# Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility
Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii

Latitude: 21 o 

## 22’15” N Longitude: 157 o 

## 53’33” W

HDOH Facility ID No. 9-102271
HDOH Release ID No. 99051, 010011, 020028

December 2009

Prepared by:

TEC Inc. 1001 Bishop St. Suite 1400 American Savings Bank Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Prepared for:

Commander Navy Region Hawaii Environmental Department, Code N45 850 Ticonderoga Street, Suite 110 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-5101Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

i 

## Table of Contents

Table of Contents

............................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Project Objective ............................................................................................................. . 6

1.2 Previous Reports .............................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Background .................................................................................................................... .. 7

1.3.1 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 7

1.3.2 Facility Information .................................................................................................. 7

1.3.3 UST Information ....................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Previous Environmental Investigations ............................................................................ 7

1.5 Regulatory Updates ........................................................................................................ 10

1.6 RHMW05 Installation .................................................................................................... 10

2.0 Sample Collection and Analyses ........................................................................................ 10

2.1 Monitoring Well Purging ............................................................................................... 11

2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection .................................................................................... 11

2.3 Groundwater Sample Analyses ...................................................................................... 11

3.1 October 2009 Sample Analytical Results ....................................................................... 12

3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Trend ................................................................................... 14

3.3 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements ............................................................... 15

3.4 Groundwater Status ........................................................................................................ 16

4.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 19

5.0 References .......................................................................................................................... 23

List of Tables Table 1 Analytical Results for Quarterly Gr oundwater Sampling Release Response Report ..13

Table 2 Oil/Water Inte rface Measurements ..............................................................................16

Table 3 Action Levels fo r Compounds of Concern ..................................................................16 Table 4 Results Categories and Responses to Groundwater Monitoring Results .....................17

List of Figures Figure 1 TPH Trends in Groundwater , Round 17 (October 13 and 14, 2009) ...........................20 Figure 2 PAH Trends in Groundwater , Round 17 (October 13 and 14, 2009) ..........................21

List of Appendices Appendix A – Laboratory Analytical ReportsQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1 

## Executive Summary

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of groundwater sampling conducted on October 13 and 14, 2009 at the United States (US) Navy Bulk Fuel Storage Facility at Red Hill, Oahu, Ha waii (the Facility). The sampling and repo rting was conducted by TEC Inc. (TEC) for the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This report is part of a series of quarterly groundwater monitoring repor ts provided by the US Navy to the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) in accordance with HDOH’s release response requirements. Currently, there are 18 active a nd 2 inactive, 12.5 million gallon, field-constructed underground storage tanks (USTs) located at the Facility.

Background In 2002, the US Navy installed a groundwater monitoring well (cur rently named RHMW01) into the basal aquifer, directly down-gradient from the Facility, within th e lower access tunnel. Groundwater samples from this well indicated that petroleum from the Facility has migrated to the basal aquifer (AMEC, 2002). In 2005, the US Navy began quarterly monitoring of the aquifer to protect their down-grad ient drinking water resource a ssociated with the US Navy Well 2254-01. US Navy Well 2254-01 is located approxi mately 3,000 feet down-gradient from the Facility USTs and provides approximately 24 % of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS).

By September 2005, the US Navy had installe d two more groundwater monitoring wells (RHMW02 and RHMW03) within the Facil ity UST system, a background groundwater monitoring well (RHMW04) up-gradient from the Facility adjacent to the US Navy Firing Range, and a groundwater monitoring well within the US Navy Well 2254-01 infiltration gallery (RHMW2254-01).

All five wells were sampled twice as part of a comprehensive environmental investigation and risk assessment (TEC, 2006). For this investig ation, groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents and compared agains t HDOH Drinking Water E nvironmental Action Levels (EALs) (HDOH, July 2005). In additio n, a three-dimensional (3-D) groundwater model was developed to produce site-specific risk-based levels (SSRBLs) for compounds of concern. The results of this modeling effort indicated that Jet Propulsion (JP)–5 fuel presented the biggest risk to the US Navy water supply, due to its mobility and toxicity. Finally, the model determined that a non-aqueous plume (free product) of JP-5 would need to migrate to within 1,100 feet of the US Navy Well 2254-01 infiltrati on gallery for HDOH EALs to be exceeded within the gallery. Based on this, free-product must be observed at RHMW01 for EALs to be exceeded at the US Navy Well 2254-01.

In April 2009, another groundwater monitoring well (RHMW05) was installed down-gradient from the Facility, within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01. It was installed to identify the extent of contamin ant migration down-gradient before it reaches the infiltration gallery at RHMW2254-01 (see Figure 1).

During the summer and fall of 2008, HDOH updated their EALs, which resulted in significant changes to the action levels associated with methylnaphthalenes. The HDOH Drinking WaterQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

2 toxicity EAL for these compounds was 240  g/L. This concentration assumed that methylnaphthalenes were not human carcinogens. Once evidence emerged and was accepted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA ) that methylnaphthalenes are carcinogenic to humans, HDOH adopted more rigorous EALs of 4.7  g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24  g/L for 2-methylnaphthale ne (HDOH, 2008).

The HDOH Drinking Water EAL for naphthalene was also updated during this process. Previously, HDOH based their naphthalene EA L on USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation
Goal (USEPA PRG) of 6.2  g/L, which is associated with a non-cancer Hazard Index of 1. In deference to the California Department of Pub lic Health’s Drinking Water Notification Levels, (HDOH, 2008) HDOH updated their naphtha lene drinking water EAL to 17  g/L.

Finally, the HDOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was increased from 100  g/L to 210

 g/L, although the Groundwater Gross Cont amination EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100  g/L.

Groundwater Protection Plan In 2008, the US Navy completed the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Final Groundwater

Protection Plan (TEC, 2008), which specified SSRBLs and various required ac tions based on the category status (i.e., categorie s 1 through 4) of each groundwater monitoring well. The main objective of the Plan is to protect the gr oundwater quality of US Navy Well 2254-01, which provides potable water to the PHWS. This is accomplished by comparing petroleum concentrations in the Facility wells to esta blished SSRBLs and taking appropriate action. A secondary, but important objective of the Plan is to identify leaking USTs by evaluating increasing concentration trends, or the presen ce of free product in one or more groundwater monitoring wells. This quarterly report compares observed wate r quality to these established categories and associated actions.

