Text

Spray Additive Tank Deletion Analysis for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 & 3
	ML20154L699
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Mcinerney J; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML13303B450	List: ML20154L699;
References
	TAC-60722, TAC-60723, WCAP-10975, NUDOCS 8603120173
	Download: ML20154L699 (64)
	v • d • e

-. _ _ - - - -. . . _ __

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-10975 SPRAY ADDITIVE TANK DELETION ANALYSIS FOR THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 W. A. Henninger EDITOR:

CONTRIBUTORS: J. L. Grover W. A. Henninger S. L. Murray K. Rubin G. G. Smith December 1985 D

APPROVED: e.. h /

, 'J. . . 'Mcinerriey, Manage Mechanical Equipment ystems Licer) sing Work performed under Shop Orders SYMP-417 & 487 B603120173 860310 DR ADOCK O ,361 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Nuclear Energy Systems P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 3744e:1d/120585

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 1 -1 1.1 Introduction 1 -1 1.1.1 Background 1 -1 1.1.2 Objectives 1-2 1.2 Summary of SAT Deletion Analysis 1-3 1.3 Conclusions 1-4 2.0 SPRAY COVERAGE AND DEPOSITION SURFACE EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 Selection of Surface Infcrmation 2-1 2.2 Development of Deposition Surface Data 2-1 2.3 Final Surface Areas Considered for Elemental 2-1 Radioiodine Removal 3.0 EVALUATION OF THE USE OF TRIS 0DIUM PHOSPHATE (TSP) 3-1 3.1 Development of pH Curves with Varying Amounts of 3-1 TSP and Boron 3.2 Determination of TSP Quantities Required 3-1 3.3 Selection and Justification of the Long Term 3-4 Sump Solution pH 3.4 Factors Affecting Adsorption and Desorption 3-6 of Iodine 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF RADI0 IODINE REMOVAL COEFFICIENTS 4-1 AND DECONTAMINATION FACTORS 4.1 Elemental Iodine Spray Removal 4-1 1

~

4.2 Particulate Iodine Spray Removal 4-2 4.3 Elemental Iodine Deposition Removal 4-3 4.4 Iodine Retention Limits in Sump Solution 4-4 4282e:1d/020686 i

~

C t

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION TITLE PAGE 5.0 DOSE ANALYSES 5-1 5.1 Original Dose Analysis Con *,istency Verification 5-1 5.2 Conservative Dose Analysis with SAT Deletion 5-1 5.3 Identification of Conservatisms 5-1 5.4 Modified Dose Analysis 5-2 6.0 EFFECTS OF REVISED CONDITIONS ON HYDROGEN GENERATION 6-1 AND EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION 6.1 Effects on Hydrogen Production From Zinc and 6-1 Aluminum Corrosion 6.2 Equipment Qualification 6-3 7.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 7-1 7.1 Description of Proposed Changes 7 -1 7.2 Safety Analysis 7-2 7.3 Safety and Significant Hazards Determination 7-4 7.4 Proposed Specifications 7-4

8.0 REFERENCES

8-1 J

APPENDIX A PARANETERS AND INFORMATION USED IN SONGS 2 & 3 A-1 SAT DELETION ANALYSIS 4282e:1d/020686 11 i

--,---r--- - ,r--- ..,. , _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 2-1 Spray and Deposition Surface Areas 2-3 2-2 Sunmary of Spray and Deposition Surface Areas 2-13 2-3 Modified Spray and Deposition Surface Areas 2-14 5-1 Parameters Used in Dose Analyses 5-4 5-2 Post-LOCA Thyroid Doses Due to Containment 5-9 Leakage (REM) 7.1 Calculated Thyroid Dose (REM) 7-6 4282e:1d/020686 til

l WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF FIGURES 4

NUMBER TITLE PAGE 3-1 Adjustment of Boric Acid Solution pH With TSP 3-8 6-1 Hydrogen Generation (By Source) and Removal 6-5 Analysis - Post LOCA 6-2 Hydrogen Production Rate Constants for Zinc 6-6 Corrosion 1

J i

d 1

l 4282e:Id/020686 iv

-, ~ - - - - - , , , - ,--c.-,. ,.,-w-,,----- , - , - - - - - ,,-.--n-,..,-.-.---s - . . - - - - - -- . . -. - - -.-~.,n--,--w--,,e. - - , . - - -

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction The Spray Additive Tank (SAT), which contains 40 to 44 weight percent sodium hydroxide has been a source of annoyance since its incorporation into nuclear power plants for control of radioiodine and pH in the post-Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) environment. Performing the SAT related tests and maintenance required by the Technical Specifications is a resource drain, and handling of sodium hydroxide requires special precautions due to its hazardous nature.

There have been cases of sodium hydroxide contamination of ion exchange resins which necessitated their replacement, and SAT dilution resulting in Technical Specification violations. In addition, SAT discharge valves that were inadvertently lef t closed following maintenance have resulted in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforcement actions and fines.

This report describes the analyses and evaluations which were performed to demonstrate that elimination of the spray additive results in relatively minor impact to the radiological consequences of a postulated loss of coolant accident and that the doses are within the 10CFR100 guidelines.

1.1.1 Background Historically, following a design-basis LOCA, caustic containment spray (pH 8.5 to 10.5) was needed to meet the offsite dose guidelines of 10CFR100 due to the conservative assumptions and methodologies used by the NRC to calculate offsite thyroid doses.

Analyses performed by Westinghouse utilizing recent changes in NRC methodology (Standard Review Plan 6.5.2, Rev. 1) (Reference 1), combined with knowledge gained from recent studies on the behavior of iodine in the post-LOCA environment, have demonstrated the relatively minor role of the spray additive in meeting the dose guidelines of 10CFR100.

4282e:1d/020686 1-1

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 The removal of the SAT introduces the need for adjusting the pH of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) solution. To minimize chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel components and to minimize the hydrogen produced by the corrosion of galvanized surfaces and zinc-based paints, the long-term pH of the ECCS solution should be in the range of 7.0 to 9.5. Since the pH of the boric acid ECCS solution, without spray additive, will be approximately 4.0, baskets containing trisodium phosphate will be added to the containment to raise the ECCS pH into the required range.

The SAT removal analysis for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

Units 2 & 3 will not take credit for a change in the iodine source term. The need for basic pH containment spray for fission product control was based on the following assumptions: iodine removal capability of the spray is enhanced at pH values greater than 8.0 and gaseous elemental iodine is the dominant species released from the reactor core (as stated in TID-14844) (Reference 2). While a considerable number of iodine-behavior studies indicate that the form of iodine will be non-volatile iodides, this SAT deletion analysis for SONGS 2 & 3 will .be based upon the "T10" source terms.

1.1.2 Objectives The prime objective of this analysis is to provide justification, and obtain NRC concurrence, that the spray additive and therefore the spray additive tank is not required.

Supporting objectives to meeting this primary objective are as follows:

1. Evaluate the use of trisodium phosphate (TSP) for post-accident long term pH control of the ECCS recirculation water.

2. Evaluate the potential for chloride induced stress' corrosion cracking.

4282e:1d/020686 1-2

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

3. Perform dose analyses to demonstrate the minor effects of SAT deletion on the radiological consequences of postulated accident conditions.

4. Determine the impact of SAT deletion on hydrogen generation and equipment qualification.

5. Determine the necessary changes to the FSAR descriptions and technical specifications to reflect the removal of the spray additive.

1.2 Surmary of SAT Deletion Analysis The SAT Deletion Analysis began with the gathering of general information and specific parameters relevant to the analysis. Most of the information was obtained from the updated SONGS 2 & 3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

(Reference 3). This information is presented in Appendix A.

[

)(a.c) TM spray coverage was taken to be 80.6 percent of the containment volume as stated in the FSAR. [

)(a.c)

An evaluation of the use of TSP for long term pH control of the ECCS recirculation solution was then performed. Selection and justification of the long term sump solution pH was determined and with information on appropriate tank volumes, boric acid concentrations and TSP titration curves, the TSP requirements were calculated.

l 4282e:1d/020686 1-3 ,

L.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

[

~

](a,c) These removal terms contained many conservatisms. Using these calculated coef ficients, along with other necessary parameters, a conservative dose analysis was performed. The resulting doses were near those originally presented in the FSAR. Some of the conservatisms were then removed and a modified dose analysis was performed with resulting doses being lower than the FSAR values.

To complete the analysis, an evaluation was made of the effects of the revised conditions on hydrogen generation and equipment qualifications and the necessary changes to the plant technical specifications were determined.

1.3 Conclusions The fundamental conclusion from this analysis is that the spray additive tank can be removed from the SONGS Units 2 & 3 without significantly affecting the radiological consequences of a postulated LOCA'and the calculated doses will remain within the 10CFR100 guidelines. Additional conclusions are:

1. TSP is a good candidate for long term pH control in the ECCS recirculation solution.

2. [

)(a c)

3. [

j(a c) 4282e:Id/020686 1-4

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 2.0 SPRAY COVERAGE AND DEPOSITION SURFACE EVALUATION 2.1 Selection of Surface Information

[

j(a,c) 2.2 Development of Deposition Surface Data

[

)(a,c) 2.3 Final Surface Areas Considered for Elemental Radiolodine Removal

[

)(a,c) 4282e:1d/020686 2-1 L

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

[

)(a,c) 4282e:1d/020686 2-2

I WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SPRAY AND DEPOSITIDN SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 1 of 10). 4

REFERENCE:

SDNGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed Uncertainty item Material Coatina Total (Nom.)

