UFDC Home  myUFDC Home  Help 



Full Text  
CALCULATION OF ARGON41 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........... ... Ar41 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 "ByHand" 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 21 STAC2. 1 Variables for Height of the Plume Centerline Calculated in Code...................24 22 STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values .............. ...............24.... 23 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............2 24 Pasquill's Relations to Weather Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ..........2 25 Briggs Derived Formulas for Standard Deviations of Horizontal (o,(x)) and Vertical (oz(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pasquill's Stability Classes ........._.._..... ..._..............26 31 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar41 Manual Calculation vs. STAC2. 1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)......34 32 Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2. 1 use............._._... .......34 33 Characteristics of Ar41 as input in CALPUFF ................. ...............34............. 34 CALPUFF Stack Parameter Input .............. ...............35.... 35 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model ................ ........... ..........35 36 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model ................. ............ .........35 41 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages ................. ................. .43 42 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages .............. ..................43 43 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR ....43 44 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming FullPower Continuous Operation ...............44 45 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR, As suming FullPower, Continuous Operati on ................. ...............44........... .. 46 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions .............. ...............44.... 47 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations................... ...45 48 Dilution Ratio Comparison ................. ...............45........_ .... 49 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates, and Corresponding Distances from the UJFTR per Stack Height .............. ...............45.... 410 Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates and, Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height .............. ...............45.... D1 Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............6 D2 Urban Pasquill Class "A" Ground Level Concentration of Ar41 Hand Calculation vs. STAC2. 1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005)......65 D3 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF/CALGROUP Comparison with a Puff Model ................... ......66 D4 STAC 2. 1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison with a Slug Model ....................66 D5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 20042005) ..........66 D6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 20042005) ........66 D7 STAC2. 1 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UF TR 66 D8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming Full Power Continuous Op erati on ................. ...............67........... .... D9 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 D10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions .............. ...............67.... D11 Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ................... ...68 D12 Dilution Ratio Comparison ................. ...............68................ LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 11 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed ................... .........15 12 University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida. ................ ....__ ................15 13 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus ................. ................. ....... 16 21 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 22 22 Northeasterly wind direction............... ...............2 23 Effect of Terrain Roughness on the General Wind Speed Profile ................ ................ .23 24 Distance from building vs. o,(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........23 25 Distance from building vs. oz(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........24 41 Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period............... ...............40. 42 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period............... ...............41. 43 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights .............. ...............41.... 44 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights 42 45 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) .............. ....................4 46 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x10s Ci/m3) ................. ...............43........... D1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 64 D2 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 Ar40 Ar41 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 ARGON41 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 Ar41 exhausted during routine University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) operations. Two Gaussianbased 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 relicensing 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 Ar41 to be conservatively estimated via a onewind, 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. Ar41 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]. Ar40 is ~99.6% of this natural argon, which is ~1.3 weight percent, or about ~0.94 volume percent of air [10, 12, 13]. Ar41, in reference to the reactor, originates from leakage neutrons undergoing capture by Ar40 [12]. Ar40 is present throughout the air spaces surrounding the UFTR fuel. Eq. 11 shows the activation of Ar40. Note that the halflife of Ar41 is 1.83 hours. s~Ar + in a s~Ar + y (11) 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% U23 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. 11 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 Ar41 is a limiting parameter for the operations cycle of the UFTR. Monthly concentration averages for Ar41, 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 Ar41 and surrounding terrain relative to the UFTR, two maps are shown in Fig. 12 and 13 [1l]. Fig. 12 contains the UF Campus main campus, and the relative position, indicated in the small black box, to the campus. Fig. 13 focuses on the more specific campus location of the UFTR, from the black box of Fig. 12. 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 westsouthwest of the UFTR and in the path of a wind direction from eastnortheast. Purpose of this Research The purpose of this work was to determine an estimate, using independent methods, of the Ar41 concentrations and dose rates predicted at various downwind ranges. Results from this study were used in reporting the Ar41 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 Ar41 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 [14], 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 Ar41 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 11 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed Figure 13 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus CHAPTER 2 THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION IN THE STAC2.1 CODE Ar41 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 threedimensions, 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 xaxis, yaxis, and : axis. This system illustrates the basic plume shape and centerline (bold, dashed line parallel to the xaxis) is seen in Fig. 21 [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 Gaussianlike 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. 22 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. 23 [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 Ar41, at ground level, is calculated in Eq. 21 by using the listed parameters. The variables for Eq. 21 are: concentration of effluent (Ar41) 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 (xvalue) from the stack (o,(x)) in meters, and vertical standard deviation for the crosswind straight downwind (xvalue) from the stack (oz(x)) in meters. To account for offcenter lateral dispersion in both directions, downwind from the stack, Eq. 22 is applied. Note Eq. 21 does not account for lateral movement; all yvalues are implicitly equal to 0.0. Q f yl~2 X(x,y,o) = epI + x ov x)o ()(oz(x))2 2 (o (x))2 (22) 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. 23. All heights are measured in meters. h= ly + h (23) STAC2.1 STAC2.1 is a one wind effluent dispersion code based on the fundamental methodologies first proposed by Pasquill, et al [14]. This code was used to determine the downwind concentrations of Ar41 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 21 and 22 as well as Eq. 23 213. Note that variables in parentheses refer to variables used in the STAC2. 1 code. In addition, (SHDLTA) is considered to be h, in Eq. 23. Table 21 shows the information calculated in STAC2. 1 pertaining to the height of the plume centerline. Table 22 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 Ar41 were: * specific heat (CPEFF) * density ratio to dry air (EDF) * plume type (HASUME) * molecular weight (MOLWT) * release rate (QSC) * halflife (THALF) The specific heat of Argon was used as an approximation of that for Ar41 (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. 