USVI Public Records

Document text

Human Health Risk Assessment Report Tutu Wells Superfund Site Focused Source RI/FS Operable Unit 2 EPA Contract No. EP-W-09-009 EPA Work Assignment No. 031-RICO-021D St. Thomas, USVI February 26, 2018 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 New York, NY *537645* 537645 Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | i Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of the HHRA .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Report Organization .................................................................................................................. 2 2 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Tutu Wells Superfund Site ........................................................................................... 2 2.2 Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology .................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................................... 4 2.3 Site Contamination .................................................................................................................... 5 3 Sample Collection, Data Refinements and Identification of COPCs ................................................... 6 3.1 Sample Collection ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Groundwater Sampling................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Data Refinement ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 General Refinements ................................................................................................. 10 3.2.2 Data Refinements Using EPA “Core of the Plume Guidance” ................................... 10 3.3 Identification of COPCs ........................................................................................................... 10 4 Exposure Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Receptors ................................................................................................................................ 13 4.2.1 Future On-Site Construction Worker .......................................................................... 13 4.2.2 Future On-Site Worker ............................................................................................... 13 4.2.3 Future Resident (Adult/Child) ..................................................................................... 13 4.3 Exposure Point Concentrations ............................................................................................... 14 4.4 Chemical Exposure Intake ...................................................................................................... 14 4.4.1 Exposure Factors ....................................................................................................... 15 4.4.2 Age-Based Adjustments for Adult and Child .............................................................. 18 4.4.3 Mutagen Adjustments for Early-Life Exposure ........................................................... 18 5 Toxicity Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Sources of Toxicity Values ...................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Evaluation of Non-Carcinogenic Effects .................................................................................. 20 5.3 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Effects ......................................................................................... 21 5.4 Health Effects of COPCs ......................................................................................................... 22 6 Hazard Identification and Risk Characterization ............................................................................... 23 6.1 Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Identification .................................................................................. 23 6.2 Carcinogenic Risk Characterization ........................................................................................ 23 6.3 Risk Assessment Results ........................................................................................................ 24 6.3.1 Construction Worker................................................................................................... 24 6.3.2 Worker ........................................................................................................................ 25 6.3.3 Resident ..................................................................................................................... 26 6.4 Vapor Intrusion Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 27 6.5 Non-Source Area Data Evaluation .......................................................................................... 29 6.6 Risk Assessment Conclusions ................................................................................................ 30 Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 ii | 7 Uncertainty Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 31 7.1 HHRA Uncertainties ................................................................................................................ 31 8 References ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | iii Figures Figure 1-1 .................................................................................................. Site Plan and Sampling Locations Figure 4-1 ............................................................................................Human Health Site Conceptual Model Tables Table 3-1 .................................................................................................... Summary of Laboratory Analyses Table 3-2 ...................................................... Summary of Packer Testing Groundwater Screening Samples Table 3-3 ....................................................................... Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Well Samples Table 3-4 ................................................................................................... Constituents of Potential Concern Table 6-1 ........................................................................... Construction Worker’s Exposure to Groundwater Table 6-2 ................................................................................................. Worker’s Exposure to Groundwater Table 6-3 .............................................................................................. Resident’s Exposure to Groundwater Table 6-4 .................................................................. 2007 and 2011 Sub-slab Soil Gas Sampling Summary Table 6-5 ................................................................................ 2007 and 2011 Indoor Air Sampling Summary Table 6-6 ................................................................ Non-Source Area Data Comparison to MCLs and VISLs Attachments Attachment A ......................................................................................RAGS Part D Planning Tables 0 to 9.3 Attachment B .......................................................................................... ProUCL Supporting Documentation Attachment C ............................................... VADEQ Calculator Outputs for Air Concentrations in a Trench Attachment D .......................................................................... Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 iv | ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADAF Age-dependent adjustment factor AT Averaging time B Ratio of permeability coefficients Bgs Below ground surface BW Body weight BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene Ca Chemical concentration in air CAF Cancer adjustment factor cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program cm Centimeter CNS Central nervous system COPC Constituents of potential concern CSM Conceptual site model CSF Cancer slope factor CT Central tendency CVOC Chlorinated volatile organic compound DA-event Dermally absorbed dose per event DER Data evaluation report DESA Division of Environmental Sciences and Assessment DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquid ED Exposure duration EDD Electronic data deliverable EF Exposure frequency ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPC Exposure point concentration ERT Environmental Response Team FA Fraction absorbed water FSRI/FS Focused Source Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study FYR Five-Year Review GIABS Gastrointestinal absorption factor Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | v HDR Henningson, Durham and Richardson Architecture and Engineering, P.C. HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HI Hazard index HQ Hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer IR Ingestion rate IRIS EPA Integrated Risk Information System IUR Inhalation unit risk kg Kilogram Kp Permeability constant L Liter m3 cubic meter MAF Mutagen adjustment factor MCL Maximum contaminant level mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day min Minute mL Milligrams per liter MMOA Mutagenic mode of action MS/MSD Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate NPL National Priorities List OSWER EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OU Operable Unit PAR Pathway Analysis Report PCE Tetrachloroethylene PPRTV EPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QL Quantitation Limit RA Remedial Action RAGS EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RfD Oral reference dose RfC Inhalation reference concentration RI Remedial investigation RME Reasonable maximum exposure Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 vi | ROD Record of Decision ROS Regression on Order Statistics RSL EPA Regional Screening Level SOP Standard operating procedure SVE Soil vapor extraction t* Time to reach steady state t-event Exposure time Tau-event Lag time per event TCL EPA target compound list TCE Trichloroethylene TIC Tentatively identified compound Tutu Tutu Wells Superfund Site UCL Upper confidence limit USVI United States Virgin Islands VC Vinyl chloride VI Vapor intrusion VIDE U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Education VIDPNR U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources VISL Vapor intrusion screening level VOC Volatile organic compound VURAM Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Unified Risk Assessment Model Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | vii This page is intentionally left blank. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 1 1 Introduction This baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) has been prepared on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Henningson, Durham & Richardson Architecture & Engineering, P.C. in association with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to assess the nature, magnitude and probability of potential harm to public health posed by contamination in the deep groundwater aquifer as part of the Focused Source Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (FSRI/FS) for the Tutu Wells (Tutu) Superfund Site in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Figure 1-1, Site Plan). The FSRI/FS is being performed under Work Assignment Number 031-RICO-021D, under the EPA Remedial Action Contract 2 Contract Number EP-W-09-009. This HHRA is based upon the April 2, 2015 EPA Statement of Work, the 2015 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP, HDR 2015a) and Subtask 3.1.13 as described in the EPA-approved October 2015 FSRI/FS Work Plan (HDR 2015b). The HHRA has been performed in accordance with EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS; EPA 1989). Based on the Second Five-Year Review (FYR) of the Tutu Wells Superfund Site (EPA 2014d) and analytical results indicating a possible source of continuing contamination in the deep part of the aquifer at the USVI Department of Education (VIDE) Curriculum Center (Curriculum Center), the EPA created Operable Unit (OU) 2 to further investigate this possible source. The focus of the FSRI/FS is the Curriculum Center and immediate vicinity, located in the northern portion of the Tutu Wells Superfund Site. The purpose of the FSRI/FS is to investigate the overall nature and extent of contamination at the Curriculum Center, evaluate risks to human health, and identify and evaluate remedial alternatives in support of a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2. Previous investigations at the Tutu Site (CERCLIS ID No. VID982272569) completed since 1987 identified four sources of contamination that impacted groundwater with chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) and/or petroleum product-related compounds, i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). A summary of prior investigations, removal and remedial actions (RA) is provided in the FSRI/FS. 1.1 Overview of the HHRA A Pathway Analysis Report (PAR) was first prepared to identify the potential exposure points and routes of exposure for each exposure pathway, as well as parameters regarding human receptor characteristics and behavior (e.g., body weight, ingestion rate and exposure frequency) and toxicity criteria. The PAR is a preliminary planning document to allow stakeholders to review and comment on the approach to the identification of constituents of potential concern (COPC), exposure assessment and toxicity assessment, completed before work on the HHRA is initiated so that appropriate changes can be made. The purpose of this HHRA is to evaluate potential exposures and define risks to public health and the environment related to the deep groundwater aquifer. 2 | This report contains the information necessary to understand how the risks at the Site are calculated under current guidance, including the choice and statistical treatment of the data set, evaluation of COPCs, the exposure pathways, receptors, exposure parameters and the current toxicological values (e.g., reference dose). This HHRA is performed in accordance with EPA (1989), other relevant risk assessment guidance and the detailed information provided in the PAR. COPCs that contribute the most to cancer risks and noncancer HIs are identified as Constituents of Concern (COC) in the Section 6 Risk Characterization. 1.2 Report Organization The HHRA is organized as follows: Section 1 Introduction: Identifies the purpose of the HHRA and the areas to be addressed. Section 2 Site Background: Describes the Site location, history and contamination. Section 3 Sample Collection, Data Evaluation and Identification of COPCs: Describes the collection and preparation of data sets and the process by which the COPCs were identified. Section 4 Exposure Assessment: Presents a conceptual site model (CSM) that identifies the exposure pathways and potentially exposed receptors and describes how exposure intakes are calculated. Section 5 Toxicity Assessment: Provides a discussion of the toxicity values and the hierarchy by which they are chosen. Section 6 Risk Characterization: Provides a description of the carcinogenic classes and the methods by which cancer risks and noncancer hazard quotients are calculated. Section 7 Uncertainty Analysis: Describes the inherent uncertainties in the HHRA conclusions. Section 8 References: Provides information on the literature cited in the HHRA. 2 Site Description 2.1.1 Tutu Wells Superfund Site The Tutu Wells Superfund Site encompasses a 1.5 square mile area in the Anna’s Retreat section of St. Thomas, east of the city of Charlotte-Amalie (Figure 1-1). Investigation work at the Tutu Wells Superfund Site began in 1987 in response to complaints from local residents about chemical odors emanating from their groundwater supply wells and from water supplied by a vendor pumping from the aquifer south of the former LAGA Industries, Limited (LAGA) clothing manufacturing building on Smith Bay Road (Highway 38). Subsequent sampling investigations by an EPA contractor and a Remedial Investigation (RI) completed in 1995 identified a plume of groundwater contaminated with CVOCs and plumes of groundwater contaminated by releases of petroleum products (i.e., BTEX) at two filling stations (the Texaco and Esso plumes). Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 3 The Site was included on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1995 and the ROD for the site was signed on August 5, 1996. Details on site history and progress are available in the Final Pre-Design Report (CDM 2001), the Remediation System Evaluation Report (EPA 2011c) and EPA’s Second 5-Year Review (EPA 2014d). The current land use surrounding the Site consists of institutional, commercial and residential uses (Figure 1-1). OU2 - US VI Department of Education Curriculum Center The target of the OU2 FSRI/FS, the northern-most (upgradient) source of CVOC groundwater contamination, is located on the Curriculum Center property at 386 Smith Bay Road (Highway 38), Anna’s Retreat, St. Thomas. The property is currently owned and operated by the VIDE. From 1969 to 1979, LAGA manufactured textiles at the property, which included an industrial dry cleaning operation using tetrachloroethylene (PCE) as the dry cleaning solvent. Panex Co., a corporation formed by the former owners of LAGA, owned the property from 1979 until 1982 (Delaware Chancery Court 2007). Information on site operations during Panex ownership is not available. Since 1982, the building has been owned by VIDE and used as a library, warehouse, and school district maintenance shops and for administrative offices (EPA 2011c). The Curriculum Center property continues to be occupied by the single-story building, housing offices, maintenance shops, warehouse for school supplies and large freezers that supply the school district cafeterias. Following extensive RI activities, the EPA constructed a groundwater extraction and treatment system at the Curriculum Center property to achieve hydraulic control and remove CVOC mass from the saturated zone of the shallow and deep aquifers. The system with three recovery wells became operational in 2004. The operation and maintenance of the treatment system was transferred from EPA to the USVI government in April 2013. Groundwater monitoring is routinely performed to assess RA progress. Groundwater sampling was performed on a quarterly basis from system start-up until April 2007; annual groundwater sampling has been performed since that time. Because CVOC contamination also existed in the immediate vicinity of the work shop in the northern back side of the Curriculum Center building, a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system consisting of two SVE wells was also constructed in 2004 to remediate the unsaturated zone source of the CVOC groundwater contamination. Following a significant decrease in SVE influent concentrations and achievement of asymptotic conditions, the SVE system was shut down in April 2006. 2.2 Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology The geology, hydrology and hydrogeology of the Tutu Site are summarized below and described in detail in the FSRI report. 2.2.1 Geology Regional Geology 4 | St. Thomas is part of the Greater Antilles, a series of islands consisting of volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks deposited along the Caribbean Island Arc. St. Thomas is comprised of deep ocean lava flows and shallow ocean tuffs, breccias, and lava flows. Tectonics and metamorphism lithified the volcanoclastic, angular rubble into hard, dense rocks of low permeability (Back 1988). Site Geology Bedrock in the site area in the upper Turpentine Run basin consists of two volcanic formations, the Water Island Formation and the younger Louisenhoj Formation. On gentle slopes of hills and along the valley axes, the bedrock is overlain by thin, unconsolidated deposits of stream-transported sediments, consisting of poorly sorted mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. These colluvial/alluvial deposits are generally only 2 to 4 feet thick, but locally reach thicknesses of 10-30 feet in the valley axes. Beneath paved roads and in the commercially developed central part of the valley, fill has been brought in to level the area (CDM 2001). Approximately 10 feet of fill consisting of sand and angular gravel were observed at boring location OU2-2016- MW-5 during the 2016/2017 FSRI/FS, while at other boring locations, as little as two feet of fill or soil was observed. 2.2.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology The water table at the Tutu site is located in bedrock roughly 15-30 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on previous investigations, the saturated zone of bedrock can be divided into two zones: • An upper, more productive zone extends from the water table (15 to 30 feet bgs) to a depth of 80 to 90 feet bgs; • A lower, less productive zone extends from 80 to 90 feet bgs to 200 feet bgs. The andesitic tuff and/or andesitic breccia at the site have primary (matrix) and secondary (fracture) porosity. Advective groundwater flow occurs through the secondary fracture porosity while the primary matrix porosity can act as a potential storage zone of contaminants. Groundwater flow in the upper zone is relatively fast and flow in the lower zone is relatively slow due to a low hydraulic conductivity. The degree and aperture of fracturing observed from 80 to 200 feet bgs suggests limited potential for contaminant migration in the lower less productive zone. The area around Curriculum Center is in the Upper Turpentine Run surface drainage basin of the Tutu Valley. This basin covers approximately 2.3 square miles, trends roughly north-south, and is bounded by the steep slopes of the surrounding hills. Turpentine Run is a dry stream bed with intermittent storm water flow from surface runoff after heavy rains. Groundwater does not discharge to Turpentine Run within the OU2 study area. Treated water from GWTF#1 at the Curriculum Center is discharged to Turpentine Run from within the adjoining property to the northwest. Turpentine Run is partially channelized (about 1,000 feet total, 750 feet upgradient and 250 feet side gradient of the Site) and runs through a culvert for approximately 3,000 feet within the Upper Turpentine Run surface drainage basin of the Tutu Valley; therefore, it was not evaluated during the OU2 investigation. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 5 2.3 Site Contamination The focus of the FSRI and HHRA is the source area at the Curriculum Center. The principal CVOCs detected in the northern part of the plume are cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), PCE, trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). During the 1995 RI, the highest detected concentrations were 360 micrograms per liter (ug/L) for PCE, 78 ug/L for TCE, 1,300 ug/L for VC and 2,100 µg/L for cis-1,2-DCE, all of which exceeded their respective Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL, EPA 2009a), which are 5, 5, 2 and 70 µg/L, respectively. During subsequent investigations, higher CVOC concentrations were identified in additional wells installed near the source area, some of which were considerably deeper than the original RI wells. A total CVOC concentration of 478,500 ug/L was reported for monitoring well RD-9 rear of the Curriculum Center in April 2011 (Arrowhead 2016). A CVOC concentration in recovery well RW-6 was reported at just under 260,000 ug/L in October 2015 (Arrowhead 2016). Results from HDR’s 2017 field sampling indicates that well RD-9 continues to exhibit the highest concentrations across the site; the maximum detected concentrations are 92,000 for PCE, 29,000 for TCE, 38,000 for VC and 160,000 for cis-1,2-DCE. Additional detail regarding the distribution of current concentrations from recent sampling is provided in the FSRI. In 1995, the northern part of the CVOC plume extended approximately 1,600 feet to the south, in the direction of groundwater flow, to a point just southeast of Four Winds Plaza, and was estimated to be 500 feet wide. Since the start-up of the groundwater treatment facility at the Curriculum Center (GWTF #1), the northern part of the CVOC plume has contracted somewhat and now extends from the Curriculum Center to the vicinity of the Four Winds Plaza property (EPA 2014d). The groundwater treatment consists of three wells, RW-6, RW-7 and RW-9; while extraction wells RW-7 and RW-9 are completed in the shallow, more productive portion of the aquifer (30 to 80 feet bgs and 40 to 60 feet bgs, respectively), extraction well RW-6 is completed in the deeper, less productive portion of the aquifer (80 to 130 feet bgs). GWTF#1, as it is currently configured, does not effectively treat the deeper zone. Treatment system GWTF #2 is located further downgradient and provides additional control of the contamination plume. The elevated concentrations of CVOCs in groundwater adjacent to and immediately downgradient of the Curriculum Center indicated a high probability that an additional source of PCE was present in the bedrock. As early as 2004, significant PCE mass was suspected to exist in the deeper, less productive zone beneath the Curriculum Center (CDM 2004). Based on analytical data summarized in the annual reports for the long-term response action, including the most recent report (Arrowhead 2017), CVOC concentrations in most wells in the vicinity of the Curriculum Center have decreased somewhat since the startup of the groundwater extraction and treatment facility in 2004, but have remained relatively unchanged over the three- to five-year period before the FSRI/FS. The data indicates that the treatment facility is successfully removing contaminant mass and retarding the migration of the CVOC groundwater plume. However, the consistency of contaminant concentrations over the past several years in the shallow zone just downgradient of the facility suggests that some contamination from highly contaminated zones outside the direct influence of the treatment facility may be migrating to the shallow capture zone of 6 | the treatment facility. Observed contamination at recently installed borehole OU2-MD-2 and monitoring well OU2-MW-6, immediately down and cross gradient respectively from the treatment facility, support this theory. Dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was observed at OU2-MD-2; PCE was detected at 19,000 ug/L at 120 feet bgs in OU2- MW-6. The historic discharge point or discharge points at the LAGA facility were never definitively identified. Spent PCE and residue from the dry cleaning process were reportedly disposed in an outdoor pit located to the north of the building; however, no waste pit was identified during the 1995 RI or subsequent investigations. A drum disposal area located less than 100 feet to the northwest of the LAGA building, where 22 drums had been deposited in an uncontrolled manner was identified in a 1989 Preliminary Assessment (NUS 1989). Additional potential discharge areas identified in the 1995 RI included a former discharge pipe and sink on the north side of the building (Geraghty & Miller 1995) and facility floor drains. The discharge pipe was suspected to be associated with the dry cleaning operations. In addition, underground piping that contained oil and 30% PCE solvent was discovered in 1995. This piping did not appear on as-built plans; EPA was able to trace the piping to a room that apparently held the PCE reclamation still and further on to the former dry cleaning room. While no evidence of leakage in the section of investigated pipe was found, the full extent of the piping and its integrity remained unknown. 3 Sample Collection, Data Refinements and Identification of COPCs 3.1 Sample Collection The 2016 - 2017 FSRI activities were conducted in three phases. Phase I was completed in April 2016 and consisted of a surface geophysical survey using GeoTrax™ technology that supported the selection of monitoring well and rock borehole drilling locations. Phase II ran from October 2016 to January 2017 and included: • Bedrock coring, rock matrix diffusion sampling and analysis by a subcontractor; • Installation of six new monitoring wells; and, • Downhole geophysical investigation of new monitoring wells and boreholes, and several previously existing monitoring wells. Phase III ran from January to March 2017 and consisted of: • Packer testing and groundwater sampling at five boreholes (January 2017); • Collection of synoptic depth to water measurements (February 2017); and, • Collection of groundwater samples at 29 monitoring wells (February/March 2017). Sampling locations are presented on Figure 1-1. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 7 HDR collected and managed samples as outlined in the QAPP (HDR 2015a) as part of the Phase III RI activities described above. The samples collected in January 2017 were analyzed by the Chemtech Consulting Group (Chemtech) Laboratory in Mountainside, New Jersey, under the EPA’s Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). Samples collected in February/March 2017 were analyzed by the EPA’s Division of Environmental Sciences and Assessment (DESA) laboratory in Edison, New Jersey, as summarized in the following table. Samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) trace-level volatile organic compounds (VOCs) only, using laboratory method E524.2 and EPA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) DW-1. CLP data underwent Level 3 validation (EPA Region II 2014c). DESA performed validation in accordance with EPA Region 2 SOP # G26 (EPA Region II 2014e). Validated electronic data deliverables (EDDs) were provided to HDR. HDR will submit the EDDs to EPA Region 2 Superfund EDD Database Section personnel. Table 3-1. Summary of Laboratory Analyses Round Sampling Dates Lab Analyses/SOP Sample Types 1 January 22-30, 2017 Chemtech CLP TCL Trace Volatiles, E524.2, EPA SOP DW-1 Groundwater and QC 2 Feb. 21 – March 6, 2017 DESA CLP TCL Trace Volatiles, E524.2, EPA SOP DW-1 Groundwater and QC HDR reviewed and compiled the data in a Data Evaluation Report (DER, Appendix B of the FSRI), to determine whether the data met the data quality indicators of the QAPP (i.e., representativeness, completeness, comparability, precision and accuracy), identify data gaps and determine the usability of the data for the HHRA. 3.1.1 Groundwater Sampling During Phase III of the FSRI activities, HDR conducted two groundwater sampling events. During the first sampling event, packer testing groundwater screening samples from five boreholes were collected between January 22 and January 30, 2017. This included the collection of samples from packer testing intervals and of samples from several target depths within an open borehole, for a total of 17 samples. Investigative and field quality control samples (field duplicate samples, equipment rinsate blank samples, field blank samples, and trip blank samples) were analyzed for TCL VOCs as detailed in Table 3-2. During the second sampling event, groundwater samples from 29 monitoring wells were collected between February 21 and March 6, 2017. Investigative and field quality control (field duplicate samples, equipment rinsate blank samples, field blank samples, and trip blank samples) samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs as detailed in Table 3-3. Purging and sampling was conducted in accordance with the EPA’s Low Stress/Low Flow protocol (SOP-FS-15 in HDR 2015b). 8 | Table 3-2. Summary of Packer Testing Groundwater Screening Samples Well Pump Intake [feet bgs] Sample ID Samplin g Date CLP Sample ID Notes OU2- MD2 37.5 OU2-MD2-37.5-20170122 01/22/20 17 BC4J1 OU2- MD2 40.5 OU2-MD2-40.5-20170122 01/22/20 17 BC4J2 OU2- MD2 66 OU2-MD2-66-20170122 01/22/20 17 BC4J4 OU2- MD2 76.5 OU2-MD2-76.5-20170122 01/22/20 17 BC4J3 OU2- MD2 96 OU2-MD2-96-20170123 01/23/20 17 BC4J8 MS/MSD volume collectedŦ OU2- MD2 131 OU2-MD2-131-20170124 01/24/20 17 BC4K6 OU2- MD2 131 OU2-MD2-131-20170124- 1 01/24/20 17 BC4K7 Duplicate OU2- MD2 164 OU2-MD2-164-20170124 01/24/20 17 BC4K8 OU2- MW1 60-70 OU2-MW1-60-70- 20170126 01/26/20 17 BC4L4 OU2- MW1 75-85 OU2-MW1-75-85- 20170126 01/26/20 17 BC4L5 OU2- MW1 64-73 OU2-MW1-64-73- 20170127 01/27/20 17 BC4L6 OU2- MW2 47-55 OU2-MW2-47-55- 20170125 01/25/20 17 BC4L3 OU2- MW3 85-95 OU2-MW3-85-95- 20170128 01/28/20 17 BC4M1 OU2- MW3 122-132 OU2-MW3-122-132- 20170128 01/28/20 17 BC4M2 OU2- MW3 135-149 OU2-MW3-135-149- 20170129 01/29/20 17 BC4M3 OU2- MW6 60-70 OU2-MW6-60-70- 20170123 01/23/20 17 BC4K4 OU2- MW6 115-125 OU2-MW6-115-125- 20170124 01/24/20 17 BC4K5 Ŧ Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) sample not analyzed. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 9 Table 3-3. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Well Samples Well Pump Intake [feet bgs] Sample ID Sampling Date Notes BP1 49.5 BP1-49.5-20170222 2/22/2017 BP1 49.5 BP1-49.5-20170222-1 2/22/2017 Duplicate BP2 50 BP2-50-20170222 2/22/2017 BP3 50 BP3-50-20170222 2/22/2017 IW1 85 IW1-85-20170302 3/2/2017 IW1S 48.5 IW1S-48.5-20170227 2/27/2017 IW2 82.9 IW2-82.9-20170302 3/2/2017 IW2S 50.3 IW2S-50.3-20170302 3/2/2017 MW1D 80 MW1D-80-20170228 2/28/2017 MW13 70.5 MW13-70.5-20170301 3/1/2017 MW13D 110 MW13D-110-20170221 2/21/2017 MW14 35.2 MW14-35.2-20170227 2/27/2017 MW15 26 MW15-26-20170223 2/23/2017 MW16 34.6 MW16-34.6-20170301 3/1/2017 MW17 11 MW17-11-20170223 2/23/2017 OU2-MW1 75 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 3/1/2017 OU2-MW2 49 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 2/24/2017 OU2-MW3 90.5 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 3/6/2017 OU2-MW3 140 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 3/6/2017 OU2-MW4 95 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 2/22/2017 OU2-MW5 135 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 2/24/2017 OU2-MW6 120 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 2/28/2017 RD9 97.5 RD9-97.5-20170228 2/28/2017 RD10 90 RD10-90-20170223 2/23/2017 RD11 97.5 RD11-97.5-20170227 2/27/2017 RD12 142.5 RD12-142.5-20170222 2/22/2017 RD13 112.5 RD13-112.5-20170224 2/24/2017 RW6 125 RW6-125-20170301 3/1/2017 RW6 125 RW6-125-20170301-1 3/1/2017 Duplicate RW7 75 RW7-75-20170301 3/1/2017 RW8 80 RW8-80-20170228 2/28/2017 RW9 55 RW9-55-20170301 3/1/2017 3.2 Data Refinement Data that were determined appropriate for use in the risk assessments, based on the analyses completed and as documented in the DER, were further refined for use in the HHRA. Data refinements were made to standardize the data to better support the exposure, toxicity and risk assessments. 