December 1996
- Final Project Report -
Demonstration and Evaluation of Technologies for
Determining the Suitability of USTs
for Upgrading with Cathodic Protection
by
Midwest Research Institute
Under Subcontract to
IT Corporation
Cincinnati, Ohio
Contract No. 68-C2-0108
Work Assignment No. 4-17
Carolyn Esposito
Work Assignment Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
-------
Abstract
Field applications of three alternate technologies for assessing the suitability of
underground storage tanks for upgrading by the addition of cathodic protection were
observed and documented. The technologies were applied to five existing underground
storage tanks that were slated for removal. Noninvasive statistical modeling, invasive
inspection by remote video camera, and invasive internal inspection were applied to each
of the tanks. Three vendors applied their individual statistical modeling approaches to
assess the suitability of the tanks for upgrading with cathodic protection. One vendor
demonstrated remote video camera inspection technology, and another conducted an
internal inspection by entering the tanks. After all of the technology assessments were
conducted, the tanks were removed and inspected both externally and internally by non-
destructive and destructive means to determine their actual condition. The determinations
made using the alternate technologies were then compared to the actual condition of the
tanks.
Each of the alternate assessment technologies concluded that the tanks (or sites) were
not suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. The inspections and tests conducted
after excavation of the tanks arrived at the same determination. Perforations from
corrosion were documented in four of the five tanks, and deep pitting by corrosion was
found in the remaining tank. The results of this comparison are strictly qualitative due to
the small number of tanks included. The results of this limited study cannot be extrapolated
to make conclusions beyond those made for the specific tanks tested.
11
-------
Contents
Figures iv
Tables iv
Acknowledgments v
Disclaimer , vi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Assessment Methods Observed and Documented 3
1.3 Baseline Tests 5
1.4 Project Objectives 6
1.5 Experimental Design 6
2 Study Site 7
3 Tank Tightness Test Results 10
4 Technology Test Results 12
4.1 Modeling Method ASTM ES 40-94 12
4.2 Remote Video Camera Methods .. . 14
4.3 Internal Inspection Methods 15
5 Baseline Test Results 17
5.1 Tank No. 18 17
5.2TankNo. 19 19
5.3 Tank No. 20 19
5.4 Tank No. 24 . . 19
5.5 TankNo. 25 , 19
6 Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations 24
6.1 Results . : 24
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendation 26
Appendices
A Tank Tightness Test Reports
B Technology Vendor Reports
C Baseline Test Data
in
-------
Figures
1. Diagram of the Tank Site 8
2. The Test Tanks During Base ,- Testing 18
3. Perforation in Tank No. 18 18
4. Perforations in Tank No. 19 : 20
5. Perforation in Tank No. 20 ' ; 20
6. Perforation in Tank No. 24 21
7. Tank No. 25 with External Grid and Damage from Removal 21
Tables
1. Summary of Tank Tightness Test Results 10
2. Six Deepest External Pits on Tank No. 25 22
3. Five Deepest Internal Pits on Tank No. 25 22
4. Ultrasonic Wall Thickness at the Six Deepest External Pits on Tank No. 25 23
5. Summary of Baseline Test Findings 24
6. Summary of Vendor's Results 25
IV
-------
Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the assistance of many individuals
and several different organizations. Ms. Carolyn Esposito of the USEPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) served as the EPA's Work Assignment
Manager, and Mr. Anthony Tafuri also of NRMRL. in Edison, New Jersey provided
oversight. Mr. Robert Hilger, Regional Expert attached to EPA Region 7, provided a great
deal of assistance in obtaining vendor participation. He also provided technical assistance
and help in coordinating field activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cooperated by
allowing the testing to be conducted in conjunction with their tank removal project at the
New Century Air Center. Mr. George McGregor of the Corps provided assistance and
facilitated coordination of this project with the Corps tank removal project. Mr. Robert
Hilger of the New Century Air Center provided access to the site and facilities support.
Mr. Bjorn Brinkman of EPA Region 7 provided technical and liaison support. Mr. Greg
Sager and Mr. Terry Bays of Bral Environmental, the contractor to the Corps of Engineers,
and Mr. Brad Cass and Mr. Billy Bob Cass of Innovative Solutions provided on-site
assistance and facilitated the site work.
We would particularly like to thank the vendors who voluntarily participated in the
project and demonstrated the various UST assessment technologies at their own cost. The.
following vendor personnel participated in the field evaluations:
Mr. Ray Kashmiri and Mr. George Kitchen of International Lubrication and Fuel
Consultants,
Mr. Thomas E. Mehalick, Mr. Shawn Jolly, Mr. Dennis Jeffery, and Mr. Glann E.
AlbrechtofCorrpro,
Mr. John L. Piazza, II, and Mr. Joseph F. Fogel of Southern Cathodic Protection.
Mr. Bud Mattox, Mr. Ty Edwards, and Mr. Bert Schutza of Tanknology Corporation
International,
Mr.-Deride Sharp of Armor Shield, Inc.
Dr; Jairus Flora of the MidwestResearch Institute was the principal investigator and
primary author of this report. Mr. Robert Amick served as IT Corporation's Contract
Program Manager. Ms. Jan Martin and Mr. Robert Hoye were ITs Work Assignment
Managers.
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of vendors, trade names, or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.
VI
-------
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Federal Regulations regulating underground storage tanks (USTs) (40 CFR 280
and 281) require that all UST systems must be replaced, upgraded, or closed by December
22,1998. Owners and operators choosing to upgrade their UST systems via cathodic
protection, internal lining, or cathodic protection combined with an internal lining must
determine the integrity of their system prior to upgrading to ensure that it is suitable for
upgrading.
To be suitable for upgrading by cathodic protection alone (that is, without also lining
the tank), in accordance with 40 CFR Part 280, "Technical Standards and Corrective
Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks," the
integrity of the tank must be ensured [Section 280.21(b)(2)]. For tanks that are 10 years
old and older, two methods for ensuring the integrity of a tank prior to upgrading with
cathodic protection are stated in the EPA regulations (CFR 280.21 (b)(2)). They are:
"(i) The tank is internally inspected and assessed to ensure that the tank is structurally
sound and free of corrosion holes prior to installing the cathodic protection system;"
"(iv) The tank is assessed for corrosion holes by a method that is determined by the
implementing agency to prevent releases in a manner that is no less protective of
human health and the environment than subparagraphs (i) through (iii)."
Subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of CFR 280.2 l(bX2) refer to tanks less than 10 years old.
Because Federal Regulation has required since 1985 that new regulated USTs be protected
against corrosion, there are few USTs that can use subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) to comply.
Determining the integrity of UST systems and their suitability for upgrading usually
requires some type of internal inspection or assessment Past practices typically involved
tank entry and manual inspection of the interior which necessitated significant down time
from normal operations. In 1994, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Committee £50 on Environmental Assessment and Subcommittee £50.01 on Storage
Tanks issued an Emergency Standard Practice, ES 40-94, "Emergency Standard Practice
for Alternative Procedures for the Assessment of Buried Steel Tanks Prior to the Addition
of Cathodic Protection." This standard, which expired in November of 1996, provided
recommended minimum performance practices for three alternative methods for assessing
the suitability of USTs for upgrading by adding cathodic protection. These methods are
tank life/corrosion rate modeling, remote video camera testing, and robotic ultrasonic
testing.
-------
In accordance with ES 40-94, application of each of these alternate assessment
methods includes acquisition and consideration of site information including tank age,
existence of stray d-c current, presence of other buried metal structures, material of
construction and electrical isolation, and tank leak and repair history. In particular, the
UST must also pass a suitable leak detection test. These methods all include consideration
of basic site-specific tests of the tank environment including:
• Stray current/corrosion/interference
• Soil resistivity
• Structure to soil potential
• SoilpH
• Electrical continuity/isolation
In addition, other tests may be conducted by a corrosion expert including
measurements of hydrocarbon, chloride, sulfide, and sulfate ion concentrations in soil and
resistance of the tank coating. Some state regulatory authorities have approved the use of
these methods; however, others are withholding approval, pending an evaluation of their
performance.
The objective of this project was to observe and document the performance of the
three alternative methods described in ES 40-94, as well as the existing method of manual
internal inspection, in determining the condition of several USTs. Vendors of each method
were invited to apply their technology to a set of USTs and report their assessment of
whether the tanks were suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. During the project,
three different methods of tank life/corrosion rate modelinr one method of remote internal
video inspection, and one company's procedure for the existing method of internal
inspection were observed. Participating vendors provided copies of their protocols prior to
conducting the assessments. These protocols are not reproduced herein but have been
provided to the EPA Work Assignment Manager. As discussed in the report titled "State-
of-the-Art Procedures and Equipment for Internal Inspection and Upgrading of
Underground Storage Tanks," November 1996, the robotic ultrasonic inspection method
technology is not yet commercialized, like the modeling and internal video methods. The
vendor of this technology declined to participate in the current evaluation.
After each of the five test tanks were evaluated, the tanks were removed and the actual
condition of the tanks was determined by a series of baseline tests, some of which were
destructive. The baseline tests were limited to the USTs themselves and did not include an
assessment of other site variables such as soil data.
The performance of each assessment method was observed and documented by
comparing the vendor's conclusion as to whether each tank was suitable for upgrading with
cathodic protection to the condition of the tank as determined by the baseline testing. The
results of this comparison are qualitative due to the limited number of tanks included in the
-------
evaluation. The small sample size (limited by funding resources) precluded acquisition of
data that could be subjected to statistical interpretations and extrapolations.
1.2 Assessment Methods Observed and Documented
1.2.1 Nonirwasive Tank Life/Corrosion Model Tests (i.e., modeling)
This method of assessment examines the soil environment in the immediate vicinity of
the UST and the relationship of the metal UST to this environment. A statistical model is
used to assess the relationship between the aggressiveness of the environment and the rate
of corrosion and to predict the remaining life of the UST prior to corrosion failure. The
site-survey and site-specific tests noted above are therefore conducted in more detail during
application of this technology than for the others. For example, the stray current
measurements typically use a microprocessor-controlled data acquisition unit which takes
data samples at 5-second intervals. The soils data usually are based on samples collected at
2-ft intervals from two or more holes bored at least as deep as the bottom of each of the
tanks.
The model input data include the results of the soil analysis as well as the various
electrical measurements (e.g., structure-to-soil potential). The statistical model used to
interpret the data is required to have been developed on at least 100 sites with at least 200
tanks that were subsequently excavated and inspected by a corrosion expert. The model
must also include factors such as the presence of a water table, annual precipitation and
average temperature.
The output of the model includes an estimated leak-free life of'the tank (which must
have a standard deviation of not more than 1.5 years) and an estimated probability of
corrosion perforation. Tanks with an age less than the estimated leak-free life and with a
probability of corrosion perforation less than 0.05 (5 percent) may be upgraded by the
addition of cathodic protection~using an appropriately designed cathodic protection system.
This method is described in detail in ASTM ES 40-94.
1.2.2 Invasive Remote Video Camera Tests
Application of this method of assessment also includes acquisition of the basic site
survey information and site-specific measurements described in Section 1.1. Invasive
video technology involves insertion of a remotely operated video camera and suitable
lighting source into the tank. Prior to testing, the tank is prepared according to
specifications documented in their written procedure. The video system must be capable of
recording a video survey of the interior surface of the tank. The detailed requirements of
the video system are included in ASTM ES 40-94.
-------
The video system is initially used to confirm that the tank is sufficiently clean for
effective video inspection. The camera is then controlled to systematically record a visual
inspection of the internal tank surfaces. A recorded voice override (i.e., narration) and text
input are recorded on the video tape to document the direction and location of the view and
the comment on observations and findings. The vendor documents any evidence of
corrosion including:
• Perforations
• Rust ruberculation
• Streaks
• Discoloration
• Pitting
• Scaling or de-laminations
• Weld corrosion
• Cracks
• Passive films
Based on this visual examination, review of the site-specific environmental data, and
consideration of tank age, the corrosion expert determines whether corrosion or
deterioration is evident that would make the tank unsuitable for upgrading with cathodic
protection. The corrosion expert also determines whether the tank requires further
inspection by other procedures, or whether the tank is suitable for upgrading with cathodic
protection.
1.2.3 Invasive Internal Inspection
Determination of the structural integrity of USTs has me commonly been
accomplished by means of human inspectors entering properlj prepared tanks and applying
various inspection techniques. Current practice is to perform a visual inspection either
alone or in combination with other measurements. The techniques used during the internal
inspection included: (a) visual inspection for holes, cracks, and deformation, (b) "hammer
test" involving striking the inside of the tank with a ball peen hammer to identify
structurally weak areas and/or judging the relative thickness of the area by the resonant
sound produced; (c) magnetic flux scanning of the interior surface for flaw detection;
(d) ultrasonic flaw detection scanning; and (e) ultrasonic transducer measurement of the
wall thickness on a grid pattern.
Typically the top of the UST must be exposed by excavation and an opening
(minimum 18 in by 18 in) cut in the top of the tank if a access way does not exist. The
UST must be ventilated to provide a breathable atmosphere and to eliminate any
fire/explosion hazards. Persons entering the tank must wear protective clothing and be
equipped with a supplied air system. Sludge must be removed from the tank and the tank
cleaned and abrasively blasted prior to performing the internal inspection. The vendor
must follow all applicable OSHA and other regulatory requirements governing health and
-------
safety. Generally the internal inspections follow the guidelines in American Petroleum
Institute (API) 1631, "Interior Lining of Underground Storage Tanks, 3rd Edition, April
1992," or National Leak Prevention Association (NLPA) 631 "Entry, Cleaning, Interior
Inspection, Repair and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks."
1.3 Baseline Tests
The UST assessment methods discussed above are performed with the tank in place
and consequently are limited to assessments of the soil and the interior of the tank.
However, corrosion and pitting may occur on the outside of the tank as well as on the
inside. Therefore, the baseline tests which were conducted after the USTs were removed
from the ground included examination of both the interior and exterior surfaces to establish
the actual condition of the tank. Baseline testing was concluded upon identification of a
disqualifying flaw. If no disqualifying flaw was found, the inspection was completed.
The internal and external baseline method is similar to the standard visual inspection
method, with several additions. The exterior of the tank was visually inspected
immediately after excavation. The purpose of this inspection was to detect surface
discontinuities such as cracks, holes, and pits, and to describe the amount and type of any
corrosion observed. If no obvious disqualifying flaws (such as corrosion perforations)
were observed, a grid pattern using 3 ft by 3 ft grids was marked on the inside and outside
of the tank, and both the interior and exterior (before and after abrasive blasting) were
visually inspected. (Access ways were cut into both the top and one end of each tank for
ingress and egress.) Photographs were used to document the condition of the tank. The
depths of the deepest pits were measured.
For tanks that were not disqualified due to the presence of an obvious perforation or
other flaw, ultrasonic measurements were then conducted to determine wall thickness.
This testing was done primarily from the interior of the tank, but could also be done from
the outside. Ultrasonic measurements were made at the approximate center of each marked
grid. Wall thicknesses were also measured by drilling a sentry hole and using a through-
wall micrometer. The minimum required initial wall thickness for each tank was deter-
mined by the tank size in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 58 "Standard for
Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids."
The results of the baseline tests were evaluated in accordance with the criteria
specified in Section 2.2.3 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan to classify the tank as
being either suitable or unsuitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. The three
acceptance criteria specified in the QAPP are summarized below.
To be considered upgradable by cathodic protection, the tank must:
1. Be free of corrosion holes. Any perforation found during the baseline tests will
disqualify that tank.
-------
2. (a) Have no pits deeper than 0.5 times the required minimum wall thickness and
(b) an average wall thickness in each 3 ft by 3 ft area of at least 85 percent of the
required minimum wall thickness. A tank is unsuitable if either (a) or (b) is not
met. The required minimum wall thickness varies with the size of the tank but is
generally 0.240 inch. Requirement (a) implies that there can be no perforations.
3. Be free of corrosion holes, and cracks or separations in the tank welds (or
elsewhere) as determined by visual observation after abrasive blasting.
If a tank fails any of these criteria, it is not suitable for upgrading.
1.4 Project Objectives
The primary objective of the project was to observe and document the performance of
commercially available techniques/methodologies for evaluating and predicting the
integrity of steel UST systems and their associated amenability to upgrading with cathodic
protection.
1.5 Experimental Design
Five steel USTs located at a site near Gardner, Kansas, and as described in detail in
Section 2 of this report, were used in the study. The number of USTs included in the
evaluation was limited to five due to funding restrictions. This small number of tanks does
not constitute a statistically valid population for assessing the performance of the various
technologies. The results presented in this report, therefore, are qualitative in nature.
