ML120610074

Corrosion Head Loss Experiments Test Program

ML120610074
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/29/2012
From:	South Texas
To:	Balwant Singal Plant Licensing Branch IV
Singal, B K, NRR/DORL, 301-415-301
Shared Package
ML120610060	List: ML120610063 ML120610068 ML120610074 ML120610102
References
TAC ME7735, TAC ME7736
Download: ML120610074 (51)

Text

WORKING DRAFT STP CORROSION HEAD LOSS EXPERIMENTS (CHLE) TEST PLAN REVISION 1.2 February 29, 2012 Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page i of 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 4

3. GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH .......................................................................... 4 3.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Tests .......................................................................................... 5 3.2 Bench-Scale Laboratory Tests ......................................................................................... 5 3.3 Short-Term Integrated Tank Tests ................................................................................... 6

4. METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR THE 30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TESTS .......... 6 4.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Test Equipment ......................................................................... 6 4.2 Matrix of 30-Day Integrated Tank Test Conditions ......................................................... 8 4.3 Experimental Parameters.................................................................................................. 8 4.4 Debris Bed Formation .................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Process Control and Analytical Measurements .............................................................. 11 4.6 Experimental Results...................................................................................................... 11 4.7 Input into the CASA Model ........................................................................................... 12

5. METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR THE BENCH SCALE LABORATORY TESTS ..... 12 5.1 Bench Test Summary ..................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Bench Scale Laboratory Test Equipment ....................................................................... 13 5.3 Series 100 - Leaching from materials ............................................................................ 13 5.4 Series 200 - High temperature aluminum corrosion rates ............................................. 14 5.5 Series 2000 - Variability of maximum soluble aluminum concentration at 30 days .... 15 5.6 Series 3000 - Corrosion rate variability tests................................................................. 16 5.7 Series 4000 - Precipitation Tests ................................................................................... 20

6. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SHORT TERM TANK TESTS............................. 22

7. References ............................................................................................................................... 24 A. APPENDIX A - BASES FOR CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STP TEST PLAN...... 25 1.1 Water Levels .................................................................................................................. 25 1.2 Chemicals ....................................................................................................................... 26 1.3 pH Profile ....................................................................................................................... 41 1.4 Materials ......................................................................................................................... 41 1.5 Simulated Sump Temperature ........................................................................................ 44

2. Appendix B - Equipment Details ........................................................................................... 46 2.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Tests ........................................................................................ 46 Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page ii of 51

2.2 Bench-Scale Laboratory Tests ....................................................................................... 49 NOTE: This test plan is a draft and describes the current status of the Corrosion / Head Loss Experiments to be conducted in support of South Texas Projects resolution of GSI-191.

Development of details and values for parameters is currently in progress.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page iii of 51

1. BACKGROUND Most pressurized water reactors (PWRs) have attempted to resolve GSI-191 by following a deterministic approach as laid out in NEI 04-07 (1; 2). In deterministic evaluations, uncertainty is addressed using conservatisms to ensure that a bounding evaluation has been performed.

Numerous tests and analyses (with varying levels of success) have been performed in each subject area to better understand the physical phenomenon and reduce the level of conservatism in plant specific evaluations.

South Texas Project (STP) is addressing GSI-191 through risk informed evaluations. The deterministic and risk informed approaches both attempt to address the physical phenomenon as realistically as possible. However, the primary difference is that the deterministic approach analyzes bounding scenarios and addresses uncertainty with conservatisms, whereas the risk informed approach analyzes best estimate conditions for the full spectrum of scenarios by considering probability and quantifying uncertainty as part of the evaluation.

The chemical effects testing and evaluations that have been performed over the last six or seven years have focused on analyzing bounding scenarios. Nevertheless, the knowledge base that has been developed is extensive and can be used to evaluate a wide variety of potential conditions.

2. OBJECTIVES The overall objectives of these corrosion/head loss experiment (CHLE) tests are as follows:

1. Determine the significance of chemical effects on the resolution of GSI-191 at the STP nuclear power plants.

2. Generate data that can be used to develop a model or algorithm that will provide input to Casa Grande for the impact of chemical effects on debris bed head loss.

3. GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH The CHLE analysis integrates three different types of tests to accomplish the objectives as stated in section 2 and is illustrated by Figure 1. The three different types of tests within the analysis are as follows: (1) 30-day integrated tank tests, (2) bench-scale laboratory tests, and (3) short-term integrated tank tests.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 4 of 51

30 Day Tank Tests Lab Tests Short Term Tank Tests Series 100: Leaching (materials)

Test 1: Baseline Series 200: Al corrosion T > 85 C Test 1: Bed thickness to particulate Ratio 1 Test 2: LBLOCA Series 2000 -3000: Corrosion Test Max 30 day and initial release , variability Test 2: Bed thickness to particulate Ratio 2 Test 3: SBLOCA Series 4000: Precipitation test Test 2: Bed thickness to Test 4: MBLOCA Identification, characterization, variability particulate Ratio 3 Thermodynamic Modeling CASA Precipitate calculator Head Loss Calculator Figure 1: Schematic of the CHLE analysis 3.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Tests The objective of this test series is to integrate corrosion and leaching of source materials (aluminum, Nukon fiber, etc.) with head loss through a debris bed using chemical and temperature conditions representative of a hypothetical leak of coolant accident (LOCA) at STP over full 30-day accident scenario duration.

3.2 Bench-Scale Laboratory Tests This tests series consists of a mixture of batch and flow-through loop experiments to accomplish the objectives listed below.

1. Investigate the rate of aluminum corrosion in the presence of Nukon fibers at temperatures above 185 °F (85 °C) for quantification of additional material to be inserted in the integrated 30-day tests to mimic the additional corrosion that would occur at temperatures above the maximum integrated test temperature.

2. Determine whether specific materials need to be included in the integrated 30-day tests.

3. Investigate and quantify the variation in corrosion rates during a LOCA and a 30-day aluminum release concentration resulting from variations in boric acid concentration, trisodium phosphate (TSP) concentration, pH, and temperature.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 5 of 51

4. Investigate the conditions that lead to the passivation of aluminum.

5. Investigate conditions that will force precipitation to occur.

6. Quantify and characterize the precipitates that form.

Objectives 1 and 2 are used to refine the selection and amount of materials to be included in the integrated 30-day tests. Objectives 4 to 6 are used to develop inputs to Containment Accident Stochastic Analysis (CASA) and calibrate the thermodynamic model. The thermodynamic model is calibrated to inform testing and as possible additional inputs into CASA.

3.3 Short-Term Integrated Tank Tests The objective of this test series is to quantify head loss under varying debris bed conditions using precipitate generated in-situ based on the bench-scale tests. The short-term tests will be used to develop inputs into CASA.

4. METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR THE 30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TESTS The basic features of the tests are as follows:

1. The tests will take place in an integrated system that will allow corrosion of materials to take place in conditions representative of a LOCA, with simultaneous circulation of solution through a simulated fibrous debris bed on a sump strainer screen.

2. The materials used in testing represent those existing at STP, in the same ratio of material area to sump pool volume.

3. The test system will operate with a time/temperature/chemistry profile representative of a LOCA, with the exception that temperatures above 185 °F (85 °C) will not be tested.

Additional source materials will be added to the tank so that the appropriate amount of corrosion products are formed at the end of the high temperature ( >185 °F) phase.

4. A separate loop with a cooling element, filter, and heating element will aid in investigating if thermal cycling will cause precipitation of soluble aluminum concentrations dictated by experimental design or if it will affect the behavior of precipitation that may form at the higher temperature.

Evaluation of data will be directed at determining if corrosion products form that influence head loss.

4.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Test Equipment The test apparatus for the 30-day integrated tank tests has three main sections, as follows:

1. Material corrosion tank where materials present in containment can be placed to simulate the environment inside the containment structure during a LOCA.

2. Multiple vertical head loss assemblies to simulate the flow conditions through debris bed that forms on a sump screen.

