Contact US

Question

Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical)

(OP)

4 Feb 22 13:41

If they are as bad as some of the UK bunkers I don't blame the locals wanting them empty.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2...

RVAmeche (Mechanical) · Answer 1 · 2022-02-04 14:21:01

This has been an on-going issue for decades. The civilians don't want massive fuel storage in a mountain above their fresh water supply. The military maintains this is a strategic stockpile that's required for national security. They continue to promise all the leaks are fixed and everything is fine...

LittleInch (Petroleum) · Answer 2 · 2022-02-04 14:30:50

Hmmmm 100 ft diam x 250 ft high steel lined concrete buried tanks...

Oh built 1940 so 80 yers old.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 3 · 2022-02-04 16:05:35

Going to side with the civi's on this one.....

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 4 · 2022-02-04 18:03:05

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

1503-44 (Petroleum) 4 Feb 22 18:03

Just don't look up.

FacEngrPE (Mechanical) · Answer 5 · 2022-02-04 22:45:35

Unlined concrete tanks are worse. I would also be concerned if an 80 year old oil storage facility was sitting on top of my water supply.
Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Virginia Emergency Fuel Storage Facility in Yorktown, Virginia

Constructed March 1943, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheatham_Annex

This 460-acre state-owned facility has been abandoned since 1982. The site is located within a few miles of popular tourist attractions (Colonial Williamsburg National Historic Park, Jamestown Settlement and Busch Gardens ) in and around Williamsburg, Virginia. Recognizing the value of this large piece of land, York County is interested in turning the abandoned land into productive use.

The Virginia Emergency Fuel Storage Facility, York County, Virginia, was formerly owned by the Navy and was a part of the Navy's Cheatham Annex. The 460-acre Facility contains 23 two-million-gallon underground tanks and several miles of underground fuel lines. Between 1973 and early 1980s, the Virginia Department Of Emergency Services (VDES) leased the Facility from the Navy to store fuels during the energy crisis.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 6 · 2022-02-04 23:28:52

I would be concerned for any of this sort of facility, constructed for or in support of the military, during a time of war or in anticipation of war. First, because high quality materials and personnel may not have been available, and second, the emphasis would be on getting it done as quickly as possible without any real concern for the long term consequences. After all, the nation was at war or about to go to war, and that's what would have been driving the priorities to say nothing of the planning and execution of the project.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

pmover (Mechanical) · Answer 7 · 2022-02-05 02:11:02

This leak is the reason why all personnel living where the well serves are not living at home, but in hotels.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 8 · 2022-02-05 07:02:32

they had a fuel leak In Glasgow into the water system and it wasn't that much, less than a ton, and it took 9 months to clear it out, and get the sewage farms working again properly

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 9 · 2022-02-05 07:58:37

A lot of military bases are turning into potential disaster sites. There is a problem with carcenogins in fire retardants used by the DOD getting into water supplies in a number of cities.

https://www.greenlifestylemarket.com/2018/06/14/fi...

https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/07/14/heres-an-...

Go to the interactive map

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamin...

Trump's Forever Chemical reporting loopholes
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/202...

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 10 · 2022-02-05 08:10:43

They had a purge on them in the UK while I was still in 20 plus years ago.

The military used to have a thing called crown exemption which was removed about then.

The mil fuel pipelines though are not the best and they are trying to decide what to do with them. Mind you the civi ones are getting near then end of life as well.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 11 · 2022-02-05 09:49:11

Well it was either that or poison every one with lead.

Cool_Controls (Electrical) · Answer 12 · 2022-02-05 12:58:50

Quote (1503, before you make this political remember that it was Democrats that pushed the oxygenate MTBE on us that poisoned our wells. It took Republicans and ADM to shift over to ethanol but why we use oxygenated fuels in the first place is still a mystery)

I hear if you mix in some kool-aid you cant even taste the MTBE.

zeusfaber (Military) · Answer 13 · 2022-02-05 14:56:55

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)
The military used to have a thing called crown exemption which was removed about then.

That was just one episode in an interesting Good news/Bad news (or the other way round, depending on your perspective) story.

When Section 10 of the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act was repealed in 1987, it became possible to sue the UK Military for (some) Civil Torts in a way you previously couldn't.

