Attachment J.4 - FAC A6624 API 653 OOS Insp FY17.pdf
PDF 6 MB Posted
- Attached to
- SP-POL-CMP-INSPECT-FY24-CMB Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9128F24Q0017
About this file
This document provides the details of an API 653 out-of-service inspection report for an aboveground storage tank located at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The inspection was conducted on August 31, 2017 to evaluate the tank's integrity and establish a database for future inspections. The report documents the tank details including size, construction information, coating systems and corrosion protection. It also provides the results of non-destructive testing, measurements, surveys and evaluations performed on the tank's bottom, shell, appurtenances and foundation. Deficiencies identified during the inspection are documented along with corresponding repair recommendations to assure compliance with industry standards and codes.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment J.3 -API Post Repair-FAC A6624-FY19.pdf | ||
| W9128F24Q0017 Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Attachment B - Ft. Campbell Tank Info.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment C - Tank Data Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment D - Monthly Contractors Progress Management and Status Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment I - API External Inspection Report Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.2 - API Post Repair-CMB-FAC 7205-FY19.pdf | ||
| Attachment A - General Installation Security Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.1 - FAC 7205 API 653 OOS Insp FY17.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
| US | Army | Corps | of | Engineers |
| Omaha | District |
| API | 653 | Out‐of‐Service |
| Inspection | Report |
| Fort | Campbell, | KY | |
| Facility | Number | A‐6624 | |
| Tank | Number | Sabre | Tank |
US Army Corps of Engineers Center of Expertise for Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
| (USACE | POL‐MCX) | |
| August | 31, | 2017 |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| Table | of | Contents |
| ACRONYMS | AND | ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 |
GENERAL SUMMARY
INSPECTION DATE
STATE REGULATIONS
PREVIOUS INSPECTION DATES
RECOMMENDED FUTURE INSPECTION DATES (CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED)
GENERAL TANK INFORMATION
A. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
1. API 653 Inspection
2. Site Information
B. TANK INSPECTION COMMENTS
1. Tank Construction
2. Tank Foundation
3. Tank Bottom
4. Tank Shell
5. Tank Appurtenances
6. Tank Coating
7. Tank Piping System
8. Fire Protection System
9. Secondary Containment
10. Cathodic Protection
C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. MANDATORY REPAIRS per API 653, UFC 3‐460‐01, or AW 78‐24‐27 Standards
APPENDIX A: ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS
A.1 BOTTOM SERVICE LIFE EVALUATION
A.2 SHELL SERVICE LIFE EVALUATION
A.3 SHELL SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
A.4 ULTRASONIC UT DATA
A.5 CONTAINMENT LAYOUT DRAWING
A.6 BOTTOM LAYOUT DRAWING
A.7 SHELL LAYOUT DRAWING
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
A.8 ROOF LAYOUT DRAWING
A.9 OSHA ACCESS STRUCTURE REPORT
APPENDIX B: 3‐D DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C: API 653 CHECKLISTS FOR TANK INSPECTIONS
APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPHS
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASNT American Society of Non‐Destructive Testing
ARD Anti‐rotation device
ATG Automatic Tank Gauge
BBL Barrel
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CP Cathodic Protection
DFT Dry Film Thickness
HLA High Level Alarm
HLCS High Level Control Shutoff
HHLA High‐High Level Alarm
LLA Low Level Alarm
LLLA Low‐Low Level Alarm
MFL Magnetic Flux Leakage
MT Magnetic Particle Testing
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NDT Non‐Destructive Testing
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
PT Penetrant Testing
P/V Pressure/Vacuum
RP Recommended Practice
PST Product Saver Tank
RT Radiography Testing
TML Thickness Measurement Location
TRV Thermal Relief Valve
UFC Unified Facilities Criteria
UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications
ULS Ultra Low Sulfur
UT Ultrasonic Testing
VT Visual Testing
VPI Valve Position Indicator
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| GENERAL | SUMMARY | |
| Summary | of | Inspection |
| An | API | Standard | 653 | Out‐of‐Service | inspection | of | Sabre | Tank | (Facility | A‐6624) | at | Fort | Campbell | in | Clarksville, | TN. | ||
| was | completed | on | August | 31, | 2017 | to | evaluate | the | tank’s | integrity, | collect | data, | and | establish | a | database | for | future |
| inspections | and | evaluations. | A | service | life | evaluation | performed | on | the | tank | shows | it | as | having | greater | than | 30 | |
| years | of | remaining | shell | life | under | current | conditions. | The | bottom | life | evaluation | performed | on | the | tank | shows | it | |
| as | having | greater | than | 30 | years | of | remaining | life | under | current | conditions. | Inspection | Results | are | listed | in | section |
C.
API 653 Out-of-Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
INSPECTION DATE
API Out-of-Service (Internal) Inspection Date: 31 August 2017
Equipment (s) Used:
Ultrasonic Thickness (A-scan/B-scan) Testing Manufacturer: General Electric Model: DMS Go+ Calibration Methods Used: Zeroing Procedure, Copper Coating Calibration Procedure, and Two Point
Calibration Procedure
Tank Bottom Scanner Manufacturer: MFE Enterprises Model: 2412 Mark I Calibration Methods Used: Sensitivity adjacent on manufacturer supplied test plate with simulated anomalies and notch
Tank Bottom Surveying Manufacturer: Hilti Model: Hilti 286210 Rotating Laser PR 25 IF Calibration Methods Used: Main and transverse horizontal axes checks at 20 m < 6 mm
Tank Shell Surveying Manufacturer: Leica Geosystem Model: 3D Disto Calibration Methods Used: Tilt sensor calibration automatically performed with unit set at < 3° and crosshairs calibration using target at a distance > 25 m
Inspector(s): Benyam Berhane
STATE REGULATIONS
State Regulation for API In-Service Tank Inspections N/A State Regulation for API Out-of-Service Tank Inspections N/A
NOTE: If there are no state regulations for tank inspections, then N/A shall reside in-place of the number of years between inspections. If state regulations reside, the recommended future inspection dates shall be based on whichever is more stringent between the API inspector’s calculations and the state regulations.
