~'.i-i s. .a _,..- a.. -, - ,. / r.* g '3,(( s

j

.\\ \\ .1 g ., e

1,h.

5 v, y$a . N. "*._...... 9..,.7 .r...,. 7 y -, -.,.... i ( .t. a. s. 6.. e ,8 {.,t CAfttOtti.C COMI'Ain 3 .e.. ...a............ .1 .t .? 4 ..s

N.,'; I c 195 2c 305

. /.*; ......s. ..n, i ... i,i '..,. .. c..

f. i.,..'. -r.~ r :,.:.

m u2 m l c C *.,. From the Carbolino nesnarch & Development Laboratory 1 b...he s e. s... r..a i.i. 4 s.......J........ e, it. 6. .e.., L a.. i. 4,.. i t.......

g. v,2.n.:n.4

.................,..........,.ir.4. C.,. I *I 3 O! I l') t. 2 i e .k. '.*.* * ".. *.-~ *.**.V.1 . 4.. ! v e - ~ ~. - ...Q M M -___.N gy. g gg _,, _ _ _,. p, gg m g e g9 e

n 6;g LABORATORY TEST DEPORT gy. ) ( s s. , a -). m -.. - = 4 =* gAggQtlNg gggpANT ,,,..,,......? -].. 6 l -) Ic 195 2c 32191 149 -3 4 L.......- a=.'

p..s.

e' \\.o.-~ r

r. :.1 f

'k. 4$ e a 1; a:. -g .1_ - -l e R ) et .7, ..w r... - s,/1 8 s 4 : q .,...*=.L'... *. .n....... .a.., ,,,,,,g., g s j t .j . ' (* I ,j .t ., 1

i

,.1 a i 8 1 'h 6 j ,) ,q .b.q 8 a .... ^ ,* :j ,' h, t..*. 3 'm........ r.. q.:.. 4 g f; <. 6 CA!: COLIN! Col.tpAny l t 1,.. ...u.,.......... . *i .i 3 *. 1 le 195 g 2e X21gl.149 Y

. t)<

a .t l 3 .t, t 'n f. ','. e..., e.. - --..-w ,? -.w v.tv<. t..... s. (n From the Cmbolino Resitarcit & Developmunt Labointory Th....h 6..iJ...to.a6.heds......d... .....i'.t,.... ...to..i.4 ..it......, g..

. u :..w. 4 2

...........s.....,......... i..d. C ..,,,..... i al l,. i 4 5......

n ('.. \\ LABORATORY TEST REF ORT s (3) ( 3 4 \\. I s y g 3"*CAc.f.0LtN1 COMP At 1 1 ... *

i

.1 .i le D.S. 2c 335 .i l s /. .f'. a;.W

t..j i

~ o l t. a e. y.. s r a m .,.. i,, ;. t- -. - ~, _ _...,,

/

j ,~ .,o. )..s.,. ..\\.. <l A f 6

3.....j.

.e i r i '.< 5 '; s w /.: s f. .t .\\ s. 6... t. '% e*. - *.,.).......,,.,.,,,.y ..,....s. d , CARtOLINE CC1/.Pt.!4Y. s i,.. 6..... 1 ,o i 4 Ic 3.S. t. 2c 305

r. \\

i 4 -wu.,- -. - '.; m. --- ~:....,..., _. a J.. - '.., u. : w g y .t I l W From the Carbotinc Rencoach & Development Laboratory ( ) T i.. i n ko ; c. i.e... s. 4.s. 4 i......,,4........ i. ik. i......., t... i. e,.. H....... g,.:.. : :..:;. ::.., .............u..,........i,pi..d. C a l' 3 O s ! i~s O \\- * -~. :~.*~~* ' T..:.'. :...-s

i i

i

- - "8"'--8
- m m W us.

- em e.m .m w

"(. LAGORATORY TEST REPORT w .( 3 s l _.. _. ',(, o \\ C.at:Ct: fat CCV.PAf4T ,1 .:.g Sc E.S. .].'-] Q.f le 155 ac 3 3', j,*.....i 1 l .a -y .jm a r. e eo i . -, - - * * ' ~ 8, W ~_ i 4 7 7,,,,"** y -. p., ,-?. . --*--r - +[,) ...'.>.4.. a .r t ~., \\ - g ( 1 e a o ' i 4 .a.4 e ..i e. e s .n, 8 L' f / l \\. ~.. i .... ; - -... s.:.._.._ ..sv... s ,.....s. ... e - l

f*

i .) CAtr.0LINE CO.V.PANY I ... s i. 6 c w................ 4 l Ic B.S. i j . 5,' ., ac 195 .n 2c 305 . l, .g i. .c a-.w e.w. ..._ y. i ..r . _ + , sc. r g i O From the Carboline 11cscarch & Development Laborctory l N ) l Ti.... i.o ;.. d... r.,..w. 4 s..... a. e c o.... i ik. 6. .i.. L..t. d.. n....... ,,. - - =.. - - -. = -. ..,,,........r.....,i.......,..,s..d. c, t,.,. c,. e n,, s v.n.-. :. : - ;. : :..

u . g LAGORATORY TEST REPORT s.,... (5). . ( 3 s 0 - g,. .. ~ a. ..v-CAtt,OLINE COMPANT i 4 se n.5-ic 12 *e ' j ac E2191*IO j

,_.a..

.... ~ e r- - -,4 i,. -] i t 1 o 4 1 ( .)n .i I L g-- _m L B- _-a t O . a~.') ,.., w s p --- . = - -re.--

n

.....,s.-... .I s I 1 e t t, t 1 i _T-r.<-ti.:.t:c.:.--.,;'- ~~...

' CAf: 0LINE CO.*APAtlY a

. I 'd av.teve mees = =.:i.e n, s Ic n.s. .- 3 .,s Ic 1% 2e X2191_149 ee . :.I., e..m.. _ m...s.- - - 4

w...

--. m 3 a. - + _.. I _._... O From the Catholine Research & Development Laboratory -( ) The technical done fueaished 1. gene and scevesse to the best el eve Lao ledge. He-ever. p.v..r-.a.%7% no eveeentes el ecceeecy is givea *e ea plied. g 3 g.j; c jjgg g e t--l *;&. - *_-. .? *. r e

O., LACORATORY TEST REPORT 7 s (6) .r h s i f 1 p, v .] c,;.mt.cg ; - j +- .... - g .y 1 l ( T** i te L'.E-A31'I*l49 l 2c s.... . *~- p,....'. .,.r* W t. ,'.j (:4...cq. ".,,3 ..3 .\\ .j s \\ p., t.= = a l l ':'e ' .s .3 N,,, . ~ =* i f 1 ..i yg.- _-Z.' e .c.:..

s..'.;......-...,_.

4

- p 3

'/ t. p. N..~,.s ,..n j -.g .. r L;

e.

v.n

.? t. 1 V. w N.; ./ v. e q A.... .. /. ","M.* rai ;.*_- '".*7 ** * ~ ? */

{,'

CARCOLINE CO!.'.PAny a *****...isa........ j ..i g

[

.? .1 IC 8.5. i, '.,. *,..e X2191 149 2e -:.ti .;i

:!.'g,,

,,.. -- = ,,a .. s

m. w s,se m* m.

i ( ( s. . ~ From the Carboline Roscarcli G Development Laborntory The sechnical Jane tw nist ed is teve esJ ectuente se the boss of eue k.owledge. Howe er, p. r.*: r,r=::. = g. e i l no gwesentee of essesesy is given et s**P sed. gggq)g[j g.yg ; t'.*7.7 :.%.""".".3 T..~.~!~'"*.J .m

d...\\ LADORATORY TEST REPORT m. 3 ( f rr.% - l(o/,l -1 P A'4, Cut,00f*t CCM ..~ n 1 te m.5-l zust-154 q 2, gy / u - - ~~a a . -: --.s p..,

r..,..%

.~~.. . : 4.. s .c,.af. !% ~. ? .\\ -r ,;;.w a-. e. 9{ = c

f..? (

-.U *. n' ~ e

r. m

/ p s,,. .\\ ..,..j / ? i, e ,/ ~ i w../ s. ~ , n... -~., -, -.. r ' r - y 1 [rrS... s a_ O..,, ~ ,. r-3..- d r.- 8 3...* ..~<.;;... e:a. :..~ ' N .. A,. i %y..:. e. c /,.., .:..... i.,.. u..... e r t i a. f

g.,G.... ?

.' r..Y, l .f

i,

,,/.' y;; .* I .mc ..s.- g b, .Fr i g 1 T ': ??. 2.?*D$$'D".". WNY j , j. CA2r.0l!W. cot.'.?At;Y 4 .a 3 , i.* t. - . v..c... s e........ p ... j. Ic D.S. .' s ? 2e X2191 lf,4 e 9 ,a s w,xs,w. m _' ',,,,....,,,,,. _ _ ..1 i ,_.= --.. ____._..._.._.l.._. ..a e .-m l From the Casboline Rescacch & Development Laboratory ih...has..i 4.i.r...i.h.di.......d.......v..h. 6...... 6,.. .d,.. g.:.nu,;.:.-.-.n a.mg ..,,,.......u....,.........,i.4. c, t,.,_y.. s i n,, %:. : :~.- -... ::.-..