Current Results On October 13 and 14, 2009, five groundwater samples (i.e., RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05 and RHMW2254-01), along with the requi red quality control samples (duplicate, matrix spike, spike duplicate, and trip blank) were collected for analysis. Samples were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) quantif ied as Diesel-Range Organics (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organics (GRO), Volatile Orga nic Compounds (VOCs), Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dissolved lead.

TPH-DRO TPH-DRO was detected at 299 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in RHMW01, 2,570 μg/L (i.e., the average of normal and duplicate samples) in RHMW02, and at 673 μg/L in RHMW05. TPHDRO was not detected above the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) at RHMW03 and

RHMW2254-01. The HDOH Drinki ng Water EAL and SSRBL for TPH-DRO are 210 μg/L and 4,500 μg/L, respectively.

TPH-GRO For TPH-GRO the HDOH Drinking Water EAL is 100 μg/L. In samples RHMW01, RHMW02D (i.e., the duplicate sample co llected), RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

3 TPH-GRO was not observed above the laboratory MD L (i.e., 30 μg/L). In the regular sample from RHMW02, TPH-GRO was detected at 36.9F μg/L [F indicates that the compound was identified, but the concentration was above the MDL and below the reporting limit (RL),

therefore is considered an estimat e], just above th e laboratory MDL.

Other Parameters above HDOH Drinking Water EALs At RHMW02, the average concentration betw een the normal and duplicate sample of naphthalene was 21.65 μg/L. This is above th e HDOH Drinking Water EA L for naphthalene of 17 μg/L.

Trend Analysis The following is a discussion of compounds th at exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs during two or more recent consecutive sampling events, thus establishing a trend:

RHMW01 At RHMW01, concentrations of TPH-DRO have been greater than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL since September 2005, but less than 25 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L. TPH-DRO had exhibited a decreasing tre nd since October 2008 with the lo west concentration (i.e., 248 μg/L) recorded in July 2009. In October 20 09, this trend changed as TPH-DRO increased slightly to 299F μg/L.

RHMW02 From September 2005 through February 2009, TP H-DRO exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EAL and was greater than 50 percent of th e SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of 4,500  g/L). However, there has been a de creasing trend since the SSRBL was exceeded in October 2008 to below 50 percent of the SSRBL in May and Ju ly 2009. However, in October 2009, TPH-DRO increased to 2,570 μg/L, above 50 percent of the SSRBL.

For other parameters, 1-methylnaphthalene and 2- methylnaphthalene have almost consistently averaged concentrations above HDOH Drinking Water EALs (i.e., 4.7  g/L and 24  g/L, respectively) since September 2005. However, a significantly decreasi ng trend since October 2008 has since brought these concen trations below the HDOH Dri nking Water EALs. In October 2009, 1-methylnaphthalene decreased from the pr evious round with an average concentration
(i.e., 3.245  g/L) being the lowest of any round since September 2005. 2-methylnaphthalene decreased to an average concentration of 0.6345  g/L after increasing in July 2009 from the lowest concentration recorded in May 2009. Naphtha lene has exhibited a hi storical trend similar to 2-methylnaphthalene at RHMW02. However, in October 2009 naphthalene increased to an averaged 21.65  g/L, greater than the HDO H Drinking Water EAL of 17  g/L.

RHMW03 At RHMW03, historically, conc entrations of TPH-DRO have fluctuated around the HDOH Drinking Water EAL, but have been significantl y lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and RHMW02. However, during the last three sampling events (i.e., May, July, and October 2009), TPH-DRO was not detected above th e laboratory MDLs. These results represent a continuing decreasing trend for TPH-DR O that has existed since October 2008.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4 RHMW05 At RHMW05 there is an increasing trend for TPH-DRO. The October 2009 concentration was 673 μg/L, an increase as compared with the May and July 2009 concentrations of 200 μg/L and 491 μg/L, respectively. The October 2009 co ncentration remains above the HDOH EAL and below 25 percent of th e SSRBL for TPH-DRO.

US Navy Well 2254-01 At US Navy Well 2254-01, no compounds have been detected above the la boratory MDLs since trace concentrations of TPH-GRO and 2-methylnapht halene that were observed in the February and May 2009.

Current Groundwater Status To date, there is no observation of a trend (i.e., two or more consecutive events) of light-non aqueous phased liquids (LNAPL), otherwise known as free product, presen ce on groundwater at any of the Facility monitoring wells.

US Navy Well 2254-01 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event, the US Navy Well 2254-01 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds we re detected above the laboratory MDLs.

RHMW03 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event, RHMW03 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds were de tected above the laboratory MDLs.

Category 1 Status Locations There are no Category 1 status locations.

Category 2 Status Locations

RHMW01 The October 2009 sampling event in dicates that RHMW01 should rema in in Category 2 status.

This is because the TPH-DRO concentration of 299F  g/L is greater than the HDOH Drinking
Water EAL (210  g/L), but less than half the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L (estimated solubility limit of JP-5).

RHMW05 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event RHMW05 should remain in a Category 2 status. TPH-DRO at RHMW05 (i.e., 673 μg/L) is above the drinking water EAL of 210 μg/L and has been showing an increasing trend over the last three rounds (i.e., 200 μg/L in May 2009 and 491 μg/L in July 2009).

Category 2 for RHMW01 and RHMW05 requires:

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to HDOH; and

2. Initiation of a leak determination progr am to identify if tanks are leaking.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

5 Category 3 Status Locations

RHMW02 Results from the October 2009 sampling event indi cate that RHMW02 is presently in Category 3 status (i.e., upgraded from Category 2 status observed during the July 2009 sampling event),
since TPH-DRO [2,570  g/L and 2,570  g/L (duplicate)] is greate r than the HDOH Drinking
Water EAL (210  g/L), and is between one half and the established SSRBL value of 4,500  g/L (estimated solubility limit of JP-5). In addition, th e HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 17  g/L for naphthalene was exceeded [i.e., 23.3  g/L and 20  g/L (duplicate)].

