US EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0024
REVISED COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
TUTU WELL FIELD SUPERFUND SITE
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
DISPOSAL SITES WITHIN EPA REGION II
(NY, NJ, PR, VI)
CDM Federal Programs Corporatio™
TUT 
007 
1211
*64987*
64987
REVISED COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
TUTU WELL FIELD SUPERFUND SITE
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
EPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-W9-0024
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.: 073-2P1D
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO.: 7720-073-CR-CFFL
March 10, 1995
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
PREPARED BY:
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
111 Fulton Street, Suite 710
New York, NY 10038
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract 68-W9-0024. The material contained herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed
with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason without prior expressed
approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
TUT 
007 .1212
/——N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Revised Community Relations Plan
Tutu Wells Superfund Site
SECTION 
PAGE
A. 
Overview of the Community Relations Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. 
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. 
Community Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. 
Community Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. 
History of Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. 
Summary of Community Interviews/Current
Community Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D. 
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
^_v 
E. 
Techniques and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figures
Figure 1: 
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2: 
Tutu Wells Site Business Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3: 
Location of Domestic and Commercial Supply Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 4: 
Tutu Wells Superfund Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: 
Schedule of Community Relations Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendices
Appendix A: List of Contacts and Interested Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l
1. 
Federal and Territorial Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l
2. 
Territorial Agency Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
3. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
4. 
Citizen Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
/—•N 
5. 
Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
007
• '
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Revised Community Relations Plan
Tutu Wells Superfund Site
SECTION 
PAGE
Appendix B: Recommended Locations for Public Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-l
Appendix C: Location of the Information Repository and the
Administrative Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D: Glossary and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l
Appendix E: Technical Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-l
TlJT 
O07 
1214
REVISED COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE, ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
A. OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
In April 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared a Community
Relations Plan (CRP) to identify efforts EPA would undertake to inform the public of cleanup
actions at the Tutu Wells Superfund site (the Site) located in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
(VI) and to involve the Site community in making decisions regarding its remediation. The CRP
summarized the history of the Site, identified current community issues and concerns, and
recommended community relations techniques.
Preparation of a CRP is required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). CERCLA, commonly known as
Superfund, authorizes cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The Tutu Wells site was proposed to be placed on the NPL in
February 1992. This action makes the Site a priority site requiring compliance with CERCLA,
including citizen involvement.
Superfund regulations require EPA to revise the CRP prior to the remedial design, as necessary,
to reflect community concerns, as discovered during interviews and other activities, that pertain
to the remedial design and construction phase. At the Tutu Wells site, EPA has chosen to revise
the CRP earlier in preparation for the release of proposed plan because of several factors. The
remedial investigation has taken a long time, more than 2 years. As the Site has become more
complex, the potential to affect a larger community has increased. The purpose of this revised
CRP is to:
1
TUT 
007 
1215
1) update the original CRP to include a summary of technical milestones and community
relations activities conducted at the Tutu Wells site since April 1992
2) determine current public opinion regarding the effectiveness of the community
relations techniques administered by EPA as a result of the original CRP as well as specific
community concerns about the Site, and
3) develop further approaches to effectively inform and educate the affected community
regarding the next phase of Superfund cleanup at the Tutu Wells site, which is the feasibility
study.
Through the implementation of this revised CRP, EPA will disseminate accurate, timely
information to the affected citizens and maintain open communication with the community.
The mformation in this revised plan was developed primarily from interviews conducted by EPA
in St. Thomas, VI on October 31, 1994 and November 1 and 4, 1994. Local residents and
property owners in and around Tutu were interviewed, as well as personnel from the VI
Department of Health and the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR). EPA
also interviewed a member of the VI legislature and an attorney representing the Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) group.
The community relations program outlined in this revised CRP focuses on activities designed
to keep citizens, officials, and other interested parties apprised of Site developments and
Superfund remedial activities at the Tutu Wells site. The Tutu community relations program is
tailored to address specific areas of interest and concern to the public as they are currently
known by EPA. EPA has developed a program that is sufficiently flexible to provide for
modification as the community's concerns and questions change over the course of the scientific
studies and cleanup program. The CRP is organized into the following sections:
TUT 
007 
1.21.6
• 
Site Description - provides a Site description and brief history of the Tutu Wells
site.
• 
Community Background - provides a community profile, a chronology of
community involvement at the Site, and a description of key community issues
and concerns.
• 
Highlights of the Program - describes the objectives of this community relations
program and the approaches EPA will take to effectively implement them.
• 
Techniques and Timing - presents a list of community relations activities for the
Tutu Wells site and suggestions for coordinating the community relations
activities with the technical phases of the Superfund remedial process.
• 
Appendices - Lists of federal and territorial agency representatives; federal and
territorial elected officials; citizen groups; media representatives; locations for the
information repository and administrative record; locations for public meetings;
a glossary and a list of acronyms; and information on Technical Assistance
Grants.
EPA Region II, which has jurisdiction over the VI and is based in New York, has lead
responsibility for managing the Tutu cleanup. EPA is pursuing enforcement actions to require
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) (those who are responsible for the contamination) to
pay for and perform the Site cleanup, with EPA oversight. The EPA Region II Superfund
Community Relations Branch will oversee all community relations activities at the Site, with
support from DPNR.
TUT 
OO7 1217
B. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Tutu Wells site is located in the upper Turpentine Run basin in east central St. Thomas, VI
at the Estate Anna's Retreat section of the island (Figure 1). 
Numerous commercial
establishments line the major roads hi the area, including the Texaco Tutu service station at the
intersection of Highways 38 and 384, the ESSO Tutu service station on Highway 38, O'Henry
Dry Cleaners on Highway 38, and Four Winds Shopping Center (Figure 2). Private homes and
multi-family housing, such as the Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA) buildings, occupy
the less heavily traveled roads. The numerous water supply wells located hi the Turpentine Run
basin (Figure 3) are owned by the VIHA, water purveyors, and private concerns. The wells
formerly supplied water for domestic and commercial purposes.
In July 1987, Mr. Eric Tillett contacted DPNR regarding an odor emanating from the raw well
water on his property located in Anna's Retreat. Mr. Tillett's well provided the eastern portion
of St. Thomas with a commercial source of drinking water. On July 16, 1987, EPA Region II
received a verbal request from DPNR to sample and analyze Mr. Tillett's well. On July 21,
1987, EPA and its Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contractor, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
conducted sampling of Mr. Tillett's well, along with six additional commercial wells hi Tutu that
served both residential customers and commercial establishments throughout St. Thomas. These
wells, several of which were major commercial well suppliers of public drinking water, also
were reported to have a strong, unpleasant odor. The test results showed the presence of high
concentrations of gasoline and chlorinated organic compounds hi Mr. Tillett's well and elevated
levels of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the other six wells.
