ML082520028: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[AEP-NRC-2008-17, Attachment 5 to AEP-NRC-2008-17, ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss - D. C. Cook Units 1 and 2]]
| number = ML082520028
| issue date = 05/21/2008
| title = Attachment 5 to AEP-NRC-2008-17, ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss - D. C. Cook Units 1 and 2
| author name = Hadaway T
| author affiliation = ALION Science & Technology Corp
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000315, 05000316
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = AEP-NRC-2008-17
| document report number = ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Rev 0
| document type = Report, Technical
| page count = 166
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ATTACHMENT 5 TO AEP-NRC-2008-17 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, REVISION 0
 
==SUMMARY==
REPORT FOR IMPACT OF CHEMICAL EFFECTS ON CONTAINMENT SUMP STRAINER HEAD LOSS -D. C. COOK UNITS I AND 2 Attachments D and E are included with the ALION report. Attachments A through C, and F through H are generic industry ALION proprietary documents that support inputs to the test specification.
Attachment E, also an ALION proprietary document, has been released by ALION for public disclosure per the attached ALION letter.
A L I 0 N TECHNICAL DOCUMENT COVER PAGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page I of 100 Document Title: Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -D.C. Cook Units I and 2 Project No: 261-4459 Project Name: D. C. Cook Units I & 2 30-Day Chemical Test Client: American Electric Power Document Purpose/Summary:
The purpose of this document is to summarize the combined results and conclusions of the 30-day integrated chemical effects head loss testing. This summary report provides the technical basis and explanation of the inputs and results to address the impact of chemical effects for the D.C. Cook Units I and 2 specific environments on debris head loss. It will also address variability in inputs, factors affecting the results and suggested application of the results to the plant specific conditions.
This document is prepared in accordance with the ALION Science & Technology Nuclear Quality Assurance Program.Design Verification Method: X Design Review Alternative Calculation
-Qualification Testing Professional Engineer (if required)
Approval NA Date Prepared By: Tracy Hadaway ~ a a 4  ~ j ~~Printed/Typed Name 'Signature
.Date Reviewed BP- Eric Hixson Nam Printed/Typed Name Signatur!%
Date Printed/Typed Name Signature Date Form 3.3.1 Revision 2'Effective Date: 2J28/07 A LION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REVISION HISTORY LOG Page 2 of 100 Document Number: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Document Title: Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -D.C. Cook Units I and 2 Instructions:
Project Manager to provide a brief description of each document revision, including rationale for the change and, if applicable, identification of source documents used for the change.REVISION DATE Description 0 See Cover Initial Issue Page Form 6.1.3 Revision I Effective Date: 2/28/07 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 3 of 100 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST O F APPENDICES
........................................................................................................
4 LIST O F ATTACHMENTS
...................................................................................................
4 LIST O F TABLES .........................................................................................................................
A5 LIST O F FIGURES ........................................................................................................................
5 EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
......................................................................................................
A 8 LIST O F ACRO NYMS ................................................................................................................
10 1.0 INTRO DUCTIO N ......................................................................................................
II 2.0 BACKGRO UND ..............................................................................................................
13 3.0 PURPOSE .........................................................................................................................
13 4.0 PLANT ASSESSM ENT .................................................................................................
14 4.1 D.C. Cook Environmental Conditions
.........................................
14 4.1.1 Aluminum Corrosion and pH .....................................................................................................
15 4 .1.2 So lu b ility .................................................................................................................................................
17 4 .1.3 In h ib itio n ................................................ " ................................................................................................
19 4.1.4 D.C. Cook Sump Chemistry and pH Profile ............................................................................
19 4.1.5 D.C. Cook Sump Temperature
..................................................................................................
21 4.2 D.C. Cook Material and Debris Specific Inputs ...............................................................................
23 4.2.1 D.C. Cook Material Inputs ................................................................................................................
23 4.2.2 D.C. Cook Containment Sump Strainer Debris Loads .........................................................
24 4.3 D.C. Cook Strainer Area, Flow Rate and Pool Volumes ..............................................................
25 4.4 Material to Volume Ratio ............................................................................................................................
26 5.0 W CAP MO DEL PREDICTIO NS .................................................................................
A 28 6.0 BENCHTO P CHEM ISTRY TESTING ........................................................................
A 32 6.1 Benchtop Plan and Matrix ...........................................................................................................................
32 6.2 B enchto p R esults ...........................................................................................................................................
33 6.2.1 Visual Observations
.............................................................................................................................
33 6.2.2 W et Chemistry Results ......................................................................................................................
33 6.2.3 Material Examinations
.........................................................................................................................
38 6.2.4 Benchtop Test Discussion
...........................................................................................................
42 6.3 Benchtop Program Summary ......................................................................................................................
44 a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 4 of 100 7.0 30-DAY CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING ...............................................................
46 7.1 USNRC/EPRI ICET Testing ........................................................................................................................
46 7.1.1 Results of ICET Test #4 .....................................................................................................................
46 7.1.2 Results of ICET Test #5 .....................................................................................................................
51 7.2 D.C. Cook 30-Day Chemical Effects Test ..........................................................................................
55 7.2.1 Integrated CE Head Loss Test Configuration and Set-up ...................................................
56 7.2.2 Integrated 30-Day CE Head Loss Test Matrix ........................................................................
57 7.2.3 30-Day CE Test Parameters
....................
: ...................................................................................
62 7.2.3. I Containment Materials
...................................................................................................................
62 7.2.3.2 D ebris Scaling ...................................................................................................................................
63 7.2.3.3 D ebris Lo ads ....................................................................................................................................
64 7.2.3.4 Temperature Profile .......................................................................................................................
70 7.2.3.5 pH Pro fi le ..........................................................................................................................................
7 1 7.2.4 30-Day CE Head Loss Test Results ............................................................................................
73 7.2.4.1 Pressure Drop Time History .................................................................................................
73 7.2.4.2 Material and Debris Examinations
..........................................................................................
79 8.0 PROGRAM RESULTS .................................................................................................
93 8. I D iscussio n of R esults ....................................................................................................................................
93 8.2 Application to Non-Chemical Prototype Head Loss Testing ......................................................
94
 
==9.0 CONCLUSION==
 
.................................................................................................................
98
 
==10.0 REFERENCES==
 
..................................................................................................................
A 99 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Methodology for Determining the CBU Factor .........................................................................
I-LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: ALION-REP-LAB-2352-229, "Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, Dirt/Dust, and Concrete Corrosion and Dissolution in NaTB Test Report" ......................................
A-I Attachment B: ALION-REP-ALION-1002-01, "Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Lo ss T esting ". ...................................................................................................................................
B -I a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 5 of 100 Attachment C: ALION-REP-ALION-1002-02, "Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects H ead Lo ss T esting". .......................................................................................................................
C -I Attachment D: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 1, "Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program -D.C. Cook Units I & 2". ...........................................................................
D-I Attachment E: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02, "30-Day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-V U EZ SEQ # 2 .. .................................................................................................................................
E- I Attachment F: ALION Engineering Change Request, ALION-ECR-COOK-1002-002
.................................
F-I Attachment G: Vuez Test Report, VUEZ-TR-OTS-1604 .............................................................................
G- I Attachm ent H : Vuez O bservation N o. 5 ...........................................................................................................
H -I LIST OF TABLES Table 4. I -I: pH, Boron and Buffer Concentrations by Phase [9] ................................................................
20 Table 4.2- I: Submerged and Unsubmerged Debris and Materials Quantities
[I 2] ..................................
24 Table 4.2-2: D ebris Q uantities on Strainer [12] ..............................................................................................
25 Table 4.4- I: Comparison of Material Surface to Pool Volume Ratios .........................
27 Table 5-I: Material to Pool Volume Ratios for the D.C. Cook WCAP Analysis ......................................
28 Table 5-2: Maximum Ca, Si, and Al Concentrations Predicted by the WCAP- 16530-NP [7] ...............
31 Table 5-3: W CAP- I 6530-NP Precipitate Q uantities
[7] ................................................................................
31 Table 6. 1-I: Benchtop Test Material Surface to Pool Volume Ratios ........................................................
32 Table 7.2- I: Comparison of 30-Day Test Debris Load and Final Debris Quantities at the Main Strainer ...........................................................................
65 Table 7.2-2: W eight Data for Submerged Coupons .........................................................................................
81 Table 7.2-3: Weight Data for Unsubmerged Coupons ....................................................................................
82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4. 1-I a & b: Effect of pH on Aluminum Corrosion and Oxide Solubility
.......................................
16 Figure 4.1-2: Aluminum Release vs WCAP- 16530-NP Model .......................................................................
17 Figure 4.1-3: A lum inum Solubility vs Tem perature ............................................................................................
18 Figure 4.1-4: Nominal Containment Sump and Spray pH Profile [9] ...........................................................
21 Figure 4.1-5: Containment Sump Temperature Profiles [ 18] .......................................................................
22 Figure 4.1-6: Containment Sump Temperature Profiles [9] .........................................................................
22
: 19) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE.AND......OG.
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 6 of 100 Figure 5- I: WCAP Sump and Containment Temperature Profiles .............................................................
29 Figure 5-2: WCAP Sump pH and Spray pH Profiles .........................................................................................
29 Figure 6.2-I: Benchtop Test pH throughout 30 Days ....................................................................................
34 Figure 6.2-2: Aluminum ICP data for the Benchtop Test ...............................................................................
35 Figure 6.2-3: Silicon ICP data for the Benchtop Test .....................................
36 Figure 6.2-4: Calcium ICP data for the Benchtop Test ....................................................................................
37 Figure 6.2-5: Thermodynamic Equilibrium Constant for Ca-bearing Compounds in NaTB/NaOH B uffe r ..... .......................................................................................................................................................
38 Figure 6.2-6: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Cal-Sil after Exposure to Benchtop Test ..............
39 Figure 6.2-7: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Marinite (as-received from manufacturer)
...........
40 Figure 6.2-8: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Marinite after Exposure to Benchtop Test ..........
40 Figure 6.2-9: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Concrete after Exposure to Benchtop Test ..............
41 Figure 6.2-10: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Residue from Benchtop Test ...............................
42 Figure 6.2-1 I: Released Chemical Elements and Al Solubility Calculated Over 30 Days .......................
..... 43 Figure 7. 1- I: ICET Test #4 Aluminum Concentration
....................................................................................
47 Figure 7.1-2: ICET Test #4 Calcium Concentration
.......................................................................................
48 Figure 7. 1-3: IC ET Test #4 Silicon Concentration
............................................................................................
48 Figure 7. 1-4: ICET Test #4 Zinc Concentration
.................................................................................................
49 Figure 7.1-5: ICET Test #4 Day 30 Fiberglass Sample (low and high magnification)
...............................
50 Figure 7. 1-6: ICET Test #5 Aluminum Concentration
....................................................................................
52 Figure 7.1-7: ICET Test #5 Calcium Concentration
................................................
........................................
52 Figure 7.1-8: ICET Test #5 Silicon Concentration
............................................................................................
53 Figure 7.1-9: ICET Test #5 Zinc Concentration
..............................................................................................
53 Figure 7.1 -10: ICET Test #5 Day 30 Fiberglass Sample (low and high magnification)
.............................
54 Figure 7.2-1: T est R eacto r ............................................................................................................................................
58 Figure 7.2-2: Strainer Elem ent .....................................................................................................................................
59 Figure 7.2-3: Filtering Box Front V iew .......................................................................................................
6 ..............
60 Figure 7.2-4: Filtering Box Side V iew .........................................................................................................................
61 Figure 7.2-5: Filtering Box C onnection
.....................................................................................................................
62 Figure 7.2-6: 30-Day Head Loss Test Debris Loads .........................................................................................
66 Figure 7.2-7: 30-Day Head Loss Test Debris Bed ...........................................................................................
67 Figure 7.2-8: Pipe Used for Debris Addition for 30-Day Head Loss Test ...............................................
68 Figure 7.2-9: Debris Addition in Front of Strainer Pockets .........................................................................
69 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 7 of 100 Figure 7.2-I 0: Debris Addition during the 30-Day Head Loss Test ............................................................
70 Figure 7.2-Il: Containment Pool Temperature Profile Comparison (Zero to 30 Days) ........................
71 Figure 7.2-12: D.C. Cook pH Profile Com parison ............................................................................................
72 Figure 7.2-13: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History ............................................
75 Figure 7.2-14: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History- Test Start Up ...............
76 Figure 7.2-15: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History (Test Start -Spray System Term ination at 48 hours) ..................................................................................................
77 Figure 7.2-16: ALIO N -ECR-CO O K-1002-002
..................................................................................................
78 Figure 7.2-17: Test A pparatus Schem atic ..............................................................................................................
79 Figure 7.2-18: M etal C oupons -pretest ....................................................................................................................
80 Figure 7.2-19: M etal C oupons -post test ...........................................................................................................
80 Figure 7.2-20: Photos of Debris Bed and Dried Debris Bed Samples from Sieve I and Sieve 4 ...........
83 Figure 7.2-21: Debris Bed -Average Chemical Composition of Sieve I Sample Full Area ...................
84 Figure 7.2-22: Debris Bed -Average Chemical Composition of Sieve 4 Sample Full Area ...................
85 Figure 7.2-23: SEM Spot Chem ical Analysis (Sieve I) ......................................................................................
86 Figure 7.2-24: SEM Spot Chemical Analysis (Sieve 4) .......................................................................................
87 Figure 7.2-25: 30-Day Alum inum Concentration
..............................................................................................
89 Figure 7.2-26: 30-Day Silicon Concentration
...................................................................................................
90 Figure 7.2-27: 30-Day Calcium Concentration
................................................................................................
91 Figure 7.2-28: 30-Day Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), and Iron (Fe) Concentrations
.......................................
92 Figure 8. 1- I: Silicon and Aluminum Solution ICP Data in Mole vs. Time ..........................................................
94 Figure 8.2- I: CBU Factor (with and without Temperature), Flow Rate, dP versus Time* ....................
96 Figure 8.2-2: Vuez ICP Results and Solubility of NAS ....................................................................................
97 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units land 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 8 of 100 EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
In response to GL 2004-02 [2], licensees are required to assess the impact that chemical effects may have on the debris head loss predicted on the recirculation sump strainer.
These chemical effects result from interactions between the sump coolant and the materials within containment and the debris located on sump strainer.
Although the RCS and RWST chemistry are tightly controlled, the interactions that can take place between the materials and debris within the post-LOCA containment environment are difficult to predict -their impact on debris head loss even more difficult.
The ICET Program [6] provided valuable insight into the reactions and byproducts that could form in a highly integrated environment, but did little for the engineer to assess the impact on head loss. Results of the ICET program were mixed, depending on the combination of buffer and debris materials resident in containment.
In general, neutral environments produced minimal corrosion products.
The ICET program did provide two key (2) findings:
I) aluminum corrosion increased with higher pH, and 2) TSP buffer did react with dissolved calcium (Calcium-Silicate insulation).
However, the broader finding was probably more relevant, that the sump chemistry was probably not as problematic as originally thought-this was based only on visual observation, material and fluid analyses.
Subsequently, the focus of the licensees became the reduction of the aluminum corrosion, either by removal of the sources, or by lowering of the pH.The WCAP- 16530 [3] provided a conservative model to reassemble the corrosion products within the sump environment into a postulated precipitate.
This precipitate could then be added as an additional debris source to the replacement strainer vendor testing program to qualify the strainer for "chemical effects".
The recipe of the precipitate specified by WCAP-16530 is gelatinous and can be problematic to the strainer vendor testing programs when combined with other debris sources.Although both programs complemented each other, the programs were still disconnected in that the ICET evaluated the integrated environment without head loss testing, and the WCAP utilized a single effects program to provide the strainer vendors with precipitate for testing. The next logical extension was a test that combined an integrated environment chemical effects test while monitoring the impact on debris head loss over the 30-day mission time.ALION Science & Technology has investigated the chemical effects associated with the D.C. Cook plant specific environment and the impact on debris head loss to support the resolution of GL 2004-02. This investigation began with the review of the ICET Test #4 and #5 (the ICET tests that correspond with a NaOH and Borax buffer, respectively), progressed to the WCAP-16530 evaluation, reviewed the resulting predictedprecipitate against benchtop tests in an integrated environment and then performed the necessary combined integrated chemical effects head loss experiment over 30 days.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2,....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 9 of 100 The results of this report indicate that sump chemistry may have a slight impact on debris head loss.Upon formation of the debris bed and start of the pump to simulate spray flow, the debris head losses increased to approximately I I kPa in the first 48 hours. After this initial increase and the start of 100%recirculation, the head loss fluctuated between 16 to 21 kPa over the remainder of the 30 days (See Figure 7.2-8). This document summarizes the work performed to date and presents recommendations for incorporating chemical effects into the head loss calculations.
The 30-day integrated head loss testing documented and summarized in this report occurred in August through September 2007.The results of the work contained herein can also be utilized and applied directly to non-chemical prototype testing. The results of this program provides a conservative "bump-up" factor of the increase in head loss due to chemical effects, which would be applied to non-chemical prototype test head loss results to yield a total, chemical and non-chemical head.loss.
Based on the results of the benchtop and 30-day testing within this report, it is concluded that aluminum precipitates, notably sodium aluminum silicate, can impact head loss via collection of particles on the surface of the debris fibers and within the debris bed.The performance of the benchtop testing was performed in accordance with the ALION Science &Technology I 0CFR50 Appendix B Program. All testing performed by ALION Science & Technology was performed with commercially available insulation utilizing standard debris preparation practices, (e.g.shredding, soaking, boiling, etc) as outlined in the testing documents.
The 30-day testing was performed by VUEZ a.s., in accordance with IS09001:2000 and in test equipment dedicated for use by ALION Science & Technology.
The ICP, EDS, SEM, and SIMS examinations were not conducted by Appendix B suppliers nor are they dedicated by Alion for use in a safety related application.
However, these examinations were performed by accredited laboratories and/or universities and the data provided in the examinations is of high standard and is used solely as supporting evidence to explain the reactions that are occurring within the chemical environment.
As a result, this data in itself is not used for any safety related calculations.
Based on recent testing, NaTB has been shown to be an ideal buffer relative to others by producing minimal chemical effects during the entire temperature range of the mission time. Whereas, the TSP buffer can produce chemical effects during the high temperature phase associated with the retrograde solubility of Calcium Phosphate and the NaOH buffer can produce chemical effects during the low temperature phase associated with the solubility of the aluminum based precipitates (sodium aluminum silicate or aluminum oxyhydroxide), the NaTB buffer is relatively benign throughout the entire temperature range due to its moderate pH and non-reactivity with dissolved calcium.
a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 10 of 100 LIST OF ACRONYMS 0 Al AIOOH ANL C Ca Ca 3 (PO 4)2 ECCS EPMA EPRI F ft ft 2 ft 3 GL GSI H 2 0 hr ICET ICP ICP-AES kg lb lb/ft 3 LBLOCA LOCA min NaAISi 3 O 8 NaOH NAS NaTB NSPH NRC PWR PWROG RCS RMI RWST SEM/EDS sec Si SIMS TSP UFSAR USNRC WOG ZOI Degrees Aluminum Aluminum Oxyhydroxide Argonne National Laboratory Celsius Calcium Calcium Phosphate Emergency Core Cooling System Electron Probe Micro-Analyzer Electric Power Research Institute Fahrenheit Feet Square feet Cubic feet Generic Letter Generic Safety Issue Water Hours Integrated Chemical Effects Testing Inductively Coupled Plasma Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy Kilograms Pound (mass)Pounds per cubic foot Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident Loss of Coolant Accident Minutes Sodium Aluminum Silicate (NAS)Sodium Hydroxide Sodium Aluminum Silicate Sodium Tetraborate Net Positive Suction Head Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group Reactor Coolant System Reflective Metal Insulation Refueling Water Storage Tank Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy Dispersive Spectrometer Seconds Silicon Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Trisodium Phosphate Updated Final Safety Analysis Report United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Westinghouse Owners Group Zone of Influence WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL LIO N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: II of 100
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
 
With the issuance of GL 2004-02, licensees are required to assess the potential impact that chemical effects (products of corrosion or any other chemical reaction) may have on the head loss across submerged sump strainers due to accumulation of debris on its surface. Several different testing programs have been undertaken in an effort to better understand the role that chemical effects may have on the head loss characteristics of a debris-laden sump strainer.
The Integrated Chemical Effects Test (ICET) Program, jointly sponsored by the NRC and the Industry, was a series of limited scope tests meant to quantify and characterize potential chemical reaction products that may occur in a representative, post-Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) environment.
The five tests were intended to identify what reaction products, if any, may form under simulated containment sump conditions, using a fixed set of process materials and buffering agents. These tests did not investigate the impact that the environment or products would have on head loss across the sump strainers, only the potential for forming reaction products.
The tests concluded that corrosion products can be produced with common PWR materials in the aqueous environment of the containment pool. The types and quantities were not explicitly determined from the ICET program, however in certain combinations, such as Calcium Silicate and Trisodium Phosphate, the quantities of Calcium Phosphate precipitate was noticed to be substantial.
Subsequently, the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG) conducted a series of single effects dissolution tests designed to quantify the type and amount of chemical precipitates that would be generated during a post-LOCA environment.
The WOG test program implemented a test matrix that varied individual parameters, such as insulation type or exposed metal surface, neglecting the potential integrated effects that could arise. The intent of the WOG program was to provide licensees a chemical model that could be used to determine plant specific chemical corrosion product "debris"Jfor replacement strainer testing. The results of the WOG program are documented in WCAP-16530-NP
[3] and in the subsequent refined method in WCAP- 16785-NP [4].Based on the corrosion rates developed for the individual materials, the WCAP approach assumes that the elements in solution fully re-associated to form precipitates independent of solubility'.
The identification of these precipitates was not exclusively determined from experiments, but in part from computer codes. It should be noted that none of the WCAP experiments were performed in a plant representative environment containing all the materials in solution.
However, the benefit of this model was that once the corrosion rates were established, the plant could determine the amount of potential precipitates that could form (note that these may not ever form due to solubility or time constraints).
Solubility limits are investigated and presented in WCAP- 16785.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-445.9-03 Revision:
0 Page: 12 of 100 Adding the chemical precipitate to the existing debris load is the standard approach to assessing the impact of chemical effects on head loss (refinements can be implemented with respect to the timing of the introduction).
The WCAP provides a method for manufacturing the chemical precipitate through combining two solutions (e.g., Aluminum Nitrate + Sodium Silicate = Sodium Aluminum Silicate).
However, this method of precipitate formation may not truly represent the structure of the precipitate that forms over the 30-day event. Based on experience, the WCAP recipe provides a gelatinous precipitate when in fact the actual form of the precipitate may be crystalline.
Adding gelatinous materials to the head loss testing program can cause excessively high head losses and deemed conservative.
Alion has completed investigatory head loss testing with the WCAP generated precipitates and found these materials to be problematic in quantities determined from the WCAP methodology and plant specific inputs if there is sufficient non-chemical debris (fiber) to cover the strainer.While the WOG was developing the WCAP, the USNRC sponsored chemical head loss testing research at Argonne National Labs (ANL). The results of their work are documented in NUREG/CR-6913
[5]and indicates that for plants where NaOH and sodium tetraborate are used to control sump pH and fiberglass insulation is prevalent, relatively high concentrations of soluble aluminum are expected.
For plants utilizing Sodium Tetraborate (NaTB), the interaction with NUKON/Cal-Sil debris mixtures produced much lower head losses than observed in corresponding tests with TSP.Recently, Alion has undertaken a series of confirmatory benchtop experiments which included specifically a test of Aluminum, Zinc, Concrete, Marinite, Cal-Sil, and Dirt/Dust in a NaTB and NaOH environment (pH 8.8-9.0), similar to~that expected to be present in D.C. Cook's containment during a LOCA event. The benchtop test identified no visible precipitate formation during the test. Under these conditions, the Al and Si concentrations in solution were <30 ppm for Al and <I16 ppm for Si. Sodium Aluminum Silicate may form however does not precipitate within the solution but rather forms deposits on the fiber surfaces and within the debris bed. Since the solubility of aluminum under these conditions is much higher than the measured quantities of released aluminum observed during this test, it is not expected that AIOOH would form under the post-LOCA conditions at D.C. Cook.Based on NRC sponsored testing [5] and public meetings with the Staff, there is a strong preference for plants to achieve a neutral environment to minimize adverse reactions between the pool chemistry and containment materials.
For plants using NaOH as a buffer, this would require changing to either a weaker base, such as TSP or NaTB, or demonstration that very careful management of NaOH additions would be possible.
NRC sponsored testing [5] has shown minimal precipitate formation with neutral environments with low dissolved calcium (plants with dissolved calcium would need to change to NaTB to avoid generating calcium phosphate precipitates due to the reaction of TSP with leached calcium from Cal-Sil).
For plants with low dissolved Calcium, TSP may be a reasonable alternative.
Therefore, for Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE....
TENOLOGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 13 of 100 those plants currently using NaTB, the expectation is that the chemical effects impact on head loss is minimal.
 
==2.0 BACKGROUND==
 
In general, the impact of chemical effects on debris head loss occurs due to: I) the corrosion/leaching of materials in containment when subject to the pH, temperature and coolant chemistry;
: 2) the subsequent potential re-association of anions and cations in solution to form new compounds and precipitates dependent on the time, pH, temperature and solubility in the coolant; and 3) the impact of these precipitates on debris head loss It is challenging to develop a general analytical chemical model that predicts the various chemical precipitates that could form in the plant specific environment.
Therefore, the approach taken by D.C.Cook is to utilize the limiting conditions of containment sump chemistry and post-LOCA debris loads to develop a conservative estimate of the maximum increase in head loss due to chemical effects based on combined testing and subsequent analytical application of these test results to a non-chemical debris load.As stated, based on the USNRC sponsored chemical head loss testing research at Argonne National Labs (ANL), as documented in NUREG/CR-6913
[5], the impact of chemical effects could be negligible for plants with a neutral pH. Although D.C. Cook has essentially a 100% calcium silicate debris source, D.C. Cook utilizes NaTB + NaOH buffers and no visible precipitates have been identified in either the ICET tests (ICET #4, and #5), NUREG/CR-6913 or benchtop testing associated with dissolved calcium and NaTB + NaOH. The negative reactions associated with dissolved calcium are those occurring in the presence of TSP, namely the formation of calcium phosphate.
In fact, those plants with dissolved calcium and TSP, NaTB is the preferred candidate for a replacement buffer due to the neutral pH and limited reactivity with calcium.3.0 PURPOSE D.C. Cook has completed the assessment of chemical effects on debris head loss. The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the chemical assessment into these five (5) primary areas: I. Identification of D.C. Cook pool chemistry, temperature and materials 2. Insights from results of the WCAP- 16530 model 3. Insights from results Industry data and specific benchtop testing (0 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.C..C. AD TECHNOLOG Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 14 of 100 4. Development and results of the 30-day chemical effects head loss testing 5. Recommended application of results to predict chemical effects debris head loss This report summarizes the technical basis and explanation of the inputs, results and conclusions of the D.C. Cook specific chemical effects testing. This report also provides chemical and head loss data for the testing completed to date and addresses the application of this data to D.C. Cook.4.0 PLANT ASSESSMENT The D.C. Cook chemical assessment considered similar environmental conditions as that of the previous USNRC/EPRI sponsored ICET project and the PWROG WCAP-16530-NP program. Thus, the sump chemistry considered boron (as H 3 B0 3) along with the appropriate amount of buffer (added at the appropriate time) [12]. The materials within the chemical environment considered are aluminum, zinc, copper, carbon steel, glycol, grease, oil, and concrete as well as all post-LOCA debris materials (settled and transported to the sump).Investigation into this problem began with a benchtop test considering the predominant debris materials in the typical D.C. Cook sump environment to confirm the presence or lack thereof of precipitates or chemical effects. However, visual examination alone of the benchtop tests was not sufficient to conclude that there are no chemical effects. Therefore, the second step in the assessment developed a 30-day head loss test to understand the impact these chemical products or environment have on the debris bed head loss.The following sections identify the plant conditions that were carried throughout this assessment.
4.1 D.C. Cook Environmental Conditions D.C. Cook plant is an ice condenser design that is generally considered a Cal-Sil + NaTB (Sodium Tetraborate)
+ NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide) plant. D.C. Cook is only minimally represented by ICET Test #4 and #5, as ICET #4 contained a mixture of Cal-Sil and NUKON in NaOH at pH 9.5-9.9 and ICET #5 contained significant amounts of NUKON fiberglass insulation in NaTB at a pH of 8.2-8.4. The long term pH at D.C. Cook is 8.9.D.C. Cook contains no unique conditions relative to debris loads, structural materials or chemical conditions and participated in the ICET and PWROG WCAP-16530-NP programs.Results of the ICET and PWROG program have identified the corrosion of aluminum as a major contributor to chemical effects, and the reduced pH associated with the use of NaTB will lessen the magnitude of such corrosion.
0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 15 of 100 4. I. I Aluminum Corrosion and pH From Industry literature
[5], as well as results from WCAP- I 6530-NP [3] and ALION testing, pH is a primary factor in the dissolution of aluminum.
Solutions with a lower pH (more acidic) may attack some aluminum alloys, and solutions with higher pH (more basic) attack all aluminum alloys.Solution pH has a marked effect on the rate of chemical reaction between the coolant water and aluminum.
The corrosion reduces the metal thickness and may form an oxide film that is a thermal barrier. Extensive tests [17] carried out in support of DOE test reactors have revealed that minimum aluminum corrosion results with a pH of 5.0 at normal operating temperatures.
Additionally, studies[17] have shown that the aluminum corrosion products also exhibit a minimum solubility at a pH near 5.5 at ambient temperature.
The presence of aluminum corrosion products in the solution tends to reduce the substrate (base)aluminum metal corrosion rates. Figure 4.1-1 a & b shows the effect of pH on aluminum oxide solubility's for various forms of oxide, and the effect of pH on corrosion rates. It should be noted that the values at which minimum corrosion and solubility are found shift toa lower pH as the temperature is increased.
wSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 16 of 100 z i-I o_0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PENETRATION OF ALUMINUM AS A FUNCTION OF pH (A 0 0 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 p 1.SOLUBILITIES OF ALUMINUM OXIDES AT 25"C Figure 4. 1- I a & b: Effect of pH on Aluminum Corrosion and Oxide Solubility (Reference 1 7) w Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 17 of 100 4.1.2 Solubility Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 provide estimates on aluminum corrosion rates and aluminum solubility versus pH and temperature.
These are estimates and are used as guidelines to determine parameters for testing.12000, 10000-8=0 68000-4000-2000-0 801 67 a 9 10 11 12 PH-*-si 200F -U-M- 200F Figure 4.1-2: Aluminum Release vs WCAP- 16530-NP Model (Reference
: 3)
: 19) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 18 of 100 E 10'0.a..52 0-j 20 30 40 50 60 T(C)70 80 90 100 XAI(T, pH) NUREG-6913 Log XA, (pH,T) = (pH-9.4)+
10.821 -2.7476*1 OOO/T(K)Figure 4.1-3: Aluminum Solubility vs Temperature (Reference 5)Without re-developing the basis for the RCS chemistry and buffer systems herein, the primary purpose of the buffer is to mitigate corrosion and maintain the pH above 7.0 for radiological considerations.
The ICET #4 test in a NaOH buffered solution was performed between pH 9.5 and 9.9 and the ICET #5 in a NaTB buffered solution test was performed between pH 8.2 and 8.4. The benchtop test series were performed in a pH range of 8.8 -9.0.For the NaTB + NaOH environment, the D.C. Cook initial containment sump fluid pH is 8.2 and rises up to 8.9 as a result of the containment spray higher pH [12]. The spray water pH is as high as 12.76 for a limited timeframe during the initial 5 minutes of recirculation.
At a pH of 8.9, the concentration of aluminum released from Table 5-2 in WCAP- 16785-NP [4] and Figure 4.1-2 is approximately 360 ppm (assuming silicate inhibition occurs). Without silicate inhibition, the aluminum concentration is predicted to be much higher based on Figure 4.1-2. Using the equation shown in Figure 4. 1-3, the temperature associated with a dissolved aluminum concentration of 360 ppm and a pH of 8.9 is 353.86 Kelvin or (Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 19 of 100.approximately 177fF. In other words, if the temperature of a solution containing 360 ppm of aluminum at pH 8.9 decreases below 177&deg;F, aluminum containing precipitates may form. A higher pH is conservative based on the fact that aluminum corrodes faster with higher pH (as shown above).Although it may corrode (dissolve) faster, the solubility limit is also much higher. When looking for chemical effects, both dissolution and solubility are considered equally important.
 
