Title: Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials REV 01 

ANL-DSD-MD-000001

October 2004 

 
1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this analysis, as directed by Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration 
Modeling and Analysis of the Waste Form and Waste Package (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583]), is to 
compile applicable corrosion data from the literature (journal articles, engineering documents, 
materials handbooks, or standards, and national laboratory reports), evaluate the quality of these 
data, and use these to perform statistical analyses and distributions for aqueous corrosion rates of 
waste package materials. The purpose of this report is not to describe the performance of 
engineered barriers for the TSPA-LA. Instead, the analysis provides simple statistics on aqueous 
corrosion rates of steels and alloys. 
These rates are limited by various aqueous parameters such as temperature (up to 100°C), water 
type (i.e., fresh versus saline), and pH. Corrosion data of materials at pH extremes (below 4 and 
above 9) are not included in this analysis, as materials commonly display different corrosion 
behaviors under these conditions. The exception is highly corrosion-resistant materials (Inconel 
Alloys) for which rate data from corrosion tests at a pH of approximately 3 were included. The 
waste package materials investigated are those from the long and short 5-DHLW waste 
packages, 2-MCO/2-DHLW waste package, and the 21-PWR commercial waste package. This 
analysis also contains rate data for some of the materials present inside the fuel canisters for the 
following fuel types: U-Mo (Fermi U-10%Mo), MOX (FFTF), Thorium Carbide and Th/U 
Carbide (Fort Saint Vrain [FSVR]), Th/U Oxide (Shippingport LWBR), U-metal (N Reactor), 
Intact U-Oxide (Shippingport PWR, Commercial), aluminum-based, and U-Zr-H (TRIGA). 
Analysis of corrosion rates for Alloy 22, spent nuclear fuel, defense high level waste (DHLW) 
glass, and Titanium Grade 7 can be found in other analysis or model reports (See Sections 6.2.8, 
6.4, and 6.5.1). 
This analysis supports risk and criticality calculations or analyses, but will not be used directly in 
the TSPA-LA. Output from this analysis will be used to support calculations or analyses using 
the EQ6 computer code for reaction-path modeling of aqueous geochemical systems (Wolery 
and Daveler 1992 [DIRS 100097]). The following downstream criticality documents use this 
analysis or its output data as input: Impacts of Updated Design and Rates on EQ6 Calculations 
for Chemical Degradation of Fermi and TRIGA Codisposal Waste Packages, EQ6 Calculations 
for Chemical Degradation of ATR Aluminum-Based DOE SNF in a Waste Package, Screening 
Analysis of Criticality Features, Events, and Processes for License Application, Boron Loss from 
CSNF Waste Packages, Probability of External Criticality for Codisposal Waste Packages, and 
Configuration Generator Model for In-Package Criticality. This analysis supports the 
determination of the probability of criticality for DOE SNF codisposal waste packages by 
providing, where appropriate: 1) minimum, maximum, mean, and median values of corrosion 
rates with the corresponding standard deviations; and 2) empirical cumulative distribution 
functions (ECDFs) of the corrosion rates of materials. 
Output from this report is limited to general corrosion rates of waste package materials. A 
statistical analysis of galvanic and localized corrosion rates is not provided in this analysis. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 1-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 1-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
The preparation of this analysis and the supporting activities are subject to Quality Assurance 
Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]), as stated in the technical work plan 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583]). This analysis was prepared in accordance with AP-SIII.9Q, 
Technical Reports, and reviewed in accordance AP-2.14Q, Document Review. It does not 
investigate any items in Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]). 
The control of the electronic management of information was evaluated in accordance with 
AP-SV.1Q, Control of the Electronic Management of Information. Methods used for electronic 
information control, as specified in the technical work plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583]) include: 
• Records submitted in accordance with AP-17.1Q, Records Management, and AP-6.1Q, 
Document Control, are retrievable through the records processing center. 
• Engineering technical information stored on writeable CD-ROMs that are not 
rewriteable. Conditions, location, retention time, and access are controlled through the 
records center following submittal in accordance with AP-17.1Q, Records Management, 
and AP-6.1Q, Document Control. 
• Media identified in accordance with AP-17.1Q, Records Management, and AP-SIII.9Q, 
Technical Reports. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 2-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 2-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
3.1 QUALIFIED SOFTWARE 
No software that requires project or application-specific qualification or validation in accordance 
with LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management, was used in this analysis. 
3.2 EXEMPT SOFTWARE 
This section describes the computer software used to carry out the calculations in Section 4 and 
the regression analysis in Section 6. Table 3-1 lists computer software used in this analysis. 
Table 3-1. Computer Software Used in this Analysis 
Software 
Name Version 
Software Tracking 
Number 
(Qualification Status) 
Description and 
Components Used 
Input and Output 
Files (Included in 
Appendix II) 
Microsoft Versions 97 Commercial off-the-Used in this document for output: *.xls 
Excel SR-2, 9.0.4402 shelf software graphical representation and 
SR-1 arithmetical manipulations 
Microsoft Excel for Windows 97 (Versions SR-1 and SR-2) is used in calculations and analyses 
to manipulate the inputs using standard mathematical expressions and operations. It is also used 
to tabulate and chart results. The user-defined formulas, inputs, and results are documented in 
sufficient detail to allow an independent repetition of computations. Thus, Microsoft Excel is 
used only as a worksheet, not as a software routine; therefore, in accordance with 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management, it is not required to be qualified or documented. 
Microsoft Excel was run on standard personal computers listed in Table 3-2. 
Table 3-2. Computers Used in Analysis 
Computer Make CPU # 
Operating 
System Software Used 
Dell Optiplex GX300 CRWMS-M&O Tag # 117728 Windows 95 Microsoft Excel (97 SR-2) 
Dell Latititude C/Port II APR Framatome ANP Inc. Service 
Tag # H22MT11 Windows 2000 Microsoft Excel (9.0.4402 SR-1) 
Dell Optiplex GX260 CRWMS-M&O Tag # 152393 Windows 2000 Microsoft Excel (97 SR-2) 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 3-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 3-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
This section includes the types of materials used within the waste packages, as well as the 
corrosion rate data of those materials. Section 4.1.1 lists the components of waste packages 
analyzed in this report and identifies the materials of which these are made. Input data and 
information necessary to perform the analyses for these materials are provided in Sections 4.1.2 
through 4.1.5. Section 4.1.6 includes input data and information for drip shield materials. 
4.1.1 Waste Package Materials 
There are four basic waste package designs used in geochemistry calculations for DOE and 
commercial SNF. These include 5-DHLW long and short, 2-MCO/2-DHLW, and commercial 
21-PWR waste packages. The major components of these waste package types and the materials 
of which these are made are provided in the following sections. A synopsis of waste package 
materials is presented in Table 4-1. 
4.1.1.1 Components Common to All DOE Waste Packages 
The following components are common to all DOE waste packages: 
• The outer shell, constructed of Alloy 22 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472]) 
• The inner vessel (also called liner) constructed of Stainless Steel Type 316 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169472]) 
• A Carbon Steel Type A516 structural basket (divider plate assembly or fuel divider 
assembly). For 5-DHLW packages (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166860]; BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166861]) per D&E / PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169480]), the structural basket is designed to hold the high-level 
waste glass pour canisters in place. For the 2-MCO/2-DHLW packages (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166862]) per D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169480]), the basket consists of perpendicularly aligned A-plates 
designed to hold the glass pour canisters and multicanister overpacks (MCOs) in place. 
• The glass pour canisters, consisting of Stainless Steel Type 304L canisters (Baxter 1988 
[DIRS 106164]), are filled with solidified high-level waste glass. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4.1.1.2 Components of the 5-DHLW Long and Short Waste Packages 
The major fuel types that will potentially be stored in these waste packages include Shippingport 
PWR, Shippingport LWBR, Fort Saint Vrain, FFTF, aluminum-based, Fermi, and TRIGA. It is 
convenient to consider the 5-DHLW waste packages as several structural components: 
• Centrally located Stainless Steel Type 316 DOE SNF canister (sometimes called the 
“18-inch canister”) with internal Carbon Steel Type A516 impact plates (DOE 1999 
[DIRS 140225]). 
• Individual DOE SNF canister internals, including: 
- Shippingport PWR – borated Stainless Steel Type 304L, chrome plating, Inconel X 
spacer rings, Zircaloy-4 fuel cluster structure, Zircaloy-2 spacers, and UO2-CaO-ZrO2 
alloy fuel wafers (DOE 1999 [DIRS 104940]) 
- Shippingport LWBR – Stainless Steel Type 316L basket and spacers, AM-350 
stainless steel grid, Aluminum Alloy Type 6061-T6 fill material with 1% added 
gadolinium, Zircaloy-4 cladding and support shell, Inconel X-750 Wire Compression 
Spring, Inconel 600 base plates, ThO2, and UO2-ThO2 SNF (DOE 1999 
[DIRS 105007]) 
- Fort Saint Vrain - fuel elements (graphite blocks that hold the fuel compacts). The 
fuel compacts contain the fuel kernels. Fuel kernels are composed of a Thorium 
Carbide or Th/U carbide core surrounded by four protective coatings of SiC and 
pyrolytic carbon (Taylor 2001 [DIRS 154726]) 
-FFTF – (“driver assembly”) Stainless Steel Type 316 cladding, wire, and spacers, 
Inconel 600 reflectors, Stainless Steel Type 316L pins, Stainless Steel Type 316L 
basket doped with 2.75 wt% GdPO4, Stainless Steel Type 302 spring, MOX (UO2 and 
PuO2) fuel, and UO2 fuel (INEEL 2002 [DIRS 158820]) 
- Aluminum-Based Fuels – Fuel assemblies composed of aluminum-based fuels, 
Aluminum Alloy Types 1100 or 6061-T6 cladding and frame, Aluminum Alloy 
Type 6061-T6 side plates, comb, and pin (Paige 1969 [DIRS 167978]). Basket 
composed of Alloy N06464 and Stainless Steel Type 304L 
- Enrico-Fermi (Fermi) – Stainless Steel Type 316L basket, Carbon Steel Type A516 
and GdPO4 shot (filler material), U-Mo fuel meat metallurgically bonded to a 
zirconium cladding tube (DOE 1999 [DIRS 104110]) 
-TRIGA – Graphite reflectors, Zr rods, Stainless Steel Type 304L cladding, and U-Zr 
hydride fuel (DOE 1999 [DIRS 103891]). 
4.1.1.3 Components of the 2-MCO/2-DHLW Waste Package 
The following components are found in the 2-MCO/2-DHLW waste packages: 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
• Two MCO stands composed of Carbon Steel Type A516 (DOE 2000 [DIRS 150095]) 
• Two Stainless Steel Type 304L MCOs (DOE 2000 [DIRS 150095]) 
• MCO internals - Stainless Steel Type 304L baskets, aluminum (Aluminum Alloy 
Type 1100) spacers, N Reactor (U-metal) SNF rods (DOE 2000 [DIRS 150095]). 
4.1.1.4 CSNF Waste Package 
The CSNF waste package also contains the Alloy 22 outer shell and Stainless Steel Type 316 
inner vessel. The fuel basket assembly, which is located inside the Stainless Steel Type 316 
liner, is made up of the following components: 
• Four Fuel Plate Assemblies constructed of plates of Alloy N06464 and Aluminum Alloy 
Type 6061 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171319]; BSC 2004 [DIRS 171320]) (former design used 
Neutronit, BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472]) 
• Four Side/Corner-Guide/Stiffeners constructed of Carbon Steel Type A516 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169472] 
• 21 Fuel Basket Tubes constructed of Carbon Steel Type A516 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169472]) 
• 21-PWR Fuel Assemblies constructed of zircaloy cladding and PWR fuel (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 169110]; Punatar 2001 [DIRS 155635]). 
Table 4-1. Summary of Waste Package Materials 
Fuel Types/Waste 
Formsa Steels Alloys 
Miscellaneous 
Materials 
U-metal Stainless Steel Type 302 Zircaloy-2 GdPO4 
U-Mo Stainless Steel Type 304L Zircaloy-4 SiC 
Aluminum-Based SNF Stainless Steel Types 316/316L Alloy 22c Graphite 
MOX Carbon Steel Type A516 Aluminum Alloy Type 1100 
UO2 Stainless Steel Type AM-350 Aluminum Alloy Type 6061-T6 
U-Th/Th Oxide 
U-Th/Th Carbide 
Gd-Doped Stainless Steel Type 
316Lb 
Gd-doped Aluminum Alloy Type 
6061b 
Ca-U-Zr Oxide Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L Inconel X-750 
U-Zr Hydride Neutronit Inconel 600 
Commercial UO2 Alloy N06464 
DHLW Glass Chrome platingd 
NOTES: a See Section 4.1.2. 
b 
No rate data was available for these materials and they are not analyzed further in this document. 
c See Section 4.1.3.6. 
d See Section 4.1.3.9. 
This table summarizes Sections 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.4. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4.1.1.5 Drip Shield Material 
The drip shield is not a waste package component. However, its proximity and position relative 
to the waste package warrants investigation of corrosion rates for drip shield materials. 
According to D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169220], the primary components of the drip shield are composed of Titanium Grades 7 
(SB-265 R52400) and 24 (SB-265 R56405). 
4.1.2 Spent Fuels and Waste Forms 
Since analysis of degradation and dissolution rates for DOE fuels and waste forms, including 
high-level waste glass and commercial SNF, can be found in other sources (Section 6.4), no 
further analysis of this information is provided in this document. 
4.1.3 Steels and Alloys 
4.1.3.1 Stainless Steel (Types 302/304/304L and 316/316L/AM-350) 
The corrosion rates for different types of stainless steel are presented in Sections 4.1.3.1.1 
through 4.1.3.1.5. These sections are divided into various environmental conditions to correlate 
with Section 6.2 as properties of the aqueous solution determine the rate of corrosion for 
stainless steels (Section 6.2). Discussions of corrosion rates for Stainless Steel Type 304L also 
apply to Stainless Steel Types 304 and 302 (Section 5.1.2). Discussions of corrosion rates for 
Stainless Steel Type 316L also apply to Stainless Steel Types 316 and AM-350 (Section 5.1.1). 
For this analysis, all values for corrosion of stainless steels were converted to the same units 
of µm/yr. When only a value in µm/yr is provided in tables, the rates were already in those units 
in the reference. When values for the corrosion rate are presented in any other units in the tables, 
these are the units presented in the reference, which are then converted to a rate in µm/yr and 
indicated with an asterisk. These converted rates are calculated in spreadsheets in Appendix II. 
These calculated rates are presented in Section 4 along with the rates from the original source for 
transparency and tracebility. When a value of zero corrosion was reported in the reference, the 
detection limit of the measurement equipment was used (and recorded in the tables) as the 
weight loss. 
4.1.3.1.1 Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Fresh/Dilute Waters 
Corrosion rates for Stainless Steel Types 304L and 316L, used in this analysis for fresh or dilute 
waters (similar to J-13 well water, DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000 [DIRS 151029]), can be 
found in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. Further explanation on the use of these rates can be found in 
Sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2. 
4.1.3.1.2 Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Saltwater 
General corrosion rates for Stainless Steel Types 304L and 316L in saltwater are found in 
Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. Further explanation on the use of these rates can be found in Sections 
6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4.1.3.1.3 Boil-Down Tests 
The results from 80-week boil-down tests are located in Table 4-6. Section 6.2.1.3 provides 
further explanation on the use of these rates. 
4.1.3.1.4 Radiolysis 
The results of experiments simulating the effects of radiolysis products on corrosion can be 
found in Table 4-7. Section 6.2.1.4 further explains the use of these rates. 
4.1.3.1.5 Sensitization of Stainless Steel 
This section does not report any data on corrosion of sensitized stainless steel. The rationale for 
this can be found in Section 6.2.1.5. 
4.1.3.2 Steels Containing Neutron Absorbers (Boron and Gadolinium) 
Neutronit corrosion rates are based on the corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 321 (Section 6.2.2.1) 
and can be found in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. The corrosion rates of borated Stainless Steel 
Type 304L and gadolinium-alloyed stainless steel are also presented below in Table 4-10 
through Table 4-12. Further explanation on the use of these rates can be found in 
Sections 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.2.3. All rates for corrosion of stainless steel were converted to the same 
units of µm/yr. These converted rates are presented in this section along with their values in the 
original units taken directly from the sources. These converted rates are determined in 
spreadsheets in Appendix II. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-5 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-2. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Freshwater 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
a 1.00 N/A 0.0811 28 WL 304L 7 Irradiated J-13 Well Water 
Containing Crushed Tuff 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set 
a 1.00 N/A 0.151 28 WL 304L 7 Irradiated J-13 Well Water Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set 
a 1.00 N/A 0.123 28 WL 304L 7 Irradiated J-13 Well Water 
Containing Crushed Tuff 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set, Heat-Treated, 
650°C for 1 Hour 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
a 1.00 N/A 0.116 28 WL 304L 7 Irradiated J-13 Well Water 304L Coupons in Set, Heat-Treated, 
650°C for 1 Hour 
a 1.00 N/A 0.242 28 WL 304L 7 
Nonirradiated J-13 Well 
Water Containing Crushed 
Tuff 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set 
a 1.00 N/A 0.285 28 WL 304L 7 Nonirradiated J-13 Well 
Water 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set 
a 1.00 N/A 0.249 28 WL 304L 7 
Nonirradiated J-13 Well 
Water Containing Crushed 
Tuff 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set, Heat-Treated, 
650°C for 1 Hour 
a 1.00 N/A 0.283 28 WL 304L 7 Nonirradiated J-13 Well 
Water 
Average of 6 Stainless Steel Type 
304L Coupons in Set, Heat-Treated, 
650°C for 1 Hour 
a 1.31 N/A 0.133 50 WL 304L 6 Freshwater Average of 3 Specimens 
a 1.26 N/A 0.085 80 WL 304L 6 Freshwater Average of 3 Specimens 
a 1.18 N/A 0.072 100 WL 304L 6 Freshwater Average of 3 Specimens 
Detection 
Limit (g)h 
b 1 0.01 0.0113* 29.5c WL 302 2 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test 
b 2 0.01 0.0057* 29.5c WL 302 2 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test 
b 4 0.01 0.0028* 29.5c WL 302 2 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test 
b 8 0.01 0.0014* 29.5c WL 302 2 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
immersion Test 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-6 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-2. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Freshwater (Continued) 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
d 16 0.01 0.0007* 29.5c WL 302 4 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test 
d 1 0.01 0.0478* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
mils 
d 8 0.1 0.3175* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
d 16 0.1 0.1588* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
Detection 
Limit (g)h 
d 1 0.01 0.0113* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
d 8 0.01 0.0014* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
d 16 0.01 0.0007* 29.5c WL 302 6 Freshwater Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Immersion Test, 302/302 Couple 
mpy 
e 0.40 0.001 0.0254* 50 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.57 0.009 0.2286* 50 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.40 0.008 0.2032* 70 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.57 0.008 0.2032* 70 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.40 0.008 0.2032* 80 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.57 0.009 0.2286* 80 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.40 0.006 0.1524* 90 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.57 0.006 0.1524* 90 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.40 0.004 0.1016* 100 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 0.57 0.005 0.127* 100 WL 304L 4 J-13 Well Water 
f 0.003 N/A 0.37 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.003 N/A 1.06 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.02 N/A 0.49 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.02 N/A 0.12 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-7 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-2. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Freshwater (Continued) 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
f 0.04 N/A 0.46 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.04 N/A 0.09 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 well water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.06 N/A 0.47 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.06 N/A 0.09 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.07 N/A 0.68 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.07 N/A 0.08 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.09 N/A 1.12 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.09 N/A 0.15 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.11 N/A 0.26 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.11 N/A No data 
presented 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.12 N/A 0.07 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.12 N/A 1.29 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.13 N/A 0.07 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.13 N/A 0.21 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.16 N/A 0.06 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.16 N/A 0.15 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.17 N/A 0.05 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.17 N/A 0.25 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.19 N/A 0.04 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.19 N/A 0.04 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.21 N/A 0.05 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.21 N/A 0.04 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.23 N/A 0.05 90 EM 304L 4.8 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.23 N/A 0.11 90 EM 304L 4.9 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.23 N/A 0.57 90 WL 304L 4.10 Simulated J-13 Well Water Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
f 0.23 N/A 1.57 90 WL 304L 4.10 Solution 10, Table 2.5 Galvanic Couple of 304L and 825 
g 0.02 N/A 0.14 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
g 0.04 N/A 0.02 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-8 October 2004 

Table 4-2. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Freshwater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-9 October 2004 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
g 0.06 N/A 0.02 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
g 0.17 N/A 0.13 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
g 0.12 N/A 0.04 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
g 0.23 N/A 0.06 90 EM 304L 4.2 Aerated Simulated J-13 Well 
Water 
g 0.11 N/A 0.13 100 WL 304L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
Reported as "Nil," Which is Less 
Than the Weight-Loss Detection 
Limit of 0.13. Given Value for 
Detection Limit 
g 0.11 N/A 0.25 100 WL 304L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
g 0.11 N/A 0.13 100 WL 304L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
Reported as "Nil," Which is Less 
Than the Weight-Loss Detection 
Limit of 0.13. Given Value for 
Detection Limit 
Sources: a
bMcCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336]. 
Alexander et a
l. 1961 [DIRS 162265]. 
cForgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343] (Average temperature of Gatun Lake, Panama is approximately 85°F. This reference is Part 1 of a 5-part series 
and indicates the temperatures for corrosion studies presented by Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265] (Table 2) and Southwell et al. 1976 
[DIRS 100927]). 
dSouthwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
efGlass et al. 1984 [DIRS 159340]. 
Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339]
. 
ghBeavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341]. 
When the reported corros
ion rate is zero, it was set to the detection limit (Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927])
. 
NOTE: 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II. 
WL = weight loss, EM = electrochemical measurement, 1 mil =25.4 µm. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-3. Stainless Steel Types 316/316L Corrosion in Freshwater 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
Detection 
Limit (g)g 
a 1 0.01 0.0113* 29.5c WL 316 2 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test 
a 2 0.01 0.0056* 29.5c WL 316 2 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test 
a 4 0.01 0.0028* 29.5c WL 316 2 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test 
a 8 0.01 0.0014* 29.5c WL 316 2 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test 
b 16 0.01 0.0007* 29.5c WL 316 4 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
b 1 0.01 0.0113* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
b 8 0.01 0.0014* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
b 16 0.01 0.0007* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
b 1 0.01 0.0475* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
b 8 0.01 0.0059* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
b 16 0.01 0.0030* 29.5c WL 316 6 Gatun Lake (freshwater) 
Panama Canal Zone, Immersion 
Test, Stainless Steel Type 
316/316 Couple 
mpy 
d 0.40 0.009 0.229* 50 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.57 0.004 0.102* 50 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.40 0.01 0.254* 70 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-10 October 2004 

Table 4-3. Stainless Steel Types 316/316L Corrosion in Freshwater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-11 October 2004 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
d 0.57 0.009 0.229* 70 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.40 0.011 0.279* 80 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.57 0.01 0.254* 80 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.40 0.006 0.152* 90 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.57 0.01 0.254* 90 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.40 0.007 0.178* 100 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
d 0.57 0.008 0.203* 100 WL 316L 4 J-13 Well Water 
e 1.31 N/A 0.154 50 WL 316L 6 J-13 Well Water Average 
e 1.26 N/A 0.109 80 WL 316L 6 J-13 Well Water Average 
e 1.18 N/A 0.037 100 WL 316L 6 J-13 Well Water Average 
f 0.11 N/A 0.51 100 EM 316L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
f 0.11 N/A 0.51 100 EM 316L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
f 0.11 N/A 0.51 100 EM 316L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned Water and 
Steam 
Sources: aAlexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265], Table 2. 
bSouthwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
c
Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343] (Average temperature of Gatun Lake, Panama is approximately 85°F. This reference is Part 1 of a 5-part series 
and indicates the temperatures for corrosion studies presented by Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265] and Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
d
Glass et al. 1984 [DIRS 159340]
. 
efBeavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341]. 
McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336]
. 
gWhen the detection limit (Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]) is listed for the weight loss, the original corrosion rate was listed as zero. 
NOTE: 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-316L.xls in Appendix II. 
WL = weight loss, EM = electrochemical measurement. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-4. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Seawater 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) Corrosion Rate 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
a 0.022 N/A 1.11 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.041 N/A 0.66 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.060 N/A 1.36 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.080 N/A 1.15 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.099 N/A 1.65 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.117 N/A 2.03 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.136 N/A 4.75 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
a 0.155 N/A 8.2 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and C1010 
Carbon Steel 
a 0.196 N/A 15.9 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-12 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-4. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Seawater (Continued) 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) Corrosion Rate 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
a 0.214 N/A 14.84 90 EM 304L 4.7 
J-13 Well 
Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Chloride 
Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L and Carbon 
Steel Type C1010 
J-13 Well Galvanic Couple of Stainless 
a 0.232 N/A 12.33 90 EM 304L 4.7 Water with 
1,000 ppm 
Steel Type 304L and C1010 
Chloride 
(g/dm2) 
b 1 2.93 36.90* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Seawater Immersion 
b 1 0.36 4.53* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Mean Tide 
b 2 4.43 27.90* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Seawater Immersion 
b 2 0.55 3.46* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Mean Tide 
b 4 7.06 22.23* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Seawater Immersion 
b 4 0.99 3.12* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Mean Tide 
b 8 10.99 17.30* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Seawater Immersion 
b 8 1.76 2.77* 26.7c WL 302 2 Seawater Mean Tide 
g/m2 
d 16 1870 14.72* 26.7c WL 302 4 Seawater Seawater Immersion 
d 16 330 2.60* 26.7c WL 302 4 Seawater Mean Tide 
mils 
d 1 0.1 2.54* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 8 5.7 18.10* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 16 8.2 13.02* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 1 0.2 5.08* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
d 8 0.5 1.59* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
d 16 1.3 2.06* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-13 October 2004 

Table 4-4. Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Corrosion in Seawater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-14 October 2004 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) Corrosion Rate 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
d 1 0.3 7.62* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 8 4.5 14.29* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 16 7.6 12.07* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Seawater Immersion, Stainless 
Steel Type 302/302 Couple 
d 1 0.1 2.54* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
d 8 0.7 2.22* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
d 16 1.2 1.91* 26.7c WL 302 6 Seawater Mean Tide, Stainless Steel Type 
302/302 Couple 
mpy 
e 1.32 0.08 2.032* WL 302 III Flowing 
Seawater 
Flow = 3 ft/sec in Trough, Kure 
Beach, NC 
e 4.5 0.088 2.235* WL 302 III Flowing 
Seawater 
Flow = 3 ft/sec in Trough, Kure 
Beach, NC 
e 1.31 0.146 3.708* WL 302 IV Quiet 
Seawater 
Kure Beach, NC 
(mg/dm2/day) 
f 0.337 5.91 27.19* 2.78 WL 304 III Seawater Immersion, 5,640 feet 
f 2.056 8.51 39.15* 2.39 WL 304 III Seawater Immersion, 5,640 feet 
f 2.913 5.31 24.43* 2.50 WL 304 III Seawater Immersion, 5,300 feet 
f 1.057 3.15 14.49* 17.61 WL 304 III Seawater Immersion, Surface 
Sources: a Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339]. 
b 
Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265]. 
c 
Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343] (Average temperature of Pacific Ocean around canal zone, Panama is approximately 80°F. This 
reference is Part 1 of a 5-part series and indicates the temperatures for corrosion studies presented by Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265] and 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
d 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
e 
Bomberger et al. 1954 [DIRS 163699]. 
f 
Wheatfall 1967 [DIRS 164934]. 
NOTE: 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II. 
WL = weight loss, EM = electrochemical measurement, 1 mil = 25.4 µm. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-5. Stainless Steel Types 316/316L Corrosion in Seawater 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
mpy 
a 1.32 0.16 4.064* WL 316 III Seawater Kure Beach, NC 
a 4.5 0.061 1.549* WL 316 III Seawater Kure Beach, NC 
a 1.31 0.24 6.096* WL 316 IV Seawater Kure Beach, NC 
(g/dm2/yr) 
b 1 1.18 14.79* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion 
b 2 0.65 4.07* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion 
b 4 0.54 1.69* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion 
b 8 4.08 6.39* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion 
b 1 0.13 1.63* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide 
b 2 0.1 0.63* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide 
b 4 0.27 0.85* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide 
b 8 0.39 0.61* 26.7c WL 316 2 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide 
g/m2 
d 16 160 1.25* 26.7c WL 316 4 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion 
d 16 20 0.16* 26.7c WL 316 4 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide 
mils 
d 8 0.3 0.9525* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 16 3.1 4.92125* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 8 0.1 0.3175* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 16 0.1 0.15875* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 8 0.6 1.905* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 16 1.3 2.06375* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 16 0.1 0.15875* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-15 October 2004 

Table 4-5. Stainless Steel Types 316/316L Corrosion in Seawater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-16 October 2004 
See 
NOTES 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type Other Comments 
g (detection 
limit)e 
d 1 0.01 0.05* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 1 0.01 0.05* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 1 0.01 0.01* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Immersion, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 1 0.01 0.01* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
d 8 0.01 0.001* 26.7c WL 316 6 Seawater Canal Zone, Mean Tide, Stainless Steel 
Type 316/316 Couple 
f 0.11 N/A 0.51 100 EM 316L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned 
Water and Steam 
f 0.11 N/A 0.51 100 EM 316L 7.1 Tuff Conditioned 
Water and Steam 
Sources: a Bomberger et al. 1954 [DIRS 163699]. 
b 
Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265]. 
c 
Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343] (Average temperature of pacific ocean around canal zone, Panama is approximately 80°F. This reference is Part 
1 of a 5-part series and indicates the temperatures for corrosion studies presented in Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265] and Southwell et al. 1976 
[DIRS 100927]). 
d 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
e 
When the reported corrosion rate is zero, it was set to the detection limit (Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
f 
Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341]. 
NOTE: 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) are calculated in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II. 
WL = weight loss, EM = electrochemical measurement, 1 mil = 25.4 µm. 