3. Heat exchanger capabilities to simulate plant conditions for evaluation of effects on precipitate formation.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 6 of 51

A simplified schematic of the test loop is shown in Figure 2. A photograph of the corrosion tank is shown in Figure 3. Additional details of the test equipment are presented in Appendix B.

Figure 2: Simplified Process Flow Diagram of 30-Day Integrated Tank Test System Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 7 of 51

Figure 3: Photograph of material corrosion tank for the 30-Day Integrated Tests 4.2 Matrix of 30-Day Integrated Tank Test Conditions Four 30-day tests are anticipated as follows:

1. Baseline test with all the temperature and chemical profile of a large break LOCA, (LBLOCA) but without any corrosion materials present in the corrosion material tank.

2. Test representative of a LBLOCA.

3. Test representative of a medium break LOCA (MBLOCA).

4. Test representative of a small break LOCA (SBLOCA).

4.3 Experimental Parameters Summaries of the experimental parameters for each test within this test series are presented below. The target values for each of these parameters were chosen from a range of parameters generated from review of STP records, MALCORE, and CASA. Detailed information on the selection of these values is described in Appendix A.

The tank solution will be demineralized water with addition of the chemicals shown in Table 1.

The anticipated pH for the duration of the test will be 7.0 for the SBLOCA and 7.1 for the MBLOCA and LBLOCA based on these chemical additions. The quantities of source materials Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 8 of 51

for the corrosion and dissolution reactions are summarized in Table 2. For the LBLOCA and MBLOCA tests, some material will be located in the tank pool and the remainder of the material will be located in the tank vapor space. The division of materials between the two locations is shown in Table 3. The SBLOCA will have no material in the vapor space.

Table 1 : Chemical concentrations in each of the integrated 30-day CHLE tests Chemical Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 (Baseline) (LBLOCA) (MBLOCA) (LBLOCA)

Boric acid (as B)

Trisodium phosphate Lithium hydroxide (as Li)

Hydrochloric acid Table 2: Source materials for corrosion in each of the integrated 30-day CHLE tests Ratio of materials for Ratio of materials for Ratio of materials for Material SBLOCA MBLOCA LBLOCA Aluminum 0.0081 ft2/ft3 0.0814 ft2/ft3 0.0814 ft2/ft3 Concrete 0.0663 ft2/ft3 0.0663 ft2/ft3 0.0663 ft2/ft3 Fiberglass 0.0288 ft3/ft3 0.0288 ft3/ft3 0.0288 ft3/ft3 Table 3: Surface area above and below containment flood level. This division is applicable for the MBLOCA and LBLOCA.

Submerged Unsubmerged Material Type (ft2) (ft2)

Aluminum 0.27 2.45 Concrete 2.22 --

Fiberglass 0.93 ft3 --

The temperature in the system will decline over the 30-day test. The temperature will be controlled by changing the setpoint for the temperature controller at defined times to approximate the temperature profile anticipated for each size of break. An example of the temperature profile from MELCORE and the step changes in the temperature controller is shown in Figure 3. The temperature profiles for the remaining tests are shown in Appendix B. The temperature setpoints for each of the tests is shown in Table 4.

[NOTE: The temperature profiles will be determined by running MELCORE for each break size. These profiles and corresponding temperature setpoints will be generated before the next revision of this test plan.]

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 9 of 51

Figure 3: Temperature Profile predicted for a LBLOCA.

Table 4: Temperature profiles simulation for 30-day tests.

Tests 1 and 2 Test 3 Test 4 Time (days:hours) (baseline and (MBLOCA) (SBLOCA)

LBLOCA)

The tank sprays will be operated for the first 6.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of the 30-day test for the MBLOCA and LBLOCA tests. The sprays will not be operated for the SMLOCA. The spray flowrate will be 4.7 gpm.

4.4 Debris Bed Formation Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 10 of 51

The debris bed in the head loss modules will consist of fibrous debris and particulate matter. The fibrous debris will be shredded Nukon that has been prepared according the accepted NEI protocol. The quantity of shredded Nukon in the debris beds will be XX percent of the debris generated in each type of LOCA. The total quantity of Nukon will be split evenly between the three debris beds. The remaining Nukon for each type of LOCA will be located in flow-through baskets in the corrosion tank.

4.5 Process Control and Analytical Measurements Several parameters will be monitored continuously using on-line instrumentation and a data acquisition system. These parameters include flow, temperature, pH, and differential pressure.

Additional parameters will be measured by collecting samples from the solution during test operation or by analyzing materials withdrawn from the tank after each test is complete. The analyses are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5:: Process Control and Analytical measurements Parameter Location Frequency Continuous measurements Recirculation flow Recirculation pipe continuously pH Recirculation pipe continuously Temperature Multiple locations continuously Differential pressure Across each debris bed continuously Grab samples of solution:

pH Sample port daily Metals: Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb Sample port Metals (filtered): Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Filter on sample port Pb Turbidity Sample port daily Total suspended solids Filter on sample port Measurements after 30-day test Weight of coupons Metal coupons Visual inspection of materials Corrosion coupons, fiberglass with SEM surfaces in material corrosion tank, fiberglass in debris bed Elemental composition of Corrosion coupons, fiberglass materials with EDS surfaces in material corrosion tank, fiberglass in debris bed 4.6 Experimental Results The testing described in this section is expected to produce the following results:

1. Temperature and pH as a function of time over a 30-day period.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 11 of 51

2. Concentration of dissolved and total metals (Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Pb) in solution as a function of time over a 30-day period.

3. Turbidity and total suspended solids in solution as a function of time over a 30-day period.

4. Head loss through a fibrous debris bed as a function of time over a 30-day period.

5. Weight loss of corrosion coupons at the end of each test, leading to calculation of a 30-day averaged corrosion rate.

4.7 Input into the CASA Model The results listed above will generate a head loss profile over a 30-day period at a specific set of conditions for input into CASA. The concentration of dissolved and total metals, turbidity, and suspended solids data will also be used as input values to CASA and will be used to explain any trends or step changes in the head loss. The relationship between head loss and concentrations of dissolved and total metals, turbidity, and suspended solids can be used as a baseline for variability that will be identified during the bench-scale tests (i.e., if the bench tests indicate a higher aluminum corrosion rate, the duration of time elapsed before reaching a threshold aluminum concentration that causes a step change in head loss can be determined in CASA).

5. METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR THE BENCH SCALE LABORATORY TESTS 5.1 Bench Test Summary The bench-scale tests are designed to fulfill a number of objectives. The tests will take place in three types of experimental equipment (1) sealed batch containers inside an autoclave or oven at temperatures up to 265 °F, (2) sealed batch containers in a water bath (with integrated shaker table) at temperatures up to 185 °F and (3) a small-scale flow-through loop at temperatures up to 185 °F. The bench tests are divided into series based on the objectives and test equipment. The tests are summarized as follows:

5.1.1 Batch Corrosion/Leaching Tests The objectives of this test series are to investigate parameters for the 30-day tests and corrosion and/or release of relevant materials in borated water. These tests are divided into series with the specified objectives listed below.

• Series 100 - Tests for leaching of metals from materials will determine whether specific materials need to be included in the integrated 30-day tests and/or the quantity of those materials to be included.

• Series 200 - Investigate the rate of aluminum corrosion in the presence of Nukon fibers at temperatures above 185 °F for quantification of additional material to be inserted in the integrated 30-day tests to mimic the additional corrosion that would occur at temperatures above the maximum integrated test temperature.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 12 of 51

• Series 2000 - These tests will determine the maximum concentration of aluminum in solution at the end of 30 days as a function of variability in pH, boron concentration, temperature and combination of materials.

• Series 3000 - These tests will quantify the corrosion rate as a function of corrosion inhibition and the variability in corrosion rates for variable conditions of pH, boron concentration, temperature and combination of materials for CASA input for T < 185 °F.

All experiments will be run in triplicate. Further experimental details associated with each series are to follow.

