USVI Public Records

Document text

PEDRO PANZARDI & ASSOCIATES PROCESS & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 125O PONCE DE LEON AVE. • BANCO DE PONCE BLDG.. FIFTH FLOOR • SANTURCE, P.P. P.O. Box 2291 . HATO REY, P.P. OO91 9-2291 . (8O9) 722-3671 / 722-3664 / FAX. 725-9O85 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION WORKPLAN FOR O'HENRY LAUNDRY ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS MARCH 1990 Geo-Caribe. Inc. Pedro Panzardi & Assoc PP&A Project 8998 TUT O05 0359 *64552* 64552 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION WORKPLAN FOR O'HENRY LAUNDRY ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS MARCH 1990 Geo-Caribe, Inc. Pedro Panzardi & Assoc. PP&A Project 8998 TUT OO5 O36O TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction........................................ 1 2.0 Regional-Site geologic Characteristics.............. 2 3.0 Ground Water Conditions.............................. 6 3.1 General Setting................................. 6 3.2 Tutu Well Field................................. 7 3.3 Groundwater Contamination....................... 7 4.0 Workplan Obj ective................................... 17 4.1 Compilation of Background Geologic Data (A-3(a) of workplan}................................. 17 4.2 Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units (A-3(b) of Workplan}................................. 17 4.3 Geomorphology of the Area............................ 17 4.4 Hydrogeologic Cross Section.......................... 18 4.5 Water-Level Monitoring............................... 18 4.6 Human Features Affecting the Area's Hydrogeology..... 19 5.0 Quality Control and Health and Safety Considerations. 20 5.1 QA/QC Plan........................................... 20 5.2 Target Compond List Sampling......................... 20 5.3 Interim Remedial Measures............................ 20 5.4 Health and Safety Plan............................... 20 TUT GO5 O361 1.0 INTRODUCTION In July of 1987, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in several water supply wells in the Tutu Well Site in the Turpentine Run Basin of eastern St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The contaminated wells were closed and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ERA) began a well-sampling program to determine the nature, extent, and potential sources of the contamination. Chlorinated hydrocarbons were among the compounds found, and ERA identified the O'Henri Laundry located at Annas Retreat #5B, where perchloroethylene is used for dry cleaning purposes, as one of the possible sources of contamination. Since then, ERA has requested O'Henri Laundry to submit a workplan to assess the source, nature, mechanisms, and extent of the contamination with a view to the eventual restoration of the Tutu aquifer. This report has been prepared in response to the ERA request by Geo-Caribe, Inc. and Pedro Panzardi & Assoc. at the request of the O'Henri Laundry. It is based on an examination of available information on the geology and hydrology of St. Thomas, groundwater test data obtained by ERA, and several visits to the Tutu Well Site by representatives of the two firms. The report contains a description of the general geologic framework of the Turpentine Run Basin aquifer, a discussion of the groundwater regime and the contamination problem, and specific information requested by ERA for the workplan. Inspection of the groundwater contamination data compiled by ERA shows there are probably several sources of contamination of the Tutu Well Site. It is our understanding that ERA will require a combined effort by the different sources to quantify and correct the contamination problem. Therefore, although the general requirements of the workplan are discussed, specific actions recommended herein are meant to determine the nature and extent of any contaminants which may have been introduced into the soil- groundwater system as a result of activities at O'Henri Laundry. OO5 O362 2.0 REGIONAL-SITE GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS The geology of St. Thomas was mapped by Donnelly (1966) at an approximate scale of 1:60,000 (Donnelly, 1966), a scale too small to be of much use for site-specific studies. To our knowledge, no part of the island has been mapped in greater detail. According to Donnelly, the Turpentine Run Basin is underlain by Cretaceous oceanic rocks which he divided into two formations, the Water Island and the Louisenhoj formations which underlie the lower and upper parts of the basin respectively (Figure 1). The geologic descriptions which follow are extracted from his work. The Water Island Formation consists of lava flows, flow breccias, and tuffs laid down on the ocean floor. It contains no terrigenous sediment. It is overlain by the Louisenhoj Formation which consists of volcanic tuff and breccia of andesitic composition intercalated with conglomerates containing pebbles and cobbles of Water Island Formation lithologies. The Louisenhoj is associated with a subaerial volcanic center which is believed to have formed between St. Thomas and St. John in what is now Pillsbury Sound. Rock texture becomes finer grained away from this center towards the west (St. Thomas) and east (St. John). The contact between the two formations trends east-west, crossing the Turpentine Run Basin at about the latitude of Mt. Zion (Fig. 1). Mt. Zion itself is underlain by a plug-like quartz-andesine porphyry intrusive body of upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary? age. Late Cretaceous or early Tertiary deformation tilted the rocks homoclinally to the north. Bedded units dip NNW to NNE at angles between 15-90° with an average of about 40°. Variations in orientation, including overturned beds, occur locally. There is a mild angular unconformity between the rocks of the Water Island and Louisenhoj formations (Figure 2). Deformation also included faulting. Donnelly described three prominent sets of faults in St. Thomas and St. John: 1-a north-south set of normal faults, 2-a northeast- trending, left lateral strike-slip set, and 3-a northwest-trending, right lateral strike-slip set. His geologic map shows faults from the latter set occupying valleys just east and west of Turpentine Run Basin. Turpentine Run itself occupies a northwest-trending valley which probably formed as a result of more rapid weathering and erosion along a fault with this orientation. Jordan and Cosner (1973) found prominent joint sets paralleling each of the major fault trends. These authors also described a northwest-trending, TUT GO5 G363 Figure 1: Geologic map of the eastern part of St. Thomas (after Donnelly, 1966). The Turpentine Run Basin is indicated. Rock types within the basin are: a-alluvium; qa- quartz-andesine intrusive; Kl-louisenhoj Formation; wi-Water Island Formation. Map scale is approximately 1:60,000. TUT OO5 O364 MANS LOU.IK FORMATION do.oootm*) MCCCU M TUTF U»««r ••• J__„ TUTU FORMATION ISOOOIotl') Cot: Pom Mtqobrtccw ittnotocm «~- •M •>• • «. Congo Co; Limtltono Member (ZOO-500 ltd) CO«"ULt C>VST4lt.l*C LHICSTOMC Tt» « *m«NW «•) M>M 1 1 M U J, MW OUTER MASS LIMESTONE 120O- €00 t««t) •MTKLLT UllCinCD. TU«««OU». UMIUUII LOUISENHOJ FORMATION (14.000 <>tt (W St. ' Thomoil. 