USVI Public Records

Document text

ErK <S-<-, Public Health Assessment for -. > vK i.»l..'C'' ^....ti' ^ ^....... ..•i4;£.2j»£^L..i^ SDMS Document 115621 ISLAND CHEMICAL CORPORATION! VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL CORPORATION CHRISTIANSTED, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS CERCLIS NO. VID9806S1095 MAY 19, 1998 ' - . l l - ' , fi. AoeiiCV iorT'oxic: Substances and Disease RegistH' •ilB^ *»- l/Wes" 800001 PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT ISLAlvCD CHEMICAL CORPORATION/ VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL CORPORATION CHRISTIANSTED, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS CERCLIS NO. VID980651095 Prepared by: Superfimd Site Assessment Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 800002 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Healtii Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA or Si^jerfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulalions (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concems frcm the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the pubhc comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The pubhc health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency's opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry Claire V. Broome, M.D., Acting Administrator Bany L. Johnson, PLD., Assistant Administrator Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Robert C. WiUiams, P.E., DEE, Director Community Involvement Branch Germano E. Pereira, Chief Ejqjosure Investigations and Consultation Branch John E. Abraham, PLD, Chief Federal Facihties Assessment Branch JSandra G. Isaacs, Chief Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Max M. Howie, Jr., M.S., Chief Superfund Site Assessment Branch Sharon WiUiams-Fleetwood, PLD., Chief Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the PubUc Health Service or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional copies of this report are available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Yirginia (703) 487-4650 You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-800-447-1544 or Visit our Home Page at: http://atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/ 800003 FOREWORD ft The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, was established by Congress in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfimd law. This law set up a fund to identify and clean our country's hazardous waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the individual states regulate the investigation and 'dean up of the sites. Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct a public health assessment at each of the sites on the EPA National Priorities List. The aim of these evaluations is to fuid out if people are being exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, whether that exposure is harmful and should be stopped or reduced. If appropriate, ATSDR also conducts pubhc health assessments when petitioned by concemed individuals. Public health assessments are carried out by environmental and health scientists fi'om ATSDR and ft-om the states with which ATSDR has cooperative agreements. Exposure: As the first step in the evaluation, ATSDR scientists review environmental data to see how much contamination is at a site, where it is, and how people might come into contact with it. Generally, ATSDR does not collect its own environmental sampling data but reviews information provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and the public. When there is not enough environmental information available, the report will indicate what fiirther sampling data is needed. The DHAC Child Health Section Workgroup recommends that the Health Effects and Conclusions sections ofthe standard PHA Foreword be modified to the following: Health Effects: If the review ofthe environmental data shows that people have or could come into j contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR scientists evaluate whether or not these contacts may resuh in harmful effects. ATSDR recognizes that children, because of their play activities and their growing bodies, may be more vulnerable to these effects. As a policy, unless data are available to suggest otherwise, ATSDR considers children to be more sensitive and vulnerable to hazardous substances. Thus, the health impact to the children is considered first when evaluating the health threat to a community. The health impacts to other high risk groups within the community (such as the elderly, chronically ill, and people engaging in high risk practices) also receive special attention during the evaluation. ATSDR uses existing scientific infomiation, which can include the results of medical, toxicologic and epidemiologic studies and the data collected in disease registries, to determine the health effects that may result from exposures. The science of environmental health is still developing, and sometimes scientific information on the health effects of certain substances is not available. When this is so, the report will suggest what further public health actions are needed. Conclusions: The report presents conclusions about the public health threat, if any, posed by a site. When health threats have been detennined for high risk groups (such as children, elderly, chronically ill, and people engaging in high risk practices), they will be summarized in the conclusion section of the report. Ways to stop or reduce exposure will then be recommended in the public health acticHi plan ATSDR is primarily an advisoiy agency, so usually these reports identify what actionis are appropriate to be undertaken by EPA, other responsible parties, or the research or education divisions of ATSDR. However, if there is an urgent health threat, ATSDR can issue a public health advisoiy warning people ofthe danger. ATSDR can also authorize health education or pilot studies of health effects, full- , scale epidemiology studies, disease registries, surveillance studies or research on specific hazardous substances. 800004 Interactive Process: The health assessment is an interactive process. ATSDR solicits and evaluates information from numerous city, state and federal agencies, the companies responsible for cleaning up' the site, and the community. It then shares its conclusions with them. Agencies are asked to respond to an early version of the report to make sure that the data they have provided is accurate and current. When informed of ATSDR's conclusions and recommendations, sometimes the agencies will begin to act on them before the final release of the report. Community: ATSDR also needs to leam what people in the area know about the site and what concerns they may have about its impact on their health. Consequently, throughout the evaluation process, ATSDR actively gathers information and comments from the people who five or work near a site, including residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals and community groups. To ensure that the report responds to the community's health concems, an early version is also distributed to the public for their comments. All the comments received from the public are responded to in the final version of the report. Comihents: If, after reading this report, you have questions or comments, we encourage you to send them to us. Letters should be addressed as follows: Attention: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road (E-56), Atianta, GA 30333. 800005 TABLE OF CONTENTS UST OF TABLES iii UST OF FIGURES iv SUMMARY ' 1 BACKGROUND 3 A. Site Description and History 3 B. Site Visit 6 C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use 8 COMMUNTTY HEALTH CONCERNS 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINAnON AND OTHER HAZARDS 12 A. On-Site Contamination 14 B. Off-Site Contamination 24 C. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Review 27 D. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 27 E. Physical and Other Hazards 28 PATHWAYS ANALYSES 28 A. Completed Human Exposure Pathways 33 B. Potential Human Exposure Pathways 35 PUBUC HEALTH IMPUCATIONS 37 A. Toxicoiogical Evaluation 37 B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation 49 C. Community Health Concems Evaluation 50 CONCLUSIONS • 51 RECOMMENDATIONS 53 PUBUC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS 54 PREPARERS OF REPORT 55 REFERENCES 56 APPENDIX A - FIGURES 58 APPENDIX B - RESPONSE TO PUBUC COMMENTS 68 ii 8 0 0 0 0 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Sludge Samples from the Process Pit 15 Table 2. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Wastewater Samples from the Process Pit 16 Table 3. Historical (Pre-RI) Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in On-Site Soil/Sediment Samples (various depths) 17 Table 4. RI Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in On-Site Soils 19 Table 5. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in On-Site Groundwater Monitoring WeUs 21 Table 6. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in On-Site Production Wells . . 23 Table 7. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Municipal Supply Wells . . . 24 Table 8. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Airport Supply WeUs . . . . 25 Table 9. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in River Gut Sediments 27 Table 10. Completed Human Exposure Pathways for the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site 29 Table 11. Potential Human Exposure Pathways for the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site 30 Table 12. Estimated Population for Completed Exposure Pathways Associated with the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site 31 Table 13. Estimated Population for Potential Exposure Pathways Associated with the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site 32 Table 14. Results of Comparison of Estimated Exposure Dose to Health Guidelines for Persons Exposed to Off-Site Contaminants Related to the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site 48 111 800007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map 59 Figure 2. Approximate Location of Offsite Production WeUs 60 Figure 3. ICC Plot Plan: Areas of Contamination 61 Figure 4. Areas of Potential Concem 62 Figure 5. Approximate Locations of Nearby WeUs 63 Figure 6. Site Map 64 Figure 7. Areas of Potential of Potential Concem and SoU Boring Locations 65 Figure 8. Locations of Surface SoU Samples, SoU Borings & Monitoring WeUs, and Lines of Cross-Section, AST Area 66 Figure 9. Location of Morutoring and Production WeUs 67 IV 800008 SUMMARY The Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is an inactive facility in the south central portion of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The site, which covers about 3 acres, is located about 1,500 feet north of the Alexander HamUton Airport. The site was used from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s by several chemical companies for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, primarily phenacetin, ethoxyquin, and quinidine, and other chemicals, such as benzyl acetate and benzyl saUcylate. In the late 1980s, a portion of the site was used for an alcohol (ethanol) dehydration project. Currentiy, the site is unoccupied and in a state of disrepair. The site is bordered on the north and east by an intermittent stream known as River Gut; on the west by an undeveloped lot; and on the south and southwest by Route 66. A concrete batch plant, an asphalt paving company, and two automobUe repair shops are located east of the site, across River Gut. Historical operations at the site resulted in contamination by various organic compounds, including chloroform, pyridine, quinidine gluconate, quinine sulfate, and toluene in the foUowing areas of the site: 1) soU between above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) #8 and #9; 2) water and sludge in the process pit and associated sludge in the drainage line from the process pit; 3) soU under the concrete loading dock and in a trench next to the loading dock which had been contaminated by leakage/drainage from the former lab pit; and 4) soU under concrete slab #3 near the ASTs. Most of the contaminated materials in these areas have since been either removed or remediated. However, organic contaminants, primarily chloroform, from past site operations are present in groundwater at the site and in nearby pubUc supply weUs, including the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VTWAPA) Fairplains weUs and the Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA) airport weUs. In addition, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including ethylbenzene and xylenes, are present at significant levels in subsurface soU and groundwater in the AST area. ATSDR has classified the Island ChemicalA^irgin Island Chemical site a no apparent public health hazard because avaUable environmental sampling data do not indicate that people have been exposed to site contamination at levels that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. Nevertheless, ATSDR beUeves the site's numerous physical hazards, including misceUaneous debris (e.g., old pipes, pieces of metal, old plant equipment, junk cars, old tires, naUs, old lockers, old lab equipment); dilapidated and deteriorating buUdings and storage tanks; and unsecured outside stairways could pose a minor safety threat to site trespassers. ATSDR has identified two completed human exposure pathways associated with contamination from the site: 1) users of the municipal water supply who were likely exposed to low levels of contaminants, such as chlorofonn, lead, and mercury, in their residential drinking water, and 2) workers and visitors at the Alexander HamUton Airport who were likely exposed to low levels of contaminants, including bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, aluminum, iron, lead, mercury, and vanadium, in the airport's drinking water. These past exposures are no longer occurring because the municipal and 800009 aiiport weUs that were impacted by contamination are no longer in use. In addition, some of the contaminants detected in the municipal and airport water suppUes may not be directiy related to contamination at the site. ATSDR's toxicoiogical evaluation indicates that no adverse health effects, either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic, wiU result from past exposures to contaminants in the municipal and airport drinking water suppUes. ATSDR has also identified the foUowing potential human exposure pathways: 1) residents in the site area who use private weU water for their household water needs (e.g., drinking, bathing, showering); 2) former plant employees, site investigators, and trespassers who may have come into contact with chemicals in raw materials, finished products, and wastes associated with former site operations, or contaminated soUs and sediments resulting from former site operations; and 3) persons who may have come into contact with surface water (whUe the plant was in operation) or sediments in the River Gut stream channel downstream of the site. ATSDR beUeves that the pubUc health significance of these potential exposures is likely to be minimal; however, additional information regarding the use and quaUty of private weU water in the site area is necessary to fiiUy evaluate this potential exposure pathway. No community health concems about the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site have been expressed by the citizens of St. Croix. Health outcome data for the population surrounding the site was not identified during the gathering of information and data for this pubUc health. Data inadequacies include 1) limited sampling data for the VTWAPA Fairplains weUs and the VIP A airport supply weUs; 2) no sampling data for other VIWAPA weUs near the site, such as the Bethlehem, Negro Bay, Golden Grove wells; and 3) no sampling data or water use information for private weUs in the site area. ATSDR has determined that no foUow-up health activities are indicated for the site at this time. However, ATSDR wiU reevaluate the site for appropriate foUow-up health activities if future data or information indicates that human exposure to site contaminants is occurring at levels of pubUc health concem. 8 0 0 0 1 0 Island chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release BACKGROUND The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), whose headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia, is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is.authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabiUty Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to conduct public health assessments of hazardous waste sites. As part of that mandate, ATSDR has evaluated the pubUc health significance of the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site (e.g.. Are health effects possible?) and has recommended actions to reduce or prevent possible health effects. A. Site Description and History The Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is an inactive faciUty on Route 66 (Melvin Evans Highway) in the south central portion of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The site, which covers about 3 acres, is located about 1,500 feet north of the Alexander HamUton Airport. The site was used from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s by several chemical companies for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, primarily phenacetin, ethoxyquin, and quinidine, and other chemicals, such as benzyl acetate and benzyl saUcylate. The site is bordered on the north and east by an intermittent stream knows as River Gut, on the west by an undeveloped lot, and on the south and southwest by Route 66. A concrete batch plant, an asphalt paving company, and two automobUe repair shops are located east of the site, across River Gut (1,2,3). The location of these and otiier faciUties within a quarter mUe of the site is shown in Figure 2 (3). The site property is owned by the Charles H. Steffey Holding Corporation (CHS) (4). In May 1969, CHS leased the site to Houston Chemical Industries, Inc. (Houston) on a 30-year lease. In March 1972, Houston assigned the lease to Caribe Chemical Company, Inc, which was subsequentiy known as Pierrel America, Inc. Houston and Caribe reportedly used the faciUty to produce phenacetin and ethoxyquin. In June 1978, Pierrel America assigned the lease to Cooper Laboratories, Inc. (Cooper). In July 1978, Cooper incorporated Island Chemical Company as its subsidiary to assume production activities at the facUity. Cooper used the faciUty to convert quinine to quinidine using toluene and pyridine. In November 1979, Cooper Laboratories sold aU of its stock in Island Chemical Company to Berlex Laboratories, Inc. (Berlex). Berlex, operating under the name Island Chemical Company, produced quinidine gluconate from quinine sulfate, toluene, and methanol. In October 1982, Berlex shut down the Island Chemical operations, and between November 1982 and Febmary 1983, removed several thousand gaUons of toluene and xylenes from the faciUty's above ground storage tanks (ASTs) for off-site disposal. In September 1984, Berlex sold its Island Chemical Company assets to Virgin Island Chenucal Company (VI Chemical). VI Chemical operated the plant untU late 1985, initiaUy producing benzyl acetate from benzyl chloride and acetic acid and later producing benzyl saUcylate (1,2,3,5,6). 