# Qu a Re p

Red H i
O‘ahu

,

Latitu d Longi t

DOH F
DOH R

Decem b



# Depar t
Naval
400 M a JBPH H

Envir o Contr a 

# a rterl

p ort

i ll Bulk F

, Hawai‘i

d e: 21°2 2

t ude: 15 7

F acility I D
R elease I D

b er 2011



# t ment of t
F acilitie s

a rshall R o H HI 968 6

o nmental

a ct Num b 

# y Gr o

uel Stor a

2 ’15”N

7 °53’33” W

D No. 9-1 0

D No. 99 0

t he Nav y

s Engine e

o ad
6 0-3139

Technic a b er N627 4 

# o un d

a ge Facili

W

0 2271
0 51, 0100

y

e ring Co m

a l Servic e 4 2-08-D-1 

# d wat e

ty, Joint

11, 0200 2

m mand, H

e s 930, CT O 

# e r M o

Base Pe a

2 8

H awai‘i

O HC21 

# o nito r

a rl Harb o 

# ing

r-Hicka m ,

# Qu a Re p

Red H i
O‘ahu

,

Latitu d Longi t

DOH F
DOH R

Decem b

Prepare



# Depar t
Naval
400 M a JBPH H

Prepare



# Envir o 650 Iw
Honol u

Prepare



# Envir o Contr a 

# a rterl

p ort

i ll Bulk F

, Hawai‘i

d e: 21°2 2

t ude: 15 7

F acility I D
R elease I D

b er 2011

d for:



# t ment of t
F acilitie s

a rshall R o H HI 968 6

d by:



# o net, Inc.

ilei Road

u lu, HI 9 6

d under:



# o nmental

a ct Num b 

# y Gr o

uel Stor a

2 ’15”N

7 °53’33” W

D No. 9-1 0

D No. 99 0

t he Nav y

s Engine e

o ad
6 0-3139

, Suite 2 0
6 817-531 8

Technic a b er N627 4 

# o un d

a ge Facili

W

0 2271
0 51, 0100

y

e ring Co m

0 4
8

a l Servic e 4 2-08-D-1 

# d wat e

ty, Joint

11, 0200 2

m mand, H

e s 930, CT O 

# e r M o

Base Pe a

2 8

H awai‘i

O HC21 

# o nito r

a rl Harb o 

# ing

r-Hicka m ,Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Table of Contents

December 2011



## 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 .......................................................................................... 2-3

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 ................................................................................... 4-2

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

December 2011



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

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

5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 5-3

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

Tables

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

October-November 2011 ........................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarte rly Groundwater Monitoring, October-November

2011 .......................................................................................................................... . 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, October-November

2011 ......................................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 4-1: Field QC Resu lts, October-November 2011 ............................................................. 4-3

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 October-November 2011 Appendix C: Field Notebook, October-November 2011 Appendix D: Groundwater Sampli ng Logs, October-November 2011 Appendix E: Laboratory An alytical Results, October-November 2011 (on CD-ROM)Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

December 2011



## iii 

# List of Acronyms

< less than % percent

μ g/L micrograms per liter COPC chemical of potential concern DL detection limit or method detection limit (MDL) DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources

DOH State of Hawai‘i 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 EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbon

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) MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate N/A not applicable

ND not detected NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVSUP United States Naval Supply Systems Command NP measurement not provided

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

SWL static water levelQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i List of Acronyms

December 2011



## iv TEC The Environmental Company, Inc. TIC tentatively identified compound TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons U Indicates the compound or anal yte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.

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

December 2011



## v 

# Executive Summary

This report documents the results of the qu arterly groundwater monitoring performed in

October-November 2011 at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHSF). There are 18 active, and two inactive 12.5 million gallon cap acity, field-constructed underground storage tanks (USTs) located at the RHSF. Previous envi ronmental site investigations indicated a release

had occurred and contaminated the groundwater underlying the RHSF.

The United States (U.S.) Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting groundwater samples quarterly fr om U.S. Navy Well 2254- 01 (RHMW2254-01) and four groundwater monitoring wells (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 and compares them to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for samples collected on October 24, 25, and November 2, 2011 at the five groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05).

Contaminant trends that have exceeded DOH Dri nking Water EALs are also provided in this
report.

October-November 2011 Groundw ater Monitoring Results

Laboratory analytical results indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbon s (TPHs)-diesel range organics (DRO) were present in the groundwat er beneath the RHSF (m onitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02) at or above the DOH Drinking Wate r EAL. All other ch emical of potential concern (COPC) concentrations (i.e., TPH-Gasoline Range Orga nics (GRO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydr ocarbons (PAHs), and di ssolved lead) were

below the EALs.

In monitoring well RHMW2254-01, all COPCs were not detected at or above the limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs).

In monitoring well RHMW01, TPH- DRO (210 micrograms per liter [μ g/L) was detected at a concentration equal to the DOH Drinki ng Water EAL and exceeded the DOH Gross Contamination groundwater EAL. Chloroform (0.13 μ g/L) was detected at estimated concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPC s in monitoring well

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

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (750 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Gross C ontamination groundwater EALs. Naphthalene (0.80 μ g/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene (0.53 μ g/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs . Acenaphthene (0.17 μ g/L), fluorene (0.082 μ g/L), and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μ g/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below the DOHQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

December 2011



## vi Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs in monitoring well RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW03, dissolved lead (0.22 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EA L. All other COPCs in monitoring well

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

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

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

Collective concentrations of aliphatic and arom atic hydrocarbons were analyzed this monitoring event utilizing Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) and volatile pe troleum hydrocarbon (VPH) methods to more accurately determine if the TPH-DRO detected is petroleum based or non-petroleum based (DOH, 2010, Appendix A). The subsequent three consecutive quarterly m onitoring events will

not include MADEP EP H and VPH analyses.