5.1.2 Flow-Through Corrosion/Precipitation Tests

• Series 4000 - Precipitation Tests will investigate precipitation as function of corrosion of materials under a given range of STP conditions. Temperatures will trace the full temperature profile of a LOCA. Evaluation of data will be used to determine: (1) best possible chemical formula for the precipitate, (2) if precipitate is amorphous or crystalline and (3) generate instructions to produce precipitate for short term tank tests.

5.2 Bench Scale Laboratory Test Equipment 5.2.1 Batch Corrosion/Leaching Tests Batch tests will take place in sealed 250 mL containers in temperatures < 85 ºC. For temperatures above the boiling point of water, the containers will be placed in an autoclave. No agitation of samples will take place. For temperatures below the boiling point of water, the samples will be placed in a temperature-controlled water bath. The water bath will have a shaking platform to provide agitation to the samples.

5.2.2 Flow-Through Loop Test A schematic of the flow-through loop is presented in Appendix B.

5.3 Series 100 - Leaching from materials 5.3.1 Series objective (s)

Determine whether to include materials in the integrated 30-day tests.

5.3.2 Experimental Design All tests will be run at the following constant conditions. Conditions that are varied are described in the following sections.

• Boron concentration (mgL-1): 2,800

• TSP concentration (mgL-1) :

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 13 of 51

• Target solution pH: 7.2 +/- 0.1 (based on modeling with the given boron and TSP concentrations).

• Target ionic strength: 0.132 M (based on modeling with the given boron and TSP concentrations).

• T(°C): 85 +/- 3

• Turbulence: Agitation provided by shaking table in water bath.

• Duration: 2 days

• Sampling Time (hr): 0, 0.5, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 24, 48

• Analysis o ICP-OES (Al, Si, Zn, Ca) o IC (phosphate) 5.3.3 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

The following materials will be tested to investigate whether they leach anything into solution that can precipitate or affect the rate of corrosion of aluminum or leaching of fiberglass: copper, lead, zinc, and iron.

5.3.4 Experimental Results Experimental results will produce raw data on metal concentration to roughly evaluate leaching quantity and variability under specified tank conditions. If concentration of metals is within range of the pre-determined concentration by modeling, then it will be included in the tank tests.

5.3.5 Input into the CASA Model These tests will not be used for the CASA model. They will be used to refine the selection and quantity of materials to be used in the integrated 30-day tests.

5.4 Series 200 - High temperature aluminum corrosion rates 5.4.1 Series objective (s)

Determine how much extra material to add to the integrated 30-day tests 5.4.2 Standard Experimental Design All tests will be run at the following constant conditions. Conditions that are varied are described in the following sections.

• Boron Concentration (mgL-1): 2,800

• TSP concentration (mgL-1) :

• Target solution pH: 7.2 +/- 0.1 (based on modeling with the given boron and TSP concentrations).

• Target ionic strength: 0.132 M (based on modeling with the given boron and TSP concentrations).

• Temperature (°C): 130 +/- 3 Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 14 of 51

• Material: aluminum and Nukon at 30-day tank test ratio

• Turbulence: Quiescent in autoclave

• Duration: 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />

• Sampling frequency: 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />

• Analysis o ICP-OES (Al) o XPS o SEM o Weight 5.4.3 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Material to be used in this test is aluminum coupons and Nukon at a ratio defined by the 30 day tests.

5.4.4 Experimental Results Experimental results will produce raw data on corrosion rate and material release for the high temperature (T > 85 °C) in STP specific conditions. These results will be compared with results from literature. Together the literature results and experimental results will be used to determine the surface area of aluminum and the amount of time for this material to be added to the 30-day tests to account for the high temperature time period of a LOCA scenario.

5.4.5 Input into Casa Grande Model These tests will not be used for the CASA model. They will be used to refine the selection and quantity of materials to be used in the integrated 30-day tests.

5.5 Series 2000 - Variability of maximum soluble aluminum concentration at 30 days 5.5.1 Series Objective Determine maximum aluminum release as a function of variable conditions in the STP containment.

5.5.2 Standard Experimental Design All tests will be run at the following constant conditions. Conditions that are varied are described in the following sections.

• Initial solution pH +/- 0.1: 6.5, 7.2 8.0

• Boron Concentration (mgL-1): minimum, median, and maximum

• Buffer Type: See section 5.5.3

• Material: See section 5.5.3

• Temperature (°C): 85 +/- 3

• Turbulence: Agitation provided by shaking table in water bath.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 15 of 51

• Duration: 30 Day

• Sampling collection times: 10, 20, 30 day for liquid, 30 day for coupon

• Analysis o ICP-OES (Al, Si) o IC (PO4) o XPS o SEM o Weight 5.5.3 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Material to be used in this test is aluminum and fiberglass insulation. The buffer type will be sodium tetraborate or TSP in concentrations necessary to obtain initial solution pH target. The combinations of these variables are listed below in Table 6. There will be 108 tests in this series Table 6: Matrix of test parameters to be used in conjunction with standard experimental parameters Test Series Material Buffer 2100 Aluminum Only NaTB 2200 Aluminum Only TSP 2300 Aluminum, Nukon NaTB 2500 Aluminum, Nukon TSP 5.5.4 Experimental Results Results will be used to determine variability in maximum 30 Day aluminum concentration as a function of inhibition.

5.5.5 Input into Casa Grande Model This series of tests will inform to determine the variability in the 30 day material release rate as a function of inhibition types which can be used in Casa.

5.6 Series 3000 - Corrosion rate variability tests 5.6.1 Series Objectives Quantify the variability in material release rates for variable conditions of pH, boron concentration, temperature and combination of materials for CASA input.

5.6.2 Standard Experimental Design All tests will be run at the following constant conditions which are defined by a LBLOCA.

• H3BO3 = 256 mM (2,770 mg/L as B)

• TSP = 8.12 mM (770 mg/L as PO4, 3085 mg/L as Na3PO4*12H2O)

• Aluminum

• Lithium (awaiting value)

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 16 of 51

• Chloride (awaiting value)

• Nukon (awaiting value)

• Concrete (awaiting value)

• No copper, iron, zinc (conc = 0)

• Temperature = 85 °C

• pH = 7.2 at 21 °C

• Test duration 1 day

• Sampling collection times (hr) o Solution: 0, 2, 4,6, 8 24 o Coupon: 24

• Analysis o ICP-OES (Al, Si, Fe, Cu, Ca) o IC (phosphate) o XPS o SEM o Weight 5.6.3 Series 3000 - Variations in aluminum corrosion rate due to changes in boron and TSP concentrations.

5.6.3.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

The boric acid and TSP concentrations are altered from the base conditions as listed in Table 7.

Including replicates, there will be 27 tests.

Table 7: Variations of boric acid and TSP for testing Min H3BO3 Base H3BO3 Max H3BO3 Min TSP Base TSP LBLOCA Conditions Max TSP 5.6.3.2 Experimental Results Raw data obtained for aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial corrosion rate as function of STP operating parameters. The results will be used to predict the duration to reach the maximum level of soluble aluminum concentration as determined in the 2500 series.

5.6.4 Series 3100 - Variations in aluminum corrosion rate due to changes in the ratio of aluminum to Nukon quantities 5.6.4.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Nukon will be varied in this set of test in quantities defined by CASA as listed in Table 8.

Including replicates, there are 9 tests.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 17 of 51

Table 8: Nukon required for testing Min Nukon Base Nukon Max Nukon LBLOCA Conditions (part of 3000 Series test) 5.6.4.2 Experimental Results Raw data obtained for aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial STP corrosion rate as function of Nukon to aluminum ratio at the defined chemistry to investigate phosphate and silicon inhibition effects. The changes in initial corrosion as determined by these test will be used to predict the duration to reach the maximum level of soluble aluminum concentration as determined in the 2400 series.

5.6.5 Series 3200 - Increase in aluminum corrosion rate due to absence of silicon 5.6.5.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Nukon is eliminated from the standard experimental design. TSP is varied in concentrations listed in Table 9 to reach the target pH at 21°C. Including replicates there are 9 tests.

