# Revised Final Fourth Quarter 2012 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Inside Tunnel Wells

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

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

January 2013



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

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

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Revised Final Fourth Quarter 2012 - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report Inside Tunnel Wells

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

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

January 2013

Prepared for:



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

Prepared by: 

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

Prepared under:


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

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

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Repo rt Page v January 2013 

### REVISED FINAL FOURTH QUARTER 2012 - QUARTERLY GR OUNDWATER MONITO RING REPORT INSIDE TUNNEL WELLS RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

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



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



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



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

Approval Signature: Darren Uchima, Navy Technical Representative Date

Approval Signature: 1/17/13 Robert Chong, ESI Project Manager Date

Approval Signature: 1/17/13 Traci Sylva, ESI QA Manager DateContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Repo rt Page vi January 2013 

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

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Repo rt Page vii January 2013 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

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

2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Sampling 2-1 2.2 Analytical Results 2-1 2.3 Waste Disposal 2-3

3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-1
3.1 Data Validation and Assessment 3-1
3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions 3-3

4.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1

5.0 FUTURE WORK 5-1

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

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Report Page viii January 2013 

### LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1.1 Current Status of USTs 1-2 2.1 Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012) 2-5 3.1 Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012) 3-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Site Location 2 Site Map

APPENDICES

Appendix Title

A Groundwater Sampling Logs
B Field Notes C Laboratory Reports D Waste Disposal ManifestContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Repo rt Page ix January 2013 

## ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS/ ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION/MEANING



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

Red Hill LTM,4Q2012 Status Repo rt Page x January 2013 

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

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report ES-1 January 2013



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the fourth quarter 2012 groundwater sampling conducted on October 22 and 23, 2012, at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility [RHSF], Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam [JBPHH], Hawaii. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. There are 18 active and 2 inactive Underground Storage Tanks [USTs] located at the RHSF. The State of Hawaii Department of Health [DOH] Facility Identification [ID] number is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and
020028.

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

On October 22 and 23, 2012, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01). A summary of the analytical results is provided below.

 RHMW01 – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel [TPH-d] (85 micrograms per Liter [μg/L]), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline [TPH-g] (20 μg/L), and dissolved lead (0.178 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH Environmental Action Levels [EALs].

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,200 μg/L), TPH-g (320 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.29 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (24 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (14 μg/L), naphthalene (63 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.18 μg/L), toluene (0.59 μg/L), and xylenes (0.51 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (45 μg/L), naphthalene (0.029 μg/L), and toluene (0.31 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (17 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), naphthalene (0.038 μg/L), and toluene (0.54 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at
concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (18 μg/L), naphthalene (0.037 μg/L), toluene (0.71 μg/L), and total lead (0.169 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report ES-2 January 2013



### Since the wells were last sampled (July 2012), groundwater contaminant concentrations in four wells (RHMW01, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations detected in the sample collected from well RHMW02 are consistent with previous analytical data. 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have increased since the last sampling event; however, elevated concentrations have been detected in groundwater samples collected during past sampling events. TPH-g was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL in RHMW02; however, TPH-g concentrations increased in October 2010 and then decreased in subsequent sampling events.

With the exception of TPH-g, concentrations of Contaminants of Potential Concern [COPCs] have not changed significantly. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have been decreasing over the long-term. Historically, TPH-g concentrations have increased in the past (e.g., in October 2010) and then decreased in the following rounds of sampling.

Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring, ESI recommends continuing the groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF. If TPH-g concentrations in Well RHMW02 continue to increase, we recommend increasing monitoring frequency to monthly in accordance
with the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-1 January 2013



### SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the fourth quarter 2012 groundwater sampling conducted on October 22 and 23, 2012, at the RHSF, JBPHH. The RHSF is located in Halawa Heights on the Island of Oahu. The purpose of the sampling is to (1) assess the condition of groundwater beneath the RHSF with respect to chemical constituents associated with jet fuel propellant and marine diesel fuel, and (2) to ensure the Navy remains in compliance with DOH UST release response requirements as described in Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-281 Subchapter 7, Release Response Action. The DOH Facility ID number for the RHSF is 9-102271. The DOH Release ID numbers are 990051, 010011, and
020028.

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

1.1 S ITE 

### D ESCRIPTION



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

The RHSF contains 18 active and 2 inactive USTs that are operated by Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center [NAVSUP FLC] Pearl Harbor (formerly Fleet and Industrial Supply Center). Each UST has a capacity of approximately 12.5 million gallons. The RHSF is located approximately 100 feet above the basal aquifer. The USTs contain Jet Fuel Propellant-5 [JP-5], Jet Fuel Propellant-8 [JP-8], and Marine Diesel Fuel [F-76]. The current status of the
USTs are summarized in Table 1.1.

Five groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) are located within the RHSF lower access tunnel (Figure 2). Two groundwater monitoring wells (wells HDMW2253-03 and OWDFMW01) are located outside of the RHSF tunnel system. (Monitoring data for the two wells located outside the tunnel are included in a separate report.)

