# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Repor t

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam

, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Latitude: 21 ° 22’15”N Longitude: 157 ° 53’33”W

DOH Facility ID No. 9

- 102271
DOH Release ID No. 99051

, 010011

, 020028

March 201 2



### Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860

- 3139

Environmental Technical Services
Contract Number N62742

- 0 8

- D

- 1 930

, CTO HC21

# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam

, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Latitude: 21 ° 22’15”N Longitude: 157 ° 53’33”W

DOH Facility ID No. 9

- 102271
DOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

March 201 2

Prepared for:



### Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860

- 3139

Prepared by:



### Environet , Inc. 650 Iwilei Road, Suite 204 Honolulu, H I 96817

- 5318

Prepared under:



### Environmental Technical Services
Contract Number N6274 2

- 08

- D

- 1930, CTO HC21Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents

March 2012

i 

# Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... iii

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ v

Section 1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

- 1

1.1 Project Objective

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1

- 1

1.2 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1

- 1

1.2.1 Site Description

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 1

1.2.2 Facility Information

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1

- 2

1.2.3 UST Information

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1

- 2

1.2.4 Previous Reports

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1

- 2

1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

................................ ................................ ..... 1

- 5

1.2.6 Regulatory Updates

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1

- 10

Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

................................ ................................ ........... 2

- 1

2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 1

2.2 Groundwater Sampling

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

- 1

2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 1

2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 1

2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

................................ ................................ ........... 2

- 1

2.3 Analytical Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2

- 2

2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 2

2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 2

2.6 Equipment Decontamination

................................ ................................ .......................... 2

- 2

2.7 Investigation

- Derived Waste Management

................................ ................................ .... 2

- 3

Section 3 Groundwater Monitorin g Results

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 1

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

................................ ............................... 3

- 1

3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical R esults

................................ ................................ 3

- 1

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 2

3.4 Groundwater Status

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 8

Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 1

4.1 Data Validation

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4

- 1

4.1.1 Quality Control Program

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 1

4.1.2 Data Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 1

4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................... 4

- 2

Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

................................ ....................... 5

- 1

5.1 Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 5

- 1

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

................................ ........................... 5

- 1Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents

March 2012

ii 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

................................ ........................... 5

- 1

5.2 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 2

5.3 Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 2

Section 6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6

- 1

Tables

Table 3

- 1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through January

- February 201 2

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 3

Table 3

- 2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, January

- February

201 2

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3

- 5

Table 3

- 3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern

................................ ............................. 3

- 9

Table 3

- 4: Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status

......... 3

- 9

Table 3

- 5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, January

- February 201 2

.... 3

- 11

Table 4

- 1: Field QC Results, January

- February 201 2

................................ ................................ 4

- 3

Figures

Figure 1

- 1: Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map

................................ ......................... 1

- 3

Appendices

Appendix A: DOH Corespond e nce Appendix B : Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through January

- February 2012 Appendix C : Field Notebook

, January

- February 2012 Appendix D : Groundwater Sampling Logs

, January

- February 2012 Appendix E : Laboratory Analytical Results

, January

- February 2012 (on CD

- ROM)Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

March 2012

iii 

# List of Acronyms

< less than

% percent

μ g/L micrograms per liter

B The analyte was found in a method blank, as well as in the sample.

COPC chemical of potential concern

DL detection limit or method detection limit ( MDL )

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources

DOH State of Hawai‘i Department of Health

DON Department of the Navy

DRO diesel range organics DTW (TOC) depth to water from top of well casing

EAL Environmental Action Level

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F

- 76 marine diesel fuel

FLC Fleet Logistics Center

GRO gasoline range organics

HAR Hawai‘i Administrative R ules

IDW investigation

- derived waste

J Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but

the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ

. JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam

JP Jet Propellant

LCS laboratory control sample

LNAPL light non

- aqueous phase liquid

LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation or reporting limit ( RL )

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

N/A not applicable

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NAVSUP United States Naval Supply Systems Command

ND not detected

NP measurement not provided

NT measurement not taken

PAHs poly nuclear aromatic hydrocar bons pH hydrogen activity

PHWS Pearl Harbor Water System

PPE personal protective equipment Q data qualifier QC quality control

RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

RPD relative percent difference

SSRBL site

- specific risk

- based level

SWL static water level

TEC The Environmental Company

, Inc.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

March 2012

iv TIC tentatively identified compound

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND

. U.S. United States

USGS United States Geolo gical Survey

UST underground storage tank

VOC volatile organic compoundQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

March 2012

v 

# Executive Summary

This report documents the results of the quarterly groundwater monitoring performed in January

- February 2012 at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHSF). There are 18 active

, and two inactive 12.5 million gallon capacity , field

- constructed underground storage tanks (USTs) located at the RHSF. Previous environmental site investigations indicated a release had occurred and contaminated the groundwater underlying the RHSF

.

The United St ates (U.S.) Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 (RHMW2254

- 01) and

four groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) installed

within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and provides approximately 24 percent (%) of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS)

. The groundwater samples were

anal yzed for petroleum constituents and compared against State of Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for human toxicity (DOH, 2009).

This report presents the analytical results and compares them to the DOH Drin king Water EALs for samples collected on January 26

, and

, February 1 and 14, 201 2 at the five groundwater monitoring wells ( RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05)

. Contaminant trends that have exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs are also provided in this

report.

January

- February 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Results

Laboratory analytical results indicate d that total p etroleum h ydrocarbons (TPH)

- d ie sel range

o rganics (DRO) were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF (monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02) at or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other chemical of potential concern ( COPC ) concentrations (i.e., TPH

- Gasoline Range Organics (GRO)

, volatile organic compound s (VOCs)

, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

, and dissolved lead) were below the EALs.

In monitoring well RHMW2254

- 01

, a ll COPCs were not detected at or above the limits of

detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs)

.

In monitoring well RHMW0 1 , TPH

- DRO ( 210 micrograms per liter [ μ g/L ] ) was detected at a

concentration equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL

, and exceeded the DOH Groundwater

Gross Contamination EAL. Methylene c hloride (0.59 μ g/L) was detected at an e stimated

concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs in monitoring well

RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs

.

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH

- DRO ( 1

, 70 0 μ g/L ) was detected at a concentration which

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Gross Contamination groundwater EAL s

. Acenaphthene (0.29 μ g/L), fluor e ne (0.21 μ g/L), 1

- methylnaphthalene (0. 5 7 μ g/L) , and naphthalene (1.70 μ g/L)

were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphth yl ene (0. 089

μ g/L), 2

- methylnaphthalene (0. 1 7 μ g/L)

, ethylbenzene (0.30 μ g/L), and lead (0.17 μ g/L) wereQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

March 2012

vi detected at estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs

.

In monitoring well RHMW03 , dissolved lead (0. 14 μ g/L) w as detected at an estimated

concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL . All other COPCs in monitoring well

RHMW0 3 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs

.

In monitoring well RHMW05

, all COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs

.

All laboratory detection limits ( DLs )

, LODs

, and LOQs were generally below the EALs. In the case where an EAL for a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009).

TPH

- DRO Contaminant Trends

TPH

- DRO concentrations at RHMW01 have fluctuated at or above the DOH Drinking Water

EAL except in October

- November 2010 and January 2011 when TPH

- DRO was not detected at

or above the LODs and LOQs ( Appendix B)

.

