i ^ SDMS Document 115567 FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT mi Virgin Island Chemical Site St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands VOLUME n APPENDICES A-G, I-K '.:3yi r . . . . t-iVL f&S5 fiJiii Prepared By: McLaren/Hart, Inc. 25 Independence Boulevard Warren, NJ 07059 rri't r * • _ * • .m ;f^?v3:iy^^*#^^:W^ Prepared For: I'?!?. Berlex Laboratories, Inc. 15049 San Pablo Avenue P.O. Box 4099 Richmond, CA 94804 and Pharmacia & Upjohn 7171 Portage Road Kalamazoo, MI 49001 ifff .5^. /-J-'Ar, .y> i'l February 2000 t- |§l|Nf I ' ilMTigy 5 T§§HN@i-©§T ? |@LyTI0N§ 303677 Golder Associates Inc. 1951 Old Cuthbert Road, Suite 301 Cherry Hi!!, NJ 08034 Teleplione (856) 616-8166 Fax (856) 616-1874 November 17, 2000 Project No.: 003-6016 Ms. Caroline Kwan Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Emergency & Remedial Response Division Sediments and Caribbean Team 290 Broadway, 20* Floor New York, New York 10007-1866 RE: REVISED FINAL RISK ASSESSMENT - REVISED PAGES VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Dear Ms. Kwan: On behalf of Berlex Laboratories, Inc. and Pharmacia, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is enclosing four (4) copies of the revised and missing pages from the Revised Final Risk Assessment for the Virgin Island Chemical Site located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The Revised Final Risk Assessment was submitted to USEPA on October 24, 2000. The enclosed pages have been revised or provided, as appropriate, to address the comments received from USEPA on November 8, 2000. The pages are provided in 3-ring binder format for direct insertion into the Revised Final Risk Assessment, which should be located in Volume II, Appendix J of the Revised Final Remedial Investigation Report. The enclosed pages include the following: 1. Pages 6-2 and 6-3, and Tables 7.2, 7.3 and 7.6, which were inadvertently missing from the Revised Final Risk Assessment submitted by Golder to USEPA on October 24, 2000. We apologize for this oversight. 2. Pages ES-3 through ES-9, 3-11, and 5-15; and Tables 7-20a and b, 7.22a and b, 8.20a and b, 8.22a and b, and 10.5b, which were corrected in response to USEPA's November 8, 2000 comments. These corrections do not affect the final risk calculations. Please note that the shower model information was provided as Attachment B in the Revised Final Risk Assessment submitted on October 24, 2000. 303678 OFFICES IN AUSTR.A.LiA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES . USEPA Region II -2- November 17, 2000 Ms. Caroline Kwan 003-6016 We trust that these revised pages will adequately address USEPA's comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INf. Susan A. Sciarratta, P.E. Project Manager cc: Terry Grimmer, Berlex Laboratories William Gierke, Pharmacia & Upjohn Syed Syedali, VIDPNR G:\PROJECTS\003-6016\Golder\Remed.Invest.(RI)\RA_revItr.doc 303679 FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Virgin Island Chemical Site St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands VOLUME II APPENDICES A-G, I K Prepared By: McLaren/Hart, Inc. 25 Independence Boulevard Warren, NJ 07059 Prepared For: Berlex Laboratories, Inc. 15049 San Pablo Avenue P.O. Box 4099 Richmond, CA 94804 and Pharmacia & Upjohn 7171 Portage Road Kalamazoo, MI 49001 February 2000 303680 ^ APPENDIX A ZONING INFORMATION 303682 GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE TAX ASSESSOR Christiansted, St. Croix, V. I. 00820 March 16, 1999 1 131 KINGS STREET SUITE 101 CHRISTIANSTED. ST. CROIX U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00820 (80B) 773-6449 Mr. Anuj Gulati 25 Independence Boulevard Warren, New Jersey, 07059 Dear Mr. Gulati: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the section of the zoning map of Plot No. 13-Q of Estate Bethlehem that was requested by you in your letter. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call on u s . • Sincerely, E n d : - 2 303683 B m 1 ^ APPENDIX B WATER USE SURVEY RESULTS 303686 APPENDIX B WATER USE SURVEY RESULTS A water use survey was conducted within a Vz-mile radius of the Site by McLaren/Hart in October 1998. The purpose of this survey was to collect information on construction details, pumping rates, and general water use for wells located in the vicinity of the VICHEM Site that could potentially be affected by Site impacts or that could potentially influence groundwater flow across the Site via pumping. Data was collected through interviews with well owners, review of historical information, and discussions with personnel from WAPA and VIDPNR. Information was collected for the following wells (see Figure B-1): Charlie's Concrete #1 and #2 (2 wells), VIPA#1 and #2 (2 wells), Carino's Water Service (1 well), Fairplains Well Field (9 wells), Negro Bay Well Field (10 wells). Meridian Engineering # 1 and #2 (2 wells), USGS wells located near the intersection of East Airport Road and M.E. Highway (2 wells), Carr's (1 well), and Zenon Construction #1(1 well). Each well (excluding the Fairplains and Negro Bay Well Fields) were surveyed during the Phase in Investigation in June 1997. Table B-1 presents the construction details for each well. The water use in this portion of St. Croix is primarily for light industrial operations. As noted previously, the Site is in the vicinity of several industries including concrete operations, paving operations, and a construction company. In addition, two VIPA production wells are located approximately 1,000 feeit to the northwest of the Site. During the Phase IV investigation (October 1998), McLaren/Hart personnel interviewed the owners/operators of each well. Charlie's Concrete #1 and#2 All information concerning the site operations and production wells was obtained from the site maintenance supervisor, Mr. Tongue. Two wells, identified as wells #1 and #2 are located at Chariie's Concrete Company (Plot 13-1). Charlie's Concrete is one of two companies on St. Croix that mixes, delivers, and pours concrete. This facility has been in operation for over ten years. However, beginning in July 1998, plant operations at this facility ceased. Most of the operations were transferred to a second facility on West Airport Road near the Cruzan Rum facility. The headquarters of Charlie's Concrete and their offices are still located at this facility. Two wells, identified as wells #1 and #2 are located at Chariie's Concrete Company (Plot 13-1). Charlie's Concrete is one of two companies on St. Croix that mixes, delivers, and pours concrete. appdx_b.doc B-i 3 0 3 6 8 7 This facility has been in operation for over ten years. However, beginning in July 1998, plant operations at this facility ceased. Most of the operations were transferred to a second facility on West Airport Road near the Cruzan Rum facility. The headquarters of Charlie's Concrete and their offices are still located at this facility. Charlie's Concrete #1 is located directly across the River Gut near monitoring well MW-3. Historically, this well was used for plant operations (e.g., wetting/mixing concrete, washing machinery). During the period of fiill-plant operation, it was turned on at the beginning of the day at approximately 6 a.m. and shut off at the end of the day at approximately 6 p.m. The average pumping rate during production was approximately 15-20 gpm. The well is no longer used for any purpose. Charlie's Concrete #2 is located near the Truck Maintenance Area and is in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-5. Prior to the installation of Charlie's Concrete #1 (in 1996), #2 was used for production purposes. During operations, this well produced a maximum yield of approximately 8-10 gpm. This well is now used only for household use (e.g. sinks, toilets). The water is either well is not used for drinking purposes Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA) #1 and #2 Two VIPA wells are located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the Site. These wells were historically used to supply all of the water for use at the Henry Rohlsen Airport. The water is first pumped from the two wells to a holding tank on top of the adjacent hill (referred to as the Aeronautical Beacon), and then sent down the other side of the hill towards the Airport. The water is then stored in a 500,000-gallon holding tank, which is located near the rock quarry to the east of the airport. The water is chlorinated in this tank. The pumps in the wells are turned on manually when the amount of water in this 500,000 gallon tank is low. VIPA is in the process of shifting to a system in the near future, which will automatically determine if the tank is low, and then turn on the pumps accordingly. After the water is chlorinated, the water is sent through the distribution line and used at the airport. Until mid-1998, the water was used for all airport needs, including drinking water. Currently, the water is not used for potable purposes, but rather for outdoor cleaning and construction. Because the water is not used for household purposes, the demand for water from these wells has decreased dramatically. During the Phase III Investigation (June 1997 through April 1998), the wells were observed to be pumping almost continuously at a rate of approximately 15 to 20 gpm. However, during the Phase IV investigation, these wells were not pumping during the entire October 1998 mobilization (a three-week time span). During the Phase IV investigation (October 1998), McLaren/Hart sampled these wells. The resuhs are discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. Meridian Engineering (VIAPCO) UI and #2 Two Meridian Engineering wells (also referred to as VIAPCO) are located on Plot 13-H. In the past. Meridian Engineering used Well #2 for their asphalt scrubber. These operations used BO 3 0 3 6 8 8 appdx_b.doc D - A possibly over 10,000 gpd. However, the scrubber is no longer used because of potential air emissions violations. This well is now used to fill tanker trucks for water distribution to various construction sites around the island. Approximately 900 gallons are pumped from this well per day. Water from Well #1 is used very infrequently. Approximately 600 gallons per day may be used to wet the roads at the facility to suppress dust disturbed by the trucking operations. Carino's Water Service One well is located on the property of Carino's Water Service (Plots 13-V, W, and X). This well was installed in 1997, and is used for truck cleaning and household use. The typical pumping rate is approximately 10 to 20 gpm and, depending on water demand on St. Croix, up to 5,000 gpd is discharged from this well. Fairplains and Negro Bay Well Fields Several production well fields exist on the island to provide drinking water to the residents. However, this water is generally brackish and must go through a reverse osmosis operation before consumption. The Fairplains and Negro Bay Well Fields are located in the vicinity of the Site (Figure B-2). The Fairplains Well Field consists of nine wells and is located downgradient of the Site. The locations of Fairplains #1 and #4 are unknown. Four of the wells (Fairplains #2, #3, #5, and #6) are located near the 100,000 gallon tank adjacent to the pumping station (behind Zenon Construction). These wells are out of service and will not be used in the fiiture. Three of the wells (Fairplains #7, #8, and #9) are located along Melvin Evans Highway. WAPA personnel indicated that Fairplains #7 (formerly referted to as Zenon #2 in McLaren/Hart correspondence) was destroyed by Zenon Construction. The well is covered by debris and other material and no longer exists. Fairplains #8 is located within a locked pump house on Zenon's property and is inaccessible. Fairplains #9 (formerly referred to as WAPA in McLaren/Hart cortespondence) is located approximately 2,000 feet downgradient of the Site. These wells are out of service and will not be used in the fiiture. The Negro Bay Well Field consists of five production wells (#3, #4, #5, #6, and #7) and is much newer than the Fairplains wells. At this point, all of the Negro Bay wells are inactive, but will be in use upon completion of the reverse osmosis system at the Fairplains pumping station. Zenon Construction One well, identified as Zenon #1, exists at Zenon Construction Company (Plot 13-0). Zenon #2, later identified as Fairplains #7, was destroyed. Zenon #1 is located in the Truck Maintenance Area and is only used for cleaning of equipment and trucks. Typically, no more than 100 gallons of water per day is extracted from this well. 3 0 3 6 8 9 appdx_b.doc B - J Carr's Well One well, identified as the Carr's Well, exists at Carr's Airport Service Center (Plot 13-G). the Carr's well is located at the rear of the property and is only used for cleaning of equipment, trucks, and animals. The water is not used for drinking or cooking. Typically, no more than 50 gallons of water per day is extracted from this well. USGS Wells Several USGS monitoring wells are located at the intersection of East Airport Road and Melvin Evans Highway adjacent to the Guts. These are monitoring wells only. No water is pumped from these wells. 3 0 3 6 9 0 appdx_b.doc B - 4 IP Table B- Well Construction Details Virgin Island Chemical Site, St Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Well ID Well Information Source VIPA#1 VIPA#2 USGS Charlie's #1 Charlie's #2 Can's Carino's Meridian #1 (VIAPCO #1) Meridian #2 (VIAPCO #2) Zenon #1 Faiiplains #2 Fairplains #3 Fairplains #5 Fairplains #6 Fairplains #7 (Zenon #2) Fairplains #8 Fairplains #9 (WAPA) Negro Bay #1 Negro Bay #4 Negro Bay #5 Negro Bay #6 Jeff Lawlor, VIPA Jeff Lawlor, VIPA NA Mr. Tongue, Site Maintenance Supervisor Mr. Tongue, Site Maintenance Supervisor Mr. Carr, Well Owner Mr. Anastacio Carino, Well Owner Mr. William Golden, Site Supervisor Mr. William Golden, Site Supervisor Mr. Carlos Zenon, Well Owner Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr, Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Mr. Hector Mercado. WAPA Negro Bay #7 I Mr. Hector Mercado, WAPA Well Construction Information Construction Date NA NA NA 1996 1989 NA 1997 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Name of Driller NA NA NA Berg Berg NA Berg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA Total Depth Approx n c Approx 120' 51.44* 59.19* 53.83 * 34.19* Approx 70 NA 80.13 * 55* NA NA NA NA 12.62 • NA 64.12* 103 NA 130 US 130 Well Materials Steel Casing Steel Casing PVC Screen and Riser Steel Casing Steel Casing Steel Casing Steel Casing Steel Casing Steel Casing Suel Casing Concrete Concrete Conaete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete NA Concrete Concrete Concrete Well Diameter (In.) 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 NA 8 8 8 Scrctntd Interval (ftbgs) Open Hole Open Hole NA Open Hole Open Hole Open Hole Open Hole NA NA Open Hole NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA- NA NA Survey Elevations Ground (Hmsl) 34.82 35.06 17.57 28.14 27.13 28.49 NA • 33.49 35.02 27.50 NA NA NA NA 24.34 NA 27.58 NA NA NA NA NA TOC (ft msl) 36.36 36.53 20.71 28.62 27.20 29.08 NA 33.57 36.63 28.54 NA NA NA NA 24.98 NA 29.27 NA NA NA NA NA TIC (ftmsO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Typical Pumping Rate 15-20 gpm 15-20 gpm NA 20pgm 7.5 gpm 50 gpd 15-20 gpm 600 gpd 900 gpd 100 gpd NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Typical Duration Periodic Periodic NA Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Manual/ Auto Shut-off Manual Manual NA Mantial Manual Manual Manual Manual Manial Manual NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Water Usage Industrial Industrial NA Operations Household Washing Water Service Industrial Industrial Industrial NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes VIPA #1 and WI were fomierly used to supply all water to Heniy Rohlsen Airport VIPA has switched all Airport service to WAPA-supplied water Monitoring well only. Known as Well #2 to Site workers. Formerly operated from approximately 6 am to 6 pm during the week. Known as Well #1 to Site workers. Formerly operations well prior to installation of other on- site well. Water usage depends on demand for 1 construction/industrial use around St. Croix. Well is inaccessible. Attached to scale-house. Well was formerly used to run asphalt scrubber Characterized as "Abandoned" by WAPA Characterized as "Abandoned" by WAPA 1 Characterized as "Abandoned" by WAPA Characterized as "Abandoned" by WAPA Well was destroyed (covered by fill) | Characterized as "Abandoned" by WAPA 1 Characterized as 'Abandoned" by WAPA 11 Characterized as "Inactive" by WAPA Characterized as "Inactive" by WAPA 11 Characterized as "Inactive" by WAPA | Characterized as "Inactive" by WAPA 11 Characterized as "Inactive" by WAPA i . measured from top of outer casing bgs - feet below ground surface msl - feet mean sea level )C - top of outer casing C - top of inner casing \ - not available m - gallons per minute d - gallons per day T69eoe R1^( VIRGIN ISLAND WATER STPOWER AUTHORITY WATER DISTRIBUTION WELL FIELD INFORMATION 1 WELL #3 #7 #6 #5 #4 #1 #2 ' #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 1 #9 #9 #10 fft) School #3A #6 #7 #23 #24 #25 #31 LOCATION NEGRO BAY NEGRO BAY NEGRO BAY NEGRO BAY NEGRO BAY M ; FAIRPLAIN ^' FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN FAIRPLAIN BETHLEHEM BETHLEHEM b A K K t N b P U 1 BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT BARREN SPOT S.W.L G ^ & 1 5-*? S 3 l O kf^'f-^tfvC^ «B W/A 1 / M I I m/A 2 r Z h -2.7 2.1 zr. ^ ^ ' u-z Q-Z 15- S ^ 68 SC 7 0 yr DEPTH / 0 3 / 3 0 f i ^ / 3 0 /6 / 0 3 /V/> // ^^//i // I I 9 0 7 i U S i-Z-o t Z o io"?. N/f< S I /e>S* /zs/ / Z f i Z o t i o I I Z EST. G.P.DJ / 0 , 0 0 0 f ^ j O O O /V^ooo /feyOOO /(/.OOO /3y 0 0 0 M M If a u i> t^^too /¥^0oo /V/poo 6 ^ ^ 0 0 0 6^,D0L> M/oOb l ^ A 7,0/000 l^jOOO ZB^tP^ ZJytJOO 22^t>oO tJ^DDO Zo.ooO / CASING Cm* five e'^cr e"cr 8"cz (^"Pl/C 3 C J II 14 1 * I t I t t l U'cz e^cr G^PtC G"fik'C ftc-r a c i 9 c i B^X S c S C^PfC uPyc uPtc «£.?: CONST DATE n W nM ^M N/A / » f } / I^/A i> I I I I I I I I M/A t^/i rt/A /ff«/ /ffV n/A I I It iV^ i l l l -"A 1/ t^A DRILLER CMT N/A n/A N//\ CLf4T f4/A 0 I t l l 1 ' l l I t N/A M/A C H T CMT n/tK I I %» A(^4 V A CffT/as^^ u*r/u$e)^ Cffi/UiC,<, hj/^ OWNER WAPA tVA?A U/AP^ lA/ApA- UJAf/i LUAPA 11 l l l l It 1 / l l U/AP/h lU^PA WAPA IVA^A N, LoiUL& ? u,utttaeA u 11 N,CJt>ltAS/) t l u l i COMMENTS 1 iHAiTil^C ll 1 " 1 (/ itxAcTiyC- JMA^Vt/£ Ae^^OOA) It 1 " // II 1 II I A/iAiici>/J tUAcnt^c l l u ll 1 IttAcTivC I I 1 " 369£0e (provided by WAPA during 10/98 field investigation) H D GOLDEN GROVE ADULT CORRECTIONAL FACILnY VIPA #1 ^ NEGRO BAY ^ WELL HELD CATCHMENT AREA FAIRPLAINS WELL HELD SOURCE: HMOMS LNDSON ASSOCWIES LEGEND © D BUILDING STREAM ROAD TREE LINE APPROX. LOCATION OF OFFSITE WELLS ONSITE MONITORING WELLS ONSITE PRODUCTION WELLS DEEP MONITORING WELL LOCATION SCALE 150, 75 150 FEET FIGURE B-1 1 ^ INC. REV# APPD ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE ST. CROIX. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS SOL£: AS SHOWN ICHKI): KOT APPD: PJC DATE: 01/15/99 OFFSfTE PRODUCTION WELL LOCATION MAP 303693 1 GN15278.AO ^ 303695 APPENDIX C RAINFALL SUMMARY 303696 Table C-1 Rainfall Summary Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 1 February 1995 | Date 1 ^ 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 ^ ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Precipitation Water Eaulvalent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 OOO 000 OOO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 007 0.00 OOO 0.03 0.48 Significant Field Events Sampling Event Begins Sampling Event Completed i 1 April 1995 1 Date i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 Significant Field Events i 1 May 1995 | Date 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 1 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.65 0.29 0.10 0.00 1.84 0.04 0.00 Significant Field Events 1 I Sampling Event Begins Ij Sampling Event Completed II •Information from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, NC appdx_c.xlfl ^69£0£ Table C-1 Rainfall Summary Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 1 May 1996 | Date 1 2 3 4 II 5 6 7 11 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 '^ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 PrecipiUtion Water Equivalent 0.00 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 Significant Field Events II Sampling Event Begins 11 Sampling Event Completed 1 SEPTEMBER 1997 | Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 '^ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 30 1 PrecipiUtion Water 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.28 1.80 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.30 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.21 0.00 Significant Field EvenU McLaren/Hait Onsite I Onsite/Offsite Water Levels Onsite/Offsite Water Levels Onsite/Offsite Water Levels 1 OCTOBER 1997 j Date 1 1 ^ ' 4 5 II ^ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 '^ 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 1 31 PrecipiUtion Water Equivalent 0.00 0.70 0.47 0.04 0.11 OOO 0.00 0.00 0.03 Significant Field Events 1 Onsite/Offsite Water Levels 1 1 McLaren/Hart Offsite |l 1 II 1 1 *Infonnation from National Climatic Data Cetiter (NCDC), Asheville. NC appdx_c.xis 869eoe Table C-1 Rainfall Summary Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. V i r ^ Islands 1 DECEMBER 1997 | Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 13 14 i '^ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Significant Fieid Events 1 II II II II 1 JANAURY1998 | Date 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 1 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.76 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Significant Field Events 1 1 McLaren/Hart Onsite | Sampling Event Begins 1 Sampling Event Completed || Telogs in Wells McLaren/Hart Offsite III! 1 ' 1 1 FEBRUARY 1998 | Date 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Liu Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 Measurement Illegible 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 Significant Field EvenU 1 II •Inforniation from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Asheville, NC i4)pdx_c.xU 669£0£ Table C-1 Rainfall Summary Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands II MARCH 1998 | Date 1 ' 2 3 4 5 1 ^ 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 OOl OOl 0.00 OlO 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.10 004 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.20 028 0,02 1,04 Significant Field Events 1 McLaren/Hart Onsite || Telogs Removed/Sampling Begins || Sampling Event Completed || SEPTEMBER 1998 | 1 Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 30 Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.00 0.29 025 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.29 Ram gauge not read 3.65 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 Significant Field Events 1 1 1 II o o o •Information from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, NC 9pdx_c.xls Table C-1 Rainfall Summary Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgbi Islands 1 OCTOBER 1998 j Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 UL Precipitation Water Equivalent 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.02 0,01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.33 0.22 0.25 0.05 2.01 4.24 0,10 0,01 0,00 0,16 0,04 0,82 006 0,05 Significant Field Events 1 1 McLaren/Hart Onsite & Onsite/Offsite Water Levels Telogs in P-2, MW-8, and MW-9 Telog in MW-7 Telog in P-1 Telog out of P-1 Telogs out of P-2, MW-8, and MW-9 Telog out of MW-7 McLaren/Hart Offsite & Telogs in MW-12 and MW-14 1 1 111 1 1 NOVEMBER 1998 | Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 ^^ 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 30 Precipitation Water 061 0,00 0,01 0,03 0,17 0,06 0,08 OOl OOO 0,09 0,22 0,11 0,06 0,33 0,03 Signiflcant Field Events 1 . 1 1 1 II 1 Telogs out of MW-12 and MW-14 II w o w >J o I-J •Information from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, NC eppiix_c.xia • # # ^ 303702 APPENDIX D HISTORIC SAMPLING SUMMARY 303703 Table D-1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area I ^ B C j D E F Identification Laboratory and Warehouse Building Aboveground Tank Farm Former Process Pit Loading Dock and Former Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Soil Beneath Concrete Pad Near ASTs Concrete Storage Pad Location Center of site Northwest side of Site East of Maintenance Building North of Laboratory Northwest of ASTs North of Laboratory EPA Identification 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Location of drum storage during EPA removal action. Former location of 20 ASTs. Ten tanks remain onsite. ESI identified and excavated area of soil between ASTs 8 and 9 which had been affected by historical releases. | Former location of underground concrete storage tank used to collect process waste water. Tank was reportedly emptied, cleaned, and filled with concrete by ESI in 1986. Conflicting information is available regarding the size of the tank (8,000 or 17,000 gallons). || Cobble-filled pit located beneath loading dock foimerly received waste liquids fi'om laboratory drains. Pit was connected to a second pit located near the property boundary by a 4-inch PVC pipe. ESI identified and excavated one area of soil affected by historical releases. | Used for storage of various materials. || AST - aboveground storage tank ESI - Enviro-Sciences, Inc. PVC - polyvinyl chloride tablD-l.doc ^oz.eoe Table D-2 Summary Of Environmental Sampling Area B - Aboveground Tank Farm Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample Name | T 8 - 1 T8-2 1 1 Taiik-8 1 Tank-4 |Tank-9 |Tank-7 #4 Sample #4 High Cone. S4-1 Tank-4 Sample Date ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 10/15/84 03/12/86 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Liquid = — ' "M:;'; -• r-r.v 1 Collect by/ Analyzed by ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESL^erlex ESI/Berlex ESI/Berlex ESI/ICMI Laboratory Sample No. - " " - - - - - - 53581 Parameters Analyzed Toulene; pyridine; QG; QS Toluene; pyridine; QG; QS Toluene; pyridine; QG; QS QG;QS QG;QS QG;QS QG;QS QG; QS Toluene; pyridine QS; QC; Benzoquinone; fluorenone 1 Substances Detected^ Toluene (694); QG (274); QS (101) QG (47) Toluene (13,880); QG (4,050); QS (1,521) QG (8,227); QS (2,594) || QS (354) 1 None detected None detected None detected None detected Benzoquinone (30%); fluorenone (70%) JI tabID-2.doc 90Z.eO£ Page 1 of3 Table D-2 Summary Of Environmental Sampling Area B - Aboveground Tank Farm Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample i Name 1 Tank-7 1 Tank-8 Tank-9 Tank-10 Tank-11 Tank-12 1 Tank-13 |Tank-14 VI25-S2 Sample Date 03/12/86 03/12/86 03/12/86 03/12/86 03/12/86 03.12.86 03/12/86 03/12/86 02/28/91 1 Matrix Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by [isi/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI EPA/Compu- Chem Laboratory Sample No. 53582 53583 53584 58535 53586 53587 53588 53589 BGL Parameters 1 Analyzed Benzophenone; fluroenone VOCs; benzophenone; fluorenone VOCs; p- Phenetidine Hydroxyfiirano -coumarin Hydroxyfiirano -coumarin Hydroxyfiirano -coumarin; p- phenetidine p-phenetidine VOCs; benzophenone; fluroenone VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals 1 Substances Detected^ | Benzophenone (39.6%); fluorenone (43.8%); unkown alkane (16.6%) | Benzophenone (85.7%); fluorenone (14.3%); toluene (8) Acetone (4.2); ethylbenzene (0.15); p-Phenetiden (89.1%); toluene (0.05); xylenes (14.1); unknown aromatic (10.9%) | Hydroxyfiiranocoumarin (87.6%) Hydroxyfiiranocoumarin (82.4%) Hydroxyfiiranocoumarin (50.7%)); p-phenetidine (46.3%) p-phenetidine (100%) | Chloroform (0.008^); methylene chloride (0.011^); 11 benzophenone (64.8%); fluorenone (35.2%)); toluene (0.0067^) II Heptachlor epoxide (J); Dieldrin (I); y-Chlordane (J); Al (21,700); As (7.65); Co (21.1); Cu (99.8); Fe (44,100); Pb (35.3); Mg (7,800); Mn (1,050); Ni (18.8); K (2,990); Na (J); V (97.2); Zn (387J) || tablD-2.doc 90Z.eO£ Page 2 of3 Table D-2 Summary Of Environmental Sampling Area B - Aboveground Tank Farm Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample Name VI25-S3 Sample Date 02/28/91 1 Matrix Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by EPA/Compu- Chem ' — • • • • Laboratory Sample No. BGL Parameters Analyzed VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals Substances Detected* Alfirin (30J); Heptachlor epoxide (lOJ); Dieldrin (J); 4-4'-DDE (5.8J); Endrin (J); Endosulfan sulfate (J); 4- 4'-DDT (J); Endrin Ketone (J); gamma-Chlordane (7.5J); Al 21,000); SB (J); As (9.1J); Co (22.3); Cu (73.7); Fe (81,700); Pb (322); Mg (7,420); Mn (987); Ni (33.5J); K (2,920); Na (J); V (63.5); Zn (362J) Notes; 1 B J T B/N AECs PCBs Pest. VOCs Reported concentrations in parentheses, presented in parts per million (ppm). Laboratory reported fluorethyne "possibly from plastic bag" Compound detected in blank sample Estimated concentration Tentatively identified compound Base/neutral extractable compoimds Acid extractable compounds Polychlorinated biphenyls Pesticides Volatile organic compounds See Table C-7 for list of chemical abbreviations. o tablD-2.doc Page 3 of3 Table D-3 Summary of Environmental Sampling Area C - Former Process Pit Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 1 Sample 1 Name 1 ^^^" Duplicate 1 Pit Sludge 1 Pit Sludge St. Croix Sample Date 06/14/85 06A14/85 06/14/85 07/19/85 Matrix Liquid Sludge "White Lump" Water Collect by/ Analyzed by ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI Laboratory ^Sample No. 42885 42886 &. 42887- Composite 42888 44418 Parameters Analyzed Not analyzed VOCs; Pest; PCBs; AECs; B/Ns; metals; CN; phenol Unknown VOCs; Pest; PCBs; B/Ns; AECs; metals; CN; phenol Substances Detected* | Insufficient sample volume to analyze As (40); Cd (22.8); chloroform (220); Cr (592); Cu (327); CN (1.44); Pb (688); Hg (2.73); methylene chloride (125); Ni (134); phenol (9.01); toluene (1,560); Zn (3,594); benzene methanol '^ (15,000J); benzyl acetate ^ (170,000J); chloromethylbenzene '^ (4,400 J); l-chloro-2-methylbenzene'^ (40); diphenyl methanone '^ (30,000 J); 9H-fluorene-9-one '^ (3,000 J); 1,1 '(oxybis (methylene) bis benzene ""^ (4,000 J) No laboratory report provided Benzene (0.04); Cd (0.003); Cr (0.027); Cu (0.153); CN (0.053); Pb (0.011); Hg (0.001); Ni (0.08); phenol (0.16); Ag (0.008); Th (0.029); toluene (0.38); Zn (4.85); benzaldehyde^ (3.0 J); chloromethyl benzene^ (0.3 J); benzene methanof (24 J); pheny acetate"^ (26 J); diphenyl methane^ (0.4 J); 1-1' (oxybis (methylene) bis benzene'^ (0.4 J) || tablD-3.doc 80Z.eO£ Page 1 of2 Table D-3 Summary of Environmental Sampling Area C - Former Process Pit Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample Name VI25- SED5 Sample Date 02/28/91 Matrix Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by NUS/Compu- Chem Laboratory Sample No. BGL Parameters Analyzed VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals Substances Detected* 2-Butanone (0.085 J); xylenes (0.086J); 2- methylnaphthalene (0.63 J); acenapthene (J); fluorene (J); phenanthrene (J); DNBP (J); fluoranthene (J); pyrene (J); BBP (J); B2EHP (2.2 J); gamma-BHC (J); aldrin (0.012 J); heptachlor epoxide (0.048 J); endosulfan I (0.004 J); dieldrin (0.0041 J); 4,4'-DDT (J); methoxychlor (J); gamma-chlordane (0.0035 J); y- chlordane (0.0061 J); Al (9,400); Sb (26.6 J); As (8J); Ba (48.6); Ca (51,200); Cr (57.6 J); Co (13.8); Cu (367); Fe (183,000); Pb (466); Mg (4,740); Mn (925); Ni (47.8 J); K (J); Na (J); V (J); Zn (1,500 J) Notes: 1 J T B/N AEC BTEX PCB Pest VOC Reported concentrations in parentheses, presented in parts per million (ppm). See Table C-7 for list of chemical abbreviations. Estimated concentration Tentatively identified compound Base/neutral extractable compound Acid extractable compound Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes Polychlorinated biphenyls Pesticides Volatile organic compound tablD-3.doc 60z.eoc Page 2 of2 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample 1 Name ||D-I p-2 p-3 p-4 p-5 Loc. 4-4'B 1 Loc. 13-3'B Loc.20-rB Loc. 21-4'B 1 H22 I'A 1 H-21 3'B Sample Date ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca.. 09/17/84 ca.. 09/17/84 ca.. 09/17/84 09/18-19/84 09/18-19/84 09/18-19/84 09/18-19/84 ca.. 10/15/84 ca.. 10/15/84 1 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESWCMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/Beriex ESI/Berlex Laboratory 1 Sample No. [NA NA NA NA NA 34625 34626 34624 34627 - - Parameters 1 Analyzed Toluene; pyridine; QG; QS Toluene; pyridine; QG; QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS VOCs VOCs VOCs VOCs Toluene; pyridine Toluene; pyridine I I 1 Substances Detected* | 1 Pyridine (920); QG (452); QS (82) [ Pyridine (507); QG (96) None detected None detected Pyridine (3,014); QG (170) Fluorethyne^^ (0.38); 2-methylpropanof || (0.16) Fluorethyne^'^ (0.31); 2-methylpropanof || (0.16) Toluene (0.16); fluorethyne2'^ (0.45); 2- || methylpropanof (0.20); pentane'^ (0.01) || Fluorethyne^'^ (0.06); 2-methyl-l-heptene^ || (0.21); 2-methylpropanof (0.47); pyridine'^ 0.02) None detected Pyridine (1.2) || tablD-4.doc 0TZ,£0e Page 1 of7 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample 1 Name 1 20 Septic 20 A-2' 1 21 A-2' 21 A-4' 25-2' 27-2' 32-2' Sample Date 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by ESWork ESI/Yoric ESWork ESI/York ESI/York ESWork ESWork • ' Laboratory 1 Sample No. ' " * • ;.v'. rr ' .'.var t Parameters Analyzed Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; OifeG Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; 0«&G Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; 0«feG Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; O&G Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; 0«&G Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; O&G Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; O&G 1 Substances Detected* | Toluene (0.54); benzene (0.0005J); chloroform (0.012); diphenyl methanone (64); 1,1-methylenebis-Benzene (8.4); methylene chloride (0.0015J); O&G (241) | Toluene (0.69); benzene (0.0009J); 1 chloroform (0.005); ethylbenzene (0.068); methylene chloride (0.0023J); xylenes (0.6); O&G (566) j Toluene (0.015); benzene (0.0006J); || chloroform (0.0038J); ethylbenzene (0.007); methylene chloride (0.0024J); PCE (0.0009J); TCE (0.0008J); O&G (1,500) Toluene (0.043); benzene (0.0004J); j chloroform (0.0026J); methylene chloride (0.0022J); O&G (27.9) | Toluene (0.21); pyridine (13); benzene (0.0004J); chloroform (0.005); methylene chloride (0.0017J); O&G (89.6) jj Toluene (0.016); pyridine (26); benzene (0.0006J); chloroform (0.019); methylene chloride (0.0022J); O&G (187) || Toluene (0.015); pyridine (43); benzene (0.00081); chloroform (0.0042J); methylene chloride (0.0044J); 1,1,1-TCA (0.0008J); O&G (50.6) tabID-4.doc Page 2 of7 Tiz,eoe Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample 1 Name II ^^"'^' 36-2' Lab Pit Lab Pit Duplicate 1 Lab Pit #1 1 Lab Pit #2 Lab Pit #3 1 Lab Pit #4 1 Lab Pit #1 II Lab Pit #2 1 Lab Pit #3 1 Lab Pit #4 1 5436-Lab |pit#l 5437-Lab 1 Pit #2 1 Sample Date 10/23-28/84 10/23-28/84 06/14/85 06/14/85 06/14/85 06/14/85 06/14/85 06/14/85 07/01/85 07/01/85 07/01/85 07/01/85 07/01/85 07/01/85 1 Matrix Soil Soil ? ? Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by 1 ESI/York ESI/York ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/York ESI/York ESI/York ESI/York ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/York ESI/York Laboratory 1 Sample No. 1 ESI/York ESI/York 42883 42884 - - - -, 43748 43749 43750 43751 - - Parameters 1 Analyzed Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; O&G Toluene; pyridine; VOCs; O&G Unknown Unknown Pyridine Pyridine Pyridine P5Tidine Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Pyridine Pyridine — — • • - - ^ = ' — • • - • — t . 1 Substances Detected* | 1 Toluene (0.008); benzene (0.0004J); | chloroform (0.013); methylene chloride (0.0024J); 1,1,1-TCA (0.011); O&G (39.5) | Toluene (0.007); benzene (0.0002J); i chloroform (0.0014J); methylene chloride (0.006J); O&G (965) | No report provided No report provided Pyridine (3.9) || None detected Pyridine (0.51) || Pyridine (0.18) || No report provided No report provided No report provided No report provided Pyridine (1.1) || Pyridine (3.4) || tablD-4.doc 3iz.eoe Page 3 of7 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample i Name 5438-Lab 1 Pit #3 I 5439-Lab II Pit #4 1 Lab Pit Sample 1 1 Lab Pit Sample 2 1 Lab Pit #5967 COC indicates "Dryer" Lab Pit #5965 Lab Pit 1 #5966 1 Lab Pit 1 Lab Pit 12:00 1 Lab Pit 1 12:00 Sample 1 Date 07/01/85 07/01/85 07/17/85 07/17/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 1 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by [ESI/York ESI/York ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESWork ESI/York Laboratory 1 Sample No. - - 44630 44631 45364 45362 45363 45360 & 45361 - - Parameters 1 Analyzed Pyridine Pyridine Unknown Unknown VOCs VOCs VOCs Unknown Pyridine Pyridine i Substances Detected* | None detected None detected No report provided No report provided Acetone (0.23); benzene (0.01); || chloroform (0.11); t-l,2-DCE (0.03); ethylbenzene (0.04); toluene (0.05); xylenes (0.0sJ) Acetone (0.32); benzene (0.34); 1,1-DSC || (0.02); t-l,2-DCE (0.02); ethylbenzene (0.01); toluene (0.08); xylenes (0.06J) | Acetone (0.27); benzene (1.37); 1,1-DCA || (0.02); t-l,2-DCE (0.01) | No report provided Pyridine (2.7) || None detected II tabID-4.doc eiz,£oe Page 4 of7 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample 1 Name 1 Lab Pit 3:00 1 Lab Pit 3:00 1 Lab Pit 3:00 5751-Lab II Pit #2 5752-Lab Pit#l Lab Waste Drainage Area (North side surface) 1 Lab Waste Drainage Area (North side surface) Lab Waste Drainage Area (South side surface) Sample Date 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 08/07/85 09/09/85 09/09/85 09/09/85 Matrix Leachate Leachate Leachate Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by ESI/York ESI/York ESI/York ESI/York ESI/York EPA/EPA EPA^PA EPA^PA Laboratory Sample No. - - - - - 087003 087004 087005 Parameters Analyzed VOCs VOCs VOCs Pyridine Pyridine "Purgeable and Non- volatile organic Priority Polhitants" "Purgeable and Non- volatile organic Priority Pollutants" "Purgeable and Non- volatile organic Priority Pollutants" Substances Detected* Toluene (0.022) 1 Toluene (0.021) i Toluene (0.36) || None detected None detected B2EHP (16); toluene (0.42) B2EHP (1.9); DNOP (4.2); toluene (0.44) || B2EHP (51); DNOP (0.6J); toluene (0.36) tablD-4.doc ^Tz.eoe Page 5 of7 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample II Name Lab Waste Drainage Area (South side subsurfece) 085252-ESI 085254-ESI 085255-ESI 085252 Lab waste pit seep 085354 Lab waste pit #1 085255 Lab waste pit #2 Sample Date 09/09/85 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 [ Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by EPA/EPA ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI EPA/EPA EPA/EPA EPA/EPA Laboratory Sample No. 087006 53363 53365 53366 NA NA NA Parameters Analyzed "Purgeable and Non- volatile organic Priority Pollutants" VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; PCBs VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; PCBs VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; PCBs VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals; dioxins VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals; dioxins VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals; dioxins 1 1 Substances Detected* | B2EHP (36); DNBP (75); DNOP (2); | toluene (0.4) Methylene chloride (0.015B) j Chloroform (0.0092B); methylene chloride || (0.0087B) 1 Chloroform (0.0054B); methylene chloride (0.015B) II DNOP (9); As (IJ); Cr (22); Cu (45); Ni (20J); Sb (10); Zn (63) DNOP (4.9); As (0.8J); Be (7J); Cr (27); Cu (55); Ni (25); Sb (8.4); Se (0.8J); Zn (80) DNOP (3.2); As (2J); Be (7J); Cr (26); Cu (58);Ni(27);Se(0.8J);Zn(79) II tablD-4.doc STL£0£ Page 6 of7 Table D-4 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Area D - Loading Dock and Laboratory Pit and Drain Area Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample Name VI25-S1 VI25-SED2' VI25-SED4' Sample Date 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by NUS/Compu- Chem NUS/Compu- Chem NUS/Compu- Chem Laboratory Sample No. BGL BGL BGL Parameters Analyzed VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals Substances Detected* Chlordane (4J); y-Chlordane (4.9J); Al (13,600); Ba (108); ca. (69,300); Cr (19.8J); Co (13.4); Cu (58.7); Fe (21,500); Pb (9); Mg (3,630); Mn (735); Ni (10.7J); K (2,170); V (74.7); Zn(142J) Al (32,400); Sb (J); As (3.21); Ba (115); ca. (74,900); Cr (16.3J); Co (23.7); Cu (60.5); Fe (35,800); Pb (7.5); Mg (10,900); Mn (1,320); Ni (13.8J); K (1,400); Na (l,840J);V(62.1);Zn(73.5J) Al (33,600); As (3.6J); Ba (122); ca. (82,100); Cr (16.8J); Co (25.4); Cu (64.8); Fe (38,840); Pb (7.8); Mg (11,800); Mn (1,430); Ni (15.2J); K (1,600); Na (l,750J);V(64.8);Zn(79.9J) Notes: B J T B/Ns AECs PCBs Pest VOCs Reported concentrations in parentheses, presented in parts per million (ppm). See Table C-7 for list of chemical abbreviations. Laboratory reported fluorethyne "possibly from plastic bag" Duplicate samples Substance present in blank Estimated concentration Tentatively identified compound Base/neutral extractable compounds Acid extractable compounds Polychlorinated biphenyls Pesticides Volatile organic compounds tablD-4.doc Page 7 of7 9Tz.eoe o Notes: Table D-5 Summary of Environmental Sampling Area E - Soil Beneath Concrete Pad Near ASTs Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample Name S4-1 S4-2 S4-3 S4-4 S4-Surface Sample Date ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 ca. 09/17/84 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collected by/ Analyzed by ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex ESI/Beriex Parameters Analyzed Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Toluene; pyridine; QG;QS Substances Detected* None detected None detected None detected None detected None detected Reported concentration in parentheses, presented in parts per million (ppm). See Table C-7 for Ust of chemical abbreviations. tabID-5.doc Table D-6 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Background, River Gut and Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area Unknown Unknown Unknown Ij Unknown I ^^^ I ^"^ Gut I ^^^ 1 ^^^ 1 Gut 1 ^^^ 1 Sample Name Drain Line #1 Drain Line #2 Drain Line #1 Drain Line #2 G-1 G-1 Dup G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 Sample Date 06/07/85 06/07/85 06/07/85 06/07/85 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ 02/19/86^ Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by 1 ESLTCMI ESI/ICMI ESWork ESI/York ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI Laboratory 1 Sample No. 42882 42881 - - 52463 52463 52464 52465 52466 52467 52468 Parameters Analyzed BTEX VOCs Toluene Toluene Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs 1 Substances Detected* | Benzene (0.1); toluene (235); ethylbenzene (0.25); xylenes (0.6) Carbon tetrachloride (10); chloroform (68); ethylbenzene (9); methylene chloride (1,240); toluene (5,600); xylenes (18^) Toluene (140) 1 Toluene (310) || Cr (14.5); Cu (37.3); Pb (21); Zn (63.1) Cr (17.9); Cu (43.5); Pb (25.7); Zn (67.8) Cr (16.4); Cu (38.3); Pb (22); Zn (57.8) Cr (16.7); Cu (33.8); Pb (14.5); Zn (129) Cr (12); Cu (25.3); Pb (13.2); Zn (37.1) || 11 Cr. (17.1); Cu (36.1); Pb (20.2); Zn (57.2) II Cd (1.0); Cr (46.6); Cu (40); Pb (32.9); Zn (349) 1 tablD-6.doc 8iz.eoe Page 1 of5 Table D-6 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Background, River Gut and Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area I ^"^ I ^**^ I ^**^ Gut I ^"^ I ^^^ Gut G-1 Gut G-2 Gut G-3 Gut 1 Gut Sample Name G-7 G-8 G-9 G-10 G-11 G-6G-7 Comp. 085251-ESI 085252-ESI 085253-ESI 085251 Cut Background 085252 Lab waste pit seep Sample Date 02/19/86 3 02/19/86 3 02/19/86 3 02/19/86 3 02/19/86 3 02/19/86 3 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/13/86 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Leachate Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Collect by/ 1 Analyzed b j HESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI ESI/ICMI USEPA/USEPA USEPA/USEPA Laboratory 1 Sample No. 1 52469 52470 52471 52472 52473 54501 53362 53363 53364 NA NA Parameters Analyzed Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs Metals; CN; phenols; VOCs RCRA Metals • VOCs; SVOs; PCBs VOCs; SVOs; PCBs VOCs; SVOs; PCBs Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Substances Detected* | Cd (2.4); Cr (71.1); Cu (51.4); Pb (46.4); Zn 1 (861) Cr (20.4); Cu (32.8); Pb (19.4); Zn (76.2) Cr (19.8); Cu (34.9); Pb (21.4); Zn (75.7) Cr (30.6); Cu (62.7); Pb (16.5); Zn (66.5) Cr (41.1); Cu (69.7); Pb (12.8); Zn (871) Ba (1.2); Pb (0.24) None detected Methylene chloride (0.015^) || Chloroform (0.0082^; ethylbenzene (0.0028J); || toluene (0.0044^) | BBP (1); DNOP (17); As (2J); Cr (10); Cu (40);Ni(19);Se(lJ);Zn(100) || DNOP (9); As (IJ); Cr (22); Cu (45); Ni (20J); || Sb (10); Zn (63) UblD-6.doc 6TZ,eoe Page 2 of5 Table D-6 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Background, River Gut and Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area Gut Gut 500' Downstream Gut Lab Drain Gut Upstream Gut Lab Drain Dup Sample Name 085253 Drainage pit discha. VI25- SEDl VI25- SED2^ VI25- SED3 VI25- SED4' Sample Date 03/13/86 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 Matrix Soil Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Collect by/ Analyzed by USEPAAJSEPA USEPA/Compu- Chem * USEPA/Compu- Chem USEPA/Compu- Chem USEPA/Compu- Chem Laboratory Sample No. NA BGL BGL BGL BGL Parameters Analyzed Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins PestTCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Substances Detected* Xylene (0.47); DNOP (7.7); 1,4-DCB (0.87); 1,2-DCB (2.9); naphthalene (3.1)fluorene (2.0); phenanthrene (2.4); As (0.8J); Be (8J); Cr (52); Cu (52); Pb (30J); Pb (30J); Ni (32); Se (IJ); Zn (360) Dieldrin (J); endrin (J); 4,4'-DDT (J); Al (15,700); As (J); Ba (90.3); Ca (45,600); Cr (18.7J); Co (14.7); Cu (46.4); Fe (25,700); Pb (15.1); Mg (7,600); Mn (954); Ni (10.8J); K (J);Na(J);V(82.4);Zn(53.9J) Al (32,400); Sb (J); As (3.2J); Ba (115); Ca (74,900); Cr (16.3J); Co (23.7); Cu (60.5); Ge (35,8000); Pb (7.5); Mg (10,900); Mn (1,320); Ni (13.8J); K (1,490); Na (1,640J); V (62.1); Zn(73.5J) Al (30,400); Sb (J); As (4.1 J); Ba (111); Be (J); Ca (79,900); Cr (17.6J); Co (24.8); Cu (62); Fe (39,200); Pb (7.5); Mg (11,800); Mn (1,400); Ni (14.6J); K (J); Na (J); V (63.2); Zn (82.3J) Al (33,600); As (3.8J); Ba (122); Ca (82,100); Cr (16.8J); Co (25.4); Cu (64.8); Fe (38,400); Pb (7.8); Mg (11,800); Mn (1,430); Ni (15.2J); K (1,600); Na (1,750J); V (64.8); Zn (79.9J) tabID-6.doc ozz,eo£ Page 3 of5 Table D-6 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Background, River Gut and Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area Central Storm Drain at Process Pit Southern Storm Drain 1 Sample Name VI25-SED5 VI25-SED6 Sample 1 Date 02/28/91 02/28/91 1 Matrix Sediment Sediment Collect by/ 1 Analyzed by USEPA/Compu- Chem USEPA/Compu- Chem Laboratory 1 Sample No. 1 BGL BGL Parameters 1 Analyzed Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Pest/PCBs; VOCs; SVOs; metals; dioxins Substances Detected* | 2-Bntanone (0.085J); xylenes (0.086J); naphthalene (J); 2-methylnaphalene (0.63J); acenaphthylene (J); fluoranthene (J); phenanthrene (J); di-n-butyl phthalate (J); fluoranthene (J); pyrene (J); butylbenzylphthalate (J); bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (2.2J); y-BHC (J); aldrin (0.012J); heptachlor epoxide (0.0048J); endosulfan I (0.004J); dieldrin (0.0041J); 4,4'-DDT (J); methoxychlor (J); a-chlordane (0.0035J); y- chlordane (0.0061J); Al (9,400); Sb (26.6J); As (8J); Ba (48.6); Ca (51,200); Cr (57.6J); Co (13.8); Cu (367); Fe (183,000); Pb (466); Mg (4,740); Mn (925); Ni (47.8J); K (J); Na (J); V (J); Zn (1,500J) || 2-Butanone (0.15); xylenes (J); pyrene (J); a- BHC (0.0077J); aldrin (0.02J); dieldrin (O.OIJ); 4,4'-DDE (0.024J); endosulfan H (0.0095J); methoxychlor (J); y-chlordane (0.016J); Al (10,600); Sb (J); As (5.5J); Ba (95.8); Cd (4.5); Ca (42,100); Cr (llOJ); Co (17.3); Cu (109); Fe (121,000); Pb (187); Mg (5,000); Mn (1,420); Ni (49.8J); K (J); Na (J); V (J); Zn (1,710J) 1 tablD-6.doc T3z.eoe Page 4 of5 Table D-6 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Background, River Gut and Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands • " i a • — — I — Area Gut Lab Drain Sample Name VI25-S6 Sample Date 02/28/91 Matrix Soil Collect by/ Analyzed by USEPA/Compu- Chem Laboratory Sample No. BGL Parameters Analyzed 2-Butanone (0.018J); triehloroethene (0.21J); pentachloorophenol (J); Al (19,200); As (J); Ba (113); Ca(18,000);Cr(20J);Co (19.5); Cu (43.7); Fe (2,500); Na (J); V (84.9); Zn (44.3J) Substances Detected* Al (32,400); Sb (J); As (3.2J); Ba (115); Ca (74,900); Cr (16.3J); Co (23.7); Cu (60.5); Ge (35,8000); Pb (7.5); Mg (10,900); Mn (1,320); Ni (13.8J); K (1,490); Na (1,640J); V(62.1); Zn (73.5J) Notes: 1 B J T svo BTEX GW PCB Pest VOC Reported concentrations in parentheses, presented m parts per million (ppm). See Table C-7 for list of chemical abbreviations. Laboratory reported fluorethyne "possibly from plastic bag" ESI report indicates these samples were collected on January 30 and 31,1986 (ESI, 1987, p. 11) Samples VI25-SED2 and VI25-SED4 were duphcate samples. Substance reported in blank Estimated concentration Tentatively identified compoimd Semivolatile organic compound Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes Groundwater Polychlorinated biphenyls Pesticides Volatile organic compound tablD-6.doc Page 5 of5 33z,eoe Table D-7 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Water Samples Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area Well P-2 Well P-2 1 Fairplain 6 II Fairplain 9 VIPA 1 VIPA 2 1 Fairplain 6 1 Fairplain 9 1 Fairplain 8 VIPA 2 Fairplain 6 1 Fairplaia 9 Fairplain 8 Water Tank 1 Fairplain 6 \ Sample Name 085256-ESl On-site well NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sample Date 03/13/86 03/13/86 03/07/88 03/10/88 03/07/88- 3/10.88 03/07/88- 03/10/88 03/07/88- 03/10/88 10/31/88- 11/02/88 10/31/88- 11/02/88 10/31/88- 11/02/88 10/31/88- 11/02/88 01/17/90 01/17/90 01/17/90 01/17/90 06/25/90 J Collected by/ Analyzed by ESI/ICMI USEPA/USEPA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA^vfA 1 Laboratory Sample No. 53367 085256 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA J Parameters 1 Analyzed Pest/PCBs; VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; metals; CN; phenol Pest/PCBs; VOCs; metals NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA J Substances Detected* As(0.007); Cr(0.002); Cu(0.007); Pb(0.005); Hg(0.0005); Se(0.019); Ag(0.004); Zn(0.022); CN(0.007); DNOP(0.0024J) Chloroform(0.13); DNOP(0.0039); BEHP(0.28); As(0.002J); Be(0.005J); Cd(0.003J); Cr(0.007J); Cu(0.008J); Sb(0.003J); Zn(0.02J); Hg(0.0006J) Chloroform(0.024) Chloroform(0.075 and 0.070) Chloroform(0.0115) Chloroform(0.0113) Chloroform(0.0359) Chloroform(0.0104 and 0.0097) Chloroform(0.0124) Chloroform(<0.0016) Chloroform(0.039) Chloroform(0.025) Chloroform(0.005) Chloroform(0.239') Chloroform(O.Oll) || tabID-7.doc e3z,coc Page I of3 Table D-7 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Water Samples Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Area Fairplain 9 VIPAl VIPA 2 PW-1 (south well) Fairpplain 6 Fairplain 6 Fairplain 8 VIPAl VIPA 2 Sample Name NA NA NA VI25-GW1 VI25-GW2 VI25-GW3 VI25-GW4 VI25-GW5 VI25-GW6 Sample Date 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 02/28/91 Collected by/ Analyzed by USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/NA USEPA/ Compu-Chem USEPA/ Compu-Chem USEPA/ Compu-Chem USEPA/ Compu-Chem USEPA/ Compu-Chem USEPA/ Compu-Chem Laboratory Sample No. NA NA NA BGL BGL BGL BGL BGL BGL Parameters Analyzed NA NA NA VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals VOCs; AECs; B/Ns; Pest; PCBs; metals Substances Detected* Chloroform(0.039) Chloroform(0.002J) Chloroform(<0.005) Chloroform (0.031); BBP(J); A1(J); Ba(J); Ca(68.8); Cu(J); Fe(0.121); Pb(0.0031); Mg(43.5); Mn(J); Hg(0.002); K(J); Se(J); Na(548); V(J); Zn(J) Chloroform (0.012); phenol (J); BEHP(J); A1(J); Ba(J); Ca(69.9); Cu(J); Fe(J); Pb(0.004); Mg(48.6); Mn(0.383); K(J); Na(363); V(J); Zn(J) Chloroform (0.012); A1(J); Ba(J); Ca(74.1); Cu(J); Fe(J); Pb(0.0042); Mg(50.5); Mn(0.4); Hg(0.0033); K(J); Na(374); V(J); Zn(0.0218) Chloroform(0.012); BBP(J); heptachlor(J); heptachlor epoxide(J); DDE(J); endosulfan II(J); endosulfan sulfate(J); enckin ketone(J); y- chlordane(J); A1(J); Ba(J); Ca(127); Cu(J); Fe(J); Pb(0.0039); Mg(71.6); Mn(0.0177); K(J); Na(590); V(J); Zn(J) Chloroform(J); 1,1,1-TCA(J); As(J); Ba(J); Ca(61.3); Cu(J); Fe(J); Pb(0.0037); Mg(40.1); Hg(0.0012J); K(J); Na(572); V(0.0503J); Zn(J) Fluoranthene(O.OlJ); BEHP(J); A1(J); Ba(J); Ca(75.8); Cu(J); Fe(J); Pb(0.0059); Mg(58); Mn(J); Hg(0.00072J); K(J); Na(237); V(J); Zn(0.369) tabID-7.doc ^3z,eoe Page 2 of3 Table D-7 Summary of ICC Environmental Sampling Water Samples Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands o to lo Ul Notes: 1 2 J T NA B/Ns AECs Pest VOCs BEHP BBP Reported concentrations in parentheses, presented in parts per miUion (ppm). Average concentration from three samples collected. Estimated concentration Tentatively identified compound Not available Base/Neutral extractable compound Acid exti-actable compound Pesticides Volatile organic compound 5;j-2-ethylhexylphthalate Butylbenzylphthalate DNOP Di-n-octylphthalate TCA Ag Al As Ba Be Ca Cu Fe Hg K Mg • Mn Na Pb Se V Zn Trichloroethane Silver Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Calcium Copper Iron Mercury Potassium Magnesium Manganese Sodium Lead Selenium Vanadium Zinc tablD-7.doc Page 3 of3 Table D-8 Summary of Island Chemical Disposal Activities Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Date 11/27/82 11/30/82 12/14/82 01/07/83 02/01/83 1982/1983 12/02/85 10/24/91 Manifest ICO I IC02 1C03, IC04 1C05, IC06 IC07, 1C08 NA NA 243031 243032 243033 EPA Pollution Report Waste Description (from manifests) 3,175 gal. Toluene 5,205 gal. Toluene 9,913 gal. Toluene 8,455 gal. Toluene 6,946 gal. Xylenes 15,000 gal. aqueous/basic solution Metal, plastic drums and ashes from burning of fiber drums, pallets and soil 94 drums toluene^enzene 35 drums toluene/chlorobenzene 34 drums toluene/chloroform 15 drums toluene/acetone 14 drums containing drum pieces Various waste streams Source ASTs ASTs ASTs ASTs ASTs Cistern Island Chemical Cleanup Process pit water and sludge; soil and drums from wastewater drain line removal; toulene containing water and soil EPA Removal Action Method Bulk Tanker Bulk Tanker Bulk Tanker Bulk Tanker Bulk Tanker Bulk Tanker Unknown Drums Various^ Disposal Site Inland Chemical, Puerto Rico Inland Chemical, Puerto Rico Inland Chemical, Puerto Rico Inland Chemical, Puerto Rico Inland Chemical, Puerto Rico Disposed locally by Cruzan Envr. Services' East Anguilla Sanitary Landfill' Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Emelle, Alabama Various^ Notes: 1 Information based on Island Chemical in-house memorandum dated February 7, 1983. 2 By October 24, 1991, EPA reported that all waste had been shipped offsite. Source: Table 2-3: Hardins Lawson Associates Draft RI Work Plan, 8/5/94 tablD-8.doc 93Z,eO£ Table D-9 Disposition of Waste Material - EPA Removal Action Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Wastestream* Labpacks of Chemicals Hazardous Cylinders Shock-Sensitive Chem. Uranyl Acetate Mercury "Weedox" Herbicide 1-Organic Liquids 2-Organic Liquids 3-Flam. Organic Liq. 4-Flam. Organic Liq. 5-Base Neutral Liq. 6-Base Neutral Liq. 7-Base Neutral Sol. 7A-Base Neufral Sol. 8 - Acid Liquids 9-Orgaiiic Solids 9A-Salicylic Acid 10-Chlor. Orgal. Liq. 11-Flam. Orgal. Liq. 12-Base Neutral Liq. 13-Acid Liquid 15-TartaricAcid 17-RCRA Empty Drums 20-Benzyl Chloride Drained Batteries Battery Acid Lime/Floor Sweepings Protective Clothing Protective Clothing Sample Glassware Medium Solid & Liquid Gas Solid & Liquid Solid Solid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Solid Solid Liquid Solid Solid Liquid Liquid Liquid Liquid Solid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Solid Soild Solid Quantity 7990 pounds 11 cylinders 70 pounds 100 grams 1 pound 2/5 gal. Drums 14/55 gal. Drums 13/55 gal. Drums 19/55 gal. Drums 11/55 gat Drums 21/55 gal. Drums 17/55 gal. Drums 21/55 gal. Drums 15/55 gal. Drums 15/55 gal. Drums 6/55 gal. Drums 27/55 gal. Drums 1/55 gal. Drums 1/55 gal. Drums 1/55 gal. Drums 1/55 gal. Drums 6/55 gal. Drums 240 Dnims 16/55 gal. drums 3/85 gal. Drums 3/5 gal. Drums 7/85 gal. Drums 29/85 gal. Drums 1/85 gal. Drums 4/5 gal. Drums Treatment Incineration Detonation Detonation Recycle Recycle On-site spraying Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Wastewtr. Treat. Incineration LandfiU Landfill Incineration Incineration Recycle Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Landfill Landfill Recycle Landfill Wastewfr. Treat. Landfill Incineration Incineration Incineration Disposal CWM Trade Wind Incinerator Anguilla Landfill, St. Croix Anguilla Landfill, St. Croix Polysciences, Inc. Polysciences, Inc. Vichem, St Croix Rollins, Deer Park, TX Rollins, Deer Park, TX Rollins Deer Park, TX Rollins, Deer Park, TX CWM Lake Charles, La Rollins, Deer Park, TX CWM Emelle, Ala. CWM Emelle, Ala. Rollins Deer Park, TX Rollins, Deer Park, TX D&O Chemical/Pfister Chem. Englewood, NJ/Ridgefield, NJ Rollins, Deer Park, TX Rollins, Deer Park, TX Rollins, Deer Park, TX Rollins Deer Park, TX CWM Emelle, Ala. i CWM Emelle, Ala. D&O Chemicaiyjame Fine Chem. Englewood, NJ/Bound Brook, NJ CWM Emelle, Ala. CWM Model City, NY CWM Emelle, Ala. TWLSauget,IL. ENSCO,LitaeRock,AR ENSCO, Little Rock, AR * Numbers preceding certain wastestreams identity those wastestreams accordmg to the bulking scheme. WS #14 was a one drum wastesfream the contents of which were spilled during vandalism. WS # 16,18, and 19 were Wastestreams for the St. Croix "Mini- 1 Removals" project that were bid and disposed of with VIChem waste but charged under the St Croix "Mini-Removals" project Source: EPA POLREP #30 - Final Pollution Report. 10/25/91 303727 tablD-9.doo ID o a: >- X o 10 2 < > UJ liJ 2 ' l ' 0 L J l l j 1 1- ^J 1 - t> t - 1^ i - lU 1- o> 1 1- o 1 " " — • 1 1 - UNPAVED Cc^ c-^ ( ^ n;r> f^n r^ Tc^ r^Ti r^i I - l | . - | I . - I I . - I I - l I . - I I - l I - l IIK PAD-FORMER ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATION CKOPO'JLO ICC soil. bAI.IPI.IIJC LOCATIONS BY EllviHO-SCItHCtS. INC. DATED: G/1S/B6 AND bllE MAP, VI CUflllCAL, ST. CROIX. U.S.V.I. BY HUS COKPORAllON DOCUMENT 0 2 - 9 1 0 1 - - 0 4 - S I . UIIDATEO Harding Lawson Aasoclates ^ ^ ^ Z (inijifiucrlfuj und _ j Enviroiinioiilol Sbivlces ; i , ^ l ^ l tlurih Third SU»«l ' „ _ ^ PhlloJ.lpliia. PA IMI06 • 2)S.-6V7—«SOS iKnfwt: ARCAS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FIGURE D-1 DRAV/N JSW JOB NUMBER 29872.13.2 VIRCIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE ST CROIX. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS "APPROVED nit: 29872B01 DATE 7/27/95 "REVlSEb DATE" 303728 CCDRFORATOfNJ Map of.sartplihg poimts =jfog^5t5( 8 *V4ar t a ' i * a i r ISLAND CHEMICAL PLOT PLAN 9 y = Sartpling point • = Production v;ell Not to scale. 303730 ICC Plot Plan: Trenches H.AHT tMIKAHCt LEGEND I . .1 Trenches 1-12 303731 0 " • 'I-. I! •;;; i to o «JO 00 to > ^ S a m p l 6 » • L o c a l l o n a ; : DRY RIVER BED ,cnooeo TReNcii L O A O I N O DOCK auMC.ACe DRAIN E M B A H K M E H r e X C A V A T B O r n E N C M FENCeO STORAGE WAREHOUSE ICC Laboratory Pit L a b o r a l o r y Pit 4 " PVC Lino ' = = • • , 0 = - - - T I ^ ^ ^ • flOnUiO t O C A T I O H S !•' w LAUOMATOHY O n A I N A " PVC L i n e LOADING DOCK It n Cpi.nl !£<: \M*..Pi (ly 0«l« II ilUy liw (l.ia l l l l t l . VID 80651095 t St. CroLx, VI tl } DRYING OVEN - toluene contaminated soil IT fT! 1 c ly Right Side (North Side) ( Top View ) " ' - ' . - ii V— i door _ Left Side (South Side) : door •c NORTH :Y Ccrrposite soil saitple frem drying oven • ° 1087001 - left side (south side) ° 1087002 - ri^t side (north side) ( Not to Scale ) * Each rectangle represents one bin containing a stack of twenty t r a y s . o CiO - J w w Sarple Location Map - Drying Oven Berlex Laboratories St, Croix, VI VID 80651095 LAB WASTE DRAINAGE AREA pyridine contaminated s o i l % * NORTH Building ® ® ® ® ® . ® ® ® (former lotding dock area) (^ - Sanple locations for caiposite Soil sample from north side of the lab Waste Drainage Area " Surface - #087003 " Subsurface - #087004 Soil sample fran south side of the Lab Waste Drainage Area " Surface.- #087005 ° Subsurface - #087006 ( Not to Scale ) Sanple Location hSap - Lab Waste Drainage Area 303734 e Gut Soil Sampling Program CD CZD CZD CO CD CD liiii- _ U at" ll.«o-rra._0_ •ilZi ..«. ... 12 Lj:a^ / ! -'"I!] =s.- <<> ^ 1 / 'it G-9^ fu».«r CMVK&Mcr s 303735 / ^ ENVIRO-SCIENCES, INC. Client ICC Drawn By Date — • Revised By i k M Date 7/3/8 6 ScalflAs Shown # ^ 303736 APPENDIX E 1989 EPA SITE ASSESSMENT SURVEY 303737 'XAJiljt. X Laboratory Reagent Inventory CHEMICAL NAJEE COMPANY QTY STATE l,3-dinit.roben2ene 1-butajiol l-chlorobutane 1-propanol 18-Crown-6 99% 2,2-oxydiethanol 2, e-diffiethoxybenzoic acid99% 2,6-ditertiarybutyl p-cresol 2-hydroxyben2yl alcohol 99% 2-hydroxyethyl ether 2-ttethyl-l-butanol 99% 2-inethylbutyl amine 3,3-di3nethoxy benzidene 3-hydroxyben2oin acid 4-chlorobenzene sulfonamide 4-hydroxy 4iDethyl 2pentanone 4-hydroxyben2oic acid 4-Eethylben20 phenone 97% 9-hydroxyfloxirene Acetic acid Acetone Acetonitrile Alkalinity C,D,E,G Aluminvm Chloride Aluminum chloride Ammonium acetate Ammonium acetate Ammonixom acetate purified Ammonium hydroxide Ammonium persulfate Ammonitim persulfate Ammonium thiocyanate Amyl alcohol Arsenic trioxide Barium chloride Barium chloride Barixim chloride Barium hydroxide Benzaldehyde Benzene Benzhydrol Benzoic acid Benzoin Benzoin 98% Aldrich Chemical J.T.Baker Chemical MCE J.T.Baker Chemical Aldrich Chemical Kodak Aldrich Chemical Biesterfeld Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical American Laboratorie Kodak Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical MCB Fisher Scientific Supelco Mogul Corporation Mallinckrodt Witco Chemical Fluka Aldrich Chemical Jarchem Industries Sargent Welch Scient J.T.Baker Chemical J.T.Baker Chemical Fisher Scientific Mallinckrodt Fisher Scientific Drew Chemical Mallinckrodt Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific J.T.Baker Chemical Tenneco Oil Kodak Mobay Chemical Fluka Aldrich Chemical 100 500 4 500 25 1 25 500 25 1 10 15 100 100 100 500 50 50 g ml L ml g kg g g g kg g g g g g g g g 2x25 g 2X5 4 lb L 1 box 4X2 1 500 1 2 250 500 2.5 500 500 1 oz lb g kg kg g ml kg g g pt 2xll3g 1 500 1 1 500 qt g lb lb ml 2xlgal 100 1 2X1 g lb . kg 4x500g solid liquid liquid liquid solid liquid solid solid liquid liquid liquid liquid solid solid - solid liquid solid solid solid liquid liquid liquid liquid solid solid solid solid solid liquid solid solid liquid liquid solid liquid solid solid solid liquid liquid solid solid solid solid 303738 07/14/89 TABLE 1 Laboratory Reagent Inventory CHEMICAL NAME. COMPANY QTY STATE Benz ophenone Benzophenone Benzophenone Benzophenone 99+% Benzoyl chloride Benzyl acetate 99% Benzyl alcohol Benzyl benzoate Benzyl chloride Benzyl chloride Benzyl cinnamate 98% Benzyl ether Benzy1triethylammoniumchlori Bismuth subnitrate Bromine Bromophenol blue Brucine sulfate Buffer solution pH 10.00 Buffer solution pH 4.00 Buffer solution pH 7.00 CAO-3 BHT Calcium sulfate anhydrous Cello-Seal Chloride F Chlorodiphenyl methane 98% Chloroform Chromotropic acid Na salt Cinnamaldehyde Citric acid anhydrous Citricacidtrisodiumdihydrate Cobalt chloride Color standard 4 Congo red Copper metal Cupric sulfate Cupric sulfate DPD #1,2,3 Reagents Dibenzo 18-Crown-6 98% Dibenzoyl tartaric acid Dichloroethane 99% Dichlorophenyl methane 99% Dichlorotoluene 99% Diethylene glycol Diisobutyl aluminum hydride Diphenylmethane 99% Aldrich Chemical H&S Chemical Upjohn Aldrich Chemical Mobay Chemical Aldrich Chemical Mallinckrodt Aldrich Chemical un)cnovm Velsicol Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical MCB Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Chemical Sherwin Williams W.A.Hammond Drierite Fisher Scientific Mogul Corporation Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific unknown J.T.Baker Chemical Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific xinknown Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Mallinckrodt Taylor Chemical Aldrich Chemical Knoll Fine Chemicals Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific Texas Acres Aldrich Chemical 500 g 1 bag 500 g 50 g 1 lb 100 g 1 pt 100 g 4 oz 500 g 100 g 1 kg 25 g 1 lb 113 g 5 g 1 oz 500 ml 500 ml 500 ml 1 bag 4x5 lb 25 g 3 oz 100 g 4 L 25 g 2x1 kg 500 g 1 kg 2x1 lb 1 oz 25 g 500 g 500 g 500 g 3x1 oz 50 g 1 3cg 1 kg 25 g 100 g 1 qt 4 cyl 500 g solid solid solid solid solid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid solid liquid solid -solid liquid solid solid liquid liquid liquid solid solid liquid liquid solid liquid solid liquid solid solid solid liquid solid solid solid solid liquid • solid solid liquid solid solid liquid gas liquid ,03739 07/14/89 TABLE 1 Laboratory Reagent Inventory CHEMICAL NAME COMPANY QTY STATE Diphenylthiocarbazone Eosin y Ether anhydrous Ethoxyguin Ethyl acetate Ethyl acetate Ethyl benzene Ethyl ether 99% Ferric ammonium sulfate Ferric chloride Ferric chloride Ferric chloride anhydrous Ferric chloride anhydrous Ferrous ammonixom sulfate Formic acid Glacial acetic acid Hydrazine sulfate Hydrazine sulfate Hydrochloric acid Hydrochloric acid Hydroxylamine hydrochloride Hydroxylamine hydrochloride Iodine Iron chloride anhydrous Isoamyl alcohol Isobutyl alcohol Lead acetate Lead nitrate Lithium perchlorate Magnesium sulfate Medical oxygen Mercuric chloride Mercuric oxide Mesityl oxide Methanol Methenamine Methyl alcohol Methyl orange , Methyl red Monochlorobenzene N-methylaniline Na salt of ME salicylate Niacin N.F. Nitric acid concentrated Nitrobenzene Fisher Scientific Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific unknown . Aldrich Chemical MCB Dupont Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific unknown Fisher Chemical Pennwalt Corporation Kodak Fisher Chemical unknown Fisher Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific MCB Fisher Chemical Fisher Scientific MCB Fisher Scientific BASF Fisher Scientific J.T.Baker Chemical MCB Fisher Scientific Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific MSA Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Mallinckrodt Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific PPG Industries Kodak Sattra Chemical Nepera Chemical J.T.Baker Chemical Fisher Scientific 25 25 4 4 g g qt oz 5 gal 5xlgal 1 gt 6x500g 500 100 1 g ml lb 5x500g 500 1 200 5 4 100 2X6 3x1 1 4 500 500 500 500 1 100 500 500 1 ( g lb - g lb oz g lb L kg oz g g ml ml lb g g g =yl 2xloog 500 100 4 500 1 < 113 g g L g ?al g 2X10 g 10 1 oz kg 1 bag • 250 2x8 1 g lb qt solid solid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liqiud solid liquid solid solid solid _ solid liquid liquid solid solid liquid liquid solid solid solid solid liquid liquid solid solid solid solid gas solid solid solid liquid solid liquid solid liquid liquid solid solid liquid liquid 303740 07/14/89 TABLE .1 CHEMICAL NAME Laboratory Reagent Inventory COMPANY QTY STATE Non aqueous buffer soln. Nutrizyme Oil 13 Paraffin oil Paraformaldehyde Paraformaldehyde prills 91% Perchloric acid Phenol red Phenopthalein PhenyIhydrazine PhenyIhydrazinehydrochloride Phosphorous pentoxide Piperazine Potassium bromide Potassium butoxide Potassium chloride Potassium cyanate Potassium cyanide Potassiiun dichromate Potassium ferrocyanide Potassium hydroxide Potassium hydroxide Potassitim iodide Potassium iodide Potassium periodate Potassium platinate Potassiiun sulfate Potassium sulfate Potassium sulfate Potassium thiocyanate Resorcinol Salicylaldehyde 99+% Salicylic acid Salicylic acid Salicylic acid sodium salt Sicapent Silica gel dessicant Silver nitrate Silver nitrate Sodium Chloride Sodium acetate Sodium acetate anhydrous Sodium acetate anhydrous Sodium amide Sodium benzoate Beckman Instruments Merck Frich Oil Fisher Scientific MCB Celanese Chemical MCB Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific MCB Fisher Scientific Callejry Chemical Beckman Instruments Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Mallinckrodt Fisher Scientific Drew Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Varlacold Chemical Indiana Army Aimno Plant Aldrich Chemical uh)aiown Fisher Scientific Koppers Aldrich Chemical Aldrich Chemical Aceto Chemical Aldrich Chemical MCB Davison Chemical J.T.Baker Chemical Sargent Welch Scientific Fisher Scientific Sattra Chemical Niacet Corporation CDF Chimie Noth America Farchan Research Lab Sattra Chemical 1 pt 2 oz 5 gal 1 gt 1 qt 1 lb 2x8 lb 5 g 1 oz 4x4 oz 2 lb 1 lb 100 g 5x500g 50 g 2x6 oz 1 lb 500 g 500 g 3 kg 2x1 lb 500 g 1 qt 2x500g 100 g 5 g 250 g 500 g 50 g 500 g 3 bags 100 g 100 g 500 g 100 g 2.8 L 2x1 qt 1 oz 30 g 500 g 3 bags 250 g' 2x500g 500 g 1 bag liquid solid liquid liquid liquid solid liquid solid solid liquid solid solid solid - solid solid ^ solid. solid solid solid solid solid solid liquid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid- solid liquid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid 303741 CHEMICAL KAKE TABLE 1 Laboratory Reagent Inventory COMPANY QTY STATE Sodium benzoate Sodiiim benzoate Sodium benzoate Sodium borohydride Sodium carbonate Sodium carbonate anhydrous Sodium chlorate Sodium dichromate Sodium formate Sodiius hydride Sodiiim hydroxide Sodium metal Sodium nitrite Sodiiim nitro ferricyanide Sodium sulfate Sodium tartrate Sodium tartrate Sodium thiosulfate Succinic amhydride Succinic anhydride Sulfamic acid Sulfanilic acid Sulfite 0,P,Q Sulfuric acid Tetraphenolboron sodium 99% Thiopene Total alkylinity indicator Tributyl borate Trichloroethylene Triethyl borate 97% Triethylenediamine Uranyl acetate Weedox C/R 250 herbicide Xylene Zinc chloride Zinc chloride anhydrous p-chlorobenzene sulfonamide p-naptholbenzein p-toluenesulfonicmonohydrate pH indicator A 2 Miscellaneous unknowns 2 Miscellaneous unknowns Dastech International Ishihara Corporation Pfizer Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Mallinckrodt Hooker Chemical Fisher Scientific un)cnown Thiokol/Ventron Division Mallinckrodt RMI Fisher Scientific MCB Fisher Scientific J.T.Baker Chemical Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific MCB Aldrich Chemical Fisher Scientific H&S Chemical Mogul Corporation J.T.Baker Chemical Aldrich Chemical Kodak Drew Chemical Aldrich Chemical Mallinckrodt Aldrich Chemical Air Products unknown Southern Mill Creek Prod. Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Mineral Research H&S Chemical Fisher Scientific Aldrich Chemical Mogul Coj-poration on site lab glassware on site one oz bottles 1 bag 250 g 100 lb 4x25 g 1 kg 1 lb 1 box 10 kg 5 lb 1 lb 500 g 2 boxs 2x500g 4 02 500 g - 2 02 6xll3g 2x1 lb 6x250g 2x1 kg 500 g 1 bag 3X2 oz 10 lb 25 g 100 g 1 qt 750 g 1 pt 100 g 250 g 500 g 2x5gal 5x1 L 500 g 1 lb 2 bags 25 g 500 g 2 02 280bot 238bot solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid solid - solid solid V solid solid * solid solid solid solid liquid liquid solid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid solid solid liquid liquid solid solid solid solid solid liquid misc. liquid 303742 Page No. 1 07/14/89 ' TABLE 2 Drum Inventory Chemical Name Company Qty State Cond Dates o Acetone Acetylene Activated carbon All-weather patch material Amersite 2 Ashland MeOH Benzyl acetate Benzyl chloride Chlorine Chloroform Crofox Crystal Clear floor finish Degreaser Drewtrol 8500 Ethyl alcohol Filteraid Glacial acetic acid Glycol Humisorb Hydrochloric acid Hydrogen chloride Insulation (asbestos??) Insulation fiberglass Lubricating oil Lubricating oil Magnesium sulfate trihydrate Methanol Methanol Methyl Isobutyl carbinol Methyl Isobutyl ketone „==„= Ashland Chemical VI Gas Calgon Corporation Revere Chemical Valley Freight Syst. Ashland Chemical Island Chemical Velsicol Corporation VI Gas unknown Cerfact Laboratories Cerfact Laboratories unknown Valley Freight Syst. unknown unknown Celanese Chemical Island Chemical Culligan Certified Laboratory VI Gas unknown unknown Texaco Texaco Tomita Pharmaceutlca 1 Ashland Chemical unknown Van Waters & Rogers Ashland Chemical esses 55 G 2 cyl 30 bag 55 G 55 G 5 G 21X55G 28X55G 1 cyl 55 G 55 G 2X20 G 55 G 55 G 115x55 10X30G 13X55G 20X55G 30 G 55 G 1 cyl 13 box 7 box 2X10 G 5x55 G 6x25kg 5X55 G 3x55 G 12X55G 55 G •ssassa* essasi sesss liquid good gas good solid good solid fair liquid fair liquid good liquid fair liquid fair gas poor liquid good liquid poor liquid good liquid good liquid poor liquid poor solid poor liquid good liquid poor 1984 solid fair liquid poor gas poor solid good solid good liquid good liquid good solid fair liquid good liquid fair liquid good 1984 liquid good Page No. 07/14/89 \ TABLE 2 Drum Inventory Chemical Name Company Qty State Cond Dates u> o CD •••.••fl " - • . • ' • I 6 5 9 7 4 7 8 II 4 5 7 10 5 8 10 15 6 6 11 13 6 9 12 17 c 7 6 8 6 7 10 II 8 9 9 9 | Q 3 QJ .E c (0 01 ^1 > Q. o — 20 23 22 20 6 4 129 1542 492 4 5 4 21.6 9.7 o O Equipment '-^E 65 tt> Spilt spoor, i Elevation -Q-^' D a t e 1/31/95 OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/4). soft, ary LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) I2.5Y 5/4), soft, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 5/4). loose, moist LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/6). loose, ary LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/6). soft, moist LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/6). loose, dry, w/ fine gravel below approx. 17' BGS OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). firm, mcisi YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (ICY 5/6). sot!, m-'isi. w.' 35% fine sa"""; DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5GY 4/1). i f ' . , wei. w • 'r,'o 5.:' LO O 00 cna of boring al JD H a r d i n g L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering ana Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-627-4505 Log of Boring and Well Completion SB-Bl / MW-1 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands JGY 29872.06.1 7/26/95 0) o c 01 o " (U.S cc—- O) c (D HI > Q. 7 6 II 12 8 12 13 20 10 13 15 16 9 9 16 20 o O Equipment CME 65 Solit Spoon OJ £ o. Q. E E l e v a t i o n Not Measured Q CO D a t e 1/19/95 2 4 - J LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (2.5Y 5/3)). loose, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/3). firm, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/6). firm, ary LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/4), loose to medium dense, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/4). meOium dense, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 5/3). rre'jium dense, dry. wei oeiweer, ; 2 - 2 3 ' DARK OLIVE GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) (5Y 3/2). l i f n , moiSl OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 4/3). neOium Oense. moiOl z'.'Z 0'- Bor^rig at 2-1' Hardlno L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environraental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia, PA igi06 ?i?-gZ7-4?9? Log of Boring SB-El ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands fIGURE 303749 JGY 29872.06.1 G A T E 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 REVISED U i l i Not Measured tn CD (D > > OJ u o LiJ.£ cc—' 0 ) , — e "^ o > o o 2 2 3 2 5 7 9 5 7 11 15 5 10 12 16 5 5 10 II II 8 13 14 23 22 13 II 13 7 16 16 21 8 12 14 23 9 9 II 14 6 13 16 21 12 10 17 14 12 18.5 20 22 14 163 303 955 0) Q. O Q. Q..S (D> OJ o X — 1.9 27.3 118 200 Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/22/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, firm, plastic, wiiti 10-15% fine sand. Similar to 2-4 feet. Similar to 2-4 feet. Similar to 2-4 feet. OLIVE BROWN SAND (SM) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand witti 10-20% gravel to I inch maximum. Similar to 9.5 feet. OLIVE SILTY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/4): moist, hard, with 5-10% fine sand and trace gravel. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, hard, mostly fine sand. Similar to 20-22 feet, except higher moisture content. DARK GREENISH GRAY SAND (SM) (5 BG 4/1): wet (saturated), medium dense, medium to coarse sand witti tO-20% gravel to I incti. Terminated boring with 3.25 inch auger at 24 feet, SPT to 26 feet. Depth to water 22.3 feet BGS at 1507 on 5/22/96. Water level probe had distinct chemical odor. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log of Boring SBB2 Island Chemical Cofnpany St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands FIGURE 303750 ORAMN WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 OATE 08/18/96 REVISEO OAIE NM Not Measured o c - J — liJ « > QJ O . C o o LU.S OC — aj — to. (fi c o > o o tt) Q. O Q. < t j > 0) o X — 4 7 8 6 4 5 4 4 4 8 II 15 4 5 8 8 9 7 7 5 7 6 10 14 17 10 10 10 14 5 6 8 10 5 8 10 16 6 14 19 28 14 14 12 19 20 20 20 20 NR 916 NR 80 1064 >1,000 1200 1500 2700 3595 9000 970 295 1109 3500 5691 2589 2844 2563 9145 1300 9793 Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Oate 05/23/96 Logged by David Kisiner Checked by DJK 8/9 No recovery. OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, hard, plastic, with 10-15% fine sand. OLIVE BROWN SAND (SM) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand with <5% medium sand. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, hard, 10-20% fine lo coarse sand, <5% gravel. Sand % increases to approximately 30-35% SANDY CLAY: similiar to 10 to 19.5 feet. OLIVE BROWN SAND (SC) (2.5 Y A/4): moist, dense, mostly fine sand with O C _J — m CO >- C E _ lU QJ O . C U O OC"-' 4 6 13 7 4 5 7 6 8 11 12 NM 10 QJ-.~ m c o > O O — 0 — OJ o nj CL cn •O (D QJ X -TTT 19 497 35.1 18 2516 224 17 2603 190 Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/29/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANDY CLAY (CL) OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log of Boring SBB4A Island Chemical Company St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 303752 WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 APPROVED OATE 08/18/96 REVISEO OATE Not Measured O c CD CD >-a : _ tu 0) o J= o o ixi.E cc — Q J ^ , CO c o > O O cn — 3 6 8 7 5 7 10 6 8 10 17 5 7 9 12 4 5 7 10 4 6 9 10 4 5 7 18 14 8 11 14 18 7 11 12 15 4 7 9 12 15 21 21 23 12 20 14 18 10 14 19 24 5 8 16 16 NM 20 22 22 22 20 22 23 NM E QJ Q. O Q. Q..S C 0 > QJ O X — NM Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/23/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): racist, firm, witii 10-20% fine to medium sand, plastic. Similar to 2-4 feet. Similar to 2-4 feel. Similar to 2-4 feet. Similar to 2-4 feet, color changes at 11.5 feet to OLIVE (5 Y 4/4). OLIVE CLAYEY SAND (SC) (5 Y 4/4): moist, dense, fine to medium sand with <10% gravel. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, hard, mottled brown and olive. Similar to 16-18 feel. Similar to 16-18 feel. OLIVE CLAYEY SAND (SC) (5 Y 4/4): moist, dense, medium lo coarse sand with 25-30% gravel lo I inch. OLIVE GRAVELLY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/4): moist, hard, 15-25% gravel lo 1.5 inch. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, hard, 25-40% sand (medium to coarse grained). Similar to 26-28 feet, but wet with 5-10% gravel lo 1" maximum. Terminated boring with auger at 28 feel, SPT lo 30 feet. Oeptii to water 28.4 feel BGS at 0915 on 5/24/96. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log of Boring SBB6 Island Chemical Company St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands FIGURE 303753 DRAWN WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 DATE 08/18/96 REVISED DATE NM Not Measured cn^ S o o c _ j — mcD >- c c _ > QJ O.C O O iu.£ cc — O J ^ ^ cn c o > o o cn — 9 14 15 15 10 14 15 25 E QJ Q. O CL "^ r- a.£ (D > QJ O X — "TT QJ £ o. Q . E QJ 03 Q cn 4~\ 5 7 8 9 - 10- 12- 13-1 14 15- 16- 17- 18 19 20 21-1 22 23-1 24 25-1 26 /. 27-1 28 29 3 0 - 31- 32- Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/29/96 • Logged by Davio Kistner Checked by DJK 3/9 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, medium dense, fine -.o medium sand wi;n 0.5 inch long gravel ='. tiP of spoon. GRAYISH GREEN SANDY CLAY: moist, firm, plastic. GRAYISH GREEN CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL): moist, dense, fine lo medium sand. 10-25% gravel lo 1.25 inches maximum, slightly plastic. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, very liard, 20-40% fine to coarse sand. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services Z = ; , *= 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 S SS! • ^ Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 " ' * " • 609-936-0700 ' DRAWN Log Of Boring SBBBA Island Chemical Company St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands FIGURE 303754 WGA 0 0 8 NUMBER 35241.2.12 APPROVED OATE 06/10/96 REVISED OATE Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/24/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, soft. 10-20% fine to medium sand, plastic, with dark brown mottling. Similar lo 0 to 2 feet, but firm from 3 to 4 feet. Similar lo 0 lo 2 feet. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, firm, 10-30% fine to medium sand. Similar to 6 to 8 feet, but sand percentage decreases with deptli and sand becomes finer. Similar lo 6 to 8 feet but with some black mottling. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, medium dense, medium to coarse sand with some caliche, slightly plastic. Similar to 12.25 to 14 feet but fine to medium sand. OLIVE BROWN SAND (SM) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, medium dense, medium to coarse sand. Similar to 16 lo 18 feet. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND (SC) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, dense, medium lo coarse sand with gravel to 1 inch maximum. „ Similar to 20 lo 22 feel but wet. Appearance • like weathered rock. Terminated boring with 3.25 inch auger al 22 feet, SPT lo 24 feet. Depth to waler 22.6 feel BGS al 1235 on 5/24/96. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-836-0700 Log of Boring SBBll Island Chemical Company St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands FIGURE 303755 DRAWN WGA OOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 DATE 08/18/96 REVISED DATE U J ' ^ > QJ o J= o o uj.E OC — a j — , cn c o > o o cn — e QJ CL o a Q..S • ^ 5 ( D > OJ O X — 108 3978 12 17 Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/30/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 OLIVE GRAY SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/2): moist, soft. 10-15% fine to medium sand. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/2): moist, firm, mostly fine sand. GRAYISH GREEN CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL): moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL): moist, firm, sand is mostly fine. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM/SC): medium to coarse grained sand with 10-15% gravel lo 0.75 inch maximum. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log of Boring SBBtlA/ttB Island Chemical Company St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303756 DRAWN WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 DATE 08/18/96 REVISED DATE NM Not Measured > cc > QJ O . C o o So O c CDCD cc— t n ~ - cn c !"3^ o > o o t n — E QJ Q. O Q. QJ O X — - ^-- j r a QJ • ni a to t/J 12 14 6 9 12 18 5 9 13 20 7 9 10 10 9 8 14 15 13 13 12 11 5 16 6 10 12 16- 5 8 7 10 12 5 8 II 12 6 14 7 8 11 14 4 7 15 14 12 22 24 24 24 24 24 NM Equipment .Mp.t^J'e B-55 Elevation Date 05/28/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, firm, with 10-20% fine to medium sand, plastic. Similar to 0 lo 2 feet, but color changes to dark olive brown 2.5 Y 3/3. Similar to 0 to 2 feet, but color changes to olive brown 2.5 Y 4/4, hard. Similar lo 4 to 6 feel. Similar lo 4 to 6 feet. OLIVE BROWN SAND (SM) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, dense, medium to coarse sand with 10-20% gravel to 0.75 inch maximum. DARK GREENISH GRAY GRAVELLY SAND (SM) (5 GY 4/1): moist, dense, 20-40% gravel to 1 inch maximum, medium to coarse sand. DARK GREENISH GRAY SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 GYT 4/1): moist, hard, fine to medium sand, 10-20% gravel to 1.5 inches maximum. OLIVE SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/3): moist, hard, 15-30% fine to medium sand. Similar to 16 lo 18 feet. Similar to 16 lo 18 feet except color varies from olive to dark greenish gray (5 G 4/1). Similar to 16 lo 18 feet except sand is mostly fine. (CL/SC), sand increases to 30-50%. greenish gray mottling. Similar to 22 to 24 feet. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/6): moist, hard. OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC): similar to 22 to 24 feel except no greenist\ gray mottling. Similar to 26 lo 28 feel except coarse sand at lip of spoon (looks like weathered granite). OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND (SC): moist, dense, medium lo coarse sand with 5-15% gravel to 0.5 inch maximum. Terminated boring at 1250 with auger at 30 feet, SPT to 32 feel. Saturated soil not encountered during drilling. Depth to water=24.1 feel BGS at 1415 (1.5 hours after stop drilling). Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction. New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log of Boring SBB15 Island Chemical Company St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands FIGURE 303757 DRAWN WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 APPROVED DATE 08/18/96 REVISED OATE So O C _ l — CO CO >- o c _ > QJ U o uj.S cc — Q J . ~ ^ ^ E '^ cn c o > OO cn — 4 10 8 7 5 3 3 4 5 5 8 10 5 6 9 II 4 6 9 10 4 6 9 12 4 6 8 9 6 6 7 8 8 II 15 19 9 10 12 14 4 8 10 12 12 18 18 22 11 13 13 17 20 22 23 22 15.9 19.9 1.2 2.4 1.2 0) a o a Q..E UJ o X — 9.9 3.7 6.2 8.7 3.7 4.9 2.4 1.2 2.3 Equipment Mobile B-55 Elevation Date 05/28/96 Logged by David Kistner Checked by DJK 8/9 VERY DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (7.5 Y 2.5/3): moist, firm with 20-30% gravel to L5 inches maximum. Similar to 0 to 2 feet, except <10% gravel, sand is fine lo medium. PALE OLIVE SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) (5 Y 5/4): moist, medium firm, sand is mostly fine, orange brown concretion (oxidized mineral?). OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, firm, fine sand, plastic. OLIVE SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/4): moist, firm, plastic. Similar to 8 to 10 feel. GRAYISH GREEN SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 G 4/2): moist, firm, plastic. Similar to 12 to 14 feel except higher sand percentage, (25-50%), predominately fine sand. GRAYISH GREEN CLAYEY SAND (SC): moist, dense. OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, firm, plastic. Similar to 19 to 20 feet but with grayish green mottling. Similar lo 19 to 20 feet but sand is medium grained and higher percentage (15-25%) and 10-15% gravel to 1 inch maximum. Y Similar to 22 to 24 feel (CL/SC). but appears wet at lip. End of boring. Depth to water 24.4 feet BGS at 0830 5/29/96. NM Not Measured Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services . ~ 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 * - Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 r^^ 609-936-0700 DRAWN WGA JOS NUMBER 35241.2.12 Log of Boring SBB16 Island Chemical Company St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands APPROVED 303758 DATE 08/18/96 REVISED DATE T O P of PVC C a s m a c : c , 32.1" test MSL" LOC.>;!:iG COVE?: C:=:OUfiO SUnF^.rs 3C:-.=_-'JL: cU'::iG 8" DUMETH?. 20P.EHCLE CE'-IE'IT GROUT SEAL SEMTOMITE - PELLET 3EAL 6/20 5AN0 PAC.K 4- DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLOTTED SC.=5EEM (0.020-1 4-- DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC SiLT TRi? BOTTOM OF - BOREHOLE Q :.A Not Measured u j i ; ; > (U ox: CDCD CC — O C 3 s 10 4 5 6 3 J 7 9 12 4 7 10 10 4 7 8 9 4 s 8 10 5 7 9 10 6 8 10 •3 7 7 7 7 13 19 12 16 18 25 25 25 19 16 8 9 II 13 OJ — (r> c o > O O cn — E (U Q. O CL •a 2 : (•> QJO X — 14 MM 0 0 t^M 5095 348 l£ 5657 133 19 5541 108 19 8386 1250 22 9994 1800 22 8462 3700 16 9287 570 18 8947 193 20 6370 9200 16 6350 NM 18 6.9 NM 20 202 NM Equipment '^'^'^''^ 5- Elevation ;o f: -.'SL Date 05/31/96 Logged by Gsvi'- ^..;:-°r Checked by D-'i-' ^'''Q LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 YR 5/3): -Oot. '.r::;. LIGHT OLIVE SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5 Y 5/4): iTiCij:.. rVn. \hT.'Z 5 .7103;!'/ Jinc Qraine-^. SiiTllicr to 2 ;o ^ f ^ r t . OLIVE SANDY CLAY (CL) (5 Y 4/4): mor.;. hara. 0153tie. sand is ;ine grained. Similar to 6 to 3 feel. Similar to 6 to 3 reet. Similar to 6 - 3 fee;, l u t jane increases to 20 to 40%. mostly fine graineo sano. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5 Y 4/4): moist, medium dense with lO to 15% gravel lo 1 inch ms«. OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANO (SM) (2.5 Y 4/4): moisi. medium dense, medium to coarse sand with 5-10% gravel to O.S inch max. Similar to 18-20 feet Out higher gravel % in tio of SDOon. OLIVE BROWN GRAVELLY CLAY (CL/GC) (2.5 Y 4/4): wet. hard. 20 to 'iOX grave! to l inch max. OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND/SANDY CLAY (SC/CL) (2.5 Y 6/8): wet. hard, fine to coarse sand, slightly plastic (looks like weathered granite). OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SANO (SC) (2.5 Y 6/8): wet, medium dense, mostly fine sand, slightly plastic. Color chances to olive (5 Y 5/61 between 27.2-23.0 feet. Terminated SPT sampling at 28 feet BGS. Pull 3.25 inch ID hollow ste.m augers. Ream Dormg with 8 inch solid stem augers to 28 feet BGS. Install J inch !D PVC monitoring well on Mav 31. 1996. H a r d l n o Lawaon A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environraental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction. New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 CPiAwn " Log of Boring and Well Completion SBB17/MW-8 Island Chemical Company St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 7 5 9 FIGUBE DJK JOB NUMBES 35241.2.12 OA:E 07/10/96 REVISED DATE SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 1^11^1. f c i a r ^ E^M Hare COMPLETION DATE: 9/12/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 23 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: Soiltech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD ( BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Boring No: SBAST-5 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH IFeetl _0 "1 ~2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RECOVERY (in) 8 12 15 15 7 14 18 20 16 9 12 7 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 335 BLOWS (per 6-| 2 5 11 19 6 7 17 28 6 11 16 27 9 18 16 25 23 31 28 43 13 23 42 47 9 13 13 13 7 11 14 19 12 15 17 17 11 11 16 1.6 15 17 17 19 0" 0* BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. Firm dark brown CLAY, little/trace silt, dry. Firm dark brown CLAY, little silt, trace fine sand, dry. Hard light brown/tan fine/medium SAND, dry. Hard light brown sandy CLAY, some silt, dry. Hard dark brown silty CLAY, some sand, dry. Hard light brown/tan CLAY, little/trace silt. little/trace limestone gravel, dry. Stiff light brown/tan silty CLAY, some sand, moist. Stiff light brown sandy CLAY, dry. Stiff light brown silty CLAY and fine SAND, trace limestone gravel, dry. Stiff dark brown silty CLAY and SAND, moist. Stiff brown silty SAND and CLAY, some/little limestone gravel, dry. Firm brown silty SAND and CLAY, some/little limestone gravel, dry. Stiff light brown silty sandy CLAY, dry. Stiff brown fine/medium SAND and SILT, some clay. some/little medium gravel/grey limestone fragments, dry. Hard light brown medium SAND, some grey gravel, wet. End of boring (3) 23' bgs. SAMPLES 20-22' bgs. VOCs.SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. VOCs.SVOCs, METALS p ^1 2 3 4 5 ]6 y "8 ^9 !lO ]l1 J2 !l3 J4 -16 J 7 J 8 J 9 ^20 I2I ~22 ~23 • Hammer was pushed manually from 22' to 23' below ground surface, no blow counts. g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xls 1/14/99 11:17 AM SOIL BORING LOG Pagel of 1 miw COMPLETION DATE: 9/17/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION; St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: Soiltech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24.0' bgs' GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Boring No: SBAST-6 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) 0 J ~2 ~3 ~4. "5 ~6 ~7 ~8 ^9 ~10 J I ~12 J 3 ~14 J 5 "16 J 7 " l 8 J 9 "20 l21 ~22 ~23 "24 ~25 "26 RECOVERY (in) 15 18 20 24 20 20 22 18 18 22 22 22 24 OVM (PPM) NM NM NM NM 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 225 BLOWS (per 6-) 3 6 8 9 11 14 11 12 3 12 15 24 4 36 23 39 1 11 11 29 3 15 24 28 7 11 14 18 4 6 12 16 3 10 14 21 6 14 20 20 10 20 18 20 11 29 33 36 12 36 44 36 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture, Etc. Firm light brown silty CLAY, some fine sand, dry. Stiff light brown silty fine SAND, trace clay, dry. Very stiff light brown silty SAND, trace clay, dry. Hard light brown SAND, some fine/medium gravel, trace silt, dry. Very stiff light brown sandy CLAY, dry. Brown/grey fine/medium GRAVEL, dry. Very stiff light brown sandy CLAY, dry. Very stiff light brown/tan SAND, trace silt/clay, dry. Stiff brown silty CLAY, trace sand, dry. Stiff olive green/tan silty CLAY, trace fine sand, dry. Stiff olive green sandy SILT, moist. Stiff Olive green medium SAND, trace silt, moist. Stiff grey/brown silty CLAY and SAND, moist. Very stiff grey/olive green silty SAND, moist. Very stiff grey/olive green medium SAND, some gravel, moist. Grey medium GRAVEL, wet. Hard grey/olive green silty CLAY, moist. End of boring @ 26' bgs. SAMPLES Note: OVM not functioning properly during collection of samples from 0' to 8' bgs. 20-22' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. VOCs.SVOCs, METALS p 1 2 3 ]4 5 ^6 ^8 9 '^0 j i J 2 ]l3 J4 ]l5 J6 J7 J8 J9 '20 -21 -22 "23 ~24 "25 "26 gVstaff/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xIs 1/14/99 11:17 AM iTHA^ E\AA1 / COMPLETION DATE: 9/18/97 jciaren •iart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: Soiltech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.SchneiderWarren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1 / 4 " GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBAST-7 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RECOVERY (in) 18 2 4 18 18 16 16 12 18 24 2 4 18 14 24 OVM (PPMl 0 2 8 10 4 43 0 0 0 3 8 55 50 BLOWS (per 6-1 3 5 8 11 4 16 33 37 3 17 38 38 14 21 31 34 6 9 13 16 5 8 11 15 6 11 14 16 10 12 17 18 15 16 25 29 12 14 16 16 8 21 27 33 31 41 26 26 16 12 17 32 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Stiff brown silty CLAY, little/trace fine sand, moist. Hard brown silty SAND and CLAY, dry. Hard light brown/tan fine/medium GRAVEL, some sand/clay, dry. Hard dark brown sandy CLAY, moist. Hard medium brown/tan silty fine SAND, some little clay, dry. Hard brown silty hard CLAY, some/little fine sand, dry. Very stiff medium brown silty CLAY, some fine sand. trace gravel, moist. Firm medium brown CLAY, trace/little silt, moist. Firm grey/brown CLAY, some silt, trace carbonate gravel, dry to moist. Stiff light grey fine sandy CLAY, trace carbonate gravel, dry. Stiff mediuim light grey CLAY, some fine sand. trace carbonate gravel, dry to moist. Very stiff red/brown CLAY, trace carbonate gravel, dry to moist. Stiff light brown silty CLAY, trace carbonate gravel, dry. Hard light grey silty SAND, dry. Hard medium GRAVEL, some sand/silt, moist. Hard coarse GRAVEL, some sand and clay, moist. Hard medium brown sandy CLAY, trace fine gravel. End of boring @ 2 6 ' bgs. SAMPLES 20-22' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 0 j 2 3 4 5 6 7 'a j o j i !l2 J3 ]l4 J5 ]l6 J7 J8 J 9 ^20 ^21 -22 "23 ~24 ^25 '26 to O CO - J g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xls 1/14/99 11:17 AM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 ^m m- COMPLETION DATE: 12/8/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 20 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger 4 1 /4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Boring No: SBAST-10 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) _0 " l RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPM) BLOWS (per 6-) BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES 16 Drilled to 16' bgs. No split spoons collected. 17 18 19 ^ f 2 0 1 8 18 3.3 1.3 22 29 35 45 25 37 29 20 Hard brown/red CLAY, little gravel, dry. Hard olive SILT, some fine sand, little clay. trace gravel, dry. Hard olive SAND and fine/medium GRAVEL, trace silt and clay, w e t . End of boring @ 2 0 ' bgs. 1 8 - 2 0 ' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 0 j ; j 6 J7 J8 J9 "20 ( j J C LJ to g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xls 1/14/99 11:17AM m^mF [ C O M P L E T I O N DATE: 12/8/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 31.2 Feet DRILLING C O N T R A C T O R / DRILLER: CT&E ISAMPUNG METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) |DR1LL1NG EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER NA GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C . S c h n e i d e r / W a r r e n DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No I M E M O : ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBAST-11 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) 0 ~1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPMl BLOWS (per 6") BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 16' bgs. No split spoons collected. 16 J 7 ~18 J 9 "20 l21 ["22 l23 "24 L25 "26 l27 !~28 "29 "30 L31 12 18 24 24 6 24 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 50 21 24 13 21 14 16 10 17 20 24 18 24 35 32 28 38 50 NA 25 33 50 50 35 50 NA NA 22 44 NA Hard olive fine SAND, some gravel, dry. Coarse GRAVEL, dry. Very stiff olive CLAY, some fine sand, dry. Very stiff olive fine SAND, trace silt, some gravel, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, dry. Very stiff grey SILT with gravel, some fine sand, trace clay, dry. Very stiff orange and brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Very stiff red/brown CLAY, trace sand and gravel, dry. Hard red brown CLAY, dry. Hard red/brown CLAY, some sand, dry. Hard red/brown SAND, some clay, dry. Hard light brown/tan CLAY, dry. Hard tan SAND with gravel, some rock fragments, dry. Hard tan sandy CLAY, some gravel, dry. Hard tan/red CLAY, some sand, little gravel, dry. Hard tan/red sandy CLAY, dry. End of boring @ 31.2' bgs. . 