4000 <t<l IE SI Tmrat). 70OO l>tl (W Si John)) tuC'TC-MDfliTf WfCCK - -- - - - - • - cn«ti - - - - " • i' •.' -.^' k MM Cobos Pomt CongiomvrQtt t<mofoci*t .!.!•::..'.. .;•: -• Mm «M 1.111. « UTtn MUM >OM««te« WATER ISLAND FORMATION (15,000 !•€'+) •CMTO*MV«C reows. rto* ••ecciu. «« Turn. •MM «»ILITC 'LOWS •<*« ••••r •AOIOLAOTCJ Figure 2: Stratigraphic section for St. Thomas and St. John. After Donnelly, 1966. hydrothermally altered fracture zone in the upper part of the Turpentine Run Basin but failed to describe its location precisely. The Tutu Well Site is located within the Louisenhoj Formation outcrop. Throughout most of the area the bedrock is mantled by a colluvium-residual soil cover 0 to about 2 meters thick, with thickness increasing towards the axis of topographic lows. This surficial regolith consists of reddish to grayish brown gravelly silt, gravelly clay, and clayey silt of the Cramer and San Anton soil series (Rivera and others, 1966). Bedrock is exposed in man-made cuts throughout the area. It consists of dark-colored, medium- bedded to massive volcanic sandstone and siltstone exhibiting a range of weathering and physical properties, from slightly weathered, hard, strong rock to highly weathered material having a soil-like consistency. The more weathered materials are moderately pervious but moderately weathered or fresher rock is usually dense and compact. Rock porosity is restricted to joints and other rock fractures. Fracture shape, spacing, and orientation vary widely but a large proportion of them have steep dips and trend north-south or east-west. There is little information on rock type and character at depth. The few well logs which we have seen do not differentiate rock TUT On' O365 types but note color and consistency changes which are presumably related to rock weathering and fracturing. From these, it appears that moderately to highly weathered bedrock may extend to depths of 30-50 feet in some places. The coincidence in the orientation of topographic features with known fault directions suggests a relation exists between topography and the underlying geology. As noted above, the Turpentine Run valley probably formed as a result of differential erosion along a northwest-trending fault zone. It is also possible that the northeast-trending tributaries to Turpentine Run in the Tutu Well Site area formed as a result of more rapid erosion along northeast-trending faults or fracture zones. Detailed hydrogeologic mapping (1:10,000 scale or greater) of the Tutu Wells Site is needed in order to better understand the groundwater regime. Prominent features of any mapping program should include vertical and horizontal variations in lithology and degree of weathering, and detailed mapping of joints, fractures, and other structural features. Mapping can be accomplished by standard field methods supplemented by aerial photo-interpretation and analysis of subsurface samples obtained from the monitoring well installation program (see below). Trenching across suspected fault- fracture zone traces may also be required. TUT GG 5 0366 3.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 3.1 General Setting The Turpentine Run Basin is the most productive groundwater basin in St. Thomas. A 1983 study by Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Nachman and others, 1983) identified at least 45 wells in the basin, with 27 of these having been drilled since 1976. Groundwater is pumped from two aquifers. Wells in the lower part of the basin south of Mariendal tap alluvium along Turpentine Run. Wells in the upper part of the basin, including the Tutu Well Site, tap fractures in the volcaniclastic rock of the Louisenhoj Formation. This is the primary aquifer. The salient hydrogeologic features of the upper basin aquifer have been described in several studies. ((Ward and Jordan, 1963; Jordan and Cosner, 1973; Stevens and others, 1982; Nachman and others, 1983; Graves and Gonzalez, 1988). Notwithstanding these studies, the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer are essentially unknown. This is in part due to the fact that groundwater flow is limited to fractures and zones of highly weathered rock of uncertain, and possibly irregular, distribution. The next two paragraphs summarize what is known of the upper basin aquifer. The Turpentine Run Basin receives about 50 inches of rain per year (Figure 3) of which approximately 0.5 to 5.0 inches reaches the groundwater reservoir. Jordan and Cosner (1973) estimated that because of surface runoff and evapotranspiration losses, a "major rainstorm of 2 inches or more, or the equivalent in lesser rains, is necessary to initiate recharge to the bedrock aquifer". They estimated annual recharge to the fractured rock aquifer of the upper basin averages around 130 million gallons per year (Mgy) of which 10 Mgy are lost to base flow in Turpentine Run, 25 Mgy flow underground into the lower basin, and 95 Mgy are lost to evapotranspiration. They further estimated that up to 110 Mgy (300,000 gallons per day) could be safely retrieved from the aquifer by sound development. This is considerably less than the amount being mined in 1983, when water extraction permits totaling more than 1 million gallons per day (Mgd) were granted by the St. Thomas Department of Public Works ( DPW; Nachman and others, 1983). The upper Turpentine Run Basin aquifer is obviously being over- exploited. Actual extraction amounts are uncertain because of inadequate accounting and heavy losses to leaking pipes and joints. TUT DO5 O367 Wells in the upper basin