House Special Committee on Red Hill

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for being here today. It's 02:00. We're here at the State Capitol in Conference Room 309. This is the House Special Committee on Red Hill, and we're looking forward to the prescient presentation today from the Navy closer task task force.

A lot of words. And so before we jump in, I wanted to ask if she needs to and I know rep Takayama is on zoo. Like to introduce yourself and your district.

Sure. Thank you, everyone. I'm representative Garner Shimizu in the District 22, which, Red Hill sits physically within my district. So besides the post state, we are tested and interested and thankful for your report. Thank you all community members for being here also.

And then I'll turn

over to Rep Hashem to introduce yourself and your district.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name

is Mark Hashem. I represent East Honolulu. I'm I'm the Chair of the Waterland Community.

And then, Grant Takayama.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. I represent Broad City, and happy to be a part of this committee.

K. Thank you so much. And with that, Admiral Ortiz, I'll turn it over to you and introduce your team.

Thank you Aloha. Chair and committee members. I am Rear Admiral Lester Ortiz. I came aboard January this year as the deputy commander for Navy Closure Task Force Red Hill. Thank you for the privilege to be here today.

I'm a mechanical engineer by trade. I am a member of the civil the Navy Civil Engineer Corps. When I took the job, my focus remains in the mission at hand. The safe and expeditious decommissioning of the Red Hill Oak Hill storage facility and to continue the long term, rigorous environmental remediation at the site. As you know, the complexity of the infrastructure is they're quite high.

But my commitment to rigorous oversight and environmental stewardship is deeply personal. I am a native of Puerto Rico. So I'm an Islander. And as an Islander, I recognize that protecting our national resources is a fundamental responsibility. I lead this team with a sense of beauty and a deep respect for the line of water that sustain us all.

I believe that transparency is the foundation of trust, part of our mission. To me, that means sharing the procedures we are implementing, especially because they are reviewed by our regulatory partners and they're validated by them before we actually proceed. And also to ensuring that the data remains open and available to the public through different methods and means. It means open about our challenges or be clear on about our timelines and proactive in our communication.

My goal is to ensure the committee and the community have the clarity they deserve at every stage.

My commitment to a safe and transparent mission is rock solid. It is a priority for me and it's part of our mission. With me today, Commander Francisco Barreto. He's our facilities and operations director. And you didn't know Commander Ben Don.

He's our environmental and remediation deputy. Not sure if we have the slides

up. Uh-huh.

So I can share the agenda.

And while we're getting the slides up, I'll ask Brett Tempo. You wanna introduce yourself and your district? Aloha, everyone. Shirley Tempo, state representative for House District 30. That's Kalihi, Kalihi, Kalihi, Laguna, Hickam Village. Thank you.

So we can go over it

Aloha Everyone Shirley Templo, State representative for House District 3. That's Kalihi, Kalihi, Kalihi, Laguna Hickman Village. Thank You

Right. So next slide, please. I'm back, maybe. There we go. The agenda.

So pretty much, we will be going over the mission including the decommissioning, the environmental, the water resiliency, the community events, and then we will be open for discussion questions. Next slide, please. As you remember, you you saw this last time, but we want to remind the the lines of effort and the timeline. The overall safe and permanent commissioning of the facility to prepare for closure includes three key activities. And they are reflected in in that timeline.

Where the decommissioning of the decommissioning timeline at the top, we already have done the completed the a triple f removal. As you probably remember, it was presented last time. And now we are in tank cleaning and the pipe removal. So reminder, there are 20 tanks. And out of those 20 tanks, we already have empty six that were not in service by '2020 when they even happen in 2021.

So below the timeline, you can see the lines of effort that are ongoing and will be sustained as part of our commitment beyond 2028 after the projected Navy closure task force sunset. There's the environmental remediation. You will see that describes the long term environmental cleanup and protective actions the Navy has been taking at Red Hill and the communication line of effort.

As I said, we're committed to keeping an open line of communication with stakeholders through various means, and we perform work to close and decommission the Red Hill facility. Currently, the decommissioning timeline take us through calendar year 2028.

The environmental remediation as well as the communication lines of effort extend beyond 2028 as their ongoing and long term efforts. Next slide, please. Here you can see a few pictures of the different events that we have had during the since July 2025. If you remember last July, we told you that we have completed ventilation in six tanks. Today, we have completed ventilation in 12 tanks.

Ventilation operations have been completed safely and for more than two years. And there have not been any elevated readings of volatile organic compounds during degassing operations. We know this because we set up nine air quality monitoring stations in and around the Red Hill facility to monitor conditions during active ventilation operations. Last July, we told you we have completed pressure washing in two tanks. Today, we have completed the water washing in seven tanks total.

We continue to use water being pumped from the Red Hill Shaft to wash the tanks. That's after the water is filtered through granular activated carbon or what we call as GAC filters. Also, as July, we reported to you that we have 46 groundwater monitoring wells. Today, we are actively drilling our forty ninth groundwater monitoring well. These wells allow the navy to monitor for presence of fuel related compounds in the groundwater around Red Hill and the surrounding areas.

Today, there has been no evidence of contamination moving away

Red Hue property based on the data from those wells. Last July, we reported to you that we were about to begin the pipeline cleaning process. I'm happy to report today, we are 99% complete with pipeline cleaning, and have officially started pipeline cutting and removal. We'll be removing approximately 10 miles of pipeline total. That's from the Goldfield facility down to the pier.

from the

There are three miles and about, you know, three pipes total. That's why it become 10 miles of pipeline. Once we remove pipeline material, it's being transported to The US Mainland to be recycled. Last July, the Navy Ihabara shaft was still shut down as a precaution since the 2021 incident. Although there has been zero evidence, it was impacted by the release.

