ML083450718

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
University of Florida - Request for Additional Information Re Training Reactor
ML083450718
Person / Time
Site: 05000083
Issue date: 11/26/2008
From: Haghighat A
Univ of Florida
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML083450718 (24)
v • d • e


Text

UF 202 Nuclear Science Bldg.

College of Engineering Department of Nuclear & Radiological Engineering PO Box 118300 Gainesville, FL 32611-8300 352-392-1401 x306 352-392-3380 Fax haghighat@ufl.edu November 26, 2008 US NRC Document Control Desk MS T-2F8 Washington DC, 20555 Re: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-83 Please find attached our responses to the RAI, Docket No. 50-83. Please inform me if you need other information.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on I 1/26/.DT Sincerely Alireza Haghighat, PhD I-Professor and Chair Interim Director of UFTR Cc Mr. Alexander Adams, Project Manager, NRC Mr. Duane Hardesty, Project Manager, NRC Mr. Brian Shea, Reactor Manager, UF Mr. Matt Berglund, SRO, UF Dr. Ce Yi, UF The Foundationfor The GatorNation An Equal Opportunity Institution

Responses to REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-83 by Alireza Haghighat, Interim Director of UFTR Ce Yi, Research Scientist, UFTR Matthew Berglund, SRO. UFTR Brian Shea, Manager, UFTR Nuclear & Rdiological Engineering Department University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Building Gainesville, Florida 32611 (352) 392-1401 (November 26, 2008)

Responses to REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-83 Question 1: Your letter dated April 7, 2008, states that the normal operatingpressure for the secondary side is not monitored,but thatsecondaryflow rate is about 4 times higher than the primaryflow rate so the dynamicpressure ofthe secondary system is expected to be higherthan the primarysystem pressure. Therefore, ifa significant leak is developed on the primary/secondaryboundary, the resistivity of the primarywater is expected to change, which is constantly monitoredand controlled.The technicalspecifications (TSs) limits on primaryflow rate are greaterthan 36 gpm or 41 gpm depending on fuel coolant channelspacing tolerance,and the TSs limits on secondaryflow rate are greaterthan 60 gpm when usinga well system and 8 gpm when using city water.

Is the assumption that a significantleak would be detected in theprimarywater resistivityvalid if the reactoris operatingat the TS limit of 36 gpm or 41 gpm primaryflow rate (or normalprimaryflow rate ifit is in excess of the allowed TS limit) and 60 gpm or 8 gpm secondaryflow rate?In your response, addresshow the primaryand secondarypressuresare affected by the flow characteristicsin the heat exchanger.

Response 1:

The resistivity of primary water is monitored. If some fission products leak into the primary coolant due to fuel failure, this will cause resistivity change in the primary water regardless of the flow rates.

The shell-tube type heat exchanger is one of the Type AHTR series, manufactured by AMETEK (Type 316 Stainless Steel, U-tube configuration), with one pass on the shell side for the secondary coolant, and two-pass on the tube side for the primary coolant.

Here we use the Kern method (Refs. 1 and 2) to estimate the shell-side and tube-side pressure drop.

The shell-side pressure drop can be estimated by the following equation.

Aps = fSG2 Ns-Ds 1) 2 pDe4)s Where f, = exp (0.576 - 0.19

  • ln(Res)) is Fanning friction factor on shell side (Note the factor also takes entrance and exit pressure losses into account)

D,= shell inner diameter

-=M...E is the shell side mass velocity 2

m, = the shell side mass flow rate As = DCBPT is the shell side cross flow area C = the distance between tubes (see Figure 1)

PT = tube pitch size ( see Figure 1)

PT Figure 1 - Triangle pitch size parameters (Re, = Gs) 1ts =shell-side Reynolds number (Eq. 1 is valid for 400 < 1?e < 1 x 106) 4Xfree flow area =8 ) = Equivalent diameter of the shell side wetted perimeter 7rdo/2 for triangular pitch.

do = Tube outer diameter p = shell side water density L,= shell side length B = baffle spacing N8 = number of times the shell side water passes across the tube bundle (N=*L/B)

I,, = ()o.14 la = the shell side water viscosity at shell side water temperature ttw = the shell side water viscosity at tube wall temperature The tube side pressure drop is calculated by the following equation Apt = (4ft x * + 4Np) T(2) di 2

Where,

[ft = (1.581n (Re) - 3.28)- 2 ] = the friction factor on the tube side Np = the number of passes on the tube side L = tube length.

di = tube inner diameter Vt = the average flow speed (m/s)

The first part of Eq. 2 accounts for the pressure drop due to friction, and the second part accounts for pressure drop due to the change of direction of U-tubes.

