# Final Second Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report
Inside Tunnel Wells

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

DOH Facility ID: 9-102271 DOH Release ID: 990051, 010011, and 020028

July 2013



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii
400 Marshall Road
JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Contract Number N 62742-12-D-1853, CTO 0002

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Final Second Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report
Inside Tunnel Wells

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

DOH Facility ID: 9-102271 DOH Release ID: 990051, 010011, and 020028

July 2013

Prepared for:



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii
400 Marshall Road JBPHH, HI 96860-3139

Prepared by:


# Environmental Science International, Inc. 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734

Prepared under:



# Contract Number N 62742-12-D-1853, CTO 0002

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page v July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

## FINAL SECOND QUARTER 2013 - QUARTERLY GR OUNDWATER MONITO RING REPORT
INSIDE TUNNEL WELLS
RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

Long-Term Groundwater and Soil Vapor Monitoring Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint-Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii



## Prepared for: Department of the Navy Commanding Officer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii
400 Marshall Road JBPHH, HI 96860-3139



## Prepared by: Environmental Science International, Inc. 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734 (808) 261-0740



## Prepared under:

Contract Number: N62742-12-D-1853
Contract Task Order: 0002

Approval Signature: Darren Uchima, Navy Technical Representative Date

Approval Signature: 7/2/2013 Robert Chong, ESI Project Manager Date

Approval Signature: 7/2/2013 Iris van der Zander, ESI QA Manager DateContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page vi July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page vii July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Site Description 1-1 1.2 Physical Settings 1-2
1.3 Background 1-3

2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Sampling 2-1
2.2 Analytical Results 2-1

2.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trends 2-2
2.4 Waste Disposal 2-3

3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-1

3.1 Data Validation and Assessment 3-1

3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions 3-3

4.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1

5.0 FUTURE WORK 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES 6-1Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page viii July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1.1 Current Status of USTs 1-2 2.1 Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (April 22 and 23, 2013) 2-5 3.1 Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (April 22, 2013) 3-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Site Location 2 Site Layout

APPENDICES

Appendix Title

A Groundwater Sampling Logs

B Field Notes C Laboratory Reports

D Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends
E Waste Disposal ManifestContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page ix July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

# ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS/
ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION/MEANING



### % percent bgs below ground surface
COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern DLNR State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources DOH State of Hawaii Department of Health DON Department of the Navy
EAL Environmental Action Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESI Environmental Science International
F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel
ID Identification
JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam JP-5 Jet Fuel Propellant-5 JP-8 Jet Fuel Propellant-8 LCS Laboratory Control Sample LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
LOD Limit of Detection
LOQ Limit of Quantitation μg/L micrograms per liter MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVSUP FLC Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PARCCS Precision, Accuracy, Representat iveness, Completeness, Comparability, and Sensitivity pH hydrogen activity RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
RPD Relative Percent Difference SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan TEC The Environmental Company, Inc. TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH-d Total Petroleum Hy drocarbons as diesel TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline
U.S. United States of America UST Underground Storage Tank VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WP Work PlanContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report Page x July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report ES-1 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the second quarter 2013 groundwater sampling conducted on April 22 and 23, 2013, at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility [RHSF], Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam [JBPHH], Hawaii. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. There are 18 active and 2 inactive Underground Storage Tanks [USTs] located at the RHSF. The State of Hawaii Department of Health [DOH] Facility
Identification [ID] number is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and

020028.

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC] Contract
Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling was conducted in accordance with the approved Work Plan [WP]/Sampling and Analysis Pl an [SAP] prepared by Environmental Science
International [ESI].

On April 22 and 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01). A
summary of the analytical results is provided below.

 RHMW01 – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel [TPH-d] (340 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) and dissolved lead (0.641 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH Environmental Action Levels [EALs] for both drinking water
toxicity and gross contamination.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,600 μg/L), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline [TPH-g] (54 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.24 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (16 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (13 μg/L), naphthalene (53 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.58 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL only for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (69 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (27 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), and naphthalene (0.033 μg/L) were
detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations

above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – Total lead (0.828 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report ES-2 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### Since the wells were last sampled (January 2013), groundwater contaminant concentrations in
four wells (RHMW01, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. Only the groundwater samples from RHMW01 and RHMW02 showed concentrations of COPCs exceeding the DOH

EALs.

TPH-d concentrations detected in the sample collected from well RHMW01 have increased above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination for the first time
since February 2012.

TPH-d concentrations detected in the sample collected from well RHMW02 are consistent with
previous analytical data, but increased in concentration relative to the last quarterly groundwater
sampling event. This is consistent with an increase in concentration in well RHMW01 during this
event. TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations
have decreased since the last sampling even t; however, elevated concentrations have been
detected in groundwater samples collected during past sampling events.

With the exception of TPH-g, concentrations of COPCs in well RHMW02 have not changedsignificantly. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have been decreasing since groundwater monitoring was initiated in 2005. This is the first sampling event that 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene
concentrations decreased since April 2012.

Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring, ESI recommends continuing the groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF. If TPH-d concentrations in well RHMW02 continue to increase, we recommend increasing monitoring frequency to monthly in accordance

with the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-1 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the second quarter 2013 groundwater sampling conducted on April 22 and 23, 2013, at the RHSF, JBPHH. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. The purpose of the sampling is to (1) assess the condition of groundwater beneath the RHSF with respect to chemical constituents associated with jet fuel propellant and marine diesel fuel, and (2) to ensure the Navy remains in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action. The DOH Facility ID
number for the RHSF is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and

020028.

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under NAVFAC Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling
was conducted in accordance with the appr oved WP/SAP prepared by ESI (ESI, 2012).

1.1 S ITE 

### D ESCRIPTION



### The RHSF is located on federal government land (zoned F1- Military and Federal), located in Halawa Heights, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl Harbor (Figure 1). It is located on a low ridge on the western edge of the Koolau Mountain Range that divides Halawa Valley from Moanalua Valley. The RHSF is bordered on the north by Halawa Correctional Facility and private businesses, on the west by the United Stat es of America [U.S.] Coast Guard reservation,
on the south by residential neighborhoods, and on the east by Moanalua Valley. A quarry is located less than a quarter mile away to the northwest. The RHSF occupies 144 acres of land
and the majority of the site is at an elevati on of approximately 200 to 500 feet above mean sea

level.