At RHMW02, TPH

- DRO concentrations have been consistently wel l above the DOH Drinking

Water EAL and exceeded the site

- specific risk

- based level (SSRBL ) twice : in December 2008 and April 2010 (Appendix B ).

At RHMW03, TPH

- DRO concentrations have fluctuated above and below the DOH Drinking

Water EAL

. From May 2009 through July 2010, TPH

- DRO concentrations at RHMW03 were not detected above the LODs and LOQs . However, in October

- November 2010 , TPH

- DRO was detected at the highest concentration (330 μ g/L )

. TPH

- DRO was not detected at or above the

L OD s and LOQ s in the past f ive consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events

.

At RHMW05, TPH

- DRO concentrations in creased from the first sampl ing event in May 2009 to January 2010

, and were all above the DOH Drinking Water EAL

. However, in the past eight consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events

, TPH

- DRO has not been detected above

the DOH Drinking Water EAL

, or
, at or above the LODs and LOQs.

TPH

- GRO Contaminant Trends

TPH

- GRO has remained below the DOH Drinking Water EAL or has not been detected in monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW03, and RHMW05. TPH

- GRO concentrations at

RHMW02 have fluctuated above and below the EAL . I n January 2011

, TPH

- GRO at RHMW02

was detected at an estimated concentration of 17 μ g/L

, which was below the EAL

. TPH

- GRO

concentra tion increased slightly in April 2011 to a detected concentration of 24 μ g/L

, which wa s below the EAL

. TPH

- GRO was not detected above the LOD s and LOQ s in July 2011

, October

- November 2011 , and January

- February 2012 groundwater monitoring event s

.

PAHs Contaminant Trend at RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentration s of 2

- m ethylnaph thalene have remained below the EAL.

Concentrations of 1

- methylnaphthalene decreased below the EAL in October 2009; however concentrations have exhibited an increasing trend above the EAL during six subsequent quarterlyQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

March 2012

vii groundwater monitoring events

. Concentrations of 1

- methylnaphthalene agai n decreased below

the EAL in July 2011

, October

- November 2011 , and January

- February 2012 groundwater monitoring event s

. Naphthalene concentration s decreased to below the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009

, increased above the EAL in October 200 9

, and remained above the EAL in January

2011

. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL again in April 2011

, July 2011

, October

- November 2011

, and January

- February 2012 groundwater monitoring event s

.

Conclusions

To date, the presence of light non

- aqueous phase liquid ( LNAPL ) has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 with a thickness of less than 0.01 feet ). This

indicates that a significant release from one or more of the USTs at th e RHSF has not occurred at

this time.

COPC concentrations in samples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 ( RHMW2254

- 01 )

ha ve not been increasing or detected at or above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from other monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have

decreased to below the EALs for the past eight co nsecutive quarterly monitoring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is

an intermediate monitori ng point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitor ing wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increasing between consecutive sampling event s

. C oncentrations of 1

- methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events , but

then decreased in the subsequent four groundw ater monitoring events

. The fluctuations in concentration measured during this event and previous events indicate the source of

1

- methylnaphthalene is very likely residual contamination from a historical release at the RHSF

. The general overall long

- term trend in 1

- methylnaphthalene concentration is decreasing and do es not indicate a new release at the site

.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring event, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition

, continuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW 03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring are recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this qua rterly report to DOH

and con ti nu ation of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan ( The Environmental Company Inc. ( TEC ) , 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

March 2012

viii This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 1 

# Section 1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 2 6 th groundwater monitoring event conducted in January

- February 201 2 at the RHSF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam (JBPHH)

, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Figure 1

- 1). The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by the United States Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Pearl Harbor. The groundwater sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in response to past UST releases, previous environmental inve stigations, and

recommendations from the DOH

. The groundwater monitoring was performed by Environet for the Department of the Navy ( DON ), Naval Facilities Engineering C ommand (NAVFAC), Hawai‘i under Environmental Technical Services, Contract Number N62742

- 08

- D

- 1 930,

Contract Task Order HC21

.

The field activities performed for the January

- February 2012 quarterly groundwater monitoring event were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the Work Plan , Long

- Term

Mon itoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Environet, 2010).



## 1.1 Project Objective

The groundwater monitoring was performed to evaluate the presence of COPCs in groundwater underlying the RHSF. The groundwater monitoring was c onducted to ensure the DON remains in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawai ‘ i Administrative Rules (HAR) 11

- 281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action. Analytical results are compared to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for human toxicity for samples collected from five groundwater monitoring wells ( RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05).



## 1.2 Background

The U.S. Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarter ly from U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 (RHMW2254

- 01) and four groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) installed

within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHS F and provides approximately 24 % of the potable water to

the PHWS

. The groundwater samples are analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against DOH Drinking Water EALs (DOH, 200 9 ).



### 1.2.1 Site Description

The RHSF is located on the island of O ‘ ahu, Hawai ‘i, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl

Harbor in H ā lawa Heights (Figure 1

- 1) . Land adjacent to the north of the RHSF is occupied by

the H ā lawa Correctional Facility and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the facility includes the Coast Guard Reservation and other residential neighborhoods . Moanalua Valley is located east of the facility ( Environet, 2010 ).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 2 The Navy Public Works Department operates a potable water infiltration tunnel approximately 1,550 feet hydraulica lly downgradient from the RHSF ( Environet, 2010 ). The U.S. Navy Well

2254

- 01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient (west) of the RHSF and provides approximately 24 % of the potable water to the PHWS , which serves approximately 52,200 military co nsumers (TEC, 2008).



### 1.2.2 Facility Information

The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by NAVSUP FLC Pearl Harbor

. Each UST has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer ( Dawson Group, Inc. , 2006)

.



### 1.2.3 UST Information

The USTs were constructed in the early 1940s. The tanks were constructed of steel and currently contain Jet Propellant (JP)

- 5 fuel, JP

- 8, and marine diesel fuel (F

- 76). Previously, several tanks stored Navy Spec ial Fuel Oil, Navy Distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline. Each tank measures approximately 245 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at depths varying between approximately 100 feet and 200 feet below the e xisti ng ground surface (TEC, 2006).



### 1.2.4 Previous Reports

The following groundwater monitoring reports were previously submitted to the DOH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Groundwater Monitoring Results, February 2009 (submitted May 2009);@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?!(OWDFMW01RHMW2254-01RHMW05RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03HDMW2253-03SVMP02SVMP03SVMP04SVMP06SVMP08SVMP10SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP05SVMP07SVMP09SVMP11SVMP13SVMP15SVMP17Halawa Industrial ParkHalawa Correctional FacilityHalawa StreamRHMW04U.S. Navy Well 2254-01Halawa Shaft Board of WaterSupply Pump Station (2354-01)Coast GuardReservationMoanaluaVillageNavy FiringRange@?Soil Vapor Monitoring Points@AGroundwater Monitoring Wells!(Board of Water Supply Pump StationHalawa Correctional FacilityRed Hill Naval ReservationHalawa Stream1,000 0 1,000500FeetFigure 1-1Groundwater Monitoring WellLocation MapLEGEND ̄USGS, 2005SOURCEPearl HarborQuarterly GroundwaterMonitoring Report,Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility,JBPHH, O'ahu, Hawai'iQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 4 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

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

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

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

18. Groundwat er Monitoring Results, January, Febr uary, and March 2010 (submitted April 2010);

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

20. Groundwater Monitoring Results, July 2010 (submitted August 2010);

21. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October 20 1 0 (submitted December 2010);

22. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January 2011 (submitted March 2011) ;

23. Groundwater Monitoring Results, April 2011 (submitted June 2011) ;

24. Groundwater Monitoring Results, July 2011 (submitted September 2011) ; and

25. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October 2011 (submitted December 2011).



### 1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001

- From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted an investigation at the RHSF to assess potential releases from the fuel USTs and piping systems . In February 2001, the Navy installed a

one

- inch diameter monitoring well RHMW01 (previously known as MW

- V1D) to monitor for contamination of the basal aquifer underlying the RHSF . The well was installed and completed at approximately 100 feet be low grade within the lower access tunnel . At the time of well completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was measured at 86 feet below grade (Dawson group, Inc. , 2006).

In February 2001, groundwater samples collected from RHMW01 contained TPH concentrations

ran ging from 883 μ g/L to 1,050 μ g/L

, and total lead ranging from 10.4 μ g/L to 15 μ g/L. The

total lead concentrations exceeded the DOH Tier 1 A ction L evel of 5.6 μ g/L for dissolved lead (Dawson Group, Inc. , 2006).

2005 Groundwater Sampling

- The Navy began qu arterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. Dawson Group, Inc. collected groundwater samples from RHMW01

and RHMW 2254

- 01 in February 2005 , June 2005 , September 2005 , and December 2005.

Samples collected in February 2005 and June 2005 were not filtered in the field prior to analysis for lead. Analytical results for samples collected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of

total lead were above the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel of 5.6 μ g/L. The results were not considered

appro priate for risk assessment since the sample had not been filtered. In addition, lead was not a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW01 , but was a component in fuels stored in other tanks during the history of the RHSF . Le ad may have been part of th e RHSF construction material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the le ad samples were filtered had

resolved this issue

. Samples were filtered in Septem ber 2005 and December 2005, and dissolvedQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 6 lead concentrat ions were below the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel. Concentrations of all other

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 A c tion L evels.

2005 Site Investigation

- As part of a site investigation, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells at the RHSF between June 2005 and September 2005. Monitoring well

RHMW02 was installed in th e lower access tunnel near Tank 0 5 and Tank 0 6. Monitoring well

RHMW03 was installed in th e lower access tunnel near Tank 13 and Tan k 14. Monitoring well

RHMW04 was installed north of the UST Tank 20 to evaluate groundwater within the basal aquifer upgradient from the RHSF

. Monitoring wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were completed to depths of approximately 125 feet below the tunnel floor, a nd well RHMW04 was completed to a depth of approximately 300 feet below ground surface outside the tunnel. Groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed wells and two existing wells ( RHMW01

and RHMW2254

- 01 ) in September 2005 (TEC, 2010 )

.

Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at

concentratio ns greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action L evels. L ead was detected in the sample

collected from RHMW01 at a concentrati on greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel; however, the sample was not filtered in the field prior to analysis. Analytical results for filtered samples obtained by Dawson Group, Inc. during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved

lead were below the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel (TEC , 2010)

.

2006 Site Investigation

- Dedicated sampling pumps were installed in five monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, and RHMW 2254

- 01 ). TEC collected groundwater samples from the monitoring wells in July 2006. The groundwater samples we re analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in samples collected from

RHMW02 at conce ntrations above the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel (TEC, 2010)

.

In September 200 6 , with concurrence from the DOH, the Navy decided to use the newer DOH

EALs for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs provide action levels for more chemicals, and are much more useful for conducting screening risk assessments.

Since the DOH (DOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets o f action levels should not be mixed, the Tier 1 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11

- 281

- 78 would no longer be used to evaluate environmental impact at the RHSF (TEC, 2010)

.

2006 Groundwater Sampling

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

• n o COPCs were detected in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 or RHMW03;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations were detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at

concentratio ns a bove the EAL ; and

• TPH

- GRO , TPH

- DRO, and naphthalene were detected in samples collected from

RHMW02 at concentrations above the EALs (TEC, 2010)

.

2007 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in March, June, and September 2007. Analyti cal results indicated the following:Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 7 • n o COPCs were detected above the EALs at RHMW2254

- 01 ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during

all three monitoring events;

• TPH

- GRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in

March 2007 ;

• TPH

- DRO and naphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all three monitoring event s;

• 1

- methylnaphthalene and 2

- methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH

Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s in samples collected from RHMW02 during all

three monitoring event s; and

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in the sample collected from RHMW03 in

June 2007

.

2008 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July,

and October 2008. Analytical results indicated the following:

• n o COPCs were detected above the EALs at RHMW2254

- 01 ;

• t race detections of 1

- methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample ev ent in

December 2008 at RHMW2254

- 01 , no chemicals were detected above the L OD s ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations ex ceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during

all four monitoring event s;

• TPH

- GRO concentrations did not exceed the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02;

• TPH

- DRO, naphthalene, 1

- methylnaphthalene, and 2

- methylnaphthalene concentrations

exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 . Additionally, the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L for TPH

- DRO was exceeded in the October 2008 monitoring event at
RHMW02 (Appendix B ) ; and

• TPH

- DR O concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 during

all four monitoring event s.

2009 Groundwater Sampling and RHMW05 Installation

- Groundwater samples were collected in February, May, July, and October 2009. In April 2009, a new groundwater monitoring well, RHMW05, was installed by TEC. RHMW05 is located within the lower access

tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254

- 01 (located at the U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01). It was installed to identify any contamination migrating past RHMW01 prior to it reaching the U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 (TEC, 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

• n o COPCs have been detec ted above the EALs at RHMW2254

- 01 ;

• TPH

- GRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 were detected

above the L OD and significantly below the LOQ and EAL in February and May 2009;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during

all four monitoring event s;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 8 • TPH

- GRO concentrations did not exceed the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 during

all four monitoring event s;

• n aphthalene, 1

- methylnaphthalene, an d 2

- methylnap hthalene concentrations exceeded the

EAL s in samples collected from RHMW02 in February 2009, however only the

1

- methylnaphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009 and only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in October 2009 ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 in February 2009 , but not in May or July 2009 ; and

• TPH

- DRO concentration s exceeded the EAL in the sample s collected from RHMW05 during the May and July 2009 monitoring event s

.

