# Final Fourth Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

DOH Facility ID: 9-102271 DOH Release ID: 990051, 010011, and 020028

January 2014



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii 400 Marshall Road JBPHH, HI 96860-3139

Contract Number N 62742-12-D-1853, CTO 0002

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Final Fourth Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

DOH Facility ID: 9-102271 DOH Release ID: 990051, 010011, and 020028

January 2014

Prepared for:



# Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii 400 Marshall Road JBPHH, HI 96860-3139

Prepared by: 

# Environmental Science International, Inc. 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734

Prepared under:



# Contract Number N 62742-12-D-1853, CTO 0002

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page 

### v January 2014

Outside Tunnel Wells 

## FINAL FOURTH QUARTER 2013 - QUARTERLY GR OUNDWATER MONITO RING REPORT OUTSIDE TUNNEL WELLS RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

Long-Term Groundwater and Soil Vapor Monitoring Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Joint-Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii



## Prepared for: Department of the Navy Commanding Officer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii 400 Marshall Road JBPHH, HI 96860-3139



## Prepared by: Environmental Science International, Inc. 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734 (808) 261-0740



## Prepared under: Contract Number: N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order: 0002

Approval Signature: Darren Uchima, Navy Technical Representative Date

Approval Signature: 12/27/2013 Robert Chong, ESI Project Manager Date

Approval Signature: 12/27/2013 Iris van der Zander, ESI QA Manager DateContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page vi January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page vii January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Site Description 1-1 1.2 Physical Settings 1-2 1.3 Background 1-3

2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Sampling 2-1 2.2 Analytical Results 2-1 2.3 Waste Disposal 2-2

3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-1

3.1 Data Validation and Assessment 3-1

3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions 3-4

4.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1

5.0 FUTURE WORK 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES 6-1Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page viii January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1.1 Current Status of USTs 1-2 2.1 Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 23, 2013) 2-3 3.1 Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 23, 2013) 3-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Site Location 2 Site Layout

APPENDICES

Appendix Title

A Groundwater Sampling Logs

B Field Notes C Laboratory Reports

D Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends E Waste Disposal ManifestContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page ix January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

# ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS/ ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION/MEANING



### % percent COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern DLNR State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources DOH State of Hawaii Department of Health DON Department of the Navy EAL Environmental Action Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESI Environmental Science International F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel ID Identification JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam JP-5 Jet Fuel Propellant-5 JP-8 Jet Fuel Propellant-8 LCS Laboratory Control Sample LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantitation μg/L micrograms per liter MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVSUP FLC Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center N.D. Not Detected PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PARCCS Precision, Accuracy, Representat iveness, Completeness, Comparability, and Sensitivity pH hydrogen activity QC Quality Control RHSF Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility RPD Relative Percent Difference SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan TEC The Environmental Company, Inc. TPH-d Total Petroleum Hy drocarbons as diesel TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline U.S. United States of America UST Underground Storage Tank VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WP Work PlanContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report Page x January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report ES-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This quarterly monitoring report presents the results of the fourth quarter 2013 groundwater sampling event conducted on October 23, 2013, at the outside tunnel wells of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility [RHSF], Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam [JBPHH], Hawaii. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. There are 18 active and 2 inactive underground storage tanks [USTs] located at the RHSF. The State of Hawaii Department of Health [DOH] Facility Identification [ID] number is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and 020028.

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC] Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling was conducted in accordance with the approved Work Plan [WP]/Sampling and Analysis Pl an [SAP] prepared by Environmental Science International [ESI].

On October 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from two outside tunnel monitoring wells (wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01). A summary of the analytical results is provided below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-g (15 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.041 μg/L) were detected. The

COPCs were not detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L), TPH-g (17 and 14 μg/L), and acetone (44 and 38 μg/L) were detected in both the primary and duplicate samples. Benzene (0.17 μg/L) was only detected in the duplicate sample. TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L) was detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in the duplicate sample and for only gross contamination in the primary sample.

TPH-g was detected in the method and trip blanks at concentrations of 21 and 24 μg/L, respectively. Because of this, it is likely that the TPH-g concentrations detected in the groundwater samples are all biased high.

TPH-d was not detected in well HDMW2253-03 during this round of quarterly sampling. TPH-d concentrations last exceeded the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in January 2013 (600 μg/L). Naphthalene was detected but remained at a low concentration, below the DOH EALs and consistent with historical results.

With the exception of TPH-d in well OWDFMW01, groundwater contaminant concentrations remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations detected during this round of sampling were above the DOH EALs for gross contamination (the TPH-d concentration in the duplicate sample was also above the drinkingContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report ES-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### water EAL), but decreased significantly from the last event, and were the lowest they have been since July 2012.

Based on the results of the assessment, continued groundwater monitoring at the RHSF is recommended. If the TPH-d concentrations significantly increase, the monitoring frequency should be increased to monthly, even though the two outside wells are not included in the RHSF

Groundwater Protection Plan.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

This quarterly monitoring report presents the results of the fourth quarter 2013 groundwater sampling event conducted on October 23, 2013, at the outside tunnel wells of the RHSF, JBPHH, Hawaii. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. The purpose of the sampling is to (1) assess the condition of groundwater beneath and in the vicinity of the RHSF with respect to chemical constituents associated with jet fuel propellant and marine diesel fuel, and (2) to ensure the Navy remains in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action (DOH, 2000). The DOH Facility ID number for the RHSF is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and 020028.