Table 4-6. Corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304L in Boil-Down Tests 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-17 October 2004 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Temp (°C) Type of Analysis Steel Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type 
0.04 0.1 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.08 0.09 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.17 0.26 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.23 0.13 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.31 1.08 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.38 1.28 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.46 0.6 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.54 11.8 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.61 0.78 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.71 7.71 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.77 4.49 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.84 8.76 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
0.92 3.34 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.00 2.25 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.07 2.13 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.15 3.36 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.23 3.14 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.32 3.54 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.38 1.93 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.48 2.31 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
1.53 2.32 90 EM 304L 5.4 Aerated J-13 Well Water 
Source: Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339]. 
NOTE: EM = electrochemical measurement. 

Table 4-7. Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel Type 304L in Solution Containing Radiolysis Products (H2O2) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-18 October 2004 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Steel 
Type 
Table in 
Source Fluid Type 
Other 
Comments 
0.29 0.04 90 EM 304L 5.5 Solution 20 (Main 0 ppm H2O2 
0.29 0.18 90 EM 304L 5.5 Components = 200 ppm F-, 
--200 ppm H2O2 
0.30 0.6 90 EM 304L 5.5 
1,000 ppm Cl, 200 ppm NO2 , 
and 408 ppm K+) 400 ppm H2O2 
0.30 0.88 90 EM 304L 5.5 600 ppm H2O2 
0.31 1.16 90 EM 304L 5.5 1,200 ppm H2O2 
0.31 3.44 90 EM 304L 5.5 2,400 ppm H2O2 
0.32 6.58 90 EM 304L 5.5 4,800 ppm H2O2 
Source: Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341]. 
NOTE: EM = electrochemical measurement. 

Table 4-8. Neutronit-Corrosion Rates (Using Stainless Steel Type 321 Surrogate) in Freshwater 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-19 October 2004 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Table From 
Reference 
Steel 
Type Fluid Type 
Detection 
Limit (g)e 
a 2 0.01 0.006* 29.5d WL 2 321 Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Freshwater Lake 
a 4 0.01 0.003* 29.5 d WL 2 321 Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Freshwater Lake 
a 1 0.01 0.01* 29.5 d WL 2 321 Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Freshwater Lake 
b 8 0.01 0.001* 29.5 d WL 2 321 Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Freshwater Lake 
b 16 0.01 0.0007* 29.5 d WL 4 321 Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone, 
Freshwater Lake 
mils/yr 
c 0.405 0.007 0.2* 50 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.570 0.005 0.1* 50 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.405 0.012 0.30* 70 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.570 0.011 0.28* 70 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.405 0.008 0.2* 80 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.570 0.008 0.2* 80 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.405 0.008 0.2* 90 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.570 0.013 0.33* 90 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.405 0.008 0.2* 100 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
c 0.570 0.001 0.03* 100 WL 4 321 J-13 Well Water 
Sources: ab 
Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265]. 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
c
d 
Glass et al. 1984 [DIRS 159340]. 
Forgeson et a
l. 1958 [DIRS 159343]. 
e When the reported corrosion rate is zero, it was set to the detection limit (Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
NOTE: Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II. WL = weight loss, 1 mil = 25.4 µm. 

Table 4-9. Neutronit Corrosion Rates (Using Stainless Steel Type 321 Surrogate) in Seawater 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-20 October 2004 
See 
Note 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis 
Table From 
Reference 
Steel 
Type Fluid Type 
g/m2 
a 16 1,460 11.49* 26.7 c WL 4 321 Seawater, Panama Canal 
Zone/Immersion 
a 16 230 1.81* 26.7 c WL 4 321 Seawater, Panama Canal Zone/Mean 
Tide 
g/dm2 
b 1 2.32 29.2* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal 
Zone/Immersion 
b 2 3.44 21.7* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal 
Zone/Immersion 
b 4 6.55 20.6* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal 
Zone/Immersion 
b 8 10.02 15.77* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal 
Zone/Immersion 
b 1 0.26 3.3* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal Zone/Mean 
Tide 
b 2 0.4 3* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal Zone/Mean 
Tide 
b 4 0.67 2.1* 26.7 c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal Zone/Mean 
Tide 
b 8 1.34 2.11* 26.7c WL 2 321 Seawater, Panama Canal Zone/Mean 
Tide 
Sources: aSouthwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
bAlexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265]. 
cForgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343]. 
NOTE: 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II. 
WL = weight loss, EM = electrochemical measurement. 

Table 4-10. Corrosion of Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L for Use as “Freshwater” Rates 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-21 October 2004 
Corrosion Rate 
(mils/month) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Wt.% 
B 
Steel 
Type 
Solution 
Type 
Table in 
Source Other Comments 
0.67 200* Boiling 1.5 304 6 VII 
0.72 220* Boiling 1.5 304 6 VII 
0.62 190* Boiling 1.5 304 6 VII With Chemically Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.53 160* Boiling 1.5 304 6 VII With Chemically Sacrificial Zirconium 
2.36 719* Ambient 1.5 304 11 VIII 
2.53 771* Ambient 1.5 304 11 VIII 
0.77 230* Ambient 1.5 304 11 VIII With Chemically Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.83 250* Ambient 1.5 304 11 VIII With Chemically Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.01 3* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.01 3* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.04 10* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.06 20* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.09 30* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 with ER-310 Rod 
0.07 20* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 with ER-310 Rod 
0.04 10* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII 
0.03 9* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII 
0.07 20* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.05 20* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.08 20* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 With ER-310 Rod 
0.07 20* Boiling 0.3 304 6 VII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 With ER-310 Rod 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.02 6* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded with ER-310 Rod 
0.04 10* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 with ER-310 Rod 
0.03 10* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII Stainless Steel Type 304 Welded to Stainless Steel 
Type 304 with ER-310 Rod 
Source: Cole 1976 [DIRS 159369]. 
NOTES: For more information on the solution type, see aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II. 
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-11. Corrosion of Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L for Use as “Saltwater” Rates 
Corrosion Rate 
(mils/month) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Wt. % 
B 
Steel 
Type 
Solution 
Type 
Table in 
Source Other Comments 
1.95 573* 100 1.5 304 2 VII 
1.51 444* 100 1.5 304 2 VII 
2.54 747* 100 1.5 304 3 VII 
1.91 562* 100 1.5 304 3 VII 
6.04 1,780* 100 1.5 304 5 VII 
6.44 1,890* 100 1.5 304 5 VII 
0.92 270* 100 1.5 304 9 VII 
1.03 303* 100 1.5 304 9 VII 
0.58 170* 100 1.5 304 2 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.72 210* 100 1.5 304 2 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.57 170* 100 1.5 304 3 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.56 160* 100 1.5 304 3 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.84 250* 100 1.5 304 5 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.86 250* 100 1.5 304 5 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
1.19 350* 100 1.5 304 9 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
1.26 370* 100 1.5 304 9 VII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
6.14 1,810* Ambient 1.5 304 13 VIII 
5.99 1,760* Ambient 1.5 304 13 VIII 
2.34 688* Ambient 1.5 304 13 VIII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
2.21 650* Ambient 1.5 304 13 VIII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
3.6 *1,100 50 1.5 304 10 VIII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
3.19 938* 50 1.5 304 10 VIII With Chemically 
Sacrificial Zirconium 
0.09 30* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 
0.1 30* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 
0.05 10* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 
0.06 20* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 
0.12 35* 100 0.3 304 5 VII 
0.11 32* 100 0.3 304 5 VII 
0.08 20* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 
0.06 20* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.2 60* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.18 53* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-22 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-11. Corrosion of Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L for Use as “Saltwater” Rates (Continued) 
Corrosion Rate 
(mils/month) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Wt. % 
B 
Steel 
Type 
Solution 
Type 
Table in 
Source Other Comments 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.06 20* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.08 20* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.09 30* 100 0.3 304 5 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.1 *30 100 0.3 304 5 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.11 32* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.09 30* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.12 35* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.13 38* 100 0.3 304 2 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.04 10* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.05 10* 100 0.3 304 3 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.19 56* 100 0.3 304 5 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.12 35* 100 0.3 304 5 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.09 26.46* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.11 32.34* 100 0.3 304 9 VII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.02 6* Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 
0.07 20* Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-23 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-11. Corrosion of Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L for Use as “Saltwater” Rates (Continued) 
Corrosion Rate 
(mils/month) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Wt. % 
B 
Steel 
Type 
Solution 
Type 
Table in 
Source Other Comments 
0.09 30* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 Welded with 
Stainless Steel Type 
ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.08 20* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded with 
Stainless Steel Type 
ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.08 20* Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 304 Welded with 
Stainless Steel Type 
ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.06 20* Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 304 Welded with 
Stainless Steel Type 
ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.09 30* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.07 20* Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
0.33 97* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.22 65* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.14 41* 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 
0.13 38* 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.47 140* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.46 140* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.27 79* 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.22 65* 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 304 Welded with ER310 
Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.48 140* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Stainless Steel Type 
0.5 100* 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 304 Welded to 
Stainless Steel Type 
304 with ER-310 Rod 
Source: Cole 1976 [DIRS 159369]. 
NOTE: For more information on the solution type, see aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II.
Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II. 
1 mil = 25.4 µm. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-24 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-12. Corrosion Rates of Gadolinium-Alloyed Steel 
Corrosion Rate 
(mils/month) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Temp (°C) % Gd 
Steel 
Type 
Solution 
Type 
Table in 
Source 
“Freshwater” 
0.03 9* 100 0.3 304 6 VII 
0.03 9* 100 0.3 304 6 VII 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.01 3* Ambient 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.05 20* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII 
0.01 3* 50 0.3 304 11 VIII 
“Harshwater” 
0.03 9 100 0.3 304 2 VII 
0.04 10 100 0.3 304 2 VII 
0.02 6 100 0.3 304 3 VII 
0.02 6 100 0.3 304 3 VII 
0.07 20 100 0.3 304 5 VII 
0.08 20 100 0.3 304 5 VII 
0.02 6 100 0.3 304 9 VII 
0.02 6 100 0.3 304 9 VII 
0.01 3 Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.01 3 Ambient 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.01 3 Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 
0.01 3 Ambient 0.3 304 13 VIII 
1.04 306 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 
1.02 300 50 0.3 304 10 VIII 
0.26 76 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 
0.31 91 50 0.3 304 13 VIII 
Source: Cole 1976 [DIRS 159369] 
NOTES: For more information on the solution type, see aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in 
Appendix II. Values marked with an asterisk (*) calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-
steels.xls”in Appendix II. 1 mil = 25.4 µm. 
4.1.3.3 Carbon Steel Type A516 
The rates used to describe the corrosion of Carbon Steel Type A516 for long-term studies 
(>1 year) are found in Table 4-13 through Table 4-16. Further explanation on the use of these 
rates can be found in Section 6.2.3. 
The rates used to describe the corrosion of Carbon Steel Type A516 for short-term studies 
(=0.53 years) are found in Table 4-17 through Table 4-20. Further explanation on the use of 
these rates can be found in Section 6.2.3. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-25 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-13. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 1 Year in Freshwater at 90°C 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
43.65 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
45.19 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
48.30 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
55.97 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
63.58 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
50.17 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
42.42 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
45.91 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
29.53 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
65.04 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
65.73 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
88.68 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
46.79 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
68.91 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
46.72 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
46.31 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
36.38 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
65.88 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
58.48 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
35.87 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
50.14 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
49.10 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
53.98 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
40.46 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SDW = simulated dilute well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-26 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-14. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 1 Year in Saltwater at 90°C 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
6.96 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
5.75 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
3.69 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.35 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.46 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.85 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.69 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.53 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
5.16 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.64 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.01 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.25 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.51 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.13 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
5.32 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.13 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
5.91 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.20 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.40 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.84 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.24 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.87 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.04 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.32 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SCW = simulated concentrated well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-27 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-15. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 1 Year in Freshwater at 60°C 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
80.00 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
66.75 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
77.31 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
69.84 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
83.74 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
79.29 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
71.25 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
65.77 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
70.00 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
72.64 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
72.89 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
106.93 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
90.97 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
83.26 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
74.29 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
72.87 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
73.47 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
83.66 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
74.51 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
74.60 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
75.41 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
72.21 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
80.87 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
85.68 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SDW = simulated dilute well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-28 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-16. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 1 Year in Saltwater at 60°C 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
7.93 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.19 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.03 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.45 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.05 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.1 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
6.77 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.07 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.72 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.2 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.9 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.99 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.67 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.00 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.42 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.09 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.32 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.83 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.09 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
14.36 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.21 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.94 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.62 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SCW = simulated concentrated well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-29 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-17. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 0.53 Years in Freshwater at 90°C 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
89.41 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
68.90 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
84.02 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
87.65 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
107.46 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
130.02 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
76.96 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
70.45 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
74.29 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
180.42 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
58.08 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
66.27 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
71.97 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
79.61 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
97.43 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
75.50 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
67.99 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
89.88 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
78.85 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
85.06 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
79.56 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
74.56 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
75.23 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
77.05 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SDW = simulated dilute well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-30 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-18. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 0.5 Years in Saltwater at 90°C 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
12.81 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
13.88 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.92 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
19.08 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
14.01 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
16.2 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.24 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.05 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
8.66 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
7.39 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.12 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.02 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.48 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
13.67 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.03 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
16.84 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
22.06 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
18.06 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-45 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
14.78 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
15.03 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
12.60 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
9.74 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
10.46 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
11.47 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SCW = simulated concentrated well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-31 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-19. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 0.52 Years in Freshwater at 60°C 
Corrosion 
Rate (µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
101.01 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
108.43 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
105.33 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-39 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
88.15 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
101.95 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
117.92 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
87.80 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
88.29 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
78.71 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
112.46 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
103.18 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
99.73 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-97 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
116.72 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
41.31 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
95.78 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-42 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
100.69 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
88.62 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
109.93 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
102.33 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
101.74 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
130.70 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
108.44 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
92.90 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
121.60 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SDW = simulated dilute well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-32 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-20. Carbon Steel Corrosion at 0.50 Years in Saltwater at 60°C 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(µm/yr) 
Steel 
Type Table in Source Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
54.59 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
54.97 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
50.25 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-40 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
68.58 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
85.21 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
91.55 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-41 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
65.19 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
65.32 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
63.02 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-96 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
58.03 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
60.17 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
62.52 A516 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-98 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
73.05 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
78.39 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
70.84 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-43 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
53.66 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
57.72 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
55.38 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 1, p. 2.2-44 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
61.67 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
60.87 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
62.14 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-99 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
88.01 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
104.20 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
88.57 A27 Sec. 2.2.6, Sup. 2, p. 2.2-100 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: WL = weight loss; SCW = simulated concentrated well. 
4.1.3.4 Aluminum Alloys 
The corrosion rates of aluminum can be found in Table 4-21 through Table 4-22. Further 
explanation on the use of these rates can be found in Section 6.2.4. All aluminum alloy 
corrosion rates were converted to the same units of µm/yr (Appendix II, aluminum_.xls). These 
converted rates are presented in this section along with their original values taken directly from 
the sources. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-33 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-21. Corrosion Rates of Aluminum in Seawater 
Weight Loss (g)a Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) 
Type a 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 
1100-H14 4.4 5.4 10.3 11.1 8.4 5.1 3.92 2.11 
3003-H14 4.1 6.4 9.3 11.2 7.8 6.0 3.5 2.12 
5052-H34 4.5 6.5 9.0 14.9 8.7 6.3 3.5 2.87 
6051-T4 3.7 4.9 9.9 12.3 7.1 4.7 3.8 2.35 
6051-T6 4.4 5.7 10.3 13.1 8.4 5.4 3.94 2.50 
6061-T4 4.8 6.6 12.4 18.6 9.2 6.3 4.74 3.56 
6061-T6 5.5 7.7 14 21.5 11 7.4 5.4 4.11 
7072 — — — 10.2 — — — 1.87 
7075-T6 — — — 149 — — — 27.4 
5083 2.5 3.7 — 7.3 4.9 3.6 — 1.4 
5083 4.7 3.4 5.7 8.1 9.1 3.3 2.2 1.6 
5056 3.7 4.7 6.0 9.2 7.1 4.5 2.3 1.8 
5056 4.5 5.2 — 16.7 8.6 5.0 — 3.22 
6051-T4 3.9 4.2 12.1 9.1 7.5 4.0 4.6 1.7 
6051-T6 4.1 4.5 7.7 10.6 7.8 4.3 2.9 2.03 
6053-T6 4.1 4.5 6.6 9.7 7.8 4.3 2.5 1.9 
6061-T6 7.6 13.4 29.4 51.6 15 13 11.2 9.86 
6061-T6 5.5 6.5 15.4 34.2 11 6.2 5.89 6.54 
Al-7 Mg 4.1 4.1 6.5 9.4 7.8 3.9 2.5 1.8 
5154 2.8 5.2 6.0 — 5.4 5.0 2.3 — 
5083 3.5 4.6 6.0 — 6.8 4.5 2.3 — 
6053-T6 3.8 6.6 25.9 — 7.3 6.3 9.90 — 
7075-T6 60.4 49.3 74.8 — 111 45.3 27.5 — 
3003, alclad 4.3 12 — — 8.1 11 — — 
6061, alclad 4.3 3.9 5.7 — 8.2 3.7 2.2 — 
7075, alclad 4.4 5.2 6.1 — 8.1 4.8 2.2 — 
1100-H14 1.9 3.5 5.3 12.7 3.6 3.3 2.0 2.42 
3003-H14 0.0 3.3 4.6 7.5 — 3.1 1.7 1.4 
5052-H34 2.8 3.3 — 14.2 5.4 3.2 — 2.73 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-34 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-21. Corrosion Rates of Aluminum in Seawater (Continued) 
Weight Loss (g)a Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) 
Type a 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 
6051-T4 0.0 0.7 3.5 8 — 0.7 1.3 2 
6051-T6 2.1 5.5 6.1 19.5 4.0 5.3 2.3 3.73 
6061-T4 4.4 6.0 8.0 15.6 8.4 5.7 3.1 2.98 
6061-T6 4.3 7.3 12.7 22.8 8.2 7.0 4.85 4.36 
7072 — — — 15.9 — — — 2.92 
7075-T6 — — — 242.6 — — — 44.55 
5083 2.8 0.0 6.1 8.5 5.4 — 2.4 1.6 
5083 2.6 3.2 5.2 7.5 5.0 3.1 2.0 1.5 
5056 2.5 3.3 5.7 10.4 4.8 3.2 2.2 2.00 
5056 4.0 4.1 5.5 11.1 7.7 3.9 2.1 2.14 
6051-T4 3.6 3.1 5.5 9.2 6.9 3.0 2.1 1.8 
6051-T6 5.3 4.1 8.4 18.6 10 3.9 3.2 3.56 
6053-T6 3.0 3.3 5.6 14.8 5.7 3.2 2.1 2.83 
6061-T6 9.8 11.2 33.2 48.5 19 10.7 12.7 9.27 
6061-T6 10.0 9.4 19.1 54.1 19.1 9.0 7.30 10.3 
Al-7 Mg 2.4 2.4 4.6 8.0 4.6 2.3 1.8 1.5 
5154 2.4 2.6 3.8 — 4.7 2.5 1.5 — 
5083 2.0 2.8 3.6 — 3.9 2.7 1.4 — 
6053-T6 19.3 29.2 4.7 — 36.9 27.9 1.8 — 
7075-T6 44.8 66.1 116.0 — 82.3 60.70 42.60 — 
3003, alclad 1.6 2.3 — — 3.0 2.2 — — 
6061, alclad 8.4 3.3 6.5 — 16 3.2 2.5 — 
7075, alclad 2.8 3.6 6.8 — 5.1 3.3 2.5 — 
1100-H14 0.0 2.4 1.3 2.3 — 2.3 0.50 0.44 
3003-H14 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.2 — — 1.1 0.42 
5052-H34 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.3 — — 0.1 
6051-T4 1.9 7.8 19.0 14.6 3.6 7.5 7.26 2.79 
6051-T6 22.5 13.8 19.9 27.3 43.0 13.2 7.61 5.22 
6061-T4 0.9 2.3 28.2 62 2 2.2 10.8 12 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-35 October 2004 

Table 4-21. Corrosion Rates of Aluminum in Seawater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-36 October 2004 
Weight Loss (g)a Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) 
Type a 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 
6061-T6 6.7 7.1 11.1 44.3 13 6.8 4.24 8.47 
7072 — — — 3.1 — — — 0.59 
7075-T6 — — — 246.5 — — — 47.11 
5083 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.3 2.5 1.8 1.0 0.64 
5083 15.3 16.3 36.3 31.1 29.7 15.8 14.1 6.03 
5056 10.7 16.5 19.5 28.9 20.6 15.9 7.51 5.56 
5056 7.0 6.0 11.0 11.4 13 5.8 4.24 2.20 
6051-T4 9.1 18.8 15.3 51.0 17 18.0 5.85 9.75 
6051-T6 17.2 23.3 30.6 33.5 32.9 22.3 11.7 6.40 
6053-T6 15.7 25.1 19.3 25.8 30.0 24.0 7.38 4.93 
6061-T6 12.3 26.8 48.7 48.0 23.5 25.6 18.6 9.17 
6061-T6 7.3 7.0 21.3 18.6 14 6.7 8.14 3.56 
Al-7 Mg 1.6 2.9 2.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 0.80 0.63 
5154 1.4 2.1 2.6 — 2.7 2.0 1.0 — 
5083 0.2 2.2 2.8 — 0.39 2.1 1.1 — 
6053-T6 45.6 80.4 86.0 — 87.1 76.8 32.9 — 
7075-T6 50.9 71.3 153.5 — 93.5 65.5 56.38 — 
3003, alclad — 1.9 — — — 1.8 — — 
6061, alclad 20.8 15.8 34.3 — 39.8 15.1 13.1 — 
7075, alclad 8.5 14.5 16.6 — 16 13.3 6.10 — 
a
Source: Hollingsworth and Hunsicker 1987 [DIRS 150403]. 
NOTE: 
Average temperature (15.6°C) estimated from Figure 17 by Sedriks 1982 [DIRS 164923]. Temperature at Halifax, N.S., 
Esquimalt, B.C., and Kure Beach, NC are assumed similar. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-22. Corrosion Rates of Aluminum in Freshwater 
See 
NOTES 
Table 
in 
Source 
Aluminum 
Type 
Time 
(years) Loss Weight 
Loss (g) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Comments Temp (°C) Water 
Weight 
Loss (g/m2) 
a, b 2b 1100 1 30 N/A 11 — 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 7a 1100 4 96 N/A 8.9 — 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 7+2a, b 1100 8 160 N/A 7.38 Heavily pitted 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 2b 1100 16 350 N/A 8.07 Heavily pitted 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 2b 6061T 1 <10 N/A 3.7 — 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 2b 6061T 8 50 N/A 2.3 Heavily pitted 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
a, b 2b 6061T 16 100 N/A 2.31 Heavily pitted 29.5a Gatun lake, Panama Canal Zone 
c II 3S-1/2H 0.417 N/A 0.01 0.51 — Ambient air "High sulfide"-bearing water (Cl = 
7,477 ppm, sulfate = 4,300 ppm) 
c II Alclad 3S-
1/2H 0.417 N/A 0.04 2 — Ambient air "High sulfide"-bearing water (Cl = 
7,477 ppm, sulfate = 4,300 ppm) 
c II 52S-1/2H 0.417 N/A 0.05 2 — Ambient air "High sulfide"-bearing water (Cl = 
7,477 ppm, sulfate = 4,300 ppm) 
c II 61S-T 0.417 N/A 0.08 3 — Ambient air "High sulfide"-bearing water (Cl = 
7,477 ppm, sulfate = 4,300 ppm) 
Corrosion 
Rate 
(mg/dm2/d) 
d 10 3003 1 0.03 N/A 0.4 — — Tap Water, Youngstown, OH 
d 10 3003 1 0.86 N/A 12 — — Tap Water, Dallas, TX 
d 10 3003 1 0.06 N/A 0.8 — — Tap Water, Oklahoma City, OK. 
d 10 3003 1 0.71 N/A 9.5 — — Tap Water, New Orleans, LA 
d 10 3003 1 0.98 N/A 13 — — Tap Water, Columbus, OH 
d 10 3003 1 1.32 N/A 17.7 — — Tap Water, New York, NY 
d 10 3003 1 2.51 N/A 33.6 — — Tap Water, Toledo, OH 
d 10 3003 1 1.58 N/A 21.1 — — Tap Water, Syracuse, NY 
d 10 3003 1 0.18 N/A 2.4 — — Tap Water, Miami, FL 
d 10 3003 1 1.93 N/A 25.8 — — Tap Water, Richmond, VA 
d 10 3003 1 0.21 N/A 2.8 — — Tap Water, Charlotte, NC 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-37 October 2004 