Today, I'm happy to report the Navy has officially requested approval from the Hawaii Department of Health to reactivate the shaft. This comes after we reached another major milestones in March. That's when the US Environmental Protection Agency declared the joint base Pearl Harbor Hickam drinking water system has been free of fuel contamination and in compliance with federal and state drinking water regulation since 2022. Following the Navy's comprehensive decontamination effort and rigorous drinking water quality monitoring.

While my team will provide detail updates in the coming slides, I want to highlight the progress we have made in this mission over the past year alone.

What I want to emphasize, this progress is not just about checking off milestones. It is about rebuilding trust through safe delivery, engaged, and committed action. Now I will turn it over to commander Barreto to go over the commissioning updates. Next slide, please.

Hello, chairs and committee members. I'm Francisco Barreto. And in this July, I officially assumed the role of facilities operations director for Navy Culture Task Force director. I like Admiral Ortiz, I'm also from Puerto Rico. I grew up around mountains in Belgium.

And being here I mean, I've been here for for the last two months, it it really feels like home to me. And I can truly say that I understand how important natural resources are, especially water to the people of Ohau. My vision is to ensure that the commissioning of a hot fuel storage facility. Since we last update you in July of last year, we have launched two dashboards to illustrate our progress with the at the decommissioning airports.

The bottom line the bottom line remains a Navy culture task for Rex Hill has some plans for the decommissioning of the for the decommission of the Wrecked Hill or fuel storage facility for perforated approved plans on schedules.

The dashboard on the left shows our decarbonisation airport regarding to tank cleaning and also the different actions involved in each several tank cleaning process. It's hard to see it from here, but we have six tanks on the last step of the cleaning process. This step requires regular air concurrence. We have one tank on the, pressure washer or or washing step, which is step number 3 and five tanks on step number 2.

Next to it, you can actually see the amount of gallon of razil fuel removed from each tank during the cleaning process.

And right below it, the amount of gallons of the sludge recovered from the tank bottoms. On the right side, that's that's more for the pipeline removal process. Top portion details of the step for the pipeline removal, which are preparation, drain clean, cup and remove, and transportation and recycle. Right now, we're on step number 3 and four. Right below that, that shows the the amount of pipeline already cleaned like Emeritus are 99% clean pipeline clean and the amount of fuel recovered during pipeline removal.

That's fuel that did not come out during gravity refuel. And most recently, we started tracking pipeline removed from Red Hill. We're seeing about 5.3% as of today. That means pipeline cut, removed from Red Hill containerized, and ready to be shipped or inbound already on inbound to the recycling facility. Both dashboards regularly updated on our mobile app and website.

Let's see. That's all about the dashboards, but I wanna take a time to understand question from last year, And this is regarding to the tank closure plan. The Navy has concurrence with regulators on what infrastructure will be removed from inside and outside the tenants. The Navy is actually actively working to address remaining comments on the latest closure plan supplement form. And the time after completion is dependent on the approval of the closure plan.

And that would actually allow the navy to scope and execute contract vehicles to comply with the approved plan. Now I'm gonna hand up to Commander Dunn for environmental updates.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair and representatives. Great to be back today. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide another update. So for environmental, monitoring and investigation, maybe continues to, manage execute manage robust and layered environmental monitoring program.

Over the past year, we've continued to conduct passive soil vapor monitoring below the tank gallery to closely monitor conditions on-site, and that's an activity that we'll endure through the closure process. We continue to do air quality monitoring, exterior quality monitoring, as the admiral mentioned, specifically during the degassing portion of the tank cleaning operations and report those results on the Navy Closure Task Force website, and that activity will continue through the cleaning process.

We continue to conduct very frequent groundwater monitoring across the entire navy groundwater monitoring network. We pull samples twice per month over this past year, and that spans back to when we reduced the flow of pumping operations at the Red Hill Shaft a couple years ago. We continue to to do that monitoring today and we will be continuing to do the groundwater monitoring through the closure process and very likely beyond.

We also continue to pump and operate the Red Hill Shaft. We have a water treatment system on-site, the granular activated carbon, and the the point of that activity is to control or inhibit any contaminant migration from the site collected in the Red Hill Shaft, treated, and then discharge that into the Halawa Stream.

We continue to do that operation continuously, and we will be continuing to conduct that activity as we work through the installation of a drinking water treatment system at the Red Hill Shaft to put that back into service ultimately. That's down the line in the in the future. As part of that pumping, treating, and discharging operations, we continue to do a lot of stream ecological monitoring.

We do terrestrial and aquatic species monitoring for that activity, which we will also continue with that effort. We just renewed another year of monitoring over the next year. And as we look to transition from discharging into the Halawa Stream and ultimately restoring the Red Hill Shaft as a drinking water source with a drinking water compliant treatment system, we will have a transition phase as as a ecological monitoring and discharging comes to an end.

We intend to continue that ecological monitoring even after the point of the end of pumping so that we have additional data beyond to monitor conditions there. For investigation and remediation, Over the past year, we've expanded our groundwater monitoring well network as AMRO has said.

We have another well that's very close to completing in the next few weeks and that's in the Halawa Valley. We have several more locations that we are pursuing, in that area to the West and Northwest of, the Red Hill facility where we don't have as many wells. So that effort will continue, and we will continue to install more wells, in the coming years.

We have progressed our remediation, pilot studies, so monitoring, what we call a natural source zone depletion or natural breakdown processes on-site from about halfway through that study, this summer. So we will have a report next year to present our findings and observations through that effort.