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under NAVFAC Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling was conducted in accordance with the appr oved WP/SAP prepared by ESI (ESI, 2012).

1.1 S ITE 

### D ESCRIPTION



### The RHSF is located on federal government land (zoned F1- Military and Federal), located in Halawa Heights, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl Harbor (Figure 1). It is located on a low ridge on the western edge of the Koolau Mountain Range that divides Halawa Valley from Moanalua Valley. The RHSF is bordered on the north by Halawa Correctional Facility and private businesses, on the west by the United Stat es of America [U.S.] Coast Guard reservation, on the south by residential neighborhoods, and on the east by Moanalua Valley. A quarry is located less than a quarter mile away to the northwest. The RHSF occupies 144 acres of land and the majority of the site is at an elevati on of approximately 200 to 500 feet above mean sea

level.

The RHSF contains 18 active and 2 inactive USTs, which are operated by Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center [NAVSU P FLC] Pearl Harbor (formerly Fleet and Industrial Supply Center). Each UST has a capacity of approximately 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer. The USTs contain Jet Fuel Propellant-5 [JP-5], Jet Fuel Propellant-8 [JP-8], and Marine Diesel Fuel [F-76]. The current

status of each of the USTs is summarized in Table 1.1.

Two groundwater monitoring wells (well HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01) are located outside of the RHSF tunnel system (Figure 2). Well HDMW2253-03 is located at the Halawa Correctional Facility (outside the RHSF) and well OWDFMW01 is located at the Oily Waste Disposal Facility near Adit 3. Five groundwat er monitoring wells (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) are located within the RHSF lower access tunnel. Monitoring data for the five wells located inside the tunnel are included in a separate report.

Monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 are located inside the underground tunnels. Monitoring well RHMW2254-01 is located inside the infiltration gallery ofContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### the Department of the Navy [DON] Well 2254-01. DON Well 2254-01 is located approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs and provides approximately 24 percent [%] of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor System, which se rves approximately 52,200 military customers. NAVFAC Public Works Department operates th e infiltration gallery and DON Well 2254-01.

TABLE 1.1 Current Status of the USTs Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility April 2013 Quarterly Monitoring Report

Tank Identification Fuel Type Status Capacity F-1 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons F-2 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-3 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-4 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-5 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-6 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons F-7 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-8 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-9 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-10 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-11 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-12 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-13 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-14 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-15 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-16 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons F-17 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-18 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons F-19 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons F-20 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel

JP-5 Jet Fuel Propellant-5

JP-8 Jet Fuel Propellant-8



### 1.2 P HYSICAL 

### S ETTINGS



### Climatological conditions in the area of the RHS F consist of warm to moderate temperatures and low to moderate rainfall. The RHSF is leeward of the prevailing northeasterly trade winds. The average annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches, which occurs mainly between November and April (State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR], 1986). Annual pan evaporation is approximately 75 inches (DLNR, 1985). Average temperatures range from the low 60’s to high 80’s (degrees Fahrenheit) (Atlas of Hawaii, 1983).

Oahu consists of the eroded remnants of two shield volcanoes, Waianae and Koolau. The RHSF is located on the southwest flank of the Koolau volcanic shield. Lavas erupted during the shield-building phase of the volcano belong to the Koolau Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935). Following formation of the Koolau shield, a long period of volcanic quiescence occurred, during which the shield was deeply eroded. Following this erosional period, eruptive activity resumed. Lavas and pyroclastic material erupted during this period belong to the Honolulu

Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-3 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### In the immediate area of the RHSF, Koolau Volcanic Series lavas dominate, although there are consolidated and unconsolidated non-calcareous deposits in the vicinity that consist of alluvium generated during erosion of the Koolau volcanic shield. South-southwest of the Site, and in isolated exposures to the west, are pyroclas tic deposits formed during eruptions from three Honolulu Volcanic Series vents, Salt Lake, Aliamanu, and Makalapa (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935). Based on established geology and records of the drilled wells (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1938), the RHSF is underlain by Koolau Volcanic Series basalts. The area of the RHSF is

classified as Rock Land , where 25 to 90% of the land surface is covered by exposed rock and there are only shallow soils (Foote, et al., 1972).

Groundwater in Hawaii exists in two principal types of aquifers. The first and most important type, in terms of drinking water resources, is the basal aquifer. The basal aquifer exists as a lens of fresh water floating on and displacing seawater within the pore spaces, fractures, and voids of the basalt that forms the underlying mass of each Hawaiian island. In parts of Oahu, groundwater in the basal aquifer is confined by the overlying caprock and is under pressure. Waters that flow freely to the surface from wells that tap the basal aquifer are referred to as

artesian

.

