<%BANNER%>

Calculation of Ar-41 Concentrations for the University of Florida Training Reactor Using Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022452/00001

Material Information

Title: Calculation of Ar-41 Concentrations for the University of Florida Training Reactor Using Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Codes STAC2.1 and CALPUFF
Physical Description: 1 online resource (72 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cornelison, Victoria
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: argon, atmospheric, concentration, dispersion, limits, operations, reactor
Nuclear and Radiological Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Nuclear Engineering Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This thesis combines atmospheric plume dispersion modeling and meteorological data to achieve an estimate of the downwind concentration of Ar-41 effluent during routine operation of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR). The Gaussian atmospheric modeling system utilized is based on the methods constructed by Pasquill, and further expounded upon by Briggs and Turner, with related methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy Commission studies. This work considered the following: maximum concentrations for various atmospheric conditions, corresponding distances, Ar-41 dose rates, UFTR operational limits, and overall atmospheric dilution factors. These calculations played an integral role in the re-licensing process for the UFTR with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Victoria Cornelison.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Sjoden, Glenn E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022452:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022452/00001

Material Information

Title: Calculation of Ar-41 Concentrations for the University of Florida Training Reactor Using Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Codes STAC2.1 and CALPUFF
Physical Description: 1 online resource (72 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cornelison, Victoria
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: argon, atmospheric, concentration, dispersion, limits, operations, reactor
Nuclear and Radiological Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Nuclear Engineering Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This thesis combines atmospheric plume dispersion modeling and meteorological data to achieve an estimate of the downwind concentration of Ar-41 effluent during routine operation of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR). The Gaussian atmospheric modeling system utilized is based on the methods constructed by Pasquill, and further expounded upon by Briggs and Turner, with related methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy Commission studies. This work considered the following: maximum concentrations for various atmospheric conditions, corresponding distances, Ar-41 dose rates, UFTR operational limits, and overall atmospheric dilution factors. These calculations played an integral role in the re-licensing process for the UFTR with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Victoria Cornelison.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Sjoden, Glenn E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022452:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





CALCULATION OF ARGON-41 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR USING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING
CODES: STAC2.1 AND CALPUFF





















By

VICTORIA SPRING CORNELISON


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008




























O 2008 Victoria Spring Cornelison























To my mom, dad, stepfather, family and friends who have nurtured my intellectual curiosity and
academic pursuits throughout all trials and triumphs









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring, and the staff

and faculty of the UF NRE Department for their help, knowledge, and support. I thank my family

and friends for their loving encouragement, which motivated me to complete my studies.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S .........__.. ..... ._ __ ...............7....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


LI ST OF AB BREVIAT IONS ........._.___..... .___ ............... 10....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 1 1..


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


Atmospheric Effects in Program Methodology ................. ...............12........... ...
Ar-41 Reaction and Location in the UFTR ................. ...............12..............

Purpose of thi s Research ................. ...............14........... ...

2 THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION INT THE STAC2. 1 CODE..........17


Gaussian Model .............. ........... ...............1
General Wind and Terrain Effects ................. ...............17........... ...
Concentration Equations ................. ...............18.................
STA C 2.1 ................ ...............19...

Pasquill Stability Classes ...._.. ................. ...............21 .....

3 VALIDATION OF STAC2.1 RESULTS: MANUALLY AND USING CALPUFF ............27


Release Rate Calculation ................ ...............27........... ....
M annual Valid ation M ethod ................. ...............28................
CALPUFF and Related Programs .............. ... ...............29.
CALPUFF Package Model for STAC2. 1 Comparison ....._____ ..... ... .__ ............._..30
CALMET Detail s .............. ...............3 1....
CALPUFF Detail s ................ .. ...............32..
STAC2.1 and CALPUFF Results Comparison .................... ...............3


4 STAC2. 1 RESULTS ............ ..... .._ ...............36.


Concentrations .............. ...............36....
D ose Rates .............. ...............37....

Operation Hours............... ...............37.
Dilution Factors .............. ...............3 8....
Stack Height Comparison ............ ..... .._ ...............39...












5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ ...............46................


Results Summary and Conclusions .............. ...............46....
Possible Future Works ................. ...............48........... ....


APPENDIX


A STAC2.1 INPUT VARIABLE CALCULATIONS .............. ...............49....


Ratio of Densities .............. ...............49....

Specific H eat................. .............. ..........5
Inner Diameter of Stack Calculation .............. ...............50....

Height of the Stack ................. ...............50.......... ....
Efflux velocity from Stack ................. ...............50........... ...

B GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT .............. ...............51....


C LANDUSE TABLE FOR GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT ................. ...............53


D APPENDIX SUBMITTED TO THE NRC: APPENDIX E ......____ ........_ ..............54


Introducti on ............... .... ._ ............ .... .... .. ............5
Calculation Theory Implemented in STAC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs.........................56
Validation of STAC2. 1 Results both "By-Hand" and using CALPUFF ............... .... ........._..57
STAC2.1 Concentration and Dose Results for the UFTR............... ...............59..

Operation Hours for the UFTR............... ...............61..
Dilution Factor for the UFTR ................. ...............62........... ...
Summary and Conclusions .............. ...............62....

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............69................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............72.......... .....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 STAC2. 1 Variables for Height of the Plume Centerline Calculated in Code...................24

2-2 STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values .............. ...............24....

2-3 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............2

2-4 Pasquill's Relations to Weather Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ..........2

2-5 Briggs Derived Formulas for Standard Deviations of Horizontal (o,(x)) and Vertical
(oz(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pasquill's Stability Classes ........._.._..... ..._..............26

3-1 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar-41 Manual Calculation
vs. STAC2. 1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)......34

3-2 Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2. 1 use............._._... .......34

3-3 Characteristics of Ar-41 as input in CALPUFF ................. ...............34.............

3-4 CALPUFF Stack Parameter Input .............. ...............35....

3-5 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model ................ ........... ..........35

3-6 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model ................. ............ .........35

4-1 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages ................. ................. .43

4-2 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages .............. ..................43

4-3 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR ....43

4-4 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and
Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full-Power Continuous Operation ...............44

4-5 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR,
As suming Full-Power, Continuous Operati on ................. ...............44........... ..

4-6 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime
Atmospheric Conditions .............. ...............44....

4-7 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations................... ...45

4-8 Dilution Ratio Comparison ................. ...............45........_ ....

4-9 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates, and Corresponding Distances from the
UJFTR per Stack Height .............. ...............45....










4-10 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates and, Corresponding Distances from the
UFTR per Stack Height .............. ...............45....

D-1 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............6

D-2 Urban Pasquill Class "A" Ground Level Concentration of Ar-41 Hand Calculation
vs. STAC2. 1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)......65

D-3 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF/CALGROUP Comparison with a Puff Model ................... ......66

D-4 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison with a Slug Model ....................66

D-5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 2004-2005) ..........66

D-6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 2004-2005) ........66

D-7 STAC2. 1 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from
UF TR 66

D-8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the
Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full Power Continuous
Op erati on ................. ...............67........... ....

D-9 STAC2.1 Total Effective Dose Rate Assuming Peak Concentration Values for
Buildings near the UFTR Assuming dedicated 100% Wind Vectors from the UFTR
Stack to the Building............... ...............67

D-10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime
Atmospheric Conditions .............. ...............67....

D-11 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ................... ...68

D-12 Dilution Ratio Comparison ................. ...............68................










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed ................... .........15

1-2 University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida. ................ ....__ ................15

1-3 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus ................. ................. ....... 16

2-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and
vertical 22

2-2 Northeasterly wind direction............... ...............2

2-3 Effect of Terrain Roughness on the General Wind Speed Profile ................ ................ .23

2-4 Distance from building vs. o,(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........23

2-5 Distance from building vs. oz(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........24

4-1 Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average
Pasquill Classes for each Time Period............... ...............40.

4-2 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill
Classes for each Time Period............... ...............41.

4-3 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various
Stack Heights .............. ...............41....

4-4 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack
Heights 42

4-5 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack
Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3) .............. ....................4

4-6 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights
around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10s Ci/m3) ................. ...............43...........

D-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and
vertical 64

D-2 Effect of Terrain Roughness on the General Wind Speed Profile ................ ................ .65









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Isotope of Argon with a mass of 40; atomic number is 18.

Isotope of Argon with a mass of 41; atomic number is 18.

American Society for Mechanical Engineers

Atmosphere and terrain modeling program in CALGROUP.

Post processing program in CALGROUP.

Puff or slug based concentration calculation modeling program in
CALGROUP.

Code of Federal Regulations

Environmental Protection Agency

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling

Pennsylvania State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research
mesoscale model

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Gaussian computer model: STAC2 Version 2. 1 Build 1.5b

University of Florida

University of Florida Training Reactor

United States Department of Agriculture

Universal Transverse Mercator

Weather Research and Forecasting model


Ar-40

Ar-41

ASME

CALMET

CALPOST

CALPUFF


CFR

EPA

IWAQM

MM5


NRC

STAC2.1

UJF

UJFTR

USDA

UTM

WRF









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

CALCULATION OF ARGON-41 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR USING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING
CODES: STAC2.1 AND CALPUFF

By

Victoria Spring Cornelison

August 2008

Chair: Glenn Sjoden
Maj or: Nuclear Engineering Sciences

Atmospheric plume dispersion modeling and meteorological data were applied to

estimate downwind concentrations of Ar-41 exhausted during routine University of Florida

Training Reactor (UFTR) operations. Two Gaussian-based concentration prediction codes were

employed: STAC2.1 and CALPUFF. Gaussian plume atmospheric models are based on methods

initially developed by Pasquill, Briggs, and Turner; these methodologies were adopted by the

EPA, Federal Coordinator of Meteorology, and ASME.

Yearly maximum average predicted concentrations, dose rates, operational limits, dilution

factors, and a stack height study were performed for routine UFTR operational parameters, with

impact assessments assuming dedicated winds near campus buildings at full reactor power

(100kW). Calculations were accomplished using STAC2.1, developed at UF, and for

independent correlation, results were compared to those derived from CALPUFF, an established,

detailed air pollution transport code. Results from both independent codes were quite consistent.

Moreover, all work in this area was integral to the UFTR NRC re-licensing process.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

This work focuses on atmospheric plume dispersion modeling, integrating fluid dynamics,

statistical, and meteorological data to achieve an estimate of the downwind concentration of Ar-

41 effluent emitted from the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) exhaust stack during

routine operations. The atmospheric modeling system utilized is based on the methods

constructed by Pasquill, and further expounded upon by Briggs and Turner [1 4], with related

methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy Commission studies [5]. These methods have been

adopted and used as a basis for many computer algorithms and methodologies used by the EPA,

Federal Coordinator of Meteorology, and the ASME [1, 4, 6 8].

Atmospheric Effects in Program Methodology

As effluents are dispersed, wind direction and atmospheric conditions such as temperature,

quantity of solar radiation, and wind speed distinctly affect the transport pathway of any effluent

traveling from the stack [1 4, 9]. Time of day or night conditions play an important role in the

concentration due to the change in heating from the sun and cloud cover, affecting the lapse rate.

These varying conditions, incorporated into our mathematical models, allow the concentration of

Ar-41 to be conservatively estimated via a one-wind, Gaussian computer model: STAC2 Version

2.1 Build 1.5b (STAC2.1) [1 4, 8]. In addition, these parameters are employed in the

CALPUFF atmospheric transport code package, used in this work to validate results from

STAC2.1; CALPUFF is an EPA approved atmospheric dispersion concentration prediction

modeling program.

Ar-41 Reaction and Location in the UFTR

Argon, as a natural constituent in air, was discovered by Lord Raleigh and Sir william

Ramsey in 1894, but was initially suspected to exist by Cavendish in 1785 [10]. Ar-40 is ~99.6%









of this natural argon, which is ~1.3 weight percent, or about ~0.94 volume percent of air [10, 12,

13]. Ar-41, in reference to the reactor, originates from leakage neutrons undergoing capture by

Ar-40 [12]. Ar-40 is present throughout the air spaces surrounding the UFTR fuel. Eq. 1-1 shows

the activation of Ar-40. Note that the half-life of Ar-41 is 1.83 hours.

s~Ar + in a s~Ar + y (1-1)

The UFTR was built in 1959, and is one of the oldest of less than thirty university reactors

in the United States. In 2005 2006, the fuel was converted from high enriched uranium (HEU)

to LEU (19.75% U-23 5); the general structure of the UFTR has remained the same; fuel is

surrounded by graphite and concrete, with cadmium control blades to control the reactor and

regulate power [14]. Regarding basic features of the UFTR, in reference to the air locations, Fig.

1-1 illustrates these locations inside the UFTR, shown with the concrete shielding removed [15].

Air in the concrete, as well as that outside of the concrete in the reactor room is also a factor.

The concentration of Ar-41 is a limiting parameter for the operations cycle of the UFTR.

Monthly concentration averages for Ar-41, as determined by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) licensing regulations, must not exceed 1x10~ Ci/m3 (HOte: 1 Ci/m3

1CLCi/mL), at 100% reactor power (100kW), This is also per Florida state and federal guidelines

(10CFR20), to preserve and maintain the health and environmental safety of the public [16, 17].

In order to estimate potential concentrations of Ar-41 and surrounding terrain relative to

the UFTR, two maps are shown in Fig. 1-2 and 1-3 [1l]. Fig. 1-2 contains the UF Campus main

campus, and the relative position, indicated in the small black box, to the campus. Fig. 1-3

focuses on the more specific campus location of the UFTR, from the black box of Fig. 1-2.

The UFTR is in close proximity to many campus buildings: Ben Hill Griffin football

stadium, other engineering departments, parlong garages and students' residence halls. The










closest student residence hall, East Hall, is a location with high routine occupancy [17]. This hall

is approximately 190m west-southwest of the UFTR and in the path of a wind direction from

east-northeast.

Purpose of this Research

The purpose of this work was to determine an estimate, using independent methods, of the

Ar-41 concentrations and dose rates predicted at various down-wind ranges. Results from this

study were used in reporting the Ar-41 burden in regions surrounding the University for purposes

of relicensing for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This work is presented as follows:

a discussion of the theory and methodology supporting the application of the Gaussian dispersion

model used in the STAC2.1 dispersion code is presented in Chapter 2, validation methods for the

code, and calculations made for determining the emission of Ar-41 from the UFTR are presented

in Chapter 3. Note that validation methods for STAC2. 1 employed include a fundamental

manual approach using basic Pasquill and Briggs formulations [1-4], as well as a comparison of

results from a robust CALPUFF model [8] as an independent corroboration of STAC2. 1

predicted concentrations. Also presented, in Chapter 4, are the maximum Ar-41 concentrations

for various atmospheric conditions, corresponding distances, attributed dose rates, correlations to

UJFTR operation hours, and other relevant information. This is followed by a discussion of the

data, conclusions, and future work.


































SExhaust Air In~take Dc
Air in Experimental Ports
-L Air Outside the Graphite

SAir in Primary Coolant


Figure 1-1 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed





Figure 1-3 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus









CHAPTER 2
THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION IN THE STAC2.1 CODE

Ar-41 concentrations, emitted from the UFTR stack, are calculated based on standard

American Society for Mechanical Engineers (AS1VE) equations and Pasquill stability classes

determined for atmospheric conditions, which are input parameters for STAC2.1 [1, 2, 4, 8]. The

following sections describe these methodologies.

Gaussian Model

The Gaussian model, illustrated in Fig. 1, describes, in three-dimensions, the theoretical

path of a plume emerging from the stack: straight downwind, horizontally, and vertically [4].

These directions correspond, respectively on a coordinate system, to the x-axis, y-axis, and :-

axis. This system illustrates the basic plume shape and centerline (bold, dashed line parallel to

the x-axis) is seen in Fig. 2-1 [4]. "H" represents the effective stack height to the plume

centerline, and "h" is the height of the stack. The path of the plume is detailed with the elliptical

and Gaussian-like parabolic sketches to demonstrate three dimensional depths.

General Wind and Terrain Effects

Wind constitutes the horizontal motion of air as it passes a defined point; it is characterized

by wind speed and direction. Wind speed is typically measured in miles per hour, but for the

purposes of this research, it is either reported in feet per second or meters per second. Wind

direction is described to be the direction fr~om where the wind is blowing, not the direction the

wind is blowing towards. In addition, it is measured in compass heading azimuth degrees, Oo to

3600, where the Oo starts at the North axis and spans to 3600 clockwise around the compass [18].

Fig. 2-2 illustrates a northeasterly wind direction of ~450 on a compass rose [l l, 18].

Also applied, in relation to frictional (drag) effects on wind speed, is the approximated

terrain category of the region, which affects the surface velocity profile applied from the ground









to the stack emission point. For the University of Florida (UF) campus, the terrain is

conservatively assumed to be urban. The comparison between urban, suburban, and rural, for the

effects of different terrain structure on wind speed profiling, is shown in Fig. 2-3 [1, 4]. As

surface roughness decreases, the depth of the affected atmospheric layer becomes shallower, and

the wind speed profile gets steeper. The numbers reflected in the curves refer to average

normalized percentages of the gradient wind at varying heights.

Concentration Equations

For distances straight downwind from the stack, the concentration of the Ar-41, at ground

level, is calculated in Eq. 2-1 by using the listed parameters. The variables for Eq. 2-1 are:

concentration of effluent (Ar-41) released (X) in Ci/m3, release rate (Q) in Ci/s, effective stack

height (h) in m, average wind speed (us) in m/s, horizontal standard deviation for the crosswind

straight downwind (x-value) from the stack (o,(x)) in meters, and vertical standard deviation for

the crosswind straight downwind (x-value) from the stack (oz(x)) in meters.





To account for off-center lateral dispersion in both directions, downwind from the stack,

Eq. 2-2 is applied. Note Eq. 2-1 does not account for lateral movement; all y-values are

implicitly equal to 0.0.

Q f yl~2
X(x,y,o) = ep-I +
x ov x)o- ()(o-z(x))2 2 (o- (x))2 (2-2)

The effective stack height (h) is calculated, as a conservative buoyant plume, by adding the

height of the plume centerline above the source emission point at the stack (h,) to the height of

physical effluent discharged at the stack (hs) as in Eq. 2-3. All heights are measured in meters.

h= ly + h (2-3)









STAC2.1

STAC2.1 is a one wind effluent dispersion code based on the fundamental methodologies

first proposed by Pasquill, et al [1-4]. This code was used to determine the down-wind

concentrations of Ar-41 effluent from the UFTR, and is evaluated for this purpose in this work.

In STAC2. 1, the height of the plume centerline (SHDLTA) is computed using the information in

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 as well as Eq. 2-3 2-13. Note that variables in parentheses refer to variables

used in the STAC2. 1 code. In addition, (SHDLTA) is considered to be h, in Eq. 2-3.

Table 2-1 shows the information calculated in STAC2. 1 pertaining to the height of the

plume centerline. Table 2-2 describes the input variables, their descriptions, the values specific to

the UFTR, and the references for each; metric units were used. Note that the specific heat of Ar-

41 was assumed to be that of argon then air; concentration results did not differ when the specific

heat was altered.

Input parameters describing the characteristics of Ar-41 were:

* specific heat (CPEFF)
* density ratio to dry air (EDF)
* plume type (HASUME)
* molecular weight (MOLWT)
* release rate (QSC)
* half-life (THALF)

The specific heat of Argon was used as an approximation of that for Ar-41 (Appendix A).

The release rate, in the code, was assumed to be 1.0 Ci/s to determine the general factors for each

weather condition.

Terrain, for regions surrounding the UFTR, is described by the terrain type (TERTYP) and

altitude above sea level (ZALT). The geographical reference points are described by:

* Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) global center reference points (XGLOB, YGLOB)
* maximum distance straight downwind (XMAX)
* maximum distance laterally from the centerline (YMAX)









* UTM stack reference point (XSTAK and YSTAK)
* incremental step straight downwind (XSTEP)
* incremental step laterally from the centerline (YSTEP)

Weather input data is:

* height of the weather sensor (SMEAS)
* ambient temperature (TAMB)
* time of day (TIMREL)
* mean ground wind speed (UGND)
* Pasquill's weather classes (WCAT)
* wind direction (WINDIR)

In addition, the stack of the UFTR is characterized by:

* inner diameter of the stack (DISTAK)
* height of the stack (SHSTAK)
* temperature at the stack (TSTAK)
* velocity of the effluent exiting the stack (VSTAK)

Eq. 2-4 is the simple calculation used to find the height of the plume centerline above the

UFTR stack. Eq. 2-5 2-13 compute the necessary pieces for each of the other equations. These

calculations rely heavily on atmospheric conditions (Pasquill's Stability Classes, UGND, or

TAMB), effluent information (VSTAK, EDF, or FBOUY), and stack information (ASTAK or

ZALT). The equations originate or are derived from accepted standards for atmospheric

dispersion [1 4, 7].

SHDLTA = (1.5*DISTAK*VSTAK + FBUOY) / USTAK (2-4)

FBUOY = 4.0 x10- *QHEFF (2-5)

UWV = UGND / (-4. 141x10-10*SMEAS4 + 3.668x10- *SMEAS3 (2-6)
1.115x10-4*SMEAS2 + 0.01470*"SMEAS + 0.04573)

USTAK = -4. 141 x10-10*UWV*SHSTAK4 + 3.668x10- *SHSTAK3 (2-7)
1.115x10-4*SHSTAK2 + 0.01470*"SHSTAK + 0.04573

QHEFF = (SMDOT*CPEFF (TSTAK TAMB))/4.184 (2-8)

SMDOT = EDF*ADEN*VSTAK* ASTAK (2-9)









ADEN = 0.5 (ADENT + ADENHT) (2-10)

ASTAK = PI (DISTAK/2.0)2 (2-11)

ADENT = 16.019 (-2.8124x10-4*TAMB + 8.0467x10-2) (2-12)

ADENHT= 1.2975 1.6404x10-4*ZALT + 6.4583x10-9*ZALT2 1.0594x10-13*ZALT3 (2-13)

Pasquill Stability Classes

Also necessary, for Eq. 2-1 and 2-2, to find the effluent concentration, are the crosswind

standard deviations, o,(x) and oz(x). These are determined by the atmospheric stability classes

created by Pasquill, where A is the most unstable condition, and F is the most stable. Stability is

determined by the amount of solar radiation, wind speed, outside temperature, relative lapse rate

(0.65 oC/100m for the UFTR), and the time of day [1, 2]. Characteristically, unstable is

considered warm and sunny (daytime) while stable is cool and overcast (nighttime). Tables 2-3

and 2-4 describe, in detail, the characteristics for each class. Typically, classes A, B, and C

represent daytime conditions, while D, E, and F refer to the nighttime.

The actual standard deviations arrive from using the equations in Table 2-5, which

generate the curves in Fig. 2-4 and 2-5. These equations are derived by Briggs, from Pasquill's

original graphs constructed from data strenuously gathered over time [1 4]. In general, the

standard deviations increase in an exponential trend as distance from the stack increases. X-

values are the actual distances straight downwind from the stack in any designated wind

direction. Also, these apply to any relative concentration of effluent, Ar-41, released.

This chapter established the essential equations and approach used in the atmospheric

concentration prediction code STAC2.1. The next discussion includes the validation methods

employed for STAC2.1: manual and a comparison with a detailed physics treatment using

CALPUFF.































Figure 2-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and
vertical


Figure 2-2 Northeasterly wind direction





600r-


URBAN AREA SUBURBS


LEVEL COUNTRY


500


400
HEIGHT

300


GRADIENT WIND


200-


100


0 B 10 0 5 10 0

WIND SPEED (m/sec)
Figure 2-3 Effect of Terrain Roughness on the General Wind Speed Profile


20.00
-Class A
18.00 -Class B
Class C
16.00 -
Class D
14.0 -- Class E
24.00

0.00


8.00

6.00

4.00 -- II v I

2.00 -- I II-

0.00


1 instancee from Building ( 0O 1000
Figure 2-4 Distance from building vs. o (x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes











-Class A
- -lass B
Class C
-l s -
CClass D
-Class E





-e


Table 2-2 STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values
Variables Variable Descriptions Values Reference


20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00






4.00

2.00

0.00


10 .100
Distance from Buildmng (m)


1000


Figure 2-5 Distance from building vs. oz(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes

Table 2-1 STAC2. 1 Variables for Height of the Plume Centerline Calculated in Code
Variables Variable Descriptions


ADEN
ADENHT
ASTAK
FBOUY
QHEFF
SMDOT
SHEFF
SHDLTA
USTAK
U7WV


Air density
Altitude, above sea level, for air density
Stack cross sectional area
Effluent buoyancy factor
Heat emission
Mass flow rate
Effective stack height (Eq. 2-3)
Height of the plume centerline above the source
Mean wind velocity at the stack
Upper maximum wind velocity


CPEFF Specific heat of effluent
(Air -1004.83 J/kg-oC)
DISTAK Inner discharge diameter of stack


520 J/kg-oC


[1,19]
Appendix A
[20]
Appendix A
[19]
Appendix A


0.860 m

1.4


EDF


Effluent density factor: ratio of effluent
density to air density





Table 2-2 Continued
Variables Variable Descriptions
HASUME Plume type: Momentum jet (M), Buoyant
plume (B), Conservative buoyant plume (C)
MOLWT Molecular weight of effluent
QSC Effluent release rate
SMEAS Height of the weather sensor
SHSTAK Stack height


Values
C

40.96 g/mol
1.0
3.56 m
9.04 m

29.23 oC
1

1.83 hrs
D

29.23 oC
1.87 m/s
M

12.81 m/s


Reference
Assumed

[21]
Assumed
[9]
[20]
Appendix A
[9]
Assumed

[21]
Assumed

[9]
[9]
Assumed

[20]
Appendix A
Assumed


TAMB Ambient temperature
TERTYP Terrain type:
Urban = 1, Suburban = 2, Level Country = 3
THALFH Effluent half life
TIMREL Day or night conditions (determines velocity
gradient)
TSTAK Temperature at the stack
UGND Mean ground wind speed
UNITS Sets units to English or Metric
Note that Ci can be substituted for g or lb.
VSTAK Vertical effluent velocity

WCAT Pasquill's Stability Classes:
A (most unstable) through F (most stable)
WINTDIR Wind direction (Oo 3600)
XGLOB UTM Global reference center x-coordinate
XMAX Maximum distance straight downwind from
stack
XSTAK UTM Reference stack x-coordinate
XSTEP Incremental step straight downwind from
stack
YGLOB UTM Global reference center y-coordinate
YMAX Maximum distance laterally from stack
YSTAK UTM Reference stack y-coordinate
YSTEP Incremental step laterally from stack
ZALT Altitude, above sea level, of modeled location


178.4 o
17
2501.0 m

0
5.0 m

0
301.0 m
0
100 m
41.76 m


[9]
Assumed
Assumed

Assumed
Assumed

Assumed
Assumed
Assumed
Assumed
[22]


Table 2-3


Pasquill Weather Condition Categories


Category Typical Conditions Weather Descriptions Wind Wind Direction
m/s Stand. Dev.
A Extremely Unstable Very Sunny Summer 1 +- 25 deg
B Moderately Unstable Sunny and Warm 2 +- 20 deg
C Slightly Unstable Average Daytime 5 +- 15 deg
D Neutral Stability Overcast Day/Night 5 +- 10 deg
E Slightly Stable Average Nighttime 3 +- 5 deg
F Moderately Stable Clear Nighttime 2 +- 3 deg
These Tables describe the Pasquill Stability Classes used in the STAC2.1 Program: acquired









from Pasquill's Atmospheric Diffusion [2]
Table 2-4 Pasquill's Relations to Weather Categories
Surface Wind Day Solar Radiation Night Cloudiness Lapse Rate
Speed m/s Strong Moderate Slight >=50% <=50% Deg C(F)/100m
<2 A A-B B -- -- A-B -1.9(-3.5)
2 A-B B C E F B-C -1.8(-3.3)
4 B B-C C D E C-D -1.6(-2.9)
6 C C D D D D-E -1.0(-1.8)
>6 C C D D D E-F >0.5(>0.9)
These Tables describe the Pasquill Stability Classes used in the STAC2.1 Program:
acquired from Pasquill's Atmospheric Diffusion [2]

Table 2-5 Briggs Derived Formulas for Standard Deviations of Horizontal (o,(x)) and Vertical
(oz(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pasquill's Stability Classes
Stability Class o, meters Oz, meters
A 0.22 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 0.20 x
B 0.16 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 2 0. 12 x
C 0.11 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 2 0.08 x (1 + 0.0002x) -1 2
D 0.08 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 2 0.06 x (1 + 0.0015x) -1 2
E 0.06 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 2 0.03 x (1 + 0.0003x) ~
F 0.04 x (1 + 0.0001x) -'/ 0.016 x (1 + 0.0003x) ~









CHAPTER 3
VALIDATION OF STAC2.1 RESULTS: MANUALLY AND USING CALPUFF

With the essentials of the STAC2. 1 code presented in Chapter 2, how STAC2. 1 was

applied to the case of the UFTR is presented here. Because STAC2. 1 is an in-house code, a

manual method validation and an independent validation of results were accomplished using the

CALPUFF suite. This was completed by comparing results to those from the CALPUFF

package. The following sections described the UFTR Ar-41 release rate, the manual validation

method, and details of the CALPUFF package, and results comparison between STAC2.1 and

the two validation methods.

Release Rate Calculation

The release rate, specific to the UFTR at full power, was calculated to be 9.228 x10-5 Ci/s (

)R).) The details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. 3-1 3-3 [1, 2, 4, 20, 23, 24].

Additional parameters in these equations, relative to the UFTR reactor, are: the undiluted

volumetric release rate of Ar-41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 x10-4 Ci/m3), the

total stack flow rate for Ar-41 from the core vent and dilution fan ( fJ) (15772 ft3/min Or 7.44

m3/S), the dilution factor (A) from the dilution fan and core vent dimensionlesss) (0.0152168),

and the flow diluted release concentration at the top of the stack (uy = 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3) [23, 24].

The fan flow rate value was determined as a result of the most recent service to the dilution fan.

This dilution factor (A) takes into account that Ar-41 comes from the core (reactor) via the core

vent, which is then dispersed by both the core vent and the dilution fan [23, 24].

Core Vent Flow Rate
mmn
A=
min (3-1)

Ci Ci
R = IC o*f
s n?~ s (3 -2)









Ci Ci
g r = 8.147 x10-4~

In STAC2.1, a unity source (1.0 Ci/s) was used to calculate general maximum multipliers

(M) for straight downwind from the stack. Final maximum concentrations of Ar-41 (C), from

STAC2.1, were calculated by multiplying these general concentrations by the specific release

rate, 9.228 x 105 Ci/s; as shown in Eq. 3-4.

C = M* 9.228 x10-5 34

Manual Validation Method

A manual validation of STAC2. 1 was performed. Selected calculations were verified,

independently, manually, as shown in Table 3.1. Tabulated values for o,(x) and oz(x),

atmospheric conditions for Gainesville, Fl, and the stack height and release rate for the UFTR

were applied to Eq. 2-2 for the hand calculation. Concentrations were compared for various

ground level distances from the UFTR versus those computed using STAC2.1 for the year

between July 2004 and July 2005, assuming extremely unstable conditions.

Note that the temperature of the effluent was assumed to be the same as the average

ambient temperature; 23.05oC. The average daytime wind azimuth direction for the year was a

vector from 167. 11o, and the average ground wind speed was 2.42 m/s. In addition, the effective

stack height and wind speed at the stack were calculated [1, 4], then assumed to be the same for

each of the three trials. The effective stack height was calculated from Eq. 2-3 and 2-4, and the

wind speed at the stack was from Eq. 2-6 and 2-7. Lastly, for daytime conditions, the Pasquill

stability class was assumed to A.

As shown in the last row of Table 3.1, the differences in concentration as determined using

tabular manual values and STAC2.1 code runs was less than 3.61% within 500m, and less than

0.77% within 100m downwind of the stack. To explain the differences, the manual computations









do not account for all of the physics (buoyant plume rise with temperature, decay at time of

arrival, etc), and are less robust than used in the STAC2. 1 calculations [7].

Note that all percent differences, from Table 3.1 and in future, were calculated from the

general formula shown in Eq. 3-5. For Table 3.1, the theoretical value was considered to be the

manual term, and the experimental value was from STAC2.1.

Experim~enalValue TheoreticalValue
%DIfference = 100
ThleoreticalValue (3-5)

CALPUFF and Related Programs

CALPUFF and its related programs are an EPA approved generalized non-steady-state air

quality modeling system; the main two related programs are CALMET and CALPOST. Note that

the package does include many pre-processors for interfacing standard, readily-available

meteorological data [24, 25]. Originally, CALPUFF and CALMET were developed by the

California Air Resources Board, and then were updated to satisfy the Interagency Workgroup on

Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), EPA, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest

Service, Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria (Australia), and private industry in both

the United States and abroad [25]. The order of execution of the three main programs is:

CALMET, CALPUFF, and then CALPOST.

CALMET is the initial, main portion of the modeling system. It is a meteorological model

which develops hourly temperature and wind data in a three-dimensional domain. Two-

dimensional fields of surface characteristics, mixing heights, and dispersion properties are also

included [25, 26]. Two necessary input files into CALMET are: geo.dat and surf~dat. Geo.dat

contains all of the land use and corresponding elevation data, in a gridded format. Surf~dat

contains the surface weather data, for various weather stations.









CALPUFF is a transport and dispersion modeling program for concentration and effluent

spread prediction over complicated terrain while accounting for atmospheric effects from

CALMET (sole input file) [25]. The transport and dispersion is simulated using puffs or slugs.

Puffs are circular, Gaussian mappings of effluent concentrations, while slugs are elongations of

these puffs using Lagrangian and Gaussian methods. CALPUFF produces hourly concentrations

or deposition fluxes at selected receptor locations. CALPOST processes these hourly

concentrations into tabulations of the highest and second highest 3-hour averages for each

receptor [25].

CALPUFF Package Model for STAC2.1 Comparison

A CALPUFF package input deck was fashioned to model the case of atmospheric transport

of Ar-41 from the UFTR. Four cases were designed using combinations of two wind

extrapolation theories from CALMET (Similarity Theory and Power Law) mixed with the two

effluent transport and dispersion options from CALPUFF (puff and slug).

General characteristics throughout the model were: 24 hour run time, a 17 x 17 grid, a grid

spacing of 0.05 km, and six vertical layers in the atmosphere. In addition, all elevation and

coordinates pertinent to the UFTR were obtained from the Magellan Explorist 300 handheld

global positioning system receiver. The following information was employed in gathering this

data, and then input into the CALMET and CALPUFF input files: a datum based on WGS-84,

zone 17, Eastern Time zone, and a UTM proj section in the northern hemisphere. The latitude and

longitude gathered was an eating of 369.530 km and a nothing of 3280.494 km. The elevation

was ~41.76 m at the northeast corner of the UFTR. The following two sections describe

additional pertinent details in CALMET and CALPUFF files.









