-------
-------
5 .9 0002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OFDECISION i
DECISION SUMMARY 1
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Site Location 1
1.2 Topography and Surface Drainage 1
1.3 Soils 1
1.4 Hydrogeology 4
1.5 Groundwater Flow Direction 4
1.6 Demography and Land Use 6
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 6
2.1 Site History and Enforcement Activities 6
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HIGHLIGHTS 6
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE INTERIM ACTION 7
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7
5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination Overview 7
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 10
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 11
7.1 Alternative 1 11
7.2 Alternative 2 11
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 12
8.1 Threshold Criterial 12
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 12
8.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) 12
8.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 13
8.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 13
8.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 13
8.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness 14
8.2.4 Implementability 14
8.2.5 Cost 14
8.3 Modifying Criteria 15
8.3.1 State Acceptance 15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
8.3.2 Community Acceptance 15
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY 15
9.1 Performance and Treatment Standards 16
9.2 Site Specific Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) .. 18
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 18
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 19
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 19
10.3 Cost Effectiveness 19
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ....... 20
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 20
APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDK B - STATE CONCURRENCE
-------
5 9 0004
LIST OF FIGURES
Description Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - Topography and Drainage Surface 3
Figure 3 - Surficial Aquifer Water Level Map 5
Figure 4 - Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well Locations and TCL Pesticide Analytical Results . 9
Figure 5 - Extraction Well/Carbon Adsorption Treatment System Flow Diagram 17
-------
5 9 0005
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site
Operable Unit Five (OU5)
Route 211 Area
Aberdeen, North Carolina
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for OU5 (groundwater) at
the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site in Aberdeen, North Carolina. The selected interim remedial
action addresses the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area only and 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 of 1986
(SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for OU5.
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected interim action.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Route 211 Area, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this interim action Record of Decision (ROD),
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This interim remedial action employs the use of one extraction well and a carbon adsorption
treatment system to extract and treat the highest concentrations of pesticide-contaminated
groundwater from the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area. Treated groundwater will be
discharged via an infiltration gallery system. The purpose of this interim remedial action is to
minimize the migration of contaminants from this aquifer into lower aquifers, and to initiate
groundwater restoration while the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and post-
RI/FS activities for the entire OU 5 are completed.
The major components of the Selected Remedy are as follows:
Extraction of the highest concentrations of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial
aquifer using one extraction well;
-------
5 9 0006
Treatment of contaminated groundwater using a carbon adsorption system; and
Discharge of treated groundwater via an infiltration gallery system.
Statutory Determinations
The selected interim remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to this
interim remedial action and is cost-effective. Although this interim action is not intended to
address fully the statutory mandate for permanence and treatment to the maximum extent
practicable, this interim action does utilize treatment and thus is in furtherance of that statutory
mandate. Because this action does not constitute the final remedy for OU5, the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, and/or volume as
principle element, although partially addressed in this remedy, will be addressed by the final
response action. Subsequent actions are planned to address fully the threats posed by conditions
at the Route 211 Area. Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining on-site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
final remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection to
human health and the environment.
Richard D. Green
Acting Division Director
Waste Management Division
-------
5 9 0007
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
Pigel
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Location
The Route 211 Area (Figure /) is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of Route 211 East
adjacent to the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad (ARRR), one mile east of Aberdeen (35°07'02"
North Latitude and 79°23'4r West Longitude). The Route 211 Area is an old sand mining
depression or pit approximately 80 feet in diameter along its short axis and approximately 8 to 20
feet below the surrounding topography. The elevation of the perimeter of the basin is between
440 and 4SO feet above mean sea level (msl).
1.2 Topography and Surface Drainage
The topography of the Route 211 Area is generally flat with depressions and hills created from
historic sand mining operations. Topography and surface drainage at the Route 211 Area is
illustrated on Figure 2. The Route 211 Area comprises a small sand mining depression. Surface
runoff in the immediate vicinity of the Area predominantly flows into the depression. The nearest
surface water body is a localized area containing intermittent ponded water to the southeast of the
Area. This surface water body is the result of drainage originating topographically upslope of the
Area. The next surface water feature is an intermittent creek approximately 500 feet southeast of
the Area. This creek, known as Bull Branch, flows south-southwest intermittently for
approximately 0.8 miles until it becomes a perennial stream. Along this intermittent stream are
two man-made ponds approximately 800 feet and one-half mile from the Route 211 Area. This
stream continues to flow southward for approximately 3.3 miles, where it enters Quewhiffle
Creek.
1.3 Soils
The Coastal Plain sediments overlying the bedrock units range in thickness from approximately
300 feet beneath the upland areas, to less than 100 feet beneath the principal drainage features.
The geology beneath the Aberdeen area contains five lithologic units, which range in age from
Precambrian to Eocene. The investigation at the Route 211 Area involves three of these units.
From oldest to youngest, these units are: the Cape Fear and Middendorf Formations of late
Cretaceous age; and the Pinehurst Formation of Eocene age.
The Pinehurst Formation extends from land surface down to the elevation of approximately 410
feet mean sea level (msl), and is composed of predominately fine to coarse, brown, tan, red and
gray sands, with interbedded silts and clays having similar colors. This unit ranges from 8 to 50
-------
o nun «vat o«n*rit«d uiina •
bifamultan Syllwn IGI9I Connpondlng USDS auuhmglra
lot tM« li» vi Southern Finn. N C 116(4) Md PkiiUull. N C.
119821 quxkm^i. NWI4 end SVW4 ol Iht Souirwn n»t IB'
guidfmgto l«ptclnralv.
Rust Environment ft Infrastructure
cr
FIGURE I d
ROUTE 211 AREA LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY <
AK MX CNKSllcn OUMFS SITE '
-------
\\
\\
>\
\»
•\>
*\
\\ -.
v» .
\\
\\
s
II
\\
It
\l
II
It
i ippa»i>iK WP ton we Mm t» mtM.
•MIHMOi MOMMO W <• Umrr. re MB
•M C**IO fr UMoaPWC Ml *CMH
V
LEGEND
I I I I I I I I I
c:i
&
•BfOOttN t ROCKHSII R>
Mil POD
IOPOCRAPHIC COMHXff II
IMOCWVOUtm OS t«t
SURTACC W&TCR
I CBftKI
SOURCC
sunrtci '
en
VO
ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
FIGURC 2
TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE DRAINAGE CD
ROUTE 211 AREA ,—
•MMMIN mTKIOC DUMPS Snt CD
Moom COUMH. HOIIIH CA«CH.IM«
-------
5 9 0010
Interim ROD
Rouu2IlAret
Pige4
feet in thickness. A silty, clayey sand, or sandy clay unit occurs near the base of the formation, just
above the Middendorf Formation contact Where present, this low permeability unit ranges from
2.5 to 9 feet in thickness, and contains humic materials such as wood fragments, grass, peat, and
other plant debris at several locations.
The top of the Middendorf Formation is usually marked by a light gray to white, hard, brittle silty
clay. This clay is typically mottled pale red to dark yellowish-orange. Where present, this low
permeability unit ranged in thickness from approximately 0.5 to 22 feet, is moist to dry, and is
commonly overlain by a layer of purple to pink coarse sand and/or fine gravel.
Soil borings in the area of the proposed extraction and infiltration system confirm that the
Surficial aquifer is confined by an uppermost clay layer which is laterally continuous across this
area.
1.4 Hydrogeology
The hydrogeologic framework of the Aberdeen vicinity is composed of four aquifers which are
separated by confining beds or semi-confining beds. These aquifers, in order from the top, are:
the Surficial aquifer; the Upper Black Creek aquifer; the Lower Black Creek aquifer; and the
Cape Fear aquifer. Since this interim action is for the groundwater in the Surficial aquifer only,
the discussion on this section will be limited to that aquifer.
The Surficial aquifer of the Sand Hills is equivalent to the Pinehurst Formation and is the
watertable aquifer that caps the highest hilltops across the Aberdeen area. However, the Black
Creek aquifers (both Upper and Lower) can also be locally unconfined, but these areas are
generally near points of discharge (streams and valleys) and should not be mistaken for the
Surficial aquifer on the hilltops. The Pinehurst Formation, which contains the Surficial aquifer,
dips to the southeast at approximately 6 feet per mile. Even though the estimated transmissivity of
this unit is moderate (< 1,000 sq.ft. per day), the Surficial aquifer is not used as a primary source
of drinking water. Recharge to the aquifer occurs as rainfall across outcrop areas and discharge
occurs as seeps and springs along stream valleys and as leakage to the underlying Black Creek
aquifers.
1.5 Groundwater Flow Direction
The water map of the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area is shown on Figure 3. The map
presents the configuration of the groundwater surfaces as they were measured on October 26,
1995. Based upon these measurements, the groundwater flow direction in the Surficial aquifer
was estimated to be toward the west-southwest.
-------
sar1
MOUND *ATW UQMVMMO MMVCT COOftOMAttS
omum
WAI CD
MOMIOMMQ
K>
-•» *4
n
M
*»
1 N
0
1
*
1
4
1 5
14
!•
It
tt
ft?
Mr n
m M
•«w •»
•fw M
•44» *»
•*•» N
MM M
«w I*
Wt It
*»-•!
MMfiaio
4*Mlt.4|
4*»m.n
4»»F*» 14
4*f*U.44
I HI. ft
TMI.M
Flit 44
»»». »l
im.w
Hlf-fl
»«* II
»M.»4
nif.t*
rit> M
rft*4.»
*f99.»
IMt.tl
>9«I.H
MIT. «
Wt.«l
'W» tf
r$?>.*l
M9I 14
»«•».••
«tnti.M
cumo
Ml«5 »•
MtHl.tt
MltM »4
~m
M
M
M
M
M
M
••
M
••
M
My
•t
M
M
M
N
M
M
IM
TM.M
irt.H
•I9-M
449.31
Ml-tl
Ml . »«
(H.ll
141. «
>»«-5»
)!»-••
115 V
III M
t*5-»t
VM-II
K4C.M
40- 1>
T|«.fl
Mf.f»
M»-4»
M3.M
1MCMI.M
MOUND
SUVACt
CLCV
(n MM.)
411. M
4M.»
44ft. M
44t t«
«f.B5
4J4.tf
•91. t3
44* .tl
449. tl
44| 14
4M.M
4n.4f
04W
444.11
449. 4>
447 tl
44*. W
44* 4»
44t.M
44i.«1
«>».»l
4« »
«».<•
444). M
TOP or
CASNO
nrv
(ft Mil)
4M.W
41> 49
44V. n
M»
4M.1T
4M 41
«1 47
49t.*9
4ii. n
44J.94
4M 1>
4M.H
411 44)
44*. M
44*. 11
4M.U
44*. M
4« 74
4V. n
4«S It
*» W
411 M
4f*.4l
43* 11
DCFTN
1O CW
(H »*U)
tt/n/«
S tl
*.4|
M.V
MA
4.IS
4.J4
*f
M W
M.t*
*-r
IM
.*•
ft n
i.ti
S.7|
• ••I
I.*
• .*!
ft.*)
I'.lt
7.4*
ir.4i
*t
IM
STATIC
OtOUIfOWAlCR
CUV (II ML)
tO/2t/tS
4».9l
4)1. M
4{ft.rt
IM
-------
5 9 0012
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
1.6 Demography and Land Use
The 1990 Census estimated the population of Aberdeen, North Carolina to be approximately
2,700 people occupying approximately 1140 households. The Route 211 Area is located in a
sparsely populated area approximately one mile east of Aberdeen. The Area is zoned industrial,
since it is included in a strip of land adjacent to the Aberdeen & Rockfish Railway which has an
industrial zoning. The surrounding land generally consists of pine woods with surface depressions
created by sandmining. Three commercial/industrial facilities are located within 2,000 feet of the
Area.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 Site History and Enforcement Activities
The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) identified for this area are Novartis Crop Protection,
Inc. (former Ciba-Geigy Corporation), and Olin Corporation. During their operation of a pesticide
formulation plant on Route 211 (The Geigy Chemical Plant) east of the Town of Aberdeen,
corporate predecessors to the PRPs used the Route 211 Area for disposal of wastes from that
plant. These wastes contained pesticide and pesticide constituents. On March 31, 1989,
pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, EPA placed the Site on the National
Priorities List, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The Route 211 Area is one of the five non-
contiguous areas comprising the Site.
In response to a release or substantial threat of release of hazardous substances at or from the
Site, EPA commenced on June 30, 1987, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
. for the Site, including the Route 211 Area. EPA completed its initial Remedial Investigation at
the Site on April 12, 1991. During that investigation, EPA determined that the surface water,
groundwater, and sediments at the Site required further investigation. EPA designated the
groundwater at all five Areas as Operable Unit Three (OU3). EPA conducted further
investigation of OU3 and completed a Feasibility Study concerning OU3 on May 3, 1993. During
that study, EPA determined that further investigation of the groundwater at the Mclver Dump and
Route 211 Areas was necessary. EPA designated the groundwater at those two Areas as
Operable Unit Five (OU5). Effective March 21,1994, the PRPs entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) whh EPA concerning performance of the RI/FS for OU5. The RI report
for OU5 was completed by the PRPs and approved by EPA on June 2,1997.
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HIGHLIGHTS
Pursuant to CERCLA §113(k)(2)(B)(I-v) and §117, the RI Report and the Proposed Plan for this
interim action were released to the public for comment on July 2, 1997. These documents were
made available to the public in both of the Administrative Record locations. Information
repositories are maintained at the EPA Region 4 Docket Room and at the Aberdeen Town Hall
-------
5 9 0013
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
Page 7
in Aberdeen, North Carolina. In addition, the Proposed Plan fact sheet was mailed to individuals
on the Site's mailing list on June 26, 1997.
The notice of the availability of these documents and notification of the Proposed Plan Public
Meeting was announced in The Fayeteville Observer Times and The Pilot on July 2, 1997. A
public comment period was held from July 2, 1997 through August 2, 1997. In addition, a public
meeting was held on July 10,1997, at the Aberdeen Fire Station. At this meeting, representatives
from EPA answered questions about the Site and the remedial alternatives for the interim action
under consideration. A response to the comments received during the comment period, including
those raised during the public meeting, are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
part of this Record of Decision. The Responsiveness Summary also incorporates a transcript of
the Proposed Plan public meeting.
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE INTERIM ACTION
Due to the length of time required to complete the RI/FS for the entire OU5 and the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) plans, and the possibility of further plume migration during this
time, EPA believes that it was appropriate to initiate remedial action on the Surficial aquifer at the
Route 211 Area. The selected remedy would begin ground water cleanup while RI/FS and post
RI/FS activities for the entire OU 5 are completed. This interim action would initiate a reduction
of potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the pesticide contaminated
groundwater plume, but does not constituted the final remedial action for OU5. A final remedial
action will be developed to fully address the principle threats posed by Site conditions following
the conclusions of the RI/FS. Upon completion of the RI/FS, the groundwater treatment system
embodied by this interim remedial action may by incorporated into the OU5 final remedy. The
final remedy for this OU5 will be documented in & final Record Of Decision.
S.O SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination Overview
Since this interim action is for the groundwater in the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area
only, the discussion in this section will be limited to the Surficial aquifer at this specific area.
Complete information about the nature and extent of the contamination can be found in the final
RI report for OU5 located in the information repository.
In September 1993, Rust E&I (an environmental contractor) was employed by the Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) to implement a Preliminary Groundwater Assessment at the Route
211 Area. RI field activities were performed in phases beginning in November 1994 and
consisted of Phases I, Ha, m>, m, IVa, IVb, IVc, V, and VI.
-------
5 9 0014
Interim ROD
Rome 211 Are*
Ptgeg
» During Phase I, soil test borings were drilled at the Route 111 Area to characterize
subsurface conditions and install ground water monitoring wells in the Surficial aquifer.
> Phase Da and Phase lib, Direct Push Technology (DPT) field screening techniques were
utilized to obtain continuous soil samples for lithologic characterization.
*• Phase m, a combination of Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) and mud rotary drilling techniques
were utilized to further assess the Surficial aquifer.
*• Phases IVa, FVb and FVc field activities, a combination of DPT, HSA, mud rotary, and
Rotosonic drilling techniques were used to characterize subsurface conditions, collect
Hydropunch groundwater samples, and install groundwater monitoring wells. During
Phase IVa, one Hydropunch groundwater sample was collected from the Surficial aquifer.
During Phase IVb, a potential extraction well was installed in the Surficial aquifer.
* Phase V, Hydropunch samples were collected in the Surficial aquifer.
Groundwater samples were collected from DPT locations and from permanent monitoring wells
at the Route 211 Area. Selected samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL)
Pesticides, Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals, TCL VOCs (volatile organic compounds), and
additional parameters including alkalinity, total dissolved solids, and hardness. In addition, several
pesticides not included in the TCL pesticide list were analyzed including Ferbam, Sevin, Guthion,
and Parathion.
Groundwater samples were collected from field screening locations using DPT and Hydropunch
methods, from existing monitoring wells, DPT wellpoints, new piezometers and new monitoring
wells.
A total of eight monitoring wells (designated RT-MW-04 through RT-MW-11) were installed
into the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area (Figure 4). Monitoring wells RT-MW-04 and
RT-MW-05 were installed to assess groundwater quality directly downgradient of the source area
and adjacent to the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad (ARRR) during Phase I. As a result of the
groundwater flow direction, monitoring well RT-MW-06 was installed northeast of the Area to
collect background groundwater quality data.
Based upon Phase Ha and nb analytical test results, several additional monitoring wells were
installed to more fully assess the extent of the contaminant plume. Monitoring well RT-MW-07
was installed to monitor groundwater quality along the northwestern perimeter, monitoring well
RTMW-08 was installed to monitor the groundwater quality in the center, and monitoring well
RTMW-09 was installed to monitor groundwater quality along the southeastern perimeter of the
plume. Two monitoring wells were also installed to assess the groundwater quality in the
-------
ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
K»oc»«»« •» ro» tw tun u> ICMOW
MVfMCAIKM raOMMO tr Ml SWMr. K **«
~j CWMID •TiiHciiMiniMD w «Si
moiocfcrn MHUOMM. MMI COOWNlin M WCOMWCt
VIM l« MWIH (*MIM> SU* »V»« COOXMUI
fvstlu (MM •))
« IM ittmx iMtiounH ntNun HMD ratww
IT CM riHkw raoOMMi COWOUIOH MB
•V SIC
I M *M»H I III » K 111 «« rtwovuco
Mmc mimat IM& IK MMU • A VMS
FCKTCWWD DUKNC **KH-tm >tn
IHC n • «K PtnolMO DUMNC MW-JU.T ir
LEfiEND
Mil
n
c""--1
4
• wcnou KWI
COMOUI (Ml
IMXKOInM) C»S IX
PlIKSI •• MCI PUW aCu-POMI
IOCC HTM ICC'IQI
-------
5 9 0016
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
downgradient direction; monitoring well RT-MW-10 was installed in a downgradient direction of
the source area and monitoring well RT-MW- 11 was installed in the farthest downgradient
direction of the source area. HydropunchTM ground water sample AT-HP-01 was collected on
the east side of Bull Branch.
Based on the known location and extent of the source area, analytical test results of downgradient
groundwater samples, and the absence of groundwater in the Surficial aquifer along the western
perimeter of the study area, the extent of pesticides in the Surficial aquifer has been defined. A
summary of the analytical test results are presented in the RI report available in the Information
Repository.
No Ferbam, Sevin, Guthion, or Parathion was detected in any groundwater samples collected
from the Surficial aquifer at the Route 211 Area. TCL pesticides which were not detected above
reporting limits in groundwater samples from the Surficial aquifer were aldrin, chlordane,
heptachlor epoxide, and methoxychlor.
The most frequently detected pesticides in the Surficial aquifer were alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta
BHC and 4,4'-DDE (Figure 4). Concentrations of these compounds decrease downgradient of the
source area. The highest concentration of pesticides was detected in RT-MW-04, directly
downgradient of the source area. Pesticide concentrations then decreased by more than an order
of magnitude in monitoring wells located south of the ARRR. Concentrations of these compounds
decrease at locations hydraulically downgradient of the source area, indicating that the majority of
contaminant mass resides close to the source area:
Wells 05-MW-01, -02, -03, and RT-MW-04 were sampled for TCL VOCs analysis. No VOCs
were detected in any groundwater samples collected from the Surficial aquifer. Analytical results
are presented in the RI report available in the Information Repository.
Some metals were detected in groundwater at the Route 211 Area. Based on the available Site
data, EPA has decided that metals detected in groundwater will not be considered chemicals of
concern at the Route 211 Area. Metals concentrations are considered to be consistent with
background concentrations.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The formal Baseline Risk Assessment for the Route 211 Area has not been completed yet, but it
will be available before the selection of the final remedy for OU5. The Agency's decision to
initiate an interim remedial action at this Area is based on the data collected during the Site
investigations. The data indicates that the highest concentrations of pesticide contamination are
within the Surficial aquifer, and that this contamination is gradually moving into the lower
-------
5 9 0017
Interim ROD
Route 211 Are*
aquifers. This interim remedial action would reduce further migration of pesticide contamination
to the lower aquifers.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The following remedial alternatives were selected for evaluation:
Alternative 1: No-Action
Alternative 2: Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial aquifer,
treatment by carbon adsorption and discharge via an infiltration gallery
system
7.1 Alternative 1: No Action
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered. The No Action alternative
provides the baseline for comparing existing Site conditions with those resulting from other
proposed alternatives.
Under this alternative, EPA would take no action at the Site at this time to reduce further
migration of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial aquifer into the lower aquifers while
the RI/FS process is finalized.
There is no cost associated with this alternative.
7.2 Alternative 2: Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial aquifer, treatment
by carbon adsorption and discharge via an infiltration gallery system.
This alternative will ensure that active treatment of contaminated groundwater in the Surficial
aquifer at the Route 211 area would begin while the RI/FS and RD/RA for the entire OU5 is
completed. Under this alternative, the highest concentrations of pesticide-contaminated
groundwater will be pumped from the Surficial aquifer using one extraction well, thereby reducing
further migration of contaminants from this aquifer into lower aquifers. Extracted groundwater
will be treated using an activated carbon adsorption system. All treated groundwater will be
discharged via an infiltration gallery system and will be allowed to infiltrate/percolate down
through the soil back to the Surficial aquifer.
In order to develop the cost estimate for this alternative it was assumed that the system will be in
operation for two years; and that an existing well will be used. Based on these assumptions the
costs associated with this alternative are as follow:
-------
5 9 0018
Interim ROD
Route 211 Am
Capital Cost: $ 274,302
Annual O&M Cost: $ 123,303/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 518,908
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A detailed comparative analysis using the nine evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP was
performed on the remedial alternatives. The advantages and disadvantages were compared to
identify the alternative with the best balance among these nine criteria.
8.1 Threshold Criteria
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Section 8.1.1 addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how
risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment because it
would not address the continued migration of contaminants from the Surficial aquifer into lower
aquifers. Because the "No-Action" alternative would neither arrest the continued groundwater
migration from the highly contaminated aquifer into the lower aquifers nor initiate the reduction
of Site contaminants and the potential risk of further migration on any part of the plume, this
alternative will not be considered further in this analysis.
The extraction and carbon treatment of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial aquifer
presented, as Alternative 2, initiates restoration of the Surficial aquifer. Because the highest
concentrations of pesticide contamination were detected in this aquifer, extraction and treatment
of groundwater from this aquifer will mark the starting point toward overall protection of human
health and the environment. At the same time, by extracting this mass of pesticides, further impact
to the lower aquifers would be minimized.
8.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Section 8.1.2 addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes and/or provide
grounds for a waiver. The identified ARARs for this Site are listed in Section 9.2. The
Superfund law requires that the remedial action for a site meets all ARARs unless a waiver is
invoked. One of the circumstances under which a waiver may be invoked is if the remedial action
is an interim measure where the final remedy will attain the ARAR upon completion.
-------
5.9 0019
interim ROD
Route 211 Area
Page 13
Under Alternative 2, the Federal and State Groundwater Standards will be waived for the
groundwater extraction component of the Alternative. This waiver is allowed because under
this interim remedy only, contaminated groundwater will be extracted until the final remedy for
the entire OU5 is selected and supercedes the interim action. Meeting specific Federal and State
Groundwater Standards will be the objective of the final remedy for the entire OU5. The
duration of this interim action should not exceed two years.
The carbon adsorption system will treat the extracted groundwater to meet the State permit
requirements prior to being discharged via the infiltration gallery system. All State permit
requirements for construction and use of infiltrations galleries must be met. The infiltration system
must be modeled to show that the extraction and treatment system would be a "close-loop"
system.
8.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
8.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Subsection 8.2.1 refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup levels have been met.
This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and reliability of
controls.
The goal of this interim action is short term in scope and its purpose is to prevent further
migration of contaminants from the Surficial aquifer into lower aquifers while the RI/FS and post
RI/FS activities for the entire OU5 are completed. Still, Alternative 2 is consistent with the
Agency's long term goal of returning groundwater to its beneficial uses because contaminants are
permanently removed as the Surficial aquifer is pumped in attempt to hydraulically control the
groundwater plume's migration from this aquifer into lower aquifers.
8.2.2 Reduction of Toiicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
This subsection refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may
employ.
The groundwater extraction well/carbon adsorption filter system presented as Alternative 2 will
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in the Surficial aquifer, by extracting
pesticide contamination water for treatment by the carbon adsorption system. The activated
carbon is considered to be the Best Available Treatment technology for removing pesticides from
water.
-------
5. 9 0020
Interim ROD
Route 211 Are*
8.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness refers to the period of time needed to complete the remedy and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation of the remedy until cleanup levels are achieved.
Alternative 2 is effective in the short-term because it will reduce further ground-water migration
from the Surficial aquifer into lower aquifers while initiating reduction in toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contamination until the final action is selected.
There should be NO adverse effects to human health or the environment from the installation or
operation of Alternative 2.
The duration of this interim action should not exceed two years. At the conclusion of the RI/FS
activities, the Agency will propose the final remedial action for the groundwater at the Route 211
Area. If Alternative 2, as presented on this interim action Record of Decision becomes a
component of the final remedy for OU5, continuing operation is expected until the cleanup levels
are achieved. As previously mentioned, the groundwater cleanup levels are not addressed in this
interim remedy because such goals are beyond the scope of this action. The cleanup levels will
be addressed by the final remedial action Record Of Decision for OU5.
8.2.4 Implementability
Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
The required construction technology for implementation of Alternative 2 is proven, and the
necessary materials/services are readily available. The administrative requirements for
implementation are manageable.
8.2.5 Cost
The total Present Worth Costs for the alternatives evaluated are as follows:
Alternative 1: $0
Alternative 2: $518,908
The Capital costs for Alternative 2 are estimated to be $274,302. The Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) costs for Alternative 2 are estimated to be $123,303 per year. The duration
of this interim action is expected not to exceed two years. The total present worth cost for
Alternative 2 is estimated to be $518,908.
-------
5 9 0021
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
P«gelS
8.3 Modifying Criteria
8.3.1 State Acceptance
EPA and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) have cooperated throughout the RI/FS process. The State has participated in the
development of the RI/FS through comment on each of the various reports developed by EPA,
and the Draft ROD and through frequent contact between the EPA and NCDEHNR site project
managers. EPA and NCDEHNR are in agreement on the selected alternative. Please refer to the
Responsiveness Summary which contains a letter of concurrence from NCDEHNR.
The NCDEHNR has participated during the development of all the remedial processes for this
OU5 and concurs with this interim remedy.
8.3.2 Community Acceptance
EPA solicited input from the community on the Proposed Plan for this interim action. Although
public comments indicated no opposition to the preferred alternative, some local residents
expressed some minor concerns during the Proposed Plan public meeting. Please see the
Responsiveness Summary which contains a transcript of the public meeting.
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the CERCLA requirements, the NCP, the analysis of the alternatives
using the nine criteria, and public and State comments, EPA has selected an interim action remedy
for the Route 211. The selected interim action for the Route 211 area is Alternative 2.
This alternative will ensure that active extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water
from the Surficial aquifer would begin while the RI/FS and RD/RA standard process continues.
Under this alternative contaminated groundwater will be pumped from the Surficial aquifer
thereby reducing further migration of contaminants from this aquifer into lower aquifers.
Extracted groundwater will be treated using an activated carbon adsorption system. All treated
groundwater will be discharged via an infiltration gallery system and will be allowed to
infiltrate/percolate down through the soil back to the Surficial aquifer.
For the purpose of the cost estimate, it was assumed that the system will be in operation for two
years, and that an existing extraction well will be used. Based on these assumptions the costs
associated with this alternative are as follow:
Capital Cost: $ 274,302
Annual O&M Cost: $123,303/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 518,908
-------
5 9 0022
Interim ROD
Route 211 Area
P«gel6
9.1 Performance and Treatment Standards
The performance standards for the selected remedy include, but are not limited, to the following
standards:
Extraction System
The Surficial aquifer is the only aquifer involved in this interim action. The highest groundwater
pesticide concentrations will be extracted from the Surficial aquifer using one extraction well. An
electric submersible pump will be used to extract groundwater from the well. The need for
additional extraction wells in the Surficial aquifer will be addressed in the final remedy for the
entire OU5.
Treatment System
Activated carbon adsorption is considered to be the Best Available Treatment technologies for
removing pesticides from water. A flow diagram of a typical extraction well/carbon adsorption
treatment system is provided in Figure 5. All of the pesticides present in the groundwater to be
extracted can be treated using activated carbon absorption. Routine analytical sampling of the
influent and effluent from the canister(s) shall be conducted to determine when the carbon
canisters should be replaced. The exact configuration of the carbon treatment system will be
determined during design.
Discharge
Treated water will be discharged via an infiltration gallery system. Discharge requirements will be
documented in an infiltration gallery permit. Based on the groundwater modeling, all treated
water can be distributed through the galleries and allowed to infiltrate down through the soils to
the Surficial aquifer. The infiltration system shall be located upgradient of the extraction system to
form a "closed-loop" system, as required by the State of North Carolina.
The duration of this interim action should not exceed two years. At the conclusion of the RI/FS
activities for the entire OU5, the Agency will propose the final remedial action for groundwater at
the Route 211 Area. If this interim remedy becomes a component of the final remedy for OU5,
continuing operation is expected until the cleanup levels are achieved. As previously mentioned,
the groundwater cleanup levels are not addressed in this interim remedy because such goals are
beyond the scope of this action. The cleanup levels will be addressed on the final Record of
Decision for the entire OU5.
-------
C\'ineni OIIMI
^/
I'ICMIMC DifTeieiilinl
Swiich
Picture Krinimlwiier
(liUM II,.-
Sniul Pnck
•
£3h
^=ra
atM Main riiig
nlier Wllcf I'remiiiie
Reculniini
Vilve
Sciccn
- Snhmcrnlhlc Pump
HNVIKONMKNT&
INIWniUCTUKI'
lillillinlliHidallcilcl
I'KJUUK
Rxlmclion
Adsoiptioii 'Ircntinonl System
l;low l>injjiain
SiiiTiciul A«|iiifcr Inicriin Action
Kiiiiic 211 Aien
Alwnlccn IVslickle Dumps Site
Mooie ('ninny, Nniili Cnmlinn
(/I
'JO
O
o
r-0
-------
5 9 0024
Interim ROD
Rouu211 Area
Page 18
9.2 Site Specific Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
The Superfund law requires that the remedial action for a site meets ARARs unless a waiver is
invoked. One of the circumstances under which a waiver may be invoked is if the remedial action
is an interim measure where the final remedy will attain the ARAR upon completion. The remedy
will comply with all the applicable and relevant and appropriate portions of the following Federal
and State regulations:
40 CFR Parts 261. 262. 263. 264. and 268 promulgated under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAV These regulations are applicable to the management of
hazardous waste, including treatment, storage and disposal.
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAO Title ISA. Chapter 13A. Regulations for the
Management of Hazardous Waste promulgated under the authority of NC Waste Management
Act. These regulations are applicable to the management of hazardous waste in the State of North
Carolina.
NCAC Title ISA. Chapter 13B. Regulations for disposal of Solid Waste promulgated under the
authority of theNC Hazardous Waste Commission Act. These regulations are applicable to the
management of solid waste in the State of North Carolina.
NCAC Title 15A, Chapter 2. Subchapter 2L. Regulations governing classifications and water
quality standards applicable to groundwater. Promulgated under the authority of the NC Water
and Air Resources Act. These regulations are applicable to the protection of groundwater in the
State of North Carolina. These specific regulations will be waived for the groundwater extraction
component of the remedy only. This waiver is allowed because under this interim remedy only,
contaminated groundwater will be extracted until the final remedy for the entire OU5 is selected
and supercedes the interim action. Meeting this ARAR will be the objective of the final remedy
for the entire OU5.
State permit requirements for construction and use of infiltrations galleries must be met.
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select remedies that are protective to human health and
the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (unless a
statutory waiver is justified), are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous waste as their principal
element. The following sections discuss how this remedy meets these statutory requirements.
-------
5 9 0025
Interim ROD
RouteZIl Area
19
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The interim remedial action protects human health and the environment from exposure to
Surficial aquifer contaminants. The groundwater extraction well/carbon treatment system
presented as Alternative 2, initiates a reduction of risks from future exposure to contaminants in
groundwater. Because the highest concentrations of pesticide contamination were detected in the
Surficial aquifer, extraction and treatment of groundwater from this aquifer will mark the starting
point toward overall protection of human health and the environment. At the same time, by
extracting this mass of pesticides, further impact to the lower aquifers would be minimized.
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The Superfund law requires that the remedial action for a site meets all ARARs unless a waiver is
invoked. One of the circumstances under which a waiver may be invoked is if the remedial action
is an interim measure where \btfinal remedy will attain the ARAR upon completion. The
Federal and State Groundwater Standards will be waived for the groundwater extraction
component of this interim remedy. This waiver is allowed because contaminated groundwater
will be extracted until the final remedy for the entire Operable Unit 5 is selected and takes over
the interim action, and not until the cleanup levels are met. (The duration of this interim action
should not exceed two years). Meeting the Federal and State Groundwater Standards will be the
objective of ihe final remedy.
The scope of this proposed interim remedial action is to start cleaning up contaminated
groundwater in the Surficial aquifer while RI/FS and post RI/FS activities for the entire operable
unit are completed. The groundwater cleanup levels are not addressed in this interim remedy
because such goals are beyond the scope of this interim action. The cleanup levels will be
addressed on the final ROD for the entire Operable Unit # 5.
The carbon adsorption system will treat the extracted groundwater to meet the State permit
requirements prior to be discharged into an infiltration gallery. A permit must be obtained for the
use of an infiltration gallery. The infiltration system must be modeled to show that the extraction
and treatment system would be a "close-loop" system.
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
The Capita] costs for the selected interim remedy are estimated to be $274,302. The Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the remedy are estimated to be $123,303 per year. The
duration of this interim action is expected not to exceed two years. The total present worth cost
for Alternative 2 is estimated to be $518,908.
-------
5 9 0026
Interim ROD
Route 211 Are.
P«ge20
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
This interim action does not constitute & final action for remediation of the ground water at the
Route 211 area. It will, however, be effective in reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
pesticide-contaminated groundwater extracted from the Surficial aquifer by treating the
pesticides-contaminated groundwater with a carbon adsorption system. Selection of this interim
remedy represents the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to pertinent criteria, given the limited
scope of the action.
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected interim remedy utilizes a carbon adsorption system as a means of treatment of the
pesticides in the groundwater. By utilizing treatment as a significant portion of the remedy, the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
-------
•5V9 0027
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
9 0023
Rexpoosiveatss Summary
OU5 Interim ROD
Page I
1.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public comment period from July 2,
1997, through August 2,1997, for interested parties to comment on the Proposed Plan for the
interim action at the Route 211 Area. This area is part of Operable Unit 5 (OU5) for the
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site in Aberdeen, North Carolina. The Proposed Plan, included in
Attachment A of this document, provides a summary of the Site's background information leading
up to the public comment period.
EPA held a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. on July 10, 1997, at the Aberdeen Fire Station in
Aberdeen, North Carolina to describe EPA's proposed interim alternatives for the Site. All of the
comments received by EPA during the public comment period were considered in the selection of
the interim action for the She.
The Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns identified
and received during the public comment period, and EPA's responses to those comments and
concerns.
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections and attachments:
1.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW: This section outlines the
purpose of the public comment period and the Responsiveness Summary. It also
references the background information leading up to the public comment period.
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This
section provides a brief history of the interests and concerns of the community
regarding the Route 211 Area.
3.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA'S RESPONSES TO
THESE COMMENTS: This section summarizes the comments received by EPA
during the comment period including any verbal comments made during the public
meeting on July 10,1997. EPA's written responses to these comments are also
provided.
ATTACHMENT A: Attachment A contains the Proposed Plan for the interim action at the Route
211 Area which was mailed to the information repository and to individuals on the Site mailing
list on June 26,1997, and distributed to the public during the public meeting held on July 10,
1997.
ATTACHMENT B: Attachment B includes the sign-in sheet from the public meeting held on July
10, 1997, at the Aberdeen Fire Station, Aberdeen, North Carolina.
-------
5 9. 0029
Responsiveness Summary
OU5 Interim ROD
P«e 2
ATTACHMENT C: Attachment C includes the address and phone number of the information
repository designated for the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site.
ATTACHMENT D: Attachment D includes a copy of the official transcript of the Public Meeting
on the Proposed Plan for the ground water interim action for the Route 211 Area.
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT CONCERNS
2.1 Background on Community Involvement
The Interim Action Proposed Plan fact sheet was prepared and mailed to citizens on the Site's
mailing list on June 27, 1997, announcing a public comment period of July 2 - August 2/1997,
and a public meeting on July 10th. A transcript of this meeting was prepared by a court report
and a copy was placed in the information repository located in the Aberdeen Town Hall. A
display ad was prepared and placed in both the Fayetteville Observer Times and The Pilot
newspapers on July 2, 1997 and July 3,1997, respectively. Also, EPA representatives met with
the Interim City Manager to inform him of what we would be explaining at the evening meeting
enabling him to be responsive to his constituents in the event he was unable to attend the meeting.
EPA representatives also met with representatives of the MooreFORCE TAG group and their
consultant to go over the proposed interim action and to respond to their concerns.
EPA fact sheets covering Pump-and-Treat and Activated Carbon Treatment, as well as a brochure
on Groundwater Cleanup at Superfund Sites was provided to attendees at the proposed plan
public meeting. A copy of this same literature was also placed in the information repository.
There has always been an interest by the public in the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site areas and
meetings have been fairly well attended.
2.2 Community Concerns
The following major issues and concerns regarding the Site were expressed during the July 10,
1997, public meeting.
1. Is the chemical DDE a contaminant of concern on this Site ?
2. How long would it take to clean up the aquifers ?
3. Why the scope of the interim action is limited to the Surficial aquifer ?
-------
5 9 0030
Responsiveness Summary
OUS Interim ROD
Pise 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
3.1 Verbal Comments
The following is a summary of the verbal comments, concerns and questions raised by the
attendees during the public meeting on July 10,1997, together with EPA's responses.
COMMENT: A concerned citizen asked if the concentrations of the BHC isomers, and the
chemical DDE detected in the Surficial aquifer exceed any of the established MCLs; and if
not, why is EPA proposing cleaning up the aquifer?
RESPONSE: The BHC isomers detected in the Surficial aquifer are alpha, beta, delta and gamma.
Of those BHC isomers, the only one that has an established MCL is gamma (0.2 parts per billion
(ppb)). The MCL for gamma was not exceeded in any of the groundwater samples collected from
the Surficial aquifer. DDE was detected in very low concentrations and it is not a contaminant of
concern for this Site. The clean up of the Surficial aquifer is proposed by the Agency because
some of the BHCs concentrations detected in the Surficial aquifer exceed preliminary risk
calculations.
COMMENT: How long would it take to clean up the aquifer?
RESPONSE: Achieving a specific clean up levels is not within the scope of this interim action.
The goal of this interim action is to start pumping out and treating contaminated groundwater
from the Surficial aquifer which contains the higher concentrations of contaminants in the whole
Route 211 Area while the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and post-RI/FS
activities for the entire OUS are completed. After the RI/FS activities for the entire OUS are
completed, a final Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. Achieving specific clean up levels
will be the goal of the final ROD. The final ROD will document the final remedy for the entire
OUS including the estimated time frames for achieving cleanup levels.
3.2 Written Comments
The following are written comments submitted by MooreFORCE, together with EPA's responses.
COMMENT 1: MooreFORCE, Inc., strongly endorses EPA intentions to begin interim action at
Route 211 Area, and encourages the agency to expedite negotiations and begin as soon as
possible. However, the scope of the proposed interim action is too limited.
RESPONSE: Please see response to MooreFORCE's comment 3.
COMMENT 2: The Remedial investigation has revealed that contaminated groundwater has
been detected not only in the surficial aquifer, but also in the upper and lower sections of the
-------
5 9 0031
Responsiveness Summary
OU5 interim ROD
Page 4
Upper Black Creek aquifer, and the Lower Black Creek aquifer. Why aren't these other
contaminated aquifers also being addressed at this time with this proposed interim action?
RESPONSE: EPA is not addressing other aquifers at this time because the FS for the entire OUS
is not completed. The FS for the entire OUS will address contamination above the cleanup levels
in all the aquifers. As documented in the RI report, the highest concentrations of pesticides in the
groundwater are in the surficial aquifer, therefore, EPA believes that it was appropriate to initiate
restoration of the Surficial aquifer at this time, and not to wait until the FS report for the entire
OUS (all the aquifers) is completed. A copy of the final RI report is located in the information
repository. '
COMMENT 3: At a minimum, the scope of the interim action should be expanded by adding
(an) additional well(s) to more fully capture the "hot spots" in the surficial aquifer, before the
contaminants have an opportunity to further migrate into the lower aquifer. The front end cost of
the carbon filtration system design would not be greatly increased to expand the system's
capacity. Nor should there be any delays in permitting an expanded action. Because the
Remedial investigation has found that groundwater moving rapidly through the Surficial aquifer,
at 63 5 feet per year, it is imperative that an expanded interim action be undertaken as soon as
possible. It is much easier to capture and treat the more concentrated contaminants in the
Surficial aquifer now rather than wait until the contaminants move down and spread out through
the lower aquifers.
RESPONSE: Groundwater modeling performed as a part of the Route 211 Feasibility Study
indicates that the additional Surficial aquifer recovery wells would not provide a measurable
benefit toward the shortening of the anticipated remedial time frames under potential remedial
actions for the lower aquifers. A measurable reduction in risk is likewise improbable. While some
limited benefit of adding Surficial aquifer recovery wells is anticipated, EPA believes the
additional recovery wells are not justified because of additional costs and probable delays to the
implementation of this interim action. In part, this conclusion was reached because of the already
significant degree of groundwater contamination in the lower aquifers, which would only be
marginally affected by the addition of more recovery wells to the Surficial aquifer interim action.
EPA agrees with the observation that at the Route 211 area, removal of the concentrated
groundwater contamination close to the source area will be much easier than would be
contaminant removal from more distant areas.
COMMENT 4: The Remedial investigation has revealed vertical hydraulic connections between
each of the aquifers characterized at the Route 211 Area site. What is the possibility that the
installation of monitoring wells has contributed to the cross-contaminated of the various aquifers?
Any proposed interim actions must be sensitive to this issue to prevent exacerbating the
movement of contaminants down through the aquifers. Also, the restarting of Municipal Well
#13, which may effect the dynamics of groundwater flow and contaminant migration must be
taken into account.
-------
5 .9 0032
Ropoosiveness Summary
OU5 Interim ROD
RESPONSE: The planned groundwater interim action will act to reduce vertical contaminant
migration from the Surficial aquifer to the underlying Upper Black Creek aquifer. There is no
concern about the planned interim action exacerbating vertical contaminant migration.
With regard to the concern expressed about monitoring well installation contributing to vertical
contaminant migration, it is possible that a very short-term increase in vertical contaminant
migration occurred during well installation. However, the volume of water (and mass of
contaminants) that could have migrated vertically during the period of well installation is
insignificant, relative to the movement of groundwater and contaminants through naturally
occurring vertical migration pathways downgradient of the Route 211 source area. The EPA has
performed modeling analyses which have compared the potential vertical contaminant migration
around Municipal Well 13 to contaminant migration through the geologic formations near the
Route 211 area. Municipal Well 13 is constructed such that vertical groundwater flow around
that well is much greater than is any potential vertical groundwater flow around the Route 211
monitoring wells. EPA's modeling analyses indicate that naturally occurring vertical groundwater
flow and contaminant migration are orders of magnitude greater than are vertical groundwater
flow and contaminant migration around Municipal Well 13. All monitoring wells installed during
the Route 211 investigations were constructed to minimize vertical contaminant migration, in
accordance with U.S. EPA guidance. There is no reason to believe that measurable amounts of
contamination could migrate vertically as a result of the construction of the monitoring wells.
The operation of Municipal Well 13 should not have any measurable effect on the planned
Surficial aquifer interim action at the Route 211 area. The operation of this well does have an
effect on groundwater flow and contaminant migration patterns in lower aquifers, and will be
considered by the EPA with regards to selection of a final remedial action for the Route 211
groundwater contamination.
-------
5 9 0033
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
-------
REGION 4
59 0034
SUPERFUND FACT SHEET
INTERIM ACTION PROPOSED PLAN
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS SITE
OPERABLE UNIT #5
Groundwater Interim Action
at the Route 211 Area
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
.'.'•'' July 2, 1997
INTRODUCTION - .
This Interim Action Proposed Plan fact sheet has been prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region 4 (EPA) to propose an interim cleanup plan to address groundwater contamination in the
Surfidal Aquifer at the Route 211 Area for Operable Unit # 5 of the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site in Moore
County, Aberdeen, North Carolina." As the lead Agency, EPA has worked in conjunction with the North
Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) for oversight of the remedial
activities at the Site. In accordance with Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorlzation Act, SARA 1986, EPA is publishing this Interim Action Proposed Plan to provide an
opportunity for public review and comment on cleanup options under consideration for the Site.
This Interim Action Proposed Plan includes:
- a summation of Site data collected during
the field investigations (relevant to the
SurficiaJ Aquifer at the Route 211 area); and
•> a short analysis of the remedial alternatives
considered.
Since this interim action addresses only the Surfidal
Aquifer or shallow aquifer at the Route 211 Area,
most of the information included in this report is
confined to this specific aquifer at this specific Area.
Information covering this interim action is available
in the Information Repository. Complete Remedial
Investigation /Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) reports for
Operable Unit #5 which covers groundwater for both
the Route 211 and Mclver Dump Areas will be
available before the final Record of Decision
covering the entire operable unit is prepared.
PUBLIC MEETING
DATE: July 10,1997
TIME: 7:00 pm
LOCATION: Aberdeen Fire
Station
Hwy. 1 and Peach Street
Aberdeen, NC
COMMENT PERIOD:
July 2,1997 - August 2,1997
-------
9 003,5
FIGURE i
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
5 9v 0036
SITE BACKGROUND
The Route 211 Area (Figure 1) is located
approximately 1,000 feet southwest of Route 211
East adjacent to tie Aberdeen and Rockfish
Railroad (ARRR), one mile east of Aberdeen (35
°07'02"N Latitude and 79°23'41"W Longitude). The
Area is an old sand mining depression or pit
approximately 80 feet in diameter along its short axis
and approximately B to 20 feet below the
surrounding topography. The elevation of the
perimeter of the basin is between 440 and 450 feet
above mean sea level (msl).
Materials, some of which contained pesticides, were
discovered in a waste pile on the southwest slope of
the depression.'In 1986, approximately 100 cubic '
yards of pesticides and associated soil were
removed from this'Area, and disposed at the GSX
facility in Pinewood, South Carolina. In 1989,
approximately 200 cubic yards of similar material
were discovered and subsequently removed arid
placed in the stockpile at the Mclver Dump Area.
The following pesticide compounds were detected in
various samples taken from the waste pile and
surface soils:
alpha- Benzenehexachloride (alpha BHC),
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
(4,41-DDE)
4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
(4,4'-DDD)
4,4-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroetriane
(4,4'-DDT)
heptachlor -
chlordane.
•
Contaminated soil from the Route 211 area is being
addressed as part of Operable Unit #1.
GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION:
Summary of Rl (Remedial Investigation) findings
Since this interim action is for the Surfidal Aquifer at
the Route 211 Area only, discussion of the Ri
findings in this fact sheet will be limited, to the
Surficial Aquife^at this specific area.
In September 1993, Rust E&l (an environmental
contractor) was employed by the Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) to implement a
Preliminary Groundwater Assessment at the Route
211 Area. Rl field activities were performed in
phases beginning in November 1994 and consisted
of Phases I, Ha, lib, III, IVa, IVb, IVc, V, and VI to
obtain successful data that better represents the
contaminants in the groundwater. . .
•
- During Phase I, soil test borings were drilled
at the Route 211 Area to characterize
subsurface conditions and install ground
water monitoring wells in the Surficial
Aquifer.
» Phase Ha and Phase lib, Direct Push
Technology (DPT) field screening techniques
were utilized .to obtain continuous soil
samples for lithologic characterization.
.» Phase III, a combination of Hollow Stem
Auger (HSA) and mud rotary drilling
techniques were utilized to further assess
the Surficial Aquifer.
•• Phases IVa, IVb and IVc field activities, a
combination.of DPT, HSA, mud rotary, and
Rotosonic drilling techniques were used to
characterize subsurface conditions, collect
Hydropunch groundwater samples, and
install groundwater monitoring wells. During
Phase IVa, one Hydropunch groundwater
sample was collected from the Surficial
Aquifer. During Phase IVb, HSA were used
to install a potential extraction well in the
Surficial Aquifer.
•• Phase V, Hydropunch samples were
collected in the Surficial Aquifer.
* No work was performed in the Surficial
Aquifer during Phase VI.
Groundwater samples were collected from DPT
locations and from permanent monitoring wells at
the Route 211 Area. Selected samples were
analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL)
Pesticides. Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals, TCL
VOCs (volatile organic compounds), and additional-
parameters including alkalinity, total. dissolved
solids, and hardness. In addition, several pesticides
not included in the TCL pesticide list were analyzed
including Ferbam, Sevrn. Guthion, and Parathion.
Groundwater samples were collected from field
screening locations using DPT and Hydropunch
methods, from existing monitoring wells, DPT
-------
•saiLV.v.v/j/.v/.v.v.T.'.v.'.v.v.v.v.v.v.'.v.'.v.v.
f*>... .*........ r™»4» • ««»!«,
. •....,.,»........ r*...... .-*..
,. •'Sc- ' * * • *V *j-
*W« » • <^*.l • • • •* .• • • LJ.^
Cn
VO
sssvsyr"*'-'""'
FIGURE 2
TOTAL BHC-ISOMER
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR MAP
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
ROUTE 211 AREA
CD
O
-------
wellpoints, new piezometers and new monitoring
wells.
A total of eight monitoring wells (designated RT-MW-
04 through RT-MW_-11) were installed into the
Surficial Aquifer at the Route 211 Area (Figure 2).
Monitoring wells RT-MW-04 and RT-MW-05 were
installed to assess groundwater quality directly
downgradient of the source area and adjacent to the
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad (ARRR) during
Phase I. As a result of the groundwater flow
direction, monitoring well RT-MW-06 was installed
northeast of the Area to collect background ground
water quality data.
Based upon Phase lla and lib analytical test results,
several additional monitoring wells were installed to
more fully assess the extent of the contaminant
plume. Monitoring well RT-MW-07 was installed to
monitor groundwater quality along the northwestern
perimeter, monitoring well RTMW-08 was installed to
monitor the groundwater quality in the center, and
monitoring well RTMW-09 was installed to monitor
groundwater quality along the southeastern
perimeter of the plume. Two monitoring wells were
also installed to assess the groundwater quality in
the downgradient direction; monitoring well RT-MW-
10 was installed in a downgradient direction of the
source area and monitoring well RT-MW-11 was
installed in ttie farthest downgradient direction of the
source area. HydropunchTM groundwater sample
AT-HP-01 was collected on the east side of Bull
Branch.
Based on the known location and extent of the
source area, analytical test results of downgradient
groundwater samples, and the absence of ground-
water in the Surficial Aquifer along the western
perimeter of the study area, the extent of pesticides
in the Surficial Aquifer has been defined.. A
summary of the analytical test results are presented
jn the Rl report available in the Information
Repository.
No Ferbam, Sevin, Guthibn, or Parathion was
detected in any groundwater samples collected from
the Surficial Aquifer at the Route .211 Area. TCL
pesticides which were not detected above reporting
limits in groundwater .samples from the Surficial
Aquifer were aWrin, chlordane, heptachtor epoxide,
and methoxychlor.
The most frequently detected pesticides in the
Surficial Aquifer were alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta
5 9 0033
BHC and 4,4-DDE. Concentrations of 'these
compounds decrease dpwngradient of the source
area. The highest concentration of pesticides was
detected in RT-MW-04, directly downgradient of the
source area. . Pesticide concentrations then
decreased by more than an order of magnitude in
monitoring wells located south of the ARRR.
Concentrations of these compounds decrease at
locations hydraulically downgradient of the source
area, indicating that the majority of contaminant
mass resides dose to the source area.
Wells 05-MW-01, -02, -03, and RT-MW-04 were
sampled for TCL VOCs analysis. No VOCs were
detected in any groundwater samples collected from
the Surficial Aquifer. Analytical results are presented
in the Rl report available in the Information
Repository.. • '
Some metals were detected in groundwater at the
Route 211 Area. Based on the available Site data,
EPA and NCDEHNR have decided that metals
detected in groundwater will not be considered
chemicals of concern at the Route 211 Area: Metals
concentrations are considered to be consistent with
background concentrations.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF PROPOSED INTERIM
REMEDIAL ACTION
Due to the length of time required to complete the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for
the entire Operable Unit and the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) plans, and the
possibility of further plume migration during this time,
EPA believes that It is appropriate to initiate
remedial action on the Surficial Aquifer as soon as
possible. The proposed interim remedial action
would begin groundwater cleanup while RI/FS and
post RI/FS activities for the entire operable unit are
completed. This proposed interim action would
initiate a reduction of risks to human health and the
environment posed by the pesticide contaminated
groundwater plume, but does NOT constituted the
final remedial action for Operable Unit # 5. A final
remedial action will be developed to fully address
the principle threats posed by Site conditions
following the conclusions of the RI/FS.- Upon
completion of the RI/FS, the groundwater treatment
system embodied by this interim remedial action
may by incorporated into the Operable Unit # 5 final
remedy. The final remedy for this Operable Unit # 5
will be documented in a final Record Of Decision.
-------
Bentonite _
Cement Grout
Pressure Differential
Switch
Pressure Groundwatcr
Gage
Row
IT Row Meter Throttle Check Valve Coarse Mesh FlM Mesh
Cflrbon Treatment
Lift Station
Filter
Filler
Pressure
Regulating
Valve
System
Discharge To
Infiltration Galleries
«_ Well
Screen
Sand Pack
Submersible Pump
CH
VO
FIGURE 3
EXTRACTION WELL/CARBON
ADSORPTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
SURFICIAL AQUIFER INTERIM ACTION •
ROUTE 211 AREA
O
CD
Ovl
-------
5 9 0040
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The formal Baseline Risk Assessment for the Route
211 Area has not been completed yet, but it mil be
available before the selection of the final remedy for
Operable Unit # 5. The Agency's decision to Initiate
an interim remedial action at this Area is based on
the data collected during the Site investigations. The
data indicates that the highest concentrations of
pesticide contamination are within the Surficial
Aquifer, and that this contamination is gradually
moving into the lower aquifers. This interim remedial
action would reduce further migration of pesticide
contamination to the lower aquifers.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives that EPA has evaluated for this
Interim Remedial Action are described briefly below.
Alternative 1: No Action
Cost: $6
The Agency -requires that this alternative be
evaluated at every site to serve as a basis for
comparison for any other altemative(s) considered.
Under this alternative, EPA would take no action at
the Site at this time to reduce further migration of
contaminated groundwater from the Surficial Aquifer
into the lower aquifers while the RI/FS process is
finalized. •
Alternative 2: Extraction of contaminated
groundwater from the Surficial Aquifer,
treatment by carbon adsorption and discharge to
an infiltration gallery;
Capital Cost: $274,302
Annual O&M Cost: $123,303/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 518,908
This alternative will ensure that active treatment of
contaminated groundwater in the Surficial Aquifer
would begin while the RI/FS and RD/RA standard
process continues. Under this alternative ground-
water will be pumped from the Surficial Aquifer
thereby reducing further migration of contaminants
from this aquifer into lower aquifers. Extracted
groundwater will be treated using an activated
carbon adsorption filter system. All treated
groundwater-will be "discharged to an infiltration
gallery and will be allowed to infiltrate/percolate
down through the soil back to the Surficial Aquifer.
The duration of this interim action should not exceed
two years.
Extraction System
The Surficial Aquifer is the only aquifer involved in
this interim action. Pesticide-contaminated ground-
water will be extracted from the Surficial Aquifer
using an existing well. An electric submersible
pump will be used to extract groundwater from the
well. The need for any additional extraction well(s) in
the Surficial Aquifer will be addressed in the final
Record Of Decision.
Treatment System
Activated carbon adsorption is considered to be one
of the Best Available Treatment technologies for
removing pesticides from water. A "flow diagram of
the proposed extraction well/carbon adsorption
treatment system, is provided in Figures,
In order to ensure the proper performance of the
carbon adsorption system, a number of preliminary
treatment elements are proposed. The groundwater
will be pumped through two packwashable screen
filters for removal of suspended solids/particles. The
first filter will be used to remove the larger particles,
while the second filter will provide fine paniculate
removal. Suspended solids removal will increase the
effective operating life of the carbon adsorbers, thus
reducing overall operational costs. Removal of
solids also minimizes the need for backwashing or
backflushing of the adsorbers.
All of the pesticides present in the groundwater to be
extracted can be treated using activated carbon
absorption. Routine analytical sampling of the
influent and effluent (from each canister) will be
conducted to determine when the carbon canisters
should be replaced.
Discharge
Treated water will be discharged to an Infiltration
gallery. Discharge requirements will be documented
in an infiltration gallery permit
Based on the groundwater modeling, all treated
water can be distributed through the galleries and
allowed to infiltrate down through the soils to the
Surficial Aquifer. The infiltration system would be
located upgradient of the extraction system to form
a "closed-loop" system, as required by the State of
North Carolina.
-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The proposed interim remedial action for the Route
211 Area is presented as Alternative 2 and involves
the extraction of pesticides-contaminated ground-
water from the Surflcial Aquifer for treatment by an
activated carbon adsorption system and discharge
to an infiltration gallery. This section profiles the
Preferred Alternative against the nine criteria which
EPA uses to compare all proposed alternatives,
noting how it compares to the "No- Action"
alternative for each evaluation criteria.
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment: EPA assesses the degree to
which each alternative eliminates, reduces, or
controls threats to public health and. the
environment through treatment, engineering
methods; or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs: The
alternatives are evaluated for compliance with
all applicable state and federal environmental
and public health laws and requirements that
apply or are relevant and appropriate to the Site
conditions.
3. Short-term effectiveness: The length of time
needed, to implement each alternative is
considered, and EPA assesses the risks that
may be posed to workers and nearby residents
during construction and implementation.
4. Long-term effectiveness: the alternatives are
evaluated based on their ability to maintain
reliable protection of public health and the
environment overtime once the cleanup levels
have been met
5. Reduction of contaminant toxlcity, mobilityr and
yojume: EPA evaluates each alternative based
on how it reduces (1) the harmful nature of the
contaminants, (2) their ability to move through
the environment, and (3) the volume or amount
of contamination at the Site.
6. Implementability: EPA considers the technical
feasibility (e.g., how difficult the alternative is to
construct and operate) and administrative ease
(e.g., the' amount of coordination with other
government agencies that is needed) of a
remedy, including the availability of necessary
materials and services.
5^ 9 0041
7. Cost: The benefits of implementing a particular remedial
•= alternative are weighed against the cost of
Implementation. Costs include the capital (up-front) cost
of implementing an alternative over the long term, and the
net present worth of both capital and operation and
maintenance costs.
8. State Acceptance: EPA requests state comments on the
Remedial Investigation Report, Risk Assessment,
Feasibility Study Report, and Proposed Plan, and must
take into consideration whether the State concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
9. Community Acceptance: To ensure that the piibfin has an
adequate opportunity to provide input, EPA holds a public
comment period and public meeting and considers and
responds to all oral and written comments received from
the community prior to the final selection of a remedial
action. .
ANALYSIS -
Overall Protection
The "No Action* alternative is not protective of
human hearth and the environment because .it would
not address the continued migration of contaminants
from the Surflcial Aquifer into lower aquifers. Thus,
the "No-Action" alternative would neither arrest the
continued groundwater migration from the highly
contaminated aquifer into the lower aquifers nor
initiate the reduction of Site contaminants and the
potential risk of further migration on any part of the
plume.
The groundwater extraction and carbon treatment
of contaminated groundwater from the Surficial
Aquifer presented as Alternative 2, initiates
restoration of the Surficial Aquifer. Because the
highest concentrations of pesticide contamination
were detected in this aquifer, extraction and
treatment of groundwater from this aquifer will mark
the starting point toward overall protection of
human health and the environment. At the same
time, by extracting this mass of pesticides, further
impact to the lower aquifers would be minimized.
Compliance with ARARs
The Superfund law requires that the remedial action
for a site, meets all ARARs unless a waiver is
invoked. One of the circumstances under which a
waiver may be invoked is if the remedial action is an
interim measure where the final remedy will attain
the ARAR upon completion. The Federal and State
Groundwater Standards will be waived for the
-------
groundwater extraction component of this interim
action: This waiver is allowed because contaminated
groundwater will be extracted until the final remedy
for the entire Operable Unit # 5 is selected and
•takes over the interim action, and not until the
cleanup levels are met (The duration of this interim
action should not exceed two years). Meeting the
Federal and State Groundwater Standards will be
the objective of the final remedy.
The scope of this proposed interim remedial action
is to start cleaning up contaminated groundwater in
the Surficial Aquifer while RI/FS and post RI/FS
activities for the entire operable unit are completed.
The final groundwater cleanup levels are not
addressed in this interim remedial action because
such goals are beyond the scope of this interim
action. The final cleanup levels will be addressed by
the final remedial action for Operable Unit # 5.
The carbon adsorption system will treat the
extracted groundwater to meet the State permit
requirements prior to be discharged into an
infiltration gallery. A permit must be obtained for the
use of an infiltration gallery. The infiltration system
must be modeled to show that the proposed
extraction and treatment system would be a "close-
loop* system.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants through Treatment '
The groundwater extraction well/carbon adsorption
filter system will reduce the. toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the Surficial Aquifer, by
extracting pesticide contamination water for
treatment by the carbon adsorption system. The
activated carbon is considered to be the Best
Available Treatment technology for removing
pesticides from water.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The interim remedlaLaction proposed is effective in
the short-term because it reduces further ground-
water migration from the Surfidal Aquifer into lower
aquifers while initiating reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contamination until the final
action is selected. *
There should be NO adverse effects to human
health or the, environment from the installation or
operation of this interim action.
The duration of this interim action should not exceed
two years. At the conclusion of the RI/FS activities,
5 9 0042
the Agency will propose the final remedial action for
the groundwater at the Route 211 Area. If this
interim action becomes a component of the final
remedy for Operable Unit # 5, continuing operation
is expected until the final cleanup levels are
achieved. As previously mentioned, the final
.groundwater cleanup levels, are not addressed in
this interim remedy because such goals are beyond
the scope of this action. The final cleanup levels
will be addressed by the final remedial action Record
Of Decision for Operable Unit # 5.
Implementablllty
The required construction technology for
implementation of Alternative 2 is proven, and the
necessary materials/services are readily available.
The administrative requirements for implementation
are manageable.
Cost
The Capital costs for Alternative 2 are estimated to
be $274,302. The Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) costs for Alternative 2 are estimated to be
$123,303 per year. The duration of this interim
action is expected not to exceed two years. The
total present worth cost for Alternative 2 is estimated
to be $518,908.
State Acceptance
The NCDEHNR has participated during the
development of all the remedial processes for this
Site and concurs with EPA's Proposed Interim
Remedial Action.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the Interim Remedial
. Action will be evaluated after the public comment
period and will be described in the Interim Action
Record of Decision (ROD).
The public is asked to comment on this proposed
Interim action during the public comment period
which extends from July 2,1997 through August 2,
1997. Questions and answers will be recorded to
assist in the preparation of a report called
"Responsiveness Summary8, that will summarize
citizen comments and EPA responses.
*
After the public comment period and the public
meeting, EPA will review and consider all comments
received from the community as part of the process
of reaching the decision of the most appropriate
remedial alternative for this interim action. EPA's
final choice of a remedy for the interim action will be
-------
5 9 .0043
documented in the Interim Action ROD, which will
include the Responsiveness Summary.
After the Interim Action ROD is signed by the EPA
Waste Management Division Director, EPA will
negotiate with the PRPs to design and implement
the selected cleanup. At the end of the negotiation
period, EPA will oversee the development of
engineering design plans for the implementation of
the selected remedial alternative.
Public Participation/Community Relations
As already stated in this fact sheet, EPA is
conducting a 30-day public comment period
beginning on July 2 and extending until midnight
August 2, 1997 to receive written comments from
citizens concerning this proposed interim remedial
action. There will also be a public meeting on July
10th at the Aberdeen Fire Station to receive oral
comments. If requested by an irxfrvidua!, a 30-day
extension can be added to the comment period. If
you prefer to submit written comments, please mail
them postmarked nc later than midnight August 2 to:
Ms. Diane Barrett
•Community Relations Coordinator
Worth Site Management Branch
U.S.E.PJL, Region 4
61 Forsyttv Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3014
The Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site awarded an
EPA Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) to the
MboreFORCE. Inc. organization several years ago.
They are very active in reviewing documents and
providing comments to the Agency for this Site. H
you are interested in joining this group of concerned
citizens, please contact them at (704)692-7141.