10 | 3.2.1 General Refinements In accordance with EPA Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A; EPA 1991): • Chemical concentrations qualified as not detected (i.e., U-qualified data) are evaluated as non-detects. Concentrations qualified as estimated (i.e., J-qualified data) are included for quantitative assessment at the estimated value. Rejected R-qualified data are not used. • The sample quantitation limit (QL) is used to represent non-detect results; if not available, then the reporting limit was used. Note that ProUCL applies the Regression on Order Statistics (ROS) methods for lognormal and gamma distributed data sets to provide a better estimate of the non-detected sample’s true value based on actual detected concentrations. For normal distributions, ProUCL utilizes Kaplan-Meier estimates in lieu of the ROS methods because the ROS methods tend to yield biased and negative non-detect values for these distributions (EPA 2015b and c). • The maximum result of the normal and field duplicate sample pairs is used if constituents are detected in both samples. The detected value is used when one was detected and the other was non-detect. • The concentrations of specific isomers are evaluated individually instead of summing the results to calculate a result for the total. This applies to the following constituents: o m,p-xylene and o-xylene o cis and trans 1,3-dichloropropene 3.2.2 Data Refinements Using EPA “Core of the Plume Guidance” Certain groundwater data are excluded to meet the requirements in the EPA memorandum titled Determining Groundwater Exposure Point Concentrations, Supplemental Guidance (referred to herein as “Core of the Plume”, EPA 2014a). This memorandum specifies which groundwater data are acceptable for calculating the exposure point concentrations based on the type of well sample (e.g., monitoring well) and data quality (e.g., low turbidity). In accordance with this guidance, the samples collected during packer testing from open boreholes, prior to completion with monitoring wells, and that were used for screening purposes only to determine the final well completion depths are excluded; these samples were not collected using low flow techniques. 3.3 Identification of COPCs The COPC screening table for Site-wide groundwater is presented in the format of RAGS Part D Planning Tables (EPA 2001) in Attachment A, Table 2.1. Site-wide groundwater COPCs were determined in accordance with the criteria included in Chapter 5 of EPA RAGS Part A (EPA 1989) as follows: Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 11 • A constituent that is detected in fewer than five percent of the samples is eliminated as a COPC if a sufficient number of samples are collected for analysis. According to RAGS, Part A (EPA 1989), at least 20 samples are needed in the data set if a frequency of detection limit of 5 percent is used as one criterion for eliminating compounds from further consideration in the HHRA. For this COPC screening, none of the constituents had less than five percent detection – see Attachment A, Table 2.1. • Constituents are excluded from the COPC list if they are essential nutrients and are present at levels not likely to pose appreciable risk to human health, as per RAGS, Part A (EPA 1989). Chemicals that are considered to be essential nutrients include iron, calcium, chloride, magnesium, potassium and sodium. As the data set consists of only VOCs, none of the constituents were essential nutrients – see Attachment A, Table 2.1. • Tentatively identified compounds (TICs) are excluded from the COPC screening. Total alkane TICs range from 1.1 to 9.6 ug/L and the maximum for one unknown TIC is 340 ug/L. A review of the VOC data to the TIC data from the same wells indicates no evident pattern in the relationship between the TICs and COPCs in the data set. For the remaining constituents, the maximum detected concentrations of these constituents in groundwater are compared to screening levels to assess the potential for adverse impact to human health and to identify COPCs. Exceedances of screening levels do not in themselves indicate that an unacceptable exposure exists. Rather, the exceedance of a screening level indicates the need for further evaluation in the HHRA. Groundwater maximum detected concentrations are compared to the minimum of the following criteria: • EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for Residential Tapwater at a target cancer risk of 1E-06 and target noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 (EPA 2017c); and • EPA Federal MCLs (2015a). The USVI does not have drinking water source-based quality standards for organics in groundwater, as drinking water is taken from rainwater cisterns or from pumped water supply using desalinated seawater. If the maximum detected concentration of a constituent was less than the screening level, it was eliminated as a COPC, as it is assumed it will not contribute significantly to potential unacceptable risk (EPA 1989). Constituents without a screening level are retained for further quantitative evaluation in the HHRA; this did not apply for this data set. The COPC screening resulted in 13 COPCs identified in Site-wide groundwater. COPCs are presented in Table 3-4 below as well as in Attachment A, Table 2.Supp.1. 12 | Table 3-4. Constituents of Potential Concern 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Bromodichloromethane Chlorobenzene cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride 4 Exposure Assessment The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the magnitude, frequency, duration and routes of current and reasonably anticipated future human exposure to COPCs associated with the site. The exposure assessment is based on the receptor scenarios for Site-related COPCs via site-specific routes of exposure. The standard default exposure factors recommended by EPA for estimating reasonable maximum exposure are used where available and appropriate. Where standard default exposure factors are not available for an exposure pathway, the evaluation is conducted using similarly health-protective exposure factors that are based on site-specific considerations and professional judgment. These were presented to EPA in the PAR for review and approval prior to being incorporated in the HHRA. This section presents a CSM that identifies the exposure pathways and the potentially exposed receptors. It also describes the receptors and exposure pathways, how they are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated and the rationale for each. 4.1 Conceptual Site Model The CSM is a dynamic tool for understanding site conditions and potential exposure scenarios for human receptors that may be exposed to site-related contamination. An exposure pathway consists of: • A source (e.g., discharge pipe or leak) and mechanism of constituent release from source; • A retention or transport medium (e.g., groundwater) for the constituent; • A point of contact (e.g., drinking water) between the human receptor and the medium; and • A route of exposure (e.g., ingestion) for the potential human receptor at the contact point. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 13 An exposure pathway is considered complete only if all four components are present. In the HHRA, only complete exposure pathways are evaluated quantitatively. A schematic presentation of the CSM is included as Figure 4-1 and in a tabular format in Attachment A, Table 1. 4.2 Receptors Potential receptors are defined as human populations that are subject to contaminant exposure. Both current and future land- and water-use conditions are considered when determining exposure scenarios. The current land use surrounding the Site consists of institutional, commercial and residential uses and is expected to remain the same in the future. The passing of Hurricane Irma in September caused damage near the Tutu Valley and the Curriculum Center. The south west corner of the Curriculum Center roof and structure were destroyed or removed by the strong winds. The building has been condemned due to this severe damage and the building has been closed. No additional damage was caused by Hurricane Maria that passed through two weeks later. Therefore, as there is no current use of the facility, the following potential receptors are identified: future on-Site worker, future on-Site construction worker and future adult and child resident. These receptors are depicted in diagram format on Figure 4-1 and in tabular format in Attachment A, Table 1. 4.2.1 Future On-Site Construction Worker Redevelopment of the Site is likely to occur in the future. A future on-Site construction worker’s exposure to incidental ingestion of, dermal contact with and inhalation of CVOCs from groundwater while working in a trench has been evaluated in the HHRA, as the depth of groundwater varies from approximately 15-30 feet bgs across the Site. 4.2.2 Future On-Site Worker The future on-Site worker is assumed to include employees that perform activities indoors and outdoors. They are involved with future non-intrusive indoor and outdoor activities, such as landscape maintenance and Site operations. The Curriculum Center is connected to a public water supply system managed by USVI Water and Power Authority. However, in accordance with EPA guidance, (EPA 1989, 1991) the groundwater has been evaluated as a potable water supply, in the absence of institutional controls for the future exposure pathway, including ingestion of and dermal contact with groundwater, in addition to a qualitative assessment of the vapor intrusion (VI) pathway. There is the assumption that a worker will be present and working at this location during the day. Inhalation via VI is evaluated qualitatively using EPA groundwater vapor intrusion screening levels (VISL calculator, EPA 2017d). 4.2.3 Future Resident (Adult/Child) Institutional controls currently include a requirement to obtain a permit from the VI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR) for installation/use of groundwater from local wells. However, the goal is to restore groundwater to its most 14 | beneficial use (potable water supply) under the National Contingency Plan; groundwater may be used in the future as a potable water source. In addition, the EPA memorandum titled Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions (EPA 1991c) requires the assumption of no treatment of the water source and no institutional (e.g., restrictive ordinances) or engineering (e.g., point of entry treatment) controls. Evaluation of a resident will be protective should on-Site contamination potentially migrate off-Site. Therefore, a future resident's exposure to Site-wide groundwater and indoor air contaminants via ingestion, dermal contact, shower inhalation and VI has been evaluated on a quantitative basis. Inhalation via VI has been evaluated qualitatively using the EPA VISL calculator (EPA 2017d). This qualitative assessment indicates that areas outside of the source area also exceed the groundwater VISL – see Section 6.4. Resident exposure to groundwater has also been assessed qualitatively for this receptor by comparing data from wells downgradient and outside of the contaminant source area to the Federal MCLs (EPA 2015a) and EPA Groundwater VISLs (EPA 2017d) – see Section 6.5. Prior to the recent hurricanes, a portion of the Curriculum Center was used as an educational area for children and young adults; the resident’s exposure scenario is a conservative surrogate scenario to represent this population’s potential risk and therefore is included here. 4.3 Exposure Point Concentrations Estimates of COPC concentrations at points of potential human exposure are necessary for evaluating chemical intakes by potentially exposed individuals. The concentrations of chemicals in the exposure medium at the exposure point are termed "exposure point concentrations" (EPC). The EPC for the HHRA is defined as the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean or maximum detected concentration of an individual COPC, per media, whichever is lower. Calculation of the UCL was conducted in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 2002, 2015b and c). The ProUCL software package, version 5.1.002 (2015b) was used to determine the underlying statistical distributions and the EPCs based on the characteristics of the data. The EPCs for Site-wide groundwater in the exposure assessment were calculated and are presented in Attachment A, Table 3.1. The supporting ProUCL data input and outputs are provided in Attachment B. 4.4 Chemical Exposure Intake The EPCs are used in combination with exposure factors from EPA guidance and standard default parameters (EPA 2011a) to estimate chemical intake via each exposure pathway for each receptor. Many of the default exposure factors have been updated in the 2014 EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9200.1-120 (EPA 2014b); these values are incorporated where applicable. Chemical intake is expressed in terms of milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-day), using the following general equation, which are adjusted based on the exposure pathway and medium: Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 15
   
       Where: Intake = daily intake or exposure dose (mg/kg-day) EPC = exposure point concentration of COPC [micrograms/liter (ug/L)] IR = ingestion rate; the amount of contaminated medium ingested over the exposure period (L/day) EF = exposure frequency; describes how often exposure occurs (days/year) ED = exposure duration; describes how long exposure occurs (years) BW = body weight; the average body weight over the exposure period (kg) AT = averaging time; period over which exposure is averaged (days) Each of the intake variables in the above equation consist of a range of values taken from RAGS, Part A through F (EPA 1989, EPA 2009b) and other applicable risk guidance, e.g., the Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 2011a). The exposure factors and intakes for receptor population groups for each exposure pathway from groundwater are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.1 and are summarized below. Supplemental values for the exposure factors are presented in Attachment A, Tables 4.Supp.1 to 4.Supp.4. 4.4.1 Exposure Factors The AT for cancer risk and BW are the same for all exposure pathways, as follows: • The AT for evaluating cancer risk is equal to a lifetime of 70 years or 25,550 days (EPA 2014b). The AT for evaluating noncancer hazard quotients is equal to the ED, which varies by receptor (EPA 2014b). • The body weight of 80 kg is the standard EPA-recommended body weight for assessing exposure to adults; a body weight of 15 kg is used for children (0 to 6 years; EPA 2014b). Ingestion Pathway of Exposure • Ingestion Rate The incidental ingestion rate of groundwater in a trench for a construction worker is 0.02 L/day, which is a default value taken from the construction worker scenario in the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Unified Risk Assessment Model (VURAM; VADEQ 2016). The ingestion rate of groundwater via tapwater by a worker is 1.25 L/day, which is assumed to be half of an individual’s daily water intake (i.e., a resident’s ingestion rate; EPA 2014b Frequently Asked Questions). 16 | Residents are assumed to drink 2.5 L/day of tap water as an adult and 0.78 L/day as a child (0 to 6 years), which are weighted averages of 90th percentile values for ingestion of drinking water (EPA 2014b). • Exposure Duration and Frequency The ED for a construction worker incidentally ingesting groundwater is one year of activity for 250 days/year (EPA 2017c). The worker is assumed to be exposed to contaminants in tapwater for 250 days/year for 25 years (EPA 2014b, 2017c). Resident adults are assumed to ingest groundwater-derived tap water 350 days/year for 20 years (EPA 2017c). The same exposure frequency of 350 days/year is also applied to a resident child, for six years (EPA 2014b, 2017c). Dermal Contact Pathway of Exposure • Skin Surface Area The skin surface area available for contact with water for a construction worker and worker is 3,527 square centimeters (cm2), which is based on the weighted average of mean values for head, hands and forearms (male and female, 21+ years, EPA 2014b). The skin surface area available for contact with water during showering for a resident is 19,652 cm2 for an adult and 6,365 cm2 for a child (0 to 6 years), which are weighted average of mean values for total surface area of the whole body (EPA 2014b). These values are greater than the skin surface area for contact with surface water, as it is assumed there will be more skin exposure to water during showering. • Absorbed Dose per Event in Water The dermally absorbed dose per event (DA-event) from water contact is calculated using default equations and values presented in RAGS Part E (EPA 2004, pages 3-1 to 3-8). Chemical-specific dermal factors incorporated in the calculation include dermal permeability constant (Kp), ratio of permeability coefficients (B), lag time per event (tau-event), time to reach steady state (t*) and fraction absorbed water (FA). Updated values of these factors are identified in the chemical parameter table of the EPA RSLs (2017c). The calculations of DA-event for Site-wide groundwater for each receptor scenario are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.Supp.3. • Exposure Duration and Frequency The ED and EF for each scenario is the same as those identified for the ingestion pathway above. • Event Duration (t-event) and Frequency The event frequency is assumed to be one event/day for all exposures (EPA 2004). The t-event is assumed to be four hours for a construction worker, which is a default value in the VURAM (VADEQ 2016). The t-event is one hour for an on-site worker, which assumes hand washing during breaks and meals, based on professional judgment. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 17 The t-event for a resident showering is assumed to be 0.71 hour/event for an adult and 0.54 hour/event for a child, which are weighted averages of the 90th percentile spent bathing or showering in a day (EPA 2014b). Inhalation Pathway of Exposure Potential risks related to the VI are evaluated separately using the EPA VISL calculator. The following refers to construction worker exposures in a trench and residential exposure during showering. • Concentration in Air Construction Worker The VADEQ spreadsheet box model is used to derive chemical concentrations in air using groundwater concentrations for construction workers via the inhalation pathway (VADEQ 2007). Calculator defaults were applied and the calculations are presented in Attachment C. Resident The Andelman model as modified by Schaum et al. as referenced in Water Consumption and Health: Integration of Exposure Assessment, Toxicology, and Risk Assessment (Wang 1994) is used to estimate the chemical concentration in air (Ca) of VOCs during time spent showering and in the bathroom for a resident adult and child. In the derivation of Ca, it is assumed that the volume of the bathroom is six cubic meters (m3) and the shower water flow rate is 1000 L/hour, which are based on upper estimates of the range of values presented in the Adelman model (Wang 1994). The fraction of chemical concentration volatilized is 50 percent (0.5), which is the average of the range of values in Wang 1994, and is applied here to be consistent with the RSL calculator (EPA 1991b, 2017c). The calculations to model Site-wide groundwater concentrations in air concentrations are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.Supp.4. The total exposure time for showering is 0.71 hour for an adult and 0.54 hour for a child (EPA 2014b). Since the Andelman model separates out exposure during showering from exposure while in the bathroom, professional judgment is used to split up the time spent for each in the calculation of the air concentration. For adult exposure, 15 minutes (min) for showering followed by 28 min in the bathroom, for a total of 43 min (0.71 hour) is assumed. For a child, approximately 20 min bathing followed by 13 min in the bathroom, for a total of 33 min (0.54 hour) is assumed. These values are consistent with the exposure time range identified in Table 1 of the Andelman model study (Wang 1994), EPA-recommended assumptions in Exhibit 3-2 of RAGS Part E (EPA 2004) and fall within the range of estimates presented in Table 16-1 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 2011a). • Exposure Time Water The exposure time for a construction worker’s incidental inhalation of groundwater vapors is assumed to be four hours, which is the value used in the construction worker scenario in the VADEQ VURAM software (VADEQ 2016). 18 | The exposure times for inhalation of groundwater-derived water vapor during showering are 0.71 hour/day for a resident adult and 0.54 hour/day for a resident child (0 to 6 years), which are weighted averages of the 90th percentile spent bathing or showering in a day (EPA 2014b). • Exposure Duration and Frequency The EDs and EFs for each scenario is the same as those identified for the ingestion pathway above. 4.4.2 Age-Based Adjustments for Adult and Child The HHRA calculations incorporate age-adjustments for each COPC in the exposure intake term for calculating the cancer risk over the lifetime of a resident or recreator as both a child and adult. For the ingestion exposure pathway, the adjusted ingestion rate is a summation of the individual ingestion rates weighted by the body weights and EDs of the receptor from birth to 26 years as described in the EPA RSL equations (EPA 2017c).
  ∑  
 Where: IR-Adj = Adjusted ingestion rate (mg-year/day-kg) ED = Exposure duration (year) IR = Ingestion rate (mg/day) BW = Body weight (kg) For the dermal exposure pathway, the adjusted surface area is a summation of the individual surface areas weighted by the BWs and EDs of the receptor from birth to 26 years similar to the above equation. The age-adjustment equations are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.1 and calculated in Attachment A, Table 4.Supp.1. The inhalation exposure pathway does not require an age-adjustment as per RAGS Part F, Appendix A, Section 6.1 (EPA 2009b). 4.4.3 Mutagen Adjustments for Early-Life Exposure EPA has identified several carcinogens that act via a mutagenic mode of action (MMOA). These carcinogens or their metabolites cause mutations in the DNA that may mediate tumor formation when receptors are exposed at a young age. In addition, the mutations caused by these carcinogens are heritable (EPA 2007). To account for early life exposures to these mutagens, age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) have been incorporated into the intake equation. This approach is consistent with the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA 2005a) and the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens (EPA 2005b). The intake equations are described in the EPA RSL equations (EPA 2017c); the equation for the ingestion exposure pathway is shown here: Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 19
  ∑  
   Where: ADAF = Age dependent adjustment factors, where 0-<2 years applied an ADAF of 10, 2-<6 years applied an ADAF of 3, 6-<16 years applied an ADAF of 3, and 16-26 years applied and ADAF of 1. For the dermal exposure pathway, the adjusted surface area is a summation of the individual surface areas weighted by the BWs and EDs of the receptor from birth to 26 years. That surface area is then multiplied by the ADAF, similar to the above equation. The MMOA age adjustment equations are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.1 and are calculated in Attachment A, Table 4.Supp.2. Exposure intakes for the mutagen TCE incorporate specific calculations, as the toxicity assessment for TCE requires that we address the mutagenic effects on the kidney versus the standard cancer effects on the liver and potential for developing non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma. To accomplish this, the mutagenic and standard cancer equations are combined. The different toxicity values for use in the cancer and mutagen intake equations are incorporated using a toxicity value adjustment factor for cancer (CAF) and mutagens (MAF) for all exposure pathways as identified in the EPA RSL equations and described in the User’s Guide (EPA 2017c). For the mutagen VC, exposure intakes also incorporate specific calculations that are based on the EPA RSL equations (EPA 2017c). When evaluating both early life and adult exposures, the regular cancer equation is applied along with the addition of a non- pro-rated early life exposure. For the shower inhalation pathway, the dose for an adult is multiplied by the toxicity value of 4.4E-06 ug/m3 for continuous lifetime exposure during adulthood and added to the dose for a child multiplied by the toxicity value of 8.8E-06 ug/m3 for continuous lifetime exposure from birth. All of the mutagen equations are presented in Attachment A, Table 4.1. 5 Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment provides a framework for characterizing the relationship between the magnitude of exposure to a COPC and the nature and likelihood of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. For all exposure pathways, there are two approaches for deriving toxicity values. One involves the derivation of a noncancer reference value, i.e., an oral or dermal reference dose (RfD) and inhalation reference concentration (RfC), while the other involves derivation of a predictive cancer risk estimate, i.e., an oral or dermal cancer slope factor (CSF) and inhalation unit risk (IUR). An overview of the hierarchy to apply toxicity values is described in Section 5.1. The 20 | methodology that is used to develop a toxicity assessment as part of the HHRA is provided in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. 5.1 Sources of Toxicity Values Pertinent toxicological information on COPCs is selected from the following sources, in descending order of hierarchy, in accordance with EPA’s OSWER Directive 9285.7-53, Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments (EPA 2003). • Tier 1 – EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 2017a). • Tier 2 – EPA’s Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) – The Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center develops PPRTVs on a chemical specific basis when requested by EPA’s Superfund program (EPA 2017b). • Tier 3 – Other Toxicity Values – Tier 3 includes additional EPA and non-EPA sources of toxicity information (ATSDR 2017, Cal EPA 2016 and EPA 2011b). Priority is given to sources of information that are the most current, transparent, publicly available and those which have been peer reviewed. The EPA RSL tables provide toxicity values following the above hierarchy; therefore, the most recent November 2017 RSL summary table is used as the source of toxicity values (EPA 2017c). The cancer and noncancer toxicity values for the COPCs that are used in the risk assessment are presented in Attachment A, Tables 5.1 through 6.2. 5.2 Evaluation of Non-Carcinogenic Effects An oral RfD is calculated for the ingestion exposure pathway; typically expressed as mg/kg-day. A RfC is calculated for the inhalation pathway, expressed in terms of the concentration in the air, as mg/m3. In the current absence of dermal slope factors, EPA has devised a process that utilizes the dose-response relationship obtained from oral administration studies and makes an adjustment for absorption efficiency to represent the toxicity factor in terms of absorbed dose, using route-to-route (oral-to-dermal) extrapolations for systemic effects. This is performed using a chemical-specific oral absorption factor (GIABS) that accounts for the fact that most slope factors are expressed as the amount administered per unit time and body weight, with exposure estimates for the dermal pathway expressed as a dose absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract (EPA 1989, 2004). In the calculation of these toxicity values, EPA uses values (i.e., No Observable Adverse Effect Levels and Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Levels) that express the potential non-carcinogenic effects to identify thresholds for each chemical, and derive an estimate of the exposure below which adverse health effects are not expected to occur over a lifetime. Two types of noncancer toxicity values are available from EPA depending on the length of exposure being evaluated (i.e., chronic or sub-chronic). Chronic toxicity values are specifically developed to be protective for long-term exposure to a compound, and are generally used to evaluate the non-carcinogenic effects associated with exposure Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 21 periods between seven years and a lifetime. Sub-chronic toxicity values are useful for characterizing potential non-carcinogenic effects associated with shorter-term exposures. The toxicity values for this HHRA were taken from the November 2017 RSL summary table, which provides chronic toxicity values when they are available and supplements these with subchronic toxicity values (EPA 2017c), which were used when chronic values were not provided. The noncancer toxicity values for the COPCs that are used in the HHRA are presented in Attachment A, Tables 5.1 and 5.2. 5.3 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Effects Carcinogenic risks associated with a given level of exposure to potential carcinogens are typically extrapolated based on slope factors or unit risks. Oral slope factors are the upper 95th percent confidence limit of the slope of the dose-response curve, expressed in terms of risk per unit dose [(mg/kg-day)-1]. Inhalation unit risks similarly relate the risk of cancer development with the concentration of carcinogen [(mg/m3)-1]. In the absence of dermal toxicity values for cancer development, EPA uses the oral dose-response relationship obtained from oral administration studies and adjusts for absorption efficiency with a GIABS factor to derive an absorbed dose in order to assess dermal exposure impacts for cancer, which is described in Section 5.2 above (EPA 1989, EPA 2004). The cancer toxicity values for the COPCs that are used in the HHRA are presented in Attachment A, Tables 6.1 and 6.2. For constituents that EPA assessed prior to publication of the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA 2005a), EPA considers those belonging to the following cancer weight of evidence groups to be human carcinogens (EPA 1986): • Group A – Known Human Carcinogen – Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans; • Group B1 – Probable Human Carcinogen – Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans; • Group B2 – Probable Human Carcinogen – Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans; and • Group C – Possible Human Carcinogen – Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or lack of evidence in humans. For constituents that EPA assessed after the 2005 Guidelines were published, EPA uses a narrative approach to characterize carcinogenicity (EPA 2005a): • Carcinogenic to Humans • Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans • Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential • Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential 22 | As shown in Attachment A, Tables 6.1 and 6.2, approximately half of the COPCs are known carcinogens or are likely to be carcinogenic. 5.4 Health Effects of COPCs The potential health effects from human health exposure to COPCs in media that are the primary contributors to the risks (see Section 6.3) are described here, as they are important for understanding the relevance of the risk estimates determined in this HHRA. The information presented here is consistent with the basis of the toxicity values determined by EPA IRIS and other agencies. • PCE primarily affects the central nervous system (CNS), kidney, liver, reproductive system and developing fetus. EPA IRIS indicates PCE is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) indicates PCE is probably carcinogenic to humans. PCE is readily absorbed through the lung, gastrointestinal tract and skin and is widely distributed in the body regardless of the route of exposure. Most absorbed PCE is excreted unchanged in the exhaled air regardless of the route of exposure and PCE metabolites are excreted in the urine. (ATSDR 2014a) • TCE affects the CNS, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system and developing fetus. IRIS and IARC indicate TCE is carcinogenic to humans and available human data strongly suggest the possibility of TCE-induced kidney cancer and the potential for liver cancer and malignant lymphoma in humans. TCE has similar toxicokinetics as those noted for PCE above. TCE is unlikely to bioaccumulate in the food chain. TCE has been determined to be a mutagen, which means that it can cause DNA changes that lead to the development of cancer when exposed to at an early age and these changes are heritable. (ATSDR 2014b) • 1,2-DCE primarily affects the kidney through the oral route. Inhalation of 1,2- DCE can result in nausea and drowsiness, but there is insufficient data and no toxicity values have been developed for this pathway. IRIS indicates that cis-1,2- DCE is not classifiable as to its human carcinogenicity and does not have a classification for trans-1,2-DCE. 1,2-DCE evaporates rapidly into the air and once in groundwater, it takes about three months to a year to break down half of it. Data regarding oral or dermal absorption in humans or distribution of 1,2-DCE in the body are not available. (ATSDR 1996) • VC primarily affects the liver, but also the heart and blood vessels, immune system and developing fetus. IRIS indicates it is a known human carcinogen. Data regarding oral or dermal absorption in humans or distribution of VC in the body are not available. VC is also a mutagen. It is unlikely VC bioaccumulates in the food chain. (ATSDR 2006) Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 23 6 Hazard Identification and Risk Characterization The information obtained from the exposure assessment (Section 4) and toxicity assessment (Section 5) is integrated to identify the potential non-carcinogenic hazard and characterize excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) posed by COPCs selected for evaluation in the HHRA. The risk associated with exposure to individual COPCs is described and then the risk associated with exposures to multiple COPCs is characterized. 6.1 Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Identification Potential hazards for non-carcinogenic effects are typically estimated by calculating the HQ for each COPC, using the following general equation, which can vary by exposure pathway.  
  Where: HQ = Hazard quotient (unitless) Intake = Chronic daily intake of chemicals or exposure dose (mg/kg-day or mg/m3) Toxicity = Oral reference dose (mg/kg-day), dermal reference dose (mg/kg-day) or inhalation reference concentration (mg/m3) The cumulative noncancer HI from exposure to the combination of COPCs in an environmental medium and across all media for a receptor is estimated using the following equation (EPA 1989):  !
!  " # # When the HI for a COPC exceeds unity (one), there may be concern for potential noncancer effects from that COPC. The HI is an indicator that potential hazard for a specific receptor exposed to a COPC in the environment cannot be ruled out, if it is greater than one, not that the hazard actually exists. In interpreting HI values, it is important to understand that the values are estimates, based on predictive models, and are subject to the uncertainties inherent in both the estimates of exposure and toxicity benchmarks. 6.2 Carcinogenic Risk Characterization Potential risks for carcinogenic effects are typically estimated by calculating an ELCR as a result of exposure to Site-related carcinogens. Calculation of an ELCR for an exposure pathway involves multiplying the chronic daily intake for each chemical by its upper- 24 | bound cancer slope factor, as described by the following general equation (EPA 1989), which can vary by exposure pathway and COPC: $ 
   where: Risk = Cancer risk (unitless) Intake = Chronic daily intake of chemicals (expressed in mg/kg-day) Toxicity = Oral slope factor [(mg/kg-day)-1], dermal slope factor [(mg/kg-day)-1] or inhalation unit risk [(ug/m3)-1] The single-chemical cancer risk equation above is a linear model that is valid only at low risk levels per RAGS Part A, Chapter 8 (EPA 1989). Thus, the calculation of the single- chemical risk also includes a secondary exponential equation to incorporate the one-hit equation for cancer risks greater than 0.01, as required in RAGS. The one-hit equation is only applied to scenarios where the exposure dose is high; it assumes any single “hit” of an amount of a carcinogen at a cellular target, e.g., DNA, can initiate a series of events leading to a tumor. The one-hit equation is an exponential model that limits the single-chemical risk to less than one whereas the regular linear cancer model may calculate values greater than one. The equation is as follows: $  1 −(()*+,-.  /01#2#+3) The cumulative cancer risk from exposure to the combination of constituents in an environmental medium and also across all media for a receptor is estimated following EPA guidance (EPA 1989) and the following general equation: 56578 $  " $# # For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers acceptable exposure levels to generally be concentration levels that represent an ELCR to an individual of between one in ten thousand (1.0E-04) and one in a million (1.0E-06). 6.3 Risk Assessment Results The results of the hazard identification and risk characterization are presented below, by receptor. The cancer risks and noncancer HQs are presented in Attachment A, RAGS Part D Tables 7.1 through 7.3. Tables 7.1 to 7.3 present risk estimates for exposure of construction workers, workers and residents groundwater across the site, respectively. COPCs are identified for only exposure pathways that have an ELCR greater than 1.0E- 06 and a HI greater than one; these constituents are considered to be primary contributors to the risk estimates. 6.3.1 Construction Worker The cumulative cancer risks and noncancer HIs by exposure pathway for a future on-Site construction worker’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater are summarized in Table 6-1 below. Chemical-specific cancer risks and noncancer HQs are presented in Attachment A, RAGS Part D Planning Table 7.1. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 25 The total ELCR for a construction worker’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater from all pathways is 2.2E-03. The ELCR for groundwater inhalation exposure is 1.9E-03; the primary contributors are VC, TCE and PCE at 1.3E-03, 5.5E-04 and 1.0E-04, respectively. The ELCR for groundwater dermal exposure is 2.3E-04 and that for incidental ingestion is 3.5E-05, with VC as the primary contributor for both pathways. Table 6-1. Construction Worker’s Exposure to Groundwater Exposure Route Cumulative Cancer Risk Primary COPCs Hazard Index Primary COPCs Lifetime Incidental Ingestion 3.5E-05 VC (3.3E-05), TCE (1.4E-06) 1.3E+01 cis-1,2-DCE (6.1E+00), TCE (4.3E+00), PCE (1.1E+00), VC (1.1E+00) Dermal 2.3E-04 VC (2.1E-04), TCE (1.5E-05), PCE (6.7E-06) 1.4E+02 cis-1,2-DCE (5.4E+01), TCE (4.4E+01), PCE (3.7E+01), VC (6.9E+00), trans-1,2- DCE (1.1E-01) Inhalation 1.9E-03 VC (1.3E-03), TCE (5.5E-04), PCE (1.0E-04) 5.6E+03 TCE (4.7E+03), PCE (6.7E+02), VC (2.0E+02), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (2.5E+00) Total 2.2E-03 5.8E+03 The total noncancer HI is 5.8E+03. The HI for groundwater inhalation is 5.6E+03; primary contributors to this HI are TCE, PCE and VC with HQs of 4.7E+03, 6.7E+02 and 2.0E+02, respectively. The HI for groundwater dermal exposure is 1.4E+02 and that for incidental ingestion exposure is 1.3E+01; the primary contributor is cis-1,2-DCE followed by TCE, PCE and VC. See Table 6-1. 6.3.2 Worker The cumulative cancer risks and noncancer HIs by exposure pathway for a future on-Site worker’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater are summarized in Table 6-2 below. Chemical-specific cancer risks and noncancer HQs are presented in Attachment A, RAGS Part D Planning Table 7.2. The total ELCR for a worker’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater via tapwater use from all pathways is 5.5E-02. The ELCR for groundwater ingestion exposure is 5.3E-02, with primary contributors of VC, TCE and PCE at 5.0E-02, 2.2E-03 and 3.2E-04, respectively. The ELCR for groundwater dermal exposure is 2.0E-03 with the same primary contributors. The one-hit model was applied for VC via the groundwater ingestion pathway, as the linear model resulted in a cancer risk greater than 0.01; the initial cancer risk was 5.2E-02. The revised one-hit model cancer risk was calculated to be 5.0E-02, which is shown in a separate column in Attachment A, RAGS Part D Planning Table 7.2. The total noncancer HI is 8.5E+02. The HI for groundwater ingestion is 7.9E+02 and the primary contributors are cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE and VC at 3.8E+02, 2.7E+02, 7.2E+01 26 | and 6.7E+01, respectively. The HI for groundwater dermal exposure is 5.9E+01 with same primary contributors. See Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Worker’s Exposure to Groundwater Exposure Route Cumulative Cancer Risk Primary COPCs Hazard Index Primary COPCs Lifetime Ingestion 5.3E-02 VC (5.0E-02), TCE (2.2E-03), PCE (3.2E-04) 7.9E+02 cis-1,2-DCE (3.8E+02), TCE (2.7E+02), PCE (7.2E+01), VC (6.7E+01), trans-1,2-DCE (8.0E-01) Dermal 2.0E-03 VC (1.8E-03), TCE (1.5E-04), PCE (8.0E-05) 5.9E+01 cis-1,2-DCE (2.0E+01), TCE (1.9E+01), PCE (1.8E+01), VC (2.3E+00) Total 5.5E-02 8.5E+02 6.3.3 Resident The cumulative cancer risks and noncancer HIs by exposure pathway for a future on-Site resident adult and child’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater are summarized in Table 6-3 below. Chemical-specific cancer risks and noncancer HQs are presented in Attachment A, RAGS Part D Planning Table 7.3. The ELCRs for a resident’s exposure to COPCs in groundwater via tapwater is 6.1E-01 from the ingestion pathway, 6.2E-02 from the dermal pathway and 4.4E-02 from the inhalation pathway. The groundwater ingestion pathway contributes the most to the risk; the primary contributors are VC, TCE, PCE and bromodichloromethane with individual COPC risks of 6.1E-01, 1.4E-02, 1.3E-03 and 1.1E-06, respectively. There are high concentrations of carcinogenic COPCs (e.g., VC with an EPC of 18,727 ug/L, cis-1,2- DCE with an EPC of 71,118 ug/L, PCE with an EPC of 40,294 ug/L and TCE with an EPC of 12,672 ug/L – see Attachment A, Table 3.1) in the source area behind the Curriculum Center building. The presence of these COPCs at such elevated levels results in high chemical risks (e.g., 6.0E-01 for VC via the ingestion pathway). The one-hit model was applied for TCE and VC via the groundwater ingestion and inhalation pathways as well as for VC via the dermal pathway, as the linear model resulted in cancer risks greater than 0.01; the revised one-hit model cancer risks are shown in a separate column in Attachment A, Table 7.3. The total noncancer HI is 6.3E+03 for an adult and 7.4E+03 for a child. The groundwater inhalation and ingestion pathways contribute the most to these HIs with adult HIs of 3.7E+03 and 2.2E+03, respectively, and child HIs of 3.1E+03 and 3.7E+03, respectively. Cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE and VC are the primary contributors for all pathways. See Table 6-3. The risk assessment results are summarized by COPC and the noncancer hazards are separated by target organ in Attachment A, Tables 9.1 to 9.3. Table 9.1 presents the summary and target organ evaluation for a construction worker, Table 9.2 that for a worker and Table 9.3 that for a resident. Review of these tables indicates that multiple Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 27 Table 6-3. Resident’s Exposure to Groundwater Exposure Route Cumulative Cancer Risk Primary COPCs Hazard Index Primary COPCs Lifetime Adult Child Ingestion 6.1E-01 VC (6.0E-01), TCE (1.4E-02), PCE (1.3E-03), bromodichloromethane (1.1E-06) 2.2E+03 3.7E+03 cis-1,2-DCE (adult 1.1E+03, child 1.8E+03), TCE (adult 7.6E+02, child 1.3E+03), PCE (adult 2.0E+02, child 3.3E+02), VC (adult 1.9E+02, child 3.1E+02), trans-1,2- DCE (adult 2.3E+00, child 3.7E+00) Dermal 6.2E-02 VC (5.9E-02), TCE (1.8E-03), PCE (6.7E-04) 3.8E+02 5.8E+02 cis-1,2-DCE (adult 1.3E+02, child 2.0E+02), PCE (adult 1.2E+02, child 1.8E+02), TCE (adult 1.2E+02, child 1.8E+02), VC (adult 1.4E+01, child 2.1E+01), trans-1,2- DCE (adult 2.7E-01), child 4.1E-01) Inhalation 4.4E-02 TCE (2.5E-02), VC (1.7E-02) PCE (1.8E-03), bromodichloromethane (7.4E-06), 1,2-dichloroethane (2.5E-06), 1,1,2- trichloroethane (1.9E-06), 1,4- dichlorobenzene (1.7E-06) 3.7E+03 3.1E+03 TCE (adult 3.1E+03, child 2.6+03), PCE (adult 4.9E+02, child 4.2E+02), VC (adult 9.1E+01, child 7.7E+01), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (adult 1.7E+00, child 1.4E+00) Total 7.2E-01 6.3E+03 7.4E+03 organs are targeted from exposures to these COPCs, as TCE is a primary contributor to the hazards and TCE has shown evidence of affecting the developmental, hepatic, renal, nervous, lymphatic and reproductive systems. In addition, in Attachment A, Table 9.3, while 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene does not have individual pathway cancer risks greater than 1E-06 for a resident’s groundwater exposure, the cumulative cancer risk from all exposure pathways is 1.2E-06; therefore, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is also of potential concern to future residents and retained as a COC. 6.4 Vapor Intrusion Evaluation To calculate potential risks from VI, concepts from the Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air (EPA, 2015d) were used in concert with EPA’s VISL Calculator (version 3.5.2 using Nov 2017 RSLs; EPA 2017d) to evaluate VI risks at the Site. The VISL calculator incorporates information on volatile chemicals known to have a potential cancer risk or noncancer hazard through the inhalation pathway that provides screening level concentrations for groundwater, soil gas and indoor air using default target risk levels and exposure scenarios. The VISL calculator was run to calculate Site-specific groundwater VISLs for both residential and commercial scenarios using calculator defaults. The VI calculations are presented in Attachment D. Tables D.1 and D.2 present the calculation of the groundwater VISLs for the residential and commercial scenarios, respectively. Table D.3 compares the maximum Site-wide groundwater concentrations to the groundwater VISLs. Note that the VISL calculator does not produce VISLs for 1,3-dichlorobenzene, as this COPC does not have inhalation toxicity values. Comparison of the residential groundwater VISLs to the maximum groundwater concentration indicates there are six COPCs whose concentrations are greater than their 28 | respective residential VISL values. These include 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, bromodichloromethane, PCE, TCE and VC. Only PCE, TCE and VC have concentrations greater than the commercial groundwater VISLs. EPA’s Environmental Response Team (ERT) investigated the potential for VI at the Curriculum Center building. Two field investigations were completed by a contractor in December 2007 and December 2011 (Lockheed 2008, 2012). On both occasions, 16 sub-slab soil gas samples, 30 indoor air samples and two ambient air samples were collected from the three areas of the building: i.e., Curriculum, Warehouse and Maintenance. The analytical results from the sampling events are summarized in Tables 6-4 and 6-5 below. The current EPA VISLs for sub-slab soil gas and indoor air are also included in the tables, to allow for comparison to the maximum detected concentrations identified in 2007 and 2011 (EPA 2017d). The comparison indicates that PCE and TCE have VISL exceedances in the sub-slab soil gas and in the indoor air. For indoor air, a majority of the samples are well below the residential and commercial indoor air VISLs. There are three PCE exceedances of the residential and commercial indoor air VISLs in the Maintenance area (locations MA-I-2 and MA-I-3; concentrations of 58, 56 and 58 ug/m3, respectively) and one PCE exceedance of the residential indoor air VISL in location MA- I-3 with a concentration of 13.1 ug/m3 that was qualified as estimated. There are two TCE exceedances (0.488 and 0.47 ug/m3) of the residential indoor air VISL from the same two locations in the Maintenance area noted above. No other exceedances of the commercial indoor air VISLs are noted. The building has windows and large roll-up doors in the Warehouse, windows in the Maintenance area and air conditioners in the Curriculum area, which will increase the ventilation in the building and reduce the effects of potential VI. In addition, part of the Site is paved, the building is condemned from damage from Hurricane Irma and it is not currently in use. Table 6-4. 2007 and 2011 Sub-slab Soil Gas Sampling Summary COPC Year Range of Concentrations (ug/m3) EPA Residential Sub-Slab VISL (ug/m3) EPA Commercial Sub-Slab VISL (ug/m3) Is Maximum >= VISLs? PCE 2007 54 - 79,000 359 1572 Yes 2011 51.6 – 147,000 Yes TCE 2007 ND - 810 15.9 99.7 Yes 2011 ND – 688 Yes cis-1,2- DCE 2007 ND Not available; lack of toxicity value Not available; lack of toxicity value No 2011 ND – 52.2 No trans-1,2- DCE 2007 ND Not available; lack of toxicity value Not available; lack of toxicity value No 2011 ND – 4.0 No VC 2007 ND 5.59 92.9 No 2011 ND No 1,1-DCE 2007 ND – 1,100 6,952 29,200 No 2011 ND – 0.646 No Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 29 Table 6-5. 2007 and 2011 Indoor Air Sampling Summary COPC Year Range of Concentrations (ug/m3) EPA Residential IA VISL (ug/m3) EPA Commercial IA VISL (ug/m3) Is Maximum >= VISLs? PCE 2007 0.32 - 58 10.8 47.2 Yes 2011 0.806 - 58 Yes TCE 2007 ND - 0.47 0.478 2.99 No 2011 ND - 0.488 Yes cis-1,2-DCE 2007 ND – 0.042 Not available; lack of toxicity value Not available; lack of toxicity value No 2011 ND – 0.283 No trans-1,2-DCE 2007 ND Not available; lack of toxicity value Not available; lack of toxicity value No 2011 ND - 0.177 No VC 2007 ND 0.168 2.79 No 2011 ND No 1,1-DCE 2007 ND – 0.13 208.6 876 No 2011 ND No 6.5 Non-Source Area Data Evaluation Wells downgradient of the source area are not as highly contaminated; an evaluation was performed here to help understand the magnitude of contamination that may be present downgradient. A review of the wells sampled by HDR indicated eight are downgradient of source area. It is noted that no data are available for the nearby off-site MW-2, MW-5 and Tillet wells for the RI. OU2-MD1 is a matrix diffusion borehole that has been grouted closed (see Figure 1-1). Therefore, the wells included in this evaluation are MW-1D, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, OU2-MW-3, OU2-MW-4, OU2-MW-5 and RD-13. Table 6-6. Non-Source Area Data Comparison to MCLs and VISLs Constituent Range of Data Location of Maximum Detection Frequency (%) Federal MCL EPA Residential GW VISL EPA Commercial GW VISL Maximum of Source Area Acetone 5.8 - 5.8 MW5 11 No MCL 23,000,000 95,000,000 13 Bromodichloromethane 1.2 - 1.2 MW4 11 80 0.88 3.8 2.7 Chloromethane 0.51 - 0.51 MW3 11 No MCL 260 1100 0.51 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.74 - 0.74 MW4 11 7 200 820 400 cis-1,2-DCE 0.67 - 1700 MW3 100 70 NA NA 160,000 trans-1,2-DCE 1.6 - 240 RD13 56 100 NA NA 2,300 PCE 1.1 - 3500 MW3 100 5 15 65 92,000 Toluene 2.3 - 4 MW3 22 1,000 19,000 81,000 4.7 TCE 0.7 - 200 MW3 89 5 1.2 7.4 29,000 VC 2.2 - 74 RD13 56 2 0.15 2.5 38,000 Note: Concentrations and criteria are in units of ug/L. NA = Not available. 30 | The data from these wells were assessed for useability and the maximum detected concentrations were compared to the Federal MCLs (EPA 2015a) and VISLs (EPA 2017d), with results as shown in Table 6-6. Constituents shown on the table are those that are detected in the data set. The evaluation indicates that PCE and its breakdown products have maximum detected concentrations that are well above their respective MCL and VISL in this downgradient area, though at concentrations less than and, in some instances, well below the source area maximum detected concentrations. 6.6 Risk Assessment Conclusions This HHRA was prepared to evaluate potential baseline health risks for future receptor exposure to COPCs present in groundwater. The COPC screening of the HHRA identified 13 COPCs. The potential exposure scenarios considered in this HHRA include drinking water ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of groundwater by residents, drinking water ingestion and dermal contact by workers as well as incidental ingestion, contact and inhalation with groundwater by construction workers in a trench, as shown in the CSM, Figure 4-1. The evaluation of potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards to future receptors on- Site from exposure to COPCs in environmental media indicates that there are several primary COPCs, now identified as COCs, whose concentrations in environmental media contribute to the hazard and risk estimates, and exposure to these COCs may result in potential adverse health effects, as detailed below. The evaluation for on-Site future construction workers indicates that VC, TCE, PCE, cis- 1,2-DCE and 1,1,2-trichloroethane have been identified as COCs for groundwater exposure, based on an ELCR exceeding 1E-06 or resulting in an HI greater than or equal to one. The evaluation for on-Site future workers indicates that VC, TCE, PCE and cis-1,2-DCE have been identified as COCs for groundwater exposure, based on an ELCR exceeding 1E-06 or resulting in an HI greater than or equal to one. PCE and TCE volatilizing into buildings are also of potential concern to workers based on groundwater, indoor air and sub-slab soil gas data. VC volatilizing into buildings may be of potential concern to workers based on groundwater concentrations compared to the VC groundwater VISL; however, VC was non-detect in the sub-slab soil gas and indoor air during two sampling events in 2007 and 2011, as indicated in Section 6.4. The evaluation of potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards to future residents indicates VC, TCE, PCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, bromodichloromethane, 1,2- dichloroethane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane have been identified as COCs for groundwater exposure, based on an ELCR exceeding 1E-06 or resulting in an HI greater than or equal to one. PCE, TCE and other VOCs volatilizing into buildings are also of potential concern to future residents based on an evaluation of groundwater, indoor air and sub-slab soil gas data. The ELCR for 1,1-DCE is less than 1E-06; however, its maximum detected concentration exceeds its MC, so it too is included as a COC. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 31 7 Uncertainty Analysis This section includes a discussion on the inherent uncertainties in the HHRA methods, inputs and conclusions and the additional sensitivity analyses performed. 7.1 HHRA Uncertainties There is uncertainty inherent in the methods, inputs and conclusions of any HHRA. This level of uncertainty results from the fact that the risk assessment process involves numerous assumptions and unknowns, contributing to the total uncertainty in the final conclusions. EPA uses default and appropriate values that guard against underestimating risk while also being scientifically plausible given existing uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: • Environmental parameters, chemistry and sampling analysis; • Assumptions in the derivation of screening benchmarks that are used to identify Site-related COCs; • The exposure factors used for quantifying exposure are conservative and reflect upper-bound assumptions; • Maximum concentrations applied as a measure of exposure for each medium and receptor in the COPC screening, which is a conservative assumption intentionally used to focus the risk assessment on those pathways and receptors potentially at risk; and • Bioavailability of 100% of the chemical substance is assumed for uptake by humans, which is conservative and is known to not be the case for many chemical substances under varying environmental conditions. Uncertainties specific to this HHRA include: • Drinking water ingestion by construction workers was not evaluated, which likely underestimates risks and HQs. The workers’ drinking water ingestion pathway is a conservative surrogate for a construction workers’. • The COPC 1,3-dichlorobenzene was retained because no screening levels are available. There are no toxicity values for this COPC, which prevents calculation of cancer risks and non-cancer HQs and may contribute to underestimating the risk estimates to receptors exposed to groundwater contamination. • TICs detected in certain wells are excluded from the COPC screening. Total alkane TICs range from 1.1-9.6 ppb, the maximum concentration for one unknown TIC is 340 ppb. A review of data from wells located on or near the site that have TIC data (i.e., OU2-MW1, OU2-MW2, OU2-MW3, OU2-MW5, OU2- MW6, IW1 and RD12) indicates VOC levels range from ND and single digit to the tens of thousands ppb range (in wells closest to source area). There is no evident pattern in the relationship between TICs and COCs in the data set. COC concentrations vary considerably; in some wells, TIC concentrations may be masked by the presence of other constituents at high concentrations. 32 | Therefore, the risks associated with potential exposure to TICs are likely to be underestimated. • The risk characterization for the construction worker incorporates the 4 hour t- event default value included for a construction worker in the VADEQ model; documentation for the model does not identify whether or not the value is considered a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) or central tendency (CT) scenario. Use of the 4 hour work shift default value potentially underestimates risks to the construction worker. • The QAPP measurement performance criteria have been met for accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and blank contamination. The measurement performance criteria were not met for precision and sensitivity in a few instances, which is discussed further in the DER (FSRI Appendix B). For precision, there are three instances out of 153 in which the relative percent differences between parent and field duplicate samples are greater than 50 percent (PCE, trans-1,2-DCE and VC); the concentrations are well above the minimum groundwater risk-based screening levels and have been retained in this HHRA. For sensitivity, several constituents have QLs greater than risk-based criteria. This occurs in approximately eight percent of the usable data, which may mask potential exceedances of the risk-based criteria. However, the detected concentrations for these instances are well above the risk-based criteria and therefore, not an issue for this HHRA. Several constituents have reporting detection limits greater than the QAPP’s contract required quantitation limits. This is true for approximately four percent of the usable data, where samples were diluted by the laboratory during analysis. These data have been retained for use in the HHRA. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 33 8 References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August. Retrieved January 10, 2017. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp ATSDR 2006. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride (Update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. July. Retrieved January 10, 2017. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp ATSDR 2011. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride (Addendum). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. July. Retrieved August 24, 2017. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp ATSDR 2014a. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. October. Retrieved Jan 10, 2017. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp ATSDR 2014b. Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. November. Retrieved Jan 10, 2017. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp ATSDR 2017. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). June. Available online: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp Arrowhead 2016. Arrowhead Contracting, Inc. Year 12 Quarter 4 – April 2016 Annual Remedial Progress Report, Tutu Wellfield Site Long-Term Response Action, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Submitted to Department of Planning and Natural Resources, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Arrowhead 2017. Arrowhead Contracting, Inc. Year 13 Quarter 4 – May 2017 Annual Remedial Progress Report, Tutu Wellfield Site Long-Term Response Action, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Submitted to Department of Planning and Natural Resources, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Back 1988. Back, W. Region 26: West Indies, I Hydrogeology. Geological Society of America. Back., W., Rosenshein, J.S., and Seaher, P.R., eds. The Geology of North America, Volume 0-2, Boulder, Colorado. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) 2016. Toxicity Criteria Database. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Available online: http://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals CDM 2001. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Final Pre-Design Report, Tutu Wells (Soil and Groundwater) Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Work Assignment Nos. 008-RDRD-021D and 009-RDRD-021D. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1, 2001. CDM 2004. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Final Interim Remedial Action Report, Curriculum Center Soil and Site Wide Groundwater. Tutu Wellfield Site, St. Thomas, U.S. 34 | Virgin Islands. Work Assignment No. 152-RARA-021D. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 27, 2004. Delaware Chancery Court 2007. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Opinion in the case of The Territory of the United States Virgin Islands v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. September. Donnelly 1959. T.W. Donnelly. Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University. Donnelly 1966. T.W. Donnelly. Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. In: H.H. Hess et al, Caribbean Geological Investigations. Geol. Soc. America Mem. 98. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-00/004. September. EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part EPA 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Available online: https://rais.ornl.gov/documents/OSWERdirective9285.6-03.pdf EPA 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals. Interim. EPA/540/R-92/003. Dec. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk- assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-b EPA. 1991c. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. April. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment- human-health-topics EPA 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). Final. 9285.7-09A. Available online: http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/USERISKA.pdf EPA 1996. EPA Region 2. Record of Decision, Tutu Wellfield Site, Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. July. EPA 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments. Final. December. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk- assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-d EPA 2002. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER 9285.6-10. December. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment-human-health-topics EPA 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Memorandum. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December 5. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment-human-health-topics EPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Final. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 35 EPA/540/R/99/005. July. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment- guidance-superfund-rags-part-e EPA 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. March. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment EPA 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. March. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf EPA 2007. Framework for Determining a Mutagenic Mode of Action for Carcinogenicity: Using EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines and Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA 120/R-07/002-A. External Peer Review Draft. September. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/osa/mmoaframework/web/html/index.html EPA 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-06/096F. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243 EPA 2009a. EPA Region 2. Five-Year Review Report, Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. April. EPA 2009b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I; Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part F Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment. EPA- 540-R-070-002. January. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment- guidance-superfund-rags-part-f EPA 2011a. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/052F. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 EPA. 2011b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). December. Available online: http://epa-heast.ornl.gov/ EPA 2011c. Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November. EPA 2014a. Memorandum – Determining Groundwater Exposure Point Concentrations, Supplemental Guidance. March 11. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/exposure- point-concentrations-groundwater EPA 2014b. Memorandum – Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/update-standard-default-exposure-factors EPA 2014c. EPA Region 2. Quality Assurance Guidance and SOPs. November 10. Available online: http://pubweb.epa.gov/region2/qa/documents.htm EPA 2014d. EPA Region 2. Second Five-Year Review Report, Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. September. EPA 2014e. EPA Region 2. Standard Operating Procedure, Guidance for Laboratory Data Review. SOP #G-26. October 31. 36 | EPA 2015a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Website Last Updated July 11, 2017. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking- water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations EPA 2015b. ProUCL Version 5.1 Technical Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041. October. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software EPA 2015c. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041. October. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software EPA 2015d. Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. OSWER 9200.2-154. June. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/technical-guide-assessing-and-mitigating- vapor-intrusion-pathway-subsurface-vapor EPA 2017a. IRIS. Website Last Updated June 16. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/iris/ EPA 2017b. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). January. Available online: https://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/index.html EPA 2017c. Regional Screening Levels: Generic Tables, Equations, User’s Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls EPA 2017d. Vapor Intrusion Screening level (VISL) Calculator, version 3.5.2. November 14. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/guidance.html EPA N.d. Superfund Site: Tutu Wellfield, Tutu, VI. Retrieved June 14, 2017. Last Updated June 14, 2017. Available online: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/Cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0202749&msspp=med Geraghty & Miller 1995. Phase II Remedial Investigation Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. April. HDR 2015a. Final Focused Source Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Tutu Wells Superfund Site, St. Thomas, USVI. EPA Work Assignment Number: 031- RICO-021D, EPA Contract Number: EP-W-09-009. October. HDR 2015b. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tutu Wells Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Contract Number: EP-W-09-009, Work Assignment # 031-RICO-021D. October. Lockheed Martin 2008. Tutu Well Field Site, St. Thomas, VI. Lockheed Martin Technology Services, Environmental Services REAC. Work Assignment 0-291 - Air Sampling Trip Report. March 14, 2008. Lockheed Martin 2012. Tutu Wellfield Site, St. Thomas, VI. Scientific Engineering Response and Analytical Services. Work Assignment 0-154 - Air Sampling Trip Report. February 29, 2012. NUS 1989. NUS Corporation Superfund Division. Final Draft Preliminary Assessment LAGA Building/Virgin Islands Department of Education, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Prepared for the Environmental Services Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Technical Directive Document No. 02-8902-44, Contract No 68-01-7346. March. Human Health Risk Assessment Report February 26, 2018 | 37 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) 2010. Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. ODEQ Environmental Cleanup Program. 10-LQ-023. October. Available online: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/HumanHealthRiskAssessmentGuidance.pdf Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 2007. Voluntary Remediation Program - Risk Assessment Guidance. 3.2.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench. October 7. Available online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RemediationProgram /RiskAssessment.aspx VADEQ 2017. Virginia Unified Risk Assessment Model (VURAM). Version 1.12. March 25. Available online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RemediationProgram /RiskAssessment.aspx Wang RGM et al 1994. Water Consumption and Health: Integration of Exposure Assessment, Toxicology, and Risk Assessment. Wang, Macel, Dekker, Inc., New York. Exposure to Volatiles in Domestic Water, Schaum et al., Pages 307-320. FIGURES FIGURES TABLE OF CONTENTS: Figure 1-1 Site Plan and Sampling Locations Figure 4-1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A@ A @ A @ A @ A @ A@ A@ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A@ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A OU2-MW6 OU2-MW5 OU2-MW4 OU2-MW3 OU2-MD2 OU2-MW2 OU2-MD1 OU2-MW1 MW-16 RW-8 BP-3 BP-2 RW-6 RD-11 IW-1S IW-1 MW-14 MW-13D MW-13 RD-12 RD-13 MW-1D BP-1 IW-2 IW-2S MW-15 MW-17 RD-10 RD-9 RW-7 RW-9 MW-2 MW-5 RD-5 Tillett PATH: \\MAHPI-FILE01\ACTIVEPROJECTS\443005\CON0036696\000000000254794\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\DRAFT\SITE PLAN.MXD - USER: CWEAVER - DATE: 6/28/2017 SITE PLAN FIGURE 1-1 ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS TUTU WELLFIELD SUPERFUND SITE LEGEND @ A HDR Wells (OU2) #0 Rock Borehole (for Matrix Diffusion) @ A Previously Existing Wells NOTE: OU2-MD1 and OU2-MD2 were originally installed as rock boreholes. OU2-MD1 was grouted after the borehole investigation, and OU2-MD2 was converted to a monitoring well SITE 0 100 Feet O Data Source: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Releases from  on‐site source  (e.g., discharge  pipe, leak) Soil (a) Groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Dermal  Contact Primary  Sources Primary  Release  Mechanisms Secondary  Sources Secondary  Release  Mechanisms Potential  Exposure  Media Potential Human Health Receptors  Pathway assumed to be complete. Infiltration/ Leaching to  Groundwater  NOTES Infiltration,  Migration,  Volatilization (b) Assessed via EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Level calculator.  For the resident, inhalation of shower vapors is also evaluated using the Andelman model.    (a) Only groundwater exposures are evaluated in this HHRA.    Figure 4‐1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model Tutu Wells Superfund Site St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands  (b) (b) Potential  Exposure  Route Future  On‐Site  Construction  Worker Future  On‐Site Worker Future  Resident Adult/Child ATTACHMENT A RAGS Part D Human Health Risk Assessment Tables ATTACHMENT A TABLE OF CONTENTS: Table 0 Site Risk Assessment Identification Information Table 1 Selection of Exposure Pathways Table 2.1 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Human Health COPCs for Groundwater Table 2.Supp.1 Summary of Human Health COPCs Table 3.1 Exposure Point Concentration Summary for Groundwater Table 4.1 Values used for Daily Intake Calculations for Groundwater Table 4.Supp.1 Calculation of Age-Adjusted Exposure Factors for a Resident Table 4.Supp.2 Calculation of Age-Adjusted Exposure Factors for COPCs Mutagenic Mode of Action for a Resident Table 4.Supp.3 Calculation of DA-Event for Dermal Exposure to Groundwater Table 4.Supp.4 Bathroom Air Concentrations from Exposure to Tapwater for a Resident using Groundwater – Site-Wide Table 5.1 Noncancer Toxicity Data – Oral/Dermal Table 5.2 Noncancer Toxicity Data – Inhalation Table 6.1 Cancer Toxicity Data – Oral/Dermal Table 6.2 Cancer Toxicity Data – Inhalation Table 7.1 Calculation of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Construction Worker Table 7.2 Calculation of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Worker Table 7.3 Calculation of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Resident Table 9.1 Summary of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Construction Worker Table 9.2 Summary of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Worker Table 9.3 Summary of COPC Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for a Resident TABLE 0 SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Site Name/OU: Tutu Wells Superfund Site Region: 2 EPA ID Number: VID982272569 State: St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Status: Revised Federal Facility (Y/N): N EPA Project Manager: Caroline Kwan EPA Risk Assessor: Julie McPherson Prepared by (Organization): HDR Prepared for (Organization): USEPA Document Title: Human Health Risk Assessment Document Date: January 2018 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N): N Comments: RAGS Tables 0 to 9.3 Page: 1 of 23 TABLE 1 SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Ingestion Dermal Indoor Air Inhalation Qualitative Ingestion Dermal Trench Air Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Shower Vapors Inhalation Indoor Air Inhalation Qualitative Ingestion Dermal Shower Vapors Inhalation Indoor Air Inhalation Qualitative Abbreviation: CVOCs -- Chlorinated volatile organic compounds References: HDR 2015. Final Focused Source Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Tutu Wells Superfund Site, St. Thomas, USVI. EPA Work Assignment Number: 031-RICO-021D, EPA Contract Number: EP-W-09-009. October. USEPA n.d. Superfund Site: Tutu Wellfield, Tutu, VI. Retrieved June 14, 2017. Last Updated June 14, 2017. Available online: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/Cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0202749&msspp=med USEPA 1996. USEPA Region 2. Record of Decision, Tutu Wellfield Site, Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. July. USEPA 2014. USEPA Region 2. Second Five-Year Review Report, Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. September. Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway Scenario Timeframe Source Receptor Population Receptor Age Medium / Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Type of Evaluation The Curriculum Center is connected to a public water supply system managed by V.I. Water and Power Authority. However, the groundwater is evaluated in the absence of institutional controls for the future exposure pathway (ingestion of groundwater as a drinking water source, etc.), in addition to the vapor intrusion pathway, with the assumption that a worker will be present and working at this location during the day. Inhalation via vapor intrusion is evaluated qualitatively using USEPA groundwater vapor intrusion screening levels (VISL calculator). Tapwater Groundwater Groundwater Redevelopment of the site is likely to occur and water levels vary across the site (9 to 65 feet below ground surface); therefore a future on-site construction worker's exposure to groundwater in a trench is evaluated quantitatively via the ingestion, dermal and inhalation pathways. Quantitative Trench water Quantitative Future Future On-Site Worker Adult On-Site Construction Worker Adult LAGA Former Textile Manufacturing Plant (CVOC plume under Curriculum Center) Future Resident Adult Groundwater Institutional controls currently require permit for installation/use of groundwater from local wells. However, the goal is to restore groundwater to its most beneficial use (potable water supply) under the National Contingency Plan; groundwater may be used in the future as a potable water source. Therefore, a future resident's exposure to groundwater and indoor air contaminants via showering and vapor intrusion will be evaluated in this HHRA. Inhalation via vapor intrusion is evaluated qualitatively using USEPA groundwater vapor intrusion screening levels (VISL calculator). Child (0-6 years) Groundwater Tapwater Quantitative Tapwater Quantitative Page: 2 of 23 TABLE 2.1 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH COPCS FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Value Basis Groundwater T VOC 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 200 800 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 0.076 c N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 76-13-1 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 1,000 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1.3 1.6 IW1 26 2 8 0.5 - 0.5 1.6 5 0.041 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 2.8 c N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.74 400 RD9 26 6 23 0.5 - 50 400 7 28 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 0.7 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1 4.1 RD9 26 4 15 0.5 - 0.5 4.1 70 0.4 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 0.2 0.00033 c N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 0.05 0.0075 c N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 600 30 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.65 0.8 RD9 26 2 8 0.5 - 0.5 0.8 5 0.17 c** Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 5 0.82 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.6 0.74 MW2 26 3 12 0.5 - 0.5 0.74 NC NC Y No screening level. Groundwater T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.53 2.8 IW1 26 5 19 0.5 - 0.5 2.8 75 0.48 c Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 ND ND NA 26 0 0 5 - 5 ND NC 3.8 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Acetone 67-64-1 5.8 13 RD9 26 2 8 5 - 5 13 NC 1,400 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC Benzene 71-43-2 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 5 0.46 c** N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 8.3 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.2 2.7 BP2 26 2 8 0.5 - 0.5 2.7 80 0.13 c Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC Bromoform 75-25-2 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 80 3.3 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Bromomethane 74-83-9 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 0.75 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 5 0.46 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.9 48 RD9 26 5 19 0.5 - 0.5 48 100 7.8 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC Chloroethane 75-00-3 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 2,100 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Chloroform 67-66-3 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 80 0.22 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.51 0.51 MW3 26 1 4 0.5 - 0.5 0.51 NC 19 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.67 L 160,000 RD9 26 24 92 0.5 - 2500 160,000 70 3.6 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 0.47 c** N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Cyclohexane 110-82-7 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 1,300 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 80 0.87 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 20 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND 700 1.5 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 98-82-8 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 45 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC m,p-Xylene 179601-23-1 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC NC N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methyl acetate 79-20-9 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 2,000 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone) 78-93-3 ND ND NA 26 0 0 5 - 5 ND NC 560 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108-10-1 ND ND NA 26 0 0 5 - 5 ND NC 630 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 14 c* N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC NC N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Methylene chloride 75-09-2 3 3 IW2 26 1 4 0.5 - 0.5 3 5 11 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC o-Xylene 95-47-6 0.52 0.52 RD11 26 1 4 0.5 - 0.5 0.52 NC 19 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC Styrene 100-42-5 2.1 2.1 IW1 26 1 4 0.5 - 0.5 2.1 100 120 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.97 92,000 RD9 26 26 100 0.5 - 2500 92,000 5 4.1 n Y Above screening level. Minimum Detected Concentration (ug/L) Qual Maximum Detected Concentration (ug/L) Qual USEPA RSL Resident Tapwater (ug/L) (3) CASRN Exposure Point T or D Constituent Group Constituent COPC Flag (Y/N) Rationale for Selection or Deletion Range of Detection Limits (ug/L) Concentration used for Screening (ug/L) (1) Location of Maximum Detected Concentration Sample Count Detect Count Detection Frequency (%) Federal MCL (ug/L) (2) Page: 3 of 23 TABLE 2.1 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH COPCS FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Value Basis Minimum Detected Concentration (ug/L) Qual Maximum Detected Concentration (ug/L) Qual USEPA RSL Resident Tapwater (ug/L) (3) CASRN Exposure Point T or D Constituent Group Constituent COPC Flag (Y/N) Rationale for Selection or Deletion Range of Detection Limits (ug/L) Concentration used for Screening (ug/L) (1) Location of Maximum Detected Concentration Sample Count Detect Count Detection Frequency (%) Federal MCL (ug/L) (2) Groundwater T VOC Toluene 108-88-3 0.82 4.7 RD9 26 6 23 0.5 - 0.5 4.7 1,000 110 n N Below screening level. Groundwater T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.68 2,300 RD9 26 16 62 0.5 - 50 2,300 100 36 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 0.47 c** N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.51 29,000 RD9 26 22 85 0.5 - 2500 29,000 5 0.28 n Y Above screening level. Groundwater T VOC Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 ND ND NA 26 0 0 0.5 - 0.5 ND NC 520 n N Not detected. Groundwater T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 2.2 38,000 RD9 26 16 62 0.5 - 2500 38,000 2 0.019 c Y Above screening level. Groundwater T OTHER Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 6.6 L 6.6 L RD9 26 1 4 0.5 - 0.5 6.6 NC 81 n N Below screening level. Notes: (2) Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are taken from USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) tables and checked against the source website. (3) USEPA RSLs at a target risk of 1E-06 and target hazard quotient of 0.1. The COPC screening applies the minimum of the Federal MCLs, USEPA Tapwater RSLs and USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (WQC). + The criteria for 1,3-dichloropropene is applied to its isomers, cis- and trans-. Abbreviations: Qualifiers: RSL Basis: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern RSL -- USEPA Regional Screening Levels B -- Blank contamination * -- Where noncancer RSL < 100 times cancer RSL MCL -- Maximum Contaminant Level T or D -- Total or dissolved c -- Cancer NA -- Not applicable ug/L -- Micrograms per liter n -- Noncancer NC -- No criteria USEPA -- United States Environmental Protection Agency ND -- Not detected VOC -- Volatile organic compound Qual -- Qualifier WQC -- Water quality criteria References: USEPA. 2014. Memorandum – Determining Groundwater Exposure Point Concentrations, Supplemental Guidance. March 11. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/exposure-point-concentrations-groundwater USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels Generic Tables. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls USEPA. 2017. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Human Health Criteria Table. Website Last Updated May 16. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria (1) The maximum detected concentrations for site-wide groundwater are used for the COPC screening. Groundwater data that do not meet the requirements in the USEPA memorandum titled Determining Groundwater Exposure Point Concentrations, Supplemental Guidance were not excluded from this screening, e.g., packer Page: 4 of 23 TABLE 2.SUPP.1 SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH COPCS TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS COPC Group COPC CASRN Site-wide Groundwater VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Yes VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Yes VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 Yes VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Yes VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 Yes VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Yes VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 Yes VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Yes VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Yes VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Yes VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Yes Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern VOC -- Volatile organic compound * 1,3-dichlorobenzene is listed as a COPC because screening levels are not available for comparison. Page: 5 of 23 TABLE 3.1 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Yes 1.6 0.695 95% KM (t) UCL b, e 26 2 8 0.695 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Yes 400 56.8 95% KM (t) UCL 26 6 23 56.8 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 Yes 4.1 1.215 95% KM (t) UCL 26 4 15 1.215 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Yes 0.8 0.547 95% KM (t) UCL b, e 26 2 8 0.547 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 Yes 0.74 0.541 95% KM (t) UCL f 26 3 12 0.541 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Yes 2.8 0.884 95% KM (t) UCL 26 5 19 0.884 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 Yes 3 1.142 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL e 26 2 8 1.142 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Yes 48 8 95% KM (t) UCL 26 5 19 8 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Yes 160,000 71,118 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 26 24 92 71,118 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes 92,000 40,294 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 26 26 100 40,294 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Yes 2,300 1,502 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 26 16 62 1,502 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes 29,000 12,672 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 26 22 85 12,672 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Yes 38000 18727 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 26 16 62 18,727 UCL Lower of the UCL and maximum Notes: These EPCs for groundwater will be used in the future resident, current/future worker and future construction worker scenarios. Only unfiltered (total) groundwater data are evaluated. The exposure point concentration (EPC) is the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean. When the UCL is greater than the maximum detected concentration or ProUCL did not calculate an UCL, the maximum detected concentration is chosen. The most appropriate UCL is chosen from those ProUCL suggests based on the distribution of the databset and ProUCL guidance. ProUCL outputs are provided in Attachment Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern EPC -- Exposure point concentration Qual -- Qualifier NA -- Not analyzed or applicable ND -- Not detected UCL -- 95% Upper confidence limit References: USEPA. 2016. ProUCL Version 5.1. September 19. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software USEPA. 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041. October. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-version-5100-documentation-downloads ProUCL Notes and Warnings: b One or more recommended UCL not available. e Data set has only 2 Detected Values. f Data set has only 3 Detected Values. Detect Count Detection Frequency (%) Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) Value (ug/L) Statistic Rationale Maximum Detected Concentration (ug/L) 95% UCL (ug/L) 95% UCL Method Sample Count ProUCL Notes Medium- Specific COPC T or D COPC Group COPC CASRN Page: 6 of 23 TABLE 4.1 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Ingestion Construction Worker Adult Groundwater AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 Excavation AT Averaging Time-noncancer 365 days USEPA 2011 (Incidental BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 Ingestion) CF Conversion Factor 0.001 mg/µg -- CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L -- ED Exposure Duration 1 years USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/yr USEPA 2011 IR Ingestion Rate 0.02 L/day VADEQ 2016 Worker Adult Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 9125 days USEPA 2011 BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 CF Conversion Factor 0.001 mg/µg -- CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L -- ED Exposure Duration 25 years USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/yr USEPA 2011 IR Ingestion Rate 1.25 L/day USEPA 2014 FAQs Resident Adult Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 7300 days USEPA 2011 BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 CF Conversion Factor 0.001 mg/µg -- CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 ED Exposure Duration 20 years USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/yr USEPA 2011 IR-adult Ingestion Rate 2.5 L/day USEPA 2014 IR-Adj-adult Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted 0.7 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.1 IR-Adj-6-16 Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted MMOA 6-<16 1.1 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 IR-Adj-16-26 Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted MMOA 16-<26 0.33 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 CAFo TCE Cancer Adjustment Factor-oral 0.804 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide MAFo TCE Mutagen Adjustment Factor-oral 0.202 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide Child (0-6 years) Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 2190 days USEPA 2011 BW Body Weight 15 kg USEPA 2014 CF Conversion Factor 0.001 mg/µg -- CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 ED Exposure Duration 6 years USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/yr USEPA 2011 IR-child Ingestion Rate 0.78 L/day USEPA 2014 IR-Adj-child Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted 0.42 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.1 IR-Adj-0-2 Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted MMOA 0-<2 2.1 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 IR-Adj-2-6 Ingestion Rate Age-Adjusted MMOA 2-<6 0.65 L-yr/day-kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 Dermal Construction Worker Adult Groundwater AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 Excavation AT Averaging Time-noncancer 365 days USEPA 2011 B Ratio of permeability coefficent of a compound through the stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across the viable epidermis Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L -- DA-event Dermally Absorbed Dose per Event Calculated mg/cm2-event Calculated t-event Event Time 4 hr/event VADEQ 2016 EV Event Frequency 1 events/day USEPA 2004 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 1 years USEPA 2014 FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 Kp Permeability Constant Chemical-specific cm/hr USEPA 2004 SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3527 cm2 USEPA 2014 tau-event Lag time per event Chemical-specific hr/event USEPA 2004 Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale / Reference Intake Equation / Model Name Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Code For noncancer, Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x IR x CF x EF x ED) / (BW x AT), separately for adult and child using IR-adult or IR-child. For cancer, the ingestion rate was calculated for an adult (birth - 26 yrs), adjusting for age-specific exposure factors, where IR-Adj = ∑ (ED * IR) / BW. Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x (IR-Adj-adult + IR-Adj-child) x CF x EF) / AT For MMOA cancer, the IR-Adj was weighted for each age bin using Age- Dependent Adjustment Factors (ADAFs), where 0-<2 yrs applied an ADAF of 10, 2-<6 yrs applied an ADAF of 3, 6-<16 yrs applied an ADAF of 3, and 16-26 yrs applied and ADAF of 1. For TCE cancer, the intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x [CAF x (IR-Adj-adult + IR-Adj-child) + MAF x (IR-Adj-0-2 + IR-Adj-2-6 + IR- Adj-6-16 + IR-Adj-16-26)] x EF x CF) / AT. Adult intake equation is aggregate of child and adult age ranges. For VC cancer, the intake (mg/kg-day) = CW x CF x [(EF x (IR-Adj-adult + IR-Adj-child) / AT) + (IR-child / BW-child)] Blood lead in children will be evaluated using the EPA Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model. Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x IR x CF x EF x ED) / (BW x AT) Dermally Absorbed Dose (mg/kg-day) = (DA-event x EV x SA x EF x ED) / (BW x AT) where for organic compounds, if t-event ≤ t*: DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = 2 x FA x Kp x Cw x (sqrt((6 x τevent x tevent) / (π))) x CF1 x CF2, where CF1 = 0.001 mg/ug and CF2 = 0.001 L/cm3 OR if tevent>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = FA x Kp x CW x ( tevent/(1+B) + 2 x τevent x ((1 + 3B + 3B2)/(1+B)2)) x CF1 x CF2 where for inorganic compounds, DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = Kp x CW x tevent x CF1 x CF2 Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x IR x CF x EF x ED) / (BW x AT) Page: 7 of 23 TABLE 4.1 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale / Reference Intake Equation / Model Name Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Code Dermal Worker Adult Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 9125 days USEPA 2011 B Ratio of permeability coefficent of a compound through the stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across the viable epidermis Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L -- DA-event Dermally Absorbed Dose per Event Calculated mg/cm2-event Calculated t-event Event Time 1 hr/event Professional judgment EV Event Frequency 1 events/day USEPA 2004 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/yr USUSEPA 2014 ED Exposure Duration 25 years USEPA 2014 FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 Kp Permeability Constant Chemical-specific cm/hr USEPA 2004 SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3527 cm2 USEPA 2014 tau-event Lag time per event Chemical-specific hr/event USEPA 2004 Resident Adult Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 7300 days USEPA 2011 B Ratio of permeability coefficent of a compound through the stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across the viable epidermis Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 BW Body Weight 80 kg USEPA 2014 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 DA-event-adult Dermally Absorbed Dose per Event Calculated mg/cm2-event Calculated - Table 4.Supp.3 t-event Event Time 0.71 hr/event USEPA 2014 EV Event Frequency 1 events/day USEPA 2004 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 20 years USEPA 2014 FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 Kp Permeability Constant Chemical-specific cm/hr USEPA 2004 SA-adult Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 19652 cm2 USEPA 2014 - See Notes SA-Adj-adult Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted 5508 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.1 SA-Adj-6-16 Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted MMOA 6-<16 9293 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 SA-Adj-16-26 Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted MMOA 16-<26 2410 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 tau-event Lag time per event Chemical-specific hr/event USEPA 2004 CAFo TCE Cancer Adjustment Factor-oral 0.804 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide MAFo TCE Mutagen Adjustment Factor-oral 0.202 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide Child (0-6 years) Tap Water AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 AT Averaging Time-noncancer 2190 days USEPA 2011 B Ratio of permeability coefficent of a compound through the stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across the viable epidermis Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 BW Body Weight 15 kg USEPA 2014 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 DA-event-child Dermally Absorbed Dose per Event Calculated mg/cm2-event Calculated - Table 4.Supp.3 t-event Event Time 0.54 hr/event USEPA 2014 EV Event Frequency 1 events/day USEPA 2004 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 6 years USEPA 2014 FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical-specific -- USEPA 2004 Kp Permeability Constant Chemical-specific cm/hr USEPA 2004 SA-child Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 6365 cm2 USEPA 2014 - See Notes SA-Adj-child Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted 2649 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.1 SA-Adj-0-2 Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted MMOA 0-<2 9814 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 SA-Adj-2-6 Skin Surface Area Age-Adjusted MMOA 2-<6 5004 cm2-yr/kg Calculated - Table 4.Supp.2 tau-event Lag time per event Chemical-specific hr/event USEPA 2004 For noncancer, Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = (DA-event x EV x SA x EF x ED) / (BW x AT). Separate calculations are performed for adult and child using SA-adult or SA-child. where for organic compounds, if t-event ≤ t*: DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = 2 x FA x Kp x Cw x (sqrt((6 x τevent x tevent) / (π))) x CF1 x CF2, where CF1 = 0.001 mg/ug and CF2 = 0.001 L/cm3 OR if tevent>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = FA x Kp x CW x ( tevent/(1+B) + 2 x τevent x ((1 + 3B + 3B2)/(1+B)2)) x CF1 x CF2 where for inorganic compounds, DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = Kp x CW x tevent x CF1 x CF2 For cancer, the DAD was calculated for an adult (birth - 26 yrs), adjusting for age-specific exposure factors, where SA-Adj = ∑ (ED * SA) / BW. (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = ((DA-event-adult x SA-Adj-adult + DA-event-child x SA-Adj- child) x EV x EF) / AT For MMOA cancer, the IR-Adj was weighted for each age bin using ADAFs, where 0-<2 yrs applied an ADAF of 10, 2-<6 yrs applied an ADAF of 3, 6-<16 yrs applied an ADAF of 3, and 6-26 yrs applied and ADAF of 1. For TCE cancer, the DAD (mg/kg-day) = ([CAFo x (DA-event-adult x SA-Adj-adult + DA-event-child x SA-Adj-child) + MAFo x (DA-event-adult x (SA-Adj-6-16 + SA-Adj-16-26) + DA-event-child x (SA-Adj-0-2 + SA-Adj-2-6))] x EV x EF) / AT Adult intake equation is aggregate of child and adult age ranges. For VC cancer, the DAD (mg/kg-day) = (EV x EF x (DA-event-adult x SA-Adj-adult + DA-event-child x SA-Adj-child) / AT) + (DA-event-child x (EV x SA-child / BW-child)) Dermally Absorbed Dose (mg/kg-day) = (DA-event x EV x SA x EF x ED) / (BW x AT) where for organic compounds, if t-event ≤ t*: DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = 2 x FA x Kp x Cw x (sqrt((6 x τevent x tevent) / (π))) x CF1 x CF2, where CF1 = 0.001 mg/ug and CF2 = 0.001 L/cm3 OR if tevent>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = FA x Kp x CW x ( tevent/(1+B) + 2 x τevent x ((1 + 3B + 3B2)/(1+B)2)) x CF1 x CF2 where for inorganic compounds, DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = Kp x CW x tevent x CF1 x CF2 Page: 8 of 23 TABLE 4.1 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale / Reference Intake Equation / Model Name Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Code Inhalation Construction Worker Adult Groundwater AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 Excavation AT Averaging Time-noncancer 365 days USEPA 2011 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L -- CA Chemical Concentration in Air Calculated mg/m3 -- CF Conversion Factor 0.042 day/hr -- ET Exposure Time 4 hr/day VADEQ 2016 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 1 years USEPA 2014 Resident Adult Water Vapors AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 in Bathroom Air AT Averaging Time-noncancer 7300 days USEPA 2011 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 CA-adult Chemical Concentration in Air from Shower Calculated mg/m3 Calculated - Table 4.Supp.4 CF Conversion Factor 0.042 day/hr 1 day / 24 hours ET Exposure Time 0.71 hr/day USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 20 years USEPA 2014 ED-adj TCE Exposure Duration-cancer aggregate 26 years USEPA 2011 CAFi TCE Cancer Adjustment Factor-inhalation 0.756 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide MAFi TCE Mutagen Adjustment Factor-inhalation 0.244 unitless USEPA RSL Eqns/User's Guide Child (0-6 years) Water Vapors AT Averaging Time-cancer 25550 days USEPA 2011 in Bathroom Air AT Averaging Time-noncancer 2190 days USEPA 2011 CW Chemical Concentration in Water EPC µg/L Calculated - Table 3.1 CA-child Chemical Concentration in Air from Shower Calculated mg/m3 Calculated - Table 4.Supp.4 CF Conversion Factor 0.042 day/hr 1 day / 24 hours ET Exposure Time 0.54 hr/day USEPA 2014 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year USEPA 2011 ED Exposure Duration 6 years USEPA 2014 Notes: Intake equations are derived from USEPA's RSL equations and also taken from USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). The skin surface area available for contact is the weighted average of mean values for males and females combined for total surface area, which includes the head, trunk, arms, hands, legs and feet (USEPA 2014). Abbreviations: Adj -- Adjusted to include both adult and child exposure factors DAD -- Dermally absorbed dose EC -- Exposure concentration EPC -- Exposure point concentration RSL -- USEPA Regional Screening Level TCE -- Trichloroethene USEPA -- United States Environmental Protection Agency References: USEPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Available online: http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/OSWERdirective9285.6-03.pdf USEPA. 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Final. USEPA/540/R/99/005. July. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part USEPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. March. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/childrens_supplement_final.pdf USEPA. 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume I; Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part F Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment. EPA-540-R-070-002. January. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. USEPA/600/R-090/052F. September. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 USEPA. 2014. Memorandum – Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/update-standard-default-exposure-factors USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels Equations, User's Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls VADEQ. 2016. Virginia Unified Risk Assessment Model - VURAM User's Guide for Risk Assessors. Available online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RemediationProgram/RiskAssessment.aspx The Andelman shower model as modified by Schaum et al. calculates chemical concentrations in air using chemical concentrations in water; the model is applied to VOCs only. For noncancer, Exposure Concentration (EC) (mg/m3) = (CA x ET x ED x EF x CF) / AT, separately for adult and child using CA-adult or CA-child. For cancer, EC (mg/m3) = ((CA-adult x ET-adult x ED-adult + CA-child x ET-child x ED-child) x EF x CF) / AT For MMOA cancer, EC (mg/m3) = ((CA-adult x ET-adult + CA-child x ET-child) x (ED-0-2 x 10 + ED-2-6 x 3 + ED-6-16 x 3 + ED-16-26 x 1) x EF x CF) / AT For TCE cancer, the EC (mg/m3) = ((CA-adult x ET-adult + CA-child x ET-child) x [CAFi x ED-adj + MAF x (ED-0-2 x 10 + ED-2-6 x 3 + ED-6-16 x 3 + ED-16-26 x 1)] x EF x CF) / AT Adult intake equation is aggregate of child and adult age ranges. For VC cancer, EC (mg/m3) = ((CA-adult x ET-adult x ED-adult x EF x CF / AT x Toxicity-adult of 4.4E-06 ug/m3 x 1000) + (CA-child x ET-child x ED-child x EF x CF / AT x Toxicity-child of 8.8E- 06 ug/m3 x 1000) Exposure Concentration (mg/m3) = (CA x ET x ED x EF x CF) / AT CA calculated using VADEQ's groundwater in trench calculator, which is described further in the calculator. Page: 9 of 23 TABLE 4.SUPP.1 CALCULATION OF AGE-ADJUSTED EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR A RESIDENT TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Intake Rate Dermal Surface Area Intake Rate Dermal Surface Area year years kg L/day cm2 L-yr/day-kg cm2-yr/kg Birth to 1 month 0.083 4.8 0.839 2,900 1 to <3 months 0.17 5.9 0.896 3,300 3 to 6 < months 0.25 7.4 1.06 3,800 6 to <12 months 0.5 9.2 1.06 4,500 1 to < 2 yrs 1 11.4 0.837 5,300 2 to <3 yrs 1 13.8 0.877 6,100 3 to < 6 yrs 3 18.6 0.959 7,600 0-<6 yrs 0.42 2,649 6 to <11 yrs 5 31.8 1.32 10,800 11 to <16 yrs 5 56.8 1.82 15,900 16 to <18 yrs 2 71.6 1.78 18,400 18 to < 21 yrs 3 71.6 2.37 18,400 21 to < 26 yrs 5 80 2.96 18,000 6-<26 yrs 0.7 5,508 Equations: IR-W-Adj (L-yr/day-kg) = ∑ (ED * IR-W / BW) SA-W-Adj (cm2-yr/kg) = ∑ (ED * SA-W / BW) Note: Abbreviations: BW -- Body weight ED -- Exposure duration ET -- Event time References: IR-W-Adj Age-Adjusted Exposure Factors (1) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 8-1 - Recommended Values for Body Weight. Mean. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 (2) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 3-1 - Recommended Values for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates. 95th Percentile, L/day. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 (3) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 7-1 - Recommended Values for Total Body Surface Area. Mean value. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 Exposure Duration Body Weight (1) AGE USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part A recommends applying 95th or 90th percentile values for ingestion rate and exposure duration and applying the mean values for surface area and body weight (Exhibit 6-13 and Section 6.6.1). AGE GROUP Tap Water IR-W (2) SA-W-Adj Tap Water SA (3) Page: 10 of 23 TABLE 4.SUPP.2 CALCULATION OF AGE-ADJUSTED EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR COPCS MUTAGENIC MODE OF ACTION FOR A RESIDENT TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Intake Rate Dermal Surface Area Intake Rate Dermal Surface Area year years kg L/day cm2 L-yr/day-kg cm2-yr/kg Birth to 1 month 0.083 4.8 0.839 2,900 1 to <3 months 0.17 5.9 0.896 3,300 3 to 6 < months 0.25 7.4 1.06 3,800 6 to <12 months 0.5 9.2 1.06 4,500 1 to < 2 yrs 1 11.4 0.837 5,300 0-<2 yrs 10 2.1 9,814 2 to <3 yrs 1 13.8 0.877 6,100 3 to < 6 yrs 3 18.6 0.959 7,600 2-<6 yrs 3 0.65 5,004 6 to <11 yrs 5 31.8 1.32 10,800 11 to <16 yrs 5 56.8 1.82 15,900 6-<16 yrs 3 1.1 9,293 16 to <18 yrs 2 71.6 1.78 18,400 18 to < 21 yrs 3 71.6 2.37 18,400 21 to < 26 yrs 5 80 2.96 18,000 16-<26 yrs 1 0.33 2,410 Equations: IR-W-Adj (L-yr/day-kg) = ∑ (ED * IR-W / BW) SA-W-Adj (cm2-yr/kg) = ∑ (ED * SA-W / BW) Note: Abbreviations: ADAF -- Age-Dependent Adjustment Factor BW -- Body weight ED -- Exposure duration ET -- Event time References: (3) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 7-1 - Recommended Values for Total Body Surface Area. Mean value. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 (4) USEPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. March. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/childrens_supplement_final.pdf Age-Adjusted Exposure Factors USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part A recommends applying 95th or 90th percentile values for ingestion rate and exposure duration and applying the mean values for surface area and body weight (Exhibit 6-13 and Section 6.6.1). (1) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 8-1 - Recommended Values for Body Weight. Mean. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 (2) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Table 3-1 - Recommended Values for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates. 95th Percentile, L/day. September. Available online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252 Tap Water IR-W (2) Tap Water SA (3) AGE Exposure Duration IR-W-Adj Body Weight (1) AGE GROUP ADAF (4) SA-W-Adj Page: 11 of 23 TABLE 4.SUPP.3 CALCULATION OF DA-EVENT FOR DERMAL EXPOSURE TO GROUNDWATER TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Cw Kp B τevent t* FA Construction Worker Worker Resident Adult Resident Child (0-6 yrs) ug/L cm/hr unitless hr/event hr unitless hr/event hr/event hr/event hr/event mg/cm2-event Eqn mg/cm2-event Eqn mg/cm2-event Eqn mg/cm2-event Eqn VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.695 0.0050 0.022 0.59 1.4 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 1.8E-08 3 7.4E-09 2 6.3E-09 2 5.5E-09 2 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 56.8 0.012 0.044 0.37 0.88 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 3.1E-06 3 1.1E-06 3 9.4E-07 2 8.2E-07 2 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.215 0.071 0.37 1.1 2.6 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 5.0E-07 3 2.5E-07 2 2.1E-07 2 1.8E-07 2 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.547 0.0042 0.016 0.38 0.90 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 1.1E-08 3 4.0E-09 3 3.3E-09 2 2.9E-09 2 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.541 NA NA NA NA 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.884 0.045 0.21 0.7 1.7 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 2.0E-07 3 9.3E-08 2 7.8E-08 2 6.8E-08 2 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.142 0.0040 0.020 0.87 2.1 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 2.6E-08 3 1.2E-08 2 1.0E-08 2 8.7E-09 2 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 7.994 0.028 0.12 0.45 1.1 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 1.0E-06 3 4.2E-07 2 3.5E-07 2 3.1E-07 2 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 71118 0.011 0.042 0.37 0.88 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 3.6E-03 3 1.3E-03 3 1.1E-03 2 9.6E-04 2 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 40294 0.033 0.17 0.89 2.14 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 7.4E-03 3 3.5E-03 2 3.0E-03 2 2.6E-03 2 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1502 0.011 0.042 0.37 0.88 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 7.6E-05 3 2.8E-05 3 2.3E-05 2 2.0E-05 2 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 12672 0.012 0.051 0.57 1.4 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 7.4E-04 3 3.1E-04 2 2.6E-04 2 2.3E-04 2 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 18727 0.0084 0.025 0.24 0.57 1 4 1 0.71 0.54 6.9E-04 3 2.3E-04 3 1.8E-04 3 1.5E-04 2 Equations: Inorganics: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = (Eq 1) DAevent = Kp x CW x tevent x CF1 x CF2 where CF1 = 0.001 mg/ug and CF2 = 0.001 L/cm3 Organics: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = (Eq 2) tevent ≤ t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = 2 x FA x Kp x Cw x (sqrt((6 x τevent x tevent) / (π))) x CF1 x CF2 (Eq 3) tevent>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = FA x Kp x CW x ( tevent/(1+B) + 2 x τevent x ((1 + 3B + 3B2)/(1+B)2)) x CF1 x CF2 Note: The dermal parameters were taken from the chemical parameter table of the USEPA June 2017 RSL tables (https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-june-2017) and equations from RAGS Part E. Abbreviations: CF1 -- Conversion Factor 1 (0.001 mg/ug) CF2 -- Conversion Factor 2 (0.001 L/cm3) Cw -- Groundwater or surface water concentration VOC -- Volatile organic compound Reference: USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels Generic Tables. June. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls DA-event Duration of Event (t-event) Fraction Absorbed COPC Group COPC Casrn EPC (1) Lag Time Permeability Coefficient Ratio of Permeability Coefficients Time to Reach Steady State USEPA. 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Final. USEPA/540/R/99/005. July. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-e (1) The EPC is the lower of the 95% upper confidence limit and maximum detected concentration. See Table 3s. Construction Worker Worker Resident Adult Resident Child (0-6 yrs) Page: 12 of 23 TABLE 4.SUPP.4 TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS CW Ca-max Ca Camax Ca mg/L mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.0007 0.014 0.012 0.019 0.013 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.05680 1.183 0.975 1.562 1.085 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.001215 0.025 0.021 0.033 0.023 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.00055 0.011 0.009 0.015 0.010 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.0005 0.011 0.009 0.015 0.010 VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.00088 0.018 0.015 0.024 0.017 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.0011 0.024 0.020 0.031 0.022 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.00799 0.167 0.137 0.220 0.153 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 71.1180 1481.625 1220.776 1955.745 1358.156 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 40.2940 839.458 691.666 1108.085 769.503 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.50200 31.292 25.783 41.305 28.684 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 12.6720 264.000 217.521 348.480 242.000 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 18.727 390.15 321.46 514.993 357.634 Variables Units Ca = concentration of chemical in air mg/m3 Solved by Eq 1 Camax = maximum concentration of chemical in air mg/m3 Solved by Eq 2 t1 = Adult time in shower hr 0.25 t1 = Child time in shower hr 0.33 t2 = Adult time in bathroom after shower hr 0.46 t2 = Child time in bathroom after shower hr 0.21 f = fraction volatilized for chemical unitless 0.5 Fw = shower water flow rate L/hr 1000 Va = bathroom volume m3 6 Equation 1: Ca = ((Camax/2) * t1 + Camax * t2) / (t1 + t2) Equation 2: Camax = (Cw * f* Fw * t1) / Va Note: Abbreviation: CW -- Groundwater water concentration EPC -- Exposure point concentration VOC -- Volatile organic compound Reference: BATHROOM AIR CONCENTRATIONS FROM EXPOSURE TO TAPWATER FOR A RESIDENT USING GROUNDWATER Wang, Rhoda G.M. et al. 1994. Water Consumption and Health: Integration of Exposure Assessment, Toxicology, and Risk Assessment. Wang. Macel Dekker, Inc., New York. Estimating Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Volatile Chemicals in Domestic Water, Schaum et al., Pages 307-320. Exposure Assumptions Child (0-6 years) COPC Group COPC CASRN EPC (1) Adult (1) The EPC is the lower of the 95% UCL and maximum detected concentration - see Table 3s. Conservative values for each exposure parameter, as presented in Schaum et al 1994, are applied for the calculations. The shower model air chemical concentrations are calculated for only VOCs. Total exposure times for are 0.71 hr for an adult and 0.54 hr for a child (0-6 years). Professional judgement is used to split up the time spent in the shower versus in the bathroom after shower. An adult is assumed to spend approximately 15 minutes showering followed by 28 minutes in the bathroom, for a total of 43 minutes (0.71 hr). A child is assumed to spend approximately 20 minutes bathing followed by 13 minutes in the bathroom for a total of 32 minutes (0.54 hr). Page: 13 of 23 TABLE 5.1 NONCANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Chronic 0.004 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.004 mg/kg-day Lymphatic 1000 / 1 IRIS 9/26/1988 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Chronic 0.05 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.05 mg/kg-day Hepatic 100 / 1 IRIS 8/13/2002 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 Chronic 0.01 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.01 mg/kg-day Endocrine 1000 / 1 IRIS 5/1/1992 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Chronic 0.006 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.006 mg/kg-day Renal 10000 PPRTV Appendix 10/1/2010 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Subchronic 0.07 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.07 mg/kg-day Hepatic 100 ATSDR 7/1/2006 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 Chronic 0.02 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.02 mg/kg-day Renal 1000 / 1 IRIS 9/30/1987 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Subchronic 0.02 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.02 mg/kg-day Hepatic 1000 IRIS 7/1/1993 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Chronic 0.002 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.002 mg/kg-day Renal 3000 IRIS 9/30/2010 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Chronic 0.006 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.006 mg/kg-day Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 1000 IRIS 2/10/2012 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Subchronic 0.02 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.02 mg/kg-day Lymphatic 3000 IRIS 9/30/2010 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Chronic 0.0005 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.0005 mg/kg-day Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 100,1000,10 multiple studies IRIS 9/28/2011 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Chronic 0.003 mg/kg-day 1 100% 0.003 mg/kg-day Hepatic 30 IRIS 8/7/2000 Note: The oral RfDs are taken from the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) table, which gathers toxicity reference values from multiple sources using an established hierarchy. The absorbed RfD for dermal is calculated by the following equation: RfD-oral x GIABS. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%. Abbreviations: GIABS -- Gastrointestinal absorption factor NA -- Not available RfD -- Reference dose RSLs -- EPA Regional Screening Levels VOC -- Volatile organic compound References: ATSDR. 2017. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). June. Available online: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp USEPA. 2017. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Last Updated June 16. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/iris USEPA. 2017. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). January. Available online: https://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/index.html USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels User's Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls COPC Group COPC CASRN Chronic / Subchronic GIABS Oral Absorption Efficiency for Dermal Absorbed RfD for Dermal Primary Target Organ(s) Combined Uncertainty / Modifying Factors Source Oral Reference Dose (RfD) Source Date Value Units Value Units Page: 14 of 23 TABLE 5.2 NONCANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Subchronic 0.0002 mg/m3 Hepatic 3000 PPRTV 4/1/2011 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Chronic 0.2 mg/m3 Hepatic 30 / 1 IRIS 8/13/2002 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 Chronic 0.002 mg/m3 Endocrine 3000 PPRTV 6/16/2009 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Chronic 0.007 mg/m3 Nervous 300 PPRTV 10/1/2010 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA NA NA NA VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Subchronic 0.8 mg/m3 Hepatic 100 / 1 IRIS 11/1/1996 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Chronic 0.05 mg/m3 Hepatic, Renal 1000 PPRTV 10/12/2006 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Chronic 0.04 mg/m3 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 1000 IRIS 2/10/2012 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Chronic 0.002 mg/m3 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 100,10 multiple studies IRIS 9/28/2011 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Chronic 0.1 mg/m3 Hepatic 30 IRIS 8/7/2000 Note: The inhalation RfCs are taken from the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) table, which gathers toxicity reference values from multiple sources using an established hierarchy. Abbreviation: NA -- Not available RfC -- Reference concentration RSLs -- EPA Regional Screening Levels VOC -- Volatile organic compound References: USEPA. 2017. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Last Updated June 16. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/iris USEPA. 2017. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). January. Available online: https://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/index.html USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels User's Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls Chronic / Subchronic Source Source Date Primary Target Organ(s) Inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC) Value Units Combined Uncertainty / Modifying Factors COPC Group COPC CASRN Page: 15 of 23 TABLE 6.1 CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 N 0.057 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.057 (mg/kg-day)-1 C / Possible human carcinogen IRIS 3/31/1987 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 N 1 100% Data are inadequate for assessment IRIS 8/13/2002 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 N 0.029 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.029 (mg/kg-day)-1 D (IRIS) / Likely to be carcinogenic to humans (PPRTV) PPRTV 6/16/2009 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 N 0.091 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.091 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen IRIS 3/31/1987 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 N 0.0054 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.0054 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen CAL EPA 2/1/1997 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 N 0.062 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.062 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen IRIS 2/1/1993 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 N 1 100% VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 N 1 100% Data are inadequate for assessment IRIS 9/30/2010 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 N 0.0021 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.0021 (mg/kg-day)-1 Likely to be carcinogenic in humans IRIS 2/10/2012 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 N 1 100% VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Y 0.046 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.046 (mg/kg-day)-1 Carcinogenic to humans IRIS 9/28/2011 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Y 0.72 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 100% 0.72 (mg/kg-day)-1 Known/likely human carcinogen IRIS 8/7/2000 Note: The oral SFs are taken from the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) table, which gathers toxicity reference values from multiple sources using an established hierarchy. The absorbed SFd for dermal is calculated by the following equation: SF-oral / GIABS. USEPA recommends that the oral SF should not be adjusted to estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%. Abbreviations: GIABS -- Gastrointestinal absorption factor NA -- Not available RSLs -- EPA Regional Screening Levels SFd -- Dermal slope factor SFo -- Oral cancer slope factor VOC -- Volatile organic compound References: Cal EPA. 2016. Toxicity Criteria Database. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Available online: http://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals USEPA. 2017. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Last Updated June 16. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/iris USEPA. 2017. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). January. Available online: https://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/index.html USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels User's Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls Source Date Weight of Evidence / Cancer Guidelines Description Source Oral Slope Factor (CSFo) Units Value GIABS COPC COPC Group Units Absorbed CSFd for Dermal CASRN Oral Absorption Efficiency for Dermal Value Mutagenic Page: 16 of 23 TABLE 6.2 CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 N 0.000016 (ug/m3)-1 C / Possible human carcinogen IRIS 3/31/1987 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 N Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential IRIS 8/13/2002 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 N VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 N 0.000026 (ug/m3)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen IRIS 3/31/1987 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA NA NA VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 N 0.000011 (ug/m3)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen CAL EPA 2/1/1997 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 N 0.000037 (ug/m3)-1 Carcinogenic - no class listed CAL EPA 1/1/1990 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 N VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 N Data are inadequate for assessment IRIS 9/30/2010 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 N 0.00000026 (ug/m3)-1 Likely to be carcinogenic in humans IRIS 2/10/2012 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 N VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Y 0.0000041 (ug/m3)-1 Carcinogenic to humans IRIS 9/28/2011 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Y 0.0000044 (ug/m3)-1 Known/likely human carcinogen IRIS 8/7/2000 Note: The IURs are taken from the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) table, which gathers toxicity reference values from multiple sources using an established hierarchy. Abbreviation: IUR -- Inhalation unit risk NA -- Not available RSLs -- EPA Regional Screening Levels VOC -- Volatile organic compound References: Cal EPA. 2016. Toxicity Criteria Database. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Available online: http://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals USEPA. 2017. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Last Updated June 16. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/iris USEPA. 2017. Regional Screening Levels User's Guide. November. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls COPC Group COPC Source Source Date CASRN Weight of Evidence / Cancer Guidelines Description Inhalation Unit Risk (IUR) Value Units Mutagenic Page: 17 of 23 TABLE 7.1 CALCULATION OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A CONSTRUCTION WORKER TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Incidental Ingestion VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 7.0E-01 ug/L 1.7E-09 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 9.7E-11 9.7E-11 1.2E-07 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E-05 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 5.7E+01 ug/L 1.4E-07 mg/kg-day 9.7E-06 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.2E+00 ug/L 3.0E-09 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 8.6E-11 8.6E-11 2.1E-07 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.1E-05 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 5.5E-01 ug/L 1.3E-09 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.2E-10 1.2E-10 9.4E-08 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.6E-05 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 5.4E-01 ug/L 1.3E-09 mg/kg-day 9.3E-08 mg/kg-day VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 8.8E-01 ug/L 2.2E-09 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.2E-11 1.2E-11 1.5E-07 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.2E-06 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.1E+00 ug/L 2.8E-09 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.7E-10 1.7E-10 2.0E-07 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 9.8E-06 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 8.0E+00 ug/L 2.0E-08 mg/kg-day 1.4E-06 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.8E-05 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 7.1E+04 ug/L 1.7E-04 mg/kg-day 1.2E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 6.1E+00 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 4.0E+04 ug/L 9.9E-05 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.1E-07 2.1E-07 6.9E-03 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E+00 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.5E+03 ug/L 3.7E-06 mg/kg-day 2.6E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.3E-02 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.3E+04 ug/L 3.1E-05 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 2.2E-03 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.3E+00 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.9E+04 ug/L 4.6E-05 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.3E-05 3.3E-05 3.2E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E+00 Ingestion Total 3.5E-05 1.3E+01 Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Dermal VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 7.0E-01 ug/L 7.7E-09 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.4E-10 4.4E-10 5.4E-07 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.4E-04 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 5.7E+01 ug/L 1.3E-06 mg/kg-day 9.2E-05 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.8E-03 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.2E+00 ug/L 2.2E-07 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.3E-09 6.3E-09 1.5E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.5E-03 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 5.5E-01 ug/L 4.7E-09 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.2E-10 4.2E-10 3.3E-07 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 5.4E-05 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 5.4E-01 ug/L VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 8.8E-01 ug/L 8.6E-08 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.7E-10 4.7E-10 6.0E-06 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 8.6E-05 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.1E+00 ug/L 1.1E-08 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.0E-10 7.0E-10 7.9E-07 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 3.9E-05 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 8.0E+00 ug/L 4.5E-07 mg/kg-day 3.1E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.6E-03 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 7.1E+04 ug/L 1.6E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E-01 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 5.4E+01 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 4.0E+04 ug/L 3.2E-03 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.7E-06 6.7E-06 2.2E-01 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.7E+01 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.5E+03 ug/L 3.3E-05 mg/kg-day 2.3E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.1E-01 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.3E+04 ug/L 3.2E-04 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.5E-05 1.5E-05 2.2E-02 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.4E+01 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.9E+04 ug/L 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.1E-04 2.1E-04 2.1E-02 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 6.9E+00 Dermal Total 2.3E-04 1.4E+02 Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Outdoor Inhalation VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 4.3E-03 mg/m3 7.0E-06 mg/m3 1.6E-02 (mg/m3)-1 1.1E-07 1.1E-07 4.9E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-04 mg/m3 2.5E+00 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 4.3E-01 mg/m3 7.1E-04 mg/m3 5.0E-02 mg/m3 2.0E-01 mg/m3 2.5E-01 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 6.6E-03 mg/m3 1.1E-05 mg/m3 7.5E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 3.8E-01 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 3.9E-03 mg/m3 6.4E-06 mg/m3 2.6E-02 (mg/m3)-1 1.7E-07 1.7E-07 4.5E-04 mg/m3 7.0E-03 mg/m3 6.4E-02 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 3.3E-03 mg/m3 5.4E-06 mg/m3 3.8E-04 mg/m3 VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 5.4E-03 mg/m3 8.8E-06 mg/m3 1.1E-02 (mg/m3)-1 9.7E-08 9.7E-08 6.1E-04 mg/m3 8.0E-01 mg/m3 7.7E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 6.5E-03 mg/m3 1.1E-05 mg/m3 3.7E-02 (mg/m3)-1 3.9E-07 3.9E-07 7.4E-04 mg/m3 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 5.6E-02 mg/m3 9.1E-05 mg/m3 6.4E-03 mg/m3 5.0E-02 mg/m3 1.3E-01 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 5.4E+02 mg/m3 8.8E-01 mg/m3 6.1E+01 mg/m3 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.4E+02 mg/m3 3.8E-01 mg/m3 2.6E-04 (mg/m3)-1 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 2.7E+01 mg/m3 4.0E-02 mg/m3 6.7E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.1E+01 mg/m3 1.9E-02 mg/m3 1.3E+00 mg/m3 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 8.3E+01 mg/m3 1.4E-01 mg/m3 4.1E-03 (mg/m3)-1 5.5E-04 5.5E-04 9.5E+00 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 4.7E+03 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.8E+02 mg/m3 2.9E-01 mg/m3 4.4E-03 (mg/m3)-1 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 2.0E+01 mg/m3 1.0E-01 mg/m3 2.0E+02 Outdoor Inhalation Total 1.9E-03 5.6E+03 Groundwater Total 2.2E-03 5.8E+03 Receptor Total 2.2E-03 5.8E+03 Notes: The exposure point concentration (EPC) is the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL), except when the UCL was greater than the maximum detected concentration or ProUCL did not calculate an UCL. The constituent of potential concern (COPC) list is based on exceedances from screening of maximum detected concentrations against risk-based criteria in Table 2-1. The single-chemical cancer risks incorporate the one hit equation if cancer risks are > 0.01, per RAGs Part A Chapter 8: Risk = 1 - exp(-Dose x SF). For the risks presented here, the one-hit equation is not needed. RAGS Part E does not provide dermal soil absorption fraction values (ABSd) for most VOCs; therefore a dermally absorbed dose is not calculated. The DAevent values for dermal exposure to groundwater are calculated in Table 4.Supp.3. Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern CSF -- Oral cancer slope factor EPC -- Exposure point concentration IUR - Inhalation unit risk NA -- Not applicable. RfC -- Inhalation reference concentration RfD -- Oral reference dose COPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route COPC Group CASRN EPC Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Value Units Exposure Intake CSF/IUR Cancer Risk Exposure Intake RfD/RfC Hazard Quotient Cancer Risk Calculations Cancer Risk (One-Hit) Page: 18 of 23 TABLE 7.2 CALCULATION OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A WORKER TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Worker Receptor Age: Adult Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Ingestion VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 7.0E-01 ug/L 2.7E-06 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.5E-07 1.5E-07 7.4E-06 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.9E-03 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 5.7E+01 ug/L 2.2E-04 mg/kg-day 6.1E-04 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.2E-02 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.2E+00 ug/L 4.6E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.3E-07 1.3E-07 1.3E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.3E-03 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 5.5E-01 ug/L 2.1E-06 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.9E-07 1.9E-07 5.9E-06 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 9.8E-04 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 5.4E-01 ug/L 2.1E-06 mg/kg-day 5.8E-06 mg/kg-day VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 8.8E-01 ug/L 3.4E-06 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.8E-08 1.8E-08 9.5E-06 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.4E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.1E+00 ug/L 4.4E-06 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.7E-07 2.7E-07 1.2E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.1E-04 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 8.0E+00 ug/L 3.1E-05 mg/kg-day 8.6E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.3E-03 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 7.1E+04 ug/L 2.7E-01 mg/kg-day 7.6E-01 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.8E+02 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 4.0E+04 ug/L 1.5E-01 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.2E-04 3.2E-04 4.3E-01 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 7.2E+01 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.5E+03 ug/L 5.7E-03 mg/kg-day 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 8.0E-01 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.3E+04 ug/L 4.8E-02 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.4E-01 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.7E+02 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.9E+04 ug/L 7.2E-02 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 2.0E-01 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 6.7E+01 Ingestion Total 5.3E-02 7.9E+02 Groundwater Groundwater Tapwater Dermal VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 7.0E-01 ug/L 8.0E-08 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.6E-09 4.6E-09 2.2E-07 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 5.6E-05 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 5.7E+01 ug/L 1.2E-05 mg/kg-day 3.5E-05 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.9E-04 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.2E+00 ug/L 2.7E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.7E-08 7.7E-08 7.5E-06 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 7.5E-04 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 5.5E-01 ug/L 4.3E-08 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.9E-09 3.9E-09 1.2E-07 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E-05 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 5.4E-01 ug/L VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 8.8E-01 ug/L 1.0E-06 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 5.4E-09 5.4E-09 2.8E-06 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.0E-05 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.1E+00 ug/L 1.3E-07 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.9E-09 7.9E-09 3.6E-07 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.8E-05 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 8.0E+00 ug/L 4.5E-06 mg/kg-day 1.3E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.3E-04 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 7.1E+04 ug/L 1.5E-02 mg/kg-day 4.1E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E+01 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 4.0E+04 ug/L 3.8E-02 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 8.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.1E-01 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.8E+01 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.5E+03 ug/L 3.1E-04 mg/kg-day 8.6E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.3E-02 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.3E+04 ug/L 3.3E-03 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 9.3E-03 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.9E+01 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.9E+04 ug/L 2.5E-03 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 6.9E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.3E+00 Dermal Total 2.0E-03 5.9E+01 Groundwater Total 5.5E-02 8.5E+02 Receptor Total 5.5E-02 8.5E+02 Notes: The exposure point concentration (EPC) is the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL), except when the UCL was greater than the maximum detected concentration or ProUCL did not calculate an UCL. The constituent of potential concern (COPC) list is based on exceedances from screening of maximum detected concentrations against risk-based criteria in Table 2-1. The single-chemical cancer risks incorporate the one hit equation if cancer risks are > 0.01, per RAGs Part A Chapter 8: Risk = 1 - exp(-Dose x SF). The one hit equation is applied for vinyl chloride above, indicated by an underline. RAGS Part E does not provide dermal soil absorption fraction values (ABSd) for most VOCs; therefore a dermally absorbed dose is not calculated. The DAevent values for dermal exposure to groundwater are calculated in Table 4.Supp.3. Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern CSF -- Oral cancer slope factor EPC -- Exposure point concentration IUR - Inhalation unit risk RfC -- Inhalation reference concentration RfD -- Oral reference dose COPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route COPC Group CASRN EPC Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Value Units Exposure Intake CSF/IUR Cancer Risk Exposure Intake RfD/RfC Hazard Quotient Cancer Risk Calculations Cancer Risk (One-Hit) Page: 19 of 23 TABLE 7.3 CALCULATION OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A RESIDENT TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Adult and Child (0-6 yrs) Adult Child Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Groundwater Groundwater Tapwater Ingestion VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 N 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 ug/L 1.1E-05 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.1E-07 6.1E-07 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 5.2E-03 3.5E-05 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 8.7E-03 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 N 5.7E+01 5.7E+01 ug/L 8.8E-04 mg/kg-day 1.7E-03 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 3.4E-02 2.8E-03 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 N 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 ug/L 1.9E-05 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 5.4E-07 5.4E-07 3.6E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 3.6E-03 6.1E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.1E-03 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 N 5.5E-01 5.5E-01 ug/L 8.4E-06 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.7E-07 7.7E-07 1.6E-05 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.7E-03 2.7E-05 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 4.5E-03 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA 5.4E-01 5.4E-01 ug/L 8.3E-06 mg/kg-day 1.6E-05 mg/kg-day 2.7E-05 mg/kg-day VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 N 8.8E-01 8.8E-01 ug/L 1.4E-05 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.4E-08 7.4E-08 2.6E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 3.8E-04 4.4E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.3E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 N 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 ug/L 1.8E-05 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 3.4E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.7E-03 5.7E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.8E-03 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 N 8.0E+00 8.0E+00 ug/L 1.2E-04 mg/kg-day 2.4E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.2E-02 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 N 7.1E+04 7.1E+04 ug/L 1.1E+00 mg/kg-day 2.1E+00 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E+03 3.5E+00 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.8E+03 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 N 4.0E+04 4.0E+04 ug/L 6.2E-01 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 1.2E+00 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E+02 2.0E+00 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.3E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 N 1.5E+03 1.5E+03 ug/L 2.3E-02 mg/kg-day 4.5E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.3E+00 7.5E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 3.7E+00 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Y 1.3E+04 1.3E+04 ug/L 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 3.8E-01 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 7.6E+02 6.3E-01 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.3E+03 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Y 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 ug/L 1.3E+00 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 9.1E-01 6.0E-01 5.6E-01 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.9E+02 9.3E-01 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.1E+02 Ingestion Total 6.1E-01 2.2E+03 3.7E+03 Groundwater Groundwater Tapwater Dermal VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 N 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 ug/L 6.7E-07 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.8E-08 3.8E-08 1.5E-06 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.7E-04 2.2E-06 mg/kg-day 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 5.5E-04 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 N 5.7E+01 5.7E+01 ug/L 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.2E-04 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.4E-03 3.3E-04 mg/kg-day 5.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.7E-03 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 N 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 ug/L 2.2E-05 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.5E-07 6.5E-07 4.9E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.9E-03 7.4E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 7.4E-03 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 N 5.5E-01 5.5E-01 ug/L 3.5E-07 mg/kg-day 9.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.2E-08 3.2E-08 7.7E-07 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.3E-04 1.2E-06 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA 5.4E-01 5.4E-01 ug/L VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 N 8.8E-01 8.8E-01 ug/L 8.4E-06 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.5E-08 4.5E-08 1.8E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.6E-04 2.8E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.0E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 N 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 ug/L 1.1E-06 mg/kg-day 6.2E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.6E-08 6.6E-08 2.3E-06 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.2E-04 3.5E-06 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.8E-04 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 N 8.0E+00 8.0E+00 ug/L 3.8E-05 mg/kg-day 8.3E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.1E-03 1.2E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 6.2E-03 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 N 7.1E+04 7.1E+04 ug/L 1.2E-01 mg/kg-day 2.6E-01 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.3E+02 3.9E-01 mg/kg-day 2.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E+02 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 N 4.0E+04 4.0E+04 ug/L 3.2E-01 mg/kg-day 2.1E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.7E-04 6.7E-04 7.0E-01 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 1.1E+00 mg/kg-day 6.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.8E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 N 1.5E+03 1.5E+03 ug/L 2.5E-03 mg/kg-day 5.5E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.7E-01 8.3E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.1E-01 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Y 1.3E+04 1.3E+04 ug/L 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4.6E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 6.1E-02 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 9.2E-02 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.8E+02 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Y 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 ug/L 8.5E-02 mg/kg-day 7.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.1E-02 5.9E-02 4.3E-02 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.4E+01 6.3E-02 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.1E+01 Dermal Total 6.2E-02 3.8E+02 5.8E+02 Groundwater Groundwater Water Vapors in Bathroom Inhalation VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 N 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 mg/m3 1.2E-04 mg/m3 1.6E-02 (mg/m3)-1 1.9E-06 1.9E-06 3.4E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-04 mg/m3 1.7E+00 2.9E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-04 mg/m3 1.4E+00 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 N 9.8E-01 1.1E+00 mg/m3 9.9E-03 mg/m3 2.8E-02 mg/m3 2.0E-01 mg/m3 1.4E-01 2.3E-02 mg/m3 2.0E-01 mg/m3 1.2E-01 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 N 2.1E-02 2.3E-02 mg/m3 2.1E-04 mg/m3 5.9E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 3.0E-01 5.0E-04 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 2.5E-01 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 N 9.4E-03 1.0E-02 mg/m3 9.5E-05 mg/m3 2.6E-02 (mg/m3)-1 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 2.7E-04 mg/m3 7.0E-03 mg/m3 3.8E-02 2.3E-04 mg/m3 7.0E-03 mg/m3 3.2E-02 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA 9.3E-03 1.0E-02 mg/m3 9.4E-05 mg/m3 2.6E-04 mg/m3 2.2E-04 mg/m3 VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 N 1.5E-02 1.7E-02 mg/m3 1.5E-04 mg/m3 1.1E-02 (mg/m3)-1 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 4.3E-04 mg/m3 8.0E-01 mg/m3 5.4E-04 3.6E-04 mg/m3 8.0E-01 mg/m3 4.6E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 N 2.0E-02 2.2E-02 mg/m3 2.0E-04 mg/m3 3.7E-02 (mg/m3)-1 7.4E-06 7.4E-06 5.6E-04 mg/m3 4.7E-04 mg/m3 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 N 1.4E-01 1.5E-01 mg/m3 1.4E-03 mg/m3 3.9E-03 mg/m3 5.0E-02 mg/m3 7.8E-02 3.3E-03 mg/m3 5.0E-02 mg/m3 6.6E-02 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 N 1.2E+03 1.4E+03 mg/m3 1.2E+01 mg/m3 3.5E+01 mg/m3 2.9E+01 mg/m3 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 N 6.9E+02 7.7E+02 mg/m3 7.0E+00 mg/m3 2.6E-04 (mg/m3)-1 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 2.0E+01 mg/m3 4.0E-02 mg/m3 4.9E+02 1.7E+01 mg/m3 4.0E-02 mg/m3 4.2E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 N 2.6E+01 2.9E+01 mg/m3 2.6E-01 mg/m3 7.3E-01 mg/m3 6.2E-01 mg/m3 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Y 2.2E+02 2.4E+02 mg/m3 6.1E+00 mg/m3 4.1E-03 (mg/m3)-1 2.5E-02 2.5E-02 6.2E+00 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 3.1E+03 5.2E+00 mg/m3 2.0E-03 mg/m3 2.6E+03 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Y 3.2E+02 3.6E+02 mg/m3 See note mg/m3 See note (mg/m3)-1 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 9.1E+00 mg/m3 1.0E-01 mg/m3 9.1E+01 7.7E+00 mg/m3 1.0E-01 mg/m3 7.7E+01 Water Vapor Inhalation Total 4.4E-02 3.7E+03 3.1E+03 Groundwater Total 7.2E-01 6.3E+03 7.4E+03 Receptor Total 7.2E-01 6.3E+03 7.4E+03 Notes: The exposure point concentration (EPC) is the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL), except when the UCL was greater than the maximum detected concentration or ProUCL did not calculate an UCL. The constituent of potential concern (COPC) list is based on exceedances from screening of maximum detected concentrations against risk-based criteria in Table 2-1. The single-chemical cancer risks incorporate the one hit equation if cancer risks are > 0.01, per RAGs Part A Chapter 8: Risk = 1 - exp(-Dose x SF). The one hit equations are applied for trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride above, RAGS Part E does not provide dermal soil absorption fraction values (ABSd) for most VOCs; therefore a dermally absorbed dose is not calculated. The age-adjustments for a resident's cancer risk are calculated in Table 4.Supp.1. The exposure intakes for MMOA chemicals (e.g., chromium) are adjusted for age are calculated in Tables 4.Supp.2. The DAvent values for dermal exposure to groundwater are calculated in Table 4.Supp.3. The inhalation pathway uses groundwater-derived shower vapors (Ca) as the EPC, which are calculated using the Andelman model modified by Schaum et al, in Table 4.Supp.4. The cancer risk for vinyl chloride is calculated using the toxicity value of 4.4E-06 for continuous lifetime exposure during adulthood and toxicity value of 8.8E-06 for continuous lifetime exposure from birth. See Table 4.1 for the full equation. Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern CSF -- Oral cancer slope factor EPC -- Exposure point concentration IUR - Inhalation unit risk RfC -- Inhalation reference concentration RfD -- Oral or dermal reference dose UCL -- Upper confidence limit Value Value Exposure Intake CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Exposure Intake RfD/RfC Hazard Quotient Exposure Intake Adult and Child Age-Adjusted Cancer Risk (One-Hit) Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Units Adult Child (0-6 years) RfD/RfC Hazard Quotient Cancer Risk Calculations COPC CASRN Mutagenic EPC COPC Group Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Page: 20 of 23 TABLE 9.1 SUMMARY OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A CONSTRUCTION WORKER TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 9.7E-11 4.4E-10 1.1E-07 1.1E-07 Lymphatic 3.0E-05 1.4E-04 Hepatic 2.5E+00 2.5E+00 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Hepatic 1.9E-04 1.8E-03 Hepatic 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 8.6E-11 6.3E-09 6.4E-09 Endocrine 2.1E-05 1.5E-03 Endocrine 3.8E-01 3.8E-01 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 1.2E-10 4.2E-10 1.7E-07 1.7E-07 Renal 1.6E-05 5.4E-05 Nervous 6.4E-02 6.4E-02 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 N/A N/A VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1.2E-11 4.7E-10 9.7E-08 9.7E-08 Hepatic 2.2E-06 8.6E-05 Hepatic 7.7E-04 8.6E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.7E-10 7.0E-10 3.9E-07 3.9E-07 Renal 9.8E-06 3.9E-05 N/A 4.9E-05 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Hepatic 6.8E-05 1.6E-03 Hepatic, Renal 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Renal 6.1E+00 5.4E+01 N/A 6.0E+01 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.1E-07 6.7E-06 1.0E-04 1.1E-04 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 1.1E+00 3.7E+01 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 6.7E+02 7.1E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Lymphatic 1.3E-02 1.1E-01 N/A 1.3E-01 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.4E-06 1.5E-05 5.5E-04 5.7E-04 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 4.3E+00 4.4E+01 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 4.7E+03 4.8E+03 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 3.3E-05 2.1E-04 1.3E-03 1.5E-03 Hepatic 1.1E+00 6.9E+00 Hepatic 2.0E+02 2.1E+02 Groundwater Total 2.2E-03 5.8E+03 Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total: 2.2E-03 Receptor Hazard Total: 5.8E+03 Abbreviation: Total Cardiovascular HI across media = N/A COPC -- Constituent of potential concern Total Developmental HI across media = 4.8E+03 Total Digestive HI across media = N/A Total Endocrine HI across media = 3.8E-01 Total Hepatic HI across media = 5.7E+03 Total Integumentary HI across media = N/A Total Lymphatic HI across media = 4.8E+03 Total Muscoskeletal HI across media = N/A Total Nervous HI across media = 5.5E+03 Total Renal HI across media = 5.6E+03 Total Reproductive HI across media = 4.8E+03 Total Respiratory HI across media = N/A Total No Specified Target Organ/System HI across media = N/A Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point COPC Group COPC CASRN Cancer Risk Summary Non-Cancer Hazard Summary Ingestion Dermal Exposure RoutesTotal Target Organ (Inhalation) Exposure Routes Total Inhalation Target Organ (Ing/Dermal) Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Page: 21 of 23 TABLE 9.2 SUMMARY OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A WORKER TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Worker Receptor Age: Adult Groundwater Groundwater Tapwater VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1.5E-07 4.6E-09 1.6E-07 Lymphatic 1.9E-03 5.6E-05 1.9E-03 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Hepatic 1.2E-02 6.9E-04 1.3E-02 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1.3E-07 7.7E-08 2.1E-07 Endocrine 1.3E-03 7.5E-04 2.0E-03 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 1.9E-07 3.9E-09 1.9E-07 Renal 9.8E-04 2.0E-05 1.0E-03 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 N/A VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1.8E-08 5.4E-09 2.4E-08 Hepatic 1.4E-04 4.0E-05 1.8E-04 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 2.7E-07 7.9E-09 2.8E-07 Renal 6.1E-04 1.8E-05 6.3E-04 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Hepatic 4.3E-03 6.3E-04 4.9E-03 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Renal 3.8E+02 2.0E+01 4.0E+02 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 3.2E-04 8.0E-05 4.0E-04 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 7.2E+01 1.8E+01 9.0E+01 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Lymphatic 8.0E-01 4.3E-02 8.5E-01 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 2.2E-03 1.5E-04 2.4E-03 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 2.7E+02 1.9E+01 2.9E+02 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 5.2E-02 1.8E-03 5.3E-02 Hepatic 6.7E+01 2.3E+00 6.9E+01 Groundwater Total 5.6E-02 8.5E+02 Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total: 5.6E-02 8.5E+02 Abbreviation: Total Cardiovascular HI across media = N/A COPC -- Constituent of potential concern Total Developmental HI across media = 2.9E+02 Total Digestive HI across media = N/A Total Endocrine HI across media = 2.0E-03 Total Hepatic HI across media = 4.5E+02 Total Integumentary HI across media = N/A Total Lymphatic HI across media = 2.9E+02 Total Muscoskeletal HI across media = N/A Total Nervous HI across media = 3.8E+02 Total Renal HI across media = 7.8E+02 Total Reproductive HI across media = 2.9E+02 Total Respiratory HI across media = N/A Total No Specified Target Organ/System HI across media = N/A CASRN Cancer Risk Summary Non-Cancer Hazard Summary Ingestion Dermal Target Organ (Ing/Dermal) Exposure Routes Total Exposure Routes Total Ingestion Dermal Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point COPC Group COPC Page: 22 of 23 TABLE 9.3 SUMMARY OF COPC CANCER RISKS AND NONCANCER HAZARDS FOR A RESIDENT TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Adult and Child (0-6 yrs) Groundwater Groundwater Tapwater VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 6.1E-07 3.8E-08 1.9E-06 2.6E-06 Lymphatic 5.2E-03 3.7E-04 Hepatic 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Lymphatic 8.7E-03 5.5E-04 Hepatic 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Hepatic 3.4E-02 4.4E-03 Hepatic 1.4E-01 1.8E-01 Hepatic 5.7E-02 6.7E-03 Hepatic 1.2E-01 1.8E-01 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 5.4E-07 6.5E-07 1.2E-06 Endocrine 3.6E-03 4.9E-03 Endocrine 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 Endocrine 6.1E-03 7.4E-03 Endocrine 2.5E-01 2.6E-01 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 7.7E-07 3.2E-08 2.5E-06 3.3E-06 Renal 2.7E-03 1.3E-04 Nervous 3.8E-02 4.1E-02 Renal 4.5E-03 1.9E-04 Nervous 3.2E-02 3.7E-02 VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 N/A N/A N/A N/A VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.4E-08 4.5E-08 1.7E-06 1.8E-06 Hepatic 3.8E-04 2.6E-04 Hepatic 5.4E-04 1.2E-03 Hepatic 6.3E-04 4.0E-04 Hepatic 4.6E-04 1.5E-03 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.1E-06 6.6E-08 7.4E-06 8.5E-06 Renal 1.7E-03 1.2E-04 N/A 1.8E-03 Renal 2.8E-03 1.8E-04 N/A 3.0E-03 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Hepatic 1.2E-02 4.1E-03 Hepatic, Renal 7.8E-02 9.4E-02 Hepatic 2.0E-02 6.2E-03 Hepatic, Renal 6.6E-02 9.2E-02 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 Renal 1.1E+03 1.3E+02 N/A 1.2E+03 Renal 1.8E+03 2.0E+02 N/A 2.0E+03 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 1.3E-03 6.7E-04 1.8E-03 3.8E-03 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 2.0E+02 1.2E+02 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 4.9E+02 8.1E+02 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 3.3E+02 1.8E+02 Nervous, Hepatic, Renal 4.2E+02 9.3E+02 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 Lymphatic 2.3E+00 2.7E-01 N/A 2.5E+00 Lymphatic 3.7E+00 4.1E-01 N/A 4.2E+00 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.4E-02 1.8E-03 2.5E-02 4.1E-02 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 7.6E+02 1.2E+02 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 3.1E+03 4.0E+03 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 1.3E+03 1.8E+02 Developmental, Hepatic, Renal, Nervous, Lymphatic, Reproductive 2.6E+03 4.1E+03 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 9.1E-01 6.1E-02 1.7E-02 9.9E-01 Hepatic 1.9E+02 1.4E+01 Hepatic 9.1E+01 2.9E+02 Hepatic 3.1E+02 2.1E+01 Hepatic 7.7E+01 4.1E+02 Groundwater Total 1.0E+00 6.3E+03 7.4E+03 Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total: 1.0E+00 Adult Receptor Hazard Total: 6.3E+03 Child Receptor Hazard Total: 7.4E+03 Abbreviation: Total Cardiovascular HI across media = N/A Total Cardiovascular HI across media = N/A COPC -- Constituent of potential concern Total Developmental HI across media = 4.0E+03 Total Developmental HI across media = 4.1E+03 Total Digestive HI across media = N/A Total Digestive HI across media = N/A Total Endocrine HI across media = 3.0E-01 Total Endocrine HI across media = 2.6E-01 Total Hepatic HI across media = 5.1E+03 Total Hepatic HI across media = 5.4E+03 Total Integumentary HI across media = N/A Total Integumentary HI across media = N/A Total Lymphatic HI across media = 4.0E+03 Total Lymphatic HI across media = 4.1E+03 Total Muscoskeletal HI across media = N/A Total Muscoskeletal HI across media = N/A Total Nervous HI across media = 4.8E+03 Total Nervous HI across media = 5.0E+03 Total Renal HI across media = 6.0E+03 Total Renal HI across media = 7.0E+03 Total Reproductive HI across media = 4.0E+03 Total Reproductive HI across media = 4.1E+03 Total Respiratory HI across media = N/A Total Respiratory HI across media = N/A Total No Specified Target Organ/System HI across media = N/A Total No Specified Target Organ/System HI across media = N/A Inhalation Exposure RoutesTotal Target Organ (Ing/Dermal) Exposure Routes Total Exposure Routes Total Cancer Risk Summary Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Target Organ (Inhalation) Inhalation Target Organ (Ing/Dermal) Ingestion Dermal COPC CASRN Non-Cancer Hazard Summary Adult Child Target Organ (Inhalation) Inhalation Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point COPC Group Page: 23 of 23 ATTACHMENT B ProUCL Software Inputs and Outputs ATTACHMENT B TABLE OF CONTENTS: Table B.1 ProUCL Input for Groundwater – Site-wide Table B.2 ProUCL Output for Groundwater – Site-wide TABLE B.1 PROUCL 5.1 RAW INPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE AREA TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Notes: The data set provided here are for constituents of potential concern (COPCs) that were determined in the initial screening of site-wide data to calculate 95% upper confidence limits (UCLs) using USEPA ProUCL software for the risk assessment. This is not a complete data set. The maximum of the field duplicate and parent sample results was applied. The detection limit is the quantitation limit if available; otherwise, it is the reporting limit. ProUCL Group ProUCL Result (ug/L) ProUCL Flag Location Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date Analysis Date Analytical Method T or D COPC Group COPC CASRN Qualifier Quantitation Limit (ug/L) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 1.6 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 1.3 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane_79-00-5 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.74 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 1.2 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 170 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 25 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 UL 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 400 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 50 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 1.5 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 98 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 25 1,1-Dichloroethene_75-35-4 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 4 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 1.8 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 1 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 4.1 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene_120-82-1 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.65 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.8 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane_107-06-2 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.6 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.64 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.74 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene_541-73-1 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 1.2 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.62 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.53 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 U 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 2.8 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7 2.1 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 2.7 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 1.2 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Bromodichloromethane_75-27-4 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 30 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 48 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 11 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 UL 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 3.2 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 1.9 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.5 Chlorobenzene_108-90-7 0.5 0 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 U 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 0.72 1 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 47 1 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 1.7 1 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 760 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 12 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 20 1 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 140 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 K 25 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 410 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 25 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 49 1 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 U 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 36 1 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 L 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 380 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 25 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 140 1 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 12 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 12 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 7.1 1 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 Page: 1 of 17 TABLE B.1 PROUCL 5.1 RAW INPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE AREA TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Notes: The data set provided here are for constituents of potential concern (COPCs) that were determined in the initial screening of site-wide data to calculate 95% upper confidence limits (UCLs) using USEPA ProUCL software for the risk assessment. This is not a complete data set. The maximum of the field duplicate and parent sample results was applied. The detection limit is the quantitation limit if available; otherwise, it is the reporting limit. ProUCL Group ProUCL Result (ug/L) ProUCL Flag Location Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date Analysis Date Analytical Method T or D COPC Group COPC CASRN Qualifier Quantitation Limit (ug/L) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 44 1 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 2.8 1 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 0.67 1 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 L 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 94 1 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 12 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 28000 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 2500 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 160000 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 2500 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 190 1 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 2.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 33000 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 2500 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 2.1 1 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 150 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 50 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 U 0.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene_156-59-2 1700 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 50 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 2.3 1 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 2100 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 25 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 92000 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2500 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 3500 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 250 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 33 1 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 110 1 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 0.97 1 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 16 1 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 84 1 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 12 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 3.5 1 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 7.9 1 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 340 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 12 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 290 1 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 0.98 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 19000 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 250 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 13 1 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 L 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 86 1 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 1100 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 25 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 5.4 1 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 16 1 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 4100 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 50 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 2500 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 25 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 15 1 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 3.2 1 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)_127-18-4 1.1 1 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 2300 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 50 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 19 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 3.5 1 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 1.8 1 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 1.5 1 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 2.5 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 2100 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 25 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 2.1 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 4.7 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.68 1 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 240 1 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 12 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 U 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 1.6 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 7 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 17 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 1400 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 25 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene_156-60-5 1.2 1 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 10 1 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.82 1 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 2.3 1 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 9.3 1 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 U 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 270 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 25 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 200 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 25 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 50 1 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 6 1 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 50 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.5 0 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 U 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 U 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 11 1 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 29000 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 2500 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 14 1 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 5800 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 2500 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 U 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 2.1 1 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.51 1 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 130 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 25 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 5 1 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 140 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 50 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 0.7 1 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 L 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 2.9 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 310 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 12 Trichloroethene (TCE)_79-01-6 1300 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 25 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 2.2 1 MW4 OU2-MW4-95-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 4.3 1 RD12 RD12-142.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 RD10 RD10-90-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 7.8 1 RD11 RD11-97.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 4.7 1 BP3 BP3-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 IW1S IW1S-48.5-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 2.6 1 MW6 OU2-MW6-120-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW1 OU2-MW1-75-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW13D MW13D-110-20170221 N 2/21/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 9.2 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-90.5-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 180 1 MW2 OU2-MW2-49-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 25 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 4.6 1 IW2S IW2S-50.3-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/9/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW14 MW14-35.2-20170227 N 2/27/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 UL 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 74 1 RD13 RD13-112.5-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 12 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 8.4 1 MW1D MW1D-80-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 38000 1 RD9 RD9-97.5-20170228 N 2/28/2017 3/8/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 2500 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW5 OU2-MW5-135-20170224 N 2/24/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW13 MW13-70.5-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 12000 1 IW1 IW1-85-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 2500 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW16 MW16-34.6-20170301 N 3/1/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 16000 1 IW2 IW2-82.9-20170302 N 3/2/2017 3/15/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 2500 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 15 1 BP1 BP1-49.5-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 L 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 6.2 1 MW3 OU2-MW3-140-20170306 N 3/6/2017 3/10/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 79 1 BP2 BP2-50-20170222 N 2/22/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 12 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW17 MW17-11-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/6/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Vinyl Chloride_75-01-4 0.5 0 MW15 MW15-26-20170223 N 2/23/2017 3/7/2017 USEPA SOP DW-1 T VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 U 0.5 Page: 2 of 17 26 3 2 24 2 1 1.3 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.045 92.31% 1.45 0.212 1.45 0.146 N/A N/A 0.366 0.147 0.573 0.0712 0.257 N/A 0.695 N/A 0.69 N/A 0.787 0.883 1.017 1.281 93.11 N/A 0.0156 N/A 372.4 N/A 1.45 0.573 0.257 0.0658 0.0712 4.99 4.44 259.5 230.9 0.115 0.129 0.781 0.937 1.081 1.386 0.0398 196.7 194.6 0.673 0.68 0.537 -0.802 0.35 0.612 0.655 0.653 0.683 0.689 0.696 -0.612 0.542 0.284 1.806 0.0787 0.626 0.284 1.806 0.0787 0.342 -1.251 0.329 0.477 0.452 0.386 0.695 0.626 N/A Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Normal GOF Test on Detects Only KM Mean Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Mean (detects) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates k hat (KM) k star (KM) Median Detects CV Detects result (1,1,2-trichloroethane_79-00-5) Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL Total Number of Observations General Statistics Maximum Detect 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL SD Detects Maximum Non-Detect Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values. Approximate Chi Square Value (230.88, α) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Number of Distinct Observations Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.19/13/2017 11:13:16 AM From File WorkSheet.xls Confidence Coefficient 95% Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) KM H-UCL 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Suggested UCL to Use UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects 95% KM (BCA) UCL TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 95% KM (t) UCL SD in Original Scale 95% Bootstrap t UCL Adjusted Chi Square Value (230.88, β) Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level KM Mean (logged) Full Precision OFF User Selected Options Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) Page: 1 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 26 7 6 20 6 1 0.74 0.5 400 0.5 24674 76.92% 111.9 157.1 49.75 1.404 1.55 2.203 2.666 2.861 0.792 0.788 0.259 0.325 26.21 17.91 83.36 59.69 56.8 57.9 55.66 121.5 79.93 104.3 138 204.4 0.539 0.762 0.314 0.356 0.331 0.277 338.2 404.7 3.97 3.318 111.9 0.01 25.83 400 0.01 85.13 3.295 0.127 0.138 202.9 186.8 6.62 7.19 0.0398 2.275 2.097 81.63 88.57 26.21 83.36 6948 17.91 0.0989 0.113 5.141 5.881 265.1 231.7 21.44 72.96 150.6 391.2 1.579 1.438 97.59 107.2 0.823 0.788 0.285 0.325 25.83 -6.443 85.12 6.77 54.35 55.25 72.51 123.2 k star (KM) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL A-D Test Statistic 99% KM Chebyshev UCL k hat (MLE) k hat (KM) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Variance (KM) However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. result (1,1-dichloroethene_75-35-4) Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect General Statistics Minimum Detect Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Minimum Non-Detect Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available! These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Total Number of Observations Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL nu star (bias corrected) Mean (detects) GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Maximum Median SD CV k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Approximate Chi Square Value (7.19, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.19, β) nu hat (MLE) nu hat (MLE) Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects k hat (MLE) Mean Theta hat (MLE) Minimum 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (5.88, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.88, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k<=1 and 15 < n < 50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Mean (KM) SD (KM) SE of Mean (KM) Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Lilliefors Test Statistic Page: 2 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 2.731E+14 0.0822 1.086 1.891 3.831 0.406 27.66 1.891 3.831 0.406 26.02 -0.451 85.07 2.161 54.51 41.66 56.8 26 5 4 22 4 1 1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.449 84.62% 2.725 1.565 2.9 0.574 -0.218 -4.718 0.846 0.682 0.85 0.748 0.292 0.375 0.842 0.218 0.963 N/A 1.215 N/A 1.201 N/A 1.496 1.793 2.204 3.012 0.43 0.659 0.323 0.396 3.358 1.006 0.811 2.708 26.87 8.05 2.725 0.01 0.435 4.1 0.01 1.135 2.611 0.252 0.248 1.727 1.751 13.08 12.91 0.0398 5.83 5.518 0.962 N/A 0.842 0.963 0.927 0.218 0.765 0.703 39.8 36.54 1.101 1.199 CV k star (bias corrected MLE) Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (12.91, α) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) SD k hat (MLE) k hat (KM) k star (KM) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (12.91, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Mean (KM) SD (KM) nu hat (MLE) This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 95% KM (t) UCL Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons DL/2 Log-Transformed Suggested UCL to Use These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. result (1,2,4-trichlorobenzene_120-82-1) 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Mean in Original Scale Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs General Statistics Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Number of Distinct Detects Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs Minimum Mean Maximum Median Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Normal Mean in Log Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level SD in Original Scale DL/2 Statistics 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only 5% K-S Critical Value A-D Test Statistic 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Mean (detects) nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs Page: 3 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1.384 2.112 2.863 4.654 23.7 23.02 1.298 1.337 0.874 0.748 0.286 0.375 0.556 -2.092 1.102 1.87 0.925 0.925 1.076 1.514 2.94 -0.456 0.634 0.602 2.057 0.136 0.973 0.602 2.057 0.136 0.631 -1.043 1.06 0.855 0.986 0.756 1.215 26 3 2 24 2 1 0.65 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.0113 92.31% 0.725 0.106 0.725 0.146 N/A N/A -0.327 0.147 0.517 0.0176 0.0635 N/A 0.547 N/A 0.546 N/A 0.57 0.594 0.627 0.692 93.11 N/A 0.00779 N/A 372.4 N/A 0.725 0.517 0.0635 0.00403 0.0176 66.45 58.81 3455 3058 0.00779 0.0088 0.573 0.605 Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Mean (detects) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values. This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) nu hat (MLE) k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) General Statistics Lilliefors Test Statistic 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (36.54, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (36.54, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Mean in Log Scale 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Suggested UCL to Use However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations 95% KM (t) UCL Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Number of Non-Detects Number of Detects Mean in Original Scale Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). result (1,2-dichloroethane_107-06-2) 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs k star (KM) nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) k hat (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) Page: 4 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.633 0.687 0.0398 2930 2922 0.54 0.541 0.269 -1.496 0.175 0.612 0.327 0.325 0.334 0.345 0.348 -0.665 0.514 0.102 1.713 0.0282 0.535 0.102 1.713 0.0282 0.287 -1.305 0.131 0.289 0.33 0.314 0.547 0.535 N/A 26 4 3 23 3 1 0.6 0.5 0.74 0.5 0.0052 88.46% 0.66 0.0721 0.64 0.109 1.152 N/A -0.419 0.107 0.942 0.767 0.276 0.425 0.518 0.0132 0.0549 N/A 0.541 N/A 0.54 N/A 0.558 0.576 0.601 0.65 128.7 N/A 0.00513 N/A 772.1 N/A 0.66 GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs This is especially true when the sample size is small. 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Mean (detects) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values. This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level result (1,3-dichlorobenzene_541-73-1) General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) KM H-UCL 95% KM (BCA) UCL Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available! Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale DL/2 Statistics 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (N/A, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (N/A, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM SD (logged) However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM (t) UCL Page: 5 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.01 0.271 0.74 0.25 0.208 0.767 1.037 0.943 0.262 0.288 53.91 49.02 0.0398 33.95 33.12 0.392 N/A 0.518 0.0549 0.00301 0.0132 89.21 78.95 4639 4105 0.00581 0.00657 0.567 0.595 0.618 0.664 3957 3948 0.538 0.539 0.953 0.767 0.265 0.425 0.372 -1.055 0.141 0.37 0.419 0.418 0.423 0.428 0.428 -0.662 0.516 0.0924 N/A 0.0222 N/A 0.0924 N/A 0.0222 0.297 -1.275 0.135 0.316 0.343 0.33 0.541 26 6 5 21 5 1 0.53 0.5 2.8 0.5 0.961 80.77% 1.45 0.98 1.2 0.676 0.606 -1.641 0.168 0.73 0.906 0.762 0.201 0.343 0.683 0.118 0.537 0.872 0.884 0.885 0.876 1.018 1.036 1.196 1.418 1.853 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM (t) UCL Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Approximate Chi Square Value (N/A, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (N/A, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (49.02, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (49.02, β) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) k hat (KM) k star (KM) nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum Mean Maximum Median SD CV k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Minimum Detect Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Maximum Detect Variance Detects Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Non-Detect Percent Non-Detects Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD result (1,4-dichlorobenzene_106-46-7) General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Page: 6 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.315 0.683 0.238 0.36 2.613 1.179 0.555 1.23 26.13 11.79 1.45 0.01 0.287 2.8 0.01 0.699 2.436 0.285 0.278 1.006 1.033 14.83 14.45 0.0398 6.88 6.536 0.603 0.634 0.683 0.537 0.288 0.118 1.618 1.457 84.16 75.78 0.422 0.468 1.06 1.433 1.796 2.617 56.73 55.64 0.912 0.93 0.919 0.762 0.212 0.343 0.342 -2.668 0.681 1.953 0.57 0.57 0.656 0.897 2.173 -0.528 0.59 0.444 1.919 0.0974 0.772 0.444 1.919 0.0974 0.481 -1.087 0.622 0.69 0.689 0.575 0.884 26 3 2 24 2 1 1.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 1.125 92.31% Percent Non-Detects Variance Detects Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% KM (t) UCL Number of Distinct Observations Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). result (bromodichloromethane_75-27-4) General Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Total Number of Observations Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level k star (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) k hat (KM) nu hat (KM) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) Mean (detects) GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) Median SD CV Minimum Mean Maximum 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (14.45, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (75.78, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (75.78, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) Lilliefors Test Statistic Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (14.45, α) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution Page: 7 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1.95 1.061 1.95 0.544 N/A N/A 0.588 0.573 0.612 0.122 0.439 N/A 0.819 N/A 0.812 N/A 0.977 1.142 1.372 1.822 6.409 N/A 0.304 N/A 25.63 N/A 1.95 0.612 0.439 0.193 0.122 1.942 1.744 101 90.67 0.315 0.351 0.93 1.229 1.516 2.158 0.0398 69.72 68.5 0.795 0.809 0.203 -3.976 0.564 2.39 0.392 0.418 0.5 1.202 3.012 -0.595 0.552 0.359 1.856 0.0997 0.673 0.359 1.856 0.0997 0.381 -1.234 0.508 0.549 0.551 0.422 1.142 26 6 5 21 5 1 1.9 0.5 48 0.5 392 80.77% 18.82 19.8 11 1.052 0.919 -0.793 2.295 1.39 Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Suggested UCL to Use However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Mean Detects Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects SD Detects Median Detects result (chlorobenzene_108-90-7) General Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values. This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Mean Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects KM Mean theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale DL/2 Statistics 99% gamma percentile (KM) 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) k hat (MLE) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) k hat (KM) k star (KM) nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only Mean (KM) SD (KM) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Mean (detects) DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (90.67, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (90.67, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale Maximum Non-Detect Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects CV Detects Page: 8 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.878 0.762 0.254 0.343 4.023 2.325 10.6 7.688 7.994 7.673 7.847 12.95 11 14.16 18.54 27.16 0.284 0.694 0.224 0.365 0.912 0.498 20.63 37.78 9.121 4.982 18.82 0.01 3.627 48 0.01 10.95 3.018 0.166 0.172 21.87 21.05 8.623 8.962 0.0398 3.304 3.08 9.839 10.55 4.023 10.6 112.4 2.325 0.144 0.153 7.486 7.955 27.95 26.3 4.45 11.96 22.06 51.24 2.709 2.511 11.81 12.75 0.933 0.762 0.192 0.343 3.714 -3.075 10.92 3.699 7.373 7.422 8.859 19.82 7205 -0.118 0.888 1.298 2.915 0.285 4.395 1.298 2.915 0.285 3.821 -0.678 10.88 1.581 7.467 5.088 7.994 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) nu hat (MLE) K-S Test Statistic Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Lilliefors Test Statistic A-D Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value SD CV Adjusted Level of Significance (β) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Mean in Original Scale 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Mean (KM) SD (KM) k star (bias corrected MLE) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) Mean (detects) Suggested UCL to Use Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) k hat (KM) Lilliefors Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Mean in Log Scale Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 5% A-D Critical Value Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (8.96, β) This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Approximate Chi Square Value (8.96, α) Minimum Mean Maximum Median k hat (MLE) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (7.96, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.96, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) k star (KM) nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 5% Lilliefors Critical Value SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% KM (t) UCL Page: 9 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 26 24 24 2 23 1 0.67 0.5 160000 0.5 1.103E+9 7.692% 9383 33208 71.5 3.539 4.43 20.49 4.478 3.275 0.319 0.916 0.466 0.177 8661 6277 31334 18606 19383 20776 18986 444124 27493 36023 47862 71118 2.783 0.933 0.311 0.2 0.163 0.17 57682 55158 7.808 8.165 9383 0.01 8661 160000 48 31954 3.689 0.146 0.155 59349 55973 7.589 8.046 0.0398 2.762 2.561 25233 27212 8661 31334 9.818E+8 6277 0.0764 0.0932 3.973 4.848 113356 92899 5402 22343 50424 142453 1.083 0.972 38785 43193 0.949 0.916 0.115 0.177 8661 3.882 31954 3.785 19365 19977 27041 52144 13188611 SD CV Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Approximate Chi Square Value (8.05, α) k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) Maximum Median Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Percent Non-Detects Variance Detects Median Detects CV Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL A-D Test Statistic Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs Minimum Mean Lilliefors Test Statistic KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD Lilliefors Test Statistic 5% Lilliefors Critical Value However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. General Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). result (cis-1,2-dichloroethylene_156-59-2) Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) 5% K-S Critical Value Approximate Chi Square Value (4.85, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.85, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (8.05, β) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) k hat (KM) k star (KM) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates nu hat (MLE) 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic Mean (detects) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level nu hat (KM) nu star (KM) theta hat (KM) theta star (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k<=1 and 15 < n < 50) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) Page: 10 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 4.08 59.14 3.375 6.347 0.676 1274301 3.375 6.347 0.676 8661 4.027 31954 3.523 19365 2913408 71118 26 25 0 0.97 4821 92000 24.5 18179 3565 3.771 4.784 0.292 0.92 0.439 0.17 10911 14259 11468 2.384 0.924 0.244 0.192 0.175 0.181 27488 26666 9.12 9.401 4821 11338 3.571 0.0398 3.336 12692 13584 0.937 0.92 0.171 0.17 -0.0305 4.199 11.43 3.225 612427 17533 23151 30948 46264 10685 10911 10528 73331 44113 11822 15644 k hat (MLE) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Minimum of Logged Data However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL SD Std. Error of Mean Coefficient of Variation Skewness 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) Detected Data appear Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Minimum Mean Maximum Median Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Normal GOF Test Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Lilliefors Test Statistic 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) Adjusted Level of Significance 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). result (tetrachloroethylene(pce)_127-18-4) General Statistics Number of Missing Observations 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Assuming Normal Distribution K-S Test Statistic Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) Adjusted Chi Square Value Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal Statistics Mean of logged Data SD of logged Data 95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs 95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL Assuming Lognormal Distribution 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL Maximum of Logged Data Page: 11 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 15516 20361 27085 40294 40294 26 17 16 10 16 1 0.68 0.5 2300 0.5 626051 38.46% 381.4 791.2 4.1 2.074 1.931 2.288 2.597 2.826 0.542 0.887 0.427 0.213 234.9 127.4 628.9 448.2 452.5 449.3 444.4 648.9 617.1 790.2 1030 1502 2.093 0.876 0.341 0.237 0.217 0.218 1757 1749 6.947 6.978 381.4 0.01 234.7 2300 1.55 641.4 2.733 0.138 0.148 1699 1588 7.182 7.686 0.0398 2.555 2.363 706.2 763.4 234.9 628.9 395525 127.4 0.14 0.149 7.255 7.751 1684 1576 254.4 696 1294 3034 2.592 2.398 702.5 759.1 0.815 0.887 0.216 0.213 234.7 -0.144 nu star (KM) theta star (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Lilliefors Test Statistic 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (7.75, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.75, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level nu hat (KM) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics CV Detects 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level SD of Logged Detects General Statistics Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. result (trans-1,2-dichloroethene_156-60-5) Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects Mean of Logged Detects Suggested UCL to Use These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. 90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Maximum Median Lilliefors Test Statistic Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value A-D Test Statistic Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Mean (detects) k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL nu hat (MLE) Minimum Mean 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) SD CV Approximate Chi Square Value (7.69, α) For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.69, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates k hat (KM) k star (KM) 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects This is especially true when the sample size is small. GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale theta hat (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Mean in Log Scale Page: 12 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 641.4 4.349 449.6 448.5 527.5 651.4 12302861 1.332 3.788 2.677 5.143 0.542 2144 2.677 5.143 0.542 234.8 1.065 641.4 2.949 449.7 6136 1502 26 22 22 4 21 1 0.51 0.5 29000 0.5 38728143 15.38% 1696 6223 12.5 3.669 4.421 20.03 3.398 2.935 0.301 0.911 0.452 0.184 1435 1129 5626 3637 3364 3616 3293 31539 4823 6358 8488 12672 2.384 0.911 0.287 0.207 0.185 0.19 9191 8942 8.119 8.346 1696 0.01 1435 29000 9.65 5738 3.998 0.151 0.159 9532 9036 7.829 8.259 0.0398 2.886 2.68 4107 4423 1435 5626 31654700 1129 Mean (detects) Minimum Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs 5% A-D Critical Value Lilliefors Test Statistic Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 99% KM Chebyshev UCL A-D Test Statistic GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs Variance Detects nu star (bias corrected) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) nu hat (MLE) SD in Log Scale DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Mean 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) Adjusted Level of Significance (β) k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Maximum Median SD CV Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Adjusted Chi Square Value (8.26, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (8.26, α) 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) SD in Original Scale Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). result (trichloroethene (tce)_79-01-6) General Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Suggested UCL to Use 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL K-S Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value Page: 13 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.0651 0.0832 3.384 4.327 22055 17249 736.1 3486 8358 24948 0.855 0.761 7264 8161 0.949 0.911 0.148 0.184 1435 2.34 5738 3.717 3357 3612 4937 31261 1813581 2.769 15.94 3.022 5.736 0.607 49216 3.022 5.736 0.607 1435 2.662 5738 3.215 3357 124342 12672 26 17 16 10 16 1 2.2 0.5 38000 0.5 1.046E+8 38.46% 4150 10226 8.8 2.464 2.852 8.503 3.793 3.268 0.484 0.887 0.464 0.213 2554 1625 8025 5469 5330 5471 5228 9818 7430 9639 12705 18727 2.475 0.915 0.339 0.241 0.167 0.177 24885 23424 5.336 5.669 4150 Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) Suggested UCL to Use Number of Detects However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Non-Detects theta hat (KM) DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Variance Detects k star (KM) nu star (KM) theta star (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k<=1 and 15 < n < 50) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Lilliefors Test Statistic 80% gamma percentile (KM) Mean in Original Scale Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Mean in Log Scale 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Detected Data appear Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) k hat (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (4.33, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.33, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) nu hat (KM) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect result (vinyl chloride_75-01-4) General Statistics Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean Median Detects CV Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Lilliefors Test Statistic Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only Anderson-Darling GOF Test Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL A-D Test Statistic 5% A-D Critical Value K-S Test Statistic 5% K-S Critical Value k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu star (bias corrected) nu hat (MLE) Mean (detects) Page: 14 of 17 TABLE B.2 PROUCL 5.1 RAW OUTPUT FOR GROUNDWATER - SITE-WIDE TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 0.01 2554 38000 4.45 8184 3.205 0.11 0.123 23185 20749 5.728 6.4 0.0398 1.848 1.691 8846 9665 2554 8025 64402076 1625 0.101 0.115 5.267 5.992 25217 22163 2137 7152 14645 37752 1.636 1.491 9355 10264 0.785 0.887 0.255 0.213 2554 0.661 8184 4.984 5295 5469 7160 9803 4.577E+9 2.068 7.908 3.305 6.227 0.67 114365 3.305 6.227 0.67 2554 1.801 8184 3.607 5295 529769 18727 However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Lilliefors Test Statistic SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale KM Mean (logged) KM Geo Mean KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) Mean Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) Adjusted Chi Square Value (6.40, β) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs SD CV k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Approximate Chi Square Value (6.40, α) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) Adjusted Level of Significance (β) Maximum Median Minimum Mean (KM) SD (KM) Variance (KM) SE of Mean (KM) 95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (5.99, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.99, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors GOF Test Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level theta hat (KM) 80% gamma percentile (KM) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates k star (KM) nu star (KM) theta star (KM) 90% gamma percentile (KM) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only k hat (KM) nu hat (KM) 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% H-Stat UCL Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Suggested UCL to Use 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale Page: 15 of 17 ATTACHMENT C VADEQ Calculator Outputs of Air Concentrations in a Trench (Based on Groundwater Concentrations) ATTACHMENT C TABLE OF CONTENTS: Table C.1 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench - Inputs Table C.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench - Calculation of Chemical Concentrations in Air using Groundwater – Site-Wide TABLE C.1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 3.2.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench Inputs For Mass-Transfer Coefficients For Emission Flux and Concentration in Trench Trench dimensions Kg,H2O 0.833 cm/s CF1 1.00E-03 L/cm3 Length 8 ft MWH2O 18 CF2 1.00E+04 cm2/m2 2.44 m Kl,O2 0.002 cm/s CF3 3600 s/hr Width 3 ft MWO2 32 F 1 0.91 m T 25 F ACH 2 hr-1 Depth 8 ft T 269 K 2.44 m R 8.20E-05 atm-m3/mol-K Width/Depth 0.38 Note: References: Calculator defaults were applied. VADEQ 2007. Voluntary Remediation Program - Risk Assessment Guidance. 3.2.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench. October 7. Available online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RemediationProgram/VoluntaryRemediationProgram/VRPRiskAssessmentGuidance/Guidance.aspx#3.22 Page: 1 of 2 TABLE C.2 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 3.2.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench Calculation of Chemical Concentrations in Air using Groundwater - Site-wide VADEQ Table 3.8 Exposure-point concentrations EPC (inhalation) for construction/utility workers Gas-Phase Liquid-Phase Overall Concentration Concentration Concentration in a trench: Molecular Henry's Law Mass Transfer Mass Transfer Mass Transfer of Contaminant Volatilization of Contaminant of Contaminant Groundwater less than 15 feet deep CAS No. Weight Constant Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient in Groundwater Factor in Trench in Trench revised 10/5/07 MWi Hi KiG KiL Ki Cgw VF Ctrench Ctrench g/mol atm-m3/mol cm/s cm/s cm/s ug/L L/m3 ug/m3 mg/m3 Chemical Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 163.83 1.60E-03 3.59E-01 7.98E-04 7.74E-04 1.14E+00 5.71E+00 6.53E+00 6.53E-03 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.56 3.70E-03 4.07E-01 9.63E-04 9.49E-04 7.99E+00 7.01E+00 5.60E+01 5.60E-02 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta) 541-73-1 147.00 3.10E-03 3.72E-01 8.42E-04 8.29E-04 5.41E-01 6.12E+00 3.31E+00 3.31E-03 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para) 106-46-7 147.00 2.43E-03 3.72E-01 8.42E-04 8.25E-04 8.84E-01 6.09E+00 5.39E+00 5.39E-03 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 9.79E-04 4.25E-01 1.03E-03 9.74E-04 5.47E-01 7.19E+00 3.93E+00 3.93E-03 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 2.61E-02 4.28E-01 1.04E-03 1.04E-03 5.68E+01 7.64E+00 4.34E+02 4.34E-01 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 4.08E-03 4.28E-01 1.04E-03 1.02E-03 7.11E+04 7.56E+00 5.37E+05 5.37E+02 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 9.38E-03 4.28E-01 1.04E-03 1.03E-03 1.50E+03 7.61E+00 1.14E+04 1.14E+01 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.83 1.84E-02 3.57E-01 7.93E-04 7.91E-04 4.03E+04 5.84E+00 2.35E+05 2.35E+02 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.45 1.42E-03 3.47E-01 7.58E-04 7.33E-04 1.22E+00 5.41E+00 6.58E+00 6.58E-03 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.40 9.13E-04 3.84E-01 8.84E-04 8.38E-04 6.95E-01 6.18E+00 4.30E+00 4.30E-03 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.39 1.03E-02 3.86E-01 8.91E-04 8.87E-04 1.27E+04 6.54E+00 8.29E+04 8.29E+01 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 62.50 2.70E-02 4.95E-01 1.29E-03 1.29E-03 1.87E+04 9.52E+00 1.78E+05 1.78E+02 Note: The groundwater concentrations are the same exposure point concentrations (EPCs) that are used in the risk assessment. References: VADEQ 2007. Voluntary Remediation Program - Risk Assessment Guidance. 3.2.2 Exposure of Workers to Volatiles in a Construction/Utility Trench. October 7. Available online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RemediationProgram/VoluntaryRemediationProgram/VRPRiskAssessmentGuidance/Guidance.aspx#3.22 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT D Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Assessment ATTACHMENT D TABLE OF CONTENTS: Table D.1 Calculation of Default Residential VISLs Table D.2 Calculation of Default Commercial VISLs Table D.3 Comparison of Maximum Groundwater Concentrations for COPCs to VISLs TABLE D.1 CALCULATION OF DEFAULT RESIDENTIAL VISLS TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS OSWER VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator Version 3.5 (June 2017 RSLs) - updated 12/14/2017 for Nov RSLs, version 3.5.2 Parameter Symbol Value Exposure Scenario Scenario Residential Target Risk for Carcinogens TCR 1.00E-06 Target Hazard Quotient for Non-Carcinogens THQ 1 Average Groundwater Temperature (oC) Tgw 25 Does the chemical meet the definition for volatility? Does chemical have inhalation toxicity data? Is Chemical Sufficiently Volatile and Toxic to Pose Inhalation Risk Via Vapor Intrusion from Soil Source? Is Chemical Sufficiently Volatile and Toxic to Pose Inhalation Risk Via Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Source? Target Indoor Air Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Toxicity Basis Target Sub- Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Target Ground Water Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Is Target Ground Water Conc. < MCL? Pure Phase Vapor Conc. @ 25oC Maximum Groundwater Vapor Conc. Temperature for Max. Groundwater Vapor Conc. Lower Explosive Limit** LEL Source Inhalation Unit Risk IUR Source* Reference Concentration RFC Source* Mutagenic Indicator Target Indoor Air Conc. for Carcinogens @ TCR = 1E-06 Target Indoor Air Conc. for Non- Carcinogens @ THQ = 1 (HLC>1E-5 or VP>1) (IUR and/or RfC) Cvp > Cia,target? Chc > Cia,target? MIN(Cia,c;Cia,nc) Csg Cgw Cgw<MCL? Cvp Chc Tgw or 25 LEL IUR RfC i Cia,c Cia,nc CAS Chemical Name Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No (ug/m3) C/NC (ug/m3) (ug/L) Yes/No (MCL ug/L) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) C (% by vol) (ug/m3)-1 (mg/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.6E-02 C 2.5E+00 8.8E-01 Yes (8.0E+01(F)) 4.41E+08 2.63E+08 25 3.70E-05 CA 7.6E-02 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene Yes No Yes Yes 5.2E+01 NC 1.7E+03 4.1E+02 No (100) 7.25E+07 6.33E+07 25 1.3 N 5.00E-02 P 5.2E+01 106-46-7 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.6E-01 C 8.5E+00 2.6E+00 Yes (75) 1.38E+07 8.01E+06 25 2.5 N 1.10E-05 CA 8.00E-01 I 2.6E-01 8.3E+02 107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- Yes No Yes Yes 1.1E-01 C 3.6E+00 2.2E+00 Yes (5) 4.20E+08 4.15E+08 25 6.2 N 2.60E-05 I 7.00E-03 P 1.1E-01 7.3E+00 75-35-4 Dichloroethylene, 1,1- Yes No Yes Yes 2.1E+02 NC 7.0E+03 2.0E+02 No (7) 3.13E+09 2.58E+09 25 6.5 N 2.00E-01 I 2.1E+02 156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cis- Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info -- -- -- -- No (70) 1.04E+09 1.07E+09 25 9.7 M 156-60-5 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans- Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info -- -- -- -- No (100) 1.73E+09 1.73E+09 25 9.7 M 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene Yes No Yes Yes 1.1E+01 C 3.6E+02 1.5E+01 No (5) 1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 I 1.1E+01 4.2E+01 120-82-1 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- Yes No Yes Yes 2.1E+00 NC 7.0E+01 3.6E+01 Yes (70) 4.49E+06 2.84E+06 25 2.5 N 2.00E-03 P 2.1E+00 79-00-5 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.8E-01 C 5.8E+00 5.2E+00 No (5) 1.65E+08 1.55E+08 25 6 N 1.60E-05 I 2.00E-04 X 1.8E-01 2.1E-01 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.8E-01 C 1.6E+01 1.2E+00 Yes (5) 4.88E+08 5.15E+08 25 8 N see note I 2.00E-03 I TCE 4.8E-01 2.1E+00 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.7E-01 C 5.6E+00 1.5E-01 Yes (2) 1.00E+10 1.00E+10 25 3.6 N 4.40E-06 I 1.00E-01 I VC 1.7E-01 1.0E+02 Notes: (1) Inhalation Pathway Exposure Parameters (RME): Units Exposure Scenario Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value Averaging time for carcinogens (yrs) ATc_R 70 ATc_C 70 ATc 70 Averaging time for non-carcinogens (yrs) ATnc_R 26 ATnc_C 25 ATnc 26 Exposure duration (yrs) ED_R 26 ED_C 25 ED 26 Exposure frequency (days/yr) EF_R 350 EF_C 250 EF 350 Exposure time (hr/day) ET_R 24 ET_C 8 ET 24 (2) Generic Attenuation Factors: Source Medium of Vapors Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value Groundwater ( - ) AFgw_R 0.001 AFgw_C 0.001 AFgw 0.001 Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas ( - ) AFss_R 0.03 AFss_C 0.03 AFss 0.03 (3) Formulas Cia, target = MIN( Cia,c; Cia,nc) Cia,c (ug/m3) = TCR x ATc x (365 days/yr) x (24 hrs/day) / (ED x EF x ET x IUR) Cia,nc (ug/m3) = THQ x ATnc x (365 days/yr) x (24 hrs/day) x RfC x (1000 ug/mg) / (ED x EF x ET) (4) Special Case Chemicals Trichloroethylene Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value mIURTCE_R 1.00E-06 mIURTCE_C 0.00E+00 mIURTCE 1.00E-06 IURTCE_R 3.10E-06 IURTCE_C 4.10E-06 IURTCE 3.10E-06 Mutagenic Chemicals The exposure durations and age-dependent adjustment factors for mutagenic-mode-of-action are listed in the table below: 0 - 2 years 2 2 - 6 years 4 6 - 16 years 10 16 - 26 years 10 Mutagenic-mode-of-action (MMOA) adjustment factor This factor is used in the equations for mutagenic chemicals. See the Navigation Guide equation for Cia,c for vinyl chloride. Notation: NVT = Not sufficiently volatile and/or toxic to pose inhalation risk in selected exposure scenario for the indicated medium C = Carcinogenic NC = Non-carcinogenic I = IRIS: EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html P = PPRTV. EPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs). Available online at: http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/pprtv.shtml A = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs). Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html CA = California Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment assessments. Available online at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp H = HEAST. EPA Superfund Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) database. Available online at: http://epa-heast.ornl.gov/heast.shtml S = See RSL User Guide, Section 5 X = PPRTV Appendix E = The Engineering ToolBox. Available online at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html N = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html M = Chemical-specific MSDS Mut = Chemical acts according to the mutagenic-mode-of-action, special exposure parameters apply (see footnote (4) above). VC = Special exposure equation for vinyl chloride applies (see Navigation Guide for equation). TCE = Special mutagenic and non-mutagenic IURs for trichloroethylene apply (see footnote (4) above). Yellow highlighting indicates site-specific parameters that may be edited by the user. Blue highlighting indicates exposure factors that are based on Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) or EPA vapor intrusion guidance, which generally should not be changed. **Lower explosive limit is the minimum concentration of the compound in air (% by volume) that is needed for the gas to ignite and explode. Select residential or commercial scenario from pull down list Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Instructions The primary objective of risk-based screening is to identify sites or buildings unlikely to pose a health concern through the vapor intrusion pathway. Generally, at properties where subsurface concentrations of vapor-forming chemicals (e.g., groundwater or “near source” soil gas concentrations) fall below screening levels (i.e., VISLs), no further action or study is warranted, so long as the exposure assumptions match those taken into account by the calculations and the site fulfills the conditions and assumptions of the generic conceptual model underlying the screening levels. In a similar fashion, the results of risk-based screening can help the data review team identify areas, buildings, and/or chemicals that can be eliminated from further assessment. The generic conceptual model underlying these screening levels is described in OSWER Publication 9200.2-154 (OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway From Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air) (EPA 2015; Section 6.5) 72 Residential Commercial 3 1 Note: This section applies to trichloroethylene and other mutagenic chemicals, but not to vinyl chloride. Exposure Duration (years) Age Cohort Age-dependent adjustment factor 10 3 Enter average of the stabilized groundwater temperature to correct Henry's Law Constant for groundwater target concentrations Enter target hazard quotient for non-carcinogens Enter target risk for carcinogens VISL Calculator Version 3.5, June 2017 RSLs Updated October 2017 TABLE D.2 CALCULATION OF DEFAULT COMMERCIAL VISLS TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS OSWER VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator Version 3.5 (June 2017 RSLs) - updated 12/14/2017 for Nov RSLs, version 3.5.2 Parameter Symbol Value Exposure Scenario Scenario Commercial Target Risk for Carcinogens TCR 1.00E-06 Target Hazard Quotient for Non-Carcinogens THQ 1 Average Groundwater Temperature (oC) Tgw 25 Does the chemical meet the definition for volatility? Does chemical have inhalation toxicity data? Is Chemical Sufficiently Volatile and Toxic to Pose Inhalation Risk Via Vapor Intrusion from Soil Source? Is Chemical Sufficiently Volatile and Toxic to Pose Inhalation Risk Via Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Source? Target Indoor Air Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Toxicity Basis Target Sub- Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Target Ground Water Conc. @ TCR = 1E-06 or THQ = 1 Is Target Ground Water Conc. < MCL? Pure Phase Vapor Conc. @ 25oC Maximum Groundwater Vapor Conc. Temperature for Max. Groundwater Vapor Conc. Lower Explosive Limit** LEL Source Inhalation Unit Risk IUR Source* Reference Concentration RFC Source* Mutagenic Indicator Target Indoor Air Conc. for Carcinogens @ TCR = 1E-06 Target Indoor Air Conc. for Non- Carcinogens @ THQ = 1 (HLC>1E-5 or VP>1) (IUR and/or RfC) Cvp > Cia,target? Chc > Cia,target? MIN(Cia,c;Cia,nc) Csg Cgw Cgw<MCL? Cvp Chc Tgw or 25 LEL IUR RfC i Cia,c Cia,nc CAS Chemical Name Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No (ug/m3) C/NC (ug/m3) (ug/L) Yes/No (MCL ug/L) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) C (% by vol) (ug/m3)-1 (mg/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.3E-01 C 1.1E+01 3.8E+00 Yes (8.0E+01(F)) 4.41E+08 2.63E+08 25 3.70E-05 CA 3.3E-01 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene Yes No Yes Yes 2.2E+02 NC 7.3E+03 1.7E+03 No (100) 7.25E+07 6.33E+07 25 1.3 N 5.00E-02 P 2.2E+02 106-46-7 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.1E+00 C 3.7E+01 1.1E+01 Yes (75) 1.38E+07 8.01E+06 25 2.5 N 1.10E-05 CA 8.00E-01 I 1.1E+00 3.5E+03 107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- Yes No Yes Yes 4.7E-01 C 1.6E+01 9.8E+00 No (5) 4.20E+08 4.15E+08 25 6.2 N 2.60E-05 I 7.00E-03 P 4.7E-01 3.1E+01 75-35-4 Dichloroethylene, 1,1- Yes No Yes Yes 8.8E+02 NC 2.9E+04 8.2E+02 No (7) 3.13E+09 2.58E+09 25 6.5 N 2.00E-01 I 8.8E+02 156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cis- Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info -- -- -- -- No (70) 1.04E+09 1.07E+09 25 9.7 M 156-60-5 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans- Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info -- -- -- -- No (100) 1.73E+09 1.73E+09 25 9.7 M 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene Yes No Yes Yes 4.7E+01 C 1.6E+03 6.5E+01 No (5) 1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 I 4.7E+01 1.8E+02 120-82-1 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- Yes No Yes Yes 8.8E+00 NC 2.9E+02 1.5E+02 No (70) 4.49E+06 2.84E+06 25 2.5 N 2.00E-03 P 8.8E+00 79-00-5 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.7E-01 C 2.6E+01 2.3E+01 No (5) 1.65E+08 1.55E+08 25 6 N 1.60E-05 I 2.00E-04 X 7.7E-01 8.8E-01 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0E+00 C 1.0E+02 7.4E+00 No (5) 4.88E+08 5.15E+08 25 8 N see note I 2.00E-03 I TCE 3.0E+00 8.8E+00 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.8E+00 C 9.3E+01 2.5E+00 No (2) 1.00E+10 1.00E+10 25 3.6 N 4.40E-06 I 1.00E-01 I VC 2.8E+00 4.4E+02 Notes: (1) Inhalation Pathway Exposure Parameters (RME): Units Exposure Scenario Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value Averaging time for carcinogens (yrs) ATc_R 70 ATc_C 70 ATc 70 Averaging time for non-carcinogens (yrs) ATnc_R 26 ATnc_C 25 ATnc 25 Exposure duration (yrs) ED_R 26 ED_C 25 ED 25 Exposure frequency (days/yr) EF_R 350 EF_C 250 EF 250 Exposure time (hr/day) ET_R 24 ET_C 8 ET 8 (2) Generic Attenuation Factors: Source Medium of Vapors Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value Groundwater ( - ) AFgw_R 0.001 AFgw_C 0.001 AFgw 0.001 Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas ( - ) AFss_R 0.03 AFss_C 0.03 AFss 0.03 (3) Formulas Cia, target = MIN( Cia,c; Cia,nc) Cia,c (ug/m3) = TCR x ATc x (365 days/yr) x (24 hrs/day) / (ED x EF x ET x IUR) Cia,nc (ug/m3) = THQ x ATnc x (365 days/yr) x (24 hrs/day) x RfC x (1000 ug/mg) / (ED x EF x ET) (4) Special Case Chemicals Trichloroethylene Symbol Value Symbol Value Symbol Value mIURTCE_R 1.00E-06 mIURTCE_C 0.00E+00 mIURTCE 0.00E+00 IURTCE_R 3.10E-06 IURTCE_C 4.10E-06 IURTCE 4.10E-06 Mutagenic Chemicals The exposure durations and age-dependent adjustment factors for mutagenic-mode-of-action are listed in the table below: 0 - 2 years 2 2 - 6 years 4 6 - 16 years 10 16 - 26 years 10 Mutagenic-mode-of-action (MMOA) adjustment factor This factor is used in the equations for mutagenic chemicals. See the Navigation Guide equation for Cia,c for vinyl chloride. Notation: NVT = Not sufficiently volatile and/or toxic to pose inhalation risk in selected exposure scenario for the indicated medium C = Carcinogenic NC = Non-carcinogenic I = IRIS: EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html P = PPRTV. EPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs). Available online at: http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/pprtv.shtml A = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs). Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html CA = California Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment assessments. Available online at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp H = HEAST. EPA Superfund Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) database. Available online at: http://epa-heast.ornl.gov/heast.shtml S = See RSL User Guide, Section 5 X = PPRTV Appendix E = The Engineering ToolBox. Available online at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html N = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html M = Chemical-specific MSDS Mut = Chemical acts according to the mutagenic-mode-of-action, special exposure parameters apply (see footnote (4) above). VC = Special exposure equation for vinyl chloride applies (see Navigation Guide for equation). TCE = Special mutagenic and non-mutagenic IURs for trichloroethylene apply (see footnote (4) above). Yellow highlighting indicates site-specific parameters that may be edited by the user. Blue highlighting indicates exposure factors that are based on Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) or EPA vapor intrusion guidance, which generally should not be changed. **Lower explosive limit is the minimum concentration of the compound in air (% by volume) that is needed for the gas to ignite and explode. Select residential or commercial scenario from pull down list Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Selected (based on scenario in cell G15) Instructions The primary objective of risk-based screening is to identify sites or buildings unlikely to pose a health concern through the vapor intrusion pathway. Generally, at properties where subsurface concentrations of vapor-forming chemicals (e.g., groundwater or “near source” soil gas concentrations) fall below screening levels (i.e., VISLs), no further action or study is warranted, so long as the exposure assumptions match those taken into account by the calculations and the site fulfills the conditions and assumptions of the generic conceptual model underlying the screening levels. In a similar fashion, the results of risk-based screening can help the data review team identify areas, buildings, and/or chemicals that can be eliminated from further assessment. The generic conceptual model underlying these screening levels is described in OSWER Publication 9200.2-154 (OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway From Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air) (EPA 2015; Section 6.5) 25 Residential Commercial 3 1 Note: This section applies to trichloroethylene and other mutagenic chemicals, but not to vinyl chloride. Exposure Duration (years) Age Cohort Age-dependent adjustment factor 10 3 Enter average of the stabilized groundwater temperature to correct Henry's Law Constant for groundwater target concentrations Enter target hazard quotient for non-carcinogens Enter target risk for carcinogens VISL Calculator Version 3.5, June 2017 RSLs Updated October 2017 TABLE D.3 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS FOR COPCS TO VISLS TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS COPC Group COPC CASRN Residential VISL Target Groundwater (ug/L) Commercial VISL Target Groundwater (ug/L) Tutu Maximum Groundwater Concentration (ug/L) VOC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 5.21 22.8 1.6 VOC 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 195 821 400 VOC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 35.9 151 4.1 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 2.24 9.78 0.8 VOC 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 2.59 11.3 2.8 VOC Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.876 3.82 2.7 VOC Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 410 1,722 48 VOC cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 NA NA 160,000 VOC Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 14.9 65.2 92,000 VOC trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 NA NA 2,300 VOC Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.19 7.43 29,000 VOC Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.147 2.45 38,000 Note: Concentrations greater than the Residential VISL are shaded and concentrations greater than the Commercial VISL are bold. Abbreviations: COPC -- Constituent of potential concern NA -- Not available VISL -- Vapor Intrusion Screening Level The VISLs are calculated at a target cancer risk of 1E-06 or target hazard quotient of 1 and using the default groundwater temperature of 25 degC. Page: 1 of 1