Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring 

Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, 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 

December 2010 

Department of the Navy 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i 

400 Marshall Road 

Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3139 

Environmental Technical Services 

Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order HC14 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring 

Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, 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 

December 2010 

Prepared for: 

Department of the Navy 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i 

400 Marshall Road 

Pearl Harbor, 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, Contract Task Order HC14 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Table of Contents

December 2010

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 .................................................................................................... 1-8

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

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

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

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements ........................................................... 5-1

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
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Table of Contents

December 2010

ii 

Tables 

Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through October 2010

.............................................................................................................................................. 3-3

Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, October-November 2010

.............................................................................................................................................. 3-5

Table 3-3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern ............................................................. 3-8

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, October-November 2010 . 3-11

Table 4-1: Field QC Results, October-November 2010 ............................................................. 4-3

Figures 

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

Appendices 

Appendix A: Quarterly Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through 

 October-November 2010 

Appendix B: Field Notebook, October-November 2010 

Appendix C: Groundwater Sampling Logs, October-November 2010 

Appendix D: Laboratory Analytical Results, October-November 2010 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

List of Acronyms

December 2010

iii 

List of Acronyms 

< less than 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

COPC chemical of potential concern 

DL detection limit or 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 

FISC Fleet and Industrial Supply 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. 

JP Jet Propellant 

LCS laboratory control sample 

LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid 

LOD limit of detection 

LOQ limit of quantitation or RL 

MDL method detection limit 

MS matrix spike 

MSD matrix spike duplicate 

N/A not applicable 

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering 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 

RL reporting limit 

RPD relative percent difference 

SSRBL site-specific risk-based level 

SWL static water level 

TEC The Environmental Company, Inc. 

TIC tentatively identified compound 

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

List of Acronyms

December 2010

iv 

U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not 

detected. The result is reported as ND. 

U.S. United States 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compound 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

December 2010

v 

Executive Summary 

There are 18 active and two inactive, 12.5 million gallon capacity, field-constructed underground 

storage tanks (USTs) located at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (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 installed within the RHSF lower access tunnel (RHMW01, 

RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05). 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 are analyzed for 

petroleum constituents and compared against State of Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH) 

Drinking Water Environmental Action Levels (EALs) (DOH, 2009). 

This groundwater monitoring report presents the analytical results and compares them to the 

DOH Drinking Water EALs for samples collected on October 18, 19, 20, and November 3, 2010 

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

and RHMW05). Contaminant trends that have exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs are also 

provided in this report. 

October-November 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Results

Laboratory analytical results from the October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event 

indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (DRO), TPH-gasoline 

range organics (GRO), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), specifically 1-

methylnaphthalene and naphthalene, were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF at 

concentrations that exceeded the EALs. All other chemical of potential concern (COPC) 

concentrations (i.e., volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dissolved lead) were below the 

EALs. 

In RHMW2254-01, lead (3.3 micrograms per liter (μg/L)) was detected at a concentration which 

was below the EAL. All other COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the limits of 

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

In monitoring well RHMW01, naphthalene (0.17 μg/L), acetone (2.4 μg/L), and lead (0.47 μg/L) 

were detected at estimated concentrations which were below the EALs. All other COPCs in 

RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,700 μg/L), TPH-GRO (150 μg/L), 1-

methylnaphthalene (15 μg/L), and naphthalene (59 μg/L) were detected at concentrations which 

exceeded the EALs. Acenaphthene (0.28 μg/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μg/L) were 

detected at concentrations which were below the EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.14 μg/L), fluorene 

(0.16 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.25 μg/L), xylenes (0.60 μg/L), and lead (0.32 μg/L) were detected 

at estimated concentrations which were below the EALs. All other COPCs in RHMW02 were 

not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

December 2010

vi 

In monitoring well RHMW03, TPH-DRO (330 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the EAL. Lead (0.28 μg/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was 

below the EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and 

LOQs. 

In RHMW05, all COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the LOD and LOQ. 

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

From January 2008 to April 2010, TPH-DRO at RHMW01 fluctuated within the historical range 

established from September 2005 through September 2007. In July 2010, TPH-DRO decreased 

to the lowest detected concentration observed to date (228 μg/L), and during October-November 

2010, TPH-DRO was not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

At RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations were relatively stable prior to 2008, after which 

significant variations occurred. In October-November 2010, TPH-DRO showed a decrease in 

concentration; however, the TPH-DRO concentration remains within the historical range for this 

groundwater monitoring well. 

From May 2009 through July 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW03 were below the 

LODs and LOQs. However, during October-November 2010, TPH-DRO was detected at the 

highest concentration to date (330 μg/L) which was above the EAL. 

At RHMW05, TPH-DRO had been increasing since it was first sampled in May 2009. However, 

in April 2010, July 2010, and October-November 2010, TPH-DRO at RHMW05 was not 

detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

TPH-GRO Contaminant Trends

TPH-GRO has remained below the EAL or has not been detected in monitoring wells RHMW01, 

RHMW03, and RHMW05. Since September 2005, TPH-GRO concentrations at RHMW02 had 

remained below the EAL, except in July 2006, December 2006, March 2007, and OctoberNovember 2010 when TPH-GRO was detected at the highest averaged concentration (average of 

primary and duplicate samples) to date (155 μg/L). 

PAHs Contaminant Trends in RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene have remained below the EAL. 

Naphthalene concentrations decreased to below the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009. However, 

naphthalene concentrations increased above the EAL in July 2010 and remained above the EAL 

during this October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event. Similarly, 1-

methylnaphthalene concentrations decreased below the EAL in October 2009 and increased 

above the EAL during the following groundwater monitoring events, including this OctoberNovember 2010 event. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

December 2010

vii 

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 at 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 have not been 

detected at or above the LODs and LOQs or are below the EALs. This indicates that elevated 

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

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

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have 

decreased to below the EALs for at least three consecutive 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 22554-01. 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 monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs 

(i.e., RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03) are not steadily increasing for more than one 

consecutive sampling event. The data suggest that the concentrations are relatively stable over 

time. It is likely that the COPCs are associated with a previous release from the USTs and not a 

current or active release. 

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 is also recommended. In response to the Category 2 status of RHMW02, 

submission of this quarterly report to DOH and initiation of a leak determination program to 

identify if tanks are leaking are recommended. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

December 2010

viii 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-1 

Section 1 Introduction 

This report presents the results of the 21st groundwater monitoring event, conducted in OctoberNovember 2010 at the RHSF, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Figure 1-1). The RHSF consists of 

18 active and two inactive USTs operated by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), 

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 HC14. 

The field activities performed for the October-November 2010 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 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 installed within the RHSF lower access tunnel (RHMW01, 

RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05). 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 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). 

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 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-2 

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

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

military consumers (The Environmental Company, Inc. (TEC), 2008). 

1.2.2 Facility Information 

The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by Navy FISC Pearl Harbor. 

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

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

1.2.3 UST Information 

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

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

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

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

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

ground surface (TEC, 2006). 

1.2.4 Previous Reports 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2009); 

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

A@

A@

A@

A@

A@

A@

?@ ?@

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

!(

OWDFMW01

RHMW2254-01

RHMW05

RHMW01

RHMW02

RHMW03

HDMW2253-03

SVMP02

SVMP03

SVMP04

SVMP06

SVMP08

SVMP10

SVMP12

SVMP14

SVMP16

SVMP18

SVMP20

SVMP05

SVMP07

SVMP09

SVMP11

SVMP13

SVMP15

SVMP17

Halawa Industrial Park

Halawa Correctional Facility

Halawa Stream

RHMW04

U.S. Navy Well 2254-01

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

Coast Guard

Reservation

Moanalua

Village

Navy FiringRange

?@ A@ 

!( 

1,000 

Gro

USGS

Pearl Harbor

Red 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-4 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

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); and 

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

1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations 

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

potential releases from the fuel storage 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 in the samples exceeded the groundwater DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 

5.6 μg/L (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 also have been part of the RHSF 

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

concentrations when analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples 

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

2005, and dissolved 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 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-6 

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 wells (RHMW01, 

RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, and RHMW2254-01). TEC collected groundwater samples 

from the 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 chemicals were detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 or RHMW03; 

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

concentrations above the DOH Drinking Water EAL; and 

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

RHMW02 at concentrations above the DOH Drinking Water EALs (TEC, 2010). 

2007 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in March, June, and 

September 2007. Analytical results indicated the following: 

 no chemicals were detected above DOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW2254-01; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW01 during all three monitoring events; 

 TPH-GRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW02 in March; 

 TPH-DRO and naphthalene concentrations exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs in 

samples collected from RHMW02 during all three monitoring events; 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-7 

 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded DOH 

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all 

three monitoring events; and 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded DOH Drinking Water EAL in the sample collected 

from RHMW03 in June. 

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

and October 2008. Analytical results indicated the following: 

 no chemicals were detected above the DOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW2254-01; 

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

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

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW01 during all four monitoring events; 

 TPH-GRO concentrations did not exceed the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples 

collected from RHMW02; 

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

exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples collected from RHMW02. 

