Water Quality

Claim #1: Navy is using a lab to test water samples that is not approved by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation (NELAP) and/or International Standard Organization (ISO) 17025.

Ground Truth #1: The laboratory contracted by the Navy for drinking water samples is SGS Laboratories. SGS laboratory is accredited
by EPA through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). It is also approved by the State of Hawaii Department of Health Laboratory Division.

SGS implements a Quality System that follows ISO Guide 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories. The structure of ISO Guide 17025 has been adopted by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP), the voluntary national accreditation program originally established by the Environmental Protection Agency. NELAP establishes a uniform national standard for environmental laboratories that places a strong emphasis on quality systems. All analytical results provided by the laboratory are independently reviewed by a third-party data validator. In addition, the DOH has collected split samples with the Navy (i.e., samples collected same time and location) and tested them at a different laboratory. The DOH’s results have been consistent with the Navy’s results.

Note: SGS is the company that operates the lab, SGS stands for Société Générale de Surveillance. The particular SGS lab the Navy uses for testing is SGS Wheat Ridge, CO.
----------------------------------------------

Claim #2: The community is still seeing high levels of TPH in their water because there is still fuel in it.

Ground Truth #2: During LTM (March 2022 to March 2024), detections of TPH and/or any other fuel-related chemicals have not exceeded any health based regulatory levels. There were low-level TPH detections in approximately 30% of LTM samples, but the SWARM Team determined that these are not JP-5 or fuel-related. During the Emergency Response (December 2021 to March 2022), the Navy implemented a flushing plan that was developed and approved by the Integrated Drinking Water System Team (IDWST) to remove any residual fuel that remained in the water system after the November 2021 fuel release. The IDWST was an interagency team consisting of the HI DOH, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and EPA established to restore safe drinking water to affected Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) housing communities.

Tests were performed after allowing water in premise piping to sit stagnant for 24 hours and 72 hours. The IDWST reviewed the results of the stagnation testing and concluded that that fuel or fuel-related chemicals were not “stuck” to piping or other plumbing appurtenances.

Drinking water sampling results can be found at www.jbphh-safewaters.org under the Drinking Water Monitoring link. Results can be viewed through the interactive drinking water results map or can be searched by zones.

To find IDWST data on www.jbphh-safewaters.org, click "Drinking Water Monitoring,” then "View Water System Zone Map," then click on the desired Zone on the map. At the bottom of the page, click on the “+” symbol next to "Expand for more information..." to see the IDWST data.
---------------------------------------------

Claim #3: Flushing the pipes is like cleaning an oily glass salad bowl with a paper towel. The residue still exists and doesn’t do any good.

Ground Truth #3: During LTM (March 2022 to March 2024), detections of TPH and/or any other fuel-related chemicals have not exceeded any regulatory levels. There were low-level TPH detections in approximately 30% of LTM samples, but the SWARM Team determined that these are not JP-5 or fuel-related. During the Emergency Response (December 2021 to March 2022), the Navy implemented a flushing plan that was developed and approved by the Integrated Drinking Water System Team (IDWST) to remove any residual fuel that may have remained in the water system after the November 2021 fuel release. The IDWST was an interagency team consisting of the HI DOH, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and EPA established to restore safe drinking water to affected Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) housing communities.

Tests were performed after allowing water in premise piping to sit stagnant for 24 hours and 72 hours. The IDWST reviewed the results of the stagnation testing and concluded that that fuel or fuel-related chemicals were not “stuck” to piping or other plumbing appurtenances.

Drinking water sampling results can be found at www.jbphh-safewaters.org under the Drinking Water Monitoring link. Results can be viewed through the interactive drinking water results map or can be searched by zones.

To find IDWST data on www.jbphh-safewaters.org, click "Drinking Water Monitoring,” then "View Water System Zone Map," then click on the desired Zone on the map. At the bottom of the page, click on the “+” symbol next to "Expand for more information..." to see the IDWST data.
---------------------------------------------

Claim #4: Ethylbenzene is more soluble than fuel. Navy is looking in the wrong place and not comparing their results to gasoline.