Table 9: Concentration of TSP for each type of test Min TSP, pH 6.5 Base TSP, pH LBLOCA Max TSP, pH 8 5.6.5.2 Experimental Results Raw data obtained for aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial STP corrosion rate as function of phosphate inhibition at the defined chemistry. The changes in initial corrosion as determined by these test will be used to predict the duration to reach the maximum level of soluble aluminum concentration as determined in the 2200 series. Also, the results obtained from this series of tests will be compared to results obtained from base condition of Series 3000 to investigate the effect of TSP on corrosion rate with and without silicon. It should also be noted that the base condition from this series of tests provides a 4th data point to Series 3100.

5.6.6 Series 3300 - Increase in aluminum corrosion rate due to absence of phosphate 5.6.6.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

The buffer defined by the standard experimental design is changed to sodium tetraborate. The Nukon to aluminum ratios are the same as that tested in the 3100 series and are listed again in Table 10. Including replicates there are 9 tests in this series.

Table 10: Nukon required for testing Min Nukon Base Nukon Max Nukon 5.6.6.2 Experimental Results Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 18 of 51

Raw data for aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial STP corrosion rate as function of Nukon to aluminum ratio at the defined chemistry to investigate silicon inhibition effects. The changes in initial corrosion as determined by these test will be used to predict the duration to reach the maximum level of soluble aluminum concentration as determined in the 2300 series. Also, results obtained from this series of test will be compare Series 3100 to understand effect silicon inhibition on corrosion rate as a function of Al:Si ratio with and without phosphate.

5.6.7 Series 3400 - Increase in aluminum corrosion rate due to absence of silicon and phosphate 5.6.7.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Nukon is eliminated from the standard experimental design and the buffer is changed from TSP to sodium tetraborate which is varied in concentrations listed in Table 11 to reach the target pH at 21°C. including replicates, there are 9 tests in this series.

Table 11: Concentration of sodium tetraborate required for testing Min NaTB, pH 6.5 Base NaTB, pH LBLOCA Max NaTB, pH 8 5.6.7.2 Experimental Results Raw data on aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial STP corrosion rate as function of hydroxide inhibition at the defined chemistry. The changes in initial corrosion as determined by these test will be used to predict the duration to reach the maximum level of soluble aluminum concentration as determined in the 2100 series. The results obtained from this series of testing will also be compared to Series 3200 to understand effect of pH on corrosion rate with and without phosphate.

5.6.8 Series 3500 - Variation in aluminum corrosion rate resulting from a substitution of microtherm for Nukon as the insulation material 5.6.8.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

The insulation material defined as Nukon in the standard experimental design is changed to Microtherm and the buffer is changed from TSP to sodium tetraborate to achieve the standard pH. Including replicates, there are 9 tests in this series.

Table 12: Microtherm needed for testing Min Microtherm Base Microtherm Max Microtherm 5.6.8.2 Experimental Results Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 19 of 51

These results will be compared to the Series 3100 to see how microtherm compares to Nukon.

The different fiberglass materials have different silicon concentrations. Thus these results with the 3100 results will also provide multiple data points on inhibition effects as a function of silicon: Al ratio.

5.6.9 Series 3600 - Variation in aluminum corrosion rate resulting from presence of other metals 5.6.9.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Metals in the concentrations as listed by Table X will be added to the standard experimental parameters. Including replicates there are 18 tests in this series.

Table 13: Buffer concentration needed as a function of variable boron concentration Test Copper Zinc Iron 1

2 3

4 5

6 5.6.9.2 Experimental Results Raw data on aluminum coupon mass loss, oxide layer thickness, and soluble aluminum concentration will be used to evaluate the variability in the slope of the initial STP corrosion rate as function of additional soluble metals. This will be done by comparing these results obtained from this series against the base conditions of series 3000.

5.6.10 Input into Casa Grande Model This series of testing will investigate the variability in the highest corrosion rate as a function of inhibition type, pH, and temperature (T< 85°C) for use in CASA.

5.7 Series 4000 - Precipitation Tests 5.7.1 Series Objective Determine the best chemical formula and morphology (crystalline or amorphous) of the precipitate that will occur under STP chemistry and temperature conditions if enough soluble aluminum is present. This is forced precipitation under STP chemistry and temperature conditions. Evaluate forced precipitate behavior as a function of temperature, velocity, ionic strength, thermal cycling, and time.

5.7.2 Experimental Design All tests will be run at the following constant conditions. Conditions that are varied are described in the following sections.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 20 of 51

• Material: aluminum, Nukon

• Boron Concentration: determined from 3000 series

• TSP Concentration: determined from 3000 series

• Velocity: (need to establish rate)

• Temperature (°C): profile of a LBLOCA

• pH: 7.25 at 21 °C

• Duration: up to 30 Days

• Sampling frequency: determined by each test series

• Analysis: ICP-OES (Al, Si) o IC (PO4) o SEM o NMR o Raman o XRD 5.7.3 4000 Series - Forced precipitate under STP relevant chemical conditions 5.7.3.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Modeling will provide a solubility limit of aluminum for the best estimate of the precipitate.

This information, along with corrosion rate results obtained from the 3000 series, will determine the surface area of aluminum to be used in the test. The surface area and corrosion rate should reach the target aluminum solubility limit as determined by thermodynamic modeling for precipitation to occur within 1 day. Sampling frequency and test duration will be dependent on turbidity reading and or DP reading.

5.7.3.2 Experimental Results Results will be used to identify chemical formula and morphology (crystalline vs amorphous) of the forced precipitate to best possible ability through use of NRM, SEM, Ramon, and dissolution of precipitation followed by ICP-MS analysis. This will also be used to determine chemistry and material surface area to be used in the short term tank tests.

5.7.3.3 Input into Casa Grande Model With help from shorter term tank tests, these results will be used to infer head loss as a function of bed type and precipitation characteristics.

5.7.4 Series 4100 Test - Forced precipitate behavior variability 5.7.4.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

All parameters are the same as those described in Section 5.9, with the exception of velocity and ionic strength, which will be altered. Two velocities will be tested and three ionic strength to determine effects on precipitate agglomeration and deposition within the loop.

5.7.4.2 Experimental Results Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 21 of 51

Raw data will be used to determine variability associated with precipitate formation for use in short term tank experimental matrix.

5.7.4.3 Input into Casa Grande Model 5.7.5 4200 Series - Heat exchanger Influences 5.7.5.1 Variable Experimental Parameter(s)

Two different aluminum surface areas will be used: (1) the aluminum surface area determined in the 4100 series and (2) an aluminum surface area determined using corrosion rates obtained from the 3000 series and thermodynamic modeling allowing for the target aluminum corrosion ion concentration to be X less than the solubility limit. The solution will then be passed through a chiller and reheated.

5.7.5.2 Experimental Results Raw data will be used to determine effects of thermo cycling on forced precipitate, ie. Does it change from amorphous to gel? And behavior of precipitate formed below saturation conditions of bulk solution but at saturation conditions of chillier conditions. (ie, does the precipitate re-dissolve or does it provide a nucleation site? behavior of that precipitate as a function of thermo cycling 5.7.5.3 Input into Casa Grande Model

6. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SHORT TERM TANK TESTS The short-term integrated tank tests will use the same experimental conditions as the 30-day integrated tank tests. The debris bed conditions will be similar to the debris beds prepared in the High Temperature Vertical Loop Testing conducted by Alion. The anticipated bed preparation conditions include the following tests from that test plan:

STP-3: STP Nominal Debris Load Test Nominal debris load test at STP flow and post-LOCA water chemistry to verify the applicability of the NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation to STP specific conditions.

STP-4: STP High Fiber Test High fiber test at STP flow and post-LOCA water chemistry to verify the applicability of the NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation to STP specific conditions.

STP-5: STP High Eta Test High eta test at STP flow and post-LOCA water chemistry to verify the applicability of the NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation to STP specific conditions.