A. LABORATORY TEST REPOHT - Y (8) ( 3 g I -7 ~. - t. .t ~... . * * = 2 \\ ..j C.Attottrit CO*APANY 1 g j .....ee... .d 4-

J 1e 2191 158 2c 305

/,,,... E - 6 t* -(s . % : s,. % 1 .J . ' * -s'. < 5 .. # 4 %. J .==.- ) 7 41 t i e - ,c J '., / '. ?.:.. .q 1 i Fj e . a. -f 8 e O ~ c ~~'.~~5

..;..--?".

- ~ t,t #, a. .,j ...........4.....'..... ,er..'

p g
}

9 .\\... l s. i I b.y'. e i*t 6

1..a.

.t.- .J'.. 'j ,.c.s. e.. m.. w r ~.....v....**."* .s N., j S?.' CARColl:4E COMPAN*/ ' .,.1 e .r.souso.m.ss.u..ee.a. ] d .'f Ic 2191 158 .] 2c 305 ..a. .a.a . a,- w,., .. u... : = - -

l. _.

i 1 . ] From the Carbolino Research & Development Labos.. tory n... ha i. I d... t. ;.h.4 i....... a....... i. ih. t......., t a... 4.. w.....,, g.= r. :::.-. r,.=.g 3 ..........i... ..r i s ei. .e i -p hed-mmc g g n e, w.w: :==: =u. l

g. da2 LABORATORY TEST REPORT ; (9). s ( N' s O l . cy.)- .i

1 e

. he ,w....e. C.at&Ot1Nt COf#f't.f4T, ,s Ic 2191-1M { 2c 2191-143 i . _u , r. 1 1. " "w y.. 4 s. = p'. { J 3 ? j .._1- } L .-- W " 1. _.- g _ - ... o..- l /-- A. O e t.- /.**, .,,', C 7..,. -~- P """. '..*2

- '-"**I ~<

a.- --,.......u. g ir p

g-

= s ...T, 4 .d

o. g 1,

t.

1..

t i,.. *

','m,r--.* 4..' <- -....

.... u.a a f

1. -g CAftDoufJE CO!.'.PAray i

.'. 6. vi.. u.s..y..,,,.. r le 2192-158 .] .. i 2c 2191 149 v 1 1 i r j : ; L 'i' v n_:~, w n.. .... t (1 From the Carbolino Rcscarch & Development Laboratory. g T h.... hoi..i 4... t i.i..d i...... d....... ih. t s io.... ha.-l. de.. H.-..... ge:.siwncr.r e m ........ e.., s.,;.. i,i. 4. c ct s,,,.,....,,. ..&.......n...--

b) LABORATORY TEST RE ,., s,- ...-( e 0.o 3 s I. ..- t.op ./ - '.1 .1 s

1

,_,_ p. 309.1 CotAPA'4Y .N C.At: d .J 2191-158 ge 1 2c 2121-1 " e b

e.d-

. 4 e i-i v. I . v. % g,.w.~.. c.- o i w.' '.h ~ ), ".C g =w {. _ a + w 3-t. g . n. j' .~2 r ,y. E 4 y. i s ~. ..c. ~ .r- ...s - r. g. r. 3,, ,s. = . n;g, .a-r a i + .. y, t 2 :. - k~ a .t. . I '.Y., e,'.,. e ,f .J' f/. e, .,Y;)$,' 5 ,s , 4 . T j ^,..,-g-3

- ~

y + L~ ~ ' % ~.4.. 7,

.,.m.._.-_.

CARCOLINE COI.WANY. I f. j 6.w.........,....... Ic 2191-150 2c 2191-154 -s ..I-1 2- ..._..'s.,.. ...--.e_._.,..: .m.....< m. g 3 l i C,.t From the Casbolino Research & Develop!nent I.aboratory k T h....ha i.I d... r i.h.4 s. i,...a J........ i. ik. 6....... ta.w i.4... H. we..., g- :4..:rt u. :." .s.-- ............ :......., i....... 4 - p i i. d. C a., t,. r. M. .1. t-

w......, s- .i , e: LABORATORY TEST REPOR,T ..Y,... w D [ December 18, 1973 TESTING PROJECT: 01255 Final Report: 30 Days

SUBJECT:

LOCA evaluation tests for Liner Plate Coatings, Midland . Units 1 and 2.

REFERENCE:

Mr. P. A. Martinez,'Bechtel; Mr. William Matheney, Consumers Pouer Company; Mr. James R. Lopata; Mr. John Hill. PURPOSE: To evaluate the Carbo Zine 11/Phenoline 305 coating system when applied over test panels cut from the linir plates of the Midland Plant Reactor Containment Building and sub-jecte'd to the test exposure criteria specified under the "DBA Environmental Test Curve" for Midland Plant, Units o I and 2. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the Carbo Zinc 11/Phenoline 305 system is exhibiting an acceptable performance after exposure to this 30-day test when evaluated according to the ANSI N101.2-1972, Section 4.5 guidelines for examining exposed test specimens. Please refer to "Results". A) Test Counon PROCEDURE: 2-1/8" x 4-1/8" x 1/4" sandblasted steel f B) System Tested DFT le Carbo Zine 11 71 ease refer to Ic Phenoline 305 Finish "Results" i C) Cure Schedule Carbo Zinc 11, 24 hours at 100" humidity Phenoline 305 Finish, 48 hours at R.T. plus overnight 0 at 130 F. D) Exposure DBA Environmental Test for Liner Plate Coatings, Midland Plant Units 1 and 2. Bechtel Job Reference No. 7220. Time-temperature-pressure criteria dated November 23, 1973. j l

1) Water Chemistrv Demineralized water test solution containing:

Boric Acid 13,000 ppm s= Sodium Thiosulfate - 18,000 ppm pH adjusted to 9.5 with Reagent Crade Sodium Hydroxide . :;r.. -

2) Time-Temperature-Pressure Profile -

This test began at atmospheric pressure and was kept at saturation pressure

throughout the complete cycle.

From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory j i Th....h ;..Id..s .i,h.4i.i,.. a.e..... .k.6.... .,to..i.4,..H.... mee... __ ..........s......,4. 4. .,s,se.d. csbMe ( + -e---- i .~.

., - l, '.' ( '[.Q J LABORATORY TEST REPORT e u.J r 3 December 18, 1973/Page 2 h , TESTING PROJECT: 01255 Final Report: 30 Davs ) 1 PROCEDURE: (Continued) i Total Time 1. apse Temperature Pressure

Initial Ambient 0.1 Second 3160F 70 psig 25 Minutes 3160F

, 70 psig 4 Hours 280 F .45 psig 1 Day - 2400F 20 psig 30 Days ** 2000F 10 psig a

- The test coupons were evaluated after the initial 14 days of exposure to the 5

above profile for development of an interim report. They were then returned to the chamber for completion of the test. 'All test coupons were partially immersed into the solution inside the' test chamber, and scribed down to the steel substrate before being exposed. COATING APPLICATION: Substrate: Carbon Steel blasted to a SSPC white metal surface, 1-1/2 to 2 mil profile. Blast Abrasive: 2 parts 5330 Steel Shot, 1 part G40 steel { grit. Carbo Zinc 11: 10/31/73 - Date of Application Batch #: 3G5528 color: Green Room Temperature OF: 75 Surface Temperature OF: 70 Relative Humidity: 32% Cure: 24 hours in a Water Fog Environment ~ Phenoline 305 Finish: 11/1/73 - Date of Application j Batch # (Finish): 2B3686 Color: White i Batch # (Catalyst): 1L3069 Room Temperature OF:- 74 Surface Temperature OF: 70 Relative ilumidity: 24% Cure: 48 hours at room temperature Final Cure: Overnight at 1300F. CRADING PROCEDURE: (December, 1973) The test coupons were evaluated for performance in the 'W following areas:

1) Haterial fisking off

2) Delamination between coats 'nd/or peeling a

3) Blistering of the topcost

~~

4) Chalking of the coating

5) Excessive cracking From the Carboline Hesearc & Development Laboratory y

Th....haic.i 4.i. f .h.d i......a d.c e.,... i. ih. i,......, n o..r.de.. H.w.v.e, y_y .....a , i. s...,.., s..d. ggg .r..... m..... - e..-

c. LABORATORY TEST REPORT v f D December 18, 1973/Page 3 f TESTING PROJECT: 01255 l Final Report: 30 Davs CRADING PROCEDURE: (Continued) Crading procedures specified in Report N101.2-1972 of the American National

Standards Institute-Protective Coatings for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities:

4.5 Methods of Examining and Evaluating the Exposed Test Specibens The dynamic and/or s!tatic elevated temperature-pressure and irradiation test'pancis shall be evaluated within 2 hours and again after 2 weeks after removal from the test chamber for the following surface defects: i flaking, delamination and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking. Defects listed in Subsections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 shall be dealt with as follows: 4.5.1 Flaking. ASTM D772, Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints, Part 21, American Society for Testing and Materials,. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. ~ Flaking shall not be permitted. 4.5.2 Delamination and/or Peeling. Delaminaition and/or peeling shall not be permitted. h 4.5.3 Blistering. Blistering shall be limited to a few, intact blisters, Sizc No. 4, ASTM D714, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints, Part 21. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The number and the size of blisters shall be recorded. 4.5.4 chalking. ASTM D659, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Chalking of Exterior Paints, Part 21. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Heavy chalking shall not be permitted. Any other changes in coating properties which are not also associated with the separation, or the release, of coating from the substrate shall not be a cause for rejection. ANSI N101.2-1972 Criteria (As interpreted by Carboline). Maximus Degree of Tailure Allowable Flaking ASTM D772 10 (None) Delamination or Peeling None

Blistering ASTM D714-56 Blister Size Bliste-Density

2 None
4 Few From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory l

n...wic.: d.i. r.. i,k.a i, e, a..c... i. ik. b...I... En...de.. H....

y_.__. ......e... . i... ,n.4. cnrboIIneJ* l t~.'....; 25.7.1D- ..........1,-.... .m.. \\

LABORATORY TEST REPORT December 18, 1973/Page 4. TESTING PROJECT: 01255 Final Report: 30 Days CRADING ~ PROCEDURE: (Continued) Maximus Degree of Failure Allevable

Blistering ASE D714-56 (Cont.)