The Aberdeen Community Liaison Panel meets the
third Thursday of each month to discuss on-going
activities occurring at the entire Site. The members
of the panel consist of area citizens, businessmen,
City/County/State and Federal government officials
and representatives of the Potentially Responsible
Parties. Citizens are invited .to attend .- The
meetings begin at 5:30 PM at the Aberdeen Fire
Station.
THE NEXTSTEP: ONCE THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
(RI/FS) FOR THE ENTIRE OPERABLE UNIT
«5 IS COMPLETED
At completion of the RI/FS, EPA will develop another
proposed plan which will describe the final remedial
alternative for both the Route 211 and Mclver Dump
Areas. A copy of the proposed plan, which will
include a brief description of the RI/FS results, will
be mailed to interested parties and all persons who
have requested to be included on EPA's mailing list
for the Site. EPA wiD conduct another 30-day public
comment period on the F£ report and the proposed
plan to provide an opportunity for public involvement
In the final cleanup decision:
EPA will also conduct another public meeting to
discuss the RI/FS and the proposed plan, and to
address community questions and concerns.
Questions and answers willbe recorded !D assist in
the preparation of a" Responsiveness Summary*.
After the public comment period and the public
meeting, EPA will review and consider all comments
received from the community as part of the process
of reaching the final decision of the most appropriate
remedial alternative, or combination of alternatives
to address the groundwater contamination at the
Route 211 and Mclver Dump Areas. EPA's final
choice of a remedy will be documented in the final
ROD. which will include the Responsiveness
Summary.
After the final ROD is.signed by the EPA Waste
Management Division Director, EPA will negotiate
with the PRPs to design and implement the selected
cleanup. At the end of the negotiation period, EPA
win oversee the development of engineering design
plans 'for the implementation of the selected
remedial alternative.
Information Repository Location
The Administrative Record and Information
Repository files are available for public reading and
are housed in the:
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, N.C.
The repository contains copies of the reports
developed during the Superfund process as well as
general information about the Site and the
Superfund Program.
-------
V
Need More Information? Contact:
If you need more information about this Interim
Proposed Plan for Operable Unit #5 at the Route
211 Area, please contact: . .
.. ''.^'•'
Luis E. Rores, EPA Remedial Project Manager
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord.
North Site Management Branch
U.S.E.PA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3014
Phone: 1-800-435-9233
5 9 0044
-------
59 0045
MAILING LIST
•
Since you have received this fact sheet in the mail your name is on the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site
mailing list If you know of other people in the community that would like to be added to this fist, please have.
them complete this tern and return to Diane Barrett at the EPA address given earfier. If you want to correct
your address or wish to have you name removed from this Site's mailing list, please indicate this choice below
and return to Diane Barrett Thank you for your cooperation.
NAME.
ADDRESS.
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE.
ADDITION CORRECTION DELETION
US. Environmental Protection Agency • North Site Management Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3014 Luis Hores, Remedial Project Manager
Official Business
Penalty (or 3rivate Use $300t
-------
5 9 0046
ATTACHMENT B
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET
-------
SIGN-IN FOR PUBLIC MEETING
: "" " " " 5 9 0047
INTERIM ACTION PROPOSED PLAN
OPERABLE UNIT #5- Groundwater at Route 211
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS SUPERFUND SITE
Aberdeen, N.C.
July 1C, 1997
(NOTICE: Due to the Freedom of Information Act regulations once your name and
address are provided they becon:3 public information.)
NAME
o
ADDRESS
PHONE*
/)
-------
5 9 0048
ATTACHMENT C
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
-------
5 9 0049
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND INFORMATION
REPOSITORY
FILES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC READING AT:
ABERDEEN TOWN HALL
115 NORTH POPLAR STREET
ABERDEEN, NC
AND
EPA REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GA
-------
5 9 0050
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC MEETING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
-------
0051
PUBLIC MEETING
ON
INTERIM ACTION PROPOSED PLAN
FOR GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT #5 AT
ROUTE 211 AREA
JULY 10, 1997
ABERDEEN FIRE STATION
HIGHWAY 1 AND PEACH STREET
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
TAKEN BY:
WANDA B. LINDLEY, CVR/NCCR
NOTARY PUBLIC
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0052
2
. 1 DIANE BARRETT: WELCOME TO TONIGHT'S MEETING.
2 WE THANK YOU FOR COMING AND FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT OF YOUR
3 DAILY BUSY SCHEDULES. I'M DIANE - BARRETT, PUBLIC RELATIONS
4 COORDINATOR FOR E.P.A. FOR SITES IN NORTH CAROLINA.
5 NOW, WITH ME TONIGHT IS MR. LUIS FLORES.
6 WOULD YOU STAND, PLEASE, LUIS? HE IS THE PROJECT MANAGER
7 FOR OPERABLE UNIT 5, THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.
8 , MR. BILL OSTEEN, HE IS A GROUNDWATER
9 SPECIALIST; HYDROGEOLOGIST, RIGHT?
10 BILL OSTEEN: RIGHT.
11 DIANE BARRETT: OKAY. AND MR. CHUCK MIKALIAN.
12 HE IS OUR ATTORNEY FOR THE SITE. AND, ALSO, LET'S SEE HERE.
13 WE'VE GOT MR. JIM CALDWELL, THE TOWN MANAGER HERE; AND MR.
14 JACK BUTLER AND MR. GROVER NICHOLSON FROM THE STATE OF NORTH
15 CAROLINA; AND WE'VE GOT HAROLD MOATS AND GARLAN WIGGINS FROM
16 THE COMPANIES ~ THE POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES.
17 LET'S SEE HERE. AND OTHER DISTINGUISHED PEOPLE. WELL,
18 EVERYBODY'S DISTINGUISHED. WE WELCOME YOU ALL.
19 AS I SAID, THE PURPOSE IS TO DISCUSS AND TO
•
20 PROPOSE TO THE PUBLIC AN INTERIM ACTION FOR GROUNDWATER
21 TREATMENT AT OPERABLE UNIT 5 AT THE ROUTE 211 SITE, AND ONLY
22 THE GROUNDWATER AT OPERABLE — AT 211.
23 TONIGHT IS A PROPOSED PLAN. ALTHOUGH IT'S AN
24 INTERIM PROPOSED PLAN MEETING, WE HAVE A COURT REPORTER.
25 SHE WILL BE TAKING A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING. AND AFTER
WORDSERVXCE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0053
3
WE FINISH OUR PRESENTATIONS, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENT OR
STATEMENTS, IF YOU'D PLEASE STAND AND GIVE YOUR NAMES SO
THAT SHE CAN HEAR YOU AND GET IT. RIGHT; AND IF NOT, SHE'LL
JUST RAISE HER HAND AND ASK YOU TO REPEAT YOUR NAME. THANK
YOU FOR THAT.
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SIGNS IN, AND GET
LITERATURE. AS YOU CAN TELL, I WAS EXPECTING A CROWD. I'VE
GOT A STACK OF LITERATURE BACK THERE AND IT'S NOT EVEN GONE.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. THESE SITES THAT ARE AROUND FOR A
WHILE, IT'S KIND OF — INTEREST KIND OF DWINDLES, I GATHER.
SINCE ALL OF YOU ARE EXPERTS IN THE PROCESS, I
WILL NOT GO THROUGH THAT FOR YOU TODAY. AND YOU KNOW WHERE
THE REPOSITORY IS IN THE TOWN HALL.
TONIGHT I DID BRING SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENT THAT APPLIED TO OUR MEETING. IT IS THE
GROUNDWATER BROCHURE, AND IT GIVES MORE SIMPLISTIC
INFORMATION ABOUT GROUNDWATER AND TREATMENT AND SO FORTH.
IF YOU NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR SCHOOL
KIDS, ALSO — I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE NOTICED; I'VE GOT
LITTLE DIAGRAMS ON THE WALLS HERE AND THESE ARE VERY GOOD
FOR SCHOOL KIDS. ON THE BACK OF THEM THERE'S ALL KINDS OF
ACTIVITIES FOR THE TEACHERS — THE SCHOOL TEACHERS TO
IMPLEMENT AND USE AT SCHOOL. SO IF ANY OF YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN THAT, LET ME KNOW AND I'LL GET YOU SOME
COPIES.
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0054.
4
1 LET'S SEE HERE. THIS IS QUICK. THANK YOU FOR
2 YOUR ATTENTION. I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO LUIS.
3 LUIS FLORESI WELL, THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR
4 COMING HERE TO THIS MEETING. AS DIANE MENTIONED, WE ARE
5 GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT INTERIM ACTION FOR THE OPERABLE
6 UNIT 5 AT THE ROUTE 211 AREA FOR THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER.
7 THE MAP THAT WE HAVE HERE BASICALLY JUST SHOWS
8 WHERE ALL THE AREA — THESE SITE AREAS ARE. AS YOU CAN SEE
9 HERE, IT'S THE 211 AREA WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE FOCUS OF
10 THIS INTERIM ACTION.
11 WELL, I THOUGHT THIS TRANSPARENCY WAS GOING TO
12 SHOW BETTER. BUT IT'S IN HERE.
/
13 IT'S BASICALLY A FLOW CHART THAT SHOWS WHERE
14 THE O.U.'S OF THE ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMP SITE IS. O.U. 1
15 AND 4 IS SOILS. WE ADDRESSED SOILS AT THE TWIN SITES, THE
16 FAIRWAY SIX, THE FARM CHEMICAL, THE MCIVER DUMP, AND THE
17 ROUTE 211.
18 THE O.P. — THE O.U. 2 WAS RENAMED AND IT'S
19 NOW O.U. 4 AND IT'S PART — IT ADDRESSES SOIL.
20 O.U. 3 IS GROUNDWATER. THE R.P.R. [SIC] FOR
21 THAT IS JON BORNHOLM. AND O.U. 3 ADDRESSES THE TWIN — THE
22 GROUNDWATER AT TWIN SITES, THE FAIRWAY SIX, AND THE FARM
23 CHEMICAL.
24 O.U. 5 WHICH IS GROUNDWATER — AND IT'S THE
25 OPERABLE UNIT THAT I MANAGE — ADDRESSES THE MCIVER DUMP AND
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0055
THE ROUTE 211 AREA.
THE ROUTE 211 AREA, WE BASICALLY HAVE THREE
DIFFERENT AQUIFERS: THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER WHICH IS THE
FOCUS OF THIS INTERIM ACTION; THE UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER
WHICH IS DIVIDED BY TWO OTHER — WE CAN CALL IT SUB-
AQUIFERS; AND THEN THE LOWER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER.
THIS IS JUST A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE
AQUIFERS AT THE ROUTE 211 AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE SURFICIAL
IS THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE GROUND, THEN WE HAVE THE UPPER
PORTION OF THE UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER AND THE LOWER
PORTION OF THE UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER. AND THEN WE HAVE
THE LOWER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER.
HERE IN THIS FIGURE, THEY'RE SHOWN WITH —
WITH SOME DIVIDING CLAY UNITS BETWEEN THEM. OF COURSE, WE
KNOW THAT ALL THOSE AQUIFERS ARE SOME WAY OR ANOTHER
INTERCONNECTED ~ INTERCONNECTED.
AS I SAID, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING
ABOUT INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE ROUTE 211 AREA FOR THE
SURFICIAL AQUIFER. WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION. WE'RE GOING TO
MENTION A SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND E.P.A.'S
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS INTERIM ACTION IS TO
INSTIGATE — INITIATE REMEDIAL ACTION ON THE SURFICIAL
AQUIFER AT THE ROUTE 211 AREA WHILE THE REMEDIAL
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0056
6
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY, R.I./F.S., FOR THE ENTIRE
OPERABLE UNIT 5 IS COMPLETED.
WHILE WE KNOW THAT SURFICIAL AQUIFER IS THE
AQUIFER WITH THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION, SO THAT'S BASICALLY
WHAT WE ARE INITIATING THIS INTERIM ACTION. WE ARE NOT
AFTER — WE FOUND — FOUND THAT OUT AFTER WE DID THE
INVESTIGATION.
AS PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION, GROUNDWATER
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED USING THREE DIFFERENT METHODS: WE
INSTALLED SOME MONITORING WELLS; WE ALSO DID SOME SCREENING
USING DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY, OR D.P.T., AND WE COLLECTED
SOME SAMPLES WITH THAT; AND USING HYDROPUNCH.
THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION SHOWED THAT
THE MOST FREQUENTLY DETECTED — DETECTED PESTICIDES WERE THE
— ALL THE B.H.C.'S: ALPHA, BETA, DELTA, AND GAMMA — AND
GAMMA BEING ALSO KNOWN AS LINDANE ~ AND 4,4' D.D.E.
THERE WERE OTHER PESTICIDES THAT WERE DETECTED
IN THAT SURFICIAL AQUIFER, BUT IN A LOT LESS CONCENTRATIONS
AND FREQUENCY. WE ALSO DETECTED METALS, BUT WE — ALL THOSE
METALS ARE IN BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS. WE ALSO SAMPLED —
WE ALSO SAMPLED FOR VOLATILES AND THEY WERE NOT DETECTED.
AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, THE HIGHEST
CONCENTRATIONS OF PESTICIDES WERE THE MONITORING WELL NUMBER
4, RT-MW-04, WHICH IS A DIRECT DOWNGRADIENT OF THE SOURCE
AREA. AND — AND PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS DROPPED
WORD8ERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0057 ,
7
CONSIDERABLY AT LOCATIONS FURTHER DOWNGRADIENT OF THAT
MONITORING WELL 04.
ON THIS MAP WE CAN SEE MONITORING WELL NUMBER
4 PROBABLY HERE WHERE THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF A TOTAL
B.H.C. ISOMERS IS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS HUNDRED
P.P.B. IN THAT AREA. AND AS WE MOVE DOWNGRADIENT, THE
CONCENTRATION DROPS — DROPPED TO TEN AND ONE POINT ONE. SO
THE SOURCE AREA IS RIGHT HERE.
SO, AS I SAID, THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS IN
MOST OF THE CONTAMINATION IS CLOSE TO THE SOURCE AREA, AND
THAT'S THE MUNICIPAL WELL — MONITORING WELL 4.
SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT, OR THE
ALTERNATIVE THAT WE HAVE TO ~ THAT WE HAVE RELATED, ARE
BASICALLY THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE OR WE HAVE — THAT WE
ALWAYS HAVE TO EVALUATION AND BASICALLY DON'T DO ANYTHING AT
THIS POINT; OR THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THE
EXTRACTION OF THE CONTAMINATED — OF CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER, TREATMENT BY CARBON
ADSORPTION, AND DISCHARGE TO AN INFILTRATION GALLERY.
IN — THIS FIGURE I'M SHOWING IS A DRAWING OF
HOW THE-— THIS ALTERNATIVE WILL WORK. BASICALLY, THE
GROUNDWATER WILL BE EXTRACTED BY A PUMP WELL. IT WILL GO UP
TO THE UNIT HERE. WE WILL HAVE A PREFILTER THAT WILL TAKE
OUT THE PARTICLES AND THEN WILL GO THROUGH THE CARBON
TREATMENT.
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751 N
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0058
8
THERE IS A SAMPLE PORT AT THE END OF THAT
CARBON UNIT AND THAT — THAT WILL BE TO VERIFY IF THE
PESTICIDES OR THE CONTAMINATION HAVE BEEN REMOVED PRIOR TO
DISCHARGE BACK INTO GROUND TO THE INFILTRATION GALLERIES.
THIS SLIDE BASICALLY SHOWS SOME OF THE BENEFIT
OF DOING THIS PROPOSED INTERIM ACTION. IT WILL — BASICALLY
WILL BEGIN — BEGIN EXTRACTION OF THE HIGHLY CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER WHILE THE R.I./F.S. PROCESS FOR THE ENTIRE
OPERABLE UNIT IS COMPLETED; AND IT WILL REDUCE THE MIGRATION
OF THOSE CONTAMINANTS INTO LOWER AQUIFERS.
AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, EXTRACTING THE
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER, TREAT IT WITH
CARBON, AND DISCHARGE IT TO AN INFILTRATION GALLERY, THE
ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH COST OF THAT IS FIVE HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED EIGHT DOLLARS ($518,908.00).
THAT INCLUDES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR TWO YEARS.
JUST TO MENTION THE STATUS OF THE ENTIRE
OPERABLE UNIT 5. WE FINALIZED THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT. WE STILL NEED TO — WE STILL NEED TO FINALIZE THE
BASELINE — BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT. WE STILL NEED TO
FINALIZE THE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT.
AFTER THAT WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSED PLAN
FACT SHEET, AND ANOTHER MEETING LIKE THIS TO PROPOSE THAT
FINAL ACTION FOR THE ENTIRE OPERABLE UNIT, AND THEN AFTER
THAT WE WILL HAVE THE FINAL RECORD OF DECISION, OR ROD, THAT
WORDSERVICE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0059
WILL COVER THE ENTIRE OPERABLE UNIT 5; MEANING THE MCIVER
DUMP AREA, THE ROUTE 211 AREA WITH ALL THE AQUIFERS.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT. IF THERE ARE
ANY QUESTIONS, WE WILL BE MORE THAN GLAD TO TAKE THEM. YES?
CLAUDIA MADLEY: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE
CONCENTRATIONS WERE FOR THE VARIOUS B.H.C. ISOMERS AND FOR
D.D.E. AND WHAT THE ASSOCIATED M.C.L. LEVELS OF THOSE
VARIOUS CHEMICALS?
LUIS FLORE8: WELL, LET ME MENTION THAT THE
ONLY M.C.L. THAT WE — THAT WE HAVE WERE B.H.C.'S FOR GAMMA
WHICH IS LINDANE, AND IT'S POINT TWO PART PER BILLION. AND
THAT B.H.C. WAS NOT EXCEEDED IN THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IN ANY
OF THE SAMPLES.
WE HAVE — ONE HAD ON THIS MONITORING WELL
NUMBER 4 OF TOXAPHENE, AND REALLY HIGH CONCENTRATION, I
WOULD SAY, IN LIKE '84 OR '85, P.P.B. BUT THAT'S — WE SAW
IT AS A KIND OF
WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE THAT TOXAPHENE IS REALLY
IN THERE 'CAUSE THAT WELL WAS SAMPLED BEFORE THAT, AND
DETECTION OF TOXAPHENE WAS NOT DETECTED. THEN WE WENT BACK
AND RESAMPLED AFTER THIS '80— IN '84 THAT WE GOT, AND AGAIN
IT WAS NOT DETECTED. WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE DATA THAT IS
PRODUCED FROM THE SAMPLES AND WE FOUND THAT THERE ARE THINGS
THAT ARE NOT
IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT IT'S REALLY
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0060 .
10
1 TOXAPHENE, SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE IF
2 TOXAPHENE IS THERE OR NOT.
3 CLAUDIA MADLEY: WHAT ABOUT —
4 LUIB FLORES: (INTERPOSING) IT WAS NOT
5 DETECTED — I'M SORRY. IT WAS NOT DETECTED IN ANY OTHER —
6 IN ANY OTHER WELL OR IN THE WHOLE — IN THE WHOLE SITE.
7 CLAUDIA MADLEY: HOW ABOUT D.D.E.?
8 LUIS FLORES: THE CONCENTRATION OF D.D.E.'S
9 WERE — WERE REALLY LOW. I PROBABLY
10 BILL OS TEEN: I'LL DIG THAT UP FOR YOU, LUIS.
11 (PERUSING DOCUMENTS.)
12 LUIS FLORES: I THOUGHT I HAD A TRANSPARENCY
13 WITH — WITH THE CONCENTRATIONS.
14 BILL O8TEEN: D.D.E. OKAY. THIS ISN'T RIGHT.
15 THEY WERE ALL LESS THAN — I'M TRYING TO FIND THE HIGHEST
16 OUT OF THAT — OUT OF THAT BUNCH. WELL, HERE'S ONE AT POINT
17 ZERO ZERO FOUR SIX PARTS PER BILLION.
18 CLAUDIA MADLEY: WHY ARE YOU GOING TO CLEAN
19 THE GROUNDWATER THEN?
20 LUIS FLORES: I'M SORRY?
21 CLAUDIA MADLEY: WHY ARE YOU GOING TO CLEAN
22 THE WATER IF IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT
23 LEVEL?
24 LUIS FLORES: WELL, THE --WITH THE
25 CONTAMINANTS THAT — THAT HAS — THAT HAVE PROMULGATED
WORD8ERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0061
11
M.C.L. OR SPECIFIC STANDARD/ WE DON'T EXCEED ANY OF THOSE.
WHEN WE DID PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS FOR THE RISK
ASSESSMENT, WE CALCULATED THE RISK OF DRINKING THAT WATER
FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME. THEY EXCEED THAT NUMBER.
WE ARE — WE DON'T HAVE — WE ARE NOT — OR I
AM NOT PRESENTING WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
WE HAVE NOT FINALIZED THE RISK ASSESSMENT. ALL THAT IS
GOING TO BE PRESENTED IN THE ~ WHEN WE DO THE FINAL ACTION
FOR THIS OPERABLE UNIT.
AND AT THIS POINT AT THIS INTERIM ACTION, WHAT
WE WANT TO DO IS JUST START PUMPING THAT. WE KNOW THAT
THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS IN THE WHOLE — IN THE
WHOLE SITE. WE JUST WANT TO START PUMPING THAT NOW INSTEAD
OF WHEN WE HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS FINISHED; AND SO THAT WE CAN
MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT.
WHEN WE HAVE THE FINAL — WHEN WE PRESENT THE
FINAL REMEDY FOR THE WHOLE O.U. 5, WE WILL HAVE THOSE
CLEANUP NUMBERS AND WE WILL HAVE THE GROSS NUMBERS. THE
INTENT OF THIS ACTION IS NOT TO — WE DON'T THINK THAT WE
ARE GOING TO CLEAN UP THE AQUIFERS IN TWO YEARS. WE BELIEVE
THAT WE ARE GOING TO ROLL UP TO — ROLL OVER TO THE FINAL
REMEDY AND — AND THAT WAY WE WILL CLEAN UP THE AQUIFER.
QUESTIONS.
DIANE BARRETT: COME ON, ASK SOME MORE
DR. ROBERT MOABS: THE (INAUDIBLE) AT THE
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0062
12
1 LAKE. (INAUDIBLE) TOXAPHENE, B.E.K. AND B.H.C. WERE NOT
2 (INAUDIBLE). HE WAS ABLE TO GET SOME IN THE OTHER END OF
3 THE LAKE; NOT THAT END OF THE LAKE.
4 (DIANE BARRETT CONFERRING WITH COURT REPORTER
5 DURING DR. MOABS' STATEMENT.)
6 (SPEAKER UNKNOWN): THAT'S — THAT'S THE SAME,
7 ROUTE 211.
8 DAVID WARNERt IS THIS THE TIME?
9 DIANE BARRETT: YES. I HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH
10 THE COURT REPORTER HERE. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FORGETTING TO
11 GIVE THEIR NAMES, SO IF YOU'LL PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME, DAVID.
12
13 CLAUDIA MADLEY: THE SECOND GENTLEMAN WAS
14 DOCTOR ROBERT MOABS.
15 COURT REPORTER: THANK YOU.
16 DAVID WARNER: I'M DAVID WARNER. I'M A
17 CONSULTANT FOR MOOREFORCE, MOORE HELPING SYSTEMS FOR A CLEAN
18 ENVIRONMENT — YEAH, MOORE FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT,
19 SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
20 WE'VE GOT A FEW STATEMENTS TO MAKE IN
21 REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED INTERIM ACTION OF THE E.P.A. AND
22 I'M GOING TO PUT MY GLASSES ON.
23 I GUESS, FIRST OF ALL, WE BASICALLY HAVE THREE
24 COMMENTS. THE FIRST COMMENT IS, FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT TO —
25 ON BEHALF OF MOOREFORCE, WE STRONGLY ENDORSE E.P.A.'S
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0063
13
INTENTIONS TO BEGIN INTERIM ACTION AT THE ROUTE 211 AREA
SITE, AND MOOREFORCE ENCOURAGES THE AGENCY TO EXPEDITE
NEGOTIATIONS AND BEGIN ACTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WITH THAT, HOWEVER, WE FEEL THE SCOPE OF THE
PROPOSED INTERIM ACTION IS TOO LIMITED. TOO LIMITED FOR
INTERIM ACTION TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NOT DO A
BIT MORE TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES THAT WERE PUT UP ON THE
SCREEN A MOMENT AGO.
THE — ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE —
AND WE'LL SUBMIT OUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN WRITING, BY
THE WAY, AS WELL AS MY COMMENTS HERE TONIGHT.
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION HAS REVEALED THAT
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER HAS BEEN DETECTED NOT ONLY IN THE
SURFICIAL AQUIFER, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S
MEETING, BUT ALSO IN THE UPPER AND LOWER SECTIONS OF THE
UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER AND THE LOWER AQUIFER — THE LOWER
BLACK CREEK AQUIFER, AS WELL.
AND WE JUST RAISE THE QUESTION THAT THIS
ACTION, WHICH IS DIRECTED AT JUST THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER, BE
JUSTIFIED THAT JUST THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER BE ADDRESSED, WHEN
WE KNOW THERE ARE HYDRAULIC LINKAGES BETWEEN THEM ALL — THE
THREE AQUIFERS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, AND THE
CONTAMINATION HAS INDEED MIGRATED THROUGH THOSE AQUIFERS.
WE JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT QUESTION ADDRESSED — OR A
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0064
14
RESPONSE ADDRESSED, WHY JUST THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER FOR THIS
INTERIM ACTION.
IN ADDITION, AND CARRYING ON FROM THAT SAME
COMMENT, IF — IF THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IS TO BE THE SUBJECT
OF THE INITIAL INTERIM ACTION, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE —
ONE WELL WILL BE CONVERTED FROM A MONITORING WELL TO AN
EXTRACTION WELL, IS THAT IN — WELL, WHAT WELL IS ~
LUIS FLORE8: (INTERPOSING) THERE IS A WELL
THAT'S USED FOR THE PUMP TEST.
DAVID WARNER: OKAY. THE PUMP TEST WELL THAT
HAS BEEN ASSIGNED WILL BE CONVERTED TO AN EXTRACTION WELL,
AND THEN A CARBON FILTRATION SYSTEM WOULD BE DESIGNED AND
:
PUT ON LINE WITH THAT WELL TO TREAT THAT — THE HOT SPOT
AREA IN THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
OUR POINT IN LOOKING AT THAT — AND, AGAIN, WE
THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA AND IT'S GOOD TO GO AHEAD
QUICKER, BUT IF E.P.A. IS GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT
INTERIM ACTION, WHY NOT TAKE IT THEN ~ AND YOU'RE GOING TO
DESIGN A SMALLER SCALE TREATMENT PROCESS ANYHOW TO HOOK INTO
THAT EXTRACTION WELL — WHY NOT TAKE A BIGGER CHUNK OF
WHAT'S IN THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER?
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION HAS INDICATED THAT,
AGAIN, THEY KNOW PRETTY MUCH, ACCORDING TO THE DATA, WHERE
THE PROBABLE HYDRAULIC LINKAGES ARE BETWEEN THE AQUIFERS;
THEREFORE, WE HAVE AN IDEA ~ THE SCIENTISTS HAVE AN IDEA OF
WORDSERVICE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0065
15
WHERE THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IS LINKED TO THE NEXT — TO THE
UPPER — UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER. SO WE KIND OF KNOW
WHERE THAT IS. WE KNOW WHERE THE HOT SPOTS ARE.
WE PRESUME THAT WELL WILL BE RIGHT IN THE
MIDDLE OF ONE OF THE HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN THE
SURFICIAL AQUIFER. OUR STATEMENT IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO
THAT FAR WITH THE FRONT END COST OF DOING THAT WITH ONE
WELL, WHY NOT TAKE A BIGGER CHUNK OF THAT CONTAMINATED HOT
SPOT IN THE SURFJCIAL AQUIFER WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT?
THAT'S NOT SAYING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH
THE FINAL. THE ENTIRE PERIPHERY WILL BE ADDRESSED IN SOME
WAY. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING WITH ONE WELL, OUR QUESTION IS WHY
NOT GO DOWN WITH TWO OR THREE TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AGAIN, THE OBJECTIVE OF KEEPING THE CONTAMINANT FROM
MIGRATING; THIS WOULD ADDRESS THAT EVEN BETTER THAN ONE WELL
WOULD.
YOU HAVE ~ AND COST-WISE, OVER THE LONG RUN,
IF WE COULD KEEP CONTAMINANTS IN THE AQUIFER — IN THE
SURFICIAL AQUIFER FROM MIGRATING DOWN TO THE LOWER ONES, IT
COULD POSSIBLY BE MUCH REDUCED FROM TRYING TO TREAT HIGHER
VOLUMES OF WATER LESS THOSE CONTAMINANTS IN THE GROUNDWATER
LATER IN THE LOWER AQUIFERS.
SO PERHAPS AN ADDITIONAL WELL PLACEMENT NEAR
THE AREA WHERE THAT HYDRAULIC CONNECTION HAS BEEN NOTED TO
BE MIGHT BE PRUDENT AS WELL AS JUST PERHAPS EVEN ANOTHER
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0066
16
WELL YET JUST TO BUILD SOME CAPACITY, A LITTLE MORE CAPACITY
INTO WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE — A LOT OF FUTURE
VALUE PUT IN TO — IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THIS FAR WITH AN
EXTRACTION AND A TREATMENT, WHY NOT DO A LITTLE MORE, GET —
GET — GET A BIGGER PART OF THE BULK, GET A BIGGER PART OF
THAT SURFICIAL CONTAMINANT PLUME AND HEAD OFF PROBLEMS THAT
WILL HAPPEN LATER ON SHOULD THESE CONTAMINANTS MIGRATE.
2.
AND SO THAT WAS PART B OF OUR CONCERN, NUMBER
AND THEN JUST SOME OTHER REASONS FOR THIS,
JUST TO BACK IT UP A LITTLE BIT. THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
HAD CALCULATED THE FLOW OF GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT HORIZONTALLY
AND VERTICALLY. AND IN A SURFICIAL AQUIFER, THE WATER IS
MOVING VERY RAPIDLY AT SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE FEET, I
BELIEVE, A YEAR, WAS NOTED ITS HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT WITHIN
THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER. THAT'S MOVING PRETTY FAST. AND,
ALSO, I BELIEVE THE VERTICAL IS ALSO QUITE — QUITE RAPID AS
WELL.
WE'RE GOING
AND, AGAIN, PRUDENCE MIGHT SAY IF WE — IF
TO PUT IN ONE WELL WITH A TREATMENT SYSTEM,
LET'S TACK ON ANOTHER CANISTER AND PUT ANOTHER WELL OR TWO
DOWN AND ~ AND — AND CAPTURE A BIGGER PIECE OF IT RIGHT
NOW WHILE WE'RE GOING IN WITH THIS INTERIM ACTION.
OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE SOME SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS BEFORE THE
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751 N
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0067
17
FINAL ROD AND REMEDIATION SYSTEMS ARE PUT IN PLACE; PERHAPS
A YEAR OR TWO, THE WAY THESE THINGS 60. SO WE UNDERSTAND
THAT TO BE THE CASE.
SO, AGAIN, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE. IF YOU'RE GOING
TO PUT DOWN ONE, LET'S PUT DOWN A COUPLE MORE AND HEAD OFF
SOME FUTURE POSSIBILITIES OF CONTAMINANT MIGRATION.
AND, FINALLY, THIS FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL
CHARACTERIZATION OF — OF THE SOILS OF THE GROUNDWATER
AQUIFER AT THE ROUTE 211 AREA SITE, THE INVESTIGATION'S
REVEALED THE VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE
AQUIFERS.
WE HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE POSSIBILITY
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF MONITORING WELLS HAS CONTRIBUTED TO
SOME OF THE VERTICAL CROSS-CONTAMINATION OF THESE AQUIFERS?
AND BEYOND THAT, WHAT ABOUT HISTORICAL WELLS?
WE KNOW THAT MUNICIPAL WELL NUMBER 13 IS IN THE LOWER BLACK
CREEK AQUIFER, SOMEWHAT DOWNGRADIENT FROM THIS AREA, BUT IN
THE PATH OF WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE SOME OF THE CONTAMINANT
PLUMES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION. AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE
HYDRAULIC DYNAMICS OF SEVERAL THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A PIN
CUSHIONING GOING ON; THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MONITORING WELLS
PUT DOWN, A LOT OF SOIL BORINGS TAKEN, BOTH WITH E.P.A. AND
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. THERE ARE PRE-EXISTING WELLS,
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 V0068
18
INCLUDING THE MUNICIPAL PUMPING WELL THAT WERE IN PLACE.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CONDUITS FOR — FOR GROUNDWATER
MOVING VERTICALLY THROUGH THE AQUIFER SYSTEM.
SO WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND WE URGE
THAT ANY REMEDIATION ACTIONS TAKEN, EVEN AS INTERIM, GIVE
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO CONSTRUCTION OF WHATEVER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS ARE PUT ON LINE TO TRY TO PREVENT ANY CROSS-
CONTAMINATION VERTICALLY BETWEEN THE AQUIFERS, IF AT ALL
POSSIBLE.
AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE TO THAT, I UNDERSTAND
MUNICIPAL WELL 13 IS PUMPING AGAIN AS OF LAST NOVEMBER, AND
THERE MAY BE SOME HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS TO THE GROUNDWATER OF
THAT PUMPING.
AND, ALSO, THAT WELL ITSELF COMING THROUGH ALL
THE AQUIFERS OF CONCERN OF THAT POSSIBLY PERHAPS
HYDRAULICALLY SUCKING DOWN PERHAPS CONTAMINANTS FROM UPPER
OR LOWER AQUIFERS OR COMING ALONG THE WELL CASING IS A
POTENTIAL CONDUIT FOR CROSS-CONTAMINATION. SO, AGAIN, WE
JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
AND, AGAIN, THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN
ASKED WE'LL BE HAPPY TO PUT IN WRITING AND PRESENT THOSE —
OR WE'LL SUBMIT THOSE BACK TO YOU.
DIANE BARRETT: (TO MR. FLORES) DO YOU WANT
TO RESPOND TO THAT?
LUIS FLORES: DO YOU WANT A RESPONSE TO THAT
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.5 9 0069 19
NOW?
DAVID WARNER: YOU'RE WELCOME TO RESPOND.
LUIS FLOREB: WELL, WHAT WAS THE FIRST ONE?
(LAUGHTER) OKAY. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS ~
DAVID WARNER: THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IS THE
FIRST QUESTION.
LUIS FLORES: WELL, TO DO THIS IN THIS
SPECIFIC AQUIFER — AN AQUIFER AT THIS POINT, IT SEEMS LIKE
SOMETHING SIMPLE ENOUGH AND IT WILL NOT REQUIRE A LOT OF
DESIGN AND A LOT OF MODELING TO BE DONE. SO THAT'S —
THAT'S BASICALLY THE REASON. IT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH TO DO IT.
WE — WE KNOW THAT THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS
ARE THERE, SO BASICALLY THAT'S — IF WE WANT TO CALL IT
THE SOURCE OF THE — THE SOURCE IN THE GROUNDWATER AND WE
WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. AND DOING A DESIGN TO TAKE CARE
OF THE WHOLE THREE AQUIFERS IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE MORE
EFFORT THAN THIS AND IT WILL TAKE MORE TIME, SO WE DECIDED
TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS AT THIS POINT NOW.
AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION? OH, WHY ONLY
ONE WELL? I WOULD SAY THAT WE WILL CONSIDER THAT. BUT AT
THIS POINT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS ONE WELL, BUT WE WILL
DO SOME MODELING AND COMPILATIONS TO CHECK THE BENEFIT OF
RESTORING ANY OTHER WELLS IN THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER AND —
AND WE DEFINITELY WILL CONSIDER THAT.
DAVID WARNER: I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD A
WORD8ERVICE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0070
20
COMMENT HERE AT THIS POINT THAT — THAT WE ASSUME, I GUESS,
THAT — THAT WHETHER THIS ENDS UP BEING ONE WELL, ALTHOUGH
WE DO PREFER TO SEE MORE, GETTING BIGGER CHUNKS OF THE HOT
SPOT IN THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER, THAT WHATEVER REMEDIATION
TAKES PLACE IS GOING TO BE THE CORE OF THE FINAL ROD AT ANY
RATE.
LUIS FLORE8: RIGHT.
DAVID WARNER: SO OUR POINT IS, IF YOU'RE
GOING TO GO IN EARLY, LET'S GO IN EARLY, YOU KNOW,
SUBSTANTIALLY, AND DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE — IN THE
SOURCE OF THE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION RIGHT NOW AT THIS
POINT.
AND WE HAD SOME LAST QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR
CONCERNS ABOUT CROSS-CONTAMINATION IN VERTICAL WELLS.
ADDRESS THAT?
LUIS PLORE8: (TO MR. OS TEEN) DO YOU WANT TO
BILL OSTEEN: I WILL. THERE — I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE ANY CROSS-CONNECTIONS AS A RESULT OF
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION'S VARIOUS STAGES — E.P.A.'S OR
ANYBODY ELSE'S — THAT WOULD BE ANY SORT OF A PERMANENT
CONNECTION. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY,
BUT OUR STANDARD PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT
OF CROSS-CONNECTION THAT WILL OCCUR WHEN — WHEN — WHEN
IT'S GOING THROUGH MULTIPLE AQUIFERS.
AND I KNOW THAT ANY WORK THAT'S DONE AS A PART
WORDSERVICEB, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0071
21
- 1 OF OUR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE REGION FOLLOWS THE
2 E.P.A.'S STANDARD PROCEDURES. THERE'S A WHOLE LENGTHY
3 SUBSTANTIAL MANUAL THAT DEALS WITH EVERYTHING FROM WELL
4 CONSTRUCTION TO SAMPLING AND STREAMS, AND CERTAINLY THE
5 ISSUE OF CROSS-CONNECTION IS OF CONCERN TO US. AND TO THE
6 EXTENT PRACTICABLE DURING AN INVESTIGATION, OUR — OUR
7 PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THAT.
8 SO THAT WOULD BE THE LESS LIKELY OF THE TWO
9 POSSIBILITIES ~ TWO BROAD POSSIBILITIES THAT YOU SUGGESTED.
10 THE SECOND ONE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THE
11 MUNICIPAL WELL AND SOME OF THE PRIVATE WELLS THAT ARE IN THE
12 AREA OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION THAT'S RELATED TO THE 211
13 SITE.
14 A COUPLE OF POINTS TO MAKE ABOUT THAT. ONE IS
15 THAT THOSE WELLS ARE IN AREAS WHERE THE GROUNDWATER
16 CONTAMINATION IS — IS MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING
17 ABOUT IN A SURFICIAL AQUIFER, SO THAT THE CROSS-CONNECTION
18 SITUATION IS NOT AS — AS CRITICAL PERHAPS AS IT WOULD BE IF
19 — IF THERE WAS A CROSS-CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SURFICIAL
20 WHERE THE CONCENTRATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN IN
21 SOME OF THE OTHER AQUIFERS.
22 NOW WE KNOW THAT IN MUNICIPAL WELL 13 THERE IS
23 A CONNECTION, AND THERE MAY BE IN SOME OF THE OTHER PRIVATE
24 WELLS. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL OF THESE
25 HELLS HAS BEEN — BEEN FULLY CHARACTERIZED AND — AND — AND
WORDSERVXCE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
59 0072
22
1 THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ~ BE POSSIBLE.
2 HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF THE MOVEMENT OF
3 CONTAMINATION FROM ONE AQUIFER TO A LOWER AQUIFER, IT'S
4 FAIRLY CLEAR — AND IT MAY BE ENTIRELY CLEAR, BUT I'LL —
5 I'LL NOT 60 TOO FAR OUT ON A LIMB.
6 IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR FROM THE REMEDIAL
7 INVESTIGATION THAT THE PRIMARY CROSS-CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
8 AQUIFERS IS A RESULT OF NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES ANYWHERE IN
9 THE LAYERS THAT SEPARATE THOSE AQUIFERS IN THE AREAS WHERE
10 THOSE LAYERS THAT SEPARATE THE AQUIFERS MIGHT BE — BE THIN
11 OR MISSING OR — OR THE HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF THOSE LAYERS
12 ARE SUCH THAT IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE EASIER FOR WATER TO MOVE
.•
13 FROM ONE AQUIFER TO ANOTHER IN THOSE PLACES.
14 AND THAT, AT LEAST IN AN AREA OF THE CORE
15 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ~ THE SURFICIAL, I'M TALKING
v
16 ABOUT, IN THE UPPER BLACK CREEK, THE LOWER PART OF THE UPPER
17 BLACK CREEK, AND THE LOWER BLACK CREEK, WHERE THE
18 CONTAMINATION THERE IS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT, THERE ARE
19 AREAS THAT ARE A MUCH GREATER EXTENT THAN SAY — SAY EVEN —
20 EVEN A DOZEN OR TWO DOZEN OR THREE DOZEN INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE
21 WELLS WOULD BE WHERE — WHERE THESE CONFINING LAYERS ARE —
22 ARE — THAT WOULD IMPEDE MOVEMENT OF WATER FROM ONE AQUIFER
23 TO ANOTHER ARE — ARE MISSING.
24 SO THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE PRIVATE WELLS
25 AND THE MUNICIPAL WELL 13 MAY BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALLOW
WORD8ERVICE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0073
23
- 1 VERTICAL MIGRATION OF WATER ACROSS THERE, I THINK IN
2 RELATIVE TERMS THAT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO THE
3 — TO THE BIG PICTURE OF HOW WATER IS GETTING FROM ONE
4 AQUIFER TO A — TO A LOWER AQUIFER.
5 SO THAT WOULD BE MY — MY ANSWER TO THAT. YOU
6 KNOW, IT'S ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM THERE,
7 BUT SAYING THAT IN — IN — IN RELATIVE TERMS IT'S A
8 RELATIVELY MINOR PROBLEM.
9 AND THEN ON THE MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION,
10 YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING THERE'S NOT A POSSIBILITY THAT
11 THERE WAS SOME ~ SOME SMALL DEGREE OF CONNECTION OF ALL THE
12 WELLS BEING DRILLED FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU KNOW. I MEAN,
13 WORK OUT IN THE FIELD IS NOT ALWAYS PERFECT, BUT I THINK
14 THAT OUR WELLS ~ WELLS ARE — ARE — ARE CONSTRUCTED TO —
15 TO MINIMIZE THAT — THAT CROSS-CONTAMINATION.
16 DOCTOR ROBERT MOAB8: I'M DOCTOR MOABS. I
17 SAID IN A MEDICAL JOURNAL IN 1948 THAT THESE POISONS WERE
18 CAPABLE OF CAUSING CANCER, AND I HAVE NAMED A LOT OF PEOPLE
19 WHO DIED WITH CANCER, BREAKDOWN FROM THE CHEMICAL PLANT.
20 AND I KNOW I LOT OF THE WORKERS AT GEIGY ALSO DIED OF
21 CANCER. NOBODY'S CHECKED THAT EVER. ALL OF THESE CHEMICALS
22 ARE NOW KNOWN TO BE CARCINOGENIC. D.D.E. WAS KNOWN TO BE
23 THAT WAY IN 1945. I THINK THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
24 FOUND IT WAS CAPABLE OF CAUSING CANCER AND THEY DIDN'T DO
25 ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
WORDSERVICEB, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0074
24
-. 1 AGRICULTURISTS HAD TO DO IT. AGRICULTURE AND
2 PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPRESSED TOXICITY DURING THE FIRST TWENTY-
3 FIVE YEARS OF THE CHEMICAL AGE OF THE PESTICIDES. I GOT —
4 THE BOSTON GLOBE WROTE AN ARTICLE SAYING THAT EVERY COLLEGE
5 AND UNIVERSITY IN AMERICA FLUNKED ECOLOGY 101 DURING THE
6 FIRST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS THAT THEY WERE ON THE MARKET. AND
7 THAT'S TRUE, I BELIEVE.
8 . LUIS FLOREB: THANK YOU.
9 HARRY HUBERT: I'M HARRY HUBERT WITH
10 MOOREFORCE. WE'VE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE MODULAR APPROACH
11 FROM OTHER GROUNDWATER CLEANUPS. AND PERHAPS IN THIS
12 CLEANUP, IT DEVIATES SITES WITH MORE THAN ONE EXTRACTION
13 WELL TO START WITH.
14 A PROVISION COULD BE MADE FURTHER DOWN THE
15 LINE AS THE CONTAMINANTS DECREASE DUE — DUE TO YOUR
16 REMEDIATION EFFORTS, THAT AN ADDITIONAL WELL COULD BE TAKEN
17 OFF LINE IN THE FUTURE IF THE CONTAMINANTS ARE DROPPING
18 RAPIDLY.
19 BUT, AGAIN, WE DO BELIEVE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
20 HITTING THEM HARD TO START WITH AND GO WITH MORE THAN ONE
21 WELL; AND MAYBE THEN LOOK AT THE OPTION OF MAYBE TAKING
22 SOMETHING OFF LINE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THE FUTURE RATHER
23 THAN MAYBE ADDING SOMETHING ON LINE IF THE ONE WELL IS NOT
24 WORKING EFFICIENTLY TO START WITH.
25 LUIS FLORESl YEAH, WE WILL — WE WILL
WORDSERVICE8, INC.
Post %Office BOX 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 9 0075 25
CONSIDER THAT, TOO — THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT WITH DAVID'S
COMMENT. YES?
CLAUDIA MADLEYt CLAUDIA MADLEY. IF YOU
ANTICIPATE THAT IT WILL TAKE LONGER THAN TWO YEARS OF
PUMPING AND TREATING THIS WATER IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE
CALCULATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK
IT WILL TAKE TO REACH THAT LEVEL OF CLEANLINESS?
LUIS FLOREBt WELL, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS
— THIS INTERIM ACTION IS PROBABLY GOING TO — I MEAN, I DO
NOT — A PERCENT. IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE FINAL REMEDY
FOR THE SITE.
SO WHAT WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING IS — IS AS
SOON AS WE HAVE THE FINAL RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE ENTIRE
OPERABLE UNIT, THIS INTERIM ACTION IS PART OF THAT REMEDY.
THIS — THIS INTERIM RECORD OF POSITION IS JUST GOING TO GO
AWAY, THEN THE FINAL RECORD OF POSITION CAN — IT'S GOING TO
— IT'S GOING TO SUPPRESS —
DIANE BARRETT: (INTERPOSING) SUPERCEDE.
LUIS FLORES: — SUPERCEDE THE OTHER ONE, AND
--' AND WHEN WE HAVE THE RISK — THE FINAL RISK ASSESSMENT
AND THE FINAL NUMBERS, WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THOSE
COMPILATIONS TO DETERMINE HOW LONG MORE WE WILL HAVE TO KEEP
PUMPING TO REACH THOSE LEVELS.
BUT THE TWO YEARS WAS — WAS — WAS — WAS
JUST A — LIKE A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WE — WE —
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751 x
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0076
26
1 WE PUT IN THERE BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'LL HAVE THE FINAL ROD
2 BEFORE THAT. SO IN THE EVENT THAT IT TAKES TWO YEARS, THEN
3 WE'LL ALREADY HAVE THE FINAL ROD,
4 CLAUDIA X&DLEYS THE REASON I RAISE THE
5 QUESTION IS THAT IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE TWIN SITES
6 AND FARM CHEMICALS AND FAIRWAY SIX, THAT PUMP AND TREAT
7 WOULD BE SO INEFFICIENT AT CLEANSING ITEMS SUCH AS D.D.T.,
8 THAT- IT COULD TAKE THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO DO IT THERE.
9 THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE TWO YEARS.
10 ARE WE TALKING
11 LUIS FLORES: YEAH. BASED ON THE — YOU'RE
12 LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WE HAVE,
f
13 D.D.T. IS NOT ABOVE ANY OF OUR NUMBERS.
14 BILL OSTEEN: THAT WAS THE CONTAMINANT THAT
15 WAS — WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE LONG CLEANUP TIMES,
16 WAS THE D.D.T. THERE. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY A PLAYER AT THE
17 211 SITE.
18 SO I — WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT TIME FRAMES IN
19 THE THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING
20 THAT'S LIKELY OVER TWO YEARS. IT'S A LOT CLOSER TO TWO
21 YEARS THAN A THOUSAND; A LOT CLOSER.
22 LUIS FLORES: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
23 DIANE BARRETT: IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
24 QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND THANK YOU FOR
25 THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. AND WE WILL BE RESPONDING TO
WORD8ERVICE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0077
27
1 YOUR COMMENTS THROUGH OUR RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY AND A
2 RECORD OF DECISION WILL BE ISSUED WITHIN AT LEAST THIRTY
3 DAYS.
4 HARRY HUBERT: THE RECORD OF DECISION WILL BE
5 ISSUED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS?
.6 DIANE BARRETT: WELL, ON THIS.
7 LUIS FLORESl FOR THIS INTERIM.
8 . DIANE BARRETT: FOR THIS INTERIM, EXCUSE ME.
9 HARRY HUBERT: YOU'RE GOING TO GET LUIS INTO
10 TROUBLE TALKING LIKE THAT.
11 DIANE BARRETT: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
12 THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WORDSERVTCE8, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
5 9 0078
28
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CHATHAM
I, WANDA B. LINDLEY, CVR, A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
FOREGOING PUBLIC MEETING WAS TAKEN AND REDUCED TO
TYPEWRITING PERSONALLY BY ME; THAT THE FOREGOING 27 PAGES
CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY
HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ON THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997.
OFFICIAL SEAL WANDA B. LINDLEY .,
«,A^°!inarChath?mi c"v CERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTER
WANDA B. LiNDLEY
WORDSERVICES, INC.
Post Office Box 751
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
(800) 266-3248
-------
07/11/1997 14:28 8833279072 MARKER ENV MGT INC PAGE 82
!. X 59 0079
MooreFORCE, Inc. Comments
on Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Sites,
Operable Unit #5
Proposed Groundwater Interim Action
Route 211 Area,
Aberdeen, North Carolina
1. MooreFORCE, Jnc, strongly endorses EPA intentions to begin interim action at Route 211 Area, and
encourages the agency to expedite negotiations and begin actions as soon as possible. However, the scope
of the proposed interim action is too limited.
2. The Remedial Investigation has revealed that contaminated groundwater has been detected not only in the
Surficial Aquifer, but also in the upper and lower sections of the Upper Black Creek Aquifer, and the
Lower Black Creek .Aquifer. Why aren't these other contaminated aquifers also being addressed at this
time with this proposed interim action?
3. At a minimum, the scope of the interim action should be expanded by adding (an) additional well(s) to
more fully capture the "hot spots* in the Surticial Aquifer, before the contaminants have an opportunity
to further migrate into the lower aquifers. The front-end cost of the carbon filtration system design would
not be greatly increased to expand the system's capacity. Nor should there be any delays in permitting an
expanded action. Because the Remedial Invesrsation has found that groundwater is moving rapdly through
the Surficial Aquifer, at 635 feet per year, it is imperative that an expanded interim action be undertaken
as soon as possible. It is much easier to capture and treat the more concentrated contaminants in the
-urricial Aquifer now rather than wait until die contamuunts move down and spread out through the lower
4. The RcnediJ Investigation has revealed vertical hydraulic connections bet*,.
-------
5 9 0080
APPENDIX B
STATE CONCURRENCE
-------
5 9 0081
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevffl, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
September 15,1997
Mr. Luis Flores
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA Region IV
100 Alabama Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: State Concurrence with the Interim Action Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps She Operable Unit #5. Grounihvater
Pump and Treat at the Route 211 Area
Located in Aberdeen, Moore County, NC
Dear Mr. Flores:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Interim Action Record of Decision (ROD) for
the Pump and Treat remedy proposed for the sorficui aquifer at the Route ill Area of the Aberdeen
Pesticide Dumps Site dated August 26,1997 and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the
following conditions. {
1. State concurrence on this Draft ROD and the selected remedy for the she is based
soldy on the inlbrmatiun 0111*11^1 h the Record of Decision dated August 26,1997.
Should the State receive new or additional information which significantly affects the
conclusions or remedy selection contained in the ROD, itmay modify or withdraw
this concurrence with written notice to EPA Region IV. <
2. State conomtac* on tids ROD to no waybill
or commits the State to participate, financially or otherwise, m the clean up of the site.
The State reserves the right to review, overview comment, and make independent
assessment of all future work relating to this she. '
P.O. Box 29603, Raleigh, North Carofra 27611-9603 Telephone 919-7334996
An EqutiCtpc!runftyMtnMa*Aata Employ*
20/10 'd Z£:£! Z6. 51 d3$ U81M£2-*T6:xej NQIIDIS ONfyy3<*lS DN
-------
5 9 0082
Mr. Flores
9-13-97
Page 2
I
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity U> comment on the Record of Decision for
the subject she, and we look forward to working with EPA on the final! remedy. If you have any
questions or comments, please give me a call at, (919) 733-2801, extension 291.
Sincerely,
TTOVBT Nicholaon
Remediation Branch Head
Supcrfuwl Secliuii
cc: Phil Voreatz, NC Remtdial Section Chief
Jack Butler, Chief NC Superfend Section
Randy McErveen, NC Superftrad Section
P.O. Box 29603, R^*igh, North Cvolna 27611-»«03 Tttophoiw
An EqiMrfOpportunlyAfltrtMBvtAction Errvteyr
CO/30'd 8£:6'; i6, ST d3$ TT8P-££Z-6T6:»d NOI1D3S ONridffldnS DN
-------
PB97-963821
EPA/541/R-97/192
January!^
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells, OU 2
Vega Alta, PR
9/30/1997
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) selection of a source control remedy for the Vega Alta Public Supply Weils Site
(the Site) in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
§9601 et seq., and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. An administrative
record for the Site, established pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the
documents that form the basis for EPA's selection of the remedial action (see Appendix
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has been consulted on the
proposed remedial action in accordance with CERCLA §121(f), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (f), and
it concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix C).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
cj DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
^
PC The remedial action described in this document represents the second of two planned
fi phases or operable units at the Vega Alta Site. It addresses the remaining source of
vr contamination and is designated Operable Unit II (OU-II). A ROD for Operable Unit I
s° (OU-I), which addresses groundwater contamination at the Site, was signed in
September 1 987 and amended by two subsequent Explanation of Significant
tt Differences (ESDs) in 1 989 and 1 994.
0
0 Currently, the groundwater is being addressed by an extraction and treatment system
placed in operation in 1994 pursuant to an EPA Unilateral Administrative Order issued
in 1 989 to the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
-------
The major components of the selected remedy, identified in this document as
Alternative 2, include:
• Operation of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system to remove Volatile
- Organic Compounds (VOCs) from soil until such time as VOCs can be no
longer effectively removed. Soil vapors will be treated, if necessary, by
thermal/catalytic oxidation or granular activated carbon (GAG) before
being emitted to the atmosphere. Emissions will comply with the
requirements established by the EQB;
• Implementation of a system monitoring program which includes the
collection and analysis of soil vapors before and after they are treated, if
treatment is determined to be necessary; and
• Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set forth in CERCLA
§121,42 U.S.C. §9621: (1) it is protective of human health and the environment; (2) it
attains a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants, which at least attains the legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) under federal and state laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to
the maximum extent practicable; and (5) it satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at a site.
A review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA §121 (c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), will
be conducted five years after the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the
environment, because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the
Site above hearth-based levels.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION If
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
w •
DECISION SUMMARY PAGE
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
WITHIN SITE STRATEGY 3
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
VI, SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE 11
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 12
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 15
X. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY , 19
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS '. 19
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A -FIGURES
APPENDIX B -TABLES
APPENDIX C - COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ENVIRONMENTAL.
QUALITY BOARD LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site is located north of the town of Vega Alta in the
municipality of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico. Vega Alta is a municipality of about 36,500
people (U.S. Census Bureau 1990) located in the central part of the north coast of
Puerto Rico, about 20 miles west of San Juan (Figure 1). Groundwater is the primary
source of water for the public water supply system, as well as for other private
(industrial, commercial and agricultural) users. The Vega Alta well field;and wells of
the nearby municipalities of Vega Baja and Dorado have been estimated to be extract-
ing approximately 18.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of water from the unconfined
limestone aquifer.
The Site does not have specific boundaries; however, most of the data collection
activities have been conducted over an area bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the
north and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Vega Alta Quadrangle boundary to the
south. The east and west boundaries correspond with longitudes W66° 15' and
W66°23', respectively. This area is referred to as the Vega Alta Study Area (Figure 2).
The Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) Industrial Park, which
was the focus of the OU-II source investigation, is located within the Vega Alta Study
Area along Highway 2.
PRIDCO leases the property and buildings, except for two buildings purchased from
PRIDCO by The West Company, to industries for their various manufacturing
operations. The industrial facilities currently in this area include: ROVIPACK (formerly
Motorola Radiomobile de P.R., Inc.), General Electric Pilot Devices Inc., Harman
Automotive P.R., Inc., The West Company Plastic Container Division of P.R., Inc., Hi-
Temp Corporation, Teledyne Packaging P.R., Inc. (Teledyne), and General Electric
Controls Inc. (GE Controls) (Figure 3). . ' .
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Vega Alta municipal well field became a concern of the EPA in June 1983 after the
discovery of trichloroethene (TCE) in a groundwater sample collected by the USGS
from a public water supply well (Ponderosa Well). Table 1 identifies a chronology of
events for the Site, starting with the discovery of TCE in groundwater in June 1983 and
continuing through March 1993. The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
(PRASA) shut down the Ponderosa Welt in the same month. In August 1983, PRASA
ceased pumping supply well GE-1. In June 1983, PRASA constructed supply well
Bajura 5(3) (also referred to as either Bajura 3 or Bajura 5). Public water-supply wells
Bajura 5(3), Bajura 1, and GE-2 were subsequently shut down in early 1989 after
PRASA constructed a pipeline between the Vega Alta distribution system and the
Maguayo well field. PRASA completed two new supply wells, Maguayo 6 and 7, in
October 1988 and November 1988, respectively.
-------
In September 1983, the EPA contracted with NUS Corporation to perform the OU-I
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study at the Site to determine the nature and
extent of the groundwater contamination. NUS Corporation, with cooperation from the
USGS, conducted a field investigation from April 1984 to March 1985. The findings of
the NUS Corporation OU-I investigations were documented in a Remedial Investigation
Report (RIJ (NUS Corporation 1986). Using the R! data, NUS conducted a Feasibility
Study (FS) and recommended a groundwater remedy (NUS Corporation 1987).
The Vega Alta Site was included on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) on
September 1, 1984.
In September 1987, the EPA issued a Record of Decision for OU-I selecting a remedial
alternative for the remediation of groundwater and requiring the provision of a drinking
water supply for Vega Alta. The ROD called for the extraction of groundwater using
four water supply wells (GE-1, GE-2, Bajura 3, and Ponderosa) owned by PRASA and
the installation of treatment systems on each of these wells. Treated water pumped
from three of the wells was to be discharged to the PRASA distribution system. The
ROD also indicated that a subsequent OU-I I RI/FS would be needed to locate and
remediate VOC sources.
In March 1989, in response to a request from EQB, EPA modified the 1987 ROD
remedy through use of an ESD to require surface discharge of all treated water instead
of discharge to the PRASA water supply distribution system. This action was taken
pursuant to Section 117(c) of CERCLA. At the same time, EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order that required Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., Harman
Automotive P.R. Inc., Motorola Telcarro de Puerto Rico, Inc., The West Company, and
PRIDCO, to implement the OU-I ROD-selected remedy, as modified by EPA's March
1989 ESD.
The Ponderosa Well Treatment System was completed on December 22, 1993 and
groundwater treatment commenced in July 1994. Treated water from the Ponderosa
system is currently being discharged to Honda Creek. On August 30, :1994, EPA
modified the remedy authorized by the 1987 OU-I ROD and 1989 ESD by replacing the
groundwater extraction and treatment from GE-1, GE-2 and Bajura 3 with a new
extraction well and treatment system to be located approximately 4,000 feet north of the
Ponderosa Well. EPA made this change to the selected remedy because OlMI
groundwater investigations at the Site showed that in the six years following the
issuance of the OU-I ROD, the plume of groundwater contamination had migrated
downgradient of three of the extraction wells (GE-1, GE-2, and Bajura 3) selected in the
1987 OU-I ROD, and that these wells were no longer capable of effectively remediating
the Vega Alta aquifer.
-------
In light of several factors, EPA has reconsidered the plan called for by the 1994 ESD
and is considering an alternative approach of placing the new extraction wells closer to
the primary remaining source of VOC contamination at the Site. With EPA oversight, a
contractor for the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) has conducted modeling and
other studies designed to help EPA evaluate such a change to the OU-1 groundwater
remedy. EPA expects to make a decision regarding the groundwater remedy in the
near future; such a change would be documented in a separate public notice and
decision document.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Remedial Investigation Report, Feasibility Study Report, Proposed Plan and
additional supporting documents were released to the public for comment on July 30,
1997. These documents were made available to the public in both the Administrative
Record and information repositories maintained at the EPA Docket Room in the Region
II New York City Office, the EPA Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, the
Vega Alta Municipal Town Hall at Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and at the EQB Library. The
notices of availability for the 1997 documents were published in two local newspapers,
"El Nuevo Dia" and "The San Juan Star" on July 30, 1997. A public comment period
was held from July 30, 1997 through August 29,1997. On August 20, 1997, a public
meeting was held in the Vega Alta Municipal Assembly Room. At that meeting,
representatives from EPA presented the findings of the investigations and answered
questions from the public about the Site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. Responses to,the comments received during the comment period are
included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix D).
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT II OR RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN
SITE STRATEGY
EPA is proposing soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the appropriate cleanup technology
for the contaminated soils at the Site. The results of the OU-II Rl and Supplemental
Groundwater Investigations indicate that the southeastern area of the Industrial Park
contains significant levels of VOCs in the subsurface soils that are of concern as they
contribute to continued degradation of the groundwater aquifer. Treatment of the
contaminated groundwater aquifer, which was addressed by the OU-I remedy, com-
menced on July 1994 and is currently ongoing. The treatment system is located at the
Ponderosa Well and is operating at a pumping rate of approximately 600 gallons per
minutes (gpm).
The application of SVE to the subsurface soils under OU-II will significantly reduce the
concentrations of VOCs in soils, thus reducing their vertical migration and impact to the
groundwater. In turn, this action will reduce the length of time required to achieve
groundwater cleanup by preventing VOCs from continuing to enter the groundwater.
-------
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
During the OU-II Ri, several media were sampled for the presence of VOCs in three
investigatory phases. In Phase I, a comprehensive soil-gas survey was implemented, a
geophysical survey was undertaken to identify areas where metal objects may be
buried, and the results of septic tank sampling were reviewed. Based on these results,
locations in the PRIDCO Industrial Park were selected for drilling soil borings and
excavating test pits, activities that were implemented in Phase If.
Groundwater samples were collected from public and private water-supply wells and
monitoring wells during Phase I. During Phase II, grab samples of groundwater were
collected from the boreholes that penetrated the water table, and two of the boreholes
in the eastern portion of the Industrial Park were converted into permanent monitoring
wells screened in the upper portion of the unconfined aquifer. Because relatively high
VOC concentrations were detected in the eastern portion of the Industrial Park during
Phases I and II, Phase III was implemented. Phase HI consisted of the installation of
three new multiport wells and two 6-inch diameter test wells.
A. Site Geology and Hydrology
The Vega Alta Study Area is part of the North Coast Limestone of Puerto Rico (Gi.usti
and Bennett 1976; Monroe 1976). The surface and subsurface geologic units in this
area are Oligocene to Migocene age, sedimentary formations that consist primary of
limestone. These formations are overlain by semi-consolidated to unconsolidated
Quaternary deposits. The dip of the limestone formations in the study area is about 2
to 4 degrees to the north. The areal distribution and detailed descriptions of these
formations are presented on the USGS geologic map of the Vega Alta quadrangle
(Monroe 1963), A significant feature of this area is the formation of karst landforms that
has developed due to dissolution of the limestone by water.
An unconfined (or water-table) freshwater aquifer is present throughout the Vega Alta
Study Area. At the center of the study area, this aquifer is as great as 350 feet thick.
According to data obtained from PRASA and USGS files, approximately 6.78 billions
gallons of water were extracted from the aquifer by public and private water supply
wells in the study area in 1990. This water was pumped at an average rate of about
12,900 gallons per minutes (gpm) or 18.5 millions gallons per day (mgd).
Hydrogeologic units underlying the regional area consist of an unconfined (or water-
table) aquifer, an aquitard, and confined aquifer. The unconfined aquifer is composed
primarily of the Aguada and Aymamon Limestone, but it also occurs in some of the
alluvial and blanket sand deposits. The primary groundwater flow through the
-------
limestone aquifer occurs within solutionally enlarged primary pores and solution
channels. Water occurs in primary pores and in secondary pores formed by dissolution
of the limestone. Because of the large size of these secondary pores and the extent to
which they are interconnected, these solution features have a significant impact on
groundwater flow.
Groundwater withdrawal from wells in the north coast limestone aquifer serves as the
primary source of water for drinking, agriculture, and industrial use in the Vega Alta
Study Area. Prior to the 1960's and the large-scale development in the Vega Alta area,
the principal discharge location for groundwater was probably the coastal plain
(Gomez-Gomez and Torres Sierra 1988). In 1983, approximately 76 percent of
groundwater discharge was through pumpage from water supply wells. The remaining
groundwater discharged either to the ocean or to rivers close to the coast. There is no
evidence of cave conduits discharging groundwater in the coastal plain nor in the
submarine outcrop of the aquifer.
Along the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in the coastal plain, the bottom of the.
unconfined freshwater aquifer is delineated by the saltwater interface. In the study
area, the saltwater interface starts below the seabed and dips to the south where it
terminates at the low-permeability claystones at the top of the Cibao Formation (Torres-
Gonzalez and Diaz 1984). A confined aquifer occurs below the upper member of the
Cibao Formation. This upper member is a claystone with very low permeability that
acts as an aquitard (Giusti 1978).