800011 •^»-,a«^«fa:j8aiaia.«j«'4g3«g«ga.-:'aa»p^{B Island chemical/virgin Islzind Chemical - Final Release In 1984, U.S. Resources and Chemicals, Inc. began leasing a portion of the property from V ^ ^ ^' Chemical, and shortly thereafter began an alcohol dehydration operation at the site. U.S. ^ Resource transferred the lease and ownership of the alcohol dehydration equipment to VIAG J Fuels, Inc. By early 1991, the alcohol dehydration operation was no longer active although *^ several of the faculty's ASTs were stUl being used to store ethanol. VIAG later removed the 'f* ethanol arid the alcohol dehydration equipment from the site. Currentiy, the site is unoccupied and in a state of disrepair (2,4,7). In 1984, in conjunction with the sale of assets of Island Chemical Company to Virgin Island Chemical Company, Enviro-Sciences, Inc. (ESI) was hired to conduct an environmental investigation of the site. As a result of ±e ESI investigation, which was conducted from October 1984 to March 1986, four areas of contamination were identified and characterized through environmental sampling. The four areas (Figures 3 and 4) consisted of 1) soU between above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) #8 and #9 (Area B); 2) water and sludge in the process pit (Area C) and associated sludge in the drainage line from the process pit; 3) soU under the concrete loading dock (Area D) and in a trench next to the loading dock which had been contaminated by leakage/drainage from the fonner lab pit; and 4) soU under concrete slab #3 near the ASTs (Area E) (2,6). SoU samples coUected by ESI between October 1984 and March 1986 indicated the presence of various organic compounds, including toluene and pyridine, in the areas of concem described ^ ^ above. Toluene-contaminated soU in Areas B and E was excavated, heat treated in the plant's^Br drying oven, and later shipped off the island for final disposal. SoU contaminated by pyridine in the loading dock area (Area D) was treated in-place (after removal of the overlying concrete surface) by aeration and biodegradation through periodic tilling of the soU. Sludge and ^ wastewater in the process pit, an underground 8,000-gaUon concrete tank, were removed and placed in drums for later disposal. At a later date, the process pit was sealed with concrete (2,4,6). During the ESI investigation, the central storm drain, which conveyed stormwater and wastewater from the process pit to River Gut, was found to consist of 55-gaUon dmms, with their ends removed, welded end-to-end. The drain line drums were badly corroded and contained an oUy sludge. ESI excavated the drain line and contaminated soU beneath the drain line and placed the drums, oUy sludge, and contaminated soU in containers for later disposal. The excavated drain line was then replaced with a 10-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Waste materials from the various ESI site activities, including treated soU from the dying oven, water and sludge from the process pit, and drams and sludge from the excavated central drainage line, were removed from the site and shipped off the island in late 1985 (2,4,6). In September 1985 and March 1986, EPA conducted two enforcement inspections under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to verify the effectiveness of ESI's soU remediation activities and to detennine compliance with appUcable RCRA 800012 I s l a n d ' C h e m i c a l / v i r g i n I s l a n d Chemical - F i n a l R e l e a s e regulations. Samples coUected during the RCRA inspections indicated the presence of toluene, phthalates, benzene, chlorofonn, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chromium, and zinc in site soUs and sediments, including sediments in the River Gut steam channel (2,4,5,6,8). In January and Febmary 1989, EPA's Response and Prevention Branch conducted a Preliminary Assessment and Removal Evaluation at the site. At that time, EPA found approximately 400 drums, in various conditions, inside the warehouse buUding (Area A, Figure 4). The dmms contained a variety of substances including ethyl alcohol, methanol, benzyl acetate, benzyl chloride, toluene, methyl isobutyl carbinol, sodium hydroxide, paints, and unidentified substances. EPA also discovered leaking cylinders of chlorine and hydrogen chloride, and over 800 containers of laboratory reagents including sodium, potassium cyanide, phosphoms pentoxide, and ethyl ether in the lab buUding. Between February 1989 and October 1991, EPA removed more than 250 drums of the various chemicals, and more than 8,000 pounds of lab pack chemicals from the laboratory/warehouse buUding for off site disposal. In January 1990, during the site removal activities, EPA coUected groundwater samples which showed chloroform to be present in an on-site production weU and nearby municipal weUs (2,4,7). In Febmary 1991, EPA's Field Investigation Team (FIT) conducted a sampling site inspection at the site during which groundwater, sediment, and soU samples were coUected. Chloroform was found in on-site and off-site weUs, and various organic and inorganic contaminants were present in the sediment samples from the faciUty's storm drains. Low level of several pesticides were also detected in the site soU and sediment samples (2,4). In January 1994, the site was proposed to EPA's National Priorities Ust (NPL). The NPL is the national Ust of hazardous waste sites that qualify for cleanup under the federal Superfund I. program. The site was Usted as fmal on the NPL in June 1996 (2). k In January and Febmary 1995, EPA conducted an initial (Phase I) remedial investigation (RI) f of the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. The purpose of the RI was to characterize I the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to evaluate whether such contamination ' posed a risk to human health and the environment. The initial RI field activities included site I clearing, instaUation of four monitoring weUs, completion of 11 soU borings, rehabilitation of I two on-site productions weUs, and coUection of immerous soU and groundwater samples. In I May 1995, EPA revisited the site and coUected an additional round of groundwater samples. I The results of the initial RI activities indicated significant soU and groundwater contamination 1^ in the tank farm area due to leaks and/or spills from one or more of the ASTs. The RI data i also showed some residual soU and groundwater contamination in other areas of the site from I past site operations (3). I I 800013 ...^»^.^catB£L..».i^»v,ta.«it.s*a.asfaisaflAaa«^a!as»^aiH Islauid Chemical/virgin Isl2md Chemical - Final Release In May and June 1996, EPA conducted supplemental (Phase II) RI field activities to further characterize the extent of groundwater and soU contamination in the AST area and to evaluate groundwater quaUty near the former process pit (near the center of the site). The supplemental field activities included instaUation of two monitoring weUs, completion of seven soU borings, and coUection of groundwater and soU samples. The results of the supplemental investigation helped define the extent of VOC soU and groundwater contamination near AST tank #8 and indicated some residual groundwater contamination (primarUy chloroform) near the fonner process pit (9). Phase m of the RI is currentiy in the planning stages. The Phase HI field activities wiU include additional soU and groundwater sampling to further characterize the extent of VOC contamination in the AST area, to evaluate the presence of VOC contamination in shaUow and deep groundwater, and to detennine the levels of contaminants in the River Gut stream chaimel. In addition, the field activities wUl include measurement of groundwater levels in order to evaluate the flow characteristics of the deep aquifer in the immediate site area (10). B. Site Visit In December 1994, Steve Richardson and De'borah Boling, ATSDR headquarters staff, and Steven Jones, ATSDR Region n representative, visited the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. The foUowing site conditions were observed during the site visit: • Although the site was fenced, access to the site was not restricted due to a broken gate. Evidence of recent trespassing, such as discarded car batteries, beer and wine botdes, and old tires, was observed during the site visit. • The site was Uttered with debris (e.g., old pipes, pieces of metal, wooden pallets, empty drums, old plant equipment, junk cars, semi-track traUer, old tires, nails) wliich could pose a threat to site trespassers. Other potential physical hazards included the site's dUapidated and deteriorating buUdings and unsecured catwalks and distillation tower stairway. • The site was heavUy overgrown by vegetation. No visual evidence of contamination was observed except for smaU pUes of unknown, granular, black and orange substances and grey peUet-like materials on the floor of the warehouse/lab buUding. In AprU 1997, Steve Richardson, De'borah Boling, and Brian von Gunten, ATSDR Region II representative, conducted a foUow-up site visit. Most of the site conditions were similar to those observed during the December 1994 site visit. Access to the site was stiU unrestricted because sections of the perimeter fence were missing and the site entrance gate was broken. The site was stiU overgrown by vegetation although some areas had obviously been cleared during the previous RI field activities. The site was stiU Uttered with debris, and the site's 800014 Islamd Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release buUdings and other stmctures (e.g., pipes, tanks, catwalks, stairways) had become more dUapidated and deteriorated since the previous site visit. The granular orange and black substances and grey peUet-like materials observed on the floor of the lab/warehouse buUding during the previous site visit were stiU present. Other observations made during the AprU 1997 site visit included the foUowing: • An unknown man was wandering around the site when ATSDR staff initiaUy entered the site. • A mongoose, several goats, and numerous animal droppings were observed on the site. It appeared that the goats were domestic and were being aUowed to graze freely on and around the site property. In addition, two horses were observed tied up in the dry River Gut stream channel downstream of the site near the Highway 66 bridge. • A "for sale" sign was observed in front of the site property next to Highway 66. A local businessman, who was interested in purchasing the site property, confirmed that the property was up for sale. • A smaU lot next to the southwest comer of the site along Highway 66 had been cleared and fiUed, and was apparendy being developed for commercial use. At the time of the site visit, the lot was surrounded by a chain-link fence and contained some constmction equipment and a smaU buUding foundation. • Further evidence of the previous RI site activities were observed including the new on- site monitoring weUs and sealed drams, apparentiy containing residuals from the drilling of soU borings and installation of monitoring weUs, stored in the lab/warehouse buUding. • In addition to the granular and peUet-like materials observed on the floor of the lab/warehouse buUding, the foUowing visual evidence of contamination was noted at the site: (1) black stains on and around several metal poles supporting overhead pipes leading from the AST area to the old reactor area, and (2) residues inside the glass tubing in the glass reactor area. • Just east of the site, an area of black-stained soU with a strong petroleum odor was observed in the River Gut stream channel and on the northem slope of the gut behind the concrete manufacturing plant. A smaU area of standing water with a noticeable oUy sheen was also present in the gut at that location. The black petroleum material appeared to originate from a heavy equipment maintenance area at the concrete manufacturing plant. ATSDR reported the observed release to the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR). 800015 ...•„..-.,^,^..v...»ti,..fe>.-.;,.-.-.5sasag!^«^i^iH^ Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use Demographics The population of St. Croix is approximately 50,000, based on 1990 census data. The racial distribution ofthe U.S. Virgin Islands' population, which includes St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas, is about 80% black, 15% white, and 5% other. The Virgin Island population can be further classified according to the foUowing ethnic groups: 74% West Indian (45 % bom in the Virgin Islands and 29% bom elsewhere in the West Indies); 13% U.S. mainland; 5% Puerto Rican; and 8% other. In addition, 14% of the population is reported to be of Hispanic origin (0, 11). The specific demographic makeup of the population Uving near the Island Chemical/Vkgin Island Chemical site cannot be detennined based on currentiy avaUable infonnation. Land Use The area surrounding the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is predominately agricultural and commercial. Several businesses are adjacent to the site (as shown in Figure 2) including (1) an unknown business inside a smaU, fenced area next to the southwest comer of the site (near the AST area); (2) a redi-mix concrete plant about 100 feet east of the site; (3) an asphalt paving company about 300 feet north of the site; (4) two auto repair shops about 400 feet north-northeast of the site; (5) an engineering company about 600 feet northwest of the site; and (6) an asphalt manufacturing plant about 700 feet northwest of the site. Other faciUties in the site area include the Golden Grove Correctional Institute, located about 1,100 feet northwest ofthe site; a constraction materials and equipment company, located approximately 1,300 feet southeast of the site; and an old quarry next to the constraction company. In addition, the Alexander HamUton Airport is less than half a mile south of the site (3). A number of agricultural areas surround the site. These areas are used primarily to raise cattie and goats. The nearest residences to the site are reportedly located about one-tenth of a mUe south or east of the site. However, the existence of these residences caimot be confirmed. The nearest known residences are located about one-third of a mUe north-northeast of the site in the Upper Bethlehem area. Other residences, including the mobUe homes of the Golden Grove TraUer Park, are located about three-quarters of a mile northwest of the site in the Golden Grove area (2,4,7), 800016 Island chemical/virgin Islzuid Chemical - Final Release Natural Resource Use Fresh water is a scarce commodity in the U.S. Virgin Islands. To meet the demand for fresh water on St. Croix, aU avaUable sources of fresh water are used, including desalinated seawater, groundwater, and rooftop rainfaU catchment systems (cisterns). Groundwater is used as a source of potable water supply for both private and pubUc water systems on the island of St. Croix. The Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VIWAPA) has at least 60 pubUc supply weUs in about nine weU fields across the island. However, less than half of these are beUeved to be currentiy active. Water from the active VIWAPA supply weUs is used to supplement desalinated seawater from VIWAPA's four large desaUnation units near Christiansted. Water from the desalination units is mixed with water from the municipal supply wells and distributed in the same water Unes. In the past, approximately 70% of the water distributed by VIWAPA was obtained from the desalination units while the remaining 30% was suppUed by the municipal supply weUs. Recentiy, the capacity of the desalination units was increased such that desalinated seawater now makes up nearly aU of VIWAPA's water supply under normal conditions. During extremely heavy periods of demand, such as those that occur in the summer when rainfaU is scarce, a greater portion ofthe municipal water is provided by the VIWAPA water supply weUs (4,12). The municipal weU fields closest to the site are the VTWAPA Fairplains weU field, located about 900 to 1,800 feet southeast of the site, and the Bethlehem weU field, located about 1,000 to 1,200 feet northeast of the site. Other VIWAPA weU fields near the site are the Golden Grove weU field, which is about 3,000 to 4,500 feet west-northwest of the site, and the Negro Bay weU field, located about 3,500 to 4,0(X) feet west and southwest of the site. The locations of the VIWAPA weU fields in the site area are shown in Figure 5. UntU recentiy, water from the individual weUs in these weU fields was pumped into a 100,000-gaUon storage tank at the Fairplains weU field where it mixed with desalinated seawater from the Christiansted treatment units. The combined water in the Fairplains storage tank was withdrawn, chlorinated, and distributed through the municipal distribution system to VIWAPA's water users. Over the past several years, some of the Fairplains weUs were taken out of service, and, recentiy, the remaining Fairplains weUs were shut down. According to VIWAPA authorities, there are no plans to use the Fairplains weUs in the future. Currentiy, water from the other weU fields—Bethlehem, Golden Grove, and Negro Bay—is pumped through a filtration system to remove particulates, and a reverse osmosis unit to reduce salinity, prior to entering the Fairplains storage tank. As before, the combined weU water and desalinated seawater in the Fairplains tank is withdrawn, chlorinated, and distributed. As discussed above, the VIWAPA supply weUs are used primarUy when the availabiUty of desalinated seawater from the Christiansted plant is insufficient to meet user demand (3,4). The principle aquifer for the Faiiplains and Golden Grove weU fields is the aUuvium which is composed mostiy of low permeability clay. The thickness of this deposit in the site vicinity is 800017 ,..^,\.,i3.sgW,J,^g^=MJi. Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release reported to range from about 55 to 100 feet. Imbedded in the clay are isolated, high permeabUity lenses of sand and gravel, ranging from 1 to 8 feet in thickness. Reported depth from ground surface to the water table in the site vicinity vary from 9 feet to 107 feet. For example, water levels in the Fairplains weUs near the site reportedly range from 16 to 20 feet below ground surface. In the site area, the direction of shaUow groundwater flow has not been adequately defined (2,3,4). The soU stracture beneath the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is generaUy consistent with the aUuvial deposits found in the site area. Boring logs indicate that the site is underlain by at least 25 feet of sandy clay and sUty clay with discontinuous lenses of graveUy sand and sUty sand. The lowermost lens, which is encountered at a depth of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface, is a sUty sand that appears to be continuous across the site. At the site, depth from the ground surface to the water table varies from about 21 feet to 28 feet. In addition, two different shaUow groundwater flow patterns have been reported at the site. Under typical (dry) conditions, a shaUow groundwater divide exists, such that west of a line between MW-3 and MW-4, groundwater flows to the west and northwest, whUe east of a line between MW-3 and MW-4, groundwater flows to the east and northeast. In contrast, during and immediately after significant rainfaUs, a reversal of flow direction occurs so that shaUow groundwater flows to the west and northwest across the entire site. These periods of flow reversal are reported to last for a period of 1 to 2 weeks (2,3,4,9). Underlying the aUuvium in some areas of St, Croix, and e^qposed at the surface in other areas,^ is the KingshiU Limestone aquifer, which, in the site vicinity, is composed primarily of chalks and marls. The KingshiU aquifer has a maximum saturated thickness of approximately 200 feet, and is reported to be the most productive aquifer on the island. However, because of salt water intrasion, much of the groundwater in this aquifer has a high chloride content and, therefore, is not generaUy suitable for human consumption. The KingshiU aquifer is the principal aquifer for both the Bethlehem and Negro Bay weU fields. The direction of groundwater flow in the deep KingshUl aquifer at the site has not been detennined. In addition, the shaUow aUuvial and the deep ICingshUl aquifers in the site area are beUeved to be interconnected, because of the presence of numerous old abandoned wells that are screened, perforated, or open across both aquifers (2,4). The KingshiU aquifer is also tapped by two pubUc weUs near the site that are not part of the VIWAPA municipal water system. Hiese two weUs are located about 900 to 1,200 feet west of the site (Figure 2), and are about 110 feet deep. Until recentiy, the two weUs, which are owned by the Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA), were used to supply water to the nearby Alexander HamUton Airport. Water from the wells was pumped to a large storage tank on top of a hiU near the airport. Water in the storage tank was distributed to the aiiport terminal and a number of businesses associated with the aiiport for various uses, including drinking water, VIPA officials indicate that powdered chlorine was periodicaUy added to water in the storage tank for disinfection. Recentiy, the aiiport was connected to the VIWAPA's water distributioi^^ 10 800018 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release system, thereby eliminating the need to use the two aiiport supply weUs except in cases of emergency (2,3,4). A large number of private water supply weUs are located throughout the island of St. Croix, especiaUy in areas that are not served by the VIWAPA municipal water system. Records containing specific information about private weUs on the island are scarce and generaUy incomplete. Most private weUs on the island are reported to be screened in the shaUow aUuvial aquifer or in the upper portion of the deeper KingshiU aquifer. These weUs are beUeved to be used primarUy for drinking water supply, irrigation, and commercial/industrial operations. The closest private weUs to the site are two wells at the concrete plant about 150 feet east of the site, and two weUs at the asphalt plant about 100 feet northwest of the sile (Figure 2). These four weUs are located across River Gut from the site, and are used for industrial/commercial purposes ordy—not for potable water supply. The closest private weUs used for drinking water are not known for certain, but may be the wells at the Golden Grove TraUer Park located approximately three-quarters of a mUe northwest of the site (2,3,4). Most private dwellings on St. Croix have cisterns which are used to store rainwater ftx)m rooftop catchment systems. Cisterns provide almost 10% of the freshwater suppUes on the island. Some residences depend on cisterns as their principle source of potable water, whUe others use cisterns to supplement their private weU water. In addition, when rainfall is adequate, many residences use water from their cisterns instead of the municipal water supply to reduce their water costs (2,12). The nearest surface water to the site is River Gut, an intermittent stream that borders the site on the north and east. The gut originates northwest of the site, flows past the site and then, about 800 feet to the southeast, flows under Highway 66 where it is joined by another intermittent stream, Bethlehem Gut. About 4,500 feet southeast of the site the combined streams discharge to the Caribbean Sea. River Gut is an intermittent stream that generaUy flows only during the island's rainy season (September to December). Although the gut is not likely to be heavUy used for recreatioiial activities such as boating or fishing, in the past chUdren were reported to have used the gut for swimming downstream of the site (13). On the north and northeastem sides pf the site, the gut is about 12 to 15 feet deep with steeply sloped, heavUy vegetated sides. RainfaU ranoff from the site reportedly drains to the gut either by sheet flow, generaUy from southwest to northeast, or by one of two storm drains which discharge to the gut on the southeast side of the site (2,3). 11 800019 4 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release ] COMMUTSflTY HEALTH CONCERNS During the December 1994 site visit, ATSDR staff contacted officials ofthe Virgin Islands Department of Health, the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority, and the Virgin Islands Port Authority to gather information regarding health concems about the site. These officials were not aware of any complaints from the pubUc related to contamination at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. However, a representative of the Virgin Island Port Authority expressed concern about the possibiUty of site groundwater contamination affecting the two aiiport water supply weUs located just west of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS This section of the pubUc health assessment identifies contaminants of concem found in specific environmental media at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. The contaminants of concem wUl be evaluated later in the health assessment to determine if exposure to them wiU affect the pubUc's health. ATSDR selects and discusses contaminants of bbncem using the foUowing information: • concentrations of contaminants on and off site; • the quaUty of field and laboratory data and sample design; • comparison of on- and off-site contaminant concentrations with comparison values for cancer and noncancer endpoints; and I- community health concems. It is emphasized that the Usting of a contaminant in the foUowing tables does not mean it wiU cause adverse health effects if people are exposed at the reported concentrations. Rather, the Usting of a contaminant indicates that the contaminant wiU be evaluated further in this pubUc health assessment. When a contaminant is selected as a contaminant of concem in one medium, its presence or absence in aU media sampled wiU be discussed. 12 : 800020 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release The data tables presented in this section include the foUowing abbreviations and/or acronyms: Comparison Values (CVs) CREG EMEG RMEG LTHA MCLG MCL PMCLG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide Environmental Media Evaluation Guide Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide Lifetime Health Advisory Maximum Contaminant Level Goal Maximum Contaminant Level Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal Data Clarifiers ppb ppm ND parts per biUion parts per miUion not detected N/A N/R J not analyzed or not available not reported associated numerical value is an estimated quantity EMECis are media-specific values developed by ATSDR for use in selecting enviromnental contaminants of potential health concem. EMEGs are calculated using noncancer health endpoints and do not consider potential carcinogenic effects. RMEGs are media-specific values developed by ATSDR from EPA Reference Doses (RfDs), RfDs are EPA's estimates of the daUy exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects. CRECJs are estimated contaminant concentrations expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a milUon persons exposed over a lifetime (70 years). Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are EPA-developed drinking water health goals. EPA beUeves that MCLGs represent levels at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons should occur (aUowing for an adequate margin of safety.) Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (PMCLGs) are MCLGs that are being proposed. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that EPA deems protective of pubUc health (considering the avaUabUity and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 Uters of water per day. EPA's Lifetime Health Advisories (LTHAs) represent the level of a contaminant in drinking water (with a margin of safety) at which adverse noncancer health effects would not be anticipated during a lifetime (70 years) exposure. WhUe MCLs are regulatory concentrations, PMCLGs, MCLGs, and LTHAs are not. 13 800021 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release A. On-Site Contamination As previously discussed, sampling data have been coUected since 1984 from various environmental media at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. Most data were coUected during the ESI site investigations and the EPA Remedial Investigation. Relevant contaminant data from these and other sampUng events, which were described previously in the Background section, are discussed and evaluated below. For the purpose of this pubUc health assessment, "on-site" refers to those areas within the general site boundary shown in Figure 6. AU areas outside of the site boundary, including the River Gut stream channel, are considered to be "off-site". Bulk Chemicals Twenty, 8,500-gaUon above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) were originaUy located in a taiik farm (Area B, Figure 4) along the western site boundary. In the 1980s, six of the tanks were sold and removed from the site. The ASTs were used by the various site operators to store bulk chemicals for use in the plant's manufacturing operations. In October and November 1982, four of the ASTs were sampled and found to contain toluene, xylene, para-phenetidine and 9-fluorenone. These chemicals were later removed from the s i t e ^ ^ for off-site disposal. In March 1986, nine of the ASTs were sampled and the foUowing Uquids^^ were found: 1) a solution of benzoquinone and fluorenone; 2) solutions of benzophenone and fluorenone with traces of VOCs; 3) p-phenetidine; 4) p-phenetidine with aromatics; 5) hydroxyfuranocoumarin; and 6) a mixture of hydroxyfuranocoumarin and p-phenetidine. In January 1989, four of the ASTs were found to be fiUed with ethanol, which was used by one of the site's operators in an alcohol dehydration project, whUe the other 10 were empty. In May 1989, ethanol was again found in the first four tanks whUe diesel fuel was discovered in the fifth tank. In April 1995, field investigators detected a black, petroleum-like Uquid leaking from the drain valve on Tank #5 and a smaU area of stained soU beneath the leaking valve. In addition, at that time only 10 of the ASTs tanks were present; apparentiy, four of the tanks were removedrfrom the site sometime between 1990 and 1994. Sludge In June 1985, ESI sampled sludge inside the process pit (Area C, Figure 4) for organics and inorganics. The sampling data showed high levels of several organic contaminants, such as benzyl acetate, benzene methanol, diphenyl methanone; low levels of other organics, such as chlorofonn; and elevated levels of several inorganic contaminants, including chromium, lead, and zinc. Sampling data for contaminants of concem, (i,e,, contaminants whose concentration exceeded an appUcable ATSDR comparison value and those for which there is no appUcable comparison value) in the process pit sludge samples are shown in Table 1. 14 800022 Islzind chemical/virgin Isl2uid Chemical - Final Release Wastewater In July 1985, ESI sampled wastewater inside the process pit and found detectable levels of several organic and inorganic contaminants. However, most of the inorgaiuc contaminant concentrations did noLexceed appUcable ATSDR comparison values. The contaminants detected in the July 1995 process pit wastewater samples were generaUy consistent with the contaminants found in the June 1995 process pit sludge samples. Sampling data for contaminants found at levels exceeding an appUcable ATSDR comparison value and for contaminants which have no comparison value are presented in Table 2. After the July 1985 sampling event, the process pit tank was cleaned out and fiUed with concrete. Table 1. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Sludge Samples from the Process Pit* & CONTAMINANT. BENZENE MHiHANOL(t) BENZYL ACETAl'ECt) CHLOROFORM(x) CHLOROME1 HYLBENZENEd) 1 -CHLORO-2-MHrHYLBENZENE(t) DIPHENYL ME'lHANONEd) 9H-FLUORENE-9-ONE(t) MElHYLENE CHLORIDE 1.1 •-(0XYBIS(ME1'HYLENE))BIS- BENZENE(t) TOLUENE ARSENIC CHROMIUM COPPER LEAD 2INC(x) CONCENmATION RANGE (ppm) IS.OOOJ 170,000 220 4,4001 40J 30,0001 3,000J 125 4,000J 1,560 40 592 327 688 3,594 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (ppm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1-738' 10-300* 30-100* 10-300* ND-200* COMPARISON VALUE ppm NONE NONE 500 NONE NONE NONE NONE 90 NONE 1,000 0.5 60 NONE NONE 20,000 SOURCE cEMEG CREG ciEMEG CREG CREG (Cr+6) cEMEG Source: Reference (2) ^Source: Reference (14) 'Source: Reference (15) (t)tentatively identified compoimd (x)contaminant of concem in other media at the site I 15 800023 Table 2. Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Wastewater Samples from the Process Pit' CONTAMINANT BENZAT,-DEHYDE(t) BF.N/F.NF. BENZENE METHANOUt) CHLOROMKIHYL BENZENE(t) DIPHENYL MElHANECt) 1,1 '-(OXYBISCMiiTHYT ,F,NE))BIS- BENZENE(t) PHENYL ACE'l ATE(t) TOLUENE ZINC CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppb) 3,000J 40 24,0001 300J 400J 400J 26,0001 380 4,850 COMPARISON VALUE ppb 1,000 1 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 200 3,000 SOURCE cRMEG CREG ciEMEG cEMEG 'Source: Reference (2) (t)tentatively identified con^x>und Soil/Sediment Between September 1984 and Febraary 1991, numerous soU and sediment samples were coUected at the site from several areas of concem, including the AST area (Area B), the central and southem storm drain, the concrete slabs near the AST area (Area E), and the loading dock/lab pit area (Area D) (Figure 4). These data showed high levels of several organic compounds (such as benzophenone, phenol, pyridine, quinidine gluconate, quuune sulfate, and toluene), and sUghtiy elevated levels of some inorganics (including antimony, • iron, lead, and zinc) in site soUs from the areas of concem. Sampling data for contaminants found at levels exceeding an appUcable ATSDR comparison value, and for contaminants which have no comparison value are presented in Table 3. The highest contaminant concentrations were generaUy found in the AST area soUs, which were reportedly contaminated due to a toluene spiU from Tank #8, and in the loading dock/lab pit area soUs, which were beUeved to have been contaminated due to leaks and/or drainage of Uquids from the lab pit. The contaminants found in site soUs were generaUy consistent with chemicals known to have been used as raw materials or manufactured as products during the plant's operating history. AU contaminated soU in the AST area, the loading dock/pit area, and the area near the concrete slabs was rqportedly remediated through excavation, heat treatment, and off-site disposal or through in-situ aeration and biodegradation. 16 800024 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release I Table 3. Historiical (Pre-RI) Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concern in On-Site Soil/Sediment Samples (various depths)* CONTAMINANT ALDRIN BENZOPHENONE d-BHC BIS(2-HfHYLHEXYL)-^ PHIHALATE CARBON IHIRACHLORIDE a-CHLORDANE E-CHLORDANE CHLOROFORM(x) 1,1-DCA 4,4'-DDE (l,l-DICHTORO-2,2-BIS(p- CHLOROPHENYDblHYLENE) DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE HEHl ACHLOR EPOXIDE METHYLENE CHLORIDE 2- M KIH YI .NAPHTHA! F.NF, PYRIDINE QUINIDINE GLUCONATE QUININE SULFATE TOLUENE 1,1,1-TRICHLOROHTHANE ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM COBALT CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppm) 0.012J - 30J 2,600 - 15,000 0.0077J 1.9J-51 10 0.0035J - 4J 0.0061 - 7.5J 0.0014J - 340 0.02 0.024J-5.8J 0.5J - 9 0.0048J - lOJ 0.0015J -1,240 0.63J 0.02 - 3.014 47 - 8,227 82 - 2,594 0.007 -13,880 0.0008J-0.011 9,400 - 27,000 8.4 - 26.6 1J-9.1J 7J 23,300 - 69,300 19.81-llOJ 13.4-22.3 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (ppm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7,000 - 100,000^ < l - 8 . 8 ' <0.1-738' ND-1.5* .1,500-70.000* 10-300* ND-100* COMPARISON VALUE (ppm) 1 0.04 NONE NONE 50 5 0.5 0.5 500 NONE 2 NONE 0.08 90 NONE 50 NONE NONE 1,000 NONE NONE 20 0.5 0.2 NONE 60 NONE CREG CREG CREG CREG CREG cEMEG CREG CREG CREG cRMEG ciEMEG cRMEG CREG CREG CREG (Cr+6) i < f; * • 17 800025 jKiEG'"''"'''^'^'"''""'*"""'"''"""'"""''™'"^'^^^^ Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release (Table 3. continued) COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE POTASSIUM SODIUM TTSSrrr'i 45 - 367 21,500-183,000 9-466 3,630 - 7,800 735-1,420 2,170 - 2,990 N/R 61-1 7101 30-100*- 30,000 - 50,000* 10-300* 7,000 -15,000* 700 -10,000* 50 - 37,000" 3,000 -10,000* NT)-9fVT^ NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE ?,nnnn rEMF.Q . 