In order to use Eqs 1 and 2, parameters given in Table 1 are considered.

3

Table 1 - Parameters used to evaluate pressure drop in the heat exchanger.

Parameters value tube inner diameter 5.35E-02 m tube outer diameter 6.35E-03 m shell inner diameter 2.06E-01 m shell length 1.10E+00 m tube length 1.001E+00 m number of baffle 10 pitch size (Pt) 1.27E-02 m tube distance ( C) 6.35E-03 m number of passes (tube side) 2 number of tubes 126 Average Primary Coolant Temp. 86.5 *F Average Secondary Coolant Temp. 75.3 *F For reference, we use primary flow rate at 40 gpm, and secondary flow rate at 200 gpm (well water). The effects of different flow rates will be discussed later. In Table 2, the temperatures are the average measured values, and they are used to look up the viscosity values.

4

Table 2 - Pressure drop in the heat exchanger for the reference case (primary flow rate =

40 gpm, secondary flow rate = 200 gpm)

Flow rate (gpm) Pressure Drop (psi)

Shell-side (Secondary) 200 2.18 Tube-Side (Primary) 40 4.42 Above table indicates that the pressure drops in the primary and secondary sides are relatively small, and moreover the primary drop is larger than the secondary side.

The heat exchanger shell-side and tube-side inlet/outlet pressures are not monitored in UFTR. However, we can estimate the pressures based on the piping layout and pump characteristics. Figure 5-5 in UFTR SAR shows the schematic of UFR secondary coolant system. The figure is also attached in this document (Appendix A). A simplified version of Figure 5-5 in SAR is used here to estimate the primary outlet and secondary inlet pressures as shown in Figure 2 To fuel box top

-15 ft

-12 ft Secondary inlet Primary Iiet Heat 126 ft exchanger well 6 pump Water level Figure 2 schematic of UFTR secondary coolant system used for determination of heat exchanger inlet/outlet pressures.

The well pump, model 150HJO is manufactured by Goulds Pumps, ITT Industry. The specifications of the pump are given in Appendix B. According to the data given in the Appendix, the pump at 10 hp, for 200 gpm, has a dynamic head of 163 ft. In Figure 3, 5

the height difference between the pump and heat exchanger is -1 1 ft (126 ft minus 15 ft).

Assuming no significant pressure loss in the pipes, the secondary inlet pressure is about 50 ft (163 ft minus 111 ft) water above the atmosphere pressure. While on the primary side, the height from the heat exchanger to the top of fuel box (where the pressure is atmosphere) is -12 ft. The primary outlet pressure is about 12 ft water above the atmosphere pressure. Considering 1 psi is equal to 2.306 ft water, then the inlet pressure for the secondary is -36.4 psi, and the outlet pressure for the primary is -19.9 psi.

Considering the expected pressure drop in the heat exchanger give in Table 2, the secondary outlet pressure is -34.2 psi, which is -72% higher than the primary outlet pressure. This difference increases as the secondary flow rate decreases, e.g., at 100 gpm with a dynamic head of 238 ft, the pressure difference is -251%. This means that there is always a negative pressure which prevents any leak from the primary loop to the secondary loop.

Figures 3 and 4 show the pressure drop as a function of flow rate for the primary and secondary sides, respectively.

6 5.5 53.s 0.3 2.5 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Primary flow rate (gpm)

Figure 3 - Primary pressure drop in the heat exchanger for different flow rates 6

2.5 2 _

M L 1.5 a.

0.5 0.

0 50 100 150 200 Secondary flow rate (gpm)

Figure 4 - Secondary pressure drop in the heat exchanger for different flow rates Above figures show that the primary pressure drop ranges from 2.61 psi to 5.72 psi for a flow rate from 30 gpm to 46 gpm. While the secondary pressure drop is below 2.18 psi for a flow rate up to 200 gpmn In conclusion, the secondary pressure remains higher than the primary pressure in the heat exchanger when operating on the well water. For city water, the primary pressure drop is still larger than the secondary pressure drop. The primary heat exchanger inlet pressure is likely higher than the secondary inlet pressure. So it is not valid to assume that the secondary pressure is always higher than the primary pressure. However, the activity release is limited even if there is leakage in the heat exchanger (See analysis in Question 2).