The second type of aquifer is the caprock aquifer, which consists of various kinds of unconfined and semi-confined groundwater. Commonly, the caprock consists of a thick sequence of nearly impermeable clays, coral, and basalt, which s eparates the caprock aquifer from the basal aquifer. The impermeable nature of these materials and the artesian nature of the basal aquifer severely restrict the downward migration of groundwater from the upper caprock aquifer. In the area of the RHSF, there is no discernible caprock.

Groundwater in the area of the RHSF is part of the Waimalu Aquifer System of the Pearl Harbor Aquifer Sector. The aquifer is classified as a basal, unconfined, flank-type; and is currently used as a drinking water source. The aquifer is considered fresh with less than 250 milligrams per liter of chloride and is considered an irreplaceable resource with a high vulnerability to contamination (Mink and Lau, 1990).

The nearest drinking water supply well is the DON Well 2254-01, located in the infiltration gallery within the RHSF. DON Well 2254-01 is located approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs (Figure 2).

1.3 B ACKGROUND



### The RHSF was constructed by the U.S. Government in the early 1940s. Twenty USTs and a series of tunnels were constructed to supply f uel to the Navy. The USTs were constructed of steel and they currently contain JP-5, JP-8, and F-76. Several tanks in the past have stored DON special fuel oil, DON distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline (Environet, 2010). The fueling system is a self-contained underground unit that was installed into native rock comprised primarily of basalt with some interbedded tuffs and breccias (Environet, 2010). EachContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-4 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### UST measures approximately 245 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at depths varying between 100 feet and 200 feet below ground surface.

In response to increasing concentrations of COPCs in the groundwater monitoring wells within the facility (specifically RHMW02) during the 2008 sampling events, quarterly groundwater monitoring was initiated in 2009 at the outside tunnel wells.

In 2009, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW04, OWDFMW01, and HDMW2253-03. Samples were collected in August and October 2009. None of the COPCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the gross contamination or drinking water toxicity

DOH EALs.

In 2010, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW04, OWDFMW01, and HDMW2253-03. Samples were collected from well RHMW04 in January and April 2010. Samples were collected from well OWDFMW01 in January, April, and October 2010. Samples were collected from well HDMW2253-03 in January, April, July and October 2010. The COPCs concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the gross contamination and drinking water toxicity DOH EAL in January 2010 (The Environmental Company, Inc. [TEC], 2010a).

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the gross contamination and drinking water toxicity DOH EALs in January and April 2010 (TEC, 2010a; TEC, 2010b).

In 2011, groundwater samples were collected from wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October 2011. None of the COPCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the gross contamination or drinking water toxicity DOH

EALs.

In 2012, groundwater samples were collected from wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and November 2012. TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs in samples collected from wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01 (Environet, 2012; ESI, 2013a). The COPCs concentrations exceeding DOH EALs

are summarized below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in April and November 2012.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in April 2012.

In January 2013, groundwater samples were collected from wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03 (ESI 2013b). TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs in samples collected from wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01. The COPCs concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-5 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



###  HDMW2253-03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in January 2013.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in January 2013.

In April 2013, groundwater samples were collected from wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03 (ESI 2013c). TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs in samples collected

from well OWDFMW01. The COPC concentra tions exceeding DOH EALs are summarized

below.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in April 2013.

In July 2013, groundwater samples were collected from wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03 (ESI 2013d). TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs in samples collected

from well OWDFMW01. The COPC concentra tions exceeding DOH EALs are summarized

below.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EALs for gross contamination and drinking water toxicity in July 2013.

1.3.1 Previous Reports

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

1. Groundwater Monitoring Report, August 2009 (submitted September 2009).

2. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2009 (submitted December 2009).

3. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January, 2010 (submitted April 2010).

4. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2010 (submitted May 2010).

5. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2010 (submitted August 2010).

6. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2010 (submitted December 2010).

7. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2011 (submitted March 2011).

8. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2011 (submitted June 2011).

9. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2011 (submitted September 2011).

10. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2011 (submitted December 2011).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 1-6 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### 11. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2012 (submitted March 2012).

12. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2012 (submitted July 2012).

13. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2012 (submitted August 2012).

14. Groundwater Monitoring Report, November 2012 (submitted January 2013).

15. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2013 (submitted April 2013).

16. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2013 (submitted July 2013).

17. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2013 (submitted September 2013).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 2-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 2 – GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

On October 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from two monitoring wells (wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03). The samples were collected in accordance with DOH UST release response requirements and the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008). Prior to purging and sampling, the depth to groundwater and the depth to the bottom of the wells were measured. Well OWDFMW01 was measured by ESI using a Geotech oil/water interface probe. Well HDMW2253-03 was measured by the DLNR using their Geotech oil/water interface probe. The measurements are included in the groundwater sampling logs. No measurable product, sheen, or petroleum hydrocarbon odor was observed in either well.

2.1 G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Prior to collecting groundwater samples, disposable bailers were used to purge groundwater from the monitoring wells. Wells OWDFMW01 and HDMW2253-03 were purged at rates of 0.26 and 0.27 liters per minute, respectively.