Ground Truth #4: All samples that were tested for TPH were also tested for ethylbenzene and other compounds commonly detected in fuel (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), naphthalene, and lead). Approximately 8,500 samples were tested during LTM and each was tested for over 50 contaminants. BTEX (including ethylbenzene) was detected in fewer than 10 of ~8,500 samples, and none of these contaminants were detected above health based regulatory levels.

Drinking water sampling results can be found at www.jbphh-safewaters.org under the Drinking Water Monitoring link where you can view all the analytes tested.
---------------------------------------------

Claim #5: The Navy is not checking for gasoline when they should be. AvGas (aviation gas) used to be kept in those tanks. It contains gasoline, lead and BTEX in abundance and is overlooked by the Navy.

Ground Truth #5: Every sample that was tested for TPH was also tested for ethylbenzene and other compounds commonly detected in fuel (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), naphthalene, and lead). Approximately 8,500 samples were tested during LTM and each was tested for over 50 contaminants. BTEX (including ethylbenzene) was detected in fewer than 10 of ~8,500 samples, and none of these contaminants were detected above regulatory levels.

Drinking water sampling results can be found at www.jbphh-safewaters.org under the Drinking Water Monitoring link where you can view all the analytes tested.
---------------------------------------------

Claim #6: Chlorine quenching is not necessary in TPH results, it is only good for disinfection byproduct.

Ground Truth #6: Chlorine quenching, a process that neutralizes the reactive chlorine in drinking water samples, is necessary to prevent detections of TPH that are not fuel-related:

Chlorine is highly reactive, and quenching is necessary to prevent chlorine reactions with, among other things, organic chemicals.
Beginning in January 2024 through 29 March 2024, 658 samples from the distribution system were analyzed using two different preparation processes; the quenching and micro-extraction process that neutralizes the chlorine prior to analysis and the standard process that does not remove the chlorine.
TPH was detected in 31 of 658 Samples (4.7%) using the process that did not neutralize chlorine prior to analysis. TPH was not detected in the same 31 samples that were analyzed using the quenching and micro-extraction process.
In addition, dichlorination of samples (quenching) is required in EPA-approved methods for the analysis of organic chemicals in drinking water. Because the methods employed for TPH are designed for contaminated soils and groundwater, which rarely, if ever, contain chlorine, addressing this interference is not included in that process.
The Navy has performed tests which confirm that neutralizing chlorine prior to analysis does not interfere with detections of JP-5 or other fuel products.

These tests include:

Matrix Spike JP-5 Test. Thirty (30) matrix spike drinking water samples were collected from JBPHH, spiked with 70 micrograms per liter (µg/L) of JP-5 in the lab prior to preparation and then analyzed with other samples. The “spiked” JP-5 concentration of 70 ug/L was then compared to the test result for JP-5. The Matrix Spike results from the laboratory were similar to the “spiked” JP-5 concentration of 70 ug/L and demonstrate that the MEQ method does not prevent accurate and precise determination of TPH in field samples that contain JP-5, and by extension, other fuels. Note: Matrix Spike samples will continue to be collected and analyzed during the EDWM.
Blind JP-5 Performance Monitoring Test: During EDWM, the Navy will submit Blind JP-5 Performance Monitoring samples to the laboratory. These samples are similar to Matrix Spike Samples because they are “spiked” with known concentrations of JP-5 and then are submitted to the laboratory for analysis with other drinking water samples. However, they differ from Matrix Spike samples because the laboratory does not know that the samples are Performance Monitoring Samples. The Blind Performance Monitoring Samples are evaluated the same way as Matrix Spike samples. The “spiked” JP-5 concentrations are compared to the test results provided by the laboratory to determine if they are similar.

SAFE. DELIBERATE. ​​ENGAGED. COMMITTED.

SAFE. DELIBERATE. ENGAGED. COMMITTED.