PREVIOUS INSPECTION DATES
API Out-of-Service (Internal) Inspection Date: 15 February 2008 API In-Service (External) Inspection Date: Unknown/Not Provided
RECOMMENDED FUTURE INSPECTION DATES (CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED)
API Out-of-Service (Internal) Inspection Date: 31 August 2037 (31 August 2027 IAW UFC) API In-Service (External) Inspection Date: 31 August 2022
Benyam Berhane Mechanical Engineer/Sr. Inspector InterSpec, LLC API 653 Certified Inspector No. 28492
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
GENERAL TANK INFORMATION
| ITEM | DESCRIPTION | |||||||||||||
| Owner | U.S | Army | ||||||||||||
| Location | Fort | Campbell, | KY | |||||||||||
| Facility | Number | A‐6624 | ||||||||||||
| Tank | Number | Sabre | Tank | |||||||||||
| State | / | Country | Tennessee/USA | |||||||||||
| City | Clarksville | |||||||||||||
| Inspection | Date | 31 | August | 2017 | ||||||||||
| Tank | Manufacturer | Adamson | Construction | Company | – | Richmond, | VA | |||||||
| Design | Standard | API | STD | 650 | ||||||||||
| Date | of | Construction | 1975 | |||||||||||
| Tank | Contents | JP‐8 | (F‐24) | |||||||||||
| Tank | Serial | Number | None | |||||||||||
| Tank | Diameter | 30 | Feet | |||||||||||
| Shell | Height | 24 | Feet | |||||||||||
| Product | Height | 23 | Feet | |||||||||||
| Tank | Capacity | 3,000 | BBL | (126,000 | Gallons) | |||||||||
| Foundation | Concrete | Ringwall | (On | Oil | treated | Sand | cushion | on | a | compacted | Sand | Clay) |
Construction
Bottom Lap‐Welded (Cone‐Down)
Shell Butt‐Welded (Cylindrical)
Floating Roof Flat Aluminum Honeycomb IFR
Fixed Roof Lap Welded (Cone‐Up)
Material
Bottom Carbon Steel (unknown specification)
Shell Carbon Steel (unknown specification)
Floating Roof Aluminum (unknown specification)
| Fixed | Roof | Carbon | Steel | (unknown | specification) | ||||||||
| Cathodic | Protection | Impressed | Current | ||||||||||
| Interior | Coating | System | Thin | Film | Epoxy | ||||||||
| Exterior | Coating | System | Thin | Film | Epoxy/ | Polyurethane | (Completed | May | 2003) | ||||
| Level | Gauging | MTS | Electronic | Tank | Gauge | with | Varec | 2500 | Mechanical | Tape | Gauge |
| Overfill | Protection | ||||||||
| Hydraulically | Operated | High | Level | Shut‐Off | Valve | with | Dedicated | Float | |
| (Set | at | 20.53 | Feet) |
| Piping | Receipt | 8" | Carbon | Steel | |||
| Issue | 4" | Carbon | Steel | ||||
| Low | Suction | 3" | Carbon | Steel | |||
| Water | Draw‐Off | 1 | " | Carbon | Steel |
Level Alarms
| Low‐Level | Alarm: | XX (Info | Requested from | POL POC) | |||||||
| Low‐Low | Level | Alarm: | N/A | (No | LLLA) | ||||||
| High‐Level | Alarm: | XX | (Info | Requested | from | POL | POC) | ||||
| High‐High | Level | Alarm: | XX | (Info | Requested | from | POL | POC. | Mounted | on | Roof) |
| High‐Level | Control | Shutoff: | 20.53 | Feet |
| Type | of | Internal | Floating |
| Roof | Aluminum Honeycomb- with primary and secondary wiper perimeter seals |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
A. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
| 1. API | 653 | Inspection | |||||||||||||
| This | project | will | perform | API | 653 | inspections | of | various | tanks | at | facilities | throughout | the | United | States. |
| Additional | consideration | is | given | to | federal, | state, | and | local | regulations, | as | well | as | applicable | military | |
| criteria | and | general | industry | standards. |
An API Standard 653 Out‐of‐Service (Internal/External) inspection was performed for Saber Tank (FAC A‐6624).
| 2. Site | Information | ||||||||||||||
| On | August | 28, | 2017 | Burns | & | McDonnell | and | our | sub‐consultant | (InterSpec) | performed | an | API | 653 | Out‐ |
| of‐Service | (Internal | and | External) | inspection | of | Saber | Tank | (Facility | A‐6624) | located | at | Fort | Campbell, | ||
| Kentucky. | Fort | Campbell | is | home | to | the | 101st | Airborne | Division, | 5th | Special | Forces | Group, | 160th | |
| Special | Operations | Aviation | Regiment | (SOAR), | and | a | host | of | other | Army | Air | Assault, | Infantry | Battalions, | |
| and | support | team | elements. | Fort | Campbell's | more | than | 105,000‐acre | installation | is | located | in | |||
| southwestern | Kentucky | and | north | central | Tennessee | in | portions | of | four | counties. | Fort | Campbell's | |||
| primary | mission | is | to | advance | the | combat | readiness | of | the | 101st | Airborne | Division | (Air | Assault) | and |
| the | non‐divisional | units | posted | at | the | installation | through | training, | mobilization, | and | deployment. |
Sabre Tank is used as an aboveground jet fuel storage tank supporting the installation fueling needs.
B. TANK INSPECTION COMMENTS
| 1. Tank | Construction | |||||||||||||||
| Saber | Tank | (FAC | A‐6624) | is | a | nominal | 3,000 | BBL, | 30‐foot | diameter | by | 24‐foot | tall, | F‐24 | (Jet | Fuel), |
| aboveground | vertical | storage | tank. | The | tank | was | constructed | by | Adamson | Construction | Company | of | ||||
| Richmond, | VA | in | 1975 | to | API | Standard | 650. | There | was | no | major | repair/alteration | performed | for | this | |
| tank | since | the | last | out‐of‐service | inspection | that | was | completed | in | 2008. | A | flat | aluminum | honeycomb | ||
| IFR, | level | alarms, | high | liquid | level | shut‐off | system, | additional | aluminum | stilling | wells, | and | internal | pipe | ||
| support | modification | was | noted | as | some | of | the | alterations | completed | since | the | 2008 | inspection. |
| 2. Tank | Foundation | |||||||||||||||||
| The | tank | sits | on | a | concrete | ringwall | foundation | that | is | approximately | the | same | elevation | as | the | |||
| secondary | containment | floor. | The | available | original | construction | detail | lists | the | foundation | to | include | a | |||||
| four‐inch | layer | of | oil | treated | sand | cushion | on | top | of | a | four‐inch | compacted | sand | clay. | The | foundation | is | |
| not | designed | with | a | leak | detection | (tell‐tale) | system | that | extends | to | the | center | of | the | tank. | Accessible | ||
| sections | of | the | foundation | were | visually | evaluated | during | the | inspection | for | broken | concrete, | spalling, | |||||
| cracks, | and | vegetation | against | the | bottom | of | the | tank. | No | spalling | and | vegetation | were | present. | The | |||
| foundation | to | chime | interface | is | sealed. | Moderate | sealant | deterioration | is | present | throughout, | with an | ||||||
| approximate | total | of | 95 | linear | feet | of | deteriorated | caulking | identified. | The | top | of | the | bottom | plate | |||
| extension | (chime) | is | covered | in | sealant | in | most | places | and | is | trapping | water, | resulting | in | coating | failure | ||
| and | corrosion. | The | foundation | to | secondary | containment | joint | sealant | is | also | deteriorated | with | an | |||||
| approximate | total | of | 98 | linear | feet | identified. | Shell | settlement | surveys | were | performed | during | the | |||||
| inspection | in | accordance | with | Annex | B | of | API | Standard | 653. | Settlement | results | are | listed | in | Appendix | A. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| There | is | no | indication | of | significant | settlement. | Overall, | the | foundation | appears | to | be | is | in | satisfactory | |
| condition | (A | small | section | of | the | foundation | is | accessible | for | inspection). |
| 3. Tank | Bottom | ||||||||||||||
| The | new | bottom | is | constructed | from | carbon | steel | material | with | unknown | specification. | The | bottom | is | a |
| cone‐down | design, | lap‐welded | together, | consisting | of | ten | (10) | courses | fillet‐welded | to | the | shell. | The | ||
