SLIDE 1
1/23/19 2
Secondary Containment Liner System
CBA 3/8” MINUS SOIL
Material Types CBA Hypalon XR-5
CBA Liner
Provided by PWSRCAC
Evaluate non-destructive methods to assess the condition of the - - PDF document
Evaluate non-destructive methods to assess the condition of the - - PDF document
1/23/19 Valdez Marine Terminal Secondary Containment Liner Integrity Evaluation Jay L. Griffin, P .E. Project Engineer 25 January 2019 Purpose Evaluate non-destructive methods to assess the condition of the secondary containment liners in
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
1/23/19 3
CBA Liner
Golder, 2018
CBA Liner
SLIDE 4
1/23/19 4
CBA Liner Hypalon and XR-5
Hypalon Good UV resistance Good freeze-thaw flexibility Less compatible with hydrocarbons/fats XR-5 Good UV resistance Good freeze-thaw flexibility Compatible with chemicals and hydrocarbons
SLIDE 5
1/23/19 5
East Tank Farm Features
- Foundations
– Tank Ring Walls – Vertical Supports for Piping – Intercell Containment Walls
- Draw Sumps
- IWWS Manholes and Catch Basins
- Piezometers
- Environmental Remediation
– Borings – Recovery/Vent Wells – Injection Points
- Embankment Penetrations/ Concrete Terminations
East Tank Farm Features
SLIDE 6
1/23/19 6
East Tank Farm Features
Golder, 2018
East Tank Farm Features
Golder, 2018
SLIDE 7
1/23/19 7
East Tank Farm Features
Golder, 2018
East Tank Farm Features
SLIDE 8
1/23/19 8
Non-Destructive Methods
Indirect, Inexact, and site-specific
- 1. Ground Penetrating Radar
- 2. Electromagnetics
- 3. Tracer Gas Testing
- 4. Electric Leak Location
- 5. Visual Inspection
GPR and EM
Source: www.kci.com Source: www.hgiworld.com
Ground Penetrating Radar
Electromagnetics
SLIDE 9
1/23/19 9
Tracer Gas Testing & ELL
Tracer Gas Testing Utilized in many other industries No record of use for buried liner system Electric Leak Location Typical in waste containment and mining industries ASTM D 7007 – Covered Geomembrane Requires electrical isolation Variable resolution based on cover soil Cannot be performed in excessively wet conditions
Tracer Gas Testing
Smoke Smoke Machine and Blower
SLIDE 10
1/23/19 10
Electronic Leak Location Testing
Source: ASTM D7007
(INSULATOR)
Electronic Leak Location Testing
Source: TRI and HGI
SLIDE 11
1/23/19 11
Costs
- ELL = $12k to $15k per acre
– Does not include engineering planning, support, and reporting – Does not include earthwork or isolation of subsurface features – Assumes no significant weather or logistical delays – Tracer gas testing likely similar cost
Conclusions
- Non-destructive leak location methods are inexact
and site-specific
- GPR/EM not technically feasible
- Tracer Gas Testing technically feasible
- ELL technically feasible
- Recommend site-specific Pilot Study before full-
scale implementation – could be performed in West Tank Farm
SLIDE 12