-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 1 - SOUTH STONE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
SITE 3 - NORTH STONE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0047
SEPTEMBER 3,1997
Prepared For:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
Norfolk, Virginia
Under the:.
LANTDIV CLEAN Program
Contract N62470-89-D-4814
Prepared By:
BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................. v
DECLARATION ...... [[[ vii
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 - Site 3 ............................................ 3
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 ............................................ 5
2.2 Previous Investigations/Enforcement Activities ......................... 7
2.2. 1 Previous Investigations ...................................... 7
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities ...................................... 8
2.3 Site Inspections/Remedial Investigation/Leachate Diversion-Feasibility
Study [[[ 8
2.3.1 Site Inspections - Sites 2 and 4 - (OU-1) ........................ 9
2.3.2 Remedial Investigation - Site 6 - (OU-2) ........................ 9
2.3.3 Leachate Diversion-Feasibility Study - Site 7 ................... 10
2.4 ROD Findings .................................................. 11
2.4.1 Sites 2 and 4 - (OU-1) ...................................... 11
2.4.2 Site 6 - (OU-2) ........................................... 11
2.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Action - Site 6 - (OU-2) .................... 11
2.5.1 Design Activities ......................................... 11
2.5.2 Remedial Construction Activities ............................. 12
2.5.3 Summary of Operations and Maintenance ...................... 13
2.6 Community Relations Activities .................................... 13
2.7 SiteCloseOut .......................................... . ........ 13
2.8 Five- Year Review ............................................... 14
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ...................... 14
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION ....................... 16
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS .............................. 16
5.1 Initial SI Data Results ............................................ 16
5.1.1 Soil Contamination - Site 1 ................................. 16
5.1.2 Soil Contamination - Site 3 ................................. 17
5. 1 .3 Groundwater Contamination - Site 1 .......................... 17
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Pagq
5.2.1 Background Soil Contamination - Sites 1 and 3 18
5.2.2 Background Groundwater Contamination - Sites 1 and 3 18
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 18
6.1 Initial SI Qualitative Risk Assessment 19
6.1.1 Qualitative RA - Site 1 19
6.1.2 Qualitative RA - Site 3 19
6.2 ESI Quantitative Risk Assessment 20
6.3 Uncertainty Analysis 22
6.3.1 Analytical Data and Selection of COPCs 23
6.3.2 Exposure Assessment 24
6.3.3 Toxicity Assessment 25
6.3.4 Risk Characterization 26
6.4 Ecological Risk Assessment 26
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 26
8.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 27
8.1 Overview 27
8.2 Community Preferences 27
8.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and
Agency Responses 28
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 28
TABLES
1 Contaminants of Potential Concern for the Human Health Risk Assessment - Surface Soil
Data Summary - Range of Inorganic Positive Detections for Background
2 Contaminants of Potential Concern for the Human Health Risk Assessment - Groundwater
Data Summary
3 Summary of Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks
4 Toxicity Values - RfD and Slope Factors
5 Summary of Hazard Indices
6 Exposure Pathways
7 Summary of Uncertainties in the Results of the Human Health Risk Assessment
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Plan - Site 1
3 Site Plan - Site 3
4 Installation Restoration Site Locations
in
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARAR
CERCLA
COPC
CPRC
CRP
CSF
DOD
ESI
FFA
FS
ffl
HQ
IAS
ILCR
IR
MCL
mg/kg
NCP
NPL
NSGA
O&M
OU
PREQB
RA
RAB
RAGS
RBC
RCRA
RD
RiD
RI
ROD
SARA
SI
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
contaminants of potential concern
Caribbean Primate Research Center
Community Relations Plan
cancer slope factor
Department of Defense
expanded site inspection
Federal Facilities Agreement
feasibility study
hazard index
hazard quotient
Initial Assessment Study
incremental lifetime cancer risk
Installation Restoration
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilogram
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Naval Security Group Activity
operations and maintenance
operable unit
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
risk assessment
Restoration Advisory Board
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
risk-based criteria
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial design
reference dose
remedial investigation
record of decision
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
site inspection
IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
TAL Target Analyte List
TBC To Be Considered Criteria
TCL Target Compound List
UCL upper confidence limit
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOCs volatile organic compounds
-------
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Site 1 - South Stone Road Disposal Area
Site 3 - North Stone Road Disposal Area
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedy for Site 1 and Site 3 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 1, the South Stone Road Disposal Area and Site 3, the North Stone Road Disposal Area.
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for Site 1 and Site 3 is no action.
Declaration Statement
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents that no action is necessary at Sites 1 and 3 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 no
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.
_
Signture (Comrnand
A Sabana Seca) Date
Signature (Chairman, PR Envirdm^ptal Quality Board) Date
Signature (Regyvrfal Admin&Ktor, USEP^f Region II) Date
VI
-------
DECLARACI6N
Nombre v Ubicaci6n del lugar
Lugar 1 - Area de Disposcion Stone Road Sur
Lugar 3 - Area de Disposition Stone RoadNorte
Actividad del Grupo para Seguridad Naval, Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico
Declaration de fundamento v proposito
Este documento de decision presenta el remedio seleccionado para el Lugar 1 y el Lugar 3 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 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act),
segtin enmendada por la Ley SARA (Super/und 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 expediente administrativo sometido para
el Lugar 1, el Area de Disposcion Stone Road Sur y el Lugar 3, el Area de Disposition Stone Road Norte.
Description del remedio seleccionado
El remedio seleccionado para el Lugar 1 y el Lugar 3 es la de no action ulterior.