| bottom | has | a | thin | film | interior | liner. | The | interior | coating | was | evaluated | for | dis‐bonding, | adhesion, | |
| deterioration, | and | discoloration | and | was | found | to | be | unsatisfactory. | Isolated | coating | failure | was | noted | ||
| throughout | the | tank | bottom | and | shell‐to‐bottom | area. | A | close | visual | inspection | of | all | the | welded‐on | |
| plates | was | performed | for | indications | of | cracked | welds, | cracked | coating, | and | capillary | effects | of | ||
| residues. | No | deficiency | was | noted | with | the | welded‐on | plates. | Dry | film | thickness | (DFT) | readings | ||
| typically | ranged | between | 9 | ‐ | 21 | mils, | with | some | areas | near | the | shell‐to‐bottom | and | bottom | lap‐welds |
| having | a | high | coating | thickness | in | the | range | of | 30 | to | 40 | mils. |
| Several | areas | of | burned | coating | failures | were | also | noted | on | Plate | 3 | and | 4 | (See | Tank | Bottom | Layout). |
| This | was | likely | due | to | welding | spatter | burns, | presumably | during | hot | work | inside | the | tank. | Evaluated | ||
| the | bottom, | bottom | welds, | and | bottom‐to‐shell | weld | for | corrosion, | with | no | other | discrepancies | noted. | ||||
| Performed | a | magnetic | flux | leakage | (MFL) | evaluation | of | the | tank | bottom | to | determine | the | condition | of | ||
| the | underside; | ninety‐five | plus | percent | was | scanned. | No | areas | indicating | underside | corrosion | were | |||||
| located. | An | ultrasonic | inspection | of | the | bottom | suggests | a | nominal | thickness | of | 0.250". |
| 4. Tank | Shell | |||||||||||||||||
| The | tank | shell | is | constructed | from | carbon | steel | material | of | an | unknown | specification. | The | shell | is | of | ||
| cylindrical | design, | butt‐welded | together, | and | consisting | of | four | (4) | courses. | Evaluated | the | shell | for | |||||
| plumbness, | roundness, | peaking, | and | banding; | all | of | which | were | found | to | be | within | the | allowable | ||||
| tolerances | of | the | API | Standard | 653. | Visually | inspected | both | the | interior | and | exterior | of | the | shell. | |||
| Inspected | the | coating | for | dis‐bonding, | adhesion, | deterioration, | and | discoloration | (See | Section | 6 | below). | ||||||
| The | tank | shell | is | equipped | with | one | 24" | manhole | and | a | 24" | flush | deck | cleanout | nozzle. | The | tank | is |
| equipped | with | shell | mounted | low | level | alarm, | high‐high | level | alarms, | as | well | as | a | high‐level | shut‐off. | |||
| The | shell | was | evaluated | for | remaining | metal | thickness | utilizing | ultrasonic | technology. | The | ultrasonic | ||||||
| thickness | measurements | and | thickness | measurement | locations | (TML) | are | listed | in | the | Shell | Plate | ||||||
| Thickness | Measurements | table | in | Appendix | A. | A | service | life | evaluation | performed | shows | the | shell | with | ||||
| greater | than | 30 | years | of | remaining | life | under | current | conditions. | The | engineering | calculations, | as | per | ||||
| API | Standard | 653, | for | the | service | life | evaluation | are | shown | in | Appendix | A | under | “Service | Life | |||
| Evaluation.” | The | tank | shell | is | in | satisfactory | mechanical | condition. |
| 5. Tank | Appurtenances | |
| a. Internal | Floating | Roof |
| The | tank | is | equipped | with | a | full | surface | contact | aluminum | honeycomb | design | that | is | fitted | ||
| with | primary | and | secondary | wiper | perimeter | seals. | The | IFR | is | resting | approximately | 73.25" | ||||
| (measured | at | the | perimeter) | above | the | tank | bottom | and | is | supported | by | six | (6) | floating | roof | |
| legs. | A | ten | inch | square | striker | bearing | plate | with | rounded | corners | is | welded | to | the | tank | |
| bottom | for | each | IFR | support | leg. | Evaluated | the | condition | of | the | floating | roof | seals. | The | ||
| primary | IFR | perimeter | seal | and | secondary | perimeter | seal | are | in | good | mechanical | condition. | ||||
| Measured | the | annular | space | at | several | locations | from | the | tank | bottom, | and | the | floating | roof | ||
| is | determined | to | be | properly | centered | inside | the | tank. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
b. Geodesic Dome Roof N/A
c. Gauging
| The | tank’s | MTS | (Model | # | MGAMC1P11B5U31400S) | ATG | is | installed | through | an | 8‐inch | ||||
| carbon | steel | gauge | well. | The | stilling | well | is | not | slotted. | The | transmitter | outputs | the | tank | |
| level | to | a | continuous | electronic | tank | monitoring | system | (model | # G300) | manufactured | by | ||||
| Red | Lions | Controls. | The | ATG | monitor | is | mounted | on | the | southwest | side | of | the | pumphouse | |
| (adjacent | to | the | tank | secondary | containment). | Manual | gauging | and | sampling | are | performed | ||||
| through | the | fully | slotted | 8‐inch | aluminum | well | (Nozzle | E | on | fixed | Roof). | The | tank | is | |
| equipped | with | a | new | float | and | tape | type | mechanical | tape | gauge | manufactured | by | Varec | ||
| (Model | 2500). | The | mechanical | gauge | tape | is | fastened | to | the | top | of | the | internal | floating | roof |
| (IFR). | Due | to | this | configuration, | a | "bump | check" | was | not | performed | on | the | mechanical | ||
| gauge | head. | The | tape | gauge | is | not | installed | to | the | floating | roof, | per | the | manufacturer. | The |
| Protectoseal | Series | No. | 42000B | was | replaced | with | Varec | model | during | the | tank | inspection | |||
| project | and | appears | to | be | in | good | working | condition. |
| d. Level | Alarms | ||||||||||||||
| The | high | level | alarm | is | mounted | on | the | shell | and | is | accessible | via | the | circumferential | |
| mounted | stairway. | The | high‐high | level | alarm | is | mounted | on | the | fixed | roof | using | the | ten | inch |
| Nozzle | D | and | utilizes | the | eight‐inch | aluminum | stilling | well. | The high‐high | level | alarm | is | a | ||
| model | 704 | manufactured | by | SOR | Measurement | and | Controls | and | is | equipped | with | a | manual | ||
| check | actuator | to | simulate | high‐level | condition. | The | high‐high | level | alarm | horn | and | light | |||
| panel | are | mounted | on | southeast | side | of | the | pumphouse | (adjacent | to | the | tank | secondary | ||
| containment). | The | tank | is | equipped | with | a | low‐level | alarm, | but | no | independent | low‐low | |||
| level | alarm | system | was | installed, | as | required | by | military | criteria. |
| e. Stairs | and | Platforms | |||||||||||||
| The | tank’s | fixed | roof | is | accessible | by | a | circumferential | stairway | mounted | on | the | shell | of | the |
| tank | with | a | top | platform. | The | stair | and | platform | were | inspected | for | corrosion | and | structural | |
| soundness. | The | stairway | handrail | is | constructed | with | ¾" | round | bar | handrails | and | steel | |||
| plate | threads | with | non‐slip | profile. | The | overall | general | condition | of | the | stairs | and | platform | ||
| are | satisfactory | (with | some | exception | – | See | Section | C). |
| f. Grounding | and | Bonding | ||||||||||||||
| There | are | two | grounding | cables | connected | to | lugs | on | the | tank’s | shell. | The | grounding | cables | ||
| penetrate | through | the | secondary | containment | floor | presumably | to | a | grounding | rod. | The | |||||
| internal | floating | roof | is | bonded | to | the | tank | fixed | roof. | A | copper | grounding | bar | for | personnel | |
| static | electric | discharge | is | not | mounted | on | the | handrail | (typically | required | by | military |
criteria).