MADEP EPH analytical results for TPH-DRO typical ly have the majority of the hydrocarbons in

the C 10 

## to C 20 

## range. In monitoring well RHMW01, C 11 

## -C 22 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were de tected at concentrations of

50.5 μ g/L, 20.6 μ g/L, and 69.9 μ g/L, respectively. These analyt ical results are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 18 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are lik ely petroleum based. In monitoring well RHMW02, C 11 

## -C 22 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and

C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were dete cted at concentrations of 166 μ g/L, 200 μ g/L, and 671

μ g/L, respectively. Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C 9 

## -C 18 

## ) were detected at an estimated concentration

of 28.0 μ g/L. These analytical results are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 22 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

In monitoring well RHMW03, C 9 

## -C 18 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at an estimated

concentration of 26 μ g/L. This analytical result indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

In monitoring well RHMW05, all a liphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon s were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

TPH-DRO Contaminant Trends

TPH-DRO concentrations at RH MW01 have fluctuated at or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL except in October-November 2010 and Janu ary 2011 when TPH-DRO was not detected at

or above the LODs a nd LOQs (Appendix B).

At RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations have been consistently well above the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the site-specific-risk-b ased level (SSRBL) twice: in December 2008 and April 2010 (Appendix B).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

December 2011



## vii 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 the highest concentration (330 μ g/L). TPH-DRO was not de tected at or above the LODs and LOQs in the past four consecu tive quarterly groundwate r monitoring events.

At RHMW05, TPH-DRO concentra tions increased from the first sampling event in May 2009 to January 2010 and were all above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. However, in the past seven consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring ev ents, TPH-DRO has not been detected above the DOH Drinking Water EAL or at or above the LODs and LOQs.

TPH-GRO Contaminant Trends

TPH-GRO has remained below the DOH Drinking Water EAL or has not been detected in monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW03, and RH MW05. TPH-GRO concentrations at RHMW02 have fluctuated above and below the 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 concentrations increased slightly in Ap ril 2011 to a detected concentration of 24 μ g/L which is

below the EAL. TPH-GRO was not detected above the LODs and LOQs in July 2011 and during this October-November 2011 event.

PAHs Contaminant Trend at RHMW02

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-methyl naphthalene have remained below the EAL. Concentrations of 1-methylna phthalene decreased below the EAL in October 2009; however

concentrations have exhibited an increasing trend above the EAL during six subsequent quarterly groundwater monitoring events. Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene again decreased below the EAL in July 2011 and during the October-N ovember 2011 groundwater monitoring event. Naphthalene concentrations decreased to be low the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009, increased above the EAL in October 2009, and remained above the EAL in Janu ary 2011. Naphthalene

concentrations decreased to below the EAL again in April 2011, July 2011, and during this October-November 2011 groundwater 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 samp les collected from other monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting th e Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monito ring well RHMW05 have decreased to below the EALs for the past seve n consecutive quarterly m onitoring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in sa mples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the US Ts are not migrating in the dow ngradient direction. RHMW05 isQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Executive Summary

December 2011



## viii an intermediate monitoring poi nt between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migr ating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples coll ected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increas ing between consecutive sampling events. Concentrations of 1-methylnaph thalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events, but then decreased in the subsequent three groundwa ter monitoring events. The fluctuations in concentration measured during this event a nd previous events indicate the source of 1-methylnaphthalene is very likely residual contamin ation from a historical release at the RHSF. The general overall long-term tre nd in 1-methylnaphthalene concen tration is decreasing and does

not indicate a new release at the site.

The majority of the aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons detected were within the C 10 

## -C 20 

## range. This indicates that the detected TPH-DRO is likely petroleum based.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this monitoring even t, continuation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition continuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring are also recommended. In re sponse to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, su bmission of this quart erly report to DOH and continuation of a leak determination prog ram as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (The Environmental Company Inc. (TEC), 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 1-1 

# Section 1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 25 th 

## groundwater monitoring event conducted in October-November 2011 at the RHSF, Joint Ba se Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Figure 1-1). The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by the United States Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistic s Center (FLC) Pearl Harbor. The groundwater sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring program for the UST site in response to pa st UST releases, previous environmental investigations, and recommendations from the DOH. The groundwater monitoring was performed by Environet for the Department of the Navy (DON), Naval Fa cilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Hawai‘i under Environmen tal Technical Services, Contract Number N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order HC21.

The field activities performed for the October-N ovember 2011 quarterly groundwater monitoring

event were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the Work Plan, Long-Term Monitoring, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Environet, 2010).