'Source: Reference (2); "Source: Reference (14); * Source: Reference (15) (x)contaminant of concem in other site media During the RI field activities in January 1995, soU samples were coUected from soU borings in the foUowing areas of the site: the AST area (Area B), the process pit area (Area C), the loading dock/lab pit/lab drain area (Area D), the area in front of the concrete slabs (Area E), and the fenced storage area (Area F). SoU samples were also coUected from borings used in the instaUation of the RI monitoring weUs (Figure 7), Depth-discrete soU samples for the shaUow monitoring weU borings were coUected from depths of 0-1 foot and 4-5 feet, whUe samples for the deep monitoring weU borings were coUected at various depth intervals ranging from 0-1.5 feet to 25,0-26.5 feet, AU RI soU samples were analyzed for organic and inorganic contaminants. Analysis of the RI soU samples indicated very low levels of VOCs, semi-volatUe organics, and/or pesticides at aU locations except the AST area, which contained significantiy higher levels of three VOCs—acetone, ethylbenzene and xylene. The VOC soU contamination found in the AST area is beUeved to have been associated with leaks and/or spiUs of volatUe chemicals and possibly diesel fuel from one or more of the ASTs, SoU levels of inorganic compounds across the site were similar to normal background levels except for zinc, which was significantiy elevated. Sampling data for contaminants with concentrations that exceeded an appUcable ATSDR comparison value are presented in Table 4 along with those contaminants which have no comparison value. In May 1996, EPA coUected additional soU samples in the AST area to better define the extent of the VOC contamination near Tanks #8 and #9. The soU sampling locations are shown in Figure 8, The sampling data showed higher levels of acetone, ethylbenzene and xylene than in the June 1985 samples. The soU samples also contained methylene chloride and toluene, which were not detected in the earUer samples. Contaminants of concem from the June 1985 soU samples are included in Table 4. 18 800026 D w.m^wajiLi.wj..ji,^4^^j, Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical '^i'k.^i^^mm^m M....,ka.w^w4^j Table 4. RI Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concern in On-Site Soils' Contaminant Concentration Range (ppm) # Detects / A Samples # Detects Above Comparison Values Comparison Values (ppm) Comparison Value Reference Background Concentration Range (ppm) Maximum Detection 1 Sample ID f Sample Date Volatile Organic Compounds 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Semivolatile Organic Compounds Di-n-octylphthalate 0.008 0.120 1/49. 1/27 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SBBllB/14-16 SBD3/0-2/012095 5/30/96 1/20/95 DaU Oualifier J J Pesticides I Endrin aldehyde 0.004 2/27 NA NA NA NA SBC2/0-1/013095 1/30/95 i Metals 1 Aluminum Arsenic Beryllium Calcium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Potassium Sodium 9,350 - 28,200 0.950- 1.5 0.15-0.58 4,640- 133,000 8.1 -31.7 27.9-141 18,100-63,400 1.9-89.9 4,340 - 13,900 216-2,100 597 - 4,330 358 - 2.430 31/31 4/31 27/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 24/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 NA 4 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 20 200 0.2 300 4,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CREG EMEG (C) Child EMEG (C) Adult CREG RMEG Child RMEG Adult NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7,000 -100,000' ND - ND* ND- 1.5* 1,00-70,000* ND - 100* 30 - 100* 30,000 - 50,000* 10 -300* 7,000 - 15,000* 700 - 10,000* 50 - 37,000' 3,000 - 10,000* SBBI/0-1/013195D SBFlA/13-15/020395 SBBl/0-1/013195D SBCl/20-22/012795 SBB1/0-1/013195D SBF3/0-1/012495 SBF3/0-1/012495 SBEl/0-2/011895 SBD4/0-1/012795 SBB1/0-1/013195D SBB1/0-1/013195D SBCl/0-1/012795 1/31/95 2/3/95 1/31/95 1/27/95 1/31/95 1/24/95 1/24/95 1/18/95 1/27/95 1/31/95 1/31/95 1/27/95 *J BJ N*J *J 'Source: Reference (16) 'Depth of sample is indicated after first slash (i.e., SBEl/0-2/011895 was collected at 0-2 it below ground surface). 'Source: Reference (14) *Source: Reference (15) NA - Not available B - For inorganics, the reported value is less than the Contract Required Limit but greater than the Instrument Detecdon Limit N - Spike recovery not within control limits * - Duplicate analysis not wilhin control limits 19 00 o o o to - J Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Groundwater—Monitoring Wells In January and Febmary 1995 four shaUow monitoring weUs (MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, and MW^ 5) were instaUed at the site, during the RI field activities. The monitoring weU locations are shown in Figure 9, The weU depths ranged from 27 feet to 33 feet below ground surface, A fifth monitoring weU (MW-2) was planned near the process pit, but was not instaUed because instaUation of a weU in that area could have aUowed soU contaminants, if present, to migrate into site groundwater. In mid Febmary 1995, the four monitoring weUs were sampled for VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pyridine, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and inorganics. In May 1995, a second round of groundwater samples was coUected from the wells. Analysis of the groundwater samples revealed the presence of several VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and inorganics in the groundwater samples. The highest contaminant concentrations, especiaUy for VOCs and SVOCs, were generaUy found in samples from MW-1 in the AST area. Groundwater contamination in the AST area is beUeved to have resulted from leaks and/or spiUs of volatUe chemicals and possibly diesel fuel from one or more of the ASTs. Analytical data for contaminants found in the February 1995 or May 1995 samples at levels exceeding an appUcable ATSDR comparison value, and for contaminants which have no comparison value are presented in Table 5, In May 1996, two additional shaUow monitoring wells were instaUed to further characterize groundwater quaUty at the site—MW-2 near the old process pit, and MW-6 between tanks #8 and #9 in tiie AST area (Figure 9), MW-2 and MW-6 were 29 feet and 27 feet in dq)tii, respectively. In June 1996, groundwater samples were coUected from the two new monitoring weUs. Samples from MW-2 were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, cyanide, pyridine, and inorganics, whUe the MW-6 samples were analyzed for VOCs only. At MW-2, several organic compounds were detected, most notably: carbon disulfide, chloroform, and methylene chloride, and a number of inorganics (similar to those found in the 1995 samples from the other monitoring weUs). At MW-6, high levels of ethylbenzene and xylenes were found, indicating significant VOC contamination beneath the AST area. Contaminants of concem from the May 1996 monitoring weU samples are included in Table 5, 20 800028 ' '' "' '^•'wiii'"iini*jukn,jM)n;tj|>n^,mimjimmmjjjj Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - ^^m^s^ss^mmamm Table 5, Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concern in On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Wells' CO O O O NJ Contaminant Concentration Range (ppb) # Detects / ff Samples # Detects Above Comparison Values Comparison Value (ppb) Comparison Value Reference Maximum Detection Sample ID # Sample Date Data Oualiner Volatile Organic Compounds Chloroform Ethyl benzene Methylene chloride Xylene (total) 590 2-23,000 0.4 - 6,400 0.9 - 27,000 1/10 4/10 4/10 5/10 2 .:^ 2 2 1 6 100 400 700 1000 4000 5 600 2,000 2000 7000 CREG EMEG (C) Child EMEG (C) Adult MCL > RMEG Child RMEG Adult CREG EMEG (C) Child EMEG (C) Adult EMEG (I) Child EMEG 0) Adult MW-2/6/17/96D MW-6/06/17/96 ' MW-6/06/17/96 MW-6/06/17/96 6/17/96 6/17/96 6/17/96 6/17/96 BJ Semivolatile Organic Compounds 4-Methylphenol 48 1/8 NA NA NA MW-1/021695D 2/16/95 1 Pesticides Aldrin alpha-BHC beta-BHC delta-BHC Endosulfan sulfate Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide 0.013 0.039 - 0.083 0.017-0.18 0.057 0.035 0.025 - 0.041 0.025 0.025 0.014 1/8 2/8 2/8 1/8 1/8 3/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1 2 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 0.002 0.3 1 0.006 0.02 0.02 NA NA NA 0.008 5 20 0.004 0.1 0.5 CREG EMEG (C) Child EMEG (C) Adult CREG CREG CREG NA NA NA CREG RMEG ChUd RMEG Adult CREG RMEG ChUd RMEG Adult MW-3/021595RE MW-3/051195RE MW-1/021695DRE MW-1/050995D MW-1/021695DRE MW-1/021695DRE MW-1/021695DRE MW-1/050995D MW-1/050995D 2/15/95 5/11/95 2/16/95 5/9/95 2/16/95 2/16/95 2/16/95 5/9/95 5/9/95 J PJ P PJ PJ J P P 21 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release CO O O O o Table 5, Continued Contaminant Concentration Range (ppb) # Detects / # Samples # Detects Above Comparison Values Comparison Value (ppb) Comparison Value Reference Maximum Detection Sample it) # Sample Date Metols (total) Aluminum Arsenic Beryllium Calcium Cobalt Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium 306- 18,500 1.8-5.4 0.12-1.6 44,900-211,000 6.7 - 82.5 339 - 28,400 1.6-20.3 31,200-90,500 108-14,100 1,260-26,400 2.2 - 24.2 314,000-928,000 15.3 - 456 9/9 6/9 5/9 9/9 3/9 9/9 6/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 3/9 9/9 9/9 NA 6 4 5 NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA 2 NA 8 1 NA 0.02 3 10 50 0.008 50 2,000 4 NA NA NA 15 NA NA NA 20 NA 30 100 NA CREG EMEG (C) Child EMEG (C) Adult MCL CREG RMEG ChUd RMEG Adult MCL NA NA NA EPA Acdon Level NA NA NA EMEG (C) Child NA RMEG Child RMEG Adult MW-5/021595 MW-3/021595 MW-1/050995D MW-3/051195 MW-5/021595 MW-5/021595 MW-5/05I095 MW-3/05M95 MW-5/021595 MW-3/05U95 MW-1/021695D MW-2/6/17/96D MW-5/021595 2/15/95 2/15/95 5/9/95 5/11/95 2/15/95 • 2/15/95 5/10/95 5/11/95 2/15/95 5/11/95 2/16/95 6/17/96 2/15/95 Data Oualifier EN»J B N N*J S ENJ BJNW E 'Source: Reference (16) B - For inorganics, the reported value is less dian the Contract Required Limit but greater than the Instrument Detection Limit E - Exceeded the calibration range ofthe instrument W - Furnace AA post-digeslioii spike out of control limits * - Duplicate analysis not within control limits P - Greater than 25 percent didcrence between 26C columns ppb - parts per billion S - Determined by the Method of Standard Additions NA - Not available N - Spike recovery not within control limits 22 Island Chemical/Virgin Isleuid Chemical - Final Release Groundwater—Private WeUs Two water supply weUs are located at the site. These weUs were used whUe the plant was active to supply process water for the plant's operations and for fire protection. The north supply weU (P-2) was sampled in March 1986 and the southwest supply weU (P-1), in Febmary 1991. The locations ofthe two process weUs are shown in Figure 9. The 250,000-gaUon on- site water tank, formerly used to store water from the two supply weUs, was sampled in January 1990. Sampling data for contaminants found at levels exceeding an appUcable ATSDR comparison value, and for contaminants having no comparison value, are presented in Table 6. These data showed that chloroform was present in samples from both weUs and the water tank, whUe two other organics—bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate—were found only in supply weU P-2. In addition, a number of inorganic compounds were detected in samples from both P-1 and P-2. Table 6. SampUng Data for Contaminants of Concem in On-Site Production Wells' CONTAMINANT BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)- ,.»., PHTHALATE CHLOROFORM DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE ARSENIC 1 BERYLLIUM CALCIUM IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM .snnnTM CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppb) 280 23.9 - 130 2.4J - 3.9 2 J - 7 5J 68,800 121 3.1-5 43,500 548 nnn • . SAMPLING DATE 3/86 3/86, 1/90, 2/91 3/86 3/86, 2/91 3/86, 2/91 3/86, 2/91 3/86, 2/91 3/86, 2/91 3/86, 2/91 1/Xfi 7/91 COMPARISON VALUE • ppb 3 6 NONE 0.02 0.008 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONF Source CREG CREG CREG CREG 'Source: Reference (2) Ambient Air No sampling data for VOCs in ambient air at the site were available during the development of this pubUc health assessment. In addition, data from air sampling conducted inside the lab and warehouse buUding during previous site investigations and removal activities could not be found. 23 •A •'S. 800031 Island Chemical/Virgin Islemd Chemical - Final Release B. Off-Site Contamination Groundwater—PubUc Water Supply WeUs VTWAPA Miiniripal WP.IIS Samples from three Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VIWAPA) supply weUs near the site were coUected several times between March 1988 and Febmary 1991. The three weUs, Fairplains WeUs #6, #8, #9, are located about 900 to 1300 feet southeast of tiie site. Until recentiy, water from the VIWAPA Faiiplains weUs was pumped into the Fairplains water tank where it mixed with desalinated seawater from VIWAPA's Christiansted treatment units, and water from other VIWAPA municipal weU fields, prior to being chlorinated and pumped into the municipal water distribution system. The VIWAPA Fairplains wells are no longer active. I As shown in Table 7, chloroform had been found in the past in the Fairplains municipal weUs at levels exceeding ATSDR's comparison value, but not EPA's MCL. Several inorganic compounds commonly found in groundwater aquifers (such as calcium, magnesium, and manganese) were also detected in the weU samples, along with low levels of lead and mercury. In addition, the weU samples contained high levels of sodium, indicating that groundwater near the site is very saline. Table 7. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concern in Municipal Supply Wells''^ CONTAMINANT CHLOROFORM CALCIUM LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGAhHESE MhRCURY snnnTM CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppb) 5-75 69,900 - 127,000 3.9 - 4.2 48,600-71,600 17.7 - 400 3.3 361 nnn - 59fl non SAMPLING DATE (3) 2/91 2/91 2/91 2/91 2/91 ?,/91 COMPARISON VALUE ppb 6 100 NONE NONE NONE NONE 2 NONE SOURCE CREG MCL Mcy MCLG 'VIWAPA FMrplains wells #6, #8, & #9 ^Source: Reference (2) 'Samples taken 3/88, 10-11/88, 1/90, 6/90, & 2/91 24 800032 y ^ l ^ ^ M M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ «i4,.Jii!>'MHK«!UN.ini«..JBI m Isliuid Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release VTPA Airport We.lk Two airport supply weUs, operated by the Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA), are located about 900 to 1200 feet west of the site (Figure 2). UntU recentiy, these two weUs were used as the Alexander HamUton Airport's primary water supply source. Between March 1988 and October 1995, the airport weUs and the airport water supply were sampled on numerous occasions by site investigators and the VIPA. The only organic compounds detected in the airport weU water samples were trihalomethanes (bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and chlorodibromomethane). Several commonly occurring inorganics were also detected in the airport water samples, along with high levels of sodium. Sampling data for contaminants found in the aiiport weUs at levels exceeding an appUcable ATSDR comparison value, and for contaminants having no comparison value, are presented in Table 8, Table 8, Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concem in Airport Supply Weils''^ CONTAMINANT BROMOFORM BROMODICHLORO- METHANE CHLOROFORM CHLORODIBROMO- MbT'HANE ALUMINUM CALCIUM IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM POTASSIUM SODIUM YANADTTTM CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppb) 68 - 121 2 2J-11.5 6 - 8 60-70 61,300-75,800 36 2-18 40,100 - 58,000 2,100-2,200 237,000 - 572,000 5mT SAMPLING DATE (3) (3) (4) (3) (5) 2/91 (5) (6) (5) (5) (5) 7/Q1 COMPARISON VALUE ppb 4 0.6 6 0.4 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 10 SOURCE CREG CREG CREG CREG riFAfF.fi 'VIPA wells #1 & #2 ^Source: References (2) and (17) 'Samples taken 5/92, 9/92, 12/92, & 10/95 'Samples taken 3/88, 10-11/88, 6/90, 2/91, 5/92, 9/92,12/92, & 'Samples taken 2/91, 5/95, & 7/95 "Samples taken 10/88, 2/91, 5/95, & 7/95 10/95 25 800033 ZsXaiid Chemical/virgin Isljmd chemical - Final Release Groundwatei^-Private Water Supply Wells Sampling data for off-site private weUs were not available to ATSDR during the development of this pubUc health assessment. ATSDR considers this a significant data gap because area private weUs near the site could be affected by site-related groundwater contaminants now, or sometime in the future. Surface Water The oiUy surface-water body at the site is River Gut, an intermittent stream along the north and east boundary, of the site. The gut is normaUy dry, except after heavy rains. When the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical faciUty was active, the gut received wastewater from the plant's lab pit, process water from the plant's process pit, and stormwater mnoff from the plant property. No sampling data for surface water in the gut were avaUable to ATSDR during the development of this pubUc health assessment. Sedunent Sediments in the River Gut stream chaimel were sampled in Febmary 1986, March 1986, and Febmary 1991. Samples were coUected at various locations, including the point where the lab j j j ^ pit discharges to the gut and the point where the central storm drain discharges to the gut, ^ ( P The sampling data showed low to moderate concentrations of several VOCs and SVOCs in the gut sediments; however, none of the contaminant levels exceeded ATSDR's comparison values. The greatest number of contaminants and the highest contaminant concentrations were generaUy found at the point where drainage from the process pit entered the gut via the central storm drain. A number of inorganics were also detected in the sediment samples. Again, the highest levels of contaminants, including chromium, lead, and zinc, were found at the central storm drain discharge point. Most of the inorganic concentrations (as shown in Table 9) were similar to normal background soU levels, and oiUy a few—arsenic, beryUium, and chromium—exceeded an appUcable ATSDR comparison value. Zinc levels in the gut sample, although elevated, did not exceed ATSDR comparison values. 26 800034 I s l a n d c h e m i c a l / v i r g i n I s l a n d Chemical - F i n a l R e l e a s e Table 9. Sampling Data for Contaminants of Concern in River Gut Sediments' CONTAMINANT DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE ALUMINtIM ARSENIC BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE POTASSIUM .snnnTM CONCENTRATION RANGE (ppm) 7.7-17 15,700-32,400 0.8J-4.1J 7 - 8 45,600 - 82,100 10-71.1 14.7 - 25.4 25.3 - 69.7 25,700 - 39,200 7.5 - 46.4 7,600-11,800 954-1,430 1,490-1,600 1 6401 -1 750 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (ppm) N/A 7,000 - 100,000= <0.1-738' ND-1.5' 1,500-70,000' 10-300' ND-100' 30-100' 30,000 - 50,000' 10-300' 7,000 - 15,000' 700 - 10,000' 50 - 37,000" ionn-ionnn' COMPARISON VALUE ppm NONE NONE 0.5 0.2 NONE 60 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONF SOURCE CREG CREG CREG (CT+6) 'Source: Reference (2) "Source: Reference (14) 'Source: Reference (15) C. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Review ATSDR conducted a search of the EPA Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) database for faciUties in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The search showed that some faciUties in the area have released various organic and inorganic compounds to the air, water, and land. However, it should be noted that information in the TRI database is reported oiUy by large companies that handle certain quantities of hazardous chemicals. Therefore, it is not possible to determine from the TRI records whether any smaU businesses have released contaminants in the site area. D. QuaUty Assurance and QuaUty Control The reports and laboratory data sheets ATSDR reviewed indicate laboratory procedures used to analyze samples from the site included quaUty control measures, ATSDR presumes that 27 800035 Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release appropriate protocols were foUowed, and that analytical data are accurate. The vaUdity of ATSDR's evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations is contingent upon the completeness and reUabiUty of the avaUable site data and information. £. Physical and Other Hazards The Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is Uttered with debris (e.g., old pipes, pieces of metaj, wooden paUets, empty drums, old plant equipment, junk cars, semi-tmck traUer, old tires, naUs) which could pose a threat to site trespassers. Other potential physical hazards include the site's dilapidated and deteriorating buUdings and tanks and the unsecured outside stairway from which persons could accidentaUy faU and be injured. Access to these hazards by trespassers, such as the one observed during the AprU 1997 site visit, is possible because the site entrance gate is broken and some sections of the site fence are missing. PATHWAYS ANALYSES To determine whether persons are exposed to contaminants from the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site, ATSDR has evaluated the environmental and human components, or pathways, that lead to human exposure. This pathway analysis considers five elements: 1) a ^jk. source of contamination; 2) an environmental medium in which contaminants may be present o ^ ^ through which contaminants may be transported; 3) a point of exposure; 4) a route of human exposure; and 5) an exposed population. ATSDR classifies pathways as completed or potential. For a completed pathway to exist, aU five elements must exist, and there must be evidence that human exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currentiy occuning, or wiU occur in the future. A potential pathway exists when at least one of the five elements is missing, or is not clearly defined, but could exist (e.g., exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could currentiy be currentiy occurring, or could occur in the fiiture). A pathway is eliminated when at least one of the five elements is missing and wiU never exist (e.g., there is no evidence that people have been, are, or wiU be exposed). Completed and potential human exposure pathways for the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site are summarized in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. Estimates of the number of exposed persons for completed exposure pathways and the number of potentiaUy exposed persons for potential e^qwsure pathways are shown in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. The discussion that foUows these tables includes those exposure pathways considered important or relevant to the site. However, exposure pathways that have been eliminated arc also discussed. 28 800036 Island chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Table 10. Completed Human Exposure Pathways for the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site PATHWAY NAME Municipal Water Supply Airport Water Supply EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS Source Chemical use, disposal, spillage, and/or leakage Chemical use, disposal, spillage, and/or leakage Medium Groundwater Groundwater Point of Exposure Residences Businesses Airport Route of Exposure Ingestion Inhalation Skin contact Ingestion^ Inhalation' Skin contact Exposed Population Residents Business employees Airport employees and visitors TIME Past Present' Future' Past 'These are polenlial rather tlian completed exposures because it is not known whether any aclive municipal supply wells are currently impacted by site contaminants or whether any such wells will be impacted in the future. ^For airport employees and visitors 'For airport employees only 00 o o o 29 00 o o o u> 00 Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Table 11. Potential Human Exposure Pathways for the Island ChemicaWirgin Island Chemical Site PATHWAY NAME Private Well Water Source Chemicals Site Soil/ Sediment/ Sludge/ River Gut Sediments River Gut Surface Water Source Chemical use, disposal, spillage and/or leakage Chemical use, disposal, spillage and/or leakage Chemical use, disposal, spillage and/or leakage Chemical use, disposal, spillage and/or leakage Chemical use, disposal, spillage and/or leakage EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS Medium Groundwater Chemicals used/stored/ manufactured at the plant; Air inside the lab or warehouse building Soil Sediment Sludge Sediment Surface Water Point of Exposure Residences Businesses Industry Plant lab or warehouse Site areas with contaminated soil, sediment, and/or sludge, e.g., process pit, lab pit, and AST area (soil only)* River Gut River Gut Route of Exposure Ingestion Inhalation Skin contact Skin contact; Inhalation; Incidental Ingestion Incidental ingestion; Inhalation Ingestion Skin contact Skin contact t Exposed Population Residents Workers Visitors Plant employees Site investigators Site trespassers Plant employees; Site trespassers; Site workers Involved in sampling and/or digging/drilling activities* Persons accessing River Gut Persons accessing River Gut while the jlant was operating TIME Past Present Future Past Past Present* Future* Past Present Future Past *Potential present and/or future exposures for site workers and contaminated subsurface soil in tiie AST area. t Table 12. Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Estimated Population for Completed Exposure Pathways Associated with the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site EXPOSED POPULATIONS Location Persons using the municipal water system Airport employees and visitors Estimated Number 15,000 >325 AFFECTED BY A COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAY* FOR; Chloroform Municipal water supply Airport water supply Other THMs (Bromoform, Bromodichloromethane, and Chlorodibromomethane) Unknown or No Exposure Airport water supply Inorganics (e.g., lead, mercury, sodium) Municipal Water Supply Airport Water Supply Refer to Table 10 for a summary of completed exposure pathways. CO o o o Ul vo 31 •i^in''-h i-Hitcf''.!-- V S'H'."'i!4^--'M'i^jin^^'ix>:<^M-^-.r:-A2i^--:, i^^'if%<feQ>l-] "' -V'"•-.?«?.• 00 o o o l l ^ o Table 13, I s l a n d c h e m i c a l / V i r g i n I s l a n d Chemical - F i n a l R e l e a s e Estimated Population for Potential Exposure Pathways Associated with the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site r " ~- POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATIONS Location Private well users in the site area Former plant employees Site workers/ investigators Site trespassers Persons accessing River Gut Estimated Number Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AFFECTED BY A POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY* FOR: VOCs (e.g. chloroform. Ethyl benzene, toluen^ Private well water** Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge River Gut sediments; River Gut surface water** SVOCs (e.g., pyridine, phthalates) Private well water** Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals; Site soil/sediment/ sludge River Gut sediments; River Gut surface water** Pesticides (e.g. aldrin, chlordane, DDE) Private well water** Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge River Gut sediments Inorganics (e.g., chromium, copper, lead, sodium) Private well water** Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge Source chemicals**; Site soil/sediment/ sludge River Gut sediments * Refer to Table 11 for a summary of potential exposure pathways. ** Sampling data are unavailable or insufflcient to confirm the presence of this contaminant at the potential point of exposure. f • Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release A. Completed Human Exposure Pathways Municipal Water Supply Pathway Chlorofomi has been found in numerous environmental media at the site, including sludge, soUs, sediments, groundwater, and in nearby VIWAPA municipal supply weUs (Fairplains #6, #8, and #9). Chloroform was also known to have been used earUer at the site, as past investigations found the substance stored in dmms and lab containers, as weU as empty dmms that had previously contained chloroform. It is therefore evident that past releases of chloroform resulted in contamination of site soils and groundwater. Moreover, the groundwater chloroform levels are highest near the center of the site (in MW-2 near the former process pit), lower near the perimeter of the site (in weUs P-1 and P-2), and generaUy lowest away from the site (in nearby VIWAPA and VIPA weUs). This suggests that chloroform has migrated from the site and impacted nearby water supply wells. Persons using the municipal water system before the VIWAPA Fairplains weUs were shut down were likely exposed to chloroform in their drinking water. Exposure could have occurred by drinking contaminants in the water (ingestion), by breathing contaminants evaporating from the water during showering or other indoor water uses (inhalation), and by absorbing contaminants through the skin during bathing, showering, etc.(dermal contact). It is estimated that up to 15,000 people—the approximate number of persons served by the municipal water system—could have been exposed to low concentrations of chloroform from using municipal water. Because no sampling data are available for chloroform at the users' taps, the actual number of persons exposed and the actual exposure levels are not known. On one hand, because water from the weUs was mixed with water from the VIWAPA desalinization plants in Christiansted and from other non-contaminated VIWAPA municipal weUs in the Fairplains water storage tank, chloroform levels at the tap could have been much lower than those measured in the Fairplains water supply weUs. (Note: Less than 30% of the water entering the water distribution system reportedly came from the Fairplains weUs). The chloroform levels at the tap could also have been lower than the levels found in the municipal supply weUs because of volatilization in the water distribution system. On the other hand, because chloroform is a common by-product of water chlorination and water pumped from the Fairplains storage tank was chlorinated prior to entering the water distribution system, it is possible that chloroform levels at the tap could have been similar to the levels found in the water supply weUs. Other VOCs present in groundwater beneath the site, such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes, have not been detected, to date, in any water supply wells near the site. However, these contaminants have only recentiy appeared in site groundwater, and no sampling data for the municipal supply weUs have been coUected in the past several years. It is possible, therefore, that VOCs other than chloroform may eventuaUy migrate from the site and into nearby pubUc water supply weUs. 33 800041 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Persons using the municipal water system could also have been exposed to inorganics (such as calcium, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, and sodium) detected in the VIWAPA Fairplains weUs. Note: These contaminants could be naturaUy occurring and not be related to contamination at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. Human exposure to inorganics in the Faiiplains weUs was likely insignificant bcjcause of the levels of contaminants in the Fairplains weUs, and the large amount of dUution provided by mixing water from the Faiiplains weUs with water from other VIWAPA weU fields and the VIWAPA desalination plant. Airport Water Supply Pathway Chloroform has been detected in the two VIPA airport supply wells, which are located less than a quarter mUe southwest of the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. As previously discussed, chloroform released into groundwater at the site has likely migrated into off-site water supply weUs including the two aiiport weUs, UntU recentiy, water from the two aiiport wells was pumped into a storage tank near the airport and occasionaUy chlorinated. Water from the storage tank was distributed to the | aiiport terminal and other operations at the aiiport for various uses, including drinking | fountains and restrooms. Samples coUected at various points in the airport's water distribution | system between May 1992 and October 1995 indicated chloroform and three other ^ j ^ l trihalomethanes (THMs)—bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane—in the airport's water supply, Bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane in the water distribution system could have been by-products of chlorination, rather than actual site-related contaminants. Airport visitors were Ukely e3q)osed to THMs in the airport's water supply through ingestion (i.e,, drinking), whUe auport employees were likely exposed through ingestion and possibly inhalation and skin contact (during showering in the employees' shower rooms.) About 325 airport employees are estimated to have been exposed to low levels of THMs in the airport water supply; however, the number of aiiport visitors exposed is unknown. Aiiport visitors and employees could have also been exposed to inorganic contaminants (such as aluminum, iron, lead, sodium, and vanadium) in the airport's drinking water. These contaminants were detected in the airport's two water suj^ly weUs; however, they could have been naturaUy occurring and, therefore, unrelated to contamination at the site. The Alexander HamUton Auport was recentiy connected to the VIWAPA municipal water system to supply aU its water needs. At that time, the two airport weUs were shut down, VIPA officials have indicated that the two wells wUl not be used in the future, except in cases of emergency. 34 800042 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release B. Potential Hiunan Exposure Pathways Private WeU Water Pathway Numerous private weUs have been reported in the site area for uses such as drinking water, irrigation, and commercial/industrial operations; however, information regarding specific weUs and their locations is limited. Two weUs at the concrete plant about 150 feet east of the site and two weUs at the asphalt plant about 700 feet northwest of the site are the private weUs closest to the site. These four weUs, which are located across River Gut from the site, are used for industrial/commercial purposes only—not for potable water supply. The closest private weUs used for drinking water are not known for certain, but could be the weUs at the Golden Grove TraUer Park located ai)proximately three-quarters of a mile northwest of the site. Although no private weUs in the site area are likely to have been impacted by groundwater contamination from the site, no sampling data are available at the present time for confirmation. It is possible that private wells in the site area could be affected in the future, as chloroform and other VOCs (such as ethylbenzene and xylene) continue to migrate away from the site. People using such weUs for drinking water and other household uses could be exposed to VOCs from the site through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact (as discussed previously under the Municipal Water Supply Pathway), Source Chemicals Pathway Three main groups of people were potentiaUy exposed to chemicals used, manufactured, or stored at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical plant: 1) former plant employees, 2) site investigators, and 3) site trespassers. Former plant employees, such as lab or warehouse workers, who handled or worked around raw materials, intermediate products, or finished products could have been exposed to contaminants through inhalation or skin contact. Site investigators involved in environmental inspections, sampUng activities, or removal actions at the site were potentiaUy exposed to chemicals or wastes stored or disposed of on the site property. For instance, during site removal activities in January 1990, environmental technicians were likely exposed to benzyl chloride and triethylamine whUe sampling dmms in the warehouse. According to site documents, the technicians experienced skin irritation when benzyl chloride broke through their protective clothing and were later evacuated from the warehouse when triethylamine vapors reached unsafe levels. Site trespassers could have been exposed to chemicals or wastes stored onsite after the plant shutdown. For example, in October or November 1990, trespassers entered the warehouse buUding and overtumed a number of dmms containing powders (such as saUcyUc acid), and corrosive Uquids (such as acetic acid and sodiwn hydroxide). The trespassers were probably exposed to some of these chemicals through skin contact and inhalation when the contents of the dmms were dumped on the warehouse floor. 