Blister Size Blister Density

6 Medium

Note: A blister is not intact

8 Medium-Dense when it has resulted in coating being separated from the test coupon.

Chalking 8 (Light)' e Note: Flaking, Blistering, and Chalking are all evaluated according to ASN Standards, with a rating of 10 indicating that no failure was observed in,the specific grading area. <: [ (- From the Carboline Research & Developnient Laboratory j I Th...hoic.: 4... t,.i.h.4 i... d.cc..... eh. 6....t.o,ha..l.dee. H.we gsn.._ _, L .s.....c, s. ei.., i.,s..d. ccr'b c11ne 1 h s~ m - :... M*

n = TESTINC PROJECT: 01255 ' December 18, 1973/Page 5. )' i gg Final Report:.30 Days no .OE RESULTS: 1 Ii Si a.. 23 Average Delami-Dry Film nation or Performance E-n Coating System jk ~$ sad ID Thickness Flaking Peeling Blistering Chalking Evaltation i

-[: 8 4A: 1Ag)

?.i E-Ic Carba Zine 11 3.2 10 None

4F to #2F, 10 Acceptable j$'

Ic Phenoline 305 4.8/8.0 Cracked 0 .g 29 S 1A )* 2 Ia. 8' ic Carbo Zine 11 3.75 10 None Three, f4 to #2, 10-Acceptable (1) d g: Ic Phenoline 305 5.05/8.8 Cracked s a c n SA: 1B ) 1 o Ic carbo Zine 11 3.2 10 None 10 10 Acceptable g Ic Phenoline 305 4.6/7.8 E, 1B )* 2 h le Carbo Zinc 11 3.6' 10 None 10 10 Acceptable (2) 2 Ic Phenoline 305 4.5/8.1 y i O 1 @ 6A: 3Ag) p-l ' 8 S. Ic Carbo Zinc 11 3.4 10 None 10 10 Acceptable p 8 le Phenotine 305 4.1/7.5 CD 3A )* 2 F 3 Ic Carbo Zine 11 3.6 10 - None 10 10 Acceptable (3) p y j j g Ic Phenotine 305 4.0/7.6 O a t-Acceptable Performance 10 None 4F to 8MD 8 (Light) 7 o (None) 4 D. ~l R

Duplicate side of coupon receiving scribe.

M

(1) 1/16" undercutting from scribe, coating is intact.

vnl (2) 2/16" undercutting from scribe, coating is intact. (f) 8O lf O g l i-(3) 2/16" undercutting from scribe, coating is intact. Small amount of coating has been chipped auay to H l l,f( evaluate extent of undercutting. This was done af ter completion of the test. g m

g1 The dry film thickness for each coupon is the average of readings taken at the top, middle, and T

C 8 NOTE: ! 5! bottom of the test panel. This data is available in the project record file. O > 'l 109 t

3

f. '

LABORATORY TEST REPORT s y! ~ ,[ 3 December 18, 1973/Page 6. TESTING PROJECT: 01255 Fins 1 Report: 30 Days DISCUSSION OF There was a' moderate cracking on the edges of the RESULTS: exposed test coupons. However, the costing remains intact and this cracking was ignored in the perfor-mance evaluation. Please refer to the attached photographs for a visual description of the test coupons after cospletion of the test cycle. a z p ~ . A, ..%.J Group Leader - Testin/ ] ) Danici R. Leritz' g / -_2 J ln F. Montle Di cetor of Research DRL/JFM:jn OR: Testing Department XC: Mr. William Matheney, Consumer Power Company SLL RRR HDT JFM JDB EWS CHD SLS JRL LAB CROUP LEADERS 9 ~..y ^ e o l .- ' Z i. [ .m.; m. From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory y Th. e.ch ic. J.e. f..h.d I.....a d.ec..... e. the b.st.I..e kn.wlede.. H.... .............I.......,.. e i.., i. p t 6. d. c bdiM v.._.,. -, -.w

am.=ma. ama==a. * *. s.raa.

s g-- .. g. . +. -..

l ', t.~y2.mr.-_ ;:::y.'.I C Etr5'.; c M r1 O b.. g. ').

i. * ' ' '

. f- ) '. r;.g...,,1,.;f . ; $.s a,. ?- v --- - ..(' ' ' i.. ) 5.[ '. Pr,oduct Na me: CARBO ZINC 1) g w, . ' b e.- r. l {g e ,e PRODUCT IDENTITY CERTIFICATION RECORD I i CEN ER AL* DATA .f jTo Be Filled In By Purchaser) Project Designation ** -Date l Project Location Report No. Owner Purchase Order No. Contract No. Building, Unit, or Eq'uipment Shop Work

Designation:

Field Work ? t. TECHNICAL DATA Date ?-21-7h l Coating Manufacturer: CARBOLINE CO., 328 Hanley Ind. Ct., St. Louis "Mo. 63144 f Product Name and Numb'er Carbo Zinc 11 Generic Type Inorganic Zine l Batch' No. 305 528 Date of Manufacture 8-13-73 Shelf Life 9 Months d Net Weight, Lbs. Per Gallon -- (By l X l Fed. Test Method Std. No. 141, Method 4184 I or'By ASTM D1475) ] 9.00 lbs. Viscosity Range 50-60 KU Temperature 75

F.

Method Krebs St orr,er . Solids Volume % t 1000 mil ft. per gallon , Dry Time: 8-12 Hours @ 60-85 'F. 50 % R. H. Tack Free Time: 4* Hours @ 60-85

F.

50 % R.H. Recoat Time Range: 8-12 Hrs.@ 60-85

F.

50 % R.H. l Minimum Dry Film Thickness Per Coat: 2-1/2 - 3 Mils { Color. Visual Mixing Ratio: 33 lbs. Parts carbo Zinc //11 Resin Component By Wt. Y 71 lbs. Parts carbo Iinc !/11 Filler Component By Vol. Parts Component ] Induction Period 'lio t Required Hours @

F.

l Pot Life 8 Hours @ 75

F.

l Specified Thinner Thinner //33 Flash Point Tag Open Cup 86

FP (ASTM D 92)
Mixed ready to spray Signature

'g. 4/.Mmlo

Distribution:

Title pnnm TTCM 5;IL.*JE3 SfT.M. ~ i i e

'4 WY"5Ino Y-A.C a ear: c

-.v.

W -

.f. Product Nante: PHENOLINE 305 FINISH = .t PRODUCT Ii) ENTITY CERTIFICATION RECORD d _ GENERAL DATA (To Be Filled In By Purchaser)

Project Designation' Date l

Project Location Report No. Owner Purchase Order No. Building, Unit, or Equipment "I#^** l Designation: Shop Work i o Field Work j TECilNICAL DATA Date 1 21-7L i Coating Manufacturer: CARBOLINE CO., 328 Hanley Ind. Ct. St. Louis, Mo. 63144 Product Name and Number _ PSenoline 305 Finish Generic Type P.odified Phenolic i l . Batch No. 2M686 Date of Manufacture 3-lL-73 Shelf Life 2 Years Net Weight. Lbs. Per Gallon -- (By [ Fed. Test Method Std. No. 141, 11.74 lbs. Method 4184 t or By I ASTM DI475) Viscosity Range 73-83 KU Temperaturc 75

F. Method Krebs Stormer -

' Solids Volume % t 727. ! 1% Dry Time:

18 Hours @-

75

F.

50 % R.H. Tack Free Time: 9 Hours @ 75

F.

50 % R.H. Recoat Time Range: 18 Hrs. 75

F.

50 % R. H. Minimum Dry Film Thickness Per Coat: 3-0 Mils Color, Visual Mixing Ratio: 4 Parts Phenoline 305 Finish P.es in Component By Wt. Parts Component i Hy Vol. X 1 Parts Phenoline 305 Finish Component Indue' ion Period liot Required flours @ Cat *I 5L' 'F. Y l Pot Life 1-1/2 Hours @ 75

F.

i Spccified Thinner PhenoIine Thinner Flash Point Tag Open Cup 215

F.