Table 4-22. Corrosion Rates of Aluminum in Freshwater (Continued) 
Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-38 October 2004 
See 
NOTES 
Table 
in 
Source 
Aluminum 
Type 
Time 
(years) Loss Weight 
Loss (g) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Comments Temp (°C) Water 
d 10 3003 1 1.01 N/A 13.5 — — Tap Water, Little Rock, AR 
d 10 3003 1 0.40 N/A 5.4 — — Tap Water, Atlanta, GA 
— 10 3003 1 0.33 N/A 4.4 — — Tap Water, Portland, OR 
— 10 3003 1 1.92 N/A 25.7 — — Tap Water, Hartford, CT 
— 10 3003 1 2.58 N/A 34.5 — — Tap Water, Saginaw, MI 
— 10 3003 1 0.04 N/A 0.5 — — Tap Water, Minneapolis, MN 
— 10 3003 1 1.77 N/A 23.7 — — Tap Water, Boston, MA 
— 10 3003 1 0.33 N/A 4.4 — — Tap Water, Wichita, KS 
— 10 3003 1 1.70 N/A 22.7 — — Tap Water, Corpus Christi, TX 
— 10 3003 1 0.38 N/A 5.1 — — Tap Water, Birmingham, AL 
— 10 3003 1 2.36 N/A 31.6 — — Tap Water, Salt Lake City, UT 
— 10 3003 1 1.95 N/A 26.1 — — Tap Water, Milwaukee, WI 
— 10 3003 1 2.76 N/A 36.9 — — Tap Water, Philadelphia, PA 
— 10 3003 1 1.52 N/A 20.3 — — Tap Water, Nashville, TN 
— 10 3003 1 1.78 N/A 23.8 — — Tap Water, Los Angeles, CA 
— 10 3003 1 0.47 N/A 6.3 — — Tap Water, Chicago, IL 
— 10 3003 1 0.23 N/A 3.1 — — Tap Water, Pittsburgh, PA 
— 10 3003 1 1.46 N/A 19.5 — — Tap Water, Kansas City, MO 
— 10 3003 1 1.21 N/A 16.2 — — Tap Water, Washington, D.C. 
— 10 3003 1 0.85 N/A 11 — — Tap Water, Omaha, NE 
— 10 3003 1 1.70 N/A 22.7 — — Tap Water, Houston, TX 
— 10 3003 1 2.06 N/A 27.6 — — Tap Water, San Francisco, CA 
— 10 3003 1 0.59 N/A 7.9 — — Tap Water, Phoenix, AZ 
Sources: a Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343]. 
b 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]. 
c 
Sawyer and Brown 1947 [DIRS 164921]. 
d 
Ailor 1969 [DIRS 164907], Table 10. 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4.1.3.5 Zircaloy (2 and 4) 
Most information on the corrosion of zircaloy comes from high temperature experiments in 
which the weight gain over time is measured (i.e., Hillner et al. (1998 [DIRS 100455]) and 
Rothman 1984 [DIRS 100417]). Hillner et al. (1998 [DIRS 100455]) conclude that oxide growth 
in the Yucca Mountain repository over a period of one million years would be extremely small 
(0.3 mils, 1 mil = 25.4 µm). 
4.1.3.6 Alloy 22 
Since analysis of degradation rates for Alloy 22 can be found in other sources, no further 
analysis of this information will be provided in this analysis. This is discussed further in 
Section 6.2.8. 
4.1.3.7 Alloy N06464 
Corrosion data for a Ni-Cr-Mo-Gd alloy (UNS N06464, Table 6-2), is presented in Table 4-23. 
Table 4-23. Corrosion Rates of Alloy N06464 in J-13 Water 
Corrosion Rate 
Time (years) (nm/yr) Fluid Type 
0.03 415.8 J-13 
0.08 55.7 J-13 
0.20 62.1 J-13 
0.27 48.5 J-13 
0.39 77.4 J-13 
0.77 20.1 J-13 
0.62 88.9 J-13 50× 
Source: DOE 2004 [DIRS 168434] Table 16. 
4.1.3.8 Inconel Alloys 
The corrosion rates of Inconel alloys can be found in Table 4-24 through Table 4-26 below. 
Further explanation on the use of these rates can be found in Section 6.2.7. Inconel Alloy 625 is 
used in corrosion tests, which is assumed to have the same degradation rate as the Inconel alloys 
within the waste packages (Inconel Alloy Types 600 and X-750) (Section 5.2.1). 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-39 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-24. Corrosion Rates of Inconel Alloys in Freshwater 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Table in Source 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
0.51 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.02 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-101 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 60 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.10 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.06 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.02 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.07 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SDW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: Negative corrosion values reported as zero in table. 
WL = weight loss; SDW = simulated dilute well. 
Table 4-25. Corrosion Rates of Inconel Alloys in Acidified Water 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Table in Source 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
0.49 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.08 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.02 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-40 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-25. Corrosion Rates of Inconel Alloys in Acidified Water (Continued) 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Table in Source 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
0.49 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.49 0.08 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.06 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.96 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.02 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-45 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.09 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.01 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.02 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
1.00 0.00 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 90 WL SAW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: Negative corrosion values reported as zero in table. 
WL = weight loss; SAW = simulated acidified well. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-41 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-26. Corrosion Rates of Inconel Alloys in Saltwater 
Time 
(years) 
Corrosion Rate 
(µm/yr) Table in Source 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
0.50 0.08 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.10 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.10 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.09 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.06 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.07 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.08 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.08 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.06 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.50 0.10 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-102 60 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.05 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.07 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-46 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.04 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.03 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.1, p.2.2-47 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.11 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.10 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.24 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-101 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.06 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.07 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
0.51 0.12 Sec.2.2.6, Sup.2, p.2.2-103 90 WL SCW J-13 Well Water 
Source: McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]. 
NOTE: Negative corrosion values reported as zero in table. 
WL = weight loss; SCW = simulated concentrated well. 
4.1.3.9 Chrome Plating 
Due to the extremely limited use of chrome plating in waste packages (chrome plating of borated 
Stainless Steel Type 304L poison wafers in Shippingport PWR assemblies—Section 4.1.1.2), the 
corrosion of chrome plating will not be investigated in this analysis. 
4.1.3.10 Densities of Steels and Alloys 
In several cases, conversion of rates from referenced sources to µm/yr was necessary to obtain a 
consistent unit of measure of corrosion for this analysis. This was required when the corrosion 
rate was given as a mass loss per time. To complete the conversions (Appendix II), the densities 
of the materials (Table 4-27) had to be used. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-42 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-27. Material Densities 
Aluminum Alloys 
Type Density (g/cm3) Type Density (g/cm3) 
1100 2.71 5154 2.66 
3003 2.73 6061 2.70 
5052 2.68 7075 2.81 
5083 2.66 
Stainless Steels 
Type Density (g/cm3) Type Density (g/cm3) 
302 7.94 316 7.98 
304 7.94 316L 7.98 
304L 7.94 321 7.94 
Source: ASTM G 1-90 [DIRS 103515]. 
4.1.4 Miscellaneous Materials 
Miscellaneous materials, as defined in this analysis, are waste package component materials that 
do not fit neatly into one of the three categories specified above (i.e., fuel types or waste forms, 
steels, or alloys). These materials are presented below. 
4.1.4.1 Sintered Compounds 
The sintered compounds here are those contained within the Fort Saint Vrain fuel elements. The 
fuel elements are graphite blocks that hold the fuel compacts, which contain the fuel kernels. 
Fuel kernels are composed of a thorium carbide or Th/U carbide core surrounded by four 
protective coatings of SiC and pyrolytic carbon. These kernels are mixed with a carbonaceous 
binder material and “baked” to create the fuel compacts (Taylor 2001 [DIRS 154726]). This 
section is concerned with fuel element materials that do not contain fissile material (graphite, 
pyrolytic carbon, and SiC). 
4.1.4.1.1 Graphite and Pyrolytic Carbon 
The oxidation data for graphite and pyrolytic carbon are found in Table 4-28. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-43 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 4-28. Corrosion Behavior of Sintered Carbon Materials 
Reference Corrosion/Oxidation Rate/Behavior 
Lide 2002 [DIRS 160832], p. 4-50 Insoluble in H2O 
Lewis 1990 [DIRS 130543], p. 188 For Industrial graphite: Excellent corrosion resistance 
Lotts et al. 1992 [DIRS 164916], 
Appendix C 
Report air oxidation of graphite: at 150°C = 1.05 × 10-17 g/cm2/s; at 
100°C = 4.5 × 10-20 g/cm2/s. Corrosion by water is known to be slower 
than that in air (Propp 1998 [DIRS 149395]). Therefore, at 25°C in H2O, 
the graphite can be assumed insoluble. 
Morgan 1981 [DIRS 164920], p. 18 Insoluble at “ordinary temperatures” 
Gurwell 1981 [DIRS 164911] Reacts very slowly in deionized water (250°C = 10-7 g/cm2/day, 
extrapolated to 99°C = 10-10 g/cm2/day) 
Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 164925], Generally unreactive at low temperatures. Table 18.2 shows that it is 
Chapter 18 completely resistant to a great number of highly corrosive environments. 
Propp 1998 [DIRS 149395], p. 21 Air oxidation of graphite at 400°C = 1 mg/cm2 in 1.9 years and at 
200°C = 1 mg/cm2 in 190,000 years 
4.1.4.1.2 Silicon Carbide (SiC) 
Most information on the oxidation of SiC comes from high temperature data in humid 
atmospheres, many times with the temperatures exceeding 1,000°C. Those data are located in 
Table 4-29. In Section 6.3.1, these high temperature data are used to approximate an oxidation 
rate of SiC at 25°C. Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832]) indicates that SiC is insoluble in water at 25°C. 
Table 4-29. High Temperature Values for SiC Oxidation 
Temperature (°C) Condition Rate (mg/cm2·h) 
1,100 10%vol H2O/O2 2.96 × 10-3 
1,100 25%vol H2O/O2 6.52 × 10-3 
1,100 50%vol H2O/O2 4.34 × 10-3 
1,100 70%vol H2O/O2 3.32 × 10-3 
1,100 90%vol H2O/O2 2.83 × 10-3 
1,100 14 vol% H2O/Argon 1.85 × 10-3 
1,100 32 vol% H2O/Argon 3.65 × 10-3 
1,100 59 vol% H2O/Argon 4.45 × 10-3 
1,100 93 vol% H2O/Argon 4.46 × 10-3 
1,200 10%vol H2O/O2 3.05 × 10-2 
1,200 50%vol H2O/O2 1.27 × 10-2 
1,200 70%vol H2O/O2 2.11 × 10-2 
1,200 90%vol H2O/O2 9.06 × 10-2 
Source: Temperature data from Opila 1999 [DIRS 155502], Table II. 
4.1.4.2 Gadolinium Phosphate (GdPO4) 
In this analysis, the mineral monazite, a mixed lanthanide orthophosphate, is assumed to be a 
natural analog for GdPO4 (Section 5.3.1). Natural mineral deposits of monazite have been 
reported to be over 2 billion years old and alluvial deposits indicate that the mineral has survived 
multiple sedimentation and metamorphic cycles occurring over several hundred million years 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-44 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
(Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908]). This indicates that the mineral (in its natural form) is 
extremely resistant to corrosion. 
Tests on synthetic monazite indicate that <0.001 g/m2·day of the lanthanide was released from 
the material and that the monazite matrix had a corrosion rate of less than 0.002 g/m2·d in water 
at 90°C (Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908], Figure 23 and Section 8.2). However, this was 
not a pure form of the substance, but was combined with 20 wt% Savannah River defense waste. 
Therefore, corrosion of pure monazite is expected to be much lower, since mineral impurities 
usually cause crystal structure defects or stress, which leads to increased mineral solubility. 
4.1.5 Miscellaneous Handbook Data 
Table 4-30 contains various constants used in the spreadsheet analyses for conversions and 
calculating values of corrosion rates. 
Table 4-30. Miscellaneous Constants Used in Conversions 
Constants (Lide 2002 [DIRS 160832]) 
Term Value Source 
Gas Constant (R) 8.314510 Pa m3K-1mol-1 p. 1-54 
Kelvin (K) °C + 273.15 p. 1-46 
Celsius (°C) (5/9) × (°F–32) p. 1-46 
SiC density 3.16 g/cm3 p. 4-82 
Graphite density 2.2 g/cm3 p. 4-50 
Atomic weight of elements (Parrington et al. 1996 [DIRS 103896]) 
Element ATWT 
(grams/mole) Element ATWT 
(grams/mole) Element ATWT 
(grams/mole) 
Gd 157.25 P 30.973761 O 15.9994 
Cl 35.4527 F 18.9984032 
4.1.6 Titanium Grades 7 and 24 
4.1.6.1 Titanium Grade 7 
Since analysis of corrosion rates for Titanium Grade 7 can be found in other sources, this data 
will not by analyzed in this document. Information about other sources for this data is provided 
in Section 6.5.1. 
4.1.6.2 Titanium Grade 24 
Titanium Grade 24, an alloy with ~ 6 wt % Al and 4 wt % V with and ~ 0.04 to 0.08 wt % Pd, is 
used as the structural material in the design of the drip shield. An experimentally obtained 
corrosion rate for Titanium Grade 24 under repository conditions is not available at this time. 
However, the comparative corrosion behavior of Titanium Grade 24 can be estimated based on 
available data for Titanium Grade 7 (See Section 6.5.2). 
The LTCTF (Long Term Corrosion Test Facility) has obtained corrosion rate data for Titanium 
Grade 7 exposed in both vapor and liquid phases of SAW, SCW and SDW at 60°C and 90°C for 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-45 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
two and a half (2.5) years with weight-loss specimens (DTN: LL030410012251.056 
[DIRS 169583]). The 2.5-year Titanium Grade 7 aqueous corrosion rate data are shown in 
Table 4-31 and are used to calculate the corrosion rate for Titanium Grade 24 (Section 6.5.2). 
Table 4-31. Titanium Grade 7 Weight-Loss Corrosion Rates in Aqueous Media (2.5-Year Data) 
Corrosion Rate 
(nm/yr) 
Temp 
(°C) 
Type of 
Analysis Fluid Type 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
2.91 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
14.59 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
23.37 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
2.92 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
26.30 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
43.57 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
43.63 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
46.29 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
2.89 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
5.77 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
2.89 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
2.95 60 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
17.64 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
2.94 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
2.94 90 WL Aqueous Phase SAW 
11.83 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
14.83 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
17.64 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
43.75 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
49.70 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
49.46 90 WL Aqueous Phase SCW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 60 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
0.00 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
2.92 90 WL Aqueous Phase SDW 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-46 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
4.2 CRITERIA 
The technical work plan for this activity (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583], Table 3-1) has identified 
the following acceptance criteria (AC) based on the requirements mentioned in Project 
Requirements Document (PRD) (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) and Yucca Mountain 
Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]): 
System Description and Demonstration of Multiple Barriers (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], 
Section 2.2.1.1.3; Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], PRD-002/T-014, PRD-002/T-016) 
Specific requirements involve identifying multiple barriers (natural and engineered), describing 
the capabilities of these barriers to isolate waste, and providing technical bases for capabilities 
descriptions consistent with the postclosure performance objectives. To comply with these 
requirements, the following acceptance criteria are identified in the technical work plan 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583], Table 3-1): 
• AC1: Identification of Barriers is Adequate 
• AC2: Description of Barrier Capability to Isolate Waste is Acceptable 
• AC3: Technical Basis for Barrier Capability is Adequately Presented. 
Degradation of Engineered Barriers (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.1.3; Canori 
and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], PRD-002/T-015) 
Specific requirements include describing deterioration or degradation of engineered barriers and 
modeling degradation processes using data for performance assessment, including total system 
performance assessment (TSPA). Consideration of uncertainties and variabilities in model 
parameters and alternative conceptual models are also required. To fulfill these requirements, 
the following acceptance criteria are identified in the technical work plan (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171583], Table 3-1): 
• AC1: System Description and Model Integration are Adequate 
• AC2: Data are Sufficient for Model Justification 
• AC3: Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through the Model Abstraction 
• AC4: Model Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through the Model 
Abstraction 
• AC5: Model Abstraction Output is Supported by Objective Comparisons. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
The following standards and regulations were used in Sections 4 and 6 and Appendix II of this 
analysis: 
• ASTM A 240/A 240M-03b. 2003. Standard Specification for Chromium and 
Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels and for 
General Applications 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-47 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
• ASTM A 276-03. 2003. Standard Specification for Stainless Steel Bars and Shapes 
• ASTM A 516/A 516M-01. 2001. Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, 
Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and Lower-Temperature Service 
• ASTM A 887-89 (Reapproved 2000). 2000. Standard Specification for Borated 
Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Nuclear Application 
• ASTM B 209–96. 1996. Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy 
Sheet and Plate 
• ASTM B 265-02. 2002. Standard Specification for Titanium and Titanium Alloy Strip, 
Sheet, and Plate 
• ASTM B 932-04. 2004. Standard Specification for Low-Carbon Nickel-Chromium-
Molybdenum-Gadolinium Alloy Plate, Sheet, and Strip 
• ASTM G 1-90 (Reapproved 1999). 1999. Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, 
and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens 
• 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
• 48 FR 28194. 10 CFR Part 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic 
Repositories Technical Criteria. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 4-48 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
5.1 ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING STEEL TYPES INVESTIGATED IN THIS 
ANALYSIS 
5.1.1 AM-350 Corrosion Rate 
Assumption: Published degradation rates were not found for Stainless Steel Type AM-350. For 
this analysis, the degradation rate is assumed to be the same as the degradation rate of Stainless 
Steel Type 316/316L. 
Rationale: These stainless steels are very similar compositionally (Table 6-2) and are, therefore, 
likely to have similar degradation rates. 
Confirmation Status: Information by Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), 
Scarberry et al. (1967 [DIRS 159335]), and Wallen and Olsson (1977 [DIRS 164948]) indicate 
the strong dependence of corrosion on metal composition, especially alloying elements. This 
indicates that compositionally similar metals will corrode at similar rates. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the Analysis: This assumption is used in Section 6.2.1.2 in which the rates for Stainless 
Steel Types 316, 316L, and AM-350 are considered to have the same corrosion rates as 
presented in Table 6-5 and Figure 6-3 through Figure 6-5. 
5.1.2 Use of Corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 302 
Assumption: Published degradation rates for Stainless Steel Type 302 can be used for the 
corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304 and 304L. 
Rationale: The basis for this assumption is that these stainless steels are very similar 
compositionally (Table 6-2) and are, therefore, likely to have similar degradation rates. 
Confirmation Status: Information in Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), 
Scarberry et al. (1967 [DIRS 159335]), and Wallen and Olsson (1977 [DIRS 164948]) indicate 
the strong dependence of corrosion to metal composition, especially alloying elements. This 
indicates that compositionally similar metals will corrode at similar rates. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the Analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (ECDF_metals.xls) in which the 
corrosion rates for Stainless Steel Types 304, 304L, and 302 were combined to create the 
statistical information for these three steel types for use in Section 6.2.1. 
5.2 ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING ALLOYS INVESTIGATED IN THIS ANALYSIS 
5.2.1 Corrosion of Inconel Alloys 600 and X-750 
Assumption: Published degradation rates were not found for Inconel Alloys 600 and X-750. For 
this analysis, the degradation rate was assumed the same as the Inconel Alloy 625 degradation 
rate. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 5-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Rationale: The basis for this assumption is that these alloys are similar compositionally (Table 
6-2) and are, therefore, likely to have similar degradation rates. 
Confirmation Status: Information provided by Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), 
Scarberry et al. (1967 [DIRS 159335]), and Wallen and Olsson (1977 [DIRS 164948]) indicates 
the strong dependence of corrosion on metal composition, especially alloying elements. This 
indicates that compositionally similar metals will corrode at similar rates. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the Analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (aqueous Inconel-Alloy_.xls) in 
which these alloys are referred to only as Inconel alloy. These rates were then used for all the 
statistical information presented in Section 6.2.6. 
5.2.2 Density of Aluminum Alloys 
Assumption: Published density values were not found for several aluminum alloys. The density 
for Aluminum Alloy Type 5056 is assumed the same as Aluminum Alloy Type 5052; Aluminum 
Alloy Types 6051 and 6053 (all tempers) are assumed the same as Aluminum Alloy Type 6061; 
and Aluminum Alloy Type 7072 was assumed the same as Aluminum Alloy Type 7075. For 
alloys for which there is a core material surrounded by a different “clad” alloy, the density of the 
core was taken as the density of the sample. 
Rationale: For single metal specimens, the basis for this assumption is that the alloys are similar 
compositionally (Table 6-2), and are, therefore, likely to have similar densities. For clad 
material, since the metal core comprises the majority of the volume of the specimen, it is logical 
that the density of the specimen would be similar to that of the core material. 
Confirmation Status: As shown in Table 6-2, aluminum alloys range in density from 2.81 to 
2.68 g/cm3. In addition, it can be seen from this table that compositionally similar metals have 
the same density (i.e., Aluminum Alloy Types 5052 and 5056). Because of this similarity, no 
further confirmation is required. 
Use in the Analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (aluminum_.xls) to calculate the 
corrosion rate from g to µm/yr for use in the statistical analysis presented in ECDF_metals.xls 
and Section 6.2.4. 
5.3 ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS 
5.3.1 GdPO4 Mineralogy 
Assumption: The general properties and density of GdPO4 were taken to be the same as those of 
the mineral monazite ((Ce,La,Nd,Th)PO4). 
Rationale: The rationale is that since gadolinium is a lanthanide and will have similar properties 
to the actinide and lanthanides occurring in monazite, monazite properties can be used to bound 
characteristics of GdPO4. 
Confirmation Status: This assumption is considered realistic. Therefore, no further confirmation 
is required. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 5-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Use in the Analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (Misc_Materials.xls) to calculate a 
rate in units of µm/yr for use in Section 6.3.3. It is also used in Section 6.3.3 for verification of 
the durability of GdPO4. 
5.4 ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING GLASS FRACTURING 
5.4.1 Cooling Fractures 
Assumption: The fracture factor corresponding to glass cooling is assumed to be 12.5. 
Rationale: The rationale is that a fracture factor range for typical cooling rates of DHLW glass 
is 10 to 15 (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 100362], p. 6-79). The average of this is 12.5, which 
also corresponds to a fracture factor for free air convection cooled glass (CRWMS M&O 1998 
[DIRS 100362], Figure 6-32). 
Confirmation status: This assumption is considered to be realistic. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (glass-fracturefac.xls) to calculate 
the fracture factor of high-level waste glass as presented in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17 in 
Section 6.4.3.1. 
5.4.2 Fractures Due to a Drop 
Assumption: The fracture factor corresponding to fractures created in a situation where the glass 
pour canisters are dropped is 5. 
Rationale: Smith and Ross (1975 [DIRS 102088], pp. 12 to 14 and Figure 41) indicate that if a 
drop occurred, facilities under consideration would have a usual drop distance of 10 feet. A 
30-foot drop would be near the upper limit of the drop distance and also matches the 
transportation packing requirements. Therefore, the upper limit of 30 feet was used for this 
analysis to derive the fractional increase in surface area for dropped canisters. Figure 41 of 
Impact Testing of Vitreous Simulated High-Level Waste in Canisters (Smith and Ross 1975 
[DIRS 102088]) shows that at the velocity the package would be traveling when impact occurred 
from 30 feet (44 feet per second, (Smith and Ross 1975 [DIRS 102088], Table 1) the 
corresponding fractional increase in surface area (from best estimate curve) would be 
approximately 4. A value of 5 (4 plus 1 for the geometric surface area) is therefore used here. 
Confirmation status: This assumption is considered to be realistic. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (glass-fracturefac.xls) to calculate 
the fracture factor of high-level waste glass as presented in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17 in 
Section 6.4.3.1. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 5-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
5.4.3 Availability of Cooling Fractures 
Assumption: Fractures created during glass cooling will not add to the degradation rate of the 
high level waste glass in a glass pour canister that has not been dropped. 
Rationale: Most references dealing with fractures discuss how surface area increases. To obtain 
a fracture factor, more information in the form of availability of fracture surfaces and reactivity 
of fracture surfaces must be taken into account. Since references do not take these additional 
parameters into account, surface area measurements represent a total surface area instead of an 
effective surface area. The rationale for this assumption is that cracks created during cooling 
would be small, on the order of several tens of microns in width (Smith and Baxter 1981 
[DIRS 102089], p. 15). It has been shown (Perez and Westsik 1981 [DIRS 111044]) that, even 
though total surface area may increase, fractures of this size have no appreciable contribution to 
the degradation rate of glass. 
Confirmation status: This assumption is considered to be realistic. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (glass-fracturefac.xls) to calculate 
the fracture factor of high-level waste glass as presented in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17 in 
Section 6.4.3.1. 
5.4.4 Reactivity of Glass Fractures 
Assumption: It is also assumed that the reactivity of surfaces within fractures would be ˝ of the 
reactivity of unrestricted glass surfaces. 
Rationale: Studies have shown that for highly fractured material (such as glass in a dropped 
canister), fractures display lower degradation rates than the outer surface area of the material. 
The degradation rate only increases slightly because fluid in the fractures will presumably not 
flow very freely and degradation will slow due to back reactions or precipitation. To be 
consistent with glass fracture reactivity used by Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167619], Section 6.5.6), this analysis also uses ˝ for the glass fracture 
reactivity. 
Confirmation status: This assumption is considered to be realistic. Therefore, no further 
confirmation is required. 
Use in the analysis: This assumption is used in Appendix II (glass-fracturefac.xls) to calculate 
the fracture factor of high-level waste glass as presented in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17 in 
Section 6.4.3.1. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 5-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION 
Where possible, the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) is used to describe the 
corrosion data. Given the limited number of data points for corrosion of materials, the 
underlying distribution is not obvious and, therefore, the ECDF is considered appropriate for use. 
D’Agostino and Stephens (1986 [DIRS 160320], Chapter 2) define ECDF for any random 
sample as: 
F (x) = 
#( Xj = x) 
, -8 < x < 8 (Eq. 1) 
n 
n 
where the numerator is read as the number of samples (Xj) less than or equal to x (for this 
analysis, the corrosion value) with n equaling the number of samples. The ECDF is a step 
function that estimates the population distribution function. Thus, for Fn(x), as x increases it 
takes a step up of height 1/n as each sample observation is reached. The ECDF [Fn(x)] differs 
from the CDF [F(x)] in that it records the proportion of observations less than or equal to x while 
the CDF represents the probability of an observation less than or equal to x. Fn(x) can be used to 
estimate F(x), and is a consistent estimator of F(x) as n approaches infinity. 
The use of the ECDF plot does not depend upon assumptions concerning the underlying 
distribution and has several advantages over other statistical devices such as: 
• It is invariant under monotone transformations with regard to quantities (however, the 
appearance may change) 
• Its complexity is independent of the number of observations 
• It supplies immediate and direct information regarding the shape of underlying 
distribution (i.e., skewness and bimodality) 
• It is an effective indicator of peculiarities such as outliers 
• It supplies robust information on location and dispersion 
• It does not involve grouping difficulties such as would arise in a histogram. 
One of the disadvantages to the use of the ECDF is that they can be sensitive to random 
occurrences in the data, especially when the data set is small. Another limitation encountered 
with the use of the ECDF is that if the user is interested in any value outside of the range 
of values used to create the ECDF, the probability is zero. However, all inputs used to create 
the ECDF plots in this analysis are presented in Section 4 and are archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000 and may be used to obtain a probability curve by the user. 
Due to limited information or the nature of some data or populations, there are several materials 
for which the ECDF could not be used. The distributions for these cases are described in the 
following sections as they arise. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
The developed statistical parameters and ECDFs for aqueous degradation rates affecting waste 
package materials degradation will encompass various aqueous parameters such as temperature 
(up to 100°C), water type (i.e., fresh versus saline), and pH. Corrosion of materials at pH 
extremes (below 4 and above 10) is not included in this analysis since this is a special condition 
for which materials commonly display different corrosion behaviors. The output from this 
analysis is to be used in corrosion analysis to determine likelihood of corrosion scenarios and 
most likely corrosion rates for waste package materials to be used in corrosion studies. 
The output from this analysis will support the determination of the probability of criticality for 
DOE SNF codisposal waste packages. Outputs can also be used for corrosion analyses to 
determine realistic (most probable) values of corrosion for various materials in waste packages. 
6.1 TYPES OF CORROSION 
The purpose of this report is not to describe the performance of engineered barriers for the 
TSPA-LA. Instead, the analysis provides simple statistics on aqueous corrosion rates of steels 
and alloys. In the EQ6 cases used to characterize corrosion of DOE waste packages, the rate is 
represented as a general corrosion over the entire surface of the material. For example, localized 
corrosion weight loss rates for aluminum are converted to general corrosion rates in µm/yr for 
use in EQ6 calculations (BSC 2001 [DIRS 157640]; BSC 2002 [DIRS 158828]). Since the 
purpose of this analysis is to support EQ6 reaction path calculations and analyses, it will also 
focus on general corrosion rates. However, for some materials (such as aluminum), the primary 
corrosion behavior is a form of localized corrosion called pitting. In addition, galvanic coupling 
of materials in proximity to each other can have a strong effect on the rates of corrosion. 
Therefore, some data from specimens exhibiting localized or galvanic corrosion weight loss have 
been converted to general corrosion rates in µm/yr and included in the rates presented in 
