Fuel Tank Advisory Committee Questions Still Unanswered

By Wayne Tanaka, Chapter Director | Reading time: 8 minutes

RED HILL UPDATES: 

1. The Red Hill CRI needs a Native Hawaiian representative! The Red Hill CRI is seeking candidates to fill an open Native Hawaiian community representative seat. For more information and to apply (deadline is February 2), visit bit.ly/CRIrep. 

2. Take the Red Hill Water Alliance Initiative Policy Coordinator’s survey - and be sure to emphasize the need for independent monitoring and expert assessment of the Navy’s actions in the decades it will take to clean up its mess. The survey can be found here: redhillsurvey.com

Last month, we wrote about how the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee (FTAC), after having violated the Sunshine Law for years prior, held a “make up” meeting to take public testimony on various agenda items from its ill-fated October meeting. Unlike prior meetings, no immediate responses were provided to testifiers, except from BWS representative Ernie Lau. Nonetheless, FTAC Chair Kathy Ho promised that responses to questions would be provided by the various FTAC representatives. Thus far, the Water Commission has stated that it lacks the expertise to answer any of the questions posed to it, and the Hawaiʻi Department of Health has promised an online FAQ by the end of the month. Otherwise, the responses received as of January 2026, can be found below (spoiler alert: there have been practically none): 

Item 2.b – UH Red Hill Registry

The Red Hill Registry recognizes that Navy water consumers may have been exposed to jet fuel and other contaminants prior to November 2021 (as confirmed by water testing results and admitted by DOH staff). Will the EPA, DOH, and DLNR (Red Hill WAI) recognize that spills and even drinking water contamination may have occurred prior to November 2021 for site assessments, remediation, health impact tracking, and other activities in the decommissioning of the Red Hill facility? If not or no response, why not? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. 

Item 3.a&b – Navy Red Hill Infrastructure & Environmental Updates

1. For DOH, EPA, DLNR (Red Hill WAI), CWRM, Navy, BWS - What concerns could there be about what happens to the fuel-absorbing foam proposed to be injected into the remaining pipelines at the facility (and how many miles of pipelines will be left/what volume of foam will be used?), and the coating being proposed for the inner tank walls, as these compounds potentially degrade over the next 20, 50, 100+ years, and what preventative measures if any have been considered to prevent the water table from being impacted? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. 

2. For EPA, DOH, Navy, and Congressional delegation (CODEL) - There are several water tanks that were impacted in November 2021 and that still havenʻt been cleaned. This includes the water tank at Camp Smith which had breaches and animals living inside the tank as well as sediment on its bottom during EPA inspections after the November spill. This particular tank hasnʻt been cleaned since 2013 and wonʻt be cleaned until 2030 - over 3 times the highly recommended minimum frequency for tank cleaning per the EPA and AWWA. EPA Region VIII bacteriologists have likened this same situation to a “sleeping public health concern” given that pathogens in water tank sediment can remain undetected (and resistant to disinfectants) until something disturbs the sediment, like a telemetry issue or sudden water use (fire, etc.) that causes tank levels to drop. The Alamosa County salmonella outbreak which killed one person and sickened thousands is attributed to sediment disturbance in a drinking water tank that had not been cleaned in a little over a decade.

   Will the Navy at least warn people at Camp Smith so they can do their own assessment of personal risk and have the freedom to take whatever precautions they feel is appropriate for them? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. Will the regulators require notice to consumers as a condition of their extension of time to continue using the Camp Smith tank for cleaning - as well as for any other tanks that have been granted extensions for cleaning?  NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

3. For EPA, DOH, DLNR-Red Hill WAI, Navy, and CODEL: The Red Hill WAI has voiced significant concerns about relying only on "natural attenuation" as the remediation strategy for the 5k-2M gallons spilled at red hill and called for bioremediation or some other strategy to be explored and implemented. Otherwise, as weʻve seen in other places with WWII fuel contamination, we may be dealing with a contaminated aquifer for the next century or longer. The only active contaminant removal method Iʻve seen mentioned is soil vapor extraction, which does not remove PFAS, or jet fuel in the water table. What else is the Navy doing to explore other remediation strategies to actually clean the groundwater once we find the plume(s)? Has there been any RFPs or anything issued or budgeted for research? Will the regulators require something beyond soil vapor extraction? Will the Red Hill WAI report to the legislature about the lack of investment in remediating the aquifer? RESPONSE FROM THE RED HILL WAI POLICY COORDINATOR: A “Pre-print” study on bioremediation research, albeit very preliminary, can be found here.  