The RHSF contains 18 active and 2 inactive USTs that are operated by Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center [NAVSUP FLC] Pearl Harbor (formerly Fleet and Industrial Supply Center). Each UST has a capacity of approximately 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer. The USTs contain Jet Fuel Propellant-5
[JP-5], Jet Fuel Propellant-8 [JP-8], and Marine Diesel Fuel [F-76]. The current status of the

USTs are summarized in Table 1.1.

Five groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) are located within the RHSF lower access tunnel (Figure 2). Two groundwater monitoring wells (wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01) are located outside of the RHSF tunnel system. Monitoring data for the two wells located outside the tunnel are included in a

separate report.

Monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 are located inside the underground tunnels. Monitoring well RHMW2254-01 is located inside the infiltration gallery of the Department of the Navy [DON] Well 2254-01. The DON Well 2254-01 is locatedContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-2 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs and provides approximately 24 percent [%] of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor System, which serves approximately 52,200 military customers. NAVFAC Public Works Department oper ates the infiltration gallery and DON Well

2254-01.

TABLE 1.1
Current Status of the USTs Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility April 2013 Quarterly Monitoring Report

Tank Identification Fuel Type Status Capacity F-1 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons F-2 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-3 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-4 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-5 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-6 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-7 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-8 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-9 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-10 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-11 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-12 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-13 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-14 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-15 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-16 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-17 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-18 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-19 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons F-20 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel

J P-5 J et Fuel Propellant-5

J P-8 J et Fuel Propellant-8



### 1.2 P HYSICAL 

### S ETTING



### Climatological conditions in the area of the RHS F consist of warm to moderate temperatures and low to moderate rainfall. The RHSF is leeward of the prevailing northeasterly trade winds.
The average annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches, which occurs mainly between November and April (State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR], 1986). Annual pan evaporation is approximately 75 inches (DLNR, 1985). Average temperatures range from the low 60’s to high 80’s (degrees Fahrenheit) (Atlas of Hawaii, 1983).

Oahu consists of the eroded remnants of two shield volcanoes, Waianae and Koolau. The RHSF is located on the southwest flank of the Koolau volcanic shield. Lavas erupted during the shield-building phase of the volcano belong to the Koolau Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935). Following formation of the Koolau shield, a long period of volcanic quiescence occurred,
during which the shield was deeply eroded. Following this erosional period, eruptive activity
resumed. Lavas and pyroclastic material erupted during this period belong to the HonoluluContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-3 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935).

In the immediate area of the RHSF, Koolau Volcanic Series lavas dominate, although there are
consolidated and unconsolidated non-calcareous deposits in the vicinity that consist of alluvium generated during erosion of the Koolau volcanic shield. South-southwest of the RHSF, and in
isolated exposures to the west, are pyroclas tic deposits formed during eruptions from three
Honolulu Volcanic Series vents, Salt Lake, Aliamanu, and Makalapa (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935). Based on established geology and records of the drilled wells (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1938), the RHSF is underlain by Koolau Volcanic Series basalts. The area of the RHSF is

classified as Rock Land , where 25-90% of the land surface is covered by exposed rock and there are only shallow soils (Foote, et al., 1972).

Groundwater in Hawaii exists in two principal types of aquifers. The first and most important type, in terms of drinking water resources, is the basal aquifer. The basal aquifer exists as a lens of fresh water floating on and displacing seawater within the pore spaces, fractures, and voids of the basalt that forms the underlying mass of each Hawaiian island. In parts of Oahu, groundwater in the basal aquifer is confined by the overlying caprock and is under pressure. Waters that flow freely to the surface from wells that tap the basal aquifer are referred to as

artesian

.

The second type of aquifer is the caprock aquifer, which consists of various kinds of unconfined and semi-confined groundwater. Commonly, the caprock consists of a thick sequence of nearly
impermeable clays, coral, and basalt, which s eparates the caprock aquifer from the basal
aquifer. The impermeable nature of these materials and the artesian nature of the basal aquifer severely restrict the downward migration of groundwater from the upper caprock aquifer. In the area of the RHSF, there is no discernible caprock.

Groundwater in the area of the RHSF is part of the Waimalu Aquifer System of the Pearl Harbor Aquifer Sector. The aquifer is classified as a basal, unconfined, flank-type; and is currently used as a drinking water source. The aquifer is considered fresh with less than 250 milligrams per liter of chloride and is considered an irreplaceable resource with a high vulnerability to contamination (Mink and Lau, 1990).

The nearest drinking water supply well is DON Well 2254-01, located in the infiltration gallery within the RHSF. The DON Well 2254-01 is located approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs (Figure 2).

1.3 B ACKGROUND



### The RHSF was constructed by the U.S. Government in the early 1940s. Twenty USTs and a series of tunnels were constructed. The USTs were constructed of steel and they currently contain JP-5, JP-8, and F-76. Several tanks in the past have stored DON special fuel oil, DON
distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline (Environet, 2010). The fueling system is a selfcontained underground unit that was installed into native rock comprised primarily of basalt withContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-4 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### some interbedded tuffs and breccias (Environet, 2010). Each UST measures approximately 245 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at a depth varying between 100 feet and 200 feet below ground surface [bgs].

In 1998, Earth Tech conducted a Phase II remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Oily Waste Disposal Facility located within the RHSF. The study involved installing well OWDFMW01 (which was originally MW08) (Earth Tech, 1999).

In February 2001, the DON installed groundwater monitoring well RHMW01 to monitor for contamination in the basal aquifer beneath the RHSF. Well RHMW01 was installed approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access tunnel. The depth to water was measured at 86 feet below grade at the time of the well completion. In February 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from the well. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons [TPH] and lead were detected in the samples. Lead was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL (The Environmental Company, Inc. [TEC], 2009; DOH, 2000).

In 2005, the RHSF groundwater monitoring program was initiated. It involved routine groundwater sampling of wells RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, June, September, and December of 2005. Lead was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL in samples collected in February and June. The samples collected in
February and June were not filtered prior to analysis, whereas the samples collected in September and December were filtered prior to analysis. Since the samples collected in
February and June were not filtered prior to analysis, the lead results were not considered appropriate for a risk assessment (TEC, 2008).

