ML083460011
| ML083460011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 11/26/2008 |
| From: | Haghighat A Univ of Florida |
| To: | Alexander Adams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML083460011 (23) | |
Text
UUNIVERSITY Ff College of Engineering Department of Nuclear & Radiological Engineering 202 Nuclear Science Bldg.
PO Box 118300 Gainesville, FL 32611-8300 352-392-1401 x306 352-392-3380 Fax haghighat@ufl.edu November 26, 2008 Mr. Alexander Adams Jr.
Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Mail Stop: O-12D3 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Adams:
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 further information.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executedon 111/26/ O Sincerely, Alireza Haghighat, PhD Professor and Chair Interim Director of UFTR Cc Mr. Duane Hardesty, Project Manager, NRC Mr. Brian Shea, Reactor Manager, UF Mr. Matt Berglund, SRO, UF Dr. Ce Yi, UF The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Institution
/0"-)o
i
-7 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 operating pressure for the secondary side is not monitored, but that secondaryflow rate is about 4 times higher than the primaryflow rate so the dynamic pressure of the secondary system is expected to be higher than the primary system pressure. Therefore, if a significant leak is developed on the primary/secondary boundary, the resistivity' of the primary water is expected to change, which is constantly monitored and controlled. The technical specifications (TSs) limits on primaryflow rate are greater than 36 gpm or 41 gpm depending on fuel coolant channel spacing tolerance, and the TSs limits on secondaryflow rate are greater than 60 gpm when using a well system and 8 gpm when using city water.
ls the assumption that a significant leak would be detected in the primary water resistivity valid if the reactor is operating at the TS limit of36 gpm or 41 gpin primaryflow rate (or normal primaryflow rate if it is in excess of the allowed TS limit) and 60 gpm or 8 gpm secondaryflow rate? In your response, address how the primary and secondary pressures are affected by the flow characteristics in 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. I and 2) to estimate the shell-side and tube-side pressure drop.
The shell-side pressure drop can be estimated by the following equation.
fAs-s sDs
'A p s
" " 2 e bs 1
2 pDe~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)
Di= shell inner diameter m s is the shell side mass velocity A,
2
m= the shell side mass flow rate As DsC.B is the shell side cross flow area PT C = the distance between tubes (see Figure 1)
PT = tube pitch size ( see Figure 1)
TPT Figure 1 - Triangle pitch size parameters (Res = GsDe shell-side Reynolds number (Eq. 1 is valid for 400 < Re < 1 x 106)
Its 4xfree flow area 4 X(T
.0d )
[D wetted perimete=
- r 4/2
] = Equivalent diameter of the shell side wette perieter rdo/2 for triangular pitch.
do = Tube outer diameter p = shell side water density Ls= shell side length B = baffle spacing N= number of times the shell side water passes across the tube bundle (Ný=L,/B)
O
/'Ps )0.14 p= the shell side water viscosity at shell side water temperature
,= the shell side water viscosity at tube wall temperature The tube side pressure drop is calculated by the following equation Apt = (4ft X
+ 4Np)v (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 I and 2, parameters given in Table I are considered.
3
r i
Table I - 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 1.003E+00 m number of baffle 10 pitch size (Pt) i.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
-12 ft To fuel box top Primaryo let Seconda inlet
-15 ft Heat exchanger well
)pump 126 ft Water level Figure 2 schematic of UFTR secondary coolant system used for detenrination of heat exchanger inlet/outlet pressures.
The well pump, model 150H1O 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 I1 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 11 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 I 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 t -
- 4 1,t-4!
-4 t-'
II
~
4---
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
4 CU 0.0 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 gpm.
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 dated April 7, 2008, states that "with conservative assumptions on sodium in the primary coolant system, irradiation time, neutron flux level, cross section, primary-to-secondary leakage and secondary dilutingflow, the following values are determinedfor a I liter/hr undetected leak rate continuing for I hour with I ppm sodium assumed in the primary coolant system. 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 pCi/ml before dilution by the secondaryflow. For a I liter/hour leak rate undetected for an hour, the concentration assuming 140 gpm well water flow (minimum based on well water flow without flow warning light), the concentration becomes -2.8E-06 pCi/ml. 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 basis for the 'assumptions of I ppm sodium in the primary coolant, activation for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, and 1 liter/hour leak rate for I hour?
7
Response 2a:
The activity release is calculated by the following equation.
AR = 4)aaN(1 - e-at) x LR (3)
FR
- Where, AR = Activity release in the unit of pCi/mi
- 4) = 2.0 x 1012 neutrons/cm 2 sec is the core total (fast + thermal) flux at 100 kW a,= Microscopic absorption cross section for Na-23 N Number of Na atoms in I ml primary coolant (Sodium concentration)
X Decay coefficient of Na-24 (T1 -
2=I 5.02 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 I liter/hr leakage rate, and 60 gpm secondary flow rate.