We also have a remediation technology pilot that we conducted over the past year. It's called soil vapor extraction. We had a shallow portion to it and then a deep portion to that study. We pursued that technology pilot study because we've used that elsewhere on the point phase, so it was an easy adaptation for the Red Hill site. And we are looking at an additional phase to that study next year sometime.

So the information we gained from those two studies will inform our investigation and when we get to the portion of the process in the cleanup phase where we select evaluate and select remediation technologies, we'll be better informed by from our understanding of those efforts. Specifically, with respect to the investigation, last year, we commenced the first step, the site assessment, a Pervika cleanup process, resource recovery and conservation act cleanup.

We started our field investigation portion, and the goal of that first step is to, evaluate records of historical releases with field sampling. So you're basically going through and and validating whether something is or isn't there based on historical records. The next step in the process, which will we will finish our effort in the field.

At the end of this year, we'll have a a field investigation report this coming spring, that we'll have our findings from that. But the follow on step in that process as we look forward is the characterization. So that's basically defining the nature and extent or basically the scope of what needs to be cleaned up. So first step, is it there? The second step, you go back through and you and you, characterize how much and what it is, so you know what needs to be cleaned up.

So, more to follow as we work through that process. So in short, on the environmental side, you know, we have the extensive monitoring that we have conducted and continue and will continue to do over the next year through multi mediums to closely monitor the situation on-site so we understand the conditions on-site. As Yevron had mentioned, we've across these, you know, different monitoring programs, different lines of evidence, we've seen no evidence of contaminant migration across or at or from the Red Hill facility, which is great news.

We're also seeing evidence of natural breakdown processes. So conditions are stable on-site and natural processes that break down this residual petroleum is at work.

So we will as time goes more, we have data from our ongoing studies. Again, we'll we'll have a better appreciation and better understanding of the status of that. And again, we have progressed our site investigation significantly over this past year and we're looking forward to concluding that step in the coming year. Next slide. And transition over to water resiliency.

So, really, for for storm resiliency for the joint phase, Pearl Harbor Hickam drinking water system is about three things. There was, enhanced monitoring that serve to support the recovery, to validate the recovery of the drinking water system itself. There is source redundancy. So pursuing the reactivation of the supplemental or additional secondary drinking water wells at Nabi'ihaalawa Shaft and the Red Hill Shaft. So working to progress and bring those back into service so that there is a secondary source of water for the joint based system.

And the system serves a 100,000 daily users, but also the, you know, the many key activities on the joint base. And then there's also a big piece to this, which is restoring consumer confidence in the drinking water system. So on the first leg, the Navy concluded last year three years of enhanced drinking water monitoring. We sent off their report to the EPA last summer.

Earlier this spring, we received their endorsement report concurring that we have concluded our enhanced drinking water monitoring efforts, which again serve to validate that the system had recovered.

Both the EPA and the DOH has conducted independent evaluations of, the drinking water system and come to the same conclusion. The systems has re had recovered and, the water continues to meet state and federal standards. For water source resiliency, over the past year, we've done a lot of work with the NavyIA and Halawa Shaft. I think last summer when we presented an update, we were feeling pretty and we were pretty close.

We had just completed a pilot study to basically demonstrate that the water treatment system that we put in is effective as designed.

We've since made a adjustment to how that treatment system is reconfigured, and then we have completed the physical tie in of that treatment system into the distribution system. We've had Department of Health come out and inspect everything, the well, the infrastructure, the treatment system, the connection point, evaluated the results that we've had from our sampling efforts, and are reviewing our, you know, operating procedures. So pretty holistic assessment of the needs, well reactivation plan and activities.

And so we had them out last month and have since submitted a formal request. We anticipate hearing from the Department of Health here in the next several weeks so that we can bring that well back into service into routine operation, utilizing that water treatment system, which meets drinking water standards.

We have also progressed efforts at the Red Hill Shaft. We are in the process of installing a drinking water treatment system there, an interim drinking water system. You may have recently heard in the news in the past couple weeks that the Navy awarded a construction contract for a permanent water treatment facility. That will take several years, to complete.

So in the near term, we are pursuing the completion of a temporary system ultimately to bring that well back into service as a drinking water source, in the future.

But we are still a ways off from that and there's work to be done there. We're more than a year away from Red Hill Shaft, so you'll hear more about our progress before we get to that point. I know that I'm very interested in in how we're providing information and updates about these. So as, you know, we we have our stakeholder forums and we provide updates and along the process and progress that we've made.

As we get approval from the Department of Health, we'll be providing notice to our consumers like we do for other system drinking water system operations at joint base.

And and also there'll be a public notification, press release. The joint base will will be providing this information, and we will continue to provide updates as we go for Red Hill shaft reactivation. Something similar in that effect as we work through that process, you know, a year or more from now. And we continue to provide, updates to the SafeWise website with information and, documentation related to those processes, so that folks can look at that that data, those documents and information as we work through that process.

And then, of course, the last piece is the consumer confidence.

So we continue to operate a water quality action team. That's our concern consumer concern response function. Somebody calls with a a a concern, we'll go sample and investigate the nature of that concern. We've been seeing a decrease, in the calls, over the past year, so we were only getting another handful a month, which is great. However, we do continue to interface with the consumer base.

We have our drinking water informer information booth that continues to go out into the communities and then we continue to provide information on resources on the joint base safe water drinking water page. So a lot of information, and we wanna make sure we're feeding that to our consumers as well. So And that concludes the drinking water portion. Sir, back to you.

Thank you, Ben. Our next line of effort is the community engagement update. And as you can see, we have two pictures with different events. You can see that we have hosted several of our own events including open houses and webinar.