Water quality parameters were monitored on a periodic basis during well purging. The water quality parameters that were measured incl uded hydrogen activity [pH], temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation reduction potential. The water quality parameters were evaluated to demonstrate that the natural characteristics of the aquifer formation water were present within the monitoring well before collecting the sample. At least four readings were collected during the purging process. Purging was considered complete when at least three consecutive water quality measurements stabilized within approximately 10%. The readings were recorded on groundwater monitoring logs which are included in Appendix A. The field notes are included in Appendix B.

When the water quality parameters stabilized, groundwater samples were collected from the wells. The disposable bailers were used to collect the groundwater samples from the monitoring wells. For each monitoring well, the groundwater samples were collected no more than two hours after purging was completed to prevent groundwater interaction with the monitoring well casing and atmosphere. Samples collected for dissolved lead were filtered in the field using a peristaltic pump and a 0.45 micron filter.

2.2 A NALYTICAL 

### R ESULTS



### The samples were analyzed for TPH-d using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Method 8015M, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline [TPH-g] and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs] using EPA Method 8260B, Polycyc lic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [PAHs] using EPA Method 8270C SIM, and dissolved lead using EPA Method 6020. The analytical results are summarized below and in Table 2.1. A copy of the laboratory report is included in Appendix C.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-g (15 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.041 μg/L) were detected. The

COPCs were not detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 2-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



###  OWDFMW01 – TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L), TPH-g (17 and 14 μg/L), and acetone (44 and 38 μg/L) were detected in both the primary and duplicate samples. Benzene (0.17 μg/L) was only detected in the duplicate sample. TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L) was detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in the duplicate sample and for only gross contamination in the primary sample.

TPH-g was detected in the method and trip blanks at concentrations of 21 and 24 μg/L, respectively. Because of this, it is likely that the TPH-g concentrations detected in the groundwater samples are all biased high.

2.2.1 Groundwater Contaminant Trends

Historical groundwater contaminant concentration trends of COPCs that exceed the DOH EALs are presented in Appendix D. A summary of groundwater contaminant trends is provided below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-d was not detected during this round of quarterly sampling. TPH-d concentrations last exceeded the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in January 2013 (600 μg/L). Naphthalene was detected but remained at a low concentration, below the DOH EALs and consistent with historical results.

 OWDFMW01 – With the exception of TPH-d, groundwater contaminant concentrations remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations detected during this round of sampling were above the DOH EALs for gross contamination (the TPH-d concentration in the duplicate sample was also above the drinking water EAL), but decreased significantly from t he last event, and were the lowest they have been since July 2012.

2.3 W ASTE 

### D ISPOSAL



### The purged groundwater and decontamination water generated during sampling of the wells was stored in a 55-gallon drum along with the purged water and decontamination water from the inside tunnel wells. The drum was stored onsite at ADIT 3. On December 11, 2013, the drum of water was picked up by Pacific Commercial Services, LLC and disposed at Unitek Solvent Services, Inc. The waste disposal manifest is included in Appendix E.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report2-3January 2014Outside Tunnel WellsTABLE 2.1Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 23, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemicalDOH EALsOWDFMW01 (ES043)OWDFMW01 (ES044) (Dup)HDMW2253-03 (ES045)Drinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 100170HD 50 20 15200HD 50 20 15 N.D. U 50 20 15EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 100 17B,J 50 30 13 14B,J 50 30 13 15B,J 50 30 13EPA 8270C SIMAcenaphthene 370 20 N.D.U 0.2 0.049 0.020 N.D.U 0.20.0490.020 N.D.U 0.20.05 0.021Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.018 N.D.U 0.20.0490.018 N.D.U 0.20.050.018Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.034 N.D.U 0.20.0490.033 N.D.U 0.20.050.034Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.050.024Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.021 N.D.U 0.20.0490.021 N.D.U 0.20.050.022Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.036 N.D.U 0.20.0490.036 N.D.U 0.20.050.036Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.025 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.050.025Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.050.023Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.019 N.D.U 0.20.0490.019 N.D.U 0.20.050.019Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.050.027Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.027 N.D.U 0.20.0490.027 N.D.U 0.20.050.027Fluorene 240 950 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.050.024Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.022 N.D.U 0.20.0490.022 N.D.U 0.20.050.0221,-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.028 N.D.U 0.20.0490.028 N.D.U 0.20.050.0282,-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.050.026Naphthalene 17 21 N.D. U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 0.041 J 0.20.050.023Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.030 N.D.U 0.20.0490.030 N.D.U 0.20.050.031Pyrene 180 68 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.050.025EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.301,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 44 ICH 20 10 6.0 38ICH 20 10 6.0 N.D.ICH 20 10 6.0Benzene 5 170 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 0.17 J 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D.UJ 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.UJ 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.UJ 1.0 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30Xylenes 10,000 20 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23EPA 6020 Dissolved Lead 15 50,000 N.D. U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1.0 0.2 0.0898The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.B Analyte was present in the associated method blank.LOQ Limit of QuantitationDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). N.D. Not DetectedDL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)Q QualifiersEPA Environmental Protection AgencyTPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineHD The chromatographic pattern was inconsistent with the profile of the reference fuel standard.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselICH Initial calibration verification recovery is above the control limit for this analyte.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.IJ Calibration verification recovery is below the control limit for this analyte.J Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.LOD Limit of DetectionContract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report2-4January 2014Outside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 3-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 3 – DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

A data quality assessment, which consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analysis process, was performed in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meet the quality objectives for the project. The field Quality Control [QC] program consisted of standardized sample collection and management procedures, and the collection of field duplicate samples, matrix spike samples, and trip blank samples. The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of Matrix Spike [MS]/Matrix Spike Duplicate [MSD] samples, surrogate spikes, blanks, Laboratory Control Samples [LCS] and Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate [LCSD].

