USVI Public Records

Document text

US ERA Contract No. 68-W9-0024 REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISPOSAL SITES WITHIN EPA REGION II (NY, NJ, PR, VI) CDM Federal Programs Corporation TUT OO7 O747 *64943* 64943 FINAL ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, VIRGIN ISLANDS VOLUME IV OF IV Prepared for U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Washington, DC 20460 EPA Work Assignment No. EPA Region Site No. Contract No. Document Control No. Prepared by Work Assignment Project Manager Telephone Number EPA Work Assignment Manager Telephone Number Date Prepared 073-2P1D II VID982272569 68-W9-0024 7720-073-RA-CFKJ CDM Federal Programs Corporation Sally Odland (212) 393-9634 Caroline Kwan (212) 637-4275 March 24, 1995 TUT OO7 0748 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1 SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.3 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN . . . . . . . 26 2.2.1 DETECTION FREQUENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.2 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.3 ARARs AND MEDIA QUALITY GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.4 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.5 FINAL COC SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 RECEPTOR SPECIES AND ENDPOINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.1 RECEPTOR SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3.2 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.2 FOOD WEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.4 EXPOSURE DOSE ESTIMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 TUTU WELLF1ELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.coo/Augusl 23. 1994/day TUT 007 0749 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX A: CORRESPONDENCE FOR ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ON THE SITE APPENDIX B: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES/SIGNIFICANT HABITATS APPENDIX C: ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«M«»nint.eco/Augu« 23, 1994/day TUT 007 0750 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 2-1 Generalized Site Map 2-2 Turpentine Run Basin 3-1 Conceptual Food Web of the Terrestrial lExposure Pathways at the Tutu Wells Site LIST OF TABLES Table No. 2-1 Summary of Data for the Ecological Assessment 2-2 Summary of Chemicals in Site Surface Soils 2-3 Summary of Chemicals in Surface Soils Considered Background 2-4 Chemicals of Potential Concern for Site Surface Soils 3-1 Exposure Scenarios 3-2 Exposure Values for the Anole 3-3 Exposure Values for the Red-Tailed Hawk 4-1 Safety Factors Used to Derive Reference Toxicity Values 5-1 Summary of Hazard Indices TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/MsesmMxco/Augusl 23, l»4/d»y TUT 007 0751 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT /rf«p»xi This ecological assessment for the Tutu Wells site provides a qualitative estimate of the potential adverse environmental risk associated with exposure to site-related contaminants in the absence of site remediation. The ecological assessment process included problem formulation, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and uncertainty analysis. This assessment was prepared in accordance with applicable EPA guidance documents (as listed in Section 1.0). It was determined that exposure of ecological receptors to site contamination was not likely to occur via groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soil. Exposure to site surface soil, however, was considered a potential route of exposure to ecological receptors. Thus, surface soil is the only medium considered within this ecological assessment. Although the Tutu Wells site is located in a commercial/industrial zone with associated /*"**""• anthropogenic influence, onsite and adjacent offsite habitat could provide wildlife usage. This was determined by a site visit (March 1994) and through communication with local ecological experts. This habitat consists of grassland with scattered shrub and trees. Wildlife usage was considered to be primarily bird and lizard species, as observed to occur during the site visit. Endangered and threatened species that may occur within the area of the site were determined and included one tree and one reptile, five bird, and two bat species. No threatened or endangered species were observed during the site visit. Two potential ecological receptor species were chosen as indicator species for the site. The receptor species selected were the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis}, representing a higher order food web consumer, and the anole (Anolis sp.), representing a consumer closer to the base of the food web. Surface soil data used for this evaluation were obtained from the following reports: TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt.eco/August 23. 1994/<ky 1 TUT 007 0752 • Technical Memorandum n - Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1993a). • CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal's) Comparison and Evaluation Report for Groundwater and Soil Split Samples at the Tutu Wells Site (CDM Federal, June 1993). • CDM Federal's sampling reports for the September 1988 and June 1989 sampling events (CDM Federal, Sampling Trip Report, September 30, 1988 and Data Comparison and Evaluation Report, June 8, 1993). Chemicals of potential concern in surface soils were selected for quantitative evaluation. The selection process for each compound involved: • Evaluation of detection frequency, maximum, and range of concentrations; • Comparison to background concentrations; • Comparison to applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); • Evaluation of physical/chemical properties; and, • Consideration of potential toxicity. The chemicals of potential concern included nine volatile organic compounds, sixteen semivolatile organic compounds, one pesticide (Endosulfan I), one polychlorinated biphenyl congener (Aroclor-1242), fifteen inorganic analytes, and cyanide. Exposure for each of the selected ecological receptors to site-related chemicals in surface soil was determined in the exposure assessment. Ingestion and food web transfer were considered the primary means of exposure to chemicals of potential concern and were the only exposure routes evaluated. Exposure dose estimations were determined in the exposure assessment. First, the level of potential dietary exposures to each chemical of potential concern for each of the receptors was calculated. Then, the potential dietary exposures were TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANAL YSlS/assesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/<ky 2 TUT OO7 O753 modified into total body dose estimates, which are directly comparable to ecotoxicological data used to assess the ecological risks. The toxicity assessment presents ecotoxicological data for the chemicals of potential concern. For each of the selected ecological receptors, reference toxicity values were derived. Potential risks to ecological receptors were assessed by comparing estimated exposure levels (total body doses) with lexicological benchmark values (reference toxicity values). Exposure levels were estimated using the worst-case scenario, assuming ecological receptor exposure to maximum concentrations of site-related surface soil chemical concentrations. The potential for adverse health risks were characterized as low to none for the red-tailed hawk and for those ancles that would not come into consistent contact with high or maximum levels of chemicals of potential concern. However, a moderate adverse health risk appears to exist for individual anoles that come into frequent contact with high/maximum concentrations of chemicals of concern which provide considerable levels of potential risk (i.e., arsenic and phenol). The uncertainty analysis describes the areas of uncertainty associated with this ecological assessment and indicates how these areas of uncertainty affect the estimation of ecological risk. Since the actual area of maximum site surface soil contaminant concentrations is small (and varied throughout the site) in comparison to the rest of the site, the worst-case assumption that ecological receptors contact maximum contaminant concentration levels may have overestimated the potential ecological risk for some receptors. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aasesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/day TUT 07 S A 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) II Contract (Contract No. 68- W9-0024), CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal) received work assignment number 073-2P1D for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region II, to provide technical assistance by conducting an endangerment assessment to characterize site risk as part of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Tutu Wells site in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). This work is a continuation of the work previously started under the Technical Enforcement Support (TES) V Contract (Contract No. 68-W9-0002, work assignment number C02116) which required the submittal of an Endangerment Assessment for the Tutu Wells site. This portion of the Endangerment Assessment presents an Ecological Assessment (EA) for the Tutu Wells site. The objectives of this EA are to identify, qualitatively and quantitatively (where appropriate), the potential current and future environmental risks associated with the Tutu Wells site that would exist if no action is taken. Additionally, the ecological risk assessment will assist in determining if remedial actions may be warranted. This report was prepared in accordance with the EPA guidance documents listed below. • Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA/630/R-92-001, February 1992); • Eco Update (Publication 9345.0-051, Volume I, Numbers 2 and 4, 1991 and 1992); • Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: Field and Laboratory Reference (EPA/600/3-89/013, March 1989), and; TUTU WELLFBELD PATHWAY ANALYSI5/aMMnmt.eco/Augi« 23, 1994/day 4 TUT 007 0755 • Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume II. Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540/1-89/001, March 1989). As described in the above EPA guidance, the key components of an ecological risk assessment include: • Problem Formulation (Hazard Identification) • Exposure Assessment • Toxicity Assessment (Ecological Effects Assessment) • Risk Characterization • Uncertainties and Limitations This EA is composed of these five components as listed in order. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/m«.mmxa>/Aug\»l 23, 1994/day J TUT 007 073& 2.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION 2.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION A brief summary of the Tutu Wells site history and the environmental setting is presented below. A more detailed description may be found in the Tutu Service Station Investigation, Work Plan, (Geraghty & Miller, 1992) and the Technical Memorandum II, Results of the Field Program, Tutu Service Station Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1993a). 2.1.1 SITE HISTORY The Tutu Wells site is located in east central St. Thomas (within the Anna's Retreat area). A variety of commercial establishments occupy the properties on each side of the major roads that traverse the site (Figure 2-1). Private homes and multi-family housing units exist on the side roads. In 1987, an unusual organic odor was reported from well water of a private water supply well (the Tillett well). The USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) requested EPA's assistance in the contaminant investigation of the well water. In July 1987, the EPA's Technical Assistance Team performed sampling at this well and at other water supply wells in the area. Compounds detected included petroleum products and other hazardous organic constituents. Due to the presence of these compounds, the DPNR closed four of these wells. Several of the wells in the area belong to major commercial well services and are used for the public drinking water supply, therefore, the incident was classified as significant. The Commissioner of the DPNR requested the EPA to assume the role of lead agency. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSB/Mse«ninl.eco/Augu«l 23, 1994/day D T\ l~r 0757 TUT 007 -...J DWG DAlE: 2-2J-9J f'JlJCT NO.: PROt JOI FILE NO.: - DRA'MNG: TU-112 SMOOTH CONCRETE BOX CLLVERT (6 FT WIDE BY 2 FT HIGi) '\_/ .f::::::::i I CHECKED: C. MOFFIT APPRO'-£D: T. DANAHY ORAflER: E. EAGlfSlotl Ufl)aved D Ufl)aved \...--/\5. Do D paved CURRICULUM BUILDING (FORMER LAGA BUILDING) i~·TI / s·e-2 \/'\ / IJrl)aVed i 11 Q_ANTILLES AUTO PARTS ~ (FORMER GASSETT AUTO P /~/ ! ,-r-. Q. FIRE~~ . paved __. \ ~or~ / / ~~~<I ~vq.G::s ~ / ~ • I i. ~ll LJ FOUR WINOS SHOPPING CENTER Paved i i , ~ I Q. I I • I I .) 28-N DIAMElEA L-=: ~-) I f 1-Q i RElrfOACED --+---------, / i LS__ ! ~PIPE \J . : r•--, -- r::--1 l TIU.£TT IMii<E'sl \._:::J GARDENS = f? / W /'_., I ~ //Cr] ~1 'P--L__ I ~'"' ,,/'LL__:~_] // // / ,,/ 1Jr4Javed ,, / ~~o 0/0?_00 o~?~ r-l I !, L___J ~// l.:N. WASH I '----J ::: : : '-cl ~ d -::- 7, J- ---- I/ 6-FT DIMETffi~ •-i-./2V, 1 I FEtFOACEO ~ I I CONCAETE PFE ( ~,. / ,, ,t- ,, I ~ ,, I ), If I ,, 5 FT WIDE / 1 / ~------------:~a"edO OPEN TOP CULVERT - 11 --- . 0 ,, ,, ,, ,, SMOOTH CONCfl:TE I I BOX CLLVERT Ul'f11EA -rf--~--,.,__-__,,. D 8VEWAU< (4 FT ;1 H // 0: WEYMOlff1-f ffiYMER WDE BY 7 FT H0-1) I I O ,ur STATION 0-. / 1 > (SANT ARY SEWelAGE) 3 ii ,:: Q, <II ,:, ::E 4) ~ ! .c l '\) :1 D I I ,', /: 8',', Ufl)aved ! / ',':_' :'\ ii r·,.• ~., \, o # ~ IQUOR~\ /j: !WIN ''- '- " " ~ '..:. , ~ / ,, -e- ~r,paved \ '- · TWO 12-H N90E DWETEA PVC PPES SOE BY mE O'Henry dry deaners Fort Mylner Shopping Center I SCALE (APfJROXIMA IE) 0 200 FEET ·--1 LEGEND s SOIL BORING GI SHALLOW MONITORING WELL • DEEP MONITORING WEl L FT FEET IN. INCII Air' GERAGHTY Al' & MILLER, INC. GENERALIZED SITE MAP 4f Environrnental Services TUTU WELLS SITE ■ ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Source: Modified from Figure 3-6 in Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993a. flGlmE 2-1 l I i ii ERA REGION 11 SCANNING TRACKING SHEET DOC ID #64943 DOC TITLE/SUBJECT: TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE FIGURE 2-1 GENERALIZED SITE MAP (Page: TUT 007 0758) THIS DOCUMENT IS OVERSIZED AND CAN BE LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE AT THE SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER 290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10007 Multiple potential contaminant sources to groundwater at the site include the Texaco Tutu service station (at the northern corner of Highways 38 and 384) and the Esso Tutu service station (on Highway 38). In 1990, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Esso Standard Oil Company, Texaco Caribbean, Inc., and O'Henry Cleaners to conduct groundwater monitoring of the drinking water wells in the Tutu aquifer, and to provide water to affected homes until the respondents connected to the water main. Esso and Texaco entered into a RCRA 7003/9003 Order of Consent with EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Tutu Wells site in February 1992. The site was proposed for the National Priorities List in February 1992. Technical Memorandums I and II, submitted to EPA in April 1992 and May 1993, respectively, present the initial results of the studies of the Esso and Texaco gas stations and of volatile organic compounds (VOC) contamination in supply wells at the site. EPA requested the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee (TEIC) to conduct a more complete RI of the site, and, in December 1993, a Phase II RI work plan was submitted to EPA by Geraghty & Miller, the TEIC's contractor. Phase II RI field work was completed in July 1994. In addition to groundwater contamination, contamination of the Tutu Wells site surface soil may have occurred via a variety of sources by nature of the current or former operational history. Among the potential sources of surface soil contamination are the service stations, repair shops, paint store, dry cleaners, former textile operation building, artwork manufacturing building(s), and others within the commercial district along routes 38 and 384 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992; Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993b). 2.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate The climate on St. Thomas is warm and dry (Rivera, et al., 1970). The average annual temperature is 79.7° F, with only small variations of no more than 7° F between the coldest and warmest months. The highest temperatures occur in August and the lowest in January or TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMe»mnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 8 TUT O07 O759 February. The warm climate promotes rapid soil development and decomposition of animal and plant remains. Rainfall on the island is commonly caused by the lifting of moist air over the hilly terrain (Rivera, et al., 1970). Rainfall amounts increase with increasing elevation. The average annual range of rainfall in the vicinity of the site is from 30 to 55 inches. Although rainfall is generally the lightest in February and March and heaviest in September and October, there is not a sharply defined wet or dry season. Periods of drought occur almost yearly in some parts of the USVI (Rivera, et al., 1970). Most of the soils within the vicinity of the Tutu Wells site have land use limitations due to the potential for drought. Droughts are most prevalent during late fall through early spring. Geomorphology The Tutu Wells site is located within the drainage of the upper Turpentine Run basin in the east central portion of the island. There are two primary topographically distinct areas of the site. • The mostly flat terrace of the valley, generally following the surface water drainage in a north-south orientation. The width of this area is approximately 200 to 400 feet. The elevation of this area above mean sea level (msl) is from about 130 to 180 feet. • Gently-rolling upland, with approximately 20 to 40% slopes, situated to either side of the flat lowland. The gradation of these slopes generally begins at 200 feet msl and rise to greater than 300 feet msl. Surface Hydrology The Tutu Wells site is located within the upper basin of the Turpentine Run. Turpentine Run TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMcwmt.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 9 TUT 007 076O is an intermittent stream flowing from the northwest to southeast (Figure 2-2). The Turpentine Run basin drains approximately 3.4 square miles and is separated into upper and lower basins. The upper basin (above the stream gaging station near Mount Zion) drains approximately 2.3 square miles. The lower basin drains approximately 1.1 square miles. The Turpentine Run basin contains Quaternary alluvial and colluvial deposits that appear to thicken southward. Several small catchment areas have been placed along the axis of the basin which trap sediment. Within the area of the site, the drainage has been culverted into a storm sewer. Most of the storm sewer appears to be channelized in closed concrete pipe which drains to the unculverted portion of Turpentine Run south of the Fort Mylner shopping center. In a few locations within the site the storm sewer is open to the environment. Hydrogeology In the Turpentine Run basin, two hydraulically interconnected aquifers are present. Groundwater in both aquifers generally exists under water-table conditions. The groundwater flow direction is to the south/southeast along the valley gut. Locally, the primary aquifer is comprised of fractured volcanic rock of the following formations: Water Island, Louisenhoj, and Cabes Point Conglomerate. Rainfall of at least 2 inches within a 24-hour period is necessary for recharge to occur in upper basin. The fractured bedrock aquifer is non-homogeneous and anisotropic (i.e., its ability to transmit water is not equal or similar in all directions). The secondary aquifer consists of the alluvial deposits in the lower basin. The alluvial deposits present in the upper basin are very thin (2 to 20 feet thick) and do not constitute an aquifer capable of supplying useable amounts of water. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANAL.YSIS/«MMmnl.eco/Augu« 23, 1994/day 10 TUT OO7 0761 OVW5 OAT JlAY,93 I PRJCT NO.: PR008.01 I i-iLE NO.: NUN-CAU I CHtUHtD: I APPni/vtU: I LiRAFTtH: Ut %-n 05*00* 10*25' 18'2O 18*17 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services SCALE: SHOWN TURPENTINE RUN BASIN TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE 2-2 Source: Modified from Figure 1-1 in Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993a. TUT 007 0762 Groundwater from the site does not appear to discharge to surface waters in the area of investigation, except for potential episodic discharge to the storm sewer during periods of high water table. Soils At least five different soil types are present at the Tutu Wells site (Rivera, et al., 1970). The flat lands of the valley areas are composed of Lavallee Gravelly Clay Loam and Glynn Clay Loam (both soils at two to five percent slopes). Soils of the hilly terrain consist of Cramer Gravelly Clay Loam (at 12 to 40 percent slopes), and Dorothea Clay Loam (at 20 to 40 percent slopes). The ground water table is reported at a depth of greater than ten feet for all of these site soils. 2.1.3 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION Information regarding habitat description of the Tutu Wells site area is based upon observations made during the site visit by CDM Federal personnel in March 1994 and information provided by local experts (Appendix A) as well as the literature. No previous written habitat description for the area of the site was available for this EA. As noted in Section 2.1.1, the site is located along a portion of a major highway and is in a commercial/industrial zone. As with the majority of St. Thomas, the original habitat no longer exist due to anthropogenic influences. A portion of the site (perhaps 50%) is covered in pavement and/or gravel or is occupied by buildings. The rest of the site, and the adjacent offsite areas, include grasslands (former pasture lands) with scattered patches of secondary growth of shrubs and trees. This habitat occurs both on the flat land and on the moderate slopes of the site area. Within the site, the grass is primarily maintained (i.e., mowed). In general, the vegetation present at the site is introduced and includes dry forest woodland species (personal communication with T. Thomas, Appendix A). The identity of the grasses/herbaceous plant species of this habitat were not identified for this EA. Tree and TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/M«™nl.c«>/Aiiiv»t 23, 1994/day 12 007 076: shrub species observed at the site include those species commonly associated with disturbed, dry conditions (personal communication with T. Thomas, Appendix A): Scientific Name Common Name INDIGENOUS TREES Acacia tortuosa Bursera simaruba Tabebuia heterophylla Ficus citrifolia casha turpentine tree cedar weeping fig INDIGENOUS SHRUBS Leucaena leucocephala Capparis flexuosa tan-tan limber caper (also small tree) INTRODUCED (naturalized) TREES Melicoccus bijugatus Crescentia cujete gemp calabash Numerous bird species and several lizards (including an iguana and anoles) were observed onsite during the March 1994 site visit. Wildlife expected to utilize these habitats include lizards and birds (as observed during the site visit) and may also include snakes, rats (introduced to the islands), bats, mongoose (introduced to the islands) and white-tailed deer (introduced to the islands). Additional offsite habitats exist near the site that may also harbor wildlife species that may TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/i .eco,'August 23, 1994/day 13 TUT OO7 O764 utilize areas within the site. These additional habitats include the heavily vegetated/forested areas: • To the west of the site, behind the K-Mart shopping center, reportedly associated with a ponded wetland, • To the south of the site, below (south/southeast of) the Fort Mylner shopping center along the Turpentine Run basin, and • To the northeast of the site, behind the Tutu Park shopping mall. No detailed habitat description is available for these areas and access to these areas, other than the area below the Fort Mylner shopping center, were limited during the site visit. The aquatic habitat at the site is expected to be essentially non-existent. Onsite, the Turpentine Run is a culverted storm sewer with minimal access from the above-ground environment and with intermittent water flow. During the site visit, the only portion of the storm sewer observed to have access to the outside environment was an open concrete culvert approximately 10 feet deep and 30 feet long. This open culvert, located along the western side of route 38 at the Lutheran church, had steep (90° angle) sides and was partially fenced off. Weedy vegetation and a large tree were present adjacent to the open culvert. The open culvert appeared to contain less than 2 inches of sediments and water on the cement bottom. No reports of fauna inhabiting the culverted portion of the Run have been found during the search for site information. In the offsite area adjacent to the site, the major aquatic habitat appears to be the unculverted Turpentine Run below the Fort Mylner shopping center. In this area, the Run is reported to flow throughout the year. It is reported that wastewater discharge from several wastewater treatment plants feed into the Run at this point. The upper basin of Turpentine Run was reported to have had a significant freshwater shrimp and crayfish population in the past, TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me.nml.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 14 TUT 007 0765 however, anthropogenic pollution has greatly reduced the diversity and richness of this Run (personal communication with H. Wright and with D. Grigg, Appendix A). Cattle egrets have been observed in this portion of the Run (personal communication with H. Wright, Appendix A). 2.1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION Sources of analytical data for this EA were: • Technical Memorandum II - Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, June 1993a). • CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal's) Comparison and Evaluation Report for Groundwater and Soil Split Samples at the Tutu Wells Site (CDM Federal, June 1993). • CDM Federal's sampling reports for the September 1988 and June 1989 sampling events (CDM Federal, Sampling Trip Report, September 30, 1988 and Data Comparison and Evaluation Report, June 8, 1993). The March 1994 site visit provided additional, descriptive information used to distinguish which data were appropriate for evaluation in this EA. For the purposes of this EA, data from subsurface soils (soil under pavement or from depths greater than two feet) were not evaluated. These depths are greater than that which are considered likely for potential contact with ecological receptors (i.e., burrowing animals or roots of vegetation). Thus, ecological receptors are considered to be isolated from the contaminants contained in the subsurface soils. Surface water data were also eliminated from consideration in this EA. Although there is a TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me.m».cco/August 23, 1994/day 15 TUT 0766 potential for contaminated groundwater to enter into the storm sewer system at the site (personal communication with T. Danahy, 1994), there is highly limited access to the surface water onsite (due to the closed culvert system). Off site, in the Turpentine Run below Fort Mylner shopping center, where the storm sewer waters combines with other branches of the drainage, other pollutant sources (such as waste water treatment plant discharge, personnal communication with D. Grigg and with J. Wright, Appendix A) are expected to confound potential contaminant levels from the site. Likewise, groundwater data were not used in this EA as ecological receptors are not likely to consistently contact contaminants associated with the groundwater (thus the exposure to contaminants from groundwater is not considered to be on the same order of magnitude as the exposure through other media). Surface soil data (which is generally collected from zero to two feet below ground surface) are the only analytical data considered within this EA since surface soil was the only medium /•""""N considered as a source of exposure to ecological receptors. Due to the similarity of habitat and variety of potential contaminant sources, the surface soil data were considered together (not placed into discrete property groupings) for this EA. The following data used in this EA are described below and summarized in Table 2-1. Surface Soils Surface soils have been collected at the Tutu Wells site via soil boring, hand augering, and hand trowelling during the following sampling events. Eight surface soil samples (SS-1 through SS-8) were collected by Geraghty & Miller from seven locations in August 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, 1992). These soils were collected by stainless steel trowel. During this sampling event, eight split surface soil samples collected by Geraghty & Miller (one at each of the eight sampling locations) and were accepted by TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/aMCMml.cco/August 23, 1994/day 16 TUT OO7 O767 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF DATA FOR THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TUTU WELLS SITE Sampling Grouping Sample Depth (feet) Sample Identification Parameters Analyzed SURFACE SOIL Surface soil collected by trowel Surface soil collected from borings by split- spoon sampler Surface soil collected by hand auger 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0.5-1 0.25-1 0-0.5 0.25-1 0.5-1.25 0.5-1.25 0.17-1 0.3-1 0.25-0.75 0-2 0-2 Four sample locations from August 1992: SS-31, SS-3-CDM2 SS-4, SS-4-CDM2 SS-5, SS-5-CDM2 SS-6, SS-6-CDM2 SS-6 FR (otherwise known as SS-7) Three background locations from August 1992: SS-1, SS-l-CDM2 SS-2, SS-2-CDM2 SS-8, SS-8-CDM2 Two sample locations from August 1992: B-2, B-13A One sample, location from April 1994: MW-16, MW-16 FR Thirteen sample locations from September 1988 and June 1989: e-01 eC-09s eC-lOs eL-02-Ols eL-02-02s eL-02-03s eO-02-01 eO-02-03 eR-02-02s eR-07s eR-08s eTT-14 eTT-15 TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TAL Metals andCN TAL Metals and CN TCL VOCs1, TCL SVOCs, TAL Metals andCN, TPHs3 TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TAL Metals and CN, TCL Pest./PCBs, TPHs5 TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/aMe.mnt.eco/Ausu« 23, I994«ay 17 TUT 007 0768 TABLE C-2 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR1 EARTHWORM SMALL MAMMAL BIRD REPTILE/ AMPHIBIAN VOLATILE ORGANICS Benzene 2-Butanone Ethylbenzene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene Toluene Xylenes (Total) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SEMI- VOLATILE ORGANICS Acenaphthlene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzo(g ,h ,i)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butylphthalate 2 ,4-Dimethylphenol Fluoranthene Fluorene 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene Phenol Pyrene 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T(JT 007 0769 TABLE C-2 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS TUTU WELL SITE CHEMICAL BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR1 INVERTEBRATE SMALL MAMMAL BIRD REPTILE PESTICIDES/PCB'S Endosulfao I Aroclor-1242 1 5.822 1 1 1 1 1 1 INORGANIC COMPOUNDS Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide 1 1 0.193 1 44 1.263 1 6.835 1 1 1 1.826 1 1 8.327 - 1 1 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.778 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - TUT OO7 O770 TABLE C-2 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS TUTU WELL SITE NR =Not reported. 1 Bioaccumulation factors were conservatively estimated as 1 when empirical data were unavailable. 2 Earthworm bioaccumulation factor values (Diercxsens et al., 1985). 3 Earthworm bioaccumulation factor values (Beyer and Chromartie, 1987). 4 Estimation of bioaccumulation factor value for carnivorous invertebrates as reported in invertebrates (Roberts and Johnson (1978) as reported in Hughes et al., 1980). 5 Estimation of isopod bioaccumulation factor value (Wieser et al. (1976) as reported in Hughes et al., 1980). 6 Earthworm bioaccumulation factor value (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1984). 7 Estimation of earthworm bioaccmulation factor value (Hughes et al. 1980). 8 Estimation of bioaccumulation factor values for invertebrate-eating small mammal (Roberts and Johnson (1978) as reported in Hughes et al., 1980). TUT 007 0771 of £ TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) VOLATILE ORGANICS Benzene 2-Butanone Ethylbenzene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2- pentanone Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene Toluene Xylenes Rat Rat Rat Rat Guinea pig Mouse Rat Rat Rat acute LD50 chronic NOAEL subchronic NOAEL subchronic NOAEL acute LD50 subchronic NOAEL acute LD50 chronic NOAEL acute LD50 single dose NR NR NR single dose 6 weeks single dose NR single dose tremor/convul sion mortality birth weight liver and kidney liver toxicity NR liver toxicity mortality liver and kidney liver/kidney/ureter/ bladder, mortality 930 mg/kg 1771 mg/kg/day 136 mg/kg/day 5.85 mg/kg/day 1600 mg/kg 14 mg/kg/day 7617 mg/kg 223 mg/kg/day 4300 mg/kg RTECS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1994 RTECS, 1994 IRIS, 1994 RTECS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 RTECS, 1993 lizard-93 hawk-93 lizard- 177.1 hawk- 177.1 lizard- 13. 6 hawk- 13. 6 lizard-0.59 hawk-0.59 lizard-3.2 hawk-3.2 lizard- 1.4 hawk- 1.4 lizard- 15. 23 hawk-15.23 lizard-22.3 hawk-22.3 lizard-8.6 hawk-8.6 TUT 007 077'? TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE Page 2 u/6 CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS Acenaphthene Benzo(b) fluoranthene Benzole Acid Benzo(g , h , i)pery lene Benzo(a)pyrene Bis(2- ethy 1 hexy l)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butylphthalate NA NA Mouse NA Mouse Rat NA Rat NA NA acute LD50 NA chronic NOAEL chronic NOAEL NA chronic NOAEL NA NA single dose NA NR I year NA NR NA NA gastrointestinal and respiratory effects NA NR NR NA mortality NA NA 1940 mg/kg NA 30 mg/kg 1300 mg/kg/day NA 125 mg/kg/day NA NA RTECS, 1994 NA USEPA, 1980 Krauskopf, 1973 NA IRIS, 1993 NA NA lizard-3.9 hawk-3.9 NA lizard-3 hawk-3 lizard- 130 hawk- 130 NA lizard- 12. 5 hawk- 12.5 -ic O ••4 TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE Page 3 1 CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (Cont'd) 2,4 Dimethylphenol Fluoranthene Fluorene 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene Phenol Pyrene Mouse Mouse Mouse NA NA NA Rat Mouse chronic NOAEL chronic NOAEL chronic NOAEL NA NA NA acute LD50 chronic NOAEL 90 days 13 weeks 13 weeks NA NA NA single dose 13 weeks blood changes and lethargy kidney effects blood changes NA NA NA behavioral kidney effects 50 mg/kg/day 125 mg/kg/day 125 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 317 mg/kg 75 mg/kg/day IRIS, 1994 IRIS, 1994 IRIS, 1994 NA NA NA RTECS, 1994 IRIS, 1994 lizard-9 hawk-9 lizard- 12.5 hawk- 12.5 lizard- 12.5 hawk-12.5 NA NA NA lizard-0.634 hawk-0.634 lizard-7.5 hawk-7.5 cH O 'xi •si •*> Page 4 w/ 6 TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) PESTICIDES/PCBs Aroclor-1242 Endosulfan I Mink Duck acute LD50 acute LD50 single dose single dose mortality NR 3000 mg/kg 33 mg/kg Eisler, 1986b RTECS, 1994 lizard-6 hawk-6 lizard-0.07 hawk-0.07 -4r~ o ff ~ •"-4-4 01 TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) INORGANIC COMPOUNDS Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium (CR+3) Chromium (CR+6) Cobalt Copper Iron NA NA California Quail NA Mallard Rat Black duck NA NA NA NA NA Acute LD50 NA chronic NOAEL chronic LOAEL chronic NOAEL NA NA NA NA NA single dose NA 90 days 840 days 5 months NA NA NA NA NA mortality NA NR various effects growth patterns altered NA NA NA NA NA 47.6 mg/kg NA 200 mg/kg/day 1468 mg/kg/day 8 mg/kg/day NA NA NA NA NA Eisler, 1988a NA Eisler, 1985 IRIS, 1993 Eisler, 1986a NA NA NA NA NA lizard-0.1 hawk-0.2 NA lizard-20 hawk-40 lizard-146.8 hawk- 146. 8 lizard-0.8 hawk- 1.6 NA NA NA "t"ur oo? Page L .76 TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL SPECIES TEST ENDPOINT DURATION MEASURED EFFECT REPORTED VALUE REFERENCE RTV (mg/kg/day) INORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Cont'd) Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vandium Zinc Cyanide Sheep Rat Rat NA NA NA Rat chronic NOAEL acute LD50 chronic NOAEL NA NA NA chronic NOAEL NR single dose NR NA NA NA NR NR NRA organ/body weight NA NA NA various effects 5 mg/kg/day 9000 mg/kg 5 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 10.8 mg/kg/day Eisler, 1988b RTECS, 1994 IRIS, 1993 NA NA NA IRIS, 1993 lizard-0.5 hawk-0.5 lizard- 18 hawk- 18 lizard-0.5 hawk-0.5 NA NA NA lizard- 1.08 hawk- 1.08 RTV = Reference Toxicity Value NR = Details not reported NA = Data not available T!~IT 007 0777 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF DATA FOR THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TUTU WELLS SITE (CONTINUED) CN denotes cyanide Pest/PCBs denotes pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyls SVOCs denotes semivolatile compounds TAL denotes USEPA Target Analyte List TCL denotes USEPA Target Compound List VOCs denotes volatile compounds 1 Additional volatile compound list analyzed: 1,2-dibromoethane, tertiary-butyl methyl ether, n-propylbenzene. 2 Split sample accepted by CDM Federal. 3 Soil samples B-2, MW-16, and MW-16 FR only. 4 Soil samples eL-02-Ols, eL-02-02s, eL-02-03s, eO-02-01, eO-02-03, and eR-02-02s only. 5 Soil samples eO-02-01 and eO-02-03 were analyzed twice for TPH. TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/, .eco/August 23, 1994/day 18 TUT 007 077S CDM Federal for analysis. Surface soil samples collected at locations SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8 were analyzed for TAL metals and cyanide only and are considered background samples. Several surface soil samples were collected by Geraghty & Miller during a soil investigation to identify source areas of petroleum hydrocarbon products and selected chlorinated compounds. Surface soil samples were collected from borings made during August 1992. The soil samples applicable to this EA are the surface soil samples (0-2 foot depth) from soil borings B-2 and B-13A. Surface soil samples were collected by CDM Federal in September 1988 and June 1989 by hand auger. Seven of the nine surface soil samples collected during the September 1988 sampling event can be used as surface soil data: Sample General Location e-01 O'Henry dry cleaners eR-07s, eR-08s Ramsay motor company eC-09s, eC-lOs Antilles auto parts eTT-14, eTT-15 Tillett Gardens Two soil samples collected at the Texaco gas station (eT-02s and eT-02sd) can no longer be considered as surface soil, as the sample locations were observed to be paved over during a recent site visit (March 1994). Six surface soil samples were collected during the June 1989 sampling event: Sample General Location eO-02-01, eO-02-03 O'Henry dry cleaners eL-02-Ols, eL-02-02s, eL-02-03s Curriculum center building TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Mc«nnt.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 19 TUT 007 0779 eR-02-02s Ramsay motor company These samples were collected at various depths (up to two feet) and for numerous analytes, refer to Table 2-1. Several surface soil samples were collected from one location (MW-16) by Geraghty & Miller during the installation of additional monitoring wells. Surface soil samples were collected from borings made during April 1994. These soil samples, MW-16 and MW- 16FR, were collected from the following depths: 0-2 feet for VOCs and 0-3 feet for all other parameters. Analytical results for site surface soil are summarized in Table 2-2 and includes a number of organic and inorganic analytes. Analytical results for surface soils considered background are summarized in Table 2-3 and includes only two inorganic analytes. Prior to the tabulation of data, results were averaged for surface soil locations with duplicate and/or split sample results. Sample locations that were affected included SS-3, SS-4, SS-5, and SS-6. Results were averaged in the following manner: • If both results were not detected values, the "non-detect" results were averaged. • If both results were detected values, the results were averaged unless one of the results was 2.5 times or greater than the other. In that instance, the larger value was used. • If one of the results had been rejected (i.e., qualified with an "R"), the value for the non-rejected result was used. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMMmnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 20 TUT OO7 078O 8/12/94 SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS .ABLE 2-2 DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE P.1 of 3 QO -4 CHEMICALS VOCs (ug/kg> Melhylene Chloride 2-Butanone Trichloroethylene Benzene 4-MeIhyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene XylenesfTotal) SVOCs (ug/kg> Phenol 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol Benzole acid Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphlhalene Acenaphthene Fluorene Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranlhene Pyrene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Frequency of Detection 1/16 1/17 2/19 2/19 2/19 1/19 5/19 5/19 5/19 9/20 2/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/7 3/13 2/13 1/13 1/13 3/13 2/13 3/13 1/13 1/13 2/13 2/13 3/13 Range of Detected Concentrations Minimum - Maximum ... ... 1.0J 6.0 J 8.0 J ... 15 2.0 J 3.0 J 1.0 J 39 NJ ... ... ... — 4100 750 J — ... 52 J 100 J 76 J — — 84J 270 J 82 J 1.0J 44.5 J 65 J 45 J 33 J 55 J 440000 1300 2100 5600 900000 320000 1300000 J 42000 J 63 JN 7700 J 6100 190 J 420 J 9400 J 740 J 2000 59 J 5400 870 J 770 J 430 J Location of Maximum MWS-16-AVD SS-3-AVS SS-3-AVS 6C-10S eC-10S eR-07S e-01 eC-10S eC-10S eC-10S eL-02-01S eL-02-01S eL-02-01S eL-02-018 SS-6-AVS eL-02-01S eR-02-02S eR-02-025 eR-02-02S SS-3-AVS eR-02-02S eR-02-02S SS-5-AVS eR-02-02S eR-02-028 eR-02-02S eR-02-02S Range of Non-Detect Concentrations Minimum 8UJ 11 UJ 6.0 U 6.0 U 11 U 11 U 6.0 U 6.0 U 6.0 U 6.0 UJ 350 U 350 U 350 U 350 U 1800 U 350 U 350 U 350 U 350 U 34J 350 U 350 U 350 U 136 UBJ 350 U 350 U 350 U Maximum 14000 UB 11000U 14000 U 14000 U 27000 U 27000 U 880 U 14000 UJ 14000UJ 14000 UJ 11000 UJ 11000UJ 11000UJ 11000 UJ 380000 U 1300 UJ 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 8/12/94 SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS TAE>, ,4 , Continued P.2 of 3 DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE N) CHEMICALS Frequency of Detection Range of Detected Concentrations Minimum Maximum Location of Maximum Range of Non-Detect Concentrations Minimum Maximum PESTICIDES/PCBs fuo/kal Endosulfan 1 Aroclor-1242 INORGANICS Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Nickel Potassium Silver Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide, total 1/13 1/13 and CYANIDE (mo/kc^ 3/7 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 1/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 4/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 7/7 6/7 2/7 3/7 3/7 1/7 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH) TPH 9/15 _. ... 21100 — 2.1 33.9 B 0.19 B ... 47200 23.6 16.3 52 29400 3.1 17100 834 14.7 125.25 B 0.75 BJ 319 B 83.1 52.0 — (mg/kg) 15.70J 92 1 20000 J 27350 5.90 BJ 13.7 67.2 0.27 B 0.7 B 73200' 42.2 J 25.55 J 108.7 38400 86.35 SJ 23550 872 21.7 7625 UJ 2.2 J 470 B 119 108 1.1 23400 eL-02-01S eTT-15S MWS-16-AVD B-2 B-13A B-2 MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD B-13A MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD B-2 SS-5-AVS MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD SS-3-AVS B-2 B-13A B-2 B-2 B-2 eR-02-02S 9U 90U 21300 4.08 UBNJ 1.46UBWJ 44.20 UB 0.18 U 0.48 U 35900 19.93UNJ 13.85 UJ 54.95 UJ 27725 J 11.30J 9742.50 J 699.50 UJ 11.50 UJ — _. 273.25 UBJ 72.65 UNJ 95.75 UJ 0.53 U 0.17 J 1700UJ 1100UJ 26950 6.35 UBNJ 18.65 UJ 96.25 U 0.23 UJ 0.7 U 56050 33.95 UNJ 22.75 UJ 79.65 UNJ 48800 19.95J 18900 886 U 18.15 U ... 0.64 U 488.50 UB 96.50 UNJ 318 0.64 U 1.93J •••1 8/12/94 SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS TAL , Continued DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE P. 3 of 3 Sample Group for VOCs: B-2 B-13A MWS-16-AVD e-01 eC-09S eC-10S eL-02-01S eL-02-02S eL-02-03S eO-02-01 eO-02-03 eR-07S eR-088 eR-02-028 eTT-14S 6TT-15S SS-3-AVS SS-4-AVS SS-5-AVS SS-6-AVS Sample Group for SVOCs: Sample Group for Peslicides/PCBs: Sample Group for TPH: B-2 B-13A MWS-16-AVD ?CBs; and Cyanide: B-2 MWS-16-AVD e-01 eL-02-01S eL-02-02S eL-02-03S e-01 eC-09S eC-10S B-2 B-13A eC-09S eC-10S eO-02-01 eO-02-03 eR-02-023 eL-02-013 eL-02-023 eL-02-033 MWS-16-AVD eL-02-01S eL-02-023 eL-02-03S SS-3-AVS SS-4-AVS eO-02-01 eO-02-03 SS-3-AVS SS-4-AVS eO-02-01 eO-02-03 SS-5-AVS SS-6-AVS eR-07S eR-083 eR-02-02s SS-5-AVS SS-6-AVS eR-07S eR-08S eR-02-02s eTT-143 eTT-153 eTT-143 eTT-153 NOTE: Two TPH result values were reported for eO-02-01 and eO-02-03. The two values were averaged to create the representative result for the two samples. EPA Data Qualifiers: U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected J - Estimated value B - For organic parameters: Compound found in the associated blank as well as in the sample For inorganic parameters: Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit N - Presumptive evidence of a compound S - The reported value was determined to by the Method of Standard Additions W - Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance * - Duplicate analysis not within control limits 7/15/94 SUMM-BSS-TUTU.XLS 1 E2-3 DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOILS CONSIDERED BACKGROUND TUTU WELLS SITE P.1 of 1 to Frequency of Range of Detected Concentrations Location of Detection Minimum Maximum Maximum Range of Non-Delect Concentrations Minimum Maximum CHEMICALS INORGANICS and CYANIDE lmg/ka> Beryllium 3/3 Silver 2/3 0.16 B 1.44B 0.24 B 1.60 B SS-8-AVS SS-2-AVS 1.33UJ Sample Group: SS-1-AVS, SS-2-AVS, SS-8-AVS EPA Data Qualifiers: U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected J - Estimated value B - Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit CD • When one of the results was a non-detected result and the other a detected result, the average of the sum of the detected result plus half the non-detected result was used, unless half of the non-detected result was greater than the detected value. In this instance, only the value of the detected result was used. Additionally, the results were adjusted to account for the results of blank samples (i.e., trip blanks and field blanks) in accordance with the EPA guidance Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Interim Final), OSWER Directive 9285.7-Ola, September 29, 1989. Briefly, the procedure used to account for contaminants found in blanks is twofold: • The concentration of the parameter detected in the blank is multiplied by a factor of five (a parameter that is not considered by EPA to -be a common laboratory contaminant) or ten times (a parameter that is considered by EPA to be common laboratory contaminant). This is the blank comparison value. • This value is then compared to the detected sample results for that parameter. If a sample result value is less than the blank comparison value, then that parameter is now considered not detected for that particular sample and the blank-related concentration of the chemical is considered the new sample quantitation limit. Site surface soil samples were analyzed, for TCL organic compounds, TAL inorganic analytes and cyanide, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, although not all samples for all analytes (Table 2-2). Ten VOCs were detected in site surface soils. Detected concentrations range from approximately 1.0 to 440,000 micrograms/kilogram (/ig/kg). Detection frequencies ranged from approximately 6 (1/16) to 45 percent (9/20). Seventeen SVOCs were detected in site surface soils. Detected concentrations ranged from nearly 40 to 1,300,000 fj.g/kg. Detection frequencies for SVOCs were from approximately 8 TUTU WELLFIFJT) PATHWAY ANALYSIS/MwramLcco/August 23, 1994/day 25 TUT 007 0785 (1/13) to 23 percent (3/13). One pesticide, Endosulfan I, was detected at a concentration of 92 jtg/kg and at only one location of thirteen surface soil sample locations (detection frequency of approximately 8 percent). One PCS congener, Aroclor-1242, was detected at a concentration of 120,000 Mg/kg, and at only one location of thirteen surface soil sample locations (detection frequency of approximately 8 percent). Twenty TAL inorganics and cyanide were detected in site surface soils. Concentrations of the inorganic analytes ranged from 0.19 to 73,200 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The detection frequencies for the inorganic analytes ranged from approximately 14 (1/7) to 100 percent (7/7). Cyanide was detected in only one surface soil location where was tested for (detection frequency of 1/7) and at a concentration of 1.1 mg/kg. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at eight of the fifteen surface soil locations where it was tested for and at a concentration ranging from 15.7 to 23,400 mg/kg. Surface soil samples considered as background were analyzed for TAL inorganic analytes and cyanide. As presented in Table 2-3, two TAL inorganic analytes, beryllium and silver, were detected in the background surface soil. Beryllium was detected in all of the background surface soil locations (detection frequency of 3/3) at a concentration range of 0.16 to 0.24 mg/kg. Silver was detected at a frequency of approximately 67 percent (2/3) at a concentration range of 1.44 to 1.6 mg/kg. 2.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN The selection of chemicals of potential concern (COCs) is used to narrow the focus of the ecological risk assessment. The selection process serves to identify dominant site risk and to TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/«MC«nnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/d.y 26 TUT OO7 O736 guide future remediation selection decisions. The selection process used was based upon methodology present in EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGs). Volume II: Ecological Evaluation Manual (USEPA, 1989). The selection process for each compound involved: • Evaluation of detection frequency, maximum, and range of concentrations; • Comparison to background concentrations; • Comparison to applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); • Evaluation of physical/chemical properties; and, • Consideration of potential toxicity. The COC selection process is discussed further below. 2.2.1 DETECTION FREQUENCY Chemicals not detected in the sampled media at frequencies greater than five percent (i.e., one detection per twenty samples) may be eliminated from the COC selection process as the likelihood of receptor exposure to these chemicals is considered remote. Due to the small number of site surface soil samples collected and subsequently analyzed, no chemicals were detected at frequencies of five percent or less. 2.2.2 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS As discussed in Section 2.1.4, a limited number of samples were obtained from locations considered to be upgradient of the Tutu Wells site contamination. These locations provided background site surface soil inorganic analyte levels for this Endangerment Assessment. In this EA, Inorganic analyte concentrations detected from the Tutu Wells site that were within two times the detected background concentrations were not considered as potential COCs. TUTU WELLJTELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Mcamnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 27 TUT After comparison with the background sample analytes, both beryllium and silver were considered to have been detected at background levels in the site surface soils. Thus, beryllium and silver have been removed from consideration as potential COCs. 2.2.3 ARARS AND MEDIA QUALITY GUIDELINES Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are those standards or limitations which specifically address media and chemical contaminants that may require remediation and regulations that may apply to remedial action. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) and Section 121 (d) of CERCLA (cleanup standard) requires that the selected remedial actions at Superfund sites attain or exceed ARARs of Federal laws and more stringent promulgated state laws. The EPA divides ARARs into three categories: chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific. This distinction is based on whether the requirement is triggered by the presence or emission of a chemical, by a sensitive or protected location, or by a particular remedial action, respectively. Chemical-specific ARARs are useful in identifying chemicals that may pose ecological risks and require remediation. Chemical-specific requirements set concentration limits or ranges in various environmental medial for specific hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. These requirements may present protective levels for designated media. Chemical-specific Federal and Territorial ARARs relating to the protection of ecological inhabitants have been evaluated in this EA. These ARARs exist for surface water only, thus will not be considered in this EA. Ecologically-based Federal or Territorial criteria/guidance values do not currently exist for chemicals in soil. Thus, no surface soil COCs were eliminated from consideration due to ARARs. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/iMe.mnl.cco/Augu« 23, 1994/day 28 TUT 007 0788 ^-^ 2.2.4 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS In a preliminary assessment of ecological toxicity characteristics for the list of chemicals in site surface soils, databases/literature (as described in Section 4.0) containing ecotoxicological data were checked. No data on the adverse effects of 2-hexanone and 2- methylnaphthalene were located. Additionally, no data were found for the adverse effects of the essential nutrients calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Due to the lack of ecotoxicity data for these chemicals, and thus their expected lack of contribution to the risk at this site, these chemicals were removed from consideration as potential COCs. Due to the make-up and complex nature of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), the toxicity of TPHs were evaluated via the compounds xylenes, benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene (common constituents of TPHs). 2.2.5 FINAL COC SELECTION Chemicals of potential concern for this Tutu Wells site EA surface soils were determined to include VOCs, SVOCs, a pesticide, a PCB congener, inorganic analytes, and cyanide. These COCs are provided in Table 2-4. 2.3 RECEPTOR SPECIES AND ENDPOINTS Indicator species for the ecological assessment were chosen to be representative of trophic levels and habitats at and surrounding the Tutu Wells site. The selection was based on an integration of the types and distribution of COCs, habitats, range and feeding habits of potential ecological receptors, and relationships between the observed/expected species in the area of concern. Other considerations in receptor species selection included species that may have beneficial uses to humans and species that are of Trustee or regulatory concerns. Selected indictor species, their habitats, diet, and trophic levels are presented below. /"—N TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/iMe«mnl.eco/August 23, 1994/day 29 TUT 007 0789 8/12/94 SSS-COC-TUTU.XLS IBLE 2-4 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE P.1 of 3 r~ H O ••-.I CHEMICALS VOCs (ua/ka) Methylene Chloride 2-Butanone Trichloroethylene Benzene 4-Melhyl-2-penlanone Telrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene XylenesfTolal) SVOCs (uq/kcrt Phenol 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol 2,4-Dimethytphenol Benzole acid Naphthalene Acenaphthene Fluorene Di-n-bulylphthalate Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Frequency of Detection 1/16 1/17 2/19 2/19 2/19 5/19 5/19 5/19 9/20 2/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/7 3/13 1/13 1/13 3/13 2/13 3/13 1/13 1/13 2/13 2/13 3/13 Range of Detected Concentrations Minimum - Maximum ... ... 1.0 J 6.0 J 8.0 J 15 2.0 J 3.0 J 1.0 J 39 NJ ... — ... ... 4100 — _. 52 J 100 J 76 J ... — 84J 270 J 82 J 1.0 J 44.5 J 65 J 45 J 33 J 440000 1300 2100 5600 900000 320000 1 300000 J 42000 J 63 JN 7700 J 190 J 420 J 9400 J 740 J 2000 59 J 5400 870 J 770 J 430 J Location of Maximum MWS-16-AVD SS-3-AVS SS-3 AVS eC-10S eC-10S 8-01 eC-10S eC-10S eC-10S eL-02-01S eL-02-013 eL-02013 eL-02013 SS-6-AVS eL-02-013 eR-02-023 eR-02-02S SS-3-AVS eR-02-02S eR-02-02S SS-5-AVS eR-02-02S eR-02-023 eR-02-023 eR-02-02S Range of Non-Detect Concentrations Minimum 8UJ 11 UJ 6.0 U 6.0 U 11 U 6.0 U 6.0 U 6.0 U 6.0 UJ 350 U 350 U 350 U 350 U 1800 U 350 U 350 U 350 U 34J 350 U 350 U 350 U 136 UBJ 350 U 350 U 350 U Maximum 14000 UB 11000U 14000 U 14000 U 27000 U 880 U 14000UJ 14000UJ 14000UJ 11000UJ 11000UJ 11000UJ 11000UJ 380000 U 1300UJ 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U 78000 U •43 r~ •-4 8/12/94 SSS-COC-TUTU.XLS TAbi-c 2-4 , Continued CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE P.2 of 3 CHEMICALS PESTICIDES/PCBs (uq/kert Endosulfan 1 Frequency of Detection 1/13 Range of Detected Concentrations Minimum Aroclor-1242 1/13 INORGANICS and CYANIDE (mo/kal Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide, total 3/7 1/7 2/7 3/7 1/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 3/7 4/7 3/7 3/7 2/7 3/7 3/7 1/7 21100 2.1 33.9 B ... 23.6 16.3 52 29400 3.1 834 14.7 319 B 83.1 52.0 ... Maximum 92 120000 J 27350 5.9 BJ 13.7 67.2 0.7 B 42.2 J 25.55 J 108.7 38400 86.35 SJ 872 21.7 470 B 119 108 1.1 Location of Maximum eL-02-01S eTT-15S MWS-16-AVD B-2 B-13A B2 MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD B2 SS-5-AVS MWS-16-AVD MWS-16-AVD B-13A B2 B2 B2 Range of Non-Detect Concentrations Minimum 9U 90U 21300 4.08 UBNJ 1 .46 UBWJ 44 2 UB 0.48 U 19.93UNJ 13.85 UJ 54.95 UJ 27725 J 11.3J 699.5 UJ 11.5 UJ 273.25 UBJ 72.65 UNJ 95.75 UJ 0.53 U Maximum 1700UJ 1100UJ 26950 6.35 UBNJ 18.65 UJ 96.25 U 0.7 U 33.95 UNJ 22.75 UJ 79.65 UNJ 48800 19.95J 886 U 18.15 U 488.50 UB 96.50 UNJ 318 0.64 U -4 -0 r* 8/12/94 T,. .A 2-4 , Continued P. 3 of 3 SSSCOCTUTU.XLS CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS TUTU WELLS SITE EPA Data Qualifiers: U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected J - Estimated value B - For organic parameters: Compound found in the associated blank as well as in the sample For inorganic parameters: Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit N - Presumptive evidence of a compound S - The reported value was determined to by the Method of Standard Additions W - Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance ' - Duplicate analysis not within control limits —icH O X! X! -0 M Endpoints define the environmental values to be protected and form the basis of what constitutes adverse health effects for ecological receptors in this assessment. Assessment endpoints selected for this EA are described in Section 2.3.2. 2.3.1 RECEPTOR SPECIES Selection of site receptors as a subset of all potential ecological receptors at the site, is an important part of the EA. Since it is not feasible to evaluate every species which may be impacted, the selection of indicator species is an accepted step to focus the EA and allow for characterization of site risk. Receptor selection is guided by the results of the site habitat characterization, resident species information and the following selection criteria. Consideration should be given to: • Receptors having economic and/or cultural value, such as game birds or game fish; • Species of statutory concern (such as Trustee species and those protected under Federal/state/territorial law); • Rare, threatened, or endangered species; and • Receptors which represent site trophic levels (to assess food chain impact and potential concern for bioaccumulation). In addition to the considerations presented above, receptor species should meet the following additional guidelines to allow for quantification of impacts at hazardous waste site: •Habitat Suitability. Species chosen as receptors should inhabit habitats as found onsite and/or within the area of impact. Adequate habitat must be available for species consideration. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/a«»«ninl.eoo/AupMt 23, 1994/day 33 TUT 007 0793 •Occurrence. Species chosen as receptors should have been observed (or expected to occur) with some frequency on-site or within the area of site impact. •Home Range. Species chosen as receptors should have limited ranges (largely confined to the area impacted). Species with large ranges or migrants reduce or eliminate the ability to attribute risk to site-related contamination. Receptor species selected for the EA were chosen to be representative of trophic levels and habitats of the Tutu Wells site. Endangered. Threatened or Special Concern Species The status of threatened, endangered, or special concern flora and fauna at and within the vicinity of the Tutu Wells site was investigated by consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Caribbean Field Office has identified two endangered species that may occur within the area of the site, Appendix B. These endangered species include one tree species and one reptile species, respectively: Common name Scientific name St. Thomas prickly ash Zanthoxylum thomasianum Virgin Island tree boa Epicrates monensis granti Additionally, the endangered species coordinator for the St. Thomas Division of Fish and Wildlife was able to provide an additional list of endangered animals which he believed had the potential to be found in the Upper Turpentine Run basin/Tutu area. The list is composed of five bird species and two bat species and is as follows: Common name Scientific name Antillean mango Anthracothorax dominicus TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/Kwe.mnt.eco/Au«u»t 23, 1994/day 34 TUT OO7 O794 Great (common) egret Casmerodius albus Snowy egret Egretta thula Brown-throated parakeet Aratinga pertinax Bridled quail dove Geotrygon mystacea Red fruit bat Stenoderma rufiim Cave bat Brachyphylla cavernarum Receptor Species As discussed in Section 2.1.3, birds and reptiles were observed to utilize the site habitat and additional wildlife species at the site may include snakes, rodents (rats), bats, mongoose, and white-tailed deer. Receptor species were selected to represent the habitat and trophic levels of the Tutu Wells site. Two receptor species were chosen for the Tutu Wells site, in order to assess the potential adverse ecological risk of site chemicals in the surface soil. These are the red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the anole lizard (Anolis sp.). The red-tailed hawk was selected as an indicator species because it is expected to utilize all of the onsite habitat, is reported to be a year round resident of the Virgin Islands, and will assist in accessing contaminant bioaccumulation effects (as this species represents a higher trophic level). This species represents a secondary and tertiary consumer for the avian community for Tutu Wells site habitats. The anole was chosen as an indicator species due to its wide expected usage of the onsite habitat, limited home range, diet of invertebrates, and its position at the base of the terrestrial foodchain. This species represents a secondary reptilian consumer within the Tutu Wells site. /*""N TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me»mnl.eco/August 23, !994/d»y 35 TUT 007 0795 The following are receptor profiles: Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Habitat: Mixed landscape, preferring old fields, pastures, and wetlands interspersed with woodland groves, bluffs, and streamside trees (USEPA, 1993). Home: Weight: 192-1376 acres (approximately 78-556 hectares) (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986) 1-1.2 kg (Johnsgard, 1990) Red-tailed hawks feed primarily on small rodents (Bull and Farrand, Jr. 1977), but will vary foods depending upon availability as this species is opportunistic and will feed on whatever species are most abundant (USEPA, 1993). Red- tailed hawks are generally territorial during the breeding period for migratory birds and all year for resident birds. Red-tailed hawk territories may range in size from one-half a square mile to greater than two square miles, depending upon the food resources and number of perching/nesting sites (Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Anole (Anolis sp.) Habitat: General preference for shrubs and trees. Home: Details not found. Estimated as approximately the territorial size reported for Anolis sagrei of 400 square feet (approximately 0.0037 hectares) (Milstead, 1967). Weight: Inferred from Ruibal et al. (1972) as 0.005 kg. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMeMmtt.cco/August 23, 1994/day 36 TUT OO7 0796 Anoles are diurnal and arboreal, yet they also forage on the ground. Their food consists primarily of insects and spiders (Connant, 1958). Five species of anoles have been reported as inhabiting the Virgin Islands (Schwartz and Henderson, 1985), three of which (Anolis pulchellus, A. statulus, and A. cristatellus) have been reported on St. Thomas (Schwartz and Thomas, 1975). 2.3.2 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS For this EA, endpoints used to evaluate potential ecological impacts were benchmark toxicity values from the literature. Individual toxicity endpoints such as survival, reproductive effects, and growth impacts were considered. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/a»«e«mnt.eco/Augu«l 23, 1994/day 37 TUT OO7 O797 3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential for receptor exposure to chemical constituents at the site. This evaluation involves the identification of contaminant exposure pathways that may be of concern for ecological receptors and the determination of the magnitude of exposure to selected ecological receptors. 3.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS An environmental exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are transported from a source to ecological receptors. As described in Section 2.1.4 of this report, site- related chemicals of potential concern have been detected in the surface soils of the Tutu Wells site. Direct ecological exposure pathways to chemicals of the Tutu Wells site within the groundwater, surface water and subsurface soils are not considered to exist, since receptor contact is either absent or quite limited. The important exposure pathway to ecological receptors is that involving surface soil. Ecological receptors are those that are likely to be exposed to chemicals in surface soil onsite. Direct exposure may occur through absorption upon contact and through incidental ingestion of contaminated food items. Indirect exposure may occur through the ingestion of contaminated food items. 3.2 FOOD WEB Several of the Tutu Wells site COCs, such as the PCB congener and some inorganics, have the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food web. The food web is, therefore, a means of exposure for higher feeding (trophic) level to these COCs. A simplified hypothetical terrestrial food web displays suspected exposure relations for the Tutu Wells site and is presented in Figure 3-1. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/Mranml-eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 38 TUT OO7 0798 FIGURE 3-1 CONCEPTUAL FOOD WEB OF THE TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE TUTU WELLS SITE c -? o -0 BIRDS OF PREY 'Red-Tailed Hawk SMALL MAMMALS (ex., rodents) BIRDS REPTILES *Anole I INVERTEBRATES (ex., beetles, earthworms, other insects) VEGETATION (ex., fruit, seeds) I SURFACE SOILS Target Species Pathways of Primary Concern 3.3 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS Exposure scenarios were constructed for receptor species selected for Tutu Wells site COCs. Factors taken into consideration in the selection of scenarios were the spatial and temporal variations in exposure, mechanisms of migration, points of exposure, behavioral characteristics and trophic relationships. Table 3-1 presents these scenarios and includes the likelihood of individual receptor exposure for the surface soil exposure pathway. The following exposure routes will be evaluated in this EA: Anole (lizard') • Incidental ingestion of soil • Ingestion of foodstuffs Red-tailed Hawk • Incidental ingestion of soil • Ingestion of prey 3.4 EXPOSURE DOSE ESTIMATION This subsection discussed the methods by which chemical exposures are estimated for the terrestrial target species. The models used to estimate exposure doses, in milligrams of chemical intake per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day), are presented here. The level of potential dietary exposure (PDE) was determined by multiplying the estimated contaminant concentration in food items by the portion of the food item in the diet, summing these values, including soil exposure, and multiplying the summed value by the receptor species site foraging frequency (SFF). The following equation expresses the method of PDE determination: TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/I ..cco/Augmt 23, 1994/day 40 TUT OO7 osoo TABLE 3-1 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS TUTU WELLS SITE Exposure Pathway Chemicals of Potential Concern1 Target Receptor Anole Red-Tailed Hawk SURFACE SOIL Absorption Ingestion Food Web Transfer VOCs SVOCs Endosulfan I Pesticides Aroclor-1242 VOCs SVOCs Endosulfan I Pesticides Aroclor-1242 Inorganics Aroclor-1242 Inorganics Moderate: Frequent Contact Moderate: Incidental while foraging High: Forages primarily on terrestrial invertebrates Low: Infrequent Contact Moderate: Incidental while foraging High: Forages primarily on terrestrial prey "Low" denotes infrequent probability of exposure, due to habitat requirements and/or receptor behavior. "Moderate" denotes probability of exposure occasional, due to limited migration and/or foraging range. "High" denotes high probability of exposure due to frequency of contact and/or extent of foraging opportunities largely confined to site. 'Refer to Section 2.2.4 of text for complete COC listings. 41 TUT GO 7 PDE = [Pj x Q + P2 x C2 + Pn x Cn + SE] x SFF Where PDE = potential dietary exposure (mg/chemical/kg diet) Pn = percent of diet for food item n Cn = chemical concentration of food item n (mg chemical/kg diet), calculated by multiplying the soil chemical concentration by a bioaccumulation factor. SE = soil exposure (mg/soil/kg diet), calculated by soil chemical concentration by 0.05 SFF = Site Foraging Frequency (unitless), calculated by the area of contaminated soil (hectares) within the home range (hectares) The percent of the receptor diet that a specific prey item represents is given in Table C-l, of Appendix C. To be conservative, the soil chemical concentration used for the dietary exposure determination was the maximum concentration detected in site soil samples (as given in Table 2-2). The contaminant concentration of a food item (CJ was calculated by multiplying the soil contaminant concentration by the food group-specific bioaccumulation factor. The bioaccumulation factors used are presented in Table C-2, of Appendix C. Incidental soil ingestion, which is associated with foraging, preening, and cleaning activities, was conservatively assumed to represent five percent of the total dietary intake for both of the modeled receptors (i.e., lizard and hawk). The SFF was calculated using an estimated site area of 16 hectares. The home range for each of the modeled receptor is given in Table C-l, of Appendix C. After calculating the PDE for each COC and modeled receptor, total body doses (TBDs). were calculated. TBD estimates are directly comparable to available lexicological data (as presented in Section 4.0) and are used with the lexicological data to assess ecological risks. The TBDs were estimated using the following equation: TBD = PDE x IR x 1 BW Where TBD = total body dose (mg/kg body weight/day) PDE = potential dietary exposure (mg/ diet/kg) IR = ingestion rate (kg diet/day) TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 42 TUT OO7 O8O2 Oo N" an 5/94 SSS-exp-TUTU.XLS 'i, ^€3-2 P.1 of 2 EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE ANGLE CHEMICALS VOCs (ug/ka> Methylene Chloride 2-Butanone Trichloroethylene Benzene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes(Total) SVOCs lug/kq) Phenol 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol 2,4-Dimelhylphenol Benzole acid Naphthalene Acenaphthene Fluorene Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TUTU WELLS SITE POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES (mg chemical/kg diet) 0.001 0.445 0.065 0.045 0.033 440 1.3 2.1 5.6 900 320 1300 42 0.63 7.7 0.19 0.42 9.4 0.74 2.0 0.59 5.4 0.87 0.77 0.43 TOTAL BODY DOSES (mg/kg body weight/day) 2.56 E-05 1.14E-02 1.66E-03 1.15E-03 8 45 E-04 11.26 3.33 E-02 5.38 E-02 0.143 23.04 8.19 33.28 1.08 1.61 E-02 0.197 4.86 E-02 1.08 E-02 0.241 1.89 5.12 E-02 1.51 E-02 0.138 2.23 E-02 1.97E^>2 1.1 E-02 CO O O V \ 8/15/94 SSS-exp-TUTU.XLS TABLt - <!, Continued P.2 of 2 EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE ANOLE CHEMICALS PESTICIDES/PCBs (uo/kcrt Endosulfan 1 Aroclor-1242 TUTU WELLS SITE POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES (mg chemical/kg diet) 0.092 669.48 TOTAL BODY DOSES (mg/kg body weight/day) 2.36 E-03 17.14 INORGANICS and CYANIDE (mo/kcrt Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide, total 27350 5.9 3.18 67.2 2.7 52.62 25.55 710.74 38400 86.35 872 38.6 470 119 859.03 0.055 700.16 0.151 8.08 1.72 6.9 E-02 1.35 0.654 18.2 983.04 2.21 22.32 0.988 12.03 3.05 21.99 1.41 E-03 O§ •A C ft* 15/94 SSS-exp2-TUTU.XLS CHEMICALS VOCs (ug/kg) Melhylene Chloride 2-Bulanone Trtehloroethylene Benzene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Telrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes(Total) SVOQs (ug/kg) Phenol 2-Methylphenol 4-Melhylphenol 2,4-Dimelhylphenol Benzole acid Naphthalene Acenaphthene Fluorene Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranlhene Pyrene Chrysene Bls(2-elhylhexyl)phlhalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Ben20(g,h,i)perylene ,..^(lE3-3 P.1 of 2 EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE RED-TAILED HAWK TUTU WELLS SITE POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES (mg chemical/kg diet) 5E-05 0.2225 3.25 E-03 2.25 E-03 1 .65 E-03 22 6.5 E-02 0.105 0.28 45 16 65 2.1 3. 15 E-03 0.385 9.5 E-03 2.1 E-02 0.47 3.7 E-02 0.1 2.95 E-03 0.27 4.35 E-02 3.85 E-02 2.15 E-02 TOTAL BODY DOSES (mg/kg body weight/day) 5E-06 2.23 E-02 3.25 E-04 2.25 E-04 1.65 E-04 22 6.5 E-03 1.05 E-02 2.8 E-02 4.5 1.6 6.5 0.21 3. 15 E-04 3.85 E-02 9.5 E-04 2.1 E-03 4.7 E-02 3.7 E-03 1 E-02 2.95 E-04 2.7 E-02 4.35 E-03 3.85 E4)3 2. 15 E-03 CD O Ol ON 8/15/94 SSS-exp2-TUTU.XLS TABL^ y/Continued P.2 of 2 EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE RED-TAILED HAWK CHEMICALS PESTICIDES/PCBs (uo/kcri Endosulfan 1 Aroclor-1242 TUTU WELLS SITE POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES (mg chemical/kg diet) 4.6 E-03 6.87 TOTAL BODY DOSES (mg/kg body weight/day) 4.6 E-04 0.687 INORGANICS and CYANIDE fmo/kal Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide, total 1367.5 0295 0.668 3.36 6.265 E-02 2.13 2555 6.39 1920 4.32 43.6 1.11 23.5 5.95 5.72 2.75 E-03 136.75 2.95 E-02 6.68 E-02 0.336 6.27 E-03 0.213 2.56 0.639 192 0.432 4.36 0.111 2.35 0.595 0.572 2.75 E-04 BW = body weight (kg) Species-specific ingestion rates and body weights used in this assessment are reported in Table C-l. Calculated exposure values (PDEs and TBDs) for each of the target receptor species (anole, red-tailed hawk) are presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.coo/Augusl 23, 1994/day 47 TUT O07 OSO7 4.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT The goal of the toxicity assessment is to determine of the toxic effects of COCs of the Tutu Wells site on the selected ecological receptors. As part of an ecological toxicity assessment, site-specific toxicity study results are important to consider. However, site-specific toxicity results were not available for the Tutu Wells Site. Benchmark toxicity values were sought and utilized in this assessment. A comprehensive literature/database search was performed to identify benchmark toxicity values for COCs. Data sources reviewed included: • Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB) • Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) • Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Additionally, toxicity values were obtained from several primary literature sources (as referenced). Where possible, toxicity values from the literature were selected using closely-related species. When available, chronic toxicity data were preferentially used. The no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) for COCs were preferentially selected as the reference toxicity values (RTVs) used in this assessment. Often, toxicity data were not available for terrestrial wildlife species and the extrapolation of toxicity values from other animal studies. A correction factor of 0.2 was used to determine the RTV when the available toxicity value was within the same taxonomic class as the target receptor. When the available toxicity value represented a different taxonomic class that the target receptor, a correction factor of 0.1 was applied. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesnmt.cco/August 23, 1994/day 48 TUT 007 0808 To protect the individual ecological receptor, unadjusted NOAEL values are the preferred RTV. Often, toxicity values were not available as chronic NOAELs, but as acute or chronic lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL) or median lethal doses (LD50). Adjustments were made to these available toxicity values using safety factors to reflect levels of uncertainty. Currently, there is little guidance available for the appropriate value for safety factor (correction factors). Based upon guidance provided by the EPA (1986), an acute LD50 was extrapolated to an acute no observable effect level (NOEL) by dividing by a correction factor of 0.2. This safety factor is based on an analysis of dose-response data for pesticides. For the purposes of this assessment, a correction factor of 0.1 was applied to other lexicological values in each area of uncertainty (USEPA, 1989). Table 4-1 presents the safety factors used in this assessment for the derivation of RTVs. Terrestrial RTVs for the Tutu Wells site COCs are presented in Table C-3 of Appendix C. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt-eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 49 TUT 007 0809 TABLE 4-1 SAFETY FACTORS USED TO DERIVE REFERENCE TOXICITY VALUES TUTU WELLS SITES Available Toxicity Value1 Acute LD50 Chronic LOAEL Chronic NOAEL Approximation of Toxicological Uncertainty2 LD50 to LOAEL LOAEL to NOAEL 0.23 - - 0.1 - Acute to Chronic 0.1 - - Toxicity Value Correction Factor4 0.02 0.1 - 1 For purposes of this assessment, the following benchmarks were considered equivalent: LD50 = LC50 (or EC50) LOAEL = LOEL NOAEL = NOEL 2 USEPA, 1989 3 USEPA, 1986 4 Additional factors were used to derive reference toxicity values when values did not exist for target species, as follows: a. Given value within taxonomic class, correction factor of 0.2 (i.e., toxicity value x 0.2). b. Given value of different taxomonic class, correction factor of 0.1 (i.e., toxicity value x 0.1). TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/asscsronl.eoo/August 23. 1994/day 50 00 7 08.10 5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The potential risk to ecological receptors at the Tutu Wells site (i.e., target receptors) was assessed by comparing estimated exposure levels (TBDs) with lexicological benchmarks (RTVs). Risks to each of the selected receptors were evaluated using hazard indices (His) which were determined for each surface soil COC by dividing the estimated TBDs by the RTVs. Cumulative His were determined by summing all of the COC His for each target ecological receptor. Cumulative His were ranked in accordance with a USEPA (1986) ranking scheme that was used to evaluate potential ecological risks to individual organisms. The ranking scheme is as follows: HI < 0.1 no adverse effects 0.1 <_ HI < 10 possible adverse effects HI >_IQ probable adverse effects It is important to note that this methodology is not a measure of and cannot be used to determine absolute quantitative risk. Use of this technique, however, can indicate the potential for the target ecological receptor to be at risk to an adverse effect from exposure to site surface soil chemicals through the ingestion pathway. Individual hazard indices are provided in Table 5-1. Anole The potential risk to the anole was estimated by comparing the estimated daily doses (TBDs) with toxicity values (RTVs) derived for the lizard. The potential risk from the Tutu Wells site surface soil chemicals was assumed to arise from the exposure via ingestion of soil and invertebrates. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt.cco/August 23, 1994/day 5 1 TUT 007 081. TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES TUTU WELLS SITE CHEMICAL HAZARD INDEX Anole (lizard) Red-Tailed Hawk VOLATILE ORGANICS Benzene 2-Butanone Ethylbenzene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene Toluene Xylenes (Total) 1.24E-05 6.44 E-05 3.96 E-03 4.34 E-05 2.64 E-03 8.04 1.09E-04 1.49 E-03 1.66E-02 2.42 E-06 1.26 E-04 7.72 E-04 8.47 E-06 5. 16 E-05 1.57 2. 14 E-05 2.91 E-04 3.26 E-03 SEMI- VOLATILE ORGANICS Acenaphthene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzole Acid Benzo(g , h , i)pery lene Benzo(a)pyrene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butylphthalate 2 ,4-Dimethylphenol Fluoranthene Fluorene NE NE 4. 13 E-03 NE 6.57 E-03 1.06 E-03 NE 1.93E-02 0.12 0.151 8.64 E-04 NE NE 8.08 E-05 NE 1.28 E-03 2.08 E-04 NE 3.76 E-03 2.3 E-02 2.96 E-04 1.68 E-04 52 TUT 007 0812 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES TUTU WELLS SITE CONTINUED CHEMICAL HAZARD INDEX Anole (lizard) Red-Tailed Hawk SEMI-VOLAHLES (Cont'd) 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene Phenol Pyrene NE NE NE 36.34 6.83 E-03 NE NE NE 0.6 1.33 E-03 PESTICIDES/PCB'S Endosulfan I Aroclor-1242 3.37 E-02 2.86 6.57 E-03 0.115 INORGANICS AND CYANIDE Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium, trivalent (Cr+3) Chromium, hexavalent (Cr+6) Cobalt Copper NE NE 80.8 NE 3.45 E-03 9.2 E-03 1.69 NE NE NE NE 0.334 NE 1.57E-04 1.45 E-03 0.133 NE NE 53 TUT 007 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES TUTU WELLS SITE CONTINUED CHEMICAL HAZARD INDEX Anole (lizard) Red-Tailed Hawk INORGANICS AND CYANIDE (Cont'd) Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Sodium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide NE 4.42 1.24 1.98 NE NE NE 1.31 E-03 NE 0.864 0.242 0.222 NE NE NE 2.55 E-04 NE denotes "not evaluated" due to lack of toxicity data. 1 The most conservative chromium hazard index (i.e., Cr +6) was used in the determination of these cumulative indices. 54 The estimated cumulative hazard index is 138. The greatest contribution to the cumulative hazard index was from arsenic (at approximately 59%), with phenol (at approximately 26%) as the next most dominant contribution. Other notable contributions were from tetrachloroethylene (at approximately 6%), lead (at approximately 3%), and Aroclor-1242 (at approximately 2%). The cumulative hazard index result of this risk evaluation indicates that the potential for adverse effects to the anole exists as a result of exposure to site-related chemicals in soil (primarily arsenic) if the receptor and its food sources are consistently exposed to maximum surface soil concentrations at the Tutu Wells site. This evaluation considered worst-case scenarios. Considering the limited home range expected for the anole (of less than 1 % of the site area), it is conceivable that some anoles may be exposed to maximum surface soil concentrations. This is particularly true in the O'Henry dry cleaners area, where the maximum concentration for arsenic and tetrachloroethylene were found, and in the Curriculum Center area, where the maximum concentration for phenol was found. It is also probable that most of the anoles on and adjacent to the site would contact much lower levels of site-related chemicals, as the majority of site-related chemicals have low detection frequencies and thus have not been found uniformly throughout the site. As noted in Section 6.0, Uncertainty, this EA has evaluated the potential for lexicological risks to individual anoles utilizing the site. While the potential for adverse health effect is indicated for some individual anoles, there may or may not resulting adverse effect on the anole population or ecological community as a whole. Red-Tailed Hawk The potential risk to the red-tailed hawk was estimated by comparing the estimated daily doses (TBDs) with toxicity values (RTVs) derived for the hawk. The potential risk from the Tutu Wells site surface soil chemicals was assumed to arise from exposure via ingestion of small mammals, reptiles/amphibians, birds, invertebrates, and soil. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesnml.eco/August 23, 1994/day 55 TUT OO7 O815 The estimated cumulative hazard index is approximately 4. The greatest contribution to the cumulative hazard index was from tetrachloroethylene (at approximately 41 %) followed by lead (at approximately 23%). Phenol (at approximately 16%), nickel (at approximately 6%), and manganese (at approximately 6%) also contribute to the cumulative hazard index. The cumulative hazard index result of this risk evaluation indicates that there is a relatively low potential for adverse effects to the red-tailed hawk as a result of exposure to site-related chemicals in soil if the receptor and its food sources are consistently exposed to maximum surface soil concentrations at the Tutu Wells site. The hawk appears to have a markedly reduced risk potential compared to that of the lizard. This difference can be primarily attributed to the large range of the bird as compared to the area of the site-related chemicals in surface soil. This evaluation has considered the worst-case scenario, that the receptor will be consistently utilizing foodstuffs from the portion of the site where maximum surface soil chemical concentrations are available. Due to the limited distribution of the majority of surface soil COCs (as noted by the detection frequencies), it is highly likely that the actual adverse risk to the red-tailed hawk is less than as projected by the current cumulative hazard index. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesnmt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 56 TUT OO7 0316 6.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS For any risk assessment, it is necessary to make assumptions. Assumptions carry with them associated uncertainties which must be identified to put risk estimates in perspective. The following describes the major assumptions used in this EA and their associated uncertainties. Receptors were characterized as consistently contacting the maximum concentrations of contaminants. However, the maximum surface soil contaminant concentration locations of the site appear to be highly localized and represent small areas with regard to the rest of the site. This assumption may have overestimated the ecological risks. Receptor risks were characterized as possible impacts from individual contaminants without regard to interactions between contaminants. However, ecological receptors are simultaneously exposed to a range of contaminants. These compounds may interact synergistically or antagonistically to either mitigate or aggravate adverse health effects. This assumption may overestimate or underestimate ecological risks. Neither inhalation nor dermal contact exposure routes were evaluated. This was due to lack of appropriate wildlife uptake rate information as well as the assumption that the primary risk exist from ingestion exposure. The total ecological exposure may be greater than the predicted risk, as the predicted risk was estimated for ingestion only. The exposure model used assumed that receptors will spend equal amounts of time in all habitats within their home ranges. In actuality, receptors may spend varying amounts of time in each habitat. The variation in habitat usage would likely affect the overall exposure. Depending upon the variation in usage receptor exposures may be overestimated or underestimated by the model. Bioaccumulation factors used to estimate the exposure of receptors via diet were limited. Actual TUTU WELLFEELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/<fay 57 TUT 007 OS17 bioaccumulation into food items is variable, depending upon such factors as chemical state, soil composition, and chemical concentration in media of exposure. Thus, the bioaccumulation factors used may have over - or underestimated receptor exposure. In selecting RTVs, the lowest available toxicity value was selected from the literature searched. The use of these values may overestimate ecological risk. In determining the RTVs, safety factors were employed to account for differences in toxicity between species and between lexicological endpoints (i.e., NOAELs, LOAELs, LD50s). Uncertainties associated with the safety factors used may have resulted in over- or underestimation of risks to receptors. Additionally, the absence of toxicity values or guidance criteria resulted in some chemicals not being included in the risk evaluation. This may have underestimated receptor exposure. Potential lexicological risks to individual receptors have been evaluated in the EA. Sometimes, adverse effects on individuals will nol be reflected on Ihe population and community level. The predicted risks may overestimate Ihe actual population or community level effects. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnl.cco/August 23, 1994/<tay 58 TUT O07 0818 7.0 REFERENCES Beyer, W. N. and E. J. Cromartie. 1987. A Survey of Pb, Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, As, and Se in Earthworms and Soil from Diverse Sites. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 8:27- 36. Bull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.; New York, NY. Connont, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, MA. Danahy, T. 1994. Personal communication. Project Hydrogeologist, Geraghty & Miller, Inc. August 1, 1994. De Graaf, R. M. and D. D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NE-108. Diercxsens, P. D., deWeck, N. Borsigner, B. Rosset, and J. Tarradellas. 1985. Earthworm Contamination by PCBs and Heavy Metals. Chemosphere. 14:511-522. Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.2). Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.8). Eisler, R. 1986b. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.7). Eisler, R. 1988a. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.12). Eisler, R. 1988b. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.8). TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 59 TUT 0°7 Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1992. Tutu Service Station Investigation Work Plan, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. March 20, 1992. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1993a. Technical Memorandum n, Results of the Field Program, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 Volumes, Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. May 1993. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1993b. Phase n Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Volume 1 of 2. Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. December 1993. Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB). 1994 Data bank on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD. Consulted in October 1993, July and August 1994. Heatwole, H. 1976. Reptile Ecology. University of Queensland Press; St. Lucia, Queensland. Hughes, M.K., N.W. Lepp, and D. A. Phipps. 1980. Aerial Heavy Metal Pollution and Terrestrial Ecosystems. In: Advances in Ecological Research, Volume n, A. MacFadyen, ed. Academic Press; New York, NY. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1993. Database created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutues of Health; Bethesda, MD. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1994. Database created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD. June, July, and August 1994. Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C. Kabata - Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Inc.; Boca Raton, FL. Krauskopf. L. 1973. Studies on the toxicity of phthalates via ingestion. Environmental Health Perspectives. January, pp. 61-72. Milstead, W. W. ed. 1967. Lizard Ecology a Symposium. University of Missouri at Kansas City, June 13-15, 1965. University of Missouri Press; Columbia, MO. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/day 60 TUT 007 0820 Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). 1993. Database created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD. October, 1993. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). 1994. Database created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD. August, 1994. Rivera; L. H., W. D. Frederick, (Farris, E. H. Jensen, L. Davis, C. D. Palmer, L. F. Jackson, and W. E. McKinzie. 1970. Soil Survey of the Virgin Islands of the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C., August 1970. Fuibal, R., R. Philibosian, and J. L. Adkins. 1972. Reproductive Cycle and Growth in the Lizard Anolis acutus. Copeia 3:509-510. Schwartz, A. and R. W. Henderson. 1985. A Guide to the Identification of the Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies Exclusive of Hispaniola. Milwaukee Public Museum; Milwaukee, WI. Schwartz, A. and R. Thomas. 1975. Check-List of West Indian Amphibians and Reptiles. Carnegie Museum of Natural History; Pittsburgh, PA. Special Publication No. 1. Stalmuster, M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books; New York, NY. Stokes, D. W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1989. A Guide to Bird Behavior, Volume m. Little, Brown and Company; Boston, MA. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-069. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Harvard Evaluation, Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs; Washington, D.C. EPA-540/9-85-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Washington, D.C. TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/asscsnmt.eoo/August 23, 1994/day 61 TUT OO7 O821 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I of n. USEPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development; Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-93/187a. December, 1993. TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYStS/assesnml.eoo/August 23. 1994/day 62 TUT 007 OS22 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICIES TUT OO7 OS23 APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE FOR ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ON THE SITE TUT 007 0824 INFORMATION SOURCES CONTACTED REGARDING ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE Contact: Agency: Address and Telephone: Contact Date Response: Jorge Saliva U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O Box 491 Boqueron, Puerto Rico 00622 (809) 851-7297 : 3/29/94 and 4/1/94 He relayed the request for information on the presence of sensitive environments and threatened/endangered species within two miles of the site to James Oland. Mr. Oland replied by sending a letter (dated 5/5/94) indicating that the St. Thomas prickly ash and the Virgin Island tree boa are endangered species that may occur within this area. Contact: Agency: Address and Telephone: Contact Date: Response: Ralf Boulon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6291 Estate Nazareth St. Thomas, USVI 00802 (809) 775-6762 6/14/94 and 7/7/94 6/14/94 - He was not aware of any species list or natural resource surveys for the site. The site had value as an archeological site. Suggested contacting Holly Righter, state historical archeologist at the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. She is most familiar with the site. 7/7/94 - He sent a copy of the Virgin Islands bird checklist (titled "Caribbean CBC Form") and a list of endangered animals he expected may be found in the vicinity of the Tutu Wells site. He is the endangered species coordinator for St. Thomas. Contact: Holly Righter Agency: Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection Address and Telephone: 800 Nasky Center St. Thomas, USVI 00802 (809) 774-3320 6/14/94 She is not aware of any flora or fauna descriptions of the site area. She is aware of and described a wetland area to the west (behind) K-Mart. Contact Date: Response: Contact: Agency: Address and Telephone: Felix Lopez U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Juan, Puerto Rico TUT 007 0825 (809) 851-7297 Contact Date: 4/8/94 Response: He was familiar that the Tutu Wells site had a groundwater contamination problem, but did not know of any habitat descriptions, or other ecological information about the site. Suggested contacting Ralf Boulon of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife field office on St. Thomas, the Island Resources Foundation in St. Thomas, and a local biological consultant (David Grigg of Grigg & Associates in St. Thomas). Contact: David Grigg Agency: Grigg & Associates Address and Telephone: St. Thomas, USVI (809) 775-1566 Contact Date: 6/17/94 Response: He was not aware of any natural resource assessments in the Tutu area, (no fauna! or floral studies or surveys). He has seen several incidental faunal studies performed in the general area of Tutu. One such study was on midges of a pond performed some years ago. He believed that there were many groundwater studies and some surface water studies conducted. He reported that Turpentine Run was an intermittent stream with 3 to 4 (possibly up to 6) small streambead pools in its upper basin that exist all year. The original fauna of the Run has been severally reduced within the last 20 to 30 years. He attributed this reduction in diversity/richness of the Run to pollution. He mentioned that the primary chronic pollution was from the discharge of 3 to 4 wastewater treatment plants. He noted that a branch of the Run constantly flows, due to the discharge of 1 treatment plant. He suggested contacting the cooperative extension agency in lieu of the local biologist. Contact: Head Assistant Agency: Island Resources Foundation Address and Telephone: 6296 Estate Nazareth No. 11 St. Thomas, USVI 00802 (809) 775-6225 Contact Date: 6/14/94 Response: The Foundation has something of a library set up that can be accessed directly if one were on St. Thomas to access it. Suggested contacting Adrian Schottroff with the VI Department of Planning and Natural Resources for assistance. Ed Towle with the Island Resources Foundation followed up with a call on June 29, 1994. .He provided citations to several publications of the island which turned out not to contain any information about the Tutu area. Contact: Adrian Schottroff Agency: Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection Address and Telephone: 800 Nasky Center, Suite 45 St. Thomas, USVI 00802 TUT O°7 °826 (809) 774-3320 Contact Date: 7/6/94 Response: Try the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species and bird species lists. He does not know of any detailed ecological work of the Tutu area. He has no description of the habitats in the Tutu area, but suspects that a general habitat description for St. Thomas may be possible to find. Contact: Toni Thomas Agency: Cooperative Extension Service Address and Telephone: University of the Virgin Islands #2 John Brewer's Bay St. Thomas, USVI 00802-9990 (809) 774-0210 Contact Date: 7/8/94 Response: She is botanist for the extension service. She notes that the Tutu area is disturbed with mostly exotic plant species and secondary growth forms. It is used frequently for grazing. The area is a subtropical dry forest. She has a listing a plant species observed at the K-Mart area created during the archeological investigation of the site (this was never sent). She sent a list of plant species (7/22/94) that she observed at the Tutu site while making a site visit in response to this request. Suggested contacting Julie Wright for additional information on the area. Contact: Julie Wright Agency: Cooperative Extension Service Address and Telephone: University of the Virgin Islands #2 John Brewer's Bay St. Thomas, USVI 00802-9990 (809) 774-0210 Contact Date: 7/20/94 Response: The only site reports that she is aware of are the U.S. Geological Survey reports which have some information on flow rates and well sites. The Turpentine Run is typically intermittent and wastewater from waste treatment plants feed into it. The Run is dry right now as there is a drought. There is no other real water body that she is aware of in the Tutu site area except for a pond that used to be behind K-Mart. It is gradually filling or filled. It was not more than an acre in size with dense vegetation surrounding it. She reported that the Run is the largest gut on the island. It used to have a significant .freshwater-shrimp/crayfish in the upper portion. Cattle egrets have been observed in the Run in both the unpaved and paved portions. -,,r? 0827 TUT W APPENDIX B THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SIGNIFICANT HABITATS TUT O07 082£ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CARIBBEAN FIELD OFFICE P.O. BOX 491 BOQUERON. PUERTO RICO 00622 May 5, 1994 Ms. Nancy Zygmont COM Federal Programs Corporation 107-F Corporate Boulevard South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080 Dear Ms. Zygmont: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1994, concerning a project in east central portion of St. Thomas in the upper portion of the Turpentine Run basin. Your letter requested information concerning the presence of sensitive environments and threatened/endangered species within two miles of the site. Based on information available in this office the following endangered species may occur within this area: St. Thomas prickly ash Zanthoxylum thomasianum Virgin Island tree boa Epicrates monensis qranti If you have any questions, please call Susan R. Silander of this office. Sincerely, 'James P. Oland Field Supervisor cc: FPA, New York TUT 007 0829 List of endangered species provided by Ralf Boulon, Endangered Species Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Thomas, USVI on July 8, 1994 (Marked species only.) Endangered Plants and Animals of the U.S.Virgin Islands (Cont.) Virgin Islands List Mabuya mabouia Otus nudipes newtoni Chordeiles gundlaehii # Anthracothorax dominicos Podiceps dominicus Sterna antillarum Phaethon lepturus Ardea herodius V Casmerodius albas 4- Egrettathula Nycticorax nyeticoraz Ixobrychus ezilis Anas bahamensis Oxyura jamaicensis Rallus longirostris Fulica caribea Charadrius alexandrinus Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Puffinus Ihenninieri •V Aratinga pertinax Columba leucocephala -* Geotrygon mystacea Myiarchus stolidus Noctilio leporinus •*» Stenodenna rufum # Brachyphylla eavernarum Order Antipatharia Epinephelus itajara Slipperyback skink VI Screech owl West Indian nighthawk Antillean mango Least grebe Least tern White-tailed tropicbird Gt. blue heron Great (common) egret Snowy egret Black-cr. night heron Least bittern Bahama duck Ruddy duck Clapper rail Caribbean coot Snowy plover Willet Audubon shearwater Brown-throated parakeet White-crowned pigeon Bridled Quail dove Stolid flycatcher Fisherman bat Red fruit bat Cave bat Black coral Jewfish Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding? Resident, breeding? Resident, breeding? Migrant, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding? Resident, breeding Peripheral resident Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding? Resident, breeding Migrant, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Resident, breeding Marine benthic, high demand Marine # - ^ » The above list represents plants and animals occuring in the US Virgin Islands which are protected by either the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 or the VI Endangered and Indigenous Species Act of 1990 (Act No. 5665). This list is promulgated under Act 5665, Section 104(g) and may be revised as new information becomes available. Roy E,. Adams, Commissioner, DPNR TUT 007 0930 APPENDIX C ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY TUT 007 0831 TABwiC-1 ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE PARAMETERS TUTU WELLS SITE Species Anole (Anolis spj Red-tailed Hawk f Buteo jamaicensis) Exposure Parameter Home Range Diet Ingestion Rage Body Weight Home Range Diet Ingestion Rate Body Weight Reported Value Approximately 0.0037 hectares Invertebrates 4-30 mg dry weight of food/g wet body weight/day Adult males 0.1 18 g/mm of snout to vent length Audit female: 0.055 g/mm of snout to vent length approximately 78-556 hectares Small mammals, amphibians, reptiles,insects, birds, carrion, domestic animals 0.055-0. 12 kg/day 1.028kg (males) 1.224kg (females) Reference Milstead, 1967 (as reported for Anolis sagrei territory) Heatwole, 1976 (as reported for lizards) Rubialetal., 1972 (as reported for Anolis acutus) DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986 DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986 Stalmuster, 1987 (as reported for bald eagle and adjusted for 1 kg bird) Johnsgard, 1990 Assessment Value 0.004 hectares Invertebrates: 95% Soil: 5% 1.28 x 104 kg/day (assuming 17 mg dry weight of food/g wet body weight/day x 5g wet body weight + additional 50% for wet weight) of food 0.005 kg (assuming an average snout to vent length of approximately 55 mm) 317 hectares Small mammals1: 70% Invertebrates: 3% Reptiles/ Amphibians: 1 5 % Birds: 7% Soil: 5% 0. 1 kg/day 1kg