# 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-193 0, 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-193 0, Contract Task Order HC14Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Me asurements ...................................................................................... 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 Inte rface Measurements ..................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Summary of Groundwater An alytical 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 An alytical Results ........................................................... 5-1

5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... ....... 5-2

5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... . 5-2

Section 6 References .......................................................................................................... ......... 6-1Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents

December 2010



# ii Tables

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

............................................................................................................................... ............... 3-3 Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterl y 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 Resu lts, October-November 2010 ............................................................. 4-3

Figures Figure 1-1: Groundwater Monito ring 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 Sampli ng Logs, October-November 2010 Appendix D: Laboratory Analytic al Results, October-November 2010Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

December 2010



# iii 

# List of Acronyms

< less than

μ g/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 De partment 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 th at 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 hydrocarbonsQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

December 2010



# iv U Indicates the compound or anal yte 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 compoundQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Bu lk 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 fr om 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. Na vy Well 2254-01 is loca ted approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and provide s approximately 24 per cent of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS) . The groundwater samples are analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against St ate of Hawai‘i Departme nt of Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Ac tion Levels (EALs) (DOH, 2009).

This groundwater monitoring report presents the an alytical results and compares them to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for samples collec ted on October 18, 19, 20, and November 3, 2010 at the five groundwater monitoring we lls (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 Oc tober-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event indicated that total pe troleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (DRO), TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO), and polynuclear ar omatic hydrocarbons (P AHs), specifically 1- methylnaphthalene and naphthale ne, were present in the groundw ater beneath the RHSF at

concentrations that exceeded the EALs. All other chemical of potential concern (COPC) concentrations (i.e., volatile organic compound s (VOCs) and dissolved lead) were below the

EALs.

In RHMW2254-01, lead (3.3 micrograms per liter ( μ g/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 μ g/L), acetone (2.4 μ g/L), and lead (0.47 μ g/L)

were detected at estimated concentrations wh ich 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 μ g/L), TPH-GRO (150 μ g/L), 1- methylnaphthalene (15 μ g/L), and naphthalene (59 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations which exceeded the EALs. Acenaphthene (0.28 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μ g/L) were

detected at concentrations which were below the EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.14 μ g/L), fluorene (0.16 μ g/L), ethylbenzene (0.25 μ g/L), xylenes (0.60 μ g/L), and lead (0.32 μ g/L) were detected

at estimated concentrations which were belo w 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

December 2010



# vi In monitoring well RHMW03, TPH-DRO (330 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL. Lead (0.28 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was

below the EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW03 we re 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 Sept ember 2007. In July 2010, TPH-DRO decreased to the lowest detected concentration observed to date (228 μ g/L), and during October-November 2010, TPH-DRO was not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

At RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations were re latively 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 c oncentrations at RHMW03 were below the LODs and LOQs. However, dur ing October-November 2010, TP H-DRO was detected at the highest concentration to date (330 μ g/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 mon itoring wells RHMW01, RHMW03, and RHMW05. Since September 2005, TPH-GRO concentrations at RHMW02 hadremained 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 μ g/L).

PAHs Contaminant Trends in RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-methyl naphthalene have remained below the EAL. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to belo w the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009. However, naphthalene concentrations increased above th e EAL in July 2010 and remained above the EAL during this October-November 2010 groundwat er monitoring event. Similarly, 1- methylnaphthalene concentrati ons 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

December 2010



# vii Conclusions

To date, the presence of light non-aqueous pha se liquid (LNAPL) has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 a nd 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 We ll 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 collect ed from monitoring well s within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting th e Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monito ring well RHMW05 have

decreased to below the EALs for 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 US Ts and the U.S. Navy Well 22554-01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migr ating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collect ed from monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03) are not st eadily increasing for more than one consecutive sampling event. The data suggest th at 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 even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continua tion of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring is also recommended. In re sponse 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 Facilit y, 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2010



# 1-1 

# Section 1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 21 st 

# groundwater monitoring ev ent, conducted in OctoberNovember 2010 at the RHSF, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Ha wai‘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 anal ysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in response to pa st 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 Fa cilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Hawai‘i under Environmen tal Technical Services, Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order HC14.

The field activities performed for the October-N ovember 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 ev aluate the presence of COPCs in groundwater underlying the RHSF. The groundwater monitori ng was conducted to ensure the DON remains in compliance with DOH UST re lease response requirements as described in Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 11- 281 Subchapter 7, Release Respons e Action. Analytical results are compared to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for samples collected from five groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05).



# 1.2 Background

The U.S. Navy implemented a groundwater m onitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) and four groundwater monitoring wells in stalled within the RHSF lo wer access tunnel (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05). The U.S. Na vy Well 2254-01 is loca ted approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and provide s approximately 24 per cent 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, Hawa i‘i, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl

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

the H ā lawa Correctional Facility and private busine sses. Land to the s outh 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 pot able water infiltratio n tunnel approximately 1,550 feet hydraulically downgrad ient from the RHSF (Environet, 2010). The U.S. Navy WellQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2010



# 1-2 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet dow ngradient (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 operate d 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 th e early 1940s. The tanks were c onstructed 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, av iation 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 approxima tely 100 feet and 200 feet below the existing ground surface (TEC, 2006).



# 1.2.4 Previous Reports

The following groundwater monitoring reports we re previously submitted to the DOH:

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

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

3. Groundwater Sampling Report, Third Qu arter 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@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?@?!(OWDFMW01RHMW2254-01RHMW05RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03HDMW2253-03SVMP02SVMP03SVMP04SVMP06SVMP08SVMP10SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP05SVMP07SVMP09SVMP11SVMP13SVMP15SVMP17Halawa Industrial ParkHalawa Correctional FacilityHalawa StreamRHMW04U.S. Navy Well 2254-01Halawa Shaft Board of WaterSupply Pump Station (2354-01)Coast GuardReservationMoanaluaVillageNavy FiringRange@?Soil Vapor Monitoring Points@AGroundwater Monitoring Wells!(Board of Water Supply Pump StationHalawa Correctional FacilityRed Hill Naval ReservationHalawa Stream1,00001,000500FeetFigure 1-1Groundwater Monitoring WellLocation MapLEGEND ̄USGS, 2005SOURCEPearl HarborQuarterly GroundwaterMonitoring Report,Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility,Pearl Harbor, O'ahu, Hawai'iQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Facilit y, 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, Oc tober 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 we ll RHMW01 (previously known as MW-V1D) to

monitor for contamination of th e basal aquifer underlying the RH SF. 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 μ g/L to 1,050 μ g/L and total lead ranging from 10.4 μ g/L to 15 μ g/L. The

total lead concentrations in the samples exceeded the groundwater DOH Tier 1 Action Level of

5.6 μ g/L (Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).

2005 Groundwater Sampling - The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. Da wson Group, Inc. collected groundw ater samples from RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01 in February 2005, June 2005, September 2005, and December 2005.

Samples collected in February 2005 and June 2005 we re not filtered in the field prior to analysis for lead. Analytical results for samples coll ected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of

total lead were above the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μ g/L. The results were not considered appropriate for risk assessment si nce the sample had not been filte red. In addition, lead was not a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW 01, but was a component in fuels stored in other tanks during the history of the RHSF. Lead may also ha ve been part of the RHSF construction material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when analyzed as unfiltered sample s. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered had resolved this issue. Samp les 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 we re below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels.

2005 Site Investigation - As part of a site investigatio n, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells at the RHSF between June 2005 and September 2005. Monitoring well

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

RHMW03 was installed in the lo wer 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. Monito ring wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were completedQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 gro und 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 dete cted in samples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations greater than the DOH Tier 1 Acti on Levels. Lead was detected in the sample

collected from RHMW01 at a c oncentration 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 pe riod indicated concentr ations of dissolved

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

2006 Site Investigation - Dedicated sampling pumps were in stalled 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 sa mples 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 pr esented in HAR Secti on 11-281-78 would no longer be used to evaluate environmental impact at the RHSF (TEC, 2010).

