Qua

Rep

Red Hi

O‘ahu,

Latitud

Longit

DOH F

DOH R

Decemb

Depart

Naval 

400 Ma

JBPHH

Enviro

Contra

arterl

port 

ill Bulk F

, Hawai‘i 

de: 21°22

tude: 157

Facility ID

Release ID

ber 2011 

tment of t

Facilities

arshall Ro

H HI 9686

onmental 

act Numb

y Gro

uel Stora

2’15”N 

7°53’33”W

D No. 9-10

D No. 990

the Navy

s Enginee

oad 

60-3139 

Technica

ber N6274

ound

age Facili

W

02271 

051, 0100

y

ering Com

al Service

42-08-D-1

dwate

ty, Joint 

11, 02002

mmand, H

es 

930, CTO

er Mo

Base Pea

28 

Hawai‘i 

O HC21 

onitor

arl Harbo

ing 

r-Hickam, 
 
Qua

Rep

Red Hi

O‘ahu,

Latitud

Longit

DOH F

DOH R

Decemb

Prepare

Depart

Naval 

400 Ma

JBPHH

Prepare

Enviro

650 Iw

Honolu

Prepare

Enviro

Contra

arterl

port 

ill Bulk F

, Hawai‘i 

de: 21°22

tude: 157

Facility ID

Release ID

ber 2011 

d for: 

tment of t

Facilities

arshall Ro

H HI 9686

d by: 

onet, Inc. 

ilei Road

ulu, HI 96

d under: 

onmental 

act Numb

y Gro

uel Stora

2’15”N 

7°53’33”W

D No. 9-10

D No. 990

the Navy

s Enginee

oad 

60-3139 

, Suite 20

6817-5318

Technica

ber N6274

ound

age Facili

W

02271 

051, 0100

y

ering Com

04 

8

al Service

42-08-D-1

dwate

ty, Joint 

11, 02002

mmand, H

es 

930, CTO

er Mo

Base Pea

28 

Hawai‘i 

O HC21 

onitor

arl Harbo

ing 

r-Hickam, 

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 Measurements ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Groundwater Sampling ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.3 Sample Management and Shipment ........................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Analytical Program ......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Field Quality Control Samples ....................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Laboratory Quality Control Samples ............................................................................. 2-2

2.6 Equipment Decontamination .......................................................................................... 2-3

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 Analytical Results ................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend ................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Groundwater Status ........................................................................................................ 3-8

Section 4 Data Quality Assessment ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Data Validation ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Quality Control Program ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Data Assessment ........................................................................................................ 4-1

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 ........................................................... 5-1
Quarterly 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 Analytical 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 Quarterly 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 Results, October-November 2011 ............................................................. 4-3

Figures 

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

Appendices 

Appendix A: DOH Corespondence 

Appendix B: Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results for TPH and PAHs, September 

2005 through October-November 2011 

Appendix C: Field Notebook, October-November 2011 

Appendix D: Groundwater Sampling Logs, October-November 2011 

Appendix E: Laboratory Analytical 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 

μg/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 Department of Health 

DON Department of the Navy 

DRO diesel range organics 

DTW (TOC) depth to water from top of well casing 

EAL Environmental Action Level 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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 that 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 level 
Quarterly 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 analyte was analyzed for but not 

detected. The result is reported as ND. 

U.S. United States 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbon 
Quarterly 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 quarterly 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 capacity, field-constructed underground storage 

tanks (USTs) located at the RHSF. Previous environmental site investigations indicated a release 

had occurred and contaminated the groundwater underlying the RHSF. 

The United States (U.S.) Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes 

collecting groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) and 

four groundwater monitoring wells (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 percent (%) of the 

potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS). The groundwater samples were 

analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared against State of Hawai‘i Department of 

Health (DOH) Drinking Water Environmental Action 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 Drinking Water EALs are also provided in this 

report. 

October-November 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Results 

Laboratory analytical results indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs)-diesel range 

organics (DRO) were present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF (monitoring wells RHMW01 

and RHMW02) at or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other chemical of potential 

concern (COPC) concentrations (i.e., TPH-Gasoline Range Organics (GRO), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dissolved 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 [μg/L) was detected at a 

concentration equal to the DOH Drinking Water EAL and exceeded the DOH Gross 

Contamination groundwater EAL. Chloroform (0.13 μg/L) was detected at estimated 

concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs in monitoring well 

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

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (750 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water and Gross Contamination groundwater EALs. Naphthalene 

(0.80 μg/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene (0.53 μg/L) were detected at concentrations below the 

DOH Drinking Water EALs. Acenaphthene (0.17 μg/L), fluorene (0.082 μg/L), and 

2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μg/L) were detected at estimated concentrations below the DOH 
Quarterly 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 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 

concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. 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 aromatic hydrocarbons were analyzed this monitoring 

event utilizing Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) extractable 

petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) and volatile petroleum 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 monitoring events will 

not include MADEP EPH and VPH analyses. 

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

the C10 to C20 range. In monitoring well RHMW01, C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-C10

aromatic hydrocarbons, and C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 

50.5 μg/L, 20.6 μg/L, and 69.9 μg/L, respectively. These analytical results are within carbon 

range C9-C18 which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. In 

monitoring well RHMW02, C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons, and 

C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 166 μg/L, 200 μg/L, and 671 

μg/L, respectively. Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C9-C18) were detected at an estimated concentration 

of 28.0 μg/L. These analytical results are within carbon range C9-C22 which indicates that the 

detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. 

In monitoring well RHMW03, C9-C18 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at an estimated 

concentration of 26 μg/L. This analytical result indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are 

likely petroleum based. 

In monitoring well RHMW05, all aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons were not detected at or 

above the LODs and LOQs. 

TPH-DRO Contaminant Trends 

TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW01 have fluctuated at or above the DOH Drinking Water 

EAL except in October-November 2010 and January 2011 when TPH-DRO was not detected at 

or above the LODs and LOQs (Appendix B). 

At RHMW02, TPH-DRO concentrations have been consistently well above the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL and exceeded the site-specific-risk-based 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 fluctuated above and below the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL. From May 2009 through July 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations at RHMW03 were 

not detected above the LODs and LOQs. However, in October-November 2010, TPH-DRO was 

detected at the highest concentration (330 μg/L). TPH-DRO was not detected at or above the 

LODs and LOQs in the past four consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring events. 