# 1.1 Project Objective

The groundwater monitoring was performed to ev aluate the presence of COPCs in groundwater underlying the RHSF. The groundwater monitori ng was conducted to ensure the DON remains in compliance with DOH UST re lease response requirements as described in Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 11- 281 Subchapter 7, Release Respons e Action. Analytical results are compared to the DOH Drinking Water EALs 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

December 2011



## 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 a 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

December 2011



## 1-4 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 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); and

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



# 1.2.5 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001 - From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted an investigation at the RHSF to assess potential releases from the fuel USTs and piping systems. In February 2001, the Navy installed a one-inch diameter monitoring well RHMW01 (pre viously known as MW-V1D) to monitor for contamination of the basal aquifer underlying th e RHSF. The well was installed and completed at approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access t unnel. At the time of well completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was meas ured 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 construction material (TEC, 2007). Previous sampling efforts showed elevated lead concentrations when analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered had resolved this issue. Samples were filtered in September 2005 and December 2005, and dissolved

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

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 1-6 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).

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;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 1-7  

## 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 site-specific risk-based level (SSRBL) of 4,500 μg/L fo r 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;

 

## 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;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 1-8  

## naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-met hylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in February 2009, however only the 1-methylnaphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in May 2009 and July 2009 and only the naphthalene concentration exceeded the EAL in October 2009;

 

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

 

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

2010 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were 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 2010were attributed to te ntatively 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; and

 

## 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.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 1

Introduction

December 2011



## 1-9 2011 Groundwater Sampling

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

 

## no COPCs were detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 in January, April, and July 2011 ex cept 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 co ncentration which exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01 in July 2011;

 

## TPH-DRO and 1-methylnaphthalene and were detected at concentrations which exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02 in January and April 2011; and TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration which exceeded the EAL, and 1-methylnaphthalene was detected at concen tration which were below the EAL in July 2011;

 

## naphthalene was detected at a concentra tion which exceeded the EAL in samples
collected from RHMW02 in January 2011, however in April and July 2011 naphthalene was detected at a concentration below the EAL;

 

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

 

## TPH-GRO and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations below the EALs at RHMW02 in April 2011, and 2-methylnaphtha lene was detected at an estimated concentration below that EAL in July 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 Ap ril 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

December 2011



## 1-10 

# 1.2.6 Regulatory Updates

During the summer and fall of 2008 DOH updated th eir EALs which resulted in significant changes to the action levels associated with me thylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity EAL for these compounds was 240 μ g/L. This concentration pres umed that methylnaphthalenes were non-carcinogenic. Evidence th at they are human carcinogens has now been accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, DOH adopted more rigorous EALs

of 4.7 μ g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24 μ g/L for 2-methylnaphthale ne, corresponding to a residential tap water scenario, a nd a one in a million 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 was

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 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

December 2011



## 2-1 

# Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the five monitoring wells (RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05) on October 24, 25, and November 2, 2011 using procedures described in the Work Pl an (Environet, 2010). Field 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 ga uging measurements were collected at the five monitoring wells prior to purging and sample collection. A Solinst  

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



# 2.2 Groundwater Sampling

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



# 2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

Each monitoring well was purged using a dedi cated bladder pump system. Groundwater was purged at a low flow rate (less than one liter per minute) using the dedicated bladder pump system until three or more successive water qu ality parameter measurements had stabilized
within 10%. 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 de dicated bladder pump systems. Groundwater samples were collected directly into laborator y provided specially clea ned sample containers already containing the appropriate preservatives (i.e., nitric aci d for dissolved lead analysis, hydrochloric acid for aliphatic and aromatic hydro carbon analyses). The dissolved lead samples were filtered in the field, and placed in pol yethylene bottles containing preservatives.



# 2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment

Each sample container sent to the laboratory was assigned a project- specific chain-of-custody identification number and a descriptive identification number. The sample identifiers provided specific data unique to each sample and were entered into the field notebook. The samples were labeled according to the procedures described in Procedure III-E, Record Keeping, Sample Labeling, and Chain-of-Custody (DON, 2007).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

December 2011



## 2-2 Following sample collection and labeling, the sample containers were bubble-wrapped and placed into individual ZipLoc  

## bags, then immediately into insulated coolers with ice for preservation. The samples were shipped via FedEx to the laboratory on the 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, TPH-DRO by EPA Method 8015B, PAHs by EPA Method 8270D SIM, dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020, and alipha tic and aromatic hydrocarbons by MADEP VPH and EPH methods. APPL, Inc. subcontracted the aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon analyses to Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories.

Collective concentrations of aliphatic and arom atic hydrocarbons were analyzed this monitoring event utilizing MADEP EPH and VPH methods to more accurately determine if the TPH-DRO detected is petroleum based or non-petroleum based (DOH, 2010, Appendix A). The subsequent three consecutive quarterly monitoring events will not include MADEP EPH and VPH analyses. MADEP EPH analytical results for TPH-DRO typical ly have the majority of the hydrocarbons in

the C 10 

## to C 20 

## range.



# 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.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

December 2011



## 2-3 

# 2.6 Equipment Decontamination

Decontamination of monitoring equipment was pe rformed to ensure data quality, to prevent cross contamination, and to prevent the potential introduction of contamin ants into previously un-impacted areas. Decontamination of monitoring equipment (i.e., Solinst ® 

## oil/water interface probe and Horiba ® 

## 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.



# 2.7 Investigation-Derived Waste Management

Investigation-derived waste (IDW) was managed in accordance with the procedures described in Procedure I-A-6, IDW Management (DON, 2007). The various poten tial waste streams included the following:

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

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

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

Equipment rinse water and purge water was dis posed of in the RHSF’s lower tunnel oil/water
separator sump.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 2 Groundwater Monitoring Activities

December 2011



## 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

December 2011



## 3-1 

# Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from the five monitoring wells on October 24, 25, a nd November 2, 2011. Complete analytical laboratory reports are pr ovided 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 October-November 2011 sampling event. The tr end of free product measurements over time show that in January 2008, L NAPL was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02

at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not observed in a ny other monitoring wells. Since

the thickness of less than 0.01 feet observed in January 2008, no free product has been observed in any of these RHSF monitoring wells (Table 3-1).