Due to the presence of contaminants in the sampled wells and because several of the area's wells
supply major commercial well services with water for public drinking water supply, DPNR
declared that an imminent health threat existed. Because DPNR believed this contamination
could affect about 20,000 St. Thomas residents and an indefinite number of visitors to St.
Thomas, the DPNR Commissioner requested that EPA assume the role of lead agency for the
cleanup.
4
TUT 
007 1218
05°00'
Great
St. James
Islands
H-
hJ
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
• Htafcttiy ol Cmf OfMMf i MCKM he.
TUTU WELLS SITE STUDY AREA
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Figure 1
CURRICULUM CENTER
(FORMER LAGA FACILITY)
TUTU PARK
SHOPPING
CENTER
ANTILLES AUTO PARTS
TILLETT PROPERTY
TRACY DODD PROPERTY
^ITELCO PROPERTY
CLASSIC
I PRINTERS
3 1 LUTHERAN-.
CP \ CHURCH-Q
HODGE RESIDENCE
(FORMERLY LA PLACE)
P 
.• B
FORT MYLNi
SHOPPING CENTER
SEWAGE TREATMENT/
CENTER
"MT.
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Phase II RI, 1994.
TUTU WELLS SITE BUSINESS AREA
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
« •ubatdtwy d Cvnp OTMMT & MdtM Inc.
Figure 2
TUT 
007 
1.2.20
EPA REGION II
SCANNING TRACKING SHEET
DOC ID #64987
DOC TITLE/SUBJECT:
TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
FIGURE 3
LOCATION OF DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
SUPPLY WELLS (Page: TUT 007 1221)
THIS DOCUMENT IS OVERSIZED AND CAN BE
LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
AT THE
SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER
290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10007
In addition, between July 31 and September 2, 1987, DPNR closed 13 commercial wells and
5 private wells hi the Tutu area to protect public health. The wells closed at that tune were:
the Tutu Water Wells located at #126 Estate Anna's Retreat; the Plaza Associate Wells at #392
Estate Anna's Retreat; the Gene Elgin Wells at #2 Estate Anna's Retreat; the A.A.S.A. Water
Supply (Harthman Wells) at #3 Estate Anna's Retreat; and the Harvey Well at #5C Estate
Anna's Retreat and the Steel Well at #5A Estate Anna's Retreat.
Based on the results of Weston's sampling of over 100 wells, EPA and DPNR began monitoring
24 wells identified in the Tutu Section of Anna's Retreat within the Tutu Water/Turpentine Run
Aquifer. During the sampling event of August 10 and 11, 1987, analytical results revealed the
presence of 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene (DCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), toluene, benzene, and tert-butyl-methyl-ether (MTBE) in concentrations ranging from
61 parts per billion (ppb) to 120,000 ppb in the 24 wells. EPA also sampled and analyzed 123
cisterns served by the water haulers from this area. Three cisterns were found to contain
volatile organic compounds in excess of 1,000 ppb.
In October 1987, EPA sampled the same 24 wells, and the same contaminants were detected.
In addition, EPA detected metals, including arsenic, selenium, and zinc, in some of the wells.
In January 1988, EPA initiated a Superfund removal action to address potential immediate
threats posed by the Site. These activities were: 1) cleaning and disinfecting the five cisterns
that had tested positive for PCE, 2) modifying the existing home plumbing of the residents who
were to receive non-contaminated public water to allow for non-drinking use only, 3)
disconnecting the contaminated wells, and 4) disposing of the contaminated water. At EPA's
direction, a local water hauler was contracted to deliver clean drinking water to the cisterns by
tank truck, and EPA established a well sampling program to monitor the wells at the Tutu site.
EPA conducted a search for potential sources of contamination and attempted to identify
potentially responsible parties by issuing CERCLA section 104(e) special notice letters. In
8
TUT 
007 
1.222
August 1987, DPNR identified 10 potential and/or actual sources of contamination. These
included Texaco Tutu Service Station, ESSO Tutu Service Station, Consolidated Auto Parts,
Ramsay Motors, VI Housing Authority, O'Henry Cleaners, and the Department of Education
Building — formerly the LAGA building.
Beginning with the Site discovery in 1987, EPA and DPNR have established a cooperative
relationship at the Tutu Wells site. Through conference calls and face-to-face meetings, EPA
and DPNR are able to maintain communication both between the agencies and with the public.
The two agencies also work together to facilitate Site access to conduct well monitoring and
sampling events.
On March 22, 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (CERCLA-00401 and
RCRA-90-UST-9003-0401) to ESSO Standard Oil S.A. Limited (ESSO), Texaco Caribbean,
Inc., (Texaco) and L'Henri, Inc. (O'Henry), which required them to: 1) provide water to
affected homes until these homes are connected to the public water main 2) provide water to any
additional affected residential homes until they are connected to public water and 3) take over
EPA's groundwater monitoring of the drinking water wells in the Tutu aquifer. Subsequently,
Texaco and ESSO formed the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee (TEIC).
In August 1991, EPA scored the Site according to the Hazard Ranking System, which is EPA's
method for evaluating the relative potential of hazardous substance releases to cause health
problems or environmental damage. In its HRS document for the Site, EPA identified at least
nine PRPs as known or potential sources of groundwater contamination. These PRPs include
the VI Housing Authority, the Curriculum Center (former LAGA facility), Ramsay Motors,
Antilles Auto Parts, Texaco Tutu Service Station, Tillett Gardens, ESSO Tutu Service Station,
O'Henry, and Rodriguez Auto Parts. On February 1, 1992, EPA proposed the Site for
placement on the NPL — the nation's list of hazardous waste sites that qualify for long-term
Superfund cleanup.
TUT 
007 
1223
On February 19, 1992, ESSO Standard Oil and Texaco Caribbean, Inc. entered into an
Administrative Order by Consent with EPA (RCRA Order 7003 and 9003-92-0401) to conduct
a remedial investigation/feasibility study at the Tutu Wells site. The TEIC (Texaco and ESSO)
retained a private contractor, Geraghty & Miller, to conduct the remedial investigation to fully
evaluate the extent and nature of contamination at the Site. Field work for the investigation
began hi April 1992 and was concluded in July 1994. All work performed by Geraghty &
Miller prior to May 1993 is referred to as the first phase (Phase I) of the Tutu Wells Site
Remedial Investigation.
