### 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 23 rd 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 (Cath odic Protection and Coatings) Submitted By: Kevin S Murphy, P.E. Principal 2525 Gambell Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, AK 99503 EEI Project 08-4942Red 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 co mprehensive 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 exte nsion 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 thei r 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 woul d 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. Th e Program Amount for this concept is per tank. Due to the very unusual nature of the Red H ill 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 Su mmary of C oncepts ........................................................... 2 Opinion of Probable Project Cost ................................................................................ 3 Execution St rategy ...................................................................................................... 4 Coordination with Other Pr ojects and Ac tivities........................................................... 5 Decisions/Acti ons Made .............................................................................................. 6 2.0 PROJECT SCOPE AN D HISTORY............................................................. 7 Project Scope and Goals............................................................................................. 7 History ........................................................................................................................ . 7 3.0 PREVIOUS TANK 19 REPAIR ST UDY ......................................................10 Summary of 1998 Study ............................................................................................ 10 Applicability of 1998 Study to Current Study.............................................................. 10 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REPAIR OPTION PARAM ETERS ...............................11 Tank Capa city............................................................................................................ 11 Tank Life Ex pectancy ................................................................................................ 11 Secondary Containment and Leak Dete ction ............................................................ 11 Grouping of Tanks for Simu ltaneous Cons tructi on .................................................... 11 5.0 LONG TERM LIFE EXTENSION RE NEWAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED13 Alternative 1 - Co mposite Tank ................................................................................. 13 Composite Tank Permutati ons .................................................................................. 13 Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank ............................................................................ 14 Other Technol ogies ................................................................................................... 14 Conclusi ons............................................................................................................... 16 6.0 ALTERNATIVE 1 - COMPOSITE TA NK DETAILED DISCUSSION...............17 General Di scussion ................................................................................................... 17 Material s.................................................................................................................... 18 Secondary Cont ainment ............................................................................................ 18 Interstitial Spac e ........................................................................................................ 20 Leak Detect ion........................................................................................................... 21 Tank Vent ing ............................................................................................................. 22 Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................................................... 22 Attainment of Goals ................................................................................................... 23 Construc tion .............................................................................................................. 23 Life Maint enance Pl an ............................................................................................... 26TABLE 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 Di scussion ................................................................................................... 27 New T ank .................................................................................................................. 27 Material s.................................................................................................................... 29 Secondary Cont ainment ............................................................................................ 29 Leak Detect ion........................................................................................................... 29 Tank Vent ing ............................................................................................................. 30 Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................................................... 30 Tank Fill Height .......................................................................................................... 31 Attainment of Goals ................................................................................................... 31 Construc tion .............................................................................................................. 32 Life Maint enance Pl an ............................................................................................... 33 8.0 COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE TANK VS. TANK WITHIN A TANK ...........35 9.0 REPAIRS COMMON TO BOTH REPAIR ALTE RNATIVES ..........................37 Tank Cle aning ........................................................................................................... 37 Existing Steel Liner In spection and Repair ................................................................ 37 Coating Re moval ....................................................................................................... 37 Center Tower and Walkwa y....................................................................................... 37 Fuel Piping M odificati ons........................................................................................... 38 Sample li nes.............................................................................................................. 38 Level Al arms.............................................................................................................. 38 10.0 CONSTRUCTION RE LATED ITEMS ......................................................39 Tank A ccess.............................................................................................................. 39 Contractor Laydow n/Storage Area ............................................................................ 39 Ventilati on.................................................................................................................. 40 Compressed Air......................................................................................................... 40 Electrical Power ......................................................................................................... 40 Construction Durati on................................................................................................ 41 11.0 OPINION OF PROBABL E PROJECT COST ...........................................42 Introducti on................................................................................................................ 42 Programmed Cost ..................................................................................................... 42 Construction Cost (Conti ngency and Esca lation) ...................................................... 42 Cost Estimating Assumpti ons.................................................................................... 42 Steel Prices and Mark et Volat ility .............................................................................. 44 12.0 OTHER TANK-RELAT ED PROJ ECTS ...................................................45 Leak Detect ion........................................................................................................... 45 Electrical Classi fication Study.................................................................................... 45 Ventilation Study ........................................................................................................ 45 13.0 PROJECT TEAM..................................................................................46TABLE 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 Conc ept: Composite Tank ............................................. Tab A Appendix B – Tank Repair Concep t: Tank Within A Tank........................................ Tab B Appendix C – Tank Lini ng Informatio n .....................................................................Tab C Appendix D – Other Technology ..............................................................................Tab D Appendix E – Response to Comment s.....................................................................Tab ERed 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 contra ct to NFESC, was retained to develop concept alternatives and associated pla nning level cost estimates to re pair 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 th e kick-off meeting. The existing Red Hill tanks were constructe d during August 1940 to September 1943. Tanks 1 to 4 are
Cu rrent and previous inspections have found defects in the tank liner (weld qua lity 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 serv ice inspection of the tank interior (including scanning the steel liner plates and welds for co rrosion 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 Ta nks 2 and 20). The repa ir 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 de velop 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 in spection interval s of 20 years.

