1 

# from the desk of Jonathan Starr

Commissioner, The Hawaii State Commission on Water Resource Management

, Department of Land and Natural Resources

, Hawaii

Re: Red Hill Navy Deteriorating Fuel Storage, Draft AOC & SOW

July 20, 2015

Hawaii Department of Health

, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch ;

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 ;

U nited States Department of the Navy, Commander Navy Region Hawaii;

United States D efense Logistics Agency;

The Honorabl e President Barack Obama, Office of the President ;

US Senator Brian Schatz ;

US Senator Mazie Hirono ;

US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard ;

US Congressman Mark Takai ;

Hawaii Governor David Ige ;

Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Shan Tsutsui ;

Hawaii State Legislators.

Dear & r espected members of the HDOH S olid and Hazardous Waste Branch, EPA, US Navy, USDLA, our Honorable President and Hawaii’s fine Elected

Officials:

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) released for public review and comment a proposed Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) and Statement of Work (SOW) that require the U.S. Navy and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

to take measures to minimi ze the threat of future leaks at the Navy’s Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. I am pleased to offer the following comments to these

documents:2 General Comments

As Commissioner on the Hawaii State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), I stron gly disagree with the proposed Red Hill AOC and

SOW as written. The documents lack public transparency, corrective action specificity, and the immediate implementation of improvements that will protect our groundwater and environment. At what point do th e studies, required under the AOC and SOW to determine the best practicable available technology, become actions for implementation? Studies could potentially continue for years in the name of practicality, while the existing situation remains unchanged. The most recent recorded leak of 27,000 gallons of fuel from Tank 5, which occurred shortly after completing a multi

- year clean

- inspect

- repair and modernization process, does not demonstrate that the status quo approach is protective of the

environment a nd drinking water.

Hawaii CWRM members appreciate the long and hard work of the EPA, DOH, Navy and DLA to develop the proposed AOC and SOW. Unfortunately, the contents do not adequately address our concerns about the facility storing 250 million gallons of fuel located 100 feet above a State designated drinking water aquifer; mitigate fuel contaminants already in the groundwater underneath that facility; arrest the corroding condition of the tanks’ thin 1/4 inch steel wall and

their fort ification to minim ize the risks fuel release s contaminating the aquifer.

This aquifer is the only one of its kind; is essential for the well being of Honolulu as one of the world’s great cities; and there are no cost

- effective alternatives that can replace it. The State of Hawaii cannot countenance a long

- term continuation of the significant, avoidable threat that the deteriorating Red Hill Tanks p ose to the primary potable source wells for the Honolulu BWS. These wells presently

show no contamination. The specter that they may become contaminated in the future by a serious breach of even one tank is existential, and must be avoided at any cost. I t is unfortunate and irresponsible that the situation has continued to deteriorate for over 70 years without an adequate maintenance and replacement

program. The US Navy must acknowledge that the life and welfare of a huge community, including many DOD pe rsonnel and facilities, is at stake here. The degree of unquestionable professionalism with which the US Navy treats hull integrity issues for major fleet units, should be employed with this facility. There are no Navy ships currently in service that reg ularly and repeatedly leak tens of thousands of gallons through their hull containment.

The Red Hill Tanks were constructed in two years of brilliant, intensive activity during WWII, and have subsequently existed for over 70 years without adequate

mainten ance. During that period, very large quantities of petrochemicals (estimates say 2 million gallons or so) have leaked or been disposed of in open waste pits, with little regard to the effect on irreplaceable ground water resources.

It is time to end this i rresponsible trend, and seriously to monitor, track and deal with the effects of plumes of fuel already in the ground.3 I am in agreement with the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, the Honolulu City Council, and the Senate of the State of Hawaii, in calling for fast action and the

double

- lining of the tanks with monitoring facilities between the inner and outer walls, as would comply with EPA UST requirements.

Recognition of the Groundwater Aquifer

The AOC and SOW do not recognize the location of the Red Hill facility to be within the boundaries of the Southern Oahu Basal Aquifer designated by EPA in 1987 under the sole source protection authority in Section 1424 (e) of the S afe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

This aquifer, one of 77 sole source designations nationwide, includes the

Waim alu and Moanalua aquifer sector areas , and its designation requires studies to assess the impacts on aquifer water quality by all federally funded projects

within its boundaries.