At RHMW05, TPH-DRO concentrations 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 events, 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 RHMW05. 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 μg/L, which was below the EAL. TPH-GRO 

concentrations increased slightly in April 2011 to a detected concentration of 24 μg/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-methylnaphthalene have remained below the EAL. 

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene 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-November 2011 groundwater monitoring event. 

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

above the EAL in October 2009, and remained above the EAL in January 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 phase liquid (LNAPL) has been observed only once 

(i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 with a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This 

indicates that a significant release from one or more of the USTs at the RHSF has not occurred at 

this time. 

COPC concentrations in samples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) 

have not been increasing or detected at or above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC 

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

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

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have 

decreased to below the EALs for the past seven consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The 

data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring 

wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Executive Summary

December 2011

viii 

an intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this 

time, there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the 

Navy’s potable water source. 

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the 

USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not increasing between consecutive sampling events. 

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene in RHMW02 increased for three consecutive events, but 

then decreased in the subsequent three groundwater monitoring events. The fluctuations in 

concentration measured during this event and previous events indicate the source of 

1-methylnaphthalene is very likely residual contamination from a historical release at the RHSF. 

The general overall long-term trend in 1-methylnaphthalene concentration is decreasing and does 

not indicate a new release at the site. 

The majority of the aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons detected were within the C10-C20 range. 

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

Recommendations 

Based on the results of this monitoring event, continuation of the quarterly groundwater 

monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition continuation of monthly free 

product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil 

vapor monitoring are also recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and 

RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH 

and continuation of a leak determination program 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 25th groundwater monitoring event conducted in 

October-November 2011 at the RHSF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), O‘ahu, 

Hawai‘i (Figure 1-1). The RHSF consists of 18 active and two inactive USTs operated by the 

United States Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Pearl 

Harbor. The groundwater sampling and analysis event is part of a groundwater monitoring 

program for the UST site in response to past UST releases, previous environmental 

investigations, and recommendations from the DOH. The groundwater monitoring was 

performed by Environet for the Department of the Navy (DON), Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command (NAVFAC), Hawai‘i under Environmental Technical Services, Contract Number 

N62742-08-D-1930, Contract Task Order HC21. 

The field activities performed for the October-November 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 evaluate the presence of COPCs in groundwater 

underlying the RHSF. The groundwater monitoring was conducted to ensure the DON remains 

in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawai‘i 

Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action. Analytical results 

are compared to the DOH Drinking Water EALs for human toxicity for samples collected from 

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

RHMW05). 

1.2 Background 

The U.S. Navy implemented a groundwater monitoring program, which includes collecting 

groundwater samples quarterly from U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 (RHMW2254-01) and four 

groundwater monitoring wells (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 analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared 

against DOH Drinking Water EALs (DOH, 2009). 

1.2.1 Site Description 

The RHSF is located on the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Pearl 

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

the Hālawa Correctional Facility and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the 

facility includes the Coast Guard Reservation and other residential neighborhoods. Moanalua 

Valley is located east of the facility (Environet, 2010). 
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 potable water infiltration tunnel approximately 

1,550 feet hydraulically downgradient from the RHSF (Environet, 2010). The U.S. Navy Well 

2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet downgradient (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 inactive USTs operated by NAVSUP 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 the early 1940s. The tanks were constructed of steel and currently 

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

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

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

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

ground surface (TEC, 2006). 

1.2.4 Previous Reports 

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

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

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

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

2005); 

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

2006); 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2009); 

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

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

@? @?

!(

OWDFMW01

RHMW2254-01

RHMW05

RHMW01

RHMW02

RHMW03

HDMW2253-03

SVMP02

SVMP03

SVMP04

SVMP06

SVMP08

SVMP10

SVMP12

SVMP14

SVMP16

SVMP18

SVMP20

SVMP05

SVMP07

SVMP09

SVMP11

SVMP13

SVMP15

SVMP17

Hālawa Industrial Park

Hālawa Correctional Facility

Hālawa Stream

RHMW04

U.S. Navy Well 2254-01

Hālawa Shaft Board of Water

Supply Pump Station (2354-01)

Coast Guard

Reservation

Moanalua

Village

Navy Firing

Range

@? 

@A 

!( 

1,000 

Gro

USGS

Pearl Harbor

Re
Quarterly 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, October 2009 (submitted December 2009); 

18. Groundwater Monitoring Results, January, February, and March 2010 

(submitted April 2010); 

19. Groundwater Monitoring Results, April 2010 (submitted May 2010); 

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

21. Groundwater Monitoring Results, October 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 (previously known as MW-V1D) to monitor for 

contamination of the basal aquifer underlying the RHSF. The well was installed and completed 

at approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access tunnel. At the time of well 

completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was measured at 86 feet below grade (Dawson group, 

Inc., 2006). 

In February 2001, groundwater samples collected from RHMW01 contained TPH concentrations 

ranging from 883 μg/L to 1,050 μg/L and total lead ranging from 10.4 μg/L to 15 μg/L. The 

total lead concentrations exceeded the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μg/L for dissolved lead 

(Dawson Group, Inc., 2006). 

2005 Groundwater Sampling - The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing 

monitoring wells in 2005. Dawson Group, Inc. collected groundwater samples from RHMW01 

and RHMW2254-01 in February 2005, June 2005, September 2005, and December 2005. 

Samples collected in February 2005 and June 2005 were not filtered in the field prior to analysis 

for lead. Analytical results for samples collected from RHMW01 indicated concentrations of 

total lead were above the DOH Tier 1 Action Level of 5.6 μg/L. The results were not considered 

appropriate for risk assessment since the sample had not been filtered. In addition, lead was not 

a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW01, but was a component in fuels stored in 

other tanks during the history of the RHSF. Lead may have been part of the RHSF construction 

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

analyzed as unfiltered samples. Subsequent efforts where the lead samples were filtered had 

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

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

COPCs were below the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels. 
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 investigation, TEC installed three groundwater 

monitoring wells at the RHSF between June 2005 and September 2005. Monitoring well 

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

RHMW03 was installed in the lower access tunnel near Tank 13 and Tank 14. Monitoring well 

RHMW04 was installed north of the UST Tank 20 to evaluate groundwater within the basal 

aquifer upgradient from the RHSF. Monitoring wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were completed 

to depths of approximately 125 feet below the tunnel floor, and well RHMW04 was completed to 

a depth of approximately 300 feet below ground surface outside the tunnel. Groundwater 

samples were collected from the three newly installed wells and two existing wells (RHMW01 

and RHMW2254-01) in September 2005 (TEC, 2010). 

Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were detected in samples collected from RHMW02 at 

concentrations greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action Levels. Lead was detected in the sample 

collected from RHMW01 at a concentration greater than the DOH Tier 1 Action Level; however, 

the sample was not filtered in the field prior to analysis. Analytical results for filtered samples 

obtained by Dawson Group, Inc. during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved 

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

2006 Site Investigation - Dedicated sampling pumps were installed in five 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 the DOH Tier 1 Action Level (TEC, 2010). 

In September 2006, with concurrence from the DOH, the Navy decided to use the newer DOH 

EALs for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs provide action 

levels for more chemicals, and are much more useful for conducting screening risk assessments. 

Since the DOH (DOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets of action levels should 

not be mixed, the Tier 1 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11-281-78 would no longer 

be used to evaluate environmental impact at the RHSF (TEC, 2010). 

2006 Groundwater Sampling - Groundwater samples were collected in December 2006. 

Analytical results indicated the following: 

 no 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 collected in March, June, and 

September 2007. Analytical results 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 exceeded the EALs in samples collected from 

RHMW02 during all three monitoring events; 

 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene 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 collected in January, April, July, 

and October 2008. Analytical results 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 chemicals 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 the EAL in samples collected from RHMW02; 

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

exceeded the EALs in samples collected from RHMW02. Additionally, the site-specific 

risk-based level (SSRBL) of 4,500 μg/L for TPH-DRO was exceeded in the October 

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 October 2009. In April 2009, a new groundwater 

monitoring well, RHMW05, was installed by TEC. RHMW05 is located within the lower access 

tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01 (located at the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01). It was 

installed to identify any contamination migrating past RHMW01 prior to it reaching the U.S. 

Navy Well 2254-01 (TEC, 2010). Analytical results indicated the following: 

 no COPCs have been detected above the EALs at RHMW2254-01; 

 TPH-GRO concentrations in samples collected 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 the 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-methylnaphthalene 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 collected 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 the EALs in samples collected from 

RHMW2254-01; 

 lead was detected in samples collected from RHMW2254-01 at a concentration below the 

EAL in October-November 2010; 

 naphthalene concentrations in the samples collected from RHMW2254-01 were detected 

below the LOQ and EAL in January and October-November 2010; 

 TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the EAL in samples collected from RHMW01, 

except in October-November 2010 when they were not detected at or above the LOQ; 

 lead was detected in samples collected from 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, and October-November 2010 however, significant 

increases in January and February 2010were attributed to tentatively identified 

compounds (TICs) apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 

2010); 

 naphthalene and 1-methylnaphthalene concentrations exceeded the EALs in samples 

collected from RHMW02 in January, April, 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 significant 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 LODs and LOQs in samples collected from 

RHMW2254-01 in January, April, and July 2011 except for dissolved lead detected at a 

concentration below the EAL in July 2011; 

 no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from 

RHMW01 in January 2011; 

 TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration 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 concentration which were below the EAL in July 

2011; 

 naphthalene was detected at a concentration 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 detected 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-methylnaphthalene was detected at an estimated 

concentration below that EAL in July 2011; 

 dissolved lead was detected at a concentration 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 detected 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 RHMW02 were not detected at or above the 

LODs and LOQs in January and April 2011; and 

 no COPCs were detected at or above the LODs and LOQs in samples collected from 

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in January and April 2011; however dissolved lead was 

detected at estimated concentrations below the EAL in samples collected from both 

RHMW03 and RHMW05 in July 2011. All other 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 their EALs which resulted in significant 

changes to the action levels associated with methylnaphthalenes. The drinking water toxicity 

EAL for these compounds was 240 μg/L. This concentration presumed that methylnaphthalenes 

were non-carcinogenic. Evidence that they are human carcinogens has now been accepted by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, DOH adopted more rigorous EALs 

of 4.7 μg/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24 μg/L for 2-methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a 

residential tap water scenario, and a one in a million cancer risk (DOH, 2009). As a result of the 

EAL changing from 240 μg/L to 4.7 μg/L, concentrations of 1-methylnaphthale collected from 

RMHW2254-01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 previously categorized as under the 

EAL are now over the EAL. Also, the drinking water EAL for naphthalene was increased from 

6.2 μg/L to 17 μg/L (DOH, 2009). Finally, the DOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was 

increased from 100 μg/L to 210 μg/L, although the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination 

EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100 μg/L.
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, 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 Plan (Environet, 2010). Field activities were 

documented in the field notebook (Appendix C). 

2.1 Oil/Water Interface Measurements 

The presence and thickness of LNAPL, otherwise known as “free product”, released from the 

USTs is monitored at the RHSF. Groundwater gauging measurements were collected at the five 

monitoring wells prior to purging and sample collection. A Solinst oil/water interface probe 

was used to measure the depth to groundwater, as well as detect the presence and thickness of 

LNAPL to the nearest 0.01 foot, according to the procedures described in Procedure I-C-3, 

Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007). 

2.2 Groundwater Sampling 

Groundwater samples were collected from the five monitoring wells according to the procedures 

described in Procedure I-C-3, Monitoring Well Sampling (DON, 2007). 

2.2.1 Monitoring Well Purging 

Each monitoring well was purged using a dedicated bladder pump system. Groundwater was 

purged at a low flow rate (less than one liter per minute) using the dedicated bladder pump 

system until three or more successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized 

within 10%. A Horiba® U-52 multi-parameter water quality meter was used to measure 

hydrogen activity (pH), temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and 

oxidation reduction potential. At least four readings were recorded in Groundwater Sampling 

Log data sheets (Appendix D). 

2.2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection 

Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated bladder pump systems. Groundwater 

samples were collected directly into laboratory provided specially cleaned sample containers 

already containing the appropriate preservatives (i.e., nitric acid for dissolved lead analysis, 

hydrochloric acid for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon analyses). The dissolved lead samples 

were filtered in the field, and placed in polyethylene 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 according 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 quality 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 aliphatic 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 aromatic 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 typically have the majority of the hydrocarbons in 

the C10 to C20 range. 

2.4 Field Quality Control Samples 

Field QC procedures were followed to ensure viability and integrity of sample analytical data. 