range from 55-325 feet deep. Jordan and Cosner (1973) noted that well yield does not necessarily correlate with well depth. Instead, it indicates where a zone of water-bearing fractures was penetrated. Short-term well yields of up to 300,000 gpd (200 gpm) are possible but sustained yields are one to two orders of magnitude lower (30,000-3000 gpd). Depths to the water table vary between 5-76 feet (Graves and Gonzalez, 1988), depending mainly on the topographic position of the well, antecedent moisture, and previous pumping. Water tables are reported to have been depressed to 90 feet as a result of high extraction during droughts (Belgodere & Assoc., Inc., 1988). Jordan and Cosner (1973) and Graves and Gonzalez (1988) constructed water table contour maps of the basin (Figures 4 and 5). These show the general groundwater flow pattern in the area. Water table contours essentially reflect the ground surface topography with steeper gradients on the hill and valley sides (up to about 30%) dropping significantly along the axis of Turpentine Run (<1%). ST.THOMAS O N O j r U A M J J A S MONTH Figure 3: Average annual precipitation in St. Thomas and average monthly data for Charlotte Amalie typical of the island. After Santiago and Coldn (1986). TUT GO5 O368 Figure 4: Groundwater contours in Turpentine Run Basin in January of 1966. Arrows show the direction of flow. The x marks the approximate location of the O'Henri Laundry. After Jordan and Cosner, 1973. 3.2 Tutu Well Field Groundwater conditions in the Tutu area on September 11, 1987 are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, which are cross-sections drawn from the potentiometric surface map prepared by Graves and Gonzalez (1988; see Fig. 5 for cross-section locations). In general, the potentiometric surface is a relatively smooth line sloping down into the lowlands, but there is a pronounced step in the surface in the vicinity of the O'Henri Laundry facility (Well No. 21). The cause of this feature is unknown but three possible explanations are recognized: 1-an error in the water level measurements; 2-the wells are tapping non-connected fracture zones at different elevations; or, 3-there is a fault which is acting as a groundwater barrier. 3.3 Groundwater Contamination ERA has performed monthly to quarterly sampling of wells in the Tutu Well Site since July of 1987. Water samples have been 8 TUT CO5 0369 Figure 5: Potentiometric surface (blue lines; elevations In feet) In the Turpentine Run Basin aquifer on September 11, 1987. Square grid Is 1x1 km.2 with lines oriented north- south and east-west. Circles represent wells. Well numbers and elevation of potentiometric surface (parentheses) are given. Red letters and marks Identify cross-sections lines shown in Figures 6 and 7. After Graves and Gonzalez, 1988. SCALE 1:1O7SO Figure 6: Cross-section B-B through the T u t u Well Site showing polenliumelric surface on September 1 1. 1987. Location of line shovx n on figure 3 Note the step in the vicinity of Well No 21 \\hich ma\ reflect the presence of a fault which is acting as a groundwaler barrier. •2 _ TO . 10 tT HENRY ^ CHANNELIZED LAUNDRT "OAD STREAM 32 SURFACE SCALE 1:10790 Figure 7: Cross-section C-C through the Tulu Well Site showing potenlioruetric surface on September 1 1 , 1 987 Location of line sh<>\\ n un figure V Note the step in the vicinity of Well No. 2 1 which max reflect the presence of a fault which is acting as a groundwaler barrier. 10 TUT 005 O371 analyzed for the following target compounds: toluene, benzene, perchloroethylene(PCE), trichloroethylene(TCE), and dichloroethylene (DCE). The first two are typical components of gasoline products whereas the latter three are commonly used as solvents for dry cleaning, metal degreasing, or extraction of fats and oils. The ERA sampling data are presented in table form as Appendix A (concentrations are in ppb). High concentrations of benzene and toluene are essentially restricted to wells in the upper part of the Tutu Well Site area (Figure 8), with the highest concentrations consistently occurring at Well No. 14 (Tillet Well). There are several potential contaminant sources up-gradient (upslope) from the well (a more thorough check of the area could turn up others): a Texaco service station, the old Laga building where we saw a number of abandoned, unidentified leaking drums, and the Virgin Island Housing Authority (VIHA) building, which contains a mechanics shop and storage area for pesticides and other drums we were unable to identify. Contaminants found in Well 14 could also have migrated from the Esso service station located about 300-400ft. to the southwest. Although groundwater levels in the service station area are typically 20 feet below those at the well, the fractured rock aquifer is subject to large drawdowns when wells are pumped continuously for prolonged periods, and Well 14 is reported to have been mined for about 30,000 gpd seven days a week. In this regard it should be noted that there is a mound of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil at the Esso station. Benzene and toluene concentrations recorded in wells down- gradient, however, have been low so that it appears that contaminants released from this site may not yet have reached the groundwater body or are doing so in small quantities that are not being detected. The situation with the chlorinated hydrocarbons is more difficult to explain. Figures 9, 10 , and 11 show concentrations of DCE, PCE, and TCE measured during the month of September, 1987. This month was chosen since groundwater levels for the 11th were reported by Graves and Gonzalez (1988). All three contaminants appeared in wells extending from the VIHA facility to wells No. 32 and 33 in the lower part of the Tutu Well Site. The highest concentrations occur at wells No. 14 (Tillet Well) and 21 (Harvey Well). This is true of the entire period of measurement. The fact that PCE concentrations at Well 21 are consistently the highest suggests 1 1 TUT OO5 O372 TUTU AREA MAP Figure 8: Maximun concentrations <>| benzene and lolueno (tf/T) recorded in » ell? in Ihe Tulu \Vell Sile durinn the July I9K7 - Aug 1989 samphnu period Concentration? are in parly per billion (PPb> 12 TUT 005 0373 TUTU AREA MAP Figure 9: L)Cli concentrations ' ppb I measured in the Tutu Wells Site in September ol 1987 TUT 005 O374 ,12(0) TUTU AREA MAP nXELTS FAOUTES •nmiEaso Figure 1 0: PCI; concentrations (pphl measured in the T u t u Wells Site in September ot 1<)87 H TUT OO5 O375 TUTU AREA MAP Figure 1 1: TCl: concenlralions (ppbl measured in Ihe Tulu Wells Sue in September ol TJ87 TUT GO5 O376 a nearby source, presumably the laundry. However, since the two wells are roughly 1300ft. apart, and the water level (and ground elevation) at Well No. 14 is typically(?) 