Formulario de Declaration
Este Expediente de Decision (ROD, por sus siglas en ingles) documenta que no es necesaria action alguna en
los Lugares 1 y 3 a fin de garantizar la protection de la salud humana y el ambiente. Como este remedio no
redundara en que se mantegan en el lugar sustancias peligrosas sobre los niveles de riesgo para ia 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 construccion para todos los lugares en la NSGA,
Sabana Seca a tenor con los Procedimentos de Cierre para Lugares en la Lista de Prioridades (Directriz
9320.2-09 de OSWER). No se ha determinado que sea necesario tomar accion alguna para los Lugares 1, 2,
3 y 4. La Marina limpio los Lugares 5 y 6 el Lugar 7 lo attendera el Municipio de Toa Baja, la parte
responsable de la contamination del Lugar 7. Esta decision documenta que la Marina, la Agencia Federal de
Protection Ambiental (USEPA, por sus siglas en ingles) y la Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Puerto Rico
(JCA) ban determinado que san implementado con exito las acciones remediales para este lugar y que no son
necesarias acciones ulteriores. Por lo tanto, el lugar ahora califica para inclusion en la Lista de Construccion
Completada. La JCA realize una inspection el 9 de mayo del 1997 y USEPA realize una inspection el 17 de
julio de 1997 y ambas agencias estan de acuerdo en qu la Marina ha implementado con exito todas las
acciones remediales.
Fitffirfomandamo, NSGA.-Sabana Seca)
Fecha
\ A \
Fecha
**
Firma (Adm^ptsn-ador
, USEPA Region II)
Fecha (/
KAPROD\SRN-RPT\0 99\CTO-0047\ROCADECL.WPD
-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) is for Operable Unit (OU) -3 Site 1, the South Stone Road Disposal
Area, and Site 3, the North Stone Road Disposal Area, both of which are located in the south tract
of the Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA) Sabana Seca. Other parts of the NSGA Sabana Seca
site are being addressed in separate actions. OU-1 is for Sites 2 and 4, and OU-2 is for Site 6.
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 Naval Base 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 CERCLA and is included on United States
Environmental Protection Agency (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 1 and 3 within the south tract.
Site 1 is located within the western portion of the south tract approximately 2,000 feet southwest of
the intersection of Stone and Bataan Roads. Site 1 is located on the south side of Stone Road
adjacent and north of the Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC). Site 3 is located in the north-
central portion of the south tract Site 3 is north and adjacent to Stone Road, between Redman Road
and 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 Building 10 and
1
-------
22, east of the enlisted housing area and north of the officer housing area. The Base water supply
wells are located approximately 4,600 feet east of Site 1 and 3,000 feet southeast of Site 3. The
groundwater aquifer has not been impacted by on-site activity.
Figure 2 presents a site plan of Site 1 and shows the adjacent property uses. Site 1 covers an area
of approximately 2 acres and is bordered on the south and west sides by the CPRC. The Initial
Assessment Study (IAS) originally estimated the site to cover 10 acres.' The areas to the north and
east of Site 1 are undeveloped and heavily vegetated. Stone Road borders the north side of Site 1.
The site is currently undeveloped and overgrown with vegetation.
-y*
Figure 3 presents a site plan of Site 3 and shows the adjacent property uses. Site 3 covers an area of
approximately 11 acres. The IAS originally estimated the site to cover 4.5 acres. The site is
bordered by Redman, Stone, and Bataan Roads on the west, south, and east sides, respectively. The
area around Site 3 is undeveloped and heavily vegetated. The Base's perimeter fence borders the
east side of the site. The site is currently overgrown with vegetation.
The topography at Sites 1 and 3 is relatively flat and heavily vegetated. There is no surface water
present at Sites 1 or 3.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 Site History
An I AS 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.
2.13 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 IAS 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 IAS, 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 human health and the environment.
The Navy has entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Toa Baja, municipal landfill
operators and Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (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/Ieachate runoff from the
Bayomon/Toa Baja Landfill's access road discharges onto NSGA Sabana Seca's property. Toa
Baja, 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 stated that, since no known hazardous waste were reportedly disposed at Site 1 or 3, these
sites did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, Sites 1 and 3 were not
recommended for further investigation at the time of the IAS.
2.2.1.2 Initial Site Inspection
Because of the limited IAS information, the USEPA, the Navy, and the PREQB determined
additional studies were needed at Sites 1 and 3. In December 1991, Baker conducted site inspection
(SI) field activities. Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed at each site. Groundwater
and soil samples were collected and analyzed during two subsequent rounds of sampling (April 1993
and July 1993) at both sites. Nine surface soil samples were collected at Site 1 and analyzed for
Target Compound List (TCL) organics and Target Analyte List (TAL) inorganics.
2.2.1.3 Expanded Site Inspection
An expanded site inspection (ESI) was performed for Sites 1 and 3 to confirm background
conditions for surface soil and groundwater. The purpose of the ESI was to assess whether
unacceptable risks to human health from soil and groundwater (calculated from data collected in the
initial SI) were due to actual site conditions that existed from former site operations, or if the
constituents detected in the soil and groundwater were present in background and, therefore,
unrelated to the site.
-------
As part of the ESI, an additional background monitoring well was installed. Two rounds of
groundwater samples and 20 background surface soil samples were collected. The groundwater
samples were collected using low-flow purging techniques to reduce turbidity. These background
concentrations were compared to the site specific analytical results to identify chemicals of concern
to use in a quantitative risk assessment.
2.2.2 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 expeditious 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 NCP. Under the FFA,
Sis were performed for Sites 1 and 3.
23 Site Inspections/Remedial Jnvestigation/Leachafe 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 H's CERCLA Quality Assurance Manual.
-------
2.3.1 Site Inspections - Sites 2 and 4 - (OU-1)
Between 1985 and 1994, the 5 acre Pistol Range Disposal Area and the less than 2 acre Bunker 607
Disposal Area were sampled five times. The Navy performed a SI between 1991 and 1994. No
contaminants were detected in the groundwater, surface water, soil or sediments above Federal
Action levels. The final SI report summarized all site analysis results.
On December 2, 1996, the Navy released the final SI reports. The reports provided an in-depth
summary and discussion of site sampling activities and the risk assessment. The reports also
concluded that since there was no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment from the
contamination of soil, sediment, surface water, or groundwater at either site, no action was
necessary.
2.3.2 Remedial Investigation - Site 6 - (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
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at 119 micrograms per liter (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 Rule). 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 RI/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
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.
2.3.3 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, 1996, 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 action was necessary and that a ROD would also not be required at Site 7. The
Navy has entered into a Partnering Agreement with the landfill owners and operators, and PREQB
to further address landfill ieachate at Site 7.
10
-------
2.4 ROD Findings
2.4.1 Sites 2 and 4 - (OU-1)
The Navy has prepared a No Action ROD for Sites 2 and 4 due to current site conditions,
environmental analyses and risk assessments. Though Sites 2 and 4 were formerly used as disposal
areas, 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. 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 Site 6 - (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 be protective of human health and the environment.
2.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Action - Site 6 - (OU-2)
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
11
-------
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 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 pre-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 need 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.
12
-------
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.
2.5.3 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 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 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
13
-------
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 NSGA Sabana Seca site under the
Superfund program is attached. 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.
l
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public participation requirements of CERCLA/SARA and the NCP have been met by the
following activities.
Restoration Advisory Board (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 communities.
14
-------
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 ESI Report and the Proposed Plan for these two sites were 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 ESI Report and 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 also 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.
15
-------
awareness session to help the public understand the sites better. Navy representatives fluent in
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 1 and 3. Current site conditions,
environmental analyses, and risk assessments indicate that no action is warranted at Site 1 or Site 3.
Though Sites 1 and 3 were formerly used as landfills, the risk to human health and the environment
is low. No evidence exists to suggest that the soil or groundwater 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 1 and 3, 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 with respect
to the known or suspected sources of contamination, types of contamination, and affected media at
Sites 1 and 3. Based upon the initial SI, the ESI, and the site history, the source of contamination
involves the former use of Sites 1 and 3 as Base landfills. No additional sources of contamination
were identified.
5.1 Initial SI Data Results
The analytical results of the initial SI are discussed in the following paragraphs.
5.1.1 Soil Contamination - Site 1
Nine surface soil samples were collected at Site 1 and analyzed for TCL organics and TAL
inorganics during two rounds of sampling. Organic compounds were detected in both rounds of
sampling. The organic compounds detected in the first round included acetone (0.023J milligrams
per kilogram [mg/kg]), methylene chloride (0.004J mg/kg), (the "J" denotes an estimated
concentration), di-n-butylphthalate (0.067J mg/kg), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (0.110J mg/kg).
16
-------
Only bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (0.069J mg/kg) was detected in the second round. The organic
compounds were also detected in field, equipment rinsate, or laboratory blanks, and therefore were
determined to be laboratory or field induced contaminants. Low levels of inorganics were detected
above background levels. Some of the inorganics detected included aluminum (2,990 to
21,300 mg/kg), arsenic (2.5 to 14.7 mg/kg), copper (4.9 to 39.6 mg/kg), and mercury (0.12 to
0.45 mg/kg).
5.1.2 Soil Contamination - Site 3
Seven surface soil samples were collected at Site 3 and analyzed for TCL organics and TAL
inorganics during two rounds of sampling. The organics chlorobenzene and toluene were detected
at maximum concentrations of 0.041 J mg/kg and 0.034J mg/kg during Round 1, respectively. The
pesticide 4,4'-DDT (0.036 mg/kg) was detected during Round 2. Low levels of inorganics were
detected above background levels. Some of the inorganics detected included arsenic (4.0 to
14.5 mg/kg), calcium (19 to 298,000 mg/kg), copper (6.6 to 41.1 mg/kg), nickel (6.2 to 24.8 mg/kg),
and vanadium (41.6 to 118 mg/kg).
5.1.3 Groundwater Contamination - Site 1
Groundwater samples were collected at Site 1 from three monitoring wells and were analyzed for
TCL organics and TAL inorganics during two rounds of sampling. Chloroform( 16 ug/L and
10 ng/L) and carbon tetrachloride (10 ng/L) were the only organic compounds detected in the
sampled groundwater. These detected concentrations were compared to the MCLs. MCLs are
standards for public water supplies promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act The MCLs for
chloroform and carbon tetrachloride are 100 ug/L and 5 Hg/L, respectively. The chloroform
detected at Site 1 was below the MCL. The carbon tetrachloride detected exceeded the MCL in one
well. Inorganics (in the filtered samples) were not detected above MCLs.
5.1.4 Groundwater Contamination- Site 3
Groundwater samples were collected at Site 3 from three monitoring wells and were analyzed for
TCL organics and TAL inorganics during two rounds of sampling. Chloroform was the only organic
compound detected at concentrations of 4J ug/L to 8J ug/L. These detected concentrations are
17
-------
below the MCL of 100 Hg/L. Filtered samples of groundwater did not contain any inorganics above
MCLs.
5.2 ESI Data Results
The analytical results of the ESI are discussed jn the following paragraphs.
5.2.1 Background Soil Contamination - Sites 1 and 3
The background surface soil samples contained inorganics and pesticides. The inorganics were
generally below the concentrations detected in the site-specific background soil samples from Sites 1
and 3. Aluminum, arsenic, chromium (as chromium VI), copper, thallium, and vanadium were
detected at levels above the range of background concentrations at Site 1 and Site 3. Mercury and
selenium were detected at levels above background concentrations at Site 1. Nickel was detected
at levels above background concentrations at Site 3. The pesticides aldrin, heptachlor epoxide,
4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane
were detected in the background surface soil samples. 4,4'-DDT was the only pesticide detected in
the site-specific samples (initial SI for Site 3).
5.2.2 Background Groundwater Contamination - Sites 1 and 3
Chloroform and carbon tetrachloride were the only organic compounds detected in the groundwater.
These compounds were detected at concentrations below their MCLs. Groundwater analyzed for
total inorganics contained aluminum, arsenic, barium, manganese, and mercury at low
concentrations. The dissolved inorganic analyses of groundwater showed the presence of aluminum,
barium, and manganese. The concentrations of dissolved and total inorganics were similar due to
the utilization of low flow purging techniques. The total and dissolved inorganics were below MCL
levels.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the SI, a qualitative risk assessment (RA) was performed to determine the potential effects
on human health as a result of exposure to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). As part of
18
-------
the ESI, a quantitative RA was performed for each site. The following subsections briefly describe
the results of the RAs. The SI and the ESI reports contain more extensive information pertaining
to the RAs.
