Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring 

Report

RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY, JOINT BASE PEARL

HARBOR-HICKAM, O‘AHU, HAWAI‘I

Latitude: 21°22’15”N

Longitude: 157°53’33”W

DOH Facility ID No. 9-102271

DOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

July 2012

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Environmental Technical Services

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

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring 

Report

RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY, JOINT BASE PEARL

HARBOR-HICKAM, O‘AHU, HAWAI‘I

Latitude: 21°22’15”N

Longitude: 157°53’33”W

DOH Facility ID No. 9-102271

DOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

July 2012

Prepared for:

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Prepared by:

Environet, Inc.

650 Iwilei Road, Suite 204

Honolulu, HI 96817-5318

Prepared under:

Environmental Technical Services

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

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Table of Contents

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 Measurements ............................................................... 3-1

3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Groundwater Status........................................................................................................ 3-8

Section 4 Data Quality Assessment ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Data Validation............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Quality Control Program............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Data Assessment ........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions ................................................................................... 4-3

Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations....................................................... 5-1

5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements........................................................... 5-1
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, April 2012................... 3-5

Table 3-3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern............................................................. 3-9

Table 3-4: Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status......... 3-9

Table 3-5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, April 2012........................ 3-11

Table 4-1: Field QC Results, April 2012.................................................................................... 4-5

Figures

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

Appendices

Appendix A: DOH Corespondence

Appendix B: Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 

2005 through 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

μg/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 Environmental Action Level

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F-76 marine diesel fuel

FLC Fleet Logistics Center

GRO gasoline range organics

HAR Hawai„i Administrative Rules

IDW investigation-derived waste

J Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified, but 

the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.

JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam

JP Jet Propellant

LCS laboratory control sample

LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid

LOD limit of detection

LOQ limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

N/A not applicable

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NAVSUP United States Naval Supply Systems Command

ND not detected

NP measurement not provided

NT measurement not taken

PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

pH hydrogen activity

PHWS Pearl Harbor Water System

PPE personal protective equipment

Q data qualifier

QC quality control

RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

RPD relative percent difference

SSRBL site-specific risk-based level

SWL static water level

TEC The Environmental Company, Inc.

TIC tentatively identified compound
Quarterly 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 United States Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

VOC volatile organic compound
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Executive Summary

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 State of Hawai„i Department of 

Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for human toxicity (DOH, 

2009).

This report presents the analytical results and compares them to the DOH EALs for samples 

collected on April 16 and 17, 2012 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 Contamination 

EALs. 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 [μg/L]) was 

detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the limits of detection 

(LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs).

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

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,200 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. 

Acenaphthene (0.26 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.30 μg/L), and naphthalene (0.86 μg/L) were 

detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs. Fluorene (0.14 μg/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μg/L) were detected at 

estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs. 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 μg/L) was detected at a concentration below 

the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in 

monitoring well RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

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

All laboratory detection limits (DLs), LODs, and LOQs were generally below the EALs. In the 

case where an EAL for a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to 

consider the LOQ in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009).

TPH-DRO Contaminant Trends

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

EAL, except in October-November 2010, 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-November 2010, TPH-DRO was 

detected at its highest concentration (330 μg/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 from a concentration slightly below the DOH 

Drinking Water EAL, detected during the first sampling event in May 2009, to a level well above 

the DOH Drinking Water EAL, in January 2010. In nine consecutive quarterly groundwater 

monitoring events, from April 2010 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 μg/L, which was 

below the EAL. TPH-GRO concentration increased slightly in April 2011 to a concentration of 

24 μg/L, which was below the EAL. TPH-GRO was not detected above the LODs and LOQs in 

the July 2011, 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-methylnaphthalene decreased below the EAL in October 2009; however,

concentrations exhibited an increasing trend above the EAL during six subsequent quarterly 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

July 2012

vii 

groundwater monitoring events. Concentrations 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 concentrations decreased to below the EAL in 

May 2009 and July 2009, increased above the EAL in October 2009, and remained above the 

EAL in January 2011. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL again in 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 phase liquid (LNAPL) has been observed only once 

(i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 with a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This 

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

this time. 

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

have not been increasing or detected at or above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC 

concentrations detected in samples collected from other monitoring wells within the RHSF are 

not migrating and impacting the Navy’s potable water source. 

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have 

decreased to below the EALs for the past nine consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The data 

suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells 

located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an 

intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time, 

there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s 

potable water source. 

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the 

USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increasing between consecutive sampling events. 

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive 

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 concentration is decreasing 

and does not indicate a new release at the site. 

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. All other wells were given a no category designation. RHMW01 was the only 

monitoring well to change category from the previous event, dropping from Category 1 in the 

January 2012 monitoring event to no category in the April 2012 monitoring event. 

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 
Quarterly 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 27

th groundwater monitoring event conducted in April

2012 at the RHSF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), O„ahu, Hawai„i (Figure 1-1). The

RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by the United States Naval Supply 

Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Pearl Harbor. The groundwater 

sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in 

response to past UST releases, previous environmental investigations, and recommendations 

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

the Navy (DON), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Hawai„i under 

Environmental Technical Services, Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order 

HC21.

The field activities performed for the April 2012 quarterly groundwater monitoring event were 

conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the Work Plan, Long-Term 

Monitoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Environet, 

2010).

1.1 Project Objective

The groundwater monitoring was performed to evaluate the presence of COPCs in groundwater 

underlying the RHSF. The groundwater monitoring was conducted to ensure the DON remains 

in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawai„i 

Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action. Analytical results 

are compared to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for human toxicity for samples collected from 

five groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and

RHMW05).

1.2 Background

The U.S. Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting 

groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) and four

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

within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 

3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and provides approximately 24% of the potable water to 

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

against DOH Drinking Water EALs (DOH, 2009).

1.2.1 Site Description

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

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

the Hālawa Correctional Facility and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the 

facility includes the Coast Guard Reservation and other residential neighborhoods. Moanalua 

Valley is located east of the facility (Environet, 2010).
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 1

Introduction

July 2012

1-2

The Navy Public Works Department operates a potable water infiltration tunnel approximately 

1,550 feet hydraulically downgradient from the RHSF (Environet, 2010). The U.S. Navy Well 

2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient (west) of the RHSF and provides 

approximately 24% of the potable water to the PHWS, which serves approximately 52,200 

military consumers (TEC, 2008).

1.2.2 Facility Information

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

Each UST has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet 

above the basal aquifer (Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).

1.2.3 UST Information

The USTs were constructed in the early 1940s. The tanks were constructed of steel and currently 

contain Jet Propellant (JP)-5 fuel, JP-8, and marine diesel fuel (F-76). Previously, several tanks 

stored Navy Special Fuel Oil, Navy Distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline. Each tank 

measures approximately 245 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the 

tanks lie at depths varying between approximately 100 feet and 200 feet below the existing 

ground surface (TEC, 2006).

1.2.4 Previous Reports

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

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

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

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

2005);

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

2006);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2009);

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

A@

A@

A@

A@

A@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

?@ ?@

!(

OWDFMW01

RHMW2254-01

RHMW05

RHMW01

RHMW02

RHMW03

HDMW2253-03

SVMP02

SVMP03

SVMP04

SVMP06

SVMP08

SVMP10

SVMP12

SVMP14

SVMP16

SVMP18

SVMP20

SVMP05

SVMP07

SVMP09

SVMP11

SVMP13

SVMP15

SVMP17

Hālawa Industrial Park

Hālawa Correctional Facility

Hālawa Stream

RHMW04

U.S. Navy Well 2254-01

Hālawa Shaft Board of Water

Supply Pump Station (2354-01)

Coast Guard

Reservation

Moanalua

Village

Navy Firing

Range

?@ Soil Vapor Monitoring Points

A@ Groundwater Monitoring Wells

!( Board of Water Supply Pump Station

Hālawa Correctional Facility

Red Hill Naval Reservation

Hālawa Stream

1,000 500 0 1,000

Feet

Figure 1-1

Groundwater Monitoring Well

Location Map

LEGEND

 ̄

USGS, 2005

SOURCE

Pearl Harbor

Quarterly Groundwater

Monitoring Report,

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility,

JBPHH, O'ahu, Hawai'i

Quarterly 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, October 2009 (submitted December 2009);

18. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January, February, and March 2010 

(submitted April 2010);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 for contamination of the basal aquifer underlying the RHSF. The well was installed and 

completed at approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access tunnel. At the time of 

well completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was measured at 86 feet below grade (Dawson

group, Inc., 2006).