(ASTM D.92) hignature }y W ' k/mi A Titic2qmh-yn.3 b uy vg Dist ribution: no w,__ _,,, , J ' I (*~.

T t

~ ~~~; .n.

.:/ c'erbc!Ine ! ?. .y =. n,' .x Product Name: PifEN0L INE 305 FIN 1511 h' CATALYST PRODUCT IDENTITY CERTIFICATION RECORD GENERAL DATA .(To Be Filled In By Purchaser) i ~ Project Designation Date Project Location Report No. Owner Purchase Order No. Building. Unit, or Fkuipment Contract No. Shop Work Designation: Field Work a TECHNICAL DATA Date 1_ > 1_ n Coating Manufacturer: CARBOLINE CO., 328 Hanlev Ind. Ct.. St. Louis, Mo. 63144 Pr'oduct Name and Number Phenoline 305 Finish Catalyst Generic Type Modified Phenolic B'atch No.1 Y inAo Date of Manufacture 12-22 71 Shelf Life 2 Years i g,, Net Weight, Lbs. Per Gallon -- (By W Fed. Test Method Std. No.

141, 7.68 lbs.

Method 4184 or By U ASTM D1475) l Viscosity Range N/A Temperature

F. Method Solids Volume % i N/A 18 Hours @

75, " F. 50 Dry Time: % R.H. l Tack Free Time: 9 Hours @ 75

F.

50 % R.H. Recoat Time Range: 18 Hrs. 75

F.

50 % R. H. Minimum Dry Film Thickness Per Coat: 3-4 Mils Color, Visual Clear Mixing Ratio: 4 Parts Phenoline 305 Finish Component B y W t. Parts Component By Vol. X 1 Parts Phenoline 305 Finish Component Induction Period ', Not Required Hours @ '*'*'YS' 'F. Pot Life 1-1/2 Hours @ 75

F.

Specified Thinner _ Phenoline Thinner s ) ' Flash Point Tag Open Cup 88 'F. (ASTM D-92) Signature h,.W hw.d4 Distribution: Title PRODUCTION dbHVIO'sS SUPT _. l l

...s e. .~ LABORATORY TEST REPORT l' ) ~ .q -a 4 a l .s t; y J 1 .. f \\ h, -7 I. g 4 ,6 s f l-1 1 7 ry .,1 l t % J .l g. a .s. l j

. :e. 4

..'.g.p ff m 1 r h .! i 1 i / e J. 1 ~ 4 i I e l i I L. .l t 2 + e ....... '- 4: I g g 1 t

L

. i l From the Carboline Research'5 Development Laboratory T h....sa ic. 4.. r,,.

.k.4 s......a J.c c.....

ih. 6...i... t a.-i.d... H. w.. .._.. m ................,i........,i..d. cat'IsoIin c E.-_. _r..=. 2. ::- ~ - a.- - e,- - re-.- ..w. m

l{,Y..). h LABORATORY TEST RE 3 r. ~. .t l l 1 ~. -.5', '. T 1. 4 c. e. I y a r

i..

I 4

1 l

.i .s ,i h O .r a i .- 1 p a l .L a s.... ;.. s l ~.. ...... s.. e ( t l From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory ( ) l l T h....ha s..: 4.. t i.6 4 i... d....... i. ik. b...t , 6....d... H.w..... r~_. ..,......#. u...., s. e i.., i.,i. 4. mygwgm Wr. ..n... m....w. +.;.- . _. _. =. _.. _,.

i ). LABORATORY TEST REPORT D f { ..=. ., ~ v.;

~.

.. =a .J i .3.... s ,y l -l .4 0 e l. C ,t g 1 t i I 3 l '5 i : 1 6. i i [ j I I l o ] l o I t l ? I t l + t i i ,i l j '. l i i . v... i h..a..... . J, ) l i . e. t l ,7 I

(

.~ l i From the Carboline Research & Development Laborato'ry T h. ho;..I d.. t.isk.d i......d...... ih. b.... i., s..'. 4,.. w..... i-A m ...........s......,6.....,e.,i.4. cn: 13 oIin o l 6-__...,

si z . r. h.^. j LABORATORY TEST REPORT r 3 C TESTING PROJECT: 01377 FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Dece=ber 23, 1975

SUBJECT:

LOCA testing of Carbo Zine 11 at various thicknesses alone and topcoated with Phenoline 305.

REFERENCE:

Mr. Chris Kjaer - Olsen, General Electric; Mr. Charles J. Wiegers, Carboline Master BWR Curve. PURPOSE: To evaluate the perfornance of Carbo Zinc 11 at film thicknesses from 1 to 15 mils, both untopcoated and topcoated with Phenoline 305, when exposed to the Carboline Master BWR Curve. CONCLUSIONS: After the 100 days of the Carboline Master BWR Curve, the following conclusions have been reached: 1) Carbo Zine 11 is acceptable according to ANSI N101.2-1972 Section 4.5 as interpreted by carboline at dry fi1= thick-nesses up to 12.5 mils. 2) The Ic Carbo Zinc /lc Phenoline 305 is acceptable according to ANSI N101.2-1972 Section 4.5 as interpreted by Carbo 11ne at dry film thicknesses up to 11.5 mils. 8 3) At dry film thicknesses in excess of those mentioned above, Carbo Zinc 11 and Carbo Zinc /Phenoline 305 are not accept-C able. (Please refer to "Results") PROCEDURE: A) Test Coupons 2" x 5" x 1/8" sandblasted, steel panels (blast profile of 1 to 2 mils) B) Systems Tested Dry Film Thickness 1) Carbo Zinc 11 (various thicknesses) Please Refer 2) Carbo Zine 11 (various thicknesses) to "Results" Phenoline 305 C) Cure Schedule y Carbo Zine 11: 24 hours at 100% humidity, between coats; 3 days at 75'F, final cure (untepcoated Carbo Zine 11 only). ~ Phenoline 305: 3 days at 75'F, 24 hours at 120*F, final cure. From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory Th....ho i..i d... e.,n i.h.d i.,,.. d........ h. 6... i.., ha.. i.4,.. w.....,, f

n..............., y i. ei.

.,i.,ia.d. \\ey3gg ,m--w BB W *84hA % C9.gtensneemme

=_ 4 8.. P' f LABORATORY TEST REPORT TESTING PRO.7ECT: 01377 December 23, 1975 FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Page 2 { PROCEDURE: (Continued) D) Exposure Carboline Master BWR Curve (

Reference:

LTa'CC Draf t #1; G.E. Mark III, Dry Well) 1) Water Che=istry De' ionized Water 2) Time-Tempereture-Pressure Curve Time Te=perature Pressure,* Initial A=bient Ambient Initial - 10 Seconds, 332*F 106 psig 10 Seconds - 7 Minutes 250*F 7 30 psig 7 Minutes - 4 Hours 200*F 11.5 psig 4 Hours - 96 Hours ** 180*F (Hot Soak) 7.5 psig g 96 Hours - 100 Days 160*F (Hot Soak) 4.7 psig 7 ' System was held at saturation pressure throughout the test cycle; the maximum temperature and pressure experienced by the panels was 332*F and 106 psig.

- The panels were removed from test at this ti=e for grading and development of an interim report. They were then returned for the completica of the 100 day test cycle.

l, GRADING PROCEDURE: The test coupons were evaluated for performance in the following areas: 1) Material flaking off 2) Delamination between coats and/or peeling 3) Blistering of the topcoat 4) Chalking of the coating 5) Excessive cracking Grading procedures specified in Report N101.2-1972 of the American National Stand-ards Institute-Protective Coatings for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities: 4.5 Methods of Examining and Evaluating the Exposed Test Specimens The dynamic and'or static elevated temperature-pressure and irradiation test panels shall be evaluated within 2 hours and again af ter 2 weeks af ter removal from the test chamber for the following surface defects: flaking, delanination, and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking. Defects listed in Subsections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 shall be dealt with as follows: b From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory Th....h.i..I d.. ro, i.h.a r. er....d uo,... eh. b..,.i.., kn...de.. H.....r, n. .#. u....y

i. i.

i-,is.d. ,cwbMM m. - c..