# 3.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

All 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

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

RHMW01

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration of 210 μ g/L which is equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and exceeds the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100

μ g/L). Chloroform was detected at an estimated concentration of 0.13 μ g/L, which was below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs we re not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

Aromatic hydrocarbons (C 11 

## -C 22 

## ), C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 50.5 μ g/L, 20.6 μ g/L, and 69.9 μ g/L, respectively. MADEP EPH analytical results fo r TPH-DRO typically have the majority of the hydrocarbons in the C 10 

## to C 20 

## range. These analytical resu lts are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 22 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

RHMW02

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration of 750 μ g/L which exceeded both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL (100 μ g/L) (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). Naphthalene (0.80 μ g/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene (0.53 μ g/L) were

detected at concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (17 μ g/L for naphthalene and 4.7 μ g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (21 μ g/L for naphthalene and 10 μ g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 3-2 Acenaphthene (0.17 μ g/L), fluorene (0.082 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μ g/L) were

detected at estimated concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs (370 μ g/L for acenaphthene, 240 μ g/L for fluorene and 24 μ g/L for 2-methylnaphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (20 μ g/L for acenaphthene, 950 μ g/L for fluorene, and 10 μ g/L for 2-methylnaphthalene). All other COPCs were not det ected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E).

Aromatic hydrocarbons (C 11 

## -C 22 

## ), C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 166 μ g/L, 200 μ g/L, and 671 μ g/L, respectively. Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C 9 

## -C 18 

## ) were detected at an es timated concentration of 28.0 μ g/L. These analytical results are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 22 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

RHMW03

Dissolved lead (0.22 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was below both the DOH Drinking Water EAL (15 μ g/L) and the DOH Groundwater Gross 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).

Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C 9 

## -C 18 

## ) were detected at an es timated concentration of 26 μ g/L. This analytical result indicates th at the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

RHMW05

All COPCs were not detected at or above the L ODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). All aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons were also no t detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.



