NFESC Contract N62473-07-D-4006, Delivery Order 0007 

RED HILL REPAIR TANKS 

OPTIONS STUDY 

FISC Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 

Final Report 

September 2008 

Prepared For: 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Engineering Service Center 

1100 23rd Avenue, Code 232 

Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370 

Prepared By: 

Stephen J. DiGregorio, P.E. 

Chief Structural Engineer, API 653 Certificate No. 1113 

Ray Griffith, P.E. 

Structural Engineer/Planner/Cost Estimator 

Melvin Yokota, P.E. 

Electrical Engineer 

Craig Meier 

Corrosion Specialist (Cathodic Protection and Coatings) 

Submitted By: 

Kevin S Murphy, P.E. 

Principal 

2525 Gambell Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, AK 99503 

EEI Project 08-4942 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Abstract 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

ABSTRACT 

Enterprise Engineering, Inc. has completed a comprehensive engineering evaluation resulting in 

the programming of a MILCON project to repair the FISC Pearl Harbor Red Hill tanks. The 

MILCON project will provide a long term life extension renewal of the tanks (40 year expected 

tank life), secondary containment, and the capability to detect and locate leaks. Various repair 

alternatives were evaluated and are discussed in this report. This study also identified new tank 

repair technologies and evaluated their applicability to the Red Hill tanks. 

Two repair alternatives were identified as viable options that meet the criteria in the Project 

Scope of Work and the criteria discussed at the Kick-Off Meeting. Conceptual designs were 

developed and cost estimates prepared for each of the two alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – Composite Tank: The Composite Tank consists of inspecting and repairing 

the existing steel liner in each tank, which would become the secondary containment system 

and then constructing a new liner with a 3 inch wide interstitial space between the new liner 

and the existing liner. The interstitial space would be filled with grout and have a leak 

detection system. The Program Amount for this concept is per tank. 

Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank: The Tank Within A Tank concept consists of 

inspecting and repairing the existing steel liner in each tank which would become the 

secondary containment system, and constructing a new tank inside the existing tanks with a 5 

feet wide annular space between the new tank and existing tank shell that is accessible for 

inspection and visual leak detection. The Program Amount for this concept is

per tank. 

Due to the very unusual nature of the Red Hill complex EEI recommends authorization of a 

single tank repair project to start the program as a means of proving up the concepts and 

confirming overall cost validity. Following the first tank repair, execution of repair of three 

tanks at a time has significant economic benefit. Such an approach can take into account lessons 

learned from the first tank repair. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report TOC Page 1 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................ 1

General........................................................................................................................ 1

Recommendations and Summary of Concepts ........................................................... 2

Opinion of Probable Project Cost ................................................................................ 3

Execution Strategy ...................................................................................................... 4

Coordination with Other Projects and Activities........................................................... 5

Decisions/Actions Made .............................................................................................. 6

2.0 PROJECT SCOPE AND HISTORY............................................................. 7

Project Scope and Goals............................................................................................. 7

History ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 PREVIOUS TANK 19 REPAIR STUDY ......................................................10

Summary of 1998 Study ............................................................................................ 10

Applicability of 1998 Study to Current Study.............................................................. 10

4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REPAIR OPTION PARAMETERS ...............................11

Tank Capacity............................................................................................................ 11

Tank Life Expectancy ................................................................................................ 11

Secondary Containment and Leak Detection ............................................................ 11

Grouping of Tanks for Simultaneous Construction .................................................... 11

5.0 LONG TERM LIFE EXTENSION RENEWAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED13

Alternative 1 - Composite Tank ................................................................................. 13

Composite Tank Permutations .................................................................................. 13

Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank ............................................................................ 14

Other Technologies ................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions............................................................................................................... 16

6.0 ALTERNATIVE 1 - COMPOSITE TANK DETAILED DISCUSSION...............17

General Discussion ................................................................................................... 17

Materials.................................................................................................................... 18

Secondary Containment ............................................................................................ 18

Interstitial Space ........................................................................................................ 20

Leak Detection........................................................................................................... 21

Tank Venting ............................................................................................................. 22

Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................................................... 22

Attainment of Goals ................................................................................................... 23

Construction .............................................................................................................. 23

Life Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................... 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report TOC Page 2 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

7.0 ALTERNATIVE 2 – TANK WITHIN A TANK DETAIL DISCUSSION .............27

General Discussion ................................................................................................... 27

New Tank .................................................................................................................. 27

Materials.................................................................................................................... 29

Secondary Containment ............................................................................................ 29

Leak Detection........................................................................................................... 29

Tank Venting ............................................................................................................. 30

Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................................................... 30

Tank Fill Height.......................................................................................................... 31

Attainment of Goals ................................................................................................... 31

Construction .............................................................................................................. 32

Life Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................... 33

8.0 COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE TANK VS. TANK WITHIN A TANK ...........35

9.0 REPAIRS COMMON TO BOTH REPAIR ALTERNATIVES ..........................37

Tank Cleaning ........................................................................................................... 37

Existing Steel Liner Inspection and Repair ................................................................ 37

Coating Removal ....................................................................................................... 37

Center Tower and Walkway....................................................................................... 37

Fuel Piping Modifications........................................................................................... 38

Sample lines.............................................................................................................. 38

Level Alarms.............................................................................................................. 38

10.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ITEMS ......................................................39

Tank Access.............................................................................................................. 39

Contractor Laydown/Storage Area ............................................................................ 39

Ventilation.................................................................................................................. 40

Compressed Air......................................................................................................... 40

Electrical Power......................................................................................................... 40

Construction Duration................................................................................................ 41

11.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST ...........................................42

Introduction................................................................................................................ 42

Programmed Cost ..................................................................................................... 42

Construction Cost (Contingency and Escalation) ...................................................... 42

Cost Estimating Assumptions.................................................................................... 42

Steel Prices and Market Volatility .............................................................................. 44

12.0 OTHER TANK-RELATED PROJECTS ...................................................45

Leak Detection........................................................................................................... 45

Electrical Classification Study.................................................................................... 45

Ventilation Study........................................................................................................ 45

13.0 PROJECT TEAM..................................................................................46
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report TOC Page 3 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Tank Repair Concept: Composite Tank .............................................Tab A 

Appendix B – Tank Repair Concept: Tank Within A Tank........................................Tab B 

Appendix C – Tank Lining Information .....................................................................Tab C 

Appendix D – Other Technology ..............................................................................Tab D 

Appendix E – Response to Comments.....................................................................Tab E 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 1 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

RED HILL TANKS REPAIR OPTIONS STUDY 

FISC PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

General 

Enterprise Engineering Inc. (EEI), under contract to NFESC, was retained to develop concept 

alternatives and associated planning level cost estimates to repair the 20 underground tanks at 

FISC Pearl Harbor Red Hill. This document is the Final Submission and presents EEI’s 

recommendations based on the criteria presented in the NFESC Statement of Work and 

discussions at the kick-off meeting. 

The existing Red Hill tanks were constructed during August 1940 to September 1943. Tanks 1 

to 4 are 

Current and previous inspections have found 

defects in the tank liner (weld quality and corrosion) that required repair before returning the 

tanks to service. There is currently a program to clean, inspect and repair all of the tanks with 

the goal of returning the tanks to service for another 20-year service interval. The current 

approach consists of performing an out-of service inspection of the tank interior (including 

scanning the steel liner plates and welds for corrosion and other defects) and repairing defects 

found during the inspection. Under this approach select defects such as holes and cracks and 

only those areas having a remaining thickness below a predetermined minimum thickness are 

repaired (0.170”minimum thickness was used on Tanks 2 and 20). The repair costs are highly 

variable depending on the condition of the tank and the defects found. Each tank reportedly 

costs approximately (cost to the government including contractor mark-ups) for just 

the cleaning and inspection. 

The Government has authorized this study to develop tank repair concepts that will provide a 

long term life extension renewal of the Red Hill tanks. The Government has requested that the 

repair alternatives meet the following primary objectives: 

• Provide a tank life expectancy of 40 years, with reliable inspection intervals of 20 years. 

• Minimize risk of a fuel leak. 

• Contain leaks that may potentially occur. 

• Have the capability to detect and locate potential leaks and repair leaks. 

EEI performed a similar study in 1998 (Repair Tank 19 Red Hill FISC Pearl Harbor, HI DESC 

Project PRL 98-9) to develop possible repair options for Tank 19. The 1998 study was 

performed due to tank integrity issues, environmental concerns, lack of leak detection capability, 

and lack of secondary containment. This study is discussed further later in this document. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 2 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Recommendations and Summary of Concepts 

To meet the Government’s objectives EEI recommends the following two concepts for 

consideration. 

Alternative 1 - Composite Tank 

The Composite Tank alternative consists of providing a new 1/4” thick carbon steel liner on the 

lower dome and barrel of the existing tank. The new steel liner is separated from the existing 

steel liner by steel angles or tees welded to the existing steel liner to create an interstitial space 

filled with grout or concrete. The Composite Tank alternative, in essence, is a double wall tank. 

Secondary containment is provided by the existing steel liner and a spray applied urethane lining. 

The interstitial space provides a means for leak detection. Even though Tanks 5 to 20 are taller 

than Tanks 1 to 4, all tanks will be repaired to the same height (approximately two feet below the 

expansion joint at the top of the barrel); thus nominal storage capacity of the Composite Tank is 

the same for all tanks. The Composite Tank concept is presented on sketches SK-1.0 to SK-1.3. 

Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank 

This alternative involves constructing a new tank inside the existing tank. The new tank would 

be and have dome bottom and a fixed roof with a vent pipe connected to the 

existing tank vent system. The height of the new tank will be the same for all 20 tanks. The top 

of the new tank will be approximately 2 feet below the expansion joint of the upper dome (below 

the manhole and walkway of the existing tank). The smaller diameter of the new tank creates a 

around the tank that allows inspection of the exterior of the tank for 

weeps and leaks. The annular space also allows inspection of the steel liner of the existing tank. 

Containment of leaks is provided by the steel liner of the existing tank. This concept is presented 

on sketches SK-2.0 to SK-2.3. The Tank Within A Tank concept with a dome bottom provides a 

A variation of a Tank Within A Tank alternative was considered which consists of filling a 

portion of the lower dome of the existing tank and constructing a new tank with a cone down 

bottom. This concept involves demolishing the top 35 feet of the lower dome including the

of the dome, excavating the rock behind the dome wall, extending 

the barrel of the existing tank down to this new elevation, and filling in the remaining portion of 

the lower dome. This concept is presented on sketches SK-3.0 to SK-3.2. As this concept 

involves major demolition work and modifications affecting structure of the existing tank, it is 

not as viable as the new tank with a dome bottom concept, and thus was not further developed. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 3 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Opinion of Probable Project Cost 

EEI’s opinion of probable project construction cost for the two alternatives is presented in the 

following table. 

Opinion of Probable Project Cost 

Alternative Contractor Cost 

(per tank) 

Programmed Cost 

(per tank) 

Total Programmed 

Cost 

(20 tanks) 

Alternative 1: 

Composite Tank 

Alternative 2: Tank 

Within A Tank 

The cost for the two alternatives is higher than those presented in the Pre-final report and is 

attributed to the following: 

• Revised cost to clean and inspect the existing tanks based on information provided by the 

government on recent projects to clean, inspect, and repair the Red Hill tanks. 

• Cost to remove existing tank coatings. EEI was directed to assume existing tank coatings 

contain lead. 

• Revised field painting costs. 

• Revised cost of coating inspection to include inspection by an SSPC QP-5 certified 

coating inspector. 