3.1 Data Validation and Assessment

The objective of data validation is to provide dat a of known quality for project decisions. Data quality is judged in terms of Precision, A ccuracy, Representativeness, Completeness, Comparability, and Sensitivity [PARCCS]. A number of factors may affect the quality of data, including: sample collection methods, sample analysis methods, and adherence to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, management, shipment, and analysis.

Precision

Precision is defined as the reproducibility of rep licate measurements. Precision is evaluated by Relative Percentage Difference [RPD] of field duplicates and laboratory LCS/LCSD or MS/MSD results. Field duplicate and MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of approximately 10% of project samples. Field duplicates were sent to the laboratory along with the primary samples.

The RPDs of detected analytes for the primary and field duplicate samples (ES043 and ES044) are provided in Table 3.1. A precision of less than 50% for duplicate pairs is required by the DoN Project Procedures Manual to be considered acceptable (DoN 2007). For this monitoring event, the RPDs for duplicate sample pairs were all within the acceptable range except for benzene, which was detected in duplicate sample ES044, but not in primary sample ES043. In sample ES044, benzene was detected at a concentration below the limit of detection [LOD] and approximately one order of magnitude below the DOH EALs. The result has been flagged “J” for estimated, indicating a reduction in precision that is to be expected with the result so close to the LOD. Therefore, this slight reduction in precision is unlikely to affect data usability, and the data precision is considered acceptable based on the sample duplicated evaluation.

The RPD of the MS/MSD results for acetone and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were above the acceptable maximum of 20%, but below 50%, an RPD recommended in the NAVFAC Project Procedures Manual [DON 2007]. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was not detected during this sampling event and when acetone was detected, it was at concentrations three orders of magnitude below the EALs. Therefore, this is unlikely to affect data usability.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 3-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### Accuracy

Accuracy is defined as the degree of conformity of a measurement to a standard or true value. Accuracy is evaluated through measurement of the percent recovery of an analyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for surrogates, laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the indivi dual laboratory. The acceptance criteria for accuracy are dependent on the analytical method and are based on historical laboratory data.

Results for TPH-d in samples ES043 and ES044 were flagged “HD.” The laboratory indicated a mismatch between the calibration standard and the TPH-d chromatographic profile. Mismatches of this type are not uncommon. The chromatograms are not part of the standard laboratory package and were not reviewed by ESI.

All of the LCS and surrogate spike recoveries for analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits. The MS and/or MSD recoveries were below the control limits for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and the associated sample results may be biased low. Sample results for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were flagged “UJ.” 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was not detected in any of the groundwater samples. However the drinking water EAL for 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane is below the respective LODs. Based on historical results and the results of other VOCs in the sample; it is not likely that 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is present at concentrations above the DOH

EALs.

The MS and/or MSD recoveries were above the control limits for acetone, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, and the associated sample results may be biased high. None of the

COPCs were detected at concentrations above t he DOH EALs, so a potential high bias should not affect data usability.

All other MS/MSD recoveries were within acceptable recovery limits; therefore, the data accuracy for this monitoring event is considered acceptable.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree that data accurately and precisely represents a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition. Representativeness was achieved by conducting sampling in compliance with the sample collection procedures described in the WP/SAP specif ically written for this project (ESI, 2012).

Representativeness is also evaluated through the compliance with the sample holding time, sample preservation, and the analysis of blank samples, including method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding time and sample preservation complied with the EPA criteria. For this sampling event, one trip blank was included in the cooler to assess contamination during sample transport for TPH-g and VOCs. TPH-g was detected in the trip blank (24 μg/L) and method blank (21 μg/L) at concentrations below the limit of detection [LOD]. TPH-g was detected in all field samples at concentrations below the DOH EALs. It is likely that TPH-g concentrations in the samples have been affected by laboratory contamination and are biased high; however, because the concentrations are all well below the DOH EALs, this is unlikely toContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 3-3 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### affect data usability. Therefore, the groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site.

Completeness Completeness is defined as the overall percentage of valid analytical results (including estimated results) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the laboratory. No data were rejected for this project, and therefore the completeness goal for this project (90%) was successfully met.

Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another data set. Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are measures of data reliability. Data, with acce ptable precision and accuracy, are considered comparable if collection techniques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this monitoring event, the samples were collected using approaches consistent with those in the previous events, and the same analytical methods/procedures were used to measure the concentration of COPCs. Therefore, the results are considered comparable within this data set and with the data collected from previous sampling events. The field and laboratory personnel followed standard operation procedures.

All TPH-g data through July 2010 was analyzed by EPA Method 8015; beginning in October 2010, EPA Method 8260B was used. There was no event where both methods were used, and so there is no way to directly compare the results using each method and determine if one method produces biased results. However, there is no reason to believe that using either method should bias the data, and the TPH-g data for all events should be comparable.

