Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “TANK”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

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

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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Single-Shell Tanks Leak Integrity Elements/ SX Farm Leak Causes and Locations - 12127

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-045-91F 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 1-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 dry-wells 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. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

SLUDGE BATCH 7B QUALIFICATION ACTIVITIES WITH SRS TANK FARM SLUDGE

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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

SRS Strategy for Tank 3 Salt Dissolution - Performance and Lessons Learned - 20441

The Savannah River Site (SRS) Tank Farms have 51 underground waste tanks used to store and process liquid nuclear waste materials. There are 4 different tank types, ranging in capacity from 2,840,000 to 4,920,000 L (750,000 to 1,300,000 Gal). Twenty-four of the tanks are older style and do not meet full secondary containment standards. The older style tanks are the initial focus of waste removal efforts for tank closure at SRS. Eight of these twenty-four tanks have completed waste removal and are filled with grout. Prior to salt dissolution, Tank 3 was a dry salt tank that contained 5.06 m (199.3 in) of salt and sludge waste. Additional salt waste was present on cooling coils above the salt layer up to approximately 5.59 m (220 in). Three mixing eductors were installed in Tank 3 to aid in dissolving salt waste in three tank riser access ports. A transfer pump was installed, and the transfer pump suction was located 25.4 cm (10 in) from the tank bottom. Well water was added to the tank through a downcomer until the dry bulk salt was covered with liquid. During the initial fill of Tank 3, approximately 242,000 L (64,000 Gal) of rain water were added from periodic F-Tank Farm (FTF) Catch Tank additions and approximately 17,000 L (4,500 Gal) of well water were added. Following liquid additions to cover the dry bulk salt, well water was added through the three mixing eductors in batches during each stage. Additionally, during the salt dissolution campaigns, the FTF Catch Tank was utilized to add rain water through a downcomer in the center tank riser access port as needed for volume relief in the FTF Catch Tank. Following liquid additions, the water was recirculated (internal to the tank) using the transfer pump, and a sample was pulled to confirm the target specific gravity (SpG) of the dissolved salt solution was achieved. The dissolved salt solution was then transferred to the receipt tank (Tank 7), and the mixing eductors were lowered as close to the new bulk salt layer as possible, to support subsequent dissolution campaigns. While the mixing jets were able to dissolve salt successfully in Tank 3, they did not do so in a completely uniform manner. Throughout dissolution, mounds were discovered under Riser 1, Riser 2, and the Center Riser. The mixing jets dissolved the salt around the edges of the tank well but were not as effective toward the center of the tank. FTF Catch Tank additions through the center tank riser access port downcomer were required to impact the mound under the center tank riser. FTF Catch Tank additions were sporadic as they were dependent on rainfall in the area. Additionally, all mixing jets were rarely able to be lowered to the same elevation, indicating some mounding in the bulk salt layer. Indexing of the mixing jets was also utilized to impact the salt mounds. Overall, Tank 3 salt dissolution was successful as approximately 1,476,000 L (390,000 Gal) of dissolved salt solution was transferred to Tank 7 over six stages. Slightly less than 852,000 L (225,000 Gal) of water were added to Tank 3. The original material balance prediction estimated that the bulk salt level in Tank 3 would be 3.88 m (152.8 in) after six salt dissolution stages. After six stages the actual bulk salt level was 3.38 m (133 in). This paper will discuss the salt removal strategy, each salt dissolution stage, and lessons learned for future salt dissolution. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Annual Radioactive Waste Tank Inspection Program - 2018