• Minimize risk of a fuel leak.

• Contain leaks that may potentially occur.

• Have the capability to detect and loca te 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 i ssues, 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 REDACTEDRed 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 prov iding 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 th e existing steel liner to cr eate an interstitial space filled with grout or concrete. The Composite Ta nk alternative, in essence, is a double wall tank. Secondary containment is provided by the existing steel liner and a spray a pplied 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 th e barrel); thus nominal storage ca pacity of the Composite Tank is the same for all tanks. The Composite Tank conc ept is presented on sketches SK-1.0 to SK-1.3.

Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank This alternative involves constructing a new ta nk 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 belo w the expansion joint of the upper dome (below the manhole and walkway of the existing tank). Th e smaller diameter of the new tank creates a around th e tank that allows inspection of the exterior of the tank for weeps and leaks. The annular space also allows inspection of the steel li ner 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 th e existing tank and constructing a new tank with a cone down bottom. This concept involves de molishing 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 botto m concept, and thus was not further developed. REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 Pr e-final report and is attributed to the following:

• Revised cost to clean and inspect the exis ting tanks based on information provided by the government on recent projects to clean, in spect, and repair the Red Hill tanks.

• Cost to remove existing tank coatings. EEI wa s directed to assume existing tank coatings contain lead.

• Revised field painting costs.

• Revised cost of coating inspection to in clude 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 Ta nk Within A Tank alternative.

• Increased project duration. The estimates for these two alternatives ar e based on the following key cost factors:
1. The Programmed Cost includes Contractor Cost plus constructi on contingency, SIOH and Post Construction Award Services. 2. The cost associated with the design of th is MILCON project is not included in the programmed cost. 3. The project pricing is ba sed on 2008 Dollars and does not include escalation. This is discussed further late r in the document. 4. Steel pricing is based on the July 2008 commod ity price for steel; the estimate uses per lb for A36 steel and per lb for high stre ngth 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

REDACTEDRed 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 acco rdingly 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 ta nks and may not be adjacent to each other. 8. Tank cleaning and inspection of the existing in ternal steel liner prior to construction. 9. Costs to remove existing coatings are ba sed on existing coatings containing lead. 10. The Composite Tank will be 100% internally coated in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interi or Coating of Welded Stee l Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. 11. The Tank Within A Tank will be 100% interna lly coated in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Inte rior Coating of Welded St eel 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 perf ormed 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 th e detailed discussion on each alternative. 13. The contractor will be require d to provide temporary electr ical power during construction. 14. Construction contracting will be via full and open bid process. If only one tank is initially authorized, as reco mmended, the cost for the first tank will be higher than the cost per tank if tanks ar e repaired in groups of three ta nks. However the lessons learned during the first tank will likely re duce overall costs as they are appl ied to the subsequent tanks. Our opinion of probable project c onstruction cost for the Tank Within A Tank alternative if only one tank is initially author ized 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 onl y 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 incorpor ated 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

REDACTEDRed 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 pr oject to refine the se lected 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 Co mposite Tank alternative or Tank Within A Tank alternative should be coor dinated 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 ex isting steel liner for secondary containment, the steel liner and welds of the barre l and lower dome of the existing tank need to be 100% scanned for thinning due to corrosion a nd weld defects and repaired. If a tank was inspected within the past 5 years that included sc anning of the stee l 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 th e steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the existing tank must be in cluded 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 s econdary 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% sca nning 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 Re d 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-des tructive 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 re quire 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 Pr e-final report and discussions during the project review meeting, EEI has made the followi ng revisions to the recommended alternatives and opinions of project cost pr esented in this final report:
1. Revised the cost to clean a nd inspect the existing tanks.
2. EEI was directed to assume existing tank coatin gs contain lead. Coating removal cost was revised and is now based on existi ng tank coatings containing lead.
3. Coating inspection by a NACE coating inspecto r was changed to SSPC QP-5 certified inspector.
4. Revised the leak detection pipi ng of the Composite Tank altern ative so that the piping is within the inters titial space, not inside the tank.
5. Provided discussion that hydrosta tic 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 de tection time is not immediate.
6. Revised the Tank Within a Tank alternative to in clude 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 ex terior of the new tank at three levels.
7. Assessed the risks of not perfor ming a hydrostatic test of the new tank in the Tank Within A Tank alternative and recommended that the ne w tank be constructed without performing a hydrotest. Revised the project cost to de lete 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 st ated in the NFESC Stat ement of Work include:

• Maintain a total usable capacity in Red H ill 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 ma jor milestones and phases of construction.

• Prepare a written life maintenance plan.

• Develop constructible repair options utilizing the most cu rrent 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, dir ection 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 wa s constructed during August 1940 to September 1943 and consists of twenty underground vertical cy lindrical reinforced c oncrete fuel storage tanks (Tanks 1 - 20) with a dome top and bottom a nd internal steel liner, fu el piping, mechanical and ventilation systems, electrical systems, and associated infrastructure.