Category 3 response at RHMW02 requires:

1. Send quarterly reports to HDOH;

2. Initiation of a leak determination progr am to identify if tanks are leaking;

3. Increase free product monitoring frequenc y to once per month (if concentrations increasing);

4. Notify HDOH verbally within 7 days and fo llow with written notification in 30 days;

5. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pe rtinent wells with interface probe, reinstall pumps if product is not detected; and

6. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks.

Category 4 Status Locations There are no Category 4 status locations.

Conclusions and Recommendations

There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking wate r resources of the US Navy Well 2254-01 as a result in the October 2009 data. Based upon the October 2009 data, the US Navy Well 2254-01 is not eligible for a categ ory status change since no compounds were detected above the laboratory MDLs.

With the exception of RHMW03 and RHMW2254-01, compound concentrations for all the other monitoring wells (i.e., RHMW01, RHMW 02, and RHMW05) are exhibiting increasing

contaminant trends for TPH-DRO relative to the concentrations observed in July 2009, among the lowest since Septembe r 2005. However, current results are still at con centration levels on the lower end of the historical rang e, with the exception of RHMW05. As a result of the October 2009 sampling event, RHMW03 is not elig ible for a category status change.

Quarterly groundwater sampling for TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead will continue at the Facility until such time that da ta indicates that a different monitoring plan is warranted. It is recommended that future quarte rly analytical results be closely assessed at RHMW05, since it continues to ex hibit an increasing contaminant trend (i.e., 200 μg/L in May 2009, 491μg/L in July 2009, and 673 μg/L in October 2009 for TPH-DRO).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

6 

## 1.0 Introduction

This report presents the results of the 17 th groundwater sampling even t, conducted in October 2009 at the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Oahu, Ha waii (hereafter referred to as “the Facility”). The Facility consists of 18 active and 2 inactiv e underground storage tanks (USTs) operated by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), 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 investig ations, and recommendations from the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).



### 1.1 Project Objective

This groundwater sampling project was performed to evaluate the presence of chemicals of potential concern in groundwater underlying the Facility. The project wa s conducted to ensure the Navy remains in compliance with HDOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-281 Subc hapter 7, Release Response Action. The groundwater sampling program followe d the procedures described in Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Groundwater Protection Plan [TEC Inc. (TEC), 2008], also referred to as “the Plan”.

This groundwater sampling event was condu cted by TEC under United States (US) Navy Contract Number N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order No. 54.



### 1.2 Previous Reports

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

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);Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

7 15. Groundwater Monitoring Results, May 2009 (submitted July 2009); and

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



### 1.3 Background

The following sections provide a description of th e site and information on the Facility and USTs.

1.3.1 Site Description
The Facility is located in Halawa Heights on Oahu, Hawaii. Land adjacen t to the north of the Facility is occupied by Halawa Correctional Faci lity and private businesses. Land to the south and west of the Facility includes the Coast Guar d Reservation. Moanalua Valley is located east of the Facility (Dawson, 2006).

The Navy Public Works Department operates a pot able water infiltratio n tunnel approximately 1,550 feet hydraulically down-gradient from th e Facility (Dawson, 2006). The US Navy Well 2254-01 is located approximately 3,000 feet down-grad ient (west) of the Facility and provides approximately 24% of the potab le water to the Pearl Harbor Water System (PHWS), which serves approximately 52,200 military consumers (TEC, 2008).

1.3.2 Facility Information
The Facility consists of 18 act ive and 2 inactive USTs operate d by Navy FISC Pearl Harbor. Each UST has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons. The Facility is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer (Dawson, 2006).

1.3.3 UST Information

The USTs were constructed in th e early 1940s. The tanks were c onstructed of steel and currently contain Jet Propulsion (JP)–5 fuel and F-76 (diesel marine fuel ). Previously, se veral tanks stored Navy Special Fuel Oil, Navy Distillate, aviati on gasoline, and motor gasoline. Each tank measures approximately 245 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at depths varying between approxima tely 100 feet and 200 feet below the existing ground surface (TEC, 2006).



### 1.4 Previous Environmental Investigations

1998 to 2001: From 1998 to 2001, the Navy conducted an i nvestigation at the Facility to assess potential releases from the fuel storage USTs and piping systems. In February 2001, the Navy installed a one-inch diameter RHMW01 (previ ously known as MW-V1D) to monitor for contamination of the basal aquifer underlying the Facility. The well was installed and completed at approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access t unnel. At the time of well completion, depth to water in RHMW01 was measur ed at 86 feet below grade (Dawson, 2006).

In February 2001, groundwater samples collec ted from RHMW01 contai ned total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) concentrations ra nging from 883 micrograms per liter (  g/L) to 1,050  g/L and total lead ranging from 10.4  g/L to 15  g/L. The maximum total lead concentration in the samples was equal to the primar y drinking water standard of 15  g/L for lead and exceeded the HDOH Tier 1 groundwater action level of 5.6  g/L (Dawson, 2006).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

8 2005 – Groundwater Sampling: The Navy began quarterly groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells in 2005. Da wson Group, Inc. collected groundw ater samples from RHMW01 and the Red Hill Navy Pump Station (US Navy We ll 2254-01) in February, June, September, and

December 2005.

Samples collected in February 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 HDOH Tier 1 action level of 5.6  g/L. The results were not considered appropriate for risk assessment si nce the sample had not been filte red. In addition, lead was not a component of fuels from the tanks near RHMW01. Lead may have been part of the Facility construction material (TEC, 2007).

Samples were filtered in September and Decembe r 2005, and dissolved lead concentrations were

below the HDOH Tier 1 action level. Concentra tions of all other cont aminants of potential

concern were below HDOH Tier 1 action levels.