Between August 2009 and July 2010, naphthalene was analyzed for by both EPA Methods 8260B and 8270C, and both results were reported. Beginning in October 2010, only results using EPA Method 8270C were reported. Naphthalene was not detected in any well until November 2012, so comparability with older results should not be a concern. However, the low

bias associated with EPA Method 8270C must be considered when making project decisions.

Sensitivity

The LOQs are established by the laboratory based on the LODs or instrument detection limits, historical data, and EPA limits established for the methods. The LOQs for samples may require adjustment due to matrix interference or if high levels of target analytes necessitate dilution before analysis. Matrix interference and sample dilutions have the effect of increasing the LOQs. Laboratory LODs and LOQs for several analyt es differed from the LODs and LOQs in the WP/SAP because the laboratory updates them quarterly. LODs and LOQs for several analytes were greater than the DOH EALs (as stated in the WP/SAP) and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the analytes are present at concentrations greater than or equal to the DOH EALs. As suggested by the DOH Technical Guidance Manual, the project action level will be the LOQ for these analytes.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 3-4 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### 3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions

The PARCCS criteria were evaluated, and with a few exceptions, all criteria were met. These exceptions include the exceedances of recovery criteria for MS/MSDs for several VOCs and PAHs. Since the surrogate recoveries and the recoveries of the VOCs and PAHs in the LCS/LCSD are all within recovery criteria, the MS/MSD exceendaces are not considered to affect the usability of the data, but may indicate some matrix heterogeneity. The data assessment concludes that all data generated during this event are usable for their intended

purpose.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report3-5January 2014Outside Tunnel WellsTABLE 3.1Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 23, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsOWDFMW01 (ES043)OWDFMW01 (ES044) (DUP)RPDDuplicate(%)ES TripDrinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 100170HD 50 20 15200HD 50 20 1516.22- - - - -EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 100 17B,J 50 30 13 14B,J 50 30 1319.35 24B,J 50 30 13EPA 8270C SIMAcenaphthene 370 20 N.D.U 0.2 0.049 0.020 N.D.U 0.20.0490.020 NA - - - - -Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.018 N.D.U 0.20.0490.018 NA - - - - -Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.034 N.D.U 0.20.0490.033 NA - - - - -Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 NA - - - - -Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.021 N.D.U 0.20.0490.021 NA - - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.036 N.D.U 0.20.0490.036 NA - - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.025 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 NA - - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 NA - - - - -Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.019 N.D.U 0.20.0490.019 NA - - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.0490.026 NA - - - - -Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.027 N.D.U 0.20.0490.027 NA - - - - -Fluorene 240 950 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 NA - - - - -Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.022 N.D.U 0.20.0490.022 NA - - - - -1,-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.028 N.D.U 0.20.0490.028 NA - - - - -2,-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.026 N.D.U 0.20.0490.026 NA - - - - -Naphthalene 17 21 N.D. U 0.2 0.0490.023 N.D.U 0.20.0490.023 NA - - - - -Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.030 N.D.U 0.20.0490.030 NA - - - - -Pyrene 180 68 N.D.U 0.2 0.0490.024 N.D.U 0.20.0490.024 NA - - - - -EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.30 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.301,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.38 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.28 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 NA N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.5 NA N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 N.D.U 10 2.0 1.2 NA N.D.U 10 2.0 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.36 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.46 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.42 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.4 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 44 ICH 20 10 6.0 38ICH 20 10 6.0 14.63 N.D.ICH 20 10 6.0Benzene 5 170 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 0.17 J 1.0 0.5 0.14 NAN.D. U 1.0 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50 N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50 NA N.D.U 10 1.0 0.50Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9 N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9 NA N.D.U 20 5.0 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3 NA N.D.U 10 5.0 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8 N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8 NA N.D.U, IJ 10 2.0 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2 N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2 NA N.D.U, ICH 10 5.0 2.2Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 NA N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64 NA N.D.U 5.0 1.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.40Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39 NA N.D.U 5.0 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30 N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30 NA N.D.U 1.0 0.5 0.30Xylenes 10,000 20 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23 NA N.D.U 11 1.5 0.23EPA 6020 Dissolved Lead 15 50,000 N.D. U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1.0 0.2 0.0898 NA - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.DOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). LOQ Limit of QuantitationDL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)NA Both results for duplicate pair were non-detect, no RPD calculationsEPA Environmental Protection AgencyN.D. Not DetectedHD The chromatographic pattern was inconsistent with the profile of the reference fuel standard.Q QualifiersJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineLOD Limit of DetectionTPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselU Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report3-6January 2014Outside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 4-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### SECTION 4 – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This quarterly monitoring report presents the results of groundwater sampling conducted on October 23, 2013, at the RHSF, JBPHH, Hawaii. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. The DOH Facility ID number for the RHSF is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and 020028.

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under NAVFAC Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling was conducted in accordance with the approved WP/SAP prepared by ESI.