Between June and September 2005, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW04) within the RHSF (TEC, 2008). Well RHMW04 was installed upgradient of the USTs to provide background geochemistry information for water moving through the basal aquifer beneath the RHSF. Wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were installed approximately 125 feet below grade within the RHSF lower tunnel and well RHMW04 was installed to a depth of approximately 300 feet bgs outside of the RHSF tunnels. In September 2005, groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW04) along with the two existing wells (wells RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01). The COPCs with concentrations exceeding

DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, trichloroethylene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2006, TEC installed dedicated sampling pumps in the five wells (wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, RHWM04,and RHMW2254-01). In July and December of 2006, groundwaterContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-5 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### samples were collected from the five wells. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH

EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the

DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2007, groundwater samples were collected from the four wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in March, June, and September of 2007. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2008, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October of 2008. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below. In addition, a groundwater protection plan (TEC, 2008) was prepared.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were

detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In April 2009, groundwater monitoring well RHMW05 was installed downgradient of the USTs,

within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01. It was installed to identify the extent of contamination downgradient of the USTs. Well RHMW05 was added to the
quarterly groundwater sampling program. In 2009, quarterly groundwater samples were collect from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, May, July, and October of 2009. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d and 1-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations above the

DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were

detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-6 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### In 2010, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, and 1-methylnaphthalene were detected at

concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

In 2011, quarterly groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and 1-methylnaphthalene were

detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

In 2012, quarterly groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, April, July, and November. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, TPH-g, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

In January 2013, quarterly groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01,
RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, TPH-g, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

1.3.1 Previous Reports

The following groundwater monitoring reports we re 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).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-7 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### 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 Report, January 2008 (submitted March 2008).

11. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2008 (submitted May 2008).

12. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2008 (submitted October 2008).

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

14. Groundwater Monitoring Report, February 2009 (submitted May 2009).

15. Groundwater Monitoring Report, May 2009 (submitted July 2009).

16. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2009 (submitted September 2009).

17. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2009 (submitted December 2009).

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

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

20. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2010 (submitted August 2010).

21. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2010 (submitted December 2010).

22. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2011 (submitted March 2011).

23. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2011 (submitted June 2011).

24. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2011 (submitted September 2011).

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

26. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January-February 2012 (submitted March 2012).

27. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2012 (Submitted July 2012).

28. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2012 (Submitted in January 2013).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 1-8 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### 29. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2013 (Submitted in April 2013).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 2-1 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 2 – GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

On April 22 and 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01). The samples were collected in accordance with DOH UST release response requirements (DOH, 2000) and the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008). Prior to purging and sampling, the depth to groundwater and the depth to the bottoms of the wells were measured using a Geotech oil/water interface probe. No meas urable product, sheen, or petroleum hydrocarbon odor was detected in any of the wells.

2.1 G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Prior to collecting groundwater samples, the monitoring wells were purged of water in the well
casings. Each well contains a dedicated bladder pump which was used to purge the well and to collect samples. To operate the pump, a portable air compressor with an in-line filter was connected to a QED MP50 MicroPurge Basics Controller box, which was then connected to the
pump. The compressor was turned on to power the pump and the controller was used to adjust the pumping rate to less than one liter of water per minute.

Water quality parameters were monitored on a periodic basis during well purging. The water
quality parameters that were measured incl uded hydrogen activity [pH], temperature,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation reduction potential. The water quality parameters were evaluated to assess whether the natural characteristics of the aquifer formation water were present within the monitoring wells before collecting the samples. At least four readings were
collected during the purging process. Purging was considered complete when at least three
consecutive water quality measurements stabilized within approximately 10%. The readings
were recorded on groundwater monitoring logs. The groundwater monitoring logs are included in Appendix A. In addition, field notes were taken to document the sampling event. The field
notes are included in Appendix B.

When the water quality parameters stabilized, groundwater samples were collected from the
wells using the bladder pumps. The groundwater samples were collected no more than two hours after purging was completed to decrease groundwater interaction with the monitoring well
casing and atmosphere. Prior to collecting the sample, the water level in the monitoring wells
was measured and recorded to ensure that water was not drawn down. The groundwater samples were collected at flow rates of approximately 0.14 to 0.42 liters per minute. Samples collected for dissolved lead analysis were filtered in the field using 0.45 micron filters.

2.2 A NALYTICAL 

### R ESULTS



### The samples were analyzed for TPH-d using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Method 8015M, TPH-g and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs] using EPA Method 8260B,
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [PAHs] using EPA Method 8270C SIM, dissolved lead using EPA Method 6020, and total lead using EPA Method 200.8. The sample collected from wellContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 2-2 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### RHMW2254-01 was analyzed for total lead (unfiltered) as DON Well 2254-01 is a drinking water
supply well. The analytical results are summarized below and in Table 2.1. A copy of the laboratory report is included in Appendix C.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (340 μg/L) and dissolved lead (0.641 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross

contamination.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,600 μg/L), TPH-g (54 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.24 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (16 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (13 μg/L), naphthalene (53 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.58 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL only for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (69 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (27 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), and naphthalene (0.033 μg/L) were
detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations

above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – Total lead (0.828 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

2.3 G ROUNDWATER 

### C ONTAMINANT 

### T RENDS



### Historical groundwater contaminant concentra tion trends of COPCs that exceeded the DOH EALs are presented in Appendix D. A summary of groundwater contaminant trends is provided

below.

 RHMW01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. TPH-d concentrations showed a decreasing trend from 1,500 μg/L in February 2005 to 79 μg/L in February 2013. The TPH-d concentration increased from 79 μg/L in February 2013 to 340 μg/L during this sampling

event. This is the first time TPH-d has been detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination since February 2012.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs. TPH-d concentrations during the last several rounds of sampling have shown an increasing trend, but concentrations have been lower than the high of 5,420 μg/L in October 2008.
1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations decreasedContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 2-3 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### since the last event in January 2013. The concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene fell below the drinking water EAL. The TPH-g concentration has decreased from 655 μg/L in January 2013 to below the gross contamination EAL again with 54 μg/L detected during this
sampling event.

 RHMW03 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs since October 2010.

 RHMW05 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs since January 2010.

 RHMW2254-01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL for gross
contamination in January 2008; however, it has not been detected at concentrations above

the DOH EALs since then.

Historical groundwater contaminants concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking
water toxicity and gross contamination are presented in Appendix D.

2.4 W ASTE 

### D ISPOSAL



### The purged groundwater and decontamination water generated during sampling of the inside
tunnel wells was stored in a 55-gallon drum along with the purged water and decontamination water from the outside tunnel wells. The water was disposed of following receipt of the analytical
results for the outside tunnel wells. The drum was stored onsite at Adit 3. On June 5, 2013, the drum of water was picked up by Pacific Commerc ial Services, LLC, and disposed of at Unitek Solvent Services, Inc. The waste disposal manifest is included in Appendix E.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 2-4 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank

.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report2-5July 2013Inside Tunnel WellsTABLE 2.1Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (April 22 and 23, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityApril 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemicalDOH EALsRHMW2254-01 (ES023)RHWM01 (ES019)RHMW02 (ES020)RHWM03 (ES022)RHMW05 (ES024)Drinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 100 N.D. U 50 20 15340HD 50 20 152,600HD 50 20 15 69 HD 50 20 15 27 J 50 20 15EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 100 N.D.U 50 30 13 N.D. U 50 30 13 54 50 30 13 N.D.U 50 30 13 15J 50 30 13EPA 8270CAcenaphthene 370 20 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.021 N.D. U 0.21 0.052 0.021 0.58 0.2 0.051 0.021 N.D.U 0.21 0.053 0.019 N.D.U 0.190.048 0.020Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.018 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.018 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.018 N.D.U 0.21 0.053 0.019 N.D.U 0.190.0480.017Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.035 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.035 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.035 N.D.U 0.21 0.053 0.036 N.D.U 0.190.0480.033Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D.U 0.21 0.053 0.025 N.D.U 0.190.0480.023Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.022 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.022 N.D.U 0.210.0530.023 N.D.U 0.190.0480.021Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.037 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.037 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.037 N.D.U 0.210.0530.038 N.D.U 0.190.0480.035Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.025 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.026 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.025 N.D.U 0.210.0530.026 N.D.U 0.190.0480.024Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D.U 0.210.0530.025 N.D.U 0.190.0480.023Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.019 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.020 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.019 N.D.U 0.210.0530.020 N.D.U 0.190.0480.018Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.027 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.028 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.027 N.D.U 0.210.0530.028 N.D.U 0.190.0480.026Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.028 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.028 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.028 N.D.U 0.210.0530.029 N.D.U 0.190.0480.026Fluorene 240 950 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.025 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.025 0.24 0.2 0.051 0.025 N.D.U 0.210.0530.026 N.D.U 0.190.0480.024Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.022 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.023 N.D. U 0.2 0.051 0.022 N.D.U 0.210.0530.023 N.D.U 0.190.0480.0211-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.029 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.029162 0.51 0.29 N.D.U 0.210.0530.030 N.D.U 0.190.0480.0272-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.027 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.027132 0.51 0.27 N.D.U 0.210.0530.028 N.D.U 0.190.0480.026Naphthalene 17 21 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.023 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.024532 0.51 0.23 N.D.U 0.210.0530.024 0.033 J 0.190.0480.022Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.031 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.031 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.031 N.D.U 0.210.0530.032 N.D.U 0.190.0480.030Pyrene 180 68 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.025 N.D.U 0.21 0.052 0.026 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.025 N.D.U 0.210.0530.026 N.D.U 0.19 0.0480.024EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.31,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.25 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.25 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.25 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.25 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 N.D.U 20 10 6 N.D.U 20 10 6 N.D.U 20 10 6 N.D.U 20 10 6 N.D.U 20 10 6Benzene 5 170 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D.ICJ, U 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.ICJ, U 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.ICJ, U 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.ICJ, U 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.ICJ, U 10 2.0 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 0.21 J 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.3Xylenes 10,000 20 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 0.58 J 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23EPA 6020 Dissolved Lead 15 50,000 - - - - - 0.641 J 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D. U 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1 0.2 0.0898EPA 200.8 Total Lead 15 50,000 0.828 J 1.0 -* 0.0898 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not AnalyzedJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.DL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)LOD Limit of DetectionDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). LOQ Limit of QuantitationEPA Environmental Protection AgencyN.D. Not DetectedHD The chromatographic pattern was inconsistent with the profile of the reference fuel standard.Q QualifiersICJ Initial calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselIH Calibration verification recovery below method control limit for this analyte.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineIJ Calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.* This sample was analyzed by EPA Method 200.8 and therefore does not have an LODContract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report2-6July 2013Inside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 3-1 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 3 – DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

A data quality assessment, which consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analysis process, was performed in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meets the quality objectives for the project. The data quality assessment was
performed in accordance with the approved WP/SAP prepared by ESI (ESI, 2012). The field quality control program consisted of standardized sample collection and management
procedures, and the collection of field duplicate samples, matrix spike samples, and trip blank samples. The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of Matrix Spike [MS]/Matrix Spike Duplicate [MSD] samples, surrogate spikes, blanks, and Laboratory Control Samples [LCSs].

3.1 Data Validation and Assessment

The objective of data validation is to provide dat a of known quality for project decisions. Data quality is judged in terms of Precision, A ccuracy, Representativeness, Completeness, Comparability, and Sensitivity [PARCCS]. A number of factors may affect the quality of data,
including: sample collection methods, sample analysis methods, and adherence to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, management, shipment, and analysis.

Precision

Precision is defined as the reproducibility of rep licate measurements. Precision is evaluated by Relative Percentage Difference [RPD] of field duplicates and laboratory LCS/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates [LCSDs] or MS/MSD results. Field duplicate and MS/MSD samples were
collected at a rate of approximately 10% of primary samples. Field duplicates were sent to the
laboratory along with the primary samples.

RPDs of MS/MSD results for acetone and 1,1- dichloroethylene were above the acceptable maximum of 20%. As neither COPC was detected in any groundwater sample, and the EALs are significantly higher than Limits of Detection [LODs] for each chemical, this is considered acceptable. All other RPDs for MS/MSD and LCS/LCSD pairs were within the acceptance

range.