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTEDRed 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 installe d, followed by filling the cavity with reinforced concrete, After the upper dome wa s 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 constructe d, it was pre-stressed by injecting grout between the reinforced concrete and lava rock. The lowe r 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 walkwa y 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 wa s not placed back in service as “weeping” was observed from some of the channel doublers in the upper dome. Tank repairs and modificati ons have been provided ove r the years that include:

• Removal of leak detection pipi ng 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 repair ed by repairing only the defective welds.

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

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

• Removal of grout tube couplings in the stee l 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

REDACTEDRed 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 (inc luding 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 corr oded areas in the steel liner requiring repair such as pitting, holes, plate thinning, and defect ive welds (intermittent cracks, lack of fusion, porosity, and slag inclusions). Th ere is currently a program to clea n, inspect and repair all of the tanks with goal of retuning the tanks to service for a nother 20-year cycle. The current round of inspections (Tanks 2, 6, 15, 16 and 20) was the firs t 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, DE SC Project PRL 98-9 Contract N624724-98-C-0002 to consider possible repair options for Tank 19. Several concepts we re brainstormed by the team. The 1998 study selected following c oncepts for cost estimating:

• Repair and Recoat Existing Steel Liner

• Internal Bladder Type Liner

• Composite Tank A free standing tank inside the existing tank conc ept was also considered but was not further evaluated or developed as the cost of the tank alon e 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 r ecoat option is a viable alternative but does not pr ovide secondary containmen t or leak detection.
2. If the life of the facility is be tween 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 e xpected 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 im prove 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 pr ovide containment of l eaks 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 optio n 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 a lternative also has merit in that it provides a long term life extension, secondary containment, and the capab ility 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 meeti ng. These parameters have been considered in developing con cept repair alternativ es for this study. Tank Capacity Tanks 1 to 4 are presently filled to an aver age 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 ca pacity requirements could decrease or increase and that storage capacity requirements for speci fic fuels (JP-5, JP-8, and F-76) could also change. Direction was given during the projec t 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 li fe 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 importa nt to note that tanks generally weep before leaking. It is not inte nded that a secondary cont ainment system contain weeps or leaks indefinitely. Once a leak is dete cted, 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 seconda ry 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 co nsidered alternatives a nd new technologies that provide containment of leaks that may potentially occur, including leak detection and location of leaks. These alternatives and technologi es are discussed later in this report. Grouping of Tanks for Simultaneous Construction The Statement of Work states to provide suggest ed grouping of tanks for simultaneous work with construction sequencing of each group. Currently fi ve 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

REDACTEDRed 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 tank s being available in groups of three and that specific tanks in each group need not be determin ed. 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 co st of working on tanks that are at opposite ends of the Upper Tunnel, which requires work to be st aged 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 ta nk at first as a test case to refine the approach from both a design and cons truction perspective. Wh ile this approach may increase the cost of the first ta nk, EEI feels that there is the potential for la ter benefits in that pricing and design concepts can be confirmed and lessons learne d 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 we re 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 provid ing a new steel liner in side the existing tank. The new steel liner would extend up to and be se aled approximately 2 feet below the expansion joint of the upper dome (below the manhole and wa lkway 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 sp ace 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 ove r 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 vi able 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 Weld ed 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 insp ected and repaired to provide secondary containment. The new liner pl ates will be welded directly to and supported by the existing steel liner. The “interstitial sp ace” (i.e. interface) be tween 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 pipi ng. This alternative was dismissed because:
1. Placing new steel against old st eel sets up a galvanic corrosion mechanism between the new steel and existing steel causing the new st eel to act as an anode and corrode. 2. The existing steel liner is subject to external corrosion and will conti nue 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 inch es 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 provi de a release prevention barrier, the urethane lining woul d be damaged by welding the ne w 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 a nd existing steel liner. The metal mesh creates a wider in terstitial space and thus better l eak detection. This permutation was dismissed for the same reasons stated above. New Steel Liner Plates with Fibe rglass Mesh and Urethane Lining In this permutation fiberglass mesh isolates th e 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 lin er will be coated with a urethane lining to provide a secondary containment release preventi on 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 ta nk within the existing ta nk. The new tank would be and have either a dome or fl at 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 l eaks is provided by the st eel liner of the existing tank.
EEI considers the Tank Within A Tank alternative a viable option and has pr epared a project cost estimate. This alternative is further discussed in the sections that follow. Other Technologies Other technology considered in this study includ es tank linings. Develo pments in tank linings are available that provide seconda ry containment and leak detec tion. These lining systems have been used on new tanks and to retrofit existing tanks. Tankbau One European manufacturer (Tankbau) has de veloped a “double skin” lining which has an interstitial space for leak detec tion. The lining consists of a doubl e polyester resin coating with textile glass mats applied in laye rs to the tank structure and an in terstitial space of metal foil or spacer fabric. Detection of leaks into the interstitial space is pr ovided by monitoring the interstitial space with a vacuum leak detector. Manufacturer lite rature states the lining can be applied to existing aboveground and underground st eel tanks and concrete tanks and has been used in over 400 tanks. Our concerns with this product are: REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 jo int between the barrel and upper dome. Differences in thermal expansion between th e 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 interstitia l 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 inspec tion 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 intersti tial space to monitor for leaks. According to manufacturer literature the cust om made lining is inserted in to the tank and air between the lining and tank is then pumped out to create a va cuum so that the lining adheres to the tank. The manufacture’s literature does not st ate whether a vacuum alone is us ed 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 ta nk. 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. Th e 3-D glass fabric consists of two parallel fabric layers interwoven together wi th vertical pile threads to crea te an interstitial space between the fabric layers. The tank surf ace is first cleaned and prepared to receive the lining. Epoxy is then applied to the tank surface at 20 to 30 mils we t film thickness. The 3-D glass fabric is then placed on the wetted area and the epoxy is worked in to the fabric causing the fabric to expand. As the epoxy cures a cavity or interstitial space is formed betw een the upper and lower fabric layers by the vertical pile threads. The upper la yer 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 met hod. Our concerns with this product include: REDACTEDRed 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 th e 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 th at breaches the inner fabric layer.

