# Final
First Quarter 2013 - 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

April 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.

# Final
First Quarter 2013 - 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

April 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,1Q2013 Status Re port Page v April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

## FINAL

FIRST QUARTER 2013 - QUARTERLY GR OUNDWATER MONITORING 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: 4/19/2013
Robert Chong, ESI Project Manager Date

Approval Signature: 4/19/2013
Traci Sylva, ESI QA Manager DateContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Repo rt Page vi April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Repo rt Page vii April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Site Description 1-1

1.2 Physical Settings 1-2

1.3 Background 1-3

2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 2-1

2.1 Groundwater Sampling 2-1

2.2 Analytical Results 2-1

2.3 Waste Disposal 2-3

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,1Q2013 Status Repo rt Page viii April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1.1 Current Status of USTs 1-2

2.1 Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (January 28 to 29 and

February 4, 2013) 2-5

3.1 Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (January 28, 2013) 3-5

3.2 Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (February 4, 2013) 3-7

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Site Location

2 Site Layout

APPENDICES

Appendix Title

A Groundwater Sampling Logs

B Field Notes

C

D Laboratory Reports

Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends

E Waste Disposal ManifestContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Repo rt Page ix April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

# 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
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,1Q2013 Status Re port Page x April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report ES-1 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the first quarter 2013

groundwater sampling conducted on January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013, 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 January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013, 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 di esel [TPH-d] (79 micrograms per liter

[μg/L]), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline [TPH-g] (13 μg/L), naphthalene (0.10

μg/L), and dissolved lead (0.846 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 (1,700 μg/L), TPH-g (660 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.57 μg/L), fluorene (0.3

μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (47 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (35 μg/L), naphthalene (110

μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.65 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d, TPH-g,

1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at

concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross

contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (59 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.10 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.069

μg/L), and naphthalene (0.32 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents

analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (62 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.075 μg/L) were detected. None of the

chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (22 μg/L), naphthalene (0.052 μg/L), and total lead (0.242 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,1Q2013 Status Report ES-2 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### Since the wells were last sampled (October 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. Only the groundwater

samples from RHMW02 showed concentrations of Contaminants of Potential Concern [COPCs]

exceeding the DOH EALs. 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 concentrations increased since the last sampling event,

and is the highest concentration since routine groundwater sampling was initiated in 2005.

With the exception of TPH-g, concentrations of COPCs in well RHMW02 have not changed

significantly. The COPCs TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene

concentrations have been decreasing over the long-term. However, 1-methylnaphthalene,

2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have increased since April 2012.

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,1Q2013 Status Report 1-1 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

This quarterly groundwater monitoring report presents the results of the first quarter 2013

groundwater sampling conducted on January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013, 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. The DON Well 2254-01 is locatedContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-2 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### approximately 2,400 feet downgradient of the USTs and provides approximately 24 percent [%]

of the potable water to the Pearl Harbor System, which serves approximately 52,200 military

customers. NAVFAC Public Works Department oper ates the infiltration gallery and DON Well

2254-01.

TABLE 1.1

Current Status of the USTs
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
January 2013 Quarterly Monitoring Report

Tank Identification Fuel Type Status Capacity

F-1 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons

F-2 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-3 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-4 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-5 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-6 JP-8 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-7 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-8 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-9 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-10 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-11 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-12 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-13 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-14 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-15 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-16 F-76 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-17 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-18 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-19 None Inactive 12.5 million gallons

F-20 JP-5 Active 12.5 million gallons

F-76 Marine Diesel Fuel

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-3 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### Volcanic Series (Stearns and Vaksvik, 1935).

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.

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. The 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 withContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-4 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### some interbedded tuffs and breccias (Environet, 2010). Each UST measures approximately 245

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, groundwaterContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-5 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### samples were collected from the five wells. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH

EALs are summarized below.

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-6 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### 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 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 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, July, and

November. The COPCs with concentrations exceeding DOH EALs are summarized below.

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

 RHMW02 – TPH-d, TPH-g, naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-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).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-7 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### 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).

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).

28. Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2012 (Submitted in January 2013).Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 1-8 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 2-1 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 2 – GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

From January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples

from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (w ells 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 Geotech oil/water interface probe. No measurable product, sheen, or

petroleum hydrocarbon odor 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 0.06 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 [PAHs] using EPA Method 8270C SIM, dissolved lead using

EPA Method 6020, and total lead using EPA Method 200.8. The sample collected from wellContract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 2-2 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### RHMW2254-01 was analyzed for total lead (unfiltered) as DON Well 2254-01 is a drinking water

supply well. The analytical results are summarized below and in Table 2.1. A copy of the

laboratory report is included in Appendix C.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (79 μg/L), TPH-g (13 μg/L), naphthalene (0.10 μg/L) and dissolved lead

(0.846 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (1,700 μg/L), TPH-g (660 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.57 μg/L), fluorene

(0.30 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (47 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (35 μg/L), naphthalene

(110 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.65 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d,

TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at

concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross

contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (59 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.10 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.069

μg/L), and naphthalene (0.32 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents

analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (62 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.075 μg/L) were detected. None of the

chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (22 μg/L), naphthalene (0.052 μg/L), and total lead (0.242 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

Historical groundwater contaminant concentration trends of COPCs that exceeded the DOH

EALs are presented in Appendix D. A summary of groundwater contaminant trends are provided

below.

 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

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. TPH-d concentrations showed a

decreasing trend from 1,500 μg/L in February 2005 to 79 μg/L in February 2013.

 RHMW02 – 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 average of 5,420 μg/L in October 2008

to concentrations ranging from 1,500-2,200 μg/L during the last several rounds of sampling.

1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene show a decreasing trend over

the long-term. However, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have

steadily increased since April 2012.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 2-3 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### TPH-g concentrations show an increasing trend with a significant increase from 320 μg/L

during the last round of sampling to 660 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

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs 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

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs 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.

Historical groundwater contaminants concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking

water toxicity and gross contamination are presented in Appendix D.

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 February 26, 2013,

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 2-4 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank

.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report2-5April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsTABLE 2.1Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling (January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityJanuary 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemicalDOH EALsRHMW2254-01 (ES 014)RHWM01 (ES010)RHMW02 (ES011)RHWM03 (ES013)RHMW05 (ES015)Drinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLResultsQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 100 22 HD,J 56 22 16 79 54 22 161,700HD 56 22 16 59 HD 56 22 16 62 HD 56 22 16EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 100 N.D.U 50 30 13 13 J 50 30 1366050 30 13 N.D.50 30 13 N.D.50 30 13EPA 8270BAcenaphthene 370 20 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.021 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.021 0.57 0.2 0.05 0.021 N.D.0.2 0.05 0.021 N.D.0.2 0.05 0.021Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027Fluorene 240 950 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 0.30 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.0221-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.028N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.028475 1.2 0.71 0.10 J 0.2 0.05 0.028 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.0282-Methylnaphthalene 24 10 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.026N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.026355 1.2 0.66 0.069 J 0.2 0.05 0.026 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.026Naphthalene 17 21 0.052 J 0.2 0.05 0.023 0.10 J 0.2 0.05 0.0231105 1.2 0.57 0.320.2 0.05 0.023 0.075 J 0.2 0.05 0.023Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031Pyrene 180 68 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.31,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.38N.D.U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.28N.D.U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.431N.D.U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4311,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D.U 5 1 0.64N.D.U 5 1 0.64 N.D.U 5 1 0.64 N.D.U 5 1 0.64 N.D.U 5 1 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D.U 5 1 0.5N.D.U 5 1 0.5 N.D.U 5 1 0.5 N.D.U 5 1 0.5 N.D.U 5 1 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D.U 10 5 1.2N.D.U 10 5 1.2 N.D.U 10 5 1.2 N.D.U 10 5 1.2 N.D.U 10 5 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.36N.D.U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.46N.D.U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.42N.D.U 5 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.42 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 6 N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10 N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10 N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10Benzene 5 170 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D.U 10 1 0.5N.D.U 10 1 0.5 N.D.U 10 1 0.5 N.D.U 10 1 0.5 N.D.U 10 1 0.5Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D.U 20 5 3.9N.D.U 20 5 3.9 N.D.U 20 5 3.9 N.D.U 20 5 3.9 N.D.U 20 5 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D.U 10 5 2.3N.D.U 10 5 2.3 N.D.U 10 5 2.3 N.D.U 10 5 2.3 N.D.U 10 5 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D.U 10 5 1.8N.D.U 10 5 1.8 N.D.U 10 5 1.8 N.D.U 10 5 1.8 N.D.U 10 5 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 0.21 J 1 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21 N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D.U 5 1.0 0.64N.D.U 5 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5 1.0 0.64 N.D.U 5 1.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387 N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387Toluene 1,000 40 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3 N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3Xylenes 10,000 20 N.D.U 10 1 0.23N.D.U 10 1 0.23 0.65 J 10 1 0.23 N.D.U 10 1 0.23 N.D.U 10 1 0.23EPA 6020 Dissolved Lead 15 50,000 - - - - - 0.846 J 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D. U 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1 0.2 0.0898 N.D.U 1 0.2 0.0898EPA 200.8 Total Lead 15 50,000 0.242 J 1 0.2 0.0898 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not AnalyzedJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.DL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)LOD Limit of DetectionDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). LOQ Limit of QuantitationEPA Environmental Protection AgencyN.D. Not DetectedHD The chromatographic pattern was inconsistent with the profile of the reference fuel standard.Q QualifiersICH Initial calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselIH Calibration verification recovery below method control limit for this analyte.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineIJ Calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report2-6April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 3-1 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### SECTION 3 – DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