35 •I. i 800043 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Site Soil/Sediment/Sludge Pathway In the past, a number of organic contaminants (including benzophenone, chloroform, pyridine, quinidine gluconate, quinidine sulfate, and toluene) were found in site soUs, sediments, and/or sludges. Most of the contaminants were limited, however, to specific areas of the site, such as the process pit area, the lab pit/loading dock area, the AST area, and the central storm drain. Over the years, the contaminated materials in these areas were either removed or remediated. Although some persons, such as plant employees, site investigators, or site trespassers could have been exposed to contaminants in site soUs, sediments, and/or sludges in the past, the potential for current exposure is minimal. Current soU contamination at the site is generaUy limited to an area near Tanks #8 and #9 in the AST area. This contamination, which reportedly resulted from spUlage and/or leakage of volatUe chemicals and possibly diesel fliel from one or more of the ASTs, is found at a depth of more than 10 feet below ground. Human ejcposure to contaminated soU at such a depth is unlikely except for persons involved in drilling or excavation activities, such as site investigators or remedial workers. These persons might experience short-term exposure to soU contaminants through incidental ingestion of contaminated soU or through inhalation of contaminants volatilizing from the soU. Such ejqwsures, however, would likely be minimal since site workers are likely to use appropriate protective measures when conducting extensive soU-disturbing activities in areas where contaminated soU is present. River Gut Sediment Pathway Low levels of organic contaminants, such as butyl benzyl phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate, and elevated levels of inorganics, such as beryUium and zinc, have been detected in the past in the sediments of the River Gut stream channel. These contaminants were found primarily where process water and contaminated stoimwater from the central storm drain discharged to the gut. Persons who access the gut, such as those observed standing with their horses in the gut downstream of the site, could be exposed to contaminants in the sediments through incidental ingestion and skin contact. However, due to the low levels of contaminants detected in the gut sediments and the difficulty of traversing the heavUy vegetated gut stream channel next to the site, significant exposure to site-related contaminants in gut sediments is unlikely. River Gut Surface Water Pathway In the late 1970s and early 1980s, while the plant was in operation, process wastewater was discharged to River Gut from the lab pit and from the process pit (via the central stoim drain). Based on historical sampling data from the lab pit, process pit, and storm drain lines, these discharges contained numerous organic contaminants, such as chloroform, methylene chloride, phenol, toluene and xylenes, and reportedly had a very high pH (13). As such, chUdren who swam or played in the gut downstream of the plant (13) may have been exposed to 36 800044 f # Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release contaminants in the gut's surface water through dermal absorption. In addition, due to the high pH of the plant's discharges, these chUdren may also have experienced skin and/or eye irritation from swimming or wading in the gut. Human exposure to contaminated surface water in the gut likely ceased after the plant shut-down in late 1982 and stopped discharging process wastewater to'the gut. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS A. Toxicoiogical Evaluation Introduction The contaminants of concem (Table 14) released into the environment at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site have the potential to cause adverse health effects. However, for adverse health effects to occur the pathway for exposure must be completed. A release does not always result in exposure. Rather, a person can only be exposed to a contaminant by coining in contact with the contaminant. Health effects resulting from the interaction of an individual with a hazardous substance in the environment depend on several factors. One is the route of exposure: that is, whether the chemical is breathed, consumed with food, soU, or water, or whether it contacts the skin. Another factor is the dose to which a person is exposed, and the amount of the exposure dose actuaUy absorbed. Mechanisms by which chemicals are altered in the environment or inside the body, as weU as the combination (types) of chemicals are also important. Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, life style, and health status ofthe exposed individual influence how the contaminants are absoibed, distributed, metaboUzed, and excreted. Together, those factors and characteristics determine the health effects that can occur as a result of exposure to a contaminant. Much variation in those mechanisms exists among individuals. For example, aU chUdren mouth or ingest non-food items to some extent. The degree of pica behavior varies widely in the population, and is influenced by nutritional status and the quaUty of care and supervision (18). Groups that are at increased risk for pica behavior are chUdren 1 to 3 years old, chUdren from famiUes of low socioeconomic status, and children with neurologic disorders (e.g., brain damage, epUepsy, and metal retardation). Health Guidelines Health guidelines provide a basis for comparing estimated exposures with concentrations of contaminants in different environmental media (soU, air, water, and food) to which people could be exposed. 37 800045 Islamd Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Noncancer Health Effects ATSDR has developed a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for contaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daUy exposure to a contaminant below which noncancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. MRLs are developed for different routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation and ingestion), and for length of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (365 days or greater). Oral MRLs are expressed in units of miUigrams of contaminant, per kUogram of body weight, per day (mg/kg/day). Because ATSDR has no methodology to detennine amounts of chemicals absorbed through the skin, the Agency has not developed MRLs for dermal exposure. The method for deriving MRLs does not include information about cancer, therefore, an MRL does not imply anything about the presence, absence, or level of cancer risk. If an ATSDR MRL is not available as a health value, then EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is used. The RfD is an estimate of daUy human exposure to a contaminant for a lifetime below which (non-cancer) health effects are unlikely to occur (18). r.anr.p,r Health Fffprts The Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies chemicals as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. This classification defines a specific chemical's abiUty to cause cancer in humans and animals. According to EPA, Class A chemicals are known human carcinogens, and Class B chemicals are probable human carcinogens. Class B is ftirther subdivided into two^ groups: Group Bl consists of chemicals for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from epidemiologic studies in humans; and Group B2 consists of chemicals for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, but inadequate evidence or no data available from epidemiologic studies in humans. Group C chemicals are possible human carcinogens. Group D chemicals are not classUlable as to human carcinogenicity, and Group E chemicals are those for which there is evidence that they are not carcinogenic to humans. For carcinogenic substances, EPA has estabUshed the Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) as a guideline. The CSF is used to determine the number of excess cancers resulting from exposure to a contaminant. In its Annual Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifies a chemical as a "known human carcinogen" based on sufficient human data. Its classification of a chemical as being "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" (RAC) is based on limited human or sufficient animal data. ATSDR considers the above physical and biological characteristics when developing health guidelines (18). 38 800046 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Exposure Dose Estimation To Unk the site's human exposure potential with health effects that can occur under site- specific conditions, ATSDR estimates human exposure to the site contaminant from ingestion and/or inhalation of different environmental medium (18). The foUowing relationship is used to determine the estimated exposure to the site contaminant: ED = (C X IR X EF) / BW where: ED = exposure dose (mg/kg/day) C = contaminant concentration IR = intake rate EF = exposure factor BW = body weight Standard body weights for adults, young chUdren, and toddlers are 70 kg, 16 kg and 10 kg, respectively. The maximum contaminant concentration detected at a site for a specific medium is used to determine the estimated exposure, and use of the maximum concentration wiU result in the most protective evaluation for human health. The ingestion rates used are 1 Uter of water per day for chUdren and 2 Uters of water per day for adults. Some exposures are intermittent or irregularly timed, and for those exposures, an exposure factor (EF) is calculated which averages the dose over the exposed period. When unknown, the biological absorption from the water is assunied to be 100 %. Development of Risk Estimates Nnnranrp.r Risks For noncancer health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using e^qwsure assumptions for the site conditions. This dose was then compared to a risk reference dose (estimated daUy intake of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of health effects) developed by ATSDR or EPA. Noncancer effects, unlike carcinogenic effects, are beUeved to have a threshold (i.e., a dose below which adverse effects wiU not occur). As a result, the current practice is to identify, usuaUy from animal toxicology experiments, a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL). This is the experimental exposure level in animal.s at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOAEL is then divided by an uncertainty factor (UF) to yield a risk reference dose. The UF is a number that reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data are extrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the UF takes into consideration various factors, such as sensitive sub-populations (for example, chUdren, pregnant women, and the elderly), extrapolation from animals to humans, and the 39 800047 . Isl2uid C h e m i c a l / V i r g i n Isleuid Chemical - F i n a l R e l e a s e incompleteness of avaUable data. Risk reference doses are selected to be much lower than dosages that do not cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Thus, exposure doses at or below the risk reference dose are not expected to cause adverse health effects in humans. The measure used to describe the potential for noncancer health effects to occur in an individual is expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure to the contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there is concem for potential noncancer health effects. As a mle, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, the greater the level of concem. A ratio equal to or less than one is generaUy considered an insignificant (minimal) increase in risk. ranrp.r Ri<:ks Increased cancer risks were estimated by using site-specific information on exposure levels for the contaminant of concem and interpreting them using cancer potency estimates derived by EPA, for that contaminant. An increased, excess-lifetime, cancer risk is not a specific estimate of expected cancers. Rather, it is an estimate of the increase in the probabiUty that a person could develop cancer sometime in his or her lifetime foUowing ejqposure to that contaminant. Knowledge of cancer mechanisms is currentiy insufficient to decide if a level of exposure to a cancer-causing agent exists below which there is no risk of getting cancer—i.e., a threshold level. Every exposure, no matter how low, to a cancer-causing compound is assumed to be associated with some increased risk. As the dose of a carcinogen decreases, the chance of developing cancer decreases, but each exposure is accompanied by some increased risk. A general consensus has not been reached within the scientific or regulatory communities on an acceptable level of estimated excess cancer risk. Because of the uncertainties in our scientific knowledge about the mechanism of cancer, some have recommended the use of the relatively conservative, excess-Ufetime, cancer risk level of one in one miUion. Others feel that lower or higher risks can be acceptable, depending on scientific, economic and social factors. An increased lifetime cancer risk of one in one nuUion or less is generaUy considered an insignificant increase in cancer risk. Sources of Health Guideline Information ATSDR has prepared toxicoiogical profUes for many substances found at hazardous waste sites. Those documents present data and interpret infonnation on the substances. Health guidelines, such as ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfD and CSF are included in the toxicoiogical profiles. Those health guidelines are used by ATSDR health professionals in determining the potential for developing adverse noncarcinogenic health effects and/or cancer from ejqxasure to 40 800048 Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical -'Final Release a hazardous substance. Preparers of this pubUc health assessment have reviewed the prdfUes for the contaminants of concem at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chenucal site. Development of Estimated Risks at the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site ATSDR has identified two off-site, completed, human-exposure pathways associated with the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. The first completed exposure pathway involves airport employees and visitors who were likely e^qKised in the past to low levels of contaminants (Table 14), including THMs and inorganics (i.e., aluminum, iron, lead, sodium, and vanadium) in the airport water supply weUs via ingestion and/or dermal contact. Because the point of exposure was at taps or showers located in the airport, it is beUeved that these exposures would have been intermittent. Because the nature of the contaminants and the process of deUvery of the drinking water, it is unlikely that exposed persons would have been subjected to any contaminant at the maximum concentration detected during sampling events. It is estimated that about 325 aiiport employees could have been ejqxDsed to the low level contaminants in the airport water supply; however, the number of airport visitors exposed is unknown. The second completed exposure pathway involves users of the murucipal water supply who were likely exposed in the past to low levels of chloroform, lead, manganese, mercury, and sodium (Table 14) from the VIWAPA Fairplains weUs. Exposure to these chemicals would have occurred at any location that utUizes the municipal water supply as a source of drinking water. It is estimated that up to 15,000 people—the approximate number of persons served by the municipal water system—could have been exposed to low level contaminants in the municipal water supply. Discussion of Contaminants of Concem Rrnmnfnrm (19) Bromoform is a clear, heavy Uquid that does not bum and is relatively stable in water. In the past it has been used by industry to dissolve dirt and grease and to make other chemicals, such as fire extinguisher fluid. EarUer this century it was used as a medicine to help chUdren with whooping cough faU asleep. Currently, it is produced in smaU amounts for use in laboratories and in electronic and geological testing. Bromoform is inadvertentiy generated during water chlorination when chlorine reacts with endogenous organic materials such as humic acid. UsuaUy the level of bromoform in chlorinated drinking water is between 1 and 10 micrograms per Uter O^g/l). Bromoform has also been detected in chlorinated swimming pools. In these situations bromoform can enter the body via ingestion, inhalation, and possibly via dermal absoiption (although this has not been studied). Most of the bromoform is eliminated from the body via respiration, with 50% to 90% being eliminated within eight hours. 41 800049 Island Chemical/Virgin Island chemical - Final Release Bromoform was detected at a maximum concentration of 121 yug/l in water samples taken from the airport supply weUs. The calculated exposure doses are more than 100,000 times lower than the short-term exposure lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) for humans (sedation) and the long-term NOAEL for animals (ulcer). No studies were found regarding health effects in humans foUowing inhalation or dermal exposure to bromoform. At the reported concentrations, ATSDR does not expect any adverse, noncancer, health effects to occur in people exposed to bromoform in the aiiport water supply. The EPA classifies bromoform as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen, based upon animal studies. The estimated exposure dose is more than 100,000 times lower than the cancer effect level (CEL) for animals. No increased risk for developing carcinogenic effects is expected in people exposed to the water at the airport. Studies in animals suggest that humans exposed to alcohols, ketones, or other dmgs that influence halomethane metabolism might be more susceptible to the toxic effects of bromoform. Because these organs are adversely affected by ejqwsure to bromoform, persons with existing renal or hepatic disease might also be more susceptible to the toxic effects. Bromodichloromethane (20) Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) is a colorless, nonflammable, heavy Uquid that evaporates quickly. It is usuaUy found in the environmeiit, dissolved in water or evaporated in air. BDCM is formed as a by-product when chlorine is added to drinking water. SmaU amounts of BDCM are produced for use in laboratories or in making other chemicals. BDCM was detected in the airport water supply wells at a maximum concentration of 2 //g/1. Surveys of BDCM levels in chlorinated pubUc drinking water systems across the United States have revealed that BDCM is present in most systems at concentrations averaging around 1 to 20 //g/1. The health effects resulting from short-term or long-term exposure via ingestion of water or inhalation of air containing specific levels of BDCM are not known. However, noncancer health effects are not expected to occur in people ejqwsed to BDCM at the rqwrted level. BDCM is classified as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen, based upon animal data. However, at the reported level, ATSDR expects no increased risk of developing cancer from exposure to BDCM. No studies were found regarding human populations especiaUy suscq)tible to BDCM. However, since BDCM is known to cause Uver injury in animals, it is possible that people with preexisting Uver disease may be more susceptible to the hepatotoxic effects of BDCM. Likewise, people with preexisting kidney disease may also be susceptible to BDCM. By 42 800050 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release analogy with carbon tetrachloride, persons who are heavy drinkers and/or take certain dmgs that affect the Uver may also be particularly susceptible to the effects of BDCM. Chloroform (21) Chlorofonn (or trichloromethane) is a colorless Uquid with a pleasant, nonirritating odor. It has a sUght, sweet taste. Nearly aU chloroform made in the United States is used to produce other chemicals. SmaU amounts of chloroform are formed as an unwanted byproduct when chlorine is added to water to destroy bacteria. Chloroform can easUy enter the body through the skin. If the water is hot enough for the chloroform to evaporate, the chemical can also be inhaled during showering or bathing. Inhaled and ingested, chloroform quickly enters the bloodstream from the lungs and intestines. Once in the bloodstream it can be transported to other body tissues. Chloroform has an affinity for body fat. Some of the chemical is excreted in expired air, unchanged, and some is broken-down into by-products that, once inside susceptible ceUs, can cause harmfiil effects. Some of these breakdown products are released from the body in expired air, and a smaU portion leave the body via urination and excretion. Chloroform has been detected in water from outdoor pools, indoor pools and spas at concentrations ranging between 4 and 402, 3 and 580, and <0.1 and 530 //g/1, respectively. In another study, water from whirlpool spas treated with chlorine disinfectant contained chloroform concentrations ranging from 15 to 674 //g/1. Chloroform was found in airport water supply weUs and municipal weUs at a maximum concentration of 11.5 and 75 //g/1, respectively. The chronic oral MRL for chloroform is 0.01 mg/kg/day. The estimated daUy exposure for persons possibly consuming the water is below the chronic oral MRL; therefore, exposure to the contaminant, at the reported concentrations, is not expected to cause adverse non-cancer health effects. No smdies were found regarding the carcinogenic effects in humans and animals foUowing inhalation or dermal exposure to chloroform. Epidemiologic studies support a weak but significant association between risks of colon, bladder and rectal cancer and water chlorination constituents. Although human data suggest a possible increased risk of cancer at these three sites from exposure to chloroform in chlorinated drinking water, because chlorofonn is the predominant trihalomethane in drinking water, the data are too weak to support a conclusion about the carcinogenic potential. However, EPA has classified the substance as a probable human carcinogen by inhalation and ingestion. Both the NTP and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC) have determined that this substance is anticipated to be a carcinogen. Based on the above worse-case scenario, there would be no increased risk of cancer from chronic exposure to chloroform at the maximum detected level of 75 //g/1 in the contaminated water. 