In June 1993, EPA noticed seven additional PRPs: VI Housing Authority, VI Department of
Education, Paul Lazare & Andrea Gals (LAGA partners), Four Winds Plaza, Mr. Torinus,
Western Auto, Ramsay Motors, and Mr. Tillett. During the summer and fall of 1993, EPA met
with representatives for the other PRPs associated with the Site. As a result of these meetings,
an agreement was reached to enlarge the study area to incorporate the area south of the ESSO
Tutu Service Station. Since then, some of these PRPs formed a separate PRP group to conduct
the Phase II remedial investigation with ESSO and Texaco. The Tutu PRP Committee currently
consists of technical and legal representatives for Four Winds Plaza, Ramsay Motors, L'Henri,
Inc., Laga Industries, ESSO, Western Auto, VI Department of Education, and Texaco. Eight
other interested parties (known as non-participating PRPs) are not currently members of the Tutu
PRP Committee, but have attended meetings with EPA.
Phase II of the remedial investigation, which commenced hi February 1994 and was completed
in July 1994, involved the installation of additional monitoring wells, pumpage of monitoring
wells, storm sewer investigation, water level measurements, and comprehensive groundwater
sampling. Figure 4 shows the total area currently under investigation. All sampling wells are
noted on the map and designated in the legend. Included are wells used for sampling by
Geraghty & Miller and others, as well as deep and shallow monitoring wells and surface soil
sample locations.
10
TUT 
OO7 1224
EPA REGION II
SCANNING TRACKING SHEET
DOC ID # 64987
DOC TITLE/SUBJECT:
TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
FIGURE 4
TUTU WELLS SITE (Page: TUT 007 1225)
THIS DOCUMENT IS OVERSIZED AND CAN BE
LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
AT THE
SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER
290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10007
f_^ 
A draft remedial investigation report submitted to EPA by the TEIC (Texaco and ESSO) in
September 1994 for review by EPA and DPNR includes the results of the investigations
completed by Geraghty & Miller for the TEIC as well as the results of technical studies
conducted for other PRPs.
Representatives ofLaga, Ramsay Motors, Texaco, Four Winds Plaza, Western Auto, ESSO, and
L'Henri retained consultants to conduct investigations at their properties to identify potential
sources of contamination, characterize the nature and extent of soil and groundwater
contamination, and evaluate potential cleanup requirements. Results of these investigations are
incorporated into Section 5.0 (Nature and Extent of Contamination) of the report entitled, Draft
Phase II Remedial Investigation Tutu Wells Site. St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands.
EPA has and will continue to give proper consideration to technical studies conducted by all
PRPs. EPA included the results of these studies in its final remedial investigation report
completed in January 1995. In addition, the studies will become part of the administrative
record for the Site and will be taken into account during the selection process for the proposed
remedy.
The next step in the Superfund cleanup process is the feasibility study, which will be conducted
to evaluate potential remedial alternatives. At present, EPA plans to hold a public availability
session to present the results of the remedial investigation in April 1995. EPA will hold another
public meeting, around August 1995. At that tune, the public will be able to review the
potential remedial alternatives, particularly EPA's preferred alternative, and have an opportunity
to comment on the preferred alternative, as well as the other alternatives, during a 30-day public
comment period. EPA will select a remedial alternative and expects to publish the Record of
Decision that documents the remedial alternatives in the fall of 1995.
12
TUT 
007 
1226
C. COMMUNITY BACKGROUND
1. Community Profile
The U.S. territories (St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John) and the British Virgin Islands (to the
north and east) are located in the Lesser Antilles 1,600 miles south, southeast of New York City;
1,100 miles east, southeast of Miami; and 70 miles east of San Juan. St. Thomas and St. John
lie between the Atlantic and the Caribbean. St. Croix, 40 miles south, is surrounded by the
Caribbean. St. Thomas and St. John are encircled by dozens of mini islands and cays, adding
to the impressive scenery of powdery beaches and sun-drenched weather. St. Thomas (32 square
miles) is 13 miles long, 3 miles wide. St. Croix (84 square miles) is 28 miles long, 7 miles
wide and St. John (20 square miles) is 9 miles long, 5 miles wide.
Considered among the most beautiful geographical areas hi the world, the islands are in the path
of soft tradewinds blowing directly from Portugal. As such, St. Croix was among the first
islands to be sighted by Columbus on his second voyage westward in 1493. He then sailed
northeast, passing St. Thomas, St. John and Tortola, and called them collectively Las Virgenes.
Since then, the flags of Spam, France, England, Holland, Denmark, and the U.S. have flown
over St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. The U.S. purchased what was then known as the
Danish West Indies on March 31, 1917 for $25 million hi gold. In 1927, the residents of the
Virgin Islands were granted U.S. citizenship, and the Islands were administered by the U.S.
Navy until 1931, when they were placed under the authority of the Department of the Interior.
Presently, the U.S. Virgin Islands are administered by a governor who is popularly elected and
a popularly elected legislature, made up of 15 senators, which has operated since 1852. St.
Thomas is represented in the legislature by 7 of the 15 senators. The Islands are represented
in the U.S. Congress by an elected but non-voting delegate. Ron deLugo was elected as the first
delegate to Congress in 1972. Recent elections have placed Victor Fraizer in that seat. VI
residents who are U.S. citizens pay taxes but do not vote in national elections.
13
TUT 
O07 1227
St. Thomas is the most cosmopolitan of the three islands, with a resident population of about
48,000. About 50,000 people reside on St. Croix and another 3,500 on St. John. The capitol
of St. Thomas is Charlotte Amalie, first known as Taphaus (for tap house), and was founded by
the Danes in 1691. St. Thomas' early economy was supported by the sugar production industry.
When it became apparent that its terrain was too rugged for agriculture, St. Thomas' economic
focus shifted to trade. In 1724, it became a free port, where landed goods were exempt from
customs.
Today, tourism and trade are the main supporting industries on the Islands. In 1993, an
estimated 1.7 million tourists visited St. Thomas alone. According to the U.S. Virgin Islands
Annual Economic Indicators, published in September 1994, the Islands employed about 48,570
people as of 1993, with over 20,000 persons employed in trade or tourism related positions.
The annual average gross pay as of 1992 was $21,585. Statistics on real estate indicate that the
total number of homes sold on St. Thomas/St. John in 1993 was 133. The average home sales
price was $267,000. The number of condominium sales was 102 and the average price was
$149,000.