2005 – Site Investigation: As part of a site investigatio n, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells at the Facility between June and September 2005. Well RHMW02 was

installed in the lower access tunnel near Tanks 5 and 6. Well RHMW03 was installed in the

lower access tunnel near Tanks 13 and 14. Well RHMW04 was installed hydraulically upgradient of the USTs to provide geochemist ry for water moving through the basal aquifer beneath the Facility. 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 outsi de the tunnel. Groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed well s and two existing wells (RHMW01 and US Navy Well 2254-01) in September 2005.

Naphthalene and trichloroethylene were dete cted in samples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations greater than the HDOH Tier 1 acti on levels. Lead was detected in the sample

collected from RHMW01 at a con centration greater than the HDOH Tier 1 action level; however, the sample was not filtered in the field pr ior to analysis. Analytical results for filtered samples obtained by Dawson during the same period indicated concentrations of dissolved lead

were below the HDOH Tier 1 action level.

2006 – Site Investigation: Dedicated sampling pumps were in stalled in five wells (RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW04, a nd US Navy Well 2254-01). TEC collected groundwater samples from the wells in July 2006. The gr oundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum constituents. Naphthalene was detected in sa mples collected from RHMW02 at concentrations

above the HDOH Tier 1 action level.

In September 2005, with concurrence from the HDOH, the Navy decided to use the newer HDOH Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for the Red Hill Site Investigation and Risk Assessment project. The EALs are current and pr ovide action levels for more chemicals, and are much more useful for conducting screening risk assessments. Since the HDOH (HDOH May 2005) Policy Letter stated that the two sets of action levels should not be mixed, the Tier 1Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

9 screening levels presented in HAR Section 11-281-78 would no longer be used to evaluate environmental impact at the Facility.

2006 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were collected in December 2006. Analytical results indicated the following:

 No chemicals were detected in groundwat er from US Navy Well 2254-01 or RHMW03;

 TPH as diesel range organics (TPH-DRO) was detected in groundwater above the HDOH Drinking Water EALs in RHMW01; and

 TPH as gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), TPH-DRO, and naphthale ne were detected in groundwater above the HDOH Dri nking Water EALs in RHMW02.

2007 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were co llected in March, June, and September 2007. Analytical resu lts indicated the following:

 No chemicals were detected above HDOH Drinking Water EALs at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all three sampling events;

 TPH-GRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Wate r EALs at RHMW02 in March;

 TPH-DRO and naphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 during all three sampling events;

 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphtha lene exceeded the HDOH Groundwater Gross

Contamination EAL at RHMW02 duri ng all three sampling events; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Wate r EALs at RHMW03 in June.

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

 No chemicals were detected above HDOH Drinking Water EALs at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 Trace detections of 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene prompted a resample event in December at US Navy Well 2254-01, no chemi cals were detected above the MDL;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all four sampling

events;

 TPH-GRO did not exceed HDOH Dr inking Water EALs at RHMW02;

 TPH-DRO, naphthalene, 1-me thylnaphthalene, and 2-met hylnaphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW03 during all four sampling

events.

2009 – Groundwater Sampling: Groundwater samples were colle cted in February, May, and July 2009. Analytical results indicated the following:

 No chemicals have been detected above HDOH Drinking Water EA Ls at US Navy Well 2254-01;

 Trace TPH-GRO at US Navy Well 2254-01 was de tected above the laboratory MDL and significantly below the laboratory reporting limit and HDOH EAL, in February and May 2009;Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

10  TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW01 during all three sampling events;

 TPH-GRO has not exceed HDOH Dr inking Water EALs at RHMW02;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 during all three sampling events;

 Naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-me thylnaphthalene exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW02 in February 2009, however only 1-methylnaphthalene exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EALs in May and July 2009;

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs at RHMW03 in February, but not in May or July; and

 TPH-DRO exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EAL at RHMW05 during the July 2009 sampling event.



### 1.5 Regulatory Updates

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

EALs of 4.7  g/L for 1-methylnaphthalene and 24  g/L for 2-methylnaphthalene, corresponding to a residential tap water scenario, an d a 1 in a million cancer risk (HDOH, 2008).

The drinking water EAL for naphthalene has also been updated during this process. Previously, HDOH based their naphthalene EAL on USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal
(USEPA PRG) of 6.2  g/L, which is associated with a non-cancer Hazard Index of 1. HDOH has updated their naphthalen e drinking water EAL to 17  g/L, in deference to the California Department of Public Health’s Drinking Wate r Notification Levels, a Hazard Index of 2.7 (HDOH, 2008).

Finally, the HDOH Drinking Water EAL for TPH-DRO was increased from 100  g/L to 210

 g/L, although the HDOH Groundwat er Gross Contamination EAL for TPH-DRO remains 100

 g/L.



### 1.6 RHMW05 Installation

In April 2009, a new groundwater monitoring we ll, RHMW05, was installed by TEC under US Navy Contract Number N47408-04-D-8514, Task Order No. 54. RHMW05 is located downgradient from the Facility, within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254- 01(located at the US Navy Well 2254-01). It was inst alled to identify the extent of contaminant migration down-gradient prior to contaminants reaching the infiltration gallery at the US Navy

Well 2254-01.



## 2.0 Sample Collection and Analyses

Field activities relating to groundwater sample collection were conducted on October 13 and 14, 2009. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells located inside theQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

11 Facility lower access tunnel and one monitoring well located at the Red Hill Navy Pump Station. Sampling and analysis were conducted according to Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2009). A total of eight samples were collected as follows:

 one environmental sample from RHMW2254-01 (i.e., located at the US Navy Well 2254-01), RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05;

 one duplicate sample from RHMW02 (sampled as RHMWA01 and reported as RHMW02D); and

 one matrix spike and matrix sp ike duplicate from RHMW2254-01.



### 2.1 Monitoring Well Purging

All monitoring wells were purged prior to sa mpling. Well purging was considered complete when no less than three successive water quality parameter measurements had stabilized within approximately 10 percent. Field parameters we re measured at regular intervals during well purging and included pH, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. Purge water was collected and disposed in the Facility oil/water separator system.