====4.1.3 Inhibition====
Silicate inhibition may be one factor that can potentially reduce aluminum corrosion for D.C. Cook.The reduction in aluminum corrosion occurs due to formation of a protective silicate corrosion film on the aluminum substrate under certain temperature (below 200'F) and pH conditions (between pH 6.55 and II). As discussed in WCAP-16785-NP, silicate inhibition begins to take place when there is at least 50 ppm Si in solution.
Silicate inhibition is significant when Si concentrations reach 75 ppm. Under post-LOCA conditions, per WCAP- 16530-NP, insulation sources such as Cal-Sil can leach large amounts of silicon. The amount of Cal-Sil present in the D.C. Cook debris load is large enough that dissolved Si concentrations may be high enough to promote silicate inhibition.
4.1.4 D.C. Cook Sump Chemistry and pH Profile Generally, post-LOCA chemical byproducts due to radiolysis and RCS internals are hydrochloric acid (HCI), nitric acid (HNO 3), and lithium (Li). For this report, the D.C. Cook post-LOCA chemical byproducts from radiolysis and RCS internals are not specified.
The following table depicts the minimum, nominal, and maximum pH, Boron and buffer (NaTB and NaOH) concentrations for each phase of the accident scenario [9]. The table also depicts the minimum, nominal, and maximum time to reach recirculation
[9].
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 S.CIEC AD TECHNOLOGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 20 of 100 Sump, Sump. ump,, pa Time to Sump Sump Sump Sump Sump Boron NaTB Spray Spray Action Initiation Flow Level Volume Temp pH (gBn- (gmn- ' (am- Flow pH" (Min) (gpm) (El.) W) &deg;F) mp WllH molen gi n le,4( -(gpm)Min. N!A 6,492 606.5 59,441 150 7.59 0.215 4.865-3 0.014 2,942 8.15 Injection Nom. N!A 13,500' 608.0 70,075 160 8.40 0183 5.75E-3 0.040 6,800 9.48 Max. N!A 15,500' 611.0 96,127.5 190 8.74 0.159 6.33E-3 0.049 7,400 9.91 Min. 18 6,492 606.5 59,441 110 7.59 0.215 4.86E-3 0.014 2,942 8.37 RI-PRCTS -_____Recirc. Nom. 24 13,500 608.7 75,123 140 8.42 0.182 6.05=-3 0.043 6,800 10.67 Max, 50 14,400 613.9 114,378 170 8.79 0.161 6.84E-3 0.048 7,400 12.76 Min. 31.5 6,492 604.7 46,565 100 7.59 0.215 4.86E-3 0.014 2,942 7.63 Full Recirc. Nom. 55 13,500 608.7 75,123 130 8.42 0.182 6.052-3 0.043 6,800 8.55 Max. 112 14,400 613.9 114,378 170 879 0,161 6.84=-3 0.048 7,400 8.93 CTS Min. 360 3,550 604.7 46,565 80 7.59 0.215 4.86=-3 0.014 0 7.63 Termination Nom. 480 10.500 608.7 75,123 120 8.42 0.182 6.05E-3 0.043 3,400 8.55 Max. 3,300 14,400 613.9 114378 160 879 0.161 6.84=-3 0.048 7,400 8.93 Min. 420 3,550 604.7 46,565 80 7.59 0.210 4.65E-3 0.016 0 7.63 Plant Stabilization Nom. 480 10,500 612.6 105,070 120 8.52 0.156 1.20E-2 0.034 1,890 8.55 Max. 12000 14,400 613.9 114,378 160 8.91 0.116 1.68E-2 0.038 7,400 8.93 Min. 420 2,900 611.4 96,157 80 8.13 0.158 148E-2 0.012 0 8.13 Long rerm Cooling Nom 1440 3,100 612.6 105.070 100 8.69 0.133 1.602-2 0.032 0 8.69 Max. 2.6- E6 10,400 613.9 114.378 120 8.91 0.116 1.68_-2 0.038 3,400 8.91 Note I: Sump flow during the injection phase is 0. The values shown in this section represent injection flow rates for pool fill.Note 2: At CTS ternlination.
CTS may not be completely secured, therefore pH values for CTS will be presented for all phases.Note 3: The sump boron. NaTB and NaOH concentrations shown in a single row represent the concentrations needed to achieve the Minimum, nominal maximum pH concentration shown in that row. Therefore the sump boron concentration shown in the "Min." row is actually the maximum sump boron concentration that would be seen for that phase of operation.
Table 4. I -I: pH, Boron and Buffer Concentrations by Phase [9]At D.C. Cook, the initial containment sump fluid pH increases over the initial portion of the accident as a result of the containment spray higher pH. Upon initiation of the accident during the injection phase, borated water is injected into the system through the refueling water storage tank to aid in reactivity control. Simultaneously, borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide is sprayed inside containment.
During the recirculation phase, sump pool fluid is injected to the reactor vessel and sprayed inside containment.
The recirculated injection fluid is borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide and sodium tetraborate.
During the initial portion of spray in the recirculation phase, the spray consists primarily of sodium hydroxide with a high pH. Following the brief initial high spray pH duration, spray continues for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes by spraying sump fluid. The spray is terminated at 48 hours while recirculation continues to the mission time of 30 days [ 12].
QD) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 21 of 100 Nominal ESF Sump and CTS pH 11 ..10i I I I I i 10.5 ----.--u--pH u S--a p I i I--4 8.5 ... .....-- ---- ------- -------8.5m -,- --m- Spra pH" Figure 4.1-4: Nominal Containment Sump and Spray pH Profile [9]4.1.5 D.C. Cook Sump Temperature The containment sump temperature profile is shown in Figure 4.1-5 [18] and the minimum, nominal, and maximum containment sump temperature profiles [9] based on different accident scenarios are provided in Figure 4.1-6.
1A) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L IO N D.C. CookUnits land 2 SCIENC AND TECHNOLOGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 22 of 100 F7 E 0--190 180 170 160 150 140 130 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 Time (s)Figure 4.1-5: Containment Sump Temperature Profiles [18]Containment Sump Temperatures E 0 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1.00E I Ii----- ----------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I-~~~. .---. --_ -. .-II -----L -' -I-~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I ----....--------------------------------------i------i --------------I -----jI -----E+01 1.OOE+02 1-OOE+03 1 .OOE+04 1-.E+05 1.OOE+06 Time (seconds)1.00E+07 Io-T Min m -T Nom & -T Max~Figure 4.1-6: Containment Sump Temperature Profiles [9]
0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 23 of 100 4.2 D.C. Cook Material and Debris Specific Inputs The materials to be included in this assessment are those that have the potential to be susceptible to chemical attack and produce corrosion or dissolution products.
Industry testing [5,6] to date has included in the test programs aluminum, carbon steel, concrete, zinc, and copper. The debris materials are based on the plant specific debris generation
[19, 23] and transport calculations
[22, 24] performed in support of the resolution of GSI- 19 1.4.2.1 D.C. Cook Material Inputs The containment materials at D.C. Cook have been divided into the three locations relative to the sump pool: submerged, unsubmerged (above flood plane), and on the sump strainer.
Submerged materials are insulation and debris that are created by the high energy line break but not transported to the sump as well as structural materials within containment below the flood plane. This material does not directly contribute to sump strainer head loss but can corrode and produce corrosion products or chemical interactions.
Unsubmerged materials are materials within containment that are exposed to spray and are above the pool flood plane. These materials may contribute corrosion products due to spray run off that enters the containment pool. Materials that reach the sump strainer are insulation and debris that are created by the line break and transport to the sump strainer via the containment pool recirculation.
These materials contribute to the sump strainer head loss and may contribute to chemistry.
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 24 of 100 Submerged Materials Material Type Quantity Units Metallic Aluminum 10.9 ft2 Zinc in Galvanized Steel 71162.6 ft2 Copper 1021.6 ft2 Exposed Concrete 6412.78 ft2 Glycol (undiluted) 93.58 ft3 Oil 32.760 ft 3 Unsubmerged.
Materials Metallic Aluminum 8013.4 ft 2 Zinc in Galvanized Steel 504729.0 ft 2 Exposed Concrete 1077.1 ft2 Copper 39735.2 ft 2 Carbon Steel 32666.2 ft 2 Grease (0.175 ft 3 spread over 420 ft 2 area) 420.9 ft 2 Table 4.2- I: Submerged and Unsubmerged Debris and Materials Quantities
[12]4.2.2 D.C. Cook Containment Sump Strainer Debris Loads The sump strainer debris materials and their location on the sump strainer are unique in that they are submerged and interact with the chemical environment, but they can also filter out corrosion products as they are generated and transported to the sump strainer.
The debris load located on the sump strainer for D.C. Cook is provided in Table 4.2-2. The D.C. Cook main source of debris is calcium silicate insulation.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 25 of 100 Debris Quantities on the Sump Strainer'Material Type Quantity Units Debris Bed Thickness 0.116 in Latent Fiber 7.75 ft3 Epoxy (inside ZOI, 10 mil) 92.15 lb Epoxy (OEM, outside ZOI) 3.52 lb Epoxy (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 8.32 lb Alkyd (inside ZOI, 10 mil) 0.258 lb Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI) 10.556 lb Alkyd (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 2.088 lb Marinite I 0.1185 lb Marinite 36 0.9898 lb Min-K 0.688 lb Cal-Sil 166.8 lb Dirt/Dust 105.4 lb Table 4.2-2: Debris Quantities on Strainer [12]Note: The debris quantities in Table 4.2-2 are from Revision I of Reference
: 12. Further discussion on debris quantities is provided in Section 7.2.3.3.4.3 D.C. Cook Strainer Area, Flow Rate and Pool Volumes The remaining specific conditions relate to the strainer area, sump recirculation flow rate and maximum and minimum pool volumes.Strainer Area The replacement sump strainer contains two strainer modules -the Main Strainer and the Remote Strainer.
The Main Strainer is located inside the crane wall and the Remote Strainer is located outside the crane wall. The Remote Strainer area is larger than the Main Strainer area. The Remote Strainer outlet is routed through the crane wall via a water duct and discharges to the recirculation sump inside the crane wall. The Main Strainer has an area of 900 ft2 [9]. Applying blockage due to foreign material reduces the Main Strainer area to an effective surface area of 800 ft 2 [12]. The 30-day chemical effects (CE) head loss test simulates the Main Strainer only since it is the most heavily loaded strainer [I 2].
Wi Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.................
OLOY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 26 of 100 Recirculation Flow Rate The flow rate through the Main Strainer before recirculation is 6500 gpm and is 9720 gpm after recirculation begins [9,12]. For a strainer area of 800 ft 2 , this provides an approach velocity through the strainer/debris bed of 0.0181 ft/s for the period of time before recirculation and 0.0271 ft/s after recirculation begins [12].Pool Volume The minimum sump pool volume is 59,441 ft 3 [9,12]. The minimum sump pool volume is utilized for the 30-day chemical effects head loss test because the minimum containment sump fluid volume conservatively maximizes the materials that are available to interact with the sump chemistry (i.e.material to pool volume ratio).4.4 Material to Volume Ratio The following table presents the plant specific material to pool volume ratios compared to those in the ICET and WCAP testing. Under most circumstances, the surveys for the ICET work were approximations by the licensees with refined values provided during the WCAP survey. After issuance of the WCAP- I 6530-NP, licensees paid particular attention to the corrosion potential of the materials and refined these values through plant specific walkdowns.
The ratios listed for D.C. Cook represent the total of each material type listed in Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-2. Since D.C. Cook contains a large amount of calcium silicate and a minimal amount of fiberglass, D.C. Cook is only minimally represented by ICET Test #5. The amount of aluminum at D.C. Cook is much less than the amounts used in ICET Test #4 and Test #5 and the WCAP- I 6530-NP testing.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 27 of 100 Conntainment , ,. ,D.C,. Cook , ICET Tesit #4 ICETTest #5 WCAP-Materials Specific 1 I2](7) J6] [6] 16530-N 3 Zinc in Galvanized Steel 9.69 ft 2/ft3 8.0 ft2/ft3 8.0 ft 2/ft3 19.5 ft2/ft3 Aluminum 0.135 ft2/ft3 3.5 ft 2/ft3 3.5 ft2/ft3 5.42 ft2/ft 3 Copper 0.017 ft 2/ft3 6.0 ft 2/ft3 6.0 ft2/ft3 11 .11 ft2/ft 3 Carbon Steel 0.55 ft 2/ft3 0.15 ft 2/ft3 0.15 ft2/ft3 10.78 ft2/ft3 Glycol 1.57E-03 ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft 3 Oil 5.51 E-04 ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 0.0 ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 Grease 7.08E-03 ft 2/ft3 0.0 ft 2/ft3 0.0 ft 2/ft3 0.0 ft2/ft 3 Concrete Surface 0.126 ft 2/ft3 0.045 ft2/ft3 0.045 ft 2/ft3 4.79 ft2/ft3 Fiber 1.30E-04(6) ft 3/ft3 0.027(s) ft 3/ft3 0.137 ft3/ft3 0.23 ft3/ft3 Marinite I 4.33E-08(')
ft3/ft3 0.0 ft 3/ft 3  0.0 ft3/ft3 1.2E-3 ft 3/ft 3 Marinite '36 4.63E-07(1,4) ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 0.0 ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 Min-K 7.23E-07(2) ft 3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 1.3E-3 ft3/ft3 Calcium Silicate 1.94E-04(')
ft 3/ft3 0.1 I (s) ft3/ft3 0.0 ft3/ft3 0.18 ft3/ft 3 Dirt/Dust 0.0018 Ibs/ft 3  0.0014(3)
Ibs/ft 3  0.0014(3)
Ibs/ft 3  0.0 Ibs/ft 3 Table 4.4- I: Comparison of Material Surface to Pool Volume Ratios (I) The mass of Marinite I, Marinite 36 and Calcium Silicate from Table 4.2-2 was converted to volume using a density of 46 lb/ft 3 , 36 lb/ft 3 , and 14.5 lb/ft3, respectively
[ 19].(2) The mass of Min-K from Table 4.2-2 was converted to volume using a density of 16 Ib/ft3 [119].(3) As concrete particulate.
(4) For the 30-day CE test, Marinite 36 is represented by 70% Cal-Sil and 30% Wollastonite 800H [1 2].(5) The total material to pool volume ratio for fiberglass
+ Cal-Sil is 0.137 ft 3/ft 3 with 80% Cal-Sil and 20% fiberglass by volume.(6) The fiber at D.C. Cook is categorized as latent fiber [ 19].(7) The D.C. Cook ratios are based on debris quantities from Revision I of Reference
: 12. Further discussion on debris quantities is provided in Section 7.2.3.3.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 28 of 100 5.0 WCAP MODEL PREDICTIONS The D.C. Cook WCAP analysis utilizes the methodology of WCAP- I 6530-NP and is documented in Reference
: 7. The WCAP analysis utilizes the quantity of insulation materials destroyed as documented in the Debris Generation calculation
[19] for the main loop break (Loop 4 Break). The Containment Building Materials Inventory Calculation
[20] provides the aluminum and concrete material inputs for the WCAP analysis.
Zinc from galvanized steel, copper, carbon steel, glycol and oil (organic materials) are not considered in the WCAP analysis [7]. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the quantities of Ca, Si, and Al that may be released due to chemical attack and subsequently the chemical precipitate loads that might be expected to be generated in the post-LOCA environment within the first 48 hours while the containment spray system is activated.
Table 5-1 depicts the material to pool volume ratios that were used in the D.C. Cook WCAP analysis.Containment Materials WCAP Analysis.Aluminum 0.1 ft2/ft3 Concrete Surface 0.089 ft 2/ft 3 Min-K(2) 1. 1 9E-06 ft3/ft3 Calcium SilicateM)
(2) 4.48E-04 ft 3/ft 3 Dirt/Dust 0.002 Ibs/ft 3 Table 5- I: Material to Pool Volume Ratios for the D.C. Cook WCAP Analysis (I) Includes Marinite I and Marinite 36 quantities
[7].(2) According to Table 4.4-1, latent fiber exists as a debris source for D.C. Cook. In the WCAP evaluation, the latent fiber is represented by insulation in proportion of the mass of insulation debris that is generated (i.e. calcium silicate and Min-K) [7].Figure 5-1 depicts the sump and containment profiles and Figure 5-2 shows the sump and spray pH profiles used for the WCAP analysis [7]. Comparing the nominal sump temperature profile provided in Figure 4.1-5 to the WCAP sump temperature profile in Figure 5-1 shows that the WCAP sump temperature profile has a higher initial temperature
(-45&deg;F higher) for the first 30 minutes of the accident.
The use of a higher temperature is conservative because corrosion of materials such as aluminum is greater at higher temperatures.
The WCAP sump and spray pH start at 9.74 and gradually rise to 9.91. Once recirculation begins, the sump pH drops to 8.74 while the spray pH briefly increases to a maximum of 12.76. The long term pH of the sump and spray is 8.91 [7]. The WCAP utilizes the limiting sump and spray pH conditions
[7] which is more conservative for aluminum corrosion.
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2..................
OGYDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 29 of 100 250, U I I 2 0 0 ------. .-- -. .-- --.- --.- -------10 -- -E" 100 -----L- --50 I -I Sump Temp.x Containment Temp.0 '1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 Time (Minutes)Figure 5- I: WCAP Sump and Containment Temperature Profiles x 0.13 12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 1.E---Sump pHI Spray pH-I-----------------------r ------02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 Time (Minutes)I.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 Figure 5-2: WCAP Sump pH and Spray pH Profiles Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 30 of 100 The WCAP-16530-NP chemical model was developed from data generated during the single-effect bench testing at specific chemistry conditions.
WCAP-16530-NP provided estimates of precipitate generation based on conservative corrosion rates independent of solubility in a single-effects environment.
WCAP-16785-NP provides refinements to the WCAP-16530-NP model which include precipitate solubility limits of sodium aluminum silicate (NAS) and aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIOOH), as well as inhibition of aluminum corrosion due to the presence of silicates or phosphate in solution.Based on the refined WCAP analysis, the solubility limit of sodium aluminum silicate is zero in sodium tetraborate (NaTB) buffered solutions
[4]. However, the solubility limit of aluminum oxyhydroxide is 40 ppm aluminum from 140'F to 200&deg;F [4]. Above 200*F, the solubility limit is 98 ppm aluminum.
This solubility limit is applicable for all buffer agents.Also for plants utilizing NaTB and NaOH as buffer agents, silicate inhibition may be applicable.
The WCAP states that silicate inhibition may be credited at dissolved silicon values from 50 ppm and up for temperatures of 200"F and less. As reported in WCAP-16785-NP, limited silicate inhibition may be credited at dissolved silicon values from 50 to 75 ppm. The results in WCAP- 16785-NP suggest a factor of 2.0 reduction in aluminum release may be credited at moderate temperatures (below 200&deg;F) and pH (7.0 to 9.0). For plants with predicted silicon concentrations in excess of the 75 ppm threshold, the aluminum release rate equation provided in WCAP-16785-NP may be used once the silicon concentration reaches a specified threshold value. This equation is valid over a pH range of 6.55 to 11.0 and at temperatures below 200&deg;F. Outside of these conditions, the original WCAP- I 6530-NP aluminum release equation should be used [4].The D.C. Cook WCAP- I 6530-NP analysis determines the Ca, Si and Al concentrations for the Loop 4 Break. The elemental release data from this analysis is then compared to the methodology in WCAP-16785-NP to determine if the potential exists for silicate inhibition.
Table 5-2 describes the maximum concentration of elements Ca, Si, and Al in solution based on the results of the WCAP analysis for* WCAP- I 6530-NP. As stated, the WCAP reports that silicate inhibition may be credited at dissolved silicon values from 50 ppm and up. For D.C. Cook, the WCAP predicted maximum Si concentration is 27 ppm which is not within the range of concentrations required to promote silicate inhibition.
Therefore, silicate inhibition is not expected to reduce the amount of aluminum corrosion.
W) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL IO N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 31 of 100 Elemental Results for :Units Release , WCAP 16530110-WN-71
____Ca 40 ppm Si 27 ppm Al 25 ppm Table 5-2: Maximum Ca, Si, and Al Concentrations Predicted by the WCAP- 16530-NP [7]Table 5-3 shows the precipitate load results of the WCAP analysis for WCAP- I 6530-NP. The quantity of sodium aluminum silicate generated is limited by the amount of silicate available in solution with any residual aluminum to precipitate as aluminum oxyhydroxide.
If the Si concentration is less than 3.12 times the aluminum concentration, the remaining aluminum in. solution precipitates as aluminum oxyhydroxide
[3]. From Table 5-2, the Si concentration is much less than 3.12 times the aluminum concentration therefore the aluminum available in solution is first used to generate sodium aluminum silicate and the remaining aluminum is used to generate aluminum oxyhydroxide.
PrcptaeTp Results for nt PreciitateTypeWCAP 1,6530-NP
[7 nut Sodium Aluminum Silicate (NaAISi 3 O 8) 445.5 lb Aluminum Oxyhydroxide (AIOOH) 191.1 lb Table 5-3: WCAP- I 6530-NP Precipitate Quantities
[7]
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....CE..N...........
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 32 of 100 6.0 BENCHTOP CHEMISTRY TESTING ALION has completed chemical effects benchtop testing to provide insight into the dissolution and corrosion of containment materials in a combined, integrated post-LOCA environment as opposed to the single effects tests used to develop the WCAP-16530-NP methodology.
The tests investigated the dissolution and corrosion of Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, and Concrete in a NaTB mixed with NaOH environment at a solution pH of 8.8-9.0. The test also investigates the potential formation of chemical precipitates from these reactions at elevated temperature and chemical conditions that simulate post-LOCA conditionsfor a typical nuclear power plant. The test materials and solutions were visually examined and analyzed by ICP-AES, respectively
 
====2.6.1 Benchtop====
Plan and Matrix The benchtop test was performed in 300 mL solution of 2300 ppm of Boron (as boric acid (H 3 B0 3) and sodium tetraborate (NaTB)) and 0.7 ppm of Lithium (as lithium hydroxide) adjusted with NaOH buffer prior to test commencement targeting a pH of 8.9. The solution temperature was initially set at 190'F +9&deg;F for the first 24 hours followed by a decrease in temperature to I50F + 9&deg;F for the next 6 days followed by a final decrease to I 00F + 9*F which was maintained for the remainder of the 30-day test.The following test was performed and the test results documented in Reference 8 (also see Attachment A). Table 6. 1-I shows the material to pool volume ratios for the benchtop test.Test I: Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite.
and Concrete in a NaTB mixed with NaOH (Test 217-1A) [8]Benchtop, nt Containment Materials Test Units Aluminum 0.173 ft 2/ft 3 Zinc in Galvanized Steel 1.52 ft 2/ft 3 Cal-Sil 0.0026 ft3/ft3 Marinite 0.0014 ft3/ft3 Concrete Surface 4.07 ft 2/ft3 Dirt/Dust 0.021 ft3/ft 3 Table 6. I -I: Benchtop Test Material Surface to Pool Volume Ratios (Reference 8)Solution samples were taken at the intervals specified in the test plan and coupons and fibers were analyzed to determine elemental compositions.
2 The ICP analysis was performed by an accredited university laboratory.
These examinations were not performed by Appendix B supplier nor are they dedicated by Alion for use in a safety related application.
I W1 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE AD TECHNOLOG Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 33 of 100 It is noted that the scaling of the benchtop experiment was not identical to D.C. Cook, but reasonable and conservative for the purpose of identifying visual precipitation and solution analyses.
It is also noted that for this experiment, the Cal-Sil debris was introduced as small pieces, rather than fines. This approach was taken to provide a realistic representation of the calcium silicate debris likely to be found in a post-accident environment and to minimize the potential for reaching dissolved silicon concentrations that could inhibit the dissolution of aluminum by silicate inhibition.
 