On October 23, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from two monitoring wells (wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01). A summary of the analytical results is provided below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-g (15 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.041 μg/L) were detected. The

COPCs were not detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 OWDFMW01 – TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L), TPH-g (17 and 14 μg/L), and acetone (44 and 38 μg/L) were detected in both the primary and duplicate samples. Benzene (0.17 μg/L) was only detected in the duplicate sample. TPH-d (170 and 200 μg/L) was detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in the duplicate sample and for only gross contamination in the primary sample.

TPH-g was detected in the method and trip blanks at concentrations of 21 and 24 μg/L, respectively. Because of this, it is likely that the TPH-g concentrations detected in the groundwater samples are all biased high.

Groundwater Contaminant Trends

Historical groundwater contaminant concentra tion trends of COPCs that exceeded the DOH EALs are presented in Appendix D. A summary of groundwater contaminant trends is provided below.

 HDMW2253-03 – TPH-d was not detected during this round of quarterly sampling. TPH-d concentrations last exceeded the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination in January 2013 (600 μg/L). Naphthalene was detected but remained at a low concentration, below the DOH EALs and consistent with historical results.

 OWDFMW01 – With the exception of TPH-d, groundwater contaminant concentrations remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations detected during this round of sampling were above the DOH EALsContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 4-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination, but decreased significantly from the last event, and were the lowest they have been since July 2012.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the wells were last sampled (July 2013), with the exception of TPH-d in well OWDFMW01, groundwater contaminant concentrations remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations decreased in well OWDFMW01, but remained above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. TPH-d concentrations in well OWDFMW01 decreased from 470 μg/L during the last round of sampling to 170 μg/L during this round. TPH-d was not detected in well HDMW2253-03 during this event and was last detected during April 2013 (45 μg/L).

Based on the results of the assessment, continued groundwater monitoring at the RHSF is recommended. If the TPH-d concentrations significantly increase, the monitoring frequency should be increased to monthly, even though the two outside wells are not included in the

RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 5-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 5 – FUTURE WORK

G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Future work includes the first quarter 2014 gr oundwater monitoring which is scheduled for January 2014. It is anticipated that the quarterly groundwater monitoring status report will be

submitted in March 2014.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 5-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 6-1 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

Atlas of Hawaii, 1983, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii Press.

DLNR, 1985, Pan Evaporation: State of Hawai’i 1894-1983: Report R74, Division of Water and Land Development, August 1995.

DLNR, 1986, Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii: Report R76, Division of Water and Land Development,

June 1986.

DOH, 2000, Hawaii Department of Health, Technical Guidance Manual for Underground Storage Tank Closure and Release Response, March 2000.

DOH, 2011, Screening for Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Hawai'i Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response,

December 2011.

DON, 2007, Project Procedures Manual, U.S. Na vy Installation Restoration Program, NAVFAC Pacific, Prepared for Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC Pacific), February 2007.

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

Environet, 2012, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report-Outside (Non-Tunnel Wells), Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, July 2012.

ESI, 2012, Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, October 2012.

ESI, 2013a, Fourth Quarter 2012 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, January 2013.

ESI, 2013b, First Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, April 2013.

ESI, 2013c, Second Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, July 2013.

ESI, 2013d, Third Quarter 2013 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Outside Tunnel Wells, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, September 2013.

Foote et al., 1972, Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of

Hawaii.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2013 Status Report 6-2 January 2014 Outside Tunnel Wells 

### Mink, J. F. and Lau, L. S., 1990, Aquifer Identif ication and Classification for Oahu: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawaii: Water Resources Research Center Technical Report No. 179, February 1990.

Stearns, H. T. and Vaksvik, K. N., 1935, Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii: Hawaii Div. Hydrogr. Bull.

Stearns, H. T. and Vaksvik, K. N., 1938, Records of the Drilled Wells on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii: Hawaii Div. Hydrogr. Bull. 4, 213 p.

TEC, 2008, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Prepared for Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, January 2008.

TEC, 2010a, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report – Outside (Non-Tunnel) Wells, Prepared for Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, April 2010.

TEC, 2010b, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report – Outside (Non-Tunnel) Wells, Prepared for Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, May 2010.

# FIGURES

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.KAENAPOINTKAHUKUMAKAHAMAILINANAKULIWAIANAEBARBERSPOINTEWABEACHHONOLULUINTERNATIONALAIRPORTWAIKIKIDIAMONDHICKAMAFBKAPOLEIEWAMOKULEIAHALEIWAWAIMEAPOINTLAIEPUNALUUKAAAWAWAIAHOLEKANEOHE BAYKANEOHEMOKAPUKAILUAWAIMANALOMAKAPUUPOINTHAWAIIKAIKAHALAHONOLULUWAHIAWASCHOFIELDBARRACKSPEARL CITY8393080399807808361637872618383676637809393075099H3H1H1H1H2(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGERED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)GRAPHIC SCALE0900900Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesPROJECTLOCATIONFIGURE 1SITE LOCATIONGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.RHMW05RHMW04HDMW2253-03SVMP04SVMP06SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP17SVMP15SVMP11SVMP09SVMP07SVMP05SVMP03RHMW03(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)RED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYSVMP13SVMP08HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGEHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)RHMW2254-01U.S. Navy Well 2254-01RHMW01SVMP02RHMW02SVMP10OWDFMW01GRAPHIC SCALE01,2001,200Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYHALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITYHALAWA STREAMBUILDINGROADABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKWATER TANKSOIL VAPOR MONITORING POINTGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED INSIDE TUNNELGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED OUTSIDE TUNNELBOARD OF WATER SUPPLY PUMPSTATIONLEGENDSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesFIGURE 2SITE LAYOUTGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX A

