-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vi
DECLARATION viii
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
2.1 Site History 2
2.1.1 History- Site 1 ; 3
2.1.2 History - Site 2 3
2.1.3 History- Site3 4
2.1.4 History - Site 4 4
2.1.5 History- Site 5 , '. 4
2.1.6 History - Site 6 5
2.1.7 History - Site 7 6
2.2 Previous Investigations/Enforcement Activities 7
2.2.1 Previous Investigations 7
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities 10
2.3 Site Inspections/Remedial Investigation/Leachate Diversion-
Feasibility Study 10
2.3.1 Site Inspection - Sites 1 and 3 - (OU-3) 10
2.3.2 Remedial Investigation - Site 6 - (OU-2) 11
2.3.3 Leachate Diversion-Feasibility Study - Site 7 12
2.4 ROD Findings 13
2.4.1 Sites I and 3 - (OU-3) 13
2.4.2 Site 6 - (OU-2) 13
2.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Ac ;on - Site 6 - (OU-2) 13
2.5.1 Design Activities 13
2.5.2 Remedial Construction Activities 14
2.5.3 Summary of Operations and Maintenance 15
2.6 Community Relations Activities 15
2.7 Site Close Out \S
2.8 Five-Year Review t 16
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 16
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION 18
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 18
5.1 Soil Contamination 18
5.1.1 Soil Contamination - Site 2 18
5.1.2 Soil Contamination - Site 4 19
5.2 Groundwater 19
5.2.1 Groundwater Contamination - Site 2 19
5.2.2 Groundwater Contamination - Site 4 20
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
{Continued)
Bags
5.3 Surface Water and Sediment 20
5.3.1 Surface Water and Sediments - Site 2 20
5.3.2 Surface Water Contamination - Site 4 20
5.3.3 Sediment Contamination - Site 4 21
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 22
6.1 Human Receptors 22
6.2 Ecological Receptors 23
6.3 Risks for Each Media 23
6.3.1 Soil Media- Site2 ...; 23
6.3.2 Soil Media- Site4 24
6.3.3 Groundwater Media- Site 2 1 24
6.3.4 Groundwater Media - Site 4 .. 24
6.3.5 Surface Water and Sediments Media- Site 4 25
6.4 Uncertainty Analysis - Site 4 25
6.4.1 Environmental Media Sampling and Analysis 26
6.4.2 Chemical Transport and Fate Modeling 26
6.4.3 Toxicity Data 26
6.4.4 Exposure Assessment 28
6.4.5 Risk Estimates 28
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 29
8.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 29
8.1 Overview 29
8.2 Community Preferences 29
8.3 Summary of Comments Received During tt Public Comment Period and Agency
Responses 30
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30
TABLES
1 Contaminants of Potential Concern for Human Health Risk Assessment - Soil, Surface
Water and Sediment Data Summary
2 Contaminants of Potential Concern for Human Health Risk Assessment - Groundwater Data
Summary
3 Toxicity Values - Slope Factors
4 Toxicity Values - RfD
5 Exposure Pathways
6 Summary of Pathway - Specific Risks - Summary Table of Carcinogenic Risks
7 Summary of Pathway - Specific Risks - Summary Table of Noncarcinogenic Risks
.111
-------
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Plan - Site 2
3 Site Plan - Site 4
4 Installation Restoration Site Locations
IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARAR
CERCLA
COPC
CPRC
CRP
CSF
DOD
FFA
FS
HI
HQ
IAS
ILCR
IR
MCL
mg/kg
NCP
NPL
NSGA
O&M
OU
PREQB
QA/QC
RA
RAB
RAGS
RBC
RCRA
RD
RfD
RI
ROD
SARA
SI
SVOCs
TAL
TBC
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
contaminant of potential concern
Caribbean Primate Research Center
Community Relations Plan
cancer slope factor
Department of Defense
Federal Facilities Agreement
feasibility study
hazard index
hazard quotient
Initial Assessment Study
incremental lifetime cancer risk
Installation Restoration
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilogram
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Naval Security Group Activity
operation and maintenance
operable unit
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
quality assurance/quality control
risk assessment
Restoration Advisory Board
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-fund
Risk-based Concentrations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial design
reference dose
remedial investigation
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
site inspection
semivolatile organic compound
Target Analyte List
To Be Considered
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
TCL Target Compound List
UCL upper confidence limit
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ug/kg micrograms per kilogram
ug/L micrograms per liter
VOCs volatile organic compound
VI
-------
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Site 2 - Bunker 607 Disposal Area
Site 4 - Pistol Range Disposal Area
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents die selected remedy for Site 2 and Site 4 at the Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA)
Sabana Seca. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision is based on the administrative record file for Site 2, the Bunker 607 Disposal Area and Site 4, the Pistol Range
Disposal Area.
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for Site 2 and Site 4 is no action.
Declaration Statement
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents that no action is necessary at Sites 2 and 4 to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to this action.
In lieu of a Final Close Out Report, this ROD also documents that the U.S. Navy has completed all
construction activities for all sites at the NSGA Sabana Seca Site in accordance with Close Out Procedures
for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09). No action has been determined to be
necessary for Sites 1,2,3, and 4; the Navy has cleaned up Sites 5 and 6; and Site 7 will be addressed by the
Municipality of Toa Baja, the party responsible for Site 7 contamination. This decision documents that the
Navy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PREQB) have determined that remedial actions for this site have been successfully implemented and m
further response actions are necessary. Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction
Completion List. The PREQB conducted an inspection on May 9, 1997; and, the USEPA conducted an
inspection on July 17,1997, and both agencies concur that all remedial action has been successfully executed
by the Navy.
_
Signature (Commanding Oflicti, XSGA^abana Seca) Date
«
Signature (Chairman, PR Environmental v
-------
DECLARACION
Nombre v Ubicaci6n del lugar
Lugar 2 - Area de Disposition del Bunker 607
Lugar 4 - Area de Disposition del Campo de Tiro
Actividad del Grupo para Seguridad Naval, Sebana Seca, Puerto Rico
Declaration de fundamento v proposito
Este documento de decision presenta el remedio seleccionado para el Lugar 2 y el Lugar 4 en la Actividad del
Grupo para Seguridad Naval, (NSGA, por sus siglas en ingles), Sabana Seca. Se selecciono este remedio a
tenor con la Ley CERCLA de 1 980 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980), segun enmendada por la Ley SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) y en la
medida en que resulte practice, por el Plan Nacional de Contingencia para Contamination con Petroleo y
Sustancias Peligrosas (NCP, por sus siglas en ingles). Esta decision se basa en el expediente administativo
sometido para el Lugar 2, el Area de Disposition del Bunker 607 y el Lugar 4, el Area de Disposition del
Campo de Tiro.
Descripcidn del remedio seleccionado
El remedio seleccionado para el Lugar 2 y el Lugar 4 es el de no action ulterior.
Exposicidn de Declaracidn
Este Expediente de Decision (ROD, por sus siglas en ingles) documenta que no es necesaria action alguna en
los Lugares 2 y 4 a fin de garantizar la proteccion de la salud humana y el ambiente. Como este remedio no
redundara en que se mantengan en el lugar sustancias peligrosas sobre los niveles de hesgo para la salud, el
periodo de revision de cinco anos no aplica a esta accion.
En lugar del Informe Final de Cierre, este Expediente de Decision tambien documenta que la Marina de
Estados Unidos ha completado todas las actividades de construction para todos los lugares en la NSGA,
Sabana Seca a tenor con los Procedimientos de Cierre para Lugares en la Lista de Prioridades (Directriz
9320.2-09 de OSWER). No se ha determinado que sea necessario tomar accion alguna para los Lugares 1 , 2,
3 y 4. La Marina limpio los Lugares 5 y 6 el Lugar 7 lo atendera el Municipio de Toa Baja, la parte
responsable de la contamination del Lugar 7. Esta decision documenta que la Marina, la Agencia Federal de
Proteccion Ambiental (USEPA, por sus siglas en ingles) y la Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Pueno Rico
(JCA) han determinado que se han implementado con exito las av -nones remediales para este lugar y que no
son necesarias acetones utehores. Por lo tanto, el lugar ahora califica para inclusion en la Lista de
Construccidn Completada. La JCA realize una inspection el 9 de mayo de 1997 y USEPA realize una
inspeccion el 17 de julio de 1997 y ambas agencias estan de acuerdo en que la Marina ha implementado con
exito todas la acciones remediales.
Firma (Admirus^dor Regipn^^EPA Region II) Fecha
KAPROOVSRN-RnVMlOSVCTO-OMSVROIWECUl-SP.WPD
-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) is for Operable Unit (OU) -1, Site 2, the Bunker 607 Disposal Area,
and Site 4, the Pistol Range Disposal Area, both of which are located in the south tract of Naval
Security Group Activity (NSGA) Sabana Seca. Other parts of the site are being addressed in
separate actions. OU-2 is for Site 6, and OU-3 is for Sites 1 and 3. The NSGA Sabana Seca
provides communications and support for the U.S. Navy and other Department of Defense (DOD)
elements. NSGA Sabana Seca is located approximately 14 miles west of the city of San Juan on the
island of Puerto Rico. The NSGA Sabana Seca site consists of a North and South tract together
occupying over 2,200 acres of land. NSGA Sabana Seca is a site being investigated for
environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and is included on United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (USEPA's) National Priority List (NPL).
NSGA Sabana Seca was originally a pineapple and grapefruit plantation known as the Stephenson
Place. The plantation was procured by the U.S. Navy during World War II. After the war, the
property was turned over to the U.S. Army. In 1951, the Navy again assumed control and in 1952,
established the U.S. Naval Radio Station, Sabana Seca. In 1971, NSGA Sabana Seca was
established as an independent shore activity of the Navy. The facility has been operated as a
communications center continuously by the Navy since 1971.
Figure 1 presents a map of the south tract and the locations of Sites 2 and 4 within the south tract.
Site 2 is located within the north-central portion of the south tract approximately 500 feet west of
the intersection of Stone and Redman Roads. Site 4 is located in the southeastern portion of the
south tract, south of Stone Road and is surrounded on its north and west sides by Bataan Road. The
south tract is bounded to the north by the village of Sabana Seca, to the east by Route 866, to the
south by Route 22, and to the west by the Bayamon and Toa Baja Municipal Landfills and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Research Facility.
The water table of the groundwater aquifer supply NSGA Sabana Seca is located approximately 50
to 70 feet below ground surface (bgs). The south tract of NSGA Sabana Seca is serviced by two
deep Base supply wells, at depths of 130 feet and 140 feet bgs, and are located in Buildings 10 and
22, east of the enlisted housing area and north of the officer housing area. The Base water supply
1
-------
wells are located approximately 3,600 feet southeast of Site 2 and 3,000 feet northeast of Site 4. The
groundwater aquifer has not been impacted by on-site activity.
Figure 2 presents a site plan of Site 2 and shows the adjacent property uses. Site 2 covers an area
of approximately one half of an acre. Site 2 is bordered on the south by Stone Road and on the west
by an unnamed trail. The areas to the north and east of Site 2 are undeveloped and heavily
vegetated. The site is currently undeveloped and overgrown with vegetation.