===6.2 Benchtop===
Results Overall, the benchtop test identified that no visible precipitate formation occurred during the test; this result was similar in nature to that reported in NUREG/CR-6913
[5]. Visual observations of any events or conditions that may have occurred during the benchtop experiment were recorded.
The test solution, the debris and metal materials, and any reaction products that may have formed were examined by ICP-AES and EPMA. The results of the benchtop test are discussed in the following sections.6.2. I Visual Observations Gas evolution was observed on the surface of the aluminum coupon during the initial stages of the test indicating corrosion of aluminum.
At the elevated temperatures of the benchtop test, there was no evidence of precipitate formation in the test solutions.
This suggests that the solubility limit was not reached at these temperatures.
Solution samples were collected at intervals throughout the test to determine if any precipitation would occur at lower temperatures.
The room temperature samples showed precipitation and that there was comparatively more precipitate over time. The aluminum solubility limit was exceeded once the temperature decreased.
After removal of the metal coupons from the test solution, it was noted that the aluminum coupon surface had darkened during the course of the experiment.
There was no discoloration to the zinc surfaces attributed primarily to the corrosion resistance of zinc at the test pH levels.6.2.2 Wet Chemistry Results Figure 6.2-I shows the pH data for the benchtop test which ranged between 8.7 and 9.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L IO N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 34 of 100 M~9.05 9 8.95 8.9 8.85 8.8 8.75 8.7 0 100 200 300 400 Time (hr)500 600 700 800 Figure 6.2- I: Benchtop Test pH throughout 30 Days Aluminum Figure 6.2-2 shows the benchtop results for Al ICP, pH, Temperature and the WCAP. predictions under benchtop conditions (pH, temperature, material loading, etc). Note that the WCAP predictions shown in this Section are only referring to the benchtop conditions and not the plant specific WCAP analysis discussed in Section 5.0.
W Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 35 of 100 100 90 80 E.E.70 60 50 40--- TeinV, IC7 .......--------------
PH ---------I i ----- r-----T ----------
--- -----------------
-----------
1CP ....... ArS'FUbfl
------------
---- ------ ----------
S8.9 9-8.85-8.8&#xfd; 8.75 30 20 10 m 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (hr)Figure 6.2-2: Aluminum ICP data for the Benchtop Test The test indicates an initial rise in Al levels followed by a decrease in concentration as a function of time.The ICP values increased to a maximum of approximately 30 ppm during the high temperature conditions and began to decrease as the temperature was reduced to around 100"F (37.8"C).
The refined WCAP model using the benchtop conditions (pH, T, etc) predicts a relatively higher amount of Al released than were actually realized at actual experimental conditions (pH and T) during testing. It is noted that the benchtop pH levels continued to climb from 8.8 and stabilize near 9, yet the aluminum concentration in solution decreases.
As indicated earlier, formation of visible gases on the coupon surface accompanied by precipitation observed upon solution cool down to room temperature attest to the likely formation of Al deposits.
The lack of Aluminum precipitate observed at test temperatures is clearly indicated by the ICP results for all the tests since they are significantly below the solubility limit.Silicon Figure 6.2-3 shows the benchtop results for Si ICP, pH, Temperature and the WCAP predictions under benchtop conditions.
The refined WCAP model also predicted Silicon to rise significantly over time as a result of the presence of Cal-Sil, the primary source of Silicon. However, a closer examination of the Si ICP data below reveals a relatively low concentration of Si release.The Si ICP levels initially reached approximately 20 ppm within the first 24 hours of the test, but subsequently decreased and stabilize around 4-5 ppm. The reduction of Si dissolution appears to WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 36 of 100 coincide with the corresponding reduction in temperature.
These concentrations however, are dramatically lower compared to the refined WCAP predicting almost 150 ppm. These low levels are attributed to the lack of Si dissolution since no rapid precipitation was observed under the test conditions.
140 120 9 1 0 0 SS80 0 260 40 20 9 8.95 8.9 pH 8.85 8.8 8.75 0 5 i 1 8.7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (hr)Figure 6.2-3: Silicon ICP data for the Benchtop Test The amount of Si release predicted by the WCAP is much greater than the concentration as measured by ICP in the test. The WCAP model (under benchtop conditions shown in Figure 6.2-3) predicts that there is sufficient amount of Si released (>75 ppm) to inhibit the Al corrosion.
The form of Cal-Sil used in the test may have had a profound role on the quantity of silicon released from the material.
For example, Cal-Sil introduced as a powder may potentially dissolve more because it has additional exposed surface area as compared to the "as-manufactured" Cal-Sil (i.e. block form) used in the test. Recall that the block form of Cal-Sil used in the testing was specified to minimize the potential to minimize the potential for silicate inhibition.
Calcium Figure 6.2-4 shows the benchtop results for Ca ICP, pH, Temperature and the WCAP predictions under benchtop conditions.
Ca is the most prevalent element in the test as analyzed by ICP.
MW Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL IO N D.C. Cook Units land 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 37 of 100 250 200 R150 E Z1100 50 9 8.95 8.9 pH 8.85 8.8 8.75 0 S I I i I I I 8.7 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (hr)Figure 6.2-4: Calcium ICP data for the Benchtop Test The ICP levels peaked near 100 ppm during the first week at high temperatures followed by a gradual decrease in a similar trend as Al and Si. The WCAP analysis initially predicts a lower level up to first and second week, but ultimately surpasses the benchtop ICP concentration by at least a factor of two.Further WCAP analysis reveals the primary source is Cal-Sil and Marinite with a much smaller contribution from concrete.
A decrease in Ca ICP concentration may also suggest formation of inorganic precipitates such as CaCO 3 from ambient air containing CO 2 (concentration 350-400-ppm).
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 38 of 100 1011 0 Q C.)Ej 1 0 " I 10-1 r r 10 .7~~jpiiD C DO~4-J-0--CB204 aC031 CaB407 Ca(-OK 0 10,13 , I 50 100 150 200 250 300 T(F)Figure 6.2-5: Thermodynamic Equilibrium Constant for Ca-bearing Compounds in NaTB/NaOH Buffer Formation of Ca(OH)2 due to high pH as well the Calcium Borates as inorganic compounds from plants with NaTB or NaOH buffer are also likely [8]. However, generation of large quantities of Ca-based chemical precipitates require either very high level solubility
(>> 100 ppm) or very high temperature, which is considered unlikely given the typical sump operating limitations.
 