# 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 le ss than 25% of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July 2009; increased in October 2009 (299F μ g/L), January 2010 (312F μ g/L), and April 2010 (377Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through October-November 2011Elevation = 102.27 ft.1Elevation = 104.76 ft.1Elevation = 121.06 ft.1Elevation = 101.55 ft.1DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPL DTW (TOC) SWL LNAPLSep-2007NT2NT2NT286.80 17.96NP103.44 17.62NP~~~Jan-200884.6717.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 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 0.00Notes:2A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed.7The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to the installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes.Units are in feet (ft.).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less 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, Contract #N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order 54, dated April 15, 2010.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 3-4 This page is intentionally left blank.Table 3-2: Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, October-November 2011Q LOQ LOD DLQ LOQ LOD DLQ LOQ LOD DLQ LOQ LOD DLQ LOQ LOD DLC11-C22 Aromatics--ND U 101 42.5 42.5 50.5 J 101 42.5 42.5 166 100 42.1 42.1U104 43.9 43.9U 103 43.4 43.4C19-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons--ND U 101 60.6 31.6 ND U 101 60.6 31.6 ND U 100 60.0 31.3U104 62.5 32.6U 103 61.9 32.3C9-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons--ND U 101 22.0 22.0 ND U 101 22.0 22.0 28.0 J 100 21.8 21.826 J104 22.7 22.7U 103 22.5 22.5C5-C8 Aliphatic--ND U 30.0 15.0 3.31 ND U 30.0 15.0 3.31 ND U 300 15.0 33.1U30.0 15.0 3.31U 30.0 15.0 3.31C9-C10 Aromatic--ND U 10.0 5.00 1.24 20.6 10.0 5.00 1.24 200 100 5.00 12.4U10.0 5.00 1.24U 10.0 5.00 1.24C9-C12 Aliphatic--ND U 20.0 10.0 3.20 69.9 20.0 10.0 3.20 671 200 10.0 32.0U20.0 10.0 3.20U 20.0 10.0 3.20EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO210100U150b80.8 40.4++150b80.8 40.4++150b80.8 40.4U 150b80.8 40.4U150b80.8 40.4EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 U 20.0 12.12 6.06U 20.0 12.126.06 U 20.012.126.06U20.0 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 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Anthracene 1,800 22 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 U0.2b0.140.07U0.2b0.14 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.07Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U0.2b0.160.08U0.2b0.16 0.08U0.2b0.16 0.08U0.2b0.16 0.08U0.2b0.16 0.08Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U0.2b0.120.06U0.2b0.12 0.06U0.2b0.12 0.06U0.2b0.12 0.06U0.2b0.12 0.06Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 0.2 0.140.07U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Chrysene 9.2 1 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U0.2b0.100.05U0.2b0.10 0.05U0.2b0.10 0.05U0.2b0.10 0.05U0.2b0.10 0.05Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 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 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 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 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.07U0.2b0.14 0.071-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.062-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.120.06U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.100.05U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 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 U 0.2 0.14 0.07 U 0.2 0.14 0.07Pyrene 180 68 U 0.2 0.160.08U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.08 U 0.2 0.16 0.081,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.141,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.20 U 1.0 0.40 0.201,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 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 U 1.0 0.60 0.30 U 1.0 0.60 0.301,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U2.0b0.78 0.39U2.0b0.78 0.39U 2.0 0.78 0.39U2.0b0.78 0.39U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U2.0b1.52 0.76U2.0b1.52 0.76U2.0b1.52 0.76U2.0b1.52 0.76U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 U1.0b0.40 0.20U1.0b0.40 0.20U1.0b0.40 0.20U1.0b0.40 0.20U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.171,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.11 U 1.0 0.22 0.111,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 U 1.0 0.36 0.18 U 1.0 0.36 0.18 U 1.0 0.36 0.18 U 1.0 0.36 0.18 U 1.0 0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Acetone 22,000 20,000 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95 U 10.0 1.90 0.95Benzene 5 170 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform 100 510 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14 U 1.0 0.28 0.14Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24 U 2.0 0.48 0.24Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10 U 1.0 0.20 0.10Chlorobenzene 100 50 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroethane 8,600 16 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21 U 1.0 0.42 0.21Chloroform 70 2,400 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 J 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07 U 1.0 0.14 0.07Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 U 1.0 0.62 0.31 U 1.0 0.84 0.42 U 1.0 0.62 0.31 U 1.0 0.62 0.31 U 1.0 0.62 0.31cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U1.0b0.38 0.19U 1.0 0.38 0.19U1.0b0.38 0.19U1.0b0.38 0.19U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 700 30 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 U 10.0 1.20 0.60 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 U 10.0 3.80 1.90 U 10.0 3.80 1.90Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26 U 1.0 0.52 0.26Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 U 5.0 0.70 0.35 U 5.0 0.70 0.35 U 5.0 0.70 0.35 U 5.0 0.70 0.35 U 5.0 0.70 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 U 1.0 0.50 0.25 U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 U 1.0 0.26 0.13 U 1.0 0.26 0.13 U 1.0 0.26 0.13 U 1.0 0.26 0.13 U 1.0 0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U1.0b0.20 0.10U1.0b0.20 0.10U1.0b0.20 0.10U1.0b0.20 0.10U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24 U 1.0 0.48 0.24Toluene 1,000 40 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17 U 1.0 0.34 0.17trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16 U 1.0 0.32 0.16Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23 U 1.0 0.46 0.23Xylenes 10,000 20 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 U 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 U 0.5 0.22 0.11 J 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11Notes:All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).++ The analyst has noted that the chromatogram of this sample is mainly a match to hydrocarbons within the range of diesel fuel.DRO - diesel range organicsGRO - gasoline range organicsJ - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.LOD - limit of detectionLOQ - limit of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsU - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.VOC - volatile organic compound- Chemical does not have DOH EALsEPHVPHNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaEPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)Method ChemicalDL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)Bold - Result exceeds one or both DOH EALs.bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009).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).750ND0.17NDResultRHMW05(ES051)DOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaResultRHMW2254-01(ES050)ResultResultRHMW03(ES049)RHMW01(ES057)ResultRHMW02(ES046)NDNDNDNDND0.082NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.530.150.80NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.22NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND210NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.13NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 3-6 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

December 2011



## 3-7 μ g/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μ g/L); and were not detected above the LODs and LOQs in October-November 2010 and January 2011. TPH-DR O concentrations increased to above the EAL in April 2011 and remained above the EAL in July 2011 and at the EAL in October-November 2011 (210 μ g/L) (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 (estimated solubility limit of 4,500 μ g/L). The concentration of TPH-DRO wa s relatively stable until July 2008 and

October 2008 when the concentrations increase d, with the October 2008 average also exceeding the SSRBL of 4,500 μ g/L.

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 February 2010 when it exceeded th e SSRBL due to TICs apparently not associated with petroleum fr om the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In March 2010 (2,490

μ g/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μ g/L), TPH-DRO exhibited a d ecreasing 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 concentrations increased to 1,450 μ g/L in July 2011. TPH-DRO concentration

decreased to 750 μ g/L in October-November 2011.

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 average 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 stil l above the EAL. In April 2011 naphthalene concentrations

decreased to below the EAL. C oncentrations of naphthalene remained below the EAL in July

2011 and October-November 2011.

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 EALs. In January 2010, 1-methylnaphthalene

concentrations increased above the EALs; then decreased in Ap ril 2010; and have exhibited an increasing trend from July 2010 through January 2011 (Appendix B). The average concentrationQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 3-8 (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 EALs in July 2011 and October-November 2011.

Since October 2008, the concentrations of 2-met hylnaphthalene have remained below the EALs.

RHMW03

Historically, concentrations of TPH-DRO have fluctuated around the DOH Drinking Water EAL, but have been significantly lower than corresponding values 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 concentration to date (330 μ g/L) which was above the EAL. In January 2011, April 2011, July 2011, and this October-N ovember 2011 groundwater monitoring event,

TPH-DRO concentrations decreased to below the LODs.

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). However, during this October-November 2011 a nd the previous six groundwater monitoring

events TPH-DRO concentrations exhibited a decr ease and were not dete cted at or above the LOD or LOQ.