Figure 3 presents a site plan of Site 4 and shows the adjacent property uses. Site 4 covers an area of
approximately 2 acres. The Initial Assessment Study (IAS) originally estimated the site to cover 5
acres. The site is surrounded by Bataan Road and a jeep trail. The Base's perimeter fence borders
Site 4 on the north and west sides. The access road to the Bayamon/Toa Baja Landfill parallels
Bataan Road along the western perimeter of the site. The area around and within Site 4 is
undeveloped and heavily vegetated.
The topography at Sites 2 and 4 is relatively flat, and the areas are heavily vegetated. Drainage near
Site 2 generally flows to the northwest towards a swampy area. No free flowing surface waters
(streams) are located near Site 2. A large area of standing water immediately south of Bunker 607
has been observed on a seasonal basis. The standing water does not appear to flow off site, but
dissipates by evaporation or percolation into the underlying soil. Site 4 receives leachate, surface
water runoff and drainage from the adjacent municipal landfill. This leachate-contaminated runoff
collects in low areas within Site 4 and flows across and along Bataan Road and is referred to as
Site 7. Base personnel installed three culverts to channel the leachate flow under the road to the low
areas rather than over the road to minimize the potential for dermal exposure to Base personnel who
may use die road.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 Site History
An IAS conducted in 1984 identified and assessed sites posing a potential threat to human health or
the environment. The IAS identified seven sites:
-------
Site 1 - South Stone Road Disposal Area
Site 2 - Bunker 607 Disposal Area
Site 3 - North Stone Road Disposal Area
Site 4 - Pistol Range Disposal Area
Site 5 - Wenger Road Disposal Area
Site 6 - Former Pest Control Shop
Site 7 - Leachate Ponding Area
The locations of these sites are shown on Figure 4.
2.1.1 History - Site 1
According to the IAS report, Site 1 was the Base's landfill in operation from 1951 to 1960. During
that time, an estimated 3,300 tons of solid waste including residential waste, construction debris,
scrap metal, appliances, paint cans, and tree clippings were disposed at the site. The Public Works
Department collected solid waste twice a week using a dump truck, and deposited the solid waste
at Site 1. The solid waste was dumped directly onto the ground and left as mounds. Trenching and
daily cover were not employed as part of the disposal operations. No hazardous wastes were
reported to have been disposed at Site 1. Site 1 has remained inactive. The Navy has not removed
any wastes from Site 1. CERCLA investigation has determined that no action is necessary at this
site.
2.1.2 History - Site 2
According to the IAS report, Bunker 607 was intermittently used by the Public Works Department
for materials storage from the 1960s to 1979. In 1979, the Public Works Grounds Maintenance
Division was ordered to clean out the bunker. Reportedly, approximately 500 one-gallon cans of
old paint intended to be used for the on-Base housing were disposed in the vicinity of Bunker 607.
CERCLA investigation has determined that no action is necessary at this site.
-------
2.1 J History - Site 3
According to the IAS report, Site 3 was the Base's landfill in operation from 1960 to 1965. An
estimated 1,800 tons of solid waste including residential waste, construction debris, appliances,
scrap metal, scrap wood, and tree clippings were disposed at the site. The Public Works Department
collected solid waste twice a week using a dump truck, and deposited the solid waste at Site 3. The
solid waste was dumped directly onto the ground and left as mounds. Trenching and daily cover
were not employed as part of the disposal operations. No hazardous wastes were reported to have
been disposed at Site 3. Site 3 has remained inactive. The Navy has not removed any wastes from
Site 3. CERCLA investigation has determined that no action is necessary at this site.
2.1.4 History - Site 4
According to the IAS, Site 4 was used as the Base's landfill from 1965 through possibly 1970. Prior
to its first use for solid waste disposal, the area may have been an orchard (based on 1950 and 1962
aerial photography from USEPA). Site 4 is named the Pistol Range Disposal Area because of its
proximity to the Base's pistol range.
While used as a disposal area, approximately 1,800 tons of waste including residential waste,
construction debris, appliances, scrap metal, and waste oil were reportedly disposed. According to
the LAS report, no hazardous wastes were reported to have been disposed at Site 4. No wastes were
removed from this site. CERCLA investigation has determined that no action is necessary at this
site.
2.1.5 History - Site 5
According to the IAS, this site was reportedly used as a disposal site for mainly inert materials from
1980 through 1983. Materials disposed of at the site consisted of leaves and brush, cuttings, empty
drums, tires, wood and pallets, demolition debris, automobiles, mattresses, appliances, office
furniture, and other similar materials. During the time period this site was used for disposal, the
majority of solid waste was taken off Base for disposal by a contractor. Items disposed of at the site
were those items the contractor would not dispose of, primarily because of their size and weight.
In 1982, the Environmental Engineering Survey conducted by the Navy recommended that these
-------
materials be removed in order to "eliminate a point of habitation for insects, rodents, and other
animals, some of which could be disease vectors." This would also eliminate the need to apply for
a landfill operation permit.
Cleanup of the site was conducted by the Navy's Transportation Division as an "in-house" operation.
Approximately 360 tons of large metal pieces and equipment, abandoned vehicles, appliances, and
general Base scrap and trash were removed. In addition, 30 to 40 unsuspected 55-gallon drums of
unknown material and two to three transformers were removed. The drums and transformers were
disposed of by Base personnel. Soil was removed to 16 feet below-grade, acceptable materials
buried, and clean soil replaced to the surrounding land grade. The materials removed were placed
in a nearby municipal landfill. Because Site 5 has been cleaned up, it does not pose a threat to
human health or the environment Therefore, since this site had been previously remediated prior
to listing of NSGA Sabana Seca on the NPL, USEPA's July 19, 1994 letter to the Navy determined
that no further investigation of Site 5 will be required.
2.1.6 History - Site 6
According to the LAS, Site 6 was operational as a pest control shop from the mid-1950s through
1979. Pesticides were accidentally spilled in and around the building during this time. Pesticides
were stored in a small concrete building and on concrete pads adjacent to the building. Pesticides
were mixed and application equipment cleaned in a sink outside the building which discharged
directly to the ground. Drainage from the site flows north to the eastern perimeter of the Base's
picnic/playground area. The pesticides reportedly used or stored at this site in the past
included: DDT, lindane, chlordane, Paris Green, 2,4-D, malathion, diazinon, seven, PRAMITOL,
and esteron (a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T). Paris Green is an arsenic-based insecticide, and
PRAMITOL is a non-selective herbicide of the triazine family that is adsorbed by foliage and roots
and inhibits photosynthesis.
In October 1987, the materials stored in the pesticide shop were removed and taken to the Base's
hazardous storage facility and the building was demolished. The demolition debris including
concrete, shingles, etc., were taken to the nearby Bayamon/Toa Baja Municipal Landfill. A clean
layer of topsoil was placed on the site, and the area was vegetated. The site was enclosed in a chain-
-------
link fence to limit public access. The fence gate was kept locked at all times. Warning signs were
posted in English and Spanish. This area along Stone Road is patrolled regularly by military police.
CERCLA investigation has resulted in a protective asphalt cap that has been constructed on this site
as documented in a ROD dated, September 20, 1996 and construction completed in April 1997.
2.1.7 History - Site 7
Leachate from the nearby municipal landfill has been observed entering this wet marshy area, which
has been designated as Site 7. The municipal landfill, which is located directly adjacent to the Base
property, has been in operation since the early 1970s. The Navy excessed this land to the Puerto
Rico Land Authority in 1963. The municipal landfill covers approximately 69 acres and has
received the following types of wastes: pharmaceutical, residential, and industrial wastes; old cars;
tires; and appliances. NSGA Sabana Seca has used the municipal landfill for the disposal of wastes
since approximately 1972.
The. municipal landfill is situated in an area of karst topography known as the "haystack" hills.
Surface runoff from this area enters the Base. The presence of wastes on top of the karst topography
of the municipal landfill creates the potential for contaminant migration via the groundwater.
Groundwater from the municipal landfill discharges to the swampy areas of the Base. Because of
the possibility of groundwater contamination from leachate migrating onto NSGA Sabana Seca
property, the municipal landfill poses a potential threat to man health and the environment.
The Nivy has entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Toa Baja, municipal landfill
operators and PREQB to mitigate further impact to NSGA Sabana Seca from the municipal landfill
and will continue to monitor at Site 7 any contaminant migration from the municipal landfill.
The terms of this agreement are the following: The Municipality of Toa Baja will develop a
mechanism to control the leachate migrating onto NSGA Sabana Seca property. In addition, Toa
Baja will develop with NSGA Sabana Seca concurrence mechanisms to prevent the erosion at the
NSGA Sabana Seca's security road in the corner, where the storm water/leachate runoff from the
Bayomon/Toa Baja Landfill's access road discharges onto NSGA Sabana Seca's property. Toa
6
-------
3aja, as owner of the Bayamon/Toa Baja Landfill, will be responsible for funding and implementing
the agreed upon action.
The term of this agreement is from December 4, 1996 and will extend through post-closure
activities. PREQB will be expected to monitor contamination migration during this time.
2.2 Previous Investigations/Enforcement Activities
2.2.1 Previous Investigations
2.2.1.1 Initial Assessment Study
In 1984, an IAS was conducted for the Base. The purpose of the IAS was to identify and assess sites
posing a potential threat to human health or to the environment due to contamination from past
hazardous material operations. This IAS involved reviewing historical records and aerial
photographs, and conducted on-site inspections and personnel interviews.
The IAS report concluded that Site 2 did not pose a threat to human health or the environment,
despite the allegations of paint can disposal. No evidence of past operations or disposal was
identified at Site 2. No stressed vegetation, stains, leaks or odors were noted. Therefore, the IAS
report recommended no further investigations for Site 2.
The IAS report concluded that Site 4 did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. No
hazardous wastes were supposedly disposed in Site 4 and the site was found to be heavily vegetated
during the LAS field investigation. Therefore, the LAS report recommended no further investigations
for Site 4.
2.2.1.2 Confirmation Study
From 1985 through 1989, Hunter/ESE, Inc. conducted a Confirmation Study on Sites 6 and 7 as
recommended in the IAS report. Site 6, a former pesticide shop, has been addressed in a separate
ROD. Site 4 was investigated together with Site 7, a collection area for leachate from an off-Base
source, the Bayamon/Toa Baja Municipal Landfill. The Navy could investigate Site 4 and, at the
-------
same time, obtain analytical results regarding the municipal landfill leachate at Site 7. Confirmation
Studies were not conducted at Site 2.
During the Confirmation Study for Site 4/7, four monitoring wells were installed and sampled.
During Round 1, pentachlorophenol was found in all wells at concentrations ranging from
170 micrograms per liter (ug/L) to 460 ug/L. The inorganics, arsenic and chromium, were found
in all wells at concentrations ranging from 55.1 ug/L to 639 ug/L and 12.1 ug/L to 454 ug/L,
respectively. The high hits of pentachlorophenol and inorganics were found at comparable
concentrations in upgradient and downgradjent wells of Site 4/7, and is therefore attributed to the
upgradient Bayamdn/Toa Baja Municipal Landfill.
2.2.1.3 Site Inspection (SI)
From 1991 through 1994, Versar, Inc. conducted an SI for Sites 2 and 4. The purpose of the SI was
to assess the presence or absence of contamination associated with past Navy activities at these two
sites. The SI involved installing monitoring wells, and the collection and analysis of site soil,
groundwater, surface water and sediment
SI Site 2
Because of the allegations of past paint can disposal, and apparent stressed vegetation potentially
resulting from past disposal practices was obst ved during a field reconnaissance, USEPA, Puerto
Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) and the Navy determined additional investigations
should be conducted at Site 2.
The SI included a soil vapor study, a magnetometer survey, and the collection and analysis of soil
and groundwater samples. The samples were collected over four rounds. Three monitoring wells
were installed .at Site 2. An area of potentially stressed vegetation south of the bunker at Site 2 was
identified during the SI (area where standing water has been seen).
The SI did not produce direct evidence of the disposal of 500 one-gallon cans of paint. The
magnetometer survey found no paint cans, only construction debris. The soil vapor survey identified
small areas with volatile organic compound (VOC) readings slightly in excess of background
8
-------
readings. Soil sample results contained low levels of VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) which may have been derived from paint or may be the result of sampling and/or
laboratory contamination. Groundwater sample results between S2GW01SL (upgradient well) and
the other two wells were very similar providing further evidence that if the paint was disposed in the
area, it had not adversely affected the groundwater quality. Organic compounds detected in the
wells did not exhibit any trends in the types or concentrations detected from one round to another.
Organic compounds detected were at very low concentrations, slightly above the detection limit, and
different contaminants were detected in each round, if detected at all.
The areas of stressed vegetation appeared to be the result of the seasonal variation (i.e., a transition
in vegetation resulting from the area being under water for part of the year). During times of ponded
water, thick vascular vines and other aquatic plants occupy the area. As the area dries out, this
vegetation dies out and is replaced by grasses.
Based on these findings, the SI report concluded that past Navy practices have not impacted Site 2,
therefore, no further remedial action was recommended for the site.
SI Site 4
Because of the brevity of the I AS information and the municipal leachate ponded over Site 4, the
USEPA, the Navy and the PREQB determined additional investigations were.needed at Site 4.
Between October 1991 and October 1993, Versar, Inc. conducted a SI for Site 4 to assess the
presence or absence of contamination associated with past activities at the site.
The SI included: monitoring well installation; a land survey; aquifer tests; and the collection and
analysis of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples. The samples were collected over
four rounds. Ten monitoring wells were installed at Site 4 during the SI.
The SI determined that Site 4 produced no observable flow of leachate of its own. Based on the
findings of the SI report, it was concluded that past Navy disposal practices have not impacted
Site 4. Therefore, no further remedial action was recommended for the site. The Navy is working
closely with the municipality in an effort to mitigate further impacts of the Bayamon/Toa Baja
Municipal Landfill on Navy and surrounding properties.
9
-------
2.23 Enforcement Activities
2.2.2.1 National Priorities Listing
NSGA Sabana Seca was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List on June 24, 1988 and
was included on October 4,1989. The concern about the pesticides at Site 6 was the primary reason
NSGA Sabana Seca was proposed for the NPL.
2.2.2.2 Federal Facilities Agreement
On March 19,1992, the Navy, USEPA, and the PREQB entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement
(FFA) for NSGA Sabana Seca. The primary purpose of the FFA was to ensure that environmental
impacts associated with past and present activities at the Base were-thoroughly investigated and
appropriate CERCLA response/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action
alternatives were developed and implemented as necessary to protect public health and the
environment This agreement established roles and responsibilities and improved communication
between the Navy, USEPA, and PREQB. It provided for the expeditions completion of all remedial
actions necessary to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment consistent with
CERCLA/Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Under the FFA, Sis were performed for
Sites 2 and 4.
2.3 Site Inspections/Remedial Investigation/Leachate Diversion-Feasibility Study
All sampling and analysis, at all the sites at NSGA Sabana Seca were done in accordance with a
workplan prepared by the Navy and approved by USEPA and PREQB, and in accordance with the
USEPA Region IPs CERCLA Quality Assurance Manual.
2.3.1 Site Inspection - Sites 1 and 3 - (OU-3)
Between 1993 and 1996, the 2 acre South Stone Road Disposal Area and the 11 acre North Stone
Road Disposal Area were sampled four times. The Navy performed a SI between December 1991
10
-------
and March 1997. At Site 1, carbon tetrachloride was detected twice in the groundwater in one well
above the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at 10 micrograms per liter (ug/L). The final
SI report summarized all site analysis results.
On March 20,1997, the Navy released the final SI report. The report provided an in-depth summary
and discussion of site sampling activities and a baseline risk assessment, qualitative and quantitative.
The report also concluded that since there was no unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment from the contamination of soil or groundwater at either site, no action was necessary.
23.2 Remedial Investigation-Site6-(OU-2)
Between 1986 and 1993, the less than 1 acre site of the Former Pest Control Shop and adjacent areas
were sampled six times. The Navy performed a remedial investigation (RI) between October 1991
and October 1993. Chromium was detected only once in the groundwater above the Federal MCL
at 119 ug/L. No pesticides were detected in the groundwater and surface water and those pesticides
detected in the soil and sediment were below Federal action levels.
Since there are no applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) established for the
cleanup of soil, chemical-specific To Be Considered (TBC) criteria were evaluated, instead. A
chemical-specific TBC of 500 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) for gamma-Chlordane was obtained
from the RCRA Corrective Action Levels listed in 40 CFR Part 264.521, Appendix A and
Appendix C (Proposed P. .le). Chlordane is a mixture of chlorinated hydrocarbons consisting of
isomers of chlordane and closely related compounds and byproducts. Gamma-chlordane is an
isomer of chlordane, so gamma-chlordane makes up a part of chlordane. Therefore, the chlordane
listing can be used for gamma-chlordane. In general, the chlordane mixture is comprised mostly of
the gamma-chlordane isomer. Therefore, gamma-chlordane is not listed in either Appendix A or
Appendix C as gamma-chlordane; gamma-chlordane is listed as chlordane. The final Rl/feasibility
study (FS) report summarized all site analysis results.
On May 2, 1996, the Navy released the final RI/FS report. The report provided an in-depth
summary and discussion of site sampling activities, a human health and ecological risk assessment,
and an analysis of remedial alternatives. The report also concluded that since there was no
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment from the pesticide contamination of soil that
11
-------
has occurred at Site 6, no action was necessary. Nevertheless, the site is adjacent to a
playground/picnic area and the enlisted housing area. Therefore, as a reassurance to the public, the
Navy conservatively evaluated remedial alternatives that could limit the public's exposure to the
minimal contamination that may remain in the soil at Site 6. The RI/FS report provided a detailed
analysis of capping; excavation, removal and off-site incineration; and no action remedial
alternatives.
2 J J Leachate Diversion-Feasibility Study - Site 7
Though the waste stream did not originate from Navy property, the Navy conducted a Leachate
Diversion/Feasibility Study to try to address the problem. The FS provided eight alternatives for
an interim treatment of the leachate entering Navy property. The alternatives evaluated were
considered impractical, including leachate collection, because of the location of NSGA Sabana Seca
in a rainforest, with the exception of an engineered wetlands, which would use phytoremediation
technologies. A treatability study of the engineered wetland technology was conducted as a result
of the FS. The study consisted of constructing a small scale wetland to evaluate the
implementability and effectiveness of this technology. Due to unforeseen changes in landfill
operations and the hydrology upgradient of the Base, and susceptibility of the engineered wetland
technology to drought conditions, the study was canceled. The final FS report summarized all site
analysis results.
On December 20, IS j, the Navy released the final FS report. The report provided an in-depth
summary and discussion of the eight alternatives, all of which were determined to be impractical as
the report has also determined that the leachate flowing onto Navy property at Site 7, a collection
area for leachate from an off-Base source, is from the Bayamon Municipal Landfill, the operation
of which could not be controlled by the Navy. Therefore, on February 27,1997, the USEPA notified
the Navy that No Further Action was necessary and that a ROD would also not be required at She 7.
The Navy has entered into a Partnering Agreement with the landfill owners and operators, and
PREQB to further address landfill leachate at Site 7.
12
-------
2.4 ROD Findings
2.4.1 Sites 1 and 3 - (OU-3)
The Navy has prepared a No Action ROD for Sites 1 and 3 due to current site conditions,
environmental analyses and risk assessments. Though Sites 1 and 3 were formerly used as landfills,
no evidence exists to suggest that the soil or groundwater at either site poses a risk to human health
or the environment. Based on cleanup objectives at other Federal, State and Commonwealth
hazardous waste sites, this alternative will be protective of human health and the environment.
2.4.2 Site6-(OU-2)
On September 20, 1996, the Regional Administrator approved a ROD, which selected an asphalt
cap over the areas where pesticides were previously detected in the surface soils above TBC criteria.
The fence that is currently around portions of Site 6 will be removed. The area will be cleared and
grubbed. An eight-inch subbase layer of gravel will be placed in the area to be capped. A four-inch
layer of asphalt will be placed over the gravel subbase layer. The surface of the cap will be sloped
to drain. The area around the cap will be leveled with clean fill, and the site will be re vegetated.
The cap will also eliminate the potential for any contact, human or environmental, with any
remaining minimal pesticide contaminated soils. Based on cleanup objectives at other Federal, State
and Commonwealth hazardous waste sites, as well as recommendations from the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control, this alternative will , ».- protective of human health and the environment.
2.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Action - Site 6 - (OU-21
2.5.1 Design Activities
On February 14,1996, the Navy submitted the draft Remedial Design (RD). The RD was finalized
on May 2,1996 and approved by the Navy on July 15,1996. The Navy has paid all of the remedial
action costs and will assume responsibility for all of the operation and maintenance (O&M)
requirements, as required by CERCLA. The Navy awarded the contract to OHM Remediation
Services Corporation. The draft Remedial Action Workplan dated July 15, 1996, was received by
13
-------
USEPA on October 30, 1996, and approved by USEPA on December 19, 1996. The Remedial
Action Workplan was finalized by the Navy on January 14,1997.
2.5.2 Remedial Construction Activities
The Site 6 construction project consisted of three primary tasks; site preparation, backfill and
compaction of subbase, and asphalt application.
On January 14,1997, the Navy held a ore-construction meeting at the Base. The remedial action
field activities also commenced that day with clearing and grubbing. Preparation of Site 6 included
extensive clearing and grubbing activities, the removal of small trees and dense underbrush within
the fence, removal of crushed empty drums which formerly held drill soil cuttings, and the removal
of three large trees which were located slightly beyond the fenced perimeter but within the proposed
cap area. The cleared vegetation, including the felled trees outside of the fenced area, were
transported to the Base compost. Drums, which held soil cuttings from previous site inspections,
were emptied on site and the contents placed beneath the final cap. Clearing and grubbing of Site 6
was completed on February 5,1997.
Backfill and compaction activities, which began on February 7,1997 and ended on March 14, 1997,
were delayed due to heavy precipitation. Because of muddy conditions, saturated soil was excavated
and replaced with crushed stone backfill, which facilitated the backfill completion while reducing
the nee.] for additional, more costly, select soil backfill.
Asphalt and site restoration occurred from April 3 to 11, 1997. A four-inch layer of asphalt was
applied over approximately 1,900 square yards, on top of the properly compacted subbase (>95%
compaction). A total of 180 cubic meters of topsoil was spread around the perimeter of the asphalt
cap, seeded and mulched.
On May 27,1997, the Navy submitted a Remedial Action report to USEPA and PREQB signifying
successful completion of construction activities. Due to the contract modifications and weather
delays, the total remediation action contract cost ($261,000) exceeded the original $198,000
contract, by $63,000.
14
-------
A final construction inspection was performed on April 7,1997, during which the asphalt cap was
approved and accepted. The remaining punch list items, consisting of final top soil application,
seeding, and mulching, was finalized and approved and accepted by the on-site representative for
the Navy on April 14, 1997. The PREQB conducted an inspection on May 9, 1997; and USEPA
conducted an inspection on July 17,1997, and both agencies concur that all remedial action had been
successfully executed by the Navy.
2.5 J Summary of Operations and Maintenance
Site 6 O&M activities to be performed include routine inspections of the asphalt cap, mowing, and
maintenance of the perimeter fence. The Navy has assumed all responsibility for O&M. The asphalt
cap will require minimal maintenance by the Navy. The life expectancy of an asphalt cap is
approximately 20 to 25 years with routine maintenance. A top sealant will be applied periodically
to the asphalt surface to prevent deterioration.
2.6 Community Relations Activities
The Navy's community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents
were well-informed about the activities at the Base. Community relations activities included: Site
Information/Photograph Albums; Site Brochures/Fact Sheets; a Community Relations Plan;
Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings; and Public Awareness
Sessions.
2.7 Site Close Out
This No Action ROD, in lieu of a Final Close Out Report, documents that the U.S. Navy has
completed all construction activities for the NSGA Sabana Seca site in accordance with Close Out
Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09). No action has been
determined to be necessary for Sites 1,2,3, and 4; the Navy has cleaned up Sites 5 and 6; and Site 7
will be addressed by the Municipality of Toa Baja, the party responsible for Site 7 contamination.
This decision documents that the Navy, USEPA and PREQB have determined that remedial actions
for this NSGA Sabana Seca site have been successfully implemented and no further response actions
are necessary. Therefore, the NSGA Sabana Seca site now qualifies for inclusion on the
15
-------
Construction Completion List. The PREQB conducted an inspection on May 9, 1997; and, the
USEPA conducted an inspection on July 17,1997, and both agencies concur that all remedial action
has been successfully executed by the Navy.
All cleanup actions specified in the ROD for Site 6 have been implemented. The asphalt cap
provides further assurance that Site 6 poses no threats to human health or the environment. The only
remaining activity to be performed is O&M that the Navy has guaranteed.
USEPA will issue a Notice of Intent to Delete NSGA Sabana Seca site from the NPL.
A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this NCSA Sabana Seca site under the
Superfund program is^ttached. These documents are available by calling the NSGA Sabana Seca
Public Affairs Officer at (787) 261-8307.
2.8 Five-Year Review
Because no hazardous substances remain at the site above health-based levels, a five-year review
does not apply to the NSGA Sabana Seca site.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public participation requirements of CERCLA/SARA and the NCP have been met by the
following activities.
RAB members, which include representatives from regulatory agencies, the Navy and the local
community, have participated in the review of draft documents and have worked together to finalize
these documents.
A Community Relations Plan (CRP) for all sites at the Base was prepared in 1991 and is available
in English and Spanish. The CRP is part of the community right-to-know process. The primary
purpose of the CRP is to provide information and to promote constructive, effective communication
between the Base and the surrounding community.
16
-------
Although Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States, a large percentage of the population
is not fluent in English; Spanish is the main language of Puerto Rico. Therefore, the Navy had
pertinent summary documents translated into Spanish.
The Administrative Record, which contains all documents that form the basis for the selection of
a response action, is maintained at the Base library and at the Jaime Fonadella Garriga Public
Library in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. The notice of availability for the Administrative Record for this
Federal facility was first published on May 12,1996 and May 13, 1996 in local newspapers. The
English version of the public notice was published in the San Juan Star, the Spanish version was
published in the Nuevo Dia.
The Proposed Plan for these two sites was released to the public (i.e., were placed in the
Administrative Record) on June 17, 1997. The public notice indicating once again the availability
of the Administrative Record for the facility and specifically indicating the availability of the
Proposed Plan for review was published on June 15, 1997 and June 16, 1997 in local newspapers.
The English version of the notice was published in the San Juan Star, the Spanish version was
published in the Nuevo Dia. The Proposed Plan, ROD, the Site Information/Photograph Album, fact
sheets and the Administrative Record's introduction are available in English and Spanish.
As indicated in the public notice, a public comment period was held from June 17, 1997 to July 17,
1997. The public comment period provided the public the opportunity to review the Administrative
Record and comment on the Proposed Plan. The public notice abo requested public attendance to
the public awareness session which would be held on July 17,1997. There was little public interest
in the Proposed Plan. The Navy received no requests for a time extension to the public comment
period.
On July 17, 1997, the Navy held the public awareness session in lieu of a public meeting even
though there had been no public request for a meeting. The public awareness session was held to
respond to public questions, if any, and to accept oral or written public comments on the Proposed
Plan. Had there been public comments received, a response to these comments would have been
included in the Responsiveness Summary section within this ROD. Fact sheets and a Site
Information/Photograph Album, both in English and Spanish, were provided during the public
awareness session to help the public understand the sites better. Navy representatives fluent in
17
-------
English and Spanish and knowledgeable on this project were present at the public awareness session
to answer questions.
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
The "No Action" alternative has been selected for Sites 2 and 4. Current site conditions,
environmental analyses, and risk assessments indicate that no action is warranted at Site 2 or Site 4.
Though Sites 2 and 4 were formerly used as disposal areas, the risk to human health and the
environment is low. No evidence exists to suggest that the soil, groundwater, surface water, or
sediment at either site poses a risk to human health or the environment. No further studies will be
conducted at these sites. No previous removal or interim remedial actions have been conducted at
Sites 2 and 4, and no future remedial actions are proposed at these sites.
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section of the ROD presents an overview of the nature and extent of contamination at Sites 2
and 4 with respect to the known or suspected sources of contamination, types of contamination, and
affected media. Based upon the Confirmation Study, the SI, and the site history, the source of
contamination at Site 2 involves its reported former use as a paint disposal area. The source of
contamination at Site 4 involves its former use as a Base landfill. No additional sources of
contamination were identified.
5.1 Soil Contamination
5.1.1 Soil Contamination - Site 2
As part of the SI for Site 2, soil sampling was conducted within the area of stressed vegetation
identified immediately south of the bunker.
Round 1 surface soil samples were collected in April 1992 and analyzed for lead (20 samples).
Detected lead levels ranged from 0.51 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 35.1 mg/kg.
18
-------
A second round of soil samples was collected in April 1993. Six samples were collected and
analyzed for full Target Compound List (TCL) organic compounds and Target Analyte List (TAL)
inorganic compounds. Trace level organics were detected during the second sampling round.
Several inorganic compounds were detected in the second round of soil samples. Based on a
comparison with background sample concentrations, estimated lead levels ranged from 1.5 mg/kg
to 11.4 mg/kg, while background levels ranged from 4.2 mg/kg to 94.9 mg/kg.
5.1.2 Soil Contamination - Site 4
During the SI for Site 4, soil sampling was conducted during Rounds 1 and 2. Four samples were
collected during Round 1 at the 0 to 3 foot depth range. During Round 2, soil samples were
collected from four locations at depths of 0 to 3 feet and 3 to 6 feet The Round 1 and 2 samples
were analyzed for TCL organic compounds and TAL inorganic compounds.
Organic compounds were detected at very low levels during the two rounds of sampling at Site 4.
Inorganic compounds were detected that were considered elevated when compared to background
levels. Inorganic compounds detected include aluminum (17,800 mg/kg); antimony (8.8 mg/kg);
chromium (105 mg/kg); cobalt (20.4 mg/kg); and manganese (2,170 mg/kg).
52 Groundwater
5.2.1 Groundwater Contamination - Site 2
Groundwater samples wer^ collected from Site 2 during three rounds of sampling (Rounds 2, 3, and
4). There were no Round 1 SI groundwater data because monitoring wells had not been installed.
During each round, groundwater samples were collected from three Site 2 wells, two public wells,
and two background wells. The samples were analyzed for TCL organics and TAL inorganics.
The SVOC, pentachlorophenol, was detected in one of the Round 2 samples, at 38 ug/L.
Pentachlorophenol was found once and not confirmed in two other rounds of sampling. Several
inorganic compounds were detected in the Round 2 samples. Based on a comparison with
background sample concentrations, estimated lead levels ranged from 2.5 ug/L to 2.7 ug/L;
background levels ranged from 4.1 ug/L to 5.3 ug/L.
19
-------
The results from the Round 3 groundwater samples indicated that organic compounds were not
present in the samples. Lead was detected at estimated concentrations ranging from 1.2 ug/L to
2.6 ug/L; background levels were estimated at 3.1 ug/L and 3.8 ug/L.
The results from the Round 4 groundwater samples indicated several inorganics. Lead was not
detected in the samples analyzed.
Although the SVOC, pentachlorophenol, was detected once, organic contamination was not
confirmed by additional sampling. Inorganic concentrations were found to be comparable to
background.
5.2.2 Groundwater Contamination - Site 4
Groundwater samples were collected from Site 4 during four rounds of sampling. The samples were
analyzed for TCL organics and TAL inorganics. Several VOCs and SVOCs were found at very low
concentrations during all four rounds, while inorganic concentrations were found to be comparable
to background concentrations during the four rounds of sampling. Analytical results from within
Site 4 were compared to upgradient results. This comparison indicated that Site 4 may be
contributing slightly to downgradient contamination, but the majority of metal and VOC
contamination is due to an off-site source, most likely, the Bayamdn/Toa Baja Landfill.
5.3 Surface Water and Sediment
53.1 Surface Water and Sediments - Site 2
Surface water and sediment samples were not collected at Site 2 because there are no surface water
features at the site.
5.3.2 Surface Water Contamination - Site 4
Surface water samples at Site 4 were collected from drainage ditches and the leachate ponded areas
when water was available.
20
-------
Surface water samples were collected during Rounds 1, 2 and 4 of the SI. Four surface water
samples were collected in Rounds 1 and 4; two surface water samples were collected in Round 2.
The samples were analyzed for TCL organics and TAL inorganics. Several inorganics (aluminum
and manganese) were detected at concentrations above background (upgradient) levels.
Due to drought conditions, only two samples were collected from areas which contained enough
water to obtain a sample during Round 2 and no surface water was collected during Round 3.
Surface water samples were collected to assess the impact from the municipal leachate flowing onto
Site 4. Surface water at Site 4 is comprised of the leachate-contaminated runoff flowing from the
adjacent municipal landfill. Surface water contamination was not thought tb be caused by Site 4.
Additional sampling would not have further defined contamination at Site 4.
The detected organic compounds were found at low concentrations. Several inorganics were
detected above background levels.
With respect to the Round 4 surface water samples, the only organics detected were two pesticides
(alpha-BHC, and beta-BHC). Several inorganics were detected above background levels. The SI
attributed the surface water contamination to the Bayamon/Toa Baja Municipal Landfill.
5.3 J Sediment Contamination - Site 4
Sediment samples at Site 4 were collected from the same location as the surface water samples
(i.e., in the drainage ditches and the leachate ponded areas).
Four sediment samples were collected and analyzed for TCL organics and TAL inorganics during
Round I. The inorganics detected were in the range of background/upgradient levels. Sediment
samples were not collected during Rounds 2,3, and 4 because sediment contamination was thought
to be caused by the adjacent municipal landfill, not by Site 4. Additional sampling would not have
further defined contamination at Site 4.
21
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based on the results of the site inspections, a risk assessment (RA) was conducted for Site 4.
Because no direct evidence of contamination was found, no RA was conducted for Site 2. The RA
was conducted in accordance with the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Part A,
Human Health Evaluation Manual (USEPA, 1989). The RA considered the most likely routes for
potential exposure for both current and future exposure scenarios. To calculate the risks, the
incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCR) were calculated for different scenarios. The ILCR is a
number that represent the potential cancer risk that is above the background cancer risk to
unexposed individuals. Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer scope factors
(CSFs) developed by USEPA for the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Table 1 contains
a summary of the COPCs for soil, surface water and sediment; and Table 2 contains a summary of
the COPCs for groundwater. CSFs (see Table 3) have been developed for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. A CSF is multiplied
by the estimated chemical intake to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. A number called the hazard
quotient (HQ) is used to determine the non-carcinogenic effects of chemical exposure. The hazard
index (HI) is obtained by adding the HQs for all chemicals, within a medium, that impact a
particular receptor population. The HI number is compared to unity (1.0).
The HI is a representation of the chronic daily intake divided by a safe or reference dose (RfD). RfD
(see Table 4) is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive
subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime.
Ratios less man one indicate that non-carcinogenic health effects are unlikely. Ratios greater than
one indicate the potential for the occurrence of adverse non-carcinogenic health effects.
6.1 Human Receptors
The human receptors (see Table 5 - For Exposure Pathways) in the vicinity of Sites 2 and 4 include
both on-Base and off-Base personnel. The Base housing areas are approximately 2,500 feet from
both sites. The distance to the nearest potable water well is approximately 2,000 feet at the
Department of Health and Human Services Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC). The closest
22
-------
off-Base residence is in the village of Sabana Seca, approximately 1 mile to the northeast of both
sites (see Tables 6 and 7 - For the Summary of Pathway - Specific Risks).
6.2 Ecological Receptors
The area around Sites 2 and 4 is heavily vegetated and consists of limestone hills (haystack) and
sinkholes. The haystack hills are inhabited by the Puerto Rican Boa, the White-crowned Pigeon, and
various plant species that are listed as endangered/threatened species. No ecological RA was
conducted at either site because these types of assessments are not included in Federal guidance for
conducting Sis.
63 Risks for Each Media
The following paragraphs describe the risks for each media at Sites 2 and 4.
63.1 Soil Media - Site 2
In lieu of Federal soil criteria/standards, the detected concentrations of the compounds in the soil
samples were compared to USEPA Region III Risk-based Concentrations (RBCs). RBCs are
conservative benchmarks developed by Region III lexicologists for comparing results of analytical
data. The RBCs lists contaminant concentrations in soil for typical (i.e., residential, industrial) land
uses that are expected to be safe for lifetime exposure.
In the 1992 samples, lead was detected at concentrations well below the Federal soil screening levels
for lead of 400 mg/kg. In the 1993 samples, several inorganic compounds were detected. Lead
levels were once again below the federal soil screening level ranging in concentration from 1.5 to
11.4 mg/kg.
The results from the SI soil samples did not indicate any direct evidence of the reported disposal of
the 500 one-gallon cans of paint within the Site 2 area. The contaminant concentrations were below
Federal action levels.
23
-------
Soil Media - Site 4
The SI determined that the Pistol Range Disposal Area produced no observable flow of leachate of
its own and was impacted by contamination from the off-site municipal landfill due to the visible
leachate flow. Relatively low concentrations of organic chemicals were detected in the soil;
however, due to the presence of the leachate stream on site, and uncertainty regarding the location
of leachate flows and ponding in the past, these contaminants can not be attributed to Site 4. As a
conservative approach, the RA performed under the SI assumed all soil contamination was related
to Site 4. The RA results indicated that the evaluated soil exposures did not generate a significant
carcinogenic risk or non-carcinogenic hazard for either current or potential future use scenarios.
Therefore, the results from the SI soil samples did not indicate any direct evidence of impact to
human health or the environment from Site 4.
6.3 J Groundwater Media- Site 2
The concentrations of the detected organic compounds were below established groundwater criteria
(the Federal Drinking Water Standards -MCLs) with the exception of the one detection of
pentachlorophenol that was not confirmed in other wells and two other sampling rounds.
Several inorganic compounds were detected in the groundwater samples collected during the SI.
The detected concentrations of the inorganics were considered not to pose any threat to human
health or the environment
Therefore, the results from the SI groundwater samp'ts did not indicate any direct evidence of the
reported disposal of the 500 one-gallon cans of paint within the Site 2 area. Because no direct
evidence of contamination was found, no RA was conducted.
63.4 Groundwater Media - Site 4
As summarized in the SI report, groundwater analytical data typically showed higher concentrations
of organics and inorganics upgradient of Site 4. The SI report also concluded that while Site 4 may
contribute very slightly to downgradient contamination, the bulk of contaminants detected can be
attributed to the upgradient municipal landfill. The off-Base landfill is considered responsible for
24
-------
persistent detections of organics in samples from up-gradient monitoring wells at concentrations
exceeding MCLs.
In conducting the RA for Site 4, primary exposure pathways were identified for the groundwater.
They include future ingestion of drinking water, and inhalation and dermal absorption while
showering for residential children and adults, and on-site adult workers.
6.3.5 Surface Water and Sediments Media- Site 4
The SI RA for Site 4 determined that surface water and sediment generated negligible risks for
current and future use scenarios. The estimated risks were higher in the upgradient data group for
surface water than for the site as a whole. Risks were calculated to be slightly higher in the
downgradient data group for sediment; however, this may be due to sediment transport, rather than
an indicator of contamination resulting from Site 4. Carcinogenic risks were within the acceptable
range of 10*4 to 10"* (one in ten thousand to one in one million). These data indicate that the
upgradient Bayamon/Toa Baja Landfill is primarily responsible for the environmental degradation
present at the site.
6.4 Uncertainty Analysis - Site 4
Despite recent advances in RA methodology, uncertainties are inherent in the RA process. In order
to appreciate the limitation and significance of the risk estimates, it is important to have an
understanding of the sources and magnitudes of uncertainly. Sources of uncertainty in this RA, as
in any RA, include:
Sampling and analysis
Chemical transport and fate modeling
Toxicity data
Exposure assessment
Risk estimates
25
-------
6.4.1 Environmental Media Sampling and Analysis
Sampling was conducted using accepted procedures in an attempt to collect samples that were
representative of environmental media. Analyses were performed in accordance with the USEPA's
procedures. Data were subsequently reviewed in a data validation process; however, current
analytical procedures may not identify all potentially hazardous contaminants at a site, and analytical
errors may have occurred despite stringent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures.
In conducting this RA, it was assumed that the repotted chemical concentrations were representative
of actual site conditions.
6.4.2 Chemical Transport and Fate Modeling
The 95th percentile upper confidence limit (UCL) (or maximum) concentrations of COPCs found
in soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater at and around Site 4 were used as exposure point
concentrations. Migration, dispersion, dilution, retardation, degradation, and other attenuation or
transformation processes may occur over time that could change the chemical concentrations in
various on-site media. It has been conservatively assumed that the concentrations observed at Site 4
will remain relatively unchanged with time because, with the exception of the VOCs and SVOCs,
all COPCs are relatively persistent and immobile.
6.43 Toxicity Data
The available scientific data on subchronic and chronic toxic effects in humans for the chemicals
of concern found at Site 4 are limited. Consequently, varying degrees of uncertainty surround the
assessment of adverse health effects in potentially exposed populations. Sources of uncertainty for
toxic effects in humans include:
Use of dose-response data from experiments on homogenous, sensitive animal
POPULATIONS to predict effects in heterogenous human populations with a wide
range of sensitivities;
26
-------
Extrapolation of data from high doses in animals to "real-world" low doses, from
acute or subchronic to chronic exposure, and from one route to another (e.g., from
ingestion to dermal absorption); and
Use of single chemical data that do not account for possible antagonistic or
synergistic responses from multiple chemical exposures.
Toxicity data are largely derived from laboratory animals. Experimental animal data have
historically been relied upon by regulatory agencies and other expert groups to assess the hazards
of chemicals to humans. Although this reliance has been supported by empirical observations, there
may be slight or marginal interspecies differences in the absorption, metabolism, excretion,
detoxification, and toxic responses to specific chemicals of concern. There may also be
uncertainties concerning the relevance of animal studies using exposure routes that differ from
human exposure routes. In addition, the frequent necessity to extrapolate results of short-term or
chronic animal studies to humans exposed over a lifetime has inherent uncertainty. In order to adjust
for many of these uncertainties, USEPA often adjusts the RfD for noncarcinogenic effects using
uncertainty and modifying factors on the most sensitive animal species.
There is also uncertainty as to whether animal carcinogens are also carcinogenic in humans. While
many chemical substances are carcinogenic in one or more animal species, only a small number of
chemical substances are known to be human carcinogens. The fact that some chemicals are
carcinogenic in some animals, but not in others, raises the possibility that not all animal carcinogens
are carcinogenic in humans. USEPA assumes that humans are as sensitive to carcinogens as the
most sensitive animal species. This policy decision, designed to prevent underestimating risk, may
introduce the potential to overestimate carcinogenic risk for some chemicals.
The model used by USEPA to determine slope factors is the linearized multistage model that
provides a conservative estimate of cancer risk at low doses and may overestimate the actual slope
factor. Inadequate knowledge of the validity and accuracy of the linearized multistage model may
increase the uncertainty and the tendency to overestimate actual cancer risks.
27
-------
When dealing with exposures to chemical mixtures, USEPA assumes dose additivity and does not
account for potential synergisms, antagonisms, differences in target organ specificity, of
mechanisms of action.
Despite these many limitations, animal experiments are widely believed to be a necessary part of
toxicity assessment, especially in the absence of human epidemiological data. The safety factors
used in RfD derivations for single chemicals may compensate for any unknown effects of synergistic
exposures.
6.4.4 Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is perhaps the most critical step in achieving a reliable estimate of health risks
to humans. In this assessment, a number of assumptions were made concerning the human
populations that could come into contact with Site 4 media and the frequencies and durations of
these contacts. The exposure parameters used in this assessment were largely based on USEPA's
RAGS (USEPA, 1989a) and Exposure Factors Handbook (1989b), and may not be representative
of the current and future receptor populations. There is also the presumption that interim and
institutional measures at the site would not lead to changes in exposure conditions and receptor
behayiors.
In accordance with USEPA Headquarters and USEPA Region II guidance, reasonable maximum
exposures were calculated to provide estimates of potential exposures. Because reasonable
maximum exposure estimates are based on a combination of conservative assumptions, these
estimates are likely to be overestimates of typical exposures and risks at Site 4.
6.4.5 Risk Estimates
The actual risks associated with a given exposure result from a complex set of interactions, which
are not understood and cannot be quantitatively estimated with the current state of knowledge.
Examples of such interactions include synergism or antagonism of different substances, effects on
single versus multiple organ systems, and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. In addition, potential
differences in sensitivities of various subpopulations to various chemicals are poorly understood at
this time.
28
-------
Because there may be small individual uncertainties at each step of the RA process, these
uncertainties may become magnified in the final risk characterization. The final quantitative
estimates of risk may be as much as an order of magnitude different from the actual risk associated
with a given site. In an attempt to minimize the consequences of uncertainty, USEPA guidance
typically relies upon use of conservative estimates of hazards in the absence of appropriate
comprehensive data. The overall result is that risk estimates presented in this report are more likely
to overestimate the actual risks than to underestimate them.
This assessment has been prepared in a manner consistent with that generally used in the consulting
community and USEPA guidance at the time it was prepared. It is likely that RA methods and the
data identifying and quantifying the toxicity of chemicals will improve with time. Consequently,
unsuspected hazards at this site may be identified at a later date. This assessment was based upon
available data, using currently available RA methodology.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTIpN" ALTERNATIVE
The selected remedial action for Sites 2 and 4 is "no action". No adverse health effects could be
attributed to the contaminants detected in the soil, surface water, sediments and groundwater at
Site 2 or Site 4, therefore, no action is deemed appropriate. "No action" involves taking no further
investigative or remedial actions at the sites and leaving them as they currently are. There are no
costs associated with the "no action" alternative.
8.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
8.1 Overview
A public comment period was held from June 17,1997 through July 17, 1997. A public awareness
session, in lieu of a public meeting, was held on July 17,1997. No public comments were received.
8.2 Community Preferences
A record review of the NSGA Sabana Seca files indicates that the community involvement centers
mainly on social activities, including the community outreach programs and Base/community clubs.
29
-------
There are two communities at Sabana Seca: the Base English, speaking community and the
surrounding Spanish speaking community. The Base has actively pursued participation from both
communities.
For all the sites at the Base, community relations activities to date are summarized below:
Prepared a Community Relations Plan in English and Spanish.
Prepared Site Information/Photograph Albums in English and Spanish during the
public awareness sessions.
Prepared Fact Sheets in English and Spanish during the public awareness sessions.
Established the Administrative Record/Information Repository at two locations -
(one location was on-Base and one location was off-Base).
Held Technical Review Committee/RAB meetings to review the status of the
I
remedial activities on the Base.
Released Proposed Plans in English and Spanish for public review.
83 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency
Responses
No comments were received during the public comment period, and no comments were received
from those who attended the public awareness session. A representative from USEPA and PREQB
attended the public awareness session.
9.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography presents a listing of all of the documents that were prepared as part of the
Installation Restoration (IR) program at NSGA Sabana Seca. The documents are listed by site in
chronological order.
30
-------
NSGA Sabana Seca - Basewide
Initial Assessment Study of Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca and Naval
Communications Base. Puerto Rico. Greenleaf, Teiesca/Ecology and Environment.
September 1984.
Remedial Investigation - Interim Report to Determine Dispersion and Migration of
Specific Chemicals. NSGA Sabana Seca. Puerto Ripp. Draft. Hunter/ESE, Inc.
January 1989.
Final Work Plan. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Versar, Inc. August 1991.
Site Information/Photograph Album. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca.
Puerto Rico. Draft. Baker Environmental, Inc. May 31,1996.
Site Information/Photograph Album. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca.
Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. July 15, 1996.
Sites 1 and 3
Work Plan Addendum for Sites 1 and 3. Site Inspection. NSGA Sabana Seca.
Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. February 1993.
Site Inspection Report for Site 1 South Stone Road Disposal Area. Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabaria Seca. Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.,
October 1994.
Site Inspection Report for Site 3 North Stone Road Disposal Area. Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.,
October 1994..
. 31
-------
Work Plan Addendum for Sites 1 and 3. Expanded Site Inspection. NSGA Sabana
Seca. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. March 1996.
Expanded Site Inspection for Sites 1 and 3. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana
Seca. Puerto Rico. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc., March 1997.
Sqperfund Proposed Plan. Site 1 - South Stone Disposal Area. Site 3 - North Stone
Road Disposal Area. U.S. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto
Rico. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc., June 1997.
Record of Decision. Site 1 - South Stone Disposal Area. Site 3 - North Stone Road
Disposal Area. U.S. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico.
Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.
Sites 2 and 4
Site Inspection/Risk Assessment Report. Bunker 607 Area (Site 2). Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Final. Versar, Inc. December 1996.
Site Inspection/Risk Assessment Report. Pistol Range Disposal Area/Leachate
Ponding Area. Site 4/7. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico.
Final. Versar, Inc. December 1996.
Super-fund Proposed Plan. Site 2 - Bunker 607 Disposal Area. Site 4 - Pistol Range
Disposal Area. U.S. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico.
Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. June 1997.
Record of Decision. Site 2 -Bunker 607 Disposal Area. Site 4 - Pistol Range
Disposal Area. U.S. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico.
Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.
32
-------
Si&I
USEPA issued No Further Response Action Planned concurrence letter. July 1994.
Site 6
Superfund Proposed Plan. Site 6 - Former Pest Control Shop. U.S. Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Baker Environmental, Inc.,
March 1996.
\
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Pest Control Shop. Site 6. Naval Security
Groyp Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Versar, Inc. May 1996.
Final Design. Installation of Asphalt Cap. Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop. U.S.
Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Baker Environmental,
Inc. May 1996 (signed in July 1996).
Record of Decision. Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop. Naval Security Group
Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.
September 1996.
Work Plan for Installation of Asphalt Cap. Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop. NSGA
Sabana Seca. Final. OHM, Inc. January 1997.
Remedial Action Report for Asphalt Cap at Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop.
NSGA Sabana Seca. Final. OHM, Inc. August 1997
Site?
Leachate Diversion/Feasibility Study. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca.
Puerto Rico. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. December 1996.
USffiPA issued No Further Response Action Planned concurrence letter.
February 1997.
33
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY -
95V. UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) OR MAXIMUM
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituent
Soil (mg/kg)
Surface Water (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site4H
Site 4/7 on
and off site
Sediment (mg/kg)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on
and off site
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
1.35E-02
6.58E-03
1.40E-02
8.76E-03
-
2.87E-02
6.87E-03
-
-
1.76E-02
-
-
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Nitrobenzene
-
-
8.10E-02
-
-
8.00E-03
-
5.00E-03
-
9.00E-03
7.89E-03
-.
5.00E-03
9.00E-03
3.60E+00
5.80E-01
-
2.41E+01
5.80E-01
1.99E-KK)
-
-
Pesticides
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Endosulfan I
-
1.20E-04
1.33E-04
1.04E-04
7.90E-05
9.08E-05
1.16E-04
8.18E-05
6.13E-05
-
-
-
-
PCBs
Aroclor 1248
1.27E-01
- .
Herbicides
2,4-D
Dichloroprop
Silvex
-
2.32E-03
2.60E-04
1.13E-01
1.49E-03
1.74E-03
5.63E-02
-
-
~
Inorganics and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
1.51E+04
7.94E-HX>
3.53-KX)
-
-
9.31E+01
1.24E-K)!
-
3.92E+04
8.86E+00
2.71E-02
5.37E-02
2.66E-01
-
-
-
7.68E-02
1.39E-01
1.69E-01
1.96E+01
4.96E+00
2.71E-02
3.84E-02
2.11E-01
-
5.39E-02
8.37E-02
1.05E-01
1.29E+01
-
-
3.59E+01
1.70E+00
1.80E+00
123E+05
1.08E+02
-
-
-
4.08E-H)!
-
1.90E-K)0
1.86E-KX)
1.31E-K)5
1.40E+02
1.46E-K)!
-
6.34E-HM
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY -
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) OR MAXIMUM
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituent
Soil (mg/kg)
Surface Water (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on
and off site
Sediment (mg/kg)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on
and off site
Inorganics and Cyanide (continued)
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercuiy
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
1.21E+03
-
4.85E+02
-
~
2.22E-02
4.19E-H)!
5.58E-01
5.07E-04
3.56E-01
9.99E+02
2.20E-03
2.09E-HW
8.42E-02
2.78E-01
1.45E-01
1.76E-02
4.07E-KH
S.38E-01
3.37E-04
228E-01
6.46E-H)2
3.00E-03
1.35E+03
6.81E-02
1.94E-01
1.73E-01
9.76E+02
. -
1.63E-H)3
-
1.07E-K)3
-
-
-
9.76E+02
-
1.97E+03
1.07E+03
-
-
~
Notes:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
-------
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
GROUNDWATER DATA SUMMARY -
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) OR MAXIMUM
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituent
Blanket Deposit
Groundwater (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on and off
site
Shallow Limestone
Groundwater (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on and off
site
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
2-Butarione
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
2.40E-02
-
1.30E-02
9.51E-03
8.29E-03
-
-
7.93E-03
3.00E-03
5.00E-03
4.80E-02
-
2.22E-02
-
-
9.00E-03
-
9.07E-03
6.00E-03
-
9.42E-03
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
3.00E-02
6.00E-03
2.99E-02
6.00E-03
-
6.85E-02
4.00E-03
2.50E-02
4.59E-02
4.00E-03
2.36E-02
Pesticides
delta-BHC
1.70E-04
5.35E-05
Herbkides
2,4-D
-
-
2.10E-04
1.18E-04
Inorganics and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
7.27E-02
3.71E-01
1.04E-02
5.10E-03
1.24E+02
S.81E-01
7.03E-02
3.84E-01
3.36E+02
-
7.19E-KX)
-
1.43E-01
3.00E+01
»33E-K)1
8.03E-02
2.96E-03
2.43E-01
3.66E-03
5.10E-03
9.76E+01
3.15E-01
7.82E-02
2.49E-01
1.78E-K)2
1.76E-02
4.29E-KK)
2.25E-04
5.86E-02
2.70E+01
9.87E-04
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
9.47E+01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.80E+01
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
GROUNDWATER DATA SUMMARY -
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) OR MAXIMUM
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituent
Blanket Deposit
Groundwater (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on and off
she
Shallow Limestone
Groundwater (mg/L)
Upgradient of
Site 4/7
Site 4/7 on and off
site
Inorganics and Cyanide (continued)
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
1.93E+02
9.24E-01
4.67E-01
6.65E-03
1.12E+02
4.93E-01
2.57E-01
5.72E-03
-
-
-
8.00E-03
-
5.63E-03
Notes:
mg/L = milligrams per liter
-------
TABLE 3
TOXICITY VALUES - SLOPE FACTORS
SUMMARY TABLE OF CARCINOGENIC SLOPE FACTORS
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituents
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-'
Acetone
2-Butanone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
NA<"
NA<'>
0.029 a
NA">
0.0061 a
0.0075 a
0.052 c
NA<"
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Nitrobenzene
NA<"
0.014 a
NA«'>
NA(1>
NA<"
NA<"
Unit Risk
(ug/L)
Volatiles
NA<'>
NA»>
0.00000083
NA<'>
0.00000017 a
0.00000021 a
0.0000015 c
NA<'>
Semivolatiles
NA<'>
0.0000004 a
NA<"
NA(I>
NA<"
NA<'>
Class
D
D
A
NA<»
B2
B2
NA
D
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)
Unit Risk
(Mg/rnJ)
NA<»
NA<'>
0.029 a
NA<'>
0.0805 a
0.00164 a
0.002 c
NA°>
D
B2
C
NA("
D
D
NA0)
NA(I)
NA
NA(I>
NA">
NAP»
NA<'>
NA<'>
0.0000083 a
NA<"
0.000023 a
0.00000047 a
0.00000058 c
NAp>
NA°>
NA(1>
NA<2'
NA<"
NA">
NA<2'
Pesticides
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Endosulfan I
6.3 a
1.8 a
NA<»
1.3 b
NA">
0.0001 8 a
0.000053 a
NA<"
0.000037 b
NA<"
B2
C
D
Bl
NA(1)
NA<2>
NA(2)
NA<'>
NAW
NA<*>
NA(2>
NA^
NA<"
NA<2'
NA(2)
PCBs
Aroclor 1248*
7.7 a
0.00022 a
B2
NA«
NA<2>
Herbicides
2,4-D
Dichloroprop
Silvex
NA<'>
NA<"
NA<'>
NA<"
NA<"
NA<'>
NA<"
NA<'>
D
NA<"
NA(1>
NA«
NA<"
NA(2>
NA(2)
Inorganics and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
NA<"
NA<"
1.75 a
NA(I)
4.3 a
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA(I>
0.00005 a
NA(I>
0.00012 a
NA<"
NA<'>
NA<'>
A
NA<»
B2
Bl
NA<2>
NA°>
NA<«
NAO>
NA<2»
NAm
NA<2>
NAm
NAa)
NA0)
NA<2»
NA(2)
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES - SLOPE FACTORS
SUMMARY TABLE OF CARCINOGENIC SLOPE FACTORS
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituents
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1
Unit Risk
(ug/L)
Class
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)
Unit Risk
(ug/m5)
Inorganics and Cyanide (continued)
Calcium
Chromium(+3)
Chromium(+6)
Cobah
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
NA<"
NA<"
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA(I>
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA<«>
NA<'>
NA<»
NA(1>
NA">
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA<1»
NA<'>
NA«'>
NA<"
NA<»
NA<»
NA<«>
NA<'>
NA(I>
NA(I>
NA<"
NA<»
NA<"
NA(1>
NA(I>
NA("
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA<»
NA<'>
NA<'>
NA">
A
NA<«>
D
NA<'>
B2
NA">
D
D
NA">
NA<'>
D
NA<'»
NA(I>
D
D
NA(1)
NA<*>
NA»>
NAW
NAm
NA«
NA«
NA<2>
NAm
NAm
NAp>
NAP>
NA0)
NAW
NAm
NA«
NA<2»
NA<"
NA'2)
NA<2' .
NA<2'
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2>
HAm
NA<2>
NA<2'
NAP)
NAP"
NA»
NA«>
NA(2»
NA<2'
Notes:
a
b
NA<»
mg/kg-day
ug/mj
IRIS (EPA, 1994b).
HEAST, FY 1993 (EPA, 1993b).
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table (EPA 1994c).
Not available.
Not used for this risk assessment
milligrams per kilogram per day
micrograms per liter
micrograms per cubic meter
Carcinogenichy values were not available for Aroclor 1248; the values for general PCBs were used for evaluation.
-------
TABLE4
TOX1CITY VALUES - RID
SUMMARY TABLE OF REFERENCE DOSES
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituents
Oral RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
Uncertainty
Factor
Mod.
Factor
Confidence
Oral
Subchronic
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Inhalation
Chrohic RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Inhalation
Subchronic
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
Uncertainty
Factor
Mod.
Factor
Confidence
Target Organ
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
2-Butanone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfidc
Chloroform
Mctliylene Chloride
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
O.I a
0.6 a
NA">
O.I a
O.Ola
0.06 a
O.Ola
0.2 u
1,000
3.000
NA">
100
1.000
100
1.000
1,000
1
1
NA<"
1
1
1
1
1
Low
. Low
NA">
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Ib
0.2 b+
NA<'>
O.lb
0.01 b
0.06 b
O.lb
2b
NA<'»
0.286 a
0.000143 c
0.00286 b
NA«"
0.857 b
NA«'»
NA'1'
NA">
0.286 b+
0.0171 d
0.00286 b
0.01 14 d
0.857 b
NA«'»
NA">
NA">
1.000
NA«'»
NA(I>
NA<"
100
NA«"
NA<«
NA<"
3
NA«"
NA"»
NA"'
NA"'
NA<"
NA<»
NA'"
Low
NA<"
NA"»
NA'"
NA"»
NA«"
NA'1'
Liver and kidneys
Fetus
NA'"
Fetus
Liver
Liver
llepatotoxicity
Liver and kidneys
Scmlvolallle Organic Compounds
Ucnzuic Acid
Bis(2-eiliylliexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Uhn-ociyl phthalate
Phenol
Nitrobenzene
4.0 a
0.02 a
0.2 a
0.02 b
0.6 a
0.0005 a
1
1,000
1.000
1.000
100
10,000
1
1
1
NA"1
1
1
Medium
Medium
Low
NA<"
Low
Low
4.0 b
NA">
NA<"
0.02 b
0.6 b
0.005 b
NA(1>
NA
NA">
NA<"
NA«'»
NA'1'
NA'"
0.057 Id
NA<«
NA">
NA"'
NA<«
NA«a>
NA<"
NA«J'
NA"'
NA<"
NA"'
NA'1'
NA<"
NA'1'
NA"»
NA"'
NA'1'
NA'1'
NA'"
NA'1'
NA'"
NA'"
NA'1'
No effects
observed
Liver
Liver
Kidney and liver
Fetus
Blood, kidneys
and liver
Pesticides
.ilpha-nilC
beia-BIIC
delta-BIIC
NA">
NA(I>
NA1"
NA<"
NA<"
NA(I>
NA">
NA"»
NA"'
NA"'
NA"'
NA<"
NA<"
NA">
NA">
NA<"
NA'J|
NA<"
NA<"
NA<»
NA<"
NA'2'
NA(1)
NA'"
NA'1'
NA'1'
NA'"
NA'1'
NA'1'
NA«"
NA<"
NA'"
NA<"
-------
TABLE
NA«>
NA'1'
NA'11
NA'1'
NA<2)
NA">
Liver and kidneys
Whole body,
kidneys, and
blood vessels
PCDs
Aroclor 1248
NA">
NA<"
NA<"
NA<"
NA«>
NA»>
NA»»
NA<»»
NA(1»
NA11*
NA»>
Herbicides
2.4-D
Oichloroprop
Silvex
O.Ola
NA<"
0.008 a
100
NA">
100
1
N.v1"
1
Medium
NA<"
Medium
0.01 b
NA"»
0.008 b
NA"»
NA«"
NA<"
NA("
NA»>
NA<1>
NA<'>
NA«>
NA<"
NA«'»
NA(1>
NA<"
NA<"
NA(2>
NA<2'
Blood, liver, and
kidneys
NA">
Liver
Inorganics and Cyanide
Aluminum
Anliniony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
2.9 c
0.0004 a
0.0003 a
0.07 a
0.005 a
0.0005 a
NA<"
NA«"
1,000
3
3
100
10
NA">
NA">
1
1
1
i
1
NA"»
NA«'»
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High
NA<"
NA"»
0.0004 b
0.0003 b
0.07 b
0.005 b
NA<"
NA<"
NA»»
NA«'»
NA'«
NA'1'
NA(a»
NA<"
NA«"
NA"'
NA««
NA«»>
NA<»
NA<"
NA««
NA"»
NA11'
NA(1>
NA«'»
NA<"
NA»»
NA«'»
NA«>
NA««
NA
NA">
NA<"
NA<"
NA<»
NA<«
NA'JJ
NA">
NA<2'
NA«>
NA1"
NA
NA«»
NA<"
Longevity, blood
glucose
Skin and blood
vessels
Blood pressure
No effects
observed
Significant
proteinuria
NA">
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES - RfD
SUMMARY TABLE OP REFERENCE DOSES
SITE 4/7, SABANA S>LCA, PUERTO RICO
Constituents
Oral RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
Uncertainty
Factor
Mod.
Factor
Confidence
Oral
Subchronic
RID
(mg/kg-day)
Inhalation
Chronic RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Inhalation
Subchronic
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
Uncertainty
Factor
Mod.
Factor
Confidence
Target Organ
Inorganics and Cyanide (continued)
Chromium(+3)
Chromium(+6)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Maganese
Mercury
Nickel, soluble salts
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cynnidc
la
0.005 a
NA«"
0.0371 b
NA("
NA"»
NA">
O.OOS a.e
O.I4b,e
0.0003 b
0.02 a
NA(I>
O.OOS a
NA<"
0.007 b
0.3 a
0.02 a
100
500
NA'<
NA'"
NA'"
NA<"
NA<"
1
1,000
300
NA<"
3
NA'"
100
3
100
10
1
NA1"
NA<"
NA«"
NA<"
NA("
1
NA<"
1
NA'"
1
NA">
NA("
1
5
Low
Low
NA">
NA«>
NA'"
NA<"
NA<"
Varied
NA<"
Medium
NA">
High
NA("
NA">
Medium
Medium
Ib
0.02 b
NA">
0.0371 b
NA<"
NA«'»
NA»>
0.005 b.e
0.14b,e
0.0003 b
0.02 b
NA<"
0.005 b
NA">
0.007 b
0.3 b+
0.02 b
NAW
NAWI
NA<2>
NA<"
NA<2>
NA(1>
NA<"
NA(1)
NA
NA«"
NA«'>
NA<»
NA«2>
NA()>
NA(1)
NA<2>
NA(1)
NA«
NA<«
NA<*>
NA*1*
NAm
NA«2>
NA"'
NA<»
NA'2'
NA<»
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA12'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2>
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA'2'
NA<2> '
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA'2'
NA'1'
NA'1'
NA'2'
No effects
observed
No effects
observed
NA<"
G astro-intestine
NA«"
NA<"
NA«"
CNS effects
Kidneys
Whole body
NA'"
Clinical selenosis
NA'"
NA<"
Blood
Thyroid, nerves
-------
Notes:
TABLE 4 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES RfU
SUMMARY TABLE OF REFERENCE DOSES
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
a - IRIS (EPA, I994b).
b - HEAST, FY 1993 (EPA, I993b).
b+ - HE AST Supplement No. I, June 1993.
c - EPA Region HI RDC( 1/7/94) (EPA 1994c).
d - Risk Assessment Issue Paper provided by the Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. .
e RfD oral diet value for manganese (0.14 mg/kg-day) was used to calculate soil and tediment exposure. The oral drinking RID (0.005 mg/kg-day) was used to calculate
surface water and groundwater exposure.
mg/kg/day milligrams per kilogram per day
- Toxicity values were unavailable for endotulfan I; endosulftn values were used for evaluation.
NA"> - Not available.
NA(]> Not used in this risk assessment.
-------
TADLE 5
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
VARIABLES USED FOR HUMAN INTAKE CALCULATIONS
SITE 4/7, SADANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Exposure
Route
cw
(mg/L)
CA
(mg/m1)
CS
(mg/kg)
SA
(cmV
event)
PC
(cm/hr)
IRW
ADS
(unilless)
AF
(mg/cm1)
ET
(hr/day
or
event)
EF
(day*
or
events/
yr)
ED
(yrs)
CF»'
DW
(kg)
AT"1
(years)
Surface Soil
Future Residents
Noncarcinogens
Adult
Noncarcinogens
Children
Time-weighted
Average
(Carcinogens)
Adult
Children
Ingestion
Ingeslion
tngeslion
Dermal
Dcmial
«
«
«
-
-
Future Recreational
Noncarcinogens
Adult
Noncarcinogens
Children
Time-weighted
Average
(Carcinogens)
Adult
Children
Ingeslion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dcmial
Dermal
'"
*
-
-
- ~
-
SI Data"1
SI Data1"
SI Data"'
SI Data"1
SI Dalaw
*"
5.700
2,295
SI Data1*
SI Dala<"
SI Data*4
SI Data1"
SI Data"
»
""
5.700
2.295
-
too
200
IM
-
-
~
-
100
200
114
-
-
(e)
(e)
-
1.0
1.0
""
""
(e)
(e)
"
*
1.0
1.0
-
-
350
350
350
350
350
.
