EPA/540/4-90/051
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Puerto Rico
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the Puerto Rico Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A Puerto Rico Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
J s the 1970s came to a
L .. close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
The Puerto Rico volume and
the companion National
Overview volume provide
general Superfund back-
ground information and
descriptions of activities at
each NPL site. These vol-
umes are intended to clearly
describe what the problems
are, what EPA and others
participating in site cleanups
are doing, and how we as a
Nation can move ahead in
solving these serious prob-
lems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear.about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this volume.
The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This volume compiles site
summary fact sheets on each
Puerto Rico site being cleaned
up under the Superfund pro-
gram. Sites on the NPL rep-
resent the most serious haz-
ardous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
Is*, waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
, h
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
/ the most serious
"'"'/ hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vn
-------
<*.*^
f"
fBow does EPA learn.
about potential
'hazardous waste
What happens if ;{
there is an
^danger?
If tttere isn't
^imminent dange^
how does EPA '
determine what, if
*a»y, cleanup actions
I should be taken?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency action's can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
^ thai, a serioip tJxraM %'
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
How do people find
out whether BFA, \ 's\|
considers a site as J7^M
national priority for"]n/j
cleanup usittg ^.XSN
: Superfund money?
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have then-
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
XI
-------
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
the public have vj Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
fa Say in the final " ^ opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
decision? "* concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
ate
alternatives
identified
f'eyaiuated?
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
1 --5
t ^ % «. v. % _j w.v w. ,j sssss
-; acjion rieeds to pe , ,
1 a
tailored too?-----
Xlll
-------
pDnce the design is:;>S
[complete, how Jtong;
P.* . *.*\ ',««,, -VV^
^ite and how much
*x ^."v
Once Hie
action is
;&e site awtomaitfcMf ^3
-
; j^irfji^,,, 1|Hrir«iHl'««w«mJ«WH^^ ^i .wwvw..
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
ce parlies
ax the ^
^ contaoamalioA pay? ,,,,,
v * % % -.... -.-.
. Js»».
"s.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
T"' he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
,,,^. ,, - are comprehensive
'summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
Site Responsibility:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xvm
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
' }tffffs.
wX
----,
'iff
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional informa^n on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THE PUERTO RICO
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
Commonweal
Puerto Rico
The island of Puerto Rico lies between the Atlantic Ocean to the north and the Carib-
bean Sea to the south. It is the easternmost island of the West Indies Greater Antilles
island group, that includes Cuba, Jamaica, and Hispaniola. The Commonwealth covers
3,435 square miles and consists primarily of mountainous land surrounded by broken
coastal plains. Puerto Rico experienced a slight decrease in population during the
1980s and currently has approximately 3,286,000 residents. Principal Commonwealth
industries are manufacturing, commercial fishing, agriculture, shipping, and tourism.
Puerto Rico manufactures petroleum refining, apparel, food products, electric machin-
ery and equipment, machinery and metals, chemicals, and Pharmaceuticals.
How Many Puerto Rico Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
9
_Q
9
Cong. District 01
9 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10-r
3 54-
o 4-
Soil GW SW Seds Air Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and gases.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and pesticides.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
pesticides.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
'Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
^Remedy
"Selected
^ Remedy
* Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
. Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 5 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Puerto Rico, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below
Puerto Rico Superfund Office
EPA Region II Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region II Superfund Public
Relations Office
(809) 722-0077
(212)264-9858
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(212)264-7054
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the Puerto Rico sites currently on the NPL, and briefly
summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was prepared. The
steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the chart, and each
site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow H-) which indicates the
current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
>- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
>- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxui
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
She Name
BARCELONETA LANDFILL
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
FRONTERA CREEK
GE WIRING DEVICES
JUNCOS LANDFILL
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
RCA DEL CARIBE
UPJOHN FACILITY
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
County
FLORIDA
GUAYAMA
HUMACAO
JUANA DIAZ
JUNCOS
TOA BAJA
BARCELONETA
BARCELONETA
VEGA ALTA
in the Stnt* nf P«Arf« T?i
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
09/01/83 «*>
09/01/84 "K «*
09/01/83 +
09/01/83 "K «K * +-
09/01/83 "K «^
10/04/89 * «^
09/01/83 «^
09/01/84 + + + + +
09/01/84 «*- ^- B^-
-------
-------
-------
BARCELONE
LANDFILL
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980509129
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Florida County
Florida Afuera
Alias:
Municipal Landfill Barceloneta
Site Description
The 20-acre Barceloneta Landfill site is an active industrial landfill. About 300 tons of
hazardous wastes have been placed in sinkholes, some of which are 100 feet deep.
No artificial or natural barrier exists to keep wastes from moving into the groundwater;
the limestone formations underlying the site promote the rapid transport of
contaminants. Groundwater is the drinking source in the area and is also used for
irrigation. No contamination has been found off site to date, but pollution of drinking
supplies is suspected. The surrounding area is commercial, residential, and agricultural
Approximately 12,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site, and the nearest
home is about 500 feet away. Area residents use the site for scavenging and for
driving all-terrain vehicles. People swim and fish in Quebrada Cimarrona, a stream
located on the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
l\
Threats and Contaminants
Preliminary on-site sampling results have identified various heavy metals
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in sludges. The same sampling
data disclosed toluene in surface water and heavy metals in water runoff.
People using the site may experience adverse health effects from
touching contaminated soils and inhaling contaminated dust. Swimming
in the on-site stream may be a health risk, as well as eating fish from the
contaminated waters. Cattle grazing on adjacent land may be exposed to
contamination from the site. Furthermore, the area of the site is a
breeding ground for the Puerto Rican boa, designated as an endangered
species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
i
continued
-------
BARCELONETA LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA began an intensive study of pollution
problems at the site. This investigation will explore the nature and extent
of soil and water contamination and will recommend the best strategies for
final cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: Two Notice Letters were sent to potentially responsible parties in 1983. In
1988, an additional search for parties potentially responsible for site contamination was
started.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Barceloneta Landfill site
while further studies are being completed and the long-term cleanup activities are being
planned.
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC
SUPPLY WELLS
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980763783
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Guayama County
Guayama
Site Description
The Fibers Public Supply Wells serves as a stand-by water supply for Guayama. Four of
the five wells are closed due to contamination by halogenatedsolvents. The U.S.
Geological Survey detected the contamination in 1982 during a survey of public water
wells. A synthetic fiber manufacturing plant operated in an area believed to be
immediately upgradientof the supply wells. Wastewater from solvent cleaning of the
machinery was emptied into two lagoons near the southwestern corner of the site
before liners were installed in 1969, as well as later when the liners were not intact. In
1985, the two wastewater settling poncls were converted into a stormwater retention
basin. This conversion consisted of removing approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil
from the lagoons. The material was then spread over the northwest corner of the
project site. The wastewater was subsequently piped to an off-site biological treatment
system. During the excavation process, the liners in some areas of both of
the lagoons were found missing. A pharmaceutical manufacturing facility currently
operates on the site. The Fibers Public Supply Wells site is located in an industrial and
agricultural area in the Municipality of Guayama, with a population of approximately
41,000. There are approximately 50 residents living adjacent to the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring well sampling results identified various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) believed to have originated from a nearby fiber
manufacturer. The soil is also contaminated with various VOCs.
Individuals may be at risk if direct contact is made with contaminated
groundwater or soil. The closing of the contaminated wells has reduced
the potential for drinking contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Water supply wells were closed after a 1982 survey
detected contamination.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
have conducted three rounds of sampling and are scheduled to submit a
draft report of the investigations in 1990, identifying alternative cleanup
technologies and plans for the cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: Phillips Petroleum Company and the Chevron Chemical Company signed
an Administrative Order of Consent in 1985 to perform an investigation into the extent
of contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup. American Home
Products Corporation {AHP) signed an Administrative Order in 1986 agreeing with the
EPA to conduct sampling and analysis at the plant site in Guayama. Furthermore, AHP
signed a new order in 1989 to perform a more detailed field investigation.
Environmental Progress
By removing the contaminated water supply from service, the potential for exposure to
contaminated drinking water has been virtually eliminated. After adding this site to the
NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations at the Fibers Public Supply Wells
site and determined that no other immediate actions are required while further studies
are taking place.
-------
FRONTERA CREEK
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980640965
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Humacao County
Rio Abajo
Alias:
Ciudad Cristiana
Site Description
The 100-acre Frontera Creek site consists of areas that lie east of the town of Junquito
and extend to the creeks that enter into the Caribbean Sea, industrial properties
adjacent to Frontera Creek, North and South Frontera Lagoons, and the Ciudad
Cristiana Housing Development. From 1971 until 1981, various nearby industrial
properties discharged industrial waste directly into Frontera Creek. The public became
concerned about the creek's possible contamination in 1977, following the death of
thirty cows that grazed in the affected area. Subsequent investigations by the EPA and
several local industries confirmed that contaminants, including mercury and the
pesticide lindane, were present in the creek. Several industries were identified as
contributing to site contamination. The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PREQB) fined one of them, Technicon, for discharging mercury into the creek in 1978.
The 500 residents of the housing development of Ciudad Cristiana, which was built
along the creek in 1979, began to complain of health problems within a year after their
arrival. Blood and urine samples of the residents obtained by the Puerto Rico
Department of Health (PRDH) showed above-normal concentrations of mercury. In
addition, investigations conducted by the PREQB found that soil in and near the
development was contaminated with mercury. As a result, the Governor of Puerto Rico
ordered an immediate permanent evacuation of the 500 residents of Ciudad
Cristiana. Studies conducted by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) concluded that the mercury levels were not high enough to
warrant an immediate evacuation of the residents. However, the EPA proceeded with
a full investigation of the Frontera Creek site because of the known contamination.
Local residents used the lagoons for fishing and recreation; the fish and the shellfish
caught there were important components of the local diet.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
FRONTERA CREEK
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soils, specifically in the Ciudad Cristiana area, are contaminated
with mercury and pesticides, as is the surface water in Frontera Creek
and the two lagoons hydraulically connected to it. Area residents,
specifically those in the Ciudad Cristiana, are exposed to mercury in the
soil, but the level is too low to present a threat to human health. Eating
the shellfish and fish from the two freshwater lagoons also could present
a health risk. The area of the Carribean Sea into which Frontera Creek
flows could become affected by site contaminants. In addition,
contaminants from the site pose a threat to the brown pelican, an
endangered species that is found nearby.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The plan for an investigation into site contamination, to be
conducted by the potentially responsible parties, was approved by the EPA
and the territory of Puerto Rico in 1986. The investigation began in 1988
and is scheduled for completion in 1991. The activities that will be performed have
been split into two phases: (1) a general sampling to determine the contamination and
to assess the need for additional data collection, and (2) a study that will provide more
accurate details of potential risks to human health or the environment and sufficient
data for evaluation of alternatives cleanup strategies. The first phase of the
investigation has been completed and the report is being reviewed.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent was signed by the potentially
responsible parties in 1986 to perform an investigation of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required to protect the residents living near
the Frontera Creek site while further studies are being completed and long-term
cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
GE WIRING DEVICES
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD090282757
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Juana Diaz County
Juana Diaz
Site Description
The 5-acre General Electrical Company Wiring Devices site manufactured mercury light
switches from 1957 until 1969. Approximately 1/2 ton of mercury was discarded along
with 4,000 cubic yards of defective switch parts and plastic scraps in a 1/2-acre waste
area located on the site. A concrete retaining wall and a fence separate the waste area
from nearby residences. An estimated 500,000 gallons of water found just, beneath the
surface have accumulated within the waste area as a result of rainfall and infusion of
groundwater in the waste pit. Investigations at the site have shown that contamination
of the water table is occurring due to the migration of water through the clay layer that
exists beneath the site. There are approximately 10,000 people living within 3 miles of
the site. Groundwater in the area is used as a source of drinking water with a public
supply well located approximately 1,500 feet west of the waste area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and debris located in the waste area are contaminated
with mercury from the former manufacturing activities. The inhalation of
mercury vapors from the site poses the greatest potential health risk.
Mercury detected on site is primarily organic mercury, considerably more
toxic than other forms. During excavation, workers could be exposed to
mercury-contaminated soils. Ground water from the site is flowing
towards the west and could eventually contaminate the San Jacaquas
River.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
GE WIRING DEVICES
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties installed a storm
drain system and retaining wall in 1982 as a preliminary action to control
migration of surface mercury contamination toward nearby residential
areas.
Entire Site: Based upon the results of the site investigation, the EPA has
selected the final methods to be used for cleanup of the site including: (1)
excavating the soil and debris and treating the waste materials, water, and
contaminated on-site surface soil with a process that separates the
mercury from soils with leaching agents and metal recovery; (2) disposing of treated
material to waste areas located on the site; (3) additional groundwater and soil
investigations; and (4) groundwater and air monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of
the cleanup actions. The potentially responsible parties have submitted a plan for
installing a long-term monitoring network and conducting air and soil sampling. These
activities are scheduled to begin in 1990.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order of Consent was signed by General Electric to
undertake the investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
identify alternatives for cleanup, as well as responsibility for designing the methods and
conducting the overall cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above stopped the potential migration of
contaminants to nearby residential areas from the GE Wiring Devices site, making it
safer while further studies are being completed and long-term cleanup activities are
being planned.
-------
JUNCOS LANDFILL
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980512362
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Juncos County
Juncos
Site Description
The 11-acre Juncos Landfill is a closed municipal landfillat which thermometers
containing mercury have been dumped. Small leachate seeps and soil erosion were
evident during the site inspections conducted by the EPA. Of greatest concern is a
new housing development built over the landfill, although most of the homes are not
yet occupied. The new community will be served from a public water supply. Tests by
the EPA in 1982 indicated that soil and air may contain high concentrations of mercury.
No barriers exist to prevent local residents or animals from entering the site. There are
approximately 10,000 people living within a 3-mile radius of the site. Several small
creeks are located near the landfill.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air has been contaminated with various heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The groundwater and soil are contaminated
with heavy metals. Mercury poisoning is the potential health concern for
people living near the site. Breathing the contaminated air and touching
or accidentally ingesting the contaminated soil could lead to mercury
poisoning and other health hazards. Vegetables grown in the
contaminated soil may bioaccumulate heavy metals and could pose a
potential health threat to individuals who eat them. Pollutants may seep
from the landfill into the nearby creeks and harm local wildlife.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
JUNCOS LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1 984, the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination posted signs and installed a partial fence around the site-
they also covered the landfill and the discarded mercury-containing
thermometers with topsoil.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible began a study in 1984 to
evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination and are sampling to
collect more data. The work is scheduled to be completed in 1991 The
result of the study will help the EPA to determine various cleanup alternatives and
select the final cleanup actions for the site.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was signed with Becton Dickinson, in which the company
was made responsible for immediate corrective actions at the landfill in 1 984 An
Administrative Order was also issued by the EPA in 1984 to Becton Dickinson to study
the nature and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above have limited access to the site and greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Juncos Landfill site
while further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
10
-------
NAVAL SECURITY
GROUP ACTIVITY
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PR4170027383
Site Description
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Toa Baja County-
Village of Sabana Seca
Alias:
Sabana Seca
The 2,200-acre Naval Security Group Activity site, which operates a high-frequency
direction finding facility, is divided into North and South Tracts. From the early 1950s
through 1970, the operation's Public Works Department deposited all waste generated
at the station at various areas on the South Tract. Materials included paints, solvents,
waste oil, and battery acid. A pest control shop was also run on the South Tract from
the mid-1950s through 1979. Workers spilled various pesticides around the shop
building. They also mixed pesticides and cleaned applicators in a sink outside the shop
that discharged directly to the ground. In 1984, soil samples showed elevated levels of
arsenic, lead, and chlordane. Rain could wash soil contaminants through a drainage
ditch to the marsh, and the fractured limestone bedrock may allow pollutants to move
into the groundwater. Initial studies identified seven potentially contaminated sites,
including the former pest control shop and a leachate ponding area. Approximately
47,000 people living in and around the station obtain drinking water from public wells
within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater is also used for stock watering and industrial
processes. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the shop is used for
recreational fishing. The San Pedro Marsh, a large coastal wetland, is within 1,000 feet
of both tracts.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Soils outside the pest control shop are contaminated with various heavy
metals and pesticides. Potential routes for migration of contaminants
may threaten the sensitive coastal wetlands. The Cocal River is known to
support numerous fish, as well as crab and shrimp species. Blue Land
Crabs are abundant in the San Pedro Swamp and are recreationally
harvested from it. Stormwater runoff from the shop enters a drainage
ditch that empties into a stream. The Puerto Rican boa, designated by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species, has been
sighted by personnel in numerous locations on the station.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1988, the Navy installed a fence around the former pest
control shop to prevent exposure to the spilled pesticides.
Entire Site: The Navy is expected to begin an intensive study of soil and
water pollution at the site in 1990. This investigation will explore the
nature and extent of contamination and will recommend the best
strategies for final cleanup. Contaminated leachate at the leachate
ponding area apparently originates from the municipal landfill off site but is being
included in the studies to protect base water supplies.
Site Facts: An Interagency Agreement \s being negotiated between the EPA the
Navy, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The site is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), run by the Department of Defense to identify evaluate and
control hazardous waste sites located on its own facilities.
Environmental Progress
By fencing the site, the Navy has eliminated the possibility of exposure to spilled
pesticides around the shop at the Naval Security Group Activity site while further
studies leading to the selection of a final long-term cleanup remedy are beina
completed. *
12
-------
RCA DEL CARIBE
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD090370537
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Barceloneta County
Barceloneta
Site Description
The 20-acre RCA Del Caribe site manufactured masks for television screens and has
been in operation since 1971. General Electric acquired RCA in 1986 and has phased
out operations since 1987. RCA manufactured aperture masks for color television
picture tubes. Spent ferric chloride solution from these operations was stored in four
lined surface lagoons. These lagoons were breached due to sinkhole development,
which discharged approximately 1 million gallons of ferric chloride into the sinkholes.
Since 1982, the ferric chloride has been stored in tanks. Process water contaminated
with ferric chloride was treated in an on-site wastewater treatment system. The
generated sludge was placed into two sludge drying beds and in at least two lagoons.
The approximately 12,000 people residing within 3 miles of the site depend on
groundwater for drinking water. There is a public water supply well located
approximately 3/4 mile from the site. The surrounding area is dedicated to pineapple
growing and cattle raising.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HJSTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, beryllium, selenium/and iron from the former manufacturing
process wastes. Potential health threats may exist if people touch or
accidentally ingest the contaminated groundwater or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
RCA DEL CARIBE
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The potentially responsible party has begun an investigation
to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in
1992. Once complete, the EPA will evaluate the study findings and select the final
long-term cleanup remedies to address contaminated soils and groundwater at the site.
Site Facts: Under an Adminstrative Order, General Electric Company will conduct site
studies and address closure requirements at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations at the
RCA Del Caribe site and determined that no immediate actions were required while
further investigations leading to the selection of a permanent cleanup remedy for the
site are being conducted.
14
-------
UPJOHN FACILITY
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980301154
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Barceloneta County
Barceloneta
Aliases:
Upjohn Manufacturing Company
Carbon Tet. Spill
Site Description
The 2-acre Upjohn Facility site is a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. In 1982,
approximately 15,300 gallons of waste material leaked from an underground storage
tank on the site. Six wells were sampled for contamination shortly after the leak; four
were taken out of service, and one on the adjacent A.M. Robins property was
commissioned as a recovery well. The population affected by the contaminated wells
was given alternate water supplies and subsequently, the company installed a
replacement well and connected one area to the public water system. Upjohn also
installed 22 groundwater monitoring wells. In 1984, various areas of the facility were
covered with a fiberglass-reinforced concrete pad to prevent rainwater from seeping
into the ground. The company installed an extraction well downgradient of the spill
area that intercepted the majority of the contaminated groundwater before it left the
site. A total of 19 vacuum extraction wells were employed to withdraw the volatile
contaminants from the soil. Over 10,000 gallons of carbon tetrachloride have been
removed from the soil and groundwater. Upjohn ceased all use of carbon tetrachloride
by 1986. The Upjohn facility is located in a sparsely populated area. Two communities,
Tiburones and Garrochales, with a population of approximately 3,000 people, are
directly affected by the site. The island's largest aquifer Is underneath the site and
supplies drinking water to 12,000 people. In addition, the aquifer discharges to a
wetland area that supports a large aquatic and bird population. The Rio Grande de
Arecibo and Rio de Manati are located along the borders of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including carbon tetrachloride and chloroform, as well as various heavy
metals from the former manufacturing process wastes. The soil is
contaminated with carbon tetrachloride. People who touch or drink the
water from the wells tapping the aquifer may be at risk. The aquifer
discharges into wetlands, and the pollutants may harm nearby wildlife.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
UPJOHN FACILITY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Upjohn conducted a study of the site in 1983, and
the company performed the actions described above, including covering
some areas and installing extraction wells to remove contaminants from
soil and groundwater, to clean up the site. However, the EPA determined that
additional measures were needed to ensure that the site is completely cleaned and that
It will not pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by:
(1) continuing to pump the groundwater using the extraction wells in-place,
removing the contaminants by forcing a stream of air through the water,
treating the contaminants before releasing them into the atmosphere, and
discharging the treated water into a sinkhole on the property; (2) continuing to pump
the Garrochales #3 public supply well using the same technology as that at the
extraction wells, and discharging the treated water into the public water supply system;
(3) adding new extraction wells if the others prove to be successful in removing
contamination; (4) long-term monitoring of the site to ensure the treatments have been
effective; and (5) reevaluating the site within 5 years to determine whether operations
need to be continued or modified. Upjohn, under EPA monitoring, has started pumping
and treating the groundwater. The company is also monitoring groundwater wells and
public supply wells. In addition, the company is designing engineering specifications to
start the remaining cleanup activities. All work is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and Upjohn entered into a Consent Order to perform
studies on the site. In 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order requiring
Upjohn to design and conduct the cleanup remedies selected by the EPA in 1988.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater extraction and treatment process that began as an immediate action,
as well as other immediate actions, greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances. Groundwater treatment continues to reduce contamination
levels at the Upjohn Facility site so the site can meet established health/ecological
standards.
16
-------
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC
SUPPLY WELLS
PUERTO RICO
EPA ID# PRD980763775
REGION 2
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Vega Alta County:
Vega Alta
Site Description
The Vega Alta Public Supply Wells site covers 50 acres and consists of six active wells
and four inactive wells. The wells currently supply about 4 million gallons of water each
day to Vega Alta and the surrounding residential areas. The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority (PRASA) is responsible for operating and maintaining the public water
supply system. The U.S. Geological Survey sampled the wells in 1983 and found
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the Ponderosa well. Subsequently, this well and
the GE 1 well were shut down due to contamination. The PRASA constructed Bajura 3
well to eliminate the water supply shortage. In 1989, GE 2 and Bajura 3 wells were
shut down by the PRASA because of non-compliance with drinking water standards.
Maguayo wells were constructed by PRASA to compensate for the shortage. In 1984,
an air stripper was installed at the Ponderosa well, which removes contaminants by
forcing a stream of air through the water. This process continued until 1985, when
technical problems with the air stripper arose. Approximately 27,600 people live near
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, and soil are contaminated with various VOCs.
People who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with the
contaminants in the affected wells may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by:
(1) installing individual treatment systems for PRASA wells GE 1, GE 2,
and Bajura 3 and discharging the treated effluent into the PRASA
distribution system; (2) treating the Ponderosa well by air stripping and
discharging the treated effluent into Honda Creek; (3) shutting down the Monterrey 2
and G & M private wells and hooking up the affected residents to the PRASA
distribution system; and (4) conducting an investigation to fully assess and evaluate the
source of the contamination. Some of the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination are designing the technical specifications for the well treatment
systems. Once the design phase is finished in 1990, the systems will be installed and
long-term cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: General Electric, Motorola, Harman Automotive, The West Company, and
the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Corporation were issued a Unilateral Order by
the EPA in 1989 to clean up groundwater contamination at the site. An Administrative
Order on Consent Is being negotiated.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Vega Alta site while long-
term groundwater cleanup activities are started.
18
-------
" his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
terms and abbreviations contained in this glossary are
often defined in the context of hazardous waste management as
described in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program. Thus, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups: It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
G-l
-------
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. Commonwealths are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight/bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
G-2
-------
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land surface in which drainage collects; associ-
ated with underground caves and passages that facilitate the movement of liquids.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-3
-------
------- |