Feasibility study of tank leakage mitigation using subsurface barriers

Field Investigation Report for Waste Management Area S-SX Volume 1 & 2 [SEC 1 Thru 6]

“…This section describes the ICM technologies for soil contamination that are described in the Phase 1 RFIKMS work plan and in Feasibility Study ofTank Leakage Mitigation Using Subsurface Barriers (Treat et al 1995 Grout Walls. Grout walls are formed by either injecting grout under pressure directly into the soil matrix (permeation grouting) or in conjunction with drilling (jet grouting) at regularly spaced intervals to form a continuous low-permeability barrier.…”

“…This section describes the ICMs for groundwater contamination that are defined in the Phase 1 RFVCMS work plan (DOE-RL 2000) and in Feasibility Study of Tank Leakage Mitigation Using Subsurface Barriers (Treat et al 1995 3.6.2.3 In Situ Treatment Technologies. In situ treatment technologies are oriented at treating the contamination in place to either selectively extract contaminants or to stabilize and isolate contaminants from migrating in the groundwater.…”

Stabilization of in-tank residual wastes and external-tank soil contamination for the tank focus area, Hanford tank initiative: Applications to the AX Tank Farm

“…The typical geometry is a V-shaped pattern of holes that intersect beneath the tank (e.g., Treat et al, 1995).…”

Functions and requirements for Hanford single-shell tank leakage detection and monitoring

“…The specific risk index values shown in Table C2-1 were derived based on the model and approach as documented in Treat et al (1994) to analyze the TWRS baseline alternative performance in terms of public risk exposure via the ground-water pathway. The values indicate the potential peak risk to a maximally exposed individual, with key assumptions of a 70 year lifetime and distribution coefficients (KJ set to zero.…”

“…In addition, the model results used to determine the risk factors (Treat et al, 1994) assumed a tank farm consisting of twelve tanks with average waste composition and geological features typical of the Hanford 200 East and West Areas. Accordingly, the risk factors may be somewhat non-conservative in under certain geologic and inventory conditions.…”