TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H
RESULTS OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
February 1993
Prepared for
Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Prepared by
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
809 Ferndndez Juncos Avenue
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907
(809) 725-2304
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
*64571*
64571
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM n
RESULTS OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
February 26, 1993
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. is submitting this report to the Tutu Environmental Investigation
Committee for work performed at the Tutu Site in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. This report
was prepared in conformance with Geraghty & Miller's strict quality assurance/quality control
procedures to ensure that the report meets industry standards in terms of the methods used and
the information presented. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please
contact one of the individuals listed below.
Respectfully submitted,
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Thomas V. Danahy
Senior Scientist/Project Manager
David K. Cook
Puerto Rico Office Manager
Daniel A. Nachman
Vice President/Project Officer
TUT 
O05 
18O4
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 
SITE LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 
SCOPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
2.0 
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
2.1 
SOIL INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
2.2 
GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.2.1 Surficial Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
2.2.2 Bedrock Coring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
2.2.3 Downhole Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3 
GROUND-WATER INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3.2 Well Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3.3 Water-Level Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.3.4 Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.4 
AQUIFER TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.4.1 Water-Level Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.4.2 Aquifer Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.4.3 Water Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.5 
DATA VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
3.0 
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 
GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
3.1.1 Regional Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
3.1.2 Site Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
3.2 
HYDROGEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
3.2.1 Regional Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
TUT 
00^ 
J8O5
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.2.2 Site Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.2.2.1 Shallow Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.2.2.2 Deep Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.3 Ground-Water Flow Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.3 
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.3.1 Monitoring Well MW-6R Aquifer Test
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.3.2 Monitoring Well MW-6D Aquifer Test
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
4.0 
SOIL QUALITY DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1
4.1 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SOIL BORING
SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1
4.1.1 Petroleum Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
4.1.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Results for Soil
Boring Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.1.3 Chlorinated Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
4.2 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELL
SOIL SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.2.1 Petroleum Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.2.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.2.3 Chlorinated Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.3 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SURFACE
SOIL SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.3.1 Petroleum Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.3.2 Chlorinated Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
IUT 
O05 
1806
Ill
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.4 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SOIL BORING
SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-7
4.5 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR MONITORING
WELL SOIL SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.6 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SURFACE
SOIL SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
4.7 
QA/QC SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
4.7.1 Organic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
4.7.2 Inorganic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
5.0 
GROUND-WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1
5.1 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER
SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1
5.1.1 Petroleum Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.1.3 Chlorinated Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3
5.2 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER
SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-4
5.2.1 Total Metals 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-4
5.2.2 Dissolved Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.2.3 Total Cyanide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3 
QA/QC SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5
5.3.1 Organic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.3.2 Inorganic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.3.2.1 Total Metals Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.3.2.2 Dissolved Metals Results for QA/QC Samples . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.4 
SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 5-7
6.0 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
GERAGHTYcf MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
1S07
IV
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6.1 
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 
SOIL QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.3 
GROUND-WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.4 
MONITORING WELL NETWORK EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
7.0 
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1
8.0 
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
TABLES
2-1. 
Soil Boring Details, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2-2. 
Monitoring Well Construction Details, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
2-3. 
Water-Level Measurements in Shallow Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2-4. 
Water-Level Measurements in Deep Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2-5. 
Ground-Water Elevation Comparison for Monitoring Well Clusters, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2-6. 
Vertical Gradients of Ground-Water Flow, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-1. 
Summary of Transmissivity and Storativity Values from Aquifer Tests, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-1. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to
August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil
Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
TUT 
005 
1808
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TABLES (Continued)
4-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples Collected from June
to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-4. 
Concentrations of Metals in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu
Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-5. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-6. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Potable-Water Samples Collected in
June 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-7. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in the Field Blanks and Trip Blanks
Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-8. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in the Field
Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-9. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Field Blanks Collected from June
to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-10. Concentrations of Metals in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu
Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-11. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-1. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in
September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
5-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Compounds in Ground-Water
Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground-Water Samples Collected in
September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
TUT 
OOri 
18O9
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
VI
TABLES (Continued)
5-4. 
Concentrations of Total Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and
October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-5. 
Concentrations of Dissolved Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-6. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and
October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-7. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in
October and November 1992 During the Pumping Test, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
FIGURES
1-1. 
Site Location, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
1-2. 
Base Map with Topography, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
1-3. 
Soil Boring and Surface Soil Sample Locations, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
1-4. 
Monitoring Well and Cross-Section Locations, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-1. 
Geologic Cross Section, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
3-2. 
Ground-Water Contour Map, Shallow Wells, September 28, 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-3. 
Ground-Water Contour Map, Deep Wells, September 28, 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-4. 
Ground-Water Contour Map, Shallow Wells, November 16, 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TtJT 
OO5 1810
Vll
FIGURES (Continued)
3-5. 
Ground-Water Contour Map, Deep Wells, November 16, 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-6. 
Storm Sewer Layout, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
3-7. 
Monitoring Well MW-6R Drawdown Data, Pump Test of MW-6R, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-8. 
Monitoring Well CHT-6D Drawdown Data, Pump Test of MW-6D, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3-9. 
Monitoring Well MW-6D Drawdown Data, Pump Test of MW-6D, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-1. 
Organic Compound Concentrations in Soil Boring and Surface Soil Samples, Tutu
Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-2. 
Organic Compound Concentrations in Soil Samples from Monitoring Well Borings, Tutu
Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-3. 
Metal and Cyanide Concentrations in Soil Boring and Surface Soil Samples, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4-4. 
Metal and Cyanide Concentrations in Soil Samples from Monitoring Well Borings, Tutu
Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-1. 
Organic Compound Concentrations in Ground-Water Samples (September 29 Through
October 7, 1992), Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-2. 
Total Metal and Cyanide Concentrations in Ground-Water Samples (September 29
Through October 7, 1992), Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
5-3. 
Dissolved Metal Concentrations in Ground-Water Samples (September 29 Through
October 7, 1992), Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
5-4. 
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Supply Wells (September 14 Through
September 17, 1992), Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
TUT 
CO5 
IP 11
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
vin
APPENDICES
A. 
Geologic Logs.
B. 
Well Construction Logs.
C. 
Water Sampling Logs.
D. 
First Sampling Round Data Validation Report.
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1812
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H
RESULTS OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In March 1992, Geraghty & Miller, Inc. submitted the revised Tutu Service Station
Investigation Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a) to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) on behalf of the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee
(TEIC), which is comprised of Texaco Caribbean Inc. (Texaco), and Esso Virgin Islands, Inc.
(Esso). The Work Plan was to be incorporated into an Administrative Order by Consent (No.
n-RCRA-7003 and 9003-92-0401) issued to Texaco and Esso by the USEPA Region II, pursuant
to Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Technical Memorandum
I, which was submitted to the USEPA in April 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992b), provided
the results of the preliminary reconnaissance activities performed to select final soil boring and
monitoring well locations for the field investigation program. As indicated in the Work Plan,
Technical Memorandum II is to be submitted to the USEPA after completion of the first ground-
water sampling event of the field investigation program. This Technical Memorandum II
includes the data validation report and the hydrogeological data collected during the
implementation of the field investigation, including soil sampling and the first ground-water
sampling event.
1.1 
PURPOSE
As specified in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a), the purposes of
Technical Memorandum II are to evaluate the adequacy of the monitoring well system and to
develop recommendations regarding sampling and analytical procedures for the second ground-
water sampling event for USEPA review. Accordingly, this technical memorandum includes
descriptions of methods, pertinent hydrogeologic data, and data validation results for the first
sampling event of the monitoring well system.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 
'UT 
°°5 
1S1:
1-2
The field investigation was designed to delineate the potential sources, and the horizontal
and vertical extents and the potential migration pathways for petroleum hydrocarbon products
in soil and ground water at the Tutu Service Station Investigation Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands (Tutu Site). The soil and ground-water investigation was also designed to evaluate the
presence of tetrachloroethene, commonly known as perchloroethene (PCE), and its breakdown
products to address the USEPA's concern regarding these chlorinated compounds. Additional
soil sampling locations and deep monitoring wells were included in the scope of work to assist
the USEPA. The field investigation was conducted with oversight by the USEPA and its
subcontractor, Camp, Dresser & McGee (COM) Federal Programs Corporation.
The field investigation program at the Tutu Site included the following activities:
• 
Drilling of soil borings.
• 
Collection of soil samples for portable gas chromatograph (GC) analysis
and laboratory analysis.
• 
Downhole geophysical surveys in deep borings.
• 
Installation and development of shallow and deep monitoring wells.
• 
Surveying of soil boring and monitoring well locations.
• 
Collection of ground-water samples.
• 
Performance of two aquifer tests.
1.2 
SITE LOCATION
The Tutu Site is located in the east-central portion of St. Thomas (see Figure 1-1). The
study area and the surrounding topography are shown on Figure 1-2. The Tutu Site is located
in the upper Turpentine Run basin. Various commercial establishments line the major roads in
the area.
GERAGHTYo* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
1814
1-3
1.3 
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work outlined in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a) included
ten shallow monitoring wells, seven deep monitoring wells, and 12 soil borings. Prior to
completion of the field investigation, this scope of work was enlarged to address the USEPA's
concern regarding potential sources of PCE and its breakdown products, including 
two
additional shallow monitoring wells, five additional soil borings, and eight surface soil samples.
These additions to the scope of work were discussed by the USEPA and the TEIC and approved
by the USEPA prior to implementation. The rationales for the revisions to the original scope
of work are discussed below.
The drilling program in the revised scope of work consisted of installing 12 shallow and
seven deep monitoring wells, and drilling 17 soil borings. The locations of the soil borings and
monitoring wells are shown on Figures 1-3 and 1-4, respectively.
In the revised scope of work, Monitoring Wells MW-9S and MW-14 had been added to
the drilling program. Monitoring Well MW-9 was constructed with a screened interval slightly
below the water table; therefore Monitoring Well MW-9S was installed next to Monitoring Well
MW-9 to intersect the water table. Monitoring Well MW-14 was installed northwest of the
Curriculum Center (former Laga Building) to provide additional hydrogeologic and ground-water
quality data for this area. Technical Memorandum I (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992b) originally
proposed a shallow monitoring well (proposed designation MW-1) at the northwestern corner
of the Curriculum Center. 
However, COM, the USEPA's subcontractor, performed an
independent fracture trace analysis that identified a fracture lineament near the southern end of
the Curriculum Center parcel, parallelling the trend of Route 38 (CDM Federal Programs
Corporation 1992). During a May 5, 1992 meeting with CDM, USEPA, TEIC, and Geraghty
& Miller, the USEPA requested an additional pair of monitoring wells at the southwestern
corner of the Curriculum Center (designated MW-1 and MW-1D) to evaluate this fracture
lineament. The designation of the shallow monitoring well at the northwestern corner of the
Curriculum Center was then changed to MW-14.
TUT 
OO5 1815
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
1-4
During the initial attempt at drilling the boring for Monitoring Well MW-6D in July
1992, the core hole collapsed during reaming and the on-site geologist decided to install shallow
Monitoring Well MW-6 in the remaining open hole. However, Monitoring Well MW-6 was
abandoned because the collapsed material may not have provided a sufficient separation from
the deeper bedrock zone, and Monitoring Well MW-6R was installed as a replacement shallow
well. In August 1992, a deep well, Monitoring Well MW-6D, was installed as planned.
Four soil borings (Borings B-13A, B-14, B-15, and B-16) were also added to the original
scope during the field investigation. Boring B-13A, located on the western side of O'Henri Dry
Cleaners, provided an additional soil sample for the risk assessment database. Borings B-14,
B-15, and B-16 were located north of the Curriculum Center where historical information
suggested a potential source of PCE (Figure 1-3). In May 1992, the TEIC became aware that
the area near a former discharge pipe located at the rear of the Curriculum Center was going
to be covered by construction of a concrete foundation during the planned expansion of the
building. The TEIC recommended to the USEPA that soil sampling be conducted at Borings
B-14, B-15, and B-16 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992c). These three boring locations at the
Curriculum Center were approved by the USEPA.
At the request of the USEPA, eight surface soil samples were added to the scope of work
specified in the work plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a). The collection of surface soil
samples was intended to provide soil chemistry data for the risk assessment that will be
performed by the USEPA. 
According to USEPA risk assessment guidance documents,
contaminants present in soil within 2 feet of an unpaved land surface should be quantified for
assessment of risk to human health and the environment (USEPA 1989a; 1991a). The potential
exposure routes to humans for contaminants in surficial soils include inhalation of contaminated
soil dust or ingestion of contaminated soil, particularly by children. Soil that is covered by
pavement or buildings is not accessible for exposure to humans so no risk assessment data are
necessary in these areas. Therefore, the selection of surface soil sampling locations was focused
in areas of potentially contaminated surficial soils in unpaved areas. Suspected contaminated
surface soil areas were determined based on USEPA site evaluation reports (USEPA 1991b) and
GERAGHTY <?• MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1816
1-5
a reconnaissance of the Tutu Site. During the site reconnaissance, conducted on July 28, 1992
by Geraghty & Miller and USEPA's oversight subcontractor, CDM Federal Programs, final
sampling locations were designated at suspected contaminant source areas. Many of these areas
were selected based on visual evidence of contaminated soil (i.e., stained or discolored soil,
stressed vegetation, and lack of vegetation).
The eight surface soil samples collected at the Tutu Site as part of the soil investigation
were designated as samples SS-1 through SS-8 (Figure 1-3). Samples SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8
were collected to evaluate background metal concentrations in surficial soil. Samples SS-3, SS-
4, and SS-5 were collected in potential source areas of constituents of concern. Sample SS-6
(and its field replicate, SS-7) was collected for the risk assessment analysis requested by the
USEPA.
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This section describes the activities and procedures performed during the field
investigation at the Tutu Site. The methods of investigation for soil quality, geology, ground-
water conditions, aquifer characteristics and data validation are described below.
2.1 
SOIL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the soil investigation was to identify source areas of petroleum
hydrocarbon products and other constituents of concern at the Tutu Site. Soil samples were
collected during the drilling of Borings B-l through B-13, B-13A, and B-14 through B-16, and
of Monitoring Wells MW-1 through MW-10, MW-14, MW-1D, MW-4D, MW-6D, and MW-
10D through MW-13D (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4). Soil boring details are included in Table 2-1.
Soil samples were collected with a 3-inch diameter, 2-foot long, stainless-steel, split-spoon
sampler driven ahead of 3.25-inch inside diameter (I.D.), hollow-stem augers. Soil samples
were collected continuously from ground surface to the water table or top of bedrock, whichever
was encountered first. 
At several locations, the drilling was advanced through asphalt or
concrete pavement.
The drilling rig, hollow-stem augers, rods, and tools were steam-cleaned before each
boring. In addition, split-spoon samplers were decontaminated in accordance with the following
procedure: washed in tap water mixed with Micro detergent; rinsed with tap water; rinsed with
10 percent nitric acid; rinsed with deionized water; rinsed with pesticide-grade methanol; rinsed
with pesticide-grade hexane; allowed to air dry; and rinsed with deionized water. Each sampler
was wrapped in aluminum foil for later use.
Each soil sample was collected by driving the split-spoon sampler through the
unconsolidated material with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches. After the sampler was
retrieved from the boring, it was placed on a wood table covered by new plastic sheeting and
opened. The sample interval, blow counts per 6 inches of advancement, sample recovery, and
the soil description were recorded on Geraghty & Miller's sample/core log form. Each soil
GERAGHTYe* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
181S
2-2
sample was screened with a HNu Model PI-101 photoionization detector equipped with a 10.2-
electron volt lamp. The HNu readings were recorded on the sample/core logs with the
appropriate depth intervals. The HNu was calibrated on a daily basis, as specified in Appendix
A of the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a). Copies of the sample/core logs are
included in Appendix A of this report.
A portion of each soil sample was collected with a stainless-steel spatula for field GC
analysis. The soil was placed in two 40-milliliter (mL) vials containing deionized water, using
a stainless-steel spatula, until half of each vial was filled. Each vial was identified with the
boring number, sample number, depth interval, and the date and time of collection. The vials
were stored in ice and transported to the field office for GC analysis. Surface soil samples were
collected directly from the ground surface with a stainless-steel spatula.
The soil sample with the highest HNu reading from each boring was selected for off-site
laboratory analysis. If no elevated HNu readings were measured, the deepest sample (above the
water table or above the bedrock) was selected for laboratory analysis. Each soil sample was
transferred from the split-spoon sampler to the sample container with a stainless-steel spoon.
Soil sample jars were preserved in the field with ice and transported along with the field and trip
blanks to the field office for packaging.
One field blank was collected for laboratory analysis during each day soil sampling
occurred. The field blank was prepared by pouring deionized water through the precleaned,
split-spoon sampler. One trip blank was provided in each cooler of samples. Samples were
shipped to Enseco East Laboratories (Enseco) in New Jersey via overnight courier. Soil samples
were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the target compound list (TCL);
1,2-dibromomethane; n-propylbenzene; and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE); TCL base
neutral acid extractable compounds (BNAs); and metals, cyanide, and total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) from the target analyte list (TAL) using the March 1990 Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols (USEPA 1990a; 1990b).
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
i819
2-3
2.2 
GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
During the field investigation at the Tutu Site, exposed outcrops were examined, and site-
specific geology was documented from the drilling of the soil borings and the bedrock core
holes. Downhole geophysical surveys were also performed. These activities are described in
the following sections.
2.2.1 Surficial Geology
To correlate the geologic information obtained during the field investigation with previous
geologic data, three rock outcrops located in the Tutu area were examined, and the observed
rock units were described. The strike and dip of bedding planes and fractures, and degree of
weathering and fracturing, were documented. These data and observations are described in
Section 3.1.2 (Site Geology).
2.2.2 Bedrock Coring
The bedrock was cored during the drilling of deep Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-4D,
MW-6D, MW-IOD, MW-llD, MW-12D, and MW-13D and shallow Monitoring Well MW-9
(Figure 1-4). Coring began at the top of bedrock in each borehole. Depth to the top of bedrock
varied from 0 to 11.6 feet below land surface (bis). Bedrock samples were obtained using the
wireline NQ core barrel rotary method with a 2 3/4-inch outside diameter (O.D.) diamond bit.
Cuttings removal and cooling of the diamond bit was accomplished by recirculating water
through the drilling system. A temporary, 5-foot long, 4-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) casing was installed in each 7-inch diameter boring before coring. The 5-foot long casing
was used to avoid borehole collapse and to assist in recirculating the water from a holding tank
to the boring. The recirculation system consisted of a holding/settling tank, a pump, and the
downhole drilling tools. A sample of the drilling water was collected and analyzed for the
constituents of concern prior to field activities. Sample cores were obtained in 5-foot sections
TUT 
GO5 1820
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
2-4
wherever possible. 
Downhole drilling pressure, rate of penetration per foot, and water
circulation were observed and recorded.
The total length of each core sample was measured and recorded, along with the core
recovery percentage and rock quality designation (RQD). These measurements were recorded
on a Geraghty & Miller bedrock core log form, along with a description of the core sample.
The core descriptions include lithology, color, hardness, grain size and shape, sorting, luster,
cementation, accessory minerals, inclusions, bedding, weathering, and fracturing. The following
information was also recorded on a bedrock coring log: run number, run depth, run penetration,
run duration, penetration rate, downhole pressure, run recovery, percent recovery, and RQD.
Bedrock core logs are included in Appendix A.
Rock cores were stored in sample core boxes. Theses boxes were identified with the
boring number, core depth, date, project number, and box number written on the outside of the
box cover. The box number, project number, date, depth, run number, recovery percentage,
and RQD were recorded on the inside of the box cover. The sample core boxes were stored on-
site for further lithologic analysis.
Soil and rock cuttings resulting from the drilling operation were placed in 55-gallon, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved drums. Three composite samples were collected
from these drums to characterize the soil cuttings for disposal purposes. Drilling equipment and
tools were decontaminated by steam-cleaning between each core sampling location.
2.2.3 Downhole Geophysics
Caliper and sonic logs were run in all bedrock core holes (Monitoring Wells MW-1D,
MW-4D, MW-6D, MW-10D, MW-1 ID, MW-12D, and MW-13D). For Monitoring Well MW-
9, only caliper logging was attempted. The caliper log is a record of borehole diameter versus
depth. The sonic log is a record of the time required for a compressional sound wave to
transverse 1 horizontal foot into the rock formation.
TUT 
OD5 
18"-:"l
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
2-5
A caliper probe (Model 3ARM COO4) was used for the core hole caliper logging. The
caliper probe was calibrated with 3- and 4.5-inch diameter rings for the 3-inch diameter core
holes, and 6- and 12-inch diameter rings for the 10-inch diameter core holes. The starting depth
was calculated by measuring the distance between the ground surface or the temporary PVC pipe
to the bottom of the caliper arms. The PVC pipe had been installed previously in the core hole
to recirculate the water used during coring procedures. The caliper was lowered slowly to the
bottom of the core hole. Core hole depth was compared with the depth obtained during diamond
coring. At the core hole bottom, the caliper arms were opened to start logging. A printout of
the raw data was obtained during logging of the hole and processed later at the field office.
A sonic probe (Model SONIC 1275) was used for the core hole sonic logging. The
starting depth for the sonic log was selected by measuring the distance between the ground
surface or the temporary PVC stick-up and the middle point between the two receivers of the
sonic probe. 
The sonic log was run without centralizers in 3-inch diameter core holes
(Monitoring Wells MW-1D and MW-4D). Centralizers were used on 6- and 10-inch diameter
core holes (Monitoring Wells MW-6D, MW-10D, MW-11D, and MW-12D). The sonic probe
was lowered to the bottom of the core hole to start logging. A printout of the raw data was
obtained in some of the logs. The raw data were processed later at Geraghty & Miller's Puerto
Rico office.
Caliper and sonic logs were performed on each core hole twice to check the raw data
obtained during logging. A detailed log was obtained by processing the raw data. This log
included a three-arm caliper borehole diameter versus depth curve, a tube (i.e., borehole) wave
amplitude curve, a transit time curve, a variable density log, and drilling and logging
information for each core hole.
The geophysical logging of Monitoring Wells MW-1D and MW-4D was conducted in 3-
inch diameter core holes. The rest of the core holes were reamed prior to logging with a 10-inch
diameter air-rotary hammer bit from the top of bedrock to the top of the open hole interval to
minimize core hole collapse. The 6-inch stainless-steel casing was then installed, and grout was
TUT 
OOFi 
18'? 7
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
2-6
poured into the annular space between the casing and the core hole. After the grout had
hardened, the bottom 20 feet of the core hole was reamed with a 5.5-inch diameter hammer bit.
A second run was made with the caliper and the sonic probe in the bottom part of the core hole.
This procedure was followed in the core holes of Monitoring Wells MW-6D, MW-10D, MW-
1 ID, and MW-13D. An attempt was made to log the core hole of Monitoring Well MW-9 after
it was reamed; however, due to a temporary malfunction, the arms of the caliper probe did not
open inside the core hole of Monitoring Well MW-9 despite several attempts during the logging
procedures.
The core hole of Monitoring Well MW-12D was reamed completely with the 10-inch
diameter hammer bit due to the highly weathered material encountered during coring of the hole.
After geophysical logging, Monitoring Well MW-12D was completed as a shallow monitoring
well with 4-inch diameter stainless-steel screen and casing.
2.3 
GROUND-WATER INVESTIGATION
The ground-water investigation included the installation of shallow and deep monitoring
wells, well development, and ground-water sampling and analysis. The purpose of the ground-
water investigation was to define ground-water flow conditions and to delineate the horizontal
and vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon products and other potential constituents of concern
in ground water.
2.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation
Twelve shallow monitoring wells were installed at the Tutu Site (Monitoring Wells MW-1
through MW-5, MW-6R, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-9S, MW-10, and MW-14). The shallow
monitoring wells were screened to bridge the water table. Each well was constructed with 4-
inch diameter, stainless-steel casing and screen (0.020-inch slot size). The screen and riser pipe
utilized for well construction were steam-cleaned before installation. A sand pack, consisting
of Texblast Sand, was placed around each well screen. The height of the sand pack above the
GERAGHTYc' MILLER. INC. 
TLn 
°°5 
1S23
2-7
top of the screen ranged from 1.06 to 2.8 feet (see Table 2-2). The sand pack was poured from
ground surface directly into the annulus between the boring and the well screen; and a seal,
consisting of bentonite pellets, was installed above the sand pack. The thickness of the bentonite
seal ranged from 0.85 to 2.6 feet depending on field conditions (Table 2-2). The bentonite
pellets were hydrated with potable water after placement. A cement-bentonite grout seal was
installed on top of the bentonite seal to a depth of approximately 0.2 foot bis. The grout slurry
was poured in the annulus between the boring and well casing with a 3/4-inch diameter tremie
pipe. Each monitoring well was finished with a metal curb box that extended approximately 0.1
foot above the land or pavement surface. Monitoring well construction logs, including diagrams
for each shallow monitoring well, are provided in Appendix B.
Seven deep monitoring wells were installed at the Tutu Site during the field investigation
(Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-4D, MW-6D, MW-10D, MW-11D, MW-12D, and MW-13D).
Deep monitoring wells were completed as open holes in previously drilled bedrock core holes
(see Section 2.2.2 [Bedrock Coring]), except for Monitoring Wells MW-6D and MW-12D. The
original core hole for Monitoring Well MW-6D was decommissioned due to formation collapse.
The same situation was encountered in the original core hole for Monitoring Well MW-12D
where drill tools were lost due to formation collapse. The core hole for Monitoring Well MW-
12D was, therefore, abandoned and grouted during the field program. New holes were drilled
in both locations (Monitoring Wells MW-6D and MW-12D) for completion of the monitoring
well. Geophysical logs were run in the new holes after reaming had been completed.
Before installation of Monitoring Well MW-4D, the 3-inch diameter core hole was
initially reamed with a 7.5-inch diameter air-rotary hammer bit. A 10-inch diameter hammer
bit was used for the other wells. The core holes were reamed to a predetermined depth based
on the ground-water levels encountered during drilling. Depths of the deep wells were selected
so that there was a 20-foot vertical separation between the bottom of the shallow monitoring
wells and the top of the deep wells.
GERAGHTYc" MILLER. INC 
TUT 
°05 
1824
2-8
Borings were reamed with the 10-inch diameter hammer bit from ground surface to the
top of the open hole interval. A 6-inch diameter, stainless-steel casing was then installed in each
boring. The annulus between the casing and the boring was grouted from the bottom to ground
surface with a 3/4-inch diameter tremie pipe and the grout was allowed to harden for 12 hours.
The borings were then reamed with a 5.5-inch diameter hammer bit through the 6-inch diameter
casing. The.well depth was measured to verify that the boring remained open after the reaming
was completed. Deep monitoring wells were completed with a flush-mounted manhole installed
approximately 0.1 foot above ground surface. Monitoring well construction logs and diagrams
for the deep wells were prepared after well completion. These well construction diagrams are
included in Appendix B.
Shallow and deep monitoring wells were surveyed after completion of all installation
operations. Land surface, top of flush-mounted manhole, and top of stainless-steel casing
elevations were measured for each well installed during the field investigation. Land surface
and measuring point elevations are included in Appendix B.
2.3.2 
Well Development
Shallow and deep monitoring wells were developed after completion between August 24
and September 15, 1992. A submersible or centrifugal pump was used for development. The
submersible pump was used for Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-6R, and MW-
13D. A centrifugal pump was used for Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-2, MW-5, MW-6D,
MW-7, MW-8, MVV-9, MW-9S, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-11D, MW-12D, and MW-14. All
of the wells except Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-6R, and MW-6D were
flushed with potable water during development. Flushing of the wells consisted of pouring
potable water into the well and pumping it out several times. Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4,
MW-4D, MW-6R, and MW-6D did not require flushing because they sustained higher pumping
rates.
TUT 
OOS 
IP'
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
2-9
The submersible pump was cleaned with a detergent (i.e., Micro) and water solution and
rinsed with tap water between each well. The tubing and rope used with the centrifugal pump
were changed between each well. Well development was continued until the discharged water
was relatively sediment-free. Water produced during well development was stored in a 550-
gallon holding tank and transported to the water treatment system installed by the TEIC at the
Esso service station at the Tutu Site. The treatment consisted of air stripping and granular
activated carbon (GAC) adsorption prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer, as authorized by the
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Department of Planning and
Natural Resources (DPNR).
A water sample was collected from the pump discharge line during well development for
field GC analysis in Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-6R, MW-
6D, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-1 ID, MW-12D, and MW-14. Another
sample was collected for field GC analysis prior to discharging treated water to the sanitary
sewer system. A sample from the effluent of the water treatment system was collected on
September 15, 1992 for laboratory TCL VOC analysis.
2.3.3 Water-Level Measurements
Depth to ground water was measured using a calibrated electronic water-level probe.
The electronic probe relies on the conductivity of the water, generating a low-voltage electric
circuit only when the probe touches water. Water levels were measured from the top of the
stainless-steel casing of each monitoring well.
Water-level measurements were recorded in September, October, and November 1992
and are provided in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The water-level measurements were obtained from the
shallow and deep wells respectively. 
Depth-to-water data were converted to water-table
elevations relative to mean sea level (msl) by subtracting the depth to water in each well from
a surveyed datum (the top of stainless-steel casing of each well) and were used to prepare
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
005 
1826
2-10
ground-water contour maps. These maps were used to determine the direction of ground-water
flow.
The water-level elevations for the monitoring well clusters were tabulated (see Table 2-5)
for comparison. The vertical gradient of ground-water flow at each well cluster was calculated
by dividing the difference of the water-level elevations in the well cluster by the vertical
separation of the mid-points of the well screens (or the open intervals). The minimum and
maximum vertical gradients for each well cluster are presented in Table 2-6.
2.3.4 Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis
Ground-water samples were collected between September 29 and October 7, 1992 from
the 19 monitoring wells installed at the Tutu Site. The ground-water samples were collected at
least 2 weeks after completion of well development. A sample of the potable water (i.e., water
supplied by the Water and Power Authority [WAPA]) used for decontamination was collected
from a faucet located at the Esso service station during this sampling event. Water sampling
logs are included in Appendix C.
The water level and well depth were measured in each monitoring well before purging.
These measurements were taken with an electronic water-level indicator (i.e., M-scope) and a
steel tape from the top of the stainless-steel casing. The instruments were cleaned between each
monitoring well with a Micro and water solution, and rinsed with tap water. The volume of
water in each well was calculated using the following formula:
• 
For a 4-inch diameter well: height of water column x 0.65 gallon/foot.
• 
For a 6-inch diameter well: height of water column x 1.47 gallon/foot.
Three-to-five well volumes were purged from each well with either a submersible or a
centrifugal pump. The submersible pump was decontaminated between wells with a Micro and
water solution and rinsed with tap water. Tubing used with the centrifugal pump was discarded
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1827
2-11
between each well. Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-8, MW-9S, MW-10, MW-10D,
and MW-13D went dry during purging operations. Field measurements of temperature, pH, and
specific conductance as well as HNu readings, were collected during purging and sampling of
the wells; these data are included in Appendix C.
Ground-water samples were collected with dedicated Teflon bailers. The first bailer of
water was discarded. The sample was collected by pouring the water directly into the sample
container from the bailer; VOC samples were collected first. Field blanks were also collected
during ground-water sampling activities by pouring deionized water through the Teflon bailer.
Samples were preserved in the field according to approved laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) preservation procedures for each specific analyte (see Appendix C). All
ground-water samples, along with the field and trip blanks were preserved on ice and sent to
Enseco via overnight courier. Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-4D were sampled a second
time because problems occurred with the initial shipment of samples. Monitoring Well MW-1
was resampled because sample containers were lost during shipment to the laboratory, and
Monitoring Well MW-4D was resampled for VOCs because the laboratory found air bubbles in
the VOC vials.
Blind field replicates of ground-water samples were collected from Monitoring Wells
MW-5 and MW-7 during October 1992. These blind field replicates were originally designated
as MW-104 (collected at MW-5) and MW-105 (collected at MW-7). After the laboratory results
were received, the original designations were changed from MW-104 and MW-105 to MW-5FR
and MW-7FR, respectively.
Because the laboratory notified Geraghty & Miller that air bubbles were present in the
ground-water sample collected at Monitoring Well MW-7, the TCL VOC analysis for this
sample was not performed. The VOC analysis for the blind field replicate sample MW-7FR
(original designation MW-105) was sufficient to characterize VOC content in ground water
samples collected at Monitoring Well MW-7. Because the VOC analysis of sample MW-7FR
(MW-105) was substituted for sample MW-7, an additional blind field replicate sample MW-9FR
1 U T
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
2-12
(originally designated MW-106) was collected at Monitoring Well MW-9 for VOC analysis only.
The purpose of blind field replicates is to evaluate the reproducibility of sampling and laboratory
procedures.
2.4 
AQUIFER TESTS
Two 24-hour, constant-rate aquifer pumping tests were carried out in shallow Monitoring
Well MW-6R and deep Monitoring Well MW-6D to estimate the hydraulic characteristics of the
uppermost and lower saturated deposits underlying the study area. These two wells were
selected because of their relatively high yield. The constant-rate aquifer tests conducted on
Monitoring Wells MW-6R and MW-6D were performed on November 2, 1992 and November
5, 1992, respectively. The USEPA had originally requested that a 72-hour pump test be
conducted, but later approved the 24-hour tests based upon initial pump test results.
f
Prior to initiation of the 24-hour constant rate aquifer pumping tests, a step-drawdown
test was conducted in each well to select an optimal pumping rate. The pumping rates selected
for Monitoring Wells MW-6R and MW-6D were 9.25 gallons per minute (gpm) and 14.2 gpm,
respectively. The length of the step-drawdown tests ranged from approximately 2 to 4 hours.
Four to five steps, each with increasing pumping rates, were run for approximately 30 to 60
minutes each.
Recovery tests were conducted immediately after pumping was stopped. Recovery water
levels were measured until at least 90 percent recovery was observed in each well.
2.4.1 Water-Level Measurements
Pressure transducers were placed in the pumping, observation, and other nearby wells
for several days prior to the step-drawdown and constant rate pumping tests, to provide data
regarding background water-level fluctuations. Pressure transducers were connected by a cable
to computerized data loggers that were programmed to record water-level readings every 30
GERAGHTYc' MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
005 
1S29
2-13
seconds during testing and every 10 minutes prior to testing. After completion of each test, the
data from the loggers were downloaded to a field computer. Pressure transducers were installed
in Monitoring Wells MW-4, MW-4D, MW-5, MW-6R, MW-6D, MW-7, MW-8, and MW-12D.
Water levels in Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-3, MW-6R, MW-6D, MW-9, MW-10, MW-
10D, MW-11D, and Monitoring Wells CHT-4 and CHT-6D (installed by Caribbean Hydrotech)
were recorded manually with an electronic water-level indicator. The electronic water-level
indicators, transducer cables, and probes were decontaminated in sequence by washing in a
Micro and water solution, followed by a potable water rinse and a distilled water rinse.
2.4.2 
Aquifer Test Procedures
Two submersible pumps, with capacities of 10 gpm and 20 gpm, were used to discharge
a constant rate of water from the tested monitoring wells for a period of approximately 24 hours.
The 10-gpm pump was placed in Monitoring Well MW-6R, and the 20-gpm pump was placed
in Monitoring Well MW-6D. The pumps were suspended in the wells with a 1-inch diameter
galvanized pipe connected to the discharge outlets of the pumps. A 3/4-inch diameter-threaded,
PVC pipe was installed as a drop line for measuring water levels in the pumping wells. This
PVC pipe was placed just above the top of the pump to provide accurate water-level
measurements in the event that water cascaded from dewatered portions of the bedrock. The
pumps were equipped with an in-line valve to adjust the flow rate, and an in-line flow meter to
measure the actual flow rate. Electric power was supplied to the pumps from an electrical box
outlet in the Esso service station.
The ground water from each of the wells was discharged to a nearby water treatment
system through a 1 V4-inch diameter PVC pipe. This ground water was stored on-site in holding
tanks, prior to treatment with an air stripper and carbon absorption units, and was then
discharged to the sanitary sewer lines, as authorized by the DPW and the DPNR.
Prior to each test, the submersible pumps were decontaminated by rinsing the interior and
exterior of the pumps with a Micro and water solution, followed by a rinse with potable water.
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
183°
2-14
A minimum of 25 gallons of potable water was run through the pumps. The galvanized pipes
and the PVC drop line were decontaminated by steam cleaning before use.
2.4.3 Water Sample Collection
Water samples for field GC and laboratory analysis were collected every 2 and 12 hours,
respectively, from the pumping wells throughout the duration of the tests. Water samples for
field GC and laboratory analysis were collected before and after treatment of the discharged
water to determine the VOC concentrations in the aquifer and the effectiveness of the water
treatment system. The temperature, pH, and specific conductance of the water samples were
measured every hour using field instruments. Water samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs
following the March 1990 CLP protocols (USEPA 1990a).
2.5 
DATA VALIDATION
Data validation was provided to ensure the quality of all the laboratory data under
Geraghty & Miller's Analytical Quality Assurance/Laboratory Control Program (AQA/LCP)
protocols. In some instances, a result was qualified as estimated (identified as J in the tables)
because the corresponding analyte was not detected above the CLP contract required detection
limit (CRDL). Reported detection limits are approximate and may not represent the actual limit
of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in a given sample. A
reporting limit is the practical quantitation limit (PQL) for a particular parameter in a given
matrix that is attainable using the specified, corresponding methodology, and that can be reliably
achieved within specified units of precision and accuracy. The method detection limit (MDL)
is the minimum concentration of a parameter that can be measured and reported by a particular
analytical system.
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC 
UJT 
°°5 
1S31
3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The hydrogeologic conditions at the Tutu Site have been described using published
regional geologic information and site-specific data obtained during this investigation.
3.1 
GEOLOGY
The regional information provided in this section was obtained from published technical
reports, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, and Geraghty & Miller files from
previous projects in St. Thomas. Site-specific information was interpreted from the results of
Geraghty & Miller's field investigation program.
3.1.1 Regional Geology
St. Thomas is an island with an area of 32 square miles. The island is composed
primarily of volcanic rocks of Cretaceous age. The Tutu Site is located within the Turpentine
Run surface drainage basin, which covers approximately 3.4 square miles (see Figure 1-1).
Turpentine Run is an intermittent stream that flows from northwest to southeast. The Turpentine
Run basin is separated into upper and lower basins. The upper basin consists of 2.3 square
miles upstream of the historical stream gaging station located near Mt. Zion, and the lower basin
consists of 1.1 square miles downstream of this station (Jordan and Cosner 1973).
The bedrock in the Turpentine Run basin is underlain by two volcanic formations, the
Water Island Formation and the younger Louisenhoj Formation. The Water Island Formation
is composed primarily of basaltic flows and breccias. It is unconformably overlain by the
Louisenhoj Formation, which consists of pyroclastic to epiclastic augite andesite (Donnelly 1959;
1966). Locally, the base of the Louisenhoj consists of the Cabes Point Conglomerate, which
contains well-rounded and well-sorted pebbles and cobbles of the older Water Island Formation.
A light-colored intrusive plug has been mapped near Mt. Zion. This intrusive rock is a quartz-
andesine porphyry (Donnelly 1966).
GERAGHTY <? MILLER. INC. 
' U ' 'Jo5 183
3-2
Both the Water Island and Louisenhoj Formations are present in the upper basin. By
mapping the offset of formation contacts, Donnelly (1966) identified two major strike-slip faults
striking northwest-southeast, with right lateral separation. 
One of these faults occurs
approximately 2,500 feet northeast of the Tutu Site. Geologic logs of wells drilled in the upper
basin do not differentiate between the Water Island and the Louisenhoj Formations. In the lower
basin, only the Water Island Formation is found, and it is overlain by as much as 40 feet of
alluvial deposits (Jordan and Cosner 1973).
3.1.2 Site Geology
The Tutu Site is a moderately developed area crossed by several roads, and a number of
commercial and residential buildings have been built along the roads. Geraghty & Miller's
drilling program established that most of the shallow sediment under the paved areas consists
of fill material and reworked native sediment. Several small catchment areas created along the
axis of Turpentine Run basin serve to trap sediment, and organic soil is found under a heavy
vegetative cover along the axis of the basin. These sediments are underlain by Quaternary
alluvial and colluvial deposits along the valley that appear to thicken southward.
The alluvial and colluvial deposits present in the upper basin are relatively thin, with
thicknesses usually varying from zero to 2 feet, with as much as 10 to 20 feet in isolated valley
areas. The sediment consists of unconsolidated, unstratified, poorly sorted mixtures of clay, silt,
sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders transported from the upper valley and the foothills by gravity
and flash floods. Average grain size increases with proximity to valley slopes.
The alluvium/colluvium is underlain by moderately weathered, fractured volcaniclastic
rock in which the original rock components have been partially replaced by clay, chlorite, and
oxide minerals. The unit is a gray to greenish-gray volcanic sandstone and breccia with a fine-
grained matrix and occasional clasts ranging in diameter from 1 to 5 centimeters (cm). Visible
mineral grains in the matrix include plagioclase, pyroxene, quartz, and chlorite. In Monitoring
Well MW-6D, a thin (0.5-foot) layer of siltstone was encountered.
TUT 
005 18"
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
3-3
Three outcrops were examined: behind the 7th Day School along Route 38, in front of
the Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA) Building, and in the newly cleared area where the
Tutu Shopping Plaza is being constructed. 
All outcrops contain the same rock type, a
volcaniclastic sandstone that, in some areas, grades to a coarser grained breccia. The breccia
is more predominant in the subsurface, as indicated by the geologic logs (Appendix A).
The rock is most fractured in the Tutu Shopping Plaza outcrop, located just west of the
Four Winds Plaza. The easternmost extension of this outcrop is hydrothermally altered. Several
large fractures trend in a north-south direction, almost perpendicular to the regional strike of the
bedding planes of the massive volcaniclastic units found at the site.
At the outcrop behind the 7th Day School, bedding planes dip steeply (between 54 and
67°) to the northeast and strike N-61-W to N-88-W, which agree with the strike and dip
measurements reported in the published literature (Donnelly 1966). The predominant rock
matrix is volcanic sandstone, alternating with thin to massive beds of volcaniclastic flow
breccias. The breccias include visible, angular-to-rounded, volcanic and sedimentary clasts that
range in size from pebbles to cobbles. The rock outcrop is less altered or weathered than the
outcrop at the Tutu Shopping Plaza.
The outcrop at the VIHA property is the smallest of the three and also the most
extensively weathered. Some of the original structure of the volcanic sandstone is visible, and
because of its proximity to the 7th Day School outcrop, it is considered to be an extension of
the latter. Measurable strikes and dips of the beds are similar to those previously described.
Iron staining and thin calcite veins are common along fracture surfaces. The fractured
areas are usually the most weathered. Highly weathered zones were encountered in Monitoring
Wells MW-4D and MW-6D. The weathered zones range in thickness from 1 to 5 inches in
Monitoring Well MW-4D, and up to 2 feet in Monitoring Well MW-6D. The highly weathered
rock has been altered to a friable, light brown to tan, sandy to clayey silt that maintains the
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 
TUT
3-4
original rock structure (saprolite). The physical properties of this unit are characteristic of very
dense fractured rock. Fractured zones in the rock units are shown on Figure 3-1.
Evidence of intrusive rocks was observed in Monitoring Wells MW-11D and MW-4D.
These rocks are interpreted to be diorite. Diorite is a coarse-grained intrusive rock composed
mainly of sodic plagioclase and hornblende, with variable amounts of quartz, biotite, and/or
pyroxene. Samples of this unit from Monitoring Well MW-1 ID are described as a very dense,
dark green to black rock matrix with visible, abundant plagioclase phenocrysts (large, well-
shaped crystals). The diorite contained abundant, thin veins of calcitic minerals throughout the
rock matrix.
The stratigraphy of the site was interpreted from geologic logs, which are included in
Appendix A. Figure 3-1 presents a north-south cross section through the site. The geologic
logs (Appendix A) and the geologic cross section (Figure 3-1) are presented in draft form.
These items are subject to revision based on final preparation and comparison of borehole
geophysical logs with a detailed review of the bedrock cores. Stratigraphic correlation of the
lower rock units was not possible due to the steep angles (60° to 80°) at which the rock layers
dip and the large distances between borings and monitoring wells. Bed thicknesses range from
very thin to massive, and strata are reported to dip north to northeast at angles of 60° to 80°
(Donnelly 1966). The geologic reconnaissance of the area confirmed these trends. The rocks
are reportedly faulted approximately 2,500 feet northeast of the site and are locally cut by
steeply inclined joints. Most joints are filled with calcite. The weathered, less competent
bedrock noted in core logs appears to be correlated with the occurrence of volcanic sandstone.
This correlation may be due to the preferential development of joints in the more homogenous
lithology and the texture of the volcanic sandstone versus the volcanic breccia.
The matrix of the volcaniclastic rocks shows signs of low-grade metamorphism and
hydrothermal alteration. The minerals that compose the rock matrix have been weathered and
transformed into clayey sediment in some areas. Chloritic minerals are common throughout the
rock matrix. This matrix, when weathered, maintains its original structure. Igneous rocks
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
1S35
3-5
(diorites) were observed at depth in Monitoring Well MW-4D and near the southern boundary
of the site (Monitoring Well MW-11D). These intrusive bodies are probably the cause of the
localized metamorphism.
3.2 
HYDROGEOLOGY
Regional hydrogeologic information for the area was obtained from USGS studies and
other published reports. The site hydrogeology was evaluated using data collected by Geraghty
& Miller during the installation of the monitoring wells at the Tutu Site.
3.2.1 Regional Hvdrogeologv
Ground water in the Turpentine Run basin occurs in two aquifers (Jordan and Cosner
1973). The primary aquifer is the fractured volcanic rock of the Water Island and Louisenhoj
Formation and, locally, the Cabes Point Conglomerate. The secondary aquifer consists of the
alluvial deposits in the lower basin. Very thin alluvial deposits are also present in the upper
basin, with thicknesses varying from less than 2 feet to 20 feet in isolated valley areas.
However, the alluvial deposits in the upper basin do not constitute an aquifer capable of
supplying useable amounts of water because of their limited extent and thickness, and because
they are often unsaturated. The alluvial deposits are considered to be hydraulically connected
to the fractured volcanic rock. Ground water in both units generally exists under water-table
conditions. Localized low permeability (fine-grained) layers in the alluvial deposits result in
confined conditions of limited extent.
In the upper basin, ground-water supply is derived from wells installed in the fractured
volcanic rock. Supply well depths in the upper basin range from 73 to 325 feet bis (Stevens et
al. 1981). The depths of these wells do not correlate with yield, but rather are an indication of
where water-bearing fracture zones were penetrated. Short-term well yields in the upper basin
range as high as 100 gpm; sustained yields range between 2 and 21 gpm (Jordan and Cosner
1973).
GERAGHTY c' MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1836
3-6
Recharge to the fractured volcanic rock in the upper basin is from occasional major
rainstorms and is dependent on the frequency and volume of rainfall. As a result of surface
runoff and a high evapotranspiration rate, rainfall of at least 2 inches within a 24-hour period
is necessary for recharge to occur. Annual recharge to the upper basin due to rainfall is
estimated to be 130 million gallons (Jordan and Cosner 1973).
Few data are available to evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the Turpentine Run
basin aquifers. Of the six pump tests reported in the basin prior to 1982, only one test indicated
a specific capacity greater than 1 gallon per minute per foot (gpm/ft) of drawdown. The specific
capacity of that well was between 1 and 2 gpm/ft (Stevens et al. 1981). On May 20, 1982,
Geraghty & Miller conducted a pumping test on the VIHA I supply well. After 10 hours of
pumping at 48.4 gpm, 5.3 feet of drawdown were observed in the pumping well (VIHA I),
which has a total depth of 140 feet. Supply well VIHA II (located 120 feet north of VIHA I)
was used as an observation well during the May 1982 pumping test. After 10 hours of pumping,
1.42 feet of drawdown was observed in supply well VIHA II, which is 142 feet deep. Review
of the drilling log for VIHA I indicated fracture zones at 78, 87, 105, 125, and 138 feet bis
(Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1983). The later part of the May 1982 pumping test indicated that the
drawdown was continuing over time. Projecting the rate of drawdown defined in the later part
of the test, Geraghty & Miller predicted approximately 19.2 feet of drawdown would be present
after 2 years of continuous pumping at 48 gpm from supply well VIHA I (Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. 1983). Accordingly, the predicted specific capacity is 2.5 gpm/ft.
3.2.2 Site Hydrogeologv
Water-level data were obtained from 12 shallow monitoring wells and seven deep
monitoring wells installed at the Tutu Site. 
Of these, four locations contained clustered
monitoring well pairs (Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-4, MW-6, and MW-10). The locations
of the wells are shown on Figure 1-4. Monitoring well construction details are presented in
Table 2-2.
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
1837
3-7
The shallow monitoring wells, which range from 19 to 45 feet deep, and the deeper
monitoring wells, which are between 45 and 100 feet deep, generally penetrate low-yielding
sections of the bedrock aquifer. With the exception of three locations, none of the monitoring
wells can sustain pumpage of even minimal flow rates, and these wells go dry when sampled.
The three exceptions are all in an area that includes the Texaco Service Station and the northern
end of the Four Winds Plaza parking lot. The wells in this area, Monitoring Wells MW-3,
MW-4, MW-4D, MW-6R and MW-6D, are the only ones that could be pumped steadily during
development and sampling. This is an area where independent aerial photograph analysis by
Geraghty & Miller and CDM Federal Programs Corporation have identified a concentration of
intersecting fracture traces (CDM Federal Programs Corporation 1992; Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
1992b).
3.2.2.1 Shallow Wells
Twelve shallow monitoring wells were installed at the Tutu Site. The total depths of the
shallow wells ranged from 18.7 to 45.2 bis. All shallow wells, except Monitoring Well MW-9,
were installed with screens that bridge the water table. Monitoring Well MW-9S was installed
near Monitoring Well MW-9 with the top of the screen above the water table. Depth to ground
water from September through November 1992 ranged from 5.5 feet bis (Monitoring Well MW-
6R) to about 30 feet bis (Monitoring Well MW-1).
Six rounds of ground-water levels were measured from September through November
1992 (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). During this time, ground-water levels in the shallow wells fluctuated
an average of 3.57 feet, with maximum fluctuation in Monitoring Well MW-8 (5.96 feet) and
Monitoring Well MW-1 (5.19 feet), and minimum fluctuation in Monitoring Well MW-9 (1.61
feet).
Liquid phase hydrocarbon product was detected in shallow Monitoring Wells MW-5,
MW-9, and MW-9S between September and November 1992. Product was observed once in
Monitoring Wells MW-5 (0.01 foot) and MW-9 (sheen). In Monitoring Well MW-9S product
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
OO5 1838
3-8
was present on four occasions, with thicknesses ranging from a sheen on September 17, October
28, and November 16, 1992 to 0.11 foot on September 28, 1992. Product was not detected in
Monitoring Well MW-9S on November 9, 1992. The product in Monitoring Well MW-9S
appears to be a light petroleum hydrocarbon that has been weathered to a dark-colored, viscous
oily liquid.
A low-flow pumping test was conducted in Monitoring Well MW-9S on November 16,
1992. The purpose of the low-flow pumping test was to determine the recharge rate of product
under pumping conditions and to obtain a sample of the product. Monitoring Well MW-9S was
pumped at 0.75 gpm for 15 minutes. The static ground-water level in the well was drawn down
about 1.65 feet; but an attempt to sample the floating product was unsuccessful due to
insufficient product thickness (less than 0.01 foot) and the limited product yield. Only a sheen
of product was observed on November 16, 1992 even though the water table was depressed
during the low-flow pumping test.
3.2.2.2 Deep Wells
Seven deep monitoring wells were installed at the Tutu Site. Total depths of the deep
wells varied from 45 feet bis (Monitoring Well MW-6D) to 100 feet bis (Monitoring Well MW-
13D). All deep monitoring wells, except Monitoring Well MW-12D, were installed with solid
casing above an open borehole interval. Monitoring Well MW-12D had to be completed with
solid stainless-steel casing and slotted screen to avoid borehole collapse during installation.
Depths to static ground-water level in the deep wells ranged from 5.3 feet bis
(Monitoring Well MW-6D) to about 97.3 feet bis (Monitoring Well MW-13D). Ground-water
levels in the deep wells fluctuated an average of 7.93 feet from September through November
1992, with a maximum fluctuation of 20.9 feet (Monitoring Well MW-1D) and a minimum
fluctuation of 2.72 feet (Monitoring Well MW-6D).
TUT 
GO 5 
18"=C9
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 
~" " '
3-9
On September 28, 1992, liquid phase petroleum hydrocarbon product was observed and
measured in Monitoring Well MW-4D (0,01 foot) and was bailed out of the well. No product
has been observed in Monitoring Well MW-4D since this occurrence, and no product was
observed in any other deep well.
3.2.3 Ground-Water Flow Regime
Ground-water levels at the Tutu Site have steadily risen since the installation of the
monitoring wells. This rise correlates with the frequent periods of rain observed during the field
program. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 present a summary of the water levels measured from September
through November 1992. Ground-water elevation contour maps for the shallow and deep wells
were prepared using the September 28, 1992 and November 16, 1992 water-level data (see
Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5).
Ground water generally flows perpendicular to lines of equal ground-water elevation in
the direction of decreasing elevation. Accordingly, ground-water flow in the shallow zone is
consistently toward the south. Figures 3-2 and 3-4 show that ground-water flow converges along
Route 38, discharging to what appears to be the old axis of the Turpentine Run basin. One of
the principal fractures identified in the aerial photograph analysis is oriented along Route 38
(CDM Federal Programs Corporation 1992); this fracture zone appears to act as a shallow
ground-water discharge zone. The valley is presently backfilled, and surface flow is channelized
through a pipe or concrete box culvert under the area (see Figure 3-6).
The shallow ground-water flow is characterized by a steep hydraulic gradient (see Figures
3-2 and 3-4). This steep gradient is indicative of the low overall permeability of the zone
penetrated by the shallow wells. The gradient is less steep in the area that includes the Texaco
Service Station and the north portion of the Four Winds Parking lot, indicating that a higher
permeability may be present in the shallow zone in this area. This observation agrees with the
information collected during well development; Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D,
MW-6D, and MW-6R, could sustain pumpage at pumping rates of approximately 2 gpm, while
GERAGHTY,* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
184(-~'
3-10
the other shallow monitoring wells were quickly pumped dry during development and sampling.
Pumping tests at Monitoring Wells MW-6R and MW-6D indicate potential sustained yields
greater than 9.25 and 14 gpm for these two wells, respectively.
As shown on Figures 3-3 and 3-5, the general gradient of ground-water flow in the
deeper zone at the Tutu Site is to the south, with a potential southeasterly component under part
of the study area. It is possible that deeper ground-water flow mimics shallow ground-water
flow on the east side of Route 38 and, therefore, the axis of Turpentine Run could also serve
as a discharge zone for deeper ground-water flow. This flow pattern remained essentially
constant from September through November 1992.
Monitoring Well MW-13D appeared to have anomalously low water-level readings in
September 1992. These anomalous readings may have been related to the very slow recovery
rate noted after well development (the well may still have been recovering). As a result, the
water-level datum from Monitoring Well MW-13D was not used to construct the September 28,
1992 ground-water contour map for the deeper zone.
The ground-water contour map for November 16, 1992 for the deeper zone (Figure 3-5)
indicates that pumpage in the northeastern portion of the study area at the Ramsay or VIHA
supply wells was influencing water levels in deep Monitoring Wells MW-13D and MW-1D.
The nearby shallow wells (Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-14, and MW-3) appear to have been
unaffected by that same pumpage (see Figure 3-4).
Differences in water levels in nested well pairs were observed from September through
November 1992. 
The greatest difference in ground-water elevations was measured at
Monitoring Well MW-1 where, on two occasions, the water in the shallow well was
approximately 20 feet higher in elevation than in the corresponding deep well (see Table 2-5).
The smallest difference (0 to 0.15 foot) in deep and shallow ground-water levels was measured
at Monitoring Well MW-6. The other two nested pair locations, Monitoring Wells MW-4 and
GERAGHTYe'.MILLER. INC. 
TUT °°5 i841
3-11
MW-10, showed several inches to 1 foot of ground-water elevation difference, with higher levels
consistently in the shallow wells.
Based on the ground-water level data measured at the nested well locations, there
generally appears to be a small downward vertical hydraulic gradient throughout most of the
study area (see Table 2-6). A strong downward gradient is present in the northeast area
(Monitoring Well MW-1) near the Curriculum Center, and a horizontal or slightly upward
gradient is present near the old channel of the Turpentine Run basin (Monitoring Well MW-6).
The change in gradient may be attributable to the presence of Monitoring Well MW-1 in a
recharge zone and the possibility that the valley axis near Monitoring Well MW-6 behaves as
a localized discharge zone. Pumpage of supply wells at the VIHA complex, upgradient of
Monitoring Well MW-1, may also increase the downward vertical hydraulic gradient in the
northeastern portion of the Tutu Site.
The rate of ground-water flow is controlled by the permeability of the geologic materials;
the presence, extent, and orientation of fracture zones; and the hydraulic gradient. Measurement
of these aquifer characteristics and the rate of ground-water flow are discussed in the following
section.
3.3 
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Monitoring Wells MW-6R and MW-6D were selected for pumping tests because they
were two of only five monitoring wells that can sustain continuous pumping rates. The aquifer
hydraulic characteristics derived from the two pumping tests are, therefore, only representative
of the area that includes the Texaco Service Station and the northern portion of the Four Winds
Plaza parking lot. Outside of this area, the upper 100 feet of the aquifer penetrated by the other
shallow and deeper monitoring wells have a significantly lower transmissivity based on well
recovery rates during development and purging.
TUT 
0(">fi 
184^'
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
" ' "
3-12
As required by the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a), aquifer tests were
conducted on two of the existing monitoring wells (Monitoring Wells MW-6R and MW-6D) to
estimate the hydraulic properties of the aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the Tutu Site.
Monitoring Well MW-6R was tested to estimate the hydraulic properties of T and S in the
shallow aquifer, as described in Section 2.4 (Aquifer Tests); the test was conducted on
November 2, 1992 at a constant rate of 9.25 gpm for 24 hours. Monitoring Well MW-6D was
tested to estimate the hydraulic properties of transmissivity (T) and storage (S) in the deep
aquifer, as described in Section 2.4 (Aquifer Tests); this test was conducted on November 5,
1992 at a rate of 14 gpm for 24 hours. During each of the tests, water-level measurements were
recorded manually and electronically in nearby monitoring wells (see Section 2.4.1 [Water-Level
Measurements]) to monitor the pumpage effects of each of the wells tested. However, because
it rained before the MW-6D aquifer test had been completed, the water levels in wells recovered
during the later part of this test and the data generated is not usable.