The Department of Energy (DOE) requires that Savannah River Remediation LLC (SRR), the Liquid Waste contractor, maintain a robust and timely Structural Integrity Program for waste tanks that are leak-tight and for waste tanks that have leaked or are suspect. These requirements are promulgated in DOE Manual 435.1-1, Section II.Q.(2). A key aspect of SRR's implementation of these requirements is its annual tank inspection program. In 2018, the SRR Visual and In-Service Inspection Program used two visual imagery techniques to ascertain the integrity of the Savannah River Site (SRS) waste tanks: high resolution digital photography and closed-circuit television. The primary inspection method made use of direct photograph techniques, e.g., making a series of photographs providing detailed views of the tank and wide-angle photography for obtaining overviews of large areas. Closed-circuit television was then typically used to further investigate conditions found during the initial inspection. During 2018, a total of 4,853 photographs were taken and 47 video inspections were performed as part of this inspection program. Of the 51 waste tank systems at SRS that were designed, constructed, and placed into active service storing radioactive liquid waste, 43 remain in active service. Eight tanks have been cleaned, stabilized by filling with engineered grout, and removed from service (also known as operationally closed) -Tanks 5, 6, and 12 (Type I tanks); Tank 16 (Type II tank); and Tanks 17, 18, 19, and 20 (Type IV tanks). For the 43 waste tanks, inspections were successfully conducted in 2018 through all accessible annulus risers and inspection ports for nine Type I tanks, three Type II tanks, and 27 Type III/IIIA tanks; at least one inspection was made in the interior of four Type IV tanks (i.e., the tanks without annular spaces) above the liquid level in the tank. Rainwater continues periodically to be observed migrating into the annuli of some tanks. Evidence of this infiltration was primarily noted by observation of surface stains, and occasionally by calciferous deposits, changed configuration of salt deposits in the associated annulus, and mild surface corrosion. The conditions of the 43 tanks remained essentially unchanged from the conditions reported in 2017. The one key exception was the identification of eight new cracks in the Tank 15 primary tank wall. These newly identified cracks are located at 65, 67, 70, 76, 150, 152, 176 inches and 200 inches above the tank bottom. The identified cracks in Tank 15 do not constitute an impact on the structural integrity of the tank, as evaluated and confirmed in the referenced report, SRNS-STI-2008-00028, A Structural Impact Assessment of Flaws Detected During Ultrasonic Examination of Tank 15, and calculation, T-CLC-H-00890, Calculation of Critical Crack Lengths in HLW Tank 15. The 2018 inspection program confirmed the structural integrity and waste confinement capability of all 43 waste tanks.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Tank Farms and Waste Feed Delivery - 12507

The mission of the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection (ORP) is to safely retrieve and treat the 56 million gallons of Hanford's tank waste and close the Tank Farms to protect the Columbia River. Our discussion of the Tank Farms and Waste Feed Delivery will cover progress made to date with Base and Recovery Act funding in reducing the risk posed by tank waste and in preparing for the initiation of waste treatment at Hanford. The millions of gallons of waste are a by-product of decades of plutonium production. After irradiated fuel rods were taken from the nuclear reactors to the processing facilities at Hanford they were exposed to a series of chemicals designed to dissolve away the rod, which enabled workers to retrieve the plutonium. Once those chemicals were exposed to the fuel rods they became radioactive and extremely hot. They also couldn't be used in this process more than once. Because the chemicals are caustic and extremely hazardous to humans and the environment, underground storage tanks were built to hold these chemicals until a more permanent solution could be found. The underground storage tanks range in capacity from 55,000 gallons to more than 1 million gallons. The tanks were constructed with carbon steel and reinforced concrete. There are eighteen groups of tanks, called 'tank farms', some having as few as two tanks and others up to sixteen tanks. Between 1943 and 1964, 149 single-shell tanks were built at Hanford in the 200 West and East Areas. Heat generated by the waste and the composition of the waste caused an estimated 67 of these single-shell tanks to leak into the ground. Washington River Protection Solutions is the prime contractor responsible for the safe management of this waste. WRPS' mission is to reduce the risk to the environment that is posed by the waste. All of the pumpable liquids have been removed from the single-shell tanks and transferred to the double-shell tanks. What remains in the single-shell tanks are solid and semi-solid wastes. Known as salt-cakes, they have the consistency of wet beach sand. Some of the waste resembles small broken ice, or whitish crystals. Because the original pumps inside the tanks were designed to remove only liquid waste, other methods have been developed to reach the remaining waste. Access to the tank waste is through long, typically skinny pipes, called risers, extending out of the tanks. It is through these pipes that crews are forced to send machines and devices into the tanks that are used to break up the waste or push it toward a pump. These pipes range in size from just a few inches to just over a foot in diameter because they were never intended to be used in this manner. As part of the agreement regulating Hanford cleanup, crews must remove at least 99% of the material in every tank on the site, or at least as much waste that can be removed based on available technology. To date, seven single-shell tanks have been emptied, and work is underway in another 10 tanks in preparation for additional retrieval activities. Two barriers have been installed over single-shell tanks to prevent the intrusion of surface water down to the tanks, with additional barriers planned for the future. Single and double-shell tank integrity analyses are ongoing. Because the volume of the waste generated through plutonium production exceeded the capacity of the single-shell tanks, between 1968 and 1986 Hanford engineers built 28 double-shell tanks. These tanks were studied and made with a second shell to surround the carbon steel and reinforced concrete. The double-shell tanks have not leaked any of their waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

