2 

### May 4, 2010

Greg Yamasaki, P.E. FISC Pearl Harbor, Code 701 1942 Gaffney Street, Suite 100 Building 1757, 2nd Floor Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-4549

Subject: Type 1 Letter Report – Re -evaluation of the Tier 3 Risk
Assessment/Groundwater Model & Pr oposed Course of Action Red Hill Bulk Fuels Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HI Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54

I NTRODUCTION



### This Type 1 Report is required in accordance wi th the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC , 2008) as revised in 2009 (the Plan). In October 2008, concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater beneath the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (the Facility) exceeded levels as sociated with Category 4 status, as defined by
the Plan. In accordance with the Plan, Category 4 status requires the United States (US) Navy to produce a Type 1 Report that documents the re-evaluation of the Tier 3 risk assessment and associated groundwater model (TEC, 2007a).

This Type 1 Letter Report is pr epared for the Naval Fleet Engi neering Service Center (NFESC)
and the Pearl Harbor Naval Base Fleet Industria l Supply Center (FISC) by TEC Inc. (TEC) under contract N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54. Under Task Order 54, TEC is providing environmental compliance services associated wi th past releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to
the subsurface bedrock and the unde rlying groundwater aquifer.

S ITE D ESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND



### The Facility includes twenty 12.5 million-gall on (Mgal) underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Red Hill Ridge, Halawa Valley, Hawaii. The Facility also includes a series of tunnels and pipelines whic h deliver fuel to and from Pearl Ha rbor Naval Base (Figure 1). The Facility was constructed prior to World War II to support naval activities in the Pacific. Pertinent information regard ing the Facility includes:

 The Facility is exempt from many of the Federal and St ate UST Program requirements because it was field-constructed;3 

###  The Facility has stored diesel fuel, Navy Sp ecial Fuel Oil (NSFO), Navy Distillate (ND), Jet Propulsion Fuel 5 and 8 (JP-5 and JP-8), a nd F-76 (diesel marine fuel), and for a short time, aviation gasoline (AVGAS) and automobile gasoline (MOGAS) in selected USTs;
and

 The Facility overlies the Waimalu and Moan alua aquifer systems, which are pumped extensively for potable water usage by the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (HBWS) and the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS).

Previous environmental investigat ions have determined that petroleum from past releases has migrated from the USTs to the underlying ground water. A groundwater contaminant transport model was developed to evaluate the threat to surrounding potable water wells. In addition, a
risk assessment was conducted to estimate current and future risk, based on the model. Current risk was found to be insignificant because petrol eum had not migrated into nearby drinking water wells (Figure 2).

The US Navy Well 2254-01 pumps approximately 4.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of water from a water tunnel (infiltrati on gallery) that extends approxima tely 1,280 feet across the water table, southwest of the Facility. The US Navy developed the Plan (TEC, 2008) to mitigate this potential future threat. The Plan specifies quarterly groundwater monitoring at a network of wells within the Facility as well as site-speci fic action levels and specific mitigation actions
when these action leve ls are observed.

In October of 2008, results for Total Petroleu m Hydrocarbon, Diesel Ra nge Organics (TPHDRO) by United States Environmental Pr otection Agency (USEPA) Method 8015 from groundwater samples collected at RHMW02 were 4,540  g/L in the primary sample and 6,300

 g/L in the duplicate sample for an average TPH-DRO concentration of 5,420  g/L. This average concentration exceeded the site-specific action level of 4,500  g/L, which is the solubility limit of TPH-DRO. These result s triggered a Category 4 response action in
accordance with the Plan. RHMW 02 is located within the Facility lower access tunnel, approximately 2,060 feet from the US Na vy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery.

A Category 4 response is required by the Plan because high concentrations of petroleum contamination in groundwater are the risk driver at the Facility. Specifically, the results of the groundwater model and risk assessment (TEC, 2007a ) indicate that for an imminent risk to occur, fuel would be within approximately 1,100 feet of the US Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery.

This Type 1 Report provides the requi red Category 4 response as follows:

 Re-evaluate the Tier 3 Risk Assessment (TEC, 2007a);

 Re-evaluate the groundwater model assu mptions and results (TEC, 2007b); and

 Provide a proposal to Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) regarding a course
of action.

A comprehensive re-evaluation of a risk assessment/groundwater model as required for this Type 1 Report is a complex task requi ring a significant amount of field work and technical analysis. The completion of this field work and detailed technical evaluation was necessary before this Type 1 report could be issued.NFigure 2.Area Wells and Aquifer SystemsGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiWaimalu SystemPearl HarborAquiferSectorMoanalua SystemHonolulu Aquifer Sector5 

### In order to reassess the threat to water supply wells in the stu dy area, the US Navy installed an additional groundwater monitoring well (RHMW05) between the Fac ility and the US Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery, approximately 600 feet from the infiltration gallery. This well is now sampled quarterly with results included in the US Navy’s quarterly reports to HDOH.

In addition, a sensitivity anal ysis was conducted on the risk assessment to determine the assumptions with the greatest potential for adve rsely impacting the results. The assumptions presented below were re-evaluated based on this se nsitivity analysis. The site-specific risk-based levels (SSRBLs) presented in the Plan were based on the following Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model assumptions:

1. the concentration of dissolve d fuel hydrocarbons in the groundwater as measured by USEPA Method 8015 is limited to 4,500  g/L, the computed maximum solubility resulting from JP-5 fuel in direct contact with the groundwater surface;
2. the groundwater flows “mauka to makai”(i.e., m ountain to ocean), a direction that places the US Navy Well 2254-01 directly down gradient from the USTs; and

3. 

### the dissolved fuel hydrocarbons will degrade at a rate that was modeled using the reactive transport model code RT3D (the modele d bulk degradation rate was about 0.009 per day).

R E

- EVALUATION E FFORTS IN R ESPONSE TO THE C ATEGORY 4 S TATUS


### The Category 4 results from the groundwater sa mples collected from RHMW02 in October 2008 during Round 13 by USEPA Method 8015 for TPH-DRO (4,540  g/L; 6,300  g/L in the duplicate sample; for an average of 5,420  g/L) exceeded the calculated solubility limit of 4,500

 g/L for JP-5. These results and a Category 4 status given to RH MW02 necessitated a reevaluation of the Facility Tier 3 Risk Assessment and groundwater model.

Re-evaluation of the Groundwater Flow Direction/Gradient



### A study was undertaken to better understand the groundwater flow di rection and gradient in the vicinity of the Facility. The SI report (TEC, 2007) reported a gr oundwater flow direction to the south when the pumps at the US Navy Well 2254- 01 were off or operating at normal capacity, and a groundwater flow direction to the north-northwest when th e pumps were operating at their maximum capacity. This was much different than the assumed “mauka to makai” flow direction of the west-southwest. To get a more accurate estimation of the groundwater flow direction, TEC contracted Pacific GPS to do a precision globa l positioning system (GPS) vertical survey of
all wells that are not in the lowe r access tunnel, but were used in the 2006 aquifer test detailed in the SI report (TEC, 2007a).

The re-evaluation of the groundwater flow directi on and gradient in the vi cinity of the Red Hill Facility shows a local flow direction from the USTs toward the US Navy Well 2254-01 as expected. The gradient for this flow dire ction is approximately 0.00022 feet/feet. This evaluation also shows a regional co mponent flowing to the northwest. The gradient for this flow direction is approximately 0.00028. The letter report detailing the groundwater flow/gradient study is included as Attachment A.

Re-evaluation of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment



### Analytical results from RHMW02 collected during Round 13 (October 2008), placed RHMW02 in a Category 4 status as define d by the Plan. As discussed earlie r, this prompted a re-evaluation6 

### of the groundwater flow direction and gradient because this data was used to prepare the associated groundwater flow/contaminant transp ort model used to support the Tier 3 Risk Assessment. In addition, a Tier 3 Risk Asse ssment re-evaluation was also conducted. The reevaluation required an assessment regarding the a ssumption that the maximum solubility of JP-5 is 4,500  g/L (Attachment B).

Although split samples from RHMW02 to be an alyzed for TPH-DRO/TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO) and by the Massachusetts Depa rtment of Environmen tal Protection (MADEP) analytical protocol were not collected during Round 13, this was done during Round 16 (July 2009). Consequently, the results obtained fr om Round 16 allowed for a detailed comparison analysis of total TPH-DRO/TPH-GRO concentra tion verses the total MADEP volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH)/extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) con centration (Attachment C). This comparison showed that an overall averag e of approximately 27 percent of the TPH-DRO result was from polar, non-fuel organic compounds.

This hypothesis is strengthened by an analysis of the TPH-DRO chromatographs for samples collected in January and February 2010. This TPH-DRO analysis showed that apparently nonfuel tentatively identif ied compounds (TICs) accounted for approximately 35 percent of the TPH-DRO concentration (Attachments B and D). These results strongly suggest that the TPHDRO results for RHMW02 collected during Round 13 did not exceed the assumed maximum JP5 solubility of 4,500  g/L and that approximately 1/3 of the TPH-DRO reported concentration was likely from less toxic, non petroleum-related compounds (Attachment E).

The Tier 3 Risk Assessment also consid ered another critical factor of the groundwater/contaminant transport m odel (i.e., the simulated flow di rection and gradient). As discussed in a previous section, a precision GPS elevation survey was done on all of the wells
located out of the lower access tunnel that were used in the 2006 aquifer test. This data was used to compute the groundwater flow direction wh en the pumps at the US Navy Well 2254-01 were:

 Not in operation;

 Pumping at the maximum rate that c ould be sustained for five days; and

 Pumping at a rate closely resembling normal withdrawal from that well.

This analysis showed that there was flow in th e assumed west-southwest di rection parallel to the alignment of tanks, but it also showed a str onger flow component to the northwest. This deviation from the modeled groundwater flow di rection and gradient does not significantly change the conclusions of the model. One of the sensitivity simulations performed and detailed in TEC (2007b) was a reduced flow scenario due to a drought.

This reduced flow beneath the UST source area to the infiltration galle ry of US Navy Well 2254- 01 was assessed. According to the model, the distance a dissolved plume traveled from a stationary free-product plume until natural atte nuation had reduced the concentration to 100  g/L was 1,170 feet for the base simulation, but was re duced to 1,090 feet for the lower-flow drought
simulation. This establishes th at the Tier 3 Risk Assessmen t/groundwater model, while not reflecting the entire groundwater flow field, does simulate the most conservative flow direction. Therefore, with respect to the potential risk to the US Navy Well 2254-01, the results of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment (TEC, 2007b) still remain valid. This is because the Tier 3 Risk Assessment assumes a worst case scenario, that the dom inant groundwater flow direction places th e infiltration gallery of 2254-01 directly down gradient from the USTs.7 P ROPOSED F UTURE C OURSE OF A CTION


### TPH-DRO results at RHMW02 exceeding the com puted maximum solubility of JP-5 have occurred twice during the histor y of the groundwater monitoring program associated with the Facility. It is expected this si tuation will occur again in the future . If this does occur, a detailed chromatograph TICs evaluation similar to th at done for the Round 18 samples should be requested from the lab. If the results indicate that the TPH fraction due to fuel hydrocarbons does exceed the computed solubility of JP-5 (4,500  g/L), another re-evaluation of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model should be done.

This re-evaluation should consist of investigatin g the validity of the 4,500 mg/L solubility limit and re-computing the distance from the edge of a free product plume to TPH-GRO/TPH-DRO compliance using the measured TPH concentratio n and a degradation rate of 0.007 per day. This is an average degradation rate computed using results from 23 Ai r Force fuel contaminated sites (Wiedemeier et al., 1999). Using this data, ne w SSRBLs could be established for the monitoring
wells based on distance from the eastern end of the infiltration gallery for US Navy Well 2254-
01.

It is further recommended that at least one mo re round of split samples be collected for TPHGRO/TPH-DRO and MADEP VPH/TPH analysis. Th is will help establish whether TPH-DRO concentrations that may be measured at the Facility’s non-potabl e wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05) are from fuel hydrocar bons or from polar, less toxic, non-fuel organic compounds.

Of the wells previously listed, RHMW05 is of greatest concern because its TPH-DRO results have been consistently greater than the HDOH e nvironmental action levels (EALs). Therefore, due to the close proximity of RHMW05 (i.e., located between RHMW01 and the US Navy Well 2254-01, approximately 600 feet from the US Navy Well 2254-01), modified SSRBLs for TPHDRO and TPH-GRO for this well should be estab lished and the Plan re vised as appropriate.8 

### References

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

Dawson, 2005a. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, First Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. April 2005.

Dawson, 2005b. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Second Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. August 2005.

Dawson, 2005c. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Third Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. November 2005.

Dawson, 2006. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Fourth Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. February 2006.

MADEP, 2002. Characterizing Risk s Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach, Policy #WSC-02-411

TEC, 2007a. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Fi nal Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Prepared for NAVF AC Pacific. August 2007

TEC, 2007b. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Appendix K – Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility – Final Contaminant Transport Simulations Using Numerical Models for Tier 3 Risk Evaluation, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific. August 2007

TEC, 2008. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Final Groundwater Protection Plan – Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific. January 2008

TEC 2009. Quarterly Groundwater M onitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility – Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for Commander Navy Region Hawaii. February 2009

TEC 2010. Quarterly Groundwater M onitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility – Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for Co mmander Navy Region Hawaii. April 2010

Wiedemeier, T.H., J.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.T. Wilson. 1999. Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.

## Attachment A

Groundwater Letter Report1 

### April 15, 2010

Greg Yamasaki, P.E. FISC Pearl Harbor, Code 701 1942 Gaffney Street, Suite 100 Building 1757, 2nd Floor Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-4549

Subject: Groundwater Flow Direction /Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HI Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54

1.1 I NTRODUCTION


### This Letter Report was prepared for the Naval Fleet Engineering Servi ce Center (NFESC) and
the Pearl Harbor Naval Base Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) by TEC Inc. (TEC) under contract N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 0054. U nder Task Order 0054, TEC is providing environmental compliance services to FISC at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (the Facility), associated with past releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to the subsurface bedrock and underlying groundwater aquifer.

1.2 S ITE D ESCRIPTION


### The Facility includes twenty 12.5 million-gallo ns (Mgal) underground storage tanks (USTs) located within Red Hill Ridge, Halawa Valley, Hawa ii. The Facility also includes a series of tunnels and pipelines that deliver fuel to and from Pearl Ha rbor Naval Base (Figure 1). The Facility was constructed prior to World War II to support United States Naval activities in the
Pacific.

The USTs were constructed in the field usi ng mining techniques, and are exempt from many Federal and State UST program requirements due to the field-constructed nature of the tanks. According to records, the main fuel types stored at the Facility have been diesel oil, Navy Special Fuel Oil (NSFO), Navy Distillate (ND), Jet Propulsion Fuels 5 and 8 (JP-5 and JP-8), and F-76 (diesel marine fuel). In addition, Tank 17 contained Aviation Gasoline (AVGAS) and Motor Gasoline (MOGAS) between 1964 and 1969, and Tank 18 contained AVGAS between 1964 and 1968. A review of the Facility records, which were classified until 1995, has identified an ongoing maintenance and repair program c onducted by the United States (U.S.) Navy.
Environmental studies conducted between 1995 and the present (AMEC Earth and3 

### Environmental Inc. [AMEC], 2002; Dawson Gr oup Inc. [Dawson], 1995; TEC Inc., 2007; and others) have identified petroleum under a number of these USTs in soil vapor, rock samples, and groundwater that has been categorized as a drinking water resource by the HDOH (Mink and Lau, 1990). This poses a potential threat to downgradient dri nking water wells.

The Facility is approximatel y 100 feet above the basal wate r table on the boundary of the Waimalu and Moanalua Aquifer Systems of th e Pearl Harbor and H onolulu Aquifer Sector, respectively. Both aquifers are sources of potable water for several public water systems, including the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (HBWS) we ll 2354-01 (Halawa Shaft); wells 2153-10, 2153-12, and 2153-22 (HBWS Moanalua we lls); and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (Figure 2). Most notably, the U.S. Navy We ll 2254-01, located approximately 3,000 feet from Facility USTs, is permitted to pump 4.6 million ga llons per day (mgd) of potable water from a submerged infiltration tunnel which extends appr oximately 1,280 feet across the water table and supplies the Pearl Harbor Water System. Histori cal estimates of the hydraulic gradient within these aquifers assumed that the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 is located directly downgradient from the Facility and is at the greates t risk for contamination from fuel releases from the Facility.

1.3 B ACKGROUND

1.3.1 Summary of Previous Gradient Analysis



### EarthTech (EarthTech, 2000) performed gradient anal ysis using wells at th e Oily Waste Disposal Facility (OWDF) installed for a Remedial I nvestigation (RI). This analysis showed a groundwater flow direction that varied from nearly due east to north east, depending on the magnitude of the groundwater withdrawal from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. The gradient varied from 0.00038 to 0.00048 ft/ft. TEC (TEC, 2007) did a gradient analysis based on wells located in the Facility. This analysis show ed a groundwater flow direction to the northnorthwest when the drinking water well pumps were operating at full ca pacity (approximately 304 degrees from north) and to the south when the pumps were not in operation (approximately 179 degrees from north). The previous site c onceptual model assumed that groundwater in the area flowed parallel to the Red Hill Ridge (app roximately 240 degrees from north) without the influence of pumping, and in the direction of the U.S. Navy well 2254-01 infiltration gallery (approximately 270 degrees from north) when U.S. Navy well 2254-01 is pumping at full capacity.

Both of these analyses used wells that were re latively closely spaced where the distance between wells varied from 815 ft to 4490 ft. Since groundwa ter gradients in the study area are relatively small, usually on the order of 2 x 10 -4 

### ft/ft to 4 x 10 -4 

### ft/ft, a small error in the measurement of the groundwater elevation at any well can resu lt in a significant shift of the computed groundwater flow direction from the true value. Also, only using on-site wells does not show the influence of the regional groundwater flow direction and gradient in the area.

An analysis of the regional groundwater flow in the study area was conducted as part of the aquifer test and modeling performed by TEC and the University of Hawaii (UH) by Rotzoll and El-Kadi (Rotzoll and El-Kadi, 2006). This test included wells owned by the HBWS and State of Hawaii Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM), as well as the on-site wells. For this regional test, four on-site wells (OWDF-MW1, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHM04) and three regional wells (Halawa Deep Observation well, CWRM Deep Monitoring Well, andNFigure 2.Area Wells and Aquifer SystemsGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiWaimalu SystemPearl HarborAquiferSectorMoanalua SystemHonolulu Aquifer Sector5 

### TAMC-MW2 well) were instrumented with pres sure sensing data loggers that provided longterm water elevation versus time data at each well. This data was augmented by daily averaged
water table elevations measured at two HB WS wells, one in Moanalua Valley (Manaiki Observation Well) and the other in north Hala wa Valley (Halawa Shallow Observation Well). Figure 3 shows the location of the wells used in this aquifer test.

During the test, the pumps at the U.S. Navy We ll 2254-01 infiltration gallery were shut off for five days, and then pumped at a maximum sustainabl e rate for four days. The goal of the test was to estimate the hydraulic parameters of the a quifer by matching the field measured water table variations with the output of the groundwater flow model. A good match was developed
between the measured and simulated variations in water table elevation, but there were significant differences in the absolu te value of the water table elev ation. In the report (Rotzoll and El-Kadi, 2006), these differences were noted in the graphs as offset values used to superimpose the model results on the measured da ta (Figure 4). One potential source of the difference between the absolute values of measured and simulated water levels was thought to be potential errors in TOC elevation measurements from the various wells used in the study. For example, the TOC elevations used for the three HBWS observation wells had been measured at
different times from the TOC elevation for the CWRM Deep Monitoring Well. These wells did not have a single control point of reference or co mmon datum. Also, water level data from these off-site wells were used to calibrate the region al flow model that defi ned the simulated flow regime in the study area, therefor e, any error related to an inc onsistent datum would have an
effect on the absolute water table elev ations in the calibrated model.

It was also noted that inconsistent reference points, or other errors associat ed with prior surveys, would affect the calculated hydraulic gradient di rection and magnitude, which were inconsistent with expected results (see above).

1.4 S URVEY OF R EGIONAL AND O N

- SITE W ELL TOC E LEVATIONS



### To resolve the uncertainties associated with incons istent survey reference points and the resulting effects on groundwater flow direction, a set of surveys was conducted to reference all
measurements to a common datum. This was done with a Global Positioning System (GPS) survey for wells capable of recei ving a satellite signal, and an optical survey to tie the GPS survey to the wells located in the lo wer access tunnel within the Facility.

On September 29, 2009, Pacific GPS was contracted by the U.S. Navy through TEC to survey
the TOC elevation of all wells with a clear view of the sky using GPS technology. The Pacific GPS report is included as Attachment A to this letter report. A short su mmary of the process and results are given here. As part of the study, a base station GPS instrument was placed near OWDF-MW1. This provided a known location to reference all other GPS measurements (a common datum). GPS signals are altered by at mospheric conditions, which must be accounted for to get the most accurate measurements. Data recorded at a GPS base station at a known location allows the effect of atmospheric distorti on to be calculated and removed from the GPS signals collected at unknown locations, thus providing an atmospheric correction.

During the study, the base station was in radio communication with the “rover” station, which measured the northing, easting, and elevation of the other wells. During the course of the survey,NRHMW02RHMW04RHMW03OWDF-MW1TAMC-MW2Manaiki Obs. Well2254-01InfiltrationgalleryHalawa Deep Obs.Halawa Shallow Obs.CWRMDeep Mont.Figure 3Locations of Wells Used in the 2006 Aquifer Testand Current Groundwater Flow Direction AnalysisGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiHBWSHalawa ShaftMajor RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegendFigure 4Offset Required to Match Simulated Water Levels toMeasured Water Levels (Rotzoll and El-Kadi, 2006)Groundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiN8 

### a recently validated survey bench mark, monu ment CHIGUI, was found near the site. The elevation of a temporary bench mark outside of Adit 3 was established in relationship to monument CHIGUI, becoming the central referen ce point or common datum for this survey.
Table 1 below shows the assumed elevation and revi sed elevation of each surveyed point. For the purposes of the groundwater gradient evalua tion it was important that all wells were
referenced to a common datum. The datum select ed for this study was Mean Tidal that was used
for benchmark CHIGUI. Prior to the submission of the project summary report, the difference
between the Mean Tidal vertical datum a nd NAVD 29 Mean Sea Level datum will be investigated and all TOC eleva tions will be referenced the NAVD 29 Mean Sea Level datum.

Table 1. GPS Survey Results Compared Wi th Previously Surveyed TOC Elevations

Well Name State Well
No. 2006 TOC Elev. 2009 GPS
TOC Elev. Elevation
Difference

Datum NAVD 29 Mean
Sea Level Mean tidal

(ft above datum) (ft above datum) (ft)

RHMW04 - 313.03 312.34 -0.69

OWDF-MW1 - 138.94 138.38 -0.56

TAMC MW-2 - 179.91** 179.65 -0.26
CWRM Deep Mont. Well 2253-03 226.68 226.96 0.28
Halawa Deep Obs. Well 2255-40 60.00** 60.43 0.43

Halawa Shallow Obs. Well 2255-33 58.01 58.24 0.23

Manaiki Obs. Well 2153-09 61.05 61.26 0.21

Note: ** indicates estimated TOCs used in 2006 data set, not based on survey data.

Notes: GPS – Global Positioning System TOC – Top of Casing
No.- Number
Elev.- Elevation
NAVD 29 – North American Vertical Datum, 1929
ft.- feet 

### The new GPS survey with the common datum resulte d in changes in the relative TOC elevations
between measured wells as shown in Table 1. For example following the survey, the water
elevation difference between RHMW04 and OW DF-MW1 changed by 0.13 ft, whereas, the
water elevation difference between RHMW04 a nd the CWRM Deep Monitoring Well changed by 0.97 ft. TEC could not find reliable elevation data for TAMC-MW2 and Halawa Deep Observation Well for the 2006 data set, so the prev iously used elevations were estimates. The 2009 GPS survey data are considered survey grade for these locations.9 

### Table 2. Comparison of TOC elevations Used since 2006 and the Updated TOC Elevations Based on the GPS Survey and the 2009 Optical Survey

Well Name 2006 TOC Elev. 2010 Optical Elev. Elevation
Difference

Datum NAVD 29 Mean Sea Level Mean tidal

(ft above datum) (ft above datum) (ft)

OWDF-MW1 138.94 138.38 -0.56

RHMW01 102.51 102.27 -0.24

RHMW02 105.01 104.76 -0.25

RHMW03 121.31 121.06 -0.25

RHMW05 NA 101.55 NA

Notes: GPS – Global Positioning System TOC – Top of Casing
No.- Number
Elev.- Elevation
NAVD 29 – North American Vertical Datum, 1929
ft.- feet 

### On March 21 and March 22, 2010, a closed-loop op tical survey was conducted of RHMW01 and RHMW05 within the Facility t unnel using OMDF-MW1 as the reference elevation. RHMW01 was also surveyed as part of the Remedial Investigation in 20 06, as were RHMW02 and
RHMW03. The 2006 TOC elevations of RHMW02 and RHMW03 were adjusted based on the
elevation difference measured between th e 2006 and 2010 surveys of well RHMW01. The results of the 2006 and the 2010 surveys are include d with this report as Attachments B and C respectively.

1.5 R EVISED G ROUNDWATER F LOW D IRECTION AND G RADIENT

1.5.1 Geometric Calculations



### The recent GPS and optical surveys referenced th e TOC measuring point at each surveyed well to a common vertical datum. Using the revi sed TOC elevation data, the on-site groundwater flow direction and gradient were re-evaluated using previously collected groundwater elevation
measurements. This was done for the three different pumping conditi ons created during the 2006 aquifer test (TEC, 2007). Th e data were collected during the following conditions and
dates:

 May 18, 2006 when the pump in the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 had been shut off for 5 days;

 May 25, 2006 when the pumps in the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 had been pumping a maximum sustainable rate of appr oximately 10 mgd for 4 days; and

 May 30, 2006 when the pumps in the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 had b een pumping at a normal rate (about 4 mgd) for 5 days.

The groundwater flow direction a nd gradient computed from on-s ite wells were evaluated and compared to that computed in 2007 (TEC, 2007). The analysis was done using the EPA gradient10 

### calculation website ( http://www.epa.gov/athens/learn2model/p art-two/onsite/gradient4plusns.html ). Wells RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, a nd OWDF-MW1 were used in this analysis. These are the same wells used in th e previous TEC report ( 2007) except that OWDFMW1 was used instead of the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. This was done because the EPA gradient calculation website assumes the data en tered are from point sour ces and the water level measured at U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 is reflective of the water level in the infiltration gallery, a long linear source. Table 3 below compares th e two sets of flow di rection and gradient
calculations for the dates selected.

Table 3. Groundwater Flow Direction and Grad ient for Wells Located on the Facility Computed in 2006 and 2010

Date (TEC, 2006) (TEC, 2010)
Flow
Direction 1 

### Gradient (ft/ft) Flow
Direction 1 

### Gradient (ft/ft) May 18, 2006 180 0.00051 270 0.000089 May 25, 2006 306 0.0024 270 0.00015 May 30, 2006 184 0.00051 270 0.000093

Notes:

1 

### – degrees measured from north, clockwise ft/ft – Hydraulic gradient as feet per feet, rise to run

The substitution of OWDF-MW1 for 2254-01 excludes the large loca lized water level variations in 2254-01 that result from pump drawdown. Wi th the revised TOC elevations and excluding the monitoring well 2254-01, the groundw ater flow direction is to th e west and the gradient is much shallower. To properly include the impact of the drinking water shaft on the water table elevation requires a two-dimensional c ontouring program, as described below.

1.5.2 Two-Dimensional Contouring



### Calculating groundwater flow dir ection and gradient assumes that the points fit nicely into a plane. In reality this is rare ly the case and the Red Hill region is no exception. To get a more accurate representation of the groundwater elevati on surface, the well data were contoured using the Triangular Irregular Networ k (TIN) module of the Groundwater Modeling System (GMS). This software is actually a suite of the l eading groundwater modeling codes. The MODFLOW and RT3D modules of GMS were used to perform th e Tier 3 risk analysis modeling for this site (TEC, 2007). For the problem at hand, a polygon wa s digitized that encomp assed the wells that were used in the regional flow analysis. The polygon was converted to TIN and the water level data from the wells was interpolated to the TI N using the natural nei ghbor method (Figure 5). This method looks “beyond” the boundary of th e enveloping polygon to pr event errors at the edge of the TIN. Data for May 18, 25, and 30, 2006 were contoured and are shown in Figures 6 through 8 respectively. Wate r levels used for the c ontouring were from wells:

 OWDF-MW1;NFigure 5.TIN Used to Contour the Water Table at the Red Hill RegionGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiU.S. NavyWell 2254-01HBWSHalawa ShaftContouringTINHonoluluAquiferPearl HarborAquiferMajor RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegendNFigure 6.Groundwater Elevation Contours Based on Water Levels Measured On May 18, 2006 (contour labels andgroundwater elevations at each wellshown in ft above mean tidal datum)Groundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiRHMW0220.29RHMW0420.56RHMW0320.33OWDF-MW120.06TAMC-MW221.01Manaiki Obs. Well21.432254-0120.17Major RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegendNFigure 7.Groundwater Elevation Contours Based on Water Levels Measured On May 25, 2006 (contour labels andgroundwater elevations at each wellshown in ft above mean tidal datum)Groundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiRHMW0219.41RHMW0420.01RHMW0319.78OWDF-MW119.13TAMC-MW220.75Manaiki Obs. Well21.182254-0114.29Major RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegendNFigure 8.Groundwater Elevation Contours Based on Water Levels Measured On May 30, 2006 (contour labels andgroundwater elevations at each well shown in ft above mean tidal datum) (Blue arrows show interpretedgroundwater flow directions)Groundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiRHMW0220.13RHMW0420.49RHMW0320.37OWDF-MW119.95TAMC-MW220.99Manaiki Obs. Well21.392254-0119.57Major RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegend15 

###  U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (represented as a shaft by a series of closely spaced data points);

 RHMW02;

 RHMW03;

 RHMW04;

 TAMC-MW2; and

 The Manaiki Observation Well.

The Halawa observation wells were not included b ecause there is an inte rvening flow barrier, probably the north Halawa valley fi ll, between these wells and the Fa cility, as observed in results of the 2006 aquifer test (TEC, 2007). CWRM De ep Monitoring Well was not included because of questionable water level elev ations measured at this we ll. A recent evaluation of measurements taken during the 2006 aquifer test has shown a two-foot difference between the
water elevations measured in the main CWRM well and co-located piezometer. The cause of this discrepancy has not been determined.

Assuming that the aquifer directly beneath the study area is horizontally isotropic, in which the hydraulic conductivity is the same regardless of th e flow direction, groundwater will flow in a direction perpendicular to the groundwater equal- elevation contours. Th e data set is sparse, particularly at the southeast e nd of the polygon, but a generalized fl ow pattern becomes evident. In Figure 6, the data show that groundwater flows from southeast to the northwest.

Figure 7 shows the water table surface on May 25, 2006, when the pumps in the infiltration gallery at U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 are pumping at full capacity (approximately 10 mgd). As shown, there is a significant dr awdown at the infiltration galle ry increasing the southwestly groundwater flow component. However, a west-nor thwest regional flow co mponent is evident in the vicinity of the USTs.

Figure 8 shows the water table surface on May 30, 2006, when pumps at the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 were operating at normal capacity (approxima tely 4 mgd). On this figure arrows are drawn to show the dominant groundwa ter flow directions. In the vi cinity of the USTs, as before, the gradient indicates a regiona l component of groundwater flow to the west northwest and a local component to the southwest. The gradient east of the Facility is approximately 0.00028 to the northwest. At the Facility and U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 there is a localized gradient of approximately 0.00022 to the southwest, less than one-tenth of the magnitude of the regional gradient.

1.6 I MPLICATIONS FOR THE T IER 3 R ISK A SSESSMENT


### The revised groundwater flow di rection and gradient does not invalidate the Tier 3 Risk Assessment detailed in Appendix K of TEC (2007) that evaluates the Navy drinking water well 2254-01 as the receptor of concern. The groundwater model is the key component of the Tier 3 risk assessment that required re-evaluation ba sed on recent information. Other assumptions and
calculations used in the Tier 3 model have not changed. The mode l assumes a “mauka to makai” flow that runs parallel to the alignment of tanks, placing the northeast portion of the drinking16 

### water well 2254-01 directly down gradient from the underground storage tanks (USTs). This is the most conservative approach and most protective of the drinking water source.

The northwest regional flow places the HBWS Ha lawa Shaft, a major drinking water source for south Oahu, down gradient from the USTs. Resu lts from a regional groundwater test in 2006 indicate no good hydraulic connecti on between wells on the northern edge of Halawa Valley and pumping from U.S. Navy Well 2254- 01. Figure 9 shows the water levels monitored during the aquifer test. All wells monitored showed a good response to the induced drawdown at U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (blue-green line) except the Halawa Deep and Shallow Observation wells. Figure 10 shows the well arrangement for this test and the locations of th e valley fills that may pose a barrier to groundwater flow. The proba ble cause of this poor connection is thick
sediments that have filled in the North Halawa Valley to depths well below the water table. In addition, the modeled natural attenuation rate indi cates that the HBWS Ha lawa Shaft would not be threatened from a petroleum release from th e Facility unless a free product plume moved in
the direction of the HBWS Halawa Shaft. To date no free product plume has been detected.

1.7 C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS


### A re-evaluation of the groundwater flow direction and gradient in the vicinity of the Red Hill Facility shows a local flow direction from th e USTs toward the drinking water well 2254-01 as expected. The gradient for this flow direction is approximately 0.00022 ft/f t. This evaluation also shows a regional component flowing to the nor thwest. The gradient for this flow direction is approximately 0.00028. With respect to the potential impact to the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01,
the results of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment (TEC, 2007) still remain valid. It assumes a worst case scenario that the dominant groundwater flow di rection places the infilt ration gallery of 2254-01 directly down gradient from the USTs.

The northwest regional component of the groundw ater flow may be tr ansporting a petroleum plume or dissolved hydrocarbons in a direction that is not currently being monitored. Currently there are no compliance wells between the Halawa Shaft and the Facility to evaluate this possibility. For the HBWS Halawa Shaft to be th reatened by contamination from the Facility a free product plume would have to be present with in approximately 1200 ft of this drinking water source. The CWRM Deep Monitoring Well is not suitable for detecting a free product plume since the solid casing of this well extends about 50 ft below the water table. RHMW04 is not ideally located to monitor a northwest plume becau se it is located northea st of the USTs. In order to ensure petroleum components are not moving off-site along th e northwest groundwater flow direction, it is recommended that at least two monitoring wells be installed to monitor any contamination that may be migrating off-site in that direction.NFigure 9.Recorded Water Levels in Wells Monitored During the May 2006 AquiferTest at Red Hill Updated Using NewTOC ElevationsGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiNRHMW02RHMW04RHMW03OWDF-MW1TAMC-MW2Manaiki Obs. Well2254-01InfiltrationgalleryHalawa Deep Obs.Halawa Shallow Obs.CWRMDeep Mont.Figure 10Locations of Monitoring and Observations Wells, and the Locations of Potential Barriers to Groundwater FlowGroundwater Gradient Study Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

S o u t h H a l aw a

V a l l e y F i l l

No r th H a l a w a Va l le y F i l l M o a n a l u a

V a l l ey Fi l l

A

l i

a

m

a

nu a

n d

Sa

l t

L

a k

e T

uf

f C one sCoastal Caprock Ka lih i V a lle y F illMajor RoadsAquifer BoundariesLegend19 

### This letter report presents an in terpretation of the groundw ater flow direction and gradient in the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility study ar ea and surrounding region. The surrounding areas were included to assess what influence regional flow might have on contaminant transport from the facility. If you have any questions, please c ontact me at (808) 528-1445 or Rick Adkisson at that number or via his cell phone at (865) 742-2181.

Sincerely, 

### TEC Inc.

Robert B. Whittier Senior Hydrogeologist



### Att: Attachments A, B, and C

cc: Raelynn Della Salla Robert Campbell
Carol Vollmer20 

### References

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

Dawson, 2005a. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, First Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. April 2005.

Dawson, 2005b. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Second Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. August 2005.

Dawson, 2005c. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Third Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. November 2005.

Dawson, 2006. Groundwater Sampling, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii, Fourth Quarter 2005. Dawson Group. February 2006.

Rotzoll, R. and A.I. El-Kadi, 2006. Numeri cal Ground-Water Flow Simulation For Red Hill Fuel Storage Facilities, NAVF AC Pacific, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for TEC by The University of Hawaii. 81 pgs. August 2007

Mink, J.F. and L. L. Lau, 1990. Aquifer Identi fication and Classifica tion for O’ahu: GroundWater Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. February 1990. Revised

TEC, 2007. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Fi nal Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific. 142 pages and Appendices. August 200721 

## Attachment A

GPS Elevation Survey of Red Hill Area Wellswww.pacificgps.com info@pacificgps.com

758 Kapahulu Ave

. #548 Honolulu, HI 96816

- 1198 808 .538. PGPS (7477) 877.538.PGPS (7477) Fax: 808.988.2522

October 13, 2009

Bob Whittier
Richard Adkisson TEC, Inc. 1001 Bishop St., 1400 ASB Tower Honolulu, H I 96813

Ph one : (808)528

- 1445
Email: rbwhittier@tecinc.com

RE: E LEVATION SURVEY, RED HILL FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES

Bob and Richard

,

This letter pres ents o u r findings for the elevation survey pe r formed at the well heads located on
and around the Red Hill area. The survey was performed using Trimble ’s survey grade GPS systems including an R7GNSS base station and R8GNSS rover receiver

. T he data was pro cessed
in Trimble Business Center software, version 2.1

.

A GPS Base station was setup in the middle of the project area, close to well OWDFMW 1

. An
RTK survey was conducted for each point with a minimum occupation time of 5 minutes at each
well location e xcept for the Maniki well. The Maniki well position was derived by collecting two independent 5 minute static survey sessions and post processing this data with GPS data collected
at the base station. The vertical precision value i s derived based on a 95 % confidence level.

Observation locations were taken on the “north notch” of each well casing, where feasible. The
well elevations for 2255

- 40

, Hal a wa Shallow , and Maniki were calculated by taking a GPS
observ ation a t a location in the immediate vicinity and utilizing a level between the well casings and observation points

.

T able 1 present s the well and associated point elevation s in Hawaii State Plane, Zone 3, NAD 83
coordinates and both WGS

- 84 ellipsoidal heights (referenced to NAD 83) and Local Tidal elevations. The ellipsoidal height s were determined by the GPS observations. Local Tidal elevations were determined by referencing NGS class I monument CHIGUI and using G eoid
model GEOID03. T he NGS monument CHIGUI datasheet is attached for reference

.www.pacificgps.com info@pacificgp s.com

As a check for our base station location, a five hour static observation was recorded at the base and processed using the NGS Online Positioning User S ervice (OPUS) . The OPUS results were based on rapid ephemeris information and were within our GPS deri ved base position by 0 .032
feet in the vertical direction.

Table 1

- Red Hill Well Elevation Survey, (US Survey feet)

Well or Point Name Northing Easting Local Tidal
Elevation Ellipsoid

Height Vertical

precision Description

ADIT3 74266.086 1671830.74 5 116.19 169.58 0.016 Nail in asphalt west of tunnel

RHMW04 75743.087 1677348.858 312.34 365.72 0.059 North Notch

OWDFMW1 74113.189 1672000.653 138.38 191.77 0.043 North Notch

2253

- 03 75654.495 1675870.469 226.96 280.34 0.046 North Notch

USGS Monument 74940.778 1667222.854 59.36 112.75 0.036 Monument at well 2255

- 40

2255

- 40 60.43 113.82 0.043 well casing

Halawa Shallow 58.24 111.62 0.043 well casing

TBM Maniki 68011.522 1678441.522 61.05 114.44 0.039 Nail 5' NW of Hydrant

Maniki 61.26 1 14.65 0.046 well casing

TAMC MW

- 2 71048.658 1675661.519 179.65 233.04 0.033 North Notch

Mon CHIGUI 73997.195 1668571.178 83.76 137.15 class 1 Monument, from datasheet

GPS Base Station 74143.366 1672049.537 137.38 190.76 0.03 2 Nail, NE of OWDFMW1

A n u pdated Geoid model, GEOID 09, was recently made available by the National Geodetic Survey. The elevation difference between models GEOID03 and GEOID09 vary from 0.49 to 0.54 feet in the study area. Table 2 lists the values for GEOID03 and GEOID09 and the
difference in values for each location.www.pacificgps.com info@pacificgp s.com

Table 2

- Red Hill Well, Geoid Values (US Survey Feet)

Well or Point Name GEOID 03 Height GEOID 09 Height GEOID03

- GEOID09

ADIT3 51.90 51.37 0.53

RHMW04 52.19 51.64 0.54

OWDFMW1 51.90 51.37 0.53

2253

- 03 52 .11 51.58 0.53

USGS Monument 51.75 51.21 0.54

2255

- 40 51.75 51.21 0.54

Halawa Shallow 51.75 51.21 0.54

TBM Maniki 51.91 51.41 0.50

Maniki 51.91 51.41 0.50

TAMC MW

- 2 51.90 51.41 0.49

Mon CHIGUI 51.77 51.23 0.54

GPS Base Station 51. 90 51.37 0. 53

T hank you for the opportunity to assist you in this project. Please call or email with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Ryan McGrath Director of Survey
Pacific GPS (808) 538

- 7477 mcgrath@pacificgps.com22 

## Attachment B

2006 Survey of On-Site Wells2006 On-Site Well Survey

Pearl Harbor Control Network Hawaii State Plane

Unit: Feet

Point
Number Northing Easting Elevation Description
1 75742.64 1677345.57 RHMW-04
312.83 RHMW-04 ground 313.03 RHMW-04 top casing 312.57 RHMW-04 top gauge

2 74041.08 1675059.16 RHMW-01
102.33 RHMW-01 conc 102.51 RHMW-01 top of casing
102.41 RHMW-01 gauge

3 74282.05 1675639.24 RHMW-02
105.64 RHMW-02 conc 105.67 RHMW-02 top cover
105.01 RHMW-02 gauge

4 74610.90 1676391.37 RHMW-03
122.06 RHMW-03 conc
122.11 RHMW-03 top rim
121.31 RHMW-03 gauge

5 74006.92 1672560.73 2254-01
105.79 2254-01 top cover
105.76 2254-01 gauge "N"
105.75 2254-01 gauge "S"

6 74202.61 1671757.38 MW9
116.79 MW9 brass disk
116.20 MW9 ground
119.35 MW9 top casing
118.91 MW9 gauge

7 74112.75 1671997.36 MW8
138.94 MW8 top casing
136.66 MW8 conc.
138.57 MW8 gauge Horizontal Datum: NAD 83

Vertical Datum: NAVD 29 Mean Sea Level

Bulk Fuel Storage Facilities Risk Assessment Red Hill Fuel Storage Facilities D:\Admin\TEC\Red Hill\Well geographic data23 

## Attachment C

Results of 2010 Optical Survey

### RED HILL FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES, NAVFAC PACIFIC

DESCRIPTION NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION
ADIT3 74266.09 1671830.75 116.19

ENTER 74222.06 1672009.76 114.50 Mag Nail at Entrance

OWDFMW1 74113.19 1672000.65 138.35 Top of 4" PVC

RHMW01 74041.12 1675062.48 102.32 Top of Cover 102.21 Top of 1" PVC RHMW05 73690.63 1674268.20 101.97 Top of Cover 101.52 Top of 2" PVC

Note:
Units: U.S. Feet

Coordinates were established from Stations ADIT3 and GPS Base Station as established by Pacific GPS.

Elevations are based on a local tide and are referred to Station ADIT3 having an elevation of 116.19 feet as established by Pacific GPS.

Underlined elevation was established by RMTC using differential leveling from
Station ADIT3.

## Attachment B

Risk Assessment/Groundwater Re-evaluation Considerations

## Tier 3 Risk Assessment/Groundwate r Re-evaluation Considerations

The Facility SSRBL (i.e., 4,500  g/L for TPH) established by the Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model (Tier 3 RAGWM) was based on the following assumptions:
1. the concentration of dissolve d fuel hydrocarbons in the gr oundwater is limited to 4,500

 g/L, the computed maximum solubility resulting from JP-5 fuel in direct contact with the groundwater surface;
2. that the groundwater flows “mauka to makai”(i.e., mountain to ocean), a direction that places the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 directly down gradient from the USTs; and

3. 

### the dissolved fuel hydrocarbons will degrade at a rate that was modeled using the reactive transport model code RT3D (the modele d bulk degradation rate was about 0.009 per day).

A TPH-DRO average concentration observe d during Round 13 (October 2008) between the normal and duplicate sample of 5,420  g/L at RHMW02 tends to indicate that Assumption 2 above could be invalid because no free product has been measured during monthly monitoring. To answer these and other related questions , a re-evaluation of the Tier 3 RAGWM was performed. This re-evaluation l ooked at three basic questions:

1. Is the assumption that 4,500  g/L is the maximum possible TPH concentration resulting
from a release of JP-5 to the water table still valid?
2. Was the modeled groundwater flow direction correct?
3. If either of the two preceding assumptions is found to be invalid, what impact does this have on the risk posed to drinking water sour ces by contamination from the USTs at the Facility?

If Assumption 1 above is correct, the Octobe r 2008 TPH-DRO average concentration of 5,420

 g/L implies that petroleum product was directly in contact with groundwate r in the vicinity of RHMW02 and that groundwater samples at th at RHMW02 may contain un-dissolved product. However, oil-water interface measurements collected at RHMW02 did not detect measurable product at this location. If Assumption 1 was determin ed to be invalid, this would indicate that the modeled distance a dissolved plume would travel beyond a stabilized free-product plume prior to the TPH concentration degrading to less than the HDOH EAL concentrations could be

erroneous.
Question 1 - Maximum TPH Solubility Assessment



### To answer these questions, va rious studies and evaluations were undertaken. The first study involved dual analysis of the groundwater collected from certain Facility wells. This included the
TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO anal ysis that has been part of fiel d sampling protocol since long-term monitoring started at the Facil ity. A second analysis was done using a protocol developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmenta l Protection (MADEP) [MADEP, 2002]. This analysis breaks down TPH into two categories with each divided into three different fractions based on a range of carbon numbers (C). The breakdown is as follows:

 Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) in cludes the TPH compounds that range from
C5 to C12 and are subdivided into:

o C5-C8 aliphatics

o C9-C10 aromatics

### o C9-12 aliphatics, but omits benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, (BTEX) methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and naphthalene

 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) incl udes TPH compounds that range from C9 through C26 and are subdivided into:

o C11-C22 aromatics

o C9-C18 aliphatics

o C19-C36 aliphatics, but om its the 17 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) analyzed using Method SW8270SIM

The MADEP VPH analysis covers a slightly la rger carbon range than TPH-GRO (VPH covers C5-C12, while TPH-GRO covers C6-C10). The M ADEP EPH analysis covers the carbon range of C9-C36, while TPH-DRO is generally li mited to the carbon range of C9-C26.

Another major difference between TPH-DRO analyzed using method SW8015B and MADEP EPH analysis is a silica gel filt ering step. Fuel hydrocarbons that dissolve into groundwater from fuels are non-polar while naturally occurri ng organics and less toxic hydrocarbon breakdown byproducts are polar compounds. The MADEP EPH anal ysis adds a silica gel column in the analysis string that removes th e polar compounds from the sample aliquot effectively removing these interfering, less toxi c breakdown compounds.

In Round 16 (July 2009), the US Navy included MADEP VPH/EPH fracti onation analyses along with TPH, to better understand the chemistry of the TPH plume under the Facility, and to reassess the risk associated with the plume. Add itional TPH fractions can be evaluated for risk because MADEP has determined toxicity reference doses (RfDs) for these specific fractions that make up the TPH-GRO and TPH-middle distil late ranges (TPH-DRO). For Round 16, MADEP
fractions for VPH and EPH were measured along with TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO in split samples from RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03.

The results from samples collected at RH MW02 showed that an overall average of approximately 27 percent of the TPH-DRO result was from polar, non-fuel organic compounds (Table 1). If this 27% average was used to ad just the observed average for only fuel-related compounds, then the TPH-DRO Ro und 13 concentration of 5,420  g/L would be reduced to 3,957  g/L. This analysis strongly suggests th e actual observed concentration of fuel hydrocarbons at RHMW02 is less than the computed maximum solubility of 4,500  g/L. Therefore, the established SSRBL for TPH of 4,500  g/L appears to be valid.

### Table 1. Total Petroleum Concentrations, MADEP Compared to USEPA Method 8015

Monitor Well

ID 1 MADEP VPH 2
(  g/L) TPH-GRO 4
(  g/L) MADEP EPH 3
(  g/L) TPH-DRO 5
(  g/L) Average 6

Percent
Non-Fuel Compounds
RHMW02
and
RHMW02D Average VPH 455 <30 Average EPH 545 1,375 27%

1 RHMW02D is the field duplicate sample of RHMW02

2 MADEP VPH – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH)

3 MADEP EPH – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH)

4 TPH-GRO – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Gasoline Range Organics by USEPA Method 8015 Modified

5 TPH-DRO – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Diesel Range Organics by USEPA Method 8015 Modified

6 Average Percent Non-Fuel Compounds computed by [1,375 – (455 + 545)/1,375] x 100 = 27% average percentage of Non-Fuel Compounds

 g/L – Micrograms per liter <30 – The compound was not detected, the value is the method detection limit



### Further evidence of interference from non-fuel hydrocarbons [i.e., tentatively identified compounds (TICs)] was found during Round 18 sa mpling conducted initially in January 2010, with resample events at RHMW02 for TPH- DRO only conducted in February and March 2010 (Attachment D).

The TPH-DRO chromatographs were reviewed and it was found that a significant fraction of the
measured concentration was from TICs that were not associated with fuel hydrocarbons. Table 2 indicates that on average, non-fu el related compounds accounted for approximately 35 percent of
the total TPH-DRO concentrations. This data fu rther supports the validity of the established SSRBL for TPH of 4,500  g/L.

Table 2. Contribution of TI Cs to TPH-DRO Results

Well Date TPH-DRO (  g/L) TPH-DRO
Corrected for
TICs (  g/L) Percent Non-Fuel Compounds

RHMW02 1/26/2010 2,130 1,740 18.3%

RHMW02D 1/26/2010 3,410 2,110 38.1%

RHMW02 2/23/2010 8,650 3,470 59.9%

RHMW02D 2/23/2010 6,910 2,930 57.6%

RHMW02 3/30/2010 2,630 2,630 0.0%

RHMW02D 3/30/2010 2,350 2,350 0.0%

RHMW05 1/26/2010 2,060 541 73.7%
Overall Total Average - - - 35%

### A related consideration pertains to the toxicity of the non-fu el organic compounds. The non-fuel hydrocarbon fraction of the TPH-DR O results that were captured by the silica gel column during the MADEP EPH analysis should be considered wh en evaluating relative t oxicity. In a letter report to the Air Force by Zemo and Associates (2008) (Attachment E), it was estimated that the toxicity of the polar organics filtered out by the MADEP EPH analysis are approximately 24
times less toxic than the most toxic frac tion of the petroleum-related compounds.

In summary, polar compounds that likely ma ke up a significant fraction of the highest historically detected TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW02 pose a much lower health risk than petroleum hydrocarbons being monitored from th e Facility. In additi on, these polar compounds and/or TICs provide an explanat ion as to why, absent detailed analysis, the calculated JP-5 solubility SSRBL for TPH of 4,500  g/L seemed to have been exceeded during the Facility groundwater sampling Rounds 13 and 18 without the observation of free product in that monitoring well. Thus, the esta blished SSRBL for TPH of 4,500  g/L still appears to be valid.

Question 2 – Modeled GW Flow Direction & Question 3 – Validity of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment



### As indicated in Attachment A, the revised groundw ater flow direction and gradient validates and supports the existing Tier 3 Risk Assessment. This is because, with respect to the potential risk to the US Navy Well 2254-01, the results of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment are still valid since it
assumes a worst case scenario that the dominan t groundwater flow direction places the US Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration ga llery directly down gradient from the USTs.

## Attachment C

MADEP Letter Report1003 Bishop Street

Pauahi Tower, Suite 1550

Honolulu, HI 96813

(808) 528-1445 • fax (808) 528-0768

www.tecinc.com



### March 26, 2010

Greg Yamasaki, P.E. FISC Pearl Harbor, Code 701 1942 Gaffney Street, Suite 100 Building 1757, 2nd Floor Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-4549

Subject: MADEP Risk Asse ssment Letter Report Red Hill, Pearl Harbor, HI Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54

1.1 I NTRODUCTION


### This Letter Report was prepared for the Naval Fleet Engineering Servi ce Center (NFESC) and
the Pearl Harbor Naval Base Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) by TEC Inc. (TEC) under contract N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 0054. As pa rt of Task Order 0054, TEC is providing environmental compliance services to FISC at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (the Facility), associated with past releases of petroleum hydrocarb ons to the subsurface bedrock and underlying groundwater aquifer.

1.2 S ITE D ESCRIPTION


### The Facility includes twenty - 12.5 million gallon (Mgal) unde rground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Red Hill Ridge, Halawa Valley, Hawaii. The Facility also includes a series of tunnels and pipelines whic h deliver fuel to and from Pearl Ha rbor Naval Base (Figure 1). The Facility was constructed prior to World War II to support naval activities in the Pacific.

The USTs were constructed in the field usi ng mining techniques, and are deferred from many Federal and State UST program requirements. Acco rding to records, the ma in fuel types stored at the Facility have been diesel oil, Navy Sp ecial Fuel Oil (NSFO), Navy Distillate (ND), Jet Propulsion Fuel 5 and 8 (JP-5 and JP-8), and F- 76 (diesel marine fuel). In addition, Tank 17
contained Aviation Gasoline (AVGAS) and Motor Gasoline (MOGAS) between 1964 and 1969;
and Tank 18 contained AVGAS between 1964 and 1968.

A review of the Facility record s, which were classified until 1995, indicated that several USTs have been repaired over the years and may have released petroleum to the environment. This situation could potentiall y threaten drinking water aquifers. The Facility is approximately 100 feet above the basal groundwater table on the boundary of the Waimalu and Moanalua Aquifer Systems of the Pearl Harbor and H onolulu Aquifer Sector, respectively.3 

### Both aquifers are sources of potable water for several public water systems (Figure 2). Most notably, the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01, is located approximately 3,000 feet from Facility USTs and is permitted to pump approximately 4.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water from a submerged infiltration tunnel. This tunnel extends approximately 1,280 feet across the water table and supplies the Pearl Harbor Water System.

1.3 B ACKGROUND

1.3.1 Summary of Previous Investigations



### In 2002, the U.S. Navy initiated a Site Invest igation (SI), conducted by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. ( AMEC. 2002. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Investigation Report, Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific, A ugust 2002) at the Facility. Rock core samples were collected from directly beneath the Facility USTs and groundwater samples were collected from a single
well installed within the lower access tunnel. Results indicate d that petroleum had been released from Facility USTs, as observed in core samples, and in groundwater samples. After evaluating the results of the SI, the State of Hawaii, De partment of Health (HDOH), Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch (SHWB) requested that quarterly groundwater m onitoring commence, a Tier 3
risk assessment be conducted to evaluate the risk to the U.S. Navy pumping well at Red Hill, and a contingency plan be developed to ensure the protection of the U.S. Navy pumping well at Red
Hill from future contamination.

The U.S. Navy initiated quarterly groundwater sampling at the existing monitoring well (formerly MW1, currently RHMW01) and at th e U.S. Navy well 2254-01. Dawson Group, Inc. ( Dawson Group, Inc. 2006. Fourth Quarter 2005 Groundwater Sampling Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii . February 2006) conducted the first four sampling events in February 2005, June 2005, September 2005, and December 2005 (Rounds 1 through 4).

1.3.1.1 TEC Inc. Site Investigation and Risk Assessment (2004 to 2006)



### In 2004, TEC was tasked to conduct a SI, Risk A ssessment, and produce a contingency plan in the event that contamination from the Facility required closure of near by drinking water wells. As part of this site investig ation, groundwater monitoring well RHMW02 was installed directly upgradient from Tanks 5 and 6, and groundwat er monitoring well RH MW03 was installed directly upgradient of Tanks 13 and 14. RHMW04 was installed in a location assumed to be upgradient of the tanks to measure background con centrations of contamination to ensure an offsite plume is not contributi ng to the contamination detectedat the Facility. In addition, groundwater monitoring well RHMW2254-01 was inst alled within the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery.

The purpose of installing these additional wells was to divide the Facility into three groundwater sections so that inadvertent fuel releases from each section could be detected by the associated well. Two additional rounds of groundwater samples (Round 5 and 6) were collected and analyzed for risk assessment purposes. Gr oundwater samples were analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by United State En vironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method SW 8260B, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons quantified as Gasoline Range Organics (TPH-GRO) and Diesel Range Organics (TPH-DRO) by USEPA Method SW8015B, SemiVolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by USEPA Method SW8270C, and lead by USEPA Method SW6010B. Samples were validated for decision making and risk assessment.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!§ ̈¦H3 M o a n a l u a

F

w

yHalawa Shaft(2354-01)

H a l a w a S t r e a m N o r t h H a la w a S t r e a m M o a n a l u a S t r e a m

S o u t h Ha l a w a S t r e a m S o u t h H a l a w a S t r e a m2255-392255-372255-382253-032253-012253-022153-092154-012155-042254-02Halawa Red Hill(2254-01)Moanalua Monitor(2153-05)2153-102153-042153-112153-072153-082153-12

Printing Date: Apr. 23, 2007, File: I:\Projects\Red Hill\Figures\Draft Technical Report\Figure 1-8_Area Wells and Aquifer Syste ms.mxd±0840 1,680420Feet0 470235Meters30201111(11111)Source Data:City & County of Honolulu,GIS base layersDLNR Board of Water Supply,2005 water supply well IDs30201116(12212)30104116(11113)30104111(11111)Figure2Area Wells and Aquifer SystemsRed Hill Fuel Storage FacilityOahu, HawaiiLegendBWS Well UseMUNICIPALstreamaquiferidentification30202111(11111)aquifer boundaryIRRIGATION!!OBSERVATION!OTHER!SEALED!UNUSED!freewayroadTEC project well!5 

### In 2006, TEC conducted a Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Facility using the results fr om the SI described above ( TEC, 2007. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. August 2007). The Tier 1 risk screening assessment was conducted for groundwater to determine compounds of potential concern (COPCs).

The Tier 1 risk assessment determined that gr oundwater beneath the Fa cility did not meet standards for residential potable water use and that naphthalene, TPH-GRO, tetrachloroethylene, 1,2,-dichloroethylene, trichloroe thyelene, and lead should be evaluated further as COPCs.

A Tier 2 Risk Assessment was conducted to evalua te migration pathways for contaminants. It was determined that there was no potential seep age of leachate or produc t to the ground surface or surface water in the vicinity of the Facility because the under lying water table is between 80 and 220 feet below the surrounding valley floors. The risk assessment also concluded that the soil vapor migration pathway was not a significant concern. Finall y, it was determined that since groundwater is not used directly beneath the Faci lity; there were no current risks associated with hydrocarbon concentrations detected in monito ring wells located with in the Facility.

Several potable water produc tion wells are located within a 1.5 mile radius from the Facility. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply (HBWS) Halawa Shaft (2354-01) is approximately 5,000 feet to the northwest of the Facility. HBWS Moanalua Wells (2153-10, -11 and -12) are located approximately 8,500 feet south of the Facility. The U. S. Navy drinking water well 2254-01 is located approximately 4,000 feet to the west of the Facility. Groundwater sample results from RHMW 2254-01 indicated that this path way was not complete at that time.

In order to evaluate the potential for these gr oundwater supply wells to be contaminated in the future from leaking USTs at the Facility, TEC conducted a Tier 3 assessment of future risk to these potable water production wells. A site-speci fic conceptual model was used that considered particle mass degradation of hydrocarbon co mpounds in both oxygenated and anaerobic groundwater. TEC used the Reactiv e Multispecies Transport in 3-Dimensions (RT3D) to model solute (i.e., dissolved contaminant) transport and natural attenuation of hydrocarbons utilizing the groundwater flow solution produce d by the MODFlow modeling code.

RT3D models the natural attenua tion of hydrocarbons using the stochiometry of the chemical
reactions and estimated kinetic c onstants that govern th e rate at which these chemical reactions occur. The model inputs were based on experi mental or empirically defined values for chemicals of concern (COCs). Based on screeni ng assessments of transp ort properties, worst case initial concentrations, and ch emical toxicities or action levels, TEC determined that for the fuel currently stored at the Facility, benzen e and TPH (i.e., TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO) were the pertinent COCs because these would be observed fi rst in the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 at levels of

concern.

The results of the Tier 3 Risk Assessment indi cated that fuel product must be present on the groundwater in a plume extending to within approximately 1,100 f eet of the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery in order for dissolved contaminants in groundwater to present a potentially unacceptable risk to the Pearl Harbor Water System. The model indicated that TPH would be the first COC to reach unaccepta ble concentrations in this scenario.

Action levels in groundwater from monitoring wells w ithin the Facility were set at the solubility limit of TPH and benzene (assuming that JP-5 was the fuel released), as a way of estimating6 

### whether fuel was present on the water table nearb y. JP-5 COC Action Levels from this study are contained in the Facility’s Groundwater Protection Plan ( TEC, 2008. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. January 2008) as site-specific risk based levels (SSRBLs) and presented below. Th ese site-specific Action Levels or SSRBLs were based upon the assumption that fuel (i.e., free product) would be present on groundwater at Facili ty monitoring wells:

 The site-specific Action Level (solubility limit) for TPH resulting from a JP-5 release was 4.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L); and

 The site-specific Action Level (solubility limit) for benzene resulting from a JP-5 release was 0.75 mg/L.

1.3.1.2 TEC Inc. Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring (2006-2009)



### Based on release response requirements from HDOH, the U.S. Navy has conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring even ts following the SI ( TEC, 2007. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. August 2007). A total of 16 Rounds of groundwater monitoring have been conducted th rough July 2009. Prior to Round 16, samples were analyzed for TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO by USEPA Method 8015, VOCs by USEPA Method 8260, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocar bons (PAHs) by USEPA Method 8270C SIM, and dissolved lead by USEPA Method 8020. Results fr om these rounds have indicated TPH-DRO is consistently present in RHMW02 and RH MW01. In Round 13, TPH-DRO exceeded the Groundwater Protection Plan Catego ry 4 Action Level, which require d the U.S. Navy to evaluate concentrations in surrounding wells, and inst all an additional monitoring well (RHMW05) between the Facility and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01.

In Round 16 (July 2009), the U.S. Navy included fr actionation analyses for TPH by the protocol developed by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Si tes: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach , Policy #WSC-02-411 (MADEP, 2002), to bette r understand the chem istry of the TPH plume under the Facility, and to re-assess th e risk associated with these plumes.

Additional TPH fractions can be evaluated for risk because MADEP has determined toxicity reference doses (RfDs) for these specific fract ions that make up the TPH-gasolines and TPHmiddle distillate ranges (including diesel). For Round 16, MADEP fractions for Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) and Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) were measured along with TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO in split samples from RHMW01, RHMW02, and
RHMW03.7 

### The results are provided for comparison in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Total Petroleum Concentrations, MADEP Compared to USEPA Method 8015

Monitor Well
ID MADEP VPH (  g/L) TPH-GRO (  g/L) MADEP EPH (  g/L) TPH-DRO (  g/L)
RHMW01 Total VPH <100 C5-C8 Aliphatics <100
C9-C10 Aromatics <100 C9-C12 Aliphatics <100 <30 Total EPH <100
C11-C22 Aromatics <100 C19-C36 Aliphatics <100 C9-C18 Aliphatics <100 248

RHMW02 Total VPH 420 C5-C8 Aliphatics <100
C9-C10 Aromatics 420 C9-C12 Aliphatics <100 <30 Total EPH 540
C11-C22 Aromatics 270 C19-C36 Aliphatics <100 C9-C18 Aliphatics 270 1,450

RHMW02D 1 Total VPH 490 C5-C8 Aliphatics <100
C9-C10 Aromatics 490 C9-C12 Aliphatics <100 <30 Total EPH 550
C11-C12 Aromatics 280 C19-C36 Aliphatics <100 C9-C18 Aliphatics 270 1,300

RHMW03 Total VPH <100 C5-C8 Aliphatics <100
C9-C10 Aromatics <100 C9-C12 Aliphatics <100 <30 Total EPH <100
C11-C22 Aromatics <100 C19-C36 Aliphatics <100 C9-C18 Aliphatics <100 <150

1 RHMW02D is the field duplicate sample of RHMW02
MADEP VPH – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protecti on Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) MADEP EPH – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) TPH-GRO – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Gasoline Range Organics by USEPA Method 8015 Modified TPH-DRO – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Diesel Range Organics by USEPA Method 8015 Modified

 g/L – Micrograms per liter <100 – The compound was not detected, the value is the method detection limit

1.3.2 MADEP EPH/VPH versus USEPA Method 8015 Modified TPH-DRO/GRO



### In order to estimate risk associated with TP H as a mixture, MADEP derived toxicity-based reference doses for specific fractions of EPH and VPH. In addition, MADEP developed specific testing methodologies to ensure that they were measuring the correct fraction and not other components of the mixture that were not petrol eum hydrocarbons. In th e development of EALs for petroleum mixtures in groundwater, HDOH used toxicity factors developed by MADEP as an approximation of toxicity fact ors for more widely availabl e EPA Method 8015 Modified (TPHDRO and TPH-GRO) (HDOH, 2005). Attachment 1 provides additional discussion regarding MADEP vs. Method 8015 analytical methods.

In general, MADEP VPH analyti cal results should approximate TPH-GRO analysis results, and MADEP EPH analytical results s hould approximate TPH-DRO analys is results. However, there
are several variations in the methods that can a ccount for observed differences in concentrations associated with these analytical methods as described below:

EPH vs. TPH-DRO:

1. EPH Method measures extractable hydrocarbons from C9 to C36, but does not include 17 PAHs. TPH-DRO includes the 17 PAH and is generally limited to C9 through C26 extractable hydrocarbons.

2. The EPH Method includes a silica gel cleanup to remove biogenic inte rferences that can cause high biases or “false positives”. This clean-up process removes polar compound8 

### interferences such as breakdown products (e.g., oils, sugars, and fatty acids) from the extract without affecting the non-polar petrol eum hydrocarbons. This silica gel cleanup is used because older fuel releases degr ade over time and the re sulting non-hydrocarbon breakdown products are significantly less toxic than the parent hydrocarbons. Because the TPH-DRO analytical method does not in clude the silica gel cleanup process, TPHDRO analytical results may include these polar compounds breakdown products that are not extractable petroleum hydrocarbons. Th e inclusion of thes e breakdown products
tends to bias the TPH-DRO method resu lts higher than EPH method results.

3. Differing calibration standards between laboratories.

4. Variability associated with split samples.

VPH vs. TPH-GRO

1. Differences in the VPH and TPH-GRO analy tical results may be associated with differences in the carbon range for the diffe rent analyses (e.g., since TPH-DRO analyses overlaps the VPH analyses with respect to the carbon range , this can result in VPH detectable results being e xpressed as TPH-DRO, not TP H-GRO; see Table 1, RHMW02 and RHMW02D results). In addition, VPH measures the volatile hydrocarbons from C5 to C12, but does not include BTEX, MtBE, or naphthalene. TPH-GR O results includes BTEX, MtBE, and naphthalene.

2. Differing calibration standards between laboratories.

3. Variability associated with split samples.

In summary, the lack of sili ca gel cleanup or similar removal of polar compounds may cause the TPH-DRO analytical method to report results that are significantly greater than what would be reported as part of the EPH analytical method under certain circumstances.

Table 2 provides values of physical and chemical properties for MADEP fractions.

Table 2. Recommended VPH/EPH Fractional Properties for Modeling Purposes

MADEP
Petroleum
Fractions Equivalent
Carbon
Number

(EC) Molecular Weight Vapor
Pressure

(atms) Solubility
in Water

(  g/L) Henry’s Constant, H (dimension - less) Partition Coeff,

Koc (mL/g) Diffusion
Coeff
(cm 2 /s)

air w ater

C5-C8 Aliphatics 6.5 93 0.10 11,000 54 2265 0.08 1 x 10 -5

C9-C12 Aliphatics 10.5 149 8.7 x 10 -4 70 65 1.5 x 10 5 0.07 1 x 10 -5

C9-C10 Aromatics 9.5 120 2.9 x 10 -3 51,000 0.33 1778 0.07 1 x 10 -5

C9-C18 Aliphatics 12 170 1.4 x 10 -4 10 69 6.8 x 10 5 0.07 5 x 10 -6

C19-C36 Aliphatics considered immobile

C11-C22 Aromatics 14 150 3.2 x 10- 5 5800 0.03 5000 0.06 1 x 10 -59 1.4 HDOH R EGULATORY U PDATES AND A SSOCIATED S TUDIES



### Information obtained from recent U.S. Air Force e nvironmental investigations in Hawaii indicate favorable results when using TPH fractionation methods, such as those presented by MADEP (MADEP, 2002) while conducting quantitative risk assessments for TPH in groundwater that is drinking water. At these sites, when comp aring TPH-DRO and EPH groundwater split sample data, TPH-DRO results tend to be higher than the EP H results. This data indicates that the TPHDRO analytical method may be over estimating the associated site risk for older release sites where the hydrocarbons have been degraded in the groundwater. As mentioned above, this can occur because with EPH analyses, the polar, non -hydrocarbon degradation products are filtered out with silica gel, whereas with the TPH-DRO analyses, th ese non-hydrocarbon significantly less toxic breakdown products are not re moved prior to the analysis.

Prior to 2005, HDOH did not consider TPH toxic ity in risk based ground water studies, rather
concentrations of TPH were cons idered only in cases of gross contamination and concentrations of TPH constituents (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and/or naphthalene [BTEXN]), were evaluated fo r risk. Hawaii Administrativ e Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-281, Subchapter 7, Release Response Action presented Table 1-1a and 1-1b, Tier 1 Action Levels for Soil and Groundwater with “NS” (No Standard) for TPH-residual fuels (oil and grease), TPH middle distillates (diesel and kerosene), a nd TPH-gasolines for groundwater where drinking
water is threatened.

In May 2005, HDOH published Screening For Environmental Concerns At Sites With
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater , (HDOH, 2005), which incl uded Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for TPH-middle distillates (inc luding diesel) and TPH-ga solines in groundwater used for drinking based on the nuisance taste a nd odor. These levels we re set at 100 microgram per liter (  g/L), for each, with non-drinking water EALs set at 2,000  g/L for TPH-gasolines and 5,000  g/L for TPH-middle distillates (i ncluding diesel). These values were still not risk-based, and could not be used to quantify risk.
In 2008, HDOH updated their EALs for TPH-middl e distillates and TPH-gasolines in Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (HDOH, 2008).
This document was based on studies conducte d by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP, 2002). HDOH risk-based EALs for TPH for groundwater that is drinking wate r were revised to 100  g/L for TPH-gasolines and 210  g/L for TPH-middle distillates (incl uding diesel).

In setting these EALs, HDOH generally assumed that the components of each TPH mixture consisted of the most toxic fractions. However, measuring the amount of each fraction using the MADEP method allows a more precise determinati on of risk that does not assume the highest chemical toxicity by default. For example, in Table 1 monitoring well RHMW02 had an EPH that consisted of roughly equal amounts of C11-C22 aromatics and C9-C18 aliphatics. The C9- C18 aliphatic fraction has oral a nd inhalation toxicities, as measur ed by a reference dose (RfD; a factor that can be interpreted as a “safe” dos e) over three times higher than the C11-C22 aromatic fraction. Thus, a lower risk is determined for this sample.

There is considerable evidence that the TPH-DR O analytical method provides results that are biased high, particularly when m easuring older fuel releases. As mentioned above, older fuel releases degrade, and the re sulting non-hydrocarbon breakdown products are sign ificantly less toxic than the parent hydrocarbons. However, as previously discussed, MADEP EPH analytical10 

### methodologies for TPH-middle distillates (including diesel) include a silica gel filtration process that removes non-hydrocarbon components, while the TPH-DRO method does not.

In a recent environmental investigation c onducted for the U.S. Air Force (TEC 2008. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report at ST18, Hickam POL Site, Oahu, Hawaii July
2008 ), aviation gasoline (AVGAS) wa s released from the Hickam Air Force Base Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POL) pipelines that have been inactive since the mid 1950’s. Analytical
results from TPH-DRO and TP H-GRO analysis (Method 8015) indicated that a large TPHmiddle distillate plume was present, where a TPH- gasoline plume was expected. To resolve this issue, the U.S. Air Force compared TPH-DRO and MADEP EPH results in ten affected wells during two semi-annual rounds of sample collection at the site (i.e., Rounds 3 and 4) to assess fractional toxicity differences, as well as to better understand the potential high bias for the
middle distillate results from the TPH-DRO anal yses. In Round 3, MADEP EPH concentrations were approximately half the TPH-DRO concentr ations in the six wells in which both were detected. This indicated that approximate ly half the TPH-DRO component was not from hydrocarbons, but most likely less toxic breakdown products from the degraded fuel. Similar results were obtained from the Round 4 comparison.

This may have significance at the Facility, since fuel releases ar e expected to have occurred in the past, which may result in a significant amount of the compounds found in the TPH-DRO analysis being less toxic breakdown products. Conversely, if a recent release was sampled, it would be expected that the TP H-DRO and EPH concentrations would approximate each other, since no non-hydrocarbon breakdow n products would be present to bias the TPH-DRO result toward higher concentrations.

1.5 R ISK A NALYSIS AT THE F ACILITY U SING MADEP F RACTIONATION M ETHODS


### For the purposes of this Letter Report, a Tier 1 Human Health Risk Screening Assessment is conducted below, based on the conservative assumption that the groundwater beneath the Facility is potable water used by residents. Table 3 and Table 4 indicate that for Round 16 groundwater sampling only TPH-gasolines and TP H-middle distillates (i ncluding diesel) are
COPCs. All others are not detected or detect ed at less than the HDOH EAL screening criteria.

All COPCs detected in groundw ater underlying the Facility are non-carcinogens. Noncarcinogenic risk is determined through the calc ulation of a ratio, the hazard quotient (HQ),
which is the ratio of intake to an RfD (i.e., an intake without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime). The simplified formula to calculate an HQ is:

HQ = CDI/RfD where:

HQ = Hazard quotient;

CDI = Calculated average daily in take of COPC (mg/kg-day); and

RfD = Reference dose (mg/kg-day).

The CDI for potable water exposure is calculated using measured concentrations and the EPA Region IX default exposure assumptions and the formula for establishing PRGs (USEPA, 2004).
It includes oral intake an d inhalation during water us e such as showering.

USEPA generally considers an HQ of 1.0 or less to be acceptable. EALs and PRGs can be developed for non-carcinogens by selecting an HQ of 1.0 and then back-calculating anTable 3. Analytical Results for MADEP Sampling Report (Round 16, July 15, 2009), Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility Pearl Harbor HawaiiResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RLTPH as DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS210 100248F 161 4301450150 4001300150 400 ND U 150 400491158 421 ND U 163 435TPH as GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS100 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 1001-METHYLNAPHTHALENE4.7 109.440.158 0.52613.20.156 0.52110.60.165 0.549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.05492-METHYLNAPHTHALENE24 10 3.07 0.158 0.526 3.66 0.156 0.521 2.58 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549ACENAPHTHENE370 20 0.18 0.0158 0.0526 0.235 0.0156 0.0521 0.213 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549ACENAPHTHYLENE240 2000 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549ANTHRACENE1800 22 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE0.092 4.7 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549BENZO(a)PYRENE0.2 0.81 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE0.092 0.75 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE1500 0.13 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE0.92 0.4 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549CHRYSENE9.2 1 0.0159 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.0162 F 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549FLUORANTHENE1500 130 0.0263 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.0247 F 0.0156 0.0521 0.0199 F 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549FLUORENE240 950 0.0952 0.0158 0.0526 0.115 0.0156 0.0521 0.108 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE0.092 0.095 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0156 0.0521 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549NAPHTHALENE17 21 5.61 0.326 1.05 8.37 0.323 1.04 6.71 0.341 1.1 ND U 0.0326 0.105 ND U 0.0341 0.11 ND U 0.0341 0.11PHENANTHRENE240 410 0.0349 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.0304 F 0.0156 0.0521 0.0291 F 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.0549PYRENE180 68 0.027 F 0.0158 0.0526 0.0272 F 0.0156 0.0521 0.0189 F 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0158 0.0526 ND U 0.0165 0.0549 ND U 0.0165 0.05491,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.52 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 0.51,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE200 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 11,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.067 500 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 0.51,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE5 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 11,1-DICHLOROETHANE2.4 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 11,2,3-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 11,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE70 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 11,2-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 21,2-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 11,2-DICHLOROBENZENE600 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 11,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.15 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 0.51,2-DICHLOROPROPANE5 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 11,3-DICHLOROBENZENE180 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 11,4-DICHLOROBENZENE75 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 0.5ACETONE22000 20000 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 65 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10BENZENE5 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 0.4BROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.22 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 0.5BROMOFORM100 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 1BROMOMETHANE8.7 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 3CARBON TETRACHLORIDE5 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 1CHLOROBENZENE100 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 0.5CHLOROETHANE8600 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 1CHLOROFORM70 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 1CHLOROMETHANE1.850000NDU 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 1cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE7050000ND 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 1cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.4350000ND 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 0.5DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.1650000ND 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 0.5ETHYLBENZENE70030ND 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 1HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.866ND 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 1M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)1000020ND 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 2METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)71008400ND 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 10METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)20001300ND 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 10METHYLENE CHLORIDE4.89100ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5NAPHTHALENE1721ND U 0.62 2 10.10.62 2 11.20.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2STYRENE10010ND 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 1TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)5170ND 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 1TOLUENE100040ND 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 1trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE100260ND 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 1TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)5310ND 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 1VINYL CHLORIDE23400ND 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 16020LEAD1550000ND 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 1PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsMDL - Method detection limitVOCs - Volatile organic compoundsRL - Reporting limitUG/L - Micrograms per LiterTPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbonsQ - Data qualifierND - Indicates that the compound was not detected above the stated method detection limitU - Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limitF - Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the MDL and below the RL-Result exceeds one or both HDOH EALs12MethodHDOH Drinking WaterEALs1for Human ToxicityUG/L8260B(VOCs)UG/LRHMW2254-01RHMW02DUG/LRHMW03UG/L8015B (Petroleum)8270C SIM(PAHs)RHMW02RHMW05UG/LHDOH GroundwaterGross ContaminationEALs2UG/LChemicalRHMW01UG/L UG/LFinal Drinking Water Action Levels for Human Toxicity, Table D-3a,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009Groundwater Gross Contamination Action Levels, Table G-1,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009July 15, 2009 July 15, 2009July 15, 2009 July 15, 2009 July 15, 2009 July 15, 2009200Page 1 of 1Table 4. MADEP Analytical Results for MADEP Sampling Report (Round 16, July 15, 2009), Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RL ResultQ MDL RLMADEPEPHEXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C11-C22 AROMATICND U 100 100270100 100280100 100 ND U 100 100EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C19-C36 ALIPHATICND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C9-C18 ALIPHATICND U 100 100270100 100270100 100 ND U 100 100TOTAL EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONSND U 100 100540100 100550100 100 ND U 100 100MADEPPAHs2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE24 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10ACENAPHTHENE370 20 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10ACENAPHTHYLENE240 2000 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10ANTHRACENE1800 22 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE0.092 4.7 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10BENZO(a)PYRENE0.2 0.81 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE0.092 0.75 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE1500 0.13 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE0.92 0.4 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10CHRYSENE9.2 1 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10FLUORANTHENE1500 130 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10FLUORENE240 950 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE+DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENEND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10NAPHTHALENE17 21 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10PHENANTHRENE240 410 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10PYRENE180 68 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10MADEPVPHVOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C5-C8 ALIPHATICND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C9-C10 AROMATICND U 100 100420100 100490100 100 ND U 100 100VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS C9-C12 ALIPHATICND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100 ND U 100 100TOTAL VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONSND U 100 100420100 100490100 100 ND U 100 100MADEPBTEX-MBENZENE5 170 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5ETHYLBENZENE700 30 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)10000 20 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10NAPHTHALENE17 21 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10 ND U 10 10O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5tert-BUTYL METHYL ETHERND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5TOLUENE1000 40 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5 ND U 5 5MADEPEPH -Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons MDL - Method detection limitMADEPVPH -Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Volatile Petroleum HydrocarbonsRL - Reporting limitUG/L -Micrograms per LiterND -Q -Data qualifierU -Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limit-Result exceeds the laboratory method detection limit12July 15, 2009 July 15, 2009Groundwater Gross Contamination Action Levels, Table G-1,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with ContaminatedSoil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009Final Drinking Water Action Levels for Human Toxicity, Table D-3a,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009Indicates that the compound was not detected above the statedmethod detection limitRHMW02DUG/LRHMW03UG/LMethodHDOH DrinkingWater EALs1for Human ToxicityUG/LHDOH GroundwaterGross ContaminationEALs2UG/LChemicalRHMW01UG/LJuly 15, 2009 July 15, 2009RHMW02UG/L200Page 1 of 113 

### acceptable concentration using standard exposur e parameters. For multiple chemicals or fractions at an exposure point (e.g. for a monitoring well) a Haza rd Index (HI) is calculated by summing the HQs.

1.5.1.1 Direct Exposure Risk Results



### For purposes of this risk assessment, the M ADEP results from Round 16 are used for the
definitive evaluation of risk because it is as sumed that greater accuracy is achieved when evaluating more specific components of petroleu m, versus the broad categories of TPH-GRO
and TPH-DRO.

MADEP fractions were only obser ved above the detection limit at RHMW02, in both the normal and duplicate sample (Table 1). Direct exposure ri sk calculations and for this sample are shown in Table 5. For the potential futu re residential scenario of groundwater use as potable water, MADEP VPH and MADEP EPH exceeded an HQ of 1.0 for monitoring well RHMW02, thus indicating a potential non-carcinogenic risk.

 The HQ at RHMW02 for MADEP VPH ranged between 4.4 and 5.1 based entirely on C9-C10 Aromatics detected in the normal (420  g/L) and duplicate (490  g/L) sample.

 The HQ at RHMW02 for MADEP EPH was 3. 5, based on C9-C18 Aliphatics Aromatics detected in the normal (270  g/L) and duplicate (270  g/L) sample, and C11-C22 Aromatics (270  g/L in the normal and 280  g/L in the duplicate samples).

 The total HI for these samples ranged from 8.0 for the normal sample to 8.7 for the duplicate sample.

Although an HI of 8.0 to 8.7 represents a potentia lly unacceptable risk if observed in the Pearl Harbor Water System, it represents actual risk only if these same concentrations were to migrate to the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01, or if potable wate r wells were installed within the maximum concentrations associated with the plume. In the July 2009 Round 16 sampling event, MADEP fractions were not detected in the sample from RHMW01 (located between RHMW02 and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01). MADEP analyses were not conducted at RHMW05 (between RHMW01 and U.S. Navy Well 2254-01) or at RHMW2254-01 (located within the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery)14Table 5. Risk Estimates forGroundwater, RHMW02 Round 16Risk Calculation Equation*TC =THQ x BWa x ATn x 1000 ug/ mgEFr x EDr [(IRWa/RfDo)+ (VFw x IRAa/RfDi)]VPHEPHRisk Parameter IdentificationC5-C8 C9-C12 C9-C10 C9-C18 C19-C36 C11-C22Aliphatics Aliphatics Aromatics Aliphatics Aliphatics AromaticsTHQ =Target Hazard Quotient1 1 1 1 1 1Bwa = Adult Body Weight (kg)70 70 70 70 70 70Atn = Averaging Time (d)10950 10950 10950 10950 10950 10950Efr = Exposure Frequency (d/y)350 350 350 350 350 350Edr = Exposure Duration (y)30 30 30 30 30 30IRWa = Adult Water Ingestion Rate (L/d)2 2 2 2 2 2RfDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-d )0.04 0.1 0.03 0.1 2 0.03VFW = Volatilization factor0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5IRAa Adult Air Ingestion Rate (m3/d)20 20 20 20 20 20RfDi = Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-d ) 0.05714 0.05714 0.014285 0.05714 NA 0.014285TC = Target Concentration for HQ of 1 (ug/L) 324 374 95 374 73000 95Monitor Well Sample IdentificationC5-C8 C9-C12 C9-C10 C9-C18 C19-C36 C11-C22Aliphatics Aliphatics AromaticsAliphatics Aromatics AromaticsInput Concentrations (ug/L)RHMW02420 270270RHMW02D490 270280HazardIndexSummationCalculated Hazard QuotientsRHMW024.4 0.72.8 8.0**RHMW02D5.1 0.72.8 8.7*** To calculate the baseline risk HQ (versus the target HQ) the formula is rearranged and uses the measured concentrations.** Represent rounded values.15 1.6 C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS


### Since 2005, revisions to regulator y requirements and environmenta l investigations in Hawaii associated with hydrocarbons in groundwater ha ve provided new perspective on evaluating risk
at these sites.

At the Facility, the U.S. Navy has an extremely important mission in supplying fuel to the Pacific Fleet. This is complicated by envir onmental issues associated with past hydrocarbon releases to the underlying dri nking water aquifer. Prior to groundwater monitoring Round 16 in July 2009, the site-specific groundwater model and Action Levels associated with the past and hypothetical future petroleum releases from the si te were based in part on results from USEPA
Method 8015 Modified for TP H-GRO and TPH-DRO.

As discussed in the previous sections of th is document, MADEP fractionation methods for VPH and EPH may be more relevant for quantifying risk associated with petr oleum mixtures and in determining when specific actions should be taken to mitigate future releases. For example, the Round 16 sample result for TPH-DRO at RHMW01 (248  g/L) indicated that the EAL for TPHmiddle distillates (210  g/L) were exceeded at this locati on, whereas no MADEP fractions were detected in this sample. MADEP fractionation analysis provides advantages over the traditional TPH analysis. First it divides th e gasoline and middle distillate range TPH analysis in three subfractions for each range. This provides more accura te health risk analysis. The second advantage is that only the petroleum hydrocarbons ar e included in analytical results.

Round 16 results seem to indicate that in all but one of the wells tested, the TPH results were probably petroleum breakdown products or from so me non-petroleum source. This ambiguity in TPH results is somewhat problematic regardi ng petroleum contaminant groundwater monitoring at the facility. The consistent future use of MADEP fraction analysis may be able to resolve uncertainties associated with Facility TPH results.

The Tier 1 Human Health Risk Assessment c onducted on MADEP factiona l results indicated that groundwater underlying RHMW02 exceeded the acceptable HI of 1.0 by a factor of approximately 8, assuming the most conservative residential potable wate r scenario. However,
MADEP fractions were not de tected in samples from RH MW01 or RHMW03 within the Facility. RHMW01 is located directly southwest of Tanks 1 and 2, and currently assumed to be hydrologically downgradient from all USTs in th e Facility and upgradient from the U.S. Navy
Well 2254-01.

The absence of detectable MADEP fractions in RHMW01 may indicate th at contaminants are not migrating in significant concentrations toward the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 under July 2009 conditions. The assumed groundwater flow directi on is the worst case scenario for contaminant transport from beneath the tanks to the drinking water well. Any significant divergence from this groundwater flow direction woul d move contamination away fr om the drinking water well.

Based on observations described in this letter re port, it is recommended that consideration be given to including MADEP analyses in the anal ytical groundwater monitoring program. Using
the combination of TPH-GRO/TPH-DRO and VPH/ EPH analytical results, will allow a more thorough assessment regarding actual petroleum c ontaminant risks posed by the Facility to the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 or other ar ea drinking water supply wells.16 

### However, using a different analytical method to ev aluate Facility risk requ ires the concurrence of HDOH. Therefore, it is recomm ended that the Navy and TEC cons ider entering into discussions with HDOH to use MADEP fractionation analysis to supplement the current TPH analysis with the possibility of at some point, replacing TPH analysis with the MADEP analytical methodology.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this Letter Report at either 808-528-1445 or my cell at 865-742-2181.

Sincerely,

Rick Adkisson
TEC Project Manager17 

## ATTACHMENT 1 Differences Between MADEP and 8015C Analytical Methods18 

### Differences Between MADEP a nd 8015C Analytical Methods

There are basic differences between analytical method 8015C and the MADEP method that can result in differing results for split samples anal yzed by both methods. A general explanation of the methods is helpful in order to understand these differences.

Petroleum hydrocarbons in the environment, esp ecially older weathered samples, are complex mixtures of not only aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, but also breakdown products of petroleum and other organic materials. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analytical methods such as 8015, MADEP, and others are non-specific methods that attempt not to identify and quantify individual compounds, but rather meas ure all purgeable or extractable hydrocarbon compounds within a “range” that corresponds to the boiling points of hydrocarbons. These boiling point ranges generally correspond to gasoline and diesel. Quantification of the amount of either gasoline range (GRO or VPH) or diesel range (DRO or EPH) petroleum hydrocarbons in a sample is accomplished by summing the individual concentrations of all compounds detected within specified ranges. It is the definition of these ranges that gives rise to most of the significant differences between th e 8015C and MADEP VPH results.

By definition, method 8015C specifies the quantification range of GRO from C6 – C10 (nhexane to n-decane). This corresponds to comp ounds that elute from a chromatographic column between 2-methylpentane and 1,2,4-trimethylben zene. MADEP defines VPH as ranging from C5 – C12 (n-pentane to n-dodecane), which corr esponds to those compounds that elute from npentane up to naphthalene. The attached set of chromatograms illustrates the effect of the differing ranges. The top figure is a reference ch romatogram showing the retention times of the four compounds that define the two ranges, and the lower figure shows an actual sample. Note that there are petroleum hydrocarbons that elute after 1,2,4-trimethybenzene, but before naphthalene. These compounds would not be qu antified in an 8015C analysis, but would be quantified in a MADEP VPH analysis. This is why 8015C GRO results could be reported at
lower concentrations than MADEP VPH results.

Beyond this very simplistic explanation, there are other more significant discriminators between the two methods. The Hawaii Department of H ealth (HDOH) has appr oved the use of MADEP analytical methods at Air Force sites within Hawaii that have residual contamination from historic fuel releases. This is primarily because the MADEP methods prescribe a cleanup/fractionation step (EPH only) and resu lts are obtained and pres ented separately for aliphatic and aromatic compounds according to range s: C5 – C8; C8 – C12; C9 – C18; and C19 – C36 for aliphatic compounds and C9-C10 and C 11 – C22 for aromatic compounds. Thus, the MADEP method provides much greater specificity than is typically achieved through 8015C methodology.

Given the increased specificity and the required silica gel cleanup, the MADEP method may provide greater insight into not only the age of the petr oleum hydrocarbons (many petroleum breakdown products will be removed from the ex tract during the silica gel cleanup), but also provide indications as to how site conditions may be changing over time. TPH methods will only present trends (increasin g/decreasing TPH concentrations ) while the greater number of19 

### “analyte” ranges in MADEP results allows for analysis of shifts to heavier or to lighter range hydrocarbons as well.

Finally, the MADEP VPH and EPH methods were “designed to complement and support the toxicological approach develope d by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to evaluate human health hazards that may result from exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons.” As
described in INTERIM FINAL PETROLEUM REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF
HEALTH-BASED ALTERNATIVE TO TH E TOTAL PETROLEU M HYDROCARBON (TPH) PARAMETER , (prepared for the Bu reau of Waste Site Cleanup, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection by Offi ce of Research and Standards Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection) . This approach provides for:

“...an alternative approach to the analysis a nd interpretation of the "TPH" parameter used
at oil contaminated waste sites. The alternative can be used to perform site-specific risk assessments or to develop health-based cleanup standard s for petroleum hydrocarbons. Rather than quantifying the entire range of petroleum hydrocarbons as one mass, a technique is used which divi des the broad chemical classe s of petroleum hydrocarbons (alkanes, cycloalkanes, alkene s and aromatics) into subgr oups of compounds based on numbers of carbon atoms in the compounds in ea ch subgroup and translates the masses of compounds in each specific segment into discre te estimates of health risk for specified exposure scenarios.”

Standard 8015 analysis does not provide the ch emical divisions necessary to conduct analogous
calculations.

Because of the greater specificity that th e MADEP analytical method provides, it is recommended that the Navy and TEC consider entering into discussions with HDOH to use MADEP fractionation analysis to supplement the curr ent TPH analysis with the possibility of at some point, replacing TPH analysis with th e MADEP analytical methodology. By collecting split-samples to be analyzed by method 8015C a nd the MADEP method, this would allow for the
establishment of baseline results for each method. Then at some point, pending HDOH approval, analysis by method 8015C could possibly be discontinued since the MADEP analytical method provides more information than the 8015 method.

## Attachment D

TICs Memorandum

### April 19, 2010



## January 2010 Sampling Event at the Red Hill Facility

TPH-DRO at RHMW02

The January 2010 total petroleum hydrocarbon, diesel range organics (TPH-DRO) results at RHMW02 were significantly impacted by two large peaks id entified by the laboratory as caprolactam and DEET. These tentatively identified compound (TIC) peaks were reported as part of the TPH-DRO result because according to the analytical method, all peaks within the diesel range must be quantified. However, these TICs are apparently unrelated to Red Hill Bulk Fuels Storage Facility (Facility) stored fuels. Caprolactam is a monomer used to produce “Nylon 6” and is found in plastics and possibly in paints and floor polishes. DEET is a pesticide commonly u sed as an insect repellent.

Neither of these TIC compounds was detected as part of the laboratory extraction or instrument quality control process (e.g., method blanks, instrument blanks, and laboratory control spikes). Also, caprolactam and DEET are not used or found in the SGS laboratory that performed the analysis. Therefore, the TICs are not laboratory introduced contaminants. In additi on, the same field personnel performed the January sampling and their sampling approach was identical to that used in previous Facility sampling events. Furthermore, the field personnel were extremely caref ul and cognizant not to introduce any contaminants to the collected and/or shipped samples. Consequently, it is not believed that the TICs were introduced via the analytical or sampling/shipping process.

As shown in Table 1, these two significant TIC peaks (i.e., identified by the laboratory as caprolactam and DEET) contributed significantly to the re ported TPH-DRO results. Although the TPH-DRO analytical method requires that all peaks in the dies el range be quantified for the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result, Table 1 estimates what the respective TPH-DRO concentrations would have been without the two TIC peaks. The reprocessing or re-quantification results were provided by the laboratory. These “adjusted concentrations” more closely repr esent what would be anticipated with normal and duplicate samples.

### Table 1 – January 2010 RHMW02 Analytical Results**

January 2010
Results Official TPH-DRO Result (  g/L) Estimated TPH-DRO Result without the two TIC peaks included (  g/L)

RHMW02 2,130 1,740

RHMW02D (duplicate sample) 3,410 2,110

Table 1 Note: ** TICs are “tentatively identified” compounds. The TPH-DRO analytical method is not specific (i.e., is designed to quantify any and all organic compounds within the diesel range). By scanning the TPH-DRO extract via GC/MS, unknown peaks have been “tentatively identified” (i.e., without the benefit of “neat” standards and the use of specific me thods designed to accurately quantify the particular TIC peaks “identified”). Therefore, although the TICs are believed to be the “identified” compounds, there is some inherent uncertainty associ ated with this identification pro cess. This uncertainty is why the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result must quantify all the organic compounds within the TPH-DRO

range.

In summary, these TICs from the January 2010 sampling event are apparently not attributable to stored fuels at the Facility, they are not laboratory contaminan ts, and it is unlikely that they were introduced by the sampling/shipping process.

TPH-DRO at RHMW05

Similar to RHMW02, the January 2010 TPH-DRO result for RHMW05 was significantly impacted by two large peaks identified by the laboratory as caprolactam and DEET. These TIC peaks were reported as part of the TPH-DRO result because according to the an alytical method, all peaks within the diesel range must be quantified. However as mentioned above, these TICs are apparently unrelated to Facility stored fuels. Caprolactam is a monomer used to produce “Nylon 6” and is found in plastics and possibly in paints and floor polishes. DEET is a pestic ide commonly used as an insect repellent.

As with RHMW02, neither of these TIC compounds was detected as part of the laboratory extraction or instrument quality control process (e.g., method blanks, instrument blanks, and laboratory control spikes). Also, caprolactam and DEET are not used or found in the SGS laboratory that performed the analysis. Therefore, the TICs are not laboratory introduced contaminants. In addition, the same field personnel performed the January sampling and their sampling appr oach was identical to that used in previous Facility sampling events. Furthermore, the field personnel were extremely careful and cognizant not to introduce any contaminants to the collected and/or sh ipped samples. Consequently, it is not believed that
the TICs were introduced via the anal ytical or sampling/shipping process.

As shown in Table 2, these two significant TIC peaks contributed significantly to the reported TPH-DRO results. Although the TPH-DRO analytical method requires that all peaks in the diesel range be quantified for the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result, Table 2 estimates what the respective TPH-DRO
concentrations would have been without the two TIC peaks. The reprocessing or re-quantification results were provided by the laboratory.

### Table 2 – January 2010 RHMW05 Analytical Results**

January 2010
Results Official TPH-DRO Result (  g/L) Estimated TPH-DRO Result without the two TIC peaks included (  g/L)

RHMW05 2,060 541

Table 2 Note: ** TICs are “tentatively identified” compounds. The TPH-DRO analytical method is not specific (i.e., is designed to quantify any and all organic compounds within the diesel range). By scanning the TPH-DRO extract via GC/MS, unknown peaks have been “tentatively identified” (i.e., without the benefit of “neat” standards and the use of specific me thods designed to accurately quantify the particular TIC peaks “identified”). Therefore, although the TICs are believed to be the “identified” compounds, there is some inherent uncertainty associ ated with this identification pro cess. This uncertainty is why the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result must quantify all the organic compounds within the TPH-DRO

range.

In summary, these TICs from the January 2010 sampling event are apparently not attributable to stored fuels at the Facility, they are not laboratory contaminan ts, and it is unlikely that they were introduced by the sampling/shipping process.



## February 2010 Re-sampling Eve nt at the Red Hill Facility

TPH-DRO at RHMW02

Per the Facility Groundwater Protection Plan, becau se of the January 2010 results for RHMW02, the monitoring well was re-sampled in February 2010 for TPH-DRO. The February 2010 TPH-DRO results for RHMW02 were significantly impacted by three rela tively large TIC peaks. The first peak (i.e., likely caprolactum) provided the largest TIC contributi on toward the “officially reported” TPH-DRO concentration. The second peak was initially thought to be DEET, but following additional analyses, was identified to likely be dodecanoic acid. The third TIC peak was not able to be identified, even after subsequent analyses.

These three TIC peaks were reported as part of the TPH-DRO result because according to the analytical method, all peaks within the diesel range must be qu antified. Caprolactam is a monomer used to produce “Nylon 6” and would be found in plastics and possibly in paints and floor polishes. Dodecanoic acid is not used or found in the SGS laboratory and was not found as part of the laboratory quality control process (e.g., instrument and method blanks), thus is not a laboratory contaminant. The third TIC peak that contributed to the “officially reported” TPH-DRO concentration could not be identified, even given subsequent analyses.

Chromatograms from the February laboratory data depict the two TIC peaks (i.e., identified as caprolactam and dodecanoic acid) that apparently ar e unrelated to Facility stored fuels and the third unknown TIC compound. The three peaks are summarized on the chromatograph as follows:

 The first peak marked (~2 minutes) should be cap rolactam/nylon6. This is the largest TIC peak and is the major TIC contributor to the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result.

 The second peak marked (~4 minutes) was initia lly thought to be DEET, but following subsequent analysis was identified as likely to be dodecanoic acid. The third peak marked (~6.6 minutes) is an unidentified/unknown compound (i.e., not identifiable following an 8270 analytical method TIC library search). This peak was also present on the chromatograms for the January 2010 TPH-DRO samp le results, but was much smaller and did not significantly influence the “officially reported” January TPH-DRO results.

Note that none of these three TIC peaks appear as part of the associated laboratory quality control process (e.g., method blanks and instrument blanks).

Table 3 depicts the “official reported” TPH-DRO results that include all three TIC peaks described above.
Table 3 also estimates what the TPH-DRO results would be in the event that th e three TIC peaks (i.e., likely caprolactam, dodecanoic acid, and an unknown compound) were not present. This reprocessing or re-quantification of the chromatogram s was performed by the laboratory.



### Table 3 – February 2010 RHMW02 Analytical Results**

February 2010
Results Official TPH-DRO Result (  g/L) Estimated TPH-DRO Result without the three major TIC peaks included (  g/L)

RHMW02 8,650 3,470

RHMW02D (duplicate sample) 6,910 2,930

Table 3 Note: ** TICs are “tentatively identified” compounds. The TPH-DRO analytical method is not specific (i.e., is designed to quantify any and all organic compounds within the diesel range). By scanning the TPH-DRO extract via GC/MS, unknown peaks have been “tentatively identified” (i.e., without the benefit of “neat” standards and the use of specific me thods designed to accurately quantify the particular TIC peaks “identified”). Therefore, although the TICs are believed to be the “identified” compounds, there is some inherent uncertainty associ ated with this identification pro cess. This uncertainty is why the “officially reported” TPH-DRO result must quantify all the organic compounds within the TPH-DRO

range.

In summary, for the February analytical results, th e first two TICs (and possibly the third TIC) are apparently not attributable to stored fuels at the Facility and they are likely not laboratory contaminants. Also, it is believed that none of these three TIC peaks have been significant contaminants of past Facility TPH-DRO reported concentrations pr ior to the January and February 2010 sampling events. In addition, the same field personnel performed the February sampling and their sampling approach was identical to that used in previous Facility sampling events. Furt hermore, the field personnel were extremely careful and cognizant not to introduce any contaminants to the collected and/or shipped samples. Consequently, TEC does not believe that the TICs were introduced via the analytical or sampling/shipping process.

One identifiable variable that occurred during the Janua ry and February sampling events that was not true with earlier rounds was the ongoing process of dism antling/removing temporary PVC collection pipelines and the demobilization of various equipment and suppli es from the tunnel complex. It is unclear how or if these occurrences may have had any effect/influe nce on the January and February 2010 TPH-DRO
results.

## March 2010 Re-sampling Event at the Red Hill Facility

TPH-DRO at RHMW02

Per the Facility Groundwater Protection Plan, becau se of the February 2010 results for RHMW02, the monitoring well was re-sampled in March 2010 for TPH-DRO. These sampling results (normal andduplicate samples) did not show large concentrations of the TICs described above that are apparently nonfuel related. Furthermore, the TPH-DRO concentrati ons more closely approximate the levels that have been historically observed from RHMW02. Ta ble 4 presents the RHMW02 TPH-DRO March 2010
results.



### Table 4 – March 2010 RHMW02 Analytical Results

March 2010 Results Official TPH-DRO Result (  g/L)

RHMW02 2,630

RHMW02D (duplicate sample) 2,350

Please feel free to contact me if you have any ques tions or comments on my ce ll phone at 865-742-2181.

Sincerely,

Rick Adkisson TEC, Project Manager

## Attachment E

Assessment of Potential Toxicity Posed by Polar Byproducts

## Zemo & Associates LLC

986 Wander Way Incline Village, NV 89451 775-831-6179; dazemo@zemoassociates.com

FINAL DRAFT

July 11, 2008

Mr. Jeff Hart, R.G. Principal, Senior Project Manager TEC Inc. 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1400 Honolulu, HI 96813

Subject: Assessment of Potential Toxicity Posed by Polar Byproducts Resulting from Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Hickam Air Force Base, Pearl City, Hawaii

Dear Mr. Hart:

This letter presents a summary of findings regarding the potential toxicity posed by polar compounds dissolved in groundwater that result from intrinsic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Polar compounds in the semivolatile range have been detected in groundwater associated with a historic gasoline release at Hickam Air Force Base, Site 18, Pearl City, Hawaii. The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) has requested that the Air Force justify the use of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) fractionated analysis for Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH), which does not measure the polar component, to calculate risk associated with the middle distillate petroleum fraction in groundwater at ST18. The HDOH alternative risk calculation approach has been to assume that the middle distillate petroleum fraction can be measured using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Me thod 8015 modified, which includes the polar component, and then assumes the maximum toxicity (based on the C 11 to C 22 aromatics petroleum fraction) for the entire mixture to calculate risk. Evidence presented in this letter favors the use of the MADEP analysis and fractions for determining risk, and justifies the assumption that the toxicity associated with the polar component is negligible compared to the petroleum fraction. On this basis, this letter presents the following:

1. A primer regarding the chemistry of petroleum hydrocarbons and their polar biodegradation byproducts;

2. An assessment of the analytical methods and technical issues associated with both MADEP and USEPA Method 8015mod protocols for petroleum mixtures;

3. A description of the potential toxicities of the petroleum fractions as defined by MADEP compared to the potential toxicities of the polar biodegradation byproducts; and

4. Conclusions that support the use of the MADEP fractionated analysis for risk assessment purposes rather than the USEPA Method 8015mod analysis because the

1

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

potential toxicity posed by the polar compounds appears to be negligible compared to
the C 11 to C 22 aromatics petroleum fraction.



### Chemistry of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Biodegradation Byproducts

Petroleum hydrocarbons such as crude oils and fuel products are composed primarily of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, which consist of carbon and hydrogen atoms and are nonpolar in their molecular structure. Crude oils and heavier petroleum products such as heavy fuel oils can contain large heterocyclic molecules with nitrogen, sulfur, or oxygen in their structure (called NSOs), which have increased polarity. Lighter products such as aviation gasoline and automotive gasoline (generally C 4 to C 12 ) and jet fuels (generally C 8 to C 18 ) contain virtually no NSOs and therefore virtually no polar molecule s, exclusive of additives [Chevron 2000, 2004; Zemo and Foote 2003]. The environmental fate of the individual petroleum hydrocarbon constituents and the fuel product mixtures is a function of molecular class (aliphatic vs. aromatic) and molecular size. With respect to water solubility, it is well established that the aliphatics have very low pure-component water solubilities that decrease exponentially with increasing molecule size (e.g., the water solubility of the C 5 to C 8 aliphatics fraction is 11 milligrams per liter [mg/l], and the water solubility of the C 9 to C 18 aliphatics fraction is 0.010 mg/l) [MADEP 2002]. The aromatics are more water soluble, but their pure-component solubilities also decrease exponentially with increasing molecule size (e.g., the water solubility
of the C 9 to C 10 aromatics fraction is 51 mg/l, and the water solubility of the C 11 to C 22 aromatics fraction is 5.8 mg/l) [MADEP 2002]. Within a fuel mixture, the pure-component solubility of a constituent or a fraction is reduced in proportion to its mole-fraction within the mixture, resulting in its “effective solubility”. Based on published data, the hydrocarbons in the total measurable water-soluble fraction of fresh fuel products are limited to the small aliphatics (less than C 8 ) and the aromatics up to about C 14 [Zemo and Foote 2003].

The microbial biodegradation of petroleum hy drocarbons has been extensively studied due to the wide interest in monitored natural attenuation. When petroleum hydrocarbons biodegrade, the hydrocarbon molecules are destroyed by sequent ial oxidation reactions that start with the formation of alcohols and proceed to various aliphatic and aromatic organic acids and ultimately to carbon dioxide and water; intermediate metabolites can include phenols, ketones and aldehydes [Dragun 1988; Barcelona et al 1995]. All of these families of constituents are polar in their molecular structure, and therefore are very soluble in groundwater. Because the sequential oxidation processes proceed at different rates in different portions of a plume due to availability of electron acceptors, the specific polar constituents present in the groundwater will vary with time and space. These polar constituents will accumulate where groundwater is anoxic, but have been shown to oxidize relatively quickly in the presence of oxygenated water [Cozzarelli et al 1994; Cozzarelli and Baedecker 1996; Eganhouse et al 1993].



### Analytical Methods and Technical Issues

To assess the concentrations of each of the target petroleum fractions, MADEP developed an analytical method that is divided into volatile (purgeable) and extractable petroleum fractions (VPH/EPH). For the EPH method, the sample is separated into aliphatic and aromatic fractions

2

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

via a series of solvent exchanges and using a silica gel column. Silica gel is a highly polar material and therefore attracts other polar compounds, and the use of a silica gel column tofractionate or clean up samples to reduce interference from non-target analytes is a longstanding EPA method. Because petroleum hydrocarbons are not polar, they are eluted off of the silica gel column with the respective solvents. Multiple studies have shown that this MADEP analytical method provided acceptable recoveries of the petroleum hydrocarbons present in the sample. Although it was not a primary focus of the method, fractionating the sample intoaliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons on the silica gel column also isolated the polar nonhydrocarbons that may be present in the sample by retaining them on the silica gel.

It is widely known that polar non-hydrocarbons are measured as extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., diesel range organics [DRO ]; total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons [TEPH]) when methods that do not incorporate a routine silica gel cleanup are used (e.g., USEPA Method 8015mod) [Zemo and Foote 2003]. This is because the flame ionization detector is not specific to petroleum (it measures all of the organics in the sample), and the semivolatile polar compounds can elute in the apparent C 10 to C 30 range. It has been demonstrated that at sites where groundwater was in contact with biodegraded petroleum, up to 100% of the DRO concentration resulted from polar compounds [Zemo and Foote 2003]. Thus, groundwater downgradient from a biodegrading gasoline source can contain measureable “DRO” concentrations even though there are no dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater sample.



### Potential Toxicities of the Petroleum Fractions

The potential toxicities of the various petroleum fractions were extensively studied in the mid1990s, and were codified into risk-based regulatory programs in several states. Of note is the work performed by the MADEP. MADEP divided the potential ranges of petroleum hydrocarbons into volatile fractions (VPH) and extractable fractions (EPH). Each of these large
fractions is further subdivided into the arom atics and the aliphatic hydrocarbons, which are further subdivided into carbon ranges (molecule size). To assess potential risk to human health posed by the extractable fraction of petroleum, MADEP requires evaluation of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) individually, and then groups the remaining hydrocarbons as the
C 11 to C 22 aromatics, the C 9 to C 18 aliphatics, and the C 19 to C 36 aliphatics [MADEP 2003]. After extensive review of the toxicological literatur e, MADEP has assigned toxicity properties to each of these petroleum hydrocarbon fractions bas ed on either a single surrogate petroleum constituent or the properties of a surrogate petroleum mixture [MADEP 2003]. The toxicity of
the C 11 to C 22 aromatics fraction is based on pyrene, with an oral reference dose (RfD) of 0.03 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/ kg/day); the toxicity of the C 9 to C 18 aliphatics fraction is based on laboratory-prepared petroleum mixtures, with an oral RfD of 0.1 mg/kg/day; and the toxicity of the C 19 to C 36 aliphatics fraction is based on white mineral oils, with an oral RfD of 2. The uncertainty factors applied when developing each of these RfDs were 3000, 1000, and 100, respectively. MADEP updates these RfDs periodically when new petroleum toxicological studies become available; values shown are the most current (2003).

3

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

Potential and Relative Toxicity Posed by the Polar Compounds

The potential risk to human health posed by the polar biodegradation byproducts has not been well studied due to (1) the large number of individual compounds that may be present, (2) the transient nature of which compounds may be present, (3) the difficulty in analyzing many of these families of compounds, and (4) the assumption that compounds with the polar molecular structures would generally be less toxic than t he petroleum target compounds (primarily the aromatics). While it is impossible to know exactly which specific compounds are present at a particular point in time, a practical approach is to estimate the risk posed by these polar compounds in a general way by evaluating the available data regarding the toxicities of constituents that are representatives of each of these families of polar compounds. For example, the 2008 USEPA Regions 3, 6 and 9 Pr eliminary Remedial Goals (PRG) document shows RfDs for four alcohols, three organic acids, two aldehydes, seven phenols and five ketones that may plausibly result from the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. The table below summarizes the range of oral RfDs for each of the families of polar compounds for the plausible biodegradation byproducts; the average of the oral RfDs (rounded to a single significant figure) is also pres ented for each family of compounds.

Polar Family No. of Plausible
Constituents with

PRG Range of
Oral RfDs Factor to RfD of 0.03 (C 11 to C 22 aromatics)

Alcohols 4 0.1 to 0.5

(Avg 0.3) 3 to 17

(Avg 10)

Organic Acids 4 0.9 to 4

(Avg 2) 30 to 133

(Avg 77)

Aldehydes 2 0.1 to 0.2

(Avg 0.2) 3 to 6

(Avg 5)

Phenols 7 0.0006 to 0.3

(Avg 0.06) 0.02 to 10

(Avg 2)

Ketones 5 0.08 to 5

(Avg 1) 3 to 167

(Avg 43)

Notes: Alcohols – Methanol, n-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol. Acids – Formic acid, acetic acid, benzoic acid. Aldehydes – Formaldehyde, benzaldehyde. Phenols – Phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,6-dimethylphen ol, 3,4-dimethlyphenol, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol. Ketones – Acetone, cyclohexanone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetophenone.

4

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

The most toxic of the extractable petroleum fractions, the C 11 to C 22 aromatics, has an oral RfD of 0.03. The polar families have oral RfDs that are a factor of about 3 to 167 times higher (less toxic), except for the phenols, which range from a factor of 0.02 to 10 higher. The alkylated phenols have RfDs that are lower or are about the same as the C 11 to C 22 aromatics. Importantly, the phenols, as well as the aldehydes and ketones, are intermediate metabolites that would likely be present in relatively small amounts and for relatively short time periods. The alcohols and organic acids are likely the most predominant polar families present in groundwater associated with a biodegrading petroleum source; the organic acids have been shown to range from about 30% to more than 50% of the total dissolved organic carbon [Thorn and Aiken 1998; Cozzarelli et al 1994; Eganhouse et al 1993 ]. Four of the five polar compound families have RfDs ranging from about 0.1 to 5, which is a factor of about 3 to 167 times higher compared to the RfD of 0.03 for the C 11 to C 22 aromatics. In addition, using the “average” oral RfD for each polar compound family and conservati vely assuming that each family comprises 20% of the total mixture (i.e., giving each family equal weight),the overall average oral RfD for these five polar compound families is 0.7, which is a factor of 24 higher than 0.03. Based on this evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that, in general, the toxicities of the polar biodegradation byproducts to human receptors are lik ely significantly lower (1/3 to less than 1/100, with an average of about 1/24) than the C 11 to C 22 aromatics petroleum fraction.

The potential toxicity posed by the polar biodegradation byproducts to aquatic ecological receptors has been the subject of a several peer-reviewed studies. The effects from the Exxon Valdez oil spill have been studied and it was concluded that although the polar oxidation products of petroleum hydrocarbons demonstrated so me toxicity, they posed little actual risk to the marine organisms because of their high solubility, which results in rapid attenuation in the water column [Wolfe et al 1996]. Furthermore, it was pointed out that independent surveys showed that sediment toxicity in Prince William Sound declined in only two years to near background levels between 1989 (year of the spill) and 1991 [Wolfe et al 1996]. Other studies have shown that the polar compounds in the water-accommodated fraction from a biodegrading petroleum source demonstrated toxicity, but the response is highly variable depending on which taxonomic group and which species were tested [Neff et al 2000; Middaugh et al 1996; Middaugh et al 1998; Shelton et al 1999; Carls et al 1999;Heintz et al 1999]. It is also important to note that the microcosms and columns used in the various studies may have also been impacted by ammonia and sulfide resulting from the petroleum biodegradation, both of which are highly toxic to marine organisms [Page et al 2002]. In summary, although there may be measureable aquatic toxicity associated with the polar compounds resulting from oxidative biodegradation of petroleum, the actual risk is likely very low because the polar compounds are not expected to be persistent in surface waters

.



### Conclusions

The constituents in groundwater measured as part of the USEPA Method 8015mod (TPH-DRO) analysis and that are removed by the silica gel cleanup are not extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, but rather are biodegradation byproducts that are polar in their molecular structure. These polar compounds include alcohols, organic acids, phenols, ketones and

5

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

aldehydes, with the alcohols and organic acids likely being the most predominant. The polar compounds are not persistent in oxygenated groundwater. The potential toxicity to human health posed by these polar compounds is not well studied, but based on available data for plausible representatives of four of the five families of polar compounds with PRGs, it is likely that they are less toxic than the C 11 to C 22 aromatics fraction by a factor of 3 to 167 (1/3 to less than 1/100 as toxic). Using the overall average RfD for all five families, which conservatively gives each family equal weight, the polar compounds may be less toxic than the C 11 to C 22 aromatics fraction by a factor of 24 (1/24 as toxic). Therefore, defaulting to the toxicity of the
C 11 to C 22 aromatics petroleum fraction as current ly requested by HDOH is unjustifiably conservative to assess the risk posed by the polar compounds. With respect to the potential toxicity posed by the polar biodegradation byproducts to aquatic receptors, these compounds appear to result in toxic effects in laboratory studies; however, the polar compounds are not expected to be persistent in surface water and therefore the actual risk is likely very low.

In summary, this evaluation supports the use of the MADEP fractionated analysis to assess risk rather than the USEPA Method 8015mod analysis because the potential toxicity posed by the polar components appears to be negligible compared to the toxicity of the C 11 to C 22 aromatics petroleum fraction.



### References

Barcelona, M.J., J. Lu, and D.M. Tomczak, 1995. Or ganic acid derivatization techniques applied to petroleum hydrocarbon transformations in subsurface environments. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation Vol 15, No. 2: 114-124. Chevron 2000. Aviation Fuels Technical Review. Chevron 2004. Motor Gasolines Technical Review. Carls, M.G., S.D. Rice, and J.E. Hose, 1999. Sensitivit y of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: Part I. Low-level exposure during incubation causes ma lformations, genetic damage, and mortality in larval Pacific herring (Clupea Pallasi), Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Vol. 18, No. 3:
481-493. Cozzarelli, I.M. and M.J. Baedecker, R.P. Eganhous e, and D.F. Goerlitz, 1994. The geochemical evolution of low-molecular-weight organic acid s derived from the degradation of petroleum contaminants in groundwater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta , Vol. 58, No. 2: 863-877. Cozzarelli, I.M. and M.J. Baedecker, 1996. Biogeochem ical fate of organic acid metabolites produced during the microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program – Proceedings of the Technical Meeting , Colorado Springs, Colorado, September 20-24, 1993, Water-Resources Investigatio ns Report 94-4015: pp. 17-26. Dragun, J., 1988. Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Material s, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute,
MD. Eganhouse, R.P. and M.J. B aedecker, I.M. Cozzarelli, G.R. Aiken, K.A. Thorn, and T.F. Dorsey, 1993. Crude oil in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer – II. Organic geochemistry. Applied Geochemistry

. Vol. 8, Iss. 6: 551-567. Heintz, R.A., J.W. Short, and S.D. Rice, 1999. Sensitivit y of fish embryos to weat hered crude oil: Part II. Increased mortality of pink salmon (Oncorhync hus Gorbuscha) embryos incubating downstream from weathered Exxon Valdez crude oil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Vol. 18, No.
3: 494-503. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Prot ection (MADEP), 2002. Characterizing risks posed by petroleum contaminated sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH approach. Policy #WSC02-411. October 31. MADEP, November 2003. Final – Updated petroleum hydrocarbon fraction toxicity values for the VPH/EPH/APH methodology.

6

### FINAL DRAFT 

## Zemo & Associates LLC

7 Middaugh, D.P., M.E. Shelton, C.L. McKenney, Jr., G. Cherr, P.J. Chapman and L.A. Courtney, 1998. Preliminary observations on responses of embry onic and larval pacific herring, Clupea pallasi, to neutral fraction biodegradation products of weathered Alaska North Slope oil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology , Vol. 34: 188-196. Middaugh, D.P. , P.J. Chapman, M.E. Shelton, C.L. McKenney, Jr. and L.A. C ourtney, 2002. Effects of fractions from biodegraded Alaska North Slope crude oil on embryonic inland silversides, Menidia beryllina. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology , Vol. 42, No. 2: 236-243. Neff, J.M., S. Ostazeski, W. Gardiner and I. Stejskal, 2000. Effects of w eathering on the toxicity of three offshore Australian crude oils and a diesel fuel to marine animals. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Vol. 19, No. 7: 1809-1821. Page, D.S., P.D. Boehm, W.A. Stubblefield, K.R. Parker, E.S. Gilfill an, J.M. Neff, and A.W. Maki, 2002. Hydrocarbon composition and toxicity of sediment s following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Vol. 21, No. 7: 1438-
1450. Shelton, M.E., P.J. Chapman, S.S. Foss, and W.S. Fi sher, 1999. Degradation of weathered oil by mixed marine bacteria and the toxicity of accumulated water-soluble material to two marine crustacea. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology , Vol. 36. No. 1: 13-20. Thorn, K.A. and G.R. Aiken, 1998. Biodegradation of crude oil into nonvolatile organic acids in a contaminated aquifer near Bemidji, Minnesota. Organic Geochemistry , Vol. 29, Iss. 4: 909-931. Wolfe, D.A., K.J. Scott, J.R. Clayton, Jr., J. Lunz, J.R. Payne, and T.A. T hompson, 1996. Comparative toxicities of polar and non-polar organic fraction s from sediments affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fate and Toxicity of Spilled Oil from the Exxon Valdez, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final Report (Subtidal Study Number 4) , NOAA, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD: 52-78. Zemo, D.A. and G.R. Foote, 2003. The technical case for eliminating the use of the TPH analysis in assessing and regulating dissolved petrol eum hydrocarbons in ground water. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation , Vol. 23, No. 3: 95-104.

Sincerely yours,