Each of the five tanks was assessed by each participating vendor. The vendors
supplied reports in their standard format including their conclusions as to the suitability of
each UST for upgrading. Vendors first presented their conclusions in the absence of
knowledge of the results of tank tightness tests which had been performed on the tanks.
Subsequently, the results of the tank tightness tests were provided to the vendors and they
were given the opportunity to revise their reports based on these additional data.
-------
Section 2
Study Site
This study was conducted at the New Century Air Center, the former Olathe Naval Air
Station, which is situated in New Century, Kansas, just north of Gardner. The U.S. Army-
Corps of Engineers was conducting a removal action involving a number of tanks at this
site. The specific tank gallery included in the study contained eight tanks which were
arranged in two rows of four tanks each, separated by a concrete vault that contained
piping and valves. At the initiation of the project, two of the eight tanks were found to be
filled with water. Because this would not be typical, these USTs were excluded from the
study. A schematic of the site is provided in Figure 1.
The history of the tanks was documented through discussions with facility personnel,
the Corps of Engineers, and their contractor. It was determined that the tanks were
installed in 1943 or 1944. They had been used to store fuel for a small on-site power plant
built in 1943. The tanks were registered as having been installed in 1944. The tanks were
not cathodically protected. They were taken out of service 6 to 10 years ago, sometime in
the period of 1986 to 1990. At that time, the tanks contained No. 2 fuel oil or No. 2 diesel.
Apparently the product was pumped out and the tanks left in place empty. Each of the six
tanks included in the study contained approximately 200 gallons of residual product with
jome water phase in some of the tanks. The results of stick readings (presumably taken in
August, 1995) were provided on the site drawing of that date. MRI confirmed the
measurements on the site drawings by sticking the tanks in July, 1996.
The tanks were used to fuel the boilers and diesel generators at a small power plant
(Building 14). There were no submersible pumps or turbines present in the tanks. Fuel
was dispensed via a suction system, probably with a return line to each tank. The concrete
vault between the two rows of tanks was reported to contain piping and valves relating to
the fuel system.
A past employee contacted during the study indicated that early in the life of the tanks,
they may have contained heavier product, e.g., No. 4 fuel for use in the power plant,
however, more recently the product was No. 2. The tanks were found to be equipped with
steam heating coils along the bottom of each tank, implying that they were used or
intended to be used for heavy product such as No. 4 or No. 6 heating fuel.
No historical information regarding cleaning of the tanks* was found. At the initiation
of this project, they were cleaned by pumping out any residual sludges and liquids and then
pressure washed with a biosolvenC The study tanks included two tanks (Nos. 24 and 25)
located on the south side of the vault and three tanks (Nos. 18,19, and 20) which were
situated on the north side of the vault.
-------
SECTION A-A
8' O.o. X 13' Long
SECTION B-B
Gii
^rJOT^33 |
v.«- it
i i T*. r
\ n "'IJi
tir IOM33
1C7C.3
Q -- n
Figure 1. Diagram of the Tank Site
MRI-CTIU*IUJM-(M.OI
8
-------
The initial information obtained indicated that the tanks were constructed of bare steel.
Each tank had a circular access way 18 inches in diameter which was surrounded by a
concrete vault about 4 feet square. The portion of the tops of the tanks that was visible
around the access ways appeared to be bare steel. However, when the tanks were
subsequently excavated, it was found that they had been coated with brushed-on coal tar
and wrapped with kraft paper. This coating and wrap had slumped approximately one-
third of the way down from the top of the tank and was not visible prior to excavation.
-------
Section 3
Tank Tightness Test Results
The ASTM ES 40-94 standard requires that a tank tightness test be conducted in
conjunction with any of the alternative methods. The UST underfill test method was
chosen for this study because the tanks were expected to have significant piping and
connections that might pose problems with an overfill test method, i.e., the overfill test
method would also test the piping, which was not included in the scope of this study.
The tanks were tested using the water that had been stored in Tank Nos. 22 and 23.
The water was pumped into each of the five test tanks in turn. The testing was conducted
with the tanks slightly more than 95% full. The test level ranged from 87 inches of water
to 90.5 inches of water.
A summary of the tank tightness test results is presented in Table 1. The complete
report supplied by the tank tightness testing vendor is included in Appendix A.
Table 1. Summary of Tank Tightness Test Results
Tank number
18
. 19
20
24
25
Leak rate (gal/hr)
0.665
0.016
0.344
0.074
0.103
Conclusion
Not Tight
Tank is Tight
Not Tight
Not Tight
Not Tight
During the tightness testing it had been assumed that any piping connections to the
tanks entered through the top of the tank, which is usually the case. However, upon
excavation, it was discovered that some piping connections entered through the end cap of
each tank. One end cap of each tank was found to have connections with two 1.5-inch
pipes for the steam loop near the bottom of the tank. In addition, each tank had a 3 inch
suction pipe that entered in the center of the end cap and extended to near the bottom of the
tank. Any leaks in this piping would affect the tank tightness test results. Additionally,
these pipes might have had the effect of making all the tanks electrically connected through
the piping. The four tanks on each side of the vault also had a common 4-inch fill pipe that
entered through the top of the tank at the end away from the concrete vault, which might
have constituted an electrical connection between the four tanks on each side of the vault
The tank tightness test results presented in Table 1 are not entirely consistent with the
findings of the subsequent baseline tests. For example, Tank No. 19 tested tight, although
it was later found to have several perforations. A possible explanation is that the tanks
10
-------
were installed in very tight, moist, and highly plastic clay. This clay may have prevented
any significant loss of water during the test, allowing the conclusion that Tank No. 19 was
tight. Further, the holes in Tank No. 19 and the other tanks were filled with corrosion
product when the tightness testing was being done. It is likely that this corrosion product,
together with the clay backfill, reduced the leak rates from what would be expected with
holes after the corrosion product was removed.
In addition, Tank No. 25 was judged to be leaking at a slow rate (0.103 gal/hr), while
upon examination in the baseline tests it was found to have no perforations. Upon
examination, it was found that the 3-inch pipe in the center of the tank had been installed
with a brass fitting. Such a fitting would be likely to contribute to preferential corrosion of
the pipe just outside the tank, and, indeed, some corrosion holes were found in some of
those pipes. Thus, the leak rate indicated for Tank No. 25 by the tightness test might have
been due to leaks in the 3 inch pipe rather than in the tank body.
11
-------
Section 4
Technology Test Results
Five vendors assessed the five test tanks at the study site. Three vendors used the
modeling method of ASTM ES 40-94, one vendor used an internal video camera coupled
with a site inspection also per ASTM ES 40-94, and one vendor conducted internal (human
entry) inspections of the 5 tanks according to NLPA 631. The following subsections
describe each vendor's testing and results. Each method was observed and compared to
the applicable standard and to the vendor's standard operating procedure. Deviations from
the standard, some of which were necessitated by the characteristics of the site, are noted in
this report. Appendix B contains the vendor reports.
4.1 Modeling Method
4.1.1 International Lubrication and Fuel Consultants, Inc. (ILFC)
ILFC conducted its assessment of the site and tanks over a six-hour period on July 18,
1996, according to the corrosion modeling approach/procedures outlined in ASTM ES 40-
94. A few adjustments had to be made based on site-specific conditions. About five fewer
borings were taken than usual because the concrete vault and steps at the site prevented
borings in these areas. ILFC took samples of product in two of the tanks as an addition to
their usual procedure.
The detailed test results are presented in the ILFC report in Appendix B. Structure-to-
soil potential measurements were made in each boring. A stray current test was done. Soil
resistivity was measured by the Wenner 4-point method, with spacings of 5^ 10,15, and
20 feet, which is a slightly different spacing than suggested in ASTM ES 40-94. Soil
samples were taken to a laboratory and analyzed for several parameters, including
hydrocarbons.
ILFC concluded that on the basis of their field investigation and laboratory analyses,
these tanks did not meet their TCP (total Environmental Profile) criteria, nor did the tanks
meet the ASTM ES 40-94 criteria for upgrading by the addition of cathodic protection.
After receiving the results of the tank tightness tests, ILFC dichiot change their conclusion.
They reported that the tanks were electrically continuous and therefore represented one
unit, so the conclusion of not being upgradable applied to the site rather than to the
individual tanks.
12
-------
4.1.2 Corrpro Companies Incorporated/Warren Rogers Associates
(WR/CRP)
This method is based on a mean time to corrosion failure model. The field testing was
conducted by Conpro and the report provided by Warren Rogers Associates. Testing in
the field was done over an 8-hour period on July 23,1996. The testing would have been
finished about 3:00, but the field crew encountered difficulty in finishing the last soil
boring, hitting obstructions before they reached, the depth of the bottom of the tank.
Repositioning and drilling additional holes delayed the completion of the field work about
2 hours.
As with the model used by ILFC, this method considers the site as a unit rather than
individual tanks; i.e., results and c ,nclusions are reported on a site basis—not for
individual tanks. Initially WR/CPR considered the test site as a single site, but later,
decided that the separation by the concrete vault qualified it as two separate sites. Thus,
WR/CRP provided a result for the north side of the vault (Tanks 18,19, and 20) and a
separate result for the south side of the vault (Tanks 24 and 25).
WR/CRP followed the standard procedures required by ASTM ES 40-94. Only one
location for the stray current test was required, because WR/CRP determined that the tanks
were all electrically connected. T field crew requested access through the access ways as
per their standard procedure, whic s to assess the tank interior through all available
openings. After consultation with ePA, they were required to use the fill pipe for access,
since many tanks do not have access ways, i.e., representative conditions were maintained.
WR/CRP also requested access to building 14 adjacent to the site for additional electrical
tests. As MRI did not have access to that building, that access could not be provided.
The WR/CRP report concluded that neither site was suitable for upgrading with
cathodic protection. It stated that this result held regardless of the tank test results. The
stated reason was a high probability of corrosion failure for both sites. The estimated mean
time to corrosion failure was 11.8 years for the north site, compared to a tank age of
52 years. The estimated mean time to corrosion failure was 13 years for the south site,
compared to an actual tank age of 52 years. A copy of the complete WR/CRP report is
presented in Appendix B.
4.1.3 Southern Cathodic Protection (SCP)
SCP conducted the field work at the site over about a six-hour period on August 14,
1996. Their method is based on a mean time to'corrosion failure model and a probability
of corrosion failure. They followed the procedures in the ASTM ES 40-94 standard and
noted a few anomalies with the site. They noted an adjacent gas line that was cathodically
protected with an impressed current system and requested access to the rectifier to turn the
system off to test for possible effects on the tanks. As MRI did not have access to the
rectifier box and was not able to obtain such access, that request could not be honored.
SCP also noted that the field survey would normally be done only after receiving the
13
-------
results from the tank tightness test reports. SCP also noted, prior to the tests, that the
model would not predict a mean time to corrosion failure that exceeded the age of the tank
(52 years). Based on their experience with the model they knew it would not accept the
site for upgrading with cathodic protection. During field testing, a soil box was used for
soil resistivity rather than the Wenner 4-pin method.
SCP estimated that the mean time to corrosion failure for these tanks ranged from
21.9 years to 23.4 years. Since the estimated time to failure is substantially less than the
age of the tanks, SCP concluded that internal inspections are required in order to determine
the suitability of the tanks for upgrading with cathodic protection. That is, each tank was
determined to be unsuitable for upgrading with cathodic protection based on modeling, and
an internal inspection was recommended. A copy of their report is presented in
Appendix B.
4.2 Remote Video Camera Methods
4.2.1 Tanknology (TKNL) Internal Video
Tanknology assessed the five test tanks over a ten-hour period on July 29 and 30,
1996. They followed their standard operating protocol, which complies with the ASTM
ES 40-94. Prior to inserting the camera, each tank was purged with C02 to inert the tank
by reducing the tank's oxygen content to less than 5%. Several structure to soil potential
readings were taken, but no soil borings were taken. They also sought access to the
rectifier providing impfessed current cathodic protection to the adjacent gas line in order to
test for stray currents (with the rectifier turned off), but the access could not be provided.
Tanknology noted the presence of the steam pipes in the bottom of the tanks through
their video. They also noted the existence of the 3-inch suction pipe that entered the tank
at the middle of one end and then went into the vault. Although the tanks had been
pressure washed with a biosolvent, Tanknology noted that the tanks were still dirty, with
heavy buildup in the bottoms. This may indicate a limitation on the use of the video, in
that if pressure washing the tanks from the outside does not provide a clean enough tank
for the use of the video, its application may be limited. The fact that these tanks may have
had heavy product in them for many years without cleaning may have resulted in the
buildup of residue that limited the use of the video camera.
The conclusion of the visual inspection was that a light film has developed over the
surface of the tanks. Heavy trash encapsulation was prominent throughout the tanks,
which necessitated an additional investigation, since surface areas were covered and not
visible for viewing. The ullage area was covered with excessive rust and tubercle
formation, requiring further investigation following proper cleaning. The sludge remaining
along the baffle plates and bracings for the heating coils also requires further investigation.
The overall conclusion was that these tanks cannot be upgraded with cathodic protection
until further investigation and suitable repairs are made. The video tape review indicated
14
-------
possible penetration of Tank No. 19, possible pinholes on the side of Tank 18, a small
pinhole ingress on Tank No. 20, several suspect areas on Tank No. 25, and some suspect
areas on Tank No. 24. All five tanks had some suspect areas, with three tanks having
suspected perforations. A copy of the complete report is in Appendix B.
4.3 Internal Inspection Method
4.3.1 Armor Shield Internal Inspection
Armor Shield (AS) conducted internal inspections of the five subject tanks from July
31 through August 7 using NLPA 631 as a guide. AS used a variety of internal inspection
techniques for this work. A visual inspection was performed on each tank. AS stated that
in their opinion the state of the art for internal inspection was magnetic flux flaw detection
following the visual inspection, with flaws indicated by the magnetic flux scan confirmed
by ultrasonic inspection. This technique was new to the United States and differed from
the standard method of an ultrasonic survey following visual inspection. After
considerable discussion, AS agreed to perform a variety of internal inspection techniques,
which are noted for each tank.
Each tank was first incited, then entered by a technician equipped with personal
protective equipment and supplied breathing air. Although the tanks were equipped with
access ways, the diameters of the access ways were too small for safe entry; consequently,
openings were cut to enlarge the access way for each tank. The steam heating pipes were
removed from the tanks, pipe ends were capped, and sludge was removed from the tanks
and drummed for disposal. Each tank was then abrasively blasted to remove any scale,
rust, or corrosion product from the tank walls prior to inspection.
The internal inspection work took considerably longer than usual. Abrasive blasting of
the tank's interiors had to be repeated after two days of heavy rain. The use of a variety of
inspection techniques extended the test time further, particularly since additional supplies
had to be shipped in.
AS identified areas with presumed external pits or flaws using magnetic flux
screening. These areas were marked on the inside of the tank along with an ultrasonically
measured wall thickness. During the subsequent baseline testing, these areas were
investigated to determine whether an external flaw could be confirmed. The most
extensive investigation was conducted on Tank No. 25, a total of 26 such suspect areas
were identified. For 20 of these areas a deep external pit was identified. One area had a
line of very shallow pits on the outside that might have been the cause of the detection.
Five of the areas had no discernible external pit or flaw. Three areas were marked in Tank
No. 18, and all corresponded to identifiable external pits. One area was marked in Tank
No. 19 that corresponded to an external pit. The internal inspection also noted perforations
in Tank No. 24, which probably contained corrosion product until the external abrasive
blast removed it from the perforation.
15
-------
The internal inspections resulted in the conclusion that none of the five tanks was
suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection alone. Since each tank was evaluated using
a different internal inspection technique, a summary of the results are presented below, by
tank:
Tank 18 The visual inspection discovered perforations in the tank shell, which
disqualified the tank for upgrading. Inspection was concluded at that point.
Tank 19 A partial magnetic flux scan was conducted. The tank was disqualified
because of the discovery of perforations during the visual inspection.
Tank 2Q A partial magnetic flux scan was conducted. The tank was disqualified
because of the discovery of perforations during the visual inspection.
Tank. 24 An ultrasonic flaw detector was used to scan the tank along its length at 1-
foot intervals. The ultrasonic scan concluded that the tank was not suitable for
upgrading with cathodic protection, due to pitting that exceeded 50% of the tank wall
thickness. This tank was not disqualified as a result of the visual inspection.