3.3.1 Monitoring Well MW-6R Aquifer Test Analysis
The water-level data collected from Monitoring Well MW-6R during the aquifer test were
analyzed using the computer software AQTESOLV. This program was written by Geraghty &
Miller for MS-DOS computers and allows the user to analyze the time-drawdown data using
industry standard techniques. The drawdown data from Monitoring Well MW-6R were analyzed
using the Cooper-Jacob straight-line method; which involves plotting the time-drawdown data
on semi-log graph paper (Cooper and Jacob 1946). The Cooper-Jacob method was designed for
analysis of confined conditions. To apply this method for analysis of unconfined conditions
(such as at the Tutu Site), drawdown values can be corrected to compensate for decreased
saturated thickness. Because excessive drawdown was not present during this pumping test,
correction of drawdown values was not necessary. The aquifer coefficient of transmissivity is
calculated as follows:
T =264O
as
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1843
3-13
where
T 
= 
coefficient of transmissivity, in gallons/day/ft
Q 
= 
pumping rate, in gallons/minute
£is 
= 
slope of the time-drawdown graph expressed as the change in
drawdown between any two times over one log cycle
The aquifer coefficient of storage is calculated as follows:
S = 0.37tn
r2
where
S 
= 
storage coefficient
T 
= 
coefficient of transmissivity, in gallons/day/ft
to 
= 
intercept of the straight line at zero drawdown, in days
r 
= 
distance in feet from the pumped well to the observation well where
the drawdown measurements were made
Figure 3-7 illustrates the semi-log plot for the time-drawdown relationships for
Monitoring Well MW-6R and the calculated values of T in units of square feet/minute (f^/min)
and S. The value for T, as illustrated on Figure 3-7, is calculated from the late time-drawdown
data because the early data appear to represent the initial dewatering of the well casing and may
not be representative of the aquifer materials. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the calculated
transmissivity and storativity values for the pumping tests. The hydraulic property of S cannot
be determined from drawdown data collected at a pumping well.
Based on the analysis of the water-level data for this well, the transmissivity of the
shallow aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the Tutu Site was 8.2 ft2/min (88,320 gallons per
day per foot [gal/day/ft]). 
Because no confining units were identified during the drilling
program, the aquifer is unconfined.
GERAGHTY6* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1S44
3-14
In addition to the development of aquifer hydraulic coefficients, the aquifer test of
Monitoring Well MW-6R also illustrated the impacts of the pumpage on the ground-water levels
in the vicinity of the Tutu Site. After 24 hours of pumping at 9.25 gpm, the effects of this
pumpage were measured at distances as great as 290 feet from the pumping well at Monitoring
Well MW-4 (0.11 feet of drawdown).
3.3.2 Monitoring Well MW-6D Aquifer Test Analysis
The water-level data collected from Monitoring Wells CHT-6D and MW-6D during the
MW-6D aquifer test were analyzed using the computer software AQTESOLV. The drawdown
data from Monitoring Wells CHT-6D and MW-6D were analyzed using the Cooper-Jacob
straight-line method, which involves plotting the time-drawdown data on semi-log graph paper
(Cooper and Jacob 1946). The aquifer properties of transmissivity and storage were calculated
as described in Section 3.3.1 (Monitoring Well MW-6R Aquifer Test Analysis).
Figures 3-7 and 3-8 illustrate the semi-log plots for the time-drawdown relationships for
Monitoring Wells CHT-6D and MW-6D and the calculated values of transmissivity (T) and
storage (S). Because the hydraulic property of storage cannot be determined from the pumping
well drawdown data, the value illustrated for storage (S) for MW-6D is meaningless.
Based on analysis of the water-level data for these wells, the transmissivity of the deeper
parts of the aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the Tutu Site ranges from 5.2 to 7.2 ftVmin
(56,010 to 77,552 gal/day/ft). Although no confining units were identified during the drilling
program, the calculated storage coefficient of 0.0007 from the CHT-6D time-drawdown
relationship is more representative of a confined aquifer (see Table 3-1).
In addition to the development of aquifer hydraulic coefficients, the aquifer test of
Monitoring Well MW-6D also illustrated the impacts of the pumpage on the ground-water levels
in the vicinity of the Tutu Site. After 24 hours of pumping at 14 gpm, the effects of this
Tl IT
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC.
3-15
pumpage were measured at distances as great as 230 feet from the pumping well at Monitoring
Well MW-7 (0.09 feet of drawdown).
GERAGHTY<* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05
4.0 SOIL QUALITY DATA
During drilling activities at the Tutu Site, 43 soil samples and four replicate soil samples
were collected in June, July, and August 1992 for laboratory analysis. The samples were
collected in accordance with the procedures established in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. 1992a). Continuous soil samples were collected during drilling at soil boring and shallow
and deep monitoring well locations. In addition, eight surface soil samples were collected.
Validated analytical results are provided in Tables 4-1 through 4-11.
Samples for laboratory analysis were selected using the methods described in Section 2.1
(Soil Investigation). Each soil sample was identified with the name of the boring or monitoring
well and the depth interval. Three surface soil sample locations were selected as background
locations, and five surface soil sample locations were selected in potential source areas of
constituents of concern.
Soil samples collected from soil boring and monitoring well locations were analyzed for
TCL VOCs, 1,2-dibromomethane, n-propylbenzene, MTBE, TCL BNAs, TAL metals, total
cyanide, and TPH following the March 1990 CLP Protocols, as indicated in the Work Plan
(Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a).
4.1 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SOIL BORING SAMPLES
Soil samples were collected from borings drilled near the Curriculum Center (Borings
B-l, B-6, B-14, B-15, and B-16), Antilles Auto Parts (former Gassett Auto Parts) and Ramsay
buildings (Borings B-2, B-3, and B-5), Texaco Service Station (Boring B-4), Fire Department
(Boring B-7), Tillett area (Boring B-8), Esso Service Station (Boring B-9), and O'Henri (Borings
B-10, B-ll, B-12, B-13, and B-13A).
Concentrations of organic compounds (TCL VOCs, 
1,2-dibromomethane, n-
propylbenzene, MTBE, TCL BNAs, and TPH) detected in soil samples from Borings B-l
GERAGHTY c'MILLER. INC. 
TUT 005 
1847
4-2
through B-16 and B-13A are shown on Figure 4-1. Analytical results are listed in Tables 4-1,
4-2, and 4-3.
4.1.1 Petroleum Compounds
Volatile petroleum compounds were detected in several soil samples collected at the Tutu
site. Toluene was detected in Borings B-5, B-8, B-ll, B-14, B-15, and B-16, as indicated on
Figure 4-1. The highest toluene concentration was detected in Boring B-15 (12 parts per billion
[ppb]), located near the Curriculum Center. Ethylbenzene was detected only in Boring B-8 (2
ppb) which is located near the Tillett supply well. MTBE was detected only in Boring B-5 (1.3
ppb), which is located at the Antilles Auto Parts property (former Gassett Auto Parts).
BNA compounds were detected in Borings B-2, B-8, B-9, B-10, B-13, and B-16, as
shown on Figure 4-1. Most of the BNA compounds may be related to petroleum; however, a
few BNA compounds may be due to laboratory contamination. The boring in which the greatest
number of BNA compounds was detected was Boring B-8, which is located at the Tillett area.
The BNA compounds with the highest concentrations in that boring were pyrene (300 ppb),
fluoranthene (290 ppb), benzo(b)fluoranthene (250 ppb), and chrysene (210 ppb).
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and
phenanthrene were also reported in the soil sample from Boring B-8. A field replicate (B-8FR)
of this soil sample had no detectable BNA compounds reported. 
Benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and pyrene were also detected in Boring B-2, which is located at the
Ramsay property near a storage area for 55-gallon drums containing waste oil. The compound
with the highest concentration in this sample was benzo(g,h,i)perylene (290 ppb).
Butyl benzyl phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate were detected in Boring B-10 (220 ppb
and 160 ppb, respectively), and fluoranthene was detected in Boring B-13 (42 ppb). These
samples were collected near the O'Henri Dry Cleaners. Butyl benzyl phthalate was also detected
in Boring B-16 (58 ppb), located at the rear of the Curriculum Center.
GERAGHTYc' MILLER. INC. 
TUT oos 
1848
4-3
4.1.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Results for Soil Boring Samples
TPH compounds were detected in Borings B-2, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9 through B-14, and
B-16, as shown on Figure 4-1. The highest TPH concentrations in collected soil boring samples
were detected in Boring B-14 (250 parts per million [ppm]), Boring B-6 (170 ppm), and Boring
B-9 (160 ppm). Boring B-14 is located immediately north of the Curriculum Center, Boring B-6
is located southwest of the Curriculum Center and Boring B-9 is located at the northwest corner
of the Esso Service Station.
The reported TPH concentrations in soil may be false-positives (e.g., Boring B-9) for two
reasons:
1. 
VOC and BNA analytical results were non-detectable (in the parts per billion
range) in several of the same soil samples.
2. 
The TPH analytical method (USEPA Method 418.1) is prone to false-positive
results (Thomey et al. 1989), especially with fine-grained soil samples such as
those collected at the Tutu Site.
4.1.3 Chlorinated Compounds
Chlorinated compounds were detected in soil samples collected north of the Curriculum
Center (Borings B-14, B-15, and B-16), at the Ramsay Auto Parts (Boring B-3), at the Antilles
Auto Parts and Repair (formerly Gassett Auto Parts) building (Boring B-5), at the Tillett area
(Boring B-8), and south of O'Henri Dry Cleaners (Borings B-ll, B-13, and B-13A), as
illustrated on Figure 4-1.
PCE was detected in soil samples from Borings B-3, B-8, B-ll, B-13, B-13A, B-14, B-
15, and B-16. The highest PCE concentrations were detected in Boring B-13 (200 ppb) near the
GERAGHTYc' MILLER. INC. 
TL|T '-'OS .1849
4-4
O'Henri Dry Cleaners, and Borings B-14 (72 ppb) and B-15 (170 ppb) located north of the
Curriculum Center. Other detected PCE concentrations ranged from 1 to 29 ppb.
Acetone and 2-butanone were detected in Borings B-5 and B-6. Methylene chloride was
also detected in Borings B-2, B-3, B-5, B-ll, and B-14 through B-16. The highest methylene
chloride concentration (26 ppb) was detected in Boring B-3. Acetone was detected in Borings
B-l, B-2, B-3, and B-4. The highest acetone concentration (370 ppb) was detected in Boring
B-6, which is located southwest of the Curriculum Center. Methylene chloride and acetone were
also detected in field, trip, and laboratory blanks (see Section 4.7.1 [Organic Compound Results
for QA/QC Samples]); therefore, their presence in soil samples may be due to laboratory
contamination.
4.2 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELL SOIL SAMPLES
Detected concentrations of organic compounds (TCL VOCs, 1,2-dibromomethane, n-
propylbenzene, MTBE, TCL BNAs, and TPH) detected in soil samples from monitoring wells
are shown on Figure 4-2. Analytical results are listed in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. Soil samples
were collected from the borings completed as shallow or deeper monitoring wells (see Figure
4-2).
4.2.1 Petroleum Compounds
Petroleum compounds were detected in soil samples from Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-
4, MW-8, MW-10D, MW-11D, and MW-14, as shown on Figure 4-2. Toluene was detected
in soil samples from Monitoring Wells MW-8, MW-10D, MW-1 ID, and MW-14. The highest
toluene concentration was detected in the soil sample from Monitoring Well MW-14 (2 ppb),
which is located west of the Curriculum Center (Figure 4-2). Total xylenes were detected only
in the soil sample from Monitoring Well MW-14 at a concentration of 1 ppb.
rtJT 
OO5 
18 SO
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
4-5
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in the soil sample from Monitoring Well MW-4 (140 ppb).
Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in the soil sample from Monitoring Well MW-3 (170 ppb),
and diethyl phthalate was detected in the soil sample from Monitoring Well MW-14 (40 ppb).
4.2.2 
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Detected TPH concentrations are presented in Table 4-3. TPH compounds were detected
in soil samples from Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-
6D, MW-7, MW-9, and MW-14. TPH concentrations range from 27 ppm in Monitoring Well
MW-7, located south of Mike's Paint, to 590 ppm in Monitoring Well MW-5, south of the
Texaco Service Station (see Figure 4-2).
4.2.3 
Chlorinated Compounds
Several chlorinated compounds were detected in soil samples collected from monitoring
wells (see Figure 4-2). 
Trace concentrations of PCE were detected in soil samples from
Monitoring Wells MW-3 and MW-4, which are located at the Texaco Service Station;
Monitoring Well MW-6 located at the Four Winds Shopping Plaza; and Monitoring Well MW-8
located at the northeast corner of the Esso Service Station. These PCE concentrations ranged
between 1 ppb in Monitoring Well MW-4 and 6 ppb in Monitoring Well MW-6. In soil samples
from Monitoring Wells MW-4 and MW-10, 2-butanone was detected at concentrations of 48 ppb
and 5 ppb, respectively. Methylene chloride was detected in all soil samples collected from
monitoring well borings except for samples from Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-5, MW-6D,
MW-9, MW-12D, MW-13D, and MW-14. Methylene chloride concentrations ranged from 1
ppb (Monitoring Wells MW-3 and MW-4D) to 22 ppb (Monitoring Well MW-6). Acetone was
detected in soil samples from Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4D, MW-6D,
and MW-10. Acetone concentrations in soil ranged between 6 ppb (Monitoring Well MW-6D)
and 81 ppb (Monitoring Well MW-4D). 
Methylene chloride and acetone may be laboratory
artifacts.
TUT 
005 1851
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
4-6
4.3 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
Surface soil samples were collected north of the Curriculum Center (Samples SS-1, SS-2,
and SS-8), at the Tillett area (Sample SS-5), and south of the O'Henri Dry Cleaners (Sample SS-
6). Samples SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8 were selected as background locations to evaluate the natural
metal concentrations in soil found at the Tutu Site; these samples were not analyzed for organic
compounds. Samples SS-3, SS-4, SS-5, SS-6, and SS-7 were collected in potential source areas
of constituents of concern at the Tutu Site. Samples SS-6 and SS-7 were collected for the future
risk assessment analysis, as requested by the USEPA.
4.3.1 Petroleum Compounds
Petroleum compounds were detected in two surface soil samples; the results are presented
in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylene were detected in Sample SS-3,
which was collected northwest of the Curriculum Center (Figure 4-1). The compound with the
highest concentration detected in Sample SS-3 was total xylene (19 ppb). Di-n-butyl phthalate
was detected in Samples SS-3 and SS-5, which were collected at the Tillett property. The
highest concentration was detected in Sample SS-3 (3,500 ppb).
Benzo(b)fluorenthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, butyl benzyl phthalate, chrysene, and di-n-
butyl phthalate were detected in Sample SS-5, which was collected at the Tillett property. The
compound with the highest concentration detected in Sample SS-5 was butyl benzyl phthalate
(190 ppb). This compound was also detected in Sample SS-6, collected south of the O'Henri
Dry Cleaners (Figure 4-1).
4.3.2 Chlorinated Compounds
Results of organic compounds detected in Samples SS-3 through SS-7 are shown on
Figure 4-1 and presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Methylene chloride was detected in Samples
SS-3 through SS-7. PCE was detected only in Sample SS-6 (1 ppb). 2-Butanone was detected
TUT 
OOS IB-7
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
4-7
in Sample SS-3 (35 ppb). Methylene chloride was detected in Samples SS-3 through SS-7 at
concentrations ranging between 8 ppb (Sample SS-4) and 22 ppb (Samples SS-3 and SS-6).
Samples SS-3 and SS-4 were collected northwest of the Curriculum Center, and Sample SS-6
was collected near the O'Henri Dry Cleaners. Methylene chloride may be a laboratory artifact.
4.4 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SOIL BORING SAMPLES
Analytical results of TAL metals and cyanide are presented in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 and
shown on Figure 4-3. Three background samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals
and total cyanide. Samples SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8 were collected in an area north of the
Curriculum Center building and the VIHA building to provide background inorganic soil quality
data. Beryllium, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and thallium were not detected in Samples SS-1,
SS-2 and SS-8; and, therefore, background levels for these analytes could not be determined.
Metal concentrations above background levels were detected in soil samples from Borings
B-l through B-16, as indicated on Figure 4-3. Calcium was not detected above background
levels. Antimony, beryllium, cadmium, selenium, and thallium were not detected above the
CRDL in soil samples from the soil borings (see Tables 4-4 and 4-5).
4.5 INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELL SOIL SAMPLES
Analytical results of TAL metals and total cyanide are presented in Tables 4-4 and 4-5
and shown on Figure 4-4. Thallium was not detected in soil samples collected from monitoring
well locations. Total cyanide was not detected above background levels in soil samples collected
from monitoring well locations. Other analytes were detected above background levels in soil
samples collected from monitoring well locations, as indicated on Figure 4-4.
TUT 
005 
1.853
GF.RAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
4-8
4.6 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
Analytical results for TAL metals and cyanide in surface soil samples are presented in
Tables 4-4 and 4-5 and shown on Figure 4-3. Aluminum, calcium, cobalt, magnesium,
manganese, vanadium, and total cyanide were not detected above background levels in Samples
SS-3 through SS-6. Beryllium, cadmium, selenium, and thallium were not detected in these
samples. Antimony and sodium were not detected above the CRDL. Other analytes were
detected above background concentrations in surface soil samples, as indicated on Figure 4-3.
4.7 
QA/QC SAMPLES
As part of the QA/QC requirements described in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
1992a), five soil replicate samples were collected during soil sampling. Field Replicates MW-
7FR, MW-8FR, MW-2FR, MW-14FR, and SS-7 were obtained from soil samples from
Monitoring Well MW-7, Boring B-8, Monitoring Well MW-2, Boring B-14, and Sample SS-6,
respectively. Analytical results for soil replicates are presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-5.
A sample of the decontamination water used during sampling activities was collected and
analyzed for TCL VOCs, as required in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a). This
sample was identified as WAPA, and was collected from the potable water supply located at the
VIHA building.
A field blank was collected during each sampling activity. Field blanks were obtained
from the sampling equipment (stainless-steel split-spoon and spatulas) utilized during sampling
activities. Field blanks were analyzed for all parameters required for the soil samples. Also,
a trip blank was included with every shipment of samples to the laboratory. Trip blanks were
only analyzed for TCL VOCs, as required in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a).
Analytical results for the drilling water sample (WAPA), field blanks, and trip blanks are
included in Tables 4-6 through 4-11.
TUT 
OOfi 
18^4
GERAGHTY c> MILLER. INC.
4-9
4.7.1 Organic Compound Results for OA/OC Samples
Most analytical results for soil samples and their corresponding replicates correlate
closely, which indicates that proper QA/QC procedures were followed during laboratory
analysis. One exception is 2-butanone, which was reported at 25 ppb in the field replicate (MW-
2FR) of the soil sample collected from the boring for Monitoring Well MW-2, but was not
detected in soil sample MW-2 (see Table 4-1).
Analytical results for WAPA (the water supply sample), which was analyzed for TCL
VOCs only, indicate trace concentrations of chloroform (2 ppb), bromodichloromethane (3 ppb),
dibromochloromethane (3 ppb), and bromoform (2 ppb). None of these compounds was detected
in the soil samples.
Methylene chloride, acetone, carbon disulfide, and TPH were reported in several field
blanks. Methylene chloride, acetone, chloromethane, and carbon disulfide were also detected
in several trip blanks. In addition, methylene chloride and acetone were detected in laboratory
blanks. Some reported detections of these compounds in soil samples are not included on the
figures because of the data validation results.
4.7.2 Inorganic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples
Analytical results for soil samples and their corresponding replicates correlate closely
except for lead and mercury for Replicate Sample MW-8FR. The lead value for Boring B-8 was
rejected, and lead was reported in Replicate Sample MW-8FR as an estimated concentration.
Mercury was detected in Boring B-8, but was not detected in Replicate Sample B-8FR.
Iron and zinc were the only analytes detected above the CRDL in field blanks collected
during soil sampling. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and vanadium were not detected in the field blanks. Other analytes were reported
between the CRDL and the instrument detection limit (IDL).
TUT 
005 
1855
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
5.0 GROUND-WATER QUALITY
Ground-water samples from the shallow and deeper monitoring wells were collected
between September 29 and October 7, 1992. Ground-water sampling was performed in
accordance with the procedures established in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a),
and described in Section 2.3.4 (Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis) of this Technical
Memorandum No. II.
Ground-water samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, 1,2-dibromomethane, n-
propylbenzene, MTBE, TCL BNAs, TAL total metals, TAL dissolved metals, total cyanide, and
TPH following the March 1990 CLP Protocols, as indicated in the Work Plan (Geraghty &
Miller, Inc. 1992a). Validated analytical results are listed in Tables 5-1 through 5-7.
5.1 
ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
Ground-water samples were collected from all shallow and deeper monitoring wells
installed at the Tutu Site during the current investigation. The organic compounds (TCL VOCs,
1,2-dibromomethane, n-propylbenzene MTBE, TCL BNAs, and TPH) detected in ground-water
samples are shown on Figure 5-1. Validated analytical results are listed in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and
5-3.
5.1.1 Petroleum Compounds
Petroleum constituents were detected in ground-water samples from Monitoring Wells
MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-5, MW-6R, MW-7FR, MW-8, MW-9, MW-9S, MW-10, MW-
10D, MW-12D, MW-13D, and MW-14. Petroleum compounds were not detected in Monitoring
Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-6D, and MW-11D, as shown on Figure 5-1.
One or more of the compounds benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, n-
propylbenzene, and 2-methyl naphthalene were detected in Monitoring Wells MW-5, MW-9, and
MW-9S. The highest concentrations of benzene (1,000 ppb), toluene (180 ppb), ethylbenzene
TUT 
OO5 1856
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
5-2
(930ppb), total xylenes (1,600 ppb), n-propylbenzene (180ppb), and 2-methyl naphthalene (130
ppb) were detected in Monitoring Well MW-5, located south of the Texaco Service Station.
Toluene was also detected in Monitoring Wells MW-12D and MW-13D at a concentration
of 1 ppb. MTBE was detected in Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-7FR, MW-8,
MW-9, MW-10, MW-10D, and MW-12D. MTBE is reported as tertiary butyl methyl ether in
the laboratory reports and on the figures. The highest MTBE concentration was detected in
Monitoring Well MW-5 (6,200 ppb). MTBE is a common gasoline additive, and is one to two
orders of magnitude more soluble than gasoline constituents such as benzene, toluene, and
xylene. MTBE also increases the solubility and mobility of benzene, toluene, xylene, and other
gasoline constituents (Garrett et al. 1986). Naphthalene (310 ppb), 2,4-dimethylphenol (7 ppb),
and 4-methylphenol (3 ppb) were also detected in Monitoring Well MW-5.
Dibenzofuran was detected in Monitoring Well MW-14 (2 ppb), and 1,2-dichlorobenzene
was detected in Monitoring Well MW-3 (2 ppb). Dimethyl phthalate was detected in Monitoring
Well MW-4D (8 ppb); di-n-octyl phthalate was detected in Monitoring Well MW-6R (1 ppb);
and fluorene (5 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (1 ppb), and phenol (3 ppb) were detected in
Monitoring Well MW-9. Fluorene was also detected in Monitoring Well MW-9S (9 ppb).
Phenanthrene was detected in Monitoring Wells MW-9S (2 ppb) and MW-14 (2 ppb).
5.1.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total TPH concentrations detected in ground-water samples from Monitoring Wells MW-
5, MW-6R, MW-9, and MW-9S were 4.2 ppm, 0.7 ppm, 1.7 ppm, and 21 ppm respectively.
Monitoring Well MW-5 is located at the north end of the Tillett property, and Monitoring Wells
MW-6R and MW-9 are located at the Four Winds Shopping Plaza, and west of the Esso Service
Station, respectively. None of the other wells showed TPH concentrations above the detection
limit.
TUT 
005 
1857
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC
5-3
5.1.3 
Chlorinated Compounds
Chlorinated compounds were detected in all ground-water samples except for the sample
from Monitoring Well MW-5, located at the Tillett property; this sample contained elevated
concentrations of petroleum constituents, resulting in elevated reporting limits due to decreased
analytical sensitivity. 
Because Samples MW-5 and MW-5FR contained relatively high
concentrations of several compounds, the samples were 
diluted prior to analysis, and
concentrations of chlorinated VOCs below the reporting limit of 500 ppb were not identified.
Trichloroethene (TCE) and PCE were detected in Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D,
MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-6R, MW-7FR, MW-8, MW-10, and MW-10D, as
indicated on Figure 5-1. PCE was also detected in Monitoring Wells MW-13D and MW-14.
The highest TCE concentration (190 ppb) and the highest PCE concentration (590 ppb) were
detected in Monitoring Well MW-1, which is located west of the Curriculum Center. 1,2-
Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) (cis/trans) was detected in all ground-water samples except
Monitoring Wells MW-5, MW-6D, MW-9, MW-1 ID, and MW-13D. The highest DCE
concentration (1,000 ppb) was detected in Monitoring Well MW-1. Vinyl chloride was detected
in Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-3, and MW-14, which are located west of the Curriculum
Center; the highest vinyl chloride concentration (140 ppb) was detected in Monitoring Well
MW-3.
Bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform were detected in
Monitoring Wells MW-1D, MW-6D, MW-1 ID, and MW-12D. The highest concentrations of
bromodichloromethane (30 ppb), dibromochloromethane (55 ppb), and bromoform (44 ppb) were
detected in Monitoring Well MW-12D, which is located at the God of Holiness Church property.
Chloroform was detected in Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-4D, MW-6D,
MW-7FR, MW-8, MW-1 ID, and MW-12D. 
These four compounds (chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform) are referred to collectively as
trihalomethanes and are often a by-product of the chlorination of drinking water. The highest
GERAGHTV^ MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
18"8
5-4
concentration of chloroform was detected in Monitoring Well MW-8 (18 ppb). 2-Butanone was
detected in Monitoring Wells MW-9S and MW-13D at 2 ppb and 12 ppb, respectively.
Acetone was detected in Monitoring Wells MW-9, MW-10, and MW-13D. The highest
acetone concentration (56 ppb) was detected in Monitoring Well MW-13D. Carbon disulfide
was only detected in Monitoring Well MW-14 (3 ppb). Acetone and carbon disulfide may be
artifacts of laboratory contamination.
5.2 
INORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
The ground-water samples collected from the 19 monitoring wells at the Tutu Site were
analyzed for TAL total metals, TAL dissolved metals, and total cyanide. The results are
presented in Tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6, respectively.
5.2.1 Total Metals
The total metal concentrations detected in ground-water samples from the Tutu Site are
shown on Figure 5-2. Total antimony, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, silver, and thallium were
not detected in the ground-water samples from the Tutu wells. Trace concentrations of total
arsenic, calcium, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc were detected in most of the wells.
In all samples except Monitoring Wells MW-6D and MW-13D, concentrations of total
aluminum, barium, calcium,chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
sodium, and vanadium were detected above IDLs, but below the Federal Primary Drinking
Water Standard. The Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard for chromium is 100 ppb. The
concentration of total chromium in sample MW-6D was 208 ppb. The concentration of total
lead in sample MW-13D was 124 ppb. The metals in ground water probably occur naturally,
due to the presence of these same metals in the crystal structure of the minerals in the volcanic
rocks through which the ground water flows.
TUT 
no5 
18^9
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
5-5
5.2.2 Dissolved Metals
In general, concentrations of dissolved metals in the ground-water samples (see Figure
5-3) were lower than the concentrations of total metals. 
The concentration of dissolved
chromium was 195 ppb in Monitoring Well MW-6D, and the concentration of dissolved lead in
Monitoring Well MW-13D was 81.5 ppb. Dissolved metal concentrations in all other samples
were below detection limits or MCLs.
5.2.3 Total Cvanide
Total cyanide concentrations in ground-water samples from the wells at the Tutu Site
were below detection limits, except for Monitoring Wells MW-6R, MW-8, and MW-1 ID. The
analyses for these three wells were rejected during validation of the laboratory data (see
Appendix D). Analytical results for all field blanks were below detection limits.
5.3 
QA/QC SAMPLES
A sample of the decontamination water used during ground-water sampling activities was
analyzed for TCL VOCs, 1,2-dibromomethane, n-propylbenzene, MTBE, TCL BNAs, TPH,
total and dissolved metals, and total cyanide, as required in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. 1992a). This sample was identified as ESSO-TAP, and was collected from a faucet located
at the Esso Service Station.
As part of the QA/QC requirements described in the Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
1992a), three field replicates were collected during ground-water sampling activities. Field
replicates MW-5FR, MW-7FR and MW-9FR were obtained from Monitoring Wells MW-5,
MW-7, and MW-9, respectively. As explained in Section 2.3.4 (Ground-Water Sampling and
Analysis), MW-9FR was analyzed for TCL VOCs only. Validated analytical results from
ESSO-TAP and field replicate samples are presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-6.
TUT 
005 
1860
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
5-6
A field blank was collected during each sampling activity. Field blanks were obtained
from the sampling equipment (Teflon bailer) used during sampling activities. Field blanks were
analyzed for the same parameters required for the water samples. Also, a trip blank was
included with every shipment of samples to the laboratory; trip blanks were only analyzed for
TCL VOCs. Validated analytical results for field blanks and trip blanks are provided in Tables
5-1 through 5-6.
5.3.1 Organic Compound Results for QA/QC Samples
Analytical results of VOCs for the potable water sample (ESSO-TAP) were rejected, as
indicated in Table 5-1. BNAs and TPH compounds were not detected in this sample.
Analytical results for ground-water samples and their corresponding replicates correlate
closely. The ground-water sample collected from Monitoring Well MW-7 was not analyzed for
VOCs because air bubbles were found in the sampling vials. The blind field replicate sample
MW-7FR was substituted for the TCL VOC analysis of the MW-7 sample. A field replicate
(Replicate Sample MW-9FR) was collected from Monitoring Well MW-9 and was analyzed for
VOCs only.
Methylene chloride, acetone, and carbon disulfide were reported in several field blanks
and trip blanks. Methylene chloride and acetone were detected in laboratory blanks. Some of
the reported detections of these compounds in the ground-water samples are not included on the
figures because of the data validation results.
5.3.2 Inorganic Compound Results for OA/QC Samples
Analytical results for QA/QC samples are provided in Tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6.
OOS 
18.M
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 
" "
5-7
5.3.2.1 Total Metals Results for QA/QC Samples
Calcium and zinc were the only analytes detected above the CRDL in the potable water
sample (ESSO-TAP). Other analytes detected in this sample were non-detected or reported
between the CRDL and the IDL.
Analytical results for ground-water samples and their corresponding replicates (Replicate
Samples MW-5FR and MW-7FR) correlate closely. This correlation indicates that proper
QA/QC procedures were followed during laboratory analysis.
No analytes were detected above the CRDL in the field blanks. Some analytes were
detected in field blanks reported between the CRDL and the IDL.
5.3.2.2 Dissolved Metals Results for QA/QC Samples
Calcium and sodium were the dissolved metals detected in the potable water sample
(ESSO-TAP). Other analytes were not detected or reported between the CRDL and the IDL.
Analytical results for ground-water samples and their corresponding replicates (Replicate
Samples MW-5FR and MW-7FR) correlate closely except for antimony in Replicate Samples
MW-5FR and MW-7FR, cobalt and nickel in Replicate Samples MW-5FR, and iron and
selenium in Replicate Sample MW-7FR.
Calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, and zinc were detected in field blanks, but the values
reported by the laboratory were between the CRDL and the IDL.
5.4 
SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY RESULTS
The ground-water quality data for the monitoring well network and for the supply wells
in the area of the Tutu Site are summarized below. The analytical results for the water supply
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC 
TUT 
°05 
18&2
5-8
well samples collected from September 14 through 17, 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992c)
are presented on Figure 5-4.
The distribution of petroleum compounds in the monitoring and water supply wells in the
Tutu study area indicates a localized presence of these compounds in the shallow ground water
in the immediate vicinity of the Texaco and Esso service stations. These compounds are present
near the Texaco Service Station and southward to Monitoring Well MW-5, the Tillett Supply
Well, and Monitoring Well MW-7. BTEX compounds detected in ground-water samples
collected from Monitoring Well MW-5 included benzene (1,000 ppb), toluene (180 ppb),
ethylbenzene (930 ppb), and xylenes (1,600 ppb). The Tillett Supply Well sample, collected in
September 1992, contained 7 ppb of benzene (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992c).
The petroleum compounds in ground water near the Esso Service Station (at Monitoring
Wells MW-9 and MW-9S) are present from west of the Esso property southward to Monitoring
Wells MW-10D and MW-12D. 
No benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX)
compounds were detected in Monitoring Wells MW-10 and MW-10D which are located
immediately downgradient of the Esso Service Station. The BTEX compounds located near the
Esso Service Station appear to be contained west of the station (near Monitoring Wells MW-9
and 9S).
Concentrations of benzene above the USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) were
observed in Monitoring Well MW-5, which is south of the Texaco Service Station (1,000 ppb),
and in Monitoring Wells MW-9 (26 ppb) and MW-9S (16 ppb), which are located west of the
Esso Service Station. The MCL for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. Concentrations of
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, including all estimated values, were found at non-detectable
levels or below MCLs in all ground-water samples collected during this investigation, except in
Monitoring Well MW-5 where ethylbenzene was reported at 930 ppb, above the MCL of 700
ppb. Little or no petroleum compounds have been detected in any monitoring or supply wells
south of the Monitoring Wells MW-10 and MW-12D.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
1S63
5-9
MTBE was detected in ground-water samples collected from Monitoring Wells MW-3
(24 ppb), MW-4 (1.2 ppb), MW-5 (6,200 ppb), MW-7FR (5.8 ppb), MW-8 (51 ppb), MW-9S
(2,200 ppb), MW-9 (2,700 ppb), MW-10 (660 ppb), MW-10D (780 ppb), and MW-12D (11
Ppb).
The distribution of chlorinated compounds in groundwater at the Tutu Site indicates that
PCE and its breakdown products (TCE, 1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride) are present throughout
the site. PCE and its breakdown products occur in total concentrations in excess of 100 ppb
under most of the study area, with the highest concentrations in the vicinity of the Curriculum
Center (Former Laga Building) and the O'Henri Dry Cleaning property. The absence (or trace
levels) of these compounds in Monitoring Wells MW-1 ID and MW-12D indicates that there are
two separate sources. 
Monitoring well concentrations are highest in the vicinity of the
Curriculum Center building, and the high concentrations extend down the valley in a zone that
includes Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-7, MW-8, MW-10,
and MW-10D. Supply wells in this zone also showed total concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
1,2-DCE in excess of 100 ppb. Moderate total concentrations of these compounds (between 10
and 100 ppb) have been detected in a fringe that borders the high concentration zone to the north
and west, in Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-6R, and MW-14, and the Ramsay Supply Well.
The VIHA Supply Wells were not sampled during the September 1992 sampling event, but
previous sampling events have indicated the presence of PCE, TCE, and 1,2-DCE. All of these
wells show the presence of PCE and its breakdown products. PCE was detected in soil collected
at Boring B-13, located near the O'Henri Dry Cleaners, at a concentration of 200 ppb.
With the exception of one detection each of lead (Monitoring Well MW-13D) and
chromium (Monitoring Well MW-6D) above Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards, all
metal concentrations were below MCLs. The total and dissolved metals detected in ground-
water samples are probably indicative of naturally occurring constituents derived from the
bedrock in the area. No cyanide was detected in any of the wells sampled.
GERAGHTYc* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°05 
1864
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following summary and conclusions are based on data obtained during this field
investigation, which was designed to delineate the potential sources, the horizontal and vertical
extent, and the potential migration pathways of petroleum hydrocarbon products and PCE and
its by-products in soil and ground water at the Tutu Site. An evaluation of the ground-water
monitoring well network is also provided in this section.
6.1 
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The geology of the Tutu Site consists of a southward thickening mantle, 0 to 15 feet
thick, of well-sorted alluvial soils overlying fractured volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks of
Cretaceous age. These volcaniclastic rocks consist of sandstones, siltstones, and breccias. The
rocks contain numerous fine, closely spaced calcite veins, and weathered and fractured zones
that are filled with clay-oxide residual minerals. Low-grade metamorphism of these rocks was
caused by intrusive bodies found at depth beneath the Tutu Site.
Ground water under the Tutu Site is stored and transmitted in fractures that transect the
bedrock. Ground-water flow in the shallow zone is to the south; in the deeper zone, the general
ground-water gradient is also southward, with the possibility of a southeastern component under
part of the Tutu Site. Water levels measured in the clustered well pairs indicate a slight
downward component to ground-water flow.
Based on well development data, the upper 100 feet of the aquifer penetrated by the
shallow and deeper monitoring wells has a low hydraulic conductivity. In the area that underlies
the Texaco Service Station and the northern part of the Four Winds Plaza parking lot,
Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, and MW-6R had relatively higher yields.
Pumpage of the Ramsay or VIHA supply wells in the northeastern portion of the area of
investigation appears to have a significant effect on water levels (resulting in the lowering of
water-level elevations in MW-1D by over 20 feet) in the deeper monitoring wells located within
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
TUT 
005 
1865
6-2
600 feet downgradient (i.e., Monitoring Wells MW-1D and MW-13D), but no effect was
observed on water levels in nearby shallow wells (i.e., Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-3).
6.2 
SOIL QUALITY
Results of analyses of soil samples collected during the field program showed trace
concentrations of petroleum compounds (mainly toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) in borings
located at the Curriculum Center. Benzene was not detected in any of the soil samples collected
at the Tutu Site. Other petroleum-related compounds were reported in borings and surface soil
samples from the Tillett Area (Boring B-8 and Surface Soil Sample SS-5), on or near the
O'Henri Dry Cleaners (Borings B-10 and B-13, and Surface Soil Samples SS-6 and SS-7), and
on the Ramsay Auto Parts property (Boring B-2).
Concentrations of TPH in soil samples ranged from non-detectable to 590 ppm, with the
highest concentrations detected at and south of the Texaco Service Station in Monitoring Wells
MW-4 (130 ppb), and MW-5 (590 ppb), west of the Esso Service Station in Monitoring Well
MW-9 (230 ppb), and at the Curriculum Center in Monitoring Wells MW-1 (140 ppb) and MW-
14 (220 ppb) and in Borings B-6 (170 ppb) and B-14 (250 ppb). Other samples with TPH
concentrations of over 100 ppm in shallow soils were from the Esso Service Station Boring B-9
(160 ppm), the Four Winds Plaza parking lot Monitoring Well MW-6 (120 ppm), and the
Ramsay Auto Parts area in Boring B-2 (110 ppm). The TPH values may be false- positives.
BNAs reported in boring soil samples collected may be associated with laboratory
artifacts (especially phthalate compounds). The di-n-butyl phthalate concentrations reported in
soil samples from Monitoring Wells MW-8 (at the northeast corner of the Esso Service Station),
MW-10 and MW-IOD (at the Splash and Dash car wash), MW-6D (at Four Winds Shopping
Center), and MW-4 (at the Texaco Service Station) were qualified in accordance with USEPA
CLP and data validation protocols, indicating that these results are most probably due to
laboratory artifacts. Di-n-butylphthalate was the only BNA compound detected in soil collected
from Monitoring Well MW-3 (at the northeast corner of the Texaco Service Station). Because
TUT 
005 1866
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
6-3
of the laboratory contamination documented in other samples, this analytical result for the soil
sample from Monitoring Well MW-3 is also most likely a laboratory artifact. Other BNAs were
detected in soil samples collected at the Curriculum Center (Boring B-16, Surface Soil Sample
SS-3, and Monitoring Well MW-14), the Ramsay Auto Parts (Boring B-2), the Texaco Service
Station (Monitoring Well MW-4), the Tillett property (Boring B-8 and Surface Soil Sample SS-
5), and the O'Henri Dry Cleaning property (Borings B-10 and B-13 and Surface Soil Sample SS-
6/SS-7).
Total chlorinated organic compound concentrations (mainly PCE, TCE, and 1,2-DCE)
in excess of 100 ppb were detected in soil samples from the Curriculum Center (Boring B-15),
and concentrations between 10 and 100 ppb were detected in Borings B-14 and B-16. Total
chlorinated organic compound concentrations in excess of 100 ppb were detected in the O'Henri
Dry Cleaners (Boring B-13), and concentrations between 10 and 100 ppb were detected in
Borings B-ll and B-13A. Trace concentrations (less than 10 ppb) of these compounds were
detected in soil samples from the Texaco Service Station (Monitoring Wells MW-3 and MW-4),
the Four Winds Plaza Shopping Center parking lot (Monitoring Well MW-6), and the Esso
Service Station (Monitoring Well MW-8).
Metal concentrations detected in soil samples were consistent with concentrations detected
in the background samples (Surface Soil Samples SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8) and are representative
of the natural constituents of the soil at the Tutu Site.
6.3 
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
A thin layer of floating product was detected once in two wells on or near the Texaco
Service Station, but this product did not return after bailing. The minimum measurable thickness
of product (0.01 foot) was detected once on October 28, 1992 in Monitoring Wells MW-4D and
MW-5 which are located at and south of the Texaco Service Station, respectively. Product was
present on four occasions in Monitoring Well MW-9S west of the Esso Service Station, with
thicknesses ranging from a sheen on September 17, October 28, and November 16, 1992 to 0.11
TUT 
CO5 1867
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
6-4
foot on September 28, 1992. Product was not detected in Monitoring Well MW-9S on
November 9, 1992. A sheen of product was detected once (September 17, 1992) in Monitoring
Well MW-9.
BTEX compounds have only been detected at two locations, in Monitoring Well MW-5
(a total of approximately 3,700 ppb) and in Monitoring Wells MW-9 and MW-9S (47 ppb and
23 ppb, respectively. The only supply well in the area which BTEX compounds have been
detected (7 ppb of benzene in September 1992) is the Tillett Supply Well, which is south of
Monitoring Well MW-5.
MTBE is a more soluble gasoline constituent that has also been detected at the three
locations where BTEX was found: Monitoring Wells MW-5 (6,200 ppb), MW-9 (2,700 ppb),
and MW-9S (2,200 ppb). At the Texaco Service Station, MTBE was detected at a concentration
of 24 ppb in Monitoring Well MW-3. In Monitoring Wells MW-10 and MW-10D, located south
of the Esso Service Station, MTBE concentrations of 660 and 780 ppb, respectively, were
detected. Monitoring Well MW-8, which is located on the northeast corner of the Esso Service
Station, had an MTBE concentration of 51 ppb. No other monitoring wells showed an MTBE
concentration in excess of 20 ppb. There is no Federal Drinking Water Standard for MTBE.
In summary, the downgradient extent of petroleum constituents in ground water has
apparently been adequately delineated by the recently installed monitoring well network. The
presence of BTEX compounds is apparently limited to the immediate vicinity of Monitoring Well
MW-5, and the Tillett Supply Well and Monitoring Wells MW-9 and 9S. This is evidenced by
the absence of BTEX compounds in Monitoring Wells MW-6R, MW-6D, MW-10, MW-10D,
MW-llD, and MW-12D, and low concentrations of MTBE in Monitoring Well MW-7 and
MW12D, and to the absence of MTBE in Monitoring Well MW11D.
PCE and its breakdown products (TCE, 1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride) occur in ground
water in total concentrations exceeding 100 ppb under most of the study area. The absence of
these compounds in Monitoring Wells MW-llD and MW-12D indicates that there are two
TUT 
005 
1868
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
6-5
separate sources. VOC concentrations from monitoring well samples are highest in the vicinity
of the Curriculum Center building, and the high concentrations extend down the valley in a zone
that includes Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-1D, MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-7, MW-8, MW-
10 and MW-10D. Supply wells in this zone also showed total concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
1,2-DCE in excess of 100 ppb. Moderate concentrations have been detected north and west of
the high concentration zone in Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-6R, and MW-14, and the Ramsay
Supply Well. The VIHA supply wells were not sampled during the September 1992 sampling
event, but the results of previous sampling events have indicated the presence of PCE, TCE, and
1,2-DCE. The presence of PCE and its breakdown products in ground-water samples from all
of these wells indicates that the source could be the Cumculum Center Building where PCE was
detected in soil samples. The concentrations detected in the Harvey Supply Well and in the
Eglin Supply Wells in September 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992c) appear to be emanating
from a separate source near the O'Henri Dry Cleaners, where PCE was also detected in soil
samples.
6.4 
MONITORING WELL NETWORK EVALUATION
Geraghty & Miller has implemented the scope of work described in the approved revised
Tutu Service Station Investigation Work Plan (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a). This scope of
work included a soil and ground-water sampling and analysis program, the installation of 19
ground-water monitoring wells, and the evaluation of aquifer characteristics. Based on the data
collected during this investigation, shallow ground water beneath the site flows in a southerly
direction, and the flow from east and west converges in the center of the valley. The monitoring
well network will be used during the next ground-water sampling round to monitor ground-water
quality.
Based on the hydrogeologic data collected during this investigation, Geraghty & Miller
believes that the existing monitoring well network has sufficiently delineated the downgradient
extent of petroleum constituents at the Tutu Site. Upgradient delineation of the petroleum
constituents could not be adequately performed with the existing network of monitoring wells.
TOT 
<"><"> fi 1869
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions of this investigation, the following activities are
recommended:
1. 
Three additional monitoring wells should be installed and included in future
sampling events. One monitoring well should be located north of the Texaco
Service Station near Boring B-2 to evaluate potential impacts to ground-water
quality from the Ramsay Auto property. Two monitoring wells should be located
in the area northwest of the Esso Service Station, in the Four Winds Shopping
Center parking lot to evaluate potential impacts to the former Western Auto
underground storage tanks. One of these wells should be located approximately
75 feet northwest of existing Monitoring Well MW-9S; the other well should be
located approximately 300 feet northwest of Monitoring Well MW-9S
immediately downgradient of the former Western Auto underground storage
tanks. Soil samples should be collected and analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL
BNAs, and MTBE from the boring for the monitoring well near the Western Auto
underground storage tanks.
2. 
The monitoring wells should only be sampled for TCL VOCs, MTBE, and
dissolved metals.
3. 
The laboratory should try to detect PCE, TCE, and 1,2-DCE in the sample from
Monitoring Well MW-5 during future analyses. Due to the presence of high
concentrations of other VOCs, high detection limits (500 ppb) for most VOCs
were indicated during the first sampling event. 
Therefore, PCE and its
breakdown products may be present at concentrations below 500 ppb.
4. 
The chlorinated compounds detected in ground-water samples taken south and
southeast of the O'Henri Dry Cleaning property should not be investigated further
by the TEIC because the source is clearly not associated with the Esso or Texaco
TUT 
GO5 
187O
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
7-2
service stations. Additionally, the distribution of chlorinated compounds in soil
and ground water at the Tutu Site indicates that the Esso and Texaco service
stations may not be sources of chlorinated VOCs. Further evaluation of the
distribution of chlorinated and petroleum compounds in ground water should be
conducted after the second sampling results for the Tutu Site Monitoring Well
System are validated.
TUT 
GO5 1871
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Camp, Dresser & McGee (CDM) Federal Programs Corporation 1992. Letter to C. Kwan,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Technical Memorandum I, April 24.
Cooper, H.H., Jr. and C.E, Jacob. 1946. A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating
Formation Constants and Summarizing Well Field History. Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, No. 4.
Donnelly, T.W. 1959. Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, Virgin Island. Unpublished Ph.D
dissertation, Princeton University, 179pp.
Donnelly, T.W. 1966. Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, Virgin Islands. Caribbean
Geologic Investigations. H.H. Hess, ed. Geologic Society of America Memoir 98, pp
15-121.
Garrett, P., M. Moreau, and J.R. Lowry. 1986. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether as a Groundwater
Contaminant. Proceedings of the 1986 Conference on Petroleum and Organic Chemicals
in Ground Water, National Water Well Association and American Petroleum Institute,
Houston, Texas, pp. 227-238.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1983. Report on Current Ground Water Conditions in the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Prepared for the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs. April 1983, 80 pp.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a. Tutu Service Station Investigation Work Plan, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands, March 1992.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992b. Technical Memorandum I, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, April 1992.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992c. Seventh Sampling Report, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, December 1992.
Graves, R.P., and R. Gonzilez. 1988. Potentiometric Surface of the Turpentine Run Aquifer
in the Tutu Area, Eastern St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 11, 1987. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4131.
Jordan, D.G., and O.J. Cosner. 1973. A Survey of the Water Resources of St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 55 pp.
Kruseman, G.P., and N.A. De Ridder. 1979. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data,
Bulletin II, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvements, Wageningen,
Netherlands, 200 pp.
TUT 
OO5 1872
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
8-2
Lopez De Azua & Associates. 1992. Topographic and Planimetric Survey of Approximately
100 Acres Located at the New Tutu Section, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, November
2, 1992.
Neuman, S.P. 1975. Analysis of pumping test data from anisotropic unconfmed aquifers
considering delayed yield, Water Resources Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 329-342.
Theis, C.V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate
and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, vol. 16, p. 519-524.
Stevens, K.E., F. G6mez-G6mez, and J. Alicia. 1981. Water Wells in the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Pt. 1, St. Thomas,. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-82.
Thomey, N., D. Bratberg, and C. Kalisz. 1989. A Comparison of Methods for Measuring
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil. Proceedings of the Conference on Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater; Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration, Houston, Texas. National Water Well Association.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1985. 
Groundwater Manual, 480 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989a. 
Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989b. Method 524.2, Measurement of
Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry, Revision 3.0, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 
1990a. 
USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
Document Number OLM 01.0, Revised December 1990 and February 1991. 
USEPA
Contract Laboratory Program, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990b. Statement of Work for Inorganics
Analysis (Multi-media, Multi-concentration), Document Number ILMO 1.1, March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991a. 
Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance
"Standard Default Exposure Factors" Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25, 1991.
TUT 
O05 
1873
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
8-3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 199Ib. Hazardous Ranking System (HRS)
Documentation Record, Tutu Wellfield, April 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Personal Communication from C.
Kwan, USEPA Project Manager, with the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee
and Geraghty & Miller, Inc., May 5, 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Hazardous Ranking System, 40 CFR,
Part 300, Appendix A.
PR01301-WP3VTECHMEII.93
TUT 
O05 
1874
GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC.
Table 2-1. Soil Boring Details, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Boring
Identification
B-1
B-2
B-3
8-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-13A
B-14
B-15
B-16
Date
7/30/92
8/3/92
8/3/92
6/9/92
8/13/92
7/30/92
7/31/92
8/12/92
7/29/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/11/92
8/10/92
8/12/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
Total Depth
(ft bis)
10.3
3.5
3.3
10.8
2.8
7.3
4.0
3.6
5.1
8.0
3.5
8.4
6.4
2.0
3.2
2.2
3.7
Top of
Bedrock
(ft bis)
10.3
3.5
3.3
10.8
2.8
7.3
3.0
3.6
5.1
Not encountered
3.5
8.4
6.4
Not encountered
3.2
2.2
3.7
Remarks
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Auger refusal
Split-spoon and auger refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Water encountered at 7.9 feet
Split-spoon and auger refusal
Split-spoon and auger refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Sample for risk assessment
Split -spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
Split-spoon refusal
ft bis
Feet below land surface.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUr 
OO5 1875
Table 2-2. Monitoring Well Construction Details, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Top of Casing 
Total Borehole
Well
Identification
Shallow
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6R
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
MW-9S
MW-10
MW-14
Deep
MW-1D
MW-4D
MW-6D
MW-10D
MW-11D
MW-12D
MW-13D
NA
ft above msl
ft bis
MW-6R
MW-9S
Date
Installed
6/30/92
8/25/92
6/11/92
6/11/92
8/25/92
9/2/92
7/29/92
7/23/92
7/30/92
9/14/92
8/20/92
7/2/92
7/8/92
6/17/92
8/10/92
8/19/92
7/20/92
7/23/92
7/15/92
Not applicable.
Feet above mean sea
Elevation
(ft above msl)
195.08
178.15
181.84
175.66
187.09
171.17
180.13
167.54
16126
162.37
161.50
196.12
195.14
176.02
171.01
161.38
153.22
161.81
236.60
level.
Depth
(ft bis)
46.0
28.0
34.0
28.0
40.8
23.7
39.6
26.0
34.3
21.0
36.7
48.0
90.0
71.0
65.0
75.1
74.3
88.0
120.0
Well
Casing Depth
(ft bis)
43.6
27.0
30.4
27.0
39.0
22.7
35.4
25.5
34.1
18.7
35.6
45.2
70.0
47.7
45.0
55.1
53.0
80.5
100.0
Screened
Interval/
Open borehole
(ft bis)
23.6-43.6
7.0-27.0
10.4-30.4
7.0-27.0
19.0-39.0
2.7-22.7
15.4-35.4
5.5-25.5
14.1-34.1
8.7-18.7
15.6-35.6
25.2-452
70.0-90.0
47.7-71.0
45.0-65.0
55.1-75.1
53.0-74.3
60.5-80.5
100.0-120.0
Top of Sand
(ft bis)
21.1
5.0
8.4
5.0
17.0
1.6
12.8
3.0
11.8
6.7
13.0
22.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
56.4
NA
Top of
Bentonite
(ft bis)
19.1
3.0
6.4
3.0
15.0
0.8
11.0
1.5
10.0
5.7
11.0
19.8
'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.0
NA
Depth to Top
of Bedrock
(ft bis)
1.8
3.1
2.4
8.7
4.8
secMW-6D
15.0
8.3
5.0
see MW-9
2.9
3.0
2.8
10.7
4.92
1.7
10.2
5.9
5.0
Feet below land surface.
Replacement well for MW-6.
Additional shallow well at MW-9 location.
All shallow monitoring wells arc constructed of 4-inch diameter, stainless-steel casing and screen (0.020-inch slot).
All deep wells are constructed with 6-inch diameter, stainless-steel casing above the open borehole interval, except MW-12D.
MW-12D was completed as a shallow monitoring well, with screened casing, to prevent cave-in of weathered material encountered
during drilling.
PR01301 -Tl/103092.»t3
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Table 2-3 
Water-Level Measurements in Shallow Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 1 of 4
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
1 1/09/92
11/16/92
ft above msl
DTW
ft
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
19508
19508
19508
19508
195,08
195.08
MW-1 
MW-2
Water -Level 
Measuring 
Water -Level
DTW 
Elevation 
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation
(ft) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl)
3008 
165.00 
178.15 
13.60 16455
2988 
16520 
178.15 
13.50* 
164.65
2760 
16748 
178.15 
12.74 
165.41
26.10 
168.98 
17815 10.82 167.33
2511 
169.97 
178.15 
10.32 167.83
24.89 
17019 
17815 1018 16797
MW-3
Measuring
Point Elevation 
DTW
(ft above msl) 
(ft)
18184 
17.40
181.84 
17.44
181.84 
16.51
181.84 
14.36
181.84 
13.79
181.84 
1349
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
164,44
164.40
165.33
16748
18805
16835
Feet above mean sea level.
Depth to water.
Feet
• 
Water level measured on 9/18/92.
** 
Water level measured on 10/29/92.
NO
NM
Nl
NA
Not detected.
Not measured
Not Installed.
Not available.
The measuring point for shallow monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
CO
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Table 2-3 
Water-Level Measurements in Shallow Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas. U.S Virgin Islands
Page 2 of 4
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
11/09/92
11/16/92
ft above msl
DTW
ft
•
•*
ND
NM
Nl
NA
MW-4 
MW-5 
MW-8R
Measuring 
Water-Level 
Measuring 
Water-Level 
Product 
Measuring 
Water-Level
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation 
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation 
Thickness 
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl)
17566 
11.64 
164.02 
18709 
NM 
NM 
NM 
171.17 
822 
162,95
17566 
11.62 
16404 
18709 
23.68 
163.41 
ND 
17117 820 
162.97
175.66 
10.84 
164.82 
18709 
22.83 
164.26 
001 
171.17 
7.52 
163.65
175.66 
8.80 
16686 
18709 
2076** 
16633 
ND 
171.17 
5.98 
165.19
17566 
8.36 
18730 
16709 
20.29 
166.60 
ND 
171.17 
5.68 
185.49
17566 
8.09 
167.57 
187.09 
19.93 
167.16 
ND 
171.17 
5.51 
165.66
Feet above mean sea level
Depth to water.
Feet.
Water level measured on 9/18/92.
Water level measured on 10/29/92.
Not detected
Not measured
Not installed.
Not available
The measuring point for shallow monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
l-*-
CO
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Table 2-3. Water-Level Measurements in Shallow Wells. Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas. US Virgin Islands
Page 3 ol 4
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
11/09/92
11/16/92
ft above msl
DTW
ft
*
* *
ND
NM
Nl
NA
MW-7
Measuring 
Water-Level
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl)
18013 
1758 
16255
18013 
17.60 
162.53
18013 
17.00 
163.13
18013 
15.80 
164.33
180.13 
15.56 16457
18013 
15.46 16467
Feet above mean sea level.
Depth to water
Feet.
Water level measured on 9/18/92.
Water level measured on 10/29/92.
Not detected.
Not measured
Not Installed.
Not available.
MW-8
Measuring 
Water-Level
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl)
16754 
1796 14958
16754 
NM 
NM
16754 
1703 150.51
16754 
1200 15554
167.54 
12.57 154.97
167.54 
12.20 
155.34
MW-9
Measuring 
Water-Level 
Product
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation 
Thickness
(ft above msl) 
(ft) 
(ft above msl) 
(ft)
162.26 
NM 
NM 
NM
162.26 
1256 149.70 
Sheen
162.26 
1249 149.77 
NM
162.26 
1133 150.93 
ND
162.26 
NM 
NM 
NM
162.26 
1095 151.31 
ND
The measuring point for shallow monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
-i
GERAGHTY & MILLl-R. INC
Table 2-3 
Water-Level Measurements in Shallow Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands
Page 4 of 4
MW-9S
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
16237
162.37
162.37
16237
16237
16237
DTW
(ft)
Nl
13.22
13.11
1092
1094
10.47
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
NA
149.15
149.26
151.45
151 43
151 90
Product 
Measuring
Date 
Point Elevation 
DTW 
Elevation 
Thickness 
Point Elevation
(ft) 
(ft above msl)
9/10/92 
16237 
Nl 
NA 
Nl 
161,50
9/17/92 
162.37 
13.22 
149.15 
Sheen 
161 50
9/28/92 
162.37 
13,11 149.26 
011 
161.50
10/28/92 
162.37 
10.92 
151.45 
Sheen 
161.50
11/09/92 
162,37 
10.94 15143 
NA 
161.50
11/16/92 
16237 
10,47 151.90 
Sheen 
161.50
ft above msl 
Feet above mean sea level
DTW 
Depth to water,
ft 
Feet
Water level measured on 9/18/92.
** 
Water level measured on 10/29/92.
NO 
Not detected.
NM 
Not measured
Nl 
Not installed
NA 
Not available.