24 is the simple calculation used to find the height of the plume centerline above the UFTR stack. Eq. 25 213 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 (24) FBUOY = 4.0 x10 *QHEFF (25) UWV = UGND / (4. 141x1010*SMEAS4 + 3.668x10 *SMEAS3 (26) 1.115x104*SMEAS2 + 0.01470*"SMEAS + 0.04573) USTAK = 4. 141 x1010*UWV*SHSTAK4 + 3.668x10 *SHSTAK3 (27) 1.115x104*SHSTAK2 + 0.01470*"SHSTAK + 0.04573 QHEFF = (SMDOT*CPEFF (TSTAK TAMB))/4.184 (28) SMDOT = EDF*ADEN*VSTAK* ASTAK (29) ADEN = 0.5 (ADENT + ADENHT) (210) ASTAK = PI (DISTAK/2.0)2 (211) ADENT = 16.019 (2.8124x104*TAMB + 8.0467x102) (212) ADENHT= 1.2975 1.6404x104*ZALT + 6.4583x109*ZALT2 1.0594x1013*ZALT3 (213) Pasquill Stability Classes Also necessary, for Eq. 21 and 22, 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 23 and 24 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 25, which generate the curves in Fig. 24 and 25. 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, Ar41, 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 21 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical Figure 22 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 23 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 24 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 22 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 25 Distance from building vs. oz(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes Table 21 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. 23) 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/kgoC) DISTAK Inner discharge diameter of stack 520 J/kgoC [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 22 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 xcoordinate XMAX Maximum distance straight downwind from stack XSTAK UTM Reference stack xcoordinate XSTEP Incremental step straight downwind from stack YGLOB UTM Global reference center ycoordinate YMAX Maximum distance laterally from stack YSTAK UTM Reference stack ycoordinate 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 23 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 24 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 AB B   AB 1.9(3.5) 2 AB B C E F BC 1.8(3.3) 4 B BC C D E CD 1.6(2.9) 6 C C D D D DE 1.0(1.8) >6 C C D D D EF >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 25 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 inhouse 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 Ar41 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 x105 Ci/s ( )R).) The details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. 31 33 [1, 2, 4, 20, 23, 24]. Additional parameters in these equations, relative to the UFTR reactor, are: the undiluted volumetric release rate of Ar41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 x104 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar41 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 = 1.24x105 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 Ar41 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 (31) Ci Ci R = IC o*f s n?~ s (3 2) Ci Ci g r = 8.147 x104~ 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 Ar41 (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. 34. C = M* 9.228 x105 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. 22 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. 23 and 24, and the wind speed at the stack was from Eq. 26 and 27. 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. 35. 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 (35) CALPUFF and Related Programs CALPUFF and its related programs are an EPA approved generalized nonsteadystate air quality modeling system; the main two related programs are CALMET and CALPOST. Note that the package does include many preprocessors for interfacing standard, readilyavailable 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 threedimensional 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 3hour 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 Ar41 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 WGS84, 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 MoninObukhov 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. 36. For further explanation, refer to the CALMET manual p. 212 214 [26]. U(z) = U(z1)1 ,Z zo ~ lnLj (36) 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. 37. 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 (37) CALPUFF Details Three main characteristics, focused on in CALPUFF, were: puff versus slug option, addition of Ar41 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 powerlaw for the compari son. Ar41 was input as a dry deposited gas; the characteristic values are described in Table 3.3 [25, 27, 28]. The diffusivity of Ar41 through air is described by Eq. 38, which include temperature in Kelvin (T), molecular weights of the species in g/mol (M), molecular volume in cm3/gmOl ( V), pressure in atm (P), and the gas constant in atmcm3/gmOlK (R) [27]. Alpha star, reactivity (nonradioactive 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 Ar41 was assumed to be similar to that of argon [28]. 4 ~MAr41 P 1 1 D =1.8 x104 e + 2 RT MAr41 MAir (VAr41 +yVi / (38) 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, Ar41 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 full power peak ground concentrations straight downwind 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 31 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar41 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) 3.15x10s 1.39x10s 6.81x1010 STAC2.1 Multiplier 3.39x104 1.50x104 7. 11x106 STAC2.1 Concentration (Ci/m3) 3. 13x10s 1 .3 8x10s 6.56x1010 % Difference: STAC2.1 vs. Manual 0.70% 0.77% 3.61% Table 32 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 33 Characteristics of Ar41 as input in CALPUFF Species Diffusivity Alpha Star Reactivity Mesophyll Resistance Henry's Law cm2/S N/A N/A s/cm Dimensionless Ar4 1 0.1535 1 0 0 3 .42 5x 102 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 34 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 35 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 1.49x10s 6.43 79 1.49x10s 2.61 79 CALPUFF 1.40x10s N/A 79 1.53x10s N/A 79 (Maximum) Table 36 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) 1.83x10s 23.65 103 1.83x10s 18.83 103 STAC2.1 1.49x10s 0.68 79 1.49x10s 3.25 79 CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.48x10s N/A 79 1.54x10s 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 onewind, 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 overall, the continuous, fullpower concentrations remain above the limit further away from the stack. To ascertain the Ar41 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 fullpower peak Ar41 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. 41. Dose Rates The total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x10s Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29]. Dose rate is linearly related to Ar41 concentration as shown in Eq. 41. Maximum fullpower dose rates and corresponding concentrations, for the quarterly and yearly Pasquill Class averages, are shown in Table 4.4. The fullpower dose rate trends, for each average Pasquill Class for each time period, is illustrated in Fig. 42. mrem Ci 50 mrem Dose = X e yr 1 1.00 x108 Ci nd (41) Table 4.5 shows possible limiting case scenario fullpower 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, fullpower 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Using the calculated peak, fullpower concentrations of Ar41, 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 1.00x10s Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. 42 [20, 23, 24]. Ar41 concentrations (X) are in Ci/m3. For units of kWhours 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 x108 C EFPH  = 720  m~o ci~ m~o m3 (42) 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 Ar41 (uy) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24x105 Ci/m3 fTOm Eq. 33. Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24x105 Ci/m3, Shown in Eq. 43. 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 x105 ci m3 (43) 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 (6.20x10s 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 Ar41 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, fullpower 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. 43 and 44 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 fullpower concentrations and doses below the limits without limiting operations hours. Table 4.10 shows the maximum, full power concentrations and dose rates, and Fig. 45 and 46 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 fullpower 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. 