Iank_2J. A magnetic flux inspection was conducted after the visual inspection.. On
most of the tank, 100% of the tank surface was subjected to magnetic flux scanning,
but for part of the tank, only 50% was covered. The goal was to see if the 50% scan
could also detect external pitting. As a result of the magnetic flux inspection revealing
pitting that exceeded 50% of the wall thickness, the tank was found to be unsuitable
for upgrading with cathodic protection. The tank was also found to be unsuitable for
upgrading from the visual inspection, which identified internal pits that measured
more than 50% of the wall thickness.
Tank 25 was also subjected to a standard ultrasonic survey with point measurements
taken at the approximate center of each 3-ft by 3-ft grid constructed on the interior
surface of the tank. This tank was also found unsuitable for upgrading with cathodic
protection as a result of the ultrasonic survey. AS reported that all ultrasonic readings
in the first 3 feet of the north end of the tank indicated a wall thickness of less than
85% of the wall thickness (based on an assumed original wall thickness of 260 mills).
The readings on the north end cap were also less than 85% of the assumed original
thickness of 280 mills.
16
-------
Section 5
Baseline Test Results
Upon completion of the vendor testing and assessment, the tanks were excavated. The
tanks were removed from the excavation and placed on plastic sheets immediately north of
the excavation. In general the tanks were lifted by placing an I-beam into the hole in the
top of the tanks that had been cut during the internal inspection. The I-beam was then
lifted by a track hoe. The tanks were moved to a field about a quarter mile away for further
inspection (Figure 2). They were scraped and brushed to remove adhering soil. At that
point it was discovered that the tanks had been coated with a brushed on coal tar and
wrapped with Kraft paper. This wrapping and coating had slumped down along the sides
of the tanks, leaving approximately the top third of the tank without any coating or with a
minimal residue. In addition, the ends of the tanks that were closest to the vault were
found to have a very wet coating, presumably from product interacting with the coating.
Upon removal, the exterior of each tank was visually inspected. Much of the tanks'
surfaces could not be inspected effectively because of the coating and paper wrap.
However, perforations were found in three of the tanks during this visual inspection. These
perforations were approximately 3/8 inch in diameter, which rendered these tanks
unsuitable for upgrading with cathodic protection, in accordance with the criteria specified
in the QAPP.
The baseline tests were continued until a disqualifying flaw was found or until the
specified tests were completed. If no disqualifying flaw was discovered the inspection was
completed and detailed information about any pits, the wall thickness, and condition of the
tank was documented. The findings of the baseline tests are presented tank by tank,
indicating the point at which a disqualifying conclusion was reached. A summary of the
baseline testing conducted on each tank is presented in the following paragraphs.
5.1 Tank No. 18
Immediately after removal, adhering clay soil was scraped from the sides of the tank.
The tank was visually inspected and a perforation found about midway down the east side
of the tank a few feet from its north end. A probe placed into the hole confirmed that it
completely penetrated the wall (Figure 3). Selected areas around the perforation were
abrasively blasted to bare metal anda number of obvious external pits were observed.
Ultrasonic measurements were made on one end cap and a sidewall to obtain wall
thickness data. These tbicknesraeasurements averaged 0.250 inch at section G-1 and
0.279 at die end cap.
17
-------
fas*.
Figure 2 The Test Tanks During Baseline Testing
Figure 3 Perforation in Tank 18
18
-------
5.2 Tank No. 19
Several large perforations were observed on the east side of the tank 6 to 9 feet from
the north end and slightly above the midline (Figure 4). The area around the perforations
was sandblasted and inspected. Wall thickness measurements indicated an average side
wall thickness of 0.256 inch in section G-l and 0.267 on the end cap.
5.3 Tank No. 20
Tank No. 20 was removed from the ground on September 10,1996. Visual inspection
prior to abrasive blasting identified a perforation on the west side of the tank about 7 feet
from the north end (Figure 5). The exterior surface near the perforation was abrasively
blasted. Wall thickness measurement indicated a thickness of 0.2S7 inch in section G-l
and 0.287 at the end cap.
5.4 Tank No. 24
Because of physical restrictions at the site, it was necessary to punch a hole with a
tooth of the track hoe bucket in the north end cap to lift the tank. A large dent a few feet
from the north end of the tank also resulted from the removal. Considerable overlapping
pitting around the area of the access way was observed; however, no obvious perforations
were found. Tank No. 24 was cleaned and an internal grid was applied in preparation for
further baseline testing. The exterior of the tank was abrasively blasted. Following the
abrasive blast, a small external pit was found'which penetrated the tank shell. The
perforation was about one-eighth of an inch in diameter (Figure 6). Ultrasonic
measurement in section H-l indicated a wall thickness of 0.246 inch and 0.262 in the end
cap.
5.5 Tank No. 25
Tank Novift was the first and mosfdifflettt taMIwnnrtavtvduV to the constricted
working!sg|ej||n^|k(^c%a$Mby^«t ctejfe-During removal attack hoe dented the;
tank al«ro>tji|^jjfcp^M^» rfoK^ the south end-of the tank for lifting
(FigqnrT)?
The post-removal v«u4 inspectjosidentified considerable overlapping pitting around.
the area of the acce»w*y.r The tank was abrasive blasted and & grid was applied to the
tank exterior. After the extemaTmspection was completed, a grid was applied to the tank
interior. Data from the external inspection are in Appendix C. The data from the external
inspection, internal inspection, and ultrasonic wall thickness measurements are presented
19
-------
Figure 4 Perforations in Tank 19
Figure 5 Perforation in Tank 20
20
-------
Figure 6 Perforation in Tank 24
F~gtfciiF. .,iv--^--:'- •'••r'••':.--'-•••
Figure 7 Tank 25 with External Grid and Damage from Removal
21
-------
in Appendix C. All welds were found to be Type 1 continuous welds on both ends of the
tank. The head joint welds were all of Type 18, continuous full fillet welds on the outside
of the tank.
The external inspection identified a number of corrosion pits that were 0.10 inch deep
or greater. The depth measurements for the six deepest external pits are presented in Table
2. The values reported are the average of triplicate measurements. The location of each pit
is indicated by the reference grid. The location is specified by the grid letter around the
tank and the location along the length, as well as the sub-grid within the grid. For
example, Bl, 4-5 is in section B, closest to the open end, on the boundary between sub-
grids 4 and 5. There were two pits at section C7-3 that were difficult to measure, as they
were along a weld seam, one on each side. Both are reported in Table 2. Alt of these pits
exceeded 50 percent of the nominal wall thickness of 0.250 inch. No perforations were
found.
Table 2. Six Deepest External Pits on Tank 25
Grid Location
61,4-5
B6.7
810,5
C2.3
C7, 3 Outside Weld
C7, 3 Inside Weld
Pit depth
0.165
0.160
0.145
0.155
0.199
0.192
The five deepest internal pits were measured in triplicate and the average depths are
reported in T :^le 3. The deepest of these approached 50 percent of the wall thickness, but
did not reach it
Table 3. Five Deepest Internal Pits on Tank 25
Grid Location
010,9
09,8
£10. 3
E10.5
E1.2
Pit depth
0.097
0.071
0.103
0.065
0.102
22
-------
Ultrasonic wall thickness measurements were made from the interior of the tank. Two
grid sections, A8 and H5, gave initial measurements that were less than 85 percent of the
minimum required wall- thickness. The measurements at the center points for grid
locations A8 and H5 were 0.207 and 0.183, respectively. These two grid areas were
subdivided into 9 sub-grid areas and additional ultrasonic measurements were taken in each
sub-grid. The average of the 9 readings was used to determine the wall thickness for that
grid. The average of all side wall thickness measurements was 0.249 inch for Tank 25.
The average of the wall thickness measurements on the end caps was 0.272 inch. The
average wall thickness computed over both the end caps and the side walls was 0.252 inch.
The thinnest measurement of the ultrasonic survey was 0.096 inch for a point located in
grid area H5. However, when all the measurements'in that grid were averaged, it was
determined that the average thickness was 0.236 inch. None of the 3-ft by 3-ft grids
averaged less than 85 percent of the required minimum wall thickness of 0.204 inch.
Ultrasonic wall thickness measurements were also made from the inside of Tank 25 at
the location of the deepest external pits. To determine the minimum thickness in these
areas triplicate measurements were made. The average wall thickness in the area of the
pits identified in Table 2 is presented in Table 4. The minimum, single-point individual
measurement for wall thickness was 0.072 inch.
Table 4. Ultrasonic Wall Thickness at the Six Deepest
External Pits on Tank 25
Location
81. 4-5
86,7
B10, 5
C2.3
C7, 3 Outside Weld
C7,3lnatd«WeW
Remaining wall thickness
0.085
0.099
0.091
0.097
0.084
0.069
23
-------
Section 6
Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
6.1 Results
As specified in the QAPP, three criteria must be met fora tank to be considered
suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection.
Criteria 1. The tank must be free of corrosion holes. Any perforation will disqualify that
tank.
Criteria 2. There must be not be pits deeper than 0.5 times the required minimum wall
thickness and the average wall thickness in each 3 ft by 3 ft area must be at
least 85 percent of the required minimum wall thickness. A tank is unsuitable
if either of these conditions is not met (The required minimum wall
thickness varies with the size of the tank, but is generally 0.240 inch.)
Criteria 3. The tank must be free of corrosion holes and cracks or separations in the tank
welds.
A summary of the baseline test results for the five tanks included in the study is
presented in Table 5. Each tank has been classified as either suitable or unsuitable for
upgrading according to each of the three criteria specified above. In addition, the
maximum pit depth, the minimum wall thickness, and the average wall thickness is
reported for each tank.
Table 5. Summary of Baseline Test Findings
Tank
. No.
18
19
20
24
25
Max. pit
depth
Pert.
Pert
Pert
Pert.
. 0.198
Average wan
Thicknesa
0.250-
0.256*
0.257"
0.249*
0.252
Min. Wall
Thicknesa
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
0.0
0.207s
Suitability for Upgrading by
Baseline Test Criteria
1
No
No
No
No
Yes
2
No
No
No
NO
No
3
No
No
No
No
Yes
Overall
No
No
No
No
No
• Ultrasonic measurements were abbreviated, since a perforation was found.
» Minimum ultrasonic survey reading based on grid location averages. Minimum
wall thickness at a deep pit was 0.072 inch.
24
-------
A summary of the results obtained by each technology evaluated is presented in Table
6. The baseline test results are also included. Two of the modeling methods evaluated the
site as a whole, rather than individual tanks; WR/CRP considered the study as two separate
sites, while ILFC considered the site as a single site.
Table 6. Summary of Technology Demonstrations
Tank
No.
18
19
20
24
25
Conclusion Based on Technology Demonstration
Modeling
ILFC1
No*
No
No
No
No
WR/CRP2
No
NO
No
No
No
SCP3
No
No
No
No
NO
Remote
Video
TKNLV1deo4
No
No
No
No
NO
Internal
Inspection
ASS
No
No
No
No
NO
Conclusion Based on
Baseline Test
No
No
No
No
No
• A 'No" .conclusion indicates that the tank is not suitable for upgrading by cathodic protection.
Notes:
1. ILFC (International Lubrication and Fuel Consultants) concluded that all tanks were electrically
continuous and evaluated the five tanks as a single site.
2. WR/CRP (Warren Rogers/Corrpro) concluded that neither excavation (north or south of the
vault) is suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection and the site does not qualify. They
noted that their results are on a site specific basis rather than on a tank specific basis.
3. SCP (Southern Cathodfc Protection) concluded that none of the tanks meets the criterion for
upgrading because each tank's estimated mean time to corrosion failure is less than the age of
the tank.
4 TKNL (Tanknotogy) concluded that further investigation and possibly repairs were necessary
before any of th« tanks could be upgraded by adding cathodic protection, video log indicates
possible penetration on Tank #19, possible pinholes in Tank #20, and pinhoto ingress on Tank
#18, with suspect areas noted on Tank #24 and Tank #25.
5 AS (Armor Shield) reported on the basis of artintemal inspection that Tanks 18,19. and 20
were not suitable because of perforations through the tank walls. Tanks 24 and 25 were not
suitable because of pits that were more than 50 percent of the wall thickness (i.e.. greater than
o! 12 inch).
25
-------
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
Application of each of the three technologies resulted in the determination that none of
the tanks were suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. The same conclusion was
reached as a result of the baseline testing. Therefore, in this very limited demonstration/
assessment, each of the alternate technologies was successful in assessing whether the five
test tanks were suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. Because this study
involved a very small number of tanks at a single site, extrapolation of these results beyond
this project cannot be made.
This study demonstrated that all of the assessment techniques were applied according
to the applicable standard and correctly identified the subject site(s) and tanks as not
suitable for upgrading with cathodic protection. The combination of limited funding and
the difficulty encountered in this study with finding sites with representative tanks limited
the information available from the tests. Most of the candidate sites identified during the
study contained old tanks suspected of being in poor condition. The age of the tanks (52
years) at the study site made the evaluations and decisions regarding upgrading suitability
very straightforward for the experts applying the technologies. The study was far too small
to provide statistically valid conclusions about the methods' performance. Accordingly,
further study is needed to evaluate the performance of the methods.
Based on the above conclusions, further study is recommended to significantly expand the
scope of work of this project. The expanded study should incorporate the following
components to allow a statistically valid evaluation of the alternate technologies for
determining the suitability of tanks for upgrading:
• Sites in five geographic regions of the United States
• 100 total (95 additional tanks) tanks, about 20 tanks per region
• Representative sites where tanks are actually being considered for upgrading
• Inclusion of the robotic ultrasonic technology, when it is commercially available.
26
-------
Appendix A
Tank Tightness Test Reports
-------
INVOICE IKK000248
RANGER PETROLEUM
PO BOX 1283
BLUE SPRINGS, MO 64013
(816)625-7255
TANK STATUS EVALUATION. REPORT
TEST DATE: 07/21/96
***** CUSTOMER DATA *****
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 VOLKER BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
***** SITE DATA *****
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY, KS
66031
CONTACT: FLORA, JERRY
PHONE I: (816)753-7600
CONTACT:
PHONE I:
***** COMMENT LINES *****
COPY TO KDHE
CURRENT EPA STANDARDS DICTATE
THAT FOR UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAK/GAIN RATE
OVER THE PERIOD OF ONE HOUR ZS .10 GALLONS.
TANK 118: WATER
TYPE: STEEL
TANK IS NOT TIGHT.
RATE: .665479 G.P.H. LOSS
TANK 119: WATER
TYPEr STEEL
TANK IS TIGHT-.
RATE: .016356 G.P.H. LOSS
OPERATOR:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
tV
-------
*******
TANK DATA
********
TANK DIAMETER (IN)
LENGTH (FT)
VOLUME (GAL)
TYPE
FUEL LEVEL (IN)
FUEL TYPE
dVOL/dy (GAL/IN)
CALIBRATION ROD
TANK NO.
18
96
31.67
11907
ST
87
WATER
92.06
TANK NO. TANK NO. TANK MO.
19 3 4
96
31.67
11907
ST
88
WATER
87.29
DISTANCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
-------
******* CUSTOMER DATA ********
JOB NUMBER
CUSTOMER (COMPANY NAME)
CUSTOMER CONTACT(LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS - LINE 1
ADDRESS - LIKE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
000248
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FLORA, JERRY
425 VOLKER BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
(816)753-7600
******* COMMENT LINES *******
COPY TO KDHE
******* SITE
SITE NAME (COMPANY NAME)
SITE CONTACT(LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS - LINE 1
ADDRESS - LINE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
GROUND WATER LEVEL (FT)
NUMBER OF TANKS
LENGTH OF PRE-TEST (MIN)
LENGTH OF TEST (MIN)
DATA ********
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY, KS
66031
0
2
30
240
-------
INVOICE IKK000249
RANGER PETROLEUM
PO BOX 1283
BLUE SPRINGS, MO 64013
(816)625-7255
TANK STATUS EVALUATION REPORT
TEST DATE: 07/22/96
***** CUSTOMER DATA *****
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 VOLKER BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
***** SITE DATA *****
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY, KS
66031
CONTACT: FLORA, JERRY
PHONE I: (816)753-7600
CONTACT:
PHONE I:
***** COMMENT LINES *****
COPY TO KDHE
CURRENT EPA STANDARDS DICTATE
THAT FOR UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAK/GAIN RATE
OVER THE PERIOD OF ONE HOUR IS .10 GALLONS.
TANK 120: WATER
TYPE: STEEL
TANK IS NOT TIGHT.
RATE: .343578 G.P.H. LOSS
TANK 121: WATER
TYPE: STEEL
TANK IS NOT TIGHT.
