CORROSION OF STAINLESS STEEL TYPE 316L IN A 

SEEPAGE WATER DRIPPING ENVIRONMENT 

Prepared for 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Contract NRC–02–07–006

Prepared by

H. Jung1

T. Ahn2

T. Mintz1

1

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

San Antonio, Texas 

2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 

September 2011
ii 

ABSTRACT 

This report documents the results of a previously unpublished set of experiments that evaluated 

the corrosion behavior of 316L stainless steel of nuclear grade under seepage water dripping 

conditions. Tests were conducted inside a chamber at a controlled temperature and relative 

humidity. Simulated seepage water was dripped on the test specimens at rates of 65 or 

80 mL/day [2.20 or 2.71 oz/day] depending on the test temperature. Two batches of tests were 

conducted: (i) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 percent relative humidity and (ii) at 95 °C [203 °F] and 

75 percent relative humidity. After the tests, the posttest specimens were examined with an 

optical microscope and salt deposits were analyzed in terms of chemical composition and 

phase. Finally, after cleaning the posttest specimens, weight loss was measured to calculate 

corrosion rates. 

In all of the tested conditions, white deposits were observed on the posttest specimens. In the 

first batch of tests, the surfaces of the posttest specimens exhibited several corrosion pits after 

37 day of dripping tests. The average corrosion rate was 27 nm/yr [1.06 × 10−6

 in/yr] after 

37 days. In the second batch at 95 °C [203 °F], pits were also present on the specimen surface 

and the surface was heavily corroded without passivation. After 67 days of dripping tests, the 

average corrosion rate was 930 nm/yr [3.66 × 10−5

 in/yr]. Results of chemical and phase 

analyses of the salts and thermodynamic calculations indicate that the major composition was 

calcium carbonate and several other compositions were also precipitated, including magnesium 

carbonate, sodium (calcium) sulfate, sodium chloride, and silica. 
iii 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii 

FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iv 

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. vi 

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Objective and Organization of the Report ................................................................. 1-2

2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Materials .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Test Procedures ........................................................................................................ 2-1

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 First Batch of Tests at 80 °C [176 °F] and Relative Humidity of 85 Percent .............. 3-1

3.2 Second Batch of Tests at 95 °C [203 °F] and Relative Humidity of 75 Percent ........ 3-3

3.3 Salt Deposits Analysis ............................................................................................... 3-7

4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 4-1

5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 5-1
iv 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Range of Waste Package Temperature Versus Time Modeled for the Proposed 

 Yucca Mountain Repository ........................................................................................... 1-3 

1-2 Range of Relative Humidity Versus Time Modeled for the Proposed Yucca 

 Mountain Repository ...................................................................................................... 1-3

2-1 Experimental Setup for Dripping Test ............................................................................ 2-2 

2-2 Weight Losses of the Corroded Test Specimens Resulting From Repetitive 

Cleaning Cycles in an ASTM HNO3 Solution ................................................................ 2-3 

3-1 Photos of Posttest Surfaces of 316L Stainless Steel After 37 Days of Dripping 

 at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity ...................................................... 3-2 

3-2 Optical Micrographs of 316L Stainless Steel Surfaces After 37 Days of Dripping 

 at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity: ..................................................... 3-3 

3-3 Surface Topography of 316L Stainless Steel Specimen after 37 Days of Dripping 

 at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity: (a) Optical Micrograph, 

 (b) 3-D Laser Scan Profiles of the Pit Area, and (c) 2-D Profiles ................................... 3-4 

3-4 Optical Micrographs of 316L Stainless Steel Surfaces after 67 Days of Dripping 

 at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity. ..................................................... 3-6 

3-5 Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy of the Salts Deposited on the 316L 

Stainless Steel Specimen Tested (a) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent 

 Relative Humidity and (b) at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity. ............ 3-9 

3-6 X-ray Diffraction Spectra of Salts Deposited on the 316L Stainless Steel Specimens 

Tested (a) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity and (b) ) at 95 °C 

 [203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity. Also Shown Are the Reference 

 Spectra of Salts That Best Match the Salt Deposit Spectra ......................................... 3-10 

 
v 

TABLES 

Table Page 

2-1 Chemical Composition of 316L Stainless Steel (in Weight Percent) .............................. 2-1 

2-2 Chemical Composition of Simulated Seepage Water in This Study ............................... 2-2 

2-3 Test Matrix of 316L Stainless Steel Dripping Tests ....................................................... 2-4 

3-1 Corrosion Rates of 316L Stainless Steel After 37 Days of Dripping Test 

 at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity ...................................................... 3-5 

3-2 Corrosion Rates of 316L Stainless Steel After 67 Days of Dripping Test 

 at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity ...................................................... 3-7 

3-3 Elemental Composition of Salt Deposit on 316L Stainless Steel Specimens Tested 

 (i) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity and (ii) at 95 °C [203 °F] and 

 75 Percent Relative Humidity (in Weight Percent): ........................................................ 3-8 
vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report describes work performed by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

(CNWRA) and its contractors for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) under 

Contract No. NRC–02–07–006. The activities reported here were performed on behalf of the 

USNRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of High-Level Waste 

Repository Safety and Safeguards, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety. This report 

is an independent product of the CNWRA and does not necessarily reflect the view or regulatory 

position of the USNRC. The USNRC staff views expressed herein are preliminary and do not 

constitute a final judgment or determination of the matters addressed or of the acceptability of 

any licensing action that may be under consideration at USNRC. 

The authors gratefully acknowledge K. Chiang for his technical review, D. Pickett for his 

programmatic review, L. Mulverhill for her editorial review, and A. Ramos for his administrative 

support. Special thanks to B. Derby, G. Bird, and G. Norman for their assistance in conducting 

experiments in this study. 

QUALITY OF DATA, ANALYSES, AND CODE DEVELOPMENT

DATA: All CNWRA-generated original data contained in this report meet the quality assurance 

requirements described in the Geosciences and Engineering Division Quality Assurance 

Manual. Sources for other data should be consulted for determining the level of quality for 

those data. All data and calculations related to this report have been recorded in CNWRA 

Scientific Notebooks 899 and 1081 (Jung, et al., 2011a,b). 

ANALYSES AND CODES: None. 

References 

Jung, H., B. Derby, and G. Bird. “Seepage Water Dripping Test for Alloy 22 in the 

Repository Relevant Environments.” Scientific Notebook No. 899. San Antonio, Texas: 

CNWRA. pp. 1–108. 2011a. 

_____. “Seepage Water Dripping Test for Alloy 22 in the Repository Relevant Environments.” 

Scientific Notebook No. 1081. San Antonio, Texas: CNWRA. pp. 1–7. 2011b. 
1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This report is part of the knowledge management activities for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission high-level waste repository program. The report provides previously 

undocumented results from recent corrosion tests that used weight loss measurements and 

surface analysis to evaluate the corrosion behaviors of stainless steel type 316L waste package 

inner shell material under seepage water dripping conditions. The corrosion experiments were 

conducted by dripping simulated seepage water in two batches with varying temperature and 

relative humidity: (i) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 percent relative humidity and (ii) at 95 °C [203 °F] 

and 75 percent relative humidity. The corrosion rates of stainless steel specimens were 

estimated by measuring weight loss of the posttest specimens. The surfaces of the specimens 

were examined with an optical microscope, and the salts deposited on the specimens were also 

analyzed using energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction. 

1.1 Background Information 

316L stainless steel of nuclear grade (UNS S31603) is a candidate material for inner structural 

supports and radiation shielding in disposal waste packages (DOE, 2008). Traditionally, 

stainless steel has been studied in various disposal programs across the world as a reference 

waste package material in various geological settings (Kursten, et al., 2004). For interim 

storage, stainless steel may be used as a canister material for the storage cask. In this case, in 

particular, in a chloride-containing environment, stress corrosion cracking is a potential 

degradation mechanism of canister failure due to formation of salt deposits and the 

deliquescence process (EPRI, 2005). The dripping water tests with formation of salt deposits in 

this study are likely to provide important information on the salt deliquescence and corrosion 

behavior of a stainless steel canister in this environment. Usually, the material design of 

stainless steel of nuclear grade follows the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 

thickness of the material ranges from centimeters to tens of centimeters [inches to feet], 

depending on the applications. 

The high corrosion resistance of 316L stainless steel is attributed, in part, to the presence of a 

passive oxide film that protects against fast corrosion. In the event of deterioration or loss of the 

passivity of stainless steel at earlier times and subsequent fast corrosion, weaker mechanical 

strength or breach by localized corrosion or stress corrosion cracking could occur. Therefore, it 

is important to determine the long-term general corrosion rates and susceptibility to localized 

corrosion and stress corrosion cracking of 316L stainless steel under various service conditions. 

This report presents test results of general corrosion and localized corrosion. Most corrosion 

data used in disposal and storage applications were obtained from immersion experiments to 

develop the model abstraction for the general corrosion rate and susceptibility to localized 

corrosion. However, in an unsaturated disposal environment, or in a dry storage environment 

(EPRI, 2006), the corrosion environment is likely to be either dripping seepage water or a humid 

chloride-containing atmosphere. In both cases, the corrosion temperatures are expected to be 

higher than ambient values due to radioactivity decay. Therefore, it is expected that salt 

deposits can occur by seepage water evaporation in a geologic repository, seawater 

evaporation in a marine environment, and/or airborne salt accumulation in a dry storage system. 

Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the modeled ranges of temperature and relative humidity versus time 

for all waste packages in the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, accounting for uncertainty of 

host-rock thermal conductivity and percolation flux (Sandia National Laboratories, 2008). 

During the first 10,000 years, the waste package temperatures could have a wide range from a 

peak of 203 °C [398 °F] to room temperature. In the time period of 1,500 to 10,000 years, there 
1-2 

is a possibility that one or a few waste package outer containers could fail and allow seepage 

water to contact the stainless canister. The average temperature during this period is predicted 

to be about 95 to 60 °C [203 to 140 °F], and the average relative humidity could range from 

approximately 75 to 95 percent. These ranges of modeled temperature and relative humidity 

were selected for the experimental conditions in this study. 

Under storage conditions, details of the relative humidity on the hot canister have not been 

assessed, although atmospheric relative humidity is tabulated at various coastal areas 

(EPRI, 2006). Some considerations have been presented on the relative humidity on hot 

canister surfaces (Shirai, et al., 2011a,b). Compared to the data presented in Shirai, et al. 

(2011a,b), relative humidity on the hot canister surface is likely similar to the lower portion of 

Figure 1-2 at higher temperatures. 

Recent model development work on general corrosion and localized corrosion of stainless 

steel for repository application suggests a low bound of the general corrosion rate of 

0.01 μm/year [3.94 × 10−7

 in/yr] and a high bound of 3 μm/yr [1.18 × 10−4 in/yr] in an oxidizing 

environment with oxidizers, mainly oxygen (He, et al., 2011). This variation is due to a range of 

pH of 1.9 to 13 and temperatures of 30–80 °C [86–176 °F]. In the presence of salt 

deposits, the temperature for aqueous conditions will increase above the water boiling point 

(Shirai, et al., 2011a,b; Caseres and Mintz, 2010) due to salt deliquescence. He, et al. (2011) 

also summarized pitting susceptibility quantitatively in terms of the probability that a waste 

package can fail by localized corrosion. 

1.2 Objective and Organization of the Report 

The objective of the present work is to document the results of recent corrosion tests that 

used weight loss measurements and surface analysis to evaluate the corrosion behavior of 

316L stainless steel under seepage water dripping conditions. The present work conducted 

corrosion tests to assess the persistence of the passive film and to measure the corrosion rate. 

The persistence of the passive film was assessed by determining susceptibility to localized 

corrosion (primarily pitting), and the general corrosion rate was determined by weight loss 

measurement. Note that this report presents preliminary results and longer term corrosion tests 

are warranted for conclusive results. 

This report consists of four chapters: introduction, experimental details, results and discussion, 

and conclusions. This chapter briefly describes the corrosion behaviors of stainless steel and 

its applications as a storage or disposal canister. Environmental conditions, including 

temperature and relative humidity, are also discussed in this chapter. Experimental conditions 

in this study are provided in Chapter 2, including details of test samples, test solutions, and test 

procedures. Results of experiments and analyses are discussed in Chapter 3, including surface 

and salts analyses, weight loss measurements, and corrosion rates calculation. Chapter 4 

provides the study conclusions. 
1-3 

Figure 1-1. Range of Waste Package Temperature Versus Time Modeled for the 

Proposed Yuca Mountain Repository 

(Sandia National Laboratories, 2008)

Figure 1-2. Range of Relative Humidity Versus Time Modeled for the Proposed 

Yucca Mountain Repository 

(Sandia National Laboratories, 2008)
2-1 

2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 

2.1 Materials 

The samples used for the tests were disk-shaped stainless steel type 316L plate metal. The 

chemical composition of the stainless steel type 316L (HT 7470663) samples is shown in 

Table 2-1. The samples had a diameter of 5.08 cm [2.0 in] and a thickness of 0.635 cm 

[0.25 in]. The specimens were polished up to a 2,000-grit sand paper and 2,000 diamond paste 

for the final finish, rinsed and ultrasonically cleaned in deionized water and acetone, and dried. 

2.2 Test Procedures 

The dripping corrosion tests of stainless steel were conducted inside a chamber with 

controlled temperature and relative humidity as shown in Figure 2-1. Each test 

specimen was set on a 3.4-cm [1.3-in] outer diameter polytetrafluoroethylene cylinder 

spacer. The polytetrafluoroethylene cylinders with the test specimens were placed inside a 

polytetrafluoroethylene tray in the chamber. The top of the dripping tubes was located about 

10 cm [4 in] above the test specimen. The dripping water was simulated seepage water with 

the chemical composition shown in Table 2-2. Dunn, et al. (2006) used the same composition 

to represent neutral-type seepage waters in experiments to evaluate the effect of environmental 

conditions on the performance of Alloy 22 waste package material. The water was pumped 

from a reservoir outside of the chamber through polytetrafluoroethylene tubing into the chamber 

and allowed to drip on the test specimen. The temperature and relative humidity were 

controlled and maintained to be constant through the testing periods. The temperature and 

relative humidity near the test specimens were monitored by using additional measurement 

probes from the outside. The probes of the thermocouple and humidity gauge were extended to 

be located close to the test specimens. Because the chamber’s temperature and humidity 

sensors were located at the edge on the ceiling inside the chamber, it was necessary to confirm 

the actual temperature and relative humidity directly exposed to the test specimens that was 

located on the chamber floor. 

The posttest specimens were observed under an optical microscope for pitting or other possible 

corrosion features. Surface deposits and/or surface oxides on the posttest specimens were 

analyzed with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction. Weight loss 

measurement was used to measure the corrosion rates of stainless steel. In all of the tested 

conditions for Alloy 22, white deposits were observed on the surface of posttest specimens. 

After carefully removing and collecting the surface deposits, the specimens were first rinsed 

with deionized water and then chemically cleaned multiple times in a nitric acid (HNO3) solution 

{100 mL [3.4 oz] diluted to 1,000 mL [34 oz] deionized water} in accordance with the procedures 

recommended in ASTM G1-03 (ASTM International, 2003). The specimens were immersed 

Table 2-1. Chemical Composition of 316L Stainless Steel (in Weight Percent) 

Fe* Cr* Ni* Mo* Cu* Co* Si* Al* Mn* V* P* S* C* N* 

Bal† 16.48 10.30 2.11 0.32 0.19 0.53 0.005 1.38 0.058 0.028 0.0006 0.021 0.023

*Fe—iron; Cr—chromium; Ni—nickel; Mo—molybdenum; Cu—copper; Co—cobalt; Si—silicon; 

Al—aluminum; Mn—manganese; V—vanadium; P—phosphorous; S—sulfur; C—carbon; N—nitrogen 

†Bal—balance
2-2 

Figure 2-1. Experimental Setup for Dripping Test 

Table 2-2. Chemical Composition of Simulated Seepage Water in This Study 

Ion Na+ K+ Mg2+ Ca2+ Cl− SO4

2−

 NO3

−

 HCO3

−

 CO3

2−

mol/L 

(M) 1.5 × 10−2

 1.7 × 10−4 4.9 × 10−4 9.9 × 10−4 7.7 × 10−4 7.0 × 10−3 1.5 × 10−3 1.7 × 10−3 1.7 × 10−5

for 20 minutes at 60 °C [140 °F]. Then, the specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in 

acetone and dried. Before measuring the weight loss of the posttest specimens, the cleaned 

surface was observed by optical microscope to confirm the absence of any remaining deposits 

on the surface. The weight change was measured using a microbalance with a precision of 

± 2.5 × 10−5

 g [8.82 × 10−7 oz]. Figure 2-2 shows a typical plot for weight loss measurements as 

a function of the number of cleanings. The four test specimens were exposed at 95 °C [203 °F] 

and 75 percent relative humidity for 67 days. The weight loss plateaued after two or three 

PTFE Tray

PTFE Spacer

Temperature and Humidity Control Chamber

Dripping Lines

Test Sample
2-3 

Figure 2-2. Weight Losses of the Corroded Test Specimens Resulting From Repetitive 

Cleaning Cycles in an ASTM HNO3 Solution (ASTM International, 2003). The Weight 

Loss After the Third Cycle of Cleaning Was Used in the Weight Loss Analysis.

cycles of cleaning. Therefore, the weight losses after the third cycle of cleaning were used to 

calculate the corrosion rate in accordance with the equation defined in ASTM G1-03 (ASTM 

International, 2003). Table 2-3 shows the test matrix of stainless steel for two batches: (i) at 

80 °C [176 °F] and 85 percent relative humidity and (ii) at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 percent relative 

humidity. The table also provides information on the test duration and sample identification 

number for each batch. The temperature and humidity selected were close to the mean values 

of modeled temperature and relative humidity at times of ~2,500, and ~1,500 years for the first 

and second batches, respectively, as shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. The water dripping rates 

for each set were selected based on the modeled seepage water flow rates for each repository 

time and were adjusted a focused flow to be equivalent to the test specimen size, as discussed 

in Jung, et al. (2011). 

To evaluate the depth of pitting, the posttest stainless steel samples were analyzed with a laser 

profilometer. The laser profilometer is a noncontact, fully automatic imaging system with a 

depth resolution (z axis of the machine) of 0.5 μm [1.97 × 10−5

 in] and lateral surface resolution 

of 1 μm [3.94 × 10−5

 in] (x and y axes). The laser profilometer uses a laser-optical displacement 

sensor and signal conditioning electronics to measure the vertical distance on a material. The 

laser used is a helium-neon laser operating a wavelength of 632.8 nm [2.49 × 10−5

 in]. The 

sensor uses the optical triangulation principle where a visible, modulated point of light is 

projected onto the sample surface. The diffusive part of the reflection of this point of light is 

focused onto a charged couple device array. The intensity of the beam provides information 

about the vertical distance. Laser scans of surface morphology were conducted for all four 

samples. The scan lateral resolution was set at 5 μm [1.97 × 10−4

 in]. 
2-4 

Table 2-3. Test Matrix of 316L Stainless Steel Dripping Tests 

Temperature and Relative 

Humidity 

Water Dripping 

Rate Test Duration 

Specimen 

Identification 

80 °C [176 °F] and 

85 Percent Relative Humidity 

80 mL/day 

[2.71 oz/day] 

37 Days A, B, C, and D 

95 °C [203 °F] and 

75 Percent Relative Humidity 

65 mL/day 

[2.20 oz/day] 

67 Days E and F 
3-1 

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

This section summarizes and discusses the results of experiments and analyses of stainless 

steel, including weight loss measurements and corrosion surface morphologies. In addition, salt 

deposits formed on the posttest specimens were characterized in terms of chemical composition 

and phases using energy dispersive spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction. 

3.1 First Batch of Tests at 80 °C [176 °F] and Relative Humidity of 

85 Percent 

Figure 3-1 shows optical photos of the posttest specimens after 37 days of dripping tests at 

80 °C [176 °F] and relative humidity of 85 percent. Most of the surface area on the front 

upper side subjected to water dripping was covered with white salt deposits. The white 

deposits were also observed on the lower back side, particularly the outside area of the 

polytetrafluoroethylene-spacer-covered inner area as seen in Figure 3-1. 

Optical Microscopy 

After removing the salt deposits followed by sample cleaning with HNO3 solution, the specimens 

were examined with an optical microscope. Figure 3-2 shows typical morphologies of the 

corroded surface of stainless steel. After 37 days of dripping tests, as shown in Figure 3-2, 

corrosion pits were observed throughout the areas exposed to the dripping water for all tested 

specimens. Many small-sized pits {about 1 μm [3.94 × 10−5 in]} were also present. Caseres and 

Mintz (2010) also observed salt deposit formation and localized corrosion (i.e., pitting) on 

304 stainless steel. In these tests by Caseres and Mintz (2010), 304 stainless steel was 

exposed to different chloride deposits, including a simulated sea salt, sodium chloride, and 

magnesium chloride deposits. The 304 stainless steel with the various salt deposits was 

exposed to different atmospheric conditions, including 50 ±C [122 ±F] at 65 percent relative 

humidity, 50 ±C [122 ±F] at 50 percent relative humidity, and 50 ±C [122 ±F] at 40 percent relative 

humidity. Under all of these conditions, pitting was observed for the samples exposed to 

simulated sea salt and magnesium chloride. Pitting was not observed on the samples exposed 

to sodium chloride, because the relative humidity used for the testing was not high enough to 

cause the salt to deliquesce. The pitting depth was not measured for these tests. One 

additional test was conducted for 304 stainless steel exposed to a simulated sea salt deposit at 

65 ±C [122 ±F] at 70 percent relative humidity. Large pits were observed to form on the samples 

exposed to this environment. The pits were measured with laser profilometry, which provided a 

corrosion rate on the order of 4.5 mm/yr [0.180 in/yr]. 

Surface Topography

The observed pits were further analyzed by using laser profilometry to estimate the pit depth. 

Figure 3-3(a) shows a typical pit morphology of the corroded surface of stainless steel 

exposed to dripping conditions. As can be seen from both the three-dimensional and 

two-dimensional profiles in Figure 3-3(b) and 3-3(c), respectively, the pit has a width of roughly 

150 μm [5.91 × 10−3

 in] and a depth of roughly 40 μm [1.58 × 10−3 in]. These results are similar 

to those observed from optical microscopy. 
3-2 

Front Side Back Side 

Specimen A 

Front Side Back Side 

Specimen B 

 

Front Side Back Side 

Specimen C 

Front Side Back Side 

Specimen D 

Figure 3-1. Photos of Posttest Surfaces of 316L Stainless Steel After 37 Days of Dripping at 

80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity 

Corrosion Rate 

Corrosion rates of stainless steel specimens were calculated using Eq. (3-1) per ASTM G1-03 

(ASTM International, 2003), and results are listed in Table 3-1 

 Corrosion Rate [nm/yr] = (8.76 × 1010 × ∆w) / (ρ × A × t) (3-1) 

[where ∆w: weight loss (g), ρ: stainless steel density {7.98 g/cm3

 [0.29 lb/in3]}, A: exposed 

surface area {36.25 cm2

 [5.62 in2]}, and t: exposed time (hours)]. The exposed surface of 

36.25 cm2 [5.62 in2

] is the sum of the areas, including the upper front side of 20.27 cm2

[3.14 in2

], the edge area of 4.78 cm2 [0.74 in2], and the wetted back side of 11.19 cm2 [1.73 in2]. 

Because a part of the lower back side, except the area inside the polytetrafluoroethylene 

cylinder spacer, was wetted with the dripped water as seen in Figure 3-1, this wetted area of 

11.19 cm2

 [1.73 in2] was included in the exposed surface area. 
3-3 

Specimen A Specimen B 

Specimen C Specimen D 

Figure 3-2. Optical Micrographs of 316L Stainless Steel Surfaces After 37 Days of Dripping at 

80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity

As seen in Table 3-1, all samples exhibited weight loss and the amount of loss increased 

with test time. After 37 days, the corrosion rate ranged from 10 to 41 nm/yr [3.94 × 10−7

 to 

1.61 × 10−6

 in/yr] and the average rate was 27 nm/yr [1.06 × 10−6 in/yr] with the standard 

deviation of 13.4 nm/yr [5.28 × 10−7

 in/yr]. This average rate is close to a low bound of 

corrosion rate of 10 nm/yr [3.94 × 10−7

 in/yr] for stainless steel in the literature, as discussed in 

Chapter 1. 

3.2 Second Batch of Tests at 95 °C [203 °F] and Relative Humidity of 

75 Percent 

Similar to the observations on stainless steel from the first batch, the posttest stainless steel 

specimens were covered with white deposits after 67 days of dripping tests at 95 °C [203 °F] 
3-4 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-3. Surface Topography of 316L Stainless Steel Specimen after 37 Days of 

Dripping At 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity: (a) Optical Micrograph, 

(b) 3-D Laser Scan Profiles of the Pit Area, and (c) 2-D Profiles. Note: the Square Box in 

(a) Indicates the Laser Scanning Area. The Units in (b) and (c) Indicate x, y, and z axes 

Are in Micrometers. 
3-5 

(c) 

Figure 3-3 (continued). Surface Topography of 316L Stainless Steel Specimen after 37 

Days of Dripping At 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity: (a) Optical 

Micrograph, (b) 3-D Laser Scan Profiles of the Pit Area, and (c) 2-D Profiles. Note: the 

Square Box in (a) Indicates the Laser Scanning Area. The Units in (b) and (c) Indicate x, 

y, and z axes Are in Micrometers. 

Table 3-1. Corrosion Rates of 316L Stainless Steel After 37 Days Dripped at 80 °C 

[176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity 

Specimen 

Identification 

Initial Weight 

(g) 

Weight 

Loss (g) 

Corrosion Rate 

(nm/yr)* 

Average Corrosion 

Rate ± Standard 

Deviation (nm/yr)†

A 47.92718 0.00003 10 

27 ± 13.4 B 47.66421 0.00007 24 

C 48.06729 0.00012 41 

D 47.99737 0.00010 34 

*1 nm/yr = 3.94 × 10−8 in/yr
3-6 

and relative humidity of 75 percent (not shown here). After removing the deposits, as seen in 

Figure 3-4, the stainless steel surface exhibited several corrosion pits and the surface was 

heavily corroded. There was also evidence of grain boundary attack [see Figure 3-4(b) and 

3-4(c) on specimen F]. With a slightly higher test temperature of 95 °C [203 °F] compared 

to the first batch, it appeared there was active dissolution without passivation under the 

test condition. 

This nonpassivation of stainless steel resulted in a relatively high corrosion rate as shown in the 

results in Table 3-2, which lists calculated corrosion rates with weight losses after 67 days of 

tests. The average corrosion rate was 931 nm/yr [3.54 × 10−5

 in/yr], and this rate was much 

higher than that measured at 80 °C [176 °F] in the first batch. The higher test temperature led 

to a higher corrosion rate. 

 

Specimen E (Front Side) Specimen F (Front Side) 

 

Specimen F (Front Side) Specimen F (Back Side Center Area) 

Figure 3-4. Optical Micrographs of 316L Stainless Steel Surfaces after 67 Days of 

Dripping at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity
3-7 

Table 3-2. Corrosion Rates of Stainless Steel After 67 Days of Dripping Tests at 95 °C 

[203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity 

Specimen 

Identification 

Initial 

Weight 

(g) 

Weight 

Loss (g) 

Corrosion Rate 

(nm/yr)* 

Average Corrosion 

Rate ± Standard 

Deviation (nm/yr)* 

E 48.00047 0.00532 1,002 

931 ± 99.9 

F 47.87168 0.00457 861 

*1 nm/yr = 3.94 × 10−8 in/yr

3.3 Salt Deposits Analysis 

The chemical compositions and phases of the salts deposited on the stainless steel specimens 

were analyzed using energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction analysis. 

Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy was used to determine the elemental composition of the 

corrosion products, whereas x-ray diffraction analysis was used to determine the phase 

composition. Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis was carried out using a Noran 

Voyager M3105 system. X-ray diffraction analysis was carried out using a Siemens Kristalloflex 

805 with D500 Goniometer. The salts present in the corrosion products were identified by 

comparing the x-ray diffraction analysis spectra of the samples with reference spectra of 

different salts in a database. Note that x-ray diffraction analysis using the goniometer for this 

study has a detection limit of about 5 weight percent to identify a phase composition. 

The energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis results of salt deposits from the first and 

second batches are shown in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5 shows that the white 

deposits consist of calcium, carbon, oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, and 

chloride. The higher concentrations of calcium, carbon, and oxygen suggest that the white 

deposit is primarily calcium carbonate, deposited from the evaporation of the dripping water. 

This salt was also confirmed from the x-ray diffraction analysis data shown in Figure 3-6, which 

indicates that the salts are dominantly calcium carbonate. Sodium, magnesium, sulfur, and 

chloride came from the dripping water. Aluminum and silicon are likely from residual deposits 

from the specimen surface preparation process before the test and/or possibly from the 

stainless steel matrix by dissolution. In particular, a significant amount of silicon (more than 5 

weight percent) appeared on the salt formed in the second batch compared to the silicon 

concentration in the first batch. 

Previous thermodynamic calculation results from an OLI Analyzer Studio evaporation simulation 

(OLI Systems Inc., 2010) indicated the possible formation of calcium carbonate, magnesium 

carbonate, sodium sulfate, and sodium-calcium sulfate for the salts formed by evaporation 

under the two batch test conditions (Jung, et al., 2011). Based on the energy dispersive x-ray 

spectroscopy results, silicate compounds and sodium chloride also could be present in the salt 

deposit but in amounts less than the detection limit of the x-ray diffraction analysis. 
3-8 

Table 3-3. Elemental Composition of Salt Deposit on 316L Stainless Steel Specimens 

Tested (i) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity and (ii) at 95 °C [203 °F] 

and 75 Percent Relative Humidity (in Weight Percent) 

Element 

(i) 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent 

Relative Humidity 

(ii) 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 Percent 

Relative Humidity 

Na 16.81 0.75 

Mg 4.00 6.91 

Al — 0.54 

Si 1.51 5.18 

S 10.45 0.44 

Cl 3.25 — 

Ca 63.09 86.18 

Total 100.00 100.00 
3-9 

 (a) 

 (b) 

Figure 3-5. Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy of the Salts Deposited on the 316L Stainless 

Steel Specimen Tested (a) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity and (b) at 95 °C 

[203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity
3-10 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-6. X-ray Diffraction Spectra of Salts Deposited on the 316L Stainless Steel 

Specimens Tested (a) at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 Percent Relative Humidity and (b) at 95 °C 

[203 °F] and 75 Percent Relative Humidity. Also Shown Are the Reference Spectra of Salts 

That Best Match the Salt Deposit Spectra.
4-1 

4 CONCLUSIONS 

In this report, the corrosion behavior of stainless steel type 316L was evaluated under seepage 

water dripping conditions. The main conclusions from this study follow. 

• In the first batch of tests at 80 °C [176 °F] and 85 percent relative humidity, the surfaces 

of the posttest specimens exhibited several corrosion pits. After 37 days of dripping 

tests, the corrosion rate ranged from 10 to 41 nm/yr [3.94 × 10−7

 to 1.61 × 10−6 in/yr] 

and the average rate was 27 nm/yr [1.06 × 10−6

 in/yr]. This rate is close to a low 

bound of 10 nm/yr [3.94 × 10−7

 in/yr] for stainless steel obtained from immersion tests in 

the literature. 

• In the second batch of tests at 95 °C [203 °F] and 75 percent relative humidity, pits were 

also present on the specimen surface and the surface was heavily corroded. There was 

also evidence of grain boundary attack. It appeared there was active dissolution without 

passivation. After 67 days of dripping tests, the average corrosion rate was 930 nm/yr 

[3.54 × 10−6

 in/yr] and this rate was much higher than that measured at 80 °C [176 °F] in 

the first batch. The higher test temperature led to a higher corrosion rate. 

• Results of chemical and phase analyses of the salts and thermodynamic calculations 

indicate that the major composition was calcium carbonate and several other 

compositions were possibly precipitated, including magnesium carbonate, sodium 

(calcium) sulfate, sodium chloride, and silica. 
5-1 

5 REFERENCES 

ASTM International. “Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens.” 

ASTM G1-03. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International. 2003. 

Caseres, L. and T.S. Mintz. NUREG/CR–7030, “Atmospheric Stress Corrosion Cracking 

Susceptibility of Welded and Unwelded 304, 304L, and 316L Austenitic Stainless Steels 

Commonly Used for Dry Cask Storage Containers Exposed to Marine Environments.” 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2010. 

DOE. DOE/RW–0573, “Yucca Mountain Repository License Application.” Rev. 0. 

ML081560400. Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

2008. 

Dunn, D.S., Y.-M. Pan, X. He, L.T. Yang, and R.T. Pabalan. “Evolution of Chemistry and Its 

Effects on the Corrosion Engineered Barrier Materials.” The 30th Symposium on the Scientific 

Basis for Nuclear Waste Management. Fall Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, 

November 27–December 1, 2006. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: Materials Research Society. 2006. 

EPRI. “Climatic Corrosion Considerations for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations in 

Marine Environments.” EPRI 1013524. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research 

Institute. 2006. 

_____. “Effects of Marine Environments on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic Stainless 

Steels.” EPRI 1011820. Palo Alto, California: EPRI. 2005. 

He, X., O. Pensado, T. Ahn, and P. Shukla. “Model Abstraction of Stainless Steel Waste 

Package Degradation.” Proceedings of 2011 International Radioactive Waste Management 

Conference (IHLRWMC), Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 10–14, 2011. Paper No. 3460. 

La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. 2011. 

Jung, H., X. He, T. Ahn, T. Mintz, and R. Pabalan. “Corrosion of Alloy 22 and Titanium Alloys 

Under Seepage Water Dripping Conditions.” San Antonio, Texas: Center for Nuclear Waste 

Regulatory Analyses. 2011. 

Kursten, B., E. Smailos, I. Azkarate, L. Werme, N.R. Smart, and G. Santarini. “COBECOMA, 

State-of-the-Art Document on the Corrosion Behavior of Container Materials.” 

Contract No. FIKW–CT–20014–20138. Final Report. Brussels, Belgium: European 

Commission. 2004. 

OLI Systems, Inc. “A Guide to Using OLI Analyzer Studio Version 3.1.” Morris Plains, 

New Jersey: OLI Systems, Inc. 2010. 

Sandia National Laboratories. “Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model.” ANL–EBS–MD–000049. 

Rev. 03, ADD 02 ERD 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Sandia National Laboratories. 2008. 

Shirai, K., M. Wataru, and T. Saegusa. “Long-Term Containment Performance Test of Metal 

Cask.” Proceedings of 2011 International Radioactive Waste Management Conference 

(IHLRWMC), Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 10–14, 2011. Paper No. 3332. La Grange Park, 

Illinois: American Nuclear Society. 2011a. 
5-2 

Shirai, K., J. Tani, T. Arai, M. Wataru, H. Takeda, and T. Saegusa. “SCC Evaluation of 

Multi-Purpose Canister.” Proceedings of 2011 International Radioactive Waste Management 

Conference (IHLRWMC), Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 10–14, 2011. Paper No. 3333. 

La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. 2011b.