2010 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater sa mples were collected in January, April , July

, and October

- November 2010 (and TPH

- DRO was re

- sampled at RHMW02 in February 2010 and March 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

• n o COPCs have been detect ed above the EAL s in samples collected from

RHMW2254

- 01 ;

• lead was detected in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 at a con centration below the

EAL in October

- November 2010;

• naphthalene concentration s in the sample s collected from RHMW2254

- 01 were detected

below the LOQ and EAL in January and October

- November 2010 ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01

, except in October

- November 2010 when they were not detected at or above the L O Q ;

• Lead was detected in samples collected fr om RHMW01 at a concentration below the

EAL in October

- November 2010 ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, February, March, April, July, and October

- November 2010 however, significant

increase s in January and February 2010 were attributed to tentatively identified compounds (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010) ;

• n aphthalene and 1

- methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples

collected from RHMW 02 in January, April, July , and October

- November 2010 ;

• TPH

- GRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in

October

- November 2010 ;

• TPH

- DRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW03 were not detected above the LOD in January, Ap ril, and July 2010. However, in October

- November 2010

TPH

- DRO was detected above the EAL; and

• TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW05 in January 2010 ; however, the significant increase was attributed to TICs apparently notQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 9 associated with petroleum from the RHSF . TPH

- DRO concentration w as not detected at

or above the L OD in October

- November 2010

. 2011 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were col lected in January

, April

, July

, and October 2011. Analytical results indicated the following:

• no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from

RHMW2254

- 01 in January

, April

, July , and October 2011 except for dissolved lead

detected at a concentration below the EAL in July 2011 ;

• n o COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW01 in January 2011 ;

• TPH

- DRO was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 in July and October 2011 ;

• TPH

- DRO and 1

- methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations which exceeded the

EALs i n samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011 . In July and October 2011, TPH

- DRO was detected at concentration s which exceeded the EAL , and

1

- methylnaphthalene was detected at concentration s which were below the EAL ;

• naphthalene was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in January 2011 , h owever in April

, July , and October 2011 naphthalene was detected at concentration s below the EAL ;

• a cenap ht hene and 2

- methylnaphthalene were detected a t concentrations below the EALs

at RHMW02 in January

, July , and October 2011 ;

• TPH

- GRO and 2

- methyl n aphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in April 2011

, and 2

- methylnaphthalene was detected at estimated

concentration s below that EAL in July and October 2011 ;

• dissolved lead w as detected at a concentration below t he EAL at RHMW02 in July 2011 ;

• TPH

- GRO, acenaphthylene, fluor e ne, and xylenes were detected at estimated

c oncentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in January 2011

. Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluor e ne, and xylenes were detected at estimated concentrations below the EALs in April 2011

. Fluor e ne was detected at an estimated concentration below the EALs in July 2011. A ll other COPCs in RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January and April 2011 ; and

• no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in January and April 2011; however dissolved le ad was

detected at estimated concentrations below the EAL in samples collected from both

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in Ju ly 2011 . All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1

- 10 

### 1.2.6 Regulatory Updates

During the summer and fall of 2008

, DOH updated their EALs which resulted in significant changes to the a ction levels associated with methylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity EAL for these compounds was 240 μ g/L. This concentration presumed that methylnaphthalenes

were non

- carcinogenic. Evidence that they are human carcinogens has now been accepted by the

U

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, DOH adopted more rigorous EALs

of 4.7 μ g/L for 1

- methylnaphthalene and 24 μ g/L for 2

- methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a residential tap water scenario, and a one in a million cancer risk ( DOH, 2009 ). As a result of the

EAL changing from 240 μ g/L to 4.7 μ g/L, concentrations of 1

- methylnaphthale collected from

RMHW2254

- 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 previously categorized as under the

EAL are now over the EAL. Also, the drinking water EAL for naphthalene was increased from

6.2 μ g/L to 17 μ g/L ( DOH, 2009 ). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH

- DRO was

increased from 100 μ g/L to 210 μ g/L, although the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination

EAL for TPH

- DRO rema ins 100 μ g/L.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

March 2012

2

- 1 

# Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the five monitoring wells ( RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) on January 2 6

, and

, February 1 and 14

, 201 2 using procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet , 2010). Field activities were

documented in the f ield notebook (Appendix C ).



## 2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

The presence and thickness of LNAPL , otherwise known as “free product”, released from the

USTs is monitored at the RHSF. Groundwater gauging measurements were collected at the f our monitoring well s prior to purging and sample collection. A Solinst  oil/ water interface probe was used to measure the depth to groundwater , as well as detect the presence and thick ness of

LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot

, according to the proced ure s described in Procedure I

- C

- 3, Monitoring Well Sampling ( DON , 2007).



## 2.2 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were collected from the five monitoring wells according to the procedures

described in Procedure I

- C

- 3, Monitoring Well Sampling ( DON , 2007).



### 2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

Each monitoring well was purged using a dedicated bladder pump system. Groundwater was purged at a low flow rate (less than one liter per minute) using the dedicated bladder p ump system until three or more successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized

within 10 % . A Horiba ® U

- 52 multi

- parameter water quality meter was used to measure hydrogen activity (pH), temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and oxidation reduction potential. At least four readings were recorded in Groundwater Sampling Log data sheets (Appendix D )

.



### 2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated bladder pump systems

, directly into laboratory provided specially cleaned sample containers . Samples to be analyzed for dissolved lead were filtered in the field, and placed in to polyethylene bottles already containing the appropriate pre servative.



### 2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

Each sample container sent to the laboratory was assigned a project

- specific chain

- of

- custody identification number and a descriptive identification number. The sample identifiers provided specific data unique to each sample and were entered into the field notebook. The samples were labeled according to the procedures described in Procedure III

- E, Record Keeping, Sample Labeling, and Chain

- of

- Custody ( DON , 2007).

Following sample c ollection and labeling, the sample containers were bubble

- wrapped and placed into individual ZipLoc  bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice forQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

March 2012

2

- 2 preservation. The samples were shipped via FedEx to the laboratory on the same day of

collectio n or the following day

. The samples were managed under standard chain

- of

- custody protocol and documentation from collection to delivery to the laboratory. Sample handling, storage, and transport were performed according to the requirements described in P rocedure

III

- F, Sample Handling, Storage, and Shipping ( DON , 2007).



## 2.3 Analytical Program

F ive primary groundwater samples, one duplicate groundwater sample, three trip blank sample s for VOCs and TPH

- GRO analysis, and one quality c ontrol (QC) groundwater sample (i.e., matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD)) were submitted to APPL, Inc. located in

Clovis

, California

. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH

- GRO by EPA Method 8260B, TPH

- DRO by EPA Method 8015B, PAHs by EPA Method 8270 D SIM, and dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020

.



## 2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

Field QC procedures were followed to ensure viability and integrity of sample analytical data. Field duplicates were collected according to the procedure s described in Procedure III

- B, Field QC Samples (Water, Soil) ( DON , 2007) and the Work Plan (Environet, 2010) . Field duplicate samples were collected at a minimum of 10 % of primary samples and analyzed for the same

contaminants. Field rinsate samples were not required since dedicated bladder pump systems

were used.



## 2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

Laboratory QC samples were analyzed as part of the standard laboratory QC protocols as presented in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Laboratory QC for the monitoring event

consisted of method blanks, laboratory control samples (LCS) , surrogate spikes, and MS/MSD.

L aboratory QC samples were prepared and analyzed according to the procedure s described in

Procedure III

- A Laboratory QC Samples (Water, Soil) ( DON , 2007). Laboratory QC MS/MSD samples are an aliquot (i.e., a subset) of the field sample that is spiked with accurate amount s of target anal y tes . They are not separate samples, but a special designation of an existing sample. Laboratory QC MS/MSD samples were analyzed for the same constituents as the standard samples. At a minimum, one MS/MSD sample pair was r equired per 20 sa mples, including field QC samples

.



## 2.6 Equipment Decontamination

Decontamination of monitoring equipment was performed to ensure data quality, to prevent cross contamination, and to prevent the potential introduction of contaminants into previ ously

un

- impacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst ® oil/ water interface probe and Horiba ® multi

- parameter U

- 52 water quality meter) was conducted between monitoring locations according to the procedure s described in Procedure I

- F, Equipment

Decontamination ( DON , 2007). Decontamination water was disposed of in the RHSF’s lower tunnel oil/water separator sump

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

March 2012

2

- 3 

## 2.7 Investigation

- Derived Waste Management

Investigation

- derived waste (IDW) was managed in accordance with the procedures described in

Procedure I

- A

- 6, IDW Management ( DON , 2007). The various potential waste streams included the following:

• personal protective equipment (PPE) including: nitrile gl oves, etc.;

• liquids including: equipment rinse water and purged groundwater; and

• disposable sampling equipment and supplies, including: poly sheeting, etc.

Equipment rinse water and purge water was disposed of in the RHSF’s lower tunnel oil/water

separat or sump

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

March 2012

2

- 4 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 1 

# Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from

the five monitoring wells on January 26, and

, February 1 and 14, 2012

. Complete analytical

labo ratory reports are provided in Appendix E

.



## 3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RHM W01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the January

- February 2012 sampling event. The trend of free product measurements over time

show s that i n January 2008, LNA P L was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and

RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 f ee t, but was not observed in any other monitoring

wells. Since the detection in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these

RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3

- 1 ).



## 3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

All DLs, LODs, and LOQs were generally below the EALs. In the case where an EAL for a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009).

RHMW2254

- 01

All COPC s were not detected at or above the L OD s and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E ).

RHMW01

TPH

- DRO was detected at a concentration of 210 μ g/L which is equal to the DOH Drinking
Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and exceed s the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100

μ g/L). All other COPC s were not detected at or above the L OD s and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E )

.

RHMW02

T PH

- DRO was detected at a concentration of 1,70 0 μ g/L which exceed ed the DOH Drinking

Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gro ss Contamination EAL (100 μ g/L) (Table

3

- 2 and Appendix E )

. A cenaphthene (0.29 μ g/L), fluorene (0.21 μ g/L), 1

- methylnaphthalene
(0.57 μ g/L) , and n aphthalene (1.70 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.089 μ g/L), 2

- methylnaphthalene (0.17 μ g/L), ethylbenzene (0.30 μ g/L), and lead (0.17 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below

the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the L OD s and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E )

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 2 RHMW03

Dissolved lead (0. 14 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was below both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross C ontamination EAL
(5,000 μ g/L). All other COPC s were not detected at or above the L OD s and LOQs (Table 3

- 2

and Appendix E ).

RHMW05

In monitoring well RHMW05, all COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E ).



## 3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

Groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed in monitoring wells RHMW01,

RHMW02

, and RHMW03 since September 2005, and in monitoring well RHMW 05 since May 2009 (Appendix B ). Monitoring well RHMW2254

- 01 was installed in February 2005. The following is a discussion of COPCs that exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs during two or more recent consecutive sampling events of increasing or decreasing con centrations, thus establishing a trend:

RHMW2254

- 01

COPCs have never been detected at RHMW2254

- 01 at concentrations greater than the DOH Drinking Water EALs.

RHMW01

Concentrations of TPH

- DRO have been greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL between September 2005 and July 2010

, and again in April 2011 and July 2011 but less than 25 % of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July

2009 ; increased in October 2009 (299 F μ g/L), January 2010 (312 F μ g /L), and April 2010 (377

μ g/L) ; decreased i n July 2010 ( 228 F μ g/L ); and w ere not detected above the LODs and LOQs in

October

- November 2010 and January 2011

. TPH

- DRO concentrations increased to above the DOH Drinking Water EAL in April 2011 and July 2011

, and at the EAL in October

- November

2011 and January

- February 2012 (210 μ g/L) (Appendix B).

RHMW02

The averages of primary and duplicate samples were used for determining contaminant trends. From September 2005 through February 2009, TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μ g/L and were greater than 50 % of the SSRBL (estimated solubility
limit of 4,500 μ g/L). The concentration of TPH

- DRO was relatively stable until Ju ly 2008 and

October 2008 when the concentrations increased , with the October 2008 average also exceeding the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L

.Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through January-February 2012Elevation1= 102.27 Elevation1= 104.76 Elevation1= 121.06 Elevation1= 101.55DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPLSep-2007NT2NT2NT286.80 17.96NP103.44 17.62NP~~~Jan-200884.6717.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 NT3NT3NT3~~~Jul-200883.3718.90 0.00 86.10 18.66 0.00 102.45 18.61 0.00 ~ ~ ~Oct-200883.8018.47 0.00 86.45 18.31 0.00 102.49 18.57 0.00 ~ ~ ~Nov-200883.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.80 18.26 0.00 ~ ~ ~Jan-200983.1319.14 0.00 85.79 18.97 0.00 102.04 19.02 0.00 ~ ~ ~Feb-2009NT4NT4NT486.35 18.41 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 ~ ~ ~Mar-200983.8218.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ ~May-2009583.7218.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6NT6NT6May-200983.5018.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6NT6NT6Jul-2009783.7518.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 0.00Aug-200984.0418.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 0.00Sep-200984.2118.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 0.00Oct-200984.2418.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 0.00Nov-200983.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 0.00Dec-200984.1218.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 0.00Jan-201084.3617.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 0.00Feb-201084.2418.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 0.00Mar-201084.5317.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 0.00Apr-201084.7517.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 0.00May-201084.8017.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 0.00Jun-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 0.00Jul-201085.0317.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 0.00Sep-201085.3016.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 0.00Oct-201085.2916.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 0.00Nov-201085.2017.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.95 0.00Dec-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.33 0.00Jan-201185.3216.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.90 0.00Feb-201183.8218.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Mar-201183.7718.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Apr-201183.5418.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.65 0.00May-201183.3918.88 0.0086.3918.37 0.00102.6918.37 0.0082.7218.83 0.00Jun-201183.4118.86 0.0086.1118.65 0.00102.3318.73 0.0082.8118.74 0.00Jul-201183.5718.70 0.0086.2218.54 0.00102.4418.62 0.0082.9918.56 0.00Aug-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4218.34 0.00102.6618.40 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Sep-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4418.32 0.00102.6918.37 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Oct-201183.7118.56 0.0086.3818.38 0.00102.9018.16 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Jan-201283.7518.52 0.0086.3118.45 0.00102.5618.50 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Notes:2A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed.7The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to the installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes.Units are in feet (ft.).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less thanRHMW05DateRHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW031Elevations were updated based on theGroundwater 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, dated April 15, 2010.Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, January-February 2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U150b80.8 40.4 ++150b80.8 40.4 ++150b80.8 40.4U150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 U20.0 12.126.06 U 20.012.126.06U20.0 12.12 6.06 U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U0.2b0.160.08U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U0.2b0.120.06U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U0.2b0.100.05U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.071-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.062-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Phenanthrene 240 410 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Pyrene 180 68 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.081,1,1-Trichloroethane200 970U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane5 50,000U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane2.4 50,000U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene)7 1,500U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene70 3,000U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene600 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane5 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene180 50,000U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene75 5U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene5 170U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform100 510U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane8.7 50,000U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride5 520U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene100 50U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane8,600 16U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform70 2,400U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane1.8 50,000U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene700 30U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 J 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)7,100 8,400U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone)2,000 1,300U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether12 5U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U5.0b0.70 0.35 B J5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene)5 170U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene1,000 40U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)5 310U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride2 3,400U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes10,000 20U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 U 0.5 0.22 0.11NDU 0.5 0.22 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11Notes:All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).++ The analyst has noted that the chromatogram of this sample is mainly a match to hydrocarbons within the range of diesel fuel.DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsJ - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.LOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.VOC - volatile organic compound- Chemical does not have DOH EALsbIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).NDNDNDNDDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaEPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)Method ChemicalRHMW05(ES063)NDNDND0.21NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDDL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)Bold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.B - The analyte was found in a method blank, as well as in the sample.aDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).1,700ND0.290.089ResultDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaResultRHMW2254-01(ES062)ResultResultRHMW03(ES060)RHMW01(ES069)ResultRHMW02(ES061)NDNDNDNDND0.570.171.70NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.30NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.17NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.14NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND210NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.59NDNDNDNDQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 7 TPH

- DRO concentrations decreas ed from October 2008 through July 2009. In May 2009 and July 2009, TPH

- DRO remained above the DOH Drinking Water EAL, but was below 50 % of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. In October 2009, TPH

- DRO began an increasing trend greater than 50 % of the SSRBL which continued through February 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In March 2010 (2,490

μ g/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μ g/L), TPH

- DRO exhibited a decreasing trend and the TICs detected in the two previous monitoring event s were not observed. During July 2010, TPH

- DRO concentrations at RHMW02 increased to an average concentration of 3,085 μ g/L, above 50 % of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. During October

- November 2010, TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to 1,700 μ g/L, and in January 2011 concentrations decreased further to 1, 04 0 μ g/L

, below 50 % of the SSRBL . TPH

- DRO exhibited a concentration detected at 1,100 μ g/L in April

2011 ; however concentrations increased to 1,450 μ g/L in July 2011. TPH

- DRO concentration

decreased to 750 μ g/L in October

- November 2011

, but increased to 1,700 μ g/L in January

- February 2012.

Since September 2005, TPH

- GRO concentrations have remained below the EAL, except in July

2006 (145 μ g/L ) , December 2006 (124 μ g/L ) , March 2007 (135 μ g/L ) , and October

- November

2010 (155 μ g/L )

.

From September 2005 through October 2008, n aphthalene concentrations remained above the EAL and were relatively stable. In February 2009, naphthalene concentrations began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in May 2009 (2 μ g/L) which was below the EAL. From July 2009 through July 2010, c oncentrations increased above the EAL. Then i n October

- November 2010 and January 2011 , naphthalene concentrations decreased slightly to
concentrations which were still above the EAL . In April 2011 naphthalene concentrations

decreased to below the EAL. C oncentrations of naphthalene remained below the EAL in July

2011 , October

- November 2011, and January

- February 201 2

.

Similar to the naphthalene concentration trend, 1

- methylnaphthalene concentrations remained relatively stable from Septembe r 2005 through October 2008. In February 2009,

1

- methylnapthalene began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in October 2009 (3.2 μ g/L ) which was below the EAL s

. In January 2010, 1

- methylnaphthalene concentrations increased above the EALs; then decreased in April 2010; and have exhibited an increasing trend from July 2010 through January 2011 (Appendix B). The average concentration ( 5.1 μ g/L) for 1

- m ethylnaphthale ne in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking

Water EAL of 4.7 μ g/L. The average concentration for 1

- methylnaphthalene decreased to below

the DOH EALs in July 2011, October

- November 2011, and January

- February 2012.

Since October 2008, the concentration s of 2

- m ethylnaphthalene ha ve remained below the EAL s

.

RHMW03

Historically, concentrations of TPH

- DRO have fluctuated around the DOH Drinking Water EAL, but have been significantly lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and

RHMW02. TPH

- DRO concentrations have decreased since October 2008 dropping below t he

LODs in May 2009 through July 2010.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 8 However, during the October

- November 2010 groundwater monitoring event, TPH

- DRO was detected at the highest concentration to date (330 μ g/L) which was above the EAL. In January

2011

, April 2011

, July 2011

, October

- No vember 2011, and January

- February 201 2 groundwater monitoring event s , TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to below the LODs. Lead has been

detected at estimated concentrations in the October

- November 2010, July 2011,

October

- November 2011, and January

- February 2012 groundwater monitoring events.

RHMW05

There was an increasing trend for TPH

- DRO since it was first sampled in May 2009 through January 2010 . Starting with the July 2009 monitoring event , TPH

- DRO concentrations were

greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060

μ g/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to note that the January 2010 concentration contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC , 2010)

. However, during th e January

- February 201 2 and the previous s even groundwater monitoring

events TPH

- DRO concentrations exhibited a decrease and were not detected at or above the

LOD s or LOQ s

.



## 3.4 Groundwater Status

Facility

- specific contaminants of concern are defined as petroleum

- related chemicals that have been observed in the groundwater samples above the DOH Drinking W ater EALs. In accordance with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

, Final Groundwater Protec tion Plan (TEC, 2008), Tabl e 3

- 3 defines these RHSF

- specific compounds and their associated SSRBLs and updated EALs (DOH, 2009).

In addition, the Groundwater Protection Plan defines four Results Categories of groundwater status for the RHSF, based on conce ntrations of COPCs detected in samples collected from

RHMW2254

- 01

, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 , and requires specific responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling ( Table

3

- 4). The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the January

- February 201 2 analytical data (Table 3

- 5). Monitoring well s RHMW01 and RHMW03

are in Category 1

, and RHMW02 is i n Category 2.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 9 Table 3

- 3 : Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern

Chemical DOH Drinking Water EAL (μ g /L) SSRBL (μ g /L)

Petroleum Mixtures

TPH

- DRO 210 4,500

TPH

- GRO 100 4,500

Semi

- Volatile Compounds

1

- Methylnaphthalene 4.7 N/A

2

- Methylnaphthalene 24 N/A Naphthalene 17 N/A

Notes:

N/A

– not applicable SSRBLs are applicable at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 EALs are applicable at RHMW2254

- 01

Table 3

- 4 : Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status

Results Category RHMW02, RHMW03, or

RHMW05* RHMW01 RHMW2254

- 01

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

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded A, B A, B A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, O Results Category 3: Result Between 1/10X SSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for

TPH A, B, G, H, I, J A, B, E, G, H, I, J A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, O

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

Notes: *RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has subsequently been added to this t able. Specific Responses:

A. Send quarterly reports to DOH. B. Begin program to determine the source of leak. C. Notify DOH verbally within one day and follow with written notification in 30 days. D. Notify NAVSUP Chain of Command within one day. E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to DOH

. F. Send Type 2 Report (see box below) to DOH

. G. Increase monitoring frequency to once per month (if concentrations increasing). H. Notify DOH verbally within seven days and follow with written notification in 30 days. I. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pertinent wells w ith interface probe, re

- install pumps if product is not detected. J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks. K. Collect samples from nearby H ā lawa Deep Monitorin g Well (2253

- 03) and OW DF MW01. For permission to sample 2253

- 03, call Department of Land and

Natural Resources ( DLNR ) Comm issi on on Water Resource Management 808

- 587

- 0214, DLNRCWR@Hawaii.gov

. L. Provide alternative water source at RHMW 2254

- 01. M. Prepare for alternative water source at RHMW2254

- 01

. N. Re

- measure for product every month with reports to DOH.

