Navy moves to refill its infamous Tank 5

When it comes to what should be done about its massive fuel tanks at Red Hill, the Navy is still dealing with the issue of possible relocation.

Of the 20 tanks imbedded in the hill, Tank 5 is the one that infamously leaked 27,000 gallons of jet fuel in 2014, setting off alarms about the wisdom of leaving the aging tank farm sitting a mere 100 feet above a major drinking-water aquifer. Now, the Navy has notified the state Health Department that the repaired Tank 5 is being pressed back into service, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a news release.

The EPA announcement attempts to assuage concerns, noting that the 12.5-million-gallon Tank 5 has “undergone extensive evaluation, repairs, and testing,” and that the Navy has made “significant changes” to its inspection and repair processes, plus has improved quality control of contractors’ work. The 2014 leak, after all, was due to inadequate Navy oversight of a contractor’s faulty repair work.

The EPA also noted that this time around, the repaired Tank 5 “is being filled very slowly,” with periodic stops to allow for leak testing — a contrast to the 2014 process, when the tank was filled rapidly with little testing.

Despite such reassurances, purity of the aquifer remains top of mind. Of the 20 WWII-era tanks, 13 are in active use, four are on clean/inspect/repair status; until now, Tank 5 had been inactive since leaking in 2014.

Over the last six years, there’s been a growing community push for double-lining the tanks for fortification, or more recently, to start a process of relocating the tank farm altogether. Instead, the Navy has sought to push off any real movement until 2045.

Student journalism

The First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and of the press, has always been a limited one. This is especially true for high school journalists writing for school-sponsored media.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 — before today’s internet — that school administrators have the right to restrict what students say in the school newspaper, because the paper’s contents could be perceived as speech not just by the students, but by the school itself. The ruling allows administrators to block questionable or inappropriate content that might cause genuine harm the school. But it also could allow them to censor what they don’t like, killing uncomfortable but legitimate stories and having a chilling effect on students who don’t want to get in trouble.

Such censorship undermines basic principles of journalism that these students are supposed to be learning and practicing — reporting on issues of public interest honestly and accurately, without fear or favor.

In Hawaii’s Legislature, House Bill 1529 rightly seeks to guard against undue censorship. The bill would allow student journalists at public schools to publish in school-sponsored media without prior restraint — within reason. The bill spells out what content can be blocked: libel, hate speech, material that disrupts the orderly operation of the school, among others. It also makes clear that student journalists speak for themselves, not the school, and that state agencies and officials shall not be held liable for the student’s expression.

Importantly, the bill protects student media advisers from retaliation if they refuse to infringe on the protected speech. The bill was heard in the Senate Education Committee this week. Lawmakers should keep it moving.

Going after Big Oil

Though some might think it frivolous or futile, the city’s lawsuit against Big Oil deserves support. There certainly is much at stake: The city is banking on a win that would be needed to mitigate pricey effects of sea-level rise, estimated for Oahu at $12.9 billion of loss and damage to private property, some effects of which already are being seen. (And that doesn’t even include an estimated $15 billion to relocate or elevate state roads impacted by sea-level rise.)

The city’s lawsuit — against oil giants such as Sunoco, Mobil, ExxonMobil Oil, Shell Oil and Chevron — alleges that the negative climate effects stem from the companies’ decades-long campaign to mislead policymakers and the public on fossil-fuel dangers.

Honolulu joins a growing list of municipalities and states, such as San Francisco, New York and Baltimore, in pursuing this tactic to recoup hefty sums to mitigate impacts. And skeptics who dismiss this as quixotic should be reminded of parallels to earlier landmark judgments against the tobacco industry and pharmaceutical companies.

Honolulu’s suit is being handled by a San Francisco law firm working on contingency, so if the firm is successful, it would receive a percentage of the settlement or award. Let’s hope it is successful, for our sake and stake toward costly infrastructure.