| 6. Tank | Coating | ||||||||||||||||
| The | tank | shell, | bottom, | roof, | stairway, | handrails, | piping, | and | appurtenances | are | coated. | The | exterior | ||||
| coating | appears | to | be | an | epoxy | with | polyurethane | top. | The | exterior | shell | coating | is | chalking | due | to | UV |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| exposure | and | possible | minimal | UV | protection | inclusion | during | the | last | exterior | coating. | Similar | coating |
| failure | was | noted | on | product | piping | within | the | secondary | containment. |
| 7. Tank | Piping | System | |||||||||||||||||
| The | fuel | is | received | through | 8‐inch | carbon | steel | piping | that | is | fitted | with | an | inlet | diffuser. | The | diffuser | ||
| is | rolled | to | a | circular | transition, | with | a | final | outlet | diameter | of | NPS | 10. | The | product | is | issued | from | the |
| tank | through | a | 6‐inch | carbon | steel | pipe | that | extends | 136" | in | to | the | tank. | Other | auxiliary | piping | for | the | |
| water | draw | (NPS | 2) | and | low | suction | (NPS | 3) | are | installed, | and | both | extend | to | the | center | tank | bottom | |
| sump. | Inspected | and | evaluated | each | tank | nozzle | in | accordance | with | API | Standards | 650 | and | 653. | |||||
| Identified | the | type | and | use | of | each | shell | nozzle | and | measured | the | nozzle | neck | thickness | on | all | |||
| accessible | shell | nozzles. | Evaluated | all | nozzles | and | reinforcement | plates | for | leaks | and | corrosion. |
8. Fire Protection System None
| 9. Secondary | Containment | |||||||||||||||||||
| The | tank | sits | inside | a | concrete | secondary | containment | basin | with | concrete | dike | walls. | The | overall | ||||||
| dimension | of | the | secondary | containment | is | 88.5 | feet | x | 85.5 | feet, | with | a | sloped | berm | with | a | vertical | |||
| height | of | 50.25". | The | secondary | containment | is | equipped | with | a | 6" | drain | inlet | and | a | locked | drain | valve | |||
| to | a | drainage | pit | approximately | 53 | feet | northwest | of | the | drain | inlet. | The | drain | line | is | a | NPS | 6 | carbon | |
| steel | piping | with | a | six | inch | release | valve. | The | drain | line | and | the | drain | inlet | were | hydrostatically | tested | |||
| to | investigate | if | the | drainage | system | is | liquid‐tight. | The | drain | pipe | and | release | valve | were | tested | with | ||||
| water | by | pressurizing | to | 10 | psig | using | a | pump | connected | to | a | pipe | testing | assembly. | The | test | was | |||
| conducted | in | accordance | with | the | applicable | requirements | of | AWWA | C600 | for | hydrostatic | testing. | The | |||||||
| drain | inlet | was | hydrostatically | tested | for | integrity | by | filling | the | inlet | with | water | to | a | level | at | least | 1‐2 | ||
| inches | above | the | top | of | the | inlet | structure. | The | drain | inlet | and | release | valve | did | not | pass | the | hydrostatic | ||
| test | (Lost | 3.5 | psig | in | the | two | hour | test | period). | Water | escaped | through | the | release | valve | inside | the | |||
| valve | pit. | Cleaning | valve | seating | surface | and | retesting | may | be | required. | The | drain | inlet | initially | failed | |||||
| the | outlined | test | likely | due | to | failed | lower | boot | seal | between | the | drain | inlet | and | the | NPS | 6 | drain | line | |
| (not | accessible). | The | drain | inlet | was | retested | and | passed | after | an | onsite | contractor | applied | a | joint | |||||
| sealant | caulking. |
| The | secondary | containment | was | visually | evaluated | during | the | inspection | for | broken | concrete, | spalling, | |||||
| cracks, | and | vegetation | growth. | Minor | hairline | cracks | (temperature | cracks) | and | some | moderate | cracks | |||||
| were | noted | in | the | secondary | containment | and | are | documented | in | the | secondary | containment | layout. | An | |||
| approximate | total | of | 29 | linear | feet | of | cracks | in | the | secondary | containment | berm | were | identified. | This | ||
| includes approximately | 10 | feet | of | cracks | that | have | been | previously | sealed, | 5 | feet | on | the | inner | slope | of | |
| the | berm | walls | and | 14 | feet | of | cracks | on | the | top | of | the | secondary | containment‐walking | path. | Hairline | |
| cracks | and | cracks | on | top | of | the | walking | path | do | not | seriously | affect | the | strength | of | the | concrete |
| structures; | however, | these | cracks | can | be | potential | access | points | for | moisture | or | water | seepage | that | |||
| could | corrode | the | reinforcing | steel | (rebar). | Several | unsealed | secular | holes | noted | in | the | secondary | ||||
| containment | floor | (probably | an | abandoned | or | unused | opening | for | tracer | probe). | The | epoxy | sealant | for | |||
| the | secondary | containment | concrete | floor/interior | wall | expansion | and | slab | joint | has | almost | 100% | |||||
| deterioration/failure. | An | approximate | total | of | 730 | linear | feet | of | total | joint | sealant | was | measured. | The | |||
| secondary | containment | is | otherwise | in | mostly | satisfactory | mechanical | condition, | with | the | exception | of | |||||
| the | discrepancies | identified | above. | Field | assessment | indicates | that | the | secondary | containment | is | of |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| sufficient | size | to | contain | a | total | tank | loss. | The | secondary | containment | is | not | sloped | to | allow | for |
| drainage | away | from | the | tank. | Water | puddling | was | observed | throughout | the | perimeter | of | the | tank | with | |
| significant | depth | at | the | flush | deck | cleanout | area | (inadequate | drain | away | from | tank). | Coating | failure | and | |
| corrosion | were | noted | on | the | lower | fasteners | and | cover. |
| A | formal | secondary | containment | evaluation, | in | accordance | with | 40 | CFR | 112, | may | be | required | in | order |
| to | satisfy | federal, | state, | and | local | requirements. | The | secondary | containment | is | equipped | with | a | lockable | |
| secondary | containment | valve | post | indicator. |
| 10. Cathodic | Protection | |||||||||||||||||
| An | impressed | current | Cathodic | Protection | (CP) | system | is | installed | on | this | tank | which | is | serving | both | |||
| the | tank | bottom | and | associated | underground | piping. | The | rectifier | was | installed | in | 2015 | and | is | located | |||
| on | the | southeast | side | of | the | pumphouse. | The | CP | system | is | manufactured | by | Cathodic | Rectifiers, | Inc. | |||
| Rectifiers, | Inc. | (Model | ACP | with | serial | # | 1184110514). | This | unit | is | a | 75 | volt | 5 | ampere | air‐cooled | ||
| rectifier | unit. | The | CP | system | is | listed | as | having | a | mixed | metal | oxide | anode | loop | laid | on | the | southeast |
| corner | of | the | tank | just | outside | the | secondary | containment | dike. |
| At | the | time | of | the | inspection, | the | rectifier | was | powered | on | and | in | serviceable | operation | condition. | Base |
| personnel | performed | the | required | testing | and | data | logging. | The | January | 2017 | report | provided | ||||
| indicated | that | Saber | Tank | is | receiving | cathodic | protection | based | on | NACE | criterion. | The | rectifier, | anode | ||
| junction | box, | and | tank | junction | box | all | are | in | satisfactory | condition. |
C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
| The | tank | is | generally | not | in | accordance | with | current | military | criteria | for | some | of | the | tank | appurtenance | and |
| piping | configuration. | Therefore, | the | recommendations | are | not | meant | to | bring | the | tank | into | full | compliance | |||
| with | UFC | 3‐460‐01 | or | AW | 78‐24‐27 | standards | but | rather | to | identify | these | items | for | the | owner/user’s | planed | |
| upgrades, | rehabilitation, | and | priority | repairs. | Mandatory | repairs | should | be | completed | to | assure | compliance | |||||
| with | industry | standards, | as | well | as | federal | or | state | jurisdictional | requirements. |
| During | this | evaluation, | the | tank | bottom | was | found | to | be | in | a | generally | serviceable | condition, | with | no | imminent |
| risk | to | operation | and | overall | integrity. | However, | there | were | several | deficiencies | that | were | noted. | These | noted | ||
| deficiencies | are | listed | below | in | no | particular | order, | with | repair | recommendations. |
| All | repairs | and | modifications | should | be | performed | in | accordance | with | API | standard | 653, | UFC | 3‐460‐01, | DoD |
| Standard | Design | 78‐24‐27, | and | applicable | UFGS | specifications. |
| 1. MANDATORY | REPAIRS | per | API | 653, | UFC | 3‐460‐01, | or | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Standards | ||||
| Mandatory | repairs | represent | items | that | require | immediate | attention, | in | order | to | prevent | imminent | risk | |
| to | system | operators, | equipment | integrity, | or | the | adjacent | environment. | The | tank | should | remain | out | of |
| service | until | these | repairs | are | completed. |
No mandatory repairs were identified for Saber Tank (FAC A‐6624).