The RPDs of primary and field duplicate samples are provided in Table 3.1. All duplicate RPDs are less than 20% (below 50% as recommended in the NAVFAC Project Procedures Manual [DON 2007]), and therefore, the data precision is considered acceptable.

Accuracy

Accuracy is defined as the degree of conformity of a measurement to a standard or true value. Accuracy is evaluated through measurement of the percent recovery of an analyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for surrogates, laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 3-2 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### Between July 2006 and July 2010, naphthalene was analyzed for by both EPA Methods 8260B and 8270C, and both results were reported. In September 2005 and in all data beginning in October 2010, only results using EPA Method 8270C were reported. Naphthalene has historically only been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs in well RHMW02. In this
well, concentrations of naphthalene detected in each sample by EPA Method 8260B were generally two to three times higher than those detected by EPA Method 8270C. We assume this is due to the better preservation of VOCs associated with the use of EPA Method 8260B. This
suggests that the naphthalene results provided by EPA Method 8270C may be biased low. Since October 2012, naphthalene concentrations in RHMW02 have exceeded DOH EALs for
both gross contamination and drinking water to xicity. The naphthalene concentration detected in July 2012 (17 μg/L) was equal to the DOH EAL for drinking water (17 μg/L) but below the DOH EAL for gross contamination (21 μg/L); it is possible that accounting for the low bias, the actual
naphthalene concentration detected during this event exceeded both EALs. Naphthalene concentrations between April 2011 and April 2012 were all an order of magnitude below both EALs, and it is unlikely that decisions based on these data are significantly affected by the low

bias

Results for TPH-d in samples ES019, ES020, ES021, and ES022 were flagged “HD.” The
laboratory indicated a mismatch between the calibration standard and the TPH-d chromatographic profile. Mismatches of this type are not uncommon. The chromatograms are not part of the standard laboratory package and were not reviewed by ESI.

For this monitoring event, the initial calibration for bromomethane and chloromethane were outside the method control limits. Therefore, the data for these analytes may be biased low. Neither COPC was detected in the groundwater samples. The DOH EAL for drinking water
exceeds the Limit of Quantitation [LOQ] for bromomethane and is near the LOD; however, no other HVOCs were detected in any of the groundwater samples, so it is unlikely that
bromomethane is present at concentrations that warrant concern in any of the groundwater
samples.

All surrogate spike recoveries for analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits. The percent recovery of acetone in the LCS exceeded recovery limits, indicating a possible high bias. Acetone was not detected in any of the samples; therefore, the high bias does not compromise the usability of the data set. All other LCS recoveries were within recovery limits. Naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations for ES020, the primary sample on which the MS/MSD were performed, were significantly higher than the added spike concentration, which prevented an accurate evaluation of the MS/MSD recovery for these analytes. MS recoveries for acetone and 1,1-dichloroethylene were below the acceptable minimum percentage, suggesting matrix interferenc e may cause a low bias. As neither COPC
was detected in any groundwater sample, and the EALs are significantly higher than LODs for
each chemical, this is considered acceptable.

All other MS and MSD recoveries were within acceptable recovery limits, therefore, the data accuracy for this monitoring event is considered acceptable.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 3-3 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree that data accurately and precisely represents 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 WP/SAP (ESI, 2012).

Representativeness is also evaluated via compli ance with established sample holding time and sample preservation, and through the analysis of blank samples, including method blank and
trip blank samples. The sample holding time and sample preservation were in compliance with EPA guidance. For this sampling event, one trip blank was collected. TPH-g (21 μg/L) and trichloroethene (0.68 μg/L) were detected in the trip blank. TPH-g was detected in the trip blank at a concentration below the LOD. Trichloroethene was not detected in any of the groundwater samples. TPH-g was detected in samples ES020, ES021, and ES024. In ES020 and ES021,
the TPH-g is likely associated with the gasoline-range organics associated with the high concentrations of TPH-d. In ES024, the concentration detected (15 μg/L) is very close to the
concentration detected in the blank. Therefore, it is likely that the concentration detected in ES024 is an artifact of blank contamination. However, concentrations of TPH-g detected in the
samples were no more than approximately half of the EAL, and it is unlikely the contamination in the trip blank significantly affects data usability. Therefore, the groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site. The quality control results are
provided in Table 3.2.

Completeness

Completeness is defined as the overall percentage of valid analytical results (including estimated results) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the analytical laboratory. No data were rejected for this project, and therefore the completeness goal for this project (90%), was successfully met.

Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another data set. Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are
measures of data reliability. Data, with acce ptable precision and accuracy, are considered comparable if collection techniques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are
equivalent.

Between July 2006 and July 2010, naphthalene was analyzed for by both EPA Methods 8260B and 8270C, and both results were reported. In September 2005 and in all data beginning in October 2010, only results using EPA Method 8270C were reported. In general, EPA Method
8260B resulted in higher, and as discussed above likely more accurate, results than EPA Method 8270C. However, for the sake of comparability with results from recent events, EPA Method 8270C was used for naphthalene analysis in this event. Consequently, the low bias associated with Method 8270C should be considered when making project decisions.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Stat us Report 3-4 July 2013
Inside Tunnel Wells



### All TPH-g data through July 2010 were analyzed by EPA Method 8015; beginning in October
2010, EPA Method 8260B was used. There was no event where both methods were used;
consequently, there is no way to directly compare the results obtained by method and to assess
potential bias. However, there is no reason to believe that using either method should bias the data, and the TPH-g data for all events should be comparable.

Other than the naphthalene bias discussed above, no issues with comparability were identified.
The results are considered comparable within this data set and with the data collected from
previous sampling events.

Sensitivity

The limits of quantitation [LOQs] are established by the laboratory based on the LODs or
instrument detection limits, 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. Laboratory LODs and LOQs for several analytes differed from the LODs and LOQs in the WP/SAP because the laboratory updates them quarterly and in some cases, dilution was necessary due to the presence of high concentrations of analytes.