28-30' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 30-32' bgs. VOCs.SVOCs, METALS 0 ]1 16 J7 J8 J9 ^20 I2I I22 '23 -24 I25 -26 I27 I28 I29 "30 "31 tJ O to Oil AST.xls(SBAST-ll) 1/14/99 11:17 AM m i w COMPLETION DATE: 12/9/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBAST-12 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) _0 " 1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPMl BLOWS (per 6-) BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 16' bgs. No split spoons collected. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12 24 10 24 24 14 1 7 0 0 27 17 26 28 11 8 12 14 10 12 24 NA 9 15 25 22 11 10 13 25 Very stiff tan CLAY, trace sand and gravel, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sand and gravel, dry. Stiff white CLAY, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sand and gravel, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, some gravel , dry - Fine SAND lens at 20.4' bgs. Very stiff olive SAND, some gravel, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, trace gravel, dry. Very stiff olive silty fine SAND, trace clay, dry. Very stiff olive medium-coarse SAND, trace silt, moist. Very stiff olive medium-coarse SAND, trace silt, wet. End of boring @ 26' bgs. 18-20' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 0 ]1 J7 J8 J9 ' 2 0 -21 ^22 ^23 ^24 ^25 "26 LO O to tn g:/stafT/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xls 1/14/99 11:17 AM RTH^ l u l l i COMPLETION DATE: 12/8/97 ocven Hart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 25 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER NA GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK AREA Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBAST-13 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH (Feet) 0 " 1 RECOVERY (in) OVM tPPM) BLOWS (per 6-) BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 16' bgs. No split spoons collected. 16 17 18 19 20 _21 22 23 24 25 6 4 18 24 20 3 100 3 0 3 14 50 NA NA NA 28 50 NA NA 29 25 20 NA 24 31 41 4 4 23 50 Hard brown CLAY, some gravel limestone fragments, dry. Hard grey SAND, trace silt and gravel, dry Very stiff grey CLAY, dry. Very stiff SAND,trace clay and gravel, dry. Very stiff grey CLAY, dry. Hard red/brown CLAY, dry. Hard brown CLAY, some sand and gravel. End of boring @ 25.0 bgs. 1 18-20' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. Geochemical/Geotechnical Biological 2 4 - 2 6 ' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs, METALS 0 j 16 J7 J 8 J9 -20 -21 I22 I23 I24 ~25 to o 10 cn g:/stafr/astanfil/islandlogs/AST.xls 1/14/99 11:17AM 0) o c O) CO >. 'O C—• «) 0) •" OJ ^ > OJ f t — « o-c e 2 S " 2: CL ° Q. m a : ~ o — Equipment CME 65 7 10 13 II 5 10 11 15 5 8 11 20 20 o o Solit Spoon OJ £ Q. g- I Elevation Not Measured Q 10 Date '/27/95 ~ff ' " ^ 2 - ^ - T ,M 5 - ^ mV 7 - 1 : 8 - ' ^ 9 - i ^ 10-ft/ 11-7 12-1 13-]: 1 4 - 1 15-1 1 6 - 1 lO fl • < 20-^.'.' ->! K/ 2 2 - ' ^ - ^ - i ^ • • IA 'f. r ^ ' / . ^ • • • • • • ^ • • • • • • Vv r- 2; i CONCRETE LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/4). soft, wet LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/6). soft, moist GRAYISH BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/2), loose, wet OLIVE YELLOW SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). soft, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 5/6). loose, moist, medium dense at approximately 7' below grounij surface OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 6/6), medium dense, moist LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 6/4). soft, moist OLIVE YELLOW SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 6/6). loose, moist LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN GRAVELLY SAND (SP) (2.5Y 6/3). loose, moisl OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SANO (SC) (2.5Y 6/6). .=•31;. mois! OLIVE BROWN GRAVELLY SANO (SP) (2.5Y 4/4) OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 6/6). soli. moiS! OLIVE YELLOW SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). firm, moist-dfy OLIVE YELLOW SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 6/6). loose, moist Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and EnvirorOTental Services . S 131 North Third Street * S Philadelphia, PA I9I06 , S - 5 215-627-4505 JGY 29872.06.1 Log of Boring SB-Cl ICC St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303767 4 / 2 7 / 9 5 «£VISED 0 4 t £ SOIL BORING LOG ^Mm 'ROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands COMPLETION DATE: 12/3/97 TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: B-80 GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 119.4' bgs MEMO: PROCESS PIT GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA DRILLING METHOD/BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" WELL INSTALLED? No Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBPP-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH IFeol) _0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 f W25 26 27 RECOVERY (in) 0 24 18 24 16 24 8 18 20 18 6 24 24 24 OVM (PPMl NM 0 0 0 5 19 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLOWS (per 6-) 11 11 4 4 11 11 9 16 2 15 13 14 30 27 14 14 12 12 17 20 12 21 28 30 11 19 21 38 8 13 17 18 38 30 35 40 13 15 18 15 16 22 34 25 13 17 19 21 30 40 55 47 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. Drilled to 1' bgs. No split spoons collected. No Recovery. Stiff tan CLAY, dry. Stiff sandy CLAY, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace silt, dry. Stiff tan clayey SILT, dry. Stiff red brown silty SAND, dry. Very stiff green SAND, trace silt, wet. Very stiff SAND, some/little clay, some gravel, wet. Stiff tan silty CLAY, dry. Stiff green SAND, trace silt, dry. Very stiff tan sandy SILT, some clay, dry. Very stiff reddish tan CLAY, dry. Very stiff sandy SILT, some clay, dry. Stiff tan silty CLAY, dry. Stiff sandy CLAY and SILT, some limestone rock fragments, dry. Hard red/brown silty SAND, trace clay, dry. Stiff red/brown silty SAND, trace clay, dry. Very stiff sandy CLAY, some silt, little/trace fine sand, dry. Stiff sandy CLAY, some silt, little/trace fine sand, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, some/little silt and sand, dry. Stiff grey/tan coarse SAND and GRAVEL, dry. Stiff sandy CLAY, some silt, little/trace fine sand, dry. End of boring @ 27' bgs. SAMPLES 11-13' bgs. VOCs 25-27' bgs. VOCs g;/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit l.xls 303768 1/14/99 2:19 P M 4 SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 KTH^L }cieu Ten ¥ ^ M Hare COMPLETION DATE: 12/3/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORII^G DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: SBPP-2 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) _0 ~1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPMl BLOWS (per 6-1 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 8' bgs. No split spoons collected. 8 9 10 11 12 24 24 0 0 13 35 35 23 23 23 28 28 Hard tan CLAY, trace silt, dry. Hard tan CLAY, some silt, some fine sand, dry. Very stiff tan sandy CLAY, some silt, dry. 1 10-12' bgs. VOCs Drilled from 12' to 2 1 ' bgs. No split spoons collected. F21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 24 24 0 0 0 15 26 17 23 15 18 25 31 10 27 33 37 Very stiff tan CLAY, dry. Very stiff tan sandy SILT, some CLAY, some gravel, dry. Very stiff tan silty fine SAND, some/little clay, dry. Hard tan SAND and GRAVEL, wet. Hard tan silty fine SAND, some clay, and some gravel, wet. V ery stiff tan silty fine SAND, some/little clay, dry. End of boring @ 27' bgs. 1 23-25' bgs. VOCs .0 j .8 "9 !lO J I !l2 -21 -22 -23 ^^24 ~25 -26 ~27 CO o to g./staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 1 .xls 1/14/99 2:21 PM ras^^ COMPLETION DATE: 12/3/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 25' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBPP-3 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl _0 "1 RECOVERY (inl OVM (PPMl BLOWS (per 6-1 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture, Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES 18 Drilled to 6' bgs. No split spoons collected. ~8 ~9 ~10 J I ~12 24 24 20 0 0 0 7 9 12 17 7 9 14 18 20 24 27 21 Stiff tan CLAY, little sand, trace silt, dry. Stiff tan CLAY and GRAVEL, little sand, trace silt, dry. Stiff Tan CLAY, some gravel, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sand/gravel, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, some sand, trace gravel, dry. 8-10' bgs. VOCs Drilled from 12' to 18' bgs. No split spoons collected. J 9 "20 ~21 ~22 ~23 "24 l25 ~26 24 24 12 12 0 0 0 0 15 24 27 23 15 13 17 19 14 23 25 27 12 23 59 39 Very stiff tan/brown CLAY, trace coarse sand, dry. Very stiff red/brown CLAY, trace silt and gravel, dry. Very stiff red/brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Stiff tan sandy SILT, some clay, dry. Stiff green CLAY, trace organic material, dry. Very stiff red/brown sandy SILT, some clay, dry. Stiff reddish sandy SILT, some clay, trace gravel, dry. Hard tan CLAY, some/little silt, dry. Hard tan silty SAND, wet. End of boring at 26' bgs. 24-26' bgs. VOCs 0 ]1 6 ' j ]8 ^9 JO J I J 2 18 J ^ I20 ~21 ~22 I23 "24 ~25 "26 O to -J o g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Prcx:ess Pit l.xls 1/14/99 2:22 PM E B 3 ^ ^ ICOMPLETION DATE: 12/3/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 23 Feet [ D R I L L I N G CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 2 2 ' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No IMEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBPP-4 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) _0 ~1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPM) BLOWS (per 6") BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 6' bgs. No split spoons collected. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 24 24 0 0 0 5 5 16 21 8 9 12 19 8 18 19 26 Stiff grey CLAY, dry. Stiff grey CLAY, trace silt, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, dry. Stiff red/brown CLAY, dry. Stiff red/brown CLAY, trace gravel, dry. Stiff grey CLAY, trace silt, dry. Stiff red/brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Stiff red CLAY, trace gravel, dry. 1 8-10' bgs. VOCs Drilled from 12' to 2 1 ' bgs. No split spoons collected. 21 22 23 24 0 23 30 30 4 0 Hard tan CLAY, trace silt, dry. Hard red/brown coarse/medium SAND and GRAVEL, wet. End of boring (3) 23' bgs. 21-23' bgs. VOCs 0 j 6 ' j ~8 ^9 JO J I J 2 21 - 2 2 " 2 3 to O to Q:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Prcx;ess Pit l.xls 1/14/99 2:23 PM ral'^ COMPLETION DATE: 12/10/97 •/art nen h SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 2 6 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 2 4 ' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT Pagel of 1 Boring No: SBPP-5 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) _0 1 RECOVERY (inl OVM IPPM) BLOWS (per 6") BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 6' bgs. No split spoons collected 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 16 16 24 16 24 16 24 8 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 12 13 11 11 17 19 17 15 20 21 14 29 27 26 12 21 23 23 24 22 24 50 19 28 28 16 8 17 3 0 30 36 4 0 35 50 12 22 17 20 Stiff brown medium SAND and GRAVEL, some silt, wet. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sandand gravel, dry. Stiff tan silty fine/medium SAND, dry. Stiff tan coarse SAND and GRAVEL, moist. Stiff tan/brown CLAY, little sand, dry. Stiff red/brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, little/trace sand, dry. Very stiff sandy CLAY, some silt, dry. Very stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Very stiff brown sandy CLAY, trace gravel. Very stiff tan SAND, some gravel, trace silt and clay, moist. Very stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Hard brown sandy CLAY, trace gravel, moist. Hard orange/brown sandy CLAY, dry. Hard tan/brown SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, wet. End of boring @ 26' bgs. 1 18-20' bgs. VOCs 22-24' bgs. VOCs 0 J 6 ' j S ~_9 j o j l J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 ~20 ~21 ~22 ^23 ~24 l25 "26 t o O t o -J g:/staff/astanril/islandlogs/Prcx:ess Pit 1.xls 1/14/99 2:24 PM mi^ip JCOMPLETION DATE: 12/10/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30 Feet 1 DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT Pagel of 1 Boring No: SBPP-6 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl _0 " 1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPMl BLOWS (per 6-) BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES Drill to 6' bgs. No split spoons collected. 6 _7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _29 30 6 24 24 22 20 16 18 20 24 24 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21 16 19 9 8 12 13 8 10 12 16 5 8 14 14 8 17 19 13 35 31 35 31 15 24 20 30 16 31 20 29 22 48 46 39 12 15 19 18 21 30 30 50 34 38 30 31 Stiff brown SAND, some silt and clay, dry. Stiff brown sandy CLAY, little silt, dry. Stiff brown CLAY, trace sand, moist. Stiff brown SAND, some clay, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sand, dry. Stiff tan SAND, some clay, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, dry. Stiff tan medium-coarse SAND, dry. Stiff tan fine SAND, trace silt, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Stiff tan clayey SAND, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, dry. Stiff tan fine/medium SAND, trace gravel, dry. Hard tan fine/medium coarse SAND, trace gravel, dry. Very stiff tan fine SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, dry. V ery stiff red/brown CLAY, little/trace sand, dry. Very stiff brown CLAY, some sand, trace gravel, dry. Hard brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Stiff red/brown CLAY, some/little sand, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, trace sand, dry. Hard tan sand, dry. Soft tan clayey SAND, dry. Hard brown clayey SAND and GRAVEL, dry. Hard brown fine SAND, dry. End of boring @ 30' bgs. 1 • Select VOCs 28-30' bgs. 0 j 6 7 ~8 9 j o j i J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 I20 I2I ~22 ~23 I25 I26 ~27 - I t o - 2 8 O 29 >J " 3 0 W • Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 1 .xls 1/14/99 2:25 PM m i w IcOMPLETlON DATE: 3/27/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 31 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac [SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT; Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well IMEMO: 1 PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 2 SBPP-7 1 LOCATION SKETCH 1 SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH IFeetl 0 1 ~2 " 3 [4 5 _6 " 7 " 8 9 " l O 11 " 1 2 13 J4 " 1 5 16 " 1 7 18 " 1 9 " 2 0 L2I _22 " 2 3 1 2 4 RECOVERY (ftl 3.5 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1 Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace sand, dry. Brownish SILT with clay, dry. Brown SILT with sand, trace clay, dry. Brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Brown SAND, some silt, trace clay, dry. Light brown CLAY, some gravel, little sand, dry. Light brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Brown SILT, some clay, trace silt, dry. Brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace sand, dry. SAMPLES 1 • Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 1 2 - 1 3 ' b g s . * Select VOCs 1 5 - 1 7 ' b g s . • Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. 0 1 2 ^3 j ^5 ^6 7 '8 '9 ]lO ]l1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 I20 "21 ~22 I23 "24 to O U) -J PrcKess P2.xls (SBPP-7) 1/14/99 11:18 AM ESS^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/27/98 fc/are/? -lart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 31 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 2 of 2 SBPP-7 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl l25 ~26 l27 "28 ~29 l 3 0 "31 RECOVERY (ft) 3.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Brown SILT, trace sand, wet. Brown SAND, trace silt, wet. Brown SAND and SILT with medium gravel, wet. SAND with gravel, trace silt, wet. End of boring @ 31.0' bgs. SAMPLES • Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. -25 26 ^27 |28 ^29 |30 "31 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride O t o Ul Process P2.xls {SBPP-7) 1/14/99 11:18AM miw^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/27/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 2 SBPP-8 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) 0 j l2 ~3 " 4 ^5 ^6 l7 "s ^9 JO j l "12 J 3 J 4 J5 " l 6 J7 J8 " l 9 l 2 0 "21 "22 l23 "24 ^25 "26 RECOVERY (ft) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. Brown SAND, some gravel, dry. Brown SILT and CLAY, dry. Brown SILT, trace sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace sand, dry. Brownish/red SILT and SAND, trace clay, dry. Brownish SILT, little medium gravel, trace sand and clay, dry. Brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Brown SILT, some coarse sand, trace clay, dry. Brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Light brown SAND, some silt, trace clay, dry. Light brown SILT, some sand and medium gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Light brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Light brown SILT, trace clay, dry. Light brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Light brown CLAY, some silt, trace sand, dry. Brown SILT, some clay, trace sand, moist. Brown SILT and SAND, some gravel, trace clay, wet. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. * Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. 0 1 2 ^3 4 '5 6 y 8 '9 j o j i !l2 J3 J4 J5 J6 ]l7 J8 J9 ^20 -21 ^22 -23 "24 "25 "26 t o O t o Process P2 xls (SBPP-8) 1/14/99 11:18 AM m i v IcOMPLETlON DATE: 3/27/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well JMEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 2 of 2 SBPP-8 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl 27 28 "29 "30 RECOVERY (ft) 4.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. Brown CLAY, some gravel and silt, trace sand, wet. End of boring @ 30.0' bgs. SAMPLES 27 ^28 [29 '30 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride t o O t o - J - J Pmr.R^-i P9 vis r.SRPP-81 1/14/99 11:18 AM mi^^^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/29/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBPP-9 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl _0 j ^2 "3 " 4 Is Ie ^7 "8 ^9 j o "11 J 2 J3 "14 J5 J6 "17 J8 "19 I20 I2I I22 23 I24 ~25 RECOVERY (ftl 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.5 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Brown sandy CLAY, some silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, dry. Brown clayey SAND, some silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Brown SAND, some clay, little silt, dry. Brown clayey SAND, some silt, dry. Light brown SAND, little silt, dry. Light brown mottled grey SAND and CLAY, some silt, dry. Light brown CLAY, some silt, moist. Light brown clayey SAND, some silt, wet. End of boring @ 25.0' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. • Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ^6 7 ^8 "9 jo j i J2 !l3 J4 ]l5 J6 J7 J8 J9 ~20 '21 -22 "23 "24 "25 t J O U> - J - J 00 * Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride Process P2.xls (SBPP-9) 1/14/99 11:18 AM m^mw COMPLETION DATE: 3/30/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 32 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.5' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 1 of 2 Boring No: SBPP-10 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feat) 0 _1 "2 _3 4 5 ^6 J 8 9 _10 11 12 13 " l 4 " l 5 _16 " l 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 "24 RECOVERY (ftl 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Concrete. Light brown CLAY, some fine-medium sand, some silt, dry. Light brown medium SAND, some gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, some medium sand, little gravel, dry. Light brown medium SAND, some gravel, dry. Light brown medium SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt, dry. Light brown fine-medium SAND, little gravel, dry. Brown fine SAND, trace silt and fine gravel, dry. Brown SILT, little fine-medium gravel, trace sand, dry. Light brown/gray CLAY, some silt, trace sand, sporadic fine-medium gravel, dry. SAMPLES • Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. * Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. • Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. 0 1 2 3 j ^5 '6 y y, 9 j o j i J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 I20 "21 I22 I23 "24 V3 Process P2 xls (SBPP-10) 1/14/99 11:18 AM ES'*^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/30/98 iqiarm -lart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 32 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.5' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 2 of 2 SBPP-10 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) l25 l26 "27 l28 "29 "30 "31 " 3 2 RECOVERY (ft) 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture, Etc. Brown CLAY, little very fine gravel, trace silt, dry. Dark brown SAND, some clay, little silt, medium gravel, dry. Dark brown CLAY, some medium sand, dry. Dark brown SAND, some coarse gravel, little silt, trace clay, dry. End of boring @ 32.0' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. • Select VOCs 26-28' bgs. * Select VOCs 28-30' bgs. ' Select VOCs 30-32' bgs. .25 !26 ]27 [28 [29 -30 !31 '32 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride to o to 00 o Process P2xls{SBPP-10) 1/14/99 11:18AM , m i ^ ^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/31/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30.6 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.65' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 2 SBPP-13 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) 0 j l2 ^3 "4 l5 "a " 9 JO j i "12 J3 "14 J5 " I 6 J7 J8 "19 I20 I2I "22 "23 I24 "25 RECOVERY (ft) 3.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. Brown CLAY, some sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some medium gravel, little sand, dry. Light brown sandy CLAY with medium gravel, little silt, dry. Light brown CLAY some sand and silt, little fine gravel, dry. Dark brown sandy CLAY, little medium gravel and silt, dry. Brown sandy SILT, some clay, little fine/medium gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, some sand, little medium gravel, dry. SAMPLES • Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. * Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. * Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. 0 1 2 [3 j [5 ^6 y "8 \9 jo j i J2 !l3 J4 ]l5 J6 J7 J8 J9 "20 ]21 ^22 "23 ^^24 "25 Process P2.xls (SBPP-13) 1/14/99 11:18 AM m i ^ ^ COMPLETION DATE: 3/31/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30.6 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.65' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 2 of 2 Boring No: SBPP-13 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 l26 "27 l28 "29 "30 "31 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Light brown CLAY, some silt, little sand, dry. Brown CLAY and SAND, some silt, little fine-medium gravel, dry. Brown CLAY and SAND, some silt, little fine-medium gravel, wet. End of boring @ 31.0' bgs. * Select VOCs 26-28' bgs. * Select VOCs 28-30' bgs. 26 "27 [28 ]29 [30 '31 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride to o t o < l 00 Process P2.xls (SBPP-13) 1/14/99 11:18AM mi^kw IcOMPLETlON OATE: 4/2/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 11 Feet [ D R I L L I N G CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac ISAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) 1 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 8.0' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well IMEMO: 1 PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 1 SBPP-15 1 LOCATION SKETCH | SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl _0 j l2 ^3 " 4 1-^ 16 \~_7 " 8 " 9 j o j i ri2 RECOVERY (ft) 4.0 4.0 3.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Dark brown CLAY, some sand, dry. Brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Dark brown SILT, some coarse sand, trace clay, dry. Dark blue/black SAND, trace gravel, dry. Dark blue/black CLAY, some sand and gravel, moist. Dark blue/black CLAY, some sand and gravel, wet. Dark blue/black CLAY, trace sand, wet. End of boring @ 11.0' bgs. SAMPLES 1 * Select VOCs 5-7' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride 0 [l y y y y y y y [lO [ii "l2 I 00 o to i 00 to Process P2xls (SBPP-15) 1/14/99 11:18AM i SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 I!llA4 filM / COMPLETION DATE: 4/3/98 mren -lart PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION; St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 14 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 8' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: SBPP-22 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) 0 _1 2 3 4 5 - 6 7 _8 " 9 j o 11 12 _13 14 RECOVERY (ft) 4 . 0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 3.0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Light brown SILT, trace clay, dry. Brown SAND, some silt and clay, dry. Brown CLAY, trace silt, dry. Light brown CLAY, trace silt and sand, dry. Dark brown clayey SAND with black streaks, dry. Dark brown CLAY, some silt, wet. Brown CLAY, some silt and sand, wet. Light brown SAND, some silt, trace clay. Brown fine/medium SAND, trace silt, dry. End of boring at 14' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 1-3'bgs. * Select VOCs 3-5' bgs. * Select VOCs 5-7' bgs. * Select VOCs 7.5-9.5' bgs. • Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 12-14' bgs. 0 [1 y y j [5 [6 y y y jo [11 J2 J3 "14 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride to O to CO g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:30 PM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 2 COMPLETION DATE: 4/4/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLINCS METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.30' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: SBPP-23 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl 0 j \ 2 ~_7, " 4 ~5 "7 l 8 "9 "10 "11 "12 J3 "14 J 5 "16 J7 J8 "19 "20 I2I "22 I23 I24 "25 "26 RECOVERY (ftl 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Brown medium SAND, trace silt, dry. Brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some fine sand, little silt, dry. Brown clayey SAND, some silt, dry. Brown sandy CLAY, some silt, dry. Brown SILT and SAND, trace clay, dry. Brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Brown SILT and SAND, trace clay, dry. Brown sandy CLAY, some fine gravel, little, silt, dry. Brown SAND, trace silt and gravel, dry. Brown SAND, some medium gravel, little silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, wet. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 6-8' bgs. • Select VOCs 8-10' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. * Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. * Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. 0 1 2 3 4 [5 y y y y jo [11 [12 [13 J4 [15 [16 J7 J8 [19 "20 [21 [22 "23 t o O -24 u) -J 25 00 t n 26 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:31 PM m'WF COMPLETION DATE: 4/4/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 30 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.30' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 2 of 2 SBPP-23 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl 27 28 29 30 RECOVERY (ftl 4.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Brown sandy CLAY, some silt, wet. End of boring at 30' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 26-28' bgs. • Select VOCs 28-30' bgs. _27 [28 [29 ' 3 0 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride 00 o to • J 00 T/";faff/a<:tanfil/islandloas/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:31 PM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 COMPLETION DATE: 4/5/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 12 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER NA MEMO: PROCESS PIT GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well Boring No: SBPP-26 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH IFeet) 0 1 2 3 4 _5 _6 [[8 9 JO 111 " l 2 RECOVERY (ft) 1.5 2.0 4.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Light brown CLAY, trace sand and gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, some gravel, trace sand, dry. Grayish blue SAND, trace gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand, trace silt, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, trace gravel, dry. End of boring at 12' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 6-8' bgs. * Select VOCs 8-10' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride 0 [l [2 [3 [4 [5 [6 [7 [8 [9 [10 [11 "12 to O u> CO - J g:/staft/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 233 PM ilflM l^M 1 COMPLETION DATE: 4/5/98 iciaren -lart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 25 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22 Feet GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 1 of 2 Boring No: SBPP-27 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) _0 j [[2 "3 "4 "5 "7 "8 [[9 JO _ i i J2 "13 J4 J6 "17 J8 " l 9 [[20 I2I "22 I23 "24 RECOVERY (ftl 2.5 4.0 2.5 1.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Light brown SAND, some gravel, little clay, dry. Light brown CLAY, trace sand, little silt, dry. Light Brown SAND, some clay, little medium gravel, dry. Light brown CLAY, some sand, little gravel, hard, dry. Light brown CLAY, little sand, trace gravel, hard, dry. Brown CLAY, little sand ,trace gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, little sand ,trace gravel, dry. Brown SAND, some clay, little medium gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, some sand ,trace gravel, dry. Brown coarse SAND, some clay, wet. Brown coarse SAND, some clay, little gravel, wet. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. • Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. 0 1 2 3 [4 [5 [6 [7 [8 [9 !lO [11 J2 [13 [14 [15 J6 [17 [I8 [19 [20 -21 [22 [23 "24 g:/stafT/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:36 PM miwF COMPLETION DATE: SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: Feet DRILUNG CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Feet GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 2 of 2 SBPP-27 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) "25 l26 l27 [[28 [29 [[30 "31 RECOVERY (ft) OVM (PPM) 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace gravel, wet. End of boring at 3 1 ' bgs. SAMPLES Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride 25 [26 [27 [28 [29 [30 "31 to O t o 00 n/sfaff/astanfil/islandloas/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:36 PM m i COMPLETION DATE: 4/7/98 iqmen -lart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRiaiNG EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.9 Feet GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: A n u j G u l a t i / W a r r e n DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 2 SBPP-32 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl 0 "1 2 3 4 5 "6 "7 "8 9 10 11 J2 "13 14 "15 16 "17 _18 _19 20 21 "22 "23 24 RECOVERY (ft) 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. Brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Brown coarse SAND, some medium gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, some medium gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, little sand, trace gravel, dry. Brown CLAY, little silt, trace fine sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace fine sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some silt, trace fine sand, dry. Brown CLAY, some coarse sand , little silt, dry. SAMPLES • Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 16-18' bgs. 0 ^1 [2 3 [4 [5 6 [7 [8 [9 [10 [11 [12 [13 [l4 [15 J6 [l7 [18 [19 ^20 ~21 I22 o _24 CO VO o g:/staff/astatifil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 247 PM., « SOIL BORING LOG Page 2 of 2 W^M oa/ vn l ^ M Hart COMPLETION DATE: 4/7/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27.3 Feet DRILLINC; CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.9 Feet GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: SBPP-32 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) l25 "26 "27 "28 l29 "30 "31 RECOVERY (ft) 1.0 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Light brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, wet. Light brown CLAY, some sand, little silt, wet. End of boring at 31' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. * Select VOCs 27-28' bgs. Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride 25 26 ^27 [28 [29 [30 "31 to o to vo g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 2:47 PM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 2 COMPLETION DATE: 4/1/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.0' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Boring No: SBOR-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) 0 1 _2 3 4 5 _6 7 8 9 J O 11 _12 13 14 15 _16 17 18 19 _20 21 22 23 _24 25 RECOVERY (ft) 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 2 6 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture, Moisture. Etc. Light gray SAND, some clay, little medium gravel, dry. Bluish gray (stained) SAND, some clay, little medium gravel, dry. Brown gravelly SAND, some clay, dry. Light brown coarse SAND, some fine gravel, dry. , Brown SAND, some medium gravel, dry. Brown clayey SAND with medium gravel, some silt, dry. SAMPLES • Select VOCs 2-4' bgs. • Select VOCs 4-6' bgs. * Select VOCs 10-12' bgs. * Select VOCs 14-16'bgs. • Select VOCs 20-22' bgs. * Select VOCs 22-24' bgs. * Select VOCs 24-26' bgs. 0 1 2 3 [4 [5 [6 [7 [8 [9 [10 [11 [12 [13 [14 [15 [16 [17 [18 [19 [20 [21 [22 "23 "24 "25 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 249 PM B H ^ ^ COMPLETION OATE: 4/1/98 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 27 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: TerraVac SAMPLING METHOD: Macrocore MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 22.0' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: Anuj Gulati/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Geoprobe GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? Temporary Well MEMO: PROCESS PIT Page 2 of 2 Boring No: SBOR-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feetl "26 l27 "28 RECOVERY (ft) 1.0 1.0 OVM (PPM) 1.7 1.1 0 0 0 0 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture, Moisture, Etc. Hard brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Brown SAND, some clay, little medium gravel, moist. End of boring at 28' bgs. SAMPLES * Select VOCs 26-28' bgs. 26 [27 "28 Select VOCs: toluene, ehtylbenzene, xylene, chloroform, acetone, methyl chloride t o o to -J vo to g:/staff/astanni/islandlogs/Process Pit 3.xls 1/14/99 249 PM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 2 ^imi^kw PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands COMPLETION DATE: 10/13/98 TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 119 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER - 2v MEMO: Process Pit Area GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.34' msl WELL INSTALLED? No Boring No: GWPP-27A LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 DEPTH (Feet) _0 "1 RECOVERY IFeetl OVM (PPM) BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color. Texture. Moisture, Etc. GROUND WATER SAMPLES Drilled to 82' bgs. 82 [[83 "84 "85 "86 |[87 "88 [[89 "90 l91 "92 [[93 [[94 "95 "96 Is 7 ^98 "100 j o i "102 J 0 3 " l 0 4 1.5 2 2 SAND, some clay and little silt. Stiff CLAY, little sand. SAND, some clay and little silt. Drilled from 84' - 88' bgs. White stiff CLAY, some sand and silt, dry. White stiff CLAY, some sand, little silt, dry. Tan SAND, some clay and silt, dry. Drilled from 90' - 100' bgs. White CLAY, some sand and silt, trace limestone gravel, moist. ' 84-87' bgs. VOCs 95-99' bgs. VOCs 0 [1 [82 [83 [84 [85 [86 [87 ~88 [89 [[90 "91 I92 Is 3 "94 "95 l96 I97 [[98 ^99 j o o j o i [[102 J03 "l04 g:/sta(f/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 303794 1/14/99 11:59 AM SOIL BORING LOG Page 2 of 2 i lim^ ISIM t COMPLETION DATE: 10/13/98 fC/cVp Hart PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 119 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER - 21' GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.34' msl WELL INSTAUED? No MEMO: Process Pit Area Boring No: GWPP-27A LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 DEPTH IFeetl J 0 5 J 06 J 07 J O B J 09 " n o 111 112 J13 ~115 " l 1 6 117 J 18 " l 1 9 RECOVERY (Feetl 1.5 2 OVM (PPM) BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color. Texture, Moisture. Etc. Drilled from 100' - 110' bgs. White CLAY, some sand and silt, weathered rock, moist Drilled from 112' - 115 bgs. Light gray/brown CLAY, little silt, moist. Drilled from 117' - 119' bgs. End of boring at 119' bgs. GROUND WATER SAMPLES 110-120' bgs. VOCs 105 106 107 ^108 [l09 [no [ i l l [l12 [l13 [l15 [l16 [l17 [l18 "l19 t o o t o - J vo tn g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 AM SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 4 i MvwmM Km T^J f ^ M Hare COMPLETION OATE: 10/16/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 107 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 21.3' GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 28.06' msl WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: Former Drum Area Boring No: GWPP-36 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 DEPTH IFeet) 0 "1 RECOVERY IFeet) OVM (PPMl BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES 1 m w A w 18 J9 "20 I21 " 2 2 " 2 3 I24 I25 I26 I27 I28 I29 " 3 0 I3I "32 " 3 3 I34 "35 l36 "37 [[38 " 3 9 1.5 1.5 1.5 Drilled to 18' bgs. Brown medium SAND, some silt, trace gravel, wet. Drilled from 20' - 30' bgs. Medium brown SAND, some clay, little gravel, dry. Drilled from 32' - 35' bgs. Medium brown and gray CLAY, little silt and coarse sand, dry. 20-24' bgs VOCs 0 [1 J9 [20 -21 [22 [23 [24 I25 [26 [27 I28 "29 l30 l31 l32 I33 I34 I35 l36 I37 l38 to O "39 ^ vo g:/staft/astan(il/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 AM m • KXH^) f\lA] / COMPLETION DATE: 10/16/98 }ciaren -lart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 107 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 21.3' GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 28.06' msl WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: Former Drum Area Boring No: Page 2 of 4 GWPP-36 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 DEPTH IFeetl "40 l41 "42 "43 "44 "45 J 6 "47 49 "50 [[51 I52 1^3 I54 "55 "56 1^7 1^8 I59 "60 l61 "62 l 6 3 [[64 "65 RECOVERY (Feet) 1.5 2 1 OVM (PPM) BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color, Texture, Moisture, Etc. Drilled from 37' - 40' bgs. Medium brown SILT, some clay, little sand, dry. Drilled from 42' - 45' bgs. Brown CLAY, some silt and sand, dry. Drilled from 47' - 60' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, some sand and brown to black gravel, dry. SAMPLES 50-54' bgs. VOCs 40 41 42 J3' [44 [45 [46 [47 [48 [49 [50 [51 [52 [53 [54 [55 [56 [57 [58 [59 ~_6Q lei l62 Is 3 1^4 "65 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 303797 1/14/99 11:59 AM SOIL BORING LOG Page 3 of 4 «n'^i PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands COMPLETION DATE: 10/16/98 I TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 107 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 21.3' MEMO: Former Drum Area GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 28.06' msl WELL INSTALLED? No Boring No: GWPP-36 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 m % DEPTH (Feetl 1^6 l67 ]68 [[69 "70 "71 72 "73 L K 175 "76 ~J1 l78 I79 "80 "81 82 "83 _84 Is 5 Is 6 Is 7 l88 "89 [[90 "91 RECOVERY (Feetl 1 1 OVM (PPMl BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color. Texture. Moisture, Etc. Drilled from 62' - 70' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Medium brown GRAVEL and SAND, some clay, dry. Drilled from 72' - 80' bgs. Light brown SAND, some gravel, little clay, slightly moist. SAMPLES 75-79' bgs. VOCs 82-85' bgs. VOCs 66 67 68 '69 70 [71 [72 [73 [74 [75 [76 [77 J8 [79 [80 [81 [82 [83 [84 [85 [86 l87 [88 [89 [90 "91 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 303798 1/14/99 11:59 AM SOIL BORING LOG Page 4 of 4 i ddHAd^ ic/ai nen WsllM Hare COMPLETION DATE: 10/16/98 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 107 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Hydropunch MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 21.3' GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 28.06' msl W E U INSTALLED? No MEMO: Former Drum Area Boring No: GWPP-36 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-4 DEPTH IFeetl Is 2 "93 [[94 ~95 l 9 6 "97 > 8 [[99 MOO j o i " l 0 2 J03 J04 J05 J06 " l 0 7 RECOVERY IFeetl 1 OVM (PPM) BURMEISTER SYSTEM SOIL DESCRIPTION Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Drilled from 82' - 100' bgs. Light brown CLAY, some small pieces of white rock, little silt, dry. Drilled from 102' - 107' bgs. End of boring at 107' bgs. SAMPLES 97-107' bgs. VOCs 92 93 [94 [95 [96 [97 [98 [99 [100 [101 [102 [103 [104 [105 [1O6 '107 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 303799 1/14/99 11:59 AM Top of Casing Elev. 28.63 PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE - GROUT BENTONITE SEAL GR/iVEL PAC • • • . • > i eo-TOM c-p • . • • • JC o c CD o i . E m t r - io 12 3 4 4 4 4 8 9 5 8 10 12 5 5 C7> C •o (D OJ 11 > (2. o — 2 4 O O Equipment CME 65 split Spoon Elevation 26.84 Date '/25/95 ?3- LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5YR 5/4). soft, dry OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3). soft, dry. caliche noted tnroughc-ut spoon. approximately (10-25%) OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3), soft, dry, less caliche than previous spoon, approximately (10%). OLIVE SILTY CLAY (CL) (5Y 5/4). soft, moist from approx. 10'. no caliche noted. DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5GY 4/1). loose, moist OLIVE SILTY CLAY (CL) (5Y 5/4). soft, moist i S j l l OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) {2.5Y 4/4). firm. Tinist. tine gravel •'• lOS. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY GRAVEL (GO (2.5Y 4/4). ' ^ ' f ' : ( j — j ? - 5 ? . rr.O'S! OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 4/4), Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 19106 215-627-4505 Log Of Boring and Weil Completion SB-DI / MW-4 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 8 0 0 « E V I S E : J I ' l - ' i jsw 29872.06.1 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 —ar~ 01 x: o CD -^ in a m > aj o ^ OC — w c ID SI > Q. r^'— 6 10 12 13 :0 12 12 22 o o Equipment CME 65 Spilt Spoon Elevation Not Measurea Date '^19/95 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (tOYR 4/2), soft, moist, dark red mottling OLIVE GRAY SILTY CLAY (CL) (5Y 4/2). firm, moist PALE OLIVE CLAYEY SAND (SC) (5Y 6/3). loose, moist GREENISH GRAY CLAY (CH) (5BG 4/1). firm, moist OLIVE CLAYEY SANO (SC) (5Y 5/3). meoium dense, moist GRAYISH GREEN SANDY CLAY (CL) (5G 5/2). firm, moist, caiicrie visipie from approx 15.5-16.0. prown mottling GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5GY 5/1). :o?ie. d'>. kvet at a p p r o . 21.5-22.0 GREENISH GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) (5G 5/2). EriO 01 Boring a; 25' Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Envifonniental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 19106 215-627-4505 JGY 29872.06.1 Log Of Boring SB-D2 ICC St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303801 4/27/95 S t v I S E D CiAIE lU O c CO > a; o •'^ cc — c •6 OJ SI > a o o 16 24 23 17 19 16 19 20 20 Equipment CME 65 Split Spoon 01 £ Q. •^ ^ E l e v a t i o n Not Measured O CO D a t e 1/20/95 I - 2 - 3 - 4 5H 6 7 8 9 - 10- 11- 12- 13- C O 1^ 6^ VERY DARK GRAY BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (2.5Y 3/2), loose, dry VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 3/2), soft, dry DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 4/2). soft, dry, sand appears to be caiictie. red Drown mottling, noted Pegmning 4 - 6 ' interval. WHITE SANDY SILT (ML) (5Y 8/1). soft. dry. appears to be caliche GRAY GRAVEL (GP) (5Y 5/1), medium dense, dry, appears to be limestone. OLIVE SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (5Y 4/3). medium dense, dry OLIVE SANDY SILT (ML) (5Y 5/4). firm, dry GRAYISH GREEN CLAY (CL) (5G 4/2). i:rm. mc'St. caiictie at aoo'ox. 16.5' DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5BG 4/1). medium dense, dry. wet al appronmaieiv •no of Boring at 21' Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 19106 215-627-4505 JGY • 29872.06.1 Log of Boring SB-D3 ICC St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303802 4/28/95 REVISED 0 » ; E U l 0) o CD CO O m > 0^ o " oj.S OC-' O) c •D o. 6 7 9 10 6 7 7 12 II 17 17 22 16 23 27 23 13 20 22 23 o •o o Equipment CME 65 Q. 01 Q 0} a. E (0 tn Elev n 1 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - t o - 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- ' l 6 - 17- 18- 19- 2 0 - 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 3 - ? 4 - fo 1 - • \ • . . I " - ' I j 7 ^ i.^ - ^ i^ 1^ P y^ w^ § i ^ ^ i^ ^ ^ ^ ^ •^ Split Sooon Elevation Not Measured Date 1/23/95 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (2.5Y 5/3). loose, dry DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 4/2), soft, dry OLIVE SILTY SAND (SM) (5Y 4/4), medium-dense, dry, fine to medium gravel and calictie noted from 6'-8'. OLIVE YELLOW SANDY GRAVEL (GM) (5Y 6/6). medium oense, dry OLIVE YELLOW SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 6/6). medium dense, dry. caiictie noted throughout SDOon. FINE BLACK LIMESTONE GRAVEL (5Y 2.5/1) noted throughout sooon LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/4). iirm. damp, slightiv piasliC Oa-i Pegmmng 3rP'"< '5 5-16 0' Deion -^'O'j.-id suriace. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/4). '.•.•^. m?is',. ;i!Oriii, pv^;; ;. p-eer ;n Qia. ~-^:'.r-'; '50 5,';,. !r;ro..,':!.i-.o;: >poo-: LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SAND (SW) (2.5Y 5/4) ::orir:g a: J- H Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Envifonniental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 191O6 215-627-4505 29872.06.1 Log of Boring SB-Fl ICC St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303803 i l ' E 4/28/95 SEVISED D l ' S o c 5 o m > Ji o -'^ QJ.S CC — C3) c 01 x l > a. 14 15 18 25 16 28 16 16 18 18 2-1 o o Equipment CME 65 Split Spoon cx o — lO 17 o •a o Equipment CME 65 Split Spoon E l e v a t i o n Not Measured D a t e 1/24/95 DARK BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (10Y 3/3), dry, fine-medium gravel, noted O-I' DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILT (ML) (lOY 4/2), firm, dry, caliche visible OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CH) (2.5Y 4/3). firm, dry DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CH) (5GY 4/1). soft, dry DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CH) (5GY 4/1). soft, moist from 8 feet VERY DARK GRAY SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (5Y 3/1). medium-dense, moist DARK GREENISH GRAY CLAYEY SAND (SC) (5G 4/1). medium-dense, moist fine gravel throughout recovery (10%) ic.'Oi.xaieiy 23S jij-iace- g'ovei 13' DeiO" •groun.j GREENISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CH) (5BG 5/1). GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5BG 5/1). GREENISH GRAY GRAVELLY SILTY SAND (SM) (5BG 5/1). meorjr-.-o-rr.'je. " e ; H: ncpro'imatei/ E'lC '-•• Bo'.'i"; a: 22' H a r d i n g L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 19106 215-627-4505 JGY 29872.06.1 Log of Boring SB-F3 ICC St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303805 -EvrsEE :JJ:E 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 m i ^ COMPLETION OATE: 12/9/97 SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: IslancJ Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 17 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: 8-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 15.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger - 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTAUED? No MEMO: LABORATORY PIT Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBLP-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-3 DEPTH IFeetl _0 ~1 RECOVERY linl OVM IPPMI BLOWS Iper 6-1 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 8' bgs. No split spoons collected. > ~10 J I J 2 J 3 J 4 " l 5 J 6 " l 7 24 24 0 0 7 8 12 15 6 9 11 17 Stiff tan/brown CLAY, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, little sand, trace silt, dry. Drilled from 10'to 15' bgs. No split spoons collected. Very stiff tan/wfiite CLAY, trace sand/gravel, wet. End of boring @ 17.0' bgs. 8-10' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, Metals 15-17' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, Metals 0 j 8 y JO J I J 2 J 3 J 4 J 5 J 6 'l7 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/LabPit.xls 303806 1/14/99 11:18 AIVI fdl'^ EAiil / IcOMPLETlON DATE: 12/9/97 jciaren -laft SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 17 Feet [ D R I L L I N G CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E 1 SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 15.5' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger - 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: 1 LABORATORY PIT Boring No: Page 1 of 1 SBLP-2 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-3 DEPTH IFeet) _0 RECOVERY linl OVM (PPM) BLOWS Iper 6-1 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 8' bgs. No split spoons collected. 8 " 9 "io J I J 2 " l 3 J''- " 1 5 J 6 " 1 7 24 24 20 0 0 0 10 10 12 18 17 9 14 18 7 13 19 20 Stiff tan CLAY, some very stiff white clay throughout split spoon, dry. Drilled from 10' to 13' bgs. No split spoons collected. Stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Stiff olive fine/medium SAND, trace silt, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, some sand, dry. Stiff olive fine SAND, some/little silt, dry. Stiff tan CLAY, some gravel, wet. End of boring @ 17.0' bgs. • 8-10' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, Metals 13-15' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, Metals 0 y 8 y jo J I -12 J 3 J 4 J 5 J 6 ~17 U) O U) 00 o g:/staff/astanfii/islandlogs/Lab PiLxis 1/14/99 11:18AM roD of Casing 31.33 Eiev PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE - GROUi ;;r:T ' ,'iv '_ .:- ,•4 . ' • « • ' • . « • »:.'S I ».',--f ' • • • I —m— 0) x: o o CD 3 II 13 10 6 6 7 10 10 10 5 8 9 8 10 6 8 9 o -^ (U.S OC — C a o O Equipment '-^E 65 SDIII Spoon Elevation 26.45 Date '/31/9; DARK OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 3/3), loose, ary GRAYISH BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (2.5Y 5/2). loose, dry OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3). soft, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 5/3). soft, dry DARK GREENISH GRAY SANDY CLAY (CL) (5BG 4/1), soft, moist DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CL) (5BG 4/1). scM. moisl DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5BG 4/1). lc-se. moist DARK GREENISH GRAY.SANDY SILT (ML) 15BG 4/1). -:• ••:. n o i i ! . DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SANO (SM) (5BG 4/1). IC --ye. moiSi In.] oi bonng at 29' Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environraental Seivices 131 North Third Street Philadelphia. PA 19106 215-627-4505 Log Of Boring and Well Completion SB-C2 / MW-3 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 8 0 8 ^cvI'itD iii-'i. JGY 29872.06.1 7/26/95 Top of Casing Elev. 2B.B3 PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE GROUT BENTONITE . ' • • - . • . 1 ii' I I :>-ie . - • • . » • . - • * . - • • . I OJ o c CD CQ 20 10 9 II M 13 12 10 12 M 14 ' 0) ° c OC — c (D OJ > a. 20 20 22 20 22 o o Equipment CME 65 OJ £ Q. g- I Elevation 26-^o Q t/5 Split Sooon D a t e 2 / ' / 9 5 LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/3), soft, moist _ ^ " " WHITE CALICHE (2.5Y 8/1). tiard. dry ~" OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). firm, dry, YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (lOY 5/4), soft, dry LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 6/4). loose, dry. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/4). j o i ; . 'Zr-j 10% line Sana, greenish gray "C'limg SG 5/1). 'rom aoprox. 18' OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 4/3). "'-•^•j^:.' -crje, mois;. greenisn gray molliing iSC ^ OLIVE BROWN GRAVELLY SAND (SP) (2.5Y 4/3) ^TO'i;"i l o o s - . ^ O ' S ! . 2Ci% ill;. tr.o 01 Boring al 2S' Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia, PA 191O6 215-627-4505 Log of Boring and Well Completion SB-D4 / MW^ ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 8 0 9 REVISEO 0«I- JGY 29872.06.1 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 SOIL BORING LOG Pagel of 1 COMPLETION DATE: 9/23/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.0 bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger - 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT AREA Boring No: SBCSD-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH IFeet) _0 "1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _13 ~14 15 16 17 "18 19 20 21 "22 23 24 25 26 RECOVERY linl 12 14 18 24 24 20 20 20 24 18 24 16 14 OVM IPPMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLOWS (per 6-| 7 7 6 6 4 7 10 12 4 7 5 8 4 5 11 12 7 14 14 20 4 15 16 16 4 6 7 10 4 7 11 14 6 7 10 14 3 4 5 6 3 6 10 14 4 8 9 14 4 12 17 23 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Firm brown silty SAND, dry. Soft tan CLAY, some/little sand, moist. Stiff tan sandy CLAY, wet. End of Boring @ 26.0' bgs. SAMPLES 16-18' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS 22-24' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS .0 "1 2 3 y 5 ^6 y y y ]io J I J 2 J 3 J4 J 5 J 6 J 7 J 8 J 9 ^20 ^21 "22 "23. ~24 "25 "26 O u> CO g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Central Storm Drain.xls 1/14/99 11:17/kM SOIL BORING LOG Pagel of 1 ^sm PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands COMPLETION DATE: 9/23/97 TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 24.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger - 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT AREA Boring No: SBCSD-2 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH (Feet) _0 1 2 3 " 4 5 " 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 26 RECOVERY (inl 2 0 12 12 10 14 18 18 22 16 16 24 2 0 20 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 BLOWS Iper 6-) 6 12 11 10 3 5 3 5 4 3 4 7 6 9 12 18 3 7 12 15 5 12 14 18 3 7 12 14 3 4 5 8 5 9 12 16 4 5 7 9 4 8 12 14 4 4 10 16 6 9 16 2 4 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Stiff brown silty SAND, some gravel, (unnatural backfill), dry. Soft brown silty CLAY, some stone fragments, dry. Firm brown silty CLAY, some stone fragments, dry. Stiff brown CLAY, some silt, dry. Firm grey silty CLAY, dry. Firm olive green silty CLAY, dry. Soft olive green silty CLAY, dry. Stiff olive green silty CLAY, dry. Very stiff grey/olive green silty CLAY, moist. End of Boring (g) 26.0' bgs. SAMPLES 18-20' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS 20-22' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS 0 ^1 2 3 y 5 ^6 7 y 9 JO J1 J 2 -13 J4 J 5 J6 J 7 J8 J9 "20 ^21 ~22 I24 "25 "26 (jJ O U! 00 g:/5taff/astanfil/islandlogs/Central Storm Drain.xls 1/14/99 11;17AM m i ^ COMPLETION DATE: 9/24/97 SOIL BOB PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site JNGLOG PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 26 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CT&E SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EOUIPMENT: BK-51 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 20.0' bgs. GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger - 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: PROCESS PIT AREA Page 1 of 1 Boring No: SBCSD-3 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH IFeetl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 " l 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 RECOVERY linl 20 20 10 8 16 10 18 6 • 20 20 12 0 OVM (PPMl 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLOWS (per 6"! 5 10 14 16 5 13 16 18 5 9 11 14 NA NA NA NA 7 7 11 14 7 14 15 20 14 12 10 14 5 7 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 4 5 10 NA NA NA NA 5 18 30 42 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture, Moisture. Etc. Stiff brown sandy SILT, trace fill material, dry. Stiff brown silty CLAY, trace gravel, dry. Firm brown silty CLAY, trace gravel, dry. Stiff brown silty CLAY, dry. Firm dark brown silty CLAY, dry. Firm olive/grey silty CLAY, moist. Firm black sandy SILT, wet. Hard black sandy SILT, wet. End of Boring @ 24.0' bgs. SAMPLES 10-12' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS 18-20' bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, METALS 0 1 2 ^3 4 .5 ^6 7 ^8 ^9 j o j i J2 J3 J4 J5 ]l6 J7 !l8 J9 ^20 -21 -22 "23 ~24 tjJ O CO 00 to g;/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/Central Storm Drain.xls 1/14/99 11:17 AM « SOIL BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 ITSlAL c/a "8/7 l ^ M Hare COMPLETION DATE: 9/30/97 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 14 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 12.5' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA W E U INSTALLED? No MEMO: RIVER GUT Boring No: SBRG-1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE PLATE 1 DEPTH IFeet) _0 J " 2 ^3 " 4 ^5 " 6 " 7 " 8 ^9 " 1 0 J I " 1 2 J 3 " 1 4 RECOVERY (inl 3 3 9 14 22 2 4 14 OVM (PPM) 0 0 4 100 0 0 0 BLOWS (per 6-) 1 2 3 2 4 8 5 4 4 10 20 20 10 15 13 15 42 4 0 41 50 28 30 30 32 28 36 50 50 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color, Texture. Moisture. Etc. Soft brown silty CLAY, some/little sand, dry. Firm light brown silt CLAY, little/trace fill material, dry. Stiff fill material and red/brown SAND, some grey silty clay, dry. Stiff brown SAND, some silt, trace rock fragments, dry. Red/brown silty CLAY, some gravel, dry. Hard light brown silty CLAY and SAND, dry. Hard light brown SAND, little silt, trace clay, dry. Hard light brown SAND, trace silt and clay, wet. End of boring @ 14.0' bgs. SAMPLES 8-10' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs,METALS 12-14' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs,METALS 0 j 2 y y 5 [6 7 y y j o j i J2 J 3 "14 o u» 00 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/RiverGut.xls 1/14/99 2:53 PM ESS'^ [ C O M P L E T I O N OATE: 9/30/97 viaren Hart SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 10 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) [DRILLING EQUIPMENT: 1 Tripod DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 10.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 1/4" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No MEMO: 1 RIVER GUT Boring No: Page 1 of 1 SBRG-2 1 LOCATION SKETCH 1 SEE PLATE 1 DEPTH IFeet) 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 RECOVERY linl 18 4 3 18 8 20 OVM (PPM) 0 0 0 0 6 60 BLOWS Iper 6-| 5 14 14 15 8 10 12 20 6 7 5 4 7 7 4 6 14 14 15 20 10 17 17 20 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture. Moisture. Etc. Soft light brown clayey SAND, dry. Soft light brown clayey SAND, moist. Stiff light brown very fine sandy CLAY, dry. Black GRAVEL fragments and brown SAND, dry. Medium-dense black GRAVEL, moist. Stiff brown CLAY, dry. End of boring @ 12.0' bgs. SAMPLES 1 2-4' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs,METALS 4-6' bgs. VOCs.SVOCs,METALS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '9 j o 11 12 O t o 00 l-> g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/RiverGut.xls 1/14/99 2:53 PM m'i COMPLETION DATE: 9/30/97 JCiaren Haft SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 PROJECT LOCATION: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands TOTAL DEPTH OF BOREHOLE: 10 Feet DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: OVM (PID) DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 10.0' bgs GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Hollow Stem Auger- 4 114" GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: NA WELL INSTALLED? No IMEMO: 1 RIVER GUT Boring No: Page 1 of 1 SBRG-3 LOCATION SKETCH SEE PLATE 1 DEPTH IFeet) _0 " 1 RECOVERY (in) OVM (PPMl BLOWS Iper 6-1 BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Color. Texture, Moisture, Etc. SAMPLES Drilled to 6' bgs. No split spoons collected. ~8 > "io 8 8 15 50 5 5 6 2 NA NA NA NA Firm light brown SAND, medium gravel and fill, dry. Firm black sandy CLAY, dry. Firm light brown SAND, some rock fragments, dry. Loose black GRAVEL, some silty CLAY, dry. Black coarse SAND, trace clay, dry. End of boring @ 10.0 bgs. 6-8' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs,METALS 8-10' bgs. VOCs,SVOCs,METALS 0 j 6 y y y "io o OJ 00 Ul g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/RiverGut.xls 1/14/99 2:54 PM APPENDIX G MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DLVGRAMS 303817 I op 0! casing Eiev. -'--~ PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING — CONCRETE GROUT ^ *^: i 1 • < » • 3.iC M I o c 7 6 II J 5 7 10 5 8 10 15 6 6 II 13 6 9 12 17 10 II 8 9 9 a 23 Ol c •o (D OJ ^1 > Q. o — 6 4 1129 I 5 J : 318 492 -15J 21.5 9 7 Q TD O Equipment ' ^ - 55 split Spoor. Elevation -S--' Date ''^Si^gs OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/4). soft, arv LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 5/4), soft, ary LIGHT OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y 5/4). loose, moist LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANO (SM) (2.5Y 5/6). loose, ary LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/6). soft, moist LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANO (SM) (2.5Y 5/6). loose, dry, w/ fine gravel Deiow aoDrox. 17' BGS OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). ••'P. mc St YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (lOY 5/6). 5.?.i;, ^""15;. M; 35% iine sa^ic DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5GY 4/1). S' *;. w.ri. v» :- ', s • -n.j ol trjonn.g a! H a r d i n g L e w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering and Environraental Services 131 North Third Street Phiiaaeiphia. PA I9106 215-627-4505 Log of Boring and Well Completion SB-Bl / MW-1 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 303818 JGY 29872.06.1 7/26/95 I 00 or .-;.': LaSinq £,g.; 31.53 fset MSL LOCK IMG COVE'. GrCVt:C 3UP.F^CE 5 C H E : ' J L £ CAS;:C S" Oii.'-iE': 50F.E-.OLE CHM£;-I7 GSOuT SE-L 3EiNT MITE PELLET SEiL 5/20 3AN0 PACK 4- OU.METE.^ SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLOTTED SCREEN 10.020-1 4- OU.'^ETES • SCHEDULE 40 PVC SILT TRAP BOTTOM OF BOKH.-'.OLE * Not Measured tn O C _1 — m CD > Q:: > o o tn — tD CL <-> a 01 o X — 19 20 22 20 22 Equipment '-'ooii? --^~ Elevation Logged by Oavic Ki-;:-ii; Date 05/30/95 Checkedby 0-'-^ 3/9 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL): inois; firm, fine gramec sana. plasiic. OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL) (2.5 Y 4/4): iTioist. medium aense. preaominatei'/ fine grameo sand, siicnt plasticity. Similar lo 10 to 12 feet, except 10-15% gravel to 2ilA inch maximuiTi and sana is meaium to coarse grainea. Similar to 15 to 17 feet OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL) (2 Y 6/8): moist, fine grameo sane (weathered granite?). PALE OLIVE (2.5 Y 6/41 mottling. OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL); similar lo 21.3 to 22.0 feet. OLIVE YELLOW CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM/SC); wet, medium dense, with 5-15,"; gravel to 1 men, sand is fine to medium grained. Similar to 24 to 26 fe-et except lS-25% gravel to 1 inch maximum. Similar to 24 to 26 fee: except percentage of clay increases Detween 29 and 30 feet (SC). Termmated Donng at 30 feel BGS at 1400. Pull 3.25 inch 10 hollow stem augers. Ream boring with 8 inch solid stem augers to 29 feet BGS. Install 4 inch ID .°VC monitoring well. Harding Lawson Associates Engineering ana Environmental Services 14 Washington Road BIdg 7 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 609-936-0700 Log Of Boring and Weil Completion MW-2 Island Chemical Company FIGURE St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands 303819 WGA JOB NUM8EP1 35241.2.12 08/10/96 3E/ISE0 pire .OD c Casmg PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE - I J'. 3.e iri o c i 3 11 13 10 6 6 7 10 10 10 7 7 B 10 a 10 _ OJ t CD C C - ' C3) c •a fD 01 ^1 > CL o — - O TD O Equipment Q. Q OJ CL S^'.'l Soc**'^' Elevation -£--^5 Date il 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- lo- ll- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21 22- 23- 24 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- OT: ^ DARK OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) (2.5Y 3/3), loose, dry GRAYISH BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (GM) (2.5Y 5/2). loose, dry OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3). soft, dry LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (2.5Y 5/3). soft, dry DARK GREENISH GRAY SANDY CLAY (CL) (5BG 4/1). soft, moist DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CL) (5BG 4/1). SC".. ."OS! DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) (5BG 4/1). I-:- $•?. moisi DARK GREENISH GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) (5BG 4/1). -•• •-. -.?.;:. DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SANO (SM) (5BG 4/1). IC :••;. r-.o.st : n - : o: bo'rng at 2':i Harding L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering ana Environmental Services 131 North Third Street PhilaaeiDhia. PA I9106 215-627-4505 Log of Boring and'Well Completion SB-C2 / MH-3 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 8 2 0 JGY 29872.06.1 7 / 2 6 / 9 5 Top Of Casmg Eiev. 28.63 PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE GROUT BENTONITE SEAL G ^ A V E . =A i 3 - C i 01 .c o c o 10 i2 10 9 6 6 6 7 5~ QJ •" o -f; C7) c '•o ro OJ ^1 > Q. o — O TD O Equipment ^^^ 65 Solit Soooh Elevation -6-3'' Date '/;5/9S LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5YR 5/4), soft, dry OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3). soft, dry: caliche noted tnrouGhc-ut scoon. aporoxiraateiy (10-25%) OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/3). soft. dry. less caliche than previous spoon, approximately (10%). OLIVE SILTY CLAY (CL) (5Y 5/4). soft, moist from approx. 10'. no caliche noted. DARK GREENISH GRAY SILTY SANO (SM) (5GY 4/1). loose, moist OLIVE SILTY CLAY (CL) (5Y 5/4). soft, moist OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 4/4). Iifrr,, "O'St. line gravei •• iu% OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY GRAVEL (GO (2.5Y 4/4). OLIVE BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) (2.5Y HA). Harainfl L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering ana Environmental Services 131 North Thira Street Philadelphia. PA I8I06 215-627-4505 Log Of Boring and Well Completion SB-DL/_MW-4 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 3 0 3 8 2 1 ^L . I J L L J A •- JSW 29872.06.1 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 Top of Casing ^!gv. 26.83 PROTECTIVE CASING GROUND SURFACE PVC CASING CONCRETE GROUT B E N T Q M - E i I • • • - " • • • » • • , • * • - « • 1 5 5 6 20 10 9 II 14 13 12 10 12 14 14 O L^ c TD ro OJ 2: o. > Q. o — 20 20 22 o TD O Equipment CME 65 J : CL 0) a rt) Q . E: ro c/) Spilt bPOOn Elevation ^6.4Q Date ^''^95 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/3). soft, moist WHITE CALICHE (2.5Y 8/1). hard. Cry OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 6/6). firm. dry. YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) (lOY 5/4). soft, dry LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY SANO (SM) (2.5Y 6/4). loose. Cry. LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL) (2.5Y 5/4). ;o-:. r:;iir;.: -5- V ;0?. i;r,e sane, -reenisn gray 5, ". Irom appro> 13 OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANO (SM) (2.5Y 4/3). ~~Z-.~ - Z i - . mcis:. a^?eri:sr. jrav .•^OMlin.; ; OLIVE BROWN GRAVELLY SAND (SP) (2.5Y 4/3). zr.-l o: bzr.rrz a\ 23 Haraino L a w s o n A s s o c i a t e s Engineering ana Environmental Services 131 North Third Street Philadelphia, PA 191O6 215-627-4505 JGY 29872.06.1 Log of Boring and Well Completion SB-D4 / MW-5 ICC St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 303822 =EV;3Ei C'A: 4 / 2 8 / 9 5 of PVC Casino 32.17 leet MSL' LOCKl'iG CO-/E-. C-rO'Jt:0 SURr C-S;MG r D U - E " BOREnCLE CE:'iE:'r GROUT SEAL BEi'lTOfllTE - PELLET SEAL 5/20 SANO PACK 4-OIAMET SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLOTTED SCREEN (0.Q20"1 4" C I A M E T E R SC:-i£DULE 40 PVC SILT TRAP BOTTOM OF - BOREHOLE 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ o o 0 .<= 0 :• Not Measurea O c _ i m CD UJ Ul > O! a " UJ.S cc — 10 4 5 4 7 9 12 10 10 4 9 10 6 8 10 3 7 8 7 7 7 7 13 19 12 16 18 25 25 25 19 16 8 9 11 13 t n c o > o O i n — - — T ~ liM 0 NM 5095 e Ol Q. O Q. Q..E •D X ro> OJ O IG 5541 108 19 8386 1250 22 9994 1800 22 8462 3700 16 9287 570 18 8947 193 20 6370 9200 16 5350 NM 6.9 NM 20 202 NM Equipment ±! l-lnAiii = - : : Elevation Date 05/31/96 Logged by - : ^ . ' i " "..;--e' Checl 00 to g;/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 1 1;59 A M MONITORING WELL LOG m^wF DRILLING EOUIPMENT: B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: MW-8 PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR ( DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 30.27' msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST ; OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 1 2/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD: N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 9.64' msl NOTE: Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION 63-73' bgs Metals VOCs SVOCs Drilled to 1 7' bgs. Drilled from 17' - 60' bgs. SAND, some silt and clay Zone of COBBLES from 70' - 7 2 ' bgs. Tight CLAY from 72' - 74' bgs. SAND from 74' • 75' bgs. End of boring at 75'. - ' 3 19 21 22 Concrete (0-2') 12" Borehole (0-35') Grout (2-35') 8" Steel Casing 10-35') 4 " Diameter PVC Riser (0-64') Cement/Bentonite Slurry (0-60') Bentonite (60-62') #1 Morie Sand (62-75') 4 " Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen (64-74') End Cap at 74 8" Borehole 303825 g:/staff/astanlil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 AM MONITORING WELL LOG Page 1 of 1 mm m DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 WELL INSTALLED' YES BORING NO.: MW-9 PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380.001 PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILUNCi CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD /BIT: Mud Notary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 26.78* msl GEOLOGIST /OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMFT.ING METHOD: N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 9.53' msl LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 L n SAMPLE NUMBER 64-74' bgs Metals VOCs SVOCs DESCRIPTION Spilt spoon samples not collected. Drilled to 17' bgs. Drilled from 17' - 32' bgs. Drilled from 36' - 60' bgs. SAND, some silt and clay Zone of COBBLES (rom 70' - 72' bgs. Tight CLAY from 72' - 74' bgs. SAND from 74' - 76' bgs. End of boring at 76' bgs. WELL CONSTRUCTION Concrete 10-2') _18 _I9 _21 22 112" Borehole IIO-32'I Grout - (2-32') 8" Steel Casing 10-32') 4" Diameter PVC Riser (O-64'l J2 _J3 34 _33 36 Generally CLAY, some silt. Cement/Bentonite Slurry jlO-60') Bentonite 160-62') #1 Morie Sand 162-76') 4- Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen 164-74'! End Cap at 74^ 8" Borehole o 00 to g;/stalf/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 AM MONITORINCJ WELL LOG Page 1 of 1 mm^ DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: MW-10 PROJECT NO,: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; CT&E DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 32.01' msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD: N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 10.11' msl NOTE; LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 SAMPLE NUMBER REC. I%l BLOWS (6- DESCfllPTlON WELL CONSTRUCTION Split Spoon Samples not collected. Drilled to 17' bgs. 22-32' bgs Metals VOCs SVOCs Concrete 10-2') Drilled from 17' - 33' bgs. End of boring at 33' bgs. Grout - (2-18') Bentonite (18-20') #1 Morie Sand (20-33') 4" Diameter PVC Riser (0-22') 4" Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen (22-32') End Cap at 32' OJ c CO 00 to g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 12:14 PM MONITORING WELL LOG E S S ' ^ ^ DRILLING EOUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: MW-11 (GWPP-29A) PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 38.17' msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD; N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 6.29' msl NOTE; Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IfT.I SAMPLE NUMBER REC. I%l DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION 30-40' bgs VOCs 50 50 75 50 Drilled to 26' bgs. Drilled from 26' - 30' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, trace sand. dry. Medium brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Medium brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Medium brown CLAY, some coarse sand, little gravel, dry. Medium brown CLAY, some gray silty clay and gravel, dry. Drilled Irom 38' - 40' bgs. End ol boring at 40* bgs. Concrete IO-2'I 4" Diameter PVC Riser (0 to 30'1 Cement/Bentonite Slurry (0-26') Bentonite (26-28') #1 Morie Sand 128-40') 4" Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen I30-40'1 End Cap at 4 0 ' o CO 0 0 t o 00 g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls ICC Well Logs.xls MW-11 MONITORING WELL LOG m i v [DRILLING EOUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: M W - 1 2 (GWPP-29A) PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380,001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: | 3 8 . 4 6 ' msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST / OFFICE; N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION OATE: 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER; SAMPLING METHOD; N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL; 5.18' msl NOTE: Page 1 of 3 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH (FT.l SAMPLE NUMBEP REC. BLOWS /6" DESCRIPTION Drilled lo 3 0 ' bgs. WELL CONSTRUCTION Concrete (0-2-) - 3 0 31 _ 32 1-33 34 35 36 37 - -38 - 3 9 - 4 0 -"' 42 1-43 44 -45 - 46 -47 1-48 1 49 -50 _51 -52 _53 -54 -55 50 SO 75 50 90 75 75 60 Medium brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Medium brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. Medium brown CLAY, trace sand. dry. Medium brown CLAY, some coarse sand, little gravel, dry. Medium brown CLAY, some gray silty clay and gravel, dry. Drilled from 38' - 42' bgs. Medium brown and gray CLAY, trace fine sand. dry. Medium brown and gray CLAY, trace line sand, dry. Medium brown and gray CLAY, trace line sand, dry. Medium brown and gray CLAY, trace line sand, dry. Medium brown coarse SANO, some clay, little gravel, slightly moist. 4" Diameter PV 10-137') Cement/Benton t ! ! - [ g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 A M . MONITORING WELL LOG Page 2 of 3 m^n m DRILLING EQUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.; MW-12 (GWPP-29A) PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 38.46' msl STATIC WATER LEVEL: 5.18' msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE; N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 12/6/97 SAMPLING METHOD: N/A PERMIT NUMBER; LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER REC. 1%! DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION 75 50 50 50 100 Drilled Irom 50' - 58' bgs. Medium brown coarse SAND, some clay, little gravel, dry. Grayish white CLAY, little silt .trace gravel, hard, dry. Drilled from 60' - 65' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, trace silt. Drilled from 67' - 70' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, trace silt. Drilled from 72' - 75' bgs. Medium gray CLAY, little sand. Drilled Irom 77' - 80' bgs. Cement/Bentonite Slurry 10 - 133') Intermixed medium brown/ light gray CLAY, trace silt, dry. Drilled Irom 82' - 85' bgs. g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 A M MONITORING WELL LOG Page 3 of 3 DRILLING EQUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 38.46' msl BORING NO,; M W - 1 2 (GWPP-29A) PROJECT NO,: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; CTE PRILLING METHOD / BIT; Mud Rotary Tricone PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE; N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER; SAMPLING METHOD; N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL; 5.18' msl LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I 147 148 J 49 150 SAMPLE NUMBER REC, l%l 100 50 137-147' bgs VOCs 137-147' bgs VOCs DESCRIPTION Intermixed medium brown/ light gray CLAY, trace silt, dry. Drilled from 87' - 90' bgs. Light brown/gray CLAY, some silt, little coarse sand. dry. Drilled Irom 92' - 100' bgs. Drilled from 102' - 133' bgs. Drilled from 102' - 150' bgs. End of boring at 150' bgs. i f iCement/Bentonite Slurry (0 - 1 33') 100 _101 102 100 Light brown/ white clay, some silt, trace TOC'H.. Bentonite (133-135') *l\McrieSand I135.147'l 4" Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen 1147-137'! End Cap 147' 8" Borehole 1_133 148 ! O - i ^ 149 ' 0 0 C J 150 ' l~^ g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 A M MONITORING WELL LOG m^wp DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.; MW-1 3 (GWPP-37A) PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT; Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 38.38' msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST / OFFICE; N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD; N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 6.42' msl NOTE: Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER REC. I%l DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION Drilled to 25' bgs. 30-40' bgs VOCs 75 100 100 Medium brown CLAY, little sand, dry. Drilled from 2 7 ' - 30' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, some sand, little gravel, dry. Medium brown SAND, some gravel, moist. Concrete (0-2') I Drilled from 3 4 ' - 40' bgs. End of boring at 4 0 ' bgs. Cement/Bentonite Slurry (0 - 26') Bentonite (26-28') 4 " Diameter PVC Riser (0-30') Itt Morie Sand 128-40') 4 " Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen (30-40') 8" Borehole End Cap at 40;_ CJ O CJ CO CJ to g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 12:13 PM MONITORING WELL LOG ras'^r DRILLING EQUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: MW-14 (GWPP-37) PROJECT NO,: 12080,5380,001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 38.44' msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD; N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL; 7.02' msl NOTE; Page 1 of 4 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION 25 26 27 Concrete (O-2'l Drilled to 25' bgs. 100 100 100 60 Medium brown CLAY, little sand, dry. Drilled from 27' - 30' bgs. Medium brown CLAY, some sand, little gravel, dry. Medium brown SAND, some gravel, slightly moist. Drilled from 34' - 4 0 ' bgs. Grayish brown CLAY, some silt and coarse gravel, dry. Medium brown SAND, some coarse gravel, little silt, dry. Cement/Bentonite Slurry (0 - 1 1 8 ' ) - Drilled from 4 2 ' - 50' bgs. 8" Borehole *m C J o C J 0 0 C J C J g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 A M MONITORING WELL LOG Page 2 of 4 m^n m DRILLING EQUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 38.44' msl BORING NO.; MW-14 (GWPP-37) PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone STATIC WATER LEVEL: 7.02' msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/ OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 12/6/97 SAMPLING METHOD: N/A PERMIT NUMBER: LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER REC, l%l DESCRIPTION 100 100 100 100 100 100 Medium brown CLAY, little sand and gravel, moist. 4" Diameter PVC Riser 10-124') Drilled from 52' - 60' bgs. Medium brown and grayish CLAY, little loose sand. dry. Grayish CLAY, trace sand and gravel, drt. Cement/Bentonite Slurry (0 - 118')- Gray CLAY, little sand and gravel, dry. Medium brown CLAY, some sand and dark brown gravel, slightly moist. Drilled from 68' - 75' bgs. Medium brown SAND, some clay, trace gravel, slightly moist, g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 AM MONITORING WELL LOG Page 3 of 4 DRILLING EQUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.; M W - 1 4 (GWPP.37) (PROJECT MO.; 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 3 8 . 4 4 ' msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST /OFFICE; N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 12/6/97 SAMPLING METHOD; N/A PERMIT NUMBER: STATIC WATER LEVEL: 7.02' msl LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER DESCRIPTION WELL CONSTRUCTION ,103 104 105 Cement/Bentonite Slurry ( 0 - 1 1 8'l Drilled from 7 7 ' - 85' bgs. 100 Medium brown CLAY, trace sand, dry. 100 Light brown stiff CLAY, some fine sand, trace sandstone, dry. 100 White CLAY, some silt, dry. 100 Stiff CLAY, some weathered sand stone, dry. Cement/Bentonite. Slurry (0 - 118')- .102 103 • I w 107 ' CO 108 cn g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/ICC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 1 1:59 A M MONIT0RING2WELL LOG m^v DRILLING EOUIPMENT; B-80 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.; M W - 1 4 (GWPP-37) PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: CTE DRILLING METHOD / BIT: Mud Rotary Tricone GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 3 8 . 4 4 ' msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE: N.Eichlin/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 12/6/97 PERMIT NUMBER: SAMPLING METHOD: N/A STATIC WATER LEVEL: 7.02' msl NOTE: Page 4 of 4 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-5 DEPTH IFT.I _109 110 i n 112 J 13 -114 115 -116 -117 - l i s 119 120 121 122 123 124 -125 126 127 128 - 130 131 132 _133 -134 SAMPLE NUMBER 124-134' bgs REC. I%1 45 85 BLOWS /6- DESCRIPTION Drilled from 92' - 110' bgs. Light gray/ brown CLAY, little silt, sand, pieces of bedrock, dry. Drilled from 11 2' - 1 20' bgs. Light gray/ brown stiff CLAY, little sand and pieces of bedrock, dry. Drilled from 122' - 134' bgs. End of boring 134' bgs WELL 1 REMARKS CONSTRUCTION j 4- Diameter 0.020 1124-134'! End cap at 134' m 1 ^ ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' H 1 11 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *' .126 127 CJ o CJ 00 CJ g:/staff/astanfil/islandlogs/lCC Well Logs.xls 1/14/99 11:59 A M MONITORING WELL LOG m i ^ DRILUNG EQUIPMENT: BK-51 WEU INSTALUD? YES BORING NO.: TW-01 PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILUNG CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech DRILUNG METHOD / BIT: Hollow-Stem Auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 30.45 feet above msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE; C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 9/16/97 PERMIT NUMBER: N/A SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon STATIC WATER LEVEL Approx 24' bgs NOTE: Page 1 o< 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-8 DEPTH IFT.I - - 2 SAMPLE NUMBER REC. linl 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 - 2 8 29 14" 20- 24- BLOWS /«• DESCRIPTION Drilled to 20' bgs. 7 10 10 12 11 18 18 23 10 23 23 18 Greenish medium SAND, some silt and gravel. Gray, silty SAND, some clay. Silty SAND w/ carbonate, rock fragnnenta. Moisture encountered at 24' bgs. Gray, medium GRAVEL, dry. Gray, gravelly CLAY. Drilled to 29' bgs. End of boring at 29' bgs. WELL REMARKS CONSTRUCTION 1^ (0-5') Note: Natural formation not used due to high 0 VM reading in drill cuttings. (0-19') 2" Diameter 0.020 (19-29') End Cap at 29' H 1 1 ^1 ^ i * ;;;•:!;• r i i % i : ; ^ i : 9 fi a n Wm • ^m Hffl W:i % ;:i:::! :;::iii)-i;li^ W$: : : ' : • ; W\ 28 29 g:\staff\common\lcc_n\logs\weH logs2.xls 303837 MONITORING WELL LOG E!W° DRILLING EQUIPMENT: BK-51 WEU. INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: TW-02 PROJECT NO.: 12080.6380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILUNG CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech DRILUNG METHOD / BIT; Hollow-Stem Auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 31.10 feet above msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE; C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE; 9/16/97 PERMIT NUMBER; N/A SAMPLING METHOD; Split Spoon STATIC WATER LEVEL; Approx 21' bgs NOTE: Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-8 DEPTH IFT.) - 2 SAMPLE NUMBER REC. linl 20 21 22 23 24 - 2 6 26 10- 9- BLOWS le- DESCRIPTION Drilled to 20' bgs. 5 17 24 26 14 20 23 26 Sandy, clayey, f-m GRAVEL, med brown, some fragments of carbonate rooks, trace vole, rock fragments. Silty sandy CLAY w/ f-m gravel. Moisture encountered. Drilled to 26' bgs. End of boring at 26' bgs. REMARKS WELL CONSTRUCTION 1 9 Bentonite (14-16') > 2- Diameter PVC Riser (0-16') 2" Diameter 0.020 Slot PVC Screen (16-26') End Cap at 26' • h.S '(f0 III M ' ^ ^ 9 • I g:VstafAcommon\lcc_n\logs\well logs2.xls 303838 MONITORING WELL LOG fmrni^m Dffl Hi m DRILLING EQUIPMENT BK-51 w a L INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: TW-03 PROJECT NO.; 12080.5380.001 LOCATION; St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTecti DRILLING METHOD / BTT; Hollow-Stem Auger GROUND SURFACE aEVATION: 31.63 feet above msl PROJECT NAMe Island Ctiemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE CSctineider/Wan-en COMPLETION DATE: 9/18/97 PBtMIT NUMBER: N/A SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon STATIC WATER LEVEL: Approx 24' bgs NOTE; Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-8 OBTH IFT.I 2 SAMPLE NUMBER REC. linl 22 23 24 25 26 -2T -28 29 I S - O- BLOWS /6- DESCRIPTION Drilled to 2 2 ' bgs. i e 12 17 32 5 0 CLAY, some SILT, dk-med brown. Moist. Med gray med SAND, some-little SILT. Slightly moist, silty CLAY w/ f-o gravel, carb/volc rock frag. Moisture encountered at 24' bgs. Refusal Spoon wet at bottom 3 " Free water in augers 0 - 2 " ) Drilled to 2 9 ' bgs. End of boring at 29' bgs. REMARKS (0-191) 2- Diameter PVC Riser (0-22) 2- Diameter 0 . 0 2 0 (19-29) End Cap at 2 9 ' WELL 1 CON 5TRUCTI0N 1 1 1 IliiB lil il SilS ii W i 1 iii Ni^iiij: Iii iii i:^ii:^^iii IB iiiiiiiiii; sili ^ M 1 ^H iiiii 3BS iii;S ;:;:i:;ii-:ii ^§M} IMi '^••0:' J 2 .19 20 .21 .22 23 24 .25 26 27 28 29 g:\stafr«:oninion\lcc_rl\logs\weB logs2.xls 303839 MONITORING WELL LOG m'w ORILUNG EQUIPMENT: BK-51 WELL INSTALLED? YES SORING NO.: TW-04 PROJECT NO.: 12080.6380.001 LOCATION: St.Croix U.S. Virgin Islands DRILUNG CONTRACTOR / DRILLER; SoilTech DRILUNG METHOD / BIT: Hollow-Stem Auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION; 30.61 feet above msl PROJECT NAME; Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST/OFFICE: C.SchneiderAA/arren COMPLETION DATE; 9/19/97 PERMIT NUMBER: N/A SAMPLING METHOD; Split Spoon STATIC WATER LEVEL Approx 27" bgs NOTE; Page 1 of 1 LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-8 DEPTH IFT.I SAMPLE NUMBER REC. linl DESCRIPTION Drilled t o 2 2 ' bgs. 1 6 - 1 4 - 20 20 22 14 8 13 19 22 Light b r o w n , sandy SILT, some medium gravel, dry. Moisture encountered at 2 4 ' bgs. Light b r o w n , sandy SILT, some clay, medium gravel, dry. Drilled t o 3 2 ' bgs. End of boring at 3 2 ' bgs. Natural Formation (0-19') Bentonite (19-21') 2 " Diameter PVC Riser (0-22') 2 " Diameter 0 . 0 2 0 Slot PVC Screen - (22-32') End Cap at 32'. g:\slafr\common\lcc_riMogs\wel! logs2.xls 303840 MONITORING WELL LOG Page 1 of 1 mw DRILLING EQUIPI^ENT: BK-51 WELL INSTALLED? YES BORING NO.: TW-05 PROJECT NO.: 12080.5380.001 LOCATION: StCroix U.S. virgin Islands DRILLING CONTRACTOR / DRILLER: SoilTech DRILLING METHOD/BIT: Hollow-Stem Auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 32.14 feet above msl PROJECT NAME: Island Chemical Site GEOLOGIST / OFFICE: C.Schneider/Warren COMPLETION DATE: 9/20/97 PERMIT NUMBER: N/A SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon STATIC WATER LEVEL: Approx 27" bgs NOTE: LOCATION SKETCH SEE FIGURE 3-8 DEPTH IFT.I 1 2 SAMPLE NUMBER REC. linl BLOWS /8- DESCRIPTION Drilled to 20' bgs. 20 21 22 23 24 - 2 5 26 _27 _ _28 29 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Brown, clayey silt, moist. Brown, clayey silt, moist. Drilled to 30' bgs. End of boring at 30' bgs. REMARKS (0-18') RpntnnltP (17-10') j 2 ' Diameter PVC Riser ^ (0-20') 2" Diameter 0.020 (20-30') (19-30') End Cap at 30' WELL CON STRUG TIOJ^ 1 1 ffi^ "P' > • ^^^ H 1 2 20 .21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 g:\staf(\common\lcc_ri\logs\well logs2j(ls 303841 ^ 303842 APPENDIX I HYDROGEOLOGICAL INFORMATION 303843 o CO 00 1 MW-2 Slug Test - *" '~' <^ 'H. cn (3 1 DATA SET: 10. 1. 0.1 0.01 n nn 1 ! d 1 II 1111111 1 II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111II1111111111h J 3»L —^ - V "k, ^ \ " X - ^ ^ - ~ ^ \ i - - eWv. • - \ 000 \ cocoooo \ 0 OCO OCO 0 ^ \ 00 0 0 - 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0. 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12. T i m e ( m i n ) • : nM2r e t 2 . d i t 0 2 / 0 S / < B AQUI FER TYPE: Uneonf i ned SOLUTl ON METHOD: Bouwflr• R) ce ESTI li^TED PARAMETERS: K • 0.002043 f t / m l n yO • 1.1SS f t TEST DATA: HO » 1.»47 r t r c • 0. 17 f t rw - 0 . 4 2 r t L • 10. (1 b • 75. ( t H - 6 . 2 7 «t LO O CO 00 cn 1 MW-7 Falling Head Slug Test 10, ::: i . 01 CJ P. in O 0.1 0.01 0 ^ 11II1111111 II II 1 II 1 1 1 1 II l i 1 1 1 II II II II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 k ) ^ " \ - \ - ~ \ r \ \ ) - Voo - \ 0 0 0 0 \ 0 o o o o 0 OOO - \ ° \ 1 111111111111111111111 I N 111111111111 2. 4. e. 8. 10. T i m e ( m i n ) DATA SET: a: fnw7a. d a t 0 1 / 1 8 / 3 8 AQUI FER TYPE: U n e o n f 1 ned SOLUTl ON METHOD: Bouwer • Rl ea ESTI MATED PARAMETERS: K • 0 . 0 0 4 8 8 2 t i l n i n yO • 5 . 7 2 8 f t TEST DATA: 1 HO • 3 . 3 8 8 f l r c • 0. 187 r i r w • 0. 333 r i L • 1 0 . 11 b • 5 1 . O B r t H • 5 1 . 0 8 ( t G:\STAFF\AGULAT\ICC\Slug Test\MW7FDRAW.wpd o u> 00 - J 00 n> c f^ oo CJ) c (^ CN OO CJ) c R] 4 CM CO CJ) c ra cj) IM CO cp c ^ (^ 00 0 ) c "7 CO - • - H e a d (ft) CO a> A 01 u. Date oo o> A 0) Li. C^J —H— oo a> A a> u. A oo O) Jl LL 4 Rainfall (in) 00 •? . LL llS CO O) j i Ll. ttb ? i. ." Ll. f i 00 CJ) rt 0) Ll. OO CJ) A u. oo jll 0) 11. o6 M W - 2 - Jan-Mar 98 (Graph 2) Sf\ VIRGIN ISLAND CHPMICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH - MW-6 1/22/98-2/11/98 16.3 0.18 o> c -) « CO 9 c ra ^ CO CJ) c —i 4 CM 00 °? t : - 5 uS CM CO O) c ra -> (O CM CO O) c ra 7 CM 00 O) c ro —3 cl> CM CO CJ) c ra c^ CM CO CJ) c ra ^ CO oo o> c 7 00 2 u. oo CJ) J) Ll. C^ OO 2 Ll. cS S rt 41 OO O) il lU oo CJ) A CJ) d: ra -? Head (ft) oo i l (U LL ^ Date CO O) rt 0) LL CM - H — O) cn A 0) LL (^ OJ cn i l 01 u. 4 Rainfall (in) CO LL ob 98 9 i l ci oo i l ."" 6 PP ^ T ^ MW-7 - Jan-Mar 98 (Graph 2) 20 :^Rii VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH - MW-8 1/22/98 - 2/11/98 -0.16 0.18 f-0.00 CO o CO CO cn o 03 cn c ra -^ ^ 00 O) c m —) ^ 00 C7) C 03 ~5 ^ 00 o> c (D • " ) i^ 00 cn c ra CN CO cn c ra —> 5^ OO O) c (0 " 3 CO CN CO CJ) rt m ^ CO 0 ) c ro -> CO - • - H e a d (ft) oo cn rt 0) LL Date 00 i l Li. c^ o) oo O) cn i) il d) 0) LL LL cA 4 —B-Rainfall (in) 03 cn i l LL «b S9 C3> i l 4 CM CO cn c 7 u> CM CO cn (= ro -? ub CM CO ro c!: -> ri CM CO (L ra ob CM CO m c ra d) CM CO ro c ra -? 6 ( 0 CO ro c ra 7 CO -•-Head (ft) 00 ^ LL ^ Date O) ro i l ro i l LL ub 00 i l lU LL (£> CO i l 0) LL r^ oo ro i l ID LL ob CO ro i l 0) LL ci oo i l Ll. cb • r - S9 9 i l Ll. V— *- P-2 - Jan-Mar 98 (Graph 2) 9P\/I! VIRGIN ISLAND I P M l C A L SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - MW-7 10/8/98-10/20/98 T 0.35 CO o CO CO cn to Date •Head •Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/MW-7.xls IB/ii VIRGIN ISLAND v3iB\i1ICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - MW-8 10/06/98-10/19/98 T 0.35 18.57 18.47 17.67 CO o l O CO Ul CO g •5 O ub ca O h- g t j O CO § "o O O) s ts o o 00 O) I O O) CD CO ro O 00 ro CO ro o O ub 00 °? J. o O ub 00 ro o O ri oo ro o O c6 00 ro O cA Date •Head Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/MW-8.xls 9H/II VIRGIN ISLAND CJWBMlCAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - MW-9 10/06/98-10/20/98 20.6 CO o CO 00 cn 0.35 - 0.30 Date •Head •Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hyc)rographs/MW-9.xls iflR/ii VIRGIN ISLAND 5BKMICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - MW-12 10/21/98-11/25/98 22.3 22.1 21.9 "5 21.7 o 21.5 21.3 21.1 20.9 OJ o CO CO cn cn 20.7 -r 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 - 2.00 .£ 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o c o o o o o o o o o rororororororororororororororororororororo o o o o o o o o c o o o o o c o o o c o c o c o o o c o o o c o rororororororororororororo o o o o o 0 0 0 9 0 , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C M c o 4 m ( o r ^ c o r o c j ^ - T ^ c M c o 4 i r t c D C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M f O C O 0 0 0 O O O O > o g g o o o o z z z z g g z z g z ob cb T^ CM rb 4 ub CM CM CM CM CM CM Date •Head •Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/MW-12.xls iSR VIRGIN ISLAND 8HPMICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - MW-14 10/21/98-11/25/98 23.5 0) u 3 •o W c 0) > o (0 T 4.50 4.00 + 3.50 3.00 2.50 S cr 22.5 V .« TJ re 0) X 21.5 CO o CO CO cn 2.00 c 1.50 OD ro g z CO ro > o Z S z 00 ro 1 z 00 ro 2 g g Z CM CM CO CM i n CM CM Date •Head Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/MW-14.xls SR/ii VIRGIN ISLAND aBfMlCAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - P-1 10/14/98-10/18/98 16.18 CO o CO 00 cn 15.93 T 0.35 + 0.30 0.25 + 0.20 S + 0.15 5 + 0.10 4- 0.05 0.00 Date •Head Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/P-1.xls # JBMI VIRGIN ISLAND JWMICAL SITE HYDROGRAPH, RAINFALL DATA - P-2 10/06/98-10/19/98 19.7 -1 CO o CO 00 cn 00 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 i U 1 0.15 I 0.10 0.05 0.00 Date •Head Rainfall g:/staff/kroek/lcc/hydrographs/P-2.xls # ^ 303859 APPENDIX J REVISED FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Virgin Island Chemical Site St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Prepared for: Berlex Laboratories, Inc. 15049 San Pablo Avenue P.O. Box 4099 Richmond, CA 94804 and Pharmacia & Upjohn 7171 Portage Road Kalamazoo, MI 49001 October 2000 303860 REVISED FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS OCTOBER 2000 3 0 3 8 6 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 OVERVIEW :.. 1-2 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 1-3 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 SITE MODEL AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 2-1 2.2 DATA COLLECTION 2-2 2.3 DATA EVALUATION 2-2 2.3.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concem 2-2 2.3.2 Development of Exposure Point Concentrations 2-7 3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 3-1 3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF PHYSICAL SETTING 3-1 3.1.1 Current Water Use 3-2 3.1.2 Gut System 3-2 3.2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND POTENTIALLY-EXPOSED POPULATIONS 3-3 3.2.1 Current Land Use 3-3 3.2.2 Future Land Use 3-3 3.3 QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES 3-4 3.3.1 Exposure Intakes 3-5 3.3.2 Exposure Parameter Values 3-5 3.3.2.1 Exposure Time 3-5 3.3.2.2 Exposure Frequency 3-6 3.3.2.3 Exposure Duration 3-6 3.3.2.4 Inhalation Rate 3-6 3.3.2.5 Particulate Emission Factor 3-6 3.3.2.6 Volatilization Factor 3-6 3.3.2.7 Ground Water Ingestion Rate 3-7 3.3.2.8 Exposed Skin Surface Area 3-7 3.3.2.9 Dermal Absorption 3-7 3.3.2.10 Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 3-8 3.3.2.11 Soil higestion Rate 3-9 3.3.2.12 Body Weight 3-9 3.3.2.13 Averaging Time 3-9 3.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 3-10 3.3.4 Exposure Intakes 3-10 4.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 4-1 4.1 DOSE RESPONSE 4-1 4.2 NON-CARCINOGENIC RESPONSE 4-2 4.3 CARCINOGENIC RESPONSE 4-3 -1- 3 0 3 8 6 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SECTION PAGE 5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 5-1 5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION 5-1 5.2 CARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION 5-2 5.3 EVALUATION OF RISK ESTIMATES 5-2 5.4 RISK ESTIMATES 5-2 5.4.1 Current Land Use 5-3 5.4.1.1 Adult Trespasser 5-3 5.4.1.2 Pre-Adolescent Trespasser 5-3 5.4.2 Future Land Use 5-4 5.4.2.1 Industrial/Commercial Worker 5-4 5.4.2.2 Construction Worker 5-5 5.4.2.3 Adult Resident 5-6 5.4.2.4 Child Resident....: 5-6 5.4.2.5 Addition of the Adult and Child Resident 5-6 5.5 RISK DRIVERS 5-7 5.5.1 Current Land Use 5-7 5.5.2 Future Land Use..... 5-7 5.5.2.1 Adult Trespasser 5-7 5.5.2.1 Industrial/Commercial Worker 5-7 5.5.2.2 Construction Worker 5-8 5.5.2.3 Adult Resident 5-8 5.5.2.4 Child Resident ...5-8 5.5.2.5 Addition of Adult and Child Resident 5-8 5.6 QUALITATIVE UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 5-9 5.6.1 Representative Chemical and Exposure Point Concentrations 5-9 5.6.2 Environmental Fate and Transport 5-10 5.6.3 Exposure Assumptions 5-11 5.6.3.1 Completeness of Exposure Pathway 5-11 5.6.3.2 Human Behavior 5-12 5.6.3.3 Chemical Exposures other than Site-related 5-12 5.6.4 Soil higestion Rate 5-12 5.6.5 Dermal Absorption 5-13 5.6.6 Inhalation 5-13 5.6.7 Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Criteria 5-14 5.6.8 Carcinogenic Toxicity Criteria 5-14 5.6.9 Absence of Chemical or Route-Specific Toxicity Values 5-15 5.6.10 LeadasaCOPC 5-15 5.