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 2012

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Environmental Technical Services

Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, 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 2012

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, HI 96817-5318

Prepared under:

Environmental Technical Services

Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, CTO HC21

Quarterly 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 Monitoring Results .............................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements ............................................................... 3-1

3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results................................................................ 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........................................................... 5-1
Quarterly 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 2012.............................................................................................. 3-3

Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, January-February 

2012 ........................................................................................................................... 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 2012.... 3-11

Table 4-1: Field QC Results, January-February 2012 ................................................................ 4-3

Figures

Figure 1-1: Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map......................................................... 1-3

Appendices

Appendix A: DOH Corespondence

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

μg/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 Rules

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 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

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 Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

VOC volatile organic compound
Quarterly 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 States (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 

analyzed 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 Drinking Water EALs

for samples collected on January 26, and, February 1 and 14, 2012 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 indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range 

organics (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 

compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dissolved lead) were 

below the EALs.

In monitoring well RHMW2254-01, all COPCs were not detected at or above the limits of 

detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs).

In monitoring well RHMW01, TPH-DRO (210 micrograms per liter [μg/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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 

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 (1,700 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Gross Contamination groundwater EALs. Acenaphthene 

(0.29 μg/L), fluorene (0.21 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.57 μg/L), and naphthalene (1.70 μg/L)

were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.089

μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.17 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.30 μg/L), and lead (0.17 μg/L) were 
Quarterly 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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 

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

RHMW03 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 well 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 μg/L). TPH-DRO was not detected at or above the 

LODs and LOQs in the past five consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events.

At RHMW05, TPH-DRO concentrations increased from the first sampling 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. In January 2011, TPH-GRO at RHMW02

was detected at an estimated concentration of 17 μg/L, which was below the EAL. TPH-GRO 

concentration increased slightly in April 2011 to a detected concentration of 24 μg/L, which was 

below the EAL. TPH-GRO was not detected above the LODs and LOQs in July 2011,

October-November 2011, and January-February 2012 groundwater monitoring events.

PAHs Contaminant Trend at RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene 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 quarterly 
Quarterly 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 again decreased below 

the EAL in July 2011, October-November 2011, and January-February 2012 groundwater 

monitoring events. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL in May 2009 and 

July 2009, increased above the EAL in October 2009, 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 events.

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 the RHSF has not occurred at 

this time.

COPC concentrations in samples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01)

have 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 consecutive 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 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 increasing between consecutive sampling events.

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events, but 

then decreased in the subsequent four groundwater 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 does

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, RHMW03, 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 quarterly report to DOH

and continuation 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 26th groundwater monitoring event conducted in 

January-February 2012 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 investigations, and 

recommendations from the DOH. The groundwater monitoring was performed by Environet for 

the Department of the Navy (DON), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), 

Hawai‘i under Environmental Technical Services, Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, 

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 

Monitoring, 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 conducted 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 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% of the potable water to 

the PHWS. The groundwater samples are analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared 

against DOH Drinking Water EALs (DOH, 2009).

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 Hālawa Heights (Figure 1-1). Land adjacent to the north of the RHSF is occupied by 

the Hālawa 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 hydraulically 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 consumers (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 Special 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 existing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October and December 2008 (submitted 

February 2009);

14. Groundwater Monitoring Results, February 2009 (submitted May 2009);
A@ A@ A@ A@

A@

A@

A@

A@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@?@ ?@?@ ?@?@ ?@?@ ?@?@ ?@?@ ?@?@?@

!(

OWDFMW01

RHMW2254-01

RHMW05

RHMW01

RHMW02

RHMW03

HDMW2253-03

SVMP02

SVMP03

SVMP04

SVMP06

SVMP08

SVMP10

SVMP12

SVMP14

SVMP16

SVMP18

SVMP20

SVMP05

SVMP07

SVMP09

SVMP11

SVMP13

SVMP15

SVMP17

Halawa Industrial Park

Halawa Correctional Facility

Halawa Stream

RHMW04

U.S. Navy Well 2254-01

Halawa Shaft Board of WaterSupply Pump Station (2354-01)

Coast Guard

Reservation

Moanalua

Village

Navy FiringRange

?@ A@ 

!( 

1,000 

Gro

USGS

Pearl Harbor

Re
Quarterly 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. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January, February, 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 2010 (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 below 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 

ranging from 883 μg/L to 1,050 μg/L, and total lead ranging from 10.4 μg/L to 15 μg/L. The 

total lead concentrations exceeded the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μg/L for dissolved lead

(Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).