Section 6.2. This section presents a short overview of these corrosion types. 
6.1.1 General Corrosion 
General corrosion describes the process by which the entire surface of the metal is attacked 
uniformly. 
6.1.2 Localized Corrosion 
Localized corrosion of passive metals includes various phenomena such as pitting, crevice 
corrosion, intergranular attack, and stress corrosion cracking. 
Crevice corrosion is a form of localized corrosion that can occur within crevices or shielded 
surfaces in which a solution can stagnate. Crevices can form from 1) the geometry of a structure 
(riveted plates, threaded joints, etc.), 2) Contact of the metal with nonmetallic solids 
(plastics, rubber, or glass associated with rivets, bolts, gaskets, welds, etc.), and 3) Deposits of 
sand, dirt, or corrosion products, or microbial growths on the metal surface (Shreir et al. 1998 
[DIRS 100891], Section 1.6; Sedriks 1996 [DIRS 164036], Section 5). This corrosion can range 
from small pits to extensive corrosion over the whole surface. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Pitting corrosion includes the formation of cavities within the passivated area. With this type of 
corrosion, the metal may be fully penetrated despite having a low general corrosion rate. Pitting 
may also range from a few deep holes in the metal to the metal surface being completely covered 
with pits of differing depth (Sedriks 1996 [DIRS 164036], Section 4). 
Crevice and pitting corrosion depend on the stability of the passive film, the metal, the aqueous 
environment, and temperature. As a general rule, increasing temperature and halide content of 
the corrosive medium increase localized attack. As with general corrosion, the elements 
chromium, nickel, and molybdenum help decrease the corrosion rate during localized corrosion. 
Stainless steel is usually quite resistant to localized attack. Sedriks (1996 [DIRS 164036], 
p. 214) cites 300 ppm as a safe chloride level for Stainless Steel Type 316, but other experiments 
indicate that halide levels can be much higher before localized corrosion becomes a problem. 
Carbon steel, lacking the alloying elements, is more susceptible. Aluminum alloys are very 
susceptible to pitting and usually display this behavior over long periods of exposure, in 
conditions causing the oxide film to break down. Rates for localized corrosion and depth of 
attack have been recorded by Gdowski and Bullen (1988 [DIRS 100860]), Sedriks (1996 
[DIRS 164036]), Aziz (1956 [DIRS 159379]), and Kain et al. (1984 [DIRS 159385]). 
6.1.3 Galvanic Corrosion 
In a bimetallic couple, one metal (the anodic metal) corrodes sacrificially, protecting the cathode 
from corrosion. In most cases, this causes the corrosion rate of the anode to increase and the 
corrosion rate of the cathode to decrease or for corrosion to halt. Factors affecting the galvanic 
corrosion of a bimetallic couple include (Zhang 2000 [DIRS 164938], Figure 1): 
• Reversible electrode potentials 
• Reactions: dissolution, oxygen reduction, and hydrogen evolution 
• Metallurgical factors: alloying, heat treatment, and mechanical working 
• Surface conditions: surface treatment, passive film, and corrosion products 
• Geometric factors: area; distance, position, shape, and orientation 
• Environmental effects: forms of moisture, cyclic wet–dry, solar radiation, climate, and 
seasonal variations 
• Electrolyte properties: ionic species, pH, conductivity, temperature, volume, and flow 
rate. 
Possible bimetallic partners inside waste packages and their relation to each other can be found 
in Table 6-1. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-1. Major Bi-Metallic Couples Located Within Waste Packages 
Metal Coupled With Couple Anodic Member Effect on Anode 
Aluminum Carbon Steel Aluminuma Slight to marked increase in corrosion 
Aluminum Stainless Steel Aluminuma Slight to marked increase in corrosion 
Aluminum Aluminum N/Aa none 
Aluminum Zircaloy Aluminumc Increase in corrosion 
Carbon Steel Stainless Steel Carbon Steela Marked increase in corrosion 
Carbon Steel Carbon Steel N/Aa none 
Carbon Steel Zircaloy Zircaloyb Increase in corrosion 
Stainless Steel Stainless Steel N/Aa none 
Stainless Steel Zircaloy Zircaloyb Increase in corrosion 
Stainless Steel Alloy 22 Stainless Steeld Increase in corrosiond 
Sources: a
bShreir et al. 1998, Table 1.25 [DIRS 100891]. 
Cole 1976 [DIRS 159369] and Smith 1987 [DIRS 159375]; Zr degrades sacrificially in the presence of 
stainless steel and ferric iron. 
cYau and Webster 1987 [DIRS 165063]. 
NOTE: dA typical galvanic series indicates that the stainless steels are less noble than Hastalloy Alloy C, which 
is similar to Alloy 22. 
6.2 Steels and Alloys 
As presented in Section 4.1.3, corrosion data of steels and alloys is divided according to the type 
of corroding medium and, where appropriate, temperature. The freshwater rates are 
representative of those solutions, which are dilute, such as lake water and J-13 well water. The 
saltwater in this case is ocean water with an average chloride content of 17,115 to 17,357 ppm 
(Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343]) to simulate natural waters that have been concentrated by 
evaporation or contact with engineered materials. Any additions or modification to these 
definitions will be discussed below with the specific materials. 
For solutions indicated by SDW, SCW, and SAW, this is indicative of Simulated Dilute Well 
Water, Simulated Concentrated Well Water, and Simulated Acidified Well Water 
(McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]). The SDW simulates J-13 well water at 10× concentration to 
account for minor effects of water evaporation and boiling, while SCW simulates J-13 well water 
concentrated 1,000×to account for long-term water evaporation and boiling in the repository 
environment. The SAW represents J-13 well water that has been acidified and concentrated to 
simulate microbial metabolic products. Further information on these simulated solutions can be 
found in Corrosion Data and Modeling, Update for Viability Assessment (McCright 1998 
[DIRS 114637], Section 2.2.4). 
Compositions of alloys used in the analysis of corrosion rates are located in Table 6-2. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-2. Composition (wt %) of Steel and Alloys 
Density 
(g/cm3) Material C Mn P Cu S Fe Si Cr Ni N Al Mo Mg Zn Ti Other Total 
304L = 7.94b 302a 0.15 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 17.0 to 19.0 8 to 10 0.1 — — — — — — — 
304L = 7.94b 304a 0.08 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 18.0 to 20.0 8 to 11 — — — — — — — — 
304L = 7.94b 304La 0.030 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 18.0 to 20.0 8 to 12 — — — — — — — — 
N/A B-304L Poisonc 0.030 1.95 0.04 — 0.03 Bal 0.73 18.56 9.77 0.10 — — — — — 2.33B — 
N/A 825d 0.02 0.37 — 1.90 0.004 Bal 0.08 22.70 43.98 — 0.06 2.92 — — 1.07 — — 
316L = 7.98b 316a 0.08 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 16.0 to 18.0 10 to 14 — — 2.00 to 3.00 — — — — — 
316L = 7.98b 316La 0.030 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 16.0 to 18.0 10 to 14 — — 2.00 to 3.00 — — — — — 
316L = 7.98b 316NGn 0.020 2.00 0.045 — 0.030 Bal 1.00 16.0 to 18.0 10 to 14 0.06 to 0.10 — 2.00 to 3.00 — — — — — 
7.76e Neutronit (A978)f 0.04 — — — — Bal — 18.5 13 — — 2.2 — — — 0.20 Co / 1.245 B 
7.94b 321a 0.08 2.00 0.045 — 0.0300 Bal 1.00 17.0 to 19.0 9 to 12 — — — —-— 5X(C+N)-0.70 — — 
7.90 AM-350o 0.07 to 0.11 0.5 to 1.25 0.04 — 0.03 Bal 0.50 16.0 to 17.0 4.0 to 5.0 0.07 to 0.13 — 2.5 to 3.25 —-— — — — 
N/A A516m 0.28 0.85 to 1.20 0.035 — 0.035 Bal 0.15 to 0.40 — — — — — —-— — — — 
2.0 max Co 
N/A Alloy N06464p 0.010 max 0.5 max 0.005 max — 0.005 max 1.0 max 0.08 max 14.5 to 17.1 Bal. 0.010 max — 13.1 to 16.0 — — — 1.9 to 2.1 Gd 
0.005 O 
N/A 24S-T3g — 0.58 — 4.54 — 0.30 0.15 — — — Bal — 1.46 — — — — 
N/A Alclad 24S-T3 
Coatingg — 0.01 — 0.27 — 0.13 0.07 — — — Bal — 0.13 — — — — 
N/A Alclad 24S-T3 
Coreg — 0.56 — 4.19 — 0.28 0.11 — — — Bal — 1.39 — — — — 
N/A 52S-1/2Hg — 0.05 — 0.02 — 0.15 0.12 0.21 — — Bal — 2.53 — — — — 
N/A Alclad 75S-T6 
Coatingg — 0.01 — 0.09 — 0.36 0.07 — — Bal — 0.15 1.31 — — — 
N/A Alclad 75S-T6 
Coreg — 0.12 — 1.58 — 0.15 0.08 0.24 — — Bal — 2.61 5.9 0.05 — — 
N/A 3S-1/2Hh — 1.2 — — — — — — — — Bal — — — — — — 
N/A Alclad 3S-1/2H Unavailable 
N/A 61S-Th — — — 0.25 — — 0.6 0.25 — — Bal — 1.0 — — — — 
2.71b 1100-H14i — 0.05 — 0.05 to 0.20 — 0.95 (Fe + Si) — — — — — — 0.10 — 0.05 0.15 
2.73b 3003-H14i — 1.0 to 1.5 — 0.05 to 0.20 — 0.7 0.6 — — — Bal — — 0.10 — 0.05 0.15 
2.68b 5052-H34i — 0.10 — 0.10 — 0.4 0.25 0.15 to 0.35 — — Bal — 2.2 to 2.8 0.10 — 0.05 0.15 
2.68r 5056j — 0.05 to 0.20 — 0.10 — 0.4 0.3 0.05 to 0.20 — — Bal — 4.5 to 5.6 0.10 — 0.05 0.15 
2.66b 5083i — 0.40 to 1.0 — 0.1 — 0.4 0.4 0.05 to 0.25 — — Bal — 4.0 to 4.9 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.15 
2.66b 5154i — 0.10 — 0.10 — 0.4 0.25 0.15 to 0.35 — — Bal — 3.1 to 3.9 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.15 
2.70s 6051-T4 Unavailable 
2.70s 6051-T6 Unavailable 
2.70s 6053-T6 Unavailable 
2.70b 6061-T4i — 0.15 — 0.15 to 0.40 — 0.7 0.40 to 0.8 0.04 to 0.35 — — Bal — 0.8 to 1.2 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.15 
2.70b 6061-T6i — 0.15 — 0.15 to 0.40 — 0.7 0.40 to 0.8 0.04 to 0.35 — — Bal — 0.8 to 1.2 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.15 
2.81t 7072i — 0.10 — 0.10 — 0.7 (Fe + Si) — — — Bal — 0.10 0.8 to 1.3 — 0.05 0.15 
2.81b 7075-T6i — 0.30 — 1.2 to 2.0 — 0.50 0.40 0.18 to 0.28 — — Bal — 2.1 to 2.9 5.1 to 6.1 0.20 0.05 0.15 
2.73u 3003-Alcladi Aluminum Alloy Type 3003 clad with Aluminum Alloy Type 7072 
2.70u 6061-Alcladi Aluminum Alloy Type 6061 clad with Aluminum Alloy Type 7072 
2.81u 7075-Alcladi Aluminum Alloy Type 7075 clad with Aluminum Alloy Type 7072 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-5 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-2. Composition (wt %) of Steel and Alloys (Continued) 
Density 
(g/cm3) Material C Mn P Cu S Fe Si Cr Ni N Al Mo Mg Zn Ti Other Total 
2.71q Alcan 2S-Ok — 0.01 — 0.01 — 0.36 0.22 No data — — Bal — No data — 0.01 — — 
N/A Inconel 600l 0.15 1.0 — 0.5 0.015 6.0 to 10.0 0.5 14.0 to 17.0 72 min — — — — — — — — 
N/A Inconel 625l 0.1 0.50 0.015 — 0.015 5.0 0.5 20.0 to 23.0 58.0 min — 0.40 8.0 to 10.0 — — 0.40 3.15 to 4.15 
Nb+Ta and 1.0 Co 
N/A Inconel X-750l 0.08 1.00 — 0.50 0.01 5.0 to 9.0 0.50 14.0 to 17.0 70.0 min — 0.4 to 1.00 —-— — 2.25 to 2.75 0.70 to 1.20 Nb, 
1.00 Co 
0.015 max H, 
N/A Titanium Grade 7v 0.08 max — — — — 0.30 max — — — 0.03 max — — — — Bal 0.25 max O, and 
0.12 to 0.25 Pd 
0.015 max H, 
N/A Titanium Grade 24v 0.08 max — — — — 0.40 max — — — 0.05 max 5.5 to 6.75 — — — Bal 0.20 max O, 
3.5 to 4.5 V, and 
0.04 to 0.08 Pd 
Sources: aASTM A 276-03 [DIRS 165006]. 
bASTM G 1-90 [DIRS 103515]. 
cASTM A 240/A 240M-03b [DIRS 165003] Stainless Steel Type 304L composition; CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 127351] accommodating 2.33% boron. 
d
Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339]. 
e
f 
DTN: MO0109RIB00049.001 [DIRS 155964]. 
DTN: MO0109RIB00049.001 [DIRS 155964]; ASTM A 887-89 [DIRS 154062], Table 1, S30463, S30464, and S30466 for boron content. 
ghBomberger et al. 1954 [DIRS 163699]
. 
Sawyer and Brown 1947 [DIRS 164921]
. 
i
ASTM B 209-96 [DIRS 144744]. 
j
kAilor 1969 [DIRS 164907], Table 11. 
Aziz 1956 [DIRS 159379]. 
l
Inco Alloys International 1988 [DIRS 130835]. 
m
ASTM A516/A 516M-01 2001 [DIRS 162723] (Table 1, 2” to 4” thickness, Grade 65)
. 
nDanko 1987 [DIRS 154395], p. 931 – Stainless Steel Type 316 base with difference in N and C content.
oBauccio 1993 [DIRS 131480], pp. 359 and 360. 
pASTM B 932-04 2004 [DIRS 168403]
. 
v
ASTM B 265-02 2002 [DIRS 162726]. 
NOTES: qAssumed the same as Aluminum Alloy 1100 (Section 5.2.2). 
rAssumed the same as Aluminum Alloy 5052 (Section 5.2.2). 
sAssumed the same as Aluminum Alloy 6061 (Section 5.2.2). 
t
Assumed the same as Aluminum Alloy 7075 (Section 5.2.2). 
u
Assumed same density as aluminum-alloy comprising core (Section 5.2.2). 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-6 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.2.1 Stainless Steel 
The extent to which corrosion proceeds is highly dependent on the elemental composition of the 
material. Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]) show that even small amounts of 
chromium will slow damage to steel. Even in highly oxidizing environments, chromium lends 
strong resistance to attack (Scarberry et al. 1967 [DIRS 159335]). The addition of nickel further 
fortifies the steel, as it is effective in reducing corrosion in reducing conditions and in neutral salt 
solutions and alkalies (Scarberry et al. 1967 [DIRS 159335]). The introduction of molybdenum 
to stainless steel is done to aid in corrosion resistance, but specifically, to add resistance to 
localized corrosion (Scarberry et al. 1967 [DIRS 159335]). However, the addition of 
molybdenum can have a negative effect in highly oxidizing conditions (Wallen and Olsson 1977 
[DIRS 164948]). 
Stainless steels planned for use in the waste packages (Stainless Steel Type 304 series and 316 
series) contain significant amounts of chromium, nickel, and molybdenum 
(ASTM A 240/A 240M-03b [DIRS 165003], ASTM A 276-03 [DIRS 165006], and 
Bauccio 1993 [DIRS 131480]). These three elements have been shown to significantly decrease 
the corrosion of stainless steel in aqueous environments ranging from mild freshwaters to caustic 
saltwater. This is accomplished through the formation of a passive layer (film). The passive 
films of stainless steels are very thin hydrous oxides enriched in chromium, silicon, and 
molybdenum. At high temperatures a more stable chromium-nickel spinel structure can form. 
By solid-state diffusion through the passive film, continuous dissolution and precipitation of the 
film occurs (Wallen and Olsson 1977 [DIRS 164948]; McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336]) 
providing a protective barrier to attack from the surrounding media. Passive film formation 
causes the continual decrease of the degradation rate seen in many studies (i.e., Gdowski and 
Bullen 1988 [DIRS 100860]; Larrabee 1953 [DIRS 159337]). As time passes, unless otherwise 
disturbed, the passive film stabilizes and sometimes (in the case of freshwater corrosion) can halt 
corrosion of the steel completely. 
Breakdown of the passive film can occur in highly oxidizing or reducing environments, in the 
presence of chloride or sulfates, and harsh, localized environments caused by physical properties 
such as galvanic coupling, surface blemishes on the material, and the growth of bacterial 
colonies. These effects usually contribute to forms of corrosion other than the general corrosion 
discussed here (discussion of localized and galvanic corrosion is in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3). 
As shown in the tables in Section 4.1.3, most of the corrosion data is from short-term 
experiments ranging from a few weeks to sixteen years. It has been generally shown that there is 
a continual decrease of the degradation rate over time (Gdowski and Bullen 1988 
[DIRS 100860]; Larrabee 1953 [DIRS 159337]; and Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
Therefore, the rates may eventually reach a steady state in which the overall corrosion 
approaches 0 µm/yr. Since corrosion rates over longer periods have not been measured, the data 
from short-term experiments will be used here to describe the corrosion of materials. Given the 
information above, the rates are expected to be low. The corrosion rates for Stainless Steel 
Types 304L and 316L in fresh or dilute waters expected at the repository can be found in 
Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-7 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Another factor affecting stainless steel corrosion is the concentration of halides in the corroding 
medium. The chloride (Cl-) and fluoride (F-) content of several water types is presented in 
Table 6-3. 
Table 6-3. Halide Content of Several Waters from Yucca Mountain Strata Compared to J-13 Well Water 
Water 
Type 
J-13 Well 
Watera 
Tptpll Crown 
Seepageb 
Evaporated 
Tptpmn Crown 
Seepage Waterc 
Tptpll Crown 
Seepage / Grout 
Leachatec 
Evaporated Perched Water / 
Grout Leachated 
Cl-(ppm) 7.14 117 7,587 117 1,858 
F(
ppm) 2.18 5.81 6.63 5.97 None Reported 
Sources: a
bDTN:MO0006J13WTRCM.000 [DIRS 151029]. 
BSC 2001 [DIRS 155859], Transition to ambient temperature, Table 11. 
cBSC 2001 [DIRS 156183], Transition to ambient temperature, Tables 6.1-6 and 6.2-10. 
dBSC 2001 [DIRS 156183], Ambient temperature, Table 6.2-16. 
NOTE: All values converted to ppm in ppm_.xls on Appendix II. 
For comparison, an example of the Cl- concentration in seawater at the Panama Canal Zone lies 
between 17,357 and 17,415 ppm (Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343]). These components 
inside the corroding medium are important because they interfere with the maintenance of the 
passive film (Wallen and Olsson 1977 [DIRS 164948]; Davison et al. 1987 [DIRS 162971]) and 
accelerate localized corrosion of the metal. General corrosion rates for Stainless Steel 
Types 304L and 316L in saltwater used for this analysis are found in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. 
As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the corrosion resistance of stainless steels in freshwater and 
saltwater differs quite markedly. Therefore, they have been analyzed separately here. 
6.2.1.1 Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L 
Probabilities for general corrosion rates of Stainless Steel Type 304L are presented in 
Degradation of Stainless Steel Structural Material (BSC 2001 [DIRS 156356]). However, these 
rates come primarily from data on the corrosion of stainless steel in seawater. As the waters 
entering the drift at Yucca Mountain will be dilute solutions (similar to J-13 well water, 
DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000 [DIRS 151029]), it is not expected that the corrosion rates of 
waste package materials will be as fast as those occurring in sea water. For this reason, the full 
suite of information of corrosion in fresh and saltwater, including time duration, and 
environmental conditions of experiments is presented in Section 4.1.3.1. 
The statistical information on the corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304L is located in Table 6-4 
and Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-8 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-2, Table 4-2, and Table 4-4. 
Archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-1. ECDF for Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L in All Water Types Investigated 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-2 and Table 4-4. Archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-2. ECDF for Stainless Steel Types 302/304/304L Showing Detail for Slower Rates 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-9 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-4. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 302/304/304L 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Freshwater (25°C 
to 100°C) 0.001 1.570 0.1285 0.214 0.298 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 1.588 39.147 5.08 11.441 11.134 
Saltwater (90°C) 0.660 15.900 2.03 5.816 5.953 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-2 and Table 4-4. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
6.2.1.2 Stainless Steel Types 316/316L/AM-350 
Probabilities for general corrosion rates of Stainless Steel Type 316L are also presented in 
Degradation of Stainless Steel Structural Material (BSC 2001 [DIRS 156356]). However, as for 
Stainless Steel Type 304L, these rates come primarily from data on the corrosion of stainless 
steel in seawater. As the waters entering the drift at Yucca Mountain will be dilute solutions 
(similar to J-13 well water, DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000 [DIRS 151029]), it is not expected 
that the corrosion rates of waste package materials will be as fast as those occurring in sea water. 
For this reason, the full suite of information of corrosion in fresh and saltwater, including time 
duration, and environmental conditions of experiments is presented Section 4.1.3.1. 
The statistical information on the corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 316L is located in Table 6-5 
and Figure 6-3 through Figure 6-5. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-10 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-3. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-3. ECDF for Stainless Steel Types 316/316L/AM-350 in Freshwater 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-5. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-4. ECDF for Stainless Steel Types 316/316L/AM-350 in Saltwater 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-11 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-5. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-5. ECDF for Stainless Steel Types 316/316L/AM-350 in Saltwater Showing More Detail for 
Corrosion Rates Below 2.5 µm/yr 
Table 6-5. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel Types 
316/316L/AM-350 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Freshwater (29.5°C) 0.0007 0.0475 0.003 0.0083 0.0136 
Freshwater 
(50°C to 100°C) 
0.037 0.51 0.229 0.248 0.146 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 0.0014 14.787 0.7362 1.939 3.346 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous-316L.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-3 and Table 4-5. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-12 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.2.1.3 Boil-Down Tests 
Corrosion Rate (µm/year) 
The results from 80-week boil-down tests are located in Table 4-6. These results are included as 
they show the trend of Stainless Steel Type 304L corrosion as the test solution is gradually 
concentrated by evaporation. The data on the corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304L in a 
boil-down environment is located in Figure 6-6. As there are no published data on the solution 
chemistry of these tests, other than that the solution was slowly concentrated through 
evaporation, no statistical analysis was done for this set of corrosion values. However, 
Figure 6-6 below shows that after approximately one year, the rate of corrosion levels off at 
around 3 µm/yr. 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 
Time (years) 
NOTE: Graphical representation of values in Table 4-6. Graphed in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II. Archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-6. Experimental Results of Boil-Down Tests 
6.2.1.4 Effects of Radiolysis 
Radiolysis is defined as chemical decomposition caused by radiation. In aqueous solutions, 
radiolysis can produce a number of transient radicals, ions, and molecular species, including 
H·,·OH, e aq, H3O+, OH-, H2, H2O2, O2, O2 , HO2, oxides of nitrogen, and dilute nitric acid 
(Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341], McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336], Glass et al. 1986 
[DIRS 105021]). When J-13 well water undergoes radiolysis, the oxygenated water would allow 
O2 and H2O2 to form as the dominant species in solution with smaller concentrations of O2-and 
much smaller steady state concentrations of H2, ·OH and H· (Glass et al. 1986 [DIRS 105021]). 
Therefore, radiolysis is expected to increase the oxidizing nature of the aqueous fluid entering 
the waste package. From the report by Wallen and Olsson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), it is known 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-13 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
that the addition of molybdenum can have a corrosive effect in highly oxidizing conditions. This 
indicates that if radiolysis increases the oxidizing conditions of the waste package, the corrosion 
rate of the Stainless Steel Type 316 series and Neutronit will increase. Beavers and Durr (1991 
[DIRS 159341]) show that with increasing H2O2 concentration, the corrosion rate of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L increases (Table 4-7). The results of those experiments are shown in 
Figure 6-7. 
NOTE: Graphical representation of values in Table 4-7. Graphed in aqueous-304L.xls in Appendix II. Archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-7. Corrosion Rate of Stainless Steel Type 304L as a Function of H2O2 from Radiolysis 
6.2.1.5 Stainless Steel Sensitization 
Stainless steels are susceptible to developing a “sensitized” microstructure when exposed to high 
temperatures over short time periods. Sensitization causes chromium rich carbides to precipitate 
from solid solution in the steel, producing chromium-depleted zones around the carbides 
(McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336]; Fox and McCright 1983 [DIRS 159344]). The protective 
passive film that forms on the sensitized grain boundary is, therefore, not as stable as that on the 
bulk of the material because of the depleted zones of chromium. This leaves the stainless steel 
surface open to preferential attack (localized corrosion), especially by oxidizing media. 
High carbon-content steels (Stainless Steel Types 316/304) are very susceptible to sensitization. 
Lower carbon-content steels are preferable (Stainless Steel Types 316L/304L), as these have 
been shown to hold up better to sensitization than their higher carbon counterparts (Gdowski and 
Bullen 1988 [DIRS 100860]; Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 100891], pp. 3-54 through 3-57). For 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-14 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Stainless Steel Type 316 NG, with carbon content below 0.02%, no sensitization has been 
observed (Gdowski and Bullen 1988 [DIRS 100860]). In fact, Stainless Steel Type 316NG is the 
material suggested to replace Stainless Steel Type 304L in BWRs, since sensitization of Stainless 
Steel Type 304L causes it to corrode (Fox and McCright 1983 [DIRS 159344]). Other work 
shows that the molybdenum in the Stainless Steel Type 316 series impedes the diffusion of 
carbon atoms, slowing the growth of carbide nuclei, thus making the Stainless Steel Type 316 
more resistant to sensitization (McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336]). 
Chromium carbide precipitation usually occurs in the temperature range from 500°C to 850°C 
(through heat treatments) with the rate of precipitation controlled by chromium diffusion 
(Gdowski and Bullen 1988 [DIRS 100860]; Fox and McCright 1983 [DIRS 159344]). However, 
steels are rarely kept at these high temperatures for sufficient amounts of time to become 
sensitized. Therefore, it must be determined whether stainless steel placed in the repository 
environment, with temperatures ranging from 85°C to 280°C, will undergo low temperature 
sensitization (LTS). Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168848], Section 6.5.5.1) indicates that the repository temperatures will decrease over 
time. Briant et al. (1982 [DIRS 159345]) estimate that at 200°C, it would take 4,000 years for 
Stainless Steel Type 304L to become sensitized. From these two references, it can be inferred 
that sensitization of the Stainless Steel Types 304 series, 316 series, and Neutronit) by early 
repository temperatures is unlikely. Therefore, no analysis on the corrosion of a sensitized 
stainless steel is presented here. 
6.2.2 Steel Containing Neutron Absorbers 
6.2.2.1 Neutronit 
Kügler (1997 [DIRS 134327]) states that the corrosion resistance of Neutronit is similar to that 
of AISI Stainless Steel Type 321. The corrosion rates of Neutronit (based on the corrosion of 
Stainless Steel Type 321) can be found in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. Like other stainless steels, it 
displays excellent corrosion resistance, especially in dilute waters. A rate of 40 µm/yr has been 
suggested in Scoping Corrosion Tests on Candidate Waste Package Basket Materials for the 
Yucca Mountain Project (Van Konynenburg et al. 1998 [DIRS 100948]) after 96-hour exposure 
to highly corrosive media containing 0.01-molar concentrations of radiolysis products (nitric acid 
and hydrogen peroxide) and chloride buffered at pH 4. In-Package Chemistry Abstraction 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167621], Appendix III) has shown that lower concentrations of nitric acid and 
hydrogen peroxide will be produced by radiolysis, having little effect on the pH and chemistry 
inside the waste package. Therefore, the test conditions used by Van Konynenburg et al. 
(1998 [DIRS 100948]) are not representative of expected repository conditions and their rate 
value was not used for this analysis. The statistical information on the corrosion of 
Stainless Steel Type 321 is located in Table 6-6, Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-9. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-15 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-8. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-8. ECDF for Neutronit (Using Stainless Steel Type 321 Surrogate) in Freshwater 
Table 6-6. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Neutronit (Using 
Stainless Steel Type 321 Surrogate) 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Freshwater (29.5°C) 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.004 0.004 
Freshwater (50°C to 
100°C) 0.025 0.330 0.203 0.206 0.088 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 1.81 29.22 7.38 11.06 10.19 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9. Archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-16 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-9. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-9. ECDF for Neutronit (Using Stainless Steel Type 321 Surrogate) in Saltwater 
6.2.2.2 Borated Stainless Steel Type 304L 
The effects of boron content have also been studied for Stainless Steel Type 304. Most corrosion 
tests for this material have been conducted in extremely hostile environments such as boiling 
nitric acid, sulfuric acid and 7N-HNO3 (Smith et al. 1992 [DIRS 103441]; EPRI 1986 
[DIRS 159367]; and Butler 1963 [DIRS 159368]). 
Cole (1976 [DIRS 159369]) presents data on corrosion of borated Stainless Steel Type 304 in 
environments, which may be encountered in the waste package, and had the following 
conclusions: 
• Stainless steel alloyed with 1.5 percent boron degraded faster than steel containing 
only 0.3 percent boron showing that increasing boron content increases degradation rate 
• Corrosion at 50°C in concentrated solutions was much greater than at ambient 
temperatures in dilute solutions. 
Other conclusions on the effects of zirconium and aluminum on the corrosion rates included: 
• Corrosion decreased as aluminum complexing of the solution increased, and 
• Zirconium serves as a sacrificial metal to reduce the corrosion of borated Stainless Steel 
Type 304 with 1.5 percent boron. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-17 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
The statistical information on the corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304L is located in Table 6-7, 
Figure 6-10, and Figure 6-11. For this analysis, the values for 1.5 percent boron at 100°C 
corresponding to 6.04 and 6.44 mils per month (Table 4-11) as well as 6.14 and 5.99 mils per 
month (Table 4-11) for ambient temperatures were not used (1 mil = 25.4 µm). Because these 
rates are so much higher than the other rates shown for similar conditions, it is likely that these 
values represent localized corrosion data and are therefore inappropriate for use in the analysis. 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-10. ECDF for 0.3 Percent Borated Stainless Steel Type 304 in All Water Types Investigated 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-18 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-11. ECDF for 1.5 Percent Borated Stainless Steel Type 304 in All Water Types Investigated 
Table 6-7. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Borated Stainless Steel 
Type 304 
Environment Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
0.3%B (Ambient-
"Fresh") 3.05 12.19 4.57 6.10 3.86 
0.3%B (50°C-Boiling-
"Fresh") 3.05 27.43 16.76 15.75 7.99 
1.5%B (Ambient-
Boiling-"Fresh") 161.54 252.98 211.84 210.31 32.77 
0.3%B (Ambient-
"Harsh") 2.94 26.46 20.58 17.05 9.48 
0.3%B (50°C-
"Harsh") 38.22 147.00 88.20 94.69 42.85 
0.3%B (Boiling-
"Harsh") 11.76 58.80 27.93 29.77 12.48 
1.5%B (Ambient-
Boiling-"Harsh") 164.64 1,058.40 360.15 453.74 272.96 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-19 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.2.2.3 Gadolinium-Alloyed Stainless Steel Type 304L 
Cole (1976 [DIRS 159369]) presents data on corrosion of a gadolinium-alloyed Stainless Steel 
Type 304 in environments that may be encountered in the waste package. The statistical 
information on the corrosion of gadolinium-alloyed Stainless Steel Type 304L is located in Table 
6-8. 
Table 6-8. Comparison of Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Corrosion Rates of Gadolinium-
Alloyed and Non Gadolinium-Alloyed Stainless Steel Type 304L 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) 
Minimum Maximum Mean 
0.3% Gd 304 (Ambient-Boiling-"Fresh")a 3.05 15.24 9.14 
304L Freshwater (25°C to 100°C) b 0.001 1.57 0.214 
Increase in Corrosion 3,050 times 9.71 times 33.27 times 
0.3% Gd 304 (Ambient-"Harsh")a 2.94 2.94 2.94 
304L Saltwater (<27°C) b 1.588 39.147 11.44 
Increase in Corrosion 1.85 times 0.08 times 0.26 times 
0.3% Gd 304 (Boiling-"Harsh")a 5.88 23.52 11.03 
304L Saltwater (90°C) b 0.66 15.9 5.816 
Increase in Corrosion 8.91 times 1.48 times 1.90 times 
NOTES: aValues calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-12; archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
bValues from Table 6-4. 
6.2.3 Carbon Steel Type A516 
As pointed out in the sections above, the extent to which corrosion proceeds is highly dependent 
on the elemental composition of the material. Carbon steel does not have the protective alloying 
effects from the addition of chromium, nickel, and molybdenum. Therefore, its rates of 
corrosion tend to be much higher than those of stainless steel. The corrosion rates of 
Carbon Steel Type A516 can be found in aqueous-A516.xls in Appendix II and Tables 4-13 
through 4-20. 
Unlike stainless steel, the corrosion rate of carbon steel is highly dependent on the temperature of 
the system. From the experimental data of McCright (1998 [DIRS 114637]) presented in 
Table 4-13 through Table 4-20, it is shown that corrosion at 60°C is more aggressive than 
corrosion at 90°C. This is corroborated by Brasher and Mercer (1968 [DIRS 100883]), whose 
data on the corrosion of mild/carbon steel for different temperatures is shown in Figure 6-12. 
The highest corrosion rate occurs at 60°C. From this temperature (60°C), the corrosion rate 
decreases when the temperature either increases or decreases (i.e., corrosion rates for both 25°C 
and 90°C will be lower than the 60°C rates). As can be seen from Figure 6-12, the rates for the 
mild steel are within the same range as those for the Carbon Steel Type A516 from Corrosion 
Data and Modeling, Update for Viability Assessment (McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]). 
Although no specific data have been located for corrosion of Carbon Steel Type A516 at 25°C, 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-20 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Figure 6-12 shows that the rates for mild steel at 25°C are slightly lower than mild steel at 90°C. 
Therefore, in the absence of 25°C data for Carbon Steel Type A516, those presented for mild 
steel at 90°C can be used as a surrogate. 
In addition, unlike stainless steel, carbon steel corrosion decreases with increasing salinity of the 
corroding medium. Tables 4-13 through 4-20 in Section 4.1.3.3 show that the corrosion rates for 
water concentrated to 1,000× that of J-13 well water (SCW) are significantly lower than those at 
the 10× concentration (SDW). These values are for laboratory conditions and not a natural 
setting. In the case of carbon steel, this has a great effect on the corrosion rates. In natural saline 
water (i.e., ocean or tidal), many other factors can increase corrosion rates, which may not be 
seen in waste package corrosion. These effects include water flow rates, biofouling, and 
pollution. With stainless steels, there was little difference between the corrosion rates in natural 
and laboratory settings. However, for carbon steel, the results of laboratory experiments may 
more closely represent the actual rates since they do not include the three factors mentioned 
above. 
In the experiments conducted by McCright (1998 [DIRS 114637]), the corrosion rate decreases 
from the 0.5-year to the 1-year time period. The same behavior is shown in Figure 1 of “Carbon 
Steel—Corrosion by Seawater” (Matsushima 2000 [DIRS 164942]) in which the rates decrease 
significantly in the first 10 to 20 years. As with stainless steel, this is caused by the formation of 
an oxide film at the surface of the metal. However, because of the absence of chromium, nickel, 
and molybdenum, these films are composed of iron oxides. While intact, these films can 
effectively slow the corrosion of the metal, but are not as efficient as the thin hydrous chromium, 
silicon, and molybdenum enriched oxides that protect stainless steels. Therefore, even though a 
protective film forms, it cannot completely stop corrosion on the surface of the steel 
(Matsushima 2000 [DIRS 164944]). 
Other factors affecting the corrosion of carbon steel in freshwaters include pH, Cl-, bicarbonate 
-
(HCO3 ), and SO42- (Matsushima 2000 [DIRS 164944]). It is generally considered that over the 
pH range of approximately 4 to 10, the corrosion rate of carbon steel is independent of the pH 
(Matsushima 2000 [DIRS 164944]). However, this changes when high concentrations of Cl-and 
SO42-are present in solution. The data from Corrosion Data and Modeling, Update for Viability 
Assessment (McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637]) shows that even in solutions with high levels of 
these two anions, the corrosion rates were still lower in concentrated solutions than in dilute 
solutions. Matsushima (2000 [DIRS 164944]) points out that as long as dissolved oxygen is 
controlling corrosion, the Cl-and SO42-ions will essentially have no effect on the overall general 
corrosion rate of steel because they do not effect the solubility of oxygen. However, they may 
cause a breakdown of the passive oxide film and accelerate localized corrosion. This effect is 
even more pronounced at lower pH values as shown by Satyanarayana (1981 [DIRS 159371], 
Figure 8). On the other hand, HCO3-may counteract this effect. In the presence of Ca2+, a 
protective CaCO3 film forms. In the absence of Ca2+, FeCO3 can form. Though not as protective 
as minerals such as Fe(OH)2, this layer will still have a passivating effect on the surface of the 
steel. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-21 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: Graphical representation of values from Brasher and Mercer 1968 [DIRS 100883]. Graphed in aqueous-
A516.xls in Appendix II. Archived in DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-12. Corrosion Rates versus Temperature for Mild Steel 
The rates used to describe the corrosion of Carbon Steel Type A516 are found in Tables 4-13 
through 4-20. Since carbon and low alloy steels are used extensively by many industries, a large 
amount of corrosion data is available in the literature. For this analysis, the data from McCright 
(1998 [DIRS 114637]) for Carbon Steel Types A516 and A27 was used since this study was 
conducted using environmental conditions expected to be present in the repository. Since 
Carbon Steel Type A27 is low-alloy carbon steel similar to Carbon Steel Type A516, and their 
corrosion rates are, therefore, similar, Carbon Steel Type A27 was also used to describe the 
corrosion of Carbon Steel Type A516. The statistical information on the corrosion of Carbon 
Steel Type A516 is located in Table 6-9 and Figure 6-13. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-22 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-13 through Table 4-16. 
Archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-13. ECDF for Carbon Steel Type A516 in All Water Types Investigated (Time = 1 Year) 
Table 6-9. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Carbon Steel 
Type A516 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Short term (= 0.53 years) 
SDW (60°C) 78.71 130.70 101.95 102.71 12.37 
SDW (90°C) 58.08 130.02 77.05 81.14 15.13 
SCW (60°C) 50.25 104.20 62.77 68.08 14.17 
SCW (90°C) 7.39 22.06 12.42 12.78 3.77 
Long term (= 1 year) 
SDW (60°C) 65.77 106.93 74.56 77.43 8.83 
SDW (90°C) 29.53 88.68 48.70 51.80 12.99 
SCW (60°C) 6.77 14.36 10.83 10.61 2.02 
SCW (90°C) 3.69 9.35 6.75 6.84 1.25 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous-A516.xls in Appendix II from values in Tables 4-13 through 4-20. Archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-23 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.2.4 Aluminum Alloys 
A brief synopsis of aluminum corrosion (Hollingsworth and Hunsicker 1987 [DIRS 150403]; 
Ghali 2000 [DIRS 164946]) is presented below. 
Aluminum Alloy Type 1100 (“commercially pure aluminum”) contains 99.0 to 99.3 percent 
aluminum and has a higher resistance to corrosion in most acid and neutral solutions than lower 
purity aluminum or aluminum alloys. The nonheat-treatable alloys (1xxx, 3xxx, 4xxx, and 5xxx 
series), as well as the heat-treatable alloys of the group 6xxx and noncopper containing 7xxx 
alloys are highly resistant to general corrosion, with the 6xxx and 7xxx being the least resistant. 
Alloys of the 2xxx and copper containing 7xxx series generally have lower resistance to general 
corrosion. Aluminum is a surface active metal and its resistance to corrosion thus depends 
highly on the formation of a protective oxide film. Aluminum passivity develops in the pH 
range of about 5 to 8.5. This passivity depends greatly on the temperature, the form of the oxide, 
O2 content, pH, and the aqueous medium. 
At low temperatures, aqueous solutions are usually less corrosive than at high temperatures. 
However, for some solutions, increasing temperatures (usually above 80°C) results in a decrease 
in aluminum corrosion. The protective oxide film at ambient temperatures is only a few 
nanometers thick and usually amorphous or predominantly bayerite (Al(OH)3). At high 
temperatures, thicker films may form. Highly protective crystalline films of boehmite (AlOOH) 
may form in water near the boiling point. The formation of crystalline films is more likely in 
alkaline solutions. During aging of aluminum hydroxides, gibbsite (Al(OH)3) may also form. A 
protective film does not form above 230°C. 
Oxygen also affects the rate of corrosion for aluminum. In deaerated solutions, the corrosion of 
aluminum tends to be very slow, whereas in the presence of oxygen, corrosion is accelerated. 
This is even more pronounced in acidic solutions. Other dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide 
and hydrogen sulfide appear to have slight inhibiting action on the corrosion of aluminum by 
aqueous mediums whereas hydrogen chloride is very corrosive to aluminum. 
As mentioned above, aluminum and its alloys tend to be passivated between pH 5 and 8.5. It 
-
corrodes under both acidic and alkaline conditions to produce Al3+ and AlO2 (aluminate) ions 
respectively. There is no general relationship between pH and corrosion rate because other ions 
present in solution largely influence corrosion rates. For example, concentrated solutions of 
nitric or acetic acid may not effect the corrosion rate while dilute solutions of nitric, sulfuric, and 
hydrochloric acid solutions are very corrosive. Likewise, alkaline solutions may not attack 
aluminum in the presence of silicates, but in the absence of silicates, corrosion rates may be very 
high. 
In distilled water, even at high temperatures, aluminum corrosion is quite low. This is also true 
of clean natural waters. However, some waters can cause severe localized corrosion such as 
pitting. In natural freshwaters, the important factors for corrosion have been presented above. 
For seawater, corrosion is primarily through pitting. Rates of pitting usually range from 3 to 
6 µm/yr during the first year. An average over a 10-year period shows the rate of pitting to 
be 0.8 to 1.5 µm/yr. The decreasing rates over time indicate the tendency of older pits to become 
inactive. This is corroborated by Table 6-10, which shows the occurrence of pits on aluminum 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-24 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
when exposed to tap water from Kingston, Ontario. Pitting tends to be the main corrosion 
behavior of aluminum. Pitting weight-loss data for aluminum are converted to general rates for 
use in EQ6 for this analysis. 
Table 6-10. Pitting in Aluminum Alloys 
Number of Pits within the Pit Depth Ranges in Time Period 
Pit Depth Range 
(microns) 2 weeks 1 Month 2 Months 4 Months 6 Months 1 year 
0 to 99 176 216 155 171 111 140 
100 to 199 54 49 22 24 27 11 
200 to 299 49 73 19 24 26 17 
300 to 399 21 98 48 37 41 18 
400 to 499 14 71 56 65 52 47 
500 to 599 1 68 51 60 50 48 
600 to 699 0 30 38 33 37 36 
700 to 799 1 16 32 43 43 22 
800 to 899 — 4 4 15 9 7 
900 to 999 — 1 — 3 3 1 
1,000 to 1,099 — — — — 1 0 
Source: Aziz 1956 [DIRS 159379]. 
NOTE: Kingston, Ontario tap water (no other data on this water was available). 
Since aluminum alloys are used in many industries, saltwater corrosion data for many different 
types can be found in the literature. For this analysis, it was decided to use the data from one 
large study since using a full bibliography of values is unreasonable. The chosen values come 
from Hollingsworth and Hunsicker (1987 [DIRS 150403]). The corrosion rates for aluminum 
alloys used in this analysis for fresh and seawater are located in Section 4.1.3.4 and in 
aluminum_.xls on Appendix II. The statistical information on the corrosion of aluminum alloys 
is located in Table 6-11 and Figure 6-14. More detail of the ECDF is presented in Figure 6-15 
through Figure 6-17. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-25 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-21 and Table 4-22. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-14. ECDF for Aluminum Alloy 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-26 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-21 and Table 4-22. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-15. ECDF for Aluminum Alloy For Fn(x) Less than 0.50 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-27 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-21 and Table 4-22. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-16. ECDF for Aluminum Alloy For Fn(x) Between 0.50 and 0.85 
Table 6-11. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Aluminum Alloy 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Freshwater 0.40 36.93 9.50 12.95 10.84 
Saltwater 0.12 110.91 4.76 9.69 15.34 
NOTE: Calculated in aluminum_.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-21 and Table 4-22. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-28 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-21 and Table 4-22. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-17. ECDF for Aluminum Alloy For Fn(x) Between 1.0 and 0.85 
6.2.5 Zircaloy (2 and 4) 
As mentioned in Section 4.1.3.5, most information on the corrosion of zircaloy is from high 
temperature experiments in which the weight gain over time is measured (i.e., Hillner et al. 1998 
[DIRS 100455]; Rothman 1984 [DIRS 100417]). Hillner et al. (1998 [DIRS 100455]) conclude 
that oxide growth in the Yucca Mountain repository over a period of one million years would be 
extremely small (0.3 mils, 1 mil = 25.4 µm). The data for the corrosion of zircaloy at low 
temperatures (21.5°C to 43°C) recorded by Uziemblo and Smith (1989 [DIRS 101231]) 
corroborates this by indicating a degradation rate of zero for all experiments in dilute solution. 
Rothman (1984 [DIRS 100417]) summarizes data by other authors for a case with a constant 
temperature of 180°C for 10,000 years, which yields a depth of oxidized zircaloy ranging 
from 4 to 53 µm with an average of 17 µm. However, the repository is not expected to remain at 
temperatures near 180°C for 10,000 years (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168848], Section 6.5.5.1). 
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, this metal is considered insoluble and, consequently, 
has no associated statistical analysis. 
6.2.6 Alloy N06464 
Corrosion data for a Ni-Cr-Mo-Gd alloy—Alloy N06464 (presented in Table 4-23) shows the 
metal to hold up well to corrosion. These data are presented in Figure 6-18. Statistical 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-29 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
information on the corrosion of Alloy N06464 is located in Figure 6-19 and Table 6-12. The 
first point at 0.03 years (415.8 nm/yr) is not used as it is not consistent with the rest of the data. 
NOTE: Graphical representation of values in Table 4-23. Graphed in NiCrMoGdalloy.xls in Appendix II. Archived 
in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-18. Corrosion of Alloy N06464 
Table 6-12. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Corrosion Rates of Alloy N06464 in Solution 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (nm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Freshwater 20.1 77.4 55.7 52.8 21.1 
NOTE: Calculated in NiCrMoGdalloy.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-23; archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-30 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-23; archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-19. ECDF for Alloy N06464 in Freshwater at Time = 0.8 Years 
6.2.7 Inconel Alloys 
Due to the lack of corrosion data on Inconel Alloy 600 and X-750, Inconel Alloy 625 was used 
as a surrogate for Inconel Alloys X-750 and 600. This approach is reasonable since the 
composition of Inconel Alloys X-750 and 600 is similar to that of Inconel Alloy 625 
(Section 5.2.1). The most in-depth study found for the corrosion of Inconel Alloy 625 is 
Corrosion Data and Modeling, Update for Viability Assessment (McCright 1998 
[DIRS 114637]). Given the short duration of the tests (one year), the values for the corrosion 
rates in Table 4-24 through Table 4-26 might be slightly high for long-term predictions. The 
statistical information on the corrosion of Inconel alloys is located in Table 6-13 and 
Figure 6-20. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-31 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
NOTE: ECDF calculated in ECDF_metals.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-24 through Table 4-26. 
Archived in DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-20. ECDF for Inconel Alloys in All Water Types Investigated 
Table 6-13. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Aqueous Corrosion Rates of Inconel Alloys 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
SDW (60°C) 0.00 0.05 0.025 0.025 0.018 
SDW (90°C) 0.00 0.10 0.030 0.040 0.034 
SAW (60°C) 0.00 0.08 0.025 0.027 0.027 
SAW (90°C) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.004 0.008 
SCW (60°C) 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.077 0.019 
SCW (90°C) 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.066 0.031 
NOTE: Calculated in aqueous Inconel-Alloy_.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-24 through Table 4-26; 
archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
6.2.8 Alloy 22 
Corrosion rate information for Alloy 22 can be found in General Corrosion and Localized 
Corrosion of Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166834]). 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-32 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.3 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS 
Section 6.3 contains the rate analyses of the sintered compounds and GdPO4. Values for 25°C 
were extrapolated from high temperature rate information. The extrapolated values are provided 
for comparison to previously utilized rates rather than attempting a statistical analysis. 
6.3.1 Silicon Carbide (SiC) Oxidation 
For SiC corrosion, the following equation was suggested by Rechard (1995 [DIRS 101084], 
Section 11.1.3, Equation 11.1.3-3) to use when the surface area of the material is difficult to 
estimate. The equation applies to both humid and wet oxic conditions (Section 11.3, for “TRISO 
Coating for Metal Carbide Fuel”). 
M = Ae -B/T (t2 
C-t1 
C)DEMlayer (Eq. 2) 
where: 
M = Mass of layer corroded in time step (kg) 
A = Arrhenius-type pre-exponential term (1/s) 
B = Arrhenius-type activation energy term (K) 
T = Temperature of the material (K) 
t2, t1 = Time at beginning and end of time step (s) 
C = Time-dependent term (-) 
D = Saturation-dependence term (-) 
E = Oxygen Concentration-dependence term (-) 
Mlayer = Mass of layer at time zero (kg). 
Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of Rechard (1995 [DIRS 101084]) indicate that A=3 × 10-12, B=0, C=1, 
D=1, and E=0.2. The Arrhenius-type term is set at 3.0 × 10-12 based on the assumption by 
Rechard (1995 [DIRS 101084]) that TRISO will not fail in the first 10,000 years after repository 
closure. Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]) indicate that TRISO particles will only breach (SiC 
layer breached) under “unknown mechanisms.” DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Information in 
Support of TSPA-SR (DOE 2002 [DIRS 158405]), using the equation above, reports a corrosion 
rate of 6.0 × 10-13 kg/m2·sec. However, the results of the equation above are a mass loss 
ratio, 6.0 × 10-13 mass corroded/total mass layer (M/Mlayer), and not an actual corrosion rate. 
Most of the studies on the oxidation of SiC are done in excess of 1,000°C in humid air 
environments. These studies (Jorgensen et al. 1959 [DIRS 164912]; Opila 1999 [DIRS 155502]) 
show that even at these temperatures, SiC holds up well to oxidation and is still a good barrier. 
For comparison, the high temperature data of Opila (1999 [DIRS 155502]) are extrapolated in 
Misc_Materials.xls (Appendix II). These values are archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000 and give an approximate calculated rate of oxidation at 25°C 
of 1.61 × 10-9 µm/yr (equal to an EQ6 rate of 1.61 × 10-22 mol/cm2·s). In agreement with this 
calculated value, Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832], p. 4-82) indicates that SiC is essentially insoluble 
in water at 25°C. Therefore, SiC is considered insoluble for the purposes of this analysis and, 
consequently, has no statistical analysis associated with it. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-33 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.3.2 Pyrolytic Carbon and Graphite Oxidation 
Graphite and pyrolytic carbon are also resistant to oxidation (Section 4.1.4, Table 4-28). The 
25°C extrapolated values of graphite oxidation are located in Table 6-14 (Appendix II, 
Misc_Materials.xls). The values are archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Propp (1998 [DIRS 149395]) indicates that oxidation of graphite in water should be slower than 
air oxidation. However, Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]) indicates a rate for water oxidation 
faster than that indicated for air oxidation by Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]) and Propp (1998 
[DIRS 149395]). These rates are for experiments carried out in deionized water and may be 
faster than oxidation in natural waters. However, values for both air and water oxidation indicate 
an extremely low oxidation rate for this material. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, 
these substances are also considered insoluble. Consequently, graphite and pyrolytic carbon 
have no statistical analysis associated with them. 
Table 6-14. Approximate Values of Oxidation for Graphite and Pyrolytic Carbon 
From Extrapolation of 
Lotts et al. 1992 
[DIRS 164916] data 
From Extrapolation of 
Gurwell 1981 
[DIRS 164911] data 
From Extrapolation of 
Propp 1998 
[DIRS 149395] Data 
µm/yr 1.81 × 10-12 5.62 × 10-6 9.59 × 10-10 
Equivalent EQ6 Rate 
(100g-mol/cm2·s) 1.26 × 10-25 3.92 × 10-19 6.69 × 10-23 
NOTE: Values calculated in Misc_Materials.xls in Appendix II. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
6.3.3 Gadolinium Phosphate (GdPO4) Dissolution 
Natural analogue data (Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908]) and data from manufacturers 
(Lansdowne n.d. [DIRS 164914]) indicate that gadolinium phosphate is essentially insoluble at 
low temperatures and pressures. However, several studies indicate that the material corrodes in 
harsh environments or when containing impurities. Tests on synthetic monazite mixed with 20 
wt% Savannah River defense waste indicate that <0.001 g/m2·day of the lanthanide was released 
from the material and that the monazite matrix had a corrosion rate of less than 0.002 g/m2·day in 
water at 90°C (Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908], Figure 23 and Section 8.2). This 
translates into a corrosion rate of approximately 0.12 µm/yr (Appendix II, Misc_Materials.xls). 
Values are archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. Van Konynenburg et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100948]) report the dissolution of GdPO4 at 0.19 mm/yr after 96-hour exposure to highly 
corrosive media containing 0.01 molar concentrations of radiolysis products (nitric acid and 
hydrogen peroxide) and chloride buffered at pH 4. In-Package Chemistry Abstraction 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167621], Appendix III) has shown that lower concentrations of nitric acid and 
hydrogen peroxide will be produced by radiolysis, having little effect on the pH and chemistry 
inside the waste package. Therefore, the test conditions used by Van Konynenburg et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100948]) are not representative of expected repository conditions and their rate value was 
not used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, GdPO4 is considered insoluble since 
there is strong natural analogue evidence for extreme stability at earth surface temperature and 
pressure. Therefore, GdPO4 has no statistical analysis associated with it. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-34 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.4 SPENT FUELS AND WASTE FORMS 
6.4.1 DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Dissolution rate models for these fuel types are presented in DSNF and Other Waste Form 
Degradation Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167618], Section 6.3). 
6.4.2 Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 
A CSNF degradation rate model is developed and presented in CSNF Waste Form Degradation: 
Summary Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169987]). 
6.4.3 Defense High-Level Waste Glass 
6.4.3.1 Fracture Factor 
In EQ6 calculations (i.e., BSC 2003 [DIRS 169107] and BSC 2001 [DIRS 157640]) the 
geometric surface area of the glass was increased by a factor of 21 to account for fractures due to 
cooling and dropping of the glass pour canister during loading. This value was used for 
consistency with Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) 
Analyses Technical Basis Document (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 100362], p. 6-79). However, 
in that document, the fracture factor of 21 is an average taken over 100 glass pour canisters and 
does not take into account loading of damaged canisters into a waste package containing only 5 
glass pour canisters. glass-fracturefac.xls (Appendix II) uses the same technique as presented in 
that document to calculate averaged increase of surface area. This technique is based on 
determining the increase in surface area by thermal cracking of canistered glass that is cooled by 
free air convection and for impact cracking using the following equation. 
({impact cracking × thermal cracking × percentage of canisters damaged in a drop} + {thermal 
cracking × percentage of canisters that have not been damaged in a drop}) (Eq. 3) 
However, the fracture factor determinations in this analysis (see glass-fracturefac.xls in 
Appendix II) account for there only being 5 canisters per waste package. The calculations in this 
analysis also account for only a fraction of the surfaces being available for reaction. For more 
information on the glass fracture factor see Sections 5.4.1 through 5.4.4. 
The probability of loading damaged glass pour canisters is calculated with a binomial 
distribution (Table 6-15) using the assumed loading of damaged glass pour canisters, number of 
glass pour canisters damaged in a drop, and 5 glass pour canisters per waste package. Total 
System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis 
Document (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 100362], p. 6-79) assumes that 1 in every 100 glass 
pour canisters will be dropped and damaged during loading. However, the probabilities of 1 in 
250, 1 in 500, and 1 in 1,000 glass pour canisters being dropped are also displayed here since 
safeguards could presumably be implemented to reduce the occurrence of dropped glass pour 
canisters. These distributions are then used to determine the probabilities of the fracture factor as 
indicated below. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-35 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-15. Probability of Loading Damaged Glass Pour Canisters into Waste Packages. 
Number of GPCs Dropped While Loading 
1 in 100 1 in 250 1 in 500 1 in 1,000 
Probability of Waste Package Loading 
Waste Packages 
Containing 0 Dropped 
GPCs 
9.51E-01 9.80E-01 9.90E-01 9.95E-01 
Waste Packages 
Containing 1 Dropped 
GPC 
4.80E-02 1.97E-02 9.92E-03 4.98E-03 
Waste Packages 
Containing 2 Dropped 
GPCs 
9.70E-04 1.58E-04 3.98E-05 9.97E-06 
Waste Packages 
Containing 3 Dropped 
GPCs 
9.80E-06 6.35E-07 7.97E-08 9.98E-09 
Waste Packages 
Containing 4 Dropped 
GPCs 
4.95E-08 1.27E-09 7.98E-11 5.00E-12 
Waste Packages 
Containing 5 Dropped 
GPCs 
1.00E-10 1.02E-12 3.20E-14 1.00E-15 
NOTE: Values calculated in glass-fracturefac.xls in Appendix II. Archived in output 
DTN: MO0404SPAHLWGF.001. 
GPC = glass pour canister. 
Table 6-16 is a summary of the data in glass-fracturefac.xls in Appendix II. Since the degree of 
availability of reaction surfaces in fractures to aqueous media for glass degradation is unclear, 
several options are explored here. These provide the range of possible surface area exposure that 
may occur inside the glass pour canisters due to fracturing of the high level waste glass. 
Since references providing the number of fractures in fractured glass are unavailable, a 
probability distribution for number of fractures or a direct fracture factor is not possible. 
However, the probability of a particular fracture factor can be derived indirectly from knowing 
the number of glass pour canisters damaged in a drop, how many damaged glass pour canisters 
are loaded into a waste package, and the fraction of fractures available for reaction. Table 6-16 
provides a range of possible scenarios since it is unknown exactly how many glass pour canisters 
will be damaged in drops, how many damaged glass pour canisters will be loaded into any one 
waste package, and the degree of availability of reaction surfaces in fractures. To use 
Table 6-16, the user will have to make several assumptions about the parameters. An example of 
this is if we assume that 1 in every 100 glass pour canisters are damaged in a drop. The 
likelihood of having two of these damaged glass pour canisters in any one waste package 
is 9.70×10-4. Then reading across the table, the only way to get a fracture factor of 
approximately, as an example, 12.50 is to have all fractures available to aqueous media. 
Therefore, with the combined variables of 1 in 100 dropped, two damaged glass pour canisters 
loaded in a single waste package, and all fractures available for reaction, the probability of 
having this fracture factor is 9.70×10-4. However, if only half of the fractures are assumed to be 
available for reaction, the same probability will yield a fracture factor of 6.25 instead of 12.50. 
The fracture factor of 21 used in previous EQ6 calculations (i.e., BSC 2003 DIRS 169107]; BSC 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-36 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
2001 [DIRS 157640]) is, therefore, not possible even if all fractures are available and 3 damaged 
glass pour canisters are loaded into a waste package. This high fracture factor is only possible if 
4 or 5 damaged glass pour canisters are loaded into a waste package, which (Table 6-15) has a 
very small probability. 
Table 6-16. Fracture Factor Probabilities (Fracture Factor Averaged Over 5 Glass Pour Canisters) for 
High Level Waste Glass Based on Loading Damaged Glass Pour Canisters into Waste 
Packages. 
Number of GPCs Dropped While Loading Fraction of total fractures 
available for reaction 
1 in 100 1 in 250 1 in 500 1 in 1,000 1/4 
available 
1/3 
available 
1/2 
available 
Probability of Waste Package Loading Fracture Factor Associated with 
Available Fractures 
WPs containing 0 
dropped GPCs 9.51E-01 9.80E-01 9.90E-01 9.95E-01 1 1 1 
WPs containing 1 
dropped GPC 4.80E-02 1.97E-02 9.92E-03 4.98E-03 1.56 2.08 3.13 
WPs containing 2 
dropped GPCs 9.70E-04 1.58E-04 3.98E-05 9.97E-06 3.13 4.17 6.25 
WPs containing 3 
dropped GPCs 9.80E-06 6.35E-07 7.97E-08 9.98E-09 4.69 6.25 9.38 
Number of GPCs Dropped While Loading Fraction of Total Fractures 
Available for Reaction 
1 in 100 1 in 250 1 in 500 1 in 1,000 2/3 
available 
3/4 
available 
all 
available 
Probability of waste package loading Fracture factor associated with 
available fractures 
WPs containing 0 
dropped GPCs 9.51E-01 9.80E-01 9.90E-01 9.95E-01 1 1 1 
WPs containing 1 
dropped GPC 4.80E-02 1.97E-02 9.92E-03 4.98E-03 4.17 4.69 6.25 
WPs containing 2 
dropped GPCs 9.70E-04 1.58E-04 3.98E-05 9.97E-06 8.33 9.38 12.50 
WPs containing 3 
dropped GPCs 9.80E-06 6.35E-07 7.97E-08 9.98E-09 12.50 14.06 18.75 
NOTE: GPC = Glass Pour Canister, WP = Waste Package. 
Values calculated in glass-fracturefac.xls in Appendix II using assumptions presented in Section 5.4. 
Archived in output DTN: MO0404SPAHLWGF.001. 
The fracture factors presented in Table 6-16 were calculated using the assumptions in 
Section 5.4. All fractures due to only cooling are considered to have no effect on the reactive 
surface area (Section 5.4.3) so that the fracture factor for any glass within glass pour canisters 
that have not been dropped is 1 (or geometric surface area). For canisters that have been 
dropped, the factor of cooling (12.5) and increase in fracture factor due to a drop (5), from 
Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, are multiplied by the reactivity of fracture surfaces as compared to 
unrestricted surfaces (˝, Section 5.4.4). 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-37 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Another approach would be to use fracture factors only for those canisters that are considered to 
be damaged and use the geometric surface area for those that have not been dropped or otherwise 
damaged. Fracture factors calculated using this approach are presented in Table 6-17. 
Table 6-17. True Fracture Factors for High-Level Waste Glass in One Glass Pour Canister 
Total Fractures available Fracture Factor Total Fractures available Fracture Factor 
1/4 7.81 2/3 20.83 
1/3 10.42 3/4 23.44 
1/2 15.63 All 31.25 
NOTE : Values calculated in glass-fracturefac.xls in Appendix II using assumptions presented in Section 5.4. 
Archived in output DTN: MO0404SPAHLWGF.001. 
Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167619]) calculates fracture factors 
between 4 and 17 with 4 being the most likely and 17 as the maximum. To obtain the maximum 
value, that document also takes the same approach as Total System Performance Assessment-
Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis Document (CRWMS M&O 1998 
[DIRS 100362]) by taking the average over 100 GPCs (1 in 100 dropped), assuming all glass 
surfaces are available, and that the increase due to a drop is 40. The fracture factor of 4 is 
derived from assuming that only ˝ of the fractures are available to water and the reactivity in 
these fractures is half that at the surface of the glass. The value of 40 times increase for glass in 
damaged glass pour canisters comes from using an impact velocity of 117 feet per second, which 
carries an equivalent drop height of approximately 213 feet (Smith and Ross 1975 
[DIRS 102088], pp. 12 to 14 and Figure 41). This extreme velocity represents velocities 
associated with severe train accidents. Smith and Ross (1975 [DIRS 102088], pp. 12 to 14 and 
Figure 41) continue to indicate that >99% of freight train accidents occur at velocities lower than 
117 feet per second. Also, objects on board trains would experience lower impact velocities than 
the train, the deformation of the cars and mountings providing cushioning. Therefore this 
fracture factor of 40 is considered an upper bound. When looking at total repository 
performance, the fracture factors in Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 
167619]) would be useful as an upper bound. However, this approach does not provide a 
suitable fracture factor for calculations dealing with single waste packages. 
6.4.3.2 pH-Dependent Corrosion Rate 
The high-level waste glass degradation rate is a function of a pH-dependent corrosion rate 
combined with the surface area exposure of the glass. This rate is developed and presented in 
Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167619]). 
6.5 TITANIUM GRADES 7 AND 24 
6.5.1 Titanium Grade 7 
Corrosion rate data for Titanium Grade 7 is analyzed in General Corrosion and Localized 
Corrosion of the Drip Shield (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169845]) and will not be discussed further in this 
report. The corrosion rates for Titanium Grade 7 are used to calculate the corrosion rates for 
Titanium Grade 24 in Section 6.5.2. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-38 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
6.5.2 Titanium Grade 24 
Titanium Grade 24, an alloy with ~ 6 wt % Al, 4 wt % V, and ~ 0.04 to 0.08 wt % Pd, is used as 
the structural material in the design of the drip shield. An experimentally obtained corrosion rate 
for Titanium Grade 24 under repository conditions is not available at this time. However, the 
comparative corrosion behavior of Titanium Grade 24 can be estimated based on available data 
for other titanium alloys. 
General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of the Drip Shield (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169845]) plots 
all of the 2.5-year weight-loss data (vapor, aqueous, and water line) for Titanium Grade 7 from 
DTN: LL030410012251.056 [DIRS 169583] in the CDF shown in Figure 6-21. The corrosion 
rate from all weight-loss specimens at the 85% percentile of the cumulative distribution function 
is about 15 nm/yr. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169845] Figure 26. 
Figure 6-21. Titanium Grade 7 Weight-Loss Corrosion Rates after 2.5 Years 
The corrosion rates of Titanium Grades 2 (Titanium with no Pd) and 5 (Ti-6Al-4V with no Pd) in 
hydrochloric acid solutions, a very aggressive test media for titanium alloys, are shown in 
Figure 6-22 along with those of Titanium Grades 7, 16, and 24. The addition of 
0.04 to 0.08 wt % of Pd to Titanium Grades 2 and 5 (to produce Titanium Grades 16 and 24) 
significantly improves the corrosion resistance of the alloy as demonstrated in Figure 6-22. 
From Figure 6-22, it can be seen that the corrosion rate of Titanium Grade 24 is about five times 
higher than that of Titanium Grade 7 in 3% boiling HCl. On this basis, a conservative estimate 
of the corrosion rate of Titanium Grade 24 in less aggressive repository environments would be a 
corrosion rate five times higher than that of Titanium Grade 7. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-39 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169847] (Figure 10). 
NOTE: This figure shows the significant improvement in corrosion resistance due to addition of palladium. 
Figure 6-22. Corrosion Rates of Titanium Grades 2, 5, 7, 16, and 24 in Boiling HCl 
A corrosion allowance of 1 mm per exposed surface is accounted for in the drip shield design 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). The 85th percentile on the cumulative distribution curve 
(Figure 6-1, based on data collected in all test environments) for the general corrosion rate of 
Titanium Grade 7 is about 15 nm/yr. Therefore, the estimated corrosion rate of Titanium Grade 
24 at the 85th percentile is estimated to be a factor of five greater or about 75 nm/yr. Over a 
10,000-year period, this corrosion rate results in a metal loss of about 0.75 mm per exposed 
surface. 
Figure 6-23 and Table 6-18 present simple statistical information on the corrosion of Titanium 
Grade 24 (based on Titanium Grade 7 data from Table 4-31 multiplied by 5 to account for the 
increased corrosion of Titanium Grade 24 over that of Titanium Grade 7). The information 
presented below is only for aqueous corrosion, as vapor (or atmospheric) corrosion is not within 
the scope of this document. Figure 6-23 shows that a corrosion rate of 0.075 µm/yr (75 nm/yr) 
corresponds to the 92nd percentile for the ECDF for corrosion rates in SAW solutions. Over a 
10,000-year period, this corrosion rate results in a metal loss of about 0.75 mm per exposed 
surface. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-40 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 6-18. Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Corrosion Rates of Titanium Alloy Grade 24 in 
Solution 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
SAW (60°C to 90°C) 0.00 0.0882 0.0183 0.00728 0.0301 
SDW (60°C to 90°C) 0.00 0.0289 0.00603 0.00 0.00966 
SCW (90°C) 0.0146 0.249 0.156 0.175 0.0837 
Fn(x) 
NOTE: Calculated in titanium.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-31; archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Corrosion Rate (µm/year) (SAW and SDW) 
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 
1.0 
0.9 
0.8 
0.7 
0.6 
0.5 
0.4 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
0.0 
SCW 
SDW 
SAW 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 
Corrosion Rate (µm/year) (SCW) 
NOTE: Calculated in titanium.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-31; archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Figure 6-23. ECDF for Titanium Grade 24 in All Water Types Investigated 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-41 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 6-42 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
This analysis presents statistical analyses and ECDFs for aqueous degradation rates affecting 
waste package material degradation for various DOE SNF types and drip shield materials. These 
rates are limited by various aqueous parameters such as temperature (up to 100°C), water type 
(i.e., fresh versus saline), and pH. Corrosion data of materials at pH extremes (below 4 and 
above 9) are not included in this analysis as materials commonly display different corrosion 
behaviors under these conditions. The exception is highly corrosion-resistant materials (Inconel 
Alloys and Titanium Grade 24) for which rate data from corrosion tests at a pH of 
approximately 3 were included. 
7.1 STEELS AND ALLOYS 
Corrosion rates were used to describe statistics of aqueous corrosion of steels and alloys inside 
the waste package. These rates describe only general corrosion and should not be used for 
analysis of effects of localized attack on waste package materials. If possible (i.e., if sufficient 
data existed), the ECDF was used to describe the corrosion data. These are provided in the 
figures within Section 6. To provide further analysis of the data, the minimum, maximum, mean, 
and median values (along with their standard deviations) are also presented in Table 7-1. These 
values are archived in output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Table 7-1. Summary of Statistical Values of Corrosion for Waste Package Metals 
Metal Conditions 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Stainless Steel 
Types 
302/304/304L 
Freshwater (25°C to 100°C) 0.001 1.570 0.1285 0.214 0.298 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 1.588 39.147 5.08 11.441 11.134 
Saltwater (90°C) 0.660 15.900 2.03 5.816 5.953 
Stainless Steel 
Types 
316/316L/AM-350 
Freshwater (29.5°C) 0.0007 0.0475 0.003 0.0083 0.0136 
Freshwater (50°C to 100°C) 0.037 0.51 0.229 0.248 0.146 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 0.0014 14.787 0.7362 1.939 3.346 
Freshwater (29.5°C) 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.004 0.004 
Neutronit Freshwater (50°C to 100°C) 0.025 0.330 0.203 0.206 0.088 
Saltwater (26.7°C) 1.81 29.22 7.38 11.06 10.19 
Ambient-"Fresh" Water 3.05 12.19 4.57 6.10 3.86 
Stainless Steel 
Type 304 Alloyed 
50°C-boiling-"Fresh"Water 3.05 27.43 16.76 15.75 7.99 
Ambient-"Harsh" Water 2.94 26.46 20.58 17.05 9.48 
with 0.3% Boron 50°C-"Harsh" Water 38.22 147.00 88.20 94.69 42.85 
Boiling-"Harsh" Water 11.76 58.80 27.93 29.77 12.48 
Stainless Steel Ambient-Boiling-"Fresh" Water 161.54 252.98 211.84 210.31 32.77 
Type 304 Alloyed 
with 1.5% Boron Ambient-Boiling-"Harsh" Water 164.64 1,058.40 360.15 453.74 272.96 
Carbon Steel 
Type A516 (Times 
Less Than 0.53 
Year) 
SDW (60°C) 78.71 130.70 101.95 102.71 12.37 
SDW (90°C) 58.08 130.02 77.05 81.14 15.13 
SCW (60°C) 50.25 104.20 62.77 68.08 14.17 
SCW (90°C) 7.39 22.06 12.42 12.78 3.77 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 7-1. Summary of Statistical Values of Corrosion for Waste Package Metals (Continued) 
Metal Conditions 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Standard 
Deviation Minimum Maximum Median Mean 
Carbon Steel 
Type A516 (Times 
Greater Than 1.0 
Year) 
SDW (60°C) 65.77 106.93 74.56 77.43 8.83 
SDW (90°C) 29.53 88.68 48.70 51.80 12.99 
SCW (60°C) 6.77 14.36 10.83 10.61 2.02 
SCW (90°C) 3.69 9.35 6.75 6.84 1.25 
Freshwater 0.40 36.93 9.50 12.95 10.84 
Aluminum Alloy 
Saltwater 0.12 110.91 4.76 9.69 15.34 
Alloy N06464 Freshwater 20.1a 77.4a 55.7a 52.8a 21.1a 
SDW (60°C) 0.00 0.05 0.025 0.025 0.018 
SDW (90°C) 0.00 0.10 0.030 0.040 0.034 
Inconel Alloy 
SAW (60°C) 0.00 0.08 0.025 0.026 0.026 
SAW (90°C) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.004 0.008 
SCW (60°C) 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.077 0.019 
SCW (90°C) 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.066 0.031 
Titanium Alloy 
Grade 24 
SAW (60°C to 90°C) 0.00 0.0882 0.0183 0.00728 0.0301 
SDW (60°C to 90°C) 0.00 0.0289 0.00603 0.00 0.00966 
SCW (90°C) 0.0146 0.249 0.156 0.175 0.0837 
a
NOTE: Values are in units of nanometers/year. 
Comparison of the change in the rate of Stainless Steel Type 304 and gadolinium-alloyed 
Stainless Steel Type 304 is presented in (Table 7-2). These values are archived in output 
DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Table 7-2. Comparison of Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Median Corrosion Rates of Gadolinium-
Alloyed and Non Gadolinium-Alloyed Stainless Steel Type 304 
Environment 
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) 
Minimum Maximum Mean 
0.3% Gd 304 (Ambient-Boiling-"Fresh")a 3.05 15.24 9.14 
304L Freshwater (25°C to 100°C) b 0.001 1.57 0.214 
Increase in Corrosion 3,050 times 9.71 times 33.27 times 
0.3% Gd 304 (Ambient-"Harsh")a 2.94 2.94 2.94 
Stainless Steel Type 304L Saltwater 
(<27°C) b 1.588 39.147 11.44 
Increase in Corrosion 1.85 times 0.08 times 0.26 times 
0.3% Gd 304 (Boiling-"Harsh")a 5.88 23.52 11.03 
304L Saltwater (90°C) b 0.66 15.9 5.816 
Increase in Corrosion 8.91 times 1.48 times 1.90 times 
NOTES: aValues calculated in aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls in Appendix II from values in Table 4-12; archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
bValues taken from Table 6-4.
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
7.2 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS 
Section 6.3 shows that these materials are essentially insoluble. Rates derived from high 
temperature data (Table 7-3), indicate extremely slow corrosion of these materials. Therefore, 
they are all considered insoluble for the purposes of this analysis. These values are archived in 
output DTN: MO0409SPAACRWP.000. 
Table 7-3. Summary of Corrosion Behavior and Rates for Graphite, SiC, and Gadolinium Phosphate 
Material Rate (µm/yr) Derived from 
1.84 × 10-12 From extrapolation data by Lotts et al. 1992 
[DIRS 164916] 
Graphite 
5.72 × 10-6 From extrapolation of Gurwell 1981 
[DIRS 164911] data 
9.77 × 10-10 From extrapolation by Propp 1998 
[DIRS 149395] data 
Insoluble Lide 2002 [DIRS 160832]; Morgan 1981 
[DIRS 164920] 
SiC 
1.61 × 10-9 From extrapolation of Opila 1999 [DIRS 155502] 
data 
Insoluble Lide 2002 [DIRS 160832] 
GdPO4 Insoluble Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908], 
Lansdowne (n.d. [DIRS 164914]) 
7.3 GLASS FRACTURE FACTOR 
The corrosion rate of the defense high-level waste glass is dependent on two parameters: a pH 
dependent dissolution rate combined with a fracture factor. Most references dealing with 
fractures discuss how surface area increases. To obtain a fracture factor, more information in the 
form of availability of fracture surfaces and reactivity of fracture surfaces must be taken into 
account. Since references do not take these additional parameters into account, surface area 
measurements represent a total surface area instead of an effective surface area. Therefore, a 
probability distribution for number of fractures or a direct fracture factor is not possible. 
However, the probability of a particular fracture factor can be derived indirectly from knowing 
the number of glass pour canisters damaged in a drop, how many damaged glass pour canisters 
are loaded into a waste package, and the percentage of fractures available for reaction. Table 7-4 
exhibits the probability of a fracture factor based on how many glass pour canisters 
are loaded into a waste package including those from previous calculations where the 
fracture factor was averaged over all five glass logs within a waste package. However, using 
another approach, calculations should account for there being undamaged glass pour canisters 
in the waste package and apply a fracture factor to only those that are damaged. These 
values can be found in Table 7-5. Values for the fracture factor are archived in output 
DTN: MO0404SPAHLWGF.001. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table 7-4. Fracture Factor Probabilities (Fracture Factor Averaged Over 5 Glass Pour Canisters) for 
High-Level Waste Glass Based on Loading Damaged Glass Pour Canisters into Waste 
Packages 
Amount of total fractures 
Number of GPCs Dropped While Loading available for reaction 
1/4 1/3 1/2 
1 in 100 1 in 250 1 in 500 1 in 1,000 available available available 
Fracture factor associated with 
Probability of waste package loading available fractures 
WPs containing 0 
dropped GPCs 9.51E-01 9.80E-01 9.90E-01 9.95E-01 1 1 1 
WPs containing 1 
dropped GPC 4.80E-02 1.97E-02 9.92E-03 4.98E-03 1.56 2.08 3.13 
WPs containing 2 
dropped GPCs 9.70E-04 1.58E-04 3.98E-05 9.97E-06 3.13 4.17 6.25 
WPs containing 3 
dropped GPCs 9.80E-06 6.35E-07 7.97E-08 9.98E-09 4.69 6.25 9.38 
Number of GPCs Dropped While Loading Amount of total fractures 
available for reaction 
1 in 100 1 in 250 1 in 500 1 in 1,000 2/3 
available 
3/4 
available 
all 
available 
Probability of waste package loading Fracture factor associated with 
available fractures 
WPs containing 0 
dropped GPCs 9.51E-01 9.80E-01 9.90E-01 9.95E-01 1 1 1 
WPs containing 1 
dropped GPC 4.80E-02 1.97E-02 9.92E-03 4.98E-03 4.17 4.69 6.25 
WPs containing 2 
dropped GPCs 9.70E-04 1.58E-04 3.98E-05 9.97E-06 8.33 9.38 12.50 
WPs containing 3 
dropped GPCs 9.80E-06 6.35E-07 7.97E-08 9.98E-09 12.50 14.06 18.75 
NOTE: GPC = Glass Pour Canister, WP = Waste Package.
Table 7-5. True Fracture Factors for High-Level Waste Glass in One Damaged Glass Pour Canister
Total Fractures 
Available Fracture Factor Total Fractures 
Available Fracture Factor 
1/4 7.81 2/3 20.83 
1/3 10.42 3/4 23.44 
1/2 15.63 All 31.25 
7.4 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) contains Acceptance 
Criteria that are intended to establish the basis for the review of the material contained in the 
License Application. 
Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Modeling and Analysis of the Waste Form and 
Waste Package (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171583], Table 3-1 indicates Acceptance Criteria for this 
analysis report. The Acceptance Criteria are based on the requirements mentioned in Project 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275] and Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIR 163274]). 
System Description and Demonstration of Multiple Barriers (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], 
Section 2.2.1.1.3) 
For the Yucca Mountain Review Plan criterion entitled System Description and Demonstration 
of Multiple Barriers (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.1.3; Canori and Leitner 2003 
[DIRS 166275], PRD-002/T-014, PRD-002/T-016), the acceptance criteria AC1, AC2, and AC3 
do not apply because the purpose of this report is not to describe the performance of engineered 
barriers for the TSPA-LA. Instead, the analysis provides simple statistics on aqueous corrosion 
rates of steels and alloys. 
Degradation of Engineered Barriers (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.1.3) 
For the Yucca Mountain Review Plan criterion entitled Degradation of Engineered Barriers 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.1.3; Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], 
PRD-002/T-015), the acceptance criteria AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4, and AC5 do not apply because 
the purpose of this report is not to describe deterioration or degradation of engineered barriers for 
TSPA-LA. Instead, the analysis provides simple statistics on aqueous corrosion rates of steels 
and alloys. Description of the degradation or deterioration of engineered barriers is covered by 
other analysis and model reports. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-5 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 7-6 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
164907 Ailor, W.H., Jr. 1969. “A Review of Aluminum Corrosion in Tap Waters.” Journal of 
Hydronautics, 3, (3), 105-114. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics. TIC: 252903. 
162265 Alexander, A.L.; Southwell, C.R.; and Forgeson, B.W. 1961. “Corrosion of Metals in 
Tropical Environments.” Corrosion, 17, 97-104. Houston, Texas: National 
Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 223352. 
159379 Aziz, P.M. 1956. “Application of the Statistical Theory of Extreme Values to the 
Analysis of Maximum Pit Depth Data for Aluminum.” Corrosion, 12, (10), 35-46. 
Houston, Texas: National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 241560. 
131480 Bauccio, M., ed. 1993. ASM Metals Reference Book. 3rd Edition. 4th Printing 1999. 
Volume 1. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. TIC: 240701. 
106164 Baxter, R.G. 1988. Defense Waste Processing Facility Wasteform and Canister 
Description. DP-1606, Rev. 2. Aiken, South Carolina: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 
Company, Savannah River Plant. TIC: 8704. 
159341 Beavers, J.A. and Durr, C.L. 1991. Immersion Studies on Candidate Container Alloys 
for the Tuff Repository. NUREG/CR-5598. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. TIC: 209162. 
159339 Beavers, J.A.; Thompson, N.G.; and Durr, C.L. 1992. Pitting, Galvanic, and Long-
Term Corrosion Studies on Candidate Container Alloys for the Tuff Repository. 
NUREG/CR-5709. Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
TIC: 212042. 
164908 Boatner, L.A. and Sales, B.C. 1988. “Monazite.” Chapter 8 of Radioactive Waste 
Forms for the Future. Lutze, W. and Ewing, R.C., eds. New York, New York: North-
Holland. TIC: 103525. 
163699 Bomberger, H.B.; Cambourelis, P.J.; and Hutchinson, G.E. 1954. “Corrosion 
Properties of Titanium in Marine Environments.” Journal of the Electrochemical 
Society, 101, (9), 442-447. New York, New York: Electrochemical Society. 
TIC: 254366. 
100883 Brasher, D.M. and Mercer, A.D. 1968. “Comparative Study of Factors Influencing 
the Action of Corrosion Inhibitors for Mild Steel in Neutral Solution, I. Sodium 
Benzoate.” British Corrosion Journal, 3, 120-129. London, England: British Joint 
Corrosion Group. TIC: 236434. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
159345 Briant, C.L.; Mulford, R.A.; and Hall, E.L. 1982. “Sensitization of Austenitic 
Stainless Steels, I. Controlled Purity Alloys.” Corrosion, 38, (9), 468-477. Houston, 
Texas: National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 225507. 
168467 Bryson, J.H.; Preban, A.G.; Coburn, S.K.; Kim, Y-W.; and Lee, H.H. 1987. 
“Corrosion of Carbon Steels.” In Corrosion, Volume 13, Pages 509-530 of Formerly 
9th Edition, Metals Handbook. 9th Edition. Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International. 
TIC: 209807. 
156356 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Degradation of Stainless Steel Structural 
Material. ANL-EBS-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010713.0048. 
155859 BSC 2001. EBS Incoming Water and Gas Composition Abstraction Calculations for 
Different Drift Temperature Environments. CAL-EBS-PA-000013 REV 00. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011214.0126. 
157640 BSC 2001. EQ6 Calculation of Source Terms for DOE Codisposal Waste Packages 
(Shippingport LWBR, N-Reactor, Melt and Dilute, and Fort St. Vrain). CAL-EDC-
MD-000017 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020114.0316. 
156183 BSC 2001. Seepage Grout Interactions Model Calculations. CAL-EBS-PA-000014 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011212.0254. 
158828 BSC 2002. EQ6 Calculation for Chemical Degradation of 21 PWR CSNF Waste 
Packages. CAL-UDC-MD-000002 REV A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020601.0195. 
166834 BSC 2003. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of Waste Package Outer 
Barrier. ANL-EBS-MD-000003 REV 01, with 2 errata. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030916.0010; DOC.20031222.0002; 
DOC.20031222.0001. 
169110 BSC 2003. PWR Assembly End-Effect Reactivity Evaluation. CAL-UDC-NU-000006 
REV 00, with 1 errata. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20010412.0158; DOC.20031014.0007. 
169107 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. EQ6 Calculation for Chemical Degradation of 
Enrico Fermi Codisposal Waste Packages: Effects of Updated Design and Rates. 
CAL-EDC-MD-000015 REV 00 [Errata 001]. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020102.0190; DOC.20031014.0012. 
171319 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. 21 PWR A, B, D & E Fuel Plates. 000-MW0-
DSU0-01201-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040803.0004. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
171320 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. 21 PWR C Fuel Plate. 000-MW0-DSU0-
01301-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: M&O. ACC: ENG.20040804.0001. 
169220 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and 
Emplacement Pallet. 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040503.0018. 
169987 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. CSNF Waste Form Degradation: Summary 
Abstraction. ANL-EBS-MD-000015 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040908.0001. 
169480 BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly. 800-
IED-WIS0-00201-000-00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040517.0007. 
169472 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste Package 
Components Assembly. 800-IED-WIS0-00202-000-00C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040517.0008. 
167619 BSC 2004. Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000016 REV 01 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040223.0006. 
166862 BSC 2004. Design & Engineering, 2-MCO/2-DHLW Waste Package Configuration. 
000-MW0-DS00-00301-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040120.0018. 
166861 BSC 2004. Design & Engineering, 5 DHLW/DOE SNF - Long Waste Package 
Configuration. 000-MW0-DS00-00201-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040120.0022. 
166860 BSC 2004. Design & Engineering, 5 DHLW/DOE SNF - Short Waste Package 
Configuration. 000-MW0-DS00-00101-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040121.0001. 
168848 BSC 2004. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models. MDL-
NBS-HS-000001 REV 02, with 2 errata. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030804.0004; DOC.20040219.0002; DOC.20040405.0005. 
167618 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. DSNF and Other Waste Form Degradation 
Abstraction. ANL-WIS-MD-000004 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. 
169845 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of 
the Drip Shield. ANL-EBS-MD-000004 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040921.0002. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
169847 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Hydrogen-Induced Cracking of the Drip Shield. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000006 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040909.0004. 
167621 BSC 2004. In-Package Chemistry Abstraction. ANL-EBS-MD-000037, Rev. 03. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
168361 BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
171583 BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan For: Regulatory Integration Modeling and Analysis 
of the Waste Form and Waste Package. TWP-WIS-MD-000009, REV 00, ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040910.0001. 
159368 Butler, F.E. 1963. Corrosion Studies on 304 Stainless Steel Containing One Percent 
Boron-10. RFP-307. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 
TIC: 252108. 
166275 Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. TER-MGR-
MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
159369 Cole, H.S. 1976. Corrosion of Stainless Steel Type 304 Alloyed with Boron or 
Gadolinium by Plant Process Solutions Containing HNO3 and HF. ICP-1097. Idaho 
Falls, Idaho: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. TIC: 252106. 
100362 CRWMS M&O 1998. "Waste Form Degradation, Radionuclide Mobilization, and 
Transport Through the Engineered Barrier System." Chapter 6 of Total System 
Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis 
Document. B00000000-01717-4301-00006 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.19981008.0006. 
127351 CRWMS M&O 1999. EQ6 Calculation for Chemical Degradation of Shippingport 
PWR (HEU Oxide) Spent Nuclear Fuel Waste Packages. CAL-EDC-MD-000002 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19991220.0322. 
160320 D'Agostino, R.B. and Stephens, M.A., eds. 1986. Goodness-Of-Fit Techniques. 
Statistics, Textbooks and Monographs Volume 68. New York, New York: Marcel 
Dekker. TIC: 253256. 
154395 Danko, J.C. 1987. “Corrosion in the Nuclear Power Industry.” In Corrosion, Volume 
13, Pages 927-984 of Metals Handbook. 9th Edition. Metals Park, Ohio: ASM 
International. TIC: 209807. 
162971 Davison, R.M.; DeBold, T.; and Johnson, M.J. 1987. “Corrosion of Stainless Steels.” 
In Corrosion, Volume 13, Pages 547-565 of ASM Handbook. Formerly 9th Edition, 
Metals Handbook. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. TIC: 240704. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
140225 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Design Specification. Volume 1 of 
Preliminary Design Specification for Department of Energy Standardized Spent 
Nuclear Fuel Canisters. DOE/SNF/REP-011, Rev. 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Spent Fuel Management and Special Projects. 
TIC: 246602. 
104110 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Fermi (U-Mo) Fuel Characteristics for 
Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-035, Rev. 0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy. TIC: 242461. 
105007 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Shippingport LWBR (Th/U Oxide) Fuel 
Characteristics for Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-051, Rev. 0. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 
Management. TIC: 245631. 
104940 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Shippingport PWR (HEU Oxide) Fuel 
Characteristics for Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-040, Rev. 0. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243528. 
103891 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. TRIGA (UZrH) Fuel Characteristics for 
Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-048, Rev. 0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy. TIC: 244162. 
150095 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. N Reactor (U-Metal) Fuel Characteristics 
for Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-056, Rev. 0. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. TIC: 247956. 
158405 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2002. DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Information in 
Support of TSPA-SR. DOE/SNF/REP-047, Rev. 2. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. TIC: 252089. 
168434 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Interim Report on the Corrosion 
Performance of a Neutron Absorbing Ni-Cr-Mo-Gd Alloy. DOE/SNF/REP-086, Rev. 
0. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. 
ACC: DOC.20040412.0001. 
171539 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and 
Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040907.0002. 
159367 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) 1986. Behavior of High-Density Spent-Fuel 
Storage Racks. EPRI NP-4724. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research 
Institute. TIC: 252124. 
159343 Forgeson, B.W.; Southwell, C.R.; Alexander, A.L.; Mundt, H.W.; and Thompson, 
L.J. 1958. “Corrosion of Metals in Tropical Environments, (Part 1—Five Non-
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-5 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Ferrous Metals and a Structural Steel).” Corrosion, 14, (2), 73t-81t. Houston, Texas: 
National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 223373. 
159344 Fox, M.J. and McCright, R.D. 1983. An Overview of Low Temperature Sensitization. 
UCRL-15619. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: HQS.19880517.2438. 
118106 Gdowski, G. E. 1998. Long-Term Corrosion Studies. Activity Plan E-20-50, Rev. 4. 
Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19980810.0274. 
100860 Gdowski, G.E. and Bullen, D.B. 1988. Oxidation and Corrosion. Volume 2 of Survey 
Of Degradation Modes of Candidate Materials for High-Level Radioactive-Waste 
Disposal Containers. UCID-21362. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980715.0384. 
164946 Ghali, E. 2000. “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys.” Chapter 40 of Uhlig's Corrosion 
Handbook. Revie, R.W., ed. 2nd Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
TIC: 248360. 
159340 Glass, R.S.; Overturf, G.E.; Garrison, R.E.; and McCright, R.D. 1984. 
Electrochemical Determination of the Corrosion Behavior of Candidate Alloys 
Proposed for Containment of High Level Nuclear Waste in Tuff. UCID-20174. 
Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19870506.0142. 
105021 Glass, R.S.; Overturf, G.E.; Van Konynenburg, R.A.; and McCright, R.D. 1986. 
“Gamma Radiation Effects on Corrosion-I. Electrochemical Mechanisms for the 
Aqueous Corrosion Processes of Austenitic Stainless Steels Relevant to Nuclear 
Waste Disposal in Tuff.” Corrosion Science, 26, (8), 577-590. Oxford, Great Britain: 
Pergamon. TIC: 226179. 
164911 Gurwell, W.E. 1981. A Survey of Matrix Materials for Solidified Radioactive High-
Level Waste. PNL-3512. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 
TIC: 229672. 
100455 Hillner, E.; Franklin, D.G.; and Smee, J.D. 1998. The Corrosion of Zircaloy-Clad 
Fuel Assemblies in a Geologic Repository Environment. WAPD-T-3173. West 
Mifflin, Pennsylvania: Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. TIC: 237127. 
150403 Hollingsworth, E.H. and Hunsicker, H.Y. 1987. “Corrosion of Aluminum and 
Aluminum Alloys.” In Corrosion, Volume 13, Pages 583-609 of Metals Handbook. 
9th Edition. Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International. TIC: 209807. 
159334 Hudson, J.C. and Stanners, J.F. 1955. “The Corrosion Resistance of Low-Alloy 
Steels.” Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 180, 271-284. London, England: Iron 
and Steel Institute. TIC: 223378. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-6 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
130835 Inco Alloys International. 1988. Product Handbook. Huntington, West Virginia: Inco 
Alloys International. TIC: 239397. 
158820 INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory) 2002. FFTF 
(MOX) Fuel Characteristics for Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-032, 
Rev. 1. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Operations 
Office. TIC: 252933. 
164912 Jorgensen, P.J.; Wadsworth, M.E.; and Cutler, I.B. 1959. “Oxidation of Silicon 
Carbide.” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 42, (12), 613-616. Easton, 
Pennsylvania: American Ceramic Society. TIC: 253889. 
159385 Kain, R.M.; Tuthill, A.H.; and Hoxie, E.C. 1984. “The Resistance of Types 304 And 
316 Stainless Steels to Crevice Corrosion in Natural Waters.” Journal of Materials 
for Energy Systems, 5, (4), 205-211. Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals. 
TIC: 252968. 
134327 Kügler, A. 1997. Sheet and Plate for Nuclear Engineering, Böhler Neutronit A976. 
Houston, Texas: Böhler Bleche GmbH. TIC: 246410. 
164914 Lansdowne Chemicals [n.d.]. Safety Data Sheet, Gadolinium Phosphate. Oxford, 
England: Lansdowne Chemicals. TIC: 253970. 
159337 Larrabee, C.P. 1953. “Corrosion Resistance of High-Strength Low-Alloy Steels as 
Influenced by Composition and Environment.” Corrosion, 9, 259-271. Houston, 
Texas: National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 223386. 
130543 Lewis, C.F., ed. 1990. Materials Engineering, Materials Selector 1991. Pages 105, 
188, and 189. Cleveland, Ohio: Penton Publishing. TIC: 239718. 
160832 Lide, D.R., ed. 2002. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 83rd Edition. Boca 
Raton, Florida: CRC Press. TIC: 253582. 
164916 Lotts, A.L.; Bond, W.D.; Forsberg, C.W.; Glass, R.W.; Harrington, F.E.; Michaels, 
G.E.; Notz, K.J.; and Wymer, R.G. 1992. Options for Treating High-Temperature 
Gas-Cooled Reactor Fuel for Repository Disposal. ORNL/TM-12027. Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. TIC: 206808. 
164942 Matsushima, I. 2000. “Carbon Steel—Corrosion by Seawater.” Chapter 32 of Uhlig's 
Corrosion Handbook. 2nd Edition. Revie, R.W., ed. New York, New York: John 
Wiley & Sons. TIC: 248360. 
164944 Matsushima, I. 2000. “Carbon Steel—Corrosion in Fresh Waters.” Chapter 31 of 
Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook. 2nd Edition. Revie, R.W., ed. New York, New York: 
John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 248360. 
114637 McCright, R.D. 1998. Corrosion Data and Modeling, Update for Viability 
Assessment. Volume 3 of Engineered Materials Characterization Report. UCRL-ID-
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-7 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
119564, Rev. 1.1. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19980806.0177. 
159336 McCright, R.D.; Halsey, W.G.; and Van Konynenburg, R.A. 1987. Progress Report 
on the Results of Testing Advanced Conceptual Design Metal Barrier Materials 
Under Relevant Environmental Conditions for a Tuff Repository. UCID-21044. 
Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: HQX.19880201.0016. 
164920 Morgan, W.C. 1981. Graphite Matrix Materials for Nuclear Waste Isolation. PNL3556. 
Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. TIC: 229659. 
163274 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
155502 Opila, E.J. 1999. “Variation of the Oxidation Rate of Silicon Carbide with Water-
Vapor Pressure.” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 82, (3), 625-636. 
Westerville, Ohio: American Ceramic Society. TIC: 250063. 
167978 Paige, B.E. 1969. Description of Test Reactor Fuel Elements and Associated 
Behavior in Reprocessing. CI-1152. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission, Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20040303.0031. 
103896 Parrington, J.R.; Knox, H.D.; Breneman, S.L.; Baum, E.M.; and Feiner, F. 1996. 
Nuclides and Isotopes, Chart of the Nuclides. 15th Edition. San Jose, California: 
General Electric Company and KAPL, Inc. TIC: 233705. 
111044 Perez, J.M., Jr. and Westsik, J.H., Jr. 1981. "Effects of Cracks on Glass Leaching." 
Nuclear and Chemical Waste Management, 2, 165-168. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 246072. 
149395 Propp, W.A. 1998. Graphite Oxidation Thermodynamics/Reactions. DOE/SNF/REP-
018, Rev. 0. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 247663. 
155635 Punatar, M.K. 2001. Summary Report of Commercial Reactor Criticality Data for 
Crystal River Unit 3. TDR-UDC-NU-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010702.0087. 
101084 Rechard, R.P., ed. 1995. Methodology and Results. Volume 2 of Performance 
Assessment of the Direct Disposal in Unsaturated Tuff of Spent Nuclear Fuel and 
High-Level Waste Owned by U.S. Department of Energy. SAND94-2563/2. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 237102. 
100417 Rothman, A.J. 1984. Potential Corrosion and Degradation Mechanisms of Zircaloy 
Cladding on Spent Nuclear Fuel in a Tuff Repository. UCID-20172. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19870903.0039. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-8 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
159371 Satyanarayana Gupta, D.V. 1981. “Corrosion Behavior of 1040 Carbon Steel. I. 
Effect of pH and Sulfide Ion Concentrations in Aqueous Neutral and Alkaline 
Solutions at Room Temperature.” Corrosion, 37, (11), 611-616. Houston, Texas: 
National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 252626. 
164921 Sawyer, D.W. and Brown, R.H. 1947. “Resistance of Aluminum Alloys to Fresh 
