The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a proposed order that formally requires the Navy to defuel and close the Red Hill Bulk Storage Facility safely, and commits the Navy to “properly operate and maintain” its drinking water system serving Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) to protect users’ health and safety.

The proposed order arises from a disastrous fuel spill at the facility in November 2021 that contaminated drinking water and sickened residents. After months of outcry by Hawaii residents, the U.S. Department of Defense in March ordered the closure of Red Hill.

The EPA released its draft “2023 Consent Order” last Tuesday for public comment, and the Navy signed the order the same day, although it is not yet official. However, critics justifiably say the EPA’s order lacks sufficient details to ensure environmental protection and effective sanctions to guarantee compliance, among other deficiencies.

Criticisms of this draft consent order should be taken very seriously, given the Navy’s track record of violations.

Notably, the EPA also entered into a consent agreement with the Navy in 2015, in connection with a previous spill at Red Hill, which is still in effect. This clearly did not prevent the 2021 accident, as well as other fire suppressant spills that have come to light.

As drafted, the 2023 order requires generally that the Navy continue to deliver safe drinking water, that the Navy plan for safe defueling and closure, and that impacts of past fuel releases from Red Hill be addressed.

Defueling and permanent shutdown of the facility have now been ordered by both the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) and EPA, as have improvements to the JBPHH drinking water system.

On Friday, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS), which under Chief Engineer Ernie Lau has been a vociferous critic of the Navy’s actions at Red Hill, publicly released its concerns over the draft consent decree.

These include the lack of details as to procedures the Navy must use, an absence of clear timelines and a failure to mandate adequate transparency, along with penalties that are insufficiently strict, BWS warns, stating, “The 2023 Consent Order simply does not go far enough.”

An area of particular concern, shared by Oahu residents, is the lack of any mention of the Navy’s latest toxic incident last month, when an estimated 1,300 gallons of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), a fire retardant, spilled from a holding tank during maintenance operations at Red Hill.

AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that persist in soil and in organisms, and can build up in people who are exposed to it. The BWS and environmentalists remain rightly alarmed about potential contamination of drinking water from the AFFF spill.

The BWS’ call for “independent and impartial” expert scrutiny of Navy actions is also justified, in light of the inadequate, ineffective Navy policies and practices that led to this point.

Another legitimate concern: The EPA’s draft order does not include “meaningful opportunity for stakeholder and public input,” BWS states. This should be of particular concern for Hawaii residents who are worried about the threat to Honolulu’s water supply. Earlier this month, many were distressed when representatives of both the EPA and DOH failed to appear in person to address questions from residents at a public meeting.

As the BWS rightly warns, continued vigilance is required to minimize continuing damage, because Hawaii’s water is all we’ve got. Once contaminated, it’s irreplaceable.

The draft order will be subject to public comment through Feb. 6, after which the EPA will either bring the order into effect or modify its terms in light of public input. View the draft and submit comments online at 808ne.ws/EPAconsent.