RATE: .110466 G.P.H. LOSS
OPERATOR:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
-------
*******
TANK DATA
********
TANK DIAMETER (IN)
LENGTH (FT)
VOLUME (GAL)
TYPE
FUEL LEVEL (IV)
FUEL TYPE
dVOL/dy (GAL/IN)
TANK NO.
20
96
31.67
11907
ST
88
WATER
87.29
TANK NO.
21
96
31.67
11907
ST
90.5
FATER
73.40
TANK NO. TANK NO
3 4
CALIBRATION ROD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DISTANCE
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
-------
******* CUSTOMER DATA ********
JOB NUMBER
CUSTOMER (COMPANY NAME).
CUSTOMER CONTACT(LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS - LINE 1
ADDRESS - LINE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
000249
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FLORA, JERRY
425 VOLKER BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
(816)753-7600
******* COMMENT LINES *******
COPY TO KDHE
******* SITE
SITE NAME (COMPANY NAME)
SITE CONTACT(LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS r LINE 1
ADDRESS - LINE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
GROUND WATER LEVEL (FT)
NUMBER OF TANKS
LENGTH OF PRE-TEST (MIN)
LENGTH OF TEST (MIN)
DATA ********
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY, KS
66031
0
2
30
240
-------
INVOICE #KK000247
RANGER PETROLEUM
PO BOX 1283
BLUE SPRINGS, MO 64013
(816)625-7255
TANK STATUS EVALUATION REPORT
TEST DATE: 07/19/96
***** CUSTOMER DATA *****
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 VOLKER BLVD.
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
***** SITE DATA *****
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY, KS
66031
CONTACT: FLORA, JERRY
PHONE #: (816)753-7600
CONTACT:
PHONE I:
***** COMMENT LINES *****
COPY TO KDHE
CURRENT EPA STANDARDS DICTATE
THAT FOR UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAK/GAIN RATE
OVER THE PERIOD OF ONE HOUR IS .10 GALLONS.
.CANK 124: WATER
TANK 125: WATER
TYPE: STEEL
TANK IS NOT TIGHT.
TYPE: STEEL
TANK IS NOT TIGHT.
RATE: .073991 G.P.H. LOSS
RATE: .102721 G.P.H. LOSS
1PERATOR:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
-------
*******
TANK DATA
********
TANK DIAMETER (IN)
LENGTH (FT)
VOLUME (GAL)
TYPE
FUEL LEVEL (IN)
FUEL TYPE
dVOL/dy (GAL/IN)
CALIBRATION ROD
TANK NO.
24
96
31.67
11907
ST
89.5
WATER
79.35
TANK NO.
25
96
31.67
11907
ST
89
WATER
82.11
TANK NO. TANK NO
3 4
DISTANCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
10.6563
26.9531
41.9375
56.9375
74.9375
.0000
.0000
.0000
-------
******* CUSTOMER' DATA ********
JOB NUMBER
CUSTOMER (COMPANY NAME)
CUSTOMER CONTACT(LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS - LINE 1
ADDRESS - LINE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
000247
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FLORA, JERRY
425 VOLKER BLVD.
KANSAS CITY, MO
64110-2299
(816)753-7600
******* COMMENT LINES *******
COPY TO KDHE
******* SITE
SITE NAME (COMPANY NAME)
SITE CONTACT*LAST, FIRST)
ADDRESS - LINE 1
ADDRESS - LINE 2
CITY, STATE
ZIP CODE (XXXXX-XXXX)
PHONE NUMBER (XXX)XXX-XXXX
GROUND WATER LEVEL (FT)
NUMBER OF TANKS
LENGTH OF PRE-TEST (MIN)
LENGTH OF TEST (MIN)
DATA ********
NEW CENTURY AIR CENTER
1 NEW CENTURY PARKWAY
SITE B
NEW CENTURY-, KS
66031
0
2
30
240
-------
Appendix B
Technology Vendor Reports
-------
Internotionol P.O. 8or 15212
lubricexion and Rio Raneho, NM 87174
Fuel Consultant! Inc. (505) 8'2-1666 (800) 237-4532
Creating tfc standards 'for :n4^try. ""
ILFC. INr TFPANAr.vsTSRFPORT NO
DATE: August 14, 1996
FOR: Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64110
SITE ID: New Century
I New Century Parkway
New Century, KS 66031
TEPH (Total Extract?.ble Petroleum Hydrocarbons) concentrations are listed on the site map
Analyses show the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, classified as very aged diesel fuel in
most of the soil samples taken around these fuel systems.
Half-cell measurements which were taken between these fuel systems and their surrounding soil
indicate that there is a significant amount of steel structure remaining in good condition in
regards to corrosion..
The Class IV CH (inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays) soil has an average pH of 8
(alkaline), an average moisture content of 18.5%, an average bacteria count of 50,000 spores/ml
average soil resistivity of 1,400 ohm-cm, an average chloride content of Ippm and a sulfide '
concentration of 497 ppm.
Based on the field investigation and laboratory analyses performed on this site it appears these
fuel systems do not meet satisfactory TEP and/or ASTM ES 40-94 criteria. ILFC, Inc. strongly
recommends investigating the source of contamination and providing us with the tank tightness
testing history of this site. We will re-evaluate this site as soon as we receive this information In
the intenm if we can be of any further assistance or if more information regarding our field
investigation and/or laboratory analyses is needed please do not hesitate to contact us at
(800)237-453
RayKashmiri George HjKitchen
xxPetroleum\Corrosion Engineer President
-------
INTERNATIONAL LUBRICATION & FUEL CONSULTANTS. INC. RioRancho
TEP SITE ANALYSIS. PLOT OF HALF-CELL READINGS AND
@ Top TEPH 2f ppm
@ Mid TEPH 8 ppm @ Top TEPH 23 ppm
@ Bottom TEPH 28 ppm @ Bottom TEPH 38 ppm -°-sl 7*_ ,, TMtJ ,
@<>TEPH30ppm
•0.516V
-0.527V
'TEPH 49 ppm
@ Bottom TEPH 44 ppm
TANK §3 (18)
12.000 0*1
EMPTY
DIESEL
@ Bottom TEPH 18
(§)
-0.502V
•0.513V
(D
Q Top TEPH 32 ppm
& MM* TEPH 10 ppm
if|D*«pTEPH<20ppn
TVPH
-------
Site: New Century Airport
Batch No: 96275
Moisture
Bacteria
Chloride (ppm)
-.
Soil Type
SRB
1-T
24.30%
10.000/ml
3.3
8.2
IVCH
10' - 101
2-2'
14.60%
10.000/ml
1.1
77
IVCH
>10'
2-41
17.00%
100.000/ml
1.1
8.2
IVCH
>10J
2-7'
16.40%
100.000/ml
<1
8.1
IVCH
>10J
2-13'
19.20%
1.000/ml
1.7
8.6
IVCH
<10*
5-T
16.50%
1.000/ml
<1
8.3
IVCH
<10l
5-M
20.50%
1.000/ml
<1
7.9
IVCH
10' -10'
S-B
1680%
100.000/m
1.2
7.9
IVCH
<10J
11-T
16.90%
1.000.000/m
1
7.8
IVCH
102-10'
11 M
20.60%
100.000/ni
1.2
7.9
IVCH
>10'
11 B
18 70%
100,000/ml
12
78
IVCH
>10'
-------
Intarnationol
lubrication and
fuel Consultants Inc.
P.O. Bos 15211
ftloAoncho, NM87174
(SOS)892-1666 (800)237-4532
fax(505)892-9601
jtiitullirjj for industry.
Novembers, 1996
Mr. Robert L. Hoye
Project Manager
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
REF: New Century. Air Center EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0108
Dear Mr. Hoye:
Thank you for the information sent to us on November 1, 1996. Due to the fact
that the tanks at this site are electrically continous and therefore considered one
unit, we will not revise our original conclusion that the fuel systems at this site do
not meet satisfactory TEP and/or ASTM ES 40-94 criteria.
Sincerely,
Ray Kashir./.
Petroleum/Corrosion Engineer
cc: J. Flora
-------
Warren Refers Associates. Inc.
October 25, 1996
Mr. BobHoye
IT Corporation
II 499 Chester Road
Qincinnati, OH
Dear Mr. Hoye:
cwhe ^ of *e ^ UST excavations in Kansas
" "^ C°ndUCted flCld ««««««» «d obscrvatioas. Based
site
v *^ • ftotnote regarding the site specific nature of
analysis is to be provided with Table 1 -1 of the QAPP.
As you' U note, cathodic protection upgrade is nat considered a viable option for either site
(excavation). In add-on to the high probability of failure, the presence of a nearby cathodicaily
protected structure and the fact.that the UST's are likely resting on a concrete pad preclude
consideration of cathodic protection retrofit at either of these sites. Regardless of the results of
the pnor leak detection testing, the recommendation that these tanks not be considered for
cathodic protection upgrade will stand.
If you have any questions or comments, please call.
Sincerely,
Jbr _
Executive Vice President
747 Aquidneck Avenue Mlddletown, Rhode Island 02842 (401) 846-4747 Fax (401) 847-8170
-------
jL— (P. j|
--WT —-r- hi— y- •
•iMA. _i-^w^U ta^JL—k- ^—^-
! ! Tonk !| |!Tant< ; [Tan*
ir*-
-------
WRA M.T.C.F.'- Corrosion Failure
Prepared by: Corrpro Companies, Inc.
610 Brandywine Parkway, West Chester, PA
Prepared on October 15. 1996 for
EPA TEST SITE
Location ID EPAKSA
EPAKSA
ROLAND PARK OR. (BLDG 14)
NEW CENTURY. KS
Operator ROBERT HILGER
913-782-5338
PROBABILITIES AND TANK INFORMATION
Location Name
EPAKSA
Conditional Probability
of Corrosion Failure
Given Pitting Corrosion
Present
0.999
Present
tfuluraMd
N/A
Future
0.999
Probability of
Localized Corrosion
Present
N/A
Future
N/A
Mean Time to
Corrosion Failure
«F »|>trt«< t««k FIM uto t
•flkM CMIMM •••Ml
118
Tank Age
5200
RECOMMENDATION:
The percent probability of corrosion failure precludes consideration of this site for cathodic protection retrofit. The existence of a nearby cathodically protected structure mil.tates against prolonged tank life This
site does not meet ASTM ES-40-94 criteria for upgrading by cathodic protection.
Tank 0
1
2
3
4 .
Location
NW*1B
NWCK19
NEC*20
NE«21
Gallons
12000
12000
12000
. 12000
Dimensions
96X384
96X384
96X384
96X384
Year
Installed
12/31/44
12/31/44
12/31/44
12/31/44
Tank
Type
Steel
Steel
C|AA|
••Hum
Steel
Product
DSL
DSL
FO
D/W
Bottom -Depth
(Inches)
121
121
121
Internal
Water
1.00
0.00
400
375
Internal
Corrosion
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Information
Confirmation'
1
1
1
1
Isolated
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
'-ConflrmaMon: 1-Sjnw at Compmy InfomuUxi, 2-CMtaranl *un Co
rtoanatx.
Engineer: G E ALBRECHT
-------
EPAKSA
SITE INFORMATION
M TCP Report - Page 2
Cathocfcaly protected structures nearby?; Distance in feet?
iMHy vaut or condu* nearby?
Potable water wel nearby?
Waterway, stream or lake nearby?
tine tea* detector* instated?
Ppng material?
Y-25
N
N
N
S
Overspill containment on site?
Monitoring wets on site?
Leak history available on site?
Repair history avatebte on site?
Site plans available on site?
Installation specs available on site?
Type of pump?
N
N
N
N
Y
N
S
LABORATORY INFORMATION
Moisture -Content
(% Diy Weight)
20.05% -41. 11%
PH
7.0 - 82
Conductivity
(mfcfomho*)
121 - 458
Sulphides
(ppm)
0 000 - 0.000
Chlorides
(ppm)
1-2
ON SITE SON. SAMPLE ANALYSIS
fH MM m to ASTM OMK-TI
t m » eP* 171 I
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(HOLE*)
1 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
2 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
DEPTH
(FTJ
2
6
10
2
6
10
SQUEEZE
MOISTURE
TEST
(YES/NO)
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
GROUND
WATER
LEVEL
(FEET)
7
6
TYPE OF
BACKFILL*
3
3
3
3
3
3
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(HOLE*)
3 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
4 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
DEPTH
(FT)
SQUEEZE
MOISTURE
TEST
(YES/NO)
GROUND
WATER
LEVEL
(FEET)
TYPE OF
BACKFILL'
ON SITE HOLE PROFILE
HOLE *1 - POTENTIAL AND
RESISTIVITY PROFILE
DEPTH
-------
WRA M.T.C.F.*- Corrosion Failure
Prepared by: Corrpro Companies, Inc.
610 Brandywine Parkway, West Chester, PA
Prepared on October 15. 1996 for
EPA TEST SITE
Location ID: EPAKSB
EPAKSA
ROLAND PARK DR (BLDG 14)
NEW CENTURY. KS
Operator ROBERT HILGER
913-782-5338
PROBABILITIES AND TANK INFORMATION
Location Nam*
EPAKSA
Conditional Probability
of Corrosion Failure
Given Pitting Corrosion
Present
0999
.Present
* saturated
N/A
Future
0999
Probability of
Localized Corrosion
Present
N/A
Future
N/A
Mean Time to
Corrosion Failure
(EapMted UM FIM Uc *
pMConmnu)
130
Tank Age
5200
RECOMMENDATION:
The present probability of corrosion Mure precludes consideration of this ste far cathodic protection retrofit. The existence of nearby cathodically protected structures militates against prolonged tank life This
site does not meet ASTM ES 40-94 criteria for upgrading' by cathodic protection retrofit
Tank*
1
2
3
4
Location
SW*2S
SWC*24
SEC*23
SE*22
Gallons
12000
12000
12000
12000
Dkmmion.
96X384
96X384
96X384
96X384
Year
Installed
12/31/44
12/31/44
12/31/44
12/31/44
Tank
Type
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Product
DSL
DSL
DSL
D/W
Bottom -Depth
-------
EPAKSB
SITE INFORMATION
MTCF Report - Page 2
Active Electrical Plant Nearby? Type at System: Distance in feet?
Cathodicaly pratactod structures nearby?, Distance in feel?
UHty vat* oc conduit neaitoy?
Potable water wel nearby?
Waterway, stream or lake nearby?
I m* BW^aV ilalar Jina
UM naK QMOCnfl
••• •
=^=^=^==
N
Y-
N
N
N
S
=====
1-=====
Oversp* contain
Mentoring weds
Leak history ava
Repair history av
Site plans availal
Instalauon spec
Type of pump?