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

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 in BY and TY Farm. The leak causes and locations report for all of the 100-series single-shell leaking tanks is one of the targets (M-045-91-T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F. The T04 target requires that the Department of Energy provide to State of Washington, Department of Ecology (Ecology) a report on the 100-series single-shell tanks which have been or will be identified as having leaked in RPP-32681, Rev. 0, Process to Assess Tank Farm Leaks in Support of Retrieval and Closure Planning, leak assessment reports. The leak assessment report for BY Farm, RPP-RPT-43704, Rev. 0A, Hanford BY-Farm Leak Assessments Report, lists one 100-series tank that either continues to be or is recommended to be classified as a leaking tank in BY Farm, 241-BY-103 (BY-103). The leak assessment report for TY Farm, RPP-RPT-42296, Rev, 0, Hanford TY-Farm Leak Assessments Report, lists four 100-series tanks that either continue to be or are recommended to be classified leaking tanks in TY Farm, 241-TY-103 (TY-103), 241-TY-104 (TY-104), 241-TY-105 (TY-105), and 241-TY-106 (TY-106). All of the other eleven 100-series tanks in BY Farm and two 100-series tanks in TY Farm are classified as “sound” or are identified in RPP-RPT-43704, Rev. 0A, and RPP-RPT-42296, Rev. 0, respectively, as requiring re-assessment of their classification per TFC-ENG-CHEM-D-42, Tank Leak Assessment Process. The TFC-ENG-CHEM-D-42 assessments are not part of the M-045-91-T04 target. This BY and TY Farm leak causes and locations document is part of a series of tank farm reports that identify leak causes and locations for 100-series leaking tanks. A summary and conclusions document will be issued, RPP-RPT-54909, Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations – Summary, that compiles the results from all of the leak causes and locations tank farm reports when they have been issued which will fulfill the T04 target requirements. The identification of four of the five leaking BY and TY Farm tank leak locations focused on the first indication of radiation detected in drywells as well as liquid level decreases as appropriate, with the exception of tank TY-104 which could not be identified. Leak detection laterals were not installed underneath the BY and TY Farm tanks. For TY Farm, direct pushes were installed in 2005 to further characterize the tank leaks which were used to collaborate with the drywell data. The BY and TY Farm leaking tanks were likely due to chemistry-corrosion from the storage of Tri-butyl phosphate (TBP) waste which is conducive to stress corrosion cracking and pitting. Thermal shock (rate of temperature rise) and tank construction conditions (cold weather ductile-to-brittle transition temperature impact effects) were also likely to have affected tank integrity. There appears to be very little contribution from tank design and liner bulging. However, some or all of the factors can act serially or together to contribute to tank liner failure. The leaking BY and TY Farm tanks all stored undiluted TBP waste whereas the sound tanks stored diluted TBP waste as well as other waste types.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Double-Shell Tank Primary Bottom Visual Inspection Results - 20025