• Long term maintenance and inspec tion of the lining integrity. Conclusions Based on our review of tank lining technology we c onclude that these alte rnatives 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 no t 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 structur al 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 De tailed 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 alterna tive consists of a new steel liner inside the tank supported by structural steel angl es or tees welded to the exis ting 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-leveli ng concrete. The product side of the liner will be coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and inte rmediate coat and a fluoropolyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane In terior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”. In developing the Composite Tank alternative, we have not included li ning the upper dome, due to the very high incremental cost compared to th e increase in storage cap acity of approximately

. The new composite liner will terminate and be sealed approximately the expansi on 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 exis ting steel liner, and a concept of vertical courses with flat sheets and vertical tee supports. We ha ve 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 vert ical angles welded to the exis ting steel liner allow isolation of the barrel into vertical zones for improved le ak detection and leak lo cation. liner plates with vertical a ngles 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 barr el 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 c ould 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 th e 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 a nd the support angles are arrang ed 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 REDACTEDRed 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 s upport 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 construc ted with either ASTM A 36 car bon steel plates or ASTM A 240 stainless steel plates. A carbon st eel liner is a lower material co st. Additionally the cost for welding carbon steel is approximately 25% less th an welding stainless steel. A stainless steel liner, however, provides greater resi stance to corrosion and thus woul d not need to be coated but is a much greater cost. Because of its resistan ce to corrosion, thick stainless steel plates could be used instead of thick carbon steel pl ates. If a stainless stee l liner is provided, the angles supporting the new liner plat es 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 stainles s steel tees and the exis ting carbon steel liner is not a concern as the interface will be coated with a urethane lini ng. A thick stainless steel liner with stainless steel support angles w ould be approximately additional cost per tank compared to a carbon steel liner with coating. The project cost estimate is base d on using a carbon steel liner. Secondary Containment The existing steel liner is subject to external co rrosion in the form of pitting, thin areas of general metal loss, holes, and localized corrosion in th e form of small “worm-like” corrosion trails. In order for the existing steel liner to provide contai nment of a leak, the liner plates and welds will need to be inspected and thin areas, holes, and we ld defects (cracks, lack of fusion, and porosity) will need to be repaired. EEI recently performed an assessment of the existi ng steel liner in Tanks 2 and 20 in support of a project to clean, inspect, and repair the tanks . The assessment consis ted of calculating an external corrosion rate and a mi nimum required thickness of the hick steel liner plates. This minimum thickness served as the screening cr iteria for determining whether to repair thin areas and pits in the steel liner plates for another 20-year interv al until the next inspection. EEI calculated an external corrosi on rate of 0.001744 inches/year us ing the linear method of API 653 and a remaining thickness of at the e nd 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 guida nce of API 570 to calculate a minimum thickness for repair screening cr iteria. EEI recommended a mini mum thickness of as the screening criteria for determining whether thin and pitted areas in the inch thick steel liner plates require repair. This recommendation wa s reviewed and accepted by the Government. At twice the calculated corrosion rate of 0.001744 in/y r (i.e. 0.003488 inches/year), the steel liner will reach a minimum thickness of in 20 y ears 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

REDACTEDRed 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 or iginal 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 co nsidered the installation of a cathodic protection system to reduce exterior corrosion of the existing liner. The 1998 study concluded th at the application of cathodic protection for the existing steel liner could be accomplished by installing deep impressed current anodes. For such a cathodic pr otection system to prove effective, a continuous media must exist between the anodes and the st eel liner. There also cannot be any other structures that would block th e 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 betwee n the concrete and pre- stressing grout, between the grout and gunite, and between the gunite and rock due to ther mal expansion and shrinkage. Documentation from original cons truction also noted that large voids were encountered in the lava rock when the tanks were ex cavated. The voids in the rock ar e 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, givi ng the impression of “worm lines ”. The voids and gaps pose a problem to installing any deep anodes as curren t from the anodes would be hindered by voids in the rock, and gaps between the rock/gunite in terface, gunite/pre-stressing grout interface, grout/concrete interface, and concre te/steel liner interface, leaving areas of the steel liner without effective protection. Another concern with providing cath odic protection is the effect of the reinforcing steel in the concrete surrounding the lower dome, barrel, a nd upper dome. Record drawings show the concrete around the barrel ranges from feet thick and contains The concrete on the outside of the lower do me is a minimum of and reinforced. The reinforcing steel would intercept a significa nt amount of the protect ive 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 th rough the concrete to th e steel liner. Where the current jumps off, the reinforcing steel w ill be subject to severe corrosion and will be destroyed.
There is little confidence that the application of cathodic prot ection could effectively control corrosion of the existing steel liner , and its application could damage the reinforcing steel in the supporting concrete. The applicat ion of cathodic protection to cont rol corrosion is therefore not viable. Recognizing that cathodic prot ection 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 containm ent release prevention barrier. The urethane