### 2.2 Groundwater Sample Collection

Each monitoring well was sampled immediatel y following purging. All wells were sampled directly from their dedicated bladder pum p system, except for RHMW02 and RHMW05. RHMW02 and RHMW05 were sampled using disposab le bailers. Samples were placed into sampling containers with appropriate preservati ves [i.e., hydrochloric acid (HCl) for volatile organic analysis, nitric acid (HNO 3 ) for dissolved lead]. Dissolved lead samples were filtered in the field and placed in preserved bottles. Sample containers were labeled with the date, sample identification number, type of analysis, and samp ler’s name. The containers were placed on ice in sample coolers and transporte d under chain-of-custody procedur es to the certified laboratory for analysis.



### 2.3 Groundwater Sample Analyses

Groundwater samples were analyzed by SGS Environm ental Service, Inc. in Anchorage, Alaska for TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO by EPA Method 8015B, VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C SIM, and dissolved lead by EPA Method 6020.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

12 

## 3.0 Groundwater Sample Analytical Results

This section provides a summary of analytical results for groundwater samples collected from four monitoring wells located in the lower access tunnel of the Facility and one monitoring well located at the Red Hill Navy Pump Station. D uplicate sample results from monitoring well RHMW02 are reported in this document as RHMW 02D. A summary of groundwater analytical results for TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead is included in Table 1. Complete analytical laboratory repo rts are provided in Appendix A.



### 3.1 October 2009 Sample Analytical Results

All groundwater samples were analyzed for TP H-DRO, TPH-GRO, VOCs, PAHs, and dissolved lead. The results for each groundwater monitoring well are discussed below.

RHMW01 TPH-DRO at 299F μg/L exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EALs of 210 μg/L. Concentrations of acenaphthene, flourene, naphtha lene, and methyl isobutyl ketone (2-butanone) were detected at 0.0177F μg/L, 0.0288F μg/L, 0.193 μg/L, and 4.27F μg/L, respectfully (Table 1). All of these concentrations are below the HDOH EALS for each constituent. No other

constituents were detected above the laboratory MDL.

RHMW02 TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, 1-methylna phthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene , acenaphthene, flourene, and naphthalene were detected at RHMW02. TPH- DRO was detected at RHMW02 in the normal and duplicate samples at 2,570 μg/L. This result exceeded the HDOH EAL of 210 μg/L, but not the site-specific risk based level (SSRBL) of 4,500 μg/L. TPH-GRO wa s detected above the laboratory MDL of 30 μg/L in the nor mal sample only (i.e., 36.9F μg/L).

Naphthalene was analyzed by USEPA Method 8270C SIM and USEPA Method 8260B. USEPA Method 8260B produced the highest naphthalene concentrations, which averaged 21.65 μg/L from the normal and duplicate sample (HDOH Dri nking Water EAL is 17 μg/L). In addition, 1- methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acenapht hene, and flourene were detected at average concentrations of 3.245 μg/L, 0.6345 μg/L, 0.205 μg/L , and 0.0957 μg/L, respectively (Table 1).

All of these concentr ations are below the HDOH EALS fo r each constituent. No other

constituents were detected above the laboratory MDL.

RHMW03 No parameters were detected above the laboratory MDLs at RHMW03 (Table 1).

RHMW05

TPH-DRO was detected at a c oncentration of 673 μg/L. This concentration exceeds the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μg/L and the HD OH Groundwater Gross Contamination EAL of 100 μg/L. The only other constituent that was de tected above the laboratory MDL was pyrene at 0.0173F, just above the laboratory MDL and well below the HDOH EALs (Table 1).Table 1. Analytical Results for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Release Response Report (October 13 and 14, 2009)Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Pearl Harbor, HawaiiResult Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RL Result Q MDL RLTPH as DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS210 100299F 165 4402570169 4492570170 455 ND U 163 435673169 452 ND U 158 421TPH as GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS100 100 ND U 30 100 36.9 F 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 100 ND U 30 1001-METHYLNAPHTHALENE4.7 10 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 2.46 0.017 0.0568 4.03 0.0893 0.298 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.05682-METHYLNAPHTHALENE24 10 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 0.486 0.017 0.0568 0.783 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568ACENAPHTHENE370 20 0.0177 F 0.0174 0.0581 0.2 0.017 0.0568 0.21 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568ACENAPHTHYLENE240 2000 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568ANTHRACENE1800 22 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE0.092 4.7 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568BENZO(a)PYRENE0.2 0.81 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE0.092 0.75 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE1500 0.13 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE0.92 0.4 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568CHRYSENE9.2 1 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE0.0092 0.52 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568FLUORANTHENE1500130NDU0 01740 0581NDU0 0170 0568NDU0 01790 0595NDU0 01690 0562NDU0 0170 0568NDU0 0170 0568October 13, 2009 October 14, 20098015B (Petroleum)8270C SIM(PAHs)October 14, 2009 October 13, 2009 October 13, 2009RHMW05UG/LRHMW2254-01UG/LRHMW02UG/LRHMW02DUG/LRHMW03UG/LMethodHDOH Drinking WaterEALs1for Human ToxicityUG/LHDOH GroundwaterGross ContaminationEALs2UG/LChemicalRHMW01UG/LOctober 14, 2009FLUORANTHENE1500 130 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568FLUORENE240 950 0.0288 F 0.0174 0.0581 0.0979 0.017 0.0568 0.0935 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE0.092 0.095 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568NAPHTHALENE17 21 0.193 0.036 0.116 6.77 0.176 0.568 7.82 0.185 0.595 ND U 0.0348 0.112 ND U 0.0352 0.114 ND U 0.0352 0.114PHENANTHRENE240 410 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.0568PYRENE180 68 ND U 0.0174 0.0581 ND U 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.0179 0.0595 ND U 0.0169 0.0562 0.0173 F 0.017 0.0568 ND U 0.017 0.05681,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.52 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.51,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE200 970 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.067 500 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.51,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE5 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,1-DICHLOROETHANE2.4 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE (TCP)0.6 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE70 3000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE (DBCP)0.04 10 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 21,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)0.0065 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,2-DICHLOROBENZENE600 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.15 7000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.51,2-DICHLOROPROPANE5 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,3-DICHLOROBENZENE180 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 11,4-DICHLOROBENZENE75 5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5ACETONE22000 20000 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10BENZENE5170NDU0.120.4NDU0.120.4NDU0.120.4NDU0.120.4NDU0.120.4NDU0.120.4BENZENEBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.22 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5BROMOFORM100 510 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1BROMOMETHANE8.7 50000 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3 ND U 0.94 3CARBON TETRACHLORIDE5 520 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1CHLOROBENZENE100 50 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5CHLOROETHANE8600 16 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1CHLOROFORM70 2400 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1 ND U 0.3 1CHLOROMETHANE1.8 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE70 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.43 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.16 50000 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5 ND U 0.15 0.5ETHYLBENZENE700 30 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.86 6 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)10000 20 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)7100 8400 4.27 F 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)2000 1300 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10 ND U 3.1 10METHYLENE CHLORIDE4.8 9100 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5 ND U 1 5NAPHTHALENE17 21 ND U 0.62 223.30.62 2200.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2 ND U 0.62 2STYRENE100 10 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)5 170 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1TOLUENE1000 40 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 18260B(VOCs)trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE100 260 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)5 310 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1VINYL CHLORIDE2 3400 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1XYLENES, TOTAL10000 20 ND U 1 2 ND U 1 2 ND U 1 2 ND U 1 2 ND U 1 2 ND U 1 26020LEAD15 50000 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1 ND U 0.31 1PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsMDL - Method detection limitVOCs - Volatile organic compoundsRL - Reporting limitUG/L - Micrograms per LiterTPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbonsQ - Data qualifierND - Indicates that the compound was not detected above the stated method detection limitU - Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limitF - Indicates that the compound was identified but the concentration was above the MDL and below the RL-Result exceeds one or both HDOH EALs12Final Drinking Water Action Levels for Human Toxicity, Table D-3a,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Siteswith Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009Groundwater Gross Contamination Action Levels, Table G-1,Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater, HDOH, 2009200Page 1 of 1Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