Lots of UK laws now have written in right up at the front that they specifically don't apply to the Armed Forces.

In response to that, successive Secretaries of State for Defence have adopted a policy that "In circumstances where the nature of Defence and Security activities inevitably conflict with health and safety requirements and thus Defence has Derogations, Exemptions, or Dis-applications from HS&EP legislation, or where other circumstances indicate the need for Defence regulation of activities, we maintain Departmental arrangements that produce outcomes that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by UK legislation."

Though, of course, a SoS has the right to change their policy at five seconds' notice.

Even where laws do still apply, it still isn't possible for (Crown) Enforcing Agencies to prosecute (Crown) Departments of State for breaches of Criminal Law.

It is, however, possible for the Enforcing Authorities to delivery an exquisitely calibrated slap to the wrist in the form of a Crown Censure. Across Government, a couple of these appear most years.

A.

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 14 · 2022-02-05 15:01:04

Gasoline needed another octane sweetener when adding lead was prohibited.

No point in removing reporting controls for hazardous chemicals. That's how we find out who is dumping it into the water.

UK isn't the highest, but its pretty high.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

As Long as we're at it, here's the US superfund site interactive map,
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sit...

And the toxic air map
https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/

UK interactive map doesn't work, since it uses Flash player which has been universally depreciated from web service use for a couple of years now.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 15 · 2022-02-05 16:17:20

I'm sorry, but providing a link to an item which accurately described an action taken by the EPA during the Trump administration is hardly "making this political", not when in your next breath you explicitly mention political parties by name.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 16 · 2022-02-05 16:44:03

”Discharging gasoline into the drinking water and environment isn’t the problem. It’s the democrats that added MTBE to it.”

That sounds so stupid.

How gasoline do you want in your drinking water? With or without MTBE?

How much benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene would you like to be exposed to on a daily basis?

How’s about we just set the bar somewhere above make the tank not leak?

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 17 · 2022-02-05 17:54:40

Gasoline has a higher LD50 than ethanol yet we often voluntarily drink the latter.

Anyways, MTBE really was a Democrats' problem.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt1...

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 18 · 2022-02-05 18:20:32

Quote:
Gasoline has a higher LD50 than ethanol yet we often voluntarily drink the latter.

That’s acute toxicity. Not chronic exposure. And per the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Toxicological Profile for Gasoline, probably isn’t accurate anyway.

But tell me more about how you’d drink a shot of gasoline once a week because it’s not as acutely toxic as ethanol. Woof! Methinks you might have been sprinkling a bit too many lead paint chips on your ice cream when you were a kid.

These other questions still stand. How gasoline do you want in your drinking water? With or without MTBE?

How much benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene would you like to be exposed to on a daily basis?

How’s about we just set the bar somewhere above make the tank not leak?

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 19 · 2022-02-05 18:37:26

And lest we be distracted by these blatherings about MTBE:

Quote:
HONOLULU – Samples collected from the Navy’s Red Hill drinking water shaft on Sunday December 5 tested positive for high levels of gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons. This is consistent with visual observations and odors detected by Hawaiʻi Department of Health (DOH) staff when the samples were collected.

DOH received the detailed lab reports late last night. The reports were immediately analyzed by DOH staff.

Samples from the Navy’s Red Hill Shaft contained total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range organics (TPH-d) 350 times the DOH Environmental Action Level (EAL) for drinking water. The Red Hill Shaft samples also tested positive for gasoline range organics more than 66 times the DOH EAL.

The DOH samples were analyzed by Eurofins Laboratory in California. Eurofins found 140,000 parts per billion (ppb) of TPH-d. The DOH EAL for TPH-d is 400 ppb. Eurofins found total petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline range organics (TPH-g) at 20,000 ppb. The EAL for TPH-g is 300 ppb.

Can I get a show of hands from those of us here that want to drink that?

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 20 · 2022-02-05 18:44:57

Yeah. I was just quoting the article.
-
Personally I like all of my in-toxicants with just 0.5ml of water cheers

, but benzene isn't good to drink with or without adultrents. That's everybody's problem.

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 21 · 2022-02-05 18:45:35

Where are the gasoline and diesel products coming from? Shouldn't the Navy only be storing JP5?