LODs and LOQs for several analytes were greater than the DOH EALs (as stated in the WP/SAP) and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the analytes are present at concentrations greater than or equal to the DOH EALs. As suggested by the DOH Technical Guidance Manual, when the LOQ exceeds the DOH EAL, the project action level will be the LOQ for these analytes. The affected analytes for this monitoring event are 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,2,3-trichloropropane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane,
1,3-dichloropropene, bromodichloromethane, bromomethane, chloromethane, dibromochloromethane, methylene chloride, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene,
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, and ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene.

3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions

The PARCCS criteria were evaluated, and with a few exceptions, all criteria were met. TPH-g
contamination in the trip blank shows that there may be a slight high bias in the TPH-g groundwater sample results; however, it is unlikely that this affects the usability of the data for making project decisions. Other analytes that had issues causing concentrations to be biased
high or low were either not detected in groundwater samples, or were detected at
concentrations well below project action levels. The data assessment concludes that all data generated during this event are usable for the intended purpose.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report3-5July 2013Inside Tunnel WellsTABLE 3.1Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (April 22, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityApril 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW02 (ES020)RHMW02 (ES021) (DUP)RPD Duplicate(%)ES TripDrinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 1002,600HD 50 20 153,300HD 50 20 15 24 - - - - -EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 10054 50 30 1356 50 30 13 4 21 J 50 30 13EPA 8270CAcenaphthene 370 20 0.58 0.2 0.051 0.021 0.65 0.19 0.048 0.020 11 - - - - -Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.018 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.017 NA - - - - -Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.035 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.032NA- - - - -Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.023NA- - - - -Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.022 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.021NA- - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.037 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.035NA- - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.025 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.024NA- - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.024 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.022NA- - - - -Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.019 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.018NA- - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D.U 0.2 0.0510.027 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.025NA- - - - -Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.028 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.026NA- - - - -Fluorene 240 950 0.24 0.2 0.051 0.025 0.28 0.19 0.048 0.028 15 - - - - -Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D. U 0.2 0.051 0.022 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.021 NA - - - - -1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10162.0 0.51 0.29203.8 0.95 0.54 22 - - - - -2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10132.0 0.51 0.27163.8 0.95 0.50 6 - - - - -Naphthalene 17 21532.0 0.51 0.23613.8 0.95 0.44 14 - - - - -Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.031 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.029NA- - - - -Pyrene 180 68 N.D.U 0.2 0.051 0.025 N.D. U 0.19 0.048 0.024NA- - - - -EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.30 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.30NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.301,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.38NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.28NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.43NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D. U 5.0 1.0 0.64NAN.D. U 5.0 1.0 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.50 N.D. U 5.0 1.0 0.50NAN.D. U 5.0 1.0 0.501,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D.U 102.0 1.2 N.D. U 102.0 1.2NAN.D. U 102.0 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.36NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.46NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.24NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D.U5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D. U5.0 0.5 0.42NAN.D. U5.0 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.40NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.401,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D.U 2.0 1.0 0.25 N.D. U 2.0 1.0 0.25NAN.D. U 2.0 1.0 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.43NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 N.D.U 20 10 6.0 N.D. U 20 10 6.0NAN.D. U 20 10 6.0Benzene 5 170 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.14NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.21NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.5 N.D. U 10 1.0 0.5NAN.D. U 10 1.0 0.5Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D.ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D. ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9NAN.D. ICJ, U 20 5.0 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.23NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.17NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D. U 10 5.0 2.3NAN.D. U 10 5.0 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.46NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D.ICJ, U 102.0 1.8 N.D. ICJ, U 102.0 1.8NAN.D. ICJ, U 102.0 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.48NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.25NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 0.21 J 1.0 0.5 0.14 0.21 J 1.0 0.5 0.14 0 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.32NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.2 N.D. U 10 5.0 2.2NAN.D. U 10 5.0 2.2Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4NAN.D. U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.31NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D.U 5.01.0 0.64 N.D. U 5.01.0 0.64NAN.D. U 5.01.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.17NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.40NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.40Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.41NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.39NAN.D. U 5.0 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.24NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.37NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.37NA0.68 U 1.0 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30 N.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.30NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.30Xylenes 10,000 20 0.58 J 11 1.5 0.23 0.58 J 11 1.5 0.23 0 N.D. U 11 1.5 0.23EPA 6020 Lead 15 50,000 N.D. U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 N.D. U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 NA - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not AnalyzedLOQ Limit of QuantitationDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). NA Both results for duplicate pair were non-detect, no RPD calculationsDL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)N.D. Not DetectedEPA Environmental Protection AgencyQ QualifiersICJ Initial calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineIJ Calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.LOD Limit of DetectionContract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report3-6July 2013Inside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 4-1 July 2013



### SECTION 4 – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 22 and 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01).

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under NAVFAC Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling
was conducted in accordance with the approv ed WP/SAP prepared by ESI. A summary of the
analytical results is provided below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (340 μg/L) and dissolved lead (0.641 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross

contamination.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,600 μg/L), TPH-g (54 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.24 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (16 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (13 μg/L), naphthalene (53 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.58 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL only for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (69 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for

were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (27 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), and naphthalene (0.033 μg/L) were
detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations

above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – Total lead (0.828 μg/L) was detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

Groundwater Contaminant Trends

 RHMW01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. TPH-d concentrations showed a decreasing trend from 1,500 μg/L in February 2005 to 79 μg/L in February 2013. The TPH-d concentration increased from 79 μg/L in February 2013 to 340 μg/L during this sampling

event. This is the first time TPH-d has been detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination since February 2012.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs. TPH-d concentrations during the last several rounds of sampling have shown an increasing trend,Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 4-2 July 2013 

### but concentrations have been lower than the high of 5,420 μg/L in October 2008.
1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations decreased since the last event in January 2013. The concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene fell below the drinking water EAL. The TPH-g concentration has decreased from 655 μg/L in January 2013 to below the gross contamination EAL again with 54 μg/L detected during this
sampling event.

 RHMW03 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs since October 2010.

 RHMW05 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs since January 2010.

 RHMW2254-01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL for gross
contamination in January 2008; however, it has not been detected at concentrations above

the DOH EALs since then.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the wells were last sampled (January 2013), groundwater contaminant concentrations in
four wells (RHMW01, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. Only the groundwater samples from RHMW01 and RHMW02 showed concentrations of COPCs exceeding the DOH

EALs.