# 3.4 Groundwater Status

Facility-specific contaminants of concern are de fined as petroleum-related chemicals that have been observed in the groundwater samples above the DOH Drinking Water EALs. In accordance with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008), Table 3-3 defines these RHSF-speci fic compounds and their associated SSRBLs and updated EALs (DOH, 2009).

In addition, the Groundwater Protection Plan de fines four Results Categories of groundwater status for the RHSF, based on c oncentrations of COPCs detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01, RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, a nd RHMW05, and requires specific responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling (Table 3-4). The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the October-November 2011 analytical data (Table 3-5). Monitoring well RHMW01 is in Category 1 and RHMW02 is in Category 2.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 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

December 2011



## 3-10 This page is intentionally left blank.Results CategoryRHMW2254-01 RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03RHMW05Results Category 1: Result above detectionlimit but below drinking water EAL and trendfor all compounds stable or decreasingNo Yes No Yes 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 toOctober-November monitoring eventNone Category 2 Category 2 None NoneNew Category: Category assignment basedon results of the October-Novembermonitoring eventNone Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 None1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leakdetermination programto identify if tanks areleakingTable 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, October-November 2011Response Actions: Requirements of newcategoryNoneNone1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOH1. Quarterly reports tobe sent to DOHQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results

December 2011



## 3-12 This page is intentionally left blank.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
December 2011



## 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 evaluated by relative percent 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 ES046 and sample ES047) collected from RHMW02, me t the RPD precision criteria of 50% for all analytes (Table 4-1). The RPDs for MS/MSD were also within the laboratory established criteria (Appendix E). Therefore the data preci sion is considered good.

Accuracy

Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery of an an alyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory. The ac ceptance criteria for acc uracy are dependent on the analytical method, and are base d on historical laboratory data.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
December 2011



## 4-2 All of the LCS, MS/MSD and surrogate spike rec overies for analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits except for a MSD recovery of TPH-DRO. In this case, the recovery was below the lower limit of the acceptabl e criteria (61%). Howeve r, it is not expected to significantly impact the data accuracy because it is the only anomaly obser ved in the QC tests. Therefore the data accuracy for this m onitoring event is considered acceptable.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree th at data accurately and precisely represent a char acteristic 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 including method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding time complied with the EPA criteria. None of the COPCs were detected in the laboratory method blanks. For this sampling event, three tr ip blanks were collect ed and there were no detections of VOCs or TPH-GRO in them (Table 4-1). 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 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 precisi on and accuracy are considered comparable if collection techniques, analytical procedur es, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this monitoring event the samples were collected usi ng approaches consistent with those in the previous events, and the same analytical me thods/procedures were used to measure the

concentration of COPCs. Theref ore 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.Table 4-1: Field QC Results, October-November 2011Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL ResultQ LOQ LOD DL ResultQ LOQ LOD DLC11-C22 Aromatics - -166100 42.1 42.1166100 42.5 42.1 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --C19-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - -NDU 100 60.0 31.3NDU 100 60.6 31.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --C9-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - -28.0J 100 21.8 21.840.0J 101 22.0 22.0 35.29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --C5-C8 Aliphatic - -NDU 300 150 33.1NDU 300 150 33.1 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --C9-C10 Aromatic - -200100 50.0 12.4174100 50.0 12.4 13.90 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --C9-C12 Aliphatic - -671200 100 32.0770200 100 32.0 13.74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 ++150b80.8 40.4 ++150b80.8 40.4 2.63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --EPA 8260 B (Petroleum)TPH-GRO 100 100NDU 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 370 200.17J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.16 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.06 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Acenaphthylene 240 2,000NDU 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Anthracene 1,800 22NDU 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 ND U0.2b0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81NDU 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 ND U0.2b0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4NDU 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Chrysene 9.2 1NDU 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 ND U0.2b0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluoranthene 1,500 130NDU 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fluorene 240 9500.082J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.083 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 1.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 ND U0.2b0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 100.530.2 0.12 0.06 0.62 0.2 0.12 0.06 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene 24 100.15J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.06 28.57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Naphthalene 17 210.800.2 0.10 0.05 1 0.2 0.10 0.05 22.22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Phenanthrene 240 410NDU 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Pyrene 180 68NDU 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 NDU 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 50,000 NDU 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 50,000 NDU 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 1,500 NDU 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 ND U 2.0 0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 0 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.39 ND U2.0b0.78 0.391,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 NDU 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.211,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 0 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.76 ND U2.0b1.52 0.761,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 0 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.20 ND U1.0b0.40 0.201,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 NDU 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.171,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 0 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.141,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 NDU 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 50,000 NDU 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 NDU 1.0 0.36 0.18 ND U 1.0 0.36 0.18 0 ND U 1.0 0.36 0.18 ND U 1.0 0.36 0.18 ND U 1.0 0.36 0.181,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 NDU 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 20,000 NDU 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 5 170 NDU 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 0.22 50,000 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14 ND U1.0b0.28 0.14Bromoform 100 510 NDU 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 0.14Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 NDU 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 5 520 NDU 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 50 NDU 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 8,600 16 NDU 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 0.21Chloroform 70 2,400 NDU 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 50,000 NDU 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 0 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.84 0.42cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 NDU 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 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 0 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19 ND U1.0b0.38 0.19Ethylbenzene 700 30 NDU 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 NDU 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 0.19Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 NDU 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 1,300 NDU 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 Ether12 5 NDU 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 NDU 5.0 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0 0.70 0.35 0 ND U 5.0 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0 0.70 0.35 ND U 5.0 0.70 0.35Styrene100 10 NDU 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 NDU 1.0 0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0 0.26 0.13 0 ND U 1.0 0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0 0.26 0.13 ND U 1.0 0.26 0.13Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 0 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10 ND U1.0b0.20 0.10Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 NDU 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 40 NDU 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)100 260 NDU 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) 5 310 NDU 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 3,400 NDU 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 20 NDU 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 5,000NDU 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02bIn the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it isgenerallyacceptable 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 of quantitation or reporting limit (RL)ND - not detectedPAHs - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsQ - data qualifierRPD - relative percent differenceTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVOC - volatile organic compound-- not analyzed- Chemical does not have DOH EALsBold - Result exceeds one or both DOH EALsTrip Blank(10/25 - ES052)Trip Blank(11-02 - ES056)RHMW02 Duplicate(ES047)(10/24 - ES048)EPH750DOH Groundwater GrossContamination EALsaTrip BlankU - 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).RPD Duplicate(%)EPA 8260 B (VOCs)EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)ResultRHMW02 Primary(ES046)ResultMethod ChemicalDOH Drinking Water EALsfor Human ToxicityaResult--------------------------VPH770--J - Estimated result. Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the DL and below the LOQ.----DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)------All units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L)----Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 4 Data Quality Assessmen t
December 2011