-
-
52
52
52
52
52
30
6
30
6
I.OE-6
I.OK-6
IOE-6
\.OE-6
I.OL-6
30
6
30
6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
.70
15
"'
70
15
70
15
"
70
15
30
6
70
30,70
6,70
30
6
70
30,70
6.70
Future Commercial
Adult
Ingeslion
SI Daiaw>
--
50
-
-
250
25
I.OE-6
70
25.70
Surface Water
Current Recreational
Adult
1'icuJ.ilcscenl
A .lull
I'icadulc scent
Ingeslion
Ingest ion
Dermal
Dermal
SI Dam"'
SI Data1"
SI Data141
SI Data'"
-
-
--
--
--
--
-
5,700
5.160
--
(«)
(e)
0.05
0.05
--
-
-
'
"
"
"
"
-
1.0
2.0
7
21
7
21
30
6
30
6
-
-
0.001
0001
70
30
70
30
30.70
6,70
30,70
6,70
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
VARIABLES USED FOR HUMAN INTAKE CALCULATIONS
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, 1'UERTO RICO
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Exposure
Route
cw
(me/I.)
CA
(mg/m1)
cs
(mg/kg)
SA
(cm1/
event)
PC
(cm/hr)
IR"»
ADS
(uniiless)
AF
(mg/cm1)
ET
(hr/day
or
event)
EF
(days
or
events/
yr)
ED
(yrs)
CPk>
DW
(kg)
AT'"
(years)
Sediment
Current Recreation*! . '
Adult
Prcadolescenl
Adult
PreudolcKcnl
Ingcstion
Ingestion
Dermal
Demial
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
SI Data1*
SI Data**
SI Data'"
SI Data*
-
-
5.700
3.225
-
-
. -
*
100
100
-
-
-
-
(e)
(e)
~
10
1.0
-
-
-
. -
7
21
7
21
30
6
30
6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
I.OE-6
70
30
70
30
30.70
6,70
30,70
6.70
Ground Water
Future Residential
Adult
Children
Adult
Children
Adult
Childiun
Ingeslioii
digestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Dermal.
Dtiiiiiul
SI Data"*
SI Data1"
-
-
SI Data"1
SI Data14
..
-
MOD1*
MOD"'
-
- '
-
~
-
-
-
-
--
«
«
22,800
9.180
-
-
-
«
(0
(e)
2.0
0.7
06
06
-
-
-
-
-
. -
-
- '
-
-
--
~
-
.
~
_ .
02
0.2
0.2
0.2
350
350
350
350
350
350
30
6
30
6
30
6
-
--
--
0.001
0.001
70
15
70
15
70
IS
30.70
6,70
30.7O
6.70
30,70
6.70
Future Commercial
Adult
Ingestion
SI Data'*
-
-
1.0
- ..
«
250
25
70
25,70
Notes:
(>
ci
id)
<*)
ing/L
crr2
Ingeslion or inhalation rate; units for noncarcinogenic soil ingestion are nig/day, for lime-weighted average soil ingestion are nig-yr/kg-day, for surface water ingestiou are
L/hr, for groundwaicr ingeslion are of L/day, and for inhalation are m'/lir.
Conversion Factor.
Noncarcinogenic averaging lime, carcinogenic average time. AT converted to days for calculations. 70 years (25,550 days) for carcinogens for adults and children, 30 years
(10,950 days for noncarcinogens for adults, 6 years (2,190 days) for noncarcinogens for children/preadoIescaAU, 25 years (9,125 days) for noncarcinogcns for workers.
SI based on monitoring dala from the Site Inspection; MOD - modeled concentrations based on SI data.
This value is chemical-specific.
- milligrams per liter
= milligrams per cubic meter
- square centimeters .
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PATHWAY - SPECIFIC RISKS
SUMMARY TABLE OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Media
Surface Soil
Surface Water - Upgradient of Site 4/7
Surface Water - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Sediment - Upgradient of Site 4/7
Sediment - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Ground Water, Blanket Deposits -
Upgradient of Site 4/7
Ground Water, Blanket Deposits - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Ground Water, Shallow Limestone -
Upgradient of Site 4/7
Ground Water, Shallow Limestone -
Site 4/7 (on and off site)
Receptors
Adults
Children
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Children
Adults
Children
Adults
Children
Adults
Children
Pathways
Residential
Ingestion
1.12E-05
7.85E-06
~
~
»
~
~
--
-
5.3IE-04
1.73E-04
2.55E-04
8.32E-05
2.43E-05
7.94E-06
1.64E-05
5.35E-06
Inhalation
-
--
»
--
~
..
2.89E-07
2.70E-07
1.92E-07
1.79E-07
3.73E-07
3.48E-07
1.69E-07
1.58E-07
Dermal
Contact
1.97E-06
7.39E-07
-
~
~
~
>*
1.59E-06
5.96E-07
1.28E-06
4.81E-07
1.8IE-06
6.80E-07
1.35E-06
5.06E-07
Recreational
Ingestion
1.66E-06
1.17E-06
5.59E-07
1.56E-06
4.00E-07
1.12E-06
8.24E-07
I.I5E-06
9.38E-07
1.31E-06
--
~
--
-
-
Dermal
Contact
2.92E-07
1.10E-07
7.72E-08
1.96E-07
5.67E-08
1.44E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
--
-
-
~
Commercial
Ingestion
1.25E-06
-
~
~
~
-
1.58E-04
7.58E-05
7.24E-06
4.88E-06
Notes:
NA - Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF PATHWAY - SPECIFIC RISKS
SUMMARY TABLE OF NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
SITE 4/7, SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Media
Surface Soil
Surface Water - Upgradient of Site 4/7
Surface Water - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Sediment - Upgradient of Site 4/7
Sediment - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Ground Water, Blanket Deposits -
Upgradient of Site 4/7
Ground Water, Blanket Deposits - Site 4/7
(on and off site)
Ground Water, Shallow Limestone -
Upgradient of Site 4/7
Ground Water, Shallow Limestone -
Site 4/7 (on and off site)
Receptors
Adults
Children
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Preadolescents
Adults
Children
Aduiu
Children
Adults
Children
Adults
Children
Pathways
Residential
Ingestion
6.25E-02
5.I6E-01
-
--
-
-
~
-
4.91E+01
7.97E+01
3.25E+01
5.17E+01
1.50E-01
3.58E-02
1.05E-01
3.07E-02
Inhalation
--
-
~
--
-
NA
3.43E-03
I.77E-06
2.10E-03
1.95E-01
7.61E-03
8.53E-02
3.01E-02
Dermal
Contact
NA
NA
--
~
-
-
-
«
~
1.16E-01
2.12E-01
7.9SE-02
1.38E-01
1.03E-02
1.56E-03
8.I9E-03
1.72E-03
Recreational
Ingestion
9.28E-03
7.67E-02
5.82E-03
8.08E-02
5.06E-03
6.72E-02
3.59E-03
2.44E-02
4.07E-03
2.75E-02
~
'
«
~
.
"
Dermal
Contact
NA
NA.
7.23E-04
8.76E-03
7.86E-04
7.36E-03
5.62E-05
NA
5.81E-03
NA
. -
~
~
-
~
-
Commercial
Ingestion
2.23E-02
-. --
-
.
-
--
«
-
1.75E+01
1.16E+01
-
5.35E-02
-
3.75E-02
Notes:
NA - Not Applicable
-------
FIGURES
-------
VILLAGE OF
SABANA SCCA
STATION
PERIMETER
FCNCC
U.S. DEPT. OF
HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
RESEARCH FACILITY
SOUTH TRACT
NAVY PROPERTY
BOUNDARY LINE
MAIN
ENTRANCE
GATE
>
BAYAMO
f^
A BAJtf UNOFI
HAYSTAC
HILLS
NOT TO SCALE
STATION POTASH WATCH WELLS
(i) POTA8LC WATER WILLS
NAVY PROPERTY LINE
-" »- EXISTING FENCE
ROADWAYS
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
SOURCE: ADC MAP.
-------
APPROXIMATE
SITE 2
BOUNDARY
SPARSELY
VEGETATED
AREA
3*k«r EmrirommnMLk.
MONITORING WELL
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN
SITE 2
U.S. NAVAL SEC' RITY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
SABA\A SECA. PUERTO RICO
-------
o/SSK
< / PIPE
Wl-
MONiluRING WELLS
>Hs47*GfoCM^5«
S47GW02A ^
to //
STORM SEWER PIPE
!
19
i*
i47GW02SL ^\\,x '/
l» AL v /- ^»
,| afc, /y'TV. /i
11 ^7^»i MONITORINB^-^^ s /«
11 I WcLLo ^ f ^ r
\ * x ^ ^ -
1 1 /%x *o
i ' x / X^ ' '°
r il ^ ssS
\t
U l«< x'X^
lp ^i fs too o K> joe
ItJ ^\^J^ ' Inch 100 fL
,0»,,.,r
LEGEND
-«-«- EXISTING FENCE Z~rr DIRT ROAD
= =^= niTCH/STREAM SITE 4 BOUNDARY
I/ / A WEI AREAS PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED
SOURCE: ISRAEL MELENDEZ OTERO & ASSOC.. 1992
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN
w 1 1 ^ 1 L/^l 1
SITE 4
^^^^^^^^^^^m
Baker
B4k*r EnvkonnMUlte
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA, PUERTO
RICO
-------
VILLAGE OF
SABANA SCCA
/ \ ENLISTE
U.S. OEPT. OF
HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
RESEARCH FACILIIY NAVY PROPERTY -
BOUNDARY LINE
HAYSTACK
HILLS
NOT TO SCALE Btkw Envfronm*nUl>.
LtfiEJiD
StAtlON POTABLt WAHR WCUS
POTABLC V/ATtR WtUS
NAVY PROPCRIt UNC
COSTING flUCl
ROADWAYS
FIGURE 4
INSTALLATION RESTORATION
SITE LOCATIONS
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA. PUERTO RICO
-------
ROD PACT SHEET
SITE
Name : Naval Security Group Activity
Location/State : Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico
EPA Region : II
HRS Score (date): 34.28, 6-24-88
Site ID # : PR4170027383
ROD
Date Signed: 9-30-97
Remedy/ies: No Action
Operating Unit Number: OU-1 (Sites 2 & 4)
Capital cost: NA
Construction Completion: NA
O & M: NA
Present worth: NA
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement: Remedial
EPA/State/PRP: PRP, Federal Facility
Primary contact(phone): Paul G. Ingrisano, (212) 637-4337
Secondary contact(phone): Robert Wing (212) 637-4332
Main PRP(s): U.S. Navy
PRP Contact(phone): Linda Saksvig, (757) 322-4793
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, etc.):Site 2, old paint; Site 4, solid waste.
Medium (soil, g.w.,etc.):Site 2, soil & groundwater;
:Site 4, soil, gw, sw & sediment.
Origin: Site 2,K acre disposal area; Site 4, 2 acre landfill.
Est. quantity (gal., # drums, etc.): Site 2, 500 one-gallon cans,-
Site 4, 1,800 tons.
------- |