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTEDRed 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 fr om outside the tank and thus minimize the potential for co rrosion of the interstitial side of the new liner plates. The lining material will be comparable to that us ed 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-wate r separators, and at military service stations. The ACT-100-U coating has a proven track recor d, and a projected servi ce life in excess of 50 years. Interstitial Space We have selected a interstitial space. Th e interstitial space can be any width; however, increasing the width only results in a greater reduction in storag e capacity. Our concern with a narrower width is that the uret hane lining could be damaged during welding of the new liner plates. To prevent buckling of the new steel liner from fl uid pressure from tank c ontents, the interstitial space will be filled with grout or self-leveling concrete. Filling the interstitial space with nonshrink grout or self-leveling conc rete 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 give n 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 dism issed. Hydrophilic grouts are a polyurethane grout that r eacts with water and expands into a fl exible 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 lin er 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 pressu re in the interstitial space from the grout or concrete without excessi ve bulging, the grout or self leveling concrete must be placed in lifts not exceeding in 5 f eet and the liner plates need to be supported continuously at

. To meet the support requirements, the edges of the new vertical li ner plates on the barrel will be supported with a continuous vertical angle we lded continuously on both sides to the existing steel liner. Additionally, two vertical angles arra nged in the shape of a tube will be provided in the interstitial spac e at the center of the plat e to support the plate and fo rm a drainage path for REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 th e 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 th e “tube” space to the l eak 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 wi ll 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 sp aces 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 cen ter of the interstitial space to suppor t 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 sp ace can drain into the “tube” space. We considered providing leak detection piping on the interior of th e tank which would be connected to the steel liner near the bottom of th e barrel at each drainage “tube” space to detect leaks in the barrel. This con cept consisted of the following:

• Leak detection piping on the in terior of the tank connected to the steel liner near the bottom of the barrel. The piping would be connected to the vert ical drainage “tube” space in each interstitial space. As there are ntersti tial 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 ta nk into pipe connections per zone.

• Each of the will be routed through a new pene tration in the lower dome to the Lower Tunnel.

• In addition to the for the tank barrel, one zone will be pr ovided for the entire lower dome. The lower dome leak detecti on 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 detec tion piping was revised due to c oncerns 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 dete ction piping inside the tanks whic h is being removed due to leak problems. REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTEDRed 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 detecti on was revised as follows:

• A horizontal drainage “tube” space will be provi ded in the interstitial space at the bottom of the barrel. This horizontal “tube” sp ace 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 horizon tal tube space is compartmentalized to into zones interstitial spaces are headered together per zone.

• Leak detection piping will be provided in th e interstitial space of the lower dome and connect to the compartments of the horizonta l 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 po ssibility of pipe blockage and to increase service life. All leak detec tion piping will be fully welded. No threaded fittings will be permitted. The leak detec tion pipes will be r outed 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 th e leak detection piping.

• In addition to the zones for the tank barrel, one zone will be pr ovided 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 fo r the leak can be narrowed to a wide area of the barrel consisting of inters titial spaces extending vertically from the lower dome spring line to top of the composite tank. The leak detecti on 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 sy stem is adequate but upgrades have been recommended. No repairs have been in cluded in the project cost estimate. Hydrostatic Testing A hydrotest is a test to demonstrat e fitness for service and is prim arily 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 ex isting tank to resist inte rnal 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-de structive examination will be performed on the welds of the new liner. REDACTED
REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 re liable leak test as leak detecti on time is not immediate. It will take time for weeps and small leaks to migr ate 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 leak s. 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 th e 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 take n 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 lea d, the interior coating wi ll need to be removed, handled, and disposed in accordance with UF GS 02 82 33.13 20 “Removal/Control and Disposal of Paint with Lead”. The existing steel liner plates will be inspecte d for pitting, thinning, and holes. Areas having a remaining thickness less than inches and hole s 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 in to the tank that would interfere with the urethane lining and new liner plates. All locations where liner suppor t 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 ed ges 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

