LGAH
landesgewerbeanstalt Bayern
Tutu Wellfield Contamination
St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands
Review of Documents
Evaluation of Contributing to the Contamination
Gassett Motors/Consolidated Auto Parts
Parcel 214 Estate Anna's Retreat, Tutu
Az. GE 9313123
TUT 
OO6 
1315
*64754*
64754
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering
LGAH
Landesgewerbeanstalt Bayem
Client:
Project:
Mr. + Mrs. Torinus
Holzhauser Strafie 73
32760 Detmold
Germany
Tutu Wellfield Contamination
St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands
Assignment:
Your Ref.:
Review of Documents
Evaluation of Contributing to the Contamination
Gassett Motors/Consolidated Auto Parts
Parcel 214 Estate Anna's Retreat, Tutu
Our Ref.:
Dr. Ga/Gt
Ref. No.: GE 9313123
Project manager: Dr.-Ing. Gartung
Phone No..: 0911/6555-572
-570
Nuremberg,
Ocotober 28, 1993
TUT 
OO6 
1316
CONTENS
Page
1 Authorization ................................................. 
1
2 Reviewed Documents ........................................... 
1
3 Waste Source Information ....................................... 
2
4 Path of Waste Oil Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3
5 Contamination at Parcel 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
4
6 Summary and Conclusions ....................................... 
5
TUT 
006 
1317
-1 -
1 Authorization
In the Tutu area, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, the contamination of several wells for
drinking water supply was discovered in July 1987. Sampling and analysis of 24 wells
detected high concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds. At least nine Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) were identified as to contributing to this groundwater
contamination. One of these PRPs is Consolidated Autoparts (Gassett Motors) a compa-
ny operating under the direction of Thomas A. Gassett who is holding a leasehold
interest in Parcel 214. The owners of Parcel No 214, Estate Anna's Retreat (Tutu), No 1
New Quarter, St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands, Mr. and Mrs. Torinus, authorized the
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering of LGA to review the available technical and
scientific data concerning Parcel 214 with respect to the potential of contributing to the
groundwater contamination at the Tutu wellfield.
2 Reviewed Documents
The following documents were reviewed in regard of the potential of Parcel 214 con-
tributing to the groundwater contamination at the Tutu wellfield. For convenience in the
following text the documents are referenced as Doc 2.1, Doc 2.2 and Doc 2.3.
Doc 2.1:
Final Draft Preliminary Assessment Gassett Motors St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands,
Prepared under Technical Document No 02-8902-41, Contract No 68-01-7346 for the
Environmental Services Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 24,
1989, NUS Corporation Superfund Division.
Doc 2.2:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Site Assess-
ment Branch, HRS Documentation Record, Tutu Wellfield (Region 2), signed by Regio-
nal Coordinator and Branch Chief.
TUT 
OO6 1318
- 2 -
Doc 2.3:
Technical Memorandum II, Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station Investiga-
tion, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, Volumes 1 and 2, May 1993, Prepared for Tutu
Environmental Investigation Committee San Juan, Puerto Rico, Prepared by Geraghty
& Miller Inc. 201 West Passaic Street, Rochelle Pare, New Jersey 07662.
3 Waste Source Information
Doc 2.1 states that on Parcel 214 drums were detected which contained liquid waste oil
from automotive repair and servicing operations. Doc 2.1 further suspects that the
drums may also contain small quantities of gasoline, kerosene or degreasing solvents.
These liquids are potentially hazardous with respect to groundwater and surface water.
/*—•*.,
The waste oil was not properly contained and there were numerous spills in the area, a
large pool and waste oil originates in a drainage ditch were observed. The quantity of
waste oil kept at Parcel 214 is not stated explicitely, but it can be estimated on the basis
of the NUS report.
Doc 2.1 contains handwritten notes dated February 15th 1989 reporting the observations
made by the project manager Diane Trube and the site manager Joseph Mayo. While
the sketched site map mentions five 55-gal drums in the northern corner of Parcel 214,
the text states only four such drums. Since the formal document of the Potential Hazar-
dous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment consistently mentions four 55-gal drums, this
number is accepted as being correct.
In addition to the four 55-gal drums, three 20-gal drums are mentioned in the hand-
written text and in the formal assessment. They are not documented on the site map.