50+ft. higher than at Well No. 21, we postulate that there is a another source(s?) of contaminants close to, or up-gradient of Well 14. In this regard it is worthy of note that chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected in VIHA-1 (Well No. 10), situated about 900ft. up-gradient of Well 14, as early as 1983 (Nachman, and others, 1983). With a definitive source up-gradient of Well 21, one must wonder if the high concentrations which are being detected in Well 21 are not the result of some geologic feature (such as a fault) which disrupts the normal groundwater flow past the laundry site. 16 TUT 005 O377 4.0 WORKPLAN OBJECTIVE The purpose of this workplan is to determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination by chlorinated hydrocarbons as a result of activities at the O'Henri Laundry facilities. Wells up-gradient (northeast) of the laundry are contaminated so that it is clear that there are other sources of chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons up-gradient. 4.1 COMPILATION OF BACKGROUND GEOLOGIC DATA (VII-A-3-(a)-i, ii, and iii) The general geology of St. Thomas and the Turpentine Run Basin has been mapped and is described elsewhere (Donnelly, 1966; Jordan and Cosner, 1973). This information is available and has been compiled (see Section 2.0). Detailed information on hydrogeologic features in the north-east quadrant of the Tutu Run Basin will be mapped at a scale of 1:10,000 or more. Mapping will concentrate on defining the boundaries of rock masses with differing hydraulic properties and identifying joints, fractures, and other structural features which may influence groundwater flow. Mapping will be accomplished by standard field methods supplemented by aerial photo-interpretation and analysis of subsurface samples obtained from the monitoring well installation program. Trenching across suspected fault-fracture zone traces may also be required. 4.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS (VII-A-3-(b)-i to v) Available information on the general features of the groundwater regime in the Turpentine Run Basin will be compiled (see Section 3). This includes information on regional groundwater flow patterns. There is, however, little information regarding other aspects of the hydraulics of the aquifer. Lithologic descriptions will be obtained along with data on the characteristics of recharge- discharge areas from the geologic mapping program. Hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, and other aquifer properties will be determined from other investigations outlined below. 4.3 GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE AREA (VII-A-3-(c)-i to v) 17 TUT CO 5 0378 The relation of topographic features to geology and their role in the occurrence and movement of groundwater in the area will be assessed using aerial photographs and field observations. Aerial photographs will be obtained from the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works or the Puerto Rico Highway Authority. 4.4 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS (VII-A-S-(d)-i to v) The data compiled from these and other tasks will serve as the basis for the preparation of cross-sections through the Tutu Well Site showing the potentiometric surface as recorded in new and existing wells (see below), the distribution of different water- bearing units, the presence of fracture or other high permeability zones, and any other pertinent feature encountered, such as perched aquifers. 4.5 WATER LEVEL MONITORING (VII-A-3-(e)-i to iv) A minimum of four (4) observation wells will be installed on or around the O'Henri Laundry property, at a minimum distance of 200 feet from Well No. 21 (Harvey Well) located behind the laundry building. A typical monitoring well design is shown on Figure 12. They will be drilled to a depth of at least 15 feet below known or encountered water levels (whichever is deeper) with slotted casing extending at least 10 feet above the highest known level. New wells will be logged in detail by a qualified geologist, with continuous sampling beginning 10 feet above known water levels. Soil samples recovered will be subjected to a soil vapor screening survey (portable GC) for the chlorinated hydrocarbons found in nearby wells. A soil vapor screening survey will also be done with soil samples taken from depths of 3 and 6 feet behind the laundry on a 15x15ft. square grid. Well No. 21 will be rehabilitated and used to perform pumping tests. Water levels will be monitored in the observation wells and in existing wells nearby (Wells No. 17 to 20) during drawdown and recovery to estimate hydraulic transmissivity, storativity, and other aquifer properties. The wells will also be sampled for the target compounds on a monthly basis. The data obtained from these tasks will help characterize the hydrogeologic properties of the aquifer and the mechanism, rate, and direction of contaminant transport. 18 TUT GO5 G379 tb* 9- ^^ 4 fc*iI * *. e *. c 0e 0\ —— ± -^> <-^- 1^ —— LOCKABLE PROTECTIVE COVEB ^S —— WELL CAP ^ % M • * *• * A * * ^~ e ^ "*• —— CONCRETE SURFACE SEAL CASING x —— BACKFILL ^ —— SEAL POTCNllOMiTRIC SURFACE -y Q / • WELL SCREEN . DENSE PHASE SAMPLING CUP Figure 12: Schematic diagram ol a monitoring well with the uppermost groundwater level intersecting the slotted well screen. 4.6 HUMAN FEATURES AFFECTING THE AREA'S HYDROGEOLOGY (VII-A- 3-(f)-i, ii) Hydraulic structures in the vicinity of the site will be identified by visual inspection and interviews with local residents and workers, and government employees at agencies such as DPW and DPNR. DPW maintains some records on well production and pumping schedule. Old aerial photographs will be studied (if available) to reconstruct the site's history of human use and determine if magnetometer surveys are necessary to locate buried pipelines or tanks which may exist unknown to the present owners. 