2005 Groundwater Sampling - The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing 

monitoring wells in 2005. Dawson Group, Inc. collected groundwater samples from RHMW01

and RHMW2254-01 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 Level of 5.6 μg/L. The results were not considered 

appropriate 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. Lead may have been part of the RHSF construction 

material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when 

analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered had

resolved this issue. Samples were filtered in September 2005 and December 2005, and dissolved 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 1

Introduction

March 2012

1-6

lead concentrations were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Level. Concentrations of all other 

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels.

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 the lower access tunnel near Tank 05 and Tank 06. Monitoring well 

RHMW03 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tank 13 and Tank 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, and 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 

concentrations greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels. Lead was detected in the sample 

collected from RHMW01 at a concentration greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action Level; 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 Level (TEC, 2010).

2006 Site Investigation - Dedicated sampling pumps were installed in five monitoring wells 

(RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, and RHMW2254-01). TEC collected 

groundwater samples from the monitoring wells in July 2006. The groundwater samples were 

analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in samples collected from 

RHMW02 at concentrations above the DOH Tier 1 Action Level (TEC, 2010).

In September 2006, 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 of 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:

• no COPCs were detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 or RHMW03;

• TPH-DRO concentrations were detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at 

concentrations above 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. Analytical 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

• no 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 events;

• 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH 

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all 

three monitoring events; 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:

• no COPCs were detected above the EALs at RHMW2254-01;

• trace detections of 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample event in 

December 2008 at RHMW2254-01, no chemicals were detected above the LODs;

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

all four monitoring events;

• 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-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 during 

all four monitoring events.

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:

• no COPCs have been detected above the EALs at RHMW2254-01;

• TPH-GRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 were detected 

above the LOD 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 events;
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 events;

• naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the 

EALs 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 concentrations exceeded the EAL in the samples collected from RHMW05 

during the May and July 2009 monitoring events.

2010 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples 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:

• no COPCs have been detected above the EALs in samples collected from 

RHMW2254-01;

• lead was detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 at a concentration below the 

EAL in October-November 2010;

• naphthalene concentrations in the samples 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 LOQ;

• Lead was detected in samples collected from 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 

increases in January and February 2010 were attributed to tentatively identified 

compounds (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 

2010);

• naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples 

collected from RHMW02 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, April, 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 not 
Quarterly 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 was not detected at 

or above the LOD in October-November 2010.

2011 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected 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;

• no 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 in samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011. In July and 

October 2011, TPH-DRO was detected at concentrations which exceeded the EAL, and 

1-methylnaphthalene was detected at concentrations which were below the EAL;

• naphthalene was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL in samples 

collected from RHMW02 in January 2011, however in April, July, and October 2011

naphthalene was detected at concentrations below the EAL;

• acenaphthene and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs 

at RHMW02 in January, July, and October 2011;

• TPH-GRO and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs at 

RHMW02 in April 2011, and 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at estimated 

concentrations below that EAL in July and October 2011;

• dissolved lead was detected at a concentration below the EAL at RHMW02 in July 2011;

• TPH-GRO, acenaphthylene, fluorene, and xylenes were detected at estimated 

concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in January 2011. Acenaphthene, 

acenaphthylene, fluorene, and xylenes were detected at estimated concentrations below 

the EALs in April 2011. Fluorene was detected at an estimated concentration below the 

EALs in July 2011. All 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 lead was 

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

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 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 action levels associated with methylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity 

EAL for these compounds was 240 μg/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 μg/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24 μg/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 μg/L to 4.7 μg/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 μg/L to 17 μg/L (DOH, 2009). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was 

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

EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100 μg/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 26, and, February 1 and 14, 2012

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

documented in the field 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 four

monitoring wells 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 thickness of 

LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot, according to the procedures 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 pump 

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 into polyethylene bottles already containing the 

appropriate preservative.

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 collection and labeling, the sample containers were bubble-wrapped and 

placed into individual ZipLoc bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice for 
Quarterly 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 

collection 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 Procedure 

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

2.3 Analytical Program

Five primary groundwater samples, one duplicate groundwater sample, three trip blank samples

for VOCs and TPH-GRO analysis, and one quality control (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 8270D 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 procedures 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. 

Laboratory QC samples were prepared and analyzed according to the procedures 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 amounts of 

target analytes. 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 required per 20 samples, 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 previously 

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 procedures 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 gloves, 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 

separator sump.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

March 2012

2-4

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 

laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E.

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the 

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

shows that in January 2008, LNAPL was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and 

RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, 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 COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

RHMW01

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration of 210 μg/L which is equal to the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL (210 μg/L) and exceeds the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100

μg/L). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and 

Appendix E).

RHMW02

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration of 1,700 μg/L which exceeded the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL (210 μg/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100 μg/L) (Table 

3-2 and Appendix E). Acenaphthene (0.29 μg/L), fluorene (0.21 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene 

(0.57 μg/L), and naphthalene (1.70 μg/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH 

Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.089 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.17 μg/L), 

ethylbenzene (0.30 μg/L), and lead (0.17 μg/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below 

the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs 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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was below both the 

DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μg/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL 

(5,000 μg/L). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs 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 RHMW05 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 concentrations, 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 (299F μg/L), January 2010 (312F μg/L), and April 2010 (377 

μg/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μg/L); and were 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 μg/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 μg/L and were greater than 50% of the SSRBL (estimated solubility 

limit of 4,500 μg/L). The concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stable until July 2008 and 

October 2008 when the concentrations increased, with the October 2008 average also exceeding 

the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.
Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through January-February 2012

Elevation1 = 102.27 Elevation1 = 104.76 Elevation1 = 121.06 Elevation1 = 101

DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SW

Sep-2007 NT2 NT2 NT2 86.80 17.96 NP 103.44 17.62 NP ~~

Jan-2008 84.67 17.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 NT3 NT3 NT3 ~~

Jul-2008 83.37 18.90 0.00 86.10 18.66 0.00 102.45 18.61 0.00 ~ ~ Oct-2008 83.80 18.47 0.00 86.45 18.31 0.00 102.49 18.57 0.00 ~ ~ Nov-2008 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.80 18.26 0.00 ~ ~ Jan-2009 83.13 19.14 0.00 85.79 18.97 0.00 102.04 19.02 0.00 ~ ~ Feb-2009 NT4 NT4 NT4 86.35 18.41 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 ~ ~ Mar-2009 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ 

Ma

y-20095 83.72 18.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6 NT

May-2009 83.50 18.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6 NTJul-20097 83.75 18.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.Aug-2009 84.04 18.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.

Sep-2009 84.21 18.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.Oct-2009 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.Nov-2009 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.Dec-2009 84.12 18.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.Jan-2010 84.36 17.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.Feb-2010 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.Mar-2010 84.53 17.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.

Apr-2010 84.75 17.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.

Ma

y-2010 84.80 17.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.

Jun-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.Jul-2010 85.03 17.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.Sep-2010 85.30 16.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.Oct-2010 85.29 16.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.Nov-2010 85.20 17.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.Dec-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.Jan-2011 85.32 16.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.Feb-2011 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.Mar-2011 83.77 18.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.

Apr-2011 83.54 18.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.

Ma

y-2011 83.39 18.88 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 82.72 18.

Jun-2011 83.41 18.86 0.00 86.11 18.65 0.00 102.33 18.73 0.00 82.81 18.Jul-2011 83.57 18.70 0.00 86.22 18.54 0.00 102.44 18.62 0.00 82.99 18.

Aug-2011 83.81 18.46 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.66 18.40 0.00 83.21 18.

Sep-2011 83.81 18.46 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 83.21 18.Oct-2011 83.71 18.56 0.00 86.38 18.38 0.00 102.90 18.16 0.00 83.15 18.Jan-2012 83.75 18.52 0.00 86.31 18.45 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 83.15 18.

Notes:

2 A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3 A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4 A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5 The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6 Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed. 7 The 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 than

RHM

Date

RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03

1 Elevations were updated based on the Groundwater Flow Direction/Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HI, Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54, dated April 15, 2010.

Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, January-February 2012

Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL 

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 

Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 Phenanthrene 240 410 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 Pyrene 180 68 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 

1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 1,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 

Acetone 22,000 20,000 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 Benzene 5 170 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 

Bromoform 100 510 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 

Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 Chlorobenzene 100 50 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 Chloroethane 8,600 16 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 Chloroform 70 2,400 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 cis-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 Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 

Ethylbenzene 700 30 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 J 1.0 0.46 0.23 

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 

Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 B J 5.0b 0.70 0.35 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 

Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 

Toluene 1,000 40 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 trans-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 Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 Xylenes 10,000 20 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 U 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 

Notes: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 EALsb In 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). 

N

NDND

DOH Drinking Water EALs 

for Human Toxicitya 

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

Method Chemical

NDND

ND

0.21

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

DL - 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.

a DOH 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).

1,700

ND

0.29

0.089

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa Result

RHMW2254-01

(ES062)

Result Re

RHMW01 

(ES069)

Result

RHMW02 

(ES061)

NDNDNDNDND

0.570.171.70

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.30

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

NDND

0.17

NNNN

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

0

NNNNN

NNN

ND

210

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDND

NDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.59

NDNDNDND

Quarterly 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 decreased 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 μg/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 

μg/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μg/L), TPH-DRO exhibited a decreasing trend and the TICs 

detected in the two previous monitoring events were not observed. During July 2010, TPH-DRO 

concentrations at RHMW02 increased to an average concentration of 3,085 μg/L, above 50% of 

the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. During October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations 

decreased to 1,700 μg/L, and in January 2011 concentrations decreased further to 1,040 μg/L,

below 50% of the SSRBL. TPH-DRO exhibited a concentration detected at 1,100 μg/L in April 

2011; however concentrations increased to 1,450 μg/L in July 2011. TPH-DRO concentration 

decreased to 750 μg/L in October-November 2011, but increased to 1,700 μg/L in 

January-February 2012.

Since September 2005, TPH-GRO concentrations have remained below the EAL, except in July 

2006 (145 μg/L), December 2006 (124 μg/L), March 2007 (135 μg/L), and October-November 

2010 (155 μg/L).

From September 2005 through October 2008, naphthalene 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 μg/L) which was below the EAL. 

From July 2009 through July 2010, concentrations increased above the EAL. Then in 

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. Concentrations of naphthalene remained below the EAL in July 

2011, October-November 2011, and January-February 2012.

Similar to the naphthalene concentration trend, 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations remained 

relatively stable from September 2005 through October 2008. In February 2009, 

1-methylnapthalene began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in October 

2009 (3.2 μg/L) which was below the EALs. 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 μg/L) for 1-methylnaphthalene in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL of 4.7 μg/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 concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene have remained below the EALs.

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 the 

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 μg/L) which was above the EAL. In January

2011, April 2011, July 2011, October-November 2011, and January-February 2012 groundwater 

monitoring events, 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 μg/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060 

μg/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to note that the January 2010 concentration 

contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). 

However, during the January-February 2012 and the previous seven groundwater monitoring 

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

LODs or LOQs.

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 Water EALs. In 

accordance with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan 

(TEC, 2008), Table 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 concentrations 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 2012 analytical data (Table 3-5). Monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW03 

are in Category 1, and RHMW02 is in 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 

(μg/L)

SSRBL 

(μg/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 table.

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 with interface probe, re-install pumps if product is not detected.

J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks.

K. Collect samples from nearby Hālawa Deep Monitoring Well (2253-03) and OWDFMW01. For permission to sample 2253-03, call Department of Land and 

 Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on Water Resource Management 808-587-0214, DLNRCWR@Hawaii.gov.

L. Provide alternative water source at RHMW2254-01.

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

N. Re-measure for product every month with reports to DOH.

O. Install additional 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 treatment
Quarterly 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 

Results Category 1: Result above detection 

limit but below drinking water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or decreasing

No Yes No Yes 

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded No No Yes No Results Category 3: Result between 1/10X SSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPH

No No No No 

Results Category 4: Result exceeding any SSRBL or petroleum product observed No No No No Previous Category: Category prior to JanuaryFebruary monitoring event None Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 

New Category: Category assignment based on 

results of the January-February monitoring event

None Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leak determination program to identify if tanks are leaking

Table 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, January-February 2012Response Actions: Requirements of new 

category

None 

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH
Quarterly 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 consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and 

analyses process in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meets the quality 

objectives for the project. The field QC program consisted of standardized sample collection and

management procedures and the collection 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 adherence 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 instrument 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 necessitate 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 rate of approximately 10% of project samples. Field 

duplicates are sent to the laboratory with dummy sample numbers and analyzed as primary 

samples. 

