# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii Latitude: 21 o 

# 22’15” N Longitude: 157 o 

# 53’33” W

HDOH Facility ID No. 9-102271 HDOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

August 2010

Prepared by:

TEC Inc. 1003 Bishop St. Suite 1505 Pauahi Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Prepared for:

Commander Navy Region Hawaii Environmental Department, Code N45 850 Ticonderoga Street, Suite 110 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-5101

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# i 

# Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ................ i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ............ 1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... ....... 3 1.1 Project Objective ............................................................................................................. . 3 1.2 Previous Reports .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Background .................................................................................................................... .. 4 1.3.1 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Facility Information .................................................................................................. 4 1.3.3 UST Information ....................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Previous Environmental Investigations ............................................................................ 4 1.5 Regulatory Updates .......................................................................................................... 8 1.6 RHMW05 Installation ...................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Sample Collection and Analyses .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 Monitoring Well Purging ................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection ...................................................................................... 9 2.3 Groundwater Sample Analyses ........................................................................................ 9 3.1 July 2010 Sample Analytical Results ............................................................................... 9 3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Trend ................................................................................... 11 3.3 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements ............................................................... 13 3.4 Groundwater Status ........................................................................................................ 14 4.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 17 5.0 References .................................................................................................................... ...... 21

List of Tables Table 1 Analytical Results for Quarterly Gr oundwater Sampling Release Response Report ..10 Table 2 Oil/Water Inte rface Measurements ..............................................................................14 Table 3 Action Levels fo r Compounds of Concern ..................................................................15 Table 4 Results Categories and Responses to Groundwater Monitoring Results .....................15

List of Figures Figure 1 TPH Trends in Groundw ater, Round 20 (July 13, 2010) .............................................19 Figure 2 PAH Trends in Groundw ater, Round 20 (July 13, 2010) ............................................20

List of Appendices Appendix A – Laboratory Analytical Reports

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 1 

# Executive Summary

Introduction There are 18 active and two inactive, 12.5 milli on gallon, field-constructed underground storage tanks (USTs) located at the Red Hill Fuel Storage F acility (the Facility). Previous environmental site investigations i ndicated a release has o ccurred and contaminated the groundwater underlying the Facility.

The United States (US) Navy implemented a gr oundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarterly from US Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) and four wells installed in the Facility lower access tunnel (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05). The US Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the Facility and provides approx imately 24 percent of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS). The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against State of Hawaii Depart ment of Health (HDOH) Drinking Water Environmental Action Levels (EALs) (HDOH, 2008).

This groundwater monitoring report presents the analytical results and compares them to HDOH Drinking Water EALs for samples collected on July 13, 2010. Contaminant trends that have exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs are also provided in this report.

July 2010 Sampling Event Results Laboratory analytical results from the July 2010 sampling event indicate Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as Dies el Range Organics (TPH-DRO ), Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Volatile Organic Hydrocarbons (VOCs) are present in the groundwater beneath the Facility at concentrations that excee d HDOH Drinking Water EALs.

Specifically, TPH-DRO was detect ed in RHMW01 at 228F μg/L [F indicates that the compound was identified, with the concentr ation above the labora tory method detection limit (MDL), but below the reporting limit (RL), th erefore it is considered an estimate]. At RHMW02, TPH-DRO was detected at 3,085 μg/L (i.e., the average of normal and duplicate samples). The HDOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO is 210 μg/L. Also during the July 2010 sampling event, 1- methylnaphthalene was detected at RHMW 02 above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL at an average concentration of 7.24 μg/L (HDOH Drinki ng Water EAL is 4.7 μg/L). Naphthalene was also detected at RHMW02 above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL at an average concentration of 104.5 μg/L (HDOH Drinking Water EAL is 17 μg/L).

Conversely, during the July 2010 sampli ng event at RHMW2254-01 and RHMW03, no compounds were detected above the laboratory MDLs. In addition, at RHMW05, only a trace concentration of naphthalene wa s detected significantly belo w the respective HDOH Drinking Water EAL.

TPH-DRO Contaminant Trends Regarding TPH-DRO contaminant trends, since January 2008 TPH-DRO at RHMW01 has fluctuated between the historical range esta blished from September 2005 through September

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 2 2007. However, in July 2010 at RHMW01, TPH-DR O decreased to the lowest concentration observed to date (228 μg/L). At RHMW02, TP H-DRO concentrations we re relatively stable prior to 2008, after which si gnificant variations in the measured concentrations occurred. In July 2010 at RHMW02, TPH-DRO showed an increase in concentration; however the latest observed TPH-DRO concentration remains within the historic al range for this well. Since February 2009, TPH-DRO at RHMW03 has not been detected above the MDL. At RHMW05, TPH-DRO had been increasing since it was first sampled in May 2009. However, in April 2010 and July 2010, TPH-DRO at RHMW05 was not detected above the laboratory MDL.

Other Contaminant Trends Regarding other contaminant trends, the concentr ations of three PAHs detected at RHMW02 are discussed. Since October 2008, the concentrati on of 2-methylnaphthalene has remained below the HDOH Drinking Water EAL. In additi on, Naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations decreased to below the HDOH Drinking Water EALs in May 2009 and October 2009, respectively. However, the average concentrations for Naphthalene and 1- methylnaphthalene have since increased and in July 2010, remained greater than their respective HDOH Drinking Water EALs of 17 μg/L and 4.7 μg/L.