O. Install addition al monitoring well downgradient.

Report Types DOH Type 1 Report

• Re

- evaluate Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model results

• Proposal to DOH on course of action DOH Type 2 Report

• Proposal for groundwater treatmentQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 10 This page is intentionally left blank.Results Category RHMW2254-01 RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 RHMW05Results Category 1: Result above detectionlimit but below drinking water EAL and trendfor all compounds stable or decreasingNo Yes No Yes NoResults Category 2: Trend for any compoundincreasing or drinking water EAL exceededNo No Yes No NoResults Category 3: Result between 1/10XSSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPHNo No No No NoResults Category 4: Result exceeding anySSRBL or petroleum product observedNo No No No NoPrevious Category: Category prior to JanuaryFebruary monitoring eventNone Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 NoneNew Category: Category assignment based onresults of the January-February monitoringeventNone Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 None1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leakdetermination program toidentify if tanks areleakingTable 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, January-February 2012Response Actions: Requirements of newcategoryNoneNone1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOHQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

March 2012

3

- 12 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

March 2012

4

- 1 

# Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

Data quality assessment consis ts of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analyses process in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meets the quali ty objectives for the project. The field QC program consisted of standardized sample collection and management procedures and the collect ion of field duplicate samples and trip blank samples. The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of MS/MSD samples, surrogate spikes, method blanks, and

LCS.



## 4.1 Data Validation

The usability of the data collected during this investigation depends upon its quality. A number of factors relate to the quality of data, including: sample collection methods, sample analysis

methods

, and adherenc e to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, management, shipment

, and analysis. Data quality is judged in terms of its precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness

, and comparability.



### 4.1.1 Quality Control Program

LOQs are established by the laboratory based on the method DLs or in strument DLs , historical

data

, and EPA limits established for the methods. The LOQs for samples may require adjustment due to matrix interference or if high levels of target analytes necessit ate dilution before analysis. Matrix interference and sample dilutions have the effect of increasing the LOQs

. None of the reporting limits were adjusted for this monitoring event

. 

### 4.1.2 Data Assessment

Precision

Precision is defined as the agreement between a set of replicate measurements without assumption and knowledge of the true value. Precision is evaluated by relative percentage difference (RPD) of field duplicates and laboratory MS/MSD results. Field duplicate and

MS/MSD samples were collected at a ra te of approximately 10 % of project samples. Field duplicates are sent to the laboratory with dummy sample numbers and analyzed as primary sample s

. For this monitoring event, the RPDs of primary and field duplicate ( sample E S0 58 and sample

ES0 59 ) , met the RPD precision criteria of 50 % for all analytes except l ead (Table 4

- 1). The RPDs for MS/MSD were also within the laboratory established criteria ( Appendix E ). Therefore the data precision is considered acceptable

. Accuracy

Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery of an analyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for laboratory control s pike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory. The acceptance criteria for accuracy are dependent on the analytical method, and are based on historical laboratory data.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

March 2012

4

- 2 All of the LCS, MS/MSD and surrogate spike recoveries for ana lyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits

. Therefore the data accuracy for this monitoring event is considered acceptable.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the d egree that data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition. Representativeness was achieved by conducting sampling in compliance with the sample collection p rocedures described in the Work Plan specifically written for this project (Environet,

20 10 )

. Representativeness is also evaluated through the compliance of the sample holding time and the analysis of blank samples including method blank and trip blank sam ples

. The sample holding time complied with the EPA criteria. N one of the COPC s were detected in the laboratory

method blanks except methylene chloride

. For this sampling event

, three trip blank s were collected and there were no detections of VOCs or TPH

- GRO in them except methylene chloride that was detected in the trip blanks at estimated concentrations (Table 4

- 1 ). T herefore, the groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site.

Completeness

Completeness is d efined as the overall percentage of valid analytical results (including estimated values) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the laboratory. The completeness goal for this project is 90 % which was successfully met . Successful completion of data acquisition can only be accomplished if both the field and laboratory portions of the project are performed according to the procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010)

. Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence w ith which one data set can be compared to another. Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are measures of data reliability. Data with acceptable precision and accuracy are considered comparable if

collection techn iques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent

. For this monitoring event the sample s were collected using approaches consistent with those in the previous events, and the same analytical methods/procedures were used to measure the

concentration of COPCs. Therefore the results are considere d comparable within this data set and with the data collected from previous sampling events.



### 4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

The precision , accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability criteria were met. The hold time was met for all samples. Therefore, the data assessment concludes that all data

g enerated during this event are suitable for the intended use.Table 4-1: Field QC Results, January-February 2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100U150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Acenaphthylene 240 2,000ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Anthracene 1,800 22ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Chrysene 9.2 1ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluoranthene 1,500 130ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluorene 240 950ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.070 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Naphthalene 17 21ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.050 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Phenanthrene 240 410ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Pyrene 180 68ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 0ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.760ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 0ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 0ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.180ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 1700.70 J 1.0 0.32 0.16 0.58 J 1.0 0.32 0.1618.8 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.140 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform 100 510ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane 8.7 50,000ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.100 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.210 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane 8,600 16ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform 70 2,400ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane 1.8 50,000ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 0ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.160ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.190ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 700 30ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.230 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 0ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.801.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 0ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 00.57 J5.0b0.70 0.35 0.37 J5.0b0.70 0.35 0.58 BJ5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.130 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.100 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene 1,000 40ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.170 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride 2 3,400ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.230 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes 10,000 20ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.190 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,0000.20 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.1158.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02.bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit ofquantitation or reportinglimit(RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierRPD - relative percent differenceTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compound-- not analyzed- Chemical does not have DOH EALsTrip Blank(02/01)Trip Blank(02/14)OWDFMW01 dupES059(01/26)NDDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaTrip BlankU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.aDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).RPDDuplicate(%)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)ResultOWDFMW01ES058ResultMethod ChemicalDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaResult--------------------ND--J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.----DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)------All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).----B - The analyte was found in a method blank, as well as in the sample.------Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

March 2012

5-1 

# Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

5.1 Summary

There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking water resources at the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 as a result of the January-February 2012 data. Based on the January-February 2012 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Groundwater Protection Plan.



### 5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RH MW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the January-February 2012 monitoring event. The trend of free product measurements over time shows that in January 2008, fuel was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not obs erved in any other monitoring wells. Since the detection in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3-1).



### 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results from the January-February 2012 groundwater monitoring event

indicated that TPH-DRO w as present in the groundwater beneat h the RHSF at concentrations equal or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. A ll other COPC concentrations (i.e., TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead) were below the EALs. All LODs and LOQs were generally

below the EALs. In the case where an EAL for a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQs in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009).

In monitoring well RHMW01, TPH-DRO (210 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL. Methylene chloride (0.59 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs in mon itoring well RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,700 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Gr oundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Acenaphthene (0.29 μ g/L), fluorene (0.21 μ g/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.57 μ g/L), and naphthalene (1.70 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.089 μ g/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.17 μ g/L), ethylbenzene (0.30 μ g/L), and
lead (0.17 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concen trations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW03, dissolved lead (0.14 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EA L. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

March 2012

5-2 In monitoring wells RHMW2254-01 and RHMW05, a ll COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.



## 5.2 Conclusions

To date, the presence of LNAPL has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). Th is indicates a signif icant release from one

or more of the USTs at the RHSF has not occurred at this time.

COPC concentrations in samples collected fro m the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 have not been

detected above the EALs. This i ndicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have decreased to below the EALs for the past eigh t consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in sa mples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not stead ily increasing between sampling events. Concentrations of 1-methylnaphtha lene detected in samples collected from RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events; however they have d ecreased in the subsequent monitoring events. The fluctuation in concentrations measured during this event and previous events indicates the current source of 1-methylnaphthalene is poten tially residual hydrocarbon contamination from a historical release. The general overall long-ter m trend in 1-methylnaphtha lene concentration is decreasing and does not indicate a new release.



## 5.3 Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommend ed. In addition, conti nuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring are also recommended. In re sponse to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, s ubmission of this quarterly report to DOH

and continuation of a leak dete rmination program as describe d in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008) to id entify if tanks are leaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 6

References

March 2012

6

- 1 

# Section 6 References

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

. February.

DOH, 2009. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and

Groundwater . Updated March 2009.

DON , 2007. Project Procedures Manual, U.S. Navy Environmental Restoration Program, NAVFAC Pacific . February.

Environet, 2010. Work Plan, Long

- Term Monitoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl
Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i . September.

Hawai ‘ i Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 281, Subchapter 7.

TEC, 2006

. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final

– Addendum Planning Documents, Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii

. May.

_____ , 2007, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii

. August.

_____ , 2008

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

_____ , 20 10

. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Fa cility , Pearl
Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii

. August

.

U.S. Ge ological Survey (USGS), 2005. Aerial Image. http://hawaii.wr.usgs.gov/index.html

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 6

References

March 2012

6

- 2 This page is intentionally left blank.

# Appendix A DOH Correspondence

# Appendix B Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through January-February 20125505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐1:TPHatRHMW2254‐01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐2:TPHatRHMW01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐3:TPHatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐4:TPHatRHMW03QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐5:TPHatRHMW05QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime0.11101001000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐6:PAHsatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsNaphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐MethylnaphthaleneNaphthaleneEAL1‐MethylnaphthaleneEAL2‐MethylnaphthaleneEALTime

# Appendix C

Field Notebook

, January

- February 201 2

# Appendix D Groundwater Sampling Logs

, January

- February 2012WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED pH COND ( mS/cm ) TURBIDITY ( NTU ) DO (mg/l) TEMP ( o C) SALINITY (pp t ) REDOX (ORP) ( mV )

0920 2.0 L 6.76 0.554 0.0 8.99 21.64 - 186

0923 3.0 L 6.88 0.554 0.0 8.92 21.60 - 183

0924 4.0 L 7.05 0.554 0.0 8.86 21.53 - 179

0926 5.0 L 7.16 0.553 0.0 8.83 21.50 - 176

0927 6.0 L 7.24 0.553 0.0 8.74 21.51 - 173

0929 7.0 L 7.24 0.553 0.0 8.74 21.52 - 172

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY Clear

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270C SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) with nitric acid preservative

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 2/1/2012 1300 N/A 0.7 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ESO62

0935

MS, CA, JT

(4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, CA, JT unknown MS, CA, JT

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

RHMW2254-01 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

not applicable (N/A) 2/1/2012 0915WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED pH COND ( mS/cm ) TURBIDITY ( NTU ) DO (mg/l) TEMP ( o C) SALINITY (pp t ) REDOX (ORP) ( mV )

1005 2.0 L 4.85 0.070 5.2 6.51 23.07 - 103

1010 3.0 L 6.82 0.335 5.6 2.65 23.71 - -57

1014 3.5 L 6.93 0.337 4.3 1.96 23.68 - -63

1018 4.0 L 7.01 0.339 3.7 1.43 23.65 - -69

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY Clear

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270C SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) without nitric acid preservative

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 2/14/2012 1120 - 0.15 L/min

Low flow pump

ESO69

1020

MS, JT

(4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, JT 100.00 feet bTOC MS, JT

16.3 feet

-

N/A Low flow pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

RHMW-01 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

83.75 feet bTOC 2/14/2012 1020WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED pH COND ( mS/cm ) TURBIDITY ( NTU ) DO (mg/l) TEMP ( o C) SALINITY (pp t ) REDOX (ORP) ( mV )

1028 2 L 6.67 0.576 3.3 0.61 23.93 0.0 -

1132 3 L 6.65 0.608 0.1 1.17 23.80 0.0 -

1136 6 L 6.51 0.610 1.0 1.13 23.81 0.0 -

1138 8 L 6.51 0.609 1.0 1.11 23.82 0.0 -

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Light Brown

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

-

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

-

SAMPLED BY: OTHER Petroleum Smell

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270C SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) with nitric acid preservative

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 1/26/2012 1320 86.30 feet bTOC 0.67 L/min

Low flow pump

ESO61

1215

MS, JT

(4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, JT unknown MS, JT

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

RHMW-02 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

86.31 feet bTOC 1/26/2012 1215WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED pH COND ( mS/cm ) TURBIDITY ( NTU ) DO (mg/l) TEMP ( o C) SALINITY (pp t ) REDOX (ORP) ( mV )

0944 2 L 6.98 0.725 24.5 3.24 26.85 - 174

0947 4 L 6.91 0.727 22.8 2.49 26.53 - 167

0951 6 L 6.92 0.726 13.3 1.96 26.41 - 146

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

-

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

-

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270C SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) with nitric acid preservative

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

RHMW-03 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

102.56 feet bTOC 1/26/2012 1215

unknown MS, JT

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

1/26/2012 1320 102.57 feet bTOC 0.6 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ESO60

1000

MS, JT

(4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, JTWELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED pH COND ( mS/cm ) TURBIDITY ( NTU ) DO (mg/l) TEMP ( o C) SALINITY (pp t ) REDOX (ORP) ( mV )

1019 2.0 L 7.63 0.308 108.0 8.30 21.75 - 147

1021 3.0 L 7.54 0.308 51.8 6.96 21.60 - 149

1024 4.0 L 7.46 0.308 36.1 6.63 21.57 - 153

1026 5.0 L 7.46 0.308 11.9 6.81 21.56 - 154

1028 6.0 L 7.45 0.309 8.9 6.56 21.57 - 155

1029 7.0 L 7.45 0.309 6.6 6.71 21.56 - 155

1030 8.0 L 7.44 0.315 5.9 6.31 21.55 - 156

1031 9.0 L 7.44 0.321 3.2 6.61 21.56 - 157

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 1.1 PPM

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270C SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) with nitric acid preservative

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 2/1/2012 1300 83.06 feet (bTOC) 0.7 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ESO63

1045

MS, CA, JT

(4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, CA, JT unknown MS, CA, JT

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

RHMW-05 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

83.15 feet (bTOC) 2/1/2012 1015

# Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Results

, January

- February 2012 (on CD

- ROM)