CALMET Details

In the CALMET input files, general assumptions were made regarding terrain and

weather conditions. Although the UF campus in Gainesville, FL does not have perfectly flat

terrain, it is also not completely urban. Therefore, the assumption of flat terrain with an urban

landscape is a near approximation accounting for the slightly sloping landscape with buildings of

varying heights around the UFTR. The assumption of no overwater effects is made since no large

bodies of water are within about a kilometer of the stack and the maximum concentrations in the

spread of effluent are less than a kilometer from the stack as well.

CALMET's geo.dat input file (Appendix B) contained the terrain and land use data in 17 x

17 grids. All land use values were assumed to be 10 (urban or built up land); Appendix C

contains the land use table from the CALMET manual [26]. The elevation levels were all set to

41.76 m above sea level, which was the estimated altitude of UFTR.

The surf~dat input file for CALMET contained the weather data and was designed for a

warm summer day. All of the weather data in surf~dat was averaged, as described in Table 3.2,

for input into STAC2.1.

In the four models for the STAC2.1 comparison, the surface wind observations were varied

between two extrapolation methods: similarity theory and power law. Similarity theory extends

the influences of wind speed and direction from the surface to the upper layers. The wind speed

(U(z)) is expressed using inverse Monin-Obukhov length (1/L), roughness length (zo),

anemometer height (zi), atmospheric stability function (uym), and measured wind speed at the

anemometer height (U(zl)) as depicted in Eq. 3-6. For further explanation, refer to the CALMET

manual p. 2-12 2-14 [26].











U(z) = U(z1)1 ,Z
zo ~-- lnLj (3-6)

The Power law approach is a more simple method of adjusting the wind using existing

wind and height measurements as a function of a power as shown in Eq. 3-7. Variables are the

adjusted wind (uz), the measured wind value (zm), measured height of the measured wind

observation (um), and the midpoint of the CALMET grid option (z).

(Z 10.143
~-n (3-7)

CALPUFF Details

Three main characteristics, focused on in CALPUFF, were: puff versus slug option,

addition of Ar-41 to the species section, and input of the UFTR stack parameters. As mentioned

before, the puff and slug models were mixed with the similarity theory and power-law for the

compari son.

Ar-41 was input as a dry deposited gas; the characteristic values are described in Table 3.3

[25, 27, 28]. The diffusivity of Ar-41 through air is described by Eq. 3-8, which include

temperature in Kelvin (T), molecular weights of the species in g/mol (M), molecular volume in

cm3/g-mOl ( V), pressure in atm (P), and the gas constant in atm-cm3/g-mOl-K (R) [27]. Alpha

star, reactivity (non-radioactive reference), and mesophyll resistance were assumed to be similar

to low values of other species such as SO2 [25]. The Henry's Law constant for Ar-41 was

assumed to be similar to that of argon [28].

4 ~MAr41 P 1 1
D =1.8 x10-4 e +
2 RT MAr41 MAir
(VAr41 +yVi
/ (3-8)










The stack information for CALPUFF is illustrated in Table 3.4, and matches that of the

UFTR [1 4, 19, 24].

As described above, four CALPUFF package models were created with these four

combinations of wind extrapolation methods and effluent transport and dispersion theory:

similarity theory and puff dispersion, similarity theory and slug dispersion, power law and puff

dispersion, and power law and slug dispersion. Results of the comparison with STAC 2. 1 are

described in the next section.

STAC2.1 and CALPUFF Results Comparison

Four CALPUFF models were created using summer weather conditions (Table 3.2), details

for the UFTR stack, Ar-41 characteristics, a flat, uniform terrain associated with Gainesville, FL,

no over water effects, and using an urban wind model. The four studies included combinations of

the transport dispersion models (puff and slug) with two different wind extrapolation methods

(power law and similarity theory). The four model combinations were: puff and similarity

theory, puff and power law, slug and similarity theory, and slug and power law. A STAC2. 1

model was created to match the average weather conditions, flat terrain, and urban model, as

well as the UFTR and Ar-41 parameters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to each of the

four cases. The results of this comparison are given in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

Maximum concentrations computed using STAC2.1 and CALPUFF software models were

compared for each of the cases. It was found that the relative distance where the maximum

concentration occurred varied as much as 31% different between the two models. The distance of

the maximum concentration was identical in all four CALPUFF models. The maximum

concentrations differed from between ~19 and 31%, depending on whether a puff or slug model,

or wind extrapolation power law or similarity theory was employed. STAC2.1 results most









closely matched the slug, power law model. Comparisons between concentrations for the same

distances differed between the codes by ~1 to 6 %.

The best model relative to a comparison with STAC2.1 is the CALPUFF slug and wind

extrapolation power law model which resulted in a percent difference of ~-19%. This illustrates

that STAC2. 1 yields conservative results, by ~19%, and creates an upper bound for Ar-41 full-

power peak ground concentrations straight down-wind from the UFTR.

The validation methods and corresponding results from comparing STAC2.1 to a manual

method as well as a comparing it with the CALPUFF package was described above. Chapter 4

describes the results from STAC2.1 for concentrations, dose rates, and other pertinent

calculations for the UFTR. Note that STAC2.1 values are always greater than CALPUFF results

therefore STAC2.1 yields conservative results by ~19%.



Table 3-1 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar-41 Manual Calculation vs.
STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)
Parameters Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Distance from building (m) 50 100 500
ov (m) 10.97 21.89 107.35
oz (m) 10.00 20.00 100.00
Manual Concentration: (Ci/m3) 3.15x10-s 1.39x10-s 6.81x10-10
STAC2.1 Multiplier 3.39x10-4 1.50x10-4 7. 11x10-6
STAC2.1 Concentration (Ci/m3) 3. 13x10s 1 .3 8x10-s 6.56x10-10
% Difference: STAC2.1 vs. Manual -0.70% -0.77% -3.61%

Table 3-2 Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2.1 use
Time of Year Wind Speed (m/s) Direction (Deg) Temp (K) Temp (C)
Summer 3.87 188.91 301.86 28.86

Table 3-3 Characteristics of Ar-41 as input in CALPUFF
Species Diffusivity Alpha Star Reactivity Mesophyll Resistance Henry's Law
cm2/S N/A N/A s/cm Dimensionless
Ar-4 1 0.1535 1 0 0 3 .42 5x 10-2









Stack Parameter Input
Value

369.530
3280.494
9.04
41.76
0.86
12.81
302.1

1.0x100
0.22
0.2


Table 3-4 CALPUFF
Parameter
Source Number
X Coordinate (km)
Y Coordinate (km)
Stack Height (m)
Base Elevation (m)
Stack Diameter (m)
Exit Velocity (m/s)
Exit Temperature (K)
Building Downwash
Emission Rates (Ci/s)
Sigma y
Sigma z


Table 3-5 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model
Models Similarity Theory Power Law
Maximum % Distance Maximum % Diff. Distance
Conc. (Ci/m3) Diff. in from Conc. in Conc. from
Conc. Stack (m) (Ci/m3) Stack (m)
STAC2.1 1.83x10- 30.71 103 1.83x10- 19.61 103
(Maximum)
STAC2.1 1.49x10-s 6.43 79 1.49x10-s -2.61 79
CALPUFF 1.40x10-s N/A 79 1.53x10-s N/A 79
(Maximum)

Table 3-6 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model
Models Similarity Theory Power Law
Maximum % Diff. Distance Maximum % Diff. Distance
Conc. in from Conc. in Conc. from Stack
(Ci/m3) COnc. Stack (m) (Ci/m3) (m>
STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83x10-s 23.65 103 1.83x10-s 18.83 103
STAC2.1 1.49x10-s 0.68 79 1.49x10-s -3.25 79

CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.48x10-s N/A 79 1.54x10-s N/A 79









CHAPTER 4
STAC2.1 RESULTS

Previously, the program methodology, theory, and validation for both STAC 2.1 and

CALPUFF were discussed. The Gaussian modeling feature of CALPUFF was used to validate

the simple STAC2.1 one-wind, Gaussian model. Results are described below.

STAC2.1 was used to calculate conservative concentrations. Remember that the highest

daytime concentrations, closest to the stack, occur for Pasquill class A, the most unstable

condition. In addition, for class "C", while the concentrations are lower over-all, the continuous,

full-power concentrations remain above the limit further away from the stack. To ascertain the

Ar-41 concentrations for the UFTR, while accounting for atmospheric influences, local weather

condition measurements were acquired from the local conditions recorded daily by the

Department of Physics Weather Station [2, 4]. The information in Tables 4. 1 and 4.2 are the

average temperatures, wind directions, wind speeds, and Pasquill Classes attributed for yearly

periods between July 2004 and July 2005 surrounding the UF campus. Table 4.1 contains

daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table 4.2 has the nighttime, 8pm 6am, information.

Concentrations

The full-power peak Ar-41 concentrations released, for each set of individual data, using

possible different population and Pasquill Class combinations, as well as the distance from the

building where these peaks occur, are illustrated in Table 4.3. Stability classes A, B, and C are

used for daytime, while the F stability class is used for nighttime. Note that highlighted

concentrations reflect the average daytime stability classes for each time period; the average

nighttime stability class (F) is the only nighttime category shown. Concentrations, for each time

period averaged Pasquill Class, are illustrated in Fig. 4-1.









Dose Rates

The total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum

concentration of 1.00x10-s Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29]. Dose rate is

linearly related to Ar-41 concentration as shown in Eq. 4-1. Maximum full-power dose rates and

corresponding concentrations, for the quarterly and yearly Pasquill Class averages, are shown in

Table 4.4. The full-power dose rate trends, for each average Pasquill Class for each time period,

is illustrated in Fig. 4-2.

mrem Ci 50 mrem
Dose = X e
yr 1 1.00 x10-8 Ci
nd (4-1)

Table 4.5 shows possible limiting case scenario full-power concentrations and doses for

several buildings near the UFTR based on a continuous operation concentration with dedicated

winds using the April 2005 July 2005 data. The wind directions were assumed to vector to each

building.

Operation Hours

Peak, full-power concentrations show that when the UFTR is assumed to operate at 100%

power for 24 hours per day, then the allowable maximum concentrations and doses of Ar-41 for

dedicated wind directions exceed 1.00x10-' Ci/m3 and 50 mrem/yr. This implies that a "reactor

duty cycle" must be applied to bring the monthly average concentration of Ar-41 below the

maximum allowable concentrations.

Using the calculated peak, full-power concentrations of Ar-41, the UFTR Effective Full

Power Hours (EFPH), are shown in Table 4.6 for daytime conditions, since daytime is when the

reactor is most likely to be run. In considering the peak concentrations, this will decrease limit

exceeding concentrations to below 1.00x10-s Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. 4-2

[20, 23, 24]. Ar-41 concentrations (X) are in Ci/m3. For units of kW-hours month or kW-









hours/week, multiply by 100kW. The 720 hours/month is standard assuming 24 hours/day, 7

days/ week, and ~4.286 wk/month [20]. Note that the EFPH limit based on license requirements

is 235.00 hours/month or 55.56 hours/week [20].

Irs 1.00 x10-8 C
EFPH -- = 720 ---
m~o ci~ m~o
m3 (4-2)

Therefore, on average, to remain below the annual limit of 1.00x10-'Ci/m3, the UFTR may

be run up ~307 hours/month at full power for the year, with a restriction of running up to ~240

hours/month during the late spring and summer months. Since the additional restriction is 235.00

hours/month, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hours/month (55.56 hours/week) all year long.

This is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the UFTR of ~1 16 hours/month [20].

Dilution Factors

The flow diluted release concentration of Ar-41 (uy) at the top of the stack, before being

affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3 fTOm Eq. 3-3. Dilution factors are

calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3, Shown in Eq. 4-3. Table

4.7 shows the dilution factors for the site boundary, the distance where maximum concentration

occurs, and the distance where the closest residence housing is located (East Hall at 190m). The

concentrations were calculated using the limiting case conditions for April 2005 July 2005,

with a wind direction towards East Hall (800)

X m3
DilutionFactor =
1.24 x10-5 ci
m3 (4-3)

Consider that the dilution ratio for the maximum concentration (415:1) is also the

maximum case instantaneous release concentration from the UFTR stack. The dilution ratio,









currently used by the UFTR, is 200: 1 [16]. Note that 200: 1 is extremely conservative compared

to the computed value of 415:1 based on results from STAC2.1.

Table 4.8 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration

calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20x10-s Ci/m3) [20, 23, 24], and the maximum concentration

as determined by STAC2.1. It is shown that the 200: 1 ratio is approximately 2.07 times more

conservative than the 415:1 ratio.

Stack Height Comparison

A study was conducted to determine whether or not the physical stack height could be

raised to increase atmospheric dilution and decrease the peak concentration of Ar-41 from the

UFTR to below the limits of 1.00x10-" Ci/m3 and 50 mrem/yr. This was relevant in

consideration of eliminating the requirement to limit how long the UFTR may be operated per

month. Weather conditions from April 2005 July 2005 were applied in these models, using a

wind direction of 80o pointed towards East Hall (the closest student residence hall). These

weather conditions represented a limiting scenario with the highest overall concentrations and

dose rates.

The following heights were initially modeled for a general comparison: 8.00 m, 9.04 m,

10.00 m, 15.00 m, 20.00 m, and 25.00 m. Table 4.9 shows the peak, full-power concentrations

and dose rates for each stack height modeled. Between 15.00 m and 20.00 m, the concentrations

and dose rates dip below the limits. Fig. 4-3 and 4-4 illustrate the concentration and dose rate

distributions, respectively, for each stack height model.

Additional models were completed at stack heights of 16.00 m, 16.50 m, 17.00 m, and

18.08 m in order to determine a stack height which will yield full-power concentrations and

doses below the limits without limiting operations hours. Table 4.10 shows the maximum, full-

power concentrations and dose rates, and Fig. 4-5 and 4-6 depict the concentration and dose rate










distributions respectively. From these comparisons, any stack height above 16.50 m will yield

concentrations and dose rates below the limits. Conservatively, the stack height may be doubled

from 9.04 m to 18.08 m, for operation 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

Results from STAC2.1 were described in this chapter for full-power concentrations,

corresponding dose rates, and other pertinent calculations for the UFTR. This was based on

theory and validations covered in previous chapters. The next discussion covers the final

summary and conclusions of this work.


3.00E-08

2.75E-08 -Ju'04 Sept '04, Class A

2.50E-08 Oct'04 Dec '04, Class B



1.50E-08

1.25E-08


1.00E-08




S7.50E3-09---

5.00E-09--

2.50E-09--

0.00E+00 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance from UFTR (m)
Figure 4-1 Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average
Pasquill Classes for each Time Period





-
""******* """


-Jul'O4 Sept'04, Class A

-Oct 04 Dec 04, Class B


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Distance from UCFT R (m)


Figure 4-2 Dose Rates (mrem/yr)
for each Time Period


and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes


3.75E-08
3.50E-08
3.25E-08
3.00E-08
2.75E3-08
2.50E-08
2.25E-08
2.00E-08
1.75E-08
1.50E-08
1.25E-08
1.00E-08
7.50E-09
5.00E-09
2.50E-09
0 O0E+0 0


- Stack Height I

- Stack Height I

-Stack Height I

-Stack Height I

Stack Height I

- Stack Height I


8.00 m1

9.04 m

10.00 m1

15.00 m

20.00 m

25.00 m


0 100 200 300 400 500


600 700 800 900 1000


Distance from UFTR (m)

Figure 4-3 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various
Stack Heights





~~Stack Hegr
- Stack Height
~~Stack He~
-Stack Heigh-t

-Stack Height

Stack Height:


8.00 Inl

S9.04 I

10.00 m

15.00 m1

:20.00 ml

25.00 m


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Distance from UFTR (m)

Figure 4-4 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack
Heights



1.3=F -,1 -Stack Heighrt = 15.00 ml
1.20E-08
-Stack Heigh~t= 16.00 ml
5;1.10E-08
1.00E-08 I\ Stack Heigh~t= 16.50 ml

9.00E-09 I gj- Stack Heighrt = 17.00 ml
8.00E-09
% 7.0E-09Stack Height= 18.08 ml
7 .00E-09
6 .00E-09

5 .00E-09
4.00E-09

3 .00E-09-
2.00E-09-
1.00I E-09I

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 11 900O 1000

Distance from UFTR (m)

Figure 4-5 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack
Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3)

































0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance from UFTR (m)
Figure 4-6 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights
around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3)

Table 4-1 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages
Monthly Quarters, & Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes
Year F C Degrees mph m/s
Jul '04-Sept '04 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A
Oct '04-Dec '04 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B
Jan '05-Mar '05 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C
Apr '05-Jul '05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A
Jul '04-Jul '05 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B


Table 4-2 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages
Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes
F C Degrees mph m/s
Jul '04-Sept '04 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F
Oct '04-Dec '04 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F
Jan '05-Mar '05 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F
Apr '05-Jul '05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F
Jul '04-Jul '05 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F


Table 4-3 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR
Stability Jul04-Sep04 Oct04-DecO4 JanO5-Mar)5 April05-Jul05 Jul04-Jul05
Classes Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m
A 2.89x10" 50 2.62x10" 44 2.86x10" 47 2.99x10" 50 2.83x10" 45
B 2.39x108 79 2.16x108 75 2.36x108 78 2.46x108 82 2.34x108 80
C 2.32x10" 119 2.09x10" 111 2.28x10" 120 2.39x10" 123 2.27x10" 115
F 1.09x108 775 1.08x108 865 1.08x108 750 1.09x108 835 1.09x108 800










Table 4-4 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and
Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full-Power Continuous Operation
Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Max Conc. & Dist. from Total Effective Dose Rate
Classes UFTR
Ci/m3 m mrem/year
Jul '04-Sept '04 A 2.89x108 50 145
Oct '04-Dec '04 B 2.16x108 75 108
Jan '05-Mar '05 C 2.28x10" 120 114
Apr '05-Jul '05 A 2.99x10" 50 150
Jul '04-Jul '05 B 2.34x10" 80 117

Table 4-5 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR,
Assuming Full-Power, Continuous Operation
Buildings on Campus ~Distance from ~Wind Direction Max. Conc. Dose
UFTR (m) (deg) (Ci/m3) (mrem/yr)


ij


Reed Lab. (RLA) 20 180
Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265
Weil Hall (WEIL) Main Eng. 63 170
Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80
Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0
Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MIAEC) 137 80
Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40
East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80
Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95
Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAEB) 200 40
North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170
Weaver Hall (WEA) Housing 251 80
Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85
Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110
Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93
Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50
O'Connell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125
Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115
Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50
Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55
Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135


Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime


I


2.65x108
2.89x10"
1.96x10"
1.09x108
1.03x108
7.87x10-9
5.75x10-9
6.16x10-9
5.22x10-9
4.04x10-9
3.42x10-9
3.39x10-9
2.86x10-9
2.43x10-9
2.27x10-9
2.12x10-9
1.98x10-9
1.85x10-9
1.29x10-9
1.26x10-9
1.02x10-9


Table 4-6 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41
Atmospheric Conditions
Monthly Quarters, & Day Pasquill Max. Conc. & EFPH
Year Classes Dist. from UFTR
Ci/m3 m hrs/mo
Jul '04-Sept '04 A 2.89x108 50 249.13
Oct '04-Dec '04 B 2.16x10" 75 333.33


kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk
24913.49 58.90 5889.72
33333.33 78.80 7880.22










Table 4-6 Continued
Monthly Quarters, & Day Pasquill Max. Conc. & EFPH
Year Classes Dist. from UFTR
Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk
Jan '05-Mar '05 C 2.28x10" 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47
Apr '05-Jul '05 A 2.99x108 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73
Jul '04-Jul '05 B 2.34x10" 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05

Table 4-7 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations
Campus Relevance Distance from UFTR Concentration Dilution Ratio
m Ci/m3 (Value: 1)
UFTR Site Boundary 30 1.48x10- 838
Maximum Concentration 50 2.99x10-s 415
East Hall (Closest Dorm) 190 5.75x10-9 2157

Table 4-8 Dilution Ratio Comparison
Location Concentration Dilution Ratio (Top Difference Ratio
(Ci/m3) Of stack: Other) (S TAC2.1:.SOP)
UFTR SOP (Using 200: 1) 6.20x10- 200 2.07
Maximum Concentration 2.99x10-s 415


8.00 45 3.54x10- 177
9.04 50 2.99x10-s 149
10.00 50 2.55x10-s 128
15.00 65 1.21x10-s 61
20.00 80 6.49x10-9 32
25.00 97 3.84x10-9 19

Table 4-10 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates and, Corresponding Distances from the UFTR
per Stack Height
Stack Height Distance from UFTR Maximum Concentration Maximum Dose Rate
M m Ci/m3 mrem/year
15.00 65 1.21E-08 61
16.00 70 1.06E-08 53
16.50 70 9.93E-09 50
17.00 70 9.30E-09 47
18.08 75 8.14E-09 41


Table 4-9 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates, and Corresponding Distances from the UFTR
per Stack Height
Stack Height Distance from UFTR Maximum Concentration Maximum Dose Rate
m m Ci/m3 mrem/year









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Results Summary and Conclusions

In summary, University of Florida (UF) researchers performed a detailed assessment of the

Ar-41 concentration and dose generated by operation of the University of Florida Training

Reactor (UFTR) for relicensing requirements for the NRC (Appendix D). Specifically, yearly

maximum predicted concentrations, dose rates, operational limits, and dilution factors were

calculated for the UFTR with impact assessments assuming dedicated wind directions to nearby

campus buildings at 100% full power (100kW). In addition, a stack height study was conducted

to determine the height necessary to reduce the Ar-41 concentration without limiting operation

times. Note that the total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a

maximum concentration of 1.00x10-s Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year.

A Gaussian plume model based code, STAC2.1, developed and benchmarked by UF

researchers, was employed to calculate the maximum concentrations and corresponding

distances. Average daytime atmospheric conditions for UF (2004-2005), UFTR discharge stack

parameters, and Ar-41 characteristics were established as input parameters for the code. Manual

Pasquill plume calculations and detailed CALPUFF computations were used to successfully

validate STAC2.1 results. The percent differences from the manual method ranged from 0.70 to

3.61%, and the percent differences from CALPUFF models aliased using STAC2.1 were within

~-19%. In addition, since the STAC2.1 results are greater than those from CALPUFF, it can be

concluded that STAC2.1 results are conservative and yield an upper bound for the full-power

peak concentrations of Ar-41 straight down-wind from the UFTR.

Based on the available data and results from STAC2.1, the average yearly maximum,

down-wind, assuming 100% full power Ar-41 concentration for the UFTR was 2.34 x10-s Ci/m3









at 80m (117 mrem/yr), while the highest full power concentration (April 2005 July 2005) was

2.99 x10-s Ci/m3 at 50m (150 mrem/yr). Note this assumes continuous full power operation, and

the highest maximum concentration was used as the limiting value for all other calculations in

determining reactor operational constraints so as to be in compliance with the mean dose of 50

mrem/year.

Concerning the buildings on campus, only buildings within ~150m of the UFTR could

experience concentrations and dose rates greater than the limits if the reactor were continuously

operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65x10-s Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89x10-s

Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96x10-s Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09x10-s Ci/m3), and the

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03x10-s Ci/m3). The student residence hall

closest to the UFTR, East Hall, located 190m away, had both the concentration and dose rate

below the annual full operation limit: 5.75x10-9 Ci/m3. In Order to reduce the maximum

concentrations (and corresponding doses) to acceptable limits, the number of allowable full

power hours of operation per month was calculated. The allowable number of hours, averaged

for the year, was ~307 hours/month, with a further restriction during the summer of ~240 full

power hours/month. Therefore, based on an additional license restriction of 23 5.00 hours/month,

from Ar-41 emissions, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hours/month (55.56 hours/week) all year

long during the daylight hours. This is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the

UJFTR of ~1 16 hours/month [24]. In addition, since nighttime concentrations and resultant doses

are lower than for daytime, the reactor may be run 48 hours/week continuously without

exceeding limit requirements; ~7 hour/week would still be available as well.









Based on an analysis of the STAC2. 1 results, the estimated 200: 1 ratio, used in the UFTR

standard operational procedures established for the past 50 years, was ~2 times more

conservative than the calculated ~415:1 dilution ratio.

Finally, several models were evaluated with varying stack heights to see the effects on Ar-

41 concentrations and dose; fan speeds were kept constant. Initially stack heights of 8.00m,

9.04m (current stack height), 10.00m, 15.00, 20.00, and 25.00m were modeled. The results

showed that between 15.00m and 20.00m the concentration dropped below the limit. Further

models at 15.00m, 16.00m, 16.50m, 17.00m, and 18.08m were performed. Results indicated that

increasing the stack height from the current height of 9.04 m to effluent discharge levels greater

than ~16.50 m would yield continuous peak full-power Ar-41 concentrations below the limit of

1.00x10s Ci/m3 anywhere on campus.

All results and analyses were used for the NRC re-licensing of the UFTR. Further work

could be done to add to the depth of this thesis; several ideas are described in the next section.

Possible Future Works

Future comparisons with STAC2.1, involving CALPUFF, could be performed. One idea is

to consider a wider variation of terrain and weather conditions to gain additional understanding

of these model effects in CALPUFF. Note that if flat terrain data is criticized then one would

need detailed detection point on a street canyon basis. Some additional concepts pertaining to

CALPUFF which may be explored are: using high resolution datasets, more detailed inspection

of the wind vector results, and a more precise one day, one-wind model created in CALMET.

Another concept is linking CALMET data with Pennsylvania State University / National Center

for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model (MM5) [25, 26, 30] or the Weather Research and

Forecasting model (WRF) [3 1, 32] for comparison with STAC2. 1. All of these possible









comparisons entail looking at the accuracy of the one-wind model and the locations of the

concentrations as the Ar-41 plume spreads away from the UFTR.

Other programs, such as COMPLY, may be used to model the UFTR and be compared to

the results from STAC2.1 and CALPUFF. COMPLY is another EPA approved model [12].

In addition, further analyses of Ar-41 concentrations and necessary modifications for a

possible UFTR power upgrade from 100kW to 500kW may be considered. A multi-faceted study

was performed as part of another effort. It included two modifications for reducing Ar-41

concentrations emitted at the higher power: adding neutron absorbing shields on the north and

south sides of the UFTR (where the least graphite and concrete shielding are present), and

increasing the stack height to at least 40 m [33]. For this stack height comparison, additional

vertical analysis of upper floors of the atmosphere, regarding Pasquill stability classes in

STAC2.1 may need to be considered.


APPENDIX A
STAC2.1 INPUT VARIABLE CALCULATIONS

Ratio of Densities

Ar-41 density at room temperature at STP: 40.96 g/mol*1mol/22.4L =1.8286 g/1 = 1.8286 kg/m3

Assuming constant volume, and using Ideal gas laws:

P1 TI P2 T2
P1 P (A-1)

P1 T1 P2
T2 P1 (A-2)

(1.8286 ) (23773 K)(10 kllPa)
P2 =
(298 K) (101.325 kPa) (A-3)

Ar-41 density: 1.653 kg/m3









Air density: 1.169 kg/m3

(1.653 )
Ratio = = 1.4
(1.169 3-4

Specific Heat

Assumed the specific heat of Ar-41 is approximated by the specific heat of Argon (520 J/kg-oC).

Inner Diameter of Stack Calculation

Length of square stack side: 2 ft 6 in = 0.762m

Standard Deviation: 0.25in = 0.0064m

Measured area of rectangular stack opening: 6.35 ft2 = 0.581lm2

Conversion to circular dimensions: A = 7TT2 = 0.581m2

Radius is: 0.430m

Diameter is: 0.860m

Height of the Stack

The height was measured from inside the stack opening to the floor of the stack.

Stack height: 29 ft 8 in = 29.67 ft = 9.04m

EMux velocity from Stack

Total volumetric flow rate (core vent + dilution fan): 15772 ft3/min = 7.4436 m3/S

Volumetric Flow Rate 7.4436 m
Air Flow Velocity = =s = 12.81
Cross sectional Area of Stack Opening 0.581n9 s (A-5)










APPENDIX B
GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT


GEO.DAT 2.0 Header structure with coordinate parameters

Produced by MAKEGEO Version: 2.2 Level: 030402
simplified GEO.DAT for use with test case
UTM
1714


WGS-84 10-10-2002
17 17 369.530 3280.494


0.050 0.050


0 LAND USE DATA (0 = default categories)


10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.00000 -- Terrain heights HTFAC conversion


to meters
41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76

41.76 41.76


41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76
41.76


41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76


41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76


41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76










41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
0 default z0 field
0 default albedo field
0 default Bowen ratio field


41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76
41.76 41.76


41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76

41.76


0 default soil heat flux parameters
0 default anthropogenic heat flux field
0 defatilt leaf area index field





[26]


APPENDIX C
LANDUSE TABLE FOR GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT


Surrface
Roughness (m)

1.0

0.25

0.25

0.05

1.0

0.001

0.001

0.001

1.0

1.0

0.2

0.05

.20

.20


SodlHeat
Flux Parameter

.25

.15

.15

.15

.15

1.0

1.0

1.0

.25

0.25

0.25

.15

.15

.15


Heat Flux (Wiim2)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Le-afArea
Index

0.2

3.0

3.0

0.5

7.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

0.05

0.0

0.0


Land Use 'Trpe

10

20





40

51

54

55

60

61

j2

70

80

90


Description

Urban or Built-up Land

Agricultural Land Charigatd

Agricultural Land -Irrigated

Rangeland

Forest Land

Small Water Body

Bays and Esmuaries

Large Water Body

W~etlad

Forested We~tland

Nonforested Wetland

Barren Land

Tundra

Perennial Snowv or Jcee


Albedo

0.18

0.15

0.15

0.25

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.1

0.1

0.30

0.30

0.70


Bowen R~atio

1.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.1

1.0

0.5

0.5


" Ny- F i: e values mndicate "iragated" land use









APPENDIX D
APPENDIX SUBMITTED TO THE NRC: APPENDIX E

By
V.S. Cornelison and G. E. Sjoden
Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Department, University of Florida

Introduction

Atmospheric plume dispersion modeling, integrating atmospheric statistical dynamics,

diffusion, and meteorological data may be applied to achieve an estimate of the downwind

concentration of Ar-41 effluent released during steady state operation of the University of

Florida Training Reactor (UFTR). The atmospheric modeling approach utilized to determine

effluent levels is based on the methods constructed by Pasquill and further expounded upon by

Briggs and Turner [1 4], with related methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy

Commission studies [34]. We note that these methods have been adopted and used as a basis for

methodologies adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Coordinator of

Meteorology, and the American Society for Mechanical Engineers [1, 4, 6, 8].

Wind direction and atmospheric conditions such as temperature, solar radiation, and wind

speed distinctly affect the path of effluents dispersed from an exhaust stack [1 4, 7]. The

specific time of day versus night conditions are important, due to environmental changes in the

lapse rate from the combined effects of heating and cloud cover. These varying conditions, along

with the accepted mathematical models, allow the concentration of Ar-41 to be conservatively

estimated with a simple one-wind, Gaussian computer code employing proper model physics:

STAC2 (Version 2. 1) Build 1.5b (hereafter referred to as 'STAC2.1') [8]. Note that while wind

speed and temperature specifically affect effluent concentration, wind direction simply

determines the vector location along which the effluent flows. The basis of STAC2. 1 is a

Gaussian plume model. The Gaussian model, illustrated in Figure D-1, describes, in three-









dimensions, the theoretical path of a plume emerging from the stack: straight downwind,

horizontally, and vertically [4]. These directions correspond, respectively to a coordinate system

along the x-axis (parallel to the wind vector), y-axis, and z-axis. Figure D-1 illustrates the basic

plume and plume centerline (bold, dashed line parallel to the x-axis). The "H" in the figure

represents the effective stack height relative to the plume centerline, and "h" is the physical

height of the stack. The profile of the plume is detailed with the elliptical and parabolic sketches

to demonstrate three dimensional depths.

In addition, frictional (drag) effects on wind speed can be approximated using a terrain

category typical of the region where the atmospheric transport is occurring. For the University

of Florida campus, the terrain is assumed to be urban with a flat landscape. The comparison

between urban, suburban, and rural, to capture specific effects of different terrain on wind speed

profiles, is shown in Figure D-2 [1, 4]. As surface roughness decreases, the depth of the affected

atmospheric layer becomes more shallow, and the wind speed profile becomes steeper. The

numbers reflected in the curves refer to normalized percentages of the wind gradient at various

heights .

The UFTR, an Argonaut design, produces Ar-41 by neutron activation in the course of

operations. This effluent is discharged from the air handling equipment from the exhaust stack

adj acent to the reactor building. The limiting parameter for the operating duty cycle of the

UJFTR is the concentration of Ar-41; monthly concentration averages in uncontrolled spaces for

Ar-41 must not exceed 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 (HOte: 1 Ci/m3 = 1CLCi/mL), at 100% reactor power, per

state and federal guidelines (10CFR20) [16, 17]. The UFTR is in close proximity to many

building structures on the Florida campus, including the Ben Hill Griffin Football Stadium, other









engineering departments, parking garages, and students' residence halls. The closest student

residence hall, East Hall, is located approximately 190m west-southwest of the UFTR.

Calculation Theory Implemented in STAC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs

The Ar-41 concentrations, emitted from the UFTR stack, are calculated based on standard

AS1VE effluent diffusion equations and Pasquill stability classes determined from atmospheric

conditions, which are cast as input parameters for STAC2.1 [1, 2, 4, 8]. The principal governing

equation for the determination of down-wind ground concentration is given in Eq. (1), with

variables cast as: concentration of effluent (Ar-41) released (X) in Ci/m3, release rate (Q) in Ci/s,

effective stack height (h) in m, average wind speed (us) in m/s, horizontal standard dispersion

coefficient (o = o .(x)) as a function of (x) distance from the stack in meters, vertical dispersion

coefficient (o, = o (x)) as a function of distance from the stack in meters, and horizontal shift

from the centerline (y) in m. As can be seen by inspection of Eq. (1), the maximum predicted

ground (z=0) concentrations occur immediately downwind from the stack, where there is no

horizontal shift (y = 0).

O! h2 y -
.~, y) = ep +(1


An "effective" stack height (h), in meters, is calculated, using a conservative buoyant

plume estimate, and is the height of the plume centerline above the source accounting for the rise

of the physical effluent discharged at the stack. The height of the plume centerline is computed

by STAC2.1, while the height of the physical stack is an input parameter. The crosswind

dispersion coefficients, cy and oz are determined by the atmospheric stability classes ("A"

through "F") and were originally created by Pasquill, where "A" is the most unstable condition,

and "F" is the most stable.