Summary At RHMW01 and RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations have fluctuated, but remain lower than or within their historical ranges. At RHMW03 and RHMW2254-01 during July 2010, no compounds were detected above laboratory MD Ls. At RHMW05 TPH-DRO was not detected above the laboratory MDL. Finally, no light -non aqueous phased liquid (LNAPL), otherwise known as “free product”, has been observed in a ny of the Facility groundwater monitoring wells since January 2008.

Based on the results of the July 2010 sampli ng event, continued quarterly groundwater monitoring is warranted so that overall grou ndwater quality trends may be observed and proactive action taken if the gr oundwater quality shows evidence of deterioration. In addition, monthly oil/water interface measurements and so il vapor monitoring should continue within the Facility. Although the US Navy Well 2254-01 is no t imminently threatened at this time, monitoring should continue to assess contaminant migration from up-gradient locations.

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 3 

# 1.0 Introduction
This report presents the results of the 20 th 

# groundwater sampling even t, conducted in July 2010 at the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Oahu, Hawaii (her eafter referred to as “the Facility”). The Facility consists of 18 active and two inactiv e underground storage tanks (USTs) operated by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Cent er (FISC), Pearl Harbor. The groundwater sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in response to past UST releases, previous environmental investig ations, and recommendations from the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).


# 1.1 Project Objective This groundwater sampling project was performed to evaluate the presence of chemicals of potential concern in groundwater underlying the Facility. The project wa s conducted to ensure the Navy remains in compliance with HDOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-281 Subc hapter 7, Release Response Action. The groundwater sampling program followe d the procedures described in Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Groundwater Protection Plan [TEC Inc. (TEC), 2008 update d in 2009], also referred to as “the Plan”.

This groundwater sampling event was condu cted by TEC under United States (US) Navy Contract Number N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order No. 54.


# 1.2 Previous Reports The following groundwater monitoring reports we re previously submitted to the HDOH:

1. Groundwater Sampling Report, First Quarter 2005 (submitted April 2005);

2. Groundwater Sampling Report, Second Quarter 2005 (submitted August 2005);

3. Groundwater Sampling Report, Third Quarter 2005 (submitted November 2005);

4. Groundwater Sampling Report, Fourth Quarter 2005 (submitted February 2006);

5. Groundwater Monitoring Results, July 2006 (submitted September 2006);

6. Groundwater Monitoring Results, December 2006 (submitted January 2007);

7. Groundwater Monitoring Results, March 2007 (submitted May 2007);

8. Groundwater Monitoring Results, June 2007 (submitted August 2007);

9. Groundwater Monitoring Results, September 2007 (submitted October 2007);

10. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January 2008 (submitted March 2008);

11. Groundwater Monitoring Results, April 2008 (submitted May 2008);

12. Groundwater Monitoring Results, July 2008 (submitted October 2008);

13. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October and December 2008 (submitted February 2009);

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 4 14. Groundwater Monitoring Results, February 2009 (submitted May 2009);

15. Groundwater Monitoring Results, May 2009 (submitted July 2009);

16. Groundwater Monitoring Results, July 2009 (submitted September 2009);

17. Groundwater Monitoring Results, Oc tober 2009 (submitted December 2009);

18. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January, February, and March 2010 (submitted April 2010); and

19. Groundwater Monitoring Results, April 2010 (submitted May 2010).


# 1.3 Background The following sections provide a description of th e site and information on the Facility and USTs.

1.3.1 Site Description The Facility is located in Red Hill, Oahu, Hawaii. Land adjacent to the north of the Facility is occupied by Halawa Correctional Facility and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the Facility includes the Coast Guard Reservation. Moanalua Va lley is located east of the Facility (Dawson, 2006).

The Navy Public Works Department operates a pot able water infiltratio n tunnel approximately 1,550 feet downgradient from the Facility (Dawson, 2006). The US Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet down-gradient (west) of the Facility and provides approximately 24 percent of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS), which serves approximately 52,200 military consumers (TEC, 2008).

1.3.2 Facility Information The Facility consists of 18 active and two inact ive USTs operated by Navy FISC Pearl Harbor. Each UST has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons. The bottom of the USTs is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer (Dawson, 2006).

1.3.3 UST Information The USTs were constructed in the early 1940s. The tanks were fabricated from steel and currently contain Jet Propulsion (J P)–5 fuel, JP-8, and F-76 (diese l marine fuel). Previously, several tanks stored Navy Special Fuel Oil, Navy Distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline. Each tank measures approximately 245 f eet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at depths varyin g between approximately 100 feet and 200 feet below the existing ground surface (TEC, 2006).


# 1.4 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001: From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted an i nvestigation at the Facility to assess potential releases from the fuel storage USTs and piping systems. In February 2001, the Navy installed a one-inch diameter RHMW01 (previ ously known as MW-V1D) to monitor for contamination of the basal aquifer underlying the Facility. The well was installed and completed at approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access t unnel. At the time of well completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was measur ed at 86 feet below grade (Dawson, 2006).

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 5 In February 2001, groundwater samples collec ted from RHMW01 contai ned total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) concentrations ra nging from 883 micrograms per liter (  g/L) to 1,050  g/L and total lead ranging from 10.4  g/L to 15  g/L. The maximum total lead concentration in the samples was equal to the primar y drinking water standard of 15  g/L for lead and exceeded the HDOH Tier 1 groundwater action level of 5.6  g/L (Dawson, 2006).

2005 – Groundwater Sampling: The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. Da wson Group, Inc. collected groundw ater samples from RHMW01 and the Red Hill Navy Pump Station (US Navy We ll 2254-01) in February, June, September, and December 2005.

Samples collected in February and June 2005 were not filtered in the field prior to analysis for lead. Analytical results for samples collected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of total lead were above the HDOH Tier 1 action level of 5.6  g/L. The results were not considered appropriate for risk assessment si nce the sample had not been filte red. In addition, lead was not a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW01, but was a component is fuels stored in other tanks during the history of the F acility. Lead may have been pa rt of the Facility construction material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling effort s showed elevated lead when analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered has resolved this issue.

Samples were filtered in September and Decembe r 2005, and dissolved lead concentrations were below the HDOH Tier 1 action level. Concentra tions of all other cont aminants of potential concern were below HDOH Tier 1 action levels.

2005 – Site Investigation: As part of a site investigatio n, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells at the Facility between June and September 2005. Well RHMW02 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tanks 5 and 6. Well RHMW03 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tanks 13 and 14. Well RHMW04 was inst alled north of UST tank 20 to provide contaminant chemistry data for wa ter moving through the basal aquifer beneath the Facility. Wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were comp leted to depths of approximately 125 feet below the tunnel floor, and well RHMW04 was comp leted to a depth of approximately 300 feet below ground surface outside the tunnel. Groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed wells and two existing we lls (RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01) in September 2005.

Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were dete cted in samples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations greater than the HDOH Tier 1 acti on levels. Lead was detected in the sample collected from RHMW01 at a con centration greater than the HDOH Tier 1 action level; however, the sample was not filtered in the field pr ior to analysis. Analytical results for filtered samples obtained by Dawson during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved lead were below the HDOH Tier 1 action level.

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 6 2006 – Site Investigation: Dedicated sampling pumps were in stalled in five wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, a nd US Navy Well 2254-01). TEC collected groundwater samples from the wells in July 2006. The gr oundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in sa mples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations above the HDOH Tier 1 action level.

In September 2005, with concurrence from the HDOH, the Navy decided to use the newer HDOH Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs pr ovide action levels for more ch emicals, and are more useful for conducting screening risk assessments. Since the HDOH (HDOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets of action levels shoul d not be mixed, the Tier 1 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11-281-78 would no longer be used to evaluate environmental impact at the Facility.

An overall summary of Facility groundw ater sampling data by year follows:

2006 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were collected in December 2006. Analytical results indicated the following:

 No chemicals were detected in groundwat er from US Navy Well 2254-01 or RHMW03;

 TPH as diesel range organics (TPH-DRO) was detected in groundwater above the HDOH Drinking Water EALs in RHMW01; and

 TPH as gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), TPH-DRO, and naphthale ne were detected in groundwater above the HDOH Dri nking Water EALs in RHMW02.

2007 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were co llected in March, June, and September 2007. Analytical resu lts indicated the following:

 No chemicals were detected above HDOH Drinking Water EALs at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all three sampling events;

 TPH-GRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Wate r EALs at RHMW02 in March;

 TPH-DRO and naphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 during all three sampling events;

 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphtha lene exceeded the HDOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL at RHMW02 duri ng all three sampling events; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Wate r EALs at RHMW03 in June.

2008 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were collect ed in January, April, July, and October 2008. Analytical re sults indicated the following:

 No chemicals were detected above HDOH Drinking Water EALs at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 Trace detections of 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample event in December at US Navy Well 2254-01, no chemicals were detected above the laboratory method detection limit (MDL);

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 7  TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all four sampling events;

 TPH-GRO did not exceed HDOH Dr inking Water EALs at RHMW02;

 TPH-DRO, naphthalene, 1-me thylnaphthalene, and 2-met hylnaphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW 02. Additionally, the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L for TPH-DRO was exceed in the October sampling event; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW03 during all four sampling
events.

2009 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were coll ected in February, May, July, and October 2009. Analytical re sults indicated the following:

 No chemicals have been detected above HDOH Drinking Water EA Ls at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 Trace TPH-GRO at US Navy Well 2254-01 was de tected above the laboratory MDL and significantly below the laboratory reporti ng limit and HDOH Drinking Water EAL, in February and May 2009;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all four sampling events;

 TPH-GRO has not exceed HDOH Dr inking Water EALs at RHMW02;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 during all four sampling events;

 Naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-me thylnaphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 in February 2009, however only 1-methylnaphthalene exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EALs in May and July 2009 and only naphthalene exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EAL in October 2009;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW03 in February, but not in May, July, or October; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EAL at RHMW05 during the July and October 2009 sampling events.

2010 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were colle cted in January and April 2010 (and TPH-DRO was resampled for at RHMW02 in February and March, 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

 No chemicals have been detected above HDOH Drinking Water EA Ls at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 Trace naphthalene at US Navy Well 2254-01 wa s detected above the laboratory MDL and significantly below the laboratory re porting limit and HDOH Drinking Water EAL, in January;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking W ater EALs at RHMW02 in January, February, March, April, and July however, significant increases in January and February were attributed to tentatively identified compound s (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the Facility;

 Naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs in RHMW02 in January, April, and July;

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 8  TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EA Ls at RHMW05 in January, however, the significant increase was attributed to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the Facility; and

 TPH-DRO at RHMW03 has not been dete cted above the laboratory MDL.



# 1.5 Regulatory Updates During the summer and fall of 2008, HDOH updated their EALs, which resulted in significant changes to the action levels associated with me thylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity EAL for these compounds was 240  g/L. This concentration pres umed that methylnaphthalenes were non-carcinogenic. Evidence th at they are human carcinogens has now been accepted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). As a result, HDOH adopted more rigorous EALs of 4.7  g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24  g/L for 2-methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a residential tap water scenario, and a 1 in a million cancer risk (HDOH, 2008).

Also, the drinking water EAL for na phthalene was increased from 6.2  g/L to 17  g/L (HDOH, 2008). Finally, the HDOH Drinking Water EA L for TPH-DRO was increased from 100  g/L to 210  g/L, although the HDOH Groundw ater Gross Contamination EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100  g/L.



# 1.6 RHMW05 Installation In April 2009, a new groundwater monitoring we ll, RHMW05, was installed by TEC under US Navy Contract Number N47408-04-D-8514, Task Orde r No. 54. RHMW05 is located within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RH MW2254-01(located at the US Navy Well 2254- 01). It was installed to identify any contamin ation migrating past RH MW01 prior to it reaching the US Navy Well 2254-01. 

# 2.0 Sample Collection and Analyses

Field activities relati ng to groundwater sample collection were conducted on July 13, 2010. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells located inside the Facility lower access tunnel and one monitoring well locat ed at the US Navy Pump Station. Sampling and analysis were conducted according to Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2009). A total of eight sa mples were collected as follows:

 one environmental sample from RHMW2254-01 (i.e., located at the US Navy Well 2254-01), RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05;

 one duplicate sample from RHMW02 (sampled as RHMWA01 and reported as RHMW02D); and

 one matrix spike and matrix sp ike duplicate from RHMW2254-01.


# 2.1 Monitoring Well Purging All groundwater monitoring wells were purged a nd sampled using a dedicated pump system. Well purging was considered complete when no less than three successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized within ap proximately 10 percent. Field parameters were measured at regular intervals during well pur ging and included pH, temperature, specific

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 9 conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and tu rbidity. Purge water was coll ected and disposed in the Facility oil/water separator system.


# 2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection Each monitoring well was sampled immediatel y following purging. All wells were sampled directly from their dedicated bladder pump system. Samples were placed into sampling containers with appropriate pr eservatives [i.e., hydrochloric ac id (HCl) for volatile organic analysis, nitric acid (HNO 3 

# ) for dissolved lead]. Dissolved lead samples were filtered in the field and placed in preserved bottles. Sample cont ainers were labeled with the date, sample identification number, type of analysis, and sampler’s name. The containers were placed on ice in sample coolers and transporte d under chain-of-custody procedur es to the certified laboratory for analysis.


# 2.3 Groundwater Sample Analyses Groundwater samples were analyzed by SGS Environm ental Service, Inc. in Anchorage, Alaska for TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO by EPA Method 8015B, VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C SIM, and dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020.


# 3.0 Groundwater Sample Analytical Results This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from four monitoring wells located in the lower access tunnel of the Facility and one monitoring well located at the US Navy Pump Station. Dupli cate sample results from monitoring well RHMW02 are reported in this document as RHMW02D. A summary of groundwater an alytical results for TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead is included in Table 1. Complete analytical laboratory reports ar e provided in Appendix A.


# 3.1 July 2010 Sample Analytical Results Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH- DRO, TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead. Data qualifier “F” indicates the result is between the laborator y MDL and reporting limit (RL), therefore, should be considered an estimated value. The results for each groundwater monitoring well are discussed below.

RHMW01 TPH-DRO at 228F μg/L exceeded the HDOH Dri nking Water EALs of 210 μg/L. Estimated trace concentrations of acenaphthene and flour ene were detected at 0.0321F μg/L and 0.035F μg/L, respectfully (Table 1). Naphthalene was detected via USEPA Method 8270C SIM at 0.184 μg/L. These concentrations are significan tly below the HDOH Drinking Water EALs for each constituent. No other constituents we re detected above the laboratory MDL.Page 1  Table 1. Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Release Response Report (July 13, 2010) Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL TPH as DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS 210 100 **228** F 163 435 **3060** 163 435 **3110** 160 426 ND U 162 432 ND U 160 426 ND U 160 426 TPH as GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS 100 100 ND U 30 100 46.5 F 30 100 45.4 F 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4.7 10 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 **7.43** 0.645 2.15 **7.05** 0.628 2.09 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 24 10 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 1.06 0.0161 0.0538 0.937 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 ACENAPHTHENE 370 20 0.0321 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.287 0.0161 0.0538 0.309 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 ACENAPHTHYLENE 240 2000 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 ANTHRACENE 1800 22 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.092 4.7 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.2 0.81 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.092 0.75 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 1500 0.13 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.92 0.4 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 CHRYSENE 9.2 1 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 FLUORANTHENE 1500 130 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 FLUORENE 240 950 0.035 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.159 0.0161 0.0538 0.165 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.092 0.095 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 NAPHTHALENE 17 21 0.184 0.0326 0.105 **59.9** 1.33 4.3 **61.1** 1.3 4.19 ND U 0.0333 0.108 0.0643 F 0.0326 0.105 ND U 0.0332 0.107 PHENANTHRENE 240 410 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 PYRENE 180 68 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0157 0.0524 ND U 0.0161 0.0538 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.016 0.0535 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.52 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 200 970 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.067 500 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 5 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 2.4 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE (TCP) 0.6 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 70 3000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) 0.04 10 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB) 0.0065 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 600 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.15 7000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 5 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 180 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 75 5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 BENZENE 5 170 ND U 0.12 0.4 ND U 0.12 0.4 ND U 0.12 0.4 ND U 0.12 0.4 ND U 0.12 0.4 ND U 0.12 0.4 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.22 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 BROMOFORM 100 510 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 BROMOMETHANE 8.7 50000 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 5 520 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 CHLOROBENZENE 100 50 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 CHLOROETHANE 8600 16 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 CHLOROFORM 70 2400 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 CHLOROMETHANE 1.8 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 70 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.43 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.16 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ETHYLBENZENE 700 30 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.86 6 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 10000 20 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 7100 8400 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE) 2000 1300 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 4.8 9100 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 NAPHTHALENE 17 21 ND U 0.62 2 **107** 6.2 20 **102** 6.2 20 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 STYRENE 100 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5 170 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 TOLUENE 1000 40 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 100 260 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 5 310 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 VINYL CHLORIDE 2 3400 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 XYLENES, TOTAL 10000 20 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 6020 LEAD 15 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons MDL - Method detection limit VOCs - Volatile organic compounds RL - Reporting limit UG/L - Micrograms per Liter TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons Q - Data qualifier ND - Indicates that the compound was not detected above the stated method detection limit U - Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limit
F - Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the MDL and below the RL

- Result exceeds one or both HDOH EALs

1

2 July 13, 2010 July 13, 2010 July 13, 2010

Final Drinking Water Action Levels for Human Toxicity, Table D-3a, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater , HDOH, 2009 Groundwater Gross Contamination Action Levels, Table G-1, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater , HDOH, 2009 8015B (Petroleum)

8270C SIM

(PAHs)

8260B (VOCs) RHMW05 UG/L July 13, 2010 July 13, 2010 July 13, 2010 RHMW2254-01 UG/L RHMW02

UG/L RHMW02D UG/L RHMW03 UG/L Method HDOH Drinking Water
EALs 1 for Human Toxicity UG/L HDOH Groundwater Gross Contamination
EALs 2
UG/L Chemical RHMW01 UG/L

200

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 11 RHMW02 In July 2010, TPH-DRO was detected in RHMW02 in the normal and duplicate samples at 3,060 μg/L and 3,110 μg/L, respectivel y. These results exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μg/L, but not the site-specific risk base d level (SSRBL) of 4,500 μg/L. The average concentration between the normal and duplicate samples for TPH-DRO was 3,085 μg/L, slightly greater than half of the SSRBL. The concentr ation of TPH-GRO detected in the normal and duplicate sample from RHMW02 averaged 45.95F μg/L, less than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 100 μg/L.

Naphthalene was analyzed by USEPA Method 8270C SIM and USEPA Method 8260B. USEPA Method 8260B produced the highest naphthalene concentrations, which averaged 104.5 μg/L from the normal and duplicate sample (HDOH Dri nking Water EAL is 17 μg/L). In addition, 1- methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acena phthene, and flourene were detected in the normal and duplicate samples at averaged concentrations of 7.24 μg/L, 0.9985 μg/L, 0.298 μg/L, and 0.162 μg/L, respectively (Table 1). All of these concentrations are below the HDOH Drinking Water EALs for each constituent, ex cept for 1-methylnaph thalene (HDOH Drinking Water EAL is 4.7 μg/L). No other constituents were detected above the laboratory MDL.

RHMW03 No parameters were detected above the laboratory MDLs in RHMW03 (Table 1).

RHMW05 Naphthalene was detected above the laboratory MDL, but below the RL, at an estimated concentration of 0.0643F μg/L. This concentrat ion is below the HDOH Drinking Water EAL for this compound (17 μg/L). No other constituents were detected above the laboratory MDL (Table 1).

US Navy Well 2254-01 No parameters were detected above the la boratory MDLs in RHMW2254-01 (Table 1).



# 3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Trend Groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed by TEC since September 2005. Figure 1 shows TPH trends in groundwater at the Facility. Fi gure 2 shows PAH trends in groundwater at the Facility. In these figures , open icons (without da ta) represent locations where the compounds being analyzed we re not detected.

The following is a discussion of compounds th at exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs during two or more recent consecutive sampling events of increasing or decreasing concentrations, thus establishing a trend:

RHMW01 At RHMW01, concentrations of TPH-DRO have been greater than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL since September 2005, but less than 25 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L. TPH-DRO had exhibited a decreasing trend si nce October 2008 with the lowest hi storical concen tration (i.e., 248F μg/L) recorded in July 2009. Since July 2 009, this trend began increasing with 299F μg/L,

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 12 312F μg/L, and 377 μg/L detected in Octobe r 2009, January 2010, and April 2010, respectively. In July 2010, TPH-DRO decreased to 228F μg/L th e lowest concentration detected at RHMW01 to date.

RHMW02 At RHMW02, from September 2005 through February 2009, TPH-DRO exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EAL and was greater than 50 percen t of the SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 4,500  g/L). Specifically, the concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stable at RHMW02 until July 2008, ranging from 2,250 to 2,995 μg/L. However, during the July and October 2008 sampling events, these average co ncentrations increase d. The July 2008 average concentration was 4,055 μg/L and the October 2008 average concentration was 5,420 μg/L. Both of these values were significantly above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μg/L, with the October 2008 average also exceeding th e SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.

However, TPH-DRO at RHMW02 had shown a decreasing trend from October 2008 through July 2009. In May and July 2009, TPH-DRO re mained above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL, but was below 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,5 00 μg/L. In October 2009, TPH-DRO began an increasing trend greater than 50 percent of th e SSRBL which continued through February 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to tentativel y identified compounds (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the Facility (TEC, 2010). In March and April 2010, TPH-DRO exhibited a decreasing trend and th e TICs detected in the two prev ious sampling events were not observed (i.e., average TPH-DRO concentrations of 2,490 μg/L and 2,215 μg/L respectively). During July 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW02 increased to an averaged concentration of 3,085 μg/L, above 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.

For other parameters, the averag e concentration in July 2010 fo r 1-methylnaphthalene (i.e., 7.24
 g/L) exhibited an increase, af ter decreasing in Ap ril 2010 (to 6.255 μg/L ) from the January 2010 average concentration (i.e., 8.65  g/L). Consequently, the Ju ly 2010 1-methylnaphthalene concentration remains above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 4.7  g/L. Naphthalene had shown an increasing tre nd through 2008 before decreasing to it s lowest average concentration in May 2009 (1.125 μg/L). Since Octo ber 2009, average naphthalene concentrations in RHMW02 have remained relatively stable between 20 μg/L and 22 μg/L, exceeding the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 17 μg/L. In July 2010, the naphthale ne concentration increased significantly to an average of 104.5 μg/L, however remains less th an the concentrations observed during 2008 (e.g., October 2008 average concen tration was 242 μg/L).

RHMW03 At RHMW03, historically, conc entrations of TPH-DRO have fluctuated around the HDOH Drinking Water EAL, but have been significantl y lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and RHMW02. However, TPH-DRO con centrations have decr eased since October 2008 dropping below the laboratory MDL in May 2009. Inclusive of the July 2010 sampling event, there has been no detect able TPH-DRO result since May 2009.

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 13 RHMW05 At RHMW05 there had been an increasing trend for TPH-DRO since it wa s first sampled in May 2009. Starting with the July 2009 sampling event, TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW05 were greater than the HDOH Drinking Wa ter EAL (i.e., 210 μg/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060 μg/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to note that the January 2010 concentration contained TICs a pparently not associated with petroleum from the Facility. However, in April and July 2010, TPH-DRO concentr ations exhibited a signi ficant decrease and in both sampling events, were not de tected above the laboratory MDL.

US Navy Well 2254-01 At US Navy Well 2254-01 (i.e ., RHMW2254-01), no compounds we re detected above the laboratory MDLs during July 2010. Additionally, no compounds have ever been detected at this sample location at concentrations greater than any of the HDOH Drinking Water EALs.


# 3.3 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements The presence and thickness of light-non aque ous phased liquids (LNAPL), otherwise known as “free product”, released from the US Ts is monitored at the Facility (see Table 2). Static water levels and fuel thickness is measur ed to a precision of ± 0.01 feet.

In January 2008, fuel was measured in mon itoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 ft, but has not been observed in other monitoring wells. Measurements to determine the presence and thickness of fuel were conducted at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 prior to and following the July 2010 sampling round. Since the trace amounts observed in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these Facility wells (Table 2).

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 14 Table 2. Oil/Water In terface Measurements

Date RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 RHMW05 SWL

(ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL (ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL (ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL 6 

# (ft) LNAPL (ft) January 2008 17.74 < 0.01 18.78 < 0.01 NT 1 

# NT 1 

# ---- ---- July 2008 19.04 0.00 18.91 0.00 18.86 0.00 ---- ----
October 2008 18.61 0.00 18.56 0.00 18.82 0.00 ---- ----
November 2008 18.50 0.00 18.45 0.00 18.51 0.00 ---- ---- January 2009 19.28 0.00 19.22 0.00 19.27 0.00 ---- ---- February 2009 NT 2 