3.00E08 2.75E08 Ju'04 Sept '04, Class A 2.50E08 Oct'04 Dec '04, Class B 1.50E08 1.25E08 1.00E08 S7.50E309 5.00E09 2.50E09 0.00E+00  0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance from UFTR (m) Figure 41 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 42 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) for each Time Period and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes 3.75E08 3.50E08 3.25E08 3.00E08 2.75E308 2.50E08 2.25E08 2.00E08 1.75E08 1.50E08 1.25E08 1.00E08 7.50E09 5.00E09 2.50E09 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 43 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights ~~Stack Hegr  Stack Height ~~Stack He~ Stack Height 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 44 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights 1.3=F ,1 Stack Heighrt = 15.00 ml 1.20E08 Stack Heigh~t= 16.00 ml 5;1.10E08 1.00E08 I\ Stack Heigh~t= 16.50 ml 9.00E09 I gj Stack Heighrt = 17.00 ml 8.00E09 % 7.0E09Stack Height= 18.08 ml 7 .00E09 6 .00E09 5 .00E09 4.00E09 3 .00E09 2.00E09 1.00I E09I 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 11 900O 1000 Distance from UFTR (m) Figure 45 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance from UFTR (m) Figure 46 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) Table 41 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes Year F C Degrees mph m/s Jul '04Sept '04 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A Oct '04Dec '04 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B Jan '05Mar '05 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C Apr '05Jul '05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A Jul '04Jul '05 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B Table 42 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul '04Sept '04 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F Oct '04Dec '04 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F Jan '05Mar '05 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F Apr '05Jul '05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F Jul '04Jul '05 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F Table 43 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR Stability Jul04Sep04 Oct04DecO4 JanO5Mar)5 April05Jul05 Jul04Jul05 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 44 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming FullPower Continuous Operation Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Max Conc. & Dist. from Total Effective Dose Rate Classes UFTR Ci/m3 m mrem/year Jul '04Sept '04 A 2.89x108 50 145 Oct '04Dec '04 B 2.16x108 75 108 Jan '05Mar '05 C 2.28x10" 120 114 Apr '05Jul '05 A 2.99x10" 50 150 Jul '04Jul '05 B 2.34x10" 80 117 Table 45 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR, Assuming FullPower, 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 7.87x109 5.75x109 6.16x109 5.22x109 4.04x109 3.42x109 3.39x109 2.86x109 2.43x109 2.27x109 2.12x109 1.98x109 1.85x109 1.29x109 1.26x109 1.02x109 Table 46 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Atmospheric Conditions Monthly Quarters, & Day Pasquill Max. Conc. & EFPH Year Classes Dist. from UFTR Ci/m3 m hrs/mo Jul '04Sept '04 A 2.89x108 50 249.13 Oct '04Dec '04 B 2.16x10" 75 333.33 kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk 24913.49 58.90 5889.72 33333.33 78.80 7880.22 Table 46 Continued Monthly Quarters, & Day Pasquill Max. Conc. & EFPH Year Classes Dist. from UFTR Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Jan '05Mar '05 C 2.28x10" 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47 Apr '05Jul '05 A 2.99x108 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73 Jul '04Jul '05 B 2.34x10" 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05 Table 47 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 2.99x10s 415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 190 5.75x109 2157 Table 48 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 2.99x10s 415 8.00 45 3.54x10 177 9.04 50 2.99x10s 149 10.00 50 2.55x10s 128 15.00 65 1.21x10s 61 20.00 80 6.49x109 32 25.00 97 3.84x109 19 Table 410 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 1.21E08 61 16.00 70 1.06E08 53 16.50 70 9.93E09 50 17.00 70 9.30E09 47 18.08 75 8.14E09 41 Table 49 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 concentration without limiting operation times. Note that the total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x10s 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 (20042005), UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar41 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 fullpower peak concentrations of Ar41 straight downwind from the UFTR. Based on the available data and results from STAC2.1, the average yearly maximum, downwind, assuming 100% full power Ar41 concentration for the UFTR was 2.34 x10s Ci/m3 at 80m (117 mrem/yr), while the highest full power concentration (April 2005 July 2005) was 2.99 x10s 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 (2.65x10s Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89x10s Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96x10s Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09x10s Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03x10s 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: 5.75x109 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 Ar41 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 fullpower Ar41 concentrations below the limit of 1.00x10s Ci/m3 anywhere on campus. All results and analyses were used for the NRC relicensing 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, onewind 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 onewind model and the locations of the concentrations as the Ar41 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 Ar41 concentrations and necessary modifications for a possible UFTR power upgrade from 100kW to 500kW may be considered. A multifaceted study was performed as part of another effort. It included two modifications for reducing Ar41 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 Ar41 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 (A1) P1 T1 P2 T2 P1 (A2) (1.8286 ) (23773 K)(10 kllPa) P2 = (298 K) (101.325 kPa) (A3) Ar41 density: 1.653 kg/m3 Air density: 1.169 kg/m3 (1.653 ) Ratio = = 1.4 (1.169 34 Specific Heat Assumed the specific heat of Ar41 is approximated by the specific heat of Argon (520 J/kgoC). 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 (A5) 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 WGS84 10102002 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 LeafArea 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 Builtup 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 to be conservatively estimated with a simple onewind, 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 D1, 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 xaxis (parallel to the wind vector), yaxis, and zaxis. Figure D1 illustrates the basic plume and plume centerline (bold, dashed line parallel to the xaxis). 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 D2 [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 Ar41 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 Ar41; monthly concentration averages in uncontrolled spaces for Ar41 must not exceed 1.00E8 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 westsouthwest of the UFTR. Calculation Theory Implemented in STAC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs The Ar41 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 downwind ground concentration is given in Eq. (1), with variables cast as: concentration of effluent (Ar41) 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 D1 describes, in general, the characteristics attributed to each class. In addition, with regard to the effluent (Ar41), STAC 2. 1 takes into account the halflife, density ratio to air, specific heat of the bulk effluent, and the molecular weight (for pptv 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 "ByHand" and using CALPUFF The release rate, specific to the UFTR, was calculated to be 9.228 E5 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 E4 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar41 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 = 1.24E5 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 Ar41 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 D1. 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 D2, the differences in the concentrations determined via tabular "byhand" 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 "byhand" 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, Ar41 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 Ar41 parameters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to each of the four cases. The results of this comparison are given in Tables D3 and D4. 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 Ar41 downwind from the stack, and can therefore be used in establishing Ar41 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 Ar41 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 D5 and D6 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 D5 contains daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table D6 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 Ar41 based on operation of the reactor must not exceed the maximum limit of 1.00E8 Ci/m3 [16]. The peak Ar41 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 D7. Note that highlighted concentrations reflect the average stability classes for each time period. The total effective dose equivalent limit determined for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E8 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 D8. Table D9 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 Ar41 for dedicated wind directions exceed 1.00E8 Ci/m3 and 50mrem/yr. This implies a "reactor duty cycle" is needed to bring the monthly average concentration of Ar41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Operation Hours for the UFTR Using the calculated peak concentrations of Ar41, the UFTR Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH), are shown in Table D10 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 1.00E8 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. (6) [20, 24]. hrs 1.00 E 08 hr Es EFPH ma720 (6) Ar41 concentrations (X) are in Ci/m3. For units of kWhours month or kWhours/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 1.00E8 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 Ar41 (uy) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24E5Ci/m3 fTOm Eq. (5). Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24E5Ci/m3. Table D11 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 D12 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20E8 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E8 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 20042005, UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar41 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 D2), and the percent differences from CALPUFF models aliased using STAC2.1 were within +/ 19% (Tables D3 D4). Based on the available data, the average maximum Ar41 concentration determined using STAC2.1 for the reactor at full power for the year was 2.34E8 Ci/m3 downwind 80m from the UFTR (D7). The period from April 2005 July 2005, the warmest months with the slowest wind conditions, resulted in the highest maximum concentration of 2.99E8 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 D9) if the reactor were continuously operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65E8 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89E8 Ci/m3) Rhines Hall (1.96E8 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09E8 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03E8 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. 75E9 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 D10). 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 D1 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 D12). Figure D1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical Table D1 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 D2 Urban Pasquill Class "A" Ground Level Concentration of Ar41 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) 9.228E05 9.228E05 9.228E05 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) 3.15E08 1.39E08 6.81E10 [1, 4] STAC2.1 Multiplier: Release Rate is Unity 3.39E04 1.50E04 7.11E06 Calculation STAC2.1 Concentration: Multiplier UFTR Reeae ae 9.2E C/3) 3.13E08 1.38E08 6.56E10 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 D2Effect of Terrain Roughness on the WIND SPEED (m/sec) General Wind Speed Profile Table D3 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) 1.83E08 30.71 103 1.83E08 19.61 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance 1.49E08 6.43 79 1.49E08 2.61 79 as CALPUFF) CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.40E08 N/A 79 1.53E08 N/A 79 Table D4 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) 1.83E08 23.65 103 1.83E08 18.83 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance as 1.49E08 0.68 79 1.49E08 3.25 79 CALPUFF) CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.48E08 N/A 79 1.54E08 N/A 79 Table D5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 20042005) Monthly Quarters, & Temp Wind Direction Ground Wind Pasquill Classes Year Speed F C Degrees mph m/s Jul '04Sept '04 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A Oct '04Dec '04 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B Jan '05Mar '05 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C Apr '05Jul '05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A Jul '04Jul '05 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B Table D6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages (July 20042005) Monthly Quarters, & Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Year Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul '04Sept '04 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F Oct '04Dec '04 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F Jan '05Mar '05 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F Apr '05Jul '05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F Jul '04Jul '05 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F Table D7 STAC2.1 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UF TR Time Average Jul04Sep04 Oct04DecO4 JanO5Mar05 April05Jul05 Jul04Jul05 Stability Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 Classes Day A 2.89E08 50 2.62E08 44 2.86E08 47 2.99E08 50 2.83E08 45 B 2.39E08 79 2.16E08 75 2.36E08 78 2.46E08 82 2.34E08 80 C 2.32E08 119 2.09E08 111 2.28E08 120 2.39E08 123 2.27E08 115 Night F 1.09E08 775 1.08E08 865 1.08E08 750 1.09E08 835 1.09E08 800 Highlighted concentrations reflect the average stability classes for each time period Table D8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, 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 '04Sept '04 A 2.89E08 50 145 Oct '04Dec '04 B 2.16E08 75 108 Jan '05Mar '05 C 2.28E08 120 114 Apr '05Jul '05 A 2.99E08 50 150 Jul '04Jul '05 B 2.34E08 80 117 Table D9 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) 7.14E10 2.65E08 2.89E08 1.96E08 1.09E08 1.03E08 7.87E09 5.75E09 6.16E09 5.22E09 4.04E09 3.42E09 2.86E09 2.43E09 2.27E09 2.12E09 1.98E09 1.85E09 1.29E09 1.26E09 1.02E09 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 D10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Daytime Atmospheric Conditions Monthly Day Daytime Max. Conc. EFPH Quarters, & Year Pasquill & Dist. from UFTR Classes Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kV Jul '04Sept '04 A 2.89E08 50 249.13 Whrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk 24913.49 58.90 5889.72 Table D10 Continued Monthly Day Daytime Max. Conc. EFPH Quarters, & Year Pasquill & Dist. from UFTR Classes Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Oct '04Dec '04 B 2. 16E08 75 333.33 33333.33 78.80 7880.22 Jan '05Mar '05 C 2.28E08 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47 Apr '05Jul '05 A 2.99E08 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73 Jul '04Jul '05 B 2.34E08 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05 Table D11 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 1.48E08 838 Maximum Concentration 50 2.99E08 415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 190 5.75E09 2157 Table D12 Dilution Ratio Comparison Location Concentration Dilution Ratio (Top Dilution Ratio (Ci/m3) Of stack: Other) (STAC2.1: SOP) Top of Stack 1.24E05 N/A N/A UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20E08 200 2.07 Maximum Concentration 2.99E08 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, TID25075. [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 Energy1968, US AEC Report TID24190. [6] Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. OFCM directory of atmospheric transport and diffusion consequence assessment models. Retrieved from the Internet 8805, 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 81005, http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/userg/regmod/iscv.d [8] Sjoden G., and V. S. Comelison, 20052008. 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 7105, http://www.phys.ufl .edu/weather/ [10] Los Alamos National Labs Chemistry Division. Argon. Retrieved from the Internet 43008, http://periodic.1anl.gov/elements/1 8.html [1 l] University of Florida campus map. Retrieved from the Intemet on 8505, 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. NUREG1873. December 2007. Retrieved from the Internet 5108, http://www.nrc. gov/readingrm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/srl 873/srl 873 .pdf [13] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute. 18Argon. Retrieved from the Intemet 43008, 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 5508, 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 72305, http ://www.nrc.gov.edgesuite.net/reading rm/doccoll ecti ons/cfr/part020/fulltext. html#part020 100 1 [17] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10CFR40 Protection of environment, Part 61. Retrieved from the Internet 8805, 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 51208, 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 fullpower hours of operation. Memorandum. University of Florida. [21] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Table of Nuclides: Ar41. 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 31208, 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 31808, http://www. nrc. gov/readi ngrm/doc collect on s/cfr/p art020O/p art020Oappb .html [30] Kotroni, V. and K. Lagouvardos, November 2004: Evaluation of MM5 highresolution real time forecasts over the urban area of Athens, Greece. Journal ofApplied2\~eteorology. 43, No. 11, 166678. [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, 190630. [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, 14778. Retrieved from the Internet 52908, 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 Energy1968, 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 ARGON41 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 ...................................................................... 12Ar41 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 ByHand 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 21STAC2.1 Variables for Height of the Plume Centerline Calculated in Code .................... 2422STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values ...................................................................... 2423Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ............................................................................. 2524Pasquills Relations to Weather Categories ....................................................................... 2625Briggs Derived Formulas for Standa rd Deviations of Horizontal ( y(x)) and Vertical ( z(x)) Crosswinds Based on Pas quills Stability Classes ................................................. 2631Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concen tration of Ar41 Manual Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) .......3432Average weather conditions from CALMET test case for STAC2.1 use .......................... 3433Characteristics of Ar41 as input in CALPUFF ................................................................. 3434CALPUFF Stack Parameter Input ..................................................................................... 