/•—N 
There seems to be a slight uncertainty with respect to the number of drums, but assu-
ming that it is correct that there were four 55-gal drums and three 20-gal drums, then
the total storage capacity for waste oil amounted to 280 gallons at Parcel 214.
TUT 
006 
.1319
-3 -
Since the waste oil was not properly contained, there were spills and a pool. Waste oil
originates were observed in a drainage ditch and the site was not kept in good order.
Doc 2.1 II.6 concludes that at the time of investigation a potential for waste migration
to surface water and groundwater existed at Parcel 214.
Comment:
Liquid waste oil is a hazardous substance. Under the conditions described in Doc 2.1 a
potential may have existed at Parcel 214 for surficial waste migration. After cleanup of the
site and proper containment of the waste oil under responsible supervision this potential no
longer exists.
4 Path of Waste Oil Migration
^^^ 
The geology at the site is described in Doc 2.1, Part 111,2 in great detail. However the
document does not mention that the ground surface at Parcel 214 is paved. This detail
is clearly marked on the site map Doc 2.1.
In Doc 2.3 chapter 4.6 soil boring B-5 is reported as being located exactly at the spot
where the oil pool or puddle had been observed. The sample/core log of B-5 Appendix
A of Doc 2.3 reports asphalt from 0 to 0.4 foot depth and clay with a little silt, a little
fine to medium sand, a trace of fine gravel and a trace of coarse sand at a depth from
0.4 to 2.4 feet. Below this layer down to bedrock which was encountered at 2.8 feet, the
ground is composed of clay with a little silt, a little fine to medium sand and a trace of
organic material.
Being aware of this ground profile, Part III: Hazard Assessment in Doc 2.1 has to be
revised under point 2. The headline of point 2 says: "Describe the aquifer of concern;
include information such as depth, thickness, geologic composition, permeability, over-
^ 
N 
lying strata, confining layers, interconnections, discontinuities, depth to water table,
groundwater flow direction."
TUT 
006 
1320
- 4 -
Boring log B-5 permits a more detailed description of the strata overlying the aquifer
than given in Doc 2.1. The 0.4 foot thick asphalt layer at the ground surface essentially
acts as a surface sealing and the 2.4 feet thick clay stratum is an additional barrier
against the migration of liquids especially of waste oil which has a relatively high
viscosity, into the deeper ground. In fact the log of B-5 contains no indication that waste
oil has reached the natural soil below the asphalt. In view of these important informa-
tions which were unknown at the time of field investigations for the Preliminary Assess-
ment, the potential paths of migration of liquid wastes from Parcel 214 reduce to
surficial flow to the drainage ditch.
Comment:
The results of more recent field investigations presented in Doc 2.3 demonstrate that the soil
at the location where an oil pool had been detected on Parcel 214 is not contaminated. The
groundwater at the site is effectively protected by an asphalt layer and soil of low permeabi-
lity. So there is no potential path for groundwater contamination at the site. As long as
waste oil was improperly stored at Parcel 214 there may have been a potential for surface
water contamination.However,since the runoff from Parcel 214 was collected by a ditch and
conducted towards the rainwater drainage sytem,it cannot have contributed to the contami-
nation of the Tutu wellfield.
On the review cover sheet of the MRS documentation record, Doc 2.2, EPA makes the
statement that the nearby surface water body, an intermittent stream which leads to Turpen-
tine Run is not known to be used for drinking water and that there are minimal environ-
mental threats.So the oil spills that existed in the past at Parcel 214 cannot be considered
a source of groundwater contamination at the Tutu Wellfield.
5 Contamination at Parcel 214
According to Doc 2.3 a soil sample was recovered from boring B-5 at the location on
Parcel 214 which was suspected of being a potential source of hazardous waste contami-
nation. Chapter 4.6 of Doc 2.3 reports the following result of the chemical analysis of
this soil sample.
v 
TUT 006 1321
Concentrations of acetone (92 ppb), 2-butanone(18 ppb), methylene chloride (9 ppb
estimated) were found but have to be regarded as laboratory artifacts. The concen-
tration of toluene was estimated at 2 ppb which is below reporting limit, 1.3 ppb MTBE
was detected. There were no VOC compounds and no BNA. The TPH value was 53
ppm. For comparison purposes a figure can be selected which is given for a soil sample
considered certainly uncontaminated. A soil sample from MW-6 at Four Winds Plaza
yielded a TPH value of 120 ppm.
Comment:
One soil sample from the critical area of Parcel 214 was analysed. It showed no contami-
nation. This result leads to the conclusion that the ground at Parcel 214 is not contami-
nated with hydrocarbons or petroleum products.
6 Summary and Conclusions
A drinking water supply wellfield at Tutu, St. Thomas is contaminated. Nine Potentially
Responsible Parties have been identified by U. S. EPA. Three of them have contributed
to the contamination, the other six are suspected of having contributed to the contami-
nation.
Consolidated Auto Parts (Gassett Motors) who is operating a business on Parcel 214
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Torinus is among the suspects. The site investigation by NUS
Corporation Superfund Division in 1989 revealed that liquid waste oil was kept on
Parcel 214 in drums improperly. There was an oil pool at the ground surface, the
drainage ditch contained oil originates and the property was kept in a messy manner.
Based on these findings EPA identified Gassett Motors as a Potentially Responsible
Party and states in Doc 2.2 that Gassett Motors may have contributed to the contamina-
tion of the Tutu wellfield.
In 1993 Geraghty & Miller, Inc. issued Technical Memorandum II, Results of the Field
Program Tutu Service Station Investigation. This document contains information about
a reconnaicence boring and soil sampling in the most critical area of Parcel 214.
TUT 
006 
1322
- 6 -
The ground profile shows that an impervious asphalt pavement and a clay layer which
act as barriers against groundwater contamination. The chemical analysis of a soil
sample from the site shows no indication of any contamination with petroleum poducts.
This result means that Gassett Motors on Parcel 214 can no longer be regarded as a
Potentially Responsible Party with respect to the contamination of the Tutu wellfield.
Based on the findings of Doc 2.3 the assessment of EPA in Doc 2.2 should be revised,
and Gassett Motors on Parcel 214 dropped from the list of Potentially Responsible
Parties.
LGA-Institute of Geotechnical Engineering
Department GE
Drying. Gartung
Baudirektor
TUT 
006 1323
TUT 
OO6 1324
Siegfried and Waltraud Torinus 
__ 
_...._..______._
presently: Holzhauser Str. 73
32760 Detmold / Germany
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Re. Tutu Wellfield (Region 2)
MRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD 
TUTU WELLFIELD (REGION 2)
02-9102-11 -HR
Rev. No. 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Documentation Record mentioned above under the heading "Source Description, 2.2 Source
Characterisation", on page 12 deals with Gassett Motors / Consolidated Auto Parts. It introdu-
ces the matter: " The facility is suspected of contributing to the groundwater contamination ...",
and on page 13 it concludes: " The analytical data and historical information indicate that Gas-
sett Motors / Consolidated Auto Parts may have contributed to the groundwater contamination."
These statements are primarily based upon reference number 24: "Preliminary Assessment Repor
for Gassett Motors, St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands, NUS Corp. Region 2 Fl T, March 24, 1989
TDD No. 02 - 8902 - 41. (24 pages).
In the meantime Geraghty & Miller Inc. 201 West Passaic Street, Rocelle Pare New Jersey
07662 issued: "Technical Memorandum II, Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station Inve-
stigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Volume 1 and 2, May 1993.". The investigations do-
cumented in this report include boring B - 5 located on Parcel 214, the site of Gassett Motors /
Consolidated Auto Parts owned by Mr. and Mrs. Torinus. B - 5 was drilled at the location where
a waste oil pool had been detected previously and where a source of ground water contaminati-
on had been suspected. The soil sample retreaved from B - 5 and analysed for hazardous sub-
stances contained no indications of any ground contamination. Below a 0.4 ft thick asphalt lay-
er which efficiently seals the ground surface a 2.4 ft thick clayey stratum of soils of low hydraulic
conductivity was encountered. This soil layer above the bedrock acts as a barrier against waste
oil migration and intercepts a potential pathway towards the ground water resources.
The oil pools formerly detected have been cleaned up in the meantime. Any waste oil generated
by the facilities at Parcel 214 has been contained properly since the cleanup, the facility is being
supervised wth respect to environmental issues.
According to the statement on MRS Documentation Record Review Cover Sheet 02 - 9102 -11
HR Rev. No. 1 the surface water body (an intermittent stream which leads to Turpentine Run) is
not known to be used for drinking water and there are minimal environmental threats. So any sur-
face migration of waste oil and oil originates from Parcel 214 which may have occured in the
past, cannot be regarded as contributions to the Tutu Wellfield contamination.
On the basis of the evidence documented in the referenced Geraghty & Miller Inc. "Technical
Memorandum II", the facilities of Gassett Motors / Consolidated Auto Parts on Parcel 214 can
no longer be suspected of having contributed to the Tutu Wellfield contamination. We kindly re-
quest to revise the HRS Documentation Record accordingly.
Sincerely,
the owners of the facility: Siegfried Torinus
Waltraud Torinus
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvirmm*ntal
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_Jz5_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01_________ Page
li
n
Type of Sample/
.of.
.Sncnti»n ST. THOMAS
ffiB 8/13/92 g^ieted 8/13/92
Total 
Hole
Depth Drilled _JJL£_ feet Diameter __§
Length and Diameter _. ,_.
of Coring Device 
2 /y _______
inches Coring
„_,, _. _„„. ,
SPLIT-SPOON
_____________Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 181-° feet D Surveyed H Estimated 
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid ti«.«.H NONE 
, 
rvniJnn u-fh«H HOLLOW STEM AUGER
&,„, 
SO,LTECH
5eP°red R. PONCIANO
'ram 
T» 
(fort) 
InJUT
nrillpr J- RIVER/
Hammer
Weight 
140
J.
^ 
H«lp«r J-
Hammer ,_
Prop 
30
DIAZ
inches
s»^
f~±
0
0.4
2.4
\
0.4
2.4
2.80
1.6
0.4
5-8-
12-14
50/0.4'
ASPHALT.
CLAY; little Silt; little Sand, fine to medium; trace Gravel,
fine; trace Sand, coarse, gray to reddish brown, stiff, dry
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
HNu • 5.0 ppm.
GC sample: 2.0'.
CLAY; little Silt; little Sand, fine to medium; trace organic
material, wood; gray, very hard, dry.
HNu =1.0 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'
Split-spoon was refused at 2.8 ft bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.8 ft bis.
Total depth - 2.8 ft bis.
r. 1U-144
TUT 
006 
132
•/' 
4'7
The most significant results for these two soil samples are the reported estimated
concentrations in Sample B-2 of benzo(a)pyrene (270 ppb), benzo(g,h,i)perylene (290 ppb), and
pyrene (220 ppb). No other SNA compounds were detected in either samples. TPH was
detected in Sample B-2 at 110 ppm but was not detected in Sample B-3. No metals or cyanide
concentrations exceeded one order of magnitude above background levels.
4.6 
ANTILLES AUTO REPAIR SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
Soil Boring B-5 was drilled at Antilles Auto Repair (formerly Gassett Auto Parts). This
location was selected because an "oil pool" or puddle was noted in this vicinity during a site
inspection on February 15, 1989 by NUS Corporation (1989). A split-spoon soil sample (B-5)
was collected from 0 to 2 feet bis for laboratory analysis. Reported organic compounds in
Sample B-5 included estimated concentrations of acetone (92 ppb), 2-butanone (18 ppb), and
estimated concentrations of methylene chloride (9 ppb). As stated previously, methylene
chloride, acetone, and 2-butanone are suspected laboratory artifacts (USEPA 1991c). Estimated
concentrations of toluene (2 J ppb), and MTBE (1.3 ppb) were detected. No other chlorinated
VOC compounds were detected. No BNA compounds were detected. This sample had a
reported TPH value of 53 ppm, and no metals or cyanide were detected at concentrations
exceeding background values by one order of magnitude.
4.7 
TEXACO SERVICE STATION SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
Four soil samples (B-4, MW-3, MW-4, and MW-4D) were collected at the Texaco
Service Station for laboratory analysis. Soil Boring B-4 was drilled through a strip of unpaved
soil at the northwestern corner of the Texaco Service Station where cars are commonly repaired.
A split-spoon sample (B-4) was collected from 8 to 10 feet bis for laboratory analysis. Acetone
was reported at an estimated value of 55 ppb in Sample B-4. Because acetone is a common
laboratory contaminant, this reported result may be due to laboratory contamination (USEPA
1991c). All other organic analytical results for TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, and TPH were non-
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
006 1326