8
6.OOOOE-04 5.OOOOE-04 E
4.0000E-04
--ot=l0hrs 3.0000E-04
--U-t=15hrs 2.OOOOE-04 t=3Ohrs t=10Ohrs 1.OOOOE-04 Monthly limit O.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, I 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 I 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 1.OOE-03 E 8.OOE-04 2 6.OOE-04 E
--- LR=2 LR=3 LR=5
'~t
~Jr
~
4.OOE-04 n
Q~m
.1*!'*
- Monthly 2.00E-04 limit O.0OE+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 I demonstrates that for more realistic values of Na concentration of< I 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
7.OOOE-04 6.OOOOE-04 5.OOOOE-04 4.OOOOE-04 E
o 3.OOOOE-04 2.OOOOE-04
-J
~1~
ýL ýýO itsA1 fHt~r~hr I
VP 7 Na=lppm Na=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm Monthly limit 1.OOOOE-04 O.OOOOE+O0 0 102030405060708090101112131415161718192021 000000000000 Secondary flow rate (gpm)
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 gpm, 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 more realistic Na concentration of I ppm, the leakage activity varies in the range of 1.2 x 10-5 to 6x 105 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 E
2 0
EM I.2000E-03 1.0000E-03 8.OOOOE-04 6.OOOOE-04 4.OOOOE-04 2.OOOOE-04 Lea 4
~rillte0jf erfh~
Na=1 ppm i
Na=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm J
Monthly limit O.OOOOE+00 0 10 20 3040 5060 70 80 901011 12131415161718192021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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).
E 0
t-2.OOOOE-03 1.8000E-03 1.6000E-03 1.4000E-03 1.2000E-03 1.OOOOE-03 8.OOOOE-04 6.OOOOE-04 4.OOOOE-04 2.OOOOE-04 0.OOOOE+00 Na=lppm Na=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm Monthly limit 0 1020304050607080901011 12131415161718192021 000 000 0000 0
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
=_ 3.OOOOE-03 E
6 2.5000E-03 0
2.0000E-03 E
1.5000E-03 w 1.0000E-03
-* 5.0000E-04
.JO.O000E+00 Leakage rate of 4 Iiterlhr
-.- Na=l1ppm aNa=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm
- *Monthly limit A
K N
N N
N N
K 0 102030405060708090101112131415161718192021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 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 22.0000E-03 S1.5000E-03
-J1.OOOOE-03 5.0000E-04 0.OOOOE+00 Na=l ppm Na=2ppm Na=3ppm Na=4ppm Mondy Imit 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 I 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 parameters including operation time of 10 hrs, total flux level of2xl012, leakage rate of 5 liter/hr, power of 100 kW, and Na concentration of I ppm, 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 IuCi/mI) derived? Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20, Table 2, Column 2, lists an average yearly concentration release limit of 5E-5 pCi/mifor water effluents, and Table 3 list a monthly average concentration release limit to sewers as 5E-4 pi/ml.
Response 2b:
The release limit has been updated to the monthly limit 5E-4 pCi/ml Question 2c. As discussed previously, the TS limit on secondaryflow rate is 60 gpm when using well water and 8 gpm using city water. Therefore, provide an estimated effluent concentration assuming the allowed TS limits for secondaryflow.
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 basis for 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) of the pressure drop in the heat exchanger for the primary and secondary sides.
14
References
- 1. Kern, D.Q., Process Heat 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 is
Appendix A - Schematic of UFTR secondary coolant system (From SAR Figure 5-5)
CutD kt Check Ttatl Iallet 7iewmnter Valve Stralner Valve Flow Valve City 'Water and Flow I
A 0
Dc oklalow 1/1'*
To Vmenuin BroaltC From, CST I.temple umsple Con,.neeton Drain To Otorm Geo-r
Appendix B - UFTR Secondary Coolant Pump (well pump) Specifications
Model 150H L3GOULDS PUMPS METERS FEET 800--
RECOMMENDED RA.NGE 50 - 240 GPM 200 1 U
0 1-150 80 70 60 50 40z LL.
LL.
30 20 10 100 H 50 I O L 0
I I1 II I1 0
10 20 30 CAPACITY 40 50 60 m3/hr Curve Reference SU 507 DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS H
W.E.
ltr pIor Motor WE 1t HP Stages Order Orde r
Motor LOA N o. INo.
Vo!ts Lgth. Lgth.1 1(bs.)l s10940 1 230 28.2 18.0 46.2 95 S109781 200 5
2 150H052 S109701 230 S10975 3 460 22.2 18.0 40.2 95 S10979 575 S119701 1 230 28.0 24.3 52.3 185 S11978 200 75 3
IS0H07 3 S11971 230 S11972 3 4E0 24.2 24.3 48.5 160
_ $ 119731 575 S12970 1 230 30.6 29.3 59.9 215 S12978 200 10 4
15sH1o4 S12971) 230 S12972 3 460 25.5 29.3 54.8 185 S12979.