REDACTEDRed 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 existin g steel liner and support angles will be coated with a urethane lining. The surf ace of the existing liner plates a nd support angles will be cleaned to remove oil, grease, and soluble salt contaminat ion and abrasive blasted to near white metal in accordance with SSPC SP-10. It is cr itical that abrasive -blasted surfaces remain dry and free of contaminates. The contractor will be require d to provide dehumidifi cation during abrasive blasting to prevent prepared steel surfaces from corroding. Due to the amount of surface area involved, application of the uret hane lining will require consider able 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 mo nitored 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 proces s 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 w ill 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 w ith plug welds spaced vertically at feet on center to the intermediate support angles which fo rm the tube section for leak detection. The horizontal weld between courses wi ll also be welded with a comp lete penetration butt weld. A backing bar will be welded to the upper plate prio r 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 th e 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 Electroma gnetic 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 we lded in place and the welds insp ected, 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-leveli ng concrete) should be placed in lifts not exceeding in heig ht. Once the grout (or self-leve ling concrete) has set, the next course of plates can be erected. After the new liner plates are in stalled 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 w ith 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 dehu midification. Due to the amount of surface area involved, it may be necessary to prepare and coat th e 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

REDACTEDRed 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 detecti on piping and fuel piping modifica tions 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 th e 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 th inning due to corrosion and weld defects and repaired. If a tank was inspected within th e past 5 years that in cluded scanning of the steel liner and welds and repair of thin areas and weld def ects, the existing steel liner does not need to be re-inspected. If th e steel liner has never been scanned, 100% scanning of the steel liner and welds of th e 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 su rface 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 test ing, surface preparation, lining and coating application, initial cure of th e 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 inspect ed and inspected by either magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspecti on. The welds will also be 100% inspected for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetr ation, porosity, and slag inclusions using Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.) or ultrasonic shear wave inspection. REDACTEDRed 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 wi ll 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 reco mmend the following maintenance plan:
1. Monthly: Visually check the le ak 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 th e steel liner will involve draining and cleaning the tank, locating the leak, and welding a patch plat e 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 not e, however, that as the existing steel liner and urethane lining is covered by gr out in the interstitial space and the new steel liner plate, it is not possible to find a l eak in the urethane lining to repair it.
2. 10 Years after Return to Service: Perform a ba seline internal out-of- service inspection. The internal inspection will include:

a. Visual inspection of the liner plates a nd 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 nondestr uctive examination scanning me thods capable of detecting metal loss on the interstitial side of the liner plates.

c. Inspection of 100% of the liner welds for cr acks using Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T), ultrasonic shear wa ve inspection, or other non-destructive examination methods.
d. Inspection of the interior coa ting by a NACE coating inspector.

e. Based on the findings of the out-of-service insp ection 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 sp ace around the tank that allows inspection of the exterior of the new tank shell a nd 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 pre ssure at the bottom of the shell is quite high (approximately , the shell may need to be re inforced with external stiffeners to keep the bottom shell courses to a reasonable thickness. Th e tank will be braced laterally with struts to the existing tank to resist rock ing from seismic ground motions.
The tank exterior will be coated with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a polyurethane topcoa t in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.27 “Exterior Coating of Steel Structures”. The interior of the tank will be coat ed 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 Inte rior 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 exte rior of the tank for inspection and repair. The upper dome of the existing tank will be inspected and repaired on ly to prevent infiltration of ground water. Tank Roof The tank can be either open-top or have a fixe d roof. An open top tank allows booms to be mounted on the center tower for c onstruction and for future insp ection and maintenance of the tank. An open top tank, however, prevents ventila ting the annular space for personnel access. The tank would need to have a fixed roof and be vented to the existing ta nk 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 ve nt 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 REDACTEDRed 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 th e 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 fabrica ting the trusses in short lengths so that they can be brought through the Upper Tunnel into the tank and tem porarily supported in place until field splices are completed.

• Self-Supported Dome Roof: This option is sim ilar 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 se condary system of steel framing and rafters are hung. The primary framing system would s upported from either th e new tank shell or the existing tank shell and ha ve a compression ring around the existing tower, thus no additional loads would be supported from the towe r. The benefit of th is concept is that the primary steel framing is a bove 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 th e tank, being shallower depth, allows more usable storage capacity.
EEI recommends a fixed roof c oncept 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 th ick 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 uretha ne 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 su pport the entire weight of the tank. REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 me mbrane 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 ex isting 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 cu shion filled interstiti al 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 reductio n in storage capacity. One way to provide more storage capacity is to remove th e top feet of the lower dome and extend the barrel of the existing tank down to this lower elevation. Th is 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 majo r 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 botto m is further developed and discussed in this report. Materials ASTM A 573 grade 70 material was selected to resist internal pr essure form tank contents and keep the thickness of the botto m shell courses t hick. Secondary Containment Containment of leaks is provide d by the existing tank; specifica lly the steel liner on the tank barrel and lower dome. Prior to tank construction, th e steel liner on the barrel and lower dome will be inspected and repaired. As the steel line r of the lower dome will be covered by the new tank bottom and thus not accessible for future insp ection or repair, it will be coated with a urethane lining to provide a release preventi on barrier. The urethane lining material and application will be the same as for the Composite Tank alternative. The steel liner on the existing ta nk barrel will be visible from th e 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 a nd existing barrel will have a trench to collect and contain leaks. The tren ch will be continuous ar ound the tank and drain to four equally spaced sumps. The sumps coul d be equipped with a level float and alarm equipment when liquid co llects in the sumps. The interstitial space of the dome bottom will have tw o 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