1
LABORATORY INFORMATION
Moisture Contort
(% Dry Weight)
27.03%-38.73%
PH
taM •> I. «HM BO-IMI
ON SITE SOH. SAMPLE ANALYSIS
|M MM • k M1M OMN-"
7.2 - 8.5
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(HOLE*)
1 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
2 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
DEPTH
(FT)
2
6
10
2
6
10
SQUEEZE
MOISTURE
TEST
(YES/NO)
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
GROUND
WATER
LEVEL
(FEET)
7
6
=^==c
TYPE OF
BACKFILL'
3
3
3
3
3
3
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(HOLE*)
3 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
4 TOP
MIDDLE
BOTTOM
DEPTH
(FT)
=====
SQUEEZE
MOISTURE
TEST
(YES/NO)
GROUND
WATER
LEVEL
(FEET)
=====
TYPE OF
BACKFILL'
ON SITE HOLE PROFILE
HOLE *1 - POTENTIAL AND
RESISTIVITY PROFILE
DEPTH
(FT)
4
6
a
10
POTENTIAL
(NV)
-52000
-527.00
-53800
-54300
-549.00
RESISTANCE
(OHM-CM)
630.00
71400
840.00
882.00
000
000
000
' 000
. HOLE n - POTENTIAL AND
RESISTIVITY PROFILE
DEPTH
IFT)
2
4
6
8
10
POTENTIAL
(NV)
-525.00
-52500
-52700
-524.00
-52300
RESISTANCE
(OHM-CM)
92400
924.00
924.00
1176.00
0.00
000
000
HOLE *3 - POTENTIAL AND
RESISTIVITY PROFILE
DEPTH
(FT)
POTENTIAL
(NV)
RESISTANCE
(OHM-CM)
000
000
0.00
000
000
000
000
000
HOLE «4 - POTENTIAL AND
RESISTIVITY PROFILE
DEPTH
(FT)
POTENTIAL
(NV)
RESISTANCE
(OHM-CM)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
-------
EPA - OLATHE, KS
MTCF Report - Page 3
*OF
REAOMG3
MOST
MOST
TAKEN POSITIVE ftYJ-RAGE NEGATIVE
263
262
261
260
260
258
250
257
257
258
258
255
255
256
254
254
254
254
254
251
253
252
250
250
249
249
249
248
246
•><7
-531
-532
-533
-534
-535
-535
-536
-538
-538
-538
-538
-536
-536
-538
-537
-537
-537
-537
-538
-538
-538
-538
-538
-538
-536
-537
-537
-537
-536
-MR
-530
.-531
-532
-533
-535
• -534
-535
-538
-.536
-538
-536
-538
-538
-536
-538
-537
7 537
-537
-538
-537
-537
-538
-538
-538
-537
-537
-537
-536
-536
-532
-533
-534
-535
-535
-536
-536
-537
-537
-536
-537
-536
-536
-597
-537
-537
-538
-538
-536
-538
-539
-538
-538
-536
-538
-538
-538
-537
-536
GREATER
THAN
FIRST
-530
-531
-533
-534
-535
-535
-535
-536
-537
-536
-536
-536
-536
-536
-537
-537
-537
-537
-538
-538
-537
-538
-538
-538
-538
-537
-537
-537
-536
*«A
J£0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
+50
TO
ill
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
+40
TO
±21
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
+30
TO
±21
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
+ 20
TO
±Ii
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+ 10
TO
o
262
256
256
256
2S3
226
256
176
6
227
95
30
197
244
161
227
25
254
254
26
251
210
56
1
75
32
I3S
1
43
6
-10
TO
^1
1
6
3
4 '
7
33
3
81
251
31
161
225
58
12
93
27
229
0
0
225
2
42
194
249
174
217
113
247
205
841
-11
TO
_22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-21
TO
-30
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
-31
TO
^4S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 41
10
-so
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LESS
THAN
-SO
b
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
-------
BPA - OLATUB, KS MTCF Repoa _
STRAY CURRENT ANALYSIS
*OF
READNGS
TAKEN
246
246
246
246
247
246
246
245
196
GREATER
MOST
POSITIVE
—535
-535
-534
-534
-534
-535
-536
-537
-537
AVERAGE
-535
-534
-534
-534
-534
i -535
-535
-536
-537
MOST
NEGATIVE
-536
-535
-534
-534
-535
-535
-536
-539
-536
FIRST
-536
-535
-534
-534
-534
-535
-535
-536
-537
THAN
+58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
+50
TO
iil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+40
TO
ill
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
+30
TO
+21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+ 20
TO
+ 11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+ 10
TO
2
1
9
33
64
239
245
240
242
172
-1O
TO
Zl
245
237
213
162
6
1
6
3
24
-11
TO
-20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-21
TO
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
-31
TO
-40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4)
TO
-50
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
LESS
THAN
-50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
SOUTHERN CATHODIC
I PROTECTION
August 29, 1996
Senior Advisor for Statistics
Midwest Reisir;!', Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Reference: Statistical Corrosion Probability Analysis
Underground Storage Tank System
New Century Air Center, New Century, Kansas
Dear Mr. Flora-
Enclosed please find a copy of the corrosion evaluation report which fails to meet the ASTM ES 40-
94 standard, which is the minimum performance practice for alternative methods to internal inspection
pursuant to API 1631 and NLPA 631 of inspecting and assessing buried steel tanks for corrosion
damage and determining the suitability of these tanks for upgrading whh cathodic protection in
accordance with Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 2S0.21 (WflXiv).
The age* of the tnnVf exceeds the mean tine to corrosion failure in years. Therefore, imeroal
inspections are required in order to determine the suitability of the tank(s) for upgrading with
cathodic protection, f :
Requirements for applying cathodio protection to tanka whicn have been evaluated using the ES 40-
94 non-invasive procedures are aa follows*
1) Tank is leak-free.
2) Tank age is leas that the expected leak-free life.
3) The probability of corrosion perforation is less than 0.05 .
4) For tanks upgraded whh cathodic protection based on the results of the assessment
proosdur*. monthly monitoring for releases in accordance with 40 CFR- 5280.H3 (d)
throi gb (a) »h°uU »« cnptemenied within one month following the upgrade.
We trust you wtl fin I this information complete and satisftctoty and Vook forward to working whh
you on this project.
Sincerely.
.Piazza H, PE.
President
Enclosure)
Canter (. n«
DEC-20-1996 IB:10
• SuH. 106 • 11CO Johnson Fany Road, N.B. • Adafltt. Georgia 30342
Phon* (404)252-4648 • Fax: (404) 252-182*
816 753 0271
P. 02
-------
SITE ANOMALIES
1. Steel natural gas pipeline east of tanks.
2. Water pipeline south and east of tanks.
3. Impressed current cathodic protection system northeast of tanks.
4. Tanks were heated internally with steam.
5. Tanks installed on concrete pad & on cradles.
6. Water table levels measured during site investigation is near bottom of tanks - see data
sheets.
7. Water is standing in the vaults between tanks.
8. Fill tubes are pined.
9. Tanks are pined directly below fill rubes.
10. Water line is not electrically continuous.
1!. Railroad track located east of tanks (no DC power located).
12. Water was observed in some of the tanks.
-------
SCP REPORT
ASTM ES40-94
CLCENT:
New Century Air Center
I New Century Parkway
New Century, Kansas
(706) 882-3366
LOCATION:
UST Site
1 New Century Parkway
New Century. Kansas
PAGE I OF
DATE: August U.I996
Age
Material
Electrical Isolation
Product
Backfill Material
Coating/Lining
Leak History
Repair History
Took Tightness Test/SIR
Stray Current
Structure-to-soil
Potentials (mv)
' Soil Resistivity (ohm cm)
Moisture Content
SoilpH
Chloride ion cone.
Sulfide ton cone.
Internal Corrosion Check
Mean Time to Corrosion
Failure in yean
Probability of Corrosion
Perforation
1 .Assessment
Recommendations
Tk. No. &
Capacity (gallons)
Tank 18 - 12.000
52
Steel
OK
Diesel
Concrete
Pad/Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Available
N/D*
532
300
21.7%
7.4
51 ppra
2.6 ppm
Pitted / HiO in tanks
May be leaking
22.4
N/A
Failed
Internal Inspection
Tk. No. &
Capacity (gallons)
Tank 19 - 12,000
52
Steel
OK
Diesel
Concrete
Pad/Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Available
N/D -
532
900
20%
7.4
51 ppm
2.6 pptn
Pitted / max 3/32*
22.5
N/A
Failed
Internal Inspection
Tk. No. &
Capacity (gallons)
Tank 20 - 12,000
52
Steel
OK
Diesel/Fuel Oil
Concrete
'ad/Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Available
N/D-
531
1,000
20%
7.6
44 pptn
2.2 ppm
Pitted"
23.4
N/A
Failed
Internal Inspection
Tk. No. &
Capacity gallons)
Tank 21 - 12.000
52
Steel
OK
Diesel/ H,0
Concrete
Pad/Unknown
N/A
N/A
NM
Not Available
N/D»
531
790
17.9%
7.6
44 ppra
2.2 ppm
Pitted / sludge bottom
23.0
N/A
Failed
Internal Inspection
Note(s):
current eathodk protection svnem adjacent to tanks - no Joint tests "ere performed.
Corrosion Tester JLP'JFF
.Quality Control
JLP
Corrosion
-------
SCP REPORT
ASTM ES40-94
CLIENT: New Century Air Center
1 New Century Parkway
New Century, Kansas
LOCATION: UST Site
1 New Century Parlcway
New Century, Kansas
PACE
OF 2
DATE: August 14, 1996
Note(s): • Impressed current cathodic protection system adlacgnt to tank* . no joint tests were performed.
Corrosion Tester
JLP'J
Quality Control
JLP
<*«„««!„..
-------
WNKNOLOG
":.-Nc.:ar =ca -AM 3
»NO >E'R S
September 12, 1996
Mr. J. D. Flora
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110-2299
Subject: Corrosion Site Survey Report
Petroscope™ Internal Visual Inspection Report
Johnson County Industrial Airport
Building #14 UST Facility
1 New Century Parkway
New Century, Kansas
Eight (8) 12,000-Gallon USTs
One (1) 5,000-Gallon UST
Dear Mr. Flora:
Petmsfonp"'^3^/30' M"' Tanknolb9y Corporation International conducted a
Petroscope Internal V.sual Inspection and Corrosion Site Survey on Johnson Countv
mdustna. A,rPort. Building #14 UST faci.ity. The reports for these" services are
SITE CORROSION S
Scope:
facility far °f "^ T6y WaS t0 9ather Suffident data in order to evaluate the UST
facility for possible upgcade for corrosion protection with cathodic protection.
ih tho J*f If!! m?hods and equipment associated with the survey are discussed in detail
h the attached "Corrosion Site Survey, General Requirements for Testing and
Instrumentation of UST Systems". All test methods, data analysis, and design criteria are
in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, as well as the
appropriate guides, standards and recommended practices of the various authoritative
organizations, (i.e. EPA. NACE. -NFPA. NEC. ASTM, API and PEI). All work was
performed under the supervision of a NACE certified "Corrosion Specialist". All test data is
tabulated on the attached data sheets.
The UST facility consists of eight (8) 12.000-gallon and one (1) 5,000-gallon
underground storage tanks and associated piping.
PEl .............
- «rvi'_...,u ,' .wr-.-- „.'. •},'---,. ,_
MM*
5225 Hoilister St. . Houston. Texas 77040-6294 • (71 3) 690-8265 • 1 (800) 888-3563 • Fax: (713) 690-2255
-------
Mr. J D Flora
Midwest Research Institute
September 12. 1996
Page 2
SITE CORROSION SURVEY (continued)
Data Analysis:
* Soil Resistivity - The soil resistivity at this location ranged from 709 ohm cm to 1427
ohm cm which is indicative of a moderately corrosive environment.
* Soil pH - Measurements of the soil pH at this location ranged from 5.5 to 7.5 which
is near neutral and is normal for this type of soil.
* Structure-to-Soil Potentials - The structure-to-soil potentials for the eight (8)
underground storage tanks (Tank #18 - Tank #25) ranged from -436 millivolts to -
571 millivolts and the structure-to-soil measurements for LIST #26 ranged from -515
millivolts to -592 millivolts. The difference in structure-to-soil potentials throughout
these structures is indicative of galvanic corrosion activity.
* Stray Current - Testing for the presence of stray current was conducted at this
location. The results of this testing did not indicate the presence of stray current
during the duration of the test (2 hours). The structure-to-soil potential
measurements did not vary more than 30 millivolts during the duration of the test (2
hours). Although no stray current was recorded, there were possible sources of
stray current at this facility. These sources are an impressed current cathodic
protection system on a 6" gas line that passes within 20' of this LIST facility, and an
overhead power line running directly over the tank pad. The cathodic protection
rectifier for the 6" gas line (United Gas) was not accessible so further investigation
of the effect of this cathodic protection system on the LIST facility could not be
evaluated,
» Electrical Continuity Test - Structure-to-soil potentials vs. a fixed reference electrode
indicates that tanks #18 through #25 as well as the water main that crosses the
southwest corner of the UST facility were electrically continuous with each other.
Tank #26 was not electrically continuous with the other tanks.
• Applied Cathodic Protection Test Current - The results of this test indicate that the
UST will require more current for cathodic protection than what would normally be
expected for this UST facility. The applied cathodic protection test current also
verifies the findings of the electrical continuity test stated above.
Note: All field data is tabulated on "Corrosion Survey-Field Data Tables" and "Stray
Current Interference Testing Chart" attached.
Conclusions:
The soil resistivity at this site is moderately corrosive. Consequently, it can be
concluded that this environment will support localized galvanic corrosion. Test
-------
Mr. J. D. Flora
Midwest Research Institute
September 12, 1996
Page 3
SITE CORROSION SURVEY (continued)
measurements indicate sufficient variation in structure-to-soil potentials to suspect severe
corrosive conditions. It is likely that most of the corrosion activity will be exhibited as
localized pitting on exposed threading, at pipe joints, at coating holidays, and uniform
attack on tanks with concentrations at welded seams and throughout tank bottom
quadrants.
The overall effect of the neighboring cathodic protection system on the 6" gas line
could not be concluded. The survey indicated that the UST facility was not bonded to this
cathodic protection system so stray current (electrolysis) corrosion is a possibility and will
likely be exhibited at the UST product piping where it crosses the 6" gas line. The stray
current testing did not indicate the presence of stray current during the duration of the test.
The cathodic protection rectifier for the 5" gas line was not accessible and further
investigation of the effect of this cathodic protection system of the UST facility was not
possible.
PETROSCOPE7" INTERNAL VISUAL INSPECTION
A visual inspection, was made of these tanks with the use of the Petroscope' video
camera utilizing the protocols established in accordance with ASTM ES 40-94.
Analysis:
The five (5) tanks surveyed were in excess of fifty (50) years old and had common
characteristics throughout all of the tanks. Below is a listing of those common
characteristics:
1. All of the welding appeared to be down-hand and the lacings were excellent.
Some areas of undercut and gas vugs were evident but no ingress or
movement was observed, probably due to flux shear.
2. Over the years of service, a light film has developed over the surface of these
tanks due to the heating process. This film exhibits itself over the surface
area from the "full line" to the bottom. Heavy trash encapsulation is
prominent throughout these tanks which gives rise to an additional
investigation being required since surface areas were covered and not visible
for viewing due to the trash encapsulation.
3. The ullage area of these tanks was covered with excessive rust and tubercle
formation which made it difficult to view the surface area. Further
investigation will have to be made once these tanks are properly cleaned.
Many of the areas exhibited red to black stains which are common to
problems.
-------
Mr. J. D. Flora
Midwest Research Institute
September 12. 1996
Page 4
PETROSCOPE'- INTERNAL VISUAL INSPECTION (continued)
4. The sludge in the lower extremities was excessive and accumulations were
prominent along the baffle plates and bracings for the heating coils. This
made it difficult to inspect the bottom area structurally. Further investigation
will have to- be made once this sludge is removed.
5. Multiple localized areas were observed throughout these tanks, and many
were stained "red to black" which is suggestive of possible structural damage.
Many of the localized areas exhibited the white crystalline stains common
with pitting. Further investigation should be made of these areas once proper
cleaning has been accomplished.
NOTE: A concise review log can be found in the attached tables with additional remarks
and time intervals for viewing the video.
Conclusion:
Predicated on the general characteristics of these tanks, Tanknology does not feel
that these tanks can be upgraded with cathodic protection until further investigation and
suitable repairs are made.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service and look forward to working
with you in the future. Should you have any questions or comments, please advise.
Respectfully.
#£<.
rRobert E. Hall, P.E.'
Corrosion Engineering Manager *•»••. .v,y * °- \ / .
(NACE Corrosion Specialist #1320) \to7Tt*Vf %«feS3i&£&^
%^OFCAtf°A\*
REH/GWS/cll '" "*
Attachments
-------
NO
TANKLJLOGY
============^===___
CORROSION SURVEY - FIELD DATA AND TABLES
CLIENT: Johnson County Industrial Airport
TABLE I
Sheet a I nl 2
STRUCTURE: UST FACILITY - Building #14
DATE OBTAINED: July 29. 1996
SURVEYED BY: Gilbert Schutza
I.I
->mu^ i UMC i u ^>UIL ru \ t.N I IALS
vs Cu/Cu SO,
(Millivolts) 1
LOCATION
TANK f18
TANK *I9
TANK 120
TANK 021
TANK »22
TANK *23
IANK »24
VENT
4" RISER
I = 1.86 Amps
IQCAl REFERENCE tttCTRODE
NATIVE
465
IMANWAY » 4- UISEM
VENT
4' Hlf.EM
494
551
OFF
•504
•470
(MANWAYI 4" HISEn
VtNT
4" RISER
IMANWAY) 4' HISEH
4'JB
•533
-436
•509
486
VENT
IMANWAYI 4' RISER
532
•465
VEN1
533
-509
IMANWAYI 4' RISER
VENT
4" RISEH
-547
511
571
IMANWAYI 4" HISEH
VtNl
492
501
ON
509
510
•492
525
594
570
640
IMAHWAYI 4" HISIH
569
54H
570
571
HlflHfN( E
NATIVE
15
•23
15
OFF
820
820
ON
820
820
820
820
N/A
8^0
N/A
820
820
820
-------
CORROSION SURVEY - FIELD DATA AND TABLES
CLIENT: Johnson County Industrial Airport
STRUCTURE: UST FACILITY - Building ft] 4
DATE OBTAINED: July 29. 1996
NO
• •
• •
SURVEYED BY: Gilbert Scluilza
LOCATION
TANK »25 VENT
4- HISER
IMANWAYI 4' RISEH
TANK »26 VENT
(1 = OS aui|i!.| A" HISER
IMANWAYI 4" HISEM
(NEAR VINT) 4- FILL
4' REMOTE MIL LINE
WA1ER MAIN VALVE NL-AH REMOTE FILL
WATER MAIN VALVE FRONT BUILDING 1 14
FIRE HYDRANT IN FRONT OF BilllDING «U
6' GAS LINE STREET SIDE
TANK SIDE
1 5- BIEEDtR LINE
LOCAL REFERENCE ELECTRODE
NA1IVE
520
640
•630
516
552
692
SIS
465
465
•1639
1525
OFF
•S6B
698
S45
ON
579
616
946
39
24
481
TAb^ 1
blieel * 2 ul ?