Additionally, the site-specific risk-based level (SSRBL) of 4,500 μg/L for TPH-DRO was 

exceeded in the October monitoring event at RHMW02 (Appendix A); and 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water 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 chemicals have been detected above the DOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW2254-

01; 

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

above the LOD and significantly below the LOQ and DOH EAL in February and May 

2009; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW01 during all four monitoring events; 

 TPH-GRO concentrations did not exceed the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples 

collected from RHMW02; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW02 during all four monitoring events; 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-8 

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

DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in February 2009, 

however, only the 1-methylnaphthalene concentration exceeded the DOH Drinking Water 

EAL in May 2009 and July 2009 and only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the 

DOH Drinking Water EAL in October 2009; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW03 in February, but not in May or July; and 

 TPH-DRO concentration exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in the sample 

collected from RHMW05 during the July 2009 monitoring event. 

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

2010 (and TPH-DRO was re-sampled at RHMW02 in February 2010 and March 2010). 

Analytical results indicated the following: 

 no chemicals have been detected above the DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples 

collected from RHMW2254-01; 

 naphthalene concentration in the sample collected from RHMW2254-01 was detected 

above the LOD and significantly below the LOQ and DOH Drinking Water EAL in 

January; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW01 in January, April, and July; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW02 in January, February, March, April, and July, however, significant 

increases in January and February were attributed to tentatively identified compounds 

(TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF; 

 naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water 

EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, April, and July; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded DOH Drinking Water EAL in samples collected 

from RHMW05 in January, however, the significant increase was attributed to TICs 

apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF; and 

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

the LODs and LOQs in January, April, and July 2010. 

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). 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-9 

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, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 1

Introduction

 December 2010

1-10 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

 December 2010

2-1 

Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities 

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the five monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, 

RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 on October 18, 19, 20, and November 3, 2010 

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

documented in the field notebook (Appendix B). 

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 five 

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 percent. A Horiba® U-22 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 to six readings were recorded on Groundwater 

Sampling Log data sheets (Appendix C). 

2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection 

Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated bladder pump systems. Groundwater 

samples were collected directly into laboratory provided specially cleaned sample containers 

already containing the appropriate preservatives (i.e., hydrochloric acid for VOC analysis and 

nitric acid for dissolved lead analysis). The dissolved lead samples were filtered in the field, 

except at RHMW01, and placed in polyethylene bottles containing preservatives. The dissolved 

lead sample collected at RHMW01 was placed into a polyethylene bottle without preservative 

and was later filtered in the laboratory. 

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). 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

 December 2010

2-2 

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 

preservation. The samples were shipped via FedEx to the laboratory on the following day of 

collection, with the exception of one sample which was shipped two days following sample 

collection. 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 

During the October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event, five sets of primary 

groundwater samples, one set of duplicate groundwater samples, and one set of quality control 

(QC) groundwater samples (i.e., matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD)) were 

submitted to APPL, Inc. located in Clovis, California. Groundwater samples were analyzed for 

VOCs and TPH-GRO by EPA Method 8260B, TPH-DRO by EPA Method 8015B, PAHs by 

EPA Method 8270D SIM, and dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020. The results of the 

laboratory analyses are presented and discussed in Section 3. 

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 percent 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 MS/MSD samples for organic analysis. Laboratory QC samples were collected 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. 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 

duplicates. 

2.6 Equipment Decontamination 

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

cross contamination, and to prevent the potential introduction of contaminants into previously 

un-impacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst® oil/water interface 

probe and Horiba® U-22 water quality meter) was conducted between monitoring locations 

according to the procedures described in Procedure I-F, Equipment Decontamination (DON, 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

 December 2010

2-3 

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

sump. 

2.7 Investigation-Derived Waste Management 

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

Procedure I-A-6, IDW Management (DON, 2007). The various potential waste streams included 

the following: 

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

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

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

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

separator sump. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 2

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

 December 2010

2-4 

This page is intentionally left blank. 

 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

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 October 18, 19, 20, and November 3, 2010. Complete analytical 

laboratory reports are provided in Appendix D. 

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements 

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

October-November 2010 sampling event. The trend of free product measurements over time 

show 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 other monitoring wells. Since the 

trace amounts observed 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 laboratory 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

Lead (3.3 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which was below both the DOH Drinking Water 

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

COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and 

Appendix D). 

RHMW01

Naphthalene (0.17 μg/L), acetone (2.4 μg/L), and lead (0.47 μg/L) were detected at estimated 

concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (17 μg/L for 

naphthalene; 22,000 μg/L for acetone; 15 μg/L for lead) and the DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs (21 μg/L for naphthalene; 20,000 μg/L for acetone; 5,000 for lead). All 

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

RHMW02

TPH-DRO (1,700 μg/L), TPH-GRO (150 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (15 μg/L), and 

naphthalene (59 μg/L) were detected at concentrations which exceeded both the DOH Drinking 

Water EALs (210 μg/L for TPH-DRO; 100 μg/L for TPH-GRO, 4.7 μg/L for 1-

methylnaphthalene; 17 μg/L for naphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination 

EALs (100 μg/L for TPH-DRO; 100 μg/L for TPH-GRO, 10 μg/L for 1-methylnaphthalene; 21 

μg/L for naphthalene) (Table 3-2 and Appendix D). 

Acenaphthene (0.28 μg/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μg/L) were detected at concentrations 

which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (370 μg/L for acenaphthene; 24 μg/L for 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-2 

2-methylnaphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (20 μg/L for 

acenaphthene; 10 μg/L for 2-methylnaphthalene) (Table 3-2 and Appendix D). 

Acenaphthylene (0.14 μg/L), fluorene (0.16 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.25 μg/L), xylenes (0.60 

μg/L), and lead (0.32 μg/L) were detected at estimated concentrations which were below both the 

DOH Drinking Water EALs (240 μg/L for acenaphthylene; 240 μg/L for fluorene; 700 μg/L for 

ethylbenzene; 10,000 μg/L for xylenes; 15 μg/L for lead) and the DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs (2,000 μg/L for acenaphthylene; 950 μg/L for fluorene; 30 μg/L for 

ethylbenzene; 20 μg/L for xylenes; 5,000 μg/L for lead). All other COPCs were not detected at 

or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix D). 

RHMW03

TPH-DRO (330 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded both the DOH Drinking 

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

3-2 and Appendix D). 

Lead (0.28 μg/L) was detected at estimated concentration which was below both the DOH 

Drinking Water EAL (15 μg/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (5,000 

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

Appendix D). 

RHMW05

All COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and 

Appendix D). 

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend 

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

RHMW02, RHMW03 since September 2005, and in monitoring well RHMW05 since May 2009 

(Appendix A). The following is a discussion of compounds 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. In October-November 2010, all COPCs were not detected at or above the 

LODs and LOQs, except lead (3.3 μg/L), which was detected at a concentration less than both 

the DOH Drinking Water EAL and DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL. 

RHMW01

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

September 2005, but less than 25 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. TPH-DRO 

concentrations decreased from October 2008 (459 μg/L) through July 2009 (248F μg/L); 

increased in October 2009 (299F μg/L), January 2010 (312F μg/L), and April 2010 (377 μg/L); 
Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through October 2010

Elevation = 102.27 ft.1 Elevation = 104.76 ft.1 Elevation = 121.06 ft.1 Elevation = 101.55 ft.1

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

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 NT6

May-2009 83.50 18.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6 NT6 NT6Jul-20097 83.75 18.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 0.00

Aug-2009 84.04 18.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 0.00Sep-2009 84.21 18.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 0.00Oct-2009 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 0.00Nov-2009 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 0.00Dec-2009 84.12 18.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 0.00Jan-2010 84.36 17.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 0.00Feb-2010 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 0.00Mar-2010 84.53 17.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 0.00Apr-2010 84.75 17.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 0.00May-2010 84.80 17.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 0.00Jun-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 0.00Jul-2010 85.03 17.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 0.00Sep-2010 85.30 16.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 0.00Oct-2010 85.29 16.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 0.00

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

04-D-8514, Task Order 54 , dated April 15, 2010.

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, 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-4 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, October-November 2010

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

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 ND U 150b 80.8 40.4 ND U 150b 80.8 40.4 1,700 150b 80.8 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 150 20.0 12.12 

Acenaphthene 370 20 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.28 0.2 0.12 Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.14 J 0.2 0.12 Anthracene 1,800 22 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 

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 ND U 0.2b 0.16 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 

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

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

Chrysene 9.2 1 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2b 0.10 

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

Fluorene 240 950 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.16 J 0.2 0.12 Ideno(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 ND U 0.2b 0.14 

1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 15 0.2 0.12 

2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 5.0 0.2 0.12 

Naphthalene 17 21 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.17 J 0.2 0.10 0.05 59 0.2 0.10 

Phenanthrene 240 410 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 Pyrene 180 68 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 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 ND U 1.0 0.60 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 

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

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

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

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

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

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 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 ND U 1.0b 0.36 

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

Acetone 22,000 20,000 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 2.4 J 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 Benzene 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 

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

Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 Chlorobenzene 100 50 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 Chloroethane 8,600 16 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 Chloroform 70 2,400 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 

Ethylbenzene 700 30 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0.25 J 1.0 0.46 

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

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 ND U 10.0 1.20 

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 ND U 10.0 3.80 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0b 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0b 0.70 

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

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 ND U 1.0b 0.26 

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 ND U 1.0 0.30 

Toluene 1,000 40 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 100 260 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 Xylenes 10,000 20 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0.60 J 1.0 0.38 

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 3.3 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.47 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.32 J 0.5 0.22 

Notes:

All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).

DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)GRO - gasoline range organics

LOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL).ND - not detected

PAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Q - data qualifierU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND. Bold - Result exceeds one or both DOH EALs.TPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compoundb 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 200

J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.DRO - diesel range organics

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).

DOH Drinking Water 

EALs for Human Toxicitya 

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa (ES009) (ES002)

RHMW2254-01

(ES004)

RHMW01 RHMW02 

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

Method Chemical

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-7 

decreased in July 2010 (228F μg/L); and was not detected at or above the LOD and LOQ in 

October-November 2010. TPH-GRO has remained below the EAL or has not been detected 

(Appendix A). 

RHMW02

The averages of primary and duplicate samples were used for determining contaminant trends. 

From September 2005 through February 2009, TPH-DRO exceeded the DOH Drinking Water 

EAL of 210 μg/L and was greater than 50 percent of the SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 

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

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

SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L (Appendix A). 

However, 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 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. In October 2009, TPH-DRO began an increasing trend 

greater than 50 percent 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 averaged concentration of 

3,085 μg/L, above 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. During October-November 2010, 

TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to 1,700 μg/L, below 50 percent of the SSRBL (Appendix 

A). 

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

2006, December 2006, March 2007, and October-November 2010 (Appendix A). 

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 its 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 OctoberNovember 2010, naphthalene concentrations decreased slightly to a concentration which was still 

above the EAL (Appendix A). 

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

relatively stable from September 2005 through October 2008. In February 2009, 1-

methylnapthalene concentrations began decreasing and reached its 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 increased in July and 

October-November 2010 (Appendix A). 

The average concentration in October-November 2010 for 1-methylnaphthalene (15.0 μg/L) 

exhibited an increase, after decreasing in April 2010 (to 6.3 μg/L) from the January 2010 average 

concentration (8.7 μg/L). Consequently, the October-November 2010 1-methylnaphthalene 

concentration remains above the DOH Drinking Water EAL of 4.7 μg/L. Since October 2008, 

the concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene has remained below the EAL (Appendix A). 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-8 

RHMW03

Historically, concentrations of TPH-DRO have fluctuated around the DOH Drinking Water 

EAL, but have been significantly lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and 

RHMW02. TPH-DRO concentrations have decreased since October 2008 dropping below the 

DLs in May 2009 through July 2010. However, during this October-November 2010 

groundwater monitoring event, TPH-DRO was detected at the highest concentration to date (330 

μg/L) which was above the EAL. TPH-GRO has remained below the EAL or has not been 

detected (Appendix A). 

RHMW05

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

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. However, in April 2010, July 

2010, and October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations exhibited a significant decrease 

and were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. TPH-GRO has remained below the EAL 

or has not been detected (Appendix A). 

3.4 Groundwater Status 

Facility-specific contaminants of concern are defined as petroleum-related chemicals that have 

been observed in the groundwater samples above the DOH Drinking Water EALs. In 

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

(TEC, 2008), Table 3-3 defines these RHSF-specific compounds and their associated SSRBLs 

and updated EALs (DOH, 2009). 

In addition, the Groundwater Protection Plan defines four Results Categories of groundwater 

status for the RHSF, based on concentrations of COPCs detected in samples collected from 

RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05, and requires specific 

responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling (Table 3-

4). The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the OctoberNovember 2010 analytical data (Table 3-5). 

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 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-9 

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 been 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 FISC 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, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

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 Yes No No 

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded No No Yes Yes 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 

October-November monitoring event None Category 2 Category 3 None New Category: Category assignment based 

on results of the October-November monitoring event

None Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH

2. Initiation of a leak determination program to identify if tanks are leaking

2. Initiation of a leak determination program to identify if tanks are leaking

Notes: 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, October-November 2010

1 Although a trace concentration of lead was detected at RHMW2254-01 during the October-November 2010 monitoring event, it does not place the well into the Category 1 status. 

Response Actions: Requirements of new 

category

None 

1. Quarterly Reports to be sent to DOH
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2010

3-12 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

 December 2010

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 

laboratory control samples (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 project. 

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 limits for laboratory measurements were 

evaluated from the sample/sample duplicate results. Field duplicate samples were collected at a 

rate of approximately 10 percent of project samples. Field duplicates are duplicates of the 

primary samples that are sent to the primary laboratory with dummy sample numbers to serve as 

a check of the primary laboratory’s internal precision. 

Field sampling precision was evaluated from the original sample/sample duplicate results using 

the following criteria: 

 For analytes with the sample concentration greater than five times the reporting limit, 

the duplicate sample results should agree within approximately 50 percent for 

groundwater samples. 

 For analytes with either or both sample concentrations less than five times the 

reporting limit, duplicate groundwater sample concentrations should agree within 

approximately five times the reporting limit. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

 December 2010

4-2 

Precision was measured by comparing one group of samples. This group contained the primary 

field sample ES002 and field duplicate sample ES003 collected from RHMW02, and met the 

relative percent difference (RPD) precision criteria for all field duplicate analytes. Duplicate 

sample results from monitoring well RHMW02 are reported in this document as RHMW02D 

(Table 4-1). 

None of the analyzed constituents were detected in any of the laboratory method blank samples. 

All of the LCS and surrogate spike recoveries for all analyzed constituents were within 

acceptable percent recovery limits. In addition, the MS/MSD and surrogate spike recoveries for 

all analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits, except for 1-

methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, and acetone. However, since the 

recoveries were only slightly to moderately out of the control limits, the COPC concentrations 

detected in the associated groundwater sample results would not be significantly affected. 

Therefore, the laboratory results are precise. 

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. 

Laboratory MS and MSD analysis was used to assess analytical accuracy and precision in 

response to potential matrix interference. All of the MS and MSD recoveries were within 

laboratory specified ranges, except for 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, 

and acetone. However, since the recoveries were only slightly to moderately out of the control 

limits, there would be no significant effect on the associated groundwater sample results. 

Therefore, all data is considered to be accurate. 

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 collection of trip blank samples. The trip blank 

samples are used to determine if offsite contamination was introduced to the sample containers 

during sample shipment from and to the laboratory. For this sampling event three trip blank 

samples were collected (Table 4-1). The trip blank samples for the October-November 2010 

monitoring event were all not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs, except for acetone in the 

trip blank dated October 19, 2010. Acetone was detected at an estimated concentration of 1.3 

μg/L, which is below both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (22,000 μg/L) and the DOH 

Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (20,000 μg/L) (Table 4-1). Therefore, the data does not 

impact data quality and the groundwater sample data are suitable for the intended use. 
Table 4-1: Field QC Results, October-November 2010

Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Re

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 1,700 150b 80.8 40.4 1,700 150b 80.8 40.4 0 -- -- -- -- -- 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 150 20.0 12.12 6.06 160 20.0 12.12 6.06 6.45 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 

Acenaphthene 370 20 0.28 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.27 0.2 0.12 0.06 3.64 -- -- -- -- -- 

Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 0.14 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.13 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 7.41 -- -- -- -- -- 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 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 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 0.16 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.15 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.45 -- -- -- -- -- Ideno(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 15 0.2 0.12 0.06 15 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- 

2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 5.0 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.3 0.2 0.12 0.06 23.01 -- -- -- -- -- 

Naphthalene 17 21 59 0.2 0.10 0.05 54 0.2 0.10 0.05 8.85 -- -- -- -- -- 

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 

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 

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 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 

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 

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 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 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 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 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 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 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 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 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 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 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 

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

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

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 

Chloroethane 8,600 16 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 

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 

Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 0 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 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 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 

Ethylbenzene 700 30 0.25 J 1.0 0.46 0.23 0.32 J 1.0 0.46 0.23 24.56 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 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 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 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 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 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 

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

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 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 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 Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 0 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 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 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 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 

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 

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 

Xylenes 10,000 20 0.60 J 1.0 0.38 0.19 0.51 J 1.0 0.38 0.19 16.22 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 0.32 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 1.2 0.5 0.22 0.11 115.79 -- -- -- -- -- 

Notes:All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).

RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02. DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitaion 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 one or both DOH EALs.

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

RHMW02 RHMW02D

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.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).

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). 

Method Chemical DOH Drinking Water 

EALs for Human Toxicitya 

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa 

Trip Blank 

(10/18/10)

RPD 

Duplicate 

(%)

(ES002) (ES003)

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

 December 2010

4-5 

Completeness 

Completeness is defined as the overall percentage of valid analytical results (including estimated 

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

completeness goal for this project is 90 percent, 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 are considered comparable if collection techniques, measurement 

procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent for the samples within a sample set. 

Comparability for sampling was determined to be acceptable based on the following criteria: 

 A consistent approach to sampling was applied throughout the program. 

 Samples were consistently preserved. 

 All sampling was performed during the same time of year and under similar physical 

conditions. 

The above criteria were met throughout the course of this event and therefore comparability of 

the data set is acceptable. 

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

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, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

 December 2010

4-6 

This page is intentionally left blank.
 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

 Section 5 

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

 December 2010

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 of 

RHMW2254-01 as a result of the October-November 2010 data. Based on the OctoberNovember 2010 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results 

Category of the Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008). 

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements 

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

October-November 2010 sampling 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 <0.01 feet, but was not observed in other monitoring wells. Since the trace 

amounts observed 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 October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event 

indicated that TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and PAHs, specifically 1-methylnaphthalene and 

naphthalene, were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF at concentrations that exceeded 

the EALs. All other COPCs concentrations were below the EALs. All laboratory 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 LOQs in place of the EAL (DOH, 

2009). 

In RHMW2254-01, lead (3.3 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which was below the EAL. 

All other COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

In monitoring well RHMW01, naphthalene (0.17 μg/L), acetone (2.4 μg/L), and lead (0.47 μg/L) 

were detected at estimated concentrations which were below the EALs. All other COPCs in 

RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,700 μg/L), TPH-GRO (150 μg/L), 1-

methylnaphthalene (15 μg/L), and naphthalene (59 μg/L) were detected at concentrations which 

exceeded the EALs. Acenaphthene (0.28 μg/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μg/L) were 

detected at concentrations which were below the EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.14 μg/L), fluorene 

(0.16 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.25 μg/L), xylenes (0.60 μg/L), and lead (0.32 μg/L) were detected 

at estimated concentrations which were below the EALs. All other COPCs in RHMW02 were 

not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

In monitoring well RHMW03, TPH-DRO (330 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the EAL. Lead (0.28 μg/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was 
 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

 Section 5 

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

 December 2010

5-2 

below the EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW03 were not detected at or above the LODs and 

LOQs. 

In RHMW05, all COPC concentrations 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 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 at or above the LODs and LOQs or are below the EALs. This indicates that elevated 

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

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

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have 

decreased to below the EALs for at least three consecutive 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 22554-01. 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 monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs 

(i.e., RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03) are not steadily increasing for more than one 

consecutive sampling event. The data suggest that the concentrations are relatively stable over 

time. It is likely that the COPCs are associated with a previous release from the USTs and not a 

current or active 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 is also recommended. In response to the Category 2 status of RHMW02, 

submission of this quarterly report to DOH and initiation of a leak determination program to 

identify if tanks are leaking are recommended. 
 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 6

References

 December 2010

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, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Section 6

References

 December 2010

6-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Appendix A 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for 

TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through 

October-November 2010

10000

Figure A‐1: TPH at RHMW2254‐01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

1000

/L)oncentration (μg/

100

LogCo

10

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 S

Time

1000

10000

oncentration (μg/L)

Figure A‐2: TPH at RHMW01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

10

100

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Se

LogCo

Time

1000

10000

oncentration (μg/L)

Figure A‐4: TPH at RHMW03

Quarterly Monitoring Results

10

100

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 S

LogCo

Time

10000

Figure A‐3: TPH at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

1000

L)oncentration (μg/L

100

LogCo

10

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 S

Time

10000

Figure A‐5: TPH at RHMW05

Quarterly Monitoring Results

10000

1000

L)oncentration (μg/L

100

LogCo

10

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 S

Time

10

100

1000

oncentration (μg/L)

Figure A‐6: PAHs at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

0.1

1

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

LogCo

Time

Appendix B 

Field Notebook, October-November 2010 









Appendix C 

Groundwater Sampling Logs, 

October-November 2010 

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/m)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(%)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

0946 2 L 5.99 55.4 1.1 9.09 21.9 0.0 202

0949 4 L 6.19 55.4 2.1 8.51 21.7 0.0 202

0950 6 L 6.69 54.7 1.7 8.34 21.7 0.0 202

0954 8 L 6.72 54.8 1.7 8.37 22.2 0.0 202

0958 10 L 6.77 54.6 2.0 8.50 21.8 0.0 201

1003 12 L 6.82 54.7 2.2 8.50 21.6 0.0 201

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE: 

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

Depth to water from the platform hole was approximately 84.85 feet. 

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with hydrochloric acid preservative,

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270D 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

10/21/10 (to FedEx) 1345

N/A Approximately 1 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES004 (RH-RHMW2254-01-GW21)

1010

S. Fineran, S. Koide

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx VD, MS

unknown S. Fineran, S. Koide

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-015

not applicable (N/A) 10/19/2010 0930

RHMW2254-01
WELL ID: RHMW01 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/m)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(%)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

1214 8 oz (0.2L) 6.74 35.4 26.4 5.80 24.9 0.0 -100

1217 16 oz (0.5L) 6.84 35.1 22.1 3.56 24.9 0.0 -105

1220 24 oz (0.7L) 6.91 35.1 20.5 3.42 24.8 0.0 -108

1224 28 oz (0.8L) 6.97 35.2 15.9 2.77 24.9 0.0 -108

1231 36 oz (1L) 7.02 35.5 11.3 2.28 24.9 0.0 -108

1233 44 oz (1.3L) 7.03 35.3 9.4 1.97 24.9 0.0 -108

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE: 

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

Compressor is overheating and keeps turning off. 

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with hydrochloric acid preservative,

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270D SIM) with no preservative, and dissolved lead (EPA 6020) with no preservative (to be filtered in the laboratory)

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

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-015

85.19 feet bTOC (below top of casing) 11/3/2010 1146

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

unknown S. Fineran, M. Solmssen

Rainy (outside of tunnel)

N/A

S. Fineran, M. Solmssen

85.14 feet bTOC

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

Approximately 0.07 L/min

ES009 (RH-RHMW01-GW21)

1254

N/A

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx SF

11/4/2010 (to FedEx) 1410 
WELL ID: RHMW02 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/m)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(%)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

1344 2 L 6.37 53.5 2.4 1.45 24.5 0.0 -102

1345 3 L 6.30 52.7 2.2 0.74 24.2 0.0 -102

1346 4 L 6.26 52.5 2.0 0.65 24.2 0.0 -103

1347 5 L 6.28 52.8 2.1 0.71 24.3 0.0 -100

1350 6 L 6.28 52.9 1.9 0.77 24.4 0.0 -90

1352 7 L 6.24 53.2 1.6 0.47 24.5 0.0 -87

1354 8 L 6.26 53.5 1.6 0.43 24.5 0.0 -88

1355 9 L 6.21 53.7 1.6 0.48 24.5 0.0 -85

1356 10 L 6.22 53.4 1.7 0.46 24.6 0.0 -84

1357 11 L 6.22 53.5 1.8 0.47 24.2 0.0 -80

1358 12 L 6.24 53.8 1.8 0.48 24.2 0.0 -79

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE: 

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

Collected MS/MSD sample

 Collected duplicate sample = ES003 (RH-RHMW02-GW21 Dup)

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with hydrochloric acid preservative,

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

MS/MSD: (7) - 40 mL VOAs, (6) - 1 L amber bottle, (2) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

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

10/19/10 (to FedEx) 1200

87.90 feet bTOC Approximately 1 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES002 (RH-RHMW02-GW21)

1400

V. Dupra, S. Fineran

Primary and duplicate: (4) - 40 mL VOAs, (4) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx VD, SF

unknown V. Dupra, S. Fineran

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-015

87.91 feet bTOC 10/18/2010 1335
WELL ID: RHMW03 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/m)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(%)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

1141 4 L 6.39 90.5 6.2 0.65 26.9 0.0 219

1142 5 L 6.43 93.6 1.5 0.49 26.9 0.0 169

1143 6 L 6.40 88.0 0.1 0.50 26.8 0.0 129

1144 7 L 6.41 92.1 0.5 0.54 26.8 0.0 104

1145 8 L 6.47 90.4 0.0 0.66 26.8 0.0 85

1146 9 L 6.45 85.9 0.1 0.67 26.8 0.0 78

1147 11 L 6.50 90.7 0.1 0.61 26.8 0.0 74

1148 12 L 6.47 87.5 1.7 0.59 26.8 0.0 69

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE: 

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with hydrochloric acid preservative,

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270D 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

10/19/10 (to FedEx) 1200

104.81 feet bTOC Approximately 1 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES001 (RH-RHMW03-GW21)

1150

V. Dupra

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx VD, SF

unknown V. Dupra, S. Fineran

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-015

104.13 feet bTOC 10/18/2010 1141
WELL ID: RHMW05 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/m)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(%)

REDOX (ORP) 

(mV)

0942 2 L 6.11 27.9 125.0 7.73 22.7 0.0 216

0958 3 L 6.77 27.8 40.2 7.44 23.5 0.0 212

1001 4 L 6.84 28.5 27.8 7.30 23.0 0.0 208

1012 6 L 6.85 29.3 14.6 7.29 22.8 0.0 213

1014 7 L 6.87 29.6 34.1 7.30 22.3 0.0 212

1016 8 L 6.86 29.9 27.1 7.29 22.3 0.0 212

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE: 

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES: TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with hydrochloric acid preservative,

TPH-DRO (EPA8015B) & PAHs (EPA 8270D 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

10/21/2010 (to FedEx) 1345

84.74 feet bTOC Approximately 0.25 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES005 (RH-RHMW05-GW21)

1025

S. Fineran, S. Koide

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx MS, VD

unknown S. Fineran, S. Koide

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-015

84.75 feet bTOC 10/20/2010 0939

Appendix D 

Laboratory Analytical Results, 

October-November 2010 (on CD-ROM)