19 TUT O05 0380 5.0 QUALITY CONTROL AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS (VII-A-4) All work performed in the tasks above will be done in accordance with accepted standards of practice. Groundwater flow in fractured rock aquifers is inherently complex. One problem, which is known to occur in the Tutu area (Jordan and Cosner,1973), is that flow directions (and perhaps rates) depend on the elevation of the water table and the orientation of particular fracture systems intercepted by it. Because of this strong dependence on geologic features, sound management and interpretation of groundwater data requires a thorough understanding of aquifer geology. The implementation of other field tasks will then be dependent on the findings of the geologic-geomorphic studies. EPA will be notified in advance of the dates when the different tasks will be performed. At this time the details and objectives of the work will be discussed in greater detail. No piezometers are planned. There is at present no intention of performing geophysical surveys. 5.1 QA/QC PLAN (VII-A-5) L'Henri shall use QA/QC procedures in accordance with the QA/QC plan presented in Appendix B. 5.2 TARGET COMPOUND LIST (TCL) SAMPLING (VII-A-7) As stated previously, L'Henri's sampling shall be limited to the following volatile organic aromatics: PCE, TCE, Q.CE. 5.3 INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES (VII-A-9) EPA hastaken the interim remedial measures by closing those wells that are contaminated. 5.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (HSP) (VII-A-13) The HSP is included as a separate document in Appendix C. 20 TUT GO5 0381 APPENDIXES A. B. C. D. EPA Sampling Data QA/QC Plan Health and Safety Plan (HSP) Bibliography TUT 005 0382 APPENDIX A EPA SAMPLING DATA ( Concentrations in ppb ) TUT OO5 O383 WELL DATA FROM TUTU AREA, SANTOMAS WELL: DENCH ui 03 MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: RAMSEY MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: H. MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: H. MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: H. MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE Aug-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 7.5 <1 0.0 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Oct-87 4.5 0.0 >50 0.0 2.7 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 16.0 <1 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 4.0 <1 0.0 May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 30.0 154.0 46.0 NR Aug-88 <1 <1 <1 0.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 17.0 1.0 NR CRUSHER (22) Jul-87 0.0 5.7 102.0 7 0 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 26.0 3.0 12.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 14.0 1.0 <1 Oct-87 5.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 4.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 <1 May-88 0.0 38.0 130.0 46.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.0 NR Nov-88 N/A N/A N/A N/A NR Feb-89 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BAKERY (23) Jul-87 0.0 6.3 2.9 0 0 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 Sep-87 0 0 1 <1 0 Oct-87 <1 0.0 0.0 <1 <1 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0 May-88 <1 33.0 0.0 5.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 4.0 <1 <1 NR Nov-88 0 0 0 <1 NR Feb-89 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESTATE Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Od-87 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 NA NA NA NA NA Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 May-88 <1 0.0 2.0 0.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR WELL: LEONARD MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTHA'EAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 FRANCOIS (32) Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 120.0 28.0 140.0 DEMITRIS Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 DEDE (40) Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DEVCON #1 (36) Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 1.0 180.0 25.0 5.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Ocl-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ocl-87 0.0 0.0 >50 70.0 3.6 Oct-87 <1 0.0 <1 <1 <1 Ocl-87 <1 0.0 0.0 <1 1.0 * Oct-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 2.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 <1 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 25.0 7.0 1.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 275.0 100.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 82.0 29.0 4.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 May-88 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 >1000 180.0 NR May-88 0.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 NR Aug-88 0.0 1.0 140.0 40.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Aug-88 <1 <1 <1 <1 NR Aug-88 <1 0.0 0.0 <1 NR Nov-88 0 0 32 100 NR Nov-88 0 0 0 <1 NR Nov-88 0 0 0 <1 NR Feb-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Feb-89 0 0 0 <1 0 Feb-89 0 0 0 <1 0 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Aug-89 0 0 <1 1.4 Aug-89 3 0 1.3 <1 ''.•4 CO WELL: DEVCON #3 (38) MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 A BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: VIHA1(10) MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 A BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE 15.3 6.0 35.7 9.4 0 WELL: VIHA3(12) MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 A BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: EGLIN»1(17) MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: EGLIN#2(18) MONTHA'EAR Jul-87 BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE 3.1 5.9 57.6 16.5 0 jg-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 jg-87 0.0 1.0 10.0 3.0 12.0 jg-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1 ig-87 0.0 0.0 38.0 11.0 63.0 ) ig-87 0.0 0.0 43.0 13.0 74.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 14.0 <1 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 1.0 60.0 <10 <5 Sep-87 0.0 <5 40.0 10.0 <5 Oc1-B7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 » <1 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.3 Od-87 <1 0.0 1.0 1.0 <1 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 104.0 26.0 4.5 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 62.0 21.8 4.5 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 2.0 <1 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 25.0 10.0 2.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 22.0 12.0 2.