• Tank elements that were added to the repair alternatives such as a fixed roof and 

walkways around the new tank in Tank Within A Tank alternative. 

• Increased project duration. 

The estimates for these two alternatives are based on the following key cost factors: 

1. The Programmed Cost includes Contractor Cost plus construction contingency,

SIOH and Post Construction Award Services. 

2. The cost associated with the design of this MILCON project is not included in the 

programmed cost. 

3. The project pricing is based on 2008 Dollars and does not include escalation. This is 

discussed further later in the document. 

4. Steel pricing is based on the July 2008 commodity price for steel; the estimate uses per 

lb for A36 steel and per lb for high strength steel FOB the mill. The project will 

require between Steel prices are expected to continue to increase 

and remain at a higher level in the long term. The cost of steel should be monitored and the 

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 4 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Program Amount for this project adjusted accordingly prior to each annual review for 

MILCON funding. 

5. The cost includes shipping of all materials from the mainland to Hawaii. 

6. Fuel price is based on 2008 costs. 

7. The tanks will be repaired in groups of three tanks and may not be adjacent to each other. 

8. Tank cleaning and inspection of the existing internal steel liner prior to construction. 

9. Costs to remove existing coatings are based on existing coatings containing lead. 

10. The Composite Tank will be 100% internally coated in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 

“Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. 

11. The Tank Within A Tank will be 100% internally coated in accordance with UFGS 09 97 

13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. 

The exterior of the Tank Within A Tank will be 100% coated in accordance with UFGS 09 

97 13.27 “Exterior Coating of Steel Structures”. Dehumidification will be used for the 

coating work. Coating inspection will be performed by an SSPC QP-5 certified inspector. 

12. The Composite Tank and Tank Within A Tank will not be hydrotested. Hydrotesting is 

discussed later in this document in the detailed discussion on each alternative. 

13. The contractor will be required to provide temporary electrical power during construction. 

14. Construction contracting will be via full and open bid process. 

If only one tank is initially authorized, as recommended, the cost for the first tank will be higher 

than the cost per tank if tanks are repaired in groups of three tanks. However the lessons learned 

during the first tank will likely reduce overall costs as they are applied to the subsequent tanks. 

Our opinion of probable project construction cost for the Tank Within A Tank alternative if only 

one tank is initially authorized is presented below: 

Contractor Cost: (compared to per tank if tanks are 

repaired in groups of three tanks) 

Programmed Cost: (compared to per tank if tanks are 

repaired in groups of three tanks) 

The cost for the Composite Tank alternative if only one tank is authorized has not been estimated 

but would be comparable to the Tank Within A Tank alternative. 

Execution Strategy 

EEI recommends authorization of a single tank repair project to start the program, as a means of 

proving up the concepts and confirming overall cost validity. Following the first tank repair, the 

lessons learned from this tank can be incorporated into the design and construction of the 

subsequent tanks. After the first tank is complete, performing the work on three tanks 

concurrently has significant economic benefits. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 5 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

We recommend the following project execution strategy: 

• Government selection of repair alternative. 

• Government authorization of an engineering project to refine the selected alternative and 

refine/update the project cost estimate, including preparation of a draft DD 1391 for 

review. 

• Preparation of a final DD 1391 to repair all 20 tanks. 

• Government authorization of a project to repair a single tank. 

• Government authorization of a program to repair three tanks at a time. 

Coordination with Other Projects and Activities 

Selection of tanks for repair by either the Composite Tank alternative or Tank Within A Tank 

alternative should be coordinated with the current program to clean, inspect and repair all of the 

tanks. 

Alternative 1 - Composite Tank 

As the Composite Tank alternative relies on the integrity of the existing steel liner for secondary 

containment, the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the existing tank need to 

be 100% scanned for thinning due to corrosion and weld defects and repaired. If a tank was 

inspected within the past 5 years that included scanning of the steel liner and welds and repair of 

thin areas and weld defects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If the steel 

liner has never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower 

dome of the existing tank must be included in Composite Tank alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank 

Similarly, the Tank Within A Tank alternative with a dome bottom relies on the integrity of the 

steel liner in the lower dome and barrel of the existing tank for secondary containment. If a tank 

was inspected within the past 5 years that included scanning of the steel liner and welds and 

repair of thin areas and weld defects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If 

the steel liner has never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of the lower 

dome and barrel of the existing tank must be included in this alternative. 

The logistics of hydrotesting the new Tank Within A Tank are complex. Given the unique 

conditions of hydrotesting the new tanks at Red Hill, EEI has assessed the risks of not 

hydrotesting the tank and what measures could be done if a hydrotest is not performed. Our 

assessment is that the hydrotest can be waived; however, additional non-destructive testing of the 

shell is recommended. Another recommendation is to perform an initial fill test with fuel and 

then operate the tank at a lower fill height. Repairing tanks in groups of three tanks and 

performing an initial fill test with fuel will require using fuel from a fourth tank to perform the 

initial fill test. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 6 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Decisions/Actions Made 

Based on government review comments on the Pre-final report and discussions during the 

project review meeting, EEI has made the following revisions to the recommended alternatives 

and opinions of project cost presented in this final report: 

1. Revised the cost to clean and inspect the existing tanks. 

2. EEI was directed to assume existing tank coatings contain lead. Coating removal cost was 

revised and is now based on existing tank coatings containing lead. 

3. Coating inspection by a NACE coating inspector was changed to SSPC QP-5 certified 

inspector. 

4. Revised the leak detection piping of the Composite Tank alternative so that the piping is 

within the interstitial space, not inside the tank. 

5. Provided discussion that hydrostatic testing of the structural integrity the Composite Tank 

alternative is not necessary as the new steel liner is a non-structural element supported by 

grout in the interstitial space and the existing tank and that a hydrotest would not provide a 

reliable leak test as leak detection time is not immediate. 

6. Revised the Tank Within a Tank alternative to include a fixed roof and a vent pipe connected 

to the existing tank vent in the upper dome so that personnel could access the annular space 

around the tank and added walkways around the exterior of the new tank at three levels. 

7. Assessed the risks of not performing a hydrostatic test of the new tank in the Tank Within A 

Tank alternative and recommended that the new tank be constructed without performing a 

hydrotest. Revised the project cost to delete hydrotesting and added additional nondestructive examination of the tank shell. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 7 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

2.0 PROJECT SCOPE AND HISTORY 

Project Scope and Goals 

The overall scope and goals of this study as stated in the NFESC Statement of Work include: 

• Maintain a total usable capacity in Red Hill of of product storage. 

(This criteria was discussed at the kick-off meeting and is under Government review.) 

• Tank life expectancy of 40 years. 

• Minimize risk of a fuel leak. 

• Contain leaks that may potentially occur. 

• Capability to detect and locate potential leaks and repair leaks. 

• Provide suggested grouping for simultaneous tank work with construction sequencing of 

each group. 

• Prepare an estimated timeline indicating major milestones and phases of construction. 

• Prepare a written life maintenance plan. 

• Develop constructible repair options utilizing the most current available technologies. 

• Prepare project cost estimates. 

The project scope was further refined at the kick-off meeting held on June 18, 2008 at FISC 

Pearl Harbor. During the meeting FISC personnel reiterated the goal that the repair should be 

based on a 40 year life extension of the tanks. Additionally, as the Government is currently 

evaluating fuel storage needs at FISC Pearl Harbor Red Hill complex and future storage capacity 

requirements are not known and may change, direction was given to not attempt to develop 

concept repair alternatives based on meeting a target storage capacity. 

History 

The FISC Pearl Harbor Red Hill complex was constructed during August 1940 to September 

1943 and consists of twenty underground vertical cylindrical reinforced concrete fuel storage 

tanks (Tanks 1 - 20) with a dome top and bottom and internal steel liner, fuel piping, mechanical 

and ventilation systems, electrical systems,

and associated infrastructure. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 8 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

The 

primary structure of the tanks consists of an upper dome, barrel, and lower dome. The upper 

dome was constructed first. Rock was excavated to create a cavity for the upper dome. Steel 

framing and liner plates were then installed, followed by filling the cavity with reinforced 

concrete, After the upper dome was constructed the barrel and lower dome were 

excavated and the rock face was sealed with gunite. The wall of the barrel was constructed of 

reinforced concrete and 

lined with After the barrel was constructed, it was pre-stressed by 

injecting grout between the reinforced concrete and lava rock. The lower dome was constructed 

of reinforced concrete and lined with . The floor of the lower dome is 

flat and consists of

Each tank has a steel framed tower in the center of the tank extending from the floor of the lower 

dome to the top of the upper dome and a walkway from the manhole at the Upper Tunnel level to 

the tower. The center tower was used during original construction to construct the tanks. 

Eighteen tanks are currently in service and presently used to store JP-5, JP-8 and F-76 fuel as 

follows: 

• Tanks 2 to 6: JP-8 

• Tanks 7 to 12: JP-5 

• Tanks 13 to 16: F-76 

• Tanks 17, 18, 20: JP-5 

Tank 1 and Tank 19 are considered permanently out of service. Tank 19 was taken out of 

service circa 1986 for gauging repairs. The tank was not placed back in service as “weeping” 

was observed from some of the channel doublers in the upper dome. 

Tank repairs and modifications have been provided over the years that include: 

• Removal of leak detection piping inside some of the tanks. 

• Repair of defective welds in the upper dome. Some tanks were repaired by welding 

channels over defective welds. Other tanks were repaired by welding batten plates over 

defective welds. And some tanks were repaired by repairing only the defective welds. 

• Repair of defective welds in the barrel and lower dome. 

• Repair of pitting, holes, and thin areas in the steel liner. 

• Removal of grout tube couplings in the steel liner. The couplings were removed during 

original construction and the openings in the liner repaired with welded patch plates. 

• Repairs to the center tower. 

• Removal of steam heating coils. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 9 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• Full coating of the tanks (including aluminum metalizing of the floors) circa late 1960s, 

early 1970s, using the earliest versions of the NRL polyurethane coating systems. 

Current and previous inspections have found corroded areas in the steel liner requiring repair 

such as pitting, holes, plate thinning, and defective welds (intermittent cracks, lack of fusion, 

porosity, and slag inclusions). There is currently a program to clean, inspect and repair all of the 

tanks with goal of retuning the tanks to service for another 20-year cycle. The current round of 

inspections (Tanks 2, 6, 15, 16 and 20) was the first time a tank ever received 100% scanning of 

the steel liner plates and welds. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 10 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

3.0 PREVIOUS TANK 19 REPAIR STUDY 

Summary of 1998 Study 

EEI completed a Functional Analysis Concept Design (FACD) study in 1998, Repair Tank 19, 

Red Hill, FISC Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, DESC Project PRL 98-9 Contract N624724-98-C-0002 to 

consider possible repair options for Tank 19. Several concepts were brainstormed by the team. 

The 1998 study selected following concepts for cost estimating: 

• Repair and Recoat Existing Steel Liner 

• Internal Bladder Type Liner 

• Composite Tank 

A free standing tank inside the existing tank concept was also considered but was not further 

evaluated or developed as the cost of the tank alone was believed to be four times the cost of the 

Composite Tank concept. The 1998 study recommended the following: 

1. If the life of the Red Hill facility is less than 5 years, the repair and recoat option is a viable 

alternative but does not provide secondary containment or leak detection. 

2. If the life of the facility is between 5 and 15 to 20 years, the internal bladder offers a cost 

effective solution, even if the bladder is replaced in 10 years. 

