The Environmental Protection Agency says the military violated a federal consent decree when officials chose not to attend a Dec. 12 public meeting with the Red Hill Community Representation Initiative.
In a letter sent Wednesday to Rear Adm. Mark Williams, deputy commander of Navy Closure Task Force Red Hill, and David Kless of the Defense Logistics Agency, the EPA said it was “disappointed” by their decision not to participate in the meeting and had assessed a $5,000 fine for not attending.
The CRI is community board made up of a mixture of local residents, activists and people directly affected by the Red Hill water crisis, which began in November 2021 when fuel from the Navy’s bulk Red Hill fuel storage facility contaminated the Navy’s Oahu water system, which serves 93,000 people.
The CRI was created as part of a 2023 federal consent order regarding the closure of Red Hill that includes the EPA, the state Department of Health and the military. Its formation came out of requests for community involvement in the defueling and shutdown process.
According to the letter, several EPA officials had already flown out to Hawaii for the meeting when they learned that military officials would back out. The meeting ultimately went forward with the CRI and officials from the EPA and DOH present and the military a no-show.
Maj. Mandy Feindt, an Army officer who sits on the CRI and whose family became seriously ill after the 2021 spill, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that “$5,000 is essentially pennies when it comes to the (Department of Defense) budget, but (this) is a small win nonetheless as this is the first time we’ve seen the Navy held accountable for anything since knowingly poisoning thousands of their own people and contaminating this island three years ago.”
Navy Closure Task Force Red Hill did not provide a comment by deadline for this story.
From the get-go the relationship between the CRI and military officials has been complicated.
Vice Adm. John Wade, the Navy officer who oversaw the removal of fuel from the Red Hill facility, praised the CRI after completing that mission to go on to leading the Navy’s 3rd Fleet in San Diego. He said that despite the often biting criticism he faced, he believed the community board contributed to making defueling operations safer by asking hard questions and raising concerns he and his team were unaware of.
However, meetings have often been deeply contentious. CRI members have frequently accused military leaders of dodging questions, while federal officials have complained of CRI members being disrespectful and going off-topic during meetings.
For their part, military officials have disputed how many meetings the agreement actually requires them to attend, and often have declined to attend, sometimes backing out on the day the meeting was scheduled — most recently Dec. 12.
“Hundreds of people raised enforceability concerns with the EPA in early 2023, and we were assured there were sufficient mechanisms to ensure compliance with the (consent decree),” said Wayne Tanaka, director of the Sierra Club of Hawai‘i. “However, the Navy attended only two out of the required eight CRI meetings in all of 2024, with no repercussions from the EPA.”
In March, the EPA suggested bringing in a mediator to the meetings as military officials voiced increasing frustration with the tone of gatherings and what they considered to be off-base personal attacks. CRI members and several community organizations alleged that bringing in a mediator was an attempt to silence community members and for the federal government to take control of the narrative.
In June, EPA Region 9 Director Amy Miller told members of the Red Hill Community Representation Initiative during a Zoom meeting that the EPA was in talks with the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency to find “alternatives” as the CRI resisted calls to bring in a mediator and establish meeting protocols and that they were seeking to retroactively change the consent order to not include the CRI.
Miller implied during the meeting that members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation had told the EPA that they supported shutting down the CRI. But in a joint statement, the lawmakers denied they ever had, saying “any suggestion that the delegation supports disbanding the CRI is baseless and completely inaccurate.”
THE EPA quickly reversed course on shutting down the CRI, but in November made amendments to the consent order that puts an EPA-appointed mediator in charge of setting meeting agendas and limits discussion to issues related to the agenda and the consent decree.
The amendments also say that military officials do not have to attend meetings if CRI members do not follow the new “ground rules,” and that they needed to appear only at four meetings per year.
The CRI grudgingly accepted the amendments, though its members sent a letter Dec. 2 petitioning EPA to put the ground rules out for public comment. According to the letter, the EPA informed military officials the CRI had agreed to the terms and would attend the Dec. 12 meeting.
According to the EPA letter, Laura Ebbert, the agency’s acting deputy assistant administrator for environmental justice, was appointed mediator for the meeting and began working with the Navy Closure Task Force, EPA officials and CRI members to lay out an agenda.
On Dec. 5, Ebbert finalized the date, time, location and agenda for the Dec. 12 meeting, with sign-off from Navy Closure Task Force. But on the day of the meeting, the task force announced that Williams would not be attending and that it would attend a meeting in January after the EPA responded to the CRI’s Dec. 2 letter.
According to the EPA’s letter to Williams and Kless, the agency issued a written denial of the CRI’s request the same day and told the board’s members it is not required to put the ground rules out for public comment and that the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency do not have to attend CRI meetings if board members “are not willing to participate in the CRI meetings pursuant to the procedures and protocols in the Ground Rules.”
Military officials ultimately did not appear at the meeting, which was hosted at an ‘Olelo Community Media studio and broadcast live.
In the EPA’s letter sent Wednesday, the agency said the military violated the decree by not attending the December CRI meeting and expressed disappointment in the absence of Navy and Defense Logistics Agency officials, but was looking forward to working with all parties to schedule the January meeting in accordance with the 2023 consent order and amendments.
The letter added, “If the CRI members agree to participate in the January CRI Meeting pursuant to the Ground Rules and Navy and DLA do not attend the January CRI meeting, EPA may assess an additional stipulated penalty.”
“Now, even after the EPA changed its rules to only require the Navy and DLA to attend one CRI meeting a quarter, the Navy and DLA still haven’t shown up. And as expected, our only consolation is a pittance of a fine,” Tanaka said.
“While some action is better than nothing at all, I hope the EPA realizes its own limitations and the need to listen to the community. In the meantime, we simply cannot trust the Navy or federal agencies to keep their promises on their own. Citizen watchdogs and advocacy will continue to be essential for accountability in the years ahead.”