3535STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Puff Model ...............................................3536STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF Comparison with a Slug Model ...............................................3541Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages ....................................... 4342Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Y early Atmospheric Averages .................................... 4343Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR .... 4344Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum C oncentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming FullPower Continuous Operation ............... 4445Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Con centrations for Buildings near the UFTR, Assuming FullPower, Continuous Operation ................................................................... 4446UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions ....................................................................................................4447Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ......................4548Dilution Ratio Comparison ................................................................................................4549Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates, and Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height .....................................................................................................45 PAGE 8 8 410Maximum Concentrations, Dose Rates and, Corresponding Distances from the UFTR per Stack Height .....................................................................................................45D1Pasquill Weather Condition Categories ............................................................................. 65D2Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Conc entration of Ar41 Hand Calculation vs. STAC2.1 Results at Various Distances from the UFTR (July 2004 July 2005) .......65D3STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALGROUP Comparison with a Puff Model......................... 66D4STAC 2.1 and CALPUFF/CALPGROUP Comparison with a Slug Model ......................66D5Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly At mospheric Averages (July 20042005) .......... 66D6Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmo spheric Averages (July 20042005) ........ 66D7STAC2.1 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UFTR 66D8Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximu m STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming Full Power Continuous Operation............................................................................................................................67D9 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 ......................................................................................................... .67D10UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions ....................................................................................................67D11Dilution Ratios based on Concentrations and Relevant Campus Locations ......................68D12Dilution Ratio Comparison ................................................................................................68 PAGE 9 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 11Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed ............................ 1512University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida .......................................................1513UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus ......................................................1621Coordinate System of Gaussian distribu tions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 2222Northeasterly wind direction .............................................................................................. 2223Effect of Terrain Roughness on th e General Wind Speed Profile ..................................... 2324Distance from building vs. y(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........ 2325Distance from building vs. z(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes ........ 2441Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period ............................................................................... 4042Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period .............................................................................................4143Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights ................................................................................................................. ....4144Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights 4245Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) ............................................. 4246Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) ............................................................43D1Coordinate System of Gaussian distribu tions straight downwind, horizontal, and vertical 64D2Effect of Terrain Roughness on th e General Wind Speed Profile ..................................... 65 PAGE 10 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ar40 Isotope of Argon with a mass of 40; atomic number is 18. Ar41 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 ARGON41 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 Ar41 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 relicensing 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 Ar41 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. Ar41 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]. Ar40 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]. Ar41, in reference to the reactor, originates from leakage neutrons undergoing capture by Ar40 [12]. Ar40 is present throughout the air spaces surrounding the UFTR fuel. Eq. 11 shows the activation of Ar40. No te that the halflife of Ar41 is 1.83 hours. (11) 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% U235); 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. 11 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 Ar41 is a limiting para meter for the operations cycle of the UFTR. Monthly concentration averages for Ar41, as determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing regulations, must not exceed 1x108 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 Ar41 and surrounding terrain relative to the UFTR, two maps are shown in Fig. 12 and 13 [11]. Fig. 12 contains the UF Campus main campus, and the relative position, indicated in the small black box, to the campus. Fig. 13 focuses on the more specific campus location of the UFTR, from the black box of Fig. 12. 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 westsouthwest of the UFTR and in the path of a wind direction from eastnortheast. Purpose of this Research The purpose of this work was to determine an estimate, using independent methods, of the Ar41 concentrations and dose rates predicted at various downwind ranges. Results from this study were used in reporting the Ar41 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 Ar41 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 [14 ], 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 Ar41 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 11 Locations of Air inside the UFTR, with Concrete Shielding Removed Figure 12 University of Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida PAGE 16 16 Figure 13 UFTR Location on the University of Florida Campus PAGE 17 17 CHAPTER 2 THEORY AND BASIS FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSION IN THE STAC2.1 CODE Ar41 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 threedimensions, 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. 21 [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 Gaussianlike 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. 22 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. 23 [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 Ar41, at ground level, is calculated in Eq. 21 by using the listed parameters. The variables for Eq. 21 are: concentration of efflue nt (Ar41) 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 (xvalue) from the stack ( y(x)) in meters, and vertical standard deviation for the crosswind straight downwi nd (xvalue) from the stack (z(x)) in meters. (21) To account for offcenter lateral dispersion in both di rections, downwind from the stack, Eq. 22 is applied. Note Eq. 21 does not acc ount for lateral movement; all yvalues are implicitly equal to 0.0. (22) 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. 23. All heights are measured in meters. (23) 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 [14]. This code was used to determine the downwind concentrations of Ar41 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 21 and 22 as well as Eq. 23 213. 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. 23. Table 21 shows the information calculated in STAC2.1 pertaining to the height of the plume centerline. Table 22 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 Ar41 were: specific heat (CPEFF) density ratio to dry air (EDF) plume type (HASUME) molecular weight (MOLWT) release rate (QSC) halflife (THALF) The specific heat of Argon was used as an approximation of that for Ar41 (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. 