Groundwater Sampling Logs

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: 16 - 40ml VOAs, 6 - 1L amber jar, 4 - 500ml amber jar, 4 - 500ml HDPE

10/23/2013 1200 Disposable Hand Bailer

Triple Rinsed YSI did not have salinity parameter Branden Ibara, Jeff Hattemer
Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim;

lead - 6020

ES034, ES034 MS/MSD [0745]; ES035 [0830] Clear

Low

White Particles -154.0

-170.8

-181.2

-180.0

-190.8

-179.4

- 23.41 -

-

-

-

- 23.63 23.84 23.81 23.51 23.47

2.13 1.45

2.00

2.04

2.40

2.27 3.230

3.229

3.249

3.254 0.0 L

1.0 L

2.0 L

3.0 L

4.0 L

5.0 L 720

723

727

731 0.26 L/min 121.96 ft 5.0 L -

712

715 9.69

11.03 3.042

3.185 Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)
2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 11.12

11.11

11.18

11.13 145.10 ft

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Branden Ibara, Jeff Hattemer

Sunny, Hot

Disposable Hand Bailer

Temperature Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

120.74 ft Date: 10/23/2013 710 OWDFMW01

Appendix A Outside

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: 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:

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color:
Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes:

Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx
10/23/2013 1200 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)
2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 lead - 6020

ES036 [0930]
Triple Rinsed YSI did not have salinity parameter. Brake in bailing occurred between 0L and 1L because DLNR personal

Branden Ibara, Jeff Hattemer 6 - 40ml VOAs, 2 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml amber jar, 1 - 250ml HDPE

went back to office to retrieve reel to retrieve diver from well. Tan

Low

None

None

TPH-d - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270c sim; Disposable Hand Bailer - -131.2 1014 4.0 L 6.75 0.491 2.73 22.37 - -149.6

1009 3.0 L 6.76 0.490 2.71 22.39 - -128.3 1004 2.0 L 6.84 0.792 1.66 22.40 - -140.7

959 1.0 L 7.04 0.495 2.48 22.69 - -147.4 906 0.0 L 8.07 0.576 3.23 23.02 - 0.27 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV) 1575 ft Branden Ibara, Jeff Hattemer

- Sunny, Hot

- Disposable Hand Bailer Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Fa cilit y 112066

- Date: 10/23/2013 900 HDMW2253-03

Appendix A Outside

# APPENDIX B

Field Notes

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX C

Laboratory Reports

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# WORK ORDER NUMBER: 13-10-1893

Analytical Report For

Client: Environmental Science International, Inc. Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Attention: Robert Chong

354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734-2500

Approved for release on by: Richard Villafania Project Manager AIR SOIL WATER MARINE CHEMISTRY

Calscience Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (Calscience) certifies that the test results provided in this report meet all NELAC requirements for parameters for which accreditation is required or available. Any exceptions to NELAC requirements are noted in the case narrative. The original report of subcontracted analyses, if any, is attached to this report. The results in this report are limited to the sample(s) tested and any reproduction thereof must be made in its entirety. The client or recipient of this report is specifically prohibited from making material changes to said report and, to the extent that such changes are made, Calscience is not responsible, legally or otherwise. The client or recipient agrees to indemnify Calscience for any defense to any litigation which may arise. 

### 10/31/2013 Page 1 of 36

# Contents

7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841-1427 • TEL: (714) 895-5494 • FAX: (714) 894-7501 Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 13-10-1893



## 1 Work Order Narrative

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

2 Client Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 EPA 8015B (M) TPH Diesel (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 EPA 6020 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 EPA 8270C SIM PAHs (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 GC/MS GRO/EPA 8260B Volatile Organics (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Quality Control Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 MS/MSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 PDS/PDSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 LCS/LCSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Sample Analysis Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Page 2 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 3 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 4 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 5 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 6 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 7 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 8 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 9 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 10 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 11 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 12 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 13 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 14 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 15 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 16 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 17 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 18 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 19 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 20 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 21 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 22 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 23 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 24 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 25 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 26 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 27 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 28 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 29 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 30 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 31 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 32 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 33 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 34 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 35 of 36Return to Contents 

### Page 36 of 36

# APPENDIX D

Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600 8/4/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/26/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 1/21/2011 1/21/2011 4/21/2011 4/21/2011 7/21/2011 7/21/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 1/24/2012 1/24/2012 4/26/2012 7/19/2012 11/7/2012 1/30/2013 4/24/2013 7/24/2013 10/23/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforOWDFMW01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.050100150200250300350400450500550600650 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/26/2010 7/8/2010 10/21/2010 1/21/2011 4/21/2011 7/21/2011 10/26/2011 1/24/2012 4/26/2012 7/19/2012 11/7/2012 1/30/2013 4/24/2013 7/24/2013 10/23/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforHDMW2253‐03DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX E

Waste Disposal Manifest

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.