3. If the life of the facility is expected to be at least 15 years, the Composite Tank option offers 

long term life extension, secondary containment, and capability to detect and locate leaks. 

Applicability of 1998 Study to Current Study 

The repair and recoating approach does not improve the service interval of the tanks beyond 20 

years at which point another cycle of clean, inspect, and repair is required, nor does it meet the 

stated goals of the Statement of Work to provide containment of leaks and leak detection. 

The internal bladder type liner alternative is not a viable alternative as it was estimated that the 

bladder liner would need replacement in 10 years and thus does not meet the goal of a 40-year 

life extension. 

The Composite Tank alternative is a viable option for a long term life extension renewal of the 

Red Hill tanks and is further developed in this Repair Options Study report. 

The Tank Within A Tank alternative also has merit in that it provides a long term life extension, 

secondary containment, and the capability to detect and locate leaks. Thus, we have also chosen 

to further develop this alternative in this Repair Options Study report. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 11 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REPAIR OPTION PARAMETERS 

A project kick-off meeting was held on June 18, 2008 at FISC Pearl Harbor to discuss project 

scope and goals, parameters for tank repair options including fuel storage requirements, 

operational considerations, environmental items, leak detection and tank availability. The 

following parameters were discussed during the project kick-off meeting. These parameters 

have been considered in developing concept repair alternatives for this study. 

Tank Capacity 

Tanks 1 to 4 are presently filled to an average useable capacity of each at an 

approximate

Per discussions during 

the project kick-off meeting, the Government is currently evaluating fuel storage needs for Red 

Hill. At this time, future storage capacity requirements are not known and may change. 

Comments were made that the overall storage capacity requirements could decrease or increase 

and that storage capacity requirements for specific fuels (JP-5, JP-8, and F-76) could also 

change. Direction was given during the project kick-off meeting not to attempt to develop 

concept repair alternatives based on meeting a target storage capacity. 

Tank Life Expectancy 

One of the goals of this study, as stated in the Statement of Work, is to develop repair 

alternatives that provide a tank life expectancy of 40 years. The repair alternatives presented in 

this study are based on providing a life expectancy of 40 years or more with normal and usual 

inspection and maintenance. 

Secondary Containment and Leak Detection 

In considering secondary containment and leak detection, it is important to note that tanks 

generally weep before leaking. It is not intended that a secondary containment system contain 

weeps or leaks indefinitely. Once a leak is detected, it is expected that action will be taken to 

stop the leak (such as lowering the product level or emptying the tank), providing repairs, and 

cleaning up the fuel in the secondary containment system. Visual detection of a leak is the 

fastest way to detect leaks. Detection by electronic leak detection systems may have a 

significant time delay before a leak is detected. 

Thus, in developing repair concepts, we have considered alternatives and new technologies that 

provide containment of leaks that may potentially occur, including leak detection and location of 

leaks. These alternatives and technologies are discussed later in this report. 

Grouping of Tanks for Simultaneous Construction 

The Statement of Work states to provide suggested grouping of tanks for simultaneous work with 

construction sequencing of each group. Currently five tanks are used for JP-8 service (Tanks 2 

to 6), four tank are used for F-76 service (Tanks 13 to 16), and 9 tanks are used for JP-5 service 

(Tanks 7 to 12 and Tanks 17, 18, and 20). Tanks 1 and 19 are considered out of service. Our 

study assumes all 20 twenty tanks will be repaired. 

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 12 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

During the project kick-off meeting, EEI was informed that 3 to 4 tanks could be made available 

at a time for tank repairs. The Government may initially make tanks available based on type of 

fuel service (i.e. one JP-5 tank, one JP-8 Tank, and one F-76 tank); later groups may have two or 

more tanks of the same product service. 

It was decided that this study would consider tanks being available in groups of three and that 

specific tanks in each group need not be determined. Additionally, the estimate of project costs 

would be based on repairing three tanks at a time. In preparing the cost estimates, we have 

assumed that the three tanks would be different product service and thus not adjacent to each 

other. This scenario considers the additional cost of working on tanks that are at opposite ends 

of the Upper Tunnel, which requires work to be staged at Adit 4 and Adit 5. A cost reduction is 

possible if two tanks are adjacent to each other. 

As discussed previously, EEI is recommending repair of only one tank at first as a test case to 

refine the approach from both a design and construction perspective. While this approach may 

increase the cost of the first tank, EEI feels that there is the potential for later benefits in that 

pricing and design concepts can be confirmed and lessons learned can be applied to the followup groups of tanks. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 13 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

5.0 LONG TERM LIFE EXTENSION RENEWAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The following alternatives were evaluated for this study. 

• Composite Tank 

• Permutations of the Composite Tank 

• Tank Within A Tank 

• Other New Technology 

Alternative 1 - Composite Tank 

The Composite Tank alternative consists of providing a new steel liner inside the existing tank. 

The new steel liner would extend up to and be sealed approximately 2 feet below the expansion 

joint of the upper dome (below the manhole and walkway of the existing tank). The new steel 

liner is supported and separated from the existing steel liner by structural steel angles or tees 

welded to the existing steel liner to create an interstitial space for leak detection. To resist fluid 

pressure from tank contents, the interstitial space will be filled with grout or self-leveling 

concrete. Secondary containment is provided by the existing steel liner. As the existing steel 

liner will continue to corrode over time, the interior surface will be coated with a spray applied 

urethane lining to provide a release prevention barrier. 

EEI considers the Composite Tank alternative a viable option and has prepared a project cost 

estimate. This alternative is further discussed in the sections that follow. 

Composite Tank Permutations 

The following permutations of the Composite Tank alternative were considered but later 

dismissed as not being viable: 

New Steel Liner Plates Welded to Existing Steel Liner 

This permutation of a Composite Tank eliminates the structural steel angles (or tees) and 

grout/concrete supporting the new liner. The existing steel liner will be inspected and repaired to 

provide secondary containment. The new liner plates will be welded directly to and supported 

by the existing steel liner. The “interstitial space” (i.e. interface) between the new liner and 

existing liner provides means for leak detection. Leaks in the new liner will be contained by the 

existing liner and detected by leak detection piping. This alternative was dismissed because: 

1. Placing new steel against old steel sets up a galvanic corrosion mechanism between the new 

steel and existing steel causing the new steel to act as an anode and corrode. 

2. The existing steel liner is subject to external corrosion and will continue to corrode. Over 

time corrosion holes will develop resulting in loss of secondary containment. Current repairs 

are based on a remaining thickness of 0.100 inches after 20 years and repairing only corroded 

areas that have a remaining metal thickness below a predetermined threshold thickness. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 14 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

3. Even if the existing steel liner is coated with a urethane lining to provide a release prevention 

barrier, the urethane lining would be damaged by welding the new steel liner plates to the 

existing steel liner. 

New Steel Liner Plates with Metal Mesh 

In this permutation metal mesh is provided between the new liner plates and existing steel liner. 

The metal mesh creates a wider interstitial space and thus better leak detection. This permutation 

was dismissed for the same reasons stated above. 

New Steel Liner Plates with Fiberglass Mesh and Urethane Lining 

In this permutation fiberglass mesh isolates the new steel liner from the existing liner, thus 

eliminating the corrosion mechanism between new and old steel and creates an interstitial space 

for leak detection. Additionally, existing steel liner will be coated with a urethane lining to 

provide a secondary containment release prevention barrier. This permutation was dismissed 

because the urethane lining and fiberglass mesh would be damaged by welding the new steel 

liner plates to the existing steel liner. 

Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank 

This alternative involves constructing a new tank within the existing tank. The new tank would 

be and have either a dome or flat bottom and a fixed roof. The top of the new 

tank will be approximately below the expansion joint of the upper dome (below the 

manhole and walkway of the existing tank). The smaller diameter of the new tank provides a 

annular space around the tank that allows inspection of the exterior of the tank and the 

steel liner of the existing tank. Containment of leaks is provided by the steel liner of the existing 

tank. 

EEI considers the Tank Within A Tank alternative a viable option and has prepared a project cost 

estimate. This alternative is further discussed in the sections that follow. 

Other Technologies 

Other technology considered in this study includes tank linings. Developments in tank linings 

are available that provide secondary containment and leak detection. These lining systems have 

been used on new tanks and to retrofit existing tanks. 

Tankbau 

One European manufacturer (Tankbau) has developed a “double skin” lining which has an 

interstitial space for leak detection. The lining consists of a double polyester resin coating with 

textile glass mats applied in layers to the tank structure and an interstitial space of metal foil or 

spacer fabric. Detection of leaks into the interstitial space is provided by monitoring the 

interstitial space with a vacuum leak detector. Manufacturer literature states the lining can be 

applied to existing aboveground and underground steel tanks and concrete tanks and has been 

used in over 400 tanks. Our concerns with this product are: 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 15 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• The system has only been applied to tanks that are far less than the of the 

Red Hill tanks, which have much higher operating pressures at the bottom of the shell. 

• The Red Hill tanks have an expansion joint between the barrel and upper dome. 

Differences in thermal expansion between the lining and existing steel lining could cause 

the lining to disbond. 

• Long term adhesion to the existing steel liner. 

• Susceptibility to mechanical damage. 

• Ability to monitor the interstitial space with a vacuum leak detector on large tanks such 

as the Red Hill tanks. 

• Difficult to locate leaks in the lining. 

• Ability to remove any detected fuel that breaches the inner skin. 

• Long term maintenance and inspection of the lining integrity. 

Nedeljkovic 

Another European lining manufacturer (Nedeljkovic) uses a lining of PVC foil. The foil lining is 

applied to the tank wall and provides an interstitial space to monitor for leaks. According to 

manufacturer literature the custom made lining is inserted into the tank and air between the 

lining and tank is then pumped out to create a vacuum so that the lining adheres to the tank. The 

manufacture’s literature does not state whether a vacuum alone is used to adhere the lining or if 

an adhesive is also used. One drawback to this system is adhesion of the lining to the tank wall. 

If the tank wall corrodes, corrosion holes will cause loss of vacuum between the lining and tank 

wall and the lining would no longer adhere to the tank. Additionally, if there are pinholes in the 

existing steel liner it may not even be possible to create a vacuum to adhere the lining. Another 

concern is that this system appears to have been developed and used only on small underground 

tanks. 

Tank Tech 

Other companies also offer tank linings with an interstitial space. Tank Tech, Inc. offers a 

fiberglass lining system that consists of a 100% solids epoxy and a 3-D glass fabric 

(PARABEAM) that is bonded to the tank wall. The 3-D glass fabric consists of two parallel 

fabric layers interwoven together with vertical pile threads to create an interstitial space between 

the fabric layers. The tank surface is first cleaned and prepared to receive the lining. Epoxy is 

then applied to the tank surface at 20 to 30 mils wet film thickness. The 3-D glass fabric is then 

placed on the wetted area and the epoxy is worked into the fabric causing the fabric to expand. 

As the epoxy cures a cavity or interstitial space is formed between the upper and lower fabric 

layers by the vertical pile threads. The upper layer is then sealed with epoxy. The fabric is 

placed in parallel courses. The edges are butted together in order to have a continuous interstitial 

space between adjacent courses and sealed with seam material tape. The surface is then sealed 

with a topcoat of epoxy. The lining is tested by pressurizing the interstitial space with air and 

checking for leaks using the soap bubble method. Our concerns with this product include: 

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 16 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• Differences in thermal expansion between the lining and existing steel lining which could 

cause the lining to disbond. 

• Long term adhesion to the existing steel liner. 

• Susceptibility to mechanical damage. 