TPH-d concentrations detected in the sample collected from well RHMW01 have increased above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination for the first time
since February 2012.

TPH-d concentrations detected in the sample collected from well RHMW02 are consistent with
previous analytical data, but increased in concentration relative to the last quarterly groundwater
sampling event. This is consistent with an increase in concentration in well RHMW01 during this
event. TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations
have decreased since the last sampling even t; however, elevated concentrations have been
detected in groundwater samples collected during past sampling events.

With the exception of TPH-g, concentrations of COPCs in well RHMW02 have not changedsignificantly. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have been decreasing since groundwater monitoring was initiated in 2005. This is theContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 4-3 July 2013



### first sampling event that 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene
concentrations decreased since April 2012.

Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring, ESI recommends continuing the groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF. If TPH-d concentrations in well RHMW02 continue to increase, we recommend increasing monitoring frequency to monthly in accordance

with the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 4-4 July 2013 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 5-1 July 2013



### SECTION 5 – FUTURE WORK

G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Future work includes the third quarter 2013 groundwater monitoring which is scheduled for July
2013. It is anticipated that the quarterly groundwater monitoring status report will be submitted
in August 2013.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 5-2 July 2013 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 6-1 July 2013



### SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

Atlas of Hawaii, 1983, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii Press.

DLNR, 1985, Pan Evaporation: State of Hawai’i 1894-1983: Report R74, Division of Water and
Land Development, August 1995.

DLNR, 1986, Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii: Report R76, Division of Water and Land Development,

June 1986.

DOH, 2000, Hawaii Department of Health, Technical Guidance Manual for Underground Storage Tank Closure and Release Response, March 2000.

DOH, 2011, Screening for Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Hawai'i Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response,

December 2011.

DON, 2007, Project Procedures Manual, U.S. Na vy Installation Restoration Program, NAVFAC Pacific, Prepared for Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC Pacific),
February 2007.

Earth Tech, 1999, Remedial Investigation, Phase II Technical Report, Red Hill Oily Waste Disposal Facility, Halawa, Oahu, Hawaii, Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 1999.

Environet, 2010, Work Plan, Long-Term Monitoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, September 2010.

ESI, 2012, Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl
Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, October 2012.

ESI, 2013a, Fourth Quarter 2012 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Inside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, January 2013.

ESI, 2013b, First Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Inside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, April 2013.

Foote et al., 1972, Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of

Hawaii.

Mink, J. F. and Lau, L. S., 1990, Aquifer Identif ication and Classification for Oahu: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawaii: Water Resources Research Center Technical Report No. 179,
February 1990.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 2Q2013 Status Report
Inside Tunnel Wells 6-2 July 2013



### Stearns, H. T. and Vaksvik, K. N., 1935, Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii: Hawaii Div. Hydrogr. Bull.

Stearns, H. T. and Vaksvik, K. N., 1938, Records of the Drilled Wells on the Island of Oahu,
Hawaii: Hawaii Div. Hydrogr. Bull. 4, 213 p.

TEC, 2008, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Prepared for
Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, January 2008.

TEC, 2009, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Prepared for Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, September 2009.

# FIGURES

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.KAENAPOINTKAHUKUMAKAHAMAILINANAKULIWAIANAEBARBERSPOINTEWABEACHHONOLULUINTERNATIONALAIRPORTWAIKIKIDIAMONDHICKAMAFBKAPOLEIEWAMOKULEIAHALEIWAWAIMEAPOINTLAIEPUNALUUKAAAWAWAIAHOLEKANEOHE BAYKANEOHEMOKAPUKAILUAWAIMANALOMAKAPUUPOINTHAWAIIKAIKAHALAHONOLULUWAHIAWASCHOFIELDBARRACKSPEARL CITY8393080399807808361637872618383676637809393075099H3H1H1H1H2(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGERED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)GRAPHIC SCALE0900900Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesPROJECTLOCATIONFIGURE 1SITE LOCATIONGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.SVMP04SVMP06SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP17SVMP15SVMP11SVMP09SVMP07SVMP05SVMP03(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)RED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYSVMP13SVMP08HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGEHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)SVMP02SVMP10OWDFMW01HDMW2253-03RHMW2254-01U.S. Navy Well 2254-01RHMW05RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03RHMW04GRAPHIC SCALE01,2001,200Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYHALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITYHALAWA STREAMBUILDINGROADABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKWATER TANKSOIL VAPOR MONITORING POINTGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED INSIDE TUNNELGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED OUTSIDE TUNNELBOARD OF WATER SUPPLY PUMPSTATIONLEGENDSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesFIGURE 2SITE LAYOUTGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX A

Groundwater Sampling Logs

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method:

Appearance of Sample:

Color:

Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers:

Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:

Date: Time: Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

84.84 ft Date: 4/22/2013 817 RHMW01

97.40 ft

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

-

Bladder Pump

Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 7.41

7.10

7.09

7.09 0.14 L/min

83.84 ft - -

850

854 7.70

7.65 0.363

0.365

859

908

915

925 0.0 L

1.0 L

2.0 L

3.0 L

4.0 L

5.0 L 0.366

0.365

0.364 4.10

3.38

2.61

1.77

1.63 0.367

1.61 25.18 25.20 25.24 25.64 25.64 0.17

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.17

25.17 0.17 110.6

94.1

86.1

87.5

86.5

85.7

lead - 6020
6 - 40ml VOAs, 2 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml amber jar, 1 - 250ml HDPE

ES019 [0915] Clear

Low

None

4/23/2013 1200 Bladder Pump

Triple Rinsed

None Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim;

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method:

Appearance of Sample:

Color:

Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers:

Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:

Date: Time: RHMW02 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

86.50 ft Date: 4/22/2013 1020

94.35 ft Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

5.0 L Bladder Pump

86.50 ft 0.35 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

1030 0.0 L 8.01 0.600 5.60 25.00 0.29 33.9

1033 1.0 L 7.41 0.624 1.80 24.27 0.31 -31.9

1035 2.0 L 7.30 0.621 0.96 24.19 0.31 -35.0

1038 3.0 L 7.26 0.620 0.91 24.17 0.31 -38.0

1041 4.0 L 7.27 0.620 0.89 24.15 0.31 -39.1

1044 5.0 L 7.25 0.618 0.87 24.13 0.31 -40.3

Clear

Low

None

None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim; Bladder Pump

lead - 6020

ES020 [1100], ES020 MS/MSD [1100], ES021 (Dup) [1215]