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. Initial Source Investigation .
The initial source investigation (Phase I) was conducted at the, Vega Alta Municipal
Landfill and the PRIDCO Industrial Park, since these areas had been identified as .
potential sources of VOCs detected in the aquifer (NUS Corporation 1986). Methods
initially used to identify potential source areas for VOCs in soil and possible
mechanisms for release of VOCs to soils included a soil-gas eurvey, a geophysical
survey, and underground storage tank (UST) and septic system sampling.
a. Soil Gas Survey
A soil-gas survey was conducted from February through April 1992 at the Industrial
Park and the Vega Alta Municipal Landfill. The presence of VOCs in the soil gas is an
indication that VOCs are present in the general vicinity of the sampling area. Sampling
and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater in those areas confirmed their
presence and along with the concentrations of these compounds in various media.
-------
Due to the large area covered by the soil-gas survey, the sampling grid in the Industrial
Park was divided into 16 survey areas; these areas are listed in Table 1. Total
concentrations for target VOCs in the Industrial Park are provided in Table 2 and are
shown at four concentrations ranges [e.g., 0.11 to 1.0 part per million by volume
(ppmv)], oh'Figure A. A statistical summary (detection frequencies and concentrations
ranges) of the data in Table 2 is provided in Table 3.
As shown on Figure 4, the following areas have relatively high (greater than 1.0 ppmv)
VOC soil-gas concentrations: Caribe GE Pilot Plant parking lot and the area south of
the Pilot Plant Building No.1, the area north of the building formerly occupied by The
West Company, the area adjacent to the east side of the Harman Automotive building,
the area between the two West Company buildings, the area north of the GE Controls
Plant, and the narrow area between the GE Controls Plant and the Teledyne Plant.
The soil-gas survey in the municipal landfill consisted of sampling 38 soil-gas points.
The location of each soil-gas collection point is shown on Figure 5 and the
corresponding VOC concentrations are presented in Table 4, Total target compound
concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 28.63 ppmv. VOCs were detected in 37 percent of
the samples analyzed.
b. Geophysical Survey
Eight distinct areas within the Industrial Park were surveyed with magnetic and
electromagnetic methods. Only limited areas were selected for the geophysical survey
due to the considerable coverage of the Industrial Park buildings, fences, parking lots,
and other man-made sources of magnetic interference. Figure 6 shows the surveyed
areas and significant magnetic anomalies at the Industrial Park.
*
c. LIST and Septic System Results
A comprehensive site reconnaissance for existing or. abandoned underground storage
tanks (USTs) and septic systems was conducted as part of the OU-II Rl. No active or
inactive USTs were identified within the Industrial Park. Abandoned septic system
components that were identified at the GE Controls, Teledyne, and other properties
located throughout the Industrial Park were either not physically accessible or did not
contain adequate liquids for sampling. Therefore, no samples were collected from
these septic systems. Septic tanks at the Teledyne and Motorola facilities were
sampled as part of separate facility investigations. The analytical results of liquid and
sludge samples collected from the septic tanks at the Teledyne facility are presented in
Table 5 and Table 6.
A sample collected from a septic tank at the former Motorola facility detected only one
compound 1,2-DCA, at a concentration of 14 parts per billion (ppb).
-------
2. Soil Investigation
A soil investigation (Phase II) was conducted in the vicinity of the Industrial Park to
evaluate the presence, nature, and extent of VOCs in soil and to analyze soil samples
for geotecnnical and microbiological parameters. Soil samples were collected from
boreholes and test pits and analyzed.
Approximately 550 spit-barrel samples were collected from 40 boreholes (Figure 7)
Each split-barrel soil or weathered limestone sample taken from the borehole was
analyzed for VOC concentration with the field gas chromatograph (GC). Twenty-four of
these samples were sent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory for
analysis for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs. The laboratory analytical results and
the field GC results are presented in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Figure 5 shows the
highest concentrations of TCE and PCE detected in soil samples from each borehole.
VOCs have been detected in soils beneath each of the facilities investigated at the
Industrial Park by either the soil-gas survey or the borehole investigation, or both. The
highest VOC concentrations were detected in the soils on the eastern section of the
Industrial Park.
The highest concentration of VOCs in soil was found in a sample from Borehole BH-
25A at a depth interval of 29.5 feet to 31.5 feet. Concentrations of Trichloroethene
(TCE) and Perchloroethene (PCE) in this sample, as detected by the CLP laboratory,
were 2,200 ppb and 1,400 ppb, respectively. This sample also had the highest
concentration of VOCs, detected by field GC, of more than 500 soil samples. No
individual target VOCs were detected at concentrations above 1 ppm in any soil
samples collected from shallow depths. All VOCs detected above 1 ppm occurred at
depths greater than 19 feet below land surface (bis). .
3. Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater samples were collected throughout the Vega Alta Study Area from 57
monitoring and water-supply wells as part of Phase I of the OU II Rl. These
groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, landfill leachate parameters,, and
metals. Grab groundwater samples were collected from some of the boreholes drilled
during Phase II and analyzed for VOCs, The two shallow monitoring wells and the
three new multiport wells installed during Phase III were also sampled and analyzed for
VOCs.
All groundwater samples collected from the 23 multiport wells (all zones), the six
conventional monitoring wells, and the 28 water-supply wells in Phase I were analyzed
for VOCs. The validated VOC results for samples collected during the OU II
investigation are summarized in Table 9. VOCs were identified in the groundwater
-------
samples collected during the 1992 sampling event. These VOCs, the frequency of their
detection, and their maximum concentrations are presented in Table 10. The maximum
TCE concentration {2,800 ppb) was detected in the multiport well BVAW22. Figure 8
shows the horizontal TCE distribution using the maximum concentration detected in
each multiport well; this figure provides a comprehensive view of the full horizontal
extent of the TCE plume. The length and width of the TCE plume, as defined on
Figure 8 by the 5 ppb contour, are 2.2 and 2.4 miles, respectively.
Three multiport monitoring wells, two conventional monitoring wells, and two large
diameter wells were installed along the eastern side of the Industrial Park as part of
Phase II and Phase III of the OU II Rl. The results of these analyses are provided in
Table 11, and the frequencies of detection and maximum concentrations of VOCs are
provided in Table 12. TCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 4,600 ppb.
Figure 9 shows the horizontal distribution of the highest quantifiable TCE concentration
in groundwater from monitoring wells in the vicinity of the eastern side of the Industrial
Park. .
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the Oil-!! Rl, a Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted to
estimate the risks associated with current and future Site conditions. This Risk
Assessment evaluated human health risks associated with both current and future land
uses, assuming no further remedial actions were taken. Risks were evaluated based
upon potential human exposure to contaminants currently present in Site groundwater.
The Baseline Risk Assessment assumed that the Site would be developed for
residential use in the future. This assumption is based on the local zoning and
predicted future land use in the area. ; •
The data used in the Baseline Risk Assessment included groundwater samples
collected by Geraghty & Miller and COM Federal during 1992 and 1993, and additional
data collected by the Unisys Corporation, a PRP, for inorganic analyses (during May
and June 1995). The assessment also included an evaluation of site-specific soil
screening levels to prevent further degradation of the groundwater from subsurface
soil contamination at the site. Soil screening levels were derived for the specific
chemicals found in groundwater underlying the Site.
Risk to human health is defined as the likelihood that people living, working or playing
on or near the Site may experience health problems as a result of their exposure to
contaminants from the Site. The ecological risk evaluation appraises actual or potential
effects of the Site on plants and animals.
8
-------
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a
reasonable exposure scenario: "Hazard Identification" identifies the contaminants of
concern at-3 site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence
and concentration. "Exposure Assessment" estimates the magnitude of actual and/or
potential human exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingestion of contaminated well
water) by which humans are potentially exposed. "Toxicity Assessment" determines the
types of adverse health effects associated with the chemical exposures and the
relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response). "Risk Characterization" summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure
and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-one million excess
cancer risk) assessment of site-related risks.
The Baseline Risk Assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern in the
groundwater which would be representative of Site risks. Both VOCs and inorganics
were identified as chemicals of potential concern. VOCs included: 1,1-dichloroethene,
1,2-dichloropropane, ethylene dibromide, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and vinyl
chloride. Inorganics included: arsenic, beryllium, vanadium and zinc. Many of these
chemicals are known or potential human carcinogens based on either human evidence
or data from laboratory animal studies.
The exposure assessment evaluated the health effects which could result from .
exposure to contaminants as a result of the ingestion of the groundwater, contact with
the skin or inhalation of VOCs. The exposure pathways generally consist of four
elements: a source and mechanism of release; a transport medium; an exposure point
(point of contact); and an exposure route (ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact) at
the exposure point. Exposure scenarios involving groundwater were quantitatively
assessed. Current exposures were not assessed since contaminated groundwater at
the Site Is not currently being used as a drinking water source. The potential exists,
for further commercial or residential development of the Site in the future. Therefore, in
the future, there is a potential for individuals to obtain their drinking water from wells
installed into the contaminated aquifer beneath the Site. Potentially exposed
individuals are: 1) future Site residents, 2) future Site workers and employees; and 3)
future construction workers.
1. Evaluation of Risks
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen.
The risks of the individual chemicals are summed for each pathway to develop a total
-------
risk estimate. The acceptable risk range is one in ten thousand to one in a million of an
individual developing cancer over a 70-year lifetime from exposure to the
contaminant(s).
To assess the overall noncarcinogenic effects posed by more than one contaminant,
EPA has developed the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI). The HQ is the
ratio of the chronic daily intake for a contaminant to the Reference Dose for the
chemical; the reference dose being a measure of the chemical's "threshold" for adverse
effects with many built-in safety factors. The HQs are summed for all contaminants
within an exposure pathway (e.g., groundwater ingestion) to give the HI. When the HI
exceeds 1.0, there may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic health effects^ if the
contaminants in question are believed to cause a similar toxic effect.
EPA bases its decision to conduct site remediation (cleanup) on the risk to human
health and the environment. Cleanup actions may be taken when EPA determines that
risk at a site exceeds the cancer risk level of one-in-ten-thousand or if the
noncarcinogenic HI exceeds a level of 1.0. Once either of these thresholds have been
exceeded, remedial action alternatives are evaluated to reduce the risk levels to within
EPA's acceptable risk range of one-in-ten-thousand to one-in-a-million and an HI of
1.0.
2. Toxicity Assessment/Risk Characterization
a. Future Residents
The results of the Baseline Risk Assessment indicated that the highest carcinogenic
risks were attributable to groundwater ingestion exposure for future Site residents and
workers/employees. Groundwater was found to pose a carcinogenic risk to future
residents' human health for the ingestion and inhalation routes of exposure over a
chronic duration. The ingestion route showed total carcinogenic risks for adults and • .
children of 2.6 in 1,000 and 1.2 in 1,000, respectively. The primary chemicals
contributing to this risk include: 1,1-dichloroethene, ethylene dibromide,
trichloroethene, arsenic and beryllium. The inhalation route through showering showed
a carcinogenic risk for future Site resident adults of 3.7 in 10,000. The main chemicals
contributing to the risk are 1,1 -dichloroethene and trichloroethene. Dermal exposure
was associated with a risk of 3.8 in 1,000,000 which is within EPA's acceptable risk
range.
The carcinogenic risks for future Site residents are greater than the upper-bound of
EPA's target risk range.
Non-carcinogenic hazards were also assessed. For non-carcinogenic effects, the HI
for adults and children for ingestion of contaminated groundwater are 9.4 and 22,
10
-------
respectively. The main chemicals contributing to this risk are trichloroethene and
arsenic. These values exceed EPA's target level of 1.0.
b. Future Site Workers/Employees
•T -
Groundwater was found to pose an unacceptable carcinogenic risk to human health
through ingestion for future Site workers and employees. The ingestion route showed
a carcinogenic risk for Site workers/employees of 7.8 in 10,000. This risk exceeds the
upper-bound of the target risk range. The chemicals contributing to this risk are: 1,1-
dichloroethene, ethylene dibromide, and arsenic. The HI for potential future Site
workers/employees ingestion of groundwater is 3.4, exceeding the target level of 1.0 for
non-carcinogens. The chemicals contributing to the hazard is trichloroethene.
c. Future Construction Workers
The carcinogenic risk and HI for future construction workers at the Site are 8.1 in one
million and 0.26, respectively. These risks and hazards do not exceed EPA's risk
range for carcinogens and non-carcinogens.
3. Contribution of Soil Contaminants to Groundwater
To prevent further degradation of the groundwater at the Site from subsurface soil
contamination, soil screening levels (SSLs) were derived for specific chemicals found
in the groundwater. The chemicals selected for evaluation were those determined to
be of potential public health concern based on the risk assessment discussed in the
previous section. The SSLs developed represent concentrations in soils that would be
protective of groundwater use based on the maximum concentration levels in the
groundwater.
An SSL is defined as "a chemical concentration in soil below which there is no concern
for ingestion, inhalation, and migration to groundwater exposure pathways, provided
certain conditions are met." The SSLs were calculated using site-specific data (i.e.,
aquifer thickness, aquifer recharge rate, source area length, organic carbon content,
etc.). The analysis was developed using EPA's 1994 Final Soil Screening Level
Guidance ( EPA OSWER Guidance 540-R-96-018),
The available subsurface soil samples for organic chemicals were limited. A model
was used to calculate SSLs for the following chemicals of concern: 1,1-dichloroethene,
1,2-dichloropropane, ethylene dibromide, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and vinyl
chloride. Inorganics included arsenic, beryllium, and zinc. Vanadium was not
evaluated based on the lack of appropriate partition coefficients.
11
-------
Based on the results from this model, the predicted SSLs were exceeded by the
maximum concentrations detected in soil. Comparison of the predicted SSLs based on
the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) to the maximum concentrations in soil
resulted in exceedances ranging from 3.5 to 95 for tetrachloroethene, trichforoethene
and 1,1-dichloroethene.
4. Conclusions
The Baseline Risk Assessment results indicate that ingestion of groundwater poses an
unacceptable risk for carcinogens and/or noncarcinogens for future Site residents and
future Site workers/employees. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from the Vega Alta Site, if not addressed by the selected remedy or one of the other
active measures considered, may present a current or potential threat to public health,
welfare or the environment. The analysis of the comparison of the SSL based on the
MCL of the contaminant in groundwater to the maximum concentration in soil resulted
in exceedances ranging from 3.5 to 95 times the value.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
Subsurface soils and groundwater contamination do not present a risk to ecological
receptors at the Site. There is no ecological receptor exposure to subsurface soils.
Groundwater is not considered to pose a concern to ecological receptors for the
following reasons:
Maximum VOC concentrations in groundwater samples collected from 1984 to
1993 indicate that the VOCs for which there are Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) are not likely to pose an ecological risk to fresh water aquatic receptors at the
Site. In the unlikely event that the highest detected concentrations of the groundwater
plume were to reach an aquatic receptor, the maximum concentrations are distinctly
lower than the AWQC values for the VOCs that possess such values. .
Groundwater discharge into the marshland north of the Site is expected to be
minimal, if it occurs at all. The watertable surface has declined considerably in the past
20 years due to such factors as increased groundwater pumping, the presence of man-
made marshland drainage channels, and reduced yearly rainfall. :
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment. They specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure route(s),
12
-------
receptor(s), and acceptable contaminant level(s) for each exposure route. These
objectives are based on available information and standards such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in
the risk assessment.
The overall remedial action objective for the Site is to prevent human ingestion and
inhalation through showering of Site-related VOCs in excess of the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in groundwater or the more stringent contaminant levels
specified in the OU-1 Administrative Order. While doing so, it will restore the aquifer to
its previous conditions and will remove the contaminants in the soils known to contain
the highest concentrations as a source control measure to prevent further groundwater
contamination.
The implementation of this proposed action in the subsurface soils will significantly
reduce the concentrations of VOCs in soils, thus reducing their vertical migration to the
groundwater. This action will also reduce the length of time required to achieve
groundwater cleanup.
The specific objectives of the OU-II remedial action are:
To reduce the concentrations of VOCs in the areas of the Site known to contain the
highest concentrations of VOCs in the soil matrix, to the extent technologically feasible,
and thereby reduce the potential risk to human health through exposure to
groundwater.
To reduce the leaching of VOCs from the areas of the Site known to contain the highest
VOC concentrations into the groundwater and thereby enhance the existing QU-I
groundwater remedy. ' :
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA (commonly referred to as "Superfund") requires that each selected site
remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply
with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies and resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal
element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
The FS Report evaluated three presumptive soil remediation alternatives for address-
ing the contamination associated with OU-II. Construction times for each alternative
include the time to construct and implement the remedy but do not include the time
required to design the remedy, negotiate with the PRPs, or procure contracts for design
and construction.
13
-------
Presumptive remedies, as defined by the EPA, are "preferred technologies for common
categories of sites, based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's
scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology
implementation" (EPA OSWER Directive 540-F-93-047). Presumptive technologies
are expected to be used at appropriate sites. The benefit of the presumptive remedies
initiative is that it streamlines the remedy selection process by eliminating such steps
as: identifying potential treatment technologies and containment/disposal requirements;
screening those technologies; assembling the remaining technologies into alternatives;
and screening alternatives as necessary to reduce the number subject to detailed
analysis.
The EPA presumptive remedies for Superfund sites containing VOC-contaminated soil
and meeting certain criteria are sot! vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and
incineration (EPA OSWER Directive 540-F-93-048). These technologies have been
chosen based upon EPA's experience at other Superfund sites and are discussed
below.
The time to implement the remedy includes an estimated time frame for the design of
the remedy, construction of the remedy, and period of negotiation with the responsible
parties for implementation of the remedy.
Alternative 1: No Action
The Superfund program requires that the "No-Action" alternative be considered as a
baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The "No Action" alternative for
soils would involve no effort to prevent the further leaching of compounds from the soils
to the ground water. This alternative would result in the continued leaching'of chemical
compounds into the aquifer for an unknown period of time, affecting the quality of the
groundwater at the Site. The costs for the No Action alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $ 0
Annual O&M $ 0
Present Worth Cost . $ 0
Construction Time Not Applicable
Alternative 2: Soil Vapor Extraction
The Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) alternative removes volatile organic compounds from
the unsaturated zone as vapors, without excavation. SVE is accomplished in-situ (in
place), by installing vents of various designs consisting of gravel packs extending to
the surface, slotted or unslotted well casings installed with or without gravel pack, or
any other configuration that allows gases to move from the soil. Passive systems
14
-------
consist of vents that are open to the atmosphere and do not require energy for
extraction of gases. Active systems make use of negative pressure or vacuum pumps
to accelerate the removal of vapors from the soil.
With SVE, the vapors are either discharged to the atmosphere or treated before
discharging, depending on vapor concentrations and regulatory requirements.
The limitations of the SVE are associated with soil characteristics that impede the
movement of vapors to the extraction well, emissions of volatiles, and explosion
hazards. Soils with limited pore space would require the use of more closely spaced
wells and possibly higher capacity pumps. The air emissions may be controlled by
using granular activated carbon (GAG) at the discharge point. Explosion hazards
associated with vapors can be overcome by using intrinsically safe equipment, and by
ensuring that adequate volumes of air are moved through the system to keep vapor
concentrations betow the lower explosion limit (LEL).
From August 16 through September 14, 1995, a soil vapor extraction performance
study was conducted at the General Electric Controls facility. The study was
conducted to determined if SVE is an appropriate remedial technology to mitigate the
presence of VOCs. A total of 553 pounds of VOCs were recovered during the study
indicating that SVE will effectively remove the VOC contamination from the on-site
soils.
The SVE system under this alternative will have the following characteristics:
- approximately 30 to 50 extraction wells, each with shallow and deep extraction
focused on soils within the GE Controls facility. • .
- the effective radius (zone of influence) for extraction wells has been estimated to be
32 to 60 feet, assuming a single well nest. ^ .
- connecting piping wilt be installed in order to transmit vapors containing VOCs to a
central removal point and treatment of the exhaust air, if necessary,
- the SVE unit(s) may contain an air treatment system to ensure that air discharges do
not exceed permissible limits. Air treatment may consist of thermal/catalytic oxidation
or granular activated carbon. No treatment will be necessary if the untreated.
discharges meet acceptable limits; this will be determined during the remedial design
(RD) stage.
- the proposed SVE system will be designed and implemented in a staged approach
which will involve the use of at least one mobile or permanent SVE unit. The mobile
SVE unit will be operated at a designated area until no more VOCs can be effectively
15
-------
removed at that location. The unit will then be moved to another designated area for
treatment. The designated areas of operation, type (mobile and/or permanent) and
number of SVE unit(s) to be used will be determined during the RD phase.
Capital Cost $ 2,777,000
Annual O&M ' $ 502,900
Present Worth Cost (10 year operation) ' $ 7,473,000
Present Worth Cost (4 year operation) $ 4,270,541
Construction Time 8 months
Alternative 3: Incineration
Incineration is an ex-situ technology which employs thermal decomposition via
oxidation at temperatures usually greater than 900 °C to destroy the organic fraction of
the waste. As an ex-situ technology, the soil of concern must be excavated and either
transported to an off-site incineration facility or fed through an on-site mobile
incineration system. The primary benefit of incineration is that this method of treatment
destroys the hazardous material rather than transferring it from one media to another.
Incineration is not considered a feasible remedy for this Site due to its poor
implementability and high cost. Although incineration has relatively high destruction
efficiencies, it would be difficult to implement as a component of the remedy since
extensive soil excavation would be required. At this Site, VOCs in the "hot spots" are
found at depths of up to 90 feet below ground surface. Not only wouid the excavation
of this soil be difficult from an engineering standpoint, but it-would also likely/cause a
significant safety risk while the on-site facilities are operational.
Due to its impracticability, the incineration alternative will not be further evaluated .
and/or considered.
Alternative 4: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
/
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD) is an ex-situ technology which uses
direct or indirect heat to vaporize organic compounds from soil, sediment, sludge, or
other solid and semisolid matrices. The vapors are then collected for further treatment.
As with incineration, LTTD requires the excavation and transportation .of contaminated
soils to either an off-site treatment and disposal facility or to an on-site mobile unit.
Unlike incineration, LTTD only transfers the VOCs from the soil matrix to the vapor
phase. The VOCs must still be captured or destroyed using another technology such
as granular activated carbon filters or catalytic oxidation.
16
-------
The logistical difficulties described above for the incineration alternative would also
apply to LTTD. LTTD would require extensive excavation and transportation of
contaminated soil to either an on-site mobile unit or an off-site facility.
Due to its impracticability, the LTTD alternative will not be further evaluated and/or
considered.
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES,
EPA has developed nine criteria (EPA OSWER Directive # 9355.3-01), codified in the
NCP § 300.430(e) and (f), to evaluate potential alternatives to ensure all important
considerations are factored into remedy selection. This analysis is comprised of an
individual assessment of the alternatives against each criterion and a comparative
analysis designed to determine the relative performance of the alternatives and identify
major trade-offs, that is, relative advantages and disadvantages, among them.
The nine evaluation criteria against which the alternatives are evaluated are as follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative to
be eligible for selection.
1 . o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not a remedial alternative provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based on a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls. .
2. o Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedial
alternative would meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other Federal arid State environmental statutes
and/or satisfy the criteria for invoking a waiver as set forth in CERCLA §
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "primary balancing criteria" are to be used to
weigh trade-offs among the different hazardous waste management strategies.
3. o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of a
remedial alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and
the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met.
4. o Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume evaluates the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that a remedial alternative may
17
-------
employ, or how successfully particulartreatment methods could reduce
the harmfulness or volume of contaminants, or their potential to move in
the environment,
5. o -i - Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health that may be
posed during the construction and implementation period until cleanup
goals are achieved.
6. o Implementability evaluates the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedial alternative, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement a particular option.
7. o Cost considers estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs,
and net present worth cost of the alternatives.
Modifying Criteria - The next two criteria are regarded as "modifying criteria," and are to
be taken into account after the above criteria have been evaluated. They are generally
to be focused upon after public comments are received.
8. o State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the SI Report
and the Proposed Pjan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternatives at the present
time.
9. o Community Acceptance refers to the public's genera] response to
the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan.
The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and .
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 (No-Action) does not reduce the indirect human health risk posed by
VOC's present in soils that could migrate into groundwater. Alternative 2 (SVE)
provides both short and long-term protection of human health and the environment by
reducing the concentration of VOCs in the soil. The only potential future risk of human
health at this Site is from possible future ingestion of groundwater and inhalation
through showering. Alternative 2 will be protective of human health and the
environment by enhancing the existing groundwater remedy by reducing the mass of
VOCs in the soils, thus preventing the further migration of the VOCs to the
groundwater.
18 ;
-------
2. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs since no remedial action is contemplated in
the alternative. ARARs related to air quality are established by the Puerto Rico
Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (PRRCAP), Rule 419 (Volatile
Organic Compounds). The PRRCAP rule establishes emission limits of 3 Ib/hr of total
VOCs and 15 Ibs/day. While Alternative 2 would require an examination of air quality
standards to ensure that emission limits are not exceeded, with the appropriate
monitoring and possible treatment controls placed on the SVE system, this alternative
will comply with air quality standards.
It should be noted that while there are no chemical-specific ARARs with respect to the
extent of soil cleanup that is necessary at the Site, Alternative 2 will enhance the goal
of the OU-I groundwater remedy to attain groundwater standards, while Alternative 1
will not.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 does not provide long-term effectiveness because the risk posed by the
VOCs in on-site soils for potential future use of groundwater would not be reduced.
More specifically, the volume, toxicity and mobility of untreated wastes remaining in the
soils will not be reduced. While Alternative 2 would require some operational time to
ensure that VOCs have been effectively reduced, it will provide long-term effectiveness
by reducing VOC concentrations at the source, thereby enhancing the existing OU-!
groundwater remedy and reducing the future risk posed by the VOCs leaching from the
soils into the groundwater. ; ; ;
4. Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1 would not cause a reduction in the toxicity; mobility or volume of the :
hazardous substances. Alternative 2 successfully reduces the volume, toxicity and
mobility of VOCs in the soils as VOCs will be removed from the source and either
treated through the use of vapor phase treatment techniques or released into the
atmosphere at levels complying with air quality standards. If concentrations are such
that air emissions do not require treatment, then the only waste stream which may
require some treatment would be the water collected from the air/water separator. The
mobility of the VOCs will also be reduced by Alternative 2 because the SVE system will
prevent the leaching of VOCs. from the soils into the groundwater.
19
-------
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 does not present any short-term risks to the community or on-site workers,
but the future risk posed by the leaching of VOCs from Site soils into the groundwater
will remain unabated. In the absence of construction or mitigating activities, there
would be no short-term impacts under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 generally does not
present substantive risks to on-site workers or the community. Considerations must be
made for the prevention of dust emissions during the boring of extraction wells, the
disposal of soil cuttings from the wells, and potential air emission controls if levels are
higher than air quality standards would allow. The installation of an SVE system at the
GE Controls facility could involve the interruption of plant operations. Precautions
would be taken to safeguard the safety of plant personnel during construction of the
system.
6. Implementabilitv
Both alternatives evaluated could be implemented. Minor implementability problems
could be presented by Alternative 2 because of the limited space available at the GE
Controls facility for the installation of extraction wells and interconnecting header pipes.
Depending on the designated extraction well locations and the piping route, it is
possible that some of the construction may disrupt plant operations. Technically,
Alternative 2 should be relatively simple to implement. SVE technology has been
widely used at Superfund sites to address the problem of VOCs in soils; both the
necessary equipment and experienced contractors are readily available,
7. Cost
The cost estimate associated with Alternative 2 is provided above. There are no
capital or long-term operation and maintenance costs associated with Alternative 1.
For Alternative 2, the estimated total net present worth for the construction and
operation of a SVE system over a four year period at a discount rate of 5% is
$4,270,541. Typically, successful SVE systems operate for time periods much snorter
than thirty years.
8. State Acceptance
The EQB concurs with the preferred remedy. EQB's concurrence letter is attached
hereto as Appendix C.
9. Community Acceptance
All comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached
hereto as Appendix D.
20
-------
X. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the results of the Rl and FS Reports, and after careful consideration of all
reasonable alternatives, EPA and the EQB have determined that Alternative 2 (SVE), is
the appropriate remedy for OU-II at the Site. Specifically, the selected alternative will
consist of the following:
Operation of a mobile or permanent SVE treatment system(s) to remove VOCs
from contaminated soils until no more VOCs can be effectively removed. - Soil
vapors will be treated, if necessary, before being emitted to the atmosphere.
Implementation of a system monitoring program for soil vapor collection and
* analyst's before and after air treatment, if necessary treatment is determined to
be necessary.
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.
EPA and EQB believe that the selected remedy will provide a high level of protection of
human health and the environment by reducing the concentrations of VOCs in the soil.
Toxicity, mobility and volume will be reduced permanently through treatment.
Moreover, this alternative will provide overall protection because it should reduce the
presence of VOCs at the Site through in-situ treatment such that the contaminated soil
no longer acts, as a source of contamination to the groundwater, thus enhancing the
existing OlM groundwater remedy.
The selected remedy will provide the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the evaluation criteria. EPA and EQB believe that the selected remedy will
be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will be
cost effective, and will utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The remedy
also will meet the statutory preference for the use of treatment as a principal element.
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As was previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(1), mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective,
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also
establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
21
-------
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d), further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs
under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
§121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets
the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621.
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
In order to meet the remedial objectives outlined in the previous section, the risk
associated with exposure to the contaminated groundwater must fall within the •
acceptable risk range for carcinogens.
Alternative 2 will provide the best overall protection because it will eliminate the
presence of VOCs at the Site through in-situ treatment until no residual impacted soil
remains.
2. Compliance with Applicable. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
There are no chemical specific cleanup standards for contaminated soils. ARARs
related to air quality are established by PRRCAP. The PRRCAP establishes emission
limits of 3 Ib/hr of total VOCs and 15 Ibs/day. At the present time, it is expected that air
emissions from the SVE will not be a problem. Air emissions will be monitored and, if
necessary, emissions controls will be placed on the system.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost in
mitigating the risk posed by the contaminated soils. Section 300.430(f) (ii) (d) of the
NCP requires EPA to evaluate cost-effectiveness by comparing all the alternatives .
which meet the threshold criterion of protection of human health and the environment,
against the three additional balancing criteria of long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; and short-term
effectiveness. The selected remedy meets these criteria and provides for overall
effectiveness in proportion to its cost. The selected remedy has a capital cost of
$2,277,000, annual O&M of $1,992,980, and a present worth of $4,270,000.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative (innovative) treatment.
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. SVE will significantly reduce the
22
-------
concentrations of VOCs in soil, thus reducing their vertical migration to the
groundwater. In turn, this action will reduce the length of time required to achieve
groundwater cleanup by preventing the VOCs from continuing to enter the groundwater.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy's utilization of SVE to treat source area soils satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of hazardous substances.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the selected remedial alternative presented in
the Proposed Plan.
23
-------
FIGURES
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX A
-------
ATLANTIC OtfEAN
**> PUERTO RIC
GERACIITY
MILLER. INC
EXPLANATION
*-•••—- Af>r>Ma»u*Tt txiiui or nic vtc* AH* SIUDY AHCA
PMKO PUCNTO RICO llDuSIOIM. OC^tlOPUtlll COUP AH T
SCALE
0 10 000
MAP OF PUERTO RICO
AND STUDY AREA
catax ccMCftAi citcimc PROOUCIS. »
-------
Q OOUn 1CAQ4 4
Q Q m»u KMM 6
127 lag
MWAOO KM* 3 .
-25SV
ei HOSW
DM
^
ILLINOIS i i 2
\ e« (
*
QLDS fucira:
6
\ r«EST>L
?4
KAWJO.
ICNZALCJ
ijo CRAMAJ tw:
A e '•«
O«OHLLA;
B*i4 IM
GiiAHAI LINDAS
1 • @H8
HAGUATO «
-------
N
"* 1/l/tS
K*C I'.XMT
Utt. «C4:
e»f.
WP I.
f™ "» IIMJ
W" Vt/tl
PRtOCO INDUSTRIAL PAI,
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO Id.
UNISYS
f-
-------
RESIDENTIAL AREA
TOTM.-
M SOL-OA3 BuCLfO LOCATIONa
AT T>e pnoco roumvu. ^A« A«CA
-------
OUlt BOnCHCXE
eORIMC CONVERTED TO MONITORING WELL
TRIO IL OR OE THEME
TElflACHLDROerHENE
TCE/PCE CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PE» SllLION
oct/urnr UNIT iwo
CURRENT DRAINAGE DITCH
rofiufn oRAiHACC CHTCH
10/PIU ^^-w 1H/IO
RESIDENTIAL AREA
HIGHWAY
; vc rtcunt 4-t «n> Mnc <-« COR otphis IH»T comcirao to ICC/PCI
uuuu TCE wo PCE eocsoiwnaa Hn cct.
HOJ au i KTB aft
-------
WHO* CHECK
RESIDENTIAL AREA
HIGHWAY " 2
= GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY AREAS
-------
I\___RESID£NTIAL AREA
-------
7///77J77T/.
ATLANTIC OCEAN
UDOKDltUI^H OMMS vtKt DU'.
Wt» BIT Cl 0*U fTOl mllfHT
«o nat ICKTOIW; VOLJ on w> aa.
GERAGHTY
MILLER, INC.
-------
'1000
/3000
PARKING LOT
PAVE/WENT
GE
CONTROL
PLANT
0
SCALE
220
FEET
EXPLANATION!
o
*""S
TCE
PRIOCO
MULTIPORT MONITORING WELL
4-iNCH DIAMETER WELL
TRiCHLOROETHENE
PUERTO RICO INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
• BOO
CONCENTRATIONS OF TCE
IN PASTS PER 8ILLION
UN£ OF EQUAL TCE CONCENTRATION
(DASHED WHERE LESS CERTAIN)
' GERACHTT
& MILLER, INC.
HCHEST QUANT1RABLE TC£ CONCS^TTUTO.^ m CROJNOWATER
EASTERN SDE OF THE PRffiCQ WDUSTolAL PAfX. AUGUST TO SEFTEMBEa 1990
fig-
9
•%••••«
-------
TABLES
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX B
-------
Page 1 of 4
Table 1 Chronology of Events (June 1983 to March 1993), Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Date
Description of Event(s)
June 1983
September 1983
March 1984
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) discovered volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in a groundwater sample from the Ponderosa
water-supply well located south of the municipal landfill.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Technical
Assistance Team (TAT) (Roy F/Weston, Inc.) collected and
analyzed samples from the public water distribution system and
supply weils on a monthly basis.
April 1984 -
March 1985
NUS Corporation, under contract to the USEPA, conducted RI
field work at the Vega Alta Site.
May 1986
July 1987
NUS Corporation issued the RI Report.
Draft Feasibility Study Report prepared by NUS was submitted to
the USEPA. • ' • .
September 1987
The USEPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a
remedial alternative for remediation of groundwater and provision
of drinking water supply for Vega Alta. The ROD required the
construction of treatment systems at four public supply wells, the
pumpage and treatment of groundwater, and the reintroduction of
treated Water into the public distribution system.
1988
The USGS published a report entitled "Hydrology and Effects of
Development on the Water Table Aquifer in the Vega Alta
Quadrangle, Puerto Rico."
-------
Page 2 of 4
Table 1 Chronology of Events (June 1983 to March 1993), Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Date
Description of Event(s)
1988
The USEPA invited several companies, including General Electric
(GE), Harman, Motorola, West Company, and the Puerto Rico
Industrial Development Company (PR1DCO) to implement the
selected ROD remedy.
September 1988
Caribe GE, Inc. retained Bechtel Environmental, Inc. to evaluate
data from the Vega Alta Superfund Site.
March 1989
In response to concerns expressed by'the above companies and
with input from the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PREQB) and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
(PRASA), the ROD was modified to require surface discharge of
all treated water. The USEPA issued an Administrative Order
(Index No. II-CERCLA-90302) which ordered the above
companies to implement the modified ROD remedy.
May 1989
Caribe GE submitted a Groundwater Investigation Work Plan.
prepared by Bechtel to the USEPA. - ' ' '
1989
Ebnsco prepared and submitted work pians to the USEPA 'for
Operable Unit Two (OU II) (Source) and Supplemental
Groundwater Investigations (SGI).
July 1989 -
February 1990
Bechtel conducted field activities (soil-gas survey, geophysical
survey, surface-water sampling, muldport monitoring well
installations, and well sampling) associated with the groundwater
investigation.
January 1990
Six potentially responsible parties (PRPs) received a "Special
Notice Letter" from the USEPA that extended the opportunity to
conduct the work proposed in Ebasco's Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan.
-------
Page 3 of 4
Table 1 Chronology of Events (June 1983 to March 1993), Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Date
Description of Event(s)
.February 1990
Bechtel submitted a Technical Memorandum to the USEPA
summarizing the results of the groundwater investigation.
September 1990
The USEPA issued an Administrative Order (Index II-CERCLA-
00301) and a final work plan for OU II (source) and supplemental
groundwater investigations at the Vega Alta Site.
- November 1990
Caribe GE submitted Bechtel's Groundwater Investigation Report
(Bechtel 1990) to the USEPA, USGS, and Commonwealth
agencies in conjunction with a Field Sampling and Analysis Plan
for OU n.
November 1991
Caribe GE submitted Geraghty & Miller's report "Field Sampling
Plan, Operable Unit Two (Source) and Supplemental Groundwater
Investigation, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico" (Source) to the USEPA.
November 1991
Caribe GE submitted Geraghty & Miller's report "Results of the
1991 Field Effort, Caribe GE Groundwater Investigation, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico" to the USEPA.
January -
April 1992
Geraghty & Miller implemented Phase I of the OU II RI field
activities.
October 1992 -
March 1993
Geraghty & Miller implemented Phase R of the OU E RI field
activities.
July 1992
Geraghty & Miller submitted the report "Technical Memorandum,
Summary of Initial Field Activities for the Operable Unit Two
Remedial Investigation,- Vega Alta, Puerto Rico" to the USEPA on
behalf of GE.
-------
Page 4 of 4
Table 1 Chronology of Events (June 1983 to March 1993), Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Date
Description of Event(s)
April 1992
Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM) issued a
report entitled "Annual Report of Historical VOC Distribution in
Groundwater at the Vega Alta Superfund Site".
March - June 1993 ERM constructed an air stripper and treatment system at the
Ponderosa Well in compliance with the OU I.
March 1993 -
January 1994
Geraghty & Miller implemented Phase II and Phase III of the
OU II RI and SGI field activities.
PRCOM.OOJ
-------
Tiblc 1.
,V«T ., Ae PRIDCO
. Fcbnurv Through April 1991. OU D tUmeduj
S
id Arei * •
2/20/92
2/20/91
2^0/92
2/20/92
2/10/92
2/20/91
2/10/92
2/10/91
2/20/92
2/20/92
2/30/92
1/20/92 '
2/20/92
2^0/92
2/30/92
2/20/92
2/20/92
2/2Q/9J
2/20/92'
2/20/92
2/20/92
WO/92
2/20/92
WO/92
WO/92
Cooriiiuiei
i
E 10360
N9440
E 103 40
N 9480
E 20160
N9520
E 10360
N9600
E 20400
N 9560
E 10400
N 9480
E 20400
N9440
E 10440
N94JO
E IMiO
N9S10
E 20520
N9520
E 20J20
N9520
E 10520
N9J60
E 20440
N9400
E 10540
N 9600
E 20360
N95&0
E 20400
N9SOO
£ 20400
N9510
E 20440
N944Q
£10440
N9J20
E204M
I* -HO
E 20440
N9J60
E 2C4JO
N9560
E 20520
N 9600
E 20430
N9600
E 20560
N 9160
l.l-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.03
*.
wtUUj,
1 • — —
0 n
u
0
u 0
0 A
u 0
0 • />
u 0
0 n
0
0 0
0 6
u
0 o
0 n
« 0
i
0 i
" 1
0 n
v u
0 n
w g
0 n
•f U
• 0 - ft
™ w
0 a
4 . *
0 -n
V 1|
0 o
v y
0 •' 0
0 0
w \f
o • o
v y
• 0 o
v \j
0 o
o a
0 0
0 0
-------
T«ble 2.
XimpJe
•
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-2I
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-2S
A*2J*
A-26
A-27
A-23
5-12
B-I2-
B-13
8-14
B-I5
B-16
B-17 .
B-18
B-19
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
">• D.I.
• • _
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
MI/92
Ml/92
^ n t JM-*
*/iI/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
MI/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
2421/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
Ml/92
WlrtM
**-l/V*
Ml/92
M4/92
M4/92
M4/92
M4/92
Caon£«tu
111
E 20480
N9440
E 20520
N 9440
E 20560
N9520
E 20560
N94CO
E 206 00
N9400
£20600
N9520
E2«00
N 9480
E 20600
N9440
£20100
N9520
E 20100 .
N9520
E 20760
N 9400
E 20840
N9S60
E 20340
N9S20
E 20520
N94SO
E 20520
N94JO
£ 20560
N9430
£ 20560
N9440
E 106 40
N94SO
E 20300
N94M
£20760
N94SO
E 207«
N9440
E 20300
N95«0
£20640
NS400
ElGrfJSI
AV^J^U
N9440
E 206JO
N9400
E 20630
N952Q
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
—
<0,03
<0.08
<0.08
-------
T*ble 2.
of ] [
f AMlyUed Rcfl.lt. for ihc So,l-G..
Sample
«^^^^_B_
A-33
A-33-
A-14
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-31
A-39
A-W
A-4I
A-»2
B-10
•- B-io-
B-U
B-12
B-23
B-24
B-1S
B-26
B-27
B-2S
B-29
B-30
B-30-
B-31
-— ^— — .
See li« pjg.
1-0. Dl(e
• : ' .
2/24/92
2/24/92
2/14/91
1/24/92
2/24/92
1/34/92
2/24/91
2/24/92
1/24/91
2/24/92
2/24/92
1/24/92
2/24/91
2/14/92
2/24/91
2/24/92
1/24/92
2/24/92
2/24/92
2/24/92
2/24/92
2/24/92
2/24/92
1/24/92
2/24/92
—
: for ibotnotei.
Coordiniiei
.-
E 20760
N9J20
E 20760
N9520
E 20720
N9400
E 10630
N 9560
E Z0640
N9600
E 10800
N9600
E 10110
K9400
E 20600
N9600
E20SOO
N 9440
E 20710
N94SO
E 10710
N9520
E 10640
N 9520
E 20640
N 9510
E206JQ
N9440
E 10610
N94JO
E 20760
N9J60
E 20710
N9-UO
E 10610
NMOO
E 20740
N 9«00
E 20340
N9600
E 10920
N9600
E 20330
N 9560
E 10770
N9450
E 20770
H9«0
E 10710
N 9560
" -^-^^^^—.^
t.l-DCE
(ppmv) -
...
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
-------
T.ble 2. Sumnurr of A«lv.«.I Jfc*lu tor the SotI-C« S««v=y .1 (he PRIDCO lnd««ri.l P.rk. Febrwrv
Uvcilif iiion, Vegt AItt, Pwrw fcieo.
April 1991.
Simple I.D. D«le CoonftntKi
A-O
A-U*
A-W
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-34*
B-J5
Honrf* Creek
A-l
A-2
A-3
4-45
A-46
A-t7
A-«
A-49
A-JO
A-51
A-52
A-53
B-36
B-37
8-33
A-J-t
2/25/92
2/15/92
2/25/92
2/25/91
205/92
2/25/92
2/25/92
2/15/92
2/19/92
2/19/92
2/19/92
2/15/92
2/25/92
2/25/92
2/25/92
2/35/92
2/25/92
2/25/92
2/Z5/92
2/25/92
2/15/92
2/15/92
2/25/92
l/M/92
£20600
N9560
£20600
N 9560
E 20620
N 9540
E 20640
N9560
E 20720
£20600
N954Q
£20600
N 9540
£10550
N 9540
E 20000
N IOSOO
£20040
N 10800
E 19960
N 10800
E J9680
N 1071 1
E 19710
N J0771
E 19760
N 10757
£ 19S40
N 10808
E 19830
N 10S23
E 19760
N 10720
E I9S40
• N 107M
E 19JSO
N 107SO
E 19100
N 10760
E 19430
N 10630
£ 1972Q
N IQ6SO
E [9300
N 107S7
E 19910
N 10U3
1,1-DCE tnn*-l,2-OCE
(ppmv) (ppmv)
-------
Tlblc 1.
Strnplc I.D.
~~'
A-55
A-55*
A-57
A-58
A-J9
A-*0
A-61
A-4Z
A-63
A-6,4
A -65
i jee*
^XIJ
A-66
A-47
A-«3
A -59
A-70
A-71
A^^
-71
A-73'
A-74
A-75
A-75-
A-76
A-77
A-73
A-79
— .
in Utteige for
DILC
1 •
2/26/$2
2/2S/92
2/26/92
.2/24/92
2/26/92
2/16/92
2/26/91
2/26/92
1/26/92
2/JS/92
1/26/92
2/26/92
2/26/91
2/26/92
2/W/92
2/26/92
1/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/17/92
2/27/92
2/27/91
1/27/92
2/27/91
" —
foatn/if *•«
Coordtiuiei
—
E 19920
N I 0100
E 19920
N 10800
E 19960
N 10845
E 20040
N IOS5J
E 20000
N 108JO
E 20080
N IOS45
E 20120
N 10831
E 20160
N 10S20
E 10030
N 10800
E 20120
N 10300
E 20160
N IOSCQ
E 20160
N 10800
E 20200
N 10817
E 10200
N 10800
E 20240
N 10300
E 20240
N 10827
E 20320
N IOS21
E 20320
N 108CO
E 203 40
N IOS41
E 10360
N 10800
E 20400
N 10867
£20440
N 10895
E 20440
N IOS95
E 10520
N 10931
E 20560
N 10920
E 206.10
N 10947
E 20400
N 109:0
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
— ^^— — ^— ^
-------
Tibl« 1.
Sumnurv nf
Pije t qf j|
• — * — ---i/HsimMMBiiof (Be 5«l-O*f 5UIV4V « the PRmco l.i, i • i B u r- •.
InvcBj^^n. Vcj, AK., *«« j^o. • ° tndl"""' Plflc- **«* ™™th April 1992. OU B fe^,
Simple I.D.
— " i—
A-80
A-H
A-S1
A-S3
A-S4
B-39
B-tO
B-40*
B-tl
B-tl
B-43
B-44
V45
3-46
B-t7
B-48
B-19
B-50
B-50*
8-51
B-52
A-222
C-94
Caribs GE Pirt;nT t
A-85
A-35*
— —
Scs bji nice fn, .-„„,
Due
_
2/27/91
1/27/92
2/27/92
.2/27/92
.2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/91
1/17/92
2/27/S2
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
1/27/92
2/27/92
1/27/92
2/27/92
2/27/92
2/2S/92
2/2S/9!
3/20/92;
3/20/92
jOt
2^3/92
1CS/91
•
CoonJuutct
"•^ ~^w^KHH^_h
E2C630
N 10945
. E 20610
N 10920
E 20720
N 10950
E 10760
N 10951
E 20800
.N 10920
E 20210
N 1 0800
E 20320
N 10830
E 10320
N 10310
E 20400
N 10140
E 20440
N 10140
E 10410
N 10110
E 20430
N 10910
E 20520
N 10810
E 20600
N 10945
E 20640
N 10920
E 20560
N 10945
E 20720
N 10920
E 20760
N 10920
E 20760
N 10920
E 20100
N 10960
E 10140
N 10920
E 20840
N 10940
E 10340
N 1OT35
E 19710
N 10200
E 19720
N 10200
I.I-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.|4
-------
T.ble 2.
.
Jtmpk I.D.
.
A-86
A-87
A-88
A-89
A-90
A-91
B-J3
B-54
B-J5
B-34
B-57
fl-53
1-59
A-9:
A-93
A-94
A-95
A-95* .
A-94
A-97
AOfl
-?B
A-99
A-LOO
A-IOl
A-102
Sumnury ol
Invettigiuoi
—
One
-i
2/28/92
2/21/92
i/M/92
2/28/92
2/21/92
2/2J/92
2/28/92
2/2S/92
2/28/92
2/21/92
2/21/92
2/2S/92
2/2S/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92 •
3/2/92
3/2792
3/2/92
3/2/92
' Anilviiej] Rea,Iu
i. V«n AJU, Pwcl
Coord 141* 1*1
.
E 19760
N 10140
E 19740
N 10120
E 19J40
N 10200
E 19940
N 10200
E 19920
N 102+0
E 19140
N 10240
E 19680
N 10200
E 19800
tt JOI40
E 19100
N 10200
E 19740
N 10200
E I9J30
N 10200
E 19920
N 10200
E I98SO
N 10240
E 19720
N 10140
E 19800
N 10120
E 19140
N 10160
E 19440
N 10120
E 19440
N 10120
E 19710
N 102*:
E 19740
N 10240
E 19440
N 10010
E [9340
N 100SO
E I9KO
N 10030
E 19920
N 10030
E 19920
N 10120
for th« 5oi[-G»j
a RJca.
1.1-OCE
(ppmv)
— ^ — ^_
rt. F:bra«f
—• -
TCE
(ppmv)
—
<0.04
<0.04
•« 0 0
-------
T*ble 2.
p>3-- 8 of j]
of Aiulyuctl Retulu for uie Soil-Go Survey it the PRIDCO [nduuriij Pirk. Fcbnury Through April 1991. OU Q Reni*H'
. Vtj« AJu, Pu.rto fcico. • '
Simple l.D.
B*50
B-«0«
8-61
B-61
B-63
B-44
B-6J
B-67
A-I03
A- 104
A- 10 J
A-105*
3-49
3-70
B-70*
A-2S4
A-2SS
A-236.
A-2S7
A-237*
C-II7
C-118
C-119
C-120
C-120-
C-121
Dtie
3/2/92
3/3/91
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/2/92
3/1/92
3/2/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/V2
3/3/92
3/3/92
30/92
3/3/92
3(10/92
3/30/92
3/30/91
3/30/92
3/30/91
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/91
3/30/92
3/30/92
Coordiiuiu
£ 19680
N 10160
£ 19680
N 10160
E 19720
N 10120
£ 19680
N 10120
E 19640
N 10160
E 19630
N 10140
E 19800
N 10240
E 19960
N 10030
E 20000
N 10240
E 20000
N 10120
E ZOOCO
N 100SO
E 20000
N 10080
E 20000
N 10200
E 20000
tt 10160
E 20000
N 10160
E 19960
N 10230
E 19920
N 10230
E 19340
N 10230
E 19720
N 10110
• E 19710
N 101SO
E 20000
N 102SO
£ 19S30
N 10230
E 19300
N 10230
E 19760
N 10230
E 19760
N 10230
E 19630
N 10230
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
-------
PjJtSofJl
Tible 2. Sumnury of AjulyiiciJ RcwlLi for the Sail-Gn Survey Unknown.
0.43 |
0.06 j
0 1
0.33 1
0.04 o
2.9< o
1.43 o
0 I
0 0 .
OJ4 0
0.11 0
OJO 0
1.09 0
(Ul 0
0 0
Cinb«GE Pilot Bld». No. 1.
A-1W
A- 107
A- [OS
A-109
A-na
fl-71
B-72
V
B-73
B-74
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
E 19920
N 100-W
E 19340
N 10040
£ 19760
N 10040
E 19730
N 10000
E 19640
N WO
E 20000
N 10040
E 19960
N 10040
E 19SSO
N 10040
E 19SOO
N 10040
-------
Tihle I.
Summary of Aiul/tici! ReiuJu for the Soil-Gil Survey n she PRIDCQ tnduiiriil Piri, Fsbruiry Through April 1992. OU D
Vegi Aiu, Puerto Rico.
Simple 1.0.
8-75
B-76
B-77
fl-78
B-79
B-tO
B-80*
Mil
A-it:
B-81
MI
6-33
v.|21
A- 111
B-93
8-94
B-95
Ciribe CE Pilot
A-I13
A-H4
. A-115
B-S4
B-85
B-S6
B-S7
Due
•i •
3/3/92
3/3/92
3d/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/3/92
3/4/92
3/4/92
3/4/92
3/4/92
3/4V92
3/5/92
3/5/92
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/5/91
eid», No^l
3/31-91
3/3/91
3/3/91
3/4/91
3/4,'92
3/4/91
3/4/92
Coordijuie*
E 19800
N 10000
E 19340
N 10000
E 19720
N 10040
E 19680
N 10040
E 19640
N 10000
E 19640
N9920
E 19640
N99JO
E 19920
N 10000
E 19920
N9960
E 19960
N 10000
E 19680
N 10000
E 19760
K 9830
E 19960
N 9880
. E 10000 .
N 9920
E 199(0
N 9340
E 20000
N 9830
E 20000
N 9960
'
E 19760
N 9140
E 19140
N9SCO
E 19S40
N 9680
E 19*00
N 9S40
E 19840
N9840
E 19300
H9760
E 19720
N 9760
l.l-DCE tn'n*-l,2.DCE
(ppmv) (ppmv)
<0.14
-------
Tibia I.
, ,9,1.
Simple I.D.
S-8J
B-S9
A-116
A-116*
A-117
A-IIS
A-119
A- 120
B-90
B-90-
B-91
B-92
A-I34
A-135
C-J
C-9
C-9-
Rovimk
A- 123
A-114
B-96
B-97
A-125
A-12J-
A-126
Oite
3/4/92
3/4/92
3/5/92
3/5/92
3/5/91
3/5/92
3/5/92
3/S/92
3/5/92
3/5/92
3/5/92
3/5/91
3/9/91
3/9/92
3/9/91
3^/91
3/9/92
3/5/92
3/5/91
3/J/91
3/5/92
3/6/92
3/6/92
3/4/92
CoonJtuici
E [9710
N9630
E 19710
N 94 80
E 19800
N9480
E 19800
N9480
E 198CO
N9720
E 19920
N 9630
E 19960
N9760
E 19960
N9720
E 19880
N 9610
E 19110
N 9610
E 19920
N 9720
E 19960
N 9SOQ
E 19300
N9SOO
E 19760
N9760
E 19760
N 9SOO
E 19720
N9720
E 19730
N9720
E 19630
N 9380
E 19600
N 9900
E 19740
N9840
E 19640
N93SO
E 19400
N 9330
E I96CO
N 9330
E 19560
N 9300
I.I-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.24
• <0.24
0.41
0.42
3.04
<0.10
<0.10
-------
Ttble 2.
Sumnury of An*l]rtic»| Rcmju for the Soil-Gn Survey 11 (he PRIDCO InJunri.) P»rlc. Febnury Through April 1991, OU D Rsmedi.1
va, VCg» AJu. Puerto Rico.
Simple l.D.
A-127
A-m
A-119
A-L3Q
A-I3I
A-132
A-133
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-t
C-5
C-6
Drjfrjp Ditch
A-136
A-136*
A-137 .
A-I3S
A- 139
A-140
A-141
A-142
A- 1 43
C-IO
C-ll
C-ll
Dtte
3/6/92
"*
3/6/92
3/4/92
3/6/92
3/6/92
3/6/92
3W/92
3/4/92
3/6/92
3/4/92
3/6/92
3/6/92
3/9/92
3/9/92
3/9/92
3/9f92
3/9/92
3(9/92
3/9/92
3/9/92
3/9«2
3/9/92
3/9/92
3/9/92
3/9/92
Coordiruui
E 19600
N 9900
E 19520
N9720
E I9J20
N 9610
E 19480
N 9640
E 19520
N 9640
E 19560
N 9600
E 19600
N 9640
E 19600
N9S40
E 19560
N9760
E 19560
N9720
E 19560
N 9640
E 19640
N 9600
E I960)
N 9600
E 20920
N 10130
E 20910
N 10180
E 20910
N 104CO
E 20920
N 104SO
E 20920
N 10560
E 20920
N 10640
E 20920
N 10720
E 20902
N 10300
E 20S75
N iosao
E 20920
N 10360
E 2C910 •
N 10360
E 20920
N 10440
l.t-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.10
-------
Title 2.
Summary a( Antlyiie.1 ftuulu tot ihe SoiI-G« Survey n (he PR1DCO InJuiuiil Pirk
Invetugition, Vigt Afti. Puerto Rico.
1,1-DCE tniu-l,2-DCE eii-l,2-DCE
Simple 1.0.
C-13
C-I4
c-ii
C-1S
c-n
C-H
former Drain»te
A-270
A-271
. A-272
A-273
A-274
-1-27J
A-276
D-20
D-21
D-22
'D-23
D-24
D-li
D-26
A-277
A-177-
A-273
A-279
A-230
Due Coordiiuici
3/9/92
3/9/91
3/9/92
. 3/9/92
3/9/92
3/20/92
Drteh
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/17/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
' - 3/30/92
E 20920
N 10320
E 20920
N 10600
E 20920
N 10630
E 20914
N 10760
E20S92
N 10840
E 20823
N 10920
1"
220
2IJ
214
211
' 110
222
213
219
214.
213
212
209
221
223
223
207
1«
205
fppmv)
^0.11
<0. 1 1
<0.tl
<0.11
<0-ll
<0.16
<0.10
)
<0.04
<0.04
<0,04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.08
<0.06
<0.06
-------
7.
Sunurury of Aiulvtieil Reailu for the Soil-G«« Survey »t ihe PRIDCO Iiufuiirwl P»rk. February Through April 1992, OU n Remedial
, Veji AIu. Puerto Rico.
Sttnfte I.D.
A -IS!
A-232
A-2S3
C-tll
C-112
C-113
C-114
C-IIJ
C-tlS
Formerly West Q
A-144
A-14J
A-146
A-146-
A-147
A-143
A-I49
A-IiO
C-13
C-19
C-19*
C-20
C-21
C-22
c-13
C-24
D*ie Coordiiutci
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/30/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
104
201
22S
224
208
22i
203
202
227
£20040
N 10240
E 20080
N 10240
£ 20120
N 10200
E 20120
N 10200
E 20240
N 10240
E 20240
N 10200
E202JO
N 10200
E 20240
N 10260
£20040
N 10200
E200W
N 10200
E 20010
N 10200
E 20020
N 10240
E 20160
N 10240
£20200
N 10240
E 20160
N 10200
E 20200
N 10:00
l.l-DCE tnu-(,2.DC£
(ppmv) (ppmv)
<0.10
<0.10 '
<0.10
<0.08
<0.16
<0.16
<0.16
^O.ltf
^O.t6
<0,Q3
<0.1S
<0.lfl
TCE
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.0fi
<0.06.
<0.06
-------
,, puetto *„.
,urvey „ A. PWDCO
d P,,t.
April 1991. OU a
Simple 1,0.
C-2J
C-26
C-27
C-23
C-29
A-IJ1
A-IJ2
A-1J3
A-154
A-U5
A-156
A-U7
\-U7-
A-1JJ
A- 159
COO
COO-
CO I
C01
C03
CO4
coi
cos
C07
A-160
^ -^— ^
Ditc
3/10/91
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/10/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/1 1/92
3/11/91
3/11/91
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/11/92
3/1 1/92
-3/11/92
3/1 1/92
3/11/92
3/11/91
3/12/92
•^^^^^—
Coordiiutei
•^— ^^^— ^— •— ™^— ^—
£ 20140
N 10180
E202SO
N 10240
E 10320
" N 10200
E 10310
N 10140
E 10310
N 10160
E 10140
N 10131
E 10160
N 10160
E 20160
N 10110
E 20240
N 10233
E 20360
N 10200
£20360
H 10120
E 20310
N 10120
E 10320
N 10120
E 20320
N 10061
E 20140
N 10063
E 20100
N 10160
E 10200
N 10160
£10200
• N 10240
E 20240
N 10220
E 10340
N 10230
E1034J
N 10160
£ 20340
N 10030
E 20310
N 10030
E 20230
N 10065
E 20200
N 10063
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
- <0.17
O.SO
<0.17
-------
f'tt IS of]
Tible I, Suenmiry of Aiulyiicil Reiuiu Cor the Soil-C«l Survey «
-------
T*bk 2.
Sunurury of An»lylkil RcwlU far Ae Soil-Go Survey 11 (lie PRIDCO InJuuri.1 Put, Februtry Through April 1991, OU Q Remedial
bvtejjiiioa, Vcgi AJu, Puerto Rico.
Simple I.D.
A-171
A-172
A- 173
A- 174
A- 173
A-176
A-176-
A-177
A-17S
A- 179
A- ISO
A- 133
:-«»
C-t9
c-so
c-5o-
C-31
C-J2
C-53
C-54
A-1S4
A-185
A-1SS
A-13S-
A-1J7
A-ISS
D«i*
3/13/92
3/13/92
•
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92'
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/13/91
3/16/92
3/lfi"fl2
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/14/92
3/la/92
CoopdiiuLCJ
E 20400
N 10240
E 20440
N 10240
E 1Q560
N 10140
£20640
N 10240
E 20680
N 10240
E 20720
N 10240
E 20720
N 10240
£ 10840
N 10240
E20SOO
N 10200
E 20740
N 10240
E 20960
H IOOJO
E 10920
N 10160
E 20520
N 10240
E 20480
N 10240
E 204CO
N 10240
E 20600
N 102*0
£20440
N 10200
E10S10
N 10240
E 20920
N 10240
E 20140
N I02IX)
E2Q92*.
N 10200
E20S40
N 10160
£20*40
N 10120
E 20340
N 10120
E 20960
N 10000
E 20360
N 1C040
I.I-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.16
<0.16
-------
Tbl* 7
'
' KXXSSL'K Saiw:" *"*" " *• PRroco """""" Plfk- F""^ n™* *« ««• °u • «-*•
Simple I.D.
C-56
C-57
C-59
C-60 .
C-60*
C-W
A-212
A-213
A-215
A-21S
A-219
C-85
:-M
C-J7
C-S8
C-S9
C-91
C-92
A-220
A-221
A-227
A-22S
A-229
C-97
C-9S
C-99
Due
-r •
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/lJ#2
3/19/91
3/19/92
S/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/20/92
3/20/92 "
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23,92
Coordinate*
E 20920
N 10120
E 20980
N 10080
E 20960
N 10040
E 20»0
N 10000
E'20S»0
N 10000
E 20560
N 10000
E 10640
N 10000
E 20560
N IOOEO
E 20720
N 10020
E 20760
NIOOOO
E 20800
N 10000
E 20600
N ICOCO
E 20520
N 1004)
E 20520
N 10030
E 20*80
N 10000
E 20720
N 100CO
E 20720
N 10040
E 20760
N 10040
E 20100
N 10040
E 20100
N 10020
E206SO
N 10040
E 20160
N 10040
E20S2J
N 10000
E 20760
N 10020
E 20440
N 1C040
E2«00
N 10040
U-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.09
-------
H of 3 1
T»ble '2. Summiryof AjulpjeJ R«utu for ilw Soit-G" S"™* *llhe PFUDCO Uluurul Ptrk. Febnury Through April 1992, OU
[flveaijuion, Vegt All*. Puerto Rica,
Simple t.D.
C-100
C-100-
We* Company Ko. '
A-L8I
A-U1
C-H
A-139
A-190
A- 19 1
•
A- 192
A-193
C-6!
:-62
C-63
C-64
C-6J
A-194
A-19J
A- 196
A-196'
A- 197
A- 193
A- 199
A-100
A-201
•
Diu Coordirtfic*
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/13/92
3/13/92
3/IJ/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/91
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/16/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
E 20823 .
N 10040
E 20323
N 10040
E 20910
N 9310
EllOOO
N 9920
E 10920
N9840
E 20960
N 9920
E 20880
N9SOO
E 20840
N 9330
E 20840
N 9340
E 20340
N 9760
E 20960
N 9960
E 20310
N 9840
E 20920
N9300
E 20830
N98SO
E 20840
N9SCO
E 20960
N 9300
E 20960
N 9720
E 20920
N 9720
E 10920
N 9730
E 20920
N 9640
E 20330
N 9640
E 20340
N 9630
E 20300
N 9640
E 20720
N 9640
1,1-DCE tnn»-l,2-DCE «it-l,2-DCE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv)
<0,17
<0.17
-------
Tible 2.
Somnury of Aiuljaicil Rewtu for the Soil-Co Survey n ihe PRIDCO Indujirijl Pirk. Fcbnury Through Apri
Inveaigiliaa, Vegi All*. Puerto Rico.
April 1992.
Simple LLD.
• ••! 1..—
A-202
A-203
A-204
A-205
C-66
C-47
C-68
C-S9
C-70
C-70*
C-71
C-72
C-73
C-74
C-73
C-76
A-206
A-206-
A-207
A-20S
A-209
A-210
A-211
C-77
C-73
C-79
V** 1--. _ _
Dtte
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
, 3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/1S/92
3/18/92
3/15/92
3/13/92
• 3/18/92
3/18/92
3/18/92
3/1 S/92
3/13/92
3/1 S/92
— •
•
CoordLuLsi
E2M40
N 9680
E 20600
NW40
E 20560
N9680
E 20560
N9720
E 20960
N97SO
E 20920
N9760
£20880
N 9760
E 20960
N 9tiiO
E 20SSO
N9SSO
E 20880
NS680
E 20(40
N9640
E 20100
N9680
E 20680
N 9640
E2C640
N9640
. E 20540 -
N9640
E 20520
N96SO
E 20J20
N 98CO
E 20520
N 9800
' E 20520-.
N9760
E 20529 '
N9620
E 20560
N9SSO
E 20520
N 9920
E 20520
N9960
E 20520
N9840
E 20550
N 9840
E 20550 .
N 9300
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
• ..—
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10 .
<0.10
<0.14
<0.14
-------
Tibl« 2,
Simple t.D.