..N : LABORATORY TEST REPORT i ( ) i TESTING PROJECT: 01377 December 23, 1975 i ( i FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Page 3 GRADING PROCEDURE: (Continued) 4.5.1 Flaking. ASTM D772, Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints, Part 21, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Flaking shall not be permitted. 4.5.2 Delamination and/or Peeling. Delamination and/or peeling shall not be permitted, j 4.5.3 Blistering. Blistering shall be limited to a few, intact blisters, Size No. 4 ASDI D714, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints, Part 21, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. The number and the size of blisters shall be recorded. 4.5.4 Chalking. ASTM D659, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Chalking of Exterior Paints, Part 21, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Heavy chalking shall not be permitted. Any other changes in coating properties which are not also associated with the separation, or the release, of coating from the substrate shall not be a cause for rejection. a i i ( (December, 1973) ( ANSI N101.2-1972 Criteria (As interpreted by Carboline) Maximum Degree of Failure Allowable Flaking ASTM D772 10 (None) 4 Delamination or Peeling None

Blistering ASIM D714-56 Blister Size Blister Density j

2 None

NOTE: A blister is not

4 Few intact when it has resulted
6 Medium in coating being separated
8 Medium-Dense from the test coupon.

I Chalking ASD1 D659 8 (Light) NOTE: Flaking, blistering and chalking are all s' valuated according to ASTM Standards, with a rating of 10 indicating that no failure was observed { in the specific grading area. b From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory Th. hn i..I d... #w.i.h.d i,, d....... i. sh. b..,.i. n....4,.. H.w.v.,,

n. e n,.ne

.a...w y i.,s. .,i.npii.d. hwbdMi wuemmv.md .. - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - ~. -

TESTING PROJECT: 01377 December 23, 1975 i FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS .Page 4 Dry Film Thickness Delsmina-Other (Actual tion or Blistcr-Performance Performance I Costing System Thickness) Flaking Peeling ing Chalking Characteristics Evaluation i 1A) l j Carbo Zine 11 1 mil 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt Very good l l (1.5 mils) deposits 13) Carbo Zine 11 1 mil 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt Very good l (1.4 mile) deposits 2A) Carbo Zine 11 3 mile 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt Very good t (2.8 mile) deposits l 25) Carbo Zine 11 3 mils 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt .Very good (2.7 mils) deposits 3A) 4 Carbo Zinc 11 5 mils 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt Very good (5.0 mile) deposits t 38) Carbo Zine 11 5 mils 10 None 10 10 Moderate salt Very good (5.0 mils) . deposits j 4A) { Carbo Zine 11 7 mils 10 None 10 10 Seit deposits Very good (6.5 mile) 2 45) l Carbo Zine 11 7 mile 10 None 10 10 Seit deposits very good l (7.0 mile) 5A) Carbo Zinc 11 9 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight esit de-Cood (9.0 mile) posits; slight i "mudcracking" t j of surface f Fcrfect Performance 10 None

4F to
8 l

per ANSI N101.2-1975 ,#8HD (Light) [

l TESTING FROJECT: 01377 December 23, 1975 FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Page 5 ~ Dry Film Thickness Delamina-Other (Actual tion or siister-Performance Performance Costing System Thickness) Flakina Peelins' ina Chalking Characteristics Evaluation 58) Carbo Zine 11 9 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight salt de-Cood (9.0 mils) posits; slight i 1 "mudcracking" of surface j 6A) Carbo Zinc 11 11 mils 10 None One > f 2 10 Slight salt de-Unacceptable (12.5 mils)

blister, posits; slight cracked "smdcracking" but intact of surface 6s)

Carbo Zine 11 11 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight salt de- .Very good (13.5 mils) posits; very l alight " mud-I crackina" 7A) Carbo Zine 11 15.0 mils. 10 None One #2 10 One blister is Unacceptable (15.0 mils)

blister, cracked but one 1-inch intact; slight i

4 j

blister, "muderacking" one side l

j 75) l l Carbo Zinc 11 15.0 mile 10 None-10 10 Slight salt de-Good i i (15.0 mils) posits; moderate l "muderackina" l Perfect Performance 10 None

4F to
8 j

por ANSI N101.2-1975

8HD

- (Light) l i s i 1 I w-m-w

+ ? c

1.'.

.s TESTING PROJECT: 0137i. December 23, 1975 * '. ' Page 6 t FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS i I Dry Fils Thickness Delanina-Other l (Actual tion or Blister-Performance Performance ( Costina System Thicknese) Plakins Peeling ina Chalkins Characteristics Evaluation SA) Carbo Zine 11 1 mil 10 None

8F-B near 10 Slight coating Very good Phenoline 305 1 mil edges both discoloration (2.2 mile) sides 85) l Carbo Zinc 11 1 mil 10 Mone
8H-B at 10 Slight coating Good Phenoline 305 1 mil one cor-discoloration (2.1 mils) ner, one side i

9A) i Carbo Zine 11 3 mils 10 None 10 10 Very slight Excellent coating dis-Phenoline 305 1 mil coloration i (4.0 mile) 95) Carbo Zinc 11 3 mils 10 None 10 9 (Very Very slight Very Cood Phenoline 305 1 mil Light) coating dis. coloration - i (3.6 alls) 10A) Carbo Zine 11 5 mils 10 None 10-10 Very slight Excellent coating dis-Phenoline 305 1 mil coloration (6.7 mile) 108) Carbo Zine 11 5 alls 10 None 10 10 Very slight Excellent coating dis-Phenoline 305 1 mil coloration (5.6 mile) Perfect Performance 10 None

4F to
8
8HD (Light) per ANSI N101.2-1975 i

t i 1

ry ' .~. 's 1 ...s i TESTING PROJECT: 01377 December 23, 1975 FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Page 7 Dry Film Thickness Delamina-Other (Actual tion or Blister-Performance Performance i Costing System Thickness) Flaking Peeling 'ing Chalking Characteristics Evaluation 11A) Carbo Zine 11 7 mils 10 None One #4 10 Very slight Good Phenoline 305 1 mil

blister, coating dis-(8.0 mils) one side coloration 118)

Carbo Zinc 11 7 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight coating Very good Phenoline 305 1 mil discoloration (7.8 alls) 12A) Carbo Zine 11 9 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight coating Good Phenoline 305 1 mil ~ discoloration; (9.5 mils) surface has rough texture l 128) Carbo Zinc 11 9 mils 10 None 10 10-Slight coating Very good discoloration l Phenoline 305 1 mil (10.2 mils) 1 13A) Carbo Zine 11 11 mils 10 None One >f2 10 Some blisters Unacceptable i are cracked but Phenoline 305 1 mil

blister, i

intact. Very (11.5 mile) one side;

2F-B one slight coating side discoloration Parfect Performance 10 None
4F to
8 psr ANSI N101.2-1975-f8HD (Light)-

I i )

l. .., ~. - TESTIN0 PROJECT: 01377 December 23, 1975. -7: FINAL REPORT - 100 DAYS Page 8 + I Dry Film f Thickness Delanina-Other (Actual tion or Blister-Performance Performance Costina System Thickness) Flaking Peeling ing Chalking Characteristics-Evaluation '13B) Carbo Zinc 11 11 mils 10 None

4 to 10 Slight coating Cood Phenoline 305 1 mil
6F-8, discoloration (12.0 mile) one side 14A)

Carbo Eine 11 13 mils 10 None

2F-B, one 10 Very slight Unacceptable Phenolina 305 1 mil side; #6 coating dis-(15.0 mils) to #8F-B, coloration one side 145)

Carbo Einc 11 13 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight coating Very good Phenoline 305 1 mil discoloration (15.0 mile) . Perfect Performance 10 None

4F to
8 per ANSI N101.2-1975
8MD (Light)

M P. w Patrick D. Fisher JMhn F. Montle ~ Developmental Engineer Vice President Testing Department Research & Development PDF:sh XC SLL/HDT/JFH/EWS/JDP/CJW/JDB/SLS/DRL/ LAB CROUP LEADERS

= r LABORATORY TEST REP RT 'l ' ( STING PROJECT: ) TE 01406 December 26, 1975 FINAL REPORT 'NELVE DAYS {

SUBJECT:

L.O.C.A. testing of Carbo Zine 11 at low film thicknesses, topco'ated with Phenoline 305 Phenoline 368WG, and Carboline 191 EB.

REFERENCE:

Bechtel 1975 L.O.C.A. Curve, Ref. CP-956; Mr. Charles J. Wiegers. PURPOSE: To evaluate Carbo Zine 11 at low film thicknesses, topccated with Phenoline 305 Finish, Phenoline 368WG, and Carboline 191EB, fol-loving exposure to the Bechtel 1975 L.O.C.A. curve, Reference CP-956. CONCLUSION: Af ter exposure to the 12 day Bechtel 1975 L.0.C.A. criteria, all of the coatings evaluated in this test are exhibiting an accept-able performance when evaluated according to ANSI N101.2-1972 Section 4.5. PROCEDURE: 1) Test Coupens 2" x 5" x 1/4" sandblasted steel with rounded edges and corners. 2) Syste=s Tested Theoretical Drv Fil Thickness *

1. Ic carbo Zine 11 1.0-1.5 mils (7-Ic Phenoline 305 Finish 3.0 mils

2. Ic Carbo Zine 11 1.0-1.5 mils Ic Phenoline 305 Finish 6.0 mils

3. Ic Carbo Zinc 11 1.0-1.5 mils Ic carboline 191EB 3.0 mils

4. Ic Carbo Zine 11 1.0-1.5 mils Ic Carboline 191EB 6.0 mils

5. Ic Carbo Zine 11 1.0-1.5 mils Ic Phenoline 368WG 3.0 mils

Please refer to "Results" c: ht,<, ed Total Dry Film Thickness.