====6.2.3 Material====
Examinations The residue/precipitate, Cal-Sil, Marinite, and concrete materials were examined using SEM-EDX and XRD for the benchtop test WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 39 of 100 I Calcium Silicate Figure 6.2-6 shows the SEM image and the EDX spectra of Calcium Silicate.Figure 6.2-6: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Cal-Sil after Exposure to Benchtop Test The elemental composition is similar to prior findings [8] and consists primarily of 0, Si, and Ca. The material also contains minor amounts of Al, Na, Mg, K and Fe. Note that Carbon is as abundant as Oxygen. Cal-Sil is composed of synthetic Calcium Silicate, vitreous and cellulose fibers, Sodium Silicate, and some iron-based coloring agent according to the manufacturer's MSDS. The presence of Carbon may signify that either Carbon originates from the natural and synthetic fibers and/or may have been incorporated from CO 2 in the atmosphere under high pH conditions performed in this test.Marinite Figure 6.2-7 shows the SEM image and the EDX spectra of an as-received Marinite sample and Figure 6.2-8 shows the SEM image and the EDX spectra of Marinite exposed to the test solution.
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 40 of 100 Figure 6.2-7: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Marinite (as-received from manufacturer)
The composition of Marinite is similar to Cal-Sil as well as previous findings with the elements mainly consisting of 0, Si and Ca [8]. Marinite is composed of clumps of calcium silicate & calcium metasilicate loosely embedded with natural organic fiber, fiberglass filament, and crystalline silica according to the MSDS.Figure 6.2-8: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Marinite after Exposure to Benchtop Test The general morphology appears unchanged while a change in composition is noted with the inclusion of Na and Mg. It should be noted however, that Na may originate from the buffer chemistries utilized (NaOH/NaTB) since the specimens were intentionally not rinsed to eliminate any dissolution associated with rinsing with RO water. The Mg may stem from concrete as a relatively large quantity was utilized in QD Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 41 of 100 the test. The relative compositions have also changed for the pre-existing elements, in particular with a general increase in Oxygen and a corresponding decrease in Carbon (to a lesser extent).Concrete Commercial grade concrete was utilized in the test with an area approximately equivalent to a 0.3 cm length cube. However, this surface area translated to approximately 50 grams which may have been more extensive if smaller pieces with larger surface-to-volume ratios were utilized.
The surfaces were discolored as a result of incorporation of iron oxide particles originating from the dirt/dust mix utilized and dispersed throughout the solution.
Figure 6.2-9 shows the SEM image and the EDX spectra of concrete exposed to the test solution.Figure 6.2-9: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Concrete after Exposure to Benchtop Test As previously noted, it was observed that the concrete is extensively porous. The surface appears to be extremely rough which is an indication of leaching [8]. The EDX spectrum also shows that the relative proportion of Ca decreased suggesting this is the primary element leached as revealed by ICP analysis.
In addition, the presence of carbon on the concrete surface suggests and may support the formation of CaCO 3 under the alkaline solution.Residue A relatively large fraction of precipitate was collected at the conclusion of the test following solution cooling to room temperature.
The loose bound material was filtered and dried prior to SEM-EDX examination.
It is noted however, that un-reacted material such as the Dirt/Dust mix, insulation fibers and very small fraction of chipped concrete pieces may have also been collected as a result of
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 42 of 100 mechanical agitation and porosity of the containers that loosely held the isolated specimens.
Figure 6.2-10 shows the SEM image and the EDX spectra of residue exposed to the test solution.Figure 6.2- 10: SEM Micrograph and EDX Spectra of Residue from Benchtop Test The EDX spectrum indicates a lack of Carbon compared to the other test specimens examined.Furthermore, abundance of Oxygen in the presence of Ca, Na, Al and Si (in order of relative elemental abundance) possibly indicates the formation of oxide species, namely Ca(OH)2 , aluminates, and aluminosilicates upon test solution cool down and drying the residues.
The relatively lower levels of Si compared to Al trends well corresponding to the concentrations found in the test solutions as analyzed by ICP.6.2.4 Benchtop Test Discussion The ICP results for Al, Si and Ca in combination with the predicted Al solubility for the corresponding temperatures and pH conditions for the benchtop test are depicted in Figure 6.2-I I.
W Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENC AND............Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 43 of 100 120r Ul) 100~801"" 4 0 t A- .Si 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Time (hr)Figure 6.2-I I: Released Chemical Elements and Al Solubility Calculated Over 30 Days The WCAP indicates the precipitate is primarily Sodium Aluminum Silicate (NaAISi 3 O8) and is predicted when the solution contains relatively higher quantities of Si released with respect to Al in the presence of excess Na [i.e., NaOH and NaTB buffers].
Albite is the primary form of NaAISi 3 O 8 and its dissolution rate is a function of pH with positive slope for pH near 6 and above; and negative for pH < 6 [8]. The ICP results potentially suggest precipitate formation by the general decrease of Al and Si in solution.However, the presence of NaAlSi 3 0 8 is not conclusive.
The ICP values indicate Al found in greater abundance than Si (compare Figures 6.2-2 and 6.2-3) further suggesting that aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIOOH) may also form when the AI:Si ratio is below the stoichiometric molar ratio of 3 to form NaAISi 3 Os. Further examination by EDX of the precipitate confirms the abundance of Al over Si.However, it is inconclusive what the specific compounds in the residue/precipitate are as it appears to be a mixture of 0, Ca, Na, Al, and Si in the relative abundance trending with the ICP results. These facts coupled with the high pH environments associated with an increase in Al dissolution may lead to the conclusion that dissolution and precipitation does not occur to the extent predicted by the refined WCAP and perhaps the presence of other containment material sources may in fact inhibit additional Al release into solution.
Nevertheless, the Si levels may not be significant enough to be an Aluminum corrosion inhibitor since a minimum 50 ppm needs to be attained according to the newly refined WCAP model [3, 8]. The lack of Si leaching may also be a function of the type and form of the calcium silicate sources (Cal-Sil and Marinite) as they were utilized as-received by the manufacturer and not pulverized WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOG Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 44 of 100 as suggested by previous findings [8]. Cal-Sil introduced as a powder may potentially dissolve more because it has additional exposed surface area.According to the ICP results, the Ca leaches out to a much greater extent than either Al or Si. In particular, Ca ICP exceeds the WCAP prediction during the first week of the test. Although the WCAP does predict that Ca levels exceed Al and .Si, the major source of Ca appears to originate mainly from concrete compared to Cal-Sil and Marinite as the WCAP model predicts.
This is further corroborated by the relatively high levels of K leaching into solution which is a typical tracer for concrete dissolution despite the fact that Cal-Sil may also contain small amounts of K [8]. This is further confirmed by the residue SEM-EDX spectral analysis as well as visual observations noted regarding concrete porosity, increased surface roughness and a greater than I gram loss in sample weight [8]. The Ca dissolution rate in concrete decreases over time as its solubility is reached or perhaps the concrete surface passivates as evidenced by the possible formation of CaCO 3 due to high pH and the potential presence of dissolved CO 2.The lack of Si dissolution evidenced by ICP and the morphology of the calcium silicate containment materials (Cal-Sil and Marinite) may also correspond to the lack of Ca dissolution from these test materials.
Furthermore, the Mg which is sourced from concrete manifests in other materials such as Cal-Sil as was evidenced by SEM-EDX analysis (compare Figures 6.2-6, 6.2-8 and 6.2-9). Finally, the EDX residue collected after test termination and upon cool down to room temperature confirms the abundance of Ca precipitating along with other elements such as Al and Si.6.3 Benchtop Program Summary The bench top test shows that Aluminum dissolution occurs in a NaTB mixed with NaOH environment as evidenced by the gas evolution observed on the Aluminum surface. Chemical precipitation does not occur at test temperatures but manifests only upon cool down to room temperature.
The Aluminum precipitation may be dominated by its solubility limit which is function of temperature and pH. The relative amount of concrete and the form of Cal-Sil introduced to the test may have masked the effective role of Cal-Sil as a source a silicate inhibition on Aluminum corrosion or dissolution.
On the other hand, use of this type of buffer under the given pH can potentially lead to increase in other species in solution such as Ca. This specific test indicates that concrete is more likely the source term of these ions than Cal-Sil, but the release is also primarily dependent on the material type (i.e., mass, porosity, surface area, etc.). The available Ca ions under a higher pH could potentially lead to the generation of CaCO 3 on concrete surfaces.
The ICP values indicate Al is found in greater abundance than Si which suggests that aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIOOH) may also form when the AI:Si ratio is below the stoichiometric molar ratio of 3 to form NaAISi 3 O8. Further examination by EDX of the precipitate confirms the abundance of Al over Si. The abundance of Oxygen in the presence of Ca, Na, Al and Si in the residue possibly indicates the formation of aluminates and aluminosilicates upon test solution cool down to room temperature.
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 45 of 100 This benchtop program has evaluated Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, and Concrete in a NaTB mixed with NaOH environment at a solution pH of 8.8-9.0. The following conclusions can be made with respect to these tests: I) No visible precipitation was noted during the test.2) Chemical precipitation occurs only upon cool down to room temperature.
: 3) The available Ca ions under a higher pH could potentially lead to the generation of Aragonite, a stable CaCO3 species.4) Si and Al ICP levels are reducing over time which may also indicate that the Si and Al are being used to form precipitate on material surfaces.5) The abundance of Oxygen in the presence of Ca, Na, Al and Si in the residue possibly indicates the formation of oxide species, namely Ca(OH)2 , aluminates, and aluminosilicates upon test solution cool down to room temperature.
: 6) The abundance of Al over Si could indicate formation of AIOOH upon solution cool down to room temperature.
From these results, it is concluded that chemical effects in the Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, and Concrete in a NaTB mixed with NaOH environment are potentially related to the aluminum precipitation within the debris bed and the impact of this change in bed morphology on debris head loss.It should be noted that these benchtop test results include insights from the ICP measurements.
The measurements were performed by commercial laboratories and are therefore considered not safety-related output. As such, conclusions from these measurements provide insight into chemical phenomenology but the measurements themselves are not used for design purposes.
: 15) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE AND ..C.NO.O Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 46 of 100 7.0 30-DAY CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING In 2005, the USNRC and the Industry (through EPRI) developed a joint 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test (ICET) program. ICET project simulated and monitored the chemical environment inside the containment sump containing the major structural and debris materials expected after a LOCA for 30 days. The purpose of the D.C. Cook 30-Day Chemical Effects (CE) debris head loss test program was similar to the ICET program but also evaluated (measured) the impacts of chemical corrosion products and chemistry on the debris head loss over the 30-day sump history. The major differences between the programs was that the ICET program had no provisions for measuring head loss across the debris bed and held the temperature profile constant at 140'F, whereas the D.C. Cook experiment included head loss measurements and included a specific temperature profile ranging from 190&deg;F down to 80 0 F.7.1 USNRC/EPRI ICET Testing From the benchtop results presented in the previous section of this report, the primary chemical interactions expected within the Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, and Concrete in a NaTB mixed with NaOH environment (pH 8.8-9.0) was the low release of the silicon (<16 ppm), moderate release of aluminum (<30 ppm) and high dissolution of calcium (< 102 ppm). The ratio of materials to fluid volume for the benchtop program was based on a combination of D.C. Cook specific materials and the refined WCAP-16530 survey responses by the Industry.
However, most of the ratios used in the benchtop tests were greater than the D.C. Cook ratios. Recall, the Industry was concerned that the results of the ICET program may over predict the chemical precipitates because of the conservative responses the licensee provided in the ICET input survey. The benchtop testing was intended to allow comparison of the relative effects of an integrated environment with those predicted by the WCAP. There are two ICET tests that are applicable to D.C. Cook; however, the quantity of material loading used during the ICET and the pH ranges for D.C. Cook limit the applicability of the ICET results directly to D.C. Cook.The purpose of the following sections is to investigate and possibly correlate the effects of pH on the materials , as well as compare the results of the WCAP analysis and benchtop tests to the industry data developed during ICET.7.1.1 Results of ICET Test #4 The results of ICET Test #4 are summarized in Volume 5 of NUREG/CR-6914
[6]. The test was conducted successfully for the entire 30-day period. The fluid kinematic viscosity and pH was steady for the entire test (pH 9.5-9.9).ICET Test #4 consisted of 80% calcium silicate and 20% fiberglass in a sodium hydroxide (NaOH)environment with a pH between 9.5-9.9. The amount of aluminum, fiber, and Cal-Sil that were present WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 47 of 100 in the ICET test were significantly greater than used in the benchtop test or considered present in D.C.Cook during a LOCA event. In addition, D.C. Cook utilizes a combination of NaOH and NaTB buffers and the pH for D.C. Cook in the combined buffer environment is lower than that of ICET Test #4. The chemical elements present in ICET #4 were aluminum, calcium, silica, and zinc; however aluminum was detectable in the solution for only the first 24 hours. The solution remained Newtonian throughout the test. Observations of the test solution indicated that no chemical byproducts were visible in the liquid and no precipitation occurred as the samples cooled from test temperature to room temperature.
Examinations of the fiberglass revealed chemical byproducts and web-like deposits that spanned the individual fibers. Figures 7. 1-I through 7. 1-5 show the ICP results and SEM image of the fiber for ICET Test #4.A 5 -Z4-3-2-4 I I I I I I !*II I II I I* I II I I I I II I ~ II I I I II*III I III II I1 II UJ I 1 144 W- 44 M 44 '11 14-4 1-1 4 -~4 -444 '1W II 1" .14 111411111 4- I+ 4-H W 1,1 11 I-4MHF11 ....0 TT TT1ri- i- TT T TTTTTT TT TT TTT TT T 5 10 15 20 25 Tin* (Days.)Figure 7. 1-I1: ICET Test #4 Aluminum Concentration 30 (Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L IO N D.C. Cook Units land 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 48 of 100 E 60-50-40" 30.20.10.0.I I I I I II 11------------------L---L---L.
---..-----
T 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tim (Days)Figure 7.1-2: ICET Test #4 Calcium Concentration 30 200-* 50--f 0-I "1" .. .I ...SI I I I I I II LI II I II I I II SI I I, Y 0 5 10 15 20 25 Timn (Days)Figure 7.1-3: ICET Test #4 Silicon Concentration 30 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 49 of 100 0.9-0.8 0.7 0.6.0.5-S0.4-0.3-0.2 0.1"-I -L*I--+/----------
---- ------ -------- I---------
-----L--- ,---------L II-----------
*- -------------
T I S4--------------I------I I-I I 0 5 10 15"nime (Days)20 25 3;0 Figure 7.1-4: ICET Test #4 Zinc Concentration WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 50 of 100 I FA Figure 7. 1-5: ICET Test #4 Day 30 Fiberglass Sample (low and high magnification)
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL IO N D.C. Cook Units land 2 SCIENCE .........O.O Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 51 of 100 The ICET #4 Al ICP results showed that Al releases were small while the Si levels reach > 100 ppm and the Ca levels were around 50 ppm. As stated previously, the amount of aluminum, fiber, and Cal-Sil that were present in the ICET test were significantly greater than used in the benchtop test, plant-specific WCAP analysis and at D.C. Cook. With larger amounts of fiber and Cal-Sil, this may have an effect on the amount of Si, Ca and Al elements released in solution.
Recall that per the WCAP [4], silicate inhibition may be credited at dissolved silicon levels from 50 ppm and up. The Si levels exceeded 150 ppm in the ICET test and the level of silicon far exceeded the minimum threshold to promote silicate inhibition.
Also, the ICET #4 Al ICP results were undetectable after approximately 24 hours.Therefore the low aluminum levels in the ICET Test #4 were likely due to silicate inhibition.
The levels of silicon in the benchtop tests (< 16 ppm) from Section 6 and WCAP predictions (27 ppm) from Section 5 were below the minimum Si threshold of 50 ppm and silicate inhibition was not credited for reducing aluminum corrosion.
The lower Si levels for the benchtop test and WCAP predictions could be due to the fact that ICET Test #4'utilized at least 42x the amount of Cal-Sil. In addition, the lower Si levels in the benchtop test may have been due to the form of Cal-Sil that was used in the test (i.e. block) [8].ICET Test #4 used a distribution of 14% as 3 inch pieces, 19% as 1-3 inch pieces, 5% less than I inch pieces, and 62% as "dust". The use of dust could have allowed for a much larger exposed surface area for leaching.
Comparing the ICET results with the plant-specific WCAP results or benchtop test results is further complicated by the fact that ICET #4 was conducted at higher pH (pH 9.5-9.9).7.1.2 Results of ICET Test #5 The results of ICET Test #5 are summarized in Volume 6 of NUREG/CR-6914
[6]. The test was conducted successfully for the entire 30-day period. The fluid kinematic viscosity and pH was steady for the entire test (pH 8.2-8.4).
Similar to ICET Test #4, D.C. Cook is only minimally represented by ICET Test #5, as ICET #5 contained significant amounts of NUKON fiberglass insulation.
ICET Test #5 was fiberglass in a sodium tetraborate (NaTB) environment with a pH of approximately 8.2 to 8.4. The chemical elements present were aluminum, calcium, silica, and zinc. The solution remained Newtonian throughout the test. Light, wispy precipitates were visible suspended in solution after the test solution sat at room temperature for several days. Examinations of the fiberglass revealed the possible formation of chemical byproducts and web-like deposits that spanned the individual fibers. Flocculent deposits were also observed.
The amounts of these deposits did not appear to increase significantly over the duration of the test and the web-like deposits were absent in the Day 30 samples. Figure 7.1-6 through Figure 7. 1 -10 show the ICP and SEM results from ICET Test #5.
wSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 52 of 100 51.Z g-I IT-m1 I-I-1-1-Tr- -I I Ir-I I ! -I -l T* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lI ~I I I I I, I I I , I I I I I I , , , , , , , , I l r L"-JLI~ ~ ,1I 11, , I ,1I ,1, 1,1.1 I I I I I I L IJ I I I I:1 I I I I I i I1 f I / / I I dI/I I I I I I / I , II T I I II I I I S, , , , I I I, , , I 4l , ,. "-'- -I I ! I I I I I 'H I II I I I I I I i I I I ! I I ! I ! I I I I I "r I I ,I I IIII llll ~ l I III I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I II I I I/ I I I I I I / I/ I I I I / / I / I I I I / /I 1 1 11 1 I III11111 1 1 , I IIIII I Il II III IIII '11 1 I 1111'1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .II I I1 1 1I1I I1I I I4~JIaJ~IJ~a A 2 3 4 56 7 9 9 !.01112 13 14 15 1 d 7 1 19.0 21L' 23 N2226 2"2329 K 11- (Da.s)Figure 7.1-6: ICET Test #5 Aluminum Concentration
.2 40 35 3O.25 15 10.-I-Li11 1-ILLI 1111 11 1 .- I II 1 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i-I III III I I III I I I- II II'j44 1 1 1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "I r ,i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I 0 II II III I 11 1 1 II II I 1 I I I I I ,I _.JL iii.L.I t Il , lI ii I lII II I I I L -I J A LI IL I- I I L*---- ---- r- --r-r-I I I I I I ' I I ' I ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I ' I I I I I ' III IIIIIII i l l I1 1'1 1I I I I I II 11 I I I I I II I I I1 I I I I II IlI I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SI 1 1I I I I I I I I IIII 1 1 1 11 I II II I I II I I* ..L..! L..._.. -A_ L- ..--. _1..L.J..
J ..+/-.. L-L-L.J-.-JL_.1.
-..L.L .J-- .-L- -=I I I. ,I , , I I I I I I ., I II 1 3 ,1 ,11 I I I III 1 1 I II I.I 1I 1 I II I lt I I I I I III I II I I11I1 I I....I.I.. ...I.... L...I...Il....L...
I....I -- .I..I.. .I...I ...I....I...L.
J..J I.... I....L...I........
I.... ... I d.. .. .r IS 1 2i 3 4 5 1 Tes #5 1 C 6 1. entrati2'02'12'2 2'342'5'621Z.
1 Tim (Days)Figure 7.1-7: ICET Test #5 Calcium Concentration Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.... ... ... ... ... D o cum ent N o : A LIO N -R EP-A EP-44 59-0 3 R evisio n: 0 Page: 53 o f 100 20 l3 14.12 10, S.6j 4.2 0 I II II Il IlI I I II I I I I Il I I II I II I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I II I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I II I I I II III i I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lI i I / / / I I I I I"-------'------------T--r--r-r-l-,-rT-r-r "rV1l-l-t t- -r-r -i -- I I II I I III IIIII I I I II I II II I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I II I I I I III I I Ii I i Ii Ii I I II Ii I II I I III I I I I I I I II I I I II I II I I I I IIII IIIII 1111I Il I~ I II Ii iI Ii I,-
l-i--r-r-r-r -t---,- i- -r---T T ..I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 ..IT I I II I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I -i .I I I II I 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I '"I I3 I II I I I IIIII II I I II II li II I I I III /I I I I I I /I.1. ...4 ...... .......21 22 3 4 5 6 -9 ]:3 12 J 14 15 36 V is19 2122 2324 25 2d27 23 2930 Tim. (Days)Figure 7.1I-8: ICET Test #5 Silicon Concentration 9-7.6-5-4.1 I I I I I I I I II I I I1 1I1 I I 1I 1 I I I III IIII I I I III I II I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I I II II I I I I I II II I I II I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I I"r' -*-r
.'i-I
'-IIII II I IIII II II II III I II I II I I IIIIII I I I II I II I I IIII II II I I I I I I l I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I II I I I-L-LJ.J4 ----LJJ-JJ--LL-J.LJ.J---.
LLLJ. I III I II II II II II III III I II IIII III I I II III II III 11 I II I I IIIII ll I I II II II III III I II I II II I I I I I I III II I II I I I I I I I/ 1 / I I I I I I I I I11 / I I / 1 / I I /I I I I I I I II II I I I I II II I II I II ,' I ' I I II III I I I II I III II III I I I I I II III I I I II I I II II I I II II I II III I I I II I I II II I I II II I II I I I II I I II I III I IIIII I I II I I I I I I I I I II II I III I II I II 4; 4.-.1.4. Tiii&#xa3; +/-+/-+/- LITIi I Ii.w4JAJ&~4A~I*~*UII iii ......it-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 17 12 :3141516 V319 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 N 30 TiTs (Days)Figure 7.1 -9: ICET Test #5 Zinc Concentration WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 54 of 100 t5 dW11 6jpeg t5d301i7.jpeg A Figure 7. 1 -10: ICET Test #5 Day 30 Fiberglass Sample (low and high magnification)
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCEAND..........
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 55 of 100 The ICET #S ICP results showed that Al concentrations reached approximately 55 ppm while Si levels of around 12 ppm and Ca levels around 34 ppm were achieved.
The aluminum concentrations measured during the benchtop test (Section 6.0) and those calculated in the plant-specific WCAP analysis (Section 5.0) were significantly less than ICET #5. The benchtop test resulted in an aluminum concentration
<30 ppm while the WCAP predictions in Section 5 showed aluminum concentrations of 25 ppm. These values were much less than those reported from the ICET test even though the pH for the test was lower than that used for the D.C. Cook WCAP analysis and during the benchtop test. The difference could be attributed to the fact that the ICET #5 experiment contained at least 20x the amount of aluminum that is present in D.C. Cook's containment, as well as the amount of aluminum present during the benchtop test. Another major difference between ICET #5 and D.C. Cook is that D.C. Cook contains Cal-Sil and Marinite debris while ICET #5 tested fiberglass only. According to WCAP predictions, Cal-Sil provides an additional source of Si and Ca. The Si ICP data for the benchtop test was in close agreement with the ICET #5 test with < 16 ppm Si. However, comparing the ICET results with the benchtop test results is further complicated by the fact that ICET #5 contains over 1000x the amount of fiberglass as D.C. Cook and the benchtop tests. This circumstance and the exclusion of Cal-Sil from ICET Test #5 may have affected the amount of silicon and calcium released during this experiment.
7.2 D.C. Cook 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Due to differences in material to pool volume ratios, it is difficult to directly compare the results of the ALION benchtop work and the ICET Test #4 and #5 integrated environment chemistries.
ICET Test#5 did not include Cal-Sil in the test which could provide an additional source of Ca and Si. However, both experiments (the ICET and Alion's benchtop) provided similar results in that there was a lack of visible precipitation of solids from solution at the temperature ranges maintained during each test. The benchtop test identified some precipitate formation as the test solution was cooled after the the test had concluded.
This was not seen in the ICET Test #4; this was thought to occur because the aluminum corrosion was significantly reduced by silicate inhibition and, thus, aluminum precipitates did not form at room temperature.
However, precipitation within the debris bed did develop over time. The benchtop test and ICET Test #5 provided similar results regarding the lack of visible precipitation from solution during the test, with some solid formation occurring after the samples were further cooled. 'The results from ICET #4 also suggested that some precipitation within the debris bed also developed over time.The plant-specific WCAP analysis from Section 5.0 postulated that the precipitated solids were Sodium Aluminum Silicate (NaAISi 3 O 8) and Aluminum Oxyhydroxide (AIOOH)because of the excess dissolved aluminum.
Even though no visual precipitation occurred, the Alion benchtop testing supports the possibility of precipitation within the debris bed under the D.C. Cook plant conditions.
The Alion testing suggests that the reduction of Al and Si solution concentrations (based upon ICP measurements)
(P Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 56 of 100 that occurred over the course of the test may indicate that the Al and Si is being used to form precipitate, possibly on the debris surfaces.To determine the impact of sump chemistry and the related potential for precipitate formation or deposition may have on debris head loss, an integrated chemical effects head loss experiment was designed based on the ICET configuration.
This experiment allowed for the direct measurement of the debris head loss during the 30-day mission time through the sump environmental history -essentially, the chemical environment of the ICET tests plus head loss testing.7.2.1 Integrated CE Head Loss Test Configuration and Set-up The test was conducted in a vessel (Figure 7.2- I) with representative structural materials, insulation and debris samples included in the simulated containment environment, with their quantities.
scaled to preserve the D.C. Cook specific conditions.
Representative debris samples were placed in the vessel in a chemically non-reactive container that allows water to flow in the region of the samples while confining the material.
Different metallic test coupons were electrically isolated from each other and the test stand to prevent galvanic effects resulting from metal-to-metal contact between specimens or between the test tank and the specimens.
Because the water volume used during the test was so much smaller than that which exists under actual plant specific conditions, the turbulence and velocity in the experimental pool was higher which insured adequate circulation around the submerged test coupons.Test conditions, i.e., material quantities and containment environment, were D.C. Cook specific and chosen to maximize the amount of chemical effects within realistic plant limits (temperature, pH, etc.).Reference I0 (Also see Attachment B) provides the technical basis for scaling plant specific debris quantities to the test quantities.
The test tank had appropriate temperature control such that temperatures of the simulated sump fluid followed the time-temperature profile that matched the plant estimated temperature profile to within+/-5 *F. The maximum temperature of the test tank was 190"F. Since the maximum temperature at D.C.Cook is 190"F, it was not necessary to modify the experimental temperature profile and amount of added materials to account for the release of materials associated with temperatures exceeding 190&deg;F.The initial make-up of the solution within the tank replicated that which was assumed to occur at the start of a post-LOCA event. Buffer was added to the test tank at an appropriate conservative rate as it was expected to be introduced into the containment environment over a. couple days. Once sufficient buffer was added, one additional pH adjustment was made with Na'OH to adjust the pH to 8.9. After this point, the system was allowed to seek its own equilibrium level due to corrosion, etc. Based on benchtop experiments and ICET results, pH does not change appreciably throughout the 30-day experiment once initial equilibrium is reached. Additional detail on the make-up of the solution and how the buffers were introduced to the apparatus is discussed in Section 7.2.3.5.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE AND TENOLOGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 57 of 100 The strainer within the test apparatus consisted of four actual sump strainer pockets (Figure 7.2-2 through Figure 7.2-5) that were loaded with the scaled quantities (See Section 7.2.3.2) of the plant specific debris mixture. The coolant was circulated through the debris bed at the same approach velocity as the design approach velocity for the new strainer.
Head loss measurements across the debris bed were recorded continuously for the duration of the experiment.
The test was designed to replicate the amount and rate of release of those elemental materials within containment that are potentially responsible for the formation of precipitates.
Small samples of fluid were taken at regular intervals during the course of the test and analyzed for various elements (Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, Ni, Na, Si, and Zn) by ICP-AES spectroscopy.
Upon conclusion of the test, the mass- of the metal coupons, and their general condition were recorded and compared to their initial state..A total of thirty-eight (38) fluid samples were taken for elemental analysis as described above. The first fluid sample was 1500 mL and each subsequent sample was 100 mL for a total liquid sampling volume of 5200 mL or 5.2 L [1 6]. The overall working fluid volume of the vessel is 550 L [1 6]. The samples taken make up less than 1% of the total working fluid volume it was not expected that the removal of this amount of the solution would adversely impact fluid chemistry.
Some of the fluid removed for pH measurements was returned to the tank and makeup water (demineralized water) was periodically added to the tank to replace liquid losses due to evaporation and analytical samples that were removed from the tank. Eight additions were made, with individual volumes ranging from 2 to 8 L of demineralized water, for a total of 42 L added throughout the duration of the test [I16]. After each addition of makeup water, a pH measurement was taken to ensure that the pH did not change. Figure 7.2-13 in Section 7.2.4.1 shows that the pH did not fluctuate throughout the experiment.
Without the demineralized water make-up additions, the elemental and material concentrations in the fluid would be higher. Therefore, maintaining the water level/volume in the tank is necessary to meet the required test conditions (material concentrations, pool volume ratios, etc).7.2.2 Integrated 30-Day CE Head Loss Test Matrix The test was performed from August through September 2007 using one (I) loop at a pH of 8.9 as described in detail in Test Specification ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 (Sequence
: 2) [13]. The test was performed in the large ELISA test apparatus at VUEZ.According to Reference 14, test start time (t=0) was defined as the time at which the boric acid and buffers were dissolved in demineralized water at 190'F and the desired initial pH of 8.2 was attained, the test materials (submerged and non-submerged) and debris bed were introduced, and spray recirculation began.
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 58 of 100 Figure 7.2-I through Figure 7.2-5 shows the test apparatus and the test strainer.Figure 7.2- I: Test Reactor WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 59 of 100 Figure 7.2-2: Strainer Element (Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 60 of 100 Figure 7.2-3: Filtering Box Front View 0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 61 of 100 Figure 7.2-4: Filtering Box Side View WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL IO N D.C. Cook Units land 2..............
O..OGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 62 of 100 Figure 7.2-5: Filtering Box Connection 7.2.3 30-Day CE Test Parameters The test was conducted with scaled, representative material surface areas, sump volume and chemical constituents to provide conditions closely simulating the post-LOCA sump environment.
In order to promote the reactions that were expected in this environment, the experimental vessel contained the proportions of non-metallic, metallic, and construction materials similar to those present in the D.C.Cook containment environments.
7.2.3.1 Containment Materials The representative amounts for the various structural and debris materials were obtained from plant surveys or documents
[20] and scaled for input into the 30-day chemical experiment.
In several cases, debris materials were determined to be chemically inert and suitable surrogates were selected for development of the debris bed. The materials considered in the experiment were:
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCtH ..........
L.- Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 63 of 100" Aluminum" Carbon Steel* Zinc (galvanized steel includes cold zinc coated areas)* Copper" Concrete* Dirt/Dust (represented by 78% containment dirt/dust mix and 22% iron oxide)* Calcium Silicate" Min-K* Marinite I* Marinite 36 (represented by 70% Cal-Sil and 30% Wollastonite 800H)" Latent Fiber (represented by NUKON fibers)* Coatings (represented.
by silicon carbide surrogate in the debris bed [II (Also see Attachment C)])" Glycol* Oil" Grease A complete table of materials used in the test is provided in Section 4.2.7.2.3.2 Debris Scaling The methodology presented in References 10 and 12 (Also see Attachments B and D) was used to scale the debris quantities based on preliminary results of the D.C. Cook Summary of Debris Generation and Debris Transport Results calculation
[21]. For the 30-day head loss testing, the D.C. Cook debris load represented only the main strainer~since it was the most heavily loaded strainer.
The scale testing was configured to achieve the following conditions:
I. The test apparatus strainer average fluid approach.velocity should be equal to the containment sump strainer representative average approach velocity.2. The test apparatus minimum flow rate should be at least I liter/minute or greater to preclude stagnant flow regions within the test tank.3, The temperature and pH conditions of the tests should be as representative as possible of the actual containment conditions.
4, The ratio of the test material surface area to tank volume should be equal to that of the containment materials surface area to containment pool volume.5, The debris bed thickness on the test strainer should beequal to the containment sump strainer equivalent debris bed thickness.
0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.C.... AND T...... Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 64 of 100 The control of the five parameters defined above ensured that the corrosion/leaching conditions and debris head loss characteristics that occur during the experiment were representative of the containment conditions during the postulated LOCA.The strainer area ratio was used to scale debris that was transported to the strainer, and the pool volume ratio was used to scale the material that remained submerged in the pool but does not reach the sump strainer.
The scaling methodology described in Reference 10 states that these ratios be as close as possible.
For D.C. Cook, the ratio based on strainer area was 0.00618 and the ratio of pool volumes was 0.000327 [12 (Also see Attachment D)]. In actuality, D.C. Cook has additional debris sources (i.e. Cal-Sil, Min-K, etc) submerged in the containment pool that are not transported to the Main Strainer.
The difference between the scaling ratios yielded a higher value of debris (Cal-Sil, Min-K, Marinite, etc.) because the amount that was calculated to be transported to the strainer was scaled using a larger ratio (the strainer area ratio of 0.00618) than what would have been involved had the debris been scaled using the pool volume ratio (0.000327).
To compensate for this, an amount of material was subtracted from the submerged portion, based on the difference in the two scaling ratios and the amount of debris on the strainer.
This term yielded the amount of debris that was subtracted from the submerged portion of debris to account for the smaller strainer scaling ratio and allow for the proper amount of debris in the pool (Cal-Sil in particular) for chemical effects. If the calculated quantity was greater than the submerged amount, then the submerged debris amount was reduced to 0. In this case, the amount of debris that was calculated to be removed from the submerged amount was greater than the submerged amount, therefore, there was no submerged debris used in the test. Note that this modification did not affect metallic materials and materials such as glycol or grease.The water volume was much smaller than under actual plant specific conditions.
Therefore, under the test conditions, the turbulence and velocity in the pool was higher. This condition is considered conservative since higher turbulence resulted in the possibility of increased transport of precipitate and debris in the tank to the test strainer.7.2.3.3 Debris Loads As stated, the test loop measured the pressure drop across the material bed to quantify the impact that chemical effects may have on the debris head loss. The selection of the debris bed for the experiment was based on the future application of the results. The D.C. Cook Debris Generation and Debris Transport Summary Calculation
[21] defined a limiting debris load for the Loop 4 LBLOCA at the Main Strainer.
The calculation of the main strainer debris load to those input into the experiment are provided in supporting calculations
[I 2]. At the time of the test, the debris loads used for determining the scaled debris bed were based on preliminary debris generation and debris transport results.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 65 of 100 Therefore the final quantities of materials predicted to transport to the Main Strainer were slightly different than those used in the 30-Day chemical effects head loss test. Table 7.2-I shows a comparison of the debris load at the Main Strainer for the head loss test and the debris load at the Main Strainer as determined by the Debris Generation and Debris Transport Summary calculation
[21 ].Final Debris Generation and Material Type Debris Quantities Debris Transport Summary Units Debris Quantities
[21]Debris Bed Thickness 0.116 0.0975 in Latent Fiber 7.75 6.5 ft3 Epoxy (inside ZOI, 10 mil) 92.15 95.04 lb Epoxy (OEM, outside ZOI) 3.52 6.76 lb Epoxy (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 8.32 16.12 lb Alkyd (inside ZOI, 10 mil) 0.258 0.836 lb Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI) 10.556 10.416 lb Alkyd (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 2.088 1.972 lb Marinite I 0.1185 0.1199 lb Marinite 36 0.9898 1.0 lb Min-K 0.688 0.704 lb Cal-Sil 166.8 169.56 lb Dirt/Dust 105.4 88.4 lb Table 7.2- I: Comparison of 30-Day Test Debris Load and Final Debris Quantities at the Main Strainer (I) The debris bed thickness described in Table 7.2-I represents the equivalent bed thickness associated with plant representative insulation types (NUKON Latent Fiber).Based on Reference 12, the HLOSS 1.1 [29] code was used to implement the head loss methodology of NUREG/CR-6224
[28] to determine the difference in head loss for the debris load used in the head loss test and for the final debris load. It was conservatively assumed that the strainer captured all of the debris on its surface. Although debris does get transported to the strainer, the total amount is not necessarily accumulated on the strainer.
It was determined that the order of magnitude of the difference in head loss between the two cases was less than 3%.From a chemical effects perspective, the scaled debris load for the test strainer exceeded the pool volume ratio as discussed in Section 7.2.3.2. Therefore, including additional debris, in the case of Cal-Sil or Marinite, for example, would only add more conservatism in considering chemical effects.
0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 66 of 100 The debris load represented an equivalent (scaled) load to that tested on the prototype testing of the D.C Cook replacement strainer.
The strainer within the test apparatus consisted of four actual sump strainer pockets as shown in Figure 7.2.2 through Figure 7.2-5. The total strainer area was 4.944 ft 2 , therefore the debris load was scaled based on the effective surface area of the Main Strainer (800 ft 2).7.2.3.3.1 Debris Preparation The debris bed was prepared and formed consistent with standard ALION practices to ensure consistent bed development and morphology be achieved for the start of all experiments.
This consistency removed uncertainties during the application of results -all debris beds contain the same materials and preparation process. Details of the debris bed process are found in the individual test planning documents
[ 13 (Also see Attachment E)]. The debris and debris bed are shown in Figure 7.2-6 and Figure 7.2-7 below. Further details and information are provided in the test report.Start up 20070820 1039 Figure 7.2-6: 30-Day Head Loss Test Debris Loads
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 67 of 100 Next days 20070827_1101_8 Test termination 20070920 1751 13 Figure 7.2-7: 30-Day Head Loss Test Debris Bed 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.. ... Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 68 of 100 7.2.3.3.2 Debris Addition The debris mixture was introduced in the test apparatus in front of the strainer pockets while the test apparatus recirculation flow was 152.2 liters/min.
This recirculation flow was scaled from the actual containment sump recirculation flow (pre-recirculation) and ensured that the debris distribution on the test strainer surfaces was similar to the actual debris distribution on the containment sump strainer surfaces while avoiding bypass from the strainer area. It was not expected that the debris would form a uniform thickness bed on the test strainer surfaces.
The pipe shown in Figure 7.2-8 through Figure 7.2-I 0 was used to deliver the debris slurry in front of the strainer pockets.Figure 7.2-8: Pipe Used for Debris Addition for 30-Day Head Loss Test WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE...D..ECHNOLOG Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 69 of 100 Figure 7.2-9: Debris Addition in Front of Strainer Pockets WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 70 of 100 Figure 7.2-10: Debris Addition during the 30-Day Head Loss Test 7.2.3.4 Temperature Profile The temperature curve provided by D.C. Cook for the post-LOCA temperature profile is shown in Figure 4.1-5. Figure 7.2-II, displays the target test temperature for the 30-day test duration and, for comparison, the plant specific temperature profile. After 100,000 seconds (1.16 days), the temperature continues to drop to 100&deg;F which is the long term nominal sump temperature.
On Day 25, in order to
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2&#xfd;.E.C' ...- ...... .Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 71 of 100 further increase the likelihood of precipitate formation, the coolant temperature was further reduced to 80 0 F.200 I I 4120 ----- --8 0 --- ---- ---. .........- ---EVE 60 --- -s T M in -------1 ------T Noram 40 T Max ,,, XUFSAR Sump Temp , '20 VUEZ ... .... ... .. ..1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 Time (minutes)Figure 7.2-1I: Containment Pool Temperature Profile Comparison (Zero to 30 Days)(Reference 9, 12, 18)The test tank had a maximum temperature limit of 190&deg;F. For D.C. Cook, the proposed temperature at the beginning of each test (I 90&deg;F) enveloped the minimum, nominal, and maximum temperature profiles provided in Reference 9 and 18. Thus the temperature profile for the 30-day head loss test was bounding over various design conditions expected for D.C. Cook. This means that there was no need for a temperature-corrected material loading scheme for aluminum or other materials to simulate the chemical release rates that were expected during the accident [12].7.2.3.5 pH Profile The test was intended to replicate the containment post-LOCA chemistry in the pool fluid including the chemistry contributions of the non-submerged materials that were exposed to spray. The initial 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 72 of 100 containment sump fluid target pH is 8.2 [1 2]. The sump fluid pH increases over the initial 25 minutes as a result of the addition of the higher pH containment spray to the sump. Upon initiation of the accident during the injection phase (20 minutes of duration), borated water is injected into the system through the refueling water storage tank to aid in reactivity control. Simultaneously, borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide (pH 9.9) is sprayed inside containment.
During the recirculation phase, sump pool fluid is injected to the reactor vessel and sprayed inside containment.
The recirculated injection fluid is borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide and sodium tetraborate to a target pH of 8.9.During the initial five minutes of spray in the recirculation phase, the spray consists primarily of sodium hydroxide with a target pH of 12.76. Following the initial five minutes, spray continues for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes by spraying sump fluid with a target pH of 8.9. The spray is terminated at 48 hours while recirculation continues to the mission time of 30 days [1 2]. The plant (nominal pH profiles)and test pH profiles for D.C. Cook are shown in Figure 7.2-12. Based on Figure 7.2-12 the spray pH and sump pH for the test bound the spray and sump nominal pH profiles.13 12.5 ---...----------------
-1: , -SumppH 11.5l] I ,Spray pH I' -A- VUEZ Spray pH 11 ----VUEZ SumplpH L 1.5 ..... ...... -- ...... 1 ..... ....... --...... ---- ......1 0 ( m in u te s).. .............. ...........-............9 .5 , ..........-----------...............8.5 .. .-.- ---, ---...: --, -.1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 Time (minutes)Figure 7.2-12: D.C. Cook pH Profile Comparison (Reference 9, 12, 18)The test was conducted in the ELISA Loop and utilized two additional containers where spray fluid was stored. The initial test apparatus fluid consisted of 425 liters of demineralized water. Added to the demineralized water was boric acid buffered with sodium tetraborate to attain a target pH of 8.2. One of the two containers contained 100 liters of demineralized water. Added to this demineralized water W) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 73 of 100 was boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide to attain a target pH of 9.9. The second of the two containers contained 25 liters of demineralized water, to which sodium hydroxide was added in order to attain a target pH of 12.76. These specified fluids simulated the containment sump fluid and the spray fluid as described above. At approximately 25 minutes into the test when the spray containers were emptied, the test apparatus fluid pH was within the range of 8.7 to 9.1 with an expected target pH of 8.9[I 5]. After 24 hours, the test pH was adjusted with NaOH one final time to reach the target pH of 8.9[15,16].7.2.4 30-Day CE Head Loss Test Results The execution of the 30-day CE head loss test for D.C. Cook (which occurred from August 2007 through September 2007) was performed in accordance with specification ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02
[1 3]. The results of the 30-day CE head loss experiment are summarized in report number VUEZ-TR-OTS- 1604 [16]. The test was conducted successfully for the entire 30-day period.7.2.4. I Pressure Drop Time History The make up of the debris bed for the test was designed to represent the debris bed conditions for D.C. Cook. The measured pressure drop time history is presented in Figure 7.2-13 for the entire 30-day test. The figure presents the debris bed pressure drop as well as the temperature and pH profile.Figure 7.2-15 shows the debris bed pressure drop and the temperature profile for the first 48 hours of the test. No visible precipitation was noted over the course of the entire experiment.
Prior to formation of the debris bed, the differential pressure for the clean strainer was measured to be less than 0.5 kPa for all measured flow rates (flow rate was adjusted from 25%-125% of nominal flow rate). During debris addition, the flow rate had to be lowered to account for an initial lower water volume (to allow for the addition of liquid with the debris) and to avoid pump cavitation (See Figure 7.2-14). Once -the debris was added, the flow rate was increased to the required test flow rate which corresponded to the initial rise in head loss. The test began on 8/20/07 at 16:00 and, once the spray system was activated and the pool temperature was gradually decreased to 70 &deg;C, a significant influence on differential pressure was not observed.
The differential pressure stabilized at approximately I I kPa after 24 hours. The pH at that time had stabilized at 8.1 and, after approximately 24 hours, the pH was adjusted using NaOH to reach the target pH of 8.9. Simultaneously, the temperature was adjusted from 70 `C to 65 *C. During this time, the differential pressure decreased slightly but after temperature stabilization the differential pressure stabilized once again at approximately I I kPa. A significant increase in differential pressure was observed after the temperature change from 65&deg;C to 60&deg;C and after the spray system was secured [26]. At this point, the ,differential pressure stabilized at approximately 19 kPa.
S (A) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A I 10 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 74 of 100* From the beginning of the test, a small leak was detected on the seal of the pump P I a (- I drop every 4 seconds).
Consequently, before the last change of flow rate (date 8/22107 at 16:00) to 100%recirculation flow, it was decided to switch pumps and use the second pump when the flow rate was changed. As noted in the previous paragraph, an abrupt increase in pressure drop across the scaled strainer was observed on 8/22/07. This phenomenon occurred coincidently with a planned realignment of flow through the test apparatus.
After this occurrence, the pressure exhibited expected fluctuations around the elevated level. A series of steps as documented in ALION-ECR-COOK-1002-002
[27 (Also see Attachment F)] were performed to understand if the realignment of flow to the 100% recirculation line up affected the pressure differential as recorded by the acquisition system. First, all of the instruments and sensing lines were cleared of obstructions and air pockets. Second, the flow through the test chamber was realigned to the 50% "recirculation" and 50% "spray" that was previously established for the 25 min to 48 hours time period of the test. The flow remained at the 50/50 flow alignment for 15 to 30 minutes allowing data to be recorded.
Figure 7.2-16 shows that the deaeration of the lines did not impact the differential pressure as it remained at approximately 15 kPa. Initially it would appear that the realignment of flow to the 100% recirculation line up did not impact the pressure differential (See Figure 7.2-16) as recorded by the data acquisition system because the differential pressure remained above 15 kPa during the short realignment of flow to 50% "recirculation" and 50%"spray". However, the following discussion provides a probable explanation for the increase in head loss during the change in flow rate. The spray flow of the initial 25 minutes of testing was supplied by containers V2 and V3 (See Figure 7.2-17). Following the depletion of the two spray containers, spray flow continued until t=48 hours. After 25 minutes, the spray flow was supplied from the test apparatus (V I) that is equal to half of total the recirculation flow. At the bottom of the test tank there are three inlets which are represented by F3 in Figure 7.2-17. Once the spray was terminated at 48 hours, 100%of the flow was directed to the three inlet locations at the bottom of the tank. A possible explanation for the increase in head loss after the spray was terminated was that with the additional flow directed to the three inlets at the bottom of the tank, debris that had previously settled on the bottom of the tank was suspended in the test fluid and subsequently became deposited on the strainer, increasing the debris bed load and the head loss measured across the strainer.Once the spray system was stopped and the temperature was changed the differential pressure fluctuated between 12 and 19 kPa ("saw tooth" behavior).
The D.C. Cook debris bed was 0. 116 inches and the bed itself consisted of interlocked particles of Cal-Sil. When the differential pressure exceeded the shear strength of the material, the bed released and readjusted on the strainer.
Thus the differential pressure built up slowly over time until it reached a maximum .whereby the differential pressure exceeded the shear strength of the CaI-Sil particles and created a bore hole in the very thin debris bed.The bore holes themselves are not a chemical effect.Towards the end of the test, the temperature was decreased to under 45 &deg;C and the differential pressure oscillated between 16 -21 kPa. In an effort to promote potential aluminum precipitation, the 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 75 of 100 final temperature change was from 37.8&deg;C to 26.7&deg;C. The differential pressure reached approximately 19 kPa and the temperature decrease did not impact head loss beyond the temperature effects (i.e.viscosity).
Ur 0.14-12-10 I 6-4 2 0 14 12 10 Is 4 2 1 STest Vuez SEQ#2 -D.C. COOK .T--24 22 20 Is 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 IL 30 25 20 15 24 22 20 Is 16 4 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 S 0 31 25 20 Is 10 S S I 0.0=. Date [ddmmyyl a.U .Figure 7.2-13: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History (Reference
: 16)
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I N D.C. Cook Units I and 2...Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 76 of 100 I 14-12 10 8-6-4-2-0-a.a.V Time History 20 18.16-14.12 .10 8 -4 -. -.--------
2-0 070820 0800 Test Vuez SEQ#2 -D.C. COOK I- U..100 30 total -pHI spray 90 25-80 70 20_________-
60 50 15 10------ 30-20 5........ .1 0 i0 0 201800 0708202000 070820 1000 070820 1200 070820 1400 070820 1600 0708: Date/Time
[ddmmyy hh:mm]Figure 7.2-14: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History -Test Start Up (Reference
: 16) 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 77 of 100 14-12 10 a 6 4 2 a.13 I im istoryI First 48 hoursI 20-18 16 S 14 12- *10 8-6-4 2 0 , 070620 1-00 Test Vuez SEO#2 -D.C. COOK~- LL 100 30-90 25-170... ._____ __ _ .-,, 20 00 50 15 40 n0 30-- P --0 070821 0400 070821 1600 070822 0400 Datoelinie
[ddmryy hhrrmm]0705221600 Figure 7.2-15: 30-Day CE Head Loss Testing Pressure Drop Time History (Test Start -Spray System Termination at 48 hours)(Reference
: 16) wSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 78 of 100 Ies uezSE 12 10 6 2 0 a-CL 20-Ser 18-162-14 10 8 6 4 2-01 0708280950 Time History ECR No. ALION-1002-COOKECR.002
--dP1 -T74uid -F-total -pH-dP2 T-heaidng
-F-sproy dP 1~ kP~i dP 16.7 kPa -dP 15.6 kPa ..... .'0#2 -D.C. COOK 1 0o 30 90 25 70 20-60-50 15 40 10 30 20 5 0 10 0 1030 0709 070828 1000 070828 1010 070628 1020 0708;DateITIme
[ddmmVy hhmm]Figure 7.2-16: ALION-ECR-COOK-1002-002 (Reference 16)28 I a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 79 of 100 door Figure 7.2-17: Test Apparatus Schematic (Reference 16)7.2.4.2 Material and Debris Examinations Material and debris examinations were performed as part of the post-test activities.
7.2.4.2.1 Metal Coupon Examinations The results of these metal coupon visual examinations were consistent with expectations and similar to those seen in the benchtop test. The aluminum plates appeared to develop a slight dark corrosion/oxidation layer -see Figure 7.2-18 and Figure 7.2-19.
9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 80 of 100 Figure 7.2-18: Metal Coupons -pretest Figure 7.2-19: Metal Coupons -post test q) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 81 of 100 Tables 7.2-2 and Table 7.2-3 tabulate the aluminum, galvanized plate, copper, and carbon steel coupon weight change associated with exposure to the simulated coolant during the 30-day experiment.
There was no weight loss from the submerged aluminum coupon while the unsubmerged Al coupon experienced a 0. I gram loss. Overall, the total corrosion of the aluminum coupons was minimal or non-existent.
The copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and carbon steel (Fe) coupons all exhibited a weight gain. This is thought to be due to the formation of an oxidation layer (Cu(OH)2 , Zn(OH)2 , and Fe(OH)3) over time on the surface of the coupons which would tend to limit the release of ions from the metals. In addition, the deposition of the oil, grease, and glycol materials that were added to the test may have also contributed to the weight gain of some of the coupons. The oil, grease, and glycol substances may exhibit a tendency to deposit on surfaces of solid materials and, as a result, could create a corrosion inhibition effect on the coupons. Figure 7.2-28 in Section 7.2.4.2.3 shows the ICP release concentrations for Cu, Zn, and Fe. The general trend for these three elements is that there is an initial small release followed by a steady decline (to near zero for copper and iron). This trend suggests that the formation of an oxidation layer or inhibitive layer may be occurring which could decrease the release of Cu, Zn, and Fe., II &#xfd; -, Dimension
[ ,-"&#xfd; ",&#xfd;II&#xfd; Weight Label Height ; ength .. Thckness Before After Net aitoss.CM. , .[CM] .1c] wm], I [g] ['g 11111 Aluminum 3.4 0.5 0.08 0.4 0.4 0.0 1 80 20.3 0.05 387 390.3 3.3 ,-, 80 20.3 0.05 385.9 388.7 2.8 11213 80 20.3 0.05 387.1 391.7 4.6 0 112,4 80 20.3 0.05 383 387 4.0 11215 80 20.3 0.05 385.8 389.1 3.3 11216 80 20.3 0.05 380.5 383.8 3.3.112,7 N 61 17.5 0.05 249 252 3.0 11311 Copper 15 10.3 0.05 54.8 55.2 0.4 114/1 D = 15.24 2.54 1162.4 1132 -30.4 11412 Concrete D = 15.24 2.54 1137.5 1108 -29.5 114/3 D = 15.24 2.54 1117.8 1086 -31.8 114/4 D = 15.24 2.54 1107.7 1077 -30.7 Table 7.2-2: Weight Data for Submerged Coupons Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2.... ................D o c u m e n t N o : A L IO N -R E P -A E P -4 4 5 9 -0 3 R e v is io n : 0 P a g e : 8 2 o f 1 0 0.D im ension ' ' ht -Label I Height Length Thickness
*Bfr Afe eini Los7 110 Almiu [cm1 6 cm[ [ 0 .[6. 1260.2 -0. , I11 Aluminum 60 20.3 0.08 260.3 260. -0.1 1112.1 111212 1112-3 1112"4 1112"5 1112016 111268 M21179 1112118 1112,'12 1112114 1112,15 1112/16 1112217 1112/18 1112/19 1112,121 1112422 80 20.3 0.05 1 4 A IM85r1 ,a i7.Ni 1112/26 1112.27 1112i28 1112/29 1112/30 1112131 III,&deg;.,33 1112134 1112135 1112/36 1112/37 1112/38 1112/39 II.O40 1112/41 1112142 1112/43 1112/44 1112146 1112/47 71048 1112/49 1112/50 1112 (51 1112/52 80 20.3 0.05 383.5 384.1 0.6 80 20.3 0.05 383.6 383.8 0.2 80 20.3 0.05 388.3 389 0.7 80 20.3 0.05 384.3 385.1 0.8 80 20.3 0.05 3832 383.9 0.7 80 20.3 0.05 382.7 383 0.3 80 20.3 0.05 385.8 386.2 0.4 80 20.3 0.05 384.9 385.1 1 0.2 80 20.3 0.05 384 384.6 0.6 80 20.3 0.05 388 388.4 0.4 80 20.3 0.05 389.3 390.1 0.8 80 20.3 0.05 3832 383.8 0.6 80 20.3 0.05 383.6 383.9 0.3 80 20.3 0.05 384.3 384.5 0.2 80 20.3 0.05 384.4 384.6 0.2 80 20.3 0.05 388.3 388.7 0.4 80 20.3 0.05 384.7 384.9 0.2 80 20.3 0.05 382.1 382.6 0.5 80 20.3 0.05 385.5 386.8 1.3 80 20.3 0.05 382.2 383.2 1.0 80 20.3 0.05 383.7 384.8 1.1 80 20.3 0.05 388.6 389.9 1.3 80 20.3 0.05 382.4 383 0.6 80 20,3 0.05 .365L 385I IR QI .0 80 20.3 0.05 381.4 382.2 0.8 80 20.3 0.05 383.2 384.4 12 80 20.3 0.05 383.4 384.2 0.8 80 20.3 0.05 387 387.7 0.7 80 20.3 0.05 383.1 383.5 0.4 61 21 0.05 302.7 303.3 0.6 61 21 0.05 302.5 302.8 0.3 61 21 0.05 302.2 302.8 0.6 61 21 0.05 301.1 301.3 0.2 61 21 0.05 302.3 302.8 0.5 61 21 0.05 303.9 304.3 0.4 61 21 0.05 301.7 302.4 0,7 61 21 0.05 303.1 302.2 -0.9 61 21 0.05 300.8 301.5 0.7 61 21 0.05 303.6 303.7 0.1 61 21 0.05 303.5 303.6 0.1 61 21 0.05 301 301.1 0.1 61 21 0.05 300.9 300.9 0.0 61 21 0.05 301.2 301.3 0.1 61 21 0.05 300.5 300.9 0.4 61 21 0.05 303.9 304 0.1 61 21 0.05 302.3 302.4 0.1 61 21 0.05 302.9 303 0.1 61 21 0.05 301.3 301.4 0.1 61 21 0.05 302.8 303.1 0.3 61 21 0.05 301.9 302 0.1 C., a 0.U Ni 61 16.2 0.05 1 232.3 1 233 0.7 1113,1 Concrete 62.5 % from (0 .15.24) 2.54 706.8 729 222 1114/1 80 15.3 0.05 430.5 430.6 0.1 1114,12 80 15.3 0.05 428.3 428.6 0.3 1114V3 Copper 80 15.3 0.05 428.7 429.4 0.7 111414 80 15.3 0.05 425.7 426.3 0.6 111415 42 15.3 0.05 224.7 225.3 0.6 11W6 42 12.2 0.05 178.5 178.5 1 0.0 1115/1 .80 15.3 0.2 2596 2596 0.0 11512 80 15.3 0.2 2608 2608 0.0 1115/3 80 15.3 0.2 2605 2606 1.0 Table 7.2-3: Weight Data for Unsubmerged Coupons
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 83 of 100 7.2.4.2.2 Debris Examinations Per procedure
[13,14], debris and material examinations took place upon completion of the 30-day test period. As shown in the pressure drop time history (Figure 7.2- 10 through Figure 7.2-12), the head loss fluctuated between 10 kPa and 22 kPa and showed little evidence of being impacted by chemical effects.The debris bed samples shown in Figure 7.2-20 were analyzed per procedure using SEM/EDS techniques.
The samples shown in the following figures are at the completion of the experiment.
The SEM micrographs show evidence of precipitate formation within the debris bed (Figure 7.2-21 and Figure 7.2-22) and identifies the presence of a slight film on the surface of the fibers. Figure 7.2-21 and Figure 7.2-22 represent the average chemical composition of the full area of the sample. Under original conditions the surface of the fibers are smooth glass rods. The EDS exams in Figure 7.2-23 are based on points marked by a "+" on the scans. The EDS scans of the precipitate in Figure 7.2-24 show sodium, aluminum, and silicon.Sieve I Sieve 4 Figure 7.2-20: Photos of Debris Bed and Dried Debris Bed Samples from Sieve I and Sieve 4 FSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENC AND...CH...O..
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 84 of 100 0 Elenmnt Atom% Wt % Oxide Wt %Na 5.54 5.52 NaO 7.47 Mg 0.43 0.40 MgO 0.71 Al 2.52 2.14 A120A 4.77 Si 23.08 18.82 SiO 2  49.38 K 0.21 0.12 K20 0.26 Ca 16.62 9.50 CaO 23.26 Fe 8.80 3.61 Fe 2 0 3  12.58 Zn 1.26 0.44 ZnO 1.57 Figure 7.2-2 1: Debris Bed -Average Chemical Composition of Sieve I Sample Full Area wSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 85 of 100 Element Atom% Wt % Oxide Wt %Na 4.18 4.02 Na 2 O 5.64 Al 2.07 1.70 A1 2 0 3  3.92 Si 28.79 22.65 SiO 2  61.60 Ca 13.54 7.46 CaO 18.94 Fe 6.93 2.74 Fe 2 03 9.91 Figure 7.2-22: Debris Bed -Average Chemical Composition of Sieve 4 Sample Full Area MSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2..................
LGY Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 86 of 100 Element Atom% W t % Oxide Wt %Na 7.04 6.76 Na 2 0 9.49 Mg 0.00 0.00 MgO 0.00 Al 2.84 2.32 A1 2 03 5.37 Si 25.97 20.41 SiO 2  55.56 K 0.27 0.15 K 2 0 0.33 Ca 17.74 9.77 CaO 24.82 Fe 3.10 1.23 Fe 2 O 3  4.43 Figure 7.2-23: SEM Spot Chemical Analysis (Sieve I) 9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 87 of 100 Element Atom% Wt % Oxide Wt %Na 8.15 7.81 Na 2 O 10.99 Mg 0.00 0.00 MgO 0.00 Al 3.73 3.05 A1 2 03 7.05 Si 24.86 19.51 SiO 2  53.19 Ca 17.13 9.42 CaO 23.97 Fe 3.35 1.32 Fe 2 O 3 4.80 Figure 7.2-24: SEM Spot Chemical Analysis (Sieve 4)Examinations were not performed to determine the impact of the glycol, grease, and oil on the debris bed or within the sample solutions.
However, the oil, grease and glycol can adhere to solid surfaces (i.e.submerged coupons) which could potentially reduce the release rate due to the interface inhibition effect by glycol, grease or oil. Ethylene glycol is hydrophilic, miscible, and is non-reactive with water.
a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I0 N D.C. Cook Units l and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 88 of 100 Oil and grease, on the other hand, are more hydrophobic.
At increased temperatures, the interfacial tension between oil/grease and water decreases and these substances become less immiscible.
Once temperature cools, the oil and grease viscosity increases which corresponds to an increased interfacial tension whereby droplets of oil form. The droplets of oil/grease may be filtered by the debris bed. As stated, however, no examinations of the debris bed were performed to determine the presence of oil or grease.7.2.4.2.3 Wet Chemistry Samples of the test fluid were taken according to a predefined time schedule.
Individual samples were stabilized by using 10% HNO 3 solution to lower the sample's pH lower than 2 and were not filtered.Fluid samples were analyzed for various elements using AES ICP spectroscopy.
The relevant elemental ICP analyses are provided in Figures 7.2-25 through Figure 7.2-28. These are also compared to the data from the ICET analysis, benchtop (from Section 6) test, and D.C. Cook WCAP results (from Section 5.0) presented in the previous sections of this report. For aluminum, the Vuez results were much lower than the ICET #5, plant-specific WCAP, and benchtop results. The silicon results from the Vuez test were similar for all cases except ICET #4 in which the silicon levels were extremely high. As stated previously, silicon inhibition explains the minimal amount of aluminum in solution for ICET Test #4. With the silicon levels in the Vuez test (<38 ppm), the impact on aluminum corrosion was not as significant as seen in ICET Test #4. The lower levels of silicon in the Vuez ICP results may be due to the fact that ICET #4 used approximately 567x (0. I I/l.94E-04 from Table 4.4- I)the amount of Cal-Sil than at D.C. Cook. For calcium, the Vuez ICP results were similar to the results for ICET #4 and the plant-specific WCAP analysis with the Vuez results being highest. It was expected that the Vuez calcium results were higher than the results of ICET #5 since no calcium silicate was used in that test.The quantities of aluminum and silicon decreased over time which suggests the potential for formation of sodium aluminum silicate.
The plant-specific WCAP significantly over predicted the dissolution of silicon and aluminum as compared to the VUEZ test. This condition implies that the values of sodium aluminum silicate and aluminum oxyhydroxide calculated in the WCAP estimates from Section 5 could be considered conservative.
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 89 of 100 60 50 CL a.40 C 0 C 30 E.20 E 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (Hours)Figure 7.2-25: 30-Day Aluminum Concentration OSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 90 of 100 200 180 160 E 140 0.120 U L-S00 40 20 40 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (Hours)Figure 7.2-26: 30-Day Silicon Concentration wSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 91 of 100 120 100 E.0.0 0 EU 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (Hours)Figure 7.2-27: 30-Day Calcium Concentration
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 92 of 100 2.5 2.0 E 0.0 1.5 0 N 0.5 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time (Hours)Figure 7.2-28: 30-Day Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), and Iron (Fe) Concentrations Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 93 of 100 8.0 PROGRAM RESULTS The D.C. Cook chemical effects program Used the D.C. Cook plant specific inputs, relevant and applicable benchtop chemistry, ICET Test #4 and Test #5 and the 30-Day CE head loss test results to illustrate the impact of chemical effects on debris head loss for D.C. Cook.8.1 Discussion of Results As stated, D.C. Cook was expected to not have a significant impact on head loss associated with chemical effects based on Industry information to date. At this time, most experiments to date with NaTB or NaOH environments with pH closer to neutral realized relatively low dissolution rates of aluminum, calcium, and silicon. The 30-Day CE test confirmed a low dissolution of aluminum.
As indicated by SEM/EDS and ICP data, the experiment experienced a change to bed morphology due to precipitation of aluminum.The D.C. Cook WCAP results from Section 5.0 indicated that sodium aluminum silicate and aluminum oxyhydroxide formed due to excess aluminum in solution.
Sodium Aluminum Silicate (NaAISi 3 O 8) forms when Al and excess Si are in solution in the presence of Na (from the buffer). However, when Si and excess Al are in solution then aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIOOH) is also expected to form. Aluminum oxyhydroxide is dependent upon temperature and pH. As shown in Figure 6.2-11 from the benchtop test, the solubility of aluminum is much higher than that of measured, released aluminum.
Therefore, it was not expected that AIOOH should form under the post-LOCA conditions for D.C. Cook.For the 30-Day CE head loss test, the aluminum and silicon levels peaked early in the test and steadily dropped over the remainder of the test. This was an indicator that sodium aluminum silicate (or some other chemical compound incorporating silicon and aluminum) was forming as sedimentation or is being filtered by the debris bed. The aluminum levels were lower than the silicon levels which also points to the possible formation of sodium aluminum silicate.
Figure 8.1-1 shows the solution ICP data in moles vs. time for aluminum and silicon in solution.
To form NaAlSi 3 Os, a stoichiometric molar ratio of 3 between Si and Al is required.
Based on the results in Figure 8.1- I, the ratio is ASi/AAI = 0.903/0.325
=2.8 ; 3 which again suggests conditions favorable for the formation of sodium aluminum silicate.
9Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -AL I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 94 of 100 3.5 10"'3.0 10.4 2.5 10 4"o 2.0 10-4 E 1.5 10._1.0104 5.0 105 1.4 10.3 1.2 10'3 1.0 10.3 3 0 8.0 10-4 6.0 10'4 4.0 10-4 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (hr)600 700 Figure 8. 1- I: Silicon and Aluminum Solution ICP Data in Mole vs. Time 8.2 Application to Non-Chemical Prototype Head Loss Testing A conservative estimate of the head losses across the sump strainer during an actual accident in the plant requires an understanding of pressure drop through any debris bed that might form, including the impact of chemical effects, on the actual strainers installed at the plant. This section provides an approach for utilizing the data obtained in this testing program in combination with head loss data obtained for a prototypic strainer without chemical effects to arrive at such an estimate.
This can be done by developing a temperature-dependent bump-up factor that can be applied to the head loss estimates that are based on the prototype test data.In general, head loss is a function of numerous parameters including* the quantity and characteristics of the debris deposited on the strainer,* the flow through the strainer,* the temperature of the containment pool,* the size of the strainer as well as the geometrical arrangement of the strainer since this impacts the manner in which debris collects on the strainer surface, and QD Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects. on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2 SCIENCE A.O ....OL.. Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 95 of 100 the pool chemistry since this can result in chemical effects that can exacerbate any head losses due to debris only.Prior testing utilizing a prototype of the strainers installed at the plant has provided plant-specific data that forms the basis for head loss estimates in the plant that account for the first four of these factors.The testing described herein specifically addresses the additional potential impact that the presence chemically-derived precipitates generated in a post-LOCA environment may have on head loss and does so using the results derived from the testing of small-scale prototypic geometries.
The test demonstrates that as a result of chemical effects occurring over the 30 days of interest following a postulated LOCA, the character ofthe debris bed can possibly change because of precipitate formation and deposition within the bed, resulting in a time/temperature dependent increase in the measured head loss. Even though these results were obtained on a small scale prototypic strainer, the same type of precipitate formation/deposition within the bed and similar time/temperature dependent increase in head loss is expected to occur on the larger scale strainer.
It should be noted that the generation of chemical precipitates is a phenomenon that is expected to occur after a debris bed forms on the strainer.
Consequently, it is not expected that these chemical effects would have any influence on the manner in which the original insulation debris is collected on the strainer.
Thus, the data obtained from the non-chemical larger scale prototypic strainer testing is still representative of the head losses immediately following a postulated LOCA before any chemical effects have time to occur. Since the chemical reaction products have the effect of modifying the characteristics of the debris bed and thereby increasing the measured head loss by some multiplicative factor, it is reasonable to conclude that this multiplicative factor increase in head loss would be observed for a large scale prototypic strainer.Therefore, an algorithm for estimating the plant-specific head loss can be expressed as: dP= dP(SF,C,V,Q,T)
* CBU(T,t)where, dP is the actual head loss SF is the strainer geometry shape factor (this term is not needed since the test was conducted using a small scale prototypical strainer)C represents the debris characteristics V represents the quantity of debris Q is the flow rate through the strainer T is temperature T time CBU is the bump-up factor due to chemical reaction products (chemical-effects bump up).
WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 96 of 100 Thus, dP(SF,C,V,Q,T) represents the head loss estimate based on the prototype strainer without chemical effects. The chemical bump-up factor (CBU) is defined as the ratio of the head loss (dP) over time versus the non-chemical effects head loss. The CBU with Temperature is therefore another representation of the 30-day head loss for the test (referenced to the non-chemical head loss) -it also contains the effects of viscosity in the head loss term. By factoring out viscosity in the head loss, the CBU without Temperature is developed.
The CBU without Temperature is the chemical effects bump up factor and represents the impact of chemical effects over the non-chemical debris head loss (starting dP).The non-chemical effects reference point used to determine the CBU with Temperature and CBU without Temperature is 10.76 kPa at a temperature of 82.23&deg;C. Figure 8.2-I shows the associated CBU with and without Temperature, flow rate, head loss, and temperature.
In Figure 8.2-1, the chemical effects occur early with a CBU of about 1.4 (during the first 80 hours) and then the CBU declines to very low values over the 30-day event. The decreasing CBU may indicate a degrading bed condition over the 30 day event under these chemical conditions.
The general methodology for determining the CBU is provided in Appendix I.2.5 90 COOK. VUEZ-_ 80 CBU4 w/T 2.0 T(C) -- -1/qT(ref)-water
-- CBU4 wioT -70 0 0-40~1.0._ 30.I I I I 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Time (hr)Figure 8.2- I: CBU Factor (with and without Temperature), Flow Rate, dP versus Time** The detailed step-by-step methodology for determining the CBU is provided in Appendix I.
4Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 97 of 100 Presented in the Figure 8.2-2 is the potential for sodium aluminum silicate (NAS) formation.
The LogK is essentially the product of the sodium, aluminum and silicate in solution.
The LogKsp is the solubility of NAS with respect to temperature
[25]. If the Ksp < K then NAS forms but if Ksp > K, NAS does not form. As shown, the potential exists for the formation of NAS early in the experiment as Ksp < K.40.0 35.0 30.0 W 25.0 20.0 Z 15.0 10.0-12-14 " (0-16-18-20 (0-220-24 5.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (hr)600 700 Figure 8.2-2: Vuez ICP Results and Solubility of NAS a) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 98 of 100
 