2006 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were co llected in December 2006. Analytical results indicated the following:

 

# no chemicals were detected in sample s 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 resu lts indicated the following:

 

# no chemicals were detected above D OH 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 c oncentrations exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 duri ng all three monitoring events;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2010



# 1-7  

# 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnapht halene concentra tions exceeded DOH

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all three monitoring events; and

 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded DOH Dri nking Water EAL in the sample collected

from RHMW03 in June.

2008 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collect ed in January, April, July, and October 2008. Analytical re sults 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-met hylnaphthalene, and 2-methylna phthalene concentrations exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples collected from RHMW02. Additionally, the site-s pecific 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 Oc tober 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 migra ting 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 th e DOH Drinking Wate r EALs at RHMW2254- 01;

 

# TPH-GRO concentrations in samples co llected 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2010



# 1-8  

# naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-met hylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples co llected from RHMW02 in February 2009, however, only the 1-methylnaphthalene con centration exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL in May 2009 and July 2009 and only the na phthalene 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 mon itoring event.

2010 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, and July 2010 (and TPH-DRO was re-sampled at RHMW 02 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 th e 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, ho wever, significant increases in January and Febr uary were attributed to te ntatively identified compounds (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF;

 naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene con centrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, April, and July;

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded DOH Dr inking Water EAL in samples collected from RHMW05 in January, however, the signif icant increase was attributed to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF; and

 TPH-DRO concentrations in samples collect ed 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 th eir EALs which resulted in significant changes to the action levels associated with me thylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity EAL for these compounds was 240 μ g/L. This concentration pres umed that methylnaphthalenes were non-carcinogenic. Evidence th at they are human carcinogens has now been accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, DOH adopted more rigorous EALs

of 4.7 μ g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24 μ g/L for 2-methylnaphthale ne, corresponding to a residential tap water scenar io, and a one in a million cancer risk (DOH, 2009).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2010



# 1-9 Also, the drinking water EAL for na phthalene was incr eased from 6.2 μ g/L to 17 μ g/L (DOH, 2009). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was increased from 100 μ g/L to

210 μ g/L, although the DOH Groundw ater Gross Contamination EAL for TPH-DRO remains

100 μ g/L.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Facilit y, 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 Pl an (Environet, 2010). Field activities were documented in the field notebook (Appendix B).



# 2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements

The presence and thickness of LNAPL, otherw ise known as “free product,” released from the USTs is monitored at the RHSF. Groundwater ga uging 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 dedi cated 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 qu ality parameter measurements had stabilized within 10 percent. A Horiba ® 

# U-22 multi-parameter water quality meter was used to measure hydrogen activity (pH), temperature, specifi c conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and oxidation reduction potential. At least four to si x readings were recorded on Groundwater Sampling Log data sheets (Appendix C).



# 2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater samples were collected using de dicated bladder pump systems. Groundwater samples were collected directly into laborator y provided specially clea ned sample containers already containing the appropria te 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 pr eservatives. The dissolved lead sample collected at RHMW01 was placed in to 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-sp ecific 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 Facilit y, 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 unde r standard chain-of-custody protocol and documentation from collection to delivery to th e laboratory. Sample handling, storage, and transport were performed according to the re quirements described in Procedure III-F, Sample Handling, Storage, and Shipping (DON, 2007).



# 2.3 Analytical Program

During the October-November 2010 groundwater m onitoring 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 spik e (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD)) were submitted to APPL, Inc. located in Clovis, Califor nia. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH-GRO by EPA Method 8260B, TP H-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 presente d and discussed in Section 3.



# 2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

Field QC procedures were followed to ensure viab ility and integrity of sample analytical data. Field duplicates were collected according to th e procedures described in Procedure III-B, Field QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007) and the Work Plan (E nvironet, 2010). Field duplicate samples were collected at a minimum of 10 per cent of primary samples and analyzed for the same contaminants. Field rinsate samples we re 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 analys is. Laboratory QC samples were collected and analyzed according to the procedur es described in Procedure III-A Laboratory QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007). Laboratory QC MS/MSD samp les 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 pe rformed to ensure data quality, to prevent cross contamination, and to prevent the potential introduction of contamin ants into previously un-impacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst ® 

# oil/water interface probe and Horiba ® 

# U-22 water quality meter) was cond ucted between monitoring locations according to the procedures described in Procedure I-F, Equipment Decontamination (DON,Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 tunne l 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 poten tial waste streams included the following:

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

 liquids including: equipment rins e water and purged groundwater; and

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

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

separator sump.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Facilit y, 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 provi ded in Appendix D.



# 3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not measured at RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the October-November 2010 sampling event. The tr end 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 obs erved in other monitoring wells. Since the trace amounts observed in January 2008, no free pr oduct 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 gene rally 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 μ g/L) was detected at a co ncentration which was belo w both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gr oss Contamination EAL (5,000 μ g/L). All other

COPC concentrations were not detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix D).

RHMW01

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

concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (17 μ g/L for naphthalene; 22,000 μ g/L for acetone; 15 μ g/L for lead) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (21 μ g/L for naphthalene; 20,000 μ g/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 μ g/L), TPH-GRO (150 μ g/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (15 μ g/L), and naphthalene (59 μ g/L) were detected at concentrati ons which exceeded both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (210 μ g/L for TPH-DRO; 100 μ g/L for TPH-GRO, 4.7 μ g/L for 1- methylnaphthalene; 17 μ g/L for naphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (100 μ g/L for TPH-DRO; 100 μ g/L for TPH-GRO, 10 μ g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene; 21

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

Acenaphthene (0.28 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (370 μ g/L for acenaphthene; 24 μ g/L forQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2010



# 3-2 2-methylnaphthalene) and the DOH Groundw ater Gross Contamination EALs (20 μ g/L for acenaphthene; 10 μ g/L for 2-methylnaphthalene) (T able 3-2 and Appendix D).

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

μ g/L), and lead (0.32 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (240 μ g/L for acenaphthylene; 240 μ g/L for fluorene; 700 μ g/L for ethylbenzene; 10,000 μ g/L for xylenes; 15 μ g/L for lead) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (2,000 μ g/L for acenaphthylene; 950 μ g/L for fluorene; 30 μ g/L for ethylbenzene; 20 μ g/L for xylenes; 5,000 μ g/L for lead). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (T able 3-2 and Appendix D).

RHMW03

TPH-DRO (330 μ g/L) was detected at a concentrati on which exceeded both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100 μ g/L) (Table 3-2 and Appendix D).

Lead (0.28 μ g/L) was detected at estimated concentration which was below both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gr oss Contamination EAL (5,000

μ g/L). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the L ODs 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 a nd 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, al l COPCs were not detect ed at or above the LODs and LOQs, except lead (3.3 μ g/L), which was detected at a concentration less than both the DOH Drinking Water EAL and DOH Groundwat er Gross Contamination EAL.

RHMW01

Concentrations of TPH-DRO have been grea ter 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 μ g/L), January 2010 (312F μ g/L), and April 2010 (377 μ g/L);Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through October 2010Elevation = 102.27ft.1Elevation = 104.76ft.1Elevation = 121.06ft.1Elevation = 101.55ft.1DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPLSep-2007NT2NT2NT286.80 17.96NP103.44 17.62NP~ ~~Jan-200884.6717.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01NT3NT3NT3~ ~~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-2009NT4NT4NT486.35 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-2009583.7218.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00NT6NT6NT6May-200983.5018.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00NT6NT6NT6Jul-2009783.7518.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 0.00Aug-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 0.00Notes:2A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed.7The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to the installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes.Units are in feet (ft.).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less than04-D-8514, Task Order 54, dated April 15, 2010.RHMW05DateRHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW031Elevations were updated based on theGroundwater Flow Direction/Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility,Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 2010Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 ND U150b80.8 40.4 ND U150b80.8 40.41,700150b80.8 40.4330150b80.8 40.4 ND U150b80.8 40.4EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06ND U 20.0 12.12 6.0615020.0 12.12 6.06ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.28 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06Acenaphthylene2402,000ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.14 J 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06Anthracene 1,800 22ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08Benzo(a)pyrene0.20.81ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07Chrysene9.21ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05Fluoranthene 1,500 130ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08Fluorene 240 950ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.16 J 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.071-Methylnaphthalene4.710ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06150.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.062-Methylnaphthalene2410ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 5.0 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06Naphthalene1721ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.17 J 0.2 0.10 0.05590.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05Phenanthrene 240 410ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07Pyrene18068ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08ND U 0.2 0.16 0.081,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20ND U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene(1,1-Dichloroethene)71,500ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30ND U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane510ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11ND U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 2.4 J 10.0 1.90 0.95ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 170ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform100510ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane 8.7 50,000ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane 8,600 16ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform702,400ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane 1.8 50,000ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene7050,000ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene70030ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0.25 J 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone(2-Butanone)7,1008,400ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone(4-Methyl-2-pentanone)2,0001,300ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether125ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene10010ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene(Tetrachloroethene)5170ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15Toluene 1,000 40ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene100260ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene(Trichloroethene)5310ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride23,400ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes10,00020ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0.60 J 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead155,0003.3 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.47 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.32 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.28 J 0.5 0.22 0.11ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11Notes:All units are in microgramsper liter(μg/L).DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)GRO -gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reportinglimit (RL).ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.(ES001)Bold -Result exceeds one or both DOH EALs.TPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compoundbIn 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).J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.DRO - diesel range organicsaDOH 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 WaterEALs for Human ToxicityaDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsa(ES009)(ES002)RHMW2254-01(ES004)RHMW05(ES005)RHMW01RHMW02EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)MethodChemicalRHMW03Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2010



# 3-7 decreased in July 2010 (228F μ g/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, TP H-DRO exceeded the DOH Drinking Water

EAL of 210 μ g/L and was greater than 50 percent of the SSRBL (estim ated solubility limit of
4,500 μ g/L). The concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stable until July 2008 and October 2008 when the concentrations increased, with the October 2008 average also exceeding the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L (Appendix A).

However, TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July 2009. In May 2009 and July 2009, TPH-DRO remained above th e DOH Drinking Water EAL, but was below 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. In October 2009, TPH-DR O 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 associat ed with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In March 2010 (2,490 μ g/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μ g/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 concentratio ns at RHMW02 increased to an averaged concentration of 3,085 μ g/L, above 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. During October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to 1,700 μ g/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 Oct ober 2008, naphthalene concentrat ions remained above the EAL and were relatively stable. In February 2009, naphthalene concentr ations began decreasing and reached its lowest averag e concentration in May 2009 (2 μ g/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 μ g/L) which was below the EAL. In January 2010, 1-methylnaphthalene

concentrations increased above th e EAL; then decreased in April 2010; and increased in July and October-November 2010 (Appendix A).

The average concentration in October-N ovember 2010 for 1-methylnaphthalene (15.0 μ g/L) exhibited an increase, after decreasing in April 2010 (to 6.3 μ g/L) from the January 2010 average concentration (8.7 μ g/L). Consequently, the October-N ovember 2010 1-methylnaphthalene concentration remains above the DOH Drinking Water EAL of 4.7 μ g/L. Since October 2008, the concentration of 2-methyl naphthalene has remained be low the EAL (Appendix A).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 ob served at RHMW01 and

RHMW02. TPH-DRO concentrat ions have decreased since October 2008 dropping below the DLs in May 2009 through July 2010. Howeve r, during this October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event, TPH-DRO was detected at the highest concen tration to date (330

μ g/L) which was above the EAL. TPH-GRO ha s 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, TP H-DRO concentrations we re greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060 μ g/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to note th at the January 2010 conc entration contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleu m from the RHSF. However, in April 2010, July 2010, and October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concen trations 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 dete cted (Appendix A).



# 3.4 Groundwater Status

Facility-specific contaminants of concern are de fined 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-speci fic compounds and their associated SSRBLs and updated EALs (DOH, 2009).

In addition, the Groundwater Protection Plan de fines four Results Categories of groundwater status for the RHSF, based on c oncentrations of COPCs detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, a nd RHMW05, and requires specific responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling (Table 3- 4). The current Results Categories for the moni toring wells were determ ined 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 RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 EALs are applicable at RHMW2254-01Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 betwee n 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 frequ ency 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-i nstall pumps if product is not detected. J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks. K. Collect samples from nearby H ā lawa 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2010



# 3-10 This page is intentionally left blank.Results CategoryRHMW2254-011RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03RHMW05Results Category 1: Result above detectionlimit but below drinking water EAL and trendfor all compounds stable or decreasingNo Yes No No NoResults Category 2: Trend for any compoundincreasing or drinking water EAL exceededNo No Yes Yes NoResults Category 3: Result Between 1/10XSSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPHNo No No No NoResults Category 4: Result Exceeding anySSRBL or petroleum product observedNo No No No NoPrevious Category: Category prior toOctober-November monitoring eventNone Category 2 Category 3 None Category 1New Category: Category assignment basedon results of the October-Novembermonitoring eventNone Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 None1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH1. Quarterly reports to besent to DOH2. Initiation of a leakdetermination programto identify if tanks areleaking2. Initiation of a leakdetermination programto identify if tanks areleakingNotes: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 20101Although 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 newcategoryNoneNone1. Quarterly Reports tobe sent to DOHQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
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 gene rated meets the quality objectives for the project.

The field QC program consisted of standardized sample collec tion and management procedures and the collection of field duplicate samples and trip blank samples.

The laboratory quality assurance program consiste d of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of MS/MSD samples, surroga te 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 co llection methods, sample analysis methods, and adherence to established proce dures for sample collection, preservation, management, shipment, and analysis. Data quality is judged in terms of it s 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 me thods. 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 e ffect 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 betwee n a set of replicate measurements without assumption and knowledge of the true value. Pr ecision 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 sa mples. Field duplicates are duplicates of the primary samples that are sent to the primary labo ratory with dummy sample numbers to serve as a check of the primary laborat ory’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 agr ee 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
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 differen ce (RPD) precision criteria for all fi eld 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 ac ceptable percent recovery limits, except for 1- methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphth alene, and acetone. However, since the recoveries were only sli ghtly to moderately out of the control limits, the COPC concentrations detected in the associated groundwater sample re sults would not be sign ificantly 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 an alyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory. The ac ceptance criteria for acc uracy are dependent on the analytical method, and are base d on historical laboratory data.

Laboratory MS and MSD analysis was used to assess analyti cal accuracy and precision in response to potential matrix interference. A ll of the MS and MSD r ecoveries were within laboratory specified ranges, except for 1-methyl naphthalene, 2-methylna phthalene, naphthalene, and acetone. However, since the recoveries were only slightly to moderately out of the control limits, there would be no significa nt effect on the associated groundwater sample results. Therefore, all data is cons idered to be accurate.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree th at data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampli ng 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 colle ction of trip blank samples. The trip blank samples are used to determine if offsite contam ination 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 dete cted at or above the LODs and LOQs, except for acetone in the trip blank dated October 19, 2010. Acetone was dete cted at an estimated concentration of 1.3

μ g/L, which is below both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (22,000 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (20,000 μ g/L) (Table 4-1). Ther efore, 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 2010Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLResult Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO2101001,700150b80.8 40.41,700150b80.8 40.4 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO10010015020.0 12.12 6.0616020.0 12.12 6.06 6.45 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene370200.28 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.27 0.2 0.12 0.06 3.64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Acenaphthylene2402,0000.14 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.13 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 7.41 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Anthracene1,80022ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)anthracene0.0924.7ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 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 U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Chrysene9.21ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene0.00920.52ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluoranthene 1,500 130 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluorene2409500.16 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.15 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene0.0920.095ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10150.2 0.12 0.06150.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene24105.0 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.3 0.2 0.12 0.06 23.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Naphthalene1721590.2 0.10 0.05540.2 0.10 0.05 8.85 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Phenanthrene240410ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Pyrene18068ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1,1,1-Trichloroethane200970ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane550,000ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane2.450,000ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene)71,500ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane0.650,000ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 0ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 0ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 0ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 0ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene18050,000ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans)0.4350,000ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 0ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone22,00020,000ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 1.3 J 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene5170ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane0.2250,000ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 0ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform 100 510 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane8.750,000ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride5520ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 0ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene10050ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane8,60016ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform702,400ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane1.850,000ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 0ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene7050,000ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane)0.1650,000ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 0ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 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 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 0ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone)2,0001,300ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether125ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Methylene chloride4.89,100ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 0ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 0ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 0ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (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 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15 ND U 1.0 0.30 0.15Toluene1,00040ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene100260ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)5310ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride23,400ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes10,000200.60 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 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020Lead155,0000.32 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)RHMW02RHMW02DEPA 8260 B (VOCs)DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)Trip Blank(11/3/10)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.aDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).MethodChemicalDOH Drinking WaterEALs for Human ToxicityaDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaTrip Blank(10/19/10)Trip Blank(10/18/10)RPDDuplicate(%)(ES002)(ES003)Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
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 anal ytical 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 accomp lished if both the field and laboratory portions of the project are performed according to the pro cedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010).

Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be co mpared to another. Comparability can be related to accuracy and pr ecision because these quan tities are measures of data reliability. Data are considered comparable if collection techniques, measurement procedures, methods and reportin g 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 sampli ng 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 ther efore comparability of the data set is acceptable.

The precision, accuracy, representativeness, complete ness, 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
December 2010



# 4-6 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, 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-Nove mber 2010 data. Based on the OctoberNovember 2010 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Groundwater Pr otection Plan (TEC, 2008).



# 5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not measured at RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 during the October-November 2010 sampling event. The tr end 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 mon itoring wells. Since the trace amounts observed in January 2008, no free product has been obser ved in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3-1).



# 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwate r Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results from the Oc tober-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event indicated that TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and P AHs, specifically 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene, were present in the groundwater be neath 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 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which was below the EAL.

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

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

were detected at estimated concentrations wh ich 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 μ g/L), TPH-GRO (150 μ g/L), 1- methylnaphthalene (15 μ g/L), and naphthalene (59 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations which exceeded the EALs. Acenaphthene (0.28 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (5.0 μ g/L) were

detected at concentrations which were below the EALs. Acenaphthylene (0.14 μ g/L), fluorene (0.16 μ g/L), ethylbenzene (0.25 μ g/L), xylenes (0.60 μ g/L), and lead (0.32 μ g/L) were detected

at estimated concentrations which were belo w the EALs. All other COPCs in RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW03, TPH-DRO (330 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL. Lead (0.28 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which wasQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

December 2010



# 5-2 below the EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW03 we re 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 obs erved only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01

and RHMW02 at less than 0.01 feet). This indicates a signifi cant 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 We ll 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 collect ed from monitoring well s within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting th e Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monito ring well RHMW05 have

decreased to below the EALs for 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 US Ts and the U.S. Navy Well 22554-01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migr ating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collect ed from monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03) are not st eadily increasing for more than one consecutive sampling event. The data suggest th at 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 even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continua tion of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring is also recommended. In re sponse 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 Facilit y, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 6

References

December 2010



# 6-1 

# Section 6 References

Dawson Group, Inc., 2006. Fourth Quarter 2005 Groundwater Sam pling 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 Rest oration 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, Ti tle 11, Chapter 281, Subchapter 7.

TEC, 2006. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Fi nal – 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 Facilit y, 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 201010000FigureA‐1:TPHatRHMW2254‐01QuarterlyMonitoringResults1000

/ L) o ncentration (μg /TPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPHDROEAL100

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBL10Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10Time100010000

o ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐2:TPHatRHMW01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODL10100Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10

Log C oTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime100010000

o ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐4:TPHatRHMW03QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODL10100Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime10000FigureA‐3:TPHatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResults1000

L ) o ncentration (μg/ LTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐GRODLTPHDROEAL100

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBL10Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10Time10000FigureA‐5:TPHatRHMW05QuarterlyMonitoringResults100001000

L ) o ncentration (μg/ LTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODL100

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBL10Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10Time101001000

o ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐6:PAHsatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsNaphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐MethylnaphthaleneNaphthaleneEAL0.11Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10

Log C oNaphthaleneEAL1‐MethylnaphthaleneEAL2‐MethylnaphthaleneEALTime

# Appendix B Field Notebook, October-November 2010

# Appendix C Groundwater Sampling Logs,

October-November 2010WELL 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 RHMW2254-01WELL 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

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

(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) 1410WELL 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 1335WELL 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 1141WELL 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)