skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Single-Shell Tank Leak Integrity Summary

Abstract

This document summarizes and evaluates the information in the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement Interim Milestone M-045-91F Targets completed between 2010 and 2015. 1) Common factors of SST liner failures (M-045-91F-T02), 2) the feasibility of testing for ionic conductivity between the inside and outside of SSTs (M-045-91F-T03, and 3) the causes, locations, and rates of leaks from leaking SSTs (M-045-91F-T04).

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, WA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Hanford Site (HNF), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Environmental Management (EM)
OSTI Identifier:
1176786
Report Number(s):
RPP-RPT-58498 Rev 0
DOE Contract Number:
AC27-08RV14800
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES

Citation Formats

Harlow, D. G., Girardot, C. L., and Venetz, T. J. Single-Shell Tank Leak Integrity Summary. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.2172/1176786.
Harlow, D. G., Girardot, C. L., & Venetz, T. J. Single-Shell Tank Leak Integrity Summary. United States. doi:10.2172/1176786.
Harlow, D. G., Girardot, C. L., and Venetz, T. J. Thu . "Single-Shell Tank Leak Integrity Summary". United States. doi:10.2172/1176786. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1176786.
@article{osti_1176786,
title = {Single-Shell Tank Leak Integrity Summary},
author = {Harlow, D. G. and Girardot, C. L. and Venetz, T. J.},
abstractNote = {This document summarizes and evaluates the information in the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement Interim Milestone M-045-91F Targets completed between 2010 and 2015. 1) Common factors of SST liner failures (M-045-91F-T02), 2) the feasibility of testing for ionic conductivity between the inside and outside of SSTs (M-045-91F-T03, and 3) the causes, locations, and rates of leaks from leaking SSTs (M-045-91F-T04).},
doi = {10.2172/1176786},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Mar 26 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Thu Mar 26 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • As part of the Leak Detection, Monitoring and Mitigation (LDMM) program conducted by CH2M HILL 105-A during FY 2001. These tests are being conducted to assess the applicability of these methods (Electrical Resistance Tomography [ERT], High Resolution Resistivity [HRR], Cross-Borehole Seismography [XBS], Cross-Borehole Radar [XBR], and Cross-Borehole Electromagnetic Induction [CEMI]) to the detection and measurement of Single Shell Tank (SST) leaks into the vadose zone during planned sluicing operations. The testing in FY 2001 will result in the selection of up to two methods for further testing in FY 2002. In parallel with the geophysical tests, a Partitioning Interwell Tracermore » Test (PITT) study will be conducted simultaneously at the Mock Tank to assess the effectiveness of this technology in detecting and quantifying tank leaks in the vadose zone. Preparatory and background work using Cone Penetrometer methods (CPT) will be conducted at the Mock Tank site and an adjacent test area to derive soil properties for groundtruthing purposes for all methods.« less
  • Led by the United States Department of Energy Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) and CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CHG), a team of experts from other facilities have been working together to narrow the field of new external tank leak detection technologies. The ability to detect and assess potential leaks more quickly will help reduce potential risks to public health and the environment during efforts to retrieve millions of gallons of waste from Hanford's older single-shell tanks (SST's). A method for early and reliable detection of leaks around and below the entire 75-foot diameter bottom of a SST is needed.more » ''Proof-of-concept'' testing of six ex-tank leak detection and monitoring technologies was conducted at Hanford's 105-A Mock Tank Site in August 2001. A workshop was conducted in January, 2002 to review the results and select the best of the methods tested for further testing and demonstration in support of an SST retrieval. Three methods were selected: High Resolution Resistivity; Electrical Resistance Tomography--Long Electrodes; and Electrical Resistance Tomography--Point Electrode Arrays. Planned development activity includes performance evaluation tests to determine probability of detection and the probability of false alarm for each technology and deployability tests in an actual Hanford tank farm environment.« less
  • As part of the Leak Detection, Monitoring and Mitigation (LDMM) program conducted by CH2M HILL 105-A during FY 2001. These tests are being conducted to assess the applicability of these methods (Electrical Resistance Tomography [ERT], High Resolution Resistivity [HRR], Cross-Borehole Seismography [XBS], Cross-Borehole Radar [XBR], and Cross-Borehole Electromagnetic Induction [CEMI]) to the detection and measurement of Single Shell Tank (SST) leaks into the vadose zone during planned sluicing operations. The testing in FY 2001 will result in the selection of up to two methods for further testing in FY 2002. In parallel with the geophysical tests, a Partitioning Interwell Tracermore » Test (PITT) study will be conducted simultaneously at the Mock Tank to assess the effectiveness of this technology in detecting and quantifying tank leaks in the vadose zone. Preparatory and background work using Cone Penetrometer methods (CPT) will be conducted at the Mock Tank site and an adjacent test area to derive soil properties for groundtruthing purposes for all methods.« less