STRUCTURE TO SOIL POTENTIALS
vs Cu/Cu SO4
(Millivolts)
1 - 1.8G Amps
HI MOTE HEfERINCE EUCIHOOt
NAIIVt
820
820
820
939
939
939
939
820
820
938
906
1638
1638
I63H
(Hf
OfJ
UNI ISO GAS CATHODIC PHO1ECTION RECTIFIER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 tO' FROM UST FACILITY.
HIE G.-GASIINE is WITHIN 20- EAST OF UST FACILITY AND TRUSSES THE PRODUCT PIPING TO HIE BUDDING
WAI IH LINE. SI7F UNKNOWN. CROSSES SOUTHWEST CORNER O^ UST FACII IT Y
-------
TANKNOLOGY
CORROSION SURVEY - FIELD DATA AND TABLES
CLIENT: Johnson County Industrial Airport
STRUCTURE: UST FACILITY - Building //1 4
DATE OBTAINED: July 30,1996
SURVEYED BY: Gilbert Schutza
NO
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
LOCATION
2O' NORTHWEST OF UST FACILITY
2O* NORTHEAST OF UST FACILITY
10' EAST OF UST FACILITY
TANK #18 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK #19 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK #20 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK #21 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK #22 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK #23 NORTH END
SOUTH END
PH
6.25
6.40
6.40
6.50
5.50
6.10
660
6.75
6 20'
6.80
6.85
7.50
05'
958
1341
709
TABLE II 1
Slluul 1 ul 1
SOIL / ELECTROLYTE DATA
Resistivity: {ohm cm)
pH : (Unilless)
WENNER 4 PIN METHOD
PIN SPACING
0-7.5'
1041
1135
761
0 10'
1053
1092
862
LAYIH HESISIIVIIY
5 7.5'
1262
868
894
7.5 10
1O91
980
M27
5 10
11 /O
920
1099
-------
CORROSION SURVEY - FIELD DATA AND TABLES
CLIENT: Johnson County Industrial Airport
STRUCTURE: UST FACILITY - Building 01 4
DATE OBTAINED: July 30, 1996
SURVEYED BY: Gilbert Schutza
NO
7
8
9
LOCATION
TANK *24 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK *25 NORTH END
SOUTH END
TANK *26 NORTH END
SOUTH END
pH
6.90
6.80
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.0O
05-
PIN SPACING
0-7.5'
=========
TABLE II
C?lt....| ~> ,.f •>
SOU / ELECTROLYTE DATA
Resistivity: (ohm cm)
pH : (Unitless)
WENNER 4 PIN METHOD
0-10'
IAYERHESISTIVITY
5-7.5'
7.5-10
5 10
-------
-500
-510
-520
•I
o
Q.
=5 530
CO
6
C
+«*
CO .540
-550
-560
Stray Current Interference Testing
Johnson County Industrial Airport - Building #14
Ref Cell #1
Ref Cell #2
1624.14 16:39:14 16:54:14 17:09:14 17:24:14 17:39:14
Time Interval
17.54:14 18:0914 182414
-------
PETROSCOPE"* INTERNAL VISUAL INSPECTION
Johnson County Industrial Airport - Building #14
Inspection Performed on July 29, 1996
TIME
0:01:41
0:02:20
0:02:26
0:03:23
0:03:3:
0:04:
0:05:32
0:07:34
0:11:19
0:15:21
to
0:16:53
0:51:15
0:51:50
VIDEO TAPE REVIEW
-NKi'SiZE
'1(191 12K
2(2:) 12K
CONTENTS
COMMENTS
TAPE 1 OF 2
Diesel
Diesel
Further Investigation Necessary
Rusted and scarred area at 5 o'clock on
sideshell
Rusted scale in overhead
Heating coil system bottom of tank exhibits no
corrosion. Brackets/braces not visible due to
excessive sludge build-up.
Localized areas of corrosion exhibiting stain
surrounding pinpoint rust with dark black
centers. Suspect.
All welding appears to be downhand with good
lacing. A few areas of excessive weld slag
with slight undercut.
Excessive sludge build-up. Suspect area in
bottom.
Flux pockets in weld with undercut areas.
*
Rust stain along weld seam at undercut
suspect. Excessive weld spatter/beads not
removed.
Rusted with stain (red to black) along scarred
area at 10 o'clock. Suspect.
Localized areas appear wet on sideshell at
2 o'clock. Areas exhibit sediment build-up and
a black stain at the center. Suspect Possible
Penetration.
Further Investigation Necessary
Rust nodules in overhead.
Heavy weld slag in overhead.
-------
0-59:47
1:00:07
1:05.37
1:11:37
VIDEO TAPE REVIEW
Excessive sludge in tank bottom around area
of coils/braces.
———————____—
Scarred area with dark red/black stain and
sediment build-up at 3 o'clock. Suspect
Possible pinholes on sideshell. Dark stain and
sediment build-up at 3-5 o'clock.
No ingress of fluid observed.
Dark scar on steel (reddish brown to black)
with sediment stain in bottom of tank at
5 o'clock. Suspect.
#3 (18) 12K
Diesel
Further Investigation Necessary
1:30:23
1:31:42
Excessive rust in overhead at both ends.
Excessive film caused by heating throughout
tank on sideshell below fuel level line. This
film has excessive trash encapsulation.
Needs to be cleaned for further review.
1:35:18
to
1:37:42
Scarring from CO2 inerting process evident on
sideshell at mid-tank.
1:37:55
to
1:38:34
Wet area at seam weld on sideshell at
3-9 o'clock. Further investigation of this area
is necessary.
1:45:08
Wet streaked areas with small pinhole ingress
of fluid at 3 o'clock. Must be investigated
further.
1:50:41
Sediment build-up and stain on isolated area.
No ingress at this spot. Mid-tank
7 o'clock. 5-6 streaks. Suspect.
TAPE *2 OF 2
34 (25) 12K
Diesel
Further Investigation Necessary
-------
VIDEO TAPE REVIEW |
TIME
0:00:44
i
0:01:32
0:01:53
to
0:02:18
0:08:05
0:19:20
I 0:20:31
I 0:21:14
0:21:23
0:22:45
0:25:42
to
0:27:29
0:31:14
0:55:01
and
0:55:28
0:55:44
TANK#/SIZE
#5 (24) 12K
CONTENTS
Diesel
COMMENTS
Heavy sludge in bottom and trash
encapsulated film common to all tanks from 3-
8 o'clock.
Heavy build-up of rust and tubercles in
overhead around fill area. Suspect.
• Rusted in overhead at south end of tank.
Exhibits very large tubercle build-up.
Isolated area of wet streaks and sediment
build-up. Stain in overhead at 1 1 o'clock on
southwest side at mid-tank. Heavy trash
encapsulated in film appears to be lifting.
Condensation in several spots show no
ingress or movement.
Localized rusted area (heavy stains)
mid-tank at 7 o'clock sideshell. Suspect.
Wet streaked area on sideshell southeast at 3
o'clock.
Localized wet spot with sediment stain at
5 o'clock in bottom sludge area. Observed no
movement.
Traces lead to area of excessive salt
build-up at 3-5 o'clock. Highly suspect.
Two (2) areas of extreme salt\sediment build-
up at 9 o'clock. No movement observed.
Localized areas of salt build-up from
3-5 o'clock and at 7 o'clock. Wet streaks but
no movement or ingress observed.
Some pitting on the transfer fuel lines and fill
line.
Further Investigation Necessary
Several localized spots appear wet with
condensation beads in overhead. Highly
suspect.
Hairline cracks in film overhead.
-------
VIDEO TAPE REVIEW
TANKS/SIZE | CONTENTS
1:04:06
1:45:32
1:51:24
COMMENTS
Hairline cracks in film at 9 o'clock on Sideshell.
'^"™"^" ' ' —
Film encapsulated with trash. Heavy from
fluid level to bottom on both sides
•
Undercut along weld seam rusted. Some
stain observed. Suspect.
Localized areas of salt build-up on sideshell at
' 8 o'clock.
Slight pitting on fuel lines.
Sediment stain and salts build-up on localized
area of sideshell at 3 o'clock.
Film exhibits hairline cracks 1/8" thick at 10
o'clock.
-------
Armnr
EPA Study
Tank Inspection Report
Gardner, Kansas City
ARMOR SHIELD. INC. . RTE 2. BOX 108A . FAUIOUTH. KY 41040 . (606) 6S46265 FAX ($06) 654.4748
-------
Introduction
Tins report is in regards to the internal inspection of 5 tanks located ;it ilic Johnson Counu industrial
Airport facility in Gardner City This inspection was performed b> Armor Slucld. Inc. in cooperation
with Double Check (Annor Sliield Knnsns Cir>) ;ind US Inspcciion Sen ices
Description of Internal Inspection Methods
The inspection consisted of sandblasting all (lie tanks and performing a visual inspection in combination
with various destructive and nondestructive testing methods:
Destructive Methods:
Sandblasting
A brush blast was performed on tank numbers IS. 19. 2(>. and 24. T.ink «25 was sandblasted to a near
white metal at the request of MRI, After the sandblasting uas complete, the tanks were \ isually scanned
for corrosion holes, internal pitting, and scam splits. Internal pus were measured using a W. R. Thorpe
Co. Pit Gauge.
Hammer Testing
If severe corrosion in areas of the tank arc identified or arc suspected during the visual inspection.
additional testing such as hammer or other destructive inspection techniques may be used to identify areas
where severe corrosion may be taking place. Hammer testing is sometimes used before abrasive blasting .is
nn initial inspection tool to open up mst plugged holes and to examine other areas \ihich appear to be
corroded (Section A10.3.1 and A10.3.2 of NLPA 631 and section C.2..VJ of API 653). NLPA 63 I
requires that areas around perforations be sounded for thin areastSection A 10.3.3). API 16.* 1 also
requires hammer testing around perforations to remove thin metal and 10 obtain structurally sound edges
around perforations (section 4.3.2.6 of API 1631). The hammer test was performed ai the request of
MRI.
Nondestructive Methods:
Non destructive test methods to determine pitting were performed pursuant 4*22 of API 16.' I
Non Destructive Testing • Magnetic Flux Inspection
A magnetic flux inspection method was used to determine the metal thickness of pined areas. This
method involved scanning the surface of the tank with a magnetic llux device in combination with
ultrasonic prove • up to determine metal thickness of pitied areas.
-------
Alternative non - destructive test #1:
An alternative non-destructive test method was performed :,i she • :T,:;! 01-
Alternative non - destructive test if
Non Destructive Testing General Information and Comments:
Comment #1
^^^
, - r e
^
°ri"c °vcri" «• --^'vc,^ :,;" ; , r, "r •
» iliv; i|uii.lv.'Si and most wvuiionncal
i.'il i'wj;ulaiioii> .UK) a>nc>:ni$.
Coniment s*2
°"'y'° PCrf°rin :' '1MBnClic Illlx illil5C::ii011 If A«'»r Shield Ind bo-n
advance thai MM u,mcd ,o peribm. a lnn% nhrasonic scan. Ar.nor Shield would ofb«n
-------
prepared to perform such an inspection. If in the fuiure EPA or V1R1 -.vould like to perform such .in
inspection. Armor Shield would be willing to do such an inspection.
Comment *3
In general, 100% ultrasonic scanning and other ultrasonic testing methods arc outdated technologies mid
are not state of the an in the industry for this i\pc of inspection. Magnetic flax inspection is state of the
art and is the current industry accepted prance for performing this lype of inspection. Ultrasonic
scanning has limitations because it is more time consuming than magnetic flux.
Comment #4
Magnetic flux inspection of aboveground tanks and pipelines rarely requires sandblasting (u should be
noted that Armor Shield included sandblasting because a is required under NLPA 631 and/or API 1631).
This reduces the overall inspection time verse's other inspection methods such as ultrasonic scanning
since not as much cleaning is required. A tnnk can be magnetic flux inspected in less time than it takes
to sandblast an entire tank.
Comment «
Magnetic flux inspection will detect both internal and external pitting as well as rust plugged holes on
non sandblasted surfaces. Internal pitting and rust plugged holes can be difficult to detect prior to
sandblasting since rust plugged holes and most inicrnal'piis are filled with rust or debris prior to blasting
Ultrasonic scanning methods used still requires sandblasting 10 detect internal pitting :md rust plugged
type holes. In addition, ultrasonic scanning would have a difficulty in obtaining readings from internal
pits or rust plugged holes filled with nist. The magnetic flux can detect nisi plugged hofcs. external
pining, and internal pitting easily on non • sandblasted surfaces and surfaces which may noi otherwise be
suitable for other non-destructive inspection methods such as ultrasonic scanning.
Comment #7
There were a few minor problems encountered on the site u uli the batten and cable system of the
magnetic flux unit: however, these problems ha\e now been resolved U should also lie noted that US
Inspections has a similar magnetic flux unit thai is manufactured by the same manufacturer as the one
Armor Shield used on this inspection and both units arc based on the exact same components (batteries.
coils, etc.). US inspections hits performed numerous magnetic flux inspections ol'aboveground storage
lank bottoms with no equipment problems. Magnetic flu.\ t\pe devices arc very reliable and actually have
better reliability th.ni other technologies such as ultrasonic scanning.
Comment #S
It should be noted that additional time was spent on this site for a variety of reasons including performing
multiple inspections on the same tank, performing inspections which Armor Shield was noi prepared to
perform but which MRI luid requested, video (which required Armor Shield personnel to operate and
which stopped work at times on other tanks as the request of MRI). time consuming cleaning due to ihe
fact (hat Ihe tanks once contained number 4 fuel oil. rain (which caused water to enter the tank after
sandblasting and which was reblastcd at the request of MRI i. and other factors which nre not normally
encountered on a rypicnl site.
Armor Shield believes that under normal circumstances an i menial inspection of a typical UST sue
(which usually has 3 at u location) uiili/.mg magnetic llux would take no more than I da>. If requested
by MRI. this can be demonstrated by Armor Shield at an actual Held or test location.
Comment it')
-------
, »••»« •>» 0
a , n Mr >a"""er '"' T"a ;'rcn U1 "': ' "lk «« ««P'«oi.s ... that .here ucrc scv.nl
" r to bc i
Coininent <*10
Armor Shield can provide supporting infonn-nion rslaied to U.c abo^c conuncms ,f requested b> MRI.
Relavent Standards
Reinvent Sections of referenced standards ;irc included in ;ippcncli\ I:
NLPA 631 -Third Edition
NLPA 63 1 . Fourth Edition
API 1631- Third Edition
API 653 - First Edition
Criteria for Suitability:
idC f°r C:UhorTorincd. Tins tank uas found no.
to be suitable due to through holes.
-------
Tank Number 20
This tank was sandblasted ;ind ;i visual inspcciion and .1 partial maiiiicnc HUM inspection Tluj ;.i,-k uas
found not to be suitable due to ilirouijli holes
Tank Number 24
This tank was sandblasted, visually inspected and an ultrasonic scan of the tank was performed by
ultrasonically scanning the entire length of the tank at 1' intervals. This tank uas found not 10 be
suitable due to pining that exceeded 50% of the metal thickness.
Tank Number 25
Test #1 - Visual and Magnetic Flux
This tank was sandblasted, visually inspected, and ;i magnetic flux inspection was performed on the tank
on all accessible areas except for a portion of the tank where only 50% of the area was scanned. The
reason only a ponion of the tank surface was scanned 30% was 10 determine if pining would still be
detected with only 50% of the surface being scanned. This tank uas found not to be suitable due to
external and internal pitting that exceeded 511%
Test #2 - Visual and 3* x 3' Grid
This tank was visually inspected and an ultrasonic test based on a .V x .V »riil uas performed. Tins tank
was found not lo be suitable by this inspection due to internal pining thai exceeded .M)% of the metal
thickness and a reduction of overall wall thickness in each 3' x .V grid at the north end of ilie tank shell
Specifically, all ultrasonic thickness readings of the first .V of the tank cylinder on llie north end of the
tank indicate thickness readings of less than 85% of the tank metal thickness (based on an original shell
thickness of 260 mills). The ultrasonic readings of the north end cap also indicate thickness readings of
less than 85% of the minimum metal thickness (this is based on the construction of the south end cap
which had an original thickness of approximately 2SO mills). It should bo noted thai .V \ .V grid
measurements that were less than 85% of the metal thickness were not further subdivided at the request of
MRI.
General Summary of Results and Comments of Interest
Concerning Evaluation
Location of Internal Corrosion
All tanks had severe internal corrosion The most severe internal corrosion in all ol'ihc tanks uas located
on the bottom of the tank and was not located direct I) under the fill opening
Pitting
-------
2 °f"-
Holes
3 of the 5 tanks had holes
Visual Inspection
Corrosion at the North End
indicate that all or pan of the north end of the umk shell is less Hum 85% ofthc ineuil U.ickncss.
Corrosion Line on Tank 25
-------
Armor Shield Tank Inspection Report
Appendix I
-------
The following materials were included in Armor Shield's Appendix I:
NLPA 631. Entry, Cleaning, Interior Inspection, Repair and Lining of USTs. National
Leak Prevention Association 1991. Pages 13 and 85.
API Recommended Practice 1631. Interior Lining of Underground Storage Tanks. Third
Ed. American Petroleum Institute. April 1992. Page 7.
API Standard 653. Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction. First Ed.
January 1991 (Incorporates Supplement 1, January 1992). American Petroleum Institute.
Washington DC. pageC-5.
-------
Armor Shield Tank Inspection Report
Appendix II
-------
N
1 A-
r
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #18
w
BCDEFGH I
K
1
2
3
4
Ns
6
7
8
9
.
• 100
1
•
'
,115.
I
.090
on
110
.on
j
070
!
[
, 090
:
1
!
i
,
!
!
!
i
i
w
Internal Corrosion Readings i
Holes
-------
N
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #19
w
ABCDEFGHIJK
Ns
6
7
8
9
W
133
130
XS 081
M »i
109 ,27
OIS 100
ow •
113
:21
.110
• ."
oro
MO
045
-
i i
i — , ,
! '
06S OftO |
!
'
'
Magnetic Flux Inspection
Internal Corrosion Readings
Weld
Holes
-------
N
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #19
North End of Tank
w
Wr
1M
Magnetic Flux Inspection
-------
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #20
N
1 A-
r
BCD
w
E
E F G H
W
J K
1
2
3
4
Ns
6
7
8
9
i
100
.13* 120
.131 .119
.119
.1T9 119
100
OH
-------
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #24
N
I'A:
1
2
3
4
Ns
6
7
8
9
w
ABODE FGH I JK
OM 060
090 OM
OH
OH
.on OH
.on ou
•
on
on OTO
on
•
OH
on on
I
.060
t
W
Internal Corrosion Readings
-------
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #25
i i
W
A BCDE FGH I J K
1
2
3
4
Ns
6
7
8
9
:u
:u
120
^'•4
:o:
140
:oi
214
:n
jn
211
1U
.110
.141
14)
157
131
1M
1M
131
151
075
130
110
ON
.170
130
111
.191
.117
113
m
us
'" I
i«<
103
' 127
.1M
j
I
t
j
,43 |
1
1
I
i
j
1
i
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
!
|
W
• Magnetic Flux Inspection •
• Internal Corrosion Readings
! • 3' x 3' Grid Thickness Readings of less >
I than 85% of the original metal thickness
-------
ARMOR SHIELD
Tank #25
End Views
N
W
/
wt-
31
22!
231
209
230
NortfiEnd
{ • 3' x 3* Grid Thickness Readings of less
i than 85% of the original metal thickness!
-------
NOU-12-1996 11:59 FROM IT CINCINNATI
TO
8918167338430 P.05
SB'd
Antw
11996
1^
Stblfo*
.Tl»i later is in acuda ta ite oak tigbtoe* tai racula.
and APT
45246
k into openboo.
oqMcaoa) tag vet aflba the npat wee an usjs were
iTyotlluwa i ny quNdoBS, pleuB ftd &M to on.
SUBA,n& . m. t. in tot* , Murami, « «ww . ow «M«M MX •• «*-OM
61:69
TOTftL P.05
-------
Appendix C
Baseline Test Data
-------
Tank No. 25
Pate: 9/12/96
—=^^«a^™m^Bj«^M
Tank Location: New Century Air
_Center, Gardner, Kansas
_Data entered by;Mike Railg/.Too
ULTRASONIC INSPECTION FORM
Grirf
Grid__a2_
Subgrj
Thick.
Gric
Subgri
Thick.
^^^^^M^B
Gric
Subgri
Thicl
»«^^^^
Grii
Subgri
Thick-ft ^sn
Griri UH
Subgri
Thi
"•^^^HM
Gri
Subgr:
Thick n^Ao
Grii _
Subgr:
Thick-n ->*-i
"^IHI
Subgr id_a__
Thick n og^
SubgriH g
Thick-" ?*•>
SuboriH •?
Thick-Q *?gg
Subgy-iH fl
Thick.n TQ^
Subgr:
Grid_H2
Subgr id_5___
Subgrid_A__
~' J ?ic n ?A->
—
Grii
Subgr id_i__
**«v- _» « — _
Grii
Subgr id-S___
Thick_Q__243.
Subgr ii
Thick.
Gr-iH aq
Subgr id_5__
Thick n
Gri
Subgr id_J3__
Thick " "JgQ
G'r-irf afl
Subgr: _
Thick_IL
™-^——«—™i
Grid_H£
Subgrid_S___
Thi
Gri<
Subgr:
ThicJc_£L_2Al
•^-^™^—-^^«^
Grid_HS.
Subgr
Thick n ?go
Grid_H2L
Subgrid
Thick n -)ACJ
GricLJLL
Subgrid_S__
Thick « ->*i
Grid_A4_
Grirf ao
Subgr
Thick -n o-a-a
Griri aa
Subgri
Thick.
•••^•^v
Gric
Subgri
Gric
Subgrj
Thic)
^^•IMM
Gri
Subgr .
Thick n *?gQ
Gri
Subgr:
Thirlf n -?gQ
!ubgrid_a__
ThicI
Gri.
Subgri
Chick -» ">*i_
Grid_AS.
Subgri
Thick_Q_2SJ
Griri ai r>
Subgrj
Thick_jL
Subgr
Thick_JL_Z£2
Griri »o
Subgri
Gri
Subgr d
Thick-n •?^'i
Grid_ES.
Subgr:
Thick_o_
-------
Tank No. 25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center, Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:M. Raile, J. Hennon
ULTRASONIC INSPECTION FORM
fj-rirt R7
Subgr
1KO.
RQ
747
dri H BIO
ThiV n
Grid_C_LDl
.d
n
Grid_C3_
PR
07
Grid_C£_
Grid_CS_
Th-ir-V 0
TH-l^li-
ThinV- n
Subgr id.
Thir-V
C1
P9
n
Thi"1' 0
TVi-ir-V-
Subgrid_5—
Grid.
Subgr id_5__
949
r>9
Grid_B4_
TVi-ir-V
Subgr id.
Thick_D_
n 9-7c;
Subgr id_S__
n-7
nn
HQ
ni
Subgrld.
Thir-V n -540
i «!
Thick
Th-ir-V n T'ifi
Subgr id__5__
n 9^7
Subgr:
Thick_Q_2A£.
Th-ir-V n 947
Subgr id_S__
Thick-H
Grid.
Thick "
Thick_Q_2Ai
«fl
Subgrid.
Thirlr n ?«i4
Subgr id_5___
Thick_a
no
rsin
PI
Thiolr n
i^V H 9C7
pa
Subgrid_S__
PB
«
Subgrld_5__
SubgridL5__
Grid.
ThHr-V n
Subgrid_5__
n
Subgrld_5__
Th-ir-V n
Stabgrid_J5L—
ThSr-lr n
Grid_EX
Subgrid_S —
PI
Subgrid_S_
n 9c;-»
art A V)
PC
n 9c;n
Subgrii
Thick_Q.
-------
Tank No. 25
Date; 9/12/96
Tank Location: New Century
Air Center, Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:
ULTRASONIC INSPECTION FORM
Subgrld_MA_
Thick_IL_2JL2,
Subgr
Thick.
ThirW
Grid_EJJl___
Subgr Ld_5__
Thick_D_
Subgr Id.
Thick_fl_
GriH M_
Subgr iH Ma
Thiek_n
GriH ,T
•i A M&
Thick_Q_i£S.
tf
Subgriri Ma
Thick—Q-
Hrirl T.
M
Subgri
Thick_Q,
Subgrld_Jia_
Thirlf n ?-7ft
Grid,
Subgr:
Thick.
Subgr id-
Thick
-------
Tank No. 24
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location: New Century Air
(I Center, Gardner, Kansas
|| Data entered by:M. Raile, J. Hennon
WALL THICKNESS FORM
HriH HI
Subgrid 5
Thick. 0-246 —
Grid PyiHran f"»rid i i
Subgrid M4 Subgrid
Thick fl 267. Thirk
rtriH
Subgrid
rtriH
Subgrid
Thirlr
-------
Tank No. 18
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center, Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:M. Raile, J. Hennon
=»«»•«==«==»
WALL THICKNESS FORM
-------
Tank No. 19
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center, Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:M. Raile, J. Hennon
WALL THICKNESS FORM
r.HH m
Subgrid 5
Ttiiflr n 95rt
Orid F.ndran
Subgrid NA
Thirlr 0 7fi7
HriH
Subprid
ThiHr
Orirt
ThirV
Grirt
Thick
-------
Tank No. 20
Date: 9/12/96
—^^g
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center, Gardner, Kansas
,
Data entered by:M. Raile, J. Hennon
WALL THICKNESS FORM
• — — __
Grid 01
Subgrid 1_
Thick, n ->
-------
Tank No. 25
Date: 9/13/96
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center, Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:J. Hennon, J. Flora
PIT DEPTH FORM
External Pits
Note: Use three sections for the triplicate determinations of the 5 deepest pits.
Grid HI
Subgrid
Grid EL
Subgrid
Depth Q-LZ2.
Grid EL
Subgrid
Depth Q-L9A.
Grid-
Subgrid
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid Ed.
Subgrid 7_
Grid Ed.
Subgrid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
GridEHL—
Subgrid 5
Depth n isn
Rin
Subgrid
GridEUL
Subgrid
Depth Q_
Grid —
Subgrid
Depth _
Subgrid
Depth _
Depth n
Subgrid
Depth CL
Grid-
Subgrid
Grid r"1 ;"
Depth n ion
Subgrid
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
GridCl
Grid r/7 nut
Subgrid 3
100
Subgrid
Depth
Grid.
Subgrid
Depth
-------
Tank No. 25
Date: 9/13/96
^^^™"—^«^KS^
Tank Location: New Century Air
Center. Gardner, Kansas
Data entered by:J. Hennon, M. Raile
PIT DEPTH FORM
Internal Pits
Note: Use three ections for the triplicate determinations of the 5
Grid
Subgrid
Depth nn?<;
Subgrid
Depth nn*«
Subgrid
Depth n mo
Grid £10.
Subgrid
Depth Q_Q63_
Grid EL
Subgrid
Depth n ins
Subgrid
Depth nn««
Subgrid
Depth CLQfii.
Subgrid
Depth n in*
Subgrid
Depth 0 071
Subgrid
Depth
Subgrid
Depth nn/q
Subgrid
Depth nnan
Subgrid
Depth nnos
Subgrid
Depth n n*i
Subgrid
n inn
Grid.
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
Grid
Subgrid
Depth
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/10/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & JF
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fvtrrnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) ______
Page-l
Grid ID
'A ' Percent Area Corroded - LQ_ Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid 8(0 1
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 7fl8 Pattern?
Comments
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
___2 Percent Area Corrode
_Li- Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid « (ft
Many Shallow Pits? 7 «Q Pattern?
Comments
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
____ Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent _L
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? *.7 g.° Pattern?
Comments
Deep Pit Subgrid 7 .g(nr>Q5).
General Corrosion?
Grid ID i-l Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid __ V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? ' A7 Pattern?
Comments rr*aoy < fhmngh 7
Subgrid of Large Dent 1,1,9
Deep Pit Subgrid 7 * ffl n7),
General Corrosion?
Grid ID AS Percent Area Corroded
_____ V. Deep Pit Subgrid 8_(_L
Many Shallow Pits? -yes— Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent ____
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid 2__L
General Corrosion?
Comments
-------
Tank No. .
25
Date: 9/10/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & JF
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fvtprnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) Yes Page -2.
Grid ID A* Percent Area Corroded 25 Subgrid of Large Dent l,?,.l,i
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid R (0 11)— Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Mnst Pattern? — - General Corrosion? - _
Comments Manm/ay ftit n\it at 1- pitf^H arAa HpfinfrH hy ngrimfrter r>f rrmfrptt* manujay nit
Grid ID A7 Percent Area Corroded 15 - Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid fi (0 10)— Deep Pit Subgrid 4,1 (ft 06)
Many Shallow Pits? ^A? Pattern? General Corrosion?
Comments Ra«*fr h™* mark in 1
Grid ID A« Percent Area Corroded 25__— Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid 4,5 (fl 1?) Deep Pit Subgrid 4,^,7,8
Many Shallow Pits? v« Pattern? Sn™*'""* *nA "nfomtt— General Corrosion?
Comments ^w-sm* in S <^ ft* gtriatiftnc in InnoituMinol Mirprtinn nf tpr^V (haf tArial'))
Grid ID AQ Percent Area Corroded 15 Subgrid of Large Dent —
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? *.* Pattern? Srraitinns General Corrosion?
Comments Orair, 4,5,6 ;
Grid ID *«" Percent Area Corroded £0 — Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid , V. Deep Pit Subgrid Deep Pit Subgrid fi (f) 08)
Many Shallow Pits? AU Pattern? General Corrosion?
Comments . :—
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/10/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & JF
Internal/External
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Firtprnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Page
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 5_
Subgrid of Large Dent 2.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments P"^ challnu; up >o_Q,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _E2_
Percent Area Corroded 5.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments F»U/ chaiinu/ n rn.n ru
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid,
Deep Pit Subgrid «_
General Corrosion?
Comments Tlran; snmr pitting '" ™»»iiinfi»r»nHai «/»IH
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid.
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? •
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID.
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 2.
Subgrid of Large Dent.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? ?.*.°- Pattern?
Comments Challnu/ nitc TOrflllf K tO InnoituHinal
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
a
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/10/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & JF
Internal/External
^•M^n^Mii^
Grid ID
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2 Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent ?, ~>
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Shf Hr>u/ pitg parflDH tn u/alrl ff| flfl)
Grid ID _EZ Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1 & ~> Pattern?
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _E8 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments <"*i»aiy hnc "»»^ in o
Grid ID _£9 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments H"» marif. in i ft
GridlD_Elfl— Percent Area Corroded.
Hole Subgrid _ v. Deep Jit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep-Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large_DeoL
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
Pattern?
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/10/96
^nk Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH A JF
Internal/External
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
FYtfrnal — ^_^_ Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page
Hole Subgrid
Grid ID ni Percent Area.Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Yes Pattern?
Comments n m.n n> HA* martr in i g
Subgrid of Large Dent i/>
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _D2_
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded JLDL
Subgrid of Large Dent.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Maiiy Shallow Pits? '-* 7 Pattern?
Comments n na rrat»r i i /d hy iy?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 5.
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid .
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments (LQ2
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _D
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/10/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & JF
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Formal
Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Grid ID _D6 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid . . v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1 "> Pattern?
Comments
MM^^HMMMMM
Grid ID _D2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1,1,4,7 Pattern? rirmior ;» •;
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments PiK in 7 accr>ria»«vl
Grid ID _DS Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern? 1
Comments niwni«n»H in A
^mfmmmim^m
Grid ID
Subgrid of Large Dent
i
Deep Pit Subgrid
} General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded 2.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid 2.
Pattern? r ftnit..H;na) jn
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
••^••••M
Grid ID Biff Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep -Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1 ? «.Q Pattern?
Comments I nnpitii/
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fttrrnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
PageJL
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 40.
Subgrid of Large Dent 1
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2—
Comments v r> pit<: in i,e>4 and,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid 1 ">
General Corrosion?
overlapping- H»pthc ft 1 (7) D IS (S) 0 1A (1
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 5Q_
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rirrtttnfi»n»nfial u/flH
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid ~>
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 10.