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

December 2011



## 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 Oc tober-November 2011 data. Based on the October-November 2011 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any Results Category of the Gr oundwater 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 October-November monitoring event. The tren d of free product measurements over time shows that in January 2008, fuel was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not obser ved in any other monitoring wells. Since the

thickness of less than 0.01 feet observed in January 2008, no free product has b een observed in any of these RHSF monito ring wells (Table 3-1).



# 5.1.2 Summary of Groundwate r Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results from the Oc tober-November 2011 groundwater monitoring event indicated that TPH-DRO was present in the gr oundwater beneath the RHSF at concentrations equal or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPC c oncentrations (i.e., TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead) were below th e EALs. All LODs and LOQs were generally

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

In monitoring well RHMW01, TPH-DRO (210 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL. Chloroform (0.13 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EA L. All other COPCs in RHMW01 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (750 μ g/L) was detected at a concentration which exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL. Naphthalene (0.80 μ g/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene (0.53 μ g/L) were detected at concentratio ns below the DOH Dri nking Water EALs. Acenaphthene (0.17 μ g/L), fluorene (0.082 μ g/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μ g/L) were

detected at estimated concentrations below th e DOH Drinking Water EALs. All other COPCs in

RHMW02 were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring wells RHMW03 dissolved lead (0.22 μ g/L) was detected at an estimated concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.

In monitoring wells RHMW2254-01 and RHMW05, no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

December 2011



## 5-2 MADEP EPH analytical results for TPH-DRO typical ly have the majority of the hydrocarbons in

the C 10 

## to C 20 

## range. In monitoring well RHMW01, C 11 

## -C 22 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were de tected at concentrations of

50.5 μ g/L, 20.6 μ g/L, and 69.9 μ g/L, respectively. These analyt ical results are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 18 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are lik ely petroleum based. In monitoring well RHMW02, C 11 

## -C 22 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, C 9 

## -C 10 

## aromatic hydrocarbons, and

C 9 

## -C 12 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were dete cted at concentrations of 166 μ g/L, 200 μ g/L, and 671

μ g/L, respectively. Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C 9 

## -C 18 

## ) were detected at an estimated concentration

of 28.0 μ g/L. These analytical results are within carbon range C 9 

## -C 22 

## which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

In monitoring well RHMW03, C 9 

## -C 18 

## aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at an estimated

concentration of 26 μ g/L. This analytical result indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based.

In monitoring well RHMW05, all a liphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon s 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 and 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 seve n consecutive quarterly m onitoring events. The data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in sa mples collected from monitoring wells located adjacent to the US Ts are not migrating in the dow ngradient direction. RHMW05 is an intermediate monitoring poi nt between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this time, there is no indication that COPCs are migr ating in a downgradient direction towards the Navy’s potable water source.

COPC concentrations detected in samples coll ected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not st eadily increasing between sampling events. Concentrations of 1-methylnaph thalene detected in samples co llected from RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events; however they have decreased in the subsequent monitoring events.

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.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

December 2011



## 5-3 Because the majority of the aliphatic and ar omatic hydrocarbons detected were within the

C 10 

## -C 20 

## range, the detected TPH-DRO in monitori ng wells RHMW01 and RHMW 02 is likely to be petroleum based.



# 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, continuation of monthly free product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil vapor monitoring are also recommended. In re sponse to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, su bmission of this quart erly report to DOH and continuation of a leak determination prog ram as described in Section 3 of the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008) to id entify if tanks are l eaking are recommended.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

December 2011



## 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

December 2011



## 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

December 2011



## 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
October-November 20115505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐1:TPHatRHMW2254‐01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐2:TPHatRHMW01QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐3:TPHatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐4:TPHatRHMW03QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime5505005000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐5:TPHatRHMW05QuarterlyMonitoringResultsTPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRODLTPH‐GRODLTPH‐DROEALTPH‐GROEALSSRBLTime0.11101001000Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