C-iO
c-»o*
C-81
C-82
. C-M
A-2I4
A-216
A-217
A-217*
C-90
C-W
A-223
A-224
A-225
C-95
C-96
A-22S
A-225'
Eni.Cerr. .1
A-297
A-297*
A-29S
A-299
A-3CO
A-301
Pj«< 21 ofl|
Summiry of Anilpieil Rtnilu for the Soii-Cii Survey tt tfw PREDCO InduMml Pirk. Ftbruiry Through April 1992. OU n Rum,};,,
lnv
-------
Tible 1.
PWDCo
Simple I.D.
A-3Q2
A-303
C-I30
C-130*
C-I31
C-132
C-I33
C-134
Hinrun Auto
A-230
A-231
A-132
A-233
A-234
A-233
A-236
C-lOi
'C-102
C-103
C-104
C-10S
A-237
A-237-
A-233
A-239
— ^^••^
•~~fc^— •— -~^-™«
Dili
4/1/92
t/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/91
4/1 m
4/1/92
4/1/91
4/1/92
3/13/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/23/92
3/13/92
3/24/92
3/24/92
3/24/92
3/24/92
Coord ioiut
E 23940
N9600
E 23980
N 9600
E 23860
N9698
E 23860
N9698
E 23900
N9720
E239SO
N 9709
E 24020
N 9600
E 24020
N9680
£20480
N 9680
620430
N 9760
E 10480
N 9840
E 20480
N9800
E 20440
N 9760
E 20440
N96SQ
E 20400
N9720
E 20480
N 9710
E 20440
N 9340
E 20440
N 9800
E 20440
N 9720
E 20*40
N 9«30
E 20430
N 9920
E 20430
N 9920
E 20440
M9330
E 20430
N9960
l.l-DCE
(ppmv)
-------
Tiblc 2.
Simple I.D,
A-240
A-241
A-242
A-243
A-144
C-106
C-107
C-108
C-109
C-!IO
C-UO-
A-245
A-246
A-247,
A-247*
A-24!
A-249
A-250
A-251
A-252
A-253
D-l
D-:
D-3
D-4
A-254
Summiry of Ami/tie*! Reiulu for At Soil-Gu Survey
-------
Table 2.
Simple (.0.
A-U5
A-Jtt
A-2i7
A-153
A-2ig«
A-U9
A-160
A-I61
A-162
A-163
A-264
A-265
0-J
CMS
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-9*
D-tO
D-ll
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-1J
A-266
A-167
PiltltoOl
Sumirury of A/u[vtie«] ReB1u, for the Soil-C.t Survey .1 ihe PR1DCO InJuun.l P,rt. FtSru.rv Thresh April I99"> OU ff ft*«~r ,
liweiugiiian, V(g» Alt*. Puerto R«o. ' ""Wai
Dm
3/16/91
3/16/92
3/16/91
3/16/91
3/26/92
3/26/92
3/26/91
3/26/91
3/26/91
3/26/92
3/16/91
3/16/92
3/26/92
3/16/92
3/26/93
3/26/91
3/26/92
3/26/92
3/26/91
3/26/92
'3/Z6/92
3/26/92
3/26/91
3/26/91
3/27/91
3/27/91
Coatdiium
£103 60
N 9646
E 20310
N 9644
E 10140
N 9644
E 10103
N 9646
E 10103
N 9646
E 10040
-N9646
E 10000
N9720
E 20020
N 9760
E 20120
N 9S40
E 20QSO
N 98(0
E 10110
N 9100
E 20200
N9S40
E 10180
N 9646
E 10100
, N 9646
E 10160
N 9646
E 10080
N 9646
E 10000
N 9630
E200CO
• N 96SO
E 10040
H 972ft
E100M
N 9SOO
E200SO
N 9840
E 20040
N 9840
E 20120
N 9S30
E 10160
N 9840
E 20040
N 9910
E 10030
N 10000
I.I-DCE iraiu-l.l-DCE
(ppmv) (ppmv)
<0.12
<0.11
<0,11
<0.ll
<0.ll
<0.12
<0.11
<0,11
-------
T4bl« I. Sumnury of Aiulyiitil Remit! for ih= Soil-Cn Survey n ihe PRIDCO InJuariil Pitk. Febnuiy Through April 1992.
Inveoiguioa, Veji AJu, Puerto Rico.
Simple l.D.
A-J67*
A-26S
A-269
D-14
o-n
D-18
D-19
D-19*
CE Comrol Pltnl
A-304
A-305
A-306
s-307
A-307-
A-3QS
C-I35
A-309
A-310
AOII
A-312
A-313
A-314
A-3I5
A-316
A-317
_
Din
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
• 3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
3/27/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/1/92
4/2/91
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/1/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
CooidiniCct
E 2CQSO
N ICOOO
£20200
N ICOOO
£20240
N ICOOO
E 200*0
N99SO
E 20040
N93SO
E 20110
N 10000
E 20160
N ICOOO
E 10160
N ICOOO
E 24340
N 92SO
E 24330
N 9210
£24410
N 92SO
E 24460
N9210
E 14460
H9230
E 24100
N92JO
E 24300
N92SO
E 24J30
N 9210
E 24f i.-j
N 92*0
E 24530
N 9360
E 243 80
N9400
E 14530
N9440
E 24610
N 9400
E 24620
N 94SO
E 24620
N 94SO
E 24530
N 9640
1,1-DCE I
(ppmv)
<0.10
<0.10
-------
Simple I.D
D«l« CoordiiuiM
U-DCE UW.-I.I.DCE M-I.2-OCE TCE PTC _ Toul
'— *•* ^ ^ s XT'
A-318
A-314*
A-319
A-320
C-136
C-137
C-I38
C-I39
C-140
c.un«
*— l^v
C-14I
C-142
A-32I
A-322
A-323
A-324
A-3U
A-Hi
A-327
C-143
C-144
C-145
C-1 46
C-147
c-us
C-U9
—
3« <>U 313f tnr
4/1/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/2/92
4/3/92
4/3/91
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/92 .
4/3/92
4/3/92
4/3/93
4/3 ,'92
— — —
)•„.
E 24530
N9600
E 24580
N9600
E 24540
N9560
E 14500
N9600
E 24540
N9230
E 24340
N9260
E 24620
N 9360
E 24620
N 9440
E2«iO
N9520
E 24620
N9510
E 2+605
N9600
E 245SO
N9360
E 24540
N9640
E 24540
N96SO
E 24460
N 9640
E2M20
N9640
£ 24380
N9600
E 24] SO
N9WO
E 24300
N9600
E^JCfUV
i-*jiW
N9560
E 24540
N 9SOO
E 24500
N9440
E 24460
N96CO
El I ifA
it^;y
N 9600
E 24340
N 9600
E 24340
N 9640
-^ ^^ .
<0.13
<0.13
42JO
2.75
- -.0.17
«U7
<0,I7
<0.17
-------
T.blc 1.
Simple I.D.
A-32S
A-32S'
A-329
A-330
A-331
A-332
A-333
A-334
A-335
A-336
C-1IO
C-IJO-
C-IJt
C-1J2
C-1J3
C-134
C-li5
C-136
C-1J7
A-364
A-36J
A-366
A-367
A-36S
A-36J-
A-369
ii
Dtte
— ^— - — ~^_ .
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
• 4/6/92
4/6/92
4/6/92
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/92
4/6/91
4/6/91
4/6/92
4/6/92
4/6/91
4/9/91
4/9/91
4/9/91
4/9/91
4/9/92
4/9/92
4/9/92
Coordiniifi
E 24160
N9320
E 14160
N9320
E 14260
N 9440
E 14160
N 9480
E .14160
N 9520
E 14160
N9S60
E 14300
N9640
E 24300
N 9720
E 24260
N 9694
E 14260
N9720
E 24260
N 9210
E 14260
N 92JO
. E 24260
N9360
E 24260
N9400
E 14260
N 9600
E 24300
N 9680
E24UO
N 9630
•£14160
. N 9760
E 14230
N9«40
• E 14140
N.9360
E 24240
N 9400
E 24140
N 9440
E 24300
N 9760
E 24440
N9720
E 24460
N 9710
E WOO
N 9S40
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
O.SQ
0.65
<0.14
<0.14
<0.t4 '
<0.t4
0.41
<0.1^— v^.^
TCE
(ppmv)
0.61
OJ«
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
^^^^^^^H^
PCE
(ppmv)
0.17
0.15
<0.04
<0.04
-------
Sumnury o
. Veg, A)u.
'*" ** *'
Simple f.D.
. —
A-370
A-371
C-IT7
C-178
C-179
c-iao
C-ISO*
C-1SI
C-lil
C-1S3
C-184
A-372
v-373
A-374
A-375
A-376
A-377
A-373
A-373*
A-379
A-330
A-3S1
C1 • *
•135
C-ISfi
C-187
C-IJ3
•-
3« Its -itc fa, f~-
Dtu
-!•
4/9/91
4/9/92
.4/9/91
4/9/92
4/9/92
4/9/92
4/9/91
4/9/92
4/9/92
4/9/91
4/9/92
4/10/92
4/10/92
4/10/92
4/10/91
4/10/91
4/10/92
4/10/92
10/92
4/10/92
4/10/92
4/10/91
4/10/92
4/10/91
4/1 0/92
4/10/92
— — -^ ^-_
IPnn***
Coordintiei
E 24495
N 9895
E 24410
N 9840
E 142*0
N9180
E 24500
N9720
E244SO
N9760
E 24540
N9720
E 24540
N9720
E 24540
N 9760
E 24440
N 9840
E 24420
N9840
E 24440
N9S10
E 24340
N 9720
£24300
N976Q
E 24380
N9740
E 24420
N 9800
E 24420
N-9720
E 24JOO
• N9SOQ
E 14460
N9SCO
E 24440
N9SOO
E I44«
N9S40
E 143 SO
N9IOO
E 24340
N 9S20
£24340
N 9630
E 24340
N9740
E 24420
N9760
E 24330
N 9730
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
^•— «^— »— i^^^^.
U.WJ
<0.04
.
ci»-l,2-DCE
(ppmv)
•^^•^_u^^^^^^^^
<0.09
<0.09
<0.ll
<0,ll
Unbx
-_
rt
° 0
n
0 0
0.57 0
0 n
U 0
0 n
u 0
0 n
v U
0 n
0 0
0 n
V 0
0 n
v U
Q A
U
0 n
u
0.08 o
OJS o
0 0
V
0 n
v y
• o o
w V
0 0
'0 .Q
0 0
0 0
0 • 0
0 0
3.SS 1
a o
0 0
0 0
-------
Tible 2.
AJ11(
ftr*. U«. Su,vcr « *e PRIDC0 M,^ Ps,k, Febmi(y ^ Ap ., ^ QU B ^^
Sample I.D,
^— ^— ^— i— _
C-I39
A-383
A-3I4
C-190
C-190*
Trlcdvng Ptcklffino
r
A-337
A-338
A-33S*
A-339
A-340
A-341
A-342
A-343
A-344
A-345
A-344
A-347
A-34S
A-348*
C-IJS
C-159
C-I60
C-I60*
C-161
1 • —
Dile
_
4/10/91
4/13/92
4/13/91
4/13/92
4/13/91
4/7/91
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/91
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4f7/92
4/7/91
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/7/92
Coordinate*
E 24340
N9800
E 24340
N 97JO
E 24340
N9800
E 14320
N 9800
E 24320
. N 9800
E 24060
N9720
£24140
N9720
E 24140
N9720
E 24220
N 9680
E 24130
N 9680
E 24100
N 9630
E 24220
N 9640
E 24180
N9S40
E 24100
N9«40
E 24140
N 9640
E 24120
N 9560
E 24220-
N 9320
E 24230 -
N 9400
E 24210
N 9fiOO
E 24100
N 9720
E 24ISO
N 9720
E 14210
N9720
E 24220
N 9720
E 24140
N 9630
1,1-OCE
(ppmv)
0.4J
1J7
<0.11
-------
2.
Simple t.O.
C-162
C-163
A-349
A-3JO
A-351
A-332
A-353
A-I54
A-3I5
A-3J6
A-337
A-358
A-3J3'
A-J39
A-360
A-36I
0164
C-165
C-166
C-1S7
C-1S1
C-169
C-169'
C-170
C-17I
C-172
-
D*te
^•.
4/7/92
4/7/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/3/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/91
4/8/92
4/8/91
4/3/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/S/92
4/1/92
4/8/91
4/3/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/8/92
4/3/92
4/8/92
Coordinate!
E 24060
N9610
E 24060
N 9640
E2413J
N 9640
E 24200
N 9«40
£24140
N 9«00 •
E 14100
NMOO
E 24100
N9J20
E 24C60
N 9520
E 24060
N 9-180
EZ4C60
N 9400
E 24100
N9400
E 24140
N 9140
E 14140
K 9240
E 24180
N 9240
E 24110
N 9310
E 24110
N94CO
E 14130
N 9400
£ 24130
N 9540
E 14140
N 9560
E 24100
N9J60
E 24060
N 9560
E24C60
N 9600
E 24060
N 9600
E 14060
N 9440
E 24100
N9340
E 14100
N 931S
1,1-DCE
(ppmv)
• <0.16
<0.16
<0.16
<0,16
<0.16
ei«-l,2-DCE
(ppmv)
-------
Simple I.D.
C-173
C-174
C-I7J
A-362
A>363
C-176
Sim Food
A-3JJ
A-316
C-191
C-19J
;pmv
vocj
DCE
TCE
PCE
PSUDCO
E201(iO. N 10800
Dtie CoardJtuiei
4/g/« E 24100
N 9240
4/8/92 E 24220
N9240
4/8/92 E 24220
N 9360
4/9/91 E 14120
N WSO
4/9/92 E 24120
N 9400
4/9/92 E 24220
N9630
4/13/92 / 129
4/13/92 *131
4/13/91 Jf 223
4/13/92 * 230
Piru per million by volume.
Duplioli ufflfk.
VoUuk organic campoundt.
Dichloroeihcnc»
Tfichlareeihene.
Tclnchloroethsne
I.I-DCE
(ppmv)
<0.!9
4.S3
-------
ilitc X Stituiiury a( Detection FrcqucncUi and Canccnlnlioti ftingci for ilit Soil-Gil Survey il the PRIDCO Imluuri*! Ft it, Fcbruiry Through April 1991, V«jt Alu, Puerto Rico.
No. orStmpling
Pointi AiutyieiJ Ami
76
61
61
25
21
19
17
27
48
61
S9
12
W
90
46
4
Concrete
Put
Ifondi
Creek
C.rihc OE
Pi dine Lol
Cirilx: Olt
Mini 1II.IB. NIL 1
Ciril* QE
Pit-rt Illtlu, Nil. 2
Rovipik
Dnintge
Ditch
Former
Driiiȣe
Piled
Formerly
Weil Co.
Weil Co. No. 1
Wca C
-------
TiMe J. Siiminiry of Detection Freqiicncici and Conctnlnlion Ringti for the Soil-Git Survey il Ihe PRIDCO Imluilrii! Pirt, Fru«iy Through April 1992, Vcf * All*. Puerto Rica,
P.M. J of 2
cii-t.2-DCG
No, df Stmplinr; Detection
Poinn Aiuly/ol Are» ' Frequency
76
61
61
25
21
19
17
27
41
61
V)
12
69
90
46
4
CimCfcIC |X
Fill
IlonJi Oil
Creek
C>rihe GE 0* •
Pirtini; Lot
Cirihe Of, Pilot 16*
IIWE. Nn- 1
Cirihe O6 Pilnt 5*
lll.le. NIL 2
Rovipit OX
Drtinife 0%
Ditch
Former OX
Ditch
Formerly 256
Weil Co.
Weil Co. No. 1 IX
Wen C<>. No. 2 OX
Din Ceriniicg 0%
fltrnun Aulo OX
Cirilie fif: 12 X
Control Plinl
TeMync ruckling 21
Sim Food .. 0%
Concentration
Ringc
' tppmv)
< 0.04 -0.53
<0.06- <0.12
<0,07- <0.22
0.32 -55.74
<0.07-0.ll
<0.0g- <0.|4
<0.07-
0.09 - 1 .23
<0.04 - 0.04
<0.t^ - <0.08
<0.04 -
-------
T.bU 4. 5^^£W£*tm*U for *. Soil-C.. Sun«, ,t *e Veg, ^ S(unieipil Undfiu
Simple I.D.
Lmdfill
A-337
A-3ZS
A-388*
C-193
C-194
C-19J
C-19fi
A-389
A-390
A-391
A-392
A-393
>-394
A-J94-
A-395
C-I97
C-198
0199
C-100
C-200-
010 1
0202
C-103
A-396
A-397
A-39S
Diu
4/13/91
4/13/92
4/13/92
4/13/91
4/13/92
4/13/92
4/13/92
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/91
4/14/91
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/92
4/14/91
4/14/91
4/14/92
4/14/91
4/14/91
4/14/92
4/13/92
4/13/92
4/13/92
Coordinate*
NEIOO
NW400
NEIOO
NW100
NEIOO
NW100
NEIOO
NW300
NEIOO
NW200
NEIOO
NWIOO
NEIOO
NWIOO
NESO
NWIOO
NEIOO
NW430
NEIOO
NWJOO
NE1J3
NWSOO
NE200
NWfiOO
NEIOO
NWSOO
NEIOO
NWSOO
NE200
NW700
NE130
NWIOO
NE150
NW400
NEIOO
NW350
NEIOO
NWSOO
NEIOO
NWfitV
NEiOtl
NW700
NE200
NWSOO
NEIOO
NV/900
NE300
NW500
NE300
NW700 .
NE400
NW700
l.I-DCE
/oomvl
<0.ll
<0.11
<0.11
<0.13
<0.13
<0.!3
1.01
<0.11
<0.11
<0.11
-------
T«falc 4.
Siirrile I.D.
I^~——*^™™^^»^™
A-399
A^OO
C-204
C-20J
C-206
C-207
C-20S
A-401
A-W2
A-403
A-t04
A-10J*
C-109
-•2!0
C-210*
C-211
0212
.
Dttf^
4/1J/92
4/15/92
4/15/92
4/1J/92
4/15/92
4/13/92
4/15/92
4/1S/92
4/16/92
4/U/92
4/16/92
4/16/92
4/16/92
4/IS/92
4/16/92
4/16/92
4/16/92
Coordtmiei
NEI75
NW700
' NE573
NWSOO
NE200 •
NWOO
NE400
NWSOO
NEiOO
NWTOO
NEJ75
NVS50
NEIOO
NW800
NEIOO
NW42J
NE2JO
NW650
NE350
NWS50
NE400
^fWlooo
NE400
mviooo
NEIOO
NW37S
NE23
NW700
NE25
NW700
NE400
NW900
NES75
NW900
1,1-DCE <"n»-I,2.DCE
£EEE^ fg^mvi
<0.09 07
^•/l t 1 ...
-------
Parameter
Phenol
1,4-D:cnIorobenzene
2-Mechylnaphthalene
Isophorone
Di-n-buty phtbalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylliesyl)pbthalaie
Acetone
Eerarne
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
4,4-DDE
Cyanide, Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vindium
Zinc
Septic Tank 1
(«g/L)
24
26
7
380
2
170
3
59
207
36.3
0.759
109,000
7
130
719
10.1
6,940
13.8
3.52
Duplicate
Septic Tank 1
(«g/L)
J
390
J
170
J
23 J
224
35,5 B
0.786 B
94,700
7.06 B
113
683
8.68
6,780
19.1
4.22
Septic Tank 2
30,900
224
15,200 B
30,000
198
8.400
2,300'
1,400
3,800
66
120
0.241
4
31,700
114
562
1.3
155
301,000
2,300
75.4
1,540
248,000
• 2,150
14,000
1,030
3.5
1,210
29,400
30.9
77,400
141
26,300
Duplicate
Septic Tank 2
(ug/L)
180 J
9,000 E
630
440
3,300
3,700
+*
"g/L
N
Source:
JSisr*1"level fct *** •"* **•"' .|~i——*• >—*
Secondary MCL.
Proposed MCL.
Micrognms per liter.
Estimated value below detection limit.
Riported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the CQnr^f - AJ - .
but greater than or equal to the instrument detection liSI ™ ^^ ^"^ iimt'
The reported value is estimated because of the presence of interference
Spike recovery not within control limits.
Lawson Associates, Ice. (1991).
MCL
(ug/L)
5
1,000
700
10.000
*• -m-
200**
50 *
50
2.000
4 **
5
100
1,000*
300*
50
50 *
. 2.0
100 *
100*
5,000*
-------
Table 6. Summary of Septic Tank Sludge Analytical Results, Tdedyne Packaging, Inc.,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Parameter
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Bariu.Ti
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Silver
Reactive sulfide
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
. ug/L Micrograms
Septic
Tankl
(ug/L)
1,030
1,290 .
840
5.8
23
6.1
20
5,600
2.67
per liter.
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate
Septic
Tank 2
(ug/L)
108
500
56
630
Procedure.
TCLP
Limit
(ug/L)
500
100,000
100,000
1,000
5,000
200
5,000
1,000
Source: Harding Lawson Associates, Inc. (1991).
pxow.au
-------
7. Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations Detcclcd by CLP Laboratory Analysis of Soil Sampki, PRIDCO Induslrial Park, Oclolicr 1992 to Mirch 1993, 00 II Remedial
Investigation, Vega Alia, Puerto Rica.
Page I nf
Sample 10:
Aiulyic Due:
lilnrniiicllianc
mmointillmiie
'myl tJilifiiilc
Iciliylcue chloride
. L-KIIIC
nilmn disulfidc
l-DiciiliiriHilhciu
I'llitltliiriiL-liiniit:
> iJiiJiliiioullienc {tii/lfoiis)
liliiriifuriri
2 Dicliloriidlinnc
HllltttMUIC
1 .1- Tiii-liliKimliiiic
niliiin leiracliloriilc
-tifiimlicliliiruinelhtna
2 IJiolilnnifiMipDne
v 1 , J Oithlufopropene
ii;li)iirui;[liL'iK
1 .2-1 rltli!iifui:ih«ne
:n/t;iic
mi- i, J-OlelilOfoprnpcne
lllllOlllfTII
Mi:Lhyl-2-f><:i»tfti|imc
llexnnmic
l.2.2-')'eifni.'l(linneilinnc
jliicitc
il.xol.ciuvnc
tiylbcn/ene
yrcnc
fltiiui (UHtil)
BH-03A
tl-DiC-92
12 U
12 U
12 M
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
12 IJ
I2U
12 U
SJ
12 U
12 U
12 CJ
13 U
!3U
12(1
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 I)
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 Ij
12 IJ
12 U
I2U
12 IJ
12 U
12 IJ
12 U '
12 U
Dll-05
31 i')~
30 Oci-92
13 U
13 U
13 IJ
13 U
13 U
13 ';l
13 U
13 U
13 U
I3U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
IIU
IJU
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 IJ
13 U
13 IJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13U
D 11-09
(9,5'-
II. V)
l6-D»-92
It U
II U
II IJ
It U
IIU
11 (I
II U
II U
II U
II U
1 J
II U
II U
IIU
II U
II U
II U
11 U
II U
II U
II U
II U
II U
II IJ
II U
IIU.
11 U
II U
II U
H U
It U
IIU
M U
DIMS
(77.S--
79.0')
3 Dcc-92
12 U
12 IJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
i J
12 IJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
I2U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
13 U .
1211
121)
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
BII-2IA
(9.S--
I7.M»r-93
13 U
1311
13 tJ
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
II J
13 U
13 U
IJU
13 U
I3U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U.
13 U
13 U
I3U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 IJ
I3U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 t)
13 U
13 U
011-24
<4->.S'-
itl.J')
lO-F*b-93
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12U
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12U
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
IJU
12 U
12 U
12U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12(1
1211
12 U
12 U
12 IJ
12 U
I2U
BH-7.SA
(29.V-
JI.S')
27-Jin-93
MU
14 tJ
14 U
H U
14 U
M UJ
14 U
4 J
120
240 P-DJ
7J
MU
HU
M U
HU
HU
HU
MU
2200 D
MU
44
MU
14 U
14 U
HU
14 U .
14 U
MOO DJ
H U
H U
HU
14U
HU
DII-25A
(64 .5'-
27-J»n-93
14 UJ
M UJ
M UJ
14 UJ
M UJ
14 UJ
M UJ
14 J
48 J
79 J
3 J
H UJ
H UJ
HIM
H UJ
H UJ
H UJ
M UJ
JOOOOJ
14 UJ
I7J
HUJ
14 UJ
14 UJ
M UJ
14 UJ
14 UJ
250 DJ
H UJ
14 UJ
14 UJ
H UJ
M UJ
BII-26A
1!#
4-F(b-93
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
4 J
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ '
13 IJJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
BII-26A
(9.V-
I(.S')
4-Feb-93
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 IJJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
9J .
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 tJJ
• 13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 (IJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 UJ
HH-2fiA
(64.5'-
68.5')
S-Feb-93
13 U
13 U
13 IJ
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 IJ
13 IJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
IJU
13 U .
IJU
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
13 UJ
13 U
U U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
BII-31
04.5'-
36.V)
20-Jm-93
14 U
MU
H II
14 U
14 UJ
14 UJ
14 U
7 J
3 J
28
M U
H UJ
M U
14 IJ
MU
MU
H tJ
HU
61
MU
H U
HU
14 U
HU
14 UJ
14 UJ
HU
S J
M tl
HU
M U
14 U
H U
BH -31
(IJ.S'
16. S')
14 U
M U
M tl
H U
S J
33 UJ
14 U
14 It
H U
II J
14 U
. 14 U
14 IJ
H U
HU
H U
14 IJ
H U
16
14 U
14 U
14 II
14 U
M U
M U
14 II
M U
14 tl
14 U
14 It-
14 U
H U
M U
1,11yIc ciincciitraliiins in miciogrami per kilocranl {parts per billion fp|>l>)).
inlysei were performed l>y various analytical sulicunlrnclon, using itaiidaril U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USCPA) methodology.
Tin cdinjKiuniJ wax alsn dutoclcd in Ihc nssncblcd inelhoJ lil.irtk.
C
-------
r:.Mi: 7. Vrilatilc Organic Comixiuiuh Conccnlrnlions Dctcclcil hy CLP Lfllionilory Analysis of Soil Samples. PRIDCO Induslrial Park, Oclol>cr 1992 in Morcli 1993. OU II Remedial
liivosliiraiinn. Veua Aha, Puerto Rico.
Page 1 i
Sin>|.L- ID.
Dcpih:
Analyli Due:
„
'i Jl A
Vinyl chloride
tliMliyliMie chlnride
Vclcme
.'urltufl ilttuirille
.(•Okhiiiriwthcne
. 1 Dkltliiincilmne
.2 Nii-liliifoctliciic (cii/lrniii)
'lilcuofiinn
•TlillUMIIIC
. J.I Tin. Jilnrncllmne
udiDii ttiiacldoridc
KKlj(:h|ll,,,llleil,MC
, 2 • 1 >it lihiiuprofiMie
iv 1, J r>iclifo(O|>fnpcnc
•i^Ku'i'iudiiiiromvlhane
. 1 ,2-Tikliloriictlmne
K. t 3>nichlik/m>runcnc '
' J
Mclhyl-2-pealannnc
n
^*"".pj)(ic Mofinnlinnc
4 '"'r, ,.•
I
Mi>ri>lu:ti?i:nc
•ll •jlltll/UIIC
v'r -He
yltiiti (lota!)
nn 33
6.V)
2t-J»n9J
12 U
)•> (I
13 UJ
P U
12 U
13 tJJ
12 U
12 U
I2U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
1211
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
P UJ
12 U
P U
12 U
12 U
I J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
BII-33
(9.J-
11.5')
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
17 UJ
IS U
IS U
ISU
13 It .
ISU
13 U
13 U
IS U
13 U
13 U
tsu
13 U
13 U
1JU
ISU
IS U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
ISU
13 U
13 U
ISU
DII-33
(I9.31-
2I.S')
ll-Jin-93
13 U
jiu
13 U
ISU
19 UJ
13U
ts u
ISU
IS U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
IS U
13 U
40
ISU
ISU
13 U
13 U
t3 UJ
ISU
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
IS U
13 U
13 U
1111-33
<29.S'-
31. 5')
22-Iin-93
IS IJ
13 U
13 UJ
ISU
ISU
13 UJ
IS U
SJ
ISU
IS U
13 U
IS U
13 U
ISU
ISU
13 U
ISU
13 U
85
ISU
2J
IS U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 II
ISU
13 U
13 U
IS U
13 U
13 U
13 U
nil-33
(39.S1-
12 J
13 U
IS UJ
ISU
ISU
13 UJ
ISU
IJ
IS U
IS U
ISU
IS U
ISU
IS U
ISU
13 (1
ISU
13 U
57
tsu
1 J
ISU
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
ISU
13 U
IS U
13 U
IS U
13 U
13 U
DII-33
Jl'sV
13 U
13 U
IS UJ
13 U
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
ISU
13 U
13 U
ISU
13 U
1311
IS U
ISU
ISU
13 U
13 U
5J
ISU
13 U
tsu
13 U
13 UJ
13 U
13 U
13 IJ
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
IS U
nil-33
(69. S'-
7i.v>
25-J«n-93
13 U
ISU
13 U
ISU
13 U
13 UJ
ISU
ISU
13 U
ISU
13 U
ISUJ
ISU
13 U
ISU
13 U
ISU .
ISU
13 U
13 U
ISU
13 U
ISU
13 II
ISUJ
IS UJ
13 U
13 U
IS U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
DII-33
(B9.V-
SI.3')
25-Jift-93
14 II
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 UJ
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
I4U
Mil
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
MU
42
14 U
14 U
[4 U
14 U
14 IJ
14 U
14 U
14 U
2 J
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
14 U
HI! 34
(49.5 '-
SI.S')
l-F«b-93
ISU
1511
1511
ISU
IS U
ISUJ
ISU
24
2 J
6J
15 U
ISU
IS UJ
IS U
tsu
ISU
ISU
ISU
75
ISU
15 U
ISU
ISU
IS U
1SUJ
ISUJ
ISU
I2J
15 U
ISU
ISU
tsu
ISU
DII-34
(59.S--
61. 5')
l-Fcb-93
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 UJ
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 UJ
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 11
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
1611
J6U
16 UJ
16 UJ
16 U
2 J
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
16 U
BII-38A
(14.5'- .
16.5')
l7-Dtc-?2
M UJ
II UJ
II UJ
II Hi
II UJ
II 111
11 01
1 1 UJ
II UJ
M tJJ
II UJ
11 UJ
II UJ
II UJ
It UJ
II UJ
II UJ
II UJ
It UJ
11 UJ
1] UJ
11 UJ
It ID
M UJ
11 UJ
II UJ
11 UJ
II UJ
II UJ
II UJ
11 UJ
II US
11 UJ
u.'ilyii: L-nticcnlralioni in micrngrami perkitoenm (parti per litllion (ppl>|). • •
lutyvcs WLTL- |>crfnrmcd liy vanuut analytical siilicbnlrntfors, using standard U.S. Environmental Prolcclion Agency (USbPA) methodology.
UIL- enincoiinil wai ,ilin detected in llie associated tnclhod iilank.
f.'iiinpoiind cortceiilrnliim was dclcnnincd ul a secondary dilution factor.
lisliiiultil remit.
1 lit: t in ii |s mud Witt aniily/al for, lull nnl delected it I tic corresponding rqwjling limits.
-------
Tibte
of SoU S^lc, frem
. OU H RcmedUl lavcuf
PRJDCO tad..*., Ptrt.
Vtgt Alt*, Puerto RJco.
I of U
Simple l.D.
(Depth in A bli)
BH-06 4.5-6.5
BH-06 9J-I1J •
BH-06 14.5-16.5 •
BH-06 19J-21J
BH-06 24J-26J •
BH-06 29J-3IJ •
BH-06 34-5-36-5 •
BH-06 39.5-41.5 •
BH-06 44.5-46 J -
BH-06 49J-5I.5 •
BH-06 54.5-56.3
BH-05 4 .S-oJ
BH-05 9.5-1 1J
BH-05 14.5-16.5
BH-05 19.5-21.5
BH-OJ 24.5-26.5
BH-05 29,5-31.5 *
BH-05 34.5-36.5
BH-05 39.5-J1.5
BH-05 44.5-46.5
BH-05 49.5-5 !J
BH-05 54.5-55.2
BH-05 59.5-59.9
BH-04 4.5-^.5
BH-04 9.5-1 U
BH-04 14.5-16.5
BH-04 19.5-21.5
BH-04 24.5-26.5
BH-CJ 29 .5-3 1 J
BH-04 34,5-36.5
BH4W 39J-41.5
BH-04 44J-M.5
BH-04 49.5-JI.5
BH-(W 54.5-56.5
BH-OJ 59.5-61.5
BH-04 64.5-65.1
BH-04 69.5-70.3
BK-36 4.5-S.5
BK-3S 9.5-11.5
BH-36 14.5-14.5 •
BHOS 19.5-21 J •
BH-36 2-t.5-'6.5 •
Sc: lilt pi£c Tor fooL-un.--.
D*Lc
Stmpicd
jons/92
10^8/92
loasm
1 0/21/92
IOT2S/92
10/2S/91
10/28/92
IQ/2S/92
\mW2
10^8/92
• 10/29/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
1000/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
100 0/92
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
1*2/93
1-3/93
2/3/93
i'3/93
*in;oi
— - jjyj
2/3/9,3
1
Location
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
'FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
l.l-DCE
ND
wrj
nu
ND
ND
ND
• ^ &•*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
Nn
nt^
ND
ND
ND
ND
wn
r*u
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
wn
WLJ
vr*
i™ tj
ND
tnuu-l.2-DCE
(Ug/kf)
ND
ND
20
16
19
11
16
20
ND
un
rn/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
VT-l
f*D
ND
ND
42
4
TCE
(uj/kf)
ND
ND
ND
49
120
36
50
11
450
11
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
(«{/ke:
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND -
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
' ND
ND
. ND
• 1
U
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
T.W. 4. *»,,,;, Of v.Wh 0,«* C^pou* Concern™^ Dc(MUll br Re|J Cu o^
of So.! Simple, from BoreKot*,, PRIDCO !rul<««ri*| P,,k. Ocujbcr 1992 to M.tch 1993
OU n &ctnc4u] LivcKigiiiao, Vej» AIU, Pueno Rica.
2 ofu
Stmplc I.D.
(Depth in A bit)
BH-36 29J-3I.5 •
BH-36 34.S-36.5
BH-36 39J-U.5 *
BH-3S 44.5-46.3 •
BH-34 49J-J1.5 •
BH-36 54J-36.J •
BH-36 J9J-6I.5 •
BH-36 70.0-70.1 •
BH-IO 4.5-6.3
BH-IO 9J-11.3
BH-10 I4J-I6.5
BH-10 I9J-21.J
BH-10 24.5-26.5
BH-10 29.5-31.5
BH-IO 34.3-36.5
BH-IO 39J-UJ
BH-10 44.5-W.i
BH-IO 49,3-51.5
BH-10 34,5-55.4
BH-1! O-6.5
BH-11 9J-I1.3
BH-ll I4J-K5.5
BH-11 19.5-H.5
BH-11 24.5-26.5
BH-11 29.5-29.8
BH-U 34.5-36.3
BH-ll 39.5-11.5
BH-ll 44.S-W.5
BH-ll 49,5-31.5
BH-ll J4.5-54.S
BH-H 59.5-60.0
BH-35 0.5-2.5
BH-35 4.5-6.5
BH- 3 9.5-11.5
BH- 3 14.5-16.3
BK- i 19. 5-: 1.3
BH- 5 29. 5 -31. 5
BH- < 34.5-34.9
BK- i 39.5-*l.5
BH- j 44.5-^.5
BH- i 49.5-;9.9
BH- : 54.5-J6.5
BH- 5 3».i-50.0
Sdi liu f,St ;a, foouiouj.
D«l£
Sampled
mm
mm
mm
2/3/93
2/3/93
mm
20/93
1/3/93
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
1 1/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
11/2/92
1 1/4/92
1 1/4/92
11/4/92
11/4/92
1 1/4/92
11/4/92
' 1 1/4/92
11/4/92
11/4/92
1 1/5/92
11/5/92
1 1/5/9 2
11/3/92
11/3/92 '
11/5/92
11/5/92
1 1/5/92
1 1/5/92
11/5/92
ll/i/92
1 1/6/92
II -'6/92
ll,'6;92
1 1/6/92
Lociiion
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
. FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
FWC
F>VC
FWC
F.VC
FiVC
F.VC
- F.VC
FiVC
F*C
F.VC
F.VC
F.VC
l.l-DCE
(ug/lcg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
•is
2S
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
f»ni-:,2-DCE
fuff/Vffl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
. ND
-
TCE
(ugflcj)
" • II
ND
ND
ND
ND
40
J3
us
67
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
i
PCE
(UJ/kj)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10 -
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
: ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
Tiblt S. Ajwlyii, of VoUcile O^.nic Compound Con«mra.i0iu
of Soil Simple* from Boreholei. PRIDCO Injuuhil Pi,
OU n Remedial Inve«jf»uon, Vig. AJlt, Puerto Rica,
g:3 ofu
Simple I.D.
(Depth In ft bit)
BH-02 4.5-S.5
BH-02 9J-11J
BH-02 14.5-15,8
BH-02 19.5-2!. 5
BH-02 24.5-25.0
BH-02 29.5-30,6
BK-02 34.5-34.8
BH-01 4.5-«.5 ,
BH-01 9J-11.5
BH-01 14.5-11.5
BH-OL 19-5-21.5
BH-OI 2-U-26.5
BH-01 29.5-31.5
BH-Ot 34.5-36.5
BK-OI 39.5~«1.5
BH4I 49.5-50.8
BH-01 54.5-56.5
BH-01 59.5-6U
BH-01 64.5-66J
BH-fll 69.5-71.4
BH-12 4.5-6.5
BH-12 9.5-11.5
BH-12 14.5-16.5
BH-12 19.5-21.5
BH-12 24.5-26.5
BH-12 29 .5-3 1.5
BH-12 34.5-36.5
BH-12 39.5^1. 5
BH-12 44.5-t$,5
BH-12 49.5-51.5
BH-!2 56.5-JS.5
BH-12 59.5-SI.5
BH-12 64.5-66.5
BH-12 69.5-7L5
BH-12 74.5-77.0
BH-iJ 4.0-6.0
BH-14 9.0-II.O
BH-i- 14.0-16.0
BK-14 19.0-21.0
BH-L4 24.0-26.0
BH-M 29.0-31.0
BH-i- 34,0-34.0
BH-I-J J9.0-41.Q
Ses Ijii pigc tor focuiout.
Due
S.replcd
11/6/92
11/4/92
11/6/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
It/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92
11/9/92-
11/9/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
1 1/ 11/92
11/11/92
11/11/92
11/11/92
11/11/92
11/11/92
I I/I 1/92
ll/tl/92
H/ll/92
11/11/92
.11/11/92
11/11/92
11/11/92
1 I/I 1/92
11/11/92
1 1/16/92
It/16/92
11/16/92
11/16/92
11/14/92
11/16/92
11/16/92
11/17/92
Loeiiion
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
R/M
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
n ,T
HA
HA
HA
HA
1,1-DCE
(ug/fcg)
tjn
ii i/
Wf-l
PiU
Nn
jiu
wn
1^ U
ND
ND
ND
Nn
»u .
.^D
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nn
i* LJ
Nn
11 l_r
Nn
nu
ND
ND
ND
ND
KITl
nu
ND
ND
jjri
"M
ND
ND
ND
ND
•jr.
PiL/
1 ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
w ni
c*u
ND
sfr\
riiJ
ND
tnn»-1.2-DCE
(uj/fcB) .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
tin
f*u
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
\m
nU
TCE
(Kg/kg)
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
{ug/kg;
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Np
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
" ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
W
ND
-------
Tible •». Ajulyiii of Volttik Oif inic Compound Conccmn M.rch 199J
OU n Kemcditi l/iveujjiiioo. V<|t AJu, Putno Rico.
Page 4 Of
Simple I.D,
(Depth in (I bli)
BH-14 44.0-M.O
BH-14 49.0-51.0
BH-I4 55.0-56.!
BH-14 59.0-59.1
BH-14 M.0-64.1
BH-15 4.5-6.5
BH-15 9.5-1 1.5
BH-15 14.5-S6.5
BH-15 19.5-2 1. 5
BH-15 24.5-26.5
BH-15 29.5-31.5
BH-15 34.5-36.5
BH-ii 39J-II.S
BH-15 44.5-46.5
BH-15 49.5-51.5
BH-15 54.5-56.5
BH-15 59.5-61.5
BH-li 65.5-67.5
BH-15 69.5-70.7
BH-16 0.&4.5
BH-lfi 9.5-11.5
BH-!6 14.5-16.5
BH-16 19.5-21 j
BH-U 24.5-2S.5
BH-16 29.5-31.5
BH-16 34.5-36.5
BH-16 39.5-41.5
BH-16 44.5-46.5
BH-li 49.5-51.5
BH-16 54.5-55.1
BH-16 64.5-66.5
BH-16 70.5-70.7
BH-16 74.5-75.2 •
BH-17 4.5-6.5
BH-17 9.5-11.5
BH-J7 14.5-16.5
BH-17 19.5-21.5
BH-17 24,5-25.5
BH-17 29.5-31.5
BH-17 34.5-36.5
BH-17 39.5-H.5
Bri-iT 44.5-W.5
Sei tat puj. for fooL-icles.
Simpled
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
ll/IJ/92
ll/lg/92
I1/1K/92
1 1/18/92
11/18/92
11/11/92
I1/1S/92
11/18/92
11/18^2
1 1/13/92
It/11/92
1 1/ IS/92
11/19/92
11/19/92
1 1/20/92
1 1/20/92
1 1/20/92
11/20/92
1 1/20/92
1 1/20/92
11/20/92
11/20/92
11 /20/92
11/20/92
1 1/20/92
11/23/91
11/23/92
11/23/92
11/30/92
11/30/92
1 1/30/93
1 1/30/92
1 1/30/92
H/30,-92
1 1/30/92
11/30/92
1 1/30/92
^ ^—*-
Locition
KA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
:A
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
' HA
HA
HA
HA
K,*
HA
HA
HA
we
we
we
we
we
we
svc
we
we
" • • — ^
l.l-DCE
Cuj/lg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
««ni-I,2-DCE
(ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• I
TCE
(ua/ke)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
• ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
—— *^^— ^^^^^_
PCE
(Ug/tj)
••
ND
ND
ND
ND
'D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
Ti!iJ< I.
Compound C0n«n«™on
,, PWDCO W,,^, p.rt.
OU U Remedial Wttipuoo. Vtj, AJu. Puerto Rjco.
FleU C.
Sttnflt I.D.
(Depth in A bit)
BH-!7 49.5-51.5
BK-17 54.5-56.4
BH-17 64.5-46 J
BH-17 69_5-71.5
BH-U 4.5-6. J
BH-1! 9.5-11.5
BH-1J 14.5-16.5
BH-IS 19J-2U
BH-1 8 24.5-26.5
BH-1B 29.5-31.5
BH-lt 34.5-36.5
BH-lt 39.5-11.5
BH-ll 44.5-46.5
BH-14 49.5-51.5
BH-lt 54.5-56J
BH-IS 59.5-61.5
BH-IS £4.5-66.5
BH-18 69.5-71. 5
BH-1E 77.5-79.0 /
BH-19 4.5-6.5
BH-19 9.5-1J.5 .
BH-19 14.5-16.5
BH-19 19.5-21.5 •
BH-19 24.5-26,5 •
EH-19 19.5-31,5
BH-S9 34.5-38.5
BH-19 39.5-41.5
BH-19 44.5-W.5
BH-19 49,5-51.5
BH-19 54.5-56.5
BH-19 59.5-J9.S
BH-!9 64J-64.5
BH-19 74.5-76.5
BH-i3 4.J-6.J
EH-lj 9.5-11.5
BH-13 14.5-16.5
BH-Jj 19.5-11.5
BK-lj 24.5-25.5
BK-13 29.501.5
BH-I3 34.5-36.5
BH-o 39.5-41.5 •
BK-;i 4J.5-M.5 *
S*s iiti ptgt iot foot- oiis.
Ditr
Simplul
11/30/92
11/30/91
11/30/92
11/1/92
12^92
12H^2
12^92
i//OT2
I.J2/92
11^92
11^92
12^/92
ll/Wl
12/2/92
12/2/92
12^/92
12^92
m/92
12/3/92
12/4/92
12/4/92
11/4V92
J 2/4/92
12/4/92
11/4/92
12/4/92
12/4/91
J 2/4/92
12/4/92
11/4/91
12/7/92
12/7/92
1 in/92
12/S/92
12/3/92
12/3/92
12/S/V2
12/S/93
ll'S/92
tl'3/92
ll'S/92
O '1 r01
\-9ty-
Location
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
.we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
\vc
we
\vc
l.l-DCE
(ue/tt)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
mat- l.l-DCE
(u|*z)
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
4
m
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
MD
vr>
n y
TCE
(uf/ki)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ..
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
29
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
(wj'tf
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
; • ND
ND
ND
-ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
Tlble g.
ii of Volitik Ocj.nie Compound Concern™^ D
S.B,,., frem fclcWB pR ««««- by Fi.
Simple I.D.
(Depih in fl bit)
— •
BH-13 49.5-51.5 -
BH-13 54.5-54.8 •
BH-13 59J-60.0
BH-13 64.5-65.8
BH-13 69J-71.5
BH-13 74,5-74.6
BH-13 79.5-79.7
BH-13 84.5-84.9
BH-13 89.5-?. 5
BH-03A 4.5-6.5 •
BH-03A 9.5-1 U •
BH-03A 14.5^16.5 *
BH-03A 19.5-21.5 •*
BH-03A 24J-16J
BH-03A 29.5-30.8
BH-03A 39,5-IU
BH-03A 44.5-45.0
BH-03A 49J-50.3
BH-03A S4.5-56.5
BH-03A 59.5-61.5
BH-03A 64.5-66.1
BH-03A 69.5-71.5
BH-39 3.5-5.5
BH-39 g.5-10.5
BH-39 13.5-14.3
BH-39 1S.5-20.5
BH-39 23.5-25.5
BH-39 25.5-29,5
BH-09 4.5,6.0
BH-09 9.5-11.5 t
BH-09 14.5-16.4
BH-09 19.5-21.5
BH-M 24.5-26.5
BK-» 29.5-30.2
BH-33A 4.5-6.5
BH-3SA 9.5-11.5
BH-3SA 14.5-16.5 f
BH-2SA 19.5-21.5
BH-3SA 24.5-26.3
BH-33A 29.5-31.5
BH-38A 34.5-34.6
Ste !*u A.M.* r__ f. . ""
Utl£
Simp led
1 — -_
f •) <• Mf«
Ii/5/52
12/S/92
I2/S/92
12/8/92
12/9/92
12/9/92
12/9/92
12/9/92
12/9/92
12/11/92
12/11/92
12/11/92
11/11/92
- 12/11/92
12/11/92
12/14/92
12/14/92
12/14/92
12/14/92
11/14/92
12/14/92
12/14/92
12/J5/92
12/15/92
12/16/92
12/16/92
12/16/92
12/16/92
11/16/92
12/16/92
12/16/92
12/16/92
12/16/91
12/16/92
12/17/92
12/17/92
11/17/92
12,' 1 7/9 2
in 7/92
12.' 1 7/92
11/17/92
"
Locition
^ _
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
' GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
Cc?P
CEPP
CtPP
GEPP
CEPP
GEPP
CEPP
GE?P
l.l-DCE
(ug/kj)
.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-.
«™n»-t.2-DCE
(Ug/lj)
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
wrt
r»u
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
•LffK
HO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
-
TCE
<«*/*!>
— ..—
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
10
ND
ND
27
20
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '.
ND
10
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
" ND -
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-.
PCE
(ui/kg;
—
ND
Mn
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
!
2
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' - ND
" ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
-------
T.We 8,
Afl.ly.ii of VoUlile Orjtaie Compound Concsninijon. D«i««d by Reid C« Chrenuu.gf.ph
of Soil Simplei from Boreholci. PIUDCO Induilriil p»rk, October 1991 Lo Mirch 1993
017 II Remedial Invettifitioo, Vcfi AJta, Puerto Rico.
g:7 ofJ4
Simple t.D.
(Depth in ft bit)
BH-40 4.5-5.4
BH-*0 9.5-ll.J
BH-W 14 .5-15 .3
BH-40 I9J-J1J
BH-W 14.5-25.2
BH-40 29.5-30.4
BH-08 4,0-4.4
^8 9.0-11.0
BH-C8 14,0-14.3
BH-08 19.0-11.0
BH-08 24.0-25.6
BH-0! 29.0-29 J
BH37 4.5-8.5
BH-37 9.5-11.5
BH-37 14.5-16.5
BH-37 19J-21.5
BH-37 24.5-26.5
BH-37 29.5-31.5
BH-37 34.5-35 J •
BH-37 39.5-39.6
BH-37 49.5-50.9
BH-37 54.5-55.9
BH-37 59.5-^0.4
BH-37 64.5-M.5
BH-37 69.J-70.0
BH-07 4.5-6.5
BH-07 9.5-11.5
BH-07 14.5-16.5
BH-07 19.5-21.5
BH-07 24.5-26.5
BH-07 29.5-31.5
BH-07 34.5-36.5
BH-07 39.5-H.5
BH-07 4J.5-16.5
BH-07 49J-5L5
BH-07 54.5-56.5
BK-37 5 9. 5 4 1.5
BK-07 64.5-54.7
BH-07 69.5-71.5
BK-:s J.i-6.5
BH-ZS 9.i-l[.5
BH-:J nj-i6.5
Date
Sampled
12/14/92
12/18/92
12/18/92
11/11/92
12/11/92
11/11/92
12/1 1/92
12/11/92
12/1 S/92
12/ IS/92
. 12/1 S/92
1 IMS/92
- 1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/7/93
1/11/93
I/I 1/93
I/I 1/93
1/11/93
. 1/II/W
1/I2/V3
1/12/93
1/12/93
1/12/93
L/12/93
1/12/93
1/12/93 .
1/12/93
1/12/93
1/12/93
1/12/93
1/12/93
1/13/93
1/13/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
Locioon
GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
GEPP
GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
CEPP
GIPP
GEPP
CEPP
CEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GEPP
GECP
GHCP
GECP
1,1-DCE
Cut/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
inn*. 1,1-DCE
<"E/kg}
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
- NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
• ND
TCE
(ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
(ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND -
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
H V
un
f*i**
Nfl
t^t*
' • ND
ND
6 .
ND
4*1*
wn
4~4V
un
i^L»
Arn
T*U
Nn
C L/
ND
[* W
wn
r*u
t*n
*^
• ^n
f*4W
»*n
r»Lr
fcjrt
r»u
Kn
r«M
vrt
r*U
ND
VT%
k>LJ
ND
SO
S« list fi«t tor foouiOLci.
-------
Ttbli 1.
nn
OU fl RemttJul Inveaijiiion. Vep Aita. Pueoo Rjeo.
FrtlJ Ci§ Q
of 14
3»mplc l.D.
(Depth in fl bli)
t •
BH-2S 19J-JIJ
BH-28 24.5-26.5
BH-28 29.5-3 IJ •
BH-28 34J-36.5
BH-2S 39.5-4U
BH-2S 44J-46-S
BH-28 54J-58.5
BH-23 59.5-61.5
BH-28 64.5-66.5
BH-28 69.5-70.2
BH-28 74J-75.2
BH-27 4J-«.5
BH-27 9.5-11.5
BH-27 14.5-16J
BH-27 19.5-21.5
BH-27 24.S-26.5
BH-27 29.5-31.5
BH-27 39J-I1.5
BH-27 44.5-«.5
BH-27 49J-I9.6
BH-27 J4J-54.fi
BH-27 59J-59.7
BH-27 64.5-66.5
BH-27 69.5^9.6
BH-27 74.5-75.4
BH-27 79.5-3 M
BH-27 84.5-86.1
BH-27 89.5-89.7 •
BH-27 94.5-96.5
BH-31 4.5-6.5 •
BH-31 9,5-11.5 •
BH-31 14.5-16.5 *
BH-31 19.5-21.5 •
BH-31 24.5-2S.5 •
BH-3! 29.5-31.5 •
BK-31 34.5-36.5 • i
BH-31 39.5-41.5 *
BH-31 44.5-W.5 •
BH-31 49.5-51.5 »
BH-J1 54.5-56.0
BH-31 59.5-60.2 •
BH-31 64.5-64.6 •
BH-31 69.5-65,6 •
5cff lj]l Dtffft fnr fn*L,~~.,-
Due
Singled
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/15/93
1/15/93
1/11/93
l/IS/93
I/ IS/93
1/13/93
l/IS/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93 .
1/19/93
1/19/93 '
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/20/93
1/10/93
1/20/93
1/20/93
1/10/93
1/20/93
1/20/93
1/20/93
1/20/93
1/20/93
Lacilioa
CECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
. CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
1,1-DCE
(ue/kir)
v*»'*fcV
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Htl
nu
ND
ND
ND •
ND
ND
wn
f*LJ
wn
fi U
c/c
JO
11
J. J
WP)
riu
ND
w r\
fliJ
lan
r*u
NO
*jTk
nu
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
70
127
1 At
Joj
224
615
32S
340
301
ND
203
1/1
1U
95
lnn»-l,2-DCE
(ug/kf)
ND
ND
ND
ND
%rf«
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCE
(if/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
64
93
21
60
71
37
124
93
93
73
62
ND
ND
I
212
33
42
296
139
111
ND
43
91
132
260
313
501
910
700
761
646
11
392
23
14)
PCE
Cut/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NP
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
15
21
- 39
65
35
49
75
ND
91
7
32
-------
Title 1.
ii. ofVol.uk Oiiinic Compound Conwnmtio* Dueled bj H.tJ C«. Chrem«oerlph
of SoiJ Stmplc. fnm Borehole., WUDCO Indjuriil P.rk. October 1992 W Mirch 1993,
OU H tUmedul Invutlfitioa. Vej» AJu, Puerto Rico.
Page 9 of 14
Stmplt l.D,
(Depth in ft bli)
BH-31 794-79.7
BHOI 844-15.4 •
BH-31 894-89.9 •
BH-31 944-95.2 •
flH-33 44-64 *
BH-33 9.3-1 1. S'f
BH-33 144-164
BH-33 194-214 *
BH-33 244-1S4
BH-33 294-314 /
BH-33 344-364
BH-33 394-414 *
BH-33 44.5-464
BH-33 494-514 *
BH-33 544-56.0
BH-33 594-614
BH-33 644-664
BH-33 694-714 /
BH-33 744-764
BH-33 794-114 '
BH-33 844-864
BH-33 19 4-91 3 1
BH-33 944-964
BH-30 44-64
BH-30 94-114
BH-30 144-164
BK-30 194-214
BH-30 24.5-26.5
BH-30 294-314 *
BH-30 344-364 • .
BH-30 394-414 •
BH-30 444-«4
BK-30 494-514
BH-30 544-564
BH-30 594-614
BH-JO 644-64.6
BH-30 694-S9.7
BH-30 794-80.2
BK-30 144-864
BH-Kl 894-39.7
BH-25A 44-64 •
BK-1SA 94-114 •
BH-15A 144-164 *.
Sc: !i« pjje for footnote).
Dite
Sampled
1/2 1/93
1/2E/93
1/21/93
1/21/93
I/il/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/21/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/15/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/26/93
1/22/93
1/22/93 '
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
. 1/25/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/15/93
1/15/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
1/15/93
1/25/93
1/15/93
1/15/93
1/25/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
Loeilion
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
•GECP
GECP •
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
—
l.l-DCE
(uj/kj)
ND
301
292
201
ND
ND
ND
13
20
23
17
48
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
51
150
ND
ND
16
57
121
379
307
167
67
72
11
13
23
47
45
59
ND
14
ND
15
— ™-™^— — ^^-^^KK.
— — — — — — ,^^^__
irau-M-DCE
(ug/kj)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*^^^^*^^^^^^^^^m
TCE
(ug/kg)
ND
513
418
486
u
12
32
80
119
142
142
201
31
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
290
936
ND ;
ND
ND
'ND
ND
fil
Q_
86
63
34
34
9
to
5
11
155
137
6
100
56
2:7
PCE
(wg/ki)
™ "
ND
jt(
03
jr *
01
31
vr*
"u
ND
i'i/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
'38
' ' ND
ND
fciri
NO
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-' ND
ND
ND
N0
ND
. ND
15
ND
' 32
-------
T.ble 4.
A«lru. ofVcUia, 0,.aic Compound COKcmn(ionj 0,,^ fcy nelj ^ Q,,, fc
• of Sod Simplei from Borehole i, PRIDCO Iniuiuul pirk, October 1991 to Mirth 1993
. OU D Rcmcdul Invcttijilioo, Vejt AlU, Puerto Rico.
Page 10 of 14
Simple I.D.
(Dcpih in ft bl>)
BH-15A I9J-11.5 •
BH-25A 14.3-26.5 •
BH-2SA 19.5-31.5 • 1
BH-15A 34. 5-36. < •
BH-15A 39.5-41.5 '
BH-25A 44.3-43.3 •
8H-Z5A 54.5-56.5 •
BH-25A 59.5-61.5 •
BH-15A 64J-66.5 • 1
BH-2JA 69.5-71.5
BH-J5A 74.3-76.5
BH-25A S4J-16J
BH-25A S9.5-89.7
BH-32 4J-6.S •
BH-3I 9.3-11.5 -
BH-31 M.5-16.5 • *
BH-32 19.5-21.5 -
BH-32 24L5-16.S •
BH-31 29.5.31.5 •
BH-31 3-1.5-34.5 •
BH-31 39.5-41.5 •
BH-32 44J-44.6 •
BH-32 49J-51J •
BH-32 54.S-56.5 •
BH-32 59.5-41.5 •
BH-32 64.5-46.5 •
BH-32 69.5-71.5 •
BH-3: 74.5-74.7
BH-32 77.5-79.5
BH-32 84.5-346
BH-3: 89. 5-90.2
BH-32 94.5-94.6 v
BH-3-1 4.5-5.5
BH-34 9.5-11.5
BH-34 14 j. 16.5
BH-34 19.5-21.5 *
BH-jJ 24.5-C6J •
BH-34 29.5-31.5 *
BH-34 34.5-36.5 *
BH-34 39.5-41.5 *
BH-34 4j.S-tf,5
BH-34 49.5-51.5 #
BH-M 54,5-56.5
BH.;j 59.5-61.5 *
set .j>( p*gc lor rooinoui.
Dile
Simple4
1/17/93
1/17/93
1/17/93
1/17/93
J/17/93
1/17/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/21/93
1/28/93
l/li/93
l/li/93
1/18/93
1/2S/93
l/li/93
1/15/93
1/78/93
1/1S/93
1/1J/93
1 /IS/93
1/1J/93
1/21/93
1/18/93
1/2S/93
1/1S/93
1/2S/93
1/1S/93
1/19/93
1/19/93
1/29/93
1/29/93
2/1/93
1/1/93
2/1/93
2.' 1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
1/1/93
1/1/93
Z'l/93
2/ltfJ
2/1/93
2/1/93
Locition
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
. CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
• GECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
GECP
CECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
GECP
. GECP
GECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
CECP
1,1-DCE
(ug/kg)
41
66
308
146
25
ND
4
99
25
31
IS
ND
ND
ND
11
21
70
68
39
910
144
18S
141
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
117
18
34 (
ND
23
67
67
70
ii
1.1
21
54
J^
Kn
i* LJ
ND
iniu. 1,1-DCE
-------
Tiblc
A«l)rii. of VoUU
ND .
^4
.3
l!7
PCE
(ug/kg)
ND
wn
FUJ
fl
f
£
V
NH
i^w
ND
Nfl
l*LJ
•J
i
WT\
r
-------
Tiblc -I.
. 0{ VoUul, Ors,mc Compound Co«eiUnuOB1
12 of 14
Simple I.D.
(D«pih in ft bl»)
• • ,
1 •
BH-24 4J-6J
BH-24 9J-11J
BH-24 14.5.16.5
BH-24 20.9-22.9
BH-24 14.5-26.5
BH-24 29J-31.3
BH-24 34.S-34.5
BH-14 39.M1.3
BH-24 44J.«.5
BH-24 49.5-50.3 f
BH-24 S4J-56.2
BH-24 5PJ-SOJ
BH-14 64J-64.6
BH-24 74.3-76.5
BH-24 aoj-Sl.g
BU^.4 t t t m * f.
BH-24 S4J-S4.9
BH-24 89.5-91.5 •
BH-24 94 ,3-96 .5
Btr.ifi A e_je <
on-iv ^.J^j
BH-20 9.5-1 1J
BH-IO 14.5-16.3
BH-20 19.3-21 J
BH-20 24J-26J
BH-20 29 .5-31.5
tJ LJ 1ft ' 1 i t * f f
BH-20 34.5-36.5
BK-20 39.5-41.5
BH-20 44.5-46.5
BH-20 49.5-51.3
BH-20 54.5-36.5
BH-20 59.5:6 1 J
BH-20 64.5HS6J
BH-20 69.5-71.5
BH-20 74.5-76.5
BH-20 79.5-81.5
BH-20 84.5-S6.5
BH-20 89.5-91.5
BH-:o 99.5-101.5
BH-:0 106.5-108.5
BH-tO 109.5-111.5
BH-^J 4.5-4,5
BH-U 9.5-1 1 .5
BH-ZJ 14.3-16.5
BH-U 19.5-11.5
BH.^I u < -f *
nn--j .;<.;.. a, j
Sc: liii plge for (bouwei.
Dtlc
Sampled
119193
2/9/93
2/5/93
1/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/10/93
1/10/93
2/10/93
2/1003
2/10/93
2/10/93
2/10/93
1/10/93
2/10/93
1/24/93
2/24/93
2/34/93
2/24/93
2/24/93
2/24/93
2O5/93
2/25/93
205/93
2/24/93
2/36/93
2/26. 3
2/26/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
2/26/93 •
3/1/93
3/1/93
3/1/93
3/2/93
3/2/93
3/4/93
3/4/93
3/4/93
3/4/93
3/4/93
— — •— ^ -^—_
Location
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
TDYN
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
^r
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
-^ ^^^_^
1,1-DCE
/uw/t*»k
-------
T«bk ' *. Aflilytii of Volatile Orginic Compound Concenlniion. Ocueud by
of Soil S«mplet (mm Bontiolu, PR1DCO bulutuul Put. October 1992 10 Mireh 1993.
OU D RemaTuI Invc«jf*tion. Veg« Aid, Puerto Rico.
Page 13 of 14
Simple I.D.
(Depth in ft bli)
BH-n 29J-31.5
BH-23 34.5-36.5
BH-13 39.5-»1.5
BH-D 44J-46.5
BH-13 49.5-51.5
BH-13 54.5-56.5
BH-U 59.5-61.5
BH-13 44J^6.5
BH-23 69. 5-69.fi
BH-13 74.5-76.5
BH-23 &4.5-M.7
BH-13 S9.5-90.3
BH-22 4.5-6.5
BH-22 9.5-11.5
BH-22 14.5-16.5
BH-22 19.5-21.5
BH-:: :4.5-2s.s •
BH-22 :9.S-19.6
BH-22 34.5-36.5
BHOl 4.5-6.5
BHOt 9.5-11.5 •
BH-:: 14.5-16 i
BH-2! 19.5-21.5
BH-:i 19.5-31.5 •
BK-:i 34.5-36.5
BK-:i 39.5-<1.5 •
BK-21 49,5-«9.7
BH-2! 54.5-56.5 •
BH-2: 64.5^56.5 •
SH-I1 69.5-59.7
B:-:-:I 74.5-75.0
BH-:: 70,5-ii.s
Due
Sampled
3/4/93
3/4/93
3/4/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/5/93
3/10/93
3/10/93
3/10/93
3/10/93
3/10/93
3/10/93
3/JO/93
3/12/93
3/11/93
3/12/93
3/11/93
3/12/93
3/11/93
3/12/93
3/12/93
3/11/93
3/12/93
3/12/93
3/12/93
3/15/93
Location
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
l.t-DCE
(«»/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND
14
ND
ND
tnu-!,l-DCE
(iif/lB)
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
, ND
SD
ND
ND
TCE
(ug/Vj)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
tro
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6 ,.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
0»«/kg>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND "
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
ND
GERAGKTY c MILLER. INC.
» *
-------
Tibli S.
Afl.l)-ti. of VoJ.tJIe Orgink Confound Coneentntioni Dieted by Field C.. Oirem»U)Bfiph
of Soil Simple* from fiorcitolci, PRJDCO Indunrul Pick. Ociobcr 1991 to March 1991
OU n Xemedut lavcufuioo, Y«g« AJu, Puerto Rico.
Page U of u
Simple l.D.
(Depth in A bli)
BH-II 84J-S64
EH-21 J9J-9M
BH-II 94J-96J
BH-ll S9J-IOU
Dtlc
SimpluJ
3/IJ/93
3/15/53
3/11/93
3/IJ/93
Loctiloa
CP
CP
CP
CP
U-DCE
(U(/kj)
ND
ND
ND
ND
«r»i»- U-DCE
(«*/k()
ND
ND
ND
NO
TCE
(ugflcg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
(ug/Vj)
ND
ND
ND
ND
All uulyiei were performed oo I Pbouvte IOS50 porublc f» ehramitognph.
I
ft bit
ug/lj
ND
I.I-DCE
l»n>1.2-DCE
TCE
PCE
FDD
FWC '
JUM
HA
CEPP
CECP
TDYN
CP
we
Unknown delected with i puk lirntlir to cij-l.J-dichJoroethcnc.
S*mple jplit tor uulyiii by eoninct Libonicry pregrtm (CLP) Uboniorv.
Ftst below Uad nirftee.
Mierojnmj per kilagnm.
Noidcueted.
1,1'DfcUoroclhen.
lnni-1,2-DichlonKibene.
Trie Woroeih inc.
TetnchJaroclhcoe.
Former Dniuge Dileh.