(a.c) In Area (5)

Containment Building Liner Plate 81,070**

~

Carbon Steel Zine Base i1 Hatches Carbon Steel Zinc Base 460 12 Locks Carbon Steel Zine Base 160 12 Internal Structures Steam Generator Concrete Epoxy 34,586 23 Compartment Walls Steam Generator Com- Carbon Steel Zinc Base 6.914 11 0 partment Wall Embeds Refueling Canal Walls Concrete Epoxy 11.050 12 Below EL 63.5 Ft.

Refueling Canal Walls Concrete Epoxy 5,500 12 Above 63.5 Ft.

I Refueling Canal Liner Stainless Steel None 9.200 i2 Plate Reactor Head Laydown Stainless Steel None 288 '

i5 Area Liner Plate Other Interior Walls Concrete Epoxy 1,890 15 L_ __

3744e:1d/110585 ' 2-3

I WESTINGHOUSE PROPklETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SDRAY AND DEPOSIT 10N SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 2 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2 ) .

Assumed Uncertainty item Material Coatina Total (Nom.)

(a.c) In Area (%)

Floors Slabs (Other Concrete Epoxy 17,480 15 than bisemats) J Floor Slab Decking Carbon Steel Zinc Base 23,240 15 Steam Generator : >rc rete Epoxy 1,210 15 Pedestals l

l Lifting Devices Internals Lifting Rig Stainless Steel None 1,368 +10

-0 Fuel Transfer Stainless Steel None 205 110 Uprighter System Refueling Machine & Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2,345 110 CEA Change Mechanism Vessel Head Lifting Carbon Steel Zinc Base 1,913 +35

-5 Polar Crane Carbon Steel Zinc Base 52,636 15 Maintenance Crane Carbon Steel Zinc Base 392 15 Supports Reactor vessel Supports Carbon Steel Zinc Base 101 +35

-5 Reactor Vessel Head Carbon Steel Zinc Base 5,878 110 Cable Tray Supports - -

3744e:ld/110585 2-4

i WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SPRAY AND DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 3 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SDNGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2)

Assumed uncertainty item Material Coating Total (Nom.) -- -_.

(a.c) In Area (1) l l

Steam Generator Carbon Steel Zinc Base 415 11 0 Supports l

Pressurizer Supports Carbon Steel Zinc Base 976 110 Reactor Coolant Pump Carbon Steel Zinc Base 6,600 110 Supports Safety Injection Tank Carbon Steel Zinc Base 611 15 l Supports !

l Quench Tank Supports Carbon Steel Zinc Base 746 15 Reactor Coolant Drain Carbon Steel Zinc Base 115 -+5 l I

Tank Supports Fan Cooler Supports Carbon Steel Zinc Base 910 i2 1

Structural Members Carbon Steel Zinc Base 87,428 110 (Exposed) 1 Storage Racks Stud Storage Carbon Steel Zinc Base 25 110 Gratings Ladders, Etc. l Ladders, Stairways Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2,855 i7 and Railings

__ __J 3744e:1d/110505 2-5

a '

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 l

{

TABLE 2-1 i i

SPRAY AND DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 4 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2}

Assumed Uncertainty item Material Coatino Total (Nom.)

- ~

(a,c) In Area (5) q Grating, Heavy Duty Carbon Steel Zinc Base 34,046 15 j Grating Lightweight Carbon Steel Zinc Base 5,554 110 1

Emergency Sump Covers, j Grating, Trash Rack, Etc.

Top Deck Carbon Steel Zinc 8ase $20 i10 Trash Rack Carbon Steel Zine Base 260 110 Coarse Screen Stainless Steel None 314 110 Fine Screen Stainless Steel None 314 110 Electrical Equipment Cable Termination Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2.312 +18 Enclosure -0 Cable Trays Galv. Steel Zir.c 15,716 +10

-5 Cable Tray Hangers Galv. Steel Zinc 19,710 +10

-5 Junction 8 oxes Galv. Steel Zinc 329 +25

-5 Pull Boxes Galv. Steel Zinc 1,147 +25

-5 Metal Part of Carbon Steel Zinc 8ase 458 +10 Lighting Fixtures - - -0 3744e:1d/110585 2-6

WESTINGH SE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SPRAY AND DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 5 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed Uncertainty (a.c)

Item Material Coatino Total (Nom.) In Area (%)

Glass Part of Glass None 264 +10 Lighting Fixtures -0 Cables (Copper Sheathed) Copper None 2.596 +10

-0 Cable Support Frame Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2,048 115

-0 Cable Bulk Head Carbon Steel Zinc Base 146 +5 Connector Plate -0 Cable Junction Boxes Galv. Steel Zinc 44 +5

) -0 l Flexible Conduits Stainless Steel None 5,036 +5

& Connectors -0 Conduit Supports Galv. Steel Zinc 3,790 +20

-10 Conduits Galv. Steel Zinc 6,054 +20

-10 Conduit Clamps Galv. Steel Zinc 17 15 Cables Polyethylene None 15,163 +35

-0 MI Cables SS-Copper None 825 +20

-0 Instrument Insert Carbon Steel Zinc Base 56 110 Plates Instrument Mounting Carbon Steel Zinc Base 200 110 Plates 3744e:Id/110585 2-7

I i

I I

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 -

l TABLE 2-1 SPRAY ANO DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 6 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2)

Assumed -

Uncertainty Item Material Coatina Total (Nom.) ~

(4eC) In Area (1)

I Instruments Carbon Steel Zinc Base 104 110 Instruments Stainless Steel None 30 110 Instrument Sensing Stainless Steel None 149 11 0 Lines l.

Piping Support Equipment

! Pipe Supports Carbon Steel Zinc Base 15.525 110 Pipe Restraints Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2,200 115 Pipe Support Carbon Steel Zinc Base 1.565 11 0 Embedment Plates Piping Penetrations Stainless Steel None 406 10 Piping Penetrations Carbon Steel Zinc Base 406 10 Piping Penetration Carbon Steel Zinc Base 156 !5 Sleeves l

Components Reactor Coolant Carbon Steel Zinc Base 3.720 115 Pump Motors Hydrogen Recombiners Stainicss Steel None 180 j +25

-0 3744e:1d/110585 2-8

i WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SPRAY ANO DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 7 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2)

Assumed Uncertainty Item Material Coatina Total (Nom.)

(a c) In Area (5)

Fan Coolers, Normal Carbon Steel Zinc Base 3,506 10 Fan Coolers, Emergency Carbon Steel Zine Base 2,826 10 Reactor Cavity Cooling Carb(n Steel Zinc Base 170 10 Units .

1 CEDM Cooling Units Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2.968 10 )

Piping Penetration Carbon Steel Zinc Base 2,619 110 Sleeves Air Filtration Units Carbon Steel Zinc Base 1,194 10 Dome Circulators Carbon Steel Zinc Base 380 10 Safety Injection Tanks Shell Carbon Steel Zinc Base 890 15 Head Carbon Steel Zinc Base 218 15 Quench Tank Shell Stainless Steel None 190 15 Head Stainless Steel None 70 15 Stainless Steel i0 Reactor Coolant None 325 Drain Tank --

3744e:Id/110585 '

2-9

WESTINGNOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 SPRAY AND DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 8 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed Uncertainty item Material Coatine Total (Nom.) - -

(a,c) In Area (5)

Reactor Coolant Stainless Steel None 22 10 Orain Tank Pumps Uninsulated, Cold-Fluid-l Filled Piping and Fittings I

Component Cooling Carbon Steel Zinc Base 3.734 110 Water System Nuclear Service Stainless Steel None 274 -+10 Water System Fire Protection System Carbon Steel Zinc Base 627 110 Nitrogen System Stainless Steel None 274 110 Containment Spray Carbon Steel Zinc Base 925 12 System Safety Injection System Stainless Steel None 240 12 volume Control System Stainless Steel None 8 -

12 l

3744e:1d/110585 2-10

i WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-1 .

i SPRAY ANO DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 9 of 10)

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed Uncertainty item Material Coatine Total (Nom.1 (a,c) In Area (5)

I Fuel Pool Cooling Stainless Steel None 230 12 System 1

Uninsulated Gas Filled or Drained Pipe and Fittings Containment Spray Stainless Steel None 925 12

- System Instrument Air System Stainless Steel None 112 12 Service Air System Carbon Steel Zinc Base 118 2 Gaseous Radwaste Stainless Steel None 17 12 System HVAC Ducting and Dampers Carbon Steel Zine Base 10.223 12 l

l Ducting and Dampers Stainless Steel None 11,131 12 l

3144e:1d/110585 2-11

l I

i WESTINGNOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 j I

TABLE 2-1

'l SPRAY AND DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (Sheet 10 of 10) l

REFERENCE:

SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14 !

Surface Area (Ft2 ) ,

Assumed Uncertainty '

(8.C)

Item Material Coatine Total (Nom.)