Relative "stability" is determined by the amount of solar radiation, wind speed, outside

temperature, relative lapse rate (0.65 oC/100m for the case of the UFTR), and the effluent release

time of day (day or night) [1, 2]. Characteristically, "unstable" is considered warm and sunny

(daytime), while "stable" is cool and overcast (nighttime). Table D-1 describes, in general, the

characteristics attributed to each class.

In addition, with regard to the effluent (Ar-41), STAC 2. 1 takes into account the half-life,

density ratio to air, specific heat of the bulk effluent, and the molecular weight (for ppt-v

determinations, if required). In addition, STAC2. 1 accounts for general terrain altitude as a

tunable parameter for density corrections.

Validation of STAC2.1 Results both "By-Hand" and using CALPUFF

The release rate, specific to the UFTR, was calculated to be 9.228 E-5 Ci/s ( ). The

details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. (2) (4) [1, 2, 4, 11, 20, 24]. Additional

parameters in these equations, relative to the UFTR reactor, are: the undiluted release rate of Ar-

41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 E-4 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar-41

from the core vent and dilution fan ( f ) (15772 ft3/min Or 7.444 m3/S), the dilution factor (A)

from the dilution fan and core vent dimensionlesss) (0.0152168), and the flow diluted release

concentration at the top of the stack (uy = 1.24E-5 Ci/m3) [20, 24]. The fan flow rate value was

determined as a result of the most recent service to the dilution fan. This dilution factor (A) takes

into account that Ar-41 comes from the core (reactor) via the core vent, which is then dispersed

by both the core vent and the dilution fan [20, 24].

Core Vent Flow Rate a

min (2)

Ci Ci
qi d 8.147 E 4 deA(3









.Ci Ci n
s n? s (4)

In STAC2.1, the release rate was initially modeled assuming a unit source to calculate

general maximum concentrations straight downwind from the stack. Final concentrations of Ar-

41, for the UFTR, were calculated by multiplying these general concentrations by the specific

release rate, 9.228 x 105 Ci/s.

All calculations were verified, independently, by hand, as shown in Table D-1. Tabulated

values for cy and oz, atmospheric conditions for Gainesville, Florida, and the stack height and

release rate for the UFTR were applied to Eq. (1) for the hand calculation. Concentrations were

compared for various distances from the UFTR versus those computed using STAC2. 1 for the

year between July 2004 and July 2005 assuming extremely unstable conditions.

In addition, we note that the temperature of the effluent was assumed to be the same as the

average ambient temperature; 23.05oC. The average daytime wind azimuth direction for the year

was from 167. 11o, and the average ground wind speed was 2.42 m/s. As shown in the last row of

Table D-2, the differences in the concentrations determined via tabular "by-hand" values or

STAC2. 1 code runs were less than 3.61% within 500m, and less than 0.77% within 100m

downwind of the stack. To explain the differences, the "by-hand" computations do not account

for all of the physics (buoyant plume rise with temperature, decay at time of arrival, etc), and are

less robust than used in the STAC2.1 calculations [9].

'CALPUFF' is an EPA approved California puff and slug atmospheric dispersion

modeling program for accurate concentration and effluent spread prediction over complicated

terrain [26]. Puffs are circular, Gaussian mappings of effluent concentrations, while slugs are

elongations of these puffs using Lagrangian and Gaussian methods. Four CALPUFF models

were created using summer weather conditions, details for the UFTR stack, Ar-41










characteristics, a flat, uniform terrain associated with Gainesville, FL, no "over water" effects,

and using an urban wind model. The four studies included combinations of puff and slug models

with two different wind extrapolation methods; power law and similarity methods. A

STAC2.1model was created to match the average weather conditions, flat terrain, and urban

model, as well as the UFTR and Ar-41 parameters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to

each of the four cases. The results of this comparison are given in Tables D-3 and D-4.

Maximum concentrations computed using STAC2.1 and CALPUFF software models were

compared for each of the cases. It was found that the relative distance where the maximum

concentration occurred was as much as 3 1% different between the two models. This distance of

the maximum concentration was identical in all four CALPUFF models. The maximum

concentration values differed from between ~19% and 31%, depending on whether a puff or slug

model, or wind extrapolation power law or similarity theory was employed. STAC2.1 results

most closely matched the slug, power law model. Comparisons between concentrations for the

same downwind distances differed between the codes by only ~1% to 6 %. The best model

relative to a comparison with STAC2. 1 is the 'CALGROUP slug and wind extrapolation power

law model,' which resulted in a percent difference of +/- ~19%.

Overall, the amalgam of all of these results demonstrate that STAC2. 1 yields a

conservative and reasonable estimate for the effluent concentration of Ar-41 downwind from the

stack, and can therefore be used in establishing Ar-41 concentrations for UFTR operations.

STAC2.1 Concentration and Dose Results for the UFTR

STAC2.1 was used to calculate conservative concentrations. Remember that the highest

daytime concentrations, closest to the stack, occur for Pasquill class "A," the most unstable

condition. In addition, for class "C", while the concentrations are lower overall, the

concentrations remain above the prescribed limit further from the stack. To ascertain the Ar-41









concentrations for the UFTR, while accounting for atmospheric influences, local weather

condition measurements were acquired from the local conditions recorded daily by the

Department of Physics Weather Station [2, 4]. The information located in Tables D-5 and D-6

are the average temperatures, wind directions, wind speeds, and Pasquill Classes attributed for

the yearly period between July 2004 and July 2005 surrounding the UF campus. Table D-5

contains daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table D-6 has the nighttime, 8pm 6am,

information. The tables also include mean values for quarterly periods and the total year. Again,

we note that the monthly average computed for Ar-41 based on operation of the reactor must not

exceed the maximum limit of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 [16].

The peak Ar-41 concentrations released, for each set of individual data, using possible

different Population and Pasquill Class combinations, as well as the distance from the building

where these peaks occur, are illustrated in Table D-7. Note that highlighted concentrations reflect

the average stability classes for each time period.

The total effective dose equivalent limit determined for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a

maximum concentration of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29].

Dose is linearly related to concentration as shown in Eq. (5). Results for the quarterly averages

are shown in Table D-8. Table D-9 shows possible limiting case scenario concentrations and

doses for several buildings near the UFTR based on a continuous operation concentration with

dedicated winds using the April 2005 July 2005 data. For this exercise, the wind directions

were assumed to vector toward each building.

mrem Ci 50 mrem
yoe r m 1.00E- 08
m3 (5)

Peak concentrations show that when the UFTR is assumed to operate at 100% power for

24 hours per day, then the allowable maximum concentrations and doses of Ar-41 for dedicated









wind directions exceed 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 and 50mrem/yr. This implies a "reactor duty cycle" is

needed to bring the monthly average concentration of Ar-41 below the maximum allowable

concentrations.

Operation Hours for the UFTR

Using the calculated peak concentrations of Ar-41, the UFTR Effective Full Power Hours

(EFPH), are shown in Table D-10 for daytime conditions, since daytime is when the reactor is

most likely to be run. In considering the peak concentrations, this will decrease all limit

exceeding concentrations to below 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. (6)

[20, 24].

hrs 1.00 E 08 hr Es
EFPH ma720

(6)

Ar-41 concentrations (X) are in Ci/m3. For units of kW-hours month or kW-hours/week,

one can multiply by 100kW. The 720 hours/month is a standard, assuming 24 hours/day, 7 days/

week, and ~4.286 weeks/month [20]. Note that the EFPH limit based on license requirements is

235.00 hours/month or 55.56 hours/week [20].

Therefore, on average, to remain below the annual limit of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, the UFTR

could be run up ~307 hours/month at full power for the year, with a restriction of running up to

~240 hours/month during the late spring and summer months. However, since the additional

licensing restriction is 235.00 hours/month, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hours/month (or

55.56 hours/week) all year long.

Moreover, since nighttime concentrations are lower than for daytime concentrations, the

UFTR can be operated at any time of day, day or night, up to a total of 55.56 hours per week.

This is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the UFTR of ~1 16 hours/month [20].









Dilution Factor for the UFTR

The flow diluted release concentration of Ar-41 (uy) at the top of the stack, before being

affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24E-5Ci/m3 fTOm Eq. (5). Dilution factors are

calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24E-5Ci/m3. Table D-11 shows the

dilution factors for the site boundary, the distance where maximum concentration occurs, and the

distance where the closest residence housing is located (East Hall at a range of 190m). The

concentrations were calculated using the limiting case conditions for April 2005 July 2005,

with a wind direction towards East Hall (800)

Consider that the dilution ratio for the maximum concentration (415:1) is also the

maximum case instantaneous release concentration from the UFTR stack. The dilution ratio,

currently used by the UFTR, is 200: 1 [20]. Note that 200: 1 is extremely conservative compared

to the computed value of 415:1 based on results from STAC2. 1, which has been shown to be

conservative. Table D-12 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration

calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20E-8 Ci/m3) [20, 24], and the maximum concentration as

determined by STAC2.1. It is shown that the 200:1 ratio is approximately 2.07 times more

conservative than the 415:1 ratio.

Summary and Conclusions

In summary, UF researchers performed a detailed assessment of the Ar-41 dose generated

by operation of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR). In particular, yearly

maximum predicted concentrations, dose rates, operational limits, and dilution factors were

calculated for the UFTR with impact assessments assuming dedicated wind directions to nearby

campus buildings at 100% full power (100kW). Note that the total effective dose equivalent

limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or

ingested continuously over a year. A Gaussian plume model based code, STAC2.1, developed









and benchmarked by UF researchers, was employed to calculate the maximum concentrations

and the distances where they occurred. Average daytime atmospheric conditions for the

University of Florida in Gainesville, FL from 2004-2005, UFTR discharge stack parameters, and

Ar-41 characteristics were established as input parameters for the code. "By Hand" Pasquill

plume calculations, and detailed CALPUFF (a detailed physics model) computations were used

to successfully validate STAC2.1 results; the percent differences from the "By Hand" method

ranged from 0.70% to 3.61% (Table D-2), and the percent differences from CALPUFF models

aliased using STAC2.1 were within +/- 19% (Tables D-3 D-4).

Based on the available data, the average maximum Ar-41 concentration determined using

STAC2.1 for the reactor at full power for the year was 2.34E-8 Ci/m3 down-wind 80m from the

UFTR (D-7). The period from April 2005 July 2005, the warmest months with the slowest

wind conditions, resulted in the highest maximum concentration of 2.99E-8 Ci/m3 at a down-

wind location 50m from the UFTR. This time period and highest maximum concentration was

used as the limiting value for the dilution factors, dose rates, and concentrations for the other

buildings on campus, as well as the limiting value for full power hours of operation. Concerning

the buildings on campus, only buildings within ~150m of the UFTR could experience

concentrations and dose rates greater than the limits (Table D-9) if the reactor were continuously

operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65E-8 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89E-8 Ci/m3)

Rhines Hall (1.96E-8 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09E-8 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and

Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03E-8 Ci/m3). The student residence hall closest to the

UFTR, East Hall, located 190m away, had both the concentration and dose rate below the annual

full operation limit: 5. 75E-9 Ci/m3. In Order to reduce the maximum concentrations (and

corresponding doses) to acceptable limits, the number of allowable full power hours of operation










per month were calculated (Table D-10). The allowable number of hours, averaged for the year,

was ~307 hours/month, with a further restriction during the summer of ~240 full power

hours/month. Therefore, based on the current license restriction of 23 5.00 hours/month, for Ar-

41 emissions, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hours/month (55.56 hours/week) all year long.

This is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the UFTR of ~1 16 hours/month [13]. In

addition, since nighttime concentrations and resultant doses are lower than for daytime, the

reactor may be run 55 hours/week continuously without exceeding limit requirements.

Finally, the current dilution factor used in the UFTR SOP is 200:1 to account for

atmospheric effects. Based on an analysis of the STAC2. 1 results, the limiting dilution ratio is

~415:1 (Table D-1 1). As a result, the 200: 1 ratio using in the first half century of licensing was

more than twice as conservative given the actual ratio of 415:1 (Table D-12).


Figure D-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and
vertical






































Table D-1 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories
Category Time of Typical Conditions Weather Wind Wind Direction -
day Descriptions m/s Stand. Dev.
A Day Extremely Unstable Very Sunny Summer 1+- 25 deg
B Moderately Unstable Sunny and Warm 2 +- 20 deg
C Slightly Unstable Average Daytime 5 +- 15 deg
D Night Neutral Stability Overcast Day/Night 5 +- 10 deg
E Slightly Stable Average Nighttime 3 +- 5 deg
F Moderately Stable Clear Nighttime 2 +- 3 deg

Table D-2 Urban Pasquill Class "A" Ground Level Concentration of Ar-41 Hand Calculation vs.
STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)
Distance from Building (m) 50 100 500 References
UFTR release rate (Ci/s) 9.228E-05 9.228E-05 9.228E-05 Calculated
Effective height of effluent release (m) 12.3 12.3 12.3 [12]
Pasquill Category (Daytime) A A A Assumed
Wind speed at the stack (m/s) 3.99 3.99 3.99 [12]
Sigma y (m) 10.97 21.89 107.35 [1, 4]
Sigma z (m) 10.00 20.00 100.00 [1, 4]
By Hand Concentration: (Ci/m3) (Eq. 1) 3.15E-08 1.39E-08 6.81E-10 [1, 4]
STAC2.1 Multiplier: Release Rate is Unity 3.39E-04 1.50E-04 7.11E-06 Calculation
STAC2.1 Concentration: Multiplier UFTR
Reeae ae 9.2E- C/3) 3.13E-08 1.38E-08 6.56E-10 Calculation
% Difference: STAC2.1 vs. By Hand -0.70% -0.77% -3.61% Calculation


UIIAA AREA $LIBURB%


LEVEI (OUmatY


nFlFlr~
Iml


Iloa C


Wlnp


700 J

IPII






Figure D-2Effect of Terrain Roughness on the


WIND SPEED (m/sec)
General Wind Speed Profile










Table D-3 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALGROUP Comparison with a Puff Model
Models Similarity Theory Power Law
Maximum % Diff. Distance Maximum % Diff. in Distance
Conc. in Conc. from Stack Conc. Conc. from Stack
(Ci/m3) (m) (Ci/m3> m
STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83E-08 30.71 103 1.83E-08 19.61 103
STAC2.1 (Same Distance 1.49E-08 6.43 79 1.49E-08 -2.61 79
as CALPUFF)
CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.40E-08 N/A 79 1.53E-08 N/A 79

Table D-4 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison with a Slug Model
Models Similarity Theory Power Law
Maximum % Diff. Distance Maximum % Diff. in Distance
Conc. in Conc. from Stack Conc. Conc. from Stack
(Ci/m3) (m) (Ci/m3> m
STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83E-08 23.65 103 1.83E-08 18.83 103
STAC2.1 (Same Distance as 1.49E-08 0.68 79 1.49E-08 -3.25 79
CALPUFF)
CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.48E-08 N/A 79 1.54E-08 N/A 79

Table D-5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 2004-2005)
Monthly Quarters, & Temp Wind Direction Ground Wind Pasquill Classes
Year Speed
F C Degrees mph m/s
Jul '04-Sept '04 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A
Oct '04-Dec '04 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B
Jan '05-Mar '05 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C
Apr '05-Jul '05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A
Jul '04-Jul '05 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B

Table D-6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 2004-2005)
Monthly Quarters, & Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill
Year Classes
F C Degrees mph m/s
Jul '04-Sept '04 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F
Oct '04-Dec '04 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F
Jan '05-Mar '05 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F
Apr '05-Jul '05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F
Jul '04-Jul '05 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F

Table D-7 STAC2.1 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from
UF TR
Time Average Jul04-Sep04 Oct04-DecO4 JanO5-Mar05 April05-Jul05 Jul04-Jul05
Stability Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3
Classes
Day A 2.89E-08 50 2.62E-08 44 2.86E-08 47 2.99E-08 50 2.83E-08 45
B 2.39E-08 79 2.16E-08 75 2.36E-08 78 2.46E-08 82 2.34E-08 80
C 2.32E-08 119 2.09E-08 111 2.28E-08 120 2.39E-08 123 2.27E-08 115
Night F 1.09E-08 775 1.08E-08 865 1.08E-08 750 1.09E-08 835 1.09E-08 800
Highlighted concentrations reflect the average stability classes for each time period










Table D-8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the
Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full Power Continuous
Operation
Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Max Day Conc. & Dist. from Total Effective Dose Rate
Classes UFTR
Ci/m3 m myear
Jul '04-Sept '04 A 2.89E-08 50 145
Oct '04-Dec '04 B 2.16E-08 75 108
Jan '05-Mar '05 C 2.28E-08 120 114
Apr '05-Jul '05 A 2.99E-08 50 150
Jul '04-Jul '05 B 2.34E-08 80 117

Table D-9 STAC2.1 Total Effective Dose Rate Assuming Peak Concentration Values for
Buildings near the UFTR Assuming dedicated 100% Wind Vectors from the UFTR
Stack to the Building
Buildings on Campus ~Distance from ~Wind Direction Max. Conc. Dose


Reed Lab. (RLA) 20 180
Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265
Weil Hall (WEL) Main Eng. 63 170
Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80
Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0
Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MAEC) 137 80
Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40
East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80
Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95
Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAEB) 200 40
North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170
Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85
Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110
Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93
Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50
O'Connell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125
Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115
Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50
Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55
Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135


UFTR (m)


(deg)


(Ci/m3)
7.14E-10
2.65E-08
2.89E-08
1.96E-08
1.09E-08
1.03E-08
7.87E-09
5.75E-09
6.16E-09
5.22E-09
4.04E-09
3.42E-09
2.86E-09
2.43E-09
2.27E-09
2.12E-09
1.98E-09
1.85E-09
1.29E-09
1.26E-09
1.02E-09


4
133
145
98
55
52
39
29
31
26
20
17
14
12
11
11
10
9
6
6
5


Concentrations (Ci/m3) foT


Table D-10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41
Daytime Atmospheric Conditions
Monthly Day Daytime Max. Conc. EFPH
Quarters, & Year Pasquill & Dist. from UFTR
Classes Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kV
Jul '04-Sept '04 A 2.89E-08 50 249.13


W-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk
24913.49 58.90 5889.72










Table D-10 Continued
Monthly Day Daytime Max. Conc. EFPH
Quarters, & Year Pasquill & Dist. from UFTR
Classes Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk
Oct '04-Dec '04 B 2. 16E-08 75 333.33 33333.33 78.80 7880.22
Jan '05-Mar '05 C 2.28E-08 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47
Apr '05-Jul '05 A 2.99E-08 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73
Jul '04-Jul '05 B 2.34E-08 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05

Table D-11 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations
Campus Relevance Distance from UFTR Concentration Dilution Ratio
m Ci/m3 (Value: 1)
UFTR Site Boundary 30 1.48E-08 838
Maximum Concentration 50 2.99E-08 415
East Hall (Closest Dorm) 190 5.75E-09 2157

Table D-12 Dilution Ratio Comparison
Location Concentration Dilution Ratio (Top Dilution Ratio
(Ci/m3) Of stack: Other) (STAC2.1: SOP)
Top of Stack 1.24E-05 N/A N/A
UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20E-08 200 2.07
Maximum Concentration 2.99E-08 415









LIST OF REFERENCES


[1] Smith, M.E, 1979: Recommended guide for the prediction of the dispersion of airborne
effluents. New York, American Society for Mechanical Engineers, 3rd Ed.

[2] Pasquill, F, 1974: Atmospheric diffusion of the dispersion of windborne material from
industrial and other sources. Chichester: Ellis, Horwood Limited, 2nd Ed.

[3] Briggs, G.A, 1969: Plume rise. Springfield, VA, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National
Technical Information Service, TID-25075.

[4] Turner, B.D, 1973: Workbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates. North Carolina,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, 6th Ed.

[5] Meteorology and Atomic Energy--1968, US AEC Report TID-24190.

[6] Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. OFCM directory of atmospheric transport
and diffusion consequence assessment models. Retrieved from the Internet 8-8-05,
http://www. ofcm. gov/atd_dir/pdf/frontpage .htm

[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1995. User guide for the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC3) dispersion models volume II: Description of model algorithms. EPA 454/ B 95 -
003b. Retrieved from the Internet 8-10-05,
http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/userg/regmod/iscv.d

[8] Sjoden G., and V. S. Comelison, 2005-2008. STAC2.1 Build 1.5b, STAC2.1 exhaust stack
effluent dispersion model. Florida Institute of Nuclear Detection and Security.

[9] University of Florida Department of Physics Weather Station. Historical text summaries.
Retrieved from the Internet 7-1-05, http://www.phys.ufl .edu/weather/

[10] Los Alamos National Labs Chemistry Division. Argon. Retrieved from the Internet 4-30-08,
http://periodic.1anl.gov/elements/1 8.html

[1 l] University of Florida campus map. Retrieved from the Intemet on 8-5-05,
http://campusmap. ufl. edu/

[12] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1873: Environmental impact statement for license
renewal of the National Bureau of Standards reactor final report. NUREG-1873. December 2007.
Retrieved from the Internet 5-1-08, http://www.nrc. gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/nuregs/staff/srl 873/srl 873 .pdf

[13] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute. 18-Argon. Retrieved from the Intemet 4-30-08,
http://atom. kaeri. re. kr/ton/index. html










[14] University of Florida Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Department. The University of
Florida Training Reactor. Retrieved from the Internet 5-5-08,
http ://www.nre.ufl. edu/faci liti es/uftraHi story. php

[15] Yenatsky, M, May 2008: Private communication.

[16] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CFR20 Standards for Protection Against
Radiation. Retrieved from the Internet 7-23-05, http ://www.nrc.gov.edgesuite.net/reading-
rm/doc-coll ecti ons/cfr/part020/full-text. html#part020- 100 1

[17] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CFR40 Protection of environment, Part 61.
Retrieved from the Internet 8-8-05, http ://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=cO96bfbe27e563 12fde493e740c7511 7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40: 8.0. 1.1.
1&idno=40

[18] NOAA. Glossary. Retrieved from the Internet 5-12-08,
http ://www.crh.noaa.gov/glossary .php?letter=w

[19] Sonntag, R.E., C. Borgnakke, and G.J. Van Wylen, 2003: Fundamentals of
thermodynamics. 6th Ed., 658.

[20] Vernetson, W. G., November 30, 2007: Limitation on UFTR equivalent full-power hours of
operation. Memorandum. University of Florida.

[21] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Table of Nuclides: Ar-41. Retrieved
from Internet on June 2004, http://atom~kaeri.re .kr/ton/index.html

[22] Keane, C. University of Florida physical plant architectural and engineering division.
blueprints of the University of Florida Training Reactor: Building 557.

[23] Chen, W, January, 1981: UFTR safety analysis report copy 8. University of Florida.

[24] October 2003. UFTR operation procedure E.6. University of Florida.

[25] Scire, J. S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino, January 2000: A user' s guide for the
CALPUFF dispersion model (Version 5). Concord, MA.

[26] Scire, J.S., Strimaitis, D.G, and Yamartino, R.J., January 2000: A user's guide for the
CALMET meteorological model (Version 5). Concord, MA.

[27] Hesketh, H.E, March 1996. Air pollution control: Traditional and hazardous pollutants.
CRC Press, Revised Edition.

[28] Henry's Law. Retrieved from the Internet 3-12-08, http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Henry's_1aw










[29] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CFR20 Appendix B- Annual limits of intake and
derived air concentrations of radionuclides for occupational exposure, effluent concentrations,
and concentrations for release to sewerage. Retrieved from the Internet 3-18-08,
http://www. nrc. gov/readi ng-rm/doc- collect on s/cfr/p art020O/p art020O-appb .html

[30] Kotroni, V. and K. Lagouvardos, November 2004: Evaluation of MM5 high-resolution real-
time forecasts over the urban area of Athens, Greece. Journal ofApplied2\~eteorology. 43, No.
11, 1666-78.

[3 1] Holt, T. and J. Pullen, May 2007: Urban canopy modeling of the New York City
metropolitan area: A comparison and validation of single- and multilayer parameterizations.
Monthly Weather Review. 135, No. 5, 1906-30.

[32] American Meteorological Society, November 2006: Weather forecast accuracy gets boost
with new computer model. Bulletin of the American M~eteorological Society. 87, No. 11, 1477-8.
Retrieved from the Internet 5-29-08,
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/eutsigejmlhwsod=E4ZN B
W3 QA3 DIL SFF4ADUNGIIV0

[33] Ayres, D., C. Cohen, M. Greene, Yenatsky, M., April 25, 2008: Private Communication.
UJFTR Modifications: Final Proposal.

[34] Slade, D.H., ed., 1968: M~eteorology and Atomic Energy--1968, US AEC Report TID-
24190.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Victoria Spring Cornelison was born in Atlanta, GA. Her family moved around and settled

in Fort Myers, where she attended high school as Cypress Lake High School. Following high

school, she attended Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) and graduated with her Bachelor of

Arts in mathematics in 2002. While teaching high school mathematics at Estero High School in

Estero, FL, she also earned her Master of Arts in Teaching, with a concentration in secondary

education, from FGCU in 2004. After teaching high school for two years, in 2005, she decided

she needed a change in careers and moved to Gainesville, FL to attend the University of Florida

(UF). She has her Master of Science in nuclear engineering at UF, and her next step is to work

on her Ph. D. at UF in Nuclear Engineering.





PAGE 1

1 CALCULATION OF ARGON-41 CONCENTR ATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR USING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING CODES: STAC2.1 AND CALPUFF By VICTORIA SPRING CORNELISON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Victoria Spring Cornelison

PAGE 3

3 To my mom, dad, stepfather, family and friends who have nurtured my intellectual curiosity and academic pursuits throughout all trials and triumphs

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring, and the staff and faculty of the UF NRE Department for their help, knowledge, and support. I thank my family and friends for their loving encouragement, which motivated me to complete my studies.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 10ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12Atmospheric Effects in Program Methodology ...................................................................... 12Ar-41 Reaction and Location in the UFTR ............................................................................ 12Purpose of this Research .........................................................................................................142 THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION IN THE STAC2.1 CODE .......... 17Gaussian Model ......................................................................................................................17General Wind and Terrain Effects .......................................................................................... 17Concentration Equations .........................................................................................................18STAC2.1 ....................................................................................................................... ..........19Pasquill Stability Classes .................................................................................................... ....213 VALIDATION OF STAC2.1 RESULTS: MANUALLY AND USING CALPUFF ............27Release Rate Calculation ........................................................................................................27Manual Validation Method .....................................................................................................28CALPUFF and Related Programs ..........................................................................................29CALPUFF Package Model fo r STAC2.1 Comparison ...........................................................30CALMET Details ............................................................................................................ 31CALPUFF Details ........................................................................................................... 32STAC2.1 and CALPUFF Re sults Comparison ...................................................................... 334 STAC2.1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 36Concentrations ........................................................................................................................36Dose Rates ..............................................................................................................................37Operation Hours ......................................................................................................................37Dilution Factors .............................................................................................................. ........38Stack Height Comparison .......................................................................................................39

PAGE 6

6 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................46Results Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 46Possible Future Works ......................................................................................................... ...48 APPENDIX A STAC2.1 INPUT VARIABLE CALCULATIONS ............................................................... 49Ratio of Densities ...................................................................................................................49Specific Heat ...........................................................................................................................50Inner Diameter of Stack Calculation ...................................................................................... 50Height of the Stack .................................................................................................................50Efflux velocity from Stack .................................................................................................... ..50B GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT .............................................................................. 51C LANDUSE TABLE FOR GEO.DA T FILE FOR CALMET INPUT .................................... 53D APPENDIX SUBMITTED TO THE NRC: APPENDIX E ................................................... 54Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........54Calculation Theory Implemented in STAC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs ......................... 56Validation of STAC2.1 Results both By-Hand and using CALPUFF ................................ 57STAC2.1 Concentration and Dose Results for the UFTR ......................................................59Operation Hours for the UFTR ............................................................................................... 61Dilution Factor for the UFTR ................................................................................................. 62Summary and Conclusions .....................................................................................................62LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................69BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................72

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1STAC2.1 Variables for Height of the Plume Centerline Calculated in Code .................... 242-2STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values ...................................................................... 242-3Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ............................................................................. 252-4Pasquills Relations to Weather Categories ....................................................................... 262-5Briggs Derived Formulas for Standa rd Deviations of Horizontal ( y(x)) and Vertical ( z(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pas quills Stability Classes ................................................. 263-1Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concen tration of Ar-41 Manual Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) .......343-2Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2.1 use .......................... 343-3Characteristics of Ar-41 as input in CALPUFF ................................................................. 343-4CALPUFF Stack Parameter Input ..................................................................................... 353-5STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model ...............................................353-6STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model ...............................................354-1Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages ....................................... 434-2Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Y early Atmospheric Averages .................................... 434-3Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR .... 434-4Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum C oncentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full-Power Continuous Operation ............... 444-5Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Con centrations for Buildings near the UFTR, Assuming Full-Power, Continuous Operation ................................................................... 444-6UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions ....................................................................................................444-7Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ......................454-8Dilution Ratio Comparison ................................................................................................454-9Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates, and Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height .....................................................................................................45

PAGE 8

8 4-10Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates and, Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height .....................................................................................................45D-1Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ............................................................................. 65D-2Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Conc entration of Ar-41 Hand Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) .......65D-3STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALGROUP Comparison with a Puff Model......................... 66D-4STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison with a Slug Model ......................66D-5Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly At mospheric Averages (July 2004-2005) .......... 66D-6Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmo spheric Averages (July 2004-2005) ........ 66D-7STAC2.1 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UFTR 66D-8Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximu m STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full Power Continuous Operation............................................................................................................................67D-9 STAC2.1 Total Effective Dose Rate A ssuming Peak Concentration Values for Buildings near the UFTR Assuming dedi cated 100% Wind Vectors from the UFTR Stack to the Building ......................................................................................................... .67D-10UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions ....................................................................................................67D-11Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ......................68D-12Dilution Ratio Comparison ................................................................................................68

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed ............................ 151-2University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida .......................................................151-3UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus ......................................................162-1Coordinate System of Gaussian distribu tions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 222-2Northeasterly wind direction .............................................................................................. 222-3Effect of Terrain Roughness on th e General Wind Speed Profile ..................................... 232-4Distance from building vs. y(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........ 232-5Distance from building vs. z(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........ 244-1Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period ............................................................................... 404-2Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period .............................................................................................414-3Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights ................................................................................................................. ....414-4Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights 424-5Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3) ............................................. 424-6Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3) ............................................................43D-1Coordinate System of Gaussian distribu tions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 64D-2Effect of Terrain Roughness on th e General Wind Speed Profile ..................................... 65

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ar-40 Isotope of Argon with a mass of 40; atomic number is 18. Ar-41 Isotope of Argon with a mass of 41; atomic number is 18. ASME American Society for Mechanical Engineers CALMET Atmosphere and terrain modeling program in CALGROUP. CALPOST Post processing program in CALGROUP. CALPUFF Puff or slug based concentra tion calculation modeling program in CALGROUP. CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling MM5 Pennsylvania State University / Nati onal Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission STAC2.1 Gaussian computer mo del: STAC2 Version 2.1 Build 1.5b UF University of Florida UFTR University of Florida Training Reactor USDA United States Department of Agriculture UTM Universal Transverse Mercator WRF Weather Research and Forecasting model

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science CALCULATION OF ARGON-41 CONCENTR ATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR USING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING CODES: STAC2.1 AND CALPUFF By Victoria Spring Cornelison August 2008 Chair: Glenn Sjoden Major: Nuclear Engineering Sciences Atmospheric plume dispersion modeling and meteorological data were applied to estimate downwind concentrations of Ar-41 exhausted during ro utine University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) operations. Two Gaussian -based concentration prediction codes were employed: STAC2.1 and CALPUFF. Gaussian plum e atmospheric models are based on methods initially developed by Pasquill, Briggs, and Tu rner; these methodologies were adopted by the EPA, Federal Coordinator of Meteorology, and ASME. Yearly maximum average predicted concentra tions, dose rates, operational limits, dilution factors, and a stack height study were performe d for routine UFTR operational parameters, with impact assessments assuming dedicated winds near campus buildings at full reactor power (100kW). Calculations were accomplished using STAC2.1, developed at UF, and for independent correlation, results were compared to those derived from CALPUFF, an established, detailed air pollution transport c ode. Results from both independent codes were quite consistent. Moreover, all work in this area was inte gral to the UFTR NRC re-licensing process.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This work focuses on atmospheric plume di spersion modeling, integrating fluid dynamics, statistical, and meteorological da ta to achieve an estimate of th e downwind concentration of Ar41 effluent emitted from the University of Flor ida Training Reactor (UFTR) exhaust stack during routine operations. The atmospheric modeling system utilized is based on the methods constructed by Pasquill, and fu rther expounded upon by Briggs and Turner [1 4], with related methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy Comm ission studies [5]. These methods have been adopted and used as a basis for many computer algorithms and methodologies used by the EPA, Federal Coordinator of Meteorol ogy, and the ASME [1, 4, 6 8]. Atmospheric Effects in Program Methodology As effluents are dispersed, wind direction and atmospheric cond itions such as temperature, quantity of solar radiation, and wi nd speed distinctly affect the tr ansport pathway of any effluent traveling from the stack [1 4, 9]. Time of day or night conditions play an important role in the concentration due to the change in heating from the sun and cloud cover, affecting the lapse rate. These varying conditions, incorpor ated into our mathematical mode ls, allow the concentration of Ar-41 to be conservatively estimated via a one -wind, Gaussian computer model: STAC2 Version 2.1 Build 1.5b (STAC2.1) [1 4, 8]. In addi tion, these parameters are employed in the CALPUFF atmospheric transport code package, us ed in this work to validate results from STAC2.1; CALPUFF is an EPA approved atmospheric dispersion concentration prediction modeling program. Ar-41 Reaction and Location in the UFTR Argon, as a natural constituent in air, was discovered by Lord Raleigh and Sir William Ramsey in 1894, but was initially suspected to ex ist by Cavendish in 1785 [10]. Ar-40 is ~99.6%

PAGE 13

13 of this natural argon, which is ~1.3 weight perc ent, or about ~0.94 volume percent of air [10, 12, 13]. Ar-41, in reference to the reactor, originates from leakage neutrons undergoing capture by Ar-40 [12]. Ar-40 is present throughout the air spaces surrounding the UFTR fuel. Eq. 1-1 shows the activation of Ar-40. No te that the half-life of Ar-41 is 1.83 hours. (1-1) The UFTR was built in 1959, and is one of the oldest of less than thirty university reactors in the United States. In 2005 2006, the fuel wa s converted from high enriched uranium (HEU) to LEU (19.75% U-235); the general structure of the UFTR has remained the same; fuel is surrounded by graphite and concrete with cadmium control blades to control the reactor and regulate power [14]. Regarding basic features of the UFTR, in reference to the air locations, Fig. 1-1 illustrates these locations in side the UFTR, shown with the c oncrete shieldi ng removed [15]. Air in the concrete, as well as that outside of the concrete in the reactor ro om is also a factor. The concentration of Ar-41 is a limiting para meter for the operations cycle of the UFTR. Monthly concentration averages for Ar-41, as determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing regulations, must not exceed 1x10-8 Ci/m3 (note: 1 Ci/m3 = 1 Ci/mL), at 100% reactor power (100kW), This is also per Florida state and federal guidelines (10CFR20), to preserve and maintain the health and environmental safety of the public [16, 17]. In order to estimate potential concentrations of Ar-41 and surrounding terrain relative to the UFTR, two maps are shown in Fig. 1-2 and 13 [11]. Fig. 1-2 contains the UF Campus main campus, and the relative position, indicated in the small black box, to the campus. Fig. 1-3 focuses on the more specific campus location of the UFTR, from the black box of Fig. 1-2. The UFTR is in close proximity to many campus buildings: Ben Hill Griffin football stadium, other engineering departments, park ing garages and students residence halls. The

PAGE 14

14 closest student residence hall, East Hall, is a lo cation with high routine occupancy [17]. This hall is approximately 190m west-southwest of the UFTR and in the path of a wind direction from east-northeast. Purpose of this Research The purpose of this work was to determine an estimate, using independent methods, of the Ar-41 concentrations and dose rates predicted at various down-wind ranges. Results from this study were used in reporting the Ar-41 burden in regions surrounding the Un iversity for purposes of relicensing for the Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion (NRC). This work is presented as follows: a discussion of the theory and methodology suppor ting the application of the Gaussian dispersion model used in the STAC2.1 dispersion code is pr esented in Chapter 2, validation methods for the code, and calculations made for determining the emission of Ar-41 from the UFTR are presented in Chapter 3. Note that validation methods for STAC2.1 employed include a fundamental manual approach using basic Pasqui ll and Briggs formulations [1-4 ], as well as a comparison of results from a robust CALPUFF model [8] as an independent corr oboration of STAC2.1 predicted concentrations. Also presented, in Ch apter 4, are the maximum Ar-41 concentrations for various atmospheric conditions, corresponding dist ances, attributed dose ra tes, correlations to UFTR operation hours, and other relevant informa tion. This is followed by a discussion of the data, conclusions, and future work.