43 800051 • Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Individuals with Uver or kidney impairment are more suscq)tible to chloroform toxicity because chloroform is metabolized mainly by these organs. Drinking water containing higher than acceptable levels of chloroform for extended periods of time can increase the risk for toxic side-effects. Chloroform's toxic effects upon the Uver can also be increased by exhaustion and starvation. Studies on mice indicate that males can be more susceptible to the toxic effects of chlorofonn than females. This was associated with the level of testosterone in the animals, but it is not presentiy known if the same appUes to humans. Chlnrndihrnmnmethane (19) Chlorodibromomethane (CDBM) is heavy, colorless, nonflammable Uquid trihalomethane with a sweetish odor. In the past it was used to make other chemicals, such as fire extinguisher fluids, spray can propeUents, and pesticides. It is currentiy produced only in smaU amounts for use in laboratories. CDBM is rarely measurable in non-chlorinated waters; however, it is frequendy found in chlorinated drinking water. The levels of CDBM in finished drinking water has been investigated in several studies and, except for a few cases, the concentrations were less than 100 //g/1, with the average concentrations generaUy less than 10 //g/1. CDBM was found in water samples taken from the airport water supply weUs at a maximum concentration of 8 //g/1. The estimated exposure doses were more than 1,000,000 lower than the short-term'and long-term LOAEL for less serious effects (minimal histological changes andf fatty changes, respectively) in animals. No studies were found regarding health effects in humans foUowing exposure to CDBM via inhalation, ingestion, or dennal absorption. ATSDR does not expect any adverse noncancer health effects in people exposed to CDBM at the levels reported. CDBM is classified by EPA as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen, based upon animal study data. However, ATSDR expects no increased risk of developing cancer fix)m exposure to CDBM at the reported levels. Studies in animals suggests that humans exposed to alcohols, ketones, or other dmgs that influence halomethane metaboUsm, might be more susceptible to the toxic effects of chlorodibromomethane. Persons with existing kidney or Uver disease might also be more susceptible, since these organs are adversely affected by exposure to chlorodibromomethane. Lead (22) Lead (Pb) is a naturaUy occurring bluish-grey metal. It has no special taste or smeU and can be found in aU parts of the environment. Most of the Pb comes from human activities, such as mining, manufacturing, and burning fossU fuels. Pb's most important use is in the production of batteries. It has many other uses, and can also be found in ammunition, metal products 44 800052 . Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release (pipes and solder), roofmg, and devises to shield x-rays. Because of health concerns, Pb from gasoline, pipe solder, caulking, paints, and ceramics has been drasticaUy reduced in recent years. Foods such as fmits, grains, meat, seafood, soft drinks, vegetables and wine may contain Pb. Cigarettes also contain smaU amounts of lead. In addition, more than 99 % of aU drinking water contains less than 0.005 mUUgrams per Uter (mg/l) Pb. However, the amount of Pb taken into the body through drinking water can be higher in communities with acidic water suppUes. ChUdren residing in older dwellings may be exposed to Pb by eating lead-based paint chips from peeUng surfaces. This is particularly a problem in lower income communities. For occupationaUy exposed individuals, the usual route of exposure is through inhalation of Pb particles. Pb was detected in water samples from the aiiport supply weUs (0.018 mg/l) and the municipal weUs (0.0042 mg/l). ATSDR has no MRL and EPA has no RfD for Pb, however, the estimated exposure doses for each target population is below the LOAEL for neurological effects in monkeys (0.05 mg/kg/day). Ingestion of Pb at very high levels, over time, can result in neurological impairment such as learning disabiUties, especiaUy in chUdren. ATSDR beUeves that most of the exposures would have occurred on an intermittent basis, to low levels of contaminants. Currentiy ATSDR does not have any biological data on people who could have ingested the contaminated water, and such information would be required to make an accurate determination of possible health effects. Pb is classified by EPA as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen, based on animal studies. WhUe there is inadequate evidence to detennine Pb's carcinogenicity in humans, the estimated exposure dose is more than 100,000 times lower than the CEL in animals. Pb exposure is particularly hazardous for unbom chUdren and young chUdren because they are more sensitive to it during their development. The American Academy of Pediatrics considers Pb a significant hazard to the health of chUdren in the United States. The blood lead levels defining lead poisoning have been declining, and the cunent consensus level of concem for chUdren is 10 to 14 micrograms per decUiter (/ig/dL). Effects on stature have been reported to begin at levels as low as 4 //g/dL, which is the present limit for accurate blood lead measurement. Taken together, effects occur over a wide range of blood lead concentrations, with no indications of a threshold. No safe level has yet been found for chUdren, and even in adults, effects are being discovered at lower and lower levels as more sensitive analyses and measurements are developed. 45 800053 -jwssxmssmssmsmmms I s l s m d c h e m i c a l / v i r g i n I s l a n d chemical - F i n a l R e l e a s e ManganfiSft (23) Manganese is a sUver-colored metal in its pure form and is found as a natural constituent in many types 'of rock. The metal form does not occur naturaUy in the environment, but rather in combination with other chemicals such as chlorine, oxygen, and sulfur. The metal manganese is mixed with iron to make steel. Some manganese compounds are used in the production of batteries, as an ingredient in some ceramics, pesticides, and fertilizers, and in dietary supplements. The level of manganese in drinking water is usuaUy about 0.004 mg/l, whereas in soils the level usuaUy ranges from 40 to 900 mg/kg. For nearly aU people, food is the main source of manganese, and usual daUy intakes range from about 2,000 to 9,(X)0 micrograms per day. The exact amount consumed depends upon the diet. Manganese was found in water samples taken fix)m municipal wells at concentrations ranging from 17.7 to 400 micrograms per Uter. The estimated exposure dose for chUdren drinking the water on a daUy basis is sUghtiy lower than the LOAEL for less serious effects in humans (0,059 mg/kg/day). Dermal absorption of manganese does not appear to be toxicologicaUy significant, and no studies were found regarding carcinogenic effects in humans foUowing exposure to manganese via ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absoiption. ATSDR does not expect any adverse non-carcinogeruc or-carcinogenic health effects in people e^qwsed to manganese at the levels detected in the murucipal weU water. Neonates tend to retain a higher amount of manganese in their bodies than adults, and very high levels of retained manganese can lead to neurotoxicity. Other susceptible populations include the elderly, people with Uver disease, and people with respiratory disease. Smokers are more susceptible to development of respiratory symptoms (wheezing, bronchitis) fix>m inhalation of manganese dusts than non-smokers. Mercury (24) Mercury is a naturaUy occurring metal that has several forms. The metaUic mercury is a shiny, sUver-white, odorless Uquid. If heated, it is a colorless, odorless gas. Mercury combines with other elements to form salts, most of which are white powders or crystals. Mercury combined with caibon forms organic mercury. The most cominon organic mercury is methyl mercury. MetaUic mercury is used to produce chlorine gas and caustic soda (lye) and also in thermometers, dental fillings, and batteries. Mercury salts are used in skin-Ughtening creams and in antiseptic creams and ointments. Since mercury occurs naturaUy in the environment it may be present in surface waters even when man-made sources of mercury are not present. 46 800054 Isleuid chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release The concentrations of mercury in rainwater and fresh snow are generaUy below 0.2 //g/1, and drinking water is generaUy assumed to contain less than 0.025 //g/1 of mercury. Mercury was detected in municipal weUs and aiiport supply weUs at maximum concentrations of 3.3 and 1.2 //g/1, rfespectively. The estimated exposure doses are more than 100,000 times lower than the LOAEL for less serious effects in humans (nausea, vomiting, etc.). Therefore, ATSDR does not expect any adverse noncancer effects to occur in people who drank the contaminated waters at the levels reported. Because of lack of data from studies on people and laboratory animals. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have not classified mercury as to its human carcinogenicity. No studies were found regarding cancer in humans foUowing oral or dermal exposure to inorganic mercury, and no studies were located regarding cancer in animals foUowing inhalation exposure to metaUic mercury. .SnHinm (rhlnriflp) (25) Sodium chloride is generaUy in the form of colorless, transparent crystals to a white, crystaUine powder. It is often referred to as "salt". Sodium chloride, at various concentrations, has a wide variety of uses in day-to-day life. In industry it is often used to produce chlorine, caustic soda, and soda ash, mainly in the form of brine. Sodium chloride is rapidly attacked by bromine triflouride. Sodium chloride is required by the human body to maintain proper electrolyte balance. Sodium, presumably in the form of sodium chloride, was detected in samples taken from the airport supply weUs and the municipal weUs at maximum concentrations of 572 mg/l and 590 mg/l, respectively. Young chUdren are very susceptible to the to?dc effects of sodium chloride. Accidental substitution of sodium chloride for lactose in infants formulas have led to accidental fatal poisonings. Sodium chloride is filtered by the kidneys, therefore, people with kidney disease are susceptible to the effects of sodium chloride. Vanadium (26) Vanadium is a naturaUy occurring white to grey metal that is often found in the crystalline form. It does not occur in the environment in its pure state, which is virtuaUy odorless, but rather combined with other elements to form chloride, oxygen, sodium, or sulfur compounds. It is not weU known which forms of vanadium are more likely to be found at waste sites. 47 8 0 0 0 5 5 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release 00 O O O (Jl Table 14. Results of Comparison of Estimated Exposure Dose to Health Guidelines for Persons Exposed to Off-Site Contaminants Related to the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical Site Contaminant Bromoform Bromodichloromethane 1 Chloroform Chlorodibromomethane Lead Manganese Mercury Sodium Vanadium Pathway Medium Airport Supply WeUs Airport Supply WeUs Airport Supply WeUs Municipal Wells Airport Supply Wells Airport Supply WeUs Municipal Wells Municipal Wells Auport Supply WeUs Municipal WeUs Aiiport Supply WeUs Municipal Wells Airport Supply WeUs Health GuideUne (mg/kg/day) Value 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.03 iiiiiiiiiiiiii 0.005 0 IIII 0 Source MRL MRL MRL MRL None RflD RflD Unknown RfD Exceeded by Estimated Exposure Dose NO NO NO NO iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii YES IIIIIIIIIII llliiiiiliiiipilil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ipiiiiiiiiiiii:iiii;iiiiiiiiii i^|:|ili-;i:|::^-iiil^:^ii:^S:^:::^^^^ ^liiiiiv:|:il^lli^lili:|^l.|:|i:iil Cancer Class B2 B2 B2 C B2 Illllll IIIIII Illllll iiiiiiiiiiiii Unknown = Health guideline not available None = Health guideline not available MRL = ATSDR's Minimal Risk Level RfD = EPA's Reference Dose Isl2«id Chemical/Virgin Island chemical - Final Release Most people are exposed to low concentrations of vanadium daUy via food, drinking water, and air. A person may take in as much as 10-20 micrograms per day in food. Vanadium has been found in groundwater and at hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. In the past, vanadium was found in the airport water supply weUs at a concentration of 50.3 //g/1. Drinking water is not considered to be an important source for vanadium exposure as vanadium does not dissolve weU in water, but it can be carried in the water much the same way that sand is carried. Vanadium that has been ingested is unlikely to enter the bloodstream; it wUl most likely be excreted in the feces. It is also unlikely to enter the body via dermal exposure. The estimated exposure doses are less than the intermediate MRL of 0.003 mg/kg/day; therefore no Ulnesses are expected for people ingesting the water on an intermittent basis at the levels reported. Toxicoiogical Evaluation Summary The estimated exposure dose for chUdren consuming municipal water containing manganese at the maximum concentration reported was greater than EPA's reference dose. It was sUghtiy less than the LOAEL for less serious effects in humans; therefore, ATSDR does not expect any adverse noncancer health effects to occur in the exposed chUdren. Because of the lack of biological data, ATSDR could not determine if adverse health effects were likely to occur or have occurred as a result of exposure to lead in the water suppUes. Adverse noncancer health effects are not expected from exposure, via ingestion, to the other contaminants evaluated in the PubUc Health ImpUcations section of this document. However, because of the lack of air data, inhalation exposures could not be thoroughly evaluated at this time. Carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur as a result of exposure to bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, manganese, and vanadium. It is not known if lead, sodium, or mercury causes cancer in humans. B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation ATSDR conducts a review of health outcome data when the toxicologic evaluation indicates the likelihood of adverse health outcomes or when the community near the site has health concems. The evaluation of health outcome data can give a general picture of the health of a community, or confirm the presence of excess disease or illness in a community. However, elevated rates of a particular disease might not necessarily be caused by hazardous substances in the environment. Other factors, such as personal habits, socioeconomic status, and occupation, can also influence the development of disease. In contrast, even if elevated rates of disease are not found, a contaminant can stiU have caused illness or disease. 49 800057 Island chemical/Virgin Isletnd Chemical - Final Release The population surrounding the site is relatively smaU and transient. Health outcome data were n o ^ evaluated at this site because no previous health studies on the population around the site were identified during the gathering of data and infonnation for this pubUc health assessment. In addition, the Virgin Islands do not have a centralized cancer registry that could be used to determine if the occurrence of cancer, if any, near the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site is more than would be expected. -i C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation | 4 • - . . - | ATSDR has conducted two visits to the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical NPL site. No | community health concems were identified during the process of gathering data and information for | this pubUc health assessment. i 1:f i 50 I! I 800058 Island Chemical/virgin IslzLnd Chemical - Final Release CONCLUSIONS 1. ATSDR has classified the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site a no apparent public health hazard because available environmental sampling data do not indicate that people have been exposed to site contamination at levels that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. Nevertheless, ATSDR beUeves the site's numerous physical hazards, including misceUaneous debris (e.g., old pipes, pieces of metal, old plant equipment, junk cars, old tires, naUs, old lockers, old lab equipment); dUapidated and deteriorating buUdings and storage tanks; and unsecured outside stairways could pose a minor safety threat to site trespassers. 