# NT 2 

# 18.66 0.00 18.75 0.00 ---- ----
March 2009 18.59 0.00 18.57 0.00 18.67 0.00 ---- ---- May 2009 3 

# 18.69 0.00 18.64 0.00 18.72 0.00 NT 5 

# NT 5 

# May 2009 18.91 0.00 18.86 0.00 18.90 0.00 NT 5 

# NT 5 

# July 2009 4 

# 18.66 0.00 18.59 0.00 18.64 0.00 18.63 0.00 August 2009 18.37 0.00 18.30 0.00 18.47 0.00 18.21 0.00 September 2009 18.20 0.00 18.17 0.00 18.24 0.00 18.11 0.00
October 2009 18.17 0.00 18.14 0.00 18.24 0.00 18.10 0.00
November 2009 18.50 0.00 18.45 0.00 18.50 0.00 18.47 0.00
December 2009 18.29 0.00 18.26 0.00 18.31 0.00 18.19 0.00 January 2010 18.05 0.00 18.01 0.00 18.09 0.00 17.97 0.00 February 2010 18.17 0.00 18.12 0.00 18.17 0.00 18.12 0.00
March 2010 17.88 0.00 17.86 0.00 17.93 0.00 17.76 0.00 April 2010 17.66 0.00 17.64 0.00 17.71 0.00 17.55 0.00 May 2010 17.61 0.00 17.58 0.00 17.65 0.00 17.49 0.00
June 2010 17.54 0.00 17.50 0.00 17.57 0.00 17.42 0.00 July 2010 17.38 0.00 17.35 0.00 17.42 0.00 17.24 0.00
SWL - Static water level, elevation above mean sea level LNAP L - Light Non-Aqueous Phased Liquid, fuel pr oduct on groundwater attributed to the Facility ft

- Feet NT - Not Taken 1 

### - The January 2008 measurement at RHMW03 wa s not taken due to equipment malfunction 2



### - During the February 2009 measurements, RHMW01 was inaccessibl e due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02 3 

### - The measurements scheduled for April 2009 were postponed until May 6, 2009 due to RHMW05 drilling activities 4 

### – The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to th e installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes 5 

### - Oil/water interface measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the oil/water interface probe was complet ed
6 

### – Elevation at RHMW05 is estimated from the difference betw een RHMW01 and RHMW05 during a survey conducted in January 2010 ---- - Time period prior to the installation of RHMW05 Oil/water interface measurements were not taken in April 2008



# 3.4 Groundwater Status Facility-specific contaminants of concern are de fined as petroleum-related chemicals that have been observed in the groundwater samples above the HDOH Drinking Water EALs. In accordance with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facili ty Final Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008), Table 3 defines these Facility-spe cific compounds and their associated SSRBLs and updated EALs (HDOH 2008).

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 15 Table 3. Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern

Chemical EAL (μg/L) SSRBL (μg/L) Petroleum Mixtures TPH-DRO 210 4,500 TPH-GRO 100 4,500 Semi-Volatile Compounds 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 NA 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 NA Naphthalene 17 NA NA – Not applicable or not determined SSRBLs are applicable at RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 EALs are applicable at US Navy Well 2254-01



# In addition, the Plan defines four Results Categori es of groundwater status for the Facility, based on concentrations of constituents of c oncern in RHMW01, RH MW02, RHMW03, RHMW05 and the US Navy Well 2254-01, and requires speci fic responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling. Ta ble 4 describes each of the four Results Categories and identifies response actions to be taken in accordance with the Plan. Table 4. Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status

Results Category RHMW02 RHMW03 or RHMW05* RHMW01 US Navy Pumping Well 2254-01

Results Category 1: Result above detection limit but below drinking water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or decreasing A A A,D,M,E

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded A, B A, B A,B,C,D,E,F,G,K, L,O

Results Category 3: Result Between 1/10X SSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPH A,B,G,H,I,J A,B,E,G,H,I,J A,B,C,D,E,F,G,I,J, K,L,O

Results Category 4: Result Exceeding any SSRBL or petroleum product observed A,C,D,E,F,I,J, K,M,N A,C,D,E,F,I, J,K,M,N,O A,C,D,E,F,G,I,J,K, L,O

*RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has been subsequently been added to this Table. Specific Responses: A. Send quarterly reports to HDOH. B. Begin program to determine the source of leak. C. Notify HDOH verbally within 1 day and fo llow with written notification in 30 days. D. Notify FISC Chain of Command within 1 day. E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to HDOH. F. Send Type 2 Report (see box below) to HDOH.

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 16 G. Increase monitoring frequency to once pe r month (if concentr ations increasing). H. Notify HDOH verbally within 7 days and follow with written notification in 30 days. I. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pe rtinent wells with interface probe, re-install pumps if product is not detected. J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks. K. Collect samples from nearby Halawa D eep Monitoring Well (2253-03) and OWDF MW01. For permission to sample 2253-03, call DLNR Commission on Water Re source Management 808-587-0214, DLNRCWR@Hawaii.gov

. L. Provide alternative water source at 2254-01. M. Prepare for alternative wa ter source at US Navy Well 2254-01. N. Re-measure for product every month with reports to HDOH. O. Install additional monitoring well downgradient.

Report Types HDOH Type 1 Report

 Re-evaluate Tier 3 Risk Asse ssment/groundwater model results

 Proposal to HDOH on a course of action
HDOH Type 2 Report

 Proposal for groundwater treatment

Free Product Measurements In response to the previous Ca tegory 3 status at RHMW02, free product measurements have been collected at the Facility monitoring well s. As Table 2 indicates, free product has been observed only during the Janua ry 2008 monitoring event (i.e ., at both RHMW01 and RHMW02 at less than 0.01 foot ea ch). Since the trace amounts obser ved in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of th ese Facility wells (Table 2).

US Navy Well 2254-01 Based upon the July 2010 sampling event, the US Navy Well 2254-01 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds we re detected above the laboratory MDLs.

RHMW03 Based upon the July 2010 sampling event, RHMW03 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds were detected above the laboratory MDLs.