A data quality assessment, which consists of a review of the overall groundwater sample

collection and analysis process, was performed in order to determine whether the analytical

data generated 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, all RPDs for MS/MSD and LCS/LCSD pairs were within the

acceptance range. 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 conformity of a measurement to a standard or true value.

Accuracy is evaluated through measurement of the percent recovery of an analyte in a

reference standard or spiked sample. Accuracy limits for surrogates, laboratory control spike,

MS, and MSD samples are established by the individual laboratory.

All surrogate spike recoveries for analyzed constituents were within acceptable percent

recovery limits. The LCS analyzed for acetone was higher than the acceptable percent recovery

limit and indicates a high bias. Acetone was not detected in the sample, therefore the high bias

does not compromise the sample data accuracy. All other LCS recoveries were within recovery

limits. The analyte concentrations (naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and

1-methylnaphthalene) for ES011, the primary sample on which the MS/MSD were performed,Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 3-2 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### were significantly higher than the added spike concentration which prevented an accurate

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

guidance. For this sampling event, two trip blanks were collected. TPH-g and VOCs were not

detected in the first trip blank. TPH-g and toluene were detected in the second trip blank. TPH-g

was detected in the trip blank at a concentration below the limit of detection [LOD]. Toluene was

not detected in any of the samples. The groundwater sample data are considered

representative of the groundwater quality on site. The quality control results are provided in

Table 3.2.

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report 3-3 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells



### LODs and LOQs in the WP/SAP because the laboratory updates them quarterly and in some

cases, dilution was necessary due to the presen ce of high concentrations of analytes. LODs

and LOQs for several analytes were greater than the DOH EALs (as stated in the WP/SAP) and

therefore it is not possible to determine whether the analytes are present at concentrations

greater than or equal to the DOH EALs. As suggested by the DOH Technical Guidance Manual,

the project action level will be the 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 sample (which exceeded DOH EALs) compared to the spiked

concentration, which prevents the accurate evaluation of MS/MSD recovery. Since the

surrogate recoveries and the recoveries of these three PAHs in the LCS/LCSD are all within

recovery criteria, the accuracy is considered a cceptable, and the exceedance is attributed to the

high concentration in the sample. 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,1Q2013 Status Report 3-4 April 2013