PAGE 15

15 Figure 1-1 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed Figure 1-2 University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1-3 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION IN THE STAC2.1 CODE Ar-41 concentrations, emitted from the UFTR stack, are calculated based on standard American Society for Mechanical Engineers (A SME) equations and Pasquill stability classes determined for atmospheric conditions, which ar e input parameters for STAC2.1 [1, 2, 4, 8]. The following sections describe these methodologies. Gaussian Model The Gaussian model, illustrated in Fig. 1, describes, in three-dimensions, the theoretical path of a plume emerging from the stack: strai ght downwind, horizontally, and vertically [4]. These directions correspond, respective ly on a coordinate system, to the x -axis, y -axis, and z axis. This system illustrates the basic plume shape and centerline (bold, dashed line parallel to the x -axis) is seen in Fig. 2-1 [4]. H repres ents the effective stack height to the plume centerline, and h is the height of the stack. The path of the plume is detailed with the elliptical and Gaussian-like parabolic sketches to demonstrate three dimensional depths. General Wind and Terrain Effects Wind constitutes the horizontal motion of air as it passes a defined point; it is characterized by wind speed and direction. Wind speed is typica lly measured in miles per hour, but for the purposes of this research, it is either reported in feet per s econd or meters per second. Wind direction is described to be the direction from where the wind is blowing, not the direction the wind is blowing towards. In addition, it is m easured in compass heading azimuth degrees, 0o to 3600, where the 0o starts at the North axis and spans to 360o clockwise around the compass [18]. Fig. 2-2 illustrates a northeasterly wind direction of ~45o on a compass rose [11, 18]. Also applied, in relation to frictional (dra g) effects on wind speed, is the approximated terrain category of the region, which affects th e surface velocity profile applied from the ground

PAGE 18

18 to the stack emission point. For the Univers ity of Florida (UF) campus, the terrain is conservatively assumed to be urban. The comparis on between urban, suburban, and rural, for the effects of different terrain structure on wind speed profiling, is shown in Fig. 2-3 [1, 4]. As surface roughness decreases, the depth of the affe cted atmospheric layer becomes shallower, and the wind speed profile gets steeper. The numbers reflected in the curves refer to average normalized percentages of the grad ient wind at varying heights. Concentration Equations For distances straight downwi nd from the stack, the concentr ation of the Ar-41, at ground level, is calculated in Eq. 21 by using the listed parameters. The variables for Eq. 2-1 are: concentration of efflue nt (Ar-41) released ( ) in Ci/m3, release rate (Q) in Ci/s, effective stack height (h) in m, average wind speed (us) in m/s, horizontal standard deviation for the crosswind straight downwind (x-value) from the stack ( y(x)) in meters, and vertical standard deviation for the crosswind straight downwi nd (x-value) from the stack (z(x)) in meters. (2-1) To account for off-center lateral dispersion in both di rections, downwind from the stack, Eq. 2-2 is applied. Note Eq. 2-1 does not acc ount for lateral movement; all y-values are implicitly equal to 0.0. (2-2) The effective stack height (h) is calculated, as a conserva tive buoyant plume, by adding the height of the plume centerline above th e source emission point at the stack (hp) to the height of physical effluent discharged at the stack (hs) as in Eq. 2-3. All heights are measured in meters. (2-3) x,0,0Q usyxzxexp h 2 2 z x2 x,y,0Q usyxzxexp h 2 zx2 y 2 2yx2 hhphs

PAGE 19

19 STAC2.1 STAC2.1 is a one wind effluent dispersion c ode based on the fundamental methodologies first proposed by Pasquill, et al [1-4]. This code was used to determine the down-wind concentrations of Ar-41 effluent from the UFTR, and is evaluated for this purpose in this work. In STAC2.1, the height of the plume centerline (SHDLTA) is com puted using the information in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 as well as Eq. 2-3 2-13. Note that variables in parentheses refer to variables used in the STAC2.1 code. In additi on, (SHDLTA) is considered to be hp in Eq. 2-3. Table 2-1 shows the information calculated in STAC2.1 pertaining to the height of the plume centerline. Table 2-2 describe s the input variables, their desc riptions, the values specific to the UFTR, and the references for each; metric units were used. Note that the specific heat of Ar41 was assumed to be that of argon then air; con centration results did not differ when the specific heat was altered. Input parameters describing the characteristics of Ar-41 were: specific heat (CPEFF) density ratio to dry air (EDF) plume type (HASUME) molecular weight (MOLWT) release rate (QSC) half-life (THALF) The specific heat of Argon was used as an approximation of that for Ar-41 (Appendix A). The release rate, in the code, was assumed to be 1.0 Ci/s to determine the general factors for each weather condition. Terrain, for regions surrounding th e UFTR, is described by the terrain type (TERTYP) and altitude above sea level (ZALT). The geograp hical reference points are described by: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) globa l center reference points (XGLOB, YGLOB) maximum distance straight downwind (XMAX) maximum distance laterally from the centerline (YMAX)

PAGE 20

20 UTM stack reference point (XSTAK and YSTAK) incremental step stra ight downwind (XSTEP) incremental step laterally from the centerline (YSTEP) Weather input data is: height of the weather sensor (SMEAS) ambient temperature (TAMB) time of day (TIMREL) mean ground wind speed (UGND) Pasquills weathe r classes (WCAT) wind direction (WINDIR) In addition, the stack of the UFTR is characterized by: inner diameter of the stack (DISTAK) height of the stack (SHSTAK) temperature at the stack (TSTAK) velocity of the effluent exiting the stack (VSTAK) Eq. 2-4 is the simple calculation used to find the height of the plume centerline above the UFTR stack. Eq. 2-5 2-13 compute the necessary pieces for each of the other equations. These calculations rely heavily on at mospheric conditions (Pasquills Stability Classes, UGND, or TAMB), effluent information (VSTAK, EDF, or FBOUY), and stack information (ASTAK or ZALT). The equations originate or are derived from accepted standards for atmospheric dispersion [1 4, 7]. SHDLTA = (1.5*DISTAK*VSTAK + FBUOY) / USTAK (2-4) FBUOY = 4.0 x10-5*QHEFF (2-5) UWV = UGND / (-4.141x10-10*SMEAS4 + 3.668x10-7*SMEAS3 (2-6) 1.115x10-4*SMEAS2 + 0.01470*SMEAS + 0.04573) USTAK = -4.141 x10-10*UWV*SHSTAK4 + 3.668x10-7*SHSTAK3 (2-7) 1.115x10-4*SHSTAK2 + 0.01470*SHSTAK + 0.04573 QHEFF = (SMDOT*CPEFF (TSTAK TAMB))/4.184 (2-8) SMDOT = EDF*ADEN*VSTAK*ASTAK (2-9)

PAGE 21

21 ADEN = 0.5 (ADENT + ADENHT) (2-10) ASTAK = PI (DISTAK/2.0)2 (2-11) ADENT = 16.019 (-2.8124x10-4*TAMB + 8.0467x10-2) (2-12) ADENHT= 1.2975 1.6404x10-4*ZALT + 6.4583x10-9*ZALT2 1.0594x10-13*ZALT3 (2-13) Pasquill Stability Classes Also necessary, for Eq. 2-1 and 2-2, to find th e effluent concentration, are the crosswind standard deviations, y(x) and z(x). These are determined by the atmospheric stability classes created by Pasquill, where A is the most unstable condition, and F is the most stable. Stability is determined by the amount of solar radiation, wind speed, outside temperature, relative lapse rate (0.65 oC/100m for the UFTR), and the time of day [1, 2]. Characteristically, unstable is considered warm and sunny (daytime) while stable is cool and overcast (n ighttime). Tables 2-3 and 2-4 describe, in detail, the characteristics for each class. Typically, classes A, B, and C represent daytime conditions, while D, E, and F refer to the nighttime. The actual standard deviations arrive from using the equations in Table 2-5, which generate the curves in Fig. 2-4 and 2-5. These eq uations are derived by Briggs, from Pasquills original graphs constructed from data strenuously gathered over time [1 4]. In general, the standard deviations increase in an exponentia l trend as distance from the stack increases. Xvalues are the actual distances straight dow nwind from the stack in any designated wind direction. Also, these apply to any relative concentration of effluent, Ar-41, released. This chapter established the essential equatio ns and approach used in the atmospheric concentration prediction code STAC2.1. The next discussion includes th e validation methods employed for STAC2.1: manual and a comparison with a detailed physics treatment using CALPUFF.

PAGE 22

22 Figure 2-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions stra ight downwind, horizontal, and vertical Figure 2-2 Northeasterly wind direction

PAGE 23

23 Figure 2-3 Effect of Terrain Roughne ss on the General Wind Speed Profile Figure 2-4 Distance from building vs. y(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 1101001000 Distance from Building (m) Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E y (m)

PAGE 24

24 Figure 2-5 Distance from building vs. z(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes Table 2-1 STAC2.1 Variables fo r Height of the Plume Cent erline Calculated in Code Variables Variable Descriptions ADEN Air density ADENHT Altitude, above sea level, for air density ASTAK Stack cross sectional area FBOUY Effluent buoyancy factor QHEFF Heat emission SMDOT Mass flow rate SHEFF Effective stack height (Eq. 2-3) SHDLTA Height of the plume centerline above the source USTAK Mean wind velocity at the stack UWV Upper maximum wind velocity Table 2-2 STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values Variables Variable Descri ptions Values Reference CPEFF Specific heat of effluent (Air =1004.83 J/kg-oC) 520 J/kg-oC [1,19] Appendix A DISTAK Inner discharge diam eter of stack 0.860 m [20] Appendix A EDF Effluent density fact or: ratio of effluent density to air density 1.4 [19] Appendix A 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 1101001000 Distance from Building (m) Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F z (m)

PAGE 25

25 Table 2-2 Continued Variables Variable Descri ptions Values Reference HASUME Plume type: Momentum jet (M), Buoyant plume (B), Conservative buoyant plume (C) C Assumed MOLWT Molecular weight of effluent 40.96 g/mol [21] QSC Effluent release rate 1.0 Assumed SMEAS Height of the w eather sensor 3.56 m [9] SHSTAK Stack height 9.04 m [20] Appendix A TAMB Ambient temperature 29.23 oC [9] TERTYP Terrain type: Urban = 1, Suburban = 2, Level Country = 3 1 Assumed THALFH Effluent half life 1.83 hrs [21] TIMREL Day or night conditi ons (determines velocity gradient) D Assumed TSTAK Temperature at the stack 29.23 oC [9] UGND Mean ground wind speed 1.87 m/s [9] UNITS Sets units to English or Metric Note that Ci can be substituted for g or lb. M Assumed VSTAK Vertical effluent velocity 12.81 m/s [20] Appendix A WCAT Pasquills Stability Classes: A (most unstable) through F (most stable) A Assumed WINDIR Wind direction (0o 360o) 178.4 o[9] XGLOB UTM Global reference center x-coordinate 17 Assumed XMAX Maximum distance straight downwind from stack 2501.0 m Assumed XSTAK UTM Reference stack x-coordinate 0 Assumed XSTEP Incremental step straight downwind from stack 5.0 m Assumed YGLOB UTM Global reference center y-coordinate 0 Assumed YMAX Maximum distance latera lly from stack 301.0 m Assumed YSTAK UTM Reference stack y-coordinate 0 Assumed YSTEP Incremental step latera lly from stack 100 m Assumed ZALT Altitude, above sea level, of modeled location 41.76 m [22] Table 2-3 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories Category Typical Conditions Weather Descriptions Wind m/s Wind Direction Stand. Dev. A Extremely Unstable Very Sunny Summer 1 +25 deg B Moderately Unstable Sunny and Warm 2 +20 deg C Slightly Unstable Average Daytime 5 +15 deg D Neutral Stability Overcast Day/Night 5 +10 deg E Slightly Stable Average Nighttime 3 +5 deg F Moderately Stable Clear Nighttime 2 +3 deg These Tables describe the Pasquill Stability Classes used in the STAC2.1 Program: acquired

PAGE 26

26 from Pasquill's Atmospheric Diffusion [2] Table 2-4 Pasquills Relati ons to Weather Categories Surface Wind Day Solar Radiation Night Cloudiness Lapse Rate Speed m/s Strong Moderate Slight >=50% <=50% Deg C(F)/100m <2 A A-B B --A-B -1.9(-3.5) 2 A-B B C E F B-C -1.8(-3.3) 4 B B-C C D E C-D -1.6(-2.9) 6 C C D D D D-E -1.0(-1.8) >6 C C D D D E-F >0.5(>0.9) These Tables describe the Pasquill Stab ility Classes used in the STAC2.1 Program: acquired from Pasquill's Atmospheric Diffusion [2] Table 2-5 Briggs Derived Formulas for Standard Deviations of Horizontal ( y(x)) and Vertical ( z(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pa squills Stability Classes Stability Class y meters z, meters A 0.22 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 / 2 0.20 x B 0.16 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 / 2 0.12 x C 0.11 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 / 2 0.08 x (1 + 0.0002x) -1 / 2 D 0.08 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 / 2 0.06 x (1 + 0.0015x) -1 / 2 E 0.06 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1 / 2 0.03 x (1 + 0.0003x) -1 F 0.04 x (1 + 0.0001x) -1/2 0.016 x (1 + 0.0003x) -1

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 3 VALIDATION OF STAC2.1 RESULTS: MANUALLY AND USING CALPUFF With the essentials of th e STAC2.1 code presented in Chapter 2, how STAC2.1 was applied to the case of the UFTR is presente d here. Because STAC2.1 is an in-house code, a manual method validation and an independent valid ation of results were accomplished using the CALPUFF suite. This was completed by compar ing results to those from the CALPUFF package. The following sections described the UFTR Ar-41 release rate, the manual validation method, and details of the CALPUFF package, and results comparison between STAC2.1 and the two validation methods. Release Rate Calculation The release rate, specific to the UFTR at full power, was calculated to be 9.228 x10-5 Ci/s ( ) The details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. 3-1 3-3 [1, 2, 4, 20, 23, 24]. Additional parameters in these equations, rela tive to the UFTR reactor, are: the undiluted volumetric release rate of Ar-41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 x10-4 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar-41 from the core vent and dilution fan ( ) (15772 ft3/min or 7.44 m3/s), the dilution factor ( ) from the dilution fan and core vent (dimensionless) (0.0152168), and the flow diluted release concen tration at the top of the stack ( = 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3) [23, 24]. The fan flow rate value was determined as a resu lt of the most recent service to the dilution fan. This dilution factor ( ) takes into account that Ar-41 comes from the core (reactor) via the core vent, which is then dispersed by both the core vent and the dilution fan [23, 24]. (3-1) (3-2) R f CoreVentFlowRateft3 min fft3 mi n RC i s C i m 3f m 3 s

PAGE 28

28 (3-3) In STAC2.1, a unity source (1.0 Ci/s) was used to calculate general maximum multipliers (M) for straight downwind from the stack. Final maximum concentrations of Ar-41 (C), from STAC2.1, were calculated by multiplying these gene ral concentrations by the specific release rate, 9.228 x 10-5 Ci/s; as shown in Eq. 3-4. (3-4) Manual Validation Method A manual validation of STAC2.1 was performe d. Selected calculations were verified, independently, manually, as shown in Table 3.1. Tabulated values for y(x) and z(x), atmospheric conditions for Gainesv ille, Fl, and the stack height and release rate for the UFTR were applied to Eq. 2-2 for th e hand calculation. Concentrations were compared for various ground level distances from the UFTR versus those computed using STAC2.1 for the year between July 2004 and July 2005, assuming extremely unstable conditions. Note that the temperature of the effluent was assumed to be the same as the average ambient temperature; 23.05oC. The average daytime wind azimuth direction for the year was a vector from 167.11o, and the average ground wind speed was 2.42 m/s. In addition, the effective stack height and wind speed at the stack were calculated [1, 4], th en assumed to be the same for each of the three trials. The eff ective stack height was calculate d from Eq. 2-3 and 2-4, and the wind speed at the stack was from Eq. 2-6 and 2-7. Lastly, for daytime conditions, the Pasquill stability class was assumed to A. As shown in the last row of Table 3.1, the diffe rences in concentration as determined using tabular manual values and STAC2.1 code runs was less than 3.61% within 500m, and less than 0.77% within 100m downwind of the stack. To explain the differences, the manual computations C i m 38.147x104C i m 3 CM9.228x105

PAGE 29

29 do not account for all of the physics (buoyant plume rise with temperature, decay at time of arrival, etc), and are less robust than us ed in the STAC2.1 ca lculations [7]. Note that all percent differenc es, from Table 3.1 and in future, were calculated from the general formula shown in Eq. 3-5. For Table 3.1, th e theoretical value was considered to be the manual term, and the experimental value was from STAC2.1. (3-5) CALPUFF and Related Programs CALPUFF and its related programs are an EPA approved generalized non-steady-state air quality modeling system; the main two related programs are CALMET and CALPOST. Note that the package does include many pr e-processors for interfacing standard, readily-available meteorological data [24, 25]. Originally, CALPUFF and CALMET were developed by the California Air Resources Board, and then were updated to satisfy the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), EP A, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Environmental Protection Au thority of Victoria (Australia), and private industry in both the United States and abroad [25]. The order of execution of the th ree main programs is: CALMET, CALPUFF, and then CALPOST. CALMET is the initial, main portion of the mo deling system. It is a meteorological model which develops hourly temperature and wind data in a three-dimensional domain. Twodimensional fields of surface characteristics, mi xing heights, and dispersion properties are also included [25, 26]. Two necessary input files in to CALMET are: geo.dat and surf.dat. Geo.dat contains all of the land use and corresponding el evation data, in a gridded format. Surf.dat contains the surface weather data for various weather stations. %DifferenceExperimenta l Valu e Theoretica l Valu e Theoretica l Valu e 100

PAGE 30

30 CALPUFF is a transport and dispersion modelin g program for concentration and effluent spread prediction over complicated terrain while accounting for atmospheric effects from CALMET (sole input file) [25]. Th e transport and dispersion is si mulated using puffs or slugs. Puffs are circular, Gaussian mappi ngs of effluent concentrations, while slugs are elongations of these puffs using Lagrangian and Gaussian me thods. CALPUFF produces hourly concentrations or deposition fluxes at selected receptor locations. CALPOST pr ocesses these hourly concentrations into tabulations of the highe st and second highest 3-hour averages for each receptor [25]. CALPUFF Package Model for STAC2.1 Comparison A CALPUFF package input deck was fashioned to model the case of atmospheric transport of Ar-41 from the UFTR. Four cases were designed using combinations of two wind extrapolation theories from CALMET (Similarity Theory and Power Law) mixed with the two effluent transport and dispersion options from CALPUFF (puff and slug). General characteristics throughout the model we re: 24 hour run time, a 17 x 17 grid, a grid spacing of 0.05 km, and six vertical layers in the atmosphere. In addition, all elevation and coordinates pertinent to the UFTR were obtained from the Magellan Explorist 300 handheld global positioning system receiver. The following information was employed in gathering this data, and then input into the CALMET and CALPUFF input files: a datum based on WGS-84, zone 17, Eastern Time zone, and a UTM projection in the northern hemisphere. The latitude and longitude gathered was an easting of 369.530 km and a northing of 3280.4 94 km. The elevation was ~41.76 m at the northeast corner of the UFTR. The following two sections describe additional pertinent details in CALMET and CALPUFF files.

PAGE 31

31 CALMET Details In the CALMET input files, general assu mptions were made regarding terrain and weather conditions. Although the UF campus in Ga inesville, FL does not have perfectly flat terrain, it is also not completely urban. Therefore, the assumption of flat terrain with an urban landscape is a near approximation accounting for th e slightly sloping lands cape with buildings of varying heights around the UFTR. The assumption of no overwater effects is made since no large bodies of water are within about a kilometer of the stack and the maximum concentrations in the spread of effluent are less than a kilometer from the stack as well. CALMETs geo.dat input file (Appendix B) contai ned the terrain and land use data in 17 x 17 grids. All land use values were assumed to be 10 (urban or built up land); Appendix C contains the land use table from the CALMET manua l [26]. The elevation levels were all set to 41.76 m above sea level, which was th e estimated altitude of UFTR. The surf.dat input file for CALMET containe d the weather data and was designed for a warm summer day. All of the weather data in surf.dat was averaged, as described in Table 3.2, for input into STAC2.1. In the four models for the STAC2.1 compar ison, the surface wind observations were varied between two extrapolation methods: similarity theo ry and power law. Similarity theory extends the influences of wind speed and direction from the surface to the upper layers. The wind speed (U(z)) is expressed using inverse Moni n-Obukhov length (1/L), roughness length (zo), anemometer height (z1), atmospheric stability function (m), and measured wind speed at the anemometer height (U(z1)) as depicted in Eq. 3-6. For furt her explanation, re fer to the CALMET manual p. 2-12 2-14 [26].

PAGE 32

32 (3-6) The Power law approach is a more simple method of adjusting the wind using existing wind and height measurements as a function of a power as shown in E q. 3-7. Variables are the adjusted wind (uz), the measured wind value (zm), measured height of the measured wind observation (um), and the midpoint of the CALMET grid option (z). (3-7) CALPUFF Details Three main characteristics, focused on in CALPUFF, were: puff versus slug option, addition of Ar-41 to the species section, and input of the UFTR stack parameters. As mentioned before, the puff and slug models were mixed with the similarity theory and power-law for the comparison. Ar-41 was input as a dry deposit ed gas; the characteristic valu es are described in Table 3.3 [25, 27, 28]. The diffusivity of Ar-41 through air is described by Eq. 3-8, which include temperature in Kelvin (T), molecular weights of the species in g/mol (M), molecular volume in cm3/g-mol (), pressure in atm (P), and the gas constant in atm-cm3/g-mol-K (R) [27]. Alpha star, reactivity (non-radi oactive reference), and mesophyll resi stance were assumed to be similar to low values of other species such as SO2 [25]. The Henrys Law constant for Ar-41 was assumed to be similar to that of argon [28]. (3-8) UzUz1 l n z zom z L lnz1 z o mz1 L uzum z z m 0.143 V D1.8x104T VAr41VAir2MAr41P RT1 MAr411 MAir

PAGE 33

33 The stack information for CALP UFF is illustrated in Table 3.4, and matches that of the UFTR [1 4, 19, 24]. As described above, four CALPUFF package models were created with these four combinations of wind extrapolation methods a nd effluent transport and dispersion theory: similarity theory and puff dispersion, similarity theory and slug disper sion, power law and puff dispersion, and power law and slug dispersion. Re sults of the comparis on with STAC 2.1 are described in the next section. STAC2.1 and CALPUFF Results Comparison Four CALPUFF models were created using summer weather conditions (Table 3.2), details for the UFTR stack, Ar-41 characteristics, a flat, uniform terrain associated with Gainesville, FL, no over water effects, and using an urban wind model. The four st udies included combinations of the transport dispersion models (puff and slug) with two differe nt wind extrapolation methods (power law and similarity theory). The four model combinations were: puff and similarity theory, puff and power law, slug and similar ity theory, and slug and power law. A STAC2.1 model was created to match the average weather conditions, flat terrain, and urban model, as well as the UFTR and Ar-41 para meters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to each of the four cases. The results of this comp arison are given in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Maximum concentrations computed using ST AC2.1 and CALPUFF software models were compared for each of the cases. It was found that the relative distance where the maximum concentration occurred varied as much as 31% different between the two models. The distance of the maximum concentration was identical in all four CALPUFF models. The maximum concentrations differed from between ~19 and 31%, depending on whether a puff or slug model, or wind extrapolation power law or similar ity theory was employed. STAC2.1 results most

PAGE 34

34 closely matched the slug, power law model. Comparisons between concentrations for the same distances differed between the codes by ~1 to 6 %. The best model relative to a comparison with STAC2.1 is the CALPUFF slug and wind extrapolation power law model which resulted in a percent difference of ~-19%. This illustrates that STAC2.1 yields conservati ve results, by ~19%, and creates an upper bound for Ar-41 fullpower peak ground concentrations st raight down-wind from the UFTR. The validation methods and corresponding re sults from comparing STAC2.1 to a manual method as well as a comparing it with the CA LPUFF package was described above. Chapter 4 describes the results from STAC2.1 for concen trations, dose rates, and other pertinent calculations for the UFTR. Note that STAC2.1 valu es are always greater than CALPUFF results therefore STAC2.1 yields conservative results by ~19%. Table 3-1 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level C oncentration of Ar-41 Manual Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) Parameters Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Distance from building (m) 50100500 y (m) 10.9721.89107.35 z (m) 10.0020.00100.00 Manual Concentration: (Ci/m3) 3.15x10-81.39x10-86.81x10-10 STAC2.1 Multiplier 3.39x10-41.50x10-47.11x10-6 STAC2.1 Concentration (Ci/m3) 3.13x10-81.38x10-86.56x10-10 % Difference: STAC2.1 vs. Manual -0.70%-0.77%-3.61% Table 3-2 Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2.1 use Time of Year Wind Speed (m/s) Direction (Deg) Temp (K) Temp (C) Summer 3.87 188.91301.8628.86 Table 3-3 Characteristics of Ar-41 as input in CALPUFF Species Diffusivity Alpha Star Reactiv ity Mesophyll Resistance Henry's Law cm2/s N/A N/A s/cm Dimensionless Ar-41 0.1535 100 3.425x10-2

PAGE 35

35 Table 3-4 CALPUFF St ack Parameter Input Parameter Value Source Number 1 X Coordinate (km) 369.530 Y Coordinate (km) 3280.494 Stack Height (m) 9.04 Base Elevation (m) 41.76 Stack Diameter (m) 0.86 Exit Velocity (m/s) 12.81 Exit Temperature (K) 302.1 Building Downwash 0 Emission Rates (Ci/s) 1.0x100 Sigma y 0.22 Sigma z 0.2 Table 3-5 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model Models Similarity Theory Power Law Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83x10-830.711031.83x10-819.61 103 STAC2.1 1.49x10-86.43791.49x10-8-2.61 79 CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.40x10-8N/A791.53x10-8N/A 79 Table 3-6 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model Models Similarity Theory Power Law Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83x10-8 23.65 103 1.83x10-8 18.83 103 STAC2.1 1.49x10-8 0.68 79 1.49x10-8 -3.25 79 CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.48x10-8 N/A 79 1.54x10-8 N/A 79

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 STAC2.1 RESULTS Previously, the program methodology, theor y, and validation for both STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF were discussed. The Gaussian modeli ng feature of CALPUFF was used to validate the simple STAC2.1 one-wind, Gaussian m odel. Results are described below. STAC2.1 was used to calculate conservative concentrations. Remember that the highest daytime concentrations, closest to the stack, occur for Pasquill class A, the most unstable condition. In addition, for class C while the concentrations ar e lower over-all, the continuous, full-power concentrations remain above the limit further away from the stack. To ascertain the Ar-41 concentrations for the UFTR, while accoun ting for atmospheric influences, local weather condition measurements were acquired from the local conditions r ecorded daily by the Department of Physics Weather Station [2, 4]. The information in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are the average temperatures, wind directions, wind speeds and Pasquill Classes attributed for yearly periods between July 2004 and July 2005 su rrounding the UF campus. Table 4.1 contains daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table 4.2 ha s the nighttime, 8pm 6am, information. Concentrations The full-power peak Ar-41 concentrations rel eased, for each set of individual data, using possible different population and Pasquill Class co mbinations, as well as the distance from the building where these peaks occur, are illustrated in Table 4.3. Stab ility classes A, B, and C are used for daytime, while the F stability class is used for nighttime. Note that highlighted concentrations reflect the average daytime stab ility classes for each time period; the average nighttime stability class (F) is the only night time category shown. Concentrations, for each time period averaged Pasquill Class, are illustrated in Fig. 4-1.