Former W
-------
T«lilc 1) Concenlralinm of Volatile Or£«nic Compounds in Granndwoler Snmptcl Collecled from Jiniiary to Mttch 1992, OU II Remedial In veali gal ion, Veg« Alia, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: Alii Arenit Arcnn ,
n*jura 5
Nur«ry tVnccnrfH Pnx««iJ*i (7)
Afulyie
Chtoromclhnttc
lUiMtturMClhutic
Vinyl cMofidci
Cjil<)f<»cllmnc
Mmliykrtc cMmiilc
A trclotfC
CftftiOrt Jijulfide
] f J . DictiJorudhene
I , 1 • i lii'Jil**riicllin'ic
(l«») " (83) <«)m
Due: 20-J>n-92 20-J«n-9J 10-Jin-92
0.5 U O.S 11 0,5 U
0.511 0.511 O.SU
0 5 11 O.S U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
111 7 U 2 IJ
OSU 0.5 U O.S U
IS O.S II O.S U
t.n osii o.s iJ
l.2-Uiclilitft»cilieMc(cii/iNU») .3.7 O.SU. O.SU
• dilurr<>cifi*nc
(.'ofliiiii iLincUiidile
tlriiiiiiKli>.liliiriiNicili*iie
!,J.Dkhliliroinin;hl(iiunic[li«ne
1 . 1 .2 TiiLhlnriiulhonc
IJcn^cMtf
tii 1 .3-IJicliluriipriipciiG
Itriiiiiiifiirin
•1 Mtlliyl 2 ('emu mute
',!• 1 JcinJKiiM:
1 , 1 ,2,'J- Tmiit lil'.fi.clliMiic
'1 Ctl*l-Mf*JUClJlCllC
'1 itlllCIIC •
f 'Mi»fii|jcji/ciie
filliyllicjtjcnc
£4yr£nc
\"yli:licl (Inlol)
Analyic cnnccnlnlions in
Analyse! were performed
O.S II O.S U O.S U
05 IJ O.S U O.S U
2 U 2 U 2 U
O.SU O.SU O.SU
O.S U 0.5 U O.S U
O.SU 0.5 U .O.SU
O.I9J 0,5 U O.SU
O.S UJ O.S UJ O.S U/
170 D O.SU O.SU
0.5 UJ O.S UJ 0.5 UJ
O.I6J 0.5 IJ O.SU
0.05 J 0.511 0.511
0.5 11 0.5 U 0.5 IJ
0,5 UJ n.S UJ n S 111
2 UJ 2 UJ UJ
2 II 2 U 2 IJ
0.511 0.511 O.S 11
U.'J 0.5 II O.S IJ
0,5 II 0.5 11 O.S U
0.51) 0.511 O.SU
O.S-IJ 0.5 IJ O.SU
O.S U O.S U O.S U
O.S II OS U O.S U
28-Jin-92
n.su
(1.5 11
o.s u
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.I3J
0.15 J
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.26 J
OSU
O.SU
o.a
0.75
OSU .
0.06J
0.5 U
2.2 UJ
2 II
2U
0.5 U
0.72
1.7
O.S IJ
O.IHJ
O.S U
' 1.8 ' -
DVAWOI02 HV AW 01 03 BVAWOlCH
(Ml)
M-Feb-92
0.5 II
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
I.S
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
O.SU
o.s u
0.5 U
o.s u
o.s u
2U
2U
0.5 IJ
0.5 IJ
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
microgrami per liter (pirti per billion JpphJ). . ' .
by various analytical inlicuniniclori uirng tlandard U.S. Onvironmcnul
|) .rnm|H)iind concentration waj dciennincit tl i secondary tfilulion
] I'^liriialctl result.
factor.
II . Tim tinniKiiinil WHS uimlyscd fur, Itul not detected III llic corresponding reporting
•1 All it|»n1ni|; liniiu Julinl ilnc in in«iri< iittcffcrcnuci.
i All (ciHiiiitig limili
t< n tn. if icjciJijii
IH 1'iclil iciiWulo til |>
i«iic«l due in hi|;h Icvcli of oilier •nnlylci.
[UVilHll IHIIIIllc.
limit!.
(Ml)
!4-F«b-
O.S U
O.S M
O.S U
O.S IJ
O.S U
1 U
O.SU
0.5 U
o.s u
O.S IJ
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S 1)
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
O.S U
2U
2 IJ "
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.SU
O.S tl
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.SU
Protection
(Ml)
91 U-Ftb-91
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0 J U
2U
1 U
O.SU
0.5 I)
O.SU
O.SU
OSU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
OSU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
2 IJ
2U
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
o.s u
0.5 U
o.su
&VAWOIOS
(MIJ
l4-Fcb»
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
1 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.su
o.s u
o.su
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
zu
2U
0.5 U
0,5 U
o.s u
0.1 U
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
BVAWOI06
(Ml>
H Fcb-92
0.5 U
0.511
0.5 tl •
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
I.I U
O.SU
0.3 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2U
O.SU
o.su
o.su
o.su
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
2U
2 U
o.s u .
o.s u
O.S IJ
o.s u
0.33 J
0.3J J
O.SU
nv AW oi 07
(Ml)
l8-Fcb-92
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
o.s u
o.s u
2 U
0.7t UJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
o.s u
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
O.S II
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,06 J
O.SU
0. II J
o.s u
o.s u
BVAWOIOJ
(Ml)
lt-Fcb-92
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2U
O.SUJ
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
o.su
o.su
o.su
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
o.s u
0.5 U
o.s u
2 U
1 J
0,5 U
OS U
0.27 J
o.su
0.85
O.J7J
O.I7J
BVAWOI09
(Ml)
ll-Feb-92
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
2.4 UJ
O.S IJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
o.s u
o.su
o.s u
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
1
0.86
OOSJ
BVA
(Ml)
n-r
o.s
0.5
0.5
o.s
O.i
2 t
o.a
o.s
o.s
o.s
o.s
0.5
2 1
O.S
O.S
O.S i
O.S 1
0.5 1
0 44
O.S I
OS 1
0 S 1
0 5 1
0 S t
2 ir
2 U
0,5 1
0 J2
051
0,5 (i
1.2
0.74
O.S tl
Agency mtlhadology.
-------
T* ,
„,«.„,. 0^ c^,,,,, „ <,„„„„„„„ ,.„„,„
S.mplelD; BVAWOMI nVAWOlll UVAWOII2 BVAW 0113 BVAW 0201 BVAW 0202 BVAW0103 BVAW 0204 BVAW 0204 BVAW 0205 BVAW 0706 BVAW 0107 BVA\
(Ml) (MDFR (Ml) (Ml) (M?) FR (M2> 2 H-Fcb-92 6 Mir-92 fi-Mir-92 9-M.r-!>2 J-Mir-92 9-M.i-M 9-Mif-92 IO-Mir-92 |t>Mir>91
, — —
Cliliironiclhnne
I'runutmcihftiic
Vinyl cMnriilc
Ctili.rrjcllmnc
Mdliykijc clilnridc
Al'CIDHe
(.'iilinn Uijglfidc
1,1-1 Jicliliirncihcnc
1,1 liiclili.ii, illume
1 .? UicUfiHjtllicnc (civ/Muni)
riildfofnrm
1,? l>idilurii<>ilielilt>n>mei|i«nc
1 ,?-Dicliloiuprup*iK
irujii-l.l-Ukliloropruncitc
ffichhiriielhcilc
I titi niiniiL'lilurunictlwnc
1 . 1 .2-Tf klilorocilnne
ttmitcnc
til- i ,3-l.liclilcjriipriipcnc
Ilrnitinriiiin
•1 Mclliyl-2 pciilnniine
2-lfciall'inc
1 , 1 .2,2-Tclr*cliIijri>c1liiinc
t CflbcMllSdClhetlC
1 !•! licit f
'('li\tittthi:tiicnc
I:il>yllicir/ciic
.'iiyicnc
\>lcnci (Inlnl)
0.5 U
O.S ||
0 5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 \l
1A UJ
1.8
1.)
l.<
0.56
O.iU
31J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
OH 1
0.5 U
15
O.SU
0.5(1
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 tl
2 II
2 II
».S U
"/.'/
0.13 J
0.5 U
n.]7 J
O.OB J
O.I9J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 tJ
0.5 (1
0.5 U
2 U
2.20J
1.9
1.2
I.I
0.51
05 U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.I J
O.I2J
0.5 U
16
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
O.SU
7.8
0.11 J
0.5 U
O.I6J
0.06 J
0.21 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 11
O.SU
O.SU
iu
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.N J
2.3
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.I J
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
0.5 (J
0.09 J
0.6) U
0.24 J
2.3
2.1
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.511
O.S U
0.5 U
0.53 U
2 U
0.5 U
0 60
0.48 J
1 2
O.I J
0.5 (I
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU.
4.6
0.5 U
O.SU
O.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
2 11
O.S U
II
O.S U
O.SU
0.3J J
0.23 J
0.5 U
O.S U
0.511
o.s u
O.SU
0.82 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
. 0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su
21J
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 tl
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 (1
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.S U •
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 (J
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
0.6S )
O.S U
o.s u
O.S U
O.S U
0.001
O.S U
0.5 U
-
0,5 U
0.5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.I3J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
. 211
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
4.7
O.I J
0.12 J
. 0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
9.6
o.iu
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
0.08 J
O.S IF
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S [J
0.5 U
•u.
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
4.8
0.06 J
0.121
0,5 1;
O.S U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
9.9
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
1 U
0.5 U
O.OSJ
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
•• —
O.SU
0.5 (I
0.50
O.SU
O.S U
2U
O.SU
29
0.79
0,82
o.is;
O.I6J
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.47 J
O.SU
56 D
O.SU.
0.22 J
O.S IF
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.S
0.5 U
O.S U
0.21 J
0.5 U
0.26J
• — —
—^^^™— •
I.2UJJ
I.2U
1.2 U
I.2U
1.2 U
SU
I.IUJ
32
0.82 J
I.I J
1.2 U
1.2 U
SU
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
I.2U
70
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
J.2 U
1.2 U
SU
5 U
1.2 U
0.6 J
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 tl
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.1UJJ
I.2U
1.2 U
1.2 U
I.2U
SU
I.2UJ
28
0.7 J
I.I J
1.2 U
1.2 U
SU
1.2 U
I.2U
1.2 U
1.1 U
1.2 U
58
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
).2 U
1.2 U
SU
5 U
1.2 U
0.45 J
1.2 II
I.2U
1.2 U
1 2 U
I.2U
-^— '
1 111!
Ill
1 D
1 II
1 U
4 11
1 IU
27
0.83
1
1 tl
1 (1
4 [1
1 II
1 U
1 U
052J
( U
65
1 U
1 U
j u
1 II
1 11
4 (I
4 II
1 11
0 id j
1 tl
t 11
1 tl
1 If
J tl
Anulylc cnnccnlralinni in mtcri>(jrunij per liler
Analyses were pcrforiilcij liy vanouj ftiiilyiical
hitlin
U.S. Environ™,,. Premier, Agency mc,hodo,o£y,
f.clor.
>i umily/eil for. hut nnl dtlecieil il I he
• I All icj-irlin|; fiinin miicil line In inilfii Jiilci fcrcncci.
• All itiniiiittj: liinin luiitd iliic In liij;li Icvcli ilf nlliLr minlylci.
|( ItctiiU ititultd.
I'll (icM icplitnlc uT prcvinni ittnple.
-------
Table 0 Concent rat inni rtf Volatile Organic Compound) in Grounilwater Simples Collected fmm January ID Mircli 1992, OU II Remcdiil Inveiiigilion, Vcgt All*. Puerto Rico.
Pi,
in; TIVAW MCI DVAW 0301 nvAW ojoi RVAVVOJCM RVAWOJOJ IWAWOSM BVAW 0107 DVAWOJOI pvAWOint BVAWWOJ BVAWMO) BVAWOMVI uw
(Ml) (MJ) (MJ) r-92 !7-M«r-« |7-M»r-92 1 7 Mir 91 I7-f»ftr-92 )7-Mir-92 17 M.r-92 U Mir 91 l8-M«r-91 ll-Mir-92 lt-Mir-92
Mtr-91 II-K
OiloruinciJikHc 0.5 IJ O.S If 5 U 0.5 U
Hmimrinvlliinc 0.5 U O.S U 5 U 0.5 U
Vinyl cliloriiic 0.5 U O.S U 5 U 0.5 U
Clilnrucilunc 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
Mcihylcdcclilnritlc 0.24 J O.S U SU O.SU
ActJr.nc 2U 4.1 30 U 2U
Cirliun ilisulfirup*iie 0.5 U 2 4.SJ 5.3
Ifdiii l.3-Djtlil»ru|irapcne ' O.SU O.SU 5U O.SU
TfKMuiueihcnc O.I8J 50 D 350 D 290 D
tJ.htoniocMofomtiliBne 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
I.l.2-Triclilur»clh«i« O.S IJ 0.5 U SU O.SU
litnicnc . 0.5 U O.SU SU 0,5 tJ
cilri.J-DiclilciKinrnncnc O.SU 0.5 U SU O.SU
Iti unto fix m O.SU 0.5U SU O.S U
4 Mulhyl : (icnliui'inc 2 IJ 2 U 20 U 2 U
MlexatK.nc 2.9 2.2 20 tl 1.3 J
1.1,3,2 •TcitnL-liliirncilinne 0.511 0.5 U 5U 0.5 (J
Itlruihl-.nitllitiic 0.5 IJ 2.H 0.8 4.4
•fi.lucrie O.SU O.SU 5U 0.5 U
OilnrulicnZEfic 0,5 U 0.5 U 5 U O.S U
niliylhciKciw . . 1 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
Siyrene 1.5 O.SU SU O.SU
Xylciics flolal) 0.07 / 0.3 IJ > 5 (J 0.5 U
Anilyte concenlrtlions in micrngnm* per |i(er (pant per billion fprth|).
Analyse* were jxr/iirmed hy vtnoiri antlylical tuliconl melon using siamlinl U.S.
(J (.'(impound concent nil inn wnj determined m i jeconifiry dilution fudnr.
J t'siimtlcd result.
0.5 If
0.5 If
0,5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
3
0.93
'2
0.3 J
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
. 4.5
0.5 U
240 D
0.5 U
O.I9J
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
2 U
5
0.5 U
4.2
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 tl
0.5 U
O.S U
Hnvtronmenul
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.S U
0.89
0.23 J
2.8
0.12 J
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
1.5
O.SU
5ID
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
1.2
0.5 U
0.07 J
0.5 U
O.S If
O.SU
Proiccltnn
O.SU
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
5,3
0,54
1.8
0.11,1
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
3.9
0.5 U
25
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
J.2J
o.su
3.6
0.5 U
O.S U .
0.5 If
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S 1)
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.JU
1.31
0.28 J
1.2
0.13J
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
3.54
O.S U
II
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
1 6J
0.5 U
1 **
o.s u
0.5 U
0. 12 J
O.S U
0.67
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
O.S U
2J
0.44 J
1.8
OJ9J
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
4.7 J
O.SU
17
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
0.5 If
1.7
0.5 U
O.S U
0.12 J
0,5 U
0.66
1,1
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0,5 U
1 UJ
0.5 UJ
1.2
0.53
4.4
o.ia;
O.S U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
1.5 J
O.S U
5BD
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
1-8
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 11
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
0.5 U
2UJ
0.5 UJ
1.2
0.58
4.6
0.18 /
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
1.6
O.SU
54 D
O.SU
0.5 II
0.06 J
0.5 U
O.SU
2 tJ
2 U
0.5 If
2
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.5 UJ
1.8
0.61
5.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
0.05 J
0.5 U
O.SU
1.9
O.SU
55 D
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.06 J
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
2U
0.5 U
3.2
0.5 U
O.S U .
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5
O.i
0.5
0,J
0.5
2 1
0.5
04
00
1.!
01
05
2 1
OS
O.S
0.5
091
Q 5
18
0.5 1
0.5 t
0.5 1
0.5 t
os i
2 U
2 II
0.5 t
1.1
0,5 1
0.5 I
O.S 1
0.5 1:
0.5 Ll
Agency methodology.
II "Die coiiifMiiiii't wui srulyyed Tor, liul not ilciectcJ it (he cnrreirmniltnc reporting limits.
.1 Ait ic|Miiliiij; limit* ruiscd itnc (» in»lri« iiilcrfcrtiico.
j All it inn lint' limit* r*i>ci| ilnc In lii|;li Icvcli of dilicr unilylci.
11 ktiiill rciei:lc
-------
TflMc 0 Concentration! of Volililc Organic Compound* in Groitndwaicr Sample* Collected from J»nu«ry to March 1992, OU II IlemedUl Invciljgalion, Veg« Alii, Puerto Rico.
!Y
Stnwlc ID: 11V AW 0406 BVAW M07 DVAW W08 BVAW04W DVAW04IO DVAW04M BVAW 0501 BVAW OiOl BVAW 0502 DVAW0503 BVAWOJCM BVAW 0505 BV.
(MA) (M4) (MS) (MS) (MS) (MS
Arulylc
Due:
IIM.r-92 II-M*r4) IJ-Mir-91 11 Mir-92 ll-M.r-91 U-M.r-92
2-M»r-92 ll-Fcb-92 2-M.r-« 2 Mtr-« 2-M*r-92 711
ChJnrnmellianc
Itr'iiiiciinciliaiic
Vinyl tlilofidc
Clilurneiliane
Mcihy lenc cliKuide •
A -iluiie
Curium diiulfide
1 , 1 •Pkliliirocilicnc
I.I fliulilninclliuic
I.J-DicMnrneiliciic (cii/ln
Olilitfiif' irfn
t ,2 'l^iclil'irocllittlie
2 • Ituluniinc
1 .1 4 l>Trkli1ufocfhii>ti
Cirliun icKicliloriile
[!rmi>oJi<.lilnramtlhiinc
l,2-Dichl(>ri)flff)|innc
i ruif - 1 , j • DiOiluroprupcne
Tricfil'ifiictltcfic
Dil>f 1*1 rioi'li lurainetlunc
1 . 1 ,3-Tr ichlornciti»n«
llcnjcuc
ck- 1 ,3-nichlornpropene
ftrunHifo/iri
•J Mclhyj'2-|lefjlnltillic
3-1 Icxttjtonc
1 . 1 ,2.2-Teifacliliiriiclliftjie
Jcirnclilftructljtnc
'1 idiicnc
nijur'il>cii/enc
Klliyjlicn/tne
!> Cuinrxjuiiil crmccnlrilinn wn determined >l i icconiiury dilution
fuclnr.
If Tlic cnuifMtuiiil wni inply/cd fur, linl nn| iltltcleii nl llie cnrrc»ponilinf> reporting
it All n;|>iii1iii|: limit)
i AM rcixiilini; limili
U Utiiilf rejected.
fined due to iitulru interferences.
ni>al ihie l» liiiji level* of oilier nnnlylet.
timid.
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
o.s u
2tl
O.SUJ
o.su
0.08 J
0.26J
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.15 J
0.5 U
2.7
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
2U
0.5 U
O.ll J
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 M
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.JU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
O.SUJ
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
.0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2U
2 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.26J
O.S U
0,83
O.SU
O.S II
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
3U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
o.s U
0.5 U
0.23 J
0,5 U
0.85
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.U
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2U
2 U
o.su
O.J 11
O.J U
0.5 U
1.2
1.8
0.05 J
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U '
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.22J
o.su
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
211
2 U
0,5 U
O.J II
O.J U
O.S U
1.9
3.6
0.17 J
O.JU
O.JU
0.5 U
O.J U
O.S U
2U
O.S U
o.su
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
o.s u
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
O.S U
0.64
O.SU
O.S U
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
O.S U
0.5 El
0,5 U
O.S U
0.41 J
069
0.06 J
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
0.67
O.SU
0,8
0.09 J
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.86
O.SU
IS
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.08 J
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0.5
O.J
o!j
0.)
1
0.!
O.J
OS
oo
01
2 1
O.i
O.J
O.J
Ob
O.J
9.7
O.i
O.J
0 J
O.J
05
211
2 11
O.i i
0.5 1
O.J 1
O.J 1
O.J )
O.J I
O.J)
Protection Agency methodology.
1 t( PicU rejilicilc of prcviniu iimplc.
-------
Tiiilc 9 Concenlmlionj of Volatile Orginic Compound* in Groiimlwaler S*mptei Collected from Janii«ry lo M«reh 1992, OU II Remediil Invcjtigilion, Vtg» Alu. Puerto Rico.
S«.imk ID: HVAWOJ07 HVAWOS08 DVAWOS09 DV AW 05 10 BVAW060I BVAW0602 BVAW0603 BVAW0604
(MS) (Mi) (MS) (Mi} (M4) klii<)fi>etli«iie O.S II 0,5 IJ
t!2-UitMiircicll>enc (cis/lrons) 0.47 J 0.231
riiliiHifiirjii 0.07 ) 0.07 1
1.2 lJitJ.li)iit-l,3-lJiclilariipriipeiii: O.SU O.SU
Triclilnriwllicnc 9.8 5.4
OilirOmuchlurometliane • 0.5 U 0.5 U
1 1,3 Tfidil.itrtciliune O.S M O.SU
lltiiKcric 0.5 U O.S U
cii-I.S-nichJnronropene O.SU O.SU
rir»ni»fiirin 0.5 t) 0.5 U
4 Mtlliyl 2 junluiKnie • 2 IJ 2U
Mlcjuilnric 2U 2U
1.1.2,2 Ttlf.Llil.irntllinit O.SU 0.5 U
Tirlraelitiiroclliciic 0.5 IJ 0.5 U
liiluenc 0.5 U ' O.S U
rhltinilicflrcnc 0.5 IJ 0.5 U
I'idylhciuciic 0.5 U O.S U
Slyien" 0.5 U O.S U
X'ylcitei (until) 0.5 U O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S IJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.7
O.SU
o.s u
0.5 II
O.SU
0.5 IJ
2 U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
O.SUI
0.5 (1
0.5 IJ
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
O.SU
0.5 U .
0.5 (J
0,5 U
0.5 UJ
2 IJ
R .
0.5 IJ
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U •
O.SU
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
0.97 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 II
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
21)
2 U
O.S U
0.5 U
1 ">
oTu
S.9
14
1.2
Anilylc concentnlinni in micraenmi per liter (Mrti per billion Jpphl). ..-•_'.
Aiinlytci were perfrinncil hy various •tiilylicul lulwonlnclon using slindtrd U.S. Envtronmenlnl
1) Compound canccnlnlion w*t determined tl * iccond»ry dilution
j f*iiimiilefJ result. '
factor,
1 1 1 he o.m|x>iin
-------
T«Me 9 Concentration* of Volatile Orginic Compound! in GroirntIw*lerS»mplei Collected from Janutry la March 1992. OU II RcmcdUl Investigation. Veg» Alii. Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: BVAW 0609 BVAW 0610 BVAW Q«0| BVAW 0802
• Aiulyle Oil«:
Cliloromciliinc
Itfiiiiiutnclhenc
Vinyl chloride
Qiluriicllinnc
Mclliylenc chloride
l^Mtlnifi disulfiilc
l,|.Dicliln«icllitnc
1 .2-i)icMiifiic(|ieiic (cii/irini)
Chin iiftirm
1 I'Dicliluiocllianc
^*0
1 . 1 . 1 'Tf ithloroethafte
Cirliim Icirieliloridc
(Jroinniliirliluriimclliine
l,2-Dicliti>ri>p/y vinous inifyiicil subcontractor! uiing ilindird U.S. Environmental Prelection
I) Compound concentration w» determined •! i secondary dilution
J ItKiiinkictJ result.
factor.
1 1 The compound w«i inilyied fnr, lint not itcleclcJ tt Hie corrcipontling reporting
.1 ' All (cpHting liniiu miul due In matrix interference!.
i All letmniliK limit I (•iicil due to high level) of ullief int.ylct.
II lletull fcjecfcit. • •
l;l( Tielil rcplic*tc of previnni
tiinplc.
limiii.
3.5
0.67
2.3
O.ISJ
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
05 U
O.SU
O.SU .
91 D
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
2U
O.SU
4.4
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
(K
-------
Tthle 9 Concentration! of Volatile Organic Compounds in GroundwalerSnmptci Collected from J*nu*ry lo March 1992. OU 11 Remedial Investigation, Vega Alii, Puerto Rico.
Simple in: nvAW 00ft] nvAW 0901 BVAW 0902 flVAW 0903 DVAW 0904 DVAW 0905 DVAW 0906 BVAW 0907 DVAW 0908 BVAW 09M BVAW 0910 BVAW 1001 BV/
(M'J) 2 5-M.r 92 5 M.r 92 5-Miiii.incllmne 0.5 11 0.5 tl j 11 0.5 U
Vtnyl chlorMc 0.5 U O.S II 5 tl 11.511
Clilnmcilianc 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 tl
Meiliylcnc cliliiriile O.SU O.SU SU O.SU
Aftiniic 2 U 2 U jn II 2 U
C«|HJII Jiiulfidc 2.2 I.7U 5 Ul 0.5 Ul
'I 1 l)Kl.|[>r»tkliliir«clhm>e (Jill 0.511 2.4 J 1.8
t,2 •l>kbliii»clliciic(ci»Aiint) O.SU O.SU M 9.1
ClilnmUin 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
1,2 -DuMntnethnnc 0.511 O.SU SU O.SU
2 •HiiiKiiujie 2U 2tl 20 U 2U
I,!,l-T(itlilof0£(l,ine 0.511 O.SU 5U O.SU
C.ibun ictricliliiride O.SU O.SU SU O.SU
llrc.iniiJicMornineihinc 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
1,2 -Dichlnranninanc 0,5 II O.SU 4.IJ 3
irnni l,3.r)Klilur»|ifnpeite 0.511 O.SU 511 O.SU
InclilKri.cilicj.c 0.141 0.131 250 D 260 D
Ditiraniiichluromcdiane 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 U 0,5 U
1.1,2 Trichlutndliunc O.SU O.SU 511 0.24 J
lien/cue 0.511 O.SU SU 0.5 tl
til 1 ,3 •Dichluriinrnncnc O.SU 0.5 U 5 U O.SU
llrr.iFMif..rm 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 UJ 0.5 Ul
^ Mciliyl 2 (icniiimmc , 211 2 U 20 U 2 U
1
MI.ni.Mi.itc 2 U 2 U R R
1.1.2.2-T^mcliliiriicllidiic 0.511 0.5 U 511 O.SU
Ui(Bi:liWi.cihcjic 0.5 U 0.5 11 7.2 5.9
Toluene O.S tl 0.5 U 5 U OS U
Cliliifiilicnicne 05 U 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
1 tliyll.ci./ciie I.2J 0.75J 5U 0.5 U
Siyrcflc 2.5 J I.5J 5U 0.5 U
Xyknei (mini) 0.05 J 0.5 U 5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 II
0.5 11
O.SU
2 U
0.5 UJ
5.4
1.5
8.9
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2.6
0.5 U
280 D
O.SU
0.5 11
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S UJ
2 U
R
0.5 U
6.4
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
An*{yic canccnlrvijont in rnicrogrami per liter (j»rts per billion |ppli]). • '
Arulyici were per/irrrned by vnriniif analytic*! itilicnmnclors using standard U.S. nnvironmcnlal
|) Cdtnfrtliml concentration wax determined at • secondary dilution factor.
i (•siimtlcil result.
II The lUiiniNionil wni uiinlyycil for. (ml not delected *l the cnrrcipondino reporting
,1 All ii:|«iilili); liltlili iHljtd itnc In itiillix itilcifriciitcs.
i All iciKirtiiii' limili luiictl ilnc In lii|;h Icvclj ufolhcr anilylei.
U - |te«iiU rcittlcjl
1 H t:klil rc|iltvnK "' previiini »ui|)lc.
limits.
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 Ul
5.8
1.7
9.5
0,38 J
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2.9
0.5 U
300 D
O.S U
O.SU
0.06 J
O.S U
O.S UJ
2 U
R
O.SU
ti.8
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 II
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
O.S UJ
4.2
1.5
a.g
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2.7
O.SU
220 D
O.SU
0. 19 J
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2 U
R
O.S U
5.2
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.06 J •
0.5 U
0.31 J
O.SU
0.511
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
211
0.5 UJ
5.3
1.6
8.6
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2.7
O.SU
320 D
OJ U
0.511
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
2U
R
0.5 U
6.1
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 tl
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
211
0.5 UJ
. 6.4
*>
10
0.3J
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
3.3
0.5 U
280 D
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 UJ
2 U
3.61
0.5 U
7.8
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
o.su
0.5 U
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 UJ
1.3
O.I8J
4
0.2 J
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
3.8
0.5 U
93 OJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S 11
O.S UJ
2 U
R
O.SU
1.1
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.7 U
1.2 J
O.SU
17
0.18 J
0.11 J
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.3 J
0.5 tl
t i
o'i'u
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2.4
O.SU
0.071
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U1
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
025J
0,5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.74
0.5 U
O.SU
0.511
0.5 U
O.S UJ
2 U
1.9 J
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 tl
O.SU
0.3 J
0.42J
0.47 J
O.S
O.i
05
05
OS
2 1
OS
1
1.
0.)
O.I
O.S
2 1
OS
OS
05
0.5
05
27
O.J
0.5
0.5
0 5
OS
b.o;
OS
0.2'i
0.)
0.5
O.S
05
05 i
Protection Agency methodology.
-------
Tulilc 9 Concenlnlioni nf VoUiile OrG*nic Compound] in Groiimlwilcr Stmples CotlecleJ from J«2 ]6M»r92 l6-M«r-9? l«-Mir-92 l6-M»r-»l lfi-KUr-92 24-Mtr-92 24-M.r-92 J4 M.r-97 ]4-Mir-«l 24 >.
riilfijmncltionc
llriiiMimLcthnne
Vinyl chl'iriilc
Cltluroeltmne
Mdtiyleric clilnriUe
Acetone
Carhnn iliiulfule
I.l-Okliliirnellicne
l.l-tlithliit'iclliiiic-
1.2 hichtulDcllicric (cis/ltinl)
f hlur^furirt •
1,2 Ilitlilnii'cllione
2-l)utufluf*c
I.I, 1'TfichlflrOeihfcne
C*fhon ictrncMufiJe
nfOrnodicliloromclh*nc
1 42 • OicMoi ttprftpaitc
ittiiif- 1 ,3-l>icliloroprupenc
TrJcMtfMiciliciie
Dilirumoclilurofneiliine
1 . 1 ,2-Ti iclilorocltune
Jtifi/ene
cii-I.J-Dichloropropene
Jfroniofonn
4-Mccnicnc
IHylliciMcnc
Siyrciic
X'ylciici, (tiitnl)
0,45 J
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.SU
0.79 U
2U
0.5 U
0.83
2
0.72
• 0.2 ;
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.S U
O.S IJ
0.5 U
21
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
2 IJ
O.S II
0.25 J
0 S IJ
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU O.SU O.SU
0.5 U 0.5 U O.SU
O.SU. 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.64 U O.SU I.2U
2 U 2 UJ 2 U
0.5 U O.S UJ O.S U
0,45 J 0.25 J 0.44J
3.3 1.2 3.6
0.92 0.28 3 0.93
O.I6J 0,11,1 0. 17J
0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U
2 U 2 U 2 U
0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
0.5 U . 0.5 U 0.5 U
0,5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
O.SU O.SU 0.5U
O.S U O.S U O.S U
u a.i 9.3
O.S U 0,5 U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U 0.5 (I
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
o.su o.s u; o.su
1 U 2 tJ 2 U
1 \\ 4.2 2 U
0.5(1 O.S It O.SU
O.I9J O.U O.I5J
O.S U O.J U O.S U
0.5 U O.S U O.S U
o.s u o.s u o.s u
o.su o.s-u o.su
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Analylecnnccnlrtliom in micrognmi per filer '(jirif per billion fppM).
Analyses were j>er/V>rmcil liy various analytical inhcanlraclon tiling standard U.S.
t) CumpnumJ concent ration wu determined
J HiliinateJ remit.
1 1 The cmnpoiinil wu analyzed for, but nnl
it All lejmmnc limili nmul
i All mmitiriK limil] micil
It Hcivill rejected.
Pit Red! repliMic »( prtviou;
ilnc In matrix 11
it t secondary dilution (nc|nr.
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
1 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.22J
0.83
0.15 J
0.09;
O.SU
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
a. 2
o.su
o.s u
o.su
o.s u
o.su
2 U
5.5
o.s u
0.09 J
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
o.su
environmental
o.s (i
o.s u
o.su
o.su
1 U
2U
O.SU
0.2 J
0.71
O.I5J
0.09 J
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
7.5 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
7.3 J
O.SU
0.09 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
Protection
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
0.5 U
0.26 J
0.88
Q.I6/
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
9.7 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
1.6 J
0.5 U
0.11 }
0.5 U
O.S U .
O.S U
o.s u
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.67
O.I9J
0.09 J
O.SU
2 u
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
10
. 0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S UJ
2 U
1 U
O.SU
0. IS J
o.s u
0.5 U
O.S U
o.s u
o.s u
R
tl
R
R
O.SUJ
O.S UJ
5.7 J
2.7 J
II J
0.32/
R
R
R
R
0.05 J
2,7 J
R
190 DJ
R
R
o.s u;
R
H
K
0.64 J
It
6.-I J
O.SUJ
R
R
R
0,5 UJ
O.S U
O.S t)
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
I.2U
2
1.9
4.7
0.3 J
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.07 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
33 DJ
0.5 U
O.SU
0,5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
2 U
O.j II
6,6
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
R
U
R
R
O.SUJ
R
2.9 J
0.97 J
I.6J
4.S 1
O.SUJ
R
R
K
R
R
0.63J
R
31 J
R
R
R
R
R
H
R
k
3.4 J
R
I2J
R
R
R
R
R
. R
0.5 UJ
R
0.5 UJ
4.5 J
I6J
I7J
0.41 J
R
R
R
R
R
I.SJ
R
93 DJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
IBJ
R
R
R
R
R
0.1
0,5
0.5
O.S
O.S
•> i
0.5
2.4
6 .
U
0.)
0.5
2 1
O.i
0.3
O.S
0.9.
O.S
'571
O.S
O.S
O.J i
0,5 i
O.i i
2 II
2 II
O.i 1
IJ
O.S 1
0.5 t
021
0.5 <
0.86
Agency methodology.
delected tl the corresponding reporting limits.
itertcrcncei.
line In liigli tcvcli of oilier analytei. .
I tamplc.
-------
Tilile 9 Conccnlnlioni of Volatile Organic Compounds in Grnnmlwtler Snmplet Collected from January lo Mirch 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation. Vega Aln, Puerto Rico.
Stmnle ID: OVAW 1105 BVAW 1106 DVAW 1107 DVAW 1108 OVAWII09 BVAW 1101 BVAW 1202 BVAW 1203 BVAW I2M BVAW 1105 BVAW llOfi BVAW 1207 BVAV
(Ml Dm (Mil) (Mil) (MM) (XIII) (MI2) (MID (Mil) (Mil) (Mil) (Mil) 0-113)
Arutyte
Due:
24-MT-92
24-Mir-92 2-l-M»r-92 24-Mir-92
l9-M«f-92 19 M.r-92 |9-Mir-91 l?-Mir-92 )9-Mir-92 l9-M«r-91
Clilnromeilicne o!5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U
liionmmelliine O.S U II O.S IJ O.S U
Vinyl chloride O.S (J R 0.5 IJ 2.7
CMurocilmne O.I U .'1 0.5 U 0.5 U
Mclliylenc chloride O.SU O.S UJ O.SU 0.5 U
Attiunc 211 It 2 U 2 II
lafhoii Ji>ul/idc O.SU 0.5 UJ O.SU O.SU
I.J-OicliliiftMUhenc 3.5 J 2.5J 2.4 1-3
1 ,1 DKlitnrotilmnc f'.t IJ 3.5 2
1.2 -l>ichli»iwlliciie(cix/i»iiii) |3 MJ 5.6 3.8
Chk>ri.r»rrii 0.38 J 0.3 ) 0.32 J O.SU
1.2 -Oklilnrocilifeiie . O.5 IJ It O.SU 0.5 U
.' ltiiii.ii»nc 2 IJ It 2 IJ 2U
1,1,1- l*i Idilorncihinc O.SU ll 0.5 U O.SU
Co i l.i j ii leiruliiuridc 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U
llfiinuHlichluroincllune 0.5 U R O.I U O.S U
l.2-l>ichlr>runrun>fie 0.88 0.78 J O.SS I.I
uuiifl 3-D'Lhlnrnnronenc O.S U R O.IU O.SU
Trii-til'iriiL-ihcne 43 1)1 78 DJ 33 2£
DrlirunmvMuruinelhanc 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U
11.2-Trichloriiethane O.SU R O.SU O.IU
lluiueiie 0.5 U It 0.5 U 0.28 }
Ln-I.MJichlnropropcne O.IU It 0.5 U O.SU
Hn.moiwm OS U II ' O.S U O.S U
4-Mtlliyl-2 peiilannnc . 2 U It 2 U 2 U
MicMni.nc 2U R 2 U 2U
1.1.2.2-TctrielilorcKthanc O.SU K O.SU O.SU
Uii.tldiJri.ciliciic 17 13 J 6.6 1.2
lohicnc O.SU 0.5 UJ O.SU O.SU
lVM<.f«licn»nc 0.5 U . R 0.5 U O.I IJ
f'lhyllicii/ciic O.OSJ. R 0.05 J 0.1 J
Siyrejie O.S IJ It ", S U O.S U
Xylcnct (luul) 0.5 UJ K < -> U O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 IJ
O.SU
1.3
1.3
2.2
0.2SJ
O.I U
2 U
O.IU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.37 J
O.S U
13
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
21)
2U
O.S U
1.7
O.I IJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
Analyic concenlnliont in micro grarm per liier tpftt* per "billion Jpnl>](. ' •
Antlytei were performed by vinuua analytical subcontractor* using ilinJtrJ U.S. Environmental
1) rmnpoiind concentration was itetermint") ll a tecondary Jilulinn factor.
J Hkirinftlcd result.
II Tlic compound was analyzed for, hut no; detected at Hie correspond ing reporting
it AM re|Hiilini: IJniili rtiicd idle In innlrin interference).
IAIJ iriHiiiinj: tiinili niicil line In lii|;li icvcli of oilier atmlylcj.
I Itcntll (cjoclcil.
l:l( l:icl<) repliccle of prew'mu iimplc.
limit*.
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2U
O.S U
O.IU
O.SU
o.i u
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.21 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
IJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.I tJ
0.5 U
1
1.7
0.07 J
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.39 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.05 1
O.SU
O.SU
2U
I.SJ
0.5 IJ
0.5 U
O.SU
. O.S U .
1.4
2.5
O.I J
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
1.4U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.4 J
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.IU
O.IU
3.1
O.I U
O.SU
O.I2J
O.I U
0.5 U
2 U
4.4
0.1 U
O.I6J
O.I U
0.5 U
2.3
2.4
0.33 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
7.9
2.6
12
0.28 J
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
I.I
O.S U
190 D
O.SU
O.SU
0.06 J
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
9.4
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2U
0.5 U
3.4
1.3
5.2
0.21 J
O.S U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2.3
O.SU
HOD
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0.44 J
O.S U
4.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
2.2
I.I
4.1
O.I9J
O.S U
0.77 J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2.1
0.5 U
9] O
O.SU
O.SU
O.S IJ
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
2.8
O.S U
3.1
O.S U
O.SU
O.I U
0.5 U
O.IU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
I.S
0.82
3.3
O.I8J
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.IU
2
OS U
39 D
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
I.I J
0.5 U
2.3
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.IU
O.I
O.S
0.1
0.5
0.5
2 tl
0.1 1
0.62
O.S
2 J
O.t J
O.lll
2 II
0.1 IJ
0.1 (1
0.5 1)
I.6J
0.5(1
32
0.5 tl
0.5IJ
0.5 11
O.I II
0.5 tl
2 U
I.I J
0.5 (1
1.2
O.I (1
O.SU
0.511
O.SU
0.5 tJ
Protection Agency methodology.
-------
9 Cunceniminnt of Volatile Organic Compounds in GroiinJvvaler Simple* Collected from January lo March 1992, OU 11 Remedial Invcjtigation, Vega Alu, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: nVAW 1708 BVAW 130) DVAW 1301 DVAW 1302 DVAW 1303 DVAW 1304 DVAW 1305 BVAW 1306 DVAW 1307 DVAW 1301 BVAW 1309 DVAW 1310 OVA
(Ml2) Fit (MI3) (Mn)PK IMI3) t»riiineihonc 0.5 U 2.2 ,1.1 U 0.5 UJ
IliiHiioinciliniic 0.5 It 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Vinyl Ll.hx«lc 0.5 U 0.5 If 0.5 If 0.5 tl
ttilofocilitnc 0.5 II 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
McOiylc.ic cdliiriilc O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
AVCI.HIC 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U
Cnhon iliiulfide 2.1 J I.6U 0.92 UJ 0.78 UJ
I.I Difhliirmtlhenc 0.89 O.SU O.SU O.SU
1 1 (JiLli|,.f.,clliinie fl.C/i 0.5 It 0.5 II • 0.5 II
I.MJrilil.inicii.ciic (tii/ii.m) 2.7J 0.5 tJ O.SU O.SU
riiiiinifiimi o.i'fij o.5 if o.su o.s u
1.2 |jklil..fiieiliHiic 0.5(1 0.5 U 0.51) O.SU
2-HuHir.«ne 2 U 2 U 2 U 3 11
1.1,1-Tridilor.iellmne O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
r.ihnn n.-i(.ciiJuridc 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
tlr<>m<.tii..litiiicih*nc 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U .
I.Mtohlurnprnpmte 2J O.SU O.SU O.SU
rram-1.3 IJiLhlocoprupenc O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
rncMmiiciliciiE 30 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.77
r>4liromi>clili>ruineihiine 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
1.1.2-TlieMnnielliiinc 0.511 0.5 tf O.SU O.SU
htii/cne 0.5 It 0,5 It O.SU O.SU
cii-I.J.nictilornnnmenc 0.511 O.SU O.SU 0.5 (J
Hf-m.nl.mn 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S LI 0.5 U
•l-MLiliylO-piiiilhiiiuti: 211 2 UJ 211 2 U
2 lltA.itmic 211 2U 2U 211
l.l.2,2-l<:irpL|l|1,(4.ciho..e (1-5 (1 O.SU 0.511 O.SU
lc)t.Lhl..i,,cil,cnc If- 0.5 U O.SU 0.24 J
h.lucne 0.5 It O.I 1.1 O.MJ O.SU
rM..r..l»:n«iic 0.5 If 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
hiliyll.ciitenc 0.511 1.2 1.4 O.S U -
Siyreiw O.SU 1.9 2.4 0.5 U
X'y kites (Uiul) 0.5 tl 0.07 J 0.07 J . O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 It
O.S U
2tl
O.SUJ
0.5 tl
0.5 II
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.82
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 It
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
2 U
O.SU
0.32 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 t)
0.5 U
0.5 U
Arulyie conccnimiont in micrograms per liler (parti per billion fppbj).
Analyicj were performed tiy various analytical inliconl radars nimg lUndard U.S. nrivironmenlat
I) Compound cnnecnlmlinri wat dclermincd si « iccondary dilution factor.
J l-iiiinateif remit.
II Tin: i-iiinixiiiiiil w.i inily/cit Inr, (ml no) delected nl Hie corresponding reporting
• 1 All ic{H>niii|; liiriiH rviiul due lit nlnlriji iiilcricrencci.
1 All icMiiiim; limili r«iicil ilnc In liii'li level* of oilier analylei.
l( Kcviill feictlcil. " ' • .
IU l:iclil rcfilieilc of )>ri;vii>ni umptc.
limili.
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U Hi
0.75 UJ 0.58 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.75
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.Stl
O.SU
2U
1 U
0.5 U
0.43 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
Pralcelion
O.SU
O.IJ
0.68
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.2 J
O.SU
3.8
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2U
O.S U
3.8
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U.
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
I.2UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.59
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.22 J
0.5 U
3.6
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 If
IU
0,5 U
3.7
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 UJ
O.SU
0.06 J
0.54
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.24 J
0,5 U
3.2
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
2U
0.5 U
2.S
0.511
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
Agency methodology.
0.5 U
0.5 t)
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
I.4UJ
0.08 J
O.I5J
I.I
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.2 J
O.SU
5.6
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
I U
0.5 U
4.8
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.SU
0.511
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.67 UJ
0.5 U
0.12J
0.95
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.16 J
0.5 U
4.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
2U
O.SU
4.1
0.08 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.SU
2U
O.SUJ
O.SU
0,11 J
1
0.5 U
'05U
2 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.I9J
O.SU
4.8
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
3.6
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S
O.S
0.5'
0.5
0.5
21
0.5
0.5
0.5
O.S
0.5
05
2 tf
O.S
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5 1
0 5 1
0.5 I
0 5 U
0 5 II
0.5 II
0.5 It
2 II
2 tl
O.S tl
0.5 II
0.5 II
0.511
0 40 1
0 78
O.SU
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Tililc 9 CnncenIrationi n( Volatile Organic Compound! in Groundwalcr Simple) Collected from January lo March 1992. OU II Remedial Investigation. Vega Alu, Puerto Rico.
Sample ID- BVAW 1504 BVAW 1505 BVAW 1506 OVAW ISO? DVAW IJOI BVAW 1509 BVAW ISIO BVAW 1510 BVAW 1511 BVAW t«l BVAW IW2 BVAW I6O1 BVA\S
(MI5) (MI5) (MIS) (MIS) (Kill) (MIJ) (MIS) {MlJ)FR (MIS) (Ml*) (Mt6) (MI6)
Arul>l«
Due:
Il-Ftl>92 U'Fcb-91 li-F-92 ll-P«b-92 ll-Fcb-92 )2-Fcb-92 !2-Fcb-92 ll-Ftb-92 10-Feb-92 26-Fcb-92 26-Fcb-91 7i-Fcb-92 24-Ftl.,
rhl..f.inii:lh«ne 0,51) d.S U O.SU 0.5 J
Itru.r ell e O.S II O.SU O.S II 0.5
ViuyUM.iii.lc O.S II OSU O.SU O.SU
CMnmciUnc 0.5 UJ OSU O.SU 0.5 UJ
Mclhyleiicclilr.fidc O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
Acctmic 2 II 55 2 If 1.2 J
C.rt,n iiiirachlunile O.S U O.S U O.S U O.S U
llri.mndiclilnrnincilnne O.j U O.S U O.S U 0.5 U
].2-l>icMor»j>r<>panc O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
(•t<3-()klil.iropr Trkhl.irnttlianc O.j II O.S IJ O.S II O.S U .
iinn/cnc O.S 11 O.j IJ 0.5 U O.S U
civ-U-nkliturunrippcne O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
ftnuriWiirm 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U O.S U
•4 Mciliyl-2.pc«iiiiiiiiic . 211 2U 2 IJ 2 U
•>-Mii»n»iic 2 U 2 II . '/ 2 II
1 1 2 2-Teiruehlornclliinc 0.511 O.JU 0.5 IJ O.SU
ItKnclil.ifKtitituc 0.5 IJ O.JU O.j tl 0.511
•|,t|ue,ic 0.5 fl 0.511 O.SU 0.51)
f:|1l.,r.,liei,(ene O.S U O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
1 il.vll.cii/ciic I.6-. 2.2 .0.39J O.A7
liviciic 2 3 3.3 0.64 1
Xrk,,es (tni.1) 0.5 U O.S U O.S U 0.5 U
0.5 U
n.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
2 II
0.9-1 U
O.SU
O.S II
O.S U
0,5 U
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su .
O.JU
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S II
O.S U
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
n.s u
0.5 U
o.su
0.48 J
0.76
0.5 U
Analyic cnncenlratiuns in mtcronramj per liter (peftJ per billion fppl>)). ..,__''.
Analyse* were perfamied l»y various analytical subcontractors using ilandtml U.S. Environmental
() C
-------
Tittle 9 ConccnlrolinM of Volatile Organic Compound) in Groundivaler Samples Collected from Jimitry to Mtrch 1992, OU II Remedial Invcjliealion. Vcg« All*. Puerto Rico.
S»mple ID: DVAW 1604 DVAW l«05 BVAW 1606 DVAW 160.7 DVAW 160S BVAW 1*09 DVAW 1701 DVAW 1702 BVAW 1703 BVAW 17« BVAW 170S BVAW 1706 BVAV
(MI6) (MI6) (Ml 6) (Mt6) (MI6) (MI6) (M17) (MIT) (M17) (MIT) (MIT) (MIT) (XII7)
Aiuljrtc
27-F*h.92 27
J7-F«b-92 27-rtb.<>2 27-F«h-92 27-Fcb-92 IS-Ftb-92
2J-Fcb-92 IS-Ftb-92
U-F«b-91
Oilnromciliine
flroni'ptiicilinric
Vinyl tMori'lc
Clilnfocihonc
Mclltyfene chloride
AtCll*MC
Carbon Jisulfidc
I.l-Dichlorucilicnc
I.I hii.lilipnitilp.ue
1 ..' Diclilcnucilicric (cii/lr*n*)
f*li|i)f iifni in
2 • liuiM none
1 > 1 ,1-TrichlAEoclhane
Curium itiriehlnride
llroinoilicliloruincrliine
1 .2-Diclilpinc
fruits 1 .3 OkJ.loinfi/iifttne
'1 riiltfirrfM.'dicric
f>i(>ruiiiiichli>ruruclli*itc
1 . 1 ,2-Triclilurnciliine
llCJI/CJIC
ci»-l,J'Dicltlor'>propenc
liriini'tftif in
•1 Mtiliyl-2-penlnti'iiic
2- Ifcxinrjnc
.1.1 .2.3* TctfftCljJuroclliiiiH:
1 clffectiffjrucllitijie
1 t»luc'tc
(Vliiur i'ticn /cue*
lilliyll>cli/cJie
Siyrcitc
X'ylencs (mill)
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
!* 8 II
0:5 U
O.S U
n.iii
OXWJ
0.14 1
0 5 tl
I U
o.s u
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
O.S 11
CMC, 1
0.5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
2U
i Y.J
o.s u
0,28 1
O.S U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
O.J U
0.5 11
0.5 11
0.5 U
O.SU
2 tl
O.S U
o.ju
0 08 J
0.07 J
0.13 J
O.S 11
2 U
O.S U
O.JU
O.SU
0.5 U
o.s u
0.3S J
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
0,5 Ul
2 U
2 U
O.S U
O.I9J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
O.J U
O.JU
O.SU
2 II
O.JUJ
0.5 U
O.I J
0.0!* J
0.14 1
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.J U
O.JU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.44 J
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 tl
O.J U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
O.S U
0.191
O.SU
O.J U
O.J 11
O.JU
O.J.U
0.5(1
O.S II
O.S II
0.5 U
o.s u
2 II
0.5 UJ
O.J U
O.IJJ
O.I3J
0.17 J
0.5 11
2 U
0.5 U
O.JU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.491
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
2 U
O.S U
0.32 1
0.5 U
O.J U
n.su
0.5 U
O.J U
0.511
O.S tl
0.5 u
o.s u
O.JU
2 tl
O.S 111
0.5 U
0.15 1
0.121
O.I9J
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.J U
O.S U
O.JU
0.62
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
211
2 U
0.5 U
0.361
O.SU
O.JU
O.J U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
o.s u
2 U
O.JUJ
O.J U
0.06 J
0.5 U
0 12 J
0.5 U
IU
O.S 11
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.371
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.J U
2U
1 J
0.5 U
o.ts j
0,5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.J U
O.JU
O.JUJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 II
O.S UJ
2.1
0.5 U
1
0081
O.SU
2 I!
O.SU
O.SU
O.J U
0.61
O.JU
21
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.JU
OSU
2 U
2U
. 0.5 U
O.It J
O.JU
O.JU
O.J U
O.J U
O.JU
0.5 Ul
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
7. U
0.5 UJ
1.2
0.5 U
0.73
0.06 J
O.J U
2U
O.SU
O.JU
O.JU
0.45 J
O.SU
IS
O.JU
O.JU
O.J U
O.J U
O.J U
20
2 U
O.S U
O.O9J
O.J U
O.JU
' O.JU
O.SU
OJU
O.J U
O.J II
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.JU
2 II
O.S UJ
0,5 U
0.76
0.06 J
O.S U
2U
0.5 U
O.JU
O.SU
0.47 J
O.JU
IS
O.J U
0:5 U
O.J U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 UJ
2 U
O.SU
0.14 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0,5 U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 UJ
1.7
O.S U
0.66
0.08 J
0,5 U
2U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
0.47 J
O.JU
10
O.JU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.JU
O.SU
2UJ
2 U
O.J U
O.I2J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S 1)
0.5 U
O.J U
O.J U
2U
0.5 UJ
O.I J
0.5 U
O.I6J
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
O.J U
O.J U
O.S U
O.S U
O.J U
3
O.SU
0.5 U
O.J U
0.5 U
O.SU
3UJ
2 U
0.5 U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
O.J tl .
O.S U
O.JU
O.JU
O.J U
O.J U
O.J U
O.J U
2U
O.SUJ
0.3 1 J
O.JU
0.2 J
O.S U
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.JU
O.SU
O.J U
O.JU
4.6
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
O.SU
O.SU
2UJ
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.JU
0.5 U
O.J U
O.JU
0.5 1
n.JI
0,5 1
0.5 1
051
2 U
O.IS <
0.13
0.5 1
O.t?
0.51
O.J I
2U
0.511
0.5(1
0.511
0.5 II
0.5 II
3.61
O.SU
O.S II
0.5 II
0.5 II
0.5 II
2111
211
O.S II
D.5 II
0.5 U
O.JU
0.5 II
O.J tl
O.J U
Arnlyte ciincenlriilinnt in micrognifin per lilcr (pint perlx'llinn |ppti|).
Atulyici were performed hy vinoui tnilyliol subcontractor* using ilindaru U
.S. Environmenul Protection Agency mdhoifolofy.
[J CuiiipKimtl concentnlion wtt dclcrmincd *l i icconJiry dilution Ticlor.
I rilimttett rc»nll. ... .. ....
II Ttic cimipmind wm «n*lyz.«l fur. hul not delected it I lie cnrrespondmj; reporting hniili.
il All leixiiliiif: limits fijied due tn nutria interfcrvncei.
j All (cixiilii.i; limit! rtiled due to llt^ti kvcli of (lllicf innlylci.
Html/ rejected1.
Ticlil rt|ilit«le of prcvuiiu itinple.
It
IK
-------
Tiilile 9 Concenlnilioni of Volatile Orginie Cnmpotmd* in Groiinrfwuler Samples'Collected from tinutry to Mtrch 1992. OU II Rcmcdul Invctligtlion, Vefi* All*. Puerto Rico.
Pige
Simnle ID: DVAW 1707 nVAW 1708 BVAW IIOI DVAW 1101 DVAW 1103 nVAW IICM DVAW 1105 BVAW 1106 DVAW 1807 8VAW IS07 6VAW ISOI BVAW 1901
(MI7JFK (MI7) (MID (MIB) (MIS) (MIB) (MI8) (Kill) fMIt) (MII)FR (Kill) (Ml?) (MI9)
Aiulyle
Dilt:
15-Fcb-M I«-Feb-92 4-F(b-92
4-Feb-92 4-Fcb-92
S-F«b-91
S-Fcb-91 5-Ftt>-92
S-Feb-9J
S-ftb-91 13-Mir91 TJ.M.r
riiluromclhane
llrmnOIIIClltmiC
Vinyl tlijurpje
Clilnruclliine
Mclliyleiie cliluride
Acciiinc
Cathon JilulTuJe
i !' ! r • I ' ii
1 .2'Uii'lil'iincihcric (civ/lCDpli)
1 ^.'i>'i''ip'l''ri.etl line
V ft , * *
1 , J , 1 -IV icJilOFOclhwic
Cuiliau rdrtcliluriile
Hri>inndiclili>rumeilitnc
1 ,2-Diclili>ruprup«nc
iimj. 1.3 Ditliloroiirnpcnc
fJihfornnchlorinTicilitiie
1 , 1 ,3'Tf ictd»r"'**!*litne
flCJI/cnC
tis- J .3'f)ii'Jilorupr4ipcne
4 Mtlliyl 2 jielilmnplic
"^ • 1 1 CJIttfMJItc
1 . 1 .242rTcir*ctiloj'iic(fiHnc
'I i
(VMipfdticn/ene
lilliylliciiicnc
iiyrciic
X'yleiio (luiil)
0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U
2U 2U
0.5 UJ O.S UJ
0 07 J 0 5 U
o's If 0 5 tl
0.11 J" O.SU
0 5 U 0 5 U
05 U O.S U
2 U 2 U
0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U
0 5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U
O.SU O.S U
2.2J 0.06
O.S U 0 ', U
0.5 If 0.5 If
0.5 tl 0.5 U
0,5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U
2 UJ 1 UJ
2 IJ 2 U
0.5 U O.S U
O.S U O.S U
0 5 U 0 5 U
o's u o.s u
o.s rr n.s u
O.S U O.S U
•1.5 U 0.5 U
O.SU O.SU O.SU
0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U 1.6
O.S UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
2U 2U
O.S U 0.5 U
0 5 If O.S U
O.SU O.SU
O.S U O.S U
0 5 U 0 S If
0.5 U 0.5 U
2 U 2 U
0.5 U O.S U
O.S U O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U
OS U O.S U
O.S U 0.5 U
O.SU O.SU
0.5 U 0.5 IJ
0.5 U O.S II
O.S U O.S U
0,5 UJ 0.5 UJ
'2 If 211
2 U 3
0.5 U 0.5 If
0.5 IJ O.S U
O.S II O.S U
O.S U ' O.S U
0.13J O.|6|
0.5 IJ 0.5 U
O.S U O.S IJ
Anilyle cnncentmiioni in micrngwni per liier (parti per billion fppl>l).
Annlyict were performed by vinmii indyticil tubconlnelon uiing ilandinl U.S.
U Cntuftottnd cnncenl rul inn w*>
J psliriitled result.
2U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
0,5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 tl
O.IB J
O.S It
0.5 UJ
2 It
2 U
O.S U
o.su
p.'s u
12
0.37/
O.S U
Environmenol
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
O.SU
2U
O.S5U
a.s u
0.5 U
O.S U
o.su
2 U
O.S U
O.SU .
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
2U
2 U
O.S U '
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.34 )
0.42 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
2 U
0.76 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0,5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 It
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 tJ
O.SU
0:SU .
0.49 1
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
1.3 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
o.su
2U
2U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.46 1
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
o.su
&U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
OSU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
3U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 IJ
O.S U
0,66 J
0.42 J
O.SU
e.su
o.s u
o.su
o.su
o.su
2U
o.su
0.5 U
o.su
o.s u
0.5 U
o.su
2U
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 If
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 If
D.S U
O.S U
2 U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.4}
1.21
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
o.su
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 If
o.su
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
o.su
0.2J
0.06 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
OSU
O.S U
1U
l.SU
o.su
o.s u
o.su
o.s u
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
2U
2U
0.511
O.SU
O.S U
O.HJ
1.2
1.2
O.SU
0.5 tl
0.5 II
0.511
O.S II
0.5 U
2 U
2.4 11
O.S II
0.511
0.5 II
0.5 IJ
0.5 It
2U
0.5 II
05 If
O.S IJ
0.5 U
0.5 II
0.5 II
0.5 IJ
0.5 II
0.5 IJ
O.S II
0.5 It
2U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 II
0.5 II
0.5 U
1.4
0.5 U
Protection Aeency methodology.
determined it * iccondiry dilution hclnr.
tl Tito CDinpniinil vuii' analyzed for. l»il pnl deleclcd at (lie cnrrci|ioniling reporting limili.
>l All fc|Bii\in|: limili taiicil ilnc ID iiuuii uilcrfcrencct.
j All iciioiiiiii; limit) failed ilnc Hi l"t'> level) nf mlicr miatyiei.
l< Hcsiili rcicclcil.
1 t< l:itM rc(iHi;ntc pif ptcviipni simple.
-------
T.hlc 9 Concentration! of Vnlnlilc Orginic Compounds in GrotindwMcr Simple! Cnltccled from Jimiiry lo Mirch 1992, OU II Rcmcdi*! Invealigilion, Vega Alii. Puerto Rico.
Plje I'
Simple ID: I1VAW I90J IW AW
(Ml 9) (Ml 9}
riVAW 1905 DVAW 1906 DV AW 1006 BV AW 1907 DVAW 1908 BVAW 1909 BVAW (910 BVAW 2001 BVAW 20OJ BVAW 1064 BVAW 7
(MIS) (MI'J) (M!9)PH (MIS) (Ml 9) (M|9) (MI9> (M10) (M20) (KI20> (MIU)
Arulylc
Dilc:
21-M«r92 ll-Mir-91 ZJ-Mir-92 I3-Mir-92 2J-Mir91 25 Mir-92 2S-Mir-92 2I-M*f-92 15-Mir-91 3-Feb 92 3-Feb-SH 3-F«t>-91 3 Fib V:
rt,|<>t"iiiclh«icl.li>«pc(liiii« 0.511 O.SU O.I2J O.IU
1.2 IJkhluiuciliciic (cii/lr«n<) O.IU 0.5 U 0.42 J 0.27 J
rhWiifotiit 0.511 0,5 U 0.121 O.SU
l.i Divlitr.f.jcHmne O.SU O.SU O.SU 0.5 U
2 liiilaiione 111 2U 1.4 J 2U
l,l.l-Trit:liJ»ri>cll»nc O.SU fl.5 II O.SU O.SU
(VdilMin ictmclilnride O.S U O.S U O.S U 0.5 U
[ir»innJkl>li>iuinclhkne 0.5 11 0.5 U ' ' II 0.5 U
1.2 -Dklilnfnpfupine O.SU 0.5 U i.,i U 0.33 J
train- 1.3 Dichltiropropene O.SU 0.5 U O.SU 05 U
T.kliJmiittlieiie 0,511 O.SU 5.1 4)
rMirumuchlornnieihkne 0.5 U O.S U 0,5 U 0.5 U
1.1.2-Triclilnroeihnne 0.5 U O.SU 0.5 tl O.SU
llcn/eiia 0.07 J O.SU O.IU O.SU
ci» -I.J •Dicliliirnprtipcne 0.5 II 0.511 0.5 U 0.5 IJ
llriiiii..r»riii 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S II
4 -Mclliyl-2 -iMMikniine 2 U 2U 2 U 3U
2 -llexnniinc 3.2 2U 2 U 211
1,1,2,3 lcirBcMnn.cllii.nc . 0.511 O.SU O.SU 0.5 U
luKDClili.iiiclJicKc 0.511 0.5 [J 0.99 0.96
fc.luefic 0.5 IJ O.S U O.SU O.SU
f l,|.,f.>l.eiiscue O.S II 0.12; O.SU 0.5 IJ
Kiliylhenicne 1.5 I.I O.SU O.SU
Stymie 2.6 1.8 O.SU O.SU
Vylcii« 0"i»l) fl-S U fl.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
Afulyle concent rations in micmgrimi per liter (pirU pcrhitlinn |pp)>|>.
An Cnmpnunil concent ml ion wli ilelermineil *( k iccondtry dilution fkctor.
J fliiirn&lcjl rcinH,
2.5 11.1
2.5 IJ
2.5 U
2.5 II
2.1 U
1011
2.5U
2.511
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.5 IJ
2.5 U
10 U
2.3 U
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.2 J
2,5 U
' 2.5 IJ
3.5 tl
2.5 IJ
2.511
10 U
fij
2.5 U
O.S 1
2.SU
2.5U
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.SU
nnvironmcnlkl
O.SU
0,5 U
Oi.U
0.5 U
a.S U
2 U
0,5 U
0.09 J
O.IS J
0.4 J
O.tl J
0.5 U
3U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.37 J
O.SU
3.4
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
n.i u
n.s u
;u
2 U
O.S U
0.83
0.5 U
O.S U
O.IU
0.5 U
o.s u
Protection
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.05 1
0.5 U
0.05 J
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.83
0.5 U
O.S U
a. i u
0.5 If
o.s u
2U
"> U
0~5 U
0.13 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.06 J
O.IU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.5U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
o'su
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.liJ
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.6 U
O.S U
0.13 J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.I U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
O.SU
O.SU
0.07 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
• O.I U
0.5 UJ
2 U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.I U
O.S U
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
1 U
O.SU
O.SU
0,5 U
O.SU
o.s u
2U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
2 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.45 J
0.5 U
1.3
2.T
0.2 J
0.5 1!
O.SU
0.5 U
0.511
0.5 U
2U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.IU
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
a.s u
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
o.su
O.SU
O.I U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.5 I)
O.S II
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.IU
O.I II
O.I IJ
O.I U
O.I U
0.5 tl
2 U
0.5 II
O.Stl
0.5 tl
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
05 U
O.S U
O.I II
0.5 tl
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 II
0.5 tl
O.S U
0.5 U
1 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 II
a s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
0 S tl
O.SU
Agency mclhoclology.
II Tlic coimioiiiiil wk) krtkly/cil for, lint mil tlL-lecleJ it tlie corres|W>[iiliiig reporting limits.
\ic«le of previou* txnple. •
-------
T*l>tc 9 Concentration* f>( Volatile Organic Compound! in Crounttwiler Simplei Collected from January la Mirch 1992. OU II Remedial Invuligilion, Vega A let, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: BVAW J006 DVAW 1007 BVAW 1(107 IWAW 1010 BVAW 2201 DVAW 1102 BVAW 1201 DVAW 1204 BVAW 1105 BVAW 1206 BVAW 2207 BVAW 1201 BVAW
(M10) (M10) ne
1 .t ,2-Ti ichlnmclliine
lien /cue
cii- t.J-Oichlorupropene
rinxiioforin
-1 Mcil.yl 2 pciHnrmnc
MU'unmic
1 , 1 ,2,2-'l cllndjlunjcllianc
'IlilllCIIC
f.'Miinilicnicnc
liihylliciucnc
Slyronc
X'ylciict (mini)
O.S II
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
'2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
11.5 II
0.5 U
O.SU
fl.S U
2 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.5 U
n.su •
o.S u
0.5 U
Analylc concentrations in micmgrnrni per liter
Ajulyici were (wrfuninul hy varitNii inalylical
I) f?uui|»minil concentration wai
i niinntlcil result.