  • This document is a Phase I deliverable for the Single-Shell Tank Analysis of Record effort. This document is not the Analysis of Record. The intent of this document is to guide the Phase II detailed modeling effort. Preliminary finite element models for each of the tank types were developed and different case studies were performed on one or more of these tank types. Case studies evaluated include thermal loading, waste level variation, the sensitivity of boundary effects (soil radial extent), excavation slope or run to rise ratio, soil stratigraphic (property and layer thickness) variation at different farm locations, and concretemore » material property variation and their degradation under thermal loads. The preliminary analysis document reviews and preliminary modeling analysis results are reported herein. In addition, this report provides recommendations for the next phase of the SST AOR project, SST detailed modeling. Efforts and results discussed in this report do not include seismic modeling as seismic modeling is covered by a separate report. The combined results of both static and seismic models are required to complete this effort. The SST AOR project supports the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP) mission for obtaining a better understanding of the structural integrity of Hanford's SSTs. The 149 SSTs, with six different geometries, have experienced a range of operating histories which would require a large number of unique analyses to fully characterize their individual structural integrity. Preliminary modeling evaluations were conducted to determine the number of analyses required for adequate bounding of each of the SST tank types in the Detailed Modeling Phase of the SST AOR Project. The preliminary modeling was conducted in conjunction with the Evaluation Criteria report, Johnson et al. (2010). Reviews of existing documents were conducted at the initial stage of preliminary modeling. These reviews guided the topics that were explored in the SST preliminary modeling. The reviews determined the level of detail necessary to perform the analyses of the SSTs. To guide the Phase II detailed modeling effort, preliminary finite element models for each of the tank types were developed and different case studies were performed on one or more of these tank types. Case studies evaluated include thermal loading, waste level variation, the sensitivity of boundary effects (soil radial extent), excavation slope or run to rise ratio, soil stratigraphic (property and layer thickness) variation at different farm locations, and concrete material property variation and their degradation under thermal loads. Conclusions were derived from case studies on one of the tank types when no additional runs of similar cases on other types of tanks were found necessary to derive those conclusions. The document reviews provided relatively complete temperature histories for Type IV tanks. The temperature history data for Type I, II, and III tanks was almost nonexistent for years prior to 1975. Document reviews indicate that there might be additional useful data in the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) records in Seattle, WA, and these records need to be reviewed to extract data that might have been disregarded during previous reviews. Thermal stress analyses were conducted using different temperature distribution scenarios on Type IV tanks. Such studies could not be carried out for other tank types due to lack of temperature history data. The results from Type IV tank analyses indicate that factors such as temperature distribution in the tank waste and rate of rise in waste temperature have a significant impact on the thermal stresses in the tank structures. Overall, the conclusion that can drawn from the thermal stress analyses is that these studies should be carried out for all tank types during the detailed analysis phase with temperature values that are reasonably close to the typical temperature histories of the respective tank types. If and/or when additional waste temperature data is acquired for tank Type I, II, and III tanks, additional cases need to be considered as tank structural integrity is sensitive to thermal loads. A few case studies were also performed using Type IV-b models to comprehend the effects of excavation boundaries, change in soil stratigraphy (layer thickness and properties), and radial extent of soil in the finite element models. The result from the case studies indicates that the slight variation in soil stratigraphy has little effects on the tank sections force and moment demands under mechanical loads. The case study for excavation slope or backfill transition boundary indicated that inclusion of such boundary yields conservative demands in the wall region while demands at other locations remain unaffected. Hence this excavation slope will be modeled in the detailed analysis of SSTs.« less