Field duplicates were collected according to the procedures described in Procedure III-B, Field 

QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007) and the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). Field duplicate 

samples were collected at a minimum of 10% 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 analyzed according to the procedures described in 

Procedure III-A Laboratory QC Samples (Water, Soil) (DON, 2007). Laboratory QC MS/MSD 

samples are an aliquot (i.e., a subset) of the field sample 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 pair 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 performed to ensure data quality, to prevent 

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

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

probe and Horiba® multi-parameter U-52 water quality meter) was conducted between 

monitoring locations according to the procedures described 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 potential waste streams included 

the following: 

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

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

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

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

separator sump. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, 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, and November 2, 2011. Complete analytical 

laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E. 

3.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements 

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

October-November 2011 sampling event. The trend of free product measurements over time 

show that in January 2008, LNAPL was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 

at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not observed in any 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 μg/L which is equal to the DOH Drinking 

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

μg/L). Chloroform was detected at an estimated concentration of 0.13 μg/L, which was below 

the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and 

LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). 

Aromatic hydrocarbons (C11-C22), C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons, and C9-C12 aliphatic 

hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 50.5 μg/L, 20.6 μg/L, and 69.9 μg/L, 

respectively. MADEP EPH analytical results for TPH-DRO typically have the majority of the 

hydrocarbons in the C10 to C20 range. These analytical results are within carbon range C9-C22

which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. 

RHMW02 

TPH-DRO was detected at a concentration of 750 μg/L which exceeded both the DOH Drinking 

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

3-2 and Appendix E). Naphthalene (0.80 μg/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene (0.53 μg/L) were 

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

naphthalene and 4.7 μg/L for 1-methylnaphthalene) and the DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALs (21 μg/L for naphthalene and 10 μg/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 μg/L), fluorene (0.082 μg/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μg/L) were 

detected at estimated concentrations which were below both the DOH Drinking Water EALs 

(370 μg/L for acenaphthene, 240 μg/L for fluorene and 24 μg/L for 2-methylnaphthalene) and 

the DOH Groundwater Gross Contamination EALs (20 μg/L for acenaphthene, 950 μg/L for 

fluorene, and 10 μg/L for 2-methylnaphthalene). All other COPCs were not detected at or above 

the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 and Appendix E). 

Aromatic hydrocarbons (C11-C22), C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons, and C9-C12 aliphatic 

hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 166 μg/L, 200 μg/L, and 671 μg/L, respectively. 

Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C9-C18) were detected at an estimated concentration of 28.0 μg/L. 

These analytical results are within carbon range C9-C22 which indicates that the detected 

hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. 

RHMW03 

Dissolved lead (0.22 μg/L) was detected at an estimated concentration which was below both the 

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

(5,000 μg/L). All other COPCs were not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs (Table 3-2 

and Appendix E). 

Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C9-C18) were detected at an estimated concentration of 26 μg/L. This 

analytical result indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. 

RHMW05 

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

aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons were also not detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

3.3 Groundwater Contaminant Trend 

Groundwater samples have been collected and 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 increasing or decreasing concentrations, thus 

establishing a trend: 

RHMW2254-01

COPCs have never been detected at RHMW2254-01 at concentrations greater than the DOH 

Drinking Water EALs. 

RHMW01 

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

September 2005 and July 2010, and again in April 2011 and July 2011 but less 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 μg/L), January 2010 (312F μg/L), and April 2010 (377 
Table 3-1: Red Hill Oil/Water Interface Measurements, September 2007 through October-November 2011

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

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

Sep-2007 NT2 NT2 NT2 86.80 17.96 NP 103.44 17.62 NP ~~

Jan-2008 84.67 17.60 <0.01 86.23 18.53 <0.01 NT3 NT3 NT3 ~~

Jul-2008 83.37 18.90 0.00 86.10 18.66 0.00 102.45 18.61 0.00 ~ ~ Oct-2008 83.80 18.47 0.00 86.45 18.31 0.00 102.49 18.57 0.00 ~ ~ Nov-2008 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.80 18.26 0.00 ~ ~ Jan-2009 83.13 19.14 0.00 85.79 18.97 0.00 102.04 19.02 0.00 ~ ~ Feb-2009 NT4 NT4 NT4 86.35 18.41 0.00 102.56 18.50 0.00 ~ ~ 

Mar-2009 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.64 18.42 0.00 ~ ~ Ma

y-20095 83.72 18.55 0.00 86.37 18.39 0.00 102.59 18.47 0.00 NT6 NT6 

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

Aug-2009 84.04 18.23 0.00 86.71 18.05 0.00 102.84 18.22 0.00 83.51 18.04 

Sep-2009 84.21 18.06 0.00 86.84 17.92 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.61 17.94 Oct-2009 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.87 17.89 0.00 103.07 17.99 0.00 83.62 17.93 

Nov-2009 83.91 18.36 0.00 86.56 18.20 0.00 102.81 18.25 0.00 83.25 18.30 Dec-2009 84.12 18.15 0.00 86.75 18.01 0.00 103.00 18.06 0.00 83.53 18.02 

Jan-2010 84.36 17.91 0.00 87.00 17.76 0.00 103.22 17.84 0.00 83.75 17.80 

Feb-2010 84.24 18.03 0.00 86.89 17.87 0.00 103.14 17.92 0.00 83.60 17.95 Mar-2010 84.53 17.74 0.00 87.15 17.61 0.00 103.38 17.68 0.00 83.96 17.59 

Apr-2010 84.75 17.52 0.00 87.37 17.39 0.00 103.60 17.46 0.00 84.17 17.38 May-2010 84.80 17.47 0.00 87.43 17.33 0.00 103.66 17.40 0.00 84.23 17.32 

Jun-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.51 17.25 0.00 103.74 17.32 0.00 84.30 17.25 

Jul-2010 85.03 17.24 0.00 87.66 17.10 0.00 103.89 17.17 0.00 84.48 17.07 Sep-2010 85.30 16.97 0.00 87.92 16.84 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.71 16.84 

Oct-2010 85.29 16.98 0.00 87.91 16.85 0.00 104.13 16.93 0.00 84.75 16.80 Nov-2010 85.20 17.07 0.00 87.84 16.92 0.00 104.30 16.76 0.00 84.60 16.95 