24 is the simple calculation used to find the height of the plume centerline above the UFTR stack. Eq. 25 213 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 (24) FBUOY = 4.0 x105*QHEFF (25) UWV = UGND / (4.141x1010*SMEAS4 + 3.668x107*SMEAS3 (26) 1.115x104*SMEAS2 + 0.01470*SMEAS + 0.04573) USTAK = 4.141 x1010*UWV*SHSTAK4 + 3.668x107*SHSTAK3 (27) 1.115x104*SHSTAK2 + 0.01470*SHSTAK + 0.04573 QHEFF = (SMDOT*CPEFF (TSTAK TAMB))/4.184 (28) SMDOT = EDF*ADEN*VSTAK*ASTAK (29) PAGE 21 21 ADEN = 0.5 (ADENT + ADENHT) (210) ASTAK = PI (DISTAK/2.0)2 (211) ADENT = 16.019 (2.8124x104*TAMB + 8.0467x102) (212) ADENHT= 1.2975 1.6404x104*ZALT + 6.4583x109*ZALT2 1.0594x1013*ZALT3 (213) Pasquill Stability Classes Also necessary, for Eq. 21 and 22, 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 23 and 24 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 25, which generate the curves in Fig. 24 and 25. 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, Ar41, 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 21 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions stra ight downwind, horizontal, and vertical Figure 22 Northeasterly wind direction PAGE 23 23 Figure 23 Effect of Terrain Roughne ss on the General Wind Speed Profile Figure 24 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 25 Distance from building vs. z(x) with results varying as Pasquill's stability classes Table 21 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. 23) SHDLTA Height of the plume centerline above the source USTAK Mean wind velocity at the stack UWV Upper maximum wind velocity Table 22 STAC2.1 Code Input Variables and Values Variables Variable Descri ptions Values Reference CPEFF Specific heat of effluent (Air =1004.83 J/kgoC) 520 J/kgoC [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 22 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 xcoordinate 17 Assumed XMAX Maximum distance straight downwind from stack 2501.0 m Assumed XSTAK UTM Reference stack xcoordinate 0 Assumed XSTEP Incremental step straight downwind from stack 5.0 m Assumed YGLOB UTM Global reference center ycoordinate 0 Assumed YMAX Maximum distance latera lly from stack 301.0 m Assumed YSTAK UTM Reference stack ycoordinate 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 23 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 24 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 AB B AB 1.9(3.5) 2 AB B C E F BC 1.8(3.3) 4 B BC C D E CD 1.6(2.9) 6 C C D D D DE 1.0(1.8) >6 C C D D D EF >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 25 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 inhouse 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 Ar41 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 x105 Ci/s ( ) The details of this release source term are depicted in Eq. 31 33 [1, 2, 4, 20, 23, 24]. Additional parameters in these equations, rela tive to the UFTR reactor, are: the undiluted volumetric release rate of Ar41 from the reactor at 100kW (full power) (8.147 x104 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar41 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 ( = 1.24x105 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 Ar41 comes from the core (reactor) via the core vent, which is then dispersed by both the core vent and the dilution fan [23, 24]. (31) (32) R f CoreVentFlowRateft3 min fft3 mi n RC i s C i m 3f m 3 s PAGE 28 28 (33) 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 Ar41 (C), from STAC2.1, were calculated by multiplying these gene ral concentrations by the specific release rate, 9.228 x 105 Ci/s; as shown in Eq. 34. (34) 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. 22 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. 23 and 24, and the wind speed at the stack was from Eq. 26 and 27. 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. 35. For Table 3.1, th e theoretical value was considered to be the manual term, and the experimental value was from STAC2.1. (35) CALPUFF and Related Programs CALPUFF and its related programs are an EPA approved generalized nonsteadystate air quality modeling system; the main two related programs are CALMET and CALPOST. Note that the package does include many pr eprocessors for interfacing standard, readilyavailable 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 threedimensional 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 3hour 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 Ar41 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 WGS84, 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 nObukhov 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. 36. For furt her explanation, re fer to the CALMET manual p. 212 214 [26]. PAGE 32 32 (36) 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. 37. 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). (37) CALPUFF Details Three main characteristics, focused on in CALPUFF, were: puff versus slug option, addition of Ar41 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 powerlaw for the comparison. Ar41 was input as a dry deposit ed gas; the characteristic valu es are described in Table 3.3 [25, 27, 28]. The diffusivity of Ar41 through air is described by Eq. 38, which include temperature in Kelvin (T), molecular weights of the species in g/mol (M), molecular volume in cm3/gmol (), pressure in atm (P), and the gas constant in atmcm3/gmolK (R) [27]. Alpha star, reactivity (nonradi 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 Ar41 was assumed to be similar to that of argon [28]. (38) 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, Ar41 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 fullpower peak ground concentrations st raight downwind 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 31 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level C oncentration of Ar41 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) 3.15x1081.39x1086.81x1010 STAC2.1 Multiplier 3.39x1041.50x1047.11x106 STAC2.1 Concentration (Ci/m3) 3.13x1081.38x1086.56x1010 % Difference: STAC2.1 vs. Manual 0.70%0.77%3.61% Table 32 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 33 Characteristics of Ar41 as input in CALPUFF Species Diffusivity Alpha Star Reactiv ity Mesophyll Resistance Henry's Law cm2/s N/A N/A s/cm Dimensionless Ar41 0.1535 100 3.425x102 PAGE 35 35 Table 34 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 35 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) 1.83x10830.711031.83x10819.61 103 STAC2.1 1.49x1086.43791.49x1082.61 79 CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.40x108N/A791.53x108N/A 79 Table 36 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) 1.83x108 23.65 103 1.83x108 18.83 103 STAC2.1 1.49x108 0.68 79 1.49x108 3.25 79 CALPUFF (Maximum) 1.48x108 N/A 79 1.54x108 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 onewind, 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 overall, the continuous, fullpower concentrations remain above the limit further away from the stack. To ascertain the Ar41 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 fullpower peak Ar41 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. 41. PAGE 37 37 Dose Rates The total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x108 Ci/m3, inhaled or ingested continuously over a year [29]. Dose rate is linearly related to Ar41 concen tration as shown in Eq. 41. Ma ximum fullpower dose rates and corresponding concentrations, for the quarterly a nd yearly Pasquill Class averages, are shown in Table 4.4. The fullpower dose rate trends, for each average Pasquill Class for each time period, is illustrated in Fig. 42. (41) Table 4.5 shows possible limiting case scenario fullpower 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, fullpower 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 Ar41 for dedicated wind directions exceed 1.00x108 Ci/m3 and 50 mrem/yr. This implies that a reactor duty cycle must be applied to bring the mont hly average concentration of Ar41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Using the calculated peak, fullpower concen trations of Ar41, 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 1.00x108 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are cal culated using Eq. 42 [20, 23, 24]. Ar41 c oncentrations ( ) are in Ci/m3. For units of kWhours 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]. (42) Therefore, on average, to remain below the annual limit of 1.00x108Ci/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 Ar41 ( ) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24x105 Ci/m3 from Eq. 33. Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentrations in question by 1.24x105 Ci/m3, shown in Eq. 43. 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). (43) 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 (6.20x108 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 Ar41 from the UFTR to below the limits of 1.00x108 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, fullpower 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. 