6.1 Initial SI Qualitative Risk Assessment
6.1.1 Qualitative RA - Site 1
The chloroform detected in the Site 1 groundwater during Rounds 1 and 2 did not exceed its MCL
value. Carbon tetrachloride was detected in one well during both rounds of sampling and did exceed
its MCL value. Given the sporadic occurrence of carbon tetrachloride (only detected in one well),
the potential for human health effects was determined to be negligible.
Volatile and semivolatile organic constituents were detected in Round 1 and Round 2 soil samples.
The phthalate esters di-n-burylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and diethylphthalate were
detected in quality control samples, as were the volatile organics acetone and methylene chloride.
These chemicals are common laboratory contaminants (USEPA, 1989), therefore, Site 1 soils were
not considered further in the RA.
6.1.2 Qualitative RA - Site 3
Chloroform was detected in the groundwater from Site 3 during Rounds 1 and 2. The concentrations
detected were below the MCL. Therefore, the qualitative RA concluded that there was no threat to
human health or the environment due to chloroform.
Chlorobenzene, toluene, and 4,4'-DDT were detected at low levels in the soil at Site 3 during one
round of sampling. The presence of these chemicals was not confirmed by the other round of
sampling. The levels detected were below the risk-based criteria (RBC) values. RBC values are
risk-based conservative benchmarks developed by USEPA Region III for comparing results of
analytical data. Therefore, the RA concluded that there was no threat to human health or the
environment from these chemicals.
19
-------
6.2 ESI Quantitative Risk Assessment
Because of additional questions on the results of the qualitative RA, a quantitative RA was
conducted for Sites 1 and 3 to evaluate the potential human health risks associated with exposure
to surface soil and groundwater at Sites 1 and 3. The quantitative RA was conducted in accordance
with the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Part A, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (USEPA, 1989). The results of the quantitative RA for each site are discussed below.
The soil COPCs retained for evaluation in the RA included arsenic, beryllium, chromium,
manganese, and vanadium for the soil at Sites 1 and 3. COPCs retained for the Site 1 groundwater
included carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and arsenic. The COPCs retained for the Site 3
groundwater included chloroform, heptachlor epoxide, and arsenic. Tables 1 and 2 contain a
summary of the COPCs for soil and groundwater, respectively. *
The quantitative 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 (ILCRs) were
calculated for different scenarios (see Table 3). The ILCR is a number that represents the potential
cancer risk that is above the background cancer risk to unexposed individuals. Potential
carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors (CSFs) developed by USEPA (see
Table 4) for the COPCs. CSFs 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 (see Table 5). 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 than 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.
20
-------
The human receptors in the vicinity of Sites 1 and 3 include both on-Base and off-Base personnel.
This includes resident adults, resident children, and on-site workers. The Base housing areas are
approximately 3,500 feet from Site 1 and 1,700 feet from Site 3. The distance to the nearest
potable water well is approximately 2,500 feet from Site 3 at the Department of Health and Human
Services CPRC. The closest off-Base residence is in the village of Sabana Seca, approximately
1 mile to the northeast of both sites. The potential receptors evaluated in the quantitative RA
included on-site workers, present and future adult and child trespassers, on-site future adult and
younger child residents, and current on-site adult and younger child residents. See Table 6 for the
exposure pathways.
The quantitative RA presented the following conclusions with respect to carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risks.
Carcinogenic Risk
For both Site 1 and Site 3 soil, the ingestion ILCRs for the on-site worker, adult
trespasser, child trespasser, adult future on-site resident, and the child future on-site
resident fell within the USEPA's target risk range of 1Q-* to 10"6 (see Table 3).
For both Site 1 and Site 3 groundwater, the ILCRs for ingestion of organics and
filtered or unflltered inorganics in groundwater for the residential adult, residential
child, and on-site worker fell within the USEPA's target risk range (see Table 3).
Non-carcinogenic Risk
As shown on Table 5, for Site 1 and Site 3 soil, the HI values for incidental
ingestion by on-site workers, adult trespassers, older child trespassers, and future
on-site adult residents were less than one indicating no adverse health effects. The
total HI for the future on-site resident younger child slightly exceeded unity.
Arsenic was a major contributor to the total HI number. None of the individual
contaminants that contributed to the total HI are likely to cause adverse health
effects.
21
-------
For both Site 1 and Site 3 groundwater, none of the scenarios evaluated resulted in
HI values that exceeded one, indicating no adverse health effects (see Table 5).
In conclusion, no adverse health effects could be attributed to the contaminants detected in the soil
or groundwater at Site 1 or Site 3. One scenario, the future on-site resident younger child with
incidental exposure to surface soil, did generate a non-carcinogenic risk. A major contributor to this
risk is arsenic which is a naturally occurring element in soil and was detected in the background
samples. The individual risk due to arsenic did not exceed one, but when this risk was coupled with
the risks from the additional COPCs, the HI exceeded one. However, the COPCs are non-additive
since they do not affect similar target organs. Therefore, the RAs concluded that the analytes are
not likely to cause adverse health effects to human receptors.
6.3 Uncertainty Analysis
Biological and environmental systems are not directly comparable to associated scientific disciplines
such as chemistry and mathematics, due to the natural variability of living systems. A RA is based
upon a mixture of sciences with varying levels of certainty, and the'final estimation of the RA is
only as certain as the least certain component in the estimate. The results of the RA are presented
in terms of the potential for adverse effects based upon a number of very conservative assumptions.
The tendency to be conservative is an effort to err on the side of the protection of health. The risks
are indicators of possible risk, not a true measurement of actual risk. The human health risk
evaluation is intended to contribute to the decision-making process and the management of NSGA
Sabana Seca by interpreting the significance of the observed contamination.