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 2.0 5.0 14.0 8.0 1.3 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 8.6 5.8 1.4 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 NA NA NA NA NA Jan-88 NA NA NA NA NA Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 22.0 11.0 3.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 25.0 14.0 3.0 May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 10.0 <1 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 2.0 <1 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 450.0 300.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 760.0 404.0 NR Aug-88 <1 <1 <1 <1 NR Aug-88 <1 <1 20.0 3.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 39.0 22.0 NR Aug-88 NA NA NA NA NA Nov-88 <1 <1 0 <1 NR Nov-88 0 0 8 7 NR Nov-88 0 0 0 0 NR Nov-88 0 0 6 58 NR Nov-88 N/A N/A N/A N/A NR Feb-89 0 0 0 0 0 Feb-89 0 0 39 7 0 Feb-89 0 0 1 <1 <1 Feb-89 0 0 78 88 9 Feb-89 0 0 27 34 2 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Aug-89 316 80 Ago/89 0 0 1 1 Ago/89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ago/89 " N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CO o-- WELL: EGLIN»3(19) MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE WELL: MONTH/YEAR BEN TOL PCE TCE DCE Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 57.0 16.0 66.0 SMITH (33) Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 1.0 120.0 17.0 81.0 TILLET(14) Jul-87 Aug-87 6950.0 1400.0 492.0 33.0 2040.0 120.0 711 36.0 327 620.0 •4 WINDS (15) Jul-87 Aug-87 6.7 2.0 6.0 1.0 64.2 72.0 18.8 21.0 0 213.0 STEELE (20) Jul-87 Aug-87 0.0 0.0 270.0 20.0 61.0 Sep-87 0.0 1.0 105.0 <20 <5 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 135.0 10.0 <5 Sep-87 250.0 0.0 475.0 75.0 <10 Sep-87 0.0 2.0 125.0 <15 5.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 575.0 9.0 <5 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 104.0 30.5 7.5 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 >500 70.0 3.6 Ocl-87 46.0 0.0 >500 110.0 19.0 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 202.0 75.0 13.0 - Ocl-87 0.0 0.0 >500 27.0 1.8 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 55.0 20.0 1.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 <1 Nov-87 >1000 30.0 350.0 200.0 45.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 104.0 34.0 4.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 300.0 12.0 <1 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 24.0 9.2 1.7 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 9.6 1.4 ND Dec-87 >500 180.0 85.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 1.0 0.0 50.0 22.2 2.8 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 130.0 14.6 0.8 Jan-88 NA NA NA NA NA Jan-88 0.0 0.0 >50 5.0 NR Jan-88 NA NA NA NA NA Jan-88 0.0 0.0 450.0 100.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 500.0 100.0 NR Feb-88 0.0 0.0 41.0 20.0 2.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 28.0 5.0 <1 Feb-88 49.0 0.0 254.0 12.0 3.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 159.0 56.0 3.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 49.0 11.0 1.0 May-88 0.0 0.0 500.0 268.0 NR May-88 1.0 0.0 >1000 130.0 NR May-88 >1000 0.0 >1000 420.0 NR May-88 NA NA NA NA NA May-88 0.0 0.0 >1000 160.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 35.0 3.0 NR Aug-88 >1000 110.0 10.0 30.0 NR Aug-88 NA NA NA NA NA Aug-88 0.0 0.0 41.0 5.0 NR Nov-88 0 0 9 36 NR Nov-88 0 0 17 6 NR Nov-88 N/A N/A N/A N/A NR Nov-88 0 0 30 100 NR Nov-88 0 0 105 42 NR Feb-B9 0 0 96 45 2 Feb-89 0 0 120 15 <1 Feb-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Feb-89 0 0 120 43 5 Feb-89 0 0 217 66 2 Ago/89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Aug-89 181 73 Aug-89 >1000 135 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Aug-89 >1000 280 03 WELL: HARVEY (21) MONTH/YEAR Jul-87 Aug-87 BEN 0.0 TOL 1.0 PCE 7600.0 TCE 61.0 DCE 56.0 WELL: RODRIGUEZ MONTH/YEAR Ju!-87 Aug-87 BEN 0.0 TOL 0.0 PCE 1.0 TCE 0.0 DCE 0.0 WELL: BRYAN MONTH/YEAR Jul-87 Aug-87 BEN 0.0 TOL 0.0 PCE 0.0 TCE 0.0 DCE 0.0 WELL: MATTHIAS (34) MONTH/YEAR Jul-87 Aug-87 BEN 0.0 TOL 1.0 PCE 66.0 TCE 4.0 DCE 9.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 >1000 25.0 5,0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sep-87 0.0 0.0 118.0 3.0 <1 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 >500 20.0 14.0 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oct-87 0.0 0.0 17.8 0,0 <1 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 >1000 40.0 <1 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 0.0 Nov-87 0.0 0.0 88.0 14.0 2.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 >500 50.0 0.0 Dec-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec-87 NA NA NA NA NA Dec-87 0.0 0.0 35.0 2.8 0.0 Jan-88 0.0 0.0 >500 90.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Jan-88 0.0 0.0 100.0 <55 NR Feb-88 0,0 0.0 >1000 9.0 3.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb-88 0.0 0.0 49.0 4.0 <1 May-88 0.0 0.0 >1000 350.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR May-88 0.0 0.0 348.0 16.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 >1000 17.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 <1 NR Aug-88 0.0 0.0 25.0 2.0 NR Nov-88 N/A N/A N/A N/A NR Nov-88 N/A N/A N/A N/A NR Feb-89 Aug-89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NR NR Feb-89 Aug-89 76 720 5 48 <1 CD CD APPENDIX B QA/QC PLAN TUT OO5 O389 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN L'HENRI, ST THOMAS TUT OO5 O390 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Proj ect Description ................................ 1 2.0 Project Organization and Responsibility ............ 1 2.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling ...................... 1 2.2 Sampling QC ................................... 2 2.3 Field Screening Equipment ..................... 2 2.4 Laboratory Analysis/QC ........................ 2 2.5 Proj ect Manager ............................... 2 2.6 Overall QA/QC ................................. 3 3.0 QA Objectives for Measurement Data ................. 3 3 .1 Precision and Accuracy ........................ 3 3.2 Data Representativeness ....................... 3 3.3 Data Comparability ............................ 3 4.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures ................. 3 4.1 Sampling Program .............................. 3 4.2 Analytical Procedures ......................... 