Dec-2010 84.87 17.40 0.00 87.55 17.21 0.00 103.98 17.08 0.00 84.22 17.33 

Jan-2011 85.32 16.95 0.00 86.91 17.85 0.00 103.41 17.65 0.00 83.65 17.90 Feb-2011 83.82 18.45 0.00 86.48 18.28 0.00 103.02 18.04 0.00 83.20 18.35 

Mar-2011 83.77 18.50 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.87 18.19 0.00 83.20 18.35 Apr-2011 83.54 18.73 0.00 86.18 18.58 0.00 102.39 18.67 0.00 82.90 18.65 

May-2011 83.39 18.88 0.00 86.39 18.37 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 82.72 18.83 

Jun-2011 83.41 18.86 0.00 86.11 18.65 0.00 102.33 18.73 0.00 82.81 18.74 

Jul-2011 83.57 18.70 0.00 86.22 18.54 0.00 102.44 18.62 0.00 82.99 18.56 

Aug-2011 83.81 18.46 0.00 86.42 18.34 0.00 102.66 18.40 0.00 83.21 18.34 

Sep-2011 83.81 18.46 0.00 86.44 18.32 0.00 102.69 18.37 0.00 83.21 18.34 

Oct-2011 83.71 18.56 0.00 86.38 18.38 0.00 102.90 18.16 0.00 83.15 18.40 

Notes:

2 A measurement was not taken at RHMW01 in September 2007.3 A measurement was not taken at RHMW03 in January 2008 due to equipment malfunction.4 A measurement was not taken at RHMW01. The monitoring well was inaccessible due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02.5 The April 2009 measurements were pushed back a week (to 5/6/09) due to RHMW05 installation.6 Measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the dedicated oil/water interface probe was completed. 7 The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to the installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes.

Units are in feet (ft.).Measurements recorded prior to September 2010 were collected by TEC. Measurements recorded in September 2010 and after were collected by Environet.

DTW (TOC) - depth to water from top of well casingLNAPL - light non-aqueous phase liquid attributed to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityNP - measurement not providedNT - measurement not takenSWL - static water level~ - period prior to the installation of RHMW05< - less than

RHMW05

Date

RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03

1 Elevations were updated based on the Groundwater Flow Direction/Gradient and Tier 3 Risk Assessment Re-evaluation Letter Report, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, 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 2011

Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q LOQ LOD DL Q L

C11-C22 Aromatics - - ND U 101 42.5 42.5 50.5 J 101 42.5 42.5 166 100 42.1 42.1 U 104 43.9 43.9 U 

C19-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - - ND U 101 60.6 31.6 ND U 101 60.6 31.6 ND U 100 60.0 31.3 U 104 62.5 32.6 U C9-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - - ND U 101 22.0 22.0 ND U 101 22.0 22.0 28.0 J 100 21.8 21.8 26 J 104 22.7 22.7 U 

C5-C8 Aliphatic - - ND U 30.0 15.0 3.31 ND U 30.0 15.0 3.31 ND U 300 15.0 33.1 U 30.0 15.0 3.31 U 

C9-C10 Aromatic - - ND U 10.0 5.00 1.24 20.6 10.0 5.00 1.24 200 100 5.00 12.4 U 10.0 5.00 1.24 U C9-C12 Aliphatic - - ND U 20.0 10.0 3.20 69.9 20.0 10.0 3.20 671 200 10.0 32.0 U 20.0 10.0 3.20 U 

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 U 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 U 150b 80.8 40.4 U 

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

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

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 U 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 0.07 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 U 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 0.07 U Chrysene 9.2 1 U 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 0.05 U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 U Fluoranthene 1,500 130 U 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 0.08 U Fluorene 240 950 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.092 0.095 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 U 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 U 0.2 0.12 0.06 U Naphthalene 17 21 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0.2 0.10 0.05 U 0.2 0.10 0.05 U Phenanthrene 240 410 U 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 0.07 U Pyrene 180 68 U 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 0.08 U 1,1,1-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 1,1,2-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 1,1-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 1,1-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 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 U 2.0 0.78 0.39 U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 U 1,2,4-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 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 U 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 U 1,2-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 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1,2-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 1,3-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 1,3-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 1,4-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 Acetone 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 Benzene 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 Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 U Bromoform 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 Bromomethane 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 Carbon 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 Chlorobenzene 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 Chloroethane 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 Chloroform 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 Chloromethane 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 cis-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 Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 U Ethylbenzene 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 Hexachlorobutadiene 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 Methyl 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 Methyl 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 Methyl 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 Methylene 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 Styrene 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 Tetrachloroethane, 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 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 U Tetrachloroethylene (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 Toluene 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 trans-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 Trichloroethylene (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 Vinyl 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 Xylenes 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 

EPA 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 

Notes: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 EALs

EPHVPH

ND NDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDND

ND

NDND

DOH Drinking Water EALs 

for Human Toxicitya 

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

Method Chemical

DL - detection limit or method detection limit (MDL)Bold - Result exceeds one or both DOH EALs.

b In the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009). 

a DOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).

750

ND

0.17

ND

Result

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa Result

RHMW2254-01

(ES050)

Result Result

RHMW03

(ES049)

RHMW01 

(ES057)

Result

RHMW02 

(ES046)

NDNDNDND

ND

0.082

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.530.150.80

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDND

NDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.22

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

ND

210

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDNDNDND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

NDNDND

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.13

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
Quarterly 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 

μg/L); decreased in July 2010 (228F μg/L); and were not detected above the LODs and LOQs in 

October-November 2010 and January 2011. TPH-DRO 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 μg/L) (Appendix B). 

RHMW02 

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

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

Drinking Water EAL of 210 μg/L and were greater than 50% of the SSRBL (estimated solubility 

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

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

the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. 

TPH-DRO concentrations decreased from October 2008 through July 2009. In May 2009 and 

July 2009, TPH-DRO remained above the DOH Drinking Water EAL, but was below 50% of the 

SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. In October 2009, TPH-DRO began an increasing trend greater than 50% 

of the SSRBL which continued through February 2010 when it exceeded the SSRBL due to TICs 

apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). In March 2010 (2,490 

μg/L) and April 2010 (2,215 μg/L), TPH-DRO exhibited a decreasing trend and the TICs 

detected in the two previous monitoring events were not observed. During July 2010, TPH-DRO 

concentrations at RHMW02 increased to an average concentration of 3,085 μg/L, above 50% of 

the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L. During October-November 2010, TPH-DRO concentrations 

decreased to 1,700 μg/L, and in January 2011 concentrations decreased further to 1,040 μg/L, 

below 50% of the SSRBL. TPH-DRO exhibited a concentration detected at 1,100 μg/L in April 

2011; however concentrations increased to 1,450 μg/L in July 2011. TPH-DRO concentration 

decreased to 750 μg/L in October-November 2011. 