REDACTEDRed 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 r outed from a new sump below the center of the new tank floor to the Lower Tunnel; thus the entire interstitial sp ace of the dome bottom will be one zone for leak detection purposes. Two pipes are recommende d for redundancy. Drilling or coring of the concrete between the existing lower dome and th e 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 re commended. No repairs have been included in the project cost estimate. To prevent the tank from venting to the a nnular space, it will not have overflow ports. Hydrostatic Testing API 650 requires new tank be hydrotested with wate r. 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 wa ter 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 disc harge permit would be extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain as the area is over an aquifer. Given the unique conditions of hydr otesting the new tanks at Red Hill, EEI has assessed the risks of not hydrotesting the tank and what measures c ould 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 require ments 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 fact ors, it is our recommendation that the new tanks could be constructed without performing a hydrotest with water. REDACTEDRed 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 Electro magnetic Technique (B.F.E.T.) , or ultrasonic shear wave inspection of 100% of the shell welds. In spect for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, porosity, and other re jectable defects. Repair a ll rejectable de fects. This additional inspection is recommended as AP I 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 r eadily 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 be low 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 fi lling with fuel, the fuel will be contained within the existing tank. EEI recommends th at 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 perf orm 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 th e 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 sa fety margin against overfilling the tank.

If the tank is filled at a rate of , the reaction time be tween 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 REDACTEDRed 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 equipmen t may be lowered into the existing tank using contractor-provided booms mounted on the center tower, we ha ve 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 lowe r dome and barrel for secondary containment, the steel liner and welds of the lower dome and barrel ne ed 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-inspe cted. If the steel liner has never been scanned, 100% sca nning 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-de structive examination methods.

• The shell to lower dome weld will be inspected in accordance with API 650.

• Shell welds will be visually inspected a nd radiographed in accordance with API 650. Additionally, as the tank will not be hydrotes ted, 100% of the shell welds will be tested for leaks by penetrating oil or vacuum box te sting and 100% of the shell welds will be inspected for cracks and re jectable defects us ing Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T), or ultr asonic shear wave inspection.

• Welds around pipe penetrations will be visually inspect ed and inspected by either magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspecti on. The welds will also be 100% inspected for cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetr ation, 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 applyi ng 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 REDACTEDRed 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 stee l liner plates in the lower dome will be inspected by a SSPC QP-5 cer tified coating inspector. Life Maintenance Plan
The Tank Within A Tank alternative is essentia lly 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 ye ar life or longer if maintained. The only major maintenance required will be coatings, and if properly applied, would be on a 15 to 20 y ear cycle. In-service external inspection and out-of-se rvice internal inspection of th e new tank should be performed following the guidance of API 653 and as recommended herein. For long term serviceability, we reco mmend 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 insp ection of the exterior of the tank on a routine basis. The inspection can be performed by owner/operator personne l. API 653 does not define the frequency of routine in-service insp ections. EEI suggests routine inspections be performed at least once every six months.
3. Formal In-Service Inspections: Perform a form al in-service inspection every 5 years by an API 653 certified inspector. The inspection s hould include visual inspection and ultrasonic thickness measurements of the sh ell 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 nondestructiv e 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 dom e bottom for cracks using Balanced Field Electromagnetic Technique (B.F.E.T), ultr asonic shear wave inspection, or other nondestructive examination methods.
d. Visual inspection of the interior of the shell.

e. Inspection of the interior and exteri or 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 insp ection establish the interval until the next internal inspection. (It is recommended that the interval not exceed 20 years).
g. Visual inspection of th e steel liner and coati ng of the existing tank.
5. Program the new tank and existing tank liner fo r 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 - Ta nk 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 inte rstitial 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 REDACTEDRed 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

REDACTEDRed 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 ba sic work. The following describes these common elements, plus minor differences as sociated 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 ex isting steel liner for secondary containment, the steel liner and welds of the barre l and lower dome of the existing tank needs to be 100% scanned for thinning due to corrosion a nd weld defects and repaired. If a tank was inspected within the past 5 years that included sc anning of the stee l 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 th e steel liner and welds of the barrel and lower dome of the existing tank must be in cluded 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 sc anning of the stee l 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 th e steel liner and welds of the lower dome and barrel of the existing tank must be include d 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 a nd removal of the coating from th e 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 coati ng inside Tank 2 and other tanks determined the existing tank coatings contain lead. Existing coatings w ill therefore need to be removed, handled, and disposed in accordance with UFGS 02 82 33.13 20 “R emoval/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 b een 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 cleani ng and inspection and constructi on work. Prior to erecting booms, the central tower should be inspected by a structural engineer a nd any deficiencies andRed 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 strengthene d 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 relocate d and attached to the new steel liner. In the Tank Within A Tank alternative, the cable bracing w ill 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 diam eter pipe. Both pipes penetrat e 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 re quired. Sample lines will be provided for the new tanks. The existing sample lines will be re moved and new sample lines will be routed from the Lower Tunnel, through the same pipe casing used for the exis ting lines, and into the tanks. Level Alarms Level alarms will be provided to avoid overfilling the tanks. REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTEDRed 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

REDACTEDRed 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 constructi on operations. The cont ractor 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 actua l 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 po rtable diesel or propane engine generator sets during construction.
Minor contractor loads such as small ventilat ion 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 syst em within the Red Hill facility. Major contractor loads such as for tank ventil ation 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 REDACTEDRed 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 weldi ng 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 firs t tank in the back section (Tan ks 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 star t and loading inrush curr ents adversely impact the input voltage to welding machines, it is reco mmended that engine driven air compressors be located outside the tunnels and temp orary piping or hoses be run in to the tanks. If loads are low, air dryers may be powered either from the tunne l distribution system or from the contractor’s portable diesel engine-generator system. Construction Duration
Estimated construction durations for the Altern ative 1 - Composite Ta nk and Alternative 2 - Tank Within A Tank alternative ar e provided below. The durations are based on repairing tank in groups of three tanks at a time and assump tions 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 sh ifts 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 e ach 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 fo r major items including steel, coatings abrasive blasting, dehumidification, steel fabrica tion costs, and erection costs. The estimated labor requirements using current labor rates expe cted in Hawaii are based on a large US based international contractor using imported labor. Programmed Cost The programmed cost per tank for th is MILCON project ranges between (Alternative 1 – Composite Tank) and (Alternative 2 – Tank With A Tank) depending on the alternative selected. Programme d costs include a construction contingency of Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (SI OH) of and Post Construction Award Services of The cost associated with the design of this MILCON proj ect is not included in the programmed cost. Construction Cost (Contingency and Escalation) The contractor cost per tank for the proj ect ranges between (Alternative 1 – Composite Tank) and (Alternative 2 – Tank Within A Tank) depending on the alternative selected. Contractor (constructio n) 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 typi cal yearly escalation s hould be anticipated.
The cost estimate breakdown for each alte rnative is included in the appendices. Cost Estimating Assumptions The following assumptions were used in the prepar ation of this opinion of probable project cost. Overall Assumptions

• The project pricing is based on 2008 Dollars a nd does not include esca lation. (Refer to discussion on Steel Prices and Market Volatility.)

• Steel pricing is based on the July 2008 comm odity 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 thr ee and may not be adjacent to each other. REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDRed 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 th e existing tank liner prior to construction.

• The Composite Tank and Tank Within A Tank will not be hydrotested.

• The contractor will be required to provi de 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 barr el and lower dome (100% scan of the liner plates and welds).

• Spray-applied urethane lining on the existi ng steel liner on the barrel and lower dome (including cleaning and surface preparat ion 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% coat ed with a MIL-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a fluoropol yurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.15 “Epoxy/Fluoropolyurethane Interior Co ating 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 exis ting 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 MI L-DTL-24441 epoxy polyamide primer and intermediate coat and a polyurethane topcoat in accordance with UFGS 09 97 13.27 “Exterior Coating of Steel St ructures”. 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/Fluor opolyurethane Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks”.

• Removal of existing coating on lower dome.

• Inspecting the existing steel liner in the lowe r dome (100% scan of the liner plates and welds).

• Spray-applied urethane lining on the existi ng steel liner of the lower dome (including cleaning and surface preparation of the existing steel liner). REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTEDRed 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 st eel and fuel in the world marketplace. Several indices clearly demonstrate that th e rise and trends of the steel market far exceed escalation as identified above.
CRU data indicates an increase of ove r 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 t on 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 aff ecting the volatility of the steel market and high cost of steel including: rapid growth of steel production a nd demand in China, cons olidation of the steel industry, and rising cost of tran sportation caused by increased energy costs and limited supply. Steel prices are expected to c ontinue to increase in 2008 and rema in at a higher level in the long term. The cost of steel should be monitored a nd the Program Amount for this project adjusted accordingly prior to each annua l 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 unde rstanding of the study is that it conducted a market survey of available leak detection sy stems for very large tanks. The study identified seven candidates capable of providing “In-Tank” hi ghly accurate leak detection for very large tanks. The seven candidates were evaluated and ra nked as to the system that would provide the best option for leak detection. The Composite Tank alternative incorporates an ex ternal visual leak dete ction piping system in barrel and lower dome of the tank. Alternativ e 2 – Tank Within A Tank has leak detection piping for the dome bottom and also provides the ability to inspect th e shell of the tank while the tank is in service. The ability to visually dete ct leaks will augment an “In-Tank” Leak Detection system. Based on EEI’s understanding of the leak detect ions 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 detectio n 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 ar ea classification for all of the FISC Fuel Department facilities at Pe arl Harbor. The study included an analysis of ventilation rates for various fuel vapor concentrations. Ventilation Study A ventilation study was performed by MWH in 2 005. The study reviewed the results of a 1999 ventilation study performed by Thermal Engin eering and the 2001 Electri cal 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 Ma nager and Lead Structural Engineer Ray Griffith, P.E. Structural Engineer/Planner/Cost Estimator Melvin Yokota, P.E. (HHMI Inc.) Electrical Engineer Craig Meier (Corrosion Cont rol Inc.) Corrosion Specialis t (cathodic protection and coatings) Stephen S. Brooks, P.E. Project QA Review