• Difficult to locate leaks in the lining. 

• Ability to remove any detected fuel that breaches the inner fabric layer. 

• Long term maintenance and inspection of the lining integrity. 

Conclusions 

Based on our review of tank lining technology we conclude that these alternatives are not long 

term viable options for the Red Hill Tanks due to their susceptibility to mechanical damage and 

lack of ability to locate leaks. Additionally, these linings do not stop corrosion on exterior of the 

tank. As the existing steel liner in the Red Hill tanks will continue to corrode, the lining which 

relies on the tank wall for structural support could eventually fail. 

The Composite Tank and the Tank Within A Tank alternatives are EEI’s recommended 

alternatives and are further discussed in the Detailed Discussion of Recommended Alternatives. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 17 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

6.0 ALTERNATIVE 1 - COMPOSITE TANK DETAILED DISCUSSION 

General Discussion 

The overall concept for the Composite Tank alternative consists of a new steel liner inside the 

tank supported by structural steel angles or tees welded to the existing steel liner. The new steel 

liner is separated from the existing steel liner by the angle or tees to create a 3” to 4” interstitial 

space for leak detection. The existing steel liner will be coated with a urethane lining to provide 

containment of leaks. To resist fluid pressure from tank contents, the interstitial space will be 

filled with grout or self-leveling concrete. The product side of the liner will be coated with a 

MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a fluoropolyurethane 

topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of 

Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. 

In developing the Composite Tank alternative, we have not included lining the upper dome, due 

to the very high incremental cost compared to the increase in storage capacity of approximately 

. The new composite liner will terminate and be 

sealed approximately the expansion joint of the upper dome. The upper dome will 

be inspected and repaired only to prevent infiltration of ground water. 

In our 1998 Repair Tank 19 study, we considered a barrel lining concept of horizontal courses 

with rolled sheets and horizontal tee supports welded to the existing steel liner, and a concept of 

vertical courses with flat sheets and vertical tee supports. We have chosen the vertical course 

concept with vertical support angles in this study for the following reasons: 

1. Steel angles are less expensive than tees. 

2. Vertical courses supported by vertical angles welded to the existing steel liner allow isolation 

of the barrel into vertical zones for improved leak detection and leak location. 

liner plates with vertical angles spaced at extending from the lower dome 

spring line to just below the expansion joint between the barrel and upper dome will 

compartmentalize the interstitial space of the barrel into The width of the 

liner plates and spacing of the angles at is based on the maximum width of 

the new liner plate that can be through the existing isolation doors in the Upper Tunnel to 

Tanks 17, 18, 19, and 20. Slightly wider sheets could be used for Tanks 1 to 16; however, 

the sheets would still need to fit through the of the tanks. We 

recommend for all tanks. 

3. Horizontal support angle or tees would act as a barrier in the leak detection system and 

isolate the interstitial space of the barrel into horizontal spaces. This would considerably 

increase the complexity and cost of the leak detection system. 

4. If the courses are horizontal and the support angles are arranged vertically, the new liner 

plates would span over several support angles and can only be attached to the interior 

supports with plug welds. 

5. Horizontal courses would be only based on the maximum plate width. This 

increases the number of horizontal joints in the barrel compared to vertical courses. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 18 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

The lower dome will be lined similar to the barrel except that the support angles will extend 

radially from the center of the bottom of the dome up to the spring line. The new liner plates 

will be custom cut to fit the shape of the dome and radial spacing of the support angles. 

Materials 

The new liner could be constructed with either ASTM A 36 carbon steel plates or ASTM A 240 

stainless steel plates. A carbon steel liner is a lower material cost. Additionally the cost for 

welding carbon steel is approximately 25% less than welding stainless steel. A stainless steel 

liner, however, provides greater resistance to corrosion and thus would not need to be coated but 

is a much greater cost. Because of its resistance to corrosion, thick stainless steel plates 

could be used instead of thick carbon steel plates. If a stainless steel liner is provided, the 

angles supporting the new liner plates would also be stainless steel. Using stainless steel angles 

eliminates the corrosion potential between the new liner plates and angles. The corrosion 

potential between dissimilar metals of the stainless steel tees and the existing carbon steel liner is 

not a concern as the interface will be coated with a urethane lining. A thick stainless steel 

liner with stainless steel support angles would be approximately additional cost per 

tank compared to a carbon steel liner with coating. 

The project cost estimate is based on using a carbon steel liner. 

Secondary Containment 

The existing steel liner is subject to external corrosion in the form of pitting, thin areas of general 

metal loss, holes, and localized corrosion in the form of small “worm-like” corrosion trails. In 

order for the existing steel liner to provide containment of a leak, the liner plates and welds will 

need to be inspected and thin areas, holes, and weld defects (cracks, lack of fusion, and porosity) 

will need to be repaired. 

EEI recently performed an assessment of the existing steel liner in Tanks 2 and 20 in support of a 

project to clean, inspect, and repair the tanks. The assessment consisted of calculating an 

external corrosion rate and a minimum required thickness of the hick steel liner plates. 

This minimum thickness served as the screening criteria for determining whether to repair thin 

areas and pits in the steel liner plates for another 20-year interval until the next inspection. EEI 

calculated an external corrosion rate of 0.001744 inches/year using the linear method of API 653 

and a remaining thickness of at the end of a 20-year service interval in 2028. 

Recognizing that the external corrosion is a theoretical rate, twice the corrosion rate (i.e. 

0.003488 inches/year) was used following the guidance of API 570 to calculate a minimum 

thickness for repair screening criteria. EEI recommended a minimum thickness of as the 

screening criteria for determining whether thin and pitted areas in the inch thick steel liner 

plates require repair. This recommendation was reviewed and accepted by the Government. At 

twice the calculated corrosion rate of 0.001744 in/yr (i.e. 0.003488 inches/year), the steel liner 

will reach a minimum thickness of in 20 years and is predicted to hole through in

years. 

As the existing steel liner will continue to corrode from the exterior, repair of thin areas less than 

thick only provides an estimated 20-year maximum service interval until a minimum 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 19 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

thickness of is reached and corrosion holes begin to develop. Even if all corroded areas 

are repaired to restore the steel liner to its original thickness, corrosion holes will develop. 

As the existing steel liner will not be accessible to inspection and repair after the new steel liner 

is installed, other measures are therefore needed to provide a 40-year life expectancy of the 

containment system. 

EEI’s 1998 Repair Tank 19 study considered the installation of a cathodic protection system to 

reduce exterior corrosion of the existing liner. The 1998 study concluded that the application of 

cathodic protection for the existing steel liner could be accomplished by installing deep 

impressed current anodes. For such a cathodic protection system to prove effective, a continuous 

media must exist between the anodes and the steel liner. There also cannot be any other 

structures that would block the protective current. The media on the exterior of the tanks, 

however, is not continuous. Gaps and voids have been found between the steel liner and 

concrete when the Red Hill tanks have been taken out of service for inspection. Additionally it is 

likely that gaps and cracks have formed between the concrete and pre-stressing grout, between 

the grout and gunite, and between the gunite and rock due to thermal expansion and shrinkage. 

Documentation from original construction also noted that large voids were encountered in the 

lava rock when the tanks were excavated. The voids in the rock are vent holes that were formed 

when the lava solidified. More than likely, the corrosion observed on the existing steel liner 

follows the gaps and cracks, giving the impression of “worm lines”. The voids and gaps pose a 

problem to installing any deep anodes as current from the anodes would be hindered by voids in 

the rock, and gaps between the rock/gunite interface, gunite/pre-stressing grout interface, 

grout/concrete interface, and concrete/steel liner interface, leaving areas of the steel liner without 

effective protection. 

Another concern with providing cathodic protection is the effect of the reinforcing steel in the 

concrete surrounding the lower dome, barrel, and upper dome. Record drawings show the 

concrete around the barrel ranges from feet thick and contains

The concrete on the outside of the lower dome is a minimum of and reinforced. 

The reinforcing steel would intercept a significant amount of the protective current. If the 

reinforcing steel is electrically grounded to the steel liner, it will benefit from the current, but 

will shield the existing steel liner from protection. If the reinforcing steel is not electrically 

grounded to the steel liner, it will be subject to stray current corrosion. This occurs when the 

current picked-up by the reinforcing steel jumps through the concrete to the steel liner. Where 

the current jumps off, the reinforcing steel will be subject to severe corrosion and will be 

destroyed. 

There is little confidence that the application of cathodic protection could effectively control 

corrosion of the existing steel liner, and its application could damage the reinforcing steel in the 

supporting concrete. The application of cathodic protection to control corrosion is therefore not 

viable. 

Recognizing that cathodic protection would not be effective and that corrosion holes will 

eventually develop in the existing steel liner, we recommend a spray-applied urethane lining on 

the interior surface of the existing steel liner. The urethane lining will be approximately

thick and have the capability to bridge and seal corrosion holes that develop in the existing steel 

liner and thus would be the secondary containment release prevention barrier. The urethane 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 20 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

lining will also prevent moisture migration into the interstitial space from outside the tank and 

thus minimize the potential for corrosion of the interstitial side of the new liner plates. The 

lining material will be comparable to that used in the construction of UL 1746-Part 4 listed 

underground fuel storage tanks. This product is marketed by the Steel Tank Institute, under the 

trade name ACT-100-U. The UL 1746-Part 4 coating systems for tanks complies with the 

Federal EPA requirements for effective corrosion prevention and containment, eliminating the 

need for cathodic protection on storage tanks. UL 1746-Part 4 tanks are commonly used within 

DESC facilities for product recovery tanks, oil-water separators, and at military service stations. 

The ACT-100-U coating has a proven track record, and a projected service life in excess of 50 

years. 

Interstitial Space 

We have selected a interstitial space. The interstitial space can be any width; however, 

increasing the width only results in a greater reduction in storage capacity. Our concern with a 

narrower width is that the urethane lining could be damaged during welding of the new liner 

plates. 

To prevent buckling of the new steel liner from fluid pressure from tank contents, the interstitial 

space will be filled with grout or self-leveling concrete. Filling the interstitial space with nonshrink grout or self-leveling concrete provides support of the new liner plates. Fluid pressure on 

the new liner from tank contents is transferred to the existing tank structure via the grout (or 

concrete) fill. This allows the use of hick liner plates. 

Of most importance is the structural quality of the grout or concrete between the existing steel 

liner and new liner. The grout or concrete must also have chemical properties that will not 

promote corrosion. Consideration should be given to introducing additives in the grout or 

concrete mix that will reduce moisture and/or maintain elevated pH levels, while increasing 

strength. A hydrophilic chemical grout was considered but dismissed. Hydrophilic grouts are a 

polyurethane grout that reacts with water and expands into a flexible foam seal and are typically 

used to seal leaks. Hydrophilic grouts; however, have no structural strength and thus are not be 

capable of supporting fluid pressure acting on the new steel liner. 

If the interstitial space is not-filled, the thickness of the new liner plates would need to be at 

the bottom of the barrel and at the bottom of the lower dome to resist fluid pressure from tank 

contents and the spacing of the supports would need to be reduced. 

We recommend the interstitial space be filled with non-shrink grout or self-leveling concrete 

having a minimum compressive strength of To resist fluid pressure in the interstitial 

space from the grout or concrete without excessive bulging, the grout or self leveling concrete 

must be placed in lifts not exceeding in 5 feet and the liner plates need to be supported 

continuously at . 