Category 1 Status Locations RHMW05 Based upon the July 2010 sampling event, RHMW05 is assigned a Category 1 status. This is because estimated trace concentrations of napht halene (i.e., 0.0643F μg/L) was detected above the laboratory MDL, but not above th e HDOH EAL of 17 μg/L for this compound.

Category 1 response for RHMW05 requires: 1. Quarterly reports to be sent to HDOH

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 17 Category 2 Status Locations RHMW01 The July 2010 sampling event indicates that RHMW 01 should remain in Category 2 status. This is because the TPH-DRO concentration of 228F  g/L is greater than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL (210  g/L), but less than half the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L (estimated solubil ity limit of JP-5).

Category 2 response for RHMW01 requires: 1. Quarterly reports to be sent to HDOH; and 2. Initiation of a leak determination progr am to identify if tanks are leaking.

Category 3 Status Locations RHMW02 Based upon the July 2010 sampling event, RHMW02 has been upgraded to Category 3 status. TPH-DRO concentrations remain greate r than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL (210  g/L) and the July 2010 averaged concentration (3,085  g/L) is greater than half the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L. However, the July 2010 TPH-DRO average concentra tion is within the hist orical range for this well.

Category 3 response for RHMW02 requires: 1. Send quarterly re ports to HDOH. 2. Begin program to determine the source of leak. 3. Increase monitoring frequency to once pe r month (if concentrations increasing). 4. Notify HDOH verbally within 7 days and fo llow with written notification in 30 days. 5. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pertinent wells with interface probe, reinstall pumps if product is not detected. 6. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks.

Category 4 Status Locations There are no Category 4 status locations. 

# 4.0 Summary and Conclusions
Summary There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking wate r resources of the US Navy Well 2254-01 as a result of the July 2010 data. Based on the July 2010 sampling event, the US Navy Well 2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Plan.

TPH-DRO was detected at RHMW 01 during July 2010, at the lowest concentration to date. Although TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW02 incr eased relative to the previous respective sampling events (excluding the February 2010 concen tration that was elevated due to TICs not associate with fuel from the F acility) it remains well within the historical range. In addition, RHMW02 naphthalene concentrations have in creased and remain above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL.

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 18 Conclusions/Recommendations

 To date, fuel on the groundwater has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 at less than 0.01 ft.). Continued monitoring of Facility wells for the presence of fuel on groundwater is recommended.

 The concentration of TPH-DRO measured in the newest monitori ng well, RHMW05, has drastically declined since exhibiting an increasing trend between May 2009 and January 2010.

 TPH-DRO at RHMW01 decreased to its lowest concentration at this location to date, while TPH-DRO at RHMW02 has slightly in creased since April 2010. However, July 2010 TPH-DRO concentration is within th e historical range for RHMW02. It is recommended that quarterly monitoring of the Facility wells continue so that overall groundwater quality trends may be evalua ted and proactive action taken if the groundwater quality shows evid ence of deterioration.

 The US Navy Well 2254-01 is not imminently thr eatened at this time; however, sampling should continue to monitor and assess contam inant migration from up-gradient locations.

 Consideration should be given to havi ng future samples analyzed using both Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) analytical methods in addition to TPH-GRO and TPH- DRO analytical methods.

In conclusion, the following activities are recommended to continue to monitor and clarify the groundwater contamination s ituation at the Facility: 1. Continue monthly free product m easurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; 2. Continue monthly soil vapor monitoring; and 3. Continue quarterly groundwater monitoring of Facility wells for parameters of

concern.Figure1TPHTrendsinGroundwaterRound20(July13,2010)The HDOH toxicity EALs were updated in Fall, 2008.•TPHDRO Residential Tap Water EAL is 210 ug/L; andRound20(July13,2010)RedHillFuelStorageFacilityOahu,Hawaii•TPH-DROResidentialTapWaterEALis210ug/L;and•TPH-GRO Residential Tap Water EAL is 100 ug/L;(HDOH, 2008).Figure2PAHTrendsinGroundwaterRound20(July13,2010)The HDOH toxicity EALs were updated in Fall, 2008.• Naphthalene Residential Tap Water EAL is 17 ug/L;1th l hth l R id ti l T W t EAL i 4 7 /L dRound20(July13,2010)RedHillFuelStorageFacilityOahu,Hawaii•1-methylnaphthaleneResidentialTapWaterEALis4.7ug/L; and• 2- methylnaphthalene ResidentialTap Water EAL is 24 ug/L(HDOH, 2008).

## Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility August 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________



# 21 

# 5.0 References

AMEC. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Investigation Report , Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific, August 2002.

Dawson Group, Inc. Fourth Quarter 2005 Groundwater Sam pling Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii. February 2006.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, Titl e 11, Chapter 281, Subchapter 7.

HDOH. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Summary Lookup Tables. March 2009.

HDOH. Use of May 2005 Environmental Action Levels (“EALs”) at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites . Memo. July 2005.

HDOH. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater . Summer 2008 (updated October 2008).

Massachusetts Department of E nvironmental Protection (MADEP). Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Final Policy, October 2002

The Environmental Company, Inc. and AMEC. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Work Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. June 2005.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Fi nal – Addendum Planning Documents, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. May 2006.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

. August 2007.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. January 2008 revised in December 2009.

TEC, Inc. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii . April 2010.

# Appendix A

Laboratory Analytical Reports