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 22 · 2022-02-05 18:55:48

They may use diesel fueled trucks to get the JP to the planes and have emergency generators and diesel driven pumps, gasoline fueled cars, fork lifts, light vehicles, motor boats, launches, oil for heating and cooking at the office buildings, barracks and mess facilities, not to mention 100s of lube oils. They teach carrier landings on land first. Not everything they have floats and runs with nuclear. Not to mention they may be called upon to transport various fuels to other bases, operational areas, or amphibious landing zones. The DOD sites I've worked on, JP was the smallest quantity of all fuels stored. Partly that was because they didn't want to store it as long as the others. A high turnover rate is convenient for QC purposes.

https://www.navylookout.com/fuelling-the-fleet-the...

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 23 · 2022-02-05 19:14:01

The US Navy runs exclusively JP5, no other fuels whatsoever.

I just find it funny that they use the descriptions diesel like and gasoline like when there really should be no question as to what the fuel is.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 24 · 2022-02-05 19:37:01

So the Navy owns NO trucks, staff cars, fire engines, etc, or are you telling us that they've converted all of these to run on JP5? And you'd think, considering your claimed employment, you'd know what sort of fuel they use on Navy tugs, or are you suggesting that they run on JP5 as well?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 25 · 2022-02-05 19:50:10

Quote (Airforce Mag)
The Army’s Surface Deployment and Distribution Command handles fuel movement by pipeline or rail within the United States and by a variety of means overseas. Because of their locations, most of PACAF’s fuel (and a lot of AFCENT’s) is transported to the host countries under authority of the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. MSC owns three large tanker ships, which can carry 238,400 barrels of fuel each, and charters a shallow draft 36,000-barrel tanker that is used to move fuel intratheater for Japan and South Korea.

All of these ships are crewed by US merchant seamen. MSC also can hire US-flagged vessels to meet the military’s needs.

In PACAF, the fuel goes to 10 major bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Wake Island, Hawaii, and Alaska, plus four smaller South Korean facilities and 15 remote Alaskan radar sites. MSgt. Joel Brown, PACAF fuels operations superintendent, said Guam is the command’s largest fuel account, since it is a vital trans-Pacific refueling stop and a heavily used staging base. On average, Andersen AFB, Guam, issues more than 50 million gallons of jet fuel annually, but can store up to 66 million gallons, Brown said.

AFCENT supports 14 bases in eight countries, Murphy said. Those bases include well-equipped facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, and other Persian Gulf countries; large bases at Balad in Iraq and Kandahar and Bagram in Afghanistan; and some small, austere locations throughout that country. The command also supports the US operations at Manas in Kyrgyzstan, a key supply waypoint and air tanker base.

Although the primary fuel used by both commands is JP-8 for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, they also require significant quantities of diesel for ground vehicles and generators, and small amounts of standard automotive motor gasoline (Mogas) for a limited number of vehicles. AFCENT also requires aviation gasoline (Avgas) for some of the smaller remotely piloted aircraft operating in theater. PACAF issues more than 285 million gallons of jet fuel annually, about 40 million gallons of diesel, and about two million gallons of Mogas, Ludwigsen said.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0910gas/

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 26 · 2022-02-05 20:00:08

1503, we're specifically talking US Navy here, they burn different fuels than Air Force.

In recent history the Navy has "stored" two fuels, F-76 and JP-5.

Quote (USNPS)
"This research investigates the feasibility, benefits, impacts and costs of replacing F-76 with JP-5 and adopting JP-5 as the single "universal fuel at sea". Joint Publication 4-03, Joint Bulk Petroleum Doctrine states, "Department of Defense components should minimize the number of bulk petroleum products that must be stocked and distributed". DoD currently stores and distributes two fuels, F-76 and JP-5, for shipboard use. As the universal fuel at sea JP-5 would replace F-76. All shipboard systems, including boilers, turbine engines and diesel engines that currently operate with F-76 should operate satisfactorily with JP-5. Adopting JP-5 as the single fuel stocked and distributed for shipboard use would simplify logistics support, maximize flexibility, and enhance the readiness and sustainability of U.S. forces at sea."