Monitoring wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW05 are located inside the underground tunnels. Monitoring well RHMW2254-01 is located inside the infiltration gallery of the Department of the Navy [DON] Well 2254-01. DON Well 2254-01 is located approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs and provides approximately 24 percent [%] of the potableContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-2 January 2013



### water to the Pearl Harbor System, which serves approximately 52,200 military customers. Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC] Public Works Department operates the infiltration gallery and DON Well 2254-01.

TABLE 1.1 Current Status of the USTs Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reporting – Inside Tunnel Wells Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

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

F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel
J P-5 J et Fuel Propellant-5
J P-8 J et Fuel Propellant-8



### 1.2 P HYSICAL 

### S ETTING



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

Oahu consists of the eroded remnants of two shield volcanoes, Waianae and Koolau. The RHSF is located on the southwest flank of the Koolau volcanic shield. Lavas erupted during the shield-building phase of the volcano belong to the Koolau Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935). Following formation of the Koolau shield, a long period of volcanic quiescence occurred, during which the shield was deeply eroded. Following this erosional period, eruptive activity resumed. Lavas and pyroclastic material erupted during this period belong to the Honolulu
Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-3 January 2013



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

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

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

.

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

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

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

1.3 B ACKGROUND



### The RHSF was constructed by the U.S. Government in the early 1940s. Twenty USTs and a series of tunnels were constructed. The USTs were constructed of steel and they currently contain JP-5, JP-8, and F-76. Several tanks in the past have stored DON special fuel oil, DON distillate, aviation gasoline, and motor gasoline (Environet, 2010). The fueling system is a selfcontained underground unit that was installed into native rock comprised primarily of basalt with some interbedded tuffs and breccias (Environet, 2010). Each UST measures approximately 245Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-4 January 2013



### feet in height and 100 feet in diameter. The upper domes of the tanks lie at a depth varying between 100 feet and 200 feet below ground surface [bgs].

In 1998, Earth Tech conducted a Phase II remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Oily Waste Disposal Facility located within the RHSF. The study involved installing well OWDFMW01 (which was originally MW08) (Earth Tech, 1999).

In February 2001, the DON installed groundwater monitoring well RHMW01 to monitor for contamination in the basal aquifer beneath the RHSF. Well RHMW01 was installed approximately 100 feet below grade within the lower access tunnel. The depth to water was measured at 86 feet below grade at the time of the well completion. In February 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from the well. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons [TPH] and lead were detected in the samples. Lead was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL (The Environmental Company, Inc. [TEC], 2009; DOH, 2000).

In 2005, the RHSF groundwater monitoring program was initiated. It involved routine groundwater sampling of wells RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, June, September, and December of 2005. Lead was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL in samples collected in February and June. The samples collected in February and June were not filtered prior to analysis, whereas the samples collected in September and December were filtered prior to analysis. Since the samples collected in February and June were not filtered prior to analysis, the lead results were not considered appropriate for a risk assessment (TEC, 2008).

Between June and September 2005, TEC installed three groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW04) within the RHSF (TEC, 2008). Well RHMW04 was installed upgradient of the USTs to provide background geochemistry information for water moving through the basal aquifer beneath the RHSF. Wells RHMW02 and RHMW03 were installed approximately 125 feet below grade within the RHSF lower tunnel and well RHMW04 was installed to a depth of approximately 300 feet bgs outside of the RHSF tunnels. In September 2005, groundwater samples were collected from the three newly installed groundwater monitoring wells (wells RHMW02, RHMW03, and RHMW04) along with the two existing wells (wells RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01). The COPCs with concentrations exceeding
DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, trichloroethylene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2006, TEC installed dedicated sampling pumps in the five wells (wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, RHWM04,and RHMW2254-01). In July and December of 2006, groundwater samples were collected from the five wells. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH
EALs are summarized below.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-5 January 2013



###  RHMW01 – TPH-d and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the
DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2007, groundwater samples were collected from the four wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in March, June, and September of 2007. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene
were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In 2008, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHWM01, RHWM02, RHMW03, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October of 2008. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below. In addition, a groundwater protection plan (TEC, 2008) was prepared.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

In April 2009, groundwater monitoring well RHMW05 was installed downgradient of the USTs,
within the lower access tunnel between RHMW01 and RHMW2254-01. It was installed to identify the extent of contamination downgradient of the USTs. Well RHMW05 was added to the quarterly groundwater sampling program. In 2009, quarterly groundwater samples were collect from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, May, July, and October of 2009. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d and 1-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations above the
DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

In 2010, groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-g, TPH-d, naphthalene, and 1-methylnaphthalene were detected atContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-6 January 2013 

### concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL.

In 2011, quarterly groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in January, April, July, and October. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and 1-methylnaphthalene were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

In 2012, quarterly groundwater samples were collected from wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01. Samples were collected in February, April, and July. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, naphthalene, and 1-methylnaphthalene were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

1.3.1 Previous Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2008 (submitted March 2008).

11. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2008 (submitted May 2008).

12. Groundwater Monitoring Report, July 2008 (submitted October 2008).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-7 January 2013 

### 13. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October and December 2008 (submitted February 2009).

14. Groundwater Monitoring Report, February 2009 (submitted May 2009).

15. Groundwater Monitoring Report, May 2009 (submitted July 2009).

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

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

18. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January, February, and March 2010 (submitted April 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2011 (submitted December 2011).

26. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January-February 2012 (submitted March 2012).

27. Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2012 (Submitted July 2012).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 1-8 January 2013 

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

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 2-1 January 2013



### SECTION 2 – GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

On October 22 and 23, 2012, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01). The samples were collected in accordance with DOH UST release response requirements (DOH, 2000) and the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan (TEC, 2008). Prior to purging and sampling, the depth to groundwater and the depth to the bottoms of the wells were measured using a Solinst 122 oil/water interface probe. No measurable product was detected in any of the wells.

2.1 G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Prior to collecting groundwater samples, the monitoring wells were purged of water in the well casings. Each well contains a dedicated bladder pump which was used to purge the well and to collect samples. To operate the pump, a portable air compressor with an in-line filter was connected to a QED MP50 MicroPurge Basics Controller box, which was then connected to the pump. The compressor was turned on to power the pump and the controller was used to adjust the pumping rate to less than one liter of water per minute.

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

When the water quality parameters stabilized, groundwater samples were collected from the wells using the bladder pumps. The groundwater samples were collected no more than two hours after purging was completed to decrease groundwater interaction with the monitoring well casing and atmosphere. Prior to collecting the sample, the water level in the monitoring wells was measured and recorded to ensure that water was not drawn down. The groundwater samples were collected at a flow rate of approximately 0.1 to 0.5 liters per minute. Samples collected for dissolved lead analysis were filtered in the field using 0.45 micron filters.

2.2 A NALYTICAL 

### R ESULTS



### The samples were analyzed for TPH-d using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Method 8015M, TPH-g and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs] using EPA Method 8260B, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [PAH] using EPA Method 8270C SIM, and dissolved lead using EPA Method 6020. An additional sample was collected from well RHMW2254-01 and analyzed for total lead (unfiltered) as DON Well 2254-01 is a drinking water supply well. TheContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 2-2 January 2013



### analytical results are summarized below and in Table 2.1. A copy of the laboratory report is included in Appendix C.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (85 μg/]), TPH-g (20 μg/L), and dissolved lead (0.178 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,200 μg/L), TPH-g (320 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.29 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (24 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (14 μg/L), naphthalene (63 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.18 μg/L), toluene (0.59 μg/L), and xylenes (0.51 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (45 μg/L), naphthalene (0.029 μg/L), and toluene (0.31 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (17 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), naphthalene (0.038 μg/L), and toluene (0.54 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at
concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (18 μg/L), naphthalene (0.037 μg/L), toluene (0.71 μg/L), and total lead (0.169 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

2.2.1 Groundwater Contaminant Trends

 RHMW01 – The COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL. TPH-d concentrations have decreased from 2,500 μg/L in September 2005 to 85 μg/L
in October 2012.

 RHMW02 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs. TPH-d concentrations show a decreasing trend from a high of 6,000 μg/L in October 2008 to concentrations ranging from 1,800-2,200 μg/L during the last several rounds of sampling.

1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene show a decreasing trend over the long-term. 1-Methylnaphthalene concentrations have decreased from between 102-104 μg/L in 2005 to between 4.7-24 μg/L during the last few rounds of sampling. 2- Methylnaphthalene concentrations have decreased from between 87.2-88.5 μg/L in 2005 to between 12-14 μg/L during this round of sampling. Note, however that 1-methylnaphthalene,Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 2-3 January 2013 

### 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have increased since the last sampling event.
Elevated concentrations of these COPCs hav e been detected during past sampling events.TPH-g concentrations show a slight increasing trend with a substantial increase from nondetect during the last round of sampling to 360 μg/L during this round of sampling.

 RHMW03 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL;
however it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL since October
2010.

 RHMW05 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL; however it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL since January
2010.

 RHMW2254-01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent
with historical data. None of the COPCs have been detected at concentrations above the
DOH EALs.

2.3 W ASTE 

### D ISPOSAL



### The purged groundwater and decontamination water generated during sampling of the inside tunnel wells was stored in a 55-gallon drum along with the purged water and decontamination water from the outside tunnel wells. The water was disposed of following receipt of the analytical results for the outside tunnel wells. The drum was stored onsite at Adit 3. On December 10, 2012, the drum of water was picked up by Pacific Commercial Services, LLC, and disposed of at Unitek Solvent Services, Inc. The waste disposal manifest is included in Appendix D.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 2-4 January 2013 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank

.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 StatusReport 2-5 January 2013TABLE 2.1Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2012 Quarterly Status ReportChemicalConstituentRHMW01(ES001)RHMW02(ES002)RHMW02(ES003)(Dup)RHMW03(ES004)RHMW05(ES005)RHMW2254-01(ES006)LODDOH EALsDrinkingWaterToxicityGrossContaminationTPH-d 852,2001,80045 17 N.D. 20 190 100TPH-g 20320360N.D.15 18 30 100 100AcenaphtheneN.D.0.58 0.59N.D. N.D. N.D.0.05 370 20FluoreneN.D.0.29 0.3N.D. N.D. N.D.0.05 240 9501-MethylnaphthaleneN.D.2421N.D. N.D. N.D.0.05 4.7 102-MethylnaphthaleneN.D.1412N.D. N.D. N.D.0.05 24 10NaphthaleneN.D.63610.029 0.038 0.037 0.05 17 21EthylbenzeneN.D.0.18 0.18N.D. N.D.N.D. 0.5 700 30TolueneN.D.0.59 0.6 0.54 0.31 0.71 0.5 1,000 40XylenesN.D.0.51 0.47N.D. N.D. N.D.1.0 10,000 20Dissolved Lead0.178 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.0.2 15 50,000Total Lead-- - - - 0.169 0.2 15 50,000The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L).Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.-Not AnalyzedDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011).LODLimit of DetectionN.D. Not DetectedTPH-dTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselTPH-gTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineContract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 StatusReport 2-6 January 2013This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 3-1 January 2013