We also committed to sharing ideas and collaborating with key stakeholders including the Hawaii Department of Health, fuel tank advisory committee, the Hawaii Department of Land and National Resources Commission on Water Resource Management, and the Honolulu Local Emergency Planning Committee, just to name a few as we are here today.

But we are also out in the community sharing our progress with the general public at neighborhood, Board Meetings, our drinking water information, both have commander Don mentioned, especially setting those at high traffic location like Dake's Exchange and community markets as well as the Pacific Water Conference where we presented to around 200 water professionals from across The Pacific on restoring resiliency to the joint base for the Harcourt Hickam drinking water system.

For the second year in a row, we also attended scouting America Aloha Council's only Zuka day of exploration where our team was able to showcase the complex science based work being done to close the Red Hill fuel storage facility. Our 2026 strategy was developed based on 2025 engagement data. Bottom line, our primary focus this year is on the drinking water consumer base.

That's why we have been talking to them, exposing what is going on, and looking forward for the biggest milestone as Commander Don said, the Navy at Halawa shop opening soon.

Our aim is to enhance awareness on closure and remediation efforts at the Red Hill facility and deliver information by focusing on platforms that have proven effective in reaching a wide audience. Next slide, please. For this year, our biggest event is an open house slash town hall. We're happy to invite you all. I'm glad that the general public.

This will be on Thursday, September 17. It would be held at the American Veterans Hawaii or AMBETZ West Oahu Veterans Center in Ewa Beach. That's right near Capalina Beach Homes. We will start with an open house at five in the evening when everybody can just go and start talking with the senior matter experts, see the boards and ask questions. And then followed by a town hall from six to seven then.

So we actually encourage everybody to if they have technical question, that's the biggest opportunity to go and talk to the to the expert that are working. We also would have representative from the US Environmental Protection Agency with us and the University of Hawaii Red Hill Registry on it. We hope to see you all there. Next slide, please. It's my commitment and my staff commitment.

I think with accountability, maintaining an open dialogue with key stakeholders and demonstrating our respect for the land, water, and the people of Hawaii in everything we do. As you have seen today, you have three islanders. Commander Don is local from Hawaii. So we understand what is the the need to keep our resources, especially when we are far away from any other state or jurisdiction that will support us in a in a case of need.

I wish here before we have numerous resources where the public can find more information about the closure task force activities.

Just beyond being in all these forums, providing all these data, and this data is posted in different resources that you can see. This is a continuation of what was done last year. And there are plenty of of different opportunities to find the information that we have been publicly discussing. It's still on this page, our QR codes for our website, the joint base for the harbor HICOM safe waters website, our free daily culture task for RedHill app, and our podcast.

Want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I mean, the first time during my tenure that I'm here, I'm looking forward for our next opportunity. It has been a nice ride so far for my first almost seven months. Learning a lot and and taking a lot of appreciation of the community and the opportunity to serve the state and serve our service. I'm very proud of the collaboration effort that we I have and the team had between EPA, DOH at all levels, not just the technical, but also the leadership.

So I'm looking forward to continue to work with you all on our mission.

And with that, I will conclude and we'll stand by for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Admiral and Tia and your team for that presentation. I'll turn it over to members. Any questions? Yep. Actually, you said go ahead.

You mentioned a temporary water treatment system and then also a permanent water treatment system. Can you just briefly go over the details of that again?

Certainly. So for the Red Hill shaft, we are in the process of installing a temporary drinking water treatment system. There is a treatment system on-site today that that filters, what is pumped in a Red Hill shaft, but that's not for drinking water purposes. So we are installing a, a new system, with granular activated carbon technology to ultimately provide the capability to have Red Hill Chaf serve as a drinking water source again in the future.

We have been pursuing that over the past year in advance knowing that ultimately that's not a feasible long term solution.

So there is a permanent water treatment system that was programmed and then it was just awarded the construction contract. But that's gonna take three years, you know, to construct. So we're a ways out from having the construction done and then commissioning that system, and so intent is Red Hill Shaft, you know, because we're on one drinking water source, really trying to attain that second source capability sooner rather than later. So

when is

this temporary system to be completed?

We're more than about a year out from getting to the point of completing that and then working through the commissioning process. Alright. Thank you. Thanks. Absolutely.

Members, any other questions?

Can you explain the process, and the timeline for DH DOH approval to reactivate the Navy? Yes.

Yes. So we've taken it's a process for one. So we've been following it's a standard state process to reactivate a well that has been offline. However, we have modified it with a treatment system, and so we're have been working through that process. We've been very deliberate, documenting everything.

We did the pilot study to make sure that the system functions as designed. We made an adjustment. We just completed some additional samples. And the most recent milestone was having the Department of Health come out last month to inspect everything. So we had the treatment system.

It was installed. We ran the study. We finally connected it physically because the treatment system was not connected to the distribution system. But we just did that engineering in the last month and or two months. And so once we had everything ready physically on-site and we had a DOH come out and work at everything and then look at the program side, the operation and maintenance plans of it.

And then once that was completed, we then sent a request letter requesting to reactivate approval to reactivate and begin operating that well on a routine basis. That's a smaller well, so it's really kind of a supplemental source. So historically, we have not operated that on a daily basis, and we would not use that in the future. It would be a periodic operation of that well. So we're a couple weeks out.

The request is with the Department of Health, and so we're waiting. There's some some questions we've been answering, you know, just to find out details.

Can I keep asking some questions? So prior to the spill, was this shaft working and operating all the time?

Yes. It was in routine use. Okay. That does not mean daily use, but, yes, it was routinely used.

Okay. So what are if the if the letter has been with DOH now and you're thinking in a in a month or so that they'll activate it, What are the plans to continually monitor that if there was, in fact, some contamination that flowed? Because anytime there's, like, right, a big change to the system, which this represents a big change, the opening up of a shaft. Right? That introduces a new factors into the movement of water everywhere.