Uncertainties are encountered throughout the process of performing a RA. The exposure modeling
can produce divergent results unless standardized assumptions are used and the possible variation
in others are clearly understood. Similarly, toxicological assumptions, such as extrapolating from
chronic animal studies to human populations also introduce a great deal of uncertainty into the risk
assessment. This section discusses sources of uncertainty inherent in the following elements of the
baseline human health RA performed for Sites 1 and 3:
Hazard assessment and analytical data (environmental chemistry sampling and
analysis; misidentification or failure to be all-inclusive in chemical identification).
22
-------
Exposure assessment (choice of models and input parameters and fate and transport
modeling).
Toxicity assessment (choice of models or evaluation of toxicological data in dose-
response quantification).
Risk characterization (assumptions concerning exposure scenarios and population
quantification).
The variation of any factor used in the calculation of the exposure concentration will have an impact
on the total carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk. Uncertainties associated with this RA are
presented in Table 7 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
6.3.1 Analytical Data and Selection of COPCs
The development of a RA depends on the reliability of uncertainties with the analytical data
available to the risk assessor. Analytical data are limited by the precision and accuracy of the
methods of analysis. Analytical data are not absolute numbers and variability in sample results is
inherent. The amount of variability in analytical results depends upon the sample media and the
presence of interfering compounds. In addition, the number of sampling points can also directly
affect the reliability of a risk evaluation. However, the potential effects on the overestimation or
underestimation of risks is considered to be low.
The contaminant concentration in each medium to which a human receptor could potentially be
exposed was estimated by using the maximum detected concentration for each data set. This means
that, in general, an attempt was made to err on the side of health-protectiveness.
Analytical results for surface soil and groundwater samples obtained during the ESI were subjected
to an independent third party data validation. TCL organics and TAL inorganic data were qualified
"J" (estimated) for a number of quality control reasons, therefore, in some instances the maximum
concentrations used could be biased high. This was considered to be an acceptable bias, in this case,
since conservative risk scenarios were desired for evaluation.
23
-------
Inorganics were detected in groundwater samples collected from shallow monitoring wells at both
sites. A limited number of these analytes exceeded federal groundwater quality standards. The
distribution of detected inorganics in groundwater followed no discernible pattern that would
indicate a likely source. Additionally, inorganic levels in soil were not elevated to the point where
soil would be believed to be considered as the source of groundwater contamination. The
concentrations of detected inorganics is higher in the unfiltered (total) samples than in the filtered
(dissolved) samples. This indicates that the inorganics detected in groundwater samples at Sites 1
and 3 may be due predominantly to the presence of soil particles entrained in the groundwater
samples and may not be attributable to site operations. Arsenic was nonetheless retained as a
chemical of potential concern for both sites in the baseline risk assessment.
Similarly, the presence of chloroform may be from a source not associated with Sites 1 and 3,
because chloroform was also found in another monitoring well, upgradient from these sites.
6.3.2 Exposure Assessment
In performing exposure assessments, uncertainties arise from two main sources, estimating the
transport and fate of a compound in the environment including the estimate for release and transport
within a particular environmental medium, and, the estimation of chemical intakes resulting from
contact by a receptor with a particular medium. However, the use of the maximum detected soil
concentrations in estimating the chronic daily intake, reduces the potential for underestimating
exposure at these sites. To estimate an intake, certain assumptions must be made about exposure
events, exposure durations, and the corresponding assimilation of constituents by the receptor.
Exposure factors have been generated by the scientific community and have undergone review by
the USEPA. The USEPA has published an Exposure Factors Handbook which contains the best and
latest values. Regardless of the validity of these exposure factors, they have been derived from a
range of values generated by studies of limited numbers of individuals. In all instances values used
in this risk assessment, scientific judgements, and conservative assumptions agree with those of the
USEPA. Conservative assumptions, designed as not to underestimate daily intakes, were employed
throughout this risk assessment and are adequately protective of human health.
24
-------
633 Toxicity Assessment
In formulating quantitative estimates of the toxicity of varying dosage of a compound to human
receptors, uncertainties arise from two sources. First, data on human exposure and the subsequent
effects are usually insufficient, if they are available at all. Human exposure data usually lack
adequate concentration estimations and suffer from inherent temporal variability. Therefore, animal
studies are often used and new uncertainties arise from the process of extrapolating animal results
to humans. Second, to obtain observable effects with a manageable number of experimental
subjects, high doses of a compound are often used. In this situation, a high dose means that high
exposures are used in the experiment with respect to most environmental exposures. Therefore,
when applying the results of the animal experiment to the human condition, the effects at the high
doses must be extrapolated to approximate effects at lower doses.
In extrapolating effects from high doses in animals to low doses in people, scientific judgment and
conservative assumptions are employed. In selecting animal studies for use in dose-response
calculations, the following factors are considered:
Studies are preferred where the animal closely mimics human pharmacokinetics.
Studies are preferred where dose intake most closely mimics the intake route and
duration for humans.
Studies are preferred which demonstrate the most sensitive response to the
compound in question.
Promulgated CSF values represent the 95th percent upper confidence limit (UCL) value derived
using the linear multistage statistical model so as to not underestimate carcinogenic potential.
The use of conservative assumptions in the use of maximum detected concentration results in
quantitative indices of toxicity that are not expected to underestimate potential toxic effects, but may
overestimate these effects by an order of magnitude or more. This conservatism could be further
compounded by the use of multiple data bases which contain lexicological indices no longer on line
in the Integrated Risk Information System.
25
-------
For compounds believed to cause threshold effects (i.e. noncarcinogens) safety factors are employed
in the extrapolation of effects from animals to humans and from high doses to low doses.
The use of conservative assumptions results in quantitative indices of toxicity that are not expected
to underestimate potential toxic effects, but may overestimate these effects by an order of magnitude
or more.