STP-6: STP Microtherm Test Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 22 of 51

Test with the addition of a nominal quantity of Microtherm to the STP-3 test conditions to verify the applicability of the NUREG/Cr-6224 head loss correlation.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 23 of 51

7. References

1. NEI 04-07 Volume 1. Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology. Revision 0 : December 2004.

2. NEI 04-07 Volume 2. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance Report "Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology". Revision 0 : December 2004.

3. WCAP-16530-NP. Evaluation of Post-Accident Chemical Effects in Containment Sump Fluids to Support GSI-191. Revision 0. 2006.

4. WCAP-16785-NP. Evaluation of Additional Inputs to the WCAP-16530-NP Chemical Model.

Revision 0. May 2007.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 24 of 51

A. APPENDIX A - BASES FOR CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STP TEST PLAN The specific conditions, material types, and parameters to be included in a test program are defined by representative STP conditions. Many materials were considered during test plan design. Upon review of the materials considered significant contributors in the white paper (Sande et al., 2011), those listed below are materials to be incorporated in the test. Important secondary contributors were evaluated such as organic materials, reactor coolant oxides, and biological effects but were reasonably neglected because their effects have been addressed by the NRC as minor and having insignificant effect on head loss, potential transport would be minimal and would not significantly influence chemical effects, or insignificant quantities would be present, respectively.

1.1 Water Levels Unit 1 Accumulator A Water Level 9600 9500 Level 1 9400 9300 Level 2 9200 gal 9100 9000 8900 8800 8700 8600 14-Oct 22-Jan 2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun Date Unit 1 Accumulator B Water Level 9600 9500 Level 1 9400 Level 2 9300 9200 gal 9100 9000 8900 8800 8700 8600 14-Oct 22-Jan 2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 25 of 51

Unit 1 Accumulator C Water Level 9600 9500 Level 1 9400 Level 2 9300 9200 gal 9100 9000 8900 8800 8700 8600 14-Oct 22-Jan 2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun Date Unit 1 RWST Water Level 600 500 400 kgal 300 200 100 Level Transmitter 1 Level Transmitter 2 Level Transmitter 3 0

14-Oct 22-Jan 2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun Date 1.2 Chemicals The solution in the test system will consist of demineralized water with several chemicals added.

The demineralized water will be prepared by reverse osmosis. The chemicals discussed below include:

1. Boric acid

2. Trisodium phosphate

3. Lithium hydroxide

4. Hydrochloric acid Details on chemical quantities are as follows:

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 26 of 51

1.2.1 Boric acid (H3BO3)

The concentration of boric acid in the test solution depends on the concentration in each of the source solutions to the containment pool, and the relative quantities of each solution introduced into the sump during a LOCA. The sources of solution into the containment sump include the cooling water, the refueling water storage tanks (RWST),

and the safety injection tanks (accumulators). As a result, the boric acid concentration depends on the test scenario. The concentrations tested are included in Table 1, below.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 27 of 51

Unit 1 RCS Boron Concentration (ppm) Unit 2 RCS Boron Concentration (ppm)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Jan 276 395 334.3871 36.32876 10.86428 Sept 1321 1382 1353.516 16.96638 1.253504 Feb 163 272 217.4286 32.59678 14.99195 Oct 1249 1323 1287.129 22.0556 1.71355 Apr 33 2957 2613.352 679.9345 26.01771 Dec 1085 1169 1131.935 27.24816 2.407219 May 1372 2952 2113 541.7897 25.64078 Jan 983 1076 1033.973 25.89346 2.504269 Jun 1391 1429 1414.233 12.52496 0.885636 Feb 891 980 938.4 27.09185 2.887026 Jul 1437 1447 1441.677 3.14523 0.218165 Mar 785 885 836.129 31.51586 3.769258 Aug 1418 1445 1432.258 7.814379 0.545599 Apr 674 779 723.2083 30.01982 4.150923 Sep 1371 1419 1392.767 14.53339 1.043491 May 560 673 621.8462 32.54676 5.233892 Oct 1300 1367 1335.375 20.51711 1.53643 Jun 446 560 501.4 34.67146 6.914931 Nov 1216 1298 1258 24.17437 1.921651 Jul 323 441 382.0645 35.96937 9.414476 Dec 1123 1214 1168.71 27.69139 2.369398 Year 323 3105 1306.146 700.9215 53.66333 Year 33 2957 1585.536 878.4812 55.40593 RCS Boron Concentration 3000 Unit 1 RCS Unit 2 RCS 2500 Concentration, ppm 2000 1500 1000 500 0

05/02/10 08/10/10 11/18/10 02/26/11 06/06/11 09/14/11 12/23/11 04/01/12 Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 28 of 51

Unit 1 Accumulators Boron (ppm) Unit 2 Accumulators Boron (ppm)

Accum Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSDavg Accum Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSDavg A 2767 2790 2777 7.81 0.281 A 2871 2925 2913 13.94 0.478 B 2898 2923 2913 7.03 0.241 B 2918 2935 2926 5.76 0.196 C 2882 2929 2918 12.42 0.425 C 2907 2924 2916 5.82 0.199 std dev 71.46 78.57 80.28 std dev 24.58 6.08 6.84 Avg 2849 2880 2869 Avg 2898 2928 2918

% RSD 2.50 2.72 2.79  % RSD 0.84 0.20 0.23 Accumulator Boron Concentration 3100 3050 Unit 1 Acc A 3000 Concentration, ppm 2950 Unit 1 Acc B 2900 Unit 1 Acc C 2850 2800 Unit 2 Acc A 2750 Unit 2 Acc B 2700 2650 Unit 2 Acc C 2600 11/18/10 01/07/11 02/26/11 04/17/11 06/06/11 07/26/11 09/14/11 11/03/11 12/23/11 02/11/12 Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 29 of 51

Unit 1 RWST Boron Concentration (ppm) Unit 2 RWST 2 Boron Concentration (ppm)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Jan 2908 2915 2911.5 4.949747 0.170007 Jan 2930 2932 2930.75 0.957427 0.032668 Feb 2874 2965 2919.75 31.09777 1.065083 Feb 2909 2942 2930.5 14.70827 0.501903 Mar 2933 2948 2938.625 5.7802 0.196697 Mar 2912 2935 2927.8 9.909591 0.338465 Apr 2912 2941 2926.167 10.53407 0.359996 Apr 2911 2935 2926 11.16542 0.381593 May 2943 2950 2946.8 2.588436 0.087839 May 2918 2939 2927.4 8.018728 0.27392 Jun 2946 2952 2949.75 2.629956 0.089159 Jun 2939 2952 2944.75 6.291529 0.213652 Jul 2945 2953 2950.25 3.593976 0.121819 Jul 2936 2950 2941.25 6.075909 0.206576 Aug 2948 2955 2951.4 2.880972 0.097614 Aug 2942 2952 2945.8 3.898718 0.132348 Sep 2943 2953 2947.5 4.434712 0.150457 Sep 2940 2957 2947.8 7.854935 0.266468 Oct 2899 2955 2926.833 17.75857 0.60675 Oct 2937 2944 2940.75 2.986079 0.101541 Nov 2892 2900 2895.8 3.193744 0.110289 Nov 2936 2951 2944.5 7.231874 0.245606 Dec 2886 2948 2906.833 24.25215 0.834315 Dec 2930 2957 2944.75 11.38347 0.386568 Year 2874 2965 2929.4 22.22311 0.758623 Jan 2939 2967 2953.333 14.0119 0.474444 Year 2909 2967 2967 11.59428 0.390775 RWST Boron Concentration 3100 Concentration, ppm 3000 2900 2800 RWST Unit 1 2700 RWST Unit 2 2600 11/18/10 01/07/11 02/26/11 04/17/11 06/06/11 07/26/11 09/14/11 11/03/11 12/23/11 02/11/12 Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 30 of 51

1.2.2 Trisodium phosphate (Na3PO4*12H2O)

Trisodium phosphate (TSP) is included in baskets on the floor of the containment. It is assumed that the entire quantity of TSP will dissolve during the first 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of a LOCA regardless of the size of the LOCA. The quantity of TSP in the STP containment to be simulated in these tests is xxx lbs. The concentration of TSP will vary depending on the volume of water in the pool. The concentrations tested are included in Table 1, below.

