1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:28 PM

To: Linder, Steven; Pallarino, Bob

Subject: FW: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - MAY 6, 2014

Importance: High

Steve/Bob:

I'm sorry.  Attached is weekly report.

Vr,

Aaron

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV  

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:03 AM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; 'steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov'; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4

(june.shimabuku@navy.mil); Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4 (raelynn.kishaba@navy.mil); Ueda, Jill T CIV

NAVFAC HI, HIEV4 (jill.ueda@navy.mil); Nakamura, Peter M CIV NAVFAC HI, EV1; Tamashiro, Jocelyn R CIV NAVFAC,

OPHE3; Watson, Angela C LCDR NAVSUP FLC Pearl Harbor

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT ‐ MAY 6, 2014

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of May 6, 2014.

1. Preliminary Work Plan (due Friday 14 March 2014)

The Preliminary Work Plan was submitted as required in your letter of February 26, 2014.  A contract vehicle was

identified to contract these efforts.  The performance work statement was provided to you for review/endorsement and

the request for funding package submitted to Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP)/Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA) Resource sponsor on March 14, 2014.   

NEW: Contract proposals were received by the Navy on April 11, 2014.  Negotiations were conducted on April 17, 2014.  

The contractor submitted a revised proposal on April 29, 2014 for Phase 1a (site investigation).  We are currently seeking

additional funding as the cost is more than anticipated, but the plan is to award by mid‐May 2014.  

a. Item 1‐ Models to estimate downward vertical migration of free product.

NEW: There is a lack of models for investigating pure petroleum liquid.  However, we will continue to evaluate the

availability of transport models in basalt.  We have requested that the contractor provide multiple scenarios that would

cover multiple release points with varying volumes, different rates of release with a range of rock column properties,

and a catastrophic release scenario.  This is included as Phase 2 in the contract mentioned above.
2

b. Item 2 ‐ Methods or options for non‐invasive scanning of basalt to determine area and volume of contaminant

mass prior to any drilling investigation.

From our preliminary research, there are no remote sensing (geophysical) applications for non‐invasive scanning of

basalt to determine area and volume of contaminant mass.  There is too much noise and obstructions for approaches

such as seismic, ground penetrating radar (GPR), time‐domain reflectometry (TDR), thermal, etc.  The best quick and

dirty approach available for near surface contamination would be to use something like laser induced fluorescence (LIF)

with a direct push rig, but since basalt (competent or fractured) is the media, that approach won't work.  The usual

approach for differentiating/delineating the extent of contaminant plumes for saturated and unsaturated is by way of

intrusive methods.  It is likely that the only methods available to determine approximate area and volume of

contaminant mass are soil borings for soil and groundwater sampling.

The Navy's remediation consultant has identified a potential geophysical technology that can confirm the presence or

absence of free product. Under the right conditions, the technology can provide a subsurface image that can assist in

guiding the placement of borings to delineate the extent of contamination. The technology involves placing a linear

array of 56 probes up to 12‐inches below the ground or tunnel surface and collecting electrical resistivity measurements.

The measurements can provide a 2D image of the subsurface that can better direct the sample locations. The

remediation consultant will research this technology further and advise the Navy if geologic conditions at Red Hill are

amenable to using the technology.

NO CHANGE.

c. Item 3 ‐ Methods and locations for borings to most efficiently characterize the extent of contamination.

This is included in the contract mentioned above.  The tank inspection may yield some information of the location of the

release.   

The tank inspection began on April 24 after Tank 5 was vented, and is expected to continue for the next several weeks.  

NEW: Visual inspection of the tank floor and lower dome were completed; no discrepancies were identified.  Installation

of lift equipment to inspect the tank wall has commenced, and is anticipated to be complete in early June.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

The most current schedule is as follows:

. Contractor work plan approved by EXWC IOT commence preparation, venting, and equipment installation ‐ 

COMPLETED

. Contractor commenced mobilization ‐ COMPLETED

. Contractor commenced venting preparations IOT stage and install venting equipment ‐ COMPLETED

. Venting commenced ‐ March 20, 2014  

.         Certified gas‐free and entered ‐ April 7, 2014

. Detailed visual inspection ‐ COMMENCED April 24  

NEW:

. Detailed visual inspection of tank floor and lower dome ‐ COMPLETED

. Contractor commenced installation of lift equipment ‐ COMMENCED  

b. Action 2 ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to
3

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.  Progress in developing

these models should be included in the preliminary work plan.

Previous borings and monitoring wells were installed in the lower access tunnel, which is located below the tank

bottoms.  In the interest of time, initial models for vertical migration of contaminant mass will assume the geology

around the tanks is similar to the geology below the tanks.

As indicated in Item 1 above, contracted efforts are being pursued to characterize the situation.

NO CHANGE.

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

As indicated in item 1.c above, contracted efforts are being pursued to characterize the situation.  During this contracted

effort, an assessment of the feasibility of product recovery will be accomplished and coordinated with the State

Department of Health.

Preliminary indications suggest free product removal from this type of environment (fractured basalt) may be

impractical and unfeasible.  Attempts to recover significant portions of free product may inadvertently create additional

problems by possibly accelerating vertical transport of petroleum product. However, we will continue to evaluate all

viable options.

Although we are evaluating all options, we have had some success in similar projects using a bioventing process.  

Bioventing has shown to be a cost‐effective remediation option at several petroleum‐contaminated sites underlain by

fractured basalt.  The Navy is pursuing this method as a potential treatment technology to apply at Red Hill, depending

on results of the site characterization (Item 1 above).

NO CHANGE.

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

The Navy has received funds from the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support Energy Environmental Division (DS‐

FEE) to cover updating the Red Hill Groundwater Protection Plan and to develop models estimating groundwater flow

and capture zones.  DLA and NAVSUP Energy have been included in discussions to facilitate funding commitment and

future processing of funding requests.

The Navy awarded a contract on 3/28/2014 to update the Red Hill Groundwater Protection Plan and identify data

requirements to improve groundwater and fate and transport models.

DLA Energy Pacific has agreed to fund Phase 1a (site investigation) of the remediation contract, but we are preparing

justifications to seek additional funding as the cost exceeds preliminary estimates.  Funding for Phase 1b (installation of

sentinel monitoring wells), Phase 2 (vertical migration modeling), and Phase 3 (pilot study) are also being programmed

for funding considerations.

Proposed locations of additional groundwater monitoring wells were presented to BWS; no comments were provided by

BWS.  Funds have been requested to install up to four sentinel monitoring wells to study the potential effect of the Tank

5 release on the neighboring drinking water wells, as requested in DOH letters of 12 and 26 February 2014.  In addition,
4

groundwater samples will be collected from Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) monitoring well TAMC MW‐2, which is

located south of the Facility.  Samples will be collected from monitoring well TAMC MW‐2 for three quarters.  The first

sampling event was completed on 23 April 2014.

NO CHANGE.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Vr,

Aaron