Waters.” Corrosion, 3, 443-457. Houston, Texas: National Association of Corrosion 
Engineers. TIC: 252901. 
159335 Scarberry, R.C.; Graver, D.L.; and Stephens, C.D. 1967. “Alloying for Corrosion 
Control, Properties and Benefits of Alloy Materials.” Materials Protection, 6, 54-57. 
Houston, Texas: National Association of Corrosion Engineers. TIC: 251196. 
164036 Sedriks, A.J. 1996. Corrosion of Stainless Steels. 2nd Edition. Corrosion Monograph 
Series. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 245121. 
164923 Sedriks, A.J. 1982. “Corrosion Resistance of Austenitic Fe-Cr-Ni-Mo Alloys in 
Marine Environments.” International Metals Reviews, 27, (6), 321-353. Metals Park, 
Ohio: American Society for Metals. TIC: 251201. 
164925 Shreir, L.L.; Jarman, R.A.; and Burstein, G.T., eds. 1998. Corrosion Control. Volume 
2 of Corrosion. 3rd Edition. Woburn, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann. 
TIC: 244694. 
100891 Shreir, L.L.; Jarman, R.A.; and Burstein, G.T., eds. 1998. Metal/Environment 
Reactions. Volume 1 of Corrosion. 3rd Edition. Woburn, Massachusetts: 
Butterworth-Heinemann. TIC: 244694. 
159375 Smith, H.D. 1987. The Influence of Copper on Zircaloy Spent Fuel Cladding 
Degradation Under a Potential Tuff Repository Condition. UCRL-15993. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19971016.0036. 
102089 Smith, P.K. and Baxter, C.A. 1981. Fracture During Cooling of Cast Borosilicate 
Glass Containing Nuclear Wastes. DP-1602. Aiken, South Carolina: E.I. Du Pont de 
Nemours & Company, Savannah River Laboratory. TIC: 238536. 
103441 Smith, R.J.; Loomis, G.W.; and Deltete, C. P. 1992. Borated Stainless Steel 
Application in Spent-Fuel Storage Racks. TR-100784. Palo Alto, California: Electric 
Power Research Institute. TIC: 225730. 
102088 Smith, T.H. and Ross, W.A. 1975. Impact Testing of Vitreous Simulated High-Level 
Waste in Canisters. BNWL-1903. Richland, Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest 
Laboratories. TIC: 238924. 
100927 Southwell, C.R.; Bultman, J.D.; and Alexander, A.L. 1976. “Corrosion of Metals in 
Tropical Environments - Final Report of 16-Year Exposures.” Materials 
Performance, 15, (7), 9-25. Houston, Texas: National Association of Corrosion 
Engineers. TIC: 224022. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-9 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
154726 Taylor, L.L. 2001. Fort Saint Vrain HTGR (Th/U Carbide) Fuel Characteristics for 
Disposal Criticality Analysis. DOE/SNF/REP-060, Rev. 0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. TIC: 249783. 
101231 Uziemblo, N.H. and Smith, H.D. 1989. An Investigation of the Influence of Fluoride 
on the Corrosion of Zircaloy-4: Initial Report. PNL-6859. Draft. Richland, 
Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980326.0369. 
100948 Van Konynenburg, R.A.; Curtis, P.G.; and Summers, T.S.E. 1998. Scoping Corrosion 
Tests on Candidate Waste Package Basket Materials for the Yucca Mountain Project. 
UCRL-ID-130386. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19980727.0385. 
164948 Wallén, B. and Olsson, J. 1977. “Corrosion Resistance in Aqueous Media.” Chapter 
16 of Handbook of Stainless Steels. Peckner, D. and Bernstein, I.M., eds. New York, 
New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 219638. 
164934 Wheatfall, W.L. 1967. “Metal Corrosion in Deep-Ocean Environments.” Naval 
Engineers Journal, 79, (4), 611-618. Washington, D.C.: American Society of Naval 
Engineers. TIC: 224024. 
100097 Wolery, T.J. and Daveler, S.A. 1992. EQ6, A Computer Program for Reaction Path 
Modeling of Aqueous Geochemical Systems: Theoretical Manual, User's Guide, and 
Related Documentation (Version 7.0). UCRL-MA-110662 PT IV. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980701.0459. 
165063 Yau, T.L. and Webster, R.T. 1987. “Corrosion of Zirconium and Hafnium.” In 
Corrosion, Volume 13, Pages 707-721 of Metals Handbook. 9th Edition. Metals Park, 
Ohio: ASM International. TIC: 209807. 
164938 Zhang, X.G. 2000. “Galvanic Corrosion.” Chapter 8 of Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook. 
2nd Edition. Revie, R.W, ed. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
TIC: 248360. 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
156605 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
100475 48 FR 28194. 10 CFR Part 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in 
Geologic Repositories Technical Criteria. Readily available. 
AP-2.14Q, Rev. 3, ICN 0. Document Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20030827.0018. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-10 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
AP-6.1Q, Rev. 7, ICN 4. Document Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040915.0008. 
AP-17.1Q, Rev. 3, ICN 3. Records Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040915.0009. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 1 ICN 7. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040920.0001. 
AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Control of the Electronic Management of Information.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040308.0001. 
165003 ASTM A 240/A 240M-03b. 2003. Standard Specification for Chromium and 
Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels and for 
General Applications. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for 
Testing and Materials. TIC: 254845. 
165006 ASTM A 276-03. 2003. Standard Specification for Stainless Steel Bars and Shapes. 
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. 
TIC: 254842. 
162723 ASTM A 516/A 516M-01. 2001. Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, 
Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and Lower-Temperature Service. West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 253997. 
154062 ASTM A 887-89 (Reapproved 2000). 2000. Standard Specification for Borated 
Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Nuclear Application. West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 249544. 
144744 ASTM B 209–96. 1996. Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy 
Sheet and Plate. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing 
and Materials. TIC: 247078. 
162726 ASTM B 265-02. 2002. Standard Specification for Titanium and Titanium Alloy 
Strip, Sheet, and Plate. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for 
Testing and Materials. TIC: 254000. 
168403 ASTM B 932-04. 2004. Standard Specification for Low-Carbon Nickel-Chromium-
Molybdenum-Gadolinium Alloy Plate, Sheet, and Strip. West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 255846. 
103515 ASTM G 1-90 (Reapproved 1999). 1999. Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, 
and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: 
American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 238771. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-11 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
169583 LL030410012251.056. LTCTF Corrosion Rate Calculations for 2 1/2 - Year Exposed 
Titanium Alloy GR7 Specimens Cleaned Under TIP-CM-51. Submittal date: 
07/16/2003. 
151029 MO0006J13WTRCM.000. Recommended Mean Values of Major Constituents in 
J-13 Well Water. Submittal date: 06/07/2000. 
155964 MO0109RIB00049.001. Waste Package Material Properties: Neutron Absorbing 
Materials. Submittal date: 09/17/2001. 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0409SPAACRWP.000. Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Non-Waste Form Waste 
Package Materials. Submittal date: 09/16/2004. 
MO0404SPAHLWGF.001. HLW Glass Fracture Factor Probabilities for a Single 
Waste Package. Submittal Date: 04/22/04. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 8-12 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
APPENDIX I 
LISTING OF FILES ON CD 
Directory of d:\ 
09/14/2004 10:51a 
03/08/2004 04:29p 
09/04/2004 11:45a 
Alloy_.xls 
03/11/2004 09:15a 
04/01/2004 04:12p 
04/20/2004 09:34a 
09/14/2004 02:19p 
09/15/2004 09:20a 
08/13/2004 02:35p 
08/10/2004 10:37a 
08/10/2004 10:52a 
10/04/2004 11:20a 
Total Files Listed: 
12 File(s) 
105,472 aluminum_.xls 
72,704 aqueous-A516.xls 
38,400 aqueous Inconel-
48,128 aqueous-316L.xls 
98,816 aqueous-304L.xls 
84,992 aqueous-B-Gd-steels.xls 
416,256 ECDF_metals.xls 
37,888 glass-fracturefac.xls 
35,328 Misc_Materials.xls 
20,992 NiCrMoGdalloy.xls 
15,872 ppm_.xls 
30,208 titanium.xls 
1,005,056 bytes 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 I-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 I-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
APPENDIX II 
Attached CD-ROM 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 II-1 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 II-2 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
APPENDIX III 
Qualification of Data That Supports Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Packages 
Materials (ANL-DSD-MD-000001) 
III.1 PURPOSE 
This analysis relies on data that may not have been collected under an approved quality 
assurance program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart G [DIRS 156605] or 
its predecessor, 10 CFR Part 60 (48 FR 28194 [DIRS 100475]). This appendix qualifies the data 
this analysis uses as direct input. 
III.2 METHODS AND CRITERIA 
This appendix qualifies direct input data used in this analysis for intended use per AP-SIII.9Q, 
Scientific Analyses. The qualification process indicates (as required in AP-SIII.9Q, 
Section 5.2.1l) that the qualification shall address “the extent to which the data demonstrate the 
properties of interest.” This is indicated in this appendix by the heading “Demonstrate properties 
of interest.” The qualification process in this appendix also considers at least one of the 
following factors: 
• Reliability of data source 
• Qualifications of personnel or organizations generating the data 
• Prior use of the data 
• Availability of corroborating data. 
III.3 QUALIFICATION OF DATA 
Table III-1 lists all sources whose data is to be qualified for intended use in this appendix. The 
table designates the attributes or criteria used in conjunction with the corroborating data and 
discussion of data collection methodology to qualify the information. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-3 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
Table III-1. Sources of Data to be Qualified and Criteria Used to Qualify the Data 
Data Source Criteria 
Corrosion Rates of Aluminum Alloys Ailor 1969 [DIRS 164907] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 302, 316, and 321 
Alexander et al. 1961 [DIRS 162265] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Corrosion rate of monazite Boatner and Sales 1988 [DIRS 164908] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 302 and 316 
Bomberger et al. 1954 [DIRS 163699] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion rates of borated and Gdalloyed 
Stainless Steel Types 304 
Cole et al. 1976 [DIRS 159369] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Alloy N06464 DOE 2004 [DIRS 168434] Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Corrosion Rates of Aluminum Alloys Forgeson et al. 1958 [DIRS 159343] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 302, 316, and 321 
Glass et al. 1984 [DIRS 159340] Corroborating Data 
Oxidation rate of graphite in water Gurwell 1981 [DIRS 164911] Corroborating Data 
General Corrosion of Zircaloys Hillner et al. 1998 [DIRS 100455] Corroborating Data 
Oxidation rate of graphite Lewis 1990 [DIRS 130543] Corroborating Data 
Oxidation rate of graphite Lotts et al. 1992 [DIRS 164916] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 304 and 316 
McCright et al. 1987 [DIRS 159336] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Corrosion rates of Inconel alloys and 
Carbon Steel Types A516 and A27 
McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Oxidation rate of graphite Morgan 1981 [DIRS 164920] Corroborating Data 
Oxidation rate of SiC Opila 1999 [DIRS 155502] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Oxidation rate of graphite in air Propp 1998 [DIRS 149395] Corroborating Data 
General Corrosion of Zircaloys Rothman 1984 [DIRS 100417] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Aluminum Alloys Sawyer and Brown 1947 [DIRS 164921] Corroborating DataReliability of 
data source 
Oxidation rate of graphite Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 164925] Corroborating Data 
Corrosion Rates of Aluminum Alloys 
Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel 
Types 302, 316, and 321 and 
detection limit 
Southwell et al. 1976 [DIRS 100927] Corroborating Data 
Personnel/organization 
qualifications 
Reliability of data source 
Corrosion Rates of 304 Stainless 
Steel 
Wheatfall 1967 [DIRS 164934] Corroborating Data 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-4 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
III.3.1 Qualification of Data in Ailor, W.H. 1969 [DIRS 164907] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: The tests were carried out specifically to assess the corrosion 
of aluminum in tap waters (dilute waters for the purposes of this analysis). 
Corroborating Data: An authoritative source, Hollingsworth and Hunsiker (1987 
[DIRS 150403]) corroborate the use of this source, as does Ghali (2000 [DIRS 164946]). Both 
references provide a synopsis of corrosion behavior of aluminum in different environments. 
Southwell et al. (1976 [DIRS 100927]) provides quantitative corroboration by showing corrosion 
rates in good agreement with those of Ailor (1969 [DIRS 164907]. 
III.3.2 Qualification of Data in Alexander, A.L.; Southwell, C.R.; and Forgeson, B.W. 
1961 [DIRS 162265] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Types 302, 316, and 321) in water types of interest (dilute and 
salt and concentrated waters) 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by two authoritative sources, 
Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341] and Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339], which provide 
corrosion data on Stainless Steel Type 304L (similar to Stainless Steel Type 302) and Stainless 
Steel Type 316L (Stainless Steel Type 316 with slightly less carbon content). Glass et al. (1984 
[DIRS 159340]) provides corrosion data on Stainless Steel Type 321. Qualitative data used for 
corroboration through description of stainless steel corrosion behavior in aqueous media include 
Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry (1967 [DIRS 159335]), Wallen and 
Olson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. (1987 [DIRS 162971]), which is included in 
ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. 
Reliability of data source and Personnel/organization qualifications: The data source is a 
publication by the NACE. The NACE is currently the largest provider of information on 
corrosion and is relied upon globally by industries and governments for standards for materials 
preservation and corrosion control information. All publications from the NACE are rigorously 
peer reviewed before publication. The authors are recognized scientists in the field of materials 
corrosion. They have years of experience in experimental design and data collection in corrosion 
studies and are eminently qualified to conduct these studies. 
III.3.3 Qualification of Data in Boatner, L.A. and Sales, B.C. 1988 [DIRS 164908] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: The purpose of the assessment done by Boatner and Sales 
(1988 [DIRS 164908]) was to examine the possibility of using monazite as a medium for nuclear 
waste disposal. This also included an assessment of the pure material, which is directly 
applicable to this analysis. 
Corroborating Data: Boatner and Sales (1988 [DIRS 164908]) present a degradation rate of 
monazite containing 20% Savannah River waste at less than 0.001 g/m2/day (approximately 
0.12 µm/yr, presented as an upper bound in Section 6.3.3) and continue by stating that pure 
monazite would have much greater corrosion resistance. This is corroborated by Lansdowne 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-5 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
(n.d. [DIRS 164914]) (an authoritative source and manufacturer of GdPO4 material), which 
states that the material is “insoluble in water.” 
III.3.4 Qualification of Data in Bomberger, H.B.; Cambourelis, P.J.; and Hutchinson, 
G.E. 1954 [DIRS 163699] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Types 302 and 316L) in water types of interest (salt and 
concentrated waters) 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by two authoritative sources, 
Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341] and Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339], which provide 
corrosion data on Stainless Steel Type 304L (similar to Stainless Steel Type 302) and Stainless 
Steel Type 316L (Stainless Steel Type 316 with slightly less carbon content). Qualitative data 
used for corroboration through description of stainless steel corrosion in aqueous media include 
data by Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry (1967 [DIRS 159335]), Wallen 
and Olson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. (1987 [DIRS 162971]), which is included 
in ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. 
III.3.5 Qualification of Data in Cole, H.S. 1976 [DIRS 159369] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on neutron absorbing materials of specific 
interest in waste package corrosion (boron-alloyed Stainless Steel Type 304) in water types of 
interest (“fresh” and “harsh” waters). 
Corroborating Data: Cole (1976 [DIRS 159369]) presents the degradation of Stainless Steel 
Type 304 alloyed with boron. These rates indicate that with increasing boron content, the 
corrosion rate increases significantly. This is corroborated by Van Konynenburg et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100948]); who show increase in corrosion with the addition of boron, and Smith et al. 
(1992 [DIRS 103441]) (a report published by the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), an 
authoritative source) who show that as boron content of the stainless steel increases, the 
corrosion rate of the material also increases. Because of their proximity to one another on the 
periodic table, boron can be likened to carbon. It is well known that increased carbon content of 
stainless steels and heat-treating induces carbide formation. These carbides then affect the 
stability of the oxide film allowing the corrosion rate to increase. 
III.3.6 Qualification of Data in DOE 2004 [DIRS 168434] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on Alloy N06464 to qualify material for 
acceptance in the Yucca Mountain Repository as a neutron absorbing material. 
Reliability of data source and Personnel/organization qualifications: The data source was peer 
reviewed. Preparation and cleaning of test coupons as well as practice for laboratory immersion 
corrosion testing of metals were conducted following ASTM standards (as stated in Section 3.4 
of DOE 2004 [DIRS 168434]). One of the purposes of these tests was to qualify the material for 
ASTM code qualification. The material was accepted as an ASTM standard and presented in 
ASTM B 932-04 (2004 [DIRS 168403]). 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-6 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
III.3.7 Qualification of Data in Forgeson, B.W.; Southwell, C.R.; Alexander, A.L.; 
Mundt, H.W.; and Thompson, L.J. 1958 [DIRS 159343] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (aluminum alloys) in water types of interest (dilute, salt and concentrated 
waters). 
Corroborating Data: An authoritative source, Hollingsworth and Hunsiker (1987 
[DIRS 150403]) corroborate the use of this source, as does Ghali (2000 [DIRS 164946]). Both 
references provide a synopsis of corrosion behavior of aluminum in different environments. 
Ailor (1969 [DIRS 164907]) provides quantitative corroboration by showing corrosion rates in 
good agreement with those by Forgeson et al. (1958 [DIRS 159343]). 
Reliability of data source and Personnel/organization qualifications: The data source is a 
publication by the NACE. The NACE is currently the largest provider of information on 
corrosion and is relied upon globally by industries and governments for standards for materials 
preservation and corrosion control information. All publications from the NACE are rigorously 
peer reviewed before publication. The authors are recognized scientists in the field of materials 
corrosion. They have years of experience in experimental design and data collection in corrosion 
studies and are eminently qualified to conduct these studies. 
III.3.8 Qualification of Data in Glass, R.S.; Overturf, G.E.; Garrison, R.E.; and 
McCright, R.D. 1984 [DIRS 159340] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Types 304L, 316L, and 321) in water types of interest (dilute 
“freshwater”). 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by two authoritative sources, 
Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341] and Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339], which provide 
corrosion data on Stainless Steel Types 304L and 316L (Stainless Steel Type 321 is close in 
composition to Stainless Steel Type 316L, so it should have similar corrosion properties). 
Qualitative data used for corroboration through description of stainless steel corrosion in aqueous 
media include Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry (1967 [DIRS 159335]), 
Wallen and Olson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. 1987 [DIRS 162971], which is 
included in ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. 
III.3.9 Qualification of Data in Gurwell, W.E. 1981 [DIRS 164911] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Assessment was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of 
disposal using matrix waste forms (waste pellets or marbles within matrix material). Part of this 
assessment included evaluation of the oxidation of graphite. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]) states that graphite reacts very slowly in 
deionized water with a corrosion rate at 99°C of 10-10 g/cm2/day (or approximately 
1.7 × 10-4 µm/yr). This rate is slow enough essentially to be considered, noncorrosive to 
insoluble, especially at lower temperatures. This noncorrosive or insoluble behavior is 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-7 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
corroborated by experimental data from Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]) and Propp (1998 
[DIRS 149395]) who report corrosion rates even slower than those reported by Gurwell 
(1981 [DIRS 164911]). Additionally, Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832], an authoritative source), 
Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]), and Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 164925] all report that the material 
is unreactive or insoluble. 
III.3.10 Qualification of Data in Hillner, E.; Franklin, D.G.; and Smee, J.D. 1998 
[DIRS 100455] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out to assess zircaloy cladding corrosion in long 
term conditions of geologic repository disposal. 
Corroborating Data: Three sources corroborate the behavior of zircaloy as described by Hillner 
et al. (1998 [DIRS 100455]). Yau and Webster (1987 [DIRS 165063]) (an authoritative source) 
indicate that zirconium and its alloys hold up well to a number of different corrosive 
environments. Uziemblo and Smith (1989 [DIRS 101231]) further corroborate this by indicating 
a corrosion rate of zero in the temperature range of 21.5°C to 43°C. Rothman (1984 
[DIRS 100417]) indicates that after 10,000 years at 180°C, the depth of oxidation of zircaloy 
would be between 4 and 53 µm. All references corroborate the slow corrosion or oxidation rate 
of zircaloy presented by Hillner et al. (1998 [DIRS 100455]). 
III.3.11 Qualification of Data in Lewis, C.F., ed. 1990 [DIRS 130543] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: gives overview of graphite oxidation. This is directly 
applicable since carbide fuels will be disoposed inside of their original fuel elements composed 
of high-grade industrial graphite. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Lewis (1990 [DIRS 130543]) states that industrial graphite has “excellent 
corrosion resistance.” This corrosion resistant behavior is corroborated by experimental data 
from Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]), Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]), and Propp (1998 
[DIRS 149395]), who record very slow corrosion for graphite (nanometers or less per year 
depending on temperature). Additionally, Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832], an authoritative source), 
Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]), and Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 164925] report that the material is 
unreactive or insoluble. 
III.3.12 Qualification of Data in Lotts, A.L.; Bond, W.D.; Forsberg, C.W.; Glass, R.W.; 
Harrington, F.E.; Michaels, G.E.; Notz, K.J.; and Wymer, R.G. 1992 
[DIRS 164916] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Assessment was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of 
disposal options for high-temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) reactor fuels. Part of this assessment 
included evaluation of the oxidation of graphite (material composing the reactor elements). 
It was this assessment that was used in this analysis. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]) show that air oxidation of graphite 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-8 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
produces a corrosion rate of 4.5 × 10-20 g/cm2/sec (or approximately 6.6 × 10-9 µm/yr) at 100°C. 
This rate is slow enough to be considered, essentially, noncorrosive to insoluble, especially at 
lower temperatures. This noncorrosive or insoluble behavior is corroborated by experimental 
data from Propp (1998 [DIRS 149395]) and Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]). Additionally, Lide 
(2002 [DIRS 160832]), an authoritative source, Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]), and 
Shreir et al. 1998 [DIRS 164925] all report that the material is unreactive or insoluble. 
III.3.13 Qualification of Data in McCright, R.D.; Halsey, W.G.; and Van Konynenburg, 
R.A. 1987 [DIRS 159336] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Types 304L and 316L) in water types of interest (dilute or 
fresh waters). 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by two authoritative sources, 
Beavers and Durr (1991 [DIRS 159341]) and Beavers et al. (1992 [DIRS 159339]), who provide 
corrosion data on Stainless Steel Types 304L and 316L. Qualitative data used for corroboration 
through description of stainless steel corrosion in aqueous media include Hudson and Stanners 
(1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry (1967 [DIRS 159335]), Wallen and Olson 1977 
[DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. (1987 [DIRS 162971], which is included in 
ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. 
Personnel/organization qualifications and reliability of source: The experiments and analysis 
were performed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory using good engineering 
practices. Also used a well accepted methodology and experiments were carried out in a 
thorough and comprehensive manner. Preparation and cleaning of test coupons as well as 
practice for laboratory immersion corrosion testing of metals were conducted following ASTM 
standards (as stated by McCright et al. (1987 [DIRS 159336], p. 22)). 
III.3.14 Qualification of Data in McCright, R.D. 1998 [DIRS 114637] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Experiments carried out specifically to determine the 
corrosive behavior of candidate materials (Carbon Steel Type A516, Inconel Alloy) proposed for 
waste packages in a repository setting. 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by Brasher and Mercer (1968 
[DIRS 100883]), who indicate rates of corrosion similar to those presented by McCright (1998 
[DIRS 114637]). This reference also shows the strong temperature dependence of corrosion 
rates that is also demonstrated by McCright (1998 [DIRS 114637]). Qualitative data used for 
corroboration through description of carbon steel corrosion in aqueous media include those 
provided by Matsushima (2000 [DIRS 164942]), Matsushima (2000 [DIRS 164944]), 
Satyanarayana (1981 [DIRS 159371]), and Bryson (1987 [DIRS 168467], which is included in 
ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. 
Personnel/organization qualifications and reliability of source: The experiments and analysis 
were performed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory using good engineering 
practices, a well-accepted methodology, and in a thorough and comprehensive manner. Testing 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-9 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
and analysis were done to an approved activity plan (Gdowski 1998 [DIRS 118106]) and 
technical implementation plans (McCright 1998 [DIRS 114637], p. 2.2-11 for more detail). 
Materials were cleaned in accordance with ASTM Standard G 1-90 [DIRS 103515]. 
III.3.15 Qualification of Data in Morgan, W.C. 1981 [DIRS 164920] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Study carried out specifically answer question on the 
feasibility of using graphite matrix materials in a repository environment. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]) states that graphite is insoluble at “ordinary 
temperatures.” This non-corrosive or insoluble behavior is corroborated by experimental data 
from Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]), Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]), and Propp (1998 
[DIRS 149395]), which record very slow corrosion for graphite (nanometers or less per year 
depending on temperature). Additionally, Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832], an authoritative source) 
and Shreir et al. (1998 [DIRS 164925]) report the material is unreactive or insoluble. 
III.3.16 Qualification of Data in Opila, E.J. 1999 [DIRS 155502] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Study carried out specifically to answer question on SiC 
oxidation in water vapor. Comparisons to oxidation in water at like temperatures were then used 
to derive the rate required for this analysis. 
Personnel/organization qualifications and reliability of source: The experiments and analysis 
were performed good engineering practices, used a well accepted methodology, and in a 
thorough and comprehensive manner. Testing included the use of pure material obtained from 
manufacturer. Equipment used was specifically designed to strictly control and monitor 
experimental conditions. 
Corroborating data: Jorgensen et al. (1959 [DIRS 164912]) corroborate the behavior of SiC at 
different temperatures and show that the material is extremely durable, even at higher 
temperatures. The references also show that as the temperature decreases, the corrosion rate 
decreases significantly. Following this continual decrease, Lide (2002 [DIRS 160832]) indicates 
that SiC is insoluble at 25°C in water, which is also corroborated by Lotts et al. (1992 
[DIRS 164916]) who indicate that the SiC layer on the TRISO particles will fail only under 
“unknown mechanisms.” 
III.3.17 Qualification of Data in Propp, W.A. 1998 [DIRS 149395] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Study carried out specifically to answer question on graphite 
oxidation in a repository environment. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Propp (1998 [DIRS 149395]) states that air oxidation of graphite produces a 
corrosion rate of 1 mg/cm2 in 190,000 years (or approximately 2.4 × 10-5 µm/yr). This rate is 
slow enough to be considered, essentially, noncorrosive to insoluble, especially at lower 
temperatures. This noncorrosive or insoluble behavior is corroborated by experimental data 
from Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]) and Gurwell (1981 [DIRS 164911]). Additionally, Lide 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-10 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
(2002 [DIRS 160832], an authoritative source), Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]), and Shreir et al. 
(1998 [DIRS 164925]) report the material is unreactive or insoluble. 
III.3.18 Qualification of Data in Rothman, A.J. 1984 [DIRS 100417] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out to assess zircaloy cladding corrosion in long 
term conditions of geologic repository disposal. 
Corroborating Data: Three sources corroborate the behavior of zircaloy as described by 
Rothman (1984 [DIRS 100417]). Yau and Webster (1987 [DIRS 165063]) (an authoritative 
source) indicate that zirconium and its alloys hold up well to a number of different corrosive 
environments. Uziemblo and Smith (1989 [DIRS 101231]) further corroborate this by indicating 
a corrosion rate of zero in the temperature range of 21.5°C to 43°C. Hillner et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100455]) indicates that after one million years, oxide growth on zircaloy would be 
about 0.3 mils (1 mil = 25.4 µm). All references corroborate the slow corrosion or oxidation rate 
of zircaloy presented by Rothman (1984 [DIRS 100417]). 
III.3.19 Qualification of Data in Sawyer, D.W. and Brown, R.H. 1947 [DIRS 164921] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: study carried out for materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (aluminum alloys) in water types of interest (dilute or freshwater). 
Corroborating Data: An authoritative source, Hollingsworth and Hunsiker (1987 
[DIRS 150403]) corroborate the use of this source, as does Ghali (2000 [DIRS 164946]). Both 
references provide a synopsis of corrosion behavior of aluminum in different environments. 
Ailor (1969 [DIRS 164907]) provides quantitative corroboration by showing corrosion rates in 
good agreement with those by Sawyer and Brown (1947 [DIRS 164921]). 
Reliability of data source: The data source is a publication by the NACE. The NACE is 
currently the largest provider of information on corrosion and is relied upon globally by 
industries and governments for standards for materials preservation and corrosion control 
information. All publications from the NACE are rigorously peer reviewed before publication. 
III.3.20 Qualification of Data in Shreir, L.L.; Jarman, R.A.; and Burstein, G.T., eds 1998 
[DIRS 164925] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Specifically looks at carbonaceous material (Shreir et al. 
1998 [DIRS 164925], Section 18.1) and gives properties of durability and corrosion resistance in 
a number of corrosive environments. 
Corroborating Data: Graphite is known to be highly corrosion resistant in both atmospheric and 
aqueous conditions. Shreir et al. (1998 [DIRS 164925]) state that graphite is generally 
unreactive at low temperatures and provide a table (18.2) showing that the material is resistant to 
a great number of highly corrosive environments. This noncorrosive or insoluble behavior is 
corroborated by experimental data by Lotts et al. (1992 [DIRS 164916]), Gurwell (1981 
[DIRS 164911]), and Propp (1998 [DIRS 149395]), which record very slow corrosion for 
graphite (nanometers or less per year depending on temperature). Additionally, Lide (2002 
[DIRS 160832]) (an authoritative source) and Morgan (1981 [DIRS 164920]) report that the 
material is unreactive or insoluble. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-11 October 2004 

Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials 
III.3.21 Qualification of Data in Southwell, C.R.; Bultman, J.D.; and Alexander, A.L. 1976 
[DIRS 100927] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Types 302 and 316 and aluminum alloys) in water types of 
interest (dilute and salt or concentrated waters). 
Corroborating Data: For stainless steel corrosion, quantitative corroboration is provided by two 
authoritative sources, Beavers and Durr (1991 [DIRS 159341]) and Beavers et al. (1992 
[DIRS 159339]), which provide corrosion data on Stainless Steel Types 304L (similar to 
Stainless Steel Type 302) and 316L (similar in composition to Stainless Steel Type 316). Glass 
et al. (1984 [DIRS 159340]) provides corrosion data on Stainless Steel Type 321. Qualitative 
data used for corroboration through description of stainless steel corrosion in aqueous media 
include Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry (1967 [DIRS 159335]), Wallen 
and Olson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. (1987 [DIRS 162971], which is included 
in ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an authoritative source. For aluminum 
corrosion, an authoritative source, Hollingsworth and Hunsicker (1987 [DIRS 150403]) 
corroborate the use of this source, as does Ghali (2000 [DIRS 164946]). The references provide 
a synopsis of corrosion behavior of aluminum in different environments. Ailor (1969 
[DIRS 164907]) provides quantitative corroboration for aluminum corrosion and shows 
corrosion rates in good agreement with those by Southwell et al. (1976 [DIRS 100927]). 
Reliability of data source and Personnel/organization qualifications: The data source is a 
publication by the NACE. The NACE is currently the largest provider of information on 
corrosion and is relied upon globally by industries and governments for standards for materials 
preservation and corrosion control information. All publications from the NACE are rigorously 
peer reviewed before publication. The authors are recognized scientists in the field of materials 
corrosion. They have years of experience in experimental design and data collection in corrosion 
studies and are eminently qualified to conduct these studies. 
III.3.22 Qualification of Data in Wheatfall, W.L. 1967 [DIRS 164934] 
Demonstrate properties of interest: Tests carried out on materials of specific interest in waste 
package corrosion (Stainless Steel Type 304) in waters of interest (salt or concentrated waters). 
Corroborating Data: Quantitative corroboration is provided by two authoritative sources, 
Beavers and Durr 1991 [DIRS 159341] and Beavers et al. 1992 [DIRS 159339], which provide 
corrosion data on Stainless Steel Type 304L (Stainless Steel Type 304 with a slightly lower 
carbon content). Qualitative data used for corroboration through description of stainless steel 
corrosion in aqueous media include Hudson and Stanners (1955 [DIRS 159334]), Scarberry 
(1967 [DIRS 159335]), Wallen and Olson (1977 [DIRS 164948]), and Davison et al. (1987 
[DIRS 162971], which is included in ASM International’s Metals Handbook, considered an 
authoritative source. 
III.4 CONCLUSION 
In conclusion, the data is qualified for its intended use in this analysis. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 01 III-12 October 2004