   For EPA, DLNR-Red Hill WAI, Navy, and CODEL - It is going to cost $500M just to filter ~3.5 mgds at the Red Hill shaft for the next 50 years (not counting maintenance and other costs).  What happens in terms of the process for budgeting another filtration system if the contamination plume is detected in the vicinity of another water source, including a municipal source? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. Will the Navy commit to pursuing a contingency fund to expedite filter construction and will the CODEL support a budget request? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

4. For the Navy and EPA - why is it that the ʻAiea-Hālawa GAC-IX filter is being proposed for removal after 9 quarters when there is no indication the PFAS detections are going down? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. This timeline seems arbitrary - is this just to avoid triggering environmental review by calling it a “temporary” system? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. What will be used to determine if PFAS levels are acceptable at that time - the 4 ppt standard enforceable in 2029 or another standard? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

Item 3.c – DOH & EPA Red Hill Regulatory Updates

1. For DOH and EPA - for the site assessments are you including assessments of potential releases from the 72 unscheduled fuel movements and the report of a 1.2M gallon spill? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. Are you accounting for potential chronic releases that may have occurred due to the insufficient monitoring system(s) that were in place? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. Are you accounting for the Red Hill Oily Waste Disposal Site? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

2. For DOH, EPA, and Navy - Both the NASEM and CRI have heard from retired EPA officials and affected individuals about concerning irregularities in past water sampling including retesting long-expired samples, unexplained requests to delete chromatograms, and decisions to stop including the full range of analytes that were previously  detected at the red hill shaft that could have come from other Navy sources, such as the oily waste pit. What is being done to assure better data governance and greater oversight, transparency, and accountability going forward, to avoid future irregularities and to build trust in the data? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

3. For DOH - Will the DOH use its regulatory authority to create a binding remediation standard on the Navy? Why or why not? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

4. For DOH and EPA - Has potential contamination from the Oily Waste Disposal Site been characterized and using what methods? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

5. For EPA - Has the Navy’s still-deficient risk and resiliency assessment (after findings in both 2022 and 2024) been revised and reviewed? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. It was supposed to be submitted in September, was it? Why not at least let the public know if it was not? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

6. For EPA and Navy - Have water system operator SOPs been developed and submitted/approved in order to protect water system consumers as required by the EPA? Why is the EPA letting the Navy take such a long time with developing SOPs? What are the Navyʻs excuses for taking 2 years to come up with SOPs it should have had years ago? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

Item 4.a – Navy Field-Constructed Tanks Updates

1. For Navy - What does “storing infiltration water” mean for the Kuahua tanks? Is this water that just leaks into the tanks? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

2. For Navy and EPA - What is long-term monitoring showing for the Kipapa tanks? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. What happens if groundwater contamination is detected? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

3. For Navy - What is the timeline for PMRF USTs to be converted to above ground tanks? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED. What are the plans to remediate those USTs, how much will it cost and how long will it take? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

Item 5.a – UH SOEST Red Hill Studies

For Navy, DOH, and EPA - It’s been over 10 years and we still apparently can’t figure out ground water flow or contaminant fate and transport. We don’t even know if contamination from the Red Hill Oily Waste Disposal Site could lead to contamination of the Red Hill shaft or other water sources.  What implications does this have for the reliability of the filtration system being proposed for the Red Hill shaft? For example, if a slug or slugs of contamination hit the Red Hill shaft or ʻAiea-Hālawa shaft, to what degree of contamination (and for what potential contaminants) will the proposed filters be effective, and for what contaminants? NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.

Many would find the lack of timely answers to be disappointing at best, particularly given the FTAC’s unique role as a one-stop shop for regulators, legislators, and community watchdogs to discuss the various issues that will continue to haunt our island and its residents for decades to come.  Fortunately, there are plans to increase its transparency and community accountability, by requiring more frequent meetings and addressing the longstanding issues that have made it increasingly inaccessible to the public, through legislation proposed for 2026.  Be sure to sign up for action alerts on opportunities to support this proposal, by signing up for Red Hill and/or CapitolWatch emails here.