The measuring point for shallow monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
iw-io
DTW
(«)
2066
2070
2052
17,66
17.42
1672
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
14084
14080
140.98
143.84
14408
14478
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
196.12
196.12
196.12
198.12
196.12
19812
MW-14
DTW
(«)
2808
2798
26.96
2500
24.29
24.24
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
188.04
168 14
189.18
171.12
171 83
171 88
CD
GERAGHTY & MILLHR, INC
Table 2-4. Water-Level Measurements in Deep Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 1 of 3
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
11/09/92
11/16/92
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
195.14
195.14
195.14
195.14
195.14
195.14
MW-1D
DTW
__.._ffl. _
31.48
31.00
29.98
50.90
NM
44.75
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
163.66
164.14
165.16
144.24
NM
150.39
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
176.02
176.02
176.02
176.02
176.02
176.02
MW-4D
DTW
J9
12.32
12.32
11.44
9.50
9.50
8.78
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
163.70
163.70
164.58
166.52
166.52
167.24
Product
Thickness
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
171.01
171.01
171.01
171.01
171.01
171.01
MW-6D
DTW
&
8.02
8.04
7.34
5.78
5.52
5.32
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
16Z99
16Z97
163.67
165.23
165.49
165.69
ft above msl 
Feet above mean sea level.
DTW 
Depth to water.
ND 
Not detected.
NM 
Not measured.
ND 
Not detected.
ft 
Feet.
The measuring point for deep monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Table 2-4. Water-Level Measurements in Deep Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 3
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
11/09/92
11/16/92
DTW
ND
NM
ND
ft
uw 1 nn
Measuring
Point Elevation 
DTW
(ft above msl) 
(ft)
161.38 
20.96
161.38 
21.06
161.38 
20.96
161.38 
17.84
161.38 
17.88
161.38 
17.26
Depth to water.
Not detected.
Not measured.
Not detected.
Feet.
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
140.42
140.32
140.40
143.54
143.50
144.12
MW-11D
Measuring
Point Elevation 
DTW
(ft above msl) 
(ft)
153.22 
20.40
153.22 
17.94
153.22 
18.94
153.22 
16.66
153.22 
16.51
153.22 
15.43
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
132.82
135.28
134.28
136.56
136.71
137.79
Measuring
Point Elevation
(ft above msl)
161.81
161.81
161.81
161.81
161.81
161.81
DTW
_ ffl
28.94
26.88
27.72
24.94
24.29
23.69
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl|
132.87
134.93
134.09
136.87
137.52
138.12
The measuring point for deep monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC.
Table 2-4. Water-Level Measurements in Deep Wells, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 3 of 3
MW-13D
Date
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
11/09/92
11/16/92
Measuring
Point Elevation
Jf[ above ms]J
236.60
236.60
236.60
236.60
236.60
236.60
DTW
_ ffi.
97.32
86.76
83.08
95.34
92.40
90.86
Water-Level
Elevation
(ft above msl)
139.28
149.84
153.52
141.26
144.20
145.74
ft above msl 
Feet above mean sea level.
DTW 
Depth to water.
ND 
Not detected.
NM 
Not measured.
ND 
Not detected.
ft 
Feet.
The measuring point for deep monitoring wells is the top of the casing.
CO
GERAGHTY & MILLF.R. INC
Table 2-5. 
Ground—Water Elevation Comparison for Monitoring Well Clusters, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Well 
Date of
Identification Development
Ground—Water Elevations
(feet above mean sea level)
9/10/92
9/17/92
9/28/92
10/28/92
NM
Not measured.
11/9/92
11/16/92
MW-1
MW-1D
MW-4
MW-4D
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-10
MW-10D
8/29/92
8/28/92
8/24/92
8/24/92
9/9/92
9/2/92
9/2/92
9/2/92
165.00
163.66
164.02
163.70
162.95
162.99
140.84
140.42
165.20
164.14
164.04
163.70
162.97
162.97
140.80
140.32
167.48
165.16
164.82
164.58
163.65
163.67
140.98
140.40
168.98
144.24
166.86
166.52
165.19
165.23
143.84
143.54
169.97
NM
167.30
166.52
165.49
165.49
144.08
143.50
170.19
150.39
167.57
167.24
165.66
165.69
144.78
144.12
PRO 13111 -Tl 'U20893.wk3,1cb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
TUT 
O05 1834
Table 2-6. 
Vertical Gradients of Ground-Water Flow, Tutu Scn'icc Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Well
Cluster
MW-1
MW-1D
MW-4
MW-4D
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-10
MW-10D
Vertical Distance
Between Center Point
of Screen/Open Interval
(feet)
46.31
42.05
42.48
39.34
Minimum
Ground-Water
Elevation Difference
(feet)
1.06
0.24
Maximum
Ground-Water
Elevation Difference
(feet)
24.74
0.78
Vertical Gradient
Minimum Maximum
0.023
().(X)57
0.534
0.019
Vertical Gradient
Direction
Strongly downward
Slightly downward
0.02
0.30
0.04
0.58
0.00047
0.008
0.00094
0.015
Horizontal to
slightly upward
Slightly downward
CO
CO
PRO1301.Tl/020893a.wk3/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Table 3-1. 
Summary of Transmissivity and Storativity Values from Aquifer Tests, Tutu
Service Station Investigation for the TEIC, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Monitoring
Well
CHT-6D
MW-6D
MW-6R
ft2/min 
Feet
NA 
Not
Pumping
, Well 
Method
MW-6D 
Cooper-Jacob
MW-6D 
Cooper-Jacob
MW-6R 
Cooper-Jacob
squared per minute.
applicable.
Storativity
Transmissivity
Values
(ft2/min)
8.14
5.225
8.39
Values
(dimensionless)
0.0007
NA
NA
#PR01301 -WP3/TechMen.tbl
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
"UT 
GGI3 1886
Table 4-1.
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Page 1 of 4
Simple ID: B-l 
B-2 
B-3 
B-4
(4.0-8.0') 
(0-2.01) 
(2.0-4.01) 
(8.0-
10.0')
Analyte 
Date: 
30-Jul-92 
3-Aug-92
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2 Dichloroethene (cis/trans)
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
tert Butyl methyl ether
n-Propylbenzene
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
1 1 U
38 UJ 
11 U
38 U 
17 J
16J 
14
38 U 
1 1 U
38 U 
1 1 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
U
38 U 
U
38 U 
U
38 U 
U
38 U 
U
38 U 
U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
38 U 
11 U
19 U 
5U
38 UJ 
10 UJ
19 UJ 
5 UJ
3-Aug-92 
9-Jun-92
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
26 J 
12 U
6J 
55 J
11 U 
12 UJ
11 U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
1 I U 
1 2 U
II U 
12 U
11 U 
12 U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
1 I U 
1 2 U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
1IU 
1 2 U
1 I U 
I 2 U
11U 
12U
1 1 U 
I 2 U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11 U 
12U
6J 
12U
11 U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
11U 
12U
5U 
6U
10 UJ 
12 UJ
5 UJ 
6 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990
B-5
(0-2.0')
B-6
(4.0-8.0
B-7
) 
(2.0-4.0')
l3-Aug-92 
30-Jul-92 
31-Jul-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
9J
92 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
11 U
11 U
18
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.7U
1.3J
5.7UJ
Contract
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
370
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
59
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
29 U
15 U
30 UJ
15 UJ
Laboratory
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5.2U
10 UJ
5.2UJ
Program (CLP)
B8
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 U
2J
4J
11 U
2J
11 U
11 U
5.8U
12 UJ
5.8UJ
protocols.
B-8FR
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11U
11 U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
I 1 U
11 U
11UJ
11UJ
11U
5J
4J
11 U
3J
11U
11 U
5.5 U
11UJ
5.5UJ
B-9
(2.0-6.0')
29-Jul-92
11 U
11U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
1 I U
11 U
11U
11U
11U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11U
11U
11 U
11U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.3 U
11 UJ
5.3 UJ
B-10
(6.0-8.0')
10-Aug-92
12 U
12 U
12U
12 U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
5.9U
12 UJ
5.9UJ
B-ll
(0-2.0')
10-Aug-92
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
3J
26 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 U
29
3J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
6.1 U
12 UJ
6.1 UJ
B-12
(6.0-8.01)
ll-Aug-92
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
13 UJ
11 U
1 I U
11 U
11 U
It U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
I 1 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.7U
11 UJ
5.7UJ
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reobrtine limit and/or is an
U 
Compound or element
R 
Result rejected.
analyzed for, but not detected at
estimated concentration.
the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample. 
... ...
r 
* 
* 
I I I r 
,- * ,• \ nr 
H /-s r~\ •• T
Of)
1887
Mil I M
Table 4-1.
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Page 2 of 4
Sample ID: B- 13 
B-13A B 14 
B-14 FR 
B-15
(4.0-6.0') 
(0-2.01) 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0')
B-16
(0-2.01)
MW-1
(0-2.0')
Analyte 
Dale: 
10-Aug-92 
12-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
30-Jun-92
Chloromethane 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Bromomethane 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Vinyl chloride 
l i t ) 111) 
11U 
11U 
12 U
Chloroethane 
11U 
U 
11U 
11U 
12 U
Methylene chloride 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Acetone 
1 1 U J 1 1 U J I 1 U J 1 1 UJ 
12 UJ
Carbon disulfide 
11U 
1 1 U 
11U 
1 1 U 
12 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 
II U 
U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
1,1 Dichloroelhane 
11 U 
U 
II U 
11 U 
12 U
l,2-Dichlorocthcnc(cis/trans) 
11U 
U 
11U 
11U 
12 U
Chloroform 
U 
U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 
U 
U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
2-Butanone 
11 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
1.1,1-Trichloroethane 
U 
1U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Carbon tetrachloride 
U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
12U
Bromodichloromethane 
U 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
12U
1.2-Dichloropropane 
U 
1U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 
U 
11U 
11U 
1IU 
12 U
Trichloroethene 
U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
6J
Dibromochloromethane 
U 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
I2U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 
U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
12U
Benzene 
U 
II U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene 
U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
12U
Bromoform 
U 
1IU 
11U 
11U 
12 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
2-Hexanone 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
12 U
Tetrachloroethene 
200 D 
15 
72 
100 
170
Toluene 
U 
11 U 
2J 
3J 
12
Chlorobenzene 
U 
I1U 
11U 
11U 
12 U
Elhylbenzene 
II U 
11 U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Styrene 
11 U 
11U 
11 U 
11 U 
12 U
Xylenes (total) 
11U 
11U 
11U 
11U 
12 U
l,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) 
5.7 U 
5.4 U 
5.7 U 
5.7 U 
6U
tert-Butyl methyl ether 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
12 UJ
n-Propylbenzene 
5.7 UJ 
5.4 UJ 
5.7 UJ 
5.7 UJ 
6 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset , New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the co/resnnnHinn reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample. 
TUT 
005 
1888
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
23
11 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.6U
11 UJ
5.6UJ
Laboratory
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
2J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
1 U
I 
U
1 U
1 U
1 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
5.8U
12 U
5.8UJ
Program (CLP)
MW-1D
(1.0-2.5')
5-Jun-92
I 1 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
49 J
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.6 U
II UJ
5.6UJ
protocols.
MW-2
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
11U
11U
11U
11 U
10 J
58 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
I 1 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11 U
U U
II U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.7 U
11 UJ
5.7UJ
MW-2FR
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
10 J
130 J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
25
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
6U
12 UJ
6UJ
MW-3
(0.4-2.0')
10-Jun-92
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
1 J
11 J
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
2J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
5.9 U
12 UJ
5.9UJ
MW-4
(2.7^.7')
16-Jun-92
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
2J
190 B
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
48
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
1 J
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
6.3 U
13 U
6.3UJ
MW-4D
(8.7-
10.7')
4-Jun-92
R
R
R
R
1 J
81 J
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
(iFRAGHTYc'MII.I I K I N '
Table 4-1.
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Page 3 of 4
Sample ID: MW-5
(0-4.0')
Analyte 
Date: 
ll-Aug-92
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Mcthylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans)
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Melhyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tctrachloroethcne
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
tert-Butyl methyl ether
n-Propylbenzene
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II UJ
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.3 U
11 UJ
5.3 UJ
MW-6 
MW-6D 
MW-7
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(14.0-
16.0')
21-Jul-92 
6-Aug-92 
16-Jul-92
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
U 
10 U
11 U 
U 
10 U
22 
II UJ 
12
22 U 
6J 
17 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
U 
10 U
U 
11 U 
10 U
U 
11 U 
10 U
U 
11 U 
10 U
U 
11 U 
10 U
U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
6J 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
11 U 
11 U 
10 U
5.5U 
5 . 3 U 
5U
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ 
10 UJ
5.5 UJ 
5.3 UJ 
5 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990
B 
Analyte is detected in
D 
Analyte identified at a
the laboratory blank
secondary dilution.
MW-7FR
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
18
16 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5.2U
10 UJ
5.2 UJ
Contract
MW-8
(2.0-4.01
MW-9
) 
(0-4.0')
20-Jul-92 
24-Jul-92
11 U
11U
U U
11 U
25
27 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2J
1 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.6 U
11 UJ
5.6UJ
Laboratory
U
U
U
U
8U
U
U
U
11 U
U U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5 U
10 U
5 U
Program (CLP)
MW-10
(2. 0-4.0')
4-Aug-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
17 J
35
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5U
10 UJ
5UJ
protocols.
MW-10D
(0-2.0')
4-Aug-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
20 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
U U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
1J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
5.5U
11 UJ
5.5UJ
MW-11D
(10.0-
11.0')
26-Jun-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
4J
11 U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
1 I U
11U
11U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11U
11 U
1 J
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
5.5U
11 U
5.5 UJ
MW-12D
(4.0-6.0')
6-Jul-92
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
18 U
12 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
U U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
11 U
5.4 U
11 U
5.4U
MW-13D
(4.0-6.0')
19-Jun-92
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.4 U
11 U
5.4U
MW 14
(0-2.0')
l-Jul-92
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
34 B
16 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
2J
12 U
12 U
12 U
1 J
5.9U
12 U
5.9U
J 
Result is detected below the reoortine limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of prev
analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
ious sample.
"1 IT 
CiAR 
1 aoo
(iKRA(;HTYi*MII I I K. l\(
Table 4-1. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Page 4 of 4
Analyle
Sample ID: SS-3 
SS-4 
SS-5 SS-6 SS-7
Dale: 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92
Chloromethane
Bromo methane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethenc
1 , 1 Dichlorocthane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans)
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropcne
Trichlorocthenc
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethcne
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
tert- Butyl methyl ether
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
22
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
35
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
4J
13 U
3J
13 U
19
6.4U
13 UJ
11U
II U
11 U
II U
8J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
11 U
II U
11 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
11 U
II U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
5.5 U
11 UJ
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
II U
II U 
11 U
10 J 
22
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
11 U
II U 
11 U
11 U 
II U
11 U 
11 U
II U 
11 U
11 U 
II U
11 U 
11 U
1 1 UJ 
1 1 U
11 U 
II U
II U 
II U
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
11 U
11 U 
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
II U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
5.5U 
5 . 7 U
1 1 UJ 
1 1 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
20
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
I 2 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
I 2 U
5.8 U
12 UJ
n-Propylbenzene
6.4 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.7 UJ
5.8UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbll.
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample. 
.-,-, ,-r.
1UT 
oob 
1890
00
"o
&£
.1
S
I
.1
I
I
%
M
3
d
s
O.
•OCi
oU
.2
T3'I
•O
15
r)
•4-
<
•5 <
°. 
M
b a
2 1
Sc ^i
Si 2
,2
eiCJ. «
CK
•> e
O 
CK
i 
3
_ O 
•?
' W 
O
flQ ^ 
r*i
Q
_wI S
« 
J?
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OQOOO 
OOQOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
O
oSSoooooS 
ooooeoSeS 
eSoSeSSS SSSSS SooSSS SSSSS SrttseoS 
oo
nnf^mn 
r>-i m o <«•> ri 
runnmm
»»>r<fOfn<»i
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
33333 33333 _3333 33333 -.3333 33333 33333 3
ggggg ggggg Rgggg ggggg SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS S
mfnmf^r^ fn^Ovnr^ »^
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
88888 88888 88888 88888 88888 88888 8SS88 8
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
88888 88888 8888S 88888 88888 88888 88888 8
3333- -,-
OOOOO 
O<
--r~r~r—oo 
OM
,3 33333 3333- 33333 33333 33333 3
'•a-voP OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
ooooo 0000.0 ooooo ooooo. ooooo ooooo o
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3^033 3
SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS S88SS S
0000000000 
0000000000 
0000000000 
0000000000 
0000000000 
0000000000 
OOriCSOOOO 
00
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
o.o,o.o.S ooooo ooooo ooooo {300,00
'
OOOOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333
SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333
SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS
33333 33333 3
33333 
3 33 33333 33333 33333
-
- 
• • • • • 
-
-
-
-
-
?°J
<S —M-
33333 33333
§8888 88888
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333
§8 88888 88888 88888
|
i iyi
I*- 1 Pi
•£•£ cos 
S=-eC c.
ff jji£ Ses£i
e cj-
lenzyl phthalate
roaniline
'hloroethoxy)methane
:hloroethyl)ether
'hloroisopropyl)ether
uj=
"5 
«
5 
>.
•g.8 
5
1-3 *
«SS'o">>
c-c e e
<!§•«
31818
g
£
»•=" 
» u
S«"oSS
l4li 3^111
S t 2^ >. Iri-Sl
j g*| i
U U B 2 u
<«ucS
ssssl
c c c -
^SCDO JS55
= uJ=Q.t
j--r o— C
D.O 000 
_
•4- 
co -4- !E '.2 lc
§
so.
oT
u
BOI
e-
o
U to 
o'
W 1
-2-s-r
•*-* O W W W 
O O O O w 
n N N.S.S 
• —/*v-=^-= 
-=.= .= .= .= 
X 
,3 IA
•sJrWcii lill S, i 5 599 9^9s9 19999 1 •S'-S
1
sV:?^? VVVV-= -i.-s*«« •*«•»•?••. -i>i>». -5 S g
o--
CD
T-i
r,'
(5155—— 
—
Table 4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 8
Sample ID:
Aiulyte 
Date:
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthatate
Fluoranthene
Fluorcnc
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopcnladiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrcne
Isophoronc
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrcnc
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-TrichIorophenol
B-l
(4.0-8.01)
30-Jul-92
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
3100U
3IOOU
3100U
1300 
U
1300 
U
3IOOU
1300 
U
1300 
U
3100U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
1300 
U
3100 
U
1300 
U
B-2
(0-2.0')
3-Aug-92
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
3400 U
3400 U
3400 U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
1400 
U
3400 U
1400 
U
1400 
U
220 J
1400 
U
3400 U
1400 
U
B-3
(2.0-4.0')
3-Aug-92
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
B-4
(8.0-
10.0')
9-Jun-92
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
B-5
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
B-6
(4.0-8.01)
30-Jul-92
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
820 U
820 U
2000 U
820 U
820 U
2000 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
820 U
2000 U
820 U
B-7
(2.0-4.0')
31-Jul-92
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
830 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
B-8
(0-2.01)
12-Aug-92
370 U
290 J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
87 J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
160 J
370 U
300 J
370 U
910 U
370 U
B-8FR
(0-2.0')
!2-Aug-92
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
850 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
B-9
(2.0-6.01)
29-Jul-92
220 J
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
840 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
B-10
(6.0-8.0')
10-Aug-92
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
940 U
940U
940 U
390 U
390 U
940U
390 U
390 U
940 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
940 U
390 U
B-ll
(0-2.0')
10-Aug-92
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
980 U
980 U
980 U
400 U
400 U
980 U
400 U
400 U
980 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
980 U
400 U
B-12
(6.0-8.0')
ll-Aug-92
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
920 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion tppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 
protocols
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
CO 5
.1.892
GHRAGHI Yc^MIU.I R. IN(
»II
••<><
S n
S'» o n a 
" o
?-2 =. 2 £. 
S 2
g i
O
O
<» o o 3
£L VI 3 I/I m
o.c3 e.g.
_, ST2 ~ i
3 =-2.
< oh
•SI
5 3
°t
3 5
S.5-
i
§ij
,1'
i 00
V n 3
n<
g g S a l
2 §2-||
•5"
3-n3
O
•a en ".a-
I
1!!!
g"
benzene
benzene
ff8
3 
g
5- g
!fi °«
o n-S' 3 5
gg~|g ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg
CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC
a o.II
II
si'
I a.
if
I?
3
99
II
U> 
UL^OOOOU
o ooooo
LALALALALA 
LALALALALA 
LALALALALA
ooooo ooooo ooooo
JL») 
i^^ii^i^ti^t
c ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
WWLWLOLO
o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo
c ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
l^jt^jL^LJW
ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg
c ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
o
o3
£
o
7
o
tra5
•o
of
U*U)l*JU»LtJ 
LO LJ L*» LU LU
C CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC
W 
t^i W OO OO OJ 
L«J LW t>il*> L*J 
LU Lfc* L*i 1*> U 
i^j t^j LtiV** L»J 
W t>Jt>J UJ 
W LiJ W W t*i 
V*i L«J *rfi L«J V*)
o oo^o1 o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooo00 ooooo ooooo
c ccccc ccccc ccecc ccccc cccc1" ccccc ccccc
__ 
_ 
_
_
_
_
_ ___ _ _ 
L«J L»i LO W L»i 
WLiJOJLiJOi 
LtJ Lti L»i W L»J 
t>^ W Oi L»i V>J
ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg ggggg
c ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
ooooo ooooo ooooo
ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
^J **J ""J **l "*J 
">J »-J "-J "«J "-.J
ooooo ooooo
§§55§ ggggg ggggg 
ggggg ggggg ggggg
c ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
c ccccc cecec ccccc ccccc ccccc cccee ecccc
L*i W U LiJ UJ 
t^t^t^lV^LtJ 
LU l*i l*i 1^ LJ 
LJ l^J l>) ^4 OJ
88888 88888 SSSSS 88888
ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
c ccccc ccccc cccc*
ececc
c ccccc ccccc cccec ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc
•s
9 
*• '
> s=
"? b
s -
? g*
1 ^>
? ^s
c 
b
us 
^;
•b
* S-
I? Si
5 5
S
? ?s
I le
S
9 g
>
~ ~;g
9 v
9 
™v
a 
^•^
Jn 
~J
§-;' i.
i D
ble 4-2.
Con
Tho
<o
M "™*
srz
a n
O.C
oB:
m
X
I
or
OI
1'
9
1
eI
3'
en
o
fo
o
8.
3
s
o
TOc
s
8'II'
g
•3^
Lft)
o
00
Table 4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 4 of 8
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
bis(2-Ethylhcxyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Mcthylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrcne
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2 ,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol
2 ,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
B-13
(4.0-6.01)
IO-Aug-92
380 U
42 J
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
B-13A
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
340 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
840 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
840 U
350 U
B 14
(0-2. 0')
14-Aug-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
B-14FR
(0-2 .0")
14-Aug-92
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
920 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
B 15
(0-2.0')
14-Aug-92
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
B-16
(0-2.0')
14-Aug-92
I10J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
890 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
870 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
MW-1
(0-2.0')
30-Jun-92
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
920 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
920 U
380 U
MW-1D
(1.0-2.5')
5-Jun-92
110J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
890 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
MW-2
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
380 U
910 U
380 U
MW-2FR
(0-2.0')
!3-Aug-92
400 U
400 U
400 U
400U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
960 U
960 U
960 U
400 U
400 U
960 U
400 U
400 U
960 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
400 U
960 U
400 U
MW-3
(0.4-2.0')
10-Jun-92
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
MW-4
(2.7-4.7')
16-Jun-92
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
420 U
420 U
1000 U
420 U
420 U
1000 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
1000 U
420 U
MW-4D
(8.7-
10.7')
4-Jun-92
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT 
OO5 .1894
(iKRAGHTY^MII.I I R. INC.
00
o
.2
2vc3
I
5
VIU"5.
rao
CO
1i
oU
.S
5,o
xU
•oc
03
!„•
3-O
IS
e .
r4
JU
S? sf
o 
S!
c.
50 
-3
12 5
°. °?
so. £
&
50 i
1I
ii5
3
33333 33333 33333 33333 033333 333_3 33333 3
CK tn cr> CA c^ 
cF> tn 2^ Co 2n 
c^ Cri CK il^> CT> 
C^tA^^^^i ^^^^* 
^^^^^rC1 
? 5" 5 ?^ S^ 
»v
ft ft ft ft ft
cnnmcim
3S.33...3 D3D3D 3DDDD .DDDD^ DDDDD 333 3D D D 3 3 D 3
».t ».t >-t >-t »-t 
»-t **t >»t **t *n 
m »n «n kit «-t 
•XwSu^whwh 
*r,»*t*.t».t..n
DSD-Da DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDD3 D3D.DD D
tit itt in «A m 
^»it*ri»*t^ 
5n».n*.t5^wS 
vn.tIni.twS 
M^wn»X*nM^ 
m*n*nwSun 
m^ONe^mn 
*n
ft ^ f^ ^^ ^1 ftft^ift^ 
ftftftftft 
ftftftf^ft 
ftftftftft 
^ftftftft 
ft 00 OO ft ft 
ft
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
PP PPPPP PPPPP P
*?.
;>
<
a:
33333 33333 33333 33333 23333 33333 33333
^i ^ ^1 ft ft 
ftftftftft 
ftftftftft 
•*ftftftft 
ft^^^^^ft 
ft
33333 33333 33333 33333 23333
ftftftftft 
ftftftftft 
ftftftftft
33333
sssss
33333 33333 33333 33333
minu^min 
wSmin^mn 
wSi/iwunv,
33333 33333 3
83888 8000088 8
mcififiri 
moooofim 
m
33333 33333 3
mtnt/imtn 
inxo^Dtmn 
in
ftOOOOftft 
m
8oo
Q.
£"
u
33333
33333
33333 33333 33333 OQ3333
ppppp opppp ppppp ppppp
33333 33333 33333 33333
ft ft ft ft ^
33333
§§?§§
33333
OOOOO
33333 33333 33333 33333
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO
33333 33333 33333 33333
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO
* " ~ tv"> \r\\r\*f\*f\\r\ 
v"nri»ni/"iw^ 
<N*n»nvMn
33333 33333
OOOOO OOOOO
33333 33333 3
33333 33333 3
^f^-^t-^^ 
^ftft^^ 
^
00
II
K--
33333 33333
S8S5RP
in
o--
CO
i-
A
A
A
C
o c o o S
N M N N P
C C C Cm 
„
JJJJ55 , 
3^
Qj CD CD CM "^ 
CO ^
Table 4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 6 of 8
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hcxachloroclhane
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrcne
Isophoronc
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3 Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nilroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrenc
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophcnol
MW-5
(0-4.01)
ll-Aug-92
45 J
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
860 UJ
860 UJ
860 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
860 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
860 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
350 UJ
860 UJ
350 UJ
MW-6
(0-2.0-)
21-Jul-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
890 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
MW-6D
(0-2.01)
6-Aug-92
100 BJ
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
850 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
850 U
350 U
MW-7
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
830 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
MW-7FR
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
830 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
830 U
340 U
MW-8
(2.0-4.0')
20-Jul-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
900U
900 U
900 U
370 U
370 U
900U
370 U
370 U
900U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
900 U
370 U
MW-9
(0-4.0')
24-Jul-92
46 J
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
860 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
MW-10
(2.0-4.0')
4-Aug-92
43 BJ
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
880 U
880 U
880 U
360 U
360 U
880 U
360 U
360 U
880 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
880 U
360 U
MW-10D
(0-2.0')
4-Aug-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
890 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
MW-11D
(10.0-
11.0')
26-Jun-92
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
890 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
890 U
370 U
MW-12D
(4.0-6.01)
6 Jul-92
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
860 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
MW-13D
(4.0-6.01)
19-Jun-92
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
860 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
860 U
350 U
MW-14
(0-2.0')
1 -Jul-92
41 J
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
940 U
940 U
940 U
390 U
390 U
940 U
390 U
390 U
940U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
940 U
390 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion (ppbl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT 
005 1896
Program (CLP) protocols.
(JERAGMTY^MII.I.I-R.INC
Table 4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 7 of 8
Analyte
Sample ID: SS-3 
SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 
SS-7
Date: 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
!9-Aug-92
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bcnzo(a)pvrcnc
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzole, h,i)perylene
Benzo(R)fluorajithcne
4-Bromophcnyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
4-Cnloroaniline
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)elher
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophcnol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3 -Dichlorobenzidinc
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-melhylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinilrotoluene
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
3400 J
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
84 J
82 J
390 U
390 U
190 J
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
59 J
55 J
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
58 J
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
75 J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
62 J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
390 U
370 U
Di-n-octyl phthalate 
R 
R
Analyte concentrations in microgramsper kilogram (parts per billion [ppbj).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
1897
GERAGHTYc*MII I I R . I N (
Table 4-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 8 of 8
Analyte
Sample ID: SS-3 
SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 
SS-7
Date: 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthcnc
Fluorene
Hexachlorobcnzenc
Hexachlorobutad iene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hcxachlorocthanc
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Mc(hy (naphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
430
100 J
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
950 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
950 U
390 U
390 U
76 J
390 U
950 U
390 U
290 J
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
270 J
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
910 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
370 U
910 U
370 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion [ppbll.
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
1898
GERAGHTY^MII I.I R.INT
Page 1 of 3
Table 4-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
B-l
(4.0-8.0')
30-Jul-92
77 U
B-2
(0-2.0')
3-Aug-92
110
B-3
(2.0-4.01)
3-Aug-92
23 U
B-4
(8.0-
10.0')
9-Jun-92
24 U
B-5
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
53
B-6
(4.0-8.0')
30-Jul-92
170
B-7
(2.0-4.0')
31-Jul-92
28
B-8
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
23 U
B-8FR
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
77
B-9
(2-0-6.01)
29-Jul-92
160
B-10
(6.0-8.0')
10-Aug-92
27
B-I1
(0-2.0')
10-Aug-92
41
B-12
(6.0-8.0')
ll-Aug-92
25
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million Ippml).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Method CE81-1 and USEPA 418.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
CD
-0
•-C
GERAGHIY^MII.I.I U.IN(
Table 4-3.
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Page 2 of 3
Analyte
Sample ID: B 13
(4.0-6.0')
Date: 
10-Aug-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
28
B 14
(0-2.0')
14-Aug-92
250 DJ
B-14FR
(0-2.0')
14-Aug-92
56 J
B-15
(0-2. 0')
14-Aug-92
24 U
B-16
(0-2. O1)
14-Aug-92
82 J
MW-1
(0-2.0')
30-Jun-92
140
MW-1D
(1.0-2.5')
5-Jun-92
84
MW-2
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
66J
MW-2FR
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
86 J
MW-3
(0.4-2.0')
10-Jun-92
24 U
MW-4
(2.7-».7')
16-Jun-92
130
MW-4D
(8.7-
10.7')
4-Jun-92
24 U
MW-5
«M.O')
ll-Aug-92
590 D
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [ppm]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Method CE81-1 and USEPA 418.1.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
•-0
GHRAGHTY^MIU 1 R.IN(
Page 3 of 3
Table 4-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Analyte
Sample ID:
Date:
MW-6
(0-2.0')
21-Jul-92
MW-6D
(0-2.0')
6-Aug-92
MW-7
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
MW-7FR
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
MW-g
(2.0-4.0')
20-Jul-92
MW-9
(0-4.0')
24-Jul-92
MW-10
(2.0-4.0')
4-Aug-92
MW-10D
(0-2.0')
4-Aug-92
MW-11D
(10.0-
ll.O1)
26-Jun-92
MW-12D
(4.0-6.0')
6-Jul-92
MW-13D
(4.0-6.0')
19-Jun-92
MW-14
(0-2.0')
l-Jul-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
120 
61 
27 
21 U 
22 U 
230 D 
22 U 
22 U 
22 U 
22 U 
21 U 
220 D
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (pans per million Ippml)
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Method CE81-1 and USEPA 418.1.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GERAGHTYc*MILI I R.IN(
Table 4-4. 
Concentrations of Metals in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Pagel of 4
Sample ID: B-l 
B-2 
B-3 
B-4 
B-5
(4.0-8.01) 
(0-2.0') 
(2.0-4.0') 
(8.0- 
(0-2.0')
10.01)
Analyte 
Date: 
30-Jul-92 
3-Aug-92 
3-Aug-92 
9-Jun-92 
13-Aug-92
Aluminum 
25100 
26000 
24200 
32200 
22900
Antimony 
7.4 B 
5.9 B 
4.7 U 
3U 
7.9 BNJ
Arsenic 
0.96 B 
2.1 U 
I . 2 B 0.54 BWJ 
0.46 U
Barium 
42.1 B 
67.2 
184 
42.9 B 
38.4 B
Beryllium 
0.23 U 
0.26 B 
0.42 B 
0.27 B 
0.23 U
Cadmium 
0.68 U 
0.64 U 
0.7 U 
0.7 U 
0.69 U
Calcium 
39600 
47200 
65900 
7360 
67200 *
Chromium 
29.2 
31.7 35.8 31.3 33.6 NJ
Cobalt 
23 
21.9 22.8 28.2 18.9
Copper 
85.6 79.1 
104 
74.7 47.3 NJ
Iron 
35700 
38400 
42500 
41500 
29800
Lead 
31 S 
26 S 
4.5 
1.5 
3.6 J
Magnesium 
17600 
17100 12700 
23600 
19400
Manganese 
757 
834 
506 
941 
861
Mercury 
0.06 U 
0.06 U 
0.06 U 
O.I2B 
0.06 U
Nickel 
18.9 17.5 17.1 18.6 19.4
Potassium 
634 B 
1170 
471 B 
569 B 
386 B
Selenium 
0.46 U 
0.42 U 
0.47 UJ 
0.47 U 
0.46 UWJ
Silver 
0.91 U 
2.2 
2. IB 
2. 1 B 
0.92 U
Sodium 
472 B 
319 B 
2040 
217 BJ 
271 B
Thallium 
0.68 U 
0.64 UJ 
0.7 U 
0.7 UW 
0.69 U
Vanadium 
102 
119 
157 
137 
94.9 NJ
Zinc 
56.5 
108 
42.6 53.1 
49.9
B-6
(4.0-8.0')
30-Jul-92
35700
4.5 B
0.74 B
41 B
0.22 U
0.67 U
6490
36
30.3
67.6
42700
6.2 S
21300
895
0.06 U
19
833 B
0.45 U
0.98 B
274 B
0.67 U
119
51
B-7
(2.0-4.0')
31-Jul-92
28400
5.9 B
1 B
36.9 B
0.21 U
0.62 U
51600
28.6
23.4
73.1
35400
19.8
21500
828
0.05 U
17.8
460 B
B-8
(0-2.01)
12-Aug-92
23600
4.6 UNJ
4.3
98.4
0.37 B
0.69 U
72800 *
29.7
20.5
157 J
31500
R
18000
700
0.12
14.9
3320 J
0.41 UWJ 
0.46 U
0.83 U
561 B
0.62 U
94.8
62.4
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million (ppml).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
* 
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (1DL).
E 
Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or graphite furnace atomic absorption
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
N 
Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of controllimits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
3.9NJ
465 B
0.69 UJ
79.1
149
protocols.
B-8FR
(0-2.01)
12-Aug-92
19700
5 BNJ
94 J
53
0.35 B
0.66 U
65200 *
22.3
16.3
49.8 J
29100
10 J
16100
791
0.06 U
14.1
870 BJ
0.44 U
1.6 BNJ
453 B
0.66 UJ
76.2
63.8
B-9
(2.0-6.01)
29-Jul-92
20800
4.4 B
1.6B
33. SB
0.23 B
0.64 U
15400
35.2
23.7
105
33100
5.5
16300
760
0.05 U
21. 8J
528 B
0.43 U
0.85 U
248 B
0.64 U
85.8
58.4
B-10
(6.0-8.0')
10-Aug-92
14300
5.2 B
2.2 U
498
0.22 U
0.65 U
14400
13
17.2
88.7
33600 EJ
5.2
9970
2200
0.05 U
4.7B
1900
0.43 U
2B
352 B
0.65 UJ
119
68.2 EJ
B-ll
(0-2.0')
10-Aug-92
19200
4.7 U
5
124
0.33 B
0.7 U
5150
19.5
15.1
76.6
34100 EJ
6.9 S
5920
768
0.08 B
12.8
2830
0.47 U
1.9 B
270 B
0.7 UJ
88.8
99.5 EJ
B 12
(6.0-8.0')
ll-Aug-92
15300
4.4 U
18.3
172
0.29 B
0.65 U
6060
21.2
18.2
74.2
28100 EJ
5.4 S
5570
2070
0.05 U
16.4
2280
0.44 U
1.8B
297 B
0.65 UJ
87.8
89.1 EJ
(GFAA) interference present.
,
TUT 
005
1902
.I I IM\<
r
Table 4-4. 
Concentrations of Metals in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 4
Sample ID: B- 13 
B-13A B-14 
B-I4FR 
B-15 B-16 MW-1
(4.0-6.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.01) 
(0-2.0')
Analyte 
Dale: 
10-Aug-92 
12-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
30-Jun-92
Aluminum 
18000 
21100 25300 
19000 
26400 
18900 
26700
Antimony 
4.9 B 
4.3 UNJ 
7.3 BNJ 
4.6 UNJ 
6.4 BNJ 
6.8 BNJ 
5.1 B
Arsenic 
185 
13.7 
0.46 U 
0.46 U 
1.3B 11.6 0.45 B
Barium 
29 B 
59.3 34.5 B 
33.6 B 
32. IB 
39.9 B 
59.1
Beryllium 
0.22 U 
0.22 U 
0.23 U 
0.23 U 
0.23 U 
0.22 U 
0.23 U
Cadmium 
0.67 U 
0.65 U 
0.7 U 
0.69 U 
0.7 U 
0.99 B 
0.68 U
Calcium 
12800 
73200 * 
120000 « 
73000 * 
89400 * 
68800 * 
48300
Chromium 
20.1 
23.6 
13.8 NJ 
17.4 NJ 
27.3 NJ 
36.4 NJ 
18.6
Cobalt 
15.2 
16.3 
20 
18.2 
23.2 19 
22.6
Copper 
46.4 
52 
48.3 NJ 
77.6 NJ 
65.9 NJ 
72.1 NJ 
47.8
Iron 
26800 EJ 
29400 
28000 
23100 
32600 
30600 
37100EJ
Lead 
1.2 
4.8J 2.9J 2J 
12. 2 J 
45.6 N*J 
3
Magnesium 
14600 
18300 
26200 
17800 
22900 
16300 
24600
Manganese 
430 
870 
757 
640 
809 
599 
734
Mercury 
0.06 U 
0.05 U 
0.06 U 
0.06 U 
0.06 U 
0.57 
0.06 U
Nickel 
12.3 
14.7 11.1 
13.1 
16.5 
15.7 12.8
Potassium 
591 B 
841 B 
161 B 
201 B 
389 B 
506 B 
278 B
Selenium 
0.44 U 
0.43 U 
0.46 UWJ 
0.46 UJ 
0.46 UWJ 
0.44 UWJ 
0.45 UW
Silver 
1.6B 
1.6 BNJ 
0.93 B 
0.92 U 
LIB 
1.3 B 
0.68 U
Sodium 
133 B 
474 B 
181 B 
191 B 
281 B 
396 B 
305 B
Thallium 
0.67 UJ 
0.65 UJ 
0.7 U 
0.69 U 
0.7 U 
0.67 U 
0.68 U
Vanadium 
83.9 
83.1 
95.8 NJ 
69.3 NJ 
98.8 NJ 
79.7 NJ 
132
Zinc 
45.7 EJ 
63.1 50.9 60.1 206 
459 
56 EJ
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [ppm]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
* 
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
E 
Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or graphite furnace atomic absorption
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
N 
Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MS A).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of controllimits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
MW-1D
(1. 0-2.5')
5-Jun-92
37000
8.1 B
0.46 UW
23. IB
0.23B
0.68 U
41200
28.7
28.8
75.2
39900
9.2
23600
833
0.06 U
19.9
655 B
0.46 UWJ
2.3
632 B
0.68 UW
113
52.1
protocols.
MW-2 
MW-2 FR
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0')
13-Aug-92
13300
4.5 UNJ
3
81
0.22 U
0.67 U
68500 *J
16.1 NJ
11.3
40 NJ
21700
5.6 J
9160
582
0.06 U
12.7
557 B
0.45 UJ
0.89U
717 B
0.67 U
58 NJ
66.2
13-Aug-92
15700
4.6 UNJ
1.2B
45.6 B
0.23 U
0.69 U
8720 *J
7.6 NJ
12.8
58 NJ
30800
1.9J
9640
1110
0.06 U
5.6 B
299 B
0.46 UJ
1.2B
536 B
0.69 U
52.8 NJ
119
MW-3
(0.4-2.0')
10-Jun-92
25800
3 U
R
59.8
0.23 U
0.68 U
57300
31.8
21.6
57.4
31500
3.9
15000
725
0.06 U
16.7
919 B
0.46 UWJ
1.4 B
665 B
0.68 UW
93.4
42.6
MW-4
(2.7-4.7')
16-Jun-92
22800
6.2 B
1.8B
55
0.24U
0.73 B
9810
38 EJ
32.7 J
73.9 EJ
39400 EJ
3.6 B
14000 EJ
947 EJ
0.06 U
18.8
1270 J
0.55 BWJ
0.72 U
274 B
0.72 UJ
121 EJ
49 EJ
MW-4D
(8.7-
10.7')
4-Jun-92
21700
3 5 B
0.46 U
59.4
0.23 U
0.69 U
7790
27
28.5
75.3
38000
2.8
17800
717
0.06 U
19.1
505 B
0.53 BWJ
2 B
318 B
0.69 UW
120
46.8
(GFAA) interference present.
PUT
19O3
CiHRAQI'I Y^MII I I IM\<
Table 4-4. 
Concentrations of Metals in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 3 of 4
Sample ID: MW-5 
MW-6 MW-6D 
MW-7 MW-7 FR
(0-4.01) 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.01) 
(14.0- 
(14.0-
16.0') 
16.0')
Analylc 
Date: 
ll-Aug-92 
21-Jul-92 
6-Aug-92 
!6-Jul-92 
16-Jul-92
Aluminum 
27400 
20800 
14700 
26000 
29800
Antimony 
S.1BNJ 
SB 
4.3 U 
6.7 B 
8.5 B
Arsenic 
0.77 B 
1.9B 2.2 U 
0.71 B 
0.53 B
Barium 
50.7 137 
122 
42.5 B 
25. IB
Beryllium 
0.46 B 
0.22 U 
0.22 B 
0.21 U 
0.21 U
Cadmium 
0.64 U 
0.67 U 
0.65 U 
0.64 U 
0.82 B
Calcium 
54400 * 
26300 
23700 
28200 
47700
Chromium 
24.2 28.2 
16. 8 J 
16.3 19.6
Cobalt 
24.3 
31.9 13.9 30.8 32.8
Copper 
115 
71.4 51.8 60.6 60.9
Iron 
37700 
36200 
29600 
38100 
43100
Lead 
R 
25.4 J 
83.7 
0.96 J 
1.8J
Magnesium 
26200 
16400 
9350 
28000 
32000
Manganese 
763 
1440 
769 
941 
861
Mercury 
0.05 U 
0.06 U 
0.05 U 
0.05 U 
0.05 U
Nickel 
15.3 19.5 
7.5 B 
16.3 J 
19.3 J
Potassium 
1180 544 B 
91 IB 
1520 J 
1400 J
MW-8
(2.0-4.0')
20-Jul-92
22500
5.6 B
0.44 U
21.7 B
0.22 U
0.65 U
28400
15. 3 J
19
49.7
26500
0.48 BJ
15400
688
0.05 U
11.3
204 B
Selenium 
0.43 UW 
0.44 UWJ 
0.43 U 
0.43 UWJ 
0.42 UWJ 
0.44 UWJ
Silver 
2.2 NJ 
0.67 U 
1.4 B 
0.64 U 
0.64 U
Sodium 
381 B 
596 B 
728 B 
263 B 
255 B
Thallium 
0.64 UJ 
0.67 U 
0.65 UJ 
0.64 U 
0.64 U
Vanadium 
108 
102 
80 
107 
110
Zinc 
164 
56.7 59.8 EJ 
51.7 54.5
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [ppmll
Analyses were performed by Enseco-tast of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
* 
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
0.65 U
491 B
0.65 U
59.5
31.8
MW-9
(0-4.0')
24-Jul-92
22400
6B
0.7B
18.7 B
0.21 U
0.64 U
31600
15.6
18.9
50.7
25700
3.2J
15100
631
0.05 U
12.4
205 B
0.43 U
0.64 U
654 B
0.64 U
56.3
32.4
Laboratory Program (CLP)
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
E 
Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or graphite furnace atomic
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
N 
Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
absorption
MW-10
(2.0-4.0')
4-Aug-92
14900
4.7U
2.4 U
120
0.27 B
0.71 U
3480
5.7
8. SB
42.2
30000
3.4
5770
480
0.06 U
3.2 B
621 B
0.47 U
2.2 B
413 BJ
0.71 UJ
57.9
57.7
protocols.
MW-10D
(0-2.0')
4-Aug-92
14100
4.3 U
2.2U
199
0.28 B
0.65 U
5260
4.5
7.9 B
40.2
33600
3.2
5770
435
0.05 U
3.5 B
529 B
0.43 U
2B
373 BJ
0.65 UJ
69.5
58.2
MW-11D
(10.0-
il.O')
26-Jun-92
17800
3.6 B
0.49 B
194
0.22 U
0.68 B
3810
12.7
28.7
131
48700 EJ
2
12800
1070
0.06 U
15.6
2200
0.44 UJ
0.67 UJ
3300
0.67 UJ
163
94.9 EJ
MW-12D
(4.0-6.01)
6-Jul-92
13600
3.2 B
0.7 B
60.5
0.21 U
0.63 U
2220
20.4
29.6
63.9
31300
1.9
10400
491
0.08 B
13.1
306 B
0.42 UJ
0.63 UJ
1520
0.63 UJ
103
48.6 EJ
MW-13D
(4.0-6.01)
19-Jun-92
23400 EJ
3.7 B
1.7B
17.9 B
0.21 U
0.63 U
37900 EJ
20
26.3 J
102 EJ
39000 EJ
3.4
17400 EJ
820 EJ
0.05 U
17.2
205 B
0.42 UJ
0.63 U
581 B
0.63 UJ
95.1 EJ
59.5 EJ
MW-14
(0-2.0')
l-Jul-92
28700 EJ
3.4 B
0.67 B
40.2 BEJ
0.22 U
0.67 U
29900
36 EJ
28.3
86.4 EJ
40000 EJ
3.2
20300 EJ
883 EJ
0.06 U
18.9
689 B
0.45 UJ
0.67 U
500 B
0.67 UJ
113 EJ
57.4 EJ
(GFAA) interference present.
TUT
OO5
1904
GKRACiHTYc^MII I I k. IN(
Table 4-4. 
Concentrations of Metals in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 4 of 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
Sample ID: SS-1
Date: 
19-Aug-92
23600
6. 1 BNJ
0.44 U
41. 9B
0.22U
0.66 U
75100
23.4 NJ
25. 7 J
55.3 NJ
31300
2.1 SJ
20500
763
0.05 U
18.9
412B
0.44 UJ
0.98 B
557 B
0.66 U
109 NJ
50.6
SS-2
19-Aug-92
16100
4.2 UNJ
0.42 U
30.1 B
0.21 U
0.62 U
9630
25.8 NJ
I8J
40.3 NJ
22600
1.7J
13200
535
0.05 U
15.5
568 B
0.42 UJ
0.99 B
157 B
0.62 U
74.9 NJ
40.1
SS-3
19-Aug-92
23100
7.2 BNJ
1.7B
94.2
0.26U
0.77 U
56500
33.8 NJ
22.1 J
72.8 NJ
55400
12.2J
18700
886
0.06 U
19.2
7140
0.51 UJ
2.1 B
476 B
0.77U
88.3 NJ
258
SS-4
19-Aug-92
23000
6.5 BNJ
0.92 BWJ
39. 4 B
0.22 U
0.66 U
61100
25.1 NJ
20. 9 J
62.9 NJ
29800
9.1 J
19300
634
0.05 U
16.8
673 B
0.44 UJ
0.93 B
352 B
0.66 U
86 NJ
265
SS-5
19-Aug-92
17700
8.2 BNJ
3.5
97
0.22 U
0.66 U
35800
17.6 NJ
19.4 J
79.2 NJ
28100
149 SJ
13600
708
0.19
12.6
4170
0.44 UJ
2.8
349 B
0.66 U
78.8 NJ
216
SS-6
19-Aug-92
14300 J
7.4 BNJ
17. 3 J
89 J
0.23 UJ
0.68 UJ
59200 J
23.3 NJ
14 J
55.4 NJ
39500 J
14.4 J
9960 J
662 J
0.06 U
14.1 J
1910 J
0.46 UJ
1.6 BJ
340 BJ
0.68 UJ
71.3NJ
91.7J
SS-7
19-Aug-92
13800 J
6 BNJ
19.1 J
90.9 J
0.23 UJ
0.7 UJ
30700 J
18.8NJ
13. 8J
54.8 NJ
23 800 J
11.4J
9670 J
672 J
0.06 U
10.7 J
2070 J
0.47 UJ
0.93 UJ
251 BJ
0.7 UJ
73.1 NJ
97. 1J
SS-8
19-Aug-92
2 1500 J
14.7 BNJ
0.99 BJ
29.3 BJ
0.41 UJ
1.2UJ
144000 J
16.2 NJ
16.9 BJ
43.1NJ
25400 J
2.5 SJ
2 1400 J
888 J
0.05 U
12.9 BJ
325 BJ
0.41 UJ
1.7UJ
187 BJ
0.62 UJ
82.1NJ
43. 8 J
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [ppml).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
* 
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
E 
Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) interference present.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
N 
Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of controllimits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
Tin-
1905
. I I K . 
I N C
Page 1 of 4
Table 4-5. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analyte
Cyanide, Total
Sample ID: B-l
(4.0-8.0')
Date: 
30-JuI-92
0.57 U
B-2
(0-2.0')
3-Aug-92
1.1
B-3
(2.0-4.01)
3-Aug-92
0.58U
B-4
(8.0-
10.0')
9-Jun-92
0.59 U
B-5
(0-2. O1)
13-Aug-92
0.58 U
B-6
(4 .0-8.0")
30-Jul-92
0.56 U
B-7
(2.0-4.0')
31-Jul-92
0.52 U
B-8
(0-2.0')
12-Aug-92
0.58 U
B-8FR
(0-2.0-)
12-Aug-92
2.7
B-9
(2.0-6.0')
29-Jul-92
0.53 U
B-10
(6.0-8.0')
10-Aug-92
0.54 U
B-ll
(0-2.0')
10-Aug-92
0.58U
B-12
(6.0-8.0')
ll-Aug-92
0.57 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million (ppml).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-bast of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
U 
Compound or clement analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GHRACiHI Ti* 
Mil.I I K. l\<
Page 2 of 4
Table 4-5. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample ID: B-13 
B-13A B-14 
B-14 FR 
B-15 
B-16 MW-1 MW-1D MW-2 MW 2 FR 
MW-3 
MW-4 MW-4D
(4.0-6.01) 
(0-2.01) 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(0-2.0') 
(1.0-2.5') 
(0-2.01) 
(0-2.0') 
(0.4-2.0') 
(2.7-4.7') 
(8.7-
10.7')
Analyte 
D«te: 
10-Aug-92 
12-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92 
30-Iun-92 
5-Jun-92 
!3-Aug-92 
13-Aug-92 
10-Jun-92 
16-Jun-92 
4-Jun-92
Cyanide, Total 
0.56 U 
0.54 U 
0.58 U 
0.58 U 
0.75 
0.55 U 
0.88 0.57 U 
0.56 U 
0.57 U 
0.57 U 
0.65 
0.57 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [ppml).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset. New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
GHRACJin Y ^ M I I I I K . I N <
Page 3 of 4
Table 4-5. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analyte
Cyanide, Total
Sample ID: MW-5
(0-4.0')
Date: 
ll-Aug-92
0.53 U
MW-6
(0-2.0')
21-Jul-92
0.56U
MW-6D
(0-2.01)
6-Aug-92
0.54 U
MW-7
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
0.53 U
MW-7FR
(14.0-
16.0')
16-Jul-92
0.53 U
MW-8
(2.0-4.01)
20-Jul-92
0.55
MW-9
(0-4.0')
24-Jul-92
0.53 U
MW-10
(2.0-4.0')
4-Aug-92
0.59 U
MW-10D
(0-2.0')
4-Aug-92
0.54 U
MW-11D
(10.0-
11.0')
26-Jun-92
0.56 U
MW-12D
(4.0-6.0')
6-Jul-92
0.53 U
MW-13D
(4.0-6.01)
19-Jun-92
0.52 U
MW-14
(0-2.0')
l-Jul-92
0.56U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million |ppml)
Analyses were performed by Enseco-tast of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
••G
i* Mil I I K . I N (
Page 4 of 4
Table 4-5. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Soil Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample ID: SS-1 
SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 
SS-5 
SS-6 SS-7 SS-8
Analyte 
Date: 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92 
19-Aug-92
Cyanide. Total 
1.2 
0.52 U 
0.96 
0.57 U 
0.55 U 
0.57 U 
1.3 
1.1
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (parts per million [pptnl).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-Easl of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
G H R A G H I Y ^ M I I I I R.IN(
Table 4-6. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Potable-Water Samples Collected in June 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analyte
Sample ID: WAPA
Date: 
15-Jun-92
Chloromcthane
Bromotn ethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
1 , l-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans)
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroclhane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorohenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
tert-Butyl methyl ether
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
2J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
3J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
3 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
2J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
5 UJ
10 UJ
n-Propylbenzene
5UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 
protocols.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
TUT'
1910
CiHRACiHI V c ^ M I I I I R . l \ (
s
C-OD
n?o>
o n 3
IH
Ik
°8£
l£i
3 o-o.
O O e'
3 s-3
"2 ~
s*sr
£srr
So °
2 3
o*3^
-"5*3
c" 2
8 II
p
1-
8.S-
^ to
*•* 3
it
If
Is.
11
5'2
tlQ *»
If
5?
5"
IN
||
Analyte concei
Analyses were
"51
o'S'
13
8.5-
o~3
>< g.
o
5S
S3
o 3
mT
81?
^* *n
W^
1?
a ^
zS
2 a-
^ ^2
rt"S'
3 3f
*
1'^
TO2
3
3-
«
n
o3
I
"
g.
Q
30
^
TO5
^_^
O5
T33
0
O2.
(«"
I SigSB
-i g»sgi1
•< «l?s"3
IT — O'? 
N
g 3|2 3
8 US °
5 >i.i|'
al
5
— O-.OOO
£ ccccc
_ O—OOO
£ ccccc
_
_ °_ooo
£ £cccc
_ O—OOO
= ccccc
_ O—OOO
£ ccccc
_ O—OOO
C CCC
- 0-000
c ccccc
" o£ooo
£ £cccc
£ £cccc
£ o_ooo
£ ccccc
_ 0-000
£ C ccc
_ 0_000
= ccccc
_ O—OOO
£ c ccc
2-Hexanone
1,1,2,2-Tctrach
Tetrachloroethe
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
S|
n
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
cccec
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
1,1,2-Trichloro
Benzene
cis-l,3-Dichlon
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pen
i i §•
1 I 1
a
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
eccec
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
Bromodichlorol
1 ,2-Dichloropr<
trans- 1 ,3-Dichli
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloroi
1 flf
• 
| 
•
a
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroeth
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloro
Carbon tetrachl
l.g. i
*S "
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
. _
000°0
ccc£c
ooo°o
cccEc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ceece
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
Acetone
Carbon disulfid
1,1-Dichloroeth
1,1-Dichloroeth
1,2-Dichloroeth
3§3°
n o n
'n'Z
1
VI
ooooo
ccccc
ooo,_o
CCC C
ooooo
CCCCC
OOOu.0
ccc c
ooo,_o
ccc c
ooowo
ccc c
ooooo
ccc c
ooomo
ccc c
^
ooo,_o
ccc c
ooooo
ccccc
ooo,_o
ccc c
0000
cccce
ooo«_o
CCC 
OB
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethanc
Methylene chlo
?
ooooo
ccccc
C.OOOO
cccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
oo°oo
cc£cc
I^J
oo°oo
cc£cc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
_ 
_ -
~°0°0
E£C£C
«5»55
E£C£C
«5555
E£C£C
m5®55
2£c£c
r
IS
o
n
^
c"
9s
a
M
¥
^*
9
•a
Ch
c3
•a
**
^ 
—
c*
N>
hJ
£•
-b
9
I)
N>
«!•
•b
K>
i:
oi
i
1
•b
to
Nl
E
M
•b
yi
5"
5
23!
5 —
R-°-
os -n
ST S[
5" SJ
0031
* !L
OSTl
p S
23!
g.5;
23!
• a.
S3!
• o.
03 Tl
5"S;
g|
S3!
V €k
23!
B.=
S3!
•^2.
g
n"
P
s|
el
«»§'
<0
TO !x
S'£
S&.
3 
a
O-o
"1
3
o'n
o1i
M
3'
f
•n
5"E
CO
5"
3
(A
i.H
CO
3-
O
Ofi1
c3
O
J.
C
e
N^
S
to
g
Ii
o3
I
«'
§•
3
7
•8
7C>
O O 3
3SSL
r\ O.Ma ^
— 58.
io-S.
3 —5'
ilf
o*"ft *°m
0*30
o<" cr
£.rt|T
~ e>
aS:
is-
£§
3»O
rt 5£=1
to CL
18M
5 o
alF
3
<ra
3_
i™
Analyte concentrat
Analyses were per
o'er
a 3
2.3"
><"§•
S«
83
9 3
cn^
Si?
f» *n
O ETt
"*O
f|
a w
zlj
2 a;
E^j
X"o"
s3
fl> r--*
"""S-
s^^
5"
TO2
3
3"
3Sn
0
3i
o
£
CTo
o
I
3
O
r~3
133o
O
Vt
n-Propylbenzene
V*
C
IM
C
C
£
c
IM
C
c
c
£
£
u>
C
C
W
t_A
C
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
tert-Butyl methyl etl
o'"'
" S
S
0—000
C CCC
ocooo
C GCC
0—000
C CCC
—
°— OOO
£ CCC
^_
°— OOO
£cccc
^
°^!ooo
£ CCG
t .
® oo o
£cccc
_
^ OOO
£cccc
£cccc
_
£c?cc
® — OOO
£cccc
°)^ooo
£ ccc
, __
O — OOO
C CCC
2-Hexanone
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
a
3-
n
ooooo
CCCGC
OOOOO
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCG
ooooo
cccec
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroetha
Benzene
cis-l,3-Dichloropro
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentano
3 - ^ 3
3n
OOOOO
CCCCC
OOOOO
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CGCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CGCCC
ooooo
GGCCC
OOOOO
CCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
Bromodichlorometh
1 ,2-Dichloropropan
trans- 1 ,3-Dichlorop
Trichloroethene
Dibromochlorometh
S 3 n S
™ H "
a
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCGCG
ooooo
CCCCG
OOOOO
GCCCC
ooooo
CCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
GCGCC
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroetha
Carbon tetrachloridi
"g
oo°oo
cc£cc
ooooo
ccccc
••
oo°oo
cc£cc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
GCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
GCCCC
ooooo
GCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
•£•
^
i
V)
OOO»_°
ccc £
000^.0
CCC C
555^5
ccc £
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
GCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCGC
ooooo
ecccc
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
t_OOOO
cccc
— OOOO
SCCCG
^.oooo
CCCC
ooooo
CCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
GCCCC
ooooo
CCCCG
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
ooooo
ccccc
|
n
y 
y
- i
5
N* OOT1
>o 
••• s*
i 
f» O
^* p ~
7"S
9 Ss1
s" S-^
5
'
u> 
OB T1
r «rs;
g S-0"
10
w wn
^ 1 =
"?•o
to
* 23!
> g.S
w
to
o. aj
> g.S
g
9 *?
<H
S
— 091)
7" 5"S'
> 2.S.
S *
S
w
to
w 23!
i *
s
s
I ll
DO
S
3 23!
> S.S
C ^
OQ
Si
if i
3 
g
cr
n"
3, n
ii
el
««§
<0
E!
§ S"
^S1
Bno1
c3
Q.
M
g*
^
n
•n
5"
c£
DO
BT
g-
w
3
Q.
H
3.
"O
CD
BT
g-
W
O
o_
8
S.
i?3
c3
0
c
001
Hd
^0
i
8
I
S'
3
5*
2
f
5'
3
r
i
t
c
4
Analyte concentrations
Analyses were perform
B 
Analyte is detec
J 
Result is detecte
U 
Compound or e
iS=i 8.5-
3 -5' -3"!.
g =." 3<w
>=-j»s; o 3
S3? ?1
<? R 2^o
M I*
IWfi
0.3 
3 3
S. Q- 
S
8^ z§
J» ii
Z3 o"S'
o"S 
3 =
S 3 
•*?
3l s5
as. 5-^
"Sg 
m
3 3 
2
O-O 
M
5'S 
3
w S 
£.
11- i
3.= 
0
5' 
n
TO 
O
_ 
3
§' 
3
*' 
£
£
o3o
I
003
^^nr
1
o8
n-Propylbenzene
LA
£
LA
£
c
LA
C
LA
C
LA
C
LA
C
LA
C
LA
£
LA
£
LA
G
LA
£
LA
£
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes (total)
1,2-Dibromoethane (ED
tert-Butyl methyl ether
S
_
£cccc
_,
°_000
£ ccc
°_ooo
£cccc
O-OOO
C CCC
® oo o
£cccc
0—000
ccccc
0—000
c^ccc
°_OOO
£cccc
°_,ooo
£ ccc
O— OOO
c ccc
0— OOO
c ccc
0-000
c ccc
O— OOO
c ccc
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethai
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
3n
OOOOO
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloroprope
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
g
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooo°o
ccc£c
^
ooo°o
ccc£c
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
ceccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1 , l-Dichloroethene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/
I
CA
OOOOO
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
oooow
CCCC
ccc*"*"
oooo,_
cccc
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
cceec
ooooo
CCCCC
__
0000-
cccc=
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
ooooo
CCCCC
ooooo
CCCCC
oooow
cccc
ooooo
CCCCC
,_oooo
cccc
ooooo
CCCCC
_
oo°oo
cc£cc
,_oooo
cccc
ooooo
cccec
"^0505
£c£c
B0°®°®
-c^c
00505
££c£c
£0505
2£c£c
|
o
<r
-oi
9
VM
C
?
W
H^
LA
c"
3
S
"-
C3
10
WD
e3
•b
K>
S>
C3
S>
£
e
?
i
c_
>o
to
»—
£s
gEs
to
c
i
^
4^
1
(/>
1
5
H
5
H
3.
•a
S
g.j
a.
•o
09
g-
J!
n
BT
g.
H
•o'
co
i-
H
•i'
S
s
H
*o
•
S
•o
CD
1
5!
•o5
*
ff
3!
•aSI
M
a
1
H
•o2
g-
H
3.
•O
Table 4-7. 
Conccnl
Thomas
e|.
v>°<l
5'^
||
3S'n
o
11
M
5'
n"
•n
n'S
DO
i-
i.
13'
CO
1
vtn
o
3
ff
g>
3
c3
O
1
"-
S
H
Sy
3on
COi
3
S"1
»
5'
3
r
B
S
i
«
4
*MO
ft
<£
55
eo
•s
'•iu
e
c
_o
3
CO
81
CO3
S
gj
_
«*
a
60
3
O
UB3
•">
I
c:
"8
1
"oU
V}15
exE1
a
1
JS
OQ
•a
1
u
•S
.S
CA
C3s.
o
CJ
.a
Is
-si
U_ _lj
°>
gco
I3.
11
C O
•4u3
f2
•a
5
•g-
•a«
03
"I
•a
5
S
1
03
CL,
•cH
.M
S
Q.
H
•a•a
ffi£|
5
o.
•cH
•g
S
j5|
a.
•cH
M
5
H|
S
•B-
H
o
I
C/5
g.
3
i-
«
i
**i
*M
S!i
2
rs
9-i
_i^
<-i
=«<6
r4
1
<£>
S
00
3
*
r-4
00
m
<N
O-
_!,n
33
g.
3
3
1
O
a
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 32222 222 3 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo o
2223 33333 33323 33333 32222 33223 333 a 3
oooo"1 ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo o
rs
32222 22222 33332 33333 33333 33333 332 3 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 000*9
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 32333 333 3 3
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO*e
3222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 223 3 3 
.2
oooo"1 ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo-^o -1 
°
s.a.
oT
32222 22223 33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 3 
y
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO 0 
"
e
Ml
p
a.
33323 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 3 
t
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo o 
S
1
J5
0 
~
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 3 
E 
E
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O00~^0 ~^ 
C 
—
y 
S
£ 
§ S?
O\ 
.« Q.
- gST
33333 33333 33332 33333 33333 33333 333 3 3 
-= BM
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo o 
" gc
—————— —————— _ ——— —————— —— „_ 
————— - —— «_ ,n 
Ip
-I II
33333 -.3223 33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 3 
"8.- |g
OOOOO VOOOOO OOO00 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO^O 3 
J=0 -o
__________ 
________ 
__________ 
__________ 
__________ 
__________ 
__ 
__«-,__ 
«-, 
c jB 
jgj.
go 
c^
^o .2"S
3333a 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 
g.Z. ^g
OOOO 
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO O 3 
tn'B 
"5^
>S-P 
J^'^" c
s£ III
3233 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 332 3 3 
— ° J^S u."
oooo"' ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooojo J 
SM oC,o
*~~ 
""* 
^tu 
2 tiro
s§ •ioi*
S,s "^-S^3
-^ 
•- ~o*"
1 
g 
« 
1 
* 
»'8 -?l
I 
§. l»l i | 1 8 1 
ij U |
iiii! ilii .1 1 SIil i U ,1) i etlii i
IJljf ||||l JI||| ]|]|| 5.|i|f 
|
|
|
|
| l||i| | 
UCQ>Cj2 <y_ — _ U— rJ — U CO— iHQ — (2 oCB^- r4 — HH-U 
(2c/jX_S c 
« 
OQ-,3
<
Qi
t
a
U
illt
§
• 55
.1|
JC
g1
o
1
3
ri£
CT*
3
e*
3
O
Uc3
1
T30
85u
i
CD
3
"jj£
u
js
.5
-5c3
8.
EoO
.ac&
O
22
2
u
.•2o
"*•
c
li
g-S
Z~^
J
'ftO
tfcj
_>
S3
•S-
51
c o
US5
004
JS
.e
SJ
2"e5 5
£5 3t
a -a i
£2 s
s
a -a i
.8.2 o
U.BO 8
2
O*
a -8 1
** 
U5
U.GQ —
a -a i
E5 3
§
1.2 •?
U.CQ ~
e
*o "2 ^
11.2 3
U.CO S
5!
2*3 -3
£5 8
<M
c
^3 ^3 
^
—5 C 
"^
.SJ ^
gj
a -a 1
£i i
r*4
_w 
e
2c 3
.H — 
""*
ij™ 53
<N
c
"ojj 
•?
U.OQ 
•«
S
•a ^
!s J f
0
I I
SLi
TUT CO 5 1915
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3m33
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OinwiOO OrsOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 33
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OuivlOO O"^OO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OuiwiOO O — OO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3C033
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OuimOO OOOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3<o33
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OviinOO OnOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3->33
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OinviOO OfflOO
V)1
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 o
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OvntnOO OOOO 
0.
Siu.¥
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3>>33 
M
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ow>v>oo onoo 
£
£•
0
1
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 -S
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OvivnOO OOOO 
-2
a
.~§
1 
*
a 
^ 
.|
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3«33 C 
§§
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OutulOO O°,OO 
2 
g 8"
"~ 
•* 
5 «
£• 
5 c
i 8i
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3-->33 ^= 
-g §"
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OU1X1OO O OO 3"S 
a S
Q,^ 
C o
§1 
'*!
=•* 
is
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3g33 S| 
."-g
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OVOVOOO OfflOO SZ 
i- K
•SB 
•§«
«s 
§3
•£*! -| e'l =
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3^33 u«2 J-''SJ
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OvOvOOO O OO — 0 >,— cl
btt o^co
«*•• fi !H P'P
S § "«1 « >•
1 1,1 t 1 
. 
1 
1 If fill
1 114 1 1 Ml if 1 I sii siij siss |i II 1111
,1 1 fflrr till! lilt 1,111 !!!li I^ill ils Ss Ujl
If ill Hstr Ilii llffi Illai ilia aill lilt 11 HJI
SSjjS SSSSl ^JrJirir;, llll £. g g iOQ Q9Q*n BOQQQ |™ g | ^
o u c S g gggg"? SV.'ifsr!? WW-= 
••S.-S.A'tm •w«4_-4. .£>o44.vi .i."?3= cc
^•^•^UQQ nnCuffi^1 OQ4!Hiolo ^rsr^4U OOO-*-^ -• f^CrTQ <s O4<sr^r>I OiAU-U- ^C^ 600*^3
<
a:
Table 4-8. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 4
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophoronc
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroanilinc
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pcnlachlorophcnol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Field
Blank
4-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
26 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
Field
Blank
5-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
26 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
26 U
10 U
Field
Blank
9-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
16-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
19-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
26-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
30-Jun-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
l-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
6-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
!6-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Field
Blank
20-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
21-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
24-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or clement analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
GHRAGHITo* Mil.I I - K . I N (
rJ!
•-0
r
5
1i
e
.2
f
_c
e
.2
1
1
C/l
aa
r
2
ON
M
<
2
g
a
E
J.
•nJ!
Q
ao
U
1
.2
00
•o
1
LI
<-"
.5
sn
I
o
CJ
.H
1
O
J
1
UJ
'5
"1 •is
Sj2
•>'«>
l>
**•oco
I--
11
004
JU
H
S!
?
a -a 1
£5 
S5
2f>
a -8 5
.82 4
U.BO 
—
8?
a* <
8 JH m
CN
2f
2^ <
V • 
-\
U.CQ 
_
g.
a -a 1
Is =
«S
?
21* 5
.8.2 
6
U.CO 
_
^
OK
M
a -a i
« « 
7
i£oa *
^
CK
M
a -a 5
.82 2
_oa •*
(S
afl 1
O B 
7
iiffl 
m
r-t
2. 5
u « 
'
£5 £
°T
"""S 
5
izs S
S!
a -a i
1» « 
1
£M a
9
O
1 5
<S 
G
S
1
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 
3CQ33
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OUM/1OO 
OvOOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 30333
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO OviviOO 
Or-OO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 30B33
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OVMnOO 
OvnOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3CQ33
OOOOO 
OOOOO OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO OuiuiOO 
OOvOO
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OvxnOO 
OOOO
enI
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 
o
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OU1U1OO 
OOOO 
0.
a.
u
g
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3-,33 &
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
O<NOO 
£
e-o
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _ 
_ . . - . _ _ 
_ _ _ _
————— 
—————— 
—————— 
—————— 
_ ————— 
———— —— 
— <scs —— 
———— 
« 
^
I 
-i
c 
~
O 
Ml
U 
.£
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 30333 
8 
§ £
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
0«-imOO 
OVOOO 
-> 
'= g-
f 
5 M
** 
u C
1 
11
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 ^f 
-o g"
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OviulOO 
OOOO 
2Ta 
B t:
"Nr< 
£>, 
.§ 3
TS 
«>.£
1^ 
S3
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 log 
.«-o
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OvnulOO 
OOOO 
uZ 
"- 3
<2 S 
"2 u
tt £ 
§T>
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 u«^ J-''5J
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OOOOO 
OmwiOO 
OOOO 
^'o 
>.— c .
———— 
———— 
_ 
—— 
——— _ -^.s- 
——— s_. |^5|-
i*i s-sN
™ it 
"9 c y >,
II 5 III
S 
| S 
B 
o 
E^ -Sflg
IfsJ 
fllll liu. 4|£lJ Hl|f rffll HI 8! ill!
'o.'o.y S-S. £^£~2S5.§ ^ °5i5i5 
2 2 £ 2 g •Jga'S'S "5.y"5_E ^'S'S'c'c 
u M e c 
o^ «oscj
SS^ll 1111s "E^cicici. Illl^ JS"_99 9?9£9 |5<5QQ |^|s •I'-a
^ *C ^ U CD 
CD CD CD CO ^ 
CD ^ ^ ^ ^ 
^ rs fs ^" U u C^ O "^ "• 
~^f*> (s Cic^j 
£2 ^" r*4 r^i cs £^ fi LJL uu ^ ^ 
CD d*^ ^
3
Table 4-8. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractablc Organic Compounds in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 4 of 4
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopenladiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphcnol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroanilinc
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2 ,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Field
Blank
29-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
30-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
31-Jul-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
3-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
4-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
6-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
10-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
1 l-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
12-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Field
Blank
13-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Field
Blank
14-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
19-Aug-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
c
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in (he laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
(JHRAGH'I'Yi>MII I I R IV
••o
Page I of 2
Table 4-9. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Analyte
Sample ID:
Date:
Field
Blank
4-Jun-92
Field
Blank
5-Jun-92
Field
Blank
9-Jun-92
Field
Blank
19-Jun-92
Field
Blank
26-Jun-92
Field
Blank
30-Jun-92
Field
Blank
l-Jul-92
Field
Blank
6-Jul-92
Field
Blank
16-Jul-92
Field
Blank
20-Jul-92
Field
Blank
21-Iul-92
Field
Blank
24-Jul-92
Field
Blank
29-Jul-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
1.4 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per liter (parts per million IppmJ).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 418.1.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
GKRACiHHY-f Mil I I R. l\(
Page 2 of 2
Table 4-9. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Sample ID: Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank
Analyte 
Dale: 
30-Jul-92 
31-Jul-92 
3-Aug-92 
4-Aug-92 
6-Aug-92 
10-Aug-92 
ll-Aug-92 
12-Aug-92 
13-Aug-92 
14-Aug-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per liter (parts per million [ppm]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-tast of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 418.1.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
•-0
CJHRACiHTY^MII.I.I-K.INf
Table 4-10. 
Concentrations of Metals in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 1 of 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
Analyte concentrations in
Analyses were performed
Sample ID: Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank
Date: 
4-Jun-92 
5-Jun-92 
9-Jun-92 
16-Jun-92 
!9-Jun-92
35 U 
35 U 
149 B 
35 U 
35 U
13 U 
13 U 
13 U 
13 U 
13 U
2U 
2U 
2UWJ 
2U 
2U
1.3B 
1U 
I . 3 B IU 
1U
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U
135 B 
122 B 
68.3 B 
23 B 
19.7 B
3U 
4.9B 3U 
3U 
3U
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U
5.3B 
4 . 5 B 
3U 
3U 
3U
11 B 
17. 8 B 
165 
3U 
13.5 B
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 UWJ
32. IB 
42. 8 B 
518 B 
32 U 
32 U
1 U 
1 U 
1.9B 1 U 
1 U
0.1U 
0 . 1 U 0.1 U 
0.1 U 
0.1 U
9U 
9U 
9U 
9U 
9U
484 U 
652 B 
677 B 
484 U 
484 U
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U
397 B 
458 B 
297 B 
32 U 
32 U
3UW 
3UW 
3U 
3U 
3U
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
Field
Blank
26-Jun-92
35 U
13 U
2 U
I U
1 U
3U
8U
3U
3 U
3U
3U
1 U
32 U
1 U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2 U
3U
32 U
3 U
3U
4 U
Field
Blank
30-Jun-92
35 U
13 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
8U
3 U
3 U
3 U
3U
1 U
32 U
1 U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2 U
3U
32 U
3U
3 U
4 U
Laboratory Program (CLP)
Field
Blank
l-Jul-92
35 U
13 U
2 U
I U
1 U
3U
8U
3 U
3 U
3 U
3U
I U
32 U
1 U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2U
3U
32 U
3U
3 U
4 U
protocols.
Field
Blank
6-Jul-92
35 U
13 U
2U
I U
I U
3U
8U
3U
3U
3U
3U
I U
32 U
I U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2U
3U
32 U
3U
3U
4 U
Field
Blank
16-Iul-92
46.3 B
13 U
2U
1.3 B
1 U
3U
5I.8B
3U
3U
3U
36.4 B
1 U
I96B
I U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2UJ
3U
1350 U
3U
3U
4 U
Field
Blank
20-Jul-92
74. 4 B
IS. SB
2U
I U
1 U
3U
32. IB
3U
3U
3U
44.9 B
1 U
269 B
I U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2UJ
3U
1350U
3U
3U
4 U
Field
Blank
21-Jul-92
35 U
13 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
16.8 B
3U
3U
3U
3U
1 U
35.9 B
1 U
0.1 U
9U
484 U
2UJ
3U
1350 U
3 U
3 U
4 U
Field
Blank
24-Jul-92
35 U
13 U
2UJ
I U
1 U
3U
31.4B
3U
3 U
3U
14.4 B
I U
32 U
1 U
O.I U
9U
484 U
2UJ
3U
1350 U
3U
3U
4.2 B
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of controllimits.
SJ
KJ
GERAGHTY^MII.I.I R.IN(
Table 4-10. 
Concentrations of Metals in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 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
Analyte concentrations in
Analyses were performed
Sample ID: Field 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank 
Blank
Date: 
29-Jul-92 
30-Jul-92 
31-Jul-92 
3-Aug-92 
4-Aug-92
43.3 B 
64. 3 B 
39.8 B 
44 B 
32 U
20 U 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U 
3 U
82. IB 
43. 7 B 
33 B 
42.8 B 
54 B
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
38 B 
55.5 B 
16.4 B 
45. IB 
29.4 B
1 BJ 
1.1 BJ 
2.6 BJ 
1.7 BJ 
1 UJ
84.9 B 
166 B 
35 U 
107 B 
35 U
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
0.1U 
OIU 
0.1 U 
0 . 1 U 0 . 1 U
8U 
8U 
8U 
8U 
8U
560 U 
560 U 
560 U 
560 U 
560 U
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U 
2 U
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
900U 
900U 
900U 
900U 
132 B
3 UWJ 
3 UWJ 
3 UWJ 
3 UWJ 
3 UJ
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
2U 
2U 
2U 
2U 
7 . 7 B
micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
Field
Blank
6-Aug-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
54.9 B
4 U
4 U
5.9 B
7.5B
1.1 BJ
35 U
1 U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
97.9 B
3UJ
4 U
33
Field
Blank
10-Aug-92
32 U
20U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
55. 7 B
4 U
4 U
4.3 B
8.1 B
1 UJ
35 U
1U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
113 B
3 U
4 U
S B
Held
Blank
ll-Aug-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
38.8 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
12.8 B
1U
35 U
1.2B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2U
4 U
49.8 B
3U
4 U
54.9
Field
Blank
12-Aug-92
32 U
20 U
2U
1 U
1 U
3U
74.6 B
4 U
4 U
4U
9.6 B
1U
35 U
1U
O.IU
8U
560 U
2U
4U
1S2B
3U
4 U
5.4 B
Field
Blank
13-Aug-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
71.4B
4 U
4 U
4 U
7.7 B
1 U
35 U
1 IB
O.IU
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
183 B
3U
4 U
2.6 B
Field
Blank
14-Aug-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
73.2 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
9.5 B
1 U
35 U
L I B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
222 B
3U
4 U
2 U
Field
Blank
19-Aug-92
32 U
20U
2 U
1U
1 U
3 U
122 B
4 U
4 U
4. 36
29.2 B
1 U
51 B
2.1 B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
316B
3U
4 U
2 U
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
GERAGHTY^MIU.I R.IN(
Page 1 of 2
Table 4-11. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analyte
Sample ID:
Date:
Field
Blank
4-Jun-92
Field
Blank
5-Jun-92
Field
Blank
9-Jun-92
Field
Blank
16-Iun-92
Field
Blank
19-Jun-92
Field
Blank
26-Jun-92
Field
Blank
30-Iun-92
Field
Blank
l-Jul-92
Field
Blank
6-Jul-92
Field
Blank
16-Jul-92
Field
Blank
20-Jul-92
Field
Blank
21-Jul-92
Field
Blank
24-Jul-92
Cyanide, Total 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion Ippb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
GHRACiHTY^ Ml I.I.I R.IN(
Page 2 of 2
Table 4-11. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in the Field Blanks Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analyte
Simple ID:
Date:
Field
Blank
29-Jul-92
Field
Blank
30-lul-92
Field
Blank
31-Jul-92
Field
Blank
3-Aug-92
Field
Blank
4-Aug-92
Field
Blank
6-Aug-92
Field
Blank
10-Aug-92
Field
Blank
ll-Aug-92
Field
Blank
12-Aug-92
Field
Blink
!3-Aug-92
Field
Blank
14-Aug-92
Field
Blank
19-Aug-92
Cyanide, Total 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U 
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
•-0
(JERAGHTY^MII I I-.R.|NI(
Table 5-1. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Pagel of 3
Analyte
Sample ID: MW-1 
MW-1D MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-4D 
MW-5 MW-5 FR 
MW-6D 
MW-6R 
MW-7 MW-8 MW-9
Date: 
6-Oct-92 
2-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
7-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
29-Sep-92 
S-Ocl-92 
29-Sep-92 
7-Oct-92
Chloromelhane 
50 Uu
Bromomethane 
50 U
Vinyl chloride 
SO U
Chloroethane 
50 U
Methylene chloride 
50 UJ
Acetone 
50 U
Carbon disulfide 
50 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 
SOU
1 , 1-Dichloroethane 
SO U
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/lrons) 
1000
Chloroform 
6 J
1,2-Dichloroethane 
SOU
2- Butanone 
50 UJ
1,1,1-Trichloroethanc 
SOU
Carbon tetrachloride 
SO U
Bromodichloromethane 
50 U
1 ,2-Dichloropropane 
50 U
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene 
SO U
Trichloroethene 
190
Dibromochloromethane 
SO U
1 , 1 ,2-Tr ichloroethane 
50 U
Benzene 
50 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 
SOU
Bromoform 
50 UJ
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 
50 UJ
2- Hexanone 
50 UJ
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
50 U
Tetrachloroethene 
590
Toluene 
50 U
Chlorobenzene 
50 U
Ethylbenzene 
50 U
Styrene 
50 U
Xylenes (total) 
50 U
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 
25 U
tert-Butyl methyl ether 
50 U
n-Propylbenzene 
25 UJ
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
12 J 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 UJ
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
600 J 
26
10J 
1 J
R 
10 U
R 
10 UJ
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
4J 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
52 J 
3J
6J 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
8 J 
10 UJ
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
190 J 
15
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
10 U
R 
SU
R 
10 U
R 
5UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
E 
Concentration exceeds calibration range.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit
25 U
25 U
140
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 U
530 E
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
19 J
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 U
58
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
12 U
24 J
12 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
86
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
8J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
25
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
su
1.2J
5UJ
March 1990 Contract
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
150
1 J
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
11
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
44
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5UJ
500 Uu
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
1000
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
180 J
500 U
930
500 U
1600
250 U
6200
180J
Laboratory Program (CLP)
500 Uu
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
950
500 U
500 UJ
500 U
500 U
500 U
500 U
170 J
500 U
890
500 U
1500
250 U
6200
170 J
protocols.
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
12 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
5J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
21 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
31J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
18 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
5UJ
10 UJ
5UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
39
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
13
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U,
su
10 U
5UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
170
3J
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
29
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
110
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
su
5.8J
5UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
140
18
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
l^k
Liwr
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
^-40^UL
C_5§--'^
(Oil
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
51
5UJ
tou
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
26
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
19
10 U
2J
5U
2700 D
8J
and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit,
u 
All reporting limits raised due to high levels of target analytes.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
005
1925
r.PRAr.HT Y IX MM 1 1 U INf
Table 5-1. 
Cpncentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 3
Sample ID: MW-9 FR 
MW-9S 
MW-10
Analyte 
Date: 
7-Oct-92
Chloromethane 
10 U
Bromomethane 
10 U
Vinyl chloride 
10 U
Chlorocthanc 
10 U
Methylene chloride 
10 U
Acetone 
10 J
Carbon disulfide 
10 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 
10 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 
10 U
Chloroform 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichloroethane 
10 U
2-Butanone 
10 UJ
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 
1 0 U
Carbon tctrachloridc 
10 U
Bromodichloromethane 
10 U
1,2-Dichloropropane 
10 U
trans-l,3-Dich!oropropene 
10 U
Trichloroethene 
10 U
Dibromochloromethane 
10 U
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane 
10 U
Benzene 
28
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene 
10 U
Bromoform 
10 UJ
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 
10 UJ
2-Hexanone 
10 UJ
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
10 U
Tetrachloroethene 
10 U
Toluene 
10 U
Chlorobenzene 
10 U
Ethylbenzene 
24
Styrene 
10 U
Xylenes (total) 
3 J
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 
5U
tert-Butyl methyl ether 
2900 D
n-Propylbenzene 
13 J
7-Oct-92 
6-Ocl-92
10 U 
33 Uu
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
21 U
10 UJ 
45 J
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
IOJJ 
33 U
(2T> 
130
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
2 J 
33 UJ
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
29 J
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
16 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
10 UJ 
33 UJ
10 UJ 
33 UJ
10 UJ 
33 UJ
10 U 
33 U
10 U 
25 J
2J 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
5J 
33 U
10 U 
33 U
2J 
33U
SU 
16 U
2200 D 
660
12 J 
16 UJ
MW-10D
6-Oct-92
50 Uu
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
50 UJ
SOU
SOU
^SQWv
Qwp
sou
sou
50 UJ
sou
sou
sou
sou
^50*1
vis/)
5W
sou
sou
sou
50 UJ
50 UJ
50 UJ
sou
40 J
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
25 U
780
25 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
E 
Concentration exceeds calibration ranee.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
MW-11D
2-Oct-92
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
12 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
8J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
20 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
36 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
29 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
5UJ
10 UJ
5UJ
Contract
MW-12D
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
11 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2J
16
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
30
10 U
10 U
10 U
55
10 U
10 U
10 U
44 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
S U
11
5UJ
MW-13D
6-Ocl-92
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 UJ
56 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
12 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
7J
1 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
SU
10 U
5UJ
Laboratory Program (CLP)
MW-14
l-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
17
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
3J
10 U
10 U
44
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
S U
protocols.
ESSO-TAP
7-Oct-92
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Field
Blank
29-Sep-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4BJ
6J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U,
SU
10 U
5UJ
Field
Blank
30-Sep-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4BJ
8J
3J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
10 U
5UJ
Field
Blank
l-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2BJ
7BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
S U
Field
Blank
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
SBJ
6BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
S U
10 U
5UJ
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit,
u 
All reporting limits raised due to high levels of target analytes.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
005
1926
r,FRAf'iHT'Yc* Mil 1 I-'R INK
Table 5-1. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Page 3 of 3
Sample ID: Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank
Analyte 
Date: 
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
Chloromethane 
10 U
Bromomethane 
10 U
Vinyl chloride 
10 UJ
Chloroethane 
10 U
Melhylene chloride 
1 J
Acetone 
10 UJ
Carbon disulfide 
10 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 
10 U
1,1-Dichlorocthane 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 
10 U
Chloroform 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichlorocthanc 
10 U
2-Butanone 
10 UJ
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 
10 U
Carbon tetrachloride 
10 U
Bromodichloromethane 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichloropropane 
10 U
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene 
1 0 U
Trichloroethenc 
10 U
Dibromochloromethane 
10 U
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroelhanc 
1 0 U
Benzene 
10 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 
10 U
Bromoform 
10 UJ
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 
10 UJ
2-Hexanone 
10 UJ
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
10 U
Tetrachloroethene 
10 U
Toluene 
10 U
Chlorobenzene 
10 U
Ethylbenzene 
10 U
Styrenc 
10 U
Xylcnes (total) 
10 U
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 
5 U
tert- Butyl methyl ether 
10 U
n-Propylbcnzene 
5 UJ
R
R
R
R
SBJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Trip Blank
29-Sep-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3BJ
7J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
10 U
5UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
E 
Concentration exceeds calibration range.
Trip Blank
30-Sep-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4BJ
7J
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5UJ
March 1990
Trip Blank 
Trip Blank 
Trip Blank
l-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 BJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5 U
Contract
2-Oct-92 
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2BJ
9BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5UJ
Laboratory
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4BJ
6BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
10 U
5UJ
Program (CLP)
Trip Blank
6-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
1 J
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5UJ
protocols.
Trip Blank
7-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4BJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5UJ 
c
o
rJ!
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. 
' ,,
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not
u 
All reporting limits raised due to high levels
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
detected at the corresponding reporting limit,
of target analytes.
r-.j
r.PRAr.HTY fr Mil 1 \'-\t INir
«
"o
&
£
e
.23
.1£
33
H
gj
S|
S§
•oS
1
i.
8*
.s
*v^5
oU
8o.
i
is
1
~g
io
.s
M
•oc
1
CL,
OUu
'£
O
Jg
1 .
S "2
*li
S3
'|!s
^. 60
!>
•gwi
33
o -
2S
Jj=
,^ H
•2g
S-S
Concentr
Investiga
ts
1
H
(M
I I
& 
SI
•*• 
W<
£ s
1 9
N
i i^
en 
"£
> 
<£
i a
3 5.
i 
v)
i £
u« 
^
2 X
1 -
5 
X
1 -
t 3
S 
"•>
r-i
I *
i 3
(S
&.
*? 
u
^ 
*"
s £
S!
r-j 
Q>
I 
W
> 
V)
1 
d=
0 ?
~ 
S
? 
<N
OK
£ s
s *
Q
VI I
£
I
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OmmOO o
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ovn^oo o
- 
rJ
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo Ooooo ooooo ojq^oo 0
- 
r) 
-
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OfimOO "^
33333 33333 33333 3 33 33333 33 3 3 33 3
OOOOO OOOOO 0OOOQ Q£Ofi£OO OOOOO OOfi£OQ£ OQfflgOO Q
™" 
"^ 
—
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo oooo"^ o>n>noo o
™" 
" — " 
"^
uo
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 33333 3 £
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO"^ OjqjqOO o 
O.
- 
£•
UT
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3^33 3 ec
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ""'«-i>/.oo o 
£
t-o
o
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 -9
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OvnvnOO o 
-J
^ 
"1
1 
M
u 
..s
33333 33333 33333 33333 333 3 33333 33333 3 8 
go
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo^o ooooo ojnjqoo o 
2 
'58"
•g 
e «>
a 
o c
1 
=1
« 
3|
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 ^.S 
"g g
OOOOO OOOOO ,,OOO0 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OmmOO 0 IFa 
« ^
—————— —————— _ ——— _ —————— —————— ——— _ -^ 
- - g^ 
go
j> 
TB **
• 2 S3 
c *^ wi
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 '£ £ -S^B
ooooo ooooo Ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo o«n«noo 0 Sz 
saS
D," 
• -Si
i "s *'^ c 3
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 o^ S-^J >
ooooo ooooo Qoooo ooooo ooooo ooooo om<noo 0 — o >.— c .u
IA Ill's S
a u •§ c u >,o
|,s iifll
1 
§ 1 _ 1 
1 
1^ -
sslll
S 111 I | |tf li 1 1 Jl|| ll= 1 at... i H l
•J 1 l|Ii! yi! flit !§Ul lllli Hi! I |l Sl|
55 c o § ccjc'&Q. N § 6 o o "? c 'o.'o. 
J='S~££ ^2 — ^^ 
^E £ £ £ — oJ 11 "" § &
'o.'o.Jj'sS £^Mj| J 2ggg ££2£c .S.'of'-g-g -g-SJ-g^"! ^'c'c'c'c §" ou «otuot
gg||l §§§i| ||§§§ SSSgi* JlllS 4§?IS 1555S ? ft
<«Ua5 (Dlfiiam4 (&4!c3!o 4<sri4U QQQ — — — n'rs'Qcs O^-'rin'ri Q « 
CDQ^D_
^.
>
H
w
Q£
O
o
, I
Table 5-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 6
Sample ID:
Analyte 
Date:
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocy clopentad iene
Hexachlorocthane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Melhylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2 ,4 ,6-Tr ichlorophenol
MW-1
6-Ocl-92
30 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-1D
2-Oct-92
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-2
30-Sep-92
11 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-3
30-Sep-92
18 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
tou
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-4
30-Sep-92
56 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-4D
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-S
l-Ocl-92
22 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
130 D
10 U
3J
310 D
25U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-5FR
l-Oct-92
22 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
HOD
10 U
3J
230 D
25 U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-6D
30-Sep-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
R
R
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
R
R
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
R
10 U
10 U
R
R
MW-6R
29-Sep-92
64U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-7
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-7FR
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
MW-8
29-S«p-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration..
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
t 
Reporting limit raised due to sample volume limitations.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GKRAGHTY^MII.I
-o
3
3
1
>*9
e
.S1
3
S"
—
jj
I
1
CO
.S|
ts1
oU
"3.
1
1i
io
.s
(A
•oc
1
0
O
'Eaoo
1
o
5-S
"1
<•-
!>
is
zg"
CQ ~
oi 2
mH
e .
o c
Table 5-2. 
Concentrati
Investigatio
3 -a
V •
£5
2 c
£5
."5.S
s -a
.SJ5
U.O3
0.
ia
ats
0
fn^
S
Q2
i
Q~
jj
S
Q0
>
S
o
3e
<S
S
»
5
Q
JO
1
a
o>
X
">
s
X-
?
I
J
<M
1
""
|
gj
i
a
Ov
Q
Si
„
1
OSJ,
<?
s
9>
I
I2
i
!
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OW1W1OO O
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo Ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo omvioo 0
• — 
— 
~™
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OvqjnOO o
W4 
—— 
——
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo Ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo o>nvnoo o
53333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3
33333 33333 33333 33333 3 333 33333 33333 3
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo o"*ooo ooooo omuioo o
"" 
""* 
* 
~~
«i
o
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 o
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo omtnoo o 
D.
— - 5
U
I
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 &
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ow-i^oo o 
S
_____ 
_____ 
_____ 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ —JS^,. 
_ 
g^
t-
1
22:2:22 22222 22222 2 22 22222 222 
2 222 
J
ooooo ooooo ooooo QfioB-oo ooooo ooO^od- oC"-o(«oo o
y
k.ca
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 8
ooooo ooooo Ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo OUTOOO 0 &
.cU
la2
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 ^.S?
OOOOO OOOOO ,,0000 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO 0«n>nOO 0 S"S
"c"S
S"^
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 !o g
OOOOO OOOOO —OOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OmmOO Q uZ
• s
33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 o«« -g
ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo OT/IOO o — o >,
~" 
~" 
O to o
i° 
|
ha U^ 
•*"
k. 
U 
L 
^\ 
'S >% 
C
i Hi 1 1 Ml i| t | s§§ il, i .}... s il
a
Itgoi is-SCS. Si°°» «? !•§.•§.,, ^^J= 5|S£| f-SSS2 ^ §J 1
ffjH nfs| Ijsse mil t||«.-s .1^111 
f Ss <
K K ^~ ^ ^ 
N N N N t* a^2c4C"J M 
f «C <C J3 >•* O O e^^^r 
. ' ^T ^5^^ 
S ^"^ ^^ UJLJ 
' ._ —
88cSS Sgggffl i^^rs^ uuuu^ ££.5<NfA 4^4.«4 .§N644vi .5 gg
^ <I -^ U ttj nfflnffl^ ffl^rlclolc ^r^rs^U Q Q Q — — — m rIO r^T Q ^r <N <N rl O <!<! CQ
Table 5-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractablc Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 4 of 6
Simple ID:
Anilyte 
Dale:
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha]ate
Fluoramhene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Mcthy (naphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophcnol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
MW-9
7-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
5J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
3J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-9S
7-Oct-92
13 U
10 U
9J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-10
6-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-10D
6-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-11D
2-Ocl-92
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
R
R
10 UJ
25 UJ
25 UJ
25 UJ
10 UJ
R
R
10 UJ
10 UJ
R
10 UJ
R
10 UJ
10 UJ
R
R
MW-12D
5-Oct-92
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-13D
6-Oct-92
23 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
tou
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
MW-14
l-Oct-92
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
ESSO-TAP
7-Oct-92
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 UJ
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
36 U
36 U
36 U
14 U
14 U
36 UJ
14 U
14 U
36 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
36 U
14 U
Field
Blink
29-Sep-92
50 BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
25 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Field
Blink
30-Sep-92
17 J
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
Field
Blink
l-Oct-92
15 J
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Field
Blank
5-Oct-92
16
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit,
t 
Reporting limit raised due to sample volume limitations.
Result rejected.
K 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GERAGHTYPMII.I.IR. INC
en
Table 5-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, 
Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. 
Virgin Islands.
Page 5 of 6
Sample ID: Field
Blink
Field
Blank
Analyte
Date:
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
4-Bromopnenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
4-Chloroaniline
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroelhyl)cthcr
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophcnyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibcnzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,2-Dichlorobcnzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotolucne
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U 
-:
10 U 
C
Di-n-octyl phthalate
10 U
10 U
H
Analyte concentrations in microgramsper liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 
protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, 
but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
t 
Reporting limit raised due to sample volume limitations.
R 
Result reiected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GERAGH'm*MII.I.I-.K.IN<
Table 5-2. 
Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 6 of 6
Sample ID: Field
Blank
Field
Blank
Analyte
Dale:
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobuudiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalcnc
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophcnol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2 ,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
16
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
41
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
-t
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
t 
Reporting limit raised due to sample volume limitations.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
•-U
GHRAGH1 Y<*MII I I-.K.INC
Page 1 of 3
Table 5-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, 
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
________U.S. Virgin Islands._________'___________________ __________ _______________________________ ____________________
Sample ID: MW-1 
MW-1D MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-4D 
MW-5 MW-5 
FR 
MW-6D 
MW-6R 
MW-7 MW-7 
FR 
MW-8
Aiulyte 
Dale: 
6-Oct-92 
2-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
5-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
29-Sep-92 
5-Oct-92 
5-Oct-92 
29-Sep-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
4.2J 2.2 J 
0.5 U 
0.7 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per liter (parts per million (ppm)).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 418.1.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
-f
I—•
-f!
GERAGHTY^MII I.I-R.INC
Page 2 of 3
Table 5-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
________U.S. Virgin Islands._________'______________________________*"______________________________~_______________________
Sample ID: MW-9 
MW-9S 
MW-10 
MW-10D 
MW-11D 
MW-12D 
MW-13D 
MW-14 
ESSO-TAP 
Field 
Field 
Field 
Field
Blank 
Blink 
Blink 
Blank
Analyte 
Dale: 
7-Ocl-92 
7-Ocl-92 
6-Ocl-92 
6-Oct-92 
2-Ocl-92 
5-Oct-92 
6-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
7-Ocl-92 
29-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
l-Oct-92 
5-Oct-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
1.7 
21 D 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U 
0.5 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per liter (parts per million Ipprn))
Analyses were performed by tnseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 418.1.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
•-0
(JERACJIM VPMII.I 1 H.INr
Page 3 of 3
Table 5-3. 
Concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample ID: Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank
Analyte 
Dale: 
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
0.5 U 
0.5 U
Analyte concentrations in milligrams per liter (parts per million Ippm]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 418.1.
D 
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or clement analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GHRAGHTY^MIU I R . I N (
Table 5-4. 
Concentrations of Total Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 1 of 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
Sample ID: MW-1
Date: 
6-Ocl-92
20100
20 U
2 U
42 B
1 U
3 D
100000
12. 7 U
14. SB
34.7
19300
8.5 J
36400
563
0.1 U
13 B
1910 B
2.2BJ
4 U
196000 J
3UJ
93.1 J
37.7 J
MW-1D
2-Oct-92
19500 J
20 UJ
2UJ
20.8 BJ
1 UJ
3UJ
38800 J
23.4 J
14.6BJ
35. 8 J
22000 J
5.9 J
I3700J
423 J
0.1 UJ
10.3 BJ
13900 J
2UJ
4UJ
506000 J
3UJ
64 8 J
44. 8 J
MW-2
30-Sep-92
2440
20 U
2UW
132 B
1 U
3U
53900
4.1 B
4.8B
16.4 B
2730
1 UW
35500
85.4
0.1 U
21. 2B
3900 B
3.3B
4 U
226000
3U
36. SB
16. 2 B
MW-3
30-Sep-92
3600
20 U
2UW
43. 3 B
1 U
3 U
56900
17.8
5. SB
16.8 B
5050
1.8BJ
32500
1560
0.1 U
8.7B
1710 B
2 U
4 U
216000
3 U
36.2 B
19 B
MW-4
30-Sep-92
6790
20 U
2UW
61. SB
1 U
3U
44700
19
10.2 B
28
10700
2.4 BJ
36500
1020
0.1 U
15.2 B
2810 B
2.6 B
4 U
256000
3UJ
64.9
27
MW-4D
S-Oct-92
52.9 B
20 U
2 U
7 B
1 U
3U
45000
4 U
4 U
7.1 B
89.8 B
2.3B
36900
38.9 J
0.1 U
8U
1840 B
2 U
4 U
228000 J
6U
38.8 B
62.4 J
MW-5
t-Ocl-92
1490
20 U
3.9 B
167 B
1 U
3U
40100
15.7
6.9 B
9.2 B
2280
1 U
21700
407
0.1 U
54.3
9310
2 U
4 U
214000
3U
6.4 B
26.1 J
MW-5FR
l-Oct-92
1140
20U
4 B
167 B
1 U
3 U
40100 J
12.5
6.5 B
10.9 B
1910
1 U
21400
406
0.1 U
49
8970
2 U
4 U
213000
3 U
4.9 B
26.4 J
MW-6D
30-Sep-92
61.9B
20 U
2UW
2.3 B
1U
3U
6870
208
4 U
4 U
411
1UW
1870 B
9.3 B
0.1 U
62
783 B
2U
4 U
15600
3U
4 U
22.8
MW-6R
29-Sep-92
16600
20 U
2UW
HOB
1U
3U
64600
22.5
12.3 B
56.4
21400
4.7 S
41700
314
0.1 U
17. IB
3540 B
3.5BJ
4 U
229000
3UJ
110
47
MW-7
S-Ocl-92
3640
20 U
2U
18. 8 B
1 B
3U
49200
12.7
5. IB
19.9 B
5120
1U
30300
120 J
0.1 U
8U
21100
2UW
4 U
199000 J
3U
103
16 B
MW-7FR
5-Oct-92
4000
20U
2U
16.56
1 U
3U
51700
10.4
4.8 B
14.4 B
5470
1U
30500
132 J
0.1 U
8U
22100
2 U
4 U
201000 J
3U
106
17 B
MW-8
29-Sep-92
973
20 U
2UW
72.6 B
1 U
3 U
47500
11
4 U
10.2 B
1370
1 UW
35000
81.4
0.1U
25. 2 B
13800
2 U
4 U
226000
3UJ
42 B
7.8 B
Analyte concentrations in microgramsiper liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B
J
S
Uw
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
Compound or clement analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
K 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
1937
G K R A G M I Y ^ M I I . M K . I N (
Table 5-4. 
Concentrations of Total Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 3
Sample ID: MW-9 
MW-9S 
MW-10 MW-10D 
MW-11D
Analyte 
Dale: 
7-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92 
6-Oct-92 
6-Oct-92 
2-Oct-92
Aluminum 
17000 
13200 
17300 
164 B 
169 B
Antimony 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U
Arsenic 
9.2 J 
R 
5.5 B 
2U 
2U
Barium 
419 
383 
482 
6B 
5. IB
Beryllium 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
Cadmium 
3U 
3U 
3U 
3U 
3U
Calcium 
87400 
68600 
46600 
44600 
7330
Chromium 
22 U 
39.8 U 
19.1 
4.2 B 
95.1
Cobalt 
21.4 B 
17.4 B 
20.2 B 
4U 
4U
Copper 
50. 7 J 
46 J 
56.9 4U 
8.5 B
Iron 
25700 
17300 
22800 
281 
461
Lead 
8.3 J 
21. 2J 
7.6J 
1 UJ 
3.2
Magnesium 
44600 
37500 
28200 
33600 
1130B
Manganese 
2580 
1700 1450 156 
5.8 B
Mercury 
0 1 U 
0. 1 U 
0. 1 U 
0. 1 U 
0. 1 U
Nickel 
19. 2 B 
61.8 18. IB 
8U 
10.7 B
Potassium 
4200 B 
3790 B 
9060 J 
11000J 
1280 B
Selenium 
2UJ 
2UJ 
2U 
2U 
2U
Silver 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
Sodium 
234000 
237000 
200000 
229000 
1I300J
Thallium 
3U 
3U 
3UJ 
3UJ 
3U
Vanadium 
84.1 65.1 
66.9 J 
69.7 J 
4U
Zinc 
97 
105 
88.5 J 
6.7 B 
19.3 B
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
MW-12D
5-Oct-92
258
20 U
2U
6B
1U
3 U
9760
63.7
4 U
20.7 B
643
4.7
1950 B
12.6 B
0.1 U
10.4 B
1280 B
2UW
4 U
16200J
3U
4 U
35 J
MW-13D
6-Oct-92
2690
20 U
2 U
138 B
1 U
3U
126000
71.7
4 U
12.9 B
674
124 J
654 B
15.8
0.1 U
8U
50300 J
2 U
4 U
215000
3UJ
12. 3 B
18.6 B
Laboratory Program (CLP)
MW-14
l-Oct-92
5280
20 U
2UW
123 B
1 U
3 U
89800
13.9
7.3 B
20.3 B
7160
1.8B
42300
2480
O.I U
14.6 B
1300 B
2UJ
4 U
131000
3U
21 B
34 .9 J
protocols.
ESSO-TAP
7-Oct-92
443 U
20 U
2U
17 B
1U
3 U
8470
4 U
4 U
6.5 B
371 U
1UJ
1040 B
5.6 B
0.1U
8U
914 B
2U
4 U
4920 B
3U
4 B
22.4
Field
Blank
29-Sep-92
84.2 B
20 U
2UW
1.1 B
1U
3U
130 B
4 U
4 U
6.1 B
73.7 B
1UW
257 B
I B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2U
4 U
571 B
3U
4 U
2 U
Field
Blank
30-S«p-92
82.5 B
20 U
2UW
1 U
1 U
3U
131 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
66.26
1UW
240 B
I B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
498 B
3U
4 U
3.4 B
Field
Blank
l-Oct-92
86.3 B
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
146 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
71.7 B
1 U
125 B
1 U
O.I U
8U
560 V
2 U
4 U
752 B
3U
4 U
6B
Field
Blank
5-Oct-92
46. SB
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
109 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
54.1 B
( . I B
117B
1 U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
900 U
3U
4 U
3.3 B
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of controllimits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
!"UT
CO 5
1938
GERAGMTYc^MII I I R . I N (
Table 5-4. 
Concentrations of Total Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 3 of 3
Analyte
Sample ID: Field
Blank
Field
Blank
Date:
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
77.1 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
9.5 B
1 UJ
39. 3 B
1.1 B
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
799 B
3 U
4 U
2.3 B
776
20 U
2 U
15.8 B
1 U
3U
HOB
16.2
4 U
4 U
820
1 UJ
1320 B
9.7 B
0.1 U
8U
738 B
2 U
4 U
523 B
3U
5.2B
4.4 B
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MS A).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
GO 5 
197; 9
GF,RAGHTY^MII.I.i:R.IN(
Table S-S. 
Concentrations of Dissolved Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 1 of 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
Sample ID: MW-1
Date: 
6-Oct-92
32 U
20 U
2UW
114 B
1 U
3U
60400
4 U
4 U
4 U
15.7 B
1 U
28600
42.7
0.1 U
8U
1570 B
2 U
4 U
21 9000 J
3UW
48.3 B
32
MW-1D
2-Oct-92
230
20 U
2U
123 B
1U
3U
11600
4 U
4 U
4 U
27.1 B
1 U
2450 B
2.8B
0.1 U
8U
14400
2 U
4 U
164000
3UJ
9.1 B
6B
MW-2
30-Sep-92
33. 4 B
20 U
2 U
123 B
1 U
3 U
53800
4 U
4 U
4 U
30.6 B
1 U
36800
40
0.1 U
23.3 B
3270 B
2 U
4 U
241000
3UJ
32.9 B
10.1 B
MW-3
30-Sep-92
71.7 B
20 U
2 U
36.9 B
1 U
3 U
57100
4 U
4 U
4 U
55. 6 B
1 U
32500
1490
0.1 U
8U
1130B
2UJ
4 U
233000
3UJ
23. 8 B
12 B
MW-4
30-Sep-92
36.5 B
20 U
2 U
56.2 B
1 U
3U
44000
4 U
4 U
4 U
21.6B
1 U
34000
650
0.1 U
8U
2200 B
2U
4 U
267000
3UJ
33. 7 B
8.7B
MW-4D
5-Oct-92
90 B
20 U
2UW
7.6 B
1 U
3U
45700
4 U
4U
4 U
39.8 B
2.4 B
38800
45. 8 J
0.1 U
8U
2250 B
2.3 B
4U
242000
3U
40.6 B
67.5
MW-5
l-Oct-92
34.9 B
20 U
3.9 B
172 B
1 U
3U
40300
4 U
4 U
4 U
278
1 U
21600
373
0.1 U
39.7 B
9850
2U
4 U
233000
3UJ
4 U
7.5 B
MW-5FR
l-Oct-92
36. IB
24. 8 B
3.9 B
162 B
1 U
3U
39500 J
4 U
5.4 B
4 U
278
1 U
23200
383
0.1U
48.8
9380
2 U
4 U
236000
3UJ
4 U
5.6 B
MW-6D
30-Sep-92
58 B
20U
2U
2.4 B
1 U
3 U
7090
195
4 U
4 U
26.8 B
1U
1910 B
1U
0.1 U
54.1
560 U
3.2 B
4U
16100
3U
4 U
4.8 B
MW-6R
29-Sep-92
57.8 B
20 U
2U
95.3 B
1 U
3 U
48700
4 U
4U
4 U
53. IB
1U
32700
43.2
0.1 U
8U
3220 B
10 U
4U
247000
3UJ
42.8 B
10. IB
MW-7
5-Oct-92
32 U
20.1 B
2UW
4. SB
1 U
3U
41200
4 U
4 U
4 U
7U
1 U
28600
1.2 B
0.1 U
8U
20100
2.1 B
4U
209000
3UW
96.8
3.9 B
MW-7FR
5-Ocl-92
32 U
20U
2UW
7.4 B
1 U
3U
41100
4 U
4 U
4 U
10.SB
1U
28700
2B
0.1 U
8U
22400
2 U
4U
211000
3U
99.2
7.4 B
MW-g
29-Sep-92
46.8 B
20 U
2U
72.6 B
1 U
3 U
50200
4 U
4 U
4.1 B
28.5 B
1 U
34900
45.6
0.1 U
18 B
13100
2 U
4 U
236000
3UJ
42.1 B
4.3B
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
R 
Result rejected.
PR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
"UT
O05 
194O
GHRAGHTY^MII.I I R. IN(
Table S-S. 
Concentrations of Dissolved Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 3
Sample ID: MW-9 
MW-9S 
MW-10 MW-10D 
MW-11D
Aiulyte 
Dale: 
7-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92 
6-Ocl-92 
6-Oct-92 
2-Ocl-92
Aluminum 
95. 6 B 
32 U 
67.9 B 
32 U 
94.96
Antimony 
20 U 
21 B 
20 U 
20 U 
20 U
Arsenic 
11 J 
R 
7.4 BJ 
2 UW 
2U
Barium 
408 
365 
472 
S.3 B 
4.3 B
Beryllium 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U 
1 U
Cadmium 
3U 
3U 
3U 
3U 
3U
Calcium 
67100 
60900 
43700 
45000 
6950
Chromium 
4U 
4U 
4U 
4U 
79.4
Cobalt 
4U 
4U 
4.3B 4U 
4U
Copper 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
Iron 
97 B 
27.2 B 
59.1 B 
7U 
28.7 B
Lead 
I . 6 B 
1.3 B 
1U 
1U 
1U
Magnesium 
32700 
28400 
22400 
34300 
1090 B
Manganese 
1760 
1350 1000 143 
1 U
Mercury 
O . I U 0 . 1 U 0 . 1 U 0.1 U 
0 . 1 U
Nickel 
8U 
15.2 B 
8U 
8U 
8U
Potassium 
3730 B 
3240 B 
8490 
10900 
1420 B
Selenium 
2U 
2U 
2U 
2U 
2.2BJ
Silver 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U 
4 U
Sodium 
238000 
244000 
214000 
235000 
12200
Thallium 
3 U 
3 UW 
3 UW 
3 UJ 
3 U
Vanadium 
25. IB 
15.9 B 
21.9B 72.1 
4U
Zinc 
28.9 J 
20. IJ 
55.8 
12.5 B 
4.3 B
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion Ippb]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract
MW-12D
5-Oct-92
138 B
20 U
2UW
4.9 B
1 U
3 U
8870
49 J
4 U
4 U
27.7 B
1U
1930 B
1.5B
0.1 U
8U
1470 B
2 U
4 U
17700
3U
4 U
5.8B
MW-13D
6-Oct-92
2180
20 U
2U
121 B
1 U
3 U
105000
66.8
4 U
7.2B
12 B
81.5 S
35 U
1.1 B
0.1 U
8U
52800
2 U
4 U
236000
3UJ
10.9 B
7.2 B
Laboratory Program (CLP)
MW-14
l-Oct-92
42 B
20 U
2U
114 B
1U
3U
88200
4 U
5.4 B
4 U
857
1 U
41800
2470
0.1 U
8U
1440 B
2UJ
4 U
139000
3UJ
4.7B
15.86
protocols.
ESSO-TAP
7-Oct-92
75.26
20U
2UW
9.56
1 U
3 U
8760
4 U
4 U
5.5 B
7U
1 U
4386
2.36
0.1 U
8U
9096
2 U
4 U
5620
3UW
4 U
16.46
Field
Blank
29-Sep-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
46.1 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
14.9 B
1 U
44.38
1 U
O.I U
8U
560 U
2U
4 U
3798
3U
4 U
2 U
Field
Blink
30-Sep-92
32 U
20 U
2U
1 U
1U
3U
73.78
4U
4 U
4 U
12.66
1 U
57.68
1U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2UW
4 U
391 8
3U
4 U
2U
Field
Blink
l-Oct-92
32 U
20 U
2U
1 U
1 U
3U
75.86
4 U
4 U
4 U
20.46
1 U
86.66
1 U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
4506
3U
4 U
2.1 6
Field
Blink
5-Oct-92
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
73.86
4 U
4 U
4 U
10.96
1U
35 U
1 U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
900 U
3 U
4 U
3.76
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
K 
Kesult rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
1941
(JHRACiH'l V ^ M I I . I I R . I N (
Table S-S. 
Concentrations of Dissolved Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Page 3 of 3
Aiulyte
Sample ID: Field
Blank
Field
Blank
Date:
6-Ocl-92 
7-Oct-92
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
32 U
20U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3U
84.9 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
10.9 B
1 U
35 U
1 U
0.1 U
8 U
560 U
2 U
4 U
65.1 B
3 U
4 U
3.1 B
32 U
20 U
2 U
1 U
1 U
3 U
67. 7 B
4 U
4 U
4 U
7 U
1 U
35 U
1 U
0.1 U
8U
560 U
2 U
4 U
692 B
3 U
4 U
2.3B
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-bast of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
B 
Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL).
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
S 
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
W 
Post-digestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) out of control limits.
Result rejected.
K 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
TUT
O05 1942
GKRAGHI Vc*MIU I R.IN(
Page 1 of 3
Table 5-6. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Sample ID: MW-1 
MW-1D MW-2 MW-3 
MW-4 MW-4D 
MW-5 MW-5 FR 
MW-6D 
MW-6R 
MW-7 MW-7 FR 
MW-8
Analyte 
Dale: 
6-Oct-92 
2-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
5-Ocl-92 
l-Oct-92 
l-Oct-92 
30-Sep-92 
29-Sep-92 
5-Oct-92 
5-Ocl-92 
29-Sep-92
Cyanide, Total 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
R 
10 UJ 
10 UJ 
R
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]).
Analyses were performed by Enscco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GERAGHTYi*MIU.I-.K.IN<
Table 5-6. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Analyte
Page 2 of 3
ESSO-TAP 
Field
Blank
Field
Blank
Sample ID: MW-9 
MW-9S 
MW-10 MW-10D 
MW-11D 
MW-12D 
MW-13D 
MW-14
Date: 
7-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92 
6-Oct-92 
6-Oct-92 
2-Oct-92 
5-Oct-92 
6-Ocl-92 
l-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92 
29-Sep-92 
30-Sep-92 
l-Oct-92 
5-Oct-92
Field
Blank
Field
Blank
Cyanide, Total
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, usii
using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
Ol
H-
GKRAGHTY^MII.l.t U . I N (
Page 3 of 3
Table 5-6. 
Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Simple ID: Field 
Field
Blank 
Blank
Analyte 
Date: 
6-Oct-92 
7-Oct-92
Cyanide, Total 
10 UJ 
10 UJ
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [pph]).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-tasl of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
R 
Result rejected.
FR 
Field replicate of previous sample.
GKRAGHI V c ^ M I I . I . I - R . INC
Table 5-7. 
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in October and November 1992 During the Pumping Test, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Pagel of 2
Sample ID: Water
Treatment
Effluent
Anilyte 
D«e: 30-Oct-92
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 
5 U
lert-Butyl methyl ether 
10 U
n-Propylbenzene 
5 U
Chloromethane 
10 U
Bromomelhane 
10 U
Vinyl chloride 
10 U
Chloroethane 
10 U
Methylene chloride 
10 U
Acetone 
10 U
Carbon disulflde 
10 U
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 
1 0 U
1 , 1 -Dichloroclhane 
10 U
1 .2-Dichlorocthcnc (cis/trans) 
10 U
Chloroform 
10 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 
10 U
2-Butanone 
10 U
1 , 1 ,1-Trichloroethanc 
10 U
Carbon tetrachloride 
10 U
Bromodichloromethane 
10 U
1 ,2-Dichloropropane 
10 U
tran»-l,3-Dichloropropcne 
10 U
Trichloroethene 
10 U
Dibromochloromelhanc 
10 U
1,1,2-Trichlorocthane 
10 U
Benzene 
10 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 
10 U
Bromoform 
10 U
4-Mcthyl-2-pcntanone 
10 U
2-Hexanone 
10 U
1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
10 U
Tctrachloroethene 
10 U
Toluene 
10 U
Chlorobenzene 
10 U
Eihylbenzene 
10 U
Styrene 
10 U
Xylenes (total) 
10 U
Witer 
Water
Treatment 
Treatment
Effluent 
Effluent
2-Nov-92 
3-Nov-92
5U 
5U
10 U 
10 U
5U 
5U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
to u 
to u
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
10 U 
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion (ppbj).
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using
Water
Treatment
Effluent
4-Nov-92
5U
10 U
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
March 1990
Water
Treatment
Effluent
5-Nov-92
SU
10 U
5 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
61
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2Ju
10 U
2J
10 U
6J
Contract
Water
Treatment
Effluent
6-Nov-92
5 U
10 U
SU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4J
2J
10 U
3J
10 U
10
Water
Treatment
influent
30-Ocl-92
5U
38
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4J
10 U
10 U
10 U
71
1Jtou
19
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
6J
10 U
10 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
20
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Laboratory Program (CLP)
Water
Treatment
Influent
2-Nov-92
5U
60
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
110
2J
10 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10
10 U
10 U
3J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
39
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
protocols.
Water
Treatment
Influent
3-Nov-92
5U
120
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
120
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
12
10 U
10 U
7J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
49
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Water
Treatment
Influent
4-Nov-92
5U
170
SU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
170
31
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
17
10 U
10 U
14
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
65
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Water
Treatment
Influent
S-Nov-92
5U
160
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
ISO
2J
10 U
10 u
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
IS
10 U
10 U
13
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
60
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
I J
Water
Treatment
Influent
6-Nov-92
SU
160
S U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
160
2J
10 U
10 U
2J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
24
10 U
10 U
12
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
62
2J
10 U
3J
10 U
14
Trip Blink
30-Oct-92
5U
10 U
SU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2J
4Jtou
10 U
10 U
IOU
10 U
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
J 
Result is detected below the reportine limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the correspcinding reporting limit.
TUT 
OO5 1946
(iHRAGIIl To* Ml 1.1 I K.!N(
Table 5-7.
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in October and November 1992 During the Pumping Test, Tutu Service Station
Investigation. St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 2
Analyte
Sample ID: Trip Blank 
Trip Blank 
Trip Blank 
Trip Blank
Dale: 
2-Nov-92 
3-Nov-92 
4-Nov-92 
5-Nov-92
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
tcrt-Butyl methyl ether
n-Propy (benzene
Chloromethane
Brotnomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethanc
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichlorocthcne (cis/trans)
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dkhloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tctrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Irani- 1 ,3-Dichloropropenc
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Mcthyl-2-pcntanone
2-Hexanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachlorocthane
Telrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
5U
10 U
S U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
SJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
10 U
5 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5U
10 U
5U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Xylcnes (total)
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ)- 
, . 
,, 
„, „
Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 
protocols.
J 
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
U 
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
TUT 
OO5 1947
GHRAGHTYi>M!l.l.l K.IN(
[DATE: 12/17/92 
[PKJCT. N<X:pR01301
HO.:
[CAP FILE: NON-CAD 
[COMPIUftW.MORALfS 
[MO*.:
IDRATIW: E.CALOERON
85*00'
18°25'
05"06'
W60'
18"2O'—
18°17
9CMJE
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
Knvirrmmmtal Services
SITE LOCATION
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
1-1
I DWG P.-s^2-23-93 
[ PRJCT NO.: PR01301 
(FILE NO.: -
[DRAVMNG:
[CHECKED: C. MOFFIT
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY 
I DRAFTER: E.-*r-iLESTON
VIHA a
SMOOTH CONCRETE
BOX CULVERT 6 FT.
WIDE BY 2 FT. UGH
CURRICULUM BUILDING
(FORMER LAGA BUILDING)
ANTILLES AUTO PARTS
(FORMER GASST
FOUR WINDS
SHOPPING
CENTER
I/ 
6 FT. DIAMETER
RBNFORCED
CONCRETE PPE
WEYMOUTH RHYMER
PUMP STATION
(SANTTARY SEWERAGE)
28 It DIAMETER
REWFORCED
CONCRETE PIPE
5FT.WDE
OPEN TOP CULVERT
SMOOTH CONCRETE
BOX CULVERT UNDER 
.' i
8DEWALK 4 FT. 6 N. 
'!
WIDE BY 7 FLHK3H 
I',
-TWO 12HN. NSCE DIAMETER
PVCPPESCEBYSDE
SCALE
(APPROXIMATE)
0 
200 FEET
LEGEND
« 
SOIL BORING
« 
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
A 
DEEPER MONITORING WELL
• 
EXISTING SUPPLY WELL
FT. 
FEET
IN. 
INCH
H
r_n
•-0
-0
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
STORM SEWER LAYOUT
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
3-6
DWG DATE:
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301 
|F1LE NO.: TU-111 
(DRAWING: TU-1)'
CHECKED: MOZER
3.
2.7
a rf.i
£
•§ 1.8
£«^ 1.5
Q
<u 
1 •<-
o
S 0.9
f-i
5 0.6
0.3
0.
i i i 1 1 mi 
i i i i iitt
= 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
i i i i mi
i 
i i i im
| APPROVED: DANAHY
DRAFTER: PADUL A
0.1
1.
10. 
100.
Time (min)
1000. 
10000
DATA SET.
nw6i—6r. dra
02/11/93
AQUIFER TYPE.
UNCDNFINED
SDLUTIDN METHOD.
Cooper-Jacob
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS.
T 
= 8. 39 f te/rtn
TEST DATA.
Q = 1. 34 ft3/nm
r = 0. 17 ft
b = 14.0 ft
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvtronTnenioZ Services
TUT 
OO5 
195O
MONITORING WELL MW-6R DRAWDOWN DATA,
PUMp TEST op MW-6R
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
Q -7
\j 
/
* r*\
ui 
CJ
i m
O xi
O
t—HH
O
T)
C!
M n
^ O
^ 2
9 ^
z ^
_ rn
" %
z 5
O =H
W O I >
2 05 _;
ooo
25
O
H
CO
o
3
o
Corrected Drawdown (ft)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3n M.
o
??
M-
Ooo
O 
B l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
OO
iniiiiff
-o
3)8
p
T3
Oi
i
o
mp
O
3
n
n 
n 
—i
p po 3*
« 3 On>
n
X)
E §> E
m 
-D
—i 
m
D
o
o
^
I DWG DATE:;/" 
13 
I PRJCT NO.: PR01301 
(RLE NO.: TU-109 
I DRAWNG: TU-V1 
I CHECKED: MOZER
| APPROVED: DANAHY
1.
0.9
0.8
.§ 0.6
*
2 0.5
"2 0-4
-M
O
£ °-3
JH
o 0.2
0.1
0.
= 
I 
I I I I III I 
I 
I I TTI 
HIT 
111 TTTTI 
\ 
I 
I I I I tfc
1.
I I I I Iff
10. 
100. 1000.
Time (min)
10000.
I DRAFTCp 
~)ULA
DATA SET.
n»6d-6d dro
02y 11 /93
AQUIFER TYPE.
UNCONTINCD
SOLUTION METHOD.
Cooptr-Jacob
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS.
T • 5. 225 f tc/NB
TEST DATA.
0 - 1. 9 tt3/nln
r » 0. 23 ft
b » 65.0ft
GERAGHTY
4||r ff MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
TUT 
005 
19i
MONITORING WELL MW-6D DRAWDOWN DATA,
PUMP TEST OF MW-6D
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
3-9
APPENDIX A
GEOLOGIC LOGS
GERAGHTY c^ MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
OO5 1953
GEOLOGIC LOGS
TUTU SERVICE STATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
TUT
OOh
1954
Geologic Log of B-l
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CLAY; some Silt; little Rock Fragments, Small to Medium;
trace Sand, Fine to Coarse; trace Gravel, Fine; Stiff to
very stiff, dry, brown to light brown.
SILT; trace Clay; trace Sand, Very Fine; Stiff, moist,
brown to tan.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 10.4 feet below h
surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
rui 
<x>5
1.955
Geologic Log of B-2
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CLAY; some to trace Silt, trace Sand, Medium to Coarse;
trace Rock Fragments; trace Root; Hard, dry, brown,
reddish brown to red.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.5 feet below land surface.
Sampled Interval
(fiset below land:
TUT 
GO5 1956
Geologic Log of B-3
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. 
Virgin Islands
Description
CLAY and SILT; little Rock Fragments, Small to Medium;
trace Sand, Fine to very Coarse; trace Gravel, Fine;
trace Root; Hard, dry, brown, black stains.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 3.3 feet below
land surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet be!0w land surface)
O05
1957
Geologic Log of B-4
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL
CLAY; some to little Silt; trace to little Sand, Medium to
Coarse, Fine to Medium; trace Rock Fragments, Small to
Large; trace Gravel, Fine; Hard, dry to moist, brown to
reddish brown, greenish gray.
ROCK FRAGMENTS, Small to large; little Sand, Fine to
Medium; little Silt; trace Clay; trace Sand, Coarse;
Very hard, saturated, light gray.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at lO.i
land surface.
S ampledJnterval
ffeetJaelowTand surface')
0.5 - 10.0
10.0 - 10.8
TUT 
005 
1958
Geologic Log of B-5
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
CLAY; little Silt; little to trace Sand, Fine
to Coarse; trace Gravel, Fine; trace Organic
Material, Wood; Very stiff to very hard, dry, gray to
reddish brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.8 feet below land surface.
Sarnpledvlnterval
(feet below^land surface)
:UT
Geologic Log of B-6
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CLAY; some to little Silt; little Rock Fragments
Small to Medium; trace Sand, Fine to Coarse; trace
Root; Peat layer (2.5 - 2.9'); Hard to very stiff,
dry, brown to dark brown, dark gray to black.
Bedrock, Highly Altered; Weak, grayish green.
Top of competent bedrock inferred at 7.3 feet below
land surface.
Sample
rfeetbelov
[nterval
land surface)
TUT
CO5 
1960
Geologic Log of B-7
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL, SILT; little Rock Fragments, Small; trace
Clay; trace Sand, Fine to Coarse; trace Root;
Hard, dry, light brown.
Auger resusal at 3.0 feet below land surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
TUT
.196.1
Geologic Log of B-8
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CONCRETE SLAB
FILL, CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, Medium to Coarse
trace Gravel, Fine; trace Rock Fragments, Small;
trace Root; Very stiff to very hard, dry, brown to
reddish brown.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 3.6 feet below
land surface.
Sampledvjnterval
ffeet belowaand surface')
TUT
O05 1962
Geologic Log of B-9
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
FILL, CLAY; some Silt; little Rock Fragments,
Small to Medium; trace Sand, Fine to Coarse;
trace Gravel, Fine; Very Stiff, dry, dark gray
to reddish brown.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 5.1 feet
below land surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet belgw land surface)
TUT 
OO5 1963
Geologic Log of B-10
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL, CLAY; some to little Silt; little Rock
Fragments, Small to Medium; little to trace Sand,
Fine to Medium; Very stiff to hard, dry to wet,
brown to dark brown.
CLAY; little Silt; little Rock Fragments,
Small to Medium; little Gravel, Fine to Medium;
trace Sand, Coarse to very Coarse; Very hard,
brown, moist to wet.
Top of bedrock not encountered.
Water encountered at 7.9 feet below land
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
TUT
005 
1964
Description
Geologic Log of B-ll
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface')
CONCRETE SLAB
CLAY; some Silt; little Rock Fragments, Small;
trace Sand, Fine to Medium; trace Root; Very
stiff to hard, dry, brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.5 feet below land
surface.
0-
Geologic Log of B-12
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
CONCRETE SLAB
CLAY; some to little Silt; little Gravel
Fine to Medium; trace to some Rock Fragments
Small to Medium; trace to little Sand, Fine
to Coarse; trace Peat, trace Root; Medium
stiff to hard, moist, brown, gray, tan.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 8.4 feet
below land surface.
TUT
1966
Description
Geologic Log of B-13
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
FILL, SILT; some Clay; little Gravel
Fine to Medium; trace Rock Fragments,
Small to Medium; trace Root, Hard, dry
brown.
Highly weathered rock fragments; Very weak; Gray
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, Medium to
Coarse; Very stiff to hard, dry, brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 6.4 feet below land
surface.
0-
rtJT 
OO5 
1967
Geologic Log of B-13A
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
FILL, SILT; some Clay; little Gravel
Fine to Medium; trace Rock Fragments,
Small to Medium; trace Root, Hard, dry
brown to reddish brown.
Top of bedrock not encountered.
0-
TUT 
005 
1968
Description
Geologic Log of B-14
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
FILL, SILT; some Clay; some Sand,
Fine to Medium; trace Rock Fragments,
Small; trace Organic Material, Root
Wood; Stiff, dry, light brown to light
gray.
BEDROCK Highly weathered altered; very Weak;
Hard, grayish green.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 3.2 feet
below land surface.
0-
Tl.JT 
OO5 
.1969
Geologic Log of B-15
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
SILT; some Clay; some Sand Fine to Medium,
trace Rock Fragments, Small; trace of highly
weathered Rock Fragments; trace Root, Medium
stiff to hard, moist reddish brown to light brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.2 feet below land
surface.
0-
TUT
OO'
19 7O
Geologic Log of B-16
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
SILT; some Clay; some Sand Fine to Medium,
trace Rock Fragments, Small; trace Root,
Very stiff, moist, reddish brown to light brown.
BEDROCK Highly weathered; Very weak;
Hard, Grayish green.
Top of competent bedrock inferred at 3.7 feet
below land surface.
TUT 
GO 5 
.1.971
Geologic Log of MW-1
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, Fine to Coarse,
trace Weathered rock fragments; Angular, hard,
dry, brown, greenish gray.
Top of bedrock inferred at 1.8 feet below land
surface.
(See also Geologic Log of MW-1D)
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
TUT 
005 
1972
Geologic Log of MW-1D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
FILL consisting of Gravel, Medium to Fine;
some Clay; trace Silt; trace Sand, Medium
to Coarse; dry to moist, brown.
CLAY; some Silt; little to trace Sand,
Medium to Coarse; little Rock Fragments,
Medium to Large, angular; little to trace
Gravel, Fine to Medium; trace pieces of wood;
Very hard, dry to moist, light brown to brow,
VOLCANIC BRECCIA, greenish gray; stiong^
moderately strong; fine, medium, large grained;
rectangular and irregular shape, moderately \
sorted, occasional clasts of 1 to 5 cm;
plagioclase feldspar,
and chlorite minerals, dulLto vitrebus; calcite
veins, iron stains; freshi
White minerals ranged/from\L0 to 25%-pf rock matrix
Sampledslnterval
f feet/oelow surface)
Fracture zones observed
19.34 to 25.14 feet, 35.14 t
and 69.84 ier75r*4 feet.
0.3-2
2.5-2.8
2.8 - 89.0
to 15.09 feet,
feet,
TUT
GO5 1973
Geologic Log of MW-2
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
SILT; some Clay, little Rock Fragments, small;
trace Sand, Fine to Medium; trace Root; Hard,
dry, brown to tan.
CLAY, some Silt; little Rock Fragments, Small;
trace Gravel, Fine to Medium; Hard to very hard,
dry, gray.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.4 feet below 1;
surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
Geologic Log of MW-3
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CONCRETE SLAB
FILL, CLAY, some Silt; trace Sand, Fine to Medium;
trace Rock fragments, Small to medium; hard, dry,
brown, reddish brown.
No Recovery
Top of.bedrock inferred at 2.4 feet below land surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
0-
TUT 
OOI5 
1975
Geologic Log of MW-4
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CONCRETE SLAB
CLAY, some Silt; some Organic content (4.7 - 6.7')
trace Sand, Fine to Coarse; trace Gravel;
Subangular, very Stiff to Hard, reddish brown
dark greenish gray, brown, dark brown, gray and
dark gray.
No Recovery
Top of bedrock inferred at 8.7 feet below land surface.
(See also Geologic Log for MW-4D)
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface')
0-
8.7-9.8
TUT 
CO5 1976
Geologic Log of MW-4D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CLAY, some Silt; little Sand, Fine
to Coarse; little Gravel; Stiff to hard,
moist, reddish brown to brown, bluish-gray
dark gray, medium plasticity.
SampledInterval
(feetbeldwland surface)
WEATHERED ROCK FRAGMENTS and CLAY;
some Silt; some to little Sand
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 10.
feet.
WEATHERED ROCK FRAGMENTS AND
some Silt; Angular, Small to Large;
Hard, wet, gray.
Angular, hard, moist
and 18.7 feet, gray, bl
brown, white, red, black
crumbled.
Top of cpfnpetant Ijfedrock inferred at 22.8 feet
below/tan d/^urrace.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; gray; moderately
strong to strong, Very fine grained;
pyroxene, pragioclase feldspars, some
quartz, chlorite, and orthoclase minerals;
calcite veins, iron stains; black minerals
60% of rock matrix, white minerals 35%
of rock matrix; slightly altered.
9.5 - 10.7
10.7 - 22.8
22.8 - 33.0
TUT 
GO 5 
1.977
Page 2 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-4D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS,
in a brown silty clay matrix,
trace sand, fine to coarse; semi-
angular.
No Recovery.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; gray; strong;
very fine grained; pyroxene, plagioclase
feldspars, some quartz, chlorite, and orth
minerals; calcite veins; black minerals 60%
rock matrix; white minerals 35% of rock
matrix; slightly altered.
DIORITE; gray; strong^en^-fine
coarse grained; pyroxene, pfagioclaie"'
feldspar, quartz, chloru^, ancrqithock
minerals; black minerals ranged irom 35 to 60%
of rock matrix; white minerals ranged
from 35 to^G^-o^ rock matrix; slightly
altered.
Frac
Highly w
Interval
feet below^land surface)
33.0 - 35.0
35.0-37.1
37.1 -40.0
40.0-71.0
from 9.0 to 23.4 feet and 33.6 to 38.2 feet.
racture plane at 40.9, 55.0, 64.0, and 65.0 feet.
TU"
OO5 1978
Geologic Log of MW-5
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
Fill, Silt; little Sand, Fine to Medium;
little Gravel, Fine to Medium; trace Rock
Fragments, Small; trace Clay; trace pieces
of Wood; Hard, dry, brown.
Highly weathered bedrock; Very Weak;
Grayish green.
Top of bedrock inferred at 4.8 feet below
land surface.
TUT 
005 
.1979
Page 1 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-6D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, Fine
to Very Coarse; little Rock
Fragments, Small to Medium; Hard,
dry, brown to gray.
No Recovery.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; grayish
green to dark green; moderately
strong; fine to medium grained,
rectangular to massive, moderately
sorted; plagioclase feldspar, quartz,
and pyroxenes minerals,
vitreous; white minerals
10 to 15% of rock matrix; subtly Jto
highly altered. CLAY^
trace sand, fine to coz
gray, soft, wet.
VOLCANIp-SRECCIA; yellow to tan; medium
to coarse/grained; massed (?); weak;
plagiofzfase/fela*$par, and orthoclase minerals,
vitreous, gi&ssy,jlulljpoorly sorted;
moderately albsped./
SILTSTONB^grayish green; fine grained; strong
to moderately altered.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; grayish green; moderately
strong to weak; fine to medium grained,
rectangular and irregular shape, moderately
sorted; plagioclase feldspar, quartz, pyroxenes,
Sampled thterval
(feet beleiw land surface')
20.0-31.8
31.8-33.3
33.3 - 55.0
TUT 
005 
198O
Page 2 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-6D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; grayish green; moderately
strong to weak; fine to medium grained,
rectangular and irregular shape, moderately
sorted; plagioclase feldspar, quartz, pyroxenes,
epidote and chlorite minerals, dull, glassy;
calcite veins, iron stains; moderately to
highly altered.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; grayish green; stron
moderately strong; fine, medium to large
grained, rectangular, cubic and irregular
shape; plagioclase, chlorite, and epidote
minerals, dull, glassy; calcite veins; fresh
to slightly altered.
Sampled Jhterval
(feef be&w surface)
55.0N
VOLCANIC SANDSTO
strong; fine grained, rec
shape, well sorted; pi
slightly altered.
Fracture zones observed fro
Note:
55.0 - 60.0
sh gray; moderately
•egular
,sy,
60.0 - 65.0
to 14.3 feet.
:ombination of the geology observed at MW-6 (abandoned) and MW-6D.
TUT
.1981
Geologic Log of MW-7
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. 
Virgin Islands
Description
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; little Rock
Fragments, Small to Medium; trace Sand,
Medium to Very Coarse; trace Root; Hard,
dry, 
brown.
Highly weathered Rock; SAND, Fine to
Medium; some Silt; trace Sand, Coarse
to very Coarse; trace Gravel, Fine; trace
Clay; Hard, dry, 
gray.
Highly weathered bedrock; Weak; Grayish green.
Sampled Interval
(feet belcw land surface)
6.0- 
15.0
TUT 
O05 1982
Geologic Log of MW-8
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand
very Fine to very Coarse; trace Rock,
fragments, Small to Medium; Very Stiff,
dry, brown.
Moderately weathered Rock; SILT; little
to trace Sand, Very fine to fine; little
trace Rock Fragments; very Stiff to hard,
dry, brown to reddish brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 8.3 feet below
land surface.
TUT 
CO5 1983
Geologic Log of MW-9
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL consisting of CLAY; some Silt;
little Rock Fragments, Small to Large;
trace Sand, Fine to Very Coarse; Hard,
dry, brown to reddish brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 5.0 feet below
land surface.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; greenish gray;
moderately strong; fine to large
grained, rectangular to irregular shape,
moderately sorted; plagioclase, and chlorite
minerals, dull, vitreous; calcite veins;
white minerals ranged from 10 to 25%
rock matrix; slightly altered. Clay;
observed at 10.0 feet, little silt,
trace sand, medium to coarse.
VOLCANIC SANDSTO
green; weak to modera
medium grained, rectagu
shape, Plagioclase, ch
pyroxens, and quartz
iron stains; slightly to highly
5.0 - 20.0
20.0 - 31.0
cite veins,
ed.
IA; grayish green; moderately
ained; moderately
oclase, chlorite, and
'calcite veins; slightly altered.
31.0 - 34.3
1 984
Geologic Log of MW-10
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; little Sand
Medium, little Rock Fragments, Small
to Medium; trace Gravel, Fine to Medium;
Hard, dry, gray to brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.9 feet.
See also Geologic Log of MW-10D
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
0,
TUT 
OOS 1985
Geologic Log of MW-10D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
ASPHALT
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand,
Fine; trace Gravel, Fine to Medium;
little Rock Fragments, Small to Medium;
Hard, dry, gray to brown.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; greenish gray;
moderately strong; medium to large
grained, rectangular to irregular shape,
moderately sorted; plagioclase minerals,
dull; manganese oxidation, iron stains;
calcite stains; moderately altered.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; greenish gray
weak; fine to medium grained,
rectangular to irregular shape, moderately
sorted; plagioclase, pyroxenes<-aml quartz
minerals, dull, glassy; manganese qxidation,
iron stains, calcite veins/moderately to
slightly altered.
calcit
Fractun
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
0
2.3 - 25.0
25.0 - 27.3
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; greenishsgray; strong
medium to large grained, rectangular, irregular
shape, larg^eiaSts: poorly sorted; plagioclase,
quartz, pyroxenes, epidote and chlorite minerals;
27.3 - 75.0
slightly altered.
from 22.0 to 26.5.
TUT
OO5 
1.986
Geologic Log of MW-11D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL consisting of CLAY; some to little
Silt; trace Sand, Fine to Coarse; trace
Organics; Very stiff, dry to moist, light
brown, brown to reddish brown.
SILT; little Sand, Fine; trace Clay;
trace Sand, Coarse to Very Coarse; Hard,
dry, 
brown.
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; bluish green; strong
to moderately strong; fine grained,
rectangular, cubic and irregular shape, well
sorted; plagioclase feldspar, epidote, qu
and pyroxenes minerals, dull, glassy, brig
silky; calcite veins, iron stains; white mine
ranged from 10 to 25% or rock matrix;
slightly to highly altered.
DIORITE; bluish green; s
strong; fine grained; wejf so
feldspar, epidote, qu
glassy, silky dull; calci
fresh to slightly altered;
from 10 to 25% of rock
content incjeSse^with depth).
Fract
fresl
agioclase
roxenfesminerals,
erals ranged
hite mineral
from 11.3 to 21.1 feet.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
0
4.0 - 10.2
10.2 
- 52.0
52.0 
- 75.0
TUT
UOD
1987
Geologic Log of MW-12D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
FILL consisting of SILT; some Clay; trace
Sand, Very Fine to Very Coarse; trace Gravel,
Medium; trace Rock Fragments; trace Organics; Hard
dry, brown.
CLAY, some Silt; trace Sand, Very Fine
to Very Coarse; trace Rock Fragments,
Medium to Large; trace Organics; Very
stiff.
No Recovery.
SILT; some Clay; little to trace Rock
Fragments, Small to Medium; trace Sand,
Very Fine to Coarse; Stiff to very
stiff, dry, brown to yellow, light brown.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface')
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at
15.0 feet below land surface..
5.9 - 10.0
10.0 - 15.0
to tan, light
VOLCANIC SANDST
gray to reddish gray;
calcite veins, iron stain
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE;\blu>iJh green and gray;
strong to weaTTfoNmoderately strong; fine
to medium grained,\ectangular to irregular
15.0 - 30.0
30.0 - 66.0
shape^
pyro
vitreou
white mm
matrix; sligH
1
No Recovery.
:ed; plagioclase feldspar,
pyrite minerals, dull,
cite veins, iron stains;
'ge from 5 to 10% of rock
to highly altered.
66.0 - 75.0
TUT
.1988
Geologic Log of MW-13D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, Very
Fine; trace Gravel, Small to Medium;
trace Organics; Very hard, dry, light
brown.
CLAY, some Silt; little Sand, Very Fine
to Medium; little Gravel, Fine; trace Sand,
Very Coarse to Coarse; trace Rock Fragments,
Large to Medium; Hard, dry, light brown.
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
0-
5.0 - 40.0
40 - 120
VOLCANIC SANDSTONE; greenish gray to dusky
yellow green to pale reddish; moderately
strong to very weak at 20.0 feet; fine,
medium grained, irregular shape,
moderately sorted; plagioclase feldspar,
quartz and epidote minerals, dull; calcite
veins; slightly to moderately altered at
5.3 feet, highly altered with iron stains at
20.0 feet; white minerals rangedsfrom 10 to
35% of rock matrix. 
/ 
\
VOLCANIC BRECCI^, grayish greefrs-dusky
yellow green to grayisftxblue green:/
moderately strong to weaKfineNnedium,
large grained, occasional clait of/i to
3 cm (40-55^fe^H{iterval), rectangular,
cubic, ape irregulanshape, moderately to
well s^ftet^pla^iocla^e feldspar, epidote,
chlofite, anXpyroxen^s minerals, glassy, dull;
calcite veins, r«Hi stains; slightly to
highly altered (55^85 feet interval); white
minerals ranged from 10 to 35% of rock matrix
(40-55 interval).
Fracture zones observed from 5.2 to 36.0 feet, 40.7 to 65.3 feet, and 85.6 to 118.7 feet.
1989
Description
Geologic Log of MW-14
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below land surface)
Asphalt
CLAY; some Silt; some Sand; trace gravel
trace to some Weathered Rock Fragments,
Angular; very Hard, greenish gray, brown
gray.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.0 feet below
land surface.
0-
TI.I'T
APPENDIX B
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
GERAGHTY^ MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
199i
^GERAGHTY
'& MILLER. INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
.02ft Flush Mounted
Project 
TEIC/PR01301
Well 
MW-1
/
LAND SURFACE
8
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
__z____ inch diameter.
Stainless Steel (SS
Town/City.
County __
Permit No.
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
St. Thomas
. State.
IISVT
Land-Surface Elevation 
195.05 feet msl
and Datum 
195.08 
feet 
3 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s)
June 30. 1992
BackfjU 
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammpr
| Grout Cement/Benton i t e Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech_______________
Water
19.1 ft'
Bentonite
21.1 ft-
D slurry
a pellets
23.fi ft-
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
Oi_Q2jO_insiot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
43. 6 ft'
46.0ft'
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Drilling Ruid 
Water
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump; 8/29/92
NA
. gallons
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development 60 (approximatelv)gallons
Static Depth to Water 29.5 before develop. 
feet below M. P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____40.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0 • ^2_____ hours
Yield 
NA______gpm 
Pats 8/29/92
Specific Capacity.
Well Purpose__
NA
Monitoring
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 1.7 feet.
7.5-inch air hammer from land surface to
46.0 feet.___________________________
Borehole cave in up to 43.6 feet.
Tnp nf hpcirnnlf
1 ^ 8
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fom- 05 '2-83
Souttip»m! 690976
TUT OO5 1992
& MILLER, INC.
•round- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
0 ft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
drilled hole
. inch diamete
casing,
6 
inch diameter
Stainless Steel
Q Backfill
Grout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
2. 8 ft* Top of bedrock
70.0 
ft'
I
90.0
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR01 301
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-I 
n
. State 
US VI
Town/City _
County 
St. Thomas
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 
195.14 feet msl
and Datum 195 . Ik 
feet msl 
S Surveyed
_______________ 
HH Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
Julv 7 & 8f 1992_____
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech__________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performet
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 8/28/92
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling _
Water Removed During Development 250 (approx.)
Static Depth to Water 70.6 before develop.
Pumping Depth to Water__
Pumping Duration 
0 . 5
Yield 
NA_____ gpm
. gallons
. gallons
89 .0
.feet below M.P.
hours
Date 8/28/92
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose__
Fracture Zones _
NA
gpm/ft
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land__
surface to 2.5 feet. Top of bedrock af 
2.fl
3-inch diamond coring from 2.5 to 89.0 feet.
10-inch air hammer from land surface to 71.0 
fe
Borehole cave in up to 70.0 feet.______________
6-inch casing installed to 70.0 feet.__________
5.5-inch air hammer from 70.0 to 90.0 feet.
Prepared by __Wanda I. 
Morales___________________
G&M <=:,rn- 0€ 5 8*
(">OD
1993
Soutnpnnt 871775
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Oft Flush mounted
1 
LAND SURFACE
10 
inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
Backfill
I Grout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
3.0 .ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
5.0 ft* 3 pellets
7.0 
ft-
Well Screen.
^ 
inch diameter
SS 
0.020in slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
.27.0 
ft-
.28.0 
ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PROI
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-2
. State.
Town/City _
County 
S t . Thomas
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 178.31 feet msl
and Datum 178 . 1 5 
feet msl 
3 Surveyed
________________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
August 25, 1992
Drilling Method Hollow Sfpm Angpr & Air
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech
Drilling Fluid
USVI
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. 
Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 9/2/92 _______
NA
. gallons
Fluid Loss During Drilling ____
Water Removed During Development 72 (approximately gallons
Static Depth to Water 13.6 before develop. 
feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______26.0_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
Q . Al___ hours
Yield.
NA
.gpm
NA
Date 9 / 2 / 9 2
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 2.0 feet.
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
29.0 feet.__________________________
Borehole cave in up to 28.0 feet._________
Top of bedrock at 3.91 feet.____________
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fwm 05 12-88
Soutnprin! B9OT78
TIJ'J
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
/
V
Oft Flush mounted
1 
LAND SURFACE
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
4___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
Backfill
| Grout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
^__ft*
Bentonite 
G slurry
8.4 
ft* 3 pellets
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
0.020in slnt
xQ Gravel Pack
[,«JH3 Sand Pack
"0 Formation Collapse
.ft*
34.0 
ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City.
County _
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-3
St. Thomas
. State.
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 
181.85 feet msl
and Datum 181.84 
feet msl 
£ Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
June 9 & llf 
1992_____
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger/Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech_____________
Drilling Fluid __________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump. August 25. 1992_____
Fluid Loss During Drilling _______HA____
Water Removed During Development____130
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 17.35ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______28.40________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0 . 5____ hours
Yield 
4. 3_____gpm 
Date 8 / 2 5 / 9 2
0.4
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring WP 11
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 2.4 feet. (Bedrock).________
5.5-inch air hammer from 2.4 to 34.0 feet
Borehole cave in UP to 33.3 feet._______
Prepared by
Rub£n Ponciano
G&M Fotr" 05 1286
i 89Q97--
TUT
1995
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
|0 ft Flush mounted
i 
1.AND SURFACE
/L
inch diameter
A 
drilled hole
/I
-Well casing,
4 ___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
Q Backfill
Grout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
3.0 
ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
5.0 ft* a pellets
7.0 
ft'
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
, 0.020inslnt
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
27.0 
ft-
28.0 
ft'
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TF.Tr/PRDI
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-4
Town/City _
County 
St. 
Thomas
Permit No. ________
. State 
TTSVT
Land-Surface Elevation 
175.69 feet msl
and Datum 175 .66 
feet ms 1 
E Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
June 17f 1992________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Anger/Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech____________
Drilling Fluid ____________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump; 8/24/92____________
Fluid Loss During Drilling
Water Removed During Development.
NA
73
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 11.54 ft 
before develop^ below M P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____25 .0__________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ___0 . S___ hours
YiPlri 
2.4 
gpm 
Date 8 / 2 4 / 9 2
Specific Capacity 
0. 2________ gpm/ft
Well Purpose 
Monitoring Well_______________
Remarks 
6-inch hollow stem auger from land
_____surface tn 9.8 feet._________________
7^5-incli air hammer from 9,8
2S.O feet. Top of bedrock at fi.7 feet
Prepared by
Wanda 1. Morales
TUT 
005 
1996
TU
.19 9 7
^GERAGHTY
r& MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
/
/
/
/////
/
/
/
I Project 
TEIC/PRQ1301
. Well 
MW-4D
Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
drilled hole
. inch diameter
Town/City 
Anna's Retreat/Tutu____
County 
St. Thomas_________State.
Permit No. __________________
USVI
^Well casing,
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel
r] Backfill
jqGrout Cement/Water
*—' 
Bentonite
28 
ft" Top of bedrock
. 7 ft* 
compete
Land-Surface Elevation 175.99 feet msl
and Datum 176.02 
feet msl 
S Surveyed
_______________ 
3 Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
June 17. 1992_______
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech________________
Al
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performed
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump; 8/24/92.________________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______MA
Water Removed During Development __
360
. gallons
. gallons
71.0 ft-
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
"Depth Below Land Surface
Static Depth to Water 12.20ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____68.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ____0 . 8 
hours
Yield 
7.2 
gpm 
Date 8/24/92
n.i
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
Fracture Zones _______________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 24.7 feet.________________
3-inch diamond coring from 24.0 to 67.25 feet.
7.5-inch air hammer from land surfa-e to____
48.0 feet.Top of weathered bedrock at 10.7 feet
6-inch casing installed at 47.7 feet._______
5.5-inch air hammer from 47.7 to 71.0 feet.
Prepared by 
Wanda I. Morales
MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
_4 ____ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
Backfill
I Grout Hprnpnf /Wa
Bentonite
15.0ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
1 7.0 ft* a pellets
19.0 ft*
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
O.OZQinslnt
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
39.0 ft'
40.8 ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR013Q1
.Well.
NW-5
Town/City Anna's Retreat/Tutu_____
County 
St. Thomas________State.
Permit No. _________________
USVI
Land-Surface Elevation 
187.24 feet msl
and Datum 187.09 
feet msl 
3 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) 
August 25r 1992____________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Sm'1 TVrh_____________________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 9/2/92.________
Fluid Loss During Drilling
Water Removed During Development
66
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 22.8 ft 
before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______37 . 5________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ___Q . 43 
hours
Yield.
NA
.gpm
NA
Pats 9/2/92
Specific Capacity __
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 4.0 feet._______________________
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
45.0 feet. Top of bedrock at 4.8 feet.
Grout seal from 44.8 up to 40.8 feet.
Prepared by 
Wanda I. Morales
TUT
1998
/J^GERAGHTY
£&& MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
ft 
Flush mounted
I 
LAND SURFACE
/
10
drilled hole
inch diameter
-Well casing,
6___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel
Q Backfill
arout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
A . 9 
ft* Top of bedrock
0 ft*
U.65.Q ft-
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR01301
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Well
MW-6D
Town/City _
County 
St. 
Thomas
Permit No. _________
State 
USVI
Land-Surface Elevation 171.26 feet msl
and Datum 171.01 
feet msl 
25 Surveyed
_______________ 
HI Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
August 6 & 10r 1992
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Sni 1 Tprh_______________
Drilling Fluid 
Water when diamond coring was
_________performed.___________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump; September 2, 1992
NA
240
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
Static Depth to Water20.2ft before develop
Pumping Depth to Water______7A . Q_______
Pumping Duration 
0* 33_____ hours
____ gallons
____ gallons
.feet below M.P.
.feet below M.P.
Yield
12
.gpm
0.22
Date 9/2/92
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
Fracture Zones ______________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land____
surface to A.9 feet.Depth to bedrock A.9 feet
10-inch air 
hammer from land surface to_____
A5.Q 
feet.___________________ _______ __
"i.S-inrh air hammer from A5.0 to 65.0 feet.
Prepared by 
Wanda I. 
Morales
G&M Fcxm 06 5 6"
TUT 
CO5 1999
Souttipunl 871770
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Oft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
4____ 
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
Backfill
| Grout 
Cement/Water/
Bentonite
0.8 
ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
1.6 
ft* IS pellets
2.7 
ft*
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
, O.OZOin sint
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
.22.7 
ft*
-23.7 
ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PRQ13Q1
Well 
MW-6R
Town/City 
Anna's Retreat/Tutu____________
County ____fit. Thnmas_________ State 
US VI_____
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation 171.44 feet msl
and Datum 
171.17 feet msl 
a Surveyed
_______________ 
H Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
September 2, 
1992_______________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech______________
Drilling Fluid ______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump; 9/9/92______________
NA
486
Fluid Loss During Drilling __
Water Removed During Development.
Static Depth to Water 8.2ft before develop
Pumping Depth to Water_____20. 6________
Pumping Duration 
0 . 9____ hours
Yield 
q_____ gpm 
Date
____ gallons
____ gallons
feet below M.P.
feet below M.P.
Q / q / q ?
0.72
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose___Monitoring Well
gpm/ft
Remarks 
10-inch air 
hammer from land surface
to 26.0 feet.________________________
Borehole cave in up to 23.7 feet._______
___Bedrock at approximately 4.92 feet bis
(see 
MW-6D). 
__
Prepared by Derrick Stepanof/Ruben Ponciano
G4M Fwrn 05 12 86
OO5 
2OOO
Soulhfyml 89 09'6
IVDLLERJNC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
i 
LAND SURFACE
10
Oft Flush mounted
. inch diameter
drilled hole
Well casing,
4 ___ 
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
/Waf.p.r/
Bentonite
11.0 ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
12.8 ft* a pellets
Well Screen.
____ inch diameter
SS___ 0.020in S|ftt
Gravel Pack
Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PRQ1301
Town/City.
County _
Anna's Retreat./Tut-ii
.Well.
MM-7
St. Thomas
. State.
TISVT
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 180.3 feet msl
and Datum 180.13 
feet msl 
S Surveyed
________________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
July 29. 1992____________
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Anger & Air 
Hammer___
Drilling Contractor 
Sni 1 Torh________________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 9/2/92._______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
NA
84
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 17.14 ft 
before developeet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______34.0_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration _________ hours
Yield 
NA 
gpm 
Date 9 / 2 / 9 2
NA
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 15.0 feet.________________
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
40.0 feet.
Borehole cave in up to 39.6 feet.__________
Competent bedrock approximatlev at 15.Q feet
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G1M Fonr. 05 '28fe
TUT
OO5 
20O.1.
Souino-mi 89-09'-.
& MJLLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
0 ft Flush mounted
i 
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
A_____ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
Backfill
Grout 
Gemen t /Wafer
Bentonite
1.5 
ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
3.0 ft* 3 pellets
5.5 
ft'
Well Screen.
A 
inch diameter
SS 
0.020in slnt
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
.25.5
26.0
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
. Well 
MW-8
St. Thomas
. State,
USVI
Project 
TEIC/PRQ13Q1
Town/City.
County _
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 
167.61 feet msl
and Datum 167. 54 
feet msl 
S Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) 
July 23, 1QQ2______________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Anger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech__________________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 8/31/92.________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
NA
110
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Waterl7.70ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______25.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ____0 . 76 
hours
Yield ___NA_____gpm 
Date 
f t / 3 1 /Q?.
.gpm
NA
Specific Capacity __
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 8.3 feet, (bedrock).________
10-inch air hammmer from land surface to
27.0 feet._____________________________
Borehole cave in up to 26.0 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fo'f- C'j 12 86
TUT
Soum<xi"t 89-0976
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
0 ft Flush mounted
i_. 
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
_4____ inch diameter,
Stainless Stppl (SS)
Backfill
| Grout 
Cement/Water
Bentonite
10.0 
ft*
Bentonite 
D slurry
11 .8 ft* a pellets
14.1
.ft*
Well Screen.
^ 
inch diameter
SS 
, 0.020infiint
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
34.1
34.3
.ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
MW-9
USVI
Project 
TEIC/PR01301________Well.
Town/City 
Anna's Retrp-at./Tiit^n______
County 
St. Thomas________state.
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 162.32 feet msl
and Datum 162.26 
feet msl 
3 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) 
July 30, 1992_________________
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech___________________
Drilling Fluid 
Water when diamond coring was
__________per f nrmpd .___________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
npnfri fiigal piimp. Fliigfrgd Wg 11 With
to facilitate development; 9/2/92.__
Fluid Loss During Drilling _____NA.
Water Removed During Development _
70
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 13.14 ft 
before develop^ below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______33.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
n . "\"\_____ hours
Yield 
NA 
gpm 
Date 9 / 2 / 9 2
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose__
NA
gpm/ft
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-innh hnllnw stem anger from land
surface to 5. 5 feet. Bedrock at 5.0 feet.
3-inch diamond coring from 5.5 to 35.0 feet
10-inch air hammer from 3.7 to 37.0 feet.
e r.ave in up to 34.3 feet._____________
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fcxm 05 12-88
TUT
Southpf.rt 89 0976
MILLER, INC.
nvironmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
0 ft Flush mounted
i 
LAND SURFACE
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
A___ 
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (S3)
Backfill
Grout Pprnpn t /Water /
Bentonite
5.7 ft'
Bentonite 
D slurry
6.7 ft' a pellets
8.7 
ft*
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
, 0.020insint
I Gravel Pack
| Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
[18.7 
ft'
L20.0 
ft'
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PRQ1301
Town/City
County _
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-9S
St. Thomas
State 
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 
162.47 feet msl
and Datum 
162.37 
feet msl 
S Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
September 14, 1992_________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech_______________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 9/15/92._____
NA
. gallons
Fluid Loss During Drilling ____
Water Removed During Development______20._______ gallons
Static Depth to Water IVI&ff hpfnrp HpvpTnp feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____18.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0. 20___ 
hours
Yield 
NA______gpm 
Date 9/1 5/92
NA_
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 10-inch air hammer from land surface
______fn ?n.D fppf.______________________________
Borehole cave in from 20.0 up to
1 R . 7 
f p p f . 
R p d r n r k 1 n r a f p H ap
at 5.0 feet.
Prepared by
Rnhpn Pnncianp
G&M Forrr 05 12-88
TUT 
CO5 
2O04
Scx.lhpr.nl 89 0976
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
TF.TC/PR013Q1
• _ .ft Flush mounted
ID . JH LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
__4____ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (S3)
Backfill
| Grout Cement /Water /
Bentonite
11.0 ft'
Bentonite 
D slurry
13.0 ft* 3 pellets
M 15.6 ft'
Well Screen.
A 
inch diameter
SS 
0.020in sint
I Gravel Pack
i Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
35.6 
ft-
36.7 
ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Anna's Re threat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-10
St. Thomas
State 
USVI
Project _
Town/City
County _
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation 161.36 feet msl
and Datum 161 • 50 
feet msl 
52 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) 
August 20. 1992____________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech_________________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 9/2/92._______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
NA
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water20.80ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______34 .0_______ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0 . 3_____ hours
Yield 
NA 
gpm 
Date 9 / 2 / 9 2
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose__
NA
gpm/ft
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 3.0 feet. (Bedrock at 2.Q
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
36.7
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Forr- 06 12 86
TUT
Southprmt 89 0978
TUT 
OO5 
20O6
& MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
/
/
/
//
/////
//
////
/
is///
/
•<///
10
. inch diamete
drilled hole
vWell casing,
6___ inch diameter
Stainless Steel
^ Backfill
7] Grout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
.1.71 
ft* Top of bedrock
55.1 
ft*
75.1 ft*
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City 
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Well 
MW-10D
County 
St. 
Thomas
State 
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 161.52 feet msl
and Datum 161.38 
feet ms i 
3 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) August 17. 18 & 19. 1992_____
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech________________
Drilling Fluid 
Water when diamond coring was
________performed.________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development-; 9/2/92.__________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
NA
240
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 20.20ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____74.0_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0 . 3*3____ hours
Yield 
NA______gpm 
Date 9/?./92
Specific Capacity ____NA______ gpm/ft
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well_____________________
Fracture Zones ________________________________
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land surfac
to 1.7 feet. (Top nf hp.drnrk)________________
3-inch diamond coring froml.71 to 75.0 feet.
10-inch air hammer from 2.0 to 56.0 feet.
6-inch casing installed at 55.1 feet.________
S.S-inrh air hammpr from 55.1 to 75.1 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
TUT
GO5 
20O7
^GERAGHTY
'& MILLER, INC
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
/
/
///////
/
/
/
„ f"l Flush mounted
Oil 
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
Well casing,
6 
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (Si
^) Backfill
Cement/
bentonite/water
.. LD^-2_ft* Top of bedrock
53.0_ft*
Project T E T C / T u f i i 
PR01301_____WP|| MW-1 
1 D
Town/City 
Anna's Retreat /Tutu________
County St. Thomas____________State 
USVI
ft*
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 153.11 feet msl
and Datum 153.22 
feet ms 1 
121 Surveyed
_______________ 
3 Estimated
Installation Date(s) July 16. 17. 20. 1992_______
'Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor Soil Tech_________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performed.
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
facilitate development: 9/2/92.__________
to
Fluid Loss During Drilling
NA
gallons
gallons
Water Removed During Development____o4______________
Static Depth to Water 
17.20 before develop feet belowM.P.
Pumping Depth to Water 
73.0____________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0-43____ hours
Yield 
NA_____ gpm 
Date 9/2/92
Specific Capacity 
NA_____
Well Purpose 
Monitoring
Fracture Zones __________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land surface
to 11.0 feet.(Top of bedrock approx. 10.2 feet)
3-inch diamond coring from 10.2 to 75.0 feet.
10-inch air hammer from 5.0 to 53.5 feet.
6-inch casing installed at 53.0 feet.________
5.5-inch air hammer from 53.0 to 74.3 feet.
Prepared by Wanda I. Morales
& MILLER, INC.
nvironmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
10 
inch diameter
drilled hole
Well casing,
4___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
^ O Backfill
Grout Cement/bent on i
water
54.0 ft'
Bentonite 
D slurry
56.A 
ft' 
XJ pellets
60.5 
ft'
__ Well Screen.
A 
inch diameter
SS 
,0 . Q2Qin 
slot
Gravel Pack
Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/Tutu 
PR01301____ Well 
MW-1 7.D
Town/City Anna's Retreat/Tutu____________
County St. Thomas________
. StateUSiO.
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 161.58 feet msl
and Datum 161.81 
feet msl 
£ Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDateis) July 23. 1992_______
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech___________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was perform*
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water to
facilitate development; 9/1/92.______________
Fluid Loss During Drilling 
NA
Water Removed During Development 
7 6
Static Depth to Water 26.Q before develop.
Pumping Depth to Water 
79.0________________
Pumping Duration 1.1
NA
____ gallons
____ gallons
.feet below M.P.
.feet below M. P.
hours
Yield.
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose__
_gpm
NA
Date 9/1/92
___ gpm/ft
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 5.9 f e e t . ( t o p of bedrock).____
3-inch diamond coring from 5.9 to 75.0 fppt
10-inch air 
hammp.r f r n m ^.Q fn f l R . D
Prepared by Wanda I. Morales
20O8
& MILLER, INC.
round- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
0 ft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
•-Well casing,
6 
inch diameter
Stainless Steel
3 Backfill
irout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
5 . 0
ft* Top of bedrock
.diOO.O ft*
j.iZQ.Qff
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project 
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City
County _
A n n a ' s Retreat/Tutu
Well 
MW-13D
St. Thomas
State 
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 236 . 67 feet msl
and Datum 236.60 
feet msl 
3 Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
Installation Date(s) 
July 9, 13f & 15r 1992
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor 
Soil Tech________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performec
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump. Flushed well with water
to faril-ifate development; 9/3/92.________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ____
Water Removed During Development.
NA
150
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 57.60ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______106_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0 . 42 
hours
Yield 
NA______gpm 
Date 9/3/92
Specific Capacity ____NA______
Well Purpose 
Monitoring well
Fracture Zones _____________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 5.3 feet. (Bedrock at 5.0 feet)
3-inch diamond coring from 4.6 to 120 feet
10-inrh air hammer from land surface to
TOO.5 feet.
air hammer from 100 to!20^3 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
3&V Fo— 06 5 =7
TUT 
O0':< 2OO9
MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Flushed mounted
LAND SURFACE
8
drilled hole
-Well casing,
. inch diameter
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
Backfill
Grout Cement/Water /
Bentonite
19.8 
ft-
Bentonite 
D slurry
22.4 
ft* 3 pellets
25.2 
fr
Well Screen.
4 
inch diameter
SS 
, 0 . 020in S|Ot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
ft*
48. D ft'
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
"Depth Below Land Surface
TEIC/PR01301
. Well 
MW-14
USVI
Project _
Town/City 
Anna's Retreat/Tutu____
County 
St. Thomas________State.
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 196.04 feet msl
and Datum 196.12 
feet msl 
a Surveyed
_______________ 
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) 
July 2. 1992_____________
Drilling Method 
Hollow Stem Auger & Air 
Hammer
Drilling Contractor Soi 1
Drilling Fluid
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. 
Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 8/31/92.______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
NA
108
.gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 28.40ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____A3 .0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration 
0.55___ hours
Yield 
NA_____gpm 
Date fi/31 /92
NA
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 3.0 feet, (top of bedrock).
7.5-inch air 
hammer from land surface to
48.0 feet.
Prepared by 
Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fo'm 05 1288
TUT
OO5 
2O10
Soutnpnnt 89 0976
APPENDIX C
WATER SAMPLING LOGS
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 
TUT
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
EssoTap
Partly Cloudy
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
10:40 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
12:00 pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_______
Water Column in Well 
______
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Faucet at Esso.
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation 
_____NA
Water-Levc I Elevation _ 
NA
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
NA
NA
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) 
NA
Eivucuanon Method
Not applicable: Faucet valve was opened for 10 minutes before sampling.
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
NA
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
PH
Temp. fC)
Spec. Cond. (umhos'
PID(ppm)
10:42 am 
i 
12:06 pm
7.56
29.2
664
0
7.55
29.3
626
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X __ or G&M _____
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500mLplastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL JJH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT.
l-W" =0.06
I-1/;" =0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" = 0.16 
3" = 0.37
2-W'=0.25 
3-'/:" = 0.
4" = 0.65
6" = 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
OO5 2012
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
Tutu/PFP1301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-1*
dear, 85° F
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
8:54 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/6/92
10:15 am
Description of Meaturing Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_____
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallon! per Foot 
_____
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
____0.04ft
43.00ft
28.79ft
14.21 ft
0.65
9.24
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to'Sampling
195.08ft
16629ft
4-inch
28
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feel below land surface) ____41.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump 
Pump start - 8:54 am 
Pump off - 9:25 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
PH
Temp. <°C)
Spec. Cond, (umhos;
PID (ppm)
9:02am(10gal.)
7.03
31.1
1330
0
9: 12 am (10 gal.)
7.00
31.3
1335
0
3:22 am (10 gal.)
7.02
32.1
1333
0
After sampling
7.00
29.5
133
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_______
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X___ or G&M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 
ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks 
Well went dry. * Well was resampted due to tost sample containers during shipment on 10/2/92.___________________
Ground—water sample was collected according to the procedure specified in Appendix G, Section 1.6.2. of Work Ran.
Sampling Personnel 
C. Moffatt, R Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/A. Ban-era, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).___________________
GAL/FT. 
l-'/V 
-0.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r « 0.16 
r - 0.37
2-W-0.26 
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
k McWW-UUfc)
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
005
2013
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
ProjecVNo.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-1D
Clear, 88° F
Coded/
Replcate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
8:37 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
10/2/92
10:00 am
Dejcription of Measuring Point (MP) 
Top of well casing.
Height of MP Below Land Surface 
_____0.003ft
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP 
_____90.0 ft
Depth to Water Below MP _________
Water Column in Well 
_____________
Galloni per Foot 
_____________
Gallons in Well 
88.76
29.62ft
60.38ft
1.47
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diamete r of Gating
Gallons Pumped
Prior lo Sampling
195.14ft
165.52ft
6-inch
120
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) 
85.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump___Pump start — 8:37 am 
Pump off — 8:52 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhos;
PID(ppm)
8:49 am (120 gal.)
10.56
29.5
2780
0
After Sampling
8.06
29.3
741
0
Constituent* Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X__ or GiM
5—40ml vials_____
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500-ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None____
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Well went dry. Ground-water was sampled according to the procedure specified in Appendix G, Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAUFT.
l-W-0.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" - 0.16 
y - 0.37
2-W-0.26 
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
005 2014
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
TutU/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-2
Partly cloudy, 90" F
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
8:26 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
9/30/92
10:15 am
Description of Meauring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Witer Below MP 
_____
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallon! per Foot 
_____
Gallon! in Well
Top of well casing.
____0.16ft
26.9ft
12.64ft
1456ft
0.65
927
EVACUATION DATA
MP Election
Water-Levet Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
178.15ft
165.51 ft
4-inch
37
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____14.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 8:28 am 
Pump off - 8:51 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Sun Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. (*C)
Spec. Cood. (umhos;
PlD(ppm)
8:37 am (12 gal.)
6.86
30.1
1321
0
8:39 am (10.5 gal.)
6.98
24.8
1317
0
8:49 am (15 gal)
6.96
30.0
1314
0
After Sampling
6.85
30.7
1293
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
Prom Lab X 
or GAM
5— 40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remark!
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/A. Barrera, G. Sonzatoz (Soil Tech).
GAUFT.
l-y.--0.06
1-W-O.M
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" - 0.16 
3" - OJ7
2-W - 0.2* 
3-W « 0.50
4- - 0.65
6" « 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TU"
O05 
2O15
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-3
Partly cloudy, 90° F
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Bepn 
1:14 pm
Dm
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
9/30/92
2:15 pm
Description of Meau-ing Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Und Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallon! per Foot 
_____
Gallon! in Well
Top of well casing.
______0.01 ft
30.40 ft
16.32ft
14.08ft
0.65
9.15
EVACUATION DATA
MP Election
Water-Levd Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
181.84ft
165.52ft
4-inch
30
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____20.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 1:14 pm 
Pump off - 1:32 pm
SAUPUNQ DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
TIME (ET torn Start Pumping)
Field
Parameun
pH
Temp.CC) 
j
Spec. Good. (limbos]
PID(ppm)
1:21 pmCIOoal.)
6.79
30.6
1233
2.6
1:26pm(10 gal.)
6.80
29.8
1241
2.8
1:31 pm(10 gal.)
6.83
30.1
1252
22
After Sampling
6.74
30.1
1495
2.9
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or GAM.
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None_____
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Slight product odor.
Sampl ing Personnd
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Garaghty & Miller)/A. Barrera. G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAUFT.
1-V." -0.06
1-W - 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" • 0.14 
3" - 0-37
2-W » 0.2* 
3-W - OJO
4- - 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
2016
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-4
Partly cloudy, 90° F
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Bepn 
11:31 am
Page 1 of 1
Date 
9/30/92
Time Sampling
Completed 
1:00 pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_____
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallons per Foot 
_____
Gallons in Well 
_____
Evacuation Method
Top of well casing.
____0.03ft
27.00 ft
10.62ft
16.38ft
0.65
10.65
Centrifugal Pump
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water -Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feel below land surface)
175.66ft
165.04ft
4-inch
3B
16.0ft
Pump start - 11:31 am 
Pump off - 11:58 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAM PUN 6 DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. TO
Spec. Good, (umbos;
PID(ppm)
11:36 am (10 gal.)
6.94
33.1
1371
2.76
11:46 am (10 gal.)
7.01
32.6
1340
1.0
11:56 am (18 gal
7.03
32.7
1358
2.40
After Sampling
7.09
31.9
1456
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or GiM_
5-40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-SOO ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None_____
HNO3_____
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty * Miller)/ A. Ban-era. G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAUFT.
1-V." -0.06
1-W - DM
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2' - 0.16 
3' . OJ7
2-W « 02* 
3-W - 050
A- - 0.65
6- - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
CO5 2O17
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-4D
Partly cloudy
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
12:11 pm
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/5/92
2:00 pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP ______
Water Column in Well 
______
Gallon! per Foot 
________
Gallons in Well 
______
Evacuation Method
Top of well casing.
_____0.3ft
71.0ft
11.10ft
59.90ft
1.47
88.05
Centrifugal Pump
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
176.02ft
164.92ft
6-inch
264
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____20.0ft
Pump start-12:11 pm 
Pump off - 1:47 pm
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPUNG DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhos;
PID(ppm)
12:41 
pm(90gal.)
7.00
30.8
1471
0
1:1 5 pen (78 gal.)
7.00
30.0
1472
90.7
1 :47 pm (96 gal.)
7.00
30.5
1476
52
After Sampling
7.01
30.5
1473
68
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or GAM_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None_____
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Trace of product observed in this well. Slight petroleum odor.
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL/FT.
l-W-0.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" - 0.16 
J" - 031
2-W-0.26 
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.63
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
2013
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-4D*
dear, 82" F
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
7:55 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/7/92
9:30 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallons per Foot 
_____
Gallons in Well
Top of weII casing.
____0.24ft
71.0ft
11.OB ft
____59.92ft
_____1.47
88.06
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
17623ft
165.15ft
6-Inch
280
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) 
66.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump 
Pump start - 7:55 am 
Pump off - 8:30 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters 
8:06 am (88 gal.) 
8: 1 7 am (88 gal.) 
8:28 am (1 04 gal.)
pH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond (umhos]
PID(ppm)
7.15
28.6
1477
0
7.17
28.6
1474
0
7.16
28.8
1474
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or GAM_
5-40ml vials
Preservative
HCL pH-1
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
* Well was resampled for VOCs due to air bubbles in original sample container.
Trace of product observed in this well.
C. Moffatt. a Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A Ban-era, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAUFT. 
1-W -0.06
1-W - 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r • o.i6 
r - oj?
2-Vi"-O.Z6 
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Tin
OO5 2019
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-5
Ctear, 85" F
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
6:59 am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/1/92
9:25 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallons per Foot 
_____
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
____0.16ft
39.0ft
22.60ft
_____16.40ft
_____0.65
10.66
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
187.09ft
164.49ft
4-inch
33
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____33.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start — 8:59 am 
Pump off — 9:25 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong odor
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter. 
9:07 am (10 gal.) 
9:14 am (10.5 gal.) 
9.22 am (12 gal.)
pH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhoi]
PID (ppm)
6.80 
\
29.6
1294
9.999
7.00
29.6
1284
<2000
7.00
30.02
1262
<2000
After Sampling
7.00
29.2
1149
2000
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_______
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or G&M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None_____
HN03
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Trace of product observed in this well. Strong gasoline odor.
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL/FT.
i-y."
i-w
•0.06
•0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" - 0.16 
3" - 0.37
2-W - 0.26 
3-W - 0.50
•0.65
• 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
O05 
202O
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-6R
Partly cloudy, 90° F.
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
11:15 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
9/29/92
1:15 pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_______
Water Column in Well 
_______
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
_____0.3ft
____22.95 ft
7.50 ft
15.45ft
0.65
10.04
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
171.17ft
Water-Level Elevation 
163.67 ft
Diameter of Casing 
_____4 —inch
37
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface 
11.0 ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 11:15 am 
Pump off - 11:28 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters 
1 1:18 am (9 gal.) 1 1:21 am (9 gal.) 
11:24 am (11 gal.)
pH
Temp. fC)
Spec. Cond. (umbos
PID(ppm)
6.88
31.2
1283
94
6.83
30.2
1309
0
6.79
29.7
1316
0
( 'onstiiuenis Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/ Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab 
X 
or G&M
5— 40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Rem.irks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moftatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" = 0.16 
3' = 0.37
1 - V,- = 0.09
4" = 0.65
6" = 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
CO 5 202.1
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-6D
Partly cloudy, 90° F.
Coded,'
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
10:12 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
9/30/92
11:20 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_______
Water Column in Well 
_______
Gallon* per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.25ft
62.6 ft
7.30ft
55.30 ft
1.47
81.29
MP Election 
171.01 ft
Water-Uvd Elevation 
163.71 ft
Diameter of Gating 
____6—inch
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
270
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____10.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 10:12 am 
Pump off - 11:11 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Field
Parameto-s
pH
Temp.(°C)
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
10:29 am (77 gal.)
6.50
29.4
Spec. Cond. (umhos^ 
1450
PID(ppm)
0
10:49 am (90 gal.)
6.70
29.8
1465
0
11:09 am (103 gal.)
6.78
29.9
1465
0
After Sampling
7.74
31.8
1200
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
orG&M
5 -40 ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL7FT.
1-H" =0.06
1-W = 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2' = 0.16 
3- = 0.37
1" = 0.65
6" = 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-7
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
11:32 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 ofl
10/05/92
12:30pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP) 
Top of well casing.
Heigh! of MP Below Land Surface 
______0.16ft
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP 
______35.0ft
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Water Column in Well 
_____________
Gallons per Foot 
_____________
Gallons in Well 
11.86
16.76ft
18.24ft
0.65
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
180.13ft
163.37ft
4-inch
46
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____20.0ft
bvacuahon Method
Centrifugal Pump 
Pump start - 11:32 am 
Pump off - 11:50 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Field
! Parameters
jpH
jTemp. fC)
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
11:38 am (10 gal.)
7.05
11:43 am (15 gal.)
7.05
30.3 
29.5
| Spec. Cond. (umhos)j 
1 294
IPID(ppm)
0
1288
0
1 1 :48 am (21 gal.)
7.12
29.5
1292
0
After Sampling
7.05
Mot measured
1289
0
( onstiluents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
or G&M
5 -40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatl, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT. I-1/." =0.06
1 - '/I" = 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" = 0.16 
3" = 0.37
2-'/j" = 0.26 
3-'/i" = 0.50
4" - 0.65
6"= 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
Project/No.
Site Locauon
Sile/Well No.
Weather
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP _________
Water Column in Well 
________
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-8
Partly cloudy; 90° F.
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
None
8:39 am
Evtcu.ition Method
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and
EVACUATION DATA
Top o( well casing.
0.08tt
25.56 ft
17.03ft
8.53ft
0.65
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
5.54
Centrifugal Pump 
Pump start - 8:39 am 
Pump off - 8:51 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Pjge 1 of 1
9/29/92
11:30 am
167.54 ft
150.51 ft
4 —inch
12
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____21.0ft
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET ham Start Pumping)
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
Field
Parameters
PH
Temp.fC)
8:41 am
6.78
32.8
Spec. Cond. (umhos)j 
1 252
PID(ppm) 
0
8:48 am
6.88
32.2
1370
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
or G&M
5 -40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HN03
NaOH
HCL
Remark:,
Well went dry. Ground-water sample was collected according to the procedure specified in Appendix G. Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.
Sampling Personnc
C. Moftatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL ./FT.
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16 
3" = OJ7
2-v," = o.2(. 
j-vy = 0.50
4" = 0.65
6" = 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
2024
Project/No.
Site Location
Sue/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu7PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-9
Partly cloudy; 85° F.
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
9:05 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
10:30 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well 
______
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
_____0.06ft
34.10ft
12.40ft
21.70ft
0.65
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
162.26ft
149.86ft
4-inch
46
14.11
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) _____32.0 ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 9:05 am 
Pump off - 9:38 am
Color
Grayish
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong Odor
Teflon Bailer
SAMPUNG DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
[Parameters 
9:12 am (14 gal.) 
9:19 am (14 gal.) 
9:30 am (16 gal.)
IPH
Temp. ("C1
| Spec. Cond. (umhos'
IPID(ppm)
7.15
33.2
1386
<2000
7.12
28.88
1490
800
7.14
32.2
1486
780
After Sampling
7.16
31.2
1480
680
( 'onsliluents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
or G&M
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Strong petroleum odor (oil).
Samplmp Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
CiALVFT.
= !).<»>
= 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r = o.io 
r = OJT
2-V;" = 0.2t> 
J-v.-^n.SO
= 0.65
= 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
OO5 
2025
Project/No.
Site Location
Sue/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-9S
Partly cloudy; 85° F.
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
9:40 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
11:15am
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Water Column in Well 
_______
Gallons per Fool 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.10ft
18.67ft
12.84ft
5.83ft
0.65
3.79
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water—Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sam pi ing
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ^^
162.37 ft
149.53ft
4-inch
22
NA
Hvacualion Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 9:43 am 
Pump oft - 9:56 am
Color
Brownish
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong Odor
Teflon Bailer
SAM RUNG DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ETfrom Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters 
9:47 am (4 gal.) 1 9:51 am (6 gal.) 
9:56 am (12 gal.)
PH
Temp.(°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhos
PID(ppm)
7.13
32.6
1250
600
! 
7.15
! 
32.4
: 
1325
696
7.11
32.0
1322
After Sampling
7.17
31.8
1320
520 
1200
(.'onsliluents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
orGiM
5 -40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2—500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks 
Trace of product observed in this well. Well went dry. Ground-water sample collected following the procedure specified
in Appendix G. Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.__________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel 
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech)._________________________
GALVFT.
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" = O.lt. 
y = OJ7
2-W = 0.26 
3-V;" = 0.50
4- = 0.65
6" = 1.47
TUT
OOJ
2026
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Project/No.
Site Location
Sue/Well No.
Weather
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-10
Clear, Cool
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began 
6:30 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/6/92
9:00 am
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP ______
Water Column in Well 
______
OalJoni per Foot 
______
Gallon* in Well
EVACUATION DATA
Top of well casing. 
MP Elevation 
161.50ft
0.14ft 
_ 
Water-Level Elevation
_ 
Diameter of Casing
140.98ft
35.60ft
4—inch
20.52ft
15.08ft
Gallon! Pumped
Prior to Sampling
30
0.65
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____33.0ft
9.80
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump 
Pump start - 6:30 am 
Pump off - 6:42 am
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Color
Odor 
Parameters 
6:30 am
Clear 
None 
pH 
7.23
Temp. (°C) 
31 .0
Spec. Cond. (umhos) 
469
PID (ppm) 
0
7.54 am 
7:55 am 
After Sampling
7.18 
7.15 7.05
31.4 
31.5 31.1
1225 
1229 1229
0
0
0
Sampling Method and Material 
Teflon Bailer
Const
VOC
TCL
Container Description
tuents Sampled 
Prom Lab X 
orG&M
s 
5-40ml vials
BNAs 
2-500 ml amber glass
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals 
1 -500 ml plastic
TAL Cyanide 
1 -500 ml plastic
TPH
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks 
Well went dry. Well was pumped until specific conductivity stabilized.
Sampling Personnel 
C. Motfatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
WELL CASfNO VOLUMES
GAL/PT. 
l-W-0.06 
2" -0.16 
3" - 0.37
l-W-0.09 
2-W-0.26 
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.65
«" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
TUT
2027
Profcct/No.
Site Loc«(too
Site/Well No.
Weitber
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-10D
Partly cloudy, 85°
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
None
5:14am
Page 1 of 1
Date 
10/6/92
Time Sampling
Completed 
7:30 am
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height olMP Below Land Surf.cc
ToUl Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Witer Column in Well 
______
Gallons per Foot 
______
Gallons in Wel
Top of well casing.
0.14ft
75.0ft
20.66ft
54.34ft
1.47
79.88
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Levd Election
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
161.38ft
140.72ft
6-inch
250
Sampling Pump intake Setting
(feel below land surface)____70.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersble Pump
Pump start - 5:14am 
Pump off- 6:04 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Baile
SAMPUNG DATA/HELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET froaa Start PuBpint)
Field
Parametcn
pH
Temp-CC) 
I
Spec. Cood. (umhos
PID (pp..)
5:24 am (80 gal.)
7.10
29.3
606
0
5:34 am (80 gal.)
7.49
30.1
1106
0
5:55 am 
6:04 am
7.23
29.8
1264
0
7:23
29.5
1273
0
After Samplna
7.22
29.B
1266
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TALTotaVDtssorved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X 
or OHM
5-40rrt vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HN03
NaOH
HCL
Well went dry. Ground -water was sampled according to the procedure specified in Appendix G, Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.
Sampling Personnel
C. Molfatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (SolTech).
OAU/FT.
WELL CASINO VOLUMES
2" - 0.16 
3' - 037
2-W» 0.26 
3-W-OJO
= 0.65
• 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
CO5 
2028
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PB01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-11D
Partly cloudy, 90°
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
MS/MSD
10: 12 am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/2/92
11:30 am
Docription of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Water Column in Well 
______
Gallons per Foot 
______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.12ft
____74.3ft
20.0ft
54.3ft
1.47
79.82
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Levd Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
153.22ft
133.22ft
6—inch
280
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ______NA
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump___Pump start - 10:12 am 
Pump off - 10:47 am
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PAHAUETERS
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. CQ
Spec. Cond. (umbos)
PID(ppm)
10: 12 am (88 gal.)
6.78
29.2
1438
0
10:34 am (88 gal.)
7.00
29.4
1556
0
10: 45 am (104 gal.)
7.00
29.3
1589
0
After Sampling
9.38
29.9
192
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAl Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
Prom Lab_X__ or G&M_
5-40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT.
1-Y4--0.06
1-Vi- - O.W
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.1« 
3- - OJ7
2-W - 0.2t 
3-W . OJO
4" - 0.65
*" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
005 
2029
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-12D
Partly cloudy, 65°
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Begin 
10:13 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/5/92
11:30 am
Description at Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Tout Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_____
Water Column in Well 
_____
Gallons per Foot 
_____
Gallons in Well
Top ol well casing.
_____0.23 ft
80.65 ft
27.82ft
52.83 ft
0.65
34.34
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
161.81 ft
133.99ft
4-inch
123
Sampling Pump Intake Selling
(feet below land surface) ___
75 ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start — 10:13 am 
Pump off — 10:44 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAUPUNG DATA/FIELD PARAUETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters 
10:23 am (34 gal.) 10:32 am (38.75 gal.) 10:44 am (51 gal.)
pH
Temp.CC)
Spec. Cond. (umbosl
PID (ppm)
723
31.1
1459
0
7.50
31.7
1453
0
7.07
31.1
1455
0
After Sampling
7.28
32.1
1607
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
Prom Lab_X__ or G&M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarlu
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL7FT.
1-V »0.06
1-W - 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2- - 0.16 
3" - OJ7
2-W - 026 
3-W - 0.50
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
203O
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-13D
Partly cloudy
Coded/
Replicate No. 
None
Time Sampling
Began 
11:04 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/6/92
1:15 pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
_______
Water Column in Well 
_______
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.08ft
119.0ft
83.20 ft
35.80 ft
1.47
52.63
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Gating
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
236.60 ft
153.40 ft
6-inch
66
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface)____115.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump___Pump start - 11:04 am 
Pump off - 11:15 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. CC)
Spec. Cond. (umhos
PlD(ppm)
After Sampling
7.05
28.0
2370
0
Constituent* Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
Prom Lab X 
or CAM
5 -40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks 
Well went dry after 11 minutes of pumping at a rate of 6 gpm. Field parameters were not measured. Ground—water was
sampled according to the procedure specified in Appendix 0, Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.___________________
Sampling Personnel 
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalaz (Soil Tech)._______________________
GALVFT.
1-W
1-W
-0.06
"0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16 
3" - 0.37
2-W - 0.26 
3-W • 0.50
" - 0.4S
• - 1.47
Ttn «fh 4 AM w -1 !D.«fcJ
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
TUT 
005 2031
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-14
Partly cloudy, 86"
None
Coded/
Replicate No. 
___
Time Sampling
Began 
12:02 
am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/1/92
12:35 
pm
Description oC Measuring Point (MF)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP 
______
Water Column in Well 
_______
Gallons per Foot 
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.08ft
45.5ft
22.80ft
22.70ft
0.65
14.76
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation 
196.12ft
Water-Level Elevation 
173.32ft
Diameter of Casing 
____4-inch
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
45
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface)____40.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 12:02 am 
Pump off - 12:35 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. CQ
Spec. Cond. (umbos]
PID(ppm)
12:10 
(11.5 gal.)
7.34
31.1
1096
<2000
12:20 
(13.75 gal.)
7.14
30.8
1084
12:30
7.00
30.7
1086
0
After Sampling
6.54
30.0
1084
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X^ or G*M_
5-40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1-500 
ml plastic
1 - 500 ml plastic
2—500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Ban-era, G. GonzAlez (Soil Tech).
CALJPT.
1-V.-.0.06
1-W» 
0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16 
r - 0.37
2-W-0.26 
3- W- 0.50
4- « 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 
O05 
2032
APPENDIX D
DATA VALIDATION REPORT
(Under Separate Cover)
TUT 
On5 
2033
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX D
FIRST SAMPLING ROUND DATA VALIDATION REPORT
TUT 
005 
2O34
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX D
FIRST SAMPLING ROUND DATA VALIDATION REPORT
Appendix D includes the data validation summary and the supporting documentation
generated during the analytical data review of first round ground-water samples collected in
September and October 1992 for the Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands and analyzed by Enseco East (Enseco) of Somerset, New Jersey.
APPENDIX FORMAT
The data validation report appendix is divided in the following sections:
• 
Introduction.
• 
Attachment Dl - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) Number (No.) HW-6 (Revision No. 8) Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) organics data review and preliminary review
checklist, and the data assessment narrative.
• 
Attachment D2 - The USEPA SOP No. HW-2 (Revision 11) "Evaluation of
Metals Data for the CLP" total review inorganics checklist and the data
assessment narrative for the target analyte list (TAL).
• 
Attachment D3 - Tables associated with the validation checklists and narratives.
The introduction summarizes (1) the field investigation sampling effort, (2) the analytical
parameters and methods employed in support of the field investigation, (3) the data validation
requirements and validation protocols used for the data assessment, and (4) an overall
assessment.
TUT 
OO5 2035
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
D-2
Attachment Dl is comprised of the USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-6 (Revision No. 8)
CLP organics preliminary data review checklist and the data assessment narrative (USEPA
1992a). The data review checklist guides the data reviewer in evaluating pertinent field and
laboratory sample documentation and analytical procedures. By evaluating critical quality
control (QC) criteria, the data reviewer determines the validity of the analytical data and places
limitations on data use. In the data assessment narrative, the data reviewer summarizes the
validation, discusses sample anomalies and QC outliers, and provides an overall assessment of
the analytical data generated in support of the field investigation.
Attachment D2 is comprised of the USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-2 (Revision 11) data
review checklist and associated narrative for the evaluation of CLP inorganics (USEPA 1992b).
In Attachment D3, tables are provided that summarize sample identification/delivery
groups; holding time non-compliance; associated trip blank, field blank, and method blank
contamination; calibration outliers; and matrix spike outliers.
INTRODUCTION
This report represents the data validation and narrative summary for 23 ground-water
samples (including three field replicates [FR]), six field blanks, seven trip blanks, one field-
decontamination water blank, one matrix spike (MS), and one matrix spike duplicate (MSD)
sample collected in September and October 1992 for the Tutu Service Station Investigation.
SAMPLING
The samples were collected on seven days during the period of September 29, 1992
through October 7, 1992. They were delivered to the laboratory in seven sample delivery
groups (SDGs). An SDG and sample identification (ID) summary is provided below in Table
D3-1 of this appendix.
TUT 
OO5 
2O3&
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
D-3
Three replicate ground-water samples were collected and provided to the laboratory with
blind field identifications. The field replicates were collected at a frequency of 10 percent of
the total field sample number. The sample/field replicate pairs were as follows:
Sample ID 
Replicate Field ID 
Report ID
MW-5 
MW-104 
MW-5 FR
MW-7 
MW-105 
MW-7 FR
MW-9 
MW-106 
MW-9 FR
A field blank and trip blank were prepared daily and accompanied each SDG shipment.
The field blank collected on October 2, 1992 was cancelled at the laboratory due to an internal
error.
Sample MW-1 was initially collected on October 2, 1992 in SDG 25009. However, the
shipping cooler was lost in transit by the overnight carrier. Since the sample cooler was not
delivered to the laboratory during the required time period and the sample preservation
requirements were exceeded, MW-1 was resampled on October 6, 1992 and delivered to the
laboratory with SDG 25071.
The volatile analysis vials for samples MW-4D and MW-7 collected on October 5, 1992
were received at the laboratory with headspace. Sample MW-4D was resampled for volatiles
on October 7, 1992 and delivered to the laboratory with SDG 25091. Sample MW-7 was not
resampled since a field replicate of sample MW-7 designated MW-105 was collected on October
5, 1992 and sent to the laboratory for analysis. Geraghty & Miller instructed the laboratory to
cancel the volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses on the volatile sample vials delivered for
MW-7. To satisfy the 10 percent frequency required for the evaluation of sampling precision
and homogeneity of the sample matrix, an additional sample (MW-9) was collected in duplicate
in the field. The field replicate of MW-9 was designated MW-106 for analysis of volatile
organics only.
TUT 
005 
2037
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
D-4
A sample of the water used as the source for field decontamination was collected for
analysis on October 7, 1992 and designated "ESSO-TAP." The sample was analyzed for the
total suite of analytical parameters.
ANALYSIS
Samples collected during the field investigation were analyzed for the target compound
list (TCL) VOCs, 1,2,-dibromoethane (EDB), n-propylbenzene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE),
TCL semivolatiles (i.e., base neutral and acid [BNA] extractable compounds), TAL metals,
cyanide, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
All VOC and BNA analyses were performed in accordance with the USEPA March 1990
CLP organic routine analytical services (RAS) SOW (USEPA 1990a). The SOW was modified
during the VOC analysis in order to analyze and quantitate EDB, MTBE, and n-propylbenzene.
For TAL metal and cyanide analyses, the USEPA March 1990 inorganic SOW protocols
were used for the quantitation of TAL analytes (USEPA 1990b).
For the analysis of TPH in water samples, preparation and instrumental analysis was
performed in accordance with USEPA Method 418.1 in Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (USEPA 1983).
DATA VALIDATION
All VOC, BNA, metals, and cyanide data were validated in accordance with the USEPA
Region II data validation guidelines for organic and inorganic analyses performed in accordance
with CLP RAS protocols. The guidelines for organics and inorganics are provided in the
regional Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. HW-6, Revision 8, and No. HW-2, Revision
11, respectively (USEPA 1992a; 1992b).
Tl IT 
<">05 
2038
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
D-5
Data validation of TPH data was performed according to criteria specified in USEPA
Method 418.1 (USEPA 1983) and in accordance with the following guidelines:
• 
Method and/or reagent blanks - Reported concentration should be less than the
quantitation limit. Blanks, including field blanks, associated with field samples
were reviewed for contamination. Sample results were evaluated using a five
times (5x) multiplier of the highest concentration associated TPH blank.
• 
Precision of duplicates - Acceptable precision was demonstrated by calculation of
relative percent difference (RPD) with a limit of 20 percent. For calculated RPD
between 20 to 40 percent, all associated sample data for the analytical batch was
estimated and qualified with a "J" flag.
• 
Accuracy of matrix spikes - Acceptable accuracy was demonstrated by percent
recovery (%R) of MS and MSD in the acceptance window range of 80 to 120
percent. For %R values outside of the 80 to 120 window, but within 50 to 150
%R, associated sample data was qualified as estimated.
• 
Accuracy of laboratory control spikes - Acceptable %R of blank spikes was
within the window of 80 to 120 percent. For %R values outside of the 80 to 120
window, but within 50 to 150 %R, associated sample data in the SDG were
qualified as estimated concentrations.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and demonstrate
acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness.
Some data generated for the VOC and BNA organic analyses have been negated for blank
contamination and estimated for holding time, calibration criteria, surrogate and MS/MSD
TUT 
OO5
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
D-6
recoveries, and for sample disposition issues. The acid-extractable compounds reported as non-
detects in samples MW-6D and MW-11D were rejected due to surrogate outliers.
In the data review of TAL inorganics, some data were estimated for the following
criteria: holding times and sample preservation, calibration, furnace precision and accuracy
outliers, serial dilution, and for greater than a 10 percent difference between sample results for
total and dissolved constituents. The following data were determined unusable because of QC
outliers:
• 
The cyanide data for samples MW-6R and MW-8 due to holding time and sample
preservation requirements.
• 
The cyanide data for MW-11D due to the matrix precision and accuracy data
(MS/MSD analyses).
• 
Total aluminum and iron data in sample ESSO-TAP due to field blank
contamination.
• 
Total chromium in samples MW-9, MW-9S, and MW-1 due to field blank
contamination.
• 
Total and dissolved arsenic in sample MW-9S due to a greater than 50 percent
difference between the arsenic sample results.
GERAGHTYo* MILLER. INC. 
TUT 
°°5 
2O4°
D-7
REFERENCES
U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-7-90-020, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1983.
U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 
1990a. 
USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
SOW No. 3/90 including Rev. 12/90 and 2/91, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, March 1990.
U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 
1990b. 
USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program, Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
SOW No. 3/90, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992a. Evaluation of Organic Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-
6, Revision No. 8, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992b. Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-
2, Revision No. 11, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992.
nnuri-wp DV/appx.d
TUT 
OO5 
?O4i
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ATTACHMENT Dl
ORGANIC DATA VALIDATION REPORT
TUT 
005 
2O42
SOP NO. HW-6
Revision 18
CLP ORGANICS DATA REVIEW
AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW
BY: -"-^ 
-/ * 4 < v^______________________ Date:
Leon Lazarus, Environmental Scientist
z3 and Hazardous Waste Section
BY:
George Kefrras, Chemist 
/y
Tr\v i f 
ani^ Wa^aT-Hnne Uac+-o Ca/~^i/nr> 
t/
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
BY: v^^.- ^ ^P ^J^^e'-^<-<<' --'- ^__________ Date:.
Stelios Gerazounls/ Chemist
Toxic and Hazardoljs Waste Section
CONCURRED BYv= <-•... uj.^(Lt)_
^^•^^^^r T. 
^ 
JT^V 
*. 
^*»
Hazardous Waste Section
APPROVED BY: 
^_________^__
Robert RunyorT, ChXef
Monitoring Management Branch
TUT 00& 2O43
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
PACKAGE COMPLETENESS AND DELIVERABLES
CASE NUMBER:_____________^ 
LAB:.
SITE;Tu4u Se*rice> ^f*c
1.0 
Data Completeness and Deliverables
1.1 Have any missing deliverables been received 
/
and added to the data package? 
f*i
ACTION: 
Call lab for explanation/resubmittal of any
missing deliverables. If lab cannot provide
them, note the effect on review of the
package under the "Contract
Problems/Non-Compliance" section of reviewer
narrative.
1.2 Was SMO CCS checklist included with package? r 1 __
2.0 
Cover Letter SDG Narrative
2.1 Is the Narrative or Cover Letter Present? 
fn 
__
2.2 Are Case Number and/or SAS number contained 
s
in the Narrative or Cover letter? 
[*n __
3 . 0 
Data Validation Checklist
The following checklist is divided into three parts.
Part A is filled out if the data package contains any
VOA analyses, Part B for any BNA analyses and Part C
for Pesticide/PCBs.
Does this package contain:
VOA Data? 
JL _
BNA Data? 
j/ _
Pesticide/PCB data? 
_ 
_£
Action: Complete corresponding parts of checklist.
- 1 -
2O44
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/-A
PART A: VOA ANALYSES
1.0 
Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative
1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for
all samples?
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement
of missing or illegible copies.
1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative
indicate any problems with sample receipt,
condition of samples, analytical problems
or special circumstances affecting the
quality of the data?
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil,
other than TCLP, contains 50%-90%
water, all data should be flagged as
estimated (J). If a soil sample
other than TCLP contains more than
90% water, all data should be
qualified as unusable (R).
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon
receipt at the laboratory, flag all
positive results "J" and all Non-
Detects "UJ".
ACTION: If both VOA vials for a sample have
air bubbles or the VOA vial analyzed
had air bubbles, flag all positive
results "J" and all non-detects "R".
- 2 -
OO5 2O45
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
2.0 
Holding Times
2.1 Have any VOA technical holding tines,
determined from date of collection to date of 
/
analysis, been exceeded? 
y 
I_1
If unpreserved, aqueous samples maintained at 4*C which are to
be analyzed for aromatic hydrocarbons must be analyzed within
7 days of collection." If preserved with HC1 (pH<2) and stored
at 4'C, then 
aqueous samples must be analyzed within 14
days of collection. If -uncertain about preservation, contact
sampler to' determine whether or not samples were preserved.
The holding time for soils is 10 days.
ftefes 
4o TcJote.
Table pf Holding Tiff? violations 
D5-2 tn ~tUe, oa»o/xA\x
(See Traffic Report)
Sample 
Sample 
Date 
Date Lab Date
ID 
Matrix Preserved? 
Sampled 
Received Analyzed
ACTION: 
If technical holding times are exceeded, flag all
positive results as estimated ("J") and sample
quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in
the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If
analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding
time, either on the first analysis or upon re-analysis,
the reviewer must use professional judgement to
determine the reliability of the data and the effects of
additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum,
all results must be qualified "J", but the reviewer may
determine that non-detect data are unusable (R). If
holding times are exceeded by more than 28 days, all non
detect data are unusable (R).
- 3 -
TUT CO5 2O 4 6
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/.A
3 .0 
System Monitoring Compound fSMCl Recovery (Form
3.1 Are the VOA SMC Recovery Summaries (Form II) present
for each of the following matrices:
a. 
Low Water
b. 
Low Soil 
r 1 
__ 
r
c. 
Med Soil 
I_l
3.2 Are all the VOA samples listed on the appropriate
System Monitoring Compound Recovery Summary for each
of the following matrices:
a. 
Low Water
S
b. 
Low Soil
c. 
Med Soil 
r 1 • __ 
r
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/
resubmittals. If missing
deliverables are unavailable,
document effect in data assessments.
3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an 
/
asterisk? 
1±1 __ __
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4 Was one or more VOA system monitoring
compound recovery outside of contract
specifications for any sample or method 
S
blank? 
_•. 1_L __
If yes, were samples re-analyzed? 
\y\ __ 
__
Were method blanks re-analyzed? 
I_1 __ 
*
- 4 -
TUT
On5 2O47
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
! 
YE!NO
ACTION: If recoveries are > 10% but 1 or
more compounds fail to meet SOW
specifications:
1. All positive results are qualified
as estimated (J).
2. Flag all non-detects as estimated
detection limits ("UJ") where
recovery is less than the lower
acceptance limit.
3. If SMC recoveries are above allowable
levels, do not qualify non-detects.
If any system monitoring compound
recovery is <10% :
1. Flag all positive results as
estimated ("J").
2. Flag all non-detects as unusable
("R").
Professional judgement should be used to qualify
data that only have method blank SMC recoveries out
of specification in both original and re-analyses.
Check the internal standard areas.
3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation 
S
errors between raw data and Form II? 
__ 
r *n __
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors in the data assessment.
4.0 
Matrix Spikes (Form III1
4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate 
S
Recovery Fora (Form III) present? 
r*n __ 
__
- 5 -
TUT CO5 2048
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO FVA
4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices:
a. 
Low Water 
r ""i 
__ 
__
b. 
Low Soil 
r 1 
__ 
*
c. 
Med Soil 
r 1
ACTION: 
If any matrix spike data are missing, take
the action specified in 3.2 above.
4.3 How many VOA spike recoveries are outside QC
limits?
Water 
Soils
3> 
out of 10 
KJn out of 10
4.4 How many RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water 
Soils
Q 
out of 5 
Mfl out of 5
ACTION: No action is taken based on MS/MSD
data alone. However, using informed
professional judgement, the MS/MSD
results may be used in conjunction
with other QC criteria to determine
the need for qualification of the
data.
5.0 
Blanks (Form IV)
5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) 
</
present? 
[ 1
5.2 Frequency of Analysis: for the analysis
of VOA TCL compounds, has a reagent/method
blank been analyzed for each SDG or every
20 samples of similar matrix (low water,
low soil, medium soil), whichever is more 
/
frequent? 
T ^
- 6 -
TUT CO 5 2O49
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
NO N/A
5.3 Has a VOA method/instrument blank been
analyzed at least once every twelve hours for
each concentration level and GC/MS system
used?
ACTION: 
If any method blank data are missing, call
lab for explanation/ resubmittal. If
method blank data are not available,
reject (R) all associated positive data.
However, using professional judgement, the
data reviewer may substitute field blank
or trip blank data for missing method
blank data.
5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data system
printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable 
s
for VOAs? 
r*H . _
ACTION: 
Use professional judgement to
determine the effect on the data.
6.0 
Contamination
NOTE: 
"Water blanks", "drill blanks", and distilled water
blanks" are validated like any other sample, and are
not used to qualify data. Do not confuse them with
the other QC blanks discussed below.
6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have
positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for VOAs?
When applied as described below, the
contaminant concentration in these blanks are
multiplied by the sample dilution factor and
corrected for % moisture when necessary.
6.2 Do any field/trip/rinse blanks have positive
VOA results (TCL and/or TIC)?
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated with
each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a
separate sheet.)
- 7 -
TUT OO5 2O5O
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
NOTE: 
All field blank results associated to a particular
group of samples (may exceed one per case) must be
used to qualify data. Trip blanks are used to
qualify only those samples with which they were
shipped and are not required for non-aqueous
matrices. Blanks may not be qualified because of
contamination in another blank. Field Blanks & Trip
Blanks must be qualified for system monitoring
compound, instrument performance criteria, spectral
or calibration QC problems.
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify
TCL results due to contamination. Use the largest
value from all the associated blanks. If any blanks
are grossly contaminated, all associated data should
be qualified as unusable (R).
Sample cone > CRQL
but < lOx blank
value
Sample cone < CRQL
& <10x blank value
Sample cone > CRQL
& >10x blank value
Methylene
Chloride Flag sample result
Acetone with a "U;
Toluene
2-Butanone
Report CRQL &
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
Sample cone > CRQL Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank 
is < 5x blank value 
value & > 5x blank
value
Other
Contam-
inants
Flag sample result Report CRQL &
with a "U" 
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
NOTE: Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are
still considered as "hits" when qualifying for
calibration criteria.
- 8 -
!"UT 
OO5 2051
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
ACTION: For TIC compounds,'if the concentration in the
sample is less than five times the concentration in
the most contaminated associated blank, flag the
sample data "Rn (unusable).
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks
associated with every sample? 
I_1
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that
there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
7,0 
GC/MS Instrument Performance Check (Form V)
7.1 Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check
Forms (Form V) present for Bromofluorobenzene S
(BFB)? 
rn
7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and
mass/charge (m/z) listing for the BFB
provided for each twelve hour shift?
7.3 Has an instrument performance compound been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
analysis per instrument?
- 9 -
TUT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O
ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and
sample analysis for which no
associated GC/MS tuning data are
available.
DATE 
TIME 
INSTRUMENT 
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all
data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour
calibration interval.
7.4 Have the ion abundances been normalized to 
/
m/z 95? 
U2. 
__
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error,
qualify all associated data as
unusable (R).
7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for 
/
each instrument used? 
[*\ __
ACTION: List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a
separate sheet).
ACTION: If ion abundance criteria are not
met, the Region II TPO must
be notified. 
:
7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least
two values but if errors are found, check 
/
more.) 
• 
__ 
U-L
- 10 -
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant 
/
figures (two) been reported? 
I_1 
*
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration 
/
compound acceptable? 
r*j __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine whether associated data
should be accepted, qualified, or
rejected.
8.0 
Target Compound List fTCLl Analvtes
8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I VOA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate r*i __
b. 
Matrix spikes and matrix spike 
/
duplicates 
r*i
c. 
Blanks
8.2 Are the VOA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, the
mass spectra for the identified compounds, and the
data system printouts (Quant Reports) included in
the sample package for each of the following?
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate f ""l 
__
b. 
Matrix spikes and matrix spike 
s
duplicates (Mass spectra not required) f"u. 
__
c. 
Blanks
ACTION: If any data are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above.
- 11 -
TUT 005 2054
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
8.3 Are the response factors shown in the Quant 
/
Report? 
r 1 
_1_
8.4 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with
respect to:
Baseline stability?
Resolution?
Peak shape? 
lUl
Full-scale graph (attenuation)? 
CM
Other: _________________ 
I_l
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine the acceptability of the
data.
8.5 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra 
'.
of the identified VOA compounds present for 
/
each sample? 
I_1 
__
ACTION: If any mass spectra are missing,
take action specified in 3.2 above.
If lab does not generate their own
standard spectra, make note in
"Contract Problems/Non-compliance".
8.6 Is the RRT of each reported compound within
0.06 RRT units of the standard RRT in the 
/
continuing calibration? 
I_1 
__
8.7 Are all ions present in the standard mass
spectrum at a relative intensity greater
than 10% also present in the sample mass 
/
spectrum? 
[ ^ 
——
- 12 -
TUT 
OOI5 
2015 5
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O
8.8 Do sample and standard relative ion 
/
intensities agree within 20*? 
f^ 
__ __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of data. If
it is determined that incorrect
identifications were made, all such
data should be rejected (R), flagged
11N" (presumptive evidence of the
presence of the compound) or changed
to not detected (U) at the
calculated detection limit. In
order to be positively identified,
the data roust comply with the
criteria listed in 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8.
ACTION: When sample carry-over is a
possibility, professional judgement
should be used to determine if
instrument cross-contamination has
affected any positive compound
identification.
9.0 
Tentatively Identified Compounds fTIC)
9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I Part B) present; and do listed TICs
include scan number or retention time, 
/
estimated concentration and "JN" qualifier? I_\ 
* 
__
9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified
compounds and associated "best match" spectra
included in the sample package for each of the
following: 
.
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate I_1 
__ 
__
b. 
Blanks 
Lid __ __
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
- 13 -
fUT OO5 2056
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction)
listed as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-
dimethylbenzene is xylene- a VOA TCL 
/
analyte - and should not be reported as a TIC)?. 
r\o
ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound
listed as a TIC.
9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass
spectrum with a relative intensity greater
than 10% also present in the sample mass
spectrum?
9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative 
/
ion intensities agree within 20%? 
f*]
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of TIC
identifications. If it is
determined that an incorrect
identification was made, change
identification to "unknown" or to
some less specific identification
(example: "C3 substituted benzene")
as appropriate.
Also, when a compound is not found
in any blank, but is detected in a
sample and is a suspected artifact
of a common laboratory contaminant,
the result should be qualified as
unusable (R). (i.e. Common Lab
Contaminants: C02 (M/E 44) ,
Siloxanes (M/E 73) Hexane, Aldol
Condensation Products, Solvent
Preservatives, and related by
products - see Functional Guidelines
for more guidance).
- 14 -
TUT CO5 2057
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
10.0
Compound
Limits
Ouantitation and Reported Detection
10.1 
Are there any transcription/calculation
errors in Form I results? Check at least two
positive values. Verify that the correct
internal standard, quantitation ion, and RRF
were used to calculate Form I result. Were
any errors found?
10.2 
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample
dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture?
ACTION: 
If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note errors
under "Conclusions".
ACTION: 
When a sample is analyzed at more than one
dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used
(unless a QC exceedance dictates the use
of the higher CRQL data from the diluted
sample analysis). Replace concentrations
that exceed the calibration range in the
original analysis by crossing out the "E"
and its associated value on the original
Form I and substituting the data from the
analysis of the diluted sample. Specify
which Form I is to be used, then draw a
red "X" across the entire page of all Form
I's that should not be used, including any
in the summary package.
11.0 
Standards Data fGC/MSl
11.1 
Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms,
and data system printouts (Quant. Reports)
present for initial and continuing
calibration?
ACTION: If any calibration standard data are
missing, take action specified in
3.2 above.
- 15 -
OO5 2058
12.0
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
GC/M5 Initial Calibration (Form
12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI)
present and complete for the volatile
fraction at concentrations of 10, 20,
50, 100, 200 ug/1? Are there separate
calibrations for low water/med soils
and low soil samples?
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
12.2 Were all low level soil standards, blanks
and samples analyzed by heated purge? 
I_1
ACTION: If low level soil samples were not heated during
purge, qualify positive hits "J" and non-detects "R"
12.3 Are response factors stable for VOA's
over the concentration range of the
calibration (%Relative Standard Deviation
(%RSD) <30.0% )?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE: 
Although 11 VOA compounds have a minimum
RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical
criteria are the same for all analytes.
ACTION: If %RSD > 30.0%, qualify associated positive
results for that analyte "J" and non-detects
using professional judgement. When RSD > 90%,
flag all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable)
NOTE: 
Analytes previously qualified "U" for blank
contamination are still, considered as "hits"
when qualifying for initial calibration
criteria. 
.
m _
12.4 
Are the RRFs above 0.05?
Action: Circle all', outliers in red.
Action: If any RRF are < 0.05, qualify associated
non-detects (R) and flag associated positive
data as estimated (J).
- 16 -
rir
005 2059
STAKDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
12.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or %RSD? (Check at least 2 values, but
if errors are found, check more.) 
__
13.0 
GC/M5 Continuing Calibration (Form VIH
13.1 Are the Continu-ing Calibration Forms
(Form VII) present and complete for the
volatile fraction?
13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard
been analyzed for every twelve hours of
sample analysis per instrument?
ACTION: List below all sample analyses that
were not within twelve hours of the
previous continuing calibration
analysis.
in
ACTION: If any forms are missing or no continuing
calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal. If continuing calibration
data are not available, flag all associated sample
data as unusable ("R").
13.3 Do any volatile compounds have a % Difference
(% D) between the initial and continuing 
/
RRF which exceeds the + 25% criteria? 
** 
\ i __
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: Qualify both positive results and
non-detects for the outlier compound(s)
as estimated. When % D is above 90%, reject
all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable.
- 17 -
TUT 005
206O
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
13.4 Do any volatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? J_1 _y 
_
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If the RRF <0.05, qualify associated
non-detects as unusable (R) and "J"
associated positive values.
13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation
errors in the reporting of average response
factors (RRF) or %difference (*D) between
initial and continuing RRFs? (Check at least
two values but if errors are found, 
/
check more.) 
__ 
r^n _
ACTION: Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors under "Conclusions".
14.0 
Internal Standard rForm VIII)
14.1 Are the internal standard areas (Form VIII)
of every sample and blank within the upper
and lower limits (-50% to + 100%) for each 
,S
continuing calibration? 
!"*] __ .
ACTION: List all the outliers below.
Sample # Internal Std 
Area 
Lower Limit 
Upper Limit
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
- 18 -
TUT OO5 2O61
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
ACTION: 1. If the internal standard area count
is outside the upper or lover limit,
flag with "J" all positive results
quantitated with this internal standard.
2. Non-detects associated with IS area counts
> 100% should not be qualified.
3. If IS area is below the lower limit
(< 50%), qualify all associated non-
detects (U values) MJW. If extremely
low area counts are reported, (< 25%)
or if performance exhibits a major
abrupt drop off, flag all associated
non-detects as unusable ("R").
14.2 Are the retention times of the internal
standards within 30 seconds of the 
/
associated calibration standard? 
r*i __ 
__
ACTION: Professional judgement should be
used to qualify data if the
retention times differ by more than
30 seconds.
15.0 
Field Duplicates
15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for
VOA analysis?
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate
the relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between
duplicate results must be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However,
if large differences exist,
identification of field duplicates
should be confirmed by contacting
the sampler.
- 19 -
TUT 
005
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
PART B: BNA ANALYSES
1 • 0 
Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative
1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all 
/
samples? 
f n 
_
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of
missing or illegible copies.
1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative
indicate any problems with sample receipt,
condition of samples, analytical problems or
special notations affecting the quality of 
S
the data? 
_• r_i
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other
than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water,
all data should be flagged as estimated
("J"). If a soil sample, other than TCLP,
contains more than 90% water, all data
should be qualified as unusable (R) .
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at
the laboratory, flag all positive results
"J" and all non-detects "UJ".
2 . 0 
Holding Times
2.1 Have any BNA technical holding times,
determined from date of collection to date of
extraction, been exceeded? 
I_1
Continuous extraction of water samples for
BNA analysis must be started within seven
days of the date of collection. Soil/
sediment samples must be extracted within
7 days of collection. Extracts must be
analyzed within 40 days of the date of
extraction.
- 20 -
TUT 005 
2O6'J"
Date: January 19S2
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
Table of Holding Time Violations p^c{e/" ix>
(See Traffic Report)
Sample Date 
Date Lab 
Date 
Date
Sample 
Matrix Sampled 
Received 
Extracted 
Analyzed
ACTION: If technical holding times are exceeded,
flag all positive results as estimated
("J") and sample quantitation limits
as estimated ("UJ"), and document in
the narrative that holding times were
exceeded.
If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond
holding time, either on the first analysis or
upon reanalysis, the reviewer must use
professional judgement to determine the
reliability of the data and the effects of
additional storage on the sample results.
At a minimum, all results should be qualified
"J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect
data are unusable ("R") . If holding times are exceeded by-
more than 28 days, all non detect data are unusable (R).
3.0 
Surrogate Recovery (Form ill
3.1 Are the BNA Surrogate Recovery Summaries
(Form II) present for each of the following
matrices:
a. 
Low Water 
r*M __ 
__
b. 
Low Soil 
I__l __ 
_JL
c. 
Med Soil 
I_L __ 
-^.
- 21 -
TUT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 15S2
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
3.2 Are all the BNA camples listed on the
appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summaries
for each of the following matrices:
a. 
Low Water 
r *n __ 
__
b. 
Low Soil 
r 1 __ 
__L
c. 
Low Soil 
r 1
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals.
If missing deliverables are unavailable,
document effect in data assessments.
3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an
asterisk?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4 Were two or more base-neutral OR acid surrogate
recoveries out of specification for any sample 
>»
ni- ma4-fem^ Klanlr? 
f Vl
or method blank?
*
If yes, were samples reanalyzed?
Were method blanks reanalyzed? 
1 _ 1
ACTION: If all BNA surrogate recoveries are
> 10% but two within the base-neutral
or acid fraction do not meet SOW
specifications, for the affected
fraction only (i.e. base-neutral or
acid compounds):
1. 
Flag all positive results as estimated
("J").
2. 
Flag all non-detects as estimated
detection limits ("UJ") when recoveries
are less than the lower acceptance limit.
3. 
If recoveries are greater than the upper
acceptance limit, do not qualify non-detects,
- 22 -
TUT DO5 2O65
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
If any base-neutral or acid surrogate has a
recovery of <10%:
1. 
Positive results for the fraction with
<10% surrogate recovery are qualified
with "J".
2. 
Non-detects for that fraction should be
qualified as unusable (R) .
Professional judgement should be used to qualify
data that have method blank surrogate recoveries
out of specification in both original and
reanalyses. Check the internal standard areas.
3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors 
/
between raw data and Form II? 
__ f *n
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document effect
in data assessments.
4.0 
Matrix Spikes fForm III1
4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate 
/
Recovery Form (Form III) present? 
r "^
4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices:
a. 
Low Water
b. 
Low Soil 
L_L
c. 
Med Soil 
L-l
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing,
take the action specified in 3.2 above.
- 23 -
005 2066
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1SS2
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
4.3 How many BNA spike recoveries are outside
QC limits?
Water 
Soils
12. out of 22 
Kfl out of 22
4.4 How many RPD's for matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate recoveries are outside QC
limits?
Nft
Soils
out of 11
ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data
alone. However, using informed
professional judgement, the data
reviewer may use the matrix spike and
matrix spike duplicate results in
conjunction with other QC criteria and
determine the need for some
qualification of the data.
5.0 
Blanks (Form IV!
5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present? r«n 
__
5.2 Frequency of Analysis:
Has a reagent/method blank analysis been
reported per 20 samples of similar matrix,
or concentration level, and for each extraction 
>/
batch?
5.3 Has a BNA method blank been analyzed for
each GC/MS system used? 
\ ""I
(See SOW p. D - 59/SV, Section 8.7)
ACTION: If any method blank data are missing,
call lab for explanation/resubmittal.
If not available, use professional
judgement to determine if the associated
sample data should be qualified.
- 24 -
TUT 
COS 
2O67
Date: January' 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data
system printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable for 
/
BNAs? 
r*/i
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the effect on the data.
6.0 
Contamination
Note: 
"Water blanks", "drill blanks" and
"distilled water blanks" are validated
like any other sample and are not used
to qualify the data. Do not confuse them
with the other QC blanks discussed below.
6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have
positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for BNAs?
When applied as described below, the
contaminant concentration in these blanks are
multiplied by the sample dilution factor and 
/
corrected for % moisture where necessary. 
* I_1
6.2 Do any field/rinse/ blanks have positive 
S
SNA results (TCL and/or TIC)? 
_•_ 1_I
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated
with each of the contaminated blanks.
(Attach a separate sheet.)
Note: 
All field blank results associated to
a particular group of samples (may
exceed one per case) must be used to
qualify data. Blanks may not
be qualified because of contamination
in another blank . Field Blanks must be
qualified for surrogate, spectral, instrument
performance or calibration QC problems.
- 25 -
TUT GO5 2068
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO K/A
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table
below to qualify TCL results due to
contamination. Use the largest value
from all the associated blanks. If
gross contamination exists, all data
in the associated samples should be qualified
as unusable (R).
Sample cone > CRQL 
Sample cone <CRQL & 
Sample cone > CRQL
but < lOx blank 
is< lOx blank value 
value & >10x blank
Common Phthalate Esters
Flag sample result 
Report CRQL & 
No qualification
with a "U"; 
qualify "U" 
is needed
Sample cone > CRQL 
Sample cone < CRQL & 
Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank 
is < 5x blank value 
value & >5 blank value
Other Contaminants
Flag sample result 
Report CRQL & 
No qualification
with a "U"; 
qualify "U" 
is needed
NOTE:Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination
are still considered as "hits" when qualifying
for calibration criteria.
ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the
concentration in the sample is less
than five times the concentration in
the most contaminated associated blank,
flag the sample data "R" (unusable).
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks 
/
associated with every sample? 
r 1 
*
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data
assessment that there is no associated
field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception:
samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
- 26 -
TLJT 005 2O69
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
7.0 
GC/MS Instrument Performance Check
7.1 Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Forms
(Form V} present for Decafluorotriphenylphosphine
(DFTPP)?
7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/
charge (m/z) listing for the DFTPP provided for /
*
each twelve hour shift?
7.3 Has an instrument performance check solution
been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample 
/
analysis per instrument? 
*
ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and
sample analyses for which no
associated GC/KS tuning data are
available.
DATE 
TIME 
INSTRUMENT 
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data,
reject ("R") all data generated outside
an acceptable twelve hour calibration
interval.
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all
associated sample data as unusable (R).
7.4 Have the ion abundances been normalized to m/z 
/
198? 
Ill
- 27 -
TUT OO5
2O 70
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1S92
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for 
/
each instrument used? 
r 1
ACTION: List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a separate
sheet).
ACTION: If ion abundance criteria are not
met, the Region II TPO must
be notified.
between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least 
>X
two values but if errors are found, check more.) __ J *n _
7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant 
+
7. 6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between mass lists and Form
two values but if errors are
Have the appropriate number
figures (two) been reported?
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make
necessary corrections and document effect
in data assessments.
7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound •/
acceptable? 
f *n
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
whether associated data should be
accepted, qualified, or rejected.
8. 0 
Target Compound List (TCL) Analvtes
8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I BNA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate 
r*H
b. 
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates r*i
c. 
Blanks
- 28 -
2071
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N ? A
8.2 Has GPC cleanup been performed on all soil/ 
/
sediment sample extracts? 
_r_\ 
___ 
ACTION: If data suggests that GPC was not
performed, use professional judgement.
Make note in "Contract
Problems/Non-Compliance".
8.3 Are the BNA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms,
the mass spectra for the identified compounds,
and the data system printouts (Quant Reports)
included in the sample package for each of the
following?
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate 
r*n __ _
b. 
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates 
s
(Mass spectra not required) 
f*n __ _
c. 
Blanks 
r «0 __ 
_
ACTION: If any data are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above.
8.4 Are the response factors shown in the Quant 
S
Report? 
' i 
S
8.5 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with
respect to:
Baseline stability? 
[ "T __ _
*
Resolution?
Peak shape?
Full-scale graph (attenuation)? 
I_1
Other:
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the acceptability of the data.
- 29 -
TUT GO5 2072
Date: January 199!
Revision: 6
YES NO N/A
8.6 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of
identified BNA compounds present for each 
s
sample? 
r*n
ACTION: If any mass spectra are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above. If lab
does not generate their own standard
spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/
Non-compliance". If spectra are missing,
reject all positive data.
8.7 Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06
RRT units of the standard RRT in the continuing 
/
f»-\ i^t-»t-inn-> 
fin
calibration?
8.8 Are all ions present in the standard mass
spectrum at a relative intensity greater than 
^X
10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? 
r*n
8.9 Do sample and standard relative ion intensities 
>X
aeiT-«»«» wH-hin 9O4? 
T «H
agree within
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
acceptability of data. If it is
determined that incorrect identifications
were made, all such data should be
rejected (R), flagged "Nn (Presumptive
evidence of the presence of the compound)
or changed to not detected (U) at
the calculated detection limit. In order
to be positively identified, the data
must comply with the criteria listed in
8.7, 8.8, and 8.9.
ACTION: When sample carry-over is a possibility,
professional judgement should be used to
determine if instrument cross-contamination
has affected any positive compound
identification.
9.0 
Tentatively Identified Compounds fTIC)
9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I, Part B) present; and do listed TICs
include scan number or retention time, estimated 
/
concentration and "JN" qualifier? 
I_1 *
- 30 -
TUT 005 2O73
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively
identified compounds and associated "best match"
spectra included in the sample package for each
of the following:
a. 
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
b. 
Blanks
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed
as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is
xylene a VOA TCL - and should not be reported as 
S
a TIC)? 
* j__L
ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound
listed as a TIC.
9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass
spectrum with a relative intensity greater than 
/
10% also nresent in the samnle mass soectrum? 
F *H
9.5
10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? 
rn 
__ _
Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion
intensities agree within 20%?
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of TIC
identifications. If it is determined
that an incorrect-identification
was made, change identification to
"unknown" or to some .less specific
identification (example: "C3
substituted benzene") as appropriate.
Also, when a compound is not found in
any blank, but is a suspected artifact
of a common laboratory contaminant, the
result should be qualified as unusable
(R).
- 31 -
TUT
2074
Date: January 
1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
10.0 
Compound Ouantitation and Reported Detection Limits
10.1 
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive values.
Verify that the correct internal standard,
guantitation ion, 
and RRF were used to calculate
Form I result. Were any errors found? 
__
10.2 
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample
dilutions and, 
for soils, sample moisture? 
[*"]
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more
than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs
are used (unless a QC exceedance
dictates the use of the higher CRQL
data from the diluted sample analysis).
Replace concentrations that exceed the
calibration range in the original
analysis by crossing out the "E" and it's
associated value on the original Form I
and substituting the data from the analysis
of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I
is to be used, then draw a red " X" across
the entire page of all Form I's that should
11.0
not be used,
package.
Standards Data (GC/HS)
including any in the summary
11.1 
Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and
data system printouts (Quant, Reports) present 
/
for initial and continuing calibration? 
1_1
ACTION: If any calibration standard data
are missing, take action specified
in 3.2 above.
- 32 -
OO 5 
':>
-•-O75
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 15S2
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N A A
12.0 
GC/M5 Initial Calibration fForm VI)
12.1 
Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Fora VI) ./••
present and complete for the BNA fraction? 
I n 
__ _
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms
are missing, take action specified
in 3.2 above.
12.2 
Are response factors stable for BNAs over
the concentration range of the calibration? 
>/
r% Relative standard deviation (%RSD) < 30.0%) r*n __ 
__
Relative standard deviation (%RSD) < 30.0*)
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE: 
Although 20 BNA compounds have a minimum
RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical
criteria are the same for all analytes.
ACTION: If the % RSD is > 30.0%, qualify
positive results for that analyte "J"
and non-detects using professional
judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag all non-
detect results for that analyte R (unusable).
NOTE: 
Analytes previously qualified "U" due to
blank contamination are still considered
as "hits" when qualifying for calibration
criteria.
12.3 
Are all BNA compound RRFs > 0.05? 
f *n 
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If any RRF < 0.05
1. "R" all non-detects.
2. "J" all positive results.
12.4 
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
the reporting of average response factors (RRF)
or % RSD? (Check at least two values but if errors 
/
are found, check more.) 
—— I_L
ACTION: Circle Errors in red.
- 33 -
TUT OO5 
2O'/'6
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 15S2
Revision: 8
YES 
NO N'/A
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors in data assessments.
13.0 
GC/MS Continuing Calibration fForm
13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form VII)
present and complete for the BNA fraction?
13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
analysis per instrument?
ACTION: List below all sample analyses
that were not within twelve hours
of a continuing calibration analysis
for each instrument used.
ACTION: If any forms are missing or no
continuing calibration standard
has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis,
call lab for explanation/
resubmittal. If continuing
calibration data are not available,
flag all associated sample data as
unusable ("R").
13.3 Do any semivolatile compounds have a % Difference
(% D) between the initial and continuing RRF
which exceeds the + 25.0% criteria?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: Qualify both positive results and
non-detects for the outlier
compound(s) as estimated (J). When %D is
above 90%, reject all non-detects for that
analyte (R) unusable.
- 34 -
TUT
005
STANDARD OPERATING r
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
~~~ YES NO N7A
13.4 Do any semivolatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? __ f^
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If RRF <0.05, qualify as unusable (R)
associated non-detects and "J" associated
positive values.
13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or % difference (ID) between initial and
continuing RRFs? (Check at least two values 
/
but if errors are found, check more). 
__ l\\
ACTION: Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
14.0 
Internal Standards (Form VIII)
14.1 Are the internal standard areas (Form VIII) of
every sample and blank within the upper and
lower limits (-50% to + 100%) for each continuing 
s
calibration?
ACTION: List all the outliers below.
Sar.ple * 
Internal Std 
Area 
Lower Limit 
Upper Linit
MW-IIP HSD <^f serve.-gJI2~ 
3S4&7
35775"
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
ACTION: 1. If the internal standard area count
is outside the upper or lower limit,
flag with "J" all positive results
and non-detects (U values) quantitated
with this internal standard.
- 35 -
TUT 
005 
2078
Date: Januar
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
2. Non-detects associated with IS areas
> 100% should not be qualified.
3. If the IS area is below the lower limit
(<50%), qualify all associated non-detects
(U-values) "J". If extremely low area counts
are reported (<25%) or if performance
exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all
associated non-detects as unusable (R).
14.2 Are the retention times of the internal standards
within 30
standard?
m*^ ^ 
ta**^ ^ ^» *»*»* • *• 4b ^* • w ^«M^»a^ ^ A 
*••*«* ^ • • ^M4to • • »• ^ 
m* •• «•• »^»^— ^ •-
within 30 seconds of the associated calibration 
/
in _ _
ACTION: Professional judgement should be
used to qualify data if the
retention times differ by more than
30 seconds.
15. 0 
Field Duplicates
15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for BNA 
/
analysis? 
CM
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate
the relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However,
if large differences exist,
identification of field duplicates
should be confirmed by contacting the
sampler.
- 36 -
r|JT OO5 2O 7 9
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
PART C; PESTICIDE/PCB ANALYSIS
1.0 
Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative
1.1 Are Traffic Report Forms present for all 
r ] __
samples?
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of
missing or illegible copies.
1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or SDG Narrative indicate
any problems with sample receipt, condition of
the samples, analytical problems or special
circumstances affecting the quality of the data?__ .[_1
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other
than TCLP, contains 50%-90* water,
all data should be qualified as estimated
(J). 
If a soil sample, other than TCLP,
contains more than 90% water, all data
should be qualified as unusable (R).
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at
the laboratory, flag all positive results
"J" and all non-detects "UJ".
2.0 
Holding Times
2.1 Have any PEST/PCB technical holding times,
determined from date of collection to date of
extraction, been exceeded? 
" 
__ 
I_I
Water and soil samples for PEST/PC-B analysis
must be extracted within 7 days of the date of
collection. Extracts must be analyzed within 40
days of the date extraction.
- 37 -
TUT GO5 2080
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO NY A
ACTION: If technical holding tiroes are exceeded,
flag all positive results as estimated
•(J) and sample quantitation limits (UJ)
and document in the narrative that holding
times were exceeded. If analyses were done
more than 14 days beyond holding time,
either on the first analysis or upon
re-analysis, the reviewer must use
professional judgement to determine the
reliability of the data and the effects
of additional storage on the sample results.
At a minimum, all the data should at least be
qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine
that non-detects are unusable (R).
3.0 
Surrogate Recovery (Form II)
3.1 Are the PEST/PCB Surrogate Recovery Summaries
(Form II) present for each of the following
matrices?
a. Low Water 
I_l _
b. Soil 
I_L _
3.2 Are all the PEST/PCB samples listed on the
appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summary for
each of the following matrices?
a. Low Water 
I_1 __
b. Soil 
1_L 
__
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals.
If missing deliverables are unavailable,
document effect in data assessments.
3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an
asterisk? 
I_1 
——
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4 Were surrogate recoveries of TCX or DCS .
outside of the contract specification for
any sample or blank? (60-150%) 
__ I_l
- 38 -
f'JT 
OO5 2O81
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1592
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
ACTION: No qualification is done if surrogates
are diluted out. If recovery for both 
••
surrogates is below the contract limit,
but above 10%, flag all results for that
sample 'J". If recovery is < 10% for
either surrogate, qualify positive
results 'J";and flag non-detects "R".
If recovery is above the contract advisory
limits for both surrogates qualify positive
values MJ".
3.5 Were surrogate retention times (RT) within the
windows established during the initial 3-point
analysis of Individual Standard Mixture A? 
I_1 __
ACTION: If the RT limits are not met, the
analysis may be qualified unusable (R)
for that sample on the basis of
professional judgement.
3.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form II? 
__ r }
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal. Make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
4 . 0 
Matrix Spikes (Form III)
4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
Recovery Form (Form III) present? 
I_1
4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices?
(1 MS/MSD must be performed for every 20 samples
of similar matrix or concentration level)
a. Low Water 
I_1
b. Soil 
J_L
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing,
take the action specified in 3.2 above.
- 39 -
TUT 
O05 
2.O32
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
4.3 How many PEST/PCB spike recoveries are outside
QC limits?
Soil
____ 
out of 12
4.4 How many RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits?
Soil
out of 6
ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone.
However, using informed professional
judgement, the data reviewer may use the
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate
results in conjunction with other QC
criteria and determine the need for some
qualification of the data.
5 . 0 
Blanks (Form
5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present?£_I 
__ __
5.2 Frequency of Analysis: For the analysis of
Pesticide/PCB TCL compounds, has a reagent/
method blank been analyzed for each SDG or
every 20 samples of similar matrix
or concentration or each extraction batch,
whichever is more frequent? 
I _ 1 __ ——
ACTION: If any blank data are missing, take
the action specified above in 3.2. If
blank data is not available, reject
(R) all associated positive data.
However, using professional judgement,
the data reviewer may substitute field
blank data for missing method blank data.
5.3 Has a PEST/PCB instrument blank been analyzed
at the beginning of every 12 hr. period following
the initial calibration sequence? (minimum
contract requirement)
- 40 -
TUT' 
005 2O 8 3
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO
ACTION: If any blank data are missing, call lab for
explanation/resubmittals. If missing
deliverables are unavailable, document the
effect in data assessments.
5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms , quant reports or data system
printouts.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable for
PEST/PCBs? 
f 1 
__ 
__
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the effect on the data.
6.0 
Contamination
NOTE: 
"Water blanks", "distilled water blanks" and
"drilling water blanks" are validated like any
other sample and are not used to qualify the
data. Do not confuse them with the other QC
blanks discussed below.
6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent/cleanup blanks
have positive results for PEST/PCBs? When applied
as described below, the contaminant concentration
in these blanks are multiplied by the sample
Dilution Factor and corrected for % moisture when
necessary. 
__ I _ 1 __
6.2 Do any field/rinse blanks have positive
PEST/PCB results? 
__ L_L __
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated
with each of the contaminated blanks.
(Attach a separate sheet)
NOTE: 
All field blank results associated to a particular
group of samples (may exceed one per case or one per
day) may be used to qualify data. Blanks may not be
qualified because of contamination in another blank.
Field blanks must be qualified for
surrogate, or calibration QC problems.
- 41 -
TUT OO5 2034
Date: January 1SS2
Revision: 8
YES NO NA
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below
to qualify TCL results due to contamination.
Use the largest value from all the associated blanks...
Sample cone > CRQL 
Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank 
is < 5x blank value 
& > 5x blank value
Flag sample result 
Report CRQL & 
No qualification
with a "U"; 
qualify "U" 
is needed
NOTE: 
If gross blank contamination exists, all data
in the associated samples should be
qualified as unusable (R) .
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated
with every sample? 
I _ I __
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment
that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
7 . 0 
Calibration and GC Performance
7.1 Are the following Gas Chromatograms and Data
Systems Printouts for both columns present
for all samples, blanks, MS/MSD?
a. peak resolution check 
I _ 1 __
b. performance evaluation mixtures 
J _ 1 __
c. aroclor 1016/1260 
L_L __
d. aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 X_J. 
_
e. toxaphene 
I _ I __
f. low points individual mixtures A & B 
j; _ 1 
__
g. med points individual mixtures A & B I _ 1 __
h. high points individual mixtures A & B I _ 1 __
- 42 -
2O85
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
i. instrument blanks 
j_1 
__
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
7.2 Are Forms VI - PEST 1-4 present and complete
for each column and each analytical sequence? j;_1 __
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2
above.
7.3 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Forms VI? 
__ r 1
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make
necessary corrections and
document effect in data assessments.
7.4 Do all standard retention times, including each
pesticide in each level of Individual Mixtures
A & B, fall within the windows established
during the initial calibration analytical
sequence? (For Initial Calibration Standards,
Form VI - PEST - 1) . 
I_l __
ACTION: If no, all samples in the entire
analytical sequence are potentially
affected. Check to see if the
chromatograms contain peaks within an
expanded window surrounding the expected
retention times. If no peaks are found
and the surrogates are visible, non-
detects are valid. If peaks are present
and cannot be identified through pattern
recognition or using a revised RT window,
qualify all positive results and non-detects
as unusable (R).
For aroclors, RT may be outside the RT window,
but the aroclor may still be identified from the
individual pattern. 
;
7.5 Are the linearity criteria for the initial
analyses of Individual Standards A & B within
limits for both columns? (% RSD must be < 20.0%
for all analytes except for the 2 surrogates,
which must not exceed 30.0 % RSD). See Form VI
PEST - 2.
- 43 -
TUT 005 2086
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
ACTION: If no, qualify all associated positive
results generated during the entire
analytical sequence "J" and all non-
detects "UJ". When RSD >90%, flag all
non-detect results for that analyte R
(unusable),
7.6 Is the resolution between any two adjacent
peaks in the Resolution Check Mixture > 60.0%
for both columns? (Form VI-PEST - 4) 
r 1
ACTION: If no, positive results for compounds
that were not adequately resolved should
be qualified "J". Use professional
judgement to determine if non-detects
which elute in areas affected by co-eluting
peaks should be qualified "N" as presumptive
evidence of presence or unusable (R) .
7.7 Is Form VII - Pest-1 present and complete for
each Performance Evaluation Mixture analyzed
during the analytical sequence for both
columns?
ACTION: If no, take action as specified in
3.2 above.
7.8 Has the individual % breakdown exceeded 20.0%
on either column. 
__ I_I
- for 4,4' - DDT? 
__ 
r i
- for endrin? 
__ I_1
Has the combined % breakdown for 4,4'- DDT/
Endrin exceeded 30.0% on either column?
(required in all instances) 
__ I_I
ACTION: 1. If any % breakdown has failed the
QC criteria in either PEM in steps
2 and 17 in the initial calibration
sequence (p. D-38/Pest SOW 3/90),
qualify all sample analyses in the
entire analytical sequence as described
below.
- 44 -
TUT 005 2087
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
2. If any % breakdown has failed the QC
criteria in a PEM Verification
calibration, review data beginning
with the samples which followed the
last in-control standard until the
next acceptable PEM & qualify the
data as described below.
a. 
4,4'-DOT Breakdown: If 4,4'-DOT breakdown
is greater than 20.%:
i. 
Qualify all positive results for DOT
with 'J". If DOT was not detected, but
ODD and DDE are positive, then qualify
the quantitation limit for DDT as
unusable (R).
ii. Qualify positive results for ODD and/or
DDE as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
b. 
Endrin Breakdown: If endrin breakdown is greater
than 20.0%:
i. 
Qualify all positive results for endrin
with "J". If endrin was not detected, but
endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone are
positive, then qualify the quantitation
limit for endrin as unusable (R).
ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone and
endrin aldehyde as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
c. 
Combined Breakdown: If the combined 4,4'-DDT and
endrin breakdown is greater than 30.0%:
i. 
Qualify all positive results for DDT and
endrin with "J". If endrin was not
detected, but endrin aldehyde and endrin
ketone are positive, then qualify the
quantitation limit for endrin as unusable
(R). If DDT was not detected, but DDD and
DDE are positive, then qualify the
quantitation limit for DDT as unusable (R).
- 45 -
TUT OOS 2088
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1592
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone
and endrin aldehyde as presumptively present
at an approximated quantity (NJ). Qualify positive
results for DDD and/or DDE as presumptively present
at an approximated quantity (NJ).
7.9 Are the relative percent difference (RPD) values
for all PEM analytes <25.0%? (Form VII-PEST-1) r 1 __ 
__
ACTION: If no, qualify all associated positive
results generated during the analytical
sequence "J" and sample quantitation
limits "UJ".
NOTE: 
If the failing PEM is part of the
initial calibration, all samples are
potentially affected. If the offending
standard is a verification calibration,
the associated samples are those which
followed the last in-control standard
until the next passing standard.
7.10 Have all samples been injected within a 12 hr.
period beginning with the injection of an
Instrument Blank? 
I_1 __ __
ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to
determine the severity of the effect
on the data and qualify accordingly.
7.11 Is Form VII - Pest-2 present and complete for
each INDA and INDB Verification Calibration
analyzed? 
- 
I_1 
__ 
__
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
7.12 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form VII - Pest-2? 
__ 
I_1 __
ACTION: If large errors exists, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
under "Conclusions".
- 46 -
TUT
2089
STA^^Aj^-D OriRA* .Llivi i"^.«jC^.^ —^\i-
Date: January 1592
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
7.13 Do all standard retention times for each INDA
and INDB Verification Calibration fall within
the windows established by the initial
calibration sequence? 
• 
.[_l ''
ACTION: If no, beginning with the samples which
followed the last in-control standard,
check to see if the chromatograms contain
peaks within an expanded window surrounding
the expected retention times. If no peaks
are found and the surrogates are visible,
non-detects are valid. If peaks are present
and cannot be identified through pattern
recognition or using a revised RT window,
qualify all positive results and non-detects
as unusable (R).
7.14 Are RPD values for all verification calibration
standard compounds < 25.0%? 
.[_1 __
ACTION: 
If the RPD is >25.0% for the compound
being quantitated, qualify all associated
positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ".
The "associated samples" are those which
followed the last in-control standard up
to the next passing standard containing
the analyte which failed the criteria.
If the RPD is >90%, flag all non-detects
for that analyte R (unusable).
8. 0 
Analytical Sequence Check (Form VIII-PEST)
8.1 Is Form VIII present and complete for each column
and each period of analyses? 
I_1 _
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
8.2 Was the proper analytical sequence followed for
each initial calibration and subsequent analyses?
(see CLP SOW p. D-39 & D-41/PEST) 
L-L __
ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to
determine the severity of the effect
on the data and qualify it accordingly.
Generally, the effect is negligible
unless the sequence was grossly altered
or the calibration was also out of limits.
- 47 -
TUT GO 5 2O90
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
9.0 
Cleanup Efficiency Verification fForm IXV
9.1 Is Form IX - Pest-1 present and complete for each
lot of Florisil Cartridges used? (Florisil Cleanup
is required for all Pest/PCB extracts.) 
j;_1
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
If data suggests that florisil cleanup
was not performed, make note in "Contract
Problems/Non-compliance".
9.2 Are all samples listed on the Pesticide Florisil
Cartridge Check Form? 
1_1
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
9.3 If GPC Cleanup was performed, (mandatory for all
soil sample extracts) is Form IX - Pest-2
present? 
I_1
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: If GPC was not performed when required,
make note in" Contract Problems/Non-
Compliance" section of data assessment.
9.4 Are percent recoveries (% R) of the pesticide and
surrogate compounds used to check the efficiency
of the cleanup procedures within QC limits:
80-120% for florisil cartridge check? 
r 1
80-110% for GPC calibration? 
r 1
Qualify only the analyte(s) which fail the recovery
criteria as follows:
ACTION: If % R are < 80%, qualify positive
results "J" and quantitation limits
"UJ". Non-detects should be qualified
"R" if zero %R was obtained for
pesticide compounds. Use professional
judgement to qualify positive results
if recoveries are greater than the upper
limit.
- 48 -
TUT 005 2091
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
NOTE: 
Sample data should be evaluated for
potential interferences if recovery
of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was > 5% in the
Florisil Cartridge Performance Check
analysis. Make note in Contract Problems/
Non-compliance section of reviewer narrative.
NOTE: 
The raw data of the GPC calibration
Check analysis is evaluated for pattern
similarity with previously run Aroclor
standards.
10.0 
Pesticide/PCB Identification
10.1 Is Form X complete for every sample in which a
pesticide or PCS was detected? 
I_I _
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
10.2 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Forms 6E, 6G, 7E, 7D, 8D, __ 
I_
9A, B, 10A.
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make necessary
corrections and note error under
"Conclusions".
10.3 Are retention times (RT) of sample compounds
within the established RT windows for both
analyses? 
I_1 —
Was GC/MS confirmation provided when required
(when compound concentration is > 10 ug/ml in
final extract)? 
\ 1 —
Action: Use professional judgement to qualify
positive results which were not confirmed
by GC/MS. Qualify as unusable (R) all
positive results which were not confirmed
by second GC column analysis. Also qualify
as unusable (R) all positive results not
meeting RT window unless associated standard
compounds are similarly biased, (see
Functional Guidelines) The reviewer should
use professional judgement to assign an
appropriate quantitation limit.
- 49 -
TUT 
(JO 5 2O92
< ^/n— ->^ w f — r%>^ . *. ."» *j r r.^ *- — -/^ r.i.
Date: January 1592
Revision: S
YES NO N/A
10.4 Is the percent difference (\ D) calculated for the
positive sample results on the two GC columns
< 25.0%? 
f 1 
__
ACTION: If the reviewer finds neither column
shows interference for the positive
hits, the data should be flagged
as follows:
% Difference 
Qualifier
25-50 * 
J
50-90 % 
JN
> 90 % 
R
NOTE: 
The lower of the two values is reported
on Form I. If using professional judgement,
the reviewer determines that the higher
result was more acceptable, the reviewer
should replace the value and indicate the
reason for the change in the data assessment.
10.5 Check chromatograms for false negatives, especially
the multiple peak compounds toxaphene and PCBs.
Were there any false negatives? 
__ I _ 1
ACTION: Use professional judgement to decide
if the compound should be reported. If
the appropriate PCB standards were not
analyzed, qualify the data unusable (R) .
11.0 
Compound Ouantitation and Reported Detection Linits
11.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive values.
Were any errors found? 
__ I _ 1
NOTE: 
Single-peak pesticide results can be checked for rough
agreement between quantitative results obtained on the two GC
columns. The reviewer should use professional judgement to
decide whethera much larger concentration obtained on one
column versus the other indicates the presence of an
interfering compound. If an interfering compound is
indicated, the lower of the two values should be reported and
qualified as presumptively present at an approximated
quantity (NJ). This necessitates a determination of an
estimated concentration on the confirmation column. The
narrative should indicate that the presence of interferences
has interfered with the evaluation of the second column
confirmation.
- 50 -
TUT 005 2093
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
11.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions
and, for soils, % moisture? 
I_1 
_
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more than
one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used
(unless a QC exceedance dictates the use
of the higher CRQL data from the diluted
sample analysis). Replace concentrations
that exceed the calibration range in the
original analysis by crossing out the "E"
value on the original Form I and substituting
it with data from the analysis of diluted
sample. Specify which Form I is to be used,
then draw a red "X" across the entire page
of all Form I's that should not be used,
including any in the summary package.
ACTION: Quantitation limits affected by large,
off-scale peaks should be qualified as
unusable (R). If the interference is
on-scale, the reviewer can provide an
approximated quantitation limit (UJ) for •
each affected compound.
12.0 
ChromatograTn Quality,
12.1 Were baselines stable? 
.1_1 _
12.2 Were any electropositive displacement
(negative peaks) or unusual peaks seen? 
__
ACTION: Address comments under System
Performance of data assessment.
- 51 -
7 LIT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 19S2
Revision: 8
"
Y
E
S
N
O
N
/
A
13.0 
Field Duplicates
13.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for
PEST/PCB analysis? 
I__l
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate the
relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However, if
large differences exist, identification
of field duplicates should be confirmed
by contacting the sampler.
- 52 -
TUT GO':< 2095
TOTAL REVIEW
CLP DATA ASSESSMENT
Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis
Case No. - SDG No. 24744.24950. 24997. 25009. 25052. 25071. 25091
LABORATORY Enseco - East 
SITE Tutu Service Station Investigation
DATA ASSESSMENT:
The current functional guidelines (USEPA February 1988) for evaluating organic data
have been applied.
All data are valid and acceptable except those analytes which have been qualified with
a "J" (estimated), "U" (undetected), "R" (unusable), or "JN" (presumptive evidence for the
presence of the material at an estimated value). All action is detailed on the attached sheets.
Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" flag means that the associated
value is unusable and rejected. In other words, due to significant QC problems the analysis is
invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not. "R" values
should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The
second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC
tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data but any value
potentially contains some error.
Reviewer's 
fJ
Signature: . ^-^^
Verified by:
TUT 
OOS 
2096
Dl-2
1. 
HOLDING TIME:
The amount of an analyte in a sample can change with time due to chemical instability,
degradation, volatilization, etc. If the specified holding time is exceeded, the data may not be
valid. Those analytes detected in the samples whose holding time has been exceeded are
qualified as estimated (J). The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) are qualified as estimated
(J), unless the holding times are grossly exceeded (over one week beyond maximum holding
time), in which case the associated data are unusable and rejected (R).
The following action was taken in the samples and analytes shown due to excessive
holding time:
Volatile Organic Compounds
All of the samples including the associated trip blanks and field blanks for SDGs # 24997,
25009, and 25052 were reanalyzed because the continuing calibration criteria for bromoform
was not met in the initial analysis. All of the samples were reanalyzed beyond the holding time
due to the calibration deficiency. 
The reanalysis sample results were qualified as estimated
based on holding time exceedances. Since the reanalysis results (estimated for holding time)
were similar to the results calculated from the initial analyses (estimated due to calibration), the
initial analyses of all the samples and blanks were used when reporting the data. No further
discussion of the reanalysis results will be given unless reanalysis was required for other reasons
than those stated above.
The volatile analysis vials for MW-13D were not preserved with hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and the sample was analyzed two days out of the prescribed holding time (seven days) for
aromatic volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses. All aromatic compounds for this sample
were qualified as estimated (J) if detected and estimated at the quantitation limit (VJ) if not
detected.
The dilution analyses for unpreserved VOC sample MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106), and
MW-9S were analyzed outside of the seven-day holding time for aromatic VOC analyses. As the
dilutions were for quantitation ofMTBE only and not for any aromatic VOC, no qualifications
to the data were made.
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
The reextraction of sample MW-6D was performed 12 days beyond the holding time of
seven days (calculated from time of sample collection) for base neutral and acid (BNA)
extractable compounds. All positive results for this sample were qualified as estimated (J) and
all non-detects for this sample were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (VJ). All
other extractions and instrumental analyses were performed within the prescribed holding times.
A summary of holding time outliers is provided in Table D3-2.
TUT 
OO5 
2O97
Dl-3
2. 
BLANK CONTAMINATION
Quality assurance (QA) blanks, i.e., method, trip, field, rinse and water blanks are
prepared to identify any contamination which may have been introduced into the samples during
sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Trip
blanks measure cross-contamination of samples during shipment. Field blanks measure cross-
contamination of samples during field operations. If the concentration of the analyte is less than
five times the blank contaminant level (ten times for the common contaminants), the analytes are
negated and qualified as undetected, "U".
A summary of all contaminants detected in the method, field, and trip blanks associated
with the VOC, BNA, and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analyses of the ground-water
samples is presented in Table D3-3. Additionally, the table summarizes the SDGs and the
ground-water samples that are associated and would be qualified, if appropriate, using the
USEPA Region II validation guidelines. Sample qualifications were assessed using the following
guidelines:
• 
If the sample concentration was less than five times (<5x) the blank contaminant
level (or less than ten times [< IQxJfor the common laboratory contaminants) and
less than the quantitation limit, the analyte was negated, the sample result was
raised to the quantitation limit, and qualified as undetected (U).
• 
If the sample concentration was <5x the blank contaminant level (or <10xfor
the common laboratory contaminants) and greater than the quantitation limit, the
analyte was negated and qualified 
as undetected (U) at the reported
concentration.
• 
If the sample concentration was greater than five times (5x for ten times (1 Ox) for
the common laboratory contaminants]) and greater than the quantitation limit, no
qualification for blank contamination was assessed.
• 
Method blanks were evaluated and the contaminants detected in them were used
to assess all associated samples with the exception of the trip and/or field blanks.
Trip and/or field blanks were used in the assessment of associated ground-water
samples and were not used in the evaluation of each other. 
The highest
contaminant level for an analyte from all of the associated blanks (method, trip,
or field) was used in the determination of the 5x (or ]Qx) upper limit for blank
negation.
• 
Tentatively-identified compounds (TICs) and unknowns of similar retention times
(RT) 
were evaluated using the 5x multiplier of the highest-concentration,
associated blank contaminant. In those instances where blank contamination was
TUT 
OO5 
2098
Dl-4
determined to be present, the TIC or unknown were rejected, qualified 'R", and
subsequently, not reported on the data summaries.
Table D3-4 summarizes all analyte sample-result qualifications for each ground-water
sample for which the sample result and sample qualifier were changed due to suspected blank-
contamination. Only those samples and analytes that were qualified in some manner due to this
criterion are summarized. In the analysis of TPH, all field and method blanks were free of
contamination and reported as non-detects at the quantitation limit.
Two volatile target compounds, dibromochloromethane and tetrachloroethene, were
reported as TICs in the semivolatiles analysis of several samples. Since these two VOCs were
analyzed and quantitated in the volatiles analysis, the estimated sample results for each of these
VOCs were rejected in the semivolatiles TIC analysis, qualified "R", and will not be reported
as a semivolatile TIC. Tetrachloroethene was rejected from the semivolatiles analysis in the
following samples: MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-
105), MW-10, and MW-10D. 
Dibromochloroethane, reported as a semivolatile TIC, was
rejected from the semivolatiles analysis in the following samples: MW-6D, MW-1 ID, and MW-
12D.
3. 
MASS SPECTROMETER TUNING:
Tuning and performance criteria are established to ensure adequate mass resolution,
proper compound identification, and to some degree, sufficient instrument sensitivity. These
criteria are not sample specific. Instrument performance is determined using standard materials.
Therefore, these criteria should be met in all circumstances. The tuning standard for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) is bromofluorobenzene (BFB).
If the mass calibration is in error, all associated data will be classified as unusable, "R".
All mass calibrations associated with the VOC and BNA analyses for these SDGs have met the
QC criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification, and instrument
response.
4. 
CALIBRATION
Satisfactory instrument calibration is established to ensure that the instrument is capable
of producing acceptable quantitative data. An initial calibration demonstrates that the instrument
is capable of giving acceptable performance at the beginning of an analytical sequence. The
continuing calibrations document that the instrument is giving satisfactory daily performance.
TUT 
COS 
2099
Dl-5
A) 
RESPONSE FACTOR:
The response factor measures the instrument's response to specific chemical compounds.
The response factor for the Target Compound List (TCL) must be >_ 0.05 (a ratio of areas) in
both the initial and continuing calibrations. A value < 0.05 indicates a serious detection and
quantitation problem (poor sensitivity). Analytes detected in the sample will be qualified as
estimated, "J". All non-detects for that compound will be rejected ("R").
For the volatile analyses, two initial calibration verifications (ICVs)for TCL analytes and
one ICV for the site-specific VOCs were associated with all VOC sample analyses. A total of
eight continuing calibration verification (CCV) TCL analyses and five CCVsforthe site-specific
VOCs were used to confirm precision and accuracy of instrument calibration.
In the analysis and quantitation of TCL semivolatiles (i.e., BNAs) in the ground-water
and associated QC sample analyses, three ICVs and 11 CCVs were analyzed.
In the analyses of VOCs and BNAs for all SDGs and associated ground-water and QC
samples, the response factors for all the TCL constituents and the site-specific target VOCs were
greater than 0.05, based on a ratio of peak areas, in all initial and continuing calibrations. No
sample result qualifications were assessed due to deficient response factors for any of the target
and site-specific analytes.
5. 
CALIBRATION:
A) 
PERCENT RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION AND PERCENT DIFFERENCE:
Percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) is calculated from the initial calibration and
is used to indicate the stability of the specific compound response factor over increasing
concentration. 
Percent difference (%D) compares the response factor of the continuing
calibration check to the average response factor (RRF) from the initial calibration. Percent D
is a measure of the instrument's daily performance. Percent RSD must be < 30% and %D must
be <25%. A value outside of these limits indicates potential detection and quantitation errors.
For these reasons, all positive results are flagged as estimated, "J", and non-detects are flagged
"UJ" (if %D or RSD > 50%). If there is a gross deviation (i.e. > 90%) of %RSD and %D,
the non-detects may be rejected (R).
Volatile Organic Compounds
In the analysis of VOCs, 2-butanone in the TCL ICV analyzed on August 3, 1992 and
n-propylbenzene analyzed on November 5, 1992 in the ICV for site-specific VOCs exceeded the
plus or minus (±J 30 percent RSD limit used to evaluate linearity and precision of calibration.
All ground-water samples, QC samples, and most sample reanalyzes are within these ICVs. All
positive results above the quantitation limit and estimated results below the quantitation limit for
TUT 
005 
2100
Dl-6
each of these outlier VOCs were qualified as estimated (J). 
Similarly, non-detects for outlier
VOCs were flagged as estimated at the quantitation limits (UJ). 
For the ICV analyzed for TCL
constituents associated with sample reanalyses for bromoform on November 22, 1992, no
calibration outliers were found for any VOC.
In the review of the volatile analysis CCVs, a total of seven of eight CCVs for TCL
quantitation were found to have calibration outliers outside the ±_ 25%D 
limit. None of the five
CCVs associated with any sample analysis for the site-specific VOCs were found to have any
calibration outlier for %D. The compounds that were found to have %D exceedances were
primarily either (1) a ketone compound, (2) an earfy-eluting 
VOC, 
or (3) a common laboratory
contaminant. In all cases, %D was not exceeded by greater than _+ 47percent. The following
VOCs were reported with exceeded %D in one or more of the CCVs: acetone, bromoform,
2-butanone, 2-hexanone, methylene chloride, 4-methylene-2-pentanone, and vinyl chloride.
A complete summary of all outlier ICVs and CCVs for VOC analyses and the associated
samples qualified due to the QC exceedances are summarized in Table D3-5. Positive sample
results for those analytesfor which the %D in the associated CCV exceeded +. 25 percent were
qualified as estimated (J). 
Non-detect sample results for analytes in CCVs with an exceeded %D
were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). 
When appropriate, qualifications were
applied to all blanks (method, field, and trip); other QC samples, such as matrix spikes (MS)
and matrix spike duplicates (MSD); and to all associated ground-water samples, their dilution
analyses, and reanalyses.
Other qualifications to sample results or anomalies due to VOC calibration issues are as
follows:
• 
In the VOC analysis of ground-water sample MW-3, 
the concentration of total
1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) exceeded the calibration range of the instrument.
The sample result for this analyte in MW-3 was qualified "E" by the data
reviewer to reflect the linear range exceedance.
• 
Samples MW-9, 
MW-9 
FR (MW-106), and MW-9S were diluted and reanalyzed
because the concentration of MTBE exceeded the calibration range of the
instrument. The dilution analyses of these samples were used to repon the MTBE
results for each sample. For all other VOCs, the initial analyses were used to
quantitate and repon the VOC data.
• 
All of the ground-water samples, including the field and trip blanks for SDGs
24997, 25009, and 25052 were reanalyzed for VOCs outside their holding time
since the continuing calibration criteria for bromoform was not met initially. The
data reviewer assessed all of the bromoform results for these samples as estimated
(J) or estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) 
based on the initial analyses. The
bromoform reanalysis results were also qualified as estimated (J or UJ) based on
the holding-time exceedance. It was determined that the initial analysis results
TUT 
OOS 21O1
Dl-7
would be used for this report and in the evaluation of bromoform sample
concentrations. The samples affected in the SDGs listed above are as follows:
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14, TB100192, FB100192, MW-10, MW-11D,
MW-11DMS, MW-11DMSD, MW-13D, TB100692, FB100692, MW-12D, MW-7
FR (MW-105), MW-4D, TB100592, and FB100592.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Three semivolatile ICVs for TCL only were analyzed and are associated with the BNA
analyses of the samples. All response factors were greater than the 0.05 lower limit for all ICVs
and CCVs. The RSD for all compounds in the associated ICVs were within the +_ 30 percent
upper limit.
The BNA analyses for the ground-water samples, QC samples, sample reanalyses, and
dilution analyses are associated with 11 semivolatile CCVs. Each of these CCVs were reported
with at least one, but no more than seven compounds with %D greater than +_ 25 percent. A
summary of each CCVwith the calibration outliers and associated samples is presented in Table
D3-5 following the volatiles summary. All outlier compounds for each CCV were qualified (J)
if detected in the associated samples and estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) if not detected
in these samples.
In general, the frequency of the calibration outliers for some compound classes and
specific compounds in the 11 semivolatile CCVs may be summarized as follows:
• 
In seven of 11 CCVs, one or more of the phthalate compounds, such as
butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and di-n-octylphthalate, were
reported with %D greater than _+ 25 percent. These compounds are common
laboratory contaminants associated with semivolatile analyses.
• 
In seven of 1] CCVs, an acid-fraction semivolatile surrogate compound (2,4,6-
tribromophenol) was reported with %D above _+ 25 percent. Surrogates are used
to monitor (he extraction efficiency of the method in the sample matrix.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The CCVs in the TPH analyses were evaluated to determine if the precision of calibration
was adequate for accurate, quantitative analysis of the samples. 
Most of the CCVs were
reported with less than 10%D calculated from the initial calibration curve and all were less than
15 %D. Although no strict criteria was established for the evaluation of this criterion for TPH
analyses, it is the data reviewer's determination that an acceptable level of %D was exhibited
for the analyses associated with this parameter.
TUT 
CO 5 2.102
Dl-8
6. 
SURROGATES:
All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds prior to sample preparation to evaluate
overall laboratory performance and efficiency of the analytical technique. If the measured
surrogate concentrations were outside contract specifications, qualifications were applied to the
samples and analytes as shown below.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The system monitoring compound (SMC) recovery oftoluene-d8 in sample MW-6D was
below the QC limit (88 percent), but above 10percent. The sample was reanalyzed (MW-6DRE)
with the surrogate recovery oftoluene-d8 also found to be below QC limit, but again, above 10
percent. All volatile compounds detected in MW-6D and MW-6DRE were qualified as estimated
(J) and all non-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). It is the data
reviewer's opinion that the initial analysis of sample MW-6D be used when reporting the data.
The SMC recovery of toluene-d8 for the initial analysis of sample MW-11D was below
the QC limit, but above 10 percent. This sample was reanalyzed and the SMC recovery was
again below the lower limit for toluene-d8. Additionally, sample MW-11D was analyzed as the
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS and MSD). The SMC recoveries oftoluene-d8 were
also below the QC limits for MW-11D MS and MW-11D MSD. 
Reanalysis of the MS/MSD
resulted in toluene-d8 SMC recoveries below 88 percent. Since all six VOC analyses results for
toluene-d8 were below the lower acceptance limit, a matrix interference is suspected. 
All
volatile compounds detected in the initial analysis, reanalysis, and spike analyses of this sample
were qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation
limit (UJ).
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
In the semivolatiles analysis and reanalysis of MW-6D, the acid-extractable surrogate
spike recoveries for phenol-d5 and 2-fiuorophenol were less than 10 percent. The recoveries for
the advisory acid surrogate, 2-chlorophenol-d4, were reported to be 11 percent in each analysis.
For the analysis and reanalysis results for MW-6D, all detected acid-extractable compounds were
qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were qualified as unusable (R).
The recovery values for all three acid-extractable surrogates and for the advisory acid
surrogate were less than 10 percent for sample MW-11D. This sample was also analyzed as the
MS/MSD. 
In the MS/MSD, two of the three acid-extractable surrogates and the advisory acid
surrogate spike recoveries were found to be less than 10 percent. For samples MW-11D, MW-
11D MS and MW-11D MSD, all acid ex tract able compounds detected were qualified as estimated
(J) and all non-detects were qualified as unusable (R). All other sample and all blank surrogate
spike recoveries were within the prescribed QC limits.
TUT 
OO!5 2.1.O3
Dl-9
7. 
INTERNAL STANDARDS PERFORMANCE:
Internal standard (IS) performance criteria ensure that the GC/MS sensitivity and
response are stable during every analytical run. The internal standard area count must not vary
by more than a factor of two (-50% to +100%) from the associated continuing calibration
standard. The retention time of the internal standard must not vary by more than +_ 30 seconds
from the associated continuing calibration standard. If the area count is outside the (-50% to
+ 100%) range of the associated standard, all of the positive results for compounds quantitated
using that IS are qualified as estimated (J), and all non-detects as estimated at the reporting limit
(UJ), or unusable and rejected (R), if there is a severe loss of sensitivity.
If an internal standard retention time varies by more than 30 seconds, the reviewer will
use professional judgement to determine either partial or total rejection of the data for that
sample fraction.
The internal standard areas were above QC limits for chrysene-d!2 and perylene-dl2 in
the semivolatiles analysis for sample MW-11D MSD. 
All compounds quantitated in the
semivolatiles analysis using these two internal standards were qualified as estimated (J) in MW-
11D MS.
8. 
COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION:
A) 
VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE FRACTIONS:
TCL compounds are identified on the GC/MS by using the analyte's relative retention
time (RRT) 
and by comparison to the ion spectra obtained from known standards. For the
results to be a positive hit, the sample peak must be within +_ 0.06 RRT units of the standard
compound and have an ion spectra which has a ratio of the primary and secondary m/e
intensities within 20% of that in the standard compound. 
For the tentatively identified
compounds (TICs), the ion spectra must match accurately. In the cases where there is not an
adequate ion spectrum match, the laboratory may have provided false positive identifications.
1,2-DCE (total) was detected and reported in several samples. The retention time (RT)
of this compound in the quantitation reports does not match the RTs in the associated CCV
standard quantitation reports. This discrepancy is attributed to the use of the trans isomer in
the calibration standard solution while the cis isomer was detected in the field samples. The RTs
for 1,2-DCE in the sample quantitation reports for the following samples were greater than 0.06
RRT units when compared to the associated CCVs: MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, 
MW-3, 
MW-4, MW-
4D, MW-6R, MW-8, 
MW-9S. MW-10, MW-JOD, and MW-14.
Xylene (total) was detected in samples MW-5, 
MW-5 FR (MW-104), and MW-5RE. The
retention time of this compound in the quantitation reports does not match the retention time in
TUT 
COS 2104
Dl-10
the standard quantitation report because the isomer used in the standard solution was a different
isomer than that detected in the samples.
9. 
MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) data are generated to determine the long-
term precision and accuracy of the analytical method in various matrices. The MS/MSD may
be used in conjunction with other QC criteria for some additional qualification of the data.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample MW-11D was designated as the MS/MSD for the VOC analyses. Two matrix
spike recoveries and one matrix spike duplicate recovery were found to be below QC limits, but
above JO percent. The MS/MSD were reanalyzed due to calibration criteria not being met in
the initial analysis. All subsequent spike recoveries in the reanalyzes were found to be within
the appropriate QC limits. All relative percent difference 
(RPD) values for both MS/MSD
analyses were within the QC limits. It is the data reviewer's determination that since all the
spike recoveries were within QC limits for the MS/MSD reanalyses that no data should be
qualified based on the initial MS/MSD results. Refer to Table D3-6for a summary of outlier
MS/MSD results for the volatile and semivolatile fractions.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample MW-11D was designated as the MS/MSD for the semivolatiles analyses. Twelve
out of the twenty-two spike recoveries were found to be outside the QC acceptance limits. The
acid-extractable compounds for sample MW-11D have already been qualified based on the
surrogate spike results. Based on the MS/MSD data, it is the data reviewers' determination that
the base neutral compounds for sample MW-1JD be qualified as estimated (J) if detected and
estimated (UJ) if not detected. This matrix interference was not observed for the other samples
collected in this sampling round since surrogate recoveries were within the appropriate
acceptance limits. 
Therefore, farther qualification of other samples based on the MS/MSD
results for sample MW-HD was not performed.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample MW-11D was designated as the MS/MSD for the TPH analyses. The recovery
for each of the spikes was 108 percent (with zero RPD) which is within the 80 to 120 percent
window established for the evaluation of accuracy in this parameter. No qualification of sample
data was required.
TUT 
005
Dl-11
10. 
OTHER QC DATA OUT OF SPECIFICATION:
A) Sample Disposition
Five out of the five volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials for samples MW-1D, ESSO-TAP,
and FB100792 were received by the laboratory containing air bubbles and headspace. 
All
positive results for these samples were qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were
qualified as unusable (R).
The VOA vials for sample MW-7 were received with headspace at the laboratory. This
sample was replicated in the field and designated MW-105. Since the VOA vials for MW-105
(the field replicate for MW-7) were received in good condition and without headspace at the
laboratory, the VOC results for MW-105 (i.e., MW-7 FR) were substituted for the VOC analysis
of MW-7 after the laboratory data was received.
Sample MW-1 was initially sampled on October 2, 1992. Since the VOA vials were
received at the laboratory with headspace, the sample was resampled in entirety for all
analytical parameters on October 6, 1992. All sample analyses associated with the October 2,
1992 field collection of MW-1 were cancelled and the results for the sample collected on October
6, 1992 were used in the remedial investigation and reviewed in this validation report.
Due to laboratory error, the field blank collected on October 2, 1992 for SDG 25009 was
cancelled for analysis at the laboratory. This sample (FB100292) was associated with samples
MW-1D, MW-1 ID (and the MS/MSDfor this sample), and the previously cancelled MW-1 (see
above discussion). The samples in this SDG were qualified for blank contamination using the
trip blank (TB100292) and the associated method blanks for each parameter.
B) 
Field Replicates
All results for the comparison of the sample/field 
replicate pairs are reported in
micrograms per liter (ug/L) or milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Volatile Organic Compounds
Afield replicate of MW-7 was collected and labeled MW-105. However, sample MW-7
was not analyzed for VOCs and the results of MW-7 FR (MW-105) are presented and discussed
for the VOC analysis of MW-7 in the remedial investigation report.
Sample MW-5 was collected in duplicate. The field replicate ofMW-5 was labeled MW-
104. The compounds listed below were detected in the sample/field-replicate pair and resulted
in the following RPDs between the sample results:
TUT 
GO 5 
2106
Dl-12
Compound/TlC 
Concentration (ug/L)________ 
RPD (%)
MW-5 
MW-5 FR (MW-104)
Benzene 
1000 
950 
5
Toluene 
180J 170J 
6
Ethylbenzene 
930 
890 
4
Xylenes (total) 
1600 1500 
6
MTBE 
6200 
6200 
0
n-Propylbenzene 
180J 1703 
6
C-3 Benzene
Isomers (total) 
26007 
2500 
4
C-4 Benzene homer 
not reported 
250J 
not calculated
C6H12 Isomer 
250J 
not reported 
not calculated
C9H10 homer 
5007 
5007 
0
C11H14 homer 
not reported 
400J 
not calculated
Sample MW-9 was also collected in duplicate. The field replicate ofMW-9 was labeled
MW-106. 
The following compounds were detected in the sample and replicate with the
corresponding RPD values:
Compound/TlC 
____Concentration (ug/L)____ 
RPD (%)
MW-9 
MW-9 FR (MW-106)
Acetone 
10 
10 
0
Benzene 
26 
28 
7
Ethylbenzene 
19 
24 
23
Xylenes (total) 
2J 
3J 
40
MTBE 
2700 
2900 
7
n-Propylbenzene 
8 
13 
48
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-
naphthalene 
11JN 14JN 
24
C-3 Benzene homer 
15J 
15J 
0
C-4 Benzene
Isomers (total) 
270 
310 
14
C10H12 homers (total) 
150J 
1603 
6
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample MW-5 was collected in duplicate. The field replicate of MW-5 was labeled MW-104.
The following compounds were detected in the sample and replicate with the corresponding RPD
values:
TUT 
005 
2107
Compound/TIC
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1 -Methylcyclopentanol
C-2 Benzene homers
(total)
C-3 Benzene Isomers
(total)
C-4 Benzene Isomers
(total)
Unknowns (total)
2,3-Dihydromethyl-lH-
indene Isomers (total)
1 -Methylnaphthalene
Concentration (ue/L)
MW-5
3J
7J
310D
130D
64JN
600J
1900J
72007
3500J
7100J
4100JN
MW-5 
FR (MW-104)
3J
7J
230D
HOD
60JN
440J
1500J
27007
7707
23007
1200JN
Dl-13
RPD (%\
0
0
30
17
6
31
24
110
131
100
110
Sample MW- 7 was also collected in duplicate. The field replicate of MW- 7 was labeled
MW-105. 
The following compound was detected in the sample and replicate with
corresponding RPD value:
the
Compound/Tic
Unknowns (total)
Concentration (us/L)
MW-7 
MW-7 
(MW-105)
660J 
6J
RPD (%)
95
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample MW-5 
and MW-7 
were collected in duplicate. The field replicates of MW-5 
and
MW-7 
were labeled MW-104 and MW-105, respectively. The following results for TPH were
calculated for the sample/field-replicate pairs with the corresponding RPD values:
Sample/Field Replicate
MW-5/MW-104
MW-7'/MW-105
Concentration (me/L)
Sample
4.2
not detected
Field Replicate
2.2
not detected
RPD (%)
63
0
11. 
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and demonstrate
acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness. There are no indications that the instrument
performance has degraded to a point that would affect the quality of the data for these SDGs.
TUT
005 2108
Dl-14
No abrupt shifts occurred in the chromatographic baselines in the VOC and BNA analyses and
minimal baseline drift was observed.
The majority of the data for the VOC and BNA analyses and all of the data for the TPH
analyses are valid with the following qualifications.
• 
In the analysis ofvolatiles, several SDGs were reanalyzed outside of the holding
time for bromoform since the CCV criteria for this compound had not been met
initially. Since the initial data and reanafysis data were fairly similar, and both
were estimated due to either deficient CCV criteria or exceeded holding time, the
initial results, estimated for the CCV deficiency, were reported.
• 
With the exception of one analyte in one ground-water sample (see contract non-
compliance), data derived from dilution analyses for analytes found to be above
the linear range in the initial analysis, were incorporated into the Form I data
summary forms from the initial analyses or the more concentrated analysis (i.e.,
less diluted). The data from the dilution analysis were flagged D to indicate data
originating from a secondary dilution.
• 
The volatile organic SMC recoveries and the surrogate recoveries for BNA
analyses were all within the appropriate acceptance windows for all ground-water
samples and QC samples, except for in samples MW-6D and MW-11D. For the
BNA analyses, only the acid-extractable compounds were affected 
in these
samples. Repeat analyses of both samples for both analytical fractions (and
additional review of the MS/MSD surrogate and SMC recoveries in MW-11D)
resulted in and confirmed similar surrogate outliers. Because of this, matrix
interferences are suspected in these sample matrices which may preclude
accurate, quantitation of volatile and acid-extractable analyte concentrations.
Both samples were qualified in accordance with the validation guidelines.
• 
Some matrix precision and accuracy data, generated by the analysis ofMW-HD
as the MS and MSDfor VOCs and BNAs were outside the SOW acceptance limits.
The initial MS/MSD outliers in the VOC analyses were established to be the result
of poor calibration precision since the VOC reanalyzes exhibited acceptable
recoveries for the MS/MSD. 
The BNA outliers in the MS/MSD for MW-UD are
suspected to be the result of matrix interferences since poor recoveries were also
reported for the surrogate compounds.
• 
Field-replicate analyses for VOCs, BNAs, and TPH were performed on sample
MW-5. 
Field-replicate analysis for BNAs and TPH were performed on sample
MW-7. 
Field-replicate analyses for VOCs were performed on sample MW-9.
Most RPD results were within 20 percent, indicating acceptable precision. In
analyses where estimated concentrations and/or low-level sample concentrations
above the quantitation limit were reported, greater variability in RPD was noted.
TUT 
OO5 
21O9
Dl-15
Similarly, TIC concentrations displayed RPDs greater than 20 percent in most
cases; however, this may be primarily due to the method of quawitation used in
TIC library searches.
• 
Some TCL data were negated and some TIC rejected due to associated blank
contamination.
• 
Several ketone compounds, phthalate compounds, and some of the common
laboratory contaminants, in addition to other TCL analytes, were qualified as
estimated due to exceeded CCV criteria.
• 
No TCL or site-specific targets were rejected due to calibration, internal
standard, and/or tuning accuracy and precision.
• 
Sample MW-11D was reanalyzed because a low SMC spike recovery was reported
for toluene-d8. A low SMC recovery was also reported for toluene-d8 in the
reanafysis of MW-11D. 
The initial analysis of MW-11D will be used when
reporting the data.
• 
The VOC analysis data for sample MW-7 
FR is referred to in this SDG as MW-
105. 
Sample MW-105 was originally collected as the field replicate of MW-7.
However, the VOA vials for the sample MW-7 
were received at the laboratory
with headspace. 
The VOC analyses for MW- 7 were canceled by Geraghty &
Miller, and the VOC results obtained for the MW-7 FR (MW-105) were
substituted for MW-7 
for the purposes of the remedial investigation.
• 
Sample MW-6D was reextracted and reanalyzed because of low acid-extractable
surrogate recoveries. The reextraction was performed out of holding time and
low surrogate recoveries were again reported. Since the results of both analyses
were similar and the reextraction was performed out of the holding time, the
initial results of sample MW-6D will be used when reporting the data.
• 
Samples MW-5 
and MW-5 
FR (MW-104) were diluted and reanalyzed because the
concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene exceeded the calibration
range of the instrument. The dilution analysis results for 2-methylnaphthalene
and naphthalene and the initial results for all other compounds will be used when
reporting the data for MW-5 
and MW-5 
FR (MW-104).
CONTRACT NON-COMPLIANCE
The following section presents a non-compliance summary for general issues associated with all
of the SDGs in this investigation.
TUT 
OO5 211C
Dl-16
• 
Two volatile TCL constituents (tetrachloroethene and dibromochloromethane) were
rejected from the semivolatile TIC fraction for several samples since they were
quantitated as a volatile target compound.
• 
Jn the analysis of the tuning standards for VOCs and semivolatiles, greater than
two significant figures were used when reporting the tune information.
• 
The response factors were not shown in the quantitation reports.
• 
TICsfor which presumptive evidence in the sample existed and -were identified by
the laboratory with a chemical abstracts services (CAS) number were not reported
with the "N" qualifier. The "N" qualifier was applied to these TICs by the data
reviewer.
• 
The total 1,2-DCE result in the volatile analysis of sample AfW-3 was qualified
"E" by the data reviewer since the concentration exceeded the linear range of the
instrument and no dilution for this target compound was analyzed.
tuturi-wp DV/021993.rp(
TUT 
CO 5 
21.11.
ATTACHMENT D2
INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION REPORT
TUT 
GO 5 
211.2
Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
based on
SOT. 3/90
(SOP Revision XI)
PREPARED BY:
DATE: 
— _•
Hanir SheiXh, Quality Assurance Chemist
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
APPROVED BY:
APPROVED
Revert. Runyon,
Monitoring Management Branch
DATE:
Kevin KubiJc, Qiief
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
DATE: /
TUT 
OO5 
2.1.1.3
STANDARD ^fPrSIt? HCCEDCJRE 
Page 
1 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data'xor i:ia 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: 
HW-2
Revision: 11 •'
1.0
1.1 This procedure is applicable to inorganic data obtained fron contractor
laboratories working for Hazardous Waste Site Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP).
1.2 The data validation is basal upon analytical and quality assurance
requirements specified in Statement of Work (SOW) 3/90 .
2.0 
Responsibilities - Data reviewers will complete the following tasks as assigned by th«
Data Review Coordinator:
2.1. 
For a total review;
2.1.1 Data Assessment - "Ttefr-%1 Review-Inorganics" Qw?>clist Appen^x (A.I).
The reviewer roust answer every question on the checklist.
2.1.2 
Data Assessment - Data Assessment Narrative (Appendijf f-^)
The answer on the checklist must match the action in the narrative
(appendix A.2) and on Form I's. Do not use pencil to write the narrative.
2.1.3 Contract Mon-<?enplianoe - SEP P/gtrt (Appendix A.3)
This report is to be completed only when a serious contract violation is
encountered, or upon the request of the Data Validation Task Monitor, or Technical
Project Officer (TPO). Forward 5 copies: one each for internal files,
appropriate Regional TPO, Sample Management Office (SMO) and last two addresses of
Mailing List for Data Reviewers (Appendix A.4). 
In other cases, all contract
violations should be appended to the end of the Data Assessment Narrative (Sec.
A.2.2).
2.1.4.1 Appendix A. 5
Fill in the total number of analytes analyzed by different analyses and
the number of analytes rejected or flagged as estimated due to corresponding
quality control criteria. Place an "X" in boxes where analyses were not
performed, or criteria do not apply.
2.1.4.2 Appendix A.6
Data reviewer is also required to fill out Inorganic Regional Data Assessment
form (Appendix A.7) provided by EPA Headquarters. Codes listed on the form
will be used to describe the Data Assessment Summary.
TUT OO5 2114
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 
2 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
2.1.5 Data Review Log; It is ra^-"™*"-^ that each data reviewer should maintain a log c:
the reviews completed to include: a. date of start of case reviev
b. -date of completion of case review
c. site
d. case number
e. contract laboratory
f. number of samples
g. matrix
h. hours worked
i. -reviewer's initials
2.1.6 Telephone Record Log - the data reviewer should enter the bare facts of
inquiry, before initiating any phone conversation with CLP laboratory.
After the case review has been completed, mail white copy of Telephone
Record Log to the laboratory and pink copy to SMO. File yellow copy in
the Telephone Record Log folder, and attach a xerox copy of the Telephone
Record Log to the completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A. 2).
2.1.7 Forwarded Paperwork 
. 
;'
2.1.7.1 Upon completion of review, the following are to be forwarded to the Regional
Sample Control Center (RSCC) located in the Surveillance and Monitoring Branch:
a. data package
b. completed data assessment checklist (Appendix A.I,original)
c. SMO Contract Compliance Screening (CCS)
d. Record of Communication (copy)
e. CLP Reanalysis Request/Approval Record (original + 3 copies)
f. Appendix A.6 (original).
2.1.7.2 Forward 2 copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2)
along with 2. copies of the Inorganic Data Assessment Form (Appendix A. 6) and
Telephone Record Log , if any,: one each for appropriate Regional TPO,
and the other one to EPA EMSL office in Las Vegas. The addresses of TPOs and EPA
office in Ta» vegas are given in Appendix A-4. :
2.1.8 
Filed Paperwork - Upon completion of review, the following are to be filed
within MMB files:
a. Two copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2) each carrying
Appendix A.6.
b. Telephone Record Log (copy)
c. SMO Report (copy Appendix A-3)
d. CLP Reanalysis Request/Approval Record (copy)
TUT CO5 211!
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 
3 
of 
34
t
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
rate: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: KK-2
Revision: 11
3.0
Each data package is checked by a Regional Sample Control Coordinator (RSSC) for
completeness. A data package is assumpri to be conplete when all the deliverables
required under the contract are present. If a data package is incomplete, the RSSC
would call the laboratory for missing document (s) . If the laboratory does not respcn
within a week, SMD and MMB coordinator of Region II will be notified.
4.0 
Rejection of Data - All values determined to be unacceptable on the Inorganic Analysi
Data Sheet (Form I) must be lined over with a red pencil. As soon as any review
criteria causes data to be rejected, that data can be eliminated from any further revie
or consideration.
5.0 
Acceptance criteria - In order that reviews be consistent among reviewers, acceptano
criteria as stated in Appendix A.I (pages 4-25) should be used. Additional guidan
can be found in the National Inorganic Functional Guidelines of October 1, 1989.
6.0 
SM3 Contract Compliance Screening (CCS) - This is intended to aid reviewer in locatir
any problems, both corrected and uncorrected. However, the validation should be carrie
out even if CCS is not present. Resubmittals received from laboratory in response t:
CCS must be used by the reviewer.
7.0 
Request for Rapnaiyg-ig - Data reviewers must note all items of contract non-compliano
within Data Assessment Narrative. If holding times and sample storage times have not beej
exceeded, TPO may request reanalysis if items of non-compliance are critical to dati
assessment. Requests are to be made on "CLP Re-Analysis Request/Approval Record".
8.0 
Record «f rvn»mipi«-»+--|g»n - Provided by the Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) to
indicate which data packages have been received and are ready to be reviewed.
9.0 
Roundina off rp"*w*tt - The data reviewer will follow the standard practice.
TUT COS 2116
STANCftRD DERATING PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Oate: Jan. 1992
Number: 
HriT2
Revision: 11
A. 1.1
(CCS) ~ Present?
ACTION; If no, contact RSCC.
A. 1.2 Reoord of n "WTHJ. cation (fi*in R9PP) — Present?
ACTION; If no, request from RSCC.
A. 1.3 Trip Report - Present and conplete?
ACTION; If no, contact RSCC for trip report.
A. 1.4 Samolfr Tnrffic P^cort — Present?
Legible?
ACTION; If no, request from Regional Sample Control
Center (KSCC) .
A. 1.5 Cover Paaa - Present?
Is cover page properly filled in and signed by the lab
manager or the manager's designec?
ACTION: If no, prepare Telephone Record Lag, and
contact laboratory.
Do numbers of sanples cor. respond to numbers on Record
of Communication?
Do sample numbers on cover page agree with sanple
numbers on:
(a) Traffic Report Sheet?
(b) Form I's?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, contact RSCC for
clarification.
m
C__]
[_3 
_
C__3
1
[__]
y
TUT 
OO5 2.117
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 5
Of 
2-
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data fear the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.1: Data. Assessment - Contract
ConpLiance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HH-2
Revision: li
A.1.6
I to
A. 1.6.1 
Are all the form I through Form DC labeled with:
Tst'hfir^ryry name?
Case/SAS number?
EPA sanple No.?
SDG No.?
oontract No.?
Correct units?
Matrix?
aCTION; If no for any of the above, note under
Contract Problem/Non-OaHplianoe section
of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A. 1.6.2 
Do any conputation/transcription errors exceed 10% of
reported values on Fonns I-IX for:
(NOTE: check all forms against raw data.)
(a) all analytes analyzed by ICP?
(b) all analytes analyzed by GFAA?
(c) all analytes analyzed by AA Plane?
(d) Mercury?
(e) Cyanide?
If yes, prepare Telephone log, contact
laboratory for corrected data and
correct errors with red pencil and initial.
No
N'/
[_) _
[____1
t___]
[___]
[____J
X _
X _
_ X
TUT OO5
STANDARD OPERATING PROCE7IJRE
Page 6 
of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Revision: 11
A.1.7 
Raw Data
A. 1.7.1 
Digestion Log* for flame AA/ICP (Form XIH) present?
Digestion Log for furnace AA Form XTTT present?
Distillation Log for mercury Form xm present?
Distillation Log for cyanides Form XIII present?
Are pH values (pH<2 for all metals, pH>12 for cyanide)
present?
'Weights, dilutions and volumes .used to obtain values.
Percent solids calculation present for soils/sediments?
Are preparation dates present on sample preparation
logs/bench sheets?
A. 1.7.2 
Measurement read out record present? 
ICP
Flame AA
Furnace AA
Mercury
Cyanides
A. 1.7.3 
Are all raw data to support all sample analyses and
QC operations present?
Legible?
Properly Labeled?
ACTION: 
If no for any of the above questions
in sections A.1.7.1 through A. 1.7.3,
write Telephone Record Log and contact
laboratory for resubmittals.
XES.
<_,
1*3 
N/A
1 _
_ *
X
TUT' 
OOfS
2119
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 
7 cf 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals for the Contract 
Date: Jan. 1992
Laboratory Program 
Number: KW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: !!••
Compliance (Total Review)
YES 
NO 
N/A
A. 1.8 
Holding Tinea - (aqueous and soil sanples )
(Examine sample traffic reports and digestion/distillation logs.)
Mercury analysis (28 days)....... exceeded? 
__ 
[X ] __
Cyanide distillation (14 days)..... exceeded? 
X 
[__] 
__
Other Metals.analysis (6 months). . . . exceeded? 
__ 
[ X 1 __
NOTE: Prepare a list of all samples and analytes for
which holding times have been exceeded. Specify
the number of days from date of collection to the date
of preparation (from raw data). Attach to checklist.
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) values less than
Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) and flag
as estimated (J) the values above IDL even
though sample(s) was preserved properly.
A. 1.8.2 
Is pH of aqueous samples for: 
.
Mstals Analysis >2? 
X
Cyanides Analysis <12? 
X
Action: If yes, flag the associated metals and cyanides
data as estimated.
A.1.9 
pprm I (Fir*''
A. 1.9.1 
Are all Form I's present and conplete?
ACTION: If no, prepare telephone record log and contact
laboratory for submittal.
A.1.9.2 
Are correct units (ug/1 for waters and mg/kg for soils) V
indicated on Form I's? 
\r- 1 
__ 
__
Are soil sample results for each parameter corrected for 
\/
percent solids? 
[__] 
__ 
/A
Are all "less than IDL" values properly coded with "U"? [_}£] 
__ 
__
TUT 
OO5 212O
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 
8 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment: - Contract;
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.9.3
A.1.10
A.1.10.1
Are the correct
final data?
[tration qualifiers used with
rV
NO 
K/A
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log, and contact laboratory for corrected
data.
Are EPA sample I s and corresponding laboratory sample
ID # s the same as on the Cover Page, Form I's and
in the raw data?
Was a brief physical description of samples given
on Form I's?
Was the dilution of any sample diluted beyond the
requirements of the contract noted on Form I or
Form XIV?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, note under
Oontrart-Problem/Non-Oompl iance
of the"Data Assessment Narrative".
Is record of at least 2 point calibration
present for ICP analysis?
Is record of 5 point calibration present for
Hg analysis?
Is record of 4 point calibration present for: -
Flame AA?
Furnace AA?
Cyanides?
»
Is one calibration standard at the CRDL level for
all AA (except Hg) and cyanides analyses?
£
ACTION; If no for any of the above, write in the
Contract Problenv/Ttan-Conpliance section of
the "Data Assessment Narrative".
TUT
CO 5 212.1
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Paoe
Of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: KW-2
Revision: 11
A. 1.10. 2 Is correlation coefficient less than 0.995 for:
Mercury Analysis?
YEg 
NO
_ 
[X,
N/A
A.1.10.3
Cyanide Analysis?
Atomic Absorption Analysis?
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
NOTE: The data validator shall calculate the correlation
itrations of the standards
ding instrument response
coefficient using
and the corres
( e.g. absorbance, peak area, peak height, etc.)
In the instance where less than 4 standards are
measured in absorbance (or peak area, peak height,etc.)
mode, are the remaining standards analyzed in
concentration mode immediately after calibration
within ±10% of the true values? 
[__]
ACTION: If no, flag the associated data as estimated
if standards are not within ±10% of true values.
Do not flag the data as estimated in linear range
indicated by good recovery of standard(s).
A.1.11 
Fonn II A (Initial and ContiTm-iT*? calibration Verificat
A.l.ll.l Present and complete for every metal and cyanide?
Present and complete for AA and ICP when both are
used for the same analyte?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory.
A. 1.11.2 Circle on each Form IIA all percent recoveries that
are outside the contract windows.
Are all calibration standards (initial and continuing)
within control limits:
Metals- 90-110%R?
Hg - 80-120%R?
Cyanides- 85-115%R?
[__] 
__
1U T
.-•-, ] r-....,
.c- .L .1;.. .c.
STANDARD OPERATING FRXEHIRE 
Page. 10 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: Hw-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
tJO ' 
N/A
ACTION: Flag as estimated (J) all positive data (not
flagged with a "U") analyzed between a
calibration standard with %R between 75-89%
(65-79% for Hg; 70-84% for CN) or 111-125%
(121-135% for Hg; 116-130% for CN) recovery and
nearest good calibration standard. Qualify results
<IDL as estimated (UJ) if the ICV or CCV %R is
75-89% (CN, 70-84% ; HG, 65-79%). Reject (red-line)
as unacceptable data if recovery of the ICV or
CCV is outside the range 75-125% (CN, 70-130%; Hg,
65-135%). Qualify five samples on either side of
verification standard out of control limits.
A. 1.11.3 Was continuing calibration performed every 10 samples
or every 2 hours?
Was ICV for cyanides distilled?
If no for any of the above, write in the
Q3ntrac±-Problem/Non-Conpliance section of the
"Data Assessment Narrative".
A.1.12 
Pnrm H B (CRDL S*-yv^*T'ri'< for AA and ICP) —
A.1.12.1 Was a CRDL standard (CRA) analyzed after initial
calibration for all AA metals (except Hq)?
Was a mid-range calib. verification standard distilled
and analyzed for cyanide analysis?
Was a 2xCRDL ( or 2xIDL when IDLxZRDL) analyzed (CRI)
for each ICP run?
(Note: CRI for AL,Ba,Ca,Fe,Mg,Na,or K is not required.)
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all data falling within the affected ranges.
The affected ranges are:
AA Analysis - **True Value + CRDL
ICP Analysis - **True Value ± 2CRDL
CN Analysis - **True Value ± 0.5 x True Value.
**True value of CRA, CRI or mid-range standard. Substitute IDL for CRDL: when IDL > CRDL.
Compute the concentration of the missing mid-range standard from the calibration range.
"LIT 
005 2123
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 11 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
A. 1.12. 2 Was CRI analyzed after ICV/ICB anl before the final 
\.
OCV/CCB, and twice every eight hours of ICP run? 
[/( ] 
__ 
__
aCTION; If no, write in Contract Froblenv/Non-Conpliance
Section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A. 1.12. 3 Circle on each Form IIB all the percent recoveries that
are outside the acceptance windows.
Are CRA and CRI standards within control limits:
Metals 
80 - 120%R? 
[ __ ] 
X 
__
Is raid-range standard within control limits:
Cyanide 80 - 120%R? 
fX 1 
__ 
__
ACTION; Flag as estimated all sample results within
the affected range if the recovery of the
standard is between 50-79%; flag only positive
data within the affected range if the recovery
is between 121-150%; reject all data within the
affected range if the recovery is less than 50%;
reject only positive data within the affected range
if the recovery is greater than 150%. Cjjalify 50% of
the samples on either side of CRI standard outside
the control limits.
Note; Flag or reject the final results only when sanple
raw data are within the affected ranges and the CRDL
standards are outside the acceptance windows.
A.1.13 
ppTm in (inl^i*! and Oon*"tTT"'TTg <^»'H>M'Bfrion Blanks)
A.1.13.1 Present and complete? 
F A 1 
__ 
__
For both AA and ICP when both are used for the 
\^
same analyte? 
[__] 
__ 
Was an initial calibration blank analyzed? 
[s\ 1 
__ 
__
Was a continuing calibration blank analyzed after
every 10 samples or every 2 hours (which ever is more
frequent)?
TUT OO5 2124
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 12 of 34
Title: Evaluation of »tsJ.s Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Lakorarr,!/ L-rcgraa 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
rc 
N/A
ACTION; If no, prepare Telephone Record Log, contact
laboratory and write in the Contract-Problems/
Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A. 1.12. 2 Circle on each Form IH all calibration blank values
that are above CRDL (or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRQL) .
Are all calibration blanks (when IDLcCRDL) less than or 
\s
[/K _] 
__ 
__
equal to the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs)?
Are all calibration blanks less than two times 
\y
Instrument Detection Limit (when IDIXBDL)? 
[__] 
__ 
X
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
(J) positive sample results when raw sample
value is less than or equal to calibration
blank value analyzed between calibration blank
with value over CRDL (or 2xIDL) and nearest good
calibration blank.
Flag five samples on either side of the
calibration blank outside the control limits.
A.1.14 
FORM III (Preparation Blank) -
(Note: The preparation blank for mercury is the same
as the calibration blank.)
A.1.14.1 Was one prep, blank analyzed for:
each Sample Delivery Group (SDG)? 
L/^' 1 
__ 
__
each batch of digested samples?
each matrix type?
both AA and ICP when both are-used for
the same analyte?
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as
estimated (J) all the associated positive
data <10 x IDLs for which prep, blank
was not analyzed.
NOTE: 
If only one blank was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples analyzed
do not have to be flagged as estimated (J).
TUT OO5 2125
.STANTARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract. Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Page 13 of 34
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: 
HW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.14.2
A. 1.14. 3
A. 1.14. 4
YES
Is concentration of prep, blank value greater
than the CRDL when IDL is less than or equal to CRDL? __
If yes, is the concentration of the sample with
the least concentrated analyte less than 10 timps
the prep.blank? 
__ 
[_
ACTION: If yes, reject (red-line) all associated
data greater than CRDL concentration but
less than ten timps the prep, blank value.
Is conoentration of prep, blank value (Form III) less
than two times IDL, when IDL is greater than CRDL? [__]
ACTION: If no, reject (red-line) all positive sample
results when sample raw data are less than 10
times the prep, blank value.
Is conoentration of prep, blank below
the negative CRDL?
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) all associated sample
results less than lOxCRDL.
N/A
X
V
__ 
rA 1 __
A. 1.15
A. 1.15.1
PQTTTI
(ICP
QlSCJC
A.I. 15. 2
Present and complete?
(NOTE: Not required for furnace AA, flame AA, mercury,
cyanide and Ca, Mg, K and Na.)
Was ICS analyzed at beginning and end of run
(or at least twice every 8 hours)?
f
ACTION: If no, flag as estimated (J) all the samples for
which AL, Ca, Fe, or Mg is higher than in ICS.
y
f\ } 
__ 
__
Circle all values on each Form IV that are more
than i 20% of true or established mean value.
Are all Interference Check Sample results inside
the control limits (+ 20*)?
If no, is concentration of Al, Ca, Fe, or Mg lower
than the respective conoentration in ICS?
V/
A 1
X
TUT 005 2126
STANDARD OPERATING FflOCEIURZ 
Page 14 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data j!or the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
. 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
__ 
_ 
__
If no, flag as estimated (J) those positive
results for which ICS recovery is between 121-150%;
flag all sanple results as »gHnvrt-«j if ICS
recovery falls within 50-79%; reject (red-line)
those sanple results for which ICS recovery is less
than 50%; if ICS recovery is above 150%, reject
positive results only (not flagged with a "IT1).
A. 1.16 
Form V A fSpDced gamble Reoovf>rv — Pre Digestion/Pre-Distillatlon) -
( Note: Not required for Ca, Mg, K, and Na (both matrices), Al, and Fe
(soil only.)
A.1.16.1 Present and complete for: 
each SDG?
each matrix type?
each cone, range (i.e. low, med., high)?
For both AA and ICP when both are used for 
\J-
the same analyte? 
[__] 
', __ 
f
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as 
^
estimated (J) all the positive data less
than four times the spiking levels specified
in SCW for which spiked sample was not analyzed.
NOTE; If one spiked sample was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples
analyzed do not have to be flagged as
estimated (J).
V
A. 1.16.2 
Was field blank used for spiked sample? 
, 
__ 
KV] 
__
ACTION: If yes, flag all positive data less than
4 x spike added as estimated (J) for which
field blank was used as spiked sample.
A. 1.16.3 
Circle on each Form VA all spike recoveries that
are outside control limits (75% to 125%).
Are all recoveries within control limits? 
[__]
If no, is sample concentration greater than or equal
to four times spike concentration? 
[__]
TUT O05 2127
STANDARD OPERATING FKDCSCtJRE 
Page 15 of 3;
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: 
Data Assessment - Oontract 
Revision: n
Ccrpliance (Itotal Review)
If yes, disregard spike recoveries for analytes
whose concentrations are greater than or equal
to four tJTnfts spike added. If no, circle those
analytes on Form V for which sample concentration
is less than four *-J™«
M» the spike concentration.
Are results outside the control limits (75-125%)
flagged with "N" on Form I's and Form VA?
If no, write in the Oontract - Problem/Non -
Ccrpliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
Are any spike recoveries: 
Y/
ACTION: If less than 30%, reject all associated aqueous
data; if between 30-74%, flag all associated
aqueous data as estimated (J); if between
126-150%, flag as estimated (J) all associated
aqueous data not flagged with a "U"; if
greater than 150%, reject (red-line) all
associated aqueous data not flagged with a "U".
N/A
A.1.16.4 
Aqueous
spike recoveries:
(a) less than 30%? 
/* 
[_
(b) between 30-74%? 
__ 
[,X ]
(c) between 126-150%? 
__ 
[X ] __
(d) greater than 150%? 
__ 
[X] 
__
Are any spite recoveries: 
Y/
A.1.16.5 
Soil/S«* -tftumfr
recov
(a) less than 10%? 
__ [__]
(b) between 10-74%? 
__ 
[__] S\
(c) between 126-200%? 
__ [__]
(d) greater than 200%? 
__ [__]
TUT O05 2128
STANDARD OPERATING FRXH3URE 
Page 16 of 34
Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
ACTION: If less than 10%, reject all associated data; if
between 10-74%, flag all associatfri data as estimated;
if between 126-200%, flag as estimated all associated
data was not flagged with a "U"; if greater than 200%,
reject all associated data not flagged with a "IT1.
A. 1.17 
FoH" VT (If*** 
_______
A. 1.17.1 
Present and complete for: 
each SDG?
v
each matrix type? 
[A ] 
__
v 
~~
each concentration range (i.e. low, med., high)? 
(/>• 1 
__
both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
analyte? 
[__] 
__
ACTION; If no for any the above, flag as
(J) all the data >CRDL* for which duplicate
sample was not analyzed.
Note; 1. If one duplicate sample was analyzed for
more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples do not
have to be flagged as estimated.
2. If percent solids for soil sample and its duplicate
differ by more than 1%, prepare a Form VI for each
duplicate pair, report concentrations in ug/L
on wet weight basis and calculate RFD or Difference
for each analyte.
A. 1.17.2 
Was field blank used for duplicate analysis? 
__
ACTION; If yes, flag all data >CRDL* as estimated
(J) for which field blank was used as duplicate.
A. 1.17.3 
Are all values within control limits (RFD 20% or 
\J
" dif f erence < +CRDL) ? 
f -*C 1 
__ 
__
•; If no, are all results outside the control limits
flagged with an * on Form I's and VI? 
[__]
ACTION: If no, write in the Contract - Problems/Non-
CDmpliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
TUT 
OO5 2129
STANDARD OPEEA1IN3 PROCEDURE 
Page 17 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1932
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number; 
Htf-2
Appendix A-l: Data Assessaent - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance ("Ratal Review)
__ 
EQ 
N/A
NOTE: 1. RPD is not calculable for an analyte of the
saaple - duplicate pair when both values are
less than IDL.
2. If the result of lab duplicate analyzed
by GFAA is rejectable due to coefficient of
correlation of MSA, analytical spike recovery,
or duplicate injections criteria, do not apply
precision criteria to m**--^!? analyzed by GEAA.
A.1.17.4 
Aqueous
Circle on each Form VI all values that are:
RPD > 50%, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50% where sanple and duplicate 
\X
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL? 
__ 
[ A ] 
__
Is any difference** between sanple and duplicate greater 
\
than *CRDL where sanple and/or duplicate is less than 
V
5 times *CRDL? 
__ 
V ' 1 
__
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A. 1.17. 5 
Soil/S**^'1'*"*>nt
Circle on each Form VI all values that are:
RPD > 100%, or
Difference > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sanple and duplicate are both
greater than or equal to 5 timps *CRDL) :
> 100%? 
__ 
[__] 
/L
Is any **difference between sanple and duplicate
(where sanple and/or duplicate is less than 5x*CRDL)
> 2x*CRDL?
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
V
TUF
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 18 of 34
itle: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
. 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Conpliance (Total Review)
N/A
If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A. 1.18 
Field Duplicates
A. 1.18.1 
Were field duplicates analyzed? 
[j{j
ACTION; If yes, prepare a Form VI for each aqueous field
duplicate pair. Prepare a Farm VI for each soil
duplicate pair, if percent solids for sample and
its duplicate differ by more than 1%; report
ntrations of soils in ug/1 on wet weight
basis and calculate RPDs or Difference for each
analyte.
NOTE; 1. Do not calculate RPD when both values are
less than IDL.
2. Flag all associated data only for field
duplicate pair.
A.1.18.2 
Aqueous
Circle all values on self prepared Form VI for
field duplicates that are:
RPD > 50%, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50% where sanple and duplicate 
\/
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL?
Is any **difference between sanple and duplicate greater
than *CRDL where sanple and/or duplicate is less than
5 times *CRDL?
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
,V
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
TUT DO5 2131
STANDARD OPERATING PROCHURE
Page 19 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data A.gg*»*»jiui-it- - ccntract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HK-2
Revision: 11
NO
A.1.18.3 
Soil/Sediment
Circle all values on self prepared Farm VT for
field duplicates that are:
RPD >100», or
Difference > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sanple and duplicate are both
greater than 5 ^iTT**6 *CRDL) :
Is any **dif ference between sanple and duplicate
(where sanple and/or duplicate is less than 5x *CRDL )
>2x *CRDL?
If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
N/A
X
A. 1.19 
Fora VII (Laboratory Control g^r^) (Note: LCS - not
required for aqueous Hg and cyanide analyses.)
A.1.19.1 
Was one LCS prepared and analyzed for:
each SDG?
each batch samples digested/distilled?
both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
analyte? 
[_
ACTION: If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory for submittal
of results of LCS. Flag as estimated (J) all
the data for which LCS was not analyzed.
NOTE: If only one LCS was analyzed for more than 20
samples, then first 20 samples close to LCS
do not have to be flagged as estimated.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
TUT COS 2132
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 
20 
of 
2 A
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
Circle on each Form VII the LCS percent recoveries
outside control limits (80 - 120%) except for aqueous
Ag and Sb.
Is any I£S recovery;
ACTION;
less than 50%?
between 50% and 79%?
between 121% and 150%?
greater than 150%?
Less than 50%, reject (red-line) all data;
between 50% and 79%, flag all associated data
as estimated (J) ; between 121% and 150%, .flag
all positive (not flagged with a "U") results
as estimated; greater than 150%, reject all
positive results.
NO
N/A
A.1.19.3
NOTE; 1. If "Found" value of LCS is rejectable due to duplicate
injections or anaTyHra] spite recovery criteria,
regardless of LCS recovery, flag the associated data
as estimated (J) .
2. If IDL of an analyte is equal to or greater than
true value of LCS, disregard the "Action" below even
though LCS is out of control limits.
Is LCS "Found" value higher than the control
limits on Form VII? 
__ 
[
ACTION; If yes, qualify all associated positive data
as
ACTION:
Is LCS "Found" value lower than the Control
limits on Form VTI?
If yes, qualify all associated data as
estimated.
_ 
[_] £L
TUT
OO5
2133
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 21 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: 
HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Cornpliance (Total Review)
YES" 
JJO 
N'/A
A.1.20 
^Ff PC 'CICP Serial Pll'Blri7n^ **
NOTE; Serial dilution analysis is required only
for initial concentrations equal to or
greater than 10 x IDL.
A. 1.20.1 
Was Serial Dilution analysis perfarmed for:
each SDG?
each matrix type?
each concentration range (i.e. low, med.)? 
[X ] 
__ 
__
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all the positive data > lOxIDLs or > CRDL when
IQxIDL < CRDL for which Serial Dilution Analysis
was not performed.
A. 1.20.2 
Was field blank(s) used for Serial Dilution Analysis?
ACTION; If yes, flag all associated data > 10 x IDL
as estimated (J). If lOxIDL < CRDL, flag all
> CRDL.
A. 1.20.3 
Are results outside control limit flagged with an "E"
on Form I's and Form DC when initial concentration on 
\s
Form IX is equal to 50 times IDL or greater. 
[ /\1 
__ 
__
ACTION; If no, write in the Contract-Problem/Non-
Oonpliance section of the "Data Assessment
Narrative".
A. 1.20.4 
Circle on each Form IX all percent difference
that are outside the control limits for initial
concentrations equal to or greater than 10 x IDLs only.
Are any % difference values:
> 10%? 
(__
> 100*? 
/<\ [__]
TUT 005 2134
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 22 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
m 
N/A
ACTION: Flag as estimated (J) all the associated sanple
data > lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when lOxIDL < CRDL)
for which percent difference is greater than 10%
but less than 100*. Reject (red-line) all the
associated sample results equal to or greater
than lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when IQxIDL < CRDL) for
which PD is greater than or «T**T to 100%.
Note; 
Flag or reject on Form I's only the sanple results
whose associated raw data are > lOxIDL (or > CRDL
when lOxIDIx CRDL)
A. 1.21 
F"T*na'"^> Atonic Absorbtion (AA) 0^
A. 1.21.1 
Are duplicate injections present in furnace raw data
(except during full Method of Standard Addition) for
each sample analyzed by GFAA?
ACTION; If no, reject the data on Form I's for which
duplicate injections were not performed.
A. 1.21. 2 
Do the duplicate injection readings agree within 20%
Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) or Coefficient of
Variation (CV) for concentration greater than CRDL?
. 
^
V
r ' 1 
__ 
__
Was a dilution analyzed for sanple with analytical - \J
spike recovery less than 40%? 
ClS_J
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag all the
associated data as estimated.
A. 1.21. 3 
Is *analytical spike recovery outside the control
limits (85-115%) for any sample?
Jfc
ACTION: If yes, flag as estimated the affected sanple results
if the recovery is between 10-84%; if the recovery is
between 115-200%, flag the associated positive sanple
results as estimated; reject the associated sample
results if the recovery is less than 10%; reject
positive sanple results if the recovery is greater
than 200%.
* Analytical spike is not required on the pre-digestion spiked sample;
TUT CO5 213?
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 23 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: 11
C o m p l i a n c e 
(Total 
R e v i e w )
* MSA is not required on LCS and prep, blank.
N/A
NOTE; Reject or flag the data only when the affected
sample(s) was not subsequently analyzed by Method
of Standard Addition.
Pom VTTI (Method of Standard Addition Mlti!
A. 1.22.1 
Present? 
[£j 
__
If no, is any Form I result nrrjpd with "S" or a "+"? __ 
[__]
ACnoN; If yes, write request on Telephone Record Log
and contact laboratory for submittal of Form VIII.
A.1.22.2 
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.990 forv,
any sample? 
x( 
[__] __
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) the affected data.
V
A. 1.22.3 
Was *MSA required for any sample but not performed? 
v_ 
• f A 1 __
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.995? X 
[__] 
__
Are MSA calculations outside the linear range of the
calibration curve generated at the_beginning of the
analytical run?
ACTION; If yes for any of the above, flag all
the associated data as estimated (J).
A. 1.22.4 
Was proper quantitation procedure followed correctly
as outlined in the SOW on page E-23?
ACTION; If no, note exception under Contract Problem/
Non-Compliance section of the' "Data Assessment
Narrative", and prepare a separate list.
I UT 
GG5 
7 j ;T.^
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 
Page 24 of 34
Title: Evaluation o:; Kstals Data for the 
Date: Jan. 1S92
Contract Lc.-oo'raS-Gry Program 
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract 
Revision: n
Coirpliance (Total Review)
m 
N/A
A. 1.23 
Dissolved/To*'^ or TnQiPcpinSe/ro+'»1 >T\*T,vt'Jlt? —
A. 1.23.1 
Were any analyses performed for dissolved as well as \/
total analytes on the same sample(s). 
A 
[ __ ] __
Were any analyses performed for inorganic as well as total
(organic + inorganic) analytes on the same sarople(s)? __
NOTE: 1. If yes, prepare a list comparing differences
between all dissolved (or inorganic) and
total analytes. Compute the differences as
a percent of the total analyte only when
dissolved concentration is greater than CRDL
as well as total concentration.
2. Apply the following questions only if in-
organic (or dissolved ) results are (i) above
CRDL, and (ii) greater than total constituents.
3. At least one preparation blank, ICS, and LCS
should be analyzed in each analytical run.
A. 1.23. 2 
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
analyte greater than its total concentration by
more than 10*? 
,A 
[ __ ] __
A. 1.23. 3 
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
analyte greater than its total concentration by
more than 50%? 
- 
A 
[ __ ] __
If more than 10*, flag both dissolved (or
inorganic) and total values as estijmtfri (J) ;
if more than 50*, reject (red-line) the data
for both values.
A.1.24 
FQTW I (yield Blank) -
(Note i r^fr^icmut'** "Fi^ld Blank*1 as sw^h OP
A. 1.24.1 
Circle all field blank values on Form I that are
greater than CRDL, (or 2 x IDL .when IDL > CRDL).
Is field blank concentration less than CRDL
(or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL) for all parameters
of associated aqueous and soil samples? 
[__]
GO5 2137
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 25 cf
Title: Evaluation of Metals Zata for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: 
HW-2
Revision: 11
If no, was field blank value already rejected
due to other QC criteria?
ACTION: If no, reject (except field blank results)
all associated positive sample data less
than or equal to five *l7"oq the field blank
value. Reject on Form I's the soil saaple
results that when converted to ug/L on wet
basis are less than or T"*l to five tines
the field blank value in ug/L.
YES
N/A
A.1.25
A. 1.25.1 
Is verification report present for:
Instrument Detection Limits (quarterly)?
ICP Interelenent Correction Factors (annually)?
ICP T.ingar- Ranges (quarterly)?
ACTION; If no, contact TPO of the lab.
.Y.
A. 1.25. 2 Form x (InstrrHng'nt Detec*'i
required for Cyanide.)
~ (Note: IDL is not
A.1.25.2.1 Are IDLs present for:
all the analytes?
all the instruments used?
For both AA and ICP when both are used for the sane
analyte?
ACTION: If no for any of the above, prepare
Telephone Record Log and contact
laboratory.
A. 1.25.2.2 Is IDL greater than CRDL for any analyte?
If yes, is the concentration on Form I of the sanple
analyzed on the instrument whose IDL exceeds CRDL,
greater than 5 x IDL.
& _ _
- y
t_] _
TUT CO5
M-38
STANDARD OPERATES H30OTURE
Page 26 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data rrr-'ve
Contract Laboratory Frogroa
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Canplianae (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
Action : If no, flag as estimated all values less
than five tines IDL of the instrument whose
exceeds CRDL.
N/A
A.1.25.3
Fonn XT ftinear
A. 1.25.3.1 Was any sample result higher than high linear range
of ICP.
Was any sample result higher than the highest
calibration standard for non-ICP parameters?
If yes for any of the above, was the
sample diluted to obtain the result on Form I?
k!
A.1.26
A.1.26.1
ACTION; If no, flag the result reported on Form I
as estimated (J).
Are percent solids in sediment(s):
< 50%?
< 10%?
ACTION; If yes, qualify as estimated nil the
results of a sample that has per cent
solids between 10%-50% (i.e. moisture
content between 50%-90%). Reject all
the results of a sample that has per cent
solids less than 10% (i.e. moisture content
greater than 90%).
NOTE; Reject or flag(J) only the sample results
that were not previously rejected or flaged
due to other QC criteria.
_ 
c.
TUT
005 2139
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.2: 
Data Assessment Narrative
Date: 
January 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
Case#
Site 
Tutu Service Station Investigation 
Matrix: Soil
SDG# 24744. 24950. 24997. 25009
25052. 25071. 25091
Contractor Geraehtv & Miller. Inc.
Lab 
Enseco-East
Reviewer Lauren Siosren
Water
Other
A.2.1.
Validation Flags -
J -
Red-Line -
Fullv Usable Data-
Contractual Qualifiers -
The following flags have been applied in red by the
data validator and must be considered by the data
user.
This flag indicates the results qualified as estimated.
A red-line drawn through a sample result indicates
unusable value. The red-line data are known to
contain significant errors based on documented
information and must not be used by the data user.
The results that do not carry "J" or "red-line" are
fully usable.
The legend of contractual qualifiers applied by the
lab on Form I's is found on page B-20 of SOW
ILM01.0.
A.2.2 
The data assessment is given below and on the attached sheets.
The quality of the data was acceptable with the appropriate qualifiers as discussed below.
TUT 
OO5 214O
D2-2
HOLDING TIMES/SAMPLE PRESERVATION
Samples MW-6R and MW-8 were analyzed for total cyanide out of the 12-day holding
time by two days. 
Cyanide was not detected in either sample, therefore, these non-detect
cyanide results were qualified as unusable (R).
No mention is made in the cyanide distillation logs as to whether the pH of samples
FB092992, FB093092, MW-6D, MW-2, MW-4, and MW-3 were greater than (>) 12 standard
pH units. The laboratory was contacted and it was determined that the pH of these samples had
not been measured. Cyanide was not detected in any of the samples, therefore, the non-detect
cyanide results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
The pH of the cyanide samples MW-6R and MW-8 were less than (<) 12. The non-detect
cyanide results for MW-6R and MW-8 were already qualified as unusable (R) based on the
holding times, therefore, further qualification of this data was not necessary.
ThepH of all cyanide samples contained in sample delivery groups (SDGs) 24997, 25009,
25052, 25071, and 25091 were < 12. Cyanide was not detected in any of these samples,
therefore, the non-detect cyanide results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
The pH of the total metals sample for MW-1D 
> 2. All total metals detected for MW-ID
were qualified as estimated (J) and non-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation
limit (UJ).
CALIBRATION
For the majority of the arsenic, lead, selenium, and thallium initial calibrations, the data
reviewer could not confirm the correlation coefficients 
(r) reported by the laboratory. The r
values were calculated using a non-linear regression formula; all reported r values were >
0.995.
CRDL STANDARDS
For SDGs 25071 and 25091, the spike recovery for the lead CRDL standard analyzed on
October 19, 1992 was 70 percent which is outside the acceptance range of 80 to 120 percent.
Therefore, all total lead sample results contained in SDGs 25071 and 25091 were qualified as
estimated (J) if detected and estimated (UJ) if not detected.
MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS
Sample MW-11D was designated for the matrix spike analysis. 
All matrix spike
recoveries were within the 75 to 125 percent range with the exception of the cyanide analysis.
TUT 
O05 2141
D2-3
A zero percent recovery for cyanide was reported for the matrix spike analysis ofMW-llD. 
The
laboratory also analyzed sample MW-10 
as a matrix spike sample with a 104 percent recovery
for cyanide. Therefore, the cyanide result for sample MW-11D was qualified as unusable (R)
since there was no recovery of cyanide. No other cyanide sample results were qualified since
the cyanide matrix spike recovery for sample MW-10 
was within the quality control (QC) 
limits
of 75 to 125 percent.
LAB DUPLICATE RESULTS
Sample MW-11D was designated for the laboratory duplicate analysis. All laboratory
duplicate results were within the appropriate QC limits.
FURNACE ATOMIC ABSORPTION ANALYSES
Duplicate injections and furnace post-digestion spikes are used to establish the precision
and accuracy of individual analytical determinations.
Arsenic
The arsenic post-digestion spike recoveries were between 115 to 200 percent for total
metals sample MW-14 
and all the total metal samples contained in SDGs 24744 and 24950.
Arsenic post-digestion spike recoveries for the dissolved metal analyses for samples MW-12D,
MW-7, 
MW-7 
FR (MW-105), MW-4D, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-1, 
and ESSO-TAP were also
between 115 percent and 200 percent. As a result, the positive arsenic result for total metals
sample MW-10 
was qualified as estimated (J). 
Since arsenic was not detected in any of the other
samples, no qualification of these results was necessary.
With the exception of the total metals sample for MW-6R, the lead post-digestion spike
recoveries for all other total samples contained in SDGs 24744 and 24950 were between 115 to
200 percent. The lead concentrations detected in the total analyses for samples MW-4 
and MW-
3 were qualified as estimated (J). 
Lead was not detected in any of the other associated samples,
therefore, further qualification of this data was not necessary.
Selenium
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery was outside the QC limits of 85 to 115 percent
for total sample MW-6R. The selenium detected in this sample was qualified as estimated (J).
TUT 
005 
21.42
D2-4
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries between 10 to 84 percent were reported for
dissolved metals sample MW-11D and for total metals sample MW-1. The selenium detected in
dissolved metals sample MW-1 ID and for total metals sample MW-1 were qualified as estimated
(J).
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for dissolved
metals samples MW-14 and MW-3 and total metal samples MW-9, MW-9S, and MW-14. Since
selenium was not detected in these samples, these results were qualified as estimated at the
quantitation limit (UJ).
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries for dissolved metals sample FB093092 and total
metal samples MW-12D and MW-7 were between 115 and 200percent. Since selenium was not
detected in these samples, no qualification of these results was necessary.
Thallium
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for total metal
samples MW-10, MW-10D, MW-1, MW-13D, MW-8, MW-6R, and MW-4. Thallium was not
detected in any of these samples, therefore, these non-detect thallium results were qualified as
estimated (UJ).
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for dissolved
metal samples MW-10D, MW-1D, MW-5, MW-14, MW-5FR (MW-104), MW-8, MW-6R, MW-2,
MW-4, 
and MW-3. Thallium was not detected in any of these samples, therefore, these non-
detect thallium results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries for dissolved metal samples MW-7, MW-10, MW-
1, MW-9S, and ESSO-TAP were between 115 and 200percent. Thallium was not detected in
any of these samples, therefore, these results were not qualified.
All other post-digestion sample spike recoveries were within the QC limits of 85 to 115
percent with the exception of those samples analyzed by the method of standard addition.
ICP SERIAL DILUTION
For SDG number 24997, sample MW-5 FR (MW-104) was used for the inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution analysis. The percent difference between the total zinc
initial sample result and the total zinc serial dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As
a result, all total zinc sample results contained in SDG number 24997 greater than ten times the
instrument detection limit (IDL) 
were qualified as estimated (J).
For SDG number 25009, sample MW-1 ID was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis.
The percent difference between the total sodium initial sample result and the total sodium serial
dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive total sodium sample
TUT 
005 
2143
D2-5
results contained in SDG number 25009 greater than ten times the IDL were qualified as
estimated (J).
For SDG number 25052, sample MW-12D was used for the 1C? serial dilution analysis.
The percent difference between the total manganese, sodium, and zinc initial sample results and
the total manganese, sodium, and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent.
As a result, all positive total manganese, sodium, and zinc sample results contained in SDG
number 25052 greater than the contract required detection limit (CRDL) or ten times the IDL,
whichever was greater, were qualified as estimated (J). The percent difference between the
dissolved chromium initial sample result and the dissolved chromium serial dilution result was
> 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive dissolved chromium results contained in
SDG number 25052 greater than ten times the IDL were qualified as estimated (J).
Sample MW-9 was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis for SDG number 25091. The
percent difference between the dissolved iron and zinc initial sample results and the dissolved
iron and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive
dissolved iron and zinc sample results contained in SDG number 25091 greater than the CRDL
were qualified as estimated (J). The percent difference between the total copper initial sample
result and the total copper serial dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all
positive total copper results contained in SDG number 25091 greater than ten times the IDL were
qualified as estimated (J).
Sample MW-10 was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis for SDG number 25071.
The percent difference between the total potassium, vanadium, and zinc initial sample results and
the total potassium, vanadium, and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent.
As a result, all positive vanadium and zinc sample results contained in SDG number 25071
greater than the CRDL were qualified as estimated (J). All positive potassium sample results
contained in SDG number 25071 greater than ten times the IDL were qualified as estimated (J).
All other ICP serial dilution results were acceptable.
BLANKS
With the exception of the field blank FB100792, all analytes detected in any other blanks
associated with the samples had concentrations below the CRDL.
Aluminum, chromium, and iron were detected in the total metals analysis of field blank
FBI00792 with concentrations of 776 micrograms per liter (ug/L), 16.2 ug/L, and 820 ug/L,
respectively. 
The following sample results were qualified as unusable (R) because the
concentration was < five times the associated blank value.
TUT 
005 
2144
D2-6
Sample ID 
Analyte
ESSO-TAP 
Aluminum (total)
ESSO-TAP 
Iron (total)
MW-9 
Chromium (total)
MW-9S 
Chromium (total)
MW-1 
Chromium (total)
SAMPLE RESULTS
Only one transcription error was found. Iron originally reported as not detected (7U) in
the dissolved metals analysis of sample MW-3 was detected at a concentration of 55.6 ug/L. The
sample result was corrected by the data reviewer.
DISSOLVED/TOTAL ANALYTES
The concentration of dissolved calcium was greater than total calcium for sample MW-5
FR (MW-104) by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved calcium for sample MW-5 FR (MW-
104) were qualified as estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved manganese was greater than total manganese for sample
MW-4D by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved manganese for sample MW-4D were
qualified as estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved arsenic was greater than total arsenic for sample MW-9
by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved arsenic for sample MW-9 were qualified as
estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved sodium was greater than total sodium for sample MW-1
by more than 10 percent. 
Total and dissolved sodium for sample MW-1 were qualified as
estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved arsenic was greater than total arsenic for sample MW-9S
by more than 50 percent. Total and dissolved arsenic for sample MW-9S were qualified as
unusable (R).
A.2.3 Contract-Problem/Non-Compliance
For the arsenic, lead, selenium, and thallium initial calibrations, none of the calibration
standards were at the CRDL level. However, after each one of these initial calibrations were
analyzed and prior to the analysis of any samples, standards with a concentration at the CRDL
TUT 
OO5 2145
D2-7
were analyzed for each furnace sequence. The recovery of these standards were found to be
within a range of 94 to 118 percent. It is this data reviewer's opinion that the data was not
compromised.
MMB/ESAT Reviewer:_______________________ 
Date:.
Signature
^
A 
J 
f
Contractor Reviewer: f^"**&« ^^<^U^\ rVP 
Date:.
Signature
Verified by: ____U aL^ ^— tyJlstl**— 
Date:.
Timm-dv wf/amrf.uaf
TUT 
005 
2146
U.S. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-5
Total
Lab Name: ENSECO EAST
Lab Code: 
—___
Matrix (soil/water): ___—___
% Solids for Sample: ___--_____
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.: 
24997
Level (low/med): 
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:,
U£/L
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
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
1490
20.0
3.9
167
1.0
3.0
40100
15.7
6.9
9.2
2280
1.0
21700
407
0.10
54.3
9310
2.0
4.0
21400
3.0
6.4
26.1
10.0
C
u
B
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
uu
u
B
U
Duplicate (D)
1140
20.0
4.0
167
1.0
3.0
40100
12.5
6.5
10.9
1910
1.0
21400
406
0.10
49.0
8970
2.0
4.0
213000
3.0
4.9
26.4
10.0
C
-
U
B
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
uu
u
B
U
(
(
RPD
F 26.6
2.5
0
0
22.6
6.0
1&£
^ 17.7 "
" ——— ~~~~
1.4
0.2
103
3.7
03
263
1.1
L>
Q
M
PR01301/MW-5TOTAL.WK3
fir
2147
U.S.EPA-CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-5
Dissolved
Lab Name: ENSECOEAST
Lab Code: 
—___
Matrix (soil/water): ___—-_____
% Solids for Sample: 
—-_____
Contract:
Case No;
SAS No.:
SDG No.: 
24997
Level (low/med): 
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:.
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cvanide
Control
Limit
Sample (S) 
C
34.9
20.0
3.9
172
1.0
3.0
40300
4.0
4.0
4.0
278
1.0
21600
373
0.10
39.7
9850
2.0
4.0
233000
3.0
4.0
15
B
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
U
B
Duplicate (D) 
C
36.1
24.8
3.9
162
1.0
3.0
39500
4.0
5.4
4.0
278
1.0
23200
383
0.10
48.8
9380
2.0
4.0
236000
3.0
4.0
5.6
B
B
B
B
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
U
B
RPD
33
0
5.6
2.0
0
7.1
2.6
20.7
4.9
13
29.0
Q
M
PR01301/MW-5DIS.WK3
TUT 
005 
2148
U.S.EPA-CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-7
Total
Lab Name: ENSECO EAST
Lab Code: 
—
Matrix (soil/water): 
Water
% Solids for Sample: 
—_____
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.: 
25052
Level (low/med): 
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:,
ug/L
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
Control
Limit
Sample (S) 
C
3640
20.0
2.0
18.8
1.0
3.0
49200
12.7
5.1
19.9
5120
1.0
30300
120
0.10
8.0
21100
2.0
4.0
199000
3.0
103
16.0
10.0
U
U
B
B
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
Duplicate (D) 
C
4000
20.0
2.0
16.5
1.0
3.0
51700
10.4
4.8
14.4
5470
1.0
30500
132
0.10
8.0
22100
2.0
4.0
201000
3.0
106
17.0
10.0
U
U
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
RPD
9.4
13.0
5.0
20.0
6.1
32.0
6.6
0.7
9.5
4.6
1.0
2.9
6.1
Q
M
PR01301/MW-7TOTAL.WK3
TUT 
005
2149
U.S. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-7
! Dissolved
Lab Name: ENSECO EAST
Lab Code: 
--
Matrix (soil/water): 
Water
% Solids for Sample: 
--_____
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.: 
25052
Level (low/med): 
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): 
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bervllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
32.0
20.1
2.0
4.8
1.0
3.0
41200
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
1.0
28600
1.2
0.10
8.0
20100
2.1
4.0
209000
3.0
96.8
3.9
C
u
B
U
B
U
U
U
U
U
Uu
B
Uu
B
U
u
B
Duplicate (D)
32.0
20.0
2.0
7.4
1.0
3.0
41100
4.0
4.0
4.0
10.5
1.0
28700
2.0
0.10
8.0
22400
2.0
4.0
211000
3.0
99.2
7.4
C
Uuu
B
Uuuuuu
B
U
B
U
U
uu
u
B
RPD
200
42.6
0.2
200
0.3
<T5Q.O^>
10.8
1.1
2.4
^61.9 
.7
"~~ - ~~~
Q
M
PR01301/MW-7DIS.WK3
TUT 
O05 2150
ATTACHMENT D3
TABLES
TUT 
OO5 
2151
Table D3-1. 
Ground-Water Sample Delivery Groups for September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample
Delivery
Group
24744
249SO
24997
25009
25052
25071
25091
Sample
Identification
FB092992
TB092992
MW-8
MW-6R
FB093092
TB093092
MW-6D
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
TB100192
FB100192
MW-5
MW-14
MW-104
FBI 00292
TB100292
MW-1
MW-1D
MW-11D
MW-1 ID MS
MW-1 ID MSD
FB100592
TB100592
MW-12D
MW-7
MW-1 05
MW-4D
FBI 00692
TB100692
MW-10
MW-10D
MW-1
MW-13D
MW-4D
MW-9
MW-9S
FB100792
TB 100792
ESSO-TAP
MW-106
Laboratory
Identification
24744-1
24744-2
24744-3
24744-4
24950-1
24950-2
24950-3
24950-4
24950-5
24950-6
24997-1
24997-2
24997-3
24997-4
24997-5
25009-1 (cancelled)
25009-2
25009-3 (resampled)
25009-4
25009-5
25009-5 MS
25009-5 MSD
25052-1
25052-2
25052-3
25052-4
25052-5
25052-6
25071-1
25071-2
25071-3
25071-4
25071-5
25071-6
25091-1
25091-2
25091-3
25091-4
25091-5
25091-6
25091-7
Collection Date
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 7, 1992
October?, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
FB 
Field blank.
TB 
Trip blank.
MS 
Matrix spike.
MSD 
Matrix spike duplicate.
reouoi.Dvrr.bi.Di.wp
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
TUT 
O05 2152
Table D3—2. Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Holding—Time Outliers Associated with Ground-Water Samples Collected
in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
cH
Ui
K3
Analytical
Parameter 
Sample ID
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs
MW-13D
(bromoform only) 
TB 100192 RE
FB100192 RE
MW-5 RE
MW-5 FR RE (MW- 104 RE)
MW- 14 RE
(bromoform only) 
TB 100292 RE
MW-1DRE
MW-11DRE
(bromoform only) 
FB 100592 RE
TB 100592 RE
MW- 12D RE
MW-7 FR RE (MW- 105 RE)
Semivolatiles 
MW-6D RE
ID
VOCs
RE
NA
Identification.
Volatile organic compounds.
Reanalysis.
Not applicable.
Collection 
Analysis (or Preparation)
Date/Acid Preserved 
Date
October 6, 1992/No
Octoboer 1, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 1, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 1, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 1, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 1, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 2, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 2, 1992/Yes
Octoboer 2, 1992/Yes
October 5, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
October 5, 1992/Yes
September 30, 1992/NA
October 16, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 22, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 22, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 20, 1992
Days Holding
Time Exceeded 
Action
3
8
1
1
8
1
13
13
13
3
4
3
4
12
Estimated data for
aromatic VOCs.
Used initial analysis
for bromoform.
Used initial analysts
for bromoform.
Used initial analysis
for bromoform.
Estimated data.
PROl 3.01.DV/TablcD3-L«*3
GERAGHTY & MILL! H. INC
Page 1 of 4
Table D3-3. 
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No. 
Blank 
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID) 
Concentration (ug/L)
Volatiles
24744
24950
24997
25052
25071
24744
24950
24997
Method
(05Oct92-A/C1412)
Method
(06Oct92-A/C1426)
Method
(23Oct92-A/J0166)
Method
(07Oct92-A/C1445)
Method
(09Oct92-A/C1469)
Trip
(TB092992)
Trip
(TB093092)
Trip
TB100192
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
Methylene chloride/3J
Methylene chloride/3J
Acetone/8J
Unknown (2192)/8J
Methylene chloride/5J
Acetone/9J
Methylene chloride/14
Methylene chloride/3BJ
Acetone/7J
Unknown (20.05)/6J
Unknown (26.15)/5J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/7J
Carbon disulfide/U
Methylene chloride/lBJ
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (4.43)/21JN
MW-6R, MW-8, 
MW-2, 
MW-3, 
MW-4, MW-6D
MW-6D RE, MW-5, MW-14, MW-5 FR (MW-104),
MW-1 ID, MW-ID, TB100292
MW-5FR RE (MW-104 RE)
MW- 12D, MW-7 FR (MW-105) *
MW-1, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-4D, MW-9,
MW-9 FR (MW-106), MW-9S
MW-6R, MW-8
MW-2, 
MW-3, 
MW-4, MW-6D
MW-5, 
MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
See last page for footnotes.
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTV^MIU.I -R.INC
Table D3-3. Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of 4
SDG No. 
Blank 
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID) 
Concentration (ug/L)
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
25009
25052
25071
25091
24744
24950
24997
Trip
(TB100292)
Trip
(TB 100592)
Trip
(TB 100692)
Trip
(TB 100792)
Field
(FB092992)
Field
(FB093092)
Field
(FB100192)
Methylene chloride/2BJ
Ace tone/96 J
Unknown (4.49)/7J
OctamethylcyclotetrasiIoxane(20.04)/5JN
C12H12Isomer(31.55)/8J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/6BJ
Methylene chloride/U
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/6J
Unknown (20.03)/6J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/8J
Carbon disulfide/3J
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane(20.03)/8JN
Unknown (26.13)/6J
Methylene chloride/2BJ
Acetone/TBJ
Unknown (4.54)/9J
MW-1 ID, MW- ID, MW-1
MW- 12D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-105)
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106), MW-9S,
ESSO-TAP
MW-6R, MW-8
MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6D
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTYc^MII I.I K.INC
Page 3 of 4
Table D3-3. Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No. 
Blank 
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID) 
Concentration (ug/L)
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
Volatilcs (continued)
25052
25071
25091
Semivolatiles
24744
24950
24997
25009
25052
Field
(FB100592)
Field
(FB 100692)
Field
(FB 100792)
Method
(WMB - 010ct92B/H3261)
Method
(WMB - 050ct92A/G8631)
Method
(WMB - 20C192A/H3479)
Method
(WMB - 060ct92B/G8680)
Method
(WMB - 070ct92B/G8691)
Methylene chloride/5BJ
Acetone/6BJ
Methylene chloride/1J
Hexane (5.59)/5JN
Methylene chloride/5BJ
Hexane (5.62)/120JN
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalalte/17
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chJorobenzene](30.58)/6JN
Substituted 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid (33.31)/39J
Unknown amide (35.24)/5J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/lB
cis-Terpin hydrate (16.86)/22JN
Unknown (17.23)/6J
Unknown (29.55)/3J
Unknown (15.60)/3J
MW- 12D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-105)
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106)
MW-6R, MW-8, FB092992
FB093092, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6D, FB100192,
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
MW-6D RE
MW-11D
MW-1D
MW-4D, FB100592, MW-105, MW-12D, MW-7
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbldZwk3
.
0-
GERAGHTY^MII.I 1 R.IN(
Page 4 of 4
Table D3—3. Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground—Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No. 
Blank 
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID) 
Concentration (ug/L)
24744
24950
24997
25052
25071
25091
ID
TIC
RT
ug/L
J
B
N
RE
FR
DL
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
Field
(FB092992)
Field
(FB093092)
Field
(FB100192)
Field
(FB100592)
Field
(FB 100692)
Field
(FB 100792)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/17
bis(2-Ethy!hexyl)phthalate/15
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/16
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/16
l,r-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](30.34)/18JN
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/41
l,l'-Sulfonylbis|4-chlorobenzene](30.33)/3J
Unknown (41.88)/21J
MW-6R, MW-8
MW-6D, MW-2, 
MW-3, MW-4, 
MW-6D RE
MW-5, 
MW-5 
FR (MW-104), MW-14, MW-5 DL
MW-7, 
MW-4D, MW-12D
MW-1, 
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-9, 
MW-9S, ESSO-TAP
* 
The results for the VOC analysis of MW-7 
FR (MW- 
105) have been reported for MW-7 
in the remedial investigation report
SDG No. 
Sample delivery group number.
Identification.
Tentatively-identified compound.
Retention time in minutes.
Micrograms per liter.
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
Reanalysis.
Field replicate of previous sample.
Dilution analysis.
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTY & MIU.I-R. INC
Page 1 of 4
Table D3-4. 
Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
CJi
Analytical Parameter 
Sample ID
Volatiles 
MW-8
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-6DRE
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
; 
MW-5
> 
MW-5 FR(MW- 104)
I 
MW-14
"i
MW-1D
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Unknown (26. 14)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (20.04)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane (4.38)
Methylene chloride
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane (4.48)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Reported Result (ug/L)
3 BJ
3 BJ
5 J
3 BJ
12
2 BJ
11 B
2 BJ
6 J
6 J
1 BJ
5 BJ
5 BJ
160 BJ
1100 J
130 BJ
550 J
1 BJ
7 BJ
4 BJ
22 B
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
12 U
10 U
11 U
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
10 U
10 U
500 U
R
500 U
R
10 U
10 U
20 U
22 U
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MII.I.I-R. INC
Page 2 of 4
Table D3-4. Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter 
Sample ID
Volatiles (continued) 
MW- 1 ID
MW-11D RE
MW-12D
MW-7
MW-10
MW-1
MW-10D
MW-4D
MW-9
H 
MW-9 FR(MW- 106)
? 
MW-9S
-Ft
MW-9S DL
'•J
$ 
ESSO-TAP
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Reported Result (ug/L)
1 BJ
12 B
8 J
3 BJ
11 B
3 BJ
4 BJ
21 BJ
20 BJ
28 BJ
5 BJ
3 BJ
5 BJ
4 BJ
62 DJ
2 J
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
12 U
10 U
10 U
11 U
10 U
10 U
21 U
50 U
50 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
170 U
10 U
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTYtfMIU.I-R.INC
Page 3 of 4
Table D3—4. Summary of Ground—Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter 
Sample ID
Semivolatiles 
MW-8
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-6D RE
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
MW-5
MW-5 DL
MW-5 FR(MW- 104)
_, 
MW-14
H 
MW-11D
0 
MW- 12D
en
,0 
MW-7
0 
MW-4D
MW-10
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzeneJ (30.34)
Reported Result (ug/L)
10 B
64 B
5 J
6 J
11
56
18
22
31 DJ
22
7 J
1 BJ
2 J
1 J
1 J
3 J
3 J
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
64 U
10 U
10 U
11 U
56 U
18 U
22 U
50 U
22 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
R
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GHRAGHI Yc'MH.I.I R.IN(
Page 4 of 4
Table D3-4. Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter 
Sample ID
Semivolatiles (continued) 
MW- 10D
ID
TIC
RT
ug/L
J
U
R
B
FR
RE
DL
D
MW-1
MW-13D
MW-9
MW-9S
ESSO-TAP
Identification.
Tentatively-identified compound.
Retention time in minutes.
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
l,r-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3Q31)
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
l,r-Sulfonylbis|4-chlorobenzene|(3a31)
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene|(30.33)
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3Q33)
Reported Result (ug/L)
7 J
3 J
30
3 J
23
3 J
8 J
13
6 J
3 J
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
R
30 U
R
23 U
R
10 U
13 U
14 U
R
Micrograms per liter.
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an etsimated concentration.
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
Sample results are rejected and will not be reported.
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
Field replicate.
Reana lysis.
Dilution analysis.
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution (when qualifier is appended to a sample result).
tuturi—wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAUHTYc^MII.1.1 K.IN(
Page 1 of 4
Table D3-5. 
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical 
Calibration 
Date
Parameter 
(Initial/Continuing) 
Analyzed 
File ID(s)
Volatiles
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Initial (TCL) 
8/3/92
Initial (non-TCL) 
10/5/92
Continuing (TCL) 
10/5/92
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
C0280, C0282-C0285 
2-Butanone (30.3)
C1405-C1410
C1404
Continuing (TCL) 
10/6/92 
C1424
Continuing (TCL) 
10/29/92 
C1822
Continuing (TCL) 
10/7/92 
C1444
Continuing (TCL) 
10/09/92 
C1467
n-Propyl benzene (34.1)
Acetone (45.5)
2-Butanone(39.9)
Bromoform (-28.3)
Acetone (41.7)
2-Butanone (34.7)
Bromoform (-42.2)
Vinyl chloride (-31.2)
Acetone (32.8)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (26.5)
2-Hexanone(31.3)
2-Butanone (32.4)
Bromoform (—44.0)
Acetone (31.9)
2-Butanone (45.1)
Bromoform (-36.1)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (25.1)
2-Hexanone(30.2)
All samples.
All samples.
MB 05OCT92-A, TB092992, FB092992, MW-6R,
MW-8, MB 05OCT92-A, TB093092, FB093092,
MW-6D, MW-2, MW-4, MW-3
MB 06OCT92-A, TB100292, TB100192, FB100192,
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14,
MW-1D, MW-11D, MW-6D RE
MB 29OCT92-A MW-1 ID RE, TB100292 RE,
MW-11DRE
MW- 12D, MW-7 FR (MW-105), TB100592,
FB100592, MW07OCT92-A
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-1, TB100792, FB100792,
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9S, MW-9FR (MW-106)
GERAGHTY^MIUmiNC
Page 2 of 4
Table D3-5. 
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical 
Calibration 
Date
Parameter 
(Initial/Continuing) 
Analyzed 
File ID(s)
Volau'les (Continued)
Continuing (TCL) 
10/16/92 
C1567
Continuing (TCL) 
10/17/92 
C1586
Semivolatiles
Continuing (TCL) 
10/08/92 
H3260
Continuing (TCL) 
10/15/92 
H3384
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Vinyl chloride (-25.7)
Methylene chloride (26.5)
Acetone (33.6)
2-Butanone(35.2)
Bromoform (-28.3)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (27.6)
2-Hexanone(30.2)
Methylene chloride (29.5)
Acetone* (.46.0)
2-Butanone(43.8)
Bromoform (-26.2)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (27.9)
2-Hexanone(31.9)
4-Chloroaniline (40.8)
3-Nitroaniline(54.7)
2,4-Dinitrophenol (25.2)
4-Nitrophenol (28.6)
4-Nitroaniline(29.6)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (-31.9)
Pentachlorophenol (31.6)
Associated Samples
MB 160CT92-D, MW-5 RE, MW-14 RE,
FB100692 RE, TB100692, MW-13D, ESSO-TAP
MW-9 DL, MW-9S DL,
MW-9 FR DL (MW-106 DL)
WMB-01OCT92B
MW-6R, MW-8
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GtRAGHTY^MIU.I K. IN(
Page 3 of 4
Table D3-5. 
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical 
Calibration 
Date
Parameter 
(Initial/Continuing) 
Analyzed
File ID(s)
Semivolatiles (Continued)
Continuing (TCL) 
10/16/92
H3399
Continuing (TCL) 
10/16/92 
G8630
Continuing (TCL) 
10/18/92 
G8655
c
H
Continuing (TCL) 
10/19/92 
G8672
Continuing (TCL) 
10/22/92 
H3458
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi—wo dv/tbld4.wk3
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Hexachlorobutadiene (-28.3) 
FB092992
4-Nitrophenol (38.5)
Pentachlorophenol (36.3)
Butylbenzylphthalate (31.1)
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate (30.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (33.3)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-42.0)
WMB-050CT92A
Butylbenzylphthalate (-33.4)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (-28.2)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-44.9)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (37.5)
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) (40.4)
Hexachlorobenzene (28.1)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-37.7)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha!ate (-38.4)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-49.8)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (38.2)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-33.1) 
MW-5DL
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (-26.9)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-37.7)
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) (-30.9) 
MW-6D RE
2,4-Dinitrophenol (42.6)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (-27.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (28.7)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-46.1)
MW-5, MW-14, MW-5 FR (MW-104)
GHRAGHTYPMII.LI R . I N (
Page 4 of 4
Table D3-5. 
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical 
Calibration 
Date
Parameter 
(Initial/Continuing) 
Analyzed 
File ID(s)
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Semivolatiles (Continued)
Continuing (TCL) 
10/23/92 
H3477
Continuing (TCL) 
1()/2(V92 
G8686
ID
RSD
%D
TCL
FR
DL
RE
MB
WMB
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) (-40.5) 
WMB-20OCT92A
Pentachlorophenol (25.6)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-26.9)
Continuing (TCL) 
10/21/92 
G8703
Continuing (TCL) 
10/22/92 
G8719
2,4-Dinitrophenol (37.2)
Pentachlorophenol (37.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-30.8)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (-29.0)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (40.4)
Pentachlorophenol (26.9)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (27.9)
Hexachloroethane (-29.6)
4-Nitrophenol (-28.5)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-26.9)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-28.5)
MW-5 FR DL (MW-104 DL)
WMB-10OCT92A
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-1, MW- 13D,
FB100692
Identification.
Relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.
Percent difference.
Target compound list of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 1990 organic routine analytical services statement of work.
Field replicate of previous sample.
Dilution analysis.
Reanalysis.
Method blank/numerical suffix denotes analysis date and batch ID.
Water method blank for aqueous semivolatiles extraction; numerical suffix denotes analysis data and batch ID.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GERAGHTYc^MIU HR. INC
Table D3-6. 
Summary of Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Outliers for Ground-Water Samples Collected September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter 
Sample ID 
_____________________Accuracy
Compound 
Acceptance Range (%R) 
MS(%R) 
MSD(%R)
Volatiles 
MW-11D
Semivolatiles 
MW-11D
ID 
Identification.
%R 
Percent recovery.
MS 
Matrix spike.
MSD 
Matrix spike duplicate.
- 
No outlier found.
1,1-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Phenol
2— Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Acenaphthene 
^
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
61 to 145
76 to 125
12 to 110
27 to 123
23 to 97
46 to 118
24 to 96
9 to 103
26 to 127
55
67
1
4
1
2
-
-
4
_
75
1
5
1
2
99
108
5
tuturi-wp DV/tbld3-6
GERAGHTYc^MII.I.F-R.INC