3 5.0 Sample Custody Procedures ........................... 6 6.0 Calibration Procedures and Frequency ............... 8 7.0 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting ........... 8 7.1 Data Reduction and Reporting .................. 8 7.2 Data Validation ............................... 10 8.0 Internal Quality Control Checks .................... 11 'UT O05 O391 LIST OF FIGURES Figures 1 : Chain-of-Custody Form TUT 005 0392 PROJECT NAME L'Henri PROJECT REQUESTED BY L'Henri and the Environmental Protection Agency PROJECT MANAGER Diana M. Bolivar 1.0 Project Description The site is a dry cleaning operations located in St. Thomas Turpentine Run Basin. 2.0 Project organization and Responsibility 2.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling: Alejandro Soto will make the field decisions regarding well installation and groundwater sampling procedures. In addition, he will be responsible for overseeing that proper well installation procedures are followed, and that the most effective well development technique is implemented. He will also be responsible for collecting groundwater samples and maintaining proper sampling procedures. 2.2 Sampling QC: Odniel Gonzalez will be responsible for quality control in the field. His responsibilities will include maintenance of chain-of-custody on all samples collected, verification with sampling team personnel of sampling techniques and quality control procedures. He will also be responsible for prompt review of any quality control deviation on the premises. 2.3 Field Screening Equipment: Soil's drilling personnel will be responsible for maintenance of the field equipment and will ensure that the equipment is properly tuned and calibrated as needed. 2.4 Laboratory Analyses/OC: The laboratory QC Officer will be responsible for sample analyses on soil and groundwater samples. He will also be responsible for quality control procedures and QC checks in the laboratory for this project. 2.5 Project Manager: Diana M. Bolivar will be the project manager. 2.6 Overall QA/OC: Odniel Gonzalez will be the QA/QC officer. His responsibilities will be to review any changes in sampling protocol, deviation in quality control, and corrective action for laboratory analyses. TU'I OO5 O393 3.0 QA Objectives for Measurement Data 3.1 Precision and Accuracy. The QA targets will meet the specific QA/QC conditions stipulated in the most recent "Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis". 3.2 Data Representativeness. Subsurface sampling locations will be chosen to provide a valid approximation of the types and quantities of materials at the site. 3.3 Data Comparability. All aqueous sample data will be reported in ug/L (ppb) or mg/1 (ppm). 4.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 4.1 Sampling Program. Sampling activities will be restricted to collecting groundwater samples and/or soil samples. 4.2 Analytical Procedures. All samples will be analyzed for tetrachloethylene by the method described for volatile organic compounds in "Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organics" 5.0 Sample Custody Procedures Sampling team personnel will perform all sampling and will retain custody until shipment to the laboratory. One chain- of-custody form (see Figure 1) will be used for each set of sample shipped to the laboratory. All samples will be delivered to the laboratory within 48 hours of the day of collection. Field activities will be recorded daily in a serialized field logbook. The following information will be recorded in the logbook used at Pedro Panzardi & Associates office: 1. Location of sample collection. 2. Name of person who took the sample. 3. Date and time of sample collection. 4. Sample number. 5. Preservation, and shipping. The laboratory QC officer will provide the field personnel with all sample containers necessary for completing field sampling and QC requirements for the designated samples. Each lot of sample containers will be checked for cleanliness by the laboratory and closed to prevent contamination. Each bottle will be labeled to indicate sample number and the type of analysis to be performed on the sample and packaged to prevent breakage. TUT 005 0394 F I G U R E 1 . 0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD SURREY S T A T I O N | SAMPLERS: :^~,»,« 1 i 0*f£ 1 1 i iA«n6 rr»e riMf | « 1 Cw«. i : Gn>. i 1 i A*r 1 1 i ii i i : 1 i i t 1 i 1 i i 1 Relinquished by: /s^«o»vr.( Relinquished by: rs*9<v»»vi Relinquished by: ts*<***ti*t Relinquished by: :'S-7~.n,rt, Dupo'ched by: r$^«~r»( i ! sea. NO NO. Of ANALYSIS itounED 1 1 l i i 1 i i Received by: p~,~r Received by: <T.»—» Received by: fs^»» Received by ; cnalyiij: ;s^ ^r,/ Dateyiime I 1 *-.r Dale/Time 1 >•"•; Dcfe/Time 1 1 Mobiie Laboratory tor rieid Dale/Time -,^1 I Li* 1 o- Date/Time ' Received for Laboratory by: Date/Time Metnod ot Shipmenf: Samples will be received at the laboratory by the sample custodian who will examine each sample to ensure that it is the expected sample, inspect the sample containers for possible damage, and ensure that the documentation is complete and adequate. The sample custodians will ensure that each samples has been preserved in the manner required by the Particular test to be conducted and stored according to the correct procedure. Preservation and storage will require that the samples be kept at a temperature of 4°C. 6.0 Calibration,Procedures and Frequency A maintenance, calibration, and operation program will be implemented to ensure that routine calibration and maintenance is performed on all field instruments. The program will be administered by the Quality Assurance Officer and the team members. The Equipment Specialist performs the scheduled monthly and annual calibration and maintenance; trained team members perform field calibrations, checks, and instrument maintenance prior to use. 7.0 Data reduction. Validation and Reporting 7.1 Data Reduction and Reporting. All field data will be entered into bound notebooks. Originals of field notebooks, chain-of-custody forms, field data sheets, and lab reports will be filed and stored at Pedro Panzardi and Associates office. 7.2 Data Validation. The efficacy of the sampling methods will be checked by comparing the analytical results of samples and their corresponding duplicates, where duplicates have been collected. 