2. ATSDR has identified two completed human exposure pathways associated with contamination from the site: 1) users of the municipal water supply who were likely exposed to low levels of contaminants, such chlorofonn, lead, and mercury, in their residential drinking water, and 2) workers and visitors at the Alexander Hamilton Airport who were likely exposed to low level of contaminants, including bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, aluminum, iron, lead, mercury, and aluminum, in the airport's drinking water. These past ejqxjsures are no longer occurring because the municipal and aiiport weUs that were impacted by contamination are no longer in use. In addition, some of the contaminants detected in the municipal and aiiport water suppUes might not be directiy related to contamination at the site. ATSDR has conducted a toxicoiogical evaluation of contaminants (which may be site-related) in the municipal and airport drinking water suppUes. Based upon that evaluation, ATSDR beUeves that adverse noncancer health effects wUl not occur. In addition, ATSDR beUeves that there would be no increased risk of developing cancer from exposures to those contaminants with known carcinogenic endpoints. 3. ATSDR has also identified the foUowing potential human exposure pathways associated with the site: 1) residents in the site area who use private weU water for their household water needs (e.g., drinking, bathing, showering); 2) former plant employees, site investigators, and trespassers who could have come into contact with chemicals in raw materials, finished products, and wastes associated with former site operations, or contaminated soUs and sediments resulting from former site operations; and 3) persons who may have come into contact with surface water (whUe the plant was in operation) or sediments in the River Gut stream channel downstream of the site. ATSDR beUeves that the pubUc health significance of these potential exposures is likely to be minimal. However, additional information regarding the use and quaUty of private weU water in the site area is necessary to fuUy evaluate this potential exposure pathway. 4. Health outcome data for the population surrounding the site was not identified during the gathering of information and data for this pubUc health assessment. 51 800059 Island chemical/virgin Isleuid Chemical - Final Release rprams Data inadequacies include the foUowing: (1) limited sampling data for the VIWAPA Faiiprams weUs and the VEP A airport supply weUs; (2) no sampling data for other VIWAPA weUs near the site, such as the Bethlehem, Negro Bay, Golden Grove weUs; and (3) no sampling data or water use information for private weUs in the site area. No community health concems about the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site have been expressed by the citizens of St. Croix. f I * 52 800060 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release RECOMMENDATIONS Site Characterization Recommendations 1. If the VTWAPA Faiiplains weUs are ever returned to service, sample the weUs and the Fairplains storage tank to ensure that site-related contaminants are not present in the weUs or in the municipal water distribution system at levels of health concem. 2. Sample the two VEPA aiiport supply weUs for site-related contaminants if they are ever used in the future to supply drinking water to the airport. 3. Consider sampling active VIWAPA municipal supply weUs near the site, including the Bethlehem, Golden Grove, and Negro Bay weUs, to ensure that these weUs are not being impacted by groundwater contamination from the site. 4. If possible, identify private drinking water weUs in the site area that could potentiaUy be impacted by contaminants from the site, and sample the identified weUs to ensure that site- related contaminants are not present at levels of health concem. Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations 1. Restrict access to the site to protect persons from the numerous physical hazards present and to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the site during environmental sampling or remediation activities. 2. Implement actions, where appropriate, to prevent groundwater contamination from spreading to down gradient areas and possibly impacting other pubUc and/or private water supply weUs. 3. Consider institutional controls to prevent fiiture site occupants from using contaminated groundwater beneath the site for drinking water supply. Such controls should remain in place untU remediation or natural processes have reduced the contaminant levels to below levels of health concem. 4. Provide any environmental sampUng/investigative personnel or remedial site workers working in areas where significant site contamination is present, or potentiaUy present (such as the process pit and AST areas), with adequate protective equipment and training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120. Also, ensure that appropriate National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Occupational Safety and Healtii Admmistration (OSHA) guidelines are foUowed. 53 800061 s»iwg»«a^»y'sga^aaBgy.M^ Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release Health Activities Recommendations In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabiUty Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, the data and information developed in the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical PubUc Health Assessment have been reviewed by ATSDR's Division of Health Education and Promotion (DHEP) and Division of Health Studies (DHS) for appropriate foUow-up health activities. Based on their review, DHEP and DHS have determined that no foUow-up health activities are indicated for the site at this time. However, ATSDR wiU reevaluate the site for appropriate foUow-up health activities if future data or information indicates that human exposure to site contaminants is occurring at levels of pubUc health concem. PUBLIC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS The PubUc Health Recommendations and Actions Plan (PHRAP) for the Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site contains a description of actions taken, to be taken, or under consideration by ATSDR and/or other government agencies at or near the site. The purpose of the PHRAP is to ensure that this pubUc health assessment not only identifies pubUc health hazards, but provides a plan | of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to | hazardous substances in the environment. ATSDR and appropriate government agencies wiU foUow up on this plan to ensure that it is implemented. A. Actions Completed ATSDR has conducted two visits to the site in order to verify site conditions and to gather pertinent information and data for the site. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA), the contractor! for the Island Chemical Company, has completed the EPA Phase I and n RI activities for the | site. B. Actions Plaimed As part of the EPA Phase IQ RI activities, HLA is planning to conduct additional environmental sampling at the site to ftirther characterize the nature and extent of site contamination. C. Recommendations for Further Action ATSDR wiU collaborate with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to pursue the implementation of the recommendations outiined in this pubUc health assessment. 54 ^ 800062 Island chemical/virgin Island Chemical - Final Release PREPARERS OF REPORT De'borah Boling Environmental Health Scientist Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Stephen Richardson Environmental Health Engineer Division of Health Assessment and Consultation ATSDR Regional Representative: Arthur Block PubUc Health Advisor ATSDR Region n 55 800063 Island Chemical/virgin Island Chemical - FinzLl Release REFERENCES 1. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. NPL Fact Sheet, Island Chemical Corp./Virgin Island Chemical Corp. September 1996. 2. Harding Lawson Associates. Island Chemical Company, Inc. Remedial Investigation Draft Work Plan. August 1994. 3. Harding Lawson Associates. Virgin Island Chemical Site Remedial Investigation Draft Data Summary Report. August 1995. 4. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Final Hazard Ranking System Documentation, VI Chemical Corporation, Vol. 1. June 1993. 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Enforcement Interim Rq)ort, Berlex Laboratories, St. Croix, VI. March 1986. 6. Enviro-Sciences, Inc. Site Inspection Report for Island Chemical Company, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. AprU 1987. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Assessment, Removal Site Evaluation, and Funding Authorization Request for a CERCLA Removal Action at the Virgin Island Chemical Company, Inc. Site, St, Croix, U,S. Virgin Islands - Action Memorandum from D. Kodama to W. Muszynski. August 1989. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Enforcement Report, Berlex Laboratories, St. Croix, Virgin Islands. September 1985. 9. Harding Lawson Associates. Draft Supplemental Data Summary Report, Remedial Investigation, Virgin Island Chemical Site. September 1996. 10. Harding Lawson Associates. Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum - Phase DI, Virgin Island Chemical Site. January 1997. 11. Houghton MUflin Company. 1995 Info. Please Almanac, 48th Edition. 1995. 12. U.S. Geological Survey. Water WeUs on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, U.S. Geological Survey Open-FUe Report 91-503. 1994. 13. Letter from St. Croix citizen to ATSDR regarding newspaper notice of ATSDR pubUc health assessment for Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical site. March 19, 1998. 56 800064 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release 14. U.S. Geological Survey. Mean Concentrations, Deviations and Ranges of Elements in Samples in the (Eastem) Coterminous United States. Cited in ATSDR Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual, 1992. 15. U.S. Geological Survey. Gold, SUver, TeUurium, and Spectrographic Analyses for Rock and SoU Samples from tiie U.S. Vkgin Islands, Open-FUe Rqport 89-355, 2USGS, 1989. Cited in Draft Data Summary Report, Remedial Investigation, Virgin Island Chemical Site, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, Augast 1995. 16. Harding Lawson Associates. Electronic data sets from the Virgin Island Chemical Site Remedial Investigation, from files submitted by Harding Lawson Associates to Eastem Research Group, Inc,.on AprU 30, 1997. 17. Friend Laboratory, Inc., National Testing Laboratories, Inc., and WateiTest Corporation of America. Analytical data sheets for the Virgin Islands Port Authority aiiport supply weUs. October 1998-July 1995. 18. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. PubUc health assessment guidance manual. Atianta: ATSDR, March 1992; DHHS, (PHS). 19. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profile for bromoform/chlorodibromomethane. Atlanta: ATSDR, December 1990; DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP-90-05. 20. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profUe for bromodichlorometiiane. Atlanta: ATSDR, December 1989; DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP- 89/04. 21. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profile for chloroform, (update) Atlanta: ATSDR, August, 1995. 22. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profUe for lead, (update) Atianta: ATSDR, April 1993; DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP-92/12. 23. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profile for manganese. Atianta: ATSDR, July 1992; DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP-91/19. 24. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profile for mercury, (update) Atianta: ATSDR, May 1994; DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP-93/10. 25. Micromedex, Inc. Tomes Integrated Index. CD-ROM, Vol 34. New York: Micromedex, 1997. 26. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicoiogical profUe for vanadium. Atianta: ATSDR, July 1992, DHHS pubUcation no. (PHS)TP-91/29. 57 ! ^^ 800065 Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release APPENDIX A - FIGURES 58 800066 MUUKJi 1 ii^-s,-^>y _-:J4« .-n / ^ i O ^ ^ r i S i S . "f; Alexands.' Hz.T.ntcn v^; £ ^ ^ — ^ L i - .. ^—"^ " *—' i ~ *'.\ '.. 5 ' ^ ^ l i ^\ * •ss*'^'^ • s . lK\i SOURCi USGS 7.5 WInutt Cued Mcp: OirbUcr.stsii. VJ. " FOR ILLUSTHATION PU.=..=OSES ONLY ! - ' ' — ' I Hording Lawson Associates ISre^tcrlervices ^"^ LOCATION MAP SOURCE: HLA, September 1996. ^ 14 Woshington Rood ~ Princeton JcL. New Jersey 0B550 ' - 1 , 609-925-0700 DRAWN WGA JOB NUMBER 35241.2.12 ISLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islands / \ APPROVED \ APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER 35241AGO DATE 8/23/95 REVISED DATE 59 800067 FIGURE 2 COMH CRCnC UtA.1 coRRCcnoNu. rAourr • I roR I U U S T R A H O H PURPOSES ONLY i Hording Lawson Aaaoclolai I Cnwlrortmtntol S t r w l c t l iO>-»J«-e»XI DIIAWN JSW/WCA JOU NUUOtH APPnOXIWATE LOCATIOH OF OFFSnE PRODUCTION WELLS vincm isnNo CMEUICAL SHE 51. Cro!«. U.S. Vir9in Islonds One. Ha. 35241011 1/20/97 nivisio wlC 8 0 0 0 6 8 ..60 Source: HLA, January 1997. -tiHWil"" FIGURE 3 800069 ICC Plot Plan: Areas Of Contamination fl.A)(T (NTXAMCt tgGgND irmo-tatxai. vs. or>-«>r "•* BMti •::y::Sa Areas of Contamination 61 SOURCE: ESI, AprU 1987.. FIGURE 4 800070 SOURCE: HLA, August 1995 EIi^^^^^^S^^^3^^3^^^^^^^^*ra IIHI|( J II11 . .. . . 1 . I . .•_.-.; •» F \ .^ , .-(..HolyvCroaS.. • ; . - - . FIGURE 5 SOURCES: USCS 7.5 MInut» Ouod Uop; ChrJUcnj'.ed It Fr^derikjted. Y.L end Cercjhly le Wnief. 1983 ond Torres-Conreles, 1990 S Hording Lawson Associates Engineering ond Environmentol Services APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF NEARBY WELLS o o - — : ^ - ^ « — 131 North Third Street - — 5 S ^ " - Philodelphio, PA 19106 " " " " • - T S J : 2 1 5 - 6 2 7 - 4 5 0 5 ISLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY SOURCE: HLA, August 1994 i o ST. CiROIX. U . S VIRGIN ISLAND ;DRAWN iJSW JOB NUMBER 24231.2 APPROVED FIU S-BASE DATE 1/31/94 REVISED 0A7T = . I 63 FIGURE 6 / >- T. O IP 3t W w r.r) i » r^ o TcS nn TCJI |U.| I.-I 1:11 1^1 J.-.I i^^i 1.-1 1^1 i S i IJ.' '•!' 'J.' '," L" "J.1 iJ.' 'J.' l i ' UTJ to ii::j I1:J i.-j li-j Crj CTJ ITJ IFCFND ED ( t 1 J X fWCt BUILOWO noSTUlG AST rORUOt AST lOVRCb morotCB K c l o c K u n i i o l o u n o x i i r c i n m a - i o t H U s , t w . DAICOI • / • • / • • AM> BIC UW, M O m i K H . <l. CMHI. U.LV.L ( T NUI CONrOKAMII OOCirMClll O i - I I O I - O t - U , UtlO>ICO H o r d l n f l L a w s o n A s a o c l a t e a llnqinsalinu on<f l'nvlr«<(in*lildl tttiivlA«g ^ : ^ ^ I ^ 131 >'*'"< 1'*''' Slfa.l S3 5 ^ r _ t pwiod.ipta*. PA ittioi 1 »H-»»l-45oa ; imJvW JSW J « ilUJIrt— 20872.(5.1 SITE MAP MRCIII ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRCIII ISLAtlOS -JTORM.'O K l ICCOSItE •RK B/ii/ns HWJM 116.- 800072 "MMHiVfflRaBmripqi « • : • * * : SOURCE: HLA, i ^ U St 1995 FIGURE 7 / •l-t It -§ § @ i @ i § @ i i i i i m i i i SBtll/UV-l • — • X o IO I i CO o o o • J SOURCb. SJ1C MAP. M aicucAi. «r. CKa<, u.t.v.L nr iius cohPOHAiint ooaiuLUt o)-»ioi-oi-9(, tntOAJio rnqposn ICC f o i lAufijiio wcAimii »» niwo^sayict^ •IC^^AITOI •/••/•• «!». I Hording Lawson Assoclatss I Cn9ln»artng ond ! Cnvlrufwn.nlol Stfvlea* r . t : IJI ii.,th iij>d vti..i - • ". PM»4.Hihl«. rA lulOI - 1 ll*-*af..430S : CkAni ; JSW 29BV2.I3.2 AREAS OF POTENTIAL COIJCERN AND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS VIRCIII ISLAlin CIIEMICAI. SITE sr. cftoix. U.S. vinciii ISLAUUS 6vtD hic " 2 9 a 7 2 U 0 l OATt 7/27/US "flviirrBiTr 65 SOURCE: HLA, August 1995 ^p^'m'^t?^^j^yin(vy'f^i'f^''^-^v^''f^ • FIGURE 8 800074 SBB14 r~i r^ r~^ I 2i I 2i I t\ l - l l - l I ^1 L J LJ. L J ^SBB6/SBB6A SBB5 .SBBl 6 ABOVEGROUND TANK FARM rn L J 20 40 GO FT. FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY A C3 SHALLOW SOIL SAMPUNG LOCAHON (FIELD SCREENED-NO U B ANALYSIS) SHALLOW SOIL AND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS SOIL BORING/ MONITORING WELL LOCATION EXISTING ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK TANK PAD-FORMER ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATION Harding Lawson Associates Engineering ond Environmentol Services M Woshington Rood Pflncelon Junction, New Jersey 08SS0 609-9J6-O700 LOCATIONS OF SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES. SOIL BORINGS Sc MONITORING WELLS, AND UNES OF CROSS-SECTION, AST AREA VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE St. Croix. U.S. Virgin Islonds DRAWN WGA JOB K M NUMBER 1.2.12 oveo DRAWING NUMBER 35241A02 DAIE 8 / 2 6 / 1 r r ^ T T n f n . TTT A ft REVISED DAIE 9/13/96 FIGiJRE 9 I W MW-6 1^1 1^. LJ LJ ,_, r^, fdi r^i fci r=i MW-1 I I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 L^j iTJ it:i L^j li-j i^j li-j C-j it-j O TAHK rABU OOM»tIt f AOJ 1/ tARntOi BCRW V) I z SOIL BORINC LOCATIOH (IIJSTAU-ED JANUARY 1995) UONTORINO WELL LOCATIOH PRODUCTION W E a LOCATIOH STORMWATER INLET EXISTING ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK TANK PAfl-rORUER ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TAJIK LOCATION <ftiMirr' ADAPIIO rSOU l i l t UAT, M 0<(><CAU t t . OI0i>, u.tv.i s r NUS c o x r w A i i m DOCUVCNI O I - > I O I - O < - 9 I , UNOAICO : H o r d i n g L a w s o n A s s o c l o t s a '• [n.«>r4nm«ntol Scrvtctt ^'^..ctloA Jucl'^n. Nt« Jtritv OflSftO tOt-9i<'0T0O ' OftAW JSW/WCA JOB NUUDJR 35241.2.12 LOCATION OF MONITORINC AND PRODUCTION WELLS VIRGIN ISLAND CHEMICAL SITE SI. Crci«. U.S. Virgin l»liind» 'PROVtO /*PHOvl Owe. ho. JS24IB0] oTTi! 8/19/96 -RviTrrEtT 9/1V96 800075 67 SOURCE: HLA, September 1996. Island Chemical/Virgin Island Chemical - Final Release APPENDIX B - RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ATSDR released a draft of this public health assessment for public comment on February 25, 1988. The public comment period ended on April 5, 1988. The only comments ATSDR received on the draft public health assessment were from a citizen of St. Croix in a letter dated March 19, 1998. This citizen, a former employee of the Island Chemical plant, indicated that during the early 1980s the plant routinely discharged high pH process wastewater, containing various chlorinated solvents, to River Gut without treatment. The citizen also stated that he had observed children swimming in the gut near the current Route 66 bridge downstream of the plant's discharge. He also indicated that plant management commonly disposed of solid "hazardous" waste materials by throwing them into the plant's dumpster for ultimate disposal in the St. Croix landfill. Rp.spnnse: ATSDR appreciates the valuable infonnation provided by the fonner Island Chemical employee and has used the information to supplement the exposure pathways evaluation in the final public health assessment. 68 - 8 0 0 0 7 6