According to the sole source aquifer protectio n authorized under the SDWA, [Public Law 93

- 523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et. seq., Section 1424(e)] "If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish notice of that determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no commitment for federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for

federal assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer."

By this letter, EPA is requested to determine whether the existing Red Hill

contamination has created a hazard to public health and if so, to publish its findings and ensure that federally funded projects for this facility do not further contaminate and create further hazards to public health. Furthermore, if there is

a hazard to public health , clean up of the site should be required to remove the

hazard.

Public Transparency

According to Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the public should be involved to the maximum extent possible based on

the needs and conce rns intrinsic to the situation, which in this case are the Red Hill tanks located 100 feet above the groundwater table and the contamination underneath the facility detected to date. Specifically, RCRA Section 7003 states4 that Regions should ensure that p ublic notice and an opportunity to comment are provided during the remedy selection process , which in this case is the SOW. Given the intrinsic concerns of the facility on the Southern Oahu Basal aquifer,

and the absence of cost effective alternatives to take its place, we strongly urge EPA revise the AOC and SOW processes to increase the amount of stakeholder and public participation in the identification and implementation of remedies to

address the situation at Red Hill.

Corrective Action Identificati on and Due Dates

The processes outlined in the SOW are extremely protracted and lack specific due dates for completing each process. The SOW also requires evaluating the feasibility of improvements that have already been identified. For example, the

20 08 Red Hill Repair Tank Options Study identified the following two alternatives for upgrading the tanks.

1 Alternative 1

– Composite Tank: The Composite Tank consists of inspecting and repairing the existing steel liner in each tank, which would become the secondary containment system

, and then constructing a new liner with a 3 inch wide interstitial space between the new liner and the existing liner. The interstitial space would be filled with grout and have a leak detection system.

2 Alternative 2

– Tank W ithin A Tank: The Tank Within A Tank concept consists of inspecting and repairing the existing steel liner in each tank which would become the secondary containment system, and constructing a new tank inside the existing tanks

, with a 5 feet wide annular space between the new tank and existing tank shell that is accessible for inspection and visual leak detection.

The study consultant recommended to the Navy to authorize a single tank repair project to start the program as a means of proving up the concep ts and confirming overall cost validity. According to the study report, the same consultant also performed a similar study in 1998 to develop possible repair options for Tank 19. According to the report, the 1998 study was performed due to tank integrity issues, environmental concerns, lack of leak detection capability, and lack of secondary containment at Red Hill. Ther e should be no need to do a

new two

- year study to examine tank improvements when the assessment has already been done repeatedly

.

As written, the processes in the SOW appear to enable the Navy to continue the operations of Red Hill as done in the past. While there are timeframes for executing the work elements, the language lacks compliance with specific due dates to ensure steady prog ress. Protractive repeating of studies is not protective of the groundwater and environment.5 Actions that should be implemented include:

1. Double

- line all 20 tanks.

2. Install advanced leak detection and tank corrosion protection.

3. Add sufficient in

- ground monitoring facilities.

4. Clean up the fuel that is already underneath the tanks.

5 . R ecognize the location of the Red Hill facility to be within the boundaries of the Southern Oahu Basal Aquifer designated by EPA in 1987 under the sole source protection authority in Section 1424 (e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

6 . Keep the BWS, CWRM, DOH and the public informed of its actions.

I hereby request that our Honorable US President Barack Obama and Federal

Administration

, Hawaii’s Senatorial and Congressional Delegations, the US Navy, the EPA, USDLA, HDOH, and ot her relevant Federal or State Agencies perform whatever is needed to expeditiously cure the threat posed to Oahu’s water resources by the deteriorating Red Hill Tan ks.

Our entire State Commission on Water Resource Management was scheduled to meet on July 15 th , to discuss this matter and approve these remarks for formal submittal by CWRM/DLNR before the July 20 th cutoff for testimony. Unfortunately, the meeting was c ancelled beyond our control due to a perceived technical noticing issue, so as senior member I am submitting these remarks under my own signature at this time , since members cannot meet, discuss or approve any items outside of Hawaii sunshine

- law noticed m eetings. It is likely that remarks will be forthcoming from the Commission after our next meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.

With Warmest Aloha

,

Jonathan Starr

Commissioner

, Hawaii State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii

kalepa@maui.net (808) 283

- 1183 1942 Main Street, Suite 104

, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii , 96793