Right? So what is the mechanisms that the Navy and DOH is looking to monitor to see if anything moves and shifts?

Certainly. I mean, the the primary agent that we use to monitor the groundwater is through groundwater monitoring and the groundwater monitoring wells. So we if there was any kind of movement, we would see it through that through those wells before it got to KVIA. We have several in front of between regular shaft and AVIA and a lower shaft as well. So we'd be able to monitor that.

But to the point of the the source itself monitoring, we'll continue to meet safe drinking water act requirements, post reactivation, but we're also gonna continue to do quarterly monitoring. The concern for that oil is PFAS, not fuel. We know there's PFAS at that well. That's why we put the treatment system in there, and we're going to do post reactivation monitoring for PFAS.

Is the Board of Water Supply engaged in this effort with even DOH when you guys reopen the shaft?

Well, we it's the state of Hawaii's process, so we are working with the Department of Health to follow that process.

And you can't confirm if the Board of Water Supply is involved?

I mean, we are not coordinating directly with the Board of Water Supply for the use of our well.

Okay.

But we do also work with the Department of Land and Natural Resources and commissioning the water resource management that manages the aqua for sure.

I guess just because it is all connected, it would be great if the Florida Water Supply was involved in some way or fashion at some point. I think that's really important.

I guess just because it is all connected, it would be great if the Florida Water Supply was involved in some way or fashion at some point. I think that's really important.

Yeah. Rachael, is it?

You know, related to this discussion that I was just having, am I hearing that the IEA well does not serve the public beyond the military and that's why water water supply is not involved?

It's a navy well that supplies just joint case drinking water system. K. Thank you. Yes.

Yep. Rep Hashem.

So before you before you used to have a picture of a plume, right, where the the oil still was within the soil. You don't have a you don't have that in your presentation this time. Do you guys not what is the the oil plume? Is it still there? Or is the the soy vapor monitoring or has that been working?

Because you mentioned that pre briefly about how it's starting to break down. Yeah. We're seeing evidence through the different monitoring programs that there's natural breakdown processes at place through the groundwater monitoring programs or activity. We're able to monitor, presence in the aquifer, and that's, restrained to three locations. There's several monitoring wells at the center of the facility where we continue to see residual fuel in the aquifer, and that hasn't moved.

And there's also the piece sorry, I forgot my train of thought, but above the aquifer, below the surface, there is what we call the vadose zone or like the dry soil. And the site investigation process that we are working through is gonna identify the extent of what that is, which will then be cleaned up in the future.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

Any additional questions? Rep Shimizu.

Again, I appreciate you folks being here. I know you're trying to clean up a previous mess and appreciate all the efforts that you guys are doing. Just basic question is, with all the studies that you folks have been doing and I kinda related to Andre Paschen's question, is is there any idea or identification of the amount of fuel that was spilled and and where it is right now? How much is in the ground? How much is in the in the aquifer?

How much has degraded, and what is the word disintegrated for lack of a minute term.

Yeah. We not quite, but to to my former point about the site investigation, so we know the, you know, the locations and we intend to work through that next step to identify, you know, the extent of that, in the soil. We already know where in the aquifer that it is on the facility around several of the monitoring wells. It's pretty stable. It hasn't changed.

Haven't seen it elsewhere on-site, which is great news, of course. And through that site investigation process and the characterization step, we'll have a much better idea as far as, you know, the amount, the extent of what needs to be cleaned up and be accounted for.

So what I'm hearing is you folks are able to detect it, and it sounds like from your monitoring, it appears to be stable. And I guess correction is in front of you, and and you're still trying to, I guess, figure out the best way to handle it.

We we will get to that stage. We're we're certainly a lot of monitoring going on to date and and today to monitor if conditions change. Through that monitoring, we're able to tell there's the natural breakdown processes that are happening, which is great to know, but also that it's not moving and the historical records, historical release records is what is driving that first step in the investigation process. And so that's, you know, from the monitoring that we see, conditions aren't changing.

There's no mobilization or anything like that.

So as we work through, it's a pretty deliberate process for the break for cleanup. And so as we finish the first step, we're already, you know, planned right into the second step so that we can bound and know and with great confidence what and where to get to that cleanup step.

So with identification, you're you're also able to sort of estimate volume and and and reduction as as you're seeing.

Like, estimate how much has been breaking down. Yeah. I have to take that back for a follow-up.

I would like to add for for that, we're following a process, right, that is typical for the regulatory agencies. This is the the what you need to do. So assess the situation, then characterize. And then from there, we will identify which are the best options to clean the land. Right?

And we do know, of course, the the soil behind the the bulk area. Right? But that's why we continue exploring different areas, adding more wells. So we have that site assessment complete and, you know, working with

the regulators saying like, okay, are we good? And then following the the rest of the process. That's why that would take a little bit of longer because it's seen an investigation every time that we compile the results and discuss them with the within the SMEs.

I have

a quick follow-up to Rep Shimizu if it's okay. Sure. So it's my understanding that the Navy has gone through their past records and confirmed something like 80,000 gallons over the life of the facility. It's probably been released or confirmed release. If you look at other historical records, so for example, the Red Hair Water Alliance initiative report, they estimate that it's more like 600,000 over the length of the facility.

So when you folks are doing the site assessment, are you starting at the 80 or are we starting at the 600,000 gallons?

Well, we start at the locations

Okay.

Of of known spills. And, you know, the plans that we develop are very closely coordinated with DOH and EPA, but they're also ultimately approved by them. And part of the process for this first step so we go through and we look at the first the passive locations. Hey. We you you know, there's a record of a spill here.