To meet the support requirements, the edges of the new vertical liner plates on the barrel will be 

supported with a continuous vertical angle welded continuously on both sides to the existing 

steel liner. Additionally, two vertical angles arranged in the shape of a tube will be provided in 

the interstitial space at the center of the plate to support the plate and form a drainage path for 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 21 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

leak detection. To prevent compartmentalizing the interstitial spaces into wide spaces the 

two support angles at the center of the liner plate which form a tube shape will be welded to the 

existing liner with intermittent fillet welds and will have drainage holes so that fuel that leaks 

into the interstitial space can drain into the “tube” space to the leak detection pipes. 

The new steel liner plates in the lower dome will be supported similar to the liner plates on the 

barrel except the support angles will be will extend radially from the center of the bottom of the 

dome up to the spring line. 

Leak Detection 

Leak detection is provided by the interstitial spaces in the barrel and lower dome with leak 

detection piping connected to the interstitial spaces. 

As previously stated, the Composite Tank will have wide interstitial spaces, 

vertically up the barrel. Each interstitial space will have two vertical angles arranged in the 

shape of a tube at the center of the interstitial space to support the liner plate and form a vertical 

drainage path for leak detection. The two center support angles will also have drainage holes so 

that fuel in the interstitial space can drain into the “tube” space. 

We considered providing leak detection piping on the interior of the tank which would be 

connected to the steel liner near the bottom of the barrel at each drainage “tube” space to detect 

leaks in the barrel. This concept consisted of the following: 

• Leak detection piping on the interior of the tank connected to the steel liner near the 

bottom of the barrel. The piping would be connected to the vertical drainage “tube” 

space in each interstitial space. As there are nterstitial spaces in the barrel, there 

would be leak detection piping connections to the steel liner near the bottom of the 

barrel. 

• The piping connections would be headered together inside the tank into

pipe connections per zone. 

• Each of the will be routed through a new penetration in the lower 

dome to the Lower Tunnel. 

• In addition to the for the tank barrel, one zone will be provided for the entire 

lower dome. The lower dome leak detection piping will be routed from a new sump 

below the center of the lower dome floor to the Lower Tunnel. 

The above concept of leak detection piping was revised due to concerns that piping inside the 

tank could corrode and result in a leak path into the interstitial space and because the concept is 

similar to the existing leak detection piping inside the tanks which is being removed due to leak 

problems. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 22 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

The concept for leak detection was revised as follows: 

• A horizontal drainage “tube” space will be provided in the interstitial space at the bottom 

of the barrel. This horizontal “tube” space will be continuous around the tank and be 

compartmentalized into

• The vertical drainage “tube” space in each of interstitial spaces in the barrel will tie 

into the horizontal tube space. As the horizontal tube space is compartmentalized to into 

zones interstitial spaces are headered together per zone. 

• Leak detection piping will be provided in the interstitial space of the lower dome and 

connect to the compartments of the horizontal tube space. Thus, there will be leak 

detection pipes, each pipe serving nterstitial spaces of the barrel. 

• Piping will be diameter, extra strong pipe to reduce possibility of pipe blockage 

and to increase service life. All leak detection piping will be fully welded. No threaded 

fittings will be permitted. The leak detection pipes will be routed through a new

diameter penetration in the lower dome to the Lower Tunnel. Drilling or coring of the 

concrete between the existing lower dome and the Lower Tunnel will be required in order 

to provide a path for the leak detection piping. 

• In addition to the zones for the tank barrel, one zone will be provided for the entire 

lower dome. The leak detection piping for the lower dome will be routed from a new 

sump below the center of the lower dome floor to the Lower Tunnel. 

• The leak detection pipes from the zones of the barrel and the one zone of the lower 

dome will be grouped into a manifold in the Lower Tunnel. 

If a leak is detected in the barrel, the search for the leak can be narrowed to a wide area of 

the barrel consisting of interstitial spaces extending vertically from the lower dome spring line 

to top of the composite tank. The leak detection system also can be used for injection of a 

detectable gas in the interstitial space to locate the leak. As the entire lower dome is one zone for 

leak detection, a leak detected in the lower dome would involve inspecting the entire lower dome 

to locate and repair the leak. 

Tank Venting 

Our understanding is the existing tank venting system is adequate but upgrades have been 

recommended. No repairs have been included in the project cost estimate. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

A hydrotest is a test to demonstrate fitness for service and is primarily a test of the structural 

integrity of a tank. The new steel liner, however, is not a primary structural element as it relies 

on the grout in the interstitial space and on the existing tank to resist internal pressure from tank 

contents. A hydrotest, therefore, would not provide a test of the structural integrity of the new 

steel liner; nor is a structural integrity test of liner necessary as non-destructive examination will 

be performed on the welds of the new liner. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTEDREDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 23 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

A hydrotest also does not provide a reliable leak test as leak detection time is not immediate. It 

will take time for weeps and small leaks to migrate through the grout/steel liner interface in the 

interstitial spaces and collect in the leak detection pipes. It is possible that a hydrotest could be 

completed before a leak is detected in the leak detection pipes. A more reliable method of 

finding leaks in the new liner welds is to vacuum box test the welds. 

For these reasons, a hydrotest is not warranted and is not included in the Composite Tank 

alternative. 

Attainment of Goals 

The Composite Tank alternative meets the following project goals: 

• Provides a 40+ year tank life extension. 

• Minimizes the risk of a fuel leak. 

• Provides containments of leaks that may potentially occur. 

• Provides the capability to detect and locate leaks. Leak detection time, however, is not 

immediate as it will take time for weeps and small leaks to migrate through the 

grout/steel liner interface in the interstitial spaces and collect in the leak detection pipes. 

Leak location is also limited to zones in the barrel and one zone in the lower dome. 

Construction 

After the tank is drained and taken out of service for repairs, the interior will be cleaned with a 

high pressure water wash. 

The interior coating will be removed by enclosed abrasive blasting or high pressure water 

blasting. As existing tank coatings contain lead, the interior coating will need to be removed, 

handled, and disposed in accordance with UFGS 02 82 33.13 20 “Removal/Control and Disposal 

of Paint with Lead”. 

The existing steel liner plates will be inspected for pitting, thinning, and holes. Areas having a 

remaining thickness less than inches and holes will be repaired by welding patch plates 

over the area. Liner plate welds will be inspected for cracks, lack of fusion, and porosity and 

repaired. Miscellaneous existing problems will also be repaired. This will include removing 

clips and attachments projecting into the tank that would interfere with the urethane lining and 

new liner plates. All locations where liner support angles will be welded to the existing steel 

liner will be scanned to determine metal thickness, thin areas, and plate laminations, to assure a 

solid structural attachment point. 

Angles that support the vertical edges of the new liner plates will be welded to the existing steel 

liner with continuous fillet welds on both sides to provide wide interstitial spaces in the 

barrel. The angles that support the center of the liner plates which form the “tube” section for 

leak detection will be welded intermittently. The welds will be visually inspected in accordance 

with AWS criteria. Spot magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspection will also be required. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 24 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

After the support angles are installed, the existing steel liner and support angles will be coated 

with a urethane lining. The surface of the existing liner plates and support angles will be cleaned 

to remove oil, grease, and soluble salt contamination and abrasive blasted to near white metal in 

accordance with SSPC SP-10. It is critical that abrasive-blasted surfaces remain dry and free of 

contaminates. The contractor will be required to provide dehumidification during abrasive 

blasting to prevent prepared steel surfaces from corroding. Due to the amount of surface area 

involved, application of the urethane lining will require considerable coordination. It may be 

necessary to clean and coat the existing steel liner and angles in sections. The prepared steel 

surfaces and primed surfaces will need to be monitored for contamination. Recoat times must 

also be closely monitored. The entire lining process will need to be inspected by an SSPC QP-5 

certified inspector. Records of the entire process must be maintained, including post application 

dry film thickness, adhesion tests, and results of holiday testing. 

Starting at the bottom of the barrel long steel plates will be tack welded in 

place to the support angles. After tack welding two adjacent plates in place, the vertical edges of 

the plates will be butt welded to each other, including complete penetration weld to the support 

angle. The center of the plates will be welded with plug welds spaced vertically at feet on 

center to the intermediate support angles which form the tube section for leak detection. The 

horizontal weld between courses will also be welded with a complete penetration butt weld. A 

backing bar will be welded to the upper plate prior to being hung in place to assure obtaining a 

complete penetration weld with the lower plate. 

Non destructive examination (NDE) of the complete penetration butt welds presents some 

problems. Use of radiography is not possible, as the backside of the weld is not accessible. We 

recommend 100% of the welds be inspected for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, 

porosity, and slag inclusions using Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T) or 

ultrasonic shear wave inspection. All welds will be vacuum box tested to 10-12 Psig to provide 

further quality assurance in the work completed. 

After one course of plates are welded in place and the welds inspected, the interstitial space can 

be filled with grout or self-leveling concrete. To prevent bowing of the new liner plates from the 

plastic grout (or self-leveling concrete), the grout (or self-leveling concrete) should be placed in 

lifts not exceeding in height. Once the grout (or self-leveling concrete) has set, the next 

course of plates can be erected. 

After the new liner plates are installed the product-side of the plates will be cleaned to remove 

oil and salt contamination, abrasive blasted to near white metal in accordance with SSPC SP-10, 

and coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a 

fluoropolyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane 

Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. Similar to the application of the 

urethane lining, the contractor will be required to provide dehumidification. Due to the amount 

of surface area involved, it may be necessary to prepare and coat the new steel liner in sections. 

The entire coating process will need to be inspected by an SSPC QP-5 certified inspector. 

Records of the entire process must be maintained, including post application dry film thickness, 

adhesion tests, and results of holiday testing. 

Construction of the liner in the lower dome will be similar to the barrel. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 25 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Installation of the leak detection piping and fuel piping modifications will be performed during 

the course of the work. 

Inspection and Testing During Construction 

The following inspections will be required: 

• As the Composite Tank alternative relies on the integrity of the existing steel liner for 

secondary containment, the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the 

existing tank need to be 100% scanned for thinning due to corrosion and weld defects and 

repaired. If a tank was inspected within the past 5 years that included scanning of the 

steel liner and welds and repair of thin areas and weld defects, the existing steel liner 

does not need to be re-inspected. If the steel liner has never been scanned, 100% 

scanning of the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the existing tank 

must be included in Composite Tank alternative. 

• The existing steel liner will be inspected for cleanliness and surface profile prior to 

applying the urethane lining. 

• The product side of the new liner plates will be inspected for cleanliness and profile prior 

to applying the coating system. 

• The urethane lining on the existing steel liner and coating on the new steel liner will be 

holiday tested. 

• The urethane lining on the existing steel liner and coating on the new steel liner plates 

will be inspected by an SSPC QP-5 certified coating inspector. The coating inspector 

will be present during pre-preparation testing, surface preparation, lining and coating 

application, initial cure of the lining and coating, and coating repair work. The inspector 

must be independent from the coating contractor, and must have experience with this type 

of lining and coating and their application. The inspector’s authority must be clearly 

established in the contract documents. 

• Welds of the new liner on the lower dome and barrel will be visually inspected and 

vacuum box tested at psig for leaks. The welds will also be 100% inspected for 

cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, porosity, and slag inclusions using Balanced 

Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.) or ultrasonic shear wave inspection. 

• Welds around pipe penetrations will be visually inspected and inspected by either 

magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspection. The welds will also be 100% inspected 

for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, porosity, and slag inclusions using 

Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.) or ultrasonic shear wave 

inspection. 

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 26 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Life Maintenance Plan 

It is expected that Composite Tank alternative will have a 40+ year life if maintained. The only 

major maintenance required will be the internal coating, and if properly applied, would be on a 

15 to 20 year cycle. 