O.SU O.SU O.SU
O.SU O.SU O.Stl
o.s u o.s u o.s u
O.S UJ O.S UJ 0.5 UJ
O.S U 0.5 U O.S U
2IJ 1U 2 U
O.SU O.SU O.SU
O.SU O.SU O.SU
n.s u o.s u o.s u
o.s u o.s u o.s u
o.s u o.s u o.s u
O.S U O.S U 0.5 U
2U 2 U 2U
0.5 U O.S U O.S U
0.5 U O.S U O.S U
O.SU' O.SU O.SU
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U 0,5 U
O.S U O.S U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U O.S U
o.s u o.s u o.s u .
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U O.S U
0,5 UJ O.S UJ 0.5 U
.2 U 2U 2 U
2 U 2 U 2 U
0,5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
O.SU 0.5 U O.S II
O.S U O.S U O.S U
o.s u o.s u o.s u
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
O.S U 0.5 U O.S U
O.SU O.SU O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
OSU
2 UJ
1 U
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
O.SU
O.SU ,
2U
o.s u
o.s u
O.SU
osu
o.s u
0.31 J
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SUJ
2U
2 U
O.S U
0,5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.82
t.6
0.5 U
O.S UJ
o.s u
O.SU
o.s u
o.s u
2U
0.86 UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.29 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2 U •
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.74
1.2
0.06 J
O.S UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2U
2.7J
O.S U
0.5 U
0.2 J
O.SU
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U *
O.SU
O.SU
1.6
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.s u
2 U
1U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
1.4
2.2
O.OS J
o.suj
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SUJ
0.55
0,08 J
0.51
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
36
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2U
2 U
0.5 U
1.3
0.5 U
O.SU
'0.41 J
0.29 J
O.S U
O.S U
O.S 1)
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2 UJ
1.3 U
0.31 J
O.S U
0.35 J
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
22
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S UJ
2U
2U
O.S U
0.72
O.S U
0.5 U
0.39 J
0.4 J
O.SU
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
O.SUJ
It
1.5
3.1
O.SU
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
370 D
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
.0.5 U
2 U
2U
O.S U
IS
O.S U
O.SU
O.07 J
0.5 U
0,5 U
O.S UJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
211
2.7 J
4
0.7
3.2
o.oa;
o.s u
2 U
o.s u
O.SU
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
390 D
O.SU
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 u
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
7.6
0,5 U
O.SU
0.27 J
0.19 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2UJ
O.S U
270 DJ
20 J
28 J
t.ftJ
1.5 J
2 U
O.S U
0.08 J
OOS J
O.S U
O.SU
2800 DJ
O.S U"
-, ,
o's'u
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
2U
2 U
0.5 U
120 DJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
o.su
O.S tl
0.5 II
o.s u
21IJ
0.61 tl
iw m
U 1
181
I.I J
I.2J
2 U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2100 DJ
O.SU
2 1
05(1
OSU
O.S 111
2 II
2 II
O.S U
89 1)1
0 5 U
0.5 U
0.37 J
0 23 J
0.5 U
(pirli per hillion jppl))). ' •
jultcontraclon using ilondard U.S. Environmental protection Agency methodology.
determined at a iccomlary dilution factor.
II • Tlic conipoiniil wui • nnly/cil fur. Inn mil ilelccl&l >1 llic cnrTcsnonilinj; reporting;
• I Atl ii'|>ii\iit|' tiiniii ruiicd iluc li> iiiHlriK interference).
limit!.
|
-------
T*l>lc 9 Concenlrtlioni of Volitile Organic Compound* in Groimdwater Samples Collected from Jtnuiry la March 1992, OU II Remodiil Investigation, Vcg* Allt, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: RVAW 2209 GAM Cish El Mom
(Mil) + Curry (tO)
(67)
Arulyte Dik: !9-Ftb-92 J9-J»n-92 JS-M.T-92
rttlurometlinne 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U
(I, niiiciliatii: 0.5 tl 0.5 tl 0.5 U
Vinyl thliKiilt 0.5 U 0.5 U 0,5 U
Cliturucilmiit 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Mcthylene tMnriJe O.SU O.MJ O.SU
Acetone 211 2 U 2 U
Curium Jiiulfidc 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.66 U
1 , 1 -Dk-lihuiictlirne 160 D O.SU 3.8
1 l-lJithii.fc.cllmnc 5.3 0.07 J 0.24 J
I.J UitlilmutlliCHC (ciu/lioili) 16 O.Oaj 0.51
riilinlif.mil 0.33 J 1 > O.t J
1,5 iJltM.id.ctl.niiG . 1.6 Ci.5 II 0.5 tl
Mtut ic 0.88J 2U 2U
MJ-l'tichloroeiUne O.SU O.SU O.SU
Caflum iclr.cliliif jdc O.SU O.SU O.SU
llrtirnoJiclilnrcimclliine 0.5 II 0.5 U 0.5 U
1.2 DitMmopmpgite O.SU 0.06 J 0.22J
iMiiis.l.J-Diddiirftpriincnc O.SU O.SU O.SU
iiitlili.rocllicnc 570 1) 1.8 5. A
DitirotiiocliKirumcilinnc 0.5 U 0,5 UJ 0.5 U
1.1,2 TiicliliifiiilliMie O.SU O.SU O.SU
flcnjcne 0.23 } O.S U O.S U
cif-],3.Dicli|nronrapcne O.SU O.SU O.SU
Urr»r>n 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0,5 UJ
•TMtihyl 2-pciiimitnic ' 2 1) 2 UJ 2 U
2 llcitnmie 2IJ 2U 2U
1,1,2.2 .Tcirichtnriwihftfie O.SU O.SU O.SU
ItMottilojiictfium; • 11 0.58 3.6
Ir/luti." 0.6 U O.S U 0.5 U
(Vlil.m.liciwcnc OS U O.S U 0.5 U
liihvlliciucnc 1.3 0.5 U 0.5 U
Siy/cne 0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U
Xyleiies (nil*!) 0.52 0,5 U 0.5 U
El Mom
(BO) PR
25-Mir-92
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
4
0 "*4 J
0^56
0.00 J
o.su
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.26J
0.5 U
6.4
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
o.s UJ
2 U
2 U
0.5 U
3.8
0.5 U
.0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U - .
Forcinl
(74)
15 Jin 92
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.I7J
O.OB J
OS U
2U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0. 14 J
0.5 U
1.9
O.SUJ
O.S U
' 0.5 U
O.SU
O.SUJ
2 UJ
2U
0.5 U
0.43 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
Antlytc concentrations in micrognmi per liter (p«rti per billion |ppb|). • •
Annlyici were nerfuniied by vinoui itiilylicil subcontractor! tiling »Und*rtl U.S. Environment*!
QE-1 (78)
31-J.n-92
O.SU
0.5 II
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
21)
0.5 U
0.66
I A
1.3
0.43 J
0.5 U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
4.4
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
2U
0.5 U
3.5
0. U
0. U
0. U
0. U
0. U
GE-B3
(IOJ)
J 4 Fin 92
0.5 U
a. s ii
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 tJ
0.5 U
0.21 J
052
1
0.28 J
O.SU
2U
0.05 J
O.S U
0.05 J
O.SU
O.S UJ
4.7
O.SU)
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su;
2UJ
2U
O.SU
2,2
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
Gnnui
LtnJit 4
(119)
lS-Jtn-92
O.SU
0.5 tl
O.SU
0.5 tJ
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.17 J
0.11 J
O.i U
21)
O.SU •
0.5 U
O.SU
O.MJ
O.S UJ
1.5 .
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2U
0.5 U
0.65
0.5 U
0.5 U
'O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
tlirnun f
(104)
lO-Jin-92
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
0.32 J
0.26 J
0.76
O.SU
O.SU
21)
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
3.3
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
2 UJ
2 U
0.5 U
4
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
lltmua 2
(105)
20- Jin 92
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
0.21 J
0.21 J
I.I
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.S U
O.S U
O.OSJ
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2.8
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2 U
O.SU
11
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.S U
rr-3 (159)
is-i,^
o.su
Q.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0,5 U
0.24 J
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su
O.S U
0.5 UJ
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
o.suj
3UJ
2 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 tl
O.S U
U
Ciltndrii
(«w)(324)
19-Jio-n
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.14 J
2U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2UJ
2U
0.5 U
O.OSJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
u.
Putrtoi
(•0
19 J»n9
O.SU
0.5 tl
0.5 tl
0.5 U
O.I J
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
. O.S U
Q.J9 J
05 IJ
0.511
•> [f
0*511
0.5 U
O.SU
O.tfiJ
o.s u
2.3
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 II
0.5 in
2UI
211
0.5 tl
O.J7 J
0.5 1)
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
O.SU
Protection Agency methodology.
|> Cnitipound concentration w»j determined it • tccondiry dilution Tudor.
J nuiintteil remit.
II Ttie cuinpoiirul WD in*ly7«l for, but nnl ifctcclcij il the '-irejpom
<1 All ic|Ntiliii|; limit) riitcil due lit innlrix inicrfcreiicei.
i All (ciHirtiim litnili ikisal due In ltii>ti level* of flitter tnilylei
V Itcsull rejected. *
1'U I:ie1il rejiltCBtc n'f prcviaiii itmplc.
ling reporting
limits.
-------
T.l.lc 9-. Conccnlrilioni of VoUtile Orginic Compounds in Groumlwiler Samplcj Collected from January lo Mirch 1992, OU It Remedial Inveatig.lion, Vega AlU, Puerto Rieo.
18
Simple ID; Mitmyo 1 Mifutyo 2 Mifiifyo 3 Miginyo 5
{')!} (07) FR (161) (1 1)
Arutyie Ditc: 2l-J*n-91 2l-J»n-9J lfi-Jin-92 19 J.n-92
Cltlntomcititne O.S U O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 IJ
llrormimcllinnc 0 5 U 0 5 (J 0.5 U 0.5 t)
Vinyl irliluride 0.5 II o!s U O.S U O.S U
Cliliiructliine 0 S U • 0 5 U 0.5 U O.S U
Mctltylcnc chloride O.SU O.SU O.SU OI2J
AtcKine 2 U 2 U 2 U 21)
c.'uFliiin duulfiile 0.61 U O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
1 l-l>ichl<>mcihcne 0.5 U 0.5 U 0 < U 0.5 U
• I l-bkhl'iriiciiisiie 0.5 IJ 05U t , J O.SU
l!M>kliliiiiic4hciic{cii/iTiiiii) 0.2 J O.J9J O.j U 0.05 J
riilnrufnfm O.OB J 0.06 J 0.06 J 0.5 U
t,2-l>it.lil>iriH:lliirie O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
Ml.ji.ii.tne . 2 U 2U 2U 2U
l.l.l-TricltiWactlianc O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
f'n.l.nn icir.clilutiJe 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
flrumodichloromcilitne 0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U 0,5 U
1,2-Dichluroprunine O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
imrii-l.a-UicluWnpropene O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
rricrMornctlienc 1.2 1.1 1.6 0.33 J
Oil.ruinoclilurnmethane 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S UJ 0.5 UJ
1 1,2-Tricliloruetliine O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
tV.i/ene 0.5 IJ 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S (J
cii-l,J-nk.Mori>priipene O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU
li,,»m<.f,,im 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ
•) Mci|). ' : .
Aiulyict were performed liy vanoui analytical iijlicnnl radon imng iiindard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology.
D Cuinpotirul conccnlrilion vv« determined at a leeonUary dilulinn Tudor.
1 liitiinilcd remit.
II '] lie compound wa> ina1y7ctl fur. lint not clctecled al (lie correiponilinc reporting
il All ic|»>rtjii£ liiniii ruiiol due in imirix inlcrfcrcncei
i All iciHiittrii; liniiu niitil due In liirli Icvcli of oilier anilylea.
It Kciidl icicclc'l.
l-'lt Viclil ic|ilic*tc itf prcvinii) «mple.
liiniii.
-------
Tulile 9 Concentration* of Votdile Organic Compound* in Groundvealcr Simple* Collected from January lo Mirth 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation. Vega Alia, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: P-5 (45) Pnndtrou Reyei (43)
«9>
A«lrt« Did: 30-Jin.92 3l-Jin-92 19-Jin 91
rj.lnromeihane O.S U 0.5 U 0.3 U
tlr»nicil»ne O.SU O.SU 0.5 U
'Icliithluriicllicric 3.6 J 7 0.76
i.,tiici,e J.AJ o.su o.su
. UilnM.hcn/cnc 0,5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
IJI.yJl.eiuenc 0. 14J . O.SU O.SU
Siyrcne 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Xylcnci (|,,lnl) IJ O.I2J O.SU
uses
Sibina
lloyoi (32)
»•»•-«
O.SU
0.5 t)
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 t;
O.S U
0.511
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
0.2 J
0.5 U
O.SU
0.08 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.B4 J
2 U
O.SU
O.OB J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.08 J
SlbllU
lloyot 1
C73)
2l-Jan-92
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
OSU
O.SU
0,5 U
0.5 U
o.su
2U
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
Analytc concent ralioni in niicrogrami per liter (pant r-.i billion fppb)). • . •
Anolyiei were performed hy vanntu analytical luhcc.iiracton unnfi ttandarU U.S. Environmental
Sintt An*
(101)
rt.|..-9i
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.14 J
2 U
O.SU
0.12J
0.5 U
0.17 J
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2.1
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2U
0.5 U
0.28 J
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
Sinn Ana
(IQI)FR
)9-ftrt-92
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.I2J
O.SU
0.19J
O.S U
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2.1
O.SUJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S UJ
2UJ
2U
O.SU
0.29J
0.5 U.
' 0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
Stcui ROM
(61)
IS-J.n-93
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.S U
0.72
O.SU
0.36 J
O.I8J
•0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.22 J
0.5 U
7,8
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2 U
0.5 U
0.06 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
Suit Rota
11(61)
19M.r-92
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
0.69
O.SU
0.38 J
0.05 J
O.SU
3U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.24 J
O.SU
7.7
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
2 U
0.5 U
0.05 J
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
Trop!
Giriletu
(163)
IS-J»-92
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S UJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
2 UJ
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
Vc» AJu
1 («>
ll-Khr-92
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2UJ
0.5 UJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.34 J
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.05 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.121
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
0.09 J
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
Boole
Blink
19-1.0-97
O.SU
0.5 U
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
1.5 J
0.39 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
• o.su
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
FuM
Bltnk
IS-Jin-9]
O.SU
O.SU
0.511
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
0.13 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2UI
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
0 12 J
O.S U
0.5 II
0.5 U
O.OB J
Protection Agency methodology.
1) Compound concenlralinn wai determined at a teeondary dilution ficlor.
1 1 Ttic compound wn analyzed for, hut pnl detected at the corresponding reporting
il All icpiiniut; limits railed due In matrix inlcrfcrcncei.
j All HMvmtiiip limit) riiicd due lit liijjh level) nf other analylci.
li Iteiiill rejected.
l-'lt rielil replicate ofprcvinui lample.
limits.
-------
Ttlitc 9 Cnnccnirtiinni of VoUlile Orginic Compound! in Groundwiler Samples Co Heeled from Jintiary lo March 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation. Vega Alia, Puerto Rico.
Arulyle
r!ht<*f(ifnetliine
htnliHMfietltinc
Vinyl chloride
Chlonxuttunc
Methylcnc chloritle
Ai^cJutic .
Cifhon disujfide
I.I' Die Municilicnc
1 1 • llicjilt'ri'ciliuiic
Simple ID: Field Field Fitld
Dlink Dl*nk Blink -
Due: 22-lin-92 29-Jan-tt Ji!H»a-«
1
0.5 III O.SU O.SU
0.5 (1 05 U O.S II
0.5 U 0.5 'J O.S II
O.S U 0 j U O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
2 UJ 2 U 2 U
0.5 U 0.2 i 0.96
0.5(1 O.SU O.SU
O.Stl O.SU O.S II
l,2-J>ii.]i|iir> O.SU O.SU O.SU
riiliifufufin
1,2-llithlnriiclhnnc
1 llulnniiiic
I.l.l-Trkiitofoelhane
Curlxm letfieliliiriile
UriunoJii. Moroni cdione
t ,2-Dichlufopfupmc
(mm- 1,3-Divhlucorirnpcnc
TrtclilornelTienc
r)ilirni»ai.'hjoromeih*ne
1 . 1 .2-T(iclilnn>clltiiiic
licHicnc
eis- 1 ,3-Dklilornpropene
[trnnioform
•l-M<: '1
o.s u o.s u o.s u
Field
Blink
3l-Iin«
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2U
0.22 J
O.S I)
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
O.S II
2U
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
o.su
2U
2U
O.S U
o.s u
0.06 J
o.s u
o.su
o.su
o.s u
Field
nhmk
3-Feb-92
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
7U
0.47 J
O.SU
n.su
o.su
o.su
o.s u
2 U
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 U
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
2U
2U
o.s u
o.su
o.su
o.su
o.s u
o.su
o.su
Field
lll.nk
4-PeH
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
Field
Blink
>2 S-Feb-92
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S UJ O.S U
5
1 U
0.31 J
O.S U
o.s u
o.su
0.0* J
o.su
2U
o.su
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.SU
O.SUJ
2 U
2 U
O.S U
o.s u
O.ISJ
o.s u
0.3 U
o.su
O.I6J
micrognmi per liler (partj per billion |ppb|).
by vtrmni analytical mhconlractorj using ilindanl U.S. environmental Prolcclion
I) (TitmpnuiuJ cnncentration wai d.elcrmined nl a tccondary dilution
I l:nnniic
-------
Table 0 Concentration! of Volilile Orginic Compounds in Groundwiler Simple! Collected from Jtnuiry lo March 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation, Vegt Alii, Puerto Rico.
IHgell
Anilyic
Chtiirdmellionc
liriuiMiuicilinjitf
V(nyl cl l»n.Mrn|>ri>ptiie
TrivMurocihenc
fjilirumudiloroni ethane
1,1.2-TriclilofOetliane
llctt/cuc
tn 1 .3 DiLlilnropfOptne
Itmmoriirin
4 Mmliyl-2-pentiimine
2-llciBnnnE
1,1 .2.2-TcUachlnrnclliane
'1 cirptlilctHicthcnc
Itilue-ne '
f.'hluiblicnicnc
l:iliylhen/etic
?
!>iy[i:nc
X'ylenet (tmil)
Anilyle concenlruliuni i"
Analyses were perfoniiol
Simple ID: Field Field Field
Illiiik Illink Illiuk
Dilc: H-Feb-91 U-Ftb-92 !9-Feb-91
O.S U 0.5 UJ i U
0.5 It O.S U 0.5 tl
0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
O.S U 0.5 U 0,5 U
2.8 0.15 J O.I9J
2 U 2 U 2 UJ
0.29 1 0.64 J 0.25;
0.5(1 O.SU O.SU
0.5 II 0.5 tl 0.5 U .
iuO M.S (1 O.I U 0.5 U
o.su o.su o.su
0.5 (J 0.5 U O.SU
2 U 21) 2 U
0.09 J O.SU O.SU
0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U 0,5 U
O.SU 0.5 U O.SU
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
0,5 U O.S U O.S U
0.5 tl 0,5(1 O.SU
0,5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U|
211 ,2U 2U
2U 2 U 2 U
O.S U O.S U O.S U
(I.SIJ 0.5 U 0.5 U
O.SU O.SU O.OdJ
O.S U 0.5 U 0.5 U
fl.S I) . 0.5 U O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
0,5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Field
Illink
20-Feh-91
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.511
0.2 J
2U
0.3S J
O.SU
0.5 II
0.50
0.5 U
0.5 U
211
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o:s u
o.su
0,5 U
o.s u
0.5 U
O.S UJ
2U
2U
O.SU
0.5 tl
O.S U
O.SU
0.5U
O.SU
O.S U
Field
Illink
ll-Feb-92
O.SU
O.SU
0.5(1
O.SU
0.19!
2 II
0.75J
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 II
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
o.su
O.S U
2U
IU
o.su
n.5 u
0.08 J
0,5 U
O.S U
o.s u
o.su
rmcrogrami per liter (parti per billion [pp!>|> ' .
liy various analytical luliconl melon using standard U.S. Environment*!
1) Compound concentration wuj determined at a secondary ditulion
1 Rktuniletl iciull.
II • Tltc compound waj *nilyre
-------
T.bk 9 Cnnccn.ra.ion, of Vol.iilc Organic Compound, in Groimdwuer Simple, Collect from J.nu.ry lo M.rch 1992. OU II Remedial Invocation, Vega AH.. Puerto Rico.
P»ge 3
Simple
Aiulylc Rite:
CJiltif ornc Jlmnc
Ilff>ni4*incllianc
Vinyl tlilixjile
Clilufnetlibne
Mtiliylciii: dilnriile
A
Cnfhou ilisulfiJc
1 , J .|)iclih>rncllicjie
1 , 1 'IliL'lllulttCltKllle
1 .2 Uithli'iiKMlicnc (di/lrmii)
Oilnrnfiif m
l.2-I)kliluriiciliiiMC
?• JIuluiMjiii:
1. I,l-Thclili>roi:lli*nc
Cufltoii reiriclilutidc
flrnirmdkfilorrimclhine
1.2- Dichlofuprojmuei
(ruin- 1 , J-DicMurnjiropenc
'Irkliliiruclhciii:
(>iliruriiriclani:
1. 1 .2 Triclhlnfiicilmic
Hniutnc
(.ii l,3-l)iclili)fiiprnpcitc
hriiiniifiirm
-TMLlIiyl-3-perittiiitmc
2-1 (examine
1 ,1 .2,2 Ttllndilniocllmilc
'1 Clf •CltldMICllli^llC
lt>lllClie
CMuruherrscne
1 jliyllicniefic
Slyrcne
X'ylcnci (mill)
ID: FieM
Illint
S-Mtr-92
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
i u
o.n j
0.5 II
0,5 II .
0.5 U
o.s u
o.s u
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0,5 tJ
O.S IJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
n.s u
O.S tl
OS IJJ
211
R
0.5 U
n.S U
0.07 J
o.s u
O.SU '
O.SU
o.s u
Field
liUnk
6-Mtr-9J
0 5 II
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
0.46J
0.5 If
0 5 11
o.su
o.s ii
0.5 U
2 U
0.5 U
o.su
0,5 IJ
O.S U
o.s u
, 0.5 U
O.S U
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.s uj
2 If
2 U
O.SU
0.' (J
r,.s u
o.su
o.s u
0.5 U
o.su
Field
Illicit
9Mir-91
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.2BJ
2 U
0,75
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
o.su
0.5 IJ
0.5 tt
O.S U
0,5 U
2 U
2 U -
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U ,
FieU
|il*nk
lO-Mir-92
0.5 UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
0.33 J
O.S U
O.S If
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 tl
0.5" IJ
o.su
2 II
2 U
. 0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
o.su
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
Field
Illink
1). Mir 92
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
2 UJ
O.It J
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S tl
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.00 1
O.S U
O.S IJ
o.s u
0.13 J
Field
lll.uk
!2-M»r92
R
R.
R
R
0.5 UJ
R
R
R
R
It
0.05 J
R
K
R
R
R
R
R
R
It
R
K
K
K
R
R
R
It
0.05 J
R
R
R
R
Field
llUnk
I3-M.(92
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
2 UJ
0.21 J
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
o.su
O.S UJ
2U
J U
-o.s u
o.su
0.1 U
0.5 U
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
Field
ni.nt
16-Mir 92
O.S U
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
1.3 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
2U
O.SU
0.3 U
O.S U
O.S U
o.su
o.su
o.s u.
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
2U
2 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
• o.su
0.5 U
O.SU
Field
nitnk
17-M.r92
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
0.23 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
o.su
0.5 U
O.SU
o.su
O.S I)
o.su
o.s u
2U
2U
O.SU
o.su
0.06 J
o.su
o.s u
o.su
• o.s u
Field
ni.nk
U-M.r-92
0.5 U
O.Stl
O.S U
O.S U
0.26 J
2U
0.25 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.s u
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
o.su
0.5 U
2 U
2U
O.S U
O.S IJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
Field
Ul.nl
19 t.Iir-91
o.su
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.26 J
2U
0.54
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 If
o.su
o.su
o.s u
o.s u
o.s u
Field
DUnk
20-M.r-91
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.29 J
2U
0.44 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
o.su
2 U
2U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.06 J
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
Field
DUnk
D-M*i-'.
0.5 II
O.S tl
0.5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
21)
I.I
0.5 II
0.5 II
0511
OS II
O.SU
2U
0.5 If
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 II
O.S U
O.J U
o.su
o.s u
0.5 II
o.su
2tl
2 tl
0.5 U
0 5 If
0.16 J
0.5 II
O.S If
O.SU
0.14 J
Anulytc cunccnlnliont in micrognm* per liter (nan« per billion (pphll • '
Aimlytci were performed liy v.no.u analytical jiihconlnclon uiirtg tlindnrd U.S. Ermi
1)
Environmental Protection Agency methodology.
Compound conccalriliun wit determined m a secondary dilution factor.
Y lii'.^'lK!1"1!!,*!" "'•'VI'1 f"r' '"" f"1! Jeiecied at I he cormpon.ting reporting limits.
• I Alt ic|xjiiini; iniiii, ,«|jc,l dncl« mulrix tnlcr fcrunccj
| All tcj-nlmi; liiinli i.],c
-------
Tahle 0 Concenlmlioni of Volatile Organic Componmlt in Grounitwaicr Sumplei Collected {mm January lo Mtrch 1992. OU II Remedial Inveitigtlion, Vega Alia. Puerto Rico.
Pagel!
Simple ID: Field Field Trip Blink
Illink tllint
Aiulyw Due: 24-Mar-92 2i Mir-91 H-Jan-92
riilorumtihtne R R 0,S U
lllDMI.JCIIClllBJIC It R 0,5 U
Vinyl chloride It R O.S U
CliloriKlhtnc It R 0.5 U
Mtiliyfciicdilnriilc O.SUJ 0.67 UJ O.SU
Atcinoc It 1.3 J 2 U
(..il.nn Uiiulftitc 0.29J 0.3 |J O.I7J
1 |-Oiclilncucllicnc R It O.S U
j 1 Oiwlilttfucllnpic It It 0.5 11
I.I -Divhlufiutlicne (vif/uifls) K ft O.SU
riitiniifoim 0 05 J R O.S U
I.MJKlilnroelliniic If It O.SU
MtuInnOMc It It 2 U
i.l.l-Tfichloroeihane O.OSJ R O.SU
C.rlion icirachloriilc R R 0.5 U
[Jroniodielilorarncihanc R R 0.5 U
l.2-Diclil«rnpiupanc -ft R O.S U
imrii-l.3-Didilnfopropene R R O.SU
Tricliliirocilicna R R O.S U
Diliromoctiluronielhane • K R O.S UJ
1.1.2-TrieMoniclhMic R R O.SU
lament 0 05 J It 0.5 U
tii-I.J-Oichloruprupene ' R K O.SU
rironiiiform (t ft O.S UJ
•1 Mcihyl 2 pciiiht c It R '/ |;J
2-llciDiiime R R 2 U
1,1,2.7 lutiatlili.rncllintic It tt O.SU
Ulrnchlurriclhcnc R It O.S U
I..IIICMC 0.17 J 0.2IJ 0.09 J
C|,t., M.l.i; n/c nc It It 0.5 U
l-iliylliciucnc It R 0.5 U
Siyiene . R R 0.5 U
Xricnci («.i.i) o.u o.i8 J . o.su
Trip Blink
A
IJ-Jln92
0.511
O.SU
0.5 tl
O.S U
0.5 U
2 U
0.87
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.51!
0.5 U
2U
0,5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S UJ
O.S U
O.SUJ
0.5 U
o.s u
o.s u
0.5 UJ
2UJ
2U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.14 J
0.5 IJ
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
Trip BUnk
B
1 5 Jin 91
O.SU
O.S II
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
0.47 J
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.S U
O.S UJ
o.s u
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 UJ
2 UJ
211
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.14 J
0,5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
Trip Bli
nk Trip Blink
l6-Jin-92 U-J.n-92
O.SU
G.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
0.4 J
O.SU
n.s u
o.s u
O.SU
o.S u
2U
0.06 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 UJ
o.S u
O.SUJ
o.s u
O.OSJ
o.s u
0.5 Ul
2 UJ
2U
o.s u
0.5 U
0.14 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.06 J
Anilyte concentration) in microgrami per liier (parti per billion lppb|),
Analyse! were performed l>y vtnnus analytical lubconl radon ujmg ilaniUrtt U.S. En'virnnmcntal Protection
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2 U
0.42 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.I9J
O.SU
2 U
0.07 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2 U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0 34 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
Trip Blink
20-). n-92
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.27 J
111'
0.13 J
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.13J
0.5 U
2U
0.06 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SUJ
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
2 UJ
2U
0.5 IJ
O.S U
O.M J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
Trip Blink
A
20-J*n-92
O.SU
0.511
O.S U
O.SU
0.27 J
IlJ
0.34 J
0.5 U '
0.5 U
O.SU
0.23 J
O.SU
2U
0.06 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2 U
O.S II
O.S U
O.I J
o.s u
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
Trip Cfint
2l-Jan-92
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0.54
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.09 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
o.su
O.SU
o.s u
2U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.14 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.I j
Trip Blank
22-Jin9I
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
0.27 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0.09 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
o.S U
2U
2U
0,5 U
O.S U
0.14 J
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
o.s u
Trip BUnk
U-Jin-91
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
ruj
0.34 J
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.06 1
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.13 J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.OSJ
Trip Bin
2t-tin»;
O.S U
0.5 U
0.511
O.SU
O.SU
2111
0.) J
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
O.OSJ
O.SU
0.5 IJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 I)
0.5 U
O.SUJ
2 U
1 U
0.5 U
O.S It
O.S tJ
o.s u
0.5 tt
o.s u
O.SU
Agency methodology.
n Compound concentration wai determined at a secondary dilution factor,
f f-ilimaled mull.
11 Tde cnrnpmintl wai anilyiol for, hnl nnl delected at Ilie corresponding reporting
i( All lejHitlini; lirnili rijjcil ilnc In matrix inlerfereneci.
i All icjKifline liinili raised due lo higli level) o( other anilylcj.
l< Itciiitt rejected.
l:tt pielJ replicate of previotu sample.
limitj.
-------
Table 9 Cftncenlrtlinni of Volatile Organic Compound] in Groundwaler Sample] Collected from Jinuiry lo March 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation, Vtga Alia. Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: Trip Btink Trip Blink Trip Blink Tiip fllink Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blank .Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blank
A II A n A B
Trip Blin)
Due: JS-lm-92 39-Jan-9I lQ-Jan-92 30-Jan-S2 3Mm-91 3Min-92 3-Fcb-92 4-Fcb-9I S-Ftb-91 6-Feb-92 7-Ftb-92 IO-Ftb-91 tl-F.b-92
Clitnromeiliinc 0.5 U
ItrmiiDincltiajte 0.5 U
Vinyl tlilunJc 0.5 U
Cltlbiociliiine O.S U
Melliylene chloritlc ' O.SU
Aecldiic 2 UJ
.Cftilton dimlfide 0.38 J
I.I nichlurociljcne 0,511
I ,? hiciilurncllieiic (cti/lrnni) 0.5 U
rtilnri>r>»ril 0.5 U
1,2 DkMo'ocdinne O.SU
MliH.n.jne 2 U'
1,1 ,1-TticMoroctlnne O.SU
(.'•rlion tclracldoiiile O.SU
llromnilichloromcliianc O.S U
1,2-Dichlnrupriipanc O.SU
irant 1,3 Diclifotuptopcnc 0,5 U
Tni:Jd»rriJ
2U
O.SI
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
o.oaj
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.OB J
o.s u
O.S U
2 U
2U
O.SU
O.S U
O.ll J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.2 |l
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.21 J
211
0.1S J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
JU
on;
o.su
O.SU
OSU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.01 J
0.5 tl
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.07 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
OSU
O.SU
Agency methodology.
Atl tc|xii1iii|; liuijli railed title In irnlri* inlcrfcfcncc).
All it|«>niii|; liinili i»iic
-------
Table 9 Conccnlrtlioni of Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwnler Samples Collected from January lo March 1992, OU II Remedial Investigation, Vega Alii. Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: Trip Blink Trip Illtnk Trip Blink
Alulae Due: II-Feb-91 ll-Fcb-91 14-F«b-92
Cliliiriiinctlt.nc 0.5 11 0.5 U 0.5 U
Dfoinoinctliaiii 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Vinyl elite. ride O.SU O.S'U O.SU
Clil'.roeti.'.ne 0.5 U O.S U O.J U
Mcihylciie dilnriflc 0.3 IJ O.SU 0.83 U
At-cKinc- 2 IJ 2 IJ 2 U
Carbon diiulfiilc 0.3] J 0.1 I J O.I 1 J
1 l-Dicliliiritcilicue O.S It 0.5 IJ O.SU
I'l -|Jicli|i.ii.til.i.>ie O.SU 0.5 U 0.511
l!2-Mici.lofue(l.erie(cii/iran(} O.SU O.SU O.SU
rhldfoform 0.5 IJ 0.5 U 0.5 U
1,2 tliciiloroctli.ne O.SU O.SU O.SU
2 llutenone 2 U 2 U 2 U
I.U-Trtchlnrncihane 0.21 J O.SU 0.4 J
Curl.oi, icfr.chloride 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S U
niamodichloromeihane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
1.2 Dichloronroparte O.SU O.SU O.SU
Hunt 1.3 Diclilornprnpene 0.5 U O.J U 0.5 U
rriililufoctlicne O.SU 0..< U 0.06 J
Oiltruinocliloromclhane 0.5 U f,J> U 0.5 U
l.t.2 Tiictilnrcicilionc , 0.5 IJ 0.5(1 0.5 U
ltc,i«ne 0.09 J 0.08 J 0.2 J
tii-l,J-l)kliloropropeftc 0.5 U 0.5 U O.SU
lliiiini>r»rin O.S II 0.5 U O.S U
4 Mtihyl-2 pcnldiK.ne ' 2U 2U 2U
Mlci.iif.iic 211 211 21)
1.1,2,2-Tctr.elilornclhofic 0.511 0.511 O.SU
Uifi.ciiliirueii.tni: O.S 11 0.5 U 0.5 U
l..l»ci.c 0.08 J O.I4J O.ISJ
( •liliiriiliEfi icnc 0.5 U O.S U 0.5 U
Citiylticnicne 0.5 U 0.5 U 0,5 U
Siyrenc 0.5 U O.J IJ 0.5 U
XyUnci (mi*)} ' O.SU 0.17 J O.SU
Trip Dlink
1 g-Ftb-92
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 IJ
0.5 U
1.9
2 U
O.JJJ
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.05 J
O.S U '
2 U
0.13 t
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.JU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
2 IJ
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.J U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
Trip DUnk
IMtt*
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.25 J
2 U
0.48 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.J U
O.SU
0.5 U
2U
O.JU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0:5 u
0.5 U
O.SU
O.JU
0.5 U
O.J 11
0.5 U
2U
20
O.S 11
O.S U
0.07 J
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.J U
Analyle concentrations in micragrami per liter (parts per billion fpph)).
Anutyses were performed by vartout inilylical iiibcomraclon using standard U.S. Environmental
Trip BUnk
20-Fcb-92
0.5 U
O.J U
O.J U
0.5 U
0.2 J
2U
0.11 J
0.5 U
n.s u
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
05 U
0.5 U
O.J U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.J U
O.JU
O.SU
2 U
211
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.05 J
0.5 U
O.JU
O.SU
O.SU
Trip Blink
3l-F«b.92
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
0,37 J
2U
O.S UJ
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.J U
OSU
2U
0.18 J
0.5 U
O.JU
O.JU
O.JU
0.06 J
O.J U
O.J U
0.1 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
2 U .
fl.S U
O.S U
0.11 J
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
O.J U
Trip DUnk
24-Feb-92
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
0.3 J
1.6 J
O.JUJ
O.J U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0,21 J
O.J U
O.JU
O.JU
0.5U
O.OJ J
O.J U
O.JU
0.12J
O.S U
O.S U
2UJ
2 U
o.s u
o.s u
0.11 1
0.5 U
o.s u
0.5 U
0.5 U
Trip Btmk
B
lJ-Ftb-92
O.J UJ
O.JU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.H;
2U
O.ISJ
O.JU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0,5 U.
1 U
O.JU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.s u
0.5 U
• 0.5 U
o.s u
2U
2 U
0.5 IJ
O.S U
0.09 J
O.J U
O.S U
O.JU
0.5 U
Trip Blink
2*-F.b-92
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2.1 U
.4.7
O.JUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.JU
O.SU
O.SU .
2 U
O.JU
O.JU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.J U
O.J U
O.SU
O.JU
0.091
O.J U
o.su
2 U
2U
O.J U
O.J U
0.34 J
0.5 U
O.J U
O.JU
0.09 J
Trip Bt»nk
27-Fcb-92
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.7
4.2
0, 12 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2U
0.09 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.JU
O.J U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0,1 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
3U
2U
0.5 U
O.JU
0.36J
O.JU
O.J U
O.SU
O.H J
Trip Bluk
JI-Ftb-92
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.UJ
2 U
0.161
O.SU
O.S U
O.J U
O.JU
0.4 U
2U
0.07 J
O.JU
o.s u
0.5 U
O.SU
O.JU
0.5 U
O.J If
O.JU
O.J U
O.J U
2U
JU
O.SU
o.s u
0.09 ;
0.5 U
O.JU
0.5 U
O.SU
Trip BU
2-Mir-'.
0.5 II
0.5 IJ
O.SU
O.JU
0.21 J
2 U
0.45 J
O.SU
0.5 II
O.S U
O.SU
O.J U
2 U
o u j
O.JU
0.5 U
O.JU
O.J U
O.S U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.07 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U
O.J IJ
O.J II
O.J J
O.J U
OSU
0.5 U
O.JU
Protection Agency methodology.
H Compound concentration wal determined at » secondary dilution factor.
J niiirnalcO remit.
11 The compound wai analyzed for, bul not delected al Hie corresponding reporting
-------
T.lilc 9 . Concent ttliorti of VoUlile Organic Compound) in Groundwaler Sample* Collected from January lo March 1992, OU II Remedial fnvcaligition, Vegi Alt*. Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blink ' Trip Dtink Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blink --Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip BUnk Trip Btin
Arulyie
Due:
3M.r92 4Mir-92 5-M»r-91 S-M.r-92
Mtr-92 JO-Mir-92 ll-M.r« !2-M.r-92 13 M.r-92 16 Mir-91 l7-Mir-92 ll-Mir-Pl I9-M.t~9.
Clilornmcllune O.S U 0.5 U
Iliiimninciliine 0.5 U O.S U
Vinyl chloride O.S U 0.5 U
ClilOfoeilitnc O.S U 0.5 U
Mcihylenc chlnriilc 0.2 1 0.5 U
Acelmic 211 2 U
C.rhun cliiulfide 0. IB J 0.2 J
l,l-()ichlorocitiene O.SU O.SU
l.t-hitjilmiicitiBnc 0.5 U O.S U
l.[7-[JiU>lt>iiclilornclliane O.S U O.S U
Mlui.nimc 2 U 2 U
l.l.l-rhchlotatlhine O.SU O.SU
Cnrlion icKichloride O.S U 0.5 U
Uromndichlofomeilmne O.S U O.S U
1.2-Dichlorapropwtc O.SU O.SU
itnni- 1,3-Oiclilorapropene O.SU O.SU
Tfichloroethene O.S U 0.5 U
hlbiamochluromcihene O.S U O.S U
1.1.2-Tricr.toracitiine O.SU O.SU
Ilcntcne O.S U 0,5 U
cti-l.l-Dichlnraprapene O.SU O.SU
fir omo farm O.S U O.S U
•I.MclliyJ-2-pcnlannnc . 211 2U
Mfeiuianc 2U 2U
I.l,2,2-Tcti*clilornelli»ne O.SU O.SU
TctrtchlOfOdhcnc O.S U O.S U
li.lucnc O.IJ O.I2J
Clilarubenicnc 0.5 U O.S U
Rliyllicnicne O.S U ' O.S U
Siyicne O.SU O.SU
Xylencl (im.1) O.S U O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
2 U
0.36 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.OS J
0.5 U
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
I J
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
2U
O.S U
O.SU
O.lfiJ
O.S U
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
Analytc concentration* in microgrami per liter (parti per billion [ppbl
Anilyief were performed by vanoui analytical subcontractor* using it
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
0.76 J
0.5 U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
0.11 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S UJ
2U
R
O.S U
O.S U
0.08 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
indard U.S.
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.35 J
2 U
0.08 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
2U
O.S U
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
.0.5 U
O.SU
o.s u
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.09 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
Environmental
O.SUJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
211
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.05 J
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
05 U
O.SU
2UJ
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SUJ
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
fl.SU
. O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
o.s u
O.SU
2UJ
0.16J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.08 J
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
O.S U
O.S U
O.S U
2 U
2U
O.S U
O.SU
0.11 J
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U '
2U
0.17J
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
2U
O.IJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.07 J
O.S U
O.SUJ
2U
2U
O.SU
o.s u
0.09 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
o.s u
O.S U
0.5 U
O.S U
!.§U
O.ISJ
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
1 U
0.)4 J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.O9J
O.S U
O.SU
2U
2 U
O.SU
O.S U
0.07 J
0.5 U
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
.O.SU
O.SU
0.37 J
2U
0.22 J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.46 J
O.S U
osu
O.SU
O.SU
0.09 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.27 J
O.S U
O.S U
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.lt J
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 II
0.5 11
O.S U
0.2S J
211
O.29J
O.S tl
O.SU
0.511
0.5 U
O.S U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 II
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
2U
2 U
O.S U
O.S U
0,05 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
Protect ion Agency methodology ,
l> Conipntinit concentration wai determined al a iccomJary dilution factor.
1 • nuimaled rctutt.
1 1 Ttic compound wu analyzed for, bill not delected at
the conxj[
•ending rejxi
rting limit).
All re|n>iling liinili niieil due In matrix interferencei.
All tciHiilinn iiiniu uiicil duo Hi liicli leveli of oilier analytci.
l(«utf mected.
l:idd rc|>l)catc of previaut
-------
•Table 9 Concentration* of Volatile Organic Compound!.in Groimdwaler Samples Collected from January to March 1992, OU II Remediil Inveatigalion. Vega AJla, Puerto Rico.
Simple ID: Trip Blink Trip Blink
Anil) le Dale:
Cliloromcllunc 0.5 U 0.5 U
Hmrnoinclliotit 05 U O.S U
Vinyl cltloiiUe O.S II 0.5 U
Chlorouhani 0.5 U 0.5 U
Mtlhylene chloride 0.35 J 0.5 U
Accionc 2 U ' 2 U
Corhan JiiulfiJe 0.33 J 1.4
1,1-Dicbloroelhcnc 0.5 U 0.5 U
l.l-nk-liliitiiclli.iie 0.511 0.5 U
l,2.Oiclil<>ructlicitc(eU/inn>) 0.5 U 0.5 U
Chloroform O.S U O.S U
I .MJithliifnclti.nc O.SU 0.5 U
2-Dulin»ne 2 U 2 U
I.I.I -Trichlof ocihinc 0.13 J 0.05 J
Carbon lelnchloride 0.5 U O.S V
i)romodiclilorcmuh»ne O.S U 0.5 U
1,7 Uichloronrop«nc 0.5 U 0.5 U
Kont.|,3-Dii:liloropriJpcni: 0,5 U O.SU
Tfichlurocthcnc O.OB J O.S U
0.5 U 0.5 U
I,i.2-Tricli1oiocthine O.SU O.SU
flciKcnc O.I I i O.S U
cii.l.J-Oicliloro(iiapcnc 0.5 U O.SU
Itmnioform ' 0.5 U 0.5 U
4.Mclliyl-2-pcnlnnniic 2 II 21)
2 llcunnnc 2U 2U
l,l.2.2-TElrmclil»incllwnc O.SU O.SU
lucKhluiucilieiw 0.5 II O.S U
lulucnc O.I 7.1 O.I5J
e 0,S U O.S U
frliylttenzcne O.5 t) 0.5 U
Sir/cnc O.S U O.S U
Xyttncs ((atil) 05 U O.S U
Analylc concentration* in microgremi per liter (parti per billion [ppt>]). •
Analyici were performed by vanniu analylicil inbconi radon ujmg standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology.
0 Compound concentration u/*i determined at i secondary dilution factor.
i Rstimaled result.
II The cnmrxninil w») analyTci) for, hut not delected at the corrciponding rcponmg limiti.
'I All ic|Hnl|O|: lirnili ruiiol line to inalrix interference].
j All (eiHiiiinv limit! raiieil due In digit ki/tli of other »ntlyicj.
1( Uciull reiccled.
IK t:ic|il icplicalc of previous lample.
-------
Tible 10 Summary of Volatile Orpnic Compouod* Sutittical lafarnutioorarihc January to Mircfa 1992 GreuadwiterStapliiifEveat,
OU II Remedial Investiplkm, Vep AJl*. Puerto Rico.
Compound Nune
1,1,1 -Triehkroethiae
1^2 -TrieWoroeUune
U-Dkhtorocthue
1.1-Dchlcroeiiene
1,2 -Dfchlcrcclhane
1,2 -Dicnlcroetheae (cii/tru*)
1 2 -Dichlcroproptne
2-Butaaooe
2-HciMone
4-Mdbyl-2-penianone
Acetone
Benzene
Bnmodichlaronetbaac
Cirboa diialfide
Carbon ictnchloridc
CUoro benzene
Chloroform
Chlorometnattc
DtbronocaJoromeiajne
Elbylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Siyreoc
Teinchloroetbeiic
Toluene
TrichJoroetheae
Vinyl cbloride
Xyteaa(taul)
Toul
Number of
Dclccu
-------
k- 11 Volatile Organic Compounds Concentration! in GcomitJwalcr Saimilcl Co I Ice ltd fruin Monitoring Wclli al l)ic PHIDCO InJinlrinl Park in Auyiisl and September 1973, OU If
Remedial Investigation, Vega Aha. Puerto Jlico.
Simple ID: BVAW-22.0IDVAW-22-02DVAW-2I OJ BVAW-22-04
BVAW-22-06 BVAW-22-07 JjVA\V-22-0» BVAW-12-09 CM 01
CM 01 FR GM 01
GMW.OI-(ll
DIK:
l-Sep-93 l-Sep-93 l-Stp-93 l-Sff-9) l-S«p-9J
l-Ktp-93 \.5tp-93 l-Stp-93 3-Scp-93 3-Scp-9J 3 Stp-9J 2 Sip VJ
>rumc(h«ie
noincihine
•1 chloride
< methane
'lylciie cMoriJe
»iie
•*»n Jitulficrc
Dichliiroelhene
'.hchloioellisne
Jlcliluiuellicne (cis/lrani)
rufnrrn
Jiclilacoelhinc
inncinc
l-Trichlofoellmne
mi Iclnchloride
irHliclilorofiielhane
Oichluropropane
.3-Oiebtdiopropene
ilofocihene
rmucliloromclli(ute
-Trkhloroethuie
-rtc
1 ,3- Dichlotapiopcnc
tifiirni
iliyl-2-penUnone
-------
dollwlcd f™'" M<"»«"»'6
"«
lIHlu.lri.l P.,k in AuE..,i .,,,1
1993. OU II
Pige 2 of 4
Simple ID: OMW-01.02 GMW41.Q1 GMW-01.04 CMW-OI-OJ CMW-01-OS GMW-OLO? OMW-OI-OI GMW4I-OB CMW-OI-09 GMW-OI-IO GMW-OMI GMW-OI-Ot
Dale:
2-Scp-93 I-Scp-93 2-Scp-93 3-S«p-93 3-S-93
3|.Aog9J
ii'mctliine
Kimetlianc
1 ctda'ide
ruclliine
*ylcnc chloride
me
»n ditulHde
tichloroeihcnc
>ichloroethine
1 ivliloroelhene (cii/trans)
ufiirm
ic til or a ethane
ii none
• If ichloroclhuie
in IcUachloride
iidichlororncthine
kliloropropane
•) Uicliloropropcnc
itroctlieiiG
tnucliloromelhane
Tt ichloroethuie
ne
1.3- Dichloropropene
'fmm
iyl-2-pentanone
umne
? Telnchlorocthane
hloroclhcne
*C
Atcnttne
cmenc
c
n (total)
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
O.SU
I.I U
2UJ
O.SUJ
O.I7J
O.SU
0.52
O.S U
0.5 U
2 UJ
O.S U
0.5 UJ
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
O.SUJ
14
0.5 UJ
O.J U
2.2
O.SU
0.5 UJ
2UJ
2UJ
O.SUJ
0.088 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.i U
O.SUJ
O.J U
O.SUJ
0.5 U
3.2 U
2UJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.iU
1.1
O.S U
0.53
2UJ
0.5 U
O.SUJ
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
o.iUJ
19
O.SUJ
0.5 U
0.51
0.5 U
O.SUJ
2UJ
2 UJ
O.SUJ
0.2 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
0 08J 1
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.S U
3.3 U
*2UJ
0.5 U
0.53
O.SU
1.1
O.SU
O.SU
2UJ ,
0.1 U
O.SUJ
O.SUJ
O.S U
O.S UJ
49 D
O.SUJ
0.5 U
0.095 J
O.SU
O.JUJ
2 UJ
2UJ
O.SUJ
0.94
O.J U
O.SU
O.i U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SUJ
0.5 U
0.22 J
O.i U
3.6 UJ
2UJ
O.SJ
1.6 •
O.JU
10
O.SU
O.SU
2UJ
0.5 U
O.iUJ
O.SUJ
o.su
O.SUJ
130 O
O.iUJ
O.SU
O.iU
O.SU
O.SUJ
2UJ
2UJ
O.SUJ
0.58
O.S U
O.SU
O.i U
o.ju
O.SU
25 UJ
25 U
25 UJ
25 UJ
25 U
100 UJ
25 UJ
15 J
25 U
26
25 U
25 U
100 UJ
25 U
25 UJ
25 UJ
2S U
2JUJ
1000
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
2SUJ
100 UJ
100 UJ
25 UJ
12 J
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
.25 U
• O.SUJ
o.S u
O.SUJ
O.S UJ
O.SU
2 UJ
O.S UJ
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
2UJ
O.SU
O.S UJ
O.JUJ
O.S U
O.SUJ
3.8
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.S UJ
O.S UJ
2UJ
2UJ
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
o.iU
O.SU
O.iU
O.S UJ
0.5 U
0.93 UJ
2U
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.iU
O.SU
2 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.i U
O.JUJ
4.1
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.17J
0.5 U
O.SUJ
2U
2U
O.SU
O.iU
O.SU
O.S U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.S U
2.2 UJ
2U -
0.5 UJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
zu
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
4.2
o.suJ
O.SU
0.36 J
O.SU
O.SUJ
2U
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SUJ
0.5 U -
I.I UJ
2U
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
0.24 J
O.SU
O.SU
2U
0.5 U
O.SU
O.JUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
3.6
O.SUJ
O.JU
0,065 J
O.SU
O.SUJ
2U
2U
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.i U
O.SU
0.092 1
O.SU
O.i U '
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.J U
0.88 UJ
2U
2.4UJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SUJ
0.5 U
o.iUJ
2.9
O.iUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.iU
O.S UJ
2 U
2 U
O.S U
O.SU
0,5 U
O.S U
O.iU '
0.3 J
O.S U
o.s ii
O.J II
0.5 U
O.SU
I.I U
2U
0.2SJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.I J
0.5 U
2U
O.SU
0.3 U
O.SU
84 D
O.SU
1.2
0.5 U
0.3 U
O.HJ
O.SU
0.5 U
2 U
2U
O.SU
O.I5J
0.5 U
0.064 J
0.5 U
0.26J
0.5 U
0.50 UJ
O.SO U
O.SO UJ
O.SO UJ
66D
I8J
O.SO UJ
O.SOU
O.SOU
0.50 UJ
o.sou
o.sou
2.0 UJ
o.sou
O.SO U
0.50 UJ
o.sou
O.SO UJ
1.7
0.30 UJ
O.SOU
I.2J
O.SOU
0.50 UJ
2.0 U
2.0 UJ
0.50 UJ
O.SOU
O.SO UJ
O.SO UJ
o.so ur
0.50UJ
O.SO UJ
0.50 UJ
0,30 U
0.50 UJ
O.SO UJ '
5.3
2.0 UJ
O.SO U
0.5011
O.JOU
O.SO U
0.30 U
O.SOU
2.0 u;
o.sou
o.sou
0.50 UJ
0 30 U
0.50 UJ
0.62
0.30 UJ
o.sou
0.53 J
o.iou
0.50 UJ
2.0 U .
2.0 UJ
0.3011
- 0.50 U
0.50 UJ
O.SO UJ
o.sou
on j
o.io UJ
c ronccnlralioni in micro^nimi per liter (p»rtf per billion Fp|>b}).
c« were performed by v*noui analytical jubeonlrnetori, mine «l«nddrd U.S. Environmcnlal Protection Agency (USCPA) methodology.
Tlic compound w»j iho delected in the itsocialed method blank.
Compound concentration wii determined it • secondary dilution factor.
Intimated letnlt.
Tlic cnniiwiunil was analyzed fur, hut not detected at the corresponding reporting liinili.
All rcpnmne limits raned due to matrix interfcreneei.
Nut applicable.
-------
i: 11 Volatile Organic Compounds Concentration; in Groundwalcr Snmplcs CollcclcJ from Monitoring Wells al the PK1DCO Industrial Park 141 Aucuil »inJ Sciitcinbcr 1993. OU II
Remedial Invejtigalion, Vega Alia, Puerto Rico.
uf-1
Sample ID: GMW-02-OJ GMW-02-04 CMW-02-05 GMW-02-06 OMW-02-07 GMW-01-08 GMW-02-09 CMW-OJ-OI CMW-03-02 CMW-OJ-03 GMW-O3-O4 GMW-OJ 05 GMWOJOfi
• lyte
Due:
3l-Auf-9J 31-Auj « ]|-Auf-«3 3l-Au|-9J l-3tp 93 l-Scp-?J l-S«p-93 30-Au|-93 30-Au(-93 30-Au(-93
30-Aut-9J 30-Aut-93
mitielhuic
Momclhune
1 chloride
•Kictliuie
iylcnc chloride
iclilr>roclhcne
>khlnfoethane
Jichloroethcne (tii/truii)
inform
>ich1urocthMe
inrtonc
.Ttichloroelhane
mi lelrichlortde
todicMorornetrtvic
Jictilotop rapine
. 3 -Die lilor opropcne
ilnroetlierte
Miiochluromcltiuie
-TrichloroelfjMiG
eric
•1,3-Oichloropropcnn
oform
ifiyl-2-penUitone
(rtinine
,J-Tclnchloroelh»ne
chtoroctHenc
:MC
lobcnicne
licnicnc
llfi
MCI (tola!)-
6.9 VI
S.OU
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
140
20 UJ
S.OU
3.8J
S.OU
I.2J
S.OU
S.OU
10 UJ
5.0 U
5.0 U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU/
170
S.OUJ
S.OU
S.OUJ
3.0 U
S.OUJ
20 U
70 UJ
5.0 U
6,4
S.OUJ
i.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OU
S.OU
S.O UJ
12
30 UJ
S.OUJ
14
2.3 J
3.4J
S.O U
S.O UJ
20 UJ
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
5.0 UJ
430 D
S.OUJ
S.OU
S.OUJ
S.OU
5.0 UJ
20 UJ
20 U
S.OU
26
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.O UJ
S.OUJ
5.0 UJ
S.OU
S.OU
S.OUJ
24 J
20 UJ
J.OUJ
S.OU
S.OU
12
S.OU
S.OUJ
20 UJ
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
j.o u;
750 D
S.OU
S.OU
S.OUJ
5.0 UJ
S.OUJ
20 UJ
20 U
S.OU
3.8 J
S.O UJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OUJ
S.OU
12 UJ
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
95 J
50 UJ
12 UJ
14
12 U
9.1 J
12 U
12 UJ
50 UJ
I2U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 UJ
920
12 U
12 U
3.7UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
50 UJ
SOU
12 U
16
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
\1 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
ecu
100 UJ
25 UJ
220
2B
29
25 U
25 UJ
100 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
3900 D
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
25 UJ
100 U
100 UJ
25 U
240
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
99U
100 UJ
2J UJ
140
20 J
12J
. 25 U
25 UJ
100 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
2000 D
25 UJ
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
25 UJ
100 U
100 UJ
25 U
120
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
57 U
100 UJ
25 UJ
230
03
76
25 U
25 UJ
100 UJ .
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 U
25 UJ
2700 D
25 UJ
25 U
21 U
2SUJ
25 UJ
100 U
100 UJ
25 U
86
25 U
25 U
15 U
4.5 J
25 U
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
0.5 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
31
10 UJ
4.C UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
0.511
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
O.SU
O.SU
0.43 I
0.5 UJ
0.51
0.5 UJ
0.5 UJ
0. U
0. U
0. U
0. U
0. U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 UJ
0.5IJ
O.SU
0.5 UJ
87 D
20 UJ
O.SUJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
O.S UJ
o.su
O.SU
O.S UJ
0.5 U
o.su
0.2 UJ
O.SUJ
0.5 U
2.1
O.SUJ
o.su
o.su
2 UJ
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
o.su
0.073
O.SU
2UJ
O.SU
O.SU
2UJ
88
24 UJ
2 UJ
0,5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
8 UJ
0,5 U
0.5 U
2UJ
O.S U
0,5 U
O.SU
2UJ
0.5 U '
7
2UJ
2UJ
O.SU
S UJ
O.S U
O.SU
0.2 UJ
O.S U
O.SU
o.su
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S UJ
o.su
0.5 UJ
0.5 UJ
260(1
130 UJ
0.5 UJ
0.31 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.3
0.5 U
2 UJ
0.5U
0.5 U
O.S U
O.SU
O.SU
2.1
O.SUJ
O.SU
3.6
O.SU
O.SUJ
0.5U
O.SU
0.5 U
0.3 J .
0.06 J
0.3 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.2 UJ
0.5 U
O.SU
1.2 u;
70 U
27 UJ
1.2 (IJ
. 0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
GU
0.5 U
5UJ
0.5 U
O.SU
I.2UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
I.9U
1.2 UJ
O.SU
0.67 J
1.2 UJ
I.21U
0.5 U
5 UJ
O.SU
0.26J
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 U
O.S U
OSUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
0.5 UJ
39 U
16 UJ
O.S UJ
0.5 II
0.5 U
0.5 U
4.8 (1
O.SU
2UJ
0.5 U
O.SU
0.5 UJ
05 U
0.5 U
2 U
NA
O.SU
LI U
0.5 UJ
0.5 UJ
O.S U
2UJ
O.S U
0.47 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.S U
vie concern ra I ioni in micrnerami per liter (pnrt« per billion ||>pb|). . ._ , .. __ , ', ,
ysct were performed by various inalylicol lubconlraaon. using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methodology.
Tlie compound wai aiio delected in Hie usiociated iticlltod blink.
Compound concentration w«j determined ii a secondary dilution factor.
Intimated ictult. ,
Tltc compound was innlyrtil For, tint not clclcclcd «t the corresponding rc|torl!(ig limits.
All fxpomne limits railed due to matrix interferences.
Nnl »|>plk»Glc.
-------
Me 11 Volatile Organic Compound? Concentrations in GroumJwnler Samples Collected from Monitoring Welli al Hie PRJDCO Industrial Park iii.Aucuil and Sepleinber 1993. OU II
Remedial Investigation, Veg» Alia, Puerto Rico.
Simple
nilytc Dite:
liiromelhane
unomclhine
i)'l chloride
otocihtne
ihylene chloride
•long
lion disulfiJe
DichloroeJheno
[Jichloroelhane
IJiclilotoelhene (cts/lrans)
irofarm
Dichloroelhane
iinnone
1-Tricliloioclhane
ion iclrichloudc
mndicliloramelhcnc
Dichloiopropane
1 .3-Dichloropronene
* Moroeihcne
omucfiliMomelhane
{•Tricolor oethane
ene
1,3-DkKloropropenc
inform
•iliyl-2-penUnone
UIIOIIC
, 2-Tcir»c hloroct hane
•diloiocllicne
cue
rubenzene
Ebcnicne
'1C
net (total)
ID: Field FielJ
Blink Blink
l-Sep-9] 2-Stp-91
0.50 UJ O.S U
0.50 UJ 0.5 U
0.50 UJ 0.5 U
0.50 UJ 0.5 U .
4.5 B 0.5 U
2.0 U 2 UJ
"I.IJ I.JJ
0.50 U 0.5 U
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 U O.S UJ
0.50 U 0.5 U
0.50 U 0.5 U
2.0 U 2 U
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 UJ 0.3 UJ
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 UJ O.S UJ
0.50 U 0.5 U
0.50 UJ 0.5 UJ
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 U O.S U
0.50 UJ O.SU
0.50 UJ 0.5 UJ
2.0 U 2 U
2.0 U 2 U
•0.50 UJ O.S U
0.50 U 0.5 U
0.50 U 0.088 J
0.50 U 0.5 U
0 SO U 0.5 U
0.50 U' 0.5 U
0,50 U O.S U
Field
Blink M
JStp-93
O.SUJ
O.SU
0,5 UJ
O.SUJ
0.22 J
2U
II
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
O.SU
ZUJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SUJ
O.SU
0.5 UJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
ZUJ
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.07 J
O.SU
O.S U
O.S U
O.SU
Field
Dl.ntS.W.
J-Sep-9J
O.SUJ
.0.5 U
O.SUJ
0.5 UJ
O.S U
2U
0.9I
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.S U
O.SU
2UJ
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SUJ
O.SU
O.SUJ
O.SU
o.SUJ
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SUJ
ZUJ
2U
O.SU
O.SU
0.061 J
O.SU
O.SU
0.5 U
O.SU
Field
Olink
7.S
-------
Table 12 , Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds Statistical Information for the August through September 1993
Groundwatcr Sampling. OU II Remedial Investigation, Vega Alti, Puerto Rico.
Total Number of
Number Discrete
Component Name
1,1,1-Trichlorocthane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-DichIoroethane
1,1-Dtchloroeihene
1 ,2 -Dichloroe i ha ne
1 .2- Dichloroe thcne (cij/traru)
1 ,2 - Dichlo ropropanc
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Mcthyl-2-pcmanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromod ich lorornc thane
Carbondtsulfide
Carbon letrachloride
Chlorobcnzene
Chloroform
Chloromeihane
D ibro moch lorome t ha nc
Ethylbcnzcne
Mcthylcne chloride
Styrcnc
Tcirachloroeihene
Toluene
Trichlorocihcne
Vinyl chloride
Xylcncs (total)
of Detects Dciecu
0
1
13
19
2
22
1
0
0
0
4
18
0
8
0
2
1
2
1
3
13
11
24
8
34
1
0
0
1
12
18
2
21
0
0
0
0
4
16
0
7
0
1
0
2
1
3
12
10
22
8
31
1
0
Number of Number of
Discreie Maximum Detects Observation}
Detection Concentration Qualified Qualified
Frequency (%) (o
0.00
2J2
26.67
40.00
4.44
46.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.89
35.56
0.00
15.56
0.00
2.22
0.00
4.44
2.22
6.67
26.67
22.22
48.89
17.78
68.89
2.22
0.00
iH>
2
O.S1
63
290
U
76
84
100
too
100
280 .
7
100
11
25
0.06
0.1
3,1
2.1
at
140
-------
Table 13 Soil-Gas Survey ATMS and Number of Points Sampled and Analyzed from February through
April 1992, OL/ II Remedial Investigation, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
AREA SAMPLES ANALYZED
Concrete Pad 76
Honda Creek 61
Caribe GE Parking Lot 61
Caribe GE Pilot Bldg. No. 1 25
Caribe GE Pilot Bldg. No. 2 21
Rovipak (formerly Motorola) 19
Drainage Ditch 17
Former Drainage Ditch 27
Formerly West Co. 48
West Co; No. 1 61
West Co. No. 2 59
Elba Ceramics 12
Harmon Auto , 69
Caribe GE Control Plant -90
Teledyne Packaging 46
•Sam Food 4
Landfill ' . 38
TOTAL 734
l-i."- XI,'SOLCASOC.XLS
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX C
-------
39:5; FR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SUPERFUND AREA
CORE&RPMDtoaiora . . •
Superfand Program .
September 24.1997 . •
Eng. Adalberto Bosque .
Project Manager .
Vega Alta Public Supply Wefls S8»
US Environmental Protection Agency
Caribbean Environmental Protection Divisioii
Centre Europa Building, Suite 417.. •'"'.-
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907-4127 ,
PJL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARQ
CONCURRENCE LETTER FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITS
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO-
Dear engineer Bosque: ' .
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQBJ has been consulted about 9ie selection by the U.S.
Environmental protection Agency (USEPA) of a source control remedy for he Vega Alta Public Supply Wefts
Site regarding the Second Operable Unit. This decision has been made in accordance with the requiremertb
of the Comprehensive EnvironmentaJ Response, Compensation and UaMHy Act of 1980 (CERCLA). as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reaufronzation Act of 198&
After reviewing the Record of Decision (ROD) documents provided by USEPA the PREQB concurs with this
ROD for the Second Operable Unit of me Vega Alta Public Supply Wefls Sita
We also request that USEPA keep us informed of aD future activities performed on this site, tf you have any
cuesbons regarding this matter please contact Mr. Jimmy A. Drowne. Remedial Project Manager. Emergency
Response and Superfund Area, at phone numbers (787) 767-8181, extension 2234 and 766-2821
FAX TRANSM1TTAL
/(d -,.iil_iL2L___
c: Genaro Torres Leon, PREQB ^xs"«*-8--"7-™" *»*^'
Miguel A Maldonado Negron. PREQB ~~ ~ ~
Gre«n forests and oystalCna waters, dnn air and dear shits.