43 and 44 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 fullpower concentrations and doses below the limits without limiting operati ons hours. Table 4.10 shows the maximum, fullpower concentrations and dose rates, and Fig. 45 and 46 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 fullpower 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 41 Ground Peak Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period PAGE 41 41 Figure 42 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m ) from the UFTR for Average Pasquill Classes for each Time Period Figure 43 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights PAGE 42 42 Figure 44 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Various Stack Heights Figure 45 Ar41 Ground Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) PAGE 43 43 Figure 46 Ar41 Dose Rates (mrem/yr) and Distance (m) from the UFTR for Stack Heights around the Concentration Limit (1.00x108 Ci/m3) Table 41 Daytime Monthly, Quarterl y, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul 04Sept 4 83.38 28.54 160.77 5.09 2.28 A Oct 04Dec 4 69.21 20.67 143.81 6.63 2.96 B Jan 5Mar 5 63.73 17.63 182.61 5.31 2.37 C Apr 5Jul 05 77.63 25.35 181.25 4.66 2.08 A Jul 04Jul 5 73.49 23.05 167.11 5.42 2.42 B Table 42 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly Atmospheric Averages Monthly Quarters, & Year Temperature Wind Direction Wind Speed Pasquill Classes F C Degrees mph m/s Jul 04Sept 4 77.89 25.50 158.09 3.10 1.39 F Oct 04Dec 4 62.94 17.19 134.13 2.47 1.10 F Jan 5Mar 5 57.34 14.08 183.31 3.31 1.48 F Apr 5Jul 05 70.90 21.61 166.16 2.66 1.19 F Jul 04Jul 5 67.27 19.59 160.42 2.89 1.29 F Table 43 Urban Ground Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from the UFTR Stability Classes Jul04Sep04 Oct04Dec04 Jan05Mar05 April05Jul05 Jul04Jul05 Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m A 2.89x108 50 2.62x108 44 2.86x108 47 2.99x108 50 2.83x108 45 B 2.39x108 79 2.16x108 75 2.36x108 78 2.46x108 82 2.34x108 80 C 2.32x108 119 2.09x108 111 2.28x108 120 2.39x108 123 2.27x108 115 F 1.09x108 775 1.08x108 865 1.08x108 750 1.09x108 835 1.09x108 800 PAGE 44 44 Table 44 Total Effective Dose Rate and Maximum Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, Assuming FullPower Continuous Operation Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max Conc. & Dist. from UFTR Total Effective Dose Rate Ci/m3 m mrem/year Jul 04Sept 4 A 2.89x108 50 145 Oct Dec 04 B 2.16x108 75 108 Jan 05Mar 05 C 2.28x108 120 114 Apr 5Jul 05 A 2.99x108 50 150 Jul Jul 05 B 2.34x108 80 117 Table 45 Total Effective Dose Rate and Peak Concentrations for Buildings near the UFTR, Assuming FullPower, Continuous Operation Buildings on Campus ~Distance from UFTR (m) ~Wind Direction (deg) Max. Conc. (Ci/m3) Dose (mrem/yr) Reed Lab. (RLA) 20 180 7.14x1010 4 Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265 2.65x108 133 Weil Hall (WEIL) Main Eng. 63 170 2.89x108 145 Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80 1.96x108 98 Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0 1.09x108 55 Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MAEC) 137 80 1.03x108 52 Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40 7.87x109 39 East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80 5.75x109 29 Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95 6.16x109 31 Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAEB) 200 40 5.22x109 26 North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93 4.04x109 20 Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170 3.42x109 17 Weaver Hall (WEA) Housing 251 80 3.39x109 17 Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85 2.86x109 14 Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110 2.43x109 12 Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93 2.27x109 11 Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50 2.12x109 11 OConnell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125 1.98x109 10 Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115 1.85x109 9 Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50 1.29x109 6 Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55 1.26x109 6 Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135 1.02x109 5 Table 46 UFTR Hours of Operation Ba sed on Peak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) for Daytime Atmospheric Conditions Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Jul 04Sept 4 A 2.89x108 50 249.13 24913.49 58.90 5889.72 Oct Dec 04 B 2.16x108 75 333.33 33333.33 78.80 7880.22 PAGE 45 45 Table 46 Continued Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Jan 05Mar 05 C 2.28x108 120 315.79 31578.95 74.65 7465.47 Apr 05Jul A 2.99x108 50 240.80 24080.27 56.93 5692.73 Jul Jul 05 B 2.34x108 80 307.69 30769.23 72.74 7274.05 Table 47 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 301.48x108838 Maximum Concentration 502.99x108415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 1905.75x1092157 Table 48 Dilution Ratio Comparison Location Concentration (Ci/m3) Dilution Ratio (Top of stack: Other) Difference Ratio (STAC2.1:SOP) UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20x108200 2.07 Maximum Concentration 2.99x108415 Table 49 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 8.00 453.54x108177 9.04 50 2.99x108149 10.00 502.55x108128 15.00 651.21x10861 20.00 806.49x10932 25.00 973.84x10919 Table 410 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 15.00 651.21E0861 16.00 70 1.06E08 53 16.50 70 9.93E09 50 17.00 70 9.30E09 47 18.08 75 8.14E09 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 concentration without limiting operation times. Note that the total effective dose equivalent limit for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00x108 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 (20042005), UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar41 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 fullpower peak concentrations of Ar41 st raight downwind from the UFTR. Based on the available data and results from STAC2.1, the average yearly maximum, downwind, assuming 100% full power Ar41 concentration for the UFTR was 2.34 x108 Ci/m3 PAGE 47 47 at 80m (117 mrem/yr), while the highest full pow er concentration (April 2005 July 2005) was 2.99 x108 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 (2.65x108 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89x108 Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96x108 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09x108 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03x108 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: 5.75x109 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 Ar41 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 fullpo wer Ar41 concentrations below the limit of 1.00x108 Ci/m3 anywhere on campus. All results and analyses were used for the NRC relicensing 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, onewind 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 onewind model and the locations of the concentrations as the Ar41 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 Ar41 concen trations and necessary modifications for a possible UFTR power upgrade from 100kW to 500k W may be considered. A multifaceted study was performed as part of anot her effort. It included two m odifications for reducing Ar41 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 Ar41 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: (A1) (A2) (A3) Ar41 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 (A4) Specific Heat Assumed the specific heat of Ar41 is approximated by the specific heat of Argon (520 J/kgoC). 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 (A5) 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 WGS84 10102002 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 to be conservatively estimated with a simple onewind, 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 D1, 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 xaxis (parallel to the wind vector), yaxis, and zaxis. Figure D1 illustrates the basic plume and plume centerline (bold, dashed line para llel to the xaxis). 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 D2 [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 Ar4 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 Ar41; monthly co ncentration averages in uncontrolled spaces for Ar41 must not exceed 1.00E8 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 westsouthwest of the UFTR. Calculation Theory Implemented in ST AC2.1: Gauss, Pasquill, and Briggs The Ar41 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 downwind grou nd concentration is given in Eq. (1), with variables cast as: concentration of effluent (Ar41) 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 D1 describes, in general, the characteristics attributed to each class. In addition, with regard to the effluent (Ar41), STAC 2.1 takes into account the halflife, density ratio to air, specific heat of the bulk effluent, and th e molecular weight (for pptv 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 ByHand and using CALPUFF The release rate, specific to the UFTR, was calculated to be 9.228 E5 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 E4 Ci/m3), the total stack flow rate for Ar41 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 ( = 1.24E5 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 Ar41 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 105 Ci/s. All calculations were verified, independentl y, by hand, as shown in Table D1. 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 D2, the differences in the concentrations determined via tabula r byhand 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 byha 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, Ar41 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 Ar41 parameters used in CALPUFF, and then compared to each of the four cases. The results of this comparison are given in Tables D3 and D4. 