For long term serviceability, we recommend the following maintenance plan: 

1. Monthly: Visually check the leak detection piping for product. The presence of product is 

an indication of a possible leak in the new liner. If product is detected, record which leak 

detection pipe(s) contained fuel. This will help to identify the zone where the leak is 

believed to be located. Repair of leaks in the steel liner will involve draining and cleaning 

the tank, locating the leak, and welding a patch plate over the leak area. If water is present, 

this suggests that there is water intrusion from outside the tank into the interstitial space. 

Record which leak detection pipe(s) contained water. This will help to identify the zone 

where the leak is believed to be located. It is important to note, however, that as the existing 

steel liner and urethane lining is covered by grout in the interstitial space and the new steel 

liner plate, it is not possible to find a leak in the urethane lining to repair it. 

2. 10 Years after Return to Service: Perform a baseline internal out-of-service inspection. The 

internal inspection will include: 

a. Visual inspection of the liner plates and welds in the barrel and lower dome. 

b. 100% scanning of the liner plates using Low Frequency Electromagnetic Technique 

(L.F.E.T.) or other nondestructive examination scanning methods capable of detecting 

metal loss on the interstitial side of the liner plates. 

c. Inspection of 100% of the liner welds for cracks using Balanced Field Electromagnetic 

Technique (B.F.E.T), ultrasonic shear wave inspection, or other non-destructive 

examination methods. 

d. Inspection of the interior coating by a NACE coating inspector. 

e. Based on the findings of the out-of-service inspection establish the interval until the next 

internal inspection. It is recommended that the interval not exceed 20 years. 

3. Program the tank for re-coating in 15 to 20 years, depending on coating conditions. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 27 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

7.0 ALTERNATIVE 2 – TANK WITHIN A TANK DETAIL DISCUSSION 

General Discussion 

This alternative involves constructing a new tank within the existing tank. The new tank will be 

diameter. The top of the new tank will be approximatel feet below the expansion joint 

of the upper dome (below the manhole and walkway of the existing tank). The smaller diameter 

of the new tank provides a wide annular space around the tank that allows inspection of the 

exterior of the new tank shell and the steel liner on the barrel and upper dome of the existing 

tank. 

New Tank 

The new tank will be welded steel construction and will be designed in accordance with the 

applicable sections of API 650. As fluid pressure at the bottom of the shell is quite high 

(approximately , the shell may need to be reinforced with external stiffeners to keep the 

bottom shell courses to a reasonable thickness. The tank will be braced laterally with struts to 

the existing tank to resist rocking from seismic ground motions. 

The tank exterior will be coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and 

intermediate coat and a polyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.27 “Exterior 

Coating of Steel Structures”. The interior of the tank will be coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 

epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a fluoropolyurethane topcoat in accordance 

with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum 

Fuel Tanks”. 

A spiral stair will be provided on the exterior of the tank to access to bottom of the annular space. 

A walkway will be provided around the entire tank at three elevations approximately every

feet up the shell to provide access to the exterior of the tank for inspection and repair. 

The upper dome of the existing tank will be inspected and repaired only to prevent infiltration of 

ground water. 

Tank Roof 

The tank can be either open-top or have a fixed roof. An open top tank allows booms to be 

mounted on the center tower for construction and for future inspection and maintenance of the 

tank. An open top tank, however, prevents ventilating the annular space for personnel access. 

The tank would need to have a fixed roof and be vented to the existing tank vent pipe at the top 

of the upper dome or the annular space would need a roof and ventilation. We recommend a 

fixed roof tank with a vent pipe connected to the existing tank vent pipe at the top of the upper 

dome. The roof will also have a hatch for entry into the tank. Several options for a fixed roof 

were considered. 

• Rafter-Supported Roof supported from the Center Tower: In this option roof plates 

would be supported on structural steel rafters spanning from the tank shell to the 

center tower. Roof plates would be thick minimum ( plates are recommended). 

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 28 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

The center tower will need to be evaluated to support additional load and most likely 

strengthened to support of the weight of the fixed roof. 

• Truss-Supported Roof: In this option the roof would not be supported from the center 

tower. Roof plates would be supported on long trusses supported from shell. This 

option, however, presents challenges in fabricating the trusses in short lengths so that 

they can be brought through the Upper Tunnel into the tank and temporarily supported in 

place until field splices are completed. 

• Self-Supported Dome Roof: This option is similar to the truss-support roof option except 

that structural steel framing is used. Steel framing has the advantage over trusses in that 

it is easier to coat. 

• Fixed Roof with External Framing: This concept consists of a primary steel framing 

system above the roof plates from which a secondary system of steel framing and rafters 

are hung. The primary framing system would supported from either the new tank shell or 

the existing tank shell and have a compression ring around the existing tower, thus no 

additional loads would be supported from the tower. The benefit of this concept is that 

the primary steel framing is above the roof; thus there is no restriction on the depth of the 

framing. Additionally, as the primary framing is above the roof, it is easier to maintain 

and coat. The secondary framing inside the tank, being shallower depth, allows more 

usable storage capacity. 

EEI recommends a fixed roof concept with external framing. 

Tank Bottom 

Two options were considered for the tank bottom: 

• Dome Bottom 

• Cone-Down “Flat” Bottom 

Dome Bottom: A dome bottom would consist of thick steel plates supported on reinforced 

concrete fill on top of the existing steel liner in the lower dome. The existing steel liner will be 

inspected, repaired, and coated with a urethane lining to prove secondary containment. 

Reinforced concrete fill will then be placed on top of the existing steel liner to support the new 

dome bottom plates. Shear studs will be provided to anchor the concrete fill to the existing steel 

liner. The concrete fill will be thick below the floor of the new dome bottom. The 

concrete fill will increase in thickness up the sides of the lower dome to hick at the top of 

the lower dome and extend under the shell of the new tank to support the new tank. The floor of 

new dome bottom will be flat and constructed of thick plates for additional strength and 

corrosion allowance. A dome bottom concept relies on the reinforced concrete fill acting as an 

inverted dome in compression to support the entire weight of the tank. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 29 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Cone Down Bottom: A cone down bottom consists of thick steel plates, a sand cushion 

layer below the steel plates, and a flexible membrane liner below the sand cushion. The floor 

would have a slope to a sump at the center of the tank. The entire lower dome of the existing 

tank will be filled with structural fill or lean concrete to create a flat surface for the new floor. A 

flexible membrane liner will be placed on top of the structural fill or lean concrete, followed by 

the sand cushion and floor plates. This option does not rely on the existing steel liner or a 

urethane lining for secondary containment because the flexible membrane liner provides 

secondary containment. Another benefit of this option is that an impressed current cathodic 

protection system can be provided in the sand cushion filled interstitial space between the tank 

floor and membrane liner. Filling the lower dome of the existing tank to construct a cone 

bottom, however, results in a significant reduction in storage capacity. One way to provide more 

storage capacity is to remove the top feet of the lower dome and extend the barrel of the 

existing tank down to this lower elevation. This will involve removing the top eet of the 

existing steel liner in the lower dome and the eet of reinforced concrete on the outside of the 

liner. 

As the cone down bottom concept involves major demolition work and modifications affecting 

structure of the existing tank, it is not as viable as the new tank with a dome bottom concept, and 

thus is not further developed. Only a dome bottom is further developed and discussed in this 

report. 

Materials 

ASTM A 573 grade 70 material was selected to resist internal pressure form tank contents and 

keep the thickness of the bottom shell courses t hick. 

Secondary Containment 

Containment of leaks is provided by the existing tank; specifically the steel liner on the tank 

barrel and lower dome. Prior to tank construction, the steel liner on the barrel and lower dome 

will be inspected and repaired. As the steel liner of the lower dome will be covered by the new 

tank bottom and thus not accessible for future inspection or repair, it will be coated with a 

urethane lining to provide a release prevention barrier. The urethane lining material and 

application will be the same as for the Composite Tank alternative. 

The steel liner on the existing tank barrel will be visible from the annular space and accessible 

for repair; thus it is not necessary to provide a urethane lining on the barrel. 

Leak Detection 

As the exterior of the new tank is visible, leaks in the shell can be readily located and repaired. 

Additionally, the floor of the annular space between the tank and existing barrel will have a 

trench to collect and contain leaks. The trench will be continuous around the tank and drain to 

four equally spaced sumps. The sumps could be equipped with a level float and alarm 

equipment when liquid collects in the sumps. 

The interstitial space of the dome bottom will have two leak detection pipes. Piping will be 

iameter, extra strong pipe to reduce possibility of pipe blockage and to increase service 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 30 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

life. All leak detection piping will be fully welded. No threaded fittings will be permitted. The 

leak detection piping will be routed from a new sump below the center of the new tank floor to 

the Lower Tunnel; thus the entire interstitial space of the dome bottom will be one zone for leak 

detection purposes. Two pipes are recommended for redundancy. Drilling or coring of the 

concrete between the existing lower dome and the Lower Tunnel will be required in order to 

provide a path for the leak detection piping. 

Tank Venting 

The new tank will have a vent pipe extending up to the upper dome of the existing tank and 

connect to the existing tank venting system. Our understanding is the existing tank venting 

system is adequate but upgrades have been recommended. No repairs have been included in the 

project cost estimate. 

To prevent the tank from venting to the annular space, it will not have overflow ports. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

API 650 requires new tank be hydrotested with water. Only when water is not available does 

API 650 allow testing of the shell by a penetrating oil test of all of the shell welds for leakage or 

by vacuum box testing or by a combination of a penetrating oil test and vacuum box testing. 

Water may be available at Red Hill; however, the logistics of obtaining the water, filling the 

tank, and disposing of the test water are complex. The only pipeline that could be used to fill a 

tank is a slop line and would several weeks to fill a tank. There is also no place to dispose of 

the test water. Trucking the water offsite is not feasible. It was suggested that a temporary 

lagoon could be excavated to allow the water to filter into the ground. This, however, is also 

probably not feasible as an environmental discharge permit would be extremely difficult if not 

impossible to obtain as the area is over an aquifer. 

Given the unique conditions of hydrotesting the new tanks at Red Hill, EEI has assessed the risks 

of not hydrotesting the tank and what measures could be done if a hydrotest is not performed. 

Our assessment is as follows: 

• The risk that the tank could fail catastrophically is low. The new tank will be designed, 

fabricated, and constructed in accordance with API 650. Careful detailing and 

construction of the tank following the requirements of API 650 and quality control, 

inspection, and testing during construction will be required. 

• As ambient air temperature inside the Red Hill complex is generally constant and not 

expected to fall below 60 degrees F the risk of brittle fracture failure is considered to be 

low. 

• Should a tank leak or fail, it will be contained by the existing tank. 

Based on our assessment of the above risk factors, it is our recommendation that the new tanks 

could be constructed without performing a hydrotest with water. 

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 31 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

EEI recommends the following if a hydrotest is not performed: 

• Perform radiography of shell welds in accordance with API 650. 

• Perform a penetrating oil or vacuum box test of 100% of the shell welds. 

• Perform Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.), or ultrasonic shear wave 

inspection of 100% of the shell welds. Inspect for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of 

penetration, porosity, and other rejectable defects. Repair all rejectable defects. This 

additional inspection is recommended as API 650 does not require 100% of shells welds 

be radiographed. Additionally, B.F.E.T. and ultrasonic shear wave can potentially detect 

weld defects that are not readily detectable by radiography. 

• Initially fill the tank will full (to the rim angle) with fuel and hold for 24 hours. 