We go in and we sample. If we don't, detect anything, we have a second task to validate that that is the case. We're not just taking the first sample results, basically double checking that investigatory step. But that again is only location, it's not extent or volume. So I don't come through the process as far as assessing or identifying the extent, which may be more representative of the volume.

So how do you determine the sites that you're listing, I guess, is my question?

From his historical release records that are mainly within the Navy's, within the Navy's records and with what has been reported to the regulatory agencies for former releases.

And so, like, I'm just trying to work this out, right, because for a long time, this was a secret facility. So there would not have been reports to regulators about releases from the very, very early days because it was a secret facility. And I know sometimes those records can be sketchy because it was a secret facility.

So I just wanna know, are you being very broad in your site investigation, right, to be as inclusive of all potential sites, not just the ones that are reported or confirmed, right, that we absolutely know x marks the spot. Does that that's the gist of my question.

Yes. And we're tracing the basically, the skeleton of the fuel infrastructure through this investigation process, and it's an interview process as well. So, like I mentioned, it's not a first pass. It's not gonna be a conclusive it's why we're going back through and looking. But you start with what you know and then you move from there.

Okay.

It's the nature of the process.

So will there be like other sites that will be tested where you don't have a known spill, like just in case, like let's just test around this area of the facility?

It would depend on, the historical activity there or what infrastructure was there.

Okay. And then does DOH or EPA have to approve all of the sites that are being tested?

They approve the work plan, so that is part of the work plans. So what what, where, how, yes, that is approved by the Department of Health and EPA. Thank you.

me do the follow-up. Sure. Alright, Rep. Bellatti.

If you let

I think it's a comment and follow-up. This discussion about knowing where a spell is, the volume, I think and I really appreciate that we've had this conversation through this committee and had had, you know, ongoing reports. But I feel like that area of understanding because you know where the contamination is, that it would be helpful to this committee and maybe to the community to have a more deep dive into what's happening with that, what we know about that.

And also if there has been my understanding was that there was a study that was commissioned at some point that was supposed to be also following some of all of this.

I'd like to again, I appreciate what the Navy is doing, but sometimes I think we need to have an independent validation if those studies exist, if we can have some of those researchers come in front of us and speak to us.

I don't know what kind of agreements you have, if there are any NDAs with researchers, but I would think that in the context of a public setting and oversight by the legislature, we should be able to have those kinds of presentations made to us, and I think the Navy should welcome that. Those are just some of my comments as this committee moves forward.

I hope I can be here to to listen to more of this, but if it goes beyond November, I think it's really important that, this work is gonna continue and so these kinds of questions and more transparency is always gonna be better.

If you wanna comment on anything I said, I welcome that because I do not know it's in fact where the U H studies are in all of this and if there have been other independent researchers who have, not been able to make presentations to us.

I would like to know more about your thoughts on that if you have any.

Yeah. Certainly, the University of Hawaii, through their groundwater studies, they've completed, I don't know, seven or more field studies. They they are in the process of finalizing their field study reports from that. There are additional proposals that have been presented in the last month about, you know, future studies. Most of those are affiliated with the Red Hill Hawaii group that they brought up to the stakeholder group the Red Hill stakeholder group.

And by that group, I mean Department of Land and Natural Resources, University of Hawaii, Seawarm, now the Red Hill Bio Group, Board of Water Supply is in there, Navy, DOH, EPA, all of those entities. And so there's discussion certainly amongst that forum, which is really the the best technical forum to kind of massage and talk about some of these early proposals or just concepts and general feedback to the process and work ongoing.

Obviously, the remediation or the investigation rather topic is of interest today, and we are planning as we finish the field investigation step and we have that report and all the datasets and the conclusions from that. We were intending to highlight that next year as a big focus topic because

we'll be at that point where we'll have so much more information about that. So there will be certainly more to follow on this topic.

Sure. Rachel? So so what what I just heard is, related to Revolai's question, in any studies that are done by the University of Hawaii or or any, professional or academic related organization would be public information.

Yeah. I know the University of Hawaii has presented on the air groundwater studies. So other studies that, well, if they progress in their pursuit, then, yeah, we would like to share that information, the findings from that.

You know, when I look at your your graphic with the timeline and and obviously, you know, that we restricted to this paper size, But it ends at c y 29. And and my my question is, you know, that that'd be nice to just wrap this up in a nice bow and everything. But if it goes beyond that and, you know, it necessitates longer activity and corrective actions, So maybe committed to that?

Yes. It definitely will go beyond 2029. I cannot tell you exactly how long it would be because it will be dependent of the results of the site characterization and the solutions for the cleanup that will come up. I can speculate that scene, you know, that would take out of 2029, probably 2030, '30 to define all the the requirements of cleaning and then to see how long it would take to clean those those sites. So definitely would be beyond 2029.

I have another question if nobody got questions. Can you have a word on that one? Yes, please.

Emma Ortiz, you mentioned that Navy closure task force is gonna end at some point. Is that here, the 2029? Is that when Navy closure task force ends? No.

Our plan is to sunset the task force in 2028.

Of 2028.

As we decommission the the bulk fuel facility. Right? So when when we complete remember that the tanks will be closing place and it will remain there. Regularly in the future, we will need to go and just assess conditions as any other property. But we are focused on getting the the whole facility cleanup and then having that decommissioning of those.

And then when we transition in responsibilities for everything out there, the environmental and the communication to program management office, PMO kind of thing, that then would reside within Commander Navy Regional Hawaii. And then as we said, with Navy Alava Shaft, when we complete the activities with Redhill Shaft that will return to the base which is the provider of water and the operator. And then, you know, they would take that line of effort and they would continue. The environmental side typically belongs on NAFAC, Hawaii.