### SECTION 3 – DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

A data quality assessment, which consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample collection and analysis process, was performed in order to determine whether the analytical data generated meets the quality objectives for the project. The data quality assessment was performed in accordance with the approved WP/SAP prepared by ESI (ESI, 2012). The field quality control program consisted of standardized sample collection and management procedures, and the collection of field duplicate samples, matrix spike samples, and trip blank samples. The laboratory quality assurance program consisted of the use of standard analytical methods and the preparation and analyses of Matrix Spike [MS]/Matrix Spike Duplicate [MSD] samples, surrogate spikes, method blanks, and Laboratory Control Samples [LCSs].

3.1 Data Validation and Assessment

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

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

For this monitoring event, several RPDs for MS/MSD and LCS/LCSD pairs were above precision criteria; however, since all results for these analytes in primary samples were not detected, these exceedances are not considered to have an impact on project decisions. The RPDs of primary and field duplicate samples are provided in Table 3.1. All RPDs are less than 20% (below 50% as recommended in the NAVFAC Project Procedures Manual (DON 2007), and therefore, the data precision is considered acceptable.

Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is evaluated through measurem ent of the percent recovery of an analyte in a reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for surrogates, laboratory control spike, MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory.

All of the LCS and surrogate spike recoveries for analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent recovery limits. The analyte concentrations (naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and 1- methylnaphthalene) for ES002, the primary sample on which the MS and MSD were performed, were significantly higher than the added spike concentration which prevented an accurateContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 3-2 January 2013



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

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

Representativeness is also evaluated via compli ance with established sample holding time and sample preservation, and through the analysis of blank samples, including method blank and trip blank samples. The sample holding time and sample preservation complied with the EPA criteria. For this sampling event, one trip blank was collected, and TPH-g was not detected. TPH-g was detected in the method blank below the Limit of Detection [LOD]. Therefore, the groundwater sample data are considered representative of the groundwater quality on site.

Completeness
Completeness is defined as the overall percentage of valid analytical results (including estimated results) compared to the total number of analytical results reported by the analytical laboratory. No data were rejected for this project, and therefore the completeness goal for this project (90%), 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 WP/SAP (ESI, 2012).

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

Sensitivity
The Limits Of Quantitation [LOQs] are established by the laboratory based on the LODs or instrument detection limits, historical laboratory data, and EPA limits established for the methods. The LOQs for samples may require adjustment due to matrix interference or if high levels of target analytes necessitate dilution before analysis. Matrix interference and sample dilutions have the effect of increasing the LOQs. Laboratory LODs and LOQs for several analytes differed from the LODs and LOQs in the WP/SAP because the laboratory updates them quarterly. LODs and LOQs for several analytes were greater than the DOH EALs (as stated in the WP/SAP) and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the analytes areContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 3-3 January 2013



### present at concentrations greater than the DOH EAL. As suggested by the DOH, the project action level will be the LOD for these analytes.