You prefect irfe if you do not contamtrutar
NaUonat Bank Plan / 401 Ponct da Lewi Av«. / Hata R«y. Puerto Rico 00917
P.O. Box 11488 / Santtirce. P«nrto Rico 00910 / (BQ9) 767-8181. Ext. ??y>or 3230
P.01
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX D
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE, PUERTO RICO
Operable Unit II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 1
I. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns 2
Comprehensive Summary of Major Questions, Comments, Concerns,
and Responses - 2
A. Summary of Oral Questions and Responses from the Public Meeting
Concerning the Vega Alta Site 4
B. Summary of Written Questions and Responses Received
During the Public Comment Period ." 12
ATTACHMENT
Community Relations Activities at the Vega Alta Site
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary documents the public's comments and concerns and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) responses to those comments
regarding the Proposed Plan (PP) for the Vega Alta Public Supply Well Superfund Site
("Site") in Vega Alta, Puerto Rico. EPA's preferred remedial alternative addresses the
second of two operable units (OU-II). This remedy will address the primary remaining
source of contamination and the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to
groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is the subject of the first operable unit
(OU-1).
EPA held a public comment period from July 30, 1997 through August 29, 1997 to
provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment on the PP for the Site.
On August 20, 1997, EPA presented its preferred alternatives for the Site to the
community. EPA held a public meeting for the general public at 7:00 p.m. in the
Municipal Assembly Room of Vega Alta Town Hall, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
Approximately 36 people attended the meeting.
EPA conducted the briefing and the meeting in Spanish as Spanish is spoken by the
majority of the local residents. EPA made English and Spanish versions of the PP
available to the public for their review prior to the public meeting. The Site information
repositories are located at the Vega Alta Municipal Town Hall, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico;
the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) library in San Juan, Puerto
Rico; EPA's Regional Office at 290 Broadway, New York, NY; and EPA's Caribbean
Environmental Protection Division Office at 1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
Based on the comments received during the public comment period, EPA believes that
the residents and town officials of Vega Alta are in agreement with the PP and support
EPA's preferred alternative. At the public meeting, citizens and officials raised no
objections to the PP or to EPA's preferred alternative.
-------
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This section
provides the history of community concerns and describes community involvement in
the process of selecting a remedy for the Site.
II. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS, AND RESPONSES: This section summarizes the written comments EPA
received during the public comment period, oral comments received at the public
meeting, and EPA's responses to both.
In addition to Sections I and II, a list of EPA community relations activities conducted at
the Site is included as an attachment to this Responsiveness Summary, A Spanish
transcript of the proceedings of the public meeting is available in the information
repository.
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
The Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site is located north of the town of Vega Alta.
Groundwater is the primary source of water for the public water supply system, as well
as other private (industrial, commercial and agricultural) users. The Vega Alta
municipal well fiefd became a concern of EPA in June 1983 after the discovery of
trichloroethene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), in a groundwater sample
collected by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from a Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority (PRASA) public water supply well known as the Ponderosa Well.
Vega Alta is governed by a Mayor and Municipal Assembly, all of whom are elected by
the community to serve four-year terms.
In August 1986, EPA held a public meeting to inform the public about the results of the
OU-I Remedial Investigation. Notification of such meeting was published in a local
newspaper. In September 1987, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-I
selecting a groundwater remedy which included the provision of a water supply for
Vega Alta. As part of this remedial process, a Public Meeting was held on August 26,
1987.
In August 1989, EPA awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) to a citizen group in
the amount of $49,975. The group recipient, the.Committee for the Rescue of the
Health and Environment of Vega Alta, was to receive this grant to assist the community
in evaluating technical activities at the Site.
In March 1989 and August 1994, EPA published notices of significant changes to the
OU-l remedy in newspapers of local circulation. The notices informed the public about
-------
the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) which modified the 1987 ROD
remedy.
In July 1997, EPA released the PP and Feasibility Study {FS) Report for OU-II to allow
the public an opportunity for comment. These reports are part of the administrative
record and can be reviewed at any of the information repositories. EPA made Spanish
translations of the PP available for public review and comment as well.
EPA publicized and held a public meeting at the Vega Alta Municipal Town Hall on
August 20, 1997 to describe the FS Report and PP and to respond to citizen concerns.
A transcript of this meeting is available both English and Spanish in the information
repositories {September 1997).
EPA held a 30-day public comment period on the PP. The public comment period ran
from July. 30,1997 through August 29, 1997.
During the comment period, comments were expressed on the following issues:
• Implementation of the SVE System: Residents and local officials have
expressed concern regarding the implementation of the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
System.
• Aquifer Contamination: Residents arid local officials have expressed concern
regarding the aquifer contamination and its effect on public health and the environment.
II. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS.
CONCERNS. AND RESPONSES
Public comments on the PP submitted between July 30, 1997 and August 29, 1997 are
summarized and addressed below. EPA has separated oral comments from written
comments. In addition, EPA has categorized the comments by topic and consolidated
similar comments on a single topic. Individual commentors and their questions are
identified in the meeting transcript on file at the information repository.
A. SUMMARY OF ORAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC
MEETING CONCERNING THE VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Part I - Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
Contamination at Site
-------
Comment: Community members asked if the contamination is a real emergency and if
the contamination has reached the aquifer.
EPA Response: EPA does not consider the contamination problem to be an actual
emergency since the soil contaminants are at depths of 20 to 40 feet below the ground
surface; thus, it is really unlikely that people Will come into contact with them. The
groundwater underlying the Site was found to be contaminated in 1983. The
contaminant leveis in some wells were found to exceed drinking water standards for
potable water. Based on this, PRASA was directed by the Puerto Rico Department of
Health to close the impacted drinking water supply wells.
Comment: A community member and former General Electric (GE) employee stated
that during his 15 year employment at the facility, GE discharged thousands of gallons
of poisons into a ditch, including cyanide, mercury, and lead.
EPA Response: The Remedial Investigation conducted at the Site identified the soils
at the GE Controls Facility as the primary source of'contamination, thus necessitating
the proposed remedial action.
Comment: A community member asked how the soi! and groundwater became
contaminated, when the industry became aware of the contamination, what the industry
has done about it?
EPA Response: The information currently available does not reveal the specific
incident or cause of the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In 1983,
groundwater samples collected from PRASA wells revealed the presence of VOCs.
Soon after, the current operators and owner of the Industrial Park were notified of the
contamination. In 1984, the Site was included on the National Priorities List (NPL),
and numerous groundwater and soil investigations have been conducted pursuant to
Orders with the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
Comment: A community member asked whether the operations that led to the release
of contamination had been changed, what measures the facility has taken to ensure
that it would not happen again, and whether there were any regular inspections at the
facility to make sure that the chemicals are properly handled and disposed of.
EPA Response: There is no information regarding a specific incident or type of
operations that caused the contamination. However, as an active facility, it is subject to
all EPA regulations, EQB regulations, and local regulations regarding the handling and
disposal of hazardous substances, and is also subject to compliance inspections.
Comment: A community member attempted to relate the cleanup time of a Site to the
severity of its contamination by comparing the Vega Alta Site to that of the Upjohn
-------
Superfund Site. The member asked that since the cleanup of the Upjohn Site took over
10 years and EPA estimated that the cleanup at the Vega Alta Site could take from 5 to
7 years, could one assume that the contamination at the Upjohn Site was worse than
that at the Vega Alta Site? '•
EPA Response: Each Superfund site has unique characteristics, such as the amount
and type of contaminants that have been released into the environment, that make it
different from other sites. Thus, one should not make assumptions about the severity
of contamination from the comparison of cleanup rates at two unrelated sites. Also, the
estimated 5 to 7 year cleanup time cited for the Vega Alta Site is only for OU-II, soil
contamination/source control remediation; the groundwater remedy may take
significantly longer.
Logistics of the Cleanup
Comment: Several community members asked how long it would take to clean up all
the contamination at the Site.
EPA Response: The OU-II (soil) remedy is estimated to take about 4 to 7 years to
complete. The OU-I (groundwater) remedy may require up to 30 years to restore the
aquifer.
Comment: Many community members wanted to know who was going to pay for the
cleanup.
EPA Response: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund" as it is commonly referred to), four classes of
parties, usually referred to as Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs"), are liable for
the costs of cleanup. PRPs generally include the: 1) present owner(s) of a facility, 2)
past owner(s) or operator(s) of a facility at the time hazardous wastes were disposed
of, 3) generator(s) of hazardous wastes, and 4) transporter(s) of hazardous wastes.
Several PRPs were identified for this Site and have been undertaking the necessary
investigations. However, if no PRPs were identified at a given Site, EPA could use
funds from the Federal Superfund to pay for site investigation and remediation
activities.
Comment: A community member was concerned about who would pay for the cleanup
if the industry (in this case, GE) filed for bankruptcy. He asked if GE headquarters
would be held responsible for the costs if the local GE division filed for bankruptcy.
EPA Response: EPA has no reason to be concerned as to the ability of the PRPs in
this case to fund the cleanup. Also, there is a provision in CERCLA that establishes a
"Superfund" to pay for the cleanup of sites when the PRPs cannot pay or cannot be
-------
located. However, if EPA has to use Superfund money for the cleanup of a Site, EPA
will attempt to recover these costs from the PRPs at a later time.
Comment: Community members were concerned that, although the PRPs may agree
to pay for the cleanup at the time of the PP, what happens if the cleanup time and costs
exceed those in the Agreement.
EPA Response: Regardless of the costs or length of time for the cleanup, the PRPs
are still liable, whether or not they agree to pay for the cleanup. EPA has the authority,
and has used such authority at this Site before, to order the PRPs to undertake the
necessary investigations and response actions.
Comment: A community member asked if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is
considered a PRP, since the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO),
owner of the property, is an agency of the Commonwealth.
EPA Response: Since PRIDCO is the owner of the Industrial Park and leased facilities
in the Industrial Park to GE and other PRPs at the time that hazardous substances
were disposed of at those facilities, PRIDCO is considered a PRP for the Site.
Comment: A community member stated that it had been 14 years since the Site was
first investigated in 1983. The member asked how long it would take to implement the
Proposed Plan. Another community member asked why it took 14 years to start the
cleanup, and why the source had not yet been located.
EPA Response: The remediation of this Site has been divided in two remedial phases
or operable units. Groundwater was designated the first phase or operable unit (OU-1).
Because contaminated groundwater was determined to be the primary source of
exposure, it was addressed first. While the ROD for OU-1 was released in 1987,
modifications were made to this remedy in 1989 and 1994 in response to changes in
pumping stresses induced by new production wells. The remedial action for QU-I was
initiated in 1994 with the start-up of the Ponderosa Well and Treatment System.
The source of the groundwater contamination has recently been identified as the soils
near the GE Controls Facility in the Industrial Park; this is noted in the PP. Before the
remedy proposed in the PP is constructed, a necessary remedial design phase has to
be completed. This design phase could take up to a year or two and after that,
construction would proceed. The estimated construction time for OU-H (soil/source
control) is approximately 8 months, and the cleanup is expected to take 48 to 60
months (4 to 5 years).
-------
Technical Issues Regarding Cleanup
Comment: A community member asked how many wells were closed and what were
their pumping rates. The member also asked how much water will be pumped from the
vapor extraction wells.
EPA Response: Approximately seven extraction wells, with an estimated pumping rate
of 3,150 gallons per minute (gpm), have been closed due to the presence of VOCs. A
groundwater supply well is a well that extends below the water table and is used to
extract groundwater for either drinking or industrial use; a SVE well is a dry we!! used to
extract only VOC vapors from the soil.
Comment: A community member wanted to know the approximate amount of treated
groundwater to be discharged from the welts, specifically from the Ponderosa Well.
EPA Response: Treated groundwater from the Ponderosa Well and Treatment System
is currently being discharged to Honda Creek. The system was designed to treat
•approximately 600 gallons per minute (gpm). However, there have been mechanical
failures and loss of electricity in the area, resulting in performance fluctuations. The
average discharge per month has varied from 24 to 570 gpm. , . .
Comment: A community member cited the cleanup rate for VOCs in soil of 3 Ibs/hr or
15 Ibs/day, and asked why and how this rate was judged sufficient for cleanup when the
industry was polluting at a rate of 24 hrs/day.
t
EPA Response: The numbers refer to emission rates, not soil cleanup rates. The
limits for VOC emissions to the atmosphere are established in the Federal Clean Air
Act. Air quality emissions were also established by the Puerto Rico Regulation for the
Control of Atmospheric Pollution (PRRCAP), Rule 419. The maximum limit for such
emissions is 3 Ibs/hr or 15 Ibs/day.
Comment: Members of the community expressed concern regarding the toxic vapors
to be extracted from the soil. They wanted to know where the vapors go once they are
extracted.
EPA Response: EPA explained that SVE is a technology which removes VOCs from
the soil by inducing air flow through the soil, using a vacuum for extraction. The flowing
air volatilizes the compounds and carries them through extraction wells to a SVE unit,
where they are treated or released to the atmosphere untreated. The SVE system may
include air treatment to ensure that air discharges do not exceed permissible limits. As
long as the emissions stay within the limits of the PRRCAP, there should be no harmful
effect on air quality.
8
-------
Comment: A community member asked if the 15 Ib/day standard took into account the
synergetic effects of the chemicals.
EPA Response: Synergetic effects were not considered. However, EPA does utilize
an additive risk approach for individual chemicals to compensate for a lack of
comprehensive scientific information on chemicals capable of causing synergistic
effects.
Comment: A community member asked how many technologies were included in
EPA's Presumptive Remedy Guidance to treat VOCs. The member also inquired if
bioremediation had been considered for this Site.
EPA Response: EPA stated that there are three technologies described in the
Presumptive Remedy Guidance applicable to the Vega Alta Site: 1) soil vapor
extraction, 2} incineration, and 3) low temperature thermal desorbtion.
Bioremediation was not considered feasible in the source area because of the lack of
oxygen and indigenous organisms required for bioremediation to be successful. In
addition, bioremediation is not effective for treating all of the VOCs present at the Site.
Public Participation Process
Comment: A community member expressed concern that EPA's presentations were
too technical, and that unless one is educated about technical matters, it is difficult to
determine the significance of some of the data. He cited the term "parts per million" as
an example of something that a lay person would not be able to understand without
explanation from EPA.
EPA Response: EPA's public participation process includes a public meeting in which
EPA representatives will answer questions from the public as well as present the
Proposed Plan. Public meetings are intended to facilitate a better understanding of
EPA's investigations to affected and/or interested citizens.
Comment: Members of the community also expressed concern about educating
students so that they could fully participate in future environmental decisions involving
their welfare. Observations were made about the lack of environmental curriculum in
the area's high schools. Questions were asked whether EPA could assume
responsibility for educating students or if GE might be required to pay for community
education.
EPA Response: Educational grants are available through EPA to provide financial
support for projects which design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental education
9 .
-------
practices, methods or techniques, [Note: additional information on educational grants
was provided to the commenter after the public meeting].
Comment: 'A community member wanted to know if GE had been informed of the
findings of the study and of the public meeting.
EPA Response: GE is well aware of the findings and the public meeting.
Comment: A community member asked if public meetings really have any impact on
the final remedial decision.
EPA Response: EPA relies on public input to ensure that the concerns of the
community are considered in selecting an effective and appropriate remedy for each
Superfund site. Public comments are evaluated and later addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary of the ROD. If public comments necessitate modifications
to the Proposed Plan, such modifications will be reflected in the ROD.
Regional Contamination
Comment: A member of the assembly asked if the Maguayo and Ponderosa Wells
drew water from the same aquifer, and how this condition was determined.
EPA Response: There are two primary aquifers in the area, an unconfined upper
aquifer and a confined aquifer. The Maguayo and Ponderosa Wells both draw water
from the unconfined aquifer.
Comment: A community member expressed concern that industries from other areas,
such as Vega Baja and Dorado, could contaminate wells in Vega Alta.
EPA Response: Studies and investigations conducted at and in the vicinity of the Site
do not indicate any contaminant threat from other industries to the Vega Alta area.
Comment: A community member asked if sediment samples were collected from
Honda Creek, and expressed concern that if the contamination plume crossed the
Creek, it may also reach the Rio-Cibuco River.
i
EPA Response: VOCs were not detected in surface water samples collected from
Honda Creek and, as such, no impact to Rio-Cibuco is expected.
Comment: A community member asked how many contaminated sites there were in
Puerto Rico, and how this number compared with the number of sites in the continental
United States.
10
-------
EPA Response: There are currently ten sites in Puerto Rico that are listed on the NPL
and there are 1,204 sites for the entire United States. There are numerous other
hazardous waste sites that are not listed on the NPL. Sites become listed because
they present, or potentially present, a threat to public health or the environment.
Other Environmental Concerns Not Related to the Site
Comment: Community members, including a member of the Group for Better
Environment, expressed concern regarding the Pampanos quarry. According to one
community member, the original plan to build a housing development has been
changed in order to create a quarry. She cited a study conducted by Careb
contractors, which determined that the wetlands should not be developed, and if a
housing development was to be built, then a barrier for the wetlands would have to be
constructed. She also said that the headwaters of the Quebrada were disturbed and,
as a result, wetlands were destroyed. Community members wanted to know what EPA
could do about the situation, and also asked if EPA could spend funds to clean up the
contamination {specifically, solvents) at the quarry.
EPA Response: The installation and operation of quarries is regulated by local
agencies such as the Puerto Rico Planning Board, Puerto Rico Department of Natural
Resources & Environment (DNR&E) and the Environmental Quality Board. EPA's
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 60 (New Source Performance Standards) apply to
quarries with a capacity greater than 150 tons/day. The correct name of the facility is
the Vega Alta Quarry. Any activity involving changes to wetlands such as landfilling or
regrading is regulated by the U.S Corps of Engineer.
•.
Comment: A community member expressed concern regarding tanks containing toxic
materials that were still in the neighborhood of Espinosa despite the fact that the
incineration has been completed.
EPA Response: The tanks in question are part of the Safety-Kleen Envirosystem Co.
facility. This facility is permitted by EQB and EPA to store hazardous waste for
subsequent transportation to the continental United States for treatment
Comment: A community member inquired if EPA's new ozone standards were going
to be implemented in Puerto Rico.
EPA Response: EPA stated that the new standards would be implemented in Puerto
Rico.
Comment: A community member expressed concern that young people sometimes
removed the catalytic converters from their automobiles and consequently were
polluting the air.
11
-------
EPA Response: EPA stated that they are aware of this problem and are working with
the EQB to set up an inspection program to ensure that catalytic converters are used
properly.
B. Summary of Written Questions and Responses Received During the Public
Comment Period
1. Comments from the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO)
Comment: PRIDCO asked if the remedy insures that workers at the Site will be safe
from VOC exposure.
EPA Response : Maximum concentrations of VOCs were detected at the PRIDCO
Industrial Park soils at a depth of about 30 feet. Current worker exposure was not
assessed since no direct contact with contaminated soil is expected.
The application of the SVE will greatly reduce the VOCs in soils, thus reducing their
vertical migration to the groundwater. In turn, this action will reduce the length of time
required to achieve groundwater cleanup goals by preventing VOCs from continuing to
enter the groundwater.
Comment: How will the decision to "turn off the SVE system be made?
EPA Response: The SVE will operate until VOCs can no longer be effectively
removed. Soil samples will be collected after the implementation of the SVE program
to determine the soil concentrations that remain.
Comment: In general, PRIDCO supported the use of SVE for OLMI at the Site.
2. Comments submitted by the proposed Comunidad Monterey and M.R. Vega
Alta, Inc., Santa Cruz, Inc., and Gomera (Dorado), Inc., the owners of the property
near and to the north of the Site.
Comment: Will groundwater cleanup be terminated if SVE is required?
EPA Response: Groundwater cleanup will not be terminated with the implementation
of SVE. Groundwater remedial activities will continue to operate, and be modified, if
necessary, until the Site remediation goals for groundwater are achieved.
Comments: There is a clear relationship between the groundwater remediation (OUI)
and the soil remediation/source control (OU II).
12
-------
EPA Response: The remedial action selected for OU II will greatly reduce the vertical
migration of VOCs from the soil to the groundwater. As a result, this action should
reduce the amount of time required to achieve groundwater cleanup by preventing
VOCs from continuing to enter the groundwater. Activities conducted as part of OU-I
are therefore related to OU-II activities.
Comment: It is important to know whether adoption of SVE will mean that the concept
of pumping groundwater near the source will be abandoned or otherwise limited.
EPA Response; Implementation of the SVE will not eliminate the need for pumping
and treatment of contaminated groundwater at a location near the source. EPA
anticipates issuing an ESD containing such a modification to the OU-I remedy in the
near future.
Comment: The agency should provide information about the relationship between
decisions made on source control and decisions that may be made to revise the
groundwater remedy.
EPA Response: EPA's OU-I remedy is a separate action from the source control
remedial alternative proposed for OU-II. The only connection is that by implementing
SVE in contaminated Site soils, the vertical migration of VOCs from soils into
groundwater will be reduced or eliminated. This will reduce the time needed to restore
the aquifer. In this respect, the OU-I remedy and the OU-II remedy are linked.
Comment: The groundwater remediation currently depends on operation of the
Ponderosa Well treatment system.' Our review of the. logs of that facility, as well as
review of the drawdown record from an adjacent monitoring well, indicate that the
Ponderosa Well treatment system has never operated as intended. Thus, we are
concerned that there may not be appropriate data from operations at the Ponderosa
Well to justify adjustments to the groundwater treatment regime.
EPA Response: Adjustments to the groundwater treatment regime will not be based
solely on the operation and performance of the Ponderosa Well, but will also be based
upon information regarding the location of the highest VOC concentrations relative to
the areal extent of the plume, pumping stresses induced by production wells within the
affected area, monitoring data to be collected over a period of time, the evaluation of a
groundwater model developed specifically for the Site, and the aquifer's response to
the pumping and treatment.
Comments: How do the risk levels between soil and groundwater contamination
correlate? The Proposed Plan addresses the risk levels for contaminants in the soils.
EPA selected SVE in order to reduce those risk levels. EPA should provide information
about how much SVE will shorten the groundwater cleanup time frame. It would also
13
-------
help to know if EPA has any information about the quantitative impact SVE will have on
the duration of the contamination in the groundwater.
EPA Response: Operation of the SVE System will minimize the amount of VOCs that
may migrate from the soil to the groundwater. Once the source of contamination is
removed and the groundwater remedial measures are in place, we should see a
significant reduction in the VOC concentrations in the groundwater near the source
area. No information is currently available regarding how much SVE will shorten the
groundwater cleanup time frame or the quantitative impact SVE will have on the
duration of the contamination in the groundwater.
Comment: The paved areas at the Industrial Park do not sufficiently "cap" the
contaminants.
EPA Response: Part of the source area is currently covered with pavement, concrete,
or buildings which prevent the infiltration of rain water into the soils. This does reduce
the leaching potential of the VOCs from the source soils into the groundwater.
However, EPA agrees that the paved areas are not a sufficient "cap" for the entire
remaining source of contamination; thus, we are selecting a remedy involving the use
of SVE to permanently remove VOCs from the Site.
Comment: Will the plant be closed, in whole or in part, or over some period of time?
Will EPA seek to avoid plant shut downs and will this adversely impact the success of
SVE in cleaning the .soils? To the extent that these decisions are made following the
public comment period, it is important for EPA to keep the public informed of any such
determinations.
.*
EPA response: The proposed SVE system will be designed and implemented in a
staged approach which wifl involve the use of at least one mobile SVE unit. The mobile
unit will be operated at a designed area until no more VOCs can be removed at that
location. The unit will then be moved to another designated area for treatment. The
GE Controls Plant is an active facility and, as such, the SVE system will be operated in
a manner to avoid interfering with plant operations to the greatest extent possible while
not sacrificing the effectiveness of the remedy.
Comment: How long will the SVE system operate? When will the SVE system be
operational?
EPA Response: It is unclear at this stage how long the SVE system will be in
operation. Typically, SVE systems are operated until no more product can be
recovered or until cleanup goals are achieved. !n the Feasibility Study Report, a ten-
year operation scenario was assumed, however, it is more likely that this phase of the
remediation will be completed in a shorter period of time. Assuming the PRPs'
14
-------
willingness to undertake SVE, the design phase may take 1 to 2 years to complete.
Actual operation of the SVE system will follow.
Comment: What will EPA do if General Electric refuses to implement SVE?
EPA Response: EPA can exercise its enforcement authority under CERCLA to compel
the PRPs to implement the required remedial actions at the Site.
Comment: EPA's Proposed Plan leaves the impression that the risks are the same
throughout the region, but they are not. The groundwater is contaminated at different
levels in the aquifer, very high near the industrial park and lower elsewhere in the
region. Future residents who are located a distance away from the GE Controls Plant
do not face the same risk as those close to the plant; nor do people located at the GE
Controls Plant face high actual risks.
EPA Response: In order to protect public health and the environment, EPA's risk
assessment considered risks and hazards to individuals exposed to reasonable
maximum levels under current and future conditions. The assessment used data from
samples taken in the aquifer. Where adequate numbers of samples were available to
support the calculation of the 95% upper confidence level on the mean, this value was
used as representative of the concentration to which users of the aquifer were exposed.
The sampling concentrated in the areas with the highest concentrations of soil
contamination with less samples taken in areas where the concentration was lower.
Where adequate numbers of samples to calculate the 95% upper confidence level were
not available, the maximum concentration found in the aquifer for an individual
chemical was used in the assessment, i.e., it was assumed that an individual may be
exposed to the highest concentration found in the aquifer. In addition, the
concentrations found in all wells were also compared in the assessment to the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs are enforceable limits under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and are designed to ensure the quality of the population's drinking
water supplies.
Comment: The risk discussion does not advise the public of the nature of the
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic hazard. What kind of cancer risks are presented?
What are the non-carcinogenic hazards?
EPA Response: EPA developed a risk assessment that evaluated future risks from the
chemicals in the groundwater in the absence of remediation at the Site. The
calculated risks are based on a number of assumptions and represent a probability of
an individual developing cancer as a result of specific exposures. The exposure
assumptions are listed below.
15
-------
Ingestion of Water.
Dermal Contact:
Carcinogen Assessment for Adults
The cancer risk assessment for the adult residents
assumed an individual consumed 2 liters of water/day
(8 eight ounce glasses per day) at the current
contaminant level for 350 days per year for the next
30 years and weighed 154 Ibs. These are standard
default assumptions used in EPA's risk assessments
at other sites. The calculated risks were
approximately 3 additional cases in one thousand
people exposed under the assumptions listed above.
The primary chemicals of concern were 1,1-
dichloroethene, ethylene dibromide, trichloroethylene,
arsenic, and beryllium. This calculated risk exceeds
EPA's acceptable risk range.
Other risks to the residents are associated with
contact with metals while showering. It was assumed
that an adult resident would shower 350 days/year for
30 years and would weigh 154 Ibs. The risk is
approximately 4 additional cases of cancer in
1,000,000 people exposed under the assumptions
listed. This risk is within EPA's risk range.
Inhalation While Showering:
Ingestion:
The risks from inhalation of contaminants while
showering were also modeled assuming an adult
weighed 154 Ibs and would shower 350 days/year for
30 years. The risks were calculated at approximately
4 additional cases of cancer in ten thousand people
exposed. The main contaminants of concern were
1,1-dichioroethene and trichloroethene. This risk is
near the upper bounds of EPA's acceptable risk
range.
Childhood - Carcinogen Assessment
The potential risks to children were assessed
assuming ingestion of water at the current
concentration for 350 days/year for 6 years at an
ingestion rate of 1 liter/day and assuming the child
weighed 30 Ibs. The risk was calculated at 1 in one
thousand; the primary chemicals of concern are 1,1-
dichlorethene, ethylene dibromide and arsenic. This
risk exceeds EPA's acceptable risk range.
16
-------
Carcinogen Assessment - Workers
Other Populations: Risks to site workers/employees and construction workers
were also assessed. This assessment assumed the site
workers/employees would be exposed 250 days/year for 25
years and ingest 1 iiter/day of water from the Site. The
construction worker was assumed to be exposed for a
shorter period of time, i.e., 65 days in one year. The risk to
the site worker was 8 additional cases in 10,000 which
slightly exceeds EPA's acceptable risk range. The primary
chemicals of concern were 1,1-dichloroethylene, ethylene
dibromide and arsenic. The risk to the construction worker
was calculated to be 8 additional cancers in a population of
1,000,000, which is within EPA's acceptable risk range.
Evaluation of Non-Cancer Hazards
For non-cancer evaluation, EPA uses a Reference Dose as an indicator of potential
non-cancer effects. The Reference Dose is defined "as a daily exposure level (with an
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse health effects for humans." To evaluate non-cancer effects,
EPA evaluates the exposures using the exposure assumptions identified for cancer
above with the exception that the average time reflects a different averaging time. The
exposure is then compared to the Reference Dose to determine whether, this value is
exceeded for either an individual chemical or pathway. The total hazard is also
evaluated by combining the individual Hazard Quotients for each chemical and
pathway to determine the total Hazard Index. The results of this analysis for the .
individual populations potentially exposed are listed below.
Evaluation of Non-Cancer Hazards for Adults
Ingestion: For ingestion of water, using the exposure
assumptions identified in the cancer assessments,
the Hazard Index (HI) was 9.4. The HI was 6.5 for
trichloroethyfene and 1.9 for arsenic. The His for the
other chemicals were less than 1.0,
For dermal contact while showering, and inhalation of
volatile organic chemicals, the hazard indices were
less than 1.0, respectively.
17
-------
Non-Cancer Assessment for Children
Ingestion: The HI for children, using the exposure assumptions
used in the carcinogen assessment, was 22. The
main chemicals contributing to this hazard were
trichioroethene (15) and arsenic (4.3); the remaining
chemicals contributed less than 1.0.
Non-Cancer Assessment - Site Workers/Employees and Construction Workers
Site Workers/Employees
and Construction Workers: For site workers/employees and construction
workers, the assumptions used in the cancer
assessment were used. The HI for construction
workers was less than 1.0. The Hi for site
workers/employees was 3.4, exceeding the
acceptable level of 1.0. The primary chemical of
concern was trichloroethylene with an HI of 2.3.
Comment: EPA should provide realistic information about how long the aquifer will be
contaminated and when the community can expect to be able to tap the aquifer again.
EPA Response: It is estimated that the aquifer might take up to 30 years to return to
its original condition as a potable water source.
Comment: We support EPA's efforts to use SVE to control the sources of
contamination in the soils at the GE Controls Facility. However, we want to emphasize
that SVE is not a substitute for groundwater treatment near the sources or elsewhere in
the contaminated plume.
EPA Response: The adoption of SVE as a source control action does not mean that
near source pumping of groundwater will be abandoned or otherwise limited.
3. Comments from the Vega Alta Steering Committee.
Comment: The Proposed remedy is not justified based upon potential risks posed by
the Site. The Proposed remedy is based upon a flawed risk assessment.
EPA Response-^The highest concentrations of VOCs in soil and groundwater were
detected at the GE Controls facility. The SVE Performance Test Result Report
submitted to EPA on February 1996 by the Vega Alta Steering Committee determined
18
-------
that the use of the SVE was effective in remediating the source soils. SVE will
minimize the migration of VOCs from the soil to the groundwater and reduce the length
of time required to achieve the groundwater cleanup goals. Groundwater at the Site
presents an' unacceptable risk to human health. Groundwater samples have revealed
VOC concentrations up to 6,000 ppb. These levels are significant in relation to the
MCLs.
The risk assessment was re-evaluated based on the comments received from the Vega
Alta Steering Committee. Detailed responses to those comments are provided in the
attachment. In summary, the PRPs raised issues concerning the following points: a)
Inclusion of inorganic compounds in the risk assessment that are inappropriate (e.g.
arsenic, manganese...); b) Use of inappropriate criteria for the selection of the
chemicals of concern (COCs). c) Ethylene dibromide was included as a COC
(accounting for more than 42% of the total cancer risk); and d) COM wrongly assumed
a log normal distribution for each constituent in calculating the 95 % UCLs. Brief
responses to each of these issues is provided below.
a and b. Inclusion of arsenic and other metals as chemicals of concern.
Arsenic was retained as a chemical of concern since it is a known human carcinogen
and contributed significantly to the risk as outlined in the Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund. The risk assessment identifies that this chemical is below the MCL and,
consequently, is not addressed in the Feasibility Study. The risks and hazards posed
by the other metals did not exceed EPA's risk values and their inclusion does not
impact the risk assessment. The risks from trichloroethylene and other volatile organic
compounds still exceed EPA's acceptable risk range for both cancer and non-cancer,
supporting the conclusions that further remediation at the Site is warranted.
c. Ethylene dibromide.
The data sheets were re-evaluated by EPA's contractor and the transcription error was
verified. However, the risks posed by trichloroethylene and the other volatile organic
compounds still exceed EPA's acceptable risk range and, therefore, require
remediation.
d. 95% Upper Confidence Limit
The analysis of the data distribution presented in Table I of the Vega Alta Steering
Committee Report indicates that the Responsible Party was not able to demonstrate
the data distribution. The "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the
Concentration Term" guidance indicates that"... it is valuable to plot the data to better
understand the contaminant distribution at the site". Following this guidance, COM
evaluated the groundwater data (page 50) and applied the formula for calculating the
19
-------
UCL of the arithmetic mean for a lognormal distribution as recommended in the
guidance.
Comment: -The Proposed Plan failed to consider the influence of the planned OU-I
remedy on the appropriateness of any remedy selected for OU-I I.
EPA Response: The OU-I remedy and/or any modification to it will remediate the
groundwater. However, soil remediation is needed in order to avoid further migration of
contaminants into the groundwater. The concurrent implementation of both remedies
will expedite the cleanup of the Site.
Comment: The Proposed Plan overestimates the potential contribution of VOCs from
soil to groundwater.
EPA Response: The OU-I I Remedial Investigation showed that the highest
concentration of VOCs in the groundwater was located near the source area. This data
indicates that the VOCs from soil are leaching into the groundwater. In recent SVE
performance tests, 553 pounds of VOCs were removed from the extraction wells at the
source area in a 28 day period. This result clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of
this approach and the fact that implementation of SVE will greatly reduce the migration
of VOCs to the groundwater.
Comment: The 1994 ESD was technically appropriate due to concerns regarding
saltwater intrusion and not due to plume migration, as stated by EPA in the Proposed
Plan.
EPA Response: As stated in the 1994 ESD: "EPA must change the location of the
extraction wells selected in the 1987 ROD, because recent groundwater investigations
at the Site show that in the six years since EPA issued the ROD, the plume of
groundwater contamination has migrated downgradient of three of the extraction wells
{GE-1, GE-2, and Bajura 3} selected in. the 1987 ROD, and that these wells are no
longer capable of effectively remediating the Vega Alta Aquifer."
Comment: EPA stated that the Site "groundwater contamination exists in ah
unconfined aquifer that is used for public, agricultural, industrial, and private water
supply." The steering committee believes that this statement is misleading and should
indicate that Site groundwater is not currently used for drinking water.
EPA Response: Both public and private wells currently withdraw water from the
unconfined aquifer. Several wells have been closed due to the VOC contamination, but
others have remained operational. While EPA has informed the users of the affected
or contaminated wells that the water should not be utilized for drinking water purposes,
we cannot confirm that the water is not being used for such purposes.
20
-------
Comment: The implementation of the OU-II remedy will cause a slowdown or possible
shutdown of plant operations.
EPA Response: While a slowdown or shutdown of plant operations may be necessary
during the implementation of SVE, the implementation will be managed in a way to
minimize any interruption to plant operations.
Comment: Termination criteria for SVE should be based on the reduction of soil gas
VOCs as measured relative to baseline sampling performed in the air stream before
initiating SVE and should be incorporated in the ROD.
EPA Response: The SVE system will operate until VOCs can no longer be effectively
removed from the source area. Specific criteria for SVE shutdown will be included in
the Remedial Deign Report, Remedial Action Work Plan, and in the Operation and
Maintenance Plan to be submitted to and approved by EPA.
21
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
AT VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Community relations activities conducted at the Vega Alta Superfund Site to date have
included, but are not limited to the following:
• EPA publicized and held a public meeting on August 19,1986 to inform the
public about the findings of the Remedial Investigation (Rl). (OU-I).
• EPA publicized and held a public meeting at the Vega Alta Town Hall on August
26, 1987 to describe EPA's proposed plan for OU-I and to respond to public
questions and comments. (OU-I).
• EPA published a Notice of Significant changes to the 1987 ROD-selected
- remedy on March 22, 1989 ("1989 ESD"). {OU-I}.
• EPA published a second Notice of Significant changes to the OU-I remedy on
August 26, 1994. This remedy was selected in the 1987 ROD and initially
modified by the 1989 ESD. (OU-I).
• EPA established an information repository at the Vega Alta Municipal Town Hall.
Copies of the documents in the repository were also placed in files in EPA's
offices in San Juan, and New York, as well as at the Environmental Quality
Board Office. Administrative Records for both operable units are continually
updated and additional documents are supplied to each repository. (OU-I & OU-
II).
• EPA released the Proposed Plan (PP) and Feasibility Study (FS) Report to allow
the public an opportunity for comment. These reports are part of the information
repository. (July 1997). EPA made Spanish translations of the PP available for
public review and comment. The PP is also part of the information repository,
(July 1997). (OU-II).
• EPA publicized and held a public meeting at the Vega Alta Town Hall on August
20, 1997 to discuss the FS Report and PP and to respond to public comments.
A transcript of this meeting is available in the Site information repository in both
English and Spanish (September 1997). (OU-II).
• EPA held a 30 day public comment period on the PP. The public comment
period ran from July 30, 1997 through August 29, 1997. (OU-II).
• EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary to address public comments
received in writing and at the public meeting (September 1997). (OU-II).
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
VEGA ALTA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX E
-------
VEGA ALTA SITE
OPERABLE UKIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
l.l Background -. RCRA and Other Information
P. 100001- % Hazardous Ranking System Package, reviewer: Mr.
100020 Wayne Pierre, PRASA, June17, 1983. (Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at U.S.
EPA Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
Floor, N.Y., N.Y. 10007-1866).
P. 100021- Report: The Application of CERCIA in Puerto Rico:
100045 An Options Paperr -prepared by the Hazardous Waste
.Site Branch, Air & Waste Management Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, July 7, 1983.
P. 100046- Memorandum to Mr. Pedro A. Gelabert, Chairman,
100073 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Environmental Quality
Board, from Mr. Luz V..Garcia, Chemist, Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, Environmental Quality
Board, re: Requested Report from Kevin Lynch
regarding Ponderosa Well Contamination in Vega
Alta, August 17, 1983. Attached: (1) Letter, to
Mr. Kevin Lynch, On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Pedro A. Gelabert, Chairman,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Environmental Quality
Board, re: the attached enclosed report of the
information requested on letter, dated June 30,
1983, to investigate the Ponderosa Well pollution
sources in Vega Alta, August 16, 1983; (2) Listing
of Addressees to which Information Request is
being sent (includes handwritten comments),
undated; (3) Table 2 - Hazardous Substances at the
Wellhead Compounds in ppb; (4) Table 3 - Hazardous
Substances Involved and concentrations Detected
After Treatment or in the Distribution System,
undated; and (5) Hazardous Waste Report, prepared
by U.S. EPA, March 17, 1982.
-------
1.3 Preliminary Assessment Reports
P. 100074- Preliminary Assessment Review Form, Reviewer: Mr.
100098 Juan Davila, U.S. EPA, Region II, November 7,
1984. Attached: (1) Potential Hazardous Waste
Site Identification and Preliminary Assessment,
prepared by Maria L. Morales, U.S. EPA, .May 14,
1984; (2) Annexes 1 -3; (3) Request for Analysis;
and .(4) Attachment C: Potential Hazardous Waste
Site, Site Inspection Report, April 17, 1984.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
P. 100099- Report: Draft Site Inspection Report Vega Alt a
100119 Solid Waste Disposal - Field Investigation Team
Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous Substances
Facilities - Zone lf prepared by NUS Corporation,
Superfund Division, prepared for Environmental
Services Division, September 12, 1988.
1.5 Previous operable Unit information
P.
P.
100120
100143
100144
100165
P. 100166
100170
Data: "Draft 10-Point Document, Immediate
Removal Request", undated.
Letter to Mr. Scott A. Baker, Supervisor,
Hazardous Materials and Environmental Services,
The West Company, from Mr. Stephen P. Cline,
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: The West Company Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, February 9, 1988. (Attachments:
(1) 'Standard Method for Penetration Test 'and
Split-Barrel Sampling Of .Soils" (2) 'standard
Method for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils"
(3) "Standard Method for Particle-size Analysis of.
Soils" and, data (4) Table 1: 'Methodology Summary
and References".) -
Letter to Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division,, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Santos Rohena Betancourt,
Chairman, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .
Environmental Quality Board, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, March 21, 1989. (Attachment:
Letter to Mr. Douglas Blazey, Regional Counsel,
Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. Santos Rohena Betancourt, Chairman,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, .October 17,
1968.)
-------
p.
p.
p.
100171-
100198
100199-
100377
100378-
100421
Veaa Alt a Suer fund
P. 100422-
100422
100423-
100435
P. 100488-
100498
Presentation Materials:
Vea Alta . Puerto Rico, prepared for U.S
'
EPA,
prepared by General 'Electric Company, April 13,
1989.
Plan: Praft Sampling,, Analysis and Monitor j.n.g
Plar) (SAMP) , Veaa Alta fiuperfund Site per
Administrative Order TI-CERCLA*-g0302f prepared by
General Electric Company, May 12, 1989.
Plan: Final Statement of Work for Remedial
Design for the Vega Alta Well Field Site. Vega
Alta. Puerto Ric9r "prepared for Motorola, Inc.,
Barman Automotive, Inc., The West Company of
Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., January 8, 1990.
Letter to Ms. Debra Kroblewski, NUS Corporation,
from Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: submittal of Draft Statement of
Work for the Remedial Design for the Vega Alta
site and Unilateral Administrative Order for the
site, June 13, 1990.
Letter to Eduardo Negron-Navas, Esquire,
Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez, from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: attached Analytical results
of purged water from the Vega Alta July 1990
sampling event, September 10, 1990. (Attachment.)
100436- Report: Vega Altaf Puerto Ricor August
•100487
progress 'Report r • prepared 'for "Vega Alta "Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
September 21, 1990. (Attachments: Appendices A-
C.)
Report:
Veya^Mtar Puerto Rlcof September 1990
Report, prepared for Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, . Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
October 22, 1990. (Attachments: data.)
-------
100499- Letter to Eduardo Negron-Navas> Esquire,
100513 Fiddler, Gonzalez.& Rodriguez, from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: attached analytical results
of 'the purged water from the Vega Alta October
1990 sampling event, November 27, 1990.
(Attachment.)
100514- .Report: Veaa Altaf Puerto Rico/ October and
100517 November 1990 Progress "Reports, prepared for Vega
Alta Project Manager, site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
.EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry,
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., December 31, 1990.
100518- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
100530 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Ms. Susan T. Barry, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Final discharge of purged
water from the Vega Alta Superfund Site to PRASA,
January 4, 1991. (Attachment: data.)
100531- Letter to Mr. George J. Miller, Esquire, Dechart,
100533 Price fi Rhoads, from Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., re: Complications during the January 1991
ground water sampling event at the Vega Alta Site,
February 12, 1991. ' . .
100534- Letter to Ms. Carole Peterson, Chief, New
100543 York/Caribbean Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, 'from Mr. Ronald-A.- Landon/. P-.G. ,• ERM Principle
in Charge, and G.L. Kirkpatrick, P.G., ERM Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Vega Alta Public Supply Well Site Remedial. .
Design EPA ROD dated 23 March 1989, March 5, 1991.
100544- Letter to Maria Luis Gonzalez, Esquire,
100550 Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez, from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: attached analytical results
of the contained purge water from the Vega Alta
January 1991 sampling event, March 18, 1991.
(Attachment.)
100551- Report: Vega Alta. Puerto RicQr 'January 1991
100606 Progress Report^ prepared for Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
-------
100607-
100610
100611-
100615
100616-
100663
100664-
100665
100666-
100709
100710-
100790
100791-
100831
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., March
22, 1991. (Attachment: Attachment A.)
Letter to George J. Miller, Esquire, Dechert,
Price & Rhoads, from Mr. Carl E. Petrus,^ P.E.,
Environmental. Resources Management, ' Inc.",' re:
attached list of information needs for Vega Alta
site remediation, April 5, 1991. (Attachment.)
* « i
Report: Vega Alta. Puerto Ricor February and
March 1991 Progress Reports, prepared .for Vega
Alta Project Managerr Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.j'Barry,
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., April 8, 1991.
Report: Vega Alta. Puerto Rico. April and
May 1991 Progress Reports, prepared "for Vega
Alta Project Manager,1 Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry,
Project Manager; Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., June 18, 1991. (Appendices A-
B.)
Letter to Mr. Pedro Maldonado Ojeda, Jr.
Chairman, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board,
from Ms, Kathleen Callahan, Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S.- EPA, Region
"II,',,re: U.S. EPAs comments on April 18, 1991
meeting,'-June-28,--1991.
Report: Vega Alta, Puerto Rico. June '1991
progress Report,, prepared for-Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch/ Emergency and
Remedial Response-Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., July 29,
1991. (Attachments: Appendices A-B.)
Report: Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
for Ground Water Remediation. Vega Altaf Puerto
Rjgpf prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., August 26, 1991. (Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at the
U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th floor, New York, N.Y. 10007.)
Plan: Operating and Maintenance Plan for the
Vega Alta Well Field Site^ prepared for Motorola
-------
p.
100832-
100908
P.
P.
100909-
100976
100977-
101171
P.
101172-
101231A
P.
101232-
101270
P.
101271-
101273
Telcarro de Puerto Rico, Inc., and The West
Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., August.
26, 1991.
Report: Design Analysis Report for the Vega
Alta Well Field site. Veaa Alta. Puerto Rico.
prepared for Motorola Telcarro de Puerto Rico,
Inc., Harman Automotive Puerto Rico, Inc., and The
West Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., August
26, 1991.
Plan: Construction Plan for Ground Water
Remediation. Vega Altat Puerto Rico, prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., August
26, 1991.
Report: Technical Specifications 'for Ground
Water Remediation, Vega Alta. Puerto Rico. Wells
GE—1. GE-2, Ponderosa, Bajura IIIf prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., August
26, 1991.
Report: Vega Alta Site.Puerto Ricof Third
Quarter Calendar Year 199lf Progress Report,
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., October 3, 1991.
Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, 'from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources,
Inc., re: REVISED Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, October
1991 Ground Water Sampling Event, October 11,
1991. (Attachment: Report: Analytical Quality
Assurance Report, Ground Water Sampl-es collected
April and May 1991f Vega Alta Superfund Site, Vega
Altar Puerto Rico, prepared for Motorola, Inc.,
Harman Automotive, Inc., and The West Company of
Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., July 3, 1991.)
Report: Vega Altaf Puerto Ricof October and
typvember 1991 Progress Reports, prepared for Vega
Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry,
-------
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., December 9, 1991.
P. 101274- Letter to John Zakrison, Esquire, Kirkland &
101293 Ellis, from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site 90%
Remedial Design Report, August 1991, EPA Review
Comments, December 26, 1991.
P. 101294- Report: Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
101377 for Ground Water Remediationr Vega Altar Puerto
. RJ.CO, prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., January 17, 1992. (Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at the
U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th floor, New York, N.Y. 10007.)
P. 101378- Plan: Construction Plan for Ground Water
101445 Remediation. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico, prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., January
17, 1992.
P. 101446- Report: Technical Specifications fpr Ground
101644 Water Remediationf Vega Altaf Puerto Rico. Wells
GE-lr GE-2. Ponderosa, Bajura IITf prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., January
17, 1992. .
P. 101645- Plan: Operating & Maintenance Plan for the
101686 Veoa Alta Well Field Site, prepared for Motorola
... Telcarro. de -Puerto -Rico, • Inc., - and The- West
Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., January
17, 1992. '
P. 101687- Report: Design Analysis Report for the Vega Alta
101758 Well Field Site. Vega Alta. Puerto Ri,pOj prepared
for Motorola Telcarro de Puerto Rico, Inc., Harman
Auto Puerto Rico, Inc., and The West Company of
Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., January 17, 1992.
P. 101759- Report: Vega Alta. Puerto Rico. December 1991
101830 and January 1992 Progress Reportsf prepared for
Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry/
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., February 27, 1992.
-------
101831- Letter to John Zakrison, Esquire,, Kirkland
101837 & Ellis, and George J. Miller, Esquire, Dechert,
Price & Rhoads, from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief,
New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch,' U.S. EPA;
Region II, re: 100% Remedial Design Report
(January 1992) for the Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells Site, March 19, 1992. (Attachment:
Construction Plan Summary of Work and Construction
Schedule.)
101838- Report: February 1992 Progress Report for the
101840 Vega Alta Well Field Site, Puerto Ricof prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., March 26, 1992.
101841- Report: Annual Report for Historical VOC
101858 Distribution in the Ground Water at the Vega Alta
Superfund Site. Vega A^ta^ Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. .
Barry, Project Manager, and Mr. Ronald A. Landon,
P.G., Principal, Environmental Resources -
Management, Inc., April 17, 1992.
101859- Report: March 1992 Progress Report for the
101927 Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
'Branch;" Emergency"and Remedial "Response"Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., April 28, 1992.
101928- Report: "April 1992 Progress Report for the
101929 Vega Alta Well Field Siter Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., May 12, 1992.
101930- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager,
101937 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
.Mr. Yaron M. Sternberg, Ph.D., Principal, Environ
Corporation, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, May 21, 1992. (Attachments:
(1) Table 1 - Historical VOC Data Table, 1983-
1989, Bajura III Ground Water Sample Results
-------
(2)Table 2 - Effluent Limitations for the Bajura
III Well (3) Table 3 - Historical VOC Data Table,
1990- Present, Bajura III Ground Water Sample
Results.)'*''• ' i- ,-. \
101938- Letter to Ms. Bernice I. Gorman, Assistant
101941 Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Mark E. Grummer, Kirkland & Ellis, re: Vega Alta
CERCLA Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, June 19,
1992.
101942- Letter to Mr. Pedro Maldonado Ojeda, Esquire,
101966 Chairman, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board,
from Ms. Kathleen Callahan, Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: July 15, 1992 EPA and EQB Board Meeting
Agenda, July 9, 1992. (Attachments: (1)
Attachment A - Letter to Mr. Pedro Maldonado
Ojeda, Esquire, Chairman, Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board, from Ms. Kathleen
Callahan, Director, Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: July
15, 1992 EPA and EQB Board Meeting Agenda, July 9,
1992, with agenda and attendance sheet attached
(2) Attachment B - Potentially applicable
permitting requirements and/or authorizations (3)
Attachment C - Memorandum to Ms. Rita M. Lavelle,'
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert M.
Perry, Associate Administrator for General
Counsel, re: Applicability of Section 102(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to
Response Actions under Section 104 of the "
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, September
1, 1992 (4) Attachment D - List'of efforts by the
EPA to incorporate public participation in its
decision-making processes, undated.)
101967- Report: May/June 1992 Progress Report for the
102045 Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., July 24, 1992. (Attachments:
Appendices A-B.J
102046- Letter to Bernice I. Coreman, Esquire,
102051 Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. Mark E. Grummer, Kirkland & Ellis, re:
-------
Vega Alta CERCLA Site—Results of July 21 Meeting
on OU-1 Progress, July 30, 1992.
P. 102052- Facsimile to Mr. Carlos M. Padin and Ms. Sara
102053 Cortes, Department of Natural Resources, from Mr.
'-•'• Mark E. Grummer, Kirland & Ellis, re: Vega Alta t
Puerto Rico, Superfund Site, August 14, 1992.
P. 102054- Facsimile to Mr. Robert Fuhrer, Puerto Rico
102057 Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, from Mr. Mark E.
Grummer, Kirkland & Ellis, re: Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico Superfund Site, August 14, 1992. (Attachment:
Facsimile to Mr. Carlos M. Padin and Ms. Sara
Cortes, .Department of Natural Resources, from Mr.
Mark E. Grummer, Kirland & Ellis, re: Vega Alta,
Puerto Rico,.Superfund Site, August 14, 1992.)
P. 102058- Report: July and August 1992 Progress Report for
102059 the Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico.
prepared for .Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S* EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
-.Resources Management, Inc., September 9, 1992.
P. 102060- Letter to Ms. Carol Fetersen, Chief, New
102068 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Messrs. Gerald L. Kirkpatrick, P.G.,
Project Director and Ronald A. Landon, P.G.,
Principal in Charge, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: attached revised letter
regarding Vega Alta Puerto Rico Public Supply Well
' Field "Site; 'Operable"Unit-II' Preliminary .'.
Investigation Report Comments, September 11,.1992.
(Attachment.)
P. 102069- Letter to Ms. Carol Fetersen, Chief, New
102078 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. Ronald A. Landon, P.G.,.
Principal in Charge, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: attached revised letter
regarding Vega Alta Puerto Rico Public Supply Well
Field site, Operable Unit II Preliminary
- Investigation Report Comments, September 15, 1992.
(Attachment.) ,
P. 102079- Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
102115 Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta October
10
-------
1992"Ground Water Sampling Event, Puerto Rico,
Octobers, 1992. (Attachments: (1) Letter to Mr.
Jose Font, Project Manager, Caribbean Field
Office, UiS..EPA, Region II, from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta Site Sampling
Analysis and Monitoring Plan (SAMP), May 18, 1990
(2) Facsimile to Ms. Bernice Coreman, Esquire,
Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
submittal of attached, preliminary results of the
Vega Alta Site, Puerto Rico, collected the week of
July 9, 1990.)
102116- Letter to Mr. Thomas Trebilcok, from Mr. Mark E.
102117 Grummer, Kirkland & Ellis, re: Monterrey 2 Well,
October 16, 1992. .
102118- Report: September 1992 progress Report for the
102119 - Vega Alta Well Field Sitef Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., October 26, 1992.
102120- Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
102126 .York/Caribbean Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Carmen E. Marquez Parrilla, Secretaria Suplente, .
Esatado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico,
Administracion de Reglamentos y Permisos, '• (in
Spanish), October 30, 1992. (Attachment:
"Resolucion", prepared by Ana Esther Oyoia Colon,
Secreteria, October 30, 1992.)
102127- Report: October 1992 Progress^jjeppri; for the
102128. Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Proj'ect Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. '
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., November 24, 1992.
102129- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager,
102130 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Yaron M. Sternberg, Ph.D., Principal, Environ
Corporation, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, December 4, 1992.
11
-------
102131-
102145
Report: Progress Report Wo. 1
Water
102146-
102152
102153-
102227
Treatment Facilities,. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico.
prepared for Mr. Carl E. Petrus, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., prepared
by Mr. F. Rene Garcia, Project Manager, Jafer
Construction, S.E., January 8, 1993.
(Attachments: (l) Letter to CISCO, from Noel
Fernandez, Vice President, Jafer Construction,
S.E., re: Ground Water Remediation - Vega Alta,
Ponderosa Well & Sam Cash & carry, October 6, 1992
(2) Letter "to R,Q. Engineering, from Mr. F. Rene
Garcia, Chief Engineer, Jafer Construction, S.E.,
re: Ground Water Remediation - Vega Alta,
Ponderosa Well & Sam Cash & Carry, October 6, 1992
(3) Letter to Luis Caratini & Son, Inc., from Mr.
F. Rene Garcia-Ramirez, Chief Engineer, Jafer
Construction, S.E., re: Ground Water Remediation -
Vega Alta, Ponderosa Well & Sam Cash & Carry,
November 6, 1992 (4) Letter to J.P. Industrial
Sales Co., Inc., from Mr. F. Rene Garcia-Ramirez,
Chief Engineer, Jafer Construction, S.E., re:
Ground Water Remediation - Vega Alta, Ponderosa
Well & Sam Cash & Carry, November 6, 1992 (5)
Letter to Mr. F. Rene Garcia- Ramirez, Chief
Engineer, Jafer Construction, S.E., from Mr. Ivan
Usero Perez, Geotechnical Engineer, GeoPractica,
Inc., re: Pozos Ponderosa, November 24,1992 (6)
Ponderosa Well data (7) Letter to Mr. Carl E. .
Petrus, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., from Jafer Construction, S.E.,
re: Ground Water Treatment Facilities, Vega Alta,
Puerto Rico, January 11,.1993 (7) Jose A. .Torres
Ramos corporate resume.) •
Letter of Transmittal to Mr. F. Rene Garcia,
Project Manager, Jafer Construction S.E., from Mr.
carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.> re:
attached Initial Progress Schedule -Bar Chart,
Initial Progress Schedule - Classic Report, and •
Schedule of Values (Estimate Breakdown), January
13, 1993. (Attachments.) (Note: This document is
CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at the U.S. EPA
Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
floor, New York, N.Y. 10007.)
Report: December 1992 Progress Report for the
Vega^ Alta Well Field Site, Puerto Ricor prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
12
-------
Barry, Project Manager/ Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., January 19, 1993. (Attachments:
Appendices A-B.)
102228- Report: January 1993 Progress Report for
102230 Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico^ prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., February 17, 1993.
102231- .Report: February 1993 Progress Report for the
102232 '•• Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico, prepared
for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., March 29, 1993.
102233- Facsimile to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102234 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc. , re: Vega
Alta Remediation Construction Schedule, March 31,
1993. (Attachment: Letter to Mr. Jose Font,
Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc;,
re: Vega Alta Remediation Construction Schedule,
March 31, 1993.)
102235- Letter to Mr. F. Rene Garcia, Project Manager,
102235 Jafer Construction S.E., from Yaron M..
Sternberg, Ph.D., Principal, re: Vega Alta
Remediation Project, April 20, 1993.
102236- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102238 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site-Confirm cancellation of April. 1993
ground water sampling, April 23, 1993.
102239- Letter to Lourdes Rodriguez, Esquire,
102241 Assistant to the Governor, Office of the Governor,
from Mr. George Pavlou, Acting Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II , re: Vega Alta and Upjohn Superfund Sites, May
7, 1993.
.13
-------
P. 102242- Letter to Mr. Jose Font,' Project Manager/
102243 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E, Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
initial mechanical checkout schedule of the
Ponderosa Remediation System, June 3, 1993.
P. 102244- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102246 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, F.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management,.Inc., re:
attached copy of the Procedure Outline, Mechanical
Checkout, Ponderosa Air Stripper, Vega Alta
Remediation, June 9,.1993. (Attachment.)
P. 102247- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102257 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
reasons for delays incurred by the Contractor in
arriving at Substantial Completion of the
Ponderosa Remediation System, June 18, 1993.
(Attachments: (1) Letter to Mr. Carl E. Petrus,
P.E., Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., from Mr. F. Rene Garcia, .Project
Manager, Jafer Construction, S.E., re: Ground
Water Treatment Facilities, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico, June 2, 1993 (2) Certificacion de
Instalacion Electrica, undated (3)-Letter to
Autoridad de Energia Electrica de PR, Oficiria de
Inspecion, Area de Bayamon, from Ing. Manuel
-Expos ito,.CPM,-re:~Subestacion-Electrica.de
"Ponderosa Well"Ground Water Remediation", (in
Spanish),, May 11, -1995 (4) Letter to A.R.P.E.,
from Enrique Morales Roldan, Superintendent^ de
Inspecciones, Autoridad de Energia Electrica de
Puerto Rico, re: E-93-IV-06, AB-199-IV-93, (in
Spanish), May 24, 1993 (5) Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority Electric Service Contract Bond
prepared for Jafer Construction, (bilingual:
Spanish and english), May 21, 1993.)
P. 102258- Letter of Transmittal to Mr. Jose Font, Project
102277 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: attached Operations Report for Mechanical
Checkout of Ponderosa Remediation System. Vega •
Altaf Puerto Rico, prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., July 7, 1993, July 8,
. 1993. (Attachment.)
14
-------
p.
102278-
102281
102282-
102282
102283-
102284
P.
102285-
102298
P.
102299-
102301
P.
102302-
102303
P. 102304-
102305
Facsimile to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re: Vega
.Alta Remediation Final Completion, July 16, 1993.
(Attachment: Letter to Mr. Carl E. Petrus, Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
from Mr. F. Rene Garcia, Project Manager, Jafer
Construction, S.E., re: Ground Water Treatment
Facilities, July 14, 1994.)
Letter to Lourdes Rodriguez, Esquire,
Assistant to the Governor, Office of the Governor,
from Mr. George Pavlou, Acting Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II,- re: Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Superfund
Site, July 16, 199.3.
Report: April. May. June 1993 Progress Report
for the Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Ricof
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA,- Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., July 19, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
attached Vega Alta Remediation Analytical Results,
July 27,1993. (Attachments.) .-
Letter to Mr. F. Rene Garcia, Project Manager,
Jafer Construction, S.E., from Mr. Carl E. Petrus,
P.E., Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta Remediation Final
Completion Inspection, August 2, 1993.
Report: July and August 1993 Progress Report
for the Vega Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico.
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., September 2, 1993.
Letter to Ms. Aida Casanova, Director, Scientist
Assessment Office, Environmental Quality Board,
from Ms. Laura J. Livingston, Assistant Chief,
Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,
15
-------
re: Environmental assessment (EA) for the.
consolidation of manufacturing operations at the
Vega Alta site, October 8, 1993.
102306- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager/
102330 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II,.from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, F.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
attached plan: Initia^ Testing Program. Ponderosa
Air Stripper Program,. Vega Alta. Puerto Ricof
prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by.
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., October
22, 1993. (Attachment.)
102331- Report: September 1993 Progress Report
102332 for the Veoa Alta Well Field Si-hef Puerto Ricor
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., November 1, 1993.
102333- Letter to Mark E. Grummer, Esguire, Kirkland &
102334 Ellis, from Ms. Carol Petersen, New York/Caribbean
Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: EPA
comments on the Revised Initial Testing Program,
November 15, 1993. -
102335- Report: October 1993 Progress Report
102336 for the Vecra Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico.
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial .Response
'Division, "U.'S. EPA,'Region II, prepared by Us.
.Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., November 19, 1993.
102337- Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
102342 Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta November
1993 Ground Water Sampling Event, Puerto Rico,
November 19, 1993. (Attachments: (1) Letter to
Vega Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Vega Alta November 1993 Ground Water Sampling
Event, Puerto Rico,. November 19, 1993 (2) Report:
October 1993 Progress Report for the Vega Alta
Well Field Site. Puerto Rico, prepared for Vega
16
-------
p.
Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry,
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., November 19, 1993.
102343- Memorandum to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager, :
102386 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
Enclosed analytical results, Vega Alta ITP,
December 8, -1993. (Attachment.)
102387- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102388 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Carl E. Petrus, F.E., Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re: Vega
Alta Remediation ITP Report, January 18, 1994.
102389- Report: November and December 1993 Progress
102391 Report Veaa Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico -
Public Supply Case, prepared for Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S..EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., January
26, 1994.
102392- Letter to Margaret N. Strand, Esquire, Eckert,
102397 Seamans, Cherin & Mellot, .from Mr. Alexander
Schmandt, Assistant Region Counsel, U.S. EPA,
'Region II, re: Vega ':Alta .Public Supply Wells
Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, February
18, 1994. (Attachment: Monte Rey Farm Document
Request, February 1994,} .
102398-: Report: January 1994 Progress Report Vega Alta
102399 Well Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public Supply Case.
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., February 22, 1994.
102400- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
102403 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Request for
Modification of Disposal Procedures for the Purge
Water contained from the Vega Alta Site, Puerto
Rico, February 23, 1994. (Attachments: (l) PRASA
17
-------
Bulk Discharge Permit #GDG 90-708-057, Purge Water
Analytical Results from December 1993 Sampling
Event (2) Summary of recommended EPA action
items.)
P. 102404- Report: Draft Initial Testing Program. Air
102680 Stripper System. Ponderosa Well. Vega Alta
Super fund _si t.ftj_ prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., February 25, 1994.
P. 102681- Report: February 1994^ Progress Report Vega Alta
102761 Well Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public Supply Case.
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., March 10, 1994.
(Attachments: Appendices A-C.)
P. 102762- Facsimile to Mr. Juan Fajardo, U.S. EPA, Region
102762 II, from Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager, Caribbean
Field Office, U.S. EFA, Region II, re: ^Letter to
Mr. George Pavlou, Acting Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, from Mr. Hector Russe
Martinez, Chairman, Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board, re: "Draft Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) to the 1987 Record
of Decision" and "Draft Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA) Statement of Work", April 8, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, Ms.
Charyl Fines, P.E., Work Assignment Manager, COM
Federal Programs Corporation, re: attached letter
report "Evaluation of the Potential Need"to
Perform an Ecological Assessment, Vega Alta Site,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico", April 21, 1994.
(Attachment.)
102770- Letter to Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project .
102772 Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Initial Testing Program Report, Vega Alta
Public Supply Wells Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
May 18, 1994.
102773- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager, U.S.
102775 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E.,
Project Manager, Environmental Resources
"P. -102763-
102769
18
-------
102776
102777
P. 102778-
102779
P. 102780-
102781
P. 102782-
102782
P. 102783-
102792
Management, Inc. /'.re: Vega Alta -Remediation, ITP ,
Report, May 26, 1994. (Attachment: Letter to Vega
Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch, -
Emergency Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Vega Alta June 1994 Ground Water Sampling
Event, Puerto. Rico, June 17, 1994.)
Report: March /Apr 11 /May 1994 Progress Report
Vega Alta Vtell Fi*>1d site. Puerto Rico - Public
Supply Casef prepared for Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., June 20,
1994. :
Letter to Mr. Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Project
Manager, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/ Caribbean Super fund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Start-Up Approval for the Ponderosa Well
Groundwater Treatment System, June 28, 1994.
(Attachment: Letter to Mr. Angus Macbeth, Esquire,
Sidley & Austin, from Mr. Paul Simon, Section
Chief, New York/ Caribbean Super fund Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Administrative Order Index No.