This is from a thesis 20 years ago but I'm fairly certain that the US Navy has adopted JP-5 as a universal fuel.

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 27 · 2022-02-05 20:08:38

Quote (TE)
I just find it funny that they use the descriptions diesel like and gasoline like when there really should be no question as to what the fuel is.

It’s because those are standardized assays. The DOH probably doesn’t have a TDH-_JP5.

Maybe they should. But it seems pretty academic, doesn’t it?

Seems like a non-sequitur when we should be talking about how the tank shouldn’t leak, regardless.

Quote:
A petroleum hydrocarbon mixture may contain several hundreds of individual sub- stances varying according to the original source of oil, distillation fraction, type of emission, and weathering of the mixture in the environment. Therefore, due to the com- plexity of mixtures covered by term "total petroleum hydrocarbons" it is quite understandable that two different methods measuring "oil" will always give different results at least for some samples. However, it is difficult to find other ways to define oil in other ways as by an analytical determination. Rather than having one possibly less robust method covering all possible definitions, a set of methods used alone or in combinations allows determinations related to the relevant environmental standards in each case [43].

Compared to present methods offering a possibility to determine separate hydrocarbon fractions and toxicologically most relevant individual substances, the old infrared spec- trometric method had various restrictions. The general trend is to base the risk assess- ment on determination of various oil fractions and specific contaminants posing hazards (like the BTEXN, PAHs, oxygenated gasoline additives and specified aromatic and ali- phatic fractions) – not on one index not necessarily determining more than one type of substances in the hydrocarbon mixture.

In other words, the extraction rate, detector response, and losses during the determina- tion of individual substances present in total petroleum hydrocarbons may vary method by method, and mixture by mixture. Instead of measuring a general hydrocarbon index by IR or other detection method, present detection equipment allow further analysis of TPH constituents needed to assess the real environmental behaviour and toxicological properties of a TPH contamination.

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 28 · 2022-02-05 20:13:00

I get that and different components of the fuel penetrate the ground differently so whatever ends up in the water will longer meet the definition of JP5.

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 29 · 2022-02-05 20:22:20

To settle splitting the hairs of potential hazards and contamination (past and present):

Quote:
What Are the Chemicals of Concern?

The Red Hill Facility currently stores and dispenses three types of petroleum fuel - marine diesel for ships and two types of jet fuel, JP-5 and JP-8. Historically the facility also stored Navy Special Fuel Oil, Navy distillate, motor gasoline and aviation gasoline.

Based on the current fuel stored at the facility, the chemicals of most concern are referred to as middle distillates. Middle distillates include total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, and methylnaphthalenes. More information can be found in Section 9.3 of the Hawaii Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Technical Guidance Manual.

zeusfaber (Military) · Answer 30 · 2022-02-05 21:08:48

Quote (Tug)
I'm fairly certain that the US Navy has adopted JP-5 as a universal fuel.

They've been talking about it for years, but I don't think it's happened yet. The RN still burns primarily F-76 (AVCAT availability at overseas commercial ports being poor at best) and, in the USN, postgrad students were still salivating over what an attractive idea it would be to move to a JP-5 Single Fuel Concept as recently as 18 months ago.

If it finally happens, I imagine the USN will go first - US forces seem to have much more of a culture than their allies of avoiding reliance on Host Nation Support.

A.

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 31 · 2022-02-05 21:15:18

I thought we were talking about what the US Navy might be storing-transporting for themselves and perhaps others. What they burn is not the issue and Sparten is correct, there's a wide blend that includes significant hazardous components across the continuous range of specific gravities making up them all. All the JPs are basically the same, except for their various additives and Jbase is sometimes almost gasoline and sometimes almost diesel. If its not lite enough to be JP yet, we blend in more gasoline until it is. Too lite, add diesel. The rest of the spec is storage, handling, contaminate related more to quality control issues rather than its specific gravity.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 32 · 2022-02-06 06:29:13

All of the different "flavours" of mil fuel that have been talked about.

I would say none of them you would want to wash in or drink.

I must admit though I never really understood the difference between kerosene and diesel.

I know the turbine fuels don't have lubricants in them. But pretty sure that doesn't make them anymore digestible.

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 33 · 2022-02-06 11:26:49

Distilling what comes out of a gas/oil well results in various proportions of hydrocarbon compounds.
The number of C atoms making up the basically straight chains is the most prominate chemical difference. Specific gravity and boiling point (vapour pressures) are the most prominate physical differences.

Specific gravity ranges from napthas at roughly 0.5 (water=1.0), gasoline 0.65, kerosene 0.8
Diesels SG = 0.89 to 0.95
Gas oils 0.815 to 0.89 (Benzene 0.88 0.9)
Crude oil 35.6o API SG = 0.847
Crude oil 40o API SG = 0.825
Kerosene (Max) SG = 0.82
Jet fuel SG = 0.82
Jet A, Jet A-1 SG = 0.815
Crude oil 40o API SG = 0.805
Crude oil 48o API SG = 0.79
Kerosene (Min) SG = 0.78
Typical Jet B: SG = 0.764
Crude oil 48o API SG = 0.76
Gasoline a 0.74
Gasoline b 0.72
Gasoline c 0.68
Decane-n 0.73
Heptane-n 0.688
Hexane-n 0.664

to SG = 1+ at the bottom of the distilling column (heavy oils, asphalt and bitumens)
with boiling points as indicated.

https://www.petroleumrefine.com/the-crude-oil-frac...]

LittleInch (Petroleum) · Answer 34 · 2022-02-06 12:41:47

Another key difference is flash point / ignition point.

Gasoline is very low - basically evaporates / flashes at room temp or below - rather volatile and has a distinct smell and feels quite "dry"

Kerosene is higher - 50-80C, but low enough that you can light it with a match easily, hence used in lights, heaters etc and stoves, but needs bit of heat to make it flammable. Volatility varies, but higher than gasoline. Starts to feel a little bit "oily" and won't vapourise readily if spilled

Diesel is higher still - 120 upwards and is very difficult to light with a match or small energy source. Definite feel of oil / lubrication and hard to vapourise.

But as note din many sources, something like JP4 is a mixture of many of these components of distillation and is built to a set of specifications for SG, colour, smell, flash point, water content, etc and hence being filtered through the ground, any of them could filter out one aspect more than the other.

Being a shore facility, I'm pretty sure in one or two tanks they store or stored gasoline and diesel for other vehicles. you could probably run a diesel engined vehicle on JP5, but I wouldn't like to put it in my petrol engined car...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 35 · 2022-02-06 14:05:11

The only time I ever saw kerosene was in the army. We used it in the cook burners and puffing Billy's.

We could run the Bedford 4 tonners on it.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 36 · 2022-02-06 16:47:30

My father told me stories about how back when he was a teen during the depression he had a Model A Ford and he would put just enough gas in it to get it started and once it warmed-up, you could then put kerosene in the tank and it would still run. He lived in Monroe, Michigan, and he and his buddies would drive down to Toledo, Ohio (in those days Toledo was a 'hot town' with a lower drinking age and other 'adult' attractions) and to save money they'd use kerosene instead of gas. Start it on gas, then put just enough kerosene in the tank to get to Toledo. Then later, put gas back in the tank from a gas can they brought with them, start it up, then pour in enough kerosene, from another can, to get back home. Not sure how much money they saved, but apparently it was enough that they'd have a few extra bucks for while they were in Toledo.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 37 · 2022-02-06 17:10:28

We only used it with the cooks to keep the medics work load down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1oaliIduDpQ

Those water heats were lethal.

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 38 · 2022-02-06 17:38:17

As part of the Navy's conversion to a universal fuel they did something similar with their P-250 dewatering pumps. Originally a gasoline fueled 2-stroke they were converted to run on F-76/JP-5 but required a propane canister to get them started initially.

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 39 · 2022-02-07 11:58:10

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

1503-44 (Petroleum) 7 Feb 22 11:58

FYI

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 40 · 2022-03-08 06:21:51

Seems they are now closing.

https://gcaptain.com/shutdown-worlds-largest-under...

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 41 · 2022-03-08 12:43:29

250MM Gal. Nowhere near the largest. Actually puny. I worked on 5 storage depots for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The largest is about 15X the size of that. All of them including most support facilities, minimum 50-100m underground.
No website link. (No. Not in TX)

I also worked on the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's really big. That is the world's largest crude only storage reserve with 30.5B gal (115.5MM m3) (726 MM BBLS).
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/strategic-petroleum-re...

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

LittleInch (Petroleum) · Answer 42 · 2022-03-08 16:21:53

I was wondering how it compared to those caverns...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 43 · 2022-03-08 22:47:10

This one holds 6.5E6 m3 (1.7B galUS) (41MM BBLS) and is about 1/2 of the largest.
When you stand 30m above the floor at one end of a cavern and you see the guys down the far end digging, you know what it feels like to be an ant.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

JedClampett (Structural) · Answer 44 · 2022-03-12 16:00:25

But as my father (a WWII vet) said, times were different in those days. Things got done, some legal, some illegal.
Any vessel will leak eventually if not maintained.
The story is fascinating: https://youtu.be/lIz8IstwnWU

1503-44 (Petroleum) · Answer 45 · 2022-03-12 17:58:50

Hawaii was not a state then. They're still doing illegal stuff in Puerto Rico. It's (nearly??) bankrupt now.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 46 · 2022-07-01 14:51:16

It appears that the Navy has identified what caused that fuel leak that contaminated the water in and around Pearl Harbor military facilities. As Pogo said, “WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.” :

Human Error Reportedly Poisoned Hawaii's Water At Pearl Harbor, Navy Says

A U.S. Navy investigation looked at how fuel from a tank farm leaked into a water well.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hawaii-water-navy-i...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

IRstuff (Aerospace) · Answer 47 · 2022-07-01 15:34:09

Yet another instance of failure in Navy leadership and training. One wonders whether the US Navy is as overly vaunted as the Russian Army is, given these continually exposed failures.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

dik (Structural) · Answer 48 · 2022-07-01 16:50:01

and

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10971801/...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Electronbelt (Industrial) · Answer 49 · 2022-07-09 20:24:41

This is allegedly leaked video of the actual leak as it was happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEGohRlLrSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WIBzTfErxw

The associated news article can be found here:

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/07/watch-fuel-spewed-full-blast-into-red-hill-tunnel-in-november/

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 50 · 2022-07-09 20:40:28

That's a plastic pipe. It's leaking water.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 51 · 2022-07-09 21:09:51

Yea, I caught the same thing:

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 52 · 2022-07-09 21:15:37

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 9 Jul 22 21:15

Terrible way to mount a hydrant, though.

Electronbelt (Industrial) · Answer 53 · 2022-07-09 21:53:54

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 9 Jul 22 20:40)
That's a plastic pipe. It's leaking water.

Would this not be the "fire suppression line" that was contaminated on May 6th during the initial fuel transfer mishap and then later damaged on Nov. 20th resulting in the contaminated contents being released and flushed into the drainage system/out into public?

I only skimmed through the initial findings report some time ago and that was my understanding of the general sequence of events.

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 54 · 2022-07-09 22:05:43

It does have a hydrant but is white PVC ever acceptable for a fire suppression line? I know CPVC has some approvals but I've never seen white.

Electronbelt (Industrial) · Answer 55 · 2022-07-10 03:55:40

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 9 Jul 22 22:05)
It does have a hydrant but is white PVC ever acceptable for a fire suppression line? I know CPVC has some approvals but I've never seen white.

I believe the short answer is 'no'. This being the military however it appears the answer is 'sorta'.

Also I would suggest reading the a fore mentioned article starting at the heading labeled "Cracked PVC Pipe Illustrates Contracting Failure". It appears to have quite a bit of detail on this very subject including the fact that this line was not supposed to be constructed from PVC.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/07/watch-fuel-spewed-full-blast-into-red-hill-tunnel-in-november/

TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) · Answer 56 · 2022-07-10 04:48:54

Having operated a tugboat built in Hawaii... I may have some prejudice.

But I'm going to argue that wasn't fuel coming from the pipe. Maybe there was fuel in the pipe trunk and the water caused it to be displaced into the drain system. There may have been 20k gallons of contaminated water? Not 20k gallons of fuel.

A local highrise residential building just had a failure of the fire main which caused evacuation of 1000 residents. Once a main breaks the results are often catastrophic regardless of the fluid.