Inside Tunnel Wells 

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report3-5April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsTABLE 3.1Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (January 28, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityJanuary 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW02 (ES011)RHMW02 (ES012)RPD Duplicate(%)ES Trip (01/29/13)Drinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 1001,700HD 56 22 161,500HD 56 22 16 12.5 - - - - -EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 10066050 30 1365050 30 13 1.53 N.D. U 50 30 13EPA 8270CAcenaphthene 370 20 0.57 0.2 0.05 0.021 0.54 0.2 0.05 0.021 5.41 - - - - -Acenaphthylene 240 2,000 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.018 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.018 NA - - - - -Anthracene 1,800 22 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.034 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.034NA- - - - -Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.024 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.024NA- - - - -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 0.022NA- - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.036 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.036NA- - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025NA- - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.023 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.023NA- - - - -Chrysene 9.2 1 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.019 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.019NA- - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027NA- - - - -Fluoranthene 1,500 130 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.027NA- - - - -Fluorene 240 950 0.30 0.2 0.05 0.024 0.27 0.2 0.05 0.024 10.53 - - - - -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 NA - - - - -1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10475 1.2 0.71415 1.2 0.71 13.64 - - - - -2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10355 1.2 0.66315 1.2 0.66 12.12 - - - - -Naphthalene 17 211105 1.2 0.571005 1.2 0.57 9.52 - - - - -Phenanthrene 240 410 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.031 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.031NA- - - - -Pyrene 180 68 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.025NA- - - - -EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.3NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.31,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.38NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.28NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.431NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000 N.D. U 5 1 0.64 N.D. U 5 1 0.64NAN.D. U 5 1 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000 N.D. U 5 1 0.5 N.D. U 5 1 0.5NAN.D. U 5 1 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10 N.D. U 105 1.2 N.D. U 105 1.2NAN.D. U 105 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.36NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.46NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10 N.D. U5 0.5 0.42 N.D. U5 0.5 0.42NAN.D. U5 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.43 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.43NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000 N.D. IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10 N.D. IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10NAN.D. IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10Benzene 5 170 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.21 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.21NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510 N.D. U 10 1 0.5 N.D. U 10 1 0.5NAN.D. U 10 1 0.5Bromomethane 8.7 50,000 N.D. U 20 5 3.9 N.D. U 20 5 3.9NAN.D. U 20 5 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.23 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.23NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.17NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16 N.D. U 10 5 2.3 N.D. U 10 5 2.3NAN.D. U 10 5 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.46NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000 N.D. U 105 1.8 N.D. U 105 1.8NAN.D. U 105 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.48 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.48NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30 0.21 J 1 0.5 0.14 0.24 J 1 0.5 0.14 13.33 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.32 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.32NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400 N.D. U 10 5.0 2.21 N.D. U 10 5.0 2.21NAN.D. U 10 5.0 2.21Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300 N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4NAN.D. U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.31 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.31NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100 N.D. U 51.0 0.64 N.D. U 51.0 0.64NAN.D. U 51.0 0.64Styrene 100 10 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.17NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.4Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.387 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.387NAN.D. U 5 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.24NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.37 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.37NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.368NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400 N.D. U1 0.5 0.3 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.3NAN.D. U 1 0.5 0.3Xylenes 10,000 20 0.65 J 10 1 0.23 0.69 J 10 1 0.23 5.97 N.D. U 10 1 0.23EPA 6020 Lead 15 50,000 N.D. U 1 0.2 0.0898 0.171 J 1 0.2 0.0898 0 - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not AnalyzedLOQ Limit of QuantitationDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). NA Both results for duplicate pair were non-detect, no RPD calculationsDL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)N.D. Not DetectedEPA Environmental Protection AgencyQ QualifiersICH Initial calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineIJ Calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.LOD Limit of DetectionContract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report3-6April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report3-7April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsTABLE 3.2Quality Control Results for Groundwater Sampling (February 4, 2013)Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage FacilityJanuary 2013 Quarterly Monitoring ReportMethodChemical ConstituentDOH EALsRHMW01 (ES010)ES Trip (02/04/13)Drinking WaterToxicityGrossContaminationResultQLOQLODDLResultQLOQLODDLEPA 8015B TPH-d 190 10079 54 22 16 - - - - -EPA 8260B TPH-g 100 10013 J 50 30 13 18 J 50 30 13EPA 8270CAcenaphthene 370 20 N.D. U 0.2 0.05 0.021 - - - - -Acenaphthylene 240 2,000N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.018 - - - - -Anthracene 1,800 22N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.034 - - - - -Benzo[a]anthracene 0.092 4.7N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 - - - - -Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1,500 0.13N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 - - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.81N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.036 - - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.092 0.75N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 - - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.92 0.4N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.023 - - - - -Chrysene 9.2 1N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.019 - - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0092 0.52N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 - - - - -Fluoranthene 1,500 130N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.027 - - - - -Fluorene 240 950N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.024 - - - - -Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 0.095N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.022 - - - - -1-Methylnaphthalene 4.7 10N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.028 - - - - -2-Methylnaphthalene 24 10N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.026 - - - - -Naphthalene 17 210.10 J 0.2 0.05 0.023 - - - - -Phenanthrene 240 410N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.031 - - - - -Pyrene 180 68N.D.U 0.2 0.05 0.025 - - - - -EPA 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 970N.D.U 5 0.5 0.3 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.31,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.38 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.381,1-Dichloroethane 2.4 50,000N.D.U 5 0.5 0.28 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.281,1-Dichloroethylene 7 1,500N.D.U 1 0.5 0.431 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.431,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.6 50,000N.D.U 5 1 0.64 N.D. U 5 1 0.641,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 3,000N.D.U 5 1 0.5 N.D. U 5 1 0.51,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane 0.04 10N.D.U 105 1.2 N.D. U 10 5 1.21,2-Dibromoethane 0.04 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.36 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.361,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 10N.D.U 1 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.461,2-Dichloroethane 0.15 7,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.241,2-Dichloropropane 5 10N.D.U5 0.5 0.42 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.421,3-Dichlorobenzene 180 5N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41,3-Dichloropropene (total of cis/trans) 0.43 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.251,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 5N.D.U 1 0.5 0.43 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.43Acetone 22,000 20,000N.D.IJ, ICH, U 20 10 6 N.D. IJ, ICH, U 20 10 10Benzene 5 170N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14Bromodichloromethane 0.12 50,000N.D.U 5 0.5 0.21 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.21Bromoform 80 510N.D.U 10 1 0.5 N.D. U 10 1 0.5Bromomethane 8.7 50,000N.D.U 20 5 3.9 N.D. U 20 5 3.9Carbon Tetrachloride 5 520N.D.U 1 0.5 0.23 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.23Chlorobenzene 100 50N.D.U 5 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.17Chloroethane 21,000 16N.D.U 10 5 2.3 N.D. U 10 5 2.3Chloroform 70 2,400N.D.U 5 0.5 0.46 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.46Chloromethane 1.8 50,000N.D.U 105 1.8 N.D. U 10 5 1.8cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.48 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.48Dibromochloromethane 0.16 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.25 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.25Ethylbenzene 700 30N.D.U 1 0.5 0.14 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.14Hexachlorobutadiene 0.86 6N.D.U 1 0.5 0.32 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.32Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 7,100 8,400N.D.U 10 5.0 2.21 N.D. U 10 5.0 2.21Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 2,000 1300N.D.U 10 5.0 4.4 N.D. U 10 5.0 4.4Methyl tert-butyl Ether 12 5N.D.U 1 0.5 0.31 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.31Methylene chloride 4.8 9,100N.D.U 51.0 0.64 N.D. U 5 1.0 0.64Styrene 100 10N.D.U 1 0.5 0.17 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.17Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.52 50,000N.D.U 1 0.5 0.4 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.4Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.067 500N.D.U 1 0.5 0.41 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.41Tetrachloroethylene 5 170N.D.U 5 0.5 0.387 N.D. U 5 0.5 0.39Toluene 1,000 40N.D.U 1 0.5 0.24 2.8 1 0.5 0.24trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 100 260N.D.U 1 0.5 0.37 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.37Trichloroethylene 5 310N.D.U 1 0.5 0.368 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.37Vinyl chloride 2 3,400N.D.U 1 0.5 0.3 N.D. U 1 0.5 0.3Xylenes 10,000 20N.D.U 10 1 0.23 N.D. U 10 1 0.23EPA 6020 Lead 15 50,000 0.846 J 1 0.2 0.0898 - - - - -The data are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Shaded values exceeded the DOH EALs.- Not AnalyzedLOD Limit of DetectionDOH EALs DOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for groundwater where groundwater is a current drinking water source and surface water is greater than 150 meters from the site (DOH, Fall 2011). LOQ Limit of QuantitationDL Detection Limit or Method Detection Limit (MDL)N.D. Not DetectedEPA Environmental Protection AgencyQ QualifiersICH Initial calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasolineIJ Calibration verification recovery above method control limit for this analyte.TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as dieselJ Analyte was detected at a concentration below the LOQ and above the DL. Reported value is estimated.U Undetected at DL and is reported as less than the LOD.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853Contract Task Order 0002Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report3-8April 2013Inside Tunnel WellsThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 4-1 April 2013



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

From January 28 to 29 and February 4, 2013, ESI personnel collected groundwater samples

from five monitoring wells at the RHSF (w ells 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 NAVFAC Contract Number N62742-12-D-1853. The sampling

was conducted in accordance with the approv ed WP/SAP prepared by ESI. A summary of the

analytical results is provided below.

 RHMW01 – TPH-d (79 μg/L), TPH-g (13 μg/L), naphthalene (0.10 μg/L), and dissolved lead

(0.846 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents analyzed for were detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW02 – TPH-d (1,700 μg/L), TPH-g (660 μg/L), acenaphthene (0.57 μg/L), fluorene

(0.30 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (47 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (35 μg/L), naphthalene

(110 μg/L), ethylbenzene (0.21 μg/L), and xylenes (0.65 μg/L) were detected. TPH-d,

TPH-g, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene were detected at

concentrations above the DOH EALs for both drinking water toxicity and gross

contamination.

 RHMW03 – TPH-d (59 μg/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (0.10 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.069

μg/L), and naphthalene (0.32 μg/L) were detected. None of the chemical constituents

analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW05 – TPH-d (62 μg/L) and naphthalene (0.075 μg/L) were detected. None of the

chemical constituents analyzed for were detected at concentrations above the DOH EALs.

 RHMW2254-01 – TPH-g (22 μg/L), naphthalene (0.052 μg/L), and total lead (0.242 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

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination. TPH-d concentrations showed a

decreasing trend from 1,500 μg/L in February 2005 to 79 μg/L in February 2013.

 RHMW02 – COPCs 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 average of 5,420 μg/L in October 2008

to concentrations ranging from 1,500-2,200 μg/L during the last several rounds of sampling.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 4-2 April 2013 

### 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene show a decreasing trend over

the long-term. However, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene have

steadily increased since April 2012.

TPH-g concentrations show an increasing trend with a significant increase from 320 μg/L

during the last round of sampling to 660 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 EALs

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs 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 EALs

for both drinking water toxicity and gross contamination; however, it has not been detected

at concentrations above the DOH EALs 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.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the wells were last sampled (October 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. Only the groundwater

samples from RHMW02 showed concentration s of COPCs exceeding the DOH EALs. 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 sa mpling event; however, elevated concentrations

have been detected in groundwater samples collected during past sampling events. TPH-g

concentrations increased since the last sampling event, and is the highest concentration since

routine groundwater sampling was initiated in 2005.

With the exception of TPH-g, concentrations of COPCs in well RHMW02 have not changed

significantly. TPH-d, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene

concentrations have been decreasing over the long-term. However, 1-methylnaphthalene,

2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene concentrations have increased since April 2012.

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,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 5-1 April 2013



### SECTION 5 – FUTURE WORK

G ROUNDWATER 

### S AMPLING



### Future work includes the second quarter 2013 groundwater monitoring which is scheduled for

April 2013. It is anticipated that the quarterly groundwater monitoring status report will be

submitted in May 2013.Contract No. N62742-12-D-1853 Contract Task Order 0002

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 5-2 April 2013 

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

Red Hill LTM,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 6-1 April 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,1Q2013 Status Report

Inside Tunnel Wells 6-2 April 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.SVMP04SVMP06SVMP12SVMP14SVMP16SVMP18SVMP20SVMP17SVMP15SVMP11SVMP09SVMP07SVMP05SVMP03(RESIDENTIAL HOUSING)RED HILL BULK FUELSTORAGE FACILITYSVMP13SVMP08HALAWACORRECTIONALFACILITYNAVY FIRING RANGEHALAWA SHAFTBOARD OF WATER SUPPLYPUMP STATION (2354-01)SVMP02SVMP10OWDFMW01HDMW2253-03RHMW2254-01U.S. Navy Well 2254-01RHMW05RHMW01RHMW02RHMW03RHMW04GRAPHIC SCALE01,2001,200Scale in FeetThe accuracy of this document is limited to the qualityand scale of the source information. This document isnot a legal representation of an engineered survey.NOTESRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYHALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITYHALAWA STREAMBUILDINGROADABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKWATER TANKSOIL VAPOR MONITORING POINTGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED INSIDE TUNNELGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLLOCATED OUTSIDE TUNNELBOARD OF WATER SUPPLY PUMPSTATIONLEGENDSOURCESPearl Harbor Base MapNavy GIS filesFIGURE 2SITE LAYOUTGROUNDWATER MONITORINGRED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITYNAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMAND (NAVSUP)FLEET LOGISTICS CENTERJBPHH, OAHU, HAWAIIThis Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX A

Groundwater Sampling Logs

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# Groundwater Sampling Log

Well ID: Location: Project No.:

Initial Water Level: Time:

Total Depth of Well: Personnel Involved:

Length of Saturated Zone: Weather Conditions:

Volume of Water to be Removed: Method of Removal:

Water Level After Purging: Pumping Rate:

Well Purge Data: Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

84.04 ft Date: 2/4/2013 845 RHMW01

97.40 ft

Time Volume

Removed pH Conductivity

(mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

-

Bladder Pump

Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP)

(mV)

7.51

7.51

7.50 0.06 L/min

84.04 ft - -

927

935 7.52

7.51 0.411

0.409

945

952

1000 0.0 L

0.5 L

1.0 L

1.5 L

2.0 L 0.410

0.410 7.93

6.08

5.61

5.49

5.55 0.409

26.60 26.60 26.60 26.60 26.63 0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19 61.5

56.3

53.9

53.1

52.9

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:

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

ES010 [1045] Clear

Low

None

2/6/2013 10:00 Bladder Pump

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx TPH-d, - 8015; TPH-g, VOCs - 8260; PAHs - 8270C sim;

Appendix A - Groundwater Sampling Log

# 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: RHMW02 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

86.75 ft Date: 1/28/2013 1040

94.35 ft Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

5.0 L Bladder Pump

86.25 0.416 L/min

Time Volume

Removed pH Conductivity

(mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP)

(mV)

1050 0.0 L 7.17 0.664 5.49 25.13 0.32 -6.1

1052 1.0 L 7.10 0.667 2.37 24.61 0.33 -5.9

1055 2.0 L 7.07 0.662 1.93 24.41 0.32 -2.5

1057 3.0 L 7.05 0.660 1.81 24.40 0.32 -1.9

1100 4.0 L 7.04 0.660 1.80 24.37 0.32 -1.7

1102 5.0 L 7.02 0.660 1.76 24.31 0.32 -1.6

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: Clear

Low

None

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

lead - 6020

22 - VOAs, 8 - 1L amber jar, 5 - 500ml HDPE bottle

ES011 [1110], ES011 MS/MSD [1110], ES012 (Dup) [1000]

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

1/31/2013 10:30

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

Appendix A - Groundwater Sampling Log

# 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: RHMW03 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

102.98 ft Date: 1/28/2013 1215

110.12 ft Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

4.0 L Bladder Pump

102.98 ft 0.40 L/min

Time Volume

Removed pH Conductivity

(mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP)

(mV)

1241 0.0 L 7.35 0.890 5.61 27.01 0.42 147.1

1243 1.0 L 7.28 0.924 5.30 27.86 0.43 99.5

1246 2.0 L 7.07 0.937 4.60 27.49 0.43 91.6

1248 3.0 L 7.07 0.930 4.61 27.89 0.43 87.8

1251 4.0 L 7.06 0.929 4.51 27.88 0.43 86.8

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: Clear

Low

None

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

lead - 6020

6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle

ES013 [1300]

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

1/31/2013 10:30

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

Appendix A - Groundwater Sampling Log

# 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: RHMW05 Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 112066

83.61 ft Date: 1/29/2013 1015

- Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

- -

- Bladder Pump

83.61 0.5 L/min

Time Volume

Removed pH Conductivity

(mS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature Salinity Redox (ORP)

(mV)

1025 0.0 L 7.58 1.131 7.06 22.53 0.59 -28.8

1027 1.0 L 7.51 1.122 6.94 22.37 0.59 -26.9

1029 2.0 L 7.47 1.117 6.90 22.30 0.59 -25.4

1031 3.0 L 7.47 1.116 6.83 22.28 0.59 -25.7

1033 4.0 L 7.45 1.116 6.81 22.33 0.55 -27.0

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: Clear

Low

None

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

lead - 6020

6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle

ES015 [1045]

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara

Calscience Environmental Lab FedEx

1/31/2013 10:30

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87

Appendix A - Groundwater Sampling Log

# 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:

0.33 -18.1 931 4.0 L 7.31 0.655 7.08 23.48 0.32 -17.6

928 3.0 L 7.28 0.652 7.11 23.19 0.33 -16.1 925 2.0 L 7.33 0.643 7.10 23.51 0.32 -7.3

923 1.0 L 7.30 0.644 7.11 23.59 0.32 -16.6 920 0.0 L 7.07 0.655 6.78 24.35 82.78 ft 0.36 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

82.78 ft Date: 1/29/2013 910 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

1/31/2013 10:30

Capacity of Casing (Gallons/Linear Feet)

2"-0.16 • 4"-0.65 • 8"-2.61 • 10"-4.08 • 12"-5.87 total lead - 6020

6 - VOAs, 3 - 1L amber jar, 1 - 500ml HDPE bottle

ES014 [0935]

Triple Rinsed

Justin Lam, Branden Ibara Clear

Low

None

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

Appendix A - Groundwater Sampling Log

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX B

Field Notes

### 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: 13-01-1776

Richard Villafania Project Manager 

### 02/7/2013 

## Page 1 of 42

# Contents

Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 13-01-1776



## 1 Client Sample Data

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

1.1 EPA 6020 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 EPA 8270C SIM PAHs (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 GC/MS GRO/EPA 8260B Volatile Organics (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 Quality Control Sample Data

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

2.1 MS/MSD and/or Duplicate

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

2.2 LCS/LCSD

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

3 Sample Analysis Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Page 2 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 3 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 4 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 5 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 6 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 7 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 8 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 9 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 10 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 11 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 12 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 13 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 14 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 15 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 16 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 17 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 18 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 19 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 20 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 21 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 22 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 23 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 24 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 25 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 26 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 27 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 28 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 29 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 30 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 31 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 32 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 33 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 34 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 35 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 36 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 37 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 38 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 39 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 40 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 41 of 42Return to Contents 

## Page 42 of 42

## 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: 13-01-1776

Richard Villafania Project Manager 

### 02/7/2013

Supplemental Report 1



## Page 1 of 11

# Contents

Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 13-01-1776



## 1 Client Sample Data

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

1.1 EPA 200.8 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

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

2 Quality Control Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 MS/MSD and/or Duplicate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 LCS/LCSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Sample Analysis Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Page 2 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 3 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 4 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 5 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 6 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 7 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 8 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 9 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 10 of 11Return to Contents 

## Page 11 of 11

## 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: 13-02-0277

Richard Villafania Project Manager 

## Page 1 of 26

02/14/2013

# Contents

Client Project Name: Red Hill LTM 112066

Work Order Number: 13-02-0277



## 1 Client Sample Data

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

1.1 EPA 6020 ICP/MS Metals (Aqueous)

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 EPA 8270C SIM PAHs (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 GC/MS GRO/EPA 8260B Volatile Organics (Aqueous)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Quality Control Sample Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1 MS/MSD and/or Duplicate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2 LCS/LCSD

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Sample Analysis Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Glossary of Terms and Qualifiers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5 Chain of Custody/Sample Receipt Form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Page 2 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 3 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 4 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 5 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 6 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 7 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 8 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 9 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 10 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 11 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 12 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 13 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 14 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 15 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 16 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 17 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 18 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 19 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 20 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 21 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 22 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 23 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 24 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 25 of 26Return to Contents 

## Page 26 of 26

# APPENDIX D

Historical Groundwater Exceedance Trends

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05010015020025030035040045050055060065070075080085090095010001050110011501200125013001350140014501500 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.012345678910 2/17/2005 6/28/2005 9/8/2005 9/20/2005 12/6/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 11/3/2010 1/20/2011 4/28/2011 7/20/2011 11/2/2011 2/14/2012 4/17/2012 7/20/2012 10/22/2012 2/4/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date1‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)1‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200340036003800400042004400460048005000520054005600 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTrichloroethyleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)Trichloroethylene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090100110 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date1‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)1‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090 9/20/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/18/2011 4/19/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)Date2‐MethylnaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)2‐Methylnaphthalene(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.330340350NaphthaleneConcentrationsforRHMW02260270280290300310320190200210220230240250260

n (μg/l)120130140150160170180190

Concentratio nDOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)NaphthaleneusingEPAMethod8270(μg/L)60708090100110120NaphthaleneusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)01020304050 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3

9/20/20 0 7/10/20 0 12/5/20 0 3/27/20 0 6/12/20 0 9/10/20 0 1/15/20 0 4/15/20 0 7/29/20 0 10/22/20 0 2/4/20 0 5/13/20 0 7/15/20 0 10/13/20 0 1/26/20 1 4/13/20 1 7/13/20 1 10/18/20 1 1/18/20 1 4/19/20 1 7/19/20 1 10/24/20 1 1/26/20 1 4/16/20 1 7/18/20 1 10/22/20 1 1/28/20 1Date

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 9/21/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW03DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0255075100125150175200225250275300325350 9/21/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/18/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/24/2011 1/26/2012 4/16/2012 7/18/2012 10/22/2012 1/28/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW03DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/20/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/16/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW05DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0100200300400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/13/2009 1/26/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/20/2010 1/19/2011 4/20/2011 7/19/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/16/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW05DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 9/19/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 12/16/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/19/2010 1/20/2011 4/19/2011 7/20/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/17/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐gConcentrationsforRHMW2254‐01DOHEALGrossContaminationandDOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8015C(μg/L)TPH‐gusingEPAMethod8260B(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330 9/19/2005 7/10/2006 12/5/2006 3/27/2007 6/12/2007 9/10/2007 1/15/2008 4/15/2008 7/29/2008 10/22/2008 12/16/2008 2/4/2009 5/13/2009 7/15/2009 10/14/2009 1/27/2010 4/13/2010 7/13/2010 10/19/2010 1/20/2011 4/19/2011 7/20/2011 10/25/2011 2/1/2012 4/17/2012 7/17/2012 10/22/2012 1/29/2013

Concentration (μg/L)DateTPH‐dConcentrationsforRHMW2254‐01DOHEALGrossContamination(μg/L)DOHEALDrinkingWaterToxicity(μg/L)TPH‐d(μg/L)

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

# APPENDIX E

Waste Disposal Manifest

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

### This Page Intentionally Left Blank.