II-CERCLA-90302; Start-Up Approval : for the
Ponderosa Well Groundwater Treatment System at the
Vega Alta Wellfield Site, July 8, 1994..} -.
Report: . June 1994 Progress Report Vega Alta Well
Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public Supply Caser
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, . Site . •
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Pegion II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., July 11, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager, U.S..
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Mark E. Grummer, Kirkland
& Ellis, re: Vega Alta CERCLA Site, August 5,
1994.
t -
Transmittal sheet to Mr. Jose Font, Project
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from CDM Federal Programs Corporation, .re:
attached TES V documents, July 14, 1994.
(Attachments: (1) Letter to Mr. Erwin Smieszek, Tes
V Regional Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II,
19
-------
102793-
102796
102797-
102932
102933-
102933
102934-
102968
from Mr. Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager,
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, re: Further
Review of Geraghty & Millers Modeling Effort,
Particularly their Response to CDMs Initial
Comments, January 19, 1993 (2)Letter to Mr. Jose
Font, Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Sally Odland, Work
Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Memorandum Concerning CDMs
Further Review of Geraghty & Millers Modeling
Effort, Particularly their Responses to CDMs
Initial Comments, January 19, 1993 (3)Memorandura
to Mr. Jose Font and Ms. Bicky Coreman, U.S. EPA,
Region,II, from Mr. Fob Schreiber and Ms.
Bernadette Kolb, CDM; re: Vega Alta Site, Puerto
Rico, Further Review of Geraghty & Millers
Modeling Effort Particularly their Responses to
CDMs Initial Comments, January 19, 1992.) (Note:
This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at
the U.S. EPA Superfund Records.Center, 290
Broadway, 18th floor, New .York, N.Y. 10007.)
Letter(to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Rober J. Bauerle, P.E., Work Assignment
Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation,, re:
attached Final Inspection Field Report, September
9, 1994. fAttachment.) . .
Report: July and August 1994 Progress Report
Veaa Alta Well Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public
Supply Case ? prepared • for -Vega -Al ta -Proj ect
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, "Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
September 15, 1994. (Attachments: Appendices A-
E.)
Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site:.
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Susan T.
Barry, Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta October 1994
Ground Hater Sampling Event, Puerto Rico, October
5, 1994.
Report: September/October 1994 Prpgress "Report
Vega Altia Well Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public
Supply Case, prepared for Vega Alta Project
Manager, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
20
-------
p.
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by Ms. Susan T. Barry, Project Manager,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., November
'22, 1994. (Attachments: Appendices A-B.)
T -
102969- . Report: Npyember 1994 Progress Report Vega Alta
102970 Well Field Site. Puerto Rico - Public Supply Case,
prepared for Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared by Ms.
Susan T. Barry, Project Manager, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., November 30, 1994.
102971- Letter to Ms. Iris Cuadrado, Commonwealth of
102974 Puerto Rico Planning Board, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Environmental
Impact Statement, Cowplejo Residencial, Comercjal,
Comunidad Monterrey, Bo. Espinosa, Vega Alta,
Puerto Rico, December 9, 1994.
102975- Facsimile transmittal to Mr. Jose Font, Project
102984 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. James -Delaney, Burns and Roe
Industrial Services Company, re: attached Draft
Comments on RD Work Flan and Sampling Analysis and
Monitoring Plan, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, January
11, 1995. (Attachments.)
102985- Letter to Ms. Alison Devine, Project Officer, U.S.
102996 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Robert T. Goltz, P.E.,
ARCS II Program Manager, CDM Federal Programs
"Corporation, "re: 'Document "Review -of • the -Remedial
Design Work Plan and Sampling Analysis and
Monitoring Plan for the Vega Alta Public Supply
. Wells, February 9, 1995. (Attachments: Letter to
.Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager, Caribbean Field
Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Robert J.
Baurerle, P.E., Work Assignment Manager, CDM
Federal Programs Corporation, re: attached
Document Review of the Remedial Design Work Plan
and Sampling Analysis and Monitoring Plan for the
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells, February 9, 1995.)
/ ' • .
102997- Report: Analytical Results/Vega Alt:ar prepared
103106 for Mr. Joe Mohahan, Unisys Corporation, prepared
by Ms. Karen R. Chirgwin, Laboratory Operations
Director, Inchcape Testing Services, Aquatec
Laboratories, March 28, 1995.
21
-------
P. 103107- Report: March 1995 Progress Report Vega Alta
103108 Well Field site. Puerto Rico r prepared for Vega
Alta Project Manager, Site Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, prepared by Messrs. David J.
Martin, Environmental Project Manager, and Peter
P. Mele, Program Manager, Unisys Corporation,
April 10, 1995. . .
P. 103109- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manger, U.S. EPA,
103109 Region II, from Mr. Hector Russe Martinez,
Chairman, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board, re: Sampling Analysis
and Monitoring Plan & Supplemental Ground Water
Remedial Design Work Plan, Vega Alta Superfund
Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, April 10, 1995.
P. 103110- Letter to Ms. Alison Devine, Regional Project
103113 Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, from Mr. Robert T. Goltz, P.E., ARCS II
Program Manager, COM Federal Programs Corporation,
re: Review of Supplemental Groundwater Remedial
Design Work Plan and Sampling Analysis and
Monitoring Plan, April 1995 Comments, May 23, .
1995. (Attachment: Letter to Mr. Jose Font,
Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Robert J. Bauerle, P.E., Work
Assignment Manager, COM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: attached Review of . Supplemental
Groundwater Remedial Design Work Plan and Sampling
Analysis and Monitoring Plan, April M995 Comments,
May 23, 1995.) . .
Letter to Messrs. Dave Thompson, General Electric
Company, and Peter P. Mele, Unisys Corporation,
from Ms. Carole Peter sen, Chief, New
York/ Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Review of Supplemental Groundwater Design
Work Plan (SGDWP) and Sampling Analysis and
Monitoring Plan (SAMP) - April 1995 Comments, June
9, 1995. . .-
P. 103117- Plan: Supplemental Groundwater Remedial Design
103168 W.01"k Plan, Vega Alfra Superfund SiteT Vega .Alta
. Puerto Rico, prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by
Unisys Corporation, June 23, 1995. /
P. 103169- Report: Field Summary Report for September 1995.
103184 .prepared by Ms. Chary 1 Fines, P.E., Work
Assignment Manager, CDM Federal . Programs
Corporation, prepared for Mr. Jose Font, Project
P. 103114
103116
22
-------
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S.-EPA, Region
II, September 22, 1995.
P. 103185- Report: August 1995 OU I Progress Report. Vega
1032
-------
p.
3003.82-
300538
300539
300610
300611
300856
by Environmental Resources Management/ Inc. ,
October 11, 1989.
Plan: Field Sampling Plan Operable Unit Two
fSource> an& Supplemental Ground-Water
Investigations. Vega Alta . Puerto Rico, prepared
for Caribe General Electric Products, Inc.,
prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., November
Plan: Quality Assurance Project Plan Operable Unit
Two f Source) and Supplemental Ground-Water
Investigations „_ Vega Alt&j Puerto Rico. .prepared
for Caribe General Electric Products, Inc. ,
prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., November
1991.
Plan: Sampling Analysis and Monitoring Plan. Vega
Alta Superfund Site. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico.
prepared by Unisys, June 21, 1995.
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300857- .• Report: Response Actions Neededr undated.
300865
P. 300866- Water Quality Data, undated.
301008 . ,.
P. 301009- Report: Analytical Data Report, prepared for Mr.
301066 Joe Fromal, Environmental Strategy Corporation,
prepared by compuchem Laboratories, March 1, 1988.
P. 301067- Report: The West Company,. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico.
301565 Additional Soils Investigations. Confidential,
prepared for The West Company, prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., July 8,
1988. (Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is
located at U.S. EPA, Superfund Records Center, 290
Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York, 10007).
P. 301566- Report: Analytical Quality Assurance Report.
301580 Ground Water Samples Collected 22 October 1990
through 24 Octpber 1990. Vega Alta Superfund Site.
Vega Altaf Puerto Rico, prepared for Motorola,
Inc., Harman Automotive, Inc. and The West Company
of Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared by Environmental
Resource Management, Inc., February 13, 1991,
revised March 8, 1991.
24
-------
301581- ; Fax to Mr. Jose Font/ from Messrs. Mike Reive and
301583 Brian Smith, re: G. L. Soil Boring Results,
. December 12, 1992. (Attached: Analytical Results
for BH-03 and BH-03A.)
301584- Report: Analytical Quality Assurance Report,
301678 Unisys Corporation, Ground Water Samples Collected
17 through 20 October 1994, Vega Alta Superfund
- Site, Vega Alta. Puerto Rico, prepared by
.- • ' Environmental Resources Management, Inc., January
". 3, 1995. . .
301679-. Letter to Messrs. David W. Thompson, Manager,
302040 Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, General Electric
Corporate Environmental Programs; and Peter Mele*
Environmental Program Manager, Unisys Corporate
Environmental Affairs, from Mr. David Andersen,
Project Manager, Unisys, re: SAMP Activities,
First Operable Unit, Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
Site, May 5/1995. (Attached: '(1) Tables 1 - 3;
(2) Figures 1 - 3; and (3) Attachments A and B.)
+
302041- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
302114 EPA, from Messrs. David J. Martin/ Environmental
Project Manager, Vega Alta Steering Committee and
Mr. Peter P. Mele, Program Manager/ Unisys
Corporation, Vega Alta Steering Committee, re:
Vega Alta Well Field Site, Puerto Rico, Analysis
of Inorganics in Ground Water, July 25, 1995.
(Attached: (1) Report: Data Validation for Veaa
Alta Site. Vega Alta, Puerto Ricor Inorganic
• Analysis-Data-. Total-and-Dissolved "Metals* in
Water. Laboratory SPG No. 51472.' prepared for.
Unisys Corporation/ prepared by Trillium, Inc.
July 18, 1995 (Attachments A and B included); (2)
Report: pata Validation for Vega Alta Sitef Vega
Alta'f Puerto Ricof Inorganic Analysis Data f Total
and Dissolved Metals in Water. Laboratory SDC No.
5l4.96f prepared for Unisys Corporation, prepared
by Trillium, Inc. July 19, 1995 (Attachments A and
B included); and (3) Report: Da£a Validation for
Vega Alta Site. VegaMtaf Puerto Rico. Inorganic
Analysis Data. Total and Dissolved Metals in
Waterf Laboratory SPG No. 51719. prepared 'for
Unisys Corporation, prepared by Trillium; Inc.
July 19, 1995 (Attachments A and B included); and
(4) Report: Data Validation for Vega Alta Site. .
Vega Altar Puerto Rico, Inorganic Analysis Datat
Total and Dissolved Antimony and Suspended Solids
in Water,. .Laboratory SPG No. 52019,. prepared for
25
-------
. Unisys Corporation, prepared by Trillium, Inc.
July 21, 1995 (Attachments A and.B included}).
P. 302115- Report: Soil Vapor Extraction Performance TestJ
302244 Results, Vega Alta Superfvmd Site, submitted to
Vega Alta Steering Committee, prepared by
Groundwater Technology, Inc.,February 1996.
3.3 Work Plans .
P. 302245- Report: Health.and Safety Plan, Operable Unit^Two
302285 (Source) and Supplemental Ground-Mater
Investigationsf Vega Alta. Puerto Rico, prepared
for Caribe General Electric Products, Inc.,
prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., November
1991.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
302286-
302291
302292-
302341
302342-
302577
302578-
302766
Report: Hydrology and Effects of Development of
the Water-Table Aquifer in the Vega Alta Ouad~
ranglef Puerto RicQf prepared by Mr. Fernando
Gomez-Gomez and Mr. Heriberto Torres-Sierra, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations
Report 87-4105, 1988.
Report: Westbay Multipart Wells at the Veaa Alta
Sitef Part I - Basis for Selection,, prepared by
Beak Consultants Limited; prepared for General
Electric company, March 1990.
Report: Final Work Plan, Vega 'Alta Site^
Operable Unit Two (Source^ and Supplemental
Groundvater Investiaationej prepared for U.S. EPA,
Region II, prepared by Ebasco Services
Incorporated, July 27, 1990
Report: Vega Alta Project, Caribe GE Groundwater
Investigation Report. Volume 1 of 5.' Chapters 1 —
i, prepared for Caribe General Electric Products,
Inc., prepared by Bechtel Environmental, Inc., in
consultation with Beak Consultants Limited, and
Environmental Solutions, Inc.,'November 1990.
302767- Report: Vega Alta Project,.
302978
GE Grndwater
Investigation Report •, Volume 2 of 5. Chapters 4 -
£, prepared for Caribe General Electric Products,
Inc., prepared by Bechtel Environmental, Inc, in
26
-------
302979-
303410
303411-
303767
303768-
304082
P.
304083-
304138
P.
304139-
304163
P.
304164-
304219
304220-
304251
consultation with Beak Consultants Limited, and
Environmental Solutions, Inc., November 1990.
Report: Vega Alta Prcnect, Appendices in Support
of Caribe GE Groundwater Investigation Report.
Volume 3 of 5. Appendices A - Ef prepared for
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., prepared
by Bechtel Environmental, Inc, in consultation
with Beak Consultants Limited, and Environmental
Solutions, Inc., November 1990.
Report: Vega Alta Project. Appendices in Support
of Caribe GE Groundwater Investigation Report.
Volume 4 of 5. Appendix Ff prepared for
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., prepared
by Bechtel Environmental, Inc, in consultation
with Beak Consultants Limited, and Environmental
Solutions, Inc., November 1990.
Report: Vega Alta Project. Appendices in Support
of Caribe GE Groundwater Investigation Report.
Volume 5 of 5. Appendices G - Lr prepared for
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., prepared
by Bechtel Environmental, Inc, in consultation
with Beak Consultants Limited, and Environmental
Solutions, Inc., November 1990.
Report: Caribe GE Groundvater Investigation
Report. Technical Summary, prepared.for Caribe
General Electric Products, Inc., prepared by
.Environmental Solutions,! Inc,./..in consultation
with Bechtel Environmental, Inc., and Beak
Consultants Limited, December 1990. .
Report: Caribe GE Groundwater Investigation
Report. Executive Summary, prepared for Caribe
General Electric Products, Inc., prepared by
Environmental Solutions, Inc., in consultation
with Bechtel Environmental, Inc., and Beak
Consultants Limited, January 1991.
Report: poil Vapor Extraction Technologyf
Reference Handbook,, prepared by U.S. EPA, :
Superfund, February 1991.
Quick Reference Fact Sheet: Presumptive Remedies:
Policy and Procedures, prepared by U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste Management, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response Hazardous
Site Control Division 5203G, September
1993. Attached: Quick Reference Fact Sheet:
27
-------
Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and .
Technology Selection for-CERCLA Sites, with
Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils, prepared by
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response Hazardous
Site Control Division 5203G, September 1993.
304252- Report: Operable Unit Two Remedial and
304547 Supplemental Groundwater Investigation of the Vega
Alta Superfund Site.' Vecra Altar Puerto Rico.
Volume I of IVf Chapters 1-8r Tables, prepared for
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc. and Unisys
Corporation, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
April 1995. .
304548- Report: Operable Unit TWO Remedial and
304599 Supplemental Groundvafrer Investigation of the Vega
Alt^ Superfund Site. Vega Altaf Puerto Rico.
Volume IT of IV. Figures,, prepared for Caribe
General Electric Products, Inc. and Unisys
•Corporation, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
April 1995.
304600- Report: Operable Unit Two Remedial and
304857 Supplemental Groundwater Investigation of the Vega
Alta Super fund Site.. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico. •
Volume III of IVr Appendices A-H, prepared for
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc. and Unisys
Corporation, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
April 1995.
304858- Report: . Operable Unit Two Remedial arid
305332 Supplemental Groundwater Investigation of the-Vega
Alta Superfund Sitef Vega Altaf Puerto Ricof
Volume IV of JV, Appendices I-J. prepared for :.
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc. and Unisys
Corporation, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
April 1995. ..-"•_..
3.5 Correspondence
P. 305333- Letter to Mr. Lee M. Thomas, Assistant -
305339 Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Gene
A. Lucero, Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
Authorization to Proceed with Remedial Planing
Activities at the Vega Alta Site - ACTION
.MEMORANDUM, September 19, 1983. (Attached: ACTION
MEMORANDUM, Vega Alta Site, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico, undated; (1) Memorandum to Mr. Gene A.
28
-------
Lucero, Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, (WH-527), U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Kirk Sniff, Acting Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Waste (LE-134S), re: Authorization to
Proceed with Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility study at the Vega Alta Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico—ACTION MEMORANDUM, September
15, 1983; (2) Memorandum to Mr. Gene A. Lucero,
Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement,
(WH-527), U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. William N.
Hedeman, Jr., Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (WF-527), re: Authorization to
' Proceed with Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility study at the Vega Alta Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico—ACTION MEMORANDUM, September
15, 1983; (3) Letter to Mr. John Frisco, Chief,
Hazard Assessment Section, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Kr. Francisco Gonzalez Quinohes, Deputy
Executive Director, re: Deep Wells Contaminated
with Volatile Organics in Vega Alta, June 24,
1983.)
305340- Letter to Bernice Gorman, Esquire, Office of
305371 .Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Jennifer R. Clarke, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, re:
Vega. Alta Superfund Site, February 10, 1988.
(Attachment: Analytical Quality Assurance Review,
and various analytical and field, sampling methods
prepared by ERM.)
305372- Letter to Mr. Robert R. Williams, Chief, Public
•305373 Water -Supply Section', • U;'S; EPA;' -Region- :1I,~ :from
Mr. Allen L. Zack, Caribbean District Chief, U.S.
Department of Interior, re: attached requested
results for the "Puerto Rico Islandwide Ground
Water Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals",
February 7, 1989. (Attachment.)
305374- Letter to Mr. Pedro A. Gelabert, Director,
305378 Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Joseph W. Troester, Hydrologist, Caribbean
District, U.S. Department of Interior, re: Draft
Work Plan for Second Operable Unit Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Vega Alta
Public Supply Wells Site, Vega Alta, -Puerto Rico,
May 25, 1989. (Attachment: comments and
recommendations.)
305379- Letter to John Zackrison, Esquire, Kirkland &
305382 Ellis, from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, Hew
York/Caribbean Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
29
-------
II, re: Unilateral RC/RA Order (Index No. II-
CERCLA-90302); Vega Alta Wellfield Superfund Site,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico; Motorola, Inc., et al.,
September 26, 1989.
P. 3053^83- Letter to John Zackrison, Esquire, Kirkland &
305384 Ellis, form Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: comments on the October 10, 1989, Revised
Vega Alta Sampling Analysis and Monitoring Plan
("SAMP") submitted by Motorola, Inc., Harman
Automotive, Inc., and West Company, November 27,
1989.
P. 305385- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Caribbean Field
305535 Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from S. J. Buckley,
Project Manager, Bechtel Environmental, Inc., re:
enclosed Bechtel Job No. 20034-010, Vega Alta
Project, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, February 26, 1990.
(Attachment.)
P. 305536- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Vega Alta Project
305537 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. K. Berry-Spark, M.Sc., Contaminant
Hydrogeologist, Beak Consultants Limited, re:
Westbay Multiport Wells at Vega Alta Site, Part I-
Basis for Selection, April 30, 1990."
P. 305538- Letter to Mr. Eduardo M. Negron Navas, Fiddler,
305546 Gonzalez & Rodriguez, Attorney and Consellors at
Law, from Messrs. Hector Fuentes, Alternate
Member, Pedro A. Maldonado, Vice Chairman and
•Santos Rohena, 'Chairman,-Commonwealth -of -Puerto
Rico/Office of the Governor, re: authorization to
discharge purge water into Honda Creek in Vega
Alta, May 9, 1990. (Attachments: (1) Table A-l
"Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements", (2) Facsimile to Ms. Susan Barry,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., from Mr.
Eduardo Negron Navas, Fiddler, Gonzalez &
Rodriguez, re: EQBs Authorization, May 9, 1990,
(3) Letter of Transmittal to Mr. Jose Font,
Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Ms. Susan T. Barry, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report and
EQB Permit, June 11, 1990.)
P. 305547- Letter to Mr. Michael Siegel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
305549 from Mr. Eduardo L. Buso, Assistant Secretary, GE
Puerto Rico Operation, re: NPDES Permit No. PR
30
-------
0000566, Caribe CE Controls, Vega Alta, PR,
September 28, 1990.
•' i ,
P. 305550- Letter to Bernice I. Gorman, Esquire,
305551 Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
and Messrs. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region II; Santos Rohena
Betancourt, Jr., Chairman, Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board? and Jose C. Font,
Vega Alta Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W. Holtzclaw,
Project Coordinator, GE Corporate Environmental.
Programs, re: Administrative order Index No. II-
CERCLA-90301; Vega Alta Superfund Site, November
17, 1990.
P. 305552- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305554 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, re: attached Monthly Progress Report
for November, 1990, December 10, 1990.
P. 305555- Letter to Mr. Frank C..Brock, Chief/Underground
305556 injection Control 'Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, .
from Mr. Miguel A. Rivera, Vice President for
Development Branch, Commonwealth- of Puerto Rico,
Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, re:
Closure Plan - Injection Well, Herman Automotive
of P.R., Inc., Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Project: S-
1371-0-85, January 18, 1991. ....-.--'
Letter to Mr. "Michael "Siegel, "U.S.' EPA, Hegiori'II,
from Mr. Nestor Marguez, Manager, Environmental,
Health and Safety, GE Puerto Rico Operations, re:
NPDES Permit No. PR0000566, Caribe General .
Electric Products, Inc., Vega Alta Controls, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, January 22, 1991. (Attachments:
(1) Process Flow Diagram, Water and Wastewater
Treatment, General Electric, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico (2) General Electric, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
Wastewater Management Plan, Project Schedule, July
17, 1990.)
P. 305562- Letter to Mr. Frank C. Brock, Underground
305565 Injection Control Section, U.S. EPA,-Region II,
from Mr. Miguel A. Rivera Carrasquillo, Vice
President for Development, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company,
. re: Closure Plan - Injection Well, Harman
Automotive of PR, Inc., Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
P. 305557-
305561
31
-------
p.
p.
Project No., S-1371-0-85, April 4,' 1991.
(Attachments: (1) "Acknowledgement of Receipt of
Nonhazardous Waste", reported by Ms. Marta
Hernandez, TSDF Chemist, November 8,- 1990 (2)
Letter to Mr. Miguel A. Rivera, Vice President,
Development Branch, Puerto Rico Industrial
Company, from Mr. Frank C. Brock, Chief, •• »
Underground Injection Control Section, re: Soil
Samples at Well Site, Harman Automotive, Inc., .
Vega Alta, PR/ PRIDCO Project: S-1371-0-85, March
11, 1991.)
305566- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305568 Manager, Chief.,, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
November 1991, December 10, 1991.
305569- Letter to Ms. Sally Odland, Camp Dresser and
305571 McKee, Federal Programs Corp., from Messrs. Brian
Blum, Senior Scientist/Project Manager; Brian
Smith, Senior Scientist; and Daniel Nachman, Vice
President/Project Director, Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., re: Ground-Water Sampling in the OUII
Investigation Area, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
December 17, 1991. (Attachment: Table 1. Wells
Scheduled for Sampling at the OUII Investigation
Area, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, undated.) .-
" Letter "to * Ms.'' Sally".Odland, "Camp"Dresser • arid
McKee, Federal Programs Corp.,..from Messrs. Brian
Blum, Senior Hydrogeclogist/Project Manager and
Daniel A. Nachman, Vice President/Project
Director, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., re: Ground-
Water Sampling in the OUII Investigation Area,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, December 19,.1991.
305573- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Vega Alta Project
305574 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from MS. Sally Odland, Work Assignment •
Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation,, re:
Revision to Brossman Short Form Dated 11/19/91,
December 31, 1991.
305575- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305577 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
P. 305572-
305572
32
-------
Program^, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
December 1991, January 10, 1992. .
P. 305578- Letter to Mr. Jose Perez; Teledyne Packaging of
305578 Puerto Rico, Inc., from Messrs. Brian A. Smith,
Senior Scientist and Daniel A. Nachroan, Vice
President/Project Director, Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., re: Surveys to be conducted at the Teledyne
Packaging grounds in Vega Alta in accordance with
the Administrative Order (Index No. II-CERCLA-
00301), February 13, 1992.
P. 305579- Letter to Ms. Catherine E. Moyik, TES V Regional
305595 Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager, re: Draft
Summary Technical Review Report Concerning PRP
Groundwater-Investigation Documents, DCN: TESV-
C02081-LR-CKBG, March 2, 1992. (Attached: Draft,
Summary Technical Review Report Concerning PRP
Groundwater Investigatipn Documentsf Vega Alta
Water Supply Well Site, Operable Unit IT. Vega
Alta. Puerto Rlcof prepared for U.S. EPA, Region
II, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, prepared
by CDM FPC, February 28, 1992.) (Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at U.S.
EPA Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
floor, N.V., N.Y. 10007-1866.)
P. 305596- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305599 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
February 1992, March 10, 1992.
P. 305600- Letter to Mr. Jose Fcnt, Vega Alta Project
305602 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. Kevin W. Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: Groundwater Flow and
Transport Model, Vega Alta Site, Puerto Rico,
April 10, 1992. (Attachment: Letter to Mr.- Mel
Hauptman, Vega Alta Project Manager, New
York/Caribbean Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, Environmental
Remediation Programs, GE Company, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, July 15, 1992.)
33
-------
305603- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305619 Manager, Chief, .New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
March 1992, April 10, 1992.
305620- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Vega Alta Project
305621 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from MS. Sally Odland, Work Assignment
Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, re:
Status of CLP Data, April 30, 1992.
305622- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project .
305653 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W,
Holtzclaw, .Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
April 1992, May 10, 1992.
305654- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305660 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: Administrative Order Index No. II -
CERCLA-00301: Approval of Transfer of Project
Coordinator for Vega Alta Well Field, May 20,
1992. (Attachments: (1) Addressee list (2).
'Corporate resume of David W. Thompson.)
305661- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptroan, Vega Alta Project
305716 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Kevin W.
Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
May 1992, June 10, 1992.
305717- Letter to Mr. Jose Fcnt, Vega Alta Project
305717 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, ..Region
II, from Mr. Kevin W. Holtzclaw, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: Vega Alta Supeffund
Site, June 29, 1992. .
305717A- Letter to Ms. Catherine E. Moyik, TES V Regional
305717K Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager, re:
34
-------
Meeting Notes - Geraghty and Miller Modeling
Results from PRP Meeting Attended on June 23, DCN:
TESV-C02081-LR-CMYN, July 1, 1992. (Attached:
Confidential Memorandum Meeting Notes, Geraghty
and Miller Groundwater Modeling Results/ June 23,
1992, Vega Alta Water Supply Well Site, Operable
Unit II, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, prepared for U.S.
EPA, Region II, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, prepared by CDM FPC, July 1, 1992.)
(Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is
located at U.S. EPA.Superfund Records Center, 290
Broadway, 18th floor, N.Y., N.Y. 10007-1866.)
305718- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305720 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA,'Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for June 1992, July 8, 1992.
305721- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305722A Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for July 1992, August 6, 1992.
305723- Letter to Mr. Jose Fcnt, Vega Alta Project
30,57.26 Manager.,..Caribbean .Field,.Office, .U.S... EPA", Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Mid-
Atlantic Southeast Region, Environmental
Remediation Program, GE Company, re: submittal of .
report entitled "Groundwater Flow and Transport
Model of the Vega Alta Area, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico", prepared by. Geraghty & Miller for GE,
August 20, 1992. (Attachment: Distribution List.)
305727- Letter to Ms. Catherine E. Moyik, TES V Regional
305733 Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager, re:
Review of GEs Technical Memorandum - Summary of
Field Activities for the Operable Unit Two
Remedial Investigation, DCN: TESV-C02081-LR-CPHD,
August 20, 1992. (Attached: Review of Caribe
General Electric Products Report, Technical
Memorandum Summary of Initial Field Activities for
the Operable Unit Two, Remedial Investigation,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Dated July 1992, prepared
for U.S. EPA, Region II, Office of Waste Programs
-------
P. 305734-
305736
P. 305737-
305740
305741-
305746
305747-
305749
P.
305750-
305754
P.
305755-
305760
Enforcement, prepared by COM FPC, August 20,
1992.)
Letterito Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David w.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for August 1992, September 7,
1992.
Letter to Mr. David W. Thompson, Environmental
Remediation Program, General Electric Company,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief,. New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Review of Caribe General Electric
Products Report, Technical Memorandum Summary of
Initial Field Activities for the Operable Unit
Two, Remedial Investigation, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico, Dated July 1992, September 11, 1992.
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Ms. Sally Odland, Work Assignment Manager,
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, re Review of.ERM
Comments on Caribe General Electric Products July
1992 Technical Memorandum, September 25, 1992.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-?,
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for September 1992, October 8,
1992.
Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, re: attached
Geraghty & Miller letter re: Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico Public Supply Hell Field Site, Response to
ERM, Inc., Comments on OUII Technical Memorandum,
October 14, 1992. (Attachment.)
Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE
36
-------
Corporate Environmental Programs, re: attached
Geraghty & Miller letter re: Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico Public Supply Well Field Site, Response to
U.S. EPA Comments on OUII Technical Memorandum,
October 15, 1992. (Attachments)
P. 305761- Letter to Jane W. Gardener, Esquire/ General
305769 Electric Company, from Ms. Bernice I. Gorman, -
Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Camp, Dresser & McKee Review of Geraghty &
Miller Saltwater Intrusion Study, October 22,
1992. (Attachment: Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega
Alta Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Ms." Sally Odland, Work
.Assignment Manager, Camp, Dresser & McKee, Federal
Programs Corp., re: CDM Comments on General
Electrics Groundwater Modeling of the Vega Alta
Area and Presented in their July 1992 Technical
Memorandum and the September 29, 1992 Meeting at
EPA, October 22, 1992.)
P. 305770- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
305776 Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Sally Odland,
Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: CDM Comments on-General
Electrics Groundwater Modeling of the Vega Alta
Area as Presented in their July 1992 Technical
Memorandum and September 29, 1992 Meeting at EPA,
October 22, 1992.
P. 305777- Letter to Mr. Erwin Stnieszek, TES .V Regional
....305785 Project, Officer, .U.S., EPA, ..Region .II, ..from.Mr.
Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager, CDM
Federal Programs Corporation, re: attached CDM
Comments on General Electrics Groundwater .
Modeling of the Vega Alta Area as Presented in.
their1July 1992 Meeting at EPA, October 22, 1992.
P. 305786- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
305786 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Messrs. Brian A. Smith, Senior
Scientist/Project Manager and Daniel A. Nachman,
Vice President/Project Director, Geraghty.6
Miller, Inc., re: Sampling and Analysis for the
Borehole investigation, Vega Alta Operable Unit
II, October 30, 1992.
P. 305787- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305789 Manager, Chief, New VorX/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA/ Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-Atlantic
37
-------
Southeast Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs,. re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
October 1992, November 10, 1992.
P. 305T90- Letter to Mr. Adalbert© Bosque, Acting Work
305793 Assignment Manager,.from Ms. Sally Odland, Work
Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Change in Location of Boring |36,
November 10, 1992. '
P. 305794- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
305796 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Messrs. Brian A. Smith, Senior
^Scientist/Project Manager and Daniel A. Nachraan,
Vice President/Project Director, Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., re: Vega Alta OUII Borehole Drilling
Investigation, November 19, 1992. {Attachments:
data.) - .
P. 305797- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305798 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-Atlantic
Southeast Region, GE Corporate Environmental
Programs, re: attached Monthly Progress Report for
November 1992, December 10, 1992. .••
P. . 305799- Letter to Mr. Erwin Smieszek, TES V Regional
305806 Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Scott B. Graber, TES V Regional Manager, re:
Summary of Meetings in Puerto Rico on December 8,
199-2 "Concerning -the GUI -.-Remedy; DCN: - TESV-C02 0 81-
LR-CSRY, December. 22, 1992. ... . .
P. 305807- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project . .
305809 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance :.•
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for December 1992, January 10,
1993. . : .
P. 305810- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
305819 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, u.Sf EPA, Region
II, from Ms. Sally Odland, Work Assignment
Manager, COM Federal Programs Corp., re: Change in
Location of Boring 14, January 12, 1993.
(Attachments: data.)
38
-------
p.
305820-
305831
305832-
305857
305858-
305870
P.
305871-
305902
305903-
305904
305905-
305916
Letter t6 Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean.Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, .from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for January 1993, February 10,
1993.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region,-GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for February 1993, March 9, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, re: Additional
Work Under the Vega Alta OUII Remedial
Investigation, March 11, 1993. (Attachments:
data.)
Letter to Mr. Ervin Smieszek, TES V Regional
Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Scott Graber, TES V Regional Manager, re: Summary
of Field Oversight Activities, March 16, 1993,
DCN: TESV-C02081-LR-CVRW, March 16.,: 1993. .. .
(Attached: Summary of Field Oversight Activities
March 1993, Vega Alta Water Supply Well Site,
Operable Unit II, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Waste Program Enforcement, prepared by CDM FPC,
March 16, 1993.) -
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Sally Odland,
Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Locations of Proposed Additional
Multiport Wells, March 22, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for March 1993, April 8, 1993.
39
-------
305917- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305923 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for April 1993, May 4, 1993.
305924- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
305926 Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Sally Odland,
Work Assignment Manager, COM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Response to Questions Regarding
the Chemical Fate of 1,1-Dichloroethene. and Freon,
May 24, 1993. (Attached: References Cited.)
305927- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305928 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for May 1993, June 8, 1993.
305929- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305935 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for June 1993, July ,9, 1993.
-305936- - Letter to-Ms.- Lourdes -Rodriguez> -Esquire,
305936 . Assistant to the Governor, Office of the Governor,
from Mr. George Pavlou, Acting Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Superfund
Site, July 16, 1993.
305937- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305939 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE corporate .
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for July 1993, August 9, 1993.
305940- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305942 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
40
-------
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for August 1993, September 9,
1993. , . •
305943- Letter to Mr. Mark E. Gruiruner, Esquire, Kirkland &
305946 Ellis, from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: U.S. EPA comments on the Initial Testing
Program (ITP) submitted by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., dated August 3, 1993, for the
Vega Alta Superfund Site, October 1, 1993.
305947- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305949 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for September 1993, October 7,
. 1993.
305950- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
3059S7 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
: Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for October 1993, November 9,
1993. ...
305988- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305990 Manager, Chief, New .York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for November 1993, December 10,-
1993.
305991- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305993 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-,
, Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached,Monthly
Progress Report for December 1993, January 10,
1994.
305994- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
305996 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,. from Mr. David W.
41
-------
305997-
306004
306004A-
306025
306026-
306028
306029-
306094
306095-
306097
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, .GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for March 1994, April 8, 1994.
Letter to Mr. William J. McCabe, Deputy Director,
Caribbean Programs, U.S. EPA, Region II, and to
Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II, Caribbean
Field Office, from Ms. Margaret N. Strand, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, re: Vega Alta Superfund
Site, Operable Unit II, Comments on Report
Submitted by Caribe General Electric and Unisys,
May 23, 1994.
Letter to Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, .GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: EPA and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board comments on General Electrics Operable Unit
Two Remedial and Supplemental Groundwater
Investigation Report of the Vega Alta Superfund
Site, dated January 1994, May 25, 1994.
(Attachment: references.)
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David w.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate .
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
"Progress 'Report for 'May' 19'94,' 'June '6, 1994.
Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region,- GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, re:, attached
Response to U.S. EPA Comments on the Operable Unit
Two Remedial and Supplemental Groundwater,
Investigation Report, June 30, 1994.
(Attachment.)
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptaan, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David w.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for June 1994, July 8, 1994.
42
-------
306098-
306100
306101-
306102
P.
306103-
306105
P.
306106-
306161
P. 306162-
306164
P. 306165-
306166
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean.Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.-
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate .
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for July 1994, August 9, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Hector Russe
Martinez, Chairman, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Office of .the. Governor, Environmental Quality
Board, Emergency Response and Superfund Area, re:
Response to U.S. EPA Comments, OU-II Remedial and
Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Report,
Vega Alta Superfund site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
August 12, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for August 1994, September 9,
1994.
Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE
"Corporate'' Environmental "Programs / re: - proper
discharge of purge water into the Ponderosa
Treatment System, September 27, 1994. . '.
{Attachments:.various data and correspondence
relating to the purge water discharge.)
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for September 1994, October 6,
1994.
Facsimile to Mr." Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, re: attached
43
-------
letter to Mr. Dave Thompson, GE, from James S.
Smith, Ph.D., President/ Chemist, Trillum Inc.,
Environmental Consultants, re: Analytical
Detection Limits, November 7, 1994.
P. - 306167- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
306169 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid- .
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for October 1994, November 9,
1994.
P. 306170- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
306172 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. - David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs,' re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for November 1994, December 8,
1994. . ' •
P. 306173- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project .
306175 Manager, Chief, New York/ Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for December 1994, January 9,
..1995. . - . - : . -
P. 306176- Letter to Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager, Remedial
306212 Projects, Mid-Atlaritic/Southeast Region, GE
Corporate Environmental Programs, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/ Caribbean Super fund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: U.S. EPA and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board evaluation of GEs and Unisys "Response to
EPA Comments on the OU-II Remedial and ' '
Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Report,
Vega Alta Super fund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico",
January 15, 1995. :
P. 306213- Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, 'Site .
306217 Compliance Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. Environmental .Protection Agency,
from Mr. David J. Martin, Environmental Project
Manager, Unisys Corporation, and Mr. Peter P.
Mele, Program Manager, Unisys Corporation, re:
December 1994 Progress Report, Vega Alta well
44
-------
306229-
306231
Site, Puerto Rico, January 19, 1995. (Attached:
(1) Letter to Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
United States Protection Agency, from David. W.
Thompson, GE Corporate Environmental Programs, re:
Monthly Progress Report for December 1994, January
19, 1995; (2) List of Addresses; (3) Monthly
Progress Report, January 9, 1995.)
306218- Letter to Mr. Jose Fcnt, Vega Alta Project
306228 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA/
Region II, from Mr. David W. Thompson, Manager,
Remedial Projects, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region,
GE Corporate Environmental Programs, re: attached
GE/Unisys Response to USEPA Comment Letter of
January 5, 1995, February 3, 1995.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, re: attached Monthly
Progress Report for January 1995, February 9,
1995.
306232- Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
306233 Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Messrs. David J. Martin, Environmental Project
Manager and Peter P. Mele, Program Manager, Unisys
Corporation, re: January 1995 Progress Report,
•Vega--Alta -Well- Field- Sitef Puerto Rico,- February
13, 1995.
306234- Facsimile transmission to Ms. Cheryl Fines, Camp,.
306269 Dresser & McKee, from Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta
Project Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re.: attached letter to Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Remedial Projects, Mid-
Atlantic/Southeast Region, GE Corporate
Environmental Programs, from Ms. Carole Petersen,
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: U.S. EPA and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board'
evaluation of GEs and Unisys "Response to EPA
Comments on the OU-II Remedial and Supplemental
Groundwater Investigation Report, Vega Alta
Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico", January
15, 1995, February 14, 1994.
45
-------
p.
p.
306270- . Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site
306271 Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Messrs. David J. Martin, Environmental Project
Manager and Peter P. Mele,.Program Manager, Unisys
Corporation, re: February 1995 Progress Report,
Vega Alta Well Field Site, Puerto Rico, March
10, 1995.
306272- Facsimile to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
306272 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Messrs. David J. Martin, Environmental
Project Manager and Peter P. Mele, Program
Manager, Unisys Corporation, re: Vega Alta Well
Field Site, Puerto Rico, Ground-Water Sampling
Notification, Second Quarter 1995, March 31, 1995.
306273- Letter to Ms. Carol Fetersen, Chief, New York/
306290 Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. Peter P. Mele, Program Manager,
Corporate Environmental Affairs, Unisys, re:Vega
Alta Supplemental Groundwater Remedial Design .Work
Plan (SRDWPJ and Supplemental Sampling Analysis
and Monitoring Plan (SSAMP), April 6, 1995.
(Attached: Response to U.S. EPA Comments on the
SRDWP and SAMP Submission, Vega Alta Public
Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, April
1995.)
Facsimile to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Messrs. David J.. Martin, Environmental
" Project Manager arid-Peter P. 'Mele, Program
Manager, Unisys Corporation, re: Vega Alta Well
Field Site, Puerto Rico, Ground-Water Sampling
Notification, Second Quarter 1995, April 10, 1995.
(Attachment: data.)
306293- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
306295 Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Emilio
Concepcion, Plant Manager, Caribe GE, re: closure
of unused ground water well, May 10, 1995.
306296- Letter to Vega Alta Project Manager, Site •
306298 Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Messrs. David J. Martin, Environmental Project
Manager .and Peter P. Mele, Program Manager, Unisys
Corporation, re: April 1995 Progress Report,
Vega Alta Well Field Site, Puerto Rico, May
15f- 1995.
P. 306291-
306292
46
-------
P. 306299-' Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
306302 Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. David J. Martin,
Environmental Project Manager, Unisys Corporation,
and Mr. Peter P. Mele, Program Manager, Unisys
Corporation, re: Vega Alta Field Site, Puerto
Rico, Analysis of Inorganics in Ground Water, June
14, 1995. (Attached: GE/Unisys Inorganic Sampling
- May 1995, Vega Alta, PR. Undated.)
P. 306303- Facsimile to Mr. Jose Font, Vega Alta Project
306309 Manager, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David S. Andersen, Project
Manager/Geologist, Unisys Corporation, re: Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, SVE Perfomance Test, Operable
Unit II, July 24, 1995. (Attachment: site location
maps.)
P. 306310- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
306311 Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Joseph D.
Monahan, Field Operations Manager, Unisys
Corporation, re: Vega Alta Well Field Site, Puerto
Rico, Ground Water Sampling Notification, Fourth-
Quarter 1995, October 31, 1995.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Project Manager,
400066 Carribean Field Office, U.S. EPA, Region IJ, from
Messrs. Peter P. Mele, Environmental Program
Manager, Unisys Corporation, and David W. .
Thompson, Manager, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region,
General Electric, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site,,
Puerto Rico, Feasibility Study Report - Operable
unit Two, Administrative Order II-CERCLA-00301,
August 10, 1995. "(Attached: Report: Operable Unit
Two Feasibility Study_; Vgcra Alta Superfund Siter
Vega Alta. Puerto Ricof prepared for U.S.. EPA on
behalf of Caribe General electric and Unisys
Corporation, prepared by Unisys Corporation,
August 11, 1995.
4.6 Correspondence
P. 400067- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Vega Alta Project
400069 Manager, Chief, New York/Caribbean Compliance
Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. David W. Thompson,
47
-------
p..
400073-
400075
Manager, Mid-Atlantic/Southeast Region,
Environmental Remediation Program, General
Electric Corporate Environmental Programs, re:
Attached Monthly Progress Report for January, 1994
February 10, 1994.
P. 400070- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Chief, New York/ .
400072 Caribbean Compliance Branch/ Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Mid-Atlantic/ Southeast Region,
Environmental Remediation Program, General
Electric .Corporate Environmental Programs, re:
Attached Monthly Progress Report for February,
1994, March 10, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Chief, New York/
Caribbean Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager, Mid-Atlantic/ Southeast Region,
'Environmental Remediation Program, General
Electric Corporate Environmental Programs, re:
Attached Monthly Progress Report for April,
1994, May 9, 1994. '
P. 400076- Letter to Mr. Dave'Thompson, General Electric
400084 Company, and Mr. Peter P. Mele, Anises
Corporation/ from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, re:
Review of Draft Feasibility Study Report (FS)
Operable Unit II, Vega Alta Public Water Supply
Wells Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, -July 24,
1995. (Attached: Facsimile Journal, July 27,
19951) •'.'".'
P. 400085- Letter to Mr. Mel Hauptman, Chief, New .York/
400087 Caribbean Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, from Mr. David W.
Thompson, Manager> Mid-Atlantic/ Southeast Region,
Environmental Remediation Program, General
Electric Corporate Environmental Programs, re:
Attached Monthly Progress Report for August 1995,
September 9,1995.
5.0 RECORD OF DECISION
5.1 Record of Decision
P. 500001- Record of Decision, Vega Alta Public Supply
500082 Wells, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, prepared by U.S.
EPA, Region II, September 29, 1987.
-------
5.4 Correspondence
P. 500083- Letter to Mr. Hector Russe, Esquire, Chairman,
500086 Puerto .Rico Environmental Quality Board, from Mr.
George Pavlou, Acting Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division,,U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Implementation of the Operable Unit One ROD
and Modifications to the Remedy that EPA is
Contemplating, February 3, 1993.
P. 500087- Memorandum to Ms. Jeanne M. Fox, Regional
. 500091 Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Douglas R. Blazey, Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
Region II, and Ms. Kathleen Callahan,-Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Notice Required by CERCLA
Section 117 (c) concerning Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells Site, August 26, 1994. (Attached: The U.S.
EPA announces an Explanation of Significant
Differences, Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, undated.)
7.0 . ENFORCEMENT
7.1 Enforcement History
P. 700001- Report: Environmental and PRP Status Review of
700042 Teledyne Packaging Puerto Rico. Inc. in Vega Alta.
Puerto Rico, prepared by Environmental Strategies
Corporation, January 25, 1988. (Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at U.S.
EPA, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
Floor, N.Y., N.Y. 10007)
P. 700043- A List: Vega Alta Site Addresses, prepared by
700046 unknown, prepared for unknown, July 30, 1992.
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700047- Administrative Order, In the Matter of: Caribe
700066 General Electric Products, Inc., Motorola Telcarro
de Puerto Rico, Inc., Barman Automotive Puerto
Rico, Inc., Puerto Rico Industrial Development
Company, The West Company, Index No.-,II CERCLA-
80217, September 30, 1988.
' t ,
P. 700067- Administrative Order, In the Matter of: Caribe
700086 General Electric Products, Inc., Motorola Telcarro
de Puerto Rico, Inc., Harxnan Automotive Puerto
49
-------
Rico,. Inc., Puerto Rico Industrial Development
Company , The West Company, Index No. II-CERCLA-
90302, March 22, 1989.
P. 700087- Administrative Order, In the Matter of: Caribe
700106 General Electric Products, Inc ., Motorola Telcarro
,de Puerto Rico, Inc. , Hannan Automotive Puerto
Rico, Inc, , Puerto .Rico Industrial Development
Company, The West Company, Teledyne Packaging,
P.R., Inc., Index No. II-CERCLA-003 01, September
27, 1990.
7.7 Notice Letters and Responses
P. 700107- Notice Letter to Caribe General Electric,
700108 Petitioner, from Mr. Pedro Maldonado Ojeda,
President, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Office of
the Governor, Environmental Quality .Board, re:
Remedial Action, Vega Alta Wells, September 3,
1992.
P 700109- Questionnaire with responses by Mr. Philippe Guex
700111 Tooling and Fastening Systems of America, Inc.,
undated.
7 . 8 Correspondence
P. 700112
700114
700115
700118
P.
700119
700120
Letter to Mr. Gilberto Rivera, General Electric
Controls, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, from Mr. Conrad
Simon, Director, Air and Waste Management
Division, re: Notification to Terminate Interim
Status -EPA I.D. No. :FRD090031410, October "3 / 1984.
(Attachment: Notice of Interim Status
Termination.) - -
Letter to Mr. Christopher Daggett, Ph. D. ,
Regional Administrator, -Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, from Mr. Santos Rohena
Betancourt, Chairman, Estado Libre Asociado De
Puerto Rico/Of icina De Gobernador, re: .US; -vs.
Caribe General Electric Products et al Vega Alta
Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, June: 16,
1988. (Attached: Letter to Mr. Christopher
Daggett, Ph. D., Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, from
Mr. Santos Rohena, Jr., Chairman, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico/Office of the Governor, re: Vega Alta
Puerto Rico, Superfund Site, February 25, 1988.)
Letter to Mr. Eric Schaaf , Chief, Superfund
Enforcement Branch, Office of Regional Counsel,
50
-------
U.S. EPA, Region II, Attn: Ms. Bernice Gorman,
Esq., from Mr. Santos Rohena, Chairman,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Office of the
Governor, re: Vega Alta Wellfield Superfund Site,
Puerto Rico, July 12, 1988.
P. 700121- Letter to Mr. Santos Rohena Betancourt, Jr.,
700121 Chairman, Environmental Quality Board, Santurce,
Puerto Rico, from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.EPA
Region II, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, September
21, 1988.
P. 700122- Letter to various PRFs, from Mr. Eric Schaaf,
700127 Chief, New York/ Caribbean Superfund Branch,
Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.EPA Region II,
re: Revised version of pages of Administrative
Order II CERCLA-80217, October 3, 1988.
P. 700128- Letter to Mr. Steve D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin,
700139 from Mr. Douglas B. MacDonald, Palmer & Dodge, and
Ms. Encarnita Catalan Machan, General Counsel,
Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority, re: Vega
Alta Superfund Site, October 31, 1988. (Attached:
Distribution on Letter to Steve Ramsey dated
October 31, 1988; Alternative Water Supply Fact
Summary; Improvements to Water Supply System
Construction of Distribution Tank, Installation of
Transmission Mains and Connection of Deep Wells
First Stage, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico - Cost
Estimate, August 24, 1988.)
P. 700140- Letter to Mr. Melvin Hauptman, Site Compliance
700141 Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. James J. Dragna,
Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, re: Vega Alta Site,
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Phase II Source Control
RI/FS, November 2, 1988.
P. 700142- Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
700144 Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin, New York,
re: Vega Alta, Puerto Rico Superfund Site,
November 4, 1988.
P. 700145- Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
700255 Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin, New York,
re: Vega Alta, Puerto Rico Superfund Site,
November 8, 1988. (Attached: (1) Comments of
General Electric Company, Motorola, Inc., and
51
-------
Harmon Automotive,; Inc., to Administrative Order
Issued September 3'o, 1988 concerning the Vega Alta
Superfund Site, prepared by General Electric
Company, Motorola, Inc., Harmon Automotive, Inc.>
November 8, 1988. (2) Comments on the
Administrative Order, dated September 30, 1988,
Regarding The Vega Alta Superfund Site for General
.Electric Company, prepared by Bechtel
Environmental, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
November 2, 1988. (3) Comments on Administrative
Order Index No. II CERCLA-80217, by Edmund A.C.
Crouch, Ph.D./ Debra A. Kaden, Ph.D., and Laura C.
Green, Ph.D., Environmental Health and Toxicology
Group, Meta Systems Inc., November 1, 1988.)
P. 700256- Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
700271 Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. George Miller, Dechert Price & Rhoads, re:
Vega Alta Superfund Site, November 9, 1988.
(Attached: Administrative Order, Index No. II
CERCLA-80217, November 9, 1988.)
P. 700271A- Letter to various PRFs, from. Mr. William J.
700271A Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Suspension of the effective
date of Administrative Order, November 23, 1988.
P. 700272- Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
700274 .Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. John A. 2ackrison, Counsel for Motorola, Inc.,
• --rev •• Vega 'Alta,- -Puerto -Rico- Superfund Site,
November 23, 1988.
P. 700275- Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
700276 Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. David B. Parer, Farer Siegal Fersko, re: Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico Superfund Site, November
• 28,1988.
P. 700277- Letter to Mr. Santos Rohena Betancourt,
700286 Chairman, Environmental Quality Board, Santurce,
Puerto Rico, from Mr. Lee M. Thomas, U.S. .EPA,
Region II, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, December 22, 1988, (Attached:
Letter to Mr. James J. Florio, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection 'and
Competitiveness, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, from Mr. Lee M. Thomas,
U.S. EPA, Region .II, re: Agencys Implementation
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), May 20, 1987.)
52
-------
p.
p.
700287-
700289
700290-
700305
700306-
7003ZO
700311-
700311
700312-
700314
700315-
700350
P. 70-0351-
700356
Letter to Mr. Douglas R. Blazey, Regional Counsel,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Stephen D. Ramsey,
Sidley & Austin, re: Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
Superfund Site, January 25, 1989.
Letter to various PRFs, from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Unilateral
RD/RA Order (Index No. II- CERCLA-90302), Vega
Alta Superfund Site, - March 23, 1989. ( Attached:
Letter to Mr. Santos Rohena Betancourt, Chairman,
Environmental Quality Board, Santurce, Puerto
Rico, from Mr. Lee M. Thomas, U.S. EPA, .Region II,
re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico,.December 22, 1988).
Letter to Ms. Bernice Corman, Esq., Assistant
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin, re: Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico Superfund Site, April 12, 1989.
Letter to Mr. John ZacJcrison, Esq., Kirkland &
Ellis, from Ms. Bernice Corman, Esq., Assistant
Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Date of First
Deliverables Pursuant to Unilateral RD/RA Order
(Index.No. II- CERCLA-90302), Vega Alta Superfund
Site, April 19, 1989.
Letter .to Mr. John Malleck, .Chief U.I.C. ..Section
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Nicolas Suarez,
General Manager, Harrnan Automotive, Puerto Rico,
Inc., re: Harman Automotive - P.R., Inc., April
26, 1989. (Attached: A Partial Detail View of .
PRIDCO, March 31, 1989.)
Letter to Mr. Eric Schaaf, Esq.,Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Stephen D.
Ramsey, Sidley & Austin, re: Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico Superfund Site, May 8, 1989. (Attached:
Presentation to EPA, April 13, 1989, General
Electric Company, Vega Alta Superfund Site/ Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico.)
Letter to Ms. Bernice Corman, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region.II, from Mr. John
Zackrison, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, August 8, 1989. (Attached: Letter
to various addressees, from Stephen P. Cline,
P.G., Project Manager, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., July 31, 1989.)
53 ,
-------
P. 700357-
700358
700359-
700362
700363-
700365
700366-
700367
P.
700368-
700374
P.
700375-
700376
P.
700377-
700384
Letter to Mr. Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin,
from Mr. George Pavlou, Associate Director for
Enforcement Programs, re: Unilateral RD/RA Order
(Index No. II- CERCLA-90302), Vega Alta Wellfield
Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Caribe
General Electric Company, September 26, 1989.
Letter to.Mr. Eduardo L. Buso, Esq., General
Electric Company, Ric Piedras, Puerto Rico, from
Mr. George A. Shanahan, Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: EPA Order No.
CWA-II-89-25, Caribe GE Product, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico, October 6, 1989.
Letter to various PRPs, from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Vega Alta
Wellfield Site, RD/RA Special Notice, November 20,
1989.
Letter to Mr. Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin,
from Mr. George Pavlou, Associate Director for
Enforcement Programs, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., Compliance
with Unilateral RD/RA Order (Index No. II- CERCLA-
90302) , Vega Alta Wellfield Superfund Site, Vega
Alta, Puerto Rico, January 16, 1990.
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
Caribbean Field Office, and Ms. Bernice Gorman,
U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. James J. Dragna,
.Pepper,- Hamilton .& .Scheetz,. re: ...Vega,Alta.
Wellfield Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
March 14, 1990.
Letter to Ms. Susan Barry, Environmental Resource
Management, Inc.,-from Mr. Jose C. Font, Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region II, Caribbean Field
Office, re: Extension for implementation of the
Vega Alta Site SAMP pursuant to CERCLA
Administrative Order 90302, June 13, 1990.
Letter to Ms. Bernice Gorman, Esq., U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert
Price & Rhoads, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, June
20, 1990. (Attached: Letter to Mr. Eduardo M.
Negron Navaz, Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez,
Attorney and Councellors at Lav, from Mr. Santos
Rohena, Chairman, .Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Office of the Governor, re: Authorization for
54
-------
.discharge of purge water, May 9, 1990; Table A-l,
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements,
undated.}
700385- . Letter to Mr. Charles A. Bandoian, Project
700386 Director, Environmental Resource Management, Inc.,
from Ms. Carole Peterson, Chief, New York/
Caribbean Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA Region II,
re: Draft SOW for Remedial Design for the Vega
Alta Site, August 17, 1990.
700387- Letter to Ms. Carole Peterson, Chief, New York/
700391 Caribbean Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert Price & Rhodas,
re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, August 31, 1990.
(Attached: Letter to Ms. Ruth E. Baker, Vega Alta
Project Manager, Environmental Resource
Management, Inc., from Mr. Santos Rohena
Betancourt, Chairman Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Office of the Governor, Environmental Quality
Board, re: Draft SOW for Remedial Design for the
Vega Alta Wellfield Site, August 10, 1990.)
700392- Letter with handwritten marginalia, to Ms. Bernice
700411 Gorman, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert
Price & Rhoads, re: Administrative Order, U.S.
EPA, Region II, Index No. II - CERCLA - 00301,
dated September 27, 1990, October 24, 1990. (
Attached: Letter with attachments to Mr. George J.
Miller, Dechert Price & Rhoads, from Mr. Gerald L.
•Kirkpatrick, • P; G., EFM «Proj ect • Manager ,• re: - The
West Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., Vega Alta
Superfund Site, EPA Index No. II-CERCLA 00301,
October 23, 1990.)
700412- Facsimile transmission of letter to Mr. Melvin
700417 Hauptman, Site Compliance Branch, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. David B. Farer, Farer Siegal Fersko,
Attorneys at Law, re: Response to Administrative
Order, October 22, 1990.
700418- Letter to Mr. Jose c. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
700437 Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Randall J.
Krause, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, re: Vega Alta
Wellfield Superfund Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico,
October 29, 1990. (Attached: Letter to Ms. Bernice
Gorman, Esq., U.S. EFA, Region II, from Pepper,
Hamilton & Scheetz, unsigned, re: Vega Alta,
Puerto Rico Superfund Site, October 24, 1990.)
55
-------
700438- Letter to Ms.' Bernice Corman, Esq, Office of
700439 Regional Counsel, ,U.S. EPA, Region II,•from Mr.
David B. Farer, Farer Siegal Fersko, Attorneys at
Law, re: ERM Report on Need for Treatability
Study/ PRP Group Request for Extension of Time for
Submission of Remedial Design/ Request for
Meeting, March 5, 1991.
700440- Letter to Mr. David B. Farer, Farer Siegal Fersko,
700442 , Attorneys at Law, from Ms. Carole Peterson, Chief,
New York/ Caribbean Superfund Branch, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, First Operable Unit Administrative
Order ( Index No. II - CERCLA - 90302), May 09,
1991. '.'
700443- .Letter to Ms. Bernice Gorman, Esq., U.S. EPA,
700444 Region II, from Mr. George J. Miller,. Dechert
Price & Rhoads, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, June
21, 1991.
700445- Letter to various PRPs from Ms. Carole Petersen,
700456 Chief, New York/ Caribbean Compliance Branch,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Unilateral RD/RA Order (Index
No. II- CERCLA-90302), Vega Alta Superfund Site,
August 01, 1991. (Attached: EPA Review of 30%
Design Report, undated.)
700457- Letter to Ms. Bernice Corman, Esquire, U.S. EPA.
700459 Region II, and Mr. Peter K. Kautsky, Esquire,
"Environmental" Enf or ceme"nt~" Section, 'Environmental
and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, from Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert Price
& Rhoads, re^ United States v. GE Caribe, et al.,-
Civil Action No. 90-2287 (cc), August-23, 1991.
(Attached: Facsimile cover sheet, August 21,
1991.)
700460- Letter to Ms. Bernice Corman, Esq., Assistant
700461 Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Peggy L. 0
Brien, Siddley & Austin, re: Vega Alta Public
Supply Wells Superfund Site, October 1, 1991.
' •*' ••*
700462- Letter to Ms. Bernice Corman, Esq., Assistant
700463 Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from, Mr. Angus
Macbeth, Siddley & Austin, re: Vega Alta Public
Supply Wells Superfund Site, November 27, 1991.
56
-------
P. 700464
700468
700469
700473
P.
700474
700474
P.
700475
700487
P.
700488
700489
P.
700490
700492
Letter to Ms. Bernice Gorman, Esq., U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert
Price & Rhoads, re: Vega Alta Superfund site,
January 15, 1992. (Attached: Letter to Mr. George
J. Miller, Esq., Dechert Price & Rhoads, from Mr.
Carl E. Petrus, P.E., Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Vega Alta Site Remediation
Construction Bidding Schedule, January 13, 1992.)
Letter to various PRFs from Ms. Carole Petersen,
Chief, New York/ Caribbean Superfund Branch II ,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, 'U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, July
10, 1992. (Attached: Facsimile cover sheet,
September 21, 1992.)
Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen Chief, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch II , Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Ms. Nancy A. Valley, Motorola, Inc., re:
Attorney substitution, July 30, 1992
.Letter to Mr. George J. Miller, Dechert Price &
Rhoads, from Ms. Maria Luisa Gonzalez, Fiddler,
Gonzalez & Rodriguez, re: Vega Alta Superfund
Site, September 22, 1992. (Attached: (1)
Resolution (original and unofficial translation)
addressed to various "PRPs, from Mr. Santos Rohena
Betancourt, Department of Natural Resources,
Puerto Rico, re: Petition to Waive Franchise to
Operate de Ponderosa Well during Remedial Action
and "Cleaning "of 'Vega' Alta -Aquifer, • September- 23 ,
1992; (2) Resolution written in Spanish, re:
Resolution waiving obtaining water extraction
franchise, September 4, 1992.)
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. George. J. Miller,
Dechert Price & Rhoads, re: Vega Alta Superfund
Site, November 13, 1992. (Attached: Notice to
Jafer Construction, S. E., from Mr. George J.
Miller, 'Attorney, The West Company of Puerto Rico,
Inc. , and Motorola Telcarro de Puerto Rico., Inc. ,
.re: Notification about Contract Time, November 11,
1992.) -. .
Letter to Ms. Lourdes Rodriguez, Assistant of the
Governor, Office of the Governor, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, from Ms. Bernice Gorman, Esq., Assistant
57
-------
Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund .
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, April .8, 1993.
7004,93- Letter/Translation to Mr. Juan F. Woodroffe,
700494 President, PRIDCO, from Mr. Benjamin Pomales,
Interim Executive Director, re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site - U.S. vs. Caribe General Electric
Products, Inc., June 4, 1993.
700495- Letter to Mr. Donald G. Frankel, Esq.,
700525 Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, United States
Department of .Justice, from Mr. Langley R. Shook,
Sidley & Austin, re: United States v. Caribe
General Electric Products, Inc., (Vega Alta
Superfund Site), July 6, 1994. (Attached: (1) News
Release from The New fork Times, July 3, 1994; and
(2) Memorandum in Support of Defendant Caribe
General Electric's Motion to Suspend and Partially
Vacate EPA's Order, Craft, July 5, 1994.)
700526- Letter to various PRFs from Mr. Juan M. Fajardo,
700550 Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Amendment to
Administrative Order Index No. II- CERCLA-90302,
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells Site, Vega Alta,
Puerto Rico, September 1, 1994. (Attached:
Amendment to Administrative Order Index No. II-
CERCLA-90302, August 30, 1994, Appendix I and II
included.)
700551- Letter to Mr. Juan Fajardo, Office of .Regional
700552 Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms Margaret N.
Strand, Bayh, Connaughton & Malone, P.G., re: .Vega
Alta Superfund Site, May 3,-1995.
700553- Letter to Mr. Juan Fajardo, Office of Regional
700555 Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Margaret N.
Strand, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, re: Vega
Alta Superfund Site, November 14, 1994. (Attached:
Letter to Mr. Langley Shook, Sidley & Austin, from
Ms. Margaret N. Strand, Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, November
14, 1994.) -
700556- Letter to Mr. Juan Fajardo, Office of Regional
700569 Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms Margaret N.
Strand, Bayh, Connaughton & Maione, P.G., re: Vega
Alta Superfund Site: Well A Plans And Sampling
Plans, May 11, 1995. (Attached: Comments on
58
-------
GE/Unisys Plans for Well A and future sampling at
Vega Alta Superfund Site.)
700570- Letter to Mr. Juan Fajardo, Office of Regional
700577 Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, and to Mr. Jose C.
Font, U.S. EPA, Region II, Caribbean Field Office,
from Ms Margaret ,N. Strand, Bayh, connaughton &
Malone, P.G., re: Vega Alta Superfund Site, June
30, 3.995. (Attached: (1) Comments on Behalf of
Monte Ray Farm and Enpresas Fonalledas on Draft
Operable Unit II Feasibility Study, Vega Alta
Superfund Site; (2) letter to Mr. Langley Shook,
Sidley & Austin, from Ms. Margaret N. Strand,
Bayh, Connaughton & Halone, P.G., re: Vega Alta
Superfund Site, June 30, 1995.)
700578- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, U.S. EPA, Region II,
700579 Caribbean Field Office, from Ms Margaret N.
Strand, Bayh, Connaughton & Malone, P.G., re:
Vega Alta Superfund Site, July 13, 1995.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENT
8.1 Health Assessment
P. 800001— Report: Final Human Health Risk Assessment, Vega
800123 Alta Site. Vega Alta. Puerto Rico. Volume I of IT.
prepared by COM Federal Programs Corporation,
prepared -for-U»S.-EPA, - Office-of Waste.Programs
Enforcement, Washington, DC, December 7, 1995.
P. 800124- Report: Final Human Health Risk Assessment. Vega
800375 Alta Site. Veaa Alta. Puerto Rico. Volume II of
II, prepared by COM Federal Programs Corporation,
prepared for U.S. UFA, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Washington, DC, December 7, 1995. .
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.3 Public Notices
i
P. 1000001- Public Notice: "The United States Environmental
1000002 Protection Agency ("E?A") announces that it has
ordered the performance of remedial design and
59
-------
remedial action (*RD/RA")at the Vega Alta
Municipal Well Field Superfund site, located in
Vega Alta, Puerto Rico (the "Site"), undated.
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000003- Fact Sheet for the Vega Alta .Public Well
1000007 Field, September 1983. (Attached: (1) Memorandum
to Ms. Jacqueline E. Schafer, Regional
Administrator, from Mr. William J. Librizi,
Director, Office of Emergency and & Remedial
Response, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Vega Alta
Drinking Water Task Force Meeting, December 6,
1983; (2) Fact Sheet, Vega Alta Public supply
Wells, 12/06/96; (3) Letter to Mr. Jose M. Cobian,
President, Industrial Development Co., from Mr.
Weems L. Clevenger, Director, Caribbean Office,
U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Request for assistