House Special Committee on Red Hill

Good morning everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. We're here this morning in State Capitol for the House Special Committee on Red Hill to receive a presentation from Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Protection Agency. My name is Linda Ichiyama. I'm the co Chair of the House Red Hill Special Committee.

Co Chair Lowen sends her regrets. She's here virtually. It's just she's not feeling well today. And then I'll have the Committee Members introduce themselves.

Good morning. I'm Mark Hashem. I represent East Honolulu.

Good morning. Greg Takayama. I represent Pearl. Pearl City, sir. Close to Pearl Harbor. So they care about. Yeah, sorry, it's more. It's early.

And then I'll turn it over to you folks for introductions.

Great, thank you. Aloha. My name is Kathy Ho. I'm with the Hawaii Department of Health. I am the Deputy Director for Environmental Health. Thank you. Chair. Oh, co Chair Ichiyama and Lowen and Members of the Committee for inviting the Department of Health and EPA Region 9 to speak to to the House Special Committee on Red Hill.

I also wanted to especially thank our partners from EPA who I know is facing the government shutdowns. And this must have taken a lift for you guys to attend. So thank you very much. With that I'll turn it over to Claire.

Yes, good morning. We're very pleased to be here. My name is Claire Trombodor and I am the Director of the Land Chemicals and redevelopment division at EPA's San Francisco office. And I will turn it over to Amy.

Hi, good morning. My name is Amy Miller and I'm the Director of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division at EPA Region 9. My division is responsible for enforcing the federal environmental loss. And we're pleased to be here. Thank you for, for this opportunity to provide an update.

Thank you so much. Why don't we go ahead and jump into your presentation and then we'll have questions at the end.

Great, thank you. Joanna, can you. Next slide. This is the agenda that we hope to speak on today for you all. Next slide. The Red Hill facility is a large complex site that we regulate under multiple authorities. The Department of Health and EPA share oversight in some areas and we work independently in others.

Immediately after the November 2021 fuel spill, the Department of Health issued an emergency order requiring the Navy to defuel and shut down the facility. This was superseded by our current 2022 emergency order which references our Hawaii Administrative Rules for underground storage tanks. The rules outline the requirements for closure which includes environmental remediation.

The Department of Health has Primacy under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is through this act that the Department regulates the Navy drinking water system.

In June 2023, EPA finalized administrative consent order or we may call it the 2023 ACO with the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency to oversee the defueling and closure of Red Hill and upgrades and monitoring of the Navy drinking water system at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam.

EPA oversight of the tank closure will also include investigation and remediation of all prior releases from the tanks to the environment. The 2023 ACO relies on authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The order included a requirement that the Navy conduct robust community engagement to enhance community partnership in the decision making process. The EPA is committed to working with the Navy and DoH to ensure upgrades to the the drinking water system at Joint Base Pearl harbor hickam.

EPA and DoH jointly oversee PFAs investigation and cleanup under the Superfund program and specifically the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facility Agreement. Many of the EPA environmental team work and live here on Oahu and they report to our Honolulu office. This slide provides an overview of the different authorities used to oversee the work at Red Hill.

Next slide.

Thank you. Since the 2021 release, our team has worked every day to ensure that the Navy is meeting our regulatory requirements and following the plans that we've approved. The first major accomplishment was defueling. This was completed in March of 2024.

Our teams reviewed over 300 repairs to prepare for the safe defueling and we oversaw the successful removal of approximately 104 million gallons of fuel. This was a significant milestone because it removed the risk of another catastrophic release into the environment.

Now we are in the tank closure phase which includes cleaning the tanks and and pipelines and removing certain infrastructures so that the tank can never be used to store hazardous substances again. This phase should be completed in July of 2029. We'll talk more about that later.

The Joint PACE Pearl Harbor Drinking water system and the extended drinking water monitoring program was completed in March of 2025. The Navy is in the process of making improvements to the drinking water system. Drinking water infrastructure improvements will also be discussed later in this presentation.

Our long term efforts will be the environmental site investigation, remediation and long term monitoring which is estimated to continue at least through 2040. Please note that these dates may can always change, especially if the Navy encounters unexpected conditions in the field. Next slide.

We'll now go through the steps to remediation and then we'll show you a Map of progress at different locations on the Red Hill facility. Most of these steps are required to close any underground storage tank system in Hawaii such as a gas station. And it's an iterative process, so each step will inform the next step.

First is site assessment which is sampling done to detect the presence or absence of fuel released from the underground storage tank system. Then at the locations where releases are detected, additional sampling is done for site investigation to define the nature and the extent of each release, where the contaminants are and what they are.

All the data from the first two steps will then be used to evaluate risks from the releases and choose the most suitable remedial options for the site. Once the remedial technology is implemented, there will be long term monitoring to make sure it is effective.

Due to the complex geology of Red Hill, we're using a variety of different field techniques to complete all of these steps.

Next slide. Next slide.

Next slide.

Thank you. This map gives a sense of all the environmental work at Red Hill that we oversee. We require the Navy to routinely monitor soil, air and groundwater. There are 46 monitoring wells at each of and that are each sampled twice monthly for analytes like TPH, fuel additives and and PAHs.

Field measurements are also collected once per month to measure things like groundwater elevation and General water water chemistry. Halawa Stream is monitored every week for wildlife and water quality. There are nine air monitors around the property that collect data hourly when the tanks are being degassed. And lastly, the soil vapors are collected under each tank every week.

In addition, the underground storage tanks needs to go through site assessment and site investigation and remediation like we showed on the previous slide. The light blue outline here shows the General area currently being assessed to identify historic releases from the system. This phase is a site assessment is expected to be finished in January 2026. Next slide.

In some areas we already know there has been releases. So the Navy has moved on to site investigation to determine the nature and the extent of the release. The Navy is also doing soil vapor extraction pilot study to see if there could be any other remedial options.

Next slide please. We're continuing to work with the Navy on a PFAS investigation and cleanup under the Superfund Program and specifically the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement, or FFA. This slide provides a General overview of the major milestones. The regulatory agencies are working closely with the Navy on the remedial investigation work plan.

The Navy expects to submit a revised Remedial investigation work plan at the end of 2025. The remedial investigation Work Plan will serve as a roadmap to determine the nature and the extent of PFAs at the red Hill area.

EPA and DOH will together review the Navy's RI and provide Excuse me, RI Work Plan, Remedial Investigation Work Plan and provide comments. The Navy will implement the Remedial Investigation Work Plan once it is approved by the regulatory agencies. Next Slide.

Okay, moving on to tank closure. This slide covers the regulatory oversight of Phase 1 closure or facility closure. Ongoing efforts include we meet with the Navy weekly to work through issues and concerns. We review and provide comments on plans as they are submitted, including tank cleaning, closure and pipeline removal plans.

We also conduct walkthroughs to make sure that spill mitigation measures are in place. We continue to oversee degassing, pressure washing and cleaning of the pipelines. Looking ahead, we anticipate overseeing the removal of pipelines and other system components. We also anticipate reviewing interim tank closure reports and the final closure report in 2029.

Next Slide this figure provides an overview of where the Navy is in defueling for each tank. DOH and EPA's role is to verify each step and to ensure that the work is being carried out safely. The gray tanks were already emptied and washed before defueling, so our main focus right now is on the 14 white tanks.

The tanks in green are undergoing safety repairs and the tanks in blue have already been repaired and pressure washed. After each tank is cleaned, the next step will be to remove the unnecessary infrastructure so the tanks can never be used to store hazardous substances again. All of the work is estimated to be completed in July of 2029.

Next Slide Our emphasis on oversight of the Navy water system is first and foremost the effectiveness of the response and recovery from the November 2021 jet fuel release. DOH issued an unsafe water Advisory initiating the emergency response phase that included Flushing and the initial sampling of the distribution mains and 10% of the service connections.

These included buildings, homes and other facilities such as schools and senior centers. These were completed within four months of the fuel release. The Department of Health amended its advisory for the last zones on March 18, 2022 allowing for unrestricted use of the entire system.

The public health advisory was lifted for both the Joint Base Pearl harbor and the Aliamanu Military Reservation water systems on October 26, 2022.

To ensure emergency response. Flushing was effective. Navy engaged in a two year monitoring effort called the Long Term Monitoring or LTM that continued monitoring water within the distribution system and sampling an additional 55% of service connections between the emergency response and LTEM.

Over 65% of the buildings have been sampled along with the continued collection of samples in the distribution system. Through our oversight. Our evaluation of the water system found several aspects of the water system management that affect long term success of the system and were incorporated into the 2023 ACO.

EPA has conducted numerous inspections of the drinking water system. We performed comprehensive public water system inspections in April 2022 and again in June 2024. EPA conducted source water sampling for PFAS at Joint Base Pearl Harbor HICAM sources and at the Army's Drinking Water Distribution System which receives water from Pearl Harbor Hickam.

EPA also investigated complaints from residents and had inspections follow up. On October 2023 and in February of 2024, EPA collected drinking water samples from a subset of analytes listed in the LTM from drinking water wells and various homes and priority buildings in the Joint Base Pearl Harbor and army drinking water systems.

All of these inspections have informed our oversight under the ACO. In addition, the EPA lab performed an audit of the Navy sampling techniques in addition to other system improvements that will be discussed in greater detail in the next slide. EPA's ACO required the Navy to conduct additional monitoring to resolve concerns raised during the ltm.

This additional monitoring is called the Extended Drinking Water monitoring plan or EDWM. EDWM sought to complete sampling for the remaining 35% of service connections that had not been completed during the emergency response and the ltm. EPA conducted split sampling to independently validate sample results collected by the Navy during their EDWM sampling.

EDWM is now complete and EPA will issue a summary report of the drinking water system starting with the emergency response through the completion of edwm which represents extensive Flushing of the system and building and unprecedented sampling of every available home. The next slide will cover the ongoing system improvements and their respective status. Through.

EPA's oversight of the response. Our evaluation of the water system found several other aspects of of the water system management that affect long term success of the system and those were incorporated into our 2023 ACO. EPA's compliance order requires both physical and managerial improvements for the drinking water system to make them a model drinking water system.

So the first area is General system documents. This is to support planning and preparedness. The Navy has completed and EPA has reviewed their Asset management program and emergency response plan. Currently they are working on standard operating procedures and they have 4 of 14 of those.

Operating procedures completed with 10 remaining maintenance activities and documentation will also maintain water quality. They have completed a hydraulic model of the drinking water system and they have developed a maintenance Flushing plan. To be completed is an initial Flushing program and a unidirectional Flushing program and a plan to exercise the valves in the entire drinking water system.

In addition, they will be doing infrastructure repairs. They have repaired a broken underwater distribution main and they are in progress of replacing various valves that are currently exempt from the valve exercising plan. They have also worked on improving their water complaint process.

They have established new protocols on how to respond to to drinking water complaints which we have reviewed and approved and they have developed their water action team. Also they have completed they are working on drinking water finished water tanks.

They have seven total in the Joint Base drinking water system and they have completed cleaning and inspecting and sampling of the Red Hill finished water tank number 316 and they are in the process of repairing or reconstructing a 6 million gallon tank called S2 by 2026. The remaining five will be completed over the next few years.

To prevent future contamination, the Navy has developed a Source Water Protection Plan surveillance response system to identify and respond to potential contaminant events and a cross connection control program. Response actions have also been taken as a result of EPA inspections. For instance, they have replaced corroded chemical feed pumps that we observed during our inspection.

They are also continuing to do other efforts including making amendments to their risk and resiliency plan which includes a cyber security plan for the drinking water system, upgrading booster pumps and reconstructing and maintaining or improving water storage tanks. There's a lot of work being done to make this system a model system. Next Slide.

This slide depicts the current status of both the Navy IA Halawa ship shaft and the Red Hill shaft. The current status of the Navy IAL Halawa shaft is that the Navy submitted a pilot study report to the Department of Health. The Department of Health is currently reviewing that report.

The current status for the Red Hill shaft is that DOH approved the construction plans for a permanent Red Hill GAC treatment system. The Navy has completed a pilot study for the Red Hail Shaft and is preparing a report on that pilot study and will be submitting it to the Department of Health.

What the Department of Health is waiting on for at the Navy IA Halawa shaft is an O and M manual and final construction plans. We also anticipate a formal reactivation request that is expected to we expect that by the end of 2025.

Again, to reiterate, the Red Hill what we're waiting on for the Red Hill for the Red Hill shaft is the pilot study report and an O&M manual.

Next Slide in accordance with the 2023 ACO, the Navy submits an annual community engagement plan to EPA which which is reviewed and approved. The Navy's 2025 community activities include host quarterly open houses, quarterly webinars, and quarterly community Engagement, with the Community Representation Initiative hosting information booths and neighborhood boards.

They are also required to participate in the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee meetings and the Navy Closure Task Force also has developed an app and newsletters and fact sheets. The 2026 Navy Community Engagement Plan will include a summary of the Navy's community engagement activities and also analyze their effectiveness.

Next slide we also continue to do our own community engagement. This summer DOH hosted a four part webinar series on science of groundwater that was geared towards the general public. We've included a QR code on the slide.

Each week in June we covered a different groundwater topic and our participants had an opportunity to ask questions of the experts Live in Q&As. We had a really good turnout. There was approximately 100 people that attended each webinar and the recordings are posted on YouTube so they can always be referred back.

The DOH EPA continues to participate in the Navy Quarterly Open Houses, attend CRI meetings quarterly, attend various Neighborhood boards and Commissions legislative hearings, and convene the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee meetings twice per year. Thank you. With that, our presentation is complete and we're open to questions.

Thank you very much for the thorough presentation and also for saving us lots of time for Q and A. I'll turn to my Committee Members to see if you folks have any questions.

So you mentioned that you monitored the Navy's test and test results. What was it? Were they accurate or did it mention if it was accurate or there was deviations from your results and their results?

So just to clarify, there are there have been two different periods, actually three different periods of monitoring. There was the emergency response phase and then there was the long term monitoring and the extended drinking water monitoring.

Throughout each of these phases, EPA has been looking at the results and seeing what those results were, and during the long term monitoring phase we did see some very low levels of TPH and asked the Navy to dive deeper into those.

In addition, we did our own analysis in DOH, did a forensic analysis, and we also collected some samples during that time period. As a result, we asked the Navy to extend their monitoring so that we could determine whether or not some of the irregularities at the low levels were from jet fuel or not.

And so there was further monitoring that happened. In addition, during that time period, the extended drinking water Monitoring plan, time period. EPA took split samples. Another aspect of our oversight is we did send our lab team out to audit the Navy's samplers to make sure that they were taking samples according to quality assurance processes.

Sorry, you mentioned TPH. What is that?

I apologize. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon. It's a General test that looks for different types of organic petroleum and other types. It's a very gross type of measure that allows us to know whether or not there's constituents that could potentially be from jet fuel, among other things.

Let me rephrase that. Was the Navy's test accurate according to your test, or was there a deviation between your test and the Navy's test.

Throughout the process? We had our. Our sample results during EDWM. We did find that they were in alignment. And we do plan to issue a report soon that summarizes all of the findings from the beginning of emergency response all the way through EDWM and the split samples.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of questions from your presentation. So starting at the beginning, where it talks about the regulatory oversight, it doesn't mention the 2015 agreement on consent. Is that still in effect?

Yes. EPA signed an order jointly with the state to oversee the Navy. Really, it was to upgrade the underground storage tanks, which were pretty old, and to remediate any releases, including the 2014 release.

And as we evolved and focused on the 2021 release, we realized we really needed an agreement that focused on that release and protecting drinking water and not so much on fixing a facility that the Navy had agreed to close. So that is also an agreement that we hold jointly with DOH.

Whereas after the 2021 spill, we had the 2023 administrative consent order for EPA and the state emergency order from 2022 on. And we firmly believe at EPA that the 2023 administrative consent order, which includes closure of these tanks in place, includes the investigation of all prior releases and the appropriate remediation of those releases.

And therefore, while we have not officially close the 2015, it's there, it's in the background if we need it, and it's a joint document that we can return to if needed. We are really focusing on the 2023 order authorities in partnership with DOH's emergency order authorities.

Right. So from the state's perspective, the. We issued the emergency order and the second emergency Order, which we emphasize that it is in accordance within the second emergency order. It referenced our rules and statute, particularly emphasizing that it is. I'm emphasizing for you that it is foreclosure and closure includes remediation investigation and monitoring. So we think.

We think we're a lot. I really believe we're aligned with EPA in that. In that sense, with their AOC, their 2023 AOC, our emergency order, in addition to the 2015 settlement agreement. We. With all of those, we can cover the, quote, the proper closure and remediation of this site.

So is the intention to, I don't know what the right word is. Close or resolve or do away with the 2015?

You know, I don't think it is necessary for us to close it at this time. Maybe in the future we would. We think that the framework in the 2023 is. Is better. We can regulate the closure through the 2015 or the 2023. 2023 has 20 drinking water also. And it's just a better mechanism for oversight.

We have a lot more levels of EPA engaged in this effort, and it just establishes a much more robust oversight of the Navy's work.

So something like the groundwater modeling that was required under the 2015 AOC, that's still required under the 2020. Am I saying those right? Yes. And so in that sense, is it duplicative?

Is duplicative. But we wanted to have a different framework to oversee, and that's why we came up with the 2023 consent order, because we wanted to have more oversight. We wanted community engagement to be at the forefront of the work. We wanted to deal with drinking water.

So we recognized we needed a better mechanism to do all of those things. And that's why we created the 2023.

Consent order, and we have reviewed the latest iterations of the model and provide provided comments on that latest iteration using our authorities under the 2023 ACO.

The ACO also includes much more prescriptive community engagement requirements and further included the incorporation of, and basically parallel incorporation of the state's underground storage tank closure requirements so that we are in very good alignment.

Chair for the Department of Health, the 2015 AOC specifically allows for the Department of Health to get reimbursement. We're still working out whether we are able to get our reimbursement under the 2022 EO. So for us, we really do need to keep the 2015.

Thanks, Hilda.

Sorry. Go ahead. AOC. Yes, we really need that. That agreement in place until we're able to find another mechanism under the emergency order to seek reimbursement for our time and effort.

Okay, so I think then it is still important to have the 2015.

Exactly.

AOC stick around. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. If I could follow up, Claire, on your last comment about the groundwater modeling. So you said that you gave feedback to the Navy. Yes. So where are they at with their groundwater model?

Well, they have submitted a, what they like to call draft final. They've addressed a what? In other words, this model will continue to be worked on and improved as we get additional data in the field, but they've turned in what they think is their best work product currently for what they think is happening. Now.

They have said that they are going to inform this model using the data that the University of Hawaii is also collecting and modeling. And I think we heard yesterday at the FTAC that they have found some very interesting things during their effort.

And it is definitely our goal to improve this model, even though it has been submitted as they believe this is, you know, where they are now. They are open to continuing to improve that model.

And we have active workshops with them where working meetings where we go over how the model can be improved and how to take into account what the University of Hawaii is collecting.

And we have experts, including a hydrogeologist who is here with us today, who is very involved in that effort and helping us to use this model as just one of many tools to help us understand what's happening at Red Hill.

Okay. Do you have to approve their draft final?

That's an interesting question. I think in our mind that we have definitely said that this model is a tool that we can use and we provide comments and get it to be the best model it can be. I'm not sure that our order requires us to approve it per se. Thank you. This is Matt Cohen.

He works with me on the project.

Good morning. So the modeling approach is really an iterative approach. And so as new data is collected, the model is going to continue to develop and be improved and we'll continue to work with the Navy to validate the model.

And so the approach we're taking, because, you know, this has been, there's been a lot of sort of angst and upset over, you know, it's been 10 years or it's been however long, and we don't have a model yet. We're really looking at fit use cases. So what question do we want the model to answer?

And we will sort of approve it for that use case. So when we talk about fate and transport or we talk about different aspects or different questions that we want to answer, we'll, we'll concur with the Navy's model to be used in a certain manner, to be used as a line of evidence to help make some decision.

Does that make sense?

I think so. So does the EPA have their own model?

We do not.

So how do you know if their model is correct?

We have. So we contract with SS Papadopoulos. They're sort of one of the foremost models modeling experts in the country. And so they help us review it. As Claire mentioned, we have hydrogeologist who is kind of an expert in modeling on our team who also helps review it.

So they do these sort of intensive reviews and look at the back end and all of the details and the decision points that are put into how the model is developed.

So then will you in a sense agree with what the Navy's model determines?

Yeah, I mean, I think there, I don't, I don't know that there will ever be sort of a. This model is good and you can use it for whatever you want. It'll be, you can use it as a line of evidence for this decision. You can use it. It's approved for this decision making purpose.

And so, and again, it would be in addition to other lines of evidence that it wouldn't be the only thing that we would sort of rely on to make certain decisions.

Okay, so to this point, have you approved certain uses of the Navy's model?

Not yet. But the Navy, you know, they gave us an updated version earlier this year. And they really took into consideration a lot of the comments. You know, we've sort of, over the last several years, we've been making a lot of comments and input, providing input.

And the latest iteration is a lot closer to what we think can be used for decision making.

So do you expect to make that decision sometime in the near future on what it can or cannot be used for?

Yeah, I think we expect an updated version in the coming months, and I think we may start to. And again, it'll be sort of an iterative process.

It may be only, you know, we agree it can be used for XYZ purpose or, you know, that that will sort of piecewise kind of answer that question that, you know, it'll fit for purpose, I guess is the right word. It'll be fit to answer a certain question and then another question and another question.

And so we'll kind of continue to build on that, if that makes sense, that there'll be continuous approvals of aspects of the model.

So, like, for example, if we wanted to figure out the best place to put monitoring wells, and then the EPA would say we approve the Navy's groundwater model to determine the best locations for monitoring wells, correct?

Yeah, that, that is an example of sort of a question. We want the model to answer that. Okay. And yeah, we would, we would sort of approve it for that use.

And then how does that get communicated to the Navy and is that also made publicly available for what the model is approved for?

So we haven't yet approved it for anything. And so that process may develop differently.

But sort of thinking out loud a little bit here, we would probably write a letter that we would post publicly on our website that says, you know, we agree with the decisions that you've, or the, you know, the way that you've developed a model and we agree that it can be used for XYZ purpose.

Got it. Thank you. Is that the same for Department of Health or a little different?

No, it is, it's. It's a little different. And maybe I can have Renee come up and. Or someone come up and explain it. Oh, Lauren.

Hello. I'm Lauren Cruz with the Department of Health. But so for the model for us to date, we have not approved its use for anything. Our latest comment letter has clearly stated that we cannot allow the Navy to use it for decision making purposes until we can come to some sort of agreement on it.

We do have some concerns regarding how well it reflects what we're seeing in the field. So we're hoping with UH's data that might help. UH is also doing their own model, so that might also help us as well.

And then we have our own third party consultant that's also doing some analysis to help us kind of better evaluate the model and figure out what its usability would be. So right now we're hopeful we'll get to a point where it can be usable.

But I think we need to really see what UH's data set is and see how representative the Navy can actually make that model.

Do you know what the timeline is for the, UH model?

Um, I think Don Thomas said, I want to say mid spring, next year, but it depends on funding because I think their funding runs out at the end of October. And then if they don't get the funding, then they're gonna have to just do it part time.

So they won't be able to fully dedicate it because they have to work on other projects that pay fund them. So they're looking at maybe spring or so next year.

That's contingent on funding.

Yeah.

Do you know how much additional funding they'll need to complete?

I do not know. We'd have to ask the University. Yeah.

Okay. That would be really helpful to know.

Otherwise. Right. If, if Department of Health is waiting for, UH to finish the model and UH doesn't have their model, so you can say what the Navy can use their model for and then. Right. Because they're waiting on funding. I don't know, it could take years for them to finish.

Okay.

And then Department of Health, I feel like, is missing out that critical information.

Yeah. Because for us it's gonna be helpful because it's a third party. It's somewhat. It's a separate entity doing it. So.

Okay. And do you know by any chance if UH has had discussions with the Navy about continued funding?

Yes. So I think the funding is from the Navy Office of Naval Research. And so that's separate from the people we deal with. And I think what we learned at FTAC from Don Thomas, who presented there, was that there is no, they're not going to get funding through that.

But it looks like they might be able to continue doing some stuff on the side, but it's just going to depend on if they can find another source of funding that's not from the Office of Naval Research for that to do it. So we'll have to see. I think we have to ask them for more information.

We do have a meeting with them, I think at some point to kind of discuss.

Okay.

What the status is.

So is there Like a deadline of when we need to have a groundwater model that everybody agrees can be used to make certain decisions.

I would say, if this wasn't clear already, that it's just one tool that we will be using. It's not the be all and end all of the decision making, but we're getting closer every day, and I would think I'd ask my experts, but the next couple of years we'll have something.

Yeah. Right now, as they sort of explained earlier, we're in the site assessment phase. And so we're really looking for where releases happened. And so we don't need it for that part of the project.

But once we've identified where the releases are and the nature and extent, then we're going to start talking about where might they go, what is the risk.

And so that's where the model really becomes a powerful tool that, you know, we understand where it is in the subsurface, and then now we want to understand where it might go and what might happen to it. And so I think we're talking probably two years out before it really becomes critical that we have a reliable model.

So what are the other tools that you're relying on now to make decisions about, for example, reopening the Navy's IAEA wells or where to put monitoring wells? What are the other tools that you're.

Using now regarding the reopening of the drinking water wells, I would defer to Department of Health, but with respect to, for example, activities in the site assessment, we are doing passive soil gas sampling. You want to provide additional details?

Yeah, and really there's, I think, on the order of 60 monitoring wells. And so we kind of have a sense of what's happening in groundwater. And so, and we're trying to figure out what's happening between groundwater and the facility.

In that soil gas zone, that Vados zone.

Right. I guess I'm trying to think about the Navy plans to install additional monitoring wells. And they're very expensive. Right. They're like $2 million per well and they require a lot of resources and equipment, permission from landowners. Right. I want to make sure that we're putting them in the right places.

So is the soil vapor gas monitoring giving us enough information now to make those kinds of decisions?

It's really looking at the network. And where are there gaps in the network? Where. Where do we not. Where are we not sure what the plume is doing or where do we want a sentinel well to act as a layer of protection for migration in. In the direction of some sensitive receptor?

So There's a team of, you know, we. We meet regularly with USGS and Border Water Supply and CWorm and DOH and the Navy, and we talk about where the well should be placed, and there's lots of technical discussions about, you know, what makes sense and, you know, where we have data gaps.

So I guess I feel confident that the well placements are based on a lot of input and really good data from a lot of people that are smarter than I am.

So are you folks also waiting on the University of Hawaii's model as well, to make your decisions about what the Navy can use their model for?

I think that the, uh, work that they're doing will help validate the Navy's model, will help improve the Navy's model. So, in a sense, yes, you know, we're eager to see what University of Hawaii develops so that it. It can improve what the Navy has done.

Okay, Members, any other questions?

I have a lot of questions. I don't know. Kathy, if you have anything to add. On the reactivation question?

Yeah, well, I would call upon either Joan or Dennis or Lauren if you have any comments regarding the reactivation of the shaft in relation to the model.

Or maybe I could ask the question a different way. So. Right. So this is my layman's understanding. We have an aquifer, which is a giant sponge, and water is constantly moving through that sponge. And when you start pumping, that can affect the movement of the water underground.

And so if you don't have an idea of where that water is flowing or going, or where those contaminants that could be contained in that water, in the soil around that water, how do you make an informed decision about whether or not to turn a pump back on or start again?

Well, we would. We're eager to have more wells. There is an extensive well network that exists, and with the information that we have, we know that the plume, the petroleum plume in groundwater, is within about a quarter mile to a half a mile of the facility. So it really is staying pretty close to the facility.

And one of the things that we know about dissolved petroleum in groundwater, it degrades really fast, or it degrades in groundwater. And with the particular geology and makeup we have here, there's a lot of oxygen, which aids in that process. And so what happens is there's a degradation rate, and a plume can expand.

A petroleum plume can expand at a rate until it is exceeded by the degradation rate. And so, so they tend to stay close to the source and up, and it's buoyant. So it stays towards the top of the aquifer. So my background is in regular gas station sites.

And so there's been a lot of studies over the years about gas station plumes. And obviously this is bigger than that. But the same principles apply that a typical gas station release will tend to be within 250ft of the facility. Because of that, it only expands until it's exceeded by the rate of degradation.

And so we're seeing some of that here, that the plume is maintained in close proximity to the facility.

Thank you, Matt. I think she was also wanting to ask DOH about reactivation of the actual drinking water wells, but I could have been mistaken.

No. Thank you. Thank you. That was very helpful. I appreciate that. Thank you. Dennis.

Claudentio. Dennis Lopez, Department of Health. I just want to make one thing clear. The safe drinking water branch is about water quality as it enters into a distribution system or activation of a source is not within our jurisdiction. That'll be another part of the Department.

But to be clear about the merit of understanding what's happening in the groundwater as it relates to what's happening in distribution, this is why we have treatment to think about. Other public water systems throughout the state, they're not being asked to hunt down whether their pumping is mobilizing contaminants.

Born water supply has 12 to 14 water treatment plants. Right. So what's important is that you treat the water to make it drinkable. And there's technologies that our public water systems are currently employing. So the concept of, well, do we have to know what's happening in the environment before we reactivate?

We have to make sure that what we're detecting at the source can be treated and it has to be affordable. So for our part of the house, it doesn't play into the reactivation. They have to guarantee that they can make it safe.

Okay, thank you very much for that clarification.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a separate line of question around the discharge of water into Halawa Stream. So it's my understanding that University of Hawaii had been contracted to monitor that discharge and the effect on the ecosystem. But that contract is also ending. Were you folks aware of that situation?

Yes, I was not aware that it was ending. I know that as part of the NPDS permit, they had to. They have to monitor the stream. That's one of the conditions. I don't see anyone from the Clean Water Branch here, so we'll have to get back to you on that response.

Okay, thank you. I think the concern is that as long as that there is discharge into the stream. We should continue to monitor. But even if they're not going to be discharging into the stream, that affects the stream conditions. Right. Because up until they stop, they've been adding. I forget, what is it?

A million gallons of fresh water a day into the stream. Right. That wasn't there before. And then once you stop that, how does that affect the ecosystem? So I think it's really important for us to continue studying even after that water is no longer there, just to see the before and after and larger ecosystem impacts. I see.

Nodding. So I think that means you're going to follow up and get back to me.

We will.

Okay, great. I was wondering just to follow up on tank closure supplement number four that the Navy had submitted. There was a concern in there around substances that were found on the inside of the tank after it was wiped. And the Navy had said that they were doing follow up testing on that.

Have you folks, do you know the status of that testing? Go for it.

Yeah. And I'll bring Matt or another person up for more details. But basically we've been in additional discussions to ensure that we can confirm that the tanks are clean. And because the wipe samples initially that they proposed as a way to show they were clean had a residue on them. Sorry, of course. This is Drew.

I'll introduce him in just a moment. But we just want to make sure that that residue is not something that's harmful to people or the environment. Should there be a release in the future.

Yeah. So it's kind of two parts of.

Do you want to introduce yourself?

Oh, sorry, Drew Rease, Facility Closure Lead with US EPA Region 9. So the sampling, there's kind of two different lines of evidence that we're looking at here. So the first is what Claire had mentioned with the cloth rub tests.

And that's based on an industry standard that looks to evaluate whether all the fuel has been cleaned from the interior of the tank. And so based on those initial cloth rub tests, they indicated there was no fuel that was present on those cloth rubs. But they did find this kind of a dusty residue.

And so we are working with Navy currently in DOH to put together a sampling plan to evaluate what this residue is. So we received a sampling plan from Navy on Monday that we're currently evaluating and we'll issue comments on. But really it's.

It's kind of what Claire was talking about here is just looking to just make absolutely clear that there's no contaminants of potential concern that are being left behind on the tank Shell following closure of the tanks.

Department of Health or. Kathy, did you want to add anything to that? Oh, Drew, sorry. Hang out. Right there. Just wanted to check if they wanted to add.

I'm hearing that we are in concurrence with what Drew testified.

Okay, so once you approve the sampling plan, is that when the testing will occur?

Yes. The testing will take place on three different tanks at the facility. One that represents each different fuel type that had been stored at the facility. So once each one of those different fuel types of the tanks have been cleaned, we will sample inside of the tanks.

Okay, and what are you sampling for?

The testing plan that we received, looks at volatile organic compounds, VOCs, semi volatile organic compounds, SBOCs, TPH, total petroleum, hydrocarbons, and metals.

Okay, and maybe this is a premature question, but if you find something, what are the next steps?

Yeah, that's a good question. So the way that this is going to kind of play out here is that we'll receive the lab results. Navy will be required to put together a calling it a risk evaluation, environmental risk evaluation.

In that risk evaluation, if they determine that there are contaminants of potential concern there, we would require additional layer of mitigation or monitoring. So that would be potentially looking at groundwater to determine that there's no migration of the contaminants. Mitigation measures could look at increased inspections of the tank or additional cleaning of the tank.

That would need to be determined once we conducted the risk evaluation.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Members have any other questions? I have received a lot of community feedback about the recent letter that was sent to the residents of Navy housing about the Flushing. Would you folks be able to speak to that or.

Yeah, I can speak to that. So, as I mentioned during the presentation, we've been requiring the Navy to make upgrades to their. And one of the aspects was. And this is something that is required of. You know, it's pretty standard among drinking water systems is to develop a Flushing plan, a maintenance Flushing plan.

Think of it kind of like your, you know, your washing machine. You know, it says you should empty it out once in a while so you don't build up crud. It's the same concept. And as part of a Flushing plan, there is supposed to be notification.

I just yesterday got a copy of the letter that was sent out, and I think we have some feedback to the Navy. And this is part of our oversight. And we do value. And we know that the community has a lot of concerns about the communication and about how information is provided. And we value that input.

And I plan to be talking to the Navy about their notification about the Flushing. And again, during this time period of our oversight of the drinking water systems, we're very much hands on and giving them constant feedback about how they're executing the requirements under the consent order.

Well, it's really great to hear. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. I think a lot of people felt like this was not enough information and left more questions really, than understanding. And I think it was also felt that this kind of notice was not complete, that there were commercial tenants that didn't understand how this would impact them.

And so I think there definitely needs to be more outreach done around both this Flushing and then future system events. Thank you. I also wanted to follow up on constituent concern about whether or not you still are receiving any complaints about sheen or odor from users in the Navy water system.

I'll go first and then we can hand it over to Department of Health. So we do take any complaints we receive very seriously at EPA. So the last complaint we have received at EPA concerning drinking water at Joint Base Pearl Harbor or the Army system was in June.

We also get monthly reports from the Navy on how many complaints. As I mentioned during the presentation, one of the aspects that we've been focused on is enhancing their complaint. And so we do review that on a monthly basis looking at the number of complaints.

And when individuals do provide complaints directly to EPA, we confer with the Department of Health, and either EPA or Department of Health will follow up. And we'll also ask the Navy specifically what actions they took. We use those as an opportunity to really test their implementation of their complaint process.

Kathy? Yeah, thanks. I actually don't have anything else to add. We really do work together well in this aspect.

And so from the Navy side, has the Navy continued to receive complaints that you're aware of?

Yeah, so they, as I mentioned, we get monthly reports of the number of complaints, and for the last few months, there's been roughly about three to four complaints. We have not seen anything unusual in our discussions with the Navy about the complaints. But again, we are constantly in vigilance mode about responding to complaints.

Okay. I think there were some concerns about people who had made complaints and then they felt that they were not adequately followed up on. If they feel that way, should they come to you folks?

Absolutely.

Okay. I think there were some concerns about, you know, when people come after a complaint is made, like from the Navy, to look at the system, they only test the cold water and not the hot water or that, you know, they let the water run for a long time before they test.

But that's not how people use their water. And whether or not it's an accurate reflection of what people are experiencing in their home is what's being tested.

So the Navy has established a protocol, which we have reviewed and approved on how to follow up with complaints. And obviously, it's going to be a case by case issue because every single home is different, depending on the pipes and the type of complaint involved, where it happened.

You know, in the past, when we did our investigations on complaints, it was really informative. Some people were complaining about showering, some people were complaining about their kitchen sink. And so all of that is going to come into play when you're investigating a complaint.

Okay, well, I'll be sure to pass that along, that if people feel like they're not satisfied with the testing that occurred as a result of their complaint, they should follow up with you folks. Yes, you folks would be able to help them get that addressed. Okay.

Any other questions? Let me just do a quick check if we had any other questions. Nope. Okay, that was it for me. Do you want to provide any closing remarks or? Oh, wait, I did have one more question, a topic that's on everybody's mind. And this is for Amy and Claire.

How are you folks continuing your operations given the government shutdown? Go ahead.

We have been exempted from furlough currently, and coming out here to support the Red Hill work is a priority for our agency, and we're very pleased to be here. We don't know how long we will be exempted from furlough, but we're here and we're making the best of it and continuing to work very closely with DOH.

Should we, at some future time not be available for a period of time?

Well, thank you very much for being here today, and we're very, very grateful to have you here and all of your team and your expertise, I guess I don't know if you can answer this question, but will there be some type of notice to the public or for folks who, for example, wanted to make a complaint?

You know, if you folks are not able to address those things, is there a way for them to find out or how will that be communicated?

So EPA has a standard process. If we are furloughed, we all have to, you know, make our phones and emails indicate such, you know, and I encourage, you know, you know, as you had mentioned, about complaints about drinking water, we always have our friends over at Department of Health who are here, not subject to federal budget requirements.

So we're very fortunate to have such a great state partner that can fill the gaps.

Yeah. And I would also add. Thank you. And we enjoy our partnership. I would also add that if there is a complaint that they should also notify the Navy as well.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Really appreciate you folks being here and the information you provided. A copy of the PowerPoint will be posted to our Committee website. If any Members of the public wanted to review of the PowerPoint, we'll make that available on our capital.hawaii.gov Red Hill Special Committee page. Thank you so much. And Members we're adjourned.