# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Repor t

R ED H ILL B ULK F UEL S TORAGE F ACILITY
, J OINT B ASE P EARL H ARBOR

- H ICKAM
, O‘ AHU , H AWAI ‘ I

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

DOH Facility ID No. 9

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

Ju ly 201 2



### Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command
, Hawai‘i 400 Marshall Road JBPHH HI 96860

- 3139

Environmental Technical Services Contract Number N62742

- 0 8

- D

- 1 930
, CTO HC21

# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

R ED H ILL B ULK F UEL S TORAGE F ACILITY
, J OINT B ASE P EARL H ARBOR

- H ICKAM , O‘ AHU , H AWAI ‘ I

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

DOH Facility ID No. 9

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

Ju ly 201 2

Prepared for:



### Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command
, Hawai‘i 400 Marshall Road JBPHH HI 96860

- 3139

Prepared by:



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

- 5318

Prepared under:



### Environmental Technical Services Contract Number N6274 2

- 08

- D

- 1930, CTO HC21Quarterly Groundwater Moni toring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Table of Contents July 2012

i 

# Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

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

Executive Summary

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

Section 1 Introduction

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

- 1

1.1 Project Objective

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

- 1 1.2 Background

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

- 1 1.2.1 Site Description

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

- 1 1.2.2 Facility Information

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

- 2 1.2.3 UST Information

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

- 2 1.2.4 Previous Reports

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

- 2 1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

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

- 5 1.2.6 Regulatory Updates

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

- 10

Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

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

- 1

2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

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

- 1 2.2 Groundwater Sampling

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

- 1 2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

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

- 1 2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

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

- 1 2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

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

- 1 2.3 Analytical Program

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

- 2 2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

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

- 2 2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

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

- 2 2.6 Equipment Decontamination

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

- 2 2.7 Investigation

- Derived Waste Management

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

- 3

Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

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

- 1

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measur ements

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

- 1 3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

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

- 1 3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

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

- 2 3.4 Groundwater Status

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

- 8

Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

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

- 1

4.1 Data Validation

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

- 1 4.1.1 Quality Control Program

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

- 1 4.1.2 Data Assessment

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

- 1 4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

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

- 3

Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

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

- 1

5.1 Summary

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

- 1 5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

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

- 1Quarterly Groundwater Moni toring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Table of Contents July 2012

ii 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

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

- 1 5.2 Conclusions

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

- 2 5.3 Recommendations

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

- 2

Section 6 References

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

- 1

Tables

Table 3

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

201 2

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

- 3 Table 3

- 2: Analytical Results for Quarterly G roundwater Monitoring, April 201 2

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

- 5 Table 3

- 3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern

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

- 9 Table 3

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

......... 3

- 9 Table 3

- 5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, April 201 2

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

- 11 Table 4

- 1: Field QC Results, April 201 2

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

- 5

Figures
Figure 1

- 1: Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map

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

- 3

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

2005 through April 2012 Appendix C : Field Notebook

, April 2012 Appendix D : Groundwater Sampling Logs

, April 2012 Appendix E : Laboratory Analytical Results

, April 2012 (on CD

- ROM)Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i List of Acronyms July 2012

iii 

# List of Acronyms

< less than
% percent
μ g/L micrograms per liter COPC chemical of potential concern
DL detection limit or method detection limit ( MDL )
DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DOH State of Hawai„i Department of Health
DON Department of the Navy DRO diesel range organics DTW (TOC) depth to water from top of well casing
EAL Environment al Action Level
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F

- 76 marine diesel fuel FLC Fleet Logistics Center GRO gasoline range organics
HAR Hawai„i Administrative R ules
IDW investigation

- derived waste
J Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was id entified

, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ

. JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam
JP Jet Propellant LCS laboratory control sample LNAPL light non

- aqueous phase liquid LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation or reporting limit ( RL ) MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate N/A not applicable NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVSUP United States Naval Supply Systems Command
ND not detected
NP measurement not provided
NT measurement not taken
PAHs poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons pH hydrogen activity PHWS Pearl Harbor Water System
PPE personal protective equipment Q data qualifier QC quality control RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
RPD relative percent difference SSRBL site

- specific risk

- based level SWL static water level TEC The Environmental Company

, Inc. TIC tentatively identified compoundQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i List of Acronyms July 2012

iv TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for

, but not detected. The result is reported as ND

. U.S. United States USGS U nited States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compoundQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ ahu, Hawai„i Executive Summary July 2012

v 

# Executive Summary

This report documents the results of the quarterly groundwater monitoring performed in April 2012 at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHSF). There are 18 active

, and two inactive 12.5 million gallon capacity , field

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

.

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

- 01 (RHMW2254

- 01) and four groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) installed within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U.S. Navy Well 2254

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

. The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against S tate of Hawai„i Department of Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for human toxicity (DOH, 20 09 ).

This report presents the analytical results and compares them to the DOH EALs for samples collected on April 16 and 17

, 201 2 at the five groundwater monitoring wells ( RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05) . Contaminant trends that have exceeded DOH EALs are also provided in this report.

April 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Results
Laboratory analytical results indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

- diesel range organics (DRO) were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF (monitoring well RHMW02) at a concentration above the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Cont amination
EAL s . All other chemical of potential concern (COPC) concentrations (i.e., TPH

- Gasoline Range Organics (GRO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dissolved lead) were below the EALs.

In monitoring well RHMW2254

- 01, trichloroethene (0.17 micrograms per liter [μ g/L]) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s . A ll other COPCs were not detected at or above the limits o f detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs).

In monitoring well RHMW01, a ll COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH

- DRO (1, 2 00 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Wate r and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Acenaphthene (0.2 6 μ g/L), 1

- methylnaphthalene (0. 30 μ g/L), and naphthalene ( 0.86 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross
Contamination EALs. Fluorene (0.14 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μ g/L) w ere detected at estimated concentration s below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s . All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ ahu, Hawai„i Executive Summary July 2012

vi In monitoring well RHMW03, dissolved lead ( 1. 4 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s . All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monit oring well RHMW05, a ll COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

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

TPH

- DRO Contaminant Trends

TPH

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

, except in October

- November 2010

, January 2011 , and April 2012

, when TPH

- DRO was not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Appendix B).

At RHMW02, TPH

- DRO concentrations have been consistently higher than the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the site

- specific risk

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

At RHMW03, TPH

- DRO concentrations have fluctuated above and below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. From May 2009 through July 2010, TPH

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

- Novemb er 2010, TPH

- DRO was
detected at its highest concentration (330 μ g/L). TPH

- DRO was not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in the past six consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events (Appendix B)

.
At RHMW05, TPH

- DRO concentrations increased fro m a concentration slightly below the DOH Drinking Water EAL, detected during the first sampling event in May 2009

, to a level well ab o ve the DOH Drinking Water EAL

, in January 2010. In nine consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events, from April 2 010 to April 2012, TPH

- DRO was not detected above the DOH Drinking Water EAL, or, at or above the LODs and LOQs (Appendix B)

.

TPH

- GRO Contaminant Trends

TPH

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

- GRO concentrations at RHMW02 have fluctuated above and below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. In January 2011,
TPH

- GRO at RHMW02 was detected at an estimated concentration of 17 μ g/L, which was below the EAL. TPH

- GRO concentration increased slightly in April 2011 to a concentration of
24 μ g/L, which was below the EAL. TPH

- GRO was not detected above the LODs and LOQs in the July 2 011, October

- November 2011, January

- February 2012

, or April 2012 groundwater monitoring events (Appendix B)

.

PAHs Contaminant Trend at RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2

- methylnaphthalene have remained below the EAL. Concentrations of 1

- me thylnaphthalene decre ased below the EAL in October 2009; however

, concentrations exhibited an increasing trend above the EAL during six subsequent quarterlyQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary July 2012

vii groundwater monitoring events. C oncentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene again decreased below the EAL in the July 2011, October-November 2011, January-February 2012, and April 2012 groundwater monitoring events. Naphthalene c oncentrations decreased to below the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009, increased above the EAL in October 2009, and remained above the EAL in January 2011. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL again in the April 2011, July 2011, October-November 2011, January-February 2012, and April 2012 groundwater monitoring events.

Conclusions
To date, the presence of light non-aqueous pha se liquid (LNAPL) has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 with a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This indicates that a significant releas e from one or more of the USTs at the RHSF has not occurred at this time.

COPC concentrations in sa mples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) have not been increasing or detected at or above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in sa mples collected from other monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting th e Navy’s potable water source.

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

COPC concentrations detected in samples coll ected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increas ing between consecutive sampling events. Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive groundwater monitoring events, but then decreased in the subsequent five events. The fluctuations in concentration measured during this event and previous events indicate the source of 1-methylnaphthalene is very likely residual contamination from a historical release at the RHSF. The general overall long-term trend in 1-methylnaphthalene concen tration is decreasing and does not indicate a new release at the site.

The current Results Categories for the monitori ng wells were determined using the April 2012 analytical data (Table 3-5). Monitoring well RHMW03 is in Category 1, and RHMW02 is in Category 2. All other wells were given a no category desi gnation. RHMW01 was the only monitoring well to change categor y from the previous event, dropping from Category 1 in the January 2012 monitoring event to no categ ory in the April 2012 monitoring event.

Recommendations
Based on the results of this monitoring even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soilQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ ahu, Hawai„i Executive Summary July 2012

viii vapor monitoring are recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW03 and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH and continuation of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (The Environmental Company Inc. (TEC), 2008)

, to identify if tanks are leaking

, are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 1 

# Section 1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 2 7 th groundwater monitoring event conducted in April 201 2 at the RHSF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor

- Hickam (JBPHH) , O„ahu, Hawai„i (Figure 1

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

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

- 08

- D

- 1 930, Contract Task Order HC21

.
The field activities performed for the April 2012 quarterly groundwater monitoring event were cond ucted in accordance with the procedures described in the Work Plan , Long

- Term Monitoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Environet, 2010).



## 1.1 Project Objective

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

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

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



## 1.2 Background

The U.S. Navy implemented a groun dwater monitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 (RHMW2254

- 01) and four groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) installed within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U.S. Navy Well 2254

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

. The groundwater samples are analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against DOH Drinking Water EALs (DOH, 20 09 ).



### 1.2.1 Site Description

The RHSF is located on the I sland of O „ ahu, Hawai „i, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl Harbor in H ā lawa Heights (Figure 1

- 1) . Land adjacent to the north of the RHSF is occupied by the H ā lawa Correctional Facility and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the facility includes the Coast Guard Reservation and other residential neighborhoods . Moanalua Valley is located east of the facility ( Environet, 2010 ).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 2 The Navy Public Works D epartment operates a potable water infiltration tunnel approximately 1,550 feet hydraulically downgradient from the RHSF ( Environet, 2010 ). The U.S. Navy Well 2254

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



### 1.2.2 Facility Information

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

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

.



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

- 5 f uel, JP

- 8, and marine diesel fuel (F

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



### 1.2.4 Previous Reports The following groundwater monitoring reports were previously submitted to the DOH:

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

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

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

4. Groundwater Sampling Report, Fourth Quarter 2005 (submitted February
2 006);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? ! (

O W D F M W 0 1 R H M W 2 2 5 4

- 0 1

R H M W 0 5 R H M W 0 1 R H M W 0 2 R H M W 0 3 H D M W 2 2 5 3

- 0 3

S V M P 0 2 S V M P 0 3

S V M P 0 4 S V M P 0 6 S V M P 0 8 S V M P 1 0 S V M P 1 2 S V M P 1 4 S V M P 1 6 S V M P 1 8 S V M P 2 0 S V M P 0 5 S V M P 0 7 S V M P 0 9 S V M P 1 1 S V M P 1 3

S V M P 1 5

S V M P 1 7 H ā l a w a I n d u s t r i a l P a r k H ā l a w a C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y

H ā l a w a S t r e a m R H M W 0 4

U

. S

. N a v y W e l l 2 2 5 4

- 0 1

H ā l a w a S h a f t B o a r d o f W a t e r S u p p l y P u m p S t a t i o n ( 2 3 5 4

- 0 1 )

C o a s t G u a r d R e s e r v a t i o n

M o a n a l u a V i l l a g e N a v y F i r i n g R a n g e @ ? S o i l V a p o r M o n i t o r i n g P o i n t s @ A G r o u n d w a t e r M o n i t o r i n g W e l l s ! ( B o a r d o f W a t e r S u p p l y P u m p S t a t i o n
H ā l a w a C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y
R e d H i l l N a v a l R e s e r v a t i o n
H ā l a w a S t r e a m

1

, 0 0 0 0 1

, 0 0 0 5 0 0

F e e t

F i g u r e 1

- 1 G r o u n d w a t e r M o n i t o r i n g W e l l L o c a t i o n M a p L E G E N D



#  ̄ U S G S

, 2 0 0 5 S O U R C E

P e a r l H a r b o r

Q u a r t e r l y G r o u n d w a t e r M o n i t o r i n g R e p o r t

, R e d H i l l B u l k F u e l S t o r a g e F a c i l i t y
, J B P H H

, O ' a h u
, H a w a i ' iQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October 201 0 (submitted December 2010);

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

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

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

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

26. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January

- February 2012 (submitted March 2012)

.



### 1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001 Investigation

- From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted investigation at the RHSF

to assess potential releases from the fuel USTs and piping systems . In February 2001, the Navy installed a one

- inch diameter monitoring well

, RHMW01 (previously known as MW

- V1D)

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

In February 2001, groundwater samples collected from RHMW01 contained TPH concentrations ranging from 883 μ g/L to 1,050 μ g/L

, and total lead ranging from 10.4 μ g/L to 15 μ g/L. The
total lead concentrations exceeded the DOH Tier 1 A ction L evel of 5.6 μ g/L for dissolved lead (Dawson Group, Inc. , 2006).

2005 Groundwater Sampling

- The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. Dawson Group, Inc. collected groundwater sample s from RHMW01 and RHMW 2254

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

Samples collected in February 2005 and June 2005 were not filtered in the field prior to analysis for lead. Analytical results for samples collected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of
total lead were above the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel of 5.6 μ g/L. The results were not considered appropriate for risk assessment since the sample had not been filtered. In addition, lead was not a component of fuels from the tan ks near RHMW01 , but was a component in fuels stored in other tanks during the history of the RHSF . Le ad may have been part of the RHSF construction material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations whenQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 6 analyzed as unfil tered samples. Subsequent efforts where the le ad samples were filtered had resolved this issue

. Samples were filtered in September 2005 and December 2005, and dissolved lead concentrat ions were below the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel. Concentrations of all other COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 A c tion L evels.

2005 Site Investigation

- As part of a site investigation, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells at the RHSF between June 2005 and September 2005. Monitoring well RHMW02 was installed in th e lower access tunnel near Tank 0 5 and Tank 0 6. Monitoring well RHMW03 was installed in th e lower access tunnel near Tank 13 and Tank 14. Monitoring well RHMW04 was installed north of the UST Tank 20 to evaluate groundwater wit hin the basal aquifer upgradient from the RHSF

. Monitoring wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were completed to depths of approximately 125 feet below the tunnel floor, and well RHMW04 was completed to a depth of approximately 300 feet below ground surface outside t he tunnel. Groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed wells and two existing wells ( RHMW01 and RHMW2254

- 01 ) in September 2005 (TEC, 2010)

.
Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at

concentra tio ns greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action L evels. L ead was detected in the sample collected from RHMW01 at a concentrati on greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel; however, the sample was not filtered in the field prior to analysis. Analytical results fo r filtered samples obtained by Dawson Group, Inc. during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved lead were below the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel (TEC, 2010)

.

2006 Site Investigation

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

- 01 ). TEC collected groundwater samples from the monitoring wells in July 2006. The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in samples collected from RHMW0 2 at conce ntrations above the DOH Tier 1 Action L evel (TEC, 2010)

.
In September 200 6 , with concurrence from the DOH, the Navy decided to use the newer DOH
EALs for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs provide action levels for more chemicals, and are much more useful for conducting screening risk assessments. Since the DOH (DOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets of action levels should not be mixed, the Tier 1 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11

- 281

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

.

2006 Groundwater Sampling

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

n o COPCs were detected in samples collected f rom RHMW2254

- 01 or RHMW03;

TPH

- DRO concentrations were detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at concentrations a bove the EAL ; and

TPH

- GRO , TPH

- DRO, and naphthalene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations above the EALs (TEC, 2010)

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 7 2007 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in March, June, and September 2007. Analytical results indicated the following:

n o COPCs were detected above the EALs at RHMW2254

- 01 ;

TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during all three monitoring events;

TPH

- GRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in March 2007 ;

TPH

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

1

- methylnaphthalene and 2

- methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s in samples collected from RHMW02 during all three monitoring event s; and

TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in the sample collected from RHMW03 in
June 2007

.

2008 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July, and October 2008. Analytical results indicated the following:

n o COPCs were detected above the EALs at RHMW2254

- 01 ;

t race detections of 1

- methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample event in December 2008 at RHMW2254

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

TPH

- DRO concentrations ex ceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during all four monitoring event s;

TPH

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

TPH

- DRO, naphthalene, 1

- methylnaphthalene, and 2

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

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

TPH

- DR O concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 during all four monitoring event s.

2009 Groundwater Sampling and RHMW05 Installation

- Groundwater samples were collected in February, May, July, and October 2009. In April 2009, a new groundwater monitoring well, RHMW05, was installed by TEC. RHMW05 is located within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254

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

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

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

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

- 01 ;

TPH

- GRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 were detected above the L OD and significantly below the LOQ and EAL in February and May 2009;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 8 TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 during all four monitoring event s;

TPH

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

TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 during all four monitoring event s;

n aphthalene, 1

- methylnaphthalene, an d 2

- methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the
EAL s in samples collected from RHMW02 in February 2009, however

, only the
1

- methylnaphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009

, and only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in October 2009 ;

TPH

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

TPH

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

.
2010 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater sa mples were collected in January, April

, July

, and October

- November 2010 (and TPH

- DRO was re

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

n o COPCs have been detected above the EAL s in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 ;

dissolved lead was detect ed in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 at a con centration below the EAL in October

- November 2010;
naphthalene concentration s in the sample s collected from RHMW2254

- 01 were detected below the LOQ and EAL in January and October

- November 2010 ;

TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01

, except in October

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

dissolved l ead was detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at a concentration below the EAL in October

- November 2010 ;

TPH

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

- November 2010

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

n aphthalene and 1

- methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, April, July , and October

- November 2010 ;

TPH

- GR O concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in October

- November 2010 ;

TPH

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

- November 2010
TPH

- DRO was detected above the EAL; andQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 9 TPH

- DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW05 in January 2010 ; however, the significant increase was attributed to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF . TPH

- DRO concentr ation w as not detected at or above the L OD in October

- November 2010

. 2011 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in January

, April

, July

, and October 2011. Analytical results indicated the following:

no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 in January

, April

, July , and October 2011

, except for dissolved lead detected at a concentration below the EAL in July 2011 ;

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

TPH

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

TPH

- DRO and 1

- methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations which exceeded the EALs i n samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011 . In July and October 2011, TPH

- DRO was detected at concentration s which exceeded the EAL , and
1

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

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

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

a cenap ht hene and 2

- methylnaphthalene were detected a t concentrations below the EALs

at RHM W02 in January

, July , and October 2011 ;

TPH

- GRO and 2

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

, and 2

- methylnaphthalene was detected at estimated concentration s below that EAL in July and October 2011 ;

dissolved lead w as detected at a concentration below the EAL at RHMW02 in July 2011 ;

TPH

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

c oncentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in January 2011

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

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

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

, dissolved le ad was detected at estimated concentrations below the EAL in samples collected from both RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011 . All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 1 Introduction July 2012

1

- 10 201 2 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in January

- February 201 2

. Analytical result s indicated the following:

no COPCs were detected at or above LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01 and RHMW05 in January

- February 2012;

TPH

- DRO was detected at a concentration equal to the EAL at RHMW01 in January

- February 2012

. Methylene chloride was detected at an estimated concentration below the EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January

- February 2012 ;

TPH

- DRO was detected at a concentration exceeding the EAL at RHMW02 in January

- February 2012. Acenapthene, fluor e ne, 1

- methylnapthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EAL s in January

- February 2012. Acenapthylene, 2

- methylnapthalene, ethylbenzene, and dissolved lead were detected at estimated concentrations below the EAL s in January

- February 2012

. All other COPCs in RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January

- February 2012 ; and

dissolved lead was detected at a n estimated concentration below the EAL at RHMW03 in January

- February 2012. All ot her COPCs in RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January

- February 2012

.



### 1.2.6 Regulatory Updates
During the summer and fall of 2008

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

were non

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

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, DOH adopted more rigorous EALs
of 4.7 μ g/L for 1

- methylnaphthalene and 24 μ g/L for 2

- methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a residential tap water scenario and a one in a million cancer risk (DOH, 2009 ). As a result of the
EAL changing from 240 μ g/L to 4.7 μ g/L, concentrations of 1

- methylnaphthale collected from
RMHW2254

- 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 previously categorized as under the EAL are now over the EAL. Also, the drinking water EAL for naphthale ne was increased from
6.2 μ g/L to 17 μ g/L ( DOH, 2009 ). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH

- DRO was
increased from 100 μ g/L to 210 μ g/L, although the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination
EAL for TPH

- DRO remains 100 μ g/L.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities July 2012

2

- 1 

# Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the five monitoring wells ( RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03 , and RHMW05 ) on April 16 and 17

, 201 2

, using procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Field activities were documented in the f ield notebook (Appendix C ).



## 2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

The presence and thickness of LNAPL , otherwise known as “free product

, ” released from the USTs is monitored at the RHSF. Groundwater gauging measurements were collected at the f our monitoring well s prior to purging and sample collection. A S olinst oil/ water interface probe was used to measure the depth to groundwater , as well as detect the presence and thick ness of LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot

, according to the proced ure s described in Procedure I

- C

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



## 2.2 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were collected from the five monitoring wells according to the procedures described in Procedure I

- C

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



### 2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging
Each monitoring well was purged using a dedicate d bladder pump system. Groundwater was purged at a low flow rate (less than one liter per minute) using the dedicated bladder pump system until three or more successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized within 10 % . A Horiba ® U

- 52 multi

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

.



### 2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated bladder pump systems

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



### 2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment
Each sample container sent to the laboratory was assigned a project

- specific chain

- of

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

- E, Record Keeping, Sample Labeling, and Chain

- of

- Custody ( DON , 2007).

Following sample collection and labeling, the sample containers were bubble

- wrapped and placed into individual ZipLoc bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice forQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities July 2012

2

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

. The samples were managed under standard chain

- of

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

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



## 2.3 Analytical Program

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

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

, located in Clovis

, California

. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH

- GRO by EPA Method 8260B, for TPH

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



## 2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

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

- B, Field QC Samples (Water, Soil) ( DON , 2007) and the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Field duplicate samples were collected at a minimum of 10 % of primary samples and analyzed for the same contaminants. Field rinsate samples were not required since dedicated bladder pump systems were used.



## 2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

Laboratory QC samples were analyzed as part of the standard laboratory QC protocols as presented in the Work Plan (Environet , 2010). Laboratory QC for the monitoring event consisted of method blanks, laboratory control samples (LCS) , surrogate spikes, and MS/MSD. Laboratory QC samples were prepared and analyzed according to the procedure s described in Procedure III

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

. 

## 2.6 Equipment Decontamination

Decontamination of monitoring equip ment was performed to ensure data quality, prevent cross contamination, and prevent the potential introduction of contaminants into previously un

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

- parameter U

- 52 water quality meter) was conducted between monitoring locations

, according to the procedure s described in Procedure I

- F, Equipment
Decontamination ( DON , 2007). Decontamination water was disposed of in the RHSF‟s lower tunnel oil/wate r separator sump

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities July 2012

2

- 3 

## 2.7 Investigation

- Derived Waste Management

Investigation

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

- A

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

personal protective equipment (PPE) including: nitrile gloves, etc.;

liquids including: equipment rinse water and purged groundwater; and

disposable sampling equipment and supplies (e.g., poly sheeting)

.
Equipment rinse water and purge water was disposed of in the RHSF‟s lower tunnel oil/water separator sump

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities July 2012

2

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

July 2012

3

- 1 

# Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from the five monitoring wells on April 16 and 17 , 2012

. Complete analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E

. 

## 3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RHM W01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the April 2012 sampling event. The trend of free product measurements over time show s that i n January 2008, LNA P L was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 f ee t, but was not observed in any other monitoring wells. Since the detection in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Tab le 3

- 1 ).



## 3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

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

RHMW2254

- 01

Trichloroethene (0.17 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL (5 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (310

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

- 2 and Appendix E).

RHMW01
All COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E).

RHMW02

TPH

- DRO was detected at a concentration of 1, 2 00 μ g/L

, which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gr oss Contamination EAL (1 00 μ g/L ) (Table
3

- 2 and Appendix E). Acenaphthene (0.2 6 μ g/L), 1

- methylnaphthalene (0. 30 μ g/L), and naphthalene ( 0.86 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and
Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Flu orene (0.14 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μ g/L)

w ere detected at estimated concentration s below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s

. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E).Quarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3

- 2 RHMW03

Dissolved lead ( 1.4 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (5,000 μ g/L). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appe ndix E).

RHMW05
All COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3

- 2 and Appendix E).



## 3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

Groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed in monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03 since September 2005 and in monitoring well RHMW05 since May 2009 (Appendix B). Monitoring well RHMW2254

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

RHMW2254

- 01

COPCs have never been detected at RHMW2254

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

RHMW01

Concentrations of TPH

- DRO have been greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL between September 2005 and July 2010, and again in April 2011 and July 2011

, but less than 50 % of the
SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 4,500 μ g/L) . TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July 2009; increased in October 20 09 (299F μg/L), January 2010 (312F μg/L), and April 2010 (377 μg/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μg/L); and were not detected above the LODs and LOQs in October

- November 2010 and January 2011. TPH

- DRO concentrations increased to above the DOH Drinking Wa ter EAL in April 2011 and July 2011, and were at the EAL in October

- November 2011 and January

- February 2012 (210 μg/L) (Appendix B). TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to levels below the LODs and LOQs in April 2012 (Appendix B).

RHMW02

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

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

- DRO was relatively stable until July 2008 and October 2008 when the concentrations increased, with the October 2008 average also exceeding the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through April 2012Elevation1= 102.27 Elevation1= 104.76 Elevation1= 121.06 Elevation1= 101.55DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPLSep-2007NT2NT2NT286.80 17.96NP103.44 17.62NP~~~Jan-200884.6717.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 NT3NT3NT3~~~Jul-200883.3718.90 0.00 86.10 18.66 0.00 102.45 18.61 0.00 ~ ~ ~Oct-200883.8018.47 0.00 86.45 18.31 0.00 102.49 18.57 0.00 ~ ~ ~Nov-200883.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.80 18.26 0.00 ~ ~ ~Jan-200983.1319.14 0.00 85.79 18.97 0.00 102.04 19.02 0.00 ~ ~ ~Feb-2009NT4NT4NT486.35 18.41 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 ~ ~ ~Mar-200983.8218.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ ~May-2009583.7218.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6NT6NT6May-200983.5018.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6NT6NT6Jul-2009783.7518.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 0.00Aug-200984.0418.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 0.00Sep-200984.2118.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 0.00Oct-200984.2418.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 0.00Nov-200983.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 0.00Dec-200984.1218.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 0.00Jan-201084.3617.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 0.00Feb-201084.2418.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 0.00Mar-201084.5317.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 0.00Apr-201084.7517.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 0.00May-201084.8017.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 0.00Jun-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 0.00Jul-201085.0317.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 0.00Sep-201085.3016.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 0.00Oct-201085.2916.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 0.00Nov-201085.2017.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.95 0.00Dec-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.33 0.00Jan-201185.3216.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.90 0.00Feb-201183.8218.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Mar-201183.7718.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Apr-201183.5418.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.65 0.00May-201183.3918.88 0.0086.3918.37 0.00102.6918.37 0.0082.7218.83 0.00Jun-201183.4118.86 0.0086.1118.65 0.00102.3318.73 0.0082.8118.74 0.00Jul-201183.5718.70 0.0086.2218.54 0.00102.4418.62 0.0082.9918.56 0.00Aug-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4218.34 0.00102.6618.40 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Sep-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4418.32 0.00102.6918.37 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Oct-201183.7118.56 0.0086.3818.38 0.00102.9018.16 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Jan-201283.7518.52 0.0086.3118.45 0.00102.5618.50 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Apr-201283.6018.67 0.0086.3418.42 0.00102.7118.35 0.0083.1718.38 0.00Notes:2A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed.7The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to the installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes.Units are in feet (ft).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less thanRHMW05DateRHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW031Elevations were updated based on theGroundwater Flow Direction/Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HI, Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54, dated April 15, 2010.Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, April 2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4 ++150b80.8 40.4U 150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4EPA 8260 B(Petroleum)TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 U20.0 12.126.06 U 20.012.126.06U20.0 12.12 6.06 U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U0.2b0.160.08U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U0.2b0.120.06U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U0.2b0.100.05U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.071-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.062-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Phenanthrene 240 410 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Pyrene 180 68 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.081,1,1-Trichloroethane200 970U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane5 50,000U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane2.4 50,000U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene70 3,000U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene600 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane5 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene180 5U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene75 5U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene5 170U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform80 510U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane8.7 50,000U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride5 520U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene100 50U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane21,000 16U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform70 2,400U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane1.8 50,000U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene700 30U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene1,000 40U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 J 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes 10,000 20 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 U 0.5 0.22 0.11NDU 0.5 0.22 0.11J0.5 0.22 0.11 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11Notes:All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsJ - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.LOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The result is reported as ND.VOC - volatile organic compound++ The analyst has noted that the chromatogram of this sample is mainly a match to hydrocarbons within the range of diesel fuel.DL - detection limit or method detection limit(MDL)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDbIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.17NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.4NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.86NDNDNDNDNDND0.44NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.30NDaDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).1,200ND0.26NDResultDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaResultRHMW2254-01(ES074)Result ResultRHMW03(ES073)RHMW01(ES075)ResultRHMW02(ES071)NDNDNDBold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.NDNDNDNDDOH Drinking Water EALs forHuman ToxicityaEPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)Method ChemicalRHMW05(ES070)NDNDND0.14NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDQuarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3

- 7 TPH

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

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

- DRO beg an an increasing trend greater t han 50% of the SSRBL

, which continued through February 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In March 2010 (2,490 μg/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μg/L), TPH

- DRO exhibited a decreasing trend

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

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

- November 2010, TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to 1,700 μg/L, and in January 2011 concentrations decreased further to 1,040 μg/L, below 50% of the SSRBL. TPH

- DRO exhibited a concentration detected at 1,100 μg/L in April 2011; however

, concentrations increased to 1,450 μg/L in July 2011. TPH

- DRO concentration
decreased to 750 μ g/L in October

- November 2011, but increased to 1,700 μ g/L in January

- February 2012. TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to 1, 200 μ g/L in April 2012, below 50% of the SSRBL.

Since September 2005, TPH

- GRO concentrations have remained below the EAL, except in July 2006 (145 μg/L), December 2006 (124 μg/L), March 2007 (135 μg/L), and October

- November 2010 (155 μg/L).

From September 2005 through October 2008, naphthalene concentrations remained above the EAL and were relatively stable. In February 2009, naphthalene concentrations began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in May 2009 (2 μg/L)

, which was below the EAL. From July 2009 through July 2010, concentrations increased above the EAL. Then in October

- November 2010 and January 2011, naphthalene concentrations decreased slightly to concentrations which were still above the EAL. In April 2011 na phthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL. Concentrations of naphthalene remained below the EAL in July 2011, October

- November 2011, January

- February 2012 , and April 2012

.
Similar to the naphthalene concentration trend, 1

- methylnaphthalene conce ntrations remained relatively stable from September 2005 thr ough October 2008. In February 2009,
1

- methylnapthalene began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in October 2009 (3.2 μg/L)

, which was below the EAL. In January 2010, 1

- meth ylnaphthalene concentrations increased above the EAL

, then decreased in April 2010

, and exhibited an increasing trend from July 2010 through January 2011 (Appendix B). The average concentration (5.1 μ g/L) for 1

- methylnaphthalene in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking Water EAL of 4.7 μg/L. The average concentration for 1

- methylnaphthalene decreased to below the DOH EAL in July 2011, October

- November 2011, and January

- February 2012

. During the April 2012 monitoring event, concentration s of 1

- methylnapthalene increased but to a level below the EAL

.
Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2

- methylnaphthalene have remained below the EALs.

RHMW03
Historically, concentrations of TPH

- DRO have fluctuated around the DOH Drinking Water EAL, bu t have been significantly lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 andQuarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3

- 8 RHMW02. TPH

- DRO concentrations have decreased since October 2008 dropping below the LODs in May 2009 through July 2010.

However, during the October

- November 2010 groundwater monitoring event, TPH

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

, which was above the EAL. In January 2011, April 2011, July 2011, October

- November 2011, J anuary

- February 2012 , an d April 2012 groundwater monitoring events, TPH

- DRO concentrations decreased to below the LODs. Dissolved l ead has been detected at estimated concentrations in the October

- November 2010, July 2011, October

- November 2011, and January

- February 2012 groundw ater monitoring events. During the April 2012 groundwater monitoring event, dissolved lead concentrations increased to a detectable level (1.4 μ g/L)

, which was below the EAL.

RHMW05
There was an increasing trend for TPH

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

- DRO concentrations were greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μg/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060 μg/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to not e that the January 2010 concentration contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In nine consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events from April 2010 to April 2012, TPH

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



## 3.4 Groundwater Status

Facility

- specific contaminants of concern are defined as petroleum

- related chemicals that have been observed in the groundwater samples above the DOH Drinking Water EALs. In accorda nce with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008), Table 3

- 3 defines these RHSF

- specific compounds

, their associated SSRBLs

, and updated EALs (DOH, 2009 ).

In addition, the Groundwater Protection Plan defines four Results Categories of groundwater status for the RHSF, based on concentrations of COPCs detected in samples collected from RHMW2254

- 01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05, and requires specific responses when these categories are observed during quart erly groundwater sampling (Table 3

- 4). The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the April 2012 analytical data (Table 3

- 5). Monitoring well RHMW03 is in Category 1, and RHMW02 is in Category 2.Quarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3

- 9 Table 3

- 3 : Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern

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

- DRO 210 4,500
TPH

- GRO 100 4,500
Semi

- Volatile Compounds
1

- Methylnaphthalene 4.7 N/A
2

- Methylnaphthalene 24 N/A Naphthalene 17 N/A

Notes: N/A

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

- 01

Table 3

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

Results Category RHMW02, RHMW03, or RHMW05* RHMW01 RHMW2254

- 01

Results Category 1: Result above detection limit

, but below drink ing water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or decreasing A A A, D, M, E

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

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

K, M, N, O A, C, D, E, F, G, I,

J, K, L, O

Notes: *RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has subsequently been added to this t able. Specific Responses:
A. Send quarterly reports to DOH. B. Begin program to determine the source of leak. C. Notify DOH verbally within one day and follow with written notification in 30 days. D. Notify NAVSUP Chain of Command within one day. E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to DOH

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

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

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

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

- 03, call Department of Land and Natural Resources ( DLNR ) Commissi on on Water Resource Management 808

- 587

- 0214, DLNRCWR@Hawaii.gov

. L. Provide alternative water source at RHMW 2254

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

- 01

. N. Re

- measure for product every month with reports to DOH. O. Install additional monitoring well downgradient.

Report Types DOH Type 1 Report
Re

- evaluate Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model results Proposal to DOH on course of action DOH Type 2 Report Proposal for groundwater treatmentQuarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3

- 10 This page is intentionally left blank.Results CategoryRHMW2254-011RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 RHMW05Results Category 1: Result above detectionlimit but below drinking water EAL and trendfor all compounds stable or decreasingNo No No Yes NoResults Category 2: Trend for any compoundincreasing or drinking water EAL exceededNo No Yes No NoResults Category 3: Result between 1/10XSSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPHNo No No No NoResults Category 4: Result exceeding anySSRBL or petroleum product observedNo No No No NoPrevious Category: Category prior to Aprilmonitoring eventNone Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 NoneNew Category: Category assignment based onresults of the April monitoring eventNone None Category 2 Category 1 None1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leakdetermination programto identify if tanks areleakingNote:status. No contamination trend (i.e., two or more consecutive events of detectable concentrations) has been established, therefore, RHMW2254-01 does not meet the Category 1 definition.Table 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, April 20121Although an estimated trace concentration of trichloroethene was detected at RHMW2254-01 during the April 2012 monitoring event, it does not place the well into the Category 1Response Actions: Requirements of newcategoryNoneNone1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOHNoneQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

July 2012

4

- 1 

# Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

Data quality assessment consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analyses process in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meets the quali ty objectives for the project. The field QC program consisted of standardized samp le collection and management procedures

, and the collect ion of field duplicate samples and trip blank samples. The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of MS/MSD samples, surrogate spikes, method blanks, and LCS.


## 4.1 Data Validation

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

met hods

, and adherence to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, management, shipment

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

, and comparability.



### 4.1.1 Quality Control Program

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

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

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

. 

### 4.1.2 Data Assessment

Precision
Precision is defined as the agreement between a set of replicate measurements without assumption and knowledge of the true value. Precision is evaluated by relative percent difference (RPD) of field duplicates and laboratory MS/MSD results. Field dupl icate and MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of approximately 10 % of project samples. Field duplicates are sent to the laboratory with dummy sample numbers and analyzed as primary sample s

. For this monitoring event, the RPDs of primary and field dup licate ( sample E S0 71 and sample ES0 72 ) , met the RPD precision criteria of 50 % for all analytes except 1

- methylnaphthalene,
2

- methylnaphthalene, naphthalene , ethylbenzene, and dissolved lead (Table 4

- 1). The se analyte concentrations ranged from no t detected to ver y low concentrations below the EALs. Small variation in concentration at very low (approaching decimal) levels will likely result in R PD s greater than 50%

. T he RPD s greater than 50% w ould not have a significant effect in the overall data quality. The RPDs for MS/MSD were all within the laboratory established criteria, with the exception of anthracene (Appendix E). However, since the recovery was only slightly out of the control limits, the CO PC concentrations detected in the associated groundwater sample results would not be significantly affected . Therefore

, the data precision is considered acceptable

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

July 2012

4

- 2 Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery of an analyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory. The acceptance criteria for accuracy are dependent on the analytical method and are based on historical laboratory data.
All of the LCS, and surrogate spike recoveries for analyzed constituent s were within acceptable percent recovery limits . All MS/MSD recoveries were within laboratory specified ranges, with the exception of TPH

- DRO, TPH

- GRO, chloromethane, 1,1,2,2

- tetrachloromethane, and trichloromethane (Appendix E)

. Recovery of an analyte above or below acceptable criteria can point to potentially heightened or lowered concentrations in associated groundwater samples. The TPH

- DRO recovery was below the lower limit of the acceptable criteria (61%). However, the devia tion (14%) was moderate and poses no risk to sample results with regards to result categories or SSRBLs. The TPH

- GRO recovery was above the upper control limit of the acceptable criteria (125%). However, the analyte was not detected in associated groundw ater samples and a heightened recovery should have no effect on sample results. The c hloromethane recovery was above the upper limit of the acceptable criteria (125%). However, the analyte was not detected in the associated groundwater samples and a heig htened recovery should have no effect on sample results. The 1,1,2,2

- tetrachloromethane recovery was below the lower limit of the acceptable criteria (65%). The analyte had a 0% recovery and represented a large deviation from acceptable levels. However, the analyte was not detected in associated groundwater samples, and has no historical presence in the groundwater through the past seven consecutive monitoring events. Thus the 0% recovery should have no effect on associated groundwater sample results. The trichlorethene recovery was above the upper control limit (125%). However, the analyte was only detected once, at estimated concentrations, and a heightened recovery should have no impact with regards to result categories for individual wells or DOH
D rinking Water EAL Therefore

, the data accuracy for this monitoring event is considered acceptable.
Representativeness
Representativeness is the degree that data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an enviro nmental condition. Representativeness was achieved by conducting sampling in compliance with the sample collection procedures described in the Work Plan specifically written for this project (Environet, 2010).
Representativeness is also evaluated through the compliance of the sample holding time and the analysis of blank samples

, including method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding time complied with the EPA criteria. For this sampling event, three trip blanks were collected

, and there were no detections of VOCs or TPH

- GRO in them ; except methylene chloride . The methylene chloride was detected , at estimated concentrations

, below both the DOH Drinking
Water EAL ( 4.8 μg/L) and Gross Contamination EAL (9,100 μg/L)

, in the two trip blanks taken

on April 16, 2012 (Table 4

- 1). Therefore, the data does not impact data quality and the groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site.
CompletenessQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

July 2012

4

- 3 Completeness is defined as the overall percentage of valid analy tical results (including estimated values) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the laboratory. The completeness goal for this project is 90%

, which was successfully met. Successful completion of data acquisition can only be acc omplished if both the field and laboratory portions of the project are performed according to the procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010).
Comparability
Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to anoth er. Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are measures of data reliability. Data

, with acceptable precision and accuracy

, are considered comparable if collection techniques, analytical procedures, methods and rep orting are equivalent. For this monitoring event

, the samples were collected using approaches consistent with those in the previous events, and the same analytical methods/procedures were used to measure the concentration of COPCs. Therefore

, the results are considered comparable within this data set and with the data collected from previous sampling events.



### 4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

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

g enerated during this event are suitable for the intended use.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

July 2012

4

- 4 This page is intentionally left blank.Table 4-1: Field QC Results, April 2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100++ 150b80.8 40.4 ++ 150b80.8 40.4 8.69-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8260 B(Petroleum)TPH-GRO 100 100ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 200.26 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.23 0.2 0.12 0.06 12.2-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Acenaphthylene 240 2,000ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Anthracene 1,800 22ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7ND U 0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13ND U 0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2b0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75ND U 0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2b0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Chrysene 9.2 1ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52ND U 0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2b0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluoranthene 1,500 130ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluorene 240 9500.14 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.12 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 15.4-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095ND U 0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b0.14 0.070 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 100.30 0.2 0.12 0.06 1.2 0.2 0.12 0.06 120-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.61 0.2 0.12 0.06 134-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Naphthalene 17 210.86 0.2 0.10 0.05 2.9 0.2 0.10 0.05109 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Phenanthrene 240 410ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Pyrene 180 68ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene(1,1-Dichloroethene)7 1,500ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000ND U 2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b0.78 0.39 0ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.760ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000ND U 1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b0.40 0.20 0ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000ND U 1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b0.28 0.14 0ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.180ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 170ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.160 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000ND U 1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b0.28 0.140 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform80 510ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane 8.7 50,000ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.100 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.210 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane 21,000 16ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform70 2,400ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane 1.8 50,000ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 0ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene(cis-1,2-Dichloroethene)70 50,000ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.160ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.190ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 700 30ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0.23 J 1.0 0.46 0.2366.7 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6ND U 1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b0.38 0.19 0ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone(2-Butanone)7,100 8,400ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone)2,000 1,300ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether12 5ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 0ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100ND U 5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0b0.70 0.35 00.47 J5.0b0.70 0.35 0.46 J5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000ND U 1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0b0.26 0.130 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500ND U 1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b0.20 0.100 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene(Tetrachloroethene)5 170ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene 1,000 40ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.170 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene)100 260ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene(Trichloroethene)5 310ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride 2 3,400ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.230 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes 10,000 20ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.190 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020Lead 15 5,0000.44 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.1166.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02.bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).++ The analyst has noted that the chromatogram of this sample is mainly a match to hydrocarbons within the range of diesel fuel.DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ- limit ofquantitation or reportinglimit(RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierRPD - relative percent differenceTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compound-- not analyzedBold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.Trip Blank - 2(04/16)Trip Blank(04/17)RHMW02ES072(04/16)1,200DOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaTrip Blank - 1U - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The result is reported as ND.aDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).RPDDuplicate(%)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)ResultRHMW02ES071ResultMethod ChemicalDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaResult--------------------1,100--J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.----DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)------All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).----------Quarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations July 2012

5

- 1 

# Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

5.1 Summary

There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking water resources at the U.S. Navy Well 2254

- 01 as a result of the April 2012 data. Based on the April 2012 groundwater monitoring even t, RHMW2254

- 01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Groundwater Protection Plan.



### 5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements
Free product was not observed at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the April 2012 monitoring event. The trend of free product measurements over time shows that in January 2008, fuel was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not observed in any other monitoring wells. Since the detection in January 2008, no fre e product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3

- 1).



### 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Laboratory analytical results from the April 2012 groundwater monitoring event indicated that
TPH

- DRO was present in the groundwater be neath the RHSF at concentrations equal to or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPC concentrations (i.e., TPH

- GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead) were below the EALs. All LODs and LOQs were generally below the EALs. In the case where an EAL f or a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQs in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009 ).

In monitoring wells RHMW

- 01 and RHMW

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

In monitoring well RHMW2254

- 01, trichloroethene (0.17 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW2254

- 01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring wel l RHMW02, TPH

- DRO (1, 2 00 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Acenaphthene (0.2 6 μ g/L), 1

- methylnaphthalene (0. 30 μ g/L), and naphthalene ( 0.86 μ g/L) were detected at concentr ations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross
Contamination EALs. Fluorene (0.14 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μ g/L) w ere detected at estimated concentration s below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL s . All other C OPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarte rly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations July 2012

5

- 2 In monitoring well RHMW03, dissolved lead ( 1.4 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs . All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW0 3 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.



## 5.2 Conclusions

To date, the presence of LNAPL has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This indicates a significant release from one or more of the USTs at the RHSF has not occurred at this time.

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

- 01 have not been detected above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in s amples collected from monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating nor are they impacting the Navy‟s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have decreased to below the EALs for the past nin e consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an intermediate moni t oring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254

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

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not steadily increasing between sampling events.
TPH

- DRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW02 have been consistently well above the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the SSRB L twice: in December 2008 and April 2010. Concentrations of 1

- methylnaphthalene detected in samples collected from RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events; decreased during the four subsequent monitoring events , and then increased but to a level be low the EAL during the April 2012 monitoring event . The fluctuation in concentrations measured during this event and previous events indicates the current source of 1

- methylnaphthalene is potentially residual hydrocarbon contamination from a historical re lease . The general overall long

- term trend in
1

- methylnaphthalene concentration is decreasing and does not indicate a new release.



## 5.3 Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring event, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05

, and monthly soil vapor monitoring are also recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW03 and the C ategory 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH and continuation of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 6 References July 2012

6

- 1 

# Section 6 References

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

. February.

DOH, 20 09

. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater . Updated March 2009

.

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

Environet, 2010. Work Plan, Long

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

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

TEC, 2006

. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final

– Addendum Planning Do cuments, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

. May.

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

. August.

_____ , 2008

. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

. January 2008 revised in December 2009.

_____ , 20 10

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

. August

.

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

.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O„ahu, Hawai„i Section 6 References July 2012

6

- 2 This page is intentionally left blank.

# Appendix A DOH Correspondence

# Appendix B Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through April 201 25

50 500 5000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

## Figure A

- 1: TPH at RHMW2254

- 01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH

- DRO DL

TPH

- GRO DL

TPH

- GRO

TPH

- DRO EAL

TPH

- GRO EAL

SSRBL

Time5

50 500 5000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

# Figure A

- 2: TPH at RHMW01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH

- DRO DL

TPH

- DRO

TPH

- GRO DL

TPH

- GRO

TPH

- DRO EAL

TPH

- GRO EAL

SSRBL

Time5

50 500 5000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

## Figure A

- 3: TPH at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH

- DRO

TPH

- GRO DL

TPH

- GRO

TPH

- DRO EAL

TPH

- GRO EAL

SSRBL

Time5

50 500 5000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

## Figure A

- 4: TPH at RHMW03

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH

- DRO DL

TPH

- DRO

TPH

- GRO DL

TPH

- GRO

TPH

- DRO EAL

TPH

- GRO EAL

SSRBL

Time5

50 500 5000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

## Figure A

- 5: TPH at RHMW05

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH

- DRO DL

TPH

- DRO

TPH

- GRO DL

TPH

- GRO

TPH

- DRO EAL

TPH

- GRO EAL

SSRBL

Time0.1

1 10 100 1000

Jun

- 05 Mar

- 06 Dec

- 06 Sep

- 07 Jun

- 08 Mar

- 09 Dec

- 09 Sep

- 10 Jun

- 11 Mar

- 12 Log Concentration (μg/L) 

## Figure A

- 6: PAHs at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

Naphthalene

1

- Methylnaphthalene

2

- Methylnaphthalene

Naphthalene EAL

1

- Methylnaphthalene EAL

2

- Methylnaphthalene EAL

Time

# Appendix C Field Notebook

, April 201 2

# Appendix D Groundwater Sampling Logs
, April 2012WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

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

0915 2 L 6.00 0.500 0 6.17 23.73 - 212

0917 3 L 6.15 0.560 0 6.28 23.70 - 208

0920 4 L 6.10 0.557 0 6.30 23.69 - 210

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR

- SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

- SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

- SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

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

not applicable (N/A) 4/17/2012 0910

unknown MS, JT

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

4/17/2012 1430 N/A 0.4 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES074 MS/MSD

0930

MS, JT

(6) - 40 mL VOAs, (8) - 1 L amber bottle, (2) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

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

1200 2 L 6.52 0.295 2.0 2.11 25.66 - -59

1205 2.5 L 6.60 0.300 2.0 1.98 25.64 - -60

1220 3 L 6.59 0.318 1.8 1.86 25.64 - -59

1225 3.5 L 6.50 0.321 1.5 1.80 25.64 - -56

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR

- SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

- SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

- SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

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

83.60 feet bTOC 4/17/2012 1100

100.00 feet bTOC MS, JT

16.4 feet

-

N/A Low flow pump

4/17/2012 1430 - 0.14 L/min

Low flow pump

ES075

1230

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

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

1058 3 L 6.43 0.608 8.0 1.50 25.63 - -128

1100 5 L 6.44 0.618 6.4 1.01 25.57 - -129

1103 6 L 6.45 0.619 5.9 0.86 25.58 - -129

1105 7 L 6.46 0.621 4.1 0.80 25.58 - -129

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR

- SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

- SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

- SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT) 2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 4/16/2012 1430 86.38 feet bTOC 0.35 L/min

Low flow pump

ES071

1110

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, JT Take duplicate - ES072 (0800 - dup time) unknown MS, JT

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

86.34 feet bTOC 4/16/2012 1045WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

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

1236 2 L 6.91 0.789 64.3 4.95 28.51 - 79

1238 3 L 6.89 0.788 47.2 4.91 28.50 - 101

1241 5 L 6.71 0.771 26.5 4.85 28.16 - 56

1243 7 L 6.80 0.783 19.5 4.79 28.21 - 44

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

- SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

- SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT) 2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 4/16/2012 1430 102.90 feet bTOC 0.54 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES073

1245

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

102.71 feet bTOC 4/16/2012 1230WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

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

0935 3 L 6.44 0.308 28.1 5.79 23.88 - 216

0940 5 L 6.75 0.408 6.5 5.94 23.81 - 186

0944 7 L 6.85 0.405 2.4 5.61 23.78 - 184

0947 9 L 6.90 0.406 2.4 5.62 23.78 - 188

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

- SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

- SAMPLED BY: OTHER

-

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.3 PPM

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

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

83.17 feet bTOC 4/16/2012 0930

unknown MS, JT

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

4/16/2012 1430 83.19 feet bTOC 0.53 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES070

0950

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, JT

# Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Results
, April 2012 (on CD

- ROM)