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY 5-16 6.0 REFERENCES 6-1 '2" 3 0 3 8 6 3 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A 95% UCL Calculations ATTACHMENT B Shower Model for Estimation of Exposure Point Concentrations LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE 1 Selection of Exposure Pathways 2.1 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concem - Groundwater, Offsite Production Wells 2.2 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concem - Surface Soil 2.3 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern - Soil/Sediment 2.4 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern - Groundwater, Onsite 2.5 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concem — Subsurface Soil 3.1 Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary - Surface Soil 3.2 Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary - Sediment 3.3 Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary - Groundwater 4.1 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Adult A.l Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 4.3 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Adult 4.4 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 4.5 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Groundwater, Industrial/Commercial Workers 4.6 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Surface Soil, Industrial/Commercial Workers 4.7 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Soil/Sediment. Industrial/Commercial Workers 4.8 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Surface Soil, Construction Worker 4.9 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Soil/Sediment, Construction Worker 4.10 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Groundwater, Resident, Adult 4.11 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations - Groundwater, Resident, Child 5.1 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal 5.2 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data - Inhalation 6.1 Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal 6.2 Cancer Toxicity Data - Inhalation 7.1 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Adult 7.2 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Trespasser, Adult '^' 3 0 3 8 6 4 7.3 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent l.A Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 7.5 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Adult 7.6 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Trespasser, Adult 1.1 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 7.8 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 7.9a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Industrial/Commercial 7.9b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Industrial/Commercial 7.10a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Air, Industrial/Commercial 7.10b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Air, Industrial/Commercial 7.11 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Industrial/Commercial 7.12 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Industrial/Commercial 7.13 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Industrial/Commercial 7.14 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Industrial/Commercial 7.15a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Construction Worker 7.15b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Surface Soil, Construction Worker 7.16a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Construction Worker 7.16b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Surface Soil, Air, Construction Worker 7.17 CalculationofNon-Cancer Hazards, RME-iS'oz7/S'e£//wen/, Construction Worker 7.18 Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Construction Worker 7.19a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Resident, Adult 7.19b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Resident, Adult 7.20a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Adult 7.20b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Adult 1.2\a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Resident, Child 7.21b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Resident, Child 7.22a Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, RME - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Child 7.22b Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, CT - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Child 8.1a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Adult 8.1b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Adult 8.2a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Trespasser, Adult 8.2b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Surface Soil, Air, Trespasser, Adult 8.3 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Trespasser, Pre-Adolescent -4- 3 0 3 8 6 5 8.4 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 8.5 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Adult 8.6 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Trespasser, Adult 8.7 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Trespasser, Pre-Adolescent 8.8 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 8.9a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.9b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.10a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Air, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.10b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Air, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.11a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.11b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Surface Soil, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.12 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.13 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.14 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Industrial/Commercial Worker 8.15 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Construction Worker 8.16 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Surface Soil, Air, Construction Worker 8.17 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Construction Worker 8.18 Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Soil/Sediment, Air, Construction Worker 8.19a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Resident, Adult 8.19b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Resident, Adult 8.20a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Adult 8.20b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Adult 8.21a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Resident, Child 8.21b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Resident, Child 8.22a Calculation of Cancer Risks, RME - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Child 8.22b Calculation of Cancer Risks, CT - Groundwater, Air, Resident, Child 9.1a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Trespasser, Adult 9.1a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, CT - Trespasser, Adult 9.2 Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Trespasser, Pre- Adolescent 9.3a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Industrial/Commercial Worker 9.3b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, CT - Industrial/Commercial Worker 9.4a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Construction Worker 9.4b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, CT - Construction Worker 9.5a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Resident, Adult -5- 3 0 3 8 6 6 9.5b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, CT - Resident, Adult 9.6a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, RME - Resident, Child 9.6b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards For COPCs, CT -Resident, Child 9.7a Summary of Receptor Risks For COPCs, RME - Resident, Adult + Child 9.7b Summary of Receptor Risks For COPCs, CT -Resident, Adult + Child 10.1 Risk Assessment Summary, RME - Trespasser, Adult 10.2a Risk Assessment Summary, RME -/nJM5?n'(3//Commeraa/fForfer 10.2b Risk Assessment Summary, CT - Industrial/Commercial Worker 10.3 Risk Assessment Summary, RME - Construction Worker 10.4a Risk Assessment Summary, RME - i?e.szJe«f, yiJw// 10. 4b Risk Assessment Summary, CT - Resident, Adult 10. 5a Risk Assessment Summary, RME - Resident, Child 10. 5b Risk Assessment Summary, CT - Resident, Child 10. 6a Risk Assessment Summary, RME - Resident, Adult + Child 10. 6b Risk Assessment Summary, CT - Resident, Adult + Child 3 03 867 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted for the Virgin Island Chemical (VICHEM) Site (the "VICHEM Site" or the "Site") located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands in accordance with the U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan (Harding Lawson Associates [HLA] 1994), the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the Site, and EPA risk assessment guidance documents including: • • • • Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A - Interim Final (EPA 5.6); Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessments (EPA 1990a^; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Supplemental Guidance "Standard Default Exposure Factors " (EPA 1991a); Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals - Interim (EPA 1991b^; Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (EPA 1992a); Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (EPA 1992b); • Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I - III: General Factors - Review Draft (EPA 1996aj; • Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I-III: General Factors (EPA, 1997b); • Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments -Interim (EPA 1998J; and • Other federal or regional EPA documents, as appropriate. The risk assessment was performed to provide an analysis of the potential Site-related health risks to human receptors to: (1) evaluate the need for future response actions; (2) provide a basis for assessing concentrations of hazardous substances that may remain onsite without adversely affecting human health; and (3) provide a basis for comparing potential health impacts of various remedial action altematives and technologies. CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN The HHRA evaluated the potential human health risks associated with exposure to chemicals of potential concem (COPCs) detected in groundwater, soil, and soil/sediment samples that were collected during the four phases of the remedial investigation (RI). The maximum ES-1 3 0 3 8 6 8 concentrations of constituents detected in these media were used in a screening process to develop a focused list of COPCs for evaluation in the risk assessment. The following COPCs were identified for each of the media evaluated: • Groundwater (Onsite Monitoring/Production Wells) ^ Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Methylene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol Isophorone 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium (total) Iron Lead Manganese Vanadium Groundwater (Offsite Production Wells) No COPCs identified Soil/Sediment in Gut System Aluminum Arsenic Chromium (total) Iron Manganese Vanadium Surface Soil Arsenic Chromium (total) Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc • Subsurface Soil No COPCs identified No COPCs were identified for direct contact with subsurface soil at the Site. Consequently, no potential health risks are identified for the inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact of constituents detected in this medium under a current or future land use scenario. In addition to evaluating the potential for risk associated with direct contact of constituents in subsurface soil, the same data were also compared to EPA's Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) to determine if concentrations could adversely impact groundwater through leaching. Pentachlorophenol and isophorone were the only constituents detected above their respective SSLs, however, pentachlorophenol was only ES-2 3 0 3 8 6 9 detected once above the SSL and was not detected in groundwater. This evaluation is discussed in detail in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. The following constituents were detected at concentrations above the criteria;, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. Although the maximum concentration of chloroform (410 parts per billion [ppb]) did not exceed the SSL of 600 ppb, this constituent was included as a COPC for the purposes of this evaluation. Additionally, although acetone and methylene chloride detections in subsurface soil were attributed to blank contamination and should not be considered present in this medium, these two constituents were retained as COPCs for the purpose of this evaluation. Two inorganics also were found at concentrations above the SSLs. Cadmium was detected in one sample at 10.1 parts per million (ppm), slightly above the SSL of 8 ppm, and cyanide was detected in three samples ranging in concentration from 47.3 to 60.2 ppm, exceeding the SSL of 40 ppm (based upon a DAF of 20). Cyanide exceeded the SSL (20 DAF) in three of eighteen samples. One sample was validated and detected at a concentration of 51.7 ppm. In one additional subsurface soil boring, at two different depths, cyanide was estimated and qualified with "spike recovery not within control limit" (concentrations = 47.3 ppm and 60.2 ppm). For comparison purposes, an average of cyanide concentrations in site subsurface soil results in a concentration of 9.3 ppm, which is below the SSL. Additionally, cyanide was not detected in any other site media, including groundwater. It should also be noted that a comparison with direct contact risk-based values was performed for cyanide. The Region III RBC for soil ingestion based upon a residential scenario is 160 mg/kg. The direct contact SSL for soil ingestion is 1,600 mg/kg. None of the cyanide concentrations detected exceed these risk-based values. The soil to groundwater and direct contact SSLs were used as a comparison level for cyanide, however, as cyanide is rarely encountered at the site, was not detected in groundwater, and was not used in historical site processes, it was not retained as a COPC in this HHRA. Likewise, although cadmium was detected across most of the Site, it was only found at a concentration slightly above the SSL at one location; hence, it is not considered a COPC. Therefore, subsurface soil is considered a medium of concem regarding the potential for impact to groundwater and the following constituents are noted as COPCs for the Site: chloroform, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. As expected, this list of constituents is consistent with the VOCs presented in the list of COPCs identified for onsite groundwater. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND POTENTIALLY-EXPOSED POPULATIONS The potential exposure pathways of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption via contact with the COPCs in groundwater, soils, and sediments were evaluated for completeness. For an exposure pathway to be complete, it must have four elements: (1) a source and mechanism for chemical release; (2) an environmental transport medium (e.g., air, water, soil); (3) a point of potential human contact with the medium; and (4) a route of uptake for the chemical at the contact point (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact). Considering the current and fiiture anticipated land use scenarios proposed for the VICHEM Site (i.e., industrial), several exposure pathways were identified for evaluation. Potential human ES-3 3 0 3 8 7 0 receptor populations were evaluated for each pathway and either mled out or included in the risk assessment. This evaluation identified the following possible exposure pathways: • Current Land Use Residential (child/adult) exposure to groundwater via six offsite wells was considered. No COPCs were idendfied for the groundwater collected from these offsite wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site; therefore, current residential exposure to groundwater was not evaluated further. Trespasser (pre-adolescent/adult) exposure to COPCs in surface soil/sediment collected from the Site and the Gut System was evaluated. Exposure to COPCs via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulates was evaluated for these receptors. • Future Land Use Industrial/commercial (adult) exposure was considered for future industrial use of the Site. This pathway examined exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and sediment via ingestion, inhalation of VOCs (groundwater) and particulates (soil and sediment), and dermal contact. Constmction at the Site was considered to be a plausible future exposure scenario. This pathway evaluated the adult constmction worker's exposure to COPCs in surface soil, subsurface soil (up to 12 feet below ground surface [ft bgs]), and soil/sediment in the Gut System via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulates. Exposure to groundwater was not evaluated for this receptor since groundwater at the Site is generally encountered at depths between 18 and 20 feet bgs. Since constmcfion acfivifies are not anticipated to occur at such depths, exposure to groundwater was not considered. In addition, although subsurface soil was examined for this receptor, no COPCs were identified in this medium and no risk estimates were developed. In addition to evaluating the potential for risk associated with direct contact of constituents in subsurface soil, the same data also was compared to EPA's SSLs to determine if concentrations could adversely impact groundwater through migration (leaching). The results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. An offsite residential scenario was evaluated for potential future exposure to COPCs in groundwater. Currently, there are no COPCs in the offsite wells. However, EPA and VIDPNR have raised concems regarding the uncertainties associated with future land use/development in the vicinity of the Site and the potential for COPCs in onsite groundwater to migrate offsite. Therefore, future exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact was quantified for an adult and child resident. Specifically, a future adult and child resident were evaluated for potential exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion of well water, dermal contact while showering/bathing, and inhalation of VOCs while showering/bathing. ES-4 3 0 3 8 7 1 HEALTH RISK ESTIMATE Based on the identification of sources, pathways, and receptors, estimates of human health risk were developed for exposure of the above-noted receptor populations to COPCs in media associated with complete or hypothetically-complete exposure pathways. Estimates of human uptake were calculated using the 95* upper confidence limit (95"^ UCL) of lognormally transformed datasets or maximum detected concentrations in any instance where the UCL exceeded the maximum. The estimated carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards were compared to EPA guidelines and generally-accepted target risk levels. Carcinogenic risks falling within the target range of 1 x 10' to 1 x 10" and non-carcinogenic hazards less than 1 were considered to be acceptable. The result of this evaluation concluded that most of the chemicals detected in groundwater, soil, and sediment are not associated with an excess health risk for the current or future land use scenarios evaluated. Tables 9.1 through 9.7 present the non carcinogenic and carcinogenic hazard and risk estimates for the exposure pathways evaluated. Current Land Use Based on the inactive status of the VICHEM Site, current land use scenarios evaluated exposure to onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System for an adult and pre-adolescent trespasser. The cancer risk estimates presented are associated with exposure to arsenic and chromium, which are the only carcinogenic COPCs identified in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System. In addition to these two constituents, noncancer hazards were evaluated for iron (surface soil and soil/sediment) and manganese (surface soil). These risk esfimates are discussed below and presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. Adult Trespasser For the adult trespasser, RME to COPCs in surface soil resulted in a carcinogenic risk estimate (total of all pathways) of 1 x 10'^, which equals the lower end of EPA's benchmark range. This receptor's exposure to COPCs detected in the soil/sediment in the Gut System are below EPA's target risk at 3 x 10' . The cumulative risk for this receptor (total of all pathways and media) is 1 X 10' which equals the 10' carcinogenic risk benchmark. The CT carcinogenic risks were calculated for surface soil and the CT risk of 1 x 10''' is below the EPA benchmark. Noncancer hazard estimates for the RME receptor were less than the target level of 1 for exposure to COPCs in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System with an overall cumulative HI of 7.7E-02. Because the RME noncancer His were less than 1, the CT receptor was not evaluated. Pre-Adolescent Trespasser None of the individual pathway (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation) risk estimates nor the cumulative RME risk estimate of 5 x 10'^ associated with exposure to onsite surface soil ES-5 3 0 3 8 7 2 evaluated for the pre-adolescent trespasser exceed EPA's 10'^ point of departure for acceptable carcinogenic risk. Carcinogenic risk estimates calculated for exposure to COPCs in soil/sediment in the Gut System were less than EPA's benchmark of 10'^ at 1 x 10'^. The pre-adolescent trespasser's overall cancer risk estimate (contact with COPCs in onsite surface soil and Gut System soil/sediment via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal pathways) is 7x10' which is less than 10'^. It was not necessary to evaluate the CT receptor for this scenario. Individual noncancer hazard estimates were less than the target level of 1 for pre-adolescent trespasser exposure to COPCs in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System. As presented in Table 9.2, the overall HI across all media and exposure routes is 2.4E-01. It was not necessary to evaluate the CT receptor for this scenario. Future Land Use Considering the current and anticipated future industrial zoning classification of the VICHEM Site, future land use scenarios evaluated exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and soil/sediment in the Gut System for an adult industrial/commercial worker. In addition, a fiiture constmction scenario was evaluated for direct contact exposure with COPCs in surface soil. Subsurface soil was not evaluated for the constmction worker because no COPCs were identified in this medium. However, the potential risk associated with leaching of constituents via groundwater migration tlirough subsurface soil was evaluated by comparing concentrations to EPA's SSLs. The results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. Finally, an offsite resident was evaluated for direct contact (dermal contact, ingestion) with COPCs and inhalation of volatile COPCs in groundwater. Exposure to groundwater was evaluated for the onsite industrial worker, assuming this receptor would use groundwater from an onsite well for potable and non-potable purposes. The pathways evaluated for exposure to COPCs in groundwater included ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of VOCs. Offsite residential exposure to groundwater was evaluated based on the future potential for COPCs in onsite groundwater to migrate to offsite wells. The pathways evaluated include exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion of groundwater fi-om the tap, and dermal contact and inhalation while showering (adult) or taking a bath (child). For the purpose of this HHRA, it was assumed that current onsite groundwater concentrations were representative of future offsite concentrations. The probability that groundwater concentrations will be the same offsite as they are onsite is uncertain, as the concentrations offsite will likely be affected by many chemical-specific factors such as natural attenuation, degradation, and mobility. However, this assumption was made for the purposes of this risk assessment. A discussion on environmental fate and transport as it relates to this HHRA is presented in the Qualitative Uncertainty Section 5.6.2. As previously discussed, exposure to groundwater was not considered for the constmction worker. Like current land use scenarios, the cancer risk estimates presented for surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System are associated with exposure to arsenic and chromium which are the only carcinogenic COPCs identified in these media. In addition, noncancer hazards were evaluated for aluminum (soil/sediment), iron (surface soil and soil/sediment), manganese ES-6 3 0 3 8 7 3 (surface soil and soil/sediment), vanadium (surface soil and soil/sediment), and zinc (surface soil). These risk estimates are discussed below and presented in Tables 9.3 and 9.4. Industrial/Commercial Worker The hypothetical industrial/commercial worker receptor was evaluated for potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and soil/sediment collected in the Gut System. The cumulafive RME risk estimate of 9 x 10'^ exceeds the target range of 1 X 10'^ to 1 x 10'^. The majority of the potential carcinogenic risk is associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater as shown in Table 9.3a. In particular, inhalation of volatilized chloroform, exposure to chloroform and arsenic via ingestion, and dermal contact with chloroform account for most of the cumulative risk estimate for this medium. Onsite surface soil exposures for the RME scenario exceed the lower end of EPA's target range with estimates of 3x10'^. Exposure to the Gut System soil/sediment yielded a risk estimate of 6 x 10'^, less than the EPA benchmark risk estimate. The carcinogenic risks from these media are associated with arsenic. CT risk estimates for the industrial onsite worker are greater than the high end of EPA's acceptable target risk range. The cumulafive risk estimate for this receptor is 2 x 10'^ which, like the RME, is comprised almost entirely of risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. Again, inhalation of volatilized chloroform contributes essentially all of this risk with an associated cancer risk estimate of 2 x 10'"^. Surface soil risk esfimates for the CT receptor did not contribute significantly with a cumulative pathway risk estimate of 5 x 10' . For the RME receptor, the only noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1 are associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. The majority of this hazard estimate is associated with inhalation of volatilized chloroform with a HQ of 3.3E+02. The cumulative ingestion HQs associated with groundwater yield a hazard quotient of 2.7E+00. Target organ His across all media are 3.3E+02 for liver/kidney, 5.8E-02 for decreased hair proteins, 7.3E-02 for skin, 1.2E+00 for Cential Nervous System (CNS), l.OE-01 for blood effects, 5.8E-01 for liver/heart/pancreas, 7.1E-02 for lung effects, and 6.IE-.3 for Gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The cumulative HI associated with exposure to groundwater is 3.3E+02 (99% of which is associated with inhalation of volatiles in groundwater). Evaluation of the CT receptor provided similar results as the RME (cumulative groundwater HI values greater than 1) since inhalation of chloroform is responsible for most of the non- carcinogenic risk and inhalation rates were not varied between the two receptors. Since RME exposures to surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System did not generate non- carcinogenic hazard estimates greater than the target benchmark, CT receptors to these media were not evaluated. Risk estimates for the RME receptor are presented in Table 9.3a showing HI of 3.1E-01 for surface soil and 6.1E-02 for soil/sediment. ES-7 303874 Construction Worker The total risk estimate associated with exposure to arsenic in surface soil and soil/sediment for the constmction worker (9 x 10"^) is less than EPA's 10'^ target risk. This result indicates no significant risk for this receptor under the future constmction scenario evaluated. Direct contact exposure to subsurface soil was not evaluated since there were no COPCs identified in this medium. Ingestion non-cacinogenic hazard estimates for the RME constmction worker were slightly greater than one for ingestion of onsite surface soils (1.2E+00). Across all media no individual COPC was greater than one, but the cumulative HI was 1.8E+00, indicating a slight potential for adverse health effects. The total CT HI was 2.5E-01. Adult Resident The adult offsite resident was evaluated for potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. The cumulative RME risk estimate, 8 x 10''*, exceeds the EPA target risk range of 1 X 10'"* to 1 X 10'^. The majority of the potential risk comes from chloroform via ingestion and inhalation, and arsenic via the ingestion pathway. The CT estimate for this scenario is 9 x 10'^, and falls within the EPA benchmark risk range. For the non-carcinogenic evaluation, the cumulative RME hazard of 2.5E+02 exceeded the acceptable level of 1. Exposure via inhalation and ingestion contributed to the majority of the hazard. Specifically, individual His for inhalation of chloroform (2.5E+02) and the ingestion of chloroform (2.8E+00), iron (l.lE+00), and manganese (2.7E+00) in groundwater all exceeded 1. Target pathway His exceeding 1 included liver/kidney (2.5E+02), CNS, (2.8E+00), and liver/heart/pancreas (1.2E+00). The cumulative CT hazard across groundwater is 8.2E+01, to which chloroform (1.7E+00) and manganese (1.5E+00) each contributed via the ingesfion pathway, and chloroform contributed the majority via inhalation (7.8E+01). Risk and hazard estimates for the adult resident are presented in Tables 9.5a and 9.5b. Child Resident The child offsite resident risk estimate, 4 x 10'^, exceeds the EPA target risk range. Major contributing COPCs were similar to those for the adult scenario. The CT risk estimate was also calculated, and just fell within the EPA target risk range at 1 x 10'"^. For the non-carcinogenic evaluation, the total HI RME estimate was 6.0E+02. COPCs contributing to the majority of hazard were chloroform via ingestion (8.3E+00) and inhalation (5.8E+02), manganese via ingestion (7.7E+00), and iron via ingestion (3.2E+00). Pathway- specific His that exceeded one included liver/kidney (5.9E+02), CNS (8.0E+00) and liver/heart/pancreas (3.3E+00). The total HI CT estimate was 2.0E+02. ES-8 3 0 3 8 7 5 Addition of the Adult and Child Resident EPA guidance (1989) recommends that adult and child carcinogenic risk-estimates are combined to derive an overall lifetime cancer risk. As presented above, the total risk estimates for both the child and adult-exceeded EPA's target risk range, in most cases. The cancer risks for the adult and child resident were summed using the data presented in Tables 8.19a, 8.20a, 8.21a and 8.22a (RME) and 8.19b, 8.20b, 8.21b, and 8-22b (CT). The cumulative risk for the adult and child resident under an RME scenario is 1 x lO''' and under the CT scenario is 2 x 10'''. The driving pathways and chemicals are consistent with the adult and child risk estimates. The summary of these risks are presented in Tables 9.7a and b. RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY As previously discussed, based on the exposure assumptions utilized in developing risk estimates, the hypothetical industrial/commercial occupational exposure to groundwater under a future land use scenario is the only on-Site pathway that presents cumulative risk estimates, for both the RME and CT receptors, in excess of EPA's target acceptable range. Concentrations of chloroform in groundwater are responsible for the majority of this risk. Onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System demonstrated carcinogenic risks for the adult industrial worker in excess of 10' for ingestion at 3 x 10'^; however, this risk estimate is within EPA's acceptable range of 10' to 10 . This risk was associated primarily with ingestion of arsenic in soils. Estimated risks for adult and pre-adolescent trespassers and constmction workers are at or below the EPA target of 10'^ risk. The RME risk estimates for potential future residential groundwater use exceeded the EPA range for adult and child receptors. For both residential scenarios, the COPCs which contributed to the majority of risk are chloroform and arsenic. Both adult and child residential RME His exceeded 1 (2.5E+02 and 6.0E+02, respectively). Ingestion and inhalation of chloroform contributed to the majority of the risk and hazard for the residential groundwater use scenario. Ingestion of arsenic, iron, and manganese also contributed to the risk and hazard estimates. In summary, based on the scenarios evaluated for future land use, the chemical which is the main driver of hazard and risk at the site is chloroform in groundwater. Chloroform in groundwater is the main risk driver for the industrial/commercial worker and the residential adult and child. Other hazard drivers include manganese and iron in groundwater (industrial/commercial and adult and child residential), and iron in surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System (constmction worker). A summary of the risk drivers is presented in Tables 10.1 through 10.6b. ES-9 3 0 3 8 7 6 1 ^ 303877 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted for the Virgin Island Chemical (VICHEM) Site (the "VICHEM Site" or the "Site") located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The HHRA assesses the potential for adverse health effects that may be associated with exposure to constituents in Site groundwater, surface and subsurface soil, and soil/sediment located in the Gut System adjacent to the Site. The risk assessment was performed to provide an analysis of the potential Site-related health risks to human receptors to: (1) evaluate the need for future response actions; (2) provide a basis for assessing concentrations of hazardous substances that may remain onsite without adversely affecting human health; and (3) provide a basis for comparing potential health impacts of various remedial action altematives and technologies. The HHRA was developed in accordance with the U.S. Envirormiental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan (Harding Lawson Associates [HLA] 1994), the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the Site, and EPA risk assessment guidance documents including: • • Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A - Interim Final (EPA 1989); Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessments (EPA 1990aJ; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Supplemental Guidance "Standard Default Exposure Factors " (EPA 1991 a); Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals - Interim (EPA 1991b^; Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (EPA 1992aj; Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (EPA 1992b); Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I - III: General Factors - Review Draft (EPA 1996aj; Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I - III: General Factors (EPA 1997bJ; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments - Interim (EPA 1998a;; and Other federal or regional EPA documents, as appropriate. 303878 _ 1.1 OVERVIEW A risk assessment is the scientific evaluation of the potential human and environmental health impacts posed by the release of a particular substance or mixture of substances (Paustenbach 1989a). The risk assessment may be used as a guide by risk managers who also must consider factors such as technical feasibility of remedial altematives, public perception of potential health impacts, and cost/benefit. Risk assessments may establish health-based cleanup levels, evaluate site impacts, or characterize the need for remedial action(s) based on the quantified potential risk. The organization of this HHRA follows the basic structure as outlined in EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (EPA 1989, 1998a): • Data Collection and Evaluation - Compilation of appropriate data and evaluation of detection frequency, background data, and site data in reference to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for each sample medium. Identification of chemicals of potential concem (COPCs) and the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion in the risk assessment; • Exposure Assessment - Characterization of the physical setting, identification of potential receptor populations and exposure pathways, presentation of exposure assumptions, and estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake values; • Toxicity Assessment - Presentation of the toxicity values for carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic effects and source information for these values; and • Risk Characterization - Quantification and combination of cancer and noncancer risks by pathway and media for each receptor evaluated, summation of the risk drivers at the site, and a discussion of the uncertainty associated with the development of risk estimates. Each of these steps has been utilized to evaluate the potential health risks at the VICHEM Site and are addressed in Sections 2.0 through 5.0 of this document. This HHRA is an appendix to the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report; a summary of the findings is presented in Section 6.0 of the RI Report. The RI was conducted with the objective of characterizing the distribution of organic and inorganic constituents in surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, and soil/sediment in the Gut System at the Site. The RI defines the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals in these sample media. Analytical results are presented and discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. 3 0 3 8 7 9 _ 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND A detailed Site description and background discussion of the VICHEM Site is presented in Section 2.0 of the RI Report. However, the following narrative provides a brief overview of Site information. The Site is an approximate 32-acre property located on Plot 13Q of Estate Bethlehem Middle Works off of Melvin Evans Highway in the south-central portion of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The Site is bordered to the north and east by an intermittent stream, the River Gut, which originates north of the Site and discharges to the Caribbean Sea. Numerous businesses are located adjacent to the Site, including some on the opposite side of the River Gut. The groundwater underlying the Site flows predominantly to the south. Surficial soils at the Site are classified as a clay loam alluvium, with slopes of two to five percent. The alluvial soils are approximately 85 feet thick and consist of a heterogeneous overburden comprised of brown and gray clay-rich sediments with lesser and varying amounts of silt and fine sands. Underlying the Alluvium is the Kingshill Limestone, which is the principal water-bearing deposit on St. Croix. The Kingshill is described as being comprised of a white to light gray and brown stiff clay, with lesser amounts of sand. The Site was purchased in 1968 and a variety of pharmaceutical production operations under a number of different corporate entities ensued until 1982. The specific timefirames for these operations are uncertain. The initial interface with environmental regulatory agencies occurred in 1982. Between 1984 and 1989, several investigations were conducted on behalf of Berlex Laboratories, Inc. (Berlex). The VICHEM Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1994. On October 6, 1994, EPA entered into an AOC, Index No. H CERCLA-94-0401, with Berlex, one of the Respondents. The AOC required the performance of a RI/Feasibility Study (FS) at the Site. During the regulatory process, several remedial activities were conducted by both EPA and Berlex. These activities included onsite treatment of impacted soil, onsite stabilization, dmm removals, and offsite disposal. Additional investigative activities have continued through 1998. 303880 _ ^ 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION Data and sample collection was conducted during the RI to characterize the overall hydrogeology at the Site and the quality of soils, sediments, and groundwater that may have been impacted by Site operations. A majority of these samples were submitted for laboratory analyses, using current Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statements of Work (SOWs), for VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganics (metals and cyanide). All work was conducted in accordance with the EPA- approved RI Work Plans and subsequent addenda. Details relating to specific methods employed during the various phases of investigative work are presented in Section 3.0 of the RI Report. 2,1 SITE MODEL AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Table 1 presents the exposure pathways that were evaluated in the HHRA. Considering the current and future anticipated land use scenarios proposed for the VICHEM Site, several exposure pathways were identified for evaluation. Potential human receptor populations were evaluated for each pathway and either mled out or included in the risk assessment. This evaluation identified four receptors as being associated with possible exposure pathways that were considered to be hypothetically complete: (1) constmction worker, (2) industrial/commercial worker, (3) trespasser, and (4) resident. Since the Site is presently inactive and abandoned, two current land use receptors were identified. A resident (child/adult) potentially exposed to groundwater via six offsite production wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site was evaluated. However, no COPCs were identified for the groundwater collected fi-om these wells; therefore, no risk estimates were developed for a current residential land use scenario. A detailed discussion of these offsite wells is presented in Appendix B of the RI Report. The current land use evaluation also identified a trespasser (adult/pre-adolescent) as having the potential to come in contact with COPCs in surface soil at the Site and in soil/sediment of the Gut System. Future land use scenarios evaluated two additional onsite receptors assuming the Site will remain industrial, as established by current zoning requirements. The industrial/commercial worker (adult) was considered for future industrial use of the Site. This pathway examined exposure to COPCs in groundwater, onsite surface soil, and soil/sediment in the Gut System. Constmction at the Site was also considered to be a plausible future exposure scenario. This pathway evaluated the adult construction worker's exposure to COPCs in soils at the Site and sediments in the Gut System. These pathways are discussed in further detail in Section 3.0. Based on EPA's concems regarding the potential migration of constituents in groundwater, an offsite residential groundwater use exposure scenario was evaluated. Although there are currently no COPCs in offsite production wells, the potential migration of COPCs in onsite groundwater to offsite production wells was conservatively evaluated using groundwater concentrations measured in onsite monitoring/production wells. 303882 _ 2.2 DATA COLLECTION The primary objective of the RI was to collect the data needed to adequately support a risk assessment, both human health and ecological, and to provide a basis on which a subsequent, cost-effective, remedial action plan will be recommended. During the four phases of investigative work, the following specific data requirements were addressed: • background concentrations of constituents in surface soil through sampling and analysis; • nature and extent of potential surface and subsurface soil impacts onsite through sampling and analysis; • nature and extent of potential groundwater impacts onsite/offsite through sampling and analysis; • Site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions through lithologic evaluation, water level measurements, etc.; and • nature and extent of potential soil/sediment impacts in the Gut System (i.e.. River, Bethlehem, and Fair Plains Guts) through sampling and analysis. Data collection methods and locafions are discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of the RI Report. 2.3 DATA EVALUATION Data collected during the RI was used to evaluate the potential risks associated with exposure to groundwater, onsite surface and subsurface soil and soil/sediments in the Gut System. A discussion of the analytical results incorporated into the HHRA is presented in Section 4.0 of the RI Report, along with a tabular presentation of the data. 2.3.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern The HHRA evaluated the potential human health risks associated with exposure to COPCs detected in groundwater, soil, and soil/sediment samples that were collected during the four phases of the RI. The maximum concentrations of constituents detected in these media were used in a screening process to develop a focused list of COPCs for evaluation in the risk assessment. Factors generally considered in the selection of COPCs include toxicity, mobility, persistence, bioavailability, bioaccumulation, the frequency of detection, and the measured concentrations. Additionally, the media in which the constituents are detected and the relationship of measured concentrations to appropriate regulatory standards, guidance criteria, or near-site background concentrations are considered. The selection of COPCs, or indicator chemicals, for a site is addressed in RAGS (EPA 1989). 303883 _ COPCs were selected using a two-tiered screening approach. Initially, for each medium, a list of detected constituents was developed. In the first tier of screening, the frequency of detections, as well as the maximums, was identified for each detected constituent for each medium of potential concem. Constituents detected at a frequency of greater than 5% were retained for further evaluation. The second tier of data evaluation involved comparison of the sample data with appropriate criteria. Essential nutrients, such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, were not included in this step of the evaluation as criteria have not been developed. Constituents for which there was at least one exceedance of the criteria were retained for further consideration as COPCs in this risk assessment. Frequency of detections As noted in RAGS, the frequency of detection is an important consideration in selecting the COPCs for a site: "Chemicals that are infrequently detected may be artifacts in the data due to sampling, or other problems, and therefore, may not be related to site operations and disposal practices. Consider the chemical as a candidate for elimination from the quantitative risk assessment if: (1) it is detected infrequently in one or perhaps two environmental media, (2) it is not detected in any other sampled media, and (3) there is no reason to believe that the chemical may be present." Frequency of detection was the first thing considered in identifying chemicals detected at the VICHEM Site for consideration as COPCs. A detection frequency of less than five percent was incorporated into the COPC screening process and, as such, individual media sample sets containing 20 or less samples were not subject to a detection frequency screen. For example, in determining the COPCs in surface soils (0 - 1 foot below ground surface [ft bgs]) at the Site, no constituents were deleted on the basis of low detection frequency due to the small sample set evaluated. However, a sufficient number of onsite groundwater samples were available to enable detection frequency screening to be conducted for several of the constituents detected in this medium. The following five chemicals in groundwater were eliminated from further evaluation as their detection frequencies are less than 5%: beryllium (detection frequency - 4.2%), 2- butanone (3.6%), thallium (4.2%)), triehloroethene (3.6%)), and vinyl chloride (3.6%)). Discussion of the elimination of vinyl chloride as a COPC is further warranted. It indeed was detected in less than 5% of the groundwater samples, however, as a Group A carcinogen, the single detection exceeded the risk-based screening value, and it is volatile (and therefore may be of concem when evaluating potential risks via inhalation while showering). Therefore, other factors should be explained as to why vinyl chloride does not qualify as a COPC in this assessment. Vinyl chloride was detected in 1 of 28 groundwater samples (3.6%)). It was detected one time in groundwater, however, it was not detected in other site media such, as surface and subsurface soil. Based on discussions with personnel knowledgeable about historical site operations, there oo is no reason to believe that vinyl chloride was utilized by manufacturing operations. tt^ 2-3 t j i o w Additionally, the location of the well (MW-10) where the vinyl chloride detection occurred is considered an upgradient offsite well (with the exception of minor fluctuations in groundwater flow during certain times of the year). Therefore, vinyl chloride was not detected on site property. The sole detected value (0.2 ppb) was detected below the method detection limit, and therefore given an "estimated" data qualifier. Stepping ahead to the comparison to TBCs (EPA Region Ill's RBC), the detection of vinyl chloride exceeded the RBC (0.02 ppb) by an order of magnitude, however, this risk would convert to a residential risk of 1 x 10'^, which is consistent with EPA's target risk range. The estimated concentration of vinyl chloride is also below EPA's MCL (2 ppb) for vinyl chloride. The MCL would be the ARAR that would need to be complied with as part of overall site remediation. These additional considerations further support exclusion of vinyl chloride as a COPC Comparison with Criteria Within the individual sample media evaluated, the maximum detected concentrations of constituents detected at a frequency of five percent or greater were compared against ARARs or "to be considered" (TBC) criteria. This included EPA's Generic (direct contact and impact to groundwater) Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) (EPA 1996b), EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) (EPA 1999a), Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), or Site-specific background concentrations. Both SSLs and RBCs are health-based criteria and have been developed using standard EPA risk assessment methodology and a target risk of one-in-a-raillion (10'^) for carcinogens or a hazard quotient (HQ) of one for noncarcinogens. SSLs were developed by EPA "...to help standardize and accelerate the evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils at sites on the NPL with anticipated future residential land use scenarios." The Region HI RBCs were developed to assist Region III toxicologists in screening sites not yet on the NPL, respond to citizen inquiries, or spot-check baseline risk assessments. The primary use of RBCs is for chemical screening during baseline risk assessment process. Like SSLs, the RBCs provide concentrations of chemicals in soil based on the potential for residential use of those soils. However, RBCs also have been developed to provide health-based criteria for exposures involving soils associated with industrial land use. In addition to soils, RBCs have been developed for tap water, ambient air, and fish tissue using conservative default EPA parameters and methodology. Surface soil constituents were compared first to residential RBCs, or SSLs in the absence of a chemical-specific RBC, and with Site-specific background concentrations for inorganic analytes. Likewise, sediments were compared with either RBCs or SSLs, as available; however, no background sediment concentrations were established. For the purposes of direct contact exposures, subsurface soil detections were compared to industrial RBCs. Since tap water RBCs have the potential to be more conservative than MCLs, these criteria were used for groundwater COPC screening with MCLs used in the absence of a chemical-specific RBC. ' w o Other candidates for exclusion of a chemical from a risk assessment include chemicals "... that co are (1) essential human nutrients, (2) present at low concentrations, and (3) toxic only at very oo cn 2-4 high doses (i.e., much higher than those associated with the site)...". Examples of some constituents considered to be essential nutrients include iron, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium (EPA 1989). Based on their classification as essential nutrients, near background concentrations, or lack of toxicity criteria, all of these analytes were excluded from quantitative evaluation in the risk assessment with the exception of iron. Due to the relatively high concentrations of iron detected (greater than background or TBC criteria) and the availability of toxicity criteria, iron was retained for evaluation as a COPC in soils and sediments at the Site. Evaluation of Subsurface Soil Based on the information presented in Table 2.5, no COPCs were identified for direct contact with subsurface soil at the Site. Consequently, no potential health risks are identified for the inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact of constituents detected in this medium under a current or future land use scenario. In addition to evaluating the potential for risk associated with direct contact of constituents in subsurface soil, the same data were also compared to EPA's SSLs to determine if concentrations could adversely impact groundwater through leaching (comparison presented in Tables 4-7 and 4-9 through 4-13 of the RI Report). The following constituents were detected at concentrations above the criteria:, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. Although the maximum concentration of chloroform (410 parts per billion [ppb]) did not exceed the SSL of 600 ppb, this constituent was included as a COPC for the purposes of this evaluation. Additionally, although acetone and methylene chloride detections in subsurface soil were attributed to blank contamination and should not be considered present in this medium, these two constituents were retained as COPCs for the purpose of this evaluation. Two inorganics also were found at concentrations above the SSLs. Cadmium was detected in one sample at 10.1 parts per million (ppm), slightly above the SSL of 8 ppm, and cyanide was detected in three samples ranging in concentration from 47.3 to 60.2 ppm, exceeding the SSL of 40 ppm (based upon a DAF of 20). Cyanide exceeded the SSL (20 DAF) in three of eighteen samples. One sample was validated and detected at a concentration of 51.7 ppm. In one additional subsurface soil boring, at two different depths, cyanide was estimated and qualified with "spike recovery not within control limit" (concentrations = 47.3 ppm and 60.2 ppm). For comparison purposes, an average of cyanide concentrations in site subsurface soil results in a concentration of 9.3 ppm, which is below the SSL. Additionally, cyanide was not detected in any other site media, including groundwater. It should also be noted that a comparison with direct contact risk-based values was performed for cyanide. The Region III RBC for soil ingestion based upon a residential scenario is 160 mg/kg. The direct contact SSL for soil ingestion is 1,600 mg/kg. None of the cyanide concentrations detected exceed these risk-based values. The soil to groundwater and direct contact SSLs were used as a comparison level for cyanide, however, as cyanide is rarely encountered at the site, was not detected in groundwater, and was not used in historical site processes, it was not retained as a COPC in this HHRA. Likewise, although cadmium was detected across most of the Site, it was only found at a ' ^ ^ concentration slightly above the SSL at one location; hence, it is not considered a COPC. o Therefore, subsurface soil is considered a medium of concem regarding the potential for impact oo to groundwater and the following constituents are noted as COPCs for the Site: chloroform, ^ 2-5 ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. As expected, this list of constituents is consistent with the VOCs presented in the list of COPCs identified for onsite groundwater. Evaluation of Lead as a COPC Using the methodology described above, lead was determined to be a COPC in onsite groundwater as its maximum concentration exceeded EPA's treatment technique action level (TTAL) of 15 ppb. However, it was not carried through the HHRA as a COPC due to its lack of toxicity criteria (see section 4.2), and due to the low concentrations and infrequent detections encountered. Of the 24 groundwater samples collected and evaluated, only one concentration of lead (50.7 ppb at monitoring well MW-10) exceed the TTAL. A more detailed discussion of the exclusion of lead as a COPC is presented in Section 5.6. COPCs for Use in the Risk Assessment Tables 2.1 through 2.5 identify the respective organic and inorganic chemicals detected in soils, sediments, and groundwater during the RI. The rationale for the selection of the COPCs at the VICHEM Site is also presented in these tables. The following COPCs were identified for each of the media evaluated: • Groundwater (Onsite Monitoring/Production Wells) Acetone Antimony Chloroform Arsenic Ethylbenzene Barium Methylene chloride Chromium (total) Toluene fron Xylenes Lead 2,4-Dimethylphenol Manganese Isophorone Vanadium 2-Methylphenol Groundwater (Offsite Production Wells) No COPCs identified Soil/Sediment in Gut System Aluminum Arsenic Chromium (total) fron Manganese Vanadium 303887 Surface Soil Arsenic Chromium (total) fron Subsurface Soil No COPCs identified Manganese Vanadium Zinc 2.3.2 Development of Exposure Point Concentrations In quantifying potential exposure, intakes of each COPC were estimated for what is considered to be the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME), as well as a central tendency (CT). Datasets representing each of the media of interest were tested for normal or lognormal distribution in accordance with EPA's Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (1992b). Datasets that appear to be normally distributed are assigned an exposure point concentration (EPC) represented by the one-sided 95"^ upper confidence level (95"^ UCL) of the arithmetic mean. Similarly, if the test for normality/lognormality indicates the data is lognormally distributed or is neither normally nor lognormally distributed, then the RME EPC is calculated as the 95"^ UCL under the assumption of lognormality. Analytical results identified as undetected within a dataset are incorporated into the development of the 95* UCL concentration using one-half the detection limit including those detection limits identified as elevated. For purposes of this HHRA, the 95'*^ UCL values were used to represent EPCs for the RME and for the evaluation of a CT receptor for those RME scenarios where risk estimates exceeded EPA benchmarks. The CT uses the 95"^ UCL concentration but medi.an values for exposure factors. Exposure Point Concentrations for the various media evaluated in this Risk Assessment are summarized in Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Attachment A provides the rationale used in choosing the EPCs. In order to evaluate the potential risk to a hypothetical resident through inhalation of VOCs in water vapor, the groundwater RME EPCs were used and converted to vapor concentrations using a shower model recommended by USEPA. The calculations and assumptions utilized in the Shower Model are provided in Attachment B. 303888 — ^ 303889 3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Exposure assessment is the process of measuring or estimating the intensity, frequency, and duration of human exposure to a chemical present in the environmental media of interest, or of hypothetical exposures that may occur from a change in the existing exposure scenario or a new release of chemicals into the environment. In its most complete form, an exposure assessment should describe the magnitude, duration, schedule, and route of exposure; the size and nature of human populations exposed; and the uncertainties inherent in all estimates (National Academy of Science [NAS] 1983). In this exposure assessment, the objectives included: (1) the characterization of exposure setting; (2) an identification of potential exposure pathways; and (3) a quantification of potential exposure. These three elements of the exposure assessment are discussed below. 3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF PHYSICAL SETTING The VICHEM Site is located in the south-central portion of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands (see Figure 2-1 of the RI Report). Consisting of approximately 32 acres, it is situated approximately 6.1 miles equidistant from two major towns: Frederiksted to the west and Christiansted to the east. Site access is via Route 66 which traverses the island east and west. The principal land use surrounding the Site is a mix of commercial and industrial. Over half of the VICHEM Site is covered by buildings and/or process equipment. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial with the Henry Rohlsen Airport situated approximately 1,500 feet south of the Site. The VICHEM Site is bordered to the north and east by an intermittent stream, the River Gut, which originates north of the Site and discharges to the Caribbean Sea. Numerous businesses are located adjacent to the Site, including some on the opposite side of the River Gut. The south-southwest boundary of the VICHEM Site abuts Route 66, while an undeveloped lot exists to the west-northwest. The VICHEM Site was developed during the early 1970s and is currently abandoned and overgrown with heavy vegetation. Several stmctures remain onsite, including (see Figure 2-2 of the RI Report): • laboratory/warehouse building which housed analytical laboratories, restrooms, storage room, dryer area, and worker cafeteria; • maintenance building which housed two boilers, refrigeration units, air compressors, and maintenance shop; • nine aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) identified as T-3 through T-11, an unlabeled AST, and eleven concrete pads at former AST locations; • production area which housed a centrifuge and dryer building; • stainless-steel reactor area; • glass reactor area; • loading dock (former location of laboratory pit); 3 0 3 8 9 0 —- concrete storage pad adjacent to the loading dock and next to the scalehouse; cooling towers; generator building; generator and fire pump building; two production wells (P-1 and P-2) originally used for process water and for the fire fighting system; and • one 250,000-gallon fire water AST. Two storm drains are located onsite. The Central Storm Drain mns beneath the paved area between the laboratory and maintenance buildings. The Southem Storm Drain, where observed, is a concrete-lined depression along the southem wall of the maintenance building and the edge of the reactor area. Both storm drains discharge to the River Gut. 3.1.1 Current Water Use Potable water for the island is primarily supplied through both municipal well water and desalinization plants. Additionally, some residences have private cisterns and roof-catchment systems to capture and containerize precipitation. A water use survey was conducted in October 1998 to collect information on wells location within a '/2-mile radius of the Site. The purpose of this survey was to collect information on constmction details, pumping rates, and general water use for wells located in the vicinity of the VICHEM Site that could potentially be affected by Site impacts or that could potentially influence groundwater flow across the Site via pumping. The Kingshill Limestone (deep water- bearing zone) is considered the principal water-bearing deposit on St. Croix and is the principal aquifer in the Barren Spot, Concordia, and Negro Bay well fields. The Alluvium (shallow water- bearing zone) is tapped by many private and public supply wells and is the principal aquifer in the Fair Plains, Golden Grove, and Adventure well fields. The information collected during the survey is provided in Appendix B of the RI Report. Survey results indicated that water from several offsite wells in the area of the VICHEM Site are currently being used for light industrial purposes. However, water is not being extracted from these wells on a constant or continual basis. Additionally, several local plant operations have been entirely shut down or severely decreased. Therefore, offsite pumping influences that may have affected onsite groundwater flow conditions in the past, or wells that could have historically been affected by Site impacts, currently no longer exist to the same extent. 3.1.2 Gut System The VICHEM Site is located in the southem lowland valley portion of the River Gut, the largest intermittent stream on St. Croix. The River Gut encompasses a drainage area of approximately 11 square miles. In the vicinity of the Site, the River Gut extends across the southem plain of St. Croix, and at its confluence with the Bethlehem Gut (located approximately 800 feet to the southeast of the Site), it becomes the Fair Plains Gut. All of the stream channels in the drainage basin are identified as intermittent. The River Gut drains to the Caribbean Sea, via the Fair — 3 0 3 8 9 1 Plains Gut and Maiming Bay, located approximately one mile southeast of the Site. Low hills to the east and southwest of the Site rise to elevations of approximately 150 to 200 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The land surface bordering the east-northeast Site boundary slopes steeply downward approximately 12 to 15 feet into the River Gut. An earthen berm partially separates the AST Area in the western portion of the Site from the remainder of the area. On the western portion of the berm, mnoff drains from southwest to northeast. Surface drainage in the eastern portion of the Site controlled by the buildings, concrete paved areas, and two storm drains (Central Storm Drain and Southem Storm Drain) that channel mnoff to the River Gut along the southeastern Site boundary. 3.2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND POTENTIALLY-EXPOSED POPULATIONS The potential exposure pathways of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption via contact with the COPCs in groundwater, soils, and sediments were evaluated for completeness. For an exposure pathway to be complete, it must have four elements: (1) a source and mechanism for chemical release; (2) an environmental transport medium (e.g., air, water, soil); (3) a point of potential human contact with the medium; and (4) a route of uptake for the chemical at the contact point (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact). Considering the current and future anticipated land use scenarios proposed for the VICHEM Site, several exposure pathways were identified for evaluation and are presented in Table 1. Potential human receptor populations were evaluated for each pathway and either mled out or included in the risk assessment. Potential exposure pathways are further discussed below. 3.2.1 Current Land Use Since the Site is presently inactive and abandoned, the two receptor populations considered for potential exposure under current land use conditions include an offsite resident and an onsite trespasser. Residential (child/adult) exposure to groundwater via six production wells was considered. As discussed in Section 2.3.1 and presented in Table 2.1, no COPCs were identified for the groundwater collected from these offsite wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site; therefore, no risk estimates were developed for this current land use. Trespasser (pre- adolescent/adult) exposure to COPCs in surface soil/sediment collected from the Site and the Gut System was evaluated for current Site conditions. Exposure to COPCs via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulates was evaluated for this receptor. 3.2.2 Future Land Use The future land use scenarios evaluated were based on the premise that the Site, which is currently zoned for light industrial use, will remain industrial/commercial in the fiiture. This assumption is based on information from the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural o Resources (VIDPNR) which indicates that the Site is currently zoned as 1-2 (Light Industry). A QQ map depicting current zoning for the Site and surrounding area is presented in Appendix A of the ' ^ _ 00 RI Report. Future zoning for the area is uncertain at this time. VIDPNR has indicated that a draft zoning plan for the island has been developed for future land use and is currently under review by the local government. If the zoning classification of 1-2 is revised in the future, the need to address the possibility for residential land use of the property would be re-evaluated. The industrial/commercial (adult) exposure pathway examined exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and soil/sediment via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of VOCs (groundwater) and particulates (soil and soil/sediment). Constmction at the Site also was considered to be a plausible future exposure scenario. This pathway evaluated the adult constmction worker's exposure to COPCs in onsite surface soil and subsurface soil (to 12 ft bgs) and soil/sediment in the adjacent Gut System via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulates. Exposure to groundwater was not evaluated for this receptor since groundwater at the Site is generally encountered at depths between 18 and 20 ft bgs. Since constmction activities are not anticipated to occur at such depths, exposure to groundwater was not considered. Although subsurface soil at the Site was identified as an exposure medium for this receptor, no risk estimates were developed since no COPCs were identified for direct contact with this medium. In addition to evaluating the potential for risk associated with direct contact of constituents in subsurface soil, the same data also was compared to EPA's SSLs to determine if concentrations could adversely impact groundwater through migration (leaching). The results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. An offsite residential scenario was evaluated for potential future exposure to COPCs in groundwater. Currently, there are nd COPCs in the offsite wells. However, EPA and VIDPNR have raised concems regarding the uncertainties associated with future land use/development in the vicinity of the Site and the potential for COPCs in onsite groundwater to migrate offsite. Therefore, future exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact was quantified for an adult and child resident. Specifically, a future adult and child resident were evaluated for potential exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion of well water, dermal contact while showering/bathing, and inhalation of VOCs while showering/bathing. 3.3 QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES Potential exposures associated with each of the exposure pathways listed in Tables 4.1 through 4.11 (Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations) are quantitatively evaluated in this HHRA. Quantification of potential site exposures involves integrating media-specific EPCs and exposure parameter values through route-specific exposure models. The estimation of intake must take into account several factors including the concentrations of COPCs to which each population may be exposed, the bioavailability of each COPC in their given media, and the values of exposure parameters which describe human behavior and physiology. The noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic intake estimates are presented in Tables 7.1 through 7.22 and 8.1 through 8.22, respectively. Each of the elements incorporated into the derivation of the intake estimates is discussed in the following sections. 3-4 3 0 3 8 9 3 3.3.1 Exposure Intakes The health hazards associated with exposure to a chemical are related to the degree of uptake. For any route of exposure, uptake (U) is the product of exposure (E) and the absorption efficiency or bioavailability (B): U = E x B Although the various exposure parameters may make this equation appear more complex, the mathematical relationship shown above holds tme for all exposure routes and is expressed as mass of chemical per mass of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). In accordance with EPA guidance (1989 and 1992), the exposure models presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.11 are used to esfimate potential exposures to COPCs associated with ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation pathways. 3.3.2 Exposure Parameter Values The exposure models and parameters presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.11 take into account various exposure parameters in the derivation of chemical uptake. Standard EPA default values found in RAGS Parts A and B (EPA 1989, 1991a, 1991b) and EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (1996a, 1997b) were used in most cases. Exposure parameter values are presented for both the RME and CT receptors for those scenarios where the RME risk estimates exceed target benchmarks (i.e., 1 x 10'** for carcinogenic risk and 1 for noncancer HQs). The technical justification for the selection of exposure parameter values used in estimating potential Site-related exposures for the industrial/commercial worker, constmction worker, and trespasser scenarios are described in the following subsections. 3.3.2.1 Exposure Time Exposure time (ET) for both the RME and CT industrial and constmction workers was assumed to be 8 hours/each working day. RME trespassers were conservatively assumed to spend 4 hours at the Site or in the Gut System for each trespassing event while CT adult trespassers were assumed to spend half that amount of time (2 hours) trespassing. For the residential scenarios, exposure times varied according to the pathway evaluated. For the ingestion pathway, a 24-hour day was used as the ET for both the child and adult RME and CT exposures. For both the adult and child bathing scenarios, RME and CT exposure times of 32 and 10 minutes/day, respectively, were used. These ETs are EPA-recommended values and representative of the length of both an adult's shower and a child's bath (EPA 1996a). The ET for the RME scenario assumes that 12 minutes are spent showering/bathing and 20 minutes are spent in the bathroom following showering/bathing. These conservative assumptions were used to calculate the EPCs for vapor phase VOCs and were also used for calculation of intake for consistency. 3-5 3 0 3 8 9 4 3.3.2.2 Exposure Frequency The HHRA incorporates several assumptions regarding exposure frequency (EF) for each of the scenarios evaluated. For the RME receptor, trespassers are assumed to enter the Site 2 times/week, year round (104 days/year) and 1 day/week for the CT adult receptor (52 days/year). The frequency of exposure is expected to be fairly consistent throughout the year as a result of the warm climate. Both the future industrial/commercial and constmction scenarios (RME and CT) incorporate an EF of 250 days/year, based on an assumed 5-day work week and 2 weeks of vacation time spent away from the facility (EPA 1989). The exposure frequency used for all residential exposure scenarios is 350 days/year, which accounts for 15 days of the year spent away from home (e.g., vacation) (EPA 1991a). 3.3.2.3 Exposure Duration The exposure duration (ED) incorporated in the HHRA assumes that the RME and CT industrial worker spends 25 and 6.6 years, respectively, working at the Site (EPA 1996a). The adult trespasser is assumed to live near the Site resulting in an ED of 30 years for the RME receptor and 9 years for the CT receptor (EPA 1996a). The same RME and CT EDs were used for the offsite residential adult. A 6-year ED was used for the child resident for both the RME and CT evaluations (EPA 1989). Exposure duration was set at 1 year for the construction worker (assuming a year-long constmction project) and 5 years for the pre-adolescent assuming that trespassing activities occur from 7 to 12 years of age. 3.3.2.4 Inhalation Rate Inhalation rates (IN) of 1.3 m^/hr and 3.5 m'^/hr were used for the CT and RME constmction worker scenarios, respectively. These values are the mean and upper percentile inhalation rates for a male outdoor worker (EPA, 1996a). Standard default inhalation rates of 0.833 m^/hr for all other adults and 0.42 mVhr for children (EPA 1989) were used for both the CT and RME calculations. The child inhalation rate was also used for the pre-adolescent youth trespasser. 3.3.2.5 Particulate Em ission Factor Intake via inhalation of particulate matter requires the use of a particulate emission factor (PEF). For purposes of this assessment, the EPA default value of 1.32 x 10*' was used to calculate chronic intake (EPA 1996b). 3.3.2.6 Volatilization Factor Intake via inhalation of VOCs from water requires the use of a volatilization factor (K). A value of 0.5 L/m^ was used in this HHRA and is representative of a residential scenario where water is used for cooking, cleaning, and showering. This volatilization factor was also used in the shower model to estimate EPCs for vapor phase VOCs. There are no volatile COPCs in surface soils. 3-6 3 0 3 8 9 5 3.3.2.7 Ground Water Ingestion Rate EPA-recommended (1996a) drinking water intake rates were used to derive a rate of 0.7 L/day for the CT industrial/commercial worker and 1.2 L/day for the RME industrial/commercial worker. These rates start with the recommended mean and upper percentile (90*) rates of 1.4 and 2.4 L/day, respectively. Assuming these rates are applied to 16 waking hours/day, with 8 of those hours spent at the workplace, these overall daily rates were divided by 2 to represent the occupational ingestion rates (CT and RME) and account for the fraction of drinking water consumed at work. The recommended mean and upper percentile ingestion rates of 1.4 and 2.4 L/day, respectively, were used for the adult residential CT and RME exposures (EPA 1996a). For a child resident, the CT and RME values used were 0.87 and 1.5 L/day, respectively (EPA 1996a). 3.3.2.8 Exposed Skin Surface Area The skin surface area (SA) assumed to be exposed and in contact with exposure media varies depending on the site, exposure scenario, type of activity, and potentially exposed population. For the industrial/commercial and constmction adult worker, it was assumed that the total surface area of the upper extremities (head, forearms, and hands) may come into contact with the Site media. This surface was estimated to be 3,300 cm^ based on the average of the 50'^ percentile upper extremities surface area estimates for adult men (3,720 cm^) and women (2,870 cm^) (EPA 1999c). The adult trespasser surface area is 5,700 cm^ and the pre-adolescent trespasser surface area is 2,800 cm , based on exposure to head, hands, forearms, and lower legs (EPA 1999c). For both the RME and CT residential exposure evaluations, total body surface areas were used to evaluate bathing scenarios. An adult skin surface area of 18,150 cm^ was used. A child skin surface area of 7,195 cm^ was used and also is based on the average 50"^ percentile total body surface area of male and female children ages 3 to 6 years old (EPA 1996c). 3.3.2.9 Dermal Absorption Bioavailability is a measure of the degree to which a chemical is absorbed following exposure (Paustenbach 1987). For exposure to COPCs in soil and sediment, bioavailabilities are reported as the percentage of the applied or administered chemicals that are ultimately absorbed into the body via a given exposure route. Compound-specific dermal absorption (DABS) factors are applied to estimate dermal uptake of chemicals. For the COPCs identified in soil/sediment at the VICHEM Site, a DABS was only available for arsenic (0.03, or 3%; EPA, 1998b); the remaining COPCs can not be evaluated quantitatively in this HHRA. A discussion of inability to quantify ' ^ dermal risks and hazard for these chemicals, and the potential underestimation of risk and hazard ; w will be discussed in the uncertainty section. 1,-1 For dermal absorption of COPCs in groundwater, chemical-specific permeability coefficients (Kp) must be considered when determining intake. The Kp value, expressed as centimeters per hour (cm/hr), represents the rate at which a chemical penetrates the skin. The following permeability coefficients were applied to calculate dermally-absorbed doses for COPCs in groundwater: • acetone • chlorofoiiii • ethylbenzene • methylene chloride • toluene • xylenes • 2,4-dimethylphenol • 2-methylphenol • isophorone 5.69x10'^ 8.9 X 10'^ 7.4 X 10"^ 4.5 X 10'^ 4.5 X 10"^ 8.0x10'^ 1.5x10'^ 1.0x10"^ 4.4 X 10'^ antimony arsenic barium chromium iron manganese vanadium 1.0 X 10' 2.7 X 10'' 1.0 X 10' 2.0 X 10' 1.0 X 10 1.0 X 10' 1.0 X 10' -3 The above-listed permeability coefficients used to estimate dermal absorption of the COPCs in groundwater were obtained from EPA, from scientific literature, or derived using an empirical model presented in EPA's 1992 Dermal Exposure Assessment guidance document. Antimony, barium, iron, manganese, and vanadium were assumed to have the same permeability coefficient as water (1.0 x 10' cm/hr) based on studies presented by EPA (1992a). The value for arsenic was taken from a CRC Lewis Publishers document entitled Bioavailability in Environmental Risk Assessment (Hmdey, et al 1996) 3.3.2.10 Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Adherence of soil to exposed skin is an integral consideration in assessing dermal exposure to contaminated soil. The literature provides a range of soil to skin adherence factors (SSAF) from four studies (Lepow et ai, 1975; Roels et al., 1980; QueHee et al., 1985; Driver et al., 1989). hi evaluating these studies, EPA indicated that each study has some degree of associated uncertainty (EPA 1992a). Although a range of 0.17 mg/cm^ to 1.5 mg/cm^ was reported from these studies, since the data are derived only from hand measurements, the range over estimates the average adherence for the entire exposed skin area. EPA (1992a) states that "...the lower end of this range (0.2 mg/cm ) may be the best value to represent an average overall exposed skin and 1 mg/cm^ may be a reasonable upper value". Subsequent guidance from EPA (1999c) has decreased the SSAF; therefore the following values (in mg/cm^) were used in the HHRA: Adult trespasser Pre-adolescent trespasser Adult worker RME 0.07 0.2 0.2 CT 0.01 - 0.02 3-8 3 0 3 8 9 7 3.3.2.11 Soil Ingestion Rate The recommended average soil ingestion rates (IR-S), found in EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (1996a), is 50 mg/day for an adult and 100 mg/day for a child. Therefore, 50 mg/day was used to represent the IR-S for the industrial/commercial worker and adult trespasser, and 100 mg/day was used as the IR-S for the pre-adolescent trespasser. There is much debate surrounding the estimation of soil intake rates as noted by the high degree of uncertainty associated with the recommended central estimate ingestion rate of 50 mg/day for adults. This uncertainty is based partly on the low level of confidence associated with the studies used to estimate this rate. Consequently, EPA states that, "Considering the uncertainties in the central estimate, any speculation about an upper percentile would be inappropriate." Based on this observation, the ingestion rate of 50 mg/day was used to represent both CT and RME exposures for the adult (industrial/commercial worker and trespasser) receptors evaluated in the HHRA (EPA 1996a). Although EPA presents an upper percentile value of 400 mg/day for soil ingestion in children, this value was not incorporated into the HHRA RME evaluation for two reasons. First, the ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was based on a short study period and is not considered to represent usual intake. Secondly, studies conducted in children focus primarily on very young children (i.e., under 5 years of age) and, as such, do not appropriately represent the pre-adolescent age group evaluated in the HHRA. In the Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA further states that there is insufficient data to recommend upper percentile estimates for both children and adults. As such, the ingestion rate of 100 mg/day was used to represent both CT and RME exposures for the pre-adolescent trespasser. For the constmction worker, it is assumed that exposure to COPCs in soil and soil/sediment would occur during both excavation and building constmction activities. The EPA default soil ingestion rate of 480 mg/day was used as the RME parameter for this receptor. For the CT estimate, 100 mg/day was chosen as it is the USEPA standard default value for adults (USEPA, 1991a). 3.3.2.12 Body Weight For this assumption, body weight for all adult receptors was assumed to be 70 kg, 45 kg for the pre-adolescent trespasser and 15 kg for the child resident (EPA 1989, 1991a, 1996a). 3.3.2.13 Averaging Time An averaging time (AT-C) of 25,550 days was used in the assessment of carcinogenic risks based on a 70-year life expectancy (70 years x 365 days/year). The averaging times employed for noncarcinogenic evaluations (AT-N) were calculated based on pathway-specific exposure durations: ^ o AT-N (days) = ED (years) x 365 (days/year) 3-9 00 00 3.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations As previously discussed, EPCs were calculated in accordance with EPA's Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, Calculating the Concentration Term (1992b). This value was used to determine the contaminant intake for each exposure route and chemical constituent. EPA recommends using the 95"^ UCL of the arithmetic mean due to the uncertainty associated with estimating the tme average concentration at a site. The results of these derivations are presented in Attachment A. 3.3.4 Exposure Intakes The models used to derive exposure intakes are presented below for each of the pathways evaluated. These models are in accordance with EPA's RAGS Parts A andB (EPA 1989, 1991a, 1991b) and also are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.11. Ingestion of Soil/Sediments CSxCFxEDxEFxIR-S Exposure Intake (mg/kg I day) BWxAT CS Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment (mg/kg) CF Conversion Factor (1x10'^ kg/mg) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) IR-S Soil higestion Rate (mg/d) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) Dermal Exposure to Soil/Sediments ^ , , ,, , , , CS xCFx ED xEFxSAx SSAF X DABS Exposure Intake (mg I kg I day) = BWxAT CS Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment (mg/kg) CF Conversion Factor for kg/mg (1 X 10" kg/mg) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) SA Skin Surface Area (cm^) SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm^) DABS Dermal Absorption Factor (unitless) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) 3-10 3 0 3 8 9 9 Inhalation of Particulates CSxEDxEFxETxIN Exposure Intake (mg I kg I day) = BWxATxPEF CS Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment (mg/kg) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) ET Exposure Time (hr/d) IN Inhalation Rate (m^/hr) PEF Particulate Emission Factor (m /kg) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) Ingestion of Groundwater CWxEDxEFxIR-W Exposure Intake (mg I kg I day) = BWxAT CW Chemical Concentration in Groundwater (mg/L) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) IR-W Water higestion Rate (L/d) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) Dermal Exposure Groundwater ^ , , , , , , . CWxCFxEDxEFxETxSAxKp Exposure Intake (mg I kg I day) = BWxAT CW Chemical Concentration in Groundwater (mg/L) CF Conversion Factor (1 x 10'^ L/cm^) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) ET Exposure Time (hr/d) SA Skin Surface Area (cm^) Kp Permeability coefficient (chemical-specific) (cm/hr) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) o Ui vo o o 3-11 Inhalation of Volatile Organic Chemicals from Groundwater CWxEDxEFxETxIN x K Exposure Intake (mg I kg I day) = BWxAT CW Chemical Concentration in Groundwater (mg/L) ED Exposure Duration (yr) EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) ET Exposure Time (hr/d) IN frihalation (mVhr) K Volatilization Factor (L/m ) BW Body Weight (kg) AT Averaging Time (d) 3-12 3 0 3 9 0 1 # • ^ 303902 4.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to weigh available evidence regarding the potential for COPCs to cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals. In addition, the toxicity assessment attempts to provide an estimate of the relationship between the extent of exposure to a constituent and the increased likelihood and/or severity of adverse effects (EPA 1989). This also may be referred to as dose-response evaluation. 4.1 DOSE RESPONSE Dose-response assessment is the process whereby the relationship between the dose of an agent and the anticipated incidence of an adverse health effect in an exposed population is characterized (Preuss and Ehrlich 1987). For many chemicals, the human epidemiological evidence is inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between exposure and chronic adverse health effects. Thus, a quantitative dose-response relationship cannot be constmcted on such data. Scientific understanding of the dose-response relationship is largely based on data collected from animal studies (usually rodents) and hypotheses about what might occur in humans. Mathematical models are used to estimate the possible responses at levels far below those tested in animals. These models contain several limitations that should be considered when risk estimates are evaluated. The end result of the dose-response assessment is the determination of human uptake levels that provide an adequate measure of protection to exposed persons for carcinogenic (cancer) and noncarcinogenic (non-cancer) endpoints. The derivation of acceptable levels of exposure, the manner in which these levels are used in this risk assessment, and some of their limitations are described below. Among the strongest limitations of most health criteria are the uncertainties inherent in extrapolating results obtained in animal research to humans, and the shortcomings in extrapolating responses obtained from high dose research studies to estimate responses at very low doses. Such doses may be effectively handled by the myriad of human biological protective mechanisms (Ames et al. 1987). Consequently, the results of standard rodent bioassays cannot define human biological hazards or cancer risks posed by typical levels of exposure. Rather, animal studies provide a basis for extrapolation to potential human health impacts (Cmmp et al. 1976; Sielken 1985; Paustenbach 1989b). However, it should be noted that there are instances when sensitive populations may be more susceptible to a certain chemical than the results from laboratory studies would indicate (Cogliano et., al, 1996). Toxicity criteria were primarily derived from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 1999b) and Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA 1997a). The EPA Region III RBC Table (EPA 1999a) also was consulted when adequate data were not available through ERIS. In the sections that follow, the approaches and assumptions applied in assessing both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic responses are described. 4-1 3 0 3 9 0 3 4,2 NON-CARCINOGENIC RESPONSE It is widely accepted in the scientific community that most biological effects of chemical substances occur only after a threshold dose has been achieved (Klaassen et al. 1986). A threshold dose is a level of intake below which adverse effects are not anticipated. For the purpose of establishing risk criteria levels, the threshold dose is usually estimated from the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) determined in chronic animal studies. The NOAEL is defined as the highest dose at which no observable adverse effects occur, while the LOAEL is defined as the lowest dose at which observable adverse effects begin to appear. NOAELs and LOAELs derived from both animal and human studies are used by EPA to establish chronic RfDs for humans. The RfD is a daily uptake level (mg/kg/day) for the human population, including sensitive sub-populations, that is not expected to cause adverse health effects over the duration of the exposure (EPA, 1989). Uncertainty factors are applied into the RfD and RfC (reference concentrations in air which are converted into RfDjs) development process to account for limitations in the quality or quantity of available data. Specifically, uncertainty factors can be applied for the following reasons: (1) human variability in the general population; (2) the extrapolation of animal data to humans; (3) when a NOAEL from a subchronic study is the basis for the chronic RfD; and (4) when a LOAEL, rather than a NOAEL, is used to develop the RfD. Uncertainty factors are generally applied for the reasons above, in multiples of 10 (although values less then 10 may be used). With respect to the derivation of reference concentrations (RfCs), many include a 1000-fold safety factor due to the associated uncertainties (Finley et. al, 1992). A modifying factor is also applied to reflect a qualitative professional assessment of additional uncertainties in theoretical study and in the entire database for the chemical not explicitly addressed by the preceding uncertainty factors (USEPA, 1989). For example, if available data do not establish a NOAEL and/or there are data gaps for some types of health effects, a safety factor of 1,000, representing an uncertainty factor of 100 and a modifying factor of 10, could be used to establish the RfD. Inherent in this approach is the assumption that these chemicals have a "threshold dose" below which adverse effects would not occur. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 present the health criteria used to evaluate noncarcinogenic effects. For the purposes of this HHRA, RfDs and reference concentrations (RfCs) established by EPA provide the basis for assessing potential noncarcinogenic chronic health risks for exposed populations. If toxicity values were not available, the potential for risk is discussed qualitatively in Section 5.0. Of the constituents investigated in this HHRA, lead is the only constituent lacking the toxicity criteria required to develop a quantitative estimate of the potential for noncancer effects associated with its exposure. As such, it is typically addressed separately from other chemicals in a risk assessment. A separate risk worksheet is being developed as part of RAGS D to address the assessment of hazards associated with lead exposures but was not yet available at the time this risk assessment was completed. Due to this fact, and the low concentrations encountered, lead was not quantitatively evaluated as a COPC in groundwater. A qualitative evaluation of lead as a COPC is discussed in Section 5.6.9. o _ U) o CO vo 4.3 CARCINOGENIC RESPONSE The accepted regulatory approach generally assumes that potentially carcinogenic chemicals should be treated as if they have no threshold of activity (Paustenbach 1989a). To estimate theoretically plausible responses at low doses, various mathematical models that describe the expected quantitative relationship between risk and dose can be used (Paustenbach 1989b). The mathematical model currently used by EPA for low-dose extrapolation is a form of the linearized multistage model (LMS). This model is based on the multistage theory of the carcinogenic process. This model suggests that a cell may go through a sequence of specific changes (stages) before reaching a malignant state. The LMS model is used in EPA carcinogen risk assessments to estimate the dose-response characteristics of carcinogenicity at low exposure levels typically encountered in the environment because it assumes linearity between dose and effect (i.e., no threshold for carcinogenicity). The slope of the dose response curve at low doses, the "slope factor", is used as a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical; the higher the slope factor, the greater the carcinogenic potential. Health risks for exposure to carcinogens are defined in terms of probabilities. These probabilities identify the likelihood of a carcinogenic response in an individual that receives a given dose of a particular constituent. The slope factor (SF), expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'', multiplied by the intake value (dose) of the chemical, provides an estimate of the theoretical excess risk of developing cancer. The following EPA Weight of Evidence Classification was used to determine which COPCs would be evaluated for potential carcinogenic effects: Group A Human carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in human) Group Bl Probable human carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) Group B2 Probable human carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans) Group C Possible human carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals or lack of human data) Group D Not classifiable as the human carcinogenicity (inadequate or no evidence) The COPCs are presented with their ratings in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. fri accordance EPA guidance (EPA 1989), only those chemicals with a Group A, B (Bl or B2), or C classification were addressed for possible carcinogenic effects. For this HHRA, the COPCs addressed for possible carcinogenic effects included chloroform, methylene chloride, isophorone, chromium, and arsenic. 4-3 3 0 3 9 0 5 • • ^ 303906 5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Risk characterization is the culmination of the health risk assessment process and is the point at which a scientific interpretafion of the assessment is provided (EPA 1992c and 1992d). In the risk characterization, the information, results, conclusions, and uncertainties from the data collection and evaluation, exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment are integrated into an overall depiction of potential health risks associated with current site conditions. Not only are potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health risks quantified (NAS 1983), but also, EPA guidance has specified that the risk characterization should prominently display and openly discuss the critical uncertainties of the analysis. These guidelines further specify that four critical tasks be accomplished by the risk characterization (EPA 1992c). According to EPA, the risk characterization: "Integrates the individual characterizations from the hazard identification, dose response, and exposure assessments; provides an evaluation of the overall quality of the assessment and the degree of confidence the authors have in the estimates of risk and conclusions drawn; describes risks to individuals and population in terms of extent and severity of probable harm; and, communicates results of the risk assessment to the risk manager " (EPA 1992c). In the risk characterization for the VICHEM Site, estimates of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were quantified, when possible, for each COPC under the exposure scenarios identified in Section 3.0. These estimates are based on the data, evaluations, and analyses presented in previous sections of this HHRA and, in keeping with EPA guidance, the risk characterization presents a discussion of the conclusions and most significant uncertainties (those that define and explain the risk estimates). 5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION Noncarcinogenic hazards are estimated by dividing the calculated estimated chronic daily intake (GDI) for each noncarcinogen (mg/kg-day) by the appropriate RfD (mg/kg-day). The resulting ratio is termed the HQ. HQ = CDI/Rfl) HQs are summed across COPCs for each media contaminated with more than one compound, yielding Cumulative Hazard Indices (His). A summation of the chemical His is presented for each of the target organs identified, in addition to an overall summation which presents the most conservative HQ without regard to toxic endpoint. Tables 7.1 through 7.22 present the RME and CT non-carcinogenic risk hazard quotients and hazard indices for each scenario evaluated in this risk assessment. CO o CO vo o -J 5-1 5.2 CARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION Carcinogenic risks are estimated by multiplying the estimated CDI for each carcinogen (mg/kg-day) by its SF ((mg-kg-day)"'). The result is a chemical-specific excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR). ELCR - CDI X SF This value represents a conservative upper-bound probability of developing cancer during a 70-year lifetime as a result of exposure to the chemical concentrations and media evaluations. Within each media, cancer risks were summed across chemicals for each pathway of exposure to yield an excess lifetime incremental cancer risk for a hypothetical individual within each potentially-exposed population. In addition, in cases where an individual from a given scenario could be exposed to multiple exposure routes across several media, risks also are summed across exposure pathways and media to yield a total risk estimate for that receptor. Cancer risks are summed regardless of differences in target organ, weight-of-evidence for human carcinogenicity, or potential chemical interactions (e.g., antagonistic or synergistic effects). This approach is consistent with EPA's current approach to carcinogenic effects, which is to assume effects are additive unless adequate information to the contrary is available (EPA 1989). Tables 8.1 through 8.2 present the calculated carcinogenic risks for each scenario evaluated in this risk assessment. 5.3 EVALUATION OF RISK ESTIMATES The significance of the potential risks estimated for this Site is evaluated by comparing the calculated risks to established target levels. Federal agencies have adopted target levels of risk that have been deemed acceptable based on several factors, notably the benefits of the chemical being regulated, the ability to avoid risk from other sources, and the cost factors involved in reducing that risk. EPA has established target levels for the evaluation of carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards at hazardous waste sites. The target hazard level for noncarcinogenic effects is a HI of 1 (EPA 1989). EPA's guidelines state that the total incremental carcinogenic risk for an individual resulting from multiple-pathway exposures should not exceed a range of 10"SolO"^(EPA1989). 5.4 RISK ESTIMATES Based on the identification of sources, pathways, and receptors, estimates of human health risk were developed for exposure of the identified receptor populations to COPCs in media associated with complete or hypothetically-complete exposure pathways. As previously discussed, estimates of human uptake were calculated using the 95^ UCL of lognormally transformed datasets. The estimated carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards were compared to the EPA guidelines and generally-accepted target risk levels presented above. Carcinogenic risks within or exceeding the target range of 1 x 10'^ to 1 x 10'"* and non-carcinogenic hazards greater 5-2 3 0 3 9 0 8 than 1 (l.OE+00) are identified in this section. Scientific notation is used in the discussion of both these risks. The result of this evaluation concluded that most of the chemicals detected in groundwater, soil, and sediment are not associated with an excess health risk for the current or future land use scenarios evaluated. Tables 9.1 through 9.7 present the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk estimates for the exposure pathways evaluated. 5.4.1 Current Land Use Based on the inactive status of the VICHEM Site, current land use scenarios evaluated exposure to onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System for an adult and pre-adolescent trespasser. The cancer risk estimates presented are associated with exposure to arsenic and chromium, which are the only carcinogenic COPCs identified in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System. In addition to these two constituents, noncancer hazards were evaluated for iron (surface soil and soil/sediment) and manganese (surface soil). These risk estimates are discussed below and presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. 5.4.1.1 Adult Trespasser For the adult trespasser, RME to COPCs in surface soil resulted in a carcinogenic risk estimate (total of all pathways) of 1 x 10'^, which equals the lower end of EPA's benchmark range. This receptor's exposure to COPCs detected in the soil/sediment in the Gut System are below EPA's target risk at 3 x 10"'. The cumulative risk for this receptor (total of all pathways and media) is 1 X 10"^ which equals the 10"^ carcinogenic risk benchmark. The CT carcinogenic risks were calculated for surface soil and the CT risk of 1 x 10"' is below the EPA benchmark. Noncancer hazard estimates for the RME receptor were less than the target level of 1 for exposure to COPCs in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System with an overall cumulative HI of 7.7E-02. Because the RME noncancer His were less than 1, the CT receptor was not evaluated. 5.4.1.2 Pre-Adolescent Trespasser None of the individual pathway (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation) risk estimates nor the cumulative RME risk estimate of 5 x 10"' associated with exposure to onsite surface soil evaluated for the pre-adolescent trespasser exceed EPA's 10' point of departure for acceptable carcinogenic risk. Carcinogenic risk estimates calculated for exposure to COPCs in soil/sediment in the Gut System were less than EPA's benchmark of 10'^ at 1 x 10''. The pre-adolescent trespasser's overall cancer risk estimate (contact with COPCs in onsite surface soil and Gut System soil/sediment via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal pathways) is 7 x 10'' which is less than lO'*'. It was not necessary to evaluate the CT receptor for this scenario. 00 o Individual noncancer hazard estimates were less than the target level of 1 for pre-adolescent ^ trespasser exposure to COPCs in onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System. As o vo 5-3 presented in Table 9.2, the overall HI across all media and exposure routes is 2.4E-01. It was not necessary to evaluate the CT receptor for this scenario. 5.4.2 Future Land Use Considering the current and anticipated future industrial zoning classification of the VICHEM Site, future land use scenarios evaluated exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and soil/sediment in the Gut System for an adult industrial/commercial worker. In addition, a future constmction scenario was evaluated for direct contact exposure with COPCs in surface soil. Subsurface soil was not evaluated for the constmction worker because no COPCs were identified in this medium. However, the potential risk associated with leaching of constituents via groundwater migration through subsurface soil was evaluated by comparing concentrations to EPA's SSLs. The results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 4.0 of the RI Report. Finally, an offsite resident was evaluated for direct contact (dermal contact, ingestion) with COPCs and inhalation of volatile COPCs in groundwater. Exposure to groundwater was evaluated for the onsite industrial worker, assuming this receptor would use groundwater from an onsite well for potable and non-potable purposes. The pathways evaluated for exposure to COPCs in groundwater included ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of VOCs. Offsite residential exposure to groundwater was evaluated based on the future potential for COPCs in onsite groundwater to migrate to offsite wells. The pathways evaluated include exposure to COPCs in groundwater via ingestion of groundwater from the tap, and dermal contact and inhalation while showering (adult) or taking a bath (child). For the purpose of this HHRA, it was assumed that current onsite groundwater concentrations were representative of future offsite concentrations. The probability that groundwater concentrations will be the same offsite as they are onsite is uncertain, as the concentrations offsite will likely be affected by many chemical-specific factors such as natural attenuation, degradation, and mobility. However, this assumption was made for the purposes of this risk assessment. A discussion on environmental fate and transport as it relates to this HHILA. is presented in the Qualitative Uncertainty Section 5.6.2. As previously discussed, exposure to groundwater was not considered for the constmction worker. Like current land use scenarios, the cancer risk estimates presented for surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System are associated with exposure to arsenic and chromium which are the only carcinogenic COPCs identified in these media. In addition, noncancer hazards were evaluated for aluminum (soil/sediment), iron (surface soil and soil/sediment), manganese (surface soil and soil/sediment), vanadium (surface soil and soil/sediment), and zinc (surface soil). These risk estimates are discussed below and presented in Tables 9.3 and 9.4. 5.4.2.1 Industrial/Commercial Worker The hypothetical industrial/commercial worker receptor was evaluated for potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater, surface soil, and soil/sediment collected in the Gut System. The cumulative RME risk estimate of 9 x 10' exceeds the target range of 1x10' to 1 X 10' . The majority of the potential carcinogenic risk is associated with exposure to 5-4 3 0 3 9 1 0 COPCs in groundwater as shown in Table 9.3a. In particular, inhalation of volatilized chloroform, exposure to chloroform and arsenic via ingestion, and dermal contact with chloroform account for most of the cumulative risk estimate for this medium. Onsite surface soil exposures for the RME scenario exceed the lower end of EPA's target range with estimates of 3 X 10'^. Exposure to the Gut System soil/sediment yielded a risk estimate of 6 x 10'', less than the EPA benchmark risk estimate. The carcinogenic risks from these media are associated with arsenic. CT risk estimates for the industrial onsite worker are greater than the high end of EPA's acceptable target risk range. The cumulative risk estimate for this receptor is 2 x 10"^ which, like the RME, is comprised almost entirely of risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. Again, inhalation of volatilized chloroform contributes essentially all of this risk with an associated cancer risk estimate of 2 x 10 . Surface soil risk estimates for the CT receptor did not contribute significantly with a cumulative pathway risk estimate of 5 x 10''. For the RME receptor, the only noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1 are associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. The majority of this hazard estimate is associated with inhalation of volatilized chloroform with a HQ of 3.3E+02. The cumulative ingestion HQs associated with groundwater yield a hazard quotient of 2.7E+00. Target organ His across all media are 3.3E+02 for liver/kidney, 5.8E-02 for decreased hair proteins, 7.3E-02 for skin, 1.2E+00 for CNS, l.OE-01 for blood effects, 5.8E-01 for liver/heart/pancreas, 7.1E-02 for lung effects, and 6.IE-.3 for GI tract. The cumulative HI associated with exposure to groundwater is 3.3E+02 (99% of which is associated with inhalation of volatiles in groundwater). Evaluation of the CT receptor provided similar results as the RME (cumulative groundwater HI values greater than 1) since inhalation of chloroform is responsible for most of the non- carcinogenic risk and inhalation rates were not varied between the two receptors. Since RME exposures to surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System did not generate non- carcinogenic hazard estimates greater than the target benchmark, CT receptors to these media were not evaluated. Risk estimates for the RME receptor are presented in Table 9.3a showing HI of 3.1E-01 for surface soil and 6.1E-02 for soil/sediment. 5.4.2.2 Construction Worker The total risk estimate associated with exposure to arsenic in surface soil and soil/sediment for the constmction worker (9 x 10'') is less than EPA's 10'^ target risk. This result indicates no significant risk for this receptor under the future constmction scenario evaluated. Direct contact exposure to subsurface soil was not evaluated since there were no COPCs identified in this medium. Ingestion non-cacinogenic hazard estimates for the RME constmction worker were slightly co greater than one for ingestion of onsite surface soils (1.2E+00). Across all media no individual S COPC was greater than one, but the cumulative HI was 1.8E+00, indicating a slight potential for )P^ adverse health effects. The total CT HI was 2.5E-01. H 5-5 5.4.2.3 Adult Resident The adult offsite resident was evaluated for potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs in groundwater. The cumulative RME risk estimate, 8 x 10'^, exceeds the EPA target risk range of 1 x lO""* to 1 x 10'^. The majority of the potential risk comes from chloroform via ingestion and inhalation, and arsenic via the ingestion pathway. The CT estimate for this scenario is 9 x 10'^, and falls within the EPA benchmark risk range. For the non-carcinogenic evaluation, the cumulative RME hazard of 2.5E+02 exceeded the acceptable level of 1. Exposure via inhalation and ingestion contributed to the majority of the hazard. Specifically, individual His for inhalation of chloroform (2.5E+02) and the ingestion of chloroform (2.8E+00), iron (l.lE+00), and manganese (2.7E+00) in groundwater all exceeded 1. Target pathway His exceeding 1 included liver/kidney (2.5E+02), CNS, (2.8E+00), and liver/heart/pancreas (1.2E+00). The cumulative CT hazard across groundwater is 8.2E+01, to which chloroform (1.7E+00) and manganese (1.5E+00) each contributed via the ingestion pathway, and chloroform contributed the majority via inhalation (7.8E+01). Risk and hazard estimates for the adult resident are presented in Tables 9.5a and 9.5b. 5.4.2.4 Child Resident The child offsite resident risk esfimate, 4 x 10'^, exceeds the EPA target risk range. Major contributing COPCs were similar to those for the adult scenario. The CT risk estimate was also calculated, and just fell within the EPA target risk range at 1 x 10'''. For the non-carcinogenic evaluation, the total HI RME estimate was 6.0E+02. COPCs contributing to the majority of hazard were chloroform via ingestion (8.3E+00) and inhalation (5.8E+02), manganese via ingestion (7.7E+00), and iron via ingestion (3.2E+00). Pathway- specific His that exceeded one included liver/kidney (5.9E+02), CNS (8.0E+00) and liver/heart/pancreas (3.3E+00). The total HI CT estimate was 2.0E+02. 5.4.2.5 Addition of the Adult and Child Resident EPA guidance (1989) recommends that adult and child carcinogenic risk-estimates are combined to derive an overall lifetime cancer risk. As presented above, the total risk estimates for both the child and adult-exceeded EPA's target risk range, in most cases. The cancer risks for the adult and child resident were summed using the data presented in Tables 8.19a, 8.20a, 8.21a and 8.22a (RME) and 8.19b, 8.20b, 8.21b, and 8-22b (CT). The cumulative risk for the adult and child resident under an RME scenario is 1 x 10' and under the CT scenario is 2 x lO'''. The driving pathways and chemicals are consistent with the adult and child risk estimates. The summary of these risks are presented in Tables 9.7a and b. 5-6 3 0 3 9 1 2 5.5 RISK DRIVERS This section presents a summary of cancer risks and noncancer hazards that may trigger the need for cleanup at the VICHEM Site. Risks and hazards are presented for each receptor by medium, exposure route, and exposure point. Only those chemicals in media which exceed or significantly contribute to an exceedance of the target levels are presented herein. The risk drivers are summarized in the Table 10 series. Based on USEPA guidance, the target cancer risk is 1 X 10'^ to 1 X 10'^, and the target hazard level is 1 (EPA, 1989). Any data not presented in the Table 10 series is not considered to be risk-driving. 5.5.1 Current Land Use As shown in Table 10.1, arsenic is surface soil presents a potenfial for slight carcinogenic risk at 1x10'^ (the lower end of the EPA target risk range). 5.5.2 Future Land Use The exposure scenarios presented in this section represent only those with risk or hazard estimates that exceed the target levels. Within each scenario presented, only those chemicals and pathways which contribute significantly to an increased risk or hazard level are presented. Based on the scenarios evaluated for future land use, the chemical which is the main driver of hazard and risk at the site is chloroform in groundwater. Manganese and iron also present an increased hazard in groundwater, as does iron in surface soil and soil/sediment in the gut system. 5.5.2.1 Adult Trespasser As presented in Table 10.1, the RME chemical risk driver for this scenario is arsenic in surface soil. No one exposure pathway exceeds 1x10", however, carcinogenic risk from the combined ingestion and dermal pathways is 1 x 10' . 5.5.2.1 Industrial/Commercial Worker As presented in Table 10.2a, the RME chemical risk driver for this scenario is chloroform in groundwater. The potential future risk from inhalation of chloroform in groundwater is 9 x lO''*, and comprises 95% of the carcinogenic risk to this receptor. Exposure pathways involving chloroform, methylene chloride and arsenic are also presented in Table 10.2a, as they generally contribute to the overall risk level of 9 x 10 for this scenario. CT exposure estimates, presented in Table 10.2b, yield a cancer risk of 2 x 10' , with the major contributor also being chloroform in groundwater. Ninety-nine percent of this total HI (3.3E+02) for the industrial/commercial worker is due to inhalation of chloroform in groundwater. His due to ingestion and dermal contact of both co chloroform (1.2E+02) and manganese (1.2E+00) in groundwater are also elevated. CT estimates , S show similar results, with the inhalation of chloroform being the main risk driver of hazard. J^ CO 5-7 Ingestion of chloroform, iron and manganese in groundwater comprise a total hazard quotient of 1.4E+00. 5.5.2.2 Construction Worker The theoretical cancer risk levels for the constmction worker falls within the acceptable risk range. The drivers of hazard for this scenario are arsenic, iron, and manganese in surface soil via the ingestion and dermal pathways. No one exposure pathway exceeds 1, however, the combined pathway HI equals the EPA benchmark of l.OE+00. This information is presented in Table 10.3. 5.5.2.3 Adult Resident Table 10.4a presents the RME risk drivers for the theoretical future adult resident scenario. Overall risk at the site is 8 x 10'^. Chloroform, methylene chloride and arsenic in groundwater are the major contributors for this scenario. CT risk estimates were within the acceptable risk range at 9 x 10'^. As presented in Table 10.4a, the chemical and pathway which contribute most to the increased hazard index for the aduU resident is chloroform in groundwater (HI = 2.5E+02), comprising 98% of the total hazard for this scenario, fron and manganese also present unacceptable hazard levels of l.lE+00 and 2.7E+00, respectively, via potential ingestion of groundwater. CT estimates (Table 10.4b) indicate that chloroform is the main driver of hazard, and that manganese also presents and unacceptable level of hazard via ingestion (1.5E+00). 5.5.2.4 Child Resident Table 10.5a presents the RME child resident risk drivers and as with the aduh resident, chloroform, methylene chloride and arsenic are the COPCs with risks greater than 1 x 10'^. The risk for the CT scenario is 1 x lO'"*. As with the adult resident, inhalation of chloroform in groundwater presents the greatest percentage of hazard (HI = 5.8E+02; 97% of the total HI). Chloroform also presents an increased hazard due to ingestion (HI = 8.3E+00), as do iron (3.2E+00) and manganese (7.7E+00). CT hazard drivers are presented in Table 10.5b. The chemical drivers for the CT exposure are the same as for the RME scenario, with chloroform, iron, and manganese all having individual His greater than 1. 5.5.2.5 Addition of Adult and Child Resident Table 10.6a presents the RME adult plus child resident carcinogenic risk drivers. EPA guidance (1989) recommends that adult and child risk-estimates are combined to derive an overall lifetime cancer risk. Inhalation is the major risk driver while ingestion of chloroform, methylene chloride and arsenic all contribute to risk. For the CT scenario, the risk drivers are the same as those for the RME scenario. 3 0 3 9 1 4 5.6 QUALITATIVE UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS The primary objective of the uncertainty analysis is to determine the extent to which the risk results may be over- or underestimated, and to identify the uncertainties associated with these estimates. While risk estimates calculated using quantitative risk assessment methodologies offer plausible estimates of the upper bound of risk, such estimates are not actual predictions of risk. In order to effectively understand a risk assessment, quantitative estimates of risk must be evaluated in conjunction with important qualitative factors. These factors include the strength of the evidence which indicates that a substance produces a particular toxic effect, the accuracy and completeness of the site-specific data used to determine potential exposures, and uncertainties and assumptions inherent to the assessment of risk. The risk assessment does not characterize absolute risk; rather, it seeks to highlight potential sources of unacceptable risk so that they may be effectively addressed. For the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) receptor, assumptions regarding chemical toxicity, site characteristics, and human exposure potential are selected and applied such that the estimated risks and hazards are based on the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occur under both current and future use scenarios. Under these conditions, the RME represents a conservative estimate of exposure which is still within the range of possible exposures (EPA, 1989). For the Central Tendency (CT) receptor, assumptions regarding exposures are based upon realistic scenarios other than the RME scenario. These exposures tend to also be conservative although less than those used for the RME scenario. The assumptions for the CT scenario are based upon average or mean estimates of exposure from using studies such as those presented in the Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1997). Some assumptions are based on defensible scientific research, while others rely on professional judgement. Assumptions based on strong scientific evidence, epidemiologic studies, or site- specific information contribute less uncertainty to the process, while assumptions which rely on professional judgement often contribute more uncertainty. As stated in Section 3.2, four elements must be present for an exposure pathway to be complete. These elements were either identified as present or had the potential to be present in the exposure pathways included in this risk assessment. Estimating potential risks and hazards resulting from exposure via these pathways involves using mathematical models, and includes information based on current knowledge of biology, chemistry, and toxicology. The assumptions used in the models are based on information gathered from national epidemiologic studies as well as site specific information regarding land use and human activity. Some of the assumptions that introduce uncertainty into the risk assessment process are described below. 5.6.1 Representative Chemical and Exposure Point Concentrations There are a number of uncertainties associated with developing exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for use in risk assessments. The use of the 95"^ UCL is a conservative way to estimate ^^ the exposure concentration of a Contaminant of Potential Concem (COPC). As stated in the o RAGS supplemental guidance (EPA, 1992b), "Because of the uncertainty associated with vo estimating the tme average concentration at a site, the 95 percent upper confidence level (UCL) [^ 5-9 of the arithmetic mean should be used for this variable [the EPC]. The 95 percent UCL provides reasonable confidence that the tme site average will not be underestimated." The procedure used in selecting EPCs is consistent with the RAGS supplemental guidance. Since all the Site data were not normally distributed, the 95' UCL on the mean of the log- transformed data was calculated for some of the COPCs. In accordance with guidance (EPA, 1992b), the maximum detected concentration was used to represent the EPC when the calculated 95"^ UCL exceeded the maximum. Otherwise, the 95* UCL was used to represent EPCs for the RME and CT receptors. All EPCs were based upon this RME approach, i.e., separate, less conservative EPCs were not developed for use in the CT risk calculations. Inherent in the 95' UCL calculation is a conservative approach to addressing non-detected results for samples within a medium of concem. In accordance with guidance (EPA, 1992b), a concentration equal to one-half of the reporting limit was assumed for those samples where COPCs were not detected. For some COPCs, the number of samples with non-detected results surpassed the number of samples where the constituent was detected. It should be noted that this is a conservative assumption that may overestimate the EPC because many constituents are detectable at one-half the reporting limit. Uncertainty associated with EPCs also may be related to sampling methods and locations. Surface soil samples were collected at the VICHEM Site at a depth of 0 to 1-ft bgs. Aside from the onsite worker performing landscaping or other forms of intmsive soil work, the industrial/commercial worker is more likely to be exposed to those COPCs present in only the top few inches of soil. As such, the dataset representing a depth of 0 to 1-ft bgs may not accurately represent the surface soil EPCs for future onsite workers. 5.6.2 Environmental Fate and Transport Migration and dilution of chemicals in groundwater present additional sources of uncertainty in the HHRA. While it is improbable that any of the COPCs are completely resistant to degradation, the chemical reactions that cause degradation are sufficiently complex as to disallow calculation of chemical- and Site-specific degradation rates. Consequently, EPCs do not account for natural decay over time. This is conservative for the site COPCs, which are generally expected to experience degradation and natural attenuation. Also, because groundwater movement is dynamic within an aquifer, concentrations of COPCs will not remain static at a given monitoring well throughout a 30-year period. For the purposes of this HHRA, however, it was assumed that chemical concentrations in groundwater will remain constant over the entire exposure period. Data from on-Site wells have been used to evaluate exposure for a future off-site resident conservatively assuming that the COPCs would migrate off-Site in a direction within the same hydrostratigraphic zone and that the concentrations will not change (i.e. no dilution). Current data indicate that COPCs are not present in offsite groundwater supply wells. Although fate and transport mechanisms such as natural attenuation and degradation make it highly unlikely for offsite concentrations to be the same as those onsite, onsite concentrations provide a conservative 5-10 303916 approach to assessing the future groundwater use scenario. As such, use of the on-Site data likely results in over estimation of potential future risks and hazards. Degradation of some COPCs could theoretically result in constituents that are more toxic than those evaluated during the risk assessment. With respect to this Site, chloroform could successively degrade into methylene chloride, chloromethane, and methane. Methylene chloride and chloromethane, which is a gas, both degrade rapidly (Howard, 1991) and are therefore not expected to be persistent in the environment. Methylene chloride has been measured in Site samples', but its apparent presence is an artifact caused by blank contamination. The other major COPCs, ethylbenzene and xylene, degrade to carbon dioxide and water, which are non-toxic. 5.6.3 Exposure Assumptions Several assumptions relating to the exposure assessment may not, in fact, reflect actual conditions at this Site and, as a result, add additional uncertainty to the risk results. 5.6.3.1 Completeness of Exposure Pathway Some of the exposure pathways evaluated may not be complete. That is, exposure is not possible in the absence of any one of the following four elements: (1) source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment; (2) an environmental transport medium; (3) a point of potential human contact with that medium; and (4) a human contact route at the contact point. In this case, the presence of the potentially-exposed populations considered in this HHRA is hypothetical. For example, the assumption that adults and pre-adolescents trespass onsite and in the Gut System may not be accurate. Similarly, it is possible that the future exposure scenarios described in the risk assessment may not become complete pathways in the foreseeable future. For example, the pathway presenting exposure of the future industrial/commercial worker produced incremental risk estimates that are considered significant based on the target comparison range. However, this receptor is hypothetical and it is possible that future industrial use of the Site would not use onsite wells as a potable water source. Likewise, risk and hazard estimates indicated potential health effects to an offsite resident. However, the residential groundwater use scenario also may never be complete. Although no COPCs currently exist in offsite groundwater, the future residential scenario is based on the assumption that COPCs will exist in offsite groundwater in the future at concentrations consistent with those detected during the remedial investigation. Additionally, the pathway that evaluates industrial/commercial exposure to groundwater via inhalation of volatile COPCs uses a volatilization factor that was developed to represent a residential scenario where water is used for cooking, cleaning, and showering. This is likely to overestimate the exposure that would be encountered in an industrial setting where inhalation of COPCs in water is assumed to be limited to water use activities such as hand washing, toilet co flushing, car washing, or landscaping (i.e., watering lawn and plants at the facility). U) vo M -J ' The apparent concentrations also do not pose a risk in excess of the EPA target risk range. _ 5.6.3.2 Hum an Behavior For the RME scenarios, conservative values were employed to describe human behavior. For example, it was assumed in the industrial/commercial scenario that an individual worker would be exposed to the same chemical concentration for 25 years. This assumption does not allow for the possibility of changes in job-site or responsibilities. For the trespasser scenarios, it was assumed that an adult or a preadolescent would trespass on the property twice a week for 4 hours per day for 52 weeks of the year. In addition, the adult was assumed to maintain this level of trespassing activity for 30 years. These exposure assumptions would tend to overestimate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to the adult receptor. Additional uncertainty at the VICHEM Site may be associated with water consumption rates. Due to the warm climate of St. Croix, it is possible that a worker onsite would consume more water per day while working in a tropical climate, than a worker located in a more temperate environment. Therefore, the RME ingestion rate of 1.2 L/day could potentially underestimate exposure for this Site, particularly for an outdoor worker. For the shower model, it was assumed that a person would shower for 12 minutes and would remain in the enclosed bathroom for an additional 20 minutes following the shower. During this time, no ventilation would occur (i.e., windows would not be opened and an exhaust fan would not be used). These are conservative assumptions that would tend to over estimate the potential risks and hazards to a future resident. 5.6.3.3 Chemical Exposures other than Site-related The exposure scenarios developed for this risk assessment do not account for exposure to chemicals not related to the Site, such as on-the-job exposure to workplace chemicals or household use of chemicals. Acceptable risk benchmark values were not adjusted to allow for exposures to chemicals originating offsite. If exposure to non Site-related chemicals is found to be significant, additive risks for chemicals that are similar or have similar target health endpoints as those onsite could possibly exceed acceptable risk benchmarks. 5.6.4 Soil Ingestion Rate The current default value for soil ingestion for a constmction worker is 480 mg/day. This number was originally derived from the qualitative estimate by Hawley (1985). However, most of Hawley's assumptions, including those for outdoor soil ingestion by an adult, were qualitative "guesstimates". Hawley's soil ingestion rate is based on an estimated soil-skin adherence factor of 3.5 mg/cm for the forefingers and thumbs of one adult and the assumption that hand-to-mouth contact occurs, resulting in soil ingestion. EPA's Superfund program recommends the use of an ingestion rate for a constmction worker that is based on the Hawley study. Until additional studies have been reviewed and the ingestion rate revised, the value of 480 mg/day will be used as the default ingestion rate for the constmction worker. Consequently, it is possible that the risks and hazards calculated for the constmction worker are overestimated. 5-12 CO o CO vo f-> 00 5.6.5 Dermal Absorption To account for dermal absorption of COPCs in soil and sediment, a dermal absorption factor (DABS) is incorporated into the risk calculation. As discussed in RAGS Dermal Risk Assessment interim Guidance, (EPA, 1998), chemical-specific DABS values are available for only a limited number of analytes. Of the COPCs evaluated in surface soil and the Gut System soil/sediment, a chemical-specific DABS is available for arsenic only. Therefore, arsenic is the only chemical which is quantitatively evaluated for dermal exposure in this HHRA. Chromium, iron, manganese, vanadium, and zinc are COPCs present in media that have the potential to create a complete dermal exposure pathway. However, these metals do not have EPA-approved DABS, and as a result, dermal exposure to these chemicals was not quantified in this HHRA. The omission of this pathway of exposure for these metals results in an underestimation of the total risk and hazards, especially for dermally active chemicals. Similarly, dermal absorption of COPCs in groundwater requires the use of a permeability coefficient, which is the measure of the rate at which a chemical crosses or permeates the skin. Chemical-specific permeability coefficients were not available for the five inorganic COPCs (antimony, barium, iron, manganese, and vanadium) that were quantitatively evaluated for potential risk associated with dermal exposure to groundwater. According to data presented by EPA (1992a), small ions such as metals have a permeability coefficient equivalent to water at 1 x 10'^ cm/hr; therefore, this value was used for these metals. 5.6.6 Inhalation For the future residential use scenario for groundwater, air concentrations of volatile COPCs were estimated using a simple showering model based upon Andelman (1990) and Schaum et. al (1994). The model uses groundwater concentrations and estimates the COPC concentrations in air during and immediately following showering. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the calculations used to estimate air concentrations. As noted by Schaum, et. al., (1994) "the assumptions of constant volatilization and no ventilation tend to make this model very conservative; that is, it is likely to overestimate actual levels." Additional assumptions made by this model include the following: • The concentration of the chemical contaminant is assumed to be zero at the start of the shower; • The exchange between air in the shower chamber and bathroom air is so rapid that the combined volume of the two compartments can be treated as a single chamber with a single concentration of volatilized chemical; and, • The model does not account for the exchange rate that occurs when an exhaust fan is tumed on. The air concentrations derived from the shower model were also used to calculate potential inhalation risks and hazards for the future residential child receptor. The shower model results are conservative and may tend to overestimate the levels for the child bathing scenario. 5-13 303919 5.6.7 Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Criteria Reference doses are developed by USEPA and other regulatory health agencies using conservative assumptions regarding the potential non-carcinogenic effects that exposure to specific chemicals may have on the human body. In developing the reference doses certain assumptions are made to ensure that exposure at that dose would not result in adverse health effects. In addition to the uncertainty inherent in the derivation of No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs), development of noncarcinogenic health criteria must account for such things as human variability, use of subchronic studies to derive chronic health criteria, and differences in sensitivity between individuals within the exposed population. In an effort to compensate for such uncertainties in a health protective manner, uncertainty factors are applied by EPA to the NOAELs selected for derivation of the RfD or RfC. Depending on the quality and extent of toxicity information, varying degrees of uncertainty will be associated with the calculated toxicity values. For example, the uncertainty factor for 2,4-dimethylphenol is 3,000 indicating a lack of confidence in the toxicity data upon which it is based. In contrast, the uncertainty factor for arsenic is only 3, indicating that there is a high degree of confidence in the data. In general, the procedures used to extrapolate from animals to humans in toxicity studies include the use of an uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variability. As discussed in Section 4.1, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that low doses of toxicants may be detoxified by any one of several processes present in human organ-systems (Ames et al., 1987). As a result, humans may not react to the same degree as the population of genetically homogeneous laboratory animal populations used in standard bioassays. In addition to the uncertainty factor, a modifying factor is applied. This factor can range from less than 0 to 10, and is included to reflect a qualitative professional assessment of additional uncertainties in the critical study and in the entire database for the chemical not explicitly addressed by the preceding uncertainty factors. The default value for the modifying factor is 1 (USEPA, 1989b). Consequently, the non-carcinogenic toxicity factors obtained from IRIS, HEAST and NCEA are generally accepted industry-wide as being conservatively protective of human health. The hazard quotients calculated for each given pathway were summed to provide a single hazard index for that pathway. The use of a single hazard index is conservative because not all COPCs affect the same target organ. Consequently, the breakdown of hazard indices by target organ better represents potential noncarcinogenic affects to humans. 5.6.8 Carcinogenic Toxicity Criteria Usually, the level of uncertainty is larger for carcinogens than non-carcinogens due to inherent ^ uncertainties in development of the cancer slope factors (SFs). SFs calculated by EPA are based co on the Linear Multistage (LMS) model, which assumes that risk can be extrapolated in a linear vo to o 5-14 manner from the high doses used in animal bioassays to the low doses characteristic of human environmental exposures. The use of the LMS model does not account for the concepts of threshold dose, initiation/promotion, and epigenetic mechanisms of carcinogenesis. As such, SFs are considered to represent potential risks at the 95* UCL. The accuracy of risk estimates at low doses predicted by the LMS model is unknown, but the risks associated with low levels of environmental exposure may actually be closer to zero than to estimated values. In the absence of evidence of synergistic or antagonistic effects of chemical mixtures, the assumption was made, in accordance with EPA guidance, that their effects are additive. This assumption, however, does not account for dissimilarities in mechanisms of action. Furthermore, compounds may actually induce different toxic effects in different species or in different systems within a given species. 5.6.9 Absence of Chemical or Route-Specific Toxicity Values No toxicity criteria (RfDs or cancer slope factors) have been developed to evaluate dermal routes of exposure. In the absence of route-specific toxicity values for dermal exposure, EPA (1989) recommends use of oral toxicity values, adjusted to reflect absorbed rather than administered dose, for assessment of potential health effects associated with dermal exposure. It is widely acknowledged that there is significant uncertainty in use of route-to-route extrapolation procedures in the risk assessment. One of the sources of uncertainty is the difference in toxicokinetics, (i.e., absorption, metabolism, and mode of action that may affect the expression of toxicity between different routes of exposure). In this assessment, procedures recommended in EPA risk assessment guidance (EPA, 1989) were applied in route-to-route extrapolation, despite the uncertainty associated with these methods. The absorption factors applied were selected from published literature regarding GI absorption. In addition, although toxicity information is generally available for the site COPCs, there may be some chemicals for which little toxicological data exist or that have no calculated toxicity factors (i.e., RfD or CSF) for specific exposure routes. In the absence of data, the possibility exists that these chemicals may in fact pose some level of risk if exposures were to occur. In this respect, there may be an understatement of the total potential risks and hazards at the Site. For example, several constituents (arsenic, iron, vanadium, zinc, acetone, isophorone, xylenes, 2,4- dimethylphenol, and 2-methylphenol) were identified as COPCs for which inhalation toxicity factors do not exist. Consequently, they were not evaluated for their contribution to noncarcinogenic hazard 5.6.10 LeadasaCOPC Of the chemicals investigated in this HHRA, lead is the only Site constituent lacking the toxicity criteria required to develop a quantitative estimate of the potential for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects associated with its exposure. As such, it is typically addressed separately co from other chemicals in a risk assessment, and its presence in onsite groundwater is discussed S qualitatively here. Lead, which was identified as a COPC for groundwater, was detected in five ^ of 24 groundwater samples. Only the maximum detected concentration of 50.7 ppb detected in an M 5-15 off-site well (MW-10) exceeded the treatment technology action level (TTAL) of 15 ppb. Although this level is not representative of site-specific lead concentrations, both the average lead concentration (4.1 ppb) and the 95% UCL lead concentration (7.3 ppb) were calculated including this value, but do not exceed the TTAL. Furthermore, the average lead concentration is similar to the background default concentration of 4 ppb utilized in the lEUBK model from drinking water exposure. Therefore, although lead is identified as a COPC in groundwater, it was not quantitatively evaluated through the use of a biokinetic model, and the concentrations present onsite are not expected to pose an unacceptable health risk. 5.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY The risks and hazards are summarized in this last section of the HHRA. When evaluating the calculated risks presented here, one should remember that the lack of toxicity information for specific chemicals and certain exposure pathways may have potentially underestimated the risk and hazards at the site. As previously discussed, based on the exposure assumptions utilized in developing risk estimates, the hypothetical industrial/commercial occupational exposure to groundwater under a future land use scenario is the only on-Site pathway that presents cumulative risk estimates, for both the RME and CT receptors, in excess of EPA's target acceptable range. Concentrations of chloroform in groundwater are responsible for the majority of this risk. Onsite surface soil and soil/sediment in the Gut System demonstrated carcinogenic risks for the adult industrial worker in excess of 10' for ingestion at 3 x 10'^; however, this risk estimate is within EPA's acceptable range of 10' to 10'^. This risk was associated primarily with ingestion of arsenic in soils. Estimated risks for adult and pre-adolescent trespassers and constmction workers are at or below the EPA target of 10'^ risk. The RME risk estimates for potential future residential groundwater use exceeded the EPA range for adult and child receptors. For both residential scenarios, the COPCs which contributed to the majority of risk are chloroform and arsenic. Both adult and child residential RME His exceeded 1 (2.5E+02 and 6.0E+02, respectively). Ingestion and inhalation of chloroform contributed to the majority of the risk and hazard for the residential groundwater use scenario. Ingestion of arsenic, iron, and manganese also contributed to the risk and hazard estimates. 5-16 3 0 3 9 2 2 6.0 REFERENCES Ames, B.N., Magaw, R. and Gold, L.S. (1987). Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards. Science 236:271-273. Ames, B.N., and L.S. Gold, (1990). Too many rodent carcinogens; mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science. 249:970-971. ATSDR, 1992. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Cmmp, K, Hoel, D., Langley, H. and Peto, R. (1976). Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications to low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 36:2973-2979. Driver, T.N., Konz, J.J., and Whitmyre, G.K. (1989). Soil adherence to human skin. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:814-820. Finley, B.L., Proctor, D.M., Paustenbach, D.J. (1992). An alternafive to the USEPA's proposed inhalation reference concentrations for hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 16:161-176 Hawley, J.K. (1985). Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil. Risk Anal. 5(4):289-302. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) (1994) Draft Remedial Investigation Workplan, August. Howard, P.H., Boethling, R.S., Jarvis, W.M., Meylan, W.M., Michalenko, E.M., 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Hmdey, S.E., W. Chen, C.G. Rousseaux, 1996. Bioavailability in Environmental Risk Assessment. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Kissel, JC, Richter, K.Y., Fenske, R.A. (1996). Field measurement of dermal soil loading attributable to various activities: implications for exposure assessment. Risk Anal. 16(1): 115-125. Klaassen, CD., Amdur M.O. and Doul, J. eds. (1986/ Cassarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. 3rd Ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co. Lepow, M.L., Bmckman, L., Gillette, M., Markowitz, S., Fubino, R. And Kapish, J. (1975). Investigations into sources of lead in the environmental of urban children. Environ. Res. 10:415-426. w o CO vo to _ National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1983). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Evaluation of Sources and Effects. Committee on Pyrene and Selected Analogues. Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C Owen, B.A. (1990) Literature-Derived Absorption Coeffidients for 39 Chemicals via Oral and Inhalation Routes of Exposure. i?egT9 1.29 1318.57 H-StaUstic'" 3.40 4.05 3.98 3.16 4.24 2.19 2.23 280 2.05 2.93 95% UCL"' 185.96 850.44 279.75 39.95 960.13 14.78 8.06 17.62 1.39 7.30 1614.19 O OJ CoDcentradons presented in v^/L. ft bgs - fee* below ground surfece (1) EquHtioos pCTtaimng to the calculadoD of the 95 % UCL can be foual in USEPA 1992, SuppUmental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. LN - Natural Logarithm used to calculate the 95% UCL if the data were non-nonnal. U - Material analyzed for but not detected. The number presented and used to calculate the 95% UCL is one-half the minimum quantitation limit. J - Estimflted value. B (organics) - Analyte detected in associated laboratory blank. B (inorganics) - Result is between instrument detection limit (IDL) and Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL), these samples were not used in calculating the 95% UCL. R - QC indicates that data is unusable. Analyte may or may not be [^resent. E - Exceeded calibration range of instrument. D - Analyte quantitBted on a diluled sample. DUP AVG- The average of diq>licate samples was used for calculating the 95 % UCL. Xylene - The higher the three (Total, m&p, and o-icylcnc WBB used for calculating the 95% UCL). Att-gw.xis (GW-Attachment) 3of £ ATTACHMENT A 95% UCL CALCULATIONS 303938 ATTACHMENT A Onsite Surface Soil Data and 95% UCL Calculations for COPCs Virgin Island Chemical Site Sample ID Sample Date Sample Interval (ft bgs) Arsenic LN Iron LN Manganese LN Chromium LN Vanadium LN Zinc LN SBC-2 31-Jan-95 0-1 0.75 U -0.29 26300 * 10.18 689 6.54 18.9 J 2.94 65.6 4.18 182 5.20 SBD-4 27-Jan-95 0-1 1.1 NR 37300 *J 10.53 1040 6.95 28.1 J 3.34 155 NJ 5.04 59 EJ 4.08 SBC-1 27-Jan-95 0-1 0.27 NR 31400 *J 10.35 812 6.70 22.6 J 3.12 112 NJ 4.72 5790 EJ 8.66 SDCSD-2 07-Oct-97 0-1 8.8 2.17 58800 10.98 595 J 6.39 32 3.47 34.3 3.54 336 5.82 SDCSD-3 07-Oct-97 0-1 3.7 1.31 19700 9.89 311 J 5.74 22.7 3.12 39.5 3.68 346 5.85 SDSSD-1 07-Oct-97 0-1 0.81 B -0.21 19100 9.86 503 J 6.22 13.9 2.63 52.1 3.95 40.5 R 3.70 SDSSD-2 07-Oct-97 0-1 0.87 B -0.14 18800 9.84 494 J 6.20 14.6 2.68 50.1 3.91 74.4 4.31 SBD-1 25-Jan-95 0-1 0.6 U -0.51 25400* 10.14 976 6.88 19.8 2.99 99.4 4.60 89.5 4.49 SBF-1 03-Feb-95 0-1 0.96 BJ -0.04 18100 9.80 489 6.19 14.8 J 2.69 48.7 3.89 87.9 EJ 4.48 SBF-2 03-Feb-95 0-1 0.95 BJW -0.05 23500 10.06 601 6.40 21.4 J 3.06 1 89.1 4.49 178 EJ 5.18 1 U) o LO Att-soil.xis 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Onsite Surface Soil Data and 95% UCL Calculations for COPCs Virgin Island Chemical Site Sample ID Sample Date Sample Interval (ft bgs) Arsenic LN Iron LN Manganese LN Chromium LN Vanadium LN Zinc LN SBF-3 24-Jan-95 0-1 0.25 NR 63400 *J 11.06 888 6.79 30.4 J 3.41 99.2 NJ 4.60 479 EJ 6.17 SBB-1 31-Jan-95 0-1 0.27 NR 32100 *J 1860 7.53 19.9 J 2.99 109 NJ 4.69 72.7 EJ 4.29 SBB-1 31-Jan-95 Duplicate 1.5 NR 37000 *J 2100 7.65 21.9 J 3.09 110 NJ 4.70 3620 EJ 8.19 SBB-1 31-Jan-95 DUP AVG Rejected 34550 *J 10.45 1980 7.59 20.9 J 3.04 109.5 NJ 4.70 1846.4 7.52 Normality Nonnormal (Positively Skewed, p < 0.0001) Nonnormal (Positively Skewed, p = 0.015) Nonnormal (Positively Skewed, p = 0.001) 0 0 0 Arithmetic Mean 2.18 0.28 31,362.50 10.26 781.50 6.55 0.00 21.68 3.04 79.54 4.27 792.39 Maximum 8.80 2.17 63,400.00 11.06 1,980.00 7.59 0.00 32.00 3.47 155.00 5.04 5,790.00 N 8 8 12 12 12 12 0 12 12 12 12 12 Standard Deviation 2.86 0.94 15,278.40 0.43 436.56 0.48 0.00 6.00 0.28 36.84 0.48 1,650.12 H-Statistic^*> 3.36 2.06 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 95%UCL^'' 6.83 40,920.87 1,059.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 o w o Att-soil.xis Notes: Concentrations presented in mg/kg. ft bgs - feet below ground surface (1) Equations pertaining to the calculation of the 95 % UCL can be found in USEPA 1992 Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration T U - Material analyzed for but not detected. The number presented and used to calculate the 95 % UCL is one-half the minimum quantitation limit. J - Estimated value. R - QC indicates that data is unusable. Analyte may or may not be present. Was not used to calculate the 95 % UCL. B - Result is between instrument detection limit (IDL) and Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL). * - Duplicate analysis not within control limits. N - Spike recovery not within control limits. LN - Natural Logarithm used to calculate the 95% UCL if the data were non-normal. 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Sediment Data and 95% UCL Calculations for COPCs in the Gut System Virgin Island Chemical Site Sample ID Sample Date Sample Matrix Arsenic LN Iron RG-2 23-Sep-97 Soil 1.6 BJ 26800 RG-2 (dup) 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.17 U 30900 RG-2 (dup avg) 23-Sep-97 Soil 1.6 BJ 0.47 28850 RG-3 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.86 BJ -0.15 27300 RG-4 23-Sep-97 Soil 1.2 BJ 22700 RG-4 (dup) 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.17 U 14500 RG-4 (dup avg) 23-Sep-97 Soil 1.2 BJ 0.18 18600 RG-5 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.91 BJ -0.09 22300 RG-6 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.36 BJ -1.02 19800 RG-7 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.92 BJ -0.08 21100 RG-8 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.155 U -1.86 15800 RG-9 23-Sep-97 Soil 1.1 BJ 0.10 27500 O t o VO H Att-sed.xis 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Sediment Data and 95% UCL Calculations for COPCs in the Gut System Virgin Island Chemical Site Sample ID Sample Date Sample Matrix Arsenic LN Iron RG-10 23-Sep-97 Soil 1 BJ 0.00 16000 RG-11 23-Sep-97 Soil 0.38 BJ -0.97 12700 RG-12 16-Sep-97 Soil 0.48 BJ -0.73 12500 RG-13 16-Sep-97 Soil 1.1 BJ 0.10 23100 RG-14 16-Sep-97 Soil 1.5 BJ 0.41 9160 J RG-15 16-Sep-97 Soil 0.15 U -1.90 4330 RG-16 16-Sep-97 Soil 0.17 U -1.77 5780 BG-1 16-Sep-97 Soil 0.195 U -1.63 20400 BG-2 16-Sep-97 Soil 0.43 BJ -0.84 5300 FPG-1 16-Sep-97 Soil 1.4 BJ 0.34 14300 FPG-2 16-Sep-97 Soil 2.8 J 1.03 14800 FPG-3 16-Sep-97 Sediment 1.3 BJ 0.26 15200 MB-1 16-Sep-97 Sediment 1.7 B 0.53 4320 CO o U) vo Att-sed.xIs 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Sediment Data and 95% UCL Calculations for COPCs in the Gut System Virgin Island Chemical Site Sample ID Sample Date Sample Matrix Arsenic LN Iron Normality Mean Nonnormal (Positively Skewed, p = 0.041) 0.94 -0.36 Normal (p = 0.905) 16,149.52 N 21.00 21.00 21.00 Maximum 2.80 28,850.00 Standard Deviation 0.66 0.88 7,575.45 H-Statistic<'^ 2.40 95% UCL^" 1.63 18,994.51 to o to vo it^ to Concentrations presented in mg/kg. (1) Equations pertaining to the calculation of the 95% UCL can be found in USEPA 1992, Supplemental Guidance lo RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. (dup) - duplicate sample. (dup avg) - the average result of the two duplicate samples was used in the calculation of the 95% UCL. U - Material analyzed for but not detected. The number presented and used to calculate the 95% UCL is one-half the minimum quantitation limit. J = Estimated value. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit (IDL) and Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL). LN= Natural Logarithm used to calculate the 95% UCL if the data were non-nomial. Aft-sed.xis 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT B CALCULATIONS OF VAPOR PHASE VOC CONCENTRATIONS 3 0 3 9 4 4 October 2000 B-1 003-6016 ATTACHMENT B CALCULATION OF VAPOR PHASE VOC CONCENTRATIONS The evaluation of the risks to a hj^othetical future resident from exposure to groundwater is a pathway in the risk assessment of the VICHEM Site. In order to evaluate potential inhalation risks from groundwater use, USEPA and its oversight contractor (CDM) requested that a shower model be used to derive vapor phase concentrations for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are COPCs for the Site. The risk assessment evaluates inhalation exposure due to showering (adult resident) or bathing (child resident). The equations used to derive the vapor phase concentrations are as follows (Andelman, 1990; Schaum et al, 1994): C(aMAX)'= C(„)*/*F(w)*tl/V(a) (1) C(a) = [(C(aMAx/2)*tl + C(3MAX)*t2]/(tl+t2) (2) Where: C(a) = concentration of volatile chemical contaminant is air (mg/m^); C(aMAX) - maximum air concentration in bathroom (mg/m^); C(w) = water concentration (mg/1); / = fraction volatilized (unitless); F(w) = water flow rate (1/hr); V(a) = bathroom volume, including the shower stall (m^); tl = time spent in shower/bath (hr); and, t2 = time spent in bathroom following shower/bath (hr). This shower model was used to provide a conservative estimate of vapor phase concentrations in both shower and bathing exposure scenario. Values used for each of the above parameters were suggested by USEPA and/or CDM and are summarized in Table B-1 together with the calculated vapor phase concentrations. As noted by Schaum, et al. (1994) "the assumptions of constant volatization and no ventilation tend to make this model very conservative, that is, it is likely to overestimate actual levels." Additional assumptions made by this model include the following: • The concentration of the chemical contaminant is assumed to be zero at the start of the shower; • The exchange between air in the shower stall and bathroom air is so rapid that the combined volume of the two compartments can be treated as a single chamber with a single concentration of volatilized chemical; and, • The model does not account for the exchange rate that occurs when an exhaust fan is tumed on. G:\PROJECTS\003-6016\Golder\Risk Assess\ATTACHB.doc 303945 Golder Associates October 2000 TABLE B-1 VICHEM Shower Model Calculations 003-6016 Parameter Acetone Chloroform Dimethylphenol, 2,4- Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene Xylene C(w) [mg/L] 1.9E-01 8.7E-01 1.7E-02 2.8E-01 1.8E-02 4.0E-02 2.4E-02 3.1E-02 9.6E-01 f (unitless) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 F(w) (l/hr) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 tl (hours) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 C(aMAX) [mg/m^] 9.4E-01 4.3E+00 8.6E-02 1.4E+00 8.8E-02 2.0E-01 1.2E-01 1.5E-01 4.8E+00 t2 (hours) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 C(a) [mg/m^l 7.59E-01 3.51 E+00 6.98E-02 1.14E+00 7.14E-02 1.62E-01 9.78E-02 1.25E-01 3.89E+00 1. Equations used to calculate C(aMAX) and C(a) are as follows: C(aMAX) = (C(w)"rF(w)*t1A/(a) C(a) = [(C(aMAX)/2)*t1 + C(aMAX)*t2]/(t1- terms are defined as follows: 12) C(a) = concentration of chemical contaminant in air (mg/m ) C(aMAX) = maximum air concentration in bathroom (mg/m') C(w) = water concentration (mg/l) f = fraction volatilized (unitless) F(w) = water flow rate (l/hr) V(a) = bathroom volume, including the stall (m') C(aM/VX) = maximum concentration of chemical contaminant in air (mg/m') tl = time of shower (hr) t2 = time after shower (hr) 2. Parameter Inputs: C(w) based upon 95% UCL for groundwater f = 0.5 (Andelman,1990) F(w) = 600 l/hr (USEPA Comments dated August 22, 2000) tl = 0.2 hr (USEPA Comments dated August 22, 2000) 12 = 0.33 hr (USEPA Comments dated August 22, 2000) V(a) = 12 m'(CDM) 3. References: Andelman, J., 1990. "Total Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in Potable Water", Chapter 20. Significance and Treatment of Volatile Organic Coumpounds in Water Supplies. Editors, Cantor, K., Christman, N. Lewis, Publisher, Michigan. Pages 485-504. Schaum, J. Hoang, K., KInerson, R., Moya, J., and Wang, R. 1994. "Estimating Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Volatile Chemicals in Domestic Water". Water Contamination and Health-Integration of Exposure Assessment Toxicology, and Risk Assessment. R. Wang, Human Risk Assessment Branch, USEPA, Editor Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Basel, Hong Kong. g:/003-6016/golder/risk assessment/working files/shower2.xls Golder Associates 303946 Page 1 of 1 # > CD r- m ^ 303947 TABLE 1 SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Virgin island Chemical Site u> o u> VD »;^ 00 Scenario Timefraine Curieni Future Medium Groundwater Surface Soil Soil/Sedimeni Groundwater Groundwaler Surface Soil Suii/Sedinieni Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium Groundwaler Air Surface Soil Air Soil/Sediiiienl Air Groundwater Air Groundwaler Air Surface Soil Air Soil/Sediment Air Surface Soil Air Subsurface Soil Air Soil/Sedimem Air Exposure Point Ofl"-site production wells Water Vapors at Showerhead VICHEM Site VICHEM Site Gut System Adjacent to the Site Gul System Adjacent to the Site Tap water Waler Vapors from Bathiny Local Aquifers: Aluvium (shallow) and Kinushill (deep) Local Aquifers: Aluvium (shallow) and Kingshill (deep) VICHEM Site VICHEM Site Gui System Adjacent to the Site Gut System Adjacent to the Sile VICHEM Site VICHEM Site VICHEM Site VICHEM Site Gut System Adjacent lo the Site Gut System Adjacent to the Site Keceptor Population Resident Resident Trespasser Trespasser Trespasser Trespasser Resident Resident Industrial/Commercial Worker Industrial/Comnieicia! Worker Induslrial/Commercial Worker Industrial/Commercial Worker Industrial/Commercial Worker Industrial/Commercial Worker Construction Worker Conslruciion Worker Construction Worker Construction Worker Construction Worker Construction Worker Receptor Age Adult Child Adult Child Aduii Pre-adolescent Aduti Pre-adolescent Aduh Pre-adolescent Adult Pre-adolesceni Adult Child Adult Child Adult Adult Aduh AduU Aduh Aduli Adult Adull Adult Adult Adull AduU Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Inhalation higestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Inhalation On-Sile/ Ofi-Siie Off-Site Off-Site Off-site OfT-site On-site On-site On-sile On-site On-site On-sile On-site On-sile On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site On-siie . On-siie On-site On-site On-sile Type of Analysis None None None None Quant Quant Quant Quani Quant Quant Quant Quant Quant Quant Quant None Quant Quani Quant Quant Quant Quani Quant Quant None None Quani Quant Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway No COPCs were identified in this medium. No COPCs were identified in this medium. No COPCs were identified in this medium. No COPCs were identified in this medium Site access is not restricted. Site access is not restricted. Site access is not resiricted. Site access is not restricted. Access to the gui system is not restricted and this area remains dry most of the lime, Access to the gut system is not restricted and this area remains dry most of the time. Access to the gut system is not restricted and this area remains dry most of the time. Access to the gut system is not restricted and this area remains dry most of the time. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use showering scenario. Hvpolhetical future use bathiiiK scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario Hypoihetical future use scenario. Hypothetical tuiure use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario No COPCs were identitied in this medium. No COPCs were ideniificd in this medium. Hypothetical lulure use scenario. Hypothetical future use scenario. VICHEM - Virgin Island Chemical Sile Table 2.1 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEIVIICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Virgin Island Chemical Site .Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater/Air Exposure Point: Ofl'-site production wells/ Water vapors at showerhead CAS# 67-64-1 108-38-3, 106-42-3 Chemical Acetone m,p-Xylenes Minimum Concentration (Mg/L) 15.4 1 Minimum Qualil'ier J Maximum Concentration (Mg/L) 15.4 1 -. i i sr:^ Maximum Qualiller J Location of Maximum Concentration Fairplains S9 V!PA#2 Detection Frequency 1/7 1/7 Range of Detection Limits 10 5-10 Concentration Used for Screening 15.4 1 Background Value (Mg/L) NE NE Potential ARAR/TBC (Mg/L) 61 1,200 Potential ARAR/TBC Source RBC RBC COPC No No Rationale for Contaminant Deletion or Selection BSL BSL Notes: J - Estimated value. RBC - Risk-Based Concentration (USEPA Region 3, April 1999), I IQ = 0.1 COPC - Chemical of potential concern ARAR/TBC - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement/To be considered BSL - Below screening levels NE - none established The most recent data from Charlies # I, #2, VIPA # I, #2, F-airplains #9, and Carino's wells was used for the COPC screening. Although historical data from VIPA #1 and #2 data indicate the detection ofsome metals, the quantitative results for these data were not available in many cases and in instances where this data was available, concentrations were less than the ARAR/TBC values used for groundwater screening. A historical detection (June 1990) of chloroform (2Jppb) in VIPA #1 was dismissed in the evaluation of the otTsite wells since more recent data for this well was available and indicated no detections for this chemical. to O u> vo Table-2.| xls(Tabli: 2-1) Table 2.2 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil/ Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site CASS Chemical Organic i'.anuidtmJ.'i fiia ka} 75-15-0 75-35-4 100-41-4 108-88-3 1330-20-7 117-81-7 85-68-7 84-74-2 78-59-1 87-86-5 Carbon Disulfide 1,1-Dichloroetheiie Ethylbenzene Toluene .Xylenes Bis(2-elbylhexyl)phlhlale Bulylbenzyl phthalate Di-n-bulylphthalate Isophorone Pentachlorophenol Iiiuraanic ('otnnotinj^i fniaki;) 7429-90-5 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-43-9 7440-'70-2'" 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 743-98-96 7439-92-1 7439-95-4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7440-02-0 7440-09-7 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-23-5 7440-62-2 7440-66-6 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium C h r o m i u m Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Mangmiese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Vaiiitdiiim Zinc Minimum Concentration 1 1 4 10 1 75 120 32 320 1900 8390 0.39 0.81 44 0.21 0,52 15000 14.8 7,5 28.7 18100 3 4090 311 0,15 8,3 838 0.94 0.92 385 34.3 59 Minimum Qualifier J J J J J J J J J J BJN B B B B "J BJ NS'J J B B BJ B B E ' J Maximum Concentration 3 i 4 12 25 7800 490 57 2500 1900 25750 1,3 8.8 274 0,45 6,4 I I 9 0 0 0 32 30,7 280 63400 35,2 13900 1980 0 33 26,9 4255 0,94 15 2430 i.ts 5790 Maximum Qualifier J J J J DJ J J J •J WJ N'J J ' J •J BJ D N.) E"J Location of Maximum Concentration SBC-2 SBC-2 SBB-1 SBD-4 SBB-1 SDCSD-2 SBF-3 SBC-2 SDSSD-2 SBF-3 SBB-1 SBC-2 SDCSD-2 SBD-4 SBB-1 SBF-3 SBF-1 SDCSD-2 SBB-1 SDCSD-2 SBF-3 SDCSD-2 SBD-4 SBB-1 SBD-4 SBF-3 SBB-1 SDCSD-2 SDCSD-2 SBC-I SBD-4 SBC-1 Detection Frequency 3/6 1/6 1/6 2/6 4/6 5/10 1/10 2/10 2/10 1/10 12/12 4/9 6/8 12/12 6/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 11/12 12/12 12/12 7/12 12/12 12/12 i/4 4/12 12/12 12/12 11/11 Range of Detection Limits 12 1 1 - 1 2 1 1 - 1 2 12 11 3 7 0 - 1800 3 6 0 - 2 1 0 0 3 6 0 - 5 1 0 3 6 0 - 5 1 0 8 8 0 - 1200 0,31 -0,62 1.2-1.5 0,02-0,21 0,23 0,11 -0,15 0,57-0,69 1,1 - 1,4 Concentration used for screening 3 1 4 12 25 7800 490 57 2500 1900 25,750 1,3 8.8 274 0.45 6.4 ' " 119,000 32 30.7 280 63.400 35.2 13900 1980 0.33 26.9 4,255 0.94 1.5 2430 155 5790 Background Value NE NE NE NE NE NE NE N"E NE NE 21,760 N D 1.64 135 N D 0.66 131,267 " 23.6 18.3 61.5 31,933 19.63 10820 959 0.3 14.73 5,163 1,01 N D 644 89.27 R Potential ARAR/TBC value Ingestion 780,000 1,100 780,000 1.600,000 16,000,000 46,000 1,600,000 780,000 i 670,000 J 5,300 7,800 3,1 0.43 550 16 7.8(a) NE 23(b) 470 310 2.300 400 NE 160(c) 23 160 NE 39 39 NE 55 2,300 Inhalation 720,000 70 400,000 650,000 410,000 31,000,000 930.000 2,300,000 4,600,000 NE NE NE 750 690.000 1,300 1,800 NE 270(b) NE NE NE NE NE NE 10 13,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE Potential ARAlVrBC Source RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC SSL R B C RBC RBC R B C SSL R B C SSL RBC RBC RBC R B C R B C COPC no no no no no no no no no no no no yes no no no no yes no no yes no no yes no no no no no no yes yes n—:—'—1 Rationale for Contaminant Deletion ot Selection'" BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL B K G BSL A S L BSL BSL BSL N U T , B K G A S L BSL BSL A S L BSL NUT, B K G A S L BSL BSL NUT, B K G BSL, B K G BSL N T X , N U T ASL A S L nentTo be considered ^ Notes: ^ 5 Uaia used from 0- i fool interval ^ - ^ Bold print denotes Chemical of Potential Concern (COPC), ' ^ ARAR/rBC - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirt; U l (a) • based on cadniiuin as food ^ - ^ (b) - based on hexavalent chromium {Cr'") (c) - based on manyanese as a nonfood Maximum concenirations of inoryanics from SBB-1 represent the average of duplicate results. D - Result is between instrument detection limit (IDL) and Conitact Requited Detection Limit (CRDL), D - duplicate analysis K - Background data for zinc was determined to be unusable; no site-specific backyround is available. J - Estimated value, S - determined by method of standard additions N • Spike recovery not within control limits. * - Duplicate analysis not within control limits. E - Estimated due to the presence of interference. W - GFAA post-diyest spike out of control limiis. NE • None Established SSL - USEPA Soil Screening Level (USEPA, 1996) RBC - Risk-Based Concentration residential (EPA Region 3, Oct. based on HQ = O.I BSL - Below screening levels ASL - Above screenini* levels NUT - Essential nutrient NTX - No toxicity information IFD - Infrequent detection. BKG - Background levels 999). Tablc-2-2.\Js (si-scrccii) Table 2.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Virgin Island Chemical Site ( j J o to vo ( J l Scenario Timefraine: Cunent Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Soil/Sediment, Air Exposure Point: Gut System CASU 7429-9U-5 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-43-9 7440-70-2 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-89-6 7439-92-1 7439-95-4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7440-02-0 7440-09-7 7782-49-2 7440-23-5 7440-62-2 7440-66-6 Chemical AtumiiAum Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Meicui-y Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc Minimum Concentration (mg/kK) 2770 0.36 8,7 0.03 17900 3 2,2 6 4320 1,6 1150 64.6 0.11 1,3 493 0,68 215 15 122 Minimum Qualiller BJ B B BJ B J J J B B B BJ J Maximum Concentration (mj^B) 16600 2.8 112 0.86 800000 39 15.8 49.3 28850 26.1 8600 792 0,39 17 3540 1,6 21100 85.9 201,5 Maximun. Qualifier J B J J J J J J J J B J Location of Maxiinutit Concentration RG-2 FPG-2 RG-13 RG-13 RG-15 RG-14 RG-2 RG-2 BG-2 RG-5 RG-3 RG-3 RG-11 RG-9 RG-9 RG-13 FI>G-3 RG-9 RG-2 Detection Frequency 21/21 15/21 21/21 17/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 8/21 21/21 21/21 7/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 Range of Detection Limits 0.3 - 0.39 0,02 - 0,04 0.1 -0.18 0,53-0,76 Concentration used for screening 16,600 2.8 112 0,86 800,000 39 15,8 49,3 28850 26.1 8600 792 0.39 17 3540 1,6 21100 85.9 201,5 Background Value (mg/kg) NE NE NE NE NE NE , NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Potential ARAR/TBC value Ingestion (mg/kg) 7,800 0.43 550 7.8(a) NE 23(b) 470 310 2,300 400 NE 160(c) 23 160 NE 39 NE 55 2,300 Inhalation (mgAg) NE NE 690,000 1,800 NE 270 NE NE NE NE NE NE 10 13,000 NE NE NE NE NE Potential ARAR/TBC Source RBC RBC RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC/SSL RBC RBC RBC SSL RBC SSL SSL RBC RBC RBC COPC yes yes no DO no yes no no yes no no yes no no no no no yes no Rationale for Contaminant Deletion of Selection ASL ASL BSL BSL NUT, NTX ASL BSL BSL ASL BSL NUT, NTX ASL BSL BSL NUT, NTX BSL NUT, NTX ASL BSL Noic.w 1997 soil/seditiiem data tjsed for scieeniiig Ma.xiiimiii concentrations from RG-2 represent the average of duplicate results. COPC - Clieinical of potential eoiiccm ARAR/TBC - Applicable or lelevant and appropriate requiiement/To be considered J = Estimated value. D ^ Result is between the instiument detection limit (IDL) and Contract Requited Detection Limit (CRDL). (a) - based on cadmium as I'ood (b) - based on hexavalent chromiutn (c) - based on nonfood ingestion of manganese NE - None Established SSL - USEPA Soil Screening Level (USEPA, 1996) RBC - Risk-Based Concentration (USEPA Region 3, October 1999), based on HQ = 0.1 BSL - Below screening levels ASL - Above screening levels NUT - Essential nutrient NTX - No toxicity infonnation Tablc-2-3 \li {^ai sciccii) Table 2.4 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF C H E M I C A L S OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Virgin Island Chemical Sile CO o (JJ vo (Jl to Scenario Timeframe, Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundw ater/Air Exposure Point Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) C A S U Chemical Oi\'ttiitc ('iimntjiiiiJx 67-64-1 71-43-2 78-93-3 ' 07-66-3 IOO-4t-4 75-09-2 1U8-88-3 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 106-47-8 105-67-9 78-59-1 95-48-7 Acetone Benzene 2-Butanone (?hlorororni Citiylbeiizeiie Methylene Chloride 1'uluene Triehloroethene Vinyl Chloride .Xylenes (tolnl) 4.Chloroaniline 2,4-Dimelhyl()henol Isophorone 2-MeChylphenol Iniirvtinii: ('twlfxn/ildv 7429.90.5_ 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-43-9 7440-70-2 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 743-98-96 7439-92-1 7439-95.4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7440-02-0 7440-09-7 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-23-5 7440-28-0 7440-62-2 7440-66-6 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iruil Lead Magnesiuni Manga 11 ese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Minimum Concentration ((•g/L) 2 0,1 0,8 2 0.3 2 0.1 0,1 °- . 0,4 1 1 28 47 32 " S 2.2 2 39.8 0,19 0,23 31800 0.7 0,35 2,8 31 2 2 2,400' 10.2 0,21 1 1540 2 0,94 212.000 0 86 0.49 27 Minimum Qualifier BJ J J J J J J J ' J 1 1 J J BJ B B B B B J B B ' B BJ B J BJ B B • BJ B B B J Maximum Concentration Wfi'L) 78U0 0 1 0,8 3880 22000 4300 590 0,1 0,2' MOOOO 11 110 75 200 1420 6.2 5.2 508 0,19 0,58 105,000 25.7 7 33 10100 50.7 68,900 3,570 ' 0.51 16.3 42,SO0 3.9 2.2 723,000 0S6 58.6 l8o5 ^ Maximum Qualifier BJ J f BJ J J J J J EJ B B . B B B " B i;j BJ B B E'J Location of Maximum Concentration MW-1 MW-3 MW-9 GWPP-27 MW-6 MW-1 MW-6 MW-3 MW-10 MW-6 MW-3 MW-6 MW-1 MW-1 MW-10 MW-6 MW-10 MW-6 MW-5 MW-3 MW-3 MW-10 MW-10 MW-6 • p:2 MW-10 MW-2' MW-3 MW-7 MW-10 MW-3 MW-3 MW-3 MW-2 MW-6 P-2 MW.6 Detection FrequeiKy 20/73 2/28 i/28 " 39/79 16/84 5/79 " 23/84 1/28 1/28 ^ 25/84 1/15 4/24 4/24 3/24 21/21 9/24 5/24 24/24 1/24 7/24 24/24 24/24 17/24 24/24 18/24 5/24 24/24 23/23 7/21 9/24 24/24 7/24 7/24 24/24 1/24 24/24 11/15 Range of Detection Limits 0.1-2500 1 - 2,000 1 - 10.000 I • 2,000 0.5-1000 0.6- 1000 0.1 - 1000 1 - 2000 1-2000 1 - 2000 5 - 100 5 5 5 - 100 2.2 1.4 0.1 - 1 0,1 - 1 " ' 0 3 7 - 1710 1.1 - 13.1 0,2 1 2 0,7 0,8 - 1,6 2 1 2 - 169 Concentration used for screening (^g/L) 7800 ,. °! 0 , 8 " '' 3880 22000 4300 59U 0 1 0,2 110000 11 no 75 200 1420 6.2 5.2 508 ' 0,19 0.58 105000 25.7 7 33 ' 10100 50.7 68.900 3570 0.51 16.3 42.800 3.9' 2,2 723,000 0,86 .58.6 187 Background Value (t>g/L) NE ' NE NE ' , N , E , ; , ' NE NE NE "• NE "NE NE NE "NE NE NE NE NE NE ^ ' NE ' NE NE ^NE • •• NE ' NE' " N E NE • NE NE NE NE • NE " •" NE ' NE NE NE NE NE NE Potential ARAR/TBC value (pg/L) 61 0.36 190 0.15 130 4.1 75 L6 0'0I9 1,200 IS 73 70 180 3,700 1.5 0.045 260 • 7.3 ' 1 8 ( a ) NE 11 (bt 220 150 1,100 15 NE 510(c) 50 7 3 " NE 18 18 NE ' 026 26 1,100 Potential ARARABC Source RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC RBC NE RBC RBC RBC RBC T T A L NE RBC MCL RBC NE RBC RBC NE RBC RBC RBC COPC Ves ' No ' ^ No " Ves Yes ,^,", , Yes " N O No Yes '' No Ves Ves Yes No Ves Ves Ves No > o • ' N O Ves No No Yes Yes ' No Ves No No No ' No " No No No Yes No Rationale for Contaminant Deletion of Selection ASL BSL BSL. IFD A S L A S L ASL ASL BSL. IFD IFD ASL BSL A S L . A S L ASL BSL A S L ' A S L BSL BSL, IFD BSL ^' NUT, NTX A S L BSL BSL ASL ASL ' NUT, NTX ASL BSL BSL NUT. NTX BSL BSL NUT. NTX IFD ASL BSL All 1998 data used for screening (i/98-10/98, Monitoring Well and Geoprobe) ARAR/TBC - Applicable or relevant and appiopriaie requiremeiil/To be considei J - Estimated value. B - (Oryatiics) Analyte delected in associated laboratory blank. B - (Inorganics) Result is between instrument detection limii (IDL) and Contract Requiied Detection Limit (CRDL) (a) - based on cadmium in water (b) - based on hexavalent chromium (c) - based on manganese as food • - Duplicate analysis not within control limits. E - Estimated due to the presence of interference. NE - None established T T A L - Treatment Technit]ue Action Level RBC - Risk-Based Concentration (USEPA Region 3. October 1999) based on H 0 = 0.1 MCL - Maximum ContamJtiani Level COPC - Chemical of potential concern BSL - Below screening levels ASL - Above screening levels NUT - Essential nutrient NTX - No toxicity information IFD - Infrequent detection. Table 2.5 OCCURRENCli, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OK POTENTIAL CONCERN Virgin Isbiid Chrnilc^tl Sile CO o CO cn Sceii'Ariii TuuefT'iiuf. Fv\Uiie Medium: Sulj.surface Sod llx^josure Medium: Subsurface Soil. Air ExiiosLire Point: VICHEM Sue C A S B 67-6.)-l 7 5 - I S O 6-?.6(,.?. 100-41-4 7S.u<;.2 127-18-4 !0«-fiii-3 7 9 - 0 1 - 6 1.130-20-7 1 1 7 - 8 1 . 7 1 1 7 - ^ - 0 B6-73-7 9 1 - ^ 7 - 6 lOS-95-2 8.1.01-8 / L 7429-90--i 7 4 4 0 - 3 6 - 0 7440-.18-2 7 4 4 0 - 3 9 - 3 7440-4 1-7 7 4 4 0 - 4 3 - 9 7 4 4 0 - 7 0 - 2 7 4 4 0 - 4 7 - 3 7440-4S-4 74-I0-50-S 7 4 3 y - S 9 - 6 7439-92-J 7439-9.S-4 7 4 3 9 - 9 6 - 5 74.39-97-6 7440-02-tJ 7 4 4 0 - 0 9 - 7 7 7 S 2 - 4 9 . 2 7440-22-4 7440-2.VS 74-10-62-2 7 4 4 0 - 6 6 - 6 57-12-5 Clieiiiical O r ^ n n i c C o m p o u n d s fin u a / k v ) A c e t o n e t ? a r b o n Dt.siillide CldLirofonii EtJiylbeiLzeiie Melliylene C h l o r i d e T e u a c l d o r o e L l i e u e T o l u e n e TricldoroeOieiie X y l e n e s (lolaJ) Bi.s(2-eihyUiex7l)i)hthiiJaie O i - n - o d y l p h U i a l a i e F h i o r e n e 2-Mel)iyljiaptIia]ejie P h e n o l Plieiiaiillueiie o r a a m c C a t „ p o u r , d s (m mvlkv) A J i m u n u m A i i l u n o n y A r s e n i c B a r i u m Beivlliuni C ^ d n i i u u i C a l c i i n n C h r o m i u m CoLiaJl C o p p e r llOll L e a d Mayie.siiini M a n g a n e s e M e r c u r y N i c k e l P o t a s s i u m Seleniurii S i l v e r S o d i t m i V i u . a d m m ?ijlL C v a n i d e M i i d i n u m C o n c e n U a t i o n 20 2 11 5 7 2 .1 1 1 SI so 2 J 0 .ISO 90 J 7 0 7190 0 , J 2 0,S4 « , S 0,3 0,2 4.1 SO l l . s 9,4 29,.l IHIOO 1,0 .1410 .S.S6 0,16 6,1 961 1 6 0,S1 41S S7,4 ,S0,1 60,2 Mijijjiiuni y u u l i l i e r BJ M W J BJ • B "• J J - J N - NJ n j N BE • B J N B E - •J N - J M a x i j i m n i CDiiceiiu-dUon 19.000 2 110 ISO.000 12.000 2 1,000 17 3 1 0 . 0 0 0 b l 120 210 180 90 1 7 0 2 6 . 4 0 0 o,s.i 0,8 110 0,18 10,1 6 8 . 7 0 0 27,2 2 2 . 1 104 39. SOO 89,9 10.800 719 0,16 1 8 9 7.1S0 2 0,81 7. ISO t 6 S 7.8.10 60,2 M a x i j n u n i Qualifier J J J BJ J J J J J J J J - J B J W B J N ' •J N - *J N - - J B E • B J N B E NJ F.N N - J Lociuioii o r M a x i n i u m Cojicejilration SBB-1 S B D - 2 .SBPP-2 S B B . 4 .SBB-4 S B 6 4 D - 2 . S B 2 1 8 D - 1 . S B 2 1 8 D . 2 . 8 B 2 1 8 D . 3 S B B . l S B A S T - 2 SBB-1 S B 6 4 D - I S B D . 3 S B A S T - 2 S B A S T - 2 S B A S T . 2 S B A S T - 2 S B B - l SBE-1 SB218D-1 S B C S D - 3 S B D - 3 SB64D-1 SB21SD-1 S B B - l SB64D-1 SB64D-1 S B B - l .SBE.I S B B . l S B E - I SBB-1 .SBB-1 • S B C S D - I S B C S D - I SB23SD-1 .SBCSD-1 S B B - l S a 6 4 D - l SBB-1 Detection F r e q u e n c y 7/S1 1/21 2/54 8/S4 1/S4 4/21 7/S4 2/21 16/,S4 2/13 2/13 1/13 1/11 1/11 1/11 12/12 3/11 2/11 12/12 4/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12(12 11/12 12/12 ,S/5 1/12 12/12 12/12 4/11 1/9 11/11 12/12 6/6 1/18 R a n g e o f Detection Limit,? 10 - 73.000 10 to 10 6 II .s 10 10 .140 .140 340 340 .340 340 73.000 71.000 ISOOOO 12000 7 1 0 0 0 71000 73000 3 1 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 6 8 0 680 6 8 0 6 8 0 6 8 0 0 , 3 9 - 0,54 0 , 2 7 - 1,7 0,02 . 0,-38 1,8- 89,9 0,1 . 0,16 0 , 4 8 - 1,6 0 , 1 2 - 1,4 0 , 5 5 - 60,2 Couceiitrdtion U s e d for S c r e e n i n g 19.000 2 130 ISO.OOO 12.000 2 1.000 17 310.000 81 120 2 3 0 ISO 90 370 26.400 0.54 0,8 110 0,38 10,1 68.700 27.2 22,1 104 39.500 89.9 10.800 739 0,16 1S,9 7.1.SO 2 0,83 7.1.SO 16S 7.8.10 60,2 B a c k g r o u n d V a l u e (nig/lig) N E N E N E N E N E N E N E t « N E N E N E 1 ^ N E N E N E NE N E W . N E N E N E N E NE N E N E N E NE N E N E N E N E N E N E N E N E m. N E N E Potential / U l A R / T B C value 20,MI,.0..>:.0 '20..)C.0.0v.0 940.000 3 ; , W M ) C . | 760.000 110.000 •:I.O00.l'.t,SJ 520,000 t :S.t;.y.i.o.)r. 4 1 0 . 0 0 0 4 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 8.2v.0.C.:'i:' J.lOS.O-iO l/;/.0;Kj.;;..lt.. .'•.7; •iit>:Vi^. '.:". 1,8 :4,;)0v 1:0 2.,1t,.i.li N E n : . ' : Q i \ i':,00t: t..y.!U ol.SOi' 500 N E '. 100(,:; 2„i : i ; 4,;0'J N E '.o-r.o 1.000 N E ;,to..i 6 i . w e .;, i.;o Potential A R A I V T B C S o u r c e R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R l t C R B C R B C N E R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C S S L R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C R B C C O P C N o N o N o N o N o N o N o Mo N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o Rationale for Containinajit Deletion o f Selection B S L BSL. I F D BSL B S L BSL B S L B S L B S L B S L B S L BSL B S L BSL BSL N T X B S L B S L BSL BSL BSL B S L N U T . N T X B.SL BSL BSL N U T BSL N U T . N T X BSL BSL £tSL N U T . N T X B.SL B.SL N U T , N T X B S L B S L B S t Notes: Data used from 1 to 12 foot uiteiva].s J - LsliiTiaied value U - Kcsull is between iiisinnneiil delecuon liiiiil (IDL) aikd Coiitr^ict Reiiuued Detection Luiiil (CRDL) • - Oiiplicaic ajialysLs jiot williiii control Hjiiits I- - E.sliiriaied due to the presence of uilerference (a) - based on cadtiiiiim as food (h) - based ou hexavaleni cluoniium (c) - based on inajigaiiese as nonfood M - Duplicate injcL-lion precision not met N - Spike recover)' not wiUiiji conuol liiriits W - GFAA post-digest spike oiil of control lijiiiLs NE • None EstabUshed COFC - ChejEiical of potential concern (d) - based on EPA SSLs HQ = 0.1 ARAR/TBC - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement/To be considered RBC - Risk-Based Concenlralioii foi itidusuial use soil (USEPA Region 3, October 1999), based on HQ = 0.1 BSL - Below screening levels NIJT - Essential iiulrienl NTX • No toxicity criteria T.l.l.-i..Vtli ((ub.uft.i TABLE 3.1 MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Soil xposure Medium: Surface Soil/Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Arithmetic Mean 2,18 21,7 31,363 782 79,5 792 95th UCL of Normal Data NA 26 NA NA 109 NA Maximum Detected Concentration 8,8 32,0 63,400 1,980 155 5,790 Maximum Qualifier *J NJ E'J EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Reasonab Medium EPC Value 6,83 25 40,921 1,060 109 3,731 e Maximum Ex (RME) Medium EPC Statistic 95th UCL-T 9 5 l h U C L - N 95th UCL-T 95th UCL-T 95th U C L - N 95th UCL-T 30sure (1) Medium EPC Rationale W-Test(2) W-Test(3) W-Test(2) W-Test(2) W-Test(3) W-Test(2) Central Tendency (1) Medium EPC Value 6.83 26 40,921 1,060 109 3,731 (CT) 1 Medium EPC Statistic 95th UCL-T 95th U C L - N 95th UCL-T 95th UCL-T 95th UCL - N 95th UCL-T Medium EPC Rationale W-Test{2) W-Test(3) W-Test(2} W-Test(2) W-Test(3) W-Test(2) to o CO vo cn (1) The 95th UCL values were used to represent the EPC for both the RME & CT receptor (2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed (3) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distribued NA - Nol applicable *- Duplicate analysis not within control limits J- Estimated Value E - estimated due to presence of interference 95th UCL-T= 95th UCL of Log-transformed Data 95th UCL-N = 95th UCL of Uniransformed Data Table-3.xls (3-1) TABLE 3.2 MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY Virgin Isiand Chemical Site IScenario Timefraine: Current/Future Medium: Sediment Exposure Medium: Sediment/Air 'Exposure Point: Gut System Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Cliromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Arithmetic Mean 9861 0,94 13,8 16,150 414 49 95% UCL of Normal Data 11396 NA NA 18,995 488 57 Maximum Detected Concentration 16600 2,8 39 28,850 792 85,9 Maximum Qualifier J J J EPC , Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Reasonable Maximum Exposure (1) (RME) Medium EPC Value 11396 1.63 18.6 18,995 486 49 Medium EPC Statistic 95th UCL-N 95%UCL-T 95%UCL-T 95th UCL-N 95th UCL-N 95th UCL-N Medium EPC Rationale W-Tesl(3) W-Test (2) W-Test (2) W-Test(3) W-Test(3) W-Test(3) Central Tendency (1) Medium EPC Value 11396 1.63 18,6 18,995 486 49 (CT) 1 Medium EPC Statistic 95% UCL-N 95%UCL-T 95%UCL-T 95% UCL-N 95% UCL-N 95% UCL-N Medium EPC Rationale W-Test(3) W-Tesl (2) W-Test (2) W-Test(3) W-Test(3) W-Test(3) (1) The 95% UCL values were used to represent the EPC for both the RME & CT receptor (2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed (3) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed NA - Not applicable J- Estimated Value 95% UCL-N -95% UCL of Normal Data 95% UCL-T- 95% UCl. of Log-transformed Data sseeoe Table-3,xls(3-2) CO o CO vo cn TABLE 3.3 MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY virgin Island Chemical Site [scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Gtoundwatet Exposure Medium: Groundwater/Air Kxposuie Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Chemical ol" Potential Concern Acetone Chlorofonn Ethylbenzene Methylene Chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol Isophorone 2-MeU\ytphenol Anliinony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese S'anadiuni Units Mg^l- My/L Hg/L Mg/L My/i. Ug/L Mg/L ny/L ^^g/L Mg/L Mg/L MS/'L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Arithmetic Mean 2.11 229 950 1 19 30,4 4651 13,4 12 20,3 1,97 1,15 1 19 3,66 1750 4,31 1150 20 95lh UCL of Normal Data NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1614 25 Maximum Delected Concentration 7.800 3,800 22.000 4.300 590 110,000 1 10 75 200 6 2 5,2 508 25,7 10,100 50,7 3,570 58,6 Maximum Qualifier BJ UJ J J BJ B) EPC Units I' 1992, EPA/600/8-91/01 I B EPA 1996a, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance, EPA/540/R-95/I28 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim Guidance, March 2, 1999 Table-4xls(4-]) CO o vo Ol o TABLE 4.4 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS Virgin Island Chemical Sile E.xposure Route Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Soil/Sediment, Air Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Pre-adolescent Parameter Code BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED IR-S CS BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED DABS SSAF SA CS BW AT-C AT-N PEF EF ED Ef IN CS Parameter Definition Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Ingestion Rale-Soil/Sediment Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Dermal Absorption Factor - (As) Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Skin Surface Area Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Particulate Emmision Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Inhalation Rate Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Units kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr mg/kg mg/kg kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr unitless mg/cm cm/day mg/kg kg days days m'/kg d/yr yr hr.'day m /hr m.g/kg RME Value 45 25,550 1,825 1 X lO''' 104 5 100 See Table 3-2 45 25,550 1,825 1 X 10''' 104 5 0,03 0,2 2800 See Table 3-2 45 25,550 1,825 1,32 X 10'' 104 5 4 0,420 See Table 3-2 RME Rationale/ Reference EPA 1996a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 SS EPA 1989 EPA 1996a See Table 3-2 EPA 1996 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 SS EPA 1989 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-2 EPA 1996a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1996b SS EPA 1989 SS EPA 1989 See Table 3-2 CT(1) Value CT Rationale/ Reference Intake Equation/ Model Name (CS X CF X ED X EF x IR-S) - (BW x AT) (CS X CF X EF X ED X SA X DABS x SSAF) - (BW x (CS X ED X EF x ET x IN) - (BW x AT x PEF) AT) RME: Reasonable Maximum Exposure CT (1): Central Tendency was only evaluated when RME risk and hazard estimates exceeded acceptable benchmarks (IO''' - carcinogens, 1,0 - noncarcinogens), SS : Site-specific parameter based upon professional judgement EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol 1 EPA 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance lor Superfund Vol 1 EPA 1991 b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1 : Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, OERR EPA/540/1-89/002 : Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Supplemental Guidance, "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285,6-03, March. : Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim. December. EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim Report. January 1992. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB EPA 1996a, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance, EPA/540/R-95/I28 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim Guidance, March 2, 1999 Table-4 xls (4-4) TABLE 4.5 VALUES USED FOH DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS Virgin island Ciiemica) Site LO O to VO cn Exposure Koute Ingestion Dermal liihalalion Scenario Timefrajne: Future Medium: Groundwater tixposure Medium, Groundwater/Air Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Work Receptor Age, Adult eis Parameter Code BW AT-C AT-N EF ED IR-W CW BW AT-C: AT-N CF EF ED ET SA Kp CW BW AT-C AT-N EF ED ET K IN CW Parameter Definition Body Weiglit Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate-Water Chemical Concentration in Water Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Sicin Surface Area Pernteablity CoelTicient ACETONE CHLOROFORM ETHYLBENZENE METHYLENE CHLORIDE XYLENES ISOPHORONE 2.4.DIMETHYLPHENOL 2-METHYLPHENOL TOLUENE CHROMIUM(VI) ARSENIC ANTIMONY(a) BARIUM(a) IRON(a) MANOANESE(a) VANADlUM(a) Chemical Concentration in Water Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Volatilization Factor Inhalation Rate C:hemical Concentration in Water Units kB days days d/yr y L/d mg/L ke days days L/cin' d/yr y hr/day cm' ciii/lir cnVhr ciiVhr ciWhr cm/hr cm/hr cni/hr cni/hr cm/hr cn\/hr cin/hr cin/hr cin/hr cin/hr Ciii/hr cni/hr [ii(i/L kg days days d/yr yi hr/day Um"" m /111 mg/L RME Value 70 25.550 9.125 250 25 1,2 See Table 3-3 70 25.550 9.125 0,001 250 25 8 3300 5,69E-04 8,90E-03 7,40E-02 4 50E-03 800E-02 4,40E-03 l,50E-02 l,00E-02 4,50E-02 2 OOE-03 2,70E-06 1,00E-03 1,OOE-03 l,00E-03 1,OOE-03 1 OOE-03 See Table 3-3 70 25.550 9.125 250 25 8 0,5 0,833 See Table 3-3 RME Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1996a See Table 3-3 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1995 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1999 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 Hrudey. 1996 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 See Table 3-3 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991b EPA 1989 See Table 3-3 CT(1) Value 70 25.550 2.409 250 6,6 0,7 See Table 3-3 70 25.550 2.409 0,001 250 6,6 8 3300 S,69E-04 8,90E-03 7,40E-02 4,50E-03 8,OOE-02 4,40E-03 l,50E-02 l,0IE-02 4,50E-02 2,O0E-O3 2,70E-06 1,OOE-03 1,OOE-03 1.OOE-03 1,OOE-03 1,OOE-03 See Table 3-3 70 25.550 2.409 250 6,6 8 0,5 0833 See Table 3-3 CT Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1996a EPA 1996a See Table 3-3 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1995 EPA 1991 EPA 1996 EPA 1991 EPA 1999 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 Hrudey. 1996 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 EPA 1992 See Table 3-3 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1991 EPA 1996 EPA 1991 EPA 1991b EPA 1989 See Table 3-3 1 Intake Equation/ Model Name (CW X ED X EF X IR-W) + (BW x AT) (CW X CF X EF x ED x ET X Kp X SA) - (BW x AT) (CW X ED X EF X ET X K X IN) ' (BW x AT) kME: Reasonable Maximum Exposure CT (I): Central Tendency was only evaluated when RME risk and hazard estimates exceeded acceptable benchmarks (lO'' - carcinogens, 1,0 - noncarcinogens). SS : Site-specific parameter based upon professional judgement EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol 1: EPA 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfimd Vol 1: EPA 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol I: 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002 1: Ifuman Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Supplemental Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Mar I: Human HeaUh Evaluation Manual (Part B. Development of Risk-based Pieliminai-y Remediation Goals) Inierim. December. EPA 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment, Principles and Applications. Interim Report. January 1992. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB EPA 19963. Exposure I-actors Handbook. EPA/600/P-9V002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Scieening Guidance, EPA/540/R.95/I28 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment. Interim Guidance. March 2, 1999 (a) - iiieial petmeabiiily equivaleni to waler permeabilily TABLE 4.6 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS Virgin Island Chemical Site U> O w vo a\ lo Scenario '['imet'rame: Kuture Medium; Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil/Air Exposure I'oint: VICHIZM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Workers Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Parameter Code BW AT-C AT-N CK EF ED • IR-S CS BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED DABS SSAF SA CS BW AT-C AT-N PEF EF ED ET IN cs Parameter Definition Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate-Soil Chemical Concentration in Soil Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Dermal Absorption Factor - (As) Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Skin Surface Area Chemical Concentration in Soil Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Paniculate Emmision Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Inhalation Rate Chemical Concentration in Soil Units kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr mg/kg mg/kg kg days days kg/mg d/yr y unitless mg/cm^ cmVday mg/kg kg days days m'/kg d/yr yr hr/day m /hr mg/kg - RME Value 70 25,550 9,125 1 X IO-'' 250 25 50 See Table 3-1 70 25,550 9,125 1 X 10''' 250 25 0.03 0.2 3300 See Table 3-1 70 25,550 9.125 1,32 X 10' 250 25 8 0.833 See Table 3-1 RME Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991b EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 See Table 3-1 CT(1) Value 70 25,550 2,409 1 X lO* 250 6.6 50 See Table 3-1 70 25,550 2.409 1 X 10''' 250 6.6 0.03 0.02 3300 See Table 3-1 70 25,550 2,409 1.32 X 10' 250 6.6 8 0.833 See Table 3-1 CT Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1996a EPA 1991a See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1996 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991b EPA 1991a EPA 1996a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 See Table 3-1 Intake Equation/ Model Name (CS X CF X ED X EF x IR-S) - (BW x AT) (CS X CF X EF X ED X SA X DABS x SSAF) - (BW x (CS X ED x EF X ET X IN) ^ (BW x AT x PEF) AT) RME: Reasonable Maximum Exposure CT (1): Central Tendency was only evaluated when RME risk and hazard estimates exceeded acceptable benchmarks (10"'' - carcinogens, 1.0 - noncarcinogens). SS : Site-specific parameter based upon professional judgement EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance lor Superfund. Vol 1: Huinan Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002 EPA 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Supplemental Guidance, "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March. EPA 1991b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Developinent of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim. December. EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment; Principles and Applications. Interim Report. January 1992. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB EPA 1996a, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance, EPA/540/R-95/128 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol 1: Fluman Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim Guidance, March 2, 1999 Talile-4.xls (4-6) TABLE 4.7 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ O w vo a\ LO Scenario Timeframe; Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Soil/Sediment. Air Exposure Point; Gut System Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Workers Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Parameter Code BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED IR-S CS BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED DABS SSAF SA CS BW AT-C AT-N PEF EF ED ET IN CS Parameter Definition Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate-Soil/Sediment Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Dermal Absorption Factor - (As) Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Skin Surface Area Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Particulate Emmision Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Inhalation Rale Chemical Concentration in Soil/Sediment Units kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr mg/kg mg/kg kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr unitless mg/cm' cm'/day mg/kg kg days days m'/kg d/yr yr hr/day m'/hr mg/kg RME Value 70 25,550 9,125 1 X lO''' 250 25 50 See Table 3-2 70 25,550 9.125 1 X 10-'' 250 25 0.03 0.2 3300 See Table 3-2 70 25,550 9,125 1,32 X 10'' 250 25 8 0,833 See Table 3-2 RME Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a See Table 3-2 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a . EPA 1991a EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-2 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1996b EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 See Table 3-2 CT(1) Value 70 25,550 2,409 1 X 10-'' 250 6,6 50 See Table 3-2 70 25.550 2.409 I xlO""' 250 6,6 0,03 0,02 3300 See Table 3-2 70 25,550 2,409 1,32 X 10' 250 6,6 8 0.833 See Table 3-2J CT Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA I99Ia EPA 1996a EPA 1991a See Table 3-2 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a EPA 1996a EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-2 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1996b EPA 1991a EPA 1996a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 See Table 3-2 Intake Equation/ Model Name (CS X CF X ED X EF X IR-S) - (BW x AT) (CS X CF X EF X ED x SA x DABS x SSAF) - (BW x (CS X ED X EF X ET X IN) - (BW x AT x PEF) AT) RME; Reasonable Maximum Exposure CT(I); Central Tendency was only evaluated when RME risk and hazard estimates exceeded acceptable benchmarks (10''' - carcinogens, 1.0 - noncarcinogens), SS : Site-specillc parameter based upon professional judgement EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperlund, Vol I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, OERR EPA/540/1-89/002 EPA 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance tor Superfund Vol 1; Human Health fivaluation Manual (Pan A), Supplemental Guidance, "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285,6-03. March, EPA 1991b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1; Human Health Evaluation Manual (Pan B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim, December, EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim Report. January 1992, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB EPA 1996a, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance, EPA/540/R-95/128 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim Guidance, March 2, 1999 Table-4,nls(4-7) TABLE 4.8 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe; Future Medium; Surface Soil Exposure Mediuin; Surface Soil/Air Exposure Point; VICHEM Site Receptor Population; Construction Worker Receptor Age; Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dennal Inhalation Parameter Code BW AT-C AT-N CF EF ED IR-S CS BW AT-C A'f-N CF EF ED DABS SSAF SA CS BW AT-C AT-N PEF EF ED ET IN CS Parameter Definition Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate-Soil Cheinical Concentration in Soil Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Dermal Absorption Factor - (As) Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Skin Surface Area Chemical Concentration in Soil Body Weight Averaging Time Carcinogen Averaging Time NonCarcinogen Particulate Emmision Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Time Inhalation Rate Chemical Concentration in Soil Units kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr mg/kg mg/kg kg days days kg/mg d/yr yr unitless mg/cm^ cni^/day mg/kg kg days days rn'/kg d/yr yr hr/day m7hr mg/kg RME Value 70 25,550 365 1 X 10"'' 250 1 480 See Table 3-1 70 25,550 365 Ix 10''" 250 I 0.03 0,2 3300 See Table 3-1 70 25.550 365 1,32x10'' 250 1 8 3,5 Sec Table 3-1 RME Rationale/ Reference EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991 a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a SS EPA. 1991a See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a SS EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1996b EPA 1991a SS EPA 1991a EPA 1996a See Table 3-1 CT(1) Value 70 25,550 365 I X 10-' 250 1 100 See Table 3-1 70 25.550 365 1 X IO'*" 250 I 0,03 0.02 3300 See Table 3-1 70 25.550 365 1,32x10' 250 I 8 1,3 See Table 3-1 CT Rationale/ Reference EPA I99Ia EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a SS EPA. 1991a See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1989 EPA 1991a SS EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1999 See Table 3-1 EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1991a EPA 1996b EPA 1991a SS EPA 1991a EPA 1996a See Table 3-1 Intake Equation/ Model NaiTie (CS X CF X ED X EF x IR-S) - (BW x AT) (CS X CF X EF X ED x SA x DABS x SSAF) - (BW x (CS x ED X EF X ET X IN) -^ (BW x AT x PEF) AT) RME: Reasonable Maximum Exposure CT (1): Central Tendency was only evaluated when RME risk and hazard estimates exceeded acceptable benchmarks (10" - carcinogens, 1,0 - noncarcinogens). SS ; Site-specific parameter based upon professional judgement EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol 1; Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002 EPA 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1; Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Supplemental Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March. EPA 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1: Fluman Health Evaluation Manual (Part B. Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim. Deceinber. EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment; Principles and Applications. Interim Report, January 1992. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB EPA 1996a, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Ba EPA 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance, EP/Su'540/R-95/128 EPA 1999, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol 1; Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Dermal Risk Assessment. Interim Guidance. March 2, 1999 ^96eoe Tal)li:-lphenol Isophorone 2-Mcthylphcnol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (y^onfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Medium EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 0.024 0.00249 0.001 0.160 0.005 lO.I 1.614 7.300 0.025 0.187 0.863 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0,025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgA. mgA, mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.187 0,865 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 (J.024 0.00249 O.OOI 0.160 0.005 10,1 1 614 7.300 0.025 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.040 0,031 0,960 0.017 0,018 0.024 0,002 0,001 0.160 0.005 lO.I 1.614 7.300 0.025 Route EPC Units mgA. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mga. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calodation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 2,I9E-03 1.02E-02 3.28E-03 4.69E-04 3,63E-04 I.I3E-02 2,02E-04 2.07E-04 2.83E-04 2.92E-05 I.63E-05 I.88E-03 5,94E-05 I.I9E-01 I.90E-02 NA 2.94E-04 2.88E.05 1.99E-03 5.35E-03 4.64E-05 3.59E-04 1.98E-02 6.66E-05 2.00E-05 6.23E-05 6.43E-07 9.76E-10 4.13E-05 2.61E-06 2.61E-03 4.nE-04 NA 6.46E-06 Intake (Non-Cancet) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/ltg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose l.OOE-OI 1,00E-02 I.OOE-01 6.00E-02 2.00E-01 2.00E+00 2.00E-02 2,0OE-0I 5,0OE-O2 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 7.00E-02 3.OOE-03 3.00E-OI 2.00E-O2 NE 7,OOE-03 l.OOE-01 l.OOE-02 8,20E-02 6.O0E.O2 I.60E-0I 2.00E+00 2.O0E-02 2,00E-0I 5,00E-02 8.00E-05 2.94E-04 I.40E-02 6.00E-O5 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 NE l,40E-03 Total H Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d azaid Index A Reference Concentration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE • NE NE NE NE cross All Exposu Reference Cona-nttation Units mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' e Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient 2.2E-02 l.OE+00 3,3E-02 7,8E-03 l,8E-03 5.6E-03 I.OE-02 I.OE-03 5.7E-03 7.3E-02 5,4E-02 2,7E-02 2.0E-02 4,0E-Ol 9.5E-0I NA 4.2E-02 2.7E4O0 2.9E.04 2.0E-0I 6.5E-02 7.7E-04 2.2E-03 9.9E-03 3.3E-03 I.OE-04 1.2E-03 8.0E-03 3,3E-06 3.0E-03 4.4E-02 8.7E-02 2.1E-01 NA 4.6E-03 6.4E-01 3.3E+O0 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculaiion. NA - Not applicable TABLE 7.9b - CT CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: GTound^\"aler Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult CO o w 00 i-» E.\posure Route Ingestion Derma! Chemical of Potential Concem Acetone Chlorofomi Ethylbenzene Methylene chloride Toltrene Xylenes 2,4-Dimelhylphenol Isophorone 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Methy Iene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4.Dimethylphenol Isophorone 2-Methylphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Medium EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 0.024 0.00249 0.001 0.160 0.005 10,1 1-614 7.300 0.025 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 0,024 0.001 0.002 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0,017 0.018 0.024 0,00249 0,001 0.160 0.005 10.1 I.6I4 7.300 0.025 0.187 0.S65 0,280 0.040 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.018 0.024 0,001 0.002 0.160 0.t)05 lO.I 1.614 7.300 0,025 Route EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgO. mgA. mg/L mg/L mgrt. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Litake (Non-Cancer) I,28E-03 5.92E-03 I.92E-03 2.74E-04 2.12E-04 6,58E-03 I.18E-04 1.2IE-04 1.65E-04 I.7IE-05 9.52E.06 l,I0E-03 3.47E-05 6.92E-02 I.IlE-02 NA 1.71E-04 2.75E-05 1.99E-03 5.35E-03 4,64E-05 3.59E-04 1.98E-02 6.66E-05 2.00E-05 6,29E-05 9.76E-10 6.43E-07 4.13E-05 2.61E-06 2.61E-03 4.17E-04 NA 6.46E-06 Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d NA mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose l.OOE-OI l.OOE-02 lOOE-OI 6,00E-02 2.00E-OI 2,00E+O0 2.0OE-O2 2.00E-0I 5.00E-O2 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 7.00E-02 3.OOE-03 3,00E-01 2,00E-02 NE 7.OOE-03 l.OOE-01 1 .OOE-02 8.20E-02 6.00E-02 I.60E-01 2.00E+00 2.OOE-02 2,0OE-0I 5.OOE-02 2.94E-04 8.00E-05 I.40E-02 6.00E-05 3.00E-O2 2.OOE-03 NE 1.40E-03 Total H Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mgAg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d NE mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d azard Index A Reference Concenttation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE cross All E.\posu Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m e Routcs/PathMays Hazard Quotient I.3E-02 5.9E-0I 1.9E-02 4.6E-03 l.lE-03 3.3E-03 5,9E.03 6.0E.04 3.3E-03 4.3E-02 3.2E-02 I.6E-02 1.2E-02 2.3E-OI 5.5E-0I NA 2.4E-02 1.6E+00 2.7E-04 2.0E-01 6.5E-02 7.7E-0'l 2.2E-03 9.9E-03 3.3E-03 l,0E-04 l,3E-03 3.3E-06 8.0E-03 3.OE-03 4.4E-02 8,7E-02 2.1E-01 NA 4.6E-03 64E-01 2.2E+00 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable LO O CO U> 0 0 l O TABLE 7.10a - RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium; Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor ARC: Adull Exposure Route Iniiaiation Chemical of Potential Concern Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimelhylphenol 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Cliromium Iron Lead Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.018 0.040 0.031 0.960 17.20 24.10 2.49 1.40 160 5.06 lOIOO 7.30 1614 25 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.018 0.040 0.031 0,960 17.200 24.100 2.490 1.400 160.000 5.060 10100.000 7.300 1614.000 25.000 Route • EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 2.82E-02 9.13E-03 NA 1.30E-03 l.OlE-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mgAg/d Reference Dose NE 8.6E-05 2.90E-01 NE 8.60E-01 1,14E-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d ing/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 3.00E-04 l.OOE-i-OO NE 3.00E-I-00 4.00E-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m3 mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m rag/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 3.3E-I-02 3.1E-02 NA 1.5E-03 8.8E-03 NA r^'.'NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.3E-1-02 Table-7.\ls(7-10a) M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. KE - Not established NA - Not applicable. TABLE 7.10b-CT CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult to O LO «0 00 to Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concem Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0,280 0,018 0,040 0.031 0.960 17.20 24.10 2.49 1.40 160 5.06 10100 7.30 1614 25 Medium EPC Units mg/1. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L rag/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.187 0,865 0.280 0,018 0.040 0.031 0,960 17.200 24.100 2.490 1.400 160.000 5.060 10100.000 7.300 1614.000 25.000 Route EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mgA, mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 2.82E-02 9,13E-03 NA 1.30E-03 l.OlE-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 8.6E-05 2.90E-01 NE 8.60E-01 1.14E-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mgTcg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 3.00E-04 l.OOE+00 NE 3.00E+00 4.00E-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/ra mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 3.3E-I-02 3.1E-02 NA 1.5E-03 8.8E-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.3E-H)2 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable, Table-7.xls(7-IOb) TABLE 7.11-RME CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE iMAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E-t-03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 3.34E-06 1.25E-05 2.00E-02 5.18E-04 5.33E-05 I.83E-03 1.32E-06 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose 3.00E-04 3.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.00E-02 7.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.94E-04 6.00E-05 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.40E-03 6.00E-02 Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient l.lE-02 4.2E-03 6.7E-02 2.6E-02 7.6E-03 6.1E-03 1.2E-01 4.5E-03 NA NA NA NA NA 4.5E-03 I.3E-01 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable Table-7.xls(7-ll) 5'86eoe TABLE 7.12 - RME CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E-H02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E-H03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg^g EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 1.26E-09 NA 5.24E-08 NA NA , Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 3.00E-05 NE 1.43E-05 NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 2.85E-05 NE 5.00E-05 NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 4.2E-05 NA 3.7E-03 NA NA 3.7E-03 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable. to O to to 00 Ul Table-7.xls(7-12) TABLE 7.13 - RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Point; Gut System Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 1.63E+00 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 1.14E+04 1.63E+00 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E+04 1.63E+00 I.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 1.14E+04 I.63E+00 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-(-01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 5.58E-03 7.97E-07 9.10E-06 9.30E-03 2.38E-04 2.40E-05 NA 3.16E-07 NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose l.OOE+00 3.00E-04 3.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.00E-02 7.00E-03 2.00E-01 2.94E-04 6.00E-05 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.40E-03 Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE NE_ NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient 5.6E-03 2.7E-03 3.0E-O3 3.1E-02 1.2E-02 3.4E-03 5.8E-02 NA l.lE-03 NA NA NA NA l.lE-03 5.9E-02 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable NE - Not established - -• 986eoe Table-7.xls(7-13) TABLE 7.14-RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemicai Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concem Arsenic Aluminum Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 1.63E+00 l,I4E+04 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 1.09E+02 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.63E+00 1.14E+04 1.86E+0I 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 1.09E+02 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 5.63E-07 9.19E-10 NA 2.40E-08 NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE I.OOE-03 3.00E-05 NE I.43E-05 NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE NE 2.85E-05 NE 5.00E-05 NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 5.6E-04 3.IE-05 NA 1.7E-03 NA 2.3E-03 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable. to o to VD 00 Table-7.xls(7-14) TABLE 7.15a - RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg rag/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 I.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.83E+00 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 3.21E-05 1.20E-04 1.92E-01 4.98E-03 5.12E-04 1.75E-02 1.32E-06 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose 3.00E-04 3.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.00E-02 7.00E-03 3.00E-0I 2.94E-04 6.00E-05 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.40E-03 6.00E-02 Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Total Hazard Index Acros Reference Concentration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m'' mg/m' mg/m'' mg/m' All Exposure Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient l.lE-01 4.0E-02 6.4E-01 2.5E-01 7.3E-02 5.8E-02 1.2E-I-00 4.5E-03 NA NA NA NA NA 4.5E-03 1.2E+00 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable NE - Not established . . . Table-7,xls(7-15a) 886£0C TABLE 7.1Sb - CT CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult t o O t o t o 00 t o Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concem Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc (Total) Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+0I 4.09E4-04 1.06E-F03 I.09E+02 3.73E-I-03 6.83E-1-00 2.55E-h01 4.09Ei-04 1.06E-t-03 1.09E+02 3,73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/lcg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg*g mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.g3E+00 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 I.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.83E+00 2.55E+OI 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg rag/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 6.68E-06 2.50E-05 4.00E-02 1.04E-03 1.07E-04 3.65E-03 1.32E-07 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/Icg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose 3.00E-04 3.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.00E-02 7.00E-03 3.00E-0I 2.94E-04 6.00E-05 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.40E-03 6,00E-02 .... Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m'' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient 2.2E-02 8.3E-03 1.3E-01 5.2E-02 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 2.4E-01 4.5E-04 NA NA NA NA NA 4.5E-04 2.4E-01 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable NE - Not established Table-7.xl3(7-15b) TABLE 7.16a - RME CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 l,06E+03 1.09E+02 3,73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 I.09E+02 3.73E-t-03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg m ^ ^ EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 5.29E-09 NA 2.20E-07 NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 3.00E-05 NE 1.43E-05 NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 2.85E-05 NE 5.00E-05 NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/ni' mg/m^ mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 1.8E-04 NA 1.5E-02 NA NA 1.6E-02 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable. to o to vo to o Table-7.xls(7-16a) TABLE 7.16b-CT CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) "Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.83E+00 2,55E-b01 4,09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.83E+00 2.55E+01 4.09E-K)4 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) NA l,97E-09 NA 8.17E-08 NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 3.00E-05 NE 1.43E-05 NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 2.85E-05 NE 5.00E-05 NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 6.6E-05 NA 5.7E-03 NA NA 5.8E-03 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable. to o to to vo l-> Table-7.xls(7-16b) TABLE 7.17-RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Mediuin: Soil/Sediment Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult E.xposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Totail Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Medium EPC Value 1.14E-(-04 1.63E+00 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E-F02 4.90E+01 1.14E+04 1.63E+00 1.86E+01 l,90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.I4E+04 1.63E-b00 1.86E-F01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 1.I4E+04 1.63E+00 1.86E+0I l,90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 5.35E-02 7.66E-06 8.74E-05 8.92E-02 2.28E-03 2.30E-04 NA 3.16E-07 NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose l.OOE+00 3.00E-04 3.00E-03 3.00E-01 2.00E-02 7.00E-03 2.00E-01 2.94E-04 6.00E-05 3.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.40E-03 Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways Hazard Quotient 5.4E-02 2.6E-02 2.9E-02 3.0E-01 j l.lE-01 3.3E-02 5.5E-01 NA l.lE-03 NA NA NA NA l.lE-03 [ 5.5E-01 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NA - Not applicable 'rable-7.x[,s(7-17) 366eoe TABLE 7.18-RME CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value I.14E+04 1.63E+00 1.86E+01 1.90E+03 4.86E+02 1.09E+02 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E-F04 1.63E+O0 1.86E+01 1.90E+03 4.86E4-02 1.09E+02 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Non-Cancer) 2.37E-06 NA 3.86E-09 NA l.OlE-07 NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose l.OOE-03 NE 3.00E-05 NE 1.43E-05 NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE NE 2.85E-05 NE 5.00E-05 NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient 2.4E-03 NA 1.3E-04 NA 7.1E-03 NA 9.5E-03 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not applicable. to o to vo vo to Table-7.xls(7-l8) TABLE 7.19a-RME CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS REASONAULE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE N'irgiii Islaiiil Clieinic.)! Sire Scenario TunetVaine: Fuiure Medium' Gioimdwatei tixposure Medium: GrOundwaiei Exposure Poini: Tap Waiei Reteplur Population; Resideni Receptor Aue: Adull to o to VD VO E \ p o s u i c Rotii^ liil^isiion Deinial 1 (sho\st:i) Chemicul or'Poieniial CoiKern .Aceione C h l o r o f o t m Dinielliylplieiiol, 2.4- Elliylbei\2eti; iiophorone M e t l n l e n e chloridi: M e t l u l p i i e i i o l . 2- Toluene Xylene b Amuiiotty .Arsenic But "mm C l u o n i i u m Iron xManjjaiiese (iionlbod) Lead Vanadium (Tola!) AcL'ione Cliloioforni Diiiitfthvlplienal, 2,A- Hihylbeiizcne Isophufone Melliylene ditoride Meiiiylplieiiol, 2- Toiuene XyicJiei .Aniiniony .A fit; 11 ll.- B a m i n i ClifOiniuiii 1 ron Mai\ii?.[\ese (noiitbovl) Lead \'aiiadiuin (Total) M e d i u m EPC Vaii.e 0 187 o.at.5 G 0 I 7 0 2&0 0 0 1 3 0 040 0.02J 0 051 0.V60 D00249 0.001 0.160 0 005 10 1 1,614 7 300 0 025 0 187 0 S 6 j 0.017 0.2SO O.LMS 0.040 0.02J O.OJI o.yoo 0.003 0 001 0.160 ooos lO.I I 6 U 7 300 0.025 Mediitin EPC Units ii.B'L uiii/L i i i y L my.'L iiiu 'L mg.'L iiiu.-L iniirL m i ; . ! i n y ' L m g L i n y . L n i g l iiiil'L m i i ' L iiiij'L m g ' L t i i g l iiig-'L iiig-L mg-L nig L m g ' L nig.'L m g L i i i y L nvj L nig L m g / L n i g , L nig.L mg.'L m g ' L m g - L r-LHiie E \ < Value C; 187 0.865 CO 17 C^rS'J 0.018 0 040 0,0:4 0,0.11 O.-JoO O.L'O.-.-I'J 0.001 0,160 0 oo,s !0 1 1 6 U 7 3wO 0,0 : i 0,1 S7 cacs 0.0; 7 0.2^10 0.013 0 040 0,024 O.Oi I 0 Qf.O 0,0u2 0,Oi!l 0 li-0 0 o r o 10, i l , b i 4 7.3t.O c.c:s Rotite EPC Units n i g / L nig^L Mlg,^ m g ' L ing.'L ms^/L mg.'L mg.'L m g ' L m g ' L m g . L nig.'L m g ' L intjfL mg.'L m a / L mg.'L m g / L nis.'L m s T . ms.'l. nig/L mg'T- mg-'L m g ' L n v i ' L I I I B ' L nis-L nig.-'L m g / L mg.'L m s ' L niy.'L sllij.L EPC Sekcled foi Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M ,\1 M M M M M .\1 .M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Inlake ( N o i i . C a n « i ) 6.1 ,'>E-0.1 2.S4E.02 5.6.5E-CM ' ) . : i n . 0 3 5 TIE-HA 1 U E - m 7.92E.0J t , u : E - O i 3.16E.02 8.I9E.05 J.60E-0.i 5 : 6 E . 0 3 l,t)6E.04 3 . 3 ; E - O I 5 . 3 I E - 0 : N.^ 8 . 3 : E . O J I.JOE-05 I.0IE.03 3 ^0E-O5 2.73E.03 1 O : E . 0 5 2.37E.05 3,18F..Q5 1 83E.OJ i . o i E - o ; 3.28E-07 4 98E-10 2 I I £-05 l.33E-0(i I.33E.03 2 l i L - O J N . \ 3 29E.U6 hilake lplienol. 2,4- Etliylbeiizene lioplioione Mettiyteiie clilondc Methvlplienol. 2- Toluene Xylenes .Antimony Aiiieiuc Bdrtum Chromium lion Mangajiese [nonfood) Lead Vajiadium (Tola!) .Auetone ChlotOtbtm Dimethylphenol, 2,-1- Ethylbeiizene Uoplioione Nfeihylenc chloride Meilnlphenol. 2- Toluene Xylenes .-Kininiiiny Arsenic Barium Cliiomium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium [Total) Medium EPC Value 0,[S7 O.S65 0,0i7 0 280 o o t s 0.040 0 024 0 031 0.960 0.00249 0 001 0 160 0 005 10 1 1.614 7.300 0.025 0.1 B7 OS65 0.017 0 280 0.018 0.040 0,024 0,031 0.900 0.002 0.001 0 160 0 00.^ lo.i 1 6 U 7 3O0 0.025 Medium EPC Units mgfL mg.'L mg'L ,„g'L ntg/L , l l g l nig'L nig'L ,Tlg.'L „,g/L ,.,SL mg-L n,g,'L mg L nig-L mg,L ntg'L mg.'L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg'L n,g/L „ig/L mg/L nig 1. mg'L „ig/L mg'L mg'L mg L n,g/L mg.'L mg'L Roi:ie EPC N'alue 0 IS7 0.8(.i 0017 0 2EO 0.013 0.040 0.024 0.031 0 960 0 00249 OOCl 0 lo'.l 0,00.1 10. f 1 614 7 300 0,02.'; 0 187 0S6N O0|7 0.2S'J O.CIIS 0.041) 0.021 0 03! 0.960 0.002 OOOi 0,160 OOOS Itj.l 1.614 7.300 0,02:' Rooie EPC Un„s ,ug/L n,g;L ,„g'L ,i,g/L n,!jL ,r\g/L mg/L nig/L ,t,g'L mg/L mg/L mg/L ,iig/L mg'L nig'L mg'L mg/L nig/'L .„g/L mg/L mg'L nig.'L mg/L mg/L nig''L nig'L mg'L mg.'L mg/L nig'L mg'L nig'L „,g.'l. mg/L EPC Selecled lor Hajratd Calculatton ,M M M .\1 M M M M M ,M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M •M M M .\1 M intake (Non.Cancer) 3,?9E.03 l,66E-02 3,30E-04 5.37E.03 3,38E-04 7,67E-04 4 62E-04 5,53E-04 l,84E-02 4,7SE-05 I.liSE-OS 3,07E-03 9,70E,05 I.94E-0I 3.IOE-l)2 NA 4 79E-04 4.4IE-0fj 3 I9E-04 L07E-0i S.59E-04 32IE-06 746E,06 9.99E-06 5.76E-0,'i 3 I8E-03 1 03E-07 I.57E-IO 6.63E-06 4.I9E-07 4.I9E-04 6.69E-05 NA I.04E-06 Intake (Non-Cancer) Umts mg.'kg/d mg;kg.'d mg'kgj'd mg'kg/d mg.'kg/d mgtVg/d mg,'kg/d mg.-3;g/d mg'kg/d mg.'kg/d mg/'kB'd nig.kg'd mg,'kg/d mg;kg/d „,g'kg/d nlg'T^g'd ,ng/100 0.02 j 0 187 0.36^ 0.01? 0.280 0 0 1 8 0..iJ.j 0,02.1 0.03 1 O.Doo 0,002 0.00: 0.100 0 00.' 10 1 l . i l , 1 7,100 O,02,'i R0U|L> EPC Units m s ' l . msi'L i n g ' L lnli.'L. ini^/L mB.'l, iily/L ms-'L m y . ! mg.'L n.s.'L ms/L m y ' L my.'I, (iiy'L mg.'L m g ' L m g / L m g ' L m g L m g ' L mg/L m g ' L mg.'L m g ' L mg.'L m g ' L m g . L mg.'L mg-L i i i y ' L tng;'L m g ' L mg/L EPC Selecled for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M .\l M M M .M M .\1 .M M M M ,\l M M M M ,\1 .M M M .\l Intake; (Non-Cancci) I.79E.02 S.IQE-Oi l.i.5E,03 2.68E.02 1.69E.03 1 84E.03 2 . 3 i E . 0 3 : . 5 6 E . 0 3 <).21E.02 2.39E.0J 1.3JE.0J 1 53 E-02 J 85E.04 •J.eSE-Ol I.JJE-Ol \'.A 2 4OE-0J ;.S'1E-0,S I.88E.03 o . : 9 E . 0 5 .I.O.IE.O] I.SIE-Oj 4.39E-0.S 5.S7E.0i 3 39E.04 1 S7E.02 6 0 7 E . 0 7 9 2 I E . 1 0 3.')OE.05 : . 4 7 E . 0 6 ;.46E-03 3.93E.Q4 N.A COOE-OO Intake (Non.Caiicetj Lj'nits m g l t g / d mg.-3;gfii mg..kg.'d mg.l;B,M ntg-Tig'tl mgilig/d oigTcg'd mg'kg.'d mg'kg.'d m g . t g ' d mg.Vg'd nig'Vg/d mg.'kg,'d mg'Vg/d mg-Vg/d m g k g / d nig/kg-'d mg.Vg'd m g V g ' d "ig.'kg'd i n g k g ' d m g V g / d iiig.Vg'd ntg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'Vg/d mg'Vg/d mg'kg/d mg/Vg/d mg'3ig''d mg'kg,'d ms'tg.'d mg.'kg/d ms.'VB/d Refeivnce D o s j l.OOF.-OI 1 .OOE.02 2.00E.02 1 OOE-OI 2 OOE-OI 6 OOE-02 .V OOE-02 2.00E-01 2.00E-I-00 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 7 OOE-Oj 3 OOE-03 3 OOE-OI 2.OOE.02 NE 7.O0E.O3 1 OOE-01 1 OOE.02 2 OOE-02 S.20E-02 2.00E-01 6 0 0 E - 0 2 5.00E-02 1 60E.0I 2.00B+-O0 8.00E.O.i 2.9JE-04 1.40E-02 6.00E-Oi 3 OOE-02 2.OOE-03 NE 1,40F--0J Total i l Reference Dose Utiiis mg/kg/d iiig''Vg.'d mg''kg/d mg'kg/d mg'kg/d mg/Vg/ti mg.''kg/d mg.Vg/ti mg.'kg.'d mg/kg/d mg'lig/d m g ' l g ' d mg''kg/d mg,1;S'd mg-kg.'d mg'kg./d mg'kg/d mg'Vg.'d mg/kg/d nig.kg/'d mi!/kg./d mg'l;g,'d mg-kg-'d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mgkg.'d mg'l.g./d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d n>g,'kg/d mg''kg/d nig''kg/d ntg'kg/d tng''kg/d AZaid Index A Referetice CoiicefMialioii NE N E NE NE N E N E N E N E N E N't N E N E N E N E N E NE N E NE NE NE NE N E NE N E NE NE NE NE N E N E N E N E NE NF. cioss .4,11 E>;posw Reference Concenttation Llnils mg/m'^ m g / m ' m g / m • m g / m ' m g ' m ' mg.'nf nig^'m m g ' ' m ' tiig/'ni' m g m ' ' tllg'tlV' tllg/m'' m g ' m ' m g ' t i l ' mg/ni'' m g / m m g / m ' i i i g / m ' mg/m'' m g ' m ' nig''tii' m g ' ' m ' m g / n f ' m g ' m ' ' mg/'m tng''tn m g / m ' t u g ' m ' i i i g / m ' ll\g/ttt" mg''m' m g / m m g / m ' m g / n i ' e Rotitcs/Pathways Hazard Oiiolient I.SE-01 8.3E•^00 8.2E-02 2.7E-01 8 4E-03 6,4E-02 4.6E-02 l.SE-02 4.6E-02 6 0E-01 4.5E.01 2 2 E . 0 1 1.6E-01 3 , 2 E t 0 0 7,7E-t00 N,A 3.4E.01 2 , 2 1 > 0 I 2.6F.04 1 9E.01 3.1E.03 6 2 E . 0 2 9 4E,05 7,3E-04 I.2E-QJ 2.1E-03 94E-03 7.6E-03 3.1E-0D : . 8 E - 0 ] 4 . I E - 0 2 8.2E-02 2.0E-01 N,4, 4 4E-03 tj.OE-01 1 l , 2 F , - f 0 l l M -Mednim-Specilk EPC selected for hazard calculation NA - Not applicable TABLE 7,1 l b - C T CALCllLATJON OE NON-CANCER HAZARDS CE.NTRAL TENDENCY Vti-giii Island Cheiii'icii) Site o vo vo vo Sceiiaiio Timeframe Fuiuic -Mediunv GroLirid\\;iter Exposure Mediuin, Gioundwaiei E.xposure Point Tap Water RL'ceptor Hopulaiioii: Resident Receptor Ai;e Child Exposure Route inyesiton Dermal (bath) 1 Chemical of Potential Concern .Acetone Cliloroforni Dmietliylphenol, 2.4- Eihylbeiueni.- Isophorone M e i h j i e n e chloride Meihvlphenoi. 2- loluene Xylenes Antiinon\' .'\rsemc Baiiuni Cttromiuin Iton Maiiganeie (injnfood) Lead Vaiiadnini 1 Tot all Acewne Ctiloiofoini Oimeihylptienol, 2,4- ElliyH)tn2ene Isopliofone Methylene chlotide Meihylijhetiol, 2- Tultiene .Xylenes .Anlimoity AtsettiC Batitim Cliromium l i o n •Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vaiiadiuin (Tolall .Medium EPC Value 0,187 0,865 0 0 1 7 0 280 0.018 0 040 0 024 0.031 0 960 0.00249 0.001 0,160 0,005 10.1 1.014 7 300 0.025 0 1S7 0.865 0 0 1 7 0.280 0.018 0.040 0.024 0.031 0 9 6 0 0.002 0 001 0 160 0.005 10 1 1.614 7 300 0.025 .Meditim EPC Units mg L m g ' L mg'L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg'L m g ' L mg'L mg'L mg L niii.L my-L '"iJ-T. m g ' L m y ' L mgi'L m g ' L n i u ' L m g ' L m g ' L m g ' L m g ' L m g ' L m g ' L m y ' L m g ' L nii^T. iiii;.'L m g L t n g ' L tilg'L m g ' L mg/L Ri.ut,. EPC \'alue 0.18'; 0 .565 0 0 1 ? 0 28,' 0 -.11 !• 0 040 0.O24 0 031 0./'60 0.002,19 O.tiOl 0.160 0,005 10 1 1.1.14 7. J 00 0.025 O.lS? 0.S65 0 0 1 7 0 2S0 0.0 IS 0.040 0.024 0.0.11 0,'/60 0,002 0.001 0.160 0,005 10.1 1.014 7 300 0,025 Route EPC Units nig'L mg/L m g / | . m g / L m g ' L iiig.'L m g ' L mg/L tiig/L m g ' L mg/L n i g ' L mg/L m g ' L mtf'L m g / L m g ' L mi;,'L my L m i j ' L n i j i ' l m s - l mvj'L m j j L mt:.'L niiJ/L m i j . ! . mij.'L inji'L injj.'L in»i-'L inii. L niy L mg/L EPC Selected fot Hazard Calculation M M M M M M ,M M ,M M M M ,M M M M M ,M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M M M M M Intake (Non-Ciiricer) 1.04E-02 4.81 E-02 9S2E-04 1 56E-02 9 7 9 E - 0 4 2.22E-03 1 34E-03 1.72E.03 5.34E.02 I.1SE.04 7 7 9 E . 0 5 8')0E-O3 2.81E.04 562E-OI S.98E-02 N A I.39E-113 8.16E-06 5 90E-04 1 98E-05 1 5'JE-l)3 5 94E-06 I.38E-05 I.85E-05 I.07E-04 5.89E-03 l.<>IE-l)7 2.90E-I0 1.23E.05 7 7 6 E . 0 7 7.74E.04 1.24E.04 N A 1 92E-06 Intake (Non-Caitcei) Units lug/kg.'d mg,kg('d mg Vg'd mg.'kg/d mg/'kg.d mg'kg/d mg-kg/d mg'kg/d mg'kg.'d mg'kg.'d m g k g ' d mg/kg/d mg'kg.'d tttg/kg,'d iiiB''kg.'d mg'kg/d ntg'kg''d mg'kg./d mg'kg'ri mg/kg/d mg.'kg/d mg,kg.''d iTig''kg''d mg/kg./d mg'kg.'d iiig.'kg''d mg'kgr'd mg''kg'd itig/Ks./d mg/kg/d mg/lS'kg'd mg'kg/d m g t g / d mg/kgi'd mg'kg/d mg'kg,'d mg'kg.'d mg'lg.'d mg'kg/d ing/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg.kg'd ing/ky./d mg'kg/d mgkg.'d mg'kg/d mg'kg/d mg'kg/d mg'kg,'d mg'kg/d iiigr3;g.'d ttig'^kg/d mg/Vg/d m g ' k g ' d mg/kg,'d mg''kg'd mg'kg.'d mB.'kg/d mg'ks.'d mg/kg/d izard Index ,\ Refeience Concentration N E N E N E NE N E N E N E N E N E NE N E NE N E NE N E NE NE N E NE NE N E N E N E N E NE NE NE N E N E NE N E NE N E NE cross .All Exposu Reference Concenti ation Units m g ' m ' m g / m ' m g / m ' m g ' i n " m g ' m ' tiiip'nf' tttg/m' mg.ni m g / m mg.''ii]*' m g . t i i ' m g / m mg,'m' litg,ni' m g ' m ' mg''m' mg''iil' mgint i n g ' n i ' m g / m ' n i g ' m ' m g / m ' mg.'m' mg/m' mg.'in' mg,'m' m g / m ' mg,'nv' m g ' m ' m g / m ' my.'m m i j / n i ' n i i j ' i i i ' niy.'tiv c Roiiies/Pathways Hazard Quonent l.OE-OI J.SE-i-OO 4 8E-02 1 6E-0I 4 9 E - 0 i 3.7E-02 : 7E-02 B6E-03 2.1E-02 3 5E-0I 2.6E-01 l,3E-01 9 4E-02 i,9E-ion 4.5E-tO(l N A 2 0E.OI l,3E+01 82E.05 5 9E-02 9.9E-04 l,SE-02 3.0E-05 2.3E-04 37E-04 6.7E-04 2.9E-03 24E-03 9.9E-07 88E-04 1.3 E-02 2.6E-02 6.7E-02 N A 1 4 E - 0 i 1 'JE-OI l . i E x O l M -Medmm-Specif'ic EPC selected forhazaid calculation N A - Not applicable TABLE 7.22a - RME CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS REA.SONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Water Vapors Via Bathing Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Child E.xposure Route Inhalation (bath) Chemical of Potential Concern Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dittiethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0.187 0.865 0.280 0.018 0.040 0.031 0.960 17.20 24.10 2.49 1.40 160 5.06 10100 7.30 1614 25 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.759 3,509 1 136 0,071 0,162 " 0,125 3; 894 0,070 0,098 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Route EPC Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' NA NA- NA NA NA NA NA NA EPC .Selected for Hazard Calculation R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Intake (Non-Cancer) NA 4.99E-02 1,62E-02 NA 2,31 E-03 l,7gE-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inlake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 8,60E-05 2,90E-01 NE 8,60E-01 I,I4E-0I NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 3,OOE-04 \ ,00E+00 NE 3,00E+00 4,00E-0I NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' iTig/m' mg/m mg/m Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA S.8E-f02 5,6E-02 NA 2.7E-03 1,6E-02 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.8E-E02 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation, NE - Not established NA - Not applicable tjJ O o o o TABLE 7.22b - CT CALCULATION OF NONCANCER HAZARDS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Water Vapors Via Bathing Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Child Exposure Route Inhalation (shower) Chemical of Potential Concern Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0,187 0,865 0,280 0,018 0,040 0,031 0,960 17,20 24,10 2,49 1,40 160 5.06 lOlOO 7.30 1614 25 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.759 3.509 1.136 0.071 0.162 0.125 3.894 0.070 0.098 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Route EPC Units mg/m' mg/m' .mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/ni' mg/m' mg/m NA NA' NA NA NA NA NA NA EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 1 — Intake (Non-Cancer) NA I.57E-02 5.08E-03 NA 7.26E-04 5.61 E-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Non-Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Dose NE 8.60E-05 2.90E-0I NE 8.60E-0I I.I4E-0I NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Dose Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Reference Concentration NE 3.00E-04 l.OOE+00 NE 3.00E+00 4.00E-0I NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Reference Concentration Units mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m' Total Hazard Index Hazard Quotient NA 1.8E+02 I.8E-02 NA 8.4E-04 4.9E-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.8E+02 M -Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation, NE - Not established NA -Not applicable loo^oe TABLE 8.1a - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult LO O !(>' O O to Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 2.55E-h01 4.09E+04 1.06E-^03 1.09E-^02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-F04 1.06EH-03 I.09E4-02 3.73E-f03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 I.06E+03 1.09E-E02 3.73E-F03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-^04 1.06E+03 1.09E-h02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 5.96E-07 NA NA NA NA NA I.43E-07 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E+00 NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 9E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA NA lE-06 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established TableMls(^ft^APPl*=a'=''= TABLE 8.1b - CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult O O O Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromiurn Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-^04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E-F0I 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Roi.ite EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E-4-03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E-h01 4.09E-(-04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 8.94E-08 NA NA NA NA NA 3.06E-09 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.50E-^00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E-H00 NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d I/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA 4E-09 NA NA NA NA NA lE-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established Table'^ls-(^'ffi)^PP''"'^''= TABLE 8.2a - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium; Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E-H03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 3.01E-1I 1.I2E-10 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.51E+01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 5E-10 5E-09 NA NA NA NA 5E-09 M - Mediurn-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable ^00^0£ Table-8,xls(8-2a) TABLE 8.2b - CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 1 Route EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 2.26E-12 8.42E-12 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.51E-H01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 3E-11 4E-10 NA ^ NA NA NA 4E-10 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable soo^oe Table-8,xls(8-2b) TABLE 8.3 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population; Trespasser Receptor Age; Pre-Adolescent U) o o o Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 2.55E-H0I 4.09E-H04 1.06E-t-03 1.09E+02 3.73E-(-03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-t-04 I.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route , EPC Value 6,830 2.55E-H01 4.09E-H04 1.06E+03 1.09E-H02 3.73E-H03 6.830 2.55E+0I 4.09E-H04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 3.09E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 5.19E-08 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.50E-fOO NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E-(-00 NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 5E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 8E-08 NA NA NA NA NA 5E-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established iMA-S.N^S^pplicable TABLE 8.4 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Pre-Adolescent Exposure Route Inlialation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E-H04 1.06E-t-03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 3.93E-12 1.47E-11 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.51E+01 4.20E-h01 NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 6E-11 6E-10 NA NA NA NA 7E-10 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable Loo^oe Table-8.xls(8-4) TABLE 8.5 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium; Soil/Sediment Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population; Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Aluminurn Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadiuin Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E-^04 4.86E'f02 4.90E+01 1.I4E+04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E-t-04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E-t-04 4.86E+02 4.90E-f01 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-f-0] Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) NA 1.42E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 3.40E-08 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.50E-^00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E+00 NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 5E-08 NA NA NA NA 3E-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established N^bi^-^t^E^j'^^bie , s o o ^ o e TABLE 8.6 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point; Gut System Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age; Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 1.14E-h04 6.830 18.6 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E-I-04 6.830 18.6 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-H01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) NA 7.18E-12 8.19E-11 NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.51E+01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk NA lE-10 3E-09 NA NA NA 4E-09 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable eoo^oe Table-8.xls(8-6) TABLE 8.7 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe; Current Medium; Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium; Soil/Sediment Exposure Point; Gut System Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age; Pre-Adolescent Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E-I-01 1.90E-H04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-H01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E-H04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E-H04 4.86E-f02 4.90E4-01 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E-H01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-H01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) NA 7.37E-08 NA NA NA NA NA 1.24E-08 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E+00 NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk NA lE-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2E-08 NA NA NA NA lE-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established g|J::ipt,/>j3p)icable 010 ^OE TABLE 8.8 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe; Current Medium; Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point; Gut System Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Pre-Adolescent Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 18.6 1.90E+04 4.86E-H02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 18.6 1.90E+04 4.86E-f02 4.90E+01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) NA 9.38E-13 1.07E-11 NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.51E+01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk NA lE-11 4E-10 NA NA NA 5E-10 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable TTo^oe Table-8,xls(8-8) TABLE 8.9a . RME CALCULATION OF CANCER WSKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Ctiemical Site w o o H Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposun; Medium: Groutidwater Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adull Exposure Route Ingestion Dennal Chemical of Potential Concem Chlorofonn Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimediylphenol 2.Methylphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Chloroform Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene .Xylenes 2.4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphciral ..\rsenic •Antimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead V.iiiadium (Tot.iil Medium EPC Value 0,865 0.040 0.018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00249 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 0.865 0,040 0.018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00249 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mgfl. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg./L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mit/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L m.i!yL mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L rng/L mg/L 1 Route EPC Value 0.865 0.040 0,018 0,187 0,280 0.031 0960 0017 0,024 OOOI 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10,1 1,614 7,300 0,025 0,865 0,040 0,018 0,187 0,280 0,031 0,960 0,017 0,024 0 001 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10,1 1,614 7,300 0,025 Route EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L nig/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Sclcned for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 3,63E-03 l,68E-04 7,39E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5,83E-06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7,10E-04 l,66E-05 7,l5E-06 NA NA NA NA • NA NA 2,49E.10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inlake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg'd mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d irtg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d ing/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 6,10E-O3 7,50E-03 950E-04 NE NE NE NE NE NE LSOE+OO NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 6,10E-03 7,50E-O3 9,50E-04 NE NE NE NE NE NE 1,47E+00 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d I/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mgAg/d 1/nig/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d I/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/ragrtcg/d 1/mgAg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mgAg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 2E-05 lE-06 7E-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9E-06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3E-05 4E-06 IE.07 7E-09 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4E-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4E-06 4E-05 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calcuiation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable TABLE 8.9b-CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemicitl Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium; Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (AJIuvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor A^e: Aduli U) o o l-» t o Exposure Route Intfesiion Demial 1 Chemical of Potential Concem Chlorofomi Methylene chloride isophorone Acetone Ethvl benzene Toluene Xvlenes 2.4-Dimetliylphenol 2-Meth>lphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Chromium iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Chlorofomi Methylene dJonde Isophorone Acetone Ethjlbenzcnc Toluene Xylenes 2,4.Dimethylphenol 2.Metli>lphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Clu-omiuni Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Total) Medium EPC Value 0,865 0,040 0,018 0,187 0,280 0,031 0,960 0,017 O024 0,001 0,00249 0,160 0005 10,1 1 614 7,300 0,025 0,865 0040 0018 0 187 0,280 O031 0,960 0,017 0,024 0,001 0,00249 0160 0,005 10,1 1614 7,300 0,025 Medium EPC Units m g l msA. nig/L ing/L .iig/L ing/L ,ng/L .Ug/L ing/L utgrt- mg/L mgA. mg/L mg/L mg/L rng/L .ng/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L :ng/L mg/L uig/L mg/L mg/L ragA, mg/L mgfl. nig/L mg/L .ng/L mgA. mg/L Route EPC Value 0,865 0,040 0,01! 0,187 0,280 0,031 0960 0,017 0024 0001 0,00249 0.160 0,005 10,1 1,614 7,300 7,300 0,865 0,040 0,018 0187 0,280 0,031 0,960 0,017 0,024 0,001 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10,1 1,614 7,300 0,025 Route EPC Units mg/L nig/L mgn. mg/L mg/L n.g/L mgfl. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L nig/L mgrt. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgA. mg/L nig/L mg'L mg'L mgA. mg/L nig/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 5,58E.04 2,58E.05 l,14E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,98E.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 87E-04 4,38E-06 1 a9E.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA 658E.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/Wg/d mgAg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mgA:g'd mg/kg/d mgAcg/d mgAg/d mg/kg/d mgtg/d mgAg/d nig/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg4g/d mgtg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/lig/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 610E.03 7,50E.03 9,50E.O4 N'E NE NE NE NE NE 1,50E*00 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 610E.03 7,50E.03 9,50E.04 NE NE NE NE NE NE l,47E+00 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mgrttg/d l/mg/kg'd 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/rag/kg/d 1/rag/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mgAg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d I/mg/kg/d 1/nigAg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg4.g/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg/kg'd 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d llmt/ke/i l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd 1/mgAtg/d IT 3EJI6 2E.07 lE-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1E4)6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SE-IW 1E.06 3E-08 2E.09 NA NA NA NA NA NA lE.lO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1E-(16 6E-(16 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculniion. NE - Not established NA-Not Applicable TABLE 8.10a-RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenaiio Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adull O o H Exposure Route Inhalation • 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern Chlorofonn Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimelliylphenol 2-Methylphenol /Arsenic Antitnony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0,865 0,040 0,018 0.187 0,280 0,031 0,960 0,017 0,024 0,001 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10.1 1,614 7,300 0,025 Medium EPC Unhs mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L rag/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.865 0,040 0,018 0,187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0,024 0,001 0,00249 0.160 0,005 10,1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Route EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L rog/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 1.01 E-02 4.65E-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d rag/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 8,IOE-02 1.65E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NA NE NE NA NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 8E-04 8E-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8E-04 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation, NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable Table.S„\-ls(8.10a) TABLE 8.10b-CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe; Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult U) O >(^ o «J1 Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern ChloroforiTi Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium ChrotTiium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0.865 0.040 0.018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00249 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0.865 0.040 0.018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00249 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Route EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 2.66E-03 1.23E-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mj/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 8.10E-02 1.65E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/T:is(JJi'&tr) Not Applicable TABLE 8.11a-RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult OJ o o 0\ Exposure Route Ingestion Derma! Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 2.55E-f01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E-(-02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-f04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E-H03 1.09E-h02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E-^04 1.06E-(-03 1.09E-t-02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 1.19E-06 NA NA NA NA NA 4.73E-07 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E+00 NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 2E-06 NA NA NA NA NA 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2E-06 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established TS^I^-S,)MfS-<^Spl'cable TABLE 8.1 lb-CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult o o H Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC . Value 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E-F03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E-^03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 3.15E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 1.25E-08 NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units , mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E+00 NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk 5E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2B-08 NA NA NA NA NA 5E-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established TSi4-S,M^-ftBP''cable TABLE 8.12-RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E-(-02 3.73E4-03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 6.830 25.5 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) 1.20E-10 4.50E-10 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 1.51E+01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 2E-09 2E-08 NA NA NA NA 2E-08 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable sio^oe Table-8,.xls(8-12) TABLE 8.13 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site W O O H U3 Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E-H01 1.90E-f04 4.86E+02 4.90E-H01 1.14E+04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E-^01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E-I-04 6.830 1.86E-H01 1.90E-f-04 4.86E-^02 4.90E-t-01 1.14E-f-04 6.830 1.86E+01 1.90E-(-04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M , L M 1 Intake (Cancer) NA 2.85E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 1.13E-07 NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E-I-00 NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Cancer Risk NA 4E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA L 6E-07 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established TABLE 8.14 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Gut System Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Route Inhalation ' Chemical of Potential Concem Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadiuin Medium EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 18.600 I.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Route EPC Value 1.14E+04 6.830 18.600 1.90E+04 4.86E+02 4.90E+01 Route EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation M M M M M M Intake (Cancer) NA 2.88E-1I 3.28E-10 NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor NE 1.51E-(-01 4.20E+01 NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk NA 4E-10 lE-08 NA NA NA lE-08 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable ozo^oe Table-8.xls(8-14) TABLE 8.15 - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site ScenarioTimeframe: Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Point: VICHEM Site Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult o o Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Chemical of Potential Concern Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Zinc Medium EPC Value 6.830 2.55E+0I 4.09E+04 1.06E+03 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 6.830 2.55E+01 4.09E+04 1.06E+G3 1.09E+02 3.73E+03 Medium EPC Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg r] Site U> O o to Sccimiio T m c f f J d c ; Future Medium. OfOimcl«iilcr E.vposurc Medium: GiouiidHalcr E.\posiirc Poinl'. T;ip Wylcr Rcccpior Populiiiioii: Rcsidcm Receptor A^c: Adtill Exposuie Roiiii; Inj^csiion o.™i ClKJTliCjl ofPoiciiiial Concern Chloiofonii IsoplKjroiic MeUiylcic ciiloride Acciotic Elli\lben/riic Toluene XylciKS 2.4-Dii!icihy!pliciK)l 2-MciliylpiiciK3l Arsenic Amimoii>- Barium Cliioiiiimn Iron Maiig;iicsc {nonfood) Lead Viiiuidiuiu iToi-.iU Cltlorofonii Meili>lcnc chloride Isopltorotk: .^ceioiie Eiliylbciuctic Toluene Xvlctcs 2,-l-Dimci!.>lplicnoi 2-McihylpiiCnot ArseiiJc AntiiMOny Bariviin ChroMui.in Iron Miiiigiiiicse (nonfood) U:icJ Viiiuidiuin (Toial) Medium EPC V;ilnc (),«65 (1.1)18 (1,040 0,1X7 tl.2811 11.1)31 (l.'Jfid [1.017 (1.024 O.liOl U.()(J349 (I.Krfl 0.00.1 lO.I 1.614 7,.100 0 025 O.K65 0,0 IH 0,040 0.1«7 0.280 0.0.^ 1 O.'XiO 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00 2 4'J 0.160 0.005 10.1 !.6[4 7,3(M) 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/1. ni^/L mg/L M . ^ M l i ^ i u ^ ing/L m i ^ m ^ mg/L iiig/L iiHyL mti/L mg/L iiiiJ/L mjVL lun/L rngA. mg/L iiig/L mt^ rng/L mg/L luii/L iiig/1. mg/L rng/L mg'L M.g/L mgA. mg'L n i & l inii/L ing/L Route EPC VHIUC 0.86.S 0.018 0.040 0.187 0.280 0.0.11 O.'JMl 0.017 0.024 0.001 o.oo24y 0.160 0,005 in.i 1614 7..100 0.025 0,865 O.OIK 0.040 0.1H7 0.280 0.011 tl.'JWl 0.0)7 O.024 0,001 0.00 24'J 0.160 0.01)5 10.1 1.614 7..100 0.025 Rome EPC Uiiiis ing/L mjVL mg/L iiig/L mg/L mg/L lugfl- m ^ nig/L mt/L iiit'L itig/L iiig/L mg/L mg'L >nsfl mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L ii\g/L mga. nigT- mg'L mg/L mijO. ing/L mg/L mg/L mg'L n>«/L EPC Selected for Ha/iird Caiculiiiion M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Inuikc (CiiiKcr) I.22E-02 2.48E-04 5.64 E-04 NA NA NA N A NA NA I.97E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.15E-04 1.02E-05 A.'ilEAH, NA NA KA NA NA NA 2. LIE-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA liiiakc (Cuiicer) Uiiiis mg'kg/d ingAg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d ingAg/tJ mg/kg/d mg/VK/il miyVg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mgA;g/d mgO^g/d mg/kg/d mgA:g/d mg/kg/d niti^t/tl mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/'kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d iiii^lvg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg'd mg/kg'd mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Facior 6.I0E-O.1 y.50E-o4 7.50E-(n NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.50E+00 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 6.10E-O.1 7.50E-0.1 9,.i0E-[l4 NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E-HH) NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Total Ciinccf Risk Cancer Slope Factor Unas [/mg'kg/d 1/jiig/kg/d l/iug/kg/d 1/ing/kg/d l/ing/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/'mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg/kg'd l/mg/l(g/d l/mg/kg/d t/ntg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg'kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/miykK/d l/ing/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d WmgAg/d I/mg'kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg/kg'd 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d Cynccr Risk 7E-i)5 2E-07 4E-*Ki NA NA NA NA NA NA iE-(i5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1E-II4 3E-lbeii/.ciic Toluene .Xylenes 2.4-Dimeili\lplKnoI 2-Moihylplciiol Arsenic Antimony Banuiii Cliromium Iron Manganese (noidbod) Lciid Vaiuidium (Tolal) Clilorofoiin Isopliorone Methylene cliloridc Acetone Eilnlben/enc Toluene Xylenes 2.4-Dimciliylplteitol 2-Meiliylplciiol Aiseiiie AJitmioiiy Biirium Cluomium i,.« Manganese uwnfood) U a d Vaiiiidnim 1 Total) Medium EPC Value 0,8f,5 O.OIK 0.040 O.I«7 0.2«t) 0.0.11 o.yivo 0.017 0.024 tl.OOl 0.0024V 0,160 0.005 10.1 i.r.i4 7..100 0.025 0,865 O.OlK 0.040 0.1S7 0.2S0 IMOl tl.'Jf.O (J.0I7 0.024 0,001 0.0024V O.iCO (1.005 lo.l I.e. 14 l . ^ m 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mgO. nifirt- ."SA. msA. niBn- ii««- iliU'L • « t ^ iniyL iil(i/L mg/L ntgA. t.tg^ mg'L m i ^ mg/L mgA- m&'L mg/L mgn- nifi/L nii^L mg/L nig'L mg/L mg'L mgO. mg/L -ng/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 0 «65 0.0 ix 0.040 0.1 K7 0.280 0 0.11 O.'WO 0,017 0.024 0.001 O.0024y O.lfiO 0.005 10 1 1.614 7.300 0.025 0.8f)5 O.OIK 0 1)40 0.IS7 o.2Kt) U.O^l O.%0 0 017 0.024 0.001 0.0024'; 0.160 0.005 10.1 l.f.14 7.100 0.1)25 Rome EPC Units mg'L mg'L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L iiig/L mg'L itiiVL nig/L mg/L mg/L mg/L iitg/L m&l. mg/L mg/L •iityL mg/L mg/l i i . t ^ mg/L mg'L mg/L t.iK/L mg'L mg'L tng/L nig'L mg/L m g l . EPC Selected for Ha/Jird Cali; Illation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Iniakc (Cancer) 2.I1E-01 4,14E-ll5 y.Kr.E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA :i,4iE-0f> NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.tOE-05 4.1.1E-07 y.5yE-»7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.0IE-II NA NA NA NA NA NA NA lm.ike (Cancer) Units iiig/Vg/d mg'kg'd mg/Vg/d mg'kg/d m&'kg'd mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/^g/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d [iig/kg'd mg'kg'd mg/'kg/d mg'kg/d ingkg'd itig'Vg'd ntg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg'd mykg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg'd mg/kg/d IHgfkgfd mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 6.10E-01 y.50E-04 7,50E-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE 1,50E+<10 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 6.I0E-01 'J,50E-04 7,5OE-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.47E-M)0 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancel Risk Cancer Slope Factor Units l/mgAg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg'kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/Vg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg/kg/d l/mgAg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d [/mg'kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd [/mg'kg/d [/mg'kg/d 1/mg'kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mgrt.g'd [/mg'kg/d [/mgA,g/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd 1/mg'kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/mg'V.gfd 1/mgn.g/d l/mg4g/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg4g/d CaiKcr Risk IE-05 4E-0K 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA SE-(lf. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2E-II5 3E-07 4E-10 7E-oy NA NA NA NA NA NA .IE-II NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .IE-07 2E-l)5 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for ki/iird caieulatioii. NE • Not csublisltd N.^ - Not Applicable TABLE 8.20a - RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Waler Vapors Via Bathing Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Adult O l4:>. O to Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concem Chloroform Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Arsenic Anlimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0,865 0.040 0,018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0,017 0,024 0,001 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10,1 1.614 7,300 0,025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 3.590. 0.162 0,071 0.759 1.136 0.125 3.894 0.070 0.098 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Route EPC Units mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/ni' mg/m mg/m' mg'm mg/m^ mg/m^ • NA , NA , NA NA NA NA NA NA EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Inlake (Cancer) 9,09E-03 4.21 E-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 8,10E-02 1.65E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 7 E-04 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 7 E-04 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable Ibl8gw.xls 11/9/00 TABLE 8.20b - CT CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Water Vapors Via Bathing Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Adull U) O o to 00 Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Chloroform Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0,865 0.040 0.018 0.187 0.280 0,031 0.960 0,017 0,024 0.001 0,00249 0,160 0,005 10.1 1,614 7.300 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 3.590 0.162 0.071 0.759 1.136 0,125 3.894 0.070 0.098 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Route EPC Units mg/m" mg/m mg/m mg/ni mg/m mg/m mg/m' mg/m mg/m NA • NA • NA NA • , NA • NA NA • N A EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation R R. R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Intake (Cancer) 8,58E-04 3.97E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d , mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mgAcg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 8,10E-02 1.65E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/nig/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 7E-05 7E-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7E-05 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable tbl8gw.xls 11/9/00 TABLE tf.2U.RME CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS REASONABLE .MAXIM UM EXPOSU RE Vir);i(i l.biiil Chi'mJL'at Siu- o o to vo Steiuho Timeframe: f^'utmi: Mednmi: Ground\\uief Exposuie Mediunr OiOund«atei E.xposure Pomi: Tap Waier ReeepiDf Populaiion: Residem Receptor A);e: CUild Exposure Route Oigcsiiou Detmal Cliemical ofPoienliiil Conccni Chloiofonii Isoptioroiic Melliylene clilohde Aceioiie Eihibcn/enc Toluene X\leiiei 1,4-Diiiicili)lpl)eiel 2-Mcili>lpl)enol -\i-ienic Ajitimony B;irimu Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lc;id VaiLidium (Total) CWoiQlbnu Methylene chloride Isopliorone Aceioiic Eih\ Ibcii/ciic Toluene Xylenes 2.4-DiMiel(iylplienol 2-Metli>!plk;iiol Arsenic Antimony Barium Cliromium lion Maiigiincsc(iioiirood) Lead Vuiiidium (Total) Medium EPC Value 0 KC.5 0.0 IS O.tHO 0.1S7 0.2X0 o . o l l 0 yf.ii i H > n 0.024 0.001 0.0024V 0.i(.0 0.005 lo t 1 .f, 14 7..100 0.025 tl.W.5 O.OIK 0.040 0.IK7 0.2K0 0.0.11 0.%0 0.017 0.024 0.00 i o.oo24y 0.1 f.O (t.005 10.1 1.614 7. Mm 0,025 Medium EPC Uiiils mgA. mg/L mg/L mg'L mg'L liii^L "i&'l- "»!- i i l j A i«6'L 1.16". '"^ mg/1 mg'L m p L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L ttiil'L i i i i ^ msA. m i ^ iiiii/L mjj'L iiife/L mfe/L n.8/L m.'L I H ^ in(/L Route EPC Value O.K(i5 0,0 IS 0.040 O.IX" 0.280 O.Ol) o.';(.0 0.017 0,024 0.001 0.0024'J 0.1 f.o 0 005 10.1 1 ,<•. 1 4 7.100 7 ItIO (I.Wij 0.0 IS 0.040 0.IK7 0.2S0 0.0,T1 O.'MO 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.0O24'> 0 ir>o 0.1KI5 10.1 I.C.I4 7.Mid 7.100 Route EPC Units nii;/L tiit/L I U J A nife'L IlltL/L mgA. it-SiO. msli. me/L " . 8 " . i!.y/L lliii/L uisn- .II6/L ,«SA. uie'i. iiit'L mg/L «'efl. liit'L inU/L .ni^L :«lA- iiiitfL iiiy/I. iiie'L in»n. mft'L 1111^ iiiS'L iiili/L ilig/L mft'L ..WL EPC Scleclcd lor Hii/:ird CalcliLilioii M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M • M M M M M M M M lnt;ike (Cancer) 7.I1E-<11 I.45E-04 1.2VE-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA Li5E-o5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I.ftl E-04 :i.7f.E-(H'i l.f.2E-l)f. NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.'J0E-1I NA N A NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancel) Units mg/T<)Vd mi^k^d my/V^d 111^ g/d mn/k^d iiit/kg/d my/k^d mji/V^d mtj/kt^/d mijOc^/d nili/k^d my/kg/d my/kti/d mg/kg/d mg/k(i/d mg/kg/d mg/k^d mg'V.g/d mgrttii/d iiiK/kg/d mji/kij/d mg/k|^d it.ijAg/d mgAg/d "HAjJ/tl my/Vg/d mg/kg/d li^eA^H/ii l U ^ l ^ d mg/kg/d nigA;g/d mtAg/d ni&T^gM my/kg/d Cancel Slope Factoi f).10E-03 9.50E-04 7.5OE-01 NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.50E-HJO NE NE NE NE NE NE NE (>,u>E-t):\ 7.50E-O1 y.50E-o4 NE NE NE NE NE NE l.47E-H)0 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Toial Cancer Risk Cancel Slope Factor Uiiiis l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg'd !/mg/Vg/d 1/mg'kg/d l/iiiykg/d 1/mg/kg/d I/mg'kg/d l/mg4tg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mii4;g/d l/mg/kg/d l/iiig/kg/d l/ing4;g/d I/ing/kg/d 1/iiig/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d Wmg/kg/d l/mgA;g/d l/mg/kg/d t/mgOlbeii/eik: Toluene Xylenes 2.4-Diineilivlp!icnol 2-MeU»ylplici»Ql Aiseitic Aill in 101 ly Barium Chnamium Iron Mang;uKSC (nonfood) Lead Vanadium (Touil) Clilorofonn Isopliorone MeiliMeru ciiloride Acetone El In IbeiKCnc Toluene Xyleics 2.4-Dnni;ili\lplu:nol 2-Mciliylplici»l Arsenic .Aniniioiiy Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Liad Vaiudimii (Tola!) Medium EPC Value 0 8r>5 O.OIK 0,040 0.IH7 0.2M0 O.oll (i.yfio 0,017 tl.(l24 0.001 o.oo24y 0,1 r,o 0.005 10.1 l.lil4 7.7.1)0 0.025 O.Sf.S 0.018 0.040 (1.IK7 0.280 0 0.11 O.yoo 0.017 0.024 0.00] o,oo24y 0.1 CiO 0.005 10.1 1 .m 7.30(1 0.8(15 0.018 0.040 0.187 0.280 0.03 i o.yfto 0.017 0.024 O.Otll 0.0024y O.ifiO 0.(H15 10.1 1.614 7.:\i») 7.100 Rouie EPC Units nig'L tug/L mg/L "ig/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ttig/L mgA, mg'L mg/L mgn. rng/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L tng/L mg/L mg/L tng/L nig/L mg/L mg/L mg'L mg/L mg/L mg/L Nlg/L mg/L •iig/L mg/L mg/L mgO. EPC Selected for HiUiMci Calculation M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M UOakc (Cancer) 4,12 E-03 H.l')E-(i5 l.yiE-04 NA NA NA NA NA NA fi.fi7E-0C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j.OCiE-05 5.0'JE-o7 I.IKE-Of. NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.48E-M NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Imakc (Caicet) Uniis mg/kg/d uig.'Vg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg'd mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg^g/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg4:g/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/ki!/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d iiig-Vg/d mg/kg/d mgflt^d mg/kg/d mg'kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d CaiKCi Slope Factor Cl lOE-03 'J.50E-tl4 7.50E-O1 NE NE NE NE NE NE l.50E-r(M( NE NE NE NE NE NE SE f..I0E-O3 'L50E-04 7.50E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE ).47EH)0 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Total Cancer Risk Caivcci Slope Fxioi- Units l/mg/kg/d 1 /nig/kg/d t/mg/kg/d UiHii/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/ing/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mgA:g/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/Vg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/tiig/kg/d l/mg/kg'd l/myVg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/iiig/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/nig4;g/d l/mg/kg'd i/mg/Wg/d l/mgO to Exposure Route Inhalation Chemical of Potential Concern Chloroform Methylene chloride Isophorone Acetone Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylphenol Arsenic Antimony Barium Chromium Iron Manganese (nonfood) Lead Vanadium Medium EPC Value 0.865 0.040 0,018 0.187 0.280 0.031 0.960 0.017 0.024 0.001 0.00249 0.160 0.005 10.1 1.614 7.300 0.025 Medium EPC Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Route EPC Value 3.590 0.162 0.071 0.759 1.136 0.125 3.894 0.070 0.098 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Route EPC Units mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' mg/m' NA NA N A •• - NA NA NA NA NA EPC Selected for Hazard Calculation R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Intake (Cancer) 1.35E-03 6.22E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Intake (Cancer) Units mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d ing/kg/d mg/kg/d mg/kg/d Cancer Slope Factor 8.10E-02 1.65E-03 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Cancer Slope Factor Units 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1 /mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d 1 /mg/kg/d 1/mg/kg/d l/mg/kg/d Total Cancer Risk Cancer Risk lE-04 IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA lE-04 M - Medium-Specific EPC selected for hazard calculation. NE - Not established NA - Not Applicable tbl8gw.xls 11/9/00 Scenaiio Timeframe; Cunent Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult TABLE S.la-RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ o o OJ OJ Medium Surface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium Surface Soil .^ir SoiiySediment Air Exposure Point Surface Soil Surface Soil (Particulates) Gut System Gut System (Particulates) Chemical Arsenic Chi-omium iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 9E-07 NA NA N.A NA NA 9E-07 (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Total Risk .\ Inhalation 5E-10 5E-09 NA NA NA NA 5E-09 Dermal 2E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 2E-07 Total Wsk Across Surface Soil NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA 2E-07 NA IE-10 3E-09 NA NA NA 4E-09 NA 5E-08 NA NA NA NA 5E-08 Total Risk Across Soil/Sediment cross All Med a and All Exp osure Routes Exposure Routes Total lE-06 NA NA NA NA NA lE-06 5E-10 5E-09 NA NA NA NA 5E-09 lE-06 NA 3E-07 NA NA NA NA 3E-07 NA lE-10 3E-09 NA NA NA 4E-09 3E-07 lE-06 Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotien Primary Target Organ skin lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood ingestion 4.6E-03 1.7E-03 2.8E-02 1.1 E-02 3.2E-03 2.5E-03 5.1 E-02 Inlialation NA 8.7E-06 NA 7.6E-04 NA NA 7.7E-04 Total Hazard Quotient Across Surface Soil Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) GI tract skin lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins GI tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins 2.3E-03 t.i E-03 1.3 E-03 1.3E-02 4.9E-03 1.4E-03 2.4E-02 1.2E-04 NA 6.4E-06 NA 3.5 E-04 NA 4.7E-04 Total Hazard Quotieni Across Soil/Sediment Dennal l.lE-03 NA NA NA NA NA LI E-03 NA 2.7E-04 NA NA NA NA 2.7E-04 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and AH Exposure Routes Exposure Roures Total 5.8E-03 1.7E-03 2.8E-02 1.1 E-02 3.2E-03 2.5E-03 5.2E-02 • NA 8.7E-06 NA 7.6E-04 NA NA 7.7E-04 5.3E-02 2.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.3 E-03 1.3E-02 4.9E-03 1.4E-03 2.4E-02 I.2E-04 NA 6.4E-06 NA 3.5E-04 NA 4.7E-04 2.5E-02 7.7E-02 Boldface type denotes carciitogenic risk estimaies within or exceeding the 10 to 10 range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding I. NA - Not applicable. COPC identified as noncarcinogenic Total Skin HI = Total Liver/Heart/Pancreas HI = Total CNS HI = Total GI tract HI = Total lung HI = Total hair proteins HI = Total blood HI = 7,lE-03 4.1 E-02 1.7E-02 2.4E-03 3,0E-03 4.6E-03 2.5E-03 Toblc-V.xls(9-lnl Scenario Timeframe: Cunent Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Adult TABLE 9.1b-CT SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ o o OJ Medium Surface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium Surface Soil Air Soil/Sediment Air Exposure Point Surface Soil Surface Soil (Paniculates) Gut System Gut System (Paniculates) Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Cliromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA IE-07 (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Cliromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Total Risk A Inhalation 3E-n 4E-10 NA NA NA NA 4E-10 Dermal 4E-09 NA NA NA NA NA 4E-09 Total Risk Across Surface Soil NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Risk Across Soil/Sediment cross All Med a and AH Exp osure Routes Exposure Routes Total IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA IE-07 3E-11 4E-10 NA NA NA NA 4E-10 IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IE-07 Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadimn Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotien Primary Target Organ skin King liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood skin lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood Ingestion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inhalation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Hazard Quotient Across Surface Soil Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Cliromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) GI nact skin lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins GI tract skin lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Hazard Quotieni Across Soil/Sediment Dermal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Hazard Index .Across All Media and AH Exposure Routes Exposure Routes Total NA NA NA NA NA NN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Boldface t>'pe denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the 10' to 10 range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1. NA - Not applicable. COPC identified as noncarcinogenic Tiible-y..\ls(y-lb) Scenario Timeframe: Current Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Pre-Adolescent TABLE 9.2 - RME SUMM.ARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ O o OJ U l Medium Surface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Mediuin Surface Soil Air Soil/Sediment Air Exposure Point Surface Soil Surface Soil (Particulates) Gut System Gut System (Paniculates) Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Total Risk Acr Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 5E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 5E-07 Inhalation 6E-n 6E-10 NA NA NA NA 7E-I0 Dermal 8E-08 NA NA NA NA NA 8E-08 Total Risk Across Surface Soil NA IE-07 NA NA NA NA IE-07 NA lE-11 4E-10 NA NA NA 5E-10 NA 2E-08 NA NA NA NA 2E-08 Total Risk AcrossSoil/Sedimeni | OSS All Media and Ail Exp osure Routes Exposure Routes Total 5E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 5E-07 6E-I1 6E-10 NA NA NA NA 7E-10 5E-07 NA IE-07 NA NA NA NA IE-07 5E-10 lE-07 7E-07 Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Aluminum Arsenic 'Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Primary Target Organ skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood GI tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteiris 01 tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion 1.4E-02 5.4E-03 8,6E-02 3.4E-02 9.9E-03 7.9E-03 1.6E.01 Inhalation NA 6.8E-06 NA 6.0E-04 NA NA 6.0E-04 Total Hazard Quotient from Soil 7.2E-03 3.4E-03 3.9E-03 4.0E-02 1.5E-02 4.4E-03 7.5E-02 9,2E-05 NA S.OE-06 NA 2,7E-04 NA 3.7E-04 Dermal 2.5E-03 NA NA NA NA NA 2.5E-03 NA 5.9E-04 NA NA NA NA 5.9E-04 Total Hazard Quotient from Soil/Sediment Total Hazard Index across all media and all exposure routes Exposure Routes Total 1.7E-02 5.4E-03 8.6E-02 3.4E-02 9.9E-03 7.9E-03 1.6E-01 NA 6.8E-06 NA 6.0E-04 NA NA 6.0E-04 1.6E-01 7.2E-03 4.0E-03 3.9E-03 4.0E-02 1.5E-02 4.4E-03 7.5E-02 9.2E-05 NA 5.0E-06 NA 2.7E-04 NA 3.7E-04 7.5E-02 2.4E-01 Boldface t)'pe denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or e.xceeding the 10"' to 10"' range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1. NA - Not applicable. Tablt-9.xis(9-l) Total Skin HI = Total Liver/Heart/Pancreas H! = Total CNS HI = Total Hair proteins HI = Total Blood HI = Total Lung H! = 2.1 E-02 1.3E-01 5.0E-02 1.4E-02 7.9E-03 9.3E-03 r*BLEy.Ji. - R.ME SUM.M^R^ OP RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAI.\RDSVORCOPCI RE.ASO.N.VSLE .\IA.\IML-M EXPOSURE K e . v p l u i Populali |Rt: , u i „ « K i n | . t i i l l j SuflBce Soil S u i U t e S ^ i l r P j n K u U i = j ( G i , i S \ i i = ] i i GulS>iici-.i lP:ini.i.l..lci) Cl,<,nicj| .A.-clorK Chloxolonn Ellisibenierw Mell.>le™ chloride T o l u i . i t X i l i n c i ; . 4 . D i i f i = l l . » l p h t t u l Iwphorooc ; - M ( t l i . f p h c n u l Aniinion^ A i i c t u : Qiriiiiii Cltroiiiium Iron L=*d M » n f a ( i c K ( T s u i ; A C I I D ™ Ciiloiofot7n E(hvlb=njenc M i i h v l e i K c M o r i J e Tclueoe y . ^ l c i K i l . J - D i i n c l h v t p n c m l liopMofone 2.Meilivlphcrol .Al.l.ni>Jliv Af«riuc B l l l o l O Chrvnriuni l i o n L e j d M j i i j . r i o t V . i u f l i u r a f T o . f i l Aiifni>^ Chtoniium lion NUn^-iinoe VifwJiura 2ir^ |Toi.,l> A o i i u c C h i o n u j m Iron M « n s i « " V4n .J .u m 2 i . « i T o U Alui.iinmn A(l l p h c . u l wplipfonc 2-McLh>lphenol Aiiiimonv A r s t j u t Boniini C h r o m i u m Iron L c i d M i n j u i K i e Vsiadiun; ( T o u H A t c l u i * C h l o . o l o n n Llh'.ltKIVfClK M e l h U t i K diloriJc T o l u t K X ^ l c n ^ i : , 4 . D i n i ( i l i . l p h c n o l liophoroiit 3 - M t l h ^ l p h c ^ u l ^nMmotlv A r u n i c B ^ . i u „ i Iron Le»d M a n f j o c i e V . ^ d i g . . , r i n ; i T o l . l J / CNS blood VidlKV CN.S blooii .kui kiJne; liver, h i i i r t p i m r e j i CNS h^lr p r o l t i n i N o r v C i i c i n o i e n i i H u ^ r d Quo IniLesiiofi - 2.2E-02 I.UE^OU 3.3E-02 7,8E.0.1 1.8E-0i i 6 E - 0 J I O E - 0 2 I O E - 0 3 i.7E-0J 7.3E-02 i - l E-02 2.7E-U2 :.OE-02 •i.UE-01 N A 9,iE-01 4 , : E - 0 3 2.7E-IH) UJialnioft N A 3 3 1 - . - u : 5.IE-02 l . i E . 0 3 g,3E-03 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A NA N A 3.JE..U2 Deimal 2.y£-U4 2.0E-01 fi.i E.02 7.7E-OJ 2.2E-03 9.9E.03 3.3E.03 l.OE-04 I.2E-0J 8.0E-O3 3.3E-06 3.0E-03 J 4E-03 H.7E-W2 N A ; , l £ - 0 1 4 6E.03 64E-OI iliin lurm l i n r , he*r.. p u i t f C j . CNS hail ptoieiot blood ikin ll>n^• live, heun p i n c r e i l CNS hiir pfOKini blood C h r j i i il,'iii ju'lf liver, h t i i n , pane teal CNS h t i i p t o ' s m l 0 ) l.acl il.i» luiij l i i t r , litari. pancreji CNS hair ptoieicn T u i j i 1 l . l E - 0 2 6.7E-02 2.6E.02 7 6 E - 0 i 6 1E43.1 I . I E ^ I N A 4 : E . 0 i N A 3.7E-01 N A VIA 3 7 E-03 4.5E-Oi N A N A N A N A N A J.5£-b3 J.6E-03 2.7E-03 J.OE-03 3.1 E-02 I.2E-02 3 4E-03 i 8E-o: J.t.E4M N A J.IE-O) N A ).7E-03 N A J.3E-03 N A l.lE4:i3 N A N A N A N A 1,1E-Ui iiiiii]ndi\a(.,ai all media ai)J.>{i Npuwie route I L\poiave Route. Total :.2i;.Ci2 1] 1,IE. nil y.8E-02 S.6E-03 4.iE-03 [.^£-02 i . 3 E - 0 ; l . l E-03 6,yE^03 8 l E - o ; S . J E - 0 2 3 OE-02 6,5E-02 4 . * E - 0 I N A 1.2 E ^0.1 4 7 E-03 3.3E*(.U N A 3.3t*01 3.1 £-02 l.iK..01 g.SE-03 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A H A N A N A NA 3.3Et(i2 3 . 3 E H ( ; 1.6E-0I J . : E - 0 3 6 . 7 £ - o : 2 6 E - 0 : 7.eE-03 6.1 E-03 1 3E41i N A 4,2£-0S N A 3.7E-03 N A ^ A 3 7E-03 1.3E-0I i 6 i - i ) i 3.7E-03 3.Ut-03 J . l E - 0 2 I,:E-O: 3 4E-03 5 9i:-02 i.6£-04 SA 3,lE-0J KA i .7E-03 HA 1.3E4D3 ) 6.1E-02 1 3.JE-.H1 1 • Nuiuppiicabk. COPCiiwievu iiiiJered 11- be volatile. Totul Liver KiJ.ie> H I - TtimlHairPioiciiH • Toiil Skill HI - ToulCNSH!- Tulal blood ' LiiefHeactPaiKfeailll- Tcil.1 CI Tra^i TABLE !».3b. -CT S L ' M M A R V OF RECEPTOR RISKS A^D HAZARDS FOR COPCt CENTR-VLTE.N'DENCV I. Induilriat'Comniercial Worker OJ O >;^ o OJ M e d i u m G i o u n d ^ a l e i S u r l o c e S " . ! Scil Sedimctti E . p o . m e M e d i u m G i o u n d w a i e . A i l S u r l i i c e S o i l A . r S o i l S e d i m e i u A i r E^po,ure Point Local A q u i l c f i ( A l l u v i u m A K i i i f i l i i l l J Local A q u i l e f s ( A l l u v i u m J : K i o s i l u l l ) S u r l a c e S o i l Surlace Soil ( P a r t i c u l a u s j Out Svsleni G u l S v i l e m (Purticulalei) Chemical A c e l o i K C h l o f O l b f m Ethvlbenzene M e l h \ l c » chloride Toluene X y l e i K , 2,4-Dimethvl phenol Ijophorone 2-Meihylphenol A n i i m o n v Artenie BofSum C h c o m i u m Iron Lead Man^aiKse Vanadium I T o l a i l Aceloiie 3 l i b ( o l Q i m Elhvl benzene M e l h \ I e n e chloride T o l u e i * X O e r K i 2,4-Dimeih\1phcnol Iiophorone 2-Meih>iphEnoI A i i l i n i o n v A t K n i c Barium C h r o m i u m Iron [.ead M a i i y a n e i t Vunadium (Totel) Arsenic C h r o m i u m Iron N4»iigar>e» V a r u i t i u m Zinc (Total) Arienic C h r o m i u m Iron MuiiEincse V a n a d m m 2i.>c ( T o i . l ) A l u m i n u m Arienic C h r o m i u m ! i a n Mon^aiiese Vanadium ( T O M II A l u m i n u m A f K i i i c C h r o m i u t n llClll Manaanese Vgnadium fTol:.l) I n n e i l i o n N A 3 E - M N A 2E-07 N A N A N A l E - 0 8 N A N A I E - 0 6 N A N A N A N A N A N A 5E-U6 5E-07 N A N A N A N A N A JE-07 N A N A • N A N A N A N A N A T o l a l R i s k a c i o h CarcitBaeni<; Risk liiliulailon N A 1E-U4 N A 2EJD7 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A I E-04 Dermal N A I E - 0 6 N A 3E-08 N A N A N A 2E-09 N A N A l E - I O N A N A N A N A N A N A I E - l i e T o u l R i i t A c f o i i Groundwaler N A N A N A N A H A N A N A 2E-08 N A N A N A N A N A 2E-0B Tolal Risk A c r o i i S u r l a c e Soil N A N A N A M A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A Tolal Risk A t f / o i J Soi) Sediment •11 media and all e x p o i i u e routes Exposure R o u i e i Total N A SE-116 N A ; E - 0 7 N A N A N A l E - 0 8 N A N A IE-116 N A N A N A N A N A N A 6E-06 N A l E . « i N A : E - 0 7 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A : E - 0 4 2E-U.t 5E-07 N A NA N A N A N A i E . 0 7 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 5E-07 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A I E - ( M Chemical Acetone C h l o r o f o r m Eihvlbereent Meihvlciie chloride Toluene Xvlenes 2.4-Dimelhv'lpheiiol IiDpboro.ie 2 - M e t h y l phenol Anlimon\- Arienic Barium C h l o m i u m l i o n Lead M.ngBneie V a i u d i u m (Total) Acetone ChlDIDtDTlT, Elhvlbciccne Methylene chloride Toluene X v l e n e i Isophorone 2-M«ih>lphenol A r i e n i c 3Brium C h r o m i u m Iron L.e.d M a n « > r > : » Vanadium (Tot*.!) Arsenic C h r o m i u m Iron Manifaneie Vanadium Zinc ( T o w l ) A r i e n i c Iron Mar^gRnese Vanadium Zinc ( T o l a l ) A l u m i n u m Arienic C h r o m i u m Iron MBnuancse Vanadium (Total) A l u m i n u m ArieiBC C h r o m i u m Iron Man£aiieie Vanadium ( T o w l ) Non-CareinDgenic Hazard Quolieiil P^m»(^• Tarcet O r a - n liver, kidnev liver liver, kidnev liver liver, kidnev C N S blood kidtie) C N S blood skrn kidney lung liver, l i e a a pancreas N A C N S hair proteins liver, kidnev \ivet. ludnev livei. kidnev liver l i v e r t i d n e v C N S blood b d r K V C N S blood s t i n kidney lunt liver, h e a a pancrcaj N A C N S hail p t o l e i n i i k i n lung liver, heart pan::reai C N S hair prole ins blood i k i n lung liver, h e a a p i n c r c u C N S hair proteins blood G ! tract skin lutnf liv er, h e i r l , pane r e a l C N S hair proteins G I iraci i k i n lung liver, hean. puncreai C N S hair p i o l e j n i Ingestion l,3E-02 i . 9 E - 0 1 1.9E-02 4.6E-03 i . l E . 0 3 3.3E4D3 J.9E-03 6.0E-04 3.3E-03 4,3E-02 3,JE-02 I 6 E - 0 2 1.2E-02 2.3E-01 N A 5.5E-OI Z.-IE-02 1.6£*IW lnh»lalion N A J . ^ E ' D l 3.1E-02 1.5E-03 e.8E-l)3 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 3 . 3 E » 0 2 Dermal 2.7E-04 ;.OE-OI 6.5E-02 7.7E-ai 2.2E-03 9.9E-03 3.3E-03 t.OE-04 I.3E-03 S.OE-03 3.3E-06 3.0E-03 4.4E-02 8.7E.02 N A 2.1E-01 4.6E-03 6 4 E . 0 1 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A T o U l Hazard Q u o l i e M A c r o s i Soil N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A T o U l Hazard Index a c r o i all media and all \ p o i u r e r o u l e i E.-cpoiure RoulC! T o l a l 1.3E-02 7.9EJ31 K.JE-02 i.3E-03 3.3E-03 1.3 E-02 9.2E-03 7.0E434 4.6E-03 5 , I E - 0 2 3 . 2 E - 0 : 1.9E-02 5.SE-02 3.2E-OI N A 7 6 E - 0 I 2.9E-02 2 . I E * i ) 0 N A 3 . 3 E * 0 2 3.1 £ . 0 2 I.SE-03 8.gE.03 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 3.3E-.02 3 . 3 E * 0 2 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 3.3E---U1 :i carcinogenic riik citiii ceding the 10' to 10' i Total Liver Kidney H I - Tolal Hail Proleini 111 - Total Skin HI - Tolal CNS HI - ToUlbloodHl- Liver. Heart Pancreas H! " Total lung H I - Scenario Timetraine: Future Receptor Population; Construction Receptor Age: Adult TABLE9.4ii - RME SllMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ISLAND CHEMICAL OJ o o OJ 00 Medium Surface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium Surface Soil Air Soil/Sediment Air 1 Exposure Point Surface Soil Surface Soil (Paniculates) Gut System Gut System (Particulates) Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Total Risl Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 7E-07 Inhalation 3E-10 3E-09 NA NA NA NA 3E-09 Dermal 3E-08 NA NA NA NA NA 3E-08 Total Risk Across Surface Soil NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA 2E-07 NA 7E-II 2E-09 NA NA NA 2E-09 NA 7E-09 NA NA NA NA 7E-09 Tolal Risk Across Soil/Sediment across al) me dia and all e xposure routes Exposure Routes Tolal 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA 7E-07 3E-10 3E-09 NA NA NA NA 3E-09 7E-07 NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA 2E-07 NA 7E-1I 2E-09 NA NA NA 2E-09 2E-07 9E-07 Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Primary Target Organ skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood Gi tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins 01 tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion I.IE-OI 4,0E-02 6.4E-01 2.5E-0I 7.3E-02 5.8E-02 1.2E+00 Inhalation NA 1.8E-04 NA I.5E-02 NA NA 1.6E-02 Dermal 4.5E-03 NA NA NA NA NA 4,5E-03 Total Hazard Index Across Soil 5.4E-02 2.6E-02 2,9E-02 3.0E-01 1,1E-01 3.3 E-02 5.5E-01 2.4E-03 NA I.3E-04 NA 7.1 E-03 NA 9,5E-03 NA 1,1 E-03 NA NA NA NA 1.1 E-03 tal Hazard Index Across Soil/Sediment Total Hazard Index across all met ia and all exposure routes Exposure Routes Total I.IE-OI 4.0E-02 6,4E-01 2.5E-01 7.3E-02 5.8E-02 1.2E-I-00 NA l,8E-04 NA l,5E-02 NA NA 1 6E-02 1.2E-I-00 5.4E-02 2.7E-02 2.9E-02 3.0E-01 l.lE-01 3,3E-02 5.5E-01 2.4E-03 NA I.3E-04 NA 7.1 E-03 NA 9.5E-03 5.6E-01 1.8E+00 NA - Not applicable. Tabl<.-9.xls(9-4a) Total Skin HI = Total Liver/Heart/Pancreas HI = Total CNS HI = Total Blood HI = Total Hair Proteins HI = Total GI Tract HI = 1.4E-0I 9.4E-01 3.9E-0I 5.8E-02 I.IE-01 5.6E-02 Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Construction Receptor A^e: .Adult T.4BLE9.4b - CT SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs CENTRAL TENDENCY ISLAND CHEMICAL OJ o o OJ Medium Surface Soil Soil/Sediment Exposure Medium Surface Soi! .Air Soil/Sedimem Arr Exposure Point Surface Soil Surface Soil (Particulates) Gut System Gut System (Particulates) Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Ingestion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carcinogenic Risk Inhalation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dennal NA NA NA NA - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Exposure Routes Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA • NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N.A NA NA NA NA NA NA Chemical Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Total) Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium Zinc (Toul) Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (TotaO Aluminum Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese Vanadium (Total) Primary Target Organ skin lung liver, heart. CNS hair proteins blood skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins blood GItract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins GI tract skin lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion 2.2E-02 8.3E-03 1.3E-01 5.2E-02 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 2.4E-01 Inhalation NA 6.6E-05 NA 5.7E-03 NA NA 5.iiE-03 Demial 4,5E-04 NA NA NA NA NA 4.5E-04 Total Hazard Quotient Across Soil NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Hazard Quotient Across Soil/Sediment Total Hazard Index across all media and all exposure routes Exposure Routes Total 2.3E-02 8.3E-03 1.3E-01 5.2E-02 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 2.4E-01 NA 6.6E-05 NA 5.7E-03 NA NA 5.8E-03 2.5E-01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.5E-01 NA - Not applicable. Total Skin HI = Total Liver/Hearl/Pancreas HI = Total CNS HI = Total Blood HI = Total Hair Proteins HI - 2.3E-02 1,3E-01 5.8E-02 1.2E-02 1.5E-02 Tabjc.9.x!s(9.4b) T.A.BLE';.5a - R.ME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS .*.ND H.^Z.ARDS FOR COFCS RE.ASON.ABLE IM.^XIMU.M EXPOSURE Sceiiiiiio Receptor (ReceiKo Tiiiitfirai PO|)lJ .\Me ati J ^ le jn iii FLI R ure ildetu .Msdiuiii GlOulld^^alor F.\[josure Medium Giouud\salei .Air Exposure poinl Tap Water Water N'apors Via Bathing Chetiucal .Acetone Cttlorofoiin Diinetlnlplietiol, 2.-1. Ethvlbenzene Isopliorone MeiiivU-ne chloride Melhylpheriot, 2- Toluene Xvlenes .Antimony Arseiiit: Barium Chfomium Iton l.eaiJ Manganese {nonlbiad} Vanadium (Total) Acetone Cliloroforni Dinielliylpllenol, 2,4. Ethylbenzene Isopliorone Metli\iene chloride .Melliylphenol. 2- Toluene Xylenes .Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Ntatitratiese (nonfood) N'anadium (Total) inuestion NA 7E-U.= NA NA 2E-07 .iE-(J6 NA NA NA NA 3E.05 NA NA NA NA KA NA 1 r.-m Caitinogenic Risk Inhalation NA 7E.0J NA NA NA 7E.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7E.04 Dermal NA 3C-06 NA NA 4E.09 SE.08 NA NA NA NA 3E.I0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3E-11IS Total Rtsi; Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total KA 8E-05 NA NA 2E.07 4E-06 NA NA NA NA 3E-0S NA NA NA NA NA NA lE-04 . NA 7E.04 NA NA NA 7E.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7E.04 SE-04 Chemicai Acetone Chlorofonn Dimethylphenol, 2,4. Elhylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride .Methylphenol. 2* Toluene .Xylenes .Antimony Arsenic Barium Chroniiuni Iron Lead Manganese (noniuod) \'anadiuin (Tolal) Acelone Chloroform Dimethylphenol. 2.4- Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene Xylenes Antimonv Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Primary Target Organ liver, kidney liver biood liver, kidney kidney liver CNS liver, kidney CKS blood skin kidney lung liver, hean. pancreas CNS hair proteins liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidney kidney liver CNS liver, kidney CNS blood skin kidnev lung liver, hean. pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotieni InLtcstion 6 lE-02 2.8E+00 2.8E.02 9.2E.02 2 slE-0.! 2.2E-02 l,6E.02 5.1E.03 I.6E.02 2.0E.01 1 5E.01 7.';E-02 S.5E.02 l.lE^OO NA 2.7E+00 1 2E.01 7.5E+l)0 inhalation NA 2.5E+02 NA 2.4E-02 N.A 11 E-03 NA 6-6E-a3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.SE+t)2 Dermal I.4E-04 I.OE-Ol 1.7E.03 3.3E-02 S.IE-O.'i 4 0E.04 .6.4E.04 1 IE.03 5.1 E-03 4.1 E-03 1 7E-06 1 5 E-03 2.2E.02 4.4E.02 NA I.IE.Ol 24E.03 3.2E-OI Total Hazard r)\iolient Across Groundwaler Exposure Routes Total 6.2E-02 2.DE+()0 3-OE.02 I.3E-0I IK-QS 2.2E.02 I.6E-02 6.2E-0J 2.1 E-02 2.1E-0I I.5E-UI 7.7E-02 7.SE-02 1.2EtOO NA 2.8E4.0O 1 2E-01 7,8E+00 NA 2,.'iEi-02 NA 2.4E-02 NA 11 E-03 NA ObE-nj NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.5Et(l2 l.SE+Ul Boldiact; type denotes ijafciiioueiiic risk esiiniaitfsi witliin or e.\ceediiiy the 10" in 10 range ornoncnfLinoyenic hazards evceedin^ I. NA - Not a[)pUcable. COPC is i\oi evaluaied via this pathway. COPCs not evaluated for inlialaiinn exposures ure not considered lo be \olaiile. Total Liver/Kidney HI = Tolal Hair Pioieins = Total Skin HI = Total CNS HI = Total blood - Total Li\'er/Heail/Paiicrens HI = Total luni I.ZE-fOO [ o^oi^oe tDI9gw,:«lS TABLE 9.5b - CT SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs CENTRAL TENDENCY ISijunario Recepicii jReccpwi rim el ran c ['opulaiioii A\;e Ad ill l-"u(vire Resident Medium Giouiid\^mer • Lxposure Medium Gfuunviv'. aier Air EvpoSLire Point Tap Water V\'aier N'apors Via Batiung Clieniical .Ateione Chtorot'oriii Dinieiliyiphenol, 2,4- Eliivibenzene IsophoiOi^ti Meihvlcne ciiloride Methvlplienol, 2- Toluene Xykiies .Antimoiu' .\rsenic Bariimi Chvomiiin^ iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) .Acetone Chlorofomi Dimetlivlplienol, 2.4- Eihvlbenzene isoplioione .Vletlivlene ciiloride Meihvlphenoi. 2- Toluene -Xylenes .Antimony .Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Maiiiianeie (nonlbod) \'anadiiim (Toial! Inuesiion N..i lE-iJf NA NA 4E-0S lB-C-1 NA NA NA NA 5E-i>6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2t:-i)5 Carcinoitenic Risk iiidahmoi! NA 7E-t)5 NA NA NA 7E-08 N.A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KA NA 7E-0S Deimal NA 3E-07 NA NA 4E-10 7E.00 NA NA NA NA 3E.I1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3E-n7 Total Risk Acioss Groundwater E.xposure Routes Total NA lE-05 NA NA 4E-0S 7E-07 NA NA NA NA 5E-06 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2E-05 NA 7E-05 NA NA NA 7E-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7E-05 'JE-05 Cliemical .Acelone Chlorofonn Dimethvlpheiiol, 2.4- Ethylbenzeiie Isophorone .Methylene chloride Methylphenol. 2- Toluene .X'yienes Anlimony .Arsenic Barium Cliromium lion Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Acetone Clilorofonn Diniethvlphenol, 2,4- Elhylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene Xvlenes Antimony Arsenic Barium Chroniiun) Iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Primaty Taruet Orvan liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidnev kidney liver CNS liver, kidney CNS blood skin kidnev lung liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidney kidney Uver CNS User, kidney CNS blood skin kidney lung liver, liean. pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenic Hazard (;)uotieill Inveslion 3 6E-02 1.7E+I)0 1.6E.02 5 JE I.7E 1 3E 9.2E 3.0E 9.2E 1.2E S.9E 4 4 E 3,2£ 02 03 02 03 03 03 01 02 02 02 6iE-01 NA l.SE+00 6 SE-02 4.3E+00 Inhalation NA 7 8E^0I NA 7.4E-03 NA 3.6E-04 NA 2.iE-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.SE+01 Tola! Hazard Ouotient .Acre Dermal 44E.05 3.2E-02 . 5.3E-04 I.OE-02 1 6E-05 1 2E.04 2 OE-04 3.6E-04 1 6E-03 1.3 E-03 5.3E-07 4 7 E-04 70E-03 I.4E-02 NA 3 3 E-02 74E-04 1 OE-OI ss Groundvvatei Exposuie Routes Total 3.6E-02 I.7E+00 I.7E-02 64E-02 1 7E-03 1 3E-02 '34E-03 3.3E.03 l.l E.02 1.2E.01 8 9E.02 4 4E.t32 3»E.02 6 6E.01 NA l.liE^Uil 6 «'posures are not considered to be volatile. Tola! Li\tr/Kidi-iey HI---- Tola) Hair Proiuins = Total Skin Ml = Tolal CNS Hl = Total blood = Total Liver/Hean/Pancreas HI ^ Total \unu ".<>Ef01 6')E-02 S.'iE-02 1.6E^00 1.4E-0I e.bE-oi 5 OE-02 T^o^oe Ibi9gw.xls T A B L E 9.611 - R M E Sl;M^LARV OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCJ REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Scenario Timcirdnic Foiure Receptor Po))ijlaiioii Resident Receptor .A^e Cliild Boldface type denotes oaK-inoyemc lisk estimates \i.itliiii or evceediny the 10" to 10' range or noncaicinogenic liajards e.vceediiiy I N.A • Not appiicabie COPC is not evaluated via ihii paihw'ay COPCS not evaluated Ibr infialation e.xposiifei aie not considered to be volatile. Total Liver/Kidney HI = Total Hair Proteins = Total Skin HI = Total CNS Hi - Total blood ^ Total Li\'er/Heart'Pancreas HI = Total Uimi .Medium Gfoimdivatef Exposviie Medium Gtoundwater Air Exposuie Point Tap W'ater ' Water V'apots Via Balliviig Cliemical .Acetone Chlorol'otm Diniethylphenol, 2,4. Eihylbenzenc Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene -Xvlenes Antimony Arsenic Barium Cliioniium Iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) \'anadiuni (Total) Acetone Chloroform Dimethylphenol, 2,4. Ethylbenzene isophorone Melliylene ciiloride .Methylphenol, 2- Toluene .Xylenes .Antimony Arsenic Barium Chiomiuin Iton Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Ingeituin NA 4E-05 NA NA IE-07 1H-I)6 NA N A NA NA 2E-0S NA NA NA NA NA NA CE-(>5 Carcinogenic Risk liihalalion NA 3E-04 NA NA NA 3E-07 NA NA NA N.A NA KA NA NA NA NA NA 3E-04 Total Riik Acio Dermal NA lE-06 NA NA 2E-09 3E-0S NA NA NA NA IE-10 NA NA NA NA KA N A lE-OC s Gtoiindwaier Exposure Routes Total NA 4E-0S NA NA IE-07 2E-06 NA NA NA NA 2E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 6E-0.S NA 3E-04 NA NA NA 3E.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 E-04 4E-04 Chemical Acetone Chloroform Diinelhylphenol, 2,4- Elhylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene .Xylenes Antimony Arsenic Barium Cliromium Iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) N'anadium (Total) Acetone Chloroform Dimethylphenol, 2,4- Ethylbenzene Isophorone Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene .Xylenes Antimony Arsenic Barium Chromium lion Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Priniaiy Target Organ liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidney kidney liver CNS liver, kidney CNS blood Ain kidney lung liver, iieail, pancreas CNS hair proteins liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidney kidney liver CNS livtf, kidney CNS blood skin kidney iunii liver, heart, pancreas CNS hair proteins Non-Carcinogenie Hazard Ouotient ingestion 1.8E-01 8.3E+00 8.2E-02 2.7E-01 S4E 6.11E 4.6E 1.5E 4 6 E 6.0E 4.5E 2 2E 1 oE 03 02 02 02 02 01 01 01 01 3,2E+U0 NA 7.7E1-00 3 4E.01 2.2E<.UI Inhalation NA 5.8E+02 NA 5.6E-02 NA 2.7E-03 NA 1.6E-02 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA S.8Et02 Dermal 2.6E.U4 1 .OE-01 3.1 E-03 6.2E-02 9.4E-05 7.3 E-04 1.2E-03 2.1 E-03 5.4E-0J 7.6E-03 3.1E-06 2.8E-03 4.1 E-02 S.2E-02 NA 2.0E-01 4 IE-OS CUE-Oi Total Hazard Ountient .Across Gioundsvater Exposure Routes Total l.SE-Ol 8.5EtOO S.SE.02 3.3E 8..iE 6 5E 4.7E I.7E 5.5E 6 0E 4.5E 2.2E 2 0E 01 03 02 02 02 02 01 01 01 01 3.3E+00 NA 7.9Et00 3 5E.01 2.2E+01 NA 5.8E1.02 NA .V6E-02 NA 2.7E-03 NA I.6E-02 NA N.A NA NA NA N A NA NA NA 5.aE»02 6.0E + 02 z^o^oe tbiggv. xls T A B L E o.db . CT SUM.MARV OK RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs CENTRAL TENDENCY St R Rt cnaiio ceptor ceptor Tunc Popu .Aue Vame ation Child Fulu Res e dent .. , .Medium Grounduatei H.v|)ostire Medium Giouiiduater Ail Exposure Poim Tap Water Water \apors \'ta Bathing Chemical Acetone Chloroform Dimethylphenol. 2,4. Ethylbenzene isopliorone .Methylene ciiloride Methylphenol, 2. Toluene Xvlene> Antimonv Arsenic Baiium Chroniiuni lion Lead Manganese (nonfood) Vanadium Acetone Clilorolbrm Dimethylphenol, 2,4- Ethvlbenzene Isoplioione Methvlene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toiuene Xylenes .Anliinoni' .Aisenic Baiiunl Chromium Iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) \'ai:adium liigesfion N..y 3E-r.f: NA NA SE-OE 1 E-UC. N.A NA NA NA IE-05 N A NA N,^ NA NA NA 4E-t)5 Carcinoiienic Risk Inhalation NA lE-04 NA NA NA IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IE-04 Dermal NA 3E-U7 NA NA .iE-IO ^E-09 NA NA NA NA 4E.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 £.07 Exposure Routes Tolal NA 3E-05 NA NA SE-OS lE-t)6 NA NA NA NA IE-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4E-05 NA lE-04 NA NA NA IE-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1E-04 IE-04 Chemical Acelone Chlorofonn Dimethylphenol, 2,4- Ethvlbenzene Iscphoione Methylene chloride Melliylphenol, 2- Toluene Xvlenes .Antimony •Arsenic Barium Chtomium Iron Lead Manganese(nonfood) Vanadium (Total) Acetone Chloroform Dimelliylphenol, 2,4- Ethylbenzeiie Isophorone Methylene chloride Melliylphenol, 2- Tolueiie -Xvlenes ..\ntiniony .Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manganese (nonlbod) Vanadium (Total) PiiinaiX' Target Organ liver, kidney liver blood liver, kidnev kidney liver CNS liver, kidnev CNS blood skin kidney lullLI liser, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins liver, kidney liver blood livei, kidney kidney liver CNS livei, kidney CNS blood skin kidnev lung liver, hean, pancreas CNS hair proteins Non.Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient liiueslion 1 OE.Ol 4.8E+00 4.8E-02 1.6E-0I 4 OE-Oj 3.7E.02 2.7E-02 S.6E-03 27E-02 3.5E-01 2.6E-0I 1.3E-0I 9 4E-02 1.9Et00 NA 4.5E+00 20E.01 l,3E-f01 Inhalation NA 1.8E+02 NA 1.8E.02 NA S.4E-04 NA 4.9E-03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.8E+02 Dennal 8.2E-0.S 5.')E-02 9.9E-04 1.9E-02 3.0E-05 2.3E-04 3.7E-04 67E-04 2.0E-03 2.4 E-03 9.9E-07 8SG-04 1.3E-02 2 6E-02 NA 6 2E-02 L4E-03 1.0F,-01 Total Hazard Ouotient ,Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total l.OE-01 4.9E-1-00 4.9E-02 1.8E-0I 4 <)E-03 3 7E-02 2.7E-02 9.3E-03 3 OE-02 3 SE-OI 2.6E-0I I.3E-0I I lE-Ol 1.9E+00 NA 4.I1E+00 2 0E-01 1.3E+01 NA 1.8E+02 NA i.sE-o; NA 8.4E-04 NA 4.<)E-0; NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA l.8Et02 2.0Et02 BoMface lype denuies carcinogenic risk eslimaies witliin oi eKCeediny the 10''' to 10' ranue ot noncarcinoiieiiic hazards exceedinu I NA - Not applicable COPC la not e\aluated \ia diis pnlhwa\- COPCS not c\iiluaied foi inhalation e.^posures are not considered to be volatile Total Liver/Kidney Hi = [ Total Hair Proteins = Total Skill Hi « Total CNS HI = Total blood = ivci7Heaa'Paiicreas HI - Total lung 1 I.9E + 02 f 2.0E-0I 1 2 6E.01 I 4.6E1-00 L 4.0E-0I 1 l.'tE^UO [ I.IE.OI e^Of-oe TABLE 9,7a - RME S f i M M A R Y 01- RECEPTOR RISKS FOR COPCi REASONABLE MAXl.MU.M EXPOSllRE Sc Re 'iiario Timu ceptor PopL Rectptot A\i«: name laiioii Adult Futuie j Res ^ Ci dent \A Medium GKiuiulwaier E-^posure Medium Giouiidwater .Air EvposLire Point 'fap Water Water \'apors \'ia Baihinu Chemical .Acetone Chloroform Dimeihyiphiiiot, 2.-;- Eliiyibeiuciie Isoptiotoiie Metlivlcne chloride .Methylphenol. 2- Toluene Xylenes Anlimony .Arsenic Barium Chromium Iron Lead Manuanese (nonfoodj N'anadium {Total) Acetone Chloroform Dimethylphenol. 2.4- Eilislbenzeiie lsu[)!iaroiie .MeIh^lene chloiide Methylphenol, 2- Totueiie Xvlenes .Aiiiimony .Ar.senic Barium Chiomium Iron Lead Maiiuanese (nonfood) X'anaclium (Totai) Ingestion NA IE-04 NA NA 4E-07 7E-0.i NA NA NA • NA 5E-0-,: NA NA NA NA NA 2E-u-i Carcinogenic Risk inlLilatioii NA JE-03 NA NA NA i E-06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I E-03 Dermal NA 4E-06 NA NA 6E-0-) IE-07 NA NA NA N A 4E-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4E-06 Tolal Risk Across Groundwaler Exposure Routes Total NA IE-04 NA NA 4E-07 7E-06 NA NA NA NA 5E-0S NA NA NA NA NA NA 2E-04 NA lE-03 NA NA NA lE-06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA lE-03 lE-03 Chemical Piiinari' Target Oman Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion Inhalation Dennal Total Hazard OuotienI Across Grouiidwatei Exposure Routes Total Boldi'ace type denotes caiciiiouenic risk estimates within or exceediny the 10' to 10' range or iioncarcinoueiiic haziirds e,>;ceeciinii I. N.A - Not applicable COPC is not evaluated via litis patlmay. COPCs not e^ aluated for inhalation e.spObures are not considered to be volatile The values pte^etued in thii table foi cdtciiiosieiiic risk are cumulaiive values from Tables 9-5a and 9.63. There are no coirespondiiiii Tabic 8 series tables. Cumulative non-carcinogenic risks are not presented in this table Total Liver/Kidney HI - Total Hair Proteins = Total Skin HI = Total CNS HI = Total blood = Total Liver/Hean/Pancreas HJ = Total lumt ^^o^ot tbl9gw,xls TABLE 9.7b • CT SUM.MARV- OF RECEPTOR RISKS FOR COPCs CENTRAL TENDENCY Sec Rec ario pior Kecepior Timeframe Popi Aue laiioii Adull Future Resident + Child .Medium Giouiid\\aier Exposure Medium Gioundvvater Air Exposure Point Tap Water Waier \'apors Via Uathing Cheinical Acetone Chlorofotm Dimethylphenol, 2.4- Ethylbenzene Isophoioile Methylene chloride Methylphenol, 2- Toluene .Xylenes Antimony .Arsenic Barium Chiomium iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) X'anadiuni (Total) .Acetone Chlofoforni Diniethvlpltenol, 2,4. Ethylbenzene Isophorone Mctlivleiie chloride .Methylphenol. 2- Toluene Xylenes Antimons Arsenic Barium Chromium iron Lead Manganese (nonfood) \'anadium (Total) Inuesti.jn NA JE-05 NA NA iE-a7 2E-0u NA NA NA NA 2E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 6E-05 Carcinogenic Risk Inhalation NA 2E-04 NA NA NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2E-04 Dermal NA 6E-07 NA NA 5E-10 2E-08 NA NA NA NA 7E-I1 NA NA NA NA NA NA (IE-07 Total Risk .Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total NA JE-05 NA NA IE.07 2E.06 NA NA NA NA 2E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA SE-OS NA 2 E-04 NA NA NA 2E-07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2E-04 2E-04 Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Pfimarv Taiget Organ Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Total Hazard Ouotient Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total 1 Boldface r)pc deiioies carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceedinu the 10' to 10' rankje or noncarcinogeiiic haziirds exceed!ni; 1, NA - Not applicable. COPC is not evaluated \ia this pathway COPCs not e\aluaied for inhalation exposures aie not considered to be volatile. The \alues presented in this table for carcinoi^enic risk are ciiimilaiive values from Tables 9 5b and 9 6fa. Tliece are Uk.; corti;ipoi\dii\i|, Table S seiies tables. Cumulative non-carciiiOi^eiiic risks are not pieseiited in this table Total Liver,'KidneyHl = Total Hair Proteins = Total Skin HI = Total CNS HI = Total blood = -ivcr/Hean/Pancreas HI = Total lung S^Of'OC ttl9gw.xls Scenario Receptor Receptor Timeframe: Population: Age: Adult Current Trespasser TABLE 10.1 - RME RISK ASSESSME.NT SUMMARY' REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Chemical Site Medium Surface Soil Exposure Medium Surface Soil Air Exposure Point Surface Soil (Alluvium & Kingshill) Surface Soil Chemical Arsenic (Total) Arsenic Chromium (Total) Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 9E-07 Inhalation 5E-I0 5E-09 5E-09 Dermal 2E-07 Total Risk Across Surface Soil Exposure Routes Total lE-06 lE-06 5E-10 5E-09 5E-09 lE-06 Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Primar>' Target Organ Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Total Hazard Ouotient Across Surface Soil Exposure Routes Total 1. Boldface type denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or e.Kceetling the 10 to 10 range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeiding I. 2. Only exposures which exceed target risk levels, or significantly contribute to carcinogenic risk or noncarcinogenic hazard for this scenario are presented. 3. For lolal risk calculations refer to the appropriate Table 9. Ui o o Tabk-10..-;ls(10-l) TABLE 10.2a - RME RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY^ REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Virgin Island Cliemical Site ScenarioTimeframe: Future Receptor Population: Industrial/Couimercial Worker Receptor Age: Adult Medium Groundwater Surface Soil Exposure Medium Groundwater Air Surface Soil Exposure Point Local Aquifers (Alluvium & KingshillJ Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill; Surface Soil Chemical Chloroform Methylene chloride Arsenic (Tolal) Chloroform (Total) Arsenic (Total) Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 2E-05 lE-06 9E-06 3E-05 2E-06 2E-06 Inhalation 8E-04 8E-04 Derma! 4E-06 IE-07 4E-10 4E-06 Total Risk Across Groundwater 7E-07 7E-07 Total Risk Across Surface Soil Total Risk Across All Media and All E xposure Routes Exposure Routes Total 3E-05 lE-06 9E-06 4E-0S 8E-04 8E-04 9E-04 2 E-06 2E-06 2 E-06 9.E-04 Chemical Chloroform Manganese (Total) Chloroform (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient 1 Primary Target Organ liver CNS liver, kidney Ingestion l.OE-fOO 9.5E-01 2.0E+00 Inhalation 3.3E-I-02 3.3E-f02 Dermal 2.0E-01 2.1E-01 4.1E-01 Total Hazard Quotient Across Groundwater Total Liver/Kidney HI - Total CNS HI - Total Liver Hl= Exposure Routes Total 1.2E+00 1.2E-I-00 2.4E-^00 3.3E-1-02 3.3E-I-02 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 1.2E-I-00 l:2E-l-00 1. Boldface rype denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the 10" to 10 range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1. 2. Only exposures which exceed target risk levels, or significantly contribute to carcinogenic risk or noncarcinogenic hazard for this scenario are presented. 3. For total risk calculations refer to the appropriate Table 9. u> o »;^ o Tabic-10...ils( 10.2a) Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Industrial/Commercial Worker Receptor Age: Adult TABLE 10.2b-CT RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY^ CENTRAL TENDENCY Virgin Island Chemical Site Medium Groundwaler Exposure Medium Groundwater Air Exposure Point Local Aquifers (AIluvmrnA Kingshill) Local Aquifers (Alluvium & Kingshill) Chemical Chloroform Arsenic Chloroform (Total) (Total) Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 3E-06 lE-06 5E-06 Inhalation 2 E-04 2 E-04 Dermal lE-06 lE-10 lE-06 Tolal Risk Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total 5E-06 lE-06 6E-06 2 E-04 2E-04 2 E-04 Chemical Chloroform Iron Manganese Chloroform (Total) (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Primary Target Organ liver liver, heart, pancreas CNS liver, kidney Ingestion 5.9E-01 2.3E-01 5.5E-0I 1.4E+00 Inhalation 3.3E-(-02 3.3E-I-02 Dermal 2.0E-0I 8.7E-02 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 Total Hazard Quotient Across Groundwater Exposure Routes Total 7.9E-01 3.2E-01 7.6E-01 1.9E-I-00 3.3E-I-02 3.3E+02 3.3E-I-02 1. Boldface type denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the 10 to 10 range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1. 2. Only exposures which exceed target risk levels, or significantly contribute to carcinogenic risk or noncarcinogenic hazard for this scenario are presented. 3. For total risk calculations refer to the appropriate Table 9. 4. Since only I significant figure is used in presenting carcinogenic risk, variations in cumulative risk may be a result of rounding. Total Liver/Kidney HI = Total CNS HI = Total Liver/Heart/Pancreas HI = 3.3E+02 7.6E-01 3.2E-01 o o 00 Table-n)sls(10-2b) Scenario Timeframe; Future Receptor Population: Construction Receptor Age: Adult TABLE 10.3 - RME RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY^ REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ISLAND CHEMICAL Medium Surface Soil Exposure Medium Surface Soil Exposure Point Surface Soil Chemical (Total Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total Chemical Arsenic Iron Manganese (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Primary Target Organ skm liver/heart/pancreas CNS Ingestion l.lE-01 6.4E-01 2.5E-01 Inhalation Total Hazard Index Across Surface Soil Dermal 4.5E-03 NA NA Total Hazard Index across all media and all exposure routes 1 Exposure Routes Total l.lE-01 6.4E-01 2.5E-0I l.OE+OO l,OE+00 1. Boldface r>pe denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the 10 to 10" range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1. 2. Only exposures which exceed target risk levels, or significantly contribute to carcinogenic risk or noncarcinogenic hazard for this scenario are presented. 3. For total risk calculations refer to the appropriate Table 9. 4. NA - Not Applicable Total Skin HI = Total Liver/Heart/Pancreas HI = Total CNS HI = l.lE-01 6.4E-01 2.5E-01 U) o o Table-I0.xls(10-3) TABLE 10.411 - RME RISK ASSESSMENT SUMM.^RV' REASONABLE MA.XIMU.M EXPOSURE Scenario Timefraine Rectpiur Population. Receptor .\\ie- Adult [•uiure Resident Medium Gruundualer Exposure .Medium Grouiul\s^Ier Air E.vposure Point Tap Water Waier N'apors Via Barluau Chemical Cliijroform Meilivlene chlonde ..\rseiiic (Total) Chlorutbrm (Total) liiitestiot: 7E-05 4E-1)6 3E-05 IE-04 CarciiioL Inhalation 7r.-04 7E-0J Total Risk- .Aero enic Risk Dermal 3E-06 SE-OS 3E-10 3E-06 s Groundwater Exposure Routes Total 8E-05 4E-06 3E-05 IE-04 IE-04 7E-04 8E-04 Chemical Chlorotbrm Iroti Manyatiese (nonfood) (Total) Chloroform (Total) Primary Taryet Orijan liver liver, hean, pancreas CNS liver Non-Carcinojjenic Hazard Quotietil Ingestion 2.8E+U0 l.lE+00 2.7E4-00 6.6E+01I Inhalation 2.5E+02 2.SE+02 Dermal LOE-Ol 4,4E-02 1,1E-01 2 5E-0I Tolal Hazard Ouotient Acioss Gioitndwater Exposure Routes Total 2,9E+00 l,2E+0l) 2.8EtO0 CSEtOtI 2,SE+02 2,5E + U2 2,5E+02 I [3o!dl"ace type denotes caicinoyenic risk estimates within or eNceedinu the 10'" to 10'^ range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceedinsi 1, l Oitiy espoburfib vhich esceed tatriet risk levels, or siiinificanlly contribute to carciiioyenic risk or noncatcinogenic liazard tor this scenario are presented .1 For total lisk calctitations refer to the appropriate Table 9. Total Liver/Kidney HI = || 2.5E<-0; Total CNS HI - || 2.8E<-00~ Tolal Liver/Hean/Pancreas HI = | l,2E+00 u> o o o TABLE I0.4b - C T RISK ASSESSME.NT SUMMARY'* CENTRAL TENDENCY' IScenaiio Timeframe Fuiure iKeceptor Popuiaiioti Residem IRgccpuiT A\:e Atliuii MeJium Ground\\.'\U'r Medium Grouiulvvaici .Air Hvposiiie Poiiu Tap \\ rtiei Waie \'apOfS N'ia Baiiiiny Chemicai Clilorolbrm .•\rsenic Cliloroform (Touil (Total) . ^ Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion IE-05 SE-06 Inhalation 7.E-05 Dermal 3E-07 3E-11 Total Risk Across Gtoundwater Exposure Routes Tolal IE-05 5E-06 2E-05 7.E-05 7.E-05 9.E-0S Chemical Chlorofonn Manganese (nonfood) (Totail Chlorofonn (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Ouotient Priniat7 Target Organ liver CNS liver Ingestion l.7E*00 1.5E+00 3.2E+00 Inhalation 7.8E+0I 7.8E+01 Deiinal 3.2E-02 3.3E-02 Total Hazard Ouotient .Across Groundwater Exposuie Routes Total I.7E1-00 I.6E1-00 3.3EtOII 7.8Et01 7.8E+01 S.IE+Ol 1 Boldi'ace ivpe denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the 10"' to 10' range or noncarcinogenic h..zaids exceeding 1 2 Oi!l\ exposuies which exceed target risk le\els, or significantly contribute lo catcinogenic risk oi noncarcinogenic hazard for this scenario are presented J Foi total risk calculations tefer to the appropriate Table 9 Total Liver HI = || 7.9E<-oT Total CNS HI - ll l.dE+OO 00 o o cn TABLE 10.5a . RME RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY'" REASONABLE MA.XIMUM EXPOSURE Scenario Tiinet)aiiie: Futuie Keceptor Population: Resident Receptor Ane Child Medium Orouiidv\aiec E'CilOiure Mcdiimi GiouiidvvdEer Art EKposute Point Tap Waiei Waier Vapors \"ia Daihidy Cheniita! Cliloiot'oMn Methylene chloride -Arsenic (Toial) Chloroform (ToialJ Carcinogenic Risk limesiioi^ 4t:-U5 2E-06 2 E-0 5 6E-05 Inhalaiiuit 3E-04 3E-04 Dermal 1 F.-Ob J E - 0 8 IE-10 IE-00 Total Risk Acioss GiouiKluaier 1 1 J Exposure Routes Total 4E-05 2E-06 2E-05 liE-Of 3E-04 3E-04 4E-04 Chemical Chloroform Iron Manganese (nonfood) (Total-) Chloroform (Total) Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ptimai-y Target Organ liver li\er, hean, pancreas CNS liver Ingestion 8.3E+00 3.2E*00 7,7E+00 l.9E->OI Inhalauou 5.8E+02 5.8E+02 Total Hazard Ouotient .Aero Deintnl 1.9F.-0I 8.2E-02 2.0E-0I 4.7E.01 SS Groundwater Exposure Routes Total S.5E+00 3.3E*00 7.9EtO0 2.0EtOI 5.8E+02 5.8E>02 6.0E1.02 1 U old face type denotes carcinogenic risk estimaies \K'iihiii or exceeditiu the 10'" to 10' ran ye or noiicarcinoLjeiiic h.!zards e.sceediii^ 1 2 0(il> ccposufcs which tf>,cced lartjei risk levels, ot signil'icaritly contribute to caicinoyenic risk or noiicafcinoyeiiic luzard foi lliis scenario are presented. :; FUI lulai risk calculaiions lefei lo the appropiiate Table 9 Total Liver HI = Total CNS HI = 1OIA\ Livei:'Hean/PaiicieQ3 HI = 5.9E-f02 J 7.9E+00 1 3.3E t-OU 1 to o o ' l A B L E lO.Sb - CT RISK ASSESSMENT S U M M A R Y ' CENTRAL TENDENCY Scenario Tiinefiamc Futuie Receptor Population. Resident Receptot Aite Child Medium Giound'.vatcr E.tposure Medium Groundwaler Air Exposure Poiiil Tap Water Water \'apors Via Bathing Chemical Chloroform Metii>leiie chloride Arsenic (Total) ClUotoforiu (Total) Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion 3E-(Jr, 1 E-UO lE-D.S 4E-05 Inhalation IE-04 IE-04 Dermal :;F.-07 9E-09 4E-II 3E-07 Total Risk Across Grouiniwater Exposure Routes Total 3E-05 IE-06 IE-OS 4E-05 IE-04 IE-04 IE-04 Chemical Chloroform Iron Manganese (nonfood) (Total) Chloroform (Total) j NQt^-Ca^ctnoge^^ic Hi^zard Quotiettt Fritnat> Target Organ liver liver, hean, pancreas CNS liver Inyestion 4.8E-rM 1.9E+00 4.5E-^00 I.IE+OI Inhalation l . 8 E t 0 2 1.8E+02 Demial 5 9E-07 26E-02 67E-02 1.5E-0I Total Hazard Ouotient Across Grotintlwaier Exposure Routes Total 4.9E1-00 I.SEtOU 4.(iE+00 LIE+01 L8E+02 1.8E+02 I.9E+02 1 Boldface type denotes carcinogenic risk estimates within or exceeding the i O ' to 10' range or noncarcinogenic hazards exceeding 1, 2 Only exposures which exceed target risk levels, or significantly contiibute lo carcinogenic risk or noncarcinogeiii': hazard for this scenario are presc-nted. 1, For total risk calculations refer to the appropriate Table 9, 4 NA • Not -Applicable Total Liver HI = Total CNS HI - Total Liver/Hean/Pancreas HI = o )(^ o (Jl w TABLE lO.Oii - RME RISK ASSESS.MENT SUMMARY' REASO.NABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE See ReC R.ec lario cpto epio Timeframe Pop A y ^ lation Adult Future Resideiu T Child Medium Groundwaler E.-^poiuie Mediuin Giuundvvater Ail Exposure Point 'fap Water Waier \'a;iors Via B'itiunij Ctienilca! Cliloroforni Methylene chloride .Arsenic (Total) Chloioform (Total) Carcinogenic Risk Ingestion lE-iJ-t 7E-i^k calculations ret'er to the appropriate Table 9. 4 -\A - Not Applicable o o Ol (Jl K 304056 EH APPENDIX K SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 304057 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page ACRONYMS i LO INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM FORMULATION 3 2.1 Environmental Description 3 2.1.1 Site Setting 3 2.1.2 Ecological Characteristics 5 2.2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints 8 2.2.1 Plant Community 9 2.2.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 9 2.2.3 Herbivorous Wildlife 10 2.2.4 Insectivorous Wildlife 11 2.2.5 Piscivorous Wildlife 11 2.3 Conceptual Model 11 2.4 Organization of the SERA 14 3.0 RISKS TO THE PLANT COMMUNITY 16 3.1 Exposure Assessment for Plants 16 3.2 Ecological Effects Assessment for Plants.. 16 3.2.1 Phytotoxicological Benchmarks 17 3.2.2 Biological Survey 17 3.3 Risk Characterization for Plants 17 3.3.1 Screening Soil Chemical Constituents for Potential Risks to Plants 18 3.3.2 Biological Surveys 20 3.3.3 Weight of Evidence Summary 20 3.3.4 Uncertainties Concerning Risks to Plants 21 4.0 RISKS TO WILDLIFE 23 4.1 Exposure Assessment for Wildlife 23 4.1.1 Herbivorous Wildlife 25 4.1.2 Insectivorous Wildlife 26 4.1.3 Piscivorous Wildlife 28 4.2 Ecological Effects Assessment for Wildlife 29 4.3 Risk Characterization for Wildlife 30 4.3.1 Screening of Chemical Exposure Estimates Against Benchmarks 31 G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.IX)C 304058 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 4.3.1.1 Herbivorous WildUfe 31 4.3.1.2 Insectivorous Wildlife 33 4.3.1.3 Piscivorous Wildlife 34 4.3.2 Effects Estimation of Retained COPECs for Wildlife Receptors 35 4.3.2.1 Aluminum 35 4.3.2.2 Barium 37 4.3.2.3 Chromium 38 4.3.2.4 Lead 38 4.3.2.5 Vanadium 39 4.3.2.6 Selenium 40 4.3.2.7 Zinc 41 4.3.3 Weight of Evidence Summary 42 4.3.4 Uncertainties Associated with Risks To Wildlife 43 5.0 RISKS TO THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY 46 5.1 Exposure Assessment for Benthic Macroinvertebrates 46 5.2 Effects Assessment for Benthic Macroinvertebrates 46 5.2.1 Benchmarks for Sediment Toxicity 46 5.3 Risk Characterization for Benthic Macroinvertebrates 48 5.3.1 Screening of Chemicals in Sediment Against Benchmarks 48 5.4 Weight of Evidence Summary 49 5.5 Uncertainties Concerning Risks to the Benthic Macroinvertebrates Community.. 49 6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION 51 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 53 8.0 REFERENCES 56 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C LIST OF ATTACHMENTS PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG FLORA AND FAUNA IDENTIFIED AT THE SITE SCREENING TABLES G:\STAFF\LB ARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.E)OC 304059 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 1 Gut System Sample Locations 2 Site Associated Sample Locations 3 Conceptual Site Model 4 Distribution of Chromium, Vanadium, and Zinc in the Drainage Charmels 5 Distribution of Aluminum and Manganese in the Drainage Channels 6 Sum of Toxic Units for Plants in the Drainage Channels 7 Sum of Toxic Units for Goats Foraging in the Drainage Chaimels 8 Sum of Toxic Uiuts for Sandpipers in the Drainage Channels LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1 Soil and Sediment Sampling Locations in the River Gut, Fairplain Grut and Bethlehem Gut 2 Historic Sediment Sampling Results 3 Chemical Concentrations Measured from Soil from the Central and Southem Storm Drains 4 Physicochemical Properatires of Surface Soil and Sediment Collected in the Drainage Channels 5 Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors B-1 Flora Identified at the Site G:\STAFIALBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304060 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Title B-2 Possiable Fauna at the Site C-1 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks - River Gut C-2 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks - Bethlehem Gut C-3 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks- Fair Plain Gut C-4 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - River Gut C-5 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Bethlehem Gut C-6 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Fair Plain Grut C-7 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - River Gut C-8 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Bethlehem Gut C-9 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Fair Plain Gut C-10 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - River Gut C-11 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Bethlehem Gut G;\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304061 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Title C-12 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Fair Plain Gut C-13 Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Great Blue Heron Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks - Fair Plain Gut C-14 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) - Drainage Channels C-15 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Sediment Samples Compared to Screening Benchmarks - Fair Plain Gut C-16 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks - River Gut C-17 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks - Bethlehem Gut C-18 Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks - Fair Plmn Gut G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304062 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Screening Ecological Risk Assessment Draft Final April 1999 LIST OF ACRONYMS AET Apparent Effects Threshold BG Bethlehem Gut BSAF Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor CEC Cation Exchange Capacity COPECs Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem CSM Conceptual Site Model ERL Effects Range - Low ERM Effects Range - Median FPG Fair Plain Gut FWS Fish and Wildlife Service HLA Harding Lawson and Associates HQ Hazard Quotient LEL Lowest Effect Level LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels LOEC Lowest Observed Effects Concentration MOE Ministry of the Environment NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level NWI National Wetland Inventory PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PF03 A Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Evergreen Temporarily Flooded RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superflind RG River Gut SERA Screening Ecological Risk Assessment SVOCs Semi-volatile Organic Compounds SEL Severe Effects Level SQC Sediment Quality Criteria SQG Sediment Quality Guidelines YJTUS Sum of Toxic Units TOC Total Organic Carbon UCL Upper Confidence Level USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VIAPCO Virgin Island Asphalt Products Company VIDPNR Virgin Island Department of Planning and Natural Resources WI DNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources G:\STAFPiLBARON\IsIand\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304063 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA) was conducted for the Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site (the Site) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The SERA was completed in accordance with the USEPA approved Remedial Investigation Work Plan (Harding Lawson Associates (HLA), 1997) and the correspondence dated November 13, 1997 submitted by McLaren/Hart Inc. (McLaren/Hart) to USEPA Region n. The SERA will focus on the drainage channels adjacent and downstream of the Site incliiding the River Gut (which serves as the northeast and southeast border of the Site), Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut. The SERA was developed utilizing data obtained through a surface soil/sediment sampling program conducted within the three drainage channels. The objective of the sampling program was to characterize surface soils and sediments within the drainage channels to determine the presence of site-related constituents of potential ecological concem (COPECs). The River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and upstream areas of Fair Plain Gut only contain water during flooding conditions and do not support aquatic biota. Therefore, these intermittent drainage channels were characterized as terrestrial environments and samples collected from these locations were evaluated in this SERA as surface soils. Downstream locations in Fair Plain Gut are continuously covered with estuarine water; therefore, the samples collected at these locations were characterized as sediments. The chemical concentrations measured in sediment and surface soil were used to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to ecological receptors inhabiting or foraging within the three drainage channels. The analytical results evaluated herein are also presented in Sections 4. lof this RI Report. The sampling locations within the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut are identified in Figures 1 and 2 and described in Table 1. Sampling activities conducted in September 1997 included: G:\STAFFa.B ARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304064 virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 •• Qualitative biological surveys of flora and fauna on the Site. •• Sediment collection and analysis for metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, semi-volatile orgamc compounds (SVOCs), total organic carbon (TOC), pH, and grain size. Samples collected in downstream portions of Fair Plain Gut (locations FPG-3 and FPG-4) were classified as sediments due to the continuous overlying surface water. •• Surface soil collection and analysis for metals, PCBs, pesticides, SVOCs, TOC, pH, and grain size. Samples collected in the River Gut (RG-2 through RG-16), Bethlehem Gut (BG-1 and BG-2), and Fair Plain Gut (FPG-1 and FPG-2) were classified as surface soils due to the absence of overlying surface water with the exception of intermittent submersion during heavy rainfall. This SERA was structured utilizing the standard paradigm for risk assessment as outlined in the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA 1992) and the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1998). The ecological risk assessment complies with the concepts outlined in the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA, 1997). The SERA consists of the following elements: »• Ecological Problem Formulation; •• Ecological Exposure Assessment; •• Ecological Effects Assessment; and *• Ecological Risk Characterization. The SERA begins with a problem formulation phase that defines the potential sources, the current condition of the receiving environment, and the assessment endpoints. Then, for each endpoint, there is an analytical phase consisting of the exposure and effects assessments. The risk characterization then combines the components of the analysis phase. G:\STAFF\LBARONMsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304065 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 2.0 ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM FORMULATION The problem formulation section consists of the description of the relevant features and current condition of the environment, the description of the potential sources, and the identification of ecological receptors at the facility and surrounding area. This information is then summarized in the form of a conceptual model. The conceptual model presents hypothetical hazards posed by the facility-related chemicals to the endpoint biota. 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION The environmental description discusses the site setting and ecologjcal characteristics at the Site and the surrounding environment. This section summarizes the water resources, ecological habitat, flora, and fauna present on the Site as summarized by HLA (1994, 1995ab), USEPA Region 2 (1996), and McLaren/Hart (observed during the site visit conducted in September 1997). 2.1.1 Site Setting The Site occupies approximately three acres in south central St. Croix, located on Route 66, approximately 1,500 feet north of the Alexander Hamilton Airport. The Site is bordered on the northeast and southeast by the intermittent drainage channel knowoi as the River Gut. The Site is bordered by the northwest by an asphalt batch plant (Photos 1 and 2) and to the southwest by Route 66. A concrete or cement batch plant (Photos 3 to 8) and an automobile body repair shop are located to the east of the site, across the River Gut (HLA, 1994). This area receives drainage from approximately 6,300 acres to the northwest of the Site. Based on drainage area comparisons, the River Gut appears to receive approximately one third of that flow. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 30406( Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 The remainder of the flow is drained by another intermittent drainage channel, the Bethlehem Gut, that joins the River Gut approximately 800 feet southeast (downstream) of the Site. Flow in the River Gut and the Bethlehem Gut is intermittent and only occurs during the rainy season between September and December (HLA, 1994). There are no permanently flowing streams which support aquatic biota on the island of St. Croix (Ogden, 1974). The River Gut (Photos 9 to 22) and the Bethlehem Gut (Photo 23) merge and flow into Fair Plain Gut (Photos 24 to 26), Manning Bay (Photo 27), and the Carribean Sea, approximately 4,500 feet to the south. The Site and the Gut system are located within ecological areas that have been significantly impacted by human activities since the 1400's (Riveria et al, 1970; Little et al., 1974; Forman, 1974; and Ogden, 1974). Those impacts include physical disturbance, overgrazing and other poor agricultural practices, and the introduction of invasive/exotic species. The introduction of invasive or exotic species has led to uncontrolled population pressures of some of the exotic species, removal of native species from select niches, and predation pressures on food sources. Fosberg (1974) notes that of 890 seed plants found on the American Virgin Islands, 27 are considered to be endemic, and 4 are restricted to St. Croix. McManus (1974) notes that St. Croix is depauperate of mammalian species as a result of the evolutionary difficulties in colonizing islands well removed from continental land masses (Brown and Gibson, 1983). McManus further reports that no non-flying mammal were found on St. Croix prior to the arrival of Columbus. Today, the non-fljdng dominant mammals are introduced species, including the black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mas musculus), and mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus). Several species of bats have been historically reported in St. Croix including the West Indian fruit bat (Brachyphylla cavemarum), Jamaican fiiiit bat (Artibeus jamaicensis), and the fish-eating bat {Noctilio leporinus). McManus (1974) notes that whitetail deer (Ococoileus virginiana) where introduced onto St. Croix in the 1790's. It is thought that whitetail deer where introduced as a game animal. By the early 1970's the population was around 1000, though severe hunting pressure had made the animal secretive and restricted to more undeveloped areas of the island. McManus reports that a program G:\STAFIALBARON\IsIand\Revision\BERA2.r)OC 3 0 4 0 6 7 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 was initiated in the early 1970's to eliminate whitetail deer from the island because it serves as a reservoir for a species of infectious cattle tick. 2.1.2 Ecological Characteristics The Site and the Gut system cross a number of ecosystem types as described by Forman (1974). The Site itself appears to be located in what would be described as a modified by man monocultural ecosystem. That is an ecosystem type that has been significantly disturbed and is dominated by a single species (though others may be present). The Gut sytems, on the other hand, contain components of a variety of ecosystem types. The upper reaches of the River Gut and the Bethlehem Grut would be classified as deciduous forest ecosystem type. This area is dominated by deciduous trees, such as gumbo-limbo (Bursera simaruha), which are found in relatively dry portions of the island. As a result of the significant disturbance that has historically occurred within and adjacent to the River Grut next to, and downstream of the Site, this area would also be categorized as a modified by man monocultural ecosystem. Approximately 50 percent (1.5 acres) of the actual Site is developed and covered by buildings, concrete, and process stmctures. The remaining 50% of the Site is composed of a mixture of barren land (approximately 47%: 1.4 acres) and vegetated areas (approximately 3%: 0.1 acres). Most of the barren lands were created from the removal of site vegetation using excavation equipment in January 1995 to facilitate site investigation activities (HLA, 1995b). The remaining small areas of vegetation identified on-site by HLA and McLaren/Hart were dominated by tan tan (Leucaena glauca), guinea grass (Panicum maximum), monkey-no-climb (Ceiba petandra), opportunistic herbaceous weed species, and planted ornamentals (e.g., mango tree [Mangifera indica], purple queen [Setcreaseapallida], kalanchoe [Kalanchoe blossfeldiana], limber caper [Capparis fleuosa], and Christmas candle [Pedilanthus tithymaloides]) (HLA, 1995ab). Guinea grass is the most prevalent species across the Site. Most of the vegetative areas were G:\STAFIALBAROhAIsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 5 304068 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 observed on the eastem border of the site in the riparian zones of the River Gut. The vegetative species identified by HLA (1995ab), EPA Region n (1996), and McLaren/Hart during the September 1997 site visit are presented in Table B-1 (Attachment B). Wetlands have been identified within the River Gut channel adjacent to the Site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, identified the River Gut as a PF03A wetland (Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Evergreen Temporarily Flooded) (HLA, 1995a). PF03 A wetlands are described as freshwater wetlands less than 20 acres and less than 2 meters deep at low water; forested with woody vegetation 20 feet or taller; broad-leaved evergreen vegetation; and floods most years for less than 2 weeks during the growing season, and usually dry by mid-growing season (Cowardin, 1979). Since the River Gut is dry most of the year, it does not support an aquatic community. The River Gut was observed during several field events during 1997 and 1998, and at no time did it contain standing water adjacent to or downstream of the Site for any significant length of time following a storm event (Photos 9 to 23). The Virgin Island Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR) occasionally regrades and reshapes the River Gut from a point just upstream of the facility to areas downstream of the Route 66 overpass. A representative of the Department of PubUc Works has indicated that the most recent maintenance was conducted in the spring of 1997. These activities result in significant physical disturbance of the habitat in the area. The River Gut is also impacted by hurricanes that pass through the area. The side slopes and bottom of the River Gut are uniform in shape and are covered predominantly by guinea grass. There is a corrugated iron berm placed across the River Gut, just upstream of the Route 66 overpass. This berm works to reduce water flow though the overpass. The River Gut merges with Bethlehem Gut approximately 800 feet southeast of the Site and then flows into Fair Plain Gut. There is a natural buildup of sand deposits at the mouth of Fair Plain Gut due to the long shore currents, wind, and wave energy. The berm is approximately 0.9 meters high G:\STAFIALBARONMsIand\Revision\BERA2.IX)C 6 304069 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 and 6 meters wide and is breached only during periods of heavy rains, high seas, or sewage overflows. Otherwdse, this berm blocks the flow of water from Fair Plain Gut to Manning Bay. Despite the presence of the berm, Region 2 biologists have reported numerous fish in the hypersaline portions of the gut. Approximately 0.5 acres of mangrove habitat near the Alexander Hamilton Airport have been bulldozed, including 107 meters along the Fair Plain Gut (USEPA, 1996). The permanently inundated sections of the Fair Plain Gut would be categorized as a mangrove swamp ecosystem type (Photo 26), which constitutes the most ecologically diverse and important of the ecosytem types through which the drainage system flows. The ecosystem type in the Fair Plain Gut is dominated by red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), button-mangrove (Conocarpus erectus), and acacia (Acacia tortuosa) which provides dense cover within the riparian zone for juvenile fish and turtles. Some black mangrove (Avicennia niiidd) and white mangrove (Languncularia racemosa) are also present. It is important to note that the berm crossing the mouth of the Fair Plain Gut restricts normal tidal/surface flow into and out of the Fair Plain Gut. While the berm is occasionally breached through severe storm actions, the berm confines water within the Fair Plain Gut and isolates it from Manning Bay and the Carribean Sea. As a result of this isolation, the normal tendency of the open water area of the Fair Plain Gut would be to develop hypersaline conditions. Sediments in hypersaline areas such as the Fair Plain Gut are often mucky and anoxic, particularly around vegetation. Salt concentrations can range between 60 and 150 parts per thousand. While the Fair Plain Gut may encompass a mangrove swamp, it passes through littoral woodland, savanna, and beach ecosystem types. Fair Plain Gut flows into Maiming Bay which is a marine envirormient with a predominantly sandy substrate. Sea grasses and scattered mbble are present toward the reef approximately 1.2 km offshore. Habitat conditions appear to support a complex fish and invertebrate community. The faunal species which were identified by Philbosian and Yntema (1977), HLA (1995ab), EPA Region G:\STAKF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.r)OC 304070 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 n (1996), and McLaren/Hart during the September 1997 site visit are presented in Table B-2 (Attachment B). 2.2 ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS Ecological assessment endpoints represent the envirormiental attributes or characteristics to be protected. The assessment endpoints selected for this SERA included the evaluation of the reduction of species richness and diversity of the following communities on the Site resulting from toxicity. »• Plant community in the guts • Herbivorous wildlife communities (e.g., goats and Jamaican fruit bats [Artibeus jamaicensis]) inhabiting the guts »• Insectivorous wildlife communities (e.g., spotted sandpiper [Actitis macularia] inhabiting the guts •• Benthic macroinvertebrate community in Fair Plain Gut •• Piscivorous wildlife (e.g., great blue heron [Ardea herodias]) community in Fair Plain Ghat The above assessment endpoints generally can not be measured directly, measurement endpoints were identified. This assessment had up to two lines of evidence potentially available to serve as measurement endpoints: 1) ecotoxicological benchmarks (all endpoint communities) derived from chemical toxicity data from the literature to determine the potential for ecological effects, and 2) qualitative biological survey data (floral and faunal communities) which are direct estimates of the assessment endpoint. The specific measurement endpoints used for each assessment endpoint in this SERA are described below. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304071 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 2.2.1 Plant Community Chemical Toxicity Data: To evaluate potential risks to the terrestrial plant community on the Site, the chemical concentrations detected in surface soil were compared to phytotoxicity benchmarks. Phytotoxicity benchmarks, compiled from the open literature, represent chronic toxicity thresholds for growth or production of vascular plants for chemicals in soil (Efroymson et al., 1997). These test endpoints are assumed to correspond to the assessment endpoint for this community. That is, the sensitivity distribution of the test species is assumed to approximate the distribution of species that would be present on the Site. Exceedance of the test endpoints is assumed to correspond to 20% reductions in abundance or productivity, with some uncertainty. Biological Surveys: Vegetation surveys were conducted on the Site during September 1997. These surveys consisted of a qualitative evaluation of species composition and diversity and the presence of visible plant stress. 2.2.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Chemical Toxicity Data: Due to the presence of saline waters, chemical concentrations measured in sediment collected from Fair Plain Gut were compared to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Effects Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) values (Long et al., 1995). If ERLs and ERMs were unavailable, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Lowest Effects Levels (LELs) and Severe Effects Levels (SELs) (Persaud et al., 1993), Apparent Effects Thresholds (AET) (Fitchko, 1987), or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Sediment Quality Criteria (WI DNR SQC) (Geisy and Hoke, 1990) were used for the screening process. Chemical concentrations in excess of these screening benchmarks were identified as COPECs and may potentially impact benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting the location. G:\STAFF\LBARON\IsIand\Revision\BERA2.DOC 304072 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 As per EPA and NOAA's request, a supplemental evaluation was also conducted for surface soils collected within the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and upstream Fair Plain Gut. The chemical concentrations measured in soil were compared to sediment screening benchmarks (MOE LELs and SELs) to identify the potential for impacts to macroinvertebrate communities which may be established in the future during prolonged periods of surface water inundation. 2.2.3 Herbivorous Wildlife Chemical Toxicity Data: To evaluate the potential risks to herbivorous wildlife, domesticated goats (a common resident near the Site: Photo 28) and the Jamaican fi:uit bat were selected as representative species for this trophic level. While goats are a domesticated species, they are the major herbivore in the River Gut adjacent to the Site. Large numbers were seen during the September 1997 site visit. As such, it was considered neccessary to include these animals in this assessment in order understand the potential for impacts to a grazing animal, especially in light of the lack of native herbivorous mammals on St. Crok. From an ecological standpoint, the fruit bat is the only native herbivorous resident of the island (McManus, 1974 and Bill Knowles, VIDPNR, personal communication, 1998). Trees bearing fruit that constitutes the diet of the fruit bat were found infrequently in the vicinity of the Site, though several fiuit bat specimens were observed roosting in the abandoned laboratory building during the September 1997 Site visit. Point estimates of exposure were calculated from the ingestion of plants and surface soil at each location. Chemical concentrations in plants were estimated using soil-plant uptake factors (Baes et al, 1984 and Sample et al, 1997) and the chemical concentration measured in surface soil from each location. The total exposure estimate was then compared to literature-derived ecotoxicological benchmarks. Chronic No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) were derived using chronic toxicity thresholds from mammalian G:\STAFF\LBARONMsIand\Revision\BERA2.r)OC JQ 304073 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 toxicity tests. Greater weight was given to data from long-term feeding studies which included reproductive endpoints. 2.2.4 Insectivorous Wildlife To evaluate the potential risks to insectivorous wildlife within the guts, spotted sandpipers were selected as a representative species for this trophic level. Spotted sandpipers are a common irdgrant in St. Croix and are known to feed on invertebrates along beaches and lagoons. Concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial benthic macroinvertebrates were predicted using soil-to-worm uptake factors or simple regression models (Sample et. al, 1997) and the chemical concentrations measured in surface soil or sediment from each location. The total exposure estimate was then compared to literature-derived ecotoxicological benchmarks as described in Section 2.3.3. 2.2.5 Piscivorous Wildlife Chemical Toxicity Data: To evaluate the potential risks to piscivorous wildlife foraging in Fair Plain Gut, great blue herons were selected as a representative species for this trophic level. Inorganic biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) for fish are not available. Therefore, concentrations in forage fish were predicted using soil-to-worm uptake factors or simple regression models (Sample et. al., 1997) and the chemical concentrations measured in sediment within Fair Plain Gut. Predicted concentrations in fish are further discussed in Section 4.1.3. The total exposure estimate was then compared to literature-derived ecotoxicological benchmarks as described in Section 2.3.3 2.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The conceptual site model (CSM) describes the hypothesized source of COPECs, routes of exposure and transport, and ecological receptors. At the Site, previous tenants (including Caribe Chemical Company, Pierrel International S.A., Cooper Laboratories, and Berlex Laboratories, Inc.) produced G:\STAFFl,BARONMsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 1J 304074 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 and/or disposed of pyridine, acids, solvents, benzyl chloride, benzyl salicylate, phenacetin, ethoxyquin, quinine, quinidine, or toluene. The CSM, presented in Figure 3, illustrates the potential migration of chemical constituents into the environment as a result of overland mnoff, stormwater (through storm drains) mnoff, and ground water flow from the Site and/or surrounding industrial facilities. Several industries may be potential contributors of COPECs subsequently transported to downsfream portions of the River Gut. Meridan Engineering (also known as Virgin Island Asphalt Products Company [VLAPCO]), an asphalt mixing plant (Photos 1 and 2), and Virgin Island Paving Company (Photos 29 to 30) are all located upstream of the Site. Charlies Concrete Company (Photos 3 to 8) is located directly across the River Gut from the Site. Several oily seeps were identified in the River Gut (near RG-10) adjacent to the concrete company (Photos 31 to 33) during the site visit. Downstream of the Site, the River Gut is bordered by Melvin Evans Highway (Route 66) to the south and Charlies Concrete Company to the north. Several hundred feet downstream of Charlie's Concrete Company, the River Gut forms a confluence with the Bethlehem Gut to form the Fairplain Gut. There are two to three foot high strips of metal sheeting placed in the ground at the confluence of the River and Bethlehem Guts. In addition, trash (e.g., tires, household trash, beverage cans, etc.) from the roadways (East Airport Road and Melvin Highway) was visible at the confluence. Zenon Constmction, a gas station, a wastewater treatment plant, and St. Croix Sanitary Landfill may also release constituents to Fair Plain Gut or Manning Bay. Historical concentrations of metals measured in the surface soils collected during 1986 in the River Gut and storm drains are presented in Table 2. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were detected in sediments or soils in the gut and/or the on-site laboratory/storm drains. The metal concentrations in the on-site laboratory or storm drains were higher or similar to concentrations measured in the River Gut in 1997. Based on this information, the on-site drains may have been a historical source to the River Gut in 1986. However, many metal concentrations measured in 1986 were similar to that detected at the reference location (RG-2) in the River Grut during 1997. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 12 3 0407 5 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 The metal concentrations measured in the soils and sediments in the drainage channels collected during 1997 were generally variable throughout the gut system. The distribution of the major chemical constituents of concem (e.g., aluminum, chromium, vanadium, and zinc: as detennined in this SERA) within the drainage channels are presented in Figures 4 and 5. These distributions illustrate the contributions into the channels from upstream and surrounding (i.e., Bethlehem Gut) sources. The highest concentrations of all chemical constituents were observed at the upstream reference location (RG-2). There was also an increase in the aluminum, manganese, and zinc concentrations at locations RG-9 and RG-13 within the River Grut and location BG-1 (aluminum and manganese) in the Bethlehem Gut. The elevated concentrations in the River Grut were likely a result of the depositional nature of the location (see Table 1). However, the central storm drain which discharges near RG-12 contained elevated concentrations of manganese and zinc (595 mg/kg and 346 mg/kg, respectively) (Table 3). The chemical constituents may be transported from upstream sources and/or the Site during rain events through the drainage channels and overland flow. Constituents suspended within water may settle within the channels subsequently composing the surface soils or sediments (downstream in Fair Plain Gut). COPECs in sediments vsdthin Fair Plain Gut, could potentially effect fish, invertebrates, plants, and wildlife through exposure mechanisms including direct contact and ingestion. Benthic invertebrates are directly exposed to chemicals in the sediments and may result in accumulation within the tissue of the organism. The chemicals may bioaccumulate up the food chain through aquatic biota (i.e., fish, frogs or invertebrates) to waterfowl or terrestrial predators from the consumption of contaminated prey. Constituents in surface soils may bioaccumulate in vegetation and be flirther transported within the food chain. The food web may transfer COPECs taken up by these routes to higher order predators (e.g., herbivores, piscivores, insectivores). Chemical constituents within surface soil and sediment will also be transported to downstream locations within the drainage charmels. As discussed in Section 2.1.2, the VIDPNR occasionally G;\STAFlALBARONasland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 13 3 0407 6 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 regrades and reshapes the drainage channels at a point just upstream of the facility to areas downstream of the Route 66 overpass. A representative of the Department of Public Works has indicated that the most recent maintenance was conducted in the spring of 1997. 2.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE SERA The potential risks from constituents to each of the ecological assessment endpoints in the current baseline condition were assessed separately (Sections 3 to 5). The supplemental evaluation (see Sections 2.2.2) of the surface soils within the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and upstream Fair Plain Gut is presented in Section 6. Each section includes an exposure assessment, effects assessment, and risk characterization. The components of the assessment are explained below. The exposure assessment characterizes the distribution in space and time of the concentrations of chemicals to which organisms are exposed. This section describes the modes of potential exposure that can occur for the selected assessment endpoints, describes how exposure is estimated, and presents the exposure data available for the SERA. Effects assessment characterizes the relationship between chemicals identified during the investigative sampling and ecological receptors (assessment and measurement endpoints). The principal lines of evidence used in this SERA concerning effects are biological survey data that indicate the actual state of the receiving environment and chemical toxicity data which indicate the potential toxic effects of concentrations measured in the media. Data collected by McLaren/Hart in September 1997 and historical data collected by HLA in 1986 are presented in this SERA. Risk characterization is the phase of risk assessment in which the information concerning exposure and the information concerning potential effects of exposure are integrated to estimate risks (the likelihood of effects given the exposure) or potential impacts. Risk characterization in ecological risk assessment is performed by a weight-of-evidence analysis. Procedurally, the risk characterization in G:\STAFPl,BARONMsland\Revision\BERA2.DC)C 14 304077 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 this assessment is performed for each assessment endpoint by (1) screening measured chemical concentrations to ecotoxicological benchmarks, (2) estimating the effects of the COPECs retained by the screening analysis, (3) estimating the effects of exposure on the endpoint biota based on the results of the biological survey data, (4) lo^cally integrating the evidence to characterize risks to the endpoint, and (5) listing and discussing the uncertainties in the assessment. G:\STAFP\LBARO>AIsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 15 304078 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment . April 1999 3.0 RISKS TO THE PLANT COMMUNITY This section presents the exposure assessment, effects assessment, and evaluation of risks to the plant community from chemicals measured in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut. 3.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PLANTS The main exposure route for plants is the uptake of chemicals from the soil through the roots. This may occur in a passive mode as the plant takes up water for respiration or by active uptake mechanisms. Another potential route of exposure is through association of chemicals with airbome soil particles (dust). The concentrations of metals measured in soils of each location are derived from double acid-extractions (nitric and hydrochloric). This concentration generally represents the total potential reservoir of chemicals in the soil. Plants are never exposed to the total amount of chemical constituents in the soil. Instead, the plants are exposed only to the soluble fraction of chemicals in the soil. The fraction of soluble constituents in the soil is determined by the characteristic of the chemical (i.e., speciation, solubility) and the characteristics of the soil (i.e., pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), grain size, organic carbon content, etc.). The concentration of each chemical detected in surface soils at the sampling locations were used as the exposure concentration for plants in this assessment (Tables C-1 through C-3; Attachment C). 3.2 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT FOR PLANTS The effects assessment for the plant community includes a description of the phytotoxicological benchmarks used for the screening process and an evaluation of the vegetative surveys. The vegetative survey results indicate the actual status of the community in the drainage channels at the Site. G:\STAFIALBARONMsIand\Revision\BERA2.DOC 16 304079 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 3.2.1 Phytotoxicological Benchmarks To determine if the chemical concentrations measured in surface soils may be toxic to the plant community at each location, the concentrations were compared to Lowest Observed Effects Concentrations (LOECs) as determined in laboratory phytotoxicity studies (Efroymson, 1997). The soil screening benchmarks are based on data provided by toxicity studies in the field or more commonly in greenhouse and grow1:h chamber settings. These studies evaluated the effects of chemicals on various trees, wildflowers, grasses, and vegetable species. The plants were exposed to a variety of concentrations, soil types (with differing physicochemical properties), and exposure periods. Measurement endpoints common to the phytotoxicity tests included growth and yield parameters which represent a greater than 20% adverse effect. Growth and yield measurements are direct estimates of the potential impacts to the plant community. 3.2.2 Biological Survey Vegetative surveys were conducted in September 1997 in the three drainage channels and surrounding areas of the Site. Based on a review of the available literature, the vegetative surveys determined that the site and the guts are vegetated with species considered typipcal for the setting. There was no obvious indication of phytotoxicological stress, loss of vigor, wihing, chlorosis, or other discoloration. The only significant impacts that were observed were physically induced, the result of extensive grading within the River Gut and constmction activities onsite. 3.3 Risk Characterization for Plants Potential ecological risks were evaluated for vegetative communities inhabiting each location in the drainage channels. Two lines of evidence, screening chemicals in soil against phytotoxicological benchmarks and biological surveys, were evaluated to identify potential impacts. This evaluation is presented in the following sections. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.E)OC 17 304080 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 3.3.1 Screening Soil Chemical Constituents for Potential Risks To Plants Chemicals detected in surface soils were evaluated for their potential toxicity to plants inhabiting each location. Two risk characterization techniques were used in the evaluation of surface soils and plants. These two techniques were the calculation of hazard quotients (HQs) and the calculation and plotting of the sum of toxic units (£TUs). The chemical concentrations measured in soil samples were compared to the phytoxicological benchmarks described in Section 3.2.1 HQs were calculated using the following equation: Hazard Quotient = Chemical Concentration in Surface Soil Phytotoxicological Benchmark If the HQ is less than or equal to 1, then the probability of adverse ecological impacts to terrestrial plants from the chemical exposure is negligible. HQs greater than one indicate that a chemical is a COPEC and may potentially produce adverse ecological impacts to vegetation. Tables'C-1 to C-3 indicate that several chemical concentrations exceeded the phytotoxicity benchmarks and were identified as COPECs for plants in each of the drainage channels. The COPECs identified in the River Grut were found throughout the gut and were likely transported from the upstream reference location. The following chemicals were identified as COPECs (italics represents COPECs identified at background locations): •• River Gut: aluminum, chromium, manganese, mercury, vanadium, and zinc; *• Bethlehem Gut; aluminum, chromium, manganese, vanadium, and zinc; and •• Fair Plain Gut: aluminum, chromium, selenium, and vanadium. After screening against phytotoxicity benchmarks, total toxicity at each location was evaluated using the sum of toxic units technique. This technique is used for comparative purposes and shows the relative contributions of multiple chemicals to the total toxicity at each location. Since the relative G:\STAFIALBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 1 g 3 0 4 0 8 1 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 contribution to toxicity of each COPEC is a function of its potential toxicity rather than the actual chemical concentration present at each location, toxicity normalized concentrations (or toxic units, TUs) were calculated. TUs are quotients of the exposure of the chemical in the soil to plants divided by the benchmark. The height of the plot represents the sum of all the toxicity normalized concentrations (or ^TUs: unitiess) contributing to more than 5 % of the total toxicity (i.e. JL^U) at each location. Even if the HQ < 1 for a chemical, the chemical was included as a COPEC if it contributed greater than or equal to 5 % of the total J^TUs. The sum of the toxicity normalized concentrations is assumed to estimate the absolute toxicity of soils at the location. Assuming 100% bioavailability, if the X,TU equals or exceeds 1, and all chemicals have the same mode of action, the endpoint effect is likely (i.e., potential impact on germination or growth); This is a conservative assumption for heterogenous chemical mixtures since combined toxic effects of chemicals in envirormiental samples have been found to be additive or less than additive (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982). This technique also illustrates the distribution of the COPECs within the River Gut. Figure 6 also indicates the COPECs throughout the River Gut are similar and contribute equally to potential impacts to plants from the reference location (RG-2) to the downstream location (RG-16). Bethlehem Gut (BG-1) also appears to contribute to potential impacts from aluminum in the drainage channel. Therefore, it is evident that the COPECs are likely from upgradient or surrounding sources. Furthermore, the maximum concentrations of the COPECs detected in the gut system were generally below 2X the average background concentrations measured on-site. Although, concentrations of mercury and/or selenium detected at locations RG-4, RG-5, RG-9, RG-10, RG-11, RG-13 and FPG-1 were slightly higher than 2X the average background concentration measured in on-site surface soils (See Table 4-1, Section 4 in the RI Report). The potential phytotoxicological responses which may occur in the plant communities from these COPECs would be influenced by the physicochemical properties of the surface soil. The G:\STAFF\LBARO>AIsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC ' 19 304082 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 bioavailability of the COPECs and thus potential impacts are highly dependent on the pH, TOC, grain size, oxidation reduction potential (Eh) of the soil in the channels (Table 4). Decreased mobility and thus decreased bioavailability of the metals may be due to a strong adsorption to particulate matter in the channels. Elevated organic matter (TOC = 0.99% to 4.95%), neutral- alkaline pH (pH= 7.95 to 12.1), high oxidation conditions (Eh= 26.3 to 207), and high CEC (70.1 to 1920 umbos), reduces the solubility and thus the bioavailability of the metals (Herrero and Martin, 1993; Sanders et al, 1986; and Xian and Shokohifard, 1989). Therefore, potential impacts to plants inhabiting the area would be greatly reduced due to these physicochemical properties of the surface soil. 3.3.2 Biological Surveys As discussed in Section 3.2.2, vegetative surveys conducted in September 1997 indicated that the presence of constituents of concem in surface soil was not a limiting factor to the growth and distribution of plant species around the Site. Further, no obvious indications of phytotoxicity were observed. Physical disturbance through clearing and constmction appears to be a large contributor to community alteration. 3.3.3 Weight of Evidence Summary Several non-site related COPECs were identified in surface soils at each location in the drainage channels during the chemical screening process (Section 3.3.1). Because the highest concentrations were measured at the upstream reference location (RG-2), an upstream source of metals is evident. These chemical constituents, as identified in laboratory toxicity tests, have the potential to cause adverse impacts, such as a reduction in seedling establishment, shoot growth, root/shoot/stem weight, or general plant growth, to various plant species. As such, there is the potential that chronic effects G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 0 304083 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 may be possible for plants inhabiting these locations, though obvious indications of these effects were not present. These potential chronic impacts were not detected during the site visit conducted in 1997. The resuhs of the vegetation surveys did not indicate visible acute adverse impacts to the plants (Section 3.3.2). Based solely on the chemical concentrations in the soil, plants inhabiting the drainage channels would be hypothetically smaller in size than similar species in non-impacted areas. However, these impacts may be mitigated due to the likely reduction in metal bioavailability as discussed in Section 3.3.1. Additionally, the maximum concentrations of the COPECs (with the exception of mercury and selenium) detected in the gut system were below 2X the average background concentrations measured on-site. Furthermore, the plants inhabiting these drainage channels are more likely affected by the regrading and reshaping maintenance activities conducted in the spring of 1997. The vegetative species found growing in the bottom of the channel and along the sides are typical of a physically disturbed environment in the Caribbean. The uniform environment consisting of short vegetation was a result of recent mowing and regrading activities. The continual physical disturbance at these locations results in this uniform environment from the Site to the Route 66 overpass. 3.3.4 Uncertainties Concerning Risks to Plants The uncertainties associated with the evaluation of risks to plants are identified below. • Bioavailability of Chemicals. It was assumed that 100% of the chemical concentration reported in surface soils was bioavailable. The double acid extraction method used to determine the soil concentrations reflect the total potential pool of chemicals. The bioavailability of these chemicals would likely be reduced based upon the chemical (e.g., pH, organic carbon) and physical (e.g., clay, moisture content) nature of the soil. Therefore, G;\STAFIALBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 1 304084 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 exposure estimates based upon the chemical concentrations in soil are highly conservative and are likely to overestimate the actual chemical exposure experienced. •• Single Chemical Tests vs Exposure to Multiple Chemicals in the Field. While plants are potentially exposed to multiple chemicals concurrently, published toxicological values only consider effects experienced by exposures to single chemicals. Because some chemicals can interact antagonistically, single chemical studies may overestimate their toxic potential. Similarly, for those chemicals that interact synergistically, single chemical studies may underestimate their toxic potential. *- Inorganic Constituents or Species in the Environment. Toxicity of metal species varies dramatically depending upon the valence state or form (organic or inorganic) of the metal. For example, arsenic IQ is more toxic than arsenic V. The available data on the chemical concentrations in media do not report which species or form of chemical was observed. Because benchmarks used for comparison represented the more toxic species, if the less toxic species/form of the metal was actually present in soil, potential toxicity at the site may be overestimated. G:\STAFFa:.BARON\IslancI\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 2 304085 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.0 RISKS TO WILDLIFE This section presents the evaluation of risks to herbivorous, insectivorous, and piscivorous wildlife from chemical constituents measured in surface soil or sediment. Chemical concentrations in vegetation, invertebrates, or fish were predicted to estimate potential impacts to the above trophic levels. 4.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR WILDLIFE Wildlife may be exposed to chemicals through dermal contact with water, soil, or through ingestion of water or food. However, since there are no conceptual models to estimate dermal contact, only dietary exposure was assessed. The total oral exposure experienced by an individual is the sum of exposures attributable to each source and may be described as: Where: Etoui = total exposure from all pathways Efood = exposure from food consumption Ewater = cxposutc from watcr Ejoii = exposure from incidental soil consumption For exposure estimates to be useful in the assessment of risks to wildlife, exposures must be expressed in terms of body weight-normalized daily dose or mg contaminant per kg body weight per day (mg/kg/d). Exposure estimates expressed in this manner may then be compared v^th toxicological benchmarks for wildlife or to doses reported in the toxicological literature. G:\STAFPa.BARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 3 3 0 4 0 8 6 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site • Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 Estimation of the daily dose an individual may receive from a particular medium for a particular chemical may be calculated using the following equation: Ej= L (TRi xC;jxDW:WW) 1=1 BW Where: Ej = total exposure to chemical (j) (mg/kg/d) m = total number of ingested media (e.g., food and soil) IRj = consumption rate for medium (I) (kg/d or L/d) Cij = concentration of chemical 0 in medium (I) (mg/kg or mg/L) BW = body weight of endpoint species (kg). DW:WW = dry-weight-to-wet-weight conversion factor (kg organism/media dry weight per kg organism/media wet weight). Exposure estimates were calculated for all chemicals detected at each location in the drainage channels. In addition, due to the mobility of wildlife, their exposure is best represented by the mean chemical concentration in media. To be conservative, the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) was used for the exposure estimates. Therefore, the 95% UCL on the mean (in the River Gut) or the mean (if only 2 locations sampled as in the Bethlehem Gut or Fair Plain Gut) chemical concentration was also used in the exposure estimates. If the chemical was not detected at a location, one half the detection limit was used for the calculation of the summary statistic. Because the River Gut contains surface water only during storm events, exposure to constituents in surface water was not assessed in this SERA. Furthermore, the River Gut was dry during the sampling events. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 4 304087 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.1.1 Herbivorous Wildlife Chemical concentrations in soil and vegetation are needed to estimate exposure to herbivorous wildlife inhabiting the guts. The surface soil concentration was used to calculate incidental ingestion of soil for the endpoint species. The surface soil samples which were used in the calculations were collected at a depth ranging from 0 to 6 inches. Chemicals which were not detected or do not have associated wildlife ecotoxicological benchmarks could not be evaluated. Chemical concentrations in vegetation at each location were estimated using the soil concentration and the soil-plant uptake factors or simple regression models (Table C-4). Regression models were used for predicting arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium concentrations in plants (Sample et al, 1997). Soil-plant uptake factors for inorganic constituents were derived by Sample et al, 1997 or Baes et al. (1984). These uptake factors and regression models are in mg/kg dry weight. Therefore, the predicted concentrations in vegetation must be converted to mg/kg wet weight using a dry- weight-to-wet-weight (DW:WW) conversion factor (kg organism dry weight per kg organism wet weight). The DW:WW conversion factor was also applied to calculate the wet weight concentration measured in the soil. The average moisture content measured in the soils collected from each drainage channel was applied to calculate incidental soil ingestion exposure. To estimate exposure potentially experienced by domestic goats, the following assumptions were made: • Average Body weight =34.5 kg (Wigal and Coggins 1990).; • Food consumption rate = 0.9072 kg/d (Huston, 1992) (conservative estimate for an adult buck); • Soil consumption = no literature available for goats. However, soil consumption assumed to be similar to cattie and sheep which consume a diet of 18% soil if sparse vegetation is present. If lush vegetation is present, only 1 to 2 % of soil is consumed (Beyer et al., 1994). To be G:\STAFIALBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 25 304088 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 conservative, an incidental soil consumption rate of 0.16329 kg/d (18%) was used during the screening process. • Diet consists of 100% vegetation: grasses, forbes and browse (shmbs, woody plants, weeds, and briars (Adams et al, 1992). • DW:WW conversion factor = 0.18 kg plant dry weight per kg plant wet weight or 82% moisture (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). To estimate exposure potentially experienced by Jamaican fruit bats, the follovving assumptions were made: • Average Body weight = 0.05 kg (Janzen, 1983); • Food consumption rate = 0.04 kg/d (allometric equation= (0.0582 x BW*-*'')/ 0.2 [Nagy, 1987]); • Soil consumption = since the fioait bat is an arboreal feeder, foraging primarily on the fruits of trees (Gardner, 1977), the soil consumption is assumed to be negligible; • Diet consists of 100% fruits and seeds (Gardner, 1997), these concentrations are assumed to be equivalent to other vegetation. • DW:WW conversion factor = 0.23 kg fruit dry weight per kg fiuit wet weight or 77% moisture for fioiits (USEPA, 1993). Using the above equation, and the assumptions and data described above, exposure to chemicals were estimated for the goat and bats for each location in the River (Table C-4 and C-7), Bethlehem (Table C-5 and C-8), and Fair Plain (Table C-6 and C-9) Guts. 4.1.2 Insectivorous Wildlife Chemical concentrations in soil and invertebrates are needed to estimate exposure to insectivorous wildlife (e.g., spotted sandpiper). Earthworms are considered to be representative of soil G:\STAFF\LBARONMsland\Revision\BERA2.DOC 26 304089 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 invertebrates or terrestrial detritovores. They constitute a large fraction of the biomass of soil invertebrates and earthworms appear to be more highly exposed to soil contaminants than other soil and litter invertebrates (Davis and French, 1969; Ma, 1994). Chemical concentrations in earthworms at each sampling location were estimated using the soil concentration and the soil-to-worm uptake factors or regression models (Sample et al, 1997). Soil-to-worm uptake factors or regression models are only available for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc. If uptake factors were unavailable for the chemical, an uptake factor was conservatively assumed to be equal to one. Concentrations predicted in earthworms were also conservatively assumed to be similar to that predicted in other invertebrates composing the sandpiper's diet. A DW:WW conversion factor was also applied to the predicted earthworm concentration prior to exposure estimation. To estimate exposure potentially experienced by the sandpiper, the following assumptions were made: • Average Body weight = 0.040 kg (average weight reported in PA; Dunning, 1984). • Food consumption rate = 0.036 kg/d (allometric equation using average body weight [0.0582 X BW "•"* / 0.2] (Nagy, 1987)); • Soil consumption = 0.006kg/d (18% of diet; Beyer et al., 1994); • Diet consists primarily of terrestrial and aquatic insects (Bent, 1929). However, they may also consume cmstaceans, leeches, molluscs, small fish, and carrion (Oring et al, 1983). The sandpiper's diet was assumed to be 100% benthic invertebrates. • DW:WW conversion factor = 0.16 kg soil invertebrate dry weight per kg soil invertebrate wet weight or 84% moisture (USEPA, 1993). Using the above equation, and the assumptions and data described above, exposure to chemicals were estimated for the spotted sandpiper for each location in the River (Table C-10), Bethlehem (Table C- 11), and Fair Plain (Table C-12) Guts. G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.DOC 2 7 304090 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.1.3 Piscivorous Wildlife At the request of NOAA and USEPA, the great blue heron was selected as a representative piscivorous species foragmg in Fair Plain Gut. It must be noted that this evaluation is highly uncertain due to the absence of data (e.g., chemical concentrations in surface water and fish) necessary to accurately model exposure to the receptor. For this assessment, chemical concentrations measured in sediment collected in Fair Plain Gmt were used to predict concentrations in forage fish. As mentioned in Section 2.2.4, inorganic BSAFs for fish are not available. Therefore, concentrations in forage fish were predicted using soil-to-worm uptake factors or simple regression models (Sample et. al, 1997 and 1998). If an uptake factor was unavailable, the uptake factor was conservatively assumed to be equal to one. A DW:WW conversion factor was applied to the predicted fish concentrations prior to exposure estimation. The use of the soil-to-worm uptake factor or regression models for these calculations will likely yield a conservative overestimate of exposure to herons foraging in the area. To estimate chemical exposure potentially experienced by the great blue heron, the following assumptions were made: • Average Body weight = 2.3 kg (average of adult males and females; USEPA, 1993). • Food consumption = 0.4 kg/d (USEPA, 1993). *• Sediment consumption = as a piscivore, assumed to be negligible (Sample and Suter, 1994). • Diet conservatively assumed to consist of 100% fish (USEPA, 1993). *• DW:WW conversion factor = 0.25 kg fish dry weight per kg fish wet weight or 75% moisture (USEPA, 1993). According to USEPA (1993), fish are the preferred prey of the great blue heron, however they also consume other aquatic species, insects, birds, and mammals. For the purpose of this assessment, it was assumed that 100 percent of the diet was comprised offish associated with Fair Plain Gut. Using G:\STAFF\LBARON\Island\Revision\BERA2.IXX; 2 8 3 0 4 0 9 1 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 the equation described in Section 4.1, and the assumptions and data described above, exposure to all chemicals detected in media were conservatively estimated for the great blue heron (Table C-13). 4.2 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT FOR WILDLIFE To determine if the chemical exposure experienced by herbivorous, insectivorous and piscivorous wildlife from foraging in the drainage charmels could produce adverse effects, exposure estimates from Section 4.1 were compared to No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) derived according to the methods outlined by Sample et al, (1996) and USEPA (1993). NOAELs represent the highest exposure at which no adverse effects were observed among the animals tested. LOAELs represent the lowest exposure at which significant adverse effects are observed. Toxicological studies of the effects of chemicals observed at each location were obtained from the open literature. Studies of the effects of long-term, chronic oral exposures, whether in food, water, or by oral intubation, were used. To make the NOAELs and LOAELs relevant to possible population effects, preference was given to studies that evaluated effects on reproductive parameters. In the absence of a reproduction endpoint, studies that considered effects on growth, survival, and longevity were used. Smaller mammals have higher metabolic rates and are usually more resistant to toxic chemicals because of more rapid rates of detoxification. It has been shown that metabolism is proportional to body surface area which, for lack of direct measurements, can be expressed in terms of body weight (bw) raised to the 3/4 power (bw^'") (Travis and White, 1988; Travis et al., 1990; and USEPA, 1992b). If the dose (d) itself has been calculated in terms of unit body weight (i.e., mg/kg), then the dose per unit body surface area (D) equates to: CO o D = TT- = d x hw^* o to G:\STAFIALBAR0N\ISLAND\RE VISI0N\BERA2.D0C 29 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 The assumption is that the effective dose per body surface area for species "a" and "b" would be equivalent. Therefore, knowing the body weights of two species and the dose (4) producing a given effect in species "b," the dose (da) producing the same effect in species "a" can be determined. Using this approach, if a NOAEL was available for the test species (NOAELt) (i.e., a rodent), the equivalent NOAEL for a wildlife species (NOAELw) (i.e., the goat and bat) was calculated by using the adjustment factor for differences in body size: NOAEL. = NOAEL. This methodology is equivalent to the USEPA's approach in their carcinogenicity assessments and Reportable Quantity documents for adjusting from animal data to an equivalent human dose. For avian species (e.g., spotted sandpipers and herons), the dose was not adjusted for body scaling. In cases where a NOAEL for a specific chemical was not available, but a LOAEL had been determined experimentally or where the NOAEL was from a subchronic study, the chronic NOAEL was estimated. USEPA (1993) suggests the use of uncertainty factors of 1 to 10 for subchronic to chronic NOAEL and LOAEL to NOAEL estimation. Because no data were available to suggest the use of lower values, uncertainty factors of 10 were used in all instances in which they were required. The NOAEL and LOAEL benchmarks and the toxicological studies that were used to derive them are presented in Table 5. 4.3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR WILDLIFE Only one line of evidence, chemical toxicity data, was available for the assessment of risks to each wildlife trophic level. The evaluation of risks to each representative (e.g., mice, goats, spotted sandpipers, and great blue herons) from the consumption of soil^sediment, vegetation, invertebrates, and/or fish are discussed in the following sections. o o CO G:\STAFFa.BARO>AISLAND\RE VISION\BERA2.DOC 30 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.3.1 Screening of Chemical Exposure Estimates Against Benchmarks The two risk characterization techniques, the calculation of HQs and the plotting of J^TUs (as described in Section 3.3.1), were used in the evaluation of surface soils and wildlife. Chemicals of potential concem for each receptor were identified by comparing the total chemical exposure to the NOAEL. Using the generalized wildlife model, the exposure assumptions, and data described above, exposure td chemicals were estimated for the wildlife species (Tables C-4 to C-13). HQs were calculated using the following formula: HO = Estimated Exposure (mg/kg/d) NOAEL HQs greater than one indicate that individuals may experience adverse effects from the consumption of diet (e.g., vegetation, invertebrates, fish) and surface soil/sediment in each drainage channel. If HQs are less than one, the constituent would unlikely impact the receptor and need not be evaluated fiirther. The COPECs identified for each receptor are presented in the sections below. 4.3.1.1 Herbivorous Wildlife Chemical concentrations measured in soil and predicted in vegetation, ecotoxicological benchmarks, and associated HQs for goats and bats are presented in Tables C-4 to C-9. As stated in Section 3.3.1, the COPECs identified in the River Gut were found throughout the gut and were likely transported from upstream sources. The same COPECs were also identified in high concentrations in the Bethlehem Gut and Fair Plain Gut. This suggests that the COPECs measured in surface soils which may potentially impact goats and bats are from multiple sources. The screening process identified the following chemicals as COPECs for goats (italics represents COPECs identified at background CO locations and constituents underlined represent COPECs identified throughout the gut [i.e., exposure o o from 95% UCL or average soil concentration exceeded NOAELs]): {^ G:\STAFPl.BARON\lSI.AND\RE VISION\BERA2.DOC 31 Virgin Island Chemical Superfiind Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 •• River Gut: aluminum and vanadium: »• Bethlehem Gut: aluminum and vanadium: and »• Fair Plain Gut: aluminum and vanadium. The screening process identified the following chemicals as COPECs for fiojit bats (italics represents COPECs identified at background locations and constituents underlined represent COPECs identified throughout the gut [i.e., exposure from 95% UCL or average soil concentration exceeded NOAELs]): • River Gut: aluminum and selenium (RG-10 and RG-13 only) •• Bethlehem Gut: aluminum: and • Fair Plain Gut: aluminum and selenium (FPG-1 only). After screening against NOAEL benchmarks, total toxicity at each location was evaluated using the sum of toxic units technique. TUs calculated for herbivorous wildlife are quotients of the exposure of the chemical in the soil divided by the NOAEL. The height of the plot represents the sum of all the toxicity normalized concentrations contributing to more than 5 % of the total toxicity (i.e. XlTU) at each location. Even if the HQ < 1 for a chemical, the chemical was included if it contributed greater than or equal to 5 % of the total J^TUs. The sum of the toxicity normalized concentrations is assumed to estimate the absolute toxicity of soils at the location. Assuming 100% bioavailability, if the X^TU equals or exceeds 1, and all chemicals have the same mode of action, the endpoint effect is likely (i.e., potential reproductive effects on herbivores). This is a conservative assumption for heterogenous chemical mixtures since combined toxic effects of chemicals in environmental samples have been found to be additive or less than additive (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982). For illustration, jTUs for metals identified in soils at each sampling location were calculated and CAJ o plotted for goats (Figure 7). X^TUs ranged from 42 at location RG-15 to 213 at the reference "^^ location RG-2. Aluminum contributed to most of the toxicity at all the locations within the River m Gut. In addition, vanadium contributed slightly to the overall potential toxicity to goats foraging G:\STAFF^LBARON\ISI.AND\REVlSIO^ABERA2.DC)C 32 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 within the River Gut. Consequently, according to NOAEL X^TU values, upgradient sources and Bethlehem Gut sources of aluminum pose the greatest potential risk of adverse effects within the gut system. A 5^TU figure was not presented for fruit bats since aluminum was the only COPEC within the gut system. The patterns of the TU peaks would be similar to that observed for goats, however, the TU heights would be much lower. The maximum NOAEL HQ for aluminum was only 7.7 at the reference location (RG-2). Therefore, the magnitude for a potential impact to bats would be much less than that predicted for goats. Bats experience much less exposure primarily due to their negligible volume of incidental ingestion of soil. For this reason, the potential risks to the fhiit bats are greatly minimized. The potential for impacts to goats and bats are discussed further in Section 4.3.2. 4.3.1.2 Insectivorous WildUfe Chemical concentrations measured in soil, and predicted in soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms), ecotoxicological benchmarks, and associated HQs for spotted sandpipers are presented in Tables C- 10 to C-12. As stated in Section 3.3.1, the COPECs identified in the River Gut were found throughout the gut and likely originated at the upstream reference location. The same COPECs were also identified in the Bethlehem Gut and Fair Plain Grut. This suggests that the COPECs that may potentially impact sandpipers measured in surface soils are from multiple sources. The screening process identified the following chemicals as COPECs (constituents in italics represent COPECs identified at background locations and constituents underiined represent COPECs identified throughout the gut [i.e., exposure from 95% UCL or average soil concentration exceeded NOAELs]): CO o it^ o vo CTl G;\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DC)C 33 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 »• River Gut: aluminum, barium, cadmium (RG-13 only), chromium, lead, selenium (RG-13 only), thallium (RG-14 only), vanadium, and zinc: *• Bethlehem Gut: aluminum, barium, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc; *• Fair Plain Gut: aluminum, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc. After screening against NOAEL benchmarks, total toxicity at each location was evaluated using the sum of toxic units technique. TUs calculated for insectivorous wildlife are quotients of the exposure of the chemical in the soil and worms divided by the NOAEL as described in Section 4.3.1.1. J^TUs for metals identified in soils at each sampling location were calculated and plotted (Figure 8). XlTUs ranged from 13 at location RG-15 to 60 at the reference location (RG-2). Aluminum contributed to most of the toxicity at all the locations within the River Gut. In addition, zinc, lead, chromium, and vanadium (presented in decreasing order) contributed slightly to the overall potential toxicity within the River Gut. Consequently, according to NOAEL YJ\J values, upgradient sources of aluminum and zinc pose the greatest potential risk of adverse effects within the gut. The potential for impacts to spotted sandpipers (and other insectivorous wildlife) are discussed further in Section 4.3.2. 4.3.1.3 Piscivorous Wildlife Chemical concentrations measured in sediment, and predicted in forage fish, ecotoxicological benchmarks, and associated HQs for great blue herons are presented in Table C-13. The COPECs identified for herons foraging in Fair Plain Gut included aluminum and zinc. Because this evaluation was extremely conservative in nature (i.e., using conservative uptake factors for fish) the potential impact to herons and other piscivorous wildife would likely be much lower than that identified in this assessment. In addition, these constituents were found throughout the gut system and were found at the highest concentration at the upstream reference location in the River Gut (RG-2) and the Bethlehem Gut. The potential for impacts to herons are discussed fiirther in Section 4.3.2. I CO o o I yo G:\STAFFU.BARON\ISLAND\RE VlSION\BERA2.DOC 34 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.3.2 Effects Estimation of Retained COPECs for Wildlife Receptors The laboratory toxicity tests which were used to derive the mammalian and avian ecotoxicological benchmarks are described in the following section. This information was used to determine the potential reproductive effects and the magnitude of the effect which may occur if the NOAEL or LOAEL was exceeded (Table C-14). Each COPEC that was identified for the receptors are discussed below. 4.3.2.1 Aluminum Aluminum was identified as a COPEC for herbivorous (e.g., goats and fioiit bats), insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpipers), and piscivorous (e.g., great blue herons) wildlife foraging in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for mammalian and avian receptors. Mammalian Receptors The mammalian NOAEL and LOAEL for the goat and bats are based upon a study of the reproductive success of mice for three generations (Ondreicka et al, 1966) (Table 5). The study was considered to represent chronic exposure. A single oral dose level (19.3 mg/kd/d) was administered causing a significant reduction in growth of the second and third generation of mice. This dose did not cause effects on the number of litters or number of offspring per litter. This dose level was selected as the chronic LOAEL. Because an experimental NOAEL was not established, the NOAEL was estimated by multiplying the chronic LOAEL by a LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1. Table C-14 indicates that estimated aluminum exposure to goats was in excess of the LOAEL by 21 times at the reference location (RG-2) to 4 times at the downstream location (RG-15) within the River Gut. The 95% UCL exposure for goats foraging over the entire River Gut was 15 times the CO o o LOAEL. Exposure for goats foraging in Bethlehem Gut and Fair Plain Gut also exceeded the vo CO LOAEL (HQs ranged from 4.6 to 17.7). Therefore, a reduction in offspring growth for individual G-.\STAFJNLBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC 35 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 goats may potentially result from exposure to aluminum in surface soils at all locations within all three drainage channels. In contrast, exposure to Jamaican fi^iit bats did not exceed the LOAEL in all three drainage channels (LOAEL HQs= 0.15 to 0.98). In addition, the 95% UCL alummum exposure from foraging within the entire River Gut was only 55% of the LOAEL. Therefore, the bats would unlikely be at risk from foraging on fKiit in the riparian habitat of the guts. Avian Receptors The avian NOAEL and LOAEL for the spotted sandpiper and great blue heron are based on two separate studies that yield contradictory results (Table 5). The NOAEL is based on a study that exposed ringed doves during a critical life stage to a single dose (1000 ppm Al or 109.7 mg/kg/d). This dose did not result in any significant effects to the doves (Carriere et al., 1986). The LOAEL is based on a study that resulted in adverse effects to day-old white leghom chicks from an exposure of 44.5 mg/kg/d (Sample et al, 1996). Based on the limited toxicological data available, exposure to insectivorous and piscivorous avian receptors on the site may potentially result in adverse impacts. Similar to the mammalian receptors, the greatest potential risk (maximum LOAEL HQ for sandpipers= 106) would be experienced at the reference location, upstream of the Site. All Receptors The occurrence of potential adverse effects to both mammalian and avian receptors are dependent on the bioavailability of aluminum in soil. The studies used to derive the LOAELs are based on administration of aluminum chloride in a water solution. The actual bioavailability of aluminum from soil is much lower than that of the laboratory study. The aluminum concentration in soils within the gut was less than twice the average background concentration of aluminum in surface soils at the site (21,760 mg/kg. See Table 4-1 in Section 4 of the RI Report). Vinogradov (1959) and Jackson (1964) also found the average aluminum concentration in the world to be much higher than that found in the River Gut. Vinogradov (1959) found that an average of 71,300 mg/kg aluminum was found from worldwide sampling, while Jackson (1964) observed a range of 10,000 to 60,000 mg/kg ^ o aluminum typical in soils. The NOAA National Status and Trends Program also identified estuarine ^ sediments in the Gulf of Mexico ranging from 1,400 to 113,558 mg/kg aluminum (average= 47,220 G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC 36 Virgin Island Chenucal Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 mg/kg; N=351 samples) (NOAA, 1988). Overall, risks to offspring growth are likely minimal due to low bioavailability within soils and concentrations which are within acceptable background ranges for aluminum for the area. 4.3.2.2 Barium Barium was identified as a COPEC for insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpipers) wildlife foraging in the River Gut and Bethlehem Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for avian receptors. Avian Receptors The avian NOAEL and LOAEL were based on a study where 1-day old chicks were exposed for four weeks to eight doses (250 ppm to 32,000 ppm) of barium hydroxide (Johnson et al., 1960). A dose of 2,000 ppm (208.23 mg/kg/d) produced no mortality, while chicks exposed to doses between 4,000 ppm (416.53 mg/kg/d) and 32,000 ppm experienced 5% to 100% mortality. The 208 and 416 mg/kg/d doses were considered the subchronic NOAEL and LOAEL. Chronic NOAELs and LOAELs were estimated by multiplying the subchronic NOAELs and LOAELs by a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 0.1 (Table 5). Exposure to spotted sandpipers was predicted to slightly exceed the chronic NOAEL at the reference location (NOAEL HQ= 1.14) and at three locations within the guts (RG-9, RG-13, BG-1: HQs = 1.26 to 1.44). These exposures did not exceed the LOAEL (HQs= 0.63 to 0.72). Therefore, sandpipers foraging exclusively at these locations would unlikely be at risk from barium exposure. Furthermore, sandpipers would not experience adverse impacts from barium because they forage over a large territory and the 95% UCL exposure in the entire River Gut did not exceed the NOAEL. CO o o o G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\RE VISIO>ABERA2.DOC 37 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.3.2.3 Chromium Chromium was identified as a COPEC for insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpipers) wildlife foraging in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for avian receptors. Avian Receptors The avian NOAEL and LOAEL are based on a study where black ducks were exposed to two dose levels of Cr^^ in the diet (Sample et al., 1996). Survival was reduced at the 50 ppm (1 mg/kg/d) dose level, while no significant differences were observed at the 10 ppm (5 mg/kg/d) dose level. Because these exposures took place throughout a critical lifestage, the doses were considered to be the chronic LOAEL and NOAEL, respectively (Table 5). The total chromium exposure to spotted sandpipers did slightly exceed the NOAEL at most locations within the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut (HQs= 1.8 to 5.7). Exposure did not exceed the LOAEL benchmark at locations within the drainage channels (HQs= 0.37 to 0.73). However, chromium exposure slighfly exceeded the LOAEL (HQ=1.14) at a single location (RG-14) within the River Gut (Table C-14). Because the sandpipers forage over a larger territory and would not feed exclusively at location RG-14, sandpipers would unlikely experience a reduction in survivorship. Furthermore, the 95% UCL chromium exposure for sandpipers foraging within the entire River Gut was only 66% of the LOAEL. Therefore, population impacts to sandpipers would unlikely occur from foraging in any of the drainage channels from chromium exposure. 4.3.2.4 Lead Lead was identified as a COPEC for insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpipers) wildlife foraging in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure 2 is discussed below for avian receptors. CO o G:\STAFFU.B ARON\ISLAhfD\REVISION\BERA2.DOC 38 •Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 Avian Receptors The NOAEL and LOAEL were derived using two studies conducted on American Kestrels (Pattee, 1984) and Japanese Quail (Edens et al, 1976), respectively (Table 5). The NOAEL is based on the highest dose (3.85 mg/kg/d) administered to kesterels which resulted in no adverse effects. The LOAELwas based on a study that kestrels were exposed to monitored for reproductive exposed to four dose levels. A dose of 11.3 mg/kg/d caused a reduction in egg hatching success. Spotted sandpipers would be exposed to levels of lead in excess of the NOAEL (HQs= 1.1 to 7) at most of the locations in the drainage channels. Total lead exposure only slightly exceeded the LOAEL at a several locations (RG-4, RG-5, RG-6, RG-13, and BG-1) in the drainage channels (HQ= 1.04 to 2.4). In addition, the 95% UCL exposure for the entire River Gut barely exceeded the LOAEL (HQ=1.03). Therefore, based on these predicted lead exposures and the results of the toxicological studies, there is a possibility that spotted sandpipers may experience a reduction in egg hatiching success from the consumption of lead in surface soil. However, it must be noted that these expososure calculations are conservative in nature and do not take the low bioavailability of lead into consideration. The minimal bioavailability of lead in soil will likely reduce the potential exposure and thus potential for impacts to the sandpipers foraging in the drainage charmels. 4.3.2.5 Vanadium Vanadium was identified as a COPEC for herbivorous (e.g., goats) and insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpipers) wildlife foraging in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut and Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for mammalian and avian receptors. Mammalian Receptors The mammalian NOAEL and LOAEL for the goat and fruit bat are based upon a study on the , j^j o reproductive success of rats (Domingo et al., 1986). The study was conducted 60 days prior to |*^ gestation, through gestation, delivery, and lactation (during a critical life stage); therefore, this study S was considered representative of chronic exposure. Three dose levels (5, 10, and 20 mg/kg/d) were G:\STAFFU.BAR0N\ISLAND\REVISI0>r\BERA2.DOC -iQ Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment ' April 1999 administered by oral intubation. All three doses caused significant differences in reproductive parameters (i.e., number of dead young/litter, and size and weight of offspring, etc.). Therefore, the lowest dose was considered to be the chronic LOAEL. Because an experimental NOAEL was not established, the NOAEL was estimated by multiplying the chronic LOAEL by a LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 (Table 5). The total vanadium exposure to goats did exceed the NOAEL at all locations in the drainage channels (HQs= 1.0 to 5.04). However, estimated exposure to vanadium was only 10 to 50% of the LOAEL. Therefore, impacts on reproductive success of individuals foraging within these areas are highly unlikely. 4.3.2.6 Selenium Selenium was identified as a COPEC for herbivorous (e.g., fruit bats) wildlife foraging in the River Gut and Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for mammalian receptors. Mammalian Receptors The mammalian NOAELs and LOAELs for the goat and bats are based on a study in which selenate was fed to mice for 3 generations (Schroeder and Mitchner, 1971). An administered dose level of 0.76 mg/kg/d, designated as the chronic LOAEL, caused reduced reproductive success with a high incidence of mnts and failure to breed. Because an experimental NOAEL was not established, the chronic NOAEL was estimated by multiplying the chronic LOAEL by a LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1. The total selenium exposure to Jamaican fruit bats only slightly exceeded the NOAEL (HQs= 1.06 to 1.62) at three locations in the River Gut and Fair Plain Gut (RG-10, RG-13, and FPG-1). These exposures were all below the LOAEL benchmark. Therefore, impacts on reproductive success of individual bats foraging within the River Gut or other drainage channels are highly unlikely. CO o o CO G:\STAFIALBARO>AISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC 40 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 Additionally, since the bats forage over a large territory and overall exposure (95% UCL exposure) did not exceed the NOAEL, bats would not be at risk from selenium in the drainage channels. 4.3.2.7 Zinc Zinc was identified as a COPEC for insectivorous (e.g., spotted sandpiper) wildlife foraging in the River Gut, Bethlehem Grut, and Fair Plain Gut and piscivorous (e.g., great blue herons) wildlife foraging in Fair Plain Gut. The potential for adverse impacts from total exposure is discussed below for avian receptors. Avian Receptors The NOAEL and LOAEL for zinc are derived from a study that exposed White Leghom Hens to three dose levels for 10 weeks in duration (Stahl et al., 1990). No effects were observed for hens exposed to 228 ppm (14.5 mg/kg/d) zinc, while egg hatchability was < 20% of controls among hens consuming 2028 ppm (131 mg/kg/d) zinc. Therefore, these exposures were identified as chronic NOAEL and LOAEL benchmarks, respectively (Table 5). Zinc exposure predicted for the spotted sandpiper exceeeded the NOAEL at most locations in the River Gut, Bethlehem Gut, and Fair Plain Gut (HQs = 3.1 to 8.3). The total exposure did not exceed the LOAEL at any location (HQs= 0.34 to 0.92). Therefore, reproductive effects (e.g., reducction in egg hatchability) on sandpipers would be highly unlikely from foraging in the drainage channels. Furthermore, it must be noted that the greatest potential for zinc exposure within the drainage channels may occur at the reference location (RG-2). Zinc exposure predicted for the great blue heron only slightly exceeded the NOAEL (HQs= 1.01) and was only 12% of the LOAEL. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that herons would experience adverse ^ impacts from exposure to zinc from the consumption offish in Fair Plain Gut. o o G-.\STAFIALBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC 41 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.3.3 Weight of Evidence Summary There was only one fine of evidence, chemical toxicity data, for the assessment of potential impacts to herbivorous, insectivorous, and piscivorous wildlife foraging on or near the Site. Based on the screening process, six COPECs (aluminum, barium, chromium, lead, vanadium or zinc) were identified in excess of the NOAEL. These COPECs were found throughout the drainage charmels and were usually measured at the highest concentration at the reference location (RG-2). Aluminum is the primary COPEC which exceeded the LOAEL and may potentially pose a risk to individual heibivores, insectivores, and piscivores foraging in the area. However, the likely decrease in the bioavailability of aluminum would reduce the potential for impacts to wildlife foraging in the guts. In addition, the aluminum concentrations are similar to that observed in other areas in the United States and world. Since the highest concentrations of aluminum were observed at the upstream reference location and the Bethlehem Gut, this constituent was likely transported from upgradient and surrounding sources. Lead exposure in the River Gut (specifically at locations RG-4, RG-5, RG-6 and RG-13) and the Bethlehem Gut (BG-1) may result in adverse reproductive impacts (e.g., reduction in egg hatchibility) to individual spotted sandpipers foraging exclusively at these locations. In addition, the overall 95% UCL exposure did slightly exceed the LOAEL (HQ=1.03). However, because the exposure estimates only slightly exceeded the LOAEL (1.03 to 2.03), potential impacts are likely minimal. Lead is also considered to very unvailable in the soil matrix and would likely further reduce the potential exposure and impacts to insectivorous receptors foraging in the area. In addition, chromium exposure to sandpipers exceeded the LOAEL at a single location (RG-14) in the drainage channels (HQ=1.14). Since sandpipers forage over a large territory and the 95% UCL oo o exposure was only 66% of the LOAEL, potential impacts to sandpipers from chromium exposure is "^^ considered minimal. (ji G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DC)C 4 9 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 4.3.4 Uncertainties Associated with Risks To Wildlife Soil to Vegetation Uptake Factors. There is a large degree of uncertainty when using soil to vegetation uptake factors to model chemicals found in vegetation. Uptake factors of inorganics and organics will vary by soil condition (i.e., pH, water availability, organic matter content, texture, aeration, elemental concentrations, etc.) (Sommers et al., 1987; Channey et al, 1984). Using uptake factors assumes that all species and all soil conditions wiU result in the same uptake rate. Also, using uptake factors assumes that the uptake rate is best estimated by taking the average of all observed values. The Site specific factors at each location were not taken into consideration for the uptake factors which were used. Therefore, the predicted contaminant concentrations in vegetation may be overestimated or underestimated; thus overestimating or underestimating contaminant exposure for wildlife. Soil to Earthworm Uptake Factors or Regression Models. There is a high degree of uncertainty when predicting chemical concentrations in earthworms. The regression models and uptake factors are very generalized, representing muUiple earthworm species, seasons, and soil types and characteristics. Contaminant uptake has been shown to differ by earthworm species (Spurgeon and Hopkin, 1996; Morgan and Morgan, 1991). Contaminant uptake may also differ seasonally (Braunschweiler, 1996) or with life cycle stage (i.e., active vs. diapause) (Morgan and Morgan, 1991). As a consequence of the generalized nature of the uptake factors and models, uncertainty associated with estimates generated for a give location may be high. Chemical Concentrations in Terrestrial and Aquatic Invertebrates. Concentrations in all invertebrates inhabiting the guts were assumed to be similar to that predicted in earthworms. Because earthworms are highly exposed organisms inhabiting the soil, the use co of the soil to worm uptake factor would likely yield a conservative chemical estimate in other o o invertebrates. The use of these factors will likely overestimate the potential exposure to o\ spotted sandpipers. G:\STAFF^LBARO^AISLAND\REVlSION\BERA2.DOC 43 Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 • Lack of Vegetation/Earthworm Uptake Factors or Regression Models. If an uptake factor was unavailable for a chemical constituent, the uptake factor was assumed to be 1 (i.e., concentratoin in worm or vegetation is equivalent to the soil). In particular, an uptake factor of 1 was used to predict exposure to receptors from aluminum. Due to the low bioavailabifity of aluminum in the soil and sediment matrix, this assumption likely overestimates the concentration predicted in the vegetation and worm. Other constituents which apply an uptake factor of 1 were also likely overestimated. • Bioavailability of Chemicals. It was assumed that 100% of the chemical concentrations reported in soil and modeled vegetation were bioavailable. The double acid extraction method used to determine soil concentrations reflects the total potential pool of chemical constituents. The fiiture bioavailability of these chemicals, which is dependent upon the chemical (e.g., pH, organic carbon) and physical (e.g., clay, moisture content) nature of the soil, can not be addressed for this assessment. Therefore, exposure estimates based upon the chemical concentrations in media are highly conservative and are likely to overestimate the actual exposure experienced. Extrapolation from Published Toxicity Data. To estimate toxicity of chemicals at the Site, it was necessary to extrapolate from NOAELs observed for test species (i.e., rats and mice). While it was assumed that toxicity could be estimated as a fiinction of body size, the accuracy of the estimate is not known. For example, goats or bats may be more or less sensitive than rats or mice to a particular chemical. Additional extrapolation uncertainty exists for those chemicals for which data consisted of either LOAELs or was subchronic in duration. For either case, an uncertainty factor of 0.1 was employed to estimate NOAELs or chronic data. The uncertainty factor of 0.1 may either over- or underestimate the actual LOAEL-NOAEL or subchronic-chronic relationship. CO o o '-J G:\STAFIALBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC A* Virgin Island Chemical Superfimd Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 • Variable Food and Soil Consumption. While food consumption by wildlife was assumed to be similar to that reported for similar species in other locations, the validity of this assumption cannot be determined. Food consumption in the drmnage channels may be greater or less than that reported in the literature, resulting in either an increase or decrease in chemical exposure. Incidental ingestion of soil consumption rates were unavailable for goats. Therefore, the ingestion rate derived for cattle and sheep were used for this assessment. To be conservative, exposure was likely overestimated due to the use of the maximum estimate of 18% ingestion of soil when sparse vegetation is present. Vegetation is generally dense at the Site and the soil ingestion rate is likely much less (1 to 2%) (Beyer et al, 1994). • Representativeness of Surface Soil Samples. Exposure to herbivorous and insectivorous wildlife was evaluated based on the concentrations measured in one surface soil sample at each location. Due to the regrading and reshaping maintenance activities which take place in the drainage channels, the soils are transported and may increase or decrease over time. • Predicted Concentrations in Fish Tissue. Concentrations in surface water or fish tissue were unavailable for this assessment. Therefore, the concentrations in fish tissue used to calculate exposure to great blue herons are considered highly uncertain. The use of soil-to- worm uptake factors wdll likely overestimate the concentrations in forage fish inhabiting Fair Plain Gut. Therefore, the potential exposure and thus potential impacts to herons foraging in the Fair Plain Gut are likely much lower than predicted. • Home Range. To be conservative, the home range of the wildlife receptors was not taken into consideration when calculating exposure to chemicals in the drainage channels. The co o goats, bats, spotted sandpipers and herons forage over large areas and do not forage |^ o exclusively within the study area. Therefore, the estimation of exposure is likely much less co than estimated for this SERA. G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC AC Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 5.0 RISKS TO THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY This section presents the evaluation of the potential for adverse impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate community from chemicals measured in sediments in Fair Plain Gut. 5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR BENTBIC MACROINVERTEBRATES Benthic macroinvertebrates can be exposed to chemicals found adhered or adsorbed to sediment particles or dissolved in pore water between sediment particles. Primary routes of exposure for benthic invertebrates are generally absorption and respiration of sediment pore water and ingestion of sediment and sediment-associated food. Compared to surface water, sediment chemical concentrations have low temporal variability. Benthic invertebrates are also less mobile than water- column species, thereby localizing chemical exposure. Therefore, it was assumed that sediment- associated biota received 100% of their exposure from the sediment at each location. Furthermore, no appropriate quantitative models for exposure through dermal contact, ingestion of sediment, and consumption of food are available. Therefore, the measured concentrations of chemicals in the sediment are considered a conservative estimate of exposure to the benthic macroinvertebrate community. 5.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT FOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES This section presents information on the sediment screening benchmarks used for this SERA. 5.2.1 Benchmarks for Sediment Toxicity Chemical constituents detected in sediments from Fair Plain Gut were screened against CO ecotoxicological benchmarks to detemiine if there is or is not a potential for impacts to the benthic o macroinvertebrates in the area. Since these areas are estuarine in nature, NOAA Effects Range-Low o vo (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) (Long et.al, 1995) values were used. If these benchmarks G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC ^ g Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 were unavailable, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Lowest Effects Levels (LELs) and Severe Effects Levels (SELs) (Persaud et al, 1993), Apparent Effects Thresholds (AETs) (Fitchko, 1987), and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) (Geisy and Hoke, 1990) were used to screen chemical concentrations measured in sediment. NOAA Effects Ranee-Low/Effects Range-Median (ERL/ERJVD The NOAA ERL and ERM values correspond to the tenth and fiftieth percentile of estuarine sediment concentrations reported to be associated with some level of toxic effects (Long et al., 1995). These sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) were derived using statistical analyses of matching chemistry and biological data compiled from numerous field, laboratory, and modeling studies performed throughout North America. The SQGs were intended as informal (i.e., non-regulatory) benchmarks to aid in the interpretation of chemical data. Low-range values (i.e., ERLs) were intended as concentrations below which adverse effects upon sediment-dwelling fauna would rarely be observed. In contrast, the ERMs represent chemical concentrations above which adverse effects are likely to occur. However, the ERM values are not intended to represent effects thresholds above which adverse effects would always be observed (Long and MacDonald, 1998). The ERL and ERM values represent potential lower and upper benchmarks, respectively. MOE Lowest Effects Level/Severe Effects Level (LEL/SEL^ The MOE has prepared provincial sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) using the Screening Level Concentration (SLC) Approach. The SLC approach estimates the highest concentration of a particular chemical in sediment that can be tolerated by approximately 95% of benthic infauna (Neff et al, 1988). The SLC is derived from synoptic data on sediment chemical concentrations and benthic invertebrate distributions. These values are based on Ontario sediments and benthic species from a wide range of geographical areas within the province (Persuad et al, 1990). The guidelines define three levels of ecotoxic effects and are based on the chronic, long term effects of constituents on benthic organisms. These levels are a No Effect Level (NEL), an LEL, and an SEL. The LEL is the level at which actual ecotoxic effects may become apparent, although the LEL is a level of chemical measured in sediment that can be tolerated by the majority of benthic organisms. The SEL 3 0 4 1 1 0 G:\STAFF\LBARON\ISLAND\REVISION\BERA2.DOC A^n Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 indicates the level at which pronounced disturbance of the sediment-dwelling community may be expected. This is the sediment concentration of a compound that may be detrimental to the majority of benthic species (Persaud et al., 1993). The LEL and SEL values represent potential lower and upper benchmarks, respectively. 5.3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES Risks presented to benthic macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting Fair Plain Gut, as determined by a single line of evidence (sediment analysis and chemical toxicity data), are discussed in the folloving sections. 5.3.1 Screening of Chemicals in Sediments Against Benchmarks Chemical concentrations detected in sediments collected in Fair Plain Gut (FPG-3 and FPG-4) sediments were compared to ecotoxicological benchmarks (i.e., ERLs) to evaluate potential impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates. HQs were calculated using the following equation: HQ= Concentration in Sediment (mg/kg) Ecotoxicological benchmark If the HQ is less than or equal to 1, then the probability of adverse ecological impacts to aquatic receptors from the chemical exposure is negligible. Long and MacDonald (1998) have found that for most substances the incidence of effects was less than 15% when concentrations were less than the ERL. HQs greater than one indicate that a chemical is a COPEC for the receptor and may potentially produce adverse ecological impacts. One intent of this SERA is to screen out chemicals that are clearly not of concem. Therefore, conservative estimates of exposure (total bulk dry weight CO concentrations measured in sediment) and conservative benchmarks (e.g., NOAA ERLs) were used o for the screening process. It must be emphasized that these values are highly conservative and are ^ not necessarily indicative of site conditions, but are used for screening purposes. G:\STAFIALBARON\ISLAND\RE VISION\BERA2.DC)C 48 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 The chemical constituents measured in sediment collected from Fair Plain Gut (FPG-3 and FPG-4) did not exceed the low effects screening benchmarks (Table C-15). Therefore, the constituents present in sediment at these locations would unlikely result in adverse impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting these locations. 5.4 Weight of Evidence Summary All chemicals detected in sediments at these locations were below low effects screening benchmarks. Based on this line of evidence, benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting Fair Plain Gut would not be impacted from chemical constituents detected in sediments. 5.5 Uncertainties Concerning Risks to the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Uncertainties associated with the evaluation of risks to the benthic macroinvertebrate community are presented below. • Chemical Concentrations Measured in Sediment Samples. Risks to the benthic community were evaluated based on the concentrations measured in one sediment sample at each location. Due to the regrading and reshaping maintenance activities which take place in the drainage channels, the sediment are transported and may increase or decrease over time. • Chemical Screening. Sediment benchmarks are derived for typical freshwater or salt/estuarine sediments (depending on the benchmark). Data were derived from analyses of sediments with different physical and geochemical characteristics and from numerous locations throughout North America (Long and MacDonald, 1998). Behavior of the chemicals (and therefore bioavailability) may vary according to the site-specific parameters (pH, TOC, grain size) in sediment and soils. Additionally, since sediments may be heterogeneous over a large G:\STAFIALBARON\ISI.AND\REVISION\BERA2.IXX; 3 0 4 1 1 . USEPA. 1992a. FrameworkforEcologicalRisk Assessment. [EPA/63 O/R-92/001]. ^ G:\STAFIALBARON\ISLAND\RE VISION\BERA2.DC)C 62 Virgin Island Chemical Superfund Site Draft Final Screening Ecological Risk Assessment April 1999 USEPA. 1992b. Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. USEPA. 1993. Wildlife exposure factors handbook. Volumes 1 & 2. EPA/600/R-93/187a&b, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. USEPA Region It. 1996. 2: Island Chemical Company. In: Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review/ Island Chemical Company. USEPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing nad Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006. USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Fomm, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. April. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1964. Pesticide-wildlife studies, 1963: a review of Fish and Wildlife Service investigations during the calendar year. FWS Circular 199. Vinogradov, A.P. 1959. The geochemistry of rare and dispersed chemical elements in soils [2d ed., revised and enlarged]: New York, Consuhants Bureau Enterprises, 209 p. Walker, F. 1971. Experimental argyria: A model for basement membrane studies. Br. J. Exp. Pathol, 52: 589-593. White, D. H. and M. P. Dieter. 1978. Effects of dietary vanadium in mallard ducks. /. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 4: 43-50. White, D.H.and M.T. Finley. 1978. Uptake and retention of dietary cadmium in mallard ducks. Environ. Res. 17:53-59. Wigal, R.A. and V.L. Coggins. 1990. 50: Mountain Goat. In Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press. London. Norback, D.H. and R.H. Weltman. 1985. Polychlorinated biphenyl induction of hepatocellular carcinoma in the Spargue-Dawley rat. Environ. Health Perspect. 60:97-105. Xian, X. and G. Shokohifard. 1989. Effect of pH on chemical forms of plant availability of cadmium, zinc, and lead in polluted soils. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 83: 85-96. CO o M lO G:\STAFP\LBARON\ISLAND\RE VISI0>ABERA2.DC)C 63 FIGURES 30412'? \\HAR1\SYS\DATAOPS\STAFIACOMMO>AISLAND-ECO\BERADOC -' TABLES \\HARl\SYS\DATAOPS\STAFIALBARON\ISLAND\NEW\REPOR'nBERADOC 304130 Table 1: Soil and Sediment Sampling Locations Location Description River Gut RG-2 RG-3 RG-4 RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 Upstream Reference Location- 200 feet upstream of the Meridan Engineering Company (Soil). Background sample was collected 100 feet downstream of Meridan Engineering Company (Soil). Background sample was collected downstream of the Asphalt Products Company and 25 feet upstream of the abandoned railroad bridge. This sample indicates the contribution of chemicals to the River Gut from the asphah facility (Soil). Sample was collected on the southwestern stream bank, 100 feet upstream of the site boundary in a depositional area of the stream bed, just downstream of the abandoned railroad bridge (Soil). Sample was collected on the northeastern stream bank in an area of petroleum-like waste material in the fill observed during 1995 investigations. RG-6 is located adjacent RG-5, just downstream of the railroad bridge (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed upstream of the former lab drain discharge (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed below the former lab drain (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed approximately 100 feet downstream of RG-8 (Soil). Sample was collected in an area of waste material observed in the fill on the northeastern side of the stream bank (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed at a point approximately 50 feet upstream of the discharge of the central storm drain system (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed at a point where the central storm drain system from the site discharges to the River Gut (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed at the point where the southern storm drain system from the site discharges to the River Gut (Soil). Sample was collected from the depositional areas of the stream bed at approximately 200 feet downstream of sample RG-13. This location is also adjacent Charlies Concrete Company (Soil). 3 0 4 1 3 1 Table 1: Soil and Sediment Sampling Locations Location RG-15 RG-16 Description Sample was collected from deposits approximately 300 feet downstream of RG-14 (Soil). Sample was collected from deposits on the upstream side of the sheet piling installed in the River Gut stream channel, downstream of the site. This location is approximately 300 feet downstream of RG-15 and 400 feet upstream of the confluence with the Bethlehem Gut (Soil). Bethlehem Gut BG-1 BG-2 Sample was collected directly (within 50 feet) upstream from the confluence of the River and Bethlehem Guts (Soil). Sample was collected 1,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the River and Bethlehem Guts (Soil). Fair Plain Gut || FPG-1 FPG-2 FPG-3 FPG-4 Sample was collected below the confluence of the River and Bethlehem Guts. This sample will be located in the depositional area approximately 25 feet downstream of the confluence (Soil). Sample was collected 300 feet downstream of FPG-1, and 50 feet upstream of the Sewage Treatment Plant outfall (Soil). Sample was collected approximately 125 feet downstream of FPG-2, 75 feet downstream of the Sewage Treatment Plant outfall (Sediment). Sample was collected upstream of the mouth of Manning Bay on the upstream side of the berm (Sediment). 304132 Table 2: Historic Sediment Sampling Results (mg/kg) Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o 1-* CO CO Location: Date Sampled; lAluminum jAntimony lArsenic JBaritmi jCadmiimi |Calcitmi jChromiimi Cobalt jCopper ijlron |Lead JMagnesiimi |Manganese JMercury JNickel |Potassium ISeleniimi Silver ISodiimi jVanadiimi |zinc GI ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 14.5 37.3 21 63.1 ^ G2 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 16.4 38.3 22 57.8 G3 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 16.7 33.8 14.5 129 G4 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 12 25.3 13.2 37.1 G5 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 I7.I 36.1 20.2 57.2 G6 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 1 46.6 40 32.9 349 G7 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 2.4 71.1 51.4 46.4 861 G8 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 20.4 32.8 19.4 76.2 G9 ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 19.8 34.9 21.4 75.7 GIO ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 30.6 62.7 16.5 66.5 Gil ESI/ICMI 2/19/86 41.1 69.7 12.8 871 historio.xls, data Page lof 2 1/8/99 Table 2: Historic Sediment Sampling Results (mg/kg) Virgin Island Chemical Site |Location: Date Sampled: lAluminum lAntimony lArsenic JBarium iBeryllium jCadmiimi ICalcium IChromium Cobalt ICopper |lron iLead [Magnesium iManganese Mercury kckel Potassium jSelenitmi |Sodium |Vanadiiun Gut Backgroimd EPA 3/13/86 2 10 40 19 1 Gut Waste Pit Seep EPA 3/13/86 10 1 7 22 45 20 Gut Drainage Pit EPA 3/13/86 0.8 8 52 52 32 1 Gut 500' Downstream 1 SEDl EPA 2/28/91 15700 90.3 45600 18.7 14.7 46.4 25700 15.1 7600 954 10.8 82.4 Gut Lab Drain 1 SED2 EPA 2/28/91 32400 3.2 115 74900 16.3 23.7 60.5 35800 7.5 10900 1320 13.8 1490 1640 62.1 Gut Upstream SED3 EPA 2/28/91 30400 4.1 111 79900 17.6 24.8 62 39200 7.5 11800 1400 14.6 Gut Lab Drain Dup. SED4 EPA 1/28/91 33600 3.8 122 82100 16.8 25.4 64.8 38400 7.8 11800 1430 15.2 1600 1750 Gut Central Storm Drain SED5 EPA 2/28/91 9400 26.6 8 48.8 51200 57.6 13.8 367 183000 466 4740 925 47.8 63.2 1 64.8 1 Gut Southem Storm SED6 EPA 2/28/91 10600 5.5 95.8 4.5 42100 110 17.3 109 121000 187 5000 1420 1 49.8 I'ET^Oe historio.xls, data Page 2 of 2 1/8/99 Table 3: Cheinical Concentrations Measured from Soil from the Central and Southem Storm Drains Virgin Island Chemical Site LOCATION SAMPLE ID NO DATE SAMPLED ANALYTE Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Central Storm Drain. SDCSD-2 10/7/97 Central Storm Drain SUCSU-3 10/7/97 Southern Storm Drain SUSSD-1 10/7/97 Southern Storm Drain SUSSU-2 10/7/97 8390 0.62 UJ 8.8 70.3 0.03 UJ 3.9 76900 J 32 9.4 BJ 280 J 58800 35.2 4090 595 J 0.15U 23.5 838 B 0.94 BJ 1.5 B 675 B 0.68 U 34.3 336 NA 8890 0.56 UJ 3.7 44 B 0.03 UJ 3.9 56300 J 22.7 7.5 BJ 121 J 19700 25.4 4840 311 J 0.14 U 14.5 1060 B 0.69 UJ 1.2 B 659 B 0.61 U 39.5 346 NA 14600 0.45 UJ 0.81 B 68.9 0.02 UJ 0.52 B 56400 J 13.9 10 BJ 30.7 J 19100 3.9 5870 503 J 0.11 UJ 9 B 3650 0.57 UJ 0.98 B 373 B 0.5 U 52.1 40.5 R NA 13500 0.47 UJ 0.87 B 59.2 0.02 UJ 0.72 B 53600 J 14.6 9.4 BJ 35.2 J 18800 7.3 6170 494 J 0.12 U 8.3 B 3400 0.58 UJ 0.92 B 453 B 0.51 U 50.1 74.4 NA Notes: Concentrations presented in mg/kg NA: Not Analyzed U - Not detected; value is the minimum quantitation limit. J - Estimated value. R - Data Rejected. B - Result is between instrument detection limit (IDL) and Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL). drains.xls Page 1 of 1 304135 1/18/99 Table 4: Physicochemical Properties of Surface Soil and Sediment Collected in the Drainage Channels Virgin Island Chemical Site u> o Location Grain Size % Gravel/Sand Silt Clay Alkalinity (mg/kg) Oxidation/Reduction Potential pH Specific Conductance (umhos) Total Organic Carbon mg/kg Total Solids mg/kg River Gut RG-2 RG-3 RG-4 RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 RG-16 12.7 4.0 18.8 59.4 75.8 64.7 59.0 50.9 52.6 54.7 54.5 51.0 39.4 80.0 87.2 74.7 86.5 80.3 20.0 3.9 18.9 16.2 257 31.1 19.1 197 18.2 51.1 12.7 4.0 12.6 9.5 0.9 20.6 20.3 16.4 24.8 23.4 16.3 26.2 25.8 30.9 9.5 7.3 8.8 427 962 425 4680 640 530 1180 428 631 1070 630 636 4340 417 422 207 203 188 172 175 174 177 181 169 174 228 196 26.3 200 156 8.66 8.27 8.32 8.65 8.3 8.3 8.22 7.97 8.35 8.29 8.28 7.95 12.1 871 8.51 91 123 108 70.1 95.9 71.5 106 139 154 104 80.7 167 1920 133 124 17800 21300 22400 29600 24300 30500 37900 19600 30800 15000 26800 28600 49500 22500 18300 78.3 74 86.6 92.9 88.7 85.9 84.4 86.9 87.6 84.1 82.4 85.6 49.3 86 78.4 Bethlehem Gut I BG-1 BG-2 38.3 94.5 22.9 0.0 38.9 5.5 524 319 197 184 8.02 87 147 69.6 27800 12900 66 1 94.9 1 Fair Plain Gut 1 FPG-1 FPG-2 FPG-3 1 FPG-4 1 66.4 54.8 76.0 99.0 10.9 20.5 3.9 0.3 J 22.6 24.6 20.1 0.6 530 528 1050 317 181 169 96 116 8.12 8.39 8.25 8.63 154 148 1550 337 27700 19100 17200 9910 72.9 1 79.5 65.7 80.9 1 u> table4.xls Page 1 ofl Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors Chemical j Aluminum 1 Antimony Arsenic Study Description and Source Chronic NOAEL for reduction in growth for mice (Ondreika et al, 1966) Chronic NOAEL for reproductive effects in ringed doves (Carriere et al., 1986). Chronic LOAEL for reproductive effects for white leghom chicks (Sample et al., 1996) Chronic LOAEL which reduced lifespan of mice. A LOAEL - NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Schroeder et al., 1968) Chronic LOAEL which resulted in a decline in litter size of mice. A LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Schroeder and Mitchner, 1971). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality in mallard ducks (USFWS, 1964) 1 Test Species Dose (mg/kg/d) NOAEL 1.93 109.7 .125 .126 5.135 LOAEL 19.3 44.5 1.25 1.26 12.84 Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 0.33 0.02 0.02 Fruit Bat 1.69 0.11 0.11 Spotted Sandpiper 109.7 NA 5.135 Great Blue Heron 109.7 NA 5.135 L£TfO£ \\HARl\SYS\DATAOPS\STAFF\COMMON\ISLAND-ECO\BERA.DOC Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors Chemical Study Description and Source Test Species Dose (mg/kg/d) NOAEL LOAEL Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat Fruit Bat Spotted Sandpiper Great Blue Heron Aluminum Chronic NOAEL for reduction in growth for mice (Ondreika et al., 1966) 1.93 19.3 0.33 1.69 109.7 Chronic NOAEL for reproductive effects in ringed doves (Carriere et al, 1986). Chronic LOAEL for reproductive effects for white leghorn chicks (Sample et al, 1996) 109.7 44.5 109.7 Antimony Chronic LOAEL which reduced lifespan of mice. A LOAEL - NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Schroeder et al, 1968) .125 1.25 0.02 0.11 NA NA Arsenic Chronic LOAEL which resulted in a decline in litter size of mice. A LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Schroeder and Mitchner, 1971). .126 1.26 0.02 0.11 5.135 Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality in mallard ducks (USFWS, 1964) 5.135 12.84 5.135 sei^oe G:\STAFRCOMMON\ISLAND-ECO\BERADOC Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors 1 Chemical Barium 1 Beryllium Cadmium Study Description and Source Chronic NOAEL for growth and food/water consumption for rats (Perry et al, 1983). Chronic LOAEL for mortality of rats (Borzelleca et al, 1988) Subchronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality of chicks. A subchronic-chronic uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Johnson et al, 1960) Chronic NOAEL for rats (Schroeder and Mitchner, 1975) Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects (e.g., reduction in fetal survivorship and fetal implantations) for rats (Sutou et al, 1980). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects (e.g., reduction in egg production) for mallard ducks (White and Finley, 1978). Test Spe (mg/ NOAEL 5.1 20.8 0.66 1 1.45 cies Dose kg/d) LOAEL 19.8 41.7 NA 10 20 Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 1.62 0.21 0.32 Fruit Bat 8.29 1.07 1.63 Spotted Sandpiper 20.8 NA 1.45 Great Blue Heron 20.8 NA 1.45 eeiT'oe rT\.STAFRr,nMMON\ISL/iLND-EC0\BERAD0C Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors 1 Chemical Chromium Cobalt 1 Copper Study Description and Source Chronic NOAEL for Cr+6 for rats (MacKenzie et al, 1958). Subchronic LOAEL for Cr+6 for rats. A subchronic-chronic uncertainty factor of 0.01 was applied (Steven et al, 1976 [cited in Eisler, 1986). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects in black ducks (Haseltine et al, unpublished data, reported in Sample etal, 1996). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for behaviorial and reproductive effects (e.g., testicular atrophy) on rats (Nation et al, 1983). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects in mink (Aulerich et al, 1982). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for growth and mortality of chicks (Mehring et al, 1960). Test Spe (mg/ NOAEL 3.28 1 5 11.7 47 cies Dose kg/d) LOAEL 13.14 5 20 15.14 61.7 Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 1.04 1.57 4.83 Fruit Bat 5.34 8.13 24.74 1 Spotted Sandpiper 1 NA 47 Great Blue Heron 1 NA 47 o^it'Oe G;\STAFRCOMMON\ISLAND-ECO\BERADOC Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors I Chemical 1 Cyanide I Lead 1 Manganese Mercury Study Description and Source Chronic NOAEL for reproductive effects for rats (Tewe and Maner, 1981). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL (resulting in reproductive effects and kidney damage) for rats (Azar etal, 1973) Chronic NOAEL for American Kestrels (Pattee, 1984). Chronic LOAEL resulting in reduction of egg hatching success for Japanese Quail (Edens et al, 1976). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects (e.g., reduction in fertility) of rats (Laskey etal, 1982). Chronic NOAEL for Japanese Quail (Laskey and Edens, 1985). Chronic NOAEL for reproductive effects for mink (Aulerich et al, 1974). 70£ Test Spe (mg/ NOAEL 68.7 8 3.85 88 977 1.01 cies Dose kg/d) LOAEL NA 80 11.3 284 NA NA ' Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 20.49 0.36 27.93 0.41 Fruit Bat 105.01 1.84 143.14 2.11 Spotted Sandpiper 3.85 977 0.45 Great Blue Heron 3.85 977 0.45 r,\.Aisi .AND-ECO\BERADOC Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors Chemical 1 Nickel 1 Selenium Silver Study Description and Source Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL (resulting in decreased fertility and hatchability, increased egg production) for Japanese Quail (Hill and Schaflfner, 1976). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for reproductive effects in rats (Ambrose et al, 1976). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality effects in mallard ducks (Cain and Pafford, 1981) Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL (resulting in reduced fertility, growth, and survivorship) for rats (Rosenfeld and Beath, 1954). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality effects for mallard ducks (Heinz et al, 1987). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL for mortality effects on rats (Walker, 1971). Test Spe (mg/ NOAEL 0.45 40 77.4 0.20 0.4 18.1 cies Dose kg/d) LOAEL 0.9 80 107 0.33 0.8 36.2 Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 12.69 0.06 5.74 Fruit Bat 65.06 0.33 29.44 Spotted Sandpiper 77.4 0.4 NA Great Blue Heron 77.4 0.4 NA zi'i^oe r,\STAFF\r.nMMON\ISLAND-ECO\BERADOC Table 5: Derivation of Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL Ecotoxicological Benchmarks for Mammalian and Avian Receptors Chemical 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium Zinc e ^ i ^ i Study Description and Source Subchronic LOAEL resulting in reduced sperm motility in rats. Subchronic-chronic and LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factors of 0.1 were appHed (Formigli et al, 1986). LD50 for mortality in ring- necked pheasants (Hudson et al, 1984). Uncertainty factors for test duration and endpoints were applied. Chronic LOAEL resulting in reduction of offspring survivorship, size and weight of rats. A LOAEL-NOAEL uncertainty factor of 0.1 was applied (Domingo et al, 1986). Chronic NOAEL for mallard ducks (White and Dieter, 1978). Chronic NOAEL and LOAEL (resulting in reduction in fetal growth and increase of fetal resorption) for rats (Schlicker and Cox, 1968). De Test Species Dose (mg/kg/d) NOAEL 0.0074 0.12 0.21 11.4 2.1 LOAEL 0.074 NA 2.1 NA 2.6 Receptor NOAEL (mg/kg/d) Goat 0.002 0.067 50.78 Fruit Bat 0.012 0.34 260.25 Spotted Sandpiper 0.12 11.4 14.5 Great Blue Heron 0.12 11.4 14.5 0.\ c (0 c (0 400 o) E 300 200 100 to o CM (3 a: m -* CD cr i n O Q: CO (5 CC r^ (5 CC 00 CC o O cc CD a. o cc CD DL (D tr CD OC CD CC CD cn T — OD CM <3 CD • - - 2 LL CJ CD CL LL n O Q. LL 'Sf CD Q. LL Location Figure 6: Sum of Toxic Units for Plants In the Drainage Channels* Aluminum •Chromium SMansanese SSelenium Vanadium BZinc o 00 r s j o —" tu rN Figure 7: Sum of Toxic Units for Goats Foraging in the Drainage Channels. 250 Aluminum H Vanadium to o M yo IZ) in 200 .w 150 **- 100 50 0 cc cc cc cc o cc o cc OC F 'O cc t A >o O cc cc O cc cc o cc o cc cc o cc o CD CO o- CL. Location 70 Figure 8: Sum of Toxic Units for Sandpipers in the Drainage Channels 60 ^50 s .^40 © «s30 c^20 10 0 to o M tJl O t ^ k.^ t l M K l § W W fcgl W fi) W BJ v r .t. w V ^ j .Q. .«.- T •SZinc .0 Vanadium BSe!enii.im SLead BChromiutn. DCadmiiim • Barium S.Aluminum 6 o • ^ I ir, r- 00 I ON C — r-j r^/ tr; r-l — CM r^, 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qi 0:: C^ D:^ D:: Q:: O O O O O O O Oi Qi Cs:: Csi i2i C^ Oi I 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 02 a . Cu CL a . U. U. LL U. Location APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPfflC LOG 304151 PHOTO NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Virgin Islanci Asplialt Products Company located northwest of tiie Site 2 Virgin Island Asphalt Products Company located northwest of the Site 3 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 4 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 5 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 6 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 7 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 8 River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site 9 River Gut: Location RG-2 10 River Gut: Location RG-3 11 River Gut: Location RG-4 12 River Gut: Location RG-5 13 River Gut: Location RG-6 14 River Gut: Location RG-7 15 River Gut: Location RG-8 next to Charlie's Concrete Company 16 River Gut: Location RG-11 17 River Gut: Location RG-12 18 River Gut: Location RG-13 19 River Gut: Location RG-14 facing north 20 River Gut: Location RG-14 following rainstorm facing south 21 River Gut: Location RG-15 with debris from Charlie's Concrete Company 22 River Gut: Location RG-16 23 Bethlehem Gut: Location BG-1 24 Fair Plain Gut: Location FPG-2 25 Fair Plain Gut: Location FPG-3 26 Fair Plain Gut: Location FPG-4 upstream of Manning Bay 27 Manning Bay 304152 \\UADi\cvc\nAT4ripw\i«i awn.crTiMsco A nnr' PHOTO NO. DESCRIPTION 28 Domesticated goats observed on the Site 29 River Gut northeast of Site west of Virgin Islands Paving Company 30 River Gut adjacent to the Virgin Islands Paving Company 31 Oily seep from Charlie's Concrete Company near Location RG-10 32 Oily seep from Charlie's Concrete Company near Location RG-10 33 Oily seep from Charlie's Concrete Company near Location RG-10 * All photographs taken in September 1997. 304153 AT-A/-MIOVCT-AT7Tn/->/^l/\*r\XT\TCI A XTT^ CTT^V t l T D A F ^ O O VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. to o tn VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. o H Ul • VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. tu o l-» tr. 1 a W H M I IBM p m i i p j ! '-ftiP ^^B^^JBBp*^** , Jl ,— —*• V- - "^trr-'A ^F4 L^^^T^ ^"^•^•PP mmMtM^^a^^sir^ i.. ^ JV ft '^^^^^H^^^H PHOTO 8: River Gut adjacent to Charlie's Concrete Company located southeast of the Site. VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. to o H # VmGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITES SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/98) McLaren/Hart, Inc. U) o M 00 # VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. to o l-> t n yo VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. to o o # # VmGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. Ui o M M • VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. Ui o i-» a\ to # PHOTO 19: River Gut: Location RG-14 facing north. # VmGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. Ui o Oi VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. to o H • 1 1 \ •n^. V •'••>^;.' ' ^ % 1 5 ^ »».>. i'^A^^y. .. \i ^ ^ \x - ^ 1 .' -^^iif S ^ ii ^S^ "fll^Kjh ^ ^ M ^ ^ilV'/l 1 mim ^ ary ^JnjS^ w^' -i. ' ^ :. ' ^ : | >'_:'j:iaii^iitf u MFTiwiS iBIf^^S * V^t^^i PHOTO 24: Fair Plain Gut: Location FPG-2. | VmGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. CO o l-> U l 1 ^ ^ ^ • • " r . M i j 1 ^Pf^m^iniiiii • • ^i * • > -H ^ 1 PHOTO 25: Fair Plain Gut: Location FPG-3. | # VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. Ui o fCk M VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. o VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. 3 0 4 1 6 8 PHOTO 30. Ri\ er Gut adjacent to the Virgin Islands Paving Company VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. OJ o vo VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. OJ o »0 O VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (PHOTOGRAPHED 9/97) McLaren/Hart, Inc. 3 0 4 1 7 1 APPENDIX B FLORA AND FAUNA mENTIFIED ON THE SITE 3 0 4 1 7 2 4 T-" » y - ^ n o i o T " * r?rST T~t A r»y~\xATOT A VTf~v\VTT:'i' Table B-1: Flora Observed at the Virgin Island Chemical Site 1 Common Name Acacia Baobab Bulrush, Soft Stem Cane, Sugar Cattle tongue Caper, Jamaican Caper, Limber Caster-bean Tree Christmas Candle Day Flower, Virginia Dog-Almond Flatsedge, (jiant Grass, Annual Saltmarsh Grass, Barnyard Grass, Guinea Grass, India Goose Guava Haiti-Haiti Kalanchoe Limbo, Gumbo Mango Tree Mangrove, Button Mangrove, Black Mangrove, Red Mangrove, White Monkey-no-climb Paspalum, Cortardora Purple Queen Shrubs Spider Flower, Spiny Spinach, Wild Tamarind Tan Tan Tibet Weed, Camphor Windmillgrass, Swollen Scientific Name Acacia Tortuosa Adansonia digita Scirpus validus Saccharum officiali Unknown Capparis cynophallqphora Capparis fleuosa Rincinis communis Pedilanthus tithymaloides Commelina virginica Andera inermis Cyperus gigantea Aster subulatus Echinochloa crusgalli Panicum maximum Eleusine indica Psidium guajava Thespesia populnia Kalanchoe blossfeldiana Bursera simaruba Mangifera indica Conocarpus erectus Avicennia germinans Rhizophora mangle Laguncularia racemosa Ceiba petandra Paspalum milligrana Setcreasea pallida Acacious sp. Cleome spinosa Amaranthus dubias Tamarindus indica Leucaena glauca Albizya lebbeck Pluchea odorata Chloris inflata Location Observed Gut System Gut System Gut System Gut System River Gut Gut System River Gut Gut System River Gut Gut System Gut System Gut System (jut System Gut System River Gut Gut System Gut System Gut System River Gut Gut System River Gut River and Fair Plain Guts River and Fair Plain Guts River and Fair Plain Guts River and Fair Plain Guts River (jut Gut System River (jut River Gut Gut System Gut System Gut System River Gut Gut System Gut System Gut system * Vegetation observed by HLA (1995ab), EPA Region II (1996b), and McLaren/Hart during the September 1997 site visit. 304173 Table B-2: Possible Fauna at the Virgin Island Chemical Site Common Name Scientiflc Name St. Croix Status Mammals Bat, Jamaican Fruit Bat, Cave Bat,Velvety free-tailed Bat, Fisherman Deer, White-tailed Mongoose, Small Indian Mouse, House Rat, Roof Rat, Norway Artibeus jamaicensis Brachyphylla cavemarum Molossus molossus (fortis) Noctilio leporinus Odocoileus virginianus Herpestes auropunctatus Mus musculus Rattus rattus R. norveqicus Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Birds Egret, Cattle Heron, Great Blue Pied-billed Grebe Audubon's Shearwater Storm-Petrel, Leach's White-tailed Tropicbird Brown Pelican Brown Booby Magnificent Frigatebird Heron, Green Heron, Little Blue Egret, Reddish Egret, Great (Common) Egret, Snowy Heron, Louisiana Night Heron, Black-crowned Yellow-crowned Night Heron American Bittern Glossy Ibis American Flamingo Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Fulvous Whistling-Duck Mallard Pintail Bahama Duck Green Winged (Common) Teal Blue-winged Teal American Wigeon Northern Shoveler Bubulcus ibis Butorides virescens Podilymhus podiceps P. Iherminieri Oceanodroma leucorhoa Phaethon lepturus P. occidentalis Sula leucogaster Fregata magnificens Butorides virescens Florida caerulea Dichromanassa rufescens Casmerodius (Egretta) Egretta (Leucophoyx) thula Hydranassa tricolor Nycticorax nyticorax Nyctanassa violacea Botaurus lentiginosus Plegadis falcinellus Phoenicopterus ruber Dendrocygna autumnalis D. bicolor Anas platyrhynchos A. acuta A. bahamensis A. crecca A. discors A. (Mareca) americana A. (Spatula) clypeata Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings 304174 Table B-2: Possible Fauna at the Virgin Island Chemical Site Common Name Lesser Scaup Ruddy Duck Masked Duck Hooded Merganser Red-tailed Hawk Marsh Hawk Osprey Peregrine Falcon Merlin (Pigeon Hawk) American Kestrel (Sparrow Hawk) Bob white Guinea-Fowl Clapper Rail Sora Common Gallinule American Coot Carribean Coot American Oystercatcher Semipalmated Plover Snowy Plover Wilson's Plover Killdeer American Golden Plover Black-bellied Plover Ruddy Turnstone Common (Wilson's) Snipe Whimbrel Upland Sandpiper Spotted Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Willet Knot Pectoral Sandpiper White-rumped Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Western Sandpiper Sanderling Short-billed Dowitcher Scientific Name A. affinis Oxyura jamaicensis 0. dominica Lophodytes (Mergus) cucullatus Buteo jamaicensis Circus cyaneus Pandion haliaetus Falco pereqrinus F. columbarius F. sparverius Colinus virginianus Numida meleagris Rallus longirostris Porzana Carolina Gallinula chloropus Fulica americana F. caribea Haematopus palliatus (ostralequs) Charadrius semipalmatus C. alexandrinus C. wilsonia C. vociferus Pluvialis dominica P. (Squatarola) squatarola Arenaria interpres Capella (Gallinago) gallinago Numenius phaeopus Bartramia longicauda Actitis macularia Tringa solitaria Tringa (Totanus) melanoleuca Tringa (Totanus) flavipes Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Calidris canutus C. (Erolia) melanotos C. (E.) fuscicollis C. (E.) minutilla C. (Ereunetes) pusilla C. (E.) mauri Calidris (Crocethia) alba Limnodromus griseus St. Croix Status Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Introduced Introduced Nesting (breeding) Sighted or captured Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or CAptured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured 3 0 4 1 7 5 Table B-2: Possible Fauna at the Virgin Island Chemical Site Common Name Stilt Sandpiper Marbled Godwit American Avocet Black-necked Stilt Herring Gull Laughing Gull Gull-billed Tern Common Tern 1 Roseate Tern 1 Sooty Tern Least Tern 1 Royal Tern 1 Sandwich Tern 1 Noddy Tern Gull-billed Tern 1 Common Tern 1 Roseate Tern Sooty Tern Least Tern Royal Tern 1 Sandwich Tern White-Crowned Pigeon 1 Scaly-naped Pigeon Rock Dove 1 White-winged Dove 1 Spotted Dove 1 Ground Dove Bridled Quail Dove 1 Canary-winged Parakeet 1 Hispaniolan Parrot Mangrove Cuckoo Yellow-billed Cuckoo 1 Smooth-billed Ani 1 Puerto Rican Screech Owl Chuck-will' s-widow Common Nighthawk Black Swift Green-throated Carib 1 Antillean Crested Hummingbird Scientific Name Micropalama himantopus Limosafedoa 1 Recurvirostra americana 1 Himantopus mexicanus Earns argentatus L. atricilla Gelochelidon milotica Sterna hirundo Sterna dougallii Sterna fuscata Sterna albifrons Sterna (Thalasseus) maxima Sterna (Thalasseus) sandvicensis Anous stolidus Gelochelidon nilotica Sterna hirundo Sterna dougallii Sterna fuscata Sterna albifrons S. (Thalasseus) maxima S. T. sandvicensis Columba leucocephala C. squamosa C livia Zenaida aurita Streptopelia chinensis Columhina (Columbigallina) passerina Geotrygon mystacea Brotogeris versicolorus Amazona ventralis Coccyzus minor Coccyzus americanus Crotophaga ani Otusnudipes Caprimulgus carolinensis Chrodeiles minor Cypseloides niger 1 Sericotes holosericeus Orthorhyncus cristatus St. Croix Status Sighted or Captured 1 Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) 1 Fewer than 16 sightings 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Nesting (breeding) 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Fewer than 16 sightings 1 Fewer than 16 sightings 1 Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) 1 Introduced 1 Fewer than 16 sightings Introduced 1 Nesting (breeding) 1 Nesting (breeding) Introduced 1 Introduced 1 Nesting (breeding) 1 Sighted or Captured 1 1 Nesting (breeding) 1 1 Sighted or Captured (Endemic) 1 Sighted or Captured 1 Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) 1 Nesting (breeding) 304176 Table B-2: Possible Fauna at the Virgin Island Chemical Site Common Name Belted Kingfisher Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Grray Kingbird Caribbean Elaenia Bam Swallow Cliff Swallow Cave Swallow Caribbean Martin Mockingbird Pearly-eyed Thrasher Black-whiskered Vireo Bananaquit Black-and-white Warbler Prothonotary Warbler Worm-eating Warbler Northern Parula Yellow Warbler Cape May Warbler Black-throated Blue Warbler Yellow-rumped (Myrtle) Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Yellow-throated Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Blackpoll Warbler Prairie Warbler Palm Warbler Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush Louisiana Waterthrush Common Yellowthroat Hooded Warbler Canada Warbler American Redstart Bobolink Scarlet Tanager Rose-breasted Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Black-faced Grassquit Scientific Name Megaceryle (Ceryle) alcyon Sphyrapicus varius Tyrannus dominicensis Elaenia martinica Hirundo rustica Petrochelidon pyrrhonota P.fulva Progne dominicensis (subis) Mimus polyglottos Margarops fuscatus Vireo altiloguus Coereba flaveola (bahamensis Mniotilta varia Protonotaria citrea Helmitheros vermivorus Parula americana Dendroica petechia Dendroica tigrina Dendroica caerulescens Dendroica coronata Dendroica virens Dendroica dominica Dendroica castanea Dendroica striata Dendroica discolor Dendroica palmarun Seiurus aurocapillus Seiurus noveboracensis Seiurus motacilla Geothlypis trichas Wilsonia citrina Wilsonia canadensis Setophaga ruticilla Dolichonyx oryzivorus Piranga olivacea Pheucticus ludovicianus Passerina cyanea Tiaris bicolor St. Croix Status Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Fewer than 16 sightings Sighted or Captured Nesting (breeding) Reptiles Red-footed tortoise Green Turtle Geochelone (testudo) carbonaria Chelonia mydas Introduced Nesting (breeding) 304177 Table B-2: Possible Fauna at the Virgin Island Chemical Site Common Name Hawksbill Leatherback Southem woodslave Griant woodslave Cotton ginner Common dwarf gecko St. Croix tree lizard Common iguana St. Croix ground lizard Common worm snake Scientific Name St. Croix Status Eretmochelys imbricata Dermochelys coriaeea Hemidactylus mabouia Thecadactylus rapicauda Sphaerodactylus beattyi Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Anolis acutus Iguana iguana Ameiva polops Typhlopidae richardi Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) Nesting (breeding) BOLD : Observed on-site or in gut system. Source: Annotated checklist of the Birds, Mammalss, Reptiles, and Amphibians of the Vu"gin Islands & Puerto Rico (Philibosian and Yntema, 1977) 3 0 4 1 7 8 APPENDIX C SCREENING EVALUATION TABLES 3 0 4 1 7 9 WHAR I\<5YS\nATAOP./-^-.U,^« r> £: ^ c n Table C-1: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-12 RG-13 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassiimi Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration 6210 0.49 0.48 47 0.02 0.12 23900 9.9 6.1 18.1 12500 4.7 2560 313 0.11 4.2 1010 0.61 0.15 293 0.54 53 39.1 1.2 14400 0.47 1.1 112 0.02 0.86 57400 21.6 11.9 43.8 23100 22.2 6600 560 0.11 11.5 3020 1.6 0.14 561 0.51 70.2 174 1.2 Qualifier U BJ B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J u u BJ U B J J J J U J J U B U J u Phytotoxicity Benchmark' 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 .NA 1 2 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA Hazard Quotient 124.20 — 0.05 0.09 ~ 0.04 — 9.90 0.31 0.18 - 0.09 - 0.63 - 0.14 — — - — - 26.50 0.78 — 288.00 — 0.11 0.22 — 0.29 - 21.60 0.60 0.44 — 0.44 ~ 1.12 - 0.38 - 1.60 ~ - - 35.10 3.48 - 3 0 4 1 8 6 . VT O Tt/~1^U,, Table C-1: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-14 RG-15 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Bariimi Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmiimi Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration 7220 0.83 1.5 36.5 0.04 0.04 97500 39 4.9 10.2 9160 3.4 3190 222 0.18 17 706 1 0.25 215 0.92 28.6 21.8 2 3500 0.46 0.3 23.1 0.02 0.02 800000 4.7 2.2 11.8 4330 1.6 1600 173 0.11 1.3 665 0.57 0.14 255 0.51 15 13.6 1.1 Qualifier J U BJ BJ U U J J BJ BJ J J J J U J BJ U U BJ U J J U U U B U u BJ J J J J B B U U B U J u Phytotoxicity Benchmark' 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA Hazard Quotient 144.40 — 0.15 0.07 — — — 39.00 0.25 0.10 — 0.07 — 0.44 — 0.57 — - — ~ — 14.30 0.44 — 70.00 ~ ~ 0.05 — ~ — 4.70 0.11 0.12 - 0.03 — 0.35 0.37 0.04 - - - - - 7.50 0.27 - 3 0 4 1 8 7 Table C-1: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-16 Average in River Gut Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thalliimi Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration 5200 0.53 0.34 21.6 0.03 0.08 46400 5.9 3.1 19.9 5780 2.2 1660 196 0.12 4.2 803 0.66 0.16 492 0.58 17 25.9 1.3 10836.47 0.26 0.72 56.35 0.01 0.19 92588.24 14.65 9.52 29.69 18368.82 7.96 5571.18 481.29 0.16 8.71 1652.82 0.55 0.08 492.94 0.29 50.61 73.09 0.64 Qualifier U U B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U Phytotoxicity Benchmark' 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA Hazard Quotient 104.00 — — 0.04 — 0.03 — 5.90 0.16 0.20 — 0.04 ~ 0.39 - 0.14 — — — — — 8.50 0.52 — 216.73 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.06 - 14.65 0.48 0.30 - 0.16 - 0.96 0.52 0.29 - 0.55 0.04 — 0.29 25.30 1.46 - Concentrations and benchmarks are in mg/kg. Phytotoxicity Benchmarks (Efroymson et al., 1997) U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. — = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or benchmark not available. NA: Not available Average chemical concentration within the River Gut was calculated using 1/2 the detection limit if the chemical was not detected. Hazard quotients are presented even if chemical was not detected in all samples. U i O h i 00 CO Table C-2: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location BG-1 BG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesiimi Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calciimi Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Concentration (mg/kg) 15400 0.61 0.39 101 0.03 0.16 39800 19.7 11.4 49.3 20400 12.9 5380 534 0.14 11.7 3310 0.76 0.18 660 0.67 68.2 58.7 1.5 3990 0.43 0.43 63 0.02 0.02 19800 4.6 5.4 11.2 5300 2.4 1150 339 0.1 3.2 582 0.53 0.13 423 0.47 29.9 Qualifier U U u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U J u u BJ U U BJ J J J u B B U U B U Phytotoxicity Benchmark* (mg/kg) 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 Hazard Quotient 308.00 — 1 1 0.20 — 0.05 ~ 19.70 0.57 0.49 ~ 0.26 — 1.07 ~ 0.39 ~ — ~ ~ ~ 34.10 L17 -- 79.80 ~ 0.04 0.13 ~ — — 4.60 0.27 0.11 — 0.05 ~ 0.68 — 0.11 ~ ~ ~ — — 14.95 sedscreen.XLS.BGphyto Page 1 of2 304189 Table C-2: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location BG-2 Average in Bethlehem Gut Analyte Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration 13.1 1.1 9695 0.26 0.3125 82 0.0125 0.085 29800 12.15 8.4 30.25 12850 7.65 3265 436.5 0.06 7.45 1946 0.3225 0.0775 541.5 0.285 49.05 35.9 0.65 Qualifier J U Phytotoxicity Benchmark* 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA Hazard Quotient 0.26 — 193.90 0.05 0.03 0.16 0.00 0.03 ~ 12.15 0.42 0.30 — 0.15 ~ 0.87 0.20 0.25 — 0.32 0.04 ~ 0.29 24.53 0.72 - Concentrations and benchmarks are in mg/kg. " Phytotoxicity Benchmarks (Efroymson et al., 1997) U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or benchmark not available. NA: Not available Average chemical concentration within the River Gut was calculated using 1/2 the detection limit if the chemical was not detected. Hazard quotients are presented even if chemical was not detected in all samples. 304190 sedscreen.XLS.BGphyto Page 2 of2 Table C-3: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut- Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-1 FPG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Concentration (mg/kg) 10200 0.52 1.4 67.4 0.03 0.09 36600 13.9 8.2 33.1 14300 8.8 3680 267 0.13 7.7 2150 1.1 0.16 570 0.57 54.6 39.4 1.3 9750 0.51 2.8 70 0.03 0.2 25300 13.9 8.6 33.2 14800 5.7 3670 332 0.12 6.9 1940 0.63 0.15 887 0.56 56.5 Qualifier U BJ U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u u J u B BJ J J J U B J U u B U Phytotoxicity Benchmark* (mg/kg) 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 Hazard Quotient 204.00 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.03 ~ 13.90 0.41 0.33 — 0.18 — 0.53 — 0.26 ~ LIO — ~ — 27.30 0.79 ~ 195.00 ~ 0.28 0.14 — 0.07 — 13.90 0.43 0.33 ~ 0.11 — 0.66 ~ 0.23 ~ — — — ~ 28.25 sedscreen.XLS,FPGphyto Page 1 of2 304191 Table C-3: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Phytotoxicity Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut- Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-2 Average in Fairplain Gut Analyie Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration 34.2 1.2 9975 0.2575 2.1 68.7 0.015 0.145 30950 13.9 8.4 33.15 14550 7.25 3675 299.5 0.0625 7.3 2045 0.7075 0.0775 728.5 0.2825 55.55 36.8 0.625 Qualifier J U Phytotoxicity Benchmark* 50 NA 50 5 10 500 10 3 NA 1 20 100 NA 50 NA 500 0.3 30 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 50 NA Hazard Quotient 0.68 ~ 199.50 0.05 0.21 0.14 0.00 0.05 — 13.90 0.42 0.33 — 0.15 ~ 0.60 0.21 0.24 — 0.71 0.04 — 0.28 27.78 0.74 ~ Notes: Concentrations and benchmarks are in mg/kg. ^ Phytotoxicity Benchmarks (Efroymson et al., 1997) U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or benchmark not available. NA: Not available Average chemical concentration within the River Gut was calculated using 1/2 the detection limit if the chemical was not detected. Hazard quotients are presented even if chemical was not detected in all samples. sedscreen.XLS,FPGphyto Page 2 of2 304192 A Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Qoa^Rmpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site CO O it* H VD CO ll Location RG-2 RG-2D RG-3 1 Soil Concentration Analyte (mfi'lfK) 1 Aluminum 15500 1 Antimony 0.53 Arsenic 1.6 1 Barium 70.6 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.19 Calcium 24500 1 Chromium 16.1 Cobalt 14.8 Copper 40.5 Iron 26800 Lead 5.9 Magnesium 7650 Manganese 594 Mercury 0.13 Nickel 9.4 Potassium 2230 Selenium 0.68 Silver 0.16 Sodium 543 Thallium 0.58 Vanadium 69.2 Zinc 140 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 17700 Antimony 0.52 Arsenic 0.34 Barium 89 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.3 Calcium 28700 Chromium 19.4 Cobalt 16.8 Copper 54.4 Iron 30900 Lead 8.2 Magnesium 9070 Manganese 675 Mercury 0.13 Nickel 13.8 Potassium 3300 Selenium 0.65 Silver 0.16 Sodium 697 Thallium 0.57 Vanadium 81 Zinc 263 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 14900 Antimony 0.53 Arsenic 0.86 | Barium 53.8 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.31 Qualilier U BJ U BJ J J J J U B J B U B U J u u u u B U u u B u J u u BJ u B 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 1 0.15 0.01 Regression | Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 11.160 0.002 0.036 1.906 0.000 0.046 15435.000 0.119 0.053 2.916 19.296 0.362 1377.000 26.730 0.002 0.185 401.400 0.195 0.006 7.331 0.000 0.069 37.800 0.117 12.744 0.002 0.008 2.403 0.000 0.067 18081.000 0.143 0.060 3.917 22.248 0.504 1632.600 30.375 0.002 0.247 594.000 0.084 0.006 9.410 0.000 0.080 71.010 0.117 10.728 0.002 0.024 1.453 0.000 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 1 0.293 0.000 0.001 0.050 0.000 0.001 405.873 0.003 0.001 0.077 0.507 0.010 36.209 0.703 0.000 0.005 10.555 0.005 0.000 0.193 0.000 0.002 0.994 0.003 0.335 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.002 475.452 0.004 0.002 0.103 0.585 0.013 42.930 0.799 0.000 0.006 15.620 0.002 0.000 0.247 0.000 0.002 1.867 0.003 0.282 0.000 0.001 0.038 0.000 0.069 1 0.002 1 Soil 60.157 0.001 0.006 0.274 0.000 0.001 95.087 0.062 0.057 0.157 104.013 0.023 29.690 2.305 0.000 0.036 8.655 0.003 0.000 2.107 0.001 0.269 0.543 0.003 68.695 0.001 0.001 0.345 0.000 0.001 111.387 0.075 0.065 0.211 119.926 0.032 35.202 2.620 0.000 0.054 12.808 0.001 0.000 2.705 0.001 0.314 1.021 0.003 57.828 0.001 0.003 0.209 0.000 0.001 J Total 60.450 0.001 0.007 0.324 0.000 0.002 500.960 0.066 0.059 0.234 104.521 0.032 65.899 3.008 0.000 0.041 19.210 0.008 0.000 2.300 0.001 0.270 1.537 0.006 69.031 0.001 0.001 0.409 0.000 0.003 586.839 0.079 0.067 0.314 120.511 0.045 78.132 3.418 0.000 0.060 28.427 0.003 0.000 2.953 0.001 0.316 2.888 0.006 58.110 0.001 0.004 0.247 0.000 NOAEL Benchmark 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 1 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1 1.62 0.21 0.003 1 0.32 NOAEL 1 H Q 182.40 0.05 0.33 0.20 0.00 0.01 NA 0.06 0.04 0.05 NA 0.01 , NA 0.11 0.00 0.00 NA 0.12 0.00 NA 0.48 4.06 0.03 0.00 208.29 0.05 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.01 NA 0.08 0.04 0.07 NA 0.02 NA 0.12 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.47 4.75 0.06 0.00 175.34 0.05 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.01 II ECOSCREEN.XLS,goal-RG Page 1 of 9 o n B R n p Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the G o m R m p a r e d to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO O 1 ^ l-> y o ll Location RG-3 RG-4 RG-4D Soil Concentration [ Analyte (*"g/kg) 1 Calcium 393Q0 1 Chromium 14.8 Cobalt 13.8 Copper 38.8 Iron 27300 Lead 4.1 1 Magnesium 8600 1 Manganese 792 1 Mercury 0.13 Nickel 10.3 Potassium 1500 1 Selenium 0.66 Silver 0.16 Sodium 525 Thallium 0.58 Vanadiimi 59.6 Zinc 54.4 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 14400 Antimony 0.49 Arsenic 1.2 Barium 58.4 Beryllium 0.02 Cadmium 0.21 Calcium 51000 Chromium 12 Cobalt 12.8 Copper 33 Iron 22700 Lead 14.1 Magnesium 6920 Manganese 726 Mercury 0'.33 Nickel 9.8 Potassium 1310 Selenium 0.61 Silver 0.15 Sodium 639 Thallium 0.54 Vanadium 49.2 Zinc 50.8 Cyanide 1.2 Aluminum 9210 | Antimony 0.53 Arsenic 0.34 j Barium 36.3 1 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.11 1 Calcium 30700 Chromium 8 | Cobalt 8 1 I Qualifier J J J J U B J U U B U J u u BJ U B J J J J J J U u B U J u u u B u B BJ 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 .. 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 1 0.15 0.01 Regression 1 3.5 0.041 0.02 1 1 Plant Concentration ("iR/kR) 24759,000 0.109 0.050 2.794 19.656 0.252 1548.000 35.640 0.002 0.198 270.000 0.086 0.006 7.088 0.000 0.059 14.688 0.117 10.368 0.002 0.030 1.577 0.000 0.050 32130.000 0.089 0.046 2.376 16.344 0.866 1245.600 32.670 0.008 0.191 235.800 0.078 0.005 8.627 0.000 0.049 13.716 0.108 6.631 0.002 0.008 0.980 0.000 0.029 19341.000 0.059 0.029 1 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 651.054 0.003 0.001 0.073 0.517 0.007 40.706 0.937 0.000 0.005 7.100 0.002 0.000 0.186 0.000 0.002 0.386 0.003 0.273 0.000 0.001 0.041 0.000 0.001 844.879 0.002 0.001 0.062 0.430 0.023 32.754 0.859 0.000 0.005 6.201 0.002 . 0.000 0.227 0.000 0.001 0.361 0.003 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.001 508.584 0.002 0.001 1 Soil 1 152.527 0.057 0.054 0.151 105.954 0.016 33.377 3.074 0.000 0.040 5.822 0.001 0.000 2.038 0.001 0.231 0.211 0.003 55.888 O.OOI 0.005 0.227 0.000 0.001 197.936 0.047 0.050 0.128 88.101 0.055 26.857 2.818 0.001 0.038 5.084 0.001 0.000 2.480 0.001 0.191 0.197 0.002 35.745 0.001 0.001 0.141 0.000 0.000 119.150 0.031 0.031 1 Total 803.581 0.060 0.055 0.224 106.471 0.023 74.083 4.011 0.000 0.045 12.921 0.004 0.000 2.224 0.001 0.233 0.597 0.006 56.160 O.OOI 0.005 0.268 0.000 0.002 1042.815 0.049 0.051 0.191 88.531 0.078 59.611 3.677 0.002 0.043 11.285 0.003 0.000 2.707 O.OOI 0.192 0.558 0.005 35.919 O.OOI 0.001 0.167 0.000 0.001 627.734 0.033 0.032 1 NOAEL Benchmark NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 1 NOAEL 1 HQ NA 0.06 0.03 0.05 NA 0.01 NA 0.14 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 NA 0.48 3.49 0.01 0.00 169.45 0.05 0.25 0.17 0.00 O.OI NA 0.05 0.03 0.04 NA 0.03 NA 0.13 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.45 2.88 O.OI 0.00 108.38 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 NA 0.03 0.02 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-R.G Page 2 of 9 ioa^^Om Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the GoiWompared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO O i t . l-» y o cn 11 Location RG-4D RG-5 RG-6 Soil Concentration Anal\te (mg/kg) Copper 19.6 Iron 14500 Lead 3.1 Magnesium 4700 Manganese 445 Mercury 0.19 Nickel 6.1 t Potassium 754 Selenium 1 Silver 0.16 Sodium 509 Thallium 0.58 Vanadium 32.7 Zinc 42.6 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 11200 Antimony 0.47 Arsenic 0.91 Barium 43.5 Beryllium 0.02 Cadmium 0.15 Calcium 81100 Chromium 14.6 Cobalt 10.3 Copper 32.9 Iron 22300 Lead 26.1 Magnesium 7630 Manganese 598 Mercury 0.13 Nickel 9.6 Potassium 1290 Selenium 0.98 Silver 0.14 Sodium 580 Thallium 0.52 Vanadium 48.1 Zinc 67.8 Cyanide 1.2 Aluminum 10500 Antimony 0.46 Arsenic 0.36 Barium 43.5 Beryllium 0.02 Cadmium 0.13 Calcium 57000 Chromium 14.4 | Cobalt 9.5 Copper 29.6 Iron 19800 Lead 11.4 Qualifier J J J J B B B U B U J U u BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J B U B U J u u BJ B U B BJ J J 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 1.411 10.440 0.190 846.000 20.025 0.005 0.133 135.720 0.302 0.006 6.872 0.000 0.032 11.502 0.117 8.064 0.002 0.025 1.175 0.000 0.037 51093.000 0.108 0.037 2.369 16.056 1.603 1373.400 26.910 0.003 0.188 232.200 0.295 0.005 7.830 0.000 0.048 18.306 0.108 7.560 0.002 0.013 1.175 0.000 0.033 35910.000 0.106 0.034 2.131 14.256 0.700 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.037 0.275 0.005 22.246 0.527 0.000 0.004 3.569 0.008 0.000 0.181 0.000 0.001 0.302 0.003 0.212 0.000 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.001 1343.524 0.003 O.OOI 0.062 0.422 0.042 36.114 0.708 0.000 0.005 6.106 0.008 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.001 0.481 0.003 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 O.OOI 944.277 0.003 0.001 0.056 0.375 0.018 Soil 0.076 56.276 0.012 18.241 1.727 0.001 0.024 2.926 0.004 0.000 1.975 0.001 0.127 0.165 0.003 43.468 0.001 0.004 0.169 0.000 0.001 314.757 0.057 0.040 0.128 86.548 0.101 29.613 2.321 O.OOI 0.037 5.007 0.004 0.000 2.251 O.OOI 0.187 0.263 0.002 40.752 0.001 0.001 0.169 0.000 0.001 221.222 0.056 0.037 0.115 76.846 0.044 J Total 0.113 56.550 0.017 40.487 2.254 0.001 0.027 6.495 0.012 0.000 2.156 0.001 0.128 0.468 0.006 43.680 0.001 0.004 0.200 0.000 0.002 1658.281 0.059 0.041 0.190 86.971 0.143 65.727 3.029 0.001 0.042 11.112 0.012 0.000 2.457 0.001 0.188 0.745 0.005 40.950 O.OOI 0.002 0.200 0.000 0.001 1165.499 0.059 0.038 0.171 77.221 0.063 NOAEL Benchmark 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NOAEL 1 HO 0.02 1 NA O.OI NA 0.08 0.00 0.00 NA 0.19 0.00 NA 0.48 1.92 0.01 0.00 131.80 0.04 0.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.03 0.04 NA 0.06 NA 0.11 0.00 0.00 NA 0.18 0.00 NA 0.43 2.82 0.01 0.00 123.56 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.02 0.04 NA 0.02 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-RG Page 3 of 9 Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the GoaNBIfipared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o VD II Location RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 1 Soil Concentration .Analyte (mfi^kg) Magnesium 6700 1 Manganese 513 Mercury 0.22 Nickel 10.6 Potassium 1250 Selenium 0.57 Silver 0.14 Sodium 474 Thallium 0.51 1 Vanadium 51.4 Zinc 45.9 Cyanide 1.1 Aluminum 11500 Anlimony 0.53 Arsenic 0.92 Barium 68 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.19 Calcium 42900 chromium 13.6 Cobalt 11 Copper 34.1 h-on 21100 Lead 5.9 Magnesium 6040 Manganese 531 Mercury 0.11 Nickel 8.2 Potassium 1750 Selenium 0.66 Silver 0.16 Sodium 479 Thallium 0.58 Vanadium 63.8 Zinc 43.4 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 10200 Antimony 0.48 Arsenic 0.31 Barium 53 Beryllium 0.02 Cadmium 0.03 Calcium 48700 Chromium 10.8 Cobalt 8.1 Copper 25.1 1 Iron 15800 Lead 4.5 Magnesium 5320 1 Manganese 408 1 Mercury 0.19 Qualifier 1 1 J J J U U B U J u u • BJ u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U J u u u u B BJ J J J J Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 1 0.25 0.143 Regression I 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 1206.000 1 23.0«5 0.006 0.202 225.000 0.073 0.005 6.399 0.000 0.051 12.393 0.099 [ 8.280 0.002 0.025 1.836 0.000 . 0.046 27027.000 O.IOO 0.040 2.455 15.192 0.362 1087.200 23.895 0.001 0.167 315.000 0.086 0.006 6.467 0.000 0.063 11.718 0.II7 7.344 0.002 0.008 1.431 0.000 O.OIO 30681.000 0.080 0.029 1.807 11.376 0.276 957.600 18.360 0.005 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 31.713 0.607 0.000 0.005 5.917 0.002 0.000 0.168 0.000 0.001 0.326 0.003 0.218 0.000 0.001 0.048 0.000 0.001 710.693 0.003 0.001 0.065 0.399 0.010 28.589 0.628 0.000 0.004 8.283 0.002 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.002 0.308 0.003 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.000 0.000 806.777 0.002 0.001 0.048 0.299 0.007 25.181 0.483 0.000 1 Soil 26.003 1 1.991 0.001 0.041 4.851 0.001 0.000 1.840 0.001 0.199 0.178 0.002 44.633 0.001 0.004 0.264 0.000 O.OOI 166.499 0.053 0.043 0.132 81.891 0.023 23.442 2.061 0.000 0.032 6.792 0.001 0.000 1.859 0.001 0.248 0.168 0.003 39.587 0.001 0.001 0.206 0.000 0.000 189.009 0.042 0.031 0.097 61.321 0.017 20.647 1.583 O.OOI Total 57.716 I 2.59% O.OOI 0.046 10.768 0.003 0.000 2.008 O.OOI 0.201 0.504 0.005 44.850 0.001 0.004 0.312 0.000 0.002 877.192 0.055 0.044 0.197 82.291 0.032 52.030 2.689 0.000 0.036 15.075 0.004 0.000 2.029 0.001 0.249 0.477 0.006 39.780 0.001 O.OOI 0.243 0.000 0.000 995.786 0.044 0.032 0.145 61.620 0.025 45.828 2.066 0.001 NOAEL Benchmark NA [ 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 1 NOAEL 1 HQ NA 1 0.09 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.42 3.01 O.OI 0.00 135.33 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.00 0.01 NA 0.05 0.03 0.04 NA 0.01 NA O.IO 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 NA 0.48 3.74 O.OI 0.00 120.03 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.00 NA 0.04 0.02 0.03 NA 0.01 NA 0.07 0.00 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-RO Page 4 of 9 Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Gual^PRpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o H VD 1 Location RG-8 RG-9 RG-10 1 Soil Concentration 1 AnaMe (mg/kg) Nickel 6.5 Potassium 1910 1 Selenium 0.6 Silver 0.14 Sodium 522 Thallium 0.52 1 Vanadium 44.8 Zinc 34.9 Cyanide 1.2 Aluminum 15400 1 Antimony 0.56 1 Arsenic 1.1 Barium 98.5 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.32 Calcium 56200 Chromium 20.2 Cobah 14.4 Copper 47.2 Iron 27500 Lead . 6.3 Magnesium 8270 Manganese 708 Mercury 0.34 Nickel 12.4 Potassium 3540 Selenium 0.69 Silver 0.17 Sodium 668 Thallium 0.61 Vanadium 85.9 Zinc 155 Cyanide 1.4 Aluminum 9500 Antimony 0.52 Arsenic 1 Barium 52.6 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.11 Calcium 56700 Chromium 13.9 Cobalt 7.4 Copper 23.7 Iron • 16000 Lead 8.2 Magnesium 4610 1 Manganese 431 1 Mercury 0.25 1 Nickel 7.6 Potassium 1650 1 Selenium 1.1 1 1 Qualifier B J U u B U J u u BJ U B J J J J J J J U U B U J u u BJ u B BJ J J J J B J B 1 Soil-Plant 1 Uptake Factor* Regression I Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 1 Regression | 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.140 343.800 0.077 0.005 7.047 0.000 0.044 9.423 0.108 11.088 0.002 0.028 2.660 0.000 0.071 35406.000 0.149 0.052 3.398 19.800 0.387 1488.600 31.860 0.009 0.228 637.200 0.090 0.006 9.018 0.000 0.085 41.850 0.126 6.840 0.002 0.027 1.420 0.000 0.029 35721.000 0.103 0.027 1.706 11.520 0.504 829.800 19.395 0.006 0.157 297.000 0.337 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 0.004 9.040 0.002 0.000 0.185 0.000 O.OOI 0.248 0.003 0.292 0.000 0.001 0.070 0.000 0.002 931.024 0.004 O.OOI 0.089 0.521 0.010 39.144 0.838 0.000 0.006 16.756 0.002 0.000 0.237 0.000 0.002 1.100 0.003 0.180 0.000 0.001 0.037 0.000 0.001 939.307 0.003 O.OOI 0.045 0.303 0.013. 21.820 0.510 0.000 0.004 7.810 0.009 1 Soil 0.025 7.413 0.001 0.000 2.026 0.001 0.174 0.135 0.002 59.769 0.001 0.004 0.382 0.000 0.001 218.118 0.078 0.056 0.183 106.730 0.024 32.097 2.748 0.001 0.048 13.739 0.001 0.000 2.593 O.OOI 0.333 0.602 0.003 36.870 0.001 0.004 0.204 0.000 0.000 220.058 0.054 0.029 0.092 62.098 0.032 17.892 1.673 0.001 0.029 6.404 0.004 sissTirtiilss: 0.029 16.453 0.003 0.000 2.211 O.OOI 0.175 0.383 0.005 60.060 0.001 0.005 0.452 0.000 0.003 1149.141 0.082 0.057 0.273 107.251 0.035 71.240 3.586 0.002 0.054 30.495 0.004 0.000 2.830 0.001 0.336 1.702 0.006 37.050 0.001 0.005 0.241 0.000 0.001 1159.365 0.057 0.029 0.137 62.400 0.045 39.712 2.183 O.OOI 0.034 14.214 0.013 NOAEL 1 Benchmark 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 1 NOAEL HQ 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.43 2.63 0.01 0.00 181.22 0.05 0.23 0.28 0.00 0.01 NA 0.08 0.04 0.06 NA O.OI NA 0.13 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 NA 0.51 5.04 0.03 0.00 U1.79 0.05 0.21 0.15 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.02 0.03 NA 0.02 NA ! 0.08 0.00 0.00 NA 0.21 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-RG Page 5 of 9 o^^Wtni Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goa^Wmpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o l - > V O 00 1 Location RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 1 Analvte Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.16 599 0.57 46.3 44 1.3 7680 0.49 0.38 50.6 0.02 0.05 32000 10.1 6.7 22 12700 3.4 3590 297 0.39 5.6 1410 0.62 0.15 329 0.54 44.5 26.4 1.2 6210 0.49 0.48 47 0.02 0.12 23900 9.9 6.1 18.1 12500 4.7 2560 313 O.Il 4.2 1010 0.61 0.15 293 0.54 Qualifier u B U J u u BJ U B BJ J J J J B J U U B U J u u BJ B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression j 0.4 0.075 0.0055 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.006 8.087 0.000 0.046 11.880 0.117 5.530 0.002 0.014 1.366 0.000 0.015 20160.000 0.075 0.024 1.584 9.144 0.209 646.200 13.365 0.010 0.125 253.800 0.080 0.005 4.442 0.000 0.044 7.128 0.108 4.471 0.002 0.016 1.269 0.000 0.031 15057.000 0.073 0.022 1.303 9.000 0.289 460.800 14.085 0.001 O.IOI 181.800 0.078 0.005 3.956 0.000 1 Exposure Estimate ( Fond 0.000 0.213 0.000 0.001 0.312 0.003 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 530.120 0.002 0.001 0.042 0.240 0.005 16.992 0.351 0.000 0.003 6.674 0.002 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.001 0.187 0.003 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 O.OOI 395.934 0.002 O.OOI 0.034 0.237 0.008 12.117 0.370 0.000 0.003 4.781 0.002 0.000 0.104 0.000 1 Soil 0.000 2.325 0.001 0.180 0.171 0.003 29.807 O.OOI 0.001 0.196 0.000 0.000 124.195 0.039 0.026 0.085 49.290 0.013 13.933 1.153 0.002 0.022 5.472 O.OOI 0.000 1.277 0.001 0.173 0.102 0.002 24.102 0.001 0.002 0.182 0.000 0.000 92.758 0.038 0.024 0.070 48.514 0.018 9.936 1.215 0.000 0.016 3.920 0.001 0.000 1.137 0.001 1 mg/Ug/d) Total 0.000 2.537 0.001 0.181 0.483 0.006 29.952 O.OOI 0.002 0.232 0.000 O.OOI 654.315 0.041 0.027 0.127 49.530 0.019 30.925 1.504 0.002 0.025 12.146 0.003 0.000 1.394 0.001 0.174 0.290 0.005 24.219 O.OOI 0.002 0.216 0.000 0.001 488.692 0.040 0.024 0.105 48.750 0.026 22.053 1.585 0.000 0.019 8.700 0.003 0.000 1.241 0.001 NOAEL Benchmark 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 1 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 1 NOAEL HO 0.00 NA 0.47 2.71 0.01 0.00 90.37 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 NA 0.04 0.02 0.03 NA O.OI NA 0.05 0.00 " 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.45 2.61 0.01 0.00 73.08 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.00 NA 0.04 0.02 0.02 NA O.OI NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.45 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS.goat-RG Page 6 of 9 Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goa^^Pfpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site a^^P^a t o O »l^ M VD VD II Location RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 Analvie 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc Cyanide j Aluminum 1 Antimony Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Aisenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 53 39.1 1.2 14400 0.47 1.1 112 0.02 0.86 57400 21.6 11.9 43.8 23100 22.2 6600 560 0.11 11.5 3020 1.6 0.14 561 0.51 70.2 174 1.2 7220 0.83 1.5 36.5 0.04 0.04 97500 39 4.9 10.2 9160 3.4 3190 222 0.18 17 706 I 0.25 215 0.92 28.6 21.8 2 1 Qualifier J U U BJ U B U U B U J u J u BJ BJ U u J J BJ BJ J J J J u J BJ u u BJ u J J u 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 1 Regression 0.15 0.01 ! Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 ^ 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 1 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.052 10.557 0.108 10.368 0.002 ; 0.028 3.024 0.000 0.165 36162.000 0.159 0.043 3.154 16.632 1.364 1188.000 25.200 0.001 0.215 543.600 0.515 0.005 7.574 0.000 0.069 46.980 0.108 5.198 0.003 0.035 0.986 0.000 0.007 61425.000 0.288 0.018 0.734 6.595 0.209 574.200 9.990 0.002 0.289 127.080 0.137 0.009 2.903 0.000 0.028 5.886 0.180 J Exposure Estimate ( Food 0.001 0.278 0.003 0.273 0.000 0.001 0.080 0.000 0.004 950.903 0.004 0.001 0.083 0.437 0.036 31.239 0.663 0.000 0.006 14.294 0.014 0.000 0.199 0.000 0.002 1.235 0.003 0.137 0.000 0.001 0.026 0.000 0.000 1615.210 0.008 0.000 0.019 0.173 0.005 15.099 0.263 0.000 0.008 3.342 0.004 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.001 0.155 0.005 1 Soil 0.206 0.152 0.002 55.888 O.OOI 0.004 0.435 0.000 0.003 222.775 0.084 0.046 0.170 89.653 0.086 25.615 2.173 0.000 0.045 11.721 0.006 0.000 2.177 O.OOI 0.272 0.675 0.002 28.022 0.002 0.006 0.142 0.000 0.000 378.407 0.151 0.019 0.040 35.551 0.013 12.381 0.862 0.000 0.066 2.740 0.002 0.000 0.834 0.002 0.111 0.085 0.004 mg/kg/d) Total 0.207 0.429 0.005 56.160 O.OOI 0.005 0.514 0.000 0.008 1173.678 0.088 0.047 0.253 90.091 0.122 56.854 2.836 0.000 0.050 26.015 0.020 0.000 2.376 0.001 0.274 1.9II 0.005 28.158 0.002 0.007 0.168 0.000 0.000 1993.617 0.159 0.019 0.059 35.724 0.019 27.480 1.124 0.000 0.074 6.082 0.006 O.OOI 0.911 0.002 0.112 0.239 0.009 NOAEL I Benchmark 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA . 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 1 NOAEL 1 HQ 3.11 0.01 0.00 169.45 0.04 0.23 0.32 0.00 0.02 NA 0.08 0.03 0.05 NA 0.05 NA O.IO 0.00 0.00 NA 0.31 0.00 NA 0.42 4.12 0.04 0.00 84.96 0.08 0.31 O.IO 0.00 0.00 NA 0.15 0.01 0.01 NA 0.01 NA 0.04 0.00 0.01 NA 0.09 0.00 NA 0.77 1.68 0.00 0.00 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS.goat-RG Page 7 of 9 os^^&rni Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goa^Rmpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut • Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui O to o o ll Location RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL on mean in [ River Gu | Soil Concentration AnaK-te (mg/kg) Aluminum 3500 Antimony 0.46 1 Arsenic 0.3 Barium 23.1 Beryllium 0.02 Cadmium 0.02 Calcium 800000 Chromium 4.7 Cobalt 2.2 Copper 11.8 Iron 4330 Lead 1.6 Magnesium 1600 Manganese 173 Mercury 0.11 Nickel 1.3 Potassium 665 Selenium 0.57 Silver 0.14 Sodium 255 Thallium 0.51 Vanadium 15 Zinc 13.6 Cyanide 1.1 Aluminum 5200 Antimony 0.53 Arsenic 0.34 Barium 21.6 Beryllium 0.03 Cadmium 0.08 Calcium 46400 Chromium 5.9 Cobalt 3.1 Copper 19.9 h-on 5780 Lead 2.2 Magnesium 1660 Manganese 196 Mercury 0.12 1 Nickel 4.2 Potassium 803 Selenium 0.66 1 Silver 0.16 Sodium 492 Thallium 0.58 Vanadium 17 | Zinc 25.9 Cyanide 1.3 Aluminum 12778.90 Antimony 0.28 Arsenic 0.95 | Qualifier U U B U U BJ J J J J B B U U B U J u u u B u B BJ J J J u B B U u B U J u 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 1 Regression 0.15 0.01 j Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression | 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kS) 2.520 0.002 0.007 0.624 0.000 0.004 504000.000 0.035 0.008 0.850 3.118 0.098 288.000 7.785 0.003 0.042 119.700 0.073 0.005 3.443 0.000 0.015 3.672 0.099 3.744 0.002 0.008 0.583 0.000 0.022 29232.000 0.044 0.011 1.433 4.162 0.135 298.800 8.820 0.002 0.101 144.540 0.086 0.006 6.642 0.000 0.017 6.993 0.117 9.201 0.002 0.026 1 r Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 13253.009 O.OOI 0.000 0.022 0.082 0.003 7.573 0.205 0.000 0.001 3.148 0.002 0.000 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.003 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 O.OOI 768.675 O.OOI 0.000 0.038 0.109 0.004 7.857 0.232 0.000 0.003 3.801 0.002 0.000 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.003 0.242 0.000 0.001 1 Soil 13.584 O.OOI O.OOI 0.090 0.000 0.000 3104.877 0.018 0.009 0.046 16.805 0.006 6.210 0.671 0.000 0.005 2.581 0.001 0.000 0.990 0.001 0.058 0.053 0.002 20.182 0.001 0.001 0.084 0.000 0.000 180.083 0.023 0.012 0.077 22.433 0.009 6.443 0.761 0.000 0.016 3.117 O.OOI 0.000 1.909 O.OOI 0.066 0.101 0.003 49.596 0.001 0.004 Total 13.650 0.001 0.001 0.106 0.000 0.000 16357.885 0.019 0.009 0.068 16.887 0.009 13.783 0.876 O.OOI 0.006 5.729 0.003 0.000 1.080 0.001 0.059 0.149 0.005 20.280 O.OOI O.OOI 0.099 0.000 0.001 948.757 0.024 0.012 0.115 22.542 0.012 14.300 0.993 0.000 0.019 6.917 0.004 0.000 2.084 0.001 0.066 0.284 0.006 49.838 O.OOI 0.004 ] 1 NOAEL 1 Benchmark 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83- NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1 ', • L s — L NOAEL 1 HQ 41.19 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.00 NA 0.02 0.01 0.01 NA 0.00 NA 0.03 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.42 0.88 0.00 0.00 61.19 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.02 0.01 0.02 NA 0.00 NA 0.04 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 NA 0.48 1.00 0.01 0.00 150.38 0.05 0.20 II ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-RG Page 8 of 9 Table C-4: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the GoaWPdpared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o ro o Location 95% UCL on mean in River Gut Analyte Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 68.16 0.01 0.28 179734.49 18.37 11.53 35.64 22110.85 11.25 6717.89 573.08 0.21 10.56 2079.02 0.73 0.09 560.48 0.31 60.16 105.62 0.69 Qualifier Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 1.840 0.000 0.064 113232.726 0.136 0.042 2.566 15.920 0.691 1209.220 25.789 0.005 0.202 374.224 0.212 0.006 7.566 0.000 0.060 28.517 0.124 Exposur Food 0.048 0.000 0.002 2977.528 0.004 0.001 0.067 0.419 0.018 31.797 0.678 0.000 0.005 9.840 0.006 0.000 0.199 0.000 0.002 0.750 0.003 e Estimate ( Soil 0.265 0.000 O.OOI 697.567 0.071 0.045 0.138 85.814 0.044 26.073 2.224 O.OOI 0.041 8.069 0.003 0.000 2.175 0.001 0.233 0.410 0.003 mg/kg/d) Total 0.313 0.000 0.003 3675.095 0.075 0.046 0.206 86.233 0.062 57.870 2.902 0.001 0.046 17.909 0.008 0.000 2.374 0.001 0.235 1.160 0.006 NOAEL Benchmark 1.62 0.21 0.32 . NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 NOAEL HQ 0.19 0.00 0.01 NA 0.07 0.03 0.04 NA 0.02 NA O.IO 0.00 0.00 NA 0.13 0.00 NA 0.51 3.53 0.02 0.00 Notes: * NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Section 4.2) Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al, 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and seleniimi (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(hi[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04+0.849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(hi[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+1.136(hi[soil]) Plants were assumed to contain 82% moisture content (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit was used for exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (18%) measured in the River Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-RG • Page 9 of 9 Table C-5: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location BG-1 BG-2 1., . 1 Analvte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium | Calcium | Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 15400 0.61 0.39 101 0.03 0.16 39800 19.7 11.4 49.3 20400 12.9 5380 534 0.14 11.7 3310 0.76 0.18 660 0.67 68.2 58.7 1.5 3990 0.43 0.43 63 0.02 0.02 19800 1 Qualifier U u u B , BJ J J J U B J U U B U J U u BJ U u Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 1 3.5 1 Plant Concentration (ms/kg) 11.088 0.002 0.009 2.727 0.000 0.040 25074.000 0.145 0.041 3.550 14.688 0.792 968.400 24.030 0.002 0.218 595.800 0.101 0.006 8.910 0.000 0.068 15.849 0.135 2.873 0.002 0.015 1.701 0.000 0.004 12474.000 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.292 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.001 659.337 0.004 0.001 0.093 0.386 0.021 25.465 0.632 0.000 0.006 15.667 0.003 0.000 0.234 0.000 0.002 0.417 0.004 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 328.OI2J Soil 58.311 0.001 0.001 0.382 0.000 0.001 150.700 0.075 0.043 0.187 77.243 0.049 20.371 2.022 0.000 0.044 12.533 0.001 0.000 2.499 0.001 0.258 0.222 0.003 15.108 0.001 0.002 0.239 0.000 0.000 74.971 J Total 58.603 0.001 0.001 0.454 0.000 0.002 810.037 0.078 0.044 0.280 77.630 0.070 45.836 2.654 0.000 0.050 28.200 0.004 0.001 2.733 0.001 0.260 0.639 0.006 15.183 0.001 0.002 0.283 0.000 0.000 402.983 NOAEL Benchmark 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA J NOAEL 1 HQ 176.82 0.06 0.04 0.28 0.00 0.01 NA 0.08 0.03 0.06 NA 0.03 NA 0.10 0.00 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 NA 0.54 3.90 0.01 0.00 45.81 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.00 NA 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-BG sosi'Oe Page 1 of 3 Table C-5: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location BG-2 II Average in Bethlehem Gut 1 1 Analyte Chromium Cobalt 1 Copper 1 Iron 1 Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper 1 Iron 1 Lead Magnesium 1 Manganese J Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 4.6 5.4 11.2 5300 2.4 1150 339 0.1 3.2 582 0.53 0.13 423 0.47 29.9 13.1 1.1 9695 0.26 0.3125 82 0.0125 0.085 29800 12.15 8.4 30.25 12850 7.65 3265 436.5 Qualifier BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 iPlant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.034 0.019 0.806 3.816 0.147 207.000 15.255 0.001 0.082 104.760 0.067 0.005 5.711 0.000 0.030 3.537 0.099 6.980 0.002 0.012 2.214 0.000 0.023 18774.000 0.090 0.030 2.178 9.252 - 0.470 587.700 19.643 _J 1 Exposure Estimate ( Food 0.001 0.001 0.021 0.100 0.004 5.443 0.401 0.000 0.002 2.755 0.002 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.001 0.093 0.003 0.184 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.000 0.001 493.675 0.002 0.001 0.057 0.243 0.012 15.454 0.517 1 Soil 0.017 0.020 0.042 20.068 0.009 4.354 1.284 0.000 0.012 2.204 0.001 0.000 1.602 0.001 0.113 0.050 0.002 36.709 0.001 0.001 0.310 0.000 0.000 112.836 0.046 0.032 0.115 48.656 0.029 12.363 1.653 J mg/kg/d) Total 0.018 0.021 0.064 20.168 0.013 9.798 1.685 0.000 0.014 4.958 0.003 0.000 1.752 0.001 0.114 0.143 0.005 36.893 0.001 0.002 0.369 0.000 0.001 606.510 0.048 0.033 0.172 48.899 0.041 27.817 2.169 1 NOAEL Benchmark 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 NOAEL 1 HQ 0.02 0.01 0.01 NA 0.01 NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.04 0.00 NA 0.38 1.71 0.00 0.00 111.32 0.05 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.02 0.04 NA 0.02 NA 0.08 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-BG eos^oc Page 2 of 3 Table C-5: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 1 Average in Bethlehem Gut Analyte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.06 7.45 1946 0.3225 0.0775 541.5 0.285 49.05 35.9 0.65 Qualifier Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.002 0.155 350.280 0.084 0.006 7.310 0.000 0.049 9.693 0.117 Exposure Estimate ( Food 0.000 0.004 9.211 0.002 0.000 0.192 0.000 0.001 0.255 0.003 Soil 0.000 0.028 7.368 0.001 0.000 2.050 0.001 0.186 0.136 0.002 mg/kg/d) Total 0.000 0.032 16.579 0.003 0.000 2.243 0.001 0.187 0.391 0.006 NOAEL Benchmark 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 NOAEL HQ 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.46 2.81 0.01 0.00 1 Notes: ° NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Section 4.2) * Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al, 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium (Sample et al, 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04-H).849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(ln[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+l. 136(ln[soil]) Plants were assumed to contain 82% moisture content (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 the detection limit was used for the exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (20%) measured in the Bethlehem Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. ^03^oe ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-BG Page 3 of 3 Table C-6: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-1 FPG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium j Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 10200 0.52 1.4 67.4 0.03 0.09 36600 13.9 8.2 33.1 14300 8.8 3680 267 0.13 7.7 2150 1.1 0.16 570 0.57 54.6 39.4 1.3 9750 0.51 2.8 70 0.03 0.2 25300 Qualifier U BJ U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u u J u B Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 7.344 0.002 0.033 1.820 0.000 0.024 23058.000 0.103 0.030 2.383 10.296 0.541 662.400 12.015 0.002 0.159 387.000 0.337 0.006 7.695 0.000 0.054 10.638 0.117 7.020 0.002 0.053 1.890 0.000 0.048 15939.000 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.193 0.000 0.001 0.048 0.000 0.001 606.325 0.003 0.001 0.063 0.271 0.014 17.418 0.316 0.000 0.004 10.176 0.009 0.000 0.202 0.000 0.001 0.280 0.003 0.185 0.000 0.001 0.050 0.000 0.001 419.126 Soil 36.208 0.001 0.005 0.239 0.000 0.000 129.922 0.049 0.029 0.117 50.762 0.031 13.063 0.948 0.000 0.027 7.632 0.004 0.000 2.023 0.001 0.194 0.140 0.002 34.610 0.001 0.010 0.248 0.000 0.001 89.810 Total 36.401 0.001 0.006 0.287 0.000 0.001 736.247 0.052 0.030 0.180 51.033 0.045 30.481 1.264 0.000 0.032 17.808 0.013 0.000 2.226 0.001 0.195 0.420 0.005 34.795 0.001 0.011 0.298 0.000 0.002 508.936 NOAEL Benchmark 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NOAEL 1 HQ 109.83 0.05 0.27 0.18 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.02 0.04 NA 0.02 NA 0.05 0.00 0.00 NA 0.20 0.00 NA 0.43 2.93 0.01 0.00 104.99 0.04 0.52 0.18 0.00 0.01 1 NA 1 NA || ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-FG soz^oe ge 1 of 3 Table C-6: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site 1 Location FPG-2 1 Average 1 in Fairplain Gut Analyte Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead j Magnesium ManganeseJ Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 13.9 8.6 33.2 - 14800 5.7 3670 332 0.12 6.9 1940 0.63 0.15 887 0.56 56.5 34.2 1.2 9975 0.2575 2.1 68.7 0.015 0.145 30950 13.9 8.4 33.15 14550 7.25 3675 299.5 J Qualifier BJ J J J U B J U U B U J u Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression •3.5- 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.103 0.031 2.390 10.656 0.350 660.600 14.940 0.002 0.146 349.200 0.081 0.005 11.975 0.000 0.056 9.234 0.108 7.182 0.002 0.044 1.855 0.000 0.036 19498.500 0.103 0.030 2.387 10.476 0.445 661.500 J 13.478 J Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.003 0.001 0.063 0.280 0.009 17.371 0.393 0.000 0.004 9.182 0.002 0.000 0.315 0.000 0.001 0.243 0.003 0.189 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.000 0.001 512.726 0.003 0.001 0.063 0.275 0.012 17.395 0.354 Soil 0.049 0.031 0.118 52.537 0.020 13.028 1.179 0.000 0.024 6.887 0.001 0.000 3.149 0.001 0.201 0.121 0.002 35.409 0.001 0.007 0.244 0.000 0.001 109.866 0.049 0.030 0.118 51.649 0.026 13.045 1.063 1 Total 0.052 0.031 0.181 52.817 0.029 30.399 1.571 0.000 0.028 16.069 0.003 0.000 3.464 0.001 0.202 0.364 0.005 35.598 0.001 0.009 0.293 0.000 0.001 622.592 0.052 0.031 0.180 51.925 0.037 30.440 1.418 NOAEL Benchmark 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.62 0.21 0.32 NA 1.04 1.59 4.83 NA 2.54 NA 27.93 J NOAEL HQ 0.05 0.02 0.04 NA 0.01 NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.00 NA 0.43 3.03 0.01 0.00 107.41 0.04 0.40 0.18 0.00 0.00 NA 0.05 0.02 0.04 NA 0.01 NA 0.05 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-FG 903t'0e Page 2 of3 Table C-6: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Goat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 1 Average in Fairplain Gut Analyte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.0625 7.3 2045 0.7075 0.0775 728.5 0.2825 55.55 36.8 0.625 Qualifier Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 Plant Concentration (mg/kg) 0.002 0.153 368.100 0.204 0.006 9.835 0.000 0.055 9.936 0.113 Exposure Estimate ( Food 0.000 0.004 9.679 0.005 0.000 0.259 0.000 0.001 0.261 0.003 Soil 0.000 0.026 7.259 0.003 0.000 2.586 0.001 0.197 0.131 0.002 mg/kg/d) Total 0.000 0.030 16.939 0.008 0.000 2.845 0.001 0.199 0.392 0.005 NOAEL Benchmark 0.41 12.69 NA 0.06 5.74 NA 0.002 0.07 50.78 20.49 NOAEL 1 HQ 0.00 1 0.00 NA 0.12 0.00 NA 0.43 2.98 0.01 0.00 1 Notes: ° NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (Section 4.2) ' Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al., 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al, 1997); cyanide UF conservatively assumed to be 1. Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium (Sample et al, 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04+0.849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(ln[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+l. 136(ln[soil]) Plants were assumed to contain 82% moisture content (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 the detection limit was used for the exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instmment detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constiments with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (25%) measured in the Fair Plain Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. z.ost'Oe ECOSCREEN.XLS,goat-FG Page 3 of3 Frl^a Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican FrUnTBat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o to o 00 lx)cation RG-2 RG-2D 1 1 — - . Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic [ Barium Beryllium 1 Cadmium [ Calcium 1 Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Niclcel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium | Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 15500 0.53 1.6 1 70.6 0.03 0.19 24500 16.1 14.8 40.5 26800 5.9 7650 594 0.13 9.4 2230 0.68 0.16 543 0.58 69.2 140 1.3 17700 0.52 0.34 89 0.03 0.3 28700 19.4 16.8 54.4 30900 8.2 9070 675 0.13 13.8 3300 0.65 0.16 697 0.57 81 { Qualifier U BJ U BJ J J J J U B J B U B U J u u u u B u u u B U SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 14.26 0.00 0.05 2.44 0.00 0.06 19722.50 0.15 0.07 3.73 24.66 0.46 1759.50 34.16 0.00 0.24 512.90 0.25 0.01 9.37 0.00 0.09 48.30 0.15 16.28 0.00 0.01 3.07 0.00 0.09 23103.50 0.18 0.08 5.00 28.43 0.64 2086.10 38.81 0.00 0.32 759.00 0.11 0.01 12.02 0.00 0.10 1 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 11.41 0.00 0.04 1.95 0.00 0.05 15778.00 0.12 0.05 2.98 19.72 0.37 1407.60 27.32 0.00 0.19 410.32 0.20 0.01 7.49 0.00 0.07 38.64 0.12 13.03 0.00 0.01 2.46 0.00 0.07 18482.80 0.15 0.06 4.00 22.74 0.51 1668.88 31.05 0.00 0.25 607.20 0.09 0.01 9.62 0.00 0.08 1 NOAEL Benchmark 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA • 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 1 NOAEL 1 HQ 6.72 0.02 0.34 0.23 NA 0.03 NA 0.02 0.01 0.12 NA 0.03 NA 0.19 0.00 0.00 NA 0.61 0.00 NA 0.02 0.21 0.15 0.00 7.67 0.02 0.07 0.30 NA 0.04 NA 0.03 0.01 0.16 NA 0.04 NA 0.22 0.00 0.00 NA 0.26 0.00 NA 0.02 0.24 Jl ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Pagel of 10 F ^ ^ B a Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican F r o n a t Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CJ o >(» to o vo I.X)cation RG-2D RG-3 RG-4 Analyte 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium 1 Cadmium 1 Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Niclcel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury 1 Nickel Potassium Selenium | Silver Sodium 1 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 263 1.3 14900 0.53 0.86 53.8 0.03 0.31 39300 14.8 13.8 38.8 27300 4.1 8600 792 0.13 10.3 1500 0.66 0.16 525 0.58 59.6 54.4 1.3 14400 0.49 1.2 58.4 0.02 0.21 51000 12 12.8 33 22700 14.1 6920 726 0.33 9.8 1310 0.61 0.15 639 1 Qualifier J U U BJ U B J J J J U B J U u B U J U U BJ U B J J J J J J U u B 1 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 1 Regression 0.15 0.01 1 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 0.4 1 0.075 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 90.74 0.15 1371 0.00 0.03 1.86 0.00 0.09 31636.50 0.14 0.06 3.57 25.12 0.32 1978.00 45.54 0.00 0.25 345.00 0.11 0.01 9.06 0.00 0.08 18.77 0.15 13.25 0.00 0.04 2.01 0.00 0.06 41055.00 0.11 0.06 3.04 20.88 1.11 1591.60 41.75 0.01 0.24 301.30 0.10 0.01 11.02 J 1 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 72.59 0.12 10.97 0.00 0.02 1.48 0.00 0.07 25309.20 0.11 0.05 2.86 20.09 0.26 1582.40 36.43 0.00 0.20 276.00 0.09 0.01 7.25 0.00 0.06 15.01 0.12 10.60 0.00 0.03 1.61 0.00 0.05 32844.00 0.09 0.05 2.43 16.71 0.89 1273.28 33.40 0.01 0.19 241.04 0.08 O.OI 8.82 J NOAEL Benchmark 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 • NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 1 NOAEL1 HQ 0.28 0.00 6.46 0.02 0.22 0.18 NA 0.04 NA 0.02 0.01 0.12 NA 0.02 NA 0.25 0.00 0.00 NA 0.27 0.00 NA 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.00 6.24 0.02 0.28 0.19 NA 0.03 NA 0.02 0.01 0.10 NA 0.07 NA 0.23 0.00 0.00 NA 0.25 0.00 NA 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 2 of 10 FK^Bal Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican FraTreat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o to I-* o location RG-4 RG-4D RG-5 Analyte Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium I Manganese | Mercury 1 Nickel Potassium 1 Selenium | Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.54 49.2 50.8 1.2 9210 0.53 0.34 36.3 0.03 0.11 30700 8 8 19.6 14500 3.1 4700 445 0.19 6.1 754 1 0.16 509 0.58 32.7 42.6 1.3 11200 0.47 0.91 43.5 0.02 0.15 81100 14.6 10.3 32.9 22300 26.1 7630 598 0.13 9.6 1290 0.98 _ | Qualifier U J u u u B u B BJ J J J J B B B U B U J U U BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J B SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 1 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 . 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression j Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.00 0.06 17.53 0.14 8.47 0.00 0.01 1.25 0.00 0.04 24713.50 0.08 0.04 1.80 13.34 0.24 1081.00 25.59 0.01 0.17 173.42 0.39 0.01 8.78 0.00 0.04 14.70 0.15 10.30 0.00 0.03 1.50 0.00 0.05 65285.50 0.14 0.05 3.03 20.52 2.05 1754.90 34.39 0.00 0.24 296.70 0.38 j Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.00 0.05 14.02 0.11 6.78 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.03 19770.80 0.06 0.03 1.44 10.67 0.19 864.80 20.47 0.00 0.14 138.74 0.31 0.01 7.02 0.00 0.03 11.76 0.12 8.24 0.00 0.03 1.20 0.00 0.04 52228.40 0.11 0.04 2.42 16.41 1.64 1403.92 27.51 0.00 0.19 237.36 0.30 NOAEL Benchmark 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.II 65.06 NA 0.33 _ | NOAEL HQ 0.02 ' 0.15 0.05 0.00 3.99 0.02 0.07 0.12 NA 0.02 NA 0.01 0.00 0.06 NA 0.01 NA 0.14 0.00 0.00 NA 0.95 0.00 NA 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.00 4.85 0.02 0.23 0.14 NA 0.02 NA 0.02 0.00 O.IO NA 0.13 NA 0.19 0.00 0.00 NA 0.93 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 3 of 10 in^rati Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamalcan^Qit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site CO o to I-* location RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 Analyte Silver 1 Sodium Thallium Vanadium I Zinc 1 Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium 1 Manganese j Mercury Nickel 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.14 580 0.52 48.1 67.8 1.2 10500 0.46 0.36 43.5 0.02 0.13 57000 14.4 9.5 29.6 19800 11.4 6700 513 0.22 10.6 1250 0.57 0.14 474 0.51 51.4 45.9 1.1 11500 0.53 0.92 68 0.03 0.19 42900 13.6 11 34.1 21100 5.9 6040 531 0.11 8.2 1 Qualifier U B U J u u BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J U U B U J U u BJ U B BJ J J J U • B 1 SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 I Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 ! 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression J Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.01 10.01 0.00 0.06 23.39 0.14 9.66 0.00 0.02 1.50 0.00 0.04 45885.00 0.14 0.04 2.72 18.22 0.89 1541.00 29.50 0.01 0.26 287.50 0.09 0.01 8.18 0.00 0.07 15.84 0.13 10.58 0.00 0.03 2.35 0.00 0.06 34534.50 0.13 0.05 3.14 19.41 0.46 1389.20 30.53 0.00 0.21 1 Exposure 1 (mg/kg/d) } 0.01 8.00 0.00 0.05 18.71 1 0.11 7.73 0.00 0.01 1.20 0.00 0.03 36708.00 0.11 0.03 2.18 14.57 0.72 1232.80 23.60 0.01 0.21 230.00 0.07 0.01 6.54 0.00 0.05 12.67 O.IO 8.46 0.00 0.03 1.88 0.00 0.05 27627.60 0.10 0.04 2.51 15.53 0.37 1111.36 24.43 0.00 0.17 NOAEL Benchmark 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 1 2.11 65.06 J NOAEL j HQ 0.00 NA 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.00 4.S5 0.02 0.12 0.14 NA 0.02 NA 0.02 0.00 0.09 NA 0.06 NA 0.16 0.00 0.00 NA 0.23 0.00 NA 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.00 4.98 0.02 0.23 0.23 NA 0.03 NA 0.02 0.00 0.10 NA 0.03 NA 0.17 0.00 0.00 I ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 4 of 10 I ^ m B. Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure f o r the Jamaican FrenBat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site CO O t o l-» t o Location RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 i|i|iriaij^te:|: 1 Potassium [ Selenium Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium | Manganese | Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 1 1750 0.66 0.16 479 0.58 63.8 43.4 1.3 10200 0.48 0.31 53 0.02 0.03 48700 10.8 8.1 25.1 15800 4.5 5320 408 0.19 6.5 1910 0.6 0.14 522 0.52 44.8 34.9 1.2 15400 0.56 1.1 98.5 0.03 0.32 56200 20.2 14.4 47.2 27500 6.3 8270 708 1 Qualifier J U U B U J u u u u B BJ J J J J B J U u B U J u u BJ u B J J J J 1 1 SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I 0.25 0.143 Regression I Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 402.50 0.11 0.01 8.26 0.00 0.08 14.97 0.15 9.38 0.00 O.OI 1.83 0.00 0.01 39203.50 0.10 0.04 2.31 14.54 0.35 1223.60 23.46 0.01 0.18 439.30 O.IO O.OI 9.00 0.00 0.06 12.04 0.14 14.17 0.00 0.04 3.40 0.00 0.09 45241.00 0.19 0.07 4.34 25.30 0.49 1902.10 0.25 1 40.71 1 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 322.00 0.09 O.OI 6.61 0.00 0.06 11.98 0.12 7.51 0.00 0.01 1.46 0.00 O.OI 31362.80 0.08 0.03 1.85 11.63 0.28 978.88 18.77 0.00 0.14 351.44 0.08 0.01 7.20 0.00 0.05 9.63 0.11 11.33 0.00 0.03 2.72 0.00 0.07 36192.80 0.15 0.05 3.47 20.24 1 0.40 1521.68 32.57 1 NOAEL Benchmark NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 O.I I O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 O.II O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 1 NOAEL 1 HQ NA 0.27 0.00 NA 0.02 0.19 0.05 0.00 4.42 0.02 0.07 0.18 NA 0.01 NA 0.02 0.00 0.07 NA 0.02 NA 0.13 0.00 0.00 NA 0.24 0.00 NA 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.00 6.67 0.02 0.26 0.33 NA 0.04 NA 0.03 0.01 0.14 NA 0.03 NA 0.23 || ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 5 of 10 IFWB. Table C-7: Estimated Chemicai Exposure for the Jamaican FMf Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin island Chemical Site Ui o to Ui Location RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 Analyte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.34 12.4 3540 0.69 0.17 668 0.61 85.9 155 1.4 9500 0.52 1 52.6 0.03 0.11 56700 13.9 7.4 23.7 16000 8.2 4610 431 0.25 7.6 1650 1.1 0.16 599 0.57 46.3 44 1.3 7680 0.49 0.38 50.6 0.02 0.05 32000 10.1 6.7 22 12700 Lead 1 3.4 | QuaUfier J J J U U B U J U U BJ U B BJ J J J J B J B U B U J U U BJ U B BJ J J 1 I Soil-Plant 1 Fruit Concentration Uptake Factor* | (mg/kg) ' 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.01 0.29 814.20 0.12 0.01 11.52 0.00 0.11 53.48 0.16 8.74 0.00 0.03 1.81 0.00 0.04 ^ 45643.50 0.13 0.03 2.18 14.72 0.64 1060.30 24.78 0.01 0.20 379.50 0.43 0.01 10.33 0.00 0.06 15.18 0.15 7.07 0.00 0.02 1.75 0.00 0.02 25760.00 O.IO 0.03 2.02 11.68 0.27 1 Exposure (mg/kg/d) O.OJ 0.23 651.36 0.09 0.01 9.22 0.00 0.09 42.78 0.13 6.99 0.00 0.03 1.45 0.00 0.03 36514.80 0.10 0.03 1.74 11.78 0.51 848.24 19.83 0.01 0.16 303.60 0.34 0.01 8.27 0.00 0.05 12.14 0.12 5.65 0.00 0.01 1.40 0.00 0.02 20608.00 0.08 0.02 1.62 9.35 0.21 1 NOAEL Bencimiark 2. J J 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NOAEL HQ 0.00 0.00 NA 0.28 0.00 NA 0.03 0.25 0.16 0.00 4.12 0.02 0.24 0.18 NA 0.02 NA 0.02 0.00 0.07 NA 0.04 NA 0.14 0.00 0.00 NA 1.06 0.00 NA 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.00 3.33 0.02 0.13 0.17 NA O.OI NA O.OI 0.00 0.07 NA 0.02 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 6 of 10 i F ^ B Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site U> O to H Location RG-II RG-12 RG-13 Analyte Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 3590 297 0.39 5.6 1410 0.62 0.15 329 0.54 44.5 26.4 1.2 6210 0.49 0.48 47 0.02 0.12 23900 9.9 6.1 18.1 12500 4.7 2560 313 O.II 4.2 1010 0.61 0.15 293 0.54 53 39.1 1.2 14400 0.47 I.I 112 0.02 0.86 57400 21.6 II.9 43.8 Qualifier J J B J U U B U J U U BJ B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U u BJ U B J SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 J • 0.4 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 825.70 17.08 0.01 0.16 324.30 0.10 0.01 5.68 0.00 0.06 9.11 0.14 5.71 0.00 0.02 1.62 0.00 0.04 19239.50 0.09 0.03 1.67 11.50 0.37 588.80 18.00 0.00 0.13 232.30 0.10 O.OI 5.05 0.00 0.07 13.49 0.14 13.25 0.00 0.04 3.86 0.00 0.21 46207.00 0.20 0.05 4.03 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 660.56 13.66 0.01 0.13 259.44 0.08 O.OI 4.54 0.00 0.05 7.29 0.11 4.57 0.00 0.02 1.30 0.00 0.03 15391.60 0.07 0.02 1.33 9.20 0.30 471.04 14.40 0.00 O.IO 185.84 0.08 0.01 4.04 0.00 0.05 10.79 0.11 10.60 0.00 0.03 3.09 0.00 0.17 36965.60 0.16 0.04 3.22 NOAEL Benchmark NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NOAEL HQ NA O.IO 0.00 0.00 NA 0.25 0.00 NA 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.00 2.69 0.02 0.15 0.16 NA 0.02 NA 0.01 0.00 0.05 NA 0.02 NA 0.10 0.00 0.00 NA 0.25 0.00 NA 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.00 6.24 0.02 0.26 0.37 NA O.IO NA 0.03 0.01 0.13 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 7 of 10 Frtnt Bi Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Frlm Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui O to M tfl Location RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 Analyte 1 Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese 1 Mercury Nickel 1 Potassium Selenium Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium | Cadmium j Calcium 1 Chromium | SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 23100 22.2 6600 560 0.11 11.5 3020 1.6 0.14 561 0.51 70.2 174 1.2 7220 0.83 1.5 36.5 0.04 0.04 97500 39 4.9 10.2 9160 3.4 3190 222 0.18 17 706 1 0.25 215 0.92 28.6 21.8 2 3500 0.46 0.3 23.1 0.02 0.02 800000 1 4.7 1 Qualifier J J U J J u B U J u J u BJ BJ U U J J BJ BJ J J J J U J BJ U U BJ U J J u u u B u u SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 1 Regression I Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 : Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression j 0.15 O.OI Regression 1 3.5 0.041 J [Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 21.25 1.74 1518.00 32.20 0.00 0.27 694.60 0.66 0.01 9.68 0.00 0.09 60.03 0.14 6.64 0.00 0.04 1.26 0.00 O.OI 78487.50 0.37 0.02 0.94 8.43 0.27 733.70 12.77 0.00 0.37 162.38 0.18 0.01 3.71 0.00 0.04 7.52 0.23 3.22 0.00 0.01 0.80 0.00 0.00 644000.00 0.04 1 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 17.00 1.39 1214.40 25.76 0.00 0.22 555.68 0.53 0.01 7.74 0.00 0.07 48.02 O.II 5.31 0.00 0.04 I.Ol 0.00 0.01 62790.00 0.29 0.02 0.75 6.74 0.21 586.96 10.21 0.00 0.30 129.90 0.14 0.01 2.97 0.00 0.03 6.02 0.18 2.58 0.00 0.01 0.64 0.00 0.00 515200.00 0.04 1 NOAEL Benchmark NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA O.OI 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 O.II O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 1 5.34 1 NOAEL 1 HQ NA 0.11 NA 0.18 0.00 0.00 NA 1.62 0.00 NA 0.02 0.21 0.18 0.00 3.13 0.03 0.32 0.12 NA 0.00 NA 0.06 0.00 0.03 NA 0.02 NA 0.07 0.00 0.00 NA 0.43 0.00 NA 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.00 1.52 0.02 0.07 0.08 NA 0.00 NA 0.01 || ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Pages of 10 iFRmB Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site U) o to M Location RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL on mean in River Gut Analyte Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 2.2 11.8 4330 1.6 1600 173 0.11 1.3 665 0.57 0.14 255 0.51 15 13.6 1.1 5200 0.53 0.34 21.6 0.03 0.08 46400 5.9 3.1 19.9 5780 2.2 1660 196 0.12 4.2 803 0.66 0.16 492 0.58 17 25.9 1.3 12778.90 0.28 0.95 68.16 O.OI 0.28 179734.49 Qualifier BJ J J J J B B U U B U J U u u B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 O.OI Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I 0.25 0.143 Regression I Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.01 1.09 3.98 0.13 368.00 9.95 0.00 0.05 152.95 0.09 0.01 4.40 0.00 0.02 4.69 0.13 4.78 0.00 0.01 0.75 0.00 0.03 37352.00 0.06 0.01 1.83 5.32 0.17 381.80 11.27 0.00 0.13 184.69 0.11 O.OI 8.49 0.00 0.02 8.94 0.15 11.76 0.00 0.03 2.35 0.00 0.08 144686.26 Exposure (mg/kg/d) O.OI 0.87 3.19 0.10 294.40 7.96 0.00 0.04 122.36 0.07 0.01 3.52 0.00 0.02 3.75 0.10 3.83 0.00 0.01 0.60 0.00 0.02 29881.60 0.04 0.01 1.46 4.25 0.14 305.44 9.02 0.00 0.10 147.75 0.09 0.01 6.79 0.00 0.02 7.15 0.12 9.41 0.00 0.03 1.88 0.00 0.07 115749.01 NOAEL Benchmark 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 O.II 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 O.II 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA NOAEL HQ 0.00 0.04 NA 0.01 NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.23 0.00 NA 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 2.25 0.02 0.07 0.07 NA • 0.01 NA 0.01 0.00 0.06 NA O.OI NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA 0.27 0.00 NA 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.00 5.54 0.02 0.24 0.23 NA 0.04 NA ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 9 of 10 Ui o to FrWrBa Table C-7: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican FrelrBat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 95% UCL on mean in River Gut ::|i:;i(ffialyi:i^;;|; Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 18.37 11.53 35.64 22110.85 11.25 6717.89 573.08 0.21 10.56 2079.02 0.73 0.09 560.48 0.31 60.16 105.62 0.69 Qualifier SoU-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 I 0.25 0.143 Regression I Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 I Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.17 0.05 3.28 20.34 0.88 1545.11 32.95 0.01 0.26 478.18 0.27 0.01 9.67 0.00 0.08 36.44 0.16 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.14 0.04 2.62 16.27 0.71 1236.09 26.36 O.OI 0.21 382.54 0.22 0.01 7.73 0.00 0.06 29.15 0.13 NOAEL Benchmark 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 NOAEL HQ 0.03 0.01 0.11 NA 0.05 NA 0.18 0.00 0.00 NA 0.67 • 0.00 NA 0.03 0.18 0.11 0.00 " NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Section 4.2) Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al., 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(In[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04+0.849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(ln[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+1.136(!n[soil]) Fruits contain an average of 77% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit used for exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or no benchmark was available. NA: No benchmark available ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-RG Page 10 of 10 Report Date 1/18/99 TIME MANAGEMENT SYSTEM APPROVAL TIMESHEETS/FORECAST LISTING Page: EMPLOYEE NAME ALURU, RAVI CICALESE, MARC E DOYLE, BRIDGET E FRANCIS, JOHN R GRBIC, TOMISLAV J HALM, SCOTT F HUNNEWELL, PATRICK T KING, TREVOR C MACKIE, BRUCE E SCHNELL, DEBORAH L SELVAKUMAR, KUMAR VENKATRAMAN, SANKAR N VERKUILEN, MATTHEW F TOTALS UTIL% 93% 30% 80% 80% 100% 91% 0% 100% 55% 53% 60% 100% 40% 69% TIMESHEET BILL 37 12 32 33 40 38 0 40 22 21 24 40 16 366 OVRT 1 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 TOTL 41 40 40 41 48 44 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 534 UTIL% 0% 60% 0% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 0% 67% 100% 79% 53% 83% FORECAST 1/24 0 24 0 40 40 32 40 40 0 32 40 32 16 336 1/31 2 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 0 16 0 30 24 150 /07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 32 24 96 2/14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 32 0 72 S / / / / / / / / / / / / / A 304218 Table C-8: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site LJ O to M VO Location BG-1 BG-2 Analyte 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 1 15400 0.61 0.39 101 0.03 0.16 39800 19.7 11.4 49.3 20400 12.9 5380 534 0.14 11.7 3310 0.76 0.18 660 0.67 68.2 58.7 1.5 3990 0.43 0.43 63 0.02 0.02 19800 Qualifier • U u u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U J U U BJ u u Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 14.17 0.00 0.01 3.48 0.00 0.05 32039.00 0.19 0.05 4.54 18.77 1.01 1237.40 30.71 0.00 0.28 761.30 0.13 0.01 11.39 0.00 0.09 20.25 0.17 3.67 0.00 0.02 2.17 0.00 0.00 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 11.33 0.00 0.01 2.79 0.00 0.04 25631.20 0.15 0.04 3.63 15.01 0.81 989.92 24.56 0.00 0.22 609.04 0.10 0.01 9.11 0.00 0.07 16.20 0.14 2.94 0.00 0.02 1.74 0.00 0.00 15939.00 j 12751.20 | NOAEL Benchmark 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA _J NOAEL HQ 6.67 0.02 0.08 0.34 NA 0.02 NA 0.03 0.01 0.15 NA 0.06 NA 0.17 0.00 0.00 NA 0.32 0.00 NA 0.03 0.20 0.06 0.00 1.73 0.01 0.14 0.21 NA 0.00 . NA 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-BG Page 1 of 3 Table C-8: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o to ro o Location BG-2 Average in Bethlehem Gut Analvte Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 4.6 5.4 11.2 5300 2.4 1150 339 0.1 3.2 582 0.53 0.13 423 0.47 29.9 13.1 1.1 9695 0.26 0.3125 82 0.0125 0.085 29800 12.15 8.4 30.25 12850 7.65 3265 436.5 Qualifier BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U 1 Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.04 0.02 1.03 4.88 0.19 264.50 19.49 0.00 0.10 133.86 0.09 0.01 7.30 0.00 0.04 4.52 0.13 8.92 0.00 0.02 2.83 0.00 0.03 23989.00 0.11 0.04 2.78 11.82 0.60 750.95 25.10 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.03 0.02 0.82 3.90 0.15 211.60 15.59 0.00 0.08 107.09 0.07 0.00 5.84 0.00 0.03 3.62 0.10 7.14 0.00 0.01 2.26 0.00 0.02 19191.20 0.09 0.03 2.23 9.46 0.48 600.76 20.08 NOAEL Benchmark 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 NOAEL HQ 0.01 0.00 0.03 NA 0.01 NA 0.11 0.00 0.00 NA 0.21 0.00 NA 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.00 4.20 0.02 0.11 0.27 NA 0.01 NA 0.02 0.00 0.09 NA 0.04 NA 0.14 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-BG Page 2 of 3 Table C-8: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o lO to Location Average in Bethlehem Gut Analvte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.06 7.45 1946 0.3225 0.0775 541.5 0.285 49.05 35.9 0.65 Qualifier Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.00 0.20 447.58 0.11 0.01 9.34 0.00 0.06 12.39 0.15 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.00 0.16 358.06 0.09 0.01 7.47 0.00 0.05 9.91 0.12 NOAEL Benchmark 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 NOAEL HQ 0.00 0.00 NA 0.26 0.00 NA 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.00 Notes: " NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Section 4.2) * Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al., 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al, 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04+0.849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(ln[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+1.136(ln[soil]) Fruits were assumed to contain 77% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit used for exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or no benchmark was available. NA: No benchmark available ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-BG Page 3 of 3 Table C-9: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o t ^ ro to to Location FPG-1 FPG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 10200 0.52 1.4 67.4 0.03 0.09 36600 13.9 8.2 33.1 14300 8.8 3680 267 0.13 7.7 2150 1.1 0.16 570 0.57 54.6 39.4 1.3 9750 0.51 2.8 70 0.03 0.2 Calcium | 25300 | Qualifier u • BJ U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u u J u B Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 9.38 0.00 0.04 2.33 0.00 0.03 29463.00 0.13 0.04 3.05 13.16 0.69 846.40 15.35 0.00 0.20 494.50 0.43 0.01 9.83 0.00 0.07 13.59 0.15 8.97 0.00 0.07 2.42 0.00 0.06 20366.50 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 7.51 0.00 0.03 1.86 0.00 0.02 23570.40 0.10 0.03 2.44 10.52 0.55 677.12 12.28 0.00 0.16 395.60 0.34 0.01 7.87 0.00 0.06 10.87 0.12 7.18 0.00 0.05 1.93 0.00 0.05 16293.20j NOAEL Benchmark 1.70 0.11 1 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA NOAEL f HQ 4.42 0.02 0.31 0.22 NA 0.02 NA 0.02 I 0.00 0.10 NA 0.04 NA 0.09 0.00 0.00 NA 1.06 0.00 NA 0.02 0.16 0.04, 0.00 4.22 0.02 0.49 0.23 NA 0.03 NA j ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-FG Page 1 of 3 Table C-9: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ui o to tJJ Location FPG-2 1 Average in Fair Plain Gut Analyte Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium ! Manganese Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 13.9 8.6 33.2 14800 5.7 3670 332 0.12 6.9 1940 0.63 0.15 887 0.56 56.5 34.2 1.2 9975 0.2575 2.1 68.7 0.015 0.145 30950 13.9 8.4 33.15 14550 7.25 3675 299.5 _ j Qualifier BJ J J J U B J U U B U J u j Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 0.004 0.04 Regression 0.15 0.01 Regression 3.5 0.041 0.02 0.4 0.004 0.3413 1 0.25 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.13 0.04 3.05 13.62 0.45 844.10 19.09 0.00 0.19 446.20 0.10 0.01 15.30 0.00 0.07 11.80 0.14 9.18 0.00 0.06 2.37 0.00 0.05 24914.75 0.13 0.04 3.05 13.39 0.57 845.25 17.22 J Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.10 0.03 2.44 10.89 0.36 675.28 15.27 0.00 0.15 356.96 0.08 0.01 12.24 0.00 0.06 9.44 0.11 7.34 0.00 0.04 1.90 0.00 0.04 19931.80 0.10 0.03 2.44 10.71 0.46 676.20 13.78 NOAEL Benchmark 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 1.70 0.11 0.11 8.30 NA 1.63 NA 5.34 8.13 24.74 NA 13.01 NA 143.14 j NOAEL HQ 0.02 0.00 0.10 NA 0.03 NA 0.11 0.00 0.00 NA 0.26 0.00 NA 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.00 4.32 0.02 0.40 0.23 NA 0.02 NA 0.02 0.00 0.10 NA 0.03 NA 0.10 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-FG Page 2 of 3 Table C-9: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Jamaican Fruit Bat Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location Average in Fair Plain Gut Analyte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.0625 7.3 2045 0.7075 0.0775 728.5 0.2825 55.55 36.8 0.625 Qualifier Soil-Plant Uptake Factor* 0.143 Regression 1 Regression 0.4 0.075 0.0055 0.0055 1.5 1 Fruit Concentration (mg/kg) 0.00 0.20 470.35 0.26 0.01 12.57 0.00 0.07 12.70 0.14 Exposure (mg/kg/d) 0.00 0.16 376.28 0.21 0.01 10.05 0.00 0.06 10.16 0.12 NOAEL Benchmark 2.11 65.06 NA 0.33 29.44 NA 0.01 0.34 260.25 105.02 NOAEL HQ 0.00 0.00 NA 0.64 0.00 NA 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.00 Ui o to N) Notes: ° NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Section 4.2) * Soil to Plant Uptake Factors: Source is Baes et al., 1987; lead factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and selenium (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(plant)=-1.915+0.673(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(plant)=0.04+0.849(ln[soil]); nickel: ln(plant)=-1.663+0.754(ln[soil] selenium: ln(plant)=0.518+l. 136(ln[soil]) Fruits were assumed to contain 77% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit used for exposure calculations. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or no benchmark was available. NA: No benchmark available ECOSCREEN.XLS, bat-FG Page 3 of 3 Ui o ^o to cn sfropil Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Slffirpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Lx)cation 1 RG-2 RG-2D Analyte Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium 1 Cadmium 1 Calcium 1 Chromium Cobalt I Copper 1 Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese j Mercury | Nickel Potassium j Selenium | Silver Sodium 1 Thallium Vanadium 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide | Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 15500 0.53 1.6 70.6 0.03 0.19 24500 16.1 14.8 40.5 26800 5.9 7650 594 0.13 9.4 2230 0.68 0.16 543 0.58 69.2 140 1.3 17700 0.52 0.34 89 0.03 0.3 28700 19.4 16.8 54.4 30900 8.2 9070 675 0.13 13.8 3300 0.65 0.16 697 0.57 81 263 1.3 J QuaUfier 1 " BJ U BJ J J J J U B J B U B U J U U U U B U U u B U J u 1 Soil-Worm Uptake Factor I 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 I 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 I 0.07 Regression 0.92 Regression 1 1 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 2480.000 0.042 0.044 11.296 0.002 1.076 3920.000 1.170 2.368 2.379 4288.000 5.976 1224.000 6.653 0.069 1.384 356.800 0.109 0.013 86.880 0.046 11.072 84.620 0.104 2832.000 0.042 0.005 14.240 0.002 1.385 4592.000 1.139 2.688 2.555 4944.000 8.305 1451.200 7.560 0.069 2.031 528.000 0.052 0.013 111.520 0.046 12.960 98.277 0.104 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 2232.000 1 0.038 0.040 10.166 0.002 0.969 3528.000 1.053 2.131 2.141 3859.200 5.378 1101.600 5.988 0.062 1.245 321.120 0.098 0.012 78.192 0.042 9.965 76.158 0.094 2548.800 0.037 0.004 12.816 0.002 1.246 4132.800 1.025 2.419 2.299 4449.600 7.474 1306.080 6.804 0.062 1.828 475.200 0.047 0.012 100.368 0.041 11.664 88.449 0.094 1 SoU 1906.500 1 0.033 0.197 8.684 0.002 0.023 3013.500 1.980 1.820 4.982 3296.400 0.726 940.950 73.062 0.008 1.156 274.290 0.084 0.010 66.789 0.036 8.512 17.220 0.080 2177.100 0.032 0.021 10.947 0.002 0.037 3530.100 2.386 2.066 6.691 3800.700 1.009 1115.610 83.025 0.008 1.697 1 405.900 0.040 0.010 85.731 0.035 9.963 32.349 0.080 1 Total NOAEL Benchmark 4138.500 1 109.70 0.071 0.237 18.850 0.004 0.992 6541.500 3.034 3.952 7.123 7155.600 6.104 2042.550 79.050 0.070 2.402 595.410 0.182 0.021 144.981 0.077 18.476 93.378 0.174 4725.900 0.069 0.025 23.763 0.004 1.283 7662.900 3.411 4.486 8.991 8250.300 8.483 2421.690 89.829 0.070 3.526 881.100 0.087 0.021 186.099 0.076 • 21.627 120.798 0.174 1 1 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NOAEL . HQ 37.73 ! NA 0.05 0.91 NA 0.68 NA 3.03 NA 0.15 NA 1.59 NA 0.08 0.16 0.03 NA 0.45 NA NA 0.65 1.62 6.44 NA 43.08 NA 0.00 1.14 NA 0.88 NA 3.41 NA 0.19 NA 2.20 NA 0.09 0.16 0.05 NA 0.22 NA NA 0.63 1.90 8.33 1 NA 1 NA || ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Pagel of 10 S ^ ^ i ( Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sanopiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site U> O t o t o Lx>cation 1 RG-3 RG-4 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium 1 Thallium SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 14900 0.53 0.86 53.8 0.03 0.31 39300 14.8 13.8 38.8 27300 4.1 8600 792 0.13 10.3 1500 0.66 0.16 525 0.58 59.6 54.4 1.3 14400 0.49 1.2 58.4 0.02 0.21 51000 12 12.8 33 22700 14.1 6920 726 0.33 9.8 1310 0.61 0.15 639 0.54 1 Qualifier U BJ U 1 B J J J J U B J U U B U J U U BJ U B J J J J J J U u J B u 1 SoU-Worm [Uptake Factor 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 I 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression I 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 1 0.92 1 1 I 1 1 1 Worm Concentration 2384.000 0.042 0.024 8.608 0.002 1.410 6288.000 1.185 2.208 2.355 4368.000 4.152 1376.000 8.870 0.069 1.516 240.000 0.053 0.013 84.000 0.046 9.536 67.617 0.104 2304.000 0.039 0.033 9.344 0.002 1.137 8160.000 1.222 2.048 2.265 3632.000 14.280 1107.200 8.131 0.119 1.443 209.600 0.049 0.012 102.240 0.043 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 1 2145.600 0.038 0.022 7.747 0.002 1.269 5659.200 1.066 1.987 2.119 3931.200 3.737 1238.400 7.983 0.062 1.365 216.000 0.048 0.012 75.600 0.042 8.582 60.855 0.094 2073.600 0.035 0.030 8.410 0.001 1.024 7344.000 1.100 1.843 2.038 3268.800 12.852 996.480 7.318 0.107 1.298 188.640 0.044 0.011 92.016 0.039 Soil 1832.700 0.033 0.106 6.617 0.002 1 0.038 4833.900 1.820 1.697 4.772 3357.900 0.504 1057.800 97.416 0.008 1.267 184.500 0.041 0.010 64.575 0.036 7.331 6.691 0.080 1771.200 0.030 0.148 7.183 0.001 0.026 6273.000 1.476 1.574 4.059 2792.100 1.734 851.160 89.298 0.041 1.205 161.130 0.038 0.009 78.597 0.033 Total 3978.300 0.071 0.127 14.365 0.004 1.307 10493.100 2.887 3.685 6.892 7289.100 4.242 2296.200 105.399 0.070 2.631 400.500 0.088 0.021 140.175 0.077 15.913 67.546 0.174 3844.800 0.065 0.178 15.593 0.003 1.050 13617.000 2.576 3.418 6.097 6060.900 14.587 1847.640 96.616 0.148 2.504 349.770 0.081 0.020 170.613 0.072 J NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 1 NOAELI HO 1 36.27 1 NA 0.02 0.69 NA 0.90 NA 2.89 NA 0.15 NA 1.10 NA 0.11 0.16 0.03 NA 0.22 NA NA 0.65 1.40 4.66 NA 35.05 NA 0.03 0.75 NA 0.72 NA 2.58 NA 0.13 NA 3.79 NA 0.10 0.33 0.03 NA 0.20 NA NA II 0.60 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 2 of 10 slropii o • ; = . to to Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SaTrapiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 1 RG-4 RG-4D RG-5 Analyte 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc Cyanide 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium 1 Cadmium 1 Calcium 1 Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium j Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium 1 Selenium 1 Silver Sodium 1 1 Soil Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 1 49.2 50.8 1.2 9210 0.53 0.34 36.3 0.03 0.11 30700 8 8 19.6 14500 3.1 4700 445 0.19 6.1 754 1 0.16 509 0.58 32.7 42.6 1.3 11200 0.47 0.91 43.5 0.02 0.15 81100 14.6 10.3 32.9 22300 26.1 7630 598 0.13 • 9.6 1290 0.98 0.14 1 580 1 Qualifier J U u u B u B BJ J J J J B B B U B U J U U BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J B u 1 B 1 1 SoU-Worm lUptake Factor 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression I 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 I Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 J 1 Worm Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 1 7.872 66.527 0.096 1473.600 0.042 0.005 5.808 0.002 0.796 4912.000 L 1.296 1.280 1.997 2320.000 3.140 752.000 4.984 0.099 0.898 120.640 0.160 0.013 81.440 0.046 5.232 63.805 0.104 1792.000 0.038 L 0.025 6.960 0.002 0.945 12976.000 1.187 1.648 2.263 3568.000 26.434 1220.800 6.698 0.087 1.413 206.400 0.157 0.011 92.800 J 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) J^ Food 1 7.085 59.874 0.086 1326.240 0.038 0.004 5.227 0.002 0.717 4420.800 1.167 1.152 1.797 2088.000 2.826 676.800 4.486 0.089 0.808 108.576 0.144 0.012 73.296 0.042 4.709 57.425 0.094 1612.800 0.034 0.023 6.264 0.001 0.850 11678.400 1.069 1.483 2.037 3211.200 23.791 1098.720 6.028 1 0.078 1.272 185.760 0.141 0.010 1 83.520 1 L Soil 6.052 6.248 0.074 1132.830 0.033 ! 0.021 4.465 0.002 1 0.014 3776.100 0.984 0.984 2.411 1783.500 0.381 578.100 54.735 0.023 0.750 92.742 • 0.123 0.010 62.607 0.036 4.022 5.240 0.080 1377.600 0.029 0.112 5.351 0.001 0.018 9975.300 1.796 1.267 4.047 2742.900 3.210 938.490 73.554 0.016 1.181 158.670 0.121 0.009 71.340 J 1 Total 1 13.136 66.123 0.160 2459.070 0.071 0.025 9.692 0.004 0.730 8196.900 2.151 2.136 4.208 3871.500 3.207 1254.900 59.221 0.112 1.558 201.318 0.267 0.021 , 135.903 0.077 8.731 62.664 0.174 2990.400 0.063 0.135 11.615 0.003 0.869 21653.700 2.864 2.750 6.083 5954.100 27.001 2037.210 79.582 0.094 2.453 344.430 0.262 0.019 1 154.860 J NOAEL Benchmark 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 1 j NOAEI 1 1 HQ 1 1 '-^^ 1 4.56 NA 22.42 NA 0.00 0.47 NA 0.50 NA 2.15 NA 0.09 NA 0.83 NA 0.06 0.25 0.02 NA 0.67 NA NA 0.65 0.77 4.32 NA 27.26 NA 0.03 0.56 NA 0.60 NA 2.86 NA 0.13 NA 7.01 NA 0.08 0.21 0.03 NA 0.65 NA NA || ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 3 of 10 s^Rpi) o to to 00 Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SalRTpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 1 RG-5 1 RG-6 RG-7 Analyte Thallium 1 Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.52 48.1 67.8 1.2 10500 0.46 0.36 43.5 j 0.02 0.13 57000 14.4 9.5 29.6 19800 11.4 6700 513 0.22 10.6 1250 0.57 0.14 474 0.51 51.4 45.9 1.1 11500 0.53 0.92 68 0.03 0.19 42900 13.6 11 34.1 21100 5.9 6040 531 0.11 8.2 1750 0.66 J Qualifier U J u u BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J U U B U J U U BJ U B BJ J J J U B J u Soil-Worm Uptake Factor 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 I 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.042 [ 7.696 71.244 0.096 1680.000 0.037 0.010 6.960 0.002 0.873 9120.000 1.190 1.520 2.206 3168.000 11.546 1072.000 5.746 0.104 1.560 200.000 0.046 0.011 75.840 0.041 8.224 64.945 0.088 1840.000 0.042 0.026 10.880 0.002 1.076 6864.000 1.200 1.760 2.283 3376.000 5.976 966.400 5.947 1 0.065 1.207 280.000 0.053 J Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.037 6.926 64.119 0.086 1512.000 0.033 0.009 6.264 0.001 0.786 8208.000 1.071 1.368 1.985 2851.200 10.391 964.800 5.171 0.093 1.404 180.000 0.041 O.OIO 68.256 0.037 7.402 58.450 0.079 1656.000 0.038 0.023 9.792 0.002 0.969 6177.600 1.080 1.584 2.054 3038.400 5.378 869.760 5.352 0.059 1.086 252.000 0.048 J Soil 1 Total 0.032 5.916 8.339 0.074 1291.500 0.028 0.044 5.351 0.001 0.016 7011.000 1.771 1.169 3.641 2435.400 1.402 824.100 63.099 0.027 1.304 153.750 0.035 0.009 58.302 0.031 6.322 5.646 0.068 1414.500 0.033 0.113 8.364 0.002 0.023 5276.700 1.673 1.353 4.194 2595.300 0.726 742.920 65.313 0.007 1.009 215.250 0.041 1 0.069 12.843 72.459 0.160 2803.500 0.061 0.053 11.615 0.003 0.802 15219.000 1 2.842 2.537 5.626 5286.600 11.794 1788.900 68.270 0.121 2.708 333.750 0.076 0.019 126.558 0.068 13.724 64.096 0.147 3070.500 0.071 0.136 18.156 0.004 0.992 11454.300 2.753 2.937 6.249 5633.700 6.104 1612.680 70.665 0.065 2.095 467.250 0.088 NOAEL Benchmark 0.12 j 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 J NOAEL HQ 1 0.58 1.13 5.00 NA 25.56 NA 0.01 0.56 NA 0.55 NA 2.84 NA 0.12 NA 3.06 NA 0.07 0.27 • 0.03 NA 0.19 NA NA 0.57 1.20 4.42 NA 27.99 NA 0.03 0.87 NA 0.68 NA 2.75 NA 0.13 NA 1.59 NA 0.07 0.15 0.03 NA 1 0.22 11 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 4 of 10 u> o »;^ to to vo Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SaTnpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site >arn^pi Location 1 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 Analyte Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium j Vanadium 1 Zinc j Cyanide 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony [ Arsenic Barium 1 Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead 1 Magnesium 1 Manganese 1 Mercury 1 Nickel Potassium [ 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.16 479 0.58 63.8 43.4 1.3 10200 0.48 0.31 53 0.02 0.03 48700 10.8 8.1 25.1 15800 4.5 5320 408 0.19 6.5 1910 0.6 0.14 522 0.52 44.8 34.9 1.2 15400 0.56 1.1 98.5 0.03 0.32 56200 20.2 14.4 47.2 27500 6.3 8270 708 0.34 12.4 3540 1 Qualifier U B U J U u u u B BJ J J J J B J U U B U J u u BJ U B J J J J J J 1 J 1 Soil-Worm [Uptake Factor 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression I 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 I Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 1 0.92 1 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.013 76.640 0.046 10.208 64.087 1 0.104 1632.000 0.038 0.004 8.480 0.002 0.389 7792.000 1.241 1.296 2.120 2528.000 4.558 851.200 4.570 0.099 0.957 305.600 0.048 0.011 83.520 0.042 7.168 60.857 0.096 2464.000 0.045 0.031 15.760 0.002 1.435 8992.000 1.132 2.304 2.469 4400.000 6.381 1323.200 7.930 0.120 1.825 566.400 1 I Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) L Food 0.012 68.976 0.042 9.187 57.679 0.094 1468.800 0.035 0.004 7.632 0.001 0.350 7012.800 1.117 1.166 1.908 2275.200 4.102 766.080 4.113 0.089 0.861 275.040 0.043 0.010 75.168 0.037 6.451 54.771 0.086 2217.600 0.040 0.028 14.184 0.002 1.291 8092.800 1.019 2.074 2.222 3960.000 5.743 1190.880 7.137 0.108 1.643 1 Soil 0.010 58.917 0.036 7.847 5.338 0.080 1254.600 0.030 0.019 6.519 0.001 0.004 5990.100 1.328 0.996 3.087 1943.400 0.554 654.360 50.184 0.023 0.800 234.930 0.037 0.009 64.206 0.032 5.510 4.293 0.074 1894.200 0.034 0.135 12.116 0.002 0.039 6912.600 2.485 1.771 5.806 3382.500 0.775 1017.210 87.084 0.042 1.525 509.760 1 435.420 | Total 0.021 127.893 0.077 17.035 63.017 0.174 2723.400 0.064 0.023 14.151 0.003 0.354 13002.900 2.445 2.163 4.995 4218.600 4.655 1420.440 54.297 0.112 1.661 509.970 0.080 0.019 139.374 0.069 11.962 59.064 0.160 4111.800 0.075 0.163 26.300 0.004 1.331 15005.400 3.504 3.845 8.028 7342.500 6.517 2208.090 94.221 0.150 3.168 1 945.180 1 NOAEL Benchmark NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 I NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 1 NOAEL1 HQ 1 NA 1 NA 0.65 1.49 4.35 NA 24.83 NA 0.00 0.68 NA 0.24 NA 2.45 NA 0.11 NA 1.21 NA 0.06 0.25 0.02 NA 0.20 NA NA 0.58 1.05 4.07 NA 37.48 NA 0.03 1.26 NA 0.92 NA 3.50 NA 0.17 NA 1.69 NA 0.10 0.33 0.04 II NA 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 5 of 10 M Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SMsplper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site O to u> o Location 1 RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 Analyte 1 Selenium Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide I Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium j Cadmium Calcium j Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper 1 Iron 1 Lead Magnesium | Manganese 1 Mercury 1 1 Nickel 1 1 Son Concentration (mg/kg) 0.69 0.17 668 0.61 85.9 155 1.4 9500 0.52 1 52.6 0.03 0.11 56700 13.9 7.4 23.7 16000 8.2 4610 431 0.25 7.6 1650 1.1 0.16 599 0.57 46.3 44 1.3 7680 0.49 0.38 50.6 0.02 0.05 32000 j 10.1 6.7 22 12700 3.4 3590 297 0.39 QuaUfier 1 '^ U B U j J u u BJ u B BJ J J J J B J B U B U J U u BJ U B BJ J J J J 5.6 L B 1 1 SoU-Worm jUptake Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression I 1 I Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression I Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression I I 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 1 0.92 1 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.055 0.014 106.880 0.049 13.744 1 86.689 0.112 1520.000 0.042 0.028 8.416 0.002 0.796 9072.000 1.196 1.184 2.091 2560.000 8.305 737.600 4.827 0.108 1.119 264.000 0.176 0.013 95.840 0.046 7.408 64.297 0.104 1228.800 0.039 0.011 8.096 0.002 0.516 5120.000 1.253 1.072 2.053 2032.000 3.444 574.400 3.326 0.126 0.824 1 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 0.050 0.012 96.192 0.044 12.370 [ 78.020 0.101 1368.000 0.037 0.025 7.574 0.002 0.717 8164.800 1.076 1.066 1.882 2304.000 7.474 663.840 4.344 0.098 1.007 237.600 0.158 0.012 86.256 0.041 6.667 57.867 0.094 1105.920 0.035 0.010 7.286 0.001 { 0.464 4608.000 1.128 0.965 1.848 1828.800 3.099 516.960 2.994 0.113 SoU 0.042 0.010 82.164 0.038 10.566 19.065 0.086 1168.500 0.032 0.123 6.470 0.002 0.014 6974.100 1.710 0.910 2.915 1968.000 1.009 567.030 53.013 0.031 0.935 202.950 0.135 0.010 73.677 0.035 5.695 5.412 0.080 944.640 0.030 0.047 6.224 0.001 0.006 3936.000 1.242 0.824 2.706 1562.100 0.418 441.570 36.531 0.048 0.742 1 0.689 | 1 Total 1 0.092 0.023 178.356 0.081 22.935 97.085 0.187 2536.500 0.069 0.148 14.044 0.004 0.730 15138.900 2.786 1.976 4.797 4272.000 8.483 1230.870 57.357 0.128 1.942 440.550 0.294 0.021 159.933 0.076 12.362 63.279 0.174 2050.560 0.065 0.056 13.510 0.003 0.470 8544.000 2.370 1.789 4.554 3390.900 3.517 958.530 39.525 0.161 1.431 1 NOAEL Benchmark 1 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 [ NOAEL1 HQ 1 0.23 j NA NA 0.68 2.01 6.70 NA 23.12 NA 0.03 0.68 NA 0.50 NA 2.79 NA 0.10 NA 2.20 NA 0.06 0.29 0.03 NA 0.73 NA NA 0.63 1.08 4.36 NA 18.69 NA 0.01 0.65 NA 0.32 NA 2.37 NA 0.10 NA 0.91 NA 0.04 0.36 II 0.02 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 6 of 10 Ui o to Ui M Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted cJlMpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site ^Ml^i| Location I RG-ll RG-12 RG-13 mM^^^^^^MM Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Berylhum Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 1410 0.62 0.15 329 0.54 44.5 26.4 1.2 6210 0.49 0.48 47 0.02 0.12 23900 9.9 6.1 18.1 12500 4.7 2560 313 0.11 4.2 1010 0.61 0.15 293 0.54 53 39.1 1.2 14400 0.47 1.1 112 0.02 0.86 57400 21.6 11.9 43.8 23100 22.2 6600 560 0.11 Qualifier I U U B U J u u BJ B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J u u BJ U B J J J J U Soa-Worm Uptake Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 I 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 225.600 0.050 0.012 52.640 0.043 7.120 56.956 0.096 993.600 0.039 0.014 7.520 0.002 0.836 3824.000 1.257 0.976 1.959 2000.000 4.760 409.600 3.506 0.065 0.618 161.600 0.049 0.012 46.880 0.043 8.480 62.520 0.096 2304.000 0.038 0.031 17.920 0.002 2.474 9184.000 1.121 1.904 2.425 3696.000 22.484 1056.000 6.272 0.065 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 203.040 0.045 0.011 47.376 0.039 6.408 51.261 0.086 894.240 0.035 0.012 6.768 0.001 0.752 3441.600 1.131 0.878 1.763 1800.000 4.284 368.640 3.155 0.059 0.556 145.440 0.044 0.011 42.192 0.039 7.632 56.268 0.086 2073.600 0.034 0.028 16.128 0.001 2.227 8265.600 1.009 1.714 2.182 3326.400 20.236 950.400 5.645 0.059 Soil 173.430 0.038 0.009 40.467 0.033 5.474 3.247 0.074 763.830 0.030 0.059 5.781 0.001 0.015 2939.700 1.218 0.750 2.226 1537.500 0.578 314.880 38.499 0.007 0.517 124.230 0.038 0.009 36.039 0.033 6.519 4.809 0.074 1771.200 0.029 0.135 13.776 0.001 0.106 7060.200 2.657 1.464 5.387 2841.300 2.731 811.800 68.880 0.007 Total 376.470 0.083 0.020 87.843 0.072 11.882 54.508 0.160 1658.070 0.065 0.071 12.549 0.003 0.767 6381.300 2.349 1.629 3.989 3337.500 4.862 683.520 41.654 0.065 1.073 269.670 0.081 0.020 78.231 0.072 14.151 61.077 0.160 3844.800 0.063 0.163 29.904 0.003 2.332 15325.800 3.666 3.177 7.570 6167.700 22.966 1762.200 74.525 0.065 NOAEL Benchmark NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 NOAEL HQ NA 1 0.21 NA NA 0.60 1.04 3.76 NA 15.11 NA 0.01 0.60 NA 0.53 NA 2.35 NA 0.08 NA 1.26 NA 0.04 0.15 0.01 NA 0.20 NA NA 0.60 1.24 4.21 NA 35.05 NA 0.03 1.44 NA 1.61 NA 3.67 NA 0.16 NA 5.97 NA 0.08 0.15 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 7 of 10 S^mli Ui o to OJ to Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted sSfflTpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 Analyte Nickel 1 Potassium 1 Selenium Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony Arsenic Barium Berylhum Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron 1 Lead Magnesium 1 Manganese | 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 11.5 3020 1.6 0.14 561 0.51 70.2 174 1.2 7220 0.83 1.5 36.5 0.04 0.04 97500 39 4.9 10.2 9160 3.4 3190 222 0.18 17 706 I 0.25 215 0.92 28.6 21.8 2 3500 0.46 0.3 23.1 0.02 0.02 800000 4.7 2.2 11.8 4330 1.6 1600 1 173 1 Qualifier J J U B U J u J u BJ BJ U U J J BJ BJ J J J J U J BJ U U BJ U J J u u u B u u BJ J J J 1 Soil-Worm [Uptake Factor 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 [ Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression j 1 6.33 1 0.07 J Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 1.693 483.200 0.256 0.011 89.760 0.041 11.232 89.100 0.096 1155.200 0.066 0.042 5.840 0.003 0.311 15600.000 1.029 0.784 1.706 1465.600 3.444 510.400 2.486 0.077 2.502 112.960 0.080 0.020 34.400 0.074 4.576 54.427 0.160 560.000 0.037 0.004 3.696 0.002 0.212 128000.000 1.401 0.352 1.767 692.800 1.620 256.000 1.938 1 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) [ Food 1 Soil 1 Total 1.524 434.880 j 0.230 0.010 80.784 0.037 10.109 80.190 0.086 1039.680 0.060 0.037 5.256 0.003 0.280 14040.000 0.926 0.706 1.535 1319.040 3.099 459.360 2.238 0.069 2.252 101.664 0.072 0.018 30.960 0.066 4.118 48.984 0.144 504.000 0.033 0.004 3.326 0.001 0.191 115200.000 1.261 0.317 1.590 623.520 1.458 230.400 1.744 1.415 371.460 0.197 0.009 69.003 0.031 8.635 21.402 0.074 888.060 0.051 0.185 4.490 0.002 0.002 11992.500 4.797 0.603 1.255 1126.680 0.418 392.370 27.306 0.011 2.091 86.838 0.062 0.015 26,445 0.057 3.518 2.681 0.123 430.500 0.028 0.018 2.841 0.001 0.001 98400.000 0.578 0.271 1.451 532.590 0.197 196.800 21.279 J 2.938 806.340 j 0.427 0.019 149.787 0.068 18.743 101.592 0.160 1927.740 O.Ill 0.222 9.746 0.005 0.283 26032.500 5.723 1.308 2.790 2445.720 3.517 851.730 29.544 0.080 4.343 188.502 0.134 0.033 57.405 0.123 7.636 51.665 0.267 934.500 0.061 0.022 6.168 0.003 0.192 213600.000 1.839 0.587 3.041 1156.110 1.655 427.200 23.023 1 NOAEL Benchmark 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 J NOAEL1 1 H Q 1 0.04 1 NA 1.07 NA NA 0.57 1 ^•^'* 7.01 NA 17.57 NA 0.04 0.47 NA 0.19 NA 5.72 NA 0.06 NA 0.91 NA 0.03 0.18 0.06 NA 0.33 NA NA 1.02 0.67 3.56 NA 8.52 NA 0.00 0.30 NA 0.13 NA 1.84 NA 0.06 NA 0.43 NA II 0.02 1 • ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Pages of 10 S^ffpli Table C-10: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SalRTpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site O to tjO Location RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL on mean in River Gut Analyte 1 Mercury Nickel 1 Potassium 1 Selenium Silver 1 Sodium 1 Thallium 1 Vanadium 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide 1 Aluminum Antimony 1 Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron 1 Lead 1 Magnesium | 1 Soil Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 0.11 1.3 665 0.57 0.14 255 0.51 15 13.6 1.1 5200 0.53 0.34 21.6 0.03 0.08 46400 5.9 3.1 19.9 5780 2.2 1660 196 0.12 4.2 803 0.66 0.16 492 0.58 17 25.9 1.3 12778.90 0.28 0.95 68.16 O.OI 0.28 179734.49 18.37 11.53 35.64 22110.85 11.25 1 6717.89 1 Qualifier J B B U u B U 1 J u u u B U B BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U 1 Soil-Worm [Uptake Factor 1 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression I 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression | 1 Regression 1 I Regression | 1 6.33 I 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.082 0.191 106.400 0.046 1 0.011 40.800 0.041 2.400 48.661 0.088 832.000 0.042 0.005 3.456 0.002 0,668 7424.000 1.355 0.496 2.004 924.800 2.228 265.600 2.195 0.067 0.618 128.480 0.053 0.013 78.720 0.046 2.720 56.699 0.104 2044.623 0.045 0.027 10.906 0.002 1.339 28757.518 1.148 1.845 2.307 3537.737 11.399 1 1074.862 J Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 0.074 0.172 95.760 0.041 j 0.010 36.720 0.037 2.160 43.795 0.079 748.800 0.038 0.004 3.110 0.002 0.601 6681.600 1.220 0.446 1.804 832.320 2.005 239.040 1.976 0.060 0.556 115.632 0.048 0.012 70.848 0.042 2.448 51.029 0.094 1840.161 0.041 0.024 9.815 0.002 1.205 25881.766 1.033 1.660 2.076 3183.963 10.259 967.376 1 1 SoU 0.014 0.160 81.795 0.035 0.009 31.365 0.031 1.845 1.673 0.068 639.600 0.033 0.021 2.657 0.002 0.010 5707.200 0.726 0.381 2.448 710.940 0.271 • 204.180 24.108 0.007 0.517 98.769 0.041 0.010 60.516 0.036 2.091 3.186 0.080 1571.804 0.035 0.117 8.384 0.002 0.035 22107.342 2.260 1.418 4.383 2719.635 1.384 826.300 J Total 0.088 0.332 177.555 0.076 0.019 68.085 0.068 4.005 45.468 0.147 1388.400 0.071 0.025 5.767 0.004 0.611 12388.800 1.945 0.828 4.252 1543.260 2.276 443.220 26.084 0.068 1.073 214.401 0.088 0.021 131.364 0.077 4.539 54.214 0.174 3411.965 0.075 0.141 18.199 0.004 1.240 47989.108 3.293 3.079 6.459 5903.598 11.643 1793.676 1 NOAEL 1 Benchmark 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 1 NA J I NOAEL1 1 HQ 1 0.19 1 0.00 NA 0.19 1 ^^ NA 0.57 0.35 3.14 NA 12.66 NA 0.00 0.28 NA 0.42 NA 1.95 NA 0.09 NA 0.59 NA 0.03 0.15 0.01 NA 0.22 NA NA 0.65 0.40 3.74 NA 31.10 NA 0.03 0.87 NA 0.85 NA 3,29 NA 0.14 NA 3.02 NA Ij ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 9 of 10 Ui o to Ui slfflTpii Table C-IO: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted SMipiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Ix>cation 95% UCL on mean in River Gut llsSirisiyteip;; Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide SoU Concentration (mg/kg) 573.08 0.21 10.56 2079.02 0.73 0.09 560.48 0.31 60.16 105.62 0.69 IM^iifiiiiii SoU-Worm Uptake Factor 0.07 Regression 0.92 Regression I Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 6.418 0.102 1.555 332.644 0.117 0.014 89.677 0.050 9.625 79.146 0.111 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 5.777 0.092 1.400 299.380 0.106 0.012 80.709 0.045 8.663 71.231 0.100 SoU 70.489 0.026 1.299 255.720 0.090 0.010 68.939 0.038 7.399 12.991 0.085 Total 76.265 0.118 2.699 555.100 0.196 0.023 149.648 0.083 16.062 84.222 0.185 NOAEL Benchmark 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 0.08 0.26 0.03 NA 0.49 NA NA 0.69 1.41 5.81 NA ' NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Sample et al., 1996) Soil-Worm Uptake Factors (UF): lead, manganese and nickel factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and zinc (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(worm)=-1.747+0.9884(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(worm)=2.8216-l-0.5512(ln[soill); chromium: ln(womi)=2.3937-H-0.146(ln[soill) mercury: ln(wonn)=0.078H-0.3369(ln[soil]); and zinc: ln(worra)=5.0981-H0.2373(ln[soil]). Soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) were assumed to contain 84% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit was used for exposure calculation. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (18%) measured in the River Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-RG Page 10 of 10 Table C-11: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site 1 Location BG-1 BG-2 1 Analyte 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium | 1 Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 15400 0.61 0.39 101 0.03 0.16 39800 19.7 11.4 49.3 20400 12.9 5380 534 0.14 11.7 3310 0.76 0.18 660 0.67 68.2 58.7 1.5 3990 0.43 0.43 63 0.02 0.02 Qualifier I U u u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U J u u BJ u- u 19800 1 J 1 Soil-Worm 1 ptakc Factor 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 2464.000 0.049 0.006 16.160 0.002 0.979 6368.000 1.136 1.824 2.495 3264.000 13.065 860.800 5.981 0.071 1.722 529.600 0.061 0.014 105.600 0.054 10.912 68.849 0.120 638.400 0.034 0.012 10.080 0.002 0.212 3168.000 I Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 2217.600 0,044 0.005 14.544 0.002 0.881 5731.200 1.023 1.642 2.245 2937.600 11.759 774.720 5.383 0.064 1.550 476.640 0.055 0.013 95.040 0.048 9.821 61.964 0.108 574.560 0.031 0.011 9.072 0.001 0.191 2851.200 1 [ Soil 1894.200 0.038 0.024 12.423 0.002 0.020 4895.400 2.423 1.402 6.064 2509.200 1.587 661.740 65.682 0.009 1.439 407.130 0.047 0.011 81.180 0.041 8.389 7.220 0.092 490.770 0.026 0.053 7.749 0.001 0.001 2435.400 Total 4111.800 0.081 0.029 26,967 0.004 0.901 10626.600 3.446 3.044 8.309 5446.800 13.345 1436.460 71.065 0.072 2.989 883.770 0.101 0.024 176.220 0.089 18.209 69.184 0.200 1065.330 0.057 0.064 16.821 0.003 0.192 5286.600 NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA ] NOAEL1 1 HQ 1 37.48 1 NA 0.01 1.30 NA 0.62 NA 3.45 NA 0.18 NA 3.47 NA 0.07 0.16 0.04 NA 0.25 NA NA 0.75 L60 4.77 NA 9.71 NA 0.01 0.81 NA 0.13 NA 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-BG sei-if^oe Pagel of3 Table C-11: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site 1 Location BG-2 II Average in Bethlehem Gut Analyte Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron 1 Lead Magnesium ManganeseJ 1 Soil Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 4.6 5.4 11.2 5300 2.4 1150 339 0.1 3.2 582 0.53 0.13 423 0.47 29.9 13.1 1.1 9695 0.26 0.3125 82 0.0125 , 0.085 29800 12.15 8.4 30.25 12850 7.65 3265 436.5 J Qualifier BJ J J J U B B U u B U J u Soil-Worm ptake Factor Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 I Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 ] Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 1.405 0.864 1.745 848.000 2.431 184.000 3.797 0.063 0.471 93.120 0.042 0.010 67.680 0.038 4.784 48.231 0.088 1551.200 0.042 0.009 13.120 0.002 0.691 4768.000 1.220 1.344 2.217 2056.000 7.748 522.400 4.889 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 1.265 0.778 1.570 763.200 2.188 165.600 3.417 0.057 0.424 83.808 0.038 0.009 60.912 0.034 4.306 43.408 0.079 1396.080 0.037 0.008 11.808 0.002 0.622 4291.200 1.098 1.210 1.996 1850.400 6.973 470.160 4.400 1 Soil 0.566 1 0.664 1.378 651.900 0.295 141.450 41.697 0.006 0.394 71.586 0.033 0.008 52.029 0.029 3.678 1.611 0.068 1192.485 0.032 0.038 10.086 0.002 0.010 3665.400 1.494 1.033 3.721 1580.550 0.941 401.595 Total 1.831 1.442 2.948 1415.100 2.483 307.050 45.114 0.063 0.818 155.394 0.071 0.017 112.941 0.063 7.983 45.019 0.147 2588.565 0.069 0.046 21.894 0.003 0.632 7956.600 2.592 2.243 5.716 3430.950 7.914 871.755 53.690 1 58.089 | NOAEL Benchmark 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 1 NOAEL HQ 1 1.83 NA 0.06 NA 0.64 NA 0.05 0.14 0.01 NA 0.18 NA NA 0.52 0.70 3.10 NA 23.60 NA 0.01 1.05 NA 0.44 NA 2.59 NA 0.12 NA 2.06 NA 0.06 1 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-BG ses^oe Page 2 of 3 Table C-11: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotted Sandpiper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location Average in Bethlehem Gut Analvte Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.06 7.45 1946 0.3225 0.0775 541.5 0.285 49.05 35.9 j 0.65 Qualifier Soil-Worm ptake Factor Regression 0.92 Regression 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.067 1.097 311.360 0.052 0.012 86.640 0.046 7.848 61.266 0.104 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 0.060 0.987 280.224 0.046 0.011 77.976 0.041 7.063 55.140 0.094 Soil 0.007 0.916 239.358 0.040 0.010 66.605 0.035 6.033 4.416 0.080 Total 0.068 1.903 519.582 0.086 0.021 144.581 0.076 13.096 59.555 0.174 | | : ; N O A | i | | Benchmark 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 0.15 0.02 NA 0.22 NA NA 0.63 1.15 4.11 NA ° NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Sample et al, 1996) Soil-Worm Uptake Factors (UF): lead, manganese and nickel factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and zinc (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(worm)=-1.747+0.9884(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(worm)=2.8216+0.55I2(ln[soil]); chromium: ln(worm)=2.3957+-0.146(ln[soil]) mercury: ln(worm)=0.0781+0.3369(ln[soil]); and zinc: ln(worm)=5.0981+0.2373(ln[soil]). Soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) were assumed to contain 84% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit was used for exposure calculation. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (20%) measured in the Bethlehem Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. ^e^f'Oe ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-BG Page 3 of 3 Tabel C-12: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotteo .l^pTper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ o >(^ to to 00 Location FPG-1 FPG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Niclcel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Niclcel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 10200 0.52 1.4 67.4 0.03 0.09 36600 13.9 8.2 33.1 14300 8.8 3680 267 0.13 7.7 2150 1.1 0.16 570 0.57 54.6 39.4 1.3 9750 0.51 2.8 70 0.03 0.2 25300 13.9 8.6 33.2 14800 5.7 3670 332 0.12 6.9 1940 0.63 0.15 887 0.56 56.5 Qualifier U BJ U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J U u J u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U SoU-Worm Uptake Factor' 1 1 Regression 1 I Regression 1 Regression I Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 1632.000 0.042 0.039 10.784 0.002 0.713 5856.000 1.196 1.312 2.266 2288.000 8.913 588.800 2.990 0.069 1.133 344.000 0.176 0.013 91.200 0.046 8.736 62.634 0.104 1560.000 0.041 0.077 11.200 0.002 1.107 4048.000 1.196 1.376 2.268 2368.000 5.773 587.200 3.718 0.067 I.0I6 310.400 0.050 0.012 141.920 0.045 9.040 Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) Food 1468.800 0.037 0.035 9.706 0.002 0.642 5270.400 1.076 1.181 2.040 2059.200 8.021 529.920 2.691 0.062 1.020 309.600 0.158 0.012 82.080 0.041 7.862 56.370 0.094 1404.000 0.037 0.069 10.080 0.002 0.997 3643.200 1.076 1.238 2.041 2131.200 5.196 528.480 3.347 0.060 0.914 279.360 0.045 O.OIl 127.728 0.040 8.136 Soil 1147.500 0.029 0.158 7.583 0.002 0.010 4117.500 1.564 0.923 3.724 1608.750 0.990 414.000 30.038 0.007 0.866 241.875 0.124 0.009 64.125 0.032 6.143 4.433 0.073 1096.875 0.029 0.315 7.875 0.002 0.023 2846.250 1.564 0.968 3.735 1665.000 0.641 412.875 37.350 0.007 0.776 218.250 0.035 0.008 99.788 0.032 Total 2616.300 0.067 0.193 17.288 0.004 0.652 9387.900 2.640 2.103 5.763 3667.950 9.011 943.920 32.729 0.069 1.886 551.475 0.282 0.021 146.205 0.073 14.005 60.803 0.167 2500.875 0.065 0.384 17.955 0.004 1.019 6489.450 2.640 2.206 5.776 3796.200 5.837 941.355 40.697 0.067 1.690 497.610 0.081 0.019 227.516 0.072 6.356 14.492 | NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 NOAEL HQ 23.85 NA 0.04 0.83 NA 0.45 NA 2.64 NA 0.12 NA 2.34 NA 0.03 0.15 0.02 NA 0.71 NA NA 0.61 1.23 4.19 NA 22.80 NA 0.08 0.86 NA 0.70 NA 2.64 NA 0.12 NA 1.52 NA 0.04 0.15 0.02 NA 0.20 NA NA 0.60 1.27 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-FG Page 1 of 3 Tabel C-12: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotte Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Islan • landCl per Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Chemical Site Ui o OJ vo 1 Location FPG-2 FPG-3 FPG-4 1 Analyte 1 Zinc 1 Cyanide 1 Aluminum 1 Antimony 1 Arsenic 1 Barium 1 Beryllium 1 Cadmium 1 Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Niclcel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese 1 Mercury 1 Nickel Potassium | Selenium 1 Silver Sodium _J 1 Soil Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 34.2 1.2 9150 0.62 1.3 61.4 0.03 0.05 17900 13.7 1 9.3 25.8 15200 5.6 4210 197 0.15 7 2720 1.2 0.18 21100 0.68 69.4 29.3 1.5 2770 0.49 1.7 8.7 0.02 0.02 21300 3 3 6 4320 2.6 1850 64.6 0.12 1.5 493 0.62 0.15 1110 1 1 QuaUfier J U U BJ B U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u u B B U U BJ B J J U B B U u B _ 1 1 Soil-Worm [Uptake Factor* [ Regression 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 Regression I 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 1 1 I 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression I Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 1 0.92 1 1 1 1 1 j Worm Concentration 1 (mg/kg) 60.565 0.096 1464.000 0.050 0.000 9.824 0.002 0.000 2864.000 0.000 1.488 0.000 2432.000 5.672 673.600 2.206 0.000 1.030 435.200 0.192 0.014 3376.000 0.054 11.104 0.000 0.120 443.200 0.039 0.000 1.392 0.002 0.000 3408.000 0.000 0.480 0.000 691.200 2.633 296.000 0.724 0.000 0.221 78.880 0.050 0.012 177.600 1 [ Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/d) 1 Food 54.508 0.086 1317.600 0.045 0.000 8.842 0.002 0.000 2577.600 0.000 1.339 0.000 2188.800 5.105 606.240 1.986 0.000 0.927 391.680 0.173 0.013 3038.400 0.049 9.994 0.000 0.108 398.880 0.035 0.000 1.253 0.001 0.000 3067.200 0.000 0.432 0.000 622.080 2.370 266.400 0.651 0.000 0.199 70.992 0.045 0.011 159.840 1 r Soil 3.848 0.068 1029.375 0.035 0.146 6.908 0.002 0.006 2013.750 1.541 1.046 2.903 1710.000 0.630 473.625 22.163 0.008 0.788 306.000 0.135 0.010 2373.750 0.038 7.808 3.296 0.084 311.625 0.028 0.191 0.979 0.001 0.001 2396.250 0.338 0.338 0.675 486.000 0.293 208.125 7.268 0.007 0.169 55.463 0.035 0.008 124.875 r Total 58.356 0.154 2346.975 1 0.080 0.146 15.749 0.004 0.006 4591.350 1.541 1 2.385 2.903 3898.800 5.735 1079.865 24.148 0.008 1.715 697.680 0.308 0.023 5412.150 0.087 17.801 3.296 0.192 710.505 0.063 0.191 2.232 0.003 0.001 5463.450 0.338 0.770 0.675 1108.080 2.662 474.525 7.919 0.007 0.367 126.455 0.080 0.019 284.715 1 NOAEL 1 Benchmark 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 1 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA NOAEL1 1 HQ 1 4.02 1 NA 21.39 NA 0.03 0.76 NA 0.00 NA 1.54 NA 0.06 NA 1.49 NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 NA 0.77 NA NA 0.73 1.56 0.23 NA 6.48 NA 0.04 O . I I NA 0.00 NA 0.34 NA 0.01 NA 0.69 NA 0.01 0.02 0.00 NA 0.20 NA NA 11 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-FG Page 2 of 3 Tabel C-12: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Spotter .l^pRper Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site OJ O lO o Location FPG-4 Average in Fair Plain Gut Analyte Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 0.54 16.6 12.2 1.2 7967.5 0.2675 1.8 51.875 0.01375 0.0875 25275 11.125 7.275 24.525 12155 5.675 3352.5 215.15 0.065 5.775 1825.75 0.73125 0.08 5916.75 0.29375 49.275 28.775 0.65 Qualifier U J u , Soil-Worm Uptake Factor* 1 1 Regression 1 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 I 1 1 1 1 1 Regression 1 Worm Concentration (mg/kg) 0.043 2.656 0.000 0.096 1274.800 0.043 0.050 8.300 0.002 0.702 4044.000 1.235 1.164 2.108 1944.800 5.748 536.400 2.410 0.069 0.850 292.120 0.117 0.013 946.680 0.047 7.884 58.133 0.104 Exposure Estimate ( Food 0.039 2.390 0.000 0.086 1147.320 0.039 0.045 7.470 0.002 0.632 3639.600 1.112 1.048 1.897 1750.320 5.173 482.760 2.169 0.062 0.765 262.908 0.105 0.012 852.012 0.042 7.096 52.319 0.094 SoU 0.030 1.868 1.373 0.068 896.344 0.030 0.203 5.836 0.002 0.010 2843.438 1.252 0.818 2.759 1367.438 0.638 377.156 24.204 0.007 0.650 205.397 0.082 0.009 665.634 0.033 5.543 3.237 0.073 mg/kg/d) Total 0.069 4.258 1.373 0.154 2043.664 0.069 0.247 13.306 0.004 0.642 6483.038 2.363- 1.866 4.656 3117.758 5.811 859.916 26.373 0.069 1.415 468.305 0.188 0.021 1517.646 0.075 12.639 55.557 0.167 NOAEL Bencimiark 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA 10970 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA l.OO NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 0.58 0.37 0.09 NA 18.63 NA 0.05 0.64 NA 0.44 NA 2.36 NA O.IO NA 1.51 NA 0.03 0.15 0.02 NA 0.47 NA NA 0.63 1.11 3.83 NA ° NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Sample et al., 1996) ' Soil-Worm Uptake Factors (UF): lead, manganese and nickel factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and zinc (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(worm)=-1.747+0.9884(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(worm)=2.8216+0.5512(ln[soil]); chromium: ln(worm)=2.3957+-0.I46(ln[soil]) mercury: ln(worm)=0.078I+0.3369(ln[soil]); and zinc: ln(worm)=5.098I+0.2373(ln[soil]). Soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) were assumed to contain 84% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit was used for exposure calculation. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available Average soil moisture (25%) measured in the Fair Plain Gut was used to calculate wet weight soil concentration for exposure from ingestion of soil. ECOSCREEN.XLS, sand-FG Page 3 of 3 lu^Wer Table C-13: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Great BluWreron Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-3 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration (mg/kg) 9150 0.62 1.3 61.4 0.03 0.05 17900 13.7 9.3 25.8 15200 5.6 4210 197 0.15 7 2720 1.2 0.18 21100 0.68 69.4 29.3 1.5 Qualifier U BJ B U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u Soil-Worm Uptake Factor* 1 I Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression I Regression 1 6.33 I 0.07 Regression 0.92 Regression 1 Fish Concentration (mg/kg) 2287.500 0.078 0.056 15.350 0.004 0.806 4475.000 1.872 2.325 3.334 3800.000 8.862 1052.500 3.448 0.113 1.610 680.000 0.300 0.023 5275.000 0.085 17.350 91.223 0.188 Exposure Estiraat (mg/kg/d) 397.826 0.013 0.010 2.670 O.OOI 0.140 778.261 0.326 0.404 0.580 660.870 1.541 183.043 0.600 0.020 0.280 118.261 0.052 0.004 917.391 0.015 3.017 15.865 0.033 NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 3.63 NA 0.00 0.13 NA 0.10 NA 0.33 NA 0.01 NA 0.40 NA 0.00 0.04 0.00 NA 0.13 NA NA 0.12 0.26 1.09 NA tJJ o lO ECOSCREEN.XLS, heron Page 1 of 3 Jli^Wei Table C-13: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Great BliHWieron Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-4 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Sliver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration (mg/lig) 2770 0.49 1.7 8.7 0.02 0.02 21300 3 3 6 4320 2.6 1850 64.6 0.12 1.5 493 0.62 0.15 1110 0.54 16.6 12.2 1.2 Qualiflcr U B B U U BJ B J J U B B U U B U J U Soil-Worm Uptake Factor* I 1 Regression 1 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 Regression 1 Fish Concentration (mg/kg) 692.500 0.061 0.074 2.175 0.003 0.332 5325.000 2.337 0.750 2.345 1080.000 4.115 462.500 1.I3I 0.105 0.345 123.250 0.078 0.019 277.500 0.068 4.150 74.099 0.150 Exposure Estiraat (mg/kg/d) 120.435 0.011 0.013 0.378 0.000 0.058 926.087 0.406 0.130 0.408 187.826 0.716 80.435 0.197 0.018 0.060 21.435 0.013 0.003 48.261 0.012 0.722 12.887 0.026 NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA 1.00 NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 1.10 NA 0.00 0.02 NA 0.04 NA 0.41 NA 0.01 NA 0.19 NA 0.00 0.04 0.00 NA 0.03 NA NA O.IO 0.06 0.89 NA Ui o to to ECOSCREEN.XLS, heron Page 2 of 3 lu^ner Table C-13: Estimated Chemical Exposure for the Great Bldnferon Compared to Ecotoxicological Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location Average of sediment samples Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration (mg/kg) 5960 0.2775 1.5 35.05 0.0125 0.03 19600 8.35 6.15 15.9 9760 4.1 3030 130.8 0.0675 4.25 1606.5 0.755 0.0825 11105 0.305 43 20.75 0.675 Qualifier Soil-Worm Uptake Factor* 1 1 Regression 1 1 Regression I Regression 1 Regression 1 6.33 1 0.07 Regression 0.92 Regression 1 Fish Concentration (mg/kg) 1490.000 0.069 0.065 8.763 0.003 0.608 4900.000 2.013 1.538 2.967 2440.000 6.488 757.500 2.289 0.109 0.978 401.625 0.189 0.021 2776.250 0.076 10.750 84.051 0.169 Exposure Estimat (mg/kg/d) 259.130 0.012 0.011 1.524 0.001 0.106 852.174 0.350 0.267 0.516 424.348 1.128 131.739 0.398 0.019 0.170 69.848 0.033 0.004 482.826 0.013 1.870 14.618 0.029 NOAEL Benchmark 109.70 NA 5.10 20.80 NA 1.45 NA l.OO NA 47.00 NA 3.85 NA 977.00 0.45 77.40 NA 0.40 NA NA 0.12 11.40 14.50 NA NOAEL HQ 2.36 NA 0.00 0.07 NA 0.07 NA 0.35 NA 0.01 NA 0.29 NA 0.00 0.04 0.00 NA 0.08 NA NA 0.11 0.16 1.01 NA to " NOAELs: No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (mg/kg/d) (Sample et al., 1996) " Soil-Worm Uptake Factors (UF): lead, manganese and nickel factor is mean UF (Sample et al., 1997). Regression Models used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and zinc (Sample et al., 1997): arsenic: ln(wonn)=-I.747+0.9884(ln[soil]); cadmium: ln(worm)=2.8216+0.5512(ln[soil]); chromium: ln(worm)=2.3957+-0.146(In[soil]) mercury: ln(wonn)=0.0781+0.3369(ln[soil]); and zinc: ln(worm)=5.0981+0.2373(ln[soil]). Fish were assumed to contain 75% moisture content (USEPA, 1993). U = Analyte was not detected above the referenced reporting limit; 1/2 detection limit was used for exposure calculation. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. Chemical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concem. ~ = Hazard Quotient not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available ECOSCREEN.XLS, heron Page 3 of 3 Table C-14: Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) Drainage Channels -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location Analyte Total Exposure NOAEL Benchmark NOAEL HQ LOAEL Benchmark LOAEL HO Goats RG-2 RG-2D RG-3 RG-4 RG-4D RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL River Gut BG-1 BG-2 Average Beth. Gut Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium 60.450 0.270 69.031 0.316 58.110 0.233 56.160 0.192 35.919 0.128 43.680 0.188 40.950 0.201 44.850 0.249 39.780 0.175 60.060 0.336 37.050 0.181 29.952 0.174 24.219 0.207 56.160 0.274 28.158 0.112 13.650 20.280 0.066 49.838 0.235 58.603 0.260 15.183 0.114 36.893 0.187 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0,07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 182.40 4.06 208.29 4.75 175.34 3.49 169.45 2.88 108.38 1.92 131.80 2.82 123.56 3.01 135.33 3.74 120.03 2.63 181.22 5.04 111.79 2.71 90.37 2.61 73.08 3.11 169.45 4.12 84.96 1.68 41.19 61.19 1.00 150.38 3.53 176.82 3.90 45.81 1.71 111.32 2.81 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 18.26 0.40 20.86 0.47 17.56 0.35 16.97 0.29 10.85 0.19 13.20 0.28 12.37 0.30 13.55 0.37 12.02 0.26 18.15 0.50 11.19 0.27 9.05 0.26 7.32 0.31 16.97 0.41 8.51 0.17 4.12 6.13 0.10 15.06 0.35 17.70 0.39 4.59 0.17 11.15 0.28 Lx)ael.xls,screen Page 1 of 5 Table C-14: Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) Drainage Channels -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location FPG-1 FPG-2 Average FPG Analyte Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Aluminum Vanadium Total Exposure 36.401 0.195 34.795 0.202 35.598 0.199 NOAEL Benchmark 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.07 NOAEL HQ 109.83 2.93 104.99 3.03 107.41 2.98 LOAEL Benchmark 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 3.31 0.67 LOAEL HO 11.00 0.29 10.51 0.30 10.75 0.30 Jamaican Fruit Bats | RG-2 RG-2D RG-3 RG-4 RG-4D RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL River Gut BG-1 BG-2 Average Beth. Gut FPG-1 FPG-2 Average FPG Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminiun Aluminum Aluminiun Aluminum Aluminum Selenium Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Selenium Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Selenium Aluminum Aluminum 11.41 13.03 10.97 10.60 6.78 8.24 7.73 8.46 7.51 11.33 6.99 0.34 5.65 4.57 10.60 0.53 5.31 2.58 3.83 9.41 11.33 2.94 7.14 7.51 0.34 7.18 7.34 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.33 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.33 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.33 1.70 1.70 6.72 7.67 6.46 6.24 3.99 4.85 4.55 4.98 4.42 6.67 4.12 1.06 3.33 2.69 6.24 1.62 3.13 1.52 2.25 5.54 6.67 1.73 4.20 4.42 ' 1.06 4.22 4.32 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 0.54 16.99 16.99 16.99 0.54 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 0.54 16.99 16.99 0.67 0.77 0.65 0.62 0.40 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.44 j 0.67 0.41 0.63 0.33 0.27 0.62 0.98 0.31 0.15 0.23 0.55 0.67 0.17 0.42 0.44 0.63 0.42 0.43 Spotted Sandpiper RG-2 RG-2D Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Barium 4138.50 3.03 6.10 18.48 93.38 4725.90 23.76 109.70 1.00 3.85 11.40 14.50 109.7 20.8 37.73 3.03 1.59 1.62 6.44 43.08 1.14 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 41.7 93.00 0.61 0.54 NA 0.71 106.20 0.57 Loael.xls.screen Page 2 of 5 Table C-14: Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) Drainage Channels -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-2D RG-3 RG-4 RG-4D RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 Analyte Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Barium Chromium Lead Vanadium Total Exposure 3.41 8.48 21.63 120.80 3978.30 2.89 4.24 15.91 67.55 3844.80 2.58 14.59 13.14 66.12 2459.07 2.15 62.66 2990.40 2.86 27.00 12.84 72.46 2803.50 2.84 11.79 13.72 64.10 3070.50 2.75 6.10 17.04 63.02 2723.40 2.45 4.66 11.96 59.06 4111.80 26.30 3.50 6.52 22.94 NOAEL Benchmark 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 20.8 1 3.85 11.4 NOAEL HQ 3.41 2.20 1.90 8.33 36.27 2.89 1.10 1.40 4.66 35.05 2.58 3.79 1.15 4.56 22,42 2.15 4.32 27.26 2.86 7.01 1.13 5.00 25.56 2.84 3.06 1.20 4.42 27.99 2.75 1.59 i.49 4.35 24.83 2.45 1.21 1.05 4.07 37.48 1.26 3.50 1.69 2.01 LOAEL Benchmark 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 41.7 5 11.3 NA LOAEL HQ 0.68 0.75 NA 0.92 89.40 0.58 0.38 NA 0.52 86.40 0.52 1.29 NA 0.50 55.26 0.43 0.48 67.20 0.57 2.39 NA 0.55 63.00 0.57 1.04 NA 0.49 69.00 0.55 0.54 NA 0.48 61.20 0.49 0.41 NA 0.45 92.40 0.63 0.70 0.58 NA Loael.xls,SCTeen Page 3 of 5 Table C-14: Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) Drainage Channels -Virgin island Chemical Site Location RG-9 RG-10 RG-11 RG-12 RG-13 RG-13 RG-14 RG-15 RG-16 95% UCL River Gut BG-1 Analyte Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Selenium Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Thallium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Barium Chromium Lead Total Exposure 97.09 2536.50 2.79 8.48 12.36 63.28 2050.56 2.37 11.88 54.51 1658.07 .2.35 4.86 14.15 61.08 3844.80 29.90 2.33 3.67 22.97 0.43 18.74 101.59 1927.74 5.72 0.12 51.67 934.50 1.84 45.47 1388.40 1.95 54.21 3411.97 3.29 11.64 16.06 84.22 4111.80 26.97 3.45 [_ 13.35 NOAEL Benchmark 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 20.8 1.45 1 3.85 0.4 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 0.12 14.5 109.7 1 14.5 109.7 1 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 20.8 1 3.85 NOAEL HO 6.70 23.12 2.79 2.20 1.08 4.36 18.69 2.37 1.04 3.76 15.11 2.35 1.26 1.24 4.21 35.05 1.44 1.61 3.67 5.97 1.07 1.64 7.01 17.57 5.72 1.02 3.56 8.52 1.84 3.16 12.66 1.95 3.74 31.10 3.29 3.02 1.41 5.81 37.48 1.30 3.45 3.47 LOAEL Benchmark 131 •44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 41.7 20 5 11.3 0.8 NA 131 44.5 5 NA j 131 44.5 5 131 44.5 5 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 41.7 5 1 11.3 LOAEL HQ 0.74 57.00 0.56 0.75 NA 0.48 46.08 0.47 NA 0.42 37.26 0.47 0.43 NA 0.47 86.40 0.72 0.12 0.73 2.03 0.53 NA 0.78 43.32 1.14 NA 0.39 21.00 0.37 0.35 31.20 0.39 0.41 76.67 0.66 1.03 NA 0.64 92.40 0.65 0.69 1.18 c LoaeI.xls,screen Page 4 of 5 Table C-14: Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) for each Receptor Comparison with Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) Drainage Channels -Virgin Island Chemical Site Location BG-1 BG-2 Average Bethlehem Gut FPG-1 FPG-2 FPG-3 FPG-4 Average FPG Analyte Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Zinc Aluminum Barium Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Aluminum Aluminum Chromium Lead Vanadium Zinc Total Exposure 18.21 69.18 1065.33 1.83 45.02 2588.57 21.89 2.59 7.91 13.10 59.56 2616.30 2.64 9.01 14.01 60.80 2500.88 2.64 5.84 14.49 58.36 2346.98 1.54 5.74 17.80 710.51 2043.66 2.36 5.81 12.64 55.56 NOAEL Benchmark 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 14.5 109.7 20.8 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 109.7 109.7 1 3.85 11.4 14.5 NOAEL HQ 1.60 4.77 9.71 1.83 3.10 23.60 1.05 2.59 2.06 1.15 4.11 23.85 2.64 2.34 1.23 4.19 22.80 2.64 1.52 1.27 4.02 21.39 1.54 1.49 1.56 6.48 18.63 2.36 1.51 1.11 3.83 LOAEL Benchmark NA 131 44.5 5 131 44.5 41.7 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 44.5 5 11.3 NA 44.5 44.5 5 11.3 NA 131 LOAEL HQ NA 0.53 23.94 0.37 0.34 58.17 0.53 0.52 0.70 NA 0.45 58.79 0.53 0.80 NA 0.46 56.20 0.53 0.52 NA 0.45 52.74 0.31 0.51 NA 15.97 45.93 0.47 0.51 NA 0.42 Great Blue Herons FPG-3 FPG-4 Average FPG Aluminum Zinc Aluminum Aluminum Zinc 397.83 15.86 120.43 259.13 14.62 109.70 14.50 109.70 109.70 14.50 3.63 1.09 1.10 2.36 1.01 44.5 131 44.5 44.5 131 8.94 0.12 2.71 5.82 0.11 HQ= Hazard quotients, if LOAEL HQ > 1, constituent may result in a reproductive effect to receptor. 304248 Loael.xls.screen Page 5 of 5 Table C-15: Chemical Concentrations Measured In Sediment Samples Compared to Screening Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site, Location FPG-3 Fairplain Gut FPG-4 Fair Plain Gut Analyte Alumimmi Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Concentration (mg/kg) 9150 0.62 1.3 61.4 0.03 0.05 17900 137 9.3 25.8 15200 5.6 4210 197 0.15 7 2720 1.2 0.18 21100 0.68 69.4 29.3 1.5 2770 0.49 1.7 8.7 0.02 0.02 21300 3 3 6 4320 2.6 1850 Qualifier U BJ B U B BJ J J J U B J B U B U J u u B B U U BJ B J Low Effects Benchmark' (mg/kg) NA 2 8.2 500" 0.5 = 1.2 NA 81 50" 34 NA 46.7 NA 460' 0.15 20.9 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 150 NA NA 2 8.2 500" 0.5' 1.2 NA 81 50" 34 NA 46.7 NA Hazard Quotient - 0.155 0.159 0.123 0.030 0.042 — 0.169 0.186 0.759 — 0.120 - 0.428 0.500 0.335 — — 0.090 — — — 0.195 - - 0.123 0.207 0.017 0.020 0.008 - . 0.037 0.060 0.176 - 0.056 - ECOSCREEN.XLS, sediment 304249 Table C-15: Chemical Concentrations Measured In Sediment Samples Compared to Screening Benchmarks Fair Plain Gut -Virgin Island Chemical Site Concentration Qualifier Low Effects Benchmark" Hazard Quotient >.owEtrectsBe„c^..rep.se„t*eEfrect.R.ge.Lo.(ERL)Va,ue(Lo„. eta.., 1.95 o . L o n . . d M o . a . 1991)^^^^^ » WI Department of Natural Resources Sediment QuaUty Criteria (Geisy and Hoke, 1990). ' Apparent Effects Threshold (Fitchko, 1989). ^ nnen Water Disposal (Persuad et al., 1993). . . . . U X was not detected ahove .he referenced repon,ng H.ir. V2 detection limit was used to calculate hazard .uoUents. B = Result is between the insfrument detection limit and the contract required detection hm.t. l;^I:onmeasuredinEairPla.Outusedl.detec«onl.mitifs^p.ewasnotdetectedatspecincl.^^^^^^ - = Hazard Quotient was not calculated due to lack of benchmark. NA: No benchmark available 304250 ECOSCREEN.XLS, sediment Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site lyocation RG-2 RG-2D RG-3 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Seleniuiri Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Concentration (mg/kg) 15500 0.53 1.6 70.6 0.03 0.19 24500 16.1 14.8 40.5 26800 5.9 7650 594 0.13 9.4 2230 0.68 0.16 543 0.58 69.2 140 1.3 17700 0.52 0.34 89 0.03 0.3 28700 19.4 16.8 54.4 30900 8.2 9070 675 0.13 13.8 3300 0.65 0.16 697 0.57 81 263 1.3 14900 0.53 0.86 53.8 0.03 0.31 39300 14.8 13.8 38.8 27300 Qualifier U BJ U BJ J J J J U B J B U B U J u u u u B J J J J u J J u u B U J u u BJ U B J J Benchmarks (nig/kg) | LEL' NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 , NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 SEL" NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 Hazard Quotient LEL - — 0.27 0.14 — 0.32 — 0.62 0.30 2.53 1.34 0.19 - 1.29 - 0.59 - — - — — — 1.17 — — ~ - 0.18 — 0.50 — 0.75 0.34 3.40 1.55 0.26 ~ 1.47 ~ 0.86 - - - - - - 2.19 - - - 0.14 0.11 -- 0.52 - 0.57 0.28 2.43 1.37 SEL - - 0.05 - — 0.02 — 0.15 — 0.37 0.67 0.02 - 0.54 — 0.13 - — — — — - 0.17 — — - — - — 0.03 — 0.18 - 0.49 0.77 0.03 - 0.61 — 0.18 — - - - - - 0.32 - - - 0.03 - - 0.03 - 0.13 - 0.35 0.68 OJ c NJ cn sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 1 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-3 RG^ RG^D Analyte Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Concentration (mg/kg) 4.1 8600 792 0.13 10.3 1500 0.66 0.16 525 0.58 59.6 54.4 1.3 14400 0.49 1.2 58.4 0.02 0.21 51000 12 12.8 33 22700 14.1 6920 726 0.33 9.8 1310 0.61 0.15 639 0.54 49.2 50.8 1.2 9210 0.53 0.34 36.3 0.03 O.II 30700 8 8 19.6 14500 3.1 4700 445 0.19 6.1 754 I 0.16 509 0.58 32.7 QuaUfier J J U B J U U B U J U U BJ U B J I J J J J U U B U J U u u B U B BJ J J J J B B B U B U Bcnctimarks (mg/kg) | LEL' 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA SEL" 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA Hazard Quotient LEL 0.13 - 1.72 - 0.64 - - - - - - 0.45 - - - 0.20 0.12 - 0.35 - 0.46 0.26 2.06 1.14 0.45 - 1.58 1.65 0.61 - - - - - - 0.42 — — - - 0.07 - 0.18 - 0.31 0.16 1.23 0.73 0.10 - 0.97 0.95 0.38 - — - — - - SEL 0.02 - 0.71 - 0.14 - - - - -. - 0.07 - - - 0.04 - - 0.02 - O.II - 0.30 0.57 0.06 - 0.65 0.17 0.13 ~ - ~ - - - 0.06 - — - - - - 0.01 - 0.07 - 0,18 0.36 0.01 - 0.40 O.IO 0.08 - - - - - - Ui o »^ (Jl sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 2 cf 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-4D RG-5 RG-6 RG-7 Analyte Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Uad Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Concentration (mg/kg) 42.6 1.3 11200 0.47 0.91 43.5 0.02 0.15 81100 14.6 10.3 32.9 22300 26.1 7630 598 0.13 9.6 1290 0.98 0.14 580 0.52 48.1 67.8 1.2 10500 0.46 0.36 43.5 0.02 0.13 57000 14.4 9.5 29.6 19800 11.4 6700 513 0.22 10.6 1250 0.57 0.14 474 0.51 51.4 45.9 1.1 11500 0.53 0.92 68 0.03 0.19 42900 13.6 11 Qualifier J U u BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J B U B U J U U BJ B U B BJ J J J J J J U U B U J U U BJ U B BJ Benclunarks (mg/lig) j LEL' 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 . 16 NA NA 1 NA NA KA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 SEL" 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA Hazard Quotient | LEL 0.36 - - - 0.15 0.09 - 0.25 - 0.56 0.21 2.06 1.12 0.84 - 1.30 0.65 0.60 - - - - - - 0.57 - - - 0.06 0.09 - 0.22 - 0.55 0.19 1.85 0.99 0.37 - 1.12 1.10 0.66 - - - - - - 0.38 - - - 0.15 0.14 - 0.32 - 0.52 0.22 SEL 0.05 — - - 0.03 — - 0.02 - 0.13 - 0.30 0.56 O.IO - 0.54 0.07 0.13 - - - - - - 0.08 - - — 0.01 - — 0.01 - 0.13 - 0.27 0.50 0.05 - 0.46 o.n 0.14 ~ - ~ - - - 0.06 - - - 0.03 - - 0.02 - 0.12 - OJ o to tJl OJ sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 3 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-7 RG-8 RG-9 Analyte Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Concentration (mg/kg) 34.1 21100 5.9 6040 531 O.n 8.2 1750 0.66 0.16 479 0.58 63.8 43.4 1.3 10200 0.48 0.31 53 0.02 0.03 48700 10.8 8.1 25.1 15800 4.5 5320 408 0.19 6.5 1910 0.6 0.14 522 0.52 44.8 34.9 1.2 15400 0.56 1.1 98.5 0.03 0.32 56200 20.2 14.4 47.2 27500 6.3 8270 708 0.34 12.4 3540 0.69 0.17 668 Qualifier J J J U B J U U B U J U U U U B BJ J J J J B J U U B U J U U BJ U B J J J J J J J U U B Benchmarks (mg/kg) | LEL' 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA SEL" no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA Hazard Quotient LEL 2.13 1.06 0.19 - 1.15 - 0.51 - - - - - - 0.36 - - - - 0.11 - 0.05 - 0.42 0.16 1.57 0.79 0.15 - 0.89 0.95 0.41 - - - - - - 0.29 - - - 0.18 0.20 - 0.53 - 0.78 0.29 2.95 1.38 0.20 - 1.54 1.70 0.78 - - ~ ~ SEL 0.31 0.53 0.02 - 0.48 - 0.11 ~ - - — .- - 0.05 - - - - - - 0.00 — 0.10 - 0.23 0.40 0.02 - 0.37 0.10 0.09 - - - - - - 0.04 - - - 0.03 - - 0:03 - 0.18 - 0.43 0.69 0.03 - 0.64 0.17 0.17 - ~ - ~ CO o to cn sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 4 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location RG-9 RG-10 RG-n RG-12 Analyte Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Concentration (mg/kg) 0.61 85.9 155 1.4 9500 0.52 1 52.6 0.03 0.11 56700 13.9 7.4 23.7 16000 8.2 4610 431 0.25 7.6 1650 1.1 0.16 599 0.57 46.3 44 1.3 7680 0.49 0.38 50.6 0.02 0.05 32000 lO.I 6.7 22 12700 3.4 3590 297 0.39 5.6 1410 0.62 0.15 329 0.54 44.5 26.4 1.2 6210 0.49 0.48 47 0.02 0.12 23900 Qualifier U J U u BJ U B BJ J J J J B • J B U B U J U U BJ U B BJ J J J J B J U U B U J u u BJ B U B Benchmarks (mg/kg) | LEL' NA NA 120 KA KA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 KA 460 0.2 16 NA NA I NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA SEL" NA KA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA KA 10 KA no KA no 40000 250 KA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 KA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA KA 820 KA NA 25 33 KA KA 10 NA Hazard Quotient LEL — — 1.29 - - - 0.17 O.n - 0.18 - 0.53 0.15 1.48 0.80 0.26 - 0.94 1.25 0.48 - - - - — — 0.37 - - - 0.06 0.10 - 0.08 - 0.39 0.13 1.38 0.64 O.n - 0.65 1.95 0.35 - - - - - — 0.22 - - - 0.08 0.09 - 0.20 - SEL — - 0.19 — — — 0.03 — - O.OI — 0.13 — 0.22 0.40 0.03 - 0.39 0.13 0.10 — ~ - — — - 0.05 — — — O.OI - ~ 0.01 — 0.09 - 0.20 0.32 O.OI ~ 0.27 0.20 0.07 -- - -- - - — 0.03 - - - 0.01 — - 0.01 - CO c to CTl IT. sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 5 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site Location 1 RG-12 RG-13 RG-14 Analyte Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Concentration (mg/kg) 9.9 6.1 18.1 12500 4.7 2560 313 O.n 4.2 1010 0.61 0.15 293 0.54 53 39.1 1.2 14400 0.47 1.1 112 0.02 0.86 57400 21.6 11.9 43.8 23100 22.2 6600 560 0.11 I I . 5 3020 1.6 0.14 561 0.51 70.2 174 1.2 7220 0.83 1.5 36.5 0.04 0.04 97500 39 4.9 10.2 9160 3.4 3190 222 0.18 17 706 1 Qualifier BJ J J J U B B U U B U J U u BJ U B U U B U J U J U BJ BJ U u J J BJ BJ J J J [ J U J BJ U Benclunarks (mg/kg) | LEL' 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA KA I KA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA [ NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA SEL" no NA no 40000 250 •NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA Hazard Quotient | LEL 0.38 0.12 1.13 0.63 0.15 - 0.68 - 0.26 - - - - - - 0.33 - ~ - 0.18 0.22 — 1.43 - 0.83 0.24 2.74 1.16 0.72 - 1.22 - 0.72 - ~ - - - - 1.45 _ - - 0.25 0.07 - - 1 1.50 0.10 0.64 0.46 0.11 - 0.48 - 1.06 - - SEL 0.09 — 1 0.16 0.31 0.02 - 1 0.28 - 0.06 — - - - — - 0.05 - — - 0.03 - - 0.09 — 0.20 — 0.40 0.58 0.09 - 0.50 - 0.15 - - - - ~ — 0.21 - I - 0.05 - — ~ — 0.35 - 0.09 0.23 0.01 - 0.20 - 0.23 - - CJ o to cn sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 6 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site lx>cation RG-14 RG-15 RG-16 Average in River Gut Analyte 1 Silver Sodium 1 Thallium | Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese I Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Berylhum Cadmium Concentration (mg/kg) 0.25 215 0.92 28.6 21.8 2 3500 0.46 0.3 23.1 0.02 0.02 800000 4.7 2.2 11.8 4330 1.6 1600 173 0.11 1.3 665 0.57 0.14 255 0.51 15 13.6 1.1 5200 0.53 0.34 21.6 0.03 0.08 46400 5.9 3.1 19.9 5780 2.2 1660 196 j 0.12 4.2 803 0.66 0.16 492 0.58 17 25.9 1.3 10836.47 0.26 0.72 56.35 O.OI 1 0.19 (Qualifier i U BJ U J J u u u B u u BJ J J J J B B U U B U J U u u B U B BJ J J J U B B u j u B U J u Benchmarks (tafi/kg) \ LEL' 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 SEL" 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA no NA no 40000 250 NA IIIO 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA 1 NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 1 10 Hazard Quotient LEL 1 - 1 - - - 1 0.18 - - - ~ 0.05 - ~ - 0.18 0.04 0.74 0.22 0.05 - 0.38 0.55 0.08 ~ - - ~ — - O.n - ~ - ~ 0.04 - 0.13 - 0.23 0.06 1.24 0.29 0.07 - 0.43 ~ 0.26 - - - — - ~ 0.22 1 — - 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.03 1 0.31 SEL - 1 - - - 1 0.03 - — - - - - - - 0.04 — 0.11 o.n 0.01 - 0.16 0.06 0.02 - - ~ - 1 — 1 0.02 - - " - 1 - — 1 0.01 1 0.05 1 - 1 0.18 0.14 0.01 — 0.18 I 0.06 - - - _ - - ; 0.03 1 - 1 — 0.01 0.02 - - 1_0.02 o lO cn -J sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 7 of 8 Table C-16: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared to Sediment Screening Benchmarks River Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site lyocation Average in River Gut |;:|;;jffiaFj^;::;g; Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Concentration (mg/kg) 92588.24 14.65 9.52 29.69 18368.82 7.96 5571.18 481.29 0.16 8.71 1652.82 0.55 0.08 492.94 0.32 50.61 73.09 0.64 Qualifier Benchmarks (mg/kg) LEL' NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA I NA NA ^ NA 120 NA SEL" NA no NA no 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA Hazard Quotient j LEL - 0.56 0.19 1.86 0.92 0.26 - 1.05 0.78 0.54 - - 0.08 - - ~ 0.61 ~ SEL - 0.13 - 0.27 0.46 0.03 — 0.43 0.08 0.12 - ~ 0.02 - - - 0.09 - ' LEL: Lowest Effects Levels (Persuad et al., 1993). with the exception of antimony, barium, beryllium, and cobalt ** SEL: Severe Effects Level (Persuad et al., 1993), with the exception of antimony, barium, beryllium, and cobalt. Antimony: NOAA Effects Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) (Long and Morgan, 1991). Barium: WI Department of Natural Resources Sediment Quality Criteria (Geisy and Hoke, 1990). Beryllium: Apparent Effects Threshold (Fitchko, 1989). Cobalt: Open Water Disposal (Persuad et al., 1993). Silver: NOAA ERL and ERM (Long etal.. 1995). U = Armlyte was not detected above the referenced reporting Umit. B = Result is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit. J = Estimated value. — = Hazard Quotient not calculated; nondetect concentration or benchmaric not available. NA: Not available Cheinical constituents with bolded HQs are identified as Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern. 304258 sedscreen.XLS, RG.LEL Page 8 of 8 Table C-17: Chemical Concentrations Measured in Surface Soil Compared To Sediment Screening Benchmarks Bethlehem Gut - Virgin Island Chemical Site 1 Location BG-1 BG-2 Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium \ Thallium Vanadium 1 Zinc Cyanide Concentratio 1 (mg/kg) 15400 0.61 0.39 101 0.03 0.16 39800 19.7 11.4 49.3 20400 12.9 5380 534 0.14 11.7 3310 0.76 0.18 660 0.67 68.2 58.7 1.5 3990 0.43 0.43 63 0.02 0.02 19800 4.6 5.4 11.2 5300 2.4 1150 339 0.1 3.2 582 0.53 0.13 423 0.47 29.9 1 13.1 1.1 Qualifier U U u B BJ J J J U B J U U B U J U u BJ U u BJ J J J U B B U U B U J u Benchmarks (mg/kg) | LEL" NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA 2 6 500 0.5 0.6 NA 26 50 16 20000 31 NA 460 0.2 16 NA NA 1 NA NA NA 120 NA SEL" NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA NA 25 33 NA NA 10 NA 110 NA 110 40000 250 NA 1110 2 75 NA NA 3.7 NA NA NA 820 NA Hazard Quotient | LEL — ~ — 0.20 ~ 0.27 ~ 0.76 0.23 3.08 1.02 0.42 — 1.16 ~ 0.73 — — ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.49 ~ ~ ~ 0.07 0.13 — — ~ 0.18 0.11 0.70 0.27 0.08 1 0.74 — 0.20 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 0.11 1 SEL ~ ~ — — — 0.02 1 0.18 1 0.45 0.51 0.05 — 0.48 ~ 0.16 ~ 1 — 1 — 1 0.07 - — 1 0.01 — — ~ ~ 0.04 — 0.10 0.13 0.01 — 0.31 ~ 0.04 ~ — — 1 1 1 0.02 1 coH