6.3.4 Risk Characterization
Uncertainties associated with risk characterization include the assumption of chemical additivity and
the inability to predict synergistic or antagonistic interactions between COPCs. These uncertainties
are inherent in any inferential risk assessment. USEPA promulgated inputs to the quantitative risk
assessment and toxicological indices are calculated to be protective of the human receptor and to err
conservatively, so as to not underestimate the potential human health risks.
i
The baseline human health RA has been conducted with the understanding that there are significant
limitations in the data. In particular, these limitations relate to the small sample data set available
for consideration.
6.4 Ecological Risk Assessment
The area around Sites 1 and 3 is heavily vegetated. Limestone hills, known as haystack hills, and
sinkholes are at least 2,500 feet southwest of Sites 1 and 3. 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.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
^
The selected remedial action for Sites 1 and 3 is "no action". No adverse health effects could be
attributed to the contaminants detected in the soil or groundwater at Site 1 or Site 3, therefore, no
further action is deemed appropriate. "No action" involves taking no further investigative or
26
-------
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 nature, including the community outreach programs and Base/community clubs.
Generally, 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 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/Restoration Advisory Board meetings to review
the status of the remedial activities on the Base.
27
-------
Released Proposed Plans in English and Spanish for public review.
8.3 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.
NSGA Sabana Seca - Basewide
Initial Assessment Study of Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca and Naval
Communications Station. Puerto Rico. Greenleaf, Telesca/Ecology and
Environment. September 1984.
Remedial Investigation - Interim Report to Determine Dispersion and Migration of
Specific Chemicals. NSGA Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. 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. Sahana Seca,
Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc., July 15, 1997.
28
-------
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. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.,
October 1994.
Site Inspection Report for Site 3 North Stone Road Disposal Arear Naval Security
Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Draft Final. Baker Environmental, Inc.,
October 1994.
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.
Superfund 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 Investigation/Risk Assessment Report. Bunker 607 Area (Site 2\ Naval
Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca. Puerto Rico. Final. Versar, Inc.
December 1996.
29
-------
Site Investigation/Risk Assessment Report. Pistol Range Disposal Area/I,eacha.te
Ponding Area. Site 4/7. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico.
Final. Versar, Inc. December 1996.
Superfiind 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.
SiteS
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
Group 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 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.
.30
-------
Work Plan for Installation of Asphalt Cap. Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop. NSGA
Sabana Seca. Final. OHM, Incorporated. January 1997.
Remedial Action Report for Asphalt Cap at Site 6. Former Pest Control Shop,
NSGA Sabana Seca. Final. OHM, Inc. August 1997.
Site 7
Leachate Diversion/Feasibility Study. Naval Security Group Activity. Sabana Seca.
Puerto Rico. Final. Baker Environmental, Inc. December 1996.
USEPA issued No Further Response Action Planned concurrence letter.
February 1997.
31
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SURFACE SOIL DATA SUMMARY
RANGE OF INORGANIC POSITIVE DETECTIONS
FOR BACKGROUND, SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Inorganic Anaiytes
Aluminum
AlrtlRKJRy
Arsenic
Barittni{;\ ",,\"
BeolBwh '
C&touttns ,
Calcium+
Chromium (as Chromium VI)
Cobalt-
Copper
Iron+
lead ; ,
Magnestara* " - - , s* ,'
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium+
Selenium
s^feO ' «^
sadiaiB*Ks ; v "v -
t * f f .
Thallium
Vanadium
^'&££sf.,/ Z'->: -;"
Cy*B&&,r<\ " " ' ,\ '
Range of Background
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
876-8,290
\ tm&i;$k <- '
1.0-7.8
^NH^<,
fclJWWJK- ;Y
&1445*' '*< ^
" $. % v
422-243,000
2.8-35.6
t^5^^-|--,:
5.2-32.9
1,910-20,000
\^**4$&|j^
- ; > , 98. M^f^;
^,v , yut*#» "^j:
0.11-0.31
1.6-15.7
45.8-1.27
0.24-1.2
1 /r^^iiili
- ^:-^m,^i
0.1-0.31
10.5-60.4
:,x',t3^sS^I8!
;--';^t;2M^li
Sitel
Range of Positive
Detections
(mg/kg)
2,990-21,300
1. . ND ' :
2.5-14.7
^v 5.0-12^1 - ,: :
%«. :
;^ .0.22-0.27 - i
> - ' m - " :
349-3,480
7.9-83.1
- 2.0*5.5 ^ * i
4.9-39.6
4,050-25,700
%x-^ 3;S-2i Ji * - , i
f-X ' i25-1420" - , M
^ --27.7405
0.12-0.45
5.2-1 1
74.5-211
0.47-1.6
i&* - >JTi x°- -
^*,^, ^ ^u
;|{tji , 4ll<42^ ^ :; ;
0.48
23.8-139
?^--?4 ^ - ,
ryvfft$ ,-.; * :
^lt^- M>;; ;
Site 3
Range of Positive
Detections
(mg/kg)
6,410-14,300
';'WO:\^\t ,
4.0-14.5
5.6-354 J ^ ^
0.24^45;^ - x
,MPS-
019-298,000
12.7-43
3,1-92, ^ ^
6.6-41.1
6,330-26,500
2J-25 J. , ^
- * !9$-4,Ci60, ;
J7J-295 -
ND
6.2-24.8
117-362
0.59-1.2
Km '' v
,,-.. W-. ** Vi*
&0j-208^5:;; \
0.47
41.6-118
^> 1^7^-" -
, \ *8>v ^ *" \
Note: Shading indicates occurrences of background exceeding corresponding sample concentrations
measured at both sites.
Mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ND = not detected
-------
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
GROUNDWATER DATA SUMMARY
ESI, ROUND 4(I>
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Constituent0'
Volatiles:
Carbon tetrachloride (5)
Chloroform (100)
Toluene (1,000)
Pesticides:
Heptachlor epoxide(0.2)
Inorganics:
Aluminum ( )
Arsenic (50)
Barium (2,000)
Calcium+ (-)
Iron+ (--)
Magnesium* ( )
Manganese (--)
Mercury (2)
Potassium+ (--)
Selenium (50)
Sodium+ ( )
Range of
Background
Concentrations0'
(ug/L)
ND
ND
4J
0.06NJ
141 -376
2
25.2 - 42.6
101,000- 115,000
1,490
5,160-5,200
55.2 - 292
1 *fi.4w
2,040- 1,560
ND
15,500-37,200
Range of Positive Detections
(Low-flow purge sampling method)
Sitel
Total
(ug/L)
4J
9J-10
ND
ND
117-637
1.2
16.2-19.9
83,800 - 106,000
1,460
3,760 - 6,450
10.9B-50.4
0.21
1,410-1,790
ND
16,300-33,000
Dissolved
(ug/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
98.9- 131
1.7
15.2- 18.1
81,700-103,000
ND
3,730 - 6,320
11.4-27.5
ND
1,310- 1,890
2.3J
16,600-32,100
Site 3
Total
(ug/L)
ND
3J-7J
ND
0.06NJ
107- 141
1.1 - 1.9
16.2-23.7
78,800-105,000
ND
3,690 - 5,300
55.5
ND
ND
ND
13,000-30,400
Dissolved
(ug/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
102- 141
ND
13.9-21.7
77,600- 103,000
ND
3,820-5,190
63.4
ND
926-1,510
1.1J
13,400-30,500
Notes:
(1) Refunds 3 and 4 data similar; Round 4 presented since it is the most recent data.
C) Values in parentheses represent Federal MCLs (ug/L). Exceedences of MCL are shaded. (-) indicates no MCLs arc available.
*3) Dissolved concentrations not presented, but are similar to totals due to low flow techniques.
m Location S3BW01(Bataan Rd.); detected also during round 3 at 6.5 ug/L.
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
+ - Essential nutrient
J - Estimated value
N - Tentative identification; consider present.
B - Reported value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit.
ug/L - micrograms per liter
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
INGESTION EXPOSURES TO SURFACE SOIL COPCs
TRESPASSERS, ON-SITE WORKERS, AND FUTURE ON-SITE RESIDENTS
SITE 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Sitel
SiteS
On-site
Workers
4.1E-06
4.1E-06
Local Resident
Trespassers
Adult
4.7E-07
4.8E-07
Older
Child
2.7E-07
2.7E-07
Future
On-site Residents
Adult
1.4E-05
1.4E-05
Young
Child
2.5E-05
2.6E-05
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
INGESTION EXPOSURE TO ORGANIC AND UNFILTERED AND
FILTERED INORGANIC GROUNDWATER COPCs
FUTURE ADULT AND YOUNG CHILD RESIDENTS
SITE 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Site
Site 1
Site 3
Residential Adult
Unfiltered
Groundwater
2.8E-05
4.0E-05
Filtered
Groundwater
3.7E-05
6.9E-06
Residential Young Child
Unfiltered
Groundwater
1.3E-05
1.9E-05
Filtered
Groundwater
1.7E-05
3.2E-06
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
INGESTION EXPOSURES TO ORGANIC AND UNFILTERED AND
FILTERED INORGANIC GROUNDWATER COPCs
CURRENT ADULT AND YOUNG CHILD RESIDENTS, ON-SITE WORKERS
SITE 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Site
Site 1
Site 3
Residential Adult
Unfiltered
Groundwater
3.7E-06
5.4E-06
Filtered
Groundwater
4.9E-06
9.2E-07
Residential Young Child
Unfiltered
Groundwater
8.7E-06
1.3E-05
Filtered
Groundwater
1.1E-05
2.2E-06
On-site Workers
Unfiltered
Groundwater
8.3E-06
1.2E-05
Filtered
Groundwater
1.1E-05
2.1E-06
-------
TABLE 4
TOXICITY VALUES - RfD AND SLOPE FACTORS
SITES 1 AND 3
TOXICITY FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Chemical
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Heptachlor Epoxide
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Manganese
Vanadium
Oral CSF
(mg/kg/day)-'
1.3xlO-|(1)
6.1 xlO-J(l>
9.1">
1.5(2>
4.3<2>
NA
NA
NA
Tumor Types
(carcinogens)
Liver tumors
Renal tumors
Liver tumors
Liver, kidney,
lung, bladder
and skin
tumors
Lung tumors
NA
NA
NA
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
7.0xlO-<(1>
1.0xlO-2(l>
1.3xlO-5(1>
0.0003<2>
0.005(2)
5.0xlO-J(l)
0.023(2)
7.0 x 10-3<1>
Critical Effects
(Systemic Toxicants)
Central nervous system
(CNS), kidney and liver
effects
CNS, liver, kidney and
cardiovascular effects
Increased liver weight
Liver, cardiovascular, CNS,
and tissue respiration
effects. Also, keratosis and
hyperpigmentation.
Respiratory effects and
berylliosis.
Renal tubular necrosis and
hepatic effects.
CNS effects.
Gastrointestinal
disturbances and
discoloration of the mouth
and tongue.
USEPA
Weight-of-
Evidence
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
D
D
D
Notes:
(i)
(J)
USEPA, 1996a. USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table, January - June 1996.
USEPA, 1996b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
NA = Not Available
mg/kg/day = milligrams per kilogram per day
CSF = cancer slope factor
RfD = reference dose
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
INGESTION EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL COPCs
TRESPASSERS, ON-SITE WORKERS AND FUTURE ON-SITE RESIDENTS
SITE I AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Site
Sitel
Site3
On-site
Workers
0.05
0.04
Local Resident
Trespassers
Adult
<0.01
<0.01
Older
Child
0.01
0.01
Future
On-site Residents
Adult
0.13
0.12
Young
Child
1.2
1.1
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
INGESTION EXPOSURE TO ORGANIC AND UNFILTERED AND
FILTERED INORGANIC GROUNDWATER COPCs
FUTURE ADULT AND YOUNG CHILD RESIDENTS
SITE 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Site
Site 1
Site 3
Residential
Adult
Unfiltered
Groundwater
0.29
0.32
Filtered
Groundwater
0.34
0.15
Residential
Young Child
Unfiltered
Groundwater
0.68
0.74
Filtered
Groundwater
0.79
0.34
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
INGESTION EXPOSURES TO ORGANIC AND UNFILTERED AND
FILTERED INORGANIC GROUNDWATER COPCs
CURRENT ADULT AND YOUNG CHILD RESIDENTS, ON-SITE WORKERS
SITE 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACnvrTY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Site
Site 1
Site 3
Residential
Adult
Unfiltered
Groundwater
0.29
0.32
Filtered
Groundwater
0.34
0.15
Residential
Young Child
Unfiltered
Groundwater
0.68
0.74
Filtered
Groundwater
0.79
0.34
On-site Workers
Unfiltered
Groundwater
0.1
0.11
Filtered
Groundwater
. 0.12
0.05
-------
TABLE 6
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
EXPOSURE INPUT PARAMETERS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENT ADULTS AND CHILDREN
POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO SURFACE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER COPCs AT
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Input Parameter
ED, Exposure Duration
EF, Exposure Frequency
1R. Ingostion Rate
AT, Averaging Time
Atw, noncarcinogenic
At,, carcinogenic
BW, Body Weight
Media
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil/Groundwater
Soil/Ground water
Units
year
year
day/year
day/year
L/day
mg/day
day
day
day
kg
Future Receptor
Child
6
6
350
350
1
200
2,190
2,190
25,550
,5 (0
Adult
30
30
350
350
2
100
10,950
10.950
25,550
70
Current Receptor
Child
4
-
350
--
1
-
1,460
-
25,550
I5">-
Adult
4
-
350
--
2
-
1,460
-
25,550
^
Comments/
References
USEPA, 199 land
Professional Judgement
USEPA, 1991
USEPA, 199-1
USEPA. 1991
USEPA, 1991
USEPA. 1991
USEPA, 1989 and
Professional Judgement
USEPA, 1989
USEPA, 1989
USEPA, 1989
References:
USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfiind Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final.
USEPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfiind. Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. "Standard Default
Exposure Factors." Interim Final.
Notes: <" Body weight for younger child of age 0 to 6 years.
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THE RESULTS OF THE
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
Uncertainty
Hazard Assessment and Analytical Data
Sufficient samples may not have been taken to characterize the
media being evaluated.
Systematic or random errors in the chemical analysis may yield
erroneous data.
The use of the maximum detected concentration in the
estimation of the CD1/DAD.
Exposure Assessment
The standard assumptions regarding body weight, exposure
period, life expectancy, population characteristics, and lifestyle
may not be representative of the actual exposure situations.
Toxicological Assessrpent
Toxicological indices derived from high dose animal studies,
extrapolated to low dose human exposure.
Risk Characterization
Assumption of additivity in the quantitation of cancer risks
without consideration of synergism, antagonism, promotion,
and initiation.
Assumption of additivity in the estimation of systemic health
effects without consideration of synergism, antagonism, etc.
Additivity of carcinogenic risks by individual exposure
pathways (ingestion and dermal).
Potential
Magnitude for
Over-Estimation
of Risks
Moderate
Moderate
Potential
Magnitude for
Under-Estimation
of Risks
Potential
Magnitude for
Over or Under-
Estimation
of Risks
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Notes:
Low - Assumptions categorized as "low" may effect risk estimates by less than one order of magnitude.
Moderate - Assumptions categorized as "moderate" may effect estimates of risk by between one and two orders of
magnitude.
High - Assumptions categorized as "high" may effect estimates of risk by more than two orders of magnitude.
Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfand. Volume 1. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). (USEPA, 1989).
-------
FIGURES
-------
VILLAGE OF
SABANA SECA
ENL1STE
S
ouaiNG
STATION
PERIMETER
FENCE
U.S. DEPT. OF
HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
RESEARCH FACILITY
SOUTH TRACT
NAVY PROPERTY
BOUNDARY LINE
MAIN
ENTRANCE
GATE
A BAJtf LANDFIL
HAYSTAC
Ull I C
LEGEND
. STATION POTABLC WATCR WELLS
© POTABU WATER WELLS
NAVY PROPERTY UHC
- "-1- EXISTING fENCE
ROADWAYS
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
.SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
SOUCCii MC tltf. IM1
-------
CARIIKAN PRIMATC
RESCARCH CCNTtR
DIRT ROAD
APPROXIMATE
AREA OF SITE
FENCE LINE
MONITORING WELL
LOCATION
SEPTIC TANKS
SUPPLY WELL
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN
SITE 1
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA. PUERTO RICO
i*rf:
-------
SITE 3
NORTH STONE ROAD
DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN
SITE 3
APPROXIMATE AREA OF SITE
FENCE UNE
U.S. NAVAL SECURCTY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA. PUERTO RICO
SOURCE: HOGCARO/EURE ASSOCIATES. APRIL 1993
-------
VILLAGE OF
SABANA SECA
U.S. OEPT. OF \\
HEALTH AND \
HUMAN SERVICES \
RESEARCH FACILITY NAVY PROPERTY
BOUNDARY LINE
SOUTH TRACT
SITE WSITE 5
NOT TO SCALE Biktr Em
LEGEND
STATION POTABLE WAUR WtlLS
() POtABLC WAHR WCUS
NAVY PROPCRTT UNC
- COSTING FCNCC
ROADWAYS
FIGURE 4
INSTALLATION RESTORATION
SITE LOCATIONS
U.S. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY. SABANA SECA
SABANA SECA, PUERTO RICO
-------
ROD FACT 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-3 (Sites 1&3).
Capital cost: NA
Construction Completion: NA
0 & 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.): Sites 1&3, Solid Waste.
Medium (soil, g.w.,etc.): Sites 1&3, soil & groundwater.
Origin: Site 1, 2 acre landfill; Site 3, 11 acre landfill.
Est. quantity (cu.yd., gal., # drums, etc.): Site 1, 3,300 tons;
Site 3, 1,800 tons.
------- |