In Area (1) I l

Reactivity Cavity Carbon Steel Zinc Base 3,023 12 Ventilator Tunnel Liners Duct Support Steel Carbon Steel Zinc Base 3,956 11 0 Insulation Canning Plate Main Steam Piping Stainless Steel None 3,100 15 Main Feedwater Piping Stainless Steel None 2,500 - 5 Reactor Coolant Piping Stainless Steel None 2,400 15 Steam Generators Stainless Steel None 8,800 i5 Reactor Coolant Pumps Stainless Steel Mone 1.290 15 Pressurizer Stainless Steel None 1,190 15

For conservatism, to account for area uncertainties, minimum values are used

" Conservative estimate of containment area: 651 above operating deck (sprayed),

201 below operating deck (unsprayed), and 151 in the flooded region.

3744e:1d/110585 2-12

I UESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TA8LE 2-2 SuletARY OF SPRAY ANO DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (SASED 000 SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR TABLE 6.2-14)

Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed -

Material Coatine Total (Nom.)

(a.c)

Carbon Steel Zinc Base Paint 382,503 Concrete Epoxy 11,716 Stainless Steel None 51,248 Galvanized Steel Zinc 46,807 Glass None 264 ,

Copper None 2,596 Polyethylene Ncne -15,163 SS-Copper None 825 571.122 l

l

For conservatism, to account for area uncertainties, minimum values are used.

3744e:Id/110585 2-13

1 i

WESTIllGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 2-3 M00!FIES SPEAY AII0 DEPOSITION SURFACE AREAS (FOR CALCULATION OF IODINE DEPOSITION LAMBDA)

Surface Area (Ft2 )

Assumed Material Coatine (a,c)

Carbon Steel and Zinc Base Galvanized Steel l Concrete and Carbon Epoxy Steel Stainless Steel None

For conservatism, to account for area uncertainties, minimum values are used.

I l

3744e:1d/110545 2-14

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 I

3.0 E ALUATION OF THE USE OF TRIS 0DIUM PHOSPHATE (TSP) 3.1 Development of pH Curves with Varying Amounts of TSP and Boron Titration curves for TSP in boric acid solution (supplied by SCE), which were generated for SONGS 1 for boric acid concentrations of 3175, 3750, and 4300 ppm boron, [

l

](a c) The results are shown in Figure 3-1. l l

3.2 Ottermination of TSP Quantities Required In the updated version of the SONGS 2 & 3 FSAR, Section 6.3.3.4.3, water volumes and boron concentrations are given for the post-LOCA long term cooling (LTC) plan and are as follows:

WT.% H 3 E3 DDm BORON LBS. LIQUID RCS 0.68 1,190 425,271 Min.*

RWST 1.32 2,300 4,088,800 Max.

SIT 1.32 2,300 447,000 Max.

BAST 12.0 21,000 129,200 Max.**

Starting with minimum RCS volume, maximizes the boron concentration when all other sources are Injected into the RCS.

- The tank capacity is 231,470 lbs. but injection is terminated in 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months which results in 129,200 lbs. being injected. This time period is based on an evaluation of boron stratification concerns.

The maximum boron concentrations in the RWST and SIT should be set at 3500 ppm to accommodate any future change. With this adjustment, the composite concentration of boron was found to be [ ](a c) ppm as shown below.

4282e:1d/020686 3-1

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3-LBS. LIQUID (a c)

RCS 425,271 RWST 4,088,800 SIT 447,000 SAST 129.200 Total 5,090,271 Referring to the titration curves, Figure 3-1, a boron concentration of

[ )(a,c) ppm (or mg/1) total in the sump water would require

( )I*'CI ppe (or mg/1) adjustment concentration of TSP to maintain a minimum pH'of ( )(a,c) Multiplying this by the total weight of liquid shows that [ ](a c) pounds of TSP would be required. If the usual commercial form of TSP is used, which contains 12 hydrates, a total of about

[ )(a,c) pounds would be required since this form only contains 43.13 percent anhydrous TSP.

TSP requirements can also be determined for other pH levels by using Figure 3 -1. For example, to maintain a minimum pH of ( ](a,c) in the sump water containing [ ]I**CI ppm boron, a concentration of ( )(a c) ppm TSP would be required. Likewise, for a pH of ( ]I*'CI, a TSP concentration of

( )(a c) ppm would be needed. The total TSP requirements, then, would be about [ ](a,c) pounds anhydrous ([ )(a,c) pounds hydrated) and approximately [ ](a,c) pounds anhydrous ([ )(a.c) pounds hydrated) respectively.

In order to determine the maximum pH which would result from using the above quantities of TSP, minimum volumes and boron concentrations should be considered. Liquid quantities were adjusted for the RWST and SIT using information from FSAR Tables 6.5-3 and 6.3-2. The RCS and BAST liquid quantities were assumed to remain the same. For boron concentrations, the RCS was assumed to decrease to [ )(*'CI ppm, a minimum of ( ]I*'C} ppm was used for the RWST and SIT (FSAR Table 6.3-2), and the BAST value was assumed to be unchanged. These values are shown below.

4282e:Id/020686 3-2

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 L8S LIQUID

~

I"'CI MAXIMUM MINIMUM i

RCS 425,271 425,271 RWST 4,088,800 2,567,776 SIT 447,000 415,710 BAST 129.200 129.200 TOTAL 5,090.271 3,537,957 The composite boron concentration is found to be [ ]I*'CI ppm. The maximum to minimum liquid weight ratio is [ ]I"'CI. Therefore. l

[ ]I*'C} ppm TSP in the maximum liquid would result in [ ](**C}

times [ ]I"'CI or approximately [ ]I*'CI ppm TSP in the minimum !

amount of liquid. Referring to Figure 3-1, [ ]I"'CI ppm TSP with

( )I*'CI ppm boron gives a pH of about [ ](*'CI. Using this same basis, the minimum pH values of ( ](**C} and [ )(CI (with maximum liquid weights and boron concentrations) would result in maximum pH values of about [ ]I"'C) and [ ]I*'CI respectively for minimum liquid weights and boron concentrations.

Assuming a maximum boron concentration in the RWST and Sli of ( )(*'CI ppm and [ ] in the BAST as anticipated, the composite sump water would contain [ ]I*'CI ppm boron and require a TSP adjustment concentration of about [ ](*'C} ppm for a minimum pH of

( ]I*'CI. This translates to a requirement of ( ]**C pounds of anhydrous TSP or [ ]I*'CI pounds of TSP with 12 hydrates. With these same conditions of boron concentrations [ ](a c) pounds of hydrated TSP would result in a minimum pH of ( )I***I and [ ](a,c) pounds of hydrated TSP would result in a minimum pH of ( ](a.c) ,

Assuming the minimum boron concentrations in the RWST and StT of ( )(a,c) ppe and [ ] in the 8AST as anticipated, the composite sump water would contain ( )(a,c) ppm boron. With this boron concentration and the minimum liquid as shown above, the [

]I*'CI determined for pH [ ]I*'CI in the maximum 11guld would result in about ( )I"'"I ppm TSP in the minimum liquid and 4282e:Id/020686 3-3

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 yield a pH of [ ]I*'CI Under these conditions, the [

]I*'CI pounds of hydrated TSP considered above would result in maximum pH values in minimum liquid of ( )(a.c) , respectively.

Other combinations of boron concentrations may be considered to optimize the TSP requirements. The use of anhydrous TSP may also be advantageous and should be considered to reduce the mass of TSP required.

The TSP could be placed in baskets in areas which would ensure proper dissolving of the material. One location would be around the periphery of the l containment in the region which is flooded during recirculation.

3.3 Selection and Justification of the Long Term Sump Solution pH The long-term pH of the sump solution is selected to maximize iodine retention and minimize the potential for chloride induced stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel. The following is a description of the selection process and justification for a pH in the range of [ )(a c) ,

The SAT Deletion Analysis for the San Onofre Units assumes that the primary elemental todine control mechanism in the post-LOCA containment is deposition on containment surfaces rather than the more traditional removal by containment sprays. Since sprays are not used for elemental iodine control, the discussion in SRP 6.5.2 regarding spray pH, iodine partition and decontamination of the containment atmosphere is not directly applicable.

[

4282e:Id/020686 3-4

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

)(a c)

Based on iodine control by surface deposition, a solution pH in the range of

( ]I*'"I is indicated rather than a minimum of 8.5 as recommended by the SRP.

To determine the solution pH that would provide the greatest assurance of no chloride stress corrosion cracking, the following references were consulted:

1. Standard Review Plan 6.1.1

2. Branch Technical Position MTER 6-1

3. Westinghouse Electric Corporation WCAP-7798-L, 1971 .

~

4. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Standard Information Package Volume 5-1, Rev. 2,1977 The recommendations of the above references are summarized in the table that follows. ,

l

SUMMARY

OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO MINIMlZE CHLORIDE CRACKING Ref.. # Recommendation Comment i

1. Min, pH of 7.0, range of 7 to 9.5

2. Min. pH of 7.0, range of 7 to 9.5 References Ref. 3

3. Min. pH of 7.0, recommends 7.5 or higher

4. Min. pH of 8.0, range of 8 to 10 Based on the above assumption that the pH range of 7 to 9.5 provides adequate assurance of no chloride cracking and that the NRC guidelines (Ref. I and 2) appear to be based on the work of Westinghouse (Ref. 3), a pH in the range of

(~ ]I*'C) was chosen.

4282e:Id/020686 3-5

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 :

In conclusion, a pH.in the range of ( ]I"'C) satisfies the requirements of minimizing the potential for chloride stress corrosion of stainless steel ,

and maximizing iodine retention in the sump solution while, as shown in [

Section 6.1, also keeping hydrogen production at a minimum.