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

2006 (145 μg/L), December 2006 (124 μg/L), March 2007 (135 μg/L), and October-November 

2010 (155 μg/L). 

From September 2005 through October 2008, naphthalene concentrations remained above the 

EAL and were relatively stable. In February 2009, naphthalene concentrations began decreasing 

and reached the lowest average concentration in May 2009 (2 μg/L) which was below the EAL. 

From July 2009 through July 2010, concentrations increased above the EAL. Then in 

October-November 2010 and January 2011, naphthalene concentrations decreased slightly to 

concentrations which were still above the EAL. In April 2011 naphthalene concentrations 

decreased to below the EAL. Concentrations 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 through October 2008. In February 2009, 

1-methylnapthalene began decreasing and reached the lowest average concentration in October 

2009 (3.2 μg/L) which was below the EALs. In January 2010, 1-methylnaphthalene 

concentrations increased above the EALs; then decreased in April 2010; and have exhibited an 

increasing trend from July 2010 through January 2011 (Appendix B). The average concentration 
Quarterly 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 μg/L) for 1-methylnaphthalene in April 2011 decreased to slightly above the DOH Drinking 

Water EAL of 4.7 μg/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-methylnaphthalene 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 observed at RHMW01 and 

RHMW02. TPH-DRO concentrations 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 μg/L) which was above the EAL. In January 

2011, April 2011, July 2011, and this October-November 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 monitoring event, TPH-DRO concentrations were 

greater than the DOH Drinking Water EAL (210 μg/L) with the highest concentration of 2,060 

μg/L being observed in January 2010. It is important to note that the January 2010 concentration 

contained TICs apparently not associated with petroleum from the RHSF (TEC, 2010). 

However, during this October-November 2011 and the previous six groundwater monitoring 

events TPH-DRO concentrations exhibited a decrease and were not detected at or above the 

LOD or LOQ. 

3.4 Groundwater Status 

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

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

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

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

and updated EALs (DOH, 2009). 

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

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

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

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

3-4). The current Results Categories for the monitoring wells were determined using the 

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 RHMW01, 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 between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for 

TPH 

A, B, G, H, I, J A, B, E, G, H, I, J A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 

I, J, K, L, O 

Results Category 4: Result Exceeding any SSRBL or 

petroleum product observed 

A, C, D, E, F, I, 

J, K, M, N 

A, C, D, E, F, I, J, 

K, M, N, O 

A, C, D, E, F, G, I, 

J, K, L, O 

Notes: 

*RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has 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 frequency to once per month (if concentrations increasing). 

H. Notify DOH verbally within seven days and follow with written notification in 30 days. 

I. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pertinent wells with interface probe, re-install pumps if product is not detected.

J. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks. 

K. Collect samples from nearby Hālawa Deep Monitoring Well (2253-03) and OWDFMW01. For permission to sample 2253-03, call Department of Land and 

 Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on Water Resource Management 808-587-0214, DLNRCWR@Hawaii.gov. 

L. Provide alternative water source at RHMW2254-01. 

M. Prepare for alternative water source at RHMW2254-01. 

N. Re-measure for product every month with reports to DOH. 

O. Install additional monitoring well downgradient. 

Report Types 

DOH Type 1 Report 

 Re-evaluate Tier 3 Risk Assessment/groundwater model results 

 Proposal to DOH on course of action 

DOH Type 2 Report 

 Proposal for groundwater treatment
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 3

Groundwater Monitoring Results

 December 2011

3-10 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Results Category RHMW2254-01 RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 RHMW05

Results Category 1: Result above detection 

limit but below drinking water EAL and trend for all compounds stable or decreasing

No Yes No Yes No

Results Category 2: Trend for any compound increasing or drinking water EAL exceeded No No Yes No NoResults Category 3: Result between 1/10X SSRBL and SSRBL for benzene, or between 1/2X SSRBL and SSRBL for TPH

No No No No No

Results Category 4: Result exceeding any SSRBL or petroleum product observed No No No No NoPrevious Category: Category prior to 

October-November monitoring event None Category 2 Category 2 None NoneNew Category: Category assignment based 

on results of the October-November monitoring event

None Category 1 Category 2 Category 1 None

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH2. Initiation of a leak determination program to identify if tanks are leaking

Table 3‐5: Summary of Result Categories and Response Actions, October-November 2011Response Actions: Requirements of new 

category

None None

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to DOH
Quarterly 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 Assessment

 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 generated meets the quality 

objectives for the project. The field QC program consisted of standardized sample collection and 

management procedures and the collection of field duplicate samples and trip blank samples. 

The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods 

and the preparation and analyses of MS/MSD samples, surrogate spikes, method blanks, and 

LCS. 

4.1 Data Validation 

The usability of the data collected during this investigation depends upon its quality. A number 

of factors relate to the quality of data, including: sample collection methods, sample analysis 

methods, and adherence to established procedures for sample collection, preservation, 

management, shipment, and analysis. Data quality is judged in terms of its precision, accuracy, 

representativeness, completeness, and comparability. 

4.1.1 Quality Control Program 

LOQs are established by the laboratory based on the method DLs or instrument DLs, historical 

data, and EPA limits established for the methods. The LOQs for samples may require 

adjustment due to matrix interference or if high levels of target analytes necessitate dilution 

before analysis. Matrix interference and sample dilutions have the effect of increasing the 

LOQs. None of the reporting limits were adjusted for this monitoring event. 

4.1.2 Data Assessment 

Precision 

Precision is defined as the agreement between a set of replicate measurements without 

assumption and knowledge of the true value. Precision is evaluated by relative percent 

difference (RPD) of field duplicates and laboratory 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 dummy 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, met 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 precision 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 analyte in a reference standard or 

spiked sample. Accuracy limits for laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are 

established by the individual laboratory. The acceptance criteria for accuracy are dependent on 

the analytical method, and are based on historical laboratory data. 
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

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

Section 4

Data Quality Assessment

 December 2011

4-2 

All of the LCS, MS/MSD and surrogate spike recoveries 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 acceptable criteria (61%). However, it is not expected 

to significantly impact the data accuracy because it is the only anomaly observed in the QC tests. 