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| 2. REQUIRED | REPAIRS | to | Fully | Comply | with | API | 653 | or | Federal, | State, | and | Local | Codes | ||
| Required | repairs | represent | items | that | should | be | addressed | in | a | timely | manner, | in | order | to | prevent |
| future | potential | risks | to | system | operators, | equipment | integrity, | or | the | adjacent | environment. | These | |||
| items | are | be | required | by | API‐653 | or | federal, | state, | and | local | codes. |
| a. Secondary | Containment | Cracks | ||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | Unsealed | cracks | were | identified | in | the | secondary | containment | berm | (this | includes | |||||||
| areas | that | were | previously | sealed). | Several | unsealed | secular | holes | were | noted | in | the | secondary | |||||
| containment | floor | (probably | abandoned | or | unused | opening | for | tracer | probe). | |||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | 40 | CFR | Section | 112.7(c) | states | that | the | entire | secondary | containment | system, | ||||||
| “including | walls | and | floor, | must | be | capable | of | containing | oil | and | must | be | constructed | so | that | any | ||
| discharge | from | a | primary | containment | system | ... | will | not | escape | containment | before | cleanup | occurs.” | |||||
| §§112.8(c)(2) | and | 112.12(c)(2) | state | that | diked | areas | must | be | “sufficiently | impervious | to | contain | oil.” | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Repair | all | exposed | cracks | in | the | containment | walls | by | grinding | in | a | V‐shape | |||||
| pattern, | with | at | least | ¼‐inch | width | at | the | surface | and | a | depth | of | at | least | ¼‐inch | and | sealing | with |
| flexible | urethane | (e.g. | Sikaflex | 1c) | or | a | similar | approved | sealant | (Quantity: | 29 | linear | feet). |
| b. Secondary | Containment | Expansion | Joint | Sealant | ||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | There | are | areas | of | weathered | and | deteriorated | sealant | throughout | at | the | expansion | ||
| joints | for | the | secondary | containment | dike, | including | the | basin | floor | to | foundation | perimeter | sealant. | |
| CODE | REFERENCE: | 40 | CFR | Section | 112.7(c) | (See | reference | from | above) | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Remove | the | damaged | joint | sealant | and | install | new | backer | rods | and | sealant | within | |
| the | containment. | The | sealant | shall | be | adequate | to | accommodate | a | joint | compression | equal | to | 50 |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| percent | of | the | width | of | the | joint. | The | backer | rod | shall | be | compressible | rod | stock | of | polyethylene |
| foam, | polyurethane | foam, | butyl | rubber | foam, | or | other | flexible, | non‐absorptive | material, | as | |||||
| recommended | by | the | sealant | manufacturer. | Sealant | shall | conform | to | UFGS | 07 | 92 | 00 | Joint | Sealant | ||
| (Quantity: | 730 | linear | feet). |
| c. Secondary | Containment | Basin | Pipe | Penetration | ||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | NPS | 6 | product | suction | and | NPS | 8 | product | receipt | piping | have | sealant | |
| deterioration | at | the | concrete | basin | floor | penetration. | Both | piping | penetrate | the | concrete | basin | floor | |
| with | no | sleeve | or | sleeve | seal. | |||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | 40 | CFR | Section | 112.7(c) | (See | reference | from | above) | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Upgrade | the | concrete | basin | pipe | floor | penetration | as | detailed | in | AW | 78‐24‐27 | ||
| Drawing | CD.02 | Detail | 2. | At | a | minimum, | repair | the | deteriorated | sealant | in | the | existing | penetration |
| configuration. | (Quantity: | 2). |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| d. Secondary | Containment | Drain | Inlet | Pipe | |||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | drain | inlet | and | release | valve | did | not | pass | the | hydrostatic | test | (Lost | 3.5 | psig | in | the | ||
| two | hour | test | period). | Water | escaped | through | the | release | valve | inside | the | valve | pit. | Cleaning | valve | ||||
| seating | surface | and | retesting | may | be | required. | The | drain | inlet | initially | failed | the | outlined | test | likely | ||||
| due | to | failed | lower | boot | seal | between | the | drain | inlet | and | the | NPS | 6 | drain | line | (not | accessible). | The | |
| drain | inlet | was | retested | and | passed | after | an | onsite | contractor | applied | a | joint | sealant | caulking. | |||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | 40 | CFR | Section | 112.7(c) | (See | reference | from | above) | ||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Upgrade | the | concrete | drain | inlet | as | detailed | in | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | CD.09 | |||||||
| Detail | 3 | or | similar. | At | a | minimum, | the | floor | drain | type | inlet | should | be | replaced | to | ensure | it | will | not |
| allow | water | to | bypass | when | the | top | side | caulking | deteriorates | (for | example, | should | have | two | layers | ||||
| of | sealing | system; | elastomeric | seal, | and | boot | seal). |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| e. Secondary | Containment | Drainage/Slope | ||||||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | secondary | containment | is | not | sloped | to | allow | for | drainage | away | from | the | tank. | ||||||||
| Water | puddling | was | observed | throughout | the | perimeter | of | the | tank | with | significant | depth | at | the | flush | |||||||
| deck | cleanout | area | (inadequate | drain | away | from | tank). | Coating | failure | and | corrosion | were | noted | on | ||||||||
| the | lower | fasteners | and | cover. | ||||||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | NFPA | 30 | Section | 22.11.1 | and | UFC | 3‐460‐ | Section | 8‐14.1.c | states, | “a | slope | of | not | |||||||
| less | than | 1 | percent | away | from | the | tank | shall | be | provided | for | at | least | 50 | ft | (15 | m) | or | to | the | dike | base, |
| whichever | is | less.” | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Rework | the | secondary | containment | to | provide | the | required | slope | away | from | the |
tank.
| f. Tank | Grounding | Lug | ||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | tank | grounding | straps | are | bolted | to | the | tank | shell | (mechanical | joint | on | a | coated | |||
| interface) | and | have | no | reinforcement | plates | or | grounding | lug | IAW | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | ED.02 | |||||
| Detail | 2. | |||||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | ED.02 | Detail | 2. | (See | also | API | 650 | Section | 5.8.11.3) | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Exothermically | weld | the | grounding | cables | to | the | lug | and | install | reinforcement | at | ||||||
| the | shell, | in | accordance | with | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | ED.02 | Detail | 2. | Note: | if | repairs | are | elected | not | to | |
| be | done, | the | paint | should | be | removed | where | the | cable | bolts | to | the | lug, | to | provide | a | better | connection |
| to | ground | (Quantity: | 2 | ground | connections). |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| g. Product | Saver | Tank | (PST) | Grounding | ||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | Product | Saver | Tank | is | not | grounded | at | the | leg | and | does | not | have | a | vent | installed | |
| in | accordance | with | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.13 | Detail | A1. | The | PST | is | a | coated | carbon | steel | tank | with | |
| a | top | lid. | The | PST | tank | has | no | means | of | grounding. | ||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.13 | Detail | A1. | In | accordance | with | NFPA | 30, | paragraph | |||||
| 6.5.4, | “All | equipment | such | as | tanks, | machinery, | and | piping | shall | be | designed | and | operated | to | prevent | |||
| electrostatic | ignitions. | All | metallic | equipment | where | an | ignitable | mixture | could | be | present | shall | be | |||||
| bonded | or | grounded. | The | bond | or | ground | or | both | shall | be | physically | applied | or | shall | be | inherently | ||
| present | by | the | nature | of | the | installation.” | ||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | a | ground | cable | and | vent | piping | to | the | Product | Saver | Tank | in | accordance | ||||
| with | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.13 | Detail | 5 | (Quantity: | 1 | ground, | 1 | vent | pipe | (1 | ¼ | NPS, | 2‐feet | high). |
| h. Pilot | tubing | from | HLV | to | HLV | Float | Pilot | |||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | ½ | stainless | steel | (SS) | tubing | from | the | high | liquid | level | shut‐off | valve | (HLV) | to | HLV | ||
| penetrates | the | stairway | tread. | Minor | abrasion | type | of | deterioration | is | noted | on | all | three | SS | tubing | |||
| (holes | may | have | to | be | enlarged | or | tubing | rerouted). | Pronged | abrasion | will | cause | a | leak | in | the | tubing | |
| and | will | prevent | the | HLV | system | from | operating | properly. | ||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | API | 570 | Section | 3.1.11 | contact | point | (The | locations | at | which | a | pipe | or | component | |||
| rests | on | or | against | a | support | or | other | object | which | may | increase | its | susceptibility | to | external | |||
| corrosion, | fretting, | wear, | or | deformation). |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| RECOMMENDATION: | Enrage | the | holes | in | the | stairway | treads | or | reroute | the | tubing | . | See | AW | 78‐24‐27 |
| Drawing | D.12 | Detail | 2. |
| i. Stairway | Path | Restricted | |||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | There | is | limited | or | restricted | path | on | the | spiral | stairway | due | to | HLA | and | HLV |
| projection | in | towards | the | stairway. | There | is | no | intermediate | platform. | There | is | an | approximately | ||
| fourteen | (14) | inch | clearance | between | the | handrail | and | HLA | float | chamber. | This | reduces | the | existing | |
| thread | width. | ||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | UFC | 3‐460‐01 | Section | Table | 8‐1 | item | j. | OSHA | minimum | required | thread | width | is | |
| 22 | inches | (1920.25(C)(3)) | |||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | an | intermediate | platform | or | rework | the | stairway | to | provide | a | sufficient | |||
| path | past | the | HLA | and | HLV | system. |
| j. Abandoned | Mounting | Plates | for | Internal | Piping | Support | |||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | There | are | 5 | rectangular | 12” | x | 8” | abandoned | mounting | plates | for | internal | piping | ||||
| support | with | squared | corners. | One | of | these | mounting | plates | is | welded | (butted) | to | the | tank | bottom | ||
| lap‐weld | (on | Plate | # | 10; | shown | with | red | arrows | below). | ||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | According | to | API | Standard | 653, | Paragraph | 9.10.3.1 | “If | other | welded‐on | plates | such | ||||
| as | wear, | isolation, | striker | and | bearing | plates, | are | to | be | added | to | tank | bottoms, | they | shall | be | installed |
| in | accordance | with | 9.10.1 | and | examined | in | accordance | with | 12.1.7. | For | these | additional | welded | on |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| plates, | if | the | lap | weld | spacing | requirements | as | set | forth | in | Figure | 9‐5 | are | not | met, | magnetic | particle |
| (MT) | or | liquid | penetrant | (PT) | examination | is | required | for | the | exposed | welds | or | portions | of | welds | ||
| failing | to | meet | minimum | spacing | criteria. | See | API | 653 | Section | 12 | for | acceptance | requirements.” | ||||
| NOTE: | MT | or | PT | NDT | methods | require | the | coating | removal | and | surface | prepared | as | required | in | ||
| ASME | Section | V | Article | 6 | or | Article | 7. | These | examinations | may | have | been | accomplished | during | the | ||
| 2009 | tank | repair | but | review | of | the | provided | documents | did | not | indicate | the | testing | methods | |||
| performed. | A | close | visual | inspection | of | the | welded‐on | plate | and | adjacent | bottom | weld | did | not | reveal | ||
| any | stressed | areas | (indication | of | cracked | weld, | cracked | coating, | or | capillary | action | effects | of |
residues).
| RECOMMENDATION: | Future | repair | project | should | consider | removal | of | these | abandoned | mounting | ||||||
| plates | or | perform | an | examination | in | accordance | with | 12.1.7 | (requires | coating | removal | to | do | MT | or | PT |
examination).
| k. Shell | Manhole | Cover | with | no | Hinge | or | Davit | Arm | ||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | shell | manhole | cover | is | not | equipped | with | a | hinge | or | davit | arm | to | facilitate | the | ||
| handling | of | the | manhole | cover | plate. | |||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | API | STD | 650 | Section | 5.8.3.5 | states | “Shell | manhole | covers | shall | have | two | handles. | ||||
| Those | covers | weighing | more | than | 34 | kg | (75 | lb) | shall | be | equipped | with | either | a | hinge | or | davit | to |
| facilitate | the | handling | of | the | manhole | cover | plate. | The | davit | support | arm | shall | not | be | welded | directly | ||
| to | the | shell | without | a | reinforcing | plate.” | Also | AW | 78‐24‐27 | drawing | D.10 | detail | 3 | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | a | shell | manhole | davit | arm | IAW | with | API | STD | 650 | and | AW | 78‐24‐27 | ||||
| drawing | D.10 | detail | 3. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| l. Shell | Manhole | Neck | Weld | ||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | Three | (one‐inch | long) | incomplete | fusion | welds | were | noted | between | the | manhole | neck | |
| and | flange. | ||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | API | STD | 653 | Section | 9.6 | “Existing | weld | undercut | deemed | unacceptable | based | on |
| suitability | for | service | considerations | shall | be | repaired | by | additional | weld | metal, | or | grinding, | as |
appropriate”
| RECOMMENDATION: | Note | this | is | original | tank | construction | flaw; | based | on | satisfactory | service | history, | ||||
| this | deficiency | can | be | deferred | and | completed | when | the | shell | manhole | is | reworked | for | davit | arm | |
| installation | or | if | future | plans | include | upgrade | to | the | 36” | manhole | per | UFC | and | AW7 | 8‐24‐27 | drawing. |
| m. The | Low | Suction | and | Water | Draw | Nozzle | Reinforcement | Pad | |||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | low | suction | shell | penetration | pipe | is | NPS | 3 | and | does | not | have | a | reinforcement |
| pad. | The | water | draw | pipe | penetration | opening | is | also | not | equipped | with | a | reinforcement | pad. | |
| CODE | REFERENCE: | API | STD | 650 | Section | 5.7.2 | “Openings | in | tank | shells | larger | than | required | to | |
| accommodate | a | NPS | 2 | flanged | or | threaded | nozzle | shall | be | reinforced | IAW | API | 650.” | ||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Note | this | is | original | tank | construction | design, | and | based | on | satisfactory | service | |||
| history, | this | deficiency | maybe | be | deferred | and | completed | when | future | upgrade | work | is | planned. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| n. Interior | Tank | Coating | |||||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | Minor | to | moderate | coating | failure | (mostly | breaks) | was | noted | throughout | the | tank | |||||||||
| bottom | and | is | documented | in | the | tank | bottom | layout. | Several | areas | of | burned | coating | failures | were | ||||||
| also | noted | on | Plate | 3, | 4, | 7, | 8, | 10 | and | on | the | shell | near | the | receipt | and | suction | pipe | (See | Tank | Bottom |
| Layout). | This | was | likely | due | to | welding | spatter | burns, | presumably | during | hot | work | inside | the | tank. | ||||||
| Dry | film | thickness | (DFT) | readings | typically | ranged | between | 9 | ‐ | 12 | mils, | with | some | areas | near | the | |||||
| shell‐to‐bottom | and | bottom | lap‐welds | with | a | high | coating | thickness | in | the | range | of | 30 | ‐ | 40 | mils. | The | ||||
| interior | shell | coating | above | the | IFR | and | underside | of | the | roof | is | in | satisfactory | condition, | with | ||||||
| minimal | discoloration. | The | coating | thickness | (at | areas | accessed) | is | in | satisfactory | condition, | with | |||||||||
| coating | thickness | in | the | range | of | 10‐17 | mils. | ||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | All | aviation, | diesel | fuel | marine | (F‐76), | additive, | and | lube | oil | tank. | Interiors | shall | be | ||||||
| 100 | percent | coated, | including | floor, | shell, | and | underside | of | the | roof | (UFC | 3‐460‐01 | Section | 8‐ |
3.9(a)(1)).
| RECOMMENDATION: | Prepare | the | surface | of | the | tank | bottom | and | repair | the | areas | of | coating | failure | IAW |
| UFGS‐09 | 97 | 13.15. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| o. Interior | Product | Piping | and | Supports | ||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | interior | product | issue | nozzle is | not | configured | as | detailed | in | AW | 78‐24‐27 | ||||||||
| drawing | D.84 | detail | 4. | The | spacing | between | the | tank | bottom | and | anti‐vortex | plate | is | 8 | inches | instead | ||||
| of | the | 6 | inches | specified. | The | issue | piping | extends | towards | the | center | of | the | tank | (Not | ½ | of | the | tank | |
| radius). | All | the | interior | piping | supports | are | not | designed | to | have | adjustable | vertical | member | (gaps | ||||||
| between | pipe | and | supports | are | noted | on | both | low | section | and | water | draw | piping). | There | are | no | U‐ |
bolts.
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | drawing | D.08 | detail | 4 | and | detail | 6. | ||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Adjust | or | modify | the | issue | line | as | needed. | Future | modification | should | consider |
| adjustable | pipe | supports | with | Teflon | coated | stainless | steel | U‐bolts. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| p. IFR | Pipe | Penetration | Gaskets | ||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | internal | floating | roof | stilling | wells | penetration | gaskets | have | deteriorated | (four |
gaskets).
| CODE | REFERENCE: | General | maintenance/ | manufacturer | instruction | and | API | 653 | Checklist | item | |||||||||||||
| (opening | in | seals | that | will | permit | vapor | emissions) | ||||||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Replace | the | gaskets. | Gaskets | inside | the | tank | nozzles | shall | be | non‐asbestos, | fuel | |||||||||||
| resistant | composition, | or | preformed | type. | ATG | Well | = | 18" | x | 18" | with | NPS | 8 | pipe, | Sample | Gauge | Well | ||||||
| = | 18" | x | 18” | with | NPS | 8 | pipe, | Level | Alarm | Well | 18" | x | 18” | with | NPS | 8 | pipe | and | Water | Probe | Well | = | 18" |
| x | 18" | with | NPS | 2 | pipe. |
| 3. RECOMMENDED | REPAIRS | to | fully | comply | with | UFC | 3‐460‐01 | & | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Standards | or | as | |
| Part | of | Regular | Maintenance | |||||||||||
| Recommended | repairs | represent | items | that | should | be | addressed | in | a | timely | manner, | in | order | to |
| prevent | future | potential | risks | to | system | operators, | equipment | integrity, | or | the | adjacent | environment. |
| a. Tank | Bottom | Extension | (Chime) | |||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | foundation | to | chime | interface | is | sealed. | Moderate | sealant | deterioration | is | present. | ||||||
| The | top | of | the | bottom | plate | extension | (chime) | is | covered | in | sealant | in | most | places | and | is | trapping | |
| water, | resulting | in | coating | failure | and | corrosion. | There | is | minor | to | moderate | coating | failure | and | ||||
| associated | corrosion. | |||||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | Maintain | a | waterproof | seal | at | the | tank | chime | ring | wall | foundation | interface | (UFC | ||||
| 3‐460‐03 | Section | 10.3.3). | ||||||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Repair | areas | of | failed | sealant | by | applying | a | polysulfide | mastic | sealant | caulking. | ||||||
| NOTE: | Do | not | caulk | the | end | (side) | of | the | chime. | See | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.04 | Detail | 3. | Repair | |
| coating | on | the | chime | area. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| b. Exterior | Coating | Failures | on | Tank, | Appurtenances, | and | Faded | Tank | Marking | ||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | exterior | shell | and | roof | coating | are | chalking | due | to | UV | exposure | and | possible | |
| minimal | UV | protection | inclusion | during | the | last | exterior | coating. | Similar | coating | failure | was | noted | on | |
| product | piping | within | the | secondary | containment. | There | is | moderate | coating | failure | on | the | upper | ||
| section | of | the | tank | shell, | roof, | roof | nozzles, | and | the | perimeter | guardrail. | The | tank | markings | have |
faded.
| CODE | REFERENCE: | UFC | 3‐460‐01, | Section | 8‐3.10 | and | Section | 9‐10 | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Mechanically | clean | and | recoat | areas | of | coating | failure | on | the | tank | shell, | roof |
| piping, | and | appurtenances. | Repairs | should | be | accomplished | using | an | epoxy | based | coating | system | or |
| equivalent. | Replace | the | faded | tank | marking | IAW | NFPA | 30 | and | NATO | requirements. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| c. Vent | Corrosion | and | Some | Edge | Separation | ||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | vent | screens | have | minor | corrosion | and | some | edge | separation. | Consider | upgrading | |||||
| all | the | vent | screens | (two | overflow/circulation | vents, | two | roof | circulation | vents, | and | one | center | roof | |||
| vent) | with | corrosion‐resistant | coarse | mesh | bird | screens. | |||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | API | 650 | Section | 5.8.5.5, | “All | free | vents | shall | be | provided | with | corrosion‐resistant | ||||
| coarse | mesh | bird | screens | of | a | maximum | opening | size | of | (19 | mm | [3/4 | in.] | nominal | opening)” | and | AW |
| 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.09 | Detail | 1 | and | 2 | |||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | corrosion‐resistant | coarse | mesh | bird | screens. |
| d. Tank | Electronic | ATG | and | Water | Probe | |||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | THE | tank | is | equipped | with | an | MTS | (Model | # | MGAMC1P11B5U31400S) | The | ATG | is | |||||||
| installed | through | an | 8‐inch | carbon | steel | gauge | well. | The | stilling | well | is | not | fully | slotted | (has | a | small | |||
| slit | that | is | approximately | 7" | long | and | ¼" | wide. | It | is | also | welded | to | the | tank | bottom | and | roof, | with | no |
| provision | for | tank | bottom | movement. | There | is | no | mounting/bearing | plate | under | this | stilling | well. | At | ||||||
| the | time | of | inspection, | the | bottom | of | the | sensor | cable | was | lodged | to | side | of | the | carbon | steel | stilling | ||
| well | (magnetic | weight). | The | sensor | cable | was | adjusted | in | order | to | “free | float” | inside | the | gauge | well. | ||||
| There | is | some | coating | failure | on | the | Tank | Control | Unit | panel. | This | electronic | ATG | requires | nitrogen | |||||
| gas | supply | to | operate. | The | water | probe | is | not | installed | over | the | tank | bottom | sump | through | a | water | |||
| probe | well | (separate | well). | |||||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | UFC | 3‐460‐01 | Section | 8‐8.3 | and | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.07 | Detail | 4 | ||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | an | ATG | as | stated | in | the | DLA | Memorandum | for | Director | Defense | Energy | |||||||
| Support | Center | for | Automated | Tank | Gauge | (ATG) | Installation | Policy | dated | December | 16, | 2009. | ||||||||
| Modify | the | stilling | well | IAW | with | AW | 78‐24‐27. | Mounting | plate | welding | per | API | STD | 653 | Section |
9.10.3
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| e. Mechanical | Tape | Gauge | |||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | existing | mechanical | tape | gauge | (Protectoseal | Series | No. | 42000B) | was | not | ||||||
| functioning | correctly | and | was | out | of | calibration. | A | new | Varec | (Model | 2500) | mechanical | tape | gauge | |||
| was | installed | by | the | onsite | contactor. | The | mechanical | gauge | tape | is | fastened | to | the | top | of | the | internal |
| floating | roof | (IFR). | Due | to | this | configuration, | a | "bump | check" | was | not | performed | on | the | mechanical | ||
| gauge | head. | The | tape | gauge | should | not | be | installed | to | the | floating | roof, | per | the | manufacturer. | ||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | General | maintenance/ | manufacturer’s | instruction | ||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Calibrate | the | mechanical | tape | gauge | after | placing | the | tank | in | service. | Do | not | turn | |||
| the | operation | checker | knob | on | systems | that | have | no | float | and | that | are | directly | connected | to | a | floating |
| roof. | Install | a | sign | that | reads, | “DO | NOT | OPERATE | CHECKER | KNOB.” | This | signage | can | be | displayed | ||
| until | the | tape | gauge | is | reinstalled | in | accordance | with | the | manufacturer's | instructions. | The | mechanical | ||||
| tape | gauge | can | be | retrofitted | by | attaching | the | tape | to | a | six‐pound | weight | (preferably | aluminum), | |||
| which | can | be | placed | on | top | of | the | floating | roof. |
f. Hold‐Off Distance
OBSERVATION:
| There | is | no | “hold | off | distance” | stenciled | or | painted | at | the | manual | tank | gauge | on | the | roof. |
| CODE | REFERENCE: | General | maintenance/API | STD | 653 | checklist | item | (C.1.5.1 | (d) | ‐ | check | for | marker | |||
| and | tab | stating | hold‐off | distance). | ||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Stencil | or | paint | the | “hold | off | distance” | at | the | manual | tank | gauge | hatch. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| g. Independent | Low‐Low | Level | Alarm | |||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | tank | is | not | equipped | with | an | independent | low‐low | level | alarm. | There | is | a | low | |||
| level | alarm | sensor | installed | on | the | side | of | the | tank | shell | (see | photo | below). | |||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | UFC | 460 | 3‐460‐01 | Table | 8‐1(k) | and | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.12 | Detail | 1 | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | an | independent | low‐low | level | arm. | The | low‐low | level | alarm | switch | should | ||||||
| actuate | 1 | min | before | the | IFR | pan | bottoms | out | when | the | pan | legs | are | set | at | the | low | position. |
| h. Product | Saver | Tank | (PST) | Pump, | Level | Alarm | and | Sight | Glass | ||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | Product | Saver | Tank | (PST) | is | not | equipped | with | an | electrical | pump, | does | not | have | ||
| high | level | alarms, | and | is | not | equipped | with | a | sight | glass. | Nozzles | utilize | threaded | valves | and | no | quick |
| connects | for | fuel | removal. | ||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.13 | Detail | 5. | IAW | UFC | 3‐460‐01 | Section | 3‐6.6.7 | “Mount | ||||
| permanently | installed | pumps | on | substantial | foundations | of | reinforced | concrete | designed | in | |||||||
| accordance | with | Hydraulic | Institute | Standards.” | |||||||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Add | 10 | GPM | pump | with | a | Class | 1, | Div | 1 | rated | electrical | components. | Consider | |||
| replacement | of | existing | system | with | a | new | system | in | accordance | with | AW | 78‐24‐27. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| i. Low | Suction | Plug | Valve | ||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | low | suction | plug | valve | is | not | equipped | with | a | valve | handle. | Operation | is | not |
| verified, | but | it | appears | not | to | be | functioning. | ||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | General | maintenance/ | UFC | 460 | 3‐460‐01 | Table | 8‐1(u) | and | API | 653 | Checklist | items | ||
| (inspection | for | leaks, | corrosion, | and | for | proper | valve | operation. | |||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Replace | the | missing | valve | handle | and | exercise | the | valve | to | ensure | proper | valve | ||
| operation | or | replace | the | valve. |
| j. Internal | ladder | |||||||||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | There | is | no | internal | ladder | to | access | the | top | of | the | floating | roof. | The | IFR | can | only | be |
| accessed | from | the | underside. | (Existing | stilling | well | configuration | and | underside | of | roof | manhole | ||||||
| location | shown | on | photos) | |||||||||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | UFC | 460 | 3‐460‐01 | Table | 8‐1(h) | and | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.08 | Detail | 2 | |||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | the | internal | ladder | (in | accordance | with | OSHA | criteria) | for | tanks | of | 5,000 | |||||
| gallons | (19 | 000 | L) | or | larger | per | UFC | 460 | 3‐460‐01 | Table | 8‐1(h) | and | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.08 | ||
| Detail | 2 |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
| k. Tank | Receipt | and | Issue | do | not | have | TRVs | ||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | receipt | and | issue | nozzle | do | not | have | thermal | relief | vales | (TRVs) | per | AW | 78‐24‐27 |
| (no | test | tees, | CS | vs | SS | piping). | |||||||||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.10 | Detail | 4. | ||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | Provide | thermal | relief | at | receipt | high | level | valve | and | issue | isolation | valve | to | meet | |
| AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | D.10 | Detail | 4. |
| l. Product | Piping | Label | Marking | |||||||||||
| OBSERVATION: | The | tank | pipe | label | marking | are | faded | (yellow | bands) | no | directional | marking. | ||
| CODE | REFERENCE: | AW | 78‐24‐27 | Drawing | CD.13 | Detail | x. | (refer | to | MIL‐STD‐161G | for | correct | fuel | type) |
| RECOMMENDATION: | Install | yellow | bands | and | yellow | product | flow | direction. |
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
API 653 Out‐of‐Service Inspection Report Fort Campbell, Kentucky
APPENDIX A: ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS
| A.1 | BOTTOM | SERVICE | LIFE | EVALUATION |
| A.2 | SHELL | SERVICE | LIFE | EVALUATION |
| A.3 | SHELL | SETTLEMENT | EVALUATION | |
| A.4 | ULTRASONIC | UT | DATA | |
| A.5 | CONTAINMENT | LAYOUT | DRAWING | |
| A.6 | BOTTOM | LAYOUT | DRAWING | |
| A.7 | SHELL | LAYOUT | DRAWING | |
| A.8 | ROOF | LAYOUT | DRAWING | |
| A.9 | OSHA | ACCESS | STRUCTURE | REPORT |
Where:
MRT = minimum remaining thickness at the end of the in-service period of operation, in inches.
O r = in-service interval of operation (years to next internal inspection), in years; not to exceed that allowed by 6.4.2.
t o = original plate thickness, in inches.
RT bc = minimum remaining thickness from bottom side corrosion after repairs, in inches.
Rt ip = minimum remaining thickness from internal corrosion after repairs, in inches.
StP r = maximum rate of corrosion not repaired on the top side, in inches per year. StP r =
0 for coated areas of the bottom. The expected service life of the coating must equal or exceed O r to use StP r = 0.
UP r = maximum rate of corrosion on the bottom, in inches per year. To calculate the corrosion rate, use the minimum remaining thicknesses after repairs. Assume a linear rate based on the age of the tanks. UP r = 0 for areas that have effective cathodic protection.
MRT
(inches)
0.1
0.05
0.05
Note: For areas of a bottom that have been scanned by the magnetic flux leakage (or exclusion) process, and do not have effective cathodic protection, the thickness used for calculating UPr must be the lesser of the MFL threshold or the minimum thickness of corrosion areas that are not repaired. The MFL threshold is defined as the minimum remaining thickness to be detected in the areas inspected. The MFL unit used for scanning the bottom does not have a threshold set point. This unit visually displays all anomalies.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .