# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAG E FACILITY, JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, O‘AHU, HAWAI‘I

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

DOH Facility ID No. 9-102271

DOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

September 2012



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Environmental Technical Services
Contract Number N 62742-08-D-1930, CTO HC21

# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report

RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAG E FACILITY, JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, O‘AHU, HAWAI‘I

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

DOH Facility ID No. 9-102271

DOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

September 2012

Prepared for:



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawai‘i

400 Marshall Road

JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Prepared by:



# Environet, Inc.
1286 Queen Emma Street Honolulu, HI 96813

Prepared under:



# Environmental Technical Services
Contract Number N 62742-08-D-1930, CTO HC21Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents September 2012



# i 

# Table of Contents

List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. ............. iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ........... v

Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ ........ 1-1

1.1 Project Objective ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Site Description .......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.2 Facility Information ................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.3 UST Information ........................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2.4 Previous Reports ........................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations ..................................................................... 1-5

1.2.6 Regulatory Updates .................................................................................................. 1-10

Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities ........................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Oil/Water Interface 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 Interface 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

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

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

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

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements ........................................................... 5-1Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents September 2012



# ii 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater An alytical Results ........................................................... 5-1

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

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

Section 6 References .......................................................................................................... ......... 6-1

Tables

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

2012 .......................................................................................................................... . 3-3 Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quar terly Groundwater Mon itoring, July 2012 ..................... 3-5

Table 3-3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern ............................................................. 3-9 Table 3-4: Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status ......... 3-9 Table 3-5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, July 2012 .......................... 3-11 Table 4-1: Field QC Results, July 2012 ...................................................................................... 4-5

Figures

Figure 1-1: Groundwater Monito ring Well Location Map ......................................................... 1-3

Appendices

Appendix A: DOH Corespondence Appendix B: Quarterly Groundwater Monitori ng Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through July 2012 Appendix C: Field Notebook, July 2012 Appendix D: Groundwater Sampling Logs, July 2012 Appendix E: Laboratory Analytic al Results, July 2012 (on CD-ROM)Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms September 2012



# iii 

# List of Acronyms

< less than % percent

μ g/L micrograms per liter COPC chemical of potential concern

CTO Contract Task Order DL detection limit or method detection limit (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

F-76 marine diesel fuel FLC Fleet Logistics Center GRO gasoline range organics

HAR Hawai‘i Administrative Rules IDW investigation-derived waste

J Estimated result. Indicates th at the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.

JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam JP Jet Propellant LCS laboratory control sample LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid

LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL) MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate N/A not applicable NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVSUP United States Naval Supply Systems Command

ND not detected NP measurement not provided

NT measurement not taken PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons pH hydrogen activity PHWS Pearl Harbor Water System PPE personal protective equipment QC quality control RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility RPD relative percent difference SSRBL site-specific risk-based level

SWL static water level TEC The Environmental Company, Inc. TIC tentatively identified compoundQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms September 2012



# iv TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The result is reported as ND.

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



# v 

# Executive Summary

This report documents the resu lts of the quarterly groundwater monitoring performed in July 2012 at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHSF). There are 18 ac tive, and two inactive 12.5 million gallon capacity, field-constructed unde rground storage tanks (USTs) located at the RHSF. Previous environmental site investig ations 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 (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW 03, and RHMW05) installed

within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U. S. Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and pr ovides approximately 24 percent (%) of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water Syst em (PHWS). The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against State of Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Ac tion Levels (EALs) for human toxicity (DOH, 2009).

This report presents the analytical results a nd compares them to the DOH EALs for samples collected on July 17, 18, and 20, 2012 at the five groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RH MW05). Contaminant trends that

have exceeded DOH EALs are also provided in this report.

July 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Results

Laboratory analytical results indicated that tota l petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (DRO) were present in the groundwat er beneath the RHSF (monitoring well RHMW02) at a concentration above the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. In addition, laboratory analytical resu lts indicated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene) we re also present in the groundwater beneath RHSF (monitoring well RHMW02) at concentrations equal to the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other chemical of potential concern (COP C) concentrations (i.e., TPH-Gasoline Range Organics (GRO), volatile organic compounds ( VOCs), and dissolved lead) were below the

EALs.

In monitoring well RHMW2254-01, dissolved lead (2.2 micrograms per liter [μ g/L]) was detected below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All

other COPCs were not detected at or above the limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs).

In monitoring well RHMW01, dissolved lead (0.60 μ g/L) was detected below the DOH Drinking

Water and Groundwater Gross Contamin ation EALs. Naphthalene (0.13 μ g/L) was detected at

an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water an d Groundwater Gross

Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in RHMW01 were not dete cted at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary September 2012



# vi In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,700 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundw ater Gross Contamination EALs. 1-Methylnaphthalene (4.7 μ g/L) and naphthalene (17 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations equal to the DOH Drinking Wate r EALs, but below the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Acenaphthene (0.23 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.88 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Total xylenes (0.43 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.42 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW03, all COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW05, dissolved lead (0.17 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water a nd Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs.

All other COPCs in RHMW05 were not dete cted at or above the LODs and LOQs.

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

TPH-DRO Contaminant Trends

At RHMW2254-01, TPH-DRO concentrations have ne ver been detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Appendix B).

TPH-DRO concentrations at RH MW01 have fluctuated at or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL, except in October-November 2010, January 2011, April 2012, and July 2012, when

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

At RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations have b een consistently higher than the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the site-specific risk-based level (SSRBL) twice: in December 2008 and April 2010 (Appendix B).

At RHMW03, TPH-DRO concentrations have fl uctuated above and below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. From May 2009 through July 201 0, TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW03 were

not detected above the LODs and LOQs. However, in Oc tober-November 2010, TPH-DRO was detected at its highest concentration (330 μ g/L). TPH-DRO was not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in the past seven consecuti ve quarterly groundwater monitoring events.

At RHMW05, TPH-DRO concentrati ons increased from a concentr ation slightly below the DOH Drinking Water EAL, detected during the first sa mpling event in May 2009, to a level well above the DOH Drinking Water EAL in January 2010. In ten consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events, from Apri l 2010 to July 2012, TPH-DRO wa s not detected above the DOH Drinking Water EAL, or, at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary September 2012



# vii TPH-GRO Contaminant Trends

TPH-GRO has remained below the DOH Drinking Water EAL or has not been detected in monitoring wells RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW03, and RHMW05. TPH-GRO

concentrations at RHMW02 have fluctuated above and below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. In January 2011, TPH-GRO at RHMW02 was detected at an estimated concentration of 17 μ g/L,

which was below the EAL. TPH-GRO concentr ation increased sligh tly in April 2011 to a

concentration of 24 μ g/L, which was below the EAL. TP H-GRO was not detected above the LODs and LOQs in the July 2011, October- November 2011, January-F ebruary 2012, April 2012, or July 2012 groundwater monitoring events.

PAHs Contaminant Trend at RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-methyl naphthalene have remained below the EAL. Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene decreas ed below the EAL in October 2009; however,

concentrations have exhibited an increasing trend above the EAL during six subsequent quarterly groundwater monitoring events. C oncentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene again decreased below the EAL in the July 2011, October-November 2011, January-February 2012, and April 2012 groundwater monitoring events. The concentration of 1-methylnaphthalene increased to a level equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL in th e July 2012 monitoring event. Naphthalene

concentrations decreased to below the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009, increased above the EAL in October 2009, and remained abov e the EAL in January 2011. Naphthalene

concentrations decreased to below the EAL again in the April 2011, July 2011, October-November 2011, January-February 2012, and April 2012 groundwater monitoring events. The concentration of naphthalene incr eased to a level equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL in the July 2012 monitoring event.

Conclusions

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

this time.

COPC concentrations in sa mples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) have not been increasing or detected at or above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC

concentrations detected in sa mples collected from other monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting th e Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in sample s collected from monitoring well RHMW05 had decreased to below the EALs for the past ten co nsecutive quarterly monito ring events. The data suggests that elevated COPC concentrations dete cted in samples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time,

there is no indication that COPC s are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples coll ected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increas ing between consecutive sampling events.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary September 2012



# viii Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive groundwater monitoring events, decr eased in the subsequent five events, but increased again in the July 2012 monitoring event. The fluctuatio ns in concentration measured during this event and previous events indicate th e source of 1-methylnaphthale ne is very lik ely residual

contamination from a historical release at the RHSF. The general over all long-term trend in 1-methylnaphthalene concentration is decreasing and does not indica te a new release at the site.

The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the July 2012 analytical data (Table 3-5). Monitoring well RHMW02 is in Cate gory 2. All other wells were given a no category designation. RHMW03 was the only monitori ng well to change category from the previous event, dropp ing from Category 1 in the Apr il 2012 monitoring event to no category in the July 2012 monitoring event.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continua tion of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring are recommended. In resp onse to the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH and c ontinuation of a leak de termination program as

described in Section 3 of th e RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (The Environmental Company Inc. (TEC), 2008), to identify if tanks are leaking, are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-1 

# Section 1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 28 th 

# groundwater monitoring ev ent conducted in July 2012 at the RHSF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Figure 1-1). The

RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive US Ts operated by the United States Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Pearl Harbor. The groundwater sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in response to past UST releases, previous envi ronmental investigations, and recommendations from the DOH. The groundwater monitoring was pe rformed by Environet for the Department of the Navy (DON), Naval Facilities Engine ering Command (NAVFAC), Hawai‘i under Environmental Technical Services, Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order (CTO) HC21.

The field activities performed fo r the July 2012 quarterly groundw ater 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 fo r human toxicity for samples collected from five groundwater monitoring wells (R HMW2254-01, RHMW01, 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 (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05) installed

within the RHSF lower access tunnel. The U. S. Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient from the RHSF and provides approximately 24% of the potable water to the PHWS. The groundwater samples are analy zed 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).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-2 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 Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet dow ngradient (west) of the RHSF and provides approximately 24% of the potable water to the PHWS, which serves approximately 52,200 military consumers (TEC, 2008).



# 1.2.2 Facility Information

The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactiv e USTs operated by NAVSU P FLC Pearl Harbor. Each UST has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer (Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).



# 1.2.3 UST Information

The USTs were constructed in 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 Quarter 2005 (submitted November 2005);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? @ ? @ ?

@ ? @ ? ! (

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

- 0 1

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

- 0 3

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

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

S V M P 1 5

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

H ā l a w a S t r e a m R H M W 0 4

U

. S

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

- 0 1

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

- 0 1 )

C o a s t G u a r d

R e s e r v a t i o n

M o a n a l u a V i l l a g e N a v y F i r i n g R a n g e 

### @ ? S o i l V a p o r M o n i t o r i n g P o i n t s 

### @ A G r o u n d w a t e r M o n i t o r i n g W e l l s



### ! ( B o a r d o f W a t e r S u p p l y P u m p S t a t i o n

H ā l a w a C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y

R e d H i l l N a v a l R e s e r v a t i o n

H ā l a w a S t r e a m

1

, 0 0 0 0 1

, 0 0 0 5 0 0

F e e t



### F i g u r e 1

- 1

G r o u n d w a t e r M o n i t o r i n g W e l l

L o c a t i o n M a p 

## L E G E N D



#  ̄ U S G S

, 2 0 0 5 

## S O U R C E

P e a r l H a r b o r



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

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

, J B P H H

, O ' a h u

, H a w a i ' iQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-5 15. Groundwater Monitoring Results, May 2009 (submitted July 2009);

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

17. Groundwater Monitoring Results, 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);

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

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

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

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

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

25. Groundwater Monitoring Results, Oc tober 2011 (submitted December 2011);

26. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January-February 2012 (submitted March 2012); and

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



# 1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001 Investigation - From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted investigation at the RHSF to assess potential releases from the fuel USTs and piping systems. In February 2001, the Navy installed a one-inch diameter monitoring well , RHMW01 (previously known as MW-V1D), to

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

In February 2001, groundwater samples collected from RHMW01 contained TPH concentrations ranging from 883 μ g/L to 1,050 μ g/L, and total lead ranging from 10.4 μ g/L to 15 μ g/L. The

total lead concentrations exceeded the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μ g/L for dissolved lead (Dawson Group, Inc., 2006).

2005 Groundwater Sampling - The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. 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 have been part of the RHSF constructionQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-6 material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered had resolved this issue. Samples were filtered in September 2005 and December 2005, and dissolved

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

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels.

2005 Site Investigation - As part of a site 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 completed 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 inst alled in five monitoring wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, and RHMW2254-01). TEC collected groundwater samples from the monitoring wells in July 2006. The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in samples collected from

RHMW02 at concentrations above th e 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 COPCs were detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 or RHMW03;

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations were detected in samples collected from RHMW01 at concentrations above the EAL; and

• 

# TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, and naphthalene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations above the EALs (TEC, 2010).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-7 2007 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were coll ected in March, June, and September 2007. Analytical resu lts indicated the following:

• 

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

• 

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

• 

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

• 

# TPH-DRO and naphthalene concentrations exc eeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 during all three monitoring events;

• 

# 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthale ne concentrations exceeded the DOH

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

• 

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

June 2007.

2008 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collect ed in January, April, July, and October 2008. Analytical re sults indicated the following:

• 

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

• 

# trace detections of 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample event in December 2008 at RHMW2254-01, no chemical s were detected above the LODs;

• 

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

• 

# TPH-GRO concentrations did not exceed th e EAL in samples collected from RHMW02;

• 

# TPH-DRO, naphthalene, 1-met hylnaphthalene, and 2-methylna phthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected fr om RHMW02. Additionally, the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L for TPH-DRO was exceeded in the October 2008 monitoring event at RHMW02 (Appendix B); and

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW03 during all four monitoring events.

2009 Groundwater Sampling and RHMW05 Installation - Groundwater samples were collected in February, May, July, and 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 COPCs have been detected a bove the 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 EAL in February and May 2009;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-8 • 

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

• 

# TPH-GRO concentrations did not exceed th e EAL in samples collected from RHMW02;

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 during all four monitoring events;

• 

# naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-met hylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW 02 in February 2009, however, only the 1-methylnaphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009, and only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in October 2009;

• 

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

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in the samples collected from RHMW05 during the May and July 2009 monitoring events.

2010 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collect ed in January, April, July, and October-November 2010 (and TPH-DRO was re-sampled at RHMW02 in February 2010 and March 2010). Analytical results indicated the following:

• 

# no COPCs have been detected above th e EALs in samples collected from RHMW2254-01;

• 

# lead was detected in samples collected fr om RHMW2254-01 at a concentration below the EAL in October-November 2010;

• 

# naphthalene concentrations in the sample s collected from RHMW2254-01 were detected below the LOQ and EAL in January and October-November 2010;

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EA L in samples collected from RHMW01, except in October-November 2010 when they we re not detected at or above the LOQ;

• 

# lead was detected in samples collected fr om RHMW01 at a concentration below the EAL in October-November 2010;

• 

# TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, February, March, April, July, a nd October-November 2010, however, significant increases in January and February 2010 were attributed to tent atively identified compounds (TICs) apparently not associat ed with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010);

• 

# naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concen trations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January, Ap ril, July, and October-November 2010;

• 

# TPH-GRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in October-November 2010;

• 

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

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

Introduction September 2012



# 1-9 • 

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

or above the LOD in October-November 2010.

2011 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collected in January, April, July, and October 2011. Analytical re sults indicated the following:

• 

# no COPCs were detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 in January, April, July, and October 2011, except for dissolved lead

detected at a concentration below the EAL in July 2011;

• 

# no COPCs were detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW01 in January 2011;

• 

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

• 

# TPH-DRO and 1-methylna phthalene were detected at c oncentrations which exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011. In July and October 2011, TPH-DRO was detected at conc entrations which exceeded the EAL, and 1-methylnaphthalene was detected at con centrations which were below the EAL;

• 

# naphthalene was detected at a concentra tion which exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02 in January 2011, howev er in April, July, and October 2011 naphthalene was detected at c oncentrations below the EAL;

• 

# acenaphthene and 2-methylnaphthalene were de tected at concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in January, July, and October 2011;

• 

# TPH-GRO and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in April 2011, and 2-methylnapht halene was detected at estimated concentrations below that EAL in July and October 2011;

• 

# dissolved lead was detected at a concentra tion below the EAL at RHMW02 in July 2011;

• 

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

concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in January 2011. Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, and xylenes were de tected at estimated concentrations below the EALs in April 2011. Fluorene was detected at an estimated concentration below the EALs in July 2011. All other COPCs in RH MW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January and April 2011; and

• 

# no COPCs were detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in January and Apri l 2011; however, dissolved lead was detected at estimated concentrations below the EAL in samples collected from both RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011. All othe r COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-10 2012 Groundwater Sampling

- Groundwater samples were collect ed in January-February and April 2012. Analytical results indicated the following:

• no COPCs were detected at or above L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 in January-February and Apr il 2012, except for trichl oroethene detected at an estimated concentration below the EAL in April 2012;

• no COPCs were detected at or above L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW05 in January-February and April 2012;

• TPH-DRO was detected at a concentra tion equal to the EAL at RHMW01 in January-February 2012. Methylene chloride was detected at an estimated concentration below the EAL in January-February 2012. All other COPCs in RHMW01 were not

detected at or above the LODs and L OQs in January-February and April 2012;

• TPH-DRO was detected at a concentra tion exceeding the EAL at RHMW02 in January-February 2012. Acenap thene, fluorene, 1-methylna pthalene, and naphthalene

were detected at concentrations belo w the EALs in January-February 2012. Acenapthylene, 2-methylnaptha lene, ethylbenzene, and dissolved lead were detected at

estimated concentrations below the EALs in January-February 2012. All other COPCs in

RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January-February 2012;

• TPH-DRO was detected at a concentrati on exceeding the EAL at RHMW02 in April 2012. Acenaphthene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs in April 2012. Fluorene and dissolved lead were detected

at estimated concentrations below the EALs in April 2012. All other COPCs in

RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in April 2012; and

• dissolved lead was detected at an estimated concentration below the EAL at RHMW03 in January-February 2012. Dissolved lead was de tected at a concentration below the EAL in April 2012. All other CO PCs in RHMW03 were not det ected at or above the LODs and LOQs in January-February and April 2012.



# 1.2.6 Regulatory Updates

During the summer and fall of 200 8, DOH updated their EALs wh ich 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 scenario and a one in a mil lion cancer risk (DOH, 2009). As a result of the EAL changing from 240 μ g/L to 4.7 μ g/L, concentrations of 1-methylnaphthale collected from RMHW2254-01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 pr eviously categorized as under the EAL are now over the EAL. Also, the drinking water EAL for naphthalene was increased from

6.2 μ g/L to 17 μ g/L (DOH, 2009). Finall y, the DOH Drinking Wate r EAL for TPH-DRO wasQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-11 increased from 100 μ g/L to 210 μ g/L, although the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination

EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100 μ g/L.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction September 2012



# 1-12 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities September 2012



# 2-1 

# Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the five monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05) on July 17, 18, and 20, 2012 using procedures described in the Wo rk Plan (Environet, 2010). Fiel d activities were documented in the field notebook (Appendix C).



# 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 gauging measurements were collected at the four monitoring wells prior to purging and sample collection. A Solinst ® 

# oil/water interface probe was used to measure the depth to groundwater, as well as detect the presence and thickness of LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot, according to the procedures described in Procedure I-C-3, Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007).



# 2.2 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were collected from the five monitoring wells according to the procedures described in Procedure I-C-3, Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007).



# 2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

Each monitoring well was purged using a 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%. A Horiba ® 

# U-52 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 readings were r ecorded in Groundwater Sampling Log data sheets (Appendix D).



# 2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater samples were collected using dedi cated bladder pump syst ems, directly into laboratory provided specially cleaned sample cont ainers. Samples to be analyzed for dissolved lead were filtered in the field and placed in to polyethylene bottles already containing the appropriate preservative.



# 2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

Each sample container sent to the laboratory was assigned a project- specific chain-of-custody identification number and a descriptive identification number. The sample identifiers provided specific data unique to each sample and were entered into the field notebook. The samples were labeled according to the procedures described in Procedure III-E, Record Keeping, Sample Labeling, and Chain-of-Custody (DON, 2007).

Following sample collection and labeling, the sample containers were bubble-wrapped and placed into individual Ziploc ® 

# bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice forQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities September 2012



# 2-2 preservation. The samples were shipped via FedEx to the laboratory on the same day of collection or the following day. The samples were managed under standard chain-of-custody protocol and documentation from collection to delivery to the laboratory. Sample handling, storage, and transport were performed accordi ng to the requirements described in Procedure
III-F, Sample Handling, Storage, and Shipping (DON, 2007).



# 2.3 Analytical Program

Five primary groundwater samples, one duplicate groundwater sample, three trip blank samples for VOCs and TPH-GRO analysis, and one qual ity control (QC) groundwater sample (i.e., matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD)) were submitted to APPL, Inc., located in Clovis, California. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH-GRO by EPA Method 8260B, for TPH-DRO by EPA Method 8015B, for PAHs by EPA Method 8270D SIM, and for dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020.



# 2.4 Field Quality Control Samples

Field QC procedures were followed to ensure 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% of primary samples and analyzed for the same contaminants. Field rinsate samples were not required since dedicated bladder pump systems

were used.



# 2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

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

Procedure III-A Laboratory QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007). Laboratory QC MS/MSD samples are an aliquot (i.e., a subset) of the fiel d sample that is spiked with accurate amounts of target analytes. They are not separate samples, but a special designation of an existing sample. Laboratory QC MS/MSD samples were analyzed for the same constituents as the standard samples. At a minimum, one MS/MSD sample pa ir was required per 20 samples, including field QC samples.



# 2.6 Equipment Decontamination

Decontamination of monitoring equipment was pe rformed to ensure data quality, prevent cross contamination, and prevent the potential intro duction of contaminants into previously unimpacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst ® 

# oil/water interface probe and Horiba ® 

# multi-parameter U-52 water qual ity meter) was conducted between monitoring locations, accord ing to the procedures de scribed in Procedure I-F, Equipment

Decontamination (DON, 2007). Decontamination water was disposed of in the RHSF’s lower tunnel oil/water separator sump.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities September 2012



# 2-3 

# 2.7 Investigation-Derived Waste Management

Investigation-derived waste (IDW) was managed in accordance with the procedures described in Procedure I-A-6, IDW Management (DON, 2007). The various 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 supplies (e.g., poly sheeting).

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 Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities September 2012



# 2-4 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 3-1 

# Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from the five monitoring wells on July 17, 18, and 20, 2012. Complete analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E.



# 3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, a nd RHMW05 during the July 2012 sampling event. The trend of free pr oduct measurements over time shows that in January 2008, LNAPL was measured in mo nitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not obser ved in any other monitoring wells. Since the detection in January 2008, no fr ee product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3-1).



# 3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

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

RHMW2254-01

Dissolved lead (2.2 μ g/L) was detected at a concentra tion below 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 LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

RHMW01

Dissolved lead (0.60 μ g/L) was detected at a concentra tion below the DOH Drinking Water and

Groundwater Gross Contaminati on EALs. Naphthalene (0.13 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL (17 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (21 μ g/L). All other COPCs were not de tected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

RHMW02

TPH-DRO (1,700 μ g/L) was detected at a concentrati on which exceeded 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 E). 1- methylnaphthalene (4.7 μ g/L) and naphthalene (17 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations equal to the DOH Drinki ng Water EALs, but below the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). A cenaphthene (0.23 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.88 μ g/L) were detected at concen trations below the DOH Drinking

Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). Total xylenes (0.43 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.42 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below theQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 3-2 DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs were not

detected at or above the LODs a nd LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

RHMW03

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

RHMW05

Dissolved lead (0.17 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking

Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).



# 3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

Groundwater samples have been collected a nd analyzed in monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW02, and RHMW03 since September 2005 and in monitoring well RHMW05 since May 2009 (Appendix B). Monitoring well RHMW2254-01 was installed in February 2005. The following is a discussion of COPCs that exceeded DOH Drinking Water EALs during two or more recent consecutive sampling events of in creasing or decreasing concentrations, thus establishing a trend:

RHMW2254-01

COPCs have never been detected at RHMW2254- 01 at concentrations greater than the DOH Drinking Water EALs.

RHMW01

Concentrations of TPH-DRO have been grea ter than the DOH Drinking Water EAL between September 2005 and July 2010, and again in April 2011 and July 2011, but less than 50% of the SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 4,500 μ g/L). TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July 2009; in creased in October 2009 (299F μ g/L), January 2010 (312F

μ g/L), and April 2010 (377 μ g/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μ g/L); and were not detected above the LODs and LOQs in Octobe r-November 2010 and January 2011. TPH-DRO

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

and were at the EAL in October-N ovember 2011 and January-February 2012 (210 μ g/L) (Appendix B). TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to levels below the LODs and LOQs in April 2012 and July 2012 (Appendix B).

RHMW02

The averages of primary and duplicate samples were used for determining contaminant trends. From September 2005 through February 2009, TP H-DRO concentrations exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μ g/L and were greater than 50% of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. The concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stab le 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.Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through July 2012Elevation1= 102.27 Elevation1= 104.76 Elevation1= 121.06 Elevation1= 101.55DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPLSep-2007NT2NT2NT286.80 17.96NP103.44 17.62NP~~~Jan-200884.6717.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 NT3NT3NT3~~~Jul-200883.3718.90 0.00 86.10 18.66 0.00 102.45 18.61 0.00 ~ ~ ~Oct-200883.8018.47 0.00 86.45 18.31 0.00 102.49 18.57 0.00 ~ ~ ~Nov-200883.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.80 18.26 0.00 ~ ~ ~Jan-200983.1319.14 0.00 85.79 18.97 0.00 102.04 19.02 0.00 ~ ~ ~Feb-2009NT4NT4NT486.35 18.41 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 ~ ~ ~Mar-200983.8218.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ ~May-2009583.7218.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6NT6NT6May-200983.5018.77 0.00 86.15 18.61 0.00 102.41 18.65 0.00 NT6NT6NT6Jul-2009783.7518.52 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.67 18.39 0.00 83.09 18.46 0.00Aug-200984.0418.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 0.00Sep-200984.2118.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 0.00Oct-200984.2418.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 0.00Nov-200983.9118.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 0.00Dec-200984.1218.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 0.00Jan-201084.3617.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 0.00Feb-201084.2418.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 0.00Mar-201084.5317.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 0.00Apr-201084.7517.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 0.00May-201084.8017.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 0.00Jun-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 0.00Jul-201085.0317.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 0.00Sep-201085.3016.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 0.00Oct-201085.2916.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 0.00Nov-201085.2017.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.95 0.00Dec-201084.8717.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.33 0.00Jan-201185.3216.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.90 0.00Feb-201183.8218.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Mar-201183.7718.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.35 0.00Apr-201183.5418.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.65 0.00May-201183.3918.88 0.0086.3918.37 0.00102.6918.37 0.0082.7218.83 0.00Jun-201183.4118.86 0.0086.1118.65 0.00102.3318.73 0.0082.8118.74 0.00Jul-201183.5718.70 0.0086.2218.54 0.00102.4418.62 0.0082.9918.56 0.00Aug-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4218.34 0.00102.6618.40 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Sep-201183.8118.46 0.0086.4418.32 0.00102.6918.37 0.0083.2118.34 0.00Oct-201183.7118.56 0.0086.3818.38 0.00102.9018.16 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Jan-201283.7518.52 0.0086.3118.45 0.00102.5618.50 0.0083.1518.40 0.00Apr-201283.6018.67 0.0086.3418.42 0.00102.7118.35 0.0083.1718.38 0.00May-201284.0918.18 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.98 18.08 0.00 83.53 18.02 0.00Jun-201284.3417.93 0.00 86.95 17.81 0.00 103.17 17.89 0.00 83.97 17.58 0.00Jul-201284.2018.07 0.00 86.64 18.12 0.00 102.89 18.17 0.00 83.41 18.14 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 malfunction4A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 025The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation6Measurements 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 probesUnits are in feet (ft).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by EnvironeDTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less thanRHMW05DateRHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW031Elevations were updated based on theGroundwater Flow Direction/Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HI, ConTable 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, July 2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4 ++150b80.8 40.4ND U150b80.8 40.4 U150b80.8 40.4EPA 8260 B(Petroleum)TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 U20.0 12.126.06 U 20.012.126.06ND U20.0 12.12 6.06 U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Acenaphthylene240 2,000 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Anthracene1,800 22 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U0.2b0.160.08U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 U0.2b0.16 0.08Benzo(a)pyrene0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U0.2b0.120.06U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 U0.2b0.12 0.06Benzo(k)fluoranthene0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Chrysene9.2 1 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U0.2b0.100.05U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 U0.2b0.10 0.05Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 U0.2b0.14 0.071-Methylnaphthalene4.7 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.062-Methylnaphthalene24 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.100.05J 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Phenanthrene 240 410 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Pyrene180 68 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.081,1,1-Trichloroethane200 970U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane5 50,000U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane2.4 50,000U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene70 3,000U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene600 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane5 10U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene180 5U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene75 5U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 170U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform80 510U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane8.7 50,000U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride5 520U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane 21,000 16U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform70 2,400U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane1.8 50,000U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene(cis-1,2-Dichloroethene)70 50,000U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene700 30U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)7,100 8,400U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether12 5U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35 ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 U5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene)5 170U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene 1,000 40U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene(trans-1,2-Dichloroethene)100 260U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)5 310U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride2 3,400U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes10,000 20U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 J 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead15 5,000 0.5 0.22 0.110.600.5 0.22 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.17 J 0.5 0.22 0.11Notes:All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsJ - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQLOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The result is reported as ND.VOC - volatile organic compound++ The analyst has noted that the chromatogram of this sample is mainly lower boiling hydrocarbons.DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDbIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.13NDNDND2.2NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.42NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.4317NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDaDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).1,700ND0.23NDNDNDNDBold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND4.70.88NDNDRHMW2254-01(ES077)ResultRHMW03(ES081)RHMW01(ES088)ResultRHMW02(ES082)DOH Drinking Water EALs forHuman ToxicityaEPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)Method ChemicalRHMW05(ES079)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDResultDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaResultQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 3-7 TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from Oc tober 2008 through July 2009. In May 2009 and July 2009, TPH-DRO remained above the DOH Dri nking Water EAL, but was below 50% of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. In October 2009, TPH-DRO began an increasing trend greater than 50% of the SSRBL, which continued through Februa ry 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to TICs apparently not associated with petr oleum 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 de creasing trend, and the TICs detected in the two previous monitoring events were not observed. During July 2010, TPH-DRO

concentrations at RHMW02 increased to an average concentration of 3,085 μ g/L, above 50% of the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L. During October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to 1,700 μ g/L, and in January 2011 concentrations decreased further to 1,040 μ g/L,

below 50% of the SSRBL. TPH-DRO exhi bited a concentration detected at 1,100 μ g/L in April 2011; however, concentrati ons increased to 1,450 μ g/L in July 2011. TPH-DRO concentration

decreased to 750 μ g/L in October-November 2011, increased to 1,700 μ g/L in January-February
2012, and decreased to 1,200 μ g/L in April 2012. TPH-DRO c oncentration increased to 1,700

μ g/L in July 2012, below 50% of the SSRBL.