8.0 Internal Quality control Checks Quality control checks on sampling procedures and laboratory analyses will be performed as discussed in Section 7.2. Quality control procedures described in the recent "Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis", will be employed. All data analysis and tabulation will be checked by the QA/QC Officer. QA checks on data processing will be conducted by designated laboratory personnel. TUT 005 0396 APPENDIX C HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN TUT OO5 O397 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (HSP) FOR L1 HENRI TUT OO5 O398 Health and Safety Plan L'Henri Page -2- A. OBJECTIVES The objective of this Health and Safety Plan is to protect field personnel from the hazards encountered during field investigations. It is the result of consideration of all applicable government regulations and guidelines. This Health and Safety Program is intended to comply with Section 111 (c) of CERCLA; EPA's Standard Operating Safety Guides, 1988; the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities prepared by NIOSH, OSHA, USCG and EPA, October, 1985; and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) of 1970; 5 U.S.C. 7902(c)(l). B. SITE DESCRIPTION Name of Facilities : O' Henri Dry Cleaners Location : Tutu Area, St. Thomas C. HAZARD EVALUATION AND LEVELS OF PROTECTION Level of Protection: Level D protection has been selected as appropriate for the site. This level of protective clothing includes coveralls, steeltoed leather work boots, safety glasses, hard hat, and gloves. In the event that it is necessary to upgrade to level C, tyvek suits, rubber protective over boots, and a full-face respirator will be required. D. TASKS Field desicion: Alejandro Soto will make the field decisions regarding the location of well installation and soil and /or groundwater sampling. He will overlook that proper well installations procedures are followed. Sampling QC: Laboratory personnel will be responsible for quality control in the field. This includes record keeping of chain- of- custody on all samples collected and verification of sampling techniques. TUT OO5 O399 Health and Safety Plan L'Henri Page -3- Laboratory Analysis /QC: Laboratory personnel will be responsible for sample analysis, quality control procedures, and QC checks in the laboratory. E. Work Limitations; Work will be limited to daylight hours. F. Certified Authorized Personnel: Team Member Responsibility Diana M. Bolivar Project Manager Alejandro Soto Field Team Leader G. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES All sampling equipment will be decontaminated between each use with the following procedure: detergent and water wash, distilled water rinse, methanol rinse, air dry. A separate decontamination area on-site will be established for steam cleaning. H. Emergency Information: Local Resources Local Resources Police : 915 Fire Department : 921 Ambulance : 922 Hospital Emergency Room : (809) 776-8311 TUT O05 04OO APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY TUT OOS 0401 Bibliography Belgodere & Assoc., Inc., 1988; Esso Tutu Service Station Soil Gas Vapor Screening Survey Report, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.; unpublished professional report, 35p. Donnelly, T.W., 1966; Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands; in Hess, H.H., ed., Caribbean Geological Investigations; Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir No. 98; p.85-176. Graves, R.P. and Gonzalez, R., 1988; Potentiometric Surface of the Turpentine Run Basin Aquifer in the Tutu Area, Eastern St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 11, 1987; U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88- 4131. Jordan, D.G. and Cosner, O.J., 1973; A Survey of Water Resources of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands; U.S. Geological Survey Caribbean District Open File Report, 55p. Nachman, D., Bois, W., and van der Leeden, F., 1983; Report on Current Groundwater Conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands; Geraghty & Miller, Inc.; 80p. Rivera, L.H., McKinzie, W.E., and Williamson, H.H., 1966; Soils and their Interpretations for Various Uses, St. Thomas, St. John, Virgin Islands; U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv.- Caribbean Area, 52p. Santiago-Rivera, L and Colon-Diepa, E., 1986; National Water Summary 1985; U.S.Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2300; p. 447-452 Stevens, K.E., Gomez, F., and Alicea, J., 1982; Water Wells in the U.S. Virgin Islands: Part 1, St. Thomas; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Rept. 82-82. Ward, P.E. and Jordan, D.G., 1963; Water Resources of the Virgin Islands, A Preliminary Appraisal, 1963; unpublished U.S.Geological Survey report; 44p. 21 TUT 005 O4O2 Bibliography Belgodere & Assoc., Inc., 1988; Esso Tutu Service Station Soil Gas Vapor Screening Survey Report, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.; unpublished professional report, 35p. Donnelly, T.W., 1966; Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands; in Hess, H.H., ed., Caribbean Geological Investigations; Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir No. 98; p.85-176. Graves, R.P. and Gonzalez, R., 1988; Potentiometric Surface of the Turpentine Run Basin Aquifer in the Tutu Area, Eastern St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 11, 1987; U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88- 4131. Jordan, D.G. and Cosner, O.J., 1973; A Survey of Water Resources of St. Thomas, Virgin islands; U.S. Geological Survey Caribbean District Open File Report, 55p. Nachman, D., Bois, W., and van der Leeden, F., 1983; Report on Current Groundwater Conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands; Geraghty & Miller, Inc.; 80p. Rivera, L.H., McKinzie, W.E., and Williamson, H.H., 1966; Soils and their Interpretations for Various Uses, St. Thomas, St. John, Virgin Islands; U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv.- Caribbean Area, 52p. Santiago-Rivera, L. and Colon-Diepa, E., 1986; National Water Summary 1985; U.S.Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2300; p. 447-452 Stevens, K.E., Gomez, F., and Alicea, J., 1982; Water Wells in the U.S. Virgin Islands: Part 1, St. Thomas; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Rept. 82-82. Ward, P.E. and Jordan, D.G., 1963; Water Resources of the Virgin Islands, A Preliminary Appraisal, 1963; unpublished U.S.Geological Survey report; 44p. 21 TUT OO5 04O3