Therefore the data accuracy for this monitoring event is considered acceptable. 

Representativeness 

Representativeness is the degree that data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a 

population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition. 

Representativeness was achieved by conducting sampling in compliance with the sample 

collection procedures described in the Work Plan specifically written for this project (Environet, 

2010). 

Representativeness is also evaluated through the compliance 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 trip blanks were collected 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 analytical 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 the field and laboratory portions of the project 

are performed according to the procedures described in the Work Plan (Environet, 2010). 

Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. 

Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these quantities are measures of 

data reliability. Data with acceptable precision and accuracy are considered comparable if 

collection techniques, analytical procedures, methods and reporting are equivalent. For this 

monitoring event the samples were collected using approaches consistent with those in the 

previous events, and the same analytical methods/procedures were used to measure the 

concentration of COPCs. Therefore the results are considered comparable within this data set 

and with the data collected from previous sampling events. 

4.1.3 Data Assessment Conclusions 

The precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, 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 2011

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

C11-C22 Aromatics - - 166 100 42.1 42.1 166 100 42.5 42.1 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

C19-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - - ND U 100 60.0 31.3 ND U 100 60.6 31.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C9-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - - 28.0 J 100 21.8 21.8 40.0 J 101 22.0 22.0 35.29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

C5-C8 Aliphatic - - ND U 300 150 33.1 ND U 300 150 33.1 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

C9-C10 Aromatic - - 200 100 50.0 12.4 174 100 50.0 12.4 13.90 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

C9-C12 Aliphatic - - 671 200 100 32.0 770 200 100 32.0 13.74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

EPA 8015B (Petroleum) TPH-DRO 210 100 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 ++ 150b 80.8 40.4 2.63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

EPA 8260 B (Petroleum) TPH-GRO 100 100 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 0 ND U 20.0 12.12 6.06 ND U 20.0 12.12 6

Acenaphthene 370 20 0.17 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.16 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 6.06 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Anthracene 1,800 22 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.092 4.7 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 0.13 ND U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2b 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 0.81 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 ND U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 ND U 0.2b 0.12 0.06 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Chrysene 9.2 1 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 ND U 0.2b 0.10 0.05 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Fluoranthene 1,500 130 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Fluorene 240 950 0.082 J 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 U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2b 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 0.53 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.62 0.2 0.12 0.06 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 0.15 J 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.06 28.57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Naphthalene 17 21 0.80 0.2 0.10 0.05 1 0.2 0.10 0.05 22.22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Phenanthrene 240 410 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 ND U 0.2 0.14 0.07 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Pyrene 180 68 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 ND U 0.2 0.16 0.08 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 01,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0 0.40 01,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 01,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-Dichloroethene) 7 1,500 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 0 ND U 1.0 0.60 0.30 ND U 1.0 0.60 0

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 ND U 2.0 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 0 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0.39 ND U 2.0b 0.78 0

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 01,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.04 10 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 0 ND U 2.0b 1.52 0.76 ND U 2.0b 1.52 01,2-Dibromoethane 0.0065 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 0 ND U 1.0b 0.40 0.20 ND U 1.0b 0.40 01,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 01,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 01,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 01,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 0 ND U 1.0 0.22 0.11 ND U 1.0 0.22 01,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 ND U 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 01,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0Acetone 22,000 20,000 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 0 ND U 10.0 1.90 0.95 ND U 10.0 1.90 0Benzene 5 170 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0Bromodichloromethane 0.22 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0b 0.28 0Bromoform 100 510 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 0 ND U 1.0 0.28 0.14 ND U 1.0 0.28 0Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 0 ND U 2.0 0.48 0.24 ND U 2.0 0.48 0Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0 0.20 0Chlorobenzene 100 50 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0Chloroethane 8,600 16 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 0 ND U 1.0 0.42 0.21 ND U 1.0 0.42 0Chloroform 70 2,400 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 0 ND U 1.0 0.14 0.07 ND U 1.0 0.14 0Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 0 ND U 1.0 0.62 0.31 ND U 1.0 0.62 0cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene) 70 50,000 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0

Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane) 0.16 50,000 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0b 0.38 0

Ethylbenzene 700 30 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 0 ND U 10.0 1.20 0.60 ND U 10.0 1.20 0

Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-pentanone) 2,000 1,300 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 0 ND U 10.0 3.80 1.90 ND U 10.0 3.80 1

Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 ND U 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

Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 ND U 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

Styrene 100 10 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 0 ND U 1.0 0.50 0.25 ND U 1.0 0.50 0

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 ND U 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 0Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 0 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0.10 ND U 1.0b 0.20 0

Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) 5 170 ND U 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

Toluene 1,000 40 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 0 ND U 1.0 0.34 0.17 ND U 1.0 0.34 0trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-Dichloroethene) 100 260 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 5 310 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 0 ND U 1.0 0.32 0.16 ND U 1.0 0.32 0

Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 0 ND U 1.0 0.46 0.23 ND U 1.0 0.46 0

Xylenes 10,000 20 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 0 ND U 1.0 0.38 0.19 ND U 1.0 0.38 0

EPA 6020 Lead 15 5,000 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 ND U 0.5 0.22 0.11 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Notes:RHMW02D is a duplicate sample of RHMW02

b In the case where an EAL for a specific chemical is less than the LOQ for a commercial laboratory, it is generally acceptable to consider the LOQ in place of the action level (DOH, Evaluation of Environmental

 Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater 2008, updated March 2009). 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 EALs

Trip Blank

(10/25 - ES052)

RHMW02 Duplicate

(ES047) (10/24 - ES048)

EPH

750

DOH Groundwater Gross 

Contamination EALsa 

Trip Blank

U - Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result is reported as ND.

a DOH EALs (DOH, 2009): Table D-1b. Groundwater Action Levels (Groundwater is a current or potential drinking water resource; surface water body is not located within 150 meters of release site).

RPD Duplicate 

(%)

EPA 8260 B (VOCs)

EPA 8270D SIM (PAHs)

Result

RHMW02 Primary

(ES046)

Result

Method Chemical DOH Drinking Water EALs for Human Toxicitya Result

--------------------------

VPH

770

--

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 Assessment

 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 October-November 2011 data. Based on the 

October-November 2011 groundwater monitoring event, RHMW2254-01 does not fall into any 

Results Category of the Groundwater Protection Plan. 