Log Concentration (μg/L)FigureA‐6:PAHsatRHMW02QuarterlyMonitoringResultsNaphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐MethylnaphthaleneNaphthaleneEAL1‐MethylnaphthaleneEAL2‐MethylnaphthaleneEALTime

# Appendix C Field Notebook, October-November 2011

# Appendix D Groundwater Sampling Logs,
October-November 2011WELL 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 )

0932 1L 6.83 0.606 0.0 7.79 22.04 0.3 164

0934 2L 7.06 0.608 0.0 8.60 22.01 0.3 159

0936 3L 7.24 0.605 0.0 8.70 21.81 0.3 153

0938 4L 7.31 0.605 0.0 8.80 21.68 0.3 154

0940 5L 7.30 0.605 0.0 8.80 21.51 0.3 153

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY Clear

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT None

SAMPLED BY: OTHER None

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES:

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

CAPACITY OF CASING (GALLONS/LINEAR FOOT)
2"-0.16; 4"-0.65; 6"-1.47; 8"-2.61; 10"-4.08; 12"-5.87 10/26/2011 1400 N/A 0.5 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES050

0950

CA, SF

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx JT TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative,

(2) - 1 L Amber bottles, (3) - 40 mL VOAs N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump unknown CA, SF

N/A N/A

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOG

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

not applicable (N/A) 10/25/2011 0930 RHMW2254-01WELL ID: RHMW01 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1039 1L 7.10 0.383 0.1 2.81 23.61 0.2 -117

1043 2L 7.17 0.383 0.3 2.50 23.43 0.2 -125

1048 3L 7.15 0.382 0.2 1.95 23.41 0.2 -124

1053 4L 7.18 0.379 0.4 1.56 23.39 0.2 -124

1100 5L 7.15 0.376 0.3 1.30 23.37 0.2 -120

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY Clear

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

LABORATORY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND PRESERVATIVES:

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS: SK

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

83.71 feet bTOC 11/2/2011 1029

100.00 feet bTOC VD, SK

16.3 feet N/A

N/A Low flow bladder pump

83.68 feet bTOC 0 .16 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES057

1105 None

11/2/2011 VD, SK

TPH-GRO (EPA 8260B) & VOCs (EPA 8260B) with no preservative,

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedExWELL ID: RHMW02 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

0942 2L 6.54 0.691 0.0 8.52 23.91 0.3 -109

0944 4L 6.54 0.696 0.0 7.83 23.81 0.3 -116

0947 6L 6.56 0.702 0.0 7.25 23.77 0.3 -116

0950 8L 6.56 0.706 0.0 6.50 23.73 0.3 -117

0953 10L 6.57 0.704 0.0 6.10 23.72 0.3 -115

0955 12L 6.57 0.702 0.0 5.84 23.71 0.3 -115

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Light Brown

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

SAMPLED BY: OTHER Petroleum Smell

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.1 ppm

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

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

NUMBER AND TYPES OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:

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

DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES:

SAMPLES DELIVERED TO: TRANSPORTERS:

SAMPLE DELIVERY DATE: SAMPLE DELIVERY TIME:

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

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

86.38 feet bTOC 10/24/2011 0933

CA, SF unknown SF, CA

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

86.38 feet bTOC 0.5 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES046, ESO 47

0955, 0830

Primary and duplicate: (4) - 40 mL VOAs, (3) - 1 L amber bottle, (1) - 500 mL polyethylene bottle

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx JT

10/25/2011WELL ID: RHMW03 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1419 2 L 6.89 0.793 41 2.83 26.83 0.4 82

1425 4 L 6.81 0.812 5.6 2.69 27.19 0.4 84

1429 5 L 6.82 0.811 6.9 2.72 27.10 0.4 51

1431 6 L 6.85 0.806 3.1 2.25 26.80 0.4 38

1433 7 L 6.86 0.802 0.0 2.20 26.69 0.4 39

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.1 ppm

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

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

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

102.9 feet 10/24/2011 1415

unknown SF, CA

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

10/25/2011 103.1 feet 0.4 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES049

1435

SF, CA

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx JTWELL ID: RHMW05 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE:

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME

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

1110 2L 7.82 0.440 0.0 12.97 23.65 0.2 108

1113 3L 7.82 0.354 0.0 7.21 23.65 0.2 168

1116 4L 7.21 0.348 0.0 7.22 22.24 0.2 172

1120 5L 7.19 0.344 0.0 7.11 22.06 0.2 179

1123 6L 7.21 0.340 0.0 7.69 21.89 0.2 179

1126 7L 7.22 0.340 0.0 7.16 21.84 0.2 185

SAMPLE RETRIEVAL METHOD: APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE:

COLOR Clear

SAMPLE ID: TURBIDITY

SAMPLE COLLECTION TIME: SEDIMENT

SAMPLED BY: OTHER

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS: PID = 0.0 ppm

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

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

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 1022-024

83.15 feet 10/25/2011 1045

unknown CA, SF

N/A N/A

N/A Low flow dedicated bladder pump

10/26/2011 83.13 feet 0.3 L/min

Low flow dedicated bladder pump

ES051

1130

CA, SF

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

Alconox, triple rinse with distilled water

APPL, Inc. via FedEx JT

# Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Results, October-November 2011 (on CD-ROM)