3) Cure Schedule .-2 Carbo Zine 11: Overnight at high humidity. 3 Phenoline 305: Four days at 75*F final cure. -w Carboline 191HB: Seven days at 75'F, final cure. Phenoline 368WG: Seven days at 75'F, final cure. ( ( From the Carboline Research & Development Laboratory J Th. e.c ha se.1 d... t,ni h.4 i, e. d.c e ve... .h. 6...i.. ha.-l..... H.... ........ s. e.., 4,... .,:.. d. g-m g ;;sr oonit15 i, l

<& LABORATORY TEST REPORT = ,w .( TESTING PROJECT: 01406 December 26, 1975 (, FINAL REPORT - T'ELVE DAYS Page 2 EXPOSURE: Bechtel 1975 LOCA, Ref. CP-956 .,1) Water Chemistry Domineralized water test solution containing: .. _ 4 0.28 Molar H 503 (3000 ppm. Baron), 3 0.064 Molar Na S 0, 223 pH adjusted to 9.5 with reagent grade NaOH. f: d W

.,78 r r

l i i ( From the Carboline Research & Doveicoment Laboratory t ) Th....hai..: 4.,. f i.h.d 4.,,...a 4........ h. b..,. i.., ka... d e.. H.w.. . a.... .e....,......, ;-,i..d. =.3eocaino e. .~....-:..-.

.l ( i-m h l f TESTING PROJECT: )* ~. ~ 01406 December 26, 1975 31 - FINAL REPORT. TWELVE DATS Page 3 l 1.5 \\ Ir j g-EXPOSURE: (Cont.)

2) ' Time-Temperature-Pressure Profile l

I" 2' IE Time Lapse Pressure, psig Temperature Test Conditions -r 3. s l[

Initial Atmospheric 70*F - 90*F Static n

t1 28 l 31 E O - 10 Seconds 70 psig (Steam Blast) 300'F Static N E: i .li e 10 Seconds - 30 Minutes 70 psig (Dry Heat) 340*F Static 3) 70 to 30 (Wet) peig Decrease to 250*F Dynamic \\ ~ 3 30 Hinutes - 2 Houre j E Drop at 0.1 peig/second g. 3 minimum u I 2 Hoursi-96 Hours 30 pais (Wet) 250*F Dynamic [- g 4 Days - 12 Days 10 peig (Hot Soak) 200'F Static ? 6' p) J t m O z 3 NOTE: Panels were exposed in pairs so that one panel was suspended in the vapor phase of the chainber 31 I r-while the other was immersed in the liquid phase on the floor of the test chamber. D 7 0 -1 l EI. O B 31 E 2 ,!k r' .u m 7 --I 31 m

U 3

O ( ) h

. c.. ' LABCRATORY TEST REPORT Y h TESTING PROJECT: 01406 December 26, 1975 { FINAL REPORT - TWELVE DAYS Page 4 CRADING PROCEDURE: The test coupons were evaluated for performance in the following-areas:

1) Material flaking off

2) Delamination between coats and/or peeling

3) Blistering of the topcoat

4) Chalking of the coating

5) Excessive cracking GradingproceduresspecifiedinReportN101-1972 of the American National Standards Institute-Protective Coatings for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities:

' 4.5 Methods of Examining and Evaluating the Exeosed Test Speci= ens The dynamic and/or static elevated temperature-pressure and irradiation test panels shall be evaluated within 2 hours and again after 2 weeks after rs= oval from the test chamber for the following surface defects: flaking, delanination and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking. Defects listed in Sub-i sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 shall be dealt with as follows: I 4.5.1 Flaking - ASTM D772, Evaluating Degree of Resistance f.. to Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints, Part 21 American ( Society for Testing and Haterials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Flaking shall not be permitted. i 4.5.2 Delamination and/or Peeling - Delamination and/or peeling shall not be permitted. i 4.5.3 Blistering - Blistering shall be limited to a few, 1 i intact blisters, Size No. 4 ASTM D714, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints, Part 21, American i Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. .The number and the size of blisters shall be recorded. 4.5.4 Chalking - ASTM D659, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Chalking of Exterior Paints, Part 21, i American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Heavy chalking shall not be permitted. Any other changes in coating properties which are not also f,- associated with the separation, or che' release, of coating .? from the substrate shall not be a cause for rejection. i l ~ From the Carboiine Research & Developrnent t.anoratory ( ) Th.... h i.. I a.

... i.h.4 i... a........

h. b..e i.. ha.- l..... H. -... s

n......

.s.....,..... .,...ie.4. u,.m o s iI"2.e I w __ - - _, .. ~ v... , _. _ _. ~, _,_.,-.m

+

b LABORATORY TEST REPORT

.w TESTING PROJECT: 01406 Decenber 26, 1975 FINAL REPORT TWELVE DAYS Page 5 { CRADING PROCEDURE: (Cont.) (December 1974) ANSI N101.2-1972 Criteria (As Interpreted by Carboline) Maximum Degree of Failure Allevable Flaking ASTM D772 10 (None) Delamination or Peeling None

Blistering ASni D714-56 Blister Size Blister Density

2 None

NOTE: A blister is not

4 Few intact when it has resulted
6 Medium in coating being separated
8 Medium-Dense from the test coupon.

Chalking ASn! D659 8 (Light) (.

Note:

71aking, blistering and chalking are all evaluated according to ASn! standards, with a rating of 10 indicating that no failure was observed in the specific grading area. l V .7m ( From the Carbolins Research & Development Lacora ory y Th.... hoi..:d...ro i.h.di.,,.. d..e ...,.,6 6..,.#..,6...i.d...H.... j -- w .....,....:.......,......,,i..d. g a p g p,3,

c ^ t.... TESTING PROJECT: 01406 Decesher 26, 1975 ~ ~ gg FINAL _ REPORT = TWELVE DAYS Page 6 1-Total I!T Dry Fila [ I.. 1hickness Delsmination Other Performance Performance pt Coating System (Hessured) Fisking or Peeling Blistering Chalking Characteristics Evaluation 23 m ![ B 1A)* $5 3 Carbo Zine 11 4.0 mils 10 None 10 10 Slight coating Acceptable

1 5 Phenoline 305 discoloration u

It r, a lB) I $l1 [Phenoline305 ing discolora-9 Carbo Zine 11 4.0 mils 10 None 10 10 Moderate coat-Acceptable ,1 + ,-j tion e a 3 52A)* I R Carbo Zine 11 6.0 mils 10 None 10 10 Moderate coat-Acceptable T SPhenoline305 ing discolora- { b tfon n $ 28) [ E Carbo Zine 11 6.0 mils 10 None

6F-B on 10 Moderate cost-Acceptable h~

i p 8Phenoline305 one edge ing discolora-g g 3 tion ? E O 3) I ~ Perfect Performance 10 None

4F to
8

Panels suspended in chamber

)' ft I er ANSI N101.2-1975 IBMD (Light) -l p

8 O

3) a .t

i

..i m

'.b.

(n 4 i 0 M > 0 m 7,, l l 'U r3 O h.4 ( j

m m .~ ' h. b TESTING FROJECT: 01406 December 26. 1975 NI gy FINAL REPORT =d TWELVE DAYS Page 7 i L_ 3a 2[ Total 3E. Dry Film + Thickness Delamination other Ferformance Performance !3 Coating System (Hessured) Flaking or Peeling Blistering Chalking Characteristica Evaluation l h{ o l t l 1[ 3JAJW

1 5 Carbo Eine 11 (1) 10 None 10 10 Moderate coating Acceptable

s-eCarbo11ne 191HB 5.5 alls discoloration 1

1= n t1 E- -- g cr ,la-0.4A)* gj 5' Carbo Zine 11 8.2 dile 10 None 10 10 Moderate coating Acceptable " Carboline 191HB discoloration s 3 8 e 4B) 1 ICarbo Zine 11 6.0 mile 10' None 10 10 Moderate coating Acceptable T 0Carbolir.e191HB discoloration Perfect Performance 10 None

4F to #8
8

Panela suspended in

@ per ANSI N101.2-1975 HD (Light) chamber (1)no duplicate panel m r i. O 3 3I I h k o e n 0 O" t f {r K. j. g -{ i c-I L11 ril 01 i'14 -I l l I (1 as !O r.1 'U i.1 I O i L$ ( ) 3; i

q y f TESTING PROJECT 01406 December 26, 1975 ) 3y FINAL REPORT = 117EI.VE DAYS Page 8 i** Total f[" Dry Film Thickness Delamination Other Performaner Performance i 7f Contine Staten Ofemeured) F1mkine or Peeline B11sterine (%=1kinc r%=rmeterfatica Rumlumeinn {1 280 5A

3 ar)bo Eine 11' i

3 ? C 10 None 10

9 (Very Moderate coating

" 3.

dPhenoline 368HC..

4.5 Ifght) discoloration Acceptable i* mils 3: o al R gg o 55)

t.;

E. Carbo Zine 11 4.7 mile 10 None 10

9 (Very Moderate coating Acceptable

.y SPhenoline368WG light) discoloration l 'E u m 3

Perfect Performance 10 None f4F to

8

Panela suspended in chamber f

8HD (Light) n Per ANSI N101.2-1975 u

'ius- { j-E John F. Montle Patrick D. Flaher* g { j Vice-President Developmental Engineer O 3 Research & Development Testing Department yj 2 i r-r 8 aci s!.L/NDT/JFM/EWS/JDB/JDP/SLS/DRL/CJW/RJT/ LAB CROUP LEADERS -j O o U m 5 4 -4 rii (D -l m i m

ll

! i 0 )

J' (

) M .)

i e 4 9 e b 9 e 6 e - o 9 ATTACHMENT 2 SAMPLE TEST REPORT - AMERON COMPANY e o.