3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Conclusions

The PARCCS criteria were evaluated, and with a few exceptions, all criteria were met. These exceptions include the exceedances of recovery criteria for MS/MSDs for the three PAHs (naphthalene, 1–methylnaphthalene, and 2–methyl naphthalene) due to significantly higher concentrations in the parent sample (which exceeded project action levels) when compared to the spiked concentration, and prevents the accurate evaluation of MS/MSD recovery. Since the surrogate recoveries and the recoveries of these three PAH in the LCS/LCSD are all within recovery criteria, the accuracy is considered a cceptable, and the exceedance is attributed to the high parent sample concentrations. The prec ision criteria exceedances (LCS/LCSD and MS/MSD) are also not considered to affect the usability of the data for project decisions, since no detects occurred for the analytes for which these exceedances occurred. Therefore, the data assessment concludes that all data generated during this event are usable for the intended use for project decisions.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 3-4 January 2013 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report3-5January 2013TABLE 3.1Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2012 Quarterly Status ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW02 (ES002)RHMW02 (ES003)RPDDuplicate(%)ES TripDrinkingWaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 1002,200HD 50 20 151,800HD 50 20 15 20 - - - - -EPA 8015B TPH-g - --- - - --- - - - - N.D. U 200 100 44EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 100320B 50 30 13360B 50 30 13 11.76 - - - - -EPA 8270C SIM (PAH)Acenaphthene 370 20 0.58 U 0.2 0.05 0.018 0.59 U 0.2 0.05 0.018 1.71 - - - - -Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.021 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.021 0 - - - - -Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.034 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.034 0 - - - - -Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.024 0 - - - - -Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.022 0 - - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.036 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.036 0 - - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 0 - - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.023 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.023 0 - - - - -Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.019 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.019 0 - - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 0 - - - - -Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 0 - - - - -Fluorene 240 950 0.29 0.2 0.05 0.024 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.024 3.39 - - - - -Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.. U 0.2 0.05 0.022 0 - - - - -1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10242 0.5 0.26212 0.5 0.26 13.33 - - - - -2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10142 0.5 0.28122 0.5 0.28 15.38 - - - - -Naphthalene 17 21632 0.5 0.23612 0.5 0.23 3.23 - - - - -Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.031 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.031 0 - - - - -Pyrene 180 68 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 0 - - - - -EPA 8260B (VOC)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.3 0 - - - - -1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.38 0 - - - - -1,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.28 0 - - - - -1,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.431 0 - - - - -1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D. U 5 1 0.64 N.D. U 5 1 0.64 0 - - - - -1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D. U 5 1 0.5 N.D. U 5 1 0.5 0 - - - - -1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane0.04 10 N.D. U 10 5 1.2 N.D. U 10 5 1.2 0 - - - - -1,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.36 0 - - - - -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.46 0 - - - - -1,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24 0 - - - - -1,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.42 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.42 0 - - - - -1,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4 0 - - - - -1,3-Dichloropropene (total ofcis/trans)0.43 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25 0 - - - - -Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report3-6January 2013TABLE 3.1 (continue)Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2012 Quarterly Status ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW02 (ES002)RHMW02 (ES003)RPDDuplicate(%)ES TripDrinkingWaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 8260B (VOC)1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5N.D. U 1 0.5 0.43N.D. U 1 0.5 0.43 0 - - - - -Acetone 22,000 20,000N.D. U 20 10 6N.D. U 20 10 6 0 - - - - -Benzene 5 170N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14 0 - - - - -Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000N.D. U 5 0.5 0.21N.D. U 5 0.5 0.21 0 - - - - -Bromoform 80 510N.D. U 10 1 0.5N.D. U 10 1 0.5 0 - - - - -Bromomethane 8.7 50,000N.D. U 20 5 3.9N.D. U 20 5 3.9 0 - - - - -Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520N.D. U 1 0.5 0.23N.D. U 1 0.5 0.23 0 - - - - -Chlorobenzene 100 50N.D. U 5 0.5 0.17N.D. U 5 0.5 0.17 0 - - - - -Chloroethane 21,000 16N.D. U 10 5 2.3N.D. U 10 5 2.3 0 - - - - -Chloroform 70 2,400N.D. U 5 0.5 0.46N.D. U 5 0.5 0.46 0 - - - - -Chloromethane 1.8 50,000N.D. IH,U 10 5 1.8N.D. U 10 5 1.8 0 - - - - -cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000N.D. U 1 0.5 0.476N.D. U 1 0.5 0.476 0 - - - - -Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25 0 - - - - -Ethylbenzene 700 300.18J 1 0.5 0.140.18J 1 0.5 0.14 0 - - - - -Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6N.D. U 1 0.5 0.32N.D. U 1 0.5 0.32 0 - - - - -Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)7,100 8,400N.D. U 10 5.0 2.21N.D. U 10 5.0 2.21 0 - - - - -Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone)2,000 1300N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4 0 - - - - -Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5N.D. U 1 0.5 0.31N.D. U 1 0.5 0.31 0 - - - - -Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100N.D. U 5 1.0 0.64N.D. U 5 1.0 0.64 0 - - - - -Styrene 100 10N.D. U 1 0.5 0.17N.D. U 1 0.5 0.17 0 - - - - -1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.52 50,000N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4 0 - - - - -1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.067 500N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41 0 - - - - -Tetrachloroethylene 5 170N.D. U 5 0.5 0.387N.D. U 5 0.5 0.387 0 - - - - -Toluene 1,000 400.59J 1 0.5 0.240.6J 1 0.5 0.24 1.68 - - - - -trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 100 260N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368 0 - - - - -Trichloroethylene 5 310N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368 0 - - - - -Vinyl chloride 2 3,400N.D. U 1 0.5 0.3N.D. U 1 0.5 0.3 0 - - - - -Xylenes 10,000 200.51J 10 1 0.230.47J 10 1 0.23 8.16 - - - - -1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3 0 - - - - -Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report3-7January 2013TABLE 3.1 (continue)Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (October 22 and 23, 2012)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityOctober 2012 Quarterly Status ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW02 (ES002)RHMW02 (ES003)RPDDuplicate(%)ES TripDrinkingWaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 6020Lead1550,000N.D.U10.20.0898N.D.U10.20.08980-----The data are in micrograms per Liter (μg/L).Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not Analyzed% percentB Analyte was present in the associated method blank.DL Detection LimitDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site.HD The chromatographic pattern was inconsistent with the profile of the reference fuel standard.IH Calibration verified recovery below method confidence limit for this analyte.J Analyte was detected at a concentration below theLOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.LOD Limit of DetectionLOQ Limit of QuantitationN.D. Not DetectedQ QualifierRPD Relative Percent DifferenceTPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselTPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineU Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report3-8January 2013This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 4-1 January 2013



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

On October 22 and 23, 2012, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (wells RHMW01, RHMW02, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01).

The groundwater sampling was conducted as part of the long-term groundwater and soil vapor monitoring at the RHSF, under Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC] Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling was conducted in accordance with the approved WP/SAP prepared by ESI. A summary of the analytical results is provided below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (85 μg/L), TPH-g (20 μg/L), and dissolved lead (0.178 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (2,200 μg/L), TPH-g (320 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.58 μg/L), fluorene (0.29 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (24 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (14 μg/L), naphthalene (63 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.18 μg/L), toluene (0.59 μg/L), and xylenes (0.51 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at a concentration above the DOH EAL for gross contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (45 μg/L), naphthalene (0.029 μg/L), and toluene (0.54 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations
above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (17 μg/L), TPH-g (15 μg/L), naphthalene (0.038 μg/L), and toluene (0.31 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at
concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (18 μg/L), naphthalene (0.037 μg/L), toluene (0.71 μg/L), and total lead (0.169 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were
detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

Groundwater Contaminant Trends

 RHMW01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL. TPH-d concentrations showed a decreasing trend from 2,500 μg/L in September 2005 to 85 μg/L in October 2012.

 RHMW02 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d, TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs. TPH-dContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 4-2 January 2013 

### concentrations show a decreasing trend from a high of 6,000 μg/L in October 2008 to concentrations ranging from 1,800-2,200 μg/L during the last several rounds of sampling.

1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene show a decreasing trend over the long-term. 1-Methylnaphthalene concentrations have decreased from between 102-104 μg/L in 2005 to between 4.7-24 μg/L during the last few rounds of sampling. 2-Methylnaphthalene concentrations have decreased from between 87.2-88.5 μg/L in 2005 to between 12-14 μg/L during this round of sampling. Note, however that 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have increased since the last sampling event. Elevated concentrations of these COPCs have been detected during past sampling events. TPH-g concentrations showed a slight increasing trend with a substantial increase from non-detect during the last round of sampling to 360 μg/L during this round of sampling.

 RHMW03 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL;
however it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL since October
2010.

 RHMW05 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent with historical data. TPH-d has historically been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL; however it has not been detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL since January
2010.

 RHMW2254-01 – COPCs detected during this round of quarterly sampling were consistent
with historical data. None of the COPCs have been detected at concentrations above the
DOH EAL.

Conclusions and Recommendations Since the wells were last sampled (July 2012), groundwater contaminant concentrations in four wells (RHMW01, RHMW03, RHMW05, and RHMW2254-01) remained at low concentrations and did not change significantly, or were not detected. TPH-d concentrations detected in the groundwater sample from well RHMW02 remained consistent with previous analytical data. 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have increased since the last sampling event; however, elevated concentrations have been detected in groundwater samples collected during past sampling events. TPH-g was detected at concentrations above the DOH EAL in RHMW02; however, TPH-g concentrations increased in October 2010 and then decreased in subsequent sampling events.

Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring, ESI recommends continuing the groundwater monitoring program at the RHSF. If TPH-g concentrations in Well RHMW02 continue to increase, we recommend increasing monitoring frequency to monthly in accordance
with the RHSF Groundwater Protection Plan.

A copy of this report will be submitted to the DOH and a copy be kept on file at NAVFAC.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 5-1 January 2013



### SECTION 5 – FUTURE WORK

G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING 

### Future work includes the first quarter 2013 groundwater monitoring in January 2013. It is anticipated that the quarterly groundwater monitoring status reports will be submitted in February 2013.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 5-2 January 2013 

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

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 6-1 January 2013



### SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earth Tech, 1999, Remedial Investigation, Phase II Technical Report, Red Hill Oily Waste Disposal Facility, Halawa, Oahu, Hawaii, Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 1999.

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

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

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

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

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

Stearns, H. T. and Vaksvik, K. N., 1938, Records of the Drilled Wells on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii: Hawaii Div. Hydrogr. Bull. 4, 213 p.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM, 4Q2012 Status Report 6-2 January 2013



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

TEC, 2009, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, Prepared for Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, September 2009.

# FIGURES

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.KAENAPOINTKAHUKUMAKAHAMAILINANAKULIWAIANAEBARBERSPOINTEWABEACHHONOLULUINTERNATIONALAIRPORTWAIKIKIDIAMONDHICKAMAFBKAPOLEIEWAMOKULEIAHALEIWAWAIMEAPOINTLAIEPUNALUUKAAAWAWAIAHOLEKANEOHE BAYKANEOHEMOKAPUKAILUAWAIMANALOMAKAPUUPOINTHAWAIIKAIKAHALAHONOLULUWAHIAWASCHOFIELDBARRACKSPEARL CITY8393080399807808361637872618383676637809393075099H3H1H1H1H2(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGERED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)GRAPHIC SCALE0900900Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesPROJECTLOCATIONFIGURE 1SITE LOCATIONGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.RHMW05RHMW04HDMW2253-03SVMP04SVMP06SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP17SVMP15SVMP11SVMP09SVMP07SVMP05SVMP03RHMW03(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)OWDFMW01RED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYSVMP13SVMP08HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGEHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)RHMW2254-01U.S. Navy Well 2254-01RHMW01SVMP02RHMW02SVMP10GRAPHIC SCALE01,2001,200Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYHALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITYHALAWA STREAMBUILDINGROADABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKWATER TANKSOIL VAPOR MONITORING POINTGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLBOARD OF WATER SUPPLY PUMPSTATIONLEGENDSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesFIGURE 2SITE LAYOUTGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX A

Groundwater Sampling Logs

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data:

-176.5

-167.9

-171.4

-181.6

-182.6

-181.5

-181.9

-187.6

- 181.4 0.14

0.14

0.10

0.14 24.11 0.14

0.14

0.10

0.17

0.14

23.64 23.63 23.68 23.72 24.18 24.24

23.90 23.70 8.13

8.20

8.19

8.22 0.301 8.14

7.84

8.21

8.19

8.04 0.304

0.305

0.305

0.304

0.304

0.304 7.85

7.90 6

7

8 1152 0

1

2

3

4

5 1135

1138

1140

1143

1146

1150 0.35 L/min

- - -

1131

1133 7.93

7.81 0.304

0.301 Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV)

7.92

7.80

7.77

7.75

7.91 97.42 ft

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

-

Bladder Pump

Temperature Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

84.19 ft Date: 10/22/2012 1005 RHMW01

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: 10/25/2012 1040 Bladder Pump

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx TPH-g, TPH-d - 8015; VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C

lead - 6020 6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle ES001 [1230] -184.7

-185.5

Clear

Low

None 181.4 0.14

0.14

0.14 24.01 24.00 23.90 8.22

8.27

8.24 0.301

0.301

0.298 7.92 8

9

10 1152

1155

1159

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet) 2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 7.91

7.90

GWSampling Log Inside October

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data:

0.27 -190.2

1407 7 6.74 0.551 0.60 24.43 0.27 -188.2 1405 6 6.75 0.553 0.60 24.43 0.27 -190.6

1402 5 6.75 0.553 0.61 24.43 0.27 -190.1 1359 4 6.75 0.551 0.69 24.45 0.26 -199.1

1356 3 6.75 0.548 1.05 24.53 0.26 -192.1 1354 2 6.75 0.549 2.25 24.28 0.25 -161.9

1352 1 7.30 0.542 5.28 25.25 0.26 -193.7 1350 0 7.40 0.527 7.95 25.54 86.81 0.41 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV) 94.35 ft Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump RHMW02 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

86.81 ft Date: 10/22/2012 1345

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx 10/25/2012 1040 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet) 2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 lead - 6020 22 - VOAs, 8 - 1L amber jar, 5 - 500ml HDPE bottle ES002 [1415], ES002 MS/MSD [1415], ES003 (Dup) [1330] Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Clear

Low

None

TPH-g, TPH-d, - 8015; VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C Bladder Pump

GWSampling Log Inside October

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data:

0.35 -168.5

1605 7 7.03 0.728 2.20 26.90 0.35 -168.9 1602 6 7.03 0.728 2.22 26.90 0.35 -166.1

1600 5 7.03 0.728 2.20 26.90 0.35 -168.1 1557 4 7.04 0.724 2.27 26.97 0.33 -153.6

1555 3 7.05 0.692 3.68 27.61 0.33 -157.1 1552 2 7.24 0.692 4.97 28.42 0.33 -133.1

1550 1 7.52 0.687 5.41 28.11 0.33 -152.1 1547 0 7.62 0.663 5.8 27.58 103.05 ft 0.39 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV) - Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump RHMW03 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

103.05 ft Date: 10/22/2012 1535

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx 10/25/2012 1040 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet) 2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 lead - 6020 6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle ES004 [1610] Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Clear

Low

None

TPH-g, TPH-d, - 8015; VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C Bladder Pump

GWSampling Log Inside October

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data:

0.53 -167.9 1037 6 7.08 1.091 7.70 22.50 0.53 -166.8

1034 5 7.10 1.101 7.73 22.52 0.53 -167.1 1031 4 7.10 1.071 7.80 22.52 0.49 -165.8

1029 3 7.15 1.054 7.71 22.72 0.53 -166.9 1026 2 7.19 1.002 7.73 23.70 0.50 -166.2

1019 1 7.46 1.018 6.48 22.94 0.50 -170.2 1017 0 7.53 1.016 6.77 22.88 - 0.3 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV) - Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump RHMW05 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

83.72 ft Date: 10/23/2012 935

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx 10/25/2012 1040 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet) 2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 lead - 6020 6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle ES005 [1045] Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Clear

Low

None

TPH-g, TPH-d, - 8015; VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C Bladder Pump

GWSampling Log Inside October

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data:

0.28 -174.8

1200 5 7.06 0.588 7.54 23.51 0.28 -174.9 1157 4 7.05 0.588 7.54 23.49 0.28 -173.7

1154 3 7.05 0.586 7.55 23.50 0.28 -174.4 1151 2 7.06 0.582 7.53 23.45 0.28 -167.8

1148 1 7.06 0.581 7.24 23.43 0.28 -172.7 1145 0 7.68 0.590 7.3 24.08 83.05 ft 0.33 L/min

Time Volume Removed pH Conductivity (mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP) (mV) - Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

83.05 ft Date: 10/23/2012 1025 RHMW2254-01

Sample Withdrawal Method: Appearance of Sample:

Color: Turbidity:

Sediment:

Other:

Laboratory Analysis Parameters and Preservatives:

Number and Types of Sample Containers: Sample Identification Numbers:

Decontamination Procedures:

Notes: Sampled by: Sampled Delivered to: Transporters:
Date: Time: Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx 10/25/2012 1040 Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet) 2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 lead - 6020 6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle ES006 [1210] Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Clear

Low

None

TPH-g, TPH-d, - 8015; VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C Bladder Pump

GWSampling Log Inside October

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX B

Field Notes

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX C

Laboratory Reports

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### Analytical Report For
Client: Environmental Science International, Inc. Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Attention: Robert Chong

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

# WORK ORDER NUMBER: 12-10-1749

Richard Villafania Project Manager 

### 11/1/2012 

### Page 1 of 49

# Contents

Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 12-10-1749



### 1 Client Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 EPA 6020 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 EPA 8015B (M) TPH Diesel (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 EPA 8270C SIM PAHs (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 GC/MS GRO/EPA 8260B & EPA 8015B(M) TPH Gasoline . . . . . . . .

. . . . 14

2 Quality Control Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2.1 MS/MSD and/or Duplicate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
2.2 LCS/LCSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

3 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

4 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Page 2 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 3 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 4 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 5 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 6 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 7 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 8 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 9 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 10 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 11 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 12 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 13 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 14 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 15 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 16 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 17 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 18 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 19 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 20 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 21 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 22 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 23 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 24 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 25 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 26 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 27 of 49Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Work Order: 12-10-1749 Client: Environmental Science International, Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT Received: 10/25/12 10:40 Attn: Robert Chong

Kailua, HI 96734-2500

EPA 8015B (M) TPH Gasoline Extraction: EPA 5030C Sampled: 10/22/12 12:30

Client ID: ES Trip Matrix: Aqueous Units: ug/L

Analyte Dilution Factor Result Qual. DL LOD LOQ Preparation Date/Time Analysis

Date/Time Batch 12-10-1749-7

10/26/12 15:09 121025B01 <100 TPH as Gasoline U 1 100 200 10/26/12 00:00 44

Surr: 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene (49-133%) 76% 10/26/12 15:09 121025B01 10/26/12 00:00

-Results were evaluated to the MDL (DL), concentrations >= to the MDL (DL) but < RL (LOQ), if found, are qualified with a "J" flag.

EPA 8015B (M) TPH Gasoline Extraction: EPA 5030C Sampled: 10/27/12 15:13

Client ID: Method Blank Matrix: Aqueous Units: ug/L

Analyte Dilution Factor Result Qual. DL LOD LOQ Preparation Date/Time Analysis

Date/Time Batch 099-14-495-2

10/26/12 13:37 121025B01 <100 TPH as Gasoline U 1 100 200 10/26/12 00:00 44

Surr: 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene (49-133%) 75% 10/26/12 13:37 121025B01 10/26/12 00:00

-Results were evaluated to the MDL (DL), concentrations >= to the MDL (DL) but < RL (LOQ), if found, are qualified with a "J" flag.



### 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841-1427 TEL:(714) 895-5494 FAX: (714) 894-7501



# . . Page 28 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 29 of 49

## Quality Control - Spike/Spike Duplicate

Work Order No: 12-10-1749

Method: EPA 8015B (M) 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734-2500 Environmental Science International, Inc.

Red Hill LTM 112066 Project EPA 5030C Preparation: 10/25/12 Date Received:

Quality Control Sample ID

ES002 MS/MSD Batch Number

121025S01 Matrix

Aqueous Date Analyzed

10/26/12 Date Prepared

10/26/12 Instrument

GC 4

MS %REC MSD %REC %REC CL Qualifiers RPD CL RPD SPIKE ADDED Parameter SAMPLE CONC MS CONC MSD

CONC

0-17 TPH as Gasoline 0 94 70-112 94 2000 2510 2503 625.7



### 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841-1427 TEL:(714) 895-5494 FAX: (714) 894-7501



# . . RPD - Relative Percent Difference , CL - Control Limit 

### Page 30 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 31 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 32 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 33 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 34 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 35 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 36 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 37 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 38 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 39 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 40 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 41 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 42 of 49

## Quality Control - LCS/LCS Duplicate

Method: EPA 8015B (M) 12-10-1749

Red Hill LTM 112066 EPA 5030C Preparation: Work Order No: Date Received:

Project: Environmental Science International, Inc. 354 Uluniu Street, Suite 304 Kailua, HI 96734-2500 N/A

10/26/12 Matrix

Aqueous Instrument LCS/LCSD Batch Number

GC 4 121025B01

Date Prepared Date

Analyzed

10/26/12 Quality Control Sample ID

099-14-495-2

Parameter Qualifiers RPD CL RPD %REC CL LCS %REC LCSD

%REC SPIKE ADDED LCS

CONC LCSD

CONC

91 0-10 2 72-114 TPH as Gasoline 93 2000 1864 1825



### 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841-1427 TEL:(714) 895-5494 FAX: (714) 894-7501



# . . RPD - Relative Percent Difference , CL - Control Limit 

### Page 43 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 44 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 45 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 46 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 47 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 48 of 49Return to Contents 

### Page 49 of 49

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX D

Waste Disposal Manifest

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.