PAGE 37

37 Dose Rates The total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29]. Dose rate is linearly related to Ar-41 concen tration as shown in Eq. 4-1. Ma ximum full-power dose rates and corresponding concentrations, for the quarterly a nd yearly Pasquill Class averages, are shown in Table 4.4. The full-power dose rate trends, for each average Pasquill Class for each time period, is illustrated in Fig. 4-2. (4-1) Table 4.5 shows possible limiting case scenario full-power concentrations and doses for several buildings near the UFTR based on a co ntinuous operation concentr ation with dedicated winds using the April 2005 July 2005 data. The wi nd directions were assu med to vector to each building. Operation Hours Peak, full-power concentrations show that when the UFTR is assumed to operate at 100% power for 24 hours per day, then the allowable maximum concentrations and doses of Ar-41 for dedicated wind directions exceed 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3 and 50 mrem/yr. This implies that a reactor duty cycle must be applied to bring the mont hly average concentration of Ar-41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Using the calculated peak, full-power concen trations of Ar-41, th e UFTR Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH), are shown in Table 4.6 for daytime conditions, since daytime is when the reactor is most likely to be run. In considering the peak concentrations, this will decrease limit exceeding concentrations to below 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are cal culated using Eq. 4-2 [20, 23, 24]. Ar-41 c oncentrations ( ) are in Ci/m3. For units of kW-hours month or kWDose mre m yrC i m350 mre m 1.00x108Ci m 3

PAGE 38

38 hours/week, multiply by 100kW. The 720 hours/m onth is standard assuming 24 hours/day, 7 days/ week, and ~4.286 wk/month [20]. Note that the EFPH limit based on license requirements is 235.00 hours/month or 55.56 hours/week [20]. (4-2) Therefore, on average, to remain below the annual limit of 1.00x10-8Ci/m3, the UFTR may be run up ~307 hours/month at full power for the year, with a restriction of running up to ~240 hours/month during the late spring and summer m onths. Since the additional restriction is 235.00 hours/month, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hour s/month (55.56 hours/week) all year long. This is a significant increase from the curren t EFPH for the UFTR of ~116 hours/month [20]. Dilution Factors The flow diluted release concentration of Ar-41 ( ) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3 from Eq. 3-3. Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24x10-5 Ci/m3, shown in Eq. 4-3. Table 4.7 shows the dilution factors fo r the site boundary, th e distance where maximum concentration occurs, and the distance where the closest residen ce housing is located (East Hall at 190m). The concentrations were calculat ed using the limiting case conditions for April 2005 July 2005, with a wind direction towards East Hall (80o). (4-3) Consider that the dilution ratio for the maximum concentration (415:1) is also the maximum case instantaneous release concentrat ion from the UFTR stack. The dilution ratio, EFPH hrs mo1.00x108 C i m3 Ci m 3720hrs mo DilutionFactor C i m3 1.24x105 Ci m 3

PAGE 39

39 currently used by the UFTR, is 200: 1 [16]. Note that 200:1 is ex tremely conservative compared to the computed value of 415:1 based on results from STAC2.1. Table 4.8 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20x10-8 Ci/m3) [20, 23, 24], and the maximum concentration as determined by STAC2.1. It is shown that the 200:1 ratio is approximately 2.07 times more conservative than the 415:1 ratio. Stack Height Comparison A study was conducted to determine whether or not the physical stack height could be raised to increase atmospheric dilution and decrease the peak concentration of Ar-41 from the UFTR to below the limits of 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3 and 50 mrem/yr. This was relevant in consideration of eliminating th e requirement to limit how long the UFTR may be operated per month. Weather conditions from April 2005 July 2005 were applied in these models, using a wind direction of 80o pointed towards East Hall (the cl osest student residence hall). These weather conditions represented a limiting scenario with the highest overall concentrations and dose rates. The following heights were initially modele d for a general compar ison: 8.00 m, 9.04 m, 10.00 m, 15.00 m, 20.00 m, and 25.00 m. Table 4.9 shows the peak, full-power concentrations and dose rates for each stack height modeled. Between 15.00 m and 20.00 m, the concentrations and dose rates dip below the limits. Fig. 4-3 and 4-4 illustrate the concentration and dose rate distributions, respectively, fo r each stack height model. Additional models were completed at st ack heights of 16.00 m, 16.50 m, 17.00 m, and 18.08 m in order to determine a stack height wh ich will yield full-power concentrations and doses below the limits without limiting operati ons hours. Table 4.10 shows the maximum, fullpower concentrations and dose rates, and Fig. 4-5 and 4-6 depict the conc entration and dose rate

PAGE 40

40 distributions respectively. From these compar isons, any stack height above 16.50 m will yield concentrations and dose rates below the limits. C onservatively, the stack height may be doubled from 9.04 m to 18.08 m, for operation 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Results from STAC2.1 were described in this chapter for full-power concentrations, corresponding dose rates, and ot her pertinent calculations for the UFTR. This was based on theory and validations covered in previous chapters. The next discussion covers the final summary and conclusions of this work. Figure 4-1 Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period

PAGE 41

41 Figure 4-2 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m ) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period Figure 4-3 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights

PAGE 42

42 Figure 4-4 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights Figure 4-5 Ar-41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3)

PAGE 43

43 Figure 4-6 Ar-41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10-8 Ci/m3) Table 4-1 Daytime Monthly, Quarterl y, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul 04-Sept 4 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A Oct 04-Dec 4 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B Jan 5-Mar 5 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C Apr 5-Jul 05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A Jul 04-Jul 5 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B Table 4-2 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul 04-Sept 4 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F Oct 04-Dec 4 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F Jan 5-Mar 5 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F Apr 5-Jul 05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F Jul 04-Jul 5 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F Table 4-3 Urban Ground Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR Stability Classes Jul04-Sep04 Oct04-Dec04 Jan05-Mar05 April05-Jul05 Jul04-Jul05 Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m A 2.89x10-8 50 2.62x10-8 44 2.86x10-8 47 2.99x10-8 50 2.83x10-8 45 B 2.39x10-8 79 2.16x10-8 75 2.36x10-8 78 2.46x10-8 82 2.34x10-8 80 C 2.32x10-8 119 2.09x10-8 111 2.28x10-8 120 2.39x10-8 123 2.27x10-8 115 F 1.09x10-8 775 1.08x10-8 865 1.08x10-8 750 1.09x10-8 835 1.09x10-8 800

PAGE 44

44 Table 4-4 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full-Power Continuous Operation Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max Conc. & Dist. from UFTR Total Effective Dose Rate Ci/m3 m mrem/year Jul 04-Sept 4 A 2.89x10-8 50 145 Oct -Dec 04 B 2.16x10-8 75 108 Jan 05-Mar 05 C 2.28x10-8 120 114 Apr 5-Jul 05 A 2.99x10-8 50 150 Jul -Jul 05 B 2.34x10-8 80 117 Table 4-5 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR, Assuming Full-Power, Continuous Operation Buildings on Campus ~Distance from UFTR (m) ~Wind Direction (deg) Max. Conc. (Ci/m3) Dose (mrem/yr) Reed Lab. (RLA) 20 180 7.14x10-10 4 Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265 2.65x10-8 133 Weil Hall (WEIL) Main Eng. 63 170 2.89x10-8 145 Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80 1.96x10-8 98 Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0 1.09x10-8 55 Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MAEC) 137 80 1.03x10-8 52 Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40 7.87x10-9 39 East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80 5.75x10-9 29 Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95 6.16x10-9 31 Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAEB) 200 40 5.22x10-9 26 North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93 4.04x10-9 20 Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170 3.42x10-9 17 Weaver Hall (WEA) Housing 251 80 3.39x10-9 17 Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85 2.86x10-9 14 Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110 2.43x10-9 12 Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93 2.27x10-9 11 Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50 2.12x10-9 11 OConnell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125 1.98x10-9 10 Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115 1.85x10-9 9 Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50 1.29x10-9 6 Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55 1.26x10-9 6 Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135 1.02x10-9 5 Table 4-6 UFTR Hours of Operation Ba sed on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk Jul 04-Sept 4 A 2.89x10-8 50 249.13 24913.49 58.90 5889.72 Oct -Dec 04 B 2.16x10-8 75 333.33 33333.33 78.80 7880.22

PAGE 45

45 Table 4-6 Continued Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk Jan 05-Mar 05 C 2.28x10-8 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47 Apr 05-Jul A 2.99x10-8 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73 Jul -Jul 05 B 2.34x10-8 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05 Table 4-7 Dilution Ratios based on Concen trations and Relevant Campus Locations Campus Relevance Distance from UF TR Concentration Dilution Ratio (Value:1) m Ci/m3 UFTR Site Boundary 301.48x10-8838 Maximum Concentration 502.99x10-8415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 1905.75x10-92157 Table 4-8 Dilution Ratio Comparison Location Concentration (Ci/m3) Dilution Ratio (Top of stack: Other) Difference Ratio (STAC2.1:SOP) UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20x10-8200 2.07 Maximum Concentration 2.99x10-8415 Table 4-9 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rate s, and Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height Stack Height Distance from UFTR Maxi mum Concentration Maximum Dose Rate m m Ci/m3 mrem/year 8.00 453.54x10-8177 9.04 50 2.99x10-8149 10.00 502.55x10-8128 15.00 651.21x10-861 20.00 806.49x10-932 25.00 973.84x10-919 Table 4-10 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Ra tes and, Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height Stack Height Distance from UFTR Maxi mum Concentration Maximum Dose Rate M m Ci/m3 mrem/year 15.00 651.21E-0861 16.00 70 1.06E-08 53 16.50 70 9.93E-09 50 17.00 70 9.30E-09 47 18.08 75 8.14E-09 41

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Results Summary and Conclusions In summary, University of Florida (UF) res earchers performed a detailed assessment of the Ar-41 concentration and dose generated by opera tion of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) for relicensing requirements for the NRC (Appendix D). Specifically, yearly maximum predicted concentrations, dose rates, operational limits, and dilution factors were calculated for the UFTR with impact assessments assuming dedicated wind directions to nearby campus buildings at 100% full power (100kW). In addition, a stack height study was conducted to determine the height necessary to reduce the Ar-41 concentration without limiting operation times. Note that the total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested c ontinuously over a year. A Gaussian plume model based code, ST AC2.1, developed and benchmarked by UF researchers, was employed to calculate th e maximum concentrations and corresponding distances. Average daytime atmospheric conditi ons for UF (2004-2005), UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar-41 characteristics were estab lished as input parameters for the code. Manual Pasquill plume calculations and detailed CALPUFF computations were used to successfully validate STAC2.1 results. The percent differences from the manual method ranged from 0.70 to 3.61%, and the percent differences from CALPUFF models aliase d using STAC2.1 were within ~-19%. In addition, since the STAC2.1 results are greater than those from CALPUFF, it can be concluded that STAC2.1 result s are conservative and yield an upper bound for the full-power peak concentrations of Ar-41 st raight down-wind from the UFTR. Based on the available data and results from STAC2.1, the average yearly maximum, down-wind, assuming 100% full power Ar-41 concentration for the UFTR was 2.34 x10-8 Ci/m3

PAGE 47

47 at 80m (117 mrem/yr), while the highest full pow er concentration (April 2005 July 2005) was 2.99 x10-8 Ci/m3 at 50m (150 mrem/yr). Note this assumes continuous full power operation, and the highest maximum concentration was used as th e limiting value for all other calculations in determining reactor operational cons traints so as to be in compliance with the mean dose of 50 mrem/year. Concerning the buildings on campus, only build ings within ~150m of the UFTR could experience concentrations and dose rates greater th an the limits if the reactor were continuously operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65x10-8 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89x10-8 Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96x10-8 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09x10-8 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03x10-8 Ci/m3). The student residence hall closest to the UFTR, East Hall, located 190m away, had both the concentration and dose rate below the annual full operation limit: 5.75x10-9 Ci/m3. In order to reduce the maximum concentrations (and corresponding doses) to acce ptable limits, the number of allowable full power hours of operation per month was calculate d. The allowable number of hours, averaged for the year, was ~307 hours/month, with a furthe r restriction during th e summer of ~240 full power hours/month. Therefore, based on an addi tional license restric tion of 235.00 hours/month, from Ar-41 emissions, the UFTR may be r un up 235.00 hours/month (55.56 hours/week) all year long during the daylight hours. Th is is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the UFTR of ~116 hours/month [24]. In addition, sin ce nighttime concentrations and resultant doses are lower than for daytime, the reactor may be run 48 hours/week continuously without exceeding limit requirements; ~7 hour/week would still be available as well.

PAGE 48

48 Based on an analysis of the STAC2.1 results, the estimated 200:1 rati o, used in the UFTR standard operational procedur es established for the past 50 years, was ~2 times more conservative than the calcula ted ~415:1 dilution ratio. Finally, several models were evaluated with va rying stack heights to see the effects on Ar41 concentrations and dose; fan speeds were ke pt constant. Initially stack heights of 8.00m, 9.04m (current stack height), 10.00m, 15.00, 20.00, and 25.00m were modeled. The results showed that between 15.00m and 20.00m the c oncentration dropped below the limit. Further models at 15.00m, 16.00m, 16.50m, 17.00m, and 18.08m were performe d. Results indicated that increasing the stack height from the current height of 9.04 m to effluent di scharge levels greater than ~16.50 m would yield continuous peak full-po wer Ar-41 concentrations below the limit of 1.00x10-8 Ci/m3 anywhere on campus. All results and analyses were used for the NRC re-licensing of the UFTR. Further work could be done to add to the dept h of this thesis; several ideas are described in the next section. Possible Future Works Future comparisons with STAC2.1, involving CA LPUFF, could be performed. One idea is to consider a wider variation of terrain and weather conditions to gain additional understanding of these model effects in CALPUFF. Note that if flat terrain data is criticized then one would need detailed detection point on a street canyon basis. Some addi tional concepts pertaining to CALPUFF which may be explored are: using high resolution datase ts, more detailed inspection of the wind vector results, and a more prec ise one day, one-wind model created in CALMET. Another concept is linking CALMET data with Pe nnsylvania State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model (M M5) [25, 26, 30] or the Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) [31, 32] for comparison with ST AC2.1. All of these possible

PAGE 49

49 comparisons entail looking at the accuracy of the one-wind model and the locations of the concentrations as the Ar-41 plume spreads away from the UFTR. Other programs, such as COMPLY, may be used to model the UFTR and be compared to the results from STAC2.1 and CALPUFF. CO MPLY is another EPA approved model [12]. In addition, further analyses of Ar-41 concen trations and necessary modifications for a possible UFTR power upgrade from 100kW to 500k W may be considered. A multi-faceted study was performed as part of anot her effort. It included two m odifications for reducing Ar-41 concentrations emitted at the higher power: adding neutron absorbing shields on the north and south sides of the UFTR (where the least graphite and concre te shielding are present), and increasing the stack height to at least 40 m [ 33]. For this stack height comparison, additional vertical analysis of upper floors of the atmos phere, regarding Pasquill stability classes in STAC2.1 may need to be considered. APPENDIX A STAC2.1 INPUT VARIABLE CALCULATIONS Ratio of Densities Ar-41 density at room temperature at ST P: 40.96 g/mol*1mol/22.4L =1.8286 g/l = 1.8286 kg/m3 Assuming constant volume, and using Ideal gas laws: (A-1) (A-2) (A-3) Ar-41 density: 1.653 kg/m3 1 T 1 P1 2 T 2 P2 2 1 T 1 P2 T2P1 21.8286k g m3273K100kPa 298K101.325kPa

PAGE 50

50 Air density: 1.169 kg/m3 (A-4) Specific Heat Assumed the specific heat of Ar-41 is approximated by the specific heat of Argon (520 J/kg-oC). Inner Diameter of Stack Calculation Length of square stack side: 2 ft 6 in = 0.762m Standard Deviation: 0.25in = 0.0064m Measured area of rectangul ar stack opening: 6.35 ft2 = 0.581m2 Conversion to circular dimensions: = 0.581m2 Radius is: 0.430m Diameter is: 0.860m Height of the Stack The height was measured from inside the stack opening to the fl oor of the stack. Stack height: 29 ft 8 in = 29.67 ft = 9.04m Efflux velocity from Stack Total volumetric flow rate (core vent + dilution fan): 15772 ft3/min = 7.4436 m3/s (A-5) Ratio1.653k g m3 1.169kg m 31.4 AirFlowVelocityVolumetricFlowRate CrosssectionalAreaofStackOpening7.4436m3 s 0.581m212.81m s

PAGE 51

51 APPENDIX B GEO.DAT FILE FOR CALMET INPUT GEO.DAT 2.0 Header structure w ith coordinate parameters 2 Produced by MAKEGEO Version: 2.2 Level: 030402 simplified GEO.DAT for use with test case UTM 17N WGS-84 10-10-2002 17 17 369.530 3280.494 0.050 0.050 KM M 0 LAND USE DATA (0 = default categories) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.00000 -Terrain heights HTFAC conversion to meters 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76

PAGE 52

52 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 41.76 0 default z0 field 0 default albedo field 0 default Bowen ratio field 0 default soil heat flux parameters 0 default anthropogenic heat flux field 0 default leaf area index field

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX C LANDUSE TABLE FOR GEO.DA T FILE FOR CALMET INPUT [26]

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX D APPENDIX SUBMITTED TO THE NRC: APPENDIX E By V.S. Cornelison and G. E. Sjoden Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Department, University of Florida Introduction Atmospheric plume dispersion modeling, inte grating atmospheric statistical dynamics, diffusion, and meteorological data may be applied to achieve an estimate of the downwind concentration of Ar-41 effluent released duri ng steady state operation of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR). The atmosphe ric modeling approach utilized to determine effluent levels is based on the methods constructed by Pasquill and further expounded upon by Briggs and Turner [1 4], with related methodologies applied in US Atomic Energy Commission studies [34]. We note th at these methods have been a dopted and used as a basis for methodologies adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Fede ral Coordinator of Meteorology, and the American Society for Mechanical Engineers [1, 4, 6, 8]. Wind direction and atmospheric conditions such as temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed distinctly affect the path of effluents dispersed from an exhaust stack [1 4, 7]. The specific time of day versus night conditions are important, due to environmental changes in the lapse rate from the combined effects of heati ng and cloud cover. These varying conditions, along with the accepted mathematical models, allow th e concentration of Ar-41 to be conservatively estimated with a simple one-wind, Gaussian computer code employing proper model physics: STAC2 (Version 2.1) Build 1.5b (hereaf ter referred to as STAC2.1) [8]. Note that while wind speed and temperature specifically affect e ffluent concentration, wind direction simply determines the vector location along which the effluent flows. The basis of STAC2.1 is a Gaussian plume model. The Gaussian model, illustrated in Figure D-1, describes, in three-

PAGE 55

55 dimensions, the theoretical path of a plum e emerging from the stack: straight downwind, horizontally, and vertically [4]. These directions correspond, respect ively to a coordinate system along the x-axis (parallel to the wind vector), y-axis, and z-axis. Figure D-1 illustrates the basic plume and plume centerline (bold, dashed line para llel to the x-axis). The H in the figure represents the effective stack height relative to the plume centerline, and h is the physical height of the stack. The profile of the plume is de tailed with the elliptical and parabolic sketches to demonstrate three dimensional depths. In addition, frictional (drag) effects on wind speed can be approximated using a terrain category typical of the region where the atmospheri c transport is occurring. For the University of Florida campus, the terrain is assumed to be urban with a flat landscape. The comparison between urban, suburban, and rural, to capture sp ecific effects of differe nt terrain on wind speed profiles, is shown in Figure D-2 [1, 4]. As surface roughness decrea ses, the depth of the affected atmospheric layer becomes more shallow, and the wind speed profile becomes steeper. The numbers reflected in the curves refer to normaliz ed percentages of the wind gradient at various heights. The UFTR, an Argonaut design, produces Ar-4 1 by neutron activation in the course of operations. This effluent is discharged from the air handling equipment from the exhaust stack adjacent to the reactor building. The limiting parameter for the opera ting duty cycle of the UFTR is the concentration of Ar-41; monthly co ncentration averages in uncontrolled spaces for Ar-41 must not exceed 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 (note: 1 Ci/m3 = 1 Ci/mL), at 100% reactor power, per state and federal guidelines ( 10CFR20) [16, 17]. The UFTR is in close proximity to many building structures on the Florida campus, includi ng the Ben Hill Griffin Football Stadium, other

PAGE 56

56 engineering departments, parki ng garages, and students reside nce halls. The closest student residence hall, East Hall, is located appr oximately 190m west-southwest of the UFTR. Calculation Theory Implemented in ST AC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs The Ar-41 concentrations, emitted from the UFTR stack, are calculated based on standard ASME effluent diffusion equations and Pasquill stability classes determined from atmospheric conditions, which are cast as input parameters for STAC2.1 [1, 2, 4, 8]. The principal governing equation for the determination of down-wind grou nd concentration is given in Eq. (1), with variables cast as: concentration of effluent (Ar-41) released ( ) in Ci/m3, release rate ( Q ) in Ci/s, effective stack height ( h) in m, average wind speed (us) in m/s, horizontal standard dispersion coefficient ( y = y( x )) as a function of (x ) distance from the stack in meters, vertical dispersion coefficient ( z = z( x )) as a function of distance from the stack in meters, and horizontal shift from the centerline ( y ) in m. As can be seen by inspection of Eq. (1), the maximum predicted ground ( z =0) concentrations occur immediately dow nwind from the stack, where there is no horizontal shift ( y = 0). 2 2 2 2)(2)(2 exp )()( ),( x y x h uxx Q yxy z szy (1) An effective stack height ( h), in meters, is calculate d, using a conservative buoyant plume estimate, and is the height of the plume cen terline above the source accounting for the rise of the physical effluent discharged at the stack. The height of the plume centerline is computed by STAC2.1, while the height of the physical st ack is an input parameter. The crosswind dispersion coefficients, y and z are determined by the atmos pheric stability classes (A through F) and were originally created by Pasquill, where A is the most unstable condition, and F is the most stable.

PAGE 57

57 Relative stability is determined by the am ount of solar radiation, wind speed, outside temperature, relative lapse rate (0.65 oC/100m for the case of the UFTR), and the effluent release time of day (day or night) [1, 2]. Characterist ically, unstable is considered warm and sunny (daytime), while stable is cool and overcast (n ighttime). Table D-1 describes, in general, the characteristics attributed to each class. In addition, with regard to the effluent (Ar-41), STAC 2.1 takes into account the half-life, density ratio to air, specific heat of the bulk effluent, and th e molecular weight (for ppt-v determinations, if required). In addition, STAC2.1 accounts for general terrain altitude as a tunable parameter for density corrections. Validation of STAC2.1 Results both By-Hand and using CALPUFF The release rate, specific to the UFTR, was calculated to be 9.228 E-5 Ci/s (). The details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. (2) (4) [1, 2, 4, 11, 20, 24]. Additional parameters in these equations, relative to the UFTR reactor, are: the undilut ed release rate of Ar41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 E-4 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar-41 from the core vent and dilution fan ( ) (15772 ft3/min or 7.444 m3/s), the dilution factor ( ) from the dilution fan and core vent (dimensionl ess) (0.0152168), and the flow diluted release concentration at the top of the stack ( = 1.24E-5 Ci/m3) [20, 24]. The fan flow rate value was determined as a result of the most recent servic e to the dilution fan. This dilution factor ( ) takes into account that Ar-41 comes from the core (reac tor) via the core vent, which is then dispersed by both the core vent and th e dilution fan [20, 24]. (2) (3) CoreVentFlowRateft3 min fft3 mi n Ci m 38.147E4 Ci m 3

PAGE 58

58 (4) In STAC2.1, the release rate was initially modeled assuming a unit source to calculate general maximum concentrations straight downwi nd from the stack. Final concentrations of Ar41, for the UFTR, were calculated by multiplying these general concentrations by the specific release rate, 9.228 x 10-5 Ci/s. All calculations were verified, independentl y, by hand, as shown in Table D-1. Tabulated values for y and z, atmospheric conditions for Gainesville, Florida, and the stack height and release rate for the UFTR were applied to Eq. (1) for the hand calculation. Concentrations were compared for various distances from the UFTR versus those computed using STAC2.1 for the year between July 2004 and July 2005 a ssuming extremely unstable conditions. In addition, we note that the temperature of the effluent was assumed to be the same as the average ambient temperature; 23.05oC. The average daytime wind azimuth direction for the year was from 167.11o, and the average ground wind speed was 2.42 m/s. As shown in the last row of Table D-2, the differences in the concentrations determined via tabula r by-hand values or STAC2.1 code runs were less th an 3.61% within 500m, and le ss than 0.77% within 100m downwind of the stack. To explain the differences, the by-ha nd computations do not account for all of the physics (buoyant plume rise with temp erature, decay at time of arrival, etc), and are less robust than used in th e STAC2.1 calculations [9]. CALPUFF is an EPA approved Califor nia puff and slug atmospheric dispersion modeling program for accurate concentration and effluent spread prediction over complicated terrain [26]. Puffs are circular, Gaussian mappings of effluent concentrations, while slugs are elongations of these puffs using Lagrangian a nd Gaussian methods. Four CALPUFF models were created using summer weather conditi ons, details for the UFTR stack, Ar-41 RC i s C i m 3f m 3 s

PAGE 59

59 characteristics, a flat, uniform terrain associated with Gainesville, FL, no over water effects, and using an urban wind model. The four studies included combinations of puff and slug models with two different wind extrapolation met hods; power law and similarity methods. A STAC2.1model was created to match the averag e weather conditions, flat terrain, and urban model, as well as the UFTR and Ar-41 parameters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to each of the four cases. The results of this comparison are given in Tables D-3 and D-4. Maximum concentrations computed using ST AC2.1 and CALPUFF software models were compared for each of the cases. It was found that the relative distance where the maximum concentration occurred was as much as 31% different betwee n the two models. This distance of the maximum concentration was identical in all four CALPUFF models. The maximum concentration values differed from between ~ 19% and 31%, depending on whether a puff or slug model, or wind extrapolation pow er law or similarity theory was employed. STAC2.1 results most closely matched the slug, power law model. Comparisons between concentrations for the same downwind distances differed between the codes by only ~1% to 6 %. The best model relative to a comparison with STAC2.1 is th e CALGROUP slug and wi nd extrapolation power law model, which resulted in a percent difference of +/~19%. Overall, the amalgam of a ll of these results demonstr ate that STAC2.1 yields a conservative and reasonable estimate for the effl uent concentration of Ar-41 downwind from the stack, and can therefore be used in establis hing Ar-41 concentrations for UFTR operations. STAC2.1 Concentration and Do se Results for the UFTR STAC2.1 was used to calculate conservative concentrations. Remember that the highest daytime concentrations, closest to the stack, oc cur for Pasquill class A, the most unstable condition. In addition, for class C, while th e concentrations are lower overall, the concentrations remain above the prescribed limit further from the stack. To ascertain the Ar-41

PAGE 60

60 concentrations for the UFTR, while accounting for atmospheric influences, local weather condition measurements were acquired from the local conditions r ecorded daily by the Department of Physics Weather Station [2, 4]. The information located in Tables D-5 and D-6 are the average temperatures, wind directions, wi nd speeds, and Pasquill Classes attributed for the yearly period between July 2004 and Ju ly 2005 surrounding the UF campus. Table D-5 contains daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table D-6 has the nighttime, 8pm 6am, information. The tables also include mean values for quarterly periods and the total year. Again, we note that the monthly average computed for A r-41 based on operation of the reactor must not exceed the maximum limit of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 [16]. The peak Ar-41 concentrations released, fo r each set of individual data, using possible different Population and Pasquill Class combinati ons, as well as the distance from the building where these peaks occur, are illustrated in Table D-7. Note that highlighted concentrations reflect the average stability classes for each time period. The total effective dose equivalent limit determ ined for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29]. Dose is linearly related to concentration as show n in Eq. (5). Results for the quarterly averages are shown in Table D-8. Table D-9 shows possibl e limiting case scenario concentrations and doses for several buildings near the UFTR based on a continuous operation concentration with dedicated winds using the April 2005 July 2005 data. For this exercise, the wind directions were assumed to vector toward each building. (5) Peak concentrations show that when the UFTR is assumed to operate at 100% power for 24 hours per day, then the allowable maximum con centrations and doses of Ar-41 for dedicated Dose mre m yrCi m35 0 mre m 1.00E08Ci m 3

PAGE 61

61 wind directions exceed 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 and 50mrem/yr. This implies a reactor duty cycle is needed to bring the monthly average concentr ation of Ar-41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Operation Hours for the UFTR Using the calculated peak concentrations of Ar-41, the UFTR Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH), are shown in Table D-10 for daytime cond itions, since daytime is when the reactor is most likely to be run. In considering the p eak concentrations, this will decrease all limit exceeding concentrations to below 1.00E-8 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. (6) [20, 24]. (6) Ar-41 concentrations ( ) are in Ci/m3. For units of kW-hours month or kW-hours/week, one can multiply by 100kW. The 720 hours/month is a standard, assuming 24 hours/day, 7 days/ week, and ~4.286 weeks/month [20]. Note that th e EFPH limit based on license requirements is 235.00 hours/month or 55.56 hours/week [20]. Therefore, on average, to remain below the annual limit of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, the UFTR could be run up ~307 hours/month at full power for the year, with a restriction of running up to ~240 hours/month during the late spring and summer months. However, since the additional licensing restriction is 235.00 hours/month, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hours/month (or 55.56 hours/week) all year long. Moreover, since nighttime concentrations are lower than for daytime concentrations, the UFTR can be operated at any time of day, day or night, up to a total of 55.56 hours per week. This is a significant increase from the curren t EFPH for the UFTR of ~116 hours/month [20]. EFPH hrs mo1.00E08C i m3 Ci m 3720hrs mo

PAGE 62

62 Dilution Factor for the UFTR The flow diluted release concentration of Ar-41 ( ) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24E-5Ci/m3 from Eq. (5). Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentra tions in question by 1.24E-5Ci/m3. Table D-11 shows the dilution factors for the site boundary, the distance where maximum concentration occurs, and the distance where the closest residence housing is located (East Hall at a range of 190m). The concentrations were calculated using the li miting case conditions for April 2005 July 2005, with a wind direction towards East Hall (80o). Consider that the dilution ratio for the maximum concentration (415:1) is also the maximum case instantaneous release concentration from the UFTR stack. The dilution ratio, currently used by the UFTR, is 200:1 [20]. Note that 200:1 is ex tremely conservative compared to the computed value of 415:1 based on results from STAC2.1, which has been shown to be conservative. Table D-12 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20E-8 Ci/m3) [20, 24], and the maximum concentration as determined by STAC2.1. It is shown that the 200:1 ratio is approximately 2.07 times more conservative than the 415:1 ratio. Summary and Conclusions In summary, UF researchers performed a de tailed assessment of th e Ar-41 dose generated by operation of the University of Florida Trai ning Reactor (UFTR). In particular, yearly maximum predicted concentrations, dose rates, operational limits, and dilution factors were calculated for the UFTR with impact assessments assuming dedicated wind directions to nearby campus buildings at 100% full power (100kW). No te that the total eff ective dose equivalent limit for Ar-41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E-8 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year. A Gaussian plume model based code, STAC2.1, developed

PAGE 63

63 and benchmarked by UF researchers, was employ ed to calculate the maximum concentrations and the distances where they occurred. Aver age daytime atmospheric conditions for the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL from 2004-2005, UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar-41 characteristics were established as input parameters for the code. By Hand Pasquill plume calculations, and detailed CALPUFF (a detailed physics model) computations were used to successfully validate STAC2. 1 results; the percent differences from the By Hand method ranged from 0.70% to 3.61% (Table D-2), and the percent differences from CALPUFF models aliased using STAC2.1 were with in +/19% (Tables D-3 D-4). Based on the available data, the average maximum Ar-41 concentration determined using STAC2.1 for the reactor at full pow er for the year was 2.34E-8 Ci/m3 down-wind 80m from the UFTR (D-7). The period from April 2005 July 2005, the warmest months with the slowest wind conditions, resulted in the highest maximum concentration of 2.99E-8 Ci/m3 at a downwind location 50m from the UFTR. This time pe riod and highest maximum concentration was used as the limiting value for the dilution factor s, dose rates, and concentrations for the other buildings on campus, as well as the limiting valu e for full power hours of operation. Concerning the buildings on campus, only buildings with in ~150m of the UFTR could experience concentrations and dose rates grea ter than the limits (Table D-9) if the reactor we re continuously operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65E-8 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89E-8 Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96E-8 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09E-8 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03E-8 Ci/m3). The student residence hall closest to the UFTR, East Hall, located 190m aw ay, had both the concentration and dose rate below the annual full operation limit: 5. 75E-9 Ci/m3. In order to reduce the maximum concentrations (and corresponding doses) to acceptable limits, the num ber of allowable full power hours of operation

PAGE 64

64 per month were calculated (Table D-10). The a llowable number of hours, averaged for the year, was ~307 hours/month, with a further restri ction during the summer of ~240 full power hours/month. Therefore, based on the current li cense restriction of 235. 00 hours/month, for Ar41 emissions, the UFTR may be run up 235.00 hour s/month (55.56 hours/week) all year long. This is a significant increase from the current EFPH for the UFTR of ~116 hours/month [13]. In addition, since nighttime concentrations and resu ltant doses are lower than for daytime, the reactor may be run 55 hours/week continuously without exceeding limit requirements. Finally, the current dilution f actor used in the UFTR SOP is 200:1 to account for atmospheric effects. Based on an analysis of the STAC2.1 results, the limiting dilution ratio is ~415:1 (Table D-11). As a result, the 200:1 ratio using in the firs t half century of licensing was more than twice as conservative given the actual ratio of 415:1 (Table D-12). Figure D-1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions strai ght downwind, horizontal, and vertical

PAGE 65

65 Figure D-2 Effect of Terrain Roughne ss on the General Wind Speed Profile Table D-1 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories Category Time of day Typical Conditions Weather Descriptions Wind m/s Wind Direction Stand. Dev. A Day Extremely Unstable Very Sunny Summer 1 +25 deg B Moderately Unstable Sunny and Warm 2 +20 deg C Slightly Unstable Average Daytime 5 +15 deg D Night Neutral Stability Overcast Day/Night 5 +10 deg E Slightly Stable Average Nighttime 3 +5 deg F Moderately Stable Clear Nighttime 2 +3 deg Table D-2 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar-41 Hand Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) Distance from Building (m) 50 100 500 References UFTR release rate (Ci/s) 9.228E-05 9.228E-05 9.228E-05 Calculated Effective height of effluent release (m) 12.3 12.3 12.3 [12] Pasquill Category (Daytime) A A A Assumed Wind speed at the stack (m/s) 3.99 3.99 3.99 [12] Sigma y (m) 10.97 21.89 107.35 [1, 4] Sigma z (m) 10.00 20.00 100.00 [1, 4] By Hand Concentration: (Ci/m3) (Eq. 1) 3.15E-08 1.39E-08 6.81E-10 [1, 4] STAC2.1 Multiplier: Release Rate is Unity 3.39E-04 1.50E-04 7.11E-06 Calculation STAC2.1 Concentration: Multiplier UFTR Release Rate (9.228E-5 Ci/m3) 3.13E-08 1.38E-08 6.56E-10 Calculation % Difference: STAC2.1 vs. By Hand -0.70% -0.77% -3.61% Calculation

PAGE 66

66 Table D-3 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALG ROUP Comparison with a Puff Model Models Similarity Theory Power Law Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83E-08 30.71 103 1.83E-08 19.61 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance as CALPUFF) 1.49E-08 6.43 79 1.49E-08 -2.61 79 CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.40E-08 N/A 79 1.53E-08 N/A 79 Table D-4 STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison wit h a Slug Model Models Similarity Theory Power Law Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) Maximum Conc. (Ci/m3) % Diff. in Conc. Distance from Stack (m) STAC2.1 (Maximum) 1.83E-08 23.65 103 1.83E-08 18.83 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance as CALPUFF) 1.49E-08 0.68 79 1.49E-08 -3.25 79 CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.48E-08 N/A 79 1.54E-08 N/A 79 Table D-5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Y early Atmospheric Averages (July 2004-2005) Monthly Quarters, & Year Temp Wind Direction Ground Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul -Sept 04 83.38 28.54160.775.092.28A Oct -Dec 69.21 20.67 143.816.632.96 B Jan -Mar 63.73 17.63 182.615.312.37 C Apr -Jul 05 77.63 25.35 181.254.662.08 A Jul -Jul 5 73.49 23.05 167.115.422.42 B Table D-6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly At mospheric Averages (July 2004-2005) Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul -Sept 04 77.89 25.50158.093.101.39 F Oct -Dec 62.94 17.19 134.132.471.10 F Jan -Mar 57.34 14.08 183.313.311.48 F Apr -Jul 05 70.90 21.61 166.162.661.19 F Jul -Jul 5 67.27 19.59 160.422.891.29 F Table D-7 STAC2.1 Urban Ground P eak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UFTR Time Average Stability Classes Jul04-Sep04 Oct04-Dec04 Jan05-Mar05 April05-Jul05 Jul04-Jul05 Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Day A 2.89E-08 50 2.62E-08 44 2.86E-08 47 2.99E-08 50 2.83E-08 45 B 2.39E-08 79 2.16E-08 75 2.36E-08 78 2.46E-08 82 2.34E-08 80 C 2.32E-08 119 2.09E-08 111 2.28E-08 120 2.39E-08 123 2.27E-08 115 Night F 1.09E-08 775 1.08E-08 865 1.08E-08 750 1.09E-08 835 1.09E-08 800 Highlighted concentrations reflect the av erage stability classes for each time period

PAGE 67

67 Table D-8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Ma ximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 2004-2005, Assuming Full Power Continuous Operation Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max Day Conc. & Dist. from UFTR Total Effective Dose Rate Ci/m3 m mrem/year Jul 04-Sept 4 A 2.89E-08 50 145 Oct 04-Dec 4 B 2.16E-08 75 108 Jan 05-Mar 05 C 2.28E-08 120 114 Apr 5-Jul 05 A 2.99E-08 50 150 Jul 04-Jul 5 B 2.34E-08 80 117 Table D-9 STAC2.1 Total Effective Dose Ra te Assuming Peak Concentration Values for Buildings near the UFTR Assuming dedi cated 100% Wind Vectors from the UFTR Stack to the Building Buildings on Campus ~Distance from UFTR (m) ~Wind Direction (deg) Max. Conc. (Ci/m3) Dose (mrem/yr) Reed Lab. (RLA) 20 180 7.14E-10 4 Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265 2.65E-08 133 Weil Hall (WEIL) Main Eng. 63 170 2.89E-08 145 Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80 1.96E-08 98 Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0 1.09E-08 55 Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MAE C) 137 80 1.03E-08 52 Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40 7.87E-09 39 East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80 5.75E-09 29 Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95 6.16E-09 31 Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAE B) 200 40 5.22E-09 26 North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93 4.04E-09 20 Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170 3.42E-09 17 Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85 2.86E-09 14 Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110 2.43E-09 12 Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93 2.27E-09 11 Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50 2.12E-09 11 OConnell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125 1.98E-09 10 Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115 1.85E-09 9 Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50 1.29E-09 6 Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55 1.26E-09 6 Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135 1.02E-09 5 Table D-10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar-41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Daytime Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk Jul -Sept 04 A 2.89E-0850 249.13 24913.4958.90 5889.72