A pressing need for the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program at Hanford is of the ability to inspect the bottom of the tanks. Though the DSTs' annulus spaces (the space between the internal and external tank walls) have been inspected visually since 1992 and with Ultrasonic Testing (UT) since 1996, inspections of the tank bottoms have been able to be conducted due to limitations of available technology, omitting about 40 percent of the tank surface below the maximum fill level from routine inspection. Visual inspections of the tank annulus have been conducted up to five times in some DSTs and portions of the annulus space for all of the DSTs has been inspected twice with UT. This region includes the walls of the primary tank and secondary liner along with accessible portions of the secondary liner bottom. Due to this lack of technology, the degradation of the primary tank bottom in Tank AY-102 was undetected until the tank leaked into its annulus space, confirmed in 2012. Since that time, WRPS has been working with the nondestructive examination community and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to evaluate potential technologies to conduct these challenging remote inspections. Recent work has included the development, testing, and deployment of several remote visual inspection technologies to observe the condition of the primary tank bottom of the DSTs by leveraging air distribution slots in the refractory pad on which it rests. Robotic solutions to conduct this inspection were developed with a detailed understanding of the physical configuration and operational logistics. Understanding and subsequent communication of these details to vendors within the robotics and nondestructive examination community was a critical component to the successful production of these new tools. Throughout the FY16-FY18 years, vendors from nondestructive examination community were solicited for ideas to meet the tank bottom inspection challenge. Two tank bottom visual inspection solutions were then pursued to meet that challenge. Both tools were successfully deployed at Tank AP-107, and provided valuable visuals, never before obtained from the under tank environment of a double-shell tank. While there are minor opportunities for improvement identified with each system, general outcomes were overwhelmingly positive. Both systems were successfully able to navigate the refractory air slot pattern from the outer edge to the tank center and record video footage. The micro-crawler provided high quality and very stable footage through the air slot pattern, but took longer to deploy into the slots and traverse through them than the alternative system. The push-pull tethered camera was able to navigate all seven of its target air slots in a matter of a few hours, which included deployment, movement between slot entrances, and complete removal of the system from the annulus environment. Through these air slots, new information was gained about the tank bottom and refractory pad condition of tank AP-107, AP-106, AP-108, and AN-102. While some debris was noted in the air slots, including sand, chipped refractory, and construction materials, the refractory was found to be structurally stable and adequately supporting the primary tank bottom through the full diameter of the tank. Primary tank bottom steel exterior was found to be in good condition, free of ongoing or aggressive corrosion conditions. Looking toward the future, robotic access to and visual inspection of refractory air slots and the primary tank bottom steel has now proven viable. Incorporating periodic air slot inspections as a regular practice within the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program is the next step, allowing trending of any changes in condition. As ultrasonic testing infrastructure was leveraged to complete the initial system deployments described in this report, it makes sense to adopt that same strategy for ongoing periodic examinations and deploy these primary tank bottom inspection tools alongside ultrasonic testing operations. Development of visual inspection tools to evaluate the primary tank bottom region of the double-shell tanks was planned as the first stage of inspection. Continued development of volumetric sensors and incorporation of these inspection tools into Hanford's ongoing Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program are the next steps, seeking to continuously expand understanding of asset integrity and remaining useful life. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Commercial Submersible Mixing Pump For SRS Tank Waste Removal - 15223

The Savannah River Site Tank Farms have 45 active underground waste tanks used to store and process nuclear waste materials. There are 4 different tank types, ranging in capacity from 2839 m 3 to 4921 m 3 (750,000 to 1,300,000 gallons). Eighteen of the tanks are older style and do not meet all current federal standards for secondary containment. The older style tanks are the initial focus of waste removal efforts for tank closure and are referred to as closure tanks. Of the original 51 underground waste tanks, six of the original 24 older style tanks have completed waste removal and are filled with grout. The insoluble waste fraction that resides within most waste tanks at SRS requires vigorous agitation to suspend the solids within the waste liquid in order to transfer this material for eventual processing into glass filled canisters at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). SRS suspends the solid waste by use of recirculating mixing pumps. Older style tanks generally have limited riser openings which will not support larger mixing pumps, since the riser access is typically 58.4 cm (23 inches) in diameter. Agitation for these tanks has been provided by four long shafted standard slurry pumps (SLP) powered by an above tank 112KW (150 HP) electric motor. The pump shaft is lubricated and cooled in a pressurized water column that is sealed from the surrounding waste in the tank. Closure of four waste tanks has been accomplished utilizing long shafted pump technology combined with heel removal using multiple technologies. Newer style waste tanks at SRS have larger riser openings, allowing the processing of waste solids to be accomplished with four large diameter SLPs equipped with 224KW (300 HP) motors. These tanks are used to process the waste from closure tanks for DWPF. In addition to the SLPs, a 224KW (300 HP) submersible mixer pump (SMP) has also been developed and deployed within older style tanks. The SMPs are product cooled and product lubricated canned motor pumps designed to fit within available risers and have significant agitation capabilities to suspend waste solids. Waste removal and closure of two tanks has been accomplished with agitation provided by 3 SMPs installed within the tanks. In 2012, a team was assembled to investigate alternative solids removal technologies to support waste removal for closing tanks. The goal of the team was to find a more cost effective approach that could be used to replace the current mixing pump technology. This team was unable to identify an alternative technology outside of mixing pumps to support waste agitation and removal from SRS waste tanks. However, the team did identify a potentially lower cost mixing pump compared to the baseline SLPs and SMPs. Rather than using the traditional procurement using an engineering specification, the team proposed to seek commercially available submersible mixer pumps (CSMP) as alternatives to SLPs and SMPs. SLPs and SMPs have a high procurement cost and the actual cost of moving pumps between tanks has shown to be significantly higher than the original estimates that justified the reuse of SMPs and SLPs. The team recommended procurement of “off-the-shelf” industry pumps which may be available for significant savings, but at an increased risk of failure and reduced operating life in the waste tank. The goal of the CSMP program is to obtain mixing pumps that could mix from bulk waste removal through tank closure and then be abandoned in place as part of tank closure. This paper will present the development, progress and relative advantages of the CSMP.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Commercial submersible mixing pump for SRS tank waste removal - 15223