575 HP Stages W.E.
Motor I Motor Motor W.E. LA Wt.
Order.
Order.
Volts Lgth.th. I.
(lbs.)
513970 1 230 33.1 39.3 172.4 255
$14978 200 15 6
150H'15 6 S13971 230 513972 3 460 28.0 39.3 67.3 229
- S13979 575 S14978 200 S14971 230 20 8
1 S0H20 8 S14972 3 460 30.6 49.3 79.9 274 25 10 150H251C S15972 3 460 33.2 59.3 92.5 316 "S159791 575 DISCHARGE 3' NPT (All dimensions are in inches and weights in lbs. Do no: use for constructicn pu-posesj
- Nor-stock motors have a six (6) week lead time.
Water end and motor must be ordered separately and are packaged separately.
4
Model 150H L GCULDS PUMPS SELECTION CHART Horsepower Range 5 - 25, Recommended Range 50 - 240 GPM, 60 Hz, 3450 RPM Pump Depth to Water in Feet/Ratings in GPM (Gallons per Minute)
Model HP PSI 25 50 75 T 100 1 125 150 1 175 200 250 300 350 1 400 450 500 60C 0 -
254 230 200 1 1E4 102 1I I
20 206 172 120 1
{
1 1
150H052 s
30 174 122 1
1 1
I 2 Stages 40 i
26
- 60)
I I
I 0o 250 2341215 192 1 1
26 I
126 20 237 220 194 170 130 1 78 I
150H07 3 7.5 30 220 197 174 134 78 I
I 3 Stages 40 200 174 140 84 1
I 50 176 142 90 60 144 100 1 o,
251 23bi 1 23 1~o 20-116 1 163 1 92 1 20 253 240 225 210 190 168 1 140 104 1 150H104 10 30 1 240 226 210 190 170 140 104 i
4 Stages 40 228 212 193 172 146 1108 1.1' 50 213 193 172 147 111 i
i 60 194 176 148 116 6 I
I
.i 0
1 255 1 246 236 1 226 216 1 192 1 164 122 1 1
20 257 248 238 228 218 206 194* 167 128 i
1 150H156 15 30 258 248 238 228 218 206 194 181 150 ) 100 I
{
6Stages 40 1 248 240 230 220 208 196 1 184 168 130 I 1
50 240 230 220 209 196 184 170 154 107 1
1 60 234 220 210 198 185 172 154 136 78 1
I1 1 0 259 252 244 1 37 1 211 0
183 1 163 134 1 5
20 260 253 246 238 230 223 206 187 166 138 100 150H208 20 30 260 253 1246 239 231 223 214 197 177 154 120)
I 8 Stages 40 254 247 240 232 224 216 208 188 168 140 I102 50 255 247 240 232 224 216 208 199 180 156 125 83 60 247 24 0
23 422 216 209 199 190 170 142 106 1 0
1 258 252 240 226 212) 198 1182 165 1113 20 259 253 247 240 227 213 199)18 3 166 144 1 78 15oH2510 25 30 260 253 I247 240 234 220 207 192 175 156 132 10 10 Stages 40 260 254 247 241 234 228 214 200 184 168 1146 118t 50 260 25 4 248 242 235 229 222 208 1 93 177 158 134 104 60 260 R25412481242 235 1230 j222 1216_
201 1 86 1 169 _ 14S 120
_84...1......
5
Appendix C - UFTR Coolant Sample Test Results Sample number: CW1
- unfiltered (city water)
Sample number: DI1
- filtered (primary coolant)
UNIVERSITY of U~rFLORIDA IFAS UF/IFAS Analytical Services Laboratories Extension Soil Testing Laboratory Wallace Building 631 PO Box 110740 Gainesville, FL 32611-0740 Email: soilslaba)mail.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 million (ppm or mg/L)
Electrical Lab Sample Conductivity Total No Identification pI in carbonates Calcium Magnesium Hardness Iron Manganese Sodium Chloride I Suspended mmho/om in Ca Mg Fe Mn Na Cl Solids or dS/m meqIliter 22987 CW 1 30.1 21.5 163A 0.00 0.00 10.5 27.6 0.0 7.60 0.35 0.80 22988 DI 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.7
-0.3 0.0 5.70 0.00 N/A REPORT OF WATER TEST RESULTS The reported values have different meanings depending upon the planned uses of the water. The following interpretations are divided into Hlousehold Uses and Irrigation sections. Please read the applicable section to better understand these water test results.
HOUSEHOLD USES INTERPRETATIONS The physical and chemical determinations made by the Extension Soil Testing Laboratory can be effectively used to diagnose potential problems in water. However the lab does not test a water's suitability for human consumption. Bacteriological tests may be available from the County Health Department or from selected commercial laboratories.