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
i» Q Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments A V D pit in Q still has rnrrnsinn
;n hnt»nm- r.»t.«n
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded I5_
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
V. Deep Pit Subgrid ?'(n ")
Pattern? ;
Deep-Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
GridID_Bi.
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
v
. V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits? ***" Pattern?
Comments H»A mark in 8 many H nifo in
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External FYtcrnftl Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»*
Page .&.
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 25
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many ShaJlow Pits?
v. Deep Pit Subgrid 1,7,9
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid AIL
General Corrosion?
Comments firr wHd 1-7; pits hnv» inn^f..^jnai cfriatr«ns; pit n is ^ n it* (7)
Grid ID _B2 Percent Area Corroded 20 Subgrid of Large Dent _
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid 94Q_in5^_ Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments Hrr mark in
Pattern? rim iin» r.f pin in 173 General Corrosion?
.* rtr U/»IH 7.0. h»n? ^AM o: n r;*c ;« is.% ^,^ «»-r;«T
Grid ID _BS
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2OA2 Pattern?
Comments Hnri? wHri 7-Q
General Corrosion?
;«
Grid ID _B9 - Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid - V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 14£- Pattern? _
Comments r?rr U,»M o.g. »™g »,»M 7 g
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded'25
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments Tim wHd V
v. DeepJ»it Subgrid < (ft
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid o (»
A ;« a
General Corrosion?
.
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
Internal/External
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 15.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Many Pattern?
General Corrosion?
Comments Hnff mark 4,7; rirr pattern nf shall™*/
„
Grid ID _C2.
Percent Area Corroded 1SL
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments r>v«»rlappin£ in 4 7; cue.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
i(DLl25X-3(0.15)Deep Pit SubgridJUl.
General Corrosion?
U;»IH
Grid ID _C2
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? "*-* Pattern?
Hole Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent _ ___
1 (n M) Deep Pit Subgrid *_*tn nay
General Corrosion?
Comments Hnriz wrld A-f\] V n pitf«« '
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Many Shallow Pits? 4,5,7,8 Pattern?
Comments H™*» U/»M 7.Q; ™c U/^M I.Q
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded J.
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank .No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Internal/External
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted fY/M v».
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? V"? Pattern?
Comments rir U/»M 1.7- th^iiou/ n;»t 9 i A. s a q
Subgrid of Large Dent _
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
v. Deep Pit Subgrid 2(CL2)
Pattern? -
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
^^^f^^m^mmm
Grid ID __C8 Percent Area Corroded ifl
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid *.Q (n i?)
Deep Kt Subgrid ?m no>
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Pattern?
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments v r>
^^^•^•n
Grid ID _C2 Percent Area Corroded
Deep Pit Subgrid &&.
General Corrosion?
Hole Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments O
mm^m^fmmm
Grid ID Tin ., Percent Area Corroded".
Hole Subgrid v. Deepi»it Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? i-* « Q Pattern? _____
Comments £il
Deep Pit Subgrid 1
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
'25
Date: 9/11/96
nk Location:
w. Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External — FYtprnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page
Grid ID fil
Percent Area Corroded Q
Subgrid of Large Dent -
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments Rrnlrrn wclri at pnr<
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
n* rT*arV' in
Grid ID _G2_
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 5
Subgrid of Large Dent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 7,7-9 Pattern?
Comments
General Corrosion?
Grid ID m
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 20
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits? ±
V. Deep Pit Subgrid *(ft in)
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Tanlf rlpflfrtinn 8,9; pi" f>»»riapp;n£ in
Grid ID HA
Hole Subgrid,
Percent Area Corroded
_— V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits? 2AX2,8Pattem2
Comments r'f»* *"*'* ^-Q! »vfaliatinn in
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID M Percent Area Corroded 10 _ Subgrid of Large Dent v»«
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid 5(0 11) Deep Pit Subgrid Q{nno) _
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern? General Corrosion?
Comments H*v* maA 1 6* pyfnliatinn ? 7 ^-* foallnu; pift ? "^ ^ 7 fl Q
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Formal • Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Page.'?
Grid ID _Gfi
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 5
Subgrid of Large Dent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 6=9 - Pattern?
Comments Tirr wHrl 1-7- hnri? «/»M g Q.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _G2 - Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid - V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? SX_ Pattern? - ,
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid 5
General Corrosion?
Comments Pirr wHfl V9- hnriT wrlri "*-Q- v n r;tt overlapping »,;th
Grid ID _GS
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded JIL
v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
i> Deep Pit Subgrid i-
Many Shallow Pits? 1=133 Pattern?
Comments Hnri7 u/rlrl 7-Q-
General Corrosion?
v n
n
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded 2
Many Shallow Pits?
v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? _
. Subgrid of Large Dent i,
1?) Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comment* Pin* wHri ?-«: h»ri, »».M •? a. v n r;>,
Grid ID fim Percent Area Corrod.ed
Hole Subgrid - v. Deep^Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? XU=9 Pattern?
Comments _ '. _ ', _ •
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fvt»mai Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page-LL
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits? y<= Pattern? '."? ."* * .*.«,Q
Comments Tnng wHrl 7-9; rivr pirn- in 7;
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
fi,9; lifting l"g h™v»n nf£
Percent Area Corroded 2Q_
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid _
Many Shallow Pits? v*« Pattern? 1,T 4 Sfi 7 Q
Subgrid of Large Dent 7,0
Deep Pit Subgrid 4a
Comments long wHd 7-9; 4" n'r
General Corrosion?
hnimrfary hi»u/ * A « * "* a
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments hr wrlrl 1-9; wall thif*"»««
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded -SO.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent fi»™»raiiy_
- Deep Pit Subgrid 7(n
Many Shallow Pits? On'I Pattern?
General Corrosion?
Comments
marlr A..f\- Q in mantua cntont* »vfnli'atinn in
ni (con
Armour Shield
r^^i
»H in
square weio paten between Al & Hi with possible pit under patch as- per
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
Internal/External
Grid ID
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
FYfrrnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N1
Percent Area Corroded QQ
Subgrid of Large Dent nn»
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rirr U/»M 1.7
mmmmm^mmm
Grid ID
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded IS
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2^_5L_
Comments H~» m*n, ;n ft.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent One la
- Deep Pit Subgrid arn
General Corrosion?
i-Q-
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded fid.
Subgrid of Large Dent,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? L.
Comments »™» •"<"•«-• in d ft
Grid ID _H9 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern? i-* -i a
Comments "«» """-^ ;n A- />;T WP|^
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
wo-o
Grid ID JUfl — Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid - -. v. Deejx^Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Jtes — Pattern? AH «..K£r»4.
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Hio (con't): lining lug between
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fxfirnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page-li
Grid ID _HL
Percent Area Corroded 2_
Subgrid of Large Dent '
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
V. Deep Pit Subgrid _
Pattern? 1 ? •*** g.°
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Tnng wHri 7-9; risrr pipe in 7;
,fl,9; lifting i"g hmi^n nff-
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 2flL
Subgrid of Large Dent 70
Hole Subgrid ,
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments T nng wrlrl 7-Q; 4" rir "I»
V. Deep Pit Subgrid _
Pattern? i T a s * 7 o
Deep Pit Subgrid 4i
General Corrosion?
A?.
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 40.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid .
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? V"« Pattern?
Comments "~» mari,. ;» < Jf ^
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded ID.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rtr w»M i-Q- u/aii
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? '.'V*****'
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? On'l Pattern?
Comments H*v mark d-^» O in manu/ai/ pn^nt-
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
in A* US ovnnc^H in
con:
Armour Shield
square weld patch between A 1 & HI with possible pit under patch as per
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/11/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External —External Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page _LS.
Grid ID _EL
Percent Area Corroded Q_
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments Trar from hark hnr ™ ~i\ h™i™.n U/»M /g»
«
Grid ID _£2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments f^"* U"»»H ^-Q
Grid ID
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid __
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded 1
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Mary Shallow Pits? 4J
Comments
•^•••^^^•B
Grid ID
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? All Pattern? .
Subgrid of Large Dent
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/6/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Fmprnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded Q.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid
Percent Area Corroded ii.
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid ,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments AH p'^ »" i;? V(niiag»v ri
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 3D_
Subgrid of Large Dent 14-
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Xes— Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments Shallow pifs in 1.7,1 (nHag*> ™* al™E Hn» *"""" nf o
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 25-
Subgrid of Large Dent ' ,
Hole Subgrid .
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments ***•"* <
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? H«riT lm» in ±
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
anrl tnn nf d- rirr u/t»lrf
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded"
V. DeepJHt Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v*« Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments ^ <*"* ft"* fnr manujay* thallnw pitg I
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/6/96
.ank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted fV/N^ v»,
Internal/External
••^ ——
Grid ID _A£ Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent *.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Pirr
Grid ID
HoleSubgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v*« Pattern?
Comments
^••^•IM^
Grid ID __AS Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent 2.
Deep Pit Subgrid .
General Corrosion?
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern?
Comments Shall^m nite hrift/Mv. nf 1 ")
^—•—^^
Grid ID _Afl Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? v»« Pattern?
Comments Ci"* aml hnr
^•^••^•IH
Grid ID Ain Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent 4s
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent J,
Deep- Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep-Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent i
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25-
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External — Lntrmal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Page
Grid ID _BJ
Percent Area Corroded Q
Subgrid of Large Dent '
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Slirfarr rprrnginn from FIT toting in ? d S 6
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded Q
Subgrid of Large Dent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments ^i- ™*'H ^-Q- »»«• ™™ in 7 fmm TTT
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments $»"• ™"- '" 7 g
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? _ '.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID fU
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments r*iir» u/»M ^.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
/»1d Ing 8 Q' cur rnrr in 7 from TTT
Subgrid of Large Dent ,
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded^
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep. Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent .
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
rnrr
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted (Y/W
Subgrid of Large Dent
Percent Area Corroded
__ v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern? -
Comments
^^•MMH^M
Grid ID _B2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid __ . v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Subgrid of Large Dent
Grid ID _BS Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?.
Comments
•••KM^
Grid ID _B9 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid . _ V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments;
••^^•^•K-
Grid ID ftin Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid _ v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Deep-Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New. Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External —internal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page.
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep-Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rir U/»IH •>.«
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _J2S Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rSru^M 10. ITT
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? — Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments
?.a
-------
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Date: 9/12/96
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External
Abrasive Blasted (Y/W
Grid ID _C5
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Comments Nnn<»
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?.
Comments <"ir U/»IHJ
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid __
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
^•^MMKB
Grid ID _C2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments i
^^^^^•^
Grid ID _C1 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep-Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent _
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent A
Deep-Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent * » o
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
Internal/External
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
internal _ Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Grid ID _DJ
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent '
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments Evaluation is infi-rfrnrrl
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Cor: ion?
«>*f
tanHKi<.ct;ng
Grid ID _D2 - Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid - V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? - Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? 7S%
Comments f*ir U/<»IH i.q- U/»M luge in o
Grid ID _JQ3
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2&SL- Pattern? ,
Comments .WHrl lug in
General Corrosion? sny.
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? V-9 Pattern?
Comments H- *">M •»-<>: *»**
General Corrosion? ™*
Grid ID _DS Percent Area Corroded*
Hole Subgrid __ V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Miny Shallow Pits? *,7-Q Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? ^»*
rnA tpla»t<»r in
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Imprml Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
PageJL
^M
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? 4=3.
I 7 9.' u»«IH lucre -JX.a
Grid ID _DJZ
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
Comments Hnr \v»irt 7.0
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
General Corrosion?
nor \v^1H A* M/A)/-! in <
Percent Area Corroded
v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? sfi«Q Pattern?
Comments
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _D9 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2=3 Pattern? •
Comments Pir wHrt 7-8- h™ u,«u A <. wM{M i..g.
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid «tQ(n r>Q)
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded :
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments v n ™»
uiu (con't): alsoai).125 pit 0.125 dia,
from E.G., 2" from C.L.
V. Deep pit Subgrid Q(" m>
Pattern?
in I/A* frnm »n>< ^p 91/0 fr
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? A-
from end cap,
' pit 3/8 dia, 11"
-------
Tank No,
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External infernal
Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page_a.
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments Pnrtinn nf 1 hlnrlr<»H
V. Deep Pit Subgrid *(n i)
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid
n
n
General Corrosion?
[ft ft«^: g-
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 5 Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? sn%
Comments rir U/»IH i .7
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid *(ft ft*)
General Corrosion?
Grid ID —E2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2J Pattern?
Comments \
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep-Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _Efi Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? _ Pattern?
Comments r'tr ™*M 1-7> h™- «"«M «" 1
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? i-
i (con't): V D pit 1/8" wide x 1/4" long, 11" from EC,
5 1/2" from EC, 15" from CL; also D pit in 5 (0.07)
17 1/2" from CL; 2 D pits 3/16" dia,
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Internal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»c
Page-HI
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent fi.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments EW U/»IH 7.g. »
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid 5(n n7)
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid.
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rir u/»H
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid ?(Q
General Corrosion? ^r>%
Grid ID,
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid ?-*(n.08)
General Corrosion? ^n%
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
— V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? < *> Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion? ^*
Comments rir U»»M
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? *-•*.< Pattern?
Comments n r"te ftv<*rl!Trin£
General Corrosion? ^*
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
Internal/External
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Page-il
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rvnf x,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
-•"7
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rir U/..IH I.Q
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments None.
^••MM^^^H
Grid ID,
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments rir U/»M
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? •
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _ES Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
Page
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External —Internal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Grid ID _£fi_— Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid _ _ Deep Pit Subgrid
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits? _ Pattern?
Comments Major rirpf ™> ™>*w 1-7
Grid ID _EZ - Percent Area Corroded
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent 2
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Pent
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments None.
Grid ID _E9 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits?,
Comments r?r ™-™ *>-»
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent.
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID inn Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid v. Deep,Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent.
Deep Pit Subgrid —
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Tnrnnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N) v»«
Page JJ.
GridlD
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent,
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern?
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _GS Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid _ v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments Mor U/»M 7.0
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep .Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments Tir wrlrl 1-9;
TIT ™rr ;»
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2 Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments firwHri 1-7, TIT rnrr in fr r*«'» p™- HkLbead
-------
Tank No.
25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External Tnfrrnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N1 v»T
Grid ID
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1 Pattern?
Comments
•^•MMi^
Grid ID
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 3 Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _J33 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid __ . v. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments
i^KK^BMB
Grid ID _G2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid _ y. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? . Pattern? ___
Grid ID _GI Percent Area Corroded"
••^.
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments TIT
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid —
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank No.
' 25
Date: 9/12/96
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External fnrprnal Abrasive Blasted (Y/N)
Paee-LS.
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? *.Q Pattern?
Comments Hnr mark »n *; hnr u/Hrf 7.0- TTT ™rr uo- pitc in
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _H2
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded H(niiag»)
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 2=3_ Pattern? -
Subgrid of Large Dent __
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Comments Hnr wHrl 4-fi; rir'wrlrl
Grid ID _H3
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Q.7-9 Pattern?
Comments
Subgrid of Large Dent i<
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _H4 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid ;— V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? 1 Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent 2.
Deep.Pit Subgrid __
General Corrosion?
Comments rir
Grid ID
Percent Area Corroded 2Q_
Subgrid of Large Dent
Hole Subgrid __ V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? V^-Q Pattern?
Comments Manu/ay cutout in Q* pitc in tillop^
Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
-------
Tank Location:
New Century Air Center
Data entered by: JH & MR
TANK VISUAL INSPECTION FORM
Internal/External
Abrasive Blasted (Y/W v»«
Hole Subgrid
Percent Area Corroded WQillagr) Subgrid of Large Dent T
V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Pattern? '
Many Shallow Pits?
Comments
•••I^^MB
Grid ID _H2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? All Pattern?
Comments Part nf /wmc^n jc in nHap» ar»a- pir
Deep Pit Subgrid _
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent £.
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Grid ID _Hfi Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid _ _ V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? , Pattern?
Comments
«i^^M«_i
Grid ID _H2 Percent Area Corroded
Hole Subgrid V. Deep Pit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Comments,
^•^^•^^
GridlD-JUiL. Percent Area Corroded _
Hole Subgrid. _ V. DeejKPit Subgrid
Many Shallow Pits? Pattern?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
'General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent
Deep Pit Subgrid
General Corrosion?
Subgrid of Large Dent 2.
Deep Pit Subgrid.
General Corrosion?
------- |