14 US Navy Well 2254-01 No parameters were detected above the labor atory MDLs at the US Navy Well 2254-01 (Table 1).



### 3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Trend

Groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed by TEC since September 2005. Figure 1 shows TPH trends in groundwater at the Facility. Fi gure 2 shows PAH trends in groundwater at the Facility. In these figures , open icons (without da ta) represent locations where the compounds being analyzed we re not detected.

The following is a discussion of compounds th at exceeded HDOH Drinking Water EALs during two or more recent consecutive sampling events, thus establishing a trend:

RHMW01 At RHMW01, concentrations of TPH-DRO have been greater than the HDOH Drinking Water EAL since September 2005, but less than 25 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L. TPH-DRO was exhibiting a decreasing trend since Octobe r 2008 with the lowest concentration observed during July 2009. In October 2009, TPH-DRO at RHMW01 increased slightly from the July

2009 concentration.

RHMW02 At RHMW02, from September 2005 through February 2009, TPH-DRO exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EAL and was greater than 50 percen t of the SSRBL (estimated solubility limit of
4,500  g/L). Specifically, the concentration of TPH-DRO was relatively stable at RHMW02 until July 2008, ranging from 2,250 to 2,995 μg/L. However, during the July and October 2008 sampling events, these average co ncentrations increase d. The July 2008 average concentration was 4,055 μg/L and the October 2008 average concentration was 5,420 μg/L. Both of these values were significantly above the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 210 μg/L, with the October 2008 average also exceeding th e SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.

However, TPH-DRO at RHMW02 has shown a d ecreasing trend since Oc tober 2008. The May 2009 average concentration (i.e., 1,810  g/L) and the July 2009 average concentration (i.e., 1,375 μg/L) exceeded the HDOH Drinking Water EA L, but were below 50 percent of the SSRBL of 4,500 μg/L.

The October 2009 average TPH-DRO concentration shows an increase from the May and July 2009 sampling events. TPH-DRO is within the historical range from when TPH-DRO was considered relatively stable at RHMW02 (i.e ., 2,570 μg/L), between September 2005 and July

2008. TPH-DRO at RHMW02 exceeds the HDOH Dri nking Water EAL and 50 percent of the

SSRBL.

For other parameters, the average concentr ation for 1-methylnaphthalene (i.e., 3.245  g/L)

continues to exhibit a decrea sing trend and no longer exceeds the HDOH Drinking Water EAL

of 4.7  g/L. Naphthalene however, is showing an in creasing trend since its lowest concentrationQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

15 in May 2009. Naphthalene at RHMW02 (i.e ., 21.65 μg/L) exceeds the HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 17 μg/L.

RHMW03 At RHMW03, historically, conc entrations of TPH-DRO have fluctuated around the HDOH Drinking Water EAL, but have been significantl y lower than corresponding values observed at RHMW01 and RHMW02. However, during the last three sampling events (i.e., May, July, and October 2009), TPH-DRO was not detected above th e laboratory MDL. These results represent a continuing decreasing trend for TPH-DR O that has existed since October 2008.

RHMW05 At RHMW05 there is an increasing trend for TPH-DRO. The October 2009 concentration was 673 μg/L, an increase as compared with the May and July 2009 concentrations of 200 μg/L and 491 μg/L, respectively. The October 2009 co ncentration remains above the HDOH EAL and below 25 percent of th e SSRBL for TPH-DRO.

US Navy Well 2254-01 At US Navy Well 2254-01, no compounds have been detected above the la boratory MDLs since trace concentrations of TPH-GRO and 2-methylnapht halene that were observed in the February and May 2009.



### 3.3 Results of Oil/Water Interface Measurements

The presence and thickness of light-non aque ous phased liquids (LNAPL), otherwise known as free product, released from the USTs is monitored at the Facility (see Ta ble 3). Static water

levels and fuel thickness is measur ed to a precision of ± 0.01 feet.

In January 2008, fuel was measured in mon itoring wells RHMW01 and RHMW02 at a thickness of < 0.01 ft, but has not been observed in other monitoring wells. Measurements to determine the presence and thickness of fuel were conducted at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 prior to the October 2009 sampling r ound. At the end of October and November, subsequent rounds of oil/water interface measurements were conducted. During the last three rounds of measurements, no free product was observed in any of these wells.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

16 Table 2. Oil/Water In terface Measurements

Date RHMW01 RHMW02 RHMW03 RHMW05

SWL

(ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL (ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL (ft) LNAPL (ft) SWL (ft) LNAPL (ft)

January 2008 17.74 < 0.01 18.78 < 0.01 NT 1 NT 1

---- ---- July 2008 19.04 0.00 18.91 0.00 18.86 0.00 ---- ----

October 2008 18.61 0.00 18.56 0.00 18.82 0.00 ---- ----

November 2008 18.50 0.00 18.45 0.00 18.51 0.00 ---- ----

January 2009 19.28 0.00 19.22 0.00 19.27 0.00 ---- ----
February 2009 NT 2 NT 2 18.66 0.00 18.75 0.00 ---- ----

March 2009 18.59 0.00 18.57 0.00 18.67 0.00 ---- ----

May 2009 3 18.69 0.00 18.64 0.00 18.72 0.00 NT 5 NT 5

May 2009 18.91 0.00 18.86 0.00 18.90 0.00 NT 5 NT 5

July 2009 4 18.66 0.00 18.59 0.00 18.64 0.00 17.91 0.00

August 2009 18.37 0.00 18.30 0.00 18.47 0.00 17.49 0.00
September 2009 18.20 0.00 18.17 0.00 18.24 0.00 17.39 0.00

October 2009 18.17 0.00 18.14 0.00 18.24 0.00 17.38 0.00

November 2009 18.50 0.00 18.45 0.00 18.50 0.00 17.75 0.00

SWL - Static water level, elevation above mean sea level (for RHMW05 this is estimated until the top well casing elevation has been d etermined)

LNAP L - Light Non-Aqueous Phased Liquid, fuel pr oduct on groundwater attributed to the Facility

ft

- Feet

NT - Not Taken

1 - The January 2008 measurement at RHMW03 wa s not taken due to equipment malfunction

2

- During the February 2009 measurements, RHMW01 was inaccessibl e due to extensive work being conducted at Tank 02

3 - The measurements scheduled for April 2009 were postponed until May 6, 2009 due to RHMW05 drilling activities

4 – The June 2009 measurements were skipped due to th e installation of dedicated oil/water interface probes

5 - Oil/water interface measurements were not taken at RHMW05 until the installation of the oil/water interface probe was complet ed ---- - Time period prior to the installation of RHMW05

Oil/water interface measurements were not taken during in April 2008



### 3.4 Groundwater Status

Constituents of concern are defined as petroleum -related chemicals that have been observed in the groundwater samples above the HDOH EALs. In accordance with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Final Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008), Table 4 defines the constituents of concern in gr oundwater at the Facility and the SSRBLs and updated EALs for each (HDOH 2008).

Table 3. Action Levels for Constituents of Concern

Chemical 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 NA 2-Methylnaphthalene 24 NA Naphthalene 17 NAQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

17 NA – Not applicable or not determined SSRBLs are applicable at RHMW 01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 EALs are applicable at US Navy Well 2254-01

In addition, the Plan defines four results categor ies of groundwater status for the Facility, based

on concentrations of constituents of c oncern in RHMW01, RHMW 02, RHMW03 and the US Navy Well 2254-01, and requires sp ecific responses when these categories are observed during quarterly groundwater sampling. Table 5 describe s each of the four results categories and identifies response actions to be taken in accordance with the Plan.

Table 4. Results Categories and Response Actions to Changes in Groundwater Status

Results Category RHMW02

RHMW03 or

RHMW05* RHMW01 US Navy Pumping

Well 2254-01

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

*RHMW05 was installed in April 2009 and has been subsequently been added to this Table. Specific Responses: A. Send quarterly reports to HDOH B. Begin program to determine the source of leak C. Notify HDOH verbally within 1 day and fo llow with written notification in 30 days D. Notify FISC Chain of Command within 1 day E. Send Type 1 Report (see box below) to HDOH F. Send Type 2 Report (see box below) to HDOH G. Increase monitoring frequency to once pe r month (if concentrations increasing) H. Notify HDOH verbally within 7 days and fo llow with written notification in 30 days I. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pe rtinent wells with interface probe, re-install pumps if product is not detected. J. Immediately determine leaking tank K. Collect samples from nearby Halawa Deep Monitoring Well (2253-03) and OWDF MW01

L. Provide alternative water source at 2254-01 M. Prepare for alternative wa ter source at US Navy Well 2254-01 N. Re-measure for product every month with reports to HDOHQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

18 O. Install additional monitoring well downgradient

Report Types HDOH Type 1 Report

 Re-evaluate Tier 3 Risk Asse ssment/groundwater model results

 Proposal to HDOH on a course of action

HDOH Type 2 Report

 Proposal for groundwater treatment

Free Product Measurements In response to the previous Ca tegory 3 status at RHMW02, free product measurements have been collected at the Facility m onitoring wells (Table 3). To date , there is no tren d (i.e., two or more consecutive events) of fuel presence on groundwater at any of these wells.

US Navy Well 2254-01 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event, the US Navy Well 2254-01 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds we re detected above the laboratory MDLs.

RHMW03 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event, RHMW03 is not eligible for any category status change since no compounds were de tected above the laboratory MDLs.

Category 1 Status Locations There are no Category 1 status locations.

Category 2 Status Locations

RHMW01 The October 2009 sampling event in dicates that RHMW01 should rema in in Category 2 status.

This is because the TPH-DRO concentration of 299F  g/L is greater than the HDOH Drinking
Water EAL (210  g/L), but less than half the SSRBL of 4,500  g/L (estimated solubility limit of JP-5).

RHMW05 Based upon the October 2009 sampling event RHMW05 should remain in a Category 2 status. TPH-DRO at RHMW05 (i.e., 673 μg/L) is above the drinking water EAL of 210 μg/L and has been showing an increasing trend over the last three rounds (i.e., 200 μg/L in May 2009 and 491 μg/L in July 2009).