1.2.3 Lithium hydroxide (LiOH)

The lithium cation will affect zinc and aluminum corrosion primarily through an indirect pH effect. The lithium concentration typically varies between 0.12 and 5.25 ppm in the RCS, so its concentration would be xxx ppm in the post-LOCA recirculation solution.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 31 of 51

Unit 1 RCS Lithium Concentration (ppm)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Unit 2 RCS Lithium Concentration (ppm)

Jan 0.90 1.15 1.03 0.09 8.60 Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Feb 0.66 0.91 0.78 0.08 9.77 Sep 3.17 3.44 3.31 0.08 2.55 Mar 0.44 0.66 0.55 0.07 13.41 Oct 3.11 3.28 3.17 0.05 1.49 Apr 0.12 0.52 0.32 0.14 44.72 Nov 0.13 5.25 2.39 1.39 58.22 May 3.06 4.68 3.60 0.42 11.79 Dec 2.64 2.90 2.77 0.09 3.18 Jun 3.32 3.58 3.45 0.06 1.79 Jan 2.41 2.72 2.54 0.10 3.80 Jul 3.42 3.60 3.50 0.04 1.26 Feb 2.15 2.46 2.32 0.09 3.86 Aug 3.42 3.56 3.50 0.04 1.06 Mar 1.92 2.23 2.11 0.09 4.24 Sep 3.36 3.48 3.40 0.04 1.09 Apr 1.72 2.01 1.86 0.08 4.09 Oct 3.16 3.41 3.27 0.08 2.37 May 1.49 1.72 1.61 0.07 4.26 Nov 2.94 3.23 3.09 0.08 2.59 Jun 1.25 1.51 1.37 0.07 5.33 Jul 1.00 1.25 1.12 0.08 7.32 Dec 2.72 2.99 2.87 0.08 2.66 Year 0.13 5.25 2.23 0.40 17.72 Year 0.12 4.68 2.45 0.11 4.31 RCS Lithium Concentration 6

Unit 1 Li 5

Unit 2 Li Concentration, ppm 4

3 2

1 0

2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun 14-Sep 23-Dec 1-Apr Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 32 of 51

1.2.4 Hydrochloric acid (HCl) 1.2.5 Other Chemicals Detected in the RCS and RWST Solution (Calcium, Chloride, Fluoride and Iron)

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 33 of 51

Calcium Concentration (ppb)

Source Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg RCS Unit 1 Year 0.80 9.10 3.61 4.75 131.52 Calcium Concentration (ppb)

Source Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg RCS Unit 2 Year 0.60 1.70 1.18 0.42 35.95 RCS Calcium Concentration 10 9 Unit 1 Ca 8

Concentration, ppb 7 Unit 2 Ca 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun 14-Sep 23-Dec 1-Apr Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 34 of 51

Calcium Concentration (ppb)

Source Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg RWST Unit 1 Year 0.74 2.50 1.62 1.24 76.82 RWST Calcium Concentration 3

2.5 Unit 1 Ca Concentration, ppb 2

1.5 1

0.5 0

26-Feb 17-Apr 6-Jun 26-Jul 14-Sep 3-Nov 23-Dec 11-Feb Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 35 of 51

Unit 2 RCS Chloride Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg Sep 3.11 4.11 3.44 0.20 6.00 Oct 2.93 4.32 3.23 0.24 7.64 Nov 1.06 4.17 2.91 0.76 26.15 Unit 1 RCS Chloride Concentration (ppb) Dec 2.01 2.89 2.46 0.27 11.31 Jan 1.70 2.43 2.00 0.17 8.58 Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Feb 1.30 2.97 1.72 0.40 23.31 Year 1.02 5.04 0.00 1.61 #DIV/0!

Mar 1.04 1.71 1.42 0.16 11.54 Apr 1.01 1.65 1.18 0.13 11.39 May 1.00 1.65 1.28 0.30 23.60 Jun 1.02 1.28 1.15 0.18 15.99 Jul Year 1.00 4.32 2.08 0.19 8.89 RCS Chloride Concentration 6

5 Unit 1 Chloride Concentration, ppb 4

Unit 2 Chloride 3

2 1

0 2-May 10-Aug 18-Nov 26-Feb 6-Jun 14-Sep 23-Dec 1-Apr Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 36 of 51

Chloride Concentration (ppb)

Source Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg RWST Unit 1 Year 1.01 2.37 1.40 0.52 37.07 Chloride Concentration (ppb)

Source Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg RWST Unit 2 Year 1.00 3.21 1.29 0.59 45.71 RWST Chloride Concentration 3.5 3

2.5 Concentration, ppb 2

1.5 Unit 1 Chloride 1 Unit 2 Chloride 0.5 0

7-Jan 26-Feb 17-Apr 6-Jun 26-Jul 14-Sep 3-Nov 23-Dec 11-Feb Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 37 of 51

Unit 1 RCS Fluoride Concentration (ppb)

Unit 2 RCS Fluoride Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg Month Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg Jan Sep 1.55 2.52 2.32 0.17 7.44 Feb Oct 2.02 2.43 2.25 0.11 4.99 Mar Nov 1.07 2.08 1.63 0.40 24.69 Apr Dec 1 1.12 1.04 0.04 3.88 May 1.26 7.30 1.88 1.12 59.67 Jan 1.03 1.23 1.13 0.06 5.58 Jun 1.70 2.35 1.94 0.14 7.04 Feb Jul 1.56 3.01 1.99 0.44 22.08 Mar 1.00 1.40 1.10 0.15 13.92 Aug 1.95 2.95 2.75 0.23 8.26 Apr Sep 1.81 2.89 2.31 0.39 16.71 May Oct 1.84 2.16 2.05 0.08 3.67 Jun Nov 1.69 2.11 1.91 0.15 7.62 Jul Dec 1.40 1.71 1.59 0.09 5.76 Year 1.00 2.52 1.58 0.13 8.25 Year 1.26 7.30 2.05 0.35 16.88 RCS Fluoride Concentration 8

7 Unit 1 Fluoride 6 Unit 2 Fluoride Concentration, ppb 5

4 3

2 1

0 10-Aug 18-Nov 2-May 6-Jun 1-Apr 26-Feb Date 14-Sep 23-Dec Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 38 of 51

Fluoride Concentration (ppb)

Source Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg RWST Unit 1 Year 1.10 3.24 1.65 0.74 44.49 RWST Fluoride Concentration 3.5 3

2.5 Concentration, ppb 2

1.5 Unit 1 Fluoride 1

0.5 0

26-Feb 17-Apr 6-Jun 26-Jul 14-Sep 3-Nov 23-Dec 11-Feb Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 39 of 51

Unit 1 RCS Iron Concentration (ppb) Unit 2 RCS Iron Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg Month Min Max Avg Std Dev %RSD avg Jan 1.45 2.40 1.81 0.21 11.35 Sep 3.87 5.09 4.38 0.34 7.93 Feb 1.10 3.33 1.59 0.43 27.19 Oct 3.73 5.34 4.32 0.46 10.73 Mar 1.00 3.15 1.34 0.50 37.35 Nov 3.40 131.00 27.84 30.49 109.50 Apr 1.20 836.00 80.89 179.85 222.33 Dec 3.38 7.23 4.14 0.68 16.39 May 4.65 145.08 21.66 35.11 162.09 Jan 3.37 4.30 3.73 0.24 6.39 Jun 4.35 8.10 4.94 0.91 18.43 Feb 2.99 3.82 3.35 0.24 7.26 Jul 4.01 7.23 4.91 0.67 13.62 Mar 2.60 4.30 3.14 0.37 11.77 Aug 3.62 4.64 4.34 0.20 4.62 Apr 2.37 3.41 2.64 0.22 8.22 Sep 3.90 7.88 4.53 0.70 15.50 May 1.78 3.33 2.34 0.29 12.52 Oct 3.91 5.65 4.41 0.40 9.06 Jun 1.80 2.99 2.22 0.26 11.50 Nov 3.60 6.84 4.19 0.62 14.82 Jul 1.76 2.71 1.99 0.22 10.98 Dec 3.30 6.04 3.93 0.60 15.31 Year 1.76 131.00 5.46 9.09 166.41 Year 1.00 836.00 11.54 51.82 448.90 1000 RCS Iron Concentration 800 Concentration, ppb 600 Unit 1 400 Fe 200 0

18-Nov 26-Feb 17-Apr 26-Jul 14-Sep 3-Nov 23-Dec 11-Feb 7-Jan 6-Jun

-200 Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 40 of 51

1.3 pH Profile Figure 4: pH time dependent profile for a LBLOCA pH will not be controlled in these tests, but will be set from the initial chemical addition into the tank during each test and allowed to drift as chemical processes take place. For 30 day integrated tank tests, the target initial pH was determined from the solution conditions representative of each type of break during a LOCA scenario.

1.4 Materials The materials discussed below include:

1. Aluminum (Al) - from valve actuator components and scaffolding

2. Zinc (Zn) - in galvanized steel and in zinc based protective coatings

3. Lead (Pb) - permanent lead shielding blankets

4. Carbon steel - component of structural steel, steam generators, piping, etc.

5. Concrete - represented exposed concrete surfaces Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 41 of 51

6. Fiberglass (Nukon and Microtherm) - used as insulation on pipes The amounts of each material for integrated tank tests are described below in the form of material surfaces areas to water volume ratios, with the exception of fiberglass, which will be represented as a volume to water volume ratio.

The amount of material that will be submerged long term post-accident during the operation of the ECCS and CSS in the recirculation mode is a plant specific value that is dependent on the post-accident flood-up level for different break scenarios at STP.

1.4.1 Aluminum (Al)

Sources of aluminum in containment include structures such as scaffolding, and small components such as valves and aluminum coatings. Most of these materials would be above the containment pool elevation, but may be exposed to containment sprays. Both integrated and separate effects tests have shown that the corrosion of aluminum can be significant and may cause precipitates.

Measured aluminum concentrations in the RWST at STP are as follows:

Unit 1 RWST Aluminum Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Year 3.2 4.5 3.9 0.5 13.2 Unit 2 RWST Aluminum Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Year 3.60 5.18 4.04 0.49 12.07 RWST Aluminum Concentration 6

5 Concentration, ppb 4

3 2 Unit 1 Al 1 Unit 2 Al 0

17-Apr 6-Jun 26-Jul 14-Sep 3-Nov 23-Dec 11-Feb Date Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 42 of 51

1.4.2 Zinc (Zn)

Zinc concentrations in the RCS at STP are as follows:

Unit 1 RCS Zinc Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Jan 9.14 12.23 10.49 0.80 7.60 Feb 9.26 11.25 9.89 0.56 5.66 Mar 7.83 11.49 9.37 0.73 7.80 Apr 0.03 140.00 59.56 45.27 76.00 May 3.17 21.76 6.47 3.52 54.47 Jun 4.88 6.51 5.47 0.44 8.08 Jul 3.94 7.36 5.11 0.73 14.31 Aug 4.44 6.11 5.28 0.55 10.37 Sep 4.08 6.08 5.20 0.58 11.13 Oct 4.69 6.75 5.39 0.60 11.04 Nov 4.42 5.90 5.05 0.33 6.55 Dec 4.26 5.92 5.13 0.38 7.50 Year 0.03 140.00 11.03 12.85 116.50 Unit 2 RCS Zinc Concentration (ppb)

Month Min Max Average Std Dev %RSD avg Sep 3.95 6.06 4.93 0.55 11.22 Oct 3.79 5.59 4.61 0.46 10.03 Nov 1.05 42.06 6.60 6.83 103.55 Dec 1.59 7.06 4.62 1.71 36.93 Jan 4.24 6.27 5.01 0.42 8.35 Feb 4.19 6.58 4.87 0.50 10.18 Mar 6.45 13.66 9.90 1.67 16.85 Apr 9.01 12.58 10.40 0.73 7.04 May 9.55 11.46 10.44 0.52 5.00 Jun 8.96 11.24 9.93 0.64 6.44 Jul 9.03 11.40 10.11 0.57 5.62 Year 1.05 42.06 7.40 1.88 25.44 Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 43 of 51

160 RCS Zinc Concentration 140 120 Concentration, ppb Unit 1 100 Zinc 80 60 40 20 0

10-Aug 18-Nov 2-May 26-Feb 6-Jun 14-Sep 23-Dec 1-Apr Date 1.5 Simulated Sump Temperature Temperature effects on the corrosion and solubility of corrosion products have been previously demonstrated (reference WCAP-16530-NP). Specifically temperature is known to quickly increase the rate of aluminum and zinc corrosion; both are materials known to be present in a LOCA scenario. Also, the solubility of these corrosion products is affected by temperature. The solubility of oxidized aluminum increases with temperature, while the solubility of zinc decreases with temperature. The range of temperatures is shown in Table 4.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 44 of 51

For the 30-day integrated tank tests, the predicted temperature history is the post-accident for STP for a specified break results in the temperature profiles shown in Figure 3. The temperature profile will be simulated by using the temperature values listed in Table 5.

The pH of the sump solution and containment spray solutions will follow the same pH profile.

This profile has a large effect on corrosion and precipitation reactions. Hydrated trisodium phosphate (TSP) (Na3PO4*12H2O) is the standard chemical used for pH control in the post-LOCA solution at STP. It is stored in baskets on the containment floor and is dissolved by the post-LOCA solution within 40 minutes. During the first 40 minutes of a post-LOCA, the spray and sump solution pH is at the lowest pH expected during the scenario, approximately 4.62.

Once the TSP begins to dissolve, the pH increases and follows the time-dependent pH profile presented in Figure 4. Once the TSP is fully dissolved, within the first two hours of the scenario, the sump solution reaches a maximum value of approximately 7.5.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 45 of 51

2. Appendix B - Equipment Details 2.1 30-Day Integrated Tank Tests The test apparatus for the 30-day integrated tank tests has three main sections, as follows:

1. Material corrosion tank where materials present in containment can be placed to simulate the environment inside the containment structure during a LOCA.

2. Multiple vertical head loss assemblies to simulate the flow conditions through debris bed that forms on a sump screen.

3. Heat exchanger capabilities to simulate plant conditions for evaluation of effects on precipitate formation.

A process flow diagram of the test loop is shown in Figure B-1.

2.1.1 Material Corrosion Tank The physical attributes of this tank are as follows:

1. The tank is nominally 4 ft x 4 ft x 6.6 ft in height, with vertical sides and a bottom that slopes to a centrally-located discharge port.

2. The tank is constructed of type 304 stainless steel.

3. The tank is divided into upper and lower sections. The lower section is designed to accommodate 250 gal. of solution and all materials that may be submerged in containment and contribute to chemical effects. The tank contains flow injection headers below the water line on the north and south walls, which are designed to provide turbulence in the tank pool. The injection headers are 1-in.-diameter pipe with a symmetric pattern of holes to distribute the solution discharge. Flow is controlled manually with a variable speed drive on the pump and a throttle valve.

The required flowrate to provide the necessary flow patterns is discussed below.

4. The upper section is designed to accommodate all materials that may be in the vapor space in containment and contribute to chemical effects by being exposed to containment sprays. Spray nozzles are located in the four corners near the top of the vapor space. The spray flow rate is described below.

5. The tank is insulated and contains two titanium-jacketed 3.5-kW rod-type heaters in the tank pool to maintain the temperature of the solution at a maximum of 185 °F with a range of +/- 5 °F. The heaters are fully redundant; either can provide the required heating capacity so that experiments can continue in the event of failure of a single heater.

6. A recirculation pump withdraws solution from the bottom discharge port, circulates it through the instrumentation pipe loop and supplies it the vertical head loss assemblies, and reintroduces it into the material corrosion tank through the upper spray nozzles or lower flow injection headers. Throttle valves and flow meters allow the flow to be apportioned to the spray nozzles and flow injection headers at the proper rates. The instrumentation pipe loop contains a flow meter, pressure gage, temperature sensor, pH meter, and sample port. Flow, temperature, and pH are recorded continuously by a data acquisition system, temperature is reported locally.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 46 of 51

7. Piping is present to direct the solution to the upper spray nozzles in the material corrosion tank. The piping is 3/4-in CPVC and contains a rotometer and ball valve for flow control.

8. A removable cover and gantry crane allow for placing and removing samples.

Figure B-1: Process Flow Diagram of 30-Day Integrated Tank Test System 2.1.2 Simulated Sump Recirculation Flow Velocities over samples shall be representative of post-LOCA fluid velocity conditions in an STP containment pool which ranges from approximately 1 ft/s to 0.009 ft/s.

Alion will develop a velocity profile map of the submerged portion of the test chamber using computation fluid dynamics (CFD), so that the approximate velocity that a metallic or concrete coupon and fiberglass sample is subjected to in the test can be ascertained. The placement of the coupons and materials and the recirculation velocity will be selected based on the CFD results.

2.1.3 Simulated Containment Spray Flow Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 47 of 51

Containment sprays are used to control containment pressure and remove radioactive material from the atmosphere. The majority of aluminum, structural steel, galvanized steel, concrete, and other containment materials are located above the containment pool. If materials that are susceptible to dissolution or corrosion are impacted by containment sprays, they may be affected similar to materials that are submerged in the pool. The corrosion or dissolution of these materials may continue as long as the sprays are in operation.

The ratio of spray flow to containment cross section area will be used as a simulation parameter.

The spray flow at STP is 5,200 gpm and the cross-sectional area of the containment building is 17,593 ft2. The cross-sectional area of the CHLE corrosion tank is 16 ft2, thus the spray flow rate in the CHLE tests will be 4.7 gpm. This value applies to the MBLOCA and LBLOCA tests; containment sprays are not actuated in a SMLOCA at STP and will not be part of the SBLOCA tests.

2.1.4 Vertical head loss modules The physical attributes of the vertical head loss assemblies and piping systems are as follows:

1. The system will contain 3 identical vertical head loss modules. Each will consist of a 6-in diameter pipe assembly. The upper and lower portions of the pipe assembly will be constructed of Sch 80 chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe. The middle section will be constructed of 1/4-in thick polycarbonate to allow view of the debris bed.

2. The polycarbonate section will be 18-in long, with a support ring located 6-in from the bottom to support a perforated plate. This section allows a view of 6 inches below the debris bed and 12 inches above the debris bed. The top and bottom sections of the polycarbonate section will be flanged so that they can be removed from the piping system to allow the debris bed to be removed from the head loss assembly intact.

3. An air vent will be located immediately below the support ring to allow gas to be vented from below the debris bed, if necessary.

4. The upper CPVC section will be 30 inches long and sealed at the top with a blind flange that can be removed to introduce debris into the head loss assembly. The blind flange will contain an air vent to allow gas to be vented from the head loss assembly, if necessary.

5. A differential pressure (DP) transducer is piped to ports above and below the polycarbonate section to measure the pressure loss through the debris bed. The DP transducers will have a range of 0 to 5 psi (0 to 11.5 ft of water).

6. The supply and discharge piping to each head loss assembly will be 1/2-in stainless steel (type 316) pipe, with either threaded or compression fittings.

7. The supply piping to each head loss assembly will have a tee to allow solution to be supplied from the material corrosion tank or from the bed formation recirculation loop (described below, see item 11). Each leg will have a ball valve for isolation.

8. The supply piping to each head loss assembly coming from the material corrosion tank will have an insertion-style magnetic flow meter.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 48 of 51

9. The discharge piping from each head loss assembly will have a tee to allow solution to be returned to the material corrosion tank or to the bed formation recirculation loop (described below, see item 11). The leg to the material corrosion tank will have a globe or needle valve for flow control and the leg to the bed formation recirculation loop will have a ball valve for isolation. The globe valve will also provide back pressure to prevent or minimize degassing below the debris bed due to negative pressure in the head loss assembly.

10. The 3 head loss assemblies can be operated in parallel, with each being fed identical solution from the material corrosion tank. Alternatively, two of the assemblies can be operated in series, with the heat exchange loop (see below) positioned between the first and second head loss assemblies.

11. A separate debris bed formation recirculation loop is configured to be part of the piping system. The bed formation recirculation loop will have a pump, ball valve for throttling, and rotometer. All piping in the bed formation recirculation loop will be 3/4-in SS pipe. The bed formation recirculation loop will have a supply header and a return header so that it can provide solution to each of the three head loss assemblies independently of the others. Each head loss assemblies will have ball valves in the supply and return lines for isolation. The debris bed formation recirculation loop will have connections for filling and draining the line, equipped with ball valves and hose bibb connections.

2.1.5 Heat exchanger loop The piping system will have a separate loop to do thermal cycling to determine whether precipitates form as the temperature is decreased. This loop will have a heat exchanger connected to a water chiller to reduce the temperature. Following the heat exchanger will be a reservoir to provide holding time at the lower temperature. The discharge from the reservoir will be directed to a filter holder that will contain a 47-mm diameter glass-fiber filter (area = 17.3 cm2). A differential pressure (DP) transducer with a range of 0 to 5 psi (0 to 11.5 ft of water) will measure the pressure drop through the filter paper. The pressure drop will be used as an indicator of precipitate formation. After passing through the filter holder, the water will pass through a heat exchanger to heat the water to the temperature of the corrosion tank.

The water will circulate through the heat exchanger loop at a rate of 0.063 gpm (237 mL/min),

which provides a velocity through the filter paper of 0.009 ft/s. The system will be designed for a maximum temperature drop of 90 °F (50 °C), which requires chilling and heating equipment with a capacity of 1 kW, which can be provided with laboratory-scale equipment.

2.2 Bench-Scale Laboratory Tests 2.2.1 Batch Tests with Agitation 2.2.2 Flow-Through Corrosion/Precipitation Tests Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 49 of 51

The flow through loop design schematic is shown in Figure B-2. Its physical attributes are as follows:

1. The loop is composed of four primary outer sections, as well as one interior bypass section. The dimensions of the outer loop are [insert dimension of loop piping]. The piping will be [insert piping material]

2. [insert exact dimensions (diameter and length) of piping dependent on location in loop]

3. [Ball?] valves will be [insert valve material]. There will be four inline valves and two three way valves.

4. The sample chambers, as seen at the bottom of Figure 3, are the location where sample coupons will be inserted into the loop. Each chamber has the ability to be isolated from the flow through loop to allow the removal or insertion of samples in a way that does not inhibit an ongoing test.

5. The sample coupons will be suspended in the flow by means of a fixed mounted rack. The rack will be physically attached to the piping system and allow for full fluid flow over all sample coupons.

6. The pump pumps at a rate of [insert pump rating gpm] which will achieve an effective velocity of [insert velocity over coupons] over the coupons simulating the effects found in STP.

7. The heater is rated at [insert heater rating (watts)]. The chiller is a [type of heat exchanger] and will remove heat from the system at [rating of chiller].

8. Five sensors will be utilized in the flow-through loop: temperature, pH, flow rate, pressure, and turbidimitry sensors. The sensors will be placed at locations seen in Figure 3 and connected to a live monitoring system.

9. [insert type of filter] will be used in the loop to collect particulates in solution. The filters will be removable and used to analyze type and amount of particulate in solution.

10. Sample ports will be taps made in the main flow-through loop that will be accessed during and after nominal temperature experiments and after high temperature experiments. The taps are located according to Figure 3.

11. For high temperature testing, and therefore high pressure, a pressure relief system is needed to control the safety of experimentation. A pressure relief tank will be attached to the main flow loop. The tank will compose of a water and vapor volume with a pressure release valve set at [insert pressure setting] that is well below the maximum pressure rating for the components used.

Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 50 of 51

Figure B-2: Process Flow Diagram of Flow-Through Bench-Scale Test Draft Experimental Plan - Rev 1.2 (2/29/2012) Page 51 of 51