5.1.1 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements 

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

October-November monitoring event. The trend of free product measurements over time shows 

that in January 2008, fuel was measured in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a 

thickness of less than 0.01 feet, but was not observed in any 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). 

5.1.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results 

Laboratory analytical results from the October-November 2011 groundwater monitoring event 

indicated that TPH-DRO was present in the groundwater beneath the RHSF at concentrations 

equal or above the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPC concentrations (i.e., TPH-GRO, 

VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead) were below the 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 μg/L) was detected at a concentration equal to 

the DOH Drinking Water EAL. Chloroform (0.13 μg/L) was detected at an estimated 

concentration below the DOH Drinking Water EAL. All other COPCs in RHMW01 were not 

detected at or above the LODs and LOQs. 

In monitoring well RHMW02, TPH-DRO (750 μg/L) was detected at a concentration which 

exceeded the DOH Drinking Water EAL. Naphthalene (0.80 μg/L) and 1-methylnaphthalene 

(0.53 μg/L) were detected at concentrations below the DOH Drinking Water EALs. 

Acenaphthene (0.17 μg/L), fluorene (0.082 μg/L) and 2-methylnaphthalene (0.15 μg/L) were 

detected at estimated concentrations below the 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 μg/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 typically have the majority of the hydrocarbons in 

the C10 to C20 range. In monitoring well RHMW01, C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-C10

aromatic hydrocarbons, and C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 

50.5 μg/L, 20.6 μg/L, and 69.9 μg/L, respectively. These analytical results are within carbon 

range C9-C18 which indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. In 

monitoring well RHMW02, C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons, and 

C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 166 μg/L, 200 μg/L, and 671 

μg/L, respectively. Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C9-C18) were detected at an estimated concentration 

of 28.0 μg/L. These analytical results are within carbon range C9-C22 which indicates that the 

detected hydrocarbons are likely petroleum based. 

In monitoring well RHMW03, C9-C18 aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected at an estimated 

concentration of 26 μg/L. This analytical result indicates that the detected hydrocarbons are 

likely petroleum based. 

In monitoring well RHMW05, all aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons were not detected at or 

above the LODs and LOQs. 

5.2 Conclusions 

To date, the presence of LNAPL has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 

and RHMW02 at a thickness of less than 0.01 feet). This indicates a significant release from one 

or more of the USTs at the RHSF has not occurred at this time. 

COPC concentrations in samples collected from the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01 have not been 

detected above the EALs. This indicates that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples 

collected from monitoring wells within the RHSF are not migrating and impacting the Navy’s 

potable water source. 

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring well RHMW05 have 

decreased to below the EALs for the past seven consecutive quarterly monitoring events. The 

data suggest that elevated COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring 

wells located adjacent to the USTs are not migrating in the downgradient direction. RHMW05 is 

an intermediate monitoring point between the USTs and the U.S. Navy Well 2254-01. At this 

time, there is no indication that COPCs are migrating in a downgradient direction towards the 

Navy’s potable water source. 

COPC concentrations detected in samples collected from two monitoring wells adjacent to the 

USTs (i.e., RHMW01 and RHMW03) are not steadily increasing between sampling events. 

Concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene detected in samples collected 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 potentially residual hydrocarbon contamination from a 

historical release. The general overall long-term trend in 1-methylnaphthalene concentration is 

decreasing and does not indicate 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 aromatic hydrocarbons detected were within the 

C10-C20 range, the detected TPH-DRO in monitoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 is likely to 

be petroleum based. 

5.3 Recommendations 

Based on the results of this monitoring event, continuation of the quarterly groundwater 

monitoring program at the RHSF is recommended. In addition, continuation of monthly free 

product measurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05; and monthly soil 

vapor monitoring are also recommended. In response to the Category 1 status of RHMW01 and 

RHMW03, and the Category 2 status of RHMW02, submission of this quarterly report to DOH 

and continuation of a leak determination program as described in Section 3 of the RHSF 

Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008) to identify if tanks are leaking are recommended. 

 
 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, JBPHH, 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 Sampling Report, Red Hill Fuel 

Storage Facility, Hawaii. February. 

DOH, 2009. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and 

Groundwater. Updated March 2009. 

DON, 2007. Project Procedures Manual, U.S. Navy Environmental Restoration Program, 

NAVFAC Pacific. February. 

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

Harbor, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. September. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 281, Subchapter 7. 

TEC, 2006. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final – Addendum Planning Documents, Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii. May. 

_____, 2007, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii. August. 

_____, 2008. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii. January 2008 revised in December 2009. 

_____, 2010. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl 

Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. August. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2005. Aerial Image. http://hawaii.wr.usgs.gov/index.html. 
 

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report 

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, 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 2011 

5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐1: TPH at RHMW2254‐01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time
5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐2: TPH at RHMW01

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time
5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐3: TPH at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time
5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐4: TPH at RHMW03

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time
5

50

500

5000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐5: TPH at RHMW05

Quarterly Monitoring Results

TPH‐DROTPH‐GROTPH‐DRO DLTPH‐GRO DLTPH‐DRO EALTPH‐GRO EALSSRBL

Time
0.1

1

10

100

1000

Jun‐05 Mar‐06 Dec‐06 Sep‐07 Jun‐08 Mar‐09 Dec‐09 Sep‐10 Jun‐11

(μg/L) Concentration Log

Figure A‐6: PAHs at RHMW02

Quarterly Monitoring Results

Naphthalene1‐Methylnaphthalene2‐MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalene EAL1‐Methylnaphthalene EAL2‐Methylnaphthalene EAL

Time
Appendix C 

Field Notebook, October-November 2011





Appendix D 

Groundwater Sampling Logs, 

October-November 2011 

WELL ID: LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/cm)

TURBIDITY 

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

C) SALINITY 

(ppt)

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 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

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

RHMW2254-01
WELL ID: RHMW01 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/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 FedEx
WELL ID: RHMW02 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/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

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

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/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 JT
WELL ID: RHMW05 LOCATION: PROJECT NO:

INITIAL WATER LEVEL: DATE: TIME:

TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL: PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

LENGTH OF SATURATED ZONE: WEATHER CONDITIONS:

VOLUME OF WATER TO BE REMOVED: METHOD OF REMOVAL:

WATER LEVEL AFTER PURGING: PUMPING RATE: 

WELL PURGE DATA:

TIME VOLUME 

REMOVED pH COND 

(mS/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)