Category 2 for RHMW01 and RHMW05 requires:

1. Quarterly reports to be sent to HDOH; and

2. Initiation of a leak determination progr am to identify if tanks are leaking.Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

19 Category 3 Status Locations

RHMW02 Results from the October 2009 sampling event indi cate that RHMW02 is presently in Category 3 status (i.e., upgraded from Category 2 status observed during the July 2009 sampling event),
since TPH-DRO [2,570  g/L and 2,570  g/L (duplicate)] is greate r than the HDOH Drinking
Water EAL (210  g/L), and is between one half and the established SSRBL value of 4,500  g/L (estimated solubility limit of JP-5). In addition, th e HDOH Drinking Water EAL of 17  g/L for naphthalene was exceeded [i.e., 23.3  g/L and 20  g/L (duplicate)].

Category 3 response at RHMW02 requires:

1. Send quarterly reports to HDOH;

2. Initiation of a leak determination progr am to identify if tanks are leaking;

3. Increase free product monitoring frequenc y to once per month (if concentrations increasing);

4. Notify HDOH verbally within 7 days and fo llow with written notification in 30 days;

5. Remove sampling pumps, measure product in pertinent wells with interface probe, reinstall pumps if product is not detected; and

6. Immediately evaluate tanks for leaks.

Category 4 Status Locations There are no Category 4 status locations.



## 4.0 Summary and Conclusions

Summary

There is no indication of an immediate threat of disruption to drinking wate r resources of the US Navy Well 2254-01 as a result in the October 2009 data. As a result of the October 2009 sampling event, the US Navy Well 2254-01 is not eligible for a category status change.

With the exception of RHMW03 and RHMW2 254-01, compound concentrations for all other Facility monitoring wells (i.e., RHMW01, RHMW 02, and RHMW05) are exhibiting increasing

contaminant trends relative to the concentrations observed in July 2009, among the lowest since September 2005. However, current results are stil l at concentration leve ls on the lower end of the historical range, with the exception of RH MW05. As a result of the October 2009 sampling event, RHMW03 is not eligible for a cate gory status change. Currently, RHMW01 and RHMW05 maintain a Category 2 status, while RHMW 02 has been upgraded to Category 3 status.

Conclusions/Recommendations

 To date, there is no trend (i.e., two or more consecutive events) of fuel presence on groundwater at the Facility wells (Table 3). In fact, fuel on the groundwater has been observed only once (i.e., in January 2008 in RHMW01 and RHMW02 at less than 0.01 ft.). It is recommended that the Facility c ontinue regular monitoring of Facility wells for the presence of fuel on groundwater.

 The concentration of TPH-DRO measured at the new monitoring well, RHMW05, in October 2009 (i.e., 673  g/L) exceeded the HDOH Drinki ng Water EAL, but was lessQuarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

20 than half of the SSRBL. RHMW05 is locat ed between RHMW01 and the US Navy Well

2254-01. It is recommended that future quarterly analytical re sults continue to be closely

assessed at RHMW05 since this well continues to exhibit an increasing contaminant trend(i.e., 200 μg/L in May 2009, 491μg/L in July 2009, and 673 in October 2009 for TPHDRO).

 RHMW01 and RHMW02 are exhibiting increasi ng contaminant trends , however, are still

at concentration levels on the lower end of th e historical range. It is recommended that quarterly monitoring of the Facility wells co ntinue so that overall groundwater quality trends may be established/obs erved and proactive action take n if the groundwater quality shows greater eviden ce of deterioration.

 The US Navy Well 2254-01 is not imminently threatened at this time; however, monitoring should continue to evaluate the extent of contaminant migration from upgradient locations.

 The following activities are planned to monitor and/or clarify the groundwater contamination situation at the Facility:

1. Re-evaluate risk assessment and groundw ater model (TEC, 2007) to ensure both are valid and protective of human health and the envi ronment under the existing conditions;

2. Continue monthly free product m easurements at RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05;

3. Collect samples from nearby Halawa Deep Monitoring Well (2253-03), OWDF MW01, and RHMW04 to assess regional groundwater trends;

4. Prepare for alternative wa ter source at US Navy Well 2254-01, if appropriate.

5. Continue quarterly groundwater monitori ng of Facility wells for TPH-DRO, TPHGRO, VOCs, PAHs, and lead until such time that new data indicates that a different monitoring program is warranted.Figure1TPHTrendsinGroundwaterRound17(October13and14,2009)The HDOH toxicity EALs were updated in Fall, 2008.•TPHDRO Residential Tap Water EAL is 210 ug/L; andRound17(October13and14,2009)RedHillFuelStorageFacilityOahu,Hawaii•TPH-DROResidentialTapWaterEALis210ug/L;and•TPH-GRO Residential Tap Water EAL is 100 ug/L;(HDOH, 2008).Figure2PAHTrendsinGroundwaterRound17(October13and14,2009)The HDOH toxicity EALs were updated in Fall, 2008.• Naphthalene Residential Tap Water EAL is 17 ug/L;1th l hth l R id ti l T W t EAL i 4 7 /L dRound17(October13and14,2009)RedHillFuelStorageFacilityOahu,Hawaii•1-methylnaphthaleneResidentialTapWaterEALis4.7ug/L; and• 2- methylnaphthalene ResidentialTap Water EAL is 24 ug/L(HDOH, 2008).Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility December 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________

23 

## 5.0 References

AMEC. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Investigation Report , Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific, August 2002.

Dawson Group, Inc. Fourth Quarter 2005 Groundwater Sam pling Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Hawaii. February 2006.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, Titl e 11, Chapter 281, Subchapter 7.

HDOH. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Summary Lookup Tables. March 2009.

HDOH. Use of May 2005 Environmental Action Levels (“EALs”) at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites . Memo. July 2005.

HDOH. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and

Groundwater . Summer 2008 (updated October 2008).

Massachusetts Department of E nvironmental Protection (MADEP). Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Final Policy, October 2002

The Environmental Company, Inc. and AMEC. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Work Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. June 2005.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Fi nal – Addendum Planning Documents, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. May 2006.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Technical Report, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

. August 2007.

TEC, Inc. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Final Groundwater Protection Plan, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. January 2008.

## Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Reports