Since September 2005, TPH-GRO concentrations have remained below the EAL, except in July 2006 (145 μ g/L), December 2006 (124 μ g/L), March 2007 (135 μ g/L), and October-November 2010 (155 μ g/L).

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 the 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 October-November 2010 and January 2011, naphthalene concentrations decr eased slightly to

concentrations which were still above the EA L. In April 2011, naphtha lene concentrations

decreased to below the EAL. C oncentrations of naphthalene remained below the EAL in July 2011, October-November 2011, January-Februar y 2012, and April 2012. Naphthalene concentrations increased to a level equal to the EAL in July 2012.

Similar to the naphthalene concentration trend, 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations remained relatively stable from September 2005 th rough October 2008. In February 2009, 1-methylnapthalene began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in October 2009 (3.2 μ g/L), which was below the EAL. In January 2010, 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations increased above the EAL, th en decreased in April 2010, and exhibited an increasing trend from July 2010 through January 2011 (Appendix B). The average concentration (5.1 μ g/L) for 1-methylnaphthalene in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking

Water EAL of 4.7 μ g/L. The average concentration for 1- methylnaphthalene decreased to below the DOH EAL in July 2011, October-November 2011, and January-February 2012. During the April 2012 monitoring event, c oncentrations of 1-methylnaptha lene increased but to a level below the EAL. In the July 2012 monitoring ev ent, concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene increased again, to a leve l equal to the DOH EAL.

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-met hylnaphthalene have remained below the EALs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 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 LODs in May 2009 through July 2010.

However, during the October-November 2010 groundwater monitoring event, TPH-DRO was detected at the highest c oncentration to date (330 μ g/L), which was above the EAL. In January 2011, April 2011, July 2011, October-November 2011, January-February 2012, April 2012, and July 2012 groundwater monitoring events, TPH-DR O concentrations decreased to below the

LODs. Dissolved lead has been detected at es timated concentrations in the October-November 2010, July 2011, October-November 2011, and Janua ry-February 2012 groundw ater monitoring events. During the April 2012 groundwater monitori ng event, lead concentr ations increased to a detectable level (1.4 μ g/L), which was below the EAL. Diss olved lead concentrations decreased to a level below the LOD in the July 2012 monitoring event.

RHMW05

There was an increasing trend for TPH-DRO since it was first sampled in May 2009 through January 2010. Starting with the July 2009 mon itoring event, TPH-DRO concentrations were greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μg /L) with the highest concentration of 2,060

μ g/L being observed in January 2010. It is impo rtant to note that the January 2010 concentration contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In ten consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring ev ents from April 2010 to July 2012, TPH-DRO

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



# 3.4 Groundwater Status

Facility-specific contaminants of concern are 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-specific compounds, 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 m onitoring wells were determined using the July 2012 analytical data (Table 3-5). Mon itoring well RHMW02 is in Category 2.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 3-9 Table 3-3: Action Levels for Contaminants of Concern Chemical DOH Drinking Water EAL (μg/L) SSRBL (μg/L)

Petroleum Mixtures
TPH-DRO 210 4,500
TPH-GRO 100 4,500 Semi-Volatile Compounds 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 N/A 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 N/A Naphthalene 17 N/A

Notes: N/A – not applicable SSRBLs are applicable at RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 EALs are applicable at RHMW2254-01



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

Results Category RHMW02, RHMW03, or

RHMW05* RHMW01 RHMW2254-01

Results Category 1: Result above detection limit, but below drinking water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or decreasing A A A, D, M, E

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded A, B A, B A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, O Results Category 3: Result Between 1/10X SSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or 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 subsequently been added to this table. Specific Responses: A. Send quarterly reports to DOH. B. Begin program to determine the source of leak. C. Notify DOH verbally within one day and follow with written notification in 30 days. D. Notify NAVSUP Chain of Command within one day. E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to DOH. F. Send Type 2 Report (see box below) to DOH. G. Increase monitoring 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 treatmentQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results September 2012



# 3-10 This page is intentionally left blank.Results CategoryRHMW2254-011RHMW012RHMW02 RHMW03RHMW053Results Category 1: Result above detectionlimit but below drinking water EAL and trendfor all compounds stable or decreasingNo No No No NoResults Category 2: Trend for any compoundincreasing or drinking water EAL exceededNo No Yes No NoResults Category 3: Result between 1/10XSSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPHNo No No No NoResults Category 4: Result exceeding anySSRBL or petroleum product observedNo No No No NoPrevious Category: Category prior to Julymonitoring eventNone None Category 2 Category 1 NoneNew Category: Category assignment based onresults of the July monitoring eventNone None Category 2 None None1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leakdetermination programto identify if tanks areleakingNote:2Although trace concentrations of dissolved lead and naphthalene were detected at RHMW01 during the July 2012 monitoring event,it does not place the well into the Category 1 status. No contamination trend (i.e., two or moreconsecutive events of detectable concentrations) have been established, therefore, RHMW01 does not meet the Category 1 definition.1Although a concentration of dissolved lead was detected at RHMW2254-01 during the July 2012 monitoring event, it does not placethe well into the Category 1 status. No contamination trend (i.e., two or more consecutive eventsof detectable concentrations) have been established, therefore, RHMW2254-01 does not meet the Category 1 definition.3Although an estimated trace concentration of dissolved lead was detected at RHMW05 during the July 2012 monitoring event, it does not place the well into the Category 1 status. No contamination trend (i.e., two or moreconsecutive events of detectable concentrations) has been established, therefore, RHMW05 does not meet the Category 1 definition.Table 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, July 2012Response Actions: Requirements of newcategoryNoneNone NoneNoneQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t September 2012



# 4-1 

# Section 4 Data Quality Assessment

Data quality assessment consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analyses process in order to determine whether the analytical data gene rated meets the quality objectives for the project. The field QC program consisted of st andardized sample collection and management procedures, and the collection of fi eld 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

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 monitoring event.