Triple Rinsed

None Justin Lam, Branden Ibara 16 - 40ml VOAs, 6 - 1L amber jar, 4 - 500ml amber jar,4 - 500ml HDPE

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

4/23/2013 1200 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method:

Appearance of Sample:

Color:

Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers:

Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:

Date: Time: RHMW03 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

102.78 ft Date: 4/22/2013 1135

110.12 ft Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

6.0 L Bladder Pump

102.78 ft 0.33 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

1140 0.0 L 7.99 0.868 6.90 28.08 0.39 68.8

1143 1.0 L 7.55 0.867 5.51 27.34 0.39 81.1

1146 2.0 L 7.27 0.861 2.22 26.44 0.40 84.0

1149 3.0 L 7.09 0.852 2.24 26.40 0.40 86.3

1152 4.0 L 7.06 0.845 1.96 26.31 0.40 87.3

1155 5.0 L 7.02 0.845 1.86 26.28 0.40 87.6

1158 6.0 L 7.01 0.844 1.84 26.26 0.40 87.8

Clear

Low

None

None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim; Bladder Pump

lead - 6020
6 - 40ml VOAs, 2 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml amber jar, 1 - 250ml HDPE

ES022 [1230]

Triple Rinsed

None Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

4/23/2013 1200 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method:

Appearance of Sample:

Color:

Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers:

Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:

Date: Time: RHMW05 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

83.41 ft Date: 4/23/2013 1005

- Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump

83.41 ft 0.42 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

1009 0.0 L 8.41 1.030 7.52 22.60 0.53 203.1

1012 1.0 L 8.03 1.011 7.21 22.32 0.53 215.5

1015 2.0 L 7.86 1.009 7.13 22.28 0.53 217.1

1017 3.0 L 7.78 1.007 7.09 22.26 0.53 217.2

1019 4.0 L 7.69 1.005 6.99 22.23 0.53 215.7

1021 5.0 L 7.68 1.005 6.96 22.21 0.53 214.3

Clear

Clear

None

None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim; Bladder Pump

lead - 6020
6 - 40ml VOAs, 2 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml amber jar, 1 - 250ml HDPE

ES024 [1030]

Triple Rinsed

None Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

4/23/2013 1200 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method:

Appearance of Sample:

Color:

Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers:

Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:

Date: Time: Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

82.61 ft Date: 4/23/2013 850 RHMW2254-01

- Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump

- 0.25 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

854 0.0 L 7.32 0.694 6.50 24.91 0.33 232.9

858 1.0 L 7.50 0.607 6.99 24.83 0.29 221.1

902 2.0 L 7.60 0.602 6.89 24.63 0.29 215.1

906 3.0 L 7.58 0.595 7.04 24.63 0.29 216.9

Clear

Clear

None

None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim; Bladder Pump

lead - 200.8
6 - 40ml VOAs, 2 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml amber jar, 1 - 250ml HDPE

ES023, ES023 UF [0925]

Triple Rinsed

None Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

4/23/2013 1200 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX B

Field Notes

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX C

Laboratory Reports

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

## Analytical Report For

Client: Environmental Science International, Inc. Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Attention: Robert Chong

354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734-2500 

# WORK ORDER NUMBER: 13-04-1789

Richard Villafania Project Manager 

### 05/1/2013 

## Page 1 of 50

# Contents

Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 13-04-1789



## 1 Work Order Narrative

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

2 Client Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 EPA 6020 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 EPA 8015B (M) TPH Diesel (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 EPA 8270C SIM PAHs (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 GC/MS GRO/EPA 8260B Volatile Organics (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 13-04-1789 Method 200.8 Lead (Aqueous) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Quality Control Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1 MS/MSD and/or Duplicate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.2 LCS/LCSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Sample Analysis Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Page 2 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 3 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 4 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 5 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 6 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 7 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 8 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 9 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 10 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 11 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 12 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 13 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 14 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 15 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 16 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 17 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 18 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 19 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 20 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 21 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 22 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 23 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 24 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 25 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 26 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 27 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 28 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 29 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 30 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 31 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 32 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 33 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 34 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 35 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 36 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 37 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 38 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 39 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 40 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 41 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 42 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 43 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 44 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 45 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 46 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 47 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 48 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 49 of 50Return to Contents 

## Page 50 of 50

# APPENDIX D

Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05010015020025030035040045050055060065070075080085090095010001050110011501200125013001350140014501500 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.012345678910 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date1‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)1‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200340036003800400042004400460048005000520054005600 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTrichloroethyleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)Trichloroethylene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090100110 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date1‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)1‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date2‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)2‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/l)DateNaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)NaphthaleneusingEPAMethod8270(μg/L)NaphthaleneusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 9/21/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW03DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325350 9/21/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013 4/22/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW03DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.100105TPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW058085909560657075

(μg/L)40455055

ConcentrationDOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)20253035TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)051015 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3

5/13/200 7/15/200 10/13/200 1/26/201 4/13/201 7/13/201 10/20/201 1/19/201 4/20/201 7/19/201 10/25/201 2/1/201 4/16/201 7/17/201 10/22/201 1/29/201 4/23/201Date

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0100200300400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/20/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/16/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013 4/23/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW05DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.100105TPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW2254‐018085909560657075

(μg/L)40455055

ConcentrationDOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)20253035TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)051015 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3

9/19/200 7/10/200 12/5/200 3/27/200 6/12/200 9/10/200 1/15/200 4/15/200 7/29/200 10/22/200 12/16/200 2/4/200 5/13/200 7/15/200 10/14/200 1/27/201 4/13/201 7/13/201 10/19/201 1/20/201 4/19/201 7/20/201 10/25/201 2/1/201 4/17/201 7/17/201 10/22/201 1/29/201 4/23/201Date

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330 9/19/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 12/16/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/19/2010 1/20/2011 4/19/2011 7/20/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/17/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013 4/23/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW2254‐01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX E

Waste Disposal Manifest

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.