The Savannah River Site Tank Farms have 45 active underground waste tanks used to store and process nuclear waste materials. There are 4 different tank types, ranging in capacity from 2839 m{sup 3} to 4921m{sup 3} (750,000 to 1,300,000 gallons). Eighteen of the tanks are older style and do not meet all current federal standards for secondary containment. The older style tanks are the initial focus of waste removal efforts for tank closure and are referred to as closure tanks. Of the original 51 underground waste tanks, six of the original 24 older style tanks have completed waste removal and are filled with grout. The insoluble waste fraction that resides within most waste tanks at SRS requires vigorous agitation to suspend the solids within the waste liquid in order to transfer this material for eventual processing into glass filled canisters at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). SRS suspends the solid waste by use of recirculating mixing pumps. Older style tanks generally have limited riser openings which will not support larger mixing pumps, since the riser access is typically 58.4 cm (23 inches) in diameter. Agitation for these tanks has been provided by four long shafted standard slurry pumps (SLP) powered by an above tank 112 kW (150 HP) electric motor. The pump shaft is lubricated and cooled in a pressurized water column that is sealed from the surrounding waste in the tank. Closure of four waste tanks has been accomplished utilizing long shafted pump technology combined with heel removal using multiple technologies. Newer style waste tanks at SRS have larger riser openings, allowing the processing of waste solids to be accomplished with four large diameter SLPs equipped with 224 kW (300 HP) motors. These tanks are used to process the waste from closure tanks for DWPF. In addition to the SLPs, a 224 kW (300 HP) submersible mixer pump (SMP) has also been developed and deployed within older style tanks. The SMPs are product cooled and product lubricated canned motor pumps designed to fit within available risers and have significant agitation capabilities to suspend waste solids. Waste removal and closure of two tanks has been accomplished with agitation provided by 3 SMPs installed within the tanks. In 2012, a team was assembled to investigate alternative solids removal technologies to support waste removal for closing tanks. The goal of the team was to find a more cost effective approach that could be used to replace the current mixing pump technology. This team was unable to identify an alternative technology outside of mixing pumps to support waste agitation and removal from SRS waste tanks. However, the team did identify a potentially lower cost mixing pump compared to the baseline SLPs and SMPs. Rather than using the traditional procurement using an engineering specification, the team proposed to seek commercially available submersible mixer pumps (CSMP) as alternatives to SLPs and SMPs. SLPs and SMPs have a high procurement cost and the actual cost of moving pumps between tanks has shown to be significantly higher than the original estimates that justified the reuse of SMPs and SLPs. The team recommended procurement of 'off-the-shelf' industry pumps which may be available for significant savings, but at an increased risk of failure and reduced operating life in the waste tank. The goal of the CSMP program is to obtain mixing pumps that could mix from bulk waste removal through tank closure and then be abandoned in place as part of tank closure. This paper will present the development, progress and relative advantages of the CSMP. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