Electronbelt (Industrial) · Answer 57 · 2022-07-10 14:41:11

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 10 Jul 22 04:48)
But I'm going to argue that wasn't fuel coming from the pipe. Maybe there was fuel in the pipe trunk and the water caused it to be displaced into the drain system. There may have been 20k gallons of contaminated water? Not 20k gallons of fuel.

With all due respect TugboatEng, I feel like you may not have read through all the reports or articles and I believe you may be misunderstanding the sequence of events.

Based on the information that has been released to the public thus far, I've put together some cliff notes regarding the events leading up to the current situation.

Keeping in mind this is my interpretation of the information provided in the reports and my interpretation may very well be incorrect.

May 6th:

- A operational mistake leads to an over-pressure event in a fuel transfer line causing joint separation in two different locations.
- As a result, thousands of gallons of fuel is dumped into the service tunnel.
- The fuel is 'cleaned' from the tunnel.
- At this point there has been NO environmental release.

Note: The Red Hill tunnels are equipment with fire suppression systems that circulate water and suppression foam in the event of a fire. This system also includes provisions for the collection and re-cycling of said contents after they have been released. I think you see where this is going...

- As the tunnel began filling up with fuel, the fire suppression system activated itself and began priming the re-circulation/recovery system.
- Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, the pumps drafted 17,000 gallons of fuel out of the tunnel and pumped it into the fire suppression system.
- Due to a number of operational and investigative issues (and possibly outright lying), the leak is logged as being only several hundred gallons when in fact it was almost 20,000, with 17,000 of this having 'disappeared' into the fire suppression system.

May 8th:

- Still not realizing the fire suppression system had vacuumed up all this fuel, a contractor is brought in to make sure the fire suppression system was not incidentally damaged or that the pumps had activated during the fuel release. The contractor signs off that the pumps did not activate and that the system gets a passing inspection.
- At this point in time it is unofficial knowledge that a vastly larger amount of fuel was released than the official log states (they know how much left the tank and how much they swept up), but there is no further investigation into the huge discrepancy.

Nov 20th:

- A worker riding the service tram in the tunnel strikes a hydrant protruding from the bottom of a trunk line in the fire suppression system.
- As a result, the hydrant drop is damaged and the trunk line (which is normally not charged) begins dumping the 'missing' 17,000 gallons of fuel back into the service tunnel a second time.
- Due to a vast number of operational/personal/emergency response issues as well as confusion over the line contents and actual leak source, response to this leak is a cluster of communication breakdowns, coordination failures and straight up chaos.
- Over the span of a week, the poorly executed cleanup allows fuel to enter the local water table through means varying from seepage through the concrete structure to literally allowing it to enter storm drains and flush into the environment.

All in all, it is believed roughly 5,000 gallons (of the initial 20,000 from May 6th) was lost as a result of this second leak, with a very large majority of that volume making it directly into the water table.

Also to note as for how the tunnel tram could hit the hydrant in the first place - it is believed the normally dry PVC line was sagging under the weight of the fuel. The report also notes that this particular PVC line was supposed to be steel/iron, but the contractor that installed it used PVC because it was less expensive. The powers-that-be determined it would be too costly to re-do the system so it was signed off on as-is.

Throughout this event there has been several high-ranking demotions and of course the public announcement of the full decommissioning of the facility.

Anyway that would be the cliff notes as I interpret the report(s). Hopefully it is at least crudely accurate and helps others understand the situation a little better.

Edit: Spelling...

Contact US

Come Join Us!

Posting Guidelines

Related Projects

Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii 7

Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (1503, before you make this political remember that it was Democrats that pushed the oxygenate MTBE on us that poisoned our wells. It took Republicans and ADM to shift over to ethanol but why we use oxygenated fuels in the first place is still a mystery)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote:

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote:

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (Airforce Mag)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (USNPS)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (TE)

Quote:

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote:

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (Tug)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 9 Jul 22 20:40)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 9 Jul 22 22:05)

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

RE: Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean) 10 Jul 22 04:48)

Red Flag This Post

Red Flag Submitted

Reply To This Thread

Naval Fuel tank leak in Hawaii
7

Join Eng-Tips^® Today!