The Tutu community, founded in the 1960s as part of Operation Turnkey, a modernization and
development project, has one of the highest concentrations of residential populations on the
island. Notable features include:
• 
VI Housing Authority high-rise housing structures,
• 
The Four Winds Plaza, which includes a supermarket, a drug store, movie
theaters, a police station, and other commercial outlets,
• 
A large elementary school and a smaller private school,
• 
Tillett Gardens, an artists' complex,
14
TUT 
007 
1228
^^ 
• 
Several churches,
• 
Businesses, such as car dealerships and a Virgin Islands Telephone Company
facility, and
• 
A newly developed shopping plaza.
2. History of Community Involvement
The community of Tutu first became involved with the Tutu Wells site during the site discovery
process when a Tutu area resident contacted DPNR in July 1987 to report an odor coming from
the raw well water on his property at Anna's Retreat.
Owners of the 24 wells that EPA has monitored have been aware of and involved with the Site
through a series of sampling events occurring in October 1987 and November 1988 and, most
f 
N 
recently, through a quarterly sampling program conducted from September/October 1990 through
February 1992. A representative from DPNR notifies the owners to request access for sampling,
and results of the sampling have been sent to the respective well owners.
The community at large was presented with an opportunity to be involved in making decisions
about the Tutu remediation during the first week of February 1992, when EPA conducted
face-to-face interviews with area residents whose wells have been tested and monitored.
Interviewed parties included local residents and property owners, personnel from the VI
Department of Health and DPNR, and a member of the VI legislature.
On May 20, 1992, EPA held its first public meeting on the Tutu Wells Superfund Site to discuss
the work plan for the remedial investigation/feasibility study. EPA also provided interested
parties with a basic overview of the Superfund process, and discussed the risk assessment
investigations undertaken thus far and opportunities for public involvement. Held at the
—^ 
Lutheran Church of the Reformation in Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, the meeting was attended
15
TUT 
OO7 1229
by EPA officials, representatives from CDM Federal Programs Corporation, area residents and
other interested parties.
Issues presented by concerned citizens during a question and answer period included:
• 
Whether residents could use contaminated water to water their gardens
• 
The risks associated with water drawn from cisterns
• 
How much of the aquifer is contaminated and how long it will take to clean up the
contamination
• 
The length of time it took to develop the work plan
• 
Exactly which wells have been monitored and the findings
• 
Whether landowners could conduct their own investigations
• 
Who the liable parties are and how the contractors are funded
• 
The extent of the EPA investigation in Tutu and on the Island.
/""""^ 
Several of these issues were answered by EPA during the session. Mark Maddaloni from the
EPA Risk Assessment Group presented the risk of reopening some of the wells and using the
water for nonpotable use. Mr. Maddaloni restated EPA's position of not drinking the water
because it exceeded federal contaminant levels. EPA found that the risks from using water in
the house for purposes such as flushing toilets, washing clothes in a washing machine, or
running an automatic dishwasher are in an acceptance range. Acceptable risk is less than 1 in
10,000 persons contracting cancer because of site contamination. EPA found the risk for
showering and bathing (indoors or outdoors) to be greater than 1 in 10,000 persons and,
therefore, unacceptable. Outdoor uses such as watering lawns, washing cars, and fighting fires
are in an acceptable risk range. 
EPA restated the distinction between its role to make
recommendations based on risk studies and DPNR's role to regulate water use hi the local area.
EPA also explained the lengthy negotiations that were necessary to require Texaco and ESSO
to commit to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study. EPA delayed answering
^__^ 
the remaining issues regarding the extent of contamination and estimates of cleanup time because
16
TUT
007 1230
of the lack of data. These issues could not be answered until the remedial investigation and
/•-^
feasibility study were completed.
In December 1992, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted
an assessment of public health concerns at the Tutu Wells Superfund Site as a result of the Site
contamination. ATSDR also announced and held two public meetings in the community, but
there was no attendance. Following the health assessment, ATSDR produced a preliminary draft
health report for interagency review only. EPA reviewed and commented on the draft in
February 1993. ATSDR is working to prepare a second draft report for release to the public
in Spring 1995. Copies of this report will be sent to the information repository which is kept
at the Department of Education Curriculum Center.
During the week of October 31, 1994, EPA conducted a second set of interviews in the Tutu
community to gain a firsthand perspective on the effectiveness of its community relations
activities thus far. In addition, EPA gained a greater insight into the current concerns held by
/*"*"N 
the community about the Site. The information gathered during these interviews was used to
update the original CRP and to present, in this revised CRP, other, meaningful opportunities for
community involvement hi future Superfund activities. Also during this time period, EPA
relocated the information repository for the Tutu Wells site from the Tutu Hi Rise Housing
Authority to the Department of Education Curriculum Center. This move was done to enable
a greater number of the affected community easy access to Site documents, per several requests
from the public.
Most recently, hi February 1995, EPA mailed letters to residential well owners in Tutu,
explaining then: well sampling results. The letters indicated: 1) which contaminants were
detected hi each party's well; 2) the concentrations of each contaminant found; 3) the acceptable,
federal drinking water standards for the contaminants and; 4) the health risks associated with
those contaminants found in concentrations above the acceptable, federal standards.
17
TUT 
OO7 1231
3. Summary of Community Interviews/Current Community Concerns
EPA conducted its first set of interviews for the Tutu Wells site in early February of 1992, prior
to its initiation of the remedial investigation and at the end of a lengthy removal action.
Information gathered from the public at that tune focused on issues related to their immediate
concerns or specific problems resulting from identification of Tutu Wells as a Superfund site.
In general, these concerns were: lack of sufficient information regarding the Superfund process;
the history of Site contamination and its effects on human health and the environment;
identification of the PRPs and their liability; reaction to the well sampling and provision of water
during the removal action; the need for a public water supply; and the extent of private water
contamination. To a certain extent, some of these community concerns are still vital, such as
those issues related to effective communication between EPA and the public, the use of well
water, and the extent of contamination.
EPA conducted its second set of interviews with the affected Tutu community on October 31,
1994 and on November 1 and 4, 1994. Participants included citizens of the Anna's Retreat
section of St. Thomas, officials from the VI Department of Health and from the DPNR, and a
Senator who chairs the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee. Unlike the first set,
these most recent interviews, conducted prior to the start of the feasibility study and at the end
of the remedial investigation begun in April 1992, tend to focus on preserving St. Thomas as
a natural resource and educating the public about safe environmental practices. EPA expects
that community relations activities related to the feasibility study and to the selection of a final
remedy will provide ample opportunities to involve the public in this regard. In preparing the
revised CRP, EPA has kept in mind why the community holds these concerns to determine
appropriate, effective communication techniques. The following section provides an explanation
of the community's most recent issues and concerns:
• the notification of additional PRPs and their liability
• the interpretation of sampling results and the continued use of well water
18
TUT 
007 1232
• the extent of contamination and the need for EPA to work quickly
• the restoration of the Island's natural resources and the ongoing identification of potential
sources of contamination elsewhere.
The Notification of Additional PRPs and their Liability
Additional PRPs notified by EPA are concerned that they have been incorrectly identified as
PRPs. Many of them did not directly contribute to the contamination and, although liability
under the Superfund law extends to current owners of contaminant sources, they feel that they
have been judged unfairly by both EPA and the local community. The newly formed PRP group
is concerned about reactions of the local community, because the community may not distinguish
liability according to the law and actual responsibility for contamination at the Site. They
believe that as community awareness of the Site grows, they may become the target of lawsuits
from different community sectors. Some PRPs feel that certain parties may have used well
water for unauthorized purposes knowing it was contaminated. Should this information become
public or be proven true, the PRPs believe they would be open to legal actions against them.
This PRP group has requested that EPA consider relief such as a de minimus settlement that
would enable them to settle then* individual cases of liability and be protected from liability in
the future.
The Interpretation of Sampling Results and the Continued Use of Well Water
As reported in the original CRP, some residents are still dissatisfied with a number of issues
related to sampling events at their wells. First, they would like to be informed of the schedule
for sampling events, ahead of time, to anticipate the events. Second, they would like to receive
the sampling results hi a timely fashion and on a regular basis. And third, they would like the
results to be presented to them hi a meaningful way. The residents have expressed an interest
in wanting to know exactly what the results mean hi terms of the level of contaminants hi their
wells versus acceptable, federal drinking water standards.
19
TUT
Community members also are concerned about the continued use of water from wells that are
contaminated. They understand that some of the wells remain open for industrial purposes only,
such as for washing cars or equipment, hosing down driveways, flushing toilets, and doing
laundry. This issue was raised during the first interview session in 1992 and EPA addressed that
concern by conducting a risk assessment. EPA reported the methodology and results of that risk
assessment during its first public meeting in May 1992. EPA reported an unacceptable risk for
drinking and bathing, but an acceptable risk for indoor and outdoor purposes, when not coming
in contact with or drinking the water. EPA recommended to DPNR that water use be restricted.
However, DPNR has the jurisdiction to enforce this limited use.
Some residents are fearful that the possibility exists for the contaminated water to be used for
unauthorized purposes, such as for drinking fountains in public places like a gasoline station or
an apartment complex. Because the general public would not be aware of the situation, they
would be in danger. There are also rumors that residents may have been using well water for
recreational purposes (their swimming pools) as well as authorized uses. Other community
members are concerned about the health risks associated with wearing clothing that has been
laundered in contaminated well water.
The Extent of Contamination and the Need for EPA to Work Quickly
Residents expressed concern, as they have in the past, about the extent of contamination hi the
area of the Tutu Wells site. In particular, they want to know whether or not the plumes are
moving or have become larger. Citizens were alarmed to hear from EPA that wells farther
down Turpentine Run which initially tested clean are now found to be contaminated. This
concern is coupled with a growing impatience on the part of well owners to have the
contamination cleaned up immediately. Some do not understand why the water has not yet been
restored to useable levels, if EPA has known about the sources of the contamination and the
responsible parties for so long.
20
TUT 
OO7 1234
The Restoration of the Island's Natural Resources and the Ongoing Identification of Potential
Sources of Contamination Elsewhere
Unlike the past, many well owners seem to have accepted the fact that their wells are
contaminated and that as long as they are provided with an alternate drinking water supply, they
can go on with then- daily personal and business lives without undue disruption. Now, however,
the community's focus seems to have shifted to a desire to see the Island's natural resources,
particularly the affected aquifer, restored to acceptable federal drinking water standards so that
all Islanders may enjoy its use.
Many residents voiced additional concern that there are many other leaking underground storage
tanks throughout the Island. They expressed frustration that a lack of funds and trained
personnel to carry out environmental laws passed in the United States could prevent the proper
enforcement of monitoring and maintenance programs in the Virgin Islands. Other areas of
concern Islandwide included the need for:
• a recycling operation and how to make it profitable
• 
an alternative method of disposal for household wastes as landfills reach their
capacity, such as an incinerator
• 
a convenient, efficient system to collect and recycle used waste oil from all gas
stations and automobile repair shops
• 
a holding tank for waste streams from drycleaners, laundromats, and similar
businesses and a monitoring system in place for regulators to enforce proper waste
handling
• 
a training program to educate personnel hi current environmental law, enforcement
procedures, and maintenance and monitoring practices.
21
TUT 
007 1235
D. HIGHLIGHTS
The community relations program at the Tutu Wells site will allow the community to learn about
and participate in the Superfund remedial process. Accurate, up-to-date information should be
accessible to the affected community through techniques that encourage openness and promote
confidence. Based on the information collected and concerns expressed during the community
interviews conducted in late October and early November of 1994, EPA has set the following
goals and objectives for community relations activities at the Tutu Wells site.
1. Educate the community about the policies, procedures, and requirements of the Superfund
program as it relates to the Tutu site. EPA will prepare and distribute meaningful information
on the Superfund process to the community, particularly as it relates to the ongoing feasibility
study and the selection of the remedial alternative. Recent interviews with the Tutu community
suggest that areas of concern are: the notification of additional PRPs and their liability; the
timetable for the selection, design, and implementation of the remedial alternative; and health
risks associated with the contamination and the authorized use of well water.
2. Document recent data on the extent of Site contamination for public access. EPA will
present an overview of the contamination at the Tutu Wells site, including up-to-date findings
on migration pathways. Topics might include: the current extent of contamination, the potential
risks to human health and the environment, and contaminant levels versus acceptable, federal
drinking water standards. This information would serve to update the community on the
movement of the plumes and any dangers this migration may present to the public. The
underlying message would be that EPA wants to share its up-to-date information with the
community, build public confidence in its actions, and ease health-related fears.
3. Explain well sampling results to affected residents. EPA will make every effort to explain
how it reaches its technical conclusions and why remedial activities can be lengthy. EPA will
be sure to send sampling results to well owners in a timely fashion and on a consistent basis.
In addition, EPA will explain these results in a meaningful way. EPA will pay particular
22
TUT 
OO7 
1236
attention to including information in the sampling reports which indicates contaminant levels for
each well versus acceptable, federal drinking water standards.
4. Enlist local citizens/business establishments and media to "spread the word." EPA will
identify visible places and people to disseminate facts sheets and notify the community of
opportunities for public participation to more effectively keep the affected population informed
of current happenings. These places include local schools, churches, gathering places such as
the mall, grocery stores and apartment complexes, television and radio stations, and daily
newspapers. EPA will make a concerted effort to "publicize" its Site activities via the local
media to provide the community with current information. In all cases, EPA representatives will
be sensitive to the lifestyle and attitudes of the Tutu community.
E. TECHNIQUES AND TIMING
The following community relations activities are recommended to ensure that the Tutu
community is well informed about Site activities and has the opportunity to express their
concerns. 
This revised CRP reflects recent community concerns to keep the entire Tutu
community apprised of what is happening at the Site and to effectively promote every
opportunity for public participation to encourage a maximum turnout by the community at public
meetings and other forums. Exhibit 1 illustrates the timing of each activity during the feasibility
study for the Site. Activities, and their approximate timing, are as follows.
1. Establish and maintain image of EPA as genuinely responsive to citizens, officials, civic
groups, and the media. The overall goal of this revised CRP is to provide accurate and timely
responses to questions from interested parties regarding the Tutu Wells site and to coordinate
an open dialogue with those interested parties via community involvement throughout the
remedial process. Caroline Kwan, the EPA Remedial Project Manager for the Site, is available
to answer technical inquiries. Ms. Kwan will initiate telephone calls on a regular basis, or as
needed, to inform community leaders, such as representatives from the Department of Health,
DPNR, and local legislature, of major findings and the progress of Site activities.
23
TUT 
007 1237
Exhibit 1. Schedule of Community Relations Activities
TUTU Wells Site
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
TECHNICAL MILESTONES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS 
. 
_ , 
_ 
. 
. 
Slg"Recort)
TFfHNIOITF 
Issue Draft 
Complete 
Issue 
of Decision/
^ 
Complete 
RI/FS 
Final RI/FS 
Proposed 
Select 
Remedial
RI/FS* 
Report 
Report 
Plan 
Remedy 
Design
1 . Open Dialogue 
f ******** f ******** continuous **************************
2. Information Contact 
r****************** continuous r ********************** ***t
3. Informal Meetings 
y^*************** conduct as needed f **************** ***%
4. Fact Sheet/Flyers 
X 
X 
X 
X
and as needed
5. News Releases/ Public Service 
Vi""" 
provided as needed **********2^ 
*%************
Announcements
6. Public Meetings 
X 
X
7. Information Repository 
y************. documents added as needed *********************
(New Location)
8. Public Comment Period 
X
9. Responsiveness Summary 
X
10. Revision of CRP 
Iff*************** 
updates as necessary ***********************
Remedial
Action
********
r******j
X
'**f***y^
'*******
f ****** 'j
* RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
TUT 
007 
1.238
24
2. Identify a credible, accountable point-of-contact who will answer questions regarding the
Superfund program and CERCLA-related activities at the Tutu site. EPA has designated the
Community Relations Coordinator for the Tutu site, Lillian Johnson, as the official
point-of-contact. This spokesperson will be available to answer telephone calls and written
inquiries from interested parties about Site activities on a day-by-day basis. Ms. Johnson is the
Chief, Community Relations Branch for EPA's Region II. Her address and telephone number
are as follows: U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866; (212) 637-3000.
3. Hold periodic, informal meetings and public hearings to keep citizens informed of Site
activities and to help them better understand technical aspects of the feasibility study, on an
as-needed basis. The purpose of these meetings is to provide basic information on EPA actions
at the Site, in general, and to answer specific questions residents may have on interpreting Site
data or sampling report results. EPA will extend an open invitation to all interested parties in
the area to attend, as well as to leaders of community groups who could disseminate information
to group members. According to community members, desirable meeting places include the the
Curriculum Center and the Lutheran Church. 
EPA will contact representatives of these
organizations to arrange for meeting space and will publicize these meetings by displaying
posters in prominent places, sending flyers home with school children, printing advertisements
in local newspapers, and distributing announcements to church parishioners.
Initially, EPA plans to hold one informal meeting to explain the results of the remedial
investigation and the range of alternatives that will be evaluated in the upcoming feasibility
study. Subsequent informal meetings will focus on citizen concerns, and/or events related to the
scientific studies.
In addition to the informal availability session, EPA will hold a public meeting/hearing to
present the alternatives considered hi the feasibility study, and EPA's preferred alternative. The
preferred alternative and its supporting data are referred to as the proposed remedial action plan,
25
TUT 
007 1239
^^ 
or PRAP. The meeting/hearing will be held during a 30-day public comment period, during
which time EPA will receive comments on the proposed plan. Citizens may write to Caroline
Kwan, the EPA Remedial Project Manager, to register their opinions or concerns or voice them
at the meeting. EPA will prepare a meeting transcript for this public meeting and make it
available to the public. In addition, EPA will prepare a notice for the public meeting which
announces the availability of the remedial investigation and feasibility study reports, and includes
a brief summary of the proposed plan. The notice also will announce the public comment
period. EPA will publicize both the public availability session and the public meetings via local
media, particularly paid advertisements in the Daily News, which is a major local newspaper of
general circulation. EPA will hold a public briefing upon completion of the final engineering
design and prior to beginning the remedial action.
4. 
Prepare fact sheets and flyers to ensure that current, accurate, and understandable
information is readily and regularly available to interested parties. The public has expressed a
desire to receive information from EPA on a consistent basis. EPA will prepare both fact sheets
'/**~N 
and flyers to meet this demand for enhanced community understanding and participation at
regular intervals.
EPA will develop fact sheets at significant technical milestones during the remediation process
and explain cleanup progress in layman's language. For example, EPA plans to issue a fact
sheet to provide a general Site status, publicize the new location of the information repository,
and present a schedule for future project meetings. Other upcoming fact sheets will highlight
the proposed plan and the final engineering design for the remedial action. EPA also will print
flyers to announce opportunities for public involvement. These materials will be distributed to
the Tutu community using various techniques to ensure proper delivery to the greatest number
of affected persons. For instance, materials may be distributed to local schools (Gomez, Seventh
Day Adventist) for children to bring home, to local churches to be handed to parishioners after
mass, and to local community groups such as the League of Women Voters to circulate
throughout the community. A copy of each fact sheet, flyer, or other document also will be kept
^—N 
in the information repository, which has been moved to the Curriculum Center.
26
TUT 
OO7 
124O
5. Send press releases to local media to provide timely, unbiased information and seek extended
air-time under special circumstances. EPA will write prepared statements covering project plans
and milestones and announcements of public meetings and other community events. These press
releases will be sent to local newspapers, particularly the Virgin Islands Daily News, local
television (Channel 8) and radio stations, state and local officials, and area residents. To
publicize major events, EPA will seek air-time on local radio and television talk shows with a
large community following, such as WSTA-The Lucky 13 and WTBN Radio. EPA also is
interested in preparing a planned program of questions raised by the community and answers
prepared by EPA for television or radio broadcast with an opportunity for citizens to call or
write in with comments/questions. A complete listing of names, addresses, telephone numbers,
and points of contact for local media is included in Appendix A.
6. Prepare notice and comment period on the administrative order on consent or consent decree.
Should the PRPs agree to accept responsibility for funding the remedial action plan, EPA will
publish a notice of the proposed settlement in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the
agreement becomes final. This notice will state the name of the facility and the parties to the
proposed agreement. EPA will provide those persons who are not parties to the agreement an
opportunity to file written comments for a period of 30 days.
7. Establish and maintain information repository to hold all documents for public review. EPA
will place fact sheets, flyers, technical summaries, Site reports (including the community
relations plan), and information on the Superfund program in an information repository for
public review. The information repository is now located at the Curriculum Center; the
administrative record is kept at DPNR offices (see Appendix C).
27
TUT 
OO7 1241
APPENDIX A
LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
I. Federal and Territorial Elected Officials
Congressman Victor Fraizer
Capitol Office
2238 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-1790
District Office
Federal Building, Suite 256
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
(809) 774-4408
Governor Roy Lester Schneider
Government House
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
(809) 774-0001
Lieutenant Governor Kenneth E. Mapp
18 Kongens Gade
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
(809) 774-2991
Legislature of the Virgin Islands - St. Thomas Legislators
Office Address
Capitol Building
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 477
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
A-l
TUT 
007 1242
APPENDIX A
(continued)
Senator Lorraine L. Berry
Telephone: (809) 774-2696
Facsimile: (809) 776-4766
Senator Judy Gomez
Telephone: (809)774-4645
Facsimile: (809) 774-5531
Senator Osbert Potter
Telephone: (809) 776-5566
Facsimile: (809) 774-6247
Senator Adlah Donastorg
Telephone: (809) 774-4518
Facsimile: (809) 774-0948
Senator Allie-Allison Petrus
Telephone: (809) 776-1438
Facsimile: (809)774-6247
Senator Arturo Watlington, Jr.
Telephone: (809) 774-6710
Facsimile: (809) 774-7875
Senator Celestino A. White, Sr.
Telephone: (809) 774-2422
Facsimile: (809) 774-2422
A-2
TUT 
007 
1243
APPENDIX A
(continued)
II. Territorial Agency Representatives
Kenneth S. Belle
Acting Commissioner
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Nisky Center, Suite 231
No. 45A Estate Nisky
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
Telephone: (809) 774-3320
Facsimile: (809) 775-5706
Leonard Reed
Director
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Nisky Center, Suite 231
No. 45A Estate Nisky
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
Telephone: (809)774-3320
Facsimile: (809) 775-5706
Shawn Malone
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Nisky Center, Suite 231
No. 45A Estate Nisky
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
Telephone: (809) 774-3320
Facsimile: (809) 775-5706
Donna Christin-Green
Acting Commissioner
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health
48 Sugar Estate
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809)774-0117
Facsimile: (809) 776-0610
A-3
TUT 
OO7 1244
APPENDIX A
(continued)
Lorna W. Smith
Director of Environmental Health
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health
Old Hospital Complex
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809) 774-6880
Alberto Bruno-Vega
Executive Director
U.S. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority
P.O. Box 1450
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
Telephone: (809) 774-3552
Facsimile: (809) 776-2713
Conrad Francois
Executive Director
U.S. Virgin Islands Housing Authority
P.O. Box 7668
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809) 775-2741
Facsimile: (809) 775-0832
III. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II Representatives
Caroline Kwan
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212) 637-4275
A-4
TUT 
O07 1245
APPENDIX A
(continued)
Lillian Johnson
Chief, Community Relations Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212) 637-3000
IV. Citizen Groups
League of Women Voters
P.O. Box 638
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Environmental Association of St. Thomas and St. John
P.O. Box 12279
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Lions Club East
P.O. Box 11388
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Lioness Club
P.O. Box 11268
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Lions Club
P.O. Box 3535
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00803
St. Thomas Rotary Club East
Suite 237
Red Hook
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
A-5
1246
APPENDIX A
(continued)
Rotary Club of Charlotte Amalie
c/o 32 Main Street
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Rotary Club of St. Thomas
P.O. Box 1476
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Rotary Club of St. Thomas II
P.O. Box 748
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Virgin Islands 2000
P.O. Box 4274
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00803
V. Media
Newspapers:
The Daily News
P.O. Box 7760
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809) 774-8772
Facsimile: (809) 776-0740
Contact: Harold Anedd
St. Croix Avis
P.O. Box 750
Christiansted
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00821
Telephone: (809) 773-2300
Facsimile: (809)773-5511
Contact: Angela Borchert
A-6
TUT
APPENDIX A
(continued)
The Tradewinds Newspaper
P.O. Box 500
Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands 00830
Telephone: (809) 776-6496
Facsimile: (809)776-7700
Contact: Venessa Barber, Advertising Manager
The Business Journal
P.O. Box 1208
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
Telephone: (809) 776-2874
Facsimile: (809) 774-3636
Contact: Greg Miller
Caribbean Business
P.O. Box 12130
Loisa Street Station
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00914
Telephone: (809)728-3000
Facsimile: (809) 268-1626
Contact: Mari Carmen Schell
Television Stations:
Channel 8 - WSVI TV
Antilles Broadcasting Corporation
Sunny Isles Shopping Center
Christiansted
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00823
Telephone: (809)778-5008
Facsimile: (809) 778-5011
Contact: Jennifer Zowarka - PSA
General Manager: Baraket Saleh
A-7
TUT 
007 
j.248
APPENDIX A
(continued)
Channel 12 - WTJX TV
Box 7879
Barbel Plaza South
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809) 774-6255
Facsimile: (809) 774-7092
Contact: Marie Rimer - PSA
Program Manager: Laurie Elskoe
Austin Advertising
P.O. Box 1688
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
Telephone: (809) 776-7828
Contact: Charlene Kehoe
Radio Stations:
Radio One - WVWI
Franklin Building
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809)776-1000
Facsimile: (809)776-5357
Production PSA: Dennis Murphy
Program Manager: Nick Russell
WOOD - 98 FM
Crown Mountain
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809)774-4498
Facsimile: (809) 776-0877
Program Director: Veda Charles
Talk Show Host: Ulric Ferrari
A-8
TUT 
007 
1249
APPENDIX A
(continued)
WSTA - The Lucky 13/Radio 1340 AM
P.O. Box 1340
121 Sub Base
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
Telephone: (809) 777-4500
Facsimile: (809) 776-1316
General Manager: Len Stein
Talk Show Host: Athniel Ottley
Eileen Jackson
Z Gold - 91.7, Z Heat - 94.3, and Radio Wave - 97.3
6 Rahune Hill, Suite 501
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
Telephone: (809) 775-4884
Facsimile: (809) 775-6887
Director: Ben Krongold
A-9
TUT
007 
1250
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
Recommended Locations for Public Meetings
(1) 
Curriculum Center
Department of Education 108
44-46 Konges Gade
St. Thomas, U.S. Virginia Islands 00802
(809) 775-2250
Contact: Cynthia Richards
Seating Capacity: 100
Availability: Reserve 2 weeks in advance by telephone or fax.
Handicapped Accessibility: Yes
Fee: $75 plus custodial fee; forms required.
(2) 
Lutheran Church of the Reformation
Tutu, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 775-1022
Contact: Don Mills (Head of the Council)
(Home: (809) 776-4221; Office: (809) 774-7320)
Facsimile: (809)774-0025
Seating Capacity: 300
Availability: Reserve in advance by telephone call.
Handicapped Accessibility: Accessible
Fee: Council will establish fee.
(3) 
Legislative Hall of the U.S. Virgin Islands
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 773-2424
Contact: Una Sutton
Seating Capacity: Varies with conference room
Availability: Legislative-related meetings take priority over other uses; reserve the
facility at least two weeks in advance
Handicapped Accessibility: Not accessible
Fee: $30 per evening; No fee for meetings held between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
B-l
TUT 
007 
.1251
APPENDIX C
LOCATION OF THE INFORMATION REPOSITORY
AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
Information Repository
Curriculum Center
Department of Education 108
44-46 Konges Gade
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
(809) 775-2250
Contact: Cynthia Richards
Hours of Availability for Reviewing
the Information Repository: 
Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Saturday 9 a.m.- 1 p.m.
Administrative Record
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
8000 Nisky Center
Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands 00802
(809) 774-3320
Contact: Yvonne McCauley
Hours of Availability for Reviewing
the Administrative Record: Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
EPA Caribbean Field Office
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Centre Europa Building, Room 417
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907
(809) 729-6951
Contact: Aileen Sanckey
Hours of Availability for Reviewing
the Administrative Record: Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
C-l
TUT 
007 1252
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
Administrative Order on Consent: Legal agreement between EPA and potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) in which PRPs agree to perform or pay the cost of a site cleanup. The agreement
describes actions to be taken at the site.
Administrative Record: 
File containing all information used by federal decision makers to
select a Superfund remedial action for a site.
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that
could affect public health and/or the environment. The term "cleanup" is often used broadly to
describe various Superfund response actions, such as a removal action or a remedial action.
Community Relations Plan (CRP): Document that outlines community concerns about and
expectations for die remediation of a site identified during community interviews. Also provides
a detailed description of community relations activities selected to address those concerns.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA): Law providing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with broad authority
to pursue liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances
released into the environment, and for the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.
Also known as Superfund.
Feasibility Study (FS): Part of a two-phase field study called a remedial investigation/feasibility
study. The purpose of the FS phase is to identify and screen alternative methods of remediating
a site.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The mediod used by EPA to evaluate the relative potential
of hazardous substance releases to cause health or safety problems, or ecological or
environmental damage. The HRS score determines whether a site should be placed on the
National Priorities List.
Information Repository: File containing information related to the remediation of a Superfund
site; repository is located in a building that is accessible to the public.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of hazardous waste sites identified for possible
long-term cleanup under the Superfund program.
D-l
TUT 
OO7 1253
APPENDIX D
(continued)
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Individual or company (such as an owner, operator,
transporter, or generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination at a
Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs to clean up sites that they have
contaminated.
Preferred Alternative: The restoration action EPA believes will be most effective for a site,
as described in the Proposed Plan.
Preliminary Assessment (PA): Part of a two-phased study called a preliminary assessment/site
investigation (PA/SI). The purpose of the PA is to collect and review available information
about a hazardous waste site to determine whether the site requires further study through a site
inspection.
Proposed Plan: 
An outline of all of the alternatives evaluated in the feasibility study and a
statement of the preferred alternative. EPA holds a 30-day public comment period on the
Proposed Plan, during which the public may submit comments in writing on the Plan or may
voice concerns at a public meeting.
Record of Decision (ROD): Formal statement of the selected alternative for restoring the site.
The ROD includes a responsiveness summary, in which EPA answers public comments received
during the public comment period on the Proposed Plan.
Remedial Action (RA): Those actions taken at a site to prevent or minimize the release of
hazardous substances so that the substances do not migrate to cause danger to present or future
public health or the environment.
Remedial Design (RD): The conceptual and engineering plans for the Site remediation.
Remedial Investigation (RI): Part of a two-phase field study called a remedial
investigation/feasibility study. The purpose of the RI phase is to gather the data necessary to
fully determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken to address a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances.
RI/FS Report: Summary of the results of the RI/FS.
RI/FS Work Plan: Outline of how and when the RI/FS will be conducted.
D-2
TUT
00 7
APPENDIX D
(continued)
Site Discovery: The ways that EPA learns of conditions that could present risk to human health
and the environment, such as citizen complaints of an unusual odor or of a fire.
Site Inspection (SI): Part of a two-phased study called a preliminary assessment/site inspection
(PA/SI). The purpose of the SI is to collect sufficient information to rank the hazard potential
of a site. The SI is conducted if the PA turns up evidence that the site may pose a threat to
human health and the environment.
Superfund: See CERCLA.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA): Law designed to include
local governments and the public hi the process of making decisions about how to address
possible chemical hazards hi their communities. SARA was signed by the President on October
17, 1986 to amend CERCLA. Reference made to CERCLA throughout this document should
be interpreted as meaning CERCLA, as amended by SARA.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): An organic (carbon-containing) compound that evaporates
(volatizes) readily at room temperature.
D-3
TUT
007 
1255
APPENDIX E
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
EPA provides community groups with the opportunity to apply for Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs) of up to $50,000 per Superfund site. With TAG funding, community groups are
able to hire technical advisers to interpret Site findings and help the public become more
involved in making decisions about cleanup plans.
Citizens who are interested in applying for TAGs may obtain an application package by
calling or writing:
Carol Remington
Technical Assistance Grant Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region II
290 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, New York, 10007-1866
(212) 637-3402
E-l
TUT 
007 
j.256