Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

AX Tank Farm tank removal study  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report examines the feasibility of remediating ancillary equipment associated with the 241-AX Tank Farm at the Hanford Site. Ancillary equipment includes surface structures and equipment, process waste piping, ventilation components, wells, and pits, boxes, sumps, and tanks used to make waste transfers to/from the AX tanks and adjoining tank farms. Two remedial alternatives are considered: (1) excavation and removal of all ancillary equipment items, and (2) in-situ stabilization by grout filling, the 241-AX Tank Farm is being employed as a strawman in engineering studies evaluating clean and landfill closure options for Hanford single-shell tanks. This is one of several reports being prepared for use by the Hanford Tanks Initiative Project to explore potential closure options and to develop retrieval performance evaluation criteria for tank farms.

SKELLY, W.A.

1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

2

AX Tank Farm tank removal study  

SciTech Connect

This report considers the feasibility of exposing, demolishing, and removing underground storage tanks from the 241-AX Tank Farm at the Hanford Site. For the study, it was assumed that the tanks would each contain 360 ft{sup 3} of residual waste (corresponding to the one percent residual Inventory target cited in the Tri-Party Agreement) at the time of demolition. The 241-AX Tank Farm is being employed as a ''strawman'' in engineering studies evaluating clean and landfill closure options for Hanford single-shell tank farms. The report is one of several reports being prepared for use by the Hanford Tanks Initiative Project to explore potential closure options and to develop retrieval performance evaluation criteria for tank farms.

SKELLY, W.A.

1998-10-14T23:59:59.000Z

3

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2011 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

May 2011 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2011 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary More Documents & Publications Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary -...

4

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2010 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

September 2010 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2010 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank...

5

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

September 2009 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2009 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank...

6

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - February 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

February 2009 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - February 2009 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank...

7

Tank farms essential drawing plan  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this document is to define criteria for selecting Essential Drawings, Support Drawings, and Controlled Print File (CPF) drawings and documents for facilities that are part of East and West Tank Farms. Also, the drawings and documents that meet the criteria are compiled separate listings. The Essential Drawing list and the Support Drawing list establish a priority for updating technical baseline drawings. The CPF drawings, denoted by an asterisk (*), defined the drawings and documents that Operations is required to maintain per the TWRS Administration Manual. The Routing Boards in Buildings 272-WA and 272-AW are not part of the CPF.

Domnoske-Rauch, L.A.

1998-08-04T23:59:59.000Z

8

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2009 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - September 2009 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm...

9

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2010 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2010 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting...

10

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - July 2010 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

July 2010 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - July 2010 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm...

11

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

09 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - May 2009 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting...

12

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - January 2010 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - January 2010 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting...

13

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - January 2011 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

1 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - January 2011 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting...

14

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - October 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

October 2009 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - October 2009 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Hanford Site C Tank Farm...

15

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - March 2010 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

March 2010 Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary - March 2010 Meeting Summary for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Meeting Summary for...

16

ICPP Tank Farm planning through 2012  

SciTech Connect

Historically, liquid high-level waste (HLW) generated at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant has been stored in the Tank Farm after which it is calcined with the calcine being stored in stainless steel bins. Following the curtailment of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in 1992, the HLW treatment methods were re-evaluated to establish a path forward for producing a final waste form from the liquid sodium bearing wastes (SBW) and the HLW calcine. Projections for significant improvements in waste generation, waste blending and evaporation, and calcination were incorporated into the Tank Farm modeling. This optimized modeling shows that all of the SBW can be calcined by the end of 2012 as required by the Idaho Settlement Agreement. This Tank Farm plan discusses the use of each of the eleven HLW tanks and shows that two tanks can be emptied, allowing them to be Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closed by 2006. In addition, it describes the construction of each tank and vault, gives the chemical concentrations of the contents of each tank, based on historical input and some sampling, and discusses the regulatory drivers important to Tank Farm operation. It also discusses new waste generation, the computer model used for the Tank Farm planning, the operating schedule for each tank, and the schedule for when each tank will be empty and closed.

Palmer, W.B.; Millet, C.B.; Staiger, M.D.; Ward, F.S.

1998-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

17

Independent Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - April 2013 | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Tank Farms - April 2013 Tank Farms - April 2013 Independent Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - April 2013 April 2013 Operational Awareness at the Hanford Tank Farms [HIAR-HANFORD-2013-04-15] The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) Site Lead conducted an operational awareness visit to the Office of River Protection (ORP) to tour the Hanford Tank Farms, observe video inspection of single shell and double shell tanks, and observe Tank Farm project and staff meetings. Independent Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - April 2013 More Documents & Publications Independent Oversight Activity Report, Office of River Protection - May 2013 Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June 2013 Independent Activity Report, Office of River Protection Waste Treatment

18

Independent Oversight Review of Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis Amendment for Double-Shell Tank Ventilation System Upgrades November 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of...

19

Vadose zone characterization project at the Hanford Tank Farms: U Tank Farm Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy Grand Junction Office (DOE-GJO) was tasked by the DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) to perform a baseline characterization of the gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides that are distributed in the vadose zone sediments beneath and around the single-shell tanks (SSTs) at the Hanford Site. The intent of this characterization is to determine the nature and extent of the contamination, to identify contamination sources when possible, and to develop a baseline of the contamination distribution that will permit future data comparisons. This characterization work also allows an initial assessment of the impacts of the vadose zone contamination as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This characterization project involves acquiring information regarding vadose zone contamination with borehole geophysical logging methods and documenting that information in a series of reports. This information is presently limited to detection of gamma-emitting radionuclides from both natural and man-made sources. Data from boreholes surrounding each tank are compiled into individual Tank Summary Data Reports. The data from each tank in a tank farm are then compiled and summarized in a Tank Farm Report. This document is the Tank Farm Report for the U Tank Farm. Logging operations used high-purity germanium detection systems to acquire laboratory-quality assays of the gamma-emitting radionuclides in the sediments around and below the tanks. These assays were acquired in 59 boreholes that surround the U Tank Farm tanks. Logging of all boreholes was completed in December 1995, and the last Tank Summary Data Report for the U Tank Farm was issued in September 1996.

NONE

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

20

Evaluation of 241 AN tank farm flammable gas behavior  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The 241 AN Tank Farm tanks 241-AN-103, -104, and 105 are Flammable Gas Watch List tanks. Characteristics exhibited by these tanks (i.e., surface level drops, pressure increases, and temperature profiles) are similar to those exhibited by tank 241-SY-101, which is also a Watch List tank. Although the characteristics exhibited by tank 241-SY-101 are also present in tanks 241-AN-103, -104, and 105, they are exhibited to a lesser degree in the AN Tank Farm tanks. The 241 AN Tank Farm tanks have only small surface level drops, and the pressure changes that occur are not sufficient to release an amount of gas that would cause the dome space to exceed the lower flammability limit (LFL) for hydrogen. Therefore, additional restrictions are probably unnecessary for working within the 241 AN Tank Farm, either within the dome space of the tanks or in the waste.

Reynolds, D.A.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

241-AW Tank Farm Construction Extent of Condition Review for Tank Integrity  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report provides the results of an extent of condition construction history review for the 241-AW tank farm. The construction history of the 241-AW tank farm has been reviewed to identify issues similar to those experienced during tank AY-102 construction. Those issues and others impacting integrity are discussed based on information found in available construction records, using tank AY-102 as the comparison benchmark. In the 241-AW tank farm, the fourth double-shell tank farm constructed, similar issues as those with tank 241-AY-102 construction occured. The overall extent of similary and affect on 241-AW tank farm integrity is described herein.

Barnes, Travis J.; Gunter, Jason R.; Reeploeg, Gretchen E.

2013-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

22

Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June 2013 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June 2013 Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June 2013 June 2013 Office of River Protection Assessment of Contractor Quality Assurance, Operational Awareness at the Hanford Tank Farms [HIAR NNSS-2012-12-03] The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (Independent Oversight) Site Lead conducted an operational awareness visit to the ORP Hanford Tank Farms, observed a Tank Farms morning meeting, toured the C Tank Farm, and observed a heavy (34,000 pound) lift. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Tank Farms - June 2013 More Documents & Publications Independent Activity Report, Office of River Protection Waste Treatment

23

TANK FARM INTERIM SURFACE BARRIER MATERIALS AND RUNOFF ALTERNATIVES STUDY  

SciTech Connect

This report identifies candidate materials and concepts for interim surface barriers in the single-shell tank farms. An analysis of these materials for application to the TY tank farm is also provided.

HOLM MJ

2009-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

24

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 November 2011 Review of Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis Amendment for Double-Shell Tank Ventilation System Upgrades The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted an independent oversight review of the draft amendment to the Hanford Tank Farms safety basis for upgrading the double-shell tank (DST) primary tank ventilation (PTV) systems to safety-significant designation. The Tank Farms are Hazard Category 2 DOE nuclear facilities. The review was performed during the period July 25 - August 12, 2011 by the HSS Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management

25

ICPP tank farm closure study. Volume 1  

SciTech Connect

The disposition of INEEL radioactive wastes is now under a Settlement Agreement between the DOE and the State of Idaho. The Settlement Agreement requires that existing liquid sodium bearing waste (SBW), and other liquid waste inventories be treated by December 31, 2012. This agreement also requires that all HLW, including calcined waste, be disposed or made road ready to ship from the INEEL by 2035. Sodium bearing waste (SBW) is produced from decontamination operations and HLW from reprocessing of SNF. SBW and HLW are radioactive and hazardous mixed waste; the radioactive constituents are regulated by DOE and the hazardous constituents are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Calcined waste, a dry granular material, is produced in the New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF). Two primary waste tank storage locations exist at the ICPP: Tank Farm Facility (TFF) and the Calcined Solids Storage Facility (CSSF). The TFF has the following underground storage tanks: four 18,400-gallon tanks (WM 100-102, WL 101); four 30,000-gallon tanks (WM 103-106); and eleven 300,000+ gallon tanks. This includes nine 300,000-gallon tanks (WM 182-190) and two 318,000 gallon tanks (WM 180-181). This study analyzes the closure and subsequent use of the eleven 300,000+ gallon tanks. The 18,400 and 30,000-gallon tanks were not included in the work scope and will be closed as a separate activity. This study was conducted to support the HLW Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) waste separations options and addresses closure of the 300,000-gallon liquid waste storage tanks and subsequent tank void uses. A figure provides a diagram estimating how the TFF could be used as part of the separations options. Other possible TFF uses are also discussed in this study.

Spaulding, B.C.; Gavalya, R.A.; Dahlmeir, M.M. [and others

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

26

Analysis of ICPP tank farm infiltration  

SciTech Connect

This report addresses water seeping into underground vaults which contain high-level liquid waste (HLLW) storage tanks at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP). Each of the vaults contains from one to three sumps. The original purpose of the sumps was to serve as a backup leak detection system for release of HLLW from the storage tanks. However, water seeps into most of the vaults, filling the sumps, and defeating their purpose as a leak detection system. Leak detection for the HLLW storage tanks is based on measuring the level of liquid inside the tank. The source of water leaking into the vaults was raised as a concern by the State of Idaho INEL Oversight Group because this source could also be leaching contaminants released to soil in the vicinity of the tank farm and transporting contaminants to the aquifer. This report evaluates information concerning patterns of seepage into vault sumps, the chemistry of water in sumps, and water balances for the tank farm to determine the sources of water seeping into the vaults.

Richards, B.T.

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

27

West Coast (PADD 5) Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

West Coast (PADD 5) Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 ...

28

Vadose zone characterization project at the Hanford Tank Farms: BY Tank Farm report  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy Grand Junction Office (GJO) was tasked by the DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) to perform a baseline characterization of the contamination distributed in the vadoze zone sediment beneath and around the single-shell tanks (SSTs) at the Hanford Site. The intent of this characterization is to determine the nature and extent of the contamination, to identify contamination sources, and to develop a baseline of the contamination distribution that will permit future data comparisons. This characterization work also allows an initial assessment of the impacts of the vadose zone contamination as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This characterization project involves acquiring information about the vadose zone contamination with borehole geophysical logging methods and documenting that information in a series of reports. Data from boreholes surrounding each tank are compiled into individual Tank Summary Data Reports. The data from each tank farm are then compiled and summarized in a Tank Farm Report. This document is the Tank Farm Report for the BY Tank Farm.

Kos, S.E.

1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

29

ICPP tank farm closure study. Volume 2: Engineering design files  

SciTech Connect

Volume 2 contains the following topical sections: Tank farm heel flushing/pH adjustment; Grouting experiments for immobilization of tank farm heel; Savannah River high level waste tank 20 closure; Tank farm closure information; Clean closure of tank farm; Remediation issues; Remote demolition techniques; Decision concerning EIS for debris treatment facility; CERCLA/RCRA issues; Area of contamination determination; Containment building of debris treatment facility; Double containment issues; Characterization costs; Packaging and disposal options for the waste resulting from the total removal of the tank farm; Take-off calculations for the total removal of soils and structures at the tank farm; Vessel off-gas systems; Jet-grouted polymer and subsurface walls; Exposure calculations for total removal of tank farm; Recommended instrumentation during retrieval operations; High level waste tank concrete encasement evaluation; Recommended heavy equipment and sizing equipment for total removal activities; Tank buoyancy constraints; Grout and concrete formulas for tank heel solidification; Tank heel pH requirements; Tank cooling water; Evaluation of conservatism of vehicle loading on vaults; Typical vault dimensions and approximately tank and vault void volumes; Radiological concerns for temporary vessel off-gas system; Flushing calculations for tank heels; Grout lift depth analysis; Decontamination solution for waste transfer piping; Grout lift determination for filling tank and vault voids; sprung structure vendor data; Grout flow properties through a 2--4 inch pipe; Tank farm load limitations; NRC low level waste grout; Project data sheet calculations; Dose rates for tank farm closure tasks; Exposure and shielding calculations for grout lines; TFF radionuclide release rates; Documentation of the clean closure of a system with listed waste discharge; and Documentation of the ORNL method of radionuclide concentrations in tanks.

NONE

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

30

Tank Farm Operations Surveillance Automation Analysis  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Nuclear Operations Project Services identified the need to improve manual tank farm surveillance data collection, review, distribution and storage practices often referred to as Operator Rounds. This document provides the analysis in terms of feasibility to improve the manual data collection methods by using handheld computer units, barcode technology, a database for storage and acquisitions, associated software, and operational procedures to increase the efficiency of Operator Rounds associated with surveillance activities.

MARQUEZ, D.L.

2000-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

31

Hanford Tank Farms Vadose Zone, Addendum to the TX Tank Farm Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This addendum to the TX Tank Farm Report (GJO-97-13-TAR, GJO-HAN-11) published in September 1997 incorporates the results of high-rate and repeat logging activities along with shape factor analysis of the logging data. A high-rate logging system was developed and deployed in the TX Tank Farm to measure cesium-137 concentration levels in high gamma flux zones where the spectral gamma logging system was unable to collect usable data because of high dead times and detector saturation. This report presents additional data and revised visualizations of subsurface contaminant distribution in the TX Tank Farm at the DOE Hanford Site in the state of Washington.

Spatz, R.

2000-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

32

ORP Tank Farms Unreviewed Safety Question Process Implementation...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Activity Report for the Selected Aspects of Tank Farms Unreviewed Safety Question Process Implementation Dates of Activity 02212011 - 04182011 Report Preparer Shivaji S....

33

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR TANK FARM CLOSURE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report documents the performance objectives (metrics, times of analyses, and times of compliance) to be used in performance assessments of Hanford Site tank farm closure.

MANN, F.M.; CRUMPLER, J.D.

2005-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

34

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

1878, Rev. 0 1878, Rev. 0 Summary Notes from 5 - 7 May 2009 Office of River Protection Waste Management Area C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Input Meeting MP Connelly Washington River Protection Solutions LLC Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV14800 EDT/EON: DRF UC: Cost Center: Charge Code: B&R Code: Total Pages: 15 Key Words: Waste Management Area C, Performance Assessment, tank closure, waste inventory Abstract: Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulators/stakeholders regarding Waste Management Area C performance assessment TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or

35

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3622, Rev. 0 3622, Rev. 0 Summary Notes from 1 - 3 September 2009 Office of River Protection Waste Management Area C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Input Meeting MP Connelly Washington River Protection Solutions LLC Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV1 4800 EDT/ECN: DRF UC: Cost Center: Charge Code: B&R Code: Total Pages: 13 Key Words: Waste Management Area C, Performance Assessment, tank closure, waste inventory Abstract: Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulators/stakeholders regarding Waste Management Area C performance assessment TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or

36

Tank Farms at the Savannah River Site | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Tank Farms at the Savannah River Site Tank Farms at the Savannah River Site Tank Farms at the Savannah River Site Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to reclassify certain waste from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from high-level waste to low-level waste if it meets the criteria set forth in Section 3116. A Waste Determination Basis (WD Basis) provides the analysis to document the Secretary's determination to manage the residuals as low-level radioactive waste. The Savannah River Site has several facilities managed under Section 3116. The F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) WD Basis covers 20 tanks remaining to be closed in the FTF and the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) WD Basis will cover all 29 HTF

37

241-SY Tank Farm Construction Extent of Condition Review for Tank Integrity  

SciTech Connect

This report provides the results of an extent of condition construction history review for tanks 241-SY-101, 241-SY-102, and 241-SY-103. The construction history of the 241-SY tank farm has been reviewed to identify issues similar to those experienced during tank 241-AY-102 construction. Those issues and others impacting integrity are discussed based on information found in available construction records, using tank 241-AY-102 as the comparison benchmark. In the 241-SY tank farm, the third DST farm constructed, refractory quality and stress relief were improved, while similar tank and liner fabrication issues remained.

Barnes, Travis J.; Boomer, Kayle D.; Gunter, Jason R.; Venetz, Theodore J.

2013-07-25T23:59:59.000Z

38

241-AZ Tank Farm Construction Extent of Condition Review for Tank Integrity  

SciTech Connect

This report provides the results of an extent of condition construction history review for tanks 241-AZ-101 and 241-AZ-102. The construction history of the 241-AZ tank farm has been reviewed to identify issues similar to those experienced during tank AY-102 construction. Those issues and others impacting integrity are discussed based on information found in available construction records, using tank AY-102 as the comparison benchmark. In the 241-AZ tank farm, the second DST farm constructed, both refractory quality and tank and liner fabrication were improved.

Barnes, Travis J.; Boomer, Kayle D.; Gunter, Jason R.; Venetz, Theodore J.

2013-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

39

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAMPLING OF TANK 19 IN F TANK FARM  

SciTech Connect

Representative sampling is required for characterization of the residual material in Tank 19 prior to operational closure. Tank 19 is a Type IV underground waste storage tank located in the F-Tank Farm. It is a cylindrical-shaped, carbon steel tank with a diameter of 85 feet, a height of 34.25 feet, and a working capacity of 1.3 million gallons. Tank 19 was placed in service in 1961 and initially received a small amount of low heat waste from Tank 17. It then served as an evaporator concentrate (saltcake) receiver from February 1962 to September 1976. Tank 19 also received the spent zeolite ion exchange media from a cesium removal column that once operated in the Northeast riser of the tank to remove cesium from the evaporator overheads. Recent mechanical cleaning of the tank removed all mounds of material. Anticipating a low level of solids in the residual waste, Huff and Thaxton [2009] developed a plan to sample the waste during the final clean-up process while it would still be resident in sufficient quantities to support analytical determinations in four quadrants of the tank. Execution of the plan produced fewer solids than expected to support analytical determinations in all four quadrants. Huff and Thaxton [2009] then restructured the plan to characterize the residual separately in the North and the South regions: two 'hemispheres.' This document provides sampling recommendations to complete the characterization of the residual material on the tank bottom following the guidance in Huff and Thaxton [2009] to split the tank floor into a North and a South hemisphere. The number of samples is determined from a modification of the formula previously published in Edwards [2001] and the sample characterization data for previous sampling of Tank 19 described by Oji [2009]. The uncertainty is quantified by an upper 95% confidence limit (UCL95%) on each analyte's mean concentration in Tank 19. The procedure computes the uncertainty in analyte concentration as a function of the number of samples, and the final number of samples is determined when the reduction in the uncertainty from an additional sample no longer has a practical impact on results. The characterization of the full suite of analytes in the North and South hemispheres is currently supported by a single Mantis rover sample in each hemisphere. A floor scrape sample was obtained from a compact region near the center riser slightly in the South hemisphere and has been analyzed for a shortened list of key analytes. There is not enough additional material from the floor scrape sample material for completing the full suite of constituents. No floor scrape samples have been previously taken from the North hemisphere. The criterion to determine the number of additional samples was based on the practical reduction in the uncertainty when a new sample is added. This was achieved when five additional samples are obtained. In addition, two archived samples will be used if a contingency such as failing to demonstrate the comparability of the Mantis samples to the floor scrape samples occurs. To complete sampling of the Tank 19 residual floor material, four additional samples should be taken from the North hemisphere and four additional samples should be taken from the South hemisphere. One of the samples from each hemisphere will be archived in case of need. Three of the four additional samples from each hemisphere will be analyzed. Once the results are available, differences between the Mantis and three floor scrape sample results will be evaluated. If there are no statistically significant analyte concentration differences between the Mantis and floor scrape samples, those results will be combined and then UCL95%s will be calculated. If the analyte concentration differences between the Mantis and floor scrape samples are statistically significant, the UCL95%s will be calculated without the Mantis sample results. If further reduction in the upper confidence limits is needed and can be achieved by the addition of the archived samples, they will be analyzed and included in t

Harris, S.; Shine, G.

2009-12-14T23:59:59.000Z

40

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

Data and calculations from previous criticality safety evaluations and analyses were used to evaluate criticality safety for the entire Tank Farms facility to support the continued waste storage mission. This criticality safety evaluation concludes that a criticality accident at the Tank Farms facility is an incredible event due to the existing form (chemistry) and distribution (neutron absorbers) of tank waste. Limits and controls for receipt of waste from other facilities and maintenance of tank waste condition are set forth to maintain the margin subcriticality in tank waste.

WEISS, E.V.

2000-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility The Secretary of Energy signed Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 basis of determination for the disposal of grouted residual waste in the tank systems at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Tank Farm Facility (TFF) on November 19, 2006. Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to reclassify certain waste from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from high-level waste to low-level waste if it meets the criteria set

42

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - December 2012 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

December 2012 December 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - December 2012 December 2012 Review of the Hanford Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation This report documents an independent review by the Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight) within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) of radiological protection program (RPP) activity-level implementation at the Hanford Tank Farms. The review was performed by the HSS Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations. The purpose of this Independent Oversight targeted review effort is to evaluate the flowdown of occupational radiation protection requirements, as expressed in facility RPPs, to work planning, control, and execution processes, such as

43

CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE F-TANK FARM CLOSURE OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTATION REGARDING WASTE TANK INTERNAL CONFIGURATIONS  

SciTech Connect

The intent of this document is to provide clarification of critical assumptions regarding the internal configurations of liquid waste tanks at operational closure, with respect to F-Tank Farm (FTF) closure documentation. For the purposes of this document, FTF closure documentation includes: (1) Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (hereafter referred to as the FTF PA) (SRS-REG-2007-00002), (2) Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001), (3) Tier 1 Closure Plan for the F-Area Waste Tank Systems at the Savannah River Site (SRR-CWDA-2010-00147), (4) F-Tank Farm Tanks 18 and 19 DOE Manual 435.1-1 Tier 2 Closure Plan Savannah River Site (SRR-CWDA-2011-00015), (5) Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the Liquid Waste Tanks 18 and 19 (SRRCWDA-2010-00003), and (6) Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis for the Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (hereafter referred to as the Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis) (SRR-CWDA-2010-00124). Note that the first three FTF closure documents listed apply to the entire FTF, whereas the last three FTF closure documents listed are specific to Tanks 18 and 19. These two waste tanks are expected to be the first two tanks to be grouted and operationally closed under the current suite of FTF closure documents and many of the assumptions and approaches that apply to these two tanks are also applicable to the other FTF waste tanks and operational closure processes.

Hommel, S.; Fountain, D.

2012-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

44

Remedial Alternative Selection for the F Area Tank Farm,  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Notice of Availability: Notice of Availability: Explanation of Significant Difference for Incorporating Tanks 18 and 19 into Revision 1 Interim Record Of Decision Remedial Alternative Selection for the F Area Tank Farm, Waste Tanks 17 and 20 at the Savannah River Site The Explanation of Significant Difference for Incorporating Tanks 18 and 19 into Revision 1 Interim Record of Decision Remedial Alternative Selection for the F Area Tank Farm, (hereafter referred to as the Tank 18 and 19 ESD) is being issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the lead agency for the Savannah River Site (SRS), with concurrence by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4 (EPA), and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). The Tank 18 and 19 ESD modifies

45

Radiological Source Terms for Tank Farms Safety Analysis  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document provides Unit Liter Dose factors, atmospheric dispersion coefficients, breathing rates and instructions for using and customizing these factors for use in calculating radiological doses for accident analyses in the Hanford Tank Farms.

COWLEY, W.L.

2000-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

46

Supporting document for the historical tank content estimate for AN-tank farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Supporting Document provides historical in-depth characterization information on AN-Tank Farm, such as historical waste transfer and level data, tank physical information, temperature plots, liquid observation well plots, chemical analyte and radionuclide inventories for the Historical Tank Content Estimate Report for the Southeast Quadrant of the Hanford 200 Areas.

Brevick, C.H.; Stroup, J.L.; Funk, J.W., Fluor Daniel Hanford

1997-03-06T23:59:59.000Z

47

Supporting document for the SW Quadrant Historical Tank Content Estimate for U-Tank Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Supporting Document provides historical characterization information gathered on U-Tank Farm, such as historical waste transfer and level data, tank physical information, temperature data, sampling data, and drywell and liquid observation well data for Historical Tank Content Estimate of the SW Quadrant at the Hanford 200 West Area.

Brevick, C.H.; Gaddis, L.A.; Johnson, E.D.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

48

Technical Baseline Summary Description for the Tank Farm Contractor  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document is a revision of the document titled above, summarizing the technical baseline of the Tank Farm Contractor. It is one of several documents prepared by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. to support the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal Mission at Hanford.

TEDESCHI, A.R.

2000-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

49

Operational Awarness at Hanford Tank Farms, April 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-HANFORD-2013-04-15 Site: Hanford - Office of River Protection Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for Operational Awareness at the Hanford Tank Farms Dates of Activity : 04/15-26/2013 Report Preparer: Robert E. Farrell Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) Site Lead conducted an operational awareness visit to the Office of River Protection (ORP) to tour the Hanford Tank Farms, observe video inspection of single shell and double shell tanks, and observe Tank Farm project and staff meetings. Result:

50

Tank farm health and safety plan. Revision 2  

SciTech Connect

This Tank Farm Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for the conduct of all operations and work activities at the Hanford Site 200 Area Tank Farms is provided in order to minimize health and safety risks to workers and other onsite personnel. The HASP accomplishes this objective by establishing requirements, providing general guidelines, and conveying farm and facility-specific hazard communication information. The HASP, in conjunction with the job-specific information required by the HASP, is provided also as a reference for use during the planning of work activities at the tank farms. This HASP applies to Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), other prime contractors to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and subcontractors to WHC who may be involved in tank farm work activities. This plan is intended to be both a requirements document and a useful reference to aid tank farm workers in understanding the safety and health issues that are encountered in routine and nonroutine work activities. The HASP defines the health and safety responsibilities of personnel working at the tank farms. It has been prepared in recognition of and is consistent with National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)/Unlimited State Coast Guard (USCG)/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (NIOSH 1985); WHC-CM-4-3, Industrial Safety Manual, Volume 4, {open_quotes}Health and Safety Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations;{close_quotes} 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response; WHC-CM-1-1, Management Policies; and WHC-CM-1-3, Management Requirements and Procedures. When differences in governing regulations or policies exist, the more stringent requirements shall apply until the discrepancy can be resolved.

Mickle, G.D.

1995-03-29T23:59:59.000Z

51

Worker Protection from Chemical Vapors: Hanford Tank Farms  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Chemical vapor emissions from underground hazardous waste storage tanks on the Hanford site in eastern Washington State are a potential concern because workers enter the tank farms on a regular basis for waste retrievals, equipment maintenance, and surveillance. Tank farm contractors are in the process of retrieving all remaining waste from aging single-shell tanks, some of which date to World War II, and transferring it to newer double-shell tanks. During the waste retrieval process, tank farm workers are potentially exposed to fugitive chemical vapors that can escape from tank head-spaces and other emission points. The tanks are known to hold more than 1,500 different species of chemicals, in addition to radionuclides. Exposure assessments have fully characterized the hazards from chemical vapors in half of the tank farms. Extensive sampling and analysis has been done to characterize the chemical properties of hazardous waste and to evaluate potential health hazards of vapors at the ground surface, where workers perform maintenance and waste transfer activities. Worker concerns, risk communication, and exposure assessment are discussed, including evaluation of the potential hazards of complex mixtures of chemical vapors. Concentrations of vapors above occupational exposure limits (OEL) were detected only at exhaust stacks and passive breather filter outlets. Beyond five feet from the sources, vapors disperse rapidly. No vapors have been measured above 50% of their OELs more than five feet from the source. Vapor controls are focused on limited hazard zones around sources. Further evaluations of vapors include analysis of routes of exposure and thorough analysis of nuisance odors. (authors)

Anderson, T.J. [CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. / Environmental Health, Richland, WA (United States)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

52

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - April 2013 | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

April 2013 April 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - April 2013 April 2013 Review of Management of Safety Systems at the Hanford Tank Farms The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted an independent review of the management of safety class or safety significant structures, systems and components (hereinafter referred to as safety systems) at the Hanford Site Tank Farms. The review was performed by the HSS Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations. The purpose of this Independent Oversight targeted assessment effort is to evaluate processes for monitoring, maintaining, and operating safety systems to ensure their continued reliable capability to perform the

53

Nuclear Criticality Safety Requirements Implementation Matrix for Tank Farms  

SciTech Connect

This document provides a detailed matrix of specific Tank Farms nuclear criticality safety program elements indexed to primary requirements documents. These requirements are collected at a higher level in HNF-SO-MP-SRID-001, ''Tank Waste Remediation System Standards/Requirements Identification Document.'' The intended use of this document is to provide a roadmap for implementing procedures and assessments.

WEISS, E.V.

2000-05-17T23:59:59.000Z

54

Tank farms solid waste characterization guide with sampling and analysis plan attachment  

SciTech Connect

This document describes methods used, including sampling and analysis, to characterize hazardous chemical constituent in Tank Farms containerized solid waste.

Quigley, J.T.

1997-04-02T23:59:59.000Z

55

Hanford Tank Farm interim storage phase probabilistic risk assessment outline  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report is the second in a series examining the risks for the high level waste (HLW) storage facilities at the Hanford Site. The first phase of the HTF PSA effort addressed risks from Tank 101-SY, only. Tank 101-SY was selected as the initial focus of the PSA because of its propensity to periodically release (burp) a mixture of flammable and toxic gases. This report expands the evaluation of Tank 101-SY to all 177 storage tanks. The 177 tanks are arranged into 18 farms and contain the HLW accumulated over 50 years of weapons material production work. A centerpiece of the remediation activity is the effort toward developing a permanent method for disposing of the HLW tank`s highly radioactive contents. One approach to risk based prioritization is to perform a PSA for the whole HLW tank farm complex to identify the highest risk tanks so that remediation planners and managers will have a more rational basis for allocating limited funds to the more critical areas. Section 3 presents the qualitative identification of generic initiators that could threaten to produce releases from one or more tanks. In section 4 a detailed accident sequence model is developed for each initiating event group. Section 5 defines the release categories to which the scenarios are assigned in the accident sequence model and presents analyses of the airborne and liquid source terms resulting from different release scenarios. The conditional consequences measured by worker or public exposure to radionuclides or hazardous chemicals and economic costs of cleanup and repair are analyzed in section 6. The results from all the previous sections are integrated to produce unconditional risk curves in frequency of exceedance format.

Not Available

1994-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

56

Supporting document for the historical tank content estimate for BY Tank Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document provides historical evaluations of the radioactive mixed wastes stored in the Hanford Site 200-East Area underground single-shell tanks (SSTs). A Historical Tank Content Estimate has been developed by reviewing the process histories, waste transfer data, and available physical and chemical characterization data from various Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. The historical data will supplement information gathered from in-tank core sampling activities that are currently underway. A tank history review that is accompanied by current characterization data creates a complete and reliable inventory estimate. Additionally, historical review of the tanks may reveal anomalies or unusual contents that are critical to characterization and post characterization activities. Complete and accurate tank waste characterizations are critical first steps for DOE and Westinghouse Hanford Company safety programs, waste pretreatment, and waste retrieval activities. The scope of this document is limited to the SSTs in the BY Tank Farm of the northeast quadrant of the 200 East Area. Nine appendices contain data on: tank level histories; temperature graphs; surface level graphs; drywell graphs; riser configuration and tank cross section; sampling data; tank photographs; unknown tank transfers; and tank layering comparison. 113 refs.

Brevick, C.H.; Gaddis, L.A.; Walsh, A.C.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

57

Supporting document for the historical tank content estimate for B Tank Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document provides historical evaluations of the radioactive mixed wastes stored in the Hanford Site 200-East Area underground single-shell tanks (SSTs). A Historical Tank Content Estimate has been developed by reviewing the process histories, waste transfer data, and available physical and chemical characterization data from various Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. The historical data will supplement information gathered from in-tank core sampling activities that are currently underway. A tank history review that is accompanied by current characterization data creates a complete and reliable inventory estimate. Additionally, historical review of the tanks may reveal anomalies or unusual contents that are critical to characterization and post characterization activities. Complete and accurate tank waste characterizations are critical first steps for DOE and Westinghouse Hanford Company safety programs, waste pretreatment, and waste retrieval activities. The scope of this document is limited to the SSTs in the B Tank Farm of the northeast quadrant of the 200 East Area. Nine appendices compile data on: tank level histories; temperature graphs; surface level graphs; drywell graphs; riser configuration and tank cross section; sampling data; tank photographs; unknown tank transfers; and tank layering comparison. 113 refs.

Brevick, C.H.; Gaddis, L.A.; Johnson, E.D.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

58

Supporting document for the historical tank content estimate for S tank farm  

SciTech Connect

This document provides historical evaluations of the radioactive mixed wastes stored in the Hanford Site 200 West Area underground single-shell tanks (SSTs). A Historical Tank Content Estimate has been developed by reviewing the process histories, waste transfer data, and available physical and chemical characterization data from various Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. The historical data will supplement information gathered from in-tank core sampling activities that are currently underway. A tank history review that is accompanied by current characterization data creates a complete and reliable inventory estimate. Additionally, historical review of the tanks may reveal anomalies or unusual contents that are critical to characterization and post characterization activities. Complete and accurate tank waste characterizations are critical first steps for DOE and Westinghouse Hanford Company safety programs, waste pretreatment, and waste retrieval activities. The scope of this document is limited to all the SSTs in the S Tank Farm of the southwest quadrant of the 200 West Area. Nine appendices compile data on: tank level histories; temperature graphs; surface level graphs; drywell graphs; riser configuration and tank cross section; sampling data; tank photographs; unknown tank transfers; and tank layering comparison. 113 refs.

Brevick, C.H.; Gaddis, L.A.; Walsh, A.C.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

59

Hanford Tank Farms Waste Certification Flow Loop Test Plan  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A future requirement of Hanford Tank Farm operations will involve transfer of wastes from double shell tanks to the Waste Treatment Plant. As the U.S. Department of Energy contractor for Tank Farm Operations, Washington River Protection Solutions anticipates the need to certify that waste transfers comply with contractual requirements. This test plan describes the approach for evaluating several instruments that have potential to detect the onset of flow stratification and critical suspension velocity. The testing will be conducted in an existing pipe loop in Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s facility that is being modified to accommodate the testing of instruments over a range of simulated waste properties and flow conditions. The testing phases, test matrix and types of simulants needed and the range of testing conditions required to evaluate the instruments are described

Bamberger, Judith A.; Meyer, Perry A.; Scott, Paul A.; Adkins, Harold E.; Wells, Beric E.; Blanchard, Jeremy; Denslow, Kayte M.; Greenwood, Margaret S.; Morgen, Gerald P.; Burns, Carolyn A.; Bontha, Jagannadha R.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

60

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-B Farm  

SciTech Connect

This document identifies 241-B Tank Farm (B Farm) leak cause and locations for the 100 series leaking tank (241-B-107) identified in RPP-RPT-49089, Hanford B-Farm Leak Inventory Assessments Report. This document satisfies the B Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

Girardot, Crystal L. [Washington River Protection Systems, Richland, WA (United States); Harlow, Donald G. [Washington River Protection Systems, Richland, WA (United States)

2013-07-11T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAMPLING OF TANK 18 IN F TANK FARM  

SciTech Connect

Representative sampling is required for characterization of the residual floor material in Tank 18 prior to operational closure. Tank 18 is an 85-foot diameter, 34-foot high carbon steel tank with nominal operating volume of 1,300,000 gallons. It is a Type IV tank, and has been in service storing radioactive materials since 1959. Recent mechanical cleaning of the tank removed all mounds of material. Anticipating a low level of solids in the residual material, Huff and Thaxton [2009] developed a plan to sample the material during the final clean-up process while it would still be resident in sufficient quantities to support analytical determinations in four quadrants of the tank. Execution of the plan produced fewer solids than expected to support analytical determinations in all four quadrants. Huff and Thaxton [2009] then restructured the plan to characterize the residual floor material separately in the North and the South regions: two 'hemispheres.' This document provides sampling recommendations to complete the characterization of the residual material on the tank bottom following the guidance in Huff and Thaxton [2009] to split the tank floor into a North and a South hemisphere. The number of samples is determined from a modification of the formula previously published in Edwards [2001] and the sample characterization data for previous sampling of Tank 18 described by Oji [2009]. The uncertainty is quantified by an upper 95% confidence limit (UCL95%) on each analyte's mean concentration in Tank 18. The procedure computes the uncertainty in analyte concentration as a function of the number of samples, and the final number of samples is determined when the reduction in the uncertainty from an additional sample no longer has a practical impact on results. The characterization of the full suite of analytes in the North hemisphere is currently supported by a single Mantis rover sample obtained from a compact region near the center riser. A floor scrape sample was obtained from a compact region near the northeast riser and has been analyzed for a shortened list of key analytes. Since the unused portion of the floor scrape sample material is archived and available in sufficient quantity, additional analyses need to be performed to complete results for the full suite of constituents. The characterization of the full suite of analytes in the South hemisphere is currently supported by a single Mantis rover sample; there have been no floor scrape samples previously taken from the South hemisphere. The criterion to determine the number of additional samples was based on the practical reduction in the uncertainty when a new sample is added. This was achieved when five additional samples are obtained. In addition, two archived samples will be used if a contingency such as failing to demonstrate the comparability of the Mantis samples to the floor scrape samples occurs. To complete sampling of the Tank 18 residual floor material, three additional samples should be taken from the North hemisphere and four additional samples should be taken from the South hemisphere. One of the samples from each hemisphere will be archived in case of need. Two of the three additional samples from the North hemisphere and three of the four additional samples from the South hemisphere will be analyzed. Once the results are available, differences between the Mantis and three floor scrape samples (the sample previously obtained near NE riser plus the two additional samples that will be analyzed) results will be evaluated. If there are no statistically significant analyte concentration differences between the Mantis and floor scrape samples, those results will be combined and then UCL95%s will be calculated. If the analyte concentration differences between the Mantis and floor scrape samples are statistically significant, the UCL95%s will be calculated without the Mantis sample results. If further reduction in the upper confidence limits is needed and can be achieved by the addition of the archived samples, they will be analyzed and included in the stati

Shine, G.

2009-12-14T23:59:59.000Z

62

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Summary Notes from 24- 25 February 2009 Office of River Protection Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment Input Meeting Attendees: Representatives from Department of Energy-Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP), DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL), DOE-Headquarters (DOE-HQ), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), met at the Ecology offices in Richland, Washington on 24 & 25 February 2009. EPA Region X staff participated on 25 February 2009 via teleconference. Discussion: DOE is pursuing closure of Waste Management Area C (WMA-C) located at the Hanford Site. At some point in the future, DOE and NRC will consult on waste determinations for these tank closures; additionally these tanks will be closed in coordination with EPA and

63

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-BY and 241-TY Farm  

SciTech Connect

This document identifies 241-BY Tank Farm (BY Farm) and 241-TY Tank Farm (TY Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-BY-103, 241-TY-103, 241-TY-104, 241-TY-105, and 241-TY-106) identified in RPP-RPT-43704, Hanford BY Farm Leak Assessments Report, and in RPP-RPT-42296, Hanford TY Farm Leak Assessments Report. This document satisfies the BY and TY Farm portion of the target (T04) in Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

64

SINGLE-SHELL TANKS LEAK INTEGRITY ELEMENTS/SX FARM LEAK CAUSES AND LOCATIONS - 12127  

SciTech Connect

Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) developed an enhanced single-shell tank (SST) integrity project in 2009. An expert panel on SST integrity was created to provide recommendations supporting the development of the project. One primary recommendation was to expand the leak assessment reports (substitute report or LD-1) to include leak causes and locations. The recommendation has been included in the M-045-9IF Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) as one of four targets relating to SST leak integrity. The 241-SX Farm (SX Farm) tanks with leak losses were addressed on an individual tank basis as part of LD-1. Currently, 8 out of 23 SSTs that have been reported to having a liner leak are located in SX Farm. This percentage was the highest compared to other tank farms which is why SX Farm was analyzed first. The SX Farm is comprised of fifteen SSTs built 1953-1954. The tanks are arranged in rows of three tanks each, forming a cascade. Each of the SX Farm tanks has a nominal I-million-gal storage capacity. Of the fifteen tanks in SX Farm, an assessment reported leak losses for the following tanks: 241-SX-107, 241-SX-108, 241-SX-109, 241-SX-111, 241-SX-112, 241-SX-113, 241-SX-114 and 241-SX-115. The method used to identify leak location consisted of reviewing in-tank and ex-tank leak detection information. This provided the basic data identifying where and when the first leaks were detected. In-tank leak detection consisted of liquid level measurement that can be augmented with photographs which can provide an indication of the vertical leak location on the sidewall. Ex-tank leak detection for the leaking tanks consisted of soil radiation data from laterals and drywells near the tank. The in-tank and ex-tank leak detection can provide an indication of the possible leak location radially around and under the tank. Potential leak causes were determined using in-tank and ex-tank information that is not directly related to leak detection. In-tank parameters can include temperature of the supernatant and sludge, types of waste, and chemical determination by either transfer or sample analysis. Ex-tank information can be assembled from many sources including design media, construction conditions, technical specifications, and other sources. Five conditions may have contributed to SX Farm tank liner failure including: tank design, thermal shock, chemistry-corrosion, liner behavior (bulging), and construction temperature. Tank design did not apparently change from tank to tank for the SX Farm tanks; however, there could be many unknown variables present in the quality of materials and quality of construction. Several significant SX Farm tank design changes occurred from previous successful tank farm designs. Tank construction occurred in winter under cold conditions which could have affected the ductile to brittle transition temperature of the tanks. The SX Farm tanks received high temperature boiling waste from REDOX which challenged the tank design with rapid heat up and high temperatures. All eight of the leaking SX Farm tanks had relatively high rate of temperature rise. Supernatant removal with subsequent nitrate leaching was conducted in all but three of the eight leaking tanks prior to leaks being detected. It is possible that no one characteristic of the SX Farm tanks could in isolation from the others have resulted in failure. However, the application of so many stressors - heat up rate, high temperature, loss of corrosion protection, and tank design - working jointly or serially resulted in their failure. Thermal shock coupled with the tank design, construction conditions, and nitrate leaching seem to be the overriding factors that can lead to tank liner failure. The distinction between leaking and sound SX Farm tanks seems to center on the waste types, thermal conditions, and nitrate leaching.

VENETZ TJ; WASHENFELDER D; JOHNSON J; GIRARDOT C

2012-01-25T23:59:59.000Z

65

SY Tank Farm ventilation isolation option risk assessment report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The safety of the 241-SY Tank Farm ventilation system has been under extensive scrutiny due to safety concerns associated with tank 101-SY. Hydrogen and other gases are generated and trapped in the waste below the liquid surface. Periodically, these gases are released into the dome space and vented through the exhaust system. This attention to the ventilation system has resulted in the development of several alternative ventilation system designs. The ventilation system provides the primary means of mitigation of accidents associated with flammable gases. This report provides an assessment of various alternatives ventilation system designs.

Powers, T.B.; Morales, S.D.

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

66

ORP Tank Farms Unreviewed Safety Question Process Implementation  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0 Report Number: HIAR-HORP-2011-04-18 0 Report Number: HIAR-HORP-2011-04-18 Site: Office of River Protection Subject: Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations Activity Report for the Selected Aspects of Tank Farms Unreviewed Safety Question Process Implementation Dates of Activity 02/21/2011 - 04/18/2011 Report Preparer Shivaji S. Seth Activity Description/Purpose: The purpose of the activity, which was performed by the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) as part of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection's (ORP's) nuclear safety assessment and oversight, was to review and evaluate selected aspects of the Tank Farms Operating Contractor's (TOC's) implementation of the recently revised unreviewed safety question (USQ) procedure. A major aspect of the revised implemented process (Ref. 1) was to eliminate

67

PORFLOW Modeling Supporting The H-Tank Farm Performance Assessment  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Numerical simulations of groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the vadose and saturated zones have been conducted using the PORFLOW code in support of an overall Performance Assessment (PA) of the H-Tank Farm. This report provides technical detail on selected aspects of PORFLOW model development and describes the structure of the associated electronic files. The PORFLOW models for the H-Tank Farm PA, Rev. 1 were updated with grout, solubility, and inventory changes. The aquifer model was refined. In addition, a set of flow sensitivity runs were performed to allow flow to be varied in the related probabilistic GoldSim models. The final PORFLOW concentration values are used as input into a GoldSim dose calculator.

Jordan, J. M.; Flach, G. P.; Westbrook, M. L.

2012-08-31T23:59:59.000Z

68

Acceptance test procedure for SY Tank Farm replacement exhauster unit  

SciTech Connect

The proper functioning of a new 241-SY Tank Farm replacement exhauster will be acceptance tested, to establish operability and to provide an operational baseline for the equipment. During this test, a verification of all of the alarm and control circuits associated with the exhaust, which provide operating controls and/or signals to local and remote alarm/annunciator panels, shall be performed. Test signals for sensors that provide alarms, warnings, and/or interlocks will be applied to verify that alarm, warning, and interlock setpoints are correct. Alarm and warning lights, controls, and local and remote readouts for the exhauster will be verified to be adequate for proper operation of the exhauster. Testing per this procedure shall be conducted in two phases. The first phase of testing, to verify alarm, warning, and interlock setpoints primarily, will be performed in the MO-566 Fab Shop. The second phase of testing, to verify proper operation and acceptable interface with other tank farm systems, will be conducted after the exhauster and all associated support and monitoring equipment have been installed in the SY Tank Farm. The exhauster, which is mounted on a skid and which will eventually be located in the SY tank farm, receives input signals from a variety of sensors mounted on the skid and associated equipment. These sensors provide information such as: exhauster system inlet vacuum pressure; prefilter and HEPA filter differential pressures; exhaust stack sampler status; exhaust fan status; system status (running/shut down); and radiation monitoring systems status. The output of these sensors is transmitted to the exhauster annunciator panel where the signals are displayed and monitored for out-of-specification conditions.

Becken, G.W.

1994-12-16T23:59:59.000Z

69

Human Resources Staffing Plan for the Tank Farm Contractor  

SciTech Connect

The Human Resources Staffing Plan quantified the equivalent staffing needs required for the Tank Farm Contractor (TFC) and its subcontractors to execute the readiness to proceed baseline between FY 2000-2008. The TFC staffing needs were assessed along with the staffings needs of Fluor Hanford and the privatization contractor. The plan then addressed the staffing needs and recruitment strategies required to execute the baseline.

BOSLEY, J.W.

2000-04-22T23:59:59.000Z

70

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site The PAs are used to assess the long-term fate and transport of residual contamination in the environment and provide the Department Of Energy with reasonable assurance that the removal from service of the Savannah River Site tank farm underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment will meet defined performance objectives for the protection of human health and the environment into the future. First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 1 First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 2

71

Configuration Management Plan for the Tank Farm Contractor  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Configuration Management Plan for the Tank Farm Contractor describes configuration management the contractor uses to manage and integrate its technical baseline with the programmatic and functional operations to perform work. The Configuration Management Plan for the Tank Farm Contractor supports the management of the project baseline by providing the mechanisms to identify, document, and control the technical characteristics of the products, processes, and structures, systems, and components (SSC). This plan is one of the tools used to identify and provide controls for the technical baseline of the Tank Farm Contractor (TFC). The configuration management plan is listed in the management process documents for TFC as depicted in Attachment 1, TFC Document Structure. The configuration management plan is an integrated approach for control of technical, schedule, cost, and administrative processes necessary to manage the mission of the TFC. Configuration management encompasses the five functional elements of: (1) configuration management administration, (2) configuration identification, (3) configuration status accounting, (4) change control, and (5 ) configuration management assessments.

WEIR, W.R.

2000-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

72

CHANGING THE SAFETY CULTURE IN HANFORD TANK FARMS  

SciTech Connect

In 2000 the Hanford Tank Farms had one of the worst safety records in the Department of Energy Complex. By the end of FY08 the safety performance of the workforce had turned completely around, resulting in one of the best safety records in the DOE complex for operations of its kind. This paper describes the variety of programs and changes that were put in place to accomplish such a dramatic turn-around. The U.S. Department of Energy's 586-square-mile Hanford Site in Washington State was established during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear materials to end the war. For the next several decades it continued to produce plutonium for the nation's defense, leaving behind vast quantities of radioactive and chemical waste. Much of this waste, 53,000,000 gallons, remains stored in 149 aging single-shell tanks and 28 newer double-shell tanks. One of the primary objectives at Hanford is to safely manage this waste until it can be prepared for disposal, but this has not always been easy. These giant underground tanks, many of which date back to the beginning of the Manhattan Project, range in size from 55,000 gallons up to 1.1 million gallons, and are buried beneath 10 feet of soil near the center of the site. Up to 67 of the older single-shell tanks have leaked as much as one million gallons into the surrounding soil. Liquids from the single-shell tanks were removed by 2003 but solids remain in the form of saltcake, sludges and a hardened heel at the bottom of some tanks. The Department of Energy's Office of River Protection was established to safely manage this waste until it could be prepared for disposal. For most of the last seven years the focus has been on safely retrieving waste from the 149 aging single-shell and moving it to the newer double-shell tanks. Removing waste from the tanks is a difficult and complex task. The tanks were made to put waste in, not take it out. Because of the toxic nature of the waste, both chemically as well as radiologically, all retrieval operations must be performed using remote-controlled equipment which has to be installed in each tank, then removed when retrieval is completed. This process involves a variety of potentially hazardous construction activities including crane and rigging, excavation, electrical and piping work. It also requires strong attention to safety to avoid injuries to personnel and contamination of the environment.

BERRIOCHOA MV; ALCALA LJ

2009-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

73

CHANGING THE SAFETY CULTURE IN HANFORD TANK FARMS  

SciTech Connect

In 2000 the Hanford Tank Farms had one of the worst safety records in the Department of Energy Complex. By the end of FY08 the safety performance of the workforce had turned completely around, resulting in one of the best safety records in the DOE complex for operations of its kind. This paper describes the variety of programs and changes that were put in place to accomplish such a dramatic turn-around. The U.S. Department of Energy's 586-square-mile Hanford Site in Washington State was established during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear materials to end the war. For the next several decades it continued to produce plutonium for the nation's defense, leaving behind vast quantities of radioactive and chemical waste. Much of this waste, 53,000,000 gallons, remains stored in 149 aging single-shell tanks and 28 newer double-shell tanks. One of the primary objectives at Hanford is to safely manage this waste until it can be prepared for disposal, but this has not always been easy. These giant underground tanks, many of which date back to the beginning of the Manhattan Project, range in size from 55,000 gallons up to 1.1 million gallons, and are buried beneath 10 feet of soil near the center of the site. Up to 67 of the older single-shell tanks have leaked as much as one million gallons into the surrounding soil. Liquids from the single-shell tanks were removed by 2003 but solids remain in the form of saltcake, sludges and a hardened heel at the bottom of some tanks. The Department of Energy's Office of River Protection was established to safely manage this waste until it could be prepared for disposal. For most of the last seven years the focus has been on safely retrieving waste from the 149 aging single-shell and moving it to the newer double-shell tanks. Removing waste from the tanks is a difficult and complex task. The tanks were made to put waste in, not take it out. Because of the toxic nature of the waste, both chemically as well as radiologically, all retrieval operations must be performed using remote-controlled equipment which has to be installed in each tank, then removed when retrieval is completed. This process involves a variety of potentially hazardous construction activities including crane and rigging, excavation, electrical and piping work. It also requires strong attention to safety to avoid injuries to personnel and contamination of the environment.

BERRIOCHOA MV; ALCALA LJ

2009-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

74

Supporting document for the North East Quandrant Historical Tank Content Estimate Report for BX-Tank Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This supporting document provides historical in-depth characterization information gathered on BX-Tank Farm, such as historical waste transfer and level data, tank physical information, temperature data, sampling data, and drywell and liquid observation well data for Historical Tank Content Estimate Report of the NE Quandrant and the Hanford 200 East Areas.

Brevick, C.H.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

75

Environmental Program Description for the Tank Farm Contractor  

SciTech Connect

This Environmental Program Description has been developed in support of the Integrated Environmental, Safety, and Health Management System and consistent with the goals of DOE/RL-96-50, Hanford Strategic Plan. This Environmental Program Plan was developed in support of the Integrated Environment, Safety, and Health Management System Description for the Tank Farm Contractor (ISMS) (RPP-MP-003), which establishes a single, defined environmental, safety, and health management system that integrates requirements into the work planning and execution processes to protect workers, the public, and the environment. The ISMS also provides mechanisms for increasing worker involvement in work planning, including hazard and environmental impact identification, analysis, and control; work execution; and feedback/improvement processes. The ISMS plan consists of five core functions. Each section of this plan describes the activities (formerly known as the Tank Waste Remediation System) of the Tank Farm Contractor (TFC) environmental organization according to the following core functions: Establish Environmental Policy and Define Work Scope; Identify Hazards, Environmental Impacts, and Requirements; Analyze Hazards and Environmental Impacts and Implement Controls; Provide Feedback and Continuous Improvement; and Perform Work within Controls.

POWELL, P.A.

2000-04-20T23:59:59.000Z

76

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-A Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document identifies 241-A Tank Farm (A Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-A-104 and 241-A-105) identified in RPP-ENV-37956, Hanford A and AX Farm Leak Assessment Report. This document satisfies the A Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

77

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-C Farm  

SciTech Connect

This document identifies 241-C Tank Farm (C Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-C-101 and 241-C-105) identified in RPP-RPT-33418, Rev. 2, Hanford C-Farm Leak Inventory Assessments Report. This document satisfies the C Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

78

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-U Farm  

SciTech Connect

This document identifies 241-U Tank Farm (U Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-U-104, 241-U-110, and 241-U-112) identified in RPP-RPT-50097, Rev. 0, Hanford 241-U Farm Leak Inventory Assessment Report. This document satisfies the U-Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-12-02T23:59:59.000Z

79

Development of Occupational Exposure Limits for the Hanford Tank Farms  

SciTech Connect

Production of plutonium for the United States’ nuclear weapons program from the 1940’s to the 1980’s generated 53 million gallons of radioactive chemical waste, which is storedin 177 underground tanks at the Hanford Site in southeastern W 18 ashington State. Recent 19 attempts to begin the retrieval and treatment of these wastes require moving the waste to 20 more modern tanks results in potential exposure of the workers to unfamiliar odors 21 emanating from headspace in the tanks. Given the unknown risks involved, workers 22 were placed on supplied air respiratory protection. CH2M HILL, the managers of the 23 Hanford Site Tank Farms, asked an Independent Toxicology Panel (ITP) to assist them in issues relating to an Industrial Hygiene and risk assessment problem. The ITP was called upon to help determine the risk of exposure to vapors from the tanks, and in general develop a strategy for solution of the problem. This paper presents the methods used to determine the chemicals of potential concern (COPC) and the resultant development of screening values and Acceptable Occupational Exposure Limits (AOELs) for these COPCs. A total of 1,826 chemicals were inventoried and evaluated. Over 1,500 chemicals were identified in the waste tanks headspaces and more than 600 of these were assigned screening values; 72 of these compounds were recommended for AOEL development. Included in this list of 72 were 57 COPCs identified by the ITP and of these 47 were subsequently assigned AOELs. An exhaustive exposure assessment strategy was developed by the CH2M HILL industrial hygiene department to evaluate these COPCs.

Still, Kenneth; Gardner, Donald; Snyder, Robert; Anderson, Thomas; Honeyman, James; Timchalk, Charles

2010-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

80

Grouting at the Idaho National Laboratory Tank Farm Facility, R. Mark Shaw  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Grouting at the Grouting at the Idaho National Laboratory Tank Farm Facility R. Mark Shaw, U. S. Department of Energy safety v performance v cleanup v closure M E Environmental Management Environmental Management 2 Topics/Agenda * Tank Farm Overview * Tank and Vault Grouting * Cooling Coil and Transfer Line Grouting safety v performance v cleanup v closure M E Environmental Management Environmental Management 3 INTEC TANK FARM CLOSURE INTEC TANK FARM CLOSURE VES-WM-103 VES-WM-104 VES-WM-105 VES-WM-106 182 183 185 186 187 189 190 188 184 181 180 Tank Farm Facility Octagon Vaults: WM-180, WM-181 Pillar and Panel Vaults: WM-182, WM-183, WM-184, WM-185, WM-186 Square Vaults: WM-187, WM-188, WM-189, WM-190 GV99 0008 safety v performance v cleanup v closure M E Environmental Management

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

Crude Oil Stocks at Tank Farms & Pipelines  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Stocks at Tank Farms & Pipelines Stocks at Tank Farms & Pipelines (Thousand Barrels) Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View History U.S. 263,633 264,749 252,781 242,174 232,837 248,898 1981-2013 East Coast (PADD 1) 2,000 1,635 1,585 1,793 1,507 2,033 1981-2013 Midwest (PADD 2) 100,842 101,525 99,186 89,116 84,420 84,878 1981-2013 Cushing, OK 49,237 50,172 48,671 40,459 34,809 33,017 2004-2013 Gulf Coast (PADD 3) 121,316 121,816 113,846 112,745 112,059 122,497 1981-2013 Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) 12,813 12,512 12,003 12,181 12,858 12,956 1981-2013 West Coast (PADD 5) 26,662 27,261 26,161 26,339 21,993 26,534 1981-2013

82

Hanford Site waste tank farm facilities design reconstitution program plan  

SciTech Connect

Throughout the commercial nuclear industry the lack of design reconstitution programs prior to the mid 1980`s has resulted in inadequate documentation to support operating facilities configuration changes or safety evaluations. As a result, many utilities have completed or have ongoing design reconstitution programs and have discovered that without sufficient pre-planning their program can be potentially very expensive and may result in end-products inconsistent with the facility needs or expectations. A design reconstitution program plan is developed here for the Hanford waste tank farms facility as a consequence of the DOE Standard on operational configuration management. This design reconstitution plan provides for the recovery or regeneration of design requirements and basis, the compilation of Design Information Summaries, and a methodology to disposition items open for regeneration that were discovered during the development of Design Information Summaries. Implementation of this plan will culminate in an end-product of about 30 Design Information Summary documents. These documents will be developed to identify tank farms facility design requirements and design bases and thereby capture the technical baselines of the facility. This plan identifies the methodology necessary to systematically recover documents that are sources of design input information, and to evaluate and disposition open items or regeneration items discovered during the development of the Design Information Summaries or during the verification and validation processes. These development activities will be governed and implemented by three procedures and a guide that are to be developed as an outgrowth of this plan.

Vollert, F.R.

1994-09-06T23:59:59.000Z

83

Review of the Hanford Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation, December 2012  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Tank Farms Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation May 2011 December 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................

84

Review of the Hanford Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation, December 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Tank Farms Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation May 2011 December 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................

85

ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS AND RADIOLOGICAL AND TOXICOLOGICAL EXPOSURE METHODOLOGY FOR USE IN TANK FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report presents the atmospheric dispersion coefficients used in Tank Farms safety analysis. The basis equations for calculating radiological and toxicological exposures are also included. In this revision, the time averaging for toxicological consequence evaluations is clarified based on a review of DOE complex guidance and a review of tank farm chemicals.

GRIGSBY KM

2011-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

86

Meeting Summaries for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Meeting Summaries for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summaries for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Meeting Summaries for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment The Meeting Summaries for Development of the Hanford Site C Tank Farm Performance Assessment cover informal discussions between representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and involvement with Tribal Nations, State of Oregon, and the Hanford Advisory Board to support DOE's preparation of a new performance assessment (PA) for the Hanford Site C Tank Farm (CTF). These discussions will include the underlying assumptions, input parameters, and modeling approaches to be taken in

87

F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site. In accordance with NDAA Section 3116, certain waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the NRC, determines that the criteria in NDAA Section 3116(a) are met. This Draft FTF 3116 Basis Document shows that those criteria are satisfied, to support a potential determination by the Secretary pursuant Section 3116. This Draft FTF 3116 Basis Document concerns the stabilized residuals in waste tanks and ancillary structures, those waste tanks, and the ancillary structures (including integral equipment) at the SRS FTF at the time of closure.

88

F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site. In accordance with NDAA Section 3116, certain waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the NRC, determines that the criteria in NDAA Section 3116(a) are met. This Draft FTF 3116 Basis Document shows that those criteria are satisfied, to support a potential determination by the Secretary pursuant Section 3116. This Draft FTF 3116 Basis Document concerns the stabilized residuals in waste tanks and ancillary structures, those waste tanks, and the ancillary structures (including integral equipment) at the SRS FTF at the time of closure.

89

Independent Oversight Review of Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis Amendment for Double-Shell Tank Ventilation System Upgrades, November 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis Amendment for Double-Shell Tank Ventilation System Upgrades November 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Scope and Approach .............................................................................................................................. 2

90

Pore Water Extraction Test Near 241-SX Tank Farm at the Hanford Site, Washington, USA - 14168  

SciTech Connect

A proof-of-principle test is underway near the Hanford Site 241-SX Tank Farm. The test will evaluate a potential remediation technology that will use tank farm-deployable equipment to remove contaminated pore water from vadose zone soils. The test system was designed and built to address the constraints of working within a tank farm. Due to radioactive soil contamination and limitations in drilling near tanks, small-diameter direct push drilling techniques applicable to tank farms are being utilized for well placement. To address space and weight limitations in working around tanks and obstacles within tank farms, the aboveground portions of the test system have been constructed to allow deployment flexibility. The test system utilizes low vacuum over a sealed well screen to establish flow into an extraction well. Extracted pore water is collected in a well sump,and then pumped to the surface using a small-diameter bladder pump.If pore water extraction using this system can be successfully demonstrated, it may be possible to target local contamination in the vadose zone around underground storage tanks. It is anticipated that the results of this proof-of-principle test will support future decision making regarding interim and final actions for soil contamination within the tank farms.

Eberlein, Susan J.; Parker, Danny L.; Tabor, Cynthia L.; Holm, Melissa J.

2013-11-11T23:59:59.000Z

91

High-level waste tank farm set point document  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Setpoints for nuclear safety-related instrumentation are required for actions determined by the design authorization basis. Minimum requirements need to be established for assuring that setpoints are established and held within specified limits. This document establishes the controlling methodology for changing setpoints of all classifications. The instrumentation under consideration involve the transfer, storage, and volume reduction of radioactive liquid waste in the F- and H-Area High-Level Radioactive Waste Tank Farms. The setpoint document will encompass the PROCESS AREA listed in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) (DPSTSA-200-10 Sup 18) which includes the diversion box HDB-8 facility. In addition to the PROCESS AREAS listed in the SAR, Building 299-H and the Effluent Transfer Facility (ETF) are also included in the scope.

Anthony, J.A. III

1995-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

92

Nuclear criticality project plan for the Hanford Site tank farms  

SciTech Connect

The mission of this project is to provide a defensible technical basis report in support of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This technical basis report will also be used to resolve technical issues associated with the nuclear criticality safety issue. The strategy presented in this project plan includes an integrated programmatic and organizational approach. The scope of this project plan includes the provision of a criticality technical basis supporting document (CTBSD) to support the FSAR as well as for resolution of the nuclear criticality safety issue. Specifically, the CTBSD provides the requisite technical analysis to support the FSAR hazard and accident analysis as well as for the determination of the required FSAR limits and controls. The scope of The CTBSD will provide a baseline for understanding waste partitioning and distribution phenomena and mechanistics for current operational activities inclusive of single-shell tanks, double-shell tanks, double-contained receiver tanks, and miscellaneous underground storage tanks.. Although the FSAR does not include future operational activities, the waste partitioning and distribution phenomena and mechanistics work scope identified in this project plan provide a sound technical basis as a point of departure to support independent safety analyses for future activities. The CTBSD also provides the technical basis for resolution of the technical issues associated with the nuclear criticality safety issue. In addition to the CTBSD, additional documentation will be required to fully resolve U.S. Department of Energy-Headquarters administrative and programmatic issues. The strategy and activities defined in this project plan provide a CTBSD for the FSAR and for accelerated resolution of the safety issue in FY 1996. On April 30, 1992, a plant review committee reviewed the Final Safety Analysis Reports for the single-shell, double-shell, and aging waste tanks in light of the conclusions of the inadequate waste characterization with respect to fissile material. The review indicated that the conclusion in the FSARS, that a criticality is not credible, cannot be supported for a full range of potential tank constituents. Therefore, a USQ was declared. Development of a credible scenario leading to a criticality proved to be extremely difficult, given the paucity of data on the quantity and distribution of fissile material in the tanks. The objective of this project plan is to develop a strategy and technical approach to provide a CTBSD for the FSAR and for resolution of the nuclear criticality safety issue pertaining to tank farm waste storage and transfer operations. The strategy and technical approach identified in this project plan include definition of administrative and technical tasks. Technical analyses will include mechanistic studies, historical data review, and additional limited neutronics analysis. Completion of these studies will be documented in a CTBSD to support the existing criticality technical basis. The CTBSD will be incorporated in the criticality portion of the FSAR.

Bratzel, D.R., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-08-06T23:59:59.000Z

93

Modifications to, and Vibration Analysis of Tank 7 Slurry Pumps, F Tank Farm  

SciTech Connect

Slurry pumps have demonstrated short life spans when operated in nuclear waste tanks. Their life approximates one thousand hours or approximately 42 days of continuous operation, evidenced by past performance in H-Area and F-Area at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Several investigations over the past six years have isolated the most significant reliability problems. These problems are seal and bearing failures caused by the vibrations of the long drive shafts in the pump, manufacturing tolerance accumulations, failures caused by material incompatibility between the waste and the lowest process bearing that is exposed to the waste, and vibrations which occur when the pump operates at critical speeds. Only vibration and material problems were corrected. Potential bearing and seal degradation still exists for those pumps with a critical speed near the operating speed. Bearing damage can be expected below 700 rpm. The pumps are used to mix or slurry nuclear waste products contained in waste storage tanks prior to transferring the tank contents for further processing. In particular, Lawrence Pumps, Inc. slurry pumps are installed on Tank 7 in F Tank Farm. Appendix A provides the initial recommendations, and further states that this follow up report would provide detailed descriptions of the pump components, failure mechanisms, and corrective actions which include tilt pad bearings, a Stellite process bearing, and modified split shaft retainers. By testing the pumps in a non-radioactive test facility, these corrections have been shown to significantly decrease the vibrations associated with bearing and seal failures, and consequently are expected to improve reliability.

Lieshear, R.A.

2002-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

94

Evaluation of 241-AZ tank farm supporting phase 1 privatization waste feed delivery  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This evaluation is one in a series of evaluations determining the process needs and assessing the adequacy of existing and planned equipment in meeting those needs at various double-shell tank farms in support of Phase 1 privatization. A number of tank-to-tank transfers and waste preparation activities are needed to process and feed waste to the private contractor in support of Phase 1 privatization. The scope of this evaluation is limited to process needs associated with 241-AZ tank farm during the Phase 1 privatization.

CARLSON, A.B.

1998-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

95

Independent Oversight Review of Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

to create tank vacuum exceeding their analyzed capabilities, which could result in structural failures. The vacuum relief valves and other tank vacuum 3 protection devices are...

96

Independent Activity Report, Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms- February 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead for the Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms [HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25

97

BY tank farm waste inventory and transfer data ITS-2 operation during January To June 1972  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Daily record inventory of pumping activities and liquid level changes including occasional operations comments for the BY Tank Farm. Waste inventory and transfer data for ITS-2 operation during January to June 1972.

Reich, F.R., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-08-02T23:59:59.000Z

98

Evaluating capacity and expansion opportunities at tank farm: a decision support system using discrete event simulation  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This paper presents a discrete event simulation based Decision Support System to evaluate tank farm operations. The Decision Support System was developed in order to reduce capital expenditures and assist in decision making for assessing the impact of ...

Bikram Sharda; Adriana Vazquez

2009-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

99

Programmatic Baseline Summary for Phase 1 Privatization for the Tank Farm contractor  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The document describes the systematic integrated baseline planning process and provides a summary of the Tank Farm Contractor scope, schedule and cost analysis developed in support of the Phase 1 privatization mission.

DIEDIKER, J.A.

2000-04-22T23:59:59.000Z

100

Possible explosive compounds in the Savannah River Site waste tank farm facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report will be revised upon completion of current testing investigating the radiolytic stability of additional energetic materials and the analysis of tank farm samples for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.

Hobbs, D.T.

2000-04-13T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY - INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE F-AREA TANK FARM, WASTE TANKS 17 AND 20  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

5 5 April 30, 2013 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY - INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE F-AREA TANK FARM, WASTE TANKS 17 AND 20 The Interim Record of Decision (IROD) Remedial Alternative Selection for the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF), Waste Tanks 17 and 20, is being issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the lead agency for the Savannah River Site (SRS), with concur- rence by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4 (EPA), and South Carolina Department of Health and Environ- mental Control (SCDHEC). The IROD was completed to facilitate the terms of the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for SRS governing the investigation and cleanup of waste units. The FFA integrates the requirements of Resource Conservation and Re- covery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

102

AN ENHANCED HAZARD ANALYSIS PROCESS FOR THE HANFORD TANK FARMS  

SciTech Connect

CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., has expanded the scope and increased the formality of process hazards analyses performed on new or modified Tank Farm facilities, designs, and processes. The CH2M HILL process hazard analysis emphasis has been altered to reflect its use as a fundamental part of the engineering and change control process instead of simply being a nuclear safety analysis tool. The scope has been expanded to include identification of accidents/events that impact the environment, or require emergency response, in addition to those with significant impact to the facility worker, the offsite, and the 100-meter receptor. Also, there is now an expectation that controls will be identified to address all types of consequences. To ensure that the process has an appropriate level of rigor and formality, a new engineering standard for process hazards analysis was created. This paper discusses the role of process hazards analysis as an information source for not only nuclear safety, but also for the worker-safety management programs, emergency management, environmental programs. This paper also discusses the role of process hazards analysis in the change control process, including identifying when and how it should be applied to changes in design or process.

SHULTZ MV

2008-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

103

F-Area Tank Farm, Savannah River Site Available for Public Comment  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

2 2 February 20, 2013 Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for Liquid Waste Tanks 5F and 6F F-Area Tank Farm, Savannah River Site Available for Public Comment Background: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office has requested approval from the South Carolina De- partment of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) of the Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for Waste Tanks 5F and 6F to support removal from service of these subject tanks located in the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The FTF General Closure Plan, approved on January 24, 2011, established the protocols by which DOE would: (1) close SRS FTF waste tank systems in accordance with South Carolina Regulations R.61-82, "Proper Closeout of Wastewater

104

SLUDGE BATCH 7B QUALIFICATION ACTIVITIES WITH SRS TANK FARM SLUDGE  

SciTech Connect

Waste Solidification Engineering (WSE) has requested that characterization and a radioactive demonstration of the next batch of sludge slurry - Sludge Batch 7b (SB7b) - be completed in the Shielded Cells Facility of the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) via a Technical Task Request (TTR). This characterization and demonstration, or sludge batch qualification process, is required prior to transfer of the sludge from Tank 51 to the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) feed tank (Tank 40). The current WSE practice is to prepare sludge batches in Tank 51 by transferring sludge from other tanks. Discharges of nuclear materials from H Canyon are often added to Tank 51 during sludge batch preparation. The sludge is washed and transferred to Tank 40, the current DWPF feed tank. Prior to transfer of Tank 51 to Tank 40, SRNL typically simulates the Tank Farm and DWPF processes with a Tank 51 sample (referred to as the qualification sample). With the tight schedule constraints for SB7b and the potential need for caustic addition to allow for an acceptable glass processing window, the qualification for SB7b was approached differently than past batches. For SB7b, SRNL prepared a Tank 51 and a Tank 40 sample for qualification. SRNL did not receive the qualification sample from Tank 51 nor did it simulate all of the Tank Farm washing and decanting operations. Instead, SRNL prepared a Tank 51 SB7b sample from samples of Tank 7 and Tank 51, along with a wash solution to adjust the supernatant composition to the final SB7b Tank 51 Tank Farm projections. SRNL then prepared a sample to represent SB7b in Tank 40 by combining portions of the SRNL-prepared Tank 51 SB7b sample and a Tank 40 Sludge Batch 7a (SB7a) sample. The blended sample was 71% Tank 40 (SB7a) and 29% Tank 7/Tank 51 on an insoluble solids basis. This sample is referred to as the SB7b Qualification Sample. The blend represented the highest projected Tank 40 heel (as of May 25, 2011), and thus, the highest projected noble metals content for SB7b. Characterization was performed on the Tank 51 SB7b samples and SRNL performed DWPF simulations using the Tank 40 SB7b material. This report documents: (1) The preparation and characterization of the Tank 51 SB7b and Tank 40 SB7b samples. (2) The performance of a DWPF Chemical Process Cell (CPC) simulation using the SB7b Tank 40 sample. The simulation included a Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) cycle, where acid was added to the sludge to destroy nitrite and reduce mercury, and a Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) cycle, where glass frit was added to the sludge in preparation for vitrification. The SME cycle also included replication of five canister decontamination additions and concentrations. Processing parameters were based on work with a nonradioactive simulant. (3) Vitrification of a portion of the SME product and characterization and durability testing (as measured by the Product Consistency Test (PCT)) of the resulting glass. (4) Rheology measurements of the SRAT receipt, SRAT product, and SME product. This program was controlled by a Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP), and analyses were guided by an Analytical Study Plan. This work is Technical Baseline Research and Development (R&D) for the DWPF. It should be noted that much of the data in this document has been published in interoffice memoranda. The intent of this technical report is bring all of the SB7b related data together in a single permanent record and to discuss the overall aspects of SB7b processing.

Pareizs, J.; Click, D.; Lambert, D.; Reboul, S.

2011-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

105

AN EVALUATION OF HANFORD SITE TANK FARM SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION FY2007  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Tank Farm Vadose Zone (TFVZ) Project conducts activities to characterize and analyze the long-term environmental and human health impacts from tank waste releases to the vadose zone. The project also implements interim measures to mitigate impacts, and plans the remediation of waste releases from tank farms and associated facilities. The scope of this document is to report data needs that are important to estimating long-term human health and environmental risks. The scope does not include technologies needed to remediate contaminated soils and facilities, technologies needed to close tank farms, or management and regulatory decisions that will impact remediation and closure. This document is an update of ''A Summary and Evaluation of Hanford Site Tank Farm Subsurface Contamination''. That 1998 document summarized knowledge of subsurface contamination beneath the tank farms at the time. It included a preliminary conceptual model for migration of tank wastes through the vadose zone and an assessment of data and analysis gaps needed to update the conceptual model. This document provides a status of the data and analysis gaps previously defined and discussion of the gaps and needs that currently exist to support the stated mission of the TFVZ Project. The first data-gaps document provided the basis for TFVZ Project activities over the previous eight years. Fourteen of the nineteen knowledge gaps identified in the previous document have been investigated to the point that the project defines the current status as acceptable. In the process of filling these gaps, significant accomplishments were made in field work and characterization, laboratory investigations, modeling, and implementation of interim measures. The current data gaps are organized in groups that reflect Components of the tank farm vadose zone conceptual model: inventory, release, recharge, geohydrology, geochemistry, and modeling. The inventory and release components address residual wastes that will remain in the tanks and tank-farm infrastructure after closure and potential losses from leaks during waste retrieval. Recharge addresses the impacts of current conditions in the tank farms (i.e. gravel covers that affect infiltration and recharge) as well as the impacts of surface barriers. The geohydrology and geochemistry components address the extent of the existing subsurface contaminant inventory and drivers and pathways for contaminants to be transported through the vadose zone and groundwater. Geochemistry addresses the mobility of key reactive contaminants such as uranium. Modeling addresses conceptual models and how they are simulated in computers. The data gaps will be used to provide input to planning (including the upcoming C Farm Data Quality Objective meetings scheduled this year).

MANN, F.M.

2007-07-10T23:59:59.000Z

106

T-TY Tank Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration—Vadose Zone Monitoring Plan  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Site has 149 underground single-shell tanks that store hazardous radioactive waste. Many of these tanks and their associated infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, diversion boxes) have leaked. Some of the leaked waste has entered the groundwater. The largest known leak occurred from the T-106 Tank of the 241-T Tank Farm in 1973. Five tanks are assumed to have leaked in the TY Farm. Many of the contaminants from those leaks still reside within the vadose zone within the T and TY Tank Farms. The Department of Energy’s Office of River Protection seeks to minimize the movement of these contaminant plumes by placing interim barriers on the ground surface. Such barriers are expected to prevent infiltrating water from reaching the plumes and moving them further. The soil water regime is monitored to determine the effectiveness of the interim surface barriers. Soil-water content and water pressure are monitored using off-the-shelf equipment that can be installed by the hydraulic hammer technique. Four instrument nests were installed in the T Farm in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2007; two nests were installed in the TY Farm in FY2010. Each instrument nest contains a neutron probe access tube, a capacitance probe, and four heat-dissipation units. A meteorological station has been installed at the north side of the fence of the T Farm. This document summarizes the monitoring methods, the instrument calibration and installation, and the vadose zone monitoring plan for interim barriers in T farm and TY Farm.

Zhang, Z. F.; Strickland, Christopher E.; Field, Jim G.; Parker, Danny L.

2010-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

107

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for October 1992  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter 1, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

108

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for December 1992  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter I, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for January 1993  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter I, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

110

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for November 1993  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter I. Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

111

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for November 1992  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter 1, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

112

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for June 1993  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter I, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

113

Tank Farm surveillance and waste status summary report for September 1993  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations. This report is intended to meet the requirement of US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office Order 5820.2A, Chapter 1, Section 3.e. (3) (DOE-RL, 1990, Radioactive Waste Management, US Department of Energy-Richland Operation Office, Richland, Washington) requiring the reporting of waste inventories and space utilization for Hanford Tank Farm Tanks.

Hanlon, B.M.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

Computer software configuration management plan for the 241-AY and 241-AZ tank farm MICON automation system  

SciTech Connect

Software configuration items pertaining to the process control systems, of the ventilation systems of the tank farms, are identified and configuration controls are defined.

Teats, M.C.

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

115

Life Estimation of High Level Waste Tank Steel for H-Tank Farm ...  

the tanks is not considered in the analysis. Life Estimation of High Level Waste Tank ... conservative scenario in which the concrete vault has completely

116

Review of the Hanford Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

tank pump and slurry distributer, as well as excavation and installation of associated instrumentation. Independent Oversight also interviewed a selection of key personnel...

117

Pore-Water Extraction Scale-Up Study for the SX Tank Farm  

SciTech Connect

The phenomena related to pore-water extraction from unsaturated sediments have been previously examined with limited laboratory experiments and numerical modeling. However, key scale-up issues have not yet been addressed. Laboratory experiments and numerical modeling were conducted to specifically examine pore-water extraction for sediment conditions relevant to the vadose zone beneath the SX Tank Farm at Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. Available SX Tank Farm data were evaluated to generate a conceptual model of the subsurface for a targeted pore-water extraction application in areas with elevated moisture and Tc-99 concentration. The hydraulic properties of the types of porous media representative of the SX Tank Farm target application were determined using sediment mixtures prepared in the laboratory based on available borehole sediment particle size data. Numerical modeling was used as an evaluation tool for scale-up of pore-water extraction for targeted field applications.

Truex, Michael J.; Oostrom, Martinus; Wietsma, Thomas W.; Last, George V.; Lanigan, David C.

2013-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

118

HIGH LEVEL WASTE MECHANCIAL SLUDGE REMOVAL AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure project has successfully performed Mechanical Sludge Removal (MSR) using the Waste on Wheels (WOW) system for the first time within one of its storage tanks. The WOW system is designed to be relatively mobile with the ability for many components to be redeployed to multiple waste tanks. It is primarily comprised of Submersible Mixer Pumps (SMPs), Submersible Transfer Pumps (STPs), and a mobile control room with a control panel and variable speed drives. In addition, the project is currently preparing another waste tank for MSR utilizing lessons learned from this previous operational activity. These tanks, designated as Tank 6 and Tank 5 respectively, are Type I waste tanks located in F-Tank Farm (FTF) with a capacity of 2,840 cubic meters (750,000 gallons) each. The construction of these tanks was completed in 1953, and they were placed into waste storage service in 1959. The tank's primary shell is 23 meters (75 feet) in diameter, and 7.5 meters (24.5 feet) in height. Type I tanks have 34 vertically oriented cooling coils and two horizontal cooling coil circuits along the tank floor. Both Tank 5 and Tank 6 received and stored F-PUREX waste during their operating service time before sludge removal was performed. DOE intends to remove from service and operationally close (fill with grout) Tank 5 and Tank 6 and other HLW tanks that do not meet current containment standards. Mechanical Sludge Removal, the first step in the tank closure process, will be followed by chemical cleaning. After obtaining regulatory approval, the tanks will be isolated and filled with grout for long-term stabilization. Mechanical Sludge Removal operations within Tank 6 removed approximately 75% of the original 95,000 liters (25,000 gallons). This sludge material was transferred in batches to an interim storage tank to prepare for vitrification. This operation consisted of eleven (11) Submersible Mixer Pump(s) mixing campaigns and multiple intraarea transfers utilizing STPs from July 2006 to August 2007. This operation and successful removal of sludge material meets requirement of approximately 19,000 to 28,000 liters (5,000 to 7,500 gallons) remaining prior to the Chemical Cleaning process. Removal of the last 35% of sludge was exponentially more difficult, as less and less sludge was available to mobilize and the lighter sludge particles were likely removed during the early mixing campaigns. The removal of the 72,000 liters (19,000 gallons) of sludge was challenging due to a number factors. One primary factor was the complex internal cooling coil array within Tank 6 that obstructed mixer discharge jets and impacted the Effective Cleaning Radius (ECR) of the Submersible Mixer Pumps. Minimal access locations into the tank through tank openings (risers) presented a challenge because the available options for equipment locations were very limited. Mechanical Sludge Removal activities using SMPs caused the sludge to migrate to areas of the tank that were outside of the SMP ECR. Various SMP operational strategies were used to address the challenge of moving sludge from remote areas of the tank to the transfer pump. This paper describes in detail the Mechanical Sludge Removal activities and mitigative solutions to cooling coil obstructions and other challenges. The performance of the WOW system and SMP operational strategies were evaluated and the resulting lessons learned are described for application to future Mechanical Sludge Removal operations.

Jolly, R; Bruce Martin, B

2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

119

Office of River Protection Assessment of Contractor Quality Assurance and Operational Awareness at Tank Farms, June 2013  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HIAR-HANFORD-2013-06-17 HIAR-HANFORD-2013-06-17 Site: Hanford, Office of River Protection Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Office of River Protection (ORP) Assessment of Contractor Quality Assurance, Operational Awareness at Hanford Tank Farms Dates of Activity : June 17-20, 2013 Report Preparer: Robert E. Farrell Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (Independent Oversight) Site Lead conducted an operational awareness visit to the ORP Hanford Tank Farms, observed a Tank Farms morning meeting, toured the C Tank Farm, and observed a heavy (34,000 pound) lift. Result: Independent Oversight, together with the ORP Facility Representative, toured the C Tank Farm to observe workers setting

120

Analysis of NaOH releases for Hanford tank farms  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The information contained in the canceled document is now located in the document: Consequence Analysis of a NaOH Solution Spray Release During Addition to Waste Tank, WHC-SD-WM-CN-065.

Ryan, G.W., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-09-12T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

Tank farm deflagration rates due to various ignition sources  

SciTech Connect

This supporting document evaluates potential ignition sources, documents calculated deflagration rates in flammable gas tanks from these ignition sources, and assesses the efficacy of controls to mitigate or prevent ignition.

Powers, T.B., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-08-29T23:59:59.000Z

122

Kyrgyzstan starts up its first refinery  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan started up its first oil refinery in October 1996. The 10,000 b/d plant is designed to produce gasoline, diesel, and mazut (heavy fuel oil) from local Kyrgyz crude. Before construction of the Jalalabad refinery, all finished petroleum products were imported from neighboring countries. Kyrgyzstan`s demand for finished products is about 40,000 b/d. The new refinery was designed and constructed by Petrofac of Tyler, Texas, on behalf of Kyrgoil Corp., Calgary. Kyrgoil is a partner with the Kyrgyz state oil company, Kyrgyzsneft, in a venture called Kyrzgyz Petroleum Co. (KPC). KPC has undertaken restoration and continued development of the oil fields in Kyrgyzstan`s Fergana basin, in addition to the refinery project. The company also has marketing rights for finished products within Kyrgyzstan. The refinery comprises: a hydroskimming (atmospheric distillation) section, diesel steam stripping, gasoline blending, and utilities and off-sites, including steam generation, power generation, tank farm, truck and rail tank-car loading and unloading facilities, crude inlet pipeline, high-voltage power line, substation, air compression, laboratory, and maintenance facilities.

McLeod, G. [Petrofac LLC, Tyler, TX (United States)

1997-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

123

REASSESSMENT OF NEAR SURFACE CONTAMINATION IN SINGLE SHELL TANK (SST) FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Reassessment of the documentation and information in valuing near-surface contamination and unplanned releases adjacent to the Tank Farms in the 200 Area of the Hanford Site. Information is contained in a Microsoft Access database. 63 new sources of contamination information were identified.

JONES, T.E.

2004-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

124

Review of Management of Safety Systems at the Hanford Tank Farms, April 2013  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Independent Oversight Review of Independent Oversight Review of Management of Safety Systems at the Hanford Tank Farms May 2011 February 2013 April 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U. S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 2

125

HANFORD TANK FARM RESOURCE CONVERVATION & RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM  

SciTech Connect

As a consequence of producing special nuclear material for the nation's defense, large amounts of extremely hazardous radioactive waste was created at the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site in south central Washington State. A little over 50 million gallons of this waste is now stored in 177 large, underground tanks on Hanford's Central Plateau in tank farms regulated under the Atomic Energy Act and the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA). Over 60 tanks and associated infrastructure have released or are presumed to have released waste in the vadose zone. In 1998, DOE's Office of River Protection established the Hanford Tank Farm RCRA Corrective Action Program (RCAP) to: (1) characterize the distribution and extent of the existing vadose zone contamination; (2) determine how the contamination will move in the future; (3) estimate the impacts of this contamination on groundwater and other media; (4) develop and implement mitigative measures; and (5) develop corrective measures to be implemented as part of the final closure of the tank farm facilities. Since its creation, RCAP has made major advances in each of these areas, which will be discussed in this paper.

KRISTOFZSKI, J.G.

2007-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

126

Functions and requirements for tank farm restoration and safe operations, Project W-314. Revision 3  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Functions and Requirements document (FRD) establishes the basic performance criteria for Project W-314, in accordance with the guidance outlined in the letter from R.W. Brown, RL, to President, WHC, ``Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Project Documentation Methodology,`` 94-PRJ-018, dated 3/18/94. The FRD replaces the Functional Design Criteria (FDC) as the project technical baseline documentation. Project W-314 will improve the reliability of safety related systems, minimize onsite health and safety hazards, and support waste retrieval and disposal activities by restoring and/or upgrading existing Tank Farm facilities and systems. The scope of Project W-314 encompasses the necessary restoration upgrades of the Tank Farms` instrumentation, ventilation, electrical distribution, and waste transfer systems.

Garrison, R.C.

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

127

Data Quality Objectives for Tank Farms Waste Compatibility Program  

SciTech Connect

There are 177 waste storage tanks containing over 210,000 m{sup 3} (55 million gal) of mixed waste at the Hanford Site. The River Protection Project (RPP) has adopted the data quality objective (DQO) process used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 1994a) and implemented by RPP internal procedure (Banning 1999a) to identify the information and data needed to address safety issues. This DQO document is based on several documents that provide the technical basis for inputs and decision/action levels used to develop the decision rules that evaluate the transfer of wastes. A number of these documents are presently in the process of being revised. This document will need to be revised if there are changes to the technical criteria in these supporting documents. This DQO process supports various documents, such as sampling and analysis plans and double-shell tank (DST) waste analysis plans. This document identifies the type, quality, and quantity of data needed to determine whether transfer of supernatant can be performed safely. The requirements in this document are designed to prevent the mixing of incompatible waste as defined in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-040. Waste transfers which meet the requirements contained in this document and the Double-Shell Tank Waste Analysis Plan (Mulkey 1998) are considered to be compatible, and prevent the mixing of incompatible waste.

BANNING, D.L.

1999-07-02T23:59:59.000Z

128

Tank Farm Contractor Phase 1 Feed Delivery and Storage and Disposal Mission Summary for 2006 Hot Start Extended Order  

SciTech Connect

This is the level one logic diagram for the River Protection Project (RPP), Tank Farm Contractor, Phase 1, Feed Delivery Storage and Disposal Mission Summary for 2006 Hot Start.

DAVIS, T.J.

2000-04-24T23:59:59.000Z

129

SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION OF SX TANK FARM AT THE HANFORD SITE RESULTS OF BACKGROUND CHARACTERIZATION WITH MAGNETICS AND ELECTROMAGNETICS  

SciTech Connect

This report presents the results of the background characterization of the cribs and trenches surrounding the SX tank farm prepared by HydroGEOPHYSICS Inc, Columbia Energy & Environmental Services Inc and Washington River Protection Solutions.

MYERS DA; RUCKER D; LEVIT M; CUBBAGE B; HENDERSON C

2009-09-24T23:59:59.000Z

130

TANK FARM CLOSURE - A NEW TWIST ON REGULATORY STRATEGIES FOR CLOSURE OF WASTE TANK RESIDUALS FOLLOWING NUREG  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Waste from a number of single-shell tanks (SST) at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site has been retrieved by CH2M HILL Hanford Group to fulfill the requirements of the 'Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO) [1]. Laboratory analyses of the Hanford tank residual wastes have provided concentration data which will be used to determine waste classification and disposal options for tank residuals. The closure of tank farm facilities remains one of the most challenging activities faced by the DOE. This is due in part to the complicated regulatory structures that have developed. These regulatory structures are different at each of the DOE sites, making it difficult to apply lessons learned from one site to the next. During the past two years with the passage of the Section 3116 of the 'Ronald Reagan Defense Authorization Act of 2005' (NDAA) [2] some standardization has emerged for Savannah River Site and the Idaho National Laboratory tank residuals. Recently, with the issuance of 'NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to US. Department of Energy Waste Determinations' (NUREG-1854) [3] more explicit options may be considered for Hanford tank residuals than are presently available under DOE Orders. NUREG-1854, issued in August 2007, contains several key pieces of information that if utilized by the DOE in the tank closure process, could simplify waste classification and streamline the NRC review process by providing information to the NRC in their preferred format. Other provisions of this NUREG allow different methods to be applied in determining when waste retrieval is complete by incorporating actual project costs and health risks into the calculation of 'technically and economically practical'. Additionally, the NUREG requires a strong understanding of the uncertainties of the analyses, which given the desire of some NRC/DOE staff may increase the likelihood of using probabilistic approaches to uncertainty analysis. The purpose of this paper is to discuss implications of NUREG-1854 and to examine the feasibility and potential benefits of applying these provisions to waste determinations and supporting documents such as future performance assessments for tank residuals.

LEHMAN LL

2008-01-23T23:59:59.000Z

131

Review of Nuclear Criticality Safety Requirements Implementation for Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

In November 1999, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy directed a series of actions to strengthen the Department's ongoing nuclear criticality safety programs. A Review Plan describing lines of inquiry for assessing contractor programs was included. The Office of River Protection completed their assessment of the Tank Farm Contractor program in May 2000. This document supports that assessment by providing a compliance statement for each line of inquiry.

DEFIGH PRICE, C.

2000-08-09T23:59:59.000Z

132

In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and H-Tank Farm (HTF) geotechnical report, WSRC-TR-95-0057, Revision 0, Volume 3  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A geotechnical study has been completed in H-Area for the In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and the balance of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The study consisted of subsurface field exploration, field and laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The purpose of these investigations is to evaluate the overall stability of the H-Area tanks under static and dynamic conditions. The objectives of the study are to define the site-specific geological conditions at ITP and HTF, obtain engineering properties for the assessment of the stability of the native soils and embankment under static and dynamic loads (i.e., slope stability, liquefaction potential, and potential settlements), and derive properties for soil-structure interaction studies. This document contains the records of cone penetrometer and dilatometer soundings for the In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and H-Tank Farm (HTF) Geotechnical Report, Volume 3.

Fisk, B.E.; Timian, D.A.

1995-06-02T23:59:59.000Z

133

STATUS OF MECHANICAL SLUDGE REMOVAL AND COOLING COILS CLOSURE AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE - F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT - 9225  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure project has successfully performed Mechanical Sludge Removal using the Waste on Wheels (WOW) system within two of its storage tanks. The Waste on Wheels (WOW) system is designed to be relatively mobile with the ability for many components to be redeployed to multiple tanks. It is primarily comprised of Submersible Mixer Pumps (SMPs), Submersible Transfer Pumps (STPs), and a mobile control room with a control panel and variable speed drives. These tanks, designated as Tank 6 and Tank 5 respectively, are Type I waste tanks located in F-Tank Farm (FTF) with a capacity of 2839 cubic meters (750,000 gallons) each. In addition, Type I tanks have 34 vertically oriented cooling coils and two horizontal cooling coil circuits along the tank floor. DOE intends to remove from service and operationally close Tank 5 and Tank 6 and other HLW tanks that do not meet current containment standards. After obtaining regulatory approval, the tanks and cooling coils will be isolated and filled with grout for long term stabilization. Mechanical Sludge Removal of the remaining sludge waste within Tank 6 removed {approx} 75% of the original 25,000 gallons in August 2007. Utilizing lessons learned from Tank 6, Tank 5 Mechanical Sludge Removal completed removal of {approx} 90% of the original 125 cubic meters (33,000 gallons) of sludge material in May 2008. The successful removal of sludge material meets the requirement of approximately 19 to 28 cubic meters (5,000 to 7,500 gallons) remaining prior to the Chemical Cleaning process. The Chemical Cleaning Process will utilize 8 wt% oxalic acid to dissolve the remaining sludge heel. The flow sheet for Chemical Cleaning planned a 20:1 volume ratio of acid to sludge for the first strike with mixing provided by the submersible mixer pumps. The subsequent strikes will utilize a 13:1 volume ratio of acid to sludge with no mixing. The results of the Chemical Cleaning Process are detailed in the 'Status of Chemical Cleaning of Waste Tanks at the Savannah River Site--F Tank Farm Closure Project--Abstract 9114'. To support Tank 5 and Tank 6 cooling coil closure, cooling coil isolation and full scale cooling coil grout testing was completed to develop a strategy for grouting the horizontal and vertical cooling coils. This paper describes in detail the performance of the Mechanical Sludge Removal activities and SMP operational strategies within Tank 5. In addition, it will discuss the current status of Tank 5 & 6 cooling coil isolation activities and the results from the cooling coil grout fill tests.

Jolly, R

2009-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

134

Characterization and Potential Remediation Approaches for Vadose Zone Contamination at Hanford 241-SX Tank Farm  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Unplanned releases of radioactive and hazardous wastes have occurred at the 241-SX Tank Farm on the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site in southeast Washington State. Interim and long-term mitigation efforts are currently under evaluation for 241-SX Tank Farm. Two contiguous interim surface barriers have been designed for deployment at 241-SX Tank Farm to reduce future moisture infiltration; however, construction of the surface barriers has been deferred to allow testing of alternative technologies for soil moisture reduction and possibly contaminant source term reduction. Previous tests performed by other organizations at the Hanford Site have demonstrated that: vadose zone desiccation using large diameter (greater than 4 inch) boreholes is feasible; under certain circumstances, mobile contaminants may be removed in addition to water vapor; and small diameter (approximately 2 inch) boreholes (such as those placed by the direct push hydraulic hammer) can be used to perform vapor extractions. Evaluation of the previous work combined with laboratory test results have led to the design of a field proof-of-principle test to remove water and possibly mobile contaminants at greater depths, using small boreholes placed with the direct push unit.

Eberlein, Susan J.; Sydnor, Harold A.; Parker, Danny L.; Glaser, Danney R.

2013-01-10T23:59:59.000Z

135

Evaluation of Alternative Control for Prevention and or Mitigation of HEPA Filter Failure Accidents at Tank Farm Facilities  

SciTech Connect

This study evaluates the adequacy and benefit of use of HEPA filter differential pressure limiting setpoints to initiate exhauster shut down as an alternative safety control for postulated accidents that might result in filtration failure and subsequent unfiltered release from Tank Farm primary tank ventilators.

GUSTAVSON, R.D.

2000-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

136

Record of Decision for Tank Farm Soil and INTEC Groundwater, Operable Unit 3-14  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) 3-14 tank farm soil and groundwater at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), which is located on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site. The tank farm was initially evaluated in the OU 3-13 Record of Decision (ROD), and it was determined that additional information was needed to make a final decision. Additional information has been obtained on the nature and extent of contamination in the tank farm and on the impact to groundwater. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et seq.), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300). The selected remedy is intended to be the final action for tank farm soil and groundwater at INTEC. The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Such a release or threat of release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The remedial actions selected in this ROD are designed to reduce the potential threats to human health and the environment to acceptable levels. In addition, DOE-ID, EPA, and DEQ (the Agencies) have determined that no action is necessary under CERCLA to protect public health, welfare, or the environment at 16 sites located outside the tank farm boundary. The purposes of the selected remedy are to (1) contain contaminated soil as the radionuclides decay in place, (2) isolate current and future workers and biological receptors from contact with contaminated soil, and (3) restore the portion of Snake River Plain Aquifer contaminated by INTEC releases to Idaho Ground Water Quality standards (same as maximum contaminant levels) by reducing water infiltration through strontium-90 contaminated perched water and interbeds. In addition, the remedy will prevent future drinking water wells from being drilled into the contaminated portion of the aquifer that is in and near the INTEC facility until such time as the water is restored to maximum contaminant levels or below.

L. S. Cahn

2007-05-16T23:59:59.000Z

137

Evaluation of ISDP Batch 2 Qualification Compliance to 512-S, DWPF, Tank Farm, and Saltstone Waste Acceptance Criteria  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The purpose of this report is to document the acceptability of the second macrobatch (Salt Batch 2) of Tank 49H waste to H Tank Farm, DWPF, and Saltstone for operation of the Interim Salt Disposition Project (ISDP). Tank 49 feed meets the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) requirements specified by References 11, 12, and 13. Salt Batch 2 material is qualified and ready to be processed through ARP/MCU to the final disposal facilities.

Shafer, A.

2010-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

138

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS WASTE STORAGE TANK VAPOR CONTROL ATTEMPTS ON SINGLE SHELL TANK (SST) & DOUBLE SHELL TANK (DST) FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report forms the basis for a feasibility study and conceptual design to control vapor emissions from waste storage tanks at the Hanford Site. The Carbtrol, Vapor Mixing, and High Efficiency Gas Absorber (HEGA) vapor controls were evaluated to determine the lessons learned from previous failed vapor control attempts. This document illustrates the resulting findings based on that evaluation.

BAKER, D.M.

2004-08-03T23:59:59.000Z

139

Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

NE-ID-11226 NE-ID-11226 Revision 0 Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility November 2006 DOE/NE-ID-11226 Revision 0 Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility November 2006 ii CONTENTS ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................................. vii 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.................................................................................................. 1 2. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Tank Farm Facility Description.............................................................................................

140

Configuration management plan for waste tank farms and the 242-A evaporator of tank waste remediation system  

SciTech Connect

The configuration management architecture presented in this Configuration Management Plan is based on the functional model established by DOE-STD-1073-93, ``Guide for Operational Configuration Management Program.`` The DOE Standard defines the configuration management program by the five basic program elements of ``program management,`` ``design requirements,`` ``document control,`` ``change control,`` and ``assessments,`` and the two adjunct recovery programs of ``design reconstitution,`` and ``material condition and aging management.`` The CM model of five elements and two adjunct programs strengthen the necessary technical and administrative control to establish and maintain a consistent technical relationship among the requirements, physical configuration, and documentation. Although the DOE Standard was originally developed for the operational phase of nuclear facilities, this plan has the flexibility to be adapted and applied to all life-cycle phases of both nuclear and non-nuclear facilities. The configuration management criteria presented in this plan endorses the DOE Standard and has been tailored specifically to address the technical relationship of requirements, physical configuration, and documentation during the full life cycle of the Waste Tank Farms and 242-A Evaporator of Tank Waste Remediation System.

Laney, T.

1994-08-30T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

Technical Review of Retrieval and Closure Plans for the INEEL INTEC Tank Farm Facility  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this report is to document the conclusions of a technical review of retrieval and closure plans for the Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Tank Farm Facility. In addition to reviewing retrieval and closure plans for these tanks, the review process served as an information exchange mechanism so that staff in the INEEL High Level Waste (HLW) Program could become more familiar with retrieval and closure approaches that have been completed or are planned for underground storage tanks at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Hanford sites. This review focused not only on evaluation of the technical feasibility and appropriateness of the approach selected by INEEL but also on technology gaps that could be addressed through utilization of technologies or performance data available at other DOE sites and in the private sector. The reviewers, Judith Bamberger of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Dr. Barry Burks of The Providence Group Applied Technology, have extensive experience in the development and application of tank waste retrieval technologies for nuclear waste remediation.

Bamberger, Judith A; Burks, Barry L; Quigley, Keith D; Falter, Diedre D

2001-09-28T23:59:59.000Z

142

Assessment of New Calculation Method for Toxicological Sums-of-Fractions for Hanford Tank Farm Wastes  

SciTech Connect

The toxicological source terms used for potential accident assessment in the Hanford Tank Farms DSA are based on toxicological sums-of-fractions (SOFs) that were calculated based on the Best Basis Inventory (BBI) from May 2002, using a method that depended on thermodynamic equilibrium calculations of the compositions of liquid and solid phases. The present report describes a simplified SOF-calculation method that is to be used in future toxicological updates and assessments and compares its results (for the 2002 BBI) to those of the old method.

Mahoney, Lenna A.

2006-10-18T23:59:59.000Z

143

Collaboration, Automation, and Information Management at Hanford High Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Tank Farms - 14210  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), operator of High Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Tank Farms at the Hanford Site, is taking an over 20-year leap in technology, replacing systems that were monitored with clipboards and obsolete computer systems, as well as solving major operations and maintenance hurdles in the area of process automation and information management. While WRPS is fully compliant with procedures and regulations, the current systems are not integrated and do not share data efficiently, hampering how information is obtained and managed.

Aurah, Mirwaise Y.; Roberts, Mark A.

2013-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

144

Tank Closure  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Topics 3 Overview of SRS Tank Closure Program Two Tank Farms - F Area and H Area Permitted by SC as Industrial Wastewater Facilities under the Pollution Control...

145

Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SRS-WD-2012-001 SRS-WD-2012-001 Revision 0 Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site March 2012 Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River Site March 2012 Page ii REVISION SUMMARY REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE OF ISSUE 0 Initial Issue March 2012 Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River Site March 2012 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REVISION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vi

146

Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site.  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SRS-WD-2010-001 SRS-WD-2010-001 Revision 0 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site September 30, 2010 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2010-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River Site September 30, 2010 Page ii REVISION SUMMARY REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE OF ISSUE 0 Initial Issue 09/30/2010 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2010-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River Site September 30, 2010 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REVISION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................................

147

Spectrum shape-analysis techniques applied to the Hanford Tank Farms spectral gamma logs  

SciTech Connect

Gamma-ray spectra acquired with high-energy resolution by the spectral gamma logging systems (SGLSs) at the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Tank Farms, Richland, Washington, are being analyzed for spectral shape characteristics. These spectral shapes, together with a conventional peak-area analysis, enable an analyst not only to identify the gamma-emitting species but also to determine in many instances its spatial distribution around a borehole and to identify the presence of the bremsstrahlung-producing contaminant {sup 90}Sr. The analysis relies primarily on the results of computer simulations of gamma spectra from the predominant radionuclide {sup 137}Cs for various spatial distributions. This log analysis methodology has evolved through an examination of spectral features from spectral logs taken at the SX, BY, and U Tank Farms at the Hanford Site. Initial results determined with this technique show it is possible, in most cases, to distinguish between concentrations of {sup 137}Cs. Work is continuing by experimentally measuring shape factors, incorporating spectrum shape processing in routine log analysis, and extending the techniques to additional radionuclides.

Wilson, R.D.

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

148

Possible explosive compounds in the Savannah River Site Tank Farm facilities. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect

Since 1970, many studies have been conducted concerning the potential for explosive compounds in tank farm operations including ammonium nitrate, metal oxalates, and silver and mercury compounds. The study currently in progress is the most comprehensive to date, encompassing all previous studies and extending the scope to include all compounds that could be formed from the known species in SRS wastes. In addition to waste storage, the study also considers waste removal and waste processing operations. The total number of possible explosive compounds is so large that it would not be useful to list them all here. Instead, only those compounds are listed that are known to be present or could conceivably be formed from material that is known to be present in the waste. The general approach to the problem is: identify all of the constituents that are known to be present in the waste together with those that might be present from possible chemical and radiolytic reactions, determine the compounds that could be formed from these constituents, compare these compounds with those listed in the literature, and assess the formation and stability of these compounds against the conditions existing in the tank farm facilities.

Hobbs, D.T.

1995-04-27T23:59:59.000Z

149

Possible explosive compounds in the Savannah River Site waste tank farm facilities  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Based on a comparison of the known constituents in high-level nuclear waste stored at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and explosive compounds reported in the literature, only two classes of explosive compounds (metal NO{sub x} compounds and organic compounds) were identified as requiring further work to determine if they exist in the waste, and if so, in what quantities. Of the fourteen classes of explosive compounds identified as conceivably being present in tank farm operations, nine classes (metal fulminates, metal azides, halogen compounds, metal-amine complexes, nitrate/oxalate mixtures, metal oxalates, metal oxohalogenates, metal cyanides/cyanates, and peroxides) are not a hazard because these classes of compounds cannot be formed or accumulated in sufficient quantity, or they are not reactive at the conditions which exist in the tank farm facilities. Three of the classes (flammable gases, metal nitrides, and ammonia compounds and derivatives) are known to have the potential to build up to concentrations at which an observable reaction might occur. Controls have been in place for some time to limit the formation or control the concentration of these classes of compounds. A comprehensive list of conceivable explosive compounds is provided in Appendix 3.

Hobbs, D.T.

1992-03-15T23:59:59.000Z

150

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 1  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SRR-CWDA-2010-00128 SRR-CWDA-2010-00128 Revision 0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT for the H-AREA TANK FARM at the SAVANNAH RIVER SITE March 2011 Prepared by: Savannah River Remediation LLC Closure & Waste Disposal Authority Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC09-09SR22505 Performance Assessment for the SRR-CWDA-2010-00128 H-Area Tank Farm at the Revision 0 Savannah River Site March 2011 Page ii of 864 REVISION SUMMARY REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE OF ISSUE 0a Initial issue to DOE-SR 09/17/2010

151

CHEMICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SLUDGE SOLIDS AT THE F AND H AREA TANK FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The primary source of waste solids received into the F Area Tank Farm (FTF) was from PUREX processing performed to recover uranium and plutonium from irradiated depleted uranium targets. In contrast, two primary sources of waste solids were received into the H Area Tank Farm (HTF): a) waste from PUREX processing; and b) waste from H-modified (HM) processing performed to recover uranium and neptunium from burned enriched uranium fuel. Due to the differences between the irradiated depleted uranium targets and the burned enriched uranium fuel, the average compositions of the F and H Area wastes are markedly different from one another. Both F and H Area wastes contain significant amounts of iron and aluminum compounds. However, because the iron content of PUREX waste is higher than that of HM waste, and the aluminum content of PUREX waste is lower than that of HM waste, the iron to aluminum ratios of typical FTF waste solids are appreciably higher than those of typical HTF waste solids. Other constituents present at significantly higher concentrations in the typical FTF waste solids include uranium, nickel, ruthenium, zinc, silver, cobalt and copper. In contrast, constituents present at significantly higher concentrations in the typical HTF waste solids include mercury, thorium, oxalate, and radionuclides U-233, U-234, U-235, U-236, Pu-238, Pu-242, Cm-244, and Cm-245. Because of the higher concentrations of Pu-238 in HTF, the long-term concentrations of Th-230 and Ra-226 (from Pu-238 decay) will also be higher in HTF. The uranium and plutonium distributions of the average FTF waste were found to be consistent with depleted uranium and weapons grade plutonium, respectively (U-235 comprised 0.3 wt% of the FTF uranium, and Pu-240 comprised 6 wt% of the FTF plutonium). In contrast, at HTF, U-235 comprised 5 wt% of the uranium, and Pu-240 comprised 17 wt% of the plutonium, consistent with enriched uranium and high burn-up plutonium. X-ray diffraction analyses of various FTF and HTF samples indicated that the primary crystalline compounds of iron in sludge solids are Fe{sub 2}O{sub 3}, Fe{sub 3}O{sub 4}, and FeO(OH), and the primary crystalline compounds of aluminum are Al(OH){sub 3} and AlO(OH). Also identified were carbonate compounds of calcium, magnesium, and sodium; a nitrated sodium aluminosilicate; and various uranium compounds. Consistent with expectations, oxalate compounds were identified in solids associated with oxalic acid cleaning operations. The most likely oxidation states and chemical forms of technetium are assessed in the context of solubility, since technetium-99 is a key risk driver from an environmental fate and transport perspective. The primary oxidation state of technetium in SRS sludge solids is expected to be Tc(IV). In salt waste, the primary oxidation state is expected to be Tc(VII). The primary form of technetium in sludge is expected to be a hydrated technetium dioxide, TcO{sub 2} {center_dot} xH{sub 2}O, which is relatively insoluble and likely co-precipitated with iron. In salt waste solutions, the primary form of technetium is expected to be the very soluble pertechnetate anion, TcO{sub 4}{sup -}. The relative differences between the F and H Tank Farm waste provide a basis for anticipating differences that will occur as constituents of FTF and HTF waste residue enter the environment over the long-term future. If a constituent is significantly more dominant in one of the Tank Farms, its long-term environmental contribution will likely be commensurately higher, assuming the environmental transport conditions of the two Tank Farms share some commonality. It is in this vein that the information cited in this document is provided - for use during the generation, assessment, and validation of Performance Assessment modeling results.

Reboul, S.

2012-08-29T23:59:59.000Z

152

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID)  

SciTech Connect

The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 3) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Safeguards and Security, Engineering Design, and Maintenance.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

153

High level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 6  

SciTech Connect

The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 6) outlines the standards and requirements for the sections on: Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Research and Development and Experimental Activities, and Nuclear Safety.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

154

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 2  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 2) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Quality Assurance, Training and Qualification, Emergency Planning and Preparedness, and Construction.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

155

Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report for Operable Unit 3-14, Tank Farm Soil and INTEC Groundwater  

SciTech Connect

This annual report summarizes maintenance, monitoring, and inspection activities performed to implement the selected remedy for Waste Area Group 3, Operable Unit 3-14, Tank Farm soil and groundwater at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center located within the Idaho National Laboratory Site. Results from monitoring perched water and groundwater at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center are also presented.

Forsythe, Howard S.

2010-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

156

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 4  

SciTech Connect

The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 4) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Radiation Protection and Operations.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

157

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 5  

SciTech Connect

The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 5) outlines the standards and requirements for the Fire Protection and Packaging and Transportation sections.

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

158

Savannah River Site H-Area Tank Farm Performance Assessment Scoping Meeting  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

H-Area Tank Farm Performance Assessment Scoping Meeting April 20-22, 2010 230 Green Blvd. Aiken Design Center Building Village at Woodside Aiken, SC DRAFT MEETING NOTES Tuesday, April 20, 2010 (8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) Welcome and introductions made by Tom Gutmann, DOE-SR and Ginger Dickert, SRR. The meeting proceeded with discussion of the topics as identified in the Agenda. Review of General Information Package Consider development of functional requirements/key assumptions tracking process. Evaluate use of Hanford tool for tracking assumptions. Evaluate TRS IAEA-364 for potential updates to some factors (recently published). NRC will provide to DOE and SRR. Consider Features Events Processes (FEPs) style analysis to provide additional

159

Evaluation of cracking in the 241-AZ tank farm ventilation line at the Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

In the period from April to October of 1988, a series of welding operations on the outside of the AZ Tank Farm ventilation line piping at the Hanford Site produced unexpected and repeated cracking of the austenitic stainless steel base metal and of a seam weld in the pipe. The ventilation line is fabricated from type 304L stainless steel pipe of 24 inch diameter and 0.25 inch wall thickness. The pipe was wrapped in polyethylene bubble wrap and buried approximately 12 feet below grade. Except for the time period between 1980 and 1987, impressed current cathodic protection has been applied to the pipe since its installation in 1974. The paper describes the history of the cracking of the pipe, the probable cracking mechanisms, and the recommended future action for repair/replacement of the pipe.

ANANTATMULA, R.P.

1999-10-20T23:59:59.000Z

160

Simulant Development for Hanford Tank Farms Double Valve Isolation (DVI) Valves Testing  

SciTech Connect

Leakage testing of a representative sample of the safety-significant isolation valves for Double Valve Isolation (DVI) in an environment that simulates the abrasive characteristics of the Hanford Tank Farms Waste Transfer System during waste feed delivery to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is to be conducted. The testing will consist of periodic leak performed on the DVI valves after prescribed numbers of valve cycles (open and close) in a simulated environment representative of the abrasive properties of the waste and the Waste Transfer System. The valve operations include exposure to cycling conditions that include gravity drain and flush operation following slurry transfer. The simulant test will establish the performance characteristics and verify compliance with the Documented Safety Analysis. Proper simulant development is essential to ensure that the critical process streams characteristics are represented, National Research Council report “Advice on the Department of Energy's Cleanup Technology Roadmap: Gaps and Bridges”

Wells, Beric E.

2012-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

STATUS OF CHEMICAL CLEANING OF WASTE TANKS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT - 9114  

SciTech Connect

Chemical Cleaning is currently in progress for Tanks 5 and 6 at the Savannah River Site. The Chemical Cleaning process is being utilized to remove the residual waste heel remaining after completion of Mechanical Sludge Removal. This work is required to prepare the tanks for closure. Tanks 5 and 6 are 1950s vintage carbon steel waste tanks that do not meet current containment standards. These tanks are 22.9 meters (75 feet) in diameter, 7.5 meters (24.5 feet) in height, and have a capacity of 2.84E+6 liters (750,000 gallons). Chemical Cleaning adds 8 wt % oxalic acid to the carbon steel tank to dissolve the remaining sludge heel. The resulting acidic waste solution is transferred to Tank 7 where it is pH adjusted to minimize corrosion of the carbon steel tank. The Chemical Cleaning flowsheet includes multiple strikes of acid in each tank. Acid is delivered by tanker truck and is added to the tanks through a hose assembly connected to a pipe penetration through the tank top. The flowsheet also includes spray washing with acid and water. This paper includes an overview of the configuration required for Chemical Cleaning, the planned flowsheet, and an overview of technical concerns associated with the process. In addition, the current status of the Chemical Cleaning process in Tanks 5 and 6, lessons learned from the execution of the process, and the path forward for completion of cleaning in Tanks 5 and 6 will also be discussed.

Thaxton, D; Geoff Clendenen, G; Willie Gordon, W; Samuel Fink, S; Michael Poirier, M

2008-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

162

HANFORD DOUBLE SHELL TANK THERMAL AND SEISMIC PROJECT INCREASED LIQUID LEVEL ANALYSIS FOR 241-AP TANK FARMS  

SciTech Connect

The essential difference between Revision 1 and the original issue of this report is the analysis of the anchor bolts that tie the steel dome of the primary tank to the concrete tank dome. The reevaluation of the AP anchor bolts showed that (for a given temperature increase) the anchor shear load distribution did not change significantly from the initially higher stiffness to the new secant shear stiffness. Therefore, the forces and displacements of the other tank components such as the primary tanks stresses, secondary liner strains, and concrete tank forces and moments also did not change significantly. Consequently, the revised work in Revision 1 focused on the changes in the anchor bolt responses and a full reevaluation of all tank components was judged to be unnecessary.

TC MACKEY; JE DEIBLER; MW RINKER; KI JOHNSON; SP PILLI; NK KARRI; FG ABATT; KL STOOPS

2009-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

163

A STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATION OF THE TANK FARM WASTE TRANSFER SYSTEM  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Radioactive supernate, salt, and/or sludge wastes (i.e., high level wastes) are confined in 49 underground storage tanks at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The waste is transported between tanks within and between the F and H area tank farms and other facilities on site via underground and a limited number of aboveground transfer lines. The Department of Energy - Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) performed a comprehensive assessment of the structural integrity program for the Tank Farm waste transfer system at the SRS. This document addresses the following issues raised during the DOE assessment: (1) Inspections of failed or replaced transfer lines indicated that the wall thickness of some core and jacket piping is less than nominal; (2) No corrosion allowance is utilized in the transfer line structural qualification calculations. No basis for neglecting corrosion was provided in the calculations; (3) Wall loss due to erosion is not addressed in the transfer line structural qualification calculations; and (4) No basis is provided for neglecting intergranular stress corrosion cracking in the transfer line structural qualification calculations. The common theme in most of these issues is the need to assess the potential for occurrence of material degradation of the transfer line piping. The approach used to resolve these issues involved: (1) Review the design and specifications utilized to construct and fabricate the piping system; (2) Review degradation mechanisms for stainless steel and carbon steel and determine their relevance to the transfer line piping; (3) Review the transfer piping inspection data; (4) Life estimation calculations for the transfer lines; and (5) A Fitness-For-Service evaluation for one of the transfer line jackets. The evaluation concluded that the transfer line system piping has performed well for over fifty years. Although there have been instances of failures of the stainless steel core pipe during off-normal service, no significant degradation is anticipated during normal operations for the planned service life. General corrosion of stainless steel in high level waste environments was shown to be insignificant (i.e., little or no wall loss is expected for a time on the order of 180 years or more). Erosion is also not expected to limit the life of the pipes due to the low usage of the transfer lines and low fluid velocity during transfers. Quality controls on the material (e.g., corrosion evaluation testing) and procedures/specifications that limit contact with chloride bearing materials or liquids minimize the potential for the occurrence of stress corrosion cracking of the core pipe. General corrosion of the carbon steel jacket is not expected to be significant for a reasonable intended service life (e.g., on the order of 170 years). However, the carbon steel jackets are expected to continue to fail in local areas due to pitting corrosion. Life prediction estimates project that a significant increase in the number of jacket failures (i.e., through-wall penetrations) may occur after an additional 30 to 60 years of service life (i.e., between 2035 and 2065). A Fitness-For-Service evaluation was performed for a recently inspected jacket that showed evidence of pitting within a locally thinned area. The evaluation concluded that the line is still able to perform its intended function and can remain in service.

Wiersma, B.

2006-03-09T23:59:59.000Z

164

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator standards/requirements identification document (S/RID), Vol. 6  

SciTech Connect

The scope of the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) Functional Area includes the programmatic controls associated with the management and operation of the Hanford Tank Farm Facility. The driving management organization implementing the programmatic controls is the Tank Farms Waste Management (WM)organization whose responsibilities are to ensure that performance objectives are established; and that measurable criteria for attaining objectives are defined and reflected in programs, policies and procedures. Objectives for the WM Program include waste minimization, establishment of effective waste segregation methods, waste treatment technology development, radioactive (low-level, high-level) hazardous and mixed waste transfer, treatment, and storage, applicability of a corrective action program, and management and applicability of a decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) program in future years.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

165

T-TY Tank Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration - Vadose Zone Monitoring FY10 Report  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of River Protection has constructed interim surface barriers over a portion of the T and TY tank farms as part of the Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration Project. The interim surface barriers (hereafter referred to as the surface barriers or barriers) are designed to minimize the infiltration of precipitation into the soil zones containing radioactive contaminants and minimize the movement of the contaminants. As part of the demonstration effort, vadose zone moisture is being monitored to assess the effectiveness of the barriers at reducing soil moisture. Solar-powered systems were installed to continuously monitor soil water conditions at four locations in the T (i.e., instrument Nests TA, TB, TC, and TD) and the TY (i.e., instrument Nests TYA and TYB) Farms beneath the barriers and outside the barrier footprint as well as site meteorological conditions. Nests TA and TYA are placed in the area outside the barrier footprint and serve as controls, providing subsurface conditions outside the influence of the surface barriers. Nest TB provides subsurface measurements to assess surface-barrier edge effects. Nests TC, TD, and TYB are used to assess changes in soil-moisture conditions beneath the interim surface barriers. Except for occasional times for TC and TD and planned dates for TYB, during FY10, the battery voltage at the TMS and instrument Nests in both T and TY tank farms remained above 12.0 V, denoting that the battery voltages were sufficient for the stations to remain functional. All the HDUs were functioning normally, but some pressure-head values were greater than the upper measurement limit. The values that exceeded the upper limit may indicate wet soil conditions and/or measurement error, but they do not imply a malfunction of the sensors. Similar to FY07 through FY09, in FY10, the soil under natural conditions in the T Farm (Nest TA) was generally recharged during the winter period (October–March), and they discharged during the summer period (April–September). Soil water conditions above about 1.5-m to 2-m depth from all three types of measurements (i.e., CP, NP, and HDU) showed relatively large variation during the seasonal wetting-drying cycle. For the soil below 2-m depth, the seasonal variation of soil water content was relatively small. The construction of the TISB was completed in April 2008. In the soil below the TISB (Nests TC and TD), the CP-measured water content showed that ? at the soil between 0.6-m and 2.3-m depths was stable, indicating no climatic impacts on soil water conditions beneath the barrier. The NP-measured water content in the soil between about 3.4 m (11 ft) and 12.2 m (40 ft) since the completion of the barrier decreased by 0.007 to 0.014 m3 m-3. The HDU-measured soil-water pressure at 1-m, 2-m, and 5-m depths decreased by 0.7 to 2.4 m, indicating soil water drainage at these depths of the soil. In the soil below the edge of the TISB (Nest TB), the CP-measured water content was relatively stable through the year; the NP-measured water content showed that soil water drainage was occurring in the soil between about 3.4 m (11 ft) and 12.2 m (40 ft) but at a slightly smaller magnitude than in Nests TC and TD; the HDU-measurements show that the pressure head changes at Nest TB since the completion of the barrier were generally less than those at TC and TD, but more than those at TA. These results indicate that the TISB is performing as expected by intercepting the meteoric water from infiltrating into the soil, and the soil is becoming drier gradually. The barrier also had some effects on the soil below the barrier edge, but at a reduced magnitude. There was no significant difference in soil-water regime between the two nests in the TY tank farm because the barrier at the TY Farm was just completed one month before the end of the FY.

Zhang, Z. F.; Strickland, Christopher E.; Field, Jim G.; Parker, Danny L.

2011-01-24T23:59:59.000Z

166

Operable Unit 3-14, Tank Farm Soil and INTEC Groundwater Remedial Design/Remedial Action Scope of Work  

SciTech Connect

This Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Scope of Work pertains to OU 3-14 Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center and the Idaho National Laboratory and identifies the remediation strategy, project scope, schedule, and budget that implement the tank farm soil and groundwater remediation, in accordance with the May 2007 Record of Decision. Specifically, this RD/RA Scope of Work identifies and defines the remedial action approach and the plan for preparing the remedial design documents.

D. E. Shanklin

2007-07-25T23:59:59.000Z

167

SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION DEVELOPING NONINVASIVE TOOLS TO MONITOR PAST LEAKS AROUND HANFORD TANK FARMS  

SciTech Connect

A characterization program has been developed at Hanford to image past leaks in and around the underground storage tank facilities. The program is based on electrical resistivity, a geophysical technique that maps the distribution of electrical properties of the subsurface. The method was shown to be immediately successful in open areas devoid of underground metallic infrastructure, due to the large contrast in material properties between the highly saline waste and the dry sandy host environment. The results in these areas, confirmed by a limited number of boreholes, demonstrate a tendency for the lateral extent of the underground waste plume to remain within the approximate footprint of the disposal facility. In infrastructure-rich areas, such as tank farms, the conventional application of electrical resistivity using small point-source surface electrodes initially presented a challenge for the resistivity method. The method was then adapted to directly use the buried infrastructure as electrodes for both transmission of electrical current and measurements of voltage. For example, steel-cased wells that surround the tanks were used as long electrodes, which helped to avoid much of the infrastructure problems. Overcoming the drawbacks of the long electrode method has been the focus of our work over the past seven years. The drawbacks include low vertical resolution and limited lateral coverage. The lateral coverage issue has been improved by supplementing the long electrodes with surface electrodes in areas devoid of infrastructure. The vertical resolution has been increased by developing borehole electrode arrays that can fit within the small-diameter drive casing of a direct push rig. The evolution of the program has led to some exceptional advances in the application of geophysical methods, including logistical deployment of the technology in hazardous areas, development of parallel processing resistivity inversion algorithms, and adapting the processing tools to accommodate electrodes of all shapes and locations. The program is accompanied by a full set of quality assurance procedures that cover the layout of sensors, measurement strategies, and software enhancements while insuring the integrity of stored data. The data have been shown to be useful in identifying previously unknown contaminant sources and defining the footprint of precipitation recharge barriers to retard the movement of existing contamination.

MYERS DA; RUCKER DF; LEVITT MT; CUBBAGE B; NOONAN GE; MCNEILL M; HENDERSON C

2011-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

168

Technical assessment of workplace air sampling requirements at tank farm facilities. Revision 1  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

WHC-CM-1-6 is the primary guidance for radiological control at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). It was written to implement DOE N 5480.6 ``US Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual`` as it applies to programs at Hanford which are now overseen by WHC. As such, it complies with Title 10, Part 835 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to WHC-CM-1-6, there is HSRCM-1, the ``Hanford Site Radiological Control Manual`` and several Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, national consensus standards, and reports that provide criteria, standards, and requirements for workplace air sampling programs. This document provides a summary of these, as they apply to WHC facility workplace air sampling programs. This document also provides an evaluation of the compliance of Tank Farms` workplace air sampling program to the criteria, standards, and requirements and documents compliance with the requirements where appropriate. Where necessary, it also indicates changes needed to bring specific locations into compliance.

Olsen, P.A.

1994-09-21T23:59:59.000Z

169

Tank farm surveillance and waste status summary report for May 1993  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

Tank Farm surveillance and waste status summary report for April 1993  

SciTech Connect

This report is the official inventory for radioactive waste stored in underground tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. Data that depict the status of stored radioactive waste and tank vessel integrity are contained within the report. This report provides data on each of the existing 177 large underground waste storage tanks and 49 smaller catch tanks and special surveillance facilities, and supplemental information regarding tank surveillance anomalies and ongoing investigations.

Hanlon, B.M.

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

171

Methanol production from eucalyptus wood chips. Attachment III. Florida's eucalyptus energy farm and methanol refinery: the background environment  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

A wide array of general background information is presented on the Central Florida area in which the eucalyptus energy plantation and methanol refinery will be located. Five counties in Central Florida may be affected by the project, DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk. The human resources of the area are reviewed. Included are overviews of population demographic and economic trends. Land use patterns and the transportation are system described, and the region's archeological and recreational resources are evaluated. The region's air quality is emphasized. The overall climate is described along with noise and air shed properties. An analysis of the region's water resources is included. Ground water is discussed first followed by an analysis of surface water. Then the overall quality and water supply/demand balance for the area is evaluated. An overview of the region's biota is presented. Included here are discussions of the general ecosystems in Central Florida, and an analysis of areas with important biological significance. Finally, land resources are examined.

Fishkind, H.H.

1982-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

172

Biological treatment of refinery wastes  

SciTech Connect

A detailed study of the treatment situation at a Thai refinery that used an API separator with no equalization tank, followed by an activated-sludge system, showed that only 42% of the total COD and 57% of the soluble COD was degradable. In a study of the possibility of additional treatments, an aerated lagoon showed promising results. The wastewater composition of the three main Thai refineries was surveyed.

Mahmud, Z.; Thanh, N.C.

1978-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

173

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

in a Type III Tank ... 146 Figure 3.2-42: Typical Conical (Umbrella) Type of Deployable Cooling Coil ... 146...

174

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 2  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

8 of 864 8 of 864 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Performance Assessment (PA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) was prepared to support the eventual removal from service of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment. This PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified below for removal from service and eventual final closure of the HTF. ï‚· U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 Change 1 ï‚· Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 Subpart C as identified in "Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2005," Section 3116 ï‚· South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)

175

T Tank Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration - Vadose Zone Monitoring FY09 Report  

SciTech Connect

DOE’s Office of River Protection constructed a temporary surface barrier over a portion of the T Tank Farm as part of the T Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration Project. As part of the demonstration effort, vadose zone moisture is being monitored to assess the effectiveness of the barrier at reducing soil moisture. A solar-powered system was installed to continuously monitor soil water conditions at four locations (i.e., instrument Nests A, B, C, and D) beneath the barrier and outside the barrier footprint as well as site meteorological conditions. Nest A is placed in the area outside the barrier footprint and serves as a control, providing subsurface conditions outside the influence of the surface barrier. Nest B provides subsurface measurements to assess surface-barrier edge effects. Nests C and D are used to assess changes in soil-moisture conditions beneath the interim surface barrier. Each instrument nest is composed of a capacitance probe (CP) with multiple sensors, multiple heat-dissipation units (HDUs), and a neutron probe (NP) access tube. The monitoring results in FY09 are summarized below. The solar panels functioned normally and could provide sufficient power to the instruments. The CP in Nest C after September 20, 2009, was not functional. The CP sensors in Nest B after July 13 and the 0.9-m CP sensor in Nest D before June 10 gave noisy data. Other CPs were functional normally. All the HDUs were functional normally but some pressure-head values measured by HDUs were greater than the upper measurement-limit. The higher-than-upper-limit values might be due to the very wet soil condition and/or measurement error but do not imply the malfunction of the sensors. Similar to FY07 and FY08, in FY09, the soil under natural conditions (Nest A) was generally recharged during the winter period (October-March) and discharged during the summer period (April-September). Soil water conditions above about 1.5-m to 2-m depth from all three types of measurements (i.e., CP, NP and HDU) showed relatively large variation during the seasonal wetting-drying cycle. For the soil below 2-m depth, the seasonal variation of soil water content was relatively small. The construction of the surface barrier was completed in April 2008. In the soil below the surface barrier (Nests C and D), the CP measurements showed that water content at the soil between 0.6-m and 2.3-m depths was very stable, indicating no climatic impacts on soil water condition beneath the barrier. The NP-measured water content showed that soil water drainage seemed occurring in the soil between about 3.4 m (11 ft) and 9.1 m (30 ft) in FY09. The HDU-measured water pressure decreased consistently in the soil above 5-m depth, indicating soil water drainage at these depths of the soil. In the soil below the edge of the surface barrier (Nest B), the CP-measured water content was relatively stable through the year except at the 0.9-m depth; the NP-measured water content showed that soil water drainage was occurring in the soil between about 3.4 m (11 ft) and 9.1 m (30 ft) but at a slightly smaller magnitude than those in Nests C and D; the HDU-measurements show that the pressure head changes in FY09 in Nest B were less than those for C and D but more than those for A. The soil-water-pressure head was more sensitive to soil water regime changes under dry conditions. In the soil beneath the barrier, the theoretical steady-state values of pressure head is equal to the negative of the distance to groundwater table. Hence, it is expected that, in the future, while the water content become stable, the pressure head will keep decreasing for a long time (e.g., many years). These results indicate that the T Tank Farm surface barrier was performing as expected by intercepting the meteoric water from infiltrating into the soil and the soil was becoming drier gradually. The barrier also has some effects on the soil below the barrier edge but at a reduced magnitude.

Zhang, Z. F.; Strickland, Christopher E.; Field, Jim G.; Parker, Danny L.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator standards/requirements identification document (S/RID), Vol. 1  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this Requirements Identification Document (RID) section is to identify, in one location, all of the facility specific requirements and good industry practices which are necessary or important to establish an effective Issues Management Program for the Tank Farm Facility. The Management Systems Functional Area includes the site management commitment to environmental safety and health (ES&H) policies and controls, to compliance management, to development and management of policy and procedures, to occurrence reporting and corrective actions, resource and issue management, and to the self-assessment process.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

Feasibility report on criticality issues associated with storage of K Basin sludge in tanks farms  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This feasibility study provides the technical justification for conclusions about K Basin sludge storage options. The conclusions, solely based on criticality safety considerations, depend on the treatment of the sludge. The two primary conclusions are, (1) untreated sludge must be stored in a critically safe storage tank, and (2) treated sludge (dissolution, precipitation and added neutron absorbers) can be stored in a standard Double Contained Receiver Tank (DCRT) or 241-AW-105 without future restrictions on tank operations from a criticality safety perspective.

Vail, T.S.

1997-05-29T23:59:59.000Z

178

Review of Management of Safety Systems at the Hanford Tank Farms...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Maintenance CRAD Criteria, Review and Approach Document CSE Cognizant System Engineer DOE U.S. Department of Energy DSA Documented Safety Analysis DST Double Shell Tank EIR...

179

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

at the seeplines of UTR and Fourmile Branch. The waste tank and ancillary equipment inventory of potentially airborne isotopes is used in conjunction with the methodology...

180

2004 Initial Assessments for the T and TX TY Tank Farm Field Investigation Report (FIR): Numerical Simulations  

SciTech Connect

In support of CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc.’s (CHG) preparation of a Field Investigative Report (FIR) for the Hanford Site Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Area (WMA) T and TX-TY, a suite of numerical simulations of flow and solute transport was executed using the STOMP code to predict the performance of surface barriers for reducing long-term risks from potential groundwater contamination at the T and TX-TY WMA. The scope and parametric data for these simulations were defined by a modeling data package provided by CHG. This report documents the simulation involving 2-D cross sections through the T Tank and the TX-TY Tank Farm. Eight cases were carried out for the cross sections to simulate the effects of interim barrier, water line leak, inventory distribution, and surface recharge on water flow and the transport of long-lived radionuclides (i.e., technecium-99 and uranium) and chemicals (i.e., nitrate and chromium For simulations with barriers, it is assumed that an interim barrier is in place by the year 2010. It was also assumed that, for all simulations, as part of tank farm closure, a closure barrier was in place by the year 2040. The modeling considers the estimated inventories of contaminants within the vadose zone and calculates the associated risk. It assumes that no tanks will leak in the future. Initial conditions for contaminant concentration are provided as part of inventory estimates for uranium, technetium-99, nitrate, and chromium. For moisture flow modeling, Neumann boundary conditions are prescribed at the surface with the flux equal to the recharge rate estimate. For transport modeling, a zero flux boundary is prescribed at the surface for uranium, technetium-99, nitrate, and chromium. The western and eastern boundaries are assigned no-flux boundaries for both flow and transport. The water table boundary is prescribed by water table elevations and the unconfined aquifer hydraulic gradient. No-flux boundaries are used for the lower boundary. Numerical results were obtained for compliance at the WMA boundary, 200 Areas boundary, exclusion boundary beyond the 200 Areas, and the Columbia River (DOE-RL 2000). Streamtube/analytical models were used to route computed contaminant concentrations at the water table to the downstream compliance points. When the interim barrier was applied at 2010, the soil was desaturated gradually. The difference in saturation of the soil with and without the interim barrier was the largest at 2040, the time the closure barrier was applied. After this, the difference in saturation in the two cases became smaller with time. Generally, the solutes broke though faster if there was a water line leak. A relative small five-day leak (Case 4) had little effect on the peak concentration, while a large 20-yr leak (Case 3) increased the peak concentration significantly and reduced the solute travel in the vadose zone. The distribution of the inventory, either uniform or nonuniform, has little effect on peak arrival time; the peak concentrations of the conservative solutes varied by -6.9 to 0.2% for the T tank farm and by 11 to 49.4% for the TX tank farm. The reduction of the meteoric recharge before the barrier was applied led to less soil saturation, as expected, and thus longer solute travel time in the vadose zone and smaller peak fence line concentration. The effect on soil saturation lasted for about another 50 years after the barrier was applied at 2050. However, the reduced recharge rate affected the breakthough curve till the end of the simulation. The fence line concentrations at the year 3000 were always higher for cases with reduced natural recharge than for those of the base case, which indicates that the fundamental impact of the reduced natural recharge is a smoothing of the breakthrough concentrations at the compliance points.

Zhang, Z. F.; Freedman, Vicky L.; Waichler, Scott R.

2004-09-24T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

Tank exhaust comparison with 40 CFR 61.93, Subpart H, and other referenced guidelines for Tank Farms National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) designated stacks  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated National Emission Standards other than Radon from US Department of Energy (DOE) Facilities (40 CFR 61, Subpart H) on December 15, 1989. The regulations specify procedures, equipment, and test methods that.are to be used to measure radionuclide emissions from exhaust stacks that are designated as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) stacks. Designated NESHAP stacks are those that have the potential to cause any member of the public to receive an effective dose equivalent (EDE) greater than or equal to 0.1 mrem/year, assuming all emission controls were removed. Tank Farms currently has 33 exhaust stacks, 15 of which are designated NESHAP stacks. This document assesses the compliance status of the monitoring and sampling systems for the designated NESHAP stacks.

Bachand, D.D.; Crummel, G.M.

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the T Tank Farm: Boreholes C4104, C4105, 299-W10-196, and RCRA Borehole 299-W11-39  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report was revised in September 2008 to remove acid-extractable sodium data from Tables 4.8, 4.28, and 4.52. The sodium data was removed due to potential contamination introduced during the acid extraction process. The rest of the text remains unchanged from the original report issued in September 2004. The overall goal of the Tank Farm Vadose Zone Project, led by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., is to define risks from past and future single-shell tank farm activities at Hanford. To meet this goal, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. tasked scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to perform detailed analyses on vadose zone sediments from within Waste Management Area (WMA) T-TX-TY. This report is the second of two reports written to present the results of these analyses. Specifically, this report contains all the geologic, geochemical, and selected physical characterization data collected on vadose zone sediment recovered from boreholes C4104 and C4105 in the T Tank Farm, and from borehole 299-W-11-39 installed northeast of the T Tank Farm. Finally, the measurements on sediments from borehole C4104 are compared with a nearby borehole drilled in 1993, 299- W10-196, through the tank T-106 leak plume.

Serne, R. Jeffrey; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Schaef, Herbert T.; Lindenmeier, Clark W.; Lindberg, Michael J.; Clayton, Ray E.; Legore, Virginia L.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Baum, Steven R.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Vickerman, Tanya S.; Orr, Robert D.; Brown, Christopher F.

2008-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

183

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the C Tank Farm: Borehole C4297 and RCRA Borehole 299-E27-22  

SciTech Connect

This report was revised in September 2008 to remove acid-extractable sodium data from Tables 4.7 and 4.25. The sodium data was removed due to potential contamination introduced during the acid extraction process. The rest of the text remains unchanged from the original report issued in September 2006. The overall goal of the Tank Farm Vadose Zone Project, led by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., is to define risks from past and future single-shell tank farm activities at the Hanford Site. To meet this goal, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. tasked scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to perform detailed analyses on vadose zone sediments from within Waste Management Area (WMA) C. This report is the first of two reports written to present the results of these analyses. Specifically, this report contains all the geologic, geochemical, and selected physiochemical characterization data collected on vadose zone sediment recovered from borehole C4297, installed adjacent to tank C-105, and from borehole 299-E27-22, installed directly north of the C Tank Farm. This report also presents the interpretation of data in the context of sediment types, the vertical extent of contamination, the migration potential of the contaminants, and the likely source of the contamination in the vadose zone below the C Tank Farm. The information presented in this report supports the WMA A-AX, C, and U field investigation report in preparation by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc.

Brown, Christopher F.; Serne, R. Jeffrey; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Clayton, Ray E.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Vickerman, Tanya S.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Baum, Steven R.; Parker, Kent E.; Lindberg, Michael J.

2008-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

184

Propane tank explosion (2 deaths, 7 injuries) at Herrig Brothers Feather Creek Farm, Albert City, Iowa, April 9, 1998. Investigation report  

SciTech Connect

This report explains the explosion/BLEVE that took place on April 9, 1998, at the Herrig Brothers Feather Creek Farm, located in Albert City, Iowa. Two volunteer fire fighters were killed and seven other emergency response personnel were injured. Safety issues covered in the report include protection of propane storage tanks and piping, state regulatory oversight of such installations, and fire fighter response to propane storage tank fires.

NONE

1999-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

185

Descriptions and diagrams of the primary and annulus ventilation systems of the double-shell tank farms as of January 1988  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document is a compilation of information describing the ventilation systems of the Double-Shell Tank farms (214-AN, -AP, -AW, -AW, -AY, -AZ, and -SY). A general description of the primary tank and annulus ventilation systems is given along with specific information on the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, condensers, preheaters, exhaust fans, and piping. This information is considered to be current as of January 1988. 38 refs, 20 figs, 30 tabs.

Blackman, A.E.; Waters, E.D.

1994-12-28T23:59:59.000Z

186

CHEMICAL SLUDGE HEEL REMOVAL AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT 8183  

SciTech Connect

Chemical Sludge Removal (CSR) is the final waste removal activity planned for some of the oldest nuclear waste tanks located at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC. In 2008, CSR will be used to empty two of these waste tanks in preparation for final closure. The two waste tanks chosen to undergo this process have previously leaked small amounts of nuclear waste from the primary tank into an underground secondary containment pan. CSR involves adding aqueous oxalic acid to the waste tank in order to dissolve the remaining sludge heel. The resultant acidic waste solution is then pumped to another waste tank where it will be neutralized and then stored awaiting further processing. The waste tanks to be cleaned have a storage capacity of 2.84E+06 liters (750,000 gallons) and a target sludge heel volume of 1.89E+04 liters (5,000 gallons) or less for the initiation of CSR. The purpose of this paper is to describe the CSR process and to discuss the most significant technical issues associated with the development of CSR.

Thaxton, D; Timothy Baughman, T

2008-01-16T23:59:59.000Z

187

An Initial Evaluation Of Characterization And Closure Options For Underground Pipelines Within A Hanford Site Single-Shell Tank Farm  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Site includes 149 single-shell tanks, organized in 12 'tank farms,' with contents managed as high-level mixed waste. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order requires that one tank farm, the Waste Management Area C, be closed by June 30, 2019. A challenge to this project is the disposition and closure of Waste Management Area C underground pipelines. Waste Management Area C contains nearly seven miles of pipelines and 200 separate pipe segments. The pipelines were taken out of service decades ago and contain unknown volumes and concentrations of tank waste residuals from past operations. To understand the scope of activities that may be required for these pipelines, an evaluation was performed. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify what, if any, characterization methods and/or closure actions may be implemented at Waste Management Area C for closure of Waste Management Area C by 2019. Physical and analytical data do not exist for Waste Management Area C pipeline waste residuals. To develop estimates of residual volumes and inventories of contamination, an extensive search of available information on pipelines was conducted. The search included evaluating historical operation and occurrence records, physical attributes, schematics and drawings, and contaminant inventories associated with the process history of plutonium separations facilities and waste separations and stabilization operations. Scoping analyses of impacts to human health and the environment using three separate methodologies were then developed based on the waste residual estimates. All analyses resulted in preliminary assessments, indicating that pipeline waste residuals presented a comparably low long-term impact to groundwater with respect to soil, tank and other ancillary equipment residuals, but exceeded Washington State cleanup requirement values. In addition to performing the impact analyses, the assessment evaluated available sampling technologies and pipeline removal or treatment technologies. The evaluation accounted for the potential high worker risk, high cost, and schedule impacts associated with characterization, removal, or treatment of pipelines within Waste Management Area C for closure. This assessment was compared to the unknown, but estimated low, long-term impacts to groundwater associated with remaining waste residuals should the pipelines be left "as is" and an engineered surface barrier or landfill cap be placed. This study also recommended that no characterization or closure actions be assumed or started for the pipelines within Waste Management Area C, likewise with the premise that a surface barrier or landfill cap be placed over the pipelines.

Badden, Janet W. [Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland, WA (United States); Connelly, Michael P. [Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland, WA (United States); Seeley, Paul N. [Cenibark International, Inc., Kennewick (United States); Hendrickson, Michelle L. [Washington State Univ., Richland (United States). Dept. of Ecology

2013-01-10T23:59:59.000Z

188

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the TX Tank Farm: Boreholes C3830, C3831, C3832 and RCRA Borehole 299-W10-27  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report was revised in September 2008 to remove acid-extractable sodium data from Tables 4.8, 4.28,4.43, and 4.59. The sodium data was removed due to potential contamination introduced during the acid extraction process. The rest of the text remains unchanged from the original report issued in April 2004. The overall goal of the Tank Farm Vadose Zone Project, led by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., is to define risks from past and future single-shell tank farm activities at Hanford. To meet this goal, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. tasked scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to perform detailed analyses on vadose zone sediments from within Waste Management Area (WMA) T-TX-TY. This report is the first of two reports written to present the results of these analyses. Specifically, this report contains all the geologic, geochemical, and selected physical characterization data collected on vadose zone sediment recovered from boreholes C3830, C3831, and C3832 in the TX Tank Farm, and from borehole 299-W-10-27 installed northeast of the TY Tank Farm.

Serne, R. Jeffrey; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Lindenmeier, Clark W.; Lindberg, Michael J.; Clayton, Ray E.; Legore, Virginia L.; Orr, Robert D.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Baum, Steven R.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Vickerman, Tanya S.

2008-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

189

Characterization of Direct-Push Vadose Zone Sediments from the 241-B and 241-BX Tank Farms  

SciTech Connect

Geochemical tests provide evidence for the transit of a plume of caustic waste solution through the sediment column at the Hanford 241-B and -BX Tank Farms. Direct-push samples recovered from boreholes surrounding Tanks 241-B-110 and 241-BX-102 and related waste transfer lines and diversion boxes included sediments typical of those previously recovered from other localities on the Hanford Site. The Hanford formation sediments are dominantly quartzo-feldspathic sands strewn with lithic fragments, displaying a range of particle size distributions and sorting characteristics. Some moderately well-sorted, fine-grained lithologies are interpreted as lenticular bodies irregularly dispersed in coarser-grained, more poorly sorted sediments. Tier I tests conducted on the vadose zone sediments revealed an inverse correlation between moisture content and sediment size fraction (i.e., there is greater moisture content in finer-grained sediments). The Tier I tests also showed that the pore water solutions were likely sodium-rich, moderately saline, and possessed higher pH values than background (untainted) sediments. These data are characteristic of sediments that have encountered sodium-rich, saline, caustic waste solution, as documented in other reports at other suspect contamination sites around Hanford. Analyses of solutions from 1:1 water extracts reveal relatively balanced cation and anion concentrations, indicating that most of the geochemical species have been accounted for. The water extract data for affected sediments also indicate unusually high concentrations of aluminum, iron, and phosphorus. The relatively high concentrations of aluminum and iron may be the result of dissolution of secondary amorphous phases that precipitated after a reactive plume partially dissolved aluminum- and iron-bearing phases as it migrated through the sediment column. On the other hand, the presence of elevated concentrations of phosphorous may be the tell-tale signature of wastes derived from the bismuth phosphate separation process. Elements typically mobile in the geosphere, such as technetium-99, are present at either low concentrations or are below the analytical detection limit. However, we expect that the mobile elements would be present mainly along a narrow plume front, and if this front had passed deeper into the sediment profile than depths sampled, the retention of these elements would be minor. On the other hand for the direct push sediments from around BX Tank Farm, uranium-238 was detected in nearly all sediment specimens (by acid extract experiments) at concentrations above the natural crustal average (0.763 pCi/g), and we also detected the presence of several anthropogenic radioisotopes, such as cobalt-60, cesium-137, europium-154, and europium-155 (by gamma energy analysis). These data are direct confirmation of contamination of the sediments.

Brown, Christopher F.; Icenhower, Jonathan P.; Um, Wooyong; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Iovin, Cristian; Lanigan, David C.; Clayton, Ray E.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Clayton, Eric T.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Baum, Steven R.; Lindberg, Michael J.; Orr, Robert D.

2007-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

190

Review of the Technical Basis of the Hydrogen Control Limit for Operations in Hanford Tank Farms  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The waste in Hanford tanks generates a mixture of flammable gases and releases it into the tank headspace. The potential hazard resulting from flammable gas generation requires that controls be established to prevent ignition and halt operations if gas concentrations reach levels of concern. In cases where only hydrogen is monitored, a control limit of 6,250 ppm hydrogen has been in use at Hanford for several years. The hydrogen-based control limit is intended to conservatively represent 25% of the lower flammability limit of a gas mixture, accounting for the presence of flammable gases other than hydrogen, with ammonia being the primary concern. This report reviews the technical basis of the current control limit based on observed and projected concentrations of hydrogen and ammonia representing a range of gas release scenarios. The conclusion supports the continued use of the current 6,250 ppm hydrogen control limit

Mahoney, Lenna A. (BATTELLE (PACIFIC NW LAB)); Stewart, Charles W. (BATTELLE (PACIFIC NW LAB))

2002-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

191

Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Explanatory Notes Survey Methodology Description of Survey Form The Form EIA-820, “Annual Refinery Report,” is the primary source of data in the “Refinery ...

192

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the C Tank Farm: Borehole C4297 and RCRA Borehole 299-E27-22  

SciTech Connect

The overall goal of the Tank Farm Vadose Zone Project, led by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., is to define risks from past and future single-shell tank farm activities at Hanford. To meet this goal, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. tasked scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to perform detailed analyses on vadose zone sediments from within Waste Management Area (WMA) C. This report is the first of two reports written to present the results of these analyses. Specifically, this report contains all the geologic, geochemical, and selected physical characterization data collected on vadose zone sediment recovered from borehole C4297, installed adjacent to Tank C-105, and from borehole 299-E27-22, installed directly north of the C Tank Farm. Sediments from borehole 299-E27-22 were considered to be background uncontaminated sediments against which to compare contaminated sediments for the C Tank Farm characterization effort. This report also presents our interpretation of the data in the context of sediment types, the vertical extent of contamination, the migration potential of the contaminants, and the likely source of the contamination in the vadose zone and groundwater below the C Tank Farm. The information presented in this report supports the A-AX, C and U Waste Management Area field investigation report(a) in preparation by CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. A core log was generated for both boreholes and a geologic evaluation of all core samples was performed at the time of opening. Aliquots of sediment from the borehole core samples were analyzed and characterized in the laboratory for the following parameters: moisture content, gamma-emitting radionuclides, one-to-one water extracts (which provide soil pH, electrical conductivity, cation, trace metal, and anion data), total carbon and inorganic carbon content, and 8 M nitric acid extracts (which provide a measure of the total leachable sediment content of contaminants). Two key radiocontaminants, technetium-99 and uranium-238, along with other trace metals were determined in acid and water extracts by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.

Brown, Christopher F.; Serne, R. JEFFREY; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Clayton, Ray E.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Vickerman, Tanya S.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Baum, Steven R.; Parker, Kent E.; Lindberg, Michael J.

2006-10-18T23:59:59.000Z

193

Implementation of an Integrated Information Management System for the US DOE Hanford Tank Farms Project - 14224  

SciTech Connect

In its role as the Tank Operations Contractor at the U.S. Department of Energy?s site in Hanford, WA, Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC is implementing an integrated document control and configuration management system. This system will combine equipment data with technical document data that currently resides in separate disconnected databases. The new system will provide integrated information, enabling users to more readily identify the documents that relate to a structure, system, or component and vice-versa. Additionally, the new system will automate engineering work processes through electronic workflows, and where practical and feasible provide integration with design authoring tools. Implementation of this system will improve configuration management of the technical baseline, increase work process efficiencies, support the efficient design of future large projects, and provide a platform for the efficient future turnover of technical baseline data and information.

Joyner, William Scott; Knight, Mark A.

2013-11-14T23:59:59.000Z

194

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEFENSE WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY (DWPF) LABORATORY GERMANIUM OXIDE USE ON RECYCLE TRANSFERS TO THE H-TANK FARM  

SciTech Connect

When processing High Level Waste (HLW) glass, the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) cannot wait until the melt or waste glass has been made to assess its acceptability, since by then no further changes to the glass composition and acceptability are possible. Therefore, the acceptability decision is made on the upstream feed stream, rather than on the downstream melt or glass product. This strategy is known as 'feed forward statistical process control.' The DWPF depends on chemical analysis of the feed streams from the Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and the Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) where the frit plus adjusted sludge from the SRAT are mixed. The SME is the last vessel in which any chemical adjustments or frit additions can be made. Once the analyses of the SME product are deemed acceptable, the SME product is transferred to the Melter Feed Tank (MFT) and onto the melter. The SRAT and SME analyses have been analyzed by the DWPF laboratory using a 'Cold Chemical' method but this dissolution did not adequately dissolve all the elemental components. A new dissolution method which fuses the SRAT or SME product with cesium nitrate (CsNO{sub 3}), germanium (IV) oxide (GeO{sub 2}) and cesium carbonate (Cs{sub 2}CO{sub 3}) into a cesium germanate glass at 1050 C in platinum crucibles has been developed. Once the germanium glass is formed in that fusion, it is readily dissolved by concentrated nitric acid (about 1M) to solubilize all the elements in the SRAT and/or SME product for elemental analysis. When the chemical analyses are completed the acidic cesium-germanate solution is transferred from the DWPF analytic laboratory to the Recycle Collection Tank (RCT) where the pH is increased to {approx}12 M to be released back to the tank farm and the 2H evaporator. Therefore, about 2.5 kg/yr of GeO{sub 2}/year will be diluted into 1.4 million gallons of recycle. This 2.5 kg/yr of GeO{sub 2} may increase to 4 kg/yr when improvements are implemented to attain an annual canister production goal of 400 canisters. Since no Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) exists for germanium in the Tank Farm, the Effluent Treatment Project, or the Saltstone Production Facility, DWPF has requested an evaluation of the fate of the germanium in the caustic environment of the RCT, the 2H evaporator, and the tank farm. This report evaluates the effect of the addition of germanium to the tank farm based on: (1) the large dilution of Ge in the RCT and tank farm; (2) the solubility of germanium in caustic solutions (pH 12-13); (3) the potential of germanium to precipitate as germanium sodalites in the 2H Evaporator; and (4) the potential of germanium compounds to precipitate in the evaporator feed tank. This study concludes that the impacts of transferring up to 4 kg/yr germanium to the RCT (and subsequently the 2H evaporator feed tank and the 2H evaporator) results in <2 ppm per year (1.834 mg/L) which is the maximum instantaneous concentration expected from DWPF. This concentration is insignificant as most sodium germanates are soluble at the high pH of the feed tank and evaporator solutions. Even if sodium aluminosilicates form in the 2H evaporator, the Ge will likely substitute for some small amount of the Si in these structures and will be insignificant. It is recommended that the DWPF continue with their strategy to add germanium as a laboratory chemical to Attachment 8.2 of the DWPF Waste Compliance Plan (WCP).

Jantzen, C.; Laurinat, J.

2011-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

195

FINAL REPORT FOR THE EROSION AND CORROSION ANALYSIS OF WASTE TRANSFER PRIMARY PIPELINE SECTIONS FROM 241-SY TANK FARM  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Three sections of primary transfer pipeline removed from the 241-SY Tank Farm in Hanford's 200 West area, labeled as SN-285, SN-286, and SN-278, were analyzed for the presence and amount of corrosion and erosion on the inside surface of the transfer pipe. All three sections of pipe, ranging in length between 6 and 8 in., were received at the 222-S Laboratory still in the pipe-in-pipe assembly. The annular spaces were filled with urethane foam injected into the pipes for as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) purposes. The 3-in. primary transfer pipes were first separated from the outer encasement, 6-in. pipes. The pipes were cut into small sections, or coupons, based upon the results of a non-destructive pipe wall thickness measurement which used an ultrasonic transducer. Following removal of the foam, the coupons were subjected to a series of analytical methods utilizing both optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy to obtain erosion and corrosion information. The ultrasonic transducer analysis of the SN-285 primary pipe did not show any thinned locations in the pipe wall which were outside the expected range for the 3-in. schedule 40 pipe of 216 mils. A coupon was cut from the thinnest area on the pipe, and analysis of the inside surface, which was in contact with the tank waste, revealed a continuous layer of corrosion ~ 100 11m (4 mils) thick under a semi-continuous layer of tank waste residue ~ 20 11m (1 mil) thick. This residue layer was composed of an amorphous phase rich in chromium, magnesium, calcium, and chlorine. Small pits were detected throughout the inside pipe surface with depths up to ~ 50 11m (2 mils). Similarly, the SN-286 primary pipe did not show, by the ultrasonic transducer measurements, any thinned locations in the pipe wall which were outside the expected range for this pipe. Analysis of the coupon cut from the pipe section showed the presence of a tank waste layer containing sodium aluminate and phases rich in iron, calcium, and chromium. This layer was removed by a cleaning process that left a pipe surface continuous in iron oxide/hydroxide (corrosion) with pockets of aluminum oxide, possibly gibbsite. The corrosion layer was ~ 50 11m (2 mil) thick over non-continuous pits less than ~ 50 11m deep (2 mils). Small particles of aluminum oxide were also detected under the corrosion layer. The ultrasonic transducer analysis of SN-278, like the previous primary pipes, did not reveal any noticeable thinning of the pipe wall. Analysis of the coupon cut from the pipe showed that the inside surface had a layer of tank waste residue that was partially detached from the pipe wall. This layer was easily scraped from the surface and was composed of two separate layers. The underlying layer was ~ 350 11m (14 mils) thick and composed of a cementation of small aluminum oxide (probably gibbsite) particles. A thinner layer on top of the aluminum oxide layer was rich in carbon and chlorine. Scattered pitting was observed on the inside pipe surface with one pit as deep as 200 11m (8 mils).

PAGE JS; WYRWAS RB; COOKE GA

2012-10-04T23:59:59.000Z

196

Final Report For The Erosion And Corrosion Analysis Of Waste Transfer Primary Pipeline Sections From 241-SY Tank Farm  

SciTech Connect

Three sections of primary transfer pipeline removed from the 241-SY Tank Farm in Hanford's 200 West area, labeled as SN-285, SN-286, and SN-278, were analyzed for the presence and amount of corrosion and erosion on the inside surface of the transfer pipe. All three sections of pipe, ranging in length between 6 and 8 in., were received at the 222-S Laboratory still in the pipe-in-pipe assembly. The annular spaces were filled with urethane foam injected into the pipes for as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) purposes. The 3-in. primary transfer pipes were first separated from the outer encasement, 6-in. pipes. The pipes were cut into small sections, or coupons, based upon the results of a non-destructive pipe wall thickness measurement which used an ultrasonic transducer. Following removal of the foam, the coupons were subjected to a series of analytical methods utilizing both optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy to obtain erosion and corrosion information. The ultrasonic transducer analysis of the SN-285 primary pipe did not show any thinned locations in the pipe wall which were outside the expected range for the 3-in. schedule 40 pipe of 216 mils. A coupon was cut from the thinnest area on the pipe, and analysis of the inside surface, which was in contact with the tank waste, revealed a continuous layer of corrosion ~ 100 11m (4 mils) thick under a semi-continuous layer of tank waste residue ~ 20 11m (1 mil) thick. This residue layer was composed of an amorphous phase rich in chromium, magnesium, calcium, and chlorine. Small pits were detected throughout the inside pipe surface with depths up to ~ 50 11m (2 mils). Similarly, the SN-286 primary pipe did not show, by the ultrasonic transducer measurements, any thinned locations in the pipe wall which were outside the expected range for this pipe. Analysis of the coupon cut from the pipe section showed the presence of a tank waste layer containing sodium aluminate and phases rich in iron, calcium, and chromium. This layer was removed by a cleaning process that left a pipe surface continuous in iron oxide/hydroxide (corrosion) with pockets of aluminum oxide, possibly gibbsite. The corrosion layer was ~ 50 11m (2 mil) thick over non-continuous pits less than ~ 50 11m deep (2 mils). Small particles of aluminum oxide were also detected under the corrosion layer. The ultrasonic transducer analysis of SN-278, like the previous primary pipes, did not reveal any noticeable thinning of the pipe wall. Analysis of the coupon cut from the pipe showed that the inside surface had a layer of tank waste residue that was partially detached from the pipe wall. This layer was easily scraped from the surface and was composed of two separate layers. The underlying layer was ~ 350 11m (14 mils) thick and composed of a cementation of small aluminum oxide (probably gibbsite) particles. A thinner layer on top of the aluminum oxide layer was rich in carbon and chlorine. Scattered pitting was observed on the inside pipe surface with one pit as deep as 200 11m (8 mils).

Page, J. S.; Wyrwas, R. B.; Cooke, G. A.

2012-10-04T23:59:59.000Z

197

Oily-waste-disposal survey, South Tank Farm, Lajes Field, Azores. Final report, 12-17 Jun 90  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A survey of the wet and dry sludge pits at the South Tank Farm, Lajes Field, Azores was performed by members of the AFOEHL. Samples of the waste water and sludge from the wet sludge pit (WSP) were taken as well as from the dry sludge pit. Bioremediation studies, incineration, and carbon adsorption studies were performed. The characterization of the waste water from the WSP revealed a one phase mixture of mostly soluble oils and grease with an average COD concentration of 1760 and a BOD of 407 mg/1. Oils and grease concentrations were in the 10 mg/1 range. The characterization of the sludge revealed 43% organics and concentrations of metals not high enough for consideration as hazardous waste. The sludge from the DSP also did not have levels of metals high enough for special disposal as hazardous waste. The WSP waste water was slow to degrade biologically through stimulation of indigenous organisms. Carbon was effective in removing COD. The WSP waste water has subsequently been released to the Praia Bay and the sludge recovered and drummed. Recommendations included the construction of a secondary sewage treatment plant to service the base, airport, and Praia, the construction of a sludge drying facility and testing of the dried sludge for ultimate disposal.

Binovi, R.D.

1991-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

198

Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8

199

Data acquisition and control system for the High-Level Waste Tank Farm at Hanford, Washington  

SciTech Connect

The High-Level Nuclear Waste Storage Tank 241-SY-101 periodically releases flammable gasses. Mitigation experiments to release the gasses continuously to avoid a catastrophic build-up are planned for FY93 and beyond. Los Alamos has provided a data acquisition and control system (DACS) to monitor and control mitigation experiments on SY-101. The DACS consists of a data acquisition trailer to house the electronic components and computers in a friendly environment, a computer system running process control software for monitoring and controlling the tests, signal conditioners to convert the instrument signals to a usable form for the DACS, programmable logic controllers to process sensor signals and take action quickly, a fast data acquisition system for recording transient data, and a remote monitoring system to monitor the progress of the experiment. Equipment to monitor the release of the gasses was also provided. The first experiment involves a mixer pump to mix the waste and allow the gasses to be released at the surface of the liquid as the gas is being formed. The initial tests are scheduled for July 1993.

Hoida, H.W.; Hatcher, C.R.; Trujillo, L.T.; Holt, D.H. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Vargo, G.F. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Martin, J.; Stastny, G.; Echave, R. [EG and G Energy Measurements, Inc., Las Vegas, NV (United States); Eldridge, K. [Eldridge Engineering, Spokane, WA (United States)

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

200

HANFORD DOUBLE SHELL TANK THERMAL AND SEISMIC PROJECT SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED LIQUID LEVEL IN 241-AP TANK FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The essential difference between Revision 1 and the original issue of this report is in the spring constants used to model the anchor bolt response for the anchor bolts that tie the steel dome of the primary tank to the concrete tank dome. Consequently, focus was placed on the changes in the anchor bolt responses, and a full reevaluation of all tank components was judged to be unnecessary. To confirm this judgement, primary tank stresses from the revised analysis of the BES-BEC case are compared to the original analysis and it was verified that the changes are small, as expected.

TC MACKEY; FG ABATT; MW RINKER

2009-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

Refinery Capacity Report 2007  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; current and projected capacities for atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, production, and storage capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions.

Information Center

2007-06-29T23:59:59.000Z

202

Refinery Capacity Report 2009  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; current and projected capacities for atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, production, and storage capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions.

Information Center

2009-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

203

Refinery Capacity Report 2008  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; current and projected capacities for atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, production, and storage capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions.

Information Center

2008-06-20T23:59:59.000Z

204

High Level Waste Tank Farm Replacement Project for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Environmental Assessment  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA), DOE/EA-0831, for the construction and operation of the High-Level Waste Tank Farm Replacement (HLWTFR) Project for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The HLWTFR Project as originally proposed by the DOE and as analyzed in this EA included: (1) replacement of five high-level liquid waste storage tanks with four new tanks and (2) the upgrading of existing tank relief piping and high-level liquid waste transfer systems. As a result of the April 1992 decision to discontinue the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at INEL, DOE believes that it is unlikely that the tank replacement aspect of the project will be needed in the near term. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to proceed with the replacement of the tanks as described in this-EA. The DOE`s instant decision involves only the proposed upgrades aspect of the project described in this EA. The upgrades are needed to comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act requirements, and the Department`s obligations pursuant to the Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement and Consent Order among the Environmental Protection Agency, DOE, and the State of Idaho. The environmental impacts of the proposed upgrades are adequately covered and are bounded by the analysis in this EA. If DOE later proposes to proceed with the tank replacement aspect of the project as described in the EA or as modified, it will undertake appropriate further review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

Not Available

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

205

Tank 48 Treatment Process  

-Reduce elutriation of particulates containing coal System planning: Sludge batch planning/DWPF WAC-Evaluate Tank Farm and DWPF coal capability

206

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the T Tank Farm: Boreholes C4104, C4105, 299-W10-196 and RCRA Borehole 299-W11-39  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report contains geologic, geochemical, and physical characterization data collected on sediment recovered from boreholes C4104 and C4105 in the T Tank Farm, and 299-W-11-39 installed northeast of the T Tank Farm. The measurements on sediments from borehole C4104 are compared to a nearby borehole 299-W10-196 placed through the plume from the 1973 T-106 tank leak. This report also presents the data in the context of sediment types, the vertical extent of contamination, the migration potential of the contaminants, and the likely source of the contamination in the vadose zone and groundwater below the T Tank Farm. Sediment samples were characterized for: moisture content, gamma-emission radionuclides, one-to-one water extracts (which provide soil pH, electrical conductivity, cation, trace metal, radionuclide and anion data), total carbon and inorganic carbon content, and 8 M nitric acid extracts (which provide a measure of the total leachable sediment content of contaminants). Overall, our analyses showed that common ion exchange is a key mechanism that influences the distribution of contaminants within that portion of the vadose zone affected by tank liquor. We observed slight elevated pH values in samples from borehole C4104. The sediments from the three boreholes, C4104, C4105, and 299-W10-196 do show that sodium-, nitrate-, and sulfate-dominated fluids are present below tank T-106 and have formed a salt plume. The fluids are more dilute than tank fluids observed below tanks at the SX and BX Tank Farms and slightly less than those from the most saline porewater found in contaminated TX tank farm sediments. The boreholes could not penetrate below the gravel-rich strata of the Ringold Formation Wooded Island member (Rwi) (refusal was met at about 130 ft bgs); therefore, we could not identify the maximum vertical penetration of the tank related plumes. The moisture content, pH, electrical conductivity, nitrate, and technetium-99 profiles versus depth in the three contaminated boreholes around T-106 do not clearly identify the leading edge of the plume. However, the profiles do collectively suggest that bulk of tank-related fluids (center of mass) still resides in Ringold Formation Taylor Flats member fine-grained sediments. Most of the chemical data, especially the nitrate and technetium-99 distributions with depth, support a flow conceptual model that suggests vertical percolation through the Hanford formation H2 unit near T-106 and then a strong horizontal spreading within the CCUu unit followed by more slow vertical percolation, perhaps via diffusion, into the deeper strata. Slow flushing by enhanced recharge and rapid snow melt events (Feb. 1979) appear to lead to more horizontal movement of the tank fluids downgradient towards C4105. The inventories as a function of depth of potential contaminants of concern, nitrate, technetium, uranium, and chromium, are provided. In-situ Kd values were calculated from water and acid extract measurements. For conservative modeling purposes we recommend using Kd values of 0 mL/g for nitrate, Co-60, and technetium-99, a value of 0.1 mL/g for uranium near borehole C4104 and 10 mL/g for U near borehole C4105, and 1 mL/g for chromium to represent the entire vadose zone profile from the bottoms of the tanks to the water table. A technetium-99 groundwater plume exists northeast and east of T WMA. The highest technetium-99 concentration in fiscal year 2003 was 9,200 pCi/L in well 299-W11-39. The most probable source for the technetium-99 is the T waste management area. Groundwater from wells in the west (upgradient) and north of WMA T appear to be highly influenced by wastes disposed to the cribs and trenches on the west side of the WMA. Groundwater from wells at the northeast corner and the east side of the WMA appears to be evolving towards tank waste that has leaked from T-101 or T-106.

Serne, R JEFFREY.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Lindenmeier, Clark W.; Lindberg, Michael J.; Clayton, Ray E.; LeGore, Virginia L.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Baum, Steven R.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Vickerman, Tanya S.; Orr, Robert D.; Brown, Christopher F.

2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

207

Perched-Water Evaluation for the Deep Vadose Zone Beneath the B, BX, and BY Tank Farms Area of the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

Perched-water conditions have been observed in the vadose zone above a fine-grained zone that is located a few meters above the water table within the B, BX, and BY Tank Farms area. The perched water contains elevated concentrations of uranium and technetium-99. This perched-water zone is important to consider in evaluating the future flux of contaminated water into the groundwater. The study described in this report was conducted to examine the perched-water conditions and quantitatively evaluate 1) factors that control perching behavior, 2) contaminant flux toward groundwater, and 3) associated groundwater impact.

Truex, Michael J.; Oostrom, Martinus; Carroll, KC; Chronister, Glen B.

2013-06-28T23:59:59.000Z

208

Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the TX Tank Farm: Probe Holes C3830, C3831, C3832 and 299-W10-27  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory performed detailed analyses on vadose zone sediments from within Waste Management Area T-TX-TY. This report contains all the geologic, geochemical, and selected physical characterization data collected on vadose zone sediment recovered from three probe holes (C3830, C3831, and C3832) in the TX Tank Farm, and from borehole 299-W-10-27. Sediments from borehole 299-W-10-27 are considered to be uncontaminated sediments that can be compared with contaminated sediments. This report also presents our interpretation of the sediment lithologies, the vertical extent of contamination, the migration potential of the contaminants, and the likely source of the contamination in the vadose zone and groundwater below the TX Tank Farm. Sediment from the probe holes was analyzed for: moisture, radionuclide and carbon contents;, one-to-one water extracts (soil pH, electrical conductivity, cation, trace metal, and anion data), and 8 M nitric acid extracts. Overall, our analyses showed that common ion exchange is a key mechanism that influences the distribution of contaminants within that portion of the vadose zone affected by tank liquor. We did not observe significant indications of caustic alteration of the sediment mineralogy or porosity, or significant zones of slightly elevated pH values in the probe holes. The sediments do show that sodium-, nitrate-, and sulfate-dominated fluids are present. The fluids are more dilute than tank fluids observed below tanks at the SX and BX Tank Farms. Three primary stratigraphic units were encountered in each probe hole: (1) backfill material, (2) the Hanford formation, and (3) the Cold Creek unit. Each of the probe holes contain thin fine-grained layers in the Hanford H2 stratigraphic unit that may impact the flow of leaked fluids and effect irregular and horizontal flow. The probe holes could not penetrate below the enriched calcium carbonate strata of the Cold Creek lower subunit; therefore, we did not identify the maximum vertical penetration of the tank related plumes. However, the more elevated portions of the electrical conductivity (EC) profile at probe hole C3830 currently resides at the bottom of a fine-grained thin lens in the Hanford H2 unit at 87 ft bgs. At C3831, we lack good sample coverage to ascertain whether the salt plume has significantly descended into the Cold Creek Unit. There is strong indication at probe hole C3832 that the saline plume has descended into the Cold Creek Unit. The profiles do collectively suggest that the deepest penetration of tank related fluids is found in probe hole C3832. The water potential data from 299-W10-27?s H2 unit, the unit where most of the contaminants reside in the TX probe holes, are consistent with a draining profile. Despite the evidence that elevated EC values may be present in all three probe holes to their depth of refusal, the concentrations of long-term risk drivers are not large. The inventories of potential contaminants of concern, nitrate, technetium-99, uranium, and chromium, are provided. In addition, in situ desorption Kd values for these contaminants are provided. For conservative modeling purposes, we recommend using Kd values of 0 mL/g for nitrate and technetium-99, a value of 1 mL/g for uranium, and 10 mL/g for chromium to represent the entire vadose zone profile from the bottoms of the tanks to the water table. These conservative Kd values along with the provided inventories in the vadose zone sediments obtained from the three probe holes can be used in long-term risk projections that rely on estimates of water recharge and vadose zone and aquifer transport calculations.

Serne, R JEFFREY.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Horton, Duane G.; Lanigan, David C.; Lindenmeier, Clark W.; Lindberg, Michael J.; Clayton, Ray E.; LeGore, Virginia L.; Orr, Robert D.; Kutnyakov, Igor V.; Baum, Steven R.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Vickerman, Tanya S.

2004-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

209

Tank Closure  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Closure Closure Sherri Ross Waste Removal and Tank Closure Waste Disposition Project Programs Division Savannah River Operations Office Presentation to the DOE HLW Corporate Board 2  Overview and Status of SRS Tank Closure Program  Issues/Challenges  Communications  Schedule Performance  Ceasing Waste Removal  Compliance with SC Water Protection Standards  Questions? Topics 3 Overview of SRS Tank Closure Program  Two Tank Farms - F Area and H Area  Permitted by SC as Industrial Wastewater Facilities under the Pollution Control Act  Three agency Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)  DOE, SCDHEC, and EPA  51 Tanks  24 old style tanks (Types I, II and IV)  Do not have full secondary containment  FFA commitments to close by 2022  2 closed in 1997

210

HANFORD DOUBLE SHELL TANK (DST) THERMAL & SEISMIC PROJECT SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED LIQUID LEVEL IN 241-AP TANK FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The overall scope of the project is to complete an up-to-date comprehensive analysis of record of the DST System at Hanford. The "Double-Shell Tank (DST) Integrity Project - DST Thermal and Seismic Project" is in support of Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-48-14.

MACKEY TC; ABBOTT FG; CARPENTER BG; RINKER MW

2007-02-16T23:59:59.000Z

211

Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Refinery Capacity Report Refinery Capacity Report With Data as of January 1, 2013 | Release Date: June 21, 2013 | Next Release Date: June 20, 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1997 1995 1994 Go Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions.

212

EVALUATION OF BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR TOXICS -TBACT- DOUBLE SHELL TANK FARMS PRIMARY VENTILATION SYSTEMS SUPPORTING WASTE TRANSFER OPERATIONS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report is an evaluation of Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (tBACT) for installation and operation of the Hanford double shell (DST) tank primary ventilation systems. The DST primary ventilation systems are being modified to support Hanford's waste retrieval, mixing, and delivery of single shell tank (SST) and DST waste through the DST storage system to the Waste Treatment and Immobilizaiton Plant (WTP).

HAAS CC; KOVACH JL; KELLY SE; TURNER DA

2010-06-24T23:59:59.000Z

213

EVALUATION OF BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR TOXICS (TBACT) DOUBLE SHELL TANK FARMS PRIMARY VENTILATION SYSTEM SUPPORTING WASTE TRANSFER OPERATIONS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report is an evaluation of Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (tBACT) for installation and operation of the Hanford double shell (DST) tank primary ventilation systems. The DST primary ventilation systems are being modified to support Hanford's waste retrieval, mixing, and delivery of single shell tank (SST) and DST waste throught the DST storage system to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).

KELLY SE; HAASS CC; KOVACH JL; TURNER DA

2010-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

214

Tables - Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Tables: 1: Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2009: PDF: 2: Production Capacity of Operable ...

215

Table 9. Refinery Receipts of Crude Oil by Method of ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Refinery Receipts of Crude Oil by Method of ... "Annual Refinery Report." 49 Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity 2011. Title: Refinery ...

216

Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri Refinery District API Gravity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri Refinery District API Gravity (Weighted Average) of Crude Oil Input to Refineries (Degree)

217

Determination of ring correction factors for leaded gloves used in grab sampling activities at Hanford tank farms  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This study evaluates the effectiveness of lead lined gloves in reducing extremity dose from two sources specific to tank waste sampling activities: (1) sludge inside glass sample jars and (2) sludge as thin layer contamination on the exterior surface of sample jars. The response of past and present Hanford Extremity Dosimeters (ring) designs under these conditions is also evaluated.

RATHBONE, B.A.

1999-06-24T23:59:59.000Z

218

Refinery Yield of Liquefied Refinery Gases  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Refinery Yield Refinery Yield (Percent) Product: Liquefied Refinery Gases Finished Motor Gasoline Finished Aviation Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Residual Fuel Oil Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use Other Oils for Petrochemical Feedstock Use Special Naphthas Lubricants Waxes Petroleum Coke Asphalt and Road Oil Still Gas Miscellaneous Products Processing Gain(-) or Loss(+) Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View History U.S. 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 3.9 1993-2013 PADD 1 4.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.6 2.1 1993-2013 East Coast 4.4 5.3 5.1 5.1 4.9 2.2 1993-2013

219

EVALUATION OF FROST HEAVE ON WASTE TRANSFER LINES WITH SHALLOW DEPTHS IN DST (DOUBLE SHELL TANK) FARMS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the effect of frost heave on waste transfer lines with shallow depths in DST farms. Because of the insulation, well compacted sandy material around waste transfer lines, the type of sandy and gravel soil, and relatively low precipitation at Hanford site, it is concluded that waste transfer lines with one foot of soil covers (sandy cushion material and insulation) are not expected to undergo frost heave damaging effects.

HAQ MA

2009-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

220

U. S. Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office - F and H Tank  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

F and H Tank Farm Closure Documents F and H Tank Farm Closure Documents F and H Tank Farm Closure Documents F Tank Farm Closure Documents F Tank Farm Performance Assessment F Tank Farm Performance Assessment -- Revision 1 Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis Industrial Wastewater General Closure Plan for F-Area Waste Tank System -- Final Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the Liquid Waste Tanks 18 and 19 DOE agreement to cease waste removal SC approval to Closure Module and agreement to cease waste removal EPA agreement to cease waste removal Tanks 17 and 20 Closure Errata Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the High-Level Waste Tank 17 System Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the High-Level Waste Tank 20 System Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F Tank Farm at SRS

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

One System Integreated Project Team Progress in Coordinating Hanford Tank Farms and the Waste Treatment Plant - 14214  

SciTech Connect

The One System Integrated Project Team (IPT) was formed at the Hanford Site in late 2011 as a way to improve coordination and itegration between the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and the Tank Operations Contractor (TOC) on interfaces between the two projects, and to eliminate duplication and exploit opportunities for synergy. The IPT is composed of jointly staffed groups that work on technical issues of mutal interest, front-end design and project definition, nuclear safety, plant engineering system integration, commissioning, planning and scheduling, and environmental, safety, health and quality (ESH&Q) areas. In the past year important progress has been made in a number of areas as the organization has matured and additional opportunities have been identified. Areas covered in this paper include: Support for development of the Office of Envirnmental Management (EM) framework document to progress the Office of River Protection's (ORP) River Protection Project (RPP) mission; Stewardship of the RPP flowsheet; Collaboration with Savannah River Site (SRS), Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); Operations programs integration, and; Further development of the waste acceptance criteria.

Skwarek, Raymond J.; Harp, Ben J.; Duncan, Garth M.

2013-12-18T23:59:59.000Z

222

January 7, 2013, Department letter accepting Board Recommendation 2012-2, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

7, 2013 7, 2013 The Honorable PeterS. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana A venue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) Recommendation 2012-2, Iianford Tank Fanns Flammable Gas Safety Strategy, issued on September 28, 2012, published in the Federal Register on October 12, 20 12, and accepts the Recommendation. The Board acknowledged in its Recommendation that some improvements had been made to the specific administrative controls used for flamn1able gas monitoring, but noted that more work was needed to make the ventilation systetn a credited safety control. DOE agrees. In developing an Implementation Plan (IP), DOE will take the

223

First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 4  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

238 of 864 238 of 864 4.0 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE The purpose of this section is to provide the technical basis for the analyses of performance for the closed HTF facilities over time based on the total remaining inventory. Section 4.1 provides an overview of the ICM comprised of three components: 1) closure cap, 2) vadose zone, and 3) saturated zone. Section 4.2 describes the ICM approach for contaminant release. ï‚· 4.2.1 presents details of the source term release, the analyses performed to estimate the leaching of contaminants from the CZ by the pore fluid, based on solubility controls used for modeling the transport of contaminants from their initial closure locations within the waste tanks and ancillary equipment to the underground aquifers.

224

Status of Texas refineries, 1982  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report is a survey of current operations of the Texas refineries during the 1979-82 market slump using publicly available data from the US Department of Energy and the Texas Railroad Commission. The report looks at the small inland refineries, the large inland refineries, the small coastal refineries, the large coastal refineries in Texas, and the Louisiana coastal refineries. The report suggests that about 200 mb/d of inland capacity and 1.3 million b/d of coastal capacity has been permanently idled.

Langston, V.C.

1983-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

225

Texas Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity : Operable ... Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not ...

226

Colorado Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity : Operable ... Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not ...

227

Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Refinery Capacity Report Refinery Capacity Report June 2013 With Data as of January 1, 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies. Table 1. Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2013

228

Optimization of refinery hydrogen network  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Tighter environmental regulations and more heavy-end upgrading in the petroleum industry lead to increased demand for hydrogen in oil refineries. In this paper, the method proposed to optimize the refinery hydrogen network is based upon mathematical ... Keywords: hydrogen management, optimization, refinery, superstructure

Yunqiang Jiao; Hongye Su

2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

229

Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank Closure, Final Environmental Impact Statement  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

TANK FARM DESCRIPTION AND CLOSURE PROCESS TANK FARM DESCRIPTION AND CLOSURE PROCESS DOE/EIS-0303 Tank Farm Description FINAL May 2002 and Closure Process A-iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... A-1 A.2 Overview of SRS HLW Management .................................................................................. A-1 A.3 Description of the Tank Farms ............................................................................................. A-4 A.3.1 Tanks........................................................................................................................ A-4 A.3.2 Evaporator Systems .................................................................................................

230

Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

1 1 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 14 10 4 1,617,500 1,205,000 412,500 1,708,500 1,273,500 435,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 0 1 182,200 0 182,200 190,200 0 190,200 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Delaware......................................

231

Texas Gulf Coast Refinery District API Gravity (Weighted Average ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Texas Gulf Coast Refinery District API Gravity (Weighted Average) of Crude Oil Input to Refineries (Degree)

232

Texas Gulf Coast Refinery District API Gravity (Weighted ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Texas Gulf Coast Refinery District API Gravity (Weighted Average) of Crude Oil Input to Refineries (Degree)

233

Appalachian No. 1 Refinery District Sulfur Content (Weighted ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Appalachian No. 1 Refinery District Sulfur Content (Weighted Average) of Crude Oil Input to Refineries (Percent)

234

Hanford Tank Waste Residuals  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Hanford Tank Waste Residuals DOE HLW Corporate Board November 6, 2008 Chris Kemp, DOE ORP Bill Hewitt, YAHSGS LLC Hanford Tanks & Tank Waste * Single-Shell Tanks (SSTs) - ~27 million gallons of waste* - 149 SSTs located in 12 SST Farms - Grouped into 7 Waste Management Areas (WMAs) for RCRA closure purposes: 200 West Area S/SX T TX/TY U 200 East Area A/AX B/BX/BY C * Double-Shell Tanks (DSTs) - ~26 million gallons of waste* - 28 DSTs located in 6 DST Farms (1 West/5 East) * 17 Misc Underground Storage Tanks (MUST) * 43 Inactive MUST (IMUST) 200 East Area A/AX B/BX/BY C * Volumes fluctuate as SST retrievals and 242-A Evaporator runs occur. Major Regulatory Drivers * Radioactive Tank Waste Materials - Atomic Energy Act - DOE M 435.1-1, Ch II, HLW - Other DOE Orders * Hazardous/Dangerous Tank Wastes - Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (TPA) - Retrieval/Closure under State's implementation

235

EIA-820 ANNUAL REFINERY REPORT INSTRUCTIONS  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

EIA-820, Annual Refinery Report Page 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ... production outside the refinery gate. Note: capacity should include base stocks and process oils

236

Indiana Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Notes: Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not permanently shutdown as of January 1 of the year.

237

Number of Idle Refineries - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Notes: Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not permanently shutdown as of January 1 of the year.

238

California Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Notes: Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not permanently shutdown as of January 1 of the year.

239

Refinery, petrochemical plant injuries decline  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) reports a 7% reduction in workplace injury and illness incidence rates for refineries in 1993, and a 21% decrease for petrochemical plants. The report summarizes data from 135 of the 162 US member refineries, and 117 of the 172 US member petrochemical plants. This paper summarizes the report findings.

Not Available

1994-07-25T23:59:59.000Z

240

Tank characterization reference guide  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Characterization of the Hanford Site high-level waste storage tanks supports safety issue resolution; operations and maintenance requirements; and retrieval, pretreatment, vitrification, and disposal technology development. Technical, historical, and programmatic information about the waste tanks is often scattered among many sources, if it is documented at all. This Tank Characterization Reference Guide, therefore, serves as a common location for much of the generic tank information that is otherwise contained in many documents. The report is intended to be an introduction to the issues and history surrounding the generation, storage, and management of the liquid process wastes, and a presentation of the sampling, analysis, and modeling activities that support the current waste characterization. This report should provide a basis upon which those unfamiliar with the Hanford Site tank farms can start their research.

De Lorenzo, D.S.; DiCenso, A.T.; Hiller, D.B.; Johnson, K.W.; Rutherford, J.H.; Smith, D.J. [Los Alamos Technical Associates, Kennewick, WA (United States); Simpson, B.C. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

242

Puerto Rico Refinery Desulfurization, Gasoline Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Desulfurization, Gasoline Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

243

Mississippi Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Mississippi Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

244

Louisiana Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Louisiana Refinery Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

245

Oklahoma Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Oklahoma Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

246

Mississippi Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Mississippi Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

247

Georgia Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Georgia Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

248

Minnesota Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Minnesota Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

249

ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT CHARACTERIZATION 461 Failing or nearby septic tank systems  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

or natural environment Leaks from underground storage tanks and pipes are a common source of soil.g., petroleum refineries. Pipes that are plugged or collapsed, as well as leaking storage tanks, may cause: · Sanitary wastewater sources: ­ Raw sanitary wastewater from improper sewerage connections, exfiltration

Pitt, Robert E.

250

Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead for the Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms, February 2013  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25 HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25 Site: Hanford - Office of River Production Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead Dates of Activity : 02/25/13 - 03/07/13 and 03/18-28/13 Report Preparer: Robert E. Farrell Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security's (HSS) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) assigned a new Site Lead to provide continuous oversight of activities at the Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) and tank farms. To gain familiarity with the site programs and personnel, the new Site Lead made

251

Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead for the Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms, February 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25 HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25 Site: Hanford - Office of River Production Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead Dates of Activity : 02/25/13 - 03/07/13 and 03/18-28/13 Report Preparer: Robert E. Farrell Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security's (HSS) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) assigned a new Site Lead to provide continuous oversight of activities at the Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) and tank farms. To gain familiarity with the site programs and personnel, the new Site Lead made

252

Tank 241-BY-107 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank 241-BY-107 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. The drivers and objectives of waste tank headspace sampling and analysis are discussed in {open_quotes}Program Plan for the Resolution of Tank Vapor Issues{close_quotes}. Tank 241-BY-107 was vapor sampled in accordance with {open_quotes}Data Quality Objectives for Generic In-Tank Health and Safety Issue Resolution{close_quotes}.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

253

Tank 241-S-102 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank 241-S-102 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. The drivers and objectives of waste tank headspace sampling and analysis are discussed in {open_quotes}Program Plan for the Resolution of Tank Vapor Issues.{close_quotes} Tank 241-S-102 was vapor sampled in accordance with {open_quotes}Data Quality Objectives for Generic In-Tank Health and Safety Issue Resolution. {close_quotes}

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

254

New Jersey Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity : Operable ... Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not ...

255

Hanford A and AX-Farm Leak Assessments Report: 241-A-103, 241-A-104, 241-A-105, 241-AX-102, 241-AX-104 and Unplanned Waste Releases  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes information on historical waste loss events associated with tanks and piplines in the 241-A and 241-AX tank farms.

Johnson, Michael E.; Field, Jim G.

2008-08-26T23:59:59.000Z

256

Office of River Protection (ORP) and Washingotn River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) Partnering Agreement for the DOE-EM Tank Operations Project  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The Mission of the Office of River Protection is to safely retrieve and treat Hanford's tank waste and close the Tank Farms to protect the Columbia River.

257

Refinery Capacity Report - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries ... Sources & Uses Petroleum Coal Natural Gas Renewable Nuclear Electricity Consumption

258

Louisiana Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

259

Michigan Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

260

Delaware Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

Washington Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

262

Ohio Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

263

Mississippi Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

264

Utah Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

265

Number of Operating Refineries - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

266

Montana Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

267

Alaska Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

268

Oklahoma Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Heavy Gas Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Cat. Hydro. Heavy Gas Oil Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD)y ; Oklahoma Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries ...

269

Florida Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

270

Mississippi Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Heavy Gas Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Cat. Hydro. Heavy Gas Oil Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD)y ; Mississippi Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries ...

271

Nebraska Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

272

North Carolina Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

North Carolina Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

273

Refinery suppliers face tough times  

SciTech Connect

Despite a handful of bright spots in hydroprocessing and petrochemical sectors, economic woes plague much of the refinery and petrochemical catalysts business, as suppliers are feeling the impact of mature markets and refiners` ongoing cost cutting. Industry experts say the doldrums could spur further restructuring in the catalyst business, with suppliers scrambling for market share and jockeying for position in growing sectors. Expect further consolidation over the next several years, says Pierre Bonnifay, president of IFP Enterprises (New York). {open_quotes}There are still too many players for the mature [refinery catalyst] markets.{close_quotes} Others agree. {open_quotes}Only about seven [or] eight major suppliers will survive,{close_quotes} says Robert Allsmiller, v.p./refinery and petrochemical catalysts at United Catalysts Inc. (UCI; Louisville, KY). {open_quotes}Who they [will be] is still up in the air.{close_quotes}

Rotman, D.; Walsh, K.

1997-03-12T23:59:59.000Z

274

Motiva Refinery | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Refinery Refinery Motiva Refinery May 18, 2006 - 10:45am Addthis Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Bodman Much of my time lately has been devoted to explaining why the price of gasoline has risen so sharply. President Bush understands the pinch this is creating for American consumers and has come forward with a variety of steps to address the problem. Rapid economic growth in emerging economies like China and India-and the growth here in the U.S.-have pushed up demand. Political unrest in some oil-producing regions has tightened supply. The transition from winter gasoline to summer blends, and the phase out of the additive MTBE in favor of ethanol, have increased the pressure on the market. Most significantly, we have very little spare refining capacity in this

275

Implementation of Recommendations from the One System Comparative Evaluation of the Hanford Tank Farms and Waste Treatment Plant Safety Bases - 14137  

SciTech Connect

A Comparative Evaluation was conducted for One System Integrated Project Team to compare the safety bases for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project (WTP) and Tank Operations Contract (TOC) (i.e., Tank Fanns) by an Expert Review Team. The evaluation had an overarching purpose to facilitate effective integration between WTP and TOC safety bases. It was to provide One System management with an objective evaluation of identified differences in safety basis process requirements, guidance, direction, procedures, and products (including safety controls, key safety basis inputs and assumptions, and consequence calculation methodologies) between WTP and TOC. The evaluation identified 25 recommendations (Opportunities for Integration). The resolution of these recommendations resulted in 16 implementation plans. The completion of these implementation plans will help ensure consistent safety bases for WTP and TOC along with consistent safety basis processes. procedures, and analyses. and should increase the likelihood of a successful startup of the WTP. This early integration will result in long-term cost savings and significant operational improvements. In addition, the implementation plans lead to the development of eight new safety analysis methodologies that can be used at other U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) complex sites where URS Corporation is involved.

Garrett, Richard L.; Niemi, Belinda J.; Paik, Ingle K.; Buczek, Jeffrey A.; Lietzow, J.; McCoy, F.; Beranek, F.; Gupta, M.

2013-11-07T23:59:59.000Z

276

Reformulated Gasoline Foreign Refinery Rules  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reformulated Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Foreign Refinery Rules Contents * Introduction o Table 1. History of Foreign Refiner Regulations * Foreign Refinery Baseline * Monitoring Imported Conventional Gasoline * Endnotes Related EIA Short-Term Forecast Analysis Products * Areas Participating in the Reformulated Gasoline Program * Environmental Regulations and Changes in Petroleum Refining Operations * Oxygenate Supply/Demand Balances in the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting Model * Refiners Switch to Reformulated Gasoline Complex Model * Demand, Supply, and Price Outlook for Reformulated Motor Gasoline, 1995 Introduction On August 27, 1997, the EPA promulgated revised the rules that allow foreign refiners to establish and use individual baselines, but it would not be mandatory (the optional use of an

277

RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF MINERALIZED WASTE FORMS MADE FROM HANFORD LOW ACTIVITY WASTE (TANK FARM BLEND) BY FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMATION (FBSR)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford’s tank waste. A key aspect of the River Protection Project (RPP) cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the RPP mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), i.e. December 31, 2047. Supplemental Treatment is likely to be required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. The Supplemental Treatment chosen will immobilize that portion of the retrieved LAW that is not sent to the WTP’s LAW Vitrification facility into a solidified waste form. The solidified waste will then be disposed on the Hanford site in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) offers a moderate temperature (700-750°C) continuous method by which LAW can be processed irrespective of whether the waste contain organics, nitrates, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, volatile radionuclides or other aqueous components. The FBSR technology can process these wastes into a crystalline ceramic (mineral) waste form. The mineral waste form that is produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process has been shown to be comparable to LAW glass, i.e. leaches Tc-99, Re and Na at 6 (the Hanford IDF criteria for Na) in the first few hours. The granular and monolithic waste forms also pass the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) components at the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS). Two identical Benchscale Steam Reformers (BSR) were designed and constructed at SRNL, one to treat non-radioactive simulants and the other to treat actual radioactive wastes. The results from the non-radioactive BSR were used to determine the parameters needed to operate the radioactive BSR in order to confirm the findings of non-radioactive FBSR pilot scale and engineering scale tests and to qualify an FBSR LAW waste form for applications at Hanford. Radioactive testing commenced using SRS LAW from Tank 50 chemically trimmed to look like Hanford’s blended LAW known as the Rassat simulant as this simulant composition had been tested in the non-radioactive BSR, the non-radioactive pilot scale FBSR at the Science Applications International Corporation-Science and Technology Applications Research (SAIC-STAR) facility in Idaho Falls, ID and in the TTT Engineering Scale Technology Demonstration (ESTD) at Hazen Research Inc. (HRI) in Denver, CO. This provided a “tie back” between radioactive BSR testing and non-radioactive BSR, pilot scale, and engineering scale testing. Approximately six hundred grams of non-radioactive and radioactive BSR product were made for extensive testing and comparison to the non-radioactive pilot scale tests performed in 2004 at SAIC-STAR and the engineering scale test performed in 2008 at HRI with the Rassat simulant. The same mineral phases and off-gas species were found in the radioactive and non-radioactive testing. The granular ESTD and BSR products (radioactive and non-radioactive) were analyzed for to

Jantzen, C. M.; Crawford, C. L.; Bannochie, C. J.; Burket, P. R.; Cozzi, A. D.; Daniel, W. E.; Hall, H. K.; Miller, D. H.; Missimer, D. M.; Nash, C. A.; Williams, M. F.

2013-08-21T23:59:59.000Z

278

Kansas refinery starts up coke gasification unit  

SciTech Connect

Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. has started up a gasification unit at its El Dorado, Kan., refinery. The unit gasifies delayed coke and other refinery waste products. This is the first refinery to install a coke-fueled gasification unit for power generation. Start-up of the $80-million gasification-based power plant was completed in mid-June. The gasifier produces syngas which, along with natural gas, fuels a combustion turbine. The turbine produces virtually 100% of the refinery`s electricity needs and enough heat to generate 40% of its steam requirements.

Rhodes, A.K.

1996-08-05T23:59:59.000Z

279

HANFORD DOUBLE SHELL TANK (DST) THERMAL & SEISMIC PROJECT BUCKLING EVALUATION METHODS & RESULTS FOR THE PRIMARY TANKS  

SciTech Connect

This report documents a detailed buckling evaluation of the primary tanks in the Hanford double shell waste tanks. The analysis is part of a comprehensive structural review for the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Project. This work also provides information on tank integrity that specifically responds to concerns raise by the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) Oversight (EH-22) during a review (in April and May 2001) of work being performed on the double-shell tank farms, and the operation of the aging waste facility (AWF) primary tank ventilation system.

MACKEY, T.C.

2006-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

280

Refinery and Blender Net Inputs  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Refinery and Blender Net Inputs Crude OIl ... 14.54 15.14 15.26 15.08 14.51 15.30 15.70 14.93 14.47 15.30 15.54 14.97 15.01...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF MINERALIZED WASTE FORMS MADE FROM HANFORD LOW ACTIVITY WASTE (TANK FARM BLEND) BY FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMATION (FBSR)  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford’s tank waste. A key aspect of the River Protection Project (RPP) cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the RPP mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), i.e. December 31, 2047. Supplemental Treatment is likely to be required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. The Supplemental Treatment chosen will immobilize that portion of the retrieved LAW that is not sent to the WTP’s LAW Vitrification facility into a solidified waste form. The solidified waste will then be disposed on the Hanford site in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) offers a moderate temperature (700-750°C) continuous method by which LAW can be processed irrespective of whether the waste contain organics, nitrates, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, volatile radionuclides or other aqueous components. The FBSR technology can process these wastes into a crystalline ceramic (mineral) waste form. The mineral waste form that is produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process has been shown to be comparable to LAW glass, i.e. leaches Tc-99, Re and Na at <2g/m2 during ASTM C1285 (Product Consistency) durability testing. Monolithing of the granular FBSR product was investigated to prevent dispersion during transport or burial/storage. Monolithing in an inorganic geopolymer binder, which is amorphous, macro-encapsulates the granules, and the monoliths pass ANSI/ANS 16.1 and ASTM C1308 durability testing with Re achieving a Leach Index (LI) of 9 (the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility, IDF, criteria for Tc-99) after a few days and Na achieving an LI of >6 (the Hanford IDF criteria for Na) in the first few hours. The granular and monolithic waste forms also pass the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) components at the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS). Two identical Benchscale Steam Reformers (BSR) were designed and constructed at SRNL, one to treat non-radioactive simulants and the other to treat actual radioactive wastes. The results from the non-radioactive BSR were used to determine the parameters needed to operate the radioactive BSR in order to confirm the findings of non-radioactive FBSR pilot scale and engineering scale tests and to qualify an FBSR LAW waste form for applications at Hanford. Radioactive testing commenced using SRS LAW from Tank 50 chemically trimmed to look like Hanford’s blended LAW known as the Rassat simulant as this simulant composition had been tested in the non-radioactive BSR, the non-radioactive pilot scale FBSR at the Science Applications International Corporation-Science and Technology Applications Research (SAIC-STAR) facility in Idaho Falls, ID and in the TTT Engineering Scale Technology Demonstration (ESTD) at Hazen Research Inc. (HRI) in Denver, CO. This provided a “tie back” between radioactive BSR testing and non-radioactive BSR, pilot scale, and engineering scale testing. Approximately six hundred grams of non-radioactive and radioactive BSR product were made for extensive testing and comparison to the non-radioactive pilot scale tests performed in 2004 at SAIC-STAR and the engineering scale test performed in 2008 at HRI with the Rassat simulant. The same mineral phases and off-gas species were found in the radioactive and non-radioactive testing. The granular ESTD and BSR products (radioactive and non-radioactive) were analyzed for to

Jantzen, C. M.; Crawford, C. L.; Bannochie, C. J.; Burket, P. R.; Cozzi, A. D.; Daniel, W. E.; Hall, H. K.; Miller, D. H.; Missimer, D. M.; Nash, C. A.; Williams, M. F.

2013-08-21T23:59:59.000Z

282

Microsoft Word - Tank Waste Report 9-30-05.doc  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Accelerated Tank Waste Retrieval Accelerated Tank Waste Retrieval Activities at the Hanford Site DOE/IG-0706 October 2005 REPORT ON THE ACCELERATED TANK WASTE RETRIEVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE HANFORD SITE TABLE OF CONTENTS Tank Waste Retrieval Details of Finding 1 Recommendations and Comments 4 Appendices Objective, Scope, and Methodology 6 Prior Reports 7 Management Comments 8 Tank Waste Retrieval Page 1 Details of Finding Tank Waste The Department will not meet Tri-Party Agreement (Agreement) Retrieval Activities milestones for the retrieval of waste from the single-shell tanks located at the C-Tank Farm within schedule and cost. Based on the current C-Tank Farm retrieval schedule and the amount of waste retrieved to date, the Department will not accomplish its

283

Encon Motivation in European Refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

One essential element in a successful energy conservation or Encon program is effective motivation of employees and organizations to conserve energy. Encon motivation in our European refineries is a continuing effort that requires utilization of various techniques and approaches, dependent on the local environment and effectiveness of the Encon program. In this paper, we begin with the importance for stimulating personnel, note the essential ingredients required to motivate our people, and briefly review several techniques used for Encon motivation. Two examples of Encon motivation programs are presented before introducing the characteristics of a successful Encon motivation program. The paper concludes with a review of the needs and suggestions for maintaining a continuing program. Energy utilization efficiency in Esso Europe's refineries improved about 16% in the mid 70's, due primarily to Encon motivation. Experience has since demonstrated that additional improvements can be achieved through operational and maintenance practices.

Gambera, S.; Lockett, W., Jr.

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

RETRIEVAL & TREATMENT OF HANFORD TANK WASTE  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Tank Farms contain 53 million gal of radioactive waste accumulated during over 50 years of operations. The waste is stored in 177 single-shell and double-shell tanks in the Hanford 200 Areas. The single-shell tanks were put into operation from the early 1940s through the 1960s with wastes received from several generations of processing facilities for the recovery of plutonium and uranium, and from laboratories and other ancillary facilities. The overall hanford Tank Farm system represents one of the largest nuclear legacies in the world driving towards completion of retrieval and treatment in 2028 and the associated closure activity completion by 2035. Remote operations, significant radiation/contamination levels, limited access, and old facilities are just some of the challenges faced by retrieval and treatment systems. These systems also need to be able to successfully remove 99% or more of the waste, and support waste treatment, and tank closure. The Tank Farm retrieval program has ramped up dramatically in the past three years with design, fabrication, installation, testing, and operations ongoing on over 20 of the 149 single-shell tanks. A variety of technologies are currently being pursued to retrieve different waste types, applications, and to help establish a baseline for recovery/operational efficiencies. The paper/presentation describes the current status of retrieval system design, fabrication, installation, testing, readiness, and operations, including: (1) Saltcake removal progress in Tanks S-102, S-109, and S-112 using saltcake dissolution, modified sluicing, and high pressure water lancing techniques; (2) Sludge vacuum retrieval experience from Tanks C-201, C-202, C-203, and C-204; (3) Modified sluicing experience in Tank C-103; (4) Progress on design and installation of the mobile retrieval system for sludge in potentially leaking single-shell tanks, particularly Tank C-101; and (5) Ongoing installation of various systems in the next generation of tanks to be retrieved.

EACKER, J.A.; SPEARS, J.A.; STURGES, M.H.; MAUSS, B.M.

2006-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

285

Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2010  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Former Corporation/Refiner Total Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) New Corporation/Refiner Date of Sale Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2010

286

Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries  

SciTech Connect

A presentation by UOP based on collaborative work from FY05 using some results from PNNL for upgrading biomass pyrolysis oil to petroleum refinery feedstock

Holmgren, Jennifer; Marinangelli, Richard; Marker, Terry; McCall, Michael; Petri, John; Czernik, Stefan; Elliott, Douglas C.; Shonnard, David

2007-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

287

Areas of Corrosion in the Refinery  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

...J.D. Poindexter, Corrosion Inhibitors for Crude Oil Refineries, Corrosion: Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection, Vol 13A, ASM Handbook, ASM International, 2003, p 887â??890...

288

Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

a summary of our collaborative 2005 project “Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries” at the Rio Oil and Gas Conference this September.

Holmgren, Jennifer; Arena, Blaise; Marinangelli, Richard; McCall, Michael; Marker, Terry; Petri, John; Czernik, Stefan; Elliott, Douglas C.; Shonnard, David

2006-10-11T23:59:59.000Z

289

Refinery Investments and Future Market Incentives  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Presentation given at the Annual NPRA Meeting that discusses factors affecting refinery investments. Refiners have plunged from a seeming “golden age” investment ...

290

Refinery Capacity Report - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Energy Information Administration (U.S. Dept. of Energy) ... Tables: 1: Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of ...

291

Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

MTC. Marano, J.J. , 2003. Refinery Technology Profiles:Deep Desulfurization of Oil Refinery Streams: A Review. FuelSavings for Flying J Refinery. Oil & Gas Journal, December 2

Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

292

A Louisiana Refinery Success Story  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

"Refining 155,000 barrels of crude oil daily, a Louisiana plant markets oil products to gas stations in at least 26 states, including Washington, D.C. The plant uses 8,538 steam traps with 1,200-, 600-, 250-, 75-, 40- and 15-psi nominal pressures. Standardized with inverted bucket steam traps, the Louisiana refinery’s maintenance and energy coordinator was content with the results. The Spirax Sarco Inc (SSI) team demonstrated SSI’s Energy Service Group (ESG) capabilities and successes to the refinery manager, operations manager and production manager. From 2004 through 2006, the team presented a series of ESG seminars at the refinery site. The numerous models demonstrated quantitative savings with 3- to 12-mo paybacks. For a complete SSI turnkey program, for example, the SSI team presented an ROI with less than six months payback. The ESG survey found that only 3,952 (46.3%) of the steam traps were operating correctly. The remaining steam traps experienced a variety of failures, including: 613 (7.2%) that failed open; 2,763 (32.4%) were cold; 1,012 (11.9%) that failed closed; 6 (0.0%) exhibited rapid cycling; and 192 (2.2%) were disconnected. The team also found performance and temperature issues with the HP sulfur reactors in the SRU units, largely due to the application of inverted bucket steam traps. Plus, as a result of excessive steam leaks, the sulfur reactors were creating a safety hazard. When these results were presented, management agreed that the sulfur reactors needed process improvement. The SSI team recommended replacing the inverted bucket steam traps with 1-1/2-in. strainers and 1-1/2-in. flanged float & thermostatic steam traps. They also suggested that the existing trap discharge piping should be removed and re-piped with globe-style bypass valves and gate-style isolation valves to reduce flow velocity. Once the SSI team began negotiations, it only took one survey for the Louisiana refinery to realize all the energy savings opportunities. In fact, the ESG survey uncovered more than $1.3 million in steam losses through failed steam traps and another $1 million in steam leak opportunities and production, process, safety and environmental improvements. Impressed with the survey results, the refinery approved the estimated $110,000 turnkey project, which offered a 5.3-month payback. Further negotiations netted the team annual steam trap surveys for the next three years, as well as an approved 2008 energy budget of $600,000. Additionally, the Louisiana refinery has indicated that upon successful completion of the ESG program, SSI’s annual energy budget will increase to $1,000,000."

Kacsur, D.

2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

293

Table 2. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Includes hydrogen production capacity of hydrogen plants on refinery grounds. MMcfd = Million cubic feet per day. a ... (EIA), Form EIA-820, "Annual Refinery Report."

294

Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

fuels in the graph. Source: Petroleum Supply Annual, Energypetroleum products, refineries are still a substantial sourceadded produced by petroleum refineries. Source: U.S. Census,

Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

295

Petroleum refineries vary by level of complexity - Today in Energy ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

A refinery is an industrial complex that manufactures petroleum products, such as gasoline, from crude oil and other feedstocks. Many different types of refineries ...

296

Refinery receipts of crude oil by rail, truck, and barge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

While refinery receipts of crude by truck, rail, and barge remain a small percentage of total receipts, EIA's recently released Refinery Capacity ...

297

Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Aspropyrgos Refinery Combined Cycle Cogeneration System.refineries operate combined cycles with higher efficiencies.in an Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle (IGCC). In this

Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

298

EIA-800 WEEKLY REFINERY AND FRACTIONATOR REPORT INSTRUCTIONS  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

EIA-800, Weekly Refinery and Fractionator Report Page 3 Crude Oil (Code 050) Report all refinery input of domestic and foreign crude oil (including ...

299

PAD District 4 Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Notes: Idle refineries represent refineries where distillation units were completely idle but not permanently shutdown as of January 1 of the year.

300

River Protection Project (RPP) Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal Mission Technical Baseline Summary Description  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document is one of the several documents prepared by Lockheed Martin Hanford Corp. to support the U. S. Department of Energy's Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal mission at Hanford. The Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal mission includes the programs necessary to support tank waste retrieval; waste feed, delivery, storage, and disposal of immobilized waste; and closure of the tank farms.

DOVALLE, O.R.

1999-12-29T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Site High Level Waste Storage Tanks  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This criticality safety evaluation covers operations for waste in underground storage tanks at the high-level waste tank farms on the Hanford site. This evaluation provides the bases for criticality safety limits and controls to govern receipt, transfer, and long-term storage of tank waste. Justification is provided that a nuclear criticality accident cannot occur for tank farms operations, based on current fissile material and operating conditions.

ROGERS, C.A.

2000-02-17T23:59:59.000Z

302

Historical Tank Content Estimate for the Northwest Quandrant of the Hanford 200 East Area  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Historical Tank Content Estimate of the Northeast Quadrant provides historical evaluations on a tank by tank basis of the radioactive mixed wastes stored in the underground single-shell tanks of the Hanford 200 East area. This report summaries historical information such at waste history, temperature, tank integrity, inventory estimates and tank level history on a tank by tank basis. Tank Farm aerial photos and in-tank photos of each tank are provided. A brief description of instrumentation methods used for waste tank surveillance, along with the components of the data management effort, such as waste status and Transaction Record Summary, Tank Layering Model, Defined Waste Types, and Inventory Estimates to generate these tank content estimates are also given in this report.

Brevick, C.H.; Gaddis, L.A.; Pickett, W.W.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

303

Regional Refinery Utilization Shows Gulf Coast Pressure  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Notes: But there is some room for hope. Refineries generally begin maintenance in February or March, and finish in April. The East Coast was experiencing some lengthy refinery maintenance outages, as shown by the drop in utilization that remained low in most of March and April. In the meantime, the East Coast was drawing on extra supplies from the Gulf Coast and imports. The Midwest refineries seem to have been ramping up in April as they finished what maintenance was needed. But the Midwest no longer has the Blue Island refinery, so it also is pulling more product from the Gulf Coast. The high Gulf Coast prices this spring reflect extra "pull" on product from both the Midwest and the East Coast, and probably from California as well. Inputs into Gulf Coast refineries over the last 4 weeks

304

Take an integrated approach to refinery automation  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

An integrated approach to designing refinery automation systems is essential to guaranteeing systems compatibility and maximizing benefits. Several aspects of implementing integrated refinery automation should be considered early in the project. Many refineries have major parts of their business automated, starting from corporate planning at the higher level, down to DCS and field instrumentation. A typical refinery automation system architecture of the mid-eighties is shown. Automation systems help refineries improve their business through: Rationalization of man power; Increased throughputs; Reduced give-away; Reduced energy consumption; Better response to market demands and changes; Effective use of offsite areas through scheduling and automatic line-up systems; Reduced losses; and Decision support systems.

Wadi, I. (Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (United Arab Emirates))

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

305

Refinery burner simulation design architecture summary.  

SciTech Connect

This report describes the architectural design for a high fidelity simulation of a refinery and refinery burner, including demonstrations of impacts to the refinery if errors occur during the refinery process. The refinery burner model and simulation are a part of the capabilities within the Sandia National Laboratories Virtual Control System Environment (VCSE). Three components comprise the simulation: HMIs developed with commercial SCADA software, a PLC controller, and visualization software. All of these components run on different machines. This design, documented after the simulation development, incorporates aspects not traditionally seen in an architectural design, but that were utilized in this particular demonstration development. Key to the success of this model development and presented in this report are the concepts of the multiple aspects of model design and development that must be considered to capture the necessary model representation fidelity of the physical systems.

Pollock, Guylaine M.; McDonald, Michael James; Halbgewachs, Ronald D.

2011-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

306

Documentation: The automated ORAD (Oil Refinery and Distribution Model) to RYMs (Refinery Yield Model) linked system  

SciTech Connect

The Refinery Evaluation Modeling System (REMS) is an analytic tool used by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to provide insight into the domestic operations of United States refineries. REMS can be used to determine the potential impacts of changes in demands for petroleum products, crude and feedstock qualities, refinery processing capacities, foreign and domestic crude availabilities, transportation modes and costs, and government regulations. REMS is a set of linear programming models that solve for a partial equilibrium in the US refinery market by equating supply and demand while maximizing profits for US refiners. REMS consists of two models: the Refinery Yield Model (RYM), and the Oil Refinery and Distribution Model (ORAD). RYMs consists of nine separate regional models that represent the contiguous US refinery system. These nine regions are aggregates of the 13 Bureau of Mines (BOM) refinery districts. ORAD integrates the results from the individual RYMs into a transportation network which represents the US refinery market. ORAD uses the extreme point refinery representation from RYMs to solve for the optimal product prices in ORAD.

Sanders, R.P.; Kydes, A.S.

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

307

Ohio Distillate Fuel Oil Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Ohio Distillate Fuel Oil Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

308

Wisconsin Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wisconsin Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

309

Midwest (PADD 2) Refinery and Blender Net Production of ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Midwest (PADD 2) Refinery and Blender Net Production of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)

310

Michigan Finished Motor Gasoline Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Michigan Finished Motor Gasoline Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

311

Colorado Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Colorado Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

312

Colorado Finished Motor Gasoline Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Colorado Finished Motor Gasoline Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

313

Colorado Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Colorado Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

314

Guam Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Guam Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

315

Rocky Mountains (PADD 4) Gross Inputs to Refineries (Thousand ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Gross Input to Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Units ; PAD District 4 Refinery Utilization and Capacity ...

316

South Dakota Distillate Fuel Oil Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

South Dakota Distillate Fuel Oil Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

317

South Dakota Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

South Dakota Propane and Propylene Stocks at Refineries, Bulk Terminals, and Natural Gas Plants (Thousand Barrels)

318

Total Number of Operable Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Thermal Cracking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Thermal Cracking Total Coking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Thermal Cracking Delayed Coking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD Thermal Cracking Fluid Coking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Thermal Cracking Visbreaking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Thermal Cracking Other/Gas Oil Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Cracking Fresh Feed Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Cracking Recycle Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydro-Cracking Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydro-Cracking Distillate Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydro-Cracking Gas Oil Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydro-Cracking Residual Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Reforming Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Reforming Low Pressure Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Reforming High Pressure Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating/Desulfurization Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Naphtha/Reformer Feed Charge Cap (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Gasoline Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Heavy Gas Oil Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Distillate Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Kerosene/Jet Fuel Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Diesel Fuel Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Other Distillate Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Residual/Other Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Residual Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Other Oils Charge Capacity (B/SD) Fuels Solvent Deasphalting Charge Capacity (B/SD) Catalytic Reforming Downstream Charge Capacity (B/CD) Total Coking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/CD) Catalytic Cracking Fresh Feed Downstream Charge Capacity (B/CD) Catalytic Hydro-Cracking Downstream Charge Capacity (B/CD) Period:

319

Wastewater reuse and recycle in petroleum refineries  

SciTech Connect

The objectives of this study were to identify feasible reuse and recycle techniques that can be successful in reducing wastewater discharge and to estimate their associated costs. Wastewater reduction is a fundamental aspect of the US EPA's proposed regulations for the petroleum refining industry. EPA undertook this study to confirm the cost estimates used in the proposed guidelines, to identify specific technologies, and to accurately assess their costs. Fifteen refineries were chosen to represent the range of refinery characteristics including crude capacity, process employed, and wastewater generation. Significant wastewater reductions were found possible at 12 refineries studied.

Langer, B.S.

1983-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

320

Texas facility treats, recycles refinery, petrochemical wastes  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A US Gulf Coast environmental services company is treating refinery and petrochemical plant wastes to universal treatment standards (UTS). DuraTherm Inc.`s recycling center uses thermal desorption to treat a variety of refinery wastes and other hazardous materials. The plant is located in San Leon, Tex., near the major Houston/Texas City refining and petrochemical center. DuraTherm`s customers include major US refining companies, plus petrochemical, terminal, pipeline, transportation, and remediation companies. Examples of typical contaminant concentrations and treatment levels for refinery wastes are shown. The paper discusses thermal desorption, the process description and testing.

NONE

1996-09-16T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Former Soviet refineries face modernization, restructuring  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A massive modernization and restructuring program is under way in the refining sector of Russia and other former Soviet republics. Economic reforms and resulting economic dislocation following the collapse of the Soviet Union has left refineries in the region grappling with a steep decline and changes in product demand. At the same time, rising oil prices and an aging, dilapidated infrastructure promise a massive shakeout. Even as many refineries in the former Soviet Union (FSU) face possible closure because they are running at a fraction of capacity, a host of revamps, expansions, and grass roots refineries are planned or under way. The paper discusses plans.

Not Available

1993-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

322

Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This photo shows the Pretreatment Facility control room building pad at the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site. The Low-Activity Waste Facility is in the background.

323

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

K1) K1) Document Number: RPP-50002 Vdo(2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 06/20/2011 ()Document Type: E Digital Image E] Hard copy (a) Number of pages (including the DRIF) or 17 Z PDFVideonumber of digital images (5) Release Type Z New El Cancel Ifl Page Change E] Complete Revision (6) Document Title: Meeting Minutes Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment Ecological Risk Working Session held at Washington State Department of Ecology Offices 3100 Port of Benton Boulevard Richland, WA 99352 on May 17 through May 18, 2011 (7) Change/Release Initial release Description: (8) Change Justification: N/A (9) Associated Structure, (a) Structure Location: (c) Building Number: (a) Project Number: System, andN/NANA Component (SSC) and N/I/ / Building Number: (b) System Designator: (d) Equipment ID Number (EIN):

324

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

4941 (2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 02/25/2010 4941 (2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 02/25/2010 (4) Document Type: ElDigital Image [] Hard copy (a) Number of pages (including the DIRF) or 20 SPDF Video number of digital images (5) Release Type New El Cancel I E Page Change El Complete Revision (6) Document Title: Meeting Minutes for the WMA C PA Working Session on Soils Inventory (7) Change/Release Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulators/stakeholders regarding Description: Waste Management Area C performance assessment on soil inventory. (8) Change N/A Justification: (9) Associated (a) Structure Location: (c) Building Number: Structure, System, N/NA and Component N/NA (SSC) and Building (b) System Designator: (d) Equipment ID Number (EIN): Number: N/A N/A (10) Impacted (a) Document Type (b) Document Number (c) Document Revision

325

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

RPP-48144, Rev. 0 RPP-48144, Rev. 0 Page 1 of 15 Meeting Minutes Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment Exposure Scenarios Working Session held at Washington State Department of Ecology Offices 3100 Port of Benton Boulevard Richland, WA 99352 on September 28 through September 30, 2010 LIST OF TERMS Abbreviations and Acronyms CA Composite Analysis CEES Columbia Energy and Environmental Services, Inc. CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 111-88, 123 Stat. 2924, 42 USC 9607 et seq.) CHPRC CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company CRESP Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOE-EM U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Environmental Management

326

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

9066 (2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 03/01/201 9066 (2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 03/01/201 (4) Document Type: E] Digital Image E Hard copy (a) Number of pages (including the DRF) or 68 Z PDFVideonumber of digital images (5) Release Type ZNew E cancel Ifl Page Change Complete Revision (6) Document Title: Meeting Minutes for the WMA C PA Numerical Codes and Models Working Session (7) Change/Release Initial release Description: (8) Change Justification: N/A (9) Associated Structure, (a) Structure Location: (c) Building Number: (e) Project Number: System, andNIN/NA Component (SSC) and N/I/ / Building Number: (b) System Designator: (d) Equipment ID Number (EIN): N/A N/A (10) Impacted (a) Document Type (b) Document Number (c) Document Revision Documents: N/A N/A N/A (11) Approvals: (a) Author (Print/Sign):,1 Date:

327

Tank Farm Waste Transfer Compatibility Program  

SciTech Connect

The compatibility program described in this document formalizes the process for determining waste compatibility. The primary goal of the program is to ensure that sufficient controls are in place to prevent the formation of incompatible mixtures during future operations. The process described involves characterizing waste, comparing characteristics with criteria, resolving potential incompatibilities and documenting the process.

FOWLER, K.D.

2000-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

328

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Systems Working Session (7) ChangeRelease Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulatorsstakeholders regarding Description: Waste Management Area C...

329

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOCUMENT RELEASE FORM DOCUMENT RELEASE FORM ! I (1) Document Number: RPP-47375 . NUMber· 0 I (3) Effective Date: 08/11/2010 i (4) Document Type: o Digital Image o Hard copy (a) Number of pages (including the DRF) or 21 I ~PDF o Video I number of digital images (5) Release Type ~ New o Cancel o Page Change o Complete Revision i (6) Document Title: Meeting Minutes for the WMA C PA Engineered Systems #2 Working Session - Steel Corrosion; i ConcretelGrout Degradation I(7) Change/Release ..- - . Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulators/stakeholders regarding Description: Waste Management Area C performance assessment on Engineered Systems #2 - Steel Corrosion; Concrete/Grout Degradation I(8) Change N/A Justification: (9) Associated (a) Structure Location: (c) Building Number:

330

Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

51 35 51 35 (2) Revision Number: 0 (3) Effective Date: 03/03/2010 (4) Document Typo: [I Digital Image ElHard copy (a) Number of pages (including the DRF) or 18 JE PDF Vie number of digital Images (5) Release Type Z New 1: Cancel 1E: Page Change Complete Revision (6) Document Title: Meeting Minutes for the WMA C PA Engineering System #1 Working Session (7) ChangelReleese Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site regulators/stakeholders regarding Description: Waste Management Area C performance assessment on Engineering System #1. (5) Change N/A Justification: (9) Associated (a) Structure Location: (c) Building Number: Structure, System, and Component N/NA (SSC) and Building (b) System Designator: (d) Equipment ID Number (EIN):. Number: (10) Impacted (a) Document Type (b) Document Number (c) Document Revision

331

A Texas Refinery Success Story  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

"Common knowledge rules that maintenance is the key to long-lasting machinery performance. Yet steam traps are often left to their own devices, to fail or succeed alone. And without steam trap programs, plants are certain to experience a high failure rate. An oil refinery in Texas was continuously experiencing a high failure rate on its 4,790-steam trap system. Finally, the steam losses were judged to be too high, and plant management called on Spirax Sarco Inc. (SSI) to reduce costs. The SSI team noticed symptoms of subpar efficiency within the steam system. Steam traps were improperly installed, water hammer problems were evident and the condensate recovery system was damaged."

Kacsur, D.

2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

332

Use belowground storage tanks to manage stormwater  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

To meet performance and operating requirements under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), BP Oil`s Toledo Refinery installed two 10-million-gallon (MMgal) concrete belowground storage tanks to replace the existing impoundment ponds. Environmental, safety and operating criteria influenced how this older refinery could cost-effectively replace impoundment ponds without interrupting the production schedule. The north stormwater impoundment pond at BP Oil`s Toledo Refinery had received primary sludge, a RCRA-listed hazardous waste and material exceeding the toxic characteristic limit for benzene (0.5 ppm). Because the pond could not be adapted to meet RCRA standards, it had to be replaced by a system that met these standards and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under normal operating conditions, stormwater was commingled with process wastewater and processed at the wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) before final disposal. However, when flow in the sewer system exceeded the capacity of the WWTU, excess flow was stored in an impoundment system. The case history shows how BP Oil`s project engineers, working with a consulting engineering group and a general contractor (GC), cost-effectively replaced the impoundment pond to handle stormwater runoff for the refinery.

Nedrow, J. [BP Oil Co., Toledo, OH (United States)

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

333

Inbicon Biomass Refinery Cellulosic Ethanol Technology Platforms  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

for biogas production Inbicon Biomass Refinery Energy integrated solutions Wheat Straw 50 t/h (at 86 % dm) C5 molasses Power The Lignin and biogas are used in power

334

Motiva Enterprises Refinery Expansion Groundbreaking | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

it. When this expansion is complete this facility which is now one of the preeminent refineries on the Gulf Coast will become the largest in the United States and one of the...

335

Refinery siting workbook: appendices A and B  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The objective of this effort is to develop and provide basic refinery-related information for use by state and local government officials as a basis for establishing responsible refinery siting requirements and policies consistent with the federal clean air and water standards and socio-economic concerns. The report will be organized into two volumes. The main text comprises the basic topics of physical concerns, regulatory requirements, and permitting activities, while the second volume includes the detailed appendix materials such as the applicable laws, and the necessary permits, as available and a glossary of pertinent terms. As a means to this objective, three refinery sizes, 200,000, 100,000 and 30,000 barrels per day crude charge will be discussed in technical terms. Process unit configuration will be presented which will maximize either gasoline or heating oil production with either sweet or sour crude oil feedstocks. The major issues affecting the socio-economic impact of siting the refinery in a given locale will be presented. These data will review the factors affecting the human environment and the issues that must be addressed to assess the impact that a refinery will have on a community. The key federal registrations which impact upon a refinery siting decision shall be reviewed. Summaries of these regulations and a simplified decision diagram for the air and water acts shall be presented to assist both government and refinery officials in understanding the scope of regulatory impact. All pertinent procedures required for refinery permitting shall be reviewed under the generalized headings of air, water, health and safety, land use, and miscellaneous permits. This categorization at the federal, state and local levels of government shall be used as a basis for establishing degrees of emphasis.

Not Available

1980-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

336

Refinery analytical techniques optimize unit performance  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Refinery process engineers need to consider benefits of laboratory analytical techniques when evaluating unit performance. Refinery heavy-oil laboratory analytical techniques use both old and new technologies. Knowing how to use available laboratory analytical techniques within their limitations are critical to obtain correct refinery optimization decisions. Better refinery stream distillation and contaminant data ultimately improves the accuracy of various refinery decision-making tools. These laboratory analytical techniques are covered: high-temperature simulated distillation (HTSD); true boiling point (TBP) distillation--ASTM D2892; vacuum distillation--ASTM D5236; continuous-flash vaporizers; wiped-film evaporators; inductively coupled plasma atomic-emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES); Conradson--ASTM D189/Microcarbon residue--ASTM D4530; and asphaltene IP-143, ASTM D3279, ASTM D4124. Analysis of atmospheric crude, vacuum crude and delayed coker units highlight these laboratory techniques to identify potential yield and product quality benefits. Physical distillation or wiped-film evaporation in conjunction with HTSD, ICP-AES, microcarbon residue and asphaltened data will better characterize a feedstock as well as determine the source of contaminants. Economics are refinery specific, therefore, these examples focus on applying laboratory techniques as opposed to discussing specifics of unit improvement. These are discussed qualitatively.

Golden, S.W. [Process Consulting Services Inc., Grapevine, TX (United States); Craft, S. [Chempro, Inc., LaPorte, TX (United States); Villalanti, D.C. [Triton Analytics Corp., Houston, TX (United States)

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

Complexity index indicates refinery capability, value  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Refinery size usually is measured in terms of distillation capacity. Relative size, however, can be measured using refinery complexity--a concept developed by W.L. Nelson in the 1960s. Nelson developed the complexity index to quantify the relative cost of components that make up a refinery. It is a pure cost index that provides a relative measure of the construction costs of a particular refinery based on its crude and upgrading capacity. The Nelson index compares the costs of various upgrading units--such as a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit or a catalytic reformer--to the cost of a crude distillation unit. Computation of the index is an attempt to quantify the relative cost of a refinery based on the added cost of various upgrading units and the relative upgrading capacity. A review of complexity calculations, and an explanation of how indices have changed, provide a simple means of determining the complexity of single refineries or refining regions. The impact of complexity on product slate is also examined in this paper.

Johnston, D. [Daniel Johnston and Co. Inc., Dallas, TX (United States)

1996-03-18T23:59:59.000Z

338

Retrofitting analysis of integrated bio-refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A bio-refinery is a processing facility that produces liquid transportation fuels and/or value-added chemicals and other products. Because of the dwindling resources and escalating prices of fossil fuels, there are emerging situations in which the economic performance of fossil-based facilities can be enhanced by retrofitting and incorporation of bio-mass feedstocks. These systems can be regarded as bio-refineries or integrated fossilbio- refineries. This work presents a retrofitting analysis to integrated bio-refineries. Focus is given to the problem of process modification to an existing plant by considering capacity expansion and material substitution with biomass feedstocks. Process integration studies were conducted to determine cost-effective strategies for enhancing production and for incorporating biomass into the process. Energy and mass integration approaches were used to induce synergism and to reduce cost by exchanging heat, material utilities, and by sharing equipment. Cost-benefit analysis was used to guide the decision-making process and to compare various production routes. Ethanol production from two routes was used as a case study to illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach and the results were bio-refinery has become more attractive then fossil-refinery.

Cormier, Benjamin R.

2005-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

339

Sunray I Wind Farm | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Sunray I Wind Farm Sunray I Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Sunray I Wind Farm Facility Sunray I Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Valero Developer Valero Energy Purchaser McKee Refinery for 34.5; Xcel Energy for remainder Location TX Coordinates 35.961137°, -101.804602° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":35.961137,"lon":-101.804602,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

340

Sunray II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Sunray II Wind Farm Sunray II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Sunray II Wind Farm Facility Sunray II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Valero Developer Valero Energy Purchaser McKee Refinery for 34.5; Xcel Energy for remainder Location TX Coordinates 35.961137°, -101.804602° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":35.961137,"lon":-101.804602,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

ANNUAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE TANK INSPECTION PROGRAM - 2011  

SciTech Connect

Aqueous radioactive wastes from Savannah River Site (SRS) separations and vitrification processes are contained in large underground carbon steel tanks. Inspections made during 2011 to evaluate these vessels and other waste handling facilities along with evaluations based on data from previous inspections are the subject of this report. The 2011 inspection program revealed that the structural integrity and waste confinement capability of the Savannah River Site waste tanks were maintained. All inspections scheduled per SRR-LWE-2011-00026, HLW Tank Farm Inspection Plan for 2011, were completed. Ultrasonic measurements (UT) performed in 2011 met the requirements of C-ESR-G-00006, In-Service Inspection Program for High Level Waste Tanks, Rev. 3, and WSRC-TR-2002-00061, Rev.6. UT inspections were performed on Tanks 25, 26 and 34 and the findings are documented in SRNL-STI-2011-00495, Tank Inspection NDE Results for Fiscal Year 2011, Waste Tanks 25, 26, 34 and 41. A total of 5813 photographs were made and 835 visual and video inspections were performed during 2011. A potential leaksite was discovered at Tank 4 during routine annual inspections performed in 2011. The new crack, which is above the allowable fill level, resulted in no release to the environment or tank annulus. The location of the crack is documented in C-ESR-G-00003, SRS High Level Waste Tank Leaksite Information, Rev.6.

West, B.; Waltz, R.

2012-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

342

High-Level Liquid Waste Tank Integrity Workshop - 2008  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Liquid Waste Tank Integrity Liquid Waste Tank Integrity Workshop - 2008 Karthik Subramanian Bruce Wiersma November 2008 High Level Waste Corporate Board Meeting karthik.subramanian@srnl.doe.gov bruce.wiersma@srnl.doe.gov 2 Acknowledgements * Bruce Wiersma (SRNL) * Kayle Boomer (Hanford) * Michael T. Terry (Facilitator) * SRS - Liquid Waste Organization * Hanford Tank Farms * DOE-EM 3 Background * High level radioactive waste (HLW) tanks provide critical interim confinement for waste prior to processing and permanent disposal * Maintaining structural integrity (SI) of the tanks is a critical component of operations 4 Tank Integrity Workshop - 2008 * Discuss the HLW tank integrity technology needs based upon the evolving waste processing and tank closure requirements along with its continued storage mission

343

Tank 241-BY-104 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank BY-104 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank BY-104 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on June 24, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. Air from the tank BY-104 headspace was withdrawn via a heated sampling probe mounted in riser 10A, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology through a contract with Sandia National Laboratories. The 46 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 10 trip blanks provided by the laboratories.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

344

OMB No. 1905-0165 Version No.:xxxx.xx FORM EIA-820 ANNUAL REFINERY ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

the comparable capacity numbers reported on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report," filed for January 2014. ... ANNUAL REFINERY REPORT.

345

U.S. Exports of Natural Gas Liquids and Liquid Refinery Gases ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases Exports; Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases Supply and Disposition;

346

241-AN Double Shell Tanks (DST) Integrity Assessment Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report presents the results of the integrity assessment of the 241-AN double-shell tank farm facility located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. The assessment included the design evaluation and integrity examinations of the tanks and concluded that the facility is adequately designed, is compatible with the waste, and is fit for use. Recommendations including subsequent examinations, are made to ensure the continued safe operation of the tanks.

JENSEN, C.E.

1999-09-21T23:59:59.000Z

347

241-AY Double Shell Tanks (DST) Integrity Assessment Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report presents the results of the integrity assessment of the 241-AY double-shell tank farm facility located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. The assessment included the design evaluation and integrity examinations of the tanks and concluded that the facility is adequately designed, is compatible with the waste, and is fit for use. Recommendations including subsequent examinations. are made to ensure the continued safe operation of the tanks.

JENSEN, C.E.

1999-09-21T23:59:59.000Z

348

Tank waste remediation system fiscal year 1998 multi-year work plan WBS 1.1  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The TWRS Project Mission is to manage and immobilize for disposal the Hanford Site radioactive tank waste and cesium (Cs)/strontium (Sr) capsules in a safe, environmentally sound, and cost-effective manner. The scope includes all activities needed to (1) resolve safety issues; (2) operate, maintain, and upgrade the tank farms and supporting infrastructure; (3) characterize, retrieve, pretreat, and immobilize the waste for disposal and tank farm closure; and (4) use waste minimization and evaporation to manage tank waste volumes to ensure that the tank capacities of existing DSTs are not exceeded. The TWRS Project is responsible for closure of assigned operable units and D&D of TWRS facilities.

Lenseigne, D.L., Westinghouse Hanford, Richland, WA

1997-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

349

U.S. Refinery Yield  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View History Liquefied Refinery Gases 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 3.9 1993-2013 Finished Motor Gasoline 44.4 44.1 44.4 43.9 43.9 44.9 1993-2013 Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2013 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 10.0 9.1 9.3 9.4 9.8 9.6 1993-2013 Kerosene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1993-2013 Distillate Fuel Oil 28.4 29.4 28.7 29.2 29.3 29.7 1993-2013 Residual Fuel Oil 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.6 1993-2013 Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1993-2013 Other Oils for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1993-2013 Special Naphthas 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 1993-2013 Lubricants 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1993-2013 Waxes

350

U.S. Refinery Yield  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Liquefied Refinery Gases 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 1993-2012 Finished Motor Gasoline 45.5 44.2 46.1 45.7 44.9 45.0 1993-2012 Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2012 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 9.1 9.7 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.5 1993-2012 Kerosene 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2012 Distillate Fuel Oil 26.1 27.8 26.9 27.5 28.9 29.1 1993-2012 Residual Fuel Oil 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 1993-2012 Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1993-2012 Other Oils for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 1993-2012 Special Naphthas 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1993-2012 Lubricants 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1993-2012 Waxes 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2012

351

Improved oil refinery operations and cheaper crude oil to help...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Improved oil refinery operations and cheaper crude oil to help reduce gasoline prices U.S. gasoline prices are expected to fall as more oil refineries come back on line and crude...

352

Texas City Refinery Update: The Price of Safety Complacency  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Texas City Refinery Update: The Price of Safety Complacency DOEEH-0699 2006-01 January 2006 ES&H Safety Bulletin 2005-09 (July 2005) discussed the Texas City Refinery accident in...

353

Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky Refinery District Gross Inputs to ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky Refinery District Gross Inputs to Refineries (Thousand Barrels per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec; 1985: 1,739 ...

354

Refineries are also indirectly exposed to forced processing rate ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Refineries receive crude oil from two sources: waterborne deliveries by ship and domestic production from California crude oil producing fields.

355

Potential Impacts of Reductions in Refinery Activity on Northeast ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

receipt of crude oil at idled refineries require considerable modification before they can be used to receive products. Moreover, ...

356

Market Assessment of Refinery Outages Planned for October 2009 ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

January fuel demand with availability of the refinery process units for distillate and gasoline production net of outages.

357

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Visbreaking Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Visbreaking Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

358

Guam Refinery Thermal Cracking/Visbreaking Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Guam Refinery Thermal Cracking/Visbreaking Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

359

Guam Refinery Thermal Cracking/Other (including Gas Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Guam Refinery Thermal Cracking/Other (including Gas Oil) Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

360

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Fluid Coking Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Fluid Coking Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Refinery Technology Profiles: Gasification and SupportingGasification.to be carried out. 18.5 Gasification Gasification provides

Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

362

Virgin Islands Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

363

Midwest (PADD 2) Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

364

Puerto Rico Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

-No Data Reported; --= Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Notes: Idle refineries ...

365

Puerto Rico Refinery Thermal Cracking/Visbreaking Downstream ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Thermal Cracking/Visbreaking Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

366

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Kerosene/Jet Fuel ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Kerosene/Jet Fuel Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

367

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Hydrocracking, Gas Oil Downstream ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Catalytic Hydrocracking, Gas Oil Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

368

Refining District Oklahoma-Kansas-Missouri Refinery and ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Refining District Oklahoma-Kansas-Missouri Refinery and Blender Net Input of Fuel Ethanol (Thousand Barrels per Day)

369

Michigan Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Kerosene/Jet Fuel ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Cat. Hydro.. Kerosene/Jet Fuel Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) Michigan Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries ...

370

Colorado Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Other/Residual Fuel Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Colorado Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Other/Residual Fuel Oil Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

371

New Jersey Refinery Catalytic Reforming/High Pressure Downstream ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

New Jersey Refinery Catalytic Reforming/High Pressure Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

372

Arkansas Refinery Catalytic Reforming/High Pressure Downstream ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Arkansas Refinery Catalytic Reforming/High Pressure Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

373

U.S. Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Heavy Gas Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Heavy Gas Oil Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

374

East Coast (PADD 1) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

East Coast (PADD 1) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

375

East Coast (PADD 1) Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

East Coast (PADD 1) Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

376

West Coast (PADD 5) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

West Coast (PADD 5) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

377

Puerto Rico Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Puerto Rico Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

378

Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

379

Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

380

U.S. Refinery Operating Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Operating Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

U.S. Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Calendar Day)

382

U.S. Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

383

U.S. Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Marketable Petroleum Coke Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

384

Flare Gas Recovery in Shell Canada Refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Two of Shell Canada's refineries have logged about six years total operating experience with modern flare gas recovery facilities. The flare gas recovery systems were designed to recover the normal continuous flare gas flow for use in the refinery fuel gas system. The system consists of liquid knock-out, compression, and liquid seal facilities. Now that the debugging-stage challenges have been dealt with, Shell Canada is more than satisfied with the system performance. A well-thought-out installation can today be safe, trouble-free, and attractive from an economic and environmental viewpoint. This paper highlights general guidelines for the sizing, design and operation of a refinery flare gas recovery facility.

Allen, G. D.; Wey, R. E.; Chan, H. H.

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

How refinery fuel indexes have varied  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Refinery fuels costs have endured a steady incline since 1993, except for a period in 1993. As shown in the accompanying table, these increases in cost have occurred for residual fuel oil costs in three of the five PADD districts. The cost for natural gas for refinery usage also dropped steadily during the 3-year study. These conclusions are based on costs of an average refinery fuel consisting of 1 bbl each of PADD Districts 1--5 and an average US cost of 4.4 MMscf natural gas (a 1 bbl equivalent on a BTU content basis). Raw residual fuel oil and natural gas prices come from publications put out by the US Department of Labor.

Farrar, G.

1997-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

386

Dual Tank Fuel System  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A dual tank fuel system has primary and secondary fuel tanks, with the primary tank including a filler pipe to receive fuel and a discharge line to deliver fuel to an engine, and with a balance pipe interconnecting the primary tank and the secondary tank. The balance pipe opens close to the bottom of each tank to direct fuel from the primary tank to the secondary tank as the primary tank is filled, and to direct fuel from the secondary tank to the primary tank as fuel is discharged from the primary tank through the discharge line. A vent line has branches connected to each tank to direct fuel vapor from the tanks as the tanks are filled, and to admit air to the tanks as fuel is delivered to the engine.

Wagner, Richard William (Albion, NY); Burkhard, James Frank (Churchville, NY); Dauer, Kenneth John (Avon, NY)

1999-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

387

Structural, energy and environmental aspects in Iranian oil refineries  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Petroleum refineries extract and upgrade the valuable components of crude oil to produce a variety of marketable petroleum products. However Iranian refineries are old and their efficiency and structure do not satisfy demand of the country in which their ... Keywords: Iran, demand, energy, refinery

Sourena Sattari; Akram Avami

2008-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

388

Exxon reduces production at U. S. refineries  

SciTech Connect

This paper reports that Exxon Co. U.S.A. has trimmed output of its U.S. refineries by a combined 15% because of depressed margins on products markets. The company made the announcement last week as it began increasing crude runs at its 396,000 b/cd refinery at Baytown, Tex., on the Houston Ship Channel. Exxon trimmed Baytown crude runs late last month to manage feedstock inventories after a barge was rammed and sunk in the ship channel, briefly halting traffic. Most feedstock is delivered to the Baytown plant by water.

Not Available

1993-01-11T23:59:59.000Z

389

Monitoring and Management of Refinery Energy Consumption  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Since 1972, the U.S. refining industry has made much progress in reducing energy consumption. Lately, falling energy prices have de-emphasized the need to appropriate new capital for additional energy conservation projects. One area neglected in most refineries is the need to monitor and manage the daily use of energy. Setting up an energy auditing system will tell management how well each unit in the refinery is being operated and can be used as a valuable tool in reducing energy costs. An example of an energy monitorirg and management system is discussed and illustrated with examples.

Pelham, R. O.; Moriarty, R. D.; Hudgens, P. D.

1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

390

Tank 241-C-112 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank C-112 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank C-112 is a single-shell tank which received first-cycle decontamination waste from B Plant and was later used as a settling tank. Samples were collected from Tank C-112 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on August 11, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 28 C. Air from the Tank C-112 headspace was withdrawn via a 7.9 m-long heated sampling probe mounted in riser 4, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 50 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology through a contract with Sandia National Laboratories. The 39 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 14 trip blanks and 2 field blanks provided by the laboratories.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

391

Tank 241-C-111 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank C-111 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Results presented here represent the best available data on the headspace constituents of Tank C-111. Almost all of the data in this report was obtained from samples collected on September 13, 1994.Data from 2 other sets of samples, collected on August 10, 1993 and June 20, 1994, are in generally good agreement with the more recent data. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 27 C. Air from the Tank C-111 headspace was withdrawn via a 7.9 m-long heated sampling probe mounted in riser 6, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 50 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology through a contract with Sandia National Laboratories. The 39 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 14 trip blanks provided by the laboratories. Tank C-111 is a single shell tank which received first-cycle decontamination waste from B Plant and was later used as a settling tank.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

392

Final report of the TWRS Plant Implementation Team to review potential reactive component in tank 241-T-111 and methane in tank 241-SY-101 gas release event  

SciTech Connect

This is the final report of the results of a Tank Waste Remediation Systems Plant Implementation Team chartered by TWRS Operations, in response to a potential Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) due to the discovery of a reactive component in waste tank 241-T-111 (T-111). Tank T-111, a non-Watch List single-shell tank, has no historical evidence of any potential safety problems. Core samples from tank T-111 were taken in 1991 and analyzed in 1992. The presence of uncharacterized exotherms was identified in the first three segments of two cores and reported to tank farm management in November 1993.

Engelman, D.B.

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

393

ANNUAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE TANK INSPECTION PROGRAM 2010  

SciTech Connect

Aqueous radioactive wastes from Savannah River Site (SRS) separations and vitrification processes are contained in large underground carbon steel tanks. Inspections made during 2010 to evaluate these vessels and other waste handling facilities along with evaluations based on data from previous inspections are the subject of this report. The 2010 inspection program revealed that the structural integrity and waste confinement capability of the Savannah River Site waste tanks were maintained. All inspections scheduled per SRR-LWE-2009-00138, HLW Tank Farm Inspection Plan for 2010, were completed. Ultrasonic measurements (UT) performed in 2010 met the requirements of C-ESG-00006, In-Service Inspection Program for High Level Waste Tanks, Rev. 3, and WSRC-TR-2002-00061, Rev.6. UT inspections were performed on Tanks 30, 31 and 32 and the findings are documented in SRNL-STI-2010-00533, Tank Inspection NDE Results for Fiscal Year 2010, Waste Tanks 30, 31 and 32. A total of 5824 photographs were made and 1087 visual and video inspections were performed during 2010. Ten new leaksites at Tank 5 were identified in 2010. The locations of these leaksites are documented in C-ESR-G-00003, SRS High Level Waste Tank Leaksite Information, Rev.5. Ten leaksites at Tank 5 were documented during tank wall/annulus cleaning activities. None of these new leaksites resulted in a release to the environment. The leaksites were documented during wall cleaning activities and the waste nodules associated with the leaksites were washed away. Previously documented leaksites were reactivated at Tank 12 during waste removal activities.

West, B.; Waltz, R.

2011-06-23T23:59:59.000Z

394

Tank characterization report for single-shell tank 241-BY-104  

SciTech Connect

This characterization report summarizes the available information on the historical uses, current status, and the sampling and analysis results of waste contained in underground storage tank 241-BY-104. This report supports the requirements of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Milestone M-44-09. Tank 241-BY-104 is one of 12 single-shell tanks located in the BY-Tank Farm in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. Tank 241-BY-104 entered service in the first quarter of 1950 with a transfer of metal waste from an unknown source. Through cascading, the tank was full of metal waste by the second quarter of 1951. The waste was sluiced in the second quarter of 1954. Uranium recovery (tributyl phosphate) waste was sent from tank 241-BY-107 during the second quarter of 1955 and from tank 241-BY-110 during the third quarter of 1955. Most of this waste was sent to a crib during the fourth quarter of 1955. During the third and fourth quarters of 1956 and the second and third quarters of 1957, the tank received waste from the in-plant ferrocyanide scavenging process (PFeCN2) from tanks 241-BY-106, -107, -108, and -110. This waste type is predicted to compose the bottom layer of waste currently in the tank. The tank received PUREX cladding waste (CWP) periodically from 1961 to 1968. Ion-exchange waste from cesium recovery operations was received from tank 241-BX-104 during the second and third quarters of 1968. Tank 241-BY-104 received evaporator bottoms waste from the in-tank solidification process that was conducted in the BY-Tank Farm 0247from tanks 241 -BY- 109 and 241 -BY- 1 12 from 1970 to 1974. The upper portion of tank waste is predicted to be composed of BY saltcake. Tank 241-BY-104 was declared inactive in 1977. Waste was saltwell pumped from the tank during the third quarter of 1982 and the fourth quarter of 1985. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1 describe tank 241-BY-104 and its status. The tank has an operating capacity of 2,869 kL and presently contains an estimated 1,234 kL of noncomplexed waste. Of this total volume, 568 kL are estimated to be sludge and 666 kL are estimated to be saltcake. The Hanlon values are not used because they are inconsistent with waste surface level measurements, and they will not be updated until the tank level stabilizes and the new surface photos are taken. This report summarizes the collection and analysis of two rotary-mode core samples obtained in October and November 1995 and reported in the Final Report for Tank 241-BY-104, Rotary Mode Cores 116 and 117. Cores 116 and 117 were obtained from risers 5 and IIA, respectively. The sampling event was performed to satisfy the requirements listed in the following documents: Tank Safety Screening Data Quality Objective , Data Requirements for the Ferrocyanide Safety Issue Developed through the Data Quality Objective Process, Data Quality Objective to Support Resolution of the Organic Fuel Rich Tank Safety Issue, Test Plan for Samples from Hanford Waste Tanks 241-BY-103, BY-104, BY-105, BY-106, BY-108, BY-110, YY-103, U-105, U-107, U-108, and U-109.

Benar, C.J.

1996-09-26T23:59:59.000Z

395

Production of ethanol from refinery waste gases. Phase 2, technology development, annual report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Oil refineries discharge large volumes of H{sub 2}, CO, and CO{sub 2} from cracking, coking, and hydrotreating operations. This program seeks to develop a biological process for converting these waste gases into ethanol, which can be blended with gasoline to reduce emissions. Production of ethanol from all 194 US refineries would save 450 billion BTU annually, would reduce crude oil imports by 110 million barrels/year and emissions by 19 million tons/year. Phase II efforts has yielded at least 3 cultures (Clostridium ljungdahlii, Isolate O-52, Isolate C-01) which are able to produce commercially viable concentrations of ethanol from CO, CO{sub 2}, and H{sub 2} in petroleum waste gas. Single continuous stirred tank reactor studies have shown that 15-20 g/L of ethanol can be produced, with less than 5 g/L acetic acid byproduct. Culture and reactor optimization in Phase III should yield even higher ethanol concentrations and minimal acetic acid. Product recovery studies showed that ethanol is best recovered in a multi-step process involving solvent extraction/distillation to azeotrope/azeotropic distillation or pervaporation, or direct distillation to the azeotrope/azeotropic distillation or pervaporation. Projections show that the ethanol facility for a typical refinery would require an investment of about $30 million, which would be returned in less than 2 years.

Arora, D.; Basu, R.; Phillips, J.R.; Wikstrom, C.V.; Clausen, E.C.; Gaddy, J.L.

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

396

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Completing the Office of River Protection (ORP) mission of stabilizing 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 tanks is one of the Energy Department's highest priorities. This Framework document outlines a phased approach for beginning tank waste treatment while continuing to resolve technical issues with the Pretreatment and High-Level Waste Facilities. Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework More Documents & Publications EIS-0391: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program EIS-0356: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

397

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Completing the Office of River Protection (ORP) mission of stabilizing 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 tanks is one of the Energy Department's highest priorities. This Framework document outlines a phased approach for beginning tank waste treatment while continuing to resolve technical issues with the Pretreatment and High-Level Waste Facilities. Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework More Documents & Publications EIS-0391: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program EIS-0356: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

398

Analysis of vehicle fuel release resulting in waste tank fire  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document reevaluates several aspects of the in-tank vehicle fuel fire/deflagration accident formally documented as an independent accident (representative accident [rep acc] 2). This reevaluation includes frequencies for the accidents and incorporates the behavior of gasoline and diesel fuel in more detail than previous analysis. This reevaluation uses data from RPP-13121, ''Historical Summary of Occurrences from the Tank Farm Safety Analysis Report'', Table B-1, ''Tank Farm Events, Off-Normal and Critiques,'' and B-2, ''Summary of Occurrences,'' and from the River Protection Project--Occurrence Reporting & Processing System (ORPS) reports as a basis for changing some of the conclusions formally reported in HNF-SD-WM-CN-037, ''Frequency Analysis of Vehicle Fuel Releases Resulting in Waste Tank Fire''. This calculation note will demonstrate that the in-tank vehicle fuel fire/deflagration accident event may be relocated to other, more bounding accidents.

STEPHENS, L.S.

2003-03-21T23:59:59.000Z

399

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

and tank farms. Excludes storage capacity of refineries, fuel ethanol plants, and pipelines. 2 Percent exclusive use is that portion of capacity in operation that is for the...

400

U.S. Refinery Net Production  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Liquefied Refinery Gases: 11,903: 12,936: 13,591: 20,226: 24,599: 26,928: 2005-2013: ... Asphalt and Road Oil: 10,230: 9,328: 8,595: 9,973: 9,494: 9,914: 2005-2013 ...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

Refinery Investments and Future Market Incentives  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

Presentation given at the Annual NPRA Meeting that discusses factors affecting refinery investments. Refiners have plunged from a seeming "golden age" investment environment to a world with excess capacity, flat to declining demand, and weak margins. What is happening to refining investments in this turbulent and uncertain situation?

Information Center

2009-03-25T23:59:59.000Z

402

Refinery siting workbook: appendices C to O  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Applicable laws and permits available for the selection and building of petroleum refineries are enclosed. A glossary of pertinent terms is also included. References related to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substance Control Act, and Wetlands and Coastal Zone are included. Permit information is also presented. (DC)

Not Available

1980-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

403

Firing Excess Refinery Butane in Peaking Gas Turbines  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

New environmentally-driven regulations for motor gasoline volatility will significantly alter refinery light ends supply/demand balancing. This, in turn, will impact refinery economics. This paper presumes that one outcome will be excess refinery normal butane production, which will reduce refinery normal butane value and price. Explored is an opportunity for a new use for excess refinery normal butane- as a fuel for utility peaking gas turbines which currently fire kerosene and #2 oil. Our paper identifies the fundamental driving forces which are changing refinery butane economics, examines how these forces influence refinery production, and evaluates the potential for using normal butanes as peaking utility gas turbine fuel, especially on the US East Coast.

Pavone, A.; Schreiber, H.; Zwillenberg, M.

1989-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

404

Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-Gallon Radioactive Liquid Waste Tanks at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report provides a record of the Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-gal liquid waste storage tanks and associated equipment at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, as required by U.S. Department of Energy M 435.1-1, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual.” This equipment is known collectively as the Tank Farm Facility. The conclusion of this report is that the Tank Farm Facility tanks, vaults, and transfer systems that remain in service for storage are structurally adequate, and are expected to remain structurally adequate over the remainder of their planned service life through 2012. Recommendations are provided for continued monitoring of the Tank Farm Facility.

Bryant, Jeffrey Whealdon; Nenni, Joseph A; Timothy S. Yoder

2003-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

405

Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-Gallon Radioactive Liquid Waste Storage Tanks at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center  

SciTech Connect

This report provides a record of the Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-gal liquid waste storage tanks and associated equipment at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, as required by U.S. Department of Energy M 435.1-1, ''Radioactive Waste Management Manual.'' This equipment is known collectively as the Tank Farm Facility. The conclusion of this report is that the Tank Farm Facility tanks, vaults, and transfer systems that remain in service for storage are structurally adequate, and are expected to remain structurally adequate over the remainder of their planned service life through 2012. Recommendations are provided for continued monitoring of the Tank Farm Facility.

Bryant, J.W.; Nenni, J.A.; Yoder, T.S.

2003-04-22T23:59:59.000Z

406

Farm Ponds  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Farm Ponds Farm Ponds Nature Bulletin No. 410-A March 13, 1971 Forest Preserve District of Cook County George W. Dunne, President Roland F. Eisenbeis, Supt. of Conservation FARM PONDS Since colonial times, farmers have been scooping out reservoirs or damming small watercourses to impound water for their livestock or satisfy a hankering for a private fishing hole. Such a pond was usually too shallow and was rarely fenced. In hot weather, cattle stood belly- deep in the water and hogs wallowed in the shallows. The shores were trampled bare of vegetation. It served as a swimming place for a flock of tame ducks and the youngsters of the family but, other than bullheads, a few fish could live in it. In most cases the dam was made of earth dug with a team and "slip scraper" to deepen the hole, without a proper spillway for the overflow during heavy rains. As a result, or because of holes tunneled through them by muskrats and crawfish, these dams eventually washed out. A number of them in our Palos preserves, built by early settlers, have been enlarged, provided with adequate spillways, and serve as harbors for fish and wildlife.

407

Projected integrated farm in Nepal  

SciTech Connect

A proposed integrated crop-livestock agro-processing complex to be based at Janakpur, Nepal is described. This project was proposed by the Agricultural Development Bank and is a small effort towards creating a self-sufficient rural community similar to one reported in China. The plan of the farm aims to achieve the integration of several agricultural, aquacultural, solar energy and biogas energy components with complete recycling of waste. These include biogas plants with associated slurry and storage tanks for operating a 3-kW generator, a 3.7-kW pump, providing domestic cooking, as well as energy to operate a fruit-processing plant. Energy for water heating, crop drying and refrigeration will be supplied by solar energy. Fish, livestock, fruits and vegetables will be produced by the farm.

Dhital, K.

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

Inactive tanks remediation program strategy and plans for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect

This report presents plans and strategies for remediation of the liquid low-level waste (LLLW) tanks that have been removed from service (also known as inactive tanks) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These plans and strategies will be carried out by the Environmental Restoration Program`s Inactive LLLW Tank Program at ORNL. These tanks are defined as Category D tanks because they are existing tank systems without secondary containment that are removed from service. The approach to remediation of each tank or tank farm must be adapted in response to the specific circumstances of individual tank sites. The approach will be tailored to accommodate feedback on lessons learned from previous tank remediation activities and will not be a rigid step-by-step approach that must be conducted identically for every tank system. However, the approach will follow a multistep decision process. The overall objective of the Inactive Tank Program is to remediate all LLLW tanks that have been removed from service to the extent practicable in accordance with the FFA requirements. The Inactive Tank Program will focus on the remediation of the tank residues (i.e., contents after tank has been emptied) and tank shell. This strategy is discussed in detail in this report.

1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

409

TANK 21 AND TANK 24 BLEND AND FEED STUDY: BLENDING TIMES, SETTLING TIMES, AND TRANSFERS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Salt Disposition Integration (SDI) portfolio of projects provides the infrastructure within existing Liquid Waste facilities to support the startup and long term operation of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). Within SDI, the Blend and Feed Project will equip existing waste tanks in the Tank Farms to serve as Blend Tanks where salt solutions of up to 1.2 million gallons will be blended in 1.3 million gallon tanks and qualified for use as feedstock for SWPF. In particular, Tanks 21 and 24 are planned to be used for blending and transferring to the SDI feed tank. These tanks were evaluated here to determine blending times, to determine a range of settling times for disturbed sludge, and to determine that the SWPF Waste Acceptance Criteria that less than 1200 mg/liter of solids will be entrained in salt solutions during transfers from the Tank 21 and Tank 24 will be met. Overall conclusions for Tank 21 and Tank 24 operations include: (1) Experimental correction factors were applied to CFD (computational fluid dynamics) models to establish blending times between approximately two and five hours. As shown in Phase 2 research, blending times may be as much as ten times greater, or more, if lighter fluids are added to heavier fluids (i.e., water added to salt solution). As the densities of two salt solutions converge this effect may be minimized, but additional confirmatory research was not performed. (2) At the current sludge levels and the presently planned operating heights of the transfer pumps, solids entrainment will be less than 1200 mg/liter, assuming a conservative, slow settling sludge simulant. (3) Based on theoretical calculations, particles in the density range of 2.5 to 5.0 g/mL must be greater than 2-4 {micro}m in diameter to ensure they settle adequately in 30-60 days to meet the SWPF feed criterion ( 60 days) settling times in Tank 21.

Lee, S.; Leishear, R.; Poirier, M.

2012-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

410

Tank characterization report for single-shell tank 241-C-109  

SciTech Connect

This document provides the characterization information and interprets the data for Single-Shell Tank 241-C-109. Single-Shell Tank 241-C-109 is an underground storage tank containing high-level radioactive waste. It is located in the C Tank Farm in the Hanford Site`s 200 East Area. The tank was sampled in September of 1992 to address the Ferrocyanide Unreviewed Safety Question. Analyses of tank waste were also performed to support Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Milestone M-44-08. Tank 241-C-109 went into service in 1946 and received first-cycle decontamination waste from bismuth phosphate process operations at B Plant in 1948. Other waste types added that are expected to contribute to the current contents include ferrocyanide scavenging waste and Strontium Semiworks waste. It is the last tank in a cascade with Tanks 241-C-107 and 241-C-108. The tank has a capacity of 2,010 kL (530 kgal) and currently contains 250 kL (66 kgal) of waste, existing primarily of sludge. Approximately 9.15 kL (4 kgal) of supernate remain. The sludge is heterogeneous, with significantly different chemical compositions depending on waste depth. The major waste constituents include aluminum, calcium, iron, nickel, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, sodium, sulfate and uranium. The major radionuclides present are Cesium 137 and Strontium 90. The results of this characterization indicate that the waste in this tank is adequately described in the Dangerous Waste Permit Application of the Single-Shell Tank System.

DiCenso, A.T.; Amato, L.C.; Lambie, R.W.; Franklin, J.D.; Seymour, B.J.; Johnson, K.W.; Stevens, R.H. [Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc., Kennewick, WA (United States); Remund, K.M. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Sasaki, L.M.; Simpson, B.C. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

411

Rethinking the Hanford Tank Waste Program  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The program to treat and dispose of the highly radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site has been studied. A strategy/management approach to achieve an acceptable (technically sound) end state for these wastes has been developed in this study. This approach is based on assessment of the actual risks and costs to the public, workers, and the environment associated with the wastes and storage tanks. Close attention should be given to the technical merits of available waste treatment and stabilization methodologies, and application of realistic risk reduction goals and methodologies to establish appropriate tank farm cleanup milestones. Increased research and development to reduce the mass of non-radioactive materials in the tanks requiring sophisticated treatment is highly desirable. The actual cleanup activities and milestones, while maintaining acceptable safety standards, could be more focused on a risk-to-benefit cost effectiveness, as agreed to by the involved stakeholders and in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. If existing safety standards can be maintained at significant cost savings under alternative plans but with a change in the Tri-Party Agreement (a regulatory requirement), those plans should be carried out. The proposed strategy would also take advantage of the lessons learned from the activities and efforts in the first phase of the two-phased cleanup of the Hanford waste tank farms.

Parker, F. L.; Clark, D. E.; Morcos, N.

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

412

Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third Single-Shell Tank Emptied at Hanford's C Farm This Year Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third Single-Shell Tank Emptied at Hanford's C Farm This Year September 17, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Lori Gamache, ORP 509-372-9130 Rob Roxburgh, WRPS 509-376-5188 RICHLAND - Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) has advised the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that they have completed retrieval of radioactive and chemical waste from the third single-shell tank (SST) this year. WRPS is the tank operations contractor for the DOE Office of River Protection (ORP). An engineering evaluation in the field shows the waste volume in C-109 is below the regulatory requirement of 360 cubic feet of waste remaining in

413

Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third Single-Shell Tank Emptied at Hanford's C Farm This Year Retrieval of the Tenth Single-Shell Tank Complete at Hanford: Third Single-Shell Tank Emptied at Hanford's C Farm This Year September 17, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Lori Gamache, ORP 509-372-9130 Rob Roxburgh, WRPS 509-376-5188 RICHLAND - Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) has advised the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that they have completed retrieval of radioactive and chemical waste from the third single-shell tank (SST) this year. WRPS is the tank operations contractor for the DOE Office of River Protection (ORP). An engineering evaluation in the field shows the waste volume in C-109 is below the regulatory requirement of 360 cubic feet of waste remaining in

414

Tjaden Farms Wind Farm | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Tjaden Farms Wind Farm Tjaden Farms Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Tjaden Farms Wind Farm Facility Tjaden Farms Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Tjaden Farms Energy Purchaser Tjaden Farms Location Charles City IA Coordinates 43.170337°, -92.58944° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":43.170337,"lon":-92.58944,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

415

Opportunities for Biorenewables in Oil Refineries  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for using biorenewable feedstocks in oil refineries. Economic analyses were conducted, with support from process modeling and proof of principle experiments, to assess a variety of potential processes and configurations. The study considered two primary alternatives: the production of biodiesel and green diesel from vegetable oils and greases and opportunities for utilization of pyrolysis oil. The study identified a number of promising opportunities for biorenewables in existing or new refining operations.

Marker, T.L.

2005-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

416

PAD District / Refinery Location Total Atmospheric Distillation  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

Operable Date of Last Operation Date Shutdown Table 11. New, Shutdown and Reactivated Refineries During 2012 a b REACTIVATED PAD District I 185,000 366,700 Monroe Energy LLC Trainer, PA 185,000 366,700 09/12 c SHUTDOWN PAD District I 80,000 47,000 ChevronUSA Inc Perth Amboy, NJ 80,000 47,000 03/08 07/12 PAD District III 16,800 19,500 Western Refining Southwest Inc Bloomfield, NM 16,800 19,500 12/09 11/12 PAD District VI 500,000 1,086,000 Hovensa LLC Kingshill, VI 500,000 1,086,000 02/12 02/12 a b bbl/cd=Barrels per calendar day. bbl/sd=Barrels per stream day. Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report" and Form EIA-820, "Annual Refinery Report." c Formerly owned by ConocoPhillips Company.

417

GreenHunter Biodiesel Refinery Grand Opening | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

GreenHunter Biodiesel Refinery Grand Opening GreenHunter Biodiesel Refinery Grand Opening GreenHunter Biodiesel Refinery Grand Opening June 2, 2008 - 12:51pm Addthis Remarks as Prepared for (Acting) Deputy Secretary Kupfer Today, Acting Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Kupfer delivered remarks at the launch of GreenHunter Energy's biodiesel refinery, which will be the nation's single largest biodiesel refinery, producing 105 million gallons of "white-water" B100 biodiesel per year. Thank you Gary. I'm pleased to join with Governor Perry, Congressmen Green and Lampson, and Mayor Garcia in celebrating this important occasion. Today, as we open the nation's largest biodiesel refinery, we reach another milestone in our effort to make America more energy secure. As you know, global energy demand is surging. We must act swiftly and aggressively to

418

Status of tank 241-SY-101 data analyses  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The Waste Tank Flammable Gas Stabilization Program was established in 1990 to provide for resolution of a major safety issue identified for 23 of the high-level waste tanks at the Hanford Site. The safety issue involves the production, accumulation, and periodic release from these tanks of flammable gases in concentrations exceeding the lower flammability limits. This document deals primarily with tank 241-SY-101 from the SY Tank Farm. The flammable gas condition has existed for this tank since the tank was first filled in the time period from 1977 to 1980. During a general review of waste tank chemical stability in 1988--1989, this situation was re-examined and, in March 1990, the condition was declared to be an unreviewed safety question. Tank 241-SY-101 was placed under special operating restrictions, and a program of investigation was begun to evaluate the condition and determine appropriate courses of action. This report summarizes the data that have become available on tank 241-SY-101 since it was declared as an unreviewed safety question and updates the information reported in an earlier document (WHC-EP-0517). The report provides a technical basis for use in the evaluation of safety risks of the tank and subsequent resolution of the unreviewed safety question.

Anantatmula, R.P.

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

419

DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations Contract at Hanford Site DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations Contract at Hanford Site May 29, 2008 - 12:51pm Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), LLC has been selected as the tank operations contractor to store, retrieve and treat Hanford tank waste and close the tank farms at DOE's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. The contract is a cost-plus award-fee contract valued at approximately $7.1 billion over ten years (a five-year base period with options to extend it for up to five years). WRPS is a limited liability company comprised of Washington Group

420

DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations Contract at Hanford Site DOE Selects Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC for Tank Operations Contract at Hanford Site May 29, 2008 - 12:51pm Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), LLC has been selected as the tank operations contractor to store, retrieve and treat Hanford tank waste and close the tank farms at DOE's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. The contract is a cost-plus award-fee contract valued at approximately $7.1 billion over ten years (a five-year base period with options to extend it for up to five years). WRPS is a limited liability company comprised of Washington Group

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

Type I Tanks  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

I Tanks I Tanks * 12 Type I tanks were built between 1951-53 * 750,000 gallon capacity; 75 feet in diameter by 24 ½ feet high * Partial secondary containment with leak detection * Contain approximately 10 percent of the waste volume * 7 Type I tanks have leaked waste into the tank annulus; the amount of waste stored in these tanks is kept below the known leak sites that have appeared over the decades of

422

Tank 241-BY-110 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank BY-110 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank BY-110 is on the Ferrocyanide Watch List. Samples were collected from Tank BY-110 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on November 11, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 27 C. Air from the Tank BY-110 headspace was withdrawn via a 7.9 m-long heated sampling probe mounted in riser 12B, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 50 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The 40 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 14 trip blanks and 2 field blanks that accompanied the samples.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

423

Tank 241-BY-106 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank BY-106 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank BY-106 is on the Ferrocyanide Watch List. Samples were collected from Tank BY-106 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on July 8, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 27 C. Air from the Tank BY-106 headspace was withdrawn via a heated sampling probe mounted in riser 10B, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 65 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology through a contract with Sandia National Laboratories. The 46 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 10 trip blanks provided by the laboratories.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

424

Tank 241-BY-105 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank BY-105 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank BY-105 is on the Ferrocyanide Watch List. Samples were collected from Tank BY-105 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on July 7, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 26 C. Air from the Tank BY-105 headspace was withdrawn via a heated sampling probe mounted in riser 10A, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 65 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology through a contract with Sandia National Laboratories. The 46 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 10 trip blanks provided by the laboratories.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

425

Tank 241-BY-108 vapor sampling and analysis tank characterization report  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Tank BY-108 headspace gas and vapor samples were collected and analyzed to help determine the potential risks to tank farm workers due to fugitive emissions from the tank. Tank BY-108 is on the Ferrocyanide Watch List. Samples were collected from Tank BY-108 using the vapor sampling system (VSS) on october 27, 1994 by WHC Sampling and Mobile Laboratories. The tank headspace temperature was determined to be 25.7 C. Air from the Tank BY-108 headspace was withdrawn via a 7.9 m-long heated sampling probe mounted in riser 1, and transferred via heated tubing to the VSS sampling manifold. All heated zones of the VSS were maintained at approximately 50 C. Sampling media were prepared and analyzed by WHC, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The 40 tank air samples and 2 ambient air control samples collected are listed in Table X-1 by analytical laboratory. Table X-1 also lists the 14 trip blanks and 2 field blanks that accompanied the samples.

Huckaby, J.L.

1995-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

426

Economic impact analysis for the petroleum refineries NESHAP. Final report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

An economic analysis of the industries affected by the Petroleum Refineries National Emmissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) was completed in support of this standard. The industry for which economic impacts was computed was the petroleum refinery industry. Affected refineries must reduce HAP emissions by the level of control required in the standard. Several types of economic impacts, among them price product changes, output changes, job impacts, and effects on foriegn trade, were computed for the selected regulatory alternative.

NONE

1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

Workers Complete Retrieval of 11th Single-Shell Tank at EM's Hanford Site  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Workers Complete Retrieval of 11th Single-Shell Tank at EM's Workers Complete Retrieval of 11th Single-Shell Tank at EM's Hanford Site Workers Complete Retrieval of 11th Single-Shell Tank at EM's Hanford Site November 26, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis A composite image comprised of dozens of photos taken inside C-110 provides a rare panoramic view of the tank interior. Portions of the tank floor and the FoldTrack waste-retrieval system are clearly visible. A composite image comprised of dozens of photos taken inside C-110 provides a rare panoramic view of the tank interior. Portions of the tank floor and the FoldTrack waste-retrieval system are clearly visible. Operators use multiple technologies to remove waste from underground storage tank RICHLAND, Wash. - EM's Office of River Protection and its tank farm contractor, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), recently

428

Directory of Operable Petroleum Refineries on Tables 38 and 39  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Directory of Operable Petroleum Refineries on Tables 38 and 39 Refiner State(s)aRefiner State(s)a.....Age Refining Inc ...

429

Environmentally advanced refinery nears start-up in Germany  

SciTech Connect

Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH (Mider), is building a 170,000 b/d, grassroots refinery in Leuna, Germany. The refinery is scheduled to start up in third quarter of this year. At the heart of the new refinery is a new technology called progressive distillation. Other major units include: vacuum distillation, catalytic reforming, alkylation, visbreaking, fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), and hydrodesulfurization (HDS). In addition, an existing partial oxidation (POX)/methanol production unit will be integrated with the new refinery. The paper describes the plant and its major processes.

Rhodes, A.K.

1997-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

430

U.S. refineries and blenders produced record amounts of ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Because of its chemical composition, crude oil run through a refinery typically yields roughly twice as much motor gasoline as distillate fuels.

431

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Other (including Gas Oil ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Refinery Thermal Cracking, Other (including Gas Oil) Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)

432

Summary of Market Assessment of Planned Refinery Outages  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Home > Petroleum > Analysis > Summary of Market Assessment of Planned Refinery ... As required under Section 804 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ...

433

Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

are also listed. The Energy Guide draws upon the experiencesmanagement programs. This Energy Guide describes researchpetroleum refineries. This Energy Guide introduces energy

Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

434

Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Refinery Grade Butane Stocks at Bulk ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Refinery Grade Butane Stocks at Bulk Terminals (Thousand Barrels) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec; 2005: 935: ...

435

EIA Energy Kids - Carson Refinery - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Hydrogen. Recent Statistics ... and then distributed to gas stations all over Los Angeles and Southern ... you are probably filling up with gas from the Carson refinery.

436

U.S. Refinery Operable Capacity is Updated  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Released: March 28, 2012 Notice: Reported refinery operable capacity data shown in the Weekly Petroleum Status Report (WPSR) for the week-ended March 23, 2012, has ...

437

U.S. Refinery Catalytic Hydrotreating, Kerosene/Jet Fuel ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Cat. Hydro.. Kerosene/Jet Fuel Downstream Charge Capacity (B/SD) U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries ...

438

Market Assessment of Refinery Outages Planned for March 2010 ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

DOE/EIA-0641(2010)/1 Market Assessment of Refinery Outages Planned for March 2010 through June 2010 March 2010 Energy Information Administration

439

Tank characterization report for single-shell Tank 241-T-105  

SciTech Connect

Single-Shell Tank 241-T-105, an underground storage tank containing radioactive waste, was most recently sampled in March and May of 1993. Sampling and characterization of the waste in Tank 241-T-105 contribute toward the fulfillment of Milestone M-44-05 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Tank 241-T-105, located in the 200 West Area T Tank Farm, was constructed in 1944 and went into service in July of 1946 by receiving second cycle decontamination waste from the T Plant. During the service life of the tank, other wastes were added including T Plant first cycle waste, PUREX Plant coating waste, laboratory waste, decontamination waste from T Plant, B Plant low level waste, and B Plant ion exchange waste. The tank currently contains 98,000 gal of non-complexed waste, existing primarily as sludge. Approximately 23,000 gal of drainable interstitial liquid remain. The waste is heterogeneous. Tank 241-T-105 is classified as a non-Watch List tank, with no Unreviewed Safety Questions associated with it at this time. The tank was Interim Stabilized in 1987 and Intrusion Prevention was completed in 1988. The waste in Tank 241-T-105 is comprised of precipitated salts, some of which contain traces of radioactive isotopes. The most prevalent analytes include aluminum, iron, silicon, manganese, sodium, uranium, nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate. The water digested sample results demonstrated that cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver concentrations were greater than their Toxicity Characteristic regulatory thresholds. The major radionuclide constituents are {sup 90}Sr and {sup 137}Cs. The waste is 74.1% solids by weight.

DiCenso, A.T.; Amato, L.C.; Franklin, J.D.; Nuttall, G.L.; Johnson, K.W. [Los Alamos Technical Associates, Kennewick, WA (United States); Simpson, B.C. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

440

Hazard Analysis for In Tank Spray Leaks  

SciTech Connect

The River Protection Project (RPP) Authorization Basis (AB) contains controls that address spray leaks in tanks. However, there are no hazardous conditions in the Hazards Database that specifically identify in-tank spray leak scenarios. The purpose of this Hazards Evaluation is to develop hazardous conditions related to in-tank spray leaks for the Hazards Database and to provide more complete coverage of Tank Farm facilities. Currently, the in-tank spray leak is part of the ''Spray Leak in Structures or From Waste Transfer Lines'' accidents in Section 3.4.2.9 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (CHG, 2000a). The accident analysis for the ''Spray Leak in Structure or From Waste Transfer Lines'' states the following regarding the location of a possible spray leak: Inside ventilated waste storage tanks (DSTs, DCRTs, and some SSTs). Aerosols could be generated inside a storage tank during a transfer because of a leak from the portion of the transfer pipe inside the tank. The tank ventilation system could help disperse the aerosols to the atmosphere should the vent system HEPA filters fail. This Hazards Evaluation also evaluates the controls currently assigned to the spray leak in structure accident and determines the applicability of the controls to the new hazardous conditions. This comparison reviews both the analysis in the FSAR and the controls found in the Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) (CHG, 2000h). If the new hazardous conditions do not match the analyzed accident conditions and controls, then additional analysis may be required. This document is not intended to authorize the activity or determine the adequacy of controls; it is only intended to provide information about the hazardous conditions associated with this activity. The Control decision process as defined in the AB will be used to determine the adequacy of controls and whether the proposed activity is within the AB. This hazard evaluation does not constitute an accident analysis.

GRAMS, W.H.

2000-06-13T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "refinery tank farms" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

When was the last refinery built in the United States? - FAQ ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

When was the last refinery built in the United States? There were a total of 143 operable petroleum refineries in the United States as of January 1, 2013.

442

Hanford Double-Shell Tank Extent-of-Condition Construction Review - 14174  

SciTech Connect

During routine visual inspections of Hanford double-shell waste tank 241-AY-102 (AY-102), anomalies were identified on the annulus floor which resulted in further evaluations. Following a formal leak assessment in October 2012, Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) determined that the primary tank of AY-102 was leaking. The formal leak assessment, documented in RPP-ASMT-53793,Tank 241-AY-102 Leak Assessment Report, identified first-of-a-kind construction difficulties and trial-and-error repairs as major contributing factors to tank failure. To determine if improvements in double-shell tank (DST) construction occurred after construction of tank AY-102, a detailed review and evaluation of historical construction records were performed for the first three DST tank farms constructed, which included tanks 241-AY-101, 241-AZ-101, 241-AZ-102, 241-SY-101, 241-SY-102, and 241-SY-103. The review for these six tanks involved research and review of dozens of boxes of historical project documentation. These reviews form a basis to better understand the current condition of the three oldest Hanford DST farms. They provide a basis for changes to the current tank inspection program and also provide valuable insight into future tank use decisions. If new tanks are constructed in the future, these reviews provide valuable ?lessons-learned? information about expected difficulties as well as construction practices and techniques that are likely to be successful.

Venetz, Theodore J.; Johnson, Jeremy M.; Gunter, Jason R.; Barnes, Travis J.; Washenfelder, Dennis J.; Boomer, Kayle D.

2013-11-14T23:59:59.000Z

443

Poland petroleum refinery sludge lagoon demonstration project  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy and the Institute for Ecology of Industrial Area have been working together to develop mutually beneficial, cost-effective environmental remediation technologies such as the demonstration of bioremediation techniques for the clean up of acidic petroleum sludge impacted soils at an oil refinery in southern Poland. After an expedited site characterization, treatability study, and a risk assessment study, a remediation strategy was devised. The waste material was composed primarily of high molecular weight paraffinic and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. A biopile design which employed a combination of passive and active aeration in conjunction with nutrient and surfactant application as used to increase the biodegradation of the contaminants of concern.

Altman, D.J.

2000-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

444

Upgrade Your Refinery for Energy Conservation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Upgrading existing refineries for efficient energy utilization imposes strict restraints upon design engineers. Present and future production requirements must be defined. Reliable operating data must be obtained from historical records and test runs to accurately define actual performance of each piece of equipment. A complete simulation model of the facility is developed and tested. Future operations are evaluated using the model to define heat and material balance requirements for all projected operations. Energy conservation projects are evaluated with the model to define energy savings over the life of each project. A discounted cash flow analysis is formulated and an optimum set of projects yielding maximum rates of return are selected for implementation.

Johnnie, D. H., Jr.; Klooster, H. J.

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

445

Kas Farms Wind Farm | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Kas Farms Wind Farm Kas Farms Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Kas Farms Wind Farm Facility Kas Farms Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Kas Brothers Developer Kas Brothers with Dan Juhl Energy Purchaser Xcel Energy Location Pipestone County MN Coordinates 43.9948°, -96.3175° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":43.9948,"lon":-96.3175,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

446

Screening for organic solvents in Hanford waste tanks using organic vapor concentrations  

SciTech Connect

The potential ignition of organic liquids stored in the Hanford Site high-level radioactive waste tanks has been identified as a safety issue because expanding gases could potentially affect tank dome integrity. Organic liquid waste has been found in some of the waste tanks, but most are thought to contain only trace amounts. Due to the inhomogeneity of the waste, direct sampling of the tank waste to locate organic liquids may not conclusively demonstrate that a given tank is free of risk. However, organic vapors present above the organic liquid waste can be detected with a high degree of confidence and can be used to identify problem tanks. This report presents the results of a screening test that has been applied to 82 passively ventilated high-level radioactive waste tanks at the Hanford Site to identify those that might contain a significant amount of organic liquid waste. It includes seven tanks not addressed in the previous version of this report, Screening for Organic Solvents in Hanford Waste Tanks Using Total Non-Methane Organic Compound Vapor Concentrations. The screening test is based on a simple model of the tank headspace that estimates the effective surface area of semivolatile organic liquid waste in a tank. Analyses indicate that damage to the tank dome is credible only if the organic liquid burn rate is above a threshold value, and this can occur only if the surface area of organic liquid in a tank is above a corresponding threshold value of about one square meter. Thirteen tanks were identified as potentially containing at least that amount of semivolatile organic liquid based on conservative estimates. Most of the tanks identified as containing potentially significant quantities of organic liquid waste are in the 241-BY and 241-C tank farms, which agrees qualitatively with the fact that these tank farms received the majority of the PUREX process organic wash waste and waste organic liquids.

Huckaby, J.L.; Sklarew, D.S.

1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

447

HANFORD TANK CLEANUP UPDATE  

SciTech Connect

Access to Hanford's single-shell radioactive waste storage tank C-107 was significantly improved when workers completed the cut of a 55-inch diameter hole in the top of the tank. The core and its associated cutting equipment were removed from the tank and encased in a plastic sleeve to prevent any potential spread of contamination. The larger tank opening allows use of a new more efficient robotic arm to complete tank retrieval.

BERRIOCHOA MV

2011-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

448

Estimation of Hanford SX tank waste compositions from historically derived inventories  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Migration of radionuclides under the SX-tank farm at the Hanford nuclear waste complex involves interaction of sediments with concentrated NaOH-NaNO3-NaNO2 solutions that leaked from the tanks. This study uses a reaction path calculation ... Keywords: Gibbs free energy minimization, Pitzer equations, kinetic, rate limiter, reaction path

Peter C. Lichtner; Andrew R. Felmy

2003-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

449

Tank 241-AW-101 tank characterization plan  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The first section gives a summary of the available information for Tank AW-101. Included in the discussion are the process history and recent sampling events for the tank, as well as general information about the tank such as its age and the risers to be used for sampling. Tank 241-AW-101 is one of the 25 tanks on the Flammable Gas Watch List. To resolve the Flammable Gas safety issue, characterization of the tanks, including intrusive tank sampling, must be performed. Prior to sampling, however, the potential for the following scenarios must be evaluated: the potential for ignition of flammable gases such as hydrogen-air and/or hydrogen-nitrous oxide; and the potential for secondary ignition of organic-nitrate/nitrate mixtures in crust layer initiated by the burning of flammable gases or by a mechanical in-tank energy source. The characterization effort applicable to this Tank Characterization Plan is focused on the resolution of the crust burn flammable gas safety issue of Tank AW-101. To evaluate the potential for a crust burn of the waste material, calorimetry tests will be performed on the waste. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) will be used to determine whether an exothermic reaction exists.

Sathyanarayana, P.

1994-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

450

Assessment of chemical vulnerabilities in the Hanford high-level waste tanks  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this report is to summarize results of relevant data (tank farm and laboratory) and analysis related to potential chemical vulnerabilities of the Hanford Site waste tanks. Potential chemical safety vulnerabilities examined include spontaneous runaway reactions, condensed phase waste combustibility, and tank headspace flammability. The major conclusions of the report are the following: Spontaneous runaway reactions are not credible; condensed phase combustion is not likely; and periodic releases of flammable gas can be mitigated by interim stabilization.

Meacham, J.E. [and others

1996-02-15T23:59:59.000Z

451

TANK 21 AND TANK 24 BLEND AND FEED STUDY: BLENDING TIMES, SETTLING TIMES, AND TRANSFERS  

SciTech Connect

The Salt Disposition Integration (SDI) portfolio of projects provides the infrastructure within existing Liquid Waste facilities to support the startup and long term operation of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). Within SDI, the Blend and Feed Project will equip existing waste tanks in the Tank Farms to serve as Blend Tanks where salt solutions of up to 1.2 million gallons will be blended in 1.3 million gallon tanks and qualified for use as feedstock for SWPF. In particular, Tanks 21 and 24 are planned to be used for blending and transferring to the SDI feed tank. These tanks were evaluated here to determine blending times, to determine a range of settling times for disturbed sludge, and to determine that the SWPF Waste Acceptance Criteria that less than 1200 mg/liter of solids will be entrained in salt solutions during transfers from the Tank 21 and Tank 24 will be met. Overall conclusions for Tank 21 and Tank 24 operations include: (1) Experimental correction factors were applied to CFD (computational fluid dynamics) models to establish blending times between approximately two and five hours. As shown in Phase 2 research, blending times may be as much as ten times greater, or more, if lighter fluids are added to heavier fluids (i.e., water added to salt solution). As the densities of two salt solutions converge this effect may be minimized, but additional confirmatory research was not performed. (2) At the current sludge levels and the presently planned operating heights of the transfer pumps, solids entrainment will be less than 1200 mg/liter, assuming a conservative, slow settling sludge simulant. (3) Based on theoretical calculations, particles in the density range of 2.5 to 5.0 g/mL must be greater than 2-4 {micro}m in diameter to ensure they settle adequately in 30-60 days to meet the SWPF feed criterion (<1200 mg/l). (4) Experimental tests with sludge batch 6 simulant and field turbidity data from a recent Tank 21 mixing evolution suggest the solid particles have higher density and/or larger size than indicated by previous analysis of SRS sludge and sludge simulants. (5) Tank 21 waste characterization, laboratory settling tests, and additional field turbidity measurements during mixing evolutions are recommended to better understand potential risk for extended (> 60 days) settling times in Tank 21.

Lee, S.; Leishear, R.; Poirier, M.

2012-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

452

Results for the DWPF Slurry Mix Evaporator Condensate Tank, Off Gas Condensate Tank, And Recycle Collection Tank Samples  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Defense Waste Processing Facility, DWPF, currently generates approximately 1.4 million gallons of recycle water per year during Sludge-Only operations. DWPF has minimized condensate generation to 1.4 million gallons by not operating the Steam Atomized Scrubbers, SASs, for the melter off gas system. By not operating the SASs, DWPF has reduced the total volume by approximately 800,000 gallons of condensate per year. Currently, the recycle stream is sent to back to the Tank Farm and processed through the 2H Evaporator system. To alleviate the load on the 2H Evaporator system, an acid evaporator design is being considered as an alternate processing and/or concentration method for the DWPF recycle stream. In order to support this alternate processing option, the DWPF has requested that the chemical and radionuclide compositions of the Off Gas Condensate Tank, OGCT, Slurry Mix Evaporator Condensate Tank, SMECT, Recycle Collection Tank, RCT, and the Decontamination Waste Treatment Tank, DWTT, be determined as a part of the process development work for the acid evaporator design. Samples have been retrieved from the OGCT, RCT, and SMECT and have been sent to the Savannah River National Laboratory, SRNL for this characterization. The DWTT samples have been recently shipped to SRNL. The results for the DWTT samples will be issued at later date.

TERRI, FELLINGER

2004-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

453

Summary of Market Assessment of Upcoming Planned Refinery Outages  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Summary of Market Assessment of Upcoming Planned Refinery Outages Summary of Market Assessment of Upcoming Planned Refinery Outages Summary of Market Assessment of Upcoming Planned Refinery Outages Market Assessment of Upcoming Planned Refinery Outages, December 2008 - March 2009 reviews planned U.S. refinery outages from December 2008 though March 2009 in order to identify any regions where outages might create enough supply pressure to impact prices significantly. As required under Section 804 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140), this report reviews the supply implications of planned refinery outages for December 2008 through March 2009, which covers the winter period when demand for distillate fuels (diesel and heating oil) is high. As a result, emphasis in this report is on distillate rather than gasoline. Refinery outages are the result of planned maintenance and unplanned outages. Maintenance is usually scheduled during the times when demand is lowest - in the first quarter and again in the fall. Unplanned outages, which occur for many reasons including mechanical failures, fires, and flooding, can occur at any time.

454

CEMENTITIOUS GROUT FOR CLOSING SRS HIGH LEVEL WASTE TANKS - #12315  

SciTech Connect

In 1997, the first two United States Department of Energy (US DOE) high level waste tanks (Tanks 17-F and 20-F: Type IV, single shell tanks) were taken out of service (permanently closed) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). In 2012, the DOE plans to remove from service two additional Savannah River Site (SRS) Type IV high-level waste tanks, Tanks 18-F and 19-F. These tanks were constructed in the late 1950's and received low-heat waste and do not contain cooling coils. Operational closure of Tanks 18-F and 19-F is intended to be consistent with the applicable requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and will be performed in accordance with South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). The closure will physically stabilize two 4.92E+04 cubic meter (1.3 E+06 gallon) carbon steel tanks and isolate and stabilize any residual contaminants left in the tanks. The closure will also fill, physically stabilize and isolate ancillary equipment abandoned in the tanks. A Performance Assessment (PA) has been developed to assess the long-term fate and transport of residual contamination in the environment resulting from the operational closure of the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) waste tanks. Next generation flowable, zero-bleed cementitious grouts were designed, tested, and specified for closing Tanks 18-F and 19-F and for filling the abandoned equipment. Fill requirements were developed for both the tank and equipment grouts. All grout formulations were required to be alkaline with a pH of 12.4 and chemically reduction potential (Eh) of -200 to -400 to stabilize selected potential contaminants of concern. This was achieved by including Portland cement and Grade 100 slag in the mixes, respectively. Ingredients and proportions of cementitious reagents were selected and adjusted, respectively, to support the mass placement strategy developed by closure operations. Subsequent down selection was based on compressive strength and saturated hydraulic conductivity results. Fresh slurry property results were used as the first level of screening. A high range water reducing admixture and a viscosity modifying admixture were used to adjust slurry properties to achieve flowable grouts. Adiabatic calorimeter results were used as