Hardness is calculated according to the following equation:
Hardness - (ppm Ca x 2.5) + (ppm M. x 4.1)
(parts per million, ppm)
The following table will assist in classification of water hardness:
Interpretation Hardness ppm grainspergallon soft 0
to 17 0toI relatively soft 17 to50 I to3 moderately hard 50 to 120 3 to 7 hard 120 to 170 7to10 vary hard
> 170
>10 Iron and Mn can impart a metallic taste to water as well as stain clothes and plumbing fixtures. Staining can be caused by as little as 0.3 ppm Fe or Mn.
Electrical Conductivity ofwater is related to the amount of dissolved salts in the water. Higher salinity results in higher electrical conductivity. Increases in electrical conductivity with time may mean that the aquifer is turning brackish or that salt wmatcr 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 I of 2 Print Date:
i 1/18/08
Sodium and Chloride levels are used to define the type of salts contributing to the electrical conductivity of the water. Electrical conductivity measures the presence of all dissolved salts. If the electrical conductivity reading is elevated, tie presence of sodium and chloride indicatethat the water source is a brackish or that saltwater may have intruded into the water source.
plI is a measurement which determines the level ofacidity ofthe water. The pH of water can change rapidly for a number of reasons. If the reading is lower than 6.5, tree.tement ofwater may be necessary to preclude damage to metallic plumbing.
Additional information on interpretation of these results can be found in WAS Circular 703, "Home Water Quality and Safety."
IRRIGATION AND MICROIRRIGATION INTERPRETATIONS Interpretation of water quality for irrigation purposes must be crop specific. Crops respond differently to the quality of water with which they are irrigated. Use the following information as a guideline to determine ifr possible problem exists. If thcre is a possible problem indicated, consult with your county extension agent and/or refer to the additional publications cited in the following text.
Electrical conductivity of water is related to the amount of dissolved salts in the water. Higher salinity results in higher electrical conductivity. As the electrical conductivity increases, the plant must expend more energy to take in nutrients dissolved in the water from fertilizer and the soil. Some plants are very sensitive to salinity, while others can tolerate a wide range. Use the following table to make general interpretations. Refer to WAS Circular 817, "Soil, Container Media, and Water Testing Interpretations and IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations." A reference copy of die circular is maintained at your county extension office.
pIt is a measurement which derminnes made the level of the acidity or alkalinity ofthe water. Much of the Florida's well waters arc alkaline (p1 !7.6 to 6.5). The high p1l results from the calcium carbonate aquifer in which the water has been in contact. Use of such water in effect causes liming ofthe crop. Sorme crops, blueberry or pine seedings will grow poorly if exposed to water containing appreciable amounts of lime.
Surface wacrs are usually lower in pt1.
Total Carbonates and Bicarbonates are a direct measure of the liming potential of the water. For maiy crops, use of water with an appreciable liming potential is not of concern and may lower the need for agricultural lime additions. However, as noted above, some crops will be adversely affected. Neutralization of the liming potential can be economically accomplished in some situations by treatement of water with acid. Refer to Notes in Soil Science No. IS, "Neutralizing excess bicarbonates from irrigation water" and Notes in Soil Science No. 25, Quick-test method for pHl and bicarbonates in water."
Ca and Mg arc used to calculate I lardness described in the I losehold Uses desctibed above.
Na and C can be used to determine the type of salts present and to diagnose the possibility of saltwater intrusion.
Fe and Mn can cause plant ti,;suc staining. Overhead irrigation with water containing levels above 0.3 ppm may cause staining to foliage.
Additionally such levels indicate that the water should be treated to prevent microirrigation plugging due to enhanced microbial growth or iron encrustations.
Suspended solids are used to predict the amount of uidissolved material that is in the water. I ligh suspended solids indicate that plugging problems are likely to occur if the water is used for microinigation without adcqu.atc filtration.
Criteria for estimating plugging potential ofmicroirrigation water sources.
Class of water Electrical conductivity Plugging potential Units Sight Moderate Severe dS/m or mmhosom*
Excellent 0.25 Good 0.25 to 0.75 Permissible 0.75 to 2.00 Doubtful 2.00 to 3.00 Unsuitable 3.00
- Conversion ppm soluble salts = EC x 700 Factor p1I 7.0 7.0 to 7.5 7.5 Suspended solids ppm 50 50 to 100 100 Mn, Fe ppm 0.1 0.1 to 1.5 1.5 llardaess ppm 150 150 to 300 300 Electrical conductivity dS/m 0.7 0.7 to 2.9 2.9 Adopted from WAS Bulletin 258, "Causes and prevention of emitter plugging in microirrigation s-rttems" Page 2 of 2 Print Date:
11/18/08