• Operate the tank at a reduced fill height below the rim angle and roof framing (this 

ensures that tank operates at a lower stress level than initial filling). 

• Should the new tank leak or fail during initial filling with fuel, the fuel will be contained 

within the existing tank. EEI recommends that the contained fuel be pumped back into 

the existing tank from which it was taken, not into one of the new tanks, until the cause of 

the leak is determined and corrected. 

Repairing tanks in groups of three tanks and performing an initial fill test with fuel will require 

using the fuel from a fourth tank to perform the initial fill test of the new tanks. 

Tank Fill Height 

Although the tank will be initially tested with fuel to the rim angle, EEI recommends the 100% 

full level be lower to ensure that tank operates at a lower stress level than initial filling. This 

100% level should also be below the roof framing inside the tank. As the framing has not been 

designed, we suggest the 100% level be at least eet below the top of the rim angle. This 

height can be refined during the project design phase. The ft height provides space for the 

roofing so it is not submerged, and a safety margin against overfilling the tank. 

If the tank is filled at a rate of , the reaction time between Hi-level alarm and Hi-Hi 

level alarm is minutes and the reaction time between Hi-HI level alarm and 100% level is

minutes. 

Attainment of Goals 

The Tank Within A Tank alternative meets the following project goals: 

• Provides a 40+ year tank life expectancy. 

• Minimizes the risk of a fuel leak. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 32 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• Provides containments of leaks that may potentially occur. 

• Provides the capability to detect and locate leaks. 

Construction 

As it is possible that materials and equipment may be lowered into the existing tank using 

contractor-provided booms mounted on the center tower, we have chosen to keep the central 

tower. The center tower and walkway will remain after construction for future use to access the 

new tank and annular space. 

Inspection and Testing During Construction 

The following inspections will be required: 

• As the Tank Within A Tank alternative with a dome bottom relies on the integrity of the 

existing steel liner in the lower dome and barrel for secondary containment, the steel liner 

and welds of the lower dome and barrel need to be 100% scanned for thinning due to 

corrosion and weld defects and repaired. If a tank was inspected within the past 5 years 

that included scanning of the steel liner and welds and repair of thin areas and weld 

defects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If the steel liner has 

never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of the lower dome and 

barrel of the existing tank must be included in this alternative. 

• Welds in the new dome bottom will be visually inspected and vacuum box tested at

or leaks. The welds will also be 100% inspected for cracks and rejectable 

defects using Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T), ultrasonic shear 

wave inspection, or other non-destructive examination methods. 

• The shell to lower dome weld will be inspected in accordance with API 650. 

• Shell welds will be visually inspected and radiographed in accordance with API 650. 

Additionally, as the tank will not be hydrotested, 100% of the shell welds will be tested 

for leaks by penetrating oil or vacuum box testing and 100% of the shell welds will be 

inspected for cracks and rejectable defects using Balanced Field Electromagnetic 

Technique (B.F.E.T), or ultrasonic shear wave inspection. 

• Welds around pipe penetrations will be visually inspected and inspected by either 

magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspection. The welds will also be 100% inspected 

for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, porosity, and slag inclusions using 

Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.) or ultrasonic shear wave 

inspection. 

• The existing steel liner in the lower dome will be inspected for cleanliness and surface 

profile prior to applying the urethane lining. 

• The urethane lining will be holiday tested. 

• Tank interior and exterior coatings will be inspected by an SSPC QP-5 certified coating 

inspector and holiday tested. 

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 33 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• The new urethane lining on the existing steel liner plates in the lower dome will be 

inspected by a SSPC QP-5 certified coating inspector. 

Life Maintenance Plan 

The Tank Within A Tank alternative is essentially construction of a new tank plus repair and 

upgrade of the existing steel liner for secondary containment. It is expected that this repair 

alternative will have a 40 to 50 year life or longer if maintained. The only major maintenance 

required will be coatings, and if properly applied, would be on a 15 to 20 year cycle. In-service 

external inspection and out-of-service internal inspection of the new tank should be performed 

following the guidance of API 653 and as recommended herein. 

For long term serviceability, we recommend the following maintenance plan: 

1. Monthly: 

a. Visually check the leak detection piping of the dome bottom for product. The presence 

of product is an indication of a possible leak in the tank bottom. If water is present, this 

suggests that there is water intrusion into the existing lower dome from outside the tank. 

b. Test the level float and alarm equipment in the containment trench for proper operation. 

2. Routine In-Service Inspections: Perform an inspection of the exterior of the tank on a routine 

basis. The inspection can be performed by owner/operator personnel. API 653 does not 

define the frequency of routine in-service inspections. EEI suggests routine inspections be 

performed at least once every six months. 

3. Formal In-Service Inspections: Perform a formal in-service inspection every 5 years by an 

API 653 certified inspector. The inspection should include visual inspection and ultrasonic 

thickness measurements of the shell and visual inspection of the steel liner on the existing 

tank barrel for leaks. 

4. 10 Years after Return to Service: Perform an API 653 baseline internal out-of-service 

inspection. The internal inspection will include: 

a. Visual inspection of the plates and welds in the dome bottom. 

b. 100% scanning of the plates in the dome bottom using Low Frequency Electromagnetic 

Technique (L.F.E.T.) or other nondestructive examination scanning methods capable of 

detecting metal loss on the interstitial side of the dome bottom plates. 

c. Inspection of 100% of the welds in the dome bottom for cracks using Balanced Field 

Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T), ultrasonic shear wave inspection, or other nondestructive examination methods. 

d. Visual inspection of the interior of the shell. 

e. Inspection of the interior and exterior coating by a NACE coating inspector. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 34 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

f. Based on the findings of the out-of-service inspection establish the interval until the next 

internal inspection. (It is recommended that the interval not exceed 20 years). 

g. Visual inspection of the steel liner and coating of the existing tank. 

5. Program the new tank and existing tank liner for re-coating in 15 to 20 years, depending on 

coating conditions. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 35 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

8.0 COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE TANK VS. TANK WITHIN A TANK 

The following table summarizes and provides a comparison between Alternative 1 - Composite 

Tank and Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank in respect to the project goals. 

Comparison of Composite Tank vs. Tank Within A Tank 

Item Composite Tank Tank Within A Tank 

40-year life renewal extension Provides a 40+ year life extension. Provides a 40+ year life extension. 

Secondary containment 

Type/System Secondary containment provided by 

the steel liner of the existing tank and 

a urethane lining. 

Secondary containment provided by 

the steel liner of the existing tank. 

Secondary containment of the dome 

bottom is provided by the existing 

steel liner plates and a urethane 

lining. 

Leak Detection/Location 

Barrel Steel liner plates arranged vertically 

supported by vertical angles welded 

to the existing steel liner isolate the 

barrel into 52 interstitial spaces. 

Piping connected to the interstitial 

spaces is headered to provide 13 

vertical zones for leak detection and 

leak location. 

Leak detection time is not immediate 

as it will take time for weeps and 

small leaks to migrate through the 

grout/steel liner interface in the 

interstitial space and collect in the 

leak detection pipes. 

Leak location is limited to 13 zones 

in the barrel. 

Annular space around the new tank 

allows immediate visual inspection of 

the exterior of the tank shell for 

leaks.

Lower Dome Piping connected to the interstitial 

space of the lower dome provides 

leak detection. 

Piping connected to the interstitial 

space of the dome bottom provides 

leak detection. 

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 36 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Comparison of Composite Tank vs. Tank Within A Tank 

Item Composite Tank Tank Within A Tank 

Maintainability 

(Capability to Inspect/Repair) 

Barrel 

Primary Shell Requires draining and cleaning the 

tank to inspect the steel liner. 

Inspection of barrel will require cable 

supported personnel platforms and 

booms from the center tower. 

Annular space around the new tank 

provides access to the tank exterior 

for inspection and repair. 

Secondary 

Containment 

Existing steel liner and urethane 

lining are not accessible for 

inspection and repair after the new 

liner plates are installed. 

Barrel: Existing steel liner is 

accessible for inspection and repair 

Lower Dome: Existing steel liner and 

urethane lining in the lower dome are 

not accessible for inspection and 

repair after the tank is constructed, t 

Lower Dome 

Primary Shell/Floor Requires draining and cleaning the 

tank to inspect the steel liner. 

Requires draining and cleaning the 

tank to inspect the tank interior and 

dome bottom. 

Secondary 

Containment 

Once the new liner plates are 

installed, the existing steel liner and 

urethane lining are not accessible to 

inspection and repair. 

Once the new liner plates are 

installed, the existing steel liner and 

urethane lining are not accessible to 

inspection and repair. 

Nominal Storage Capacity 

Existing Tanks 1 to 4: tank 

Tanks 5 to 20: tank 

Total capacity: 

Nominal capacities include the 

capacity of the upper dome 

Tanks 1 to 4: per tank 

Tanks 5 to 20: per tank 

Total capacity: 

Nominal capacities include the 

capacity of the upper dome 

After Repair Tanks 1 to 20: tank 

Total capacity: 

Nominal capacity does not include 

the upper dome and is based on a

intestinal space and only barrel and 

lower dome being repaired. 

Tanks 1 to 20: tank 

Total capacity:

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 37 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

9.0 REPAIRS COMMON TO BOTH REPAIR ALTERNATIVES 

Both alternatives share common elements of basic work. The following describes these common 

elements, plus minor differences associated with each alternative. 

Tank Cleaning 

In both the Composite Tank alternative and Tank Within A Tank alternative, the tank will need 

to be drained and cleaned. 

Existing Steel Liner Inspection and Repair 

As the Composite Tank alternative relies on the integrity of the existing steel liner for secondary 

containment, the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the existing tank needs to 

be 100% scanned for thinning due to corrosion and weld defects and repaired. If a tank was 

inspected within the past 5 years that included scanning of the steel liner and welds and repair of 

thin areas and weld defects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If the steel 

liner has never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower 

dome of the existing tank must be included in Composite Tank alternative. 

Similarly, the Tank Within A Tank alternative with a dome bottom relies on the integrity of the 

steel liner in the lower dome of the existing tank for secondary containment. If a tank was 

inspected within the past 5 years that included scanning of the steel liner and welds and repair of 

thin areas and weld defects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If the steel 

liner has never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of the lower dome and 

barrel of the existing tank must be included in the Tank Within A Tank alternative. 

Coating Removal 

The coatings on the existing tank will need to be removed and the existing steel surface prepared 

(SP-10) for the application of the urethane liner. In the case of Alternative 1 – Composite Tank 

this will require the blasting and removal of the coating from the barrel and the lower dome. 

Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank will require the blasting and removal of the coating from 

the lower dome only. 

Testing of the existing coating inside Tank 2 and other tanks determined the existing tank 

coatings contain lead. Existing coatings will therefore need to be removed, handled, and 

disposed in accordance with UFGS 02 82 33.13 20 “Removal/Control and Disposal of Paint with 

Lead”. 

Center Tower and Walkway 

The center tower in each tank originally had two booms for hoisting personnel platform and 

materials, and equipments. The government has been reported that the booms have since been 

removed from all of the tanks. The contractor, therefore, will need to provide booms or a 

monorail system for tank cleaning and inspection and construction work. Prior to erecting 

booms, the central tower should be inspected by a structural engineer and any deficiencies and 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 38 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

deterioration repaired. Additionally, the elevated platform walkway to the tower should also be 

inspected and repaired as necessary. 

Record drawings indicate the center tower is braced at four elevations with a diameter cable 

to each of the four legs of the tower. EEI’s site visit to Tank 2 and Tank 19 found Tank 2 does 

not have cable bracing, or it was removed. Tank 19, however, has cable bracing. In the 

Composite Tank alternative and the Tank Within A Tank alternative, the cables will need to be 

relocated or the tower strengthened to allow removal of the cables. Strengthening the tower can 

be quite extensive, we have chosen in this study to relocate the cable bracing. In the Composite 

Tank alternative the cable bracing will be relocated and attached to the new steel liner. In the 

Tank Within A Tank alternative, the cable bracing will be relocated and attached to the inside of 

the new tank shell. 

Fuel Piping Modifications 

Fuel piping for each tank consists of a diameter pipe which transitions to a diameter pipe 

in side the tank and a diameter pipe. Both pipes penetrate through the floor of the lower 

dome and extend up into the tank. As part of tank repairs, the piping will be pressure tested to 

determine the integrity of existing fuel lines. Additionally, EEI recommends the existing piping 

between the tank and first valve outside the tank in the Lower Tunnel be internally lined as a 

mean of extending piping life. 

As the Tank Within A Tank alternative will have of reinforced concrete on top of the 

existing dome bottom, the fuel pipes will need to be modified to extend up into the tank. 

Sample lines 

FISC personnel indicated that sample lines are required. Sample lines will be provided for the 

new tanks. The existing sample lines will be removed and new sample lines will be routed from 

the Lower Tunnel, through the same pipe casing used for the existing lines, and into the tanks. 

Level Alarms 

Level alarms will be provided to avoid overfilling the tanks. 

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 39 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

10.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ITEMS 

Tank Access 

Contractor Laydown/Storage Area 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 40 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

Ventilation 

Compressed Air 

Compressed air will be required for construction operations. The contractor supplied air 

compressor will be located depending on which 

tanks are being repaired. Approximately piping will be needed between the air 

compressor and the tank being worked on. The actual size of the line will be the contractor’s 

responsibility. Air drops and other branch connections will be provided as necessary. 

Electrical Power 

The contractor will need to provide 

temporary electrical power using portable diesel or propane engine generator sets

during construction. 

Minor contractor loads such as small ventilation fans up to one 5.6 kW (7.5 hp) per tank, and 

power for lighting, small tools, and possibly for auxiliary power for automatic horizontal and 

vertical tank welders (not including welding machine power) may be obtained from the 

stationary power distribution system within the Red Hill facility. 

Major contractor loads such as for tank ventilation

and welding machines will have to be powered from the contractor’s portable diesel or 

propane engine generator sets. 

Welding machine requirements for repair and construction work for each tank have been 

estimated as follows: 

• Liner repair phase: One six-pack of Miller XMT 304 welding machines 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 41 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• Tank construction phase: Two 600A, 100 percent duty cycle welding machines for use with 

horizontal and vertical automatic tank welding machines (Miller Dimension 652), two Miller 

XMT 456 welding machines, and one six-pack of Miller XMT 304 welding machines. 

It is recommended that the tank construction be sequenced in such a way that major welding 

operations are limited to one tank per generator. With that in mind, the preferred sequence 

would be to start with the first tank in the back section (Tanks 9-20), the second tank in the 

forward section (Tanks 1-8), and the third tank in the back section (Tanks 9-20). That way, the 

Contractor will only require two 450 kW diesel engine generator sets. 

The temporary electrical system does not include allowance for electric air compressors. In 

order to prevent having air compressor motor start and loading inrush currents adversely impact 

the input voltage to welding machines, it is recommended that engine driven air compressors be 

located outside the tunnels and temporary piping or hoses be run in to the tanks. If loads are low, 

air dryers may be powered either from the tunnel distribution system or from the contractor’s 

portable diesel engine-generator system. 

Construction Duration 

Estimated construction durations for the Alternative 1 - Composite Tank and Alternative 2 - 

Tank Within A Tank alternative are provided below. The durations are based on repairing tank 

in groups of three tanks at a time and assumptions on crew size and production, equipment and 

material procurement lead time, fabrication time, and shipping time. 

• Alternative – 1: Composite Tank: 3.31 years (172 weeks) 

• Alternative – 2 Tank Within A Tank: 3.27 Years (170 weeks) 

To meet this schedule will require working double shifts during the blasting and coating process. 

This will minimize the time required for dehumidification. An estimated timeline indicating 

major milestones and phases of construction for each alternative is provided in the appendices. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 42 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

11.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 

Introduction 

The opinion of probable project cost was prepared based on cost data obtained from past projects 

supplemented by actual quotations from vendors for major items including steel, coatings 

abrasive blasting, dehumidification, steel fabrication costs, and erection costs. The estimated 

labor requirements using current labor rates expected in Hawaii are based on a large US based 

international contractor using imported labor. 

Programmed Cost 

The programmed cost per tank for this MILCON project ranges between

(Alternative 1 – Composite Tank) and (Alternative 2 – Tank With A Tank) 

depending on the alternative selected. Programmed costs include a construction contingency of 

Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (SIOH) of and Post Construction Award 

Services of The cost associated with the design of this MILCON project is not included in 

the programmed cost. 

Construction Cost (Contingency and Escalation) 

The contractor cost per tank for the project ranges between (Alternative 1 – 

Composite Tank) and (Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank) depending on the 

alternative selected. Contractor (construction) costs include both subcontractor and prime 

contractor overhead and profit. Construction costs also include an estimating contingency of

Escalation is not included in the estimate due to the extreme volatility of commodities at this 

time. Escalation well in excess of past typical yearly escalation should be anticipated. 

The cost estimate breakdown for each alternative is included in the appendices. 

Cost Estimating Assumptions 

The following assumptions were used in the preparation of this opinion of probable project cost. 

Overall Assumptions 

• The project pricing is based on 2008 Dollars and does not include escalation. (Refer to 

discussion on Steel Prices and Market Volatility.) 

• Steel pricing is based on the July 2008 commodity price for steel; the estimate uses 

per lb for A36 steel and per lb for high strength steel FOB the mill. The project 

will require between tons of steel. 

• The cost includes shipping from of all materials from the mainland to Hawaii. 

• Fuel price is based on 2008 costs. 

• Existing tank coatings contain lead. 

• The tanks will be repaired in groups of three and may not be adjacent to each other. 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 43 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• The cost includes cleaning and inspection of the existing tank liner prior to construction. 

• The Composite Tank and Tank Within A Tank will not be hydrotested. 

• The contractor will be required to provide temporary electrical power during 

construction. 

• Construction contracting will be via full and open bid process. 

Alternative – 1 Composite Tank 

The project cost for the Composite Tank alternative is based on the following: 

• Removal of the existing coating on barrel and lower dome. 

• Inspecting the existing steel liner on the barrel and lower dome (100% scan of the liner 

plates and welds). 

• Spray-applied urethane lining on the existing steel liner on the barrel and lower dome 

(including cleaning and surface preparation of the existing steel liner). 

• thick carbon steel liner plates on the lower dome and barrel of the existing tank 

supported on vertical steel angles welded to the existing steel liner. 

• nterstitial space filled with grout or self-leveling concrete. 

• The product side of the liner 100% coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide 

primer and intermediate coat and a fluoropolyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 

09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel 

Tanks”. 

• Leak detection for the barrel and lower dome. 

Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank 

The project cost for the new tank in existing alternative is based on the following: 

• new tank with a dome bottom. 

• Self-supported fixed roof with structural steel framing. 

• Tank exterior 100% coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and 

intermediate coat and a polyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.27 

“Exterior Coating of Steel Structures”. Tank interior 100% coated with a MIL-DTL24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a fluoropolyurethane topcoat in 

accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Coating of 

Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. 

• Removal of existing coating on lower dome. 

• Inspecting the existing steel liner in the lower dome (100% scan of the liner plates and 

welds). 

• Spray-applied urethane lining on the existing steel liner of the lower dome (including 

cleaning and surface preparation of the existing steel liner). 

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 44 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

• Reinforced concrete dome foundation 

• Leak detection piping for dome bottom 

Steel Prices and Market Volatility 

The project cost may vary based on the cost of steel and fuel in the world marketplace. Several 

indices clearly demonstrate that the rise and trends of the steel market far exceed escalation as 

identified above. 

CRU data indicates an increase of over 300% in steel prices from 2001 to 2007. 

A recent Wall Street Journal article dated July 16, 2007 states “The price of a ton of hot-rolled 

steel, a benchmark base product used in most finished steel, currently stands at around $575 on 

the spot market--well above the $175 the same ton of steel cost on the spot market back in 

2001.” This equates to approximately 325% cost increase in six years. 

There are a number of factors affecting the volatility of the steel market and high cost of steel 

including: rapid growth of steel production and demand in China, consolidation of the steel 

industry, and rising cost of transportation caused by increased energy costs and limited supply. 

Steel prices are expected to continue to increase in 2008 and remain at a higher level in the long 

term. The cost of steel should be monitored and the Program Amount for this project adjusted 

accordingly prior to each annual review for MILCON funding. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 45 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

12.0 OTHER TANK-RELATED PROJECTS 

The following are recent and on-going studies affecting the Red Hill tanks and facility. 

Leak Detection 

DESC HQ (Environmental) has recently retained Michael Baker Jr., Inc. to evaluate leak 

detection systems for the Red Hill Tanks. This study, Market Survey of Leak Detection Systems 

for Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, March 31, 

2008 has been published in draft format. EEI’s understanding of the study is that it conducted a 

market survey of available leak detection systems for very large tanks. The study identified 

seven candidates capable of providing “In-Tank” highly accurate leak detection for very large 

tanks. The seven candidates were evaluated and ranked as to the system that would provide the 

best option for leak detection. 

The Composite Tank alternative incorporates an external visual leak detection piping system in 

barrel and lower dome of the tank. Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank has leak detection 

piping for the dome bottom and also provides the ability to inspect the shell of the tank while the 

tank is in service. The ability to visually detect leaks will augment an “In-Tank” Leak Detection 

system. 

Based on EEI’s understanding of the leak detections systems evaluated, neither of the two 

recommended tank repair alternatives will adversely impact the installation of an “In-Tank” 

highly accurate leak detection system. In the case of Alternative 2, where the exterior of the tank 

shell can be inspected, the “In-Tank” leak detection system is less important but is still a useful 

tool and provides an additional level of detection. 

Electrical Classification Study 

A study was performed by EDG in 2001 to develop a standard electrical area classification for all 

of the FISC Fuel Department facilities at Pearl Harbor. The study included an analysis of 

ventilation rates for various fuel vapor concentrations. 

Ventilation Study 

A ventilation study was performed by MWH in 2005. The study reviewed the results of a 1999 

ventilation study performed by Thermal Engineering and the 2001 Electrical Classifications 

Study. The 2005 Ventilation Study provided options for improving the ventilation system at Red 

Hill. 
Red Hill Tanks Repair Options Study Final Report Page 46 

FISC Pearl Harbor, HI September 2008 

EEI Project No. 08-4942 R059 

13.0 PROJECT TEAM 

Enterprise Engineering, Inc. 

Kevin S. Murphy, P.E. Principal In-Charge 

Stephen J. DiGregorio, P.E. Project Manager and Lead Structural Engineer 

Ray Griffith, P.E. Structural Engineer/Planner/Cost Estimator 

Melvin Yokota, P.E. (HHMI Inc.) Electrical Engineer 

Craig Meier (Corrosion Control Inc.) Corrosion Specialist (cathodic protection and 

coatings) 

Stephen S. Brooks, P.E. Project QA Review