So they would take the remaining of those efforts.

So it would be a consolidated effort between multiple navy commands with the single point of contact of that PMO to be the the program manager, and especially the one that will be communicating with the regulators and same like I do we do right now that we consolidate everything within the task force, then they would take that mission.

So would NAVFAC be overseeing the remediation piece, the the the RCRA process? Is that

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Okay.

You know, I've been to previous open houses and on this September 17, you have an open house and then you have a town hall also. So so is that town hall segment gonna be different than previous open houses where you're gonna have more of a a back and forth with the public? Is is that the intent?

That's the intent of the the town hall. The open house is similar to the ones before the the one that you want. We have tables with the subject matter experts and people just just come, you know, in a probably more private way, ask their questions and then pursue information. But then the town hall is for us to have an open forum for the community and anybody that is there to ask questions.

I have a couple more questions about remediation. I it is a hot topic today, so the natural breakdown study that you folks are doing, that the report is coming out next year, who is doing that study?

That is our team.

Oh, Ned's NAPAC.

Yes. I'm technically a NAPAC employee embedded into the task force, so yes.

And can you tell me a little bit more about what they are studying with that?

We look at basically water well, through water chemistry, water quality, temperature profiling, basically look for evidence of breakdown processes that are occurring. But I will take notes so I can give you more details in the next update.

be great if you could just outline, like, what is what is it that they're studying and Certainly. I'm I'm curious. Is this studying the breakdown of fuel products and PFAS or just fuel products?

That would

It's just fuel. So that's mainly a failure task force and our team that is doing a site investigation, and all these monitoring programs are focused on historical fuel releases and the remediation and cleanup of fuel. There is a NAVAC has a adjacent project that is an investigation for PFAS that's regulated under CERCLA not rigorous. So it's a different office that's doing it. It's the conventional Navy environmental restoration program.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. If you can get us more information about that study, that would be great. Thank you.

And I know that sometimes it's kind of complicated because everybody see the uniform, I think the Navy, but we the way we are broken down by the PFAS topic is the nationwide, and it has a nationwide effort and and different things that are driven through NAPA. Hawaii and other specific team will, you know, we will be able to grab information from

them. Thank you. And then I had a follow-up question about the soil vapor extraction study. Is that also a NAPAC study?

Same. It's our team. So same group of environmental scientists and engineers that's doing that monitoring and investigation work. So similarly, we can look to provide a detailed update in the future as we finish that effort.

And so, can you explain what is soil vapor extraction?

So, certainly, this is looking at the Earth, the zone that is what I identified as the Vado zone. It's the dry area, so beneath the surface above the aquifer. It's that area that we're looking at.

And so we drill shallow or deep extraction wells, pretty narrow wells that go down 15 to 20 feet for shallow, and we it's basically a vacuum system that has piping that connects to a extraction unit with a filter to see if they're able to pull fuel vapor from this phagosome, from the soil. And part of, you know, this fuel vapor is generated from natural volatilization of fuel.

When you think of gasoline in a bucket, it's, you know, it's naturally volatilizing. So it's happening in the ground, but so we looked at the objective is to extract that fuel vapor from the soil. That's what that technology is is done. So it's done it's been used elsewhere on the joint base successfully in, you know, shallow areas. And so it was an easy, adaptation for Red Hill.

So we're continuing to evaluate whether or not that's a feasible technology to work on a site. What is

the range of effectiveness of this vacuum?

Same. It it depends. It I mean, it depends on the subsurface conditions. So if it's, certainly if it's rock, it's not gonna be very effective, but in loose soils. But when you have perched groundwater or you have a high variability of soils, it's hard to tell, and that's why we're gonna do another phase to this study to be able to evaluate whether, you know, is it a worthwhile pursuit for this site?

So more more information to follow-up as we learn more from conditions on-site as we work through the pilot for that study.

And I've

listened to a lot of the geologists, hydrogeologists that have worked on Red Hill. A lot of them tell us this is the most complicated geography that we've ever worked on.

It is.

It is.

I mean, you think about the Hawaiian Islands, how they're formed, and you just have eons of lava flows. It's not consistent. You have a in a very short span of geology, you may have high degrees of variability in the way the soil and rock layers are. So it's very hard to estimate even over a short distance. So it's it's complicated.

It's inconsistent.

Yes. I agree. Yeah. And so I guess as a part of your study, would you be able to estimate the confidence level at which you're Yes.

Yes. That would I mean, that's the desired end state of the study is, you know, is this you know, how first of all, you know, what happened during this this field study? How confident do we think it looks or is applicable to elsewhere on-site? Our knowledge of site conditions elsewhere on-site with respect to the known locations of where we have evidence of residual petroleum. You know, does it does it fit?

Does it work? You know, what's the sphere of influence or draw on that? Yeah. That's all of that discussion to be had in the future once once we finish it. So

And then what I'm hearing you saying is that this soil vapor extraction works in, like, basically dry part of the soil. It's it's before you reach the aquifer. Right? But your your groundwater monitoring wells, they're in the aquifer. Right?

They reach down to the aquifer.

They're measuring what's in the water. And so if you are detecting fuel underneath the facility in the groundwater monitoring wells, how will the soil vapor extraction that's happening up here reach what's down here?

Can you repeat the question? How what?

So, right, what I'm hearing you say is that soil vapor extraction

is happening in the Beto

zone, in the

dry zone. Right? But earlier, I think in the presentation, you mentioned that there have been detections of, fuel compounds below the facility, directly below the tanks, and that's in the water. Right? Because those are groundwater monitoring wells.