Question 2: Your letter datedApril 7, 2008, states that "with conservative assumptions on sodium in the primary coolant system, irradiationtime, neutronflux level, cross section, primary-to-secondaryleakage and secondary dilutingflow, the following values are determinedfor a 1 liter/hr undetected leak rate continuing for I hour with I ppm sodium assumed in the primary coolantsystem. Activation for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> yields -54 mCi Na-24 in the primary coolant tank at a concentration of-0. 0895 puCi/ml before dilution by the secondaryflow. Fora I liter/hourleak rate undetectedfor an hour, the concentrationassuming 140 gpm well waterflow (minimum based on well waterflow withoutflow warning light), the concentrationbecomes -2.8E-06 ,Ci/mI. Public release is allowed at 5E-3 pCi/mI so we conclude that this unlikely event would not be a problem in this regard."

Question 2a: What is the basisfor the 'assumptionsof 1 ppm sodium in the primary coolant, activationfor 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, and I liter/hourleak ratefor I hour?

7

Response 2a:

The activity release is calculated by the following equation.

AR = OoraN(1 - 1e-aX LR (3)

FR

Where, AR = Activity release in the unit of pCi/ml 0, = 2.0 x 1012 neutrons/cm 2sec is the core total (fast + thermal) flux at 100 kW a,= Microscopic absorption cross section for Na-23 N = Number of Na atoms in 1 ml primary coolant (Sodium concentration)

%= Decay coefficient of Na-24 (Tf/-=15.02 hrs) t = Activation time LR = Primary to secondary leakage rate FR = Secondary flow rate A. Estimation of activity for different operation times and sodium concentration The reason for considering a sodium concentration of lppm sodium is based on the measurement results by UF Extension Soil Testing Library. (See attachment). Two water samples are filtered primary coolant and the unfiltered city water (before entering the primary system). Results show that the primary coolant sodium concentration is 0.7 ppm.

As a conservative measure, we have considered an operation time of 10 hrs, while the current operation time of the UFTR by the Technical Specifications is 6 hrs. We will further examine the effects of operation time and sodium concentration.

Here, in order to examine the effect of higher Na concentration and longer operation times, we evaluate the activity release for concentrations in a range of 1-10 ppm for operation hours of 10 to 100 hrs. Figure 1 compares the activity release for different hours of operation as a function of Na concentration in the primary coolant. Note that these calculations are based on 1 liter/hr leakage rate, and 60 gpm secondary flow rate.

8

6.OOOOE-04 5.OOOOE-04 E

4.OOOOE-04

_ -+---t=l0hrs 3 3.OOOOE-04 --i--t=l5hrs 2.OOOOE-04 -- ___

1.OOOOE-04 -.-- Monthly limit 0.OOOOE+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Concentration of Na (ppm)

Figure 1 - Comparison of the activity release for different operation time as a function of sodium concentration (100 kW, 1 liter/hr, 60 gpm)

Above figure indicates that the activity is less than the monthly limit if sodium concentration is less 9 ppm even at an unrealistic case of 100 hrs of operation. Only, for cases with concentrations between 9 ppm and 10 ppm the concentration exceeds the limit for the 100 hrs operation case. Further, this diagram indicates at a more realistic value of Na concentration of 1 ppm and operation time of 10 hrs, the activity release is less than the limit by a factor of -25.

B. Estimation of activity release for different leakage rates Figure 2 compares the activity leakage for different coolant Leakage Rate (LR) as a function the Na concentration in the primary coolant for 10 hrs operation time and 60 gpm secondary flow rate, at 100 kW.

9

1.20E-03 I .OOE-03 *LR=1 E 8.OOE-04 -U-LR=2 U LR=3 6.OOE-04 ....

-- - LR=5 S4.00E-04 IM . . . Monthly limit

- 2.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0 5 10 Concentration of Na (ppm)

Figure 2 - Comparison of the activity release for different primary to secondary leakage rate as a function of sodium concentration (100 kW, operation time of 10 hrs, and 60 gpm secondary flow rate)

As expected, Fig. 2 shows that activity leakage increases linearly as the primary coolant leakage rate increases. Further, Figure 1 demonstrates that for more realistic values of Na concentration of < 1 ppm even at a leakage rate of 5 liter/hr, the activity leakage is less than the limit by a factor of -5.

C. Estimation of activity release for different secondary flow rates UFTR has two secondary water supplies: i) well water; ii) city water. UFTR operates on the well water, and city water is used as a temporary backup for normal shutdown. Based on the current UFTR Technical Specifications, the nominal well water flow rate is -200 gpm. A warning is triggered if flow drops to 140 gpm or less, and the reactor is tripped if the flow rate drops to 60 gpm or less. The nominal city water flow rate is -30 gpm, and reactor is shutdown if the flow rate drops to 8 gpm or less. In order to examine the effect of secondary flow rate for both well and city waters, in Figure 3, we compare the leakage rate for different Na concentrations as a function of different flow rates for operation time of 10 hrs and leakage rate (primary to secondary) of 1 liter/hr at 100 kW.

10

Figure 3 - Comparison of the activity release for different sodium concentrations as a function of secondary flow rate for 1 liter/hr leakage (operation time of 10 hrs, 100 kW).

Above figure indicates even if the secondary flow is as low as 8 gprn, the leakage activity is less than the limit for Na concentrations of up 3 ppm. If the secondary flow rate between 100 gpm to 200 gpm, where the latter is the nominal value, for a more5 realistic5 Na concentration of I ppm, the leakage activity varies in the range of 1.2 x10- to 6xl0 which is significantly smaller than the limit by a factor of-40 to -100.

Figs. 4 to 7 show the leakage activity as a function of secondary flow rate for different Na concentration for leakage rates of 2, 3, 4, and 5 liter/hr, respectively.

11

1.4000E-03 1.2000E-03 UmaI-pndaftof2 iTIT1, E. Na=l ppm 1.0000E -- Na=2ppm

~8.0"0E-04 - -- - - - - - - - - - Na=3ppm 2*~ Na=4ppm v 6.0000E-04 - - -- Morthy limit 2.0000E-04 0.0000E400 0 1020 30 4050 6070 80 901011 12 13 141516 1718 19 2021 000 00 0 00000 0 Secondary Flow Rate (gpm)

Figure 4 - Comparison of the activity release for different sodium concentrations as a function of secondary flow rate for 2 liter/hr leakage (operation time of 10 hrs, 100 kW).

  • - 2.OOOOE-03 1.8000E-03 0 1.6000E-03

.o 1.4000E-03 1.2000E-03 [.-Na= 1ppm 1.OOOOE-03 Na=2ppm 8.OOOOE-04 Na=3ppm

' 6.OOOOE-04 Na=4ppm 4.0000E-04 Monthly limit 40 2.OOOOE-04

-j O.OOOOE+00 0 1020304050607080 901011121314 15 161718192021 000 000 00 00 0 00 Secondary flow rate (gpm)

Figure 5 - Comparison of the activity release for different sodium concentrations as a function of secondary flow rate for 3 liter/hr leakage (operation time of 10 hrs, 100 kW).

12

.q flflflF-flq E - Lakag raft of 4 Iulhr 2.5000E-03 --

  • Na=lppm o 2.OOOOE-03 -- Na=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm 1.500E-03 1.OOE0 1.0000E-03 ---- Mnthly limit

-* 5.0000E-04 0.0000E+00 0 1020304050607080901011 12131415161718192021 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 Secondary flow rate (gpm)

Figure 6 - Comparison of the activity release for different sodium concentrations as a function of secondary flow rate for 4 liter/hr leakage (operation time of 10 hrs, 100 kW).

3.5000E-03 3.OOOOE-03 2.5000E-03 0

2 .5000E-03 --

-- N= p Na=2ppm S1 .5000E-03 N~p

.5 1.000E-0

-~Monthly fmit 5.0000E-04 0.0000E+00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 secondary flow rate (gpm)

Figure 7 - Comparison of the activity release for different sodium concentrations as a function of secondary flow rate for 5 liter/hr leakage (operation time of 10 hrs, 100 kW).

Above figure shows that as long as secondary flow rate is more than 60 gpm even for 5 liter/hr leakage rate, for a realistic Na concentration of 1 ppm, and 10 hrs of operation time at 100 kW, leakage activity is significantly less than the limit by a factor of-5.

13

In conclusion, above analysis demonstrates that considering highly conservative 12 parameters including operation time of 10 hrs, total flux level of 2xl0 , leakage rate of 5 liter/hr, power of 100 kW, and Na concentration of 1 ppmn, leakage activity will remain significantly below (by a factor of 5) the monthly limit if the secondary flow rate is above 60 gpm.

Since the city water is not meant to be used for normal operation, and reactor does not need cooling in case of loss of coolant, we intend to modify the Technical Specification by removing the use of city water and increasing the secondary flow trip setpoint to 100 gpm. For this situation even for the leakage rate of 5 liter/hr, the activity leakage is less than the limit by a factor of 10.

Question 2b: How is the public release limit (5E-3 pCi/mI)derived?Appendix B to 10 CFR Part20, Table 2, Column 2, lists an averageyearly concentrationrelease limit of5E-5 pCi/mifor water effluents, and Table 3 list a monthly average concentration release limit to sewers as 5E-4 pCi/mI.

Response 2b:

The release limit has been updated to the monthly limit 5E-4 pCi/ml Question 2c. As discussedpreviously,the TS limit on secondaryflow rate is 60 gpm when using well water and 8 gpm using city water. Therefore, provide an estimated effluent concentrationassumingthe allowed TS limitsfor secondary.flow.

Response 2c:

The analysis on the secondary flow rate is discussed in Section D in the answer to question 2.a Question 2d: What is the basisfor your conclusion that a primary to secondary leak is unlikely?

Response 2d:

The statement is based on the analysis (See the answers to Question 1) oFthe pressure drop in the heat exchanger for the primary and secondary sides.

14

References

1. Kern, D.Q., ProcessHeat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York 1950.
2. Kakac, Sadik and Liu, Hongtan, Heat Exchanger Selection, Rating and Thermal Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2002 15

Appendix A - Schematic of UFTR secondary coolant system (From SAR Figure 5-5)

Cate Basket Check Total Tlow2atter Volvo Strainer Valve Flow Valve city water and ?low Switch muiklclow Preventer Thotl t/4" TeCUum Vrrnn CfI?

Conncl*tion

Appendix B - UFTR Secondary Coolant Pump (well pump) Specifications LGOULDS PUMPS Model 150H METERS FEET800 . . . .. . .. . 80 JOED RANGE 700 - -. 70 150H25 10 200 I-600 -----

1 60 150

15OH208 I 50 I

500- i oo--- ....... ...

0 400.-150H15 6..

40 z L.L I'_ LUj 100 300 30 150H104 200=_

20 150H07 3 50 7 7

1 SOHOS 2 10 K 00L 7

01 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 GPM I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 m 3lhr CAPACITY Curve Reference SU 507 DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS DISCHARGE 3"NPT W.E. Moto;°or W.E. Motor Motor Motor WE !t t Motor W.E.LOA Wt. HP Stages Order Order PHvolts Lgth. tq LOA (lb HP Stages Order Order PH Motor No. No. Volts Lgth. Lgth. (lbs.) No. No. I 11 28.2 18.0 46.2 95 5139701 1 230 33.1 39.3 72.4 255 510940 1 230 510978 200 9S13 78 2 00 150H05 2 S10970 230 15 6 150H156 513971 230 S10975 3 460 22.2 18.0 40.2 95 S13972 3 460 28.0 39.3 67.3 229 S10979 575 S13979 575 S11970 1 230 28.0 24.3 52.3 185 514978 200 S14971 230

$11978 2C0 20 8 15011208 514972 3 460 30.6 49.3 79.9 274 7.5 3 150H07 3 S11971 230 *514979 575 S11972 3 460 24.2 24.3 48.5 160 97 8

  • S11979 575 S 15 200 215971 230 512970 1 230 30.6 29.3 59.9 215 25 10 150H25 $1597)2 460 33.2 59.3 92316 S12978 2C0 IS15979 1 575 MOIT OR 10 4 15011104 512971 512972

_S12979 230 460 575 25.5 29.3 54.8 185 (All dimensions are in inches and weights in lbs. Do not use for construction purposes.)

LL

'Non-stock motors have a six (6) week lead time.

Water end and motor must be ordered sep-rately and are packaged separately.

4

LGOULDS PUMPS Model 150H SELECTION CHART Horsepower Range 5 - 25, Recommended Range 50- 240 GPM, 60 Hz, 3450 RPM Pump Depth to Water In FeeVRatings in GPM (Gallons per Minute)

Model HP I PSI 25 50 75 100 I 125 150 j 175 200 250 300 350 I 400 450 SO0 600 0 254 230 200 164 I 102 20 206 172 120 I j 150H05 2 5 30 174 122 1 2 Stages 40 126 so

_ 1__60 1 - -

20 2 5D 1-3 1 9 6 2 20 237 220 194 170 130 7 ]

150H07 3 7.5 30 220 197 174 134 78 I 3Stages 40 200 174 1 140 84 50- 176 142 190 - -... ~....

_ _60 144 IO -E -1 20 253 240 225 210 190 168 1140 104 1 150h104 10 30 240 226 210 190 170 140 104 -

4 Stages 40 50 f 228 213 212 193 193 172 172 147 146 iC108 111II 1

I 60 0

20 194 t255 176 257 148 248 116 238 24 228 1 236 1 206 T 218 26 1'216 194 1192 167 I_

I 164 128

_22 J 150H15 6 i5 30 258 248 238 228 218 206 194 181 150 I 100 1 I Stages 40 248 240 230 220 208 196 184 168 130 j I so 240 230 220 209 196 184 170 154 107 60 234 220 210 198 185 172 154 135 78 # #1 0 259 -252 1244 1237 221 204 1E3 163 1134 1 95 20 260 253 246 238 230 223 206 187 166 138 100 1 150H208 20 30 260 253 246 239 231 223 214 197 "177 154 120 8 Stages 40 254 247 240 232 224 216 208 188 168 140 102 so 2S5 247 240 232 224 216 208 199 180 156 .125 80 1 60 247 240 232 225 216 209 199 190 170 142 106 0 2 1 258 1252 240 226 212 803 198 182 165 20 259 253 247 240 227 213 199 183 1166 144 78 15OH25 10 25 30 260 253 247 240 234 220 207 192 175 1 156 132 100 10Stges 40 260 254 247 241 234 228 214 200 184 168 146 118 1 50 260 254 248 242 235 229 222 208 193 177 158 134 104 60 260 254 248 242 235 230 222 216 201 186 169c 143 120 84

Appendix C - UFTR Coolant Sample Test Results Sample number: CW1 - unfiltered (city water)

Sample number: DI1 - filtered (primary coolant)

UNIVERSITY of UFIIFAS Analytical Services ]Laboratories FLORIDA Extension Soil Testing Laboratory Wallace Building 631 PO Box 110740 Gainesville, FL 32611-0740 IFAS Email: soilslaboamail.ifas.ufl.edu Web: soilslab.ifas.ufl.edu Phone #:352-392-1950 Water Test To: Nuclear Engineering/Berglund, Matt For further information contact:

PO Box 118300 Sanders, Cynthia B. & Wilber, Wendy Gainesville, FL 32611 Alachua County Coop Extn Service Tel: 352-392-1429 x318 2800 NE 39th Ave Gainesville, FL 32609-2658 Set: 1852 Tel: 352-955-2402 Report Date: 18-Nov-08 Email: sandersl@ufl.edu Parts per roillicn (ppm or mg/L) Electrical Lab Sample Conductivity Total No Ideniatin Calcium Magnesium Hardness Iron Manganese Sodium Chloride Suspended pH in carbonates Clumjmmho/om in Ca mg Fe I Na Cl Solids or dS/m meq/litcr 22987 CW 1 30.1 21.5 163.4 0.00 0.00 10.5 27.6 0.0 7.60 0.35 0.80 22988 DI I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.7 -0.3 0.0 5.70 0.00 N/A The following table will assist inclasification of water hardness:

REPORT OF WATER TEST RESULTS Interpretation Hardness The reported values have different meanings depending upon the ppm grains per gallon planned uses of the water. The following interpretations are divided into Household Uses and Irrigation sections. Please read the applicable section to better understand these water test results. soft 0 to17 0tol relatively soft 17 to50 1to3 moderately hard 50 to120 3to7 HOUSEHOLD USES INTERPRETATIONS hard 120 to170 7to10 vary hard >170 >10 The physical and chemical determinations made by the Extension Soil Testing Laboratory can be effectively used to diagnose pctential problems in water. However the lab does not test a water's suitability Iron and Mn can impart a metallic taste to water as well as for human consumption. Bacteriological tests may be available from stain clothes and plumbing fixtures. Staining can be caused by the County Health Department or from selected commercial as little as 0.3 ppm Fe or Mn.

laboratories.