For this monitoring event, the RPDs of primary and field duplicate (sample ES058 and sample 

ES059), met the RPD precision criteria of 50% for all analytes except lead (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 spike, 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 analyzed constituents were within 

acceptable percent recovery limits. Therefore the data accuracy for this monitoring event is 

considered acceptable.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree 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 procedures described in the Work Plan specifically written for this project (Environet, 

2010).

Representativeness is also evaluated through the compliance of the sample holding time and the 

analysis of blank samples including method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding 

time complied with the EPA criteria. None of the COPCs were detected in the laboratory 

method blanks except methylene chloride. For this sampling event, three trip blanks 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). Therefore, the 

groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site.

Completeness

Completeness is defined 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 with 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 techniques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this 

monitoring event the samples 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 considered 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

generated during this event are suitable for the intended use.
Table 4-1: Field QC Results, January-February 2012

Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Res

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U 150b 80.8 40.4 U 150b 80.8 40.4 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND 

Acenaphthene 370 20 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Anthracene 1,800 22 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 ND U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 ND U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Chrysene 9.2 1 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Fluoranthene 1,500 130 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Fluorene 240 950 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Naphthalene 17 21 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Phenanthrene 240 410 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Pyrene 180 68 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 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 1,1-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 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 0 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 0 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 ND 

1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND 

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND 

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND 1,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 ND U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 0 ND U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 ND U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 ND 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 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 

Acetone 22,000 20,000 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND Benzene 5 170 0.70 J 1.0 0.32 0.16 0.58 J 1.0 0.32 0.16 18.8 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND 

Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND 

Bromoform 100 510 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND 

Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND 

Chlorobenzene 100 50 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND 

Chloroethane 8,600 16 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND Chloroform 70 2,400 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 0 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND 

Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND 

Ethylbenzene 700 30 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND 

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND 

Methyl 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 Methyl 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 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 0 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND 

Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 0 0.57 J 5.0b 0.70 0.35 0.37 J 5.0b 0.70 0.35 0.5

Styrene 100 10 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND 

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 0 ND U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 ND 

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND Tetrachloroethylene (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 Toluene 1,000 40 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND 

trans-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 Trichloroethylene (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 Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND 

Xylenes 10,000 20 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 

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 0.20 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 58.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02.

b In 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). DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (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 EALs

Trip Blank

(02/01)

OWDFMW01 dup 

ES059 (01/26)

ND

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa 

Trip Blank

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

a DOH 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).

RPD 

Duplicate 

(%)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

Result

OWDFMW01 

ES058

Result

Method Chemical DOH Drinking Water EALs for Human Toxicitya Result

--------------------

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 RHMW01, 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 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).

5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

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

indicated that TPH-DRO was present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF at concentrations 

equal or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All 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 μg/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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 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 (1,700 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. 

Acenaphthene (0.29 μg/L), fluorene (0.21 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.57 μg/L), and 

naphthalene (1.70 μg/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. 

Acenaphthylene (0.089 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.17 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.30 μg/L), and 

lead (0.17 μg/L) were 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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 

concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. 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, all 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). This indicates a significant release from one 

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

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

detected above the EALs. This indicates 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 eight consecutive 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 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 steadily increasing between sampling events.

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene detected in samples collected from RHMW02 increased 

for three consecutive events; however they have decreased in the subsequent monitoring events.

The fluctuation in concentrations measured during this event and previous events indicates the 

current source of 1-methylnaphthalene is potentially residual hydrocarbon contamination from a 

historical release. The general overall long-term trend in 1-methylnaphthalene concentration is 

decreasing and does not indicate a new release.

5.3 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, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil 

vapor monitoring are also recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and

RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH

and continuation of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF 

Groundwater Protection Plan (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

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.

_____, 2010. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl 

Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. August.

U.S. Geological 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 2012

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐1: TPH at RHMW2254‐01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐2: TPH at RHMW01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐3: TPH at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐4: TPH at RHMW03

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐5: TPH at RHMW05

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐6: PAHs at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

Naphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalene EAL1‐Methylnaphthalene EAL2‐Methylnaphthalene EAL

Time

Appendix C

Field Notebook, January-February 2012



Appendix D

Groundwater Sampling Logs, 

January-February 2012

WELL 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 

(ppt)

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 0915
WELL 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 

(ppt)

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 1020
WELL 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 

(ppt)

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 1215
WELL 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 

(ppt)

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, JT
WELL 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 

(ppt)

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)