3.4 Factors Affecting Adsorption and Desorption of Iodine ;

Deposition of iodine on containment surfaces depends upon the deposition velocity, the desorption velocity and the ultimate surface loading capacity.

These parameters are a function of surface material, surface roughness, and temperature. A discussion of these parameters follows. '

Surface Loadina In general, surface loadings increase when steam is present and decrease with {

increasing temperature. A single monolayer of 12 deposited on a surface equals 0.3 vg/cm2 of iodine. Most surfaces are capable of loadings many 4

l times greater than this. In fact, loadings greater than 10 monolayers have

! been observed on reacting surfaces and up to 10 monolayers on inert surfaces.

For the San Onofre containment, assuming all surfaces have the same affinity for iodine, the average surface loading is approximately [ ]I*'CI pg/cm . (

)(a,c)

Geoosition Velocity Deposition velocity is a function of surface material, roughness and ;

temperature. Deposition velocity tends to increase in the following order:

l glass < plastic < metal < paint. Deposition increases with surface roughness i

for surfaces where the adsorption is physical and increases with increasing temperature up to the point where desorption competes to reduce the not l

! deposition velocity. For some metals, there is little oesorption at temperatures less than 150*C. For paint, the amount of irreversibly adsorbed I todine has been observed to vary between 35 and 100% of the initial loading.

For the zinc based and epoxy coatings assumed for SCE, the percent of i

4282e:Id/020686 3-6

r~

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 l

irreversibly retained iodine is reported to be approximately [

]I*) , respectively.

Where surfaces are cold enough to permit condensation, the deposition velocity tends to become less dependent on temperature and more dependent upon the water film on the surface. The water film increases both the deposition velocity and the loading capacity. Both of these effects can be attributed to iodine hydrolysis.

4282e:Id/020686 3-7

. . . . , . - _ - - . . - - - ~ . . . ~ . - - . . . . . - . - . - - - - - - -- - .-

r-

!- WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 l

FIGURE 3-1 a,c ADJUSTMENT OF BORIC ACID l SOLUTION.pH WITH TSP l-i i

I l

i i

6 i

l i

i I

I l

l 6 l

l l

l 1

l l

l r

i L

1 I

3-8 :

c WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF RA010100!NE REMOVAL COEFFICIENTS AND DECONTAMINATION FACTORS In summary,.the first cut removal coefficients are as follows:

For elemental iodine spray removal

A, . ( j(a,c)

K, = 0.0 for boric acid' spray > 2500 ppm boron For particulate iodine removal A =[ ]I*'C) HR-I until DF of ( ](a,c) is reached A =( ](a,c) HR'I after DF of ( ](a,c) is reached For elemental iodine deposition x( )(a.c) gg j(a,c) 4.1 Elemental Iodine Spray Removal The elemental iodine spray removal term (A,) was determined using the Westinghouse " CIRCUS" computer code (Reference 4). Input parameters to the code included plant power, containment free volume, fraction of containment volume sprayed, containment temperature, spray flow rate, fall height, spray temperature, etc. Using a spray concentration for boron of (

](a.c) For higher boron concentrations A, will be assumed to be Zero since the NRC, in Section 6.5.2 of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), does not recognize boric acid concentrations greater than 2500 ppm boron in the spray.

4282e:Id/C20606 4 -1

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4.2 Particulate Iodine Spray Removal The particulate iodine removal term (A p) was calculated in accordance with NUREG-CR-0009 (Reference 5) which gives:

A = 3hF E p

2V d where h = Drop Fall Height F = Spray Flow Rate V = Volume Sprayed E = Single Drop Collection Efficiency d = Orop Diameter ,

From the SCE SAT deletion list of parameters (Appendix A):

h = 81.5 ft.

f F = 1750 gpm 6 6 V = 1.907 x 10 ft.3 (0.806 x 2.366 x 10 )

From NUREG-CR-0009:

[ = 0.1 cm-I for C/Co ?.,0.01 d

g=0.01cm-l for C/Co < 0.01 where C/Co = Ratio of present concentration to initial concentration The particulate removal constants were calculated to be:

x =[ )(a c) l x=[

p )(a c) l

" p"

](,,c) 4282e:1d/020686 4-2 i

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4.3 Elemental Iodine Deposition Removal The elemental iodine deposition coefficients were calculated using the spray coverage and deposition surfaces previously determined.

These removal rate constants were calculated in accordance with NUREG-CR-0009 which gives:

A o = "s" V

where A = Removal rate constant due to surface deposition (Sec~I) n k = Average mass transfer coef ficient (cm/sec)

I 2 A= Surface area for wall deposition (cm )

3 V = Volume of contained gas (cm )

Revising this equation for use with desired units gives:

A n = 118 Y V

-I with A n in HR kgin cm/Sec A in FT 2 V in FT' The values used for mass transfer coefficients were derived from those given in NUREG-CR-0009 (Reference 5) and BMI-1865 (Reference 6) by taking (

)(***} of the values judged to be applicable for the various surfaces. A value of ( ](a.c) C,j,,e ,,,

added to the deposition velocities in the sprayed region in accordance with NUREG-CR-0009. The results are as follows:

Coefficient (a.c) kg (zine base) k (epoxy) kg (stainless steel) _ _

4282e:ld/020686 4-3

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 i

j values for the sprayed and unsprayed areas of zine base, epoxy, and stainless i steel surfaces were those derived previously and are as follows:

- ~

(a,c) l Surface Zinc base Epoxy Stainless Steel l The following volumes were used in the calculations:

3 V (Sprayed Region) = 1,907,000 ft i

V (Unsprayed Region) = 459,000 3ft which includes (for conservatism) about 82,000 ft3 which is eventually' flooded.

l j The following results were obtained for the elemental todine surface deposition removal rate constants:

x( )(a,c) x [ )(a.c) 4.4 lodine Retention Limits in Sump Solution Partition coef ficients and decontamination f actors (DF) are developed f rom the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0000), Section 6.5.2, using the following relationship:

OF=1+ s H V

c 4282e:Id/020686 4-4

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 I

where OF = Ratio of the total iodine in the sump liquid and !

containment atmosphere to that in the containment atmosphere H = Equilibrium iodine partition coef ficient (this is obtained l f rom Figure 6.5.2-1 of SRP section 6.5.2)

V, = Volume of liquid in containment sump and sump overflow 3

82,000 ft used here)

V = Containment not free volume less Vs (2,366,000 - 82,000 =

C 2,284,000 ft3 used in this analysis)

Decontamination factors for selected pH levels were calculated to be:

an Partition Coefficient QE 6.5 or less 50 2.8 7.5 500 19 8.0 1600 58 8.5 or greater 5000 180 t

l I

i I

l l

l i

l 4282e:Id/020686 4-5 l l l

i l ?

1 WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5.0 DOSE ANALYSES <

}

5.1 Original Dose Analysis Consistency Verification The radiological consequences of a postulated Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) i are determined by the use of the Westinghouse TITAN computer code.

i Prior to using the TITAN code for the SAT deletion case, a consistency l checkout was performed using the parameters given in Table 5-1, Column 1. The doses calculated are in close agreement with those determined by Bechtel (see Table 5-2, Column 1).

i 5.2 Conservative Dose Analysis with SAT Deletion Considering the same case as discussed above, except taking into account the j assumptions associated with SAT deletion and utilizing the more favorable dose ,

j conversion factors from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Reference 7) for off-site I doses as well as for the control room dose, the TITAN code was used to determine a first cut dose analysis for the 5AT deletion case. The parameters used are presented in Column 2 of Table 5-1.

1 Only the thyroid doses, which are the controlling doses, due to the containment leakage of radiolodines during the postulated LOCA were calculated. The doses determined are presented in Table 5-2, Column 2.

5.3 Identification of Conservatisms l l

l The following conservatisms were incorporated in the SAT Deletion Analysis of Section 5.2.

1 L

1. Surface areas used in this analysis were developed from SONGS 2 and 3 FSAR Table 6.2-14 which includes uncertainty percentages. Minimum surface area values were used which are about 8 percent lower than the nominal values on the average.

4282e:1d/020686 5 -1 i

_ _ _ - _ _ . - - - . - ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , _ . - - - .

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

2. The areas of glass, copper, and polyethylene surfaces were not included in the analysis.

3. The smallest reported deposition velocity for each type of surface coating was used in determining the iodine deposition removal term.

4. The elemental iodine deposition coefficient was reduced further by a factor of ( ](a.c) ,

5. The volume term used in calculating the iodine deposition coefficient in 3

the unsprayed region includes 82,000 FT which is eventually flooded.

6. The spray removal coefficient for elemental iodine was set at zero for the dose calculations.

7. A decontamination factor cutof f for deposition and particulate lodine removal was set at [ ]I*'CI in the dose calculations.

8. The duration of spray operation was limited to two hours in the dose calculations.

5.4 Modified Dose Analysis For the Modified Dose Analysis, a number of the conservatisms identified in Section 5.3 were removed or reduced. These include:

1. The OF limit for removal of elemental iodine is increased from (

]I*'"I (after a DF of ( ]I*'"I the lambda is reduced).,

2. The DF limit for removal of particulate iodine is increased from (

l ]I*'"I (af ter a DF of ( ]I*'"I the lambda is reduced).

1 l

3. The deposition lambdas are increased to reflect nominal surface areas instead of minimums.

4282e:1d/020686 5-2

i WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4

l 4. The deposition lambdas are recalculated using reduced conservatism ([

]I*'CI of the deposition velocity).

5. The spray duration is increased from 2 to ( ](a.c) hours.

Many of the conservatisms are left intact. The parameters used are presented in Table 5-1 Column 3. The doses determined are presented in Table 5-2, ,

Column 3.

f 4282e:Id/020686 5-3 m ..

_ _ .~ ._ - - _ . _ . . . . __ .

i .

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 5-1 PARAMETERS USED IN DOSE ANALYSES Analysis First Cut Modified With Spray SAT Deletion SAT Deletion Parameter Additive Analysis Analysis

1. Fraction of Core Radioiodines 25 50 (a)

Initially Airborne in the (from R.G. (from NUREG-Containment, % 1.4) 0800)

2. Activity Released to .

Containment Atmosphere, Ci Isotope I-131 2.24 x 10 7 4.48 x 10 7 (a) 7 7 1-132 3.32 x 10 6.65 x 10 (a) 7 0 1-133 5.15 x 10 1.03 x 10 (a) 8 1-134 6.0 x 10 1.20 x 10 (,)

7 I-135 4.72 x 10 9.45 x 10 7 (a)

3. Iodine Species Split, %

l

a. Elemental 91 95.5 (a)

b. Organic 4 2 (a)

c. Particulate 5 2.5 (a) 6

4. Containment Volume, ft 3 2.366 x 10 (b) (b) ,

5. Containment Leakage Rate, Vol, %/ day

a. 0 - 24 hr. 0.1 (b) (b)

b. 1 - 30 days 0.05 (b) (b) 4282e:1d/020686 5-4

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARV CLASS 3 TABLE 5-1 (Continued)

PARAMETERS USED IN DOSE ANALYSES Analysis First Cut Modified With Spray SAT Deletion SAT Deletion Parameter Additive Analysis Analysis

6. Fan Coolers

a. Number of units 2 (b) (b)

b. How rate, CFM 31,000 (b) (b)

7. Iodine Removal Constants, hr-

a. Elemental iodine a,c) spray 4.8 deposition (sprayed region) NA deposition (unsprayed region) NA

b. Organic iodine 0.0

c. Particulate iodine 0.22

8. Iodine Decontamination Factors - -

a. Elemental iodine - _.

spray 100 (a c) deposition- NA

b. Organic iodine 1.0

c. Particulate iodine ,

5000

9. Fraction of Containment Volume 100 Sprayed, % - -

(a,c)

10. Duration of spray operation, hr >39 2 [ ]

3744e:1d/110585 5-5

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 i

TABLE 5-1 (Centinued) l l

l PARAMETERS USED IN DOSE ANALYSES l

l Analysis First Cut Modified With Spray SAT Deletion SAT Deletion Parameter Additive Analysis Analysis

11. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (5% level x/Q), sec/m3

a. Exclusion Area Boundary

-4 0 - 2 hrs 2.72 x 10 (b) (b)

b. Low Population Zone

-6 0 - 8 hrs 7.72 x 10 (b) (b) 8 - 24 hrs 4.74 x 10 -6 (b) (b) 1 - 4 days 3.67 x 10 -6 (b) (b) 4 - 30 days 2.67 x 10 -6 (b) (b)

c. Control Room - includes occupancy factor 0 - 8 hrs (occ. f actor = 1.0) 3.1 x 10 -3 (b) (b)

-3 8 - 24 hrs (occ. f actor = 1.0) 1.8 x 10 (b) (b)

~4 1 - 4 days (occ. f actor = 0.6) 5.9 x 10 W W 4 - 30 days (occ. f actor = 0.4) 9.6 x 10 -5 (b) (b)

12. Breathing Rate for Off-Site Dose Determination, m373,c 0 - 8 hrs 3.47 x 10 (b) (b) 8 - 24 hrs 1.75 x 10 -4 (b) (b)

-4 1 - 30 days 2.32 x 10 (b) (b)

~4

13. Breathing Rate for Control Room 3.47 x 10 W W 3

Dose Determination, m /sec 4282e:1d/020686 5-6

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 l

l TABLE 5-1 (Continued) l l

PARAMETERS USED IN DOSE ANALYSES l

l l

Analysis First Cut Modified With Spray SAT Deletion SAT Deletion Parameter Additive Analysis Analysis

14. Inhalation Dose Conversion (TID-14844) (R.G. 1.109)

Factors for Off-Site Dose Determination, rem /Ci 1-131 1.48 x 10 6 1.49 x 10 6 g,)

4 4 1-132 5.35 x 10 1.43 x 10 Q) 1-133 4.00 x 10 5 2.69 x 10 5 g,)

4 1-134 2~.5 x 10 3.73 x 10 3 (3) 1-135 1.25 x 10 5 5.6 x 10 4 Q)

15. Inhalation Dose Conversion Factors for Control Room Dose Determination, rem /Ci 1-131 1.49 x 10 6 (b) (b) 4 1-132 1.43 x 10 W W l

I-133 2.69 x 10 5 (b) (b) 1-134 3.73 x 10 3 (b) (b) 4 I-135 5.6 x 10 (b) (b) 3

16. Control Room Volume, it 293,300 (b) (b)

17. Control Room Unfiltered Inleakage, CFM 0.0 (b) (b) 4282e:1d/020686 5-7

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 5-1 (Continued)

PARAMETERS USED IN DOSE I.ALYSES Analysis First Cut Modified With Spray SAT Deletion SAT Deletion Parameter Additive Analysis Analysis

18. Control Room Filtered Air Intake, CFM 0 - 8 hrs 4400 (b) (b)

> 8 hrs 2200 (b) (b)

19. Control Room Inleakage Filtration EfficiencyI ')

a. Elemental Iodine 0.35 (b) (b)

b. Organic Iodine 0.95 (b) (b)

c. Particulate Iodine 0.99 (b) (b)

20. Control Room Recirculation Flow, CFM 0 - 8 hrs 63,800 (b) (b)

> 8 hrs 31,900 (b) (b) l 21. Control Room Recirculation Filtration Efficiency I a. Elemental Iodine 0.95 (b) (b)

b. Organic Iodine 0.95 (b) (b)

c. Particulate Iodine 0.95 (b) (b)

a. Same as Column 2 First Cut SAT Deletion Analysis.

b. Same as Column 1, Analysis With Spray Additive.

c. Value is reduced by [

]((a ,c)

d. Value is reduced by [ ] a,c)

e. These values reflect the passage through the recirculation filter only. No credit is taken fur the intake filter.

4282e:ld/020686 5-8

l WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 5-2 POST-LOCA THYROID DOSES DUE TO CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE (REM)

Conservative Modified Analysis With SAT Deletion SAT Deletion 10CFR100 SDraV Additive Analysis Analysis Guidelines Exclusion Area Boundary 86.0 76.2 57.7 300 (0 - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months )

Low Population Zone 11.5 12.2 8.7 300 (0 - 30 days)

Control Room 10.1 12.1 8.7 30*

(0 - 30 days) l l

l

Dose limit guideline per NUREG-0800 Section 6.4.

4282e:ld/020686 5-9

K WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 e

6.0 EFFECTS OF REVISED CONDITIONS ON HYDROGEN I

GENERATION AND EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION 6.1 Effects on Hydrogen Production from Zinc and Aluminum Corrosion r

E l The corrosion rates of zinc and aluminum are functions of solution pH.

Deletion of the spray additive will decrease the pH of the injection spray i from approximately 10 to 4 and decrease the equilibrium pH of the sump 5 solution from approximately 9.5 to [ ](a,c) . In general, decreasing pH

( reduces the corrosion of aluminum and tends to increase the corrosion of

[ zinc. A discussion of aluminum and zinc corrosion follows.

H Aluminum Corrosion

Based on the guidance of References 8 and 9, the corrosion rate of aluminum is k seen to be a strong function of pH, with the rate decreasing with decreasing pH. Corrosion in solutions with pH in the range of 4 to 5 is insignificant.

L Figure 6-1 (copy of FSAR Figure 6.2-63) shows the hydrogen contribution f rom

{

a aluminum to be extremely small; hence, any further decrease in aluminum corrosion will not significantly reduce the aggregate hydrogen production.

Zjnc Corrosion u

q Based on Reference 10, the corrosion of zinc is a function of pH and temperature, and temperature is by far the more influential parameter. The following equation is suggested (Reference 10) to predict the hydrogen production rate constant, k:

K = exp (-8.07 -2.84x3 -0.229x1x3 -0.177xjx2x3) h

$ where x1 = DH - 7 f or 4 5 pH $ 10 3

E E

g x2 = DDm Boron - 3000 for 2000 ppm 5 ppm Boron 5 4000 ppm 1000 L

L 4282e:ld/020686 6-1

-mm-----i

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 x3 = [ (1/T) -0.0027 ] / 0.0004 T = absolute temperature and k = sem/m2 - hr The following cases were evaluated:

1. Current FSAR, pH = 10, 2500 ppm Boron

2. SAT Deletion injection spray, pH = 4, 3500 ppm Boron

3. SAT Deletion recirculation spray, pH = [ ](a,c) p m Boron

4. SAT Deletion recirculation spray, pH = [ ] ppm Boron

5. SAT Deletion recirculation spray, pH = [ ]I8'C) ppm Boron The results of these cases are shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2.a compares the corrosion rate for pH 4 and pH 10. The graph shows an increase in the long-term corrosion rate for pH 4 versus pH 10. This condition would exist only if the sump solution pH were not adjusted upward into the range of [

](a,c) Figure 6-2.b compares th'e corrosion rates for pH 10, [

](a,c) There is no significant difference in these corrosion rates.

Hence, with the sump solution pH. raised into the range of [ ](a c) , the long term hydrogen production rate, due to zinc corrosion, will be the same as the rate presented in the FSAR for pH 10.0.

Conclusion 1

[

)(a,c) 1 1

4282e:ld/020686 6-2

M-I'.A i WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

=-

7 6.2 Equipment Qualification D

r Deletion of the SAT will not affect equipment qualification (EQ) and the m

existing EQ will be applicable to SAT Deletion. 5 E _'-

R -

The primary concerns of equipment qualification are protection of the g stainless steel components of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) from _

chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking (CISCC)~, failures of electrical components required to operate post-LOCA, and failures of containment coatings 1-which could jeopardize the ECCS by flaking or peeling off, clogging the U-emergency sump and other flow paths, and thus restrict the flow of emergency I core cooling water. A discussion of-these aspects of EQ follows.

l l

l le Protection of Stainless Steel 5 'b jll To minimize occurrence of CISCC, Standard Review Plan 6.1.1 with BTP-MTEB 6-1 g (Reference 1) requires that the pH of the sump solution be in the range of 7 ,

[ to 9.5. However, the time required to make the pH adjustment is not 7"

g specified. The available references recomend that the pH aojustment be made "

i within the range of 4 (Reference 11) to 48 (Reference 12) hours. The SONGS pH .' -

E adjusting system, using TSP, will begin the adjustment imediately. The sump .

[ solution pH adjustment will be completed within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . Thus, the proposed E use of TSP for pH adjustment, for the SONGS units, is seen to satisfy the most -

= :-

g stringent time and pH requirements.

F k

Testino of Electrical Components

$ e P One of the prime objectives for electrical equipment testing is to determine ---

E the ability of the seals to exclude the containment environment from the

[ interior of the component. To maximize the challenge to the seal materials, r u 5 high pH sprays have been traditionally used for testing. The typical pH range -

k is from approximately 8 to as high as 11. ..

s

{ The chemical environment for the SONGS units with SAT Deletion and TSP .

3A y addition is far less severe than the typical environment. -*

-1 4282e:1d/020686 6-3

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Testino of Containment Coatings Coatings are used in the containment to provide corrosion protection for metals and to aid in the decontamination of surfaces during normal operation.

In addition, the SONGS units with SAT Deletion will utilize containment surfaces for fission product retention post-LOCA. Coatings that peel off post-LOCA may not be available for fission product deposition.

Like electrical equipment, coatings are also tested with a high pH solution to maximize the potential deterioration of the coating. Coatings also show better resistance to mild acid solutions (pH 4 to 5) than to alkaline solutions (Reference 13).

Conclusion

[

j(a,c) ,,

4282e:1d/020686 6-4

WESTIrlGH00:,E PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 N .n . . .. Ci . .

i-.......-.,

^5,;, 15,, ,,

. ~...... ..

4s Eta ,ta.t.4 .se a t

s ed 6 3 a.eua..u e e ,,

..C 3+,

.' l f.**.

I

- - e#* -- S

'# t MeCnt.6 G A j

,,, l l

l

l

, ..Co ... ; ,

l l ,

30144 / 3 3 l I I"

~

R AD.0L T Es5 pl#4 Cup.nsas

/

Pesec

, s t l t __t -

s__

e 6 se og yo pg OATS l's fated SAN UNOS HL NUCL E AR I;t NT fq AllNG ST ATION

__ tin.es 2 sh 3_ _

FIGURE 6-1 Soup ('F) Arets pa rtivAI.

AMAIYSit - rott IfrA 6-5 i 8,... . : i

a WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LE-*

ants costaar res 3:nc ceasessen A se is - asas pie 3

{ ]a,C 11-3, A

4 b*

I.

NE-t t

I e

$t5-5 3I8 150 35e 35e 3a CaNralMENT !BM3eim(33C n

!!-2 A ps 18 - 25ae y, 3 F ""

a,C E J * L ._

. 15-3, I

g D- !<

l p,..

I I

U la s

v. ~ ik u, s, ,..

canraim ramromuc. n FIGURE 6-2 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION RATE CONSTANTS FOR ZINC CORROSION 6-6

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 7.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 7.1 Description of Proposed Changes The proposed change would delete, in its entirety, Technical Specification 3/4.6.2.2 " Iodine Removal System", and replace it with a new Technical Speci-fication requiring trisodium phosphate in the containment emergency sump area.

Technical Specification 3/4.6.2.2, " Iodine Removal System" requires that a spray additive tank, containing at least 1456 gallons of between 40 and 44% by weight of NaOH solution, and two chemical addition pumps be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3. The original purpose of this Iodine Removal System was to ensure l that in the event of a LOCA a sufficient amount of NaOH will be added to the containment spray to raise the pH to between 8 and 9 during the initial phase of the spray. The effects of the increased pH levels are to increase the iodine removal capability of the spray and the iodine retention in the sump.

l An additional function of the NaOH in the lodine Removal System, during the long term recirculation phase, is to maintain the pH level of sump at > 7.0 to minimize the potential for chlorine induced stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel.

Justification for the deletion of the Spray Additive Tank and the lodine Removal System of Technical Specification 3/4.6.2.2 is provided in the analysis of this report. This analysis utilize 7.0 to minimize chloride 4282e:1d/020686 7-1

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 induced stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel components, maximize the retention of iodine in the containment sump, and to minimize the hydrogen produced by the-corrosion of galvanized surfaces and zinc based paints. To accomplish this increase in the ECCS solution pH, a new Technical Specification is proposed to replace Technical Specification 3.6.2.2. this new Technical Specification requires the presence of a specified amount of trisodium phosphate in the containment area. The analysis in this report has shown that this amount of trisodium phosphate will maintain long term pH control in the ECCS recirculation solution, thereby minimizing the potential for chloride stress corrosion and maximizing lodine retention in the sump solution.

7.2 Safety Analysis The proposed changes discussed above shall be deemed to involve a significant hazards consideration if there is a positive finding in any of the following I areas:

1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No ,
The plant systems, in which a change is proposed, are intended to respond to and mitigate the effects of a LOCA. The proposed changes have no effect on the probability of the occurrence of a LOCA.
As concluded in this report, the deletion of the Iodine Removal System, and its replacement with a sump pH control system will not significantly affect the radiological consequences of a postulated LOCA and the calculated doses will remain well within the 10CFR100 guidelines. In addition, the use of TSP for a long term recirculation phase pH control meets all the requirements for control of chloride stress corrosion and maximizes iodine retention in the sump solution. ,
428?e:ld/020686 7-2
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No The substitution of a passive system for an active system for the mitigation of the consequences of a postulated LOCA actually reduces the potential radiological consequences of an accident due to the failure of the active Iodine Removal System.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
Response: No The radiological consequences of a postulated LOCA will not increase relative to the 10CFR100 guidelines, nor will the potential for chloride stress corrosion increase.
The Commission has provided guidance for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards cons;deration. Example VI relates to a change which either may result in some l increase in the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident 1
or may in some way reduce a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptance criteria with respect-to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
SRP Section 6.5.2 (Rev. 1) discusses the acceptance criteria of the l
l Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup System. The only impact that the proposed Technical Specification change has on this system is the deletion of the use of NaOH in the initial containment spray phase following a postulated LOCA, and the substitution of trisodium phosphate for HaOH in the 1
l l
4282e:ld/020686 7-3
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 sump solution during the long term recirculation phase. As shown in Table 7-1, depending on the degree of conservatism in this analysis, the deletion of the Spray Additive Tank may slightly increase or decrease the calculated thyroid dose at the LPZ, and will in all cases reduce the thyroid dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary. It should be noted that in all cases there is significant margin between the calculated thyroid doses and the limits defined in 10CFR100, and this margin is essentially independent of whather the Spray Additive Tank is operable, or if the SAT is deleted and the Sump pH Control System is operable.
Also, there is essentially no change in the potential for chloride : tress corrosion, the generation of hydrogen or the environmental qualification of equipment. Therefore, the proposed change meets the SRP acceptance criteria, and is similar to example VI.
7.3 Safety and Significant Hazards Determination Based on the above Safety Analysis, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92; and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change; and (3) this action will not result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.
7.4 Proposed Specifications Following are the proposed specifications 'or bot 5 U..its 2 and 3:
4282e:ld/020686 7-4
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RECIRCULATION FLOW PH CONTROL LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION ,
3.6.2.2 The recirculation flow pH control system shall be operable with a minimum of 15,400 lbs. (256 cu. f t.) of trisodium phosphate (w/12 hydrates), or equivalent, available in the storage racks in the containment.
APPLICABILITY: Modes 1, 2, and 3 ACTION:
With less than the required amount of trisodium phosphate available, restore the system to the correct amount within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months and in HOT SHUTOOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .
SURVEILLANCE RE0VIREMENTS 4.6.2.2 The recirculation flow pH control system shall be demonstrated operable during each refueling outage by:
a. Visually verifying that the TSP storage racks have maintained their integrity and the TSP containers contain a minimum of 15,400 lbs. (256 cu. f t.) of TSP (w/12 hydrates) or equivalent.
b. Verifying that when a sample of less than 3.03 grams of trisodium phosphate (w/12 hydrates) or equivalent, selected at random from one of the storage racks inside of containment, is submerged, without agitation, in at least I litre of 120 1 10 degrees-F borated demineralized water borated to at least 2482 ppm boron, allowed to_ stand for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , then decanted and mixed, the pH of the solution is greater than or equal to 7.0.
BASES f
l 3/4.6.2.2 RECIRCULATION FLOW PH CONTROL SYSTEM The operability of the recirculation flow pH control system ensures that there is sufficient trisodium phosphate available in containment to guarantee a sump pH of > 7.0 during the recirculation phase of a postulated LOCA. This pH i
level is required to minimize the potential for chloride stress corrosion of l austenitic stainless steel. The specified amount of TSP will result in a recirculation phase pH of 7.2 assuming complete dissolution and maximu.n allowed boric acid concentrations from the borated water sources. Similarly, surveillance 4.6.2.2 will produce a pH of 7.2. The specified temperature of 120 i 10 degrees-F for the surveillance is based is consistent with expected long term recirculation phase sump temperature reported in the FSAR.
4282e:ld/020686 7-5
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE 7-1 CALCULATED THYROID DOSE (REH)
With Spray SAT SAT Additive Tank Deletion Deletion (SAT) and Conservative Modified 10CFR100 Na OH Case Case Guidelines Exclusion Area 86.0 76.2 57.7 300 Boundary (0-2 hrs)
Low Population Zone 11.5 12.2 8.7 300 (0-30 days) l l
l l
4282e :14,'020686 7-6
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
8.0 REFERENCES
1. " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants", NUREG-0800. ;
2. " Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites",
TID-14844.
3. Final Safety Analysis Report for the San Onof re Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3 updated.
4. " CIRCUS Computer Code - Calculation of Vapor Phase Elemental Iodine Removal in the Reactor Containment by Chemical Additive Spray", WCAP-8659.
5. " Technological Bases for Models of Spray Washout of Airborne Contaminants in Containment Vessels", NUREG/CR-0009.
6 .- " Fission-Product Deposition and its Enhancement Under Reactor Accident Conditions: Deposition on Containment - System Surfaces", BMI-1865.
7. " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Ef fluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I", Regulatory Guide 1.109.
8. " Corrosion Study for Determining Hydrogen f rom Aluminum and Zinc Duritig Post Accident Conditions", WCAP-8776 (Non-Proprietary). l
9. " Hydrogen Releases from Corrosion of Aluminum and Zinc", 8NL-NUREG-24532.
10. "The Relative Importance of Temperature, pH and Boric Acid Concentration on Rates of H Production from Galvanized Steel Corrosion",
2 NUREG-/CR-2812.
l
11. " Calculational Error Affecting the Design Performance of a System for Controlling pH of Containment Sump Water Following a LOCA", IE Bulletin 77-04. g 4282e:ld/020686 8-1 L
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
8.0 REFERENCES
(Continued)
12. " Chemistry Criteria and Specifications", Westinghouse Standard Information Package, Volume 5-1, (Proprietary Class 2).
13. " Evaluation of Protective Coatings for Use in Reactor Containment",
WCAP-7198-L (Proprietary Class 2).
l l
l l
l l
4282e:1d/020686 8-2 I
m
,g ,
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 APPENDIX A PARAMETERS AND INFORMATION USED IN SONGS 2&3 SAT DELETION ANALYSIS
1. General Information A. SAR sections (latest revision) describing the radiological conscquence evaluation of a LOCA, the containment spray system, the l control room, and post-LOCA hydrogen production and control.
I This information is presented in the following sections of the San Onofre 2&3 FSAR (updated):
1 15.6.3.3 - Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) i 15.6.3.3.5 - Radiological Consequences l Pages 15.6-50 through 15.6-66 l
6.2.2 - Containment Heat Removal Systems l
6.2.2.1 - Containment Spray System Pages 6.2-209 through 6.2-236 6.2.2.2 - Containment Emergency Fan Coolers Pages 6.2-236 through 6.2-241 6.5.2 - Containment Air Purification and Cleanup -- Iodine Removal System, Pages 6.5-9 through 6.5-28 6.4 - Habitability Systems Pages 6.4-1 through 6.4-23 6.2.5 - Combustible Gas Control in Containment Pages 6.2-272 through 6.2-293 l B. Containment drawings showing the spray header and nozzle layout.
This in' formation is shown in FSAR Figure 6.2-51. However, the i
latest certified construction drawing, approximately 18 inches by 24 inches in size, was provided by SCE in the June 19, 1985 transmittal.
l II. Specific Information l
The following information was obtained f rom the SONGS 2&3 FSAR (updated).
l 1
A. Containment Sorav System
1. Spray flow rate.
1750 gal / min - Page 6.2-213, Table 6.2-29
2. Duration of spray injecion phase.
Minimum of 20 minutes - Pages 6.2-216 and 6.5-14
3. Time delay, if any, to begin spray recirculation.
None - Page 6.2-216, Part B A-1 3744e:ld/110585
l l WESTINGHOUSE FROPRIETARY CLASS 3
4. Boron concentration in the refueling water.
2500 ppm maximum will be used per SCE advice (E-Mail 3-8-85) even though 2300 PPM is givan on Pages 6.3-56 and 6.5-12. Boron concentrations of 3000, and 3500 ppm were also considered
5. Titration curves for TSP in boric acid solution.
This information was not found in the SONGS 2&3 FSAR. This information was provided by SCE in the June 19, 1985 transmittal.
6. Spray fall height.
81.5 feet - Pages 6.5-12 and 6.5-23 B. Containment
1. Net free volume.
2.366 x 106 ft3 - Pages 6.5-12 and 6.5-23
2. Fraction of volume that is sprayed.
80.6 percent - Pages 6.5-12, 6.5-23, and 6.5-24 ,
3. Leak rate.
0.1 percent per day f rom 0 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months .
0.05 percent per day f rom 1 to 30 days Page 15.6-52, Table 15.6-22
4. Minimum number of containment coolers required for accident recovery and air flow rate per cooler. Any filters?
Quantity - 2, flow rate - 31,000 CFM at 60 psig each Pages 6.2-238, 6.2-239 and 6.5-12.
No filters
5. Location of fan cooler suction and discharge.
Figure 6.2-59. Additional drawings were supplied by SCE in the June 19, 1985 transmittal.
6. Maximum water inventory in sump following a LOCA.
From Page 6.3-56:
RCS -
425,271 lbs.
RWST - 4,088,800 lbs.
SIT -
447,000 lbs.
BAST - 129,200 lbs.
Total - 5,090,271 lbs. = 610,000 gals.
7. Inventory of all surfaces (ft2 ), location (above or below op.
deck, submerged or above water), and type of coating, i.e.,
galvanized, zinc base, epoxy or phenolic paint. Include paint m:vsfacturer and trade name.
The information given in Tables 6.2-12, 6.2-13, 6.2-14 and 6.2-38 will be used for deposition surface evaluation.
Information in FSAR Section 6.1 will also be used.
, 3744e:1d/110585 A-2
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 C. Source Term
1. Core equilibrium iodine inventory.
1-131 thru 135, curies I-127 and I-129, kg The design basis values for I-131 through 135 in Table 15.6-22 will be used. 1-127 and I-129 are only used for filter loading and estimates will be used.
D. Control Room
1. HVAC flow diagram and desciption of operation.
Figures 6.5-1 and 6.5-2 will be used along with the description in Subsection 9.4.2.
2. Air flow rates and filter efficiencies for intake and recirculation units for post accident operation.
The values in Table 158-5 will be used. Additional information was supplied by SCE in the June 19, 1985 transmittal.
3. Any time delays to switch from normal operating mode to accident mode?
No time delays found in the FSAR. SCE advised that time delays are negligible in the June 19, 1985 transmittal.
4. Free volume.
293,300 ft3 - Table 158-5.
E. Site Parameters X/0 (sec/m3) 0-2 hour at site boundary 0-2, 2-8, 8-24, 24-96,96-720 hours at the outer boundary of the low population zone and at the control room air intake.
The atmospheric disperson factors given in Table 158-4 at the 5%
level will be used.
F. Hydroaen Production
1. Hydrogen production rate equations.
The information presented in Tables 6.2-38 and 6.2-40 and Figures 6.2-63 and 6.2-64 will be used for production rates.
Equations are not necessary.
2. Containment temperature transient used in hydrogen analysis.
The information contained in Tables 6.2-9 and 6.2-25 and Figures 6.2-2 through 6.2-6 will be used.
I
3. Containment volume percent H2 vs. time.
Figure 6.2-63 will be used.
3744e:1d/110585- A-3
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
4. Hydrogen accumulation vs. time for aluminum corrosion and for zinc corrosion.
Figures 6.2-63 and 6.2-64 will be used.
I' l
3744e:Id/110585 A-4
f,I . . i. f i. . ..
y. {l[ [~ , . . ' . ' . , , . Da [ . p . :. , ) f . .: ..
^
- [ . J .f ' . .7,. 1 .
l.... .. . ..
f4 i
. .. y . < .' :
j(
.. s - . - . ,? d ~ y. 8; . ,.,.
.- q e- .y . - - . . . . gr - : .. mc e:
.s-
,1,..
:.' .,..... , * ...* : w
~ - '- -.
.s . .r y :v" ,.&
. =x; s,a... -
- ? . . . .
w$;. % ' . .: y . -
.. . . m. :. , s A.. Y m#. pyY. ;.ydle
-s. . . . .
.c - :,.~w J. -
.s .
. - 4 .
.. r +
. +j s >se ;
%v. ,w.,.,
. G.4 . , . ...
,- ....2
. mv .?..,2.v.; 3 .p:. ~ .-.s 4, ; p }.;u,.
.q c-
n. u- c..p. .. .
,,a. ,p. . s %. . .. . .
e
.t r
3,. ..,..,. . , ' - . .- . ..
, . L .p . A.- . ,. . . w. a..:..,,.~J.**..v. o . , .-
e.
s. . .:. n m w,w. ..,.. ? .e...=
,. r
. y A . r. . .:4 t. '5,,a . ,n , . . :. ,. .% ,.. r "3 ..+ . * <. .
. . s .
p..
y .y . gn . . .n.2., .o. ,;, .:7.w . .. .c ;..,-.. :...-.,.. . . . - . - , . , .. .. . . ..9~. st.f.3 .
o m a. . .
g. -~ .c.v, _. p_
y,m.
~
n.. y 4., 3 ,.; v. -- tef . yg :p%..p:;;v 9 .a
x. ; .
. . . , . . . . . ,,3....(r.
. ,,-- . ..,a .,,p ;, y
. n y. ., ,,:
. . c.
' .. , - . . .y, p . ,. . ; s _:_ . ys, ..; . ,6 . -. y . y; . e .
. . ..,1.
,, s .,.,
.. . .; : c..,
1
,,.c
.n,. ,,..,. g, p/ . . ,. ;g.
$r.;
m
. .f.
.%. . p . . ,i _. .. ,-
; , .,g , .
.<-i ,.
s .... ;<a, . n . . .p.
y
' ,, .. . ,. . ;- : , ..' - c. , 7.. +. < . , e .%;.g .. ,.., y g#,y-w :g.2.w s;.? . p.r.y e.:,.y#..y. -
^ .-.-- 4
.x4. . . . . Q.; 2 u- .,
pe psq ,3:q
. )vlZW'.h. .c ~ y.'sc '*r-s
.*y 7.;q , y.4;. _ g-. 9 .. -
. , . .. , . y 4...:' j. '
.....' . . . . . - . .s'
...T Aj :. R p' " ' - ' :
O +;. - . xT- .. ... -g, . ,p .l%. < . ' et -
3,,4 ,d
,.J, 3

- . .a - L u.. ',
~.
&w1 :
s ,
. ..* .; . . . . , .. ~ g
..., . . . . .~ ..
....'m.,..*. -
3...
t .. t: . , ,.;. . _
t
.. i
., WD3 , o.r W.J.1.., . .
J.. .., 4. .P
.<. .t
.. . G *y -.. . . . . j .- . s- . , t-
. . i"
g. r
. ~ . . . , .. ,
p-. ,_ . . :. _ .
~-' .
p(f-[ rd. ' . . "T ,
. .. .. . q , y.; . . . - -
.., >;,y m., .,
. , , .. .,. .c.,...
. _ . u r.x,2 .qa w. p,$. . ~ .. .. ,, _.,
... ... ; s,..
., , , 9, .. 6, V
'[6Y C
,...7 l,
., , _. ... ^'
.+ , ,.,...
j :* ;;N s.,.
. , .. *.y. - L; ;."; .
v eM ' .' ,.'.' ., . yd *.
- e

.g . , # s
p. ,.A.c"g..
Wl
. p
' . \ . g. f;- ,g
,f,3
[iC '.-
i q ' j ,
, s..
. . ,'..,[*' ,
P-l *.,*
i y .,
t.
p. i
,e .
, , - g -,
c. s M,,.>.,.
. i. - y"p(fity a.. t,
,,a.
..., q;se
-. ; .s ; .e .
% . j :3, ,, .q; .. . .
.y & $; g -l \. : h .~ ? ' ..
a .,
- a ~7.'; _ . . g9 .. . ...' 3;p.; - .. t a 4g.7 , j . 9 g., , : . g,.
, 7.h,4 A , q.;.m.s y, r . :: , .
. e, y s s. . c . < , . .r , . . . . . . . ..
,. 4, *h , ' ' . ' .
' # l. ] ' ' ' ' , ;) ',
[' % - , ! J' .,', J f G*ff: Qg&f@
y:[. L. _f '. . "
y 4
. w ~; .. :. w ml;$ e.
r. . .
a. ...
.x. -;
~
~..;n,:..,:,.5. . ,m c#w aa m y.. m n ..,.:,.:.. d. .,.j.ca.rwi.t
m. <.. ;, ,. . .c .
W .f.:fV Q '., w w.7_.._
h. f .,L
.s....- . , . m. n > .. . .
w
.... .. ,e . rc,+- ,. . . . t, . - ..
.,..;.ag .
z.
s.... ..
. ; .s . y . ,
, , b w p.. ,4 , ;
..g ,
',8, ,
..u..
,n - .
} e
, 5[ -
1, ; . ,.. .
,..'y A' .
-*?EO.'
7 ' } . [ [ y. ,'. -( T. - .,.'S'
" . ,.8 g -
' , . einme
, . . ,.f. .,
~ .
.e * , , . : ,.,h...., -
j - ',' *
. - - + .. , .- fnien Ly ' ; 7 , , .,.. ._ .-
_'^
n ., ..;. .:_
+
- y ,
. y_., ; .
Y -(
. .. ., [
- :;; ).s . ' . ~ 'L [ I, " . . , .)* . ,
.} .
. . -.. . . . . ~ . . r .. .
. s. ...- .. ..-... -
,y .-. .. ..~. , ,. . , , . . _ . .. . s..
. g,*. .
,..s . . .
.1
.' v.. .' o '
[. . . - . - .. ; 'L -
'[
. ; -. . . ;J .

e .. ' . . . . . . - .. .
,e y 4
. .qy ...: ,j- ..f .' . .'
W' k. . ' -d ,..': _ .'. _ _ . ,
=
. . - - ;, -p -
r ' .. :
4 ,_
' .T .,
. . ., ... , . q .' ' ., y ..'.'-s i.' .m'
. . . . . - 5. .
g .
^U i *,#
,( *. *{ , * * . v f, ,., f 'w . l'
,- 4 s .
'. l '
. . " ' . , ' ... .. (,4. k. .. 'y, g?. 'a . M I;, *. : g'w1 c,- .' , .
, e ' -
a.
'. d -
6 .
r, z 3* ,, .
e.
b , . ' -
g
- ~ n,
."We6 %..we.
./.s je w.2 y w. ru m.; . z . -
+ .g . ,s
, e1- . ' - 1'.. , . ~ .
o s
1T G .. f,f <n
.s ,
[ ' l ' , ( f Mf 4 '
.,p.p. 7 x. .[ . h f if. I " -
f. ,.%, ;..'
. 7e ...[ w .
;p e m(hf%
w.m. .
- w .9,,%.
. e
.[
E*
e~ '. .
,,c, e s nm
~.r ,-.a e m :my,. y.,.; :y 't-y >x+
. - c, , . ,. . 4 -....
7 nn. .,9, g :3. ,y ~. 7. : .
.3.
...g , ,
m k., . y m..,
y.7. t ., . , ,
~ s
. *W -
.y..,3.g, 3..
2,
.A.g
. u,n . a, g"$ w . y c.. %.. y
.a.
,....g..
es.x : .
% ,, ,, . j : ; .
. ,r m, g ....; 8. i ,<~ . .
.c.
g e.3 .. . 5 s :- , "
f &&;' g$$q&.c.. 4 y .IR.f'.' Q ll?./.% :, *: Ys "he
~ '
- ' .1 . g: . - . .T T 6 .,. -:. ';
, 'Y,e' 'y 3%h. ,$$; &',
-:h y M. .
. !( e. :
~
.V - .
p..... x'. - .w g % !n yl Q: v .a u j ', .*.
e -
r. .. , ,.,$>., .V : 1. v & . . .am ; n. ,'e.,.cyv <.a,.. .- . .
,. ~ .;, a ~w s. .. .n:. . . .e s - . .s r . y,.- i m. s.;.
ij,,y
'g . a.
x, - y .j ' . ..
-- 4. .:f . qws. ,y..- r
- . .g. , . 4.g
.u.
w,-
i ..
.e . x n ,. y: u c h.: :
Q : .3, , .. .
m. ., ., ,- *.
.p ~, .
.y- . .. q.w[. ,j- , sg.3. ,p . . v . 9.3,.%,. . y., .f.y g 4gM. -
.. . . ..' ':. ;. .. . 1 .- . .
~
. ~, +y
'. :* . . m f f y;e, h: qnwW.,7 + g .7 [..w 4 .,, g. w%.6 L:g g ? m: '
, : .:.yq, %w,f.,.,y' 7*A: j a e. < jgy% ggpygg,. . Ne ;,
.; y.. - :.
.',y .
. . . . . . 1, 3
L. n LM.._
9.
'. ..- - . . _- :

v t e Letter Sequence Other
TAC:60722, (Open) TAC:60723, (Open)
Initiation Acceptance... Administration Questions Answers Results Approval... Other: ML20154L699
MONTHYEAR1985-12-31 [Table View]

ML20154L699

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

8.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

8.0 REFERENCES

8.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search