# 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. Precision is ev aluated by relative percentage difference (RPD) of field duplicates and labor atory MS/MSD results. Field duplicate and MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of approximately 10% of project samples. Field duplicates are sent to the laboratory with du mmy sample numbers and analyzed as primary samples.

For this monitoring event, the RPDs of primary and field duplicate (sample ES079 and sample ES080), met the RPD precision criteria of 50% for a ll analytes. Therefore, the data precision is considered acceptable.

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 accep tance criteria for accuracy are dependent on the analytical method and are base d on historical laboratory data.

All of the LCS and surrogate spike recoveries fo r analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits. All MS/MSD recoveries were within laboratory specified ranges, withQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t September 2012



# 4-2 the exception of TPH-GRO, methylene chlori de, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane , and trichloroethene (Appendix E). Recovery of an analyte above or be low acceptable criteria can point to potentially heightened or lowered concentr ations in associated groundw ater samples. The TPH-GRO recovery was below the lower limit of acceptable crit eria (75%). However, the deviation (2.3%) was small and poses no risk to sample results with regards to result categories or SSRBLs. The methylene chloride recovery was above the upper limit of the acceptable criteria (140%). However, the analyte was not detected in the as sociated groundwater samples and a heightened recovery should have no effect on sample resu lts. The 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane recovery was below the lower limit of the acceptable criteria (65%). The analyte had a 1.7% and 1.9% MS and MSD recovery, and represented a large devi ation from acceptable levels. However, the analyte was not detected in asso ciated groundwater sample results, and has no historical presence in the groundwater through the past eight consecu tive sample results. Thus, the low recoveries should have no effect on associated groundwater sa mple results. The trichloroethene recovery was above the upper control limit (125%). However, the anal yte was not detected in the associated groundwater samples a nd a heightened recovery should have no impact with regards to result categories for individu al wells or DOH Drinking Water EAL. Therefore, the data accuracy for this monitoring even t is considered acceptable.

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 eval uated through the complia nce of the sample holding time and the analysis of blank samples, incl uding method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding time complied with the EPA criteria. For this sa mpling event, three trip blanks were collected,

and there were no detections of VOCs or TP H-GRO in them; except methylene chloride. Methylene chloride was detected, at estimated concentrations belo w both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (4.8 μg/L) and Gross Contamination EA L (9,100 μg/L), in the tr ip blanks taken on July 18 and 20, 2012 (Table 4-1). Therefore, the data does not impact data quality and the groundwater sample data are considered repr esentative of the groundw ater quality on site.

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%, which was successfully met. Successful completion of data acquisition can only be accomplished if both th e field and laboratory portions of the project are performed according to the procedures desc ribed 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, with acceptable precision and accuracy, are considered comparable if collection techniques, analytical procedur es, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this monitoring event, the samples were collected us ing approaches consistent with those in theQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t September 2012



# 4-3 previous events, and the same analytical me thods/procedures were used to measure the concentration of COPCs. Therefore, the results are considered comparable within this data set and with the data collected from previous sampling events.



# 4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions

The precision, accuracy, representativeness, complete ness, and comparability criteria were met. The hold time was met for all samples. Therefore, the data assessment concludes that all data generated during this event are suitable for the intended use.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t September 2012



# 4-4 This page is intentionally left blankTable 4-1: Field QC Results, July2012Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DL Result Q LOQ LOD DLEPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U150b80.8 40.4U 150b80.8 40.4 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8260 B (Petroleum)TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06Acenaphthene 370 20 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U0.2b0.14 0.07ND U 0.2b0.14 0.07 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U0.2b0.16 0.08ND U 0.2b0.16 0.08 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U0.2b0.12 0.06ND U 0.2b0.12 0.06 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U0.2b0.10 0.05ND U 0.2b0.10 0.05 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U0.2b0.14 0.07ND U 0.2b0.14 0.070 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Phenanthrene 240 410 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Pyrene 180 68 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970U 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 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000U 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 0.191,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U2.0b0.78 0.39ND U 2.0b0.78 0.39 0ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000U 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 U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.760ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 U1.0b0.40 0.20ND U 1.0b0.40 0.20 0ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10U 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 U1.0b0.28 0.14ND U 1.0b0.28 0.14 0ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10U 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-Dichlorobenzene 180 5U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.180ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.18 ND U1.0b0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5U 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 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 170U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14ND U 1.0b0.28 0.140 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform80 510U 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 0.14Bromomethane8.7 50,000U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50U 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 0.21Chloroethane 21,000 16U 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 0.21Chloroform70 2,400U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane 1.8 50,000U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 0 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.190ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 700 30U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U1.0b0.38 0.19ND U 1.0b0.38 0.19 0ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone)2,000 1,300U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 0 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26 ND U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U5.0b0.70 0.35ND U 5.0b0.70 0.35 0ND U5.0b0.70 0.35 0.80 J5.0b0.70 0.35 0.47 J5.0b0.70 0.35Styrene 100 10 U 1.0 0.50 0.25ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U1.0b0.26 0.13ND U 1.0b0.26 0.130 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13 ND U1.0b0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U1.0b0.20 0.10ND U 1.0b0.20 0.100 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene 1,000 40U 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 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene)100 260U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride 2 3,400U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes 10,000 20U 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 0.19EPA 6020Lead 15 5,000 0.17 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 0.21 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 21.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02.bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsLOD - limit of detectionLOQ- limit ofquantitation or reportinglimit(RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsRPD - relative percent differenceTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compound-- not analyzedNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND----DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)------All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).----------NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDTrip Blank - ES087(07/20)Result--------------------Bold - Result exceeds DOH Drinking Water EALs.Trip Blank - ES085(07/18)RHMW05ES080(07/17)NDDOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaTrip Blank - ES078U - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The result is reported as ND.aDOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).RPDDuplicate(%)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)ResultRHMW05ES079ResultMethod ChemicalDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaND--J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations September 2012



# 5-1 

# Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

5.1 Summary

There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking water resources at the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 as a result of the Ju ly 2012 data. Based on the July 2012 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Groundwater

Protection Plan.



# 5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

Free product was not observed at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, a nd RHMW05 during the July 2012 monitoring event. Th e trend of free product measurem ents over time s hows that in January 2008, fuel was measured in monitori ng wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not obs erved in any other monitoring we lls. Since the detection in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these RHSF m onitoring wells (Table 3-1).



