Engineering topics

Flaherty, Julia E.

Publications and source records attributed to Flaherty, Julia E..

5 records

DOE OSTI2024

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation (Rev.1)

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of discovering that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stacks. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. For this analysis, the range of qualified flow rates listed is conservatively based on the average DV through 6 DV for LV-S1, LV-S2, and LV-C2, and 1/3 DV to 3 DV for LV-S3. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the conservative lower and upper qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAW facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the upper qualified stack.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

ARM FY2024 Radar Plan

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s radar capability aims to provide high-quality radar observations to the scientific community, advancing the understanding of clouds and precipitation processes and ultimately improving climate models. ARM operates radars across a spectrum of frequencies with diverse scanning capacities (Table 1) to meet these scientific goals. The maintenance, operations, and management of these distributed radars at sites in various climate regimes require a substantial staffing commitment. However, the existing staffing resources are constrained, making it impractical to sustain the consistent high-quality operations that are expected by the ARM user community. In response, ARM needs to develop priorities for the radar team each year. This report lays out the forthcoming priorities for Financial Year 2024 (FY24), aiming to establish a structure for the ongoing management of radar operations and data processing.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of the 3430 Building Filtered Exhaust Stack Sampling Probe Location: Stack Verification Following Fan and Air Blender Additions

The velocity uniformity and flow angle results from the 3430 stack verification tests, performed in April 2023, demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location. The measured velocity uniformity verification test result was 2.1 %COV. This value is well within the uniformity criterion, which is that the velocity uniformity be =20 %COV. Additionally, this value is well within the criterion that the actual stack measurement must be within 5% of the surrogate stack (i.e., CFD modeled stack); in this case the CFD modeled average result of 2.85 %COV for the nominal operating range of 22,800 cfm to 62,400 cfm. Additionally, the measured average flow angle at the 3430 stack monitor location was 5.6 degrees. The result is =20 degrees, so the criterion is met.

3430 Building↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