PAGE 68

68 Table D-10 Continued Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Daytime Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kW-hrs/mo hrs/wk kW-hrs/wk Oct -Dec B 2.16E-0875 333.33 33333.3378.80 7880.22 Jan -Mar C 2.28E-08120 315.79 31578.9574.65 7465.47 Apr -Jul 05 A 2.99E-0850 240.80 24080.2756.93 5692.73 Jul -Jul 5 B 2.34E-0880 307.69 30769.2372.74 7274.05 Table D-11 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations Campus Relevance Distance from UFTR Concentration Dilution Ratio (Value:1) m Ci/m3 UFTR Site Boundary 301.48E-08838 Maximum Concentration 502.99E-08 415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 1905.75E-09 2157 Table D-12 Dilution Ratio Comparison Location Concentration (Ci/m3) Dilution Ratio (Top of stack: Other) Dilution Ratio (STAC2.1:SOP) Top of Stack 1.24E-05 N/A N/A UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20E-08 200 2.07 Maximum Concentration 2.99E-08 415

PAGE 69

69 LIST OF REFERENCES [1] Smith, M.E, 1979: Recommended guide for the prediction of the dispersion of airborne effluents. New York, American Society for Mechanical Engineers, 3rd Ed. [2] Pasquill, F, 1974: Atmospheric diffusion of the dispersion of windborne material from industrial and other sources. Chiche ster: Ellis, Horwood Limited, 2nd Ed. [3] Briggs, G.A, 1969: Plume rise. Springfield, VA, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information Service, TID-25075. [4] Turner, B.D, 1973: Workbook of atmosphe ric dispersion estimates. North Carolina, Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Programs, 6th Ed. [5] Meteorology and Atomic Energy--1968, US AEC Report TID-24190. [6] Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. OFCM dire ctory of atmospheric transport and diffusion consequence assessment models Retrieved from the Internet 8-8-05, http://www.ofcm.gov/atd_dir/pdf/frontpage.htm [7] U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency: 1995. User guide for the Indus trial Source Complex (ISC3) dispersion models volume II: Descript ion of model algorithms. EPA 454/ B 95 003b. Retrieved from the Internet 8-10-05, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/userg/regmod/isc3v2.pdf [8] Sjoden G., and V. S. Cornelison, 2005-2008. STAC2.1 Build 1.5b, S TAC2.1 exhaust stack effluent dispersion model. Florida Institute of Nuclear Detection and Security. [9] University of Florida Department of Physic s Weather Station. Historical text sum maries. Retrieved from the Internet 7-1-05, http://www.phys.ufl.edu/weather/ [10] Los Alamos National Labs Chemistry Division. Argon. Retrie ved from the Internet 4-30-08, http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/18.html [11] University of Florid a cam pus map. Retrieved from the Internet on 8-5-05, http://campusmap.ufl.edu/ [12] U. S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, 1873: Environm ental impact statement for license renewal of the National Bureau of Standards reactor final report. NUREG-1873. December 2007. Retrieved from the Internet 5-1-08, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1873/sr1873.pdf [13] Korean Atom ic Energy Research Institute. 18-Argon. Retrieved from the Internet 4-30-08, http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html

PAGE 70

70 [14] University of Flor ida Nuclear and Radiologi cal Engineering Department. The University of Florida Training Reactor. Retrieved from the Internet 5-5-08, http://www.nre.ufl.edu/faci lities/uftraHistory.php [15] Yenatsky, M, May 2008: Private communication. [16] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CF R20 Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Retrieved from the Internet 7-23-05, http://www.nrc.gov.edgesuite.net/readingrm /doc-collections/cfr/par t020/full-text.html#part020-1001 [17] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10C FR40 Protection of environment, Part 61. Retrieved from the Internet 8-8-05, http://ecfr.gpoaccess.go v/cgi/t/tex t/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=c096bfbe27e56312fde493e740c75117& rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:8.0.1.1. 1&idno=40 [18] NOAA. Glossary. Retrieve d from the Internet 5-12-08, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ glossary.php?letter=w [19] Sonnta g, R.E., C. Borgnakke, and G.J. Van Wylen, 2003: Fundamentals of thermodynamics. 6th Ed., 658. [20] Vernetson, W. G., November 30, 2007: Limitation on UFTR equivalent full-power hours of operation. Memorandum. Un iversity of Florida. [21] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Table of Nuclides: Ar-41. Retrieved from Internet on June 2004, http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html [22] Keane, C. University of Florida physical plant architectural and engineering division. blueprints of the University of Fl orida Training Reactor: Building 557. [23] Chen, W, January, 1981: UFTR safety analys is report copy 8. University of Florida. [24] October 2003. UFTR operation proce dure E.6. University of Florida. [25] Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Ya martino, January 2000: A users guide for the CALPUFF dispersion model (V ersion 5). Concord, MA. [26] Scire, J.S., Strimaitis, D.G, and Yamartino, R.J., January 2000: A users guide for the CALMET meteorological model (Version 5). Concord, MA. [27] Hesketh, H.E, March 1996. Air pollution co ntrol: Traditional and hazardous pollutants. CRC Press, Revised Edition. [28] Henrys Law. Retrieved from the Internet 3-12-08, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

PAGE 71

71 [29] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CFR 20 Appendix B Annual limits of intake and derived air concentrations of ra dionuclides for occupational expos ure, effluent concentrations, and concentrations for release to sewera ge. Retrieved from the Internet 3-18-08, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020 /part020-appb.htm l [30] Kotroni, V. and K. Lagouvardos, November 2004: Evaluation of MM5 high-resolution realtime forecasts over the urban area of Athens, Greece. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 43, No. 11, 1666-78. [31] Holt, T. and J. Pullen, May 2007: Ur ban canopy modeling of the New York City metropolitan area: A comparison and validation of singleand multilayer parameterizations. Monthly Weather Review. 135, No. 5, 1906-30. [32] American Meteorological Society, Novemb er 2006: Weather forecast accuracy gets boost with new computer model. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 87, No.11, 1477-8. Retrieved from the Internet 5-29-08, http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/r es ults_single.jhtml;hwwilsonid=GEL4NZQNWBI W3QA3DILSFF4ADUNGIIV0 [33] Ayres, D., C. Cohen, M. Greene, Yena tsky, M., April 25, 2008: Private Communication. UFTR Modifications: Final Proposal. [34] Slade, D.H., ed., 1968: Meteorology and Atomic Energy--1968, US AEC Report TID24190.

PAGE 72

72 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Victoria Spring Cornelison was born in Atlant a, GA. Her family moved around and settled in Fort Myers, where she attended high sc hool as Cypress Lake High School. Following high school, she attended Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) and graduated with her Bachelor of Arts in mathematics in 2002. While teaching hi gh school mathematics at Estero High School in Estero, FL, she also earned her Master of Arts in Teaching, with a concentration in secondary education, from FGCU in 2004. After teaching high school for two years, in 2005, she decided she needed a change in careers and moved to Gainesville, FL to attend the University of Florida (UF). She has her Master of Scien ce in nuclear engineering at UF, and her next step is to work on her Ph. D. at UF in Nuclear Engineering.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101107_AAAABM INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T15:05:21Z PACKAGE UFE0022452_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6796 DFID F20101107_AAAZYB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH cornelison_v_Page_62thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d7323d9e0082444e3d2b1897b4a9de5e
SHA-1
3c2d1e974c41751733029545db6d4aef183eb6ba
49187 F20101107_AAAZOG cornelison_v_Page_12.pro
be0b1723cefdef1a6bd6b2d21ffcc0d3
2298114c2ea8cf5544a5e210c1fca63f9bd36156
105559 F20101107_AAAZJJ cornelison_v_Page_29.jp2
4594d2b374b382eadfd69758378f6abb
e970418dda7283139f96ada4c49dd8c151a76391
2186 F20101107_AAAZTE cornelison_v_Page_70.txt
3399f86d8827718d4ea16c68838f61dd
c27be7705ee3c90f3fa76fd2ed6241074136845a
26653 F20101107_AAAZYC cornelison_v_Page_63.QC.jpg
43f2c49ba4df94ceeb6f16968243229b
168328ebdd4db1547c218639d4a5a62518d092ac
54338 F20101107_AAAZOH cornelison_v_Page_13.pro
1e90e35b2ba7ea0fa46bd220748d8834
a1f34f6ad4d78b766302aa7de7dedaa2faa7c5e1
106527 F20101107_AAAZJK cornelison_v_Page_30.jp2
4d96808e6b40c2ec65ab4cc306ac849d
b12a9c2a53cc3b2897c00687a70487adc58d0b10
7068 F20101107_AAAZYD cornelison_v_Page_63thm.jpg
e5641763d4df22c33acc334266b0eea8
ae5ef79b553df971dca9339ea653b27a3f75ac0d
39073 F20101107_AAAZOI cornelison_v_Page_14.pro
37608834d412d5caf1df30b4ddc666a4
c67d3e843d267aaea14cfdaaf2e6936cdff69fd1
101674 F20101107_AAAZJL cornelison_v_Page_31.jp2
0cf137ea4b9e7fe8d09ae807dcfb6b19
a2bb215f45f0cea9bc69d8920ea30ab3effb9af7
1366 F20101107_AAAZTF cornelison_v_Page_71.txt
3ee16fcf973311b48cfdc10e042fc1bc
42ad3c35bd5efb0dcc9a760f83773044c0127b38
19782 F20101107_AAAZYE cornelison_v_Page_64.QC.jpg
ef92732394fc69cd8f5ff604f8519249
536a470daeffd64799a9869692e893fee8207091
4937 F20101107_AAAZOJ cornelison_v_Page_15.pro
efe05d55daa37c8199a3958c925e2725
978449e93130405f79a1fa81e5a504d679d8f84e
82355 F20101107_AAAZJM cornelison_v_Page_32.jp2
caf14116bd9836266a10f5539c09326c
af1f9fbb863d0a63a748a9dad759aecdc70e1bc7
884 F20101107_AAAZTG cornelison_v_Page_72.txt
521313dad977ccdec2f36374dd6ddec5
f9d6a79e591c21afeef59105ae0a7b97a3e9ca65
5518 F20101107_AAAZYF cornelison_v_Page_64thm.jpg
7b627834ad1b8e8760f42cc76b3b2d55
33a017c0dee3b6613512d3d6d8e40d635d3dfdba
1908 F20101107_AAAZOK cornelison_v_Page_16.pro
9ae04775548833ba8b7b9daa40f08e9f
9ec8d4fdb00b9d9b2d45cdc845eae263e26bdede
109150 F20101107_AAAZJN cornelison_v_Page_33.jp2
c2a76f3567ad02c124cb3947ca569aaf
5d9408e949edc56aeaef35981e15d433d3929f10
2534 F20101107_AAAZTH cornelison_v_Page_01thm.jpg
42ca6c2ab6b65d39bbaa3dae2454a0ea
0eed5017012669fa5958427bcac21c074c03295f
21009 F20101107_AAAZYG cornelison_v_Page_65.QC.jpg
5e582086810269ac1a92fe08dac2afe9
9be11e218591dc757f145626a08f7b98a9726502
51837 F20101107_AAAZOL cornelison_v_Page_17.pro
1971842c20dd7e479c6ef5077d61c5a9
7e306ee753439585f04ef05b06cc232215637aa7
106406 F20101107_AAAZJO cornelison_v_Page_34.jp2
e10033b55b19546c988d70faec40d5c4
a899bd67c57dcec1bf62a8599b405126708343eb
3118167 F20101107_AAAZTI cornelison_v.pdf
54dca4aa09d0455e3bdb3b112be32c64
4b862e14c1db207b15e80334d6b8e8bb2f29ba91
5894 F20101107_AAAZYH cornelison_v_Page_65thm.jpg
dd42acd4fa1ac84dc6bd732cbdaf6786
4c7083221a65518b4a177cb0925dffa3b1a043a0
45650 F20101107_AAAZOM cornelison_v_Page_18.pro
e93ccc1028d90adf92edc61edca84afe
b50e28b9fddf267de5993b98365c2e9247261e19
70744 F20101107_AAAZJP cornelison_v_Page_35.jp2
93647a303ea14b6f76168f99b3b51a68
de67b8300cb5284a352ea6f8236a6539f5f35b82
8017 F20101107_AAAZTJ cornelison_v_Page_01.QC.jpg
5a6d984fc6855ee20352eb640f7c7f8c
7083a3fd842605f036691a3bf9d532a8b986d9d7
29859 F20101107_AAAZYI cornelison_v_Page_66.QC.jpg
58f0f3467d796798057576d525cf98ac
b9d343413f143cded6798501b66fc2fe251cd44d
46475 F20101107_AAAZON cornelison_v_Page_19.pro
de808a8582c39019c603e02dd05f2895
27f183046a374a4db0413abaf1e406cdbd732ad8
104770 F20101107_AAAZJQ cornelison_v_Page_36.jp2
3424d030f3d033c4bdcd87b9d88464a6
8d3722733515746076b29f52563f30ce69127ed2
3230 F20101107_AAAZTK cornelison_v_Page_02.QC.jpg
a53190d67296fafebe4ff17434edefd4
4c16448778930ae00a67b03ca6422ccb48d9aa0a
7828 F20101107_AAAZYJ cornelison_v_Page_66thm.jpg
4a3e1a4f4ebddf8fd56bf250e34d2ed7
eb0f0766c2059740dfe85d1b64b599b661ec5424
38252 F20101107_AAAZOO cornelison_v_Page_20.pro
7edad4ee4e5972dc1989e0a188e3292b
96077047b2a6ad15600cceeeda9ab5c8cc9b0278
100316 F20101107_AAAZJR cornelison_v_Page_37.jp2
6efab71fc956162f89050b816c8df699
d0ebd67e7deb16e30dc7fc62da00dc12024bf675
1360 F20101107_AAAZTL cornelison_v_Page_02thm.jpg
223b76a9b1a7398c1d8a8d4c2b8f7c34
57038370cd6be6775f173df7697a4139170ef9a2
47574 F20101107_AAAZOP cornelison_v_Page_21.pro
3b62824a32547224a23ee62c314fdf90
03bb9469dbec014257badaafc3aa2a723eba55ff
92389 F20101107_AAAZJS cornelison_v_Page_38.jp2
808140ca40d03ac35de3ed797ab99d2d
93627bf97913bd02efa495aa120c1d7d4efd4dd8
4122 F20101107_AAAZTM cornelison_v_Page_03.QC.jpg
0f9a7bdab1c59498f6f0ba8bb3b8931b
514dd6ff1dcab4d2871e093ff7420ffa2125cc4d
23959 F20101107_AAAZYK cornelison_v_Page_67.QC.jpg
2e76a8617a23c13975591f5f344e2a5c
1ca392be85438dafcf61bd952e56ddfb792330d2
4048 F20101107_AAAZOQ cornelison_v_Page_22.pro
f3869be2c524e4ee3008d9ceb343c0db
c72d361ecf17b30abd9bc003bd0703590a022c17
110078 F20101107_AAAZJT cornelison_v_Page_39.jp2
913dc779140381a0535b8fc9631c7b86
e166fbf4f97d185ab20dcfcf0316b95aabb6447a
1585 F20101107_AAAZTN cornelison_v_Page_03thm.jpg
d32639023fe5455d4765185de159d119
1a5387fb4c39e98857b362a2cede1b7bc15a4f3b
6279 F20101107_AAAZYL cornelison_v_Page_67thm.jpg
f2036e1a5a0ce0b41256f06abb786e60
394189011b0dca1ba433b5196ef31a6642be6037
875880 F20101107_AAAZJU cornelison_v_Page_40.jp2
98fff57b016f0e8809c99008e2efbe48
1c9a4ed2a3f39e16b39916accc047826ecacf4e8
5821 F20101107_AAAZTO cornelison_v_Page_04.QC.jpg
2c2e2827d7129d6039f1b6ee1193c15c
d453f9f1a2c16108c2f5951505c70667955d5439
14117 F20101107_AAAZOR cornelison_v_Page_23.pro
a1ba8ffb02ea7073a4175aafeb79c87f
2abdac1178615cd295189308bc1717843c3e755c
14031 F20101107_AAAZYM cornelison_v_Page_68.QC.jpg
280a1ddab185758e26a3600582539a95
fb0ce2841d2915248d94d6b4977225acf3e87d90
846901 F20101107_AAAZJV cornelison_v_Page_41.jp2
a8b1856b12b6e1a8befb3eef53a45a9a
9033d88b647b4605ff56de6ac568c5bbafc961da
2002 F20101107_AAAZTP cornelison_v_Page_04thm.jpg
8aeeaf112b91465daaf0848c6a95fac0
447b1775abb7c5cc9ccae943088a0484d7a00745
29679 F20101107_AAAZOS cornelison_v_Page_24.pro
8b9b5f07adceb46b9f33431ebe06b033
a8852175f292558551c9662fbf1124fec0fdd0a7
4040 F20101107_AAAZYN cornelison_v_Page_68thm.jpg
8c75f75d1985c137b615ea4133ce9bd8
1d84bc20a3e1e0e10568932d5df8f74b767f1bff
736496 F20101107_AAAZJW cornelison_v_Page_42.jp2
8867fdab7e980d826e0dacfe89bd83b9
64eeb2c4a9bf27f0d4daf772d42b2c99d9219607
20578 F20101107_AAAZTQ cornelison_v_Page_05.QC.jpg
42df6f6d3638ad484e80143b068a1cf2
4dd8f63247ca6f7129928c1c859648a697809b68
54665 F20101107_AAAZOT cornelison_v_Page_25.pro
95ccc0b9131025ebefa07c8dd39cd2f7
1b77080afd713113026acd6e019025ce50ac192d
26456 F20101107_AAAZYO cornelison_v_Page_69.QC.jpg
dd52ca775e6bef56d74d50eb54526d45
38d3afbd78dadff2559f7277d2cb39dc3cf67a6c
1051972 F20101107_AAAZJX cornelison_v_Page_43.jp2
e7c69ae945476e47dee6d435792a0b6b
28ad6dfa94dad901616042e4f26220dc76dbe747
5778 F20101107_AAAZTR cornelison_v_Page_05thm.jpg
225f418fa26e22cb3127648bec62ddbe
499e2b65b778ba2286675c179474b154cc45e89a
25635 F20101107_AAAZOU cornelison_v_Page_26.pro
b541b979c72a5992503ce45bd2897869
cc365dee85966f585b26bf2d2f2a87dbf1fafcd2
7233 F20101107_AAAZYP cornelison_v_Page_69thm.jpg
563f37fc06a970492dc840daf803dd8c
b2491150ecec0cfb6193a162bc4809f9b9c3d9e1
110699 F20101107_AAAZJY cornelison_v_Page_44.jp2
41f561d35b4178532834c6f6b4124d9c
41a5fdfa264164c7e5aa62fd89301022e0c4b620
17028 F20101107_AAAZTS cornelison_v_Page_06.QC.jpg
2edf29f18d771197a4c3237a05c6ef3f
b9e847a6c47e1ec5631608f6d5a1508850d746f6
44322 F20101107_AAAZOV cornelison_v_Page_27.pro
1adcf765db6ccdb24b46d2e0056bfa9e
1b74bd32efbae567784f88c392a410cdc2198931
25838 F20101107_AAAZYQ cornelison_v_Page_70.QC.jpg
f983c5a765652f8d31ecbb354727207b
81aad88ee1fe99965bf36b23092d4d76351d77b5
60348 F20101107_AAAZHA cornelison_v_Page_40.jpg
e03bd99cafc6b025a748c6d1f8bb4a66
2247f0fb6fe49dc02d044c41252d9e5b6f15e444
92172 F20101107_AAAZJZ cornelison_v_Page_45.jp2
cf8b659c055398ce3f3008594c84798d
16c32d6aca14ce608f574586cc9145cd44f89a6d
4451 F20101107_AAAZTT cornelison_v_Page_06thm.jpg
f845e51f38671426942157c59a721e01
a57a40e5f53c2f47f373a7de2e0cb30ed404dfe2
48289 F20101107_AAAZOW cornelison_v_Page_28.pro
75f2af6bb4543593bf545024b1fd061f
f5e2c7f12ab9517d90dee844c5c707282a6f06b2
7107 F20101107_AAAZYR cornelison_v_Page_70thm.jpg
82112e6199c3840db7daa23dfdd1f1fa
6a598c0dd63be086c413ffa547ca59dd913e58f3
55664 F20101107_AAAZHB cornelison_v_Page_41.jpg
102569a7843161ddf97cb616107f2461
490fce02651f1b37f311e8e1b0e75ad3b4e8b9c4
26627 F20101107_AAAZTU cornelison_v_Page_07.QC.jpg
4e8023faa509ff9cb7a3e2ea4956fdc6
7764b5c7918e336922847281ee58c3355020dc67
47878 F20101107_AAAZOX cornelison_v_Page_29.pro
e12697f5fed5b023f6071a58a15d1a8b
b4372e51e30bd80b2929f35173bb8a8d987450f8
16995 F20101107_AAAZYS cornelison_v_Page_71.QC.jpg
9d3317e85798a2f8c12ad1f84dd2fd65
894cd1309b7830dc4c920a2ebbe3ccc9c8a9eaa8
52709 F20101107_AAAZHC cornelison_v_Page_42.jpg
8705da3111f3664bdaffb871ca40e221
f3c7c7a95d962e2834d87a37db80fa103d3357b1
7026 F20101107_AAAZTV cornelison_v_Page_07thm.jpg
9fd691234ee1cb78ab9f317abeff0101
5fc06ef199b65bee00c287b79367780d3613d1f1
47868 F20101107_AAAZOY cornelison_v_Page_30.pro
a09db738e88354254586a27fd46397b6
31ad4dc8e4e135c0428e8762ec73e3643379ede6
4694 F20101107_AAAZYT cornelison_v_Page_71thm.jpg
5253a599684a1016c6155cc5f943279e
00536ace61a5cccbbbee3e5a6982a398ee314320
75206 F20101107_AAAZHD cornelison_v_Page_43.jpg
0ecbf7b1ae68df91ea757e19ce5bbed4
194aafe186bbc9552589dfce165d9c3e6331e69c
21165 F20101107_AAAZTW cornelison_v_Page_08.QC.jpg
952fb5e0c514f21744da2db4ba8a0c93
9c0aef7d353d11eaf2196f830b9fe75dfae74da7
1053954 F20101107_AAAZMA cornelison_v_Page_26.tif
f0dbb355bf431bab55d1928b8f2dec74
25a3c8157b977354f51c777deb9aa1d10cd33ff5
46755 F20101107_AAAZOZ cornelison_v_Page_31.pro
fe11a1de0b2104c94024d60a92af8d81
421fee07d37ead9a993cb9da5b5b787ee74e6c39
12146 F20101107_AAAZYU cornelison_v_Page_72.QC.jpg
6b5c8ccde2e3f9e4244b956cce77b2e5
3ba06dd8cf824bd6e329bc2ef30206b141bdfa70
5871 F20101107_AAAZTX cornelison_v_Page_08thm.jpg
3758590b02a0008bbe1759697f432ded
44f2321e0b2b1691aec5a5c9dac7a417a19613b1
F20101107_AAAZMB cornelison_v_Page_27.tif
c037f7c7cab4984d40973e5e29308cfa
7a26fb24f19b781054df3e63f093c8a65521e220
77785 F20101107_AAAZHE cornelison_v_Page_44.jpg
e90d9c97a92799550ae82937fd932e33
411e3cbe46e6e0227b4909a0820ef5bf05b87486
3596 F20101107_AAAZYV cornelison_v_Page_72thm.jpg
a2c71d7e0b5468951bb91949229882b4
8de2512a27b379885462b46351204592b953051a
2146 F20101107_AAAZRA cornelison_v_Page_13.txt
44fc7f487d85b759879c2ab5ee58d613
f2baeca09ad241a206495a639732cda97e86f3d7
22580 F20101107_AAAZTY cornelison_v_Page_09.QC.jpg
5cba5dc63f7b578b5d971fcf1cf40cc0
eaab9b6a9eb43395cb9bbf9efb93562f505d47b8
F20101107_AAAZMC cornelison_v_Page_28.tif
1d9c179593ae62eeb2b21f660ab96e66
ed5910dbf99d33df32e1faca7786d598733f7c75
70614 F20101107_AAAZHF cornelison_v_Page_45.jpg
94f912c4dd6eb18aac7256c6a1e27117
73d2d0aca1b393c4fc558e74c3369df50f546be3
86526 F20101107_AAAZYW UFE0022452_00001.mets FULL
f6b02fa897f16d3e47069142210b114e
18b838eea53e1c199a27765cf954956b59375211
1590 F20101107_AAAZRB cornelison_v_Page_14.txt
1cf916c4d50ef6249c2b572a2bace4ac
74a21e11f8de7b500418dbf06f5903c3971e71c6
6221 F20101107_AAAZTZ cornelison_v_Page_09thm.jpg
de2283597957ade86faab0e19f00ffd9
cd942f845c462c06506fc09ee224b78e03037f6d
F20101107_AAAZMD cornelison_v_Page_29.tif
340c6bbeb759fb36d71566a4d9a59de5
f29c63e534b1dee7c9915e99fc722c8aa634d529
76336 F20101107_AAAZHG cornelison_v_Page_46.jpg
a6f633b76ea71fbf6bad5925c044dbfc
68a4ed8880b8ee4bafa297cea2ec4e50d6aeee05
270 F20101107_AAAZRC cornelison_v_Page_15.txt
28beb982d2a9191c0162b7dae79ac038
8f8293477b75ba23d139234b13e3ba1d35076cee
F20101107_AAAZME cornelison_v_Page_30.tif
6f6991211e32aec8ad3ac9fdff220e45
0330d7c0c65dc02b431aec607bbe97e723f0e5a2
71009 F20101107_AAAZHH cornelison_v_Page_47.jpg
029ec5aa7f78995a80f34242d6053063
329ac7e1e0143e418e76d799bbc9e86c37ddd2c2
23325 F20101107_AAAZWA cornelison_v_Page_36.QC.jpg
db74d77c6cbfafd768a107c7714e7a98
a53d5f45fc541dae23dbf0ca5a2631ddf22cd4d0
F20101107_AAAZMF cornelison_v_Page_31.tif
74e4aacc77bb941dd81d122d4c4916d1
74858489a59419a896746d6c7f4459545ac4bff4
74427 F20101107_AAAZHI cornelison_v_Page_48.jpg
3ba2179bb898f0a4768b209c65025b4a
9832b1630cbf3f9f8c542ba8312b0b4f8bc4ba0f
6265 F20101107_AAAZWB cornelison_v_Page_36thm.jpg
0cf7187fa53a9ca481feac974b42a28e
fbbcc2c0c6fb306c3def463fce29d62f6341f741
69 F20101107_AAAZRD cornelison_v_Page_16.txt
d5c3d57d3732251cc4d2abf8dece2a44
c5df963838b831d05601362dd2cc3e52a2e6f495
F20101107_AAAZMG cornelison_v_Page_32.tif
bb2f7c357f40c47dbb94ea7380ebe8ad
8ff7a30c2c14e4d3c12fc354ab344a09064b7a7b
56089 F20101107_AAAZHJ cornelison_v_Page_49.jpg
2475704db9201500185259838f52271a
60b7428396f9edf5d3a8ba71c3f6cc515eb4d668
21976 F20101107_AAAZWC cornelison_v_Page_37.QC.jpg
08df742dc1e5f19bf15537b35ff9e13d
b5364a73164e80e5cc323df010f6c470437078bc
2161 F20101107_AAAZRE cornelison_v_Page_17.txt
77b4ba1a08ee0b643320ffdc99088f1d
a1624038d518735eaa287804acc1de836ed1948d
F20101107_AAAZMH cornelison_v_Page_33.tif
3a21a738ff11684422a055bcc3c7cc83
148fa6befd1720808e862cb8fbb4236a7a936226
37705 F20101107_AAAZHK cornelison_v_Page_50.jpg
74a64b4bd00cff80dadc9aeb25764310
dfcc11d949e6cfd6625c8754c009bfa1b25073dd
6199 F20101107_AAAZWD cornelison_v_Page_37thm.jpg
3facca5fc65d97b1e39938414d1fafc5
77b4dae0f0d6508a7ab9994645183632d6144de1
1912 F20101107_AAAZRF cornelison_v_Page_18.txt
00ce632c3532c056349ea8e00ddf33c6
7e46a21d9a4412e4e0ac522878be40b2f8d14b8e
F20101107_AAAZMI cornelison_v_Page_34.tif
0d52442e7f04a513fd6b04a310e37786
d7b90fc2b888c5add529a1b79f4d10b606acccb7
77138 F20101107_AAAZHL cornelison_v_Page_51.jpg
45ac8e387433f60e145f15590c033abb
34206bd3dbc35e79b9c4de07fb28a9282cad42ce
20876 F20101107_AAAZWE cornelison_v_Page_38.QC.jpg
f5271c95c583930624ab7a01a4ee7ba3
df8d28209815f8b534d8cff782a60f1c9d65f7b5
1881 F20101107_AAAZRG cornelison_v_Page_19.txt
7700fc650f49dc52acaffb234229f638
2285dc0ea234e256970a00db0caf03ad5b80a4e5
F20101107_AAAZMJ cornelison_v_Page_35.tif
7af523e3c2518d55feeac19f88b35a08
b6ff41987594413e55d7becdec856df473767faf
45787 F20101107_AAAZHM cornelison_v_Page_52.jpg
2ae72d6b0de57482977db7890d4b6795
baa96ba484085bf75596abc6791200b9930f3dc2
6018 F20101107_AAAZWF cornelison_v_Page_38thm.jpg
a447a094fd42515211602c01b2479d54
e18b5282459c678981ed49949258401d39b65fed
1521 F20101107_AAAZRH cornelison_v_Page_20.txt
4da33ccdc20409bcafa09decaf91b7ef
69cc45b87c1ed185e77bc304880943c86ff716d2
F20101107_AAAZMK cornelison_v_Page_36.tif
2e1899dc62e527a573b91ed777528959
2169890043633a6fa9a8a8f4383b34c2e240b777
22545 F20101107_AAAZHN cornelison_v_Page_53.jpg
3299e9d866fcd9ed3e00ed1088497713
bc388740c0685a74a743155ee4c1559ea54fff18
24391 F20101107_AAAZWG cornelison_v_Page_39.QC.jpg
f9f8044757bcb80f8401ad91975044cd
1605e42c5027fe4b3e1d28b0767f880e0ce5918b
1921 F20101107_AAAZRI cornelison_v_Page_21.txt
e8078f22b5144b0b445ca77ed8c94f50
e65426c521880f38581961ce81f04468e7e80378
F20101107_AAAZML cornelison_v_Page_37.tif
fb2fb2070c91cc6339c9211e980ff845
3e0dafff8b8ad4fc207a834f9edfc97f6ece01b7
74609 F20101107_AAAZHO cornelison_v_Page_54.jpg
e73b328f5a9a90eb74138f7ae0e9d713
cd1d33ee1dea46a0103b1eca06e8b6db232af24f
6653 F20101107_AAAZWH cornelison_v_Page_39thm.jpg
c9d874bedddfa269a668a23a32760e61
949425254b3013a2c25b91f70b8c696fe6ffa4e9
216 F20101107_AAAZRJ cornelison_v_Page_22.txt
e5d91eccb39f0b475e334f95cd664632
fe8ef3fcdbd6b466d6cec32c252b98284da1d236
F20101107_AAAZMM cornelison_v_Page_38.tif
eb576ae028c28bb1fa74b5434114675d
55a8efaca56146ff0962a34567df680773cfb2c0
73426 F20101107_AAAZHP cornelison_v_Page_55.jpg
468329c7c487be859f57307610e55fd1
0e5533831e16417d899003a8f1a86ecfbf79b541
793 F20101107_AAAZRK cornelison_v_Page_23.txt
05b08eaf2f4f7bf88f259011874281d8
c102fffa64dbc8df32a2fccd922dc5f2ef0d71dc
F20101107_AAAZMN cornelison_v_Page_39.tif
20e94af5a68f8ce0ee6ca24d5281912f
fb3d227f3afec4b955be276c9103d4f5a6d2342f
71845 F20101107_AAAZHQ cornelison_v_Page_56.jpg
bf346d0d2c2ea6ddb108f2b7b5f7b611
f107d06634c6e8c336c5f5937ce09c728efba46a
19656 F20101107_AAAZWI cornelison_v_Page_40.QC.jpg
62a560c65e36882df18c89795f204494
0767b7822e2cb4b08d51c604e96494a9e726bacc
1258 F20101107_AAAZRL cornelison_v_Page_24.txt
36b1d100ad7b007988bf045b345c009f
782a20205f52480868f0ddc883a4e318bab02e78
25271604 F20101107_AAAZMO cornelison_v_Page_40.tif
a10f8b4812803c095e220342939e531c
8662fecc33e6c941e93aad69ef8fdd0076fc3a2a
76136 F20101107_AAAZHR cornelison_v_Page_57.jpg
a77b253790d9ccb394f508765ae43cbe
780292a11e5c7144a7546cf5e21074ceb5d165b8
5496 F20101107_AAAZWJ cornelison_v_Page_40thm.jpg
aa50ef981a1a51fa1045ed47b627dbd1
7defd39a2335eeea194ff9a4645a09025b586e79
2281 F20101107_AAAZRM cornelison_v_Page_25.txt
1a3cc255a6eac1f6403e27b4c36cc9e1
83bf566c7e7667c1c4e337ed04268ac350db4ae0
F20101107_AAAZMP cornelison_v_Page_41.tif
2f757b4c391532a25e1ea8129f862008
39d421cfd9ad337e2ab357b92ba42154b7cdbe79
74571 F20101107_AAAZHS cornelison_v_Page_58.jpg
72577ff5317e6844956bc050b16684d2
4dc99086201772a5dde6fb15383ac79d185d5cdc
17953 F20101107_AAAZWK cornelison_v_Page_41.QC.jpg
dd662d2dcc94ac7654f695a0da734736
81c69d81df454f6e4673570eb7f02a917daa1d1d
F20101107_AAAZMQ cornelison_v_Page_42.tif
982a232775ddc81c553485f9412dd77e
34b55e80a495d8f9ff86006a09eda99355411fac
80266 F20101107_AAAZHT cornelison_v_Page_59.jpg
3c53d8fdff2a88308be25610f3144436
58a0a9c666f9ea02b4510da91c0265039c46848e
1020 F20101107_AAAZRN cornelison_v_Page_26.txt
7f3035507d0a9195d0d8d9698df06c87
646eac5ae513543f284bb5d7a7fa763f4940ee2b
5269 F20101107_AAAZWL cornelison_v_Page_41thm.jpg
e841266625c96f5995f8e2cc56c87188
cb058879fb4cebb5ba3d79269c0ac816255a4382
F20101107_AAAZMR cornelison_v_Page_43.tif
7d0225071a33d5b6df667d9de8ea915e
a3e3d219d1c7c626dfc4ea6f848b5553254134f0
74650 F20101107_AAAZHU cornelison_v_Page_60.jpg
992107f811504386a17132c17c732075
7c986fb258d5932d8ce4471bd9b49952ec8cecee
1902 F20101107_AAAZRO cornelison_v_Page_27.txt
c1de32d8605283b7db1e491b191618fe
9998dd2ccc452b25f4cb3c18c3329bfbfa1d59cf
16334 F20101107_AAAZWM cornelison_v_Page_42.QC.jpg
8bafe0965e1d568e9a8eb58aa9243983
bada2f2a072986b4e953a4f03b947438c812c8c5
F20101107_AAAZMS cornelison_v_Page_44.tif
02a4345c67ba9047ed2dfca11fb6cf83
c79e06ad9f32e49da4b9d0b1b169e7ef275628cc
65746 F20101107_AAAZHV cornelison_v_Page_61.jpg
c1ca6ffc0e3cb9ef4b6f2ac5a36a4533
b892a6897daab8cc37fb539b4b2e0b36c26f195f
1980 F20101107_AAAZRP cornelison_v_Page_28.txt
ac55351ed1d4e45cf99917c152b2a968
0bad5079ad8320b4d4bf03d941d93aeb7a70fd6d
4995 F20101107_AAAZWN cornelison_v_Page_42thm.jpg
bd5cc99e385b37d391c37787c3e2cdfe
a0cf6b23020f60a5b41ff6198f672863fe4e3692
F20101107_AAAZMT cornelison_v_Page_45.tif
55671121f4dc778e4bba0e1ed22bd0ec
d388d0905ebfb61e8b8e494573e78a0c43ca8142
76122 F20101107_AAAZHW cornelison_v_Page_62.jpg
396f156996b8f4fad23a807c21cda4aa
95240f3b423e2910d0e2352d66e4e674593c5594
1963 F20101107_AAAZRQ cornelison_v_Page_29.txt
570b663b42307a9049f6eda80a0f5f4f
0c97b9eaee5286ed23afa6dc129402bbb8d9ddc0
22546 F20101107_AAAZWO cornelison_v_Page_43.QC.jpg
0edbbf1d6925b3839963da00305621a6
3e7602a85625e05beb4ce8f0322d07e6d25d14b0
F20101107_AAAZMU cornelison_v_Page_46.tif
ec100de374426f80799bc919740dc46d
a01d421ade35a36014fab3d1a191d229223b277c
79712 F20101107_AAAZHX cornelison_v_Page_63.jpg
a7649c1a07d998fe2c4a5ccb0cb78e49
9c83622e51028f2fe4cdacc9456acbc0da028b86
1916 F20101107_AAAZRR cornelison_v_Page_30.txt
ff4a518203855a9da80a54541cc36652
2e5ea4e1487b395c9ee66c462dfc9d0dc67f81ef
6165 F20101107_AAAZWP cornelison_v_Page_43thm.jpg
64ae5e390079c83311398b452c651357
8c26fa0b4a871ee74c6c49061a76e426f022c348
F20101107_AAAZMV cornelison_v_Page_47.tif
18a231f7cd0fd84bb34d62dd2ee7b3a1
5fbda1446a4740b6bef095a06388f6c032f0329d
61516 F20101107_AAAZHY cornelison_v_Page_64.jpg
15b0b1eecb1cc6e9ab29bf11f0c79cd0
3dd12d4de8d5bf8b1ab9ac96a514118f1a2457b7
1868 F20101107_AAAZRS cornelison_v_Page_31.txt
ba51647c8942d06494f75b898d4ceeab
49cb6da931cfeeb8c38a7771dc82563180fa4726
24027 F20101107_AAAZWQ cornelison_v_Page_44.QC.jpg
a9ea0b1fe567e1d9ab85f1203454ce31
fafec11780ef072f3f788b0f67575311ca3c2adf
F20101107_AAAZMW cornelison_v_Page_48.tif
7304b6c7c56b8ad289fb222fd4e1023d
c44f779fcbc0e94fe59a2de266d4ed6d06bd9b5e
1666 F20101107_AAAZRT cornelison_v_Page_32.txt
a6a3a34f729b3f55445d2767f543d0e2
4f66885fda8df594974f45322d37a0c891a6aa71
6292 F20101107_AAAZWR cornelison_v_Page_44thm.jpg
68c752a48ad141b71a35ac6f60ddd5fc
66ad675fae1375bbb9f00742819888deb0ac51a5
F20101107_AAAZMX cornelison_v_Page_49.tif
a3abc65e58d073f88aa44e8642001545
e315f9e38f48dbfb7601f583c1a85f7e9fbf84f4
70716 F20101107_AAAZHZ cornelison_v_Page_65.jpg
4aa1d788fc2fd9290a8909819c466e4e
3f2ca3a0cc998aaca39a077523faee7f6d23ebb4
2000 F20101107_AAAZRU cornelison_v_Page_33.txt
85d35064b46c6a7214e02d2ca31df763
57d432ef6131d101dbd71a294177628da13071e5
22515 F20101107_AAAZWS cornelison_v_Page_45.QC.jpg
5e568d3067ac229044347d541efb7c34
4d7fdb2568dce7eccb57c98e682012987569eb44
F20101107_AAAZMY cornelison_v_Page_50.tif
d40e7d4d5f28460f3c08607534197592
06a8cb70a37fb3d9ac5b748a2fefbc6c9cb0ac54
1880 F20101107_AAAZRV cornelison_v_Page_34.txt
7153c95822bb01dd4bec2c8960ea9b5f
7b69c7522d982d46fff3cb6a05454848dc4f626e
6020 F20101107_AAAZWT cornelison_v_Page_45thm.jpg
1ae9283da14c6bc5af9f0b9d4380dd85
c7d91faca783c20a52dad237e84f866a2092e3bd
F20101107_AAAZMZ cornelison_v_Page_51.tif
9a22d81c0cdd2f3925de5a8f28b0b8f8
2ca860c458eb02963f53969a0ea48680496934bf
1339 F20101107_AAAZRW cornelison_v_Page_35.txt
dff9c8a518c7ed8cfa6b54a670c8cafc
dc038ae69dee6c78c9c4d8383a3fe7397d66dffe
114052 F20101107_AAAZKA cornelison_v_Page_46.jp2
a45258916e1835ab5a84aa9c7c6dc142
b408461cf597efe1d9ab5f1a15f18e3312aa208c
24978 F20101107_AAAZWU cornelison_v_Page_46.QC.jpg
08d6053b1758e03480338312dc8b29d4
6f89d5b73628d69d1b7fa35ee565a059f002a475
2034 F20101107_AAAZRX cornelison_v_Page_36.txt
48c14b93bc94521f91763e43642f341a
aa4c3791e75b6da08bfd91977d93df6e507c3710
105006 F20101107_AAAZKB cornelison_v_Page_47.jp2
9232031e70c14ceccd260ebbc515858c
7a97aab7c91e3a7352056f34fbbc6087c89bd939
6856 F20101107_AAAZWV cornelison_v_Page_46thm.jpg
f3b4fb9fda2f594983954211fba0c7ce
a8d48776d503508bf6c221d239a23b6834db2dd2
36852 F20101107_AAAZPA cornelison_v_Page_32.pro
30883a6af175b77d2e3ef15bda7643a5
b82c5d38af60ab19ec8529d3da766a6e41605756
1979 F20101107_AAAZRY cornelison_v_Page_37.txt
6090f918ba69dce2c351f35e8e20b61e
35b362ca1db70616eaf6a14fc62148826e45d1e6
112110 F20101107_AAAZKC cornelison_v_Page_48.jp2
1f04d4fafc5968a39667d29a419b89cc
d4b55bdd9c19d9f48f9d32ccf191a3786e9db059
23345 F20101107_AAAZWW cornelison_v_Page_47.QC.jpg
965b0ba2ed1afb3bf2c0ba6863cf6098
9eb78f62408dfe3d27d4a76a92deca13686b61f3
1864 F20101107_AAAZRZ cornelison_v_Page_38.txt
d68ab0db0475924fb44ad72bbf8ed1da
45a3defb8fb8d731315b3707e3b124bea8888250
82313 F20101107_AAAZKD cornelison_v_Page_49.jp2
239db1ec4dd0a3111dde3c5e4e8774e4
84982284750d42c1106a31de52fac244174b30c7
6506 F20101107_AAAZWX cornelison_v_Page_47thm.jpg
2dd83e09ad6e464137bc2429fa5b8725
b26ed1e3184d9a641f6554ed5f5bd81c2201b50e
49884 F20101107_AAAZPB cornelison_v_Page_33.pro
8e00a6a422a710cb4a4e0a959f367970
9b6cb2675026b77233e2079ee90ed801fddec1ab
52779 F20101107_AAAZKE cornelison_v_Page_50.jp2
dd72a67a9325ee64a91875cfb9d9c866
aa5937bba53dc5f83590a6daa617eea392c19c48
24624 F20101107_AAAZWY cornelison_v_Page_48.QC.jpg
39066f63e9ddabe0ac2e02c5e09e038a
12c60137d66cfef34f4a267d9adb4d9f338c2fbb
14276 F20101107_AAAZUA cornelison_v_Page_10.QC.jpg
26eed74157087f6102c028b6a57e8928
55823ebeabfda810c04ad50d2004fcd306f72e64
1549 F20101107_AAAZFI cornelison_v_Page_49.txt
44dd6ab6af30ea39a67dd5ee049bcf99
3781de7704ec0d1c577b16662b13292e62e5ec6d
47272 F20101107_AAAZPC cornelison_v_Page_34.pro
7e268d8e5df715619a1f4231a31fd38a
08be27695b9c6407d9add438ed1687f048e155fd
100269 F20101107_AAAZKF cornelison_v_Page_51.jp2
7d0b112a820ed11c984f6e30b4016408
09ea648687809cfce84d6fe1fe9d7320cc732726
6787 F20101107_AAAZWZ cornelison_v_Page_48thm.jpg
b1373f29a195a820287f127266032275
62b08c9bbd1a16d46687bafbea8fce9c57a1a164
4225 F20101107_AAAZUB cornelison_v_Page_10thm.jpg
9268ecfb9b96abbf6da17313b024b83c
978c3ee9ba846e1061b8b5544bc0543fef295916
560 F20101107_AAAZFJ cornelison_v_Page_01.txt
a64cf271501c26d492aa112d57922a78
08f397a588fb403ba2e035e98903b0f859cd716d
28848 F20101107_AAAZPD cornelison_v_Page_35.pro
a2d10c7c0e34c42bddd4f05166d1e14d
69eda5ad7356bca26a2a2cf2bd78fd9bd1f9751e
59131 F20101107_AAAZKG cornelison_v_Page_52.jp2
3ae2cdba5ff042c5e3d4533dae468a5a
c09588b734272a3d089988805ffb4a3086316e8f
20729 F20101107_AAAZUC cornelison_v_Page_11.QC.jpg
16159d549a2c2c89305c35aee39b8b37
e56f925d6ae9cd9829a895db943a62720d98227c
65669 F20101107_AAAZFK cornelison_v_Page_11.jpg
46f6037910a029f4e4a5de4bb845f274
b068dedcb39ceeda7ffb4bd910e7fb67879d8606
48551 F20101107_AAAZPE cornelison_v_Page_36.pro
5dfe5734c46920019e3f8f9bac225ef5
fe226705215c951c693f668d84b1622f3efb568a
361446 F20101107_AAAZKH cornelison_v_Page_53.jp2
a6dbbca3cb3ff025ed6715c137ea728f
90c8847d49ac61f74e77895a13d229ad32989b73
5770 F20101107_AAAZUD cornelison_v_Page_11thm.jpg
e466ed4bcd5594dc9ef5a7f6f8a69707
e621d20e789c788e30a68e92409727dbb3161e85
111746 F20101107_AAAZFL UFE0022452_00001.xml
d6ee8ebda0696048f95404b9120f9ec3
ed5e36732c02e0efd2152acb7bfbee783394edbe
46556 F20101107_AAAZPF cornelison_v_Page_37.pro
2f2b4699a7fc3918e48f07d294aac508
d144cd9a52682e1617a271ea27870b8c3dbcaab7
109764 F20101107_AAAZKI cornelison_v_Page_54.jp2
d8fd50428a5bc81b1005a7a1e1c976f6
6a5a72df81723e4b99bd0a1ea74fd119a0391c2b
24069 F20101107_AAAZUE cornelison_v_Page_12.QC.jpg
11d5fad6b7ed873983b77c4454a0b550
e932292080f37e9098a56ccd92bc168d9fa41295
42748 F20101107_AAAZPG cornelison_v_Page_38.pro
78ec15cfc75cbed3ea5e79fe4c7e576f
8d02641f1c1eaed7b7aa98d8ba21cc38bc30148a
108927 F20101107_AAAZKJ cornelison_v_Page_55.jp2
8b40c43299b0e0a2cfc45942788cb685
d6def2cd52f0e58a7e637f69bde1bb2d7c25af74
6602 F20101107_AAAZUF cornelison_v_Page_12thm.jpg
b11207ed1289f56fb060c326b9bef96c
82800d9d99d272cd73cef16e324f84c8139c84b6
51397 F20101107_AAAZPH cornelison_v_Page_39.pro
4bd38d930875b57a447ad65340d814aa
422e9928665555745a134bafd9f01e63900701a8
107498 F20101107_AAAZKK cornelison_v_Page_56.jp2
6e54153c51cad84e32773d83af91e8db
4c968536a84e720f7cf1802b98db3eceb5494829
27100 F20101107_AAAZFO cornelison_v_Page_01.jpg
1addc450a9f00348335f8e4df998f982
6c9f4f647861af8bbc3daa16bf8d94b5be44b73a
24564 F20101107_AAAZPI cornelison_v_Page_40.pro
556581266f08825c51fced33492fffc5
8462e5adeb961e2f9b158ca00076ee18a4b22eed
1040411 F20101107_AAAZKL cornelison_v_Page_57.jp2
a493008f33a3c07859d6a1a72c8395b5
e8c04e2b023256e1be25ff3c4c0106f735140bbf
25678 F20101107_AAAZUG cornelison_v_Page_13.QC.jpg
5c6d5f613bab112df2bfb9772eb84fc6
ca7f93986870d67a50fcc09dc723e01d9e6e06de
9944 F20101107_AAAZFP cornelison_v_Page_02.jpg
b33d541ad25376f34680f97c43925e6d
61572e06dee5496ef74a6a0dbf317bcad4d08a35
20393 F20101107_AAAZPJ cornelison_v_Page_41.pro
0f7b45d5e6a8ded2d604ac1bd86cf463
1fe6805305f976a4e3c422ba8d9fb27d8d38de4c
111062 F20101107_AAAZKM cornelison_v_Page_58.jp2
74f1e7ebbf300a37430de5037cedb29d
b84366216309ab9e38e3c88bd7c1368daeb03318
7062 F20101107_AAAZUH cornelison_v_Page_13thm.jpg
bc3e4029490de320a6dd01e13921eb88
311ac92e6526614a1174bfa46e7a636591a09cce
13385 F20101107_AAAZFQ cornelison_v_Page_03.jpg
17192cbf1aa1342368b06a25bf9462a4
7da7b1af878005a4a66dfdda2943dd4184f43f69
23171 F20101107_AAAZPK cornelison_v_Page_42.pro
92c640f7c7137667196b71be8c4b18e7
5ef10c4b4f7ff763b58d77ab0e8226c58a35f82b
119712 F20101107_AAAZKN cornelison_v_Page_59.jp2
b86126593a6a46127b36c557674115bd
750a1810425b133f52a21feb37ebf8cc1d8d7e75
19700 F20101107_AAAZUI cornelison_v_Page_14.QC.jpg
3c4bebd41693389bac260281740d64f1
fb884d7443a65b05ec3059a56c8051c0e5ad58dd
18442 F20101107_AAAZFR cornelison_v_Page_04.jpg
65beb12a050b01370037f8d790371608
7fa779699855e5c280446d46c6d6183fc2cf843a
41147 F20101107_AAAZPL cornelison_v_Page_43.pro
13ad86a69fa8d752e1bf6cc7ebc6c186
4d571350ab1f26e7ed0e6dd0690b2cb06549313d
111298 F20101107_AAAZKO cornelison_v_Page_60.jp2
3041844a2ca7b9cfd8e763442320f1d6
1e2f5cee224429a6c5fc4d6fd1cb7d8ae4ce013e
77690 F20101107_AAAZFS cornelison_v_Page_05.jpg
d84a7b2490e6f27ffbb5359ccabe2632
f357a82cb2b53eca860b3f7f594966cebbca2ed4
55004 F20101107_AAAZPM cornelison_v_Page_44.pro
a5c59cd74c4e5bc855cae4dd0d1187e2
ac4b73612d239b1db7fde8f96fedb379d5f77048
94574 F20101107_AAAZKP cornelison_v_Page_61.jp2
f6c868437be15523bd1bdf7e486d80cc
5d433d10eae961ad6c73e5e5f6e70fd6dfd33005
5534 F20101107_AAAZUJ cornelison_v_Page_14thm.jpg
9060ef9d919796aca36b581de201d20d
d423ef30bb33ef62c6c0851d45d89818bee17809
61282 F20101107_AAAZFT cornelison_v_Page_06.jpg
0f9ebdf7a030b3f8cb83b4ca1f989de9
db9f69fa761c963e0c0fa680fb1610a796cec6d5
38905 F20101107_AAAZPN cornelison_v_Page_45.pro
37147242a7e02bb53b7f57365807c7c8
50c547e6dbbbbb8deca46a59d5ad7362081a2796
112457 F20101107_AAAZKQ cornelison_v_Page_62.jp2
74fea5514876847d4a63106b60c25ed3
3f8eb3931c8c1ee489e1628bafdbf668fc65b9fa
24167 F20101107_AAAZUK cornelison_v_Page_15.QC.jpg
11245b339f9fcf7a987885228bb830ed
a8132d5a2ed766fc60b71d4671703dfc4e8548fa
92904 F20101107_AAAZFU cornelison_v_Page_07.jpg
46d621e8c6a865d2ab13e978795c18aa
1941fba32d214f8386b9c4102c56ed4fd0c3ea55
51407 F20101107_AAAZPO cornelison_v_Page_46.pro
7bc5d836c1d4f963d605503fc2344ecb
a6d9558f03e4e55a8af2f5932261422819da6261
119904 F20101107_AAAZKR cornelison_v_Page_63.jp2
dc1240304063686384ef62aef4ac4d29
58209c3d0588b0e83be5cad5588b94bf0f3eade6
7103 F20101107_AAAZUL cornelison_v_Page_15thm.jpg
799a17717e63e768a9c88b3d65b598b0
f1cceb6a62a38c5369d3676edf45ae3870ef3779
75788 F20101107_AAAZFV cornelison_v_Page_08.jpg
26cca07d8c1da8d856a0390387a43664
2ce17114f453d1cec5f12e1a728b66089285ca38
48604 F20101107_AAAZPP cornelison_v_Page_47.pro
818f7021933d76bed5d40fac4df31379
d7d5df4f5bee8f1bbbe44f85b36a0800e3ce9534
831026 F20101107_AAAZKS cornelison_v_Page_64.jp2
efa59782ddde574254bb9a6b323283f4
0731c8ebaec1ca204f247bb1276b9070624a09cb
16556 F20101107_AAAZUM cornelison_v_Page_16.QC.jpg
561e85daf2f206ecacc542db54805a01
3991fdcf0cc97501ebcb7680cfa45f37e0fea071
81501 F20101107_AAAZFW cornelison_v_Page_09.jpg
1ce3c84b8efe115415cdd61c8a308185
330fb46e721d198407b92c987696d953348ca55f
51664 F20101107_AAAZPQ cornelison_v_Page_48.pro
6fab275afcf7dbf530613b516a26bd72
c50e75aa4697f16bb53d0132009ec8cd071fd2ff
1013844 F20101107_AAAZKT cornelison_v_Page_65.jp2
37c2665ca2411ad98c5d53c21fd9717f
743f12c48a12c3db86b916db8c85b36e40541561