# 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwate r Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results indicated that TP H- DRO were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF (monitoring well RHMW02) at a concentration above the DOH Drinking Water and

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. In addi tion, laboratory analyti cal results indicated PAHs (1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene) we re also present in the groundwater beneath RHSF (monitoring well RHMW02) at concentrations equal to the DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPC concentrations (i.e., TPH-GRO, VOCs, and dissolved lead) were below the

EALs.

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

In monitoring well RHMW2254-01, dissolved lead (2.2 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW2254-01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW01, dissolved lead (0.60 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Naphthalene (0.13

μ g/L) was detected at an estimated con centration below the DOH Drinking Water and

Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (1,700 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Groundw ater Gross Contamination EALs. 1-methylnaphthalene (4.7 μ g/L) and naphthalene (17 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations which equaled the DOH Drinking Water EALs , but were below the Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Acenaphthene (0.23 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.88 μ g/L) wereQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations September 2012



# 5-2 detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. Total xylenes (0.43 μ g/L) and dissolved lead (0.42 μ g/L) were detected at

estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water and Groundwater Gross

Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monito ring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW05, dissolved lead (0.17 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water a nd Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW05 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 a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This indicates a signi ficant 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 above the EALs. This indicates that el evated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells within the RH SF are not migrating nor are they impacting the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monito ring well RHMW05 have decreased to below the EALs for the past ten co nsecutive quarterly monito ring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC con centrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is an intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time,

there is no indication that COPC s are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples coll ected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not stead ily increasing between sampling events. TPH-DRO concentrations in samples collected from RHMW02 have been consistently well above the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the SSRBL twice: in December 2008 and April 2010. Concentrations of 1-methylnaphtha lene detected in sa mples collected from

RHMW02 increased for three consecutive even ts; decreased during th e four subsequent monitoring events, increased to a level below the EAL in the Ap ril 2012 monitoring event, and then increased again to a leve l equal to the EAL in the Ju ly 2012 monitoring event. The fluctuation in concentrations measured during this event and previous events indicates the current source of 1-methylnaphthalene is potentia lly residual hydrocarbon contamination from a historical release. The genera l overall long-term trend in 1-met hylnaphthalene concentration is decreasing and does not i ndicate a new 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 freeQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations September 2012



# 5-3 product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05, and monthly soil vapor monitoring are also recommended. In re sponse to the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH and c ontinuation of a leak de termination program as

described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan ( TEC, 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, Kuahua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations September 2012



# 5-4 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 6

References September 2012



# 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, Fi nal Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii . January 2008 revised in December 2009.

_____, 2010. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl
Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii . August.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) , 2005. Aerial Image. http ://hawaii.wr.usgs.gov/index.html.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 6

References September 2012



# 6-2 This page is intentionally left blank.

# Appendix A DOH Correspondence

# Appendix B Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 2005 through July

20125005000

oncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐1:TPHatRHMW2254‐01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GROTPH‐DROEAL550Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log CTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5005000

ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐2:TPHatRHMW01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DRODLTPH‐DROTPH‐GRODL550Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log CoTPH‐GROTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5005000

o ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐3:TPHatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GRODLTPH‐GRO550Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5005000

C oncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐4:TPHatRHMW03QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DRODLTPH‐DROTPH‐GRODLTPH‐GRO550Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log CTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5005000

o ncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐5:TPHatRHMW05QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DRODLTPH‐DROTPH‐GRODLTPH‐GRO550Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log C oTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime101001000

C oncentration (μg/L)FigureA‐6:PAHsatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsNaphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐Methylnaphthalene0.11Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11 Mar‐12

Log CNaphthaleneEAL1‐MethylnaphthaleneEAL2‐MethylnaphthaleneEALTime

# Appendix C Field Notebook, July 2012

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

900 1 L 7.12 0.656 0.0 8.75 23.62 0.2 192

905 2 L 7.10 0.654 0.0 8.90 23.54 0.2 191

912 2.5 L 7.06 0.652 0.0 9.24 23.54 0.2 192

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 7/17/2012 1354 N/A 0.09 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES077

0915

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump 

### GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

not applicable (N/A) 7/17/2012 0845WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1250 1 L 4.89 0.001 186 7.73 24.82 0.0 204

1254 1.5 L 6.56 0.401 0.0 6.92 23.88 0.1 108

1257 2 L 6.41 0.381 0.0 6.65 23.63 0.1 57

1302 2.5 L 6.35 0.384 0.0 7.40 23.49 0.1 16

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 7/23/2012 1347 - 0.15 L/min

Low flow pump

ES088

1320

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc., via FedEx MS, JT 100.00 feet bTOC MS, JT

15.95 feet

-

N/A Low flow pump 

### GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

84.05 feet bTOC 7/20/2012 1245WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1025 2 L 6.24 0.696 0.0 6.86 26.23 0.2 -31

1026 3 L 6.18 0.690 0.0 6.47 24.01 0.2 -36

1028 4 L 6.15 0.685 0.0 6.22 24.09 0.2 -43

1030 5 L 6.13 0.679 0.0 5.93 24.25 0.2 -49

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

### GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

86.70 feet bTOC 7/18/2012 1020

unknown MS, JT

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

7/18/2012 1412 0.5 L/min

Low flow pump

ES082

1100

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

910 2 L 6.61 0.893 0.0 6.78 26.76 0.2 225

912 3 L 6.46 0.883 5.5 6.21 26.48 0.2 224

916 4 L 6.47 0.858 4.8 6.31 26.01 0.2 214

920 5 L 6.52 0.851 2.9 6.15 26.03 0.2 204

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

### GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

103.09 feet bTOC 7/18/2012 0908

unknown MS, JT

N/A

-

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

7/18/2012 1412 0.42 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES081

0930

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1105 1.5 L 7.22 0.452 0.0 9.67 22.65 0.1 189

1110 2.5 L 7.19 0.489 0.9 9.70 22.60 0.1 190

1113 3.5 L 7.20 0.480 0.9 9.70 22.59 0.1 189

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY None

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: Duplicate taken at MW-05 (ES080 taken at 800)

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 7/17/2012 1354 0.27 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES079

1145

MS, JT

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

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

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump 

### GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

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

83.50 feet bTOC 7/17/2012 1100

# Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Results, July 2012 (on CD-ROM)