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

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

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

(Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).

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

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

and RHMW2254-01 in February 2005, June 2005, September 2005, and December 2005.

Samples collected in February 2005 and June 2005 were not filtered in the field prior to analysis 

for lead. Analytical results for samples collected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of 

total lead were above the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μg/L. The results were not considered 

appropriate for risk assessment since the sample had not been filtered. In addition, lead was not 

a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW01, but was a component in fuels stored in 

other tanks during the history of the RHSF. Lead may have been part of the RHSF construction 

material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 1

Introduction

July 2012

1-6

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

resolved this issue. Samples were filtered in September 2005 and December 2005, and dissolved 

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

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels.

2005 Site Investigation - As part of a site investigation, TEC installed three groundwater 

monitoring wells at the RHSF between June 2005 and September 2005. Monitoring well

RHMW02 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tank 05 and Tank 06. Monitoring well 

RHMW03 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tank 13 and Tank 14. Monitoring well

RHMW04 was installed north of the UST Tank 20 to evaluate groundwater within the basal 

aquifer upgradient from the RHSF. Monitoring wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were completed 

to depths of approximately 125 feet below the tunnel floor, and well RHMW04 was completed to 

a depth of approximately 300 feet below ground surface outside the tunnel. Groundwater 

samples were collected from the three newly installed wells and two existing wells (RHMW01 

and RHMW2254-01) in September 2005 (TEC, 2010).

Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at 

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

collected from RHMW01 at a concentration greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action Level; however, 

the sample was not filtered in the field prior to analysis. Analytical results for filtered samples 

obtained by Dawson Group, Inc. during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved 

lead were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Level (TEC, 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

In September 2006, with concurrence from the DOH, the Navy decided to use the newer DOH 

EALs for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs provide action 

levels for more chemicals, and are much more useful for conducting screening risk assessments. 

Since the DOH (DOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets of action levels should 

not be mixed, the Tier 1 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11-281-78 would no longer 

be used to evaluate environmental impact at the RHSF (TEC, 2010).

2006 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in December 2006. 

Analytical results indicated the following:

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

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

concentrations above the EAL; and

TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, and naphthalene were detected in samples collected from 

RHMW02 at concentrations above the EALs (TEC, 2010).
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:

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

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

all three monitoring events;

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

March 2007;

TPH-DRO and naphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from

RHMW02 during all three monitoring events;

1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH 

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all 

three monitoring events; and

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

June 2007.

2008 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July, 

and October 2008. Analytical results indicated the following:

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

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

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

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

all four monitoring events;

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

TPH-DRO, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations 

exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02. Additionally, the SSRBL of 

4,500 μg/L for TPH-DRO was exceeded in the October 2008 monitoring event at 

RHMW02 (Appendix B); and

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

all four monitoring events.

2009 Groundwater Sampling and RHMW05 Installation - Groundwater samples were 

collected in February, May, July, and October 2009. In April 2009, a new groundwater 

monitoring well, RHMW05, was installed by TEC. RHMW05 is located within the lower access 

tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01 (located at the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01). It was 

installed to identify any contamination migrating past RHMW01 prior to it reaching the U.S. 

Navy Well 2254-01 (TEC, 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

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

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

above the LOD and significantly below the LOQ and EAL in February and May 2009;
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 events;

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

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

all four monitoring events;

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

EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in February 2009, however, only the 

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

only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in October 2009;

TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 in 

February 2009, but not in May or July 2009; and

TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in the samples collected from RHMW05 

during the May and July 2009 monitoring events.

2010 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July, 

and October-November 2010 (and TPH-DRO was re-sampled at RHMW02 in February 2010 

and March 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

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

RHMW2254-01;

dissolved lead was detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 at a concentration 

below the EAL in October-November 2010;

naphthalene concentrations in the samples collected from RHMW2254-01 were detected 

below the LOQ and EAL in January and October-November 2010;

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

except in October-November 2010 when they were not detected at or above the LOQ;

dissolved lead was detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at a concentration 

below the EAL in October-November 2010;

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

January, February, March, April, July, and October-November 2010, however, significant 

increases in January and February 2010 were attributed to tentatively identified 

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

2010);

naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples 

collected from RHMW02 in January, April, July, and October-November 2010;

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

October-November 2010;

TPH-DRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW03 were not detected above 

the LOD in January, April, and July 2010. However, in October-November 2010

TPH-DRO was detected above the EAL; and
Quarterly 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 concentration was not detected at 

or above the LOD in October-November 2010.

2011 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July, 

and October 2011. Analytical results indicated the following:

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

RHMW2254-01 in January, April, July, and October 2011, except for dissolved lead

detected at a concentration below the EAL in July 2011;

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

RHMW01 in January 2011;

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration 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 in samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011. In July and 

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

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

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

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

naphthalene was detected at concentrations below the EAL;

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

at RHMW02 in January, July, and October 2011;

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

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

concentrations below that EAL in July and October 2011;

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

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

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

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

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

EALs in July 2011. All other COPCs in RHMW02 were not detected at or above the 

LODs and LOQs in January and April 2011; and

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

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in January and April 2011; however, dissolved lead was 

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

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011. All other COPCs were not detected at or above 

the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 1

Introduction

July 2012

1-10

2012 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in January-February 2012. 

Analytical results 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, fluorene, 1-methylnapthalene, and naphthalene 

were detected at concentrations below the EALs in January-February 2012. 

Acenapthylene, 2-methylnapthalene, ethylbenzene, and dissolved lead were detected at 

estimated concentrations below the EALs 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 an estimated concentration below the EAL at RHMW03 in 

January-February 2012. All other 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 methylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity 

EAL for these compounds was 240 μg/L. This concentration presumed that methylnaphthalenes 

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

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

of 4.7 μg/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24 μg/L for 2-methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a 

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

EAL changing from 240 μg/L to 4.7 μg/L, concentrations of 1-methylnaphthale collected from 

RMHW2254-01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 previously categorized as under the 

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

6.2 μg/L to 17 μg/L (DOH, 2009). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was 

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

EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100 μg/L.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

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, 2012, using procedures 

described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Field activities were documented in the field 

notebook (Appendix C).

2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

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

USTs is monitored at the RHSF. Groundwater gauging measurements were collected at the four

monitoring wells prior to purging and sample collection. A Solinst oil/water interface probe 

was used to measure the depth to groundwater, as well as detect the presence and thickness of 

LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot, according to the procedures described in Procedure I-C-3, 

Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007).

2.2 Groundwater Sampling 

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

described in Procedure I-C-3, Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007).

2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

Each monitoring well was purged using a dedicated bladder pump system. Groundwater was 

purged at a low flow rate (less than one liter per minute) using the dedicated bladder pump 

system until three or more successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized 

within 10%. A Horiba® U-52 multi-parameter water quality meter was used to measure 

hydrogen activity (pH), temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and 

oxidation reduction potential. At least four readings were recorded in Groundwater Sampling 

Log data sheets (Appendix D).

2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated bladder pump systems, directly into 

laboratory provided specially cleaned sample containers. Samples to be analyzed for dissolved 

lead were filtered in the field and placed into polyethylene bottles already containing the 

appropriate preservative.

2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

Each sample container sent to the laboratory was assigned a project-specific chain-of-custody 

identification number and a descriptive identification number. The sample identifiers provided 

specific data unique to each sample and were entered into the field notebook. The samples were 

labeled according to the procedures described in Procedure III-E, Record Keeping, Sample 

Labeling, and Chain-of-Custody (DON, 2007).

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

placed into individual ZipLoc bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice for 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

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

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

for VOCs and TPH-GRO analysis, and one quality control (QC) groundwater sample (i.e., 

matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD)) were submitted to APPL, Inc., located in 

Clovis, California. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH-GRO by EPA 

Method 8260B, for TPH-DRO by EPA Method 8015B, for PAHs by EPA Method 8270D 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 according to the procedures described in Procedure III-B, Field 

QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007) and the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Field duplicate 

samples were collected at a minimum of 10% of primary samples and analyzed for the same 

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

were used.

2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

Laboratory QC samples were analyzed as part of the standard laboratory QC protocols as 

presented in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Laboratory QC for the monitoring event 

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

Laboratory QC samples were prepared and analyzed according to the procedures described in 

Procedure III-A Laboratory QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007). Laboratory QC MS/MSD 

samples are an aliquot (i.e., a subset) of the field sample that is spiked with accurate amounts of 

target analytes. They are not separate samples, but a special designation of an existing sample. 

Laboratory QC MS/MSD samples were analyzed for the same constituents as the standard 

samples. At a minimum, one MS/MSD sample pair was required per 20 samples, including field 

QC samples.

2.6 Equipment Decontamination

Decontamination of monitoring equipment was performed to ensure data quality, prevent cross 

contamination, and prevent the potential introduction of contaminants into previously unimpacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst®

oil/water interface 

probe and Horiba® multi-parameter U-52 water quality meter) was conducted between 

monitoring locations, according to the procedures described in Procedure I-F, Equipment 

Decontamination (DON, 2007). Decontamination water was disposed of in the RHSF‟s lower 

tunnel oil/water separator sump.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

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.

 
Quarterly 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 RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the 

April 2012 sampling event. The trend of free product measurements over time shows that in 

January 2008, LNAPL was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a 

thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not observed in any other monitoring wells. Since the 

detection in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring 

wells (Table 3-1).

3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

All DLs, LODs, and LOQs were generally below the EALs. In the case where an EAL for a 

specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of 

the EAL (DOH, 2009).

RHMW2254-01

Trichloroethene (0.17 μg/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH 

Drinking Water EAL (5 μg/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (310 

μg/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 1,200 μg/L, which exceeded the DOH Drinking 

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

3-2 and Appendix E). Acenaphthene (0.26 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.30 μg/L), and 

naphthalene (0.86 μg/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and 

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Fluorene (0.14 μg/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μg/L)

were detected at estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater 

Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and 

LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3-2

RHMW03

Dissolved lead (1.4 μg/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL 

(15 μg/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (5,000 μg/L). All other COPCs 

were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

RHMW05

All COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

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

RHMW02, and RHMW03 since September 2005 and in monitoring well RHMW05 since May 

2009 (Appendix B). Monitoring well RHMW2254-01 was installed in February 2005. The 

following is a discussion of COPCs that exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs during two or 

more recent consecutive sampling events of increasing or decreasing concentrations, thus 

establishing a trend:

RHMW2254-01

COPCs have never been detected at RHMW2254-01 at concentrations greater than the DOH 

Drinking Water EALs.

RHMW01

Concentrations of TPH-DRO have been greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL between 

September 2005 and July 2010, and again in April 2011 and July 2011, but less than 50% of the 

SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 4,500 μg/L). TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from 

October 2008 through July 2009; increased in October 2009 (299F μg/L), January 2010 (312F 

μg/L), and April 2010 (377 μg/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μg/L); and were not detected 

above the LODs and LOQs in October-November 2010 and January 2011. TPH-DRO 

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

and 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 μg/L and were greater than 50% of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. The 

concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stable until July 2008 and October 2008 when the 

concentrations increased, with the October 2008 average also exceeding the SSRBL of 4,500 

μg/L.
Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through April 2012

Elevation1 = 102.27 Elevation1 = 104.76 Elevation1 = 121.06 Elevation1 = 101.55

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

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

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

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

Mar-2009 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ May-20095 83.72 18.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6 NT6 

May-2009 83.50 18.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6 NT6 Jul-20097 83.75 18.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 

Aug-2009 84.04 18.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 

Sep-2009 84.21 18.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 

Oct-2009 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 

Nov-2009 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 

Dec-2009 84.12 18.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 

Jan-2010 84.36 17.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 

Feb-2010 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 

Mar-2010 84.53 17.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 

Apr-2010 84.75 17.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 

May-2010 84.80 17.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 

Jun-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 

Jul-2010 85.03 17.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 

Sep-2010 85.30 16.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 

Oct-2010 85.29 16.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 

Nov-2010 85.20 17.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.95 

Dec-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.33 

Jan-2011 85.32 16.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.90 

Feb-2011 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.35 

Mar-2011 83.77 18.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.35 

Apr-2011 83.54 18.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.65 

May-2011 83.39 18.88 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 82.72 18.83 

Jun-2011 83.41 18.86 0.00 86.11 18.65 0.00 102.33 18.73 0.00 82.81 18.74 

Jul-2011 83.57 18.70 0.00 86.22 18.54 0.00 102.44 18.62 0.00 82.99 18.56 

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

Sep-2011 83.81 18.46 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 83.21 18.34 

Oct-2011 83.71 18.56 0.00 86.38 18.38 0.00 102.90 18.16 0.00 83.15 18.40 

Jan-2012 83.75 18.52 0.00 86.31 18.45 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 83.15 18.40 

Apr-2012 83.60 18.67 0.00 86.34 18.42 0.00 102.71 18.35 0.00 83.17 18.38 

Notes:

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

Units are in feet (ft).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.

DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less than

RHMW05

Date

RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03

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

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

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

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

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

Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 Acenaphthylene 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 Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 Fluorene 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 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 2-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 Naphthalene 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 Phenanthrene 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 Pyrene 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 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 

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

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

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

1,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 

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

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

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 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 0.11 1,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 U 1.0b 0.36 0.18 

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

Acetone 22,000 20,000 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 Benzene 5 170 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 

Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 

Bromoform 80 510 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 0.14 

Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 

Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 Chlorobenzene 100 50 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 Chloroethane 21,000 16 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 0.21 

Chloroform 70 2,400 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 

Ethylbenzene 700 30 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 

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

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 U 1.0b 0.26 0.13 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 Toluene 1,000 40 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 Trichloroethylene (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 Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 Xylenes 10,000 20 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 

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

Notes: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)

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

b In the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009). 

NDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDND

0.17

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDND

1.4

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDND

0.86

NDNDNDNDNDND

0.44

NDNDNDND

NDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.30

ND

a DOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).

1,200

ND

0.26

ND

Resu

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa Result

RHMW2254-01

(ES074)

Result Result

RHMW03

(ES073)

RHMW01 

(ES075)

Result

RHMW02 

(ES071)

NDNDND

Bold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.

ND ND

NDND

DOH Drinking Water EALs for 

Human Toxicitya 

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

Method Chemical

NDND

ND

0.14

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

Quarterly 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 began an increasing trend greater than 50% 

of the SSRBL, which continued through February 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to 

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

(2,490 μg/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μg/L), TPH-DRO exhibited a decreasing trend, and the TICs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January-February 2012. TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to 1,200 μg/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 naphthalene 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 concentrations remained 

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

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

2009 (3.2 μg/L), which was below the EAL. In January 2010, 1-methylnaphthalene 

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 μg/L) for 1-methylnaphthalene in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL of 4.7 μg/L. The average concentration for 1-methylnaphthalene decreased to below 

the DOH EAL in July 2011, October-November 2011, and January-February 2012. During the 

April 2012 monitoring event, concentrations 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, but have been significantly lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and 
Quarterly 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 μg/L), which was above the EAL. In January 

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

groundwater monitoring events, TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to below the LODs.

Dissolved lead has been detected at estimated concentrations in the October-November 2010, 

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

During the April 2012 groundwater monitoring event, dissolved lead concentrations increased to 

a detectable level (1.4 μg/L), which was below the EAL.

RHMW05

There was an increasing trend for TPH-DRO since it was first sampled in May 2009 through 

January 2010. Starting with the July 2009 monitoring event, TPH-DRO concentrations were 

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

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

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

accordance 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 quarterly 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.
Quarterly 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 

(μg/L)

SSRBL 

(μg/L)

Petroleum Mixtures

TPH-DRO 210 4,500

TPH-GRO 100 4,500

Semi-Volatile Compounds

1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 N/A

2-Methylnaphthalene 24 N/A

Naphthalene 17 N/A

Notes:

N/A – not applicable

SSRBLs are applicable at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05

EALs are applicable at RHMW2254-01

Table 3-4: Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status

Results Category

RHMW02, 

RHMW03, or 

RHMW05*

RHMW01 RHMW2254-01

Results Category 1: Result above detection limit, but below 

drinking water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or 

decreasing

A A A, D, M, E

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or 

drinking water EAL exceeded A, B A, B A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, O

Results Category 3: Result Between 1/10X SSRBL and 

SSRBL for benzene, or between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for 

TPH

A, B, G, H, I, J A, B, E, G, H, I, J A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 

I, J, K, L, O

Results Category 4: Result Exceeding any SSRBL or 

petroleum product observed

A, C, D, E, F, I, 

J, K, M, N

A, C, D, E, F, I, J, 

K, M, N, O

A, C, D, E, F, G, I, 

J, K, L, O

Notes: 

*RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has subsequently been added to this table.

Specific Responses:

A. Send quarterly reports to DOH.

B. Begin program to determine the source of leak.

C. Notify DOH verbally within one day and follow with written notification in 30 days.

D. Notify NAVSUP Chain of Command within one day.

E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to DOH.

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

G. Increase monitoring frequency to once per month (if concentrations increasing).

H. Notify DOH verbally within seven days and follow with written notification in 30 days.

I. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pertinent wells with interface probe, re-install pumps if product is not detected.

J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks.

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

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

L. Provide alternative water source at RHMW2254-01.

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

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

O. Install additional monitoring well downgradient.

Report Types

DOH Type 1 Report

Re-evaluate Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model results

Proposal to DOH on course of action

DOH Type 2 Report

Proposal for groundwater treatment
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

July 2012

3-10

This page is intentionally left blank.
Results Category RHMW2254-011 RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 

Results Category 1: Result above detection 

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

No No No Yes 

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

No No No No 

Results Category 4: Result exceeding any SSRBL or petroleum product observed No No No No Previous Category: Category prior to April 

monitoring event None Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 

New Category: Category assignment based on 

results of the April monitoring event None None Category 2 Category 1 

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

Note: 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 2012

1 Although 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 1 

Response Actions: Requirements of new 

category

None 

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH

None

Quarterly 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 quality 

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

management procedures, and the collection of field duplicate samples and trip blank samples. 

The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods 

and the preparation and analyses of MS/MSD samples, surrogate spikes, method blanks, and 

LCS.

4.1 Data Validation

The usability of the data collected during this investigation depends upon its quality. A number 

of factors relate to the quality of data, including: sample collection methods, sample analysis 

methods, and adherence to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, 

management, shipment, and analysis. Data quality is judged in terms of its precision, accuracy, 

representativeness, completeness, and comparability.

4.1.1 Quality Control Program

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

data, and EPA limits established for the methods. The LOQs for samples may require 

adjustment due to matrix interference or if high levels of target analytes necessitate dilution 

before analysis. Matrix interference and sample dilutions have the effect of increasing the 

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

4.1.2 Data Assessment

Precision

Precision is defined as the agreement between a set of replicate measurements without 

assumption and knowledge of the true value. Precision is evaluated by relative percent

difference (RPD) of field duplicates and laboratory MS/MSD results. Field duplicate and 

MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of approximately 10% of project samples. Field 

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

samples. 

For this monitoring event, the RPDs of primary and field duplicate (sample ES071 and sample 

ES072), met the RPD precision criteria of 50% for all analytes except 1-methylnaphthalene, 

2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, ethylbenzene, and dissolved lead (Table 4-1). These analyte 

concentrations ranged from not detected to very low concentrations below the EALs. Small 

variation in concentration at very low (approaching decimal) levels will likely result in RPDs 

greater than 50%. The RPDs greater than 50% would 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 COPC 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 constituents 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 deviation (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 groundwater 

samples and a heightened recovery should have no effect on sample results. The chloromethane 

recovery was above the upper limit of the acceptable criteria (125%). However, the analyte was 

not detected in the associated groundwater samples and a heightened 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 

Drinking 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 environmental condition. 

Representativeness was achieved by conducting sampling in compliance with the sample 

collection procedures described in the Work Plan specifically written for this project (Environet, 

2010).

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

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

time complied with the EPA criteria. 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.

Completeness
Quarterly 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 analytical results (including estimated 

values) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the laboratory. The 

completeness goal for this project is 90%, which was successfully met. Successful completion of 

data acquisition can only be accomplished if both the field and laboratory portions of the project 

are performed according to the procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010).

Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. 

Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are measures of 

data reliability. Data, with acceptable precision and accuracy, are considered comparable if 

collection techniques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this 

monitoring event, the samples were collected using approaches consistent with those in the 

previous events, and the same analytical methods/procedures were used to measure the 

concentration of COPCs. Therefore, the results are considered comparable within this data set 

and with the data collected from previous sampling events.

4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

The precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability criteria were met. 

The hold time was met for all samples. Therefore, the data assessment concludes that all data

generated during this event are suitable for the intended use.
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 2012

Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ L

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 8.69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 1

Acenaphthene 370 20 0.26 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.23 0.2 0.12 0.06 12.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fluorene 240 950 0.14 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 0.095 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 0.30 0.2 0.12 0.06 1.2 0.2 0.12 0.06 120 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.61 0.2 0.12 0.06 134 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Naphthalene 17 21 0.86 0.2 0.10 0.05 2.9 0.2 0.10 0.05 109 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

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

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

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 0 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 

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

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

1,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 

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

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

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 

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

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 

Acetone 22,000 20,000 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 

Benzene 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 

Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 

Bromoform 80 510 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 

Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 

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

Chloroethane 21,000 16 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 

Chloroform 70 2,400 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 

Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 0 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 

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

Ethylbenzene 700 30 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0.23 J 1.0 0.46 0.23 66.7 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 

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

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 

Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 

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

Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 0 0.47 J 5.0b 0.70 0.35 0.46 J 5.0b 

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

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

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 

Toluene 1,000 40 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 

Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 

Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 

Xylenes 10,000 20 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 0.44 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 66.7 -- -- -- -- -- 

Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02.

b In the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental

 Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009). ++ 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 of quantitation or reporting limit (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 - 

(04/16)

RHMW02

ES072 (04/16)

1,200

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa 

Trip Blank - 1

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

a DOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).

RPD 

Duplicate 

(%)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

Result

RHMW02

ES071

Result

Method Chemical DOH Drinking Water EALs 

for Human Toxicitya Result

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

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).

----------

Quarterly 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 event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the 

Groundwater Protection Plan.

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

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

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 free product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 

3-1).

5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results from the April 2012 groundwater monitoring event indicated that 

TPH-DRO was present in the groundwater beneath 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 for a specific COPC is less than the LOQ, it is generally acceptable to 

consider the LOQs in place of the EAL (DOH, 2009).

In monitoring 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 μg/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 well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,200 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. 

Acenaphthene (0.26 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.30 μg/L), and naphthalene (0.86 μg/L) were 

detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs. Fluorene (0.14 μg/L) and dissolved lead (0.44 μg/L) were detected at 

estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs. 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

Section 5 

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

July 2012

5-2

In monitoring well RHMW03, dissolved lead (1.4 μg/L) was detected at a concentration below 

the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in 

monitoring well RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

5.2 Conclusions

To date, the presence of LNAPL has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 

and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This indicates a significant release from one 

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

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

detected above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples 

collected from monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating 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 nine consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The data 

suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells 

located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an 

intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time, 

there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy‟s 

potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the 

USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not steadily increasing between sampling events. 

TPH-DRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW02 have been consistently well 

above the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the SSRBL 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 below 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 release. The general overall long-term trend in 

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

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring event, continuation of the quarterly groundwater 

monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continuation of monthly free 

product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05, and monthly soil 

vapor monitoring are also recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW03 and 

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

of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection 

Plan (TEC, 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 6

References

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

Groundwater. Updated March 2009.

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

NAVFAC Pacific. February.

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

Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. September.

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

TEC, 2006. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final – Addendum Planning Documents, Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii. May.

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

Hawaii. August.

_____, 2008. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii. January 2008 revised in December 2009.

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

Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. August.

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

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

Section 6

References

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 2012

5

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

Time

5

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

Time

5

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

Time

5

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

Time

5

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

Time

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Jun-05 Mar-06 Dec-06 Sep-07 Jun-08 Mar-09 Dec-09 Sep-10 Jun-11 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 2012



Appendix D

Groundwater Sampling Logs, April 2012

WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

(NTU) DO (mg/l) TEMP (o

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

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, JT
WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

(NTU) DO (mg/l) TEMP (o

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

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, JT
WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

(NTU) DO (mg/l) TEMP (o

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

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 1045
WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

(NTU) DO (mg/l) TEMP (o

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

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 1230
WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

(NTU) DO (mg/l) TEMP (o

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

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)