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 Ar41 downwind from the stack, and can therefore be used in establis hing Ar41 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 Ar41 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 D5 and D6 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 D5 contains daytime, 7am 7pm, results, while Table D6 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 r41 based on operation of the reactor must not exceed the maximum limit of 1.00E8 Ci/m3 [16]. The peak Ar41 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 D7. Note that highlighted concentrations reflect the average stability classes for each time period. The total effective dose equivalent limit determ ined for Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E8 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 D8. Table D9 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 Ar41 for dedicated Dose mre m yrCi m35 0 mre m 1.00E08Ci m 3 PAGE 61 61 wind directions exceed 1.00E8 Ci/m3 and 50mrem/yr. This implies a reactor duty cycle is needed to bring the monthly average concentr ation of Ar41 below the maximum allowable concentrations. Operation Hours for the UFTR Using the calculated peak concentrations of Ar41, the UFTR Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH), are shown in Table D10 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 1.00E8 Ci/m3 [16, 29]. EFPH are calculated using Eq. (6) [20, 24]. (6) Ar41 concentrations ( ) are in Ci/m3. For units of kWhours month or kWhours/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 1.00E8 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 Ar41 ( ) at the top of the stack, before being affected by the environment, is approximately 1.24E5Ci/m3 from Eq. (5). Dilution factors are calculated by dividing concentra tions in question by 1.24E5Ci/m3. Table D11 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 D12 illustrates the difference between the two ratios using the concentration calculated from the UFTR SOP (6.20E8 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 Ar41 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 Ar41 is 50 mrem per year at a maximum concentration of 1.00E8 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 20042005, UFTR discharge stack parameters, and Ar41 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 D2), and the percent differences from CALPUFF models aliased using STAC2.1 were with in +/19% (Tables D3 D4). Based on the available data, the average maximum Ar41 concentration determined using STAC2.1 for the reactor at full pow er for the year was 2.34E8 Ci/m3 downwind 80m from the UFTR (D7). The period from April 2005 July 2005, the warmest months with the slowest wind conditions, resulted in the highest maximum concentration of 2.99E8 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 D9) if the reactor we re continuously operated at full power; this included Weimer Hall (2.65E8 Ci/m3), Weil Hall (2.89E8 Ci/m3), Rhines Hall (1.96E8 Ci/m3), Reitz Student Union (1.09E8 Ci/m3), and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering C building (1.03E8 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. 75E9 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 D10). 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 D11). 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 D12). Figure D1 Coordinate System of Gaussian distributions strai ght downwind, horizontal, and vertical PAGE 65 65 Figure D2 Effect of Terrain Roughne ss on the General Wind Speed Profile Table D1 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 D2 Urban Pasquill Class A Ground Level Concentration of Ar41 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) 9.228E05 9.228E05 9.228E05 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) 3.15E08 1.39E08 6.81E10 [1, 4] STAC2.1 Multiplier: Release Rate is Unity 3.39E04 1.50E04 7.11E06 Calculation STAC2.1 Concentration: Multiplier UFTR Release Rate (9.228E5 Ci/m3) 3.13E08 1.38E08 6.56E10 Calculation % Difference: STAC2.1 vs. By Hand 0.70% 0.77% 3.61% Calculation PAGE 66 66 Table D3 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) 1.83E08 30.71 103 1.83E08 19.61 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance as CALPUFF) 1.49E08 6.43 79 1.49E08 2.61 79 CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.40E08 N/A 79 1.53E08 N/A 79 Table D4 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) 1.83E08 23.65 103 1.83E08 18.83 103 STAC2.1 (Same Distance as CALPUFF) 1.49E08 0.68 79 1.49E08 3.25 79 CALPUFF/CALGROUP 1.48E08 N/A 79 1.54E08 N/A 79 Table D5 Daytime Monthly, Quarterly, & Y early Atmospheric Averages (July 20042005) 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 D6 Nighttime Monthly, Quarterly, & Yearly At mospheric Averages (July 20042005) 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 D7 STAC2.1 Urban Ground P eak Ar41 Concentrations (Ci/m3) and Distance (m) from UFTR Time Average Stability Classes Jul04Sep04 Oct04Dec04 Jan05Mar05 April05Jul05 Jul04Jul05 Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Ci/m3 m Day A 2.89E08 50 2.62E08 44 2.86E08 47 2.99E08 50 2.83E08 45 B 2.39E08 79 2.16E08 75 2.36E08 78 2.46E08 82 2.34E08 80 C 2.32E08 119 2.09E08 111 2.28E08 120 2.39E08 123 2.27E08 115 Night F 1.09E08 775 1.08E08 865 1.08E08 750 1.09E08 835 1.09E08 800 Highlighted concentrations reflect the av erage stability classes for each time period PAGE 67 67 Table D8 Total Effective Dose Rate and Ma ximum STAC2.1 Concentration Values for the Monthly and Yearly Averages for 20042005, 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 04Sept 4 A 2.89E08 50 145 Oct 04Dec 4 B 2.16E08 75 108 Jan 05Mar 05 C 2.28E08 120 114 Apr 5Jul 05 A 2.99E08 50 150 Jul 04Jul 5 B 2.34E08 80 117 Table D9 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 7.14E10 4 Weimer Hall (WEIM) 40 265 2.65E08 133 Weil Hall (WEIL) Main Eng. 63 170 2.89E08 145 Rhines Hall (RHN) Mat. Sci. 91 80 1.96E08 98 Reitz Student Union (REI) 133 0 1.09E08 55 Mech.& Aerospace Eng. C (MAE C) 137 80 1.03E08 52 Mat. Eng. (MAE) 160 40 7.87E09 39 East Hall (EAS) (Closest Housing) 190 80 5.75E09 29 Gator Corner Dining (FSF) 183 95 6.16E09 31 Mech. & Aerospace Eng. B (MAE B) 200 40 5.22E09 26 North Hall (NOR) Housing 229 93 4.04E09 20 Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (STA) Football 250 170 3.42E09 17 Riker Hall (RIK) Housing 274 85 2.86E09 14 Van Fleet Hall (VAN) ROTC 298 110 2.43E09 12 Tolbert Hall (TOL) Housing 309 93 2.27E09 11 Graham Hall Housing (GRA) 320 50 2.12E09 11 OConnell Center (SOC) Swim & Sports 331 125 1.98E09 10 Carse Swim/ Dive (SWIM) Athletics 343 115 1.85E09 9 Trusler Hall (TRU) Housing 411 50 1.29E09 6 Simpson Hall (SIM) Housing 417 55 1.26E09 6 Parking Garage VII (OCONNEL) 463 135 1.02E09 5 Table D10 UFTR Hours of Operation Based on Peak Ar41 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 kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Jul Sept 04 A 2.89E0850 249.13 24913.4958.90 5889.72 PAGE 68 68 Table D10 Continued Monthly Quarters, & Year Day Pasquill Classes Daytime Max. Conc. & Dist. from UFTR EFPH Ci/m3 m hrs/mo kWhrs/mo hrs/wk kWhrs/wk Oct Dec B 2.16E0875 333.33 33333.3378.80 7880.22 Jan Mar C 2.28E08120 315.79 31578.9574.65 7465.47 Apr Jul 05 A 2.99E0850 240.80 24080.2756.93 5692.73 Jul Jul 5 B 2.34E0880 307.69 30769.2372.74 7274.05 Table D11 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 301.48E08838 Maximum Concentration 502.99E08 415 East Hall (Closest Dorm) 1905.75E09 2157 Table D12 Dilution Ratio Comparison Location Concentration (Ci/m3) Dilution Ratio (Top of stack: Other) Dilution Ratio (STAC2.1:SOP) Top of Stack 1.24E05 N/A N/A UFTR SOP (Using 200:1) 6.20E08 200 2.07 Maximum Concentration 2.99E08 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, TID25075. [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 Energy1968, US AEC Report TID24190. [6] Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. OFCM dire ctory of atmospheric transport and diffusion consequence assessment models Retrieved from the Internet 8805, 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 81005, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/userg/regmod/isc3v2.pdf [8] Sjoden G., and V. S. Cornelison, 20052008. 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 7105, http://www.phys.ufl.edu/weather/ [10] Los Alamos National Labs Chemistry Division. Argon. Retrie ved from the Internet 43008, http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/18.html [11] University of Florid a cam pus map. Retrieved from the Internet on 8505, 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. NUREG1873. December 2007. Retrieved from the Internet 5108, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1873/sr1873.pdf [13] Korean Atom ic Energy Research Institute. 18Argon. Retrieved from the Internet 43008, 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 5508, 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 72305, http://www.nrc.gov.edgesuite.net/readingrm /doccollections/cfr/par t020/fulltext.html#part0201001 [17] U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10C FR40 Protection of environment, Part 61. Retrieved from the Internet 8805, 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 51208, 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 fullpower hours of operation. Memorandum. Un iversity of Florida. [21] Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Table of Nuclides: Ar41. 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 31208, 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 31808, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/cfr/part020 /part020appb.htm l [30] Kotroni, V. and K. Lagouvardos, November 2004: Evaluation of MM5 highresolution realtime forecasts over the urban area of Athens, Greece. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 43, No. 11, 166678. [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, 190630. [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, 14778. Retrieved from the Internet 52908, 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 Energy1968, 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 UTF8 REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchemainstance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd INGEST IEID E20101107_AAAABM INGEST_TIME 20101107T15:05:21Z 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 SHA1 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 