==9.0 CONCLUSION==
 
The purpose of this report is to provide D.C. Cook and the strainer vendor the impact of chemical effects on debris head loss to support the resolution of GSI-191 and GL 2004-02. The impact of chemical effects as illustrated in this report is an increase in the debris head loss due to change in bed morphology over the 30-day mission time. The head loss results presented in this report can be applied as a multiplicative factor or "bump-up" factor by the strainer vendor to the non-chemical prototypical testing or analyses.
The end-user must ensure the plant specific chemistry, debris loads, temperature and flow rates are consistent with the parameters evaluated in this report.The testing and analyses performed in support of this assessment have made every attempt at balancing realistic conditions while maintaining a level of conservatism.
The sump chemistry (pH) and quantity of materials were selected to maximize corrosion products or dissolution.
The temperature profile was selected to be high early in the experiment to promote corrosion and lower later in the experiment to promote precipitation.
This report has concluded the impact of chemical effects under D.C. Cook conditions is minimal. The testing has provided consistent and expected results, as well as provides an understanding that chemical effects may have on head loss.The development of the head loss increase was based on average bed thicknesses similar to that expected on the strainer.
Recall that the small scale prototypic strainer has a more uniform debris bed thickness and approach velocity and the large scale prototype has a more non-uniform debris deposition as a result of non-uniform approach velocity along the surfaces of the full strainer.
The underlying and reasonable assumption is that geometry affects associated with the complex strainer can be factored out of the analysis and the debris head loss increase associated with chemical effects is primarily a function of the debris load only.The results of this assessment should be applied to the strainer vendor testing to develop the total debris head loss including chemical effects. The debris head losses increased to approximately 8-I I kPa in the first 48 hours. After this initial increase, the head loss increases from 8-I I kPa to approximately 21 kPa at the highest point over the remainder of the 30 days. The testing has shown that a bump up factor of 1.4 should be applied to account for the chemical effects head loss across the strainer over the 30-day event. In addition, the decreasing CBU (See Figure 8.2- I) may indicate a degrading bed condition over the 30 day event under the plant-specific chemical conditions.
Figure 8.2-1 should be used to determine the time dependent bump up factor using the CBU without. Temperature effect curve vs.time.
0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 99 of 100
 
==10.0 REFERENCES==
 
I. NEI 04-07 Sump Performance Task Force, "Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology", Revision 0, Volume I, December 2004.2. Generic Letter 2004-02 "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors." 3. WCAP- 16530-NP, Evaluation of Post-Accident Chemical Effects in Containment Sump Fluids to Support GSI- 191, Revision 0, February 2006.4. WCAP- I 6785-NP, Evaluation of Additional Inputs to the WCAP- I 6530-NP Chemical Model, May 2007.5. NUREG/CR-6913, Chemical Effects Head-Loss Research in Support of Generic Safety Issue 19 1, December 2006.6. NUREG/CR-6914, Integrated Chemical Effects Test Project, December 2006.7. Sargent & Lundy Document 2007- I 1602, "D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I & 2 Post-LOCA Chemical Effects Analysis in Support of GSI- 191".8. ALION-REP-LAB-2352-229, Aluminum, Zinc, Cal-Sil, Marinite, Dirt/Dust, and Concrete Corrosion and Dissolution in NaTB Test Report, Revision I (See Attachment A).9. ALION-REP-AEP-3085-I I, D.C. Cook Units I and 2 Event Sequencing and Characterization, Revision 0.10. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-01, Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing, Revision I (See Attachment B).I. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-02, Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing, Revision I (See Attachment C).12. ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 1, Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program -D.C. Cook Units I & 2, Revision 2 (See Attachment D).13. ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02, 30-Day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ#2, Revision 2 (See Attachment E).14. VUEZ-TP-OTS-1601, 30 Day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Plan VUEZ SEQ#2 -D.C. Cook, August 17th, 2007, Revision I.
(A) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 100 of 100 15. VUEZ-PP-OTS-1601-01, 30 Day Integrated Chemical Effect Test VUEZ SEQ#2, August 17th, 2007, Revision I.16. VUEZ-TR-OTS-1604, 30 Day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Final Test Report for VUEZ SEQ#2, January I I, 2008, Revision 0 (See Attachment G).17. DOE-HDBK-1015/1-93, General Corrosion, Revision 0.18. DIT-B-02995-01 dated 10/05/07, Figure (Unit 1) 14.3.4-9, Indiana & Michigan Power D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).19. ALION-CAL-AEP-3085-12, "D.C. Cook Recirculation Sump Debris Generation Calculation", Revision 0.20. DIT-B-02995-01 dated 10/05/07, Document No. SD-070517-001, D.C. Cook Units I and 2, GSI-191 Containment Building Materials Inventory Calculation, Revision 0 (Note that Revision I of SD-0705 17-001 was reviewed.
Changes do not impact this report).21. ALION-CAL-AEP-3085-16, "D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Summary of Debris Generation and Debris Transport Results", Revision I.22. ALION-CAL-AEP-3085-1 5, "D.C. Cook Units I & 2 Reactor Building GSI- 191 Debris Transport Calculation", Revision 0.23. ALION Engineering Change Request, ALION-ECR-AEP-3085-01, Revision 0, dated 2-14-08.24. ALION Engineering Change Request, ALION-ECR-AEP-3085-02, Revision 0, dated 2-15-08.25. Stefan Arnorsson and Andri Stefansson, "Assessment of Feldspar Solubility Constants in Water in the Range 0&deg;&deg; to 350C at Vapor Saturation Pressures", American Journal of Science, Vol. 299, March 1999, P. 173-209.26. Vuez Observation No. 5 (See Attachment H).27. ALION Engineering Change Request, ALION-ECR-COOK-1002-002, Revision 0 dated 8/27/07 (See Attachment F).28. Zigler et al., NUREG/CR-6224, "Parametric Study of the Potential for BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage due to LOCA Generated Debris," September 1995.29. P.K. Mast, "HLOSS 1.1: A Code for the Prediction of ECCS Strainer Head Loss," ITS-REPQASW02001-01, Alion Science and Technology, Revision 0.
Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: I -I of 1-7 Appendix I Methodology for Determining the CBU Factor (D Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 1-2 of 1-7 Chemical Bump-Up Factors (CBU): The following information provides the methodology for determining the Chemical Bump-Up factor (CBU) with and without Temperature effects for D.C. Cook.I .Collect test temperature T vs. time.2. Collect the Head Loss (HL) AP vs. time. Plotting dP3 data versus dP4 data (Figure 1-2)shows that dP 3 has an offset of -0. 19 kPa. Therefore, the results of dP4 are utilized to develop the CBU. Figure 1-2 shows the resulting head loss (dP4), Temperature, pH, and Flow Rate versus Time.0.00 1 COOK. VUEZ-0.05 0.CV) -0.10"--1-0.15 HL dP 4 to be used -[probe 3 off set -0.19 kPa]-y= -0.18993 + 1.0091x R= 0.99962 II I-0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 HL dP 4 (kPa)Figure I-I: DP3 versus DP4 WSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 1-3 of I-7 25.0 20.0 CL J9%..15.0 10.0 90 80 70-I 60 50 40 30 20 5.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Time (hr) : -20 to 800 hrs 700 800 Figure 1-2: dP4, Temperature, pH, and Flow Rate versus Time 3. Collect the Flow Rate (FR) vs. time.4. Normalized Head Loss (NHL) vs. time: HL dP (t) has to be normalized by dividing the FR (t) as HL dP(t) /FR(t)..5. Reference point: For D.C. Cook, test start time (t=0) is defined as the time at which the boric acid and buffers were dissolved in demineralized water at 190&deg;F and the desired initial pH of 8.2 has been attained, the test materials (submerged and non-submerged) and debris bed have been introduced, and the spray recirculation begins. During debris addition, the flow rate had to be lowered to account for a lower water volume and to avoid pump cavitation (See Figure 1-3).
) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
Y Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 1-4 of I-7 I Test Vuez SEQ#2 -D.C. COOK 14 12 10 82 4-2-0."O Time History I-r 100 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 E LL 30 25 20 15 10 5 J 0 0-070820 0800 070820 1000 070820 1200 070820 1400 0708 Date/Time
[ddmmyy hh:mm]Figure 1-2: Test Start-up Once the debris was added, the flow rate was increased to the required test flow rate which corresponds to the rise in head loss. In addition, the spray flow was started which marks t=0 according to procedures.
After formation of the debris bed, the lowest HL data (assuming that neither of the probes is measuring zero or negative) is utilized to determine the reference point. The HL reference point has an associated Temperature which becomes the reference temperature, T at time t. Plot the NHL vs, time. Determine the initial lowest HL (if the lowest HL is quite stable vs. time, this could be the best condition to use as the reference HL value). The NHL and T at the reference point are NHLre& and Tref.
0 1 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 1-5 of I-7 I 10.0 0.0.-j x 5J" 5 .0-i--- 88.VUEZ 86 84 -82 80 32).78 2.50 3.00 0.0 "1--0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Time (hr) : -1.5 to 3 hrs Figure 1-4: Reference Point Selection QSummary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units Iand 2 SCI-C -............
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: 1-6 of 1-7 12.0"I10.0 C9)8.0 II , 6.0 J4.0 z~2.0 88 86 84--I 82 80 78 76 0.01-0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Time (hr)-74 2.00 Figure 1-5: Reference Point Selection Details 6. CBU wIT: Calculate the CBU w/T by dividing NHL(t)/NHLref.
vs. time. This is the CBU with temperature (CBU w/T) factor.7. Calculated the viscosity of water, q(t), vs. time: which is q(T), vs. time. Find the reference viscosity which is a tq(@T= ref), which is noted as lqref.(T) = 1674 -45.196*T + 0.68143*T2"-5.4594*10-3*T3+1.7812*
I 0"S*T 4 8. Obtain the ratio of water viscosity (Rq-1H20)
VS. Tiref.: R11H20 is calculated by taking iq(t)/I lref., vs time from Step 7.9. CBU w/o T: Since we have CBU w/T and Rq.H2O calculate the CBU w/o T by dividing CBU w/T by Rlq.H20. The result is the CBU w/o T. If there are no Chemical Effects, the CBU w/o T is defined as unity (1.0).
9D) Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I 0 N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: I-7 of I-7 2.5 rn 2.0 0 LL.0.1.5 i,' 1.0 0. 5~-i I-0 20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Time (hr)Figure 1-6: CBU With and Without Temperature versus Time 10. LogK and Ksp are determined by the following equations for sodium aluminum silicate: Log Kiow-albite
= -96.267 + 305,542/T 2-3985.50/1T
-28.588
* 10-6
* T 2 + 35.790
* log T where, T is in T(K), and the solubility product for the low albite, K,p can be written by the product of the individual ionic concentration, as Kp= (Na)(Al)(Si) 3 0Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L I O N D.C. Cook Units I and 2....................
YDocument No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: D-I of D-27 Attachment D ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 I, Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program -D.C. Cook Units I & 2 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-2 of Page D-27 ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DESIGN CALCULATION AND ANALYSIS COVER PAGE Calculation No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision 2 Page I of 23 Calculation Title: Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program--D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Project No.: 261-4459 Project Name: D. C. Cook Units I & 2 30-Day Chemical Test Client: American Electric Power Document Purpose/Summary:
The purpose of this document is to provide design input requirements for the scaling of D. C. Cook Units I & 2 containment materials to material quantities that will be used in small scale, 30-day chemical effects head loss testing.All software used in the preparation of this calculation was done so in accordance with QAP 3.5, Use of Computer Software and Error Reporting latest revision.Preparer Signature:
NA Date: IS -Design Verification Method: QA Applicability Level:[] Design Review Nuclear Safety Related El Alternative Calculation
] Quality Significant 7] Qualification Testing E:W Nuclear Non-Safety Related Professional Engineer (if required)
Approval:
Not Required Date: Palak Shah o s-O o-Prepared By: Printed/Typed Name Signature Date Luke D. Bockewitz Reviewed By: Printed/Typed Name Signature Date William S. Knous 6 -A/2/ 8 Approved By: P d Name Signature Date Form 3.4. I Revision 3 Effective Date: 2/28/07 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-3 of Page D-27 A LION SCIENCE AND TECH'NOLOGY REVISION HISTORY LOG Page 2 of 23 Document Number: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-OI Revision:
2 Document Title: Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D.
C. Cook u Units I & 2 Instructions:
Project Manager to provide a brief description of each document revision, including rationale for the change and, if applicable, identification of source documents used for the change.REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION 0 8/10/07 Original Issue.Debris-on-screen loads updated per Debris Generation and Debris Transport Calculation revisions in Tables 3-3, 4-I, and 4-3. Revised 8/16/07 Figure 3-I and Table 3-6. Added spray flow discussion to Section 3.2.2 and revised Table 3-6. Added List of Figures and List of Tables. Minor editorial corrections throughout document.Revised to close out open item of Revision I: " Replaced Reference 3, D. C. Cook Design Information Transmittal, with 5 plant-specific references.
* New references updated several "debris on sump strainer" quantities (see Section 3.1.4)o Table 3-3 See o Table 4-1 and 4-3 with debris quantities of new Cover Page references.
* Removed Attachment A.* Inserted HLOSS runs of Revision I debris loads and Revision 2 debris loads for comparison purposes.* Added the type of iron oxide used and acceptability and type of oil, grease and glycol used in Section 4.3.Form 6.1.3 Revision I Effective Date: 2/28/07 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-4 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 A LION SCIENCE AND..ECNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 3 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS I PU RPO SE ...................................................................................................................................................................
5 2 BA C K G RO U N D ....................................................................................................................................................
5 3 D ESIG N IN PU T S .....................................................................................................................................................
6 3.1 C ontainm ent D ebris M aterials ....................................................................................................................
6 3.1.1 Subm erged M aterials .....................................................................................................................................
7 3.1.2 N on subm erged M aterials ...........................................................................................................................
8 3.1.3 Sum p Screen M aterials ..............................................................................................................................
8 3.1.4 Comparison between debris quantities presented in Revision I and Revision 2 of ALION-C A L-A EP-4459-0 1 ........................................................................................................................................................
9 3.2 D ebris Scaling ...............................................................................................................................................
I I 3.2.1 I Scaling Ratio ...........................................................................................................................................
I I 3.2.2 Flow Rate .......................................................
........................................................................................
13 3.3 Tem perature and pH T im e H istory ....................................................................................................
13 3.4 M aterials/Surrogates
..................................................................................................................................
16 3.5 C hem icals ......................................................................................................................................................
17 4 M ET H O D O LO G Y ................................................................................................................................................
17 4. I D ebris M aterial .............................................................................................................................................
7, 4.2 Scaling .............................................................................................................................................................
17 4.2.1 Scaled Test M aterial .............................................................................................................................
19 4.3 M aterials/Surrogates
...................................................................................................................................
20 4.4 C hem icals .......................................................................................................................................................
22 5. C O N C LU SIO N ......................................................................................................................................................
23 6. REFEREN C ES ...................
I ......................................................................................................................................
23 LIST OF APPENDICES A PPEN D IX I: H LO SS [.I O utput Files ..................................................................................................................
I-I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3- I: C ontainm ent Pool T em perature Profile .........................................................................................
14 Figure 3-2: C ontainm ent Pool pH Profile ............................................................................................................
14 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-5 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2/ LION~....................
Y Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 4 of 23 LIST OF TABLES Table 3- I: Material Submerged in Containment Sump Fluid at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ..........................
7 Table 3-2: Material Non submerged in Containment Sump Fluid at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ................
8 Table 3-3: Material Resident in Containment Sump Screen at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ..........................
8 Table 3-4: Comparison between Revision I and Revision 2 of Material Resident in Containment Sump Screen at D .C .C ook U nits I & 2 ...............................................................................................................................
10 T able 3-5: D ebris Scaling Ratio s .................................................................................................................................
12 T able 3-6: Flow Rate Param eters ...............................................................................................................................
13 Table 3-7: Test Apparatus Fluid Temperature Profile ....................................................................................
15 Table 4- I: Scaled Test M aterial Q uantities
........................................................................................................
19 T able 4-2: C oatings D ensity V alues ...........................................................................................................................
20 Table 4-3: D .C. Cook Test M aterial Q uantities
..............................................................................................
21 Table 4-4: ScaledpH Controlling Chemical Compounds of the Test Apparatus
[Ref. 5, 7] .................
22 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-6 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2/ LION-SCIENCE AD TECHNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 5 of 23 I PURPOSE To assist its clients with resolution of GSI-191, Alion is conducting a test program to estimate the contribution of chemical effects on strainer head loss. A key element of the program is small scale testing in a simulated post-LOCA containment environment in which the increase in head loss from chemical effects of materials (dissolution, leaching chemical compounds, and precipitate formation) is measured.The purpose of this document is to develop test input parameters based on D..C. Cook Units I & 2 containment parameters.
The test input parameters specify the material and debris quantities, chemicals (including acid and buffers), temperature, and pH profiles that would simulate the main containment sump fluid environment and reproduce the chemical effects in the small scale test apparatus.
2 BACKGROUND Alion's Test Program is designed to replicate the potential corrosive interactions of the spray and pool fluid chemistry with those materials and debris sources in containment and resident on the main sump strainer (the plant's remote strainer will not be included in the testing).
These potential interactions may cause additional precipitates and/or impacts on head loss across the strainer over the 30-day mission time. To provide a representative experiment, certain scaled parameters are selected to ensure that the reactions take place in the correct quantity and environment and that the resulting head losses satisfactorily reflect any chemical effects. Critical plant parameters include main sump strainer area;containment fluid volume, recirculation flow rate, containment debris, containment sump temperature, and spray and recirculation fluid pH.The test tank is intended to represent these containment parameters to replicate the corrosion potential of the structural materials inside containment.
The experiment will preserve the material surface area to pool volume similar to the integrated chemical effects testing (ICET) experiments; past experience with these types of corrosion experiments have shown that the release rate is based on surface area of the material.
Chemical loads that are present in the containment pool will be conserved for testing by using the same concentration in testing as is present in containment.
The temperature and pH curves that would be present in the containment pool will also be simulated during testing.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-7 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-A L ON D. C. Cook Units I & 2 KfSC AND TECHNOLOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 6 of 23 The other critical parameter relates to debris head loss. Debris head loss is dependent upon fluid temperature, flow rate or approach velocity through the bed, and debris bed thickness and constituency.
Ideally, the experiment will preserve the bed thickness and composition (porosity) with the plant conditions and replacement strainer.3 DESIGN INPUTS All plant input parameters are listed in Table 4-I.3.1 Containment Debris Materials Containment debris materials and materials such as Aluminum, Concrete, Copper, Carbon Steel, and Zinc from galvanized and cold zinc coated steel for D. C. Cook Units I & 2 are based on ALION-CAL-AEP-3085-16, "D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Summary of Debris Generation and Debris Transport Results", and DIT-B-02995-01, dated 10/05/07, D. C. Cook Calculation SD-070517-001, "D. C. Cook Units I and 2 GSI-191 Containment Building Materials Inventory Calculation" [Ref. 3 and 4]. These materials affect the containment pool chemistry and need to be considered for chemical debris head loss testing. The materials identified in this report will be scaled in accordance with Alion's report "Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing" [Ref. I], and the scaled quantities will be introduced in the small scale test apparatus.
The scaled materials will either be used or replaced with suitable surrogate materials based on their respective chemical and physical properties.
The Alion report"Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing" [Ref. 2] further justifies the use of surrogates for the 30-day chemical effects testing. Reference 7 identifies conservative temperature and pH conditions that will simulate the pool chemistry in the test tank for chemical debris head loss testing.The containment materials at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 will be divided into three categories that correspond to exactly where the materials will lie within the test tank: submerged, non submerged, and on the sump strainer.
Each category is scaled according to either pool volume ratio or strainer area ratio of the test apparatus versus the plant based on the transport characteristics or residence of the debris within the containment.
Submerged materials are insulation and debris that is created by the line break but are not transported to the sump as well. as structural material and concrete.
These materials contribute indirectly to the sump strainer head loss through dissolution and precipitate formation.
Non submerged materials are ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D,, Page D-8 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-A LION D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIENCE...TECHNOLOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 7 of 23 materials within containment that are exposed to containment spray but are not submerged in the sump fluid volume. These materials contribute indirectly to the sump strainer head loss through dissolution caused by the spray and precipitate formation that is transported by the spray run off that enters the containment pool. Materials that reach the sump strainer are insulation and debris that are created by the line break and transport to the sump strainer.
These materials are transported on the sump strainer thereby contributing to the sump strainer head loss.Only the materials identified in this report will be scaled for testing.3.1.1 Submerged Materials Per Reference 4, the following materials will be submerged in the D. C. Cook Units I & 2 containment sump pool following a LOCA. The Aluminum from the nuclear instrumentation in the reactor cavity (83 ft 2) will not be included since the fluid in the reactor cavity does not participate in the fluid recirculation through the sump strainers.
Table 3- I: Material Submerged in Containment Sump Fluid at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Material Source Quantity Metallic Aluminum Structural Material 10.9 ft 2 Galvanized Steel, Cold Zinc Coated Steel Structural Material 71 , 162.6 ft 2 Copper Wires, tubing 1,021.6 ft 2 Concrete Containment building structure 6,412.8 ft 2 Glycol (undiluted)
Cooling System 93.58 ft 3 Oil Lubricant 32.76 ft 3 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-9 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 8 of 23 3.1.2 Non submerged Materials Per Reference 4, the following materials will be non submerged in the D. C. Cook Units I & 2, containment sump pool and will be exposed to spray following a LOCA: Table 3-2: Material Non submerged in Containment Sump Fluid at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Material Source Quantity Metallic Aluminum HVAC Equipment 8,013.4 ft 2 Galvanized Steel, Cold Zinc Coated Steel Structural Material 504,729 ft 2 Carbon Steel Structural Material 32,666.2 ft 2 Copper Wires, tubing, HVAC Equipment 39,735.24 ft 2 Concrete Containment Structure 1,077.1 ft 2 Grease (0.175 ft 3 spread over the 420 ft 2 area) Lubricant 420.9 ft 2 3.1.3 Sump Screen Materials Per Reference 3, the following materials will be transported on the containment sump strainer in the D.C. Cook Units I & 2 following a LOCA. The quantity of the Dirt/Dust includes 9 lbs of surface corrosion (in the form of iron oxide) that exists in 1% of the non submerged carbon steel surface.Table 3-3: Material Resident in Containment Sump Screen at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Material Source Quantity Latent Fiber Miscellaneous debris 6.5 ft 3 Epoxy (inside ZOI) Paint coatings on structures 95.04 lbs Epoxy -(OEM, outside ZOI) Miscellaneous Coatings 6.76 lbs Epoxy -(Non-OEM, outside ZOI) Miscellaneous Coatings 16.12 lbs Alkyd (inside ZOI) Miscellaneous Coatings 0.836 lbs Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI) Miscellaneous Coatings 10.416 lbs Alkyd (Non-OEM, outside ZOI) Miscellaneous Coatings 1.972 lbs Marinite I Fire Protection Insulation
: 0. 1199 lbs Marinite 36 Fire Protection Insulation 1.00 lbs Min-k Insulation 0.704 lbs Cal Sil Miscellaneous debris 169.56 lbs Dirt/Dust Miscellaneous debris 88.4 lbs ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-10 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2.......AND TC.......
Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 9 of 23 3.1.3.1 Latent Fiber Reference 3 identifies that 6.5 ft 3 of latent fiber debris will be transported to the sump strainer.
As in previous testing performed by Alion, NUKON will be used to represent latent fiber.The material quantities of Table 3-3 will be scaled based on the strainer area ratio to determine quantities required for the test. It should be noted that Reference 2 justifies the use, of surrogate material for some of these materials in the test apparatus.
Section 4.5 of this report identifies the densities of the actual materials and the surrogate material used to represent each one. The ratio of these densities is applied to the scaled quantities to determine the amounts required for this test.3.1.4 Comparison between debris quantities presented in Revision I and Revision 2 of ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 I Revision I of ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01, "Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program- D. C. Cook Units I & 2" presented debris quantities that were used as a basis to perform the 30-Day Chemical Effects Testing. After reviewing the latest references available, the new debris quantities are as presented in the earlier sections of this document.
A comparison between the two sets of numbers becomes essential to validate the conservatism of the testing that was performed per Revision I of this document.Revision 2 does not have an impact on the quantities of submerged and non-submerged materials in containment sump fluid at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Table 3-4 presents a comparison between materials resident in Containment Sump Screen at D. C. Cook Units I & 2.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-11 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIENCE A. TECHNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I 0 of 23 Table 3-4: Comparison between Revision I and Revision 2 of Material Resident in Containment Sump Screen at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Quantity Revision Revision Material Units I 2 Difference Latent Fiber ft 3  7.75 6.5 -1.25 Epoxy (inside ZOI) lbs 92.15 95.04 2.89 Epoxy -(OEM, outside ZOI) lbs 3.52 6.76 3.24 Epoxy -(Non-OEM, outside ZOI) lbs 8.32 16.12 7.8 Alkyd (inside ZOI) lbs 0.258 0.836 0.58 Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI) lbs 10.556 10.416 -0.14 Alkyd (Non-OEM, outside ZOI) lbs 2.088 1.972 -0.12 Marinite I lbs 0.1185 0.1199 0 Marinite 36 lbs 0.99 I 0.01 Min-k lbs 0.688 0.704 0.02 Cal Sil lbs 166.8 169.56 2.8 Dirt/Dust lbs 105.4 88.4 -17 As presented in Table 3-4, the debris quantities in Revision I which were scaled to obtain the quantities of debris used for testing have changed in this revision of the document.
Latent Fiber, Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI), Alkyd (Non-OEM, outside ZOI) and Dirt/Dust were greater in Revision I than the new quantities (Revision
: 2) which is conservative.
The other debris quantities are greater in Revision 2 than those that were used for testing (Revision I)by a very small amount._HLOSS EVALUATION To further evaluate the effect of the difference in debris quantities on the sump strainer, the HLOSS computer program was used. The methodology provides the head loss (feet of water) for the debris.bed on a simulated flat plate screen. This program is used by Alion to compare head losses caused by different break scenarios in Nuclear Power Plants. The head loss results of the debris loads determine which debris loads are most limiting and are generally used for strainer qualification testing. It should be noted that for head loss calculations using the HLOSS code, the analysis assumes that all debris is on the ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-12 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIENCE AD TECHNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I I of 23 strainer uniformly; however, although debris transports to the strainer, it does not necessarily mean that in actuality it would accumulates on the strainer uniformly.
Therefore, the HLOSS analyses are highly conservative.
The results of the HLOSS analyses show that when head loss caused by plant debris quantities of ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01, Revsion I are compared with the new quantities of Revision 2, there is a difference of a less than 3% increase due to the new debris quanities:
the Revision I quantities resulted in 15.21 ft-water of head loss while the Revision 2 quantities result in a 15.66 ft-water of head loss.3.2 Debris Scaling The materials inside containment identified in Reference 3 for D. C. Cook Units I & 2 are scaled for the 30-day chemical effects test apparatus using the methodology described in Reference I, which divides the material into three categories-Submerged Material, Non submerged Material, and Material on the Sump Screen-and scales each according to either pool volume ratio or strainer area ratio of the test apparatus versus the plant. Table 4-I lists the plant inputs and then the scaled parameters and materials.
 
====3.2.1 Scaling====
Ratio The scaling ratio used to scale the submerged and non submerged materials in the containment pool is the ratio of the volume of the test apparatus (550 L) to the minimum containment sump fluid volume.The minimum containment sump fluid volume is used to conservatively maximize the materials that would be available to interact, within the test apparatus.
From Reference 3, the minimum volume is 59,441 ft3. Similarly, the scaling ratio used to scale the materials that are shown to transport to the main containment sump strainer is the ratio of test strainer area to the main containment sump strainer area, The containment sump main strainer area has been conservatively assumed to be 800 ft 2 [Ref. 3]as a result of the potential blockage of the lowest strainer pockets with RMI and other miscellaneous debris. The D. C. Cook test will simulate only the main strainer in the debris head loss testing since it is the most heavily loaded strainer.
The flow rate through the main strainer pre recirculation is 6500 gpm[Ref, 3] and 9720 gpm post recirculation (starting at 20 minutes after the initiation of the accident)
[Ref.3]. Table 3-5 displays the ratios that are used to scale the submerged materials, non submerged materials, and the materials that settle on the sump strainer.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-13 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-A LION D. C. Cook Units I & 2....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 12 of 23 Table 3-5: Debris Scaling Ratios Plant Test Ratio Screen Area 800.00 ft2 4.944 ft 2  .00618 Pool Volume 59,441 ft3 19.423 ft 3  .000327 The strainer area ratio is used to scale debris that is transported to the strainer, and the pool volume ratio is used to scale the material that remains submerged in the pool but does not reach the sump strainer.
The scaling methodology of Reference I states that these ratios be as close as possible.
The test strainer area and volume cannot yield the exact same ratio of the plant because the resulting debris quantities, required flow rate, and allowed strainer area based on the test apparatus would not. be practical.
According to Table 3-5, the amount that transports to the strainer will be scaled using a higher ratio (the strainer area ratio) than what is scaled using the pool volume ratio.In actuality, D.C. Cook has additional debris sources (i.e. Cal-Sil, Min-K, etc) submerged in the containment pool that are not transported to the Main Strainer.
The difference between the scaling ratios yields a higher value of debris (Cal-Sil, Min-K, Marinite, etc.) because the amount that transports to the strainer is scaled using a larger ratio (the strainer area ratio of 0.00618) than what is scaled using the pool volume ratio (0.000327).
To compensate for this, an amount of material was subtracted from the submerged portion, based on the difference in the two scaling ratios and the amount of debris on the strainer.
The debris to be subtracted is calculated as follows: 0.000327 -0.00618 = -0.005853-0.005853
* (quantity of debris on strainer)This term yields the amount of debris that must be subtracted from the submerged portion of debris to account for the smaller strainer scaling ratio and allow for the proper amount of debris in the pool (Cal-Sil in particular) for chemical effects. If the calculated quantity is greater than the submerged amount, then the submerged debris amount will be reduced to 0.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-14 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ALION SCIENCE.A..
TECHNOLO Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 13 of 23 3.2.2 Flow Rate The D. C. Cook sump flow rate through the main strainer pre recirculation (6500 gpm) will set the test apparatus flow rate for the initial 20 minutes of testing. This test flow rate will be 40.21 gpm [Ref. I].The post recirculation test apparatus flow rate is determined based on the post recirculation flow rate of 9720 gpm. Per Reference I, the post recirculation test apparatus flow rate is determined so that the strainer approach velocity is equal to the sump strainer approach velocity in containment.
Four pockets of the actual D. C. Cook Units I & 2 sump strainers will be used in the test apparatus (test strainer area 4.944 ft 2). Based on this strainer area and the containment sump strainer approach velocity (0.0271 ftls), the test apparatus flow rate is calculated to be 227.62 liters/min (60.13 gpm) [Ref. I]. Table 3-6 displays these parameters.
Table 3-6: Flow Rate Parameters Plant Test Initial 20 min. 20 min. to 30 days Initial 20 min., i 20 min. to 30 days Screen Area 800.00 ft 2  800.00 ft 2  4.944 ft 2  4.944 ft 2 Approach Velocity*
0.0181 ft/s i 0.0271 ft/s 0.0181 ft/s 0.0271 ft/s Flow Rate 6500 gpm 9720 gpm 40.21 gpm 60.12 gpm* Approach velocity is consequential to flow rate and not a controlled parameter of testing.The spray flow of the initial 25 minutes of testing will be supplied from two spray containers (I 00 liters of fluid with target pH 9.9 for the first 20 minutes and 25 liters of fluid with target pH of 12.76 for the last 5 'minutes) at the flow rate of 5 liters/min.
The basis of this flow rate is established to ensure uniform spray distribution over the non submerged material surfaces.
Following the depletion of the two spray containers, spray flow will continue for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes. This spray flow will be supplied from the test apparatus recirculation fluid at a flow rate that is equal to half of the recirculation flow provided in Table 3-6, which is calculated to be 0.5
* 227.62 gpm = I 13.81 gpm.3.3 Temperature and pH Time History The temperature and pH time history of the test will conservatively simulate the containment sump fluid temperature and pH profiles for the 30 day mission time a LOCA as shown in Figure 3-1 and 3-2, in accordance with Reference
: 3. Table 3-7 shows the test apparatus fluid temperature profile in a tabular form.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-15 of Page D-27 QDDesign Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIEN.C. AND TE NOLO G D ocum ent N o.: A LIO N -C A L-A EP-4459-0 1 Revision:
2 Page 14 of 23 E 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 I.E-4-Tmin [Ref 5]--Tnom [Ref 5]-x-- Tmax [Ref 5]---- -Sump Temperature
[Ref-6] ----------Test Temperatu-re L --------L -------I I I I-02 L.E-0I I.E+00 I.E+-0I I.E+02 I.E+03 I.Time (minutes)Figure 3-1: Containment Pool Temperature Profile E+04 I.E+05 13 12.5 -12 11.5 II -S10.5 10 -=9.5 --9 8.5 8 L.E+00 I.E+01 I.E+02 I.E+03 I.E+04 I.E+05 Time (minutes)Figure 3-2: Containment Pool pH Profile ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-16 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 A LION SCIENCE 4...CHNOLOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I5 of 23 Table 3-7: Test Apparatus Fluid Temperature Profile Time Temperature hours (days) (&deg;F) (CC)0 0 190 87.8 1 0.04 180 82.2 4 0.17 170 76.7 12 0.5 160 71.1 24 I 150 65.6 48 2 140 60.0 120 5 135 57.2 240 10 130 54.4 360 15 125 51.7 480 20 115 46.1 600 25 100* 37.8*672 28 80 26.7 720 30 80 26.7* Alion approval required prior to reducing temperature below 100 OF (37.8 'C)The test apparatus temperature will simulate the containment sump temperature in accordance with Figure 3- 1. The test is intended to replicate the containment post-LOCA chemistry in the pool fluid including the chemistry contributions of the non-submerged materials that are exposed to spray. The test is conducted at a temperature profile that simulates the containment temperature profile through out the duration of the test. This temperature profile is bounding as shown in Figure 3-1 because a higher temperature throughout the duration of the test allows more dissolution.
At the end of the test, the temperature used during testing is also bounding because a lower temperature at the end of the test allows maximum precipitation.
The test apparatus temperature will simulate the containment sump pH in accordance with Figure 3-2.The initial containment sump fluid target pH is 8.2 [Ref. 7]. The sump fluid pH increases over the initial 25 minutes as a result of the containment spray higher pH. Upon initiation of the accident during the injection phase (20 minutes of duration), borated water is injected into the system through the refueling water storage tank to aid in reactivity control. Simultaneously, borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide (pH 9.9) is sprayed inside containment.
During the recirculation phase, sump pool fluid is injected to the reactor vessel and sprayed inside containment.
The recirculated injection fluid is borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide and sodium tetraborate to a target pH of 8.9. During the initial ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-17 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-OI Revision:
2 Page 16 of 23 five minutes of spray in the recirculation phase, the spray consists primarily of sodium hydroxide with a target pH of 12.76. Following the initial five minutes, spray continues for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes by spraying sump fluid with a target pH of 8.9. The spray is terminated at 48 hours while recirculation continues to the mission time of 30 days.Testing is done at parameters based on plant and test conditions so as to achieve the required quantities and pH.3.4 Materials/Surrogates Tables 3-I and 3-3 display the types and quantities of materials that would be present in the D. C. Cook Units I & 2 containment pool and/or carried to the sump strainer following a LOCA. From the list of.materials that are transported on the sump strainer, the exact materials for Cal-Sil, Min-K, and Marinite I will be used in the test. The latent fiber, epoxy and alkyd paint coatings, and dirt/dust will be substituted with equivalent surrogate material as justified in Reference
: 2. Marinite 36 consists of 70 %Cal-Sil and 30 % Wollastonite 800H [Ref. 3]. Therefore, Marinite 36 will be substituted by proportional quantities of Cal-Sil and Wollastonite 800H.Metallics that are exposed to containment spray or submerged will be represented in the test using the exact metal material.
D. C. Cook Units I & 2 metallic debris consists of aluminum, zinc, copper, and carbon steel. These metals will be manufactured in sheets to expose the corresponding.
surface area.The galvanized steel surface area and the cold zinc coated areas will be substituted with galvanized steel of the same area. Although the cold zinc coated steel is susceptible to lower zinc corrosion, there is no data available to estimate the reduced corrosion of the zinc in cold coated zinc steel surfaces.Therefore, the D. C. Cook cold coated steel surface area will be treated as galvanized steel.The latent fiber debris on the sump strainer will be represented by NUKON.Coatings such as epoxy and alkyds will be represented using surrogate material based on the coatings'constituent material physical and chemical properties.
The suitable surrogate, green silicon carbide, was chosen as a substitute for the coatings based on Reference 2, "Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing".Dirt/Dust debris will be substituted by a surrogate.
Per Reference 2, the dirt mix surrogate material ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-18 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-A LI10ON D. C. Cook Units I &2 SUEC" A.ND TECHNOOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 17 of 23 nominally consisting of 78% containment dirt/dust mix and 22% iron oxide may be substituted for actual containment dirt/dust.
 
===3.5 Chemicals===
The boric acid, sodium hydroxide, and sodium tetraborate concentrations in the D. C. Cook containment sump fluid and containment spray, shown in Table 4-4, will be used in the test to attain the respective pHs.4 METHODOLOGY This section applies the scaling methodology to determine the material quantities that will be used in the test apparatus.
 
===4.1 Debris===
Material Submerged plant materials will be submerged into the test apparatus fluid for the duration of the test.This will simulate the chemical effects that the materials would cause in the plant.Non submerged plant materials will be exposed to the test apparatus spray fluid of pH and duration specified in Figure 3-1. Non submerged materials at D. C. Cook Units I & 2 include metallic aluminum, galvanized steel, copper, concrete, carbon steel, and grease.4.2 Scaling The scaling report methodology of Reference I, "Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing", was used to scale the quantities of containment materials to determine the quantities that will be used in the test apparatus.
Alion has developed a report that describes the scaling process [Ref. I]. The scaling will be configured to achieve the following conditions:
I. The test apparatus strainer average fluid approach velocity should be equal to the containment sump strainer average approach velocity, where the approach velocity is equal to the flow rate divided by the strainer area.2. The temperature and pH conditions of the tests should be as representative as possible to the actual containment conditions.
: 3. The ratio of the test strainer surface area to the containment sump strainer surface area ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-19 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ALION1 SC..CE.A..
TECHNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 18 of 23 should as close as possible tothe ratio of the test apparatus fluid volume to the containment sump fluid volume.4. The fibrous debris bed thickness on the strainer of the test apparatus should be equal to the containment sump strainer equivalent debris bed thickness.
The control of the parameters defined above ensures that the corrosion/leaching conditions and debris head loss characteristics that occur during the experiment are sufficiently representative of the containment conditions during the postulated LOCA. Table 4-I displays the scaled test materials.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-20 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 19 of 23 4.2. I Scaled Test Material Table 4-1: Scaled Test Material Quantities D. C. Cook Units I& 2 Plant Sp iflc Input Data Plant Test II Water Volume (max) -ft3 -ft3 -L Water Volume (min) 59441 ft3 19.42 ft3 550 L 12 Screen Size 800.0 ft2 4.944 ft2 4593.1 cm2 13 Approach Velocity*
0-20 min. 0.0181. ft/s 0.0181 ft/s 0.552 cm/s (Flow Rate / Screen Size) 20+ min. 0.0271 ft/s 0.0271 ft/s 0.826 cm/s 14 Flow Rate: 0-20 min. 6500 gpm 40.21 gpm 152.2 LUm 20+ min. 9720 gpm 60.13 gpm 227.6 L/m Spray Flow Rate for Testing: First 25 mi. 1.32 gpm 5 Um 25 min. to 48 hours 30.06 gpm 113.8 L/m 15 Temperature Profile Fig 3-I Fig 3-I Fig 3-I 16 Debris Bed Thickness*(Total Fiber on Sump Screen/ SA) 0.098 in. 0.098 in. 0.249 cm Debris Quantity and Exposed Metallics in Pool -Subrrierged
--_ j'III Metallic Aluminum 10.9 ft2 0.0036 ft2 3.3 cm2 112 Zinc 71,162.60 ft2 23.270 ft2 21618.5 cm2 113 Copper 1021.6 ft2 0.3341 ft2 310.4 cm2 114 Concrete 6412.78 ft2 2.0970 ft2 1948.2 cm2 115 Glycol (undiluted) 93.58 ft3 0.03060 ft3 866.5 cm3 116 Oil 32.76 ft3 0.01071 ft3 303.3 cm3_ :!:"i E.Expo0ed Metallics in Spray Unsubmerged.
_____ _____1111 Metallic Aluminum 8013.4 ft2 2.620 ft2 2434.1 cm2 1112 Zinc 504,729 ft2 165.05 ft2 153336.5 cm2 1113 Concrete 1077.1 ft2 0.3522 ft2 327.2 cm2 1114 Copper 39,735.20 ft2 12.993 ft2 12070.9 cm2 1115 Carbon Steel 32,666.20 ft2 10.682 ft2 9923.9 cm2 1116 Grease (0.175 ft3 spread over) 420.90 ft2 0.1380 ft2 128.2 cm2*Debr~isQuianftitie inSum0p Sicreen' ~ >.IV/I Latent Fibert 6.5 Ut3 0.096 lbs 43.5 g IV/2 Epoxy (inside ZOI, 10 mi) 95.04 lbs 0.5873 lbs 266.4 g IV/3 Epoxy (OEM, outside ZOI) 6.76 lbs 0.0418 lbs 18.96 g IV/4 Epoxy (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 16.12 lbs 0.0996 lbs 45.2 g IV/5 Alkyd (inside ZOI, 10 mi) 0.836 lbs 0.0052 lbs 2.359 g IV/6 Alkyd (OEM, outside ZOI) 10.416 lbs 0.0644 lbs 29.2 g IV/7 Alkyd (non-OEM, outside ZOI) 1.972 lbs 0.0122 lbs 5.53 g IV/8 Marinite I 0.1199 lbs 0.000741 lbs 0.336 g IV/9 Marinite 36 1.00 lbs 0.006185 lbs 2.805 g IV/10 Min-K 0.704 lbs 0.00435 lbs 1.973 g IV/[ I Cal Sil 169.56 lbs 1.048 lbs 475.4 g IV/12 Dirt/Dust 88.4 lbs 0.546 lbs 247.7 g Approacn velocity ano bea tn!cKness are resuIlt Of othrer test parameters aria not controlled urdug estung.t Plant fiber volume
* 2.4 lb1ft 3
* strainer scaling factor = test fiber mass Note that the debris quantities are scaled based on the strainer area scaling ratio of 0.00618 and the pool volume ratio of 0.000327.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-21 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 A LION....................
Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 20 of 23 4.3 Materials/Surrogates The latent fiber will be represented using NUKON, as shown in Reference 2, based on density comparisons.
NUKON has a density of 2.4 lb/ft3 and a fiber diameter of 7 microns.Coatings will be represented by chemically inactive silicon carbide surrogate with a density of 101.8 Ibs/ft 3 and a particle size of 10 microns. The coatings will be scaled by the appropriate scaling factor, and then adjusted by the density of the material and the density of the surrogate.
This calculates the proper weight of the surrogate that must be used in order to represent each coating. The density of each coating is given in Table 4-2.Table 4-2: Coatings Density Values Density Density Coatings (QbIft 3) Surrogate (Ib/ft3)Epoxy tT 94 Green Silicon Carbide 101.8 Alkyds 98 Green Silicon Carbide 101.8 The containment dirt/dust will be represented by a debris mixture of 70% dirt and 30% iron oxide [Ref.2]: This surrogate material has a lower density (133 Ib/ft3) than the prescribed dirt mix (169 lb/ft 3) used in head loss testing. Black oxide (Magnetite) was used in place of red oxide (Hematite) as the thermodynamic conditions during testing allow black oxide to stabilize as red oxide. In order to ensure that full representation of chemical activity occurs in the test loop, the scaled quantity of containment dirt/dust will be represented by the same mass of dirt/dust surrogate.
This will yield a slightly conservative mass of dirt/dust surrogate based on the difference in densities of dirt/dust in containment and dirt/dust surrogate.
Marinite 36 will be represented by 30% by weight of Wollastonite 800H and 70% of Cal-Sil per Reference
: 3. The D. C. Cook Units I & 2 scaled materials including surrogates are shown on Table 4-3. Mobil SHC 824, Mobilux EP 2 and Preston  Antifreeze/Coolant were the types of oil, grease and glycol used.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-22 of Page D-27 9) Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 ALION....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 21 of 23 Table 4-3: D. C. Cook Test Material Quantities Parameter Value Metric II Water Volume 19.42 ft3 550 L 12 Screen Size 4.944 ft2 4593.1 cm2 13 Approach Velocity*
0-20 min. 0.0181 ft/s 0.552 cm/s (Flow Rate / Screen Size) 20+ min. 0.0271 0.826 cm/s Flow Rate: 0-20 min. 40.21 gpm 152.2 LUm 14 20+ min. 60.13 gpm 227.6 LUm Spray Flow Rate: 0-25 min. 1.32 gpm 5 LUm 25 min. to 48 hr 30.06 gpm 113.8 L/m 15 Temperature Profile Figure 3-I Figure 3-1 Debris Bed Thickness*
0.098 in 0.249 cm 16 (Total Fiber on Sump Screen/ SA)Material Submerged (not on strainer)III Metallic Aluminum 0.0036 ft2 3.3 cm2 112 Zinc 23.270 ft2 21618.5 .cm2 113 Copper 0.3341 ft2 310.4 cm2 114 Concrete 2.0970 ft2 1948.2 cm2 115 Glycol (undiluted) 0.03060 ft3 866.5 cm3 116 Oil 0.01071 ft3 303.3 cm3 Material Non Submerged IIII Metallic Aluminum 2.620 ft2 2432.6 cm2 1112 Zinc 165.05 ft2 153221.0 cm2 1113 Concrete 0.3522 ft2 326.98 cm2 1114 Copper 12.993 ft2 12062.44 cm2 1115 Carbon Steel 10.682 ft2 9917 cm2 Grease 1116 (1.62 cm 3 spread over the area 128 cm 2) 0.1380 ft2 128.2 cm2 Debris on Sump Screen IVI NUKON 0.096 lbs 43.5 g IV2 Cal Sil 1.052 lbs 477.2 g IV3 Marinite I 0.000741 lbs 0.336 g Wollastonite 800H IV4 (Marinite
: 36) 0.001855 lbs 0.841 g IV5 Min-K 0.00435 lbs 1.973 g IV6 Dirt/Dust
.0.546 lbs 247.7 g IV7 Green Silicon Carbide (coatings) 0.876 lbs 397.3 g* Approach Velocity and bed thickness are results of other test parameters and not controlled during testing.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-23 of Page D-27 4) Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIENCE AD TECHNOLOG Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 22 of 23 4.4 Chemicals The test will be conducted in the test apparatus and will also utilize two additional containers where spray fluid will be stored. The plant parameters in Reference 5, ALION-REP-AEP-3085-I I "D.C. Cook Units I & 2: Characterization and Sequence of Events Associated with ECCS Sump Recirculation", Revision 0 and Reference 7, MD-12-CTS-I 18-N "Containment Spray System and Recirculation Sump Minimum and Maximum pH", Revision 4 were conservatively converted to the test parameters so as to obtain the quantities and target pH ranges, all of which are presented in Table 4-4. The initial test apparatus fluid will consist of 425 liters of demineralized water. Added to the demineralized water is boric acid buffered with sodium tetraborate in the proportions specified in Table 4-4 to attain a target pH of 8.2. One of the two containers will contain 100 liters of demineralized water. Added to this demineralized water is boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide in the proportions specified in Table 4-4 to attain a target pH of 9.9. The second of the two containers will contain 25 liters of demineralized water. Added to this demineralized water is sodium hydroxide in the proportion specified in Table 4-4 to attain a target pH of 12.76. These specified fluids will simulate the'containment sump fluid and the spray fluid. At approximately 25 minutes in the test when the spray containers have been emptied, the expected test apparatus fluid pH should settle at the target 8.9.Table 4-4: Scaled pH Controlling Chemical Compounds of the Test Apparatus
[Ref. 5, 7]Injection Recirc. Range Fluid Spray Injection spray of Fluid Molecular Concen- Fluid Concen- Spray Concen- Recirc. pH Weight tration pH tration pH tration Spray pH Time >Chemical (g) (g/L) Target (g/L) Target (g/L) Target 25 min H 3 B0 3  61.77 8.41 5.1 0.0 NaOH 39.99 0 8.0-8.5 2.7 9.7- 10.1 2.1 12.5- 12.9 8.5-9.2 Na 2 B 4 0 7  381.37 7.9 0.0 0.0 10H 2 0 I I ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-24 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2............
CHNOLOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page 23 of 23 5. CONCLUSION Sections 3 and 4 of this document present a comparison between Revisions I (used as input for testing)and 2 of ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01, "Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program -D. C. Cook Units I & 2". This comparison clarifies that the parameters that the tests were conducted at (Revision I) and the parameters that were obtained later (Revision
: 2) are different by a negligible amount. Thus, the results of 30-Day chemical effects testing for D. C. Cook Units I & 2 are acceptable.
: 6. REFERENCES I. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-01 "Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing," Revision I.2. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-02 "Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing," Revision I.3. ALION-CAL-AEP-3085-16 "D. C. Cook Units I & 2 Summary of Debris Generation and Debris Transport Results", Revision I.4. DIT-B-02995-01 dated 10/05/07, D. C. Cook Calculation SD-070517-001 "D. C. Cook Units I and 2 GSI-191 Containment Building Materials Inventory Calculation", Revision 0. (Note that Revision I of SD-070517-001 was reviewed.
Changes do not impact this calculation)
: 5. ALION-REP-AEP-3085-1 I "D.C. Cook Units I & 2: Characterization and Sequence of Events Associated with ECCS Sump Recirculation", Revision 0.6. Figure (Unit 1) 14.3.4-9, Indiana & Michigan Power D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).7. MD7 12-CTS- I 18-N "Containment Spray System and Recirculation Sump Minimum and Maximum pH", Revision 4.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-25 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-AL10N D. C. Cook Units I & 2 SCIENCE ANO TECHNOLOGY Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I- I of 1-3 Appendix I -HLOSS 1.1 Output Files ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-26 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2 A LIO0N....................
YDocument No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I-2 of 1-3 HLOSS 1.1 Strainer/Sump Screen Head Loss Calculation Problem Analyzed:
Cook Specific Case: Loop4_MainBreak Date and Time Run: 31-MAR-08, 12:53:30 Time Into the Transient (sec) -FLOW CONDITIONS:
Temperature (Deg F)Strainer Flow Rate (gpm)Total Flow Rate (gpm)Pool Volume (cu-ft)Debris Removed from Pool (frac)Debris Deposited on Strainer (frac)Fluid Density (lb/cu-ft)
Fluid Viscosity (lb/ft/sec)
STRAINER PARAMETERS:
Strainer Type Actual Strainer Surface Area (sq ft)Surface Area Reduction(sq ft)Effective Surface Area (sq ft)TOTAL DEBRIS PARAMETERS:
Volume Mass (cu ft) (lb)Fiber 7.75 18.60 0.-190.00-9720.00-9720.00-50000.-1.000-1.000-60.36-0.219E-03 0-800.00-0.00-800.00 FSP.000 cal-sil dirt-dust epoxyalkyd NA NA min-k STRAINER DEBRIS PARAMETERS:
Volume (cu ft)Fiber 7.75 Fiber 0.11 cal-sil 1.17 dirt-dust 0.63 epoxyalkyd 1.08 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 min-k 0.00 Ave Particles 2.88 167.90 105.40 116.90 0.00 0.00 0.69 Mass (lb)18.60 18.60 167.90 105.40 116.90 0.00 0.00 0.69 390.89 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Density (lb/cu-f t)2.40 175.00 144.00 168.00 107.90 250.00 144.00 162.00 135.68 FDB 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Size (ft)0.23300E-04 0.16400E-04 0.56800E-04 0.32800E-04 0.32800E-04 0.16400E-04 0.82000E-05 SV (ft**-l)171673.83 365853.69 105633.80 182926.84 182926.84 365853.69 731707.38 264527.16 261789.17 solidity (frac)0.500 Ave Debris Maximum Bed Solidity Compression Factor HEAD LOSS
 
==SUMMARY==
:-0.500-1.00 Head Loss (ft water)15.21 Deposition DEBRIS SURFACE CONDITIONS:
Approach Velocity (ft/s)Velocity dto dt (ft/sec) (in) (in)0.027 0.116 0.090 Flag = linear deposition 0.027 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment D, Page D-27 of Page D-27 Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D. C. Cook Units I & 2....................
Document No.: ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-01 Revision:
2 Page I-3 of I-3 HLOSS 1.1 Strainer/Sump Screen Head Loss Calculation Problem Analyzed:
Cook Specific Case: Loop4_MainBreak Date and Time Run: 31-MAR-08, 12:52:31 Time Into the Transient (sec) -FLOW CONDITIONS:
Temperature (Deg F)Strainer Flow Rate (gpm)Total Flow Rate (gpm)Pool Volume (cu-ft)Debris Removed from Pool (frac)Debris Deposited on Strainer (frac)Fluid Density (lb/cu-ft)
Fluid Viscosity (lb/ft/sec)
STRAINER PARAMETERS:
Strainer Type Actual Strainer Surface Area (sq ft)Surface Area Reduction(sq ft)Effective Surface Area (sq ft)TOTAL DEBRIS PARAMETERS:
Volume Mass (cu ft) (ib)Fiber 6.50 15.60 1 0.-190.00-9720.00-9720.00-50000.-1.000-1.000-60.36-0.219E-03 0-800.00-0.00-800.00 FSP FDB.000 cal-sil dirt-dust epoxyalkyd NA NA min-k STRAINER.DEBRIS PARAMETERS:
Volume (cu ft)Fiber 6.50 Fiber 0.09 cal-sil 1.19 dirt-dust 0.53 epoxyalkyd 1.23 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 min-k 0.00 Ave Particles 2.95 Ave Debris 170.68 88.40 131.14 0.00 0.00 0.70 Mass (lb)15.60 15.60 170.68 88.40 131.14 0.00 0.00 0.70 390.92 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Density (lb/cu-ft) 2.40 175.00 144.00 168.00 106.40 250.00 144.00 162.00 132.59 Size (ft)0.23300E-04 0.16400E-04 0.56800E-04 0.32800E-04 0.32800E-04 0.16400E-04 0.82000E-05 SV (ft**-l)171673.83 365853.69 105633.80 182926.84 182926.84 365853.69 731707.38 265658.97 263378.81 solidity (frac)0.500 Maximum Bed Solidity -Compression Factor -HEAD LOSS
 
==SUMMARY==
: Head Loss (ft water)15.66 Deposition DEBRIS SURFACE CONDITIONS:
Approach Velocity (ft/s)0.500 1.00 Velocity dto dt (ft/sec) (in) (in)0.027 0.097 0.091 Flag = linear deposition
-0.027 Summary Report for Impact of Chemical Effects on Containment Sump Strainer Head Loss -A L IO N D.C. Cook Units land 2....................
Document No: ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03 Revision:
0 Page: E- I of E-3 I Attachment E ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02, 30-Day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ#2 SCIENCE! AND TECHNOLOGY ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-2 of Page E-31 TECHNICAL DOCUMENT COVER PAGE Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision:
2 -TPage I of 24 Document Title: 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ#2 Project No: ALION-1002 Project Name: D. C. COOK 30 Day Integrated Chemical Effects Program at VUEZ Client Internal (Various)Document Purpose/Summary:
The objective of this specification is to delineate the requirements of a 30-day chemical effects test program that will obtain debris head loss (pressure drop) measurement taking into consideration the.highly integrated chemical environment over the 30 day mission time.&#xa9; 2007 Alion Science and Technology Corporation.
All rights reserved.Any distribution or unauthorized use of this content without the express written permission of Alion Science and Technology Corporation is strictly prohibited.
Design Verification Method: X Design Review Alternative Calculation Qualification Testing Professional Engineer (if required)
Approval N/A Date PrprdB: Luke D. Bockewitz Printed/Typed Name Signature C-- Date Reiee B: Printed/Typed Name 6r" Date Approved By: Robert Choromokos Appovd y: Printed/Typed Name Signature
/Date Form 3.3.1 Revision 2 Effective Date: 2/28/07 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-3 of Page E-31 A LION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REVISION HISTORY LOG Page: 2 of 24 Revision:
2 Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Document Name: 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ#2 Instructions:
Project Manager to provide a brief description of each document revision, including rationale for the change and, if applicable, identification of source documents used for the change.REVISION DATE Description 0 7-30-2007 Original Issue.8-10-2007 Incorporate reference ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 I, Revision 0.Debris-on-screen loads and temperature table updated on Appendix I 2 8-16-2007 per DC Cook Design Input Calculation, Revision I. Added List of Figures and List of Tables. Added flow sweep to Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4. Minor editorial corrections throughout document.Form 6.1.3 Revision I Effective Date: 2/28/07 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-4 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRO DUCTIO N .......................................................................................................
A 5 2.0 O BJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................
A 6 3.0 DESCRIPTIO N ...................................................................................................................
6 4.0 REQ UIREM ENTS ..............................................................................................................
A 8 4.1 Test Parameters
...................................................................................................................................................
9 4 .1 .1 T e st Sca ling ..............................................................................................................................................
9 4.1.2 Screen Properties
.................................................................................................................................
10 4.1.3 Fluid Properties
....................................................................................................................................
10 4.1.4 Test Vessel Materials/Coupons (Submerged/Unsubmerged)
..............................................
12 4.1.5 Sump Screen Debris Materials
......................................................................................................
14 4.1.6 Material Locations
................................................................................................................................
16 4.1.7 Test Temperature
................................................................................................................................
16 4.1.8 Containment Sump and Spray Flow ............................................................................................
1 6 4.1.9 Test Duration ........................................................................................................................................
17 4.2 Test Equipment Functional Requirements
..............................................................................................
17 4.3 Test Program Performance Guidelines
...................................................................................................
1 8 4 .3.1 T est M atrix ............................................................................................................................................
18 4.3.2 Pre-Test Activities
................................................................................................................................
18 4.3.3 Test Operation
....................................................................................................................................
19 4.3.4 Test Termination
...................................................................................................................................
22 4.3.5 Examination of Test Samples ......................................................................................................
22 5.0 Q UA LITY ASSURANCE
..............................................................................................
A 23 5.1 Quality Requirements
.......................................................................................................................................
23 5.2 Access to Test Facilities
...................................................................................................................................
24 5.3 Review of Test Documents
..............................................................................................................................
24 6.0 DELIVERA BLES ..............................................................................................................
A 24 6.1 Test Plan and Procedures
................................................................................................................................
24 6 .2 T est R epo rt .........................................................................................................................................................
24 6.3 Material and Examination Report .................................................................................................................
24
 
==7.0 REFERENCES==
 
...................................................................................................................
25 Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-5 of Page E-31 (* 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 A .L 1I LoN Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 4 of 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I 2 Pages LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Technical Document Review Checklist 3 Pages LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3- I: T est A pparatus .............................................................................................................................................
7 Figure 3-2: Screen/Filter Box .........................................................................................................................................
8 Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-6 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 A,,-L GlON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 5 of 25
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
 
With the issuance of GL-2004-02, licensees are required to assess the potential impact that chemical effects (products of corrosion or any other chemical reaction) may have on the head loss across submerged sump screens due to accumulation' of debris on its surface. Several different testing programs have been undertaken in an effort to better understand the role that chemical effects may have on the head loss characteristics of a debris-laden sump screen.The Integrated Chemical Effects Test (ICET) Program, jointly sponsored by the NRC and the Industry, was a series of limited scope tests meant to quantify and characterize potential chemical reaction products that may occur in a representative, post-Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) environment.
The five tests were intended to identify if and what reaction products may form under simulated containment sump conditions, using a fixed set of process materials and buffering agents. These tests did not investigate the impact that the environment or products would have on head loss across the sump screens, only the potential for forming reaction products.
The tests concluded that corrosion products can be produced with common PWR materials in the aqueous environment of the containment pool. The types and quantities were not explicitly determined from the ICET program, however in certain combinations, such as Calcium Silicate and TriSodium Phosphate, the quantities of Calcium Phosphate precipitate was noticed to be substantial.
In general, the impact of chemical effects on head loss occurs due to I) the corrosion/leaching of materials in containment when subject to the pH, temperature and coolant chemistry;
: 2) the subsequent potential re-association of elements in solution to form new compounds and precipitates dependent on the time, pH, temperature, and solubility in the coolant; and 3) the impact of these precipitates on debris head loss over time.To provide a technical basis for determining the impact of chemical effects 'on debris head loss, an integrated approach is proposed addressing all three phenomena.
This integrated approach includes the performance of a 30-day debris head loss experiment within a simulated containment environment.
This 30-day debris head loss experiment will be similar to the ICET program but will include a plant specific Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-7 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SCIE O N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 6 of 25 sump screen with the plant specific debris load to monitor head loss increases over the 30 day mission time.This document specifies the requirements for the development of this 30-day integrated chemical effects head loss test program for VUEZ Sequence # 2.2.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this specification is to delineate the technical and quality requirements of a test program to obtain debris head loss (pressure drop) taking into consideration the highly integrated chemical environment over the 30 day mission time.This specification is assembled with the general technical and quality requirements specified in the body of the text and the plant specific parameters (materials, temperature, flow and chemistry conditions) delineated in Appendix I.
 
==3.0 DESCRIPTION==
 
The test will be conducted in a test apparatus (Figure 3-1) with representative structural materials, insulation, and debris samples included in the simulated containment environment with their quantities scaled to preserve (to the extent possible) the plant specific conditions.
Representative debris samples are placed in the vessel in a chemically non-reactive container that allows water to flow in the region of the samples while confining the material.
Test conditions, i.e. material quantities and containment environment, will be within range of conditions considered for the integrated plant analysis, with specific parameters chosen to be conservative from a chemical effects perspective.
Reference 3 provides the technical basis for scaling plant-specific debris quantities to the test quantities.
The test tank has appropriate temperature control such that temperature of the simulated sump fluid follows the time-temperature profile that matches the plant estimated temperature profile to within +/-5'F. Reference 5 provides the technical basis for the plant-specific test temperature profile.The initial make-up of the solution within the tank replicates that which is assumed to occur at the start of a post-LOCA event. The tank solution pH will be set at time t=O through the dissolution of specified Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-8 of Page E-3130-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SCIEN O N, Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 7 of 25 quantities of boric acid (H 3 B0 3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium tetraborate (Na 2 B 4 07 I OH 2 0)to achieve a specified pH. Once the scaled amount of acid and buffers have been added, occasional adjustments may be necessary to maintain the desired pH.The test is designed to replicate the amount and rate of release of those elemental materials within containment that are potentially responsible for the formation of precipitates.
Small samples of fluid will be taken at regular intervals and analyzed for various metals (aluminum, calcium, copper, iron, boron, nickel, sodium, silicon, and zinc) by AES ICP spectroscopy or an equivalent technique.
Upon conclusion of the test, the mass of the metal coupons and their general condition will be recorded and compared to their initial state.Figure 3- I: Test Apparatus Figure 3-2 depicts the strainer screen that will be used in the testing apparatus.
The small-scale is the two tops row removed from a full-size D.C Cook strainer section.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-9 of Page E-31 A30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 A NLDI O D Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 8 of 25 RETAIN EXISTING TOP CLOSURE PANEL RETFAIN AL. 4 E- TYP-. PERFORATED SURFACES POCKET SECTIONS ARE SHOWN ONLY PARTIALLY PERFORATED FOR INFORMATION CUTAWAY VIEW SHOWING LINE TO REMOVE CUT LINE TO REMOVE ANO TOP TWO ROWS RETAIN TOP 2.2 POCKET Figure 3-2: Screen/Filter Box (Four pockets to be placed inside the tank)4.0 REQUIREMENTS This test specification addresses the following topical areas: I. Input parameters
: 2. Equipment functionality
: 3. Performance
: 4. Reporting The requirements for this test were translated from the plant specific parameters and are provided in Appendix I.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-10 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 ,A Ll0o N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 9 of 25 4.1 Test Parameters Testing will be conducted with scaled and representative material surface areas, sump volumes, and chemical constituents to provide conditions closely simulating the post-LOCA sump environment.
The test parameters and the bases for their selection are developed below.I. Scaling 2. Screen Description
: 3. Recirculation Fluid 4. Test Materials/Coupons
: 5. Debris Materials 6. Temperature
: 7. Flow 8. Duration In general, the test will be conducted in a scaled environment designed to perform debris head loss testing with a post-LOCA recirculating fluid. In order to promote the reactions that would be expected in this environment, the test apparatus shall contain the proportions of non-metallic, metallic, and construction materials similar to those expected to be present in typical containment environment.
4.1.1 Test Scaling The experiment is designed to replicate the potential corrosive interactions of the spray and pool fluid chemistry with those materials and debris sources in containment and resident on the sump screen.These potential interactions may cause additional precipitates and/or impacts on debris head loss over the 30 day mission time necessary to ensure adequate core cooling. These scaling parameters are selected to ensure that the reactions take place in the correct quantity and environment and the resulting debris head losses from the experiment will simulate the actual head loss of the containment sump strainer.The test apparatus is intended to represent the containment conditions with respect to pool liquid volume and chemistry, temperature, materials, and impact on debris head loss. To replicate the corrosion potential of the structural materials inside containment, the experiment will preserve the Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-1 1 of Page E-3130-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2---- L,,..ooO Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 10 of 25 material surface area to pool volume similar to the ICET experiments.
Debris materials may also be resident in the pool. Typical debris materials are large and small pieces of insulation.
Since insulation pieces are semi-porous materials, the quantity of these materials will be scaled through the test apparatus volume to containment pool volume ratio.The second critical parameter relates to debris head loss. Debris head loss is dependent upon fluid temperature, flow rate or approach velocity through the bed, and debris bed thickness and constituency.
Ideally, the experiment will preserve the bed thickness and composition (porosity) with the plant conditions and replacement screen.The basis and methodology for the scaling of the plants specific parameters to the test apparatus is provided in Reference 3.4.1.2 Screen Properties The screen within the test apparatus will consist of four actual sump strainer pockets as shown in Figure.3-2. The total screen area is 4.944 ft 2.4.1.3 Fluid Properties The test is intended to replicate the containment post-LOCA chemistry in the pool fluid including the chemistry contributions of the non-submerged materials that are exposed to spray. The initial containment sump fluid target pH is 8.2 consisting of borated water buffered with sodium tetraborate and sodium hydroxide.
During the injection phase (initial 20 minutes of the accident), borated water is injected into the system through the refueling water storage tank to aid in reactivity control.Simultaneously, borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide (target pH 9.9) is sprayed inside containment.
During the recirculation phase, sump pool fluid is injected to the reactor vessel and sprayed inside containment.
The recirculated injection fluid is borated water buffered with sodium hydroxide and sodium tetraborate.
During the initial five minutes of the recirculation phase, the spray consists primarily of sodium hydroxide (target pH 12.76). Following the initial 25 minutes, spray continues for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes by spraying sump fluid of pH in the range of 8.5 to 9.2. The spray is terminated at 48 hours while recirculation continues to the mission time of 30 days.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALI ON-REP-AE P-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-12 of Page E-31 ALION SCIENCE *50 TECSNOLOGY 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: I I of 25 During the injection or pre-recirculation phase of the test (initial 20 minutes of testing), there will be recirculation flow in the test apparatus with a flow rate of 152.2 liters/min.
Following the initial 20 minutes of testing, the test apparatus recirculation flow will be increased to the flow rate provided in A for the remaining duration of the test.4.1.3.1 Initial Water Quality The experiment test solution will start with demineralized water with a typical chemical composition.
CI F NO 3 (SO 4)2 SiO 2 Fe= 0.015 mg/L< 0.005 mg/L< 0.005 mg/L< 0.005 mg/L= 0.067 mg/L= 0.0035 mg/L Ca Mg NO 2 Cu Pb= 0.029 mg/L= 0.008 mg/L< 0.100 mg/L< 0.001 mg/L< 0.001 mg/L Record pH at room temperature (expected range 6.0 to 6.9).Record Conductivity at room temperature (expected
< 3.6 pS/cm).A chemical analysis of the starting water quality will be submitted as a quality record.4.1.3.2 Acid and Buffer Addition The test will be conducted in the test apparatus of Figure 3-1 and will also utilize two additional containers where spray fluid will be stored. The initial test apparatus fluid will consist of 425 liters of demineralized water. Added to the demineralized water is boric acid buffered with sodium tetraborate in the proportions specified in Appendix I to attain a target pH of 8.2. One of the two containers will contain 100 liters of demineralized water. Added to the demineralized water is boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide in the proportions specified in Appendix I to attain a target pH of 9.9. The second of the two containers will contain 25 liters of demineralized water. Added to the demineralized water is sodium hydroxide in the proportions specified in Appendix I to attain a target pH of 12.76. These specified fluids will simulate the containment sump fluid and the spray fluid. At the conclusion of the Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-13 of Page E-31 (0 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 CIL ID O Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 12 of 25 spray (48 hours), the test apparatus fluid pH should settle within the range of 8.5 to 9.2. If the fluid pH is less than 8.7, sodium hydroxide should be ad.ded to raise the pH above 8.9.4.1.3.3 Other Trace Metal Addition With respect to this test, no consideration will be given to potential radionuclide releases that may occur in a post-LOCA environment.
Radiological releases of sufficient magnitude to influence the post-LOCA pool chemistry would only occur if there was significant core damage, a condition that moves the issue into the severe accident mitigation arena.4.1.4 Test Vessel Materials/Coupons (Submerged/Unsubmerged)
The materials to be included in the test vessel are intended to represent the significant structural materials which could interact with the containment spray or pool chemistry.
These materials will be placed in the recirculating solution.
The types and quantity of material and coupons is presented in Appendix I. These values can be conservatively rounded up slightly.
The test coupons will be marked to provide positive identification to the experiment and project files. The marking, initial weight, and initial surface area are to be recorded.4.1.4.1 Aluminum Material The aluminum material is commercial grade aluminum Al 1100 (UNS 91100). It is commercial grade structural aluminum and has a composition of 99.0% Al, I% Si & Fe, and 0. 12% nominal Cu. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. These materials will be provided to the test facility.4.1.4.2, Zinc Material The zinc material is high grade commercial zinc alloy ASTM B6-06 (UNS Z ISO I). It is 99.5% Zn and represents those surfaces in containment that are galvanized surfaces and zinc coatings.
The quantity is provided in Appendix I. These materials will be provided to the test facility.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-14 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SL I ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 13 of 25 4.1.4.3 Concrete Material Concrete will be present in the test apparatus in a block or chip form. The surface area of the blocks or chips will be approximated.
The concrete is a commercially prepared concrete.
The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.4.4 Carbon Steel The carbon steel is commercially available general purpose low carbon steel-annealed ground finish (decarb-free) sheet meeting ASTM A36 specifications.
The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.4.5 Copper All copper ground cable is 4/0 (AWG/kcmil) or 460 mils diameter solid copper cable with density of 640.50 lb per million feet supplied by Okonite Company.Air lines are '/4" (0.375 o.d. & 0.305 i.d.), V2" (0.625 o.d. & 0.527 i.d.), and I" (1. 125 o.d. & 0.995 i.d.)diameter Type K copper tubings.Imperial Supplies LLC supplies the 'A" o.d. (wall gage 0.030 in.) and 5/8" o.d. (wall gage 0.035 in.) bright annealed, standard seamless copper tubings for heat exchangers (Westinghouse ice condenser Air Handling Unit [AHU]) and ventilation (American Air Filter) units. The cooling fins in the AHU of the ice condenser are 6 in. W x 15 in. L with a 6 mil thickness; the fans in the ventilation system are 6.5 in. W x 34 in. L and 7 mil thickness.
This material allows for a high surface to volume ratio and alleviates crowding inside the vessel. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.4.6 Ethylene Glycol The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-15 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 L I O N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 14 of 25 SCIENCE AND TECHNO .oc m ntN:yLO 4.1.4.7 Oil/Grease The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material Mobil Oil Mobilux EP 2% will be provided to the test facility.4. 1.5 Sump Screen Debris Materials The test tank screen will contain a debris bed representing the debris bed resident on the plant replacement screen. This section will define the requirements for debris materials resulting from the LOCA that are resident on the screen. The experiment will contain four pockets of the screen shown in Figure 3-2 with a debris bed of similar type and constituency of that postulated from the plant design documents.
The debris quantities on the screen are provided in Appendix I. The debris quantities will be prepared in accordance with approved procedures such that the debris mixture is homogenous and represents the debris mixture expected at the screen. The debris mixture will be introduced in the test apparatus in front of the screen pockets while the test apparatus recirculation flow is 152.2 liters/min.
This recirculation flow is the scaled from the actual containment sump recirculation flow (pre-recirculation) and ensures that the debris distribution on the test screen surfaces would be similar to the actual debris distribution on the containment sump screen surfaces.4.1.5.1 Cal Sil Insulation Commercially available Cal Sil insulation shall be prepared and retained in the tank. The material will consist of small fines that will be placed on the tank screen to represent that portion of the destroyed debris settled in the containment pool. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.5.2 Marinite I Commercially available Marinite I insulation shall be prepared and retained in the tank. The material will consist of small fines that will be placed on the tank screen to represent that portion of the destroyed Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-16 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SLI ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 15 of 25 debris settled in the containment pool. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.5.3 Min-K Commercially available Min-k insulation shall be prepared and retained in the tank. The material will consist of small fines that will be placed on the tank screen to represent that portion of the destroyed debris settled in the containment pool. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.5.4 NUKONTM Insulation Commercially available NUKONTM insulation shall be prepared and retained in the tank. The material will consist of small pieces boiled and placed on the test apparatus screen as surrogate replacing the latent fiber debris settled in the containment pool. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.5.5 Coatings Debris The scaled quantity of a coating debris simulant (particulate) will be placed on the test apparatus screen.The quantity of coating simulant (green silicon carbide) to be added to the debris mixture for introduction to the test apparatus screen is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.5.6 Latent Fiber The scaled quantity of latent fiber (represented by NUKONTM fiber) will be placed on the test apparatus screen. The quantity is provided in Appendix I and included in the NUKONTM fiber source term as applicable.
Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-1 7 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 ACC L-lTO ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 16 of 25 4.1.5.7 Dirt/Dust The scaled quantity of dirt/dust surrogate
(- 78% Dirt mix & 22% iron oxide) which is calculated to be transported to the sump screen will be placed on the test apparatus screen. The quantity is provided in Appendix I. This material will be provided to the test facility.4.1.6 Material Locations The scaled quantity and type of submerged test materials are provided on Appendix I. The submerged materials will be submerged in the test tank fluid and will remain submerged for the entire 30 days mission time in test apparatus fluid pH and temperature provided in Appendix I. The non submerged or materials exposed to spray are also provided in Appendix I.4.1.7 Test Temperature The temperature history expected in a post-LOCA environment is highly dependent upon plant operation scenarios and the nature of the break causing the LOCA. The maximum temperature is expected during the first twenty-four (24) hours of the LOCA shortly after the break occurs, with the sump temperatures gradually decreasing until the system temperature stabilizes and can be considered constant for the remainder of the ECCS mission time.The test fluid temperature will start at the maximum operating temperature of 190&deg;F as specified in the Appendix I, Table A 1-2.4.1.8 Containment Sump and Spray Flow The test is designed to circulate coolant through the debris bed to replicate the ECCS system in containment.
The recirculation flow rate will be 152.2 liters/min for the initial 20 minutes of testing. At 20 minutes the recirculation flow rate will be increased to the flow rate value provided in Appendix I for the remaining duration of the test. The Appendix I flow rate ensures that the test screen approach velocity is equal to the containment sump screen approach velocity.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-18 of Page E-31 W 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 LSCILEON TIooN Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 17 of 25 The spray flow of the initial 25 minutes of testing will be supplied from the two spray containers (I 00 liters of fluid with target pH 9.9 for the first 20 minutes and 25 liters of fluid with target pH of 12.76 for the last 5 minutes) at the flow rate of 5 liters/min.
The basis of this flow rate is established to ensure uniform spray distribution over the non submerged material surfaces.
Following the depletion of the two spray containers, spray flow will continue for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes. This spray flow will .be supplied from the test apparatus recirculation fluid at a flow rate that is equal to half of the recirculation flow provided in Appendix I.4.1.9 Test Duration The test duration is 30 consecutive calendar days.4.2 Test Equipment Functional Requirements The functional requirements for the test loop are described in this section: " The central component of the system is a test tank capable of maintaining both a liquid and vapor environment as would be expected in containment post-LOCA.
The tank need not be pressurized." Two heated containers (capacity 100 and 25 liters respectively) where spray fluid will be stored to supply the initial 25 minutes of spray flow in the test apparatus." The test loop shall be capable of temperature control of the liquid phase to within +/- 50 F (+/- 2.80 C)." The system shall be capable of circulating water at flow rates required by Appendix I.* The system shall be able to measure differential pressure across the screen within an accuracy of 0.75 kPa (3 inches of water).* The impact of formation of air bubbles in the debris bed shall be minimized by forming the debris bed at the maximum temperature.
The debris bed shall be periodically visually monitored to verify that air bubbles have not caused a deformation of the debris bed." A flow meter shall be provided in the recirculating piping with accuracy better than 5%.* The pump circulation flow rate shall be controlled at the pump suction to be within +/- 5% of the required flow rate. The ability to control flow at the levels identified for testing is to be demonstrated prior to initiating testing.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-19 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 ,0,,.CE AND TEC,.O.o.
N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 18 of 25" pH shall be measured periodically at the test temperature throughout the experiment.
* The tank shall accommodate mechanisms for immersing the sample coupons and other materials not provided on the screen surface." The tank shall provide for sufficient space and insulation between the test coupons as to preclude galvanic interactions among the coupons. As a minimum, different metallic test coupons shall be electrically isolated from each other and the test stand to prevent galvanic effects resulting from metal-to-metal contact between specimens or between the test tank and the specimens." All components of the test loop shall be made of corrosion resistant material (for example, stainless steel for metallic components).
4.3 Test Program Performance Guidelines 4.3.1 Test Matrix The plan will consist of one individual 30-day experiment based on the details are provided in Appendix I.4.3.2 Pre-Test Activities The following pre-test activities will be performed before the start of the actual tests and documented within the test report." The maximum cold temperature differential pressure of the debris beds with non chemical water will be tested to ensure the pressure instrumentation range is adequate.Acceptance criteria: dP< 5 Kpascal OK dP> 5 Kpascal The Alion representative will be notified" The ability to achieve a stable lower and upper bound pH at temperature shall be verified prior to the addition of test materials (for those vessels requiring a target pH).Acceptance criteria:
pH specified in Appendix I +/- 0.2 Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-20 of Page E-31 (30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2LAND .E.O LN Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 19 of 25 4.3.3 Test Operation Tank Fill The test sequence will be to first fill the test apparatus with the 550 liters of demineralized or reverse osmosis water, respectively.
An initial water chemistry sample will be taken.Tank Heat-Up Once the proper fluid quantity is introduced then data acquisition system will be turned on. The pump will be started with the throttle valve 100% open. The heater elements will then be activated and the temperature allowed to increase to the highest temperature as specified in Appendix I. Once the desired initial temperature is obtained, the test apparatus will be operated for V2 hour. to ensure that steady state conditions have been achieved.
The temperature steady state is defined as a stable temperature that does not vary by more than +/-2&deg;C (3.6&deg;F) in a 30-minute time frame. After reaching a temperature steady state, 100 liters and 25 liters of heated, demineralized water should be transferred to two spray containers.
Acid and Buffer Addition Following the transfer of demineralized water to the spray containers, boric acid, sodium hydroxide, and sodium tetraborate, as specified in Appendix I, will be introduced to the test apparatus and the two spray containers to achieve the desired pHs as follows:* Test apparatus solution -pH in the range of 8.0 to 8.5 with a target of 8.2 0 100-liter spray container
-pH in the range of 9.7 to 10. 1 with a target of 9.9* 25-liter spray container
-pH in the range of 12.5 to 12.9 with a target of 12.76 If the desired pH can not be attained with the respective quantities of the acid and buffers after both spray volumes have been added, sodium hydroxide should be used for obtain a tank pH of 8.9. The pH of the system must then be monitored during the 48-hour recirculation spray and adjusted to retain 8.9 pH. At the finish of the 48-hour recirculation spray, the tank volume may be adjusted one final time to obtain a pH of 8.9; after this point, the pH wil be monitored without any adjustments.
Material and Debris Addition The non submerged materials will be added to the apparatus before tank fill. The metal coupons and material (submerged) will be added after the acid and buffer dissolution.
Then the scaled quantity of Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-21 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 EL I ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 20 of 25 debris reaching the strainer will be introduced into the test apparatus at the recirculation flow rate of 152.2 liters/min.
The debris will be thoroughly mixed for at least 5 minutes in a container.
The debris slurry will then be introduced to the test apparatus screen such that all the debris can distribute across the screen while avoiding bypass from the screen area. It is not expected that the debris will form a uniform thickness bed on the test strainer surfaces.
The differential pressure will be allowed to reach steady state with this initial debris bed.Adjust Flow Once the dissolution of the acid and buffers are completed, the flow rate in the test apparatus will be adjusted to 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the full flow rate (227.7 liters/min) before any on-screen debris is added to the test tank. Each flow rate will be held for 5 minutes to constitute a clean screen flow sweep. After this flow sweep, the flow rate will be set to 152.2 L/min and the debris addition will commence to reaching the strainer.
The test apparatus flow rate will be maintained at 152.2 liters/min not only during the addition of the debris, but also during the initial 20 minutes of testing. At 20 minutes of testing the flow rate will be adjusted as specified in Appendix I. Stable differential pressure across the clean test apparatus screen shall be verified prior to adding debris.Spray Flow The test apparatus spray will start by taking suction from the 100-liter spray container at the flow rate of 5 liters/min.
With the depletion of the container fluid (20 minutes in the testing), spray will continue for 5 minutes by taking suction from the 20 liter container.
Following the initial 25 minutes of spray, spray will continue for an additional 47 hours and 35 minutes by diverting half of the recirculation flow rate (I 13.8 liters/min
= 227.6 liters/min
: 12) to the test apparatus spray.Test Start Time The test start time (t = 0) is defined as the time at which the acid and buffers have been dissolved, the test materials have been introduced, the desired target pH has been attained in the chamber, and spray from the 100 liter spray solution begins.Long Term Operation The test will then continue with the temperature profile as indicated in Appendix I with periodic sampling and pH measurements (at least two times per day).Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-22 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 AL,/ LI ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 21 of 25 The following general functional requirements shall be observed: " System cleanliness will be verified prior to initiating of test.* Demineralized water or reverse osmosis (RO) will be used to make up all solutions." The pH will be measured and recorded periodically at the test temperature (at least two times per day).* Differential pressure across the debris bed/screen will be measured and recorded continuously.
* The spray fluid for the first 20 minutes will be from the I 00-liter container and the following 5 minutes from the 25-liter container.
In both cases the flow rate will be 5 liters/min.
* At 25 minutes and through 48 hours, the test apparatus recirculating fluid will supply the spray flow.* Temperature will be measured and recorded continuously.
* Flow will be measured and recorded continuously, if the flow rate drops below the value listed in Appendix I by more than 15%, Alion will be notified immediately.
* The flow rate shall be adjusted at least once per day (if needed) to maintain the desired flow rate.* Small samples of the apparatus fluid will be taken at regular intervals.
* The pool volume/level will be recorded at least twice daily.* Should there be a need to add water to the apparatus to ensure that all material remain submerged (e.g. to compensate for vaporization) only distilled water will be added. At no time shall the submerged debris and other material be allowed to become non submerged until the test conclusion.
* The debris bed on the screen will be collected immediately upon the conclusion of the test.The debris bed will be photographed in its wet state. The debris bed will be visually inspected for any amorphous or gelatinous materials.
A portion of the wet bed will be retained in an air tight container.
* A portion of the debris bed will be placed in a 230" F (110* C) oven for twenty-four (24)hours. The dried mass will then be weighed and the resulting solids submitted for analyses by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and optical microscopy for material imaging and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) for elemental composition.
Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-23 of Page E-31 (* 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 AL L ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 22 of 25 Fluid samples will be analyzed for various metals (Al, K, Mg, Ca, Cu, Fe, B, Ni, Na, Si, and Zn), using AES ICP spectroscopy or a functional equivalent.
Chloride (Cl) analysis will be done by a wet chemistry method or a functional equivalent.
Fluid samples will be saved for future analysis as needed.4.3.4 Test Termination The maximum duration of any test is limited to 30 days from time zero. The test may be terminated upon notification and approval by Alion Science and Technology should significant precipitate formation occur and result in high differential pressure across the debris bed at the screen. Alion Science and Technology may request an alteration of the flow rate during the test in an attempt to lower the debris head losses to acceptable levels. VUEZ may discontinue the test should conditions arise that could permanently damage the test apparatus; however, if the differential pressure across the debris bed exceeds the limits of the instrumentation, this does not constitute a permanent damage situation, and it is anticipated the instruments will be secured, testing will continue, and the appropriate Alion personnel will be notified.After the 30-day run, a flow sweep will be initialized before system shutdown.
The flow will sweep begin at 125% of the running flow rate (227.6 Llmin) and continue downwards to 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% of 227.6 Llmin. At each step, the head loss must change less than 1% for two consecutive 30-min periods. After the head loss has stabilized as such at 25% of 227.6 Llmin., the testing is complete.4.3.5 Examination of Test Samples 4.3.5. I Test Coupon Examination The test coupons will be weighed and photographed before and after the testing. Prior to weighing, the coupons will be dried to remove moisture.
The records will be retained and attached to the test report.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-24 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 L ,INO D ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 23 of 25 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLO, D cu enGo:YLO 4.3.5.2 Materials Submerged in Test Apparatus Examination The material samples (non debris bed) will be weighed and photographed before and after the testing.Prior to weighing, the material samples will be dried to remove moisture.
The records will be retained and attached to the test report.4.3.5.3 Debris Bed Sample Examination The debris bed will be portioned to retain a wet sample and dry sample after the testing. Prior to portioning, the debris bed will be photographed and inspected for amorphous materials and a general condition assessment will be recorded.
The dry sample portion will be dried to remove moisture.
The records will be retained and attached to the test report and the debris bed will be maintained for future examination.
 
===5.0 QUALITY===
ASSURANCE 5.1 Quality Requirements The goal of the test program is to-develop head loss data that may be used to support safety related analyses.
Materials, parts, and components used by the testing program do not perform safety related functions and are not designated for installation and use in nuclear facilities.
The data developed from the test program, however, will be used to validate the performance and/or form the basis for design of components installed in a nuclear facility.
As such, the components associated with the measurement, acquisition, or analysis of test data are "important" to safety, but not classified as "safety-related." It should be noted that the performance or critical characteristics of the test apparatus and equipment are not the same as that required for a nuclear safety-related system (i.e. not withstand a design basis accident);
however, to ensure a quality output, the input and process will be controlled in a quality manner. Those processes that affect quality will be identified and controlled by project specific procedures (e.g. measurement and test equipment and test operation).
The fit, form, and function of materials, parts, and components used for testing and analysis shall be controlled by specification to ensure the required design characteristics are established to duplicate and/or model safety-related nuclear components.
Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-25 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SL I ON Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 24 of 25 5.2 Access to Test Facilities The supplier shall provide access to test facilities by Alion and customer personnel for witness and for inspection purposes.5.3 Review of Test Documents Alion will review and approve for use all materials, procedures, and plans prior to test implementation.
Alion may impose additional quality requirements in the purchase order.6.0 DELIVERABLES All document submittals shall be permitted a single review cycle. Required deliverables include as a minimum: 6.1 Test Plan and Procedures Test plans and procedures document details of testing, test hardware, test facility, instrumentation, procedures,'
data acquisition and recording, etc.6.2 Test Report This report documents the 30-day testing performed meeting the, requirements of this specification.
The report will include a detail description of the testing and results including test logs, raw data, and plots and graphs of key parameters over the duration of the experiment.
 
===6.3 Material===
and Examination Report This report will document the examination of the fluid and materials from the experiment.
Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-26 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SCIENLCEAND ION Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: 25 of 25
 
==7.0 REFERENCES==
 
I. NEI 04-07 Sump Performance Task Force, "Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology", Revision 0, Volume I, December 2004.2. Generic Letter 2004-02 "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors." 3. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-0 I, "Scaling of Materials in the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing," Revision I.4. ALION-REP-ALION-1002-02, "Surrogate Materials for the VUEZ Chemical Effects Head Loss Testing," Revision I.5. ALION-CAL-AEP-4459-0 1, "Design Input Requirements for 30-Day Chemical Effects Test Program-D.
C. Cook Units I & 2," Revision I.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-27 of Page E-31 W 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SE L I O Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page:- I of 1-2 APPENDIX I Table Al-I: D.C. Cook Plant Specific Input Data Parameter Value Metric I I Water Volume 19.42 ft3 550 L 12 Screen Size 4.944 ft2 4593. / cm2 13 Approach Velocity*
0-20 min. 0.0181 ft/s 0.552 cm/s (Flow Rate / Screen Size) 20+ min. 0.0271 0.826 cm/s Flow Rate: 0-20 min. 40.21 gpm 152.2 Lrn 14 20+ min. 60.13 gpm 227.6 Lrn Spray Flow Rate: 0-25 min. 1.32 gpm 5 LUM 25 min. to 48 hr 30.06 gpm 113.8 Lrn 15 Temperature Profile Figure 3-I Figure 3-/Debris Bed Thickness*
0.116 in 0.295 cm 16 (Total Fiber on Sump Screen/ SA)Material Submerged (not on screen)III Metallic Aluminum 0.0036 ft2 3.3 cm2 112 Zinc 23.270 ft2 2/6/8.5 cm2 113 Copper 0.3341 ft2 3/0.4 cm2 114 Concrete 2.0970 ft2 /948.2 cm2 115 Glycol (undiluted) 0.03060 ft3 866.5 cm3 116 Oil 0.01071 ft3 303.3 cm3 Material Non Submerged IIII Metallic Aluminum 2.620 ft2 2432.6 cm2 1112 Zinc 165.05 ft2 153221.0 cm2 1113 Concrete 0.3522 ft2 326.98 cm2 1114 Copper 12.993 ft2 /2062.44 cm2 1115 Carbon Steel 10.682 ft2 9917 cm2 Grease 1116 (1.62 cm 3 spread over the area 128 cm') 0.1380 ft2 /28.2 cm2 Debris on Sump Screen IVI NUKON 0.115 lbs 52.2 g IV2 Cal Sil 1.0353 lbs 469.6 g IV3 Marinite I 0.000732 lbs 0.332 g Wollastonite 800H IV4 (Marinite
: 36) 0.001835 lbs 0.832 g IV5 Min-K 0.00425 lbs 1.928 g iV6 Dirt/Dust 0.651 lbs 295.3 g IV7 Green Silicon Carbide (coatings) 0.782 lbs 354.7 g Acid and Buffer Additions V/I H3B031 8.41 g/L 3,574.25 g V/2 Na2B407 10H201 7.9 g/L 3,357.50 g V/3 NaOH' 0 g/L 0.00 g V/4 H3B03 2  5.1 g/L 510 g V/5 NaOH 2  2.7 g/L 270 g V/6 H3BO33 0 g/L 0 g V/7 NaOH 3  2.1 g/L 52.5 g V/8 Fluid pH after 48 hours 8.5 to 9.2*Aproach velocity and bed thickness are results of other test parameters and not controlled during testing.Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-28 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 A L I O N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: I-2 of I-2 Table Al-1 Continued 1 To be added to 2 To be added to the 25 liter 1 To be added to the test the 100 liter container fluid to apparatus fluid at t=0 sec to container to attain attain a pH in the attain a pH of the range of 8.0 a pH in the range range of 12.5 --8.5 of 9.7- 10.1 12.9 Table AI-2: Temperature Profile Time Temperature hours (days) OF (&deg;C)0 0 190 878 1 0.04 180 82.2 4 0.17 170 76.7 12 0.5 160 71.1 24 I 150 65.6 48 2 140 60.0 120 5 135 572 240 10 130 54.4 360 15 125 51.7 480 20 115 46.1 600 25 100* 378*672 28 80 26.7 720 30 80 26.7 Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-29 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SC L I O N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: AI of A3 SCIENCE AND TECHNOCOY Attachment A Technical Document Review Checklist Use or disclosure of this document is subject to the restriction on the Cover Page.
ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-30 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification -VUEZ SEQ# 2 SC, ,IENCE N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: A2 of A3 A L I 0 N TECHNICAL DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST SCIENCE AND TECHMNOLOGY I Document Number: ALION-TS-ALION-I002-02 Rev.: 2"{fno, -- +,r&#xf7;q- ,*]T,,+.nae .+.A ~ ~ ~f'~.aT~a nt;',afn XNIT ILS CRITERIA COMMENTS INdTDATE and DATE Document was prepared and formatted consistent with governing procedure and is 7 fully legible.Title of the document is consistent with contents.The objectives of the work are consistent with the project objectives and are clearly described.
Any acceptance criteria identified are reasonable.
-The technical approach is clearly defined and appropriate for the stated objectives.
I- L-- 7 The technical basis is either fully described or appropriately referenced.
T , Technical inputs are clearly defined, identified, and appropriately referenced.
Any codes, standards, and regulatory requirements are clearly defined, identified, and appropriately referenced._
___-__Any assumptions made are clearly defined and adequately justified, or flagged for further verification as appropriate.
All mathematical derivations specify all mathematical steps necessary for the Reviewer to clearly understand the conclusions.__
-"&sect;J 7 Have adjustment factors, uncertainties and empirical correlations used in the Tt-analysis been correctly applied?"er-IL 07 Any computer programs used are clearly identified as to name, version #, and No computer programs were used. N/A verification status.Any computer programs used are appropriate for their intended use. No computer programs were used. N/A The calculations/analyses are clearly presented and are consistent with the stated technical approach, design inputs, and assumptions.
Where results rely on computer calculations, the work clearly references the No computer programs were used. N/A supporting computer runs, and the input and output listings are provided.Where computer calculations are used, appropriate analysis parameters are used. No computer programs were used. N/A Analytical steps in the analyses can be verified without recourse to the originator.
The results presented are reasonable.
The conclusions presented are reasonable.
Any acceptance criteria identified have been met.Revision history, if applicable, clearly documents revisions.
"" ,/,&deg;r Appropriate quality requirements, including choice of governing procedure, have "-been identified. -'Where appropriate, applicable construction and operating experience has been This report does not require N/A considered.
construction/operating experience.
Where appropriate, the specified parts, equipment, and processes are suitable for No new parts or processes are being N/A the required application, specified in this report.Form 3.3.2 RevIsion 0 Effective Dam: 2/28107 Page I of 2 ALION-REP-AEP-4459-03, Revision 0, Attachment E, Page E-31 of Page E-31 30-day Integrated Chemical Effects Test Specification
-VUEZ SEQ# 2 SCIENCE LANDITECNOLO N Document No: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Revision 2 Page: A3 of A3 A L I 0 N TECHNICAL DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Document Number: ALION-TS-ALION-1002-02 Rev.: 2 Document Title: 30-dayvtIntegr ed Chemical EIfects Test Specmcauon
-V UEl SES& 2 CRITERIA COMMENTS INITIALS and DATE Where appropriate, specified materials are compatible with each No new parts or processes are being other and the design environmental conditions to which they will specified in this reporN/A be exposed. I Where appropriate, adequate maintenance features and No parts are affected that require N/A requirements are specified.
maintenance.
Where appropriate, accessibility and other design provisions are No parts are affected that require N/A adequate for performance of routine maintenance and repair, maintenance.
Where appropriate, adequate accessibility is provided to perform This report does not affect equipment N/A the in-service inspection required during system life. accessibility.
Where appropriate, design considered radiation exposure to the This report does not affect radiation N/A public and plant personnel.
exposure.Where appropriate, adequate handling, storage, cleaning, and This report does not affect shipping N/A shipping requirements have been specified.
requirements.
Where appropriate, adequate identification requirements have No new parts or processes are being N/A been specified.
specified in this report.Add additional line items below as Notes: I.2.An entry of "N/A" requires an explanation in the "Comments" block Preparer may add additional line items as necessary in the blank boxes provided.Form 3.3.2 Revision 0 Effective Date: 2/28/07 Page 2 of 2}}

Revision as of 08:02, 17 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML082520028&oldid=1472950"