4621 F20101107_AAAZUN cornelison_v_Page_16thm.jpg
9bf741c1daaa8fd018f5c7608d7bda0e
a39c488b5bdba2a598ecdda3a3f5e9ea1d31b574
35520 F20101107_AAAZPR cornelison_v_Page_49.pro
86b4be49c6e554f28b54587c136e7855
52fbcb47d0397560ed6f340686e6e57ee8e92260
1051976 F20101107_AAAZKU cornelison_v_Page_66.jp2
0f6b590d6d7bcbf67a2438cc89db6267
d306c0172ab3eba1b550480ad88d65b447ab5e6f
24430 F20101107_AAAZUO cornelison_v_Page_17.QC.jpg
c41b8f06081639837f21200f37e0dc5c
6623b24fe0f46e05b2f3128864c7a9190b7a6325
42351 F20101107_AAAZFX cornelison_v_Page_10.jpg
fede88327411f7d5ff3396e03c4208cb
619affb64d93f77d0e83c0490101767138b0e2e2
22161 F20101107_AAAZPS cornelison_v_Page_50.pro
189f882faab7a1c83e16bb657497e4fc
2e971911bf3a71fa70089090226678d48a4f2ddf
110528 F20101107_AAAZKV cornelison_v_Page_67.jp2
ee8804b2d0c6ac2d7afada831cb92e20
b6fa08cd8b913a0a360944613c66fd77c6e7c002
6933 F20101107_AAAZUP cornelison_v_Page_17thm.jpg
867a57e3e8fa42ac7e5e2195853269a6
01c2717f17c374334b870c497ea068ff0cd7ba95
73856 F20101107_AAAZFY cornelison_v_Page_12.jpg
88df73fc4608a7173df3842f44af8188
b7981568d98f9efb912f1d054c00335d92d6d844
56091 F20101107_AAAZPT cornelison_v_Page_51.pro
f2af762033e02e2729e8ff7b41f4ae4d
a11116a94c02c9bf2bd388fe19e89a11e2803c30
56711 F20101107_AAAZKW cornelison_v_Page_68.jp2
bd3944bbd3e1de680ec5c62d7ceeef51
447fc0c647aae79f91f58323d4489dad82149b6c
22135 F20101107_AAAZUQ cornelison_v_Page_18.QC.jpg
6fce53b0ca60495de0f35902df4695fa
ca135d5422429bb7a36fb541deac4c1b475449ad
76561 F20101107_AAAZFZ cornelison_v_Page_13.jpg
e6c4401cfe6a5364e32a7edc6614477f
c06853173bddd0ca986bcf63a45f320b61d526e8
30027 F20101107_AAAZPU cornelison_v_Page_52.pro
342dbffe74af796cce0de18e92d56ba2
2ca34f92c9cce34787c874ab43ecd72a848dc0dc
1051977 F20101107_AAAZKX cornelison_v_Page_69.jp2
a788be3f5ed8b40a995b55649f8fe72e
d64404806a0a487e6df0bd9c0aa47f51a0ddb704
6224 F20101107_AAAZUR cornelison_v_Page_18thm.jpg
cbfa0ab62b669f942628ae1cad50ec89
59df5e58b738f5a18f61f4647aecedde9a98e5f9
25279 F20101107_AAAZPV cornelison_v_Page_53.pro
6c9f26c5b091631081a8f07d9ca65c44
74f2fe517c5e313ab7d30ca29e387cc0615608b3
1051974 F20101107_AAAZKY cornelison_v_Page_70.jp2
ba246455c39c3465130bab0bd6095202
7c2bba3fa5f90a1a6229bd2d605a79f6fb2b161e
21608 F20101107_AAAZUS cornelison_v_Page_19.QC.jpg
cce954684437cdc79db6abfab0c00aa8
f39aa053dc16ac1104018e2e6691de9ce9498ac2
50253 F20101107_AAAZPW cornelison_v_Page_54.pro
84c6bcc494613a5bf8f9bfd8453fe064
f61a5e2a529120d60060c724d0bb9a95f65da320
99421 F20101107_AAAZIA cornelison_v_Page_66.jpg
e7be85cf7acd4ceaf2ebc95124cebe86
99c5219bac2d104c0fb1bd946256b3165ad9926d
978869 F20101107_AAAZKZ cornelison_v_Page_71.jp2
1c4de5fca1135124da97d6bc2aca90a2
f2dc39c35a5223c0316ade7fec61fc6fa1a911e0
6087 F20101107_AAAZUT cornelison_v_Page_19thm.jpg
bab297cb168de1ef5d59a15e70b2a166
2b034fe232d3a347cf3bd876f2d4d9284dc1e46c
19910 F20101107_AAAZUU cornelison_v_Page_20.QC.jpg
14c824c0cd34e584c658d968894d4dd8
9f6e70aedc1bfe346d707f1eab4f10b992b0a59e
51299 F20101107_AAAZPX cornelison_v_Page_55.pro
85028004db6dacd0738a6ea893ce71ec
45693800a20919c7c5836a90be8c9f06acfcdb77
79099 F20101107_AAAZIB cornelison_v_Page_67.jpg
6695f19a70b55f92b43bc9d31530475c
556247248dc78a5fde816e8c3a6455a4b74465fe
5455 F20101107_AAAZUV cornelison_v_Page_20thm.jpg
59f93757e7fc74bc9b774fb31cad3f52
47ec4188a661c4af4fe774e21e1c58efcf3c3aab
49300 F20101107_AAAZPY cornelison_v_Page_56.pro
d25dd6c05f87c343bd7b708359747cf4
5e50afcc12695be2ff438a8860f81a664f53b988
44453 F20101107_AAAZIC cornelison_v_Page_68.jpg
6126ebe413f97d8ac2b63ce54ebc3d3d
b4b5db98d38f415c4649aacf91d9c0d1a977b976
22815 F20101107_AAAZUW cornelison_v_Page_21.QC.jpg
719ea6e1bc7e37db3ca9706cccf72088
b4a018db83f1bb7a6b65b7c4794dc7b36ca992ab
47457 F20101107_AAAZPZ cornelison_v_Page_57.pro
ee119465bb6b2542983b7ed39a1ace81
4aa1251cf34664b946429d3d6f39d680929c999b
92314 F20101107_AAAZID cornelison_v_Page_69.jpg
bb0f4038b343ca6342ccf51cc17e3c23
eb5c3002db39c536189758518cc901638f9dd73e
F20101107_AAAZNA cornelison_v_Page_52.tif
5ef256bcf943b6f18356a649faf98c69
21edb7dc17ec99a881990a2af7cdcb409f352086
6501 F20101107_AAAZUX cornelison_v_Page_21thm.jpg
e6f38cd86406f83b295c4540c9421c9c
b002b7d34d4a987834b1e9488d9c104f1bf5d3a4
90776 F20101107_AAAZIE cornelison_v_Page_70.jpg
85fbfe31cc709683c80e7939c43a1852
90aece11bf72b65d1eb3655348af8af939195872
25265604 F20101107_AAAZNB cornelison_v_Page_53.tif
12ede5ff36b9d1551aadac031e5de72e
a772aa162d1bfaaa8cf8e7a656e8843928b496ee
22832 F20101107_AAAZUY cornelison_v_Page_22.QC.jpg
daec52749f41693c9ec2e000fafdfb0e
4a83476d5284422bd32f42627c85c5071f2fbbe1
62877 F20101107_AAAZIF cornelison_v_Page_71.jpg
773e83716b69383e49bf386da21ed841
6ef21468f4542bbecf4dece8cdbd7215c173f1de
2065 F20101107_AAAZSA cornelison_v_Page_39.txt
da7dd10938d52e06a595078a97ef5e0b
dd36536aed36e4f76e0381d7cebcf094814e04e6
F20101107_AAAZNC cornelison_v_Page_54.tif
f3b345d9ec5dbbbcd253cb73467a7128
61cb56f59ba240bcfbe813ba4f2ba907ee7ec829
6619 F20101107_AAAZUZ cornelison_v_Page_22thm.jpg
edc061ea6a20bf5f08a2a5a72b7c33ed
61ee5cfb38a55a0285f7cd1ca13c5109f08ea071
37492 F20101107_AAAZIG cornelison_v_Page_72.jpg
72d87759d94b6bd76dce0a10ecfab10a
e7dd7e3e9698d643127e7c4b4b713d3f6f7f0d77
1140 F20101107_AAAZSB cornelison_v_Page_40.txt
72acb938497241c99725eb338aebe611
acaa607ad423993c3613aa0d1cbb8794303df608
F20101107_AAAZND cornelison_v_Page_55.tif
5270d27e16cf8b0aeda399d297831b38
d9dc3f94a1ccae5213a8eca5747b5407941edfe6
29473 F20101107_AAAZIH cornelison_v_Page_01.jp2
95be18f072944d530b6827fe7cd74963
5d7f764a308a2b2c58b611b5114d24a51b0aaa1d
953 F20101107_AAAZSC cornelison_v_Page_41.txt
0bcb60f00fdfe0e20629fbf195280ac6
4c4a9323c4621e650047421f41afa0ab0b2f34ec
F20101107_AAAZNE cornelison_v_Page_56.tif
10c2d3e4f1b2b7a8fada109e9a255849
26dafe925a48377e55fa7e57177bf8a16757042c
18733 F20101107_AAAZXA cornelison_v_Page_49.QC.jpg
0a9652f92aeca5836186c701d95af695
c370da2828c146ccddace879777b6e66444e322b
6109 F20101107_AAAZII cornelison_v_Page_02.jp2
12ea3807673f29bf4c9c4880eb9236e3
45c29442a65a1cbe8beced1844cc93e94d42b5db
1233 F20101107_AAAZSD cornelison_v_Page_42.txt
86092cf5f33736d65b2b5dcc9d20fa97
a422760ec32acd58c0d914888b84fc2ab054d7b4
F20101107_AAAZNF cornelison_v_Page_57.tif
2180a7fdc2e468a035cbeeffd05f636c
6335fd15b7ef3f51aee213efaa3779da7f69753b
5363 F20101107_AAAZXB cornelison_v_Page_49thm.jpg
5014ce7084f2fa8d6315bac23797a76b
513c0c893fffc4dc8c853c2d8cc8eee4a4015521
13278 F20101107_AAAZIJ cornelison_v_Page_03.jp2
adbc995daa268c95bc90f60193962ff4
fe77f70eb65c8c845fcc02677ee56440ce08c83b
F20101107_AAAZNG cornelison_v_Page_58.tif
ec12c46dcf5d85666c5e391ea5878d6e
5bc791826fad29f868a343aad695140431779376
12982 F20101107_AAAZXC cornelison_v_Page_50.QC.jpg
2964d9289292c37fce393494cdb47d4c
6a19dcc94b7d869492342b4f982fa8620a768858
19961 F20101107_AAAZIK cornelison_v_Page_04.jp2
0824deb9daaaab36079702b1a57d59af
83358b2dcef48b7b7d1386b3afff6711a7368256
1753 F20101107_AAAZSE cornelison_v_Page_43.txt
4fca4c91f9df57061057f4787b7a9846
33669f6684557481e8d277c9b2be2f8cd9c36b47
F20101107_AAAZNH cornelison_v_Page_59.tif
b5a0e54901b974434082914d3ebd7ea0
e4cef8a3c79b17a4ab58be8938e691ac36c41d8e
4169 F20101107_AAAZXD cornelison_v_Page_50thm.jpg
815fe24c50d78de70801e07f843201ca
b8f7e186c1506ccaf8c309214615f3dcb9c64bbe
1051981 F20101107_AAAZIL cornelison_v_Page_05.jp2
e313095b82829897e95063b9047fa5ba
26b2d733d765c3b1f36473d0b86f14cd91ad2a65
2318 F20101107_AAAZSF cornelison_v_Page_44.txt
43cb12a9545622611046eca46b43809f
22c58bc98aa7ed023b2b9d62e34e5b07ebe9b35e
F20101107_AAAZNI cornelison_v_Page_60.tif
bfadbec05e7e0c8e4069e4fdd223687b
debd105905b5611af55d0c4d072ce5b43cbd591b
21234 F20101107_AAAZXE cornelison_v_Page_51.QC.jpg
81a751750b92ca12ed1c0718b67262d7
8d02d19440fd5a5ef5756cb6ebe09fa5c073076f
F20101107_AAAZIM cornelison_v_Page_06.jp2
dd587a9840e7cd31d17c847cf3cb70df
ac1a606c7d4c35f82466af39562ed22743793348
1720 F20101107_AAAZSG cornelison_v_Page_45.txt
581b059aac308db5346d3b25847ac1f5
a77c27ad3532b83c374cdf9367aa0c2801da1d5f
F20101107_AAAZNJ cornelison_v_Page_61.tif
7273c1e3b39092b33eb1a23802d43eae
46e1a14356799a51d80df3385fa95eeb891b23a8
5252 F20101107_AAAZXF cornelison_v_Page_51thm.jpg
f4fe794c6f8d8ad22551201ecf6b5724
b4954e4f86e2f9cba72b5c03df3133e097dfe095
1051984 F20101107_AAAZIN cornelison_v_Page_07.jp2
b3eb9b74aac66d47dca3bd9463da94e1
3c70caf21f5a32ffe751a9583be7bebe7e3c9f47
2119 F20101107_AAAZSH cornelison_v_Page_46.txt
b57920c1464f654a67c0c33968082cc7
db0a0d41c13771d77bfb53b759d1c2cefd2fd976
F20101107_AAAZNK cornelison_v_Page_62.tif
ec5f23de813be6b697cdcb8f5d08c2e7
69b4c7dd4bcc244dc10bf29db7b4960dc3e4cd28
13710 F20101107_AAAZXG cornelison_v_Page_52.QC.jpg
e6868863c490f151c46159402c5ebc68
41d2858e6f59204a82c16e31f41e5eee7b9905dd
1051983 F20101107_AAAZIO cornelison_v_Page_08.jp2
bf359f3146e1e0efd508ed08b3ce042b
b95186bb3ba3e42994f387f9f1c22fceed851d5d
1920 F20101107_AAAZSI cornelison_v_Page_47.txt
357f211fd14a73e3138acf61ceeace0f
994fd28841e132c54e3842b196c5989bb7c12e08
F20101107_AAAZNL cornelison_v_Page_63.tif
36b4b4f9cd3ad07c717a680028e543ea
d41c3d0e60266543f4c3455eeda3bda3df0f9b27
3719 F20101107_AAAZXH cornelison_v_Page_52thm.jpg
dd92aa89b0a55b036a586631b521c4f8
ded557b6496d670b94cdffa68e603c06453cee75
1051962 F20101107_AAAZIP cornelison_v_Page_09.jp2
1d761ee0bb4bd6881b9cd84012104a01
16c56dca732d22df84046207b43a68d1ceaae7eb
2075 F20101107_AAAZSJ cornelison_v_Page_48.txt
d36f82a2db470fb29a4f4717ea8f261b
7e06e01001d1cab78f94df7dbdfee6e4864536c1
F20101107_AAAZNM cornelison_v_Page_64.tif
c1fd4d69fbde0ccad3dfc8073fcf2290
4630382a7b7f4c16aff89dc77f1962fd41c3a288
6983 F20101107_AAAZXI cornelison_v_Page_53.QC.jpg
8f77ee8e3ce31f02b0fb7e3853b08ff7
eae2f3180ee6ac6f79afd527e5d79a756f5ba992
59436 F20101107_AAAZIQ cornelison_v_Page_10.jp2
c96d6b1a4c4c6e6f9f2f033806a4ece6
eb2f17bbf2d1646d66da990cf45d42987e85179d
1114 F20101107_AAAZSK cornelison_v_Page_50.txt
4ea7cf4e50f3ec6fa997d80782b129de
643efc9f7e9316a5dbe6efcf6d8def2e81e6b6ff
F20101107_AAAZNN cornelison_v_Page_65.tif
975913dd755f5ab8ddf0290eddb34392
58b2b8ad801f5620c874a3095c0ed8f40206c27b
93876 F20101107_AAAZIR cornelison_v_Page_11.jp2
56788f5a65343ea38bf8ca7c9b32945f
b70401cd00b8176f41ae793ca7e6fca39db4e37d
2231 F20101107_AAAZSL cornelison_v_Page_51.txt
bd9d1a60d0fab224ebcf0592376d7ce9
e3db2721adea484a207cc411905a342c0da40dd7
F20101107_AAAZNO cornelison_v_Page_66.tif
f4235ccc2aa33b605454bf22c32d3a6e
9730a61464ba4f2c72a8aa722ff0b0eae8cbb9e9
2688 F20101107_AAAZXJ cornelison_v_Page_53thm.jpg
5b1cad0f8fb0d3339f325ba142775c48
034ac30cb20435a4081b8f620c7194f4e582d9fe
107564 F20101107_AAAZIS cornelison_v_Page_12.jp2
47f26d1cc1699421f2079ee5a1b7094e
37d124a734bb84bdd3422b976ffdf18b22fea8b8
1205 F20101107_AAAZSM cornelison_v_Page_52.txt
fa44b38d8f5e960f8599cba86aa802c8
a6013c515891671bb0ab6891e9325c805b4018eb
F20101107_AAAZNP cornelison_v_Page_67.tif
f8bff48eb6ffdd549e2ad0882b973cca
cad6346ff844213c3ac19f4b3b7997a92b8c9671
24352 F20101107_AAAZXK cornelison_v_Page_54.QC.jpg
cf5140c435902bc2d2506d48d93ec7f1
a6043a52309fcc386d1c92e1541e091ff7a247e7
113171 F20101107_AAAZIT cornelison_v_Page_13.jp2
f79bda354ac4d1b8f3adcaa274da6a96
f20de076780d2f510a0652bc2cbb9c8cfcea0f5e
1699 F20101107_AAAZSN cornelison_v_Page_53.txt
bcf9acae3cedf33fdc5dc495be901d0a
2248a36cd5b9d27f93a8eb74196c33f020d40e5a
F20101107_AAAZNQ cornelison_v_Page_68.tif
495b844238302f41877c064f5c389264
5153df0d0859266c18d79638e9371d37a6fc9260
6684 F20101107_AAAZXL cornelison_v_Page_54thm.jpg
ec81efbd178d66e1be249e198990e0c9
d8120462739fbd9293c24370f5acddbf5a0e23ba
86366 F20101107_AAAZIU cornelison_v_Page_14.jp2
b09949f330ac5c5bb7650a7b42de815f
5c8cf8636f8b9fb96d770bdf154354a208120389
2149 F20101107_AAAZSO cornelison_v_Page_54.txt
da2ba7c7ff07f55a6150feea73cfe837
f508abaf23b2f945b5a985129473048f875f7e2a
F20101107_AAAZNR cornelison_v_Page_69.tif
30253bb07045c600d3254a941b374e77
47c67ada1f153f5687e8d5f6e77243823b4f1aff
23577 F20101107_AAAZXM cornelison_v_Page_55.QC.jpg
f54c75b92041bad69c4be52f54baf864
63618ada60a0bd93813c6a343eac708af0cb251a
1051961 F20101107_AAAZIV cornelison_v_Page_15.jp2
ec7ec7802619d59766cc77490815dc22
8b051d4baf3c076fc3fd40cd31cd1fa4eecbefc0
2024 F20101107_AAAZSP cornelison_v_Page_55.txt
0c0a90aa826772e2cf93b3517fe762e7
4f31636837304aa0abdd15b339fd31633e587d5c
F20101107_AAAZNS cornelison_v_Page_70.tif
9c30591bce687aea432b8e2e4e31fe97
6743d213dc64f268c99a2153345c883b5e6db469
6714 F20101107_AAAZXN cornelison_v_Page_55thm.jpg
cd56457b6548d6a968cba81d6ab2e837
6bb52f510a2e376548a723f240a338ed9463b1af
1051873 F20101107_AAAZIW cornelison_v_Page_16.jp2
593911e635b0ba5afb44e3b7b95af10a
a701ca1c827fc0c62298f2eaea2706c2c242304a
1987 F20101107_AAAZSQ cornelison_v_Page_56.txt
77aec4e9430a2471e3e032d9a1322b9c
16bcfac339af96c82d60d9161176b616ba962f9a
F20101107_AAAZNT cornelison_v_Page_71.tif
09e2420c65c0cc75a15bab0e5015d89f
6b176abbf47cd16eab3c8d5537260e168ea644bb
23558 F20101107_AAAZXO cornelison_v_Page_56.QC.jpg
27c5b0bafee3f3dc1ebe4e604f17f498
238701d742c5e1729e0f8cde9a42e4c2b5ba6ebf
110166 F20101107_AAAZIX cornelison_v_Page_17.jp2
5cd080b436d0a2ff29925533a8c3ad12
38c2d3972c23d36e64fd565f0f13c4512fd28171
1932 F20101107_AAAZSR cornelison_v_Page_57.txt
60a1febdc72f74ce52aa40abda7cee5c
fa43f1ca1ae1af3d8098d58592bb76e3ce839be4
F20101107_AAAZNU cornelison_v_Page_72.tif
dd4b59ff703521a320d8ae43fbccafc1
02c46795630abfa27b264cc0ec6bab9200fe216b
6511 F20101107_AAAZXP cornelison_v_Page_56thm.jpg
56933e6cfd8d41964c3c567f394f94a7
f174ed4cac2fa829acf67db3dfef6f77426bfd83
100536 F20101107_AAAZIY cornelison_v_Page_18.jp2
263f71f395539fa752c7dc9eb6f62069
39cad504e960589f8913e70a2208137b9880db8e
2030 F20101107_AAAZSS cornelison_v_Page_58.txt
26cb998d499d5b9192d4574d7c7bc853
e069feb86f0715e052f7bcbe6c812f53adc81a7f
10000 F20101107_AAAZNV cornelison_v_Page_01.pro
ef450ffd9d78a32b063b4994b8b10633
d0a0553e94dc8700aa1407b3038271690ed36bf5
24381 F20101107_AAAZXQ cornelison_v_Page_57.QC.jpg
cf93ceb8fb1f197f5ff628691a5e68e0
533bd34cd319c410db323806905e3dc39a61e106
2197 F20101107_AAAZST cornelison_v_Page_59.txt
d91a072f82ab382e5ce1fe7722e8a9af
7c97c3ca17bcb933f45e5b16cbe2c51e8ffc19d6
1145 F20101107_AAAZNW cornelison_v_Page_02.pro
9085032872325ea14dfba4406d157e9a
6af294d8fac8f17eae33712749b1eb3803212ba1
59455 F20101107_AAAZGA cornelison_v_Page_14.jpg
f760dfac5e6f4aa665c7b478f148754b
29cd20a0c37aabc568a2698db812ff66dc163718
99849 F20101107_AAAZIZ cornelison_v_Page_19.jp2
e3c594854ac0b045b8ff150b1d74f7cc
75875101676f81c382c3958e31a35c0840bd6e4f
6844 F20101107_AAAZXR cornelison_v_Page_57thm.jpg
9ead0cac190a887dcfac103cafd0e9d2
6d00e91d645594efd17cf852d60db8d77775be12
2079 F20101107_AAAZSU cornelison_v_Page_60.txt
78e95eb0afe6ad27f1f3277f1c7fd50b
c6baa024658467118146b55258d886bc32837336
4124 F20101107_AAAZNX cornelison_v_Page_03.pro
0fc07450b4bf5b7c17056daf5c759d87
9575b4b61ad72f3f9322fe6fec8c47a14a928309
83818 F20101107_AAAZGB cornelison_v_Page_15.jpg
7932cc5911733d0778d6094e6e407ec7
87f36b85bdfe281dc5dec881675912f2c684d6bf
24298 F20101107_AAAZXS cornelison_v_Page_58.QC.jpg
fbf59aab8071be1806a9cd8afa1ccc66
01878d4b476baa3ca89834d7810490e0f8a01e0c
1858 F20101107_AAAZSV cornelison_v_Page_61.txt
2ffb5458cd7a39267d748e11727514a8
fab31dd20efaae2b992c0254156f62c0568575de
7872 F20101107_AAAZNY cornelison_v_Page_04.pro
7328c31ebb2238ad3cdeb272b8e2db3c
433db783681d92eb1ba2b9840b5bfe692b22d9d5
57249 F20101107_AAAZGC cornelison_v_Page_16.jpg
777a5b46a3a78496854c5aad28094700
175850470ea5e0d24fa55d48f78aea63f123f0c8
6729 F20101107_AAAZXT cornelison_v_Page_58thm.jpg
1e4256bbffb1248754e1425ff1f4825a
c8471c395eb00baa66b368e6db2ed1171d8bdf39
2123 F20101107_AAAZSW cornelison_v_Page_62.txt
f4e8c4ff37c5bac6d653329823da0bcb
7be97490cd3bf44fdc16018ff47307dcdf53bc44
50009 F20101107_AAAZLA cornelison_v_Page_72.jp2
7a0d5ff5b539953da09d0ec0eaa0f072
65f44f49aa1370b33dc2476dffa9bacb1bba5197
61679 F20101107_AAAZNZ cornelison_v_Page_05.pro
8040c9a2e16023a4878a79fea47198be
1786c76470b23075124c95ce2dc4888a0290a905
74793 F20101107_AAAZGD cornelison_v_Page_17.jpg
0bdbaf538078fc0589d36c2d2b7d65d0
fd06ff8118992c54df09081fb50133dee4962477
26511 F20101107_AAAZXU cornelison_v_Page_59.QC.jpg
4b6f035013cb41331cc513cf507d21cc
a2254d7b6afd1db356c53de1bad17c555e0e0947
2155 F20101107_AAAZSX cornelison_v_Page_63.txt
c73f932ff200c4d8a9e36386f0c221a6
ca3e56ceb52081ed6a11e4b586aabc71eaa72a0d
F20101107_AAAZLB cornelison_v_Page_01.tif
60454deb7d67f0e0b0bb3eb45c9e7eb4
c95affc7a9c930766c579f73d26b078e3ed59371
66367 F20101107_AAAZGE cornelison_v_Page_18.jpg
b73092d8b6a852ac6acd4e3471adea53
26b5cc4b2b8884ef14c1d8b2f54daa6aa49ceaa9
7187 F20101107_AAAZXV cornelison_v_Page_59thm.jpg
07bbda6a279216f5ddb689d965d8ae3b
76a05e6aa1594ad565a1d6225b76eddc65270a95
1167 F20101107_AAAZSY cornelison_v_Page_64.txt
eb154bbbbe576f8a5004f7ddf5da8585
65f17d3a1736ff4feda6ef113c965c2ae096e530
F20101107_AAAZLC cornelison_v_Page_02.tif
2c1d8a5b1d8d5c1e68e1eeb060a7c2c7
6b204a7e150e462ccf25194bd3d4e0abf3e8a123
69090 F20101107_AAAZGF cornelison_v_Page_19.jpg
a4a1dfbc9da0362f1a377663a083fd79
677925f3cf59fa1a1e868c20d73ebf1e72288107
51105 F20101107_AAAZQA cornelison_v_Page_58.pro
fece615b88514b9df369caef3d7e6c03
fc60c715f606130a6a23a0b03ffa165fa5ac89a0
24505 F20101107_AAAZXW cornelison_v_Page_60.QC.jpg
1e8e7cedd009c9db416b076dafcc44d4
e158ec63fd45dab290833f89dc5e316c72912257
1663 F20101107_AAAZSZ cornelison_v_Page_65.txt
c848612267aaabcbc4a5af39922c23a5
33e561cd318b31a6cbc12da22f9e5e464ccef205
F20101107_AAAZLD cornelison_v_Page_03.tif
137169808c35f0985cb48b2aa81197d7
599f1a4d7cd620ca7a6741cceb354bceb003d785
61438 F20101107_AAAZGG cornelison_v_Page_20.jpg
14461702bce1d5c56a2b7c7848214dae
5e124b1f69d6feafb1d41685b60ec4fe12e88a3e
55407 F20101107_AAAZQB cornelison_v_Page_59.pro
69d427a11294a089ea8bb379d166079e
f9ab07e7e03540c8d6c3e6f464f344d0dbfa9299
6769 F20101107_AAAZXX cornelison_v_Page_60thm.jpg
638e9e5e2129c88ed6eec2ad8d4369c8
debde400484f38b23821652889bbecdcc02c86a0
F20101107_AAAZLE cornelison_v_Page_04.tif
6acbf3ca230fdb9f6d23c6f83db6547d
c13e0d962555ff49f3acc4554dbcb9358c1354e9
69684 F20101107_AAAZGH cornelison_v_Page_21.jpg
1bab4aa52c0f4d3d1f159c74fb83e033
228f6aba3990aa0861ea7fef39d3d70de71ab945
F20101107_AAAZXY cornelison_v_Page_61.QC.jpg
83514d92b16f88da181e4abbc78fabe6
b6916c51ac721a4fb9ce7f69305a03e10f219b5e
18800 F20101107_AAAZVA cornelison_v_Page_23.QC.jpg
336c49ffbd4e3cf364beaa1a5abe3b07
f86ae5512ea26eff1d6f41a58991bb5a42dcb159
F20101107_AAAZLF cornelison_v_Page_05.tif
ea7e7a6083288bcd2155573a6192164e
73d70fc571deaf12c7a83e722c94e01ec66178e8
77126 F20101107_AAAZGI cornelison_v_Page_22.jpg
f5a2fdf4c7d7b74e2d2a84b613793bb2
efc7ff8640aab4e4e7413da09ca30c035e821f73
51364 F20101107_AAAZQC cornelison_v_Page_60.pro
14124139902b50b758273e0d23d51c7b
d2a16596af4be030eea71811d6750bf74ee353ab
6257 F20101107_AAAZXZ cornelison_v_Page_61thm.jpg
6e8736cc3ee6f19da34f909086d1d1aa
eaed13c2aa744967b2a211e6f5d515297fcea234
5409 F20101107_AAAZVB cornelison_v_Page_23thm.jpg
b43b35ccc5930f69a9eb31ed47abaaa3
e3eaa8f006f838c282e8a1b1ea378ba1ae74942b
F20101107_AAAZLG cornelison_v_Page_06.tif
eff30cb88ac07f2330ef5fcc662cf351
5a8e14faa3bfbb7a6a99b4f6849030af70b4d6ab
58869 F20101107_AAAZGJ cornelison_v_Page_23.jpg
28955d118c2f00727e61ac8a795a750d
4257ae7649b018e352be8ea4f7abe88caee3717a
43501 F20101107_AAAZQD cornelison_v_Page_61.pro
26bc00a940e7202363989f34f82e7e47
bfb0a46bf45e08f09046cfe98c97046bfb454159
24026 F20101107_AAAZVC cornelison_v_Page_24.QC.jpg
572603e4208cf4c8fddf6f6796fe5d2b
a09fd5847bfb17a158fc7f03c54717d25159af8b
F20101107_AAAZLH cornelison_v_Page_07.tif
334a984e9882ee6b963c42e35c56b8c2
72f23ec4ca7209123dd0df008383a46bdbceb8bd
79389 F20101107_AAAZGK cornelison_v_Page_24.jpg
2ec3c6ce7c7270f802a372f35a84e589
91897eedf88ec7fa98e67b406ca8f55daf8004b1
52326 F20101107_AAAZQE cornelison_v_Page_62.pro
3da990201c7ff0686c1b6c03ac338132
ea713cc632cea9aa36195a5d4608c34ff3894c5d
6624 F20101107_AAAZVD cornelison_v_Page_24thm.jpg
30b9b1dea4ab164eddcf4ef48896d399
be4f1533d7cffa5bbc41a307412a9505fd9a28b0
F20101107_AAAZLI cornelison_v_Page_08.tif
8e30ef98dd02e3005fbde11a50fc3127
5f4890540c727b5192b34e4b04b17dc00ec2f8f3
84642 F20101107_AAAZGL cornelison_v_Page_25.jpg
8e621e645aa2f5a7965a83dcb04d7649
46861f6d7fe88e5bd91ebb16c9a10c1166e7ec35
55011 F20101107_AAAZQF cornelison_v_Page_63.pro
fd577d6076e0f956a1bcd3505f9f0e33
f98585c4c9d4c5a02412ba1e3635c57a937763f4
25308 F20101107_AAAZVE cornelison_v_Page_25.QC.jpg
ef1beccd563f970e5a6d2249d468b427
832cad1070487aa75a59fb5bb9a4747f4d51477b
F20101107_AAAZLJ cornelison_v_Page_09.tif
4976ee0c9a14cb93c0c619d6d13df3d0
fae50bf5dca9e6982695a2391caf22ad6bcb910b
44259 F20101107_AAAZGM cornelison_v_Page_26.jpg
bce01a9c9b13f189ce3e305b7bad77aa
0677fa95b79e52fa19154b69120a68a36c02b34c
29250 F20101107_AAAZQG cornelison_v_Page_64.pro
2efab788a144ea93d65abe1a916ccdfb
c61f0f5382b21222750fc73c89efa472ab7ffe4e
7024 F20101107_AAAZVF cornelison_v_Page_25thm.jpg
c7563f89595cd0d69b7380f2df87a759
847ffdafafba478ff9d863af922f5051ec134444
F20101107_AAAZLK cornelison_v_Page_10.tif
d0ef6b67323c3c64c2000556bfd237ae
cd7a28e1a4b8d5ca763b51118c815dda84077e5e
66961 F20101107_AAAZGN cornelison_v_Page_27.jpg
6546aaf7ecf9381b53190a6059983de9
eade48a172e8f9281df7dfc5720a3d36aabf7059
39698 F20101107_AAAZQH cornelison_v_Page_65.pro
fed0e45e59179273a451cc73eb0404c2
65645cf775977bae5f01ecf32b820d93864c7074
13319 F20101107_AAAZVG cornelison_v_Page_26.QC.jpg
557c2ffb8fde8c824f454e2b567932bb
551c1032e73eb3901b5894eace8632c5d80c7bb2
F20101107_AAAZLL cornelison_v_Page_11.tif
fbf59e94caca9df17ecae3c4e11932d9
90242aa0468244177b01e684f5da368dc356a7cc
71102 F20101107_AAAZGO cornelison_v_Page_28.jpg
afd66190ab60a9e74e9585d8d65dff41
351a6e429859fd1516421446294bdca2c429a330
60828 F20101107_AAAZQI cornelison_v_Page_66.pro
bc31bdbd911caf385429cb01278607b9
dbdbe2c8736715fb3912040bf5b1b53de3f4f1ab
F20101107_AAAZLM cornelison_v_Page_12.tif
aaf3d31041148b32e3919b7406c674e0
75950c66295a0e44cb4773f9950cc11f90f67eac
71779 F20101107_AAAZGP cornelison_v_Page_29.jpg
6940a4a7c569f4722dc3c900e87da5fa
475043c9beb6d5ba31482e55140e57c364578d0a
55533 F20101107_AAAZQJ cornelison_v_Page_67.pro
b17e4a413aeed141d59beacd525c6a06
898392785029bb4a2e43077bfc3cf73a46f5fd6a
3556 F20101107_AAAZVH cornelison_v_Page_26thm.jpg
a7d064f08f1913007bbd3210cfc12268
6e973b98ef5143f42a87c6b5ba69d49b5d888d7f
F20101107_AAAZLN cornelison_v_Page_13.tif
bb3fa6f44d03ccfb357a3f3920d35894
488a8b6914fe63df2d8097bb2c34dd5b6ce0b67b
72091 F20101107_AAAZGQ cornelison_v_Page_30.jpg
16a13fbf46b6f6e4b47e8a5ad7f2b641
69d1b5e4e7e109dc4c14c3266a736d7552497130
24331 F20101107_AAAZQK cornelison_v_Page_68.pro
35992e5c0e979df630232adb89bdc009
c036c7e3a168565bc5d2114f1fba8137590f3663
21347 F20101107_AAAZVI cornelison_v_Page_27.QC.jpg
f272a6732c80d43312c337bfecb96222
6d2d7fbfd9c1f0cc835e6b6e7d1577d1a81676eb
F20101107_AAAZLO cornelison_v_Page_14.tif
305cdffeb88edc650ebacab1d5c3c019
383bba1f9d4ca18ac14ac631053bc12ac159f200
68413 F20101107_AAAZGR cornelison_v_Page_31.jpg
2fdf8341625499efc4ebeda59a2f0aca
7f7526825502ac5a9b1fbcb5d8afb8008bbb5f7f
58705 F20101107_AAAZQL cornelison_v_Page_69.pro
d33083022d5b00adc67a6e06ff14694f
030b175fc7c1a2aed79ad461008c23a87d7e5686
6251 F20101107_AAAZVJ cornelison_v_Page_27thm.jpg
9a6644fb8069fd3c65f2c0019d9ed8a9
fff2bf2642c897b293c8d2c81ff7631f9b739fc9
F20101107_AAAZLP cornelison_v_Page_15.tif
467eb5d7d47b0f7c84feace75aafd9d7
0df2f6a011b19a4bcc38d1f314239b30e940971b
57446 F20101107_AAAZGS cornelison_v_Page_32.jpg
6a0ef125b53161e3654040fccecc7de6
3a96d06537762d100a19876629a51d4e49078491
56087 F20101107_AAAZQM cornelison_v_Page_70.pro
fee4506b227ab5dabe3e2bd7a241f457
b41b4509bb89cc7545ab4c9ecdef42ca973d04c5
23187 F20101107_AAAZVK cornelison_v_Page_28.QC.jpg
1d736a893001c0f4789841a9b7623e6e
afb240ae433de2650c546fe2982c0dbb044ec1ad
F20101107_AAAZLQ cornelison_v_Page_16.tif
422726dec744a4d4e62739b3d9c99e82
067362766d8444c0d84f326a4e1f9657c0efb2b9
72779 F20101107_AAAZGT cornelison_v_Page_33.jpg
57550f636611534d9aa9864a5af9f7e4
c29e61500e56d61ce529af48a7f1a38ce479e4f3
34849 F20101107_AAAZQN cornelison_v_Page_71.pro
bcc19fe50ce0922be1273230c2880386
472b17efee1fea4b0f9b6f2a50cfa222ab6184a7
6635 F20101107_AAAZVL cornelison_v_Page_28thm.jpg
579c609631e05f7c6ab6fb425996aa2a
c6205726caea0a3b3fafa83189bc96df5a784b88
F20101107_AAAZLR cornelison_v_Page_17.tif
430c141ea353fe7ec54beee6d5fe1bf6
9e527923a7cb88c4b3e8a440011059e65de5bc06
75602 F20101107_AAAZGU cornelison_v_Page_34.jpg
6e2c2b62461420bf9dcf1d05a6296f41
40ae4922c810a1d5cc511a7ce5ae5bfbba3f192d
21352 F20101107_AAAZQO cornelison_v_Page_72.pro
e8fce907e0772c0f8fb9b31e171023d3
c067d89b883a8fb7952d09173d4c493c152b475a
23159 F20101107_AAAZVM cornelison_v_Page_29.QC.jpg
d789186b89dcf63dc4beda8f4b8157ee
3773be81368354df76da8493c990a3fe7760b35e
F20101107_AAAZLS cornelison_v_Page_18.tif
7dc95f338e2a7013efb2e03e6f6e3f38
9dd03ada2b2b9e370f58707e42f5c22b7381e00b
53794 F20101107_AAAZGV cornelison_v_Page_35.jpg
b4a4f3429cc6941a700864a16f542d72
2d952dfc9e0e21fd934f3b17c11753544f6637be
88 F20101107_AAAZQP cornelison_v_Page_02.txt
30901ea4f610ad50644440b9bbe3f026
6a5662385697e33352af7a85d9649bdcea2500dd
6498 F20101107_AAAZVN cornelison_v_Page_29thm.jpg
d3ea8086f591f14a35c5ea326ae42365
9abd6cfbb631a35d3b978cd85e0a8e76a3e4a20e
F20101107_AAAZLT cornelison_v_Page_19.tif
5814f5cfc90f44d4c96b55490f5d6afb
c7f80cce76e298b3695e0301cbf643ac2392c2d5
71399 F20101107_AAAZGW cornelison_v_Page_36.jpg
c558653b310ef0ce3db7e1e2a5cbdac2
7baeec9e810ddc0c533791513b29ddd56f0f1cfc
214 F20101107_AAAZQQ cornelison_v_Page_03.txt
a2931462ab383bc1b67efbe6bf3790ce
14cedf0a6ec49cffd6f34ce595b9c261fa6ca837
23695 F20101107_AAAZVO cornelison_v_Page_30.QC.jpg
fa549224b927acffd043c26731066c80
d52f1814d059d09e27c74786e2904da24d363168
F20101107_AAAZLU cornelison_v_Page_20.tif
74fca3ccef65c553174ea5d44f3960fe
3c9990ded3bda816d0409493609839e43e61a7cf
67574 F20101107_AAAZGX cornelison_v_Page_37.jpg
5f8720e9bcdf062e7e7d05da13e3b9d4
2cab063a8d53e441d00a2966f09e0498dbc6c667
352 F20101107_AAAZQR cornelison_v_Page_04.txt
22016d984c10e9740a635f2cabba344d
23de67a9db0888e0a1f69c813ae42714b3f9f9de
6576 F20101107_AAAZVP cornelison_v_Page_30thm.jpg
390823e97d0c5e803f7079cfe043c5cd
73489c084ec1e97d432aeb3e69a0d536af937a05
2758 F20101107_AAAZQS cornelison_v_Page_05.txt
44d62be414f846bbe8a9164e10a3b21b
ec9961ef51e626487d79c968a45a2507666f5512
F20101107_AAAZLV cornelison_v_Page_21.tif
8d3f1072cbb35d0de6aa98f0fc76309d
72424967a947199126602e97a48a643b8ccdd8a4
22484 F20101107_AAAZVQ cornelison_v_Page_31.QC.jpg
a68d6bef0974afd99c3b745236a0bcd3
c2cbc9edb9270a8f51d0fc9d6cbce8d24a1f3748
63710 F20101107_AAAZGY cornelison_v_Page_38.jpg
081de446a77cedceca37dfafcfe59158
00153641d6882b87966fcc454e70c5b695217894
F20101107_AAAZQT cornelison_v_Page_06.txt
224af9ea4fcafb9690df0f0a8d708fb9
0dc735cdc292924a9b1c8427a11138f539038568
F20101107_AAAZLW cornelison_v_Page_22.tif
bbc3f3c34a4b8594b452f0b683409650
26fd506f9487c9491ad9f0348becd034432006aa
6383 F20101107_AAAZVR cornelison_v_Page_31thm.jpg
cb9aed9fd076f5854e0479ddc6236791
5076ff99b2d0b36edd7f1520330dedf639cfc5d0
73113 F20101107_AAAZGZ cornelison_v_Page_39.jpg
e0809d514fdbb90a1161337a27524cd4
e1015e88244fd69310565e7694ee1e8fd5e26485
2564 F20101107_AAAZQU cornelison_v_Page_07.txt
11a0fe89900700c9cfef39a0ea190c13
6529540eee1e448f8ebc6e12d5475f2bffdded2b
F20101107_AAAZLX cornelison_v_Page_23.tif
be8bf55d447149e412a3f06650eed90f
03066eb1f44893bfbb0231d39d3e473ce0c70f24
18935 F20101107_AAAZVS cornelison_v_Page_32.QC.jpg
f93e4ec0c607911119d972969045ead5
dd2df319e7c2e21ddbd1376239800b6c1d7c7f02
1787 F20101107_AAAZQV cornelison_v_Page_08.txt
d4770d495b0bd3a60953e05b5dbf7488
f6d1d2125b1c691b19febf4f550b8230eef0d46e
F20101107_AAAZLY cornelison_v_Page_24.tif
60c8079bb1be9add1e930c958c0ad8ea
7bb29b8efefc1529793cfd635a42a7598bbd0b20
5668 F20101107_AAAZVT cornelison_v_Page_32thm.jpg
9433ac58b95b8922f96e3a1f3a732d56
72be6567f72a3196ed470987c8160a0416630900
2056 F20101107_AAAZQW cornelison_v_Page_09.txt
171c0a18cbb51584ea7e35606a0afc96
8e274cb5eece7a2259f3e1fbde05c3f908a0ff98
87528 F20101107_AAAZJA cornelison_v_Page_20.jp2
990c591a02e7feb00796167a6b1e7ca7
4837764f830e7cf07ddd141db8bc6709a50c37fa
F20101107_AAAZLZ cornelison_v_Page_25.tif
b330806e0500128e8b758f372080ff37
4ff331b40532d0135552cb2b19331bb6847e72ed
F20101107_AAAZVU cornelison_v_Page_33.QC.jpg
febdde9fa7adfed4c52174cb86adfc91
9343dd46b300f520bf39b1ae1478209fd9fc3885
1022 F20101107_AAAZQX cornelison_v_Page_10.txt
6d8c42fc50621328dac1ed08a18819e4
37120e3c7c65d37dbfaf656e97f165a9a111a29d
103634 F20101107_AAAZJB cornelison_v_Page_21.jp2
9042632404ad82107524a30f06c724db
c2a8267b3f514911235aceca013e43b468fc69ea
6480 F20101107_AAAZVV cornelison_v_Page_33thm.jpg
16c88cb835607f475252f22702ccb0af
b7df868b925f01903fdbf74d5318dcf0a29b92b9
1813 F20101107_AAAZQY cornelison_v_Page_11.txt
60e4b38453358f42915752c4feca6a6b
a49f77a83cb12f2db7c7adbe9d7c24de7c20da0e
1051963 F20101107_AAAZJC cornelison_v_Page_22.jp2
deeddbaecaca4cc7d77c207367be670c
9a317c9f08166d3cb67fc076c6fc725752f10569
23519 F20101107_AAAZVW cornelison_v_Page_34.QC.jpg
324acfd535c7d7565e831bd282289bd5
ebd563a2dd82bfed1638fb77595e52c03b8f611a
48422 F20101107_AAAZOA cornelison_v_Page_06.pro
8b6f011bd577e45948d10e570046bd6e
3dbd418cc5f4a7f9209b42ff56f8c3bfc0d1510d
2071 F20101107_AAAZQZ cornelison_v_Page_12.txt
d4cf3dabc60631d859a9278074526701
db8c3499e07183a0f8b297654674bb9d963e2c56
979791 F20101107_AAAZJD cornelison_v_Page_23.jp2
0ec56d1538ee215391c87d52c40e46a6
acc443d8c98cf2f701ed84aa26f6240849ca10c2
6185 F20101107_AAAZVX cornelison_v_Page_34thm.jpg
f757840339ee938f369bdbeec438a8f3
cda19404f15f3bebd0fadd75df060995b205297a
63225 F20101107_AAAZOB cornelison_v_Page_07.pro
f16e91ce09533e779f18bdc1fefbf22b
55fe8204b9f6badf1e62b2cb588f12dd25c52cdc
F20101107_AAAZJE cornelison_v_Page_24.jp2
b34d4bb1e02cb6303e0c50c47f4765e6
30bde7b7e50354335fa16952be12742a8a8a9ee0
16811 F20101107_AAAZVY cornelison_v_Page_35.QC.jpg
bf59fa236d17b7d1ef8c4f76c6692998
dee0660fe353362763aa9700099e6b2bb462dc08
43148 F20101107_AAAZOC cornelison_v_Page_08.pro
133b1fcb6a17d0a44e19b4a11c919582
602fc0e4636f81f53dc1467b29b3e470eed5882e
119905 F20101107_AAAZJF cornelison_v_Page_25.jp2
b8237f7941fe934292ea49748175a3d6
4a82122ada9a03c240daf57d33d1e966854b5d4e
2594 F20101107_AAAZTA cornelison_v_Page_66.txt
cebe7e48e35b3ca2d1e83955f055d446
011d09ba47689937b7f084016fc37c666fc91d31
4837 F20101107_AAAZVZ cornelison_v_Page_35thm.jpg
e4d3b88c26a7f1ddb43fa3fe486ed9db
00a9f154fcc6a530a13b3a413d29e3aee54ddb8e
50275 F20101107_AAAZOD cornelison_v_Page_09.pro
3e415b0f772f42b15c49e0ee273dcd06
fa2d0c3feda8b490b887c0740f80a5ccc325fb84
56688 F20101107_AAAZJG cornelison_v_Page_26.jp2
4db716c82eaa0abf08cf7d5b4e3875a0
a47388321fcb573a296455cd261de1966909635d
2376 F20101107_AAAZTB cornelison_v_Page_67.txt
ec9d5ead072644b9aaa54c2e8b757ee0
c292a50e686b68ecfdc0f091ec890357e9d9fd0c
23900 F20101107_AAAZOE cornelison_v_Page_10.pro
9417f02a0de40ae0ebd79e143174ebe1
b406c4cc5ae298e0eeb1b4a0d576dc2fa4befa4c
96727 F20101107_AAAZJH cornelison_v_Page_27.jp2
6745e3bb8a5c5ed152b09f3d03ab2736
2af6f8d91e833ccb1432c22aa042dad69ec1e663
1024 F20101107_AAAZTC cornelison_v_Page_68.txt
cac07b606b5f8440017abc3b0be11681
5a9a50e9a5e0db01fd8ddf17251f6b904fe5e36b
24826 F20101107_AAAZYA cornelison_v_Page_62.QC.jpg
c7ecf579e1416c707a78df1818e81816
1482aa11e9cbae0c9ddb18d63ce9b222a9cbadb4
40644 F20101107_AAAZOF cornelison_v_Page_11.pro
62cff27ab5448784a52ad4cc142f715b
9ad1bc58c8b562e330198bbfa6fcc4695f775801
104468 F20101107_AAAZJI cornelison_v_Page_28.jp2
7e386506cc39b6b9944700eb26633fa2
f7661e3e2735069a2bc0ac47e32c4d70ea2908ba
2279 F20101107_AAAZTD cornelison_v_Page_69.txt
913ee3b81b584ad1a841744768ea22b3
eef124d7269cc78276ae782f732282f7a03fcd8f