So how if if we're using extraction method up here in the dry zone, how is that gonna clean up what's in the the wet zone? Yeah. Okay.

I understand. Yeah. So that that technology may not be used for that specific application of that location, in the aquifer, maybe looking at other remediation technologies, to address that presence. But elsewhere on-site where we know it's in the soil, then we'd be looking at, you know, soil vapor extraction.

So would that be part of the characterization phase?

That would be the the very next step after characterization, presence or absence, and then you go to nature and extent. That's characterization. So if nature and extent gives you what needs to be cleaned up, how deep is it, what is it, where is it, all that. The next step is you look at what technologies or which remedy is viable for that site and then you pursue that.

That's a discussion that is held with the regulators, of course, and, you know, driven by their feedback and their approvals.

It would be really helpful if we could do, like, a timeline like this for the RCRA process. Because I I do think we are starting to transition into that phase, right, with the field investigation coming out next year. So to have something like that, a chart with a timeline is really helpful.

Sure.

Thank you. I'm asking a lot of questions. Members?

I have some yeah. Actually, to follow-up on Chair's question about remediation. So what I heard was that soil that vapor extraction is just one type. Are there other types of cleanup remediation efforts that you're looking at? And I guess the one that I would be interested in just because when I have talked to members of the public, they're interested in the thermal remediation process.

Can you distinguish between those two and are we considering what are the other kinds of remediation processes you folks have on the table?

So the the two studies that we're doing right now are just kinda in advance of the process. There are, like, what do you call a pumpkin tree or an extraction well where you would then drill a new well to take something out. Thermal remediation is you're basically inducing heat into petroleum to make it volatiles, and then you would extract that vapor out through whatever means, maybe slow vapor extraction.

The natural attenuation or natural breakdown processes, I mean, it is great news to to see evidence of that occurring. But there there will be, you know I'm a remediation engineer, but my team does work on it.

So there are other technologies that are that are out there. Every technology is viable for every site, and that's part of that remediation selection that goes into, hey, how are we gonna clean this up ultimately?

I would say that there's one thing that everybody wants to know. How are we cleaning and when it will be clean? Right? And unfortunately, we're kind of far away from that because we're assessing. These kind of studies that we're doing with the different techniques just add to the assessment that eventually will be done with the regulators and the subject matter experts.

You're saying, like, how do we clean everything that we have found? And probably under the time gallery will be one technique. Something outside will be and so, you know, the property is kind of different opportunities of cleaning techniques. So I don't think that we are discarding anything so far because we haven't gone into that phase like, okay, this is the landscape of the situation that we have. So we now can say with the subject matter experts and the regulators, how do we clean this?

Right? I will say that that's, you know, that would be happening after they have done the assessment and we go into the site characterization and actually analyze the everything out of the property.

That's right. I think a chart like this would right? And you can show us the timelines for that.

Yeah. Yeah.

I would just second that, and I would not mind if that timeline went to, like, 2049,

2050.

It is a longer timeline.

Yeah, that's the kind of commitment we're gonna need as a state, right, because this is our drinking water forever and ever. Thank you.

Additional questions?

That's it. One last question.

Thanks thanks again for your being here and informing us. You know, I I was I'm I'm glad to hear the talking points of open lines of communication, transparency needed for trust. I know we we did have the CRI which got disbanded for for, you know, reasons that we don't have to get into.

But it is there an ongoing or a public mechanism for for this q and a back and forth dialogue that the public can feel like they're part of this discussion and become more aware and educated of what what's happening.

Yeah. Indeed. The that's why when we have all these events at small nature in different communities and the open houses and specifically like the town hall that we will have. Right? But if there are any questions that come out, I mean, we have a repository of questions that flow through us in our web page so people can actually ask questions, and then they will receive answers.

I know that there are many technical in nature that sometimes require a little bit more time to to address, but typically we get questions recurrently from the communities. And also in those, both and and the public opportunities that we set for open houses every now and then, people come and ask questions. So they they are open. And of course, we we are waiting for everybody to to

attend the town hall and have a very open event where everybody is available there. But we will be all there, so very open to that.

So the Safe Waters website has that mechanism for online training.

Is Seacwater Yeah.

The base? Navy closure taskforce.

Navy closure taskforce website has

See those. FAQs and, contact information.

Yeah. Not sure about the joint base, website. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

I have a question about the National Defense Authorization Act for FY '26. It included several appropriations for Red Hill, 10,000,000 for remediation, and I think 4,000,000 something for community engagement. Have you folks received those funds

for I cannot speak out for for those funds that's in some other areas of the Navy.

Okay.

What I can speak though is that our funding for the task force is fully utilized on the the commission. I know the facility and the environmental remediation and the communication and force that we have right now.

Do you know where that those two appropriations went if it's not to the class

I honestly cannot. Well, I do understand that the other commands that received that and and eventually they it will be somewhere. But I'm not sure right now who actually has that. Would you like to

task force?

take that question back maybe? Sure. And then I I would be really interested to find out how that money is being spent and how it if if or if if it's maybe tied up somewhere or if it actually get appropriated.

Definitely.

Okay. That would be very helpful. Okay. Oh, got cheese.

You know, in your community event or town hall, can we get, like, a, like, a digital of this nice graphic? Sure. We can advertise for you and please be wrong there.

Yes. I encourage you if you have your constituents, your web pages, your Facebook, and and you can please promote that because it's a unique opportunity and everybody would be there. So we really want to have a big event. So definitely, well, you will get something. Yeah.

The digital version is easier for us to send out.

Can do.

Any other questions? Last call? No? If not, thank you very much, Admiral Ortiz, Commander Dunn, Commander Barreto. Really appreciate your presentation today.

Thank you so much. Thank you. We're adjourned.