Hardness is calculated according to the following equation: Electrical Conductivity of water is related to the amount of Hardness - (pprn Ca x 2.5) + (ppmMg x 4.1) dissolved salts in the wat.er. Higher salinity results in higher (parts per million. ppm) electrical conductivity. Increases in electrical conductivity with time may mean that the aquifer is turning brackish or that salt water intrusion is occuring.

This data report has been issued on the authority of Dr. Rao Mylavarapu, Laboratory Director, and Mr. Pete Straub, QA Officer, in support of Florida Cooperative Extension Services.

Page 1of 2 Print Date: 11118/08

Sodium and Chloride levels are used to define the type of salts pH is a measurement which derminnrs made the level of the acidity or contributing to the electrical conductivity of the water. Electrical alkalinity of the water. Much of the Florida's well waters arc alkaline conductivity measures the presence of all dissolved salts If the (pHl 7.6 to 6.5). The highs pH results from the calcium carbonate aquifer electrical conductivity reading is elevated, the presence of sodium in which the water has been in contact. Use of such water in effect and chloride indicatethat the water source is a brackish or that causes liming of the crop. Some crops, blueberry or pine seedings will saltwater may have intruded into the water source. grow poorly if exposed to watcr containing appreciable amounts of lime.

Surface waters are usually lo%er in p1i.

plH is a measurement which determines the level of acidity of the water. The pH of water can change rapidly for a number of Total Carbonates and Bicarbonates are a direct measure of the liming reasons. If the reading is lower than 6.5, treatem ent of water may potential of the water. For many crops, use of water with an appreciable be necessary to preclude damage to metallic plumbing. liming potential is not of conc rm and may lower the need for agricultural lime additions. Hcaever, as noted above, some crops will be Additional information on interpretation ofthese results can be adversely affected. Neutralization of the liming potential can be found in IFAS Circular 703, "Home Water Quality and Safety.' economically accomplished in some situations by treatement of water with acid. Refer to Notes in Soil Science No. 18, 'Neuralizing excess IRRIGATION AND MCROIRRIGATION bicarbonates from irrigation water' and Notes in Soil Science No. 25, INTERPRETATIONS Quick-test method for pH and bicarbonates in water.'

Interpretation of water quality for irrigation purposes must be Ca and Mg are used to calculate llardnem described in the Hoschold crop specific. Crops respond differently to the quality of water Uses described above.

with which they are irrigated. Use the following information as a guideline to determine if a possible problem exists. If there is a Na and Cl can be used to determine the type of salts present and to possible problem indicated, consult with your county extension diagnose the possibility of saltwater intiraion agent and/or refer to the additional publications cited in the following text. Fe and Mn can cause plant tissue staining. Overhead irrigation with water containing levels above 0.3 ppm may cause staining to foliage.

lectrical conductivity of water is related to the amount of Additionally such levels indicste that the water should be treated to dissolved salts in the water. Higher salinity results in higher prevent microirrigation plugging due to enhanced microbial growth or electrical conductivity. As the electrical conductivity increases, iron encrustations.

the plant must expend more energy to take in nutrients dissolved in the water from fertilizer and the soil. Some plants are very Suspended solids are used to predict the amount of undissolved sensitive to salinity, while others can tolerate a wide range. Use material that is in the water. High suspended solids indicate that the following table to make general interpretations. Refer to IFAS plugging problems are likely to occur if the water is used for Circular 817, 'Soil, Container Media, and Water Testing microirrigation withou adequate filtration.

Interpretations and WAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations.' A reference copy of the circular is Criteria for estimating plugging potential ofmicroinigation water maintained at your county extension office. sources.

Class of water Electrical conductivity -P Phgging potential - -

Factor Units Sigt Moderate Severe dS/m or mmhos/om* pH 7.0 7.0 to 7.5 7.5 Excellent 0.25 Suspended solids ppm 50 50 to 100 100 Good 0.25 to 0.75 Mn.Fe ppmn0.1 0.1 to 1.5 1.5 Permissible 0.75 to 2.00 Hardness ppm 150 150 to 300 300 Doubtful 2.00 to 3.00 Electrical Unsuitable > 3.00 conductivity dS/m 0.7 0.7 to 2.9 2.9

  • Conversion ppm soluble salts - EC x 700 Adopted from WAS Bulletin 258, 'Causes and prevention of emitter plugging in microirrigation systems'
  • Page2 of 2 Print Date: 1118/08

Dr. Ce Yi, UF

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML083450718&oldid=2565581"