[ ' !*, AMERON 'f 5 75'- (4) C/R PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS DIVISION 71 - (6) j 90 - (4) TECHNICAL SERVICE - BREA LABORATORY 90 - (6) III DBA Testing LABORATORY SERVICE REQUEST l NO. 2537 i FINAL REPORT Date Initiated: 8/29/78 Date Completed: 9/6/78

Subject:

DBA Testing of Amercoat 71/90 when applied at high dry film thickness '~ Requested by: H. H. Kline

Reference:

Verbal request. Waterford 3/Peden Steel Laboratory Workbook #71 8 Test !49 INTRODUCTION Stee1 structures were shop primed with A$ercoat 71 and shipped to the job site. Inspection showed most of the primed steel had a thickness of more than 5 mils - with some areas showing a dry film thickness up to 15 mils. To determine if this excess in thicknesswould affect the performance of the system, we ran an in-house DBA test following ANSI PWR curve on sanples prepared with a thick-ness range of 9 to 20 mils for Amercoat 71 and 5 to 11 mils for Amercoat 90. CONCLUSIONS All of the panels passed the DBA test conducted according to ANSI N 101.2 to meet the PWR conditions. METHODS AND RESULTS 2" x 4" x 1/4" ASTM A-36 Steel panels were used. They were cured in the laboratory for 7 days prior to testing. Test was performed following ANSI N101.2 PWR curve as closely as possible. The actual conditions of the test,.information on panel preparation and the results are on attached sheets. ~ Batch numbers used were: Amercoat 71 1-806329 and 1-807304 Amercoat 90 1-701068 and 1-7 069 /JL 1 Written by-G. Valdez Approved by:, l' U. I. Richardson Distribution: H. H. K. l. I i l l ~

lianufacturer: Ameron Protective Coatings Ameron Coatings Lab Division, Brea Date: Septenter 5,1978 Table 1. DBA Solution Composition. 0.28 M Boric Acid (3,000 ppm baron) 0.064 M_ Sodium Thiosulfate Adjusted to pH 9.5 with sodium hydroxide. ~ Table 2. DBA Test Conditions J Time Temperature (*F) Pressure (psig) Comments 1 .0 165 0 10 sec. 285 59 10 min. 281 60 75 min. drop to 265 48 Gradual drop. 80 min. drop to 220 drop to 42 sudden drop 82 min. back to 265 back to 48 from 82 to 170 min. drop to 240 drop to 23 Gradual drop from 170 min. to 24 hrs. 160 to 220 16 to 24 from 24 hrs. to 4 days 170 to 180 from 18 drop to 8 End of test .q tN**N 1 6 e Test Report No. 2537 Approved -

~ T, Manufacturer Ameron Protective Ameren Coating Lab Coatings Olvision, Brea Date Septenber 5,1978 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION: XX STEEL CONCRETE BLOCK Amercoat 71 at High Thicknesses topcoated with Amercoat 90 i: OBA TEST RESULTS: - ANSI PWR; 4 days Laboratory Workbook 718 - Test #49 SAMPLE No. DFT (mils) DBA PHASE COP.MENTS 2-1 2537 Front: 18/7 Vapor Coatings intact - No defects 4 ~ Back:9.5/9 2-2 2537 Front: 18/7 Imersed Coatings intact - No defects j Back: 9/10 l 2-5 2537 Front: 18/11 Vapor Coating's intact - No defects Back: 10/6 2-6 2537 Front: 18/11 Imersed Coatings intact - No defects Back: 10/6 ~ 3 1 .... w - Aaproved, Test Report No. 2537 M 88

- 4 W

o-. -qr-. oo-n-e ,n, ,-g-,,. ,---,,,,,_,,...7-,n--,. ,,,,w..7,g,,,, -,,., -, -

/. :,. '. - l - ...~ DESIGil BASIS ACCIDEtlT (DCA) TEST PAtlEL PREPARATION DATA

1. PRODUCT TO BE TESTED Amercoat 71/Amercoat 90

2. TYPE SUBSTRATE:

ASTM A-36 Steel SIZE 2" x 4" x 1/4" .3.SUP.FACEPREPARATION(describe): Gritblasted to SSPC-SP10 minimum, with G-40 Steel Grit: Profile 2-3 G/S 76 Keane-Tator Profile Comparator

4. PRODUCT DATA:

. SAi!PLE Ho.(s) 2-6 2437

5. DATE Afl0 TIllE CURI?tG COMPOUTID OR PRIMER APPLIED PRODUCT APPLICATI0t{

C0:1D1710:15 THICKilESS TIttE & DATE SIDE C0AT. PROD' JCT' CODES BATCH # 11ETHOD R/l1(*Fi %R.H. (ins.) APPLIED F 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 78 59 0.018" 8-18-78 l-807304 4:10 PM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 ' Suction Gun 76 55 0.011" 8-22-78 1-701069 2:45 PM B 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 71 68 0.010" 8-21-78 1-807304 10:10 AM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.006" 8-22-78 1-701069 2:45 PM F = Front B = Back

5. CURIrlG C0!!DITI0ilS: AMBIEllT TEMP 70 I 10

F REL. HU:11DITY 50 I 10 111tilMU:1 CUPE 7

DAYS.

7. TEST PROCEDURE:

ANSI N101.2 PWR Curve D. TESTI:l" PERFOR!tED BY: Brea's Laboratory DATE SUG511TTED N/A / TEST REPORT No. 2537

. ? q.'.
~ ~
DESIGil BASIS ACCIDEllT (DCA)

TEST PAi!EL PREPARATI0!! DATA

1. PRODUCT TO BE TESTED Amercoat 71/Amercoat 90

2. TYPE SUBSTRATE:

ASTM A-36 Steel SIZE 2" x 4" x 1/4" 3.-SURFACEPREPARATIO!(describe): Gritblasted to SSPC-SP10 minimum,'with G-40 Steel Grit: Profile 2-3 G/S 76 Keane-Tator Profile Comparator

4. PRODUCT DATA:

. SA!9tE ilo.(s) 2-2 2537

5. DATE AND tit!E CURIrlG C0.'90Ui!D OR PRIMER APPLIED PRODUCT APPLICATI0ft C0:lDITI0 tis THICKilESS tit 1E & DAT SIDE COAT. PRODUCT CODES BATCH #

itETHOD R/l1(*F) 1;R.H. (ins.) ' APPLIED F 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 78 59 0.018"[ 8-18-78 1-807304 4:10 PM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.007" 8-22-78 1-701069 2:45 PM ~ B 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 71 68 0.009 8-21-78 1-807304 10:10 AM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.010" 8-22-78 1-701069 2:45 PM F = Front B = Back

6. CURI!!G C0f!DITI0llS: /41CIE!!T TE!!P 70 I 10

F REL. Ilu!11DITY 50 I 10 111til*;U:1 CljPE 7

DAYS.

7. TEST PROCEDUP.E:

ANSI N101.2 PWR Curve

8. TESTI:19 PERFOR!ED BY: Brea's Laboratory DATE SUP1ITTED N/A

{ TEST REPORT tio. 2537

4.:. } DESIGil BASIS. ACCIDE!!T (DSA) 4 TEST PA!!EL PREPAP.ATIO t DATA i I

1. PRODUCT TO BE TESTED Acercoat 71/Amercoat 90 i

2. TYPE SUBSTRATE: _

ASTM A-36 Steel SIZE 2" x 4" x 1/4"

3. SURFACE PREPARATI0tl (describe): Gritblasted to SSPC-SP10 minimum, with G-40 Steel 1

Grit: Profile 2-3 G/S 76 Keane-Tator Profile Comparator

4. PRODUCT DATA:

. Sii'.?LE No.(s) 2-5 2437

5. DATE AND TIllE CURING CC: POUtID OR PRIMER APPLIED t

PRODUCT APPLICATI0:1 C0!:DITI0tl5 THICK!!ESS TI!!E & DA; SIDE _ C0AT. PR00UCT CODES BATCH # itETH00 R/lt(*F) %R.H. (ins.) APPLIED F 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 78 59 0.018"# 8-18-78 1-807304-4:10 PH 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.011" 8-22-78 j 1-701069 2:45 PM i / 8 1.Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 71 68 0.010" 8-21-78 { 1-807304 10:10 AM i 2 Amercoat. 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.006" 8-22-78 { 1-701069 2:45 PM } t i F = Front B = Back l 4

6. CURI;lG C0f;DITI0ftS: AMBIE!!T TEMP 70 I 10

F REL. HUlIDITY 50110 i

i 111t:1*:U:t'CUPE_ _ 7 DAYS..

7. TEST PROCEDURE:

AflSI N101.2 PWR Curve t 8.TE.iTI!"PERFCR;iEDBY: Brea's Laboratory DATE SUGtilTTED N/A ~~ ' bA .w-

s c DESIGil BASIS ACCIDEllT (DCA) TEST PAttEl PREPARATI0:1 DATA

1. PRODUCT TO BE TESTED Amercoat 71/Amercoat 90

2. TYPE SUBSTRATE:

ASTM A-36 Steel SIZE 2" x 4" x 1/4"

3. SUPJACE PREPARATIO:! (describe):

Gritblasted to SSPC-SP10 minimum, with G-40 Steel ( Grit; Profile 2-3 G/5 76 Keane-Tator Profile Comparator i .4. PRODUCT DATA: . SAMPLE tio.(s) 2-1 2537 5.- DATE AND TIIiE CURING CO.'!POU;lD OR PRIkER APPLIED PRODUCT APPLICATI0ft C0tDITIOi!S THICKilESS TI!E & DA SIDE COAT. PROD' JCT CODES BATCH # !!ETHOD R/li(*F) %R.H. (ins.) APPLIEC F 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 78 59 0.018"I 8-18-78 1-807304 4:10 PM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701068 Suction Gun 76 55 0.007" 8-22-78 1-701069 2:45 FM B 1 Amercoat 71 1-806329 Suction Gun 71 68 0.0095' 8-21-78 1-807304 10:10 AM 2 Amercoat 90 1-701058 Suction Gun 76 55 0.009" 8-22-78 l-701069 2:45 PM I F = Front B = Back-6.CURI!!GC0!!DITIOXS: AMDIEllT TEMP 70 I 10

F.

REL. IlutlIDITY 50110 !!!!!!';U:1 CijPE 7 DAYS.

7. TEST PPOCEDURE:

ANSI N101.2 PWR Curve

6. TEST!!!? PERFOR:tED BY: Brea's Laboratory DATE SUG'llTTED N/A

.. A.... 1EST REPORT I:o. 2537 e . ~ ~ n

a. 1 l e I 9 e 1 -l ATTACHMENT 3 AMI.RON LETTER 4 o r

s t.. RECE!VED e. MAR 1 n 935 a e en en emann seen esa e e ewenen a e a e e ee e en e e ee e ensam mass e eeee CORROSION DEPT. e ee ee ee e ee

== e ee e e#### a e ELECTRONIC MAIL SYS EM Printed on : 02-19-85 FROM : HARLAN.KLINE AT : 08: 20: 56 19 FEB 1985 SYS TIME TO

W.F. GUNDAKER (DESTINATION: 25422365)

SUBJECT : DBA GUAL TESTING KEYWORD : FRON: HARLAN KLINE/AMERON-PCD. ~ TO: W. F. GUND AKER /EB ASCO, NY JORAM LICHTENSTEIN/EBASCO, HOUSTON PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING, CONCERNING D-6/90. DEZ/90 AND 71/90 IN CONTAINMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING RECENTLY. NUCLEAR DBA GUALIFICATION TESTING WITH OR WITHOUT PRE-IRRADIATION AT LEVELS OF 2X10 -8 OR IXIO -9 RADS SHOWS NO DIFFERENCE IN RESULTS AT INITIAL DBA TIME / TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS OF I/2 HOUR /335 F OR 6 HOUR /340 F FOR THE FOLLOWING COATING SYSTEMS OVER ABRASIVE BLASTED STEEL: DIMETCOTE 6/AMERCOAT 90 DIMETCOTE EZ/AMERCOAT 90 AMERCOAT 71/AMERCOAT 90 THE RESULTS WERE NO COATING DEFECTS IN ANY OF THE TEST PANELS IN THESE TESTS CONDUCTED BY OAKRIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY AS PART OF OUR COATING OVALIFICATION TESTING TO ANSI AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. THE INFLUENCE OF PRE-IRRADIATION ON THE CAPABILITY OF COATING SYSTEM TO WITHSTAND DBA ENVIRONMENTS NAY BE VIEWED AS HAVING ADDED STRESS AND THIS NAY BE THE CASE WITH SOME COATINGS. HOWEVER, PRE-IRRADIATION IS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON i DIMETCOTE 6/AMERCOAT 90, DIMETCOTE EZ/AMERCOAT TO OR AMERCOAT 71/ i AMERCOAT 90 A5 DESCRIBED ABOVE. s7 THE PRE-IRRADIATION EXPOSURE USED LN OVALIFICATION TESTING IS THE TOTAL RADIATION EXPECTED OVER THE NORMAL 40 YEAR DESIGN LIFE OF THE PLANT AND IS ACCOMPLISHED AT AN EXPOSURE RATE AROUND IXIO -7 RADS PER HOUR. I. E., 4 DAYS FOR 1X10 -9 RADS TOTAL.

THIS IS AN ACCELERATED EXPOSURE, MUCH NORE SEVERE THAN WILL BE ENCOUNTERED IN i

ACTUAL SERVICE. THIS ACCELERATED EXPOSURE SHOWED NO INFLUENCE ON THE DIMETCOTE 6/AMERCOAT 90. DINETCOTE EZ/AMERCOAT TO OR AMERCOAT 71/ AMERCOAT 90.IN THE DBA QUALIFICATION TESTINC. DBA TESTING WITH AND WITHOUT PRE-IRRADIATION AT 2-3XIO -8 RADS OVER A POWER TOOL CLEANED SURFACE PREPARED WITH 3M CLEAN N STRIP SHOWED ONLY MINOR INTACT BLISTERING OF FEW e6 OR eS ON ONE SIDE OF ONE _ ___ -. ~_

l

a...

8, . 43..#. ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM Mail for Printed on : 02-19-85 PANEL PRE-IRRADIATED FOR AMERCOAT 90 OR AMERCOAT 71/AMERCOAT 90. THIS DEMONSTRATES NO DELAMINATION TYPE FAILURE OVER SURFACES HAVING l LESS THAN THE ABRASIVE BLAST CLEANING LEVEL OF PREPARATION. THERE HAS BEEN NO DELAMINATION TYPE FAILURE IN SERVICE FOR DIMETCOTE 6/AMERCOAT.90. DIMETCOTE EZ/AMERCOAT 90 OR AMERCOAT 71/AMERCOAT 90 REPORTED WHERE THESE COATINGS HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AT RECOMMENDED DRY FILM THICKNESS. THERE IS ONE INSTANCE WHERE AMERCOAT 90 WAS APPLIED AT UP TO 40 MILS DFT OVER DIMETCOTE 6 WHICH DID SHOW SOME VISIBLE CRACKING AND DELAMINATION REQUIRING REPAIR. A DBA TEST CONDUCTED ON EXCESSIVE AMERCOAT 90 DRY FILM THICKNESS UP TO 40 MILS DFT SHOWED INDICATIONS THAT PRE-IRRADIATION DID INFLUENCE DBA TEST RESULTS. HOWEVER, THE CDATING SYSTEM REMAINED INTACT, DID NOT DELAMINATE AND ONLY SHOWED.2 TO.6 BLISTERS OR A FEW SMALL CRACKS. 4 THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE INFLUENCE OF PRE-IRRADI ATION AT ACCELERATED CONDITIONS ON AMERCOAT 90 IN A DBA ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DELAMINATION OF THE COATING EVEN WHEN APPLIED AT EXCESSIVELY HIGH OR DRY FILM THICKNESS. PLEASE CALL ME (714/529-1951 X-362) OR TELEX 655342 THANK YOU. HARLAN Copies : HARLAN KLINE SHARON HEINZ l l i 22M9 .m m , -. -, - ~ -...,. - - - - - - _ - -. - - - -. - - - - - -

O F, o, 0 i

4 l

e ATTACHMENT 4 TELECON WITH MR J MONTLE e 'T '7 ? k e I

{ o '.

f. ' -

l 'r e,, _ RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION oavr March 22.1985 yo FILE ....,.6.... JLfCHTENSTEIN rno. cut = T/peoJact _ WATERFORD NGS ausarev PROTECTIVE COATING MODE OF FAILURE cnamor osPT. mo. 647/570 cuswv svuson 10tl ors no Na 7't7 de oiscussion viva - J' Montal, Vice President, Carboline Co., (314) 644-1000 I asked John what the mode of failure and delamination would be,the Class I coatin on at the sub, ject plant. He stated that the failure will be by blistering. In the event that actual delamination or pealing occurds, the paint chips will be very small, in the range of 1/16 to 1/2 inch. His experience through observing many test panels coated with an inorganic zi or a two coat epoxy system is that the failures t.e small paint chips rather than sheets of materials. comwtwTs y f ..: c;.. sv __ J Lichtenstein _Mgr. Corr. Ener. 647 cc W F Gundaker a*== J S Semple, Jr. m6s

* " = * -

1

'~' I. ' - % e O e e ATTACHMENT 5 TELECON WITH MR R BROOKSBANK 4

fy ' Y, <. s. .. s5= RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION navr March 22, 195 to _ FILE .......s.... F#oet _- J LICHTENSTEIN M cusu t/peoJact __. WATERFORD NGS ausJuev __ PROTECTIVE COATING DE OF FAILURE cmaests se rv. me._ 647/570 cuant svmeot _ LOU orsno 2864.2 n oiscussion wits - Rick Brooksbank. (615) 574-4885 mode of failure of coating system similar to the one us He said that the failure are usually intact blistering. it is predominantly in the fonn of small paint chips. If delamination actually occur comuswis i i 7,4- . r.. l scs W F Gundsker ' " '..*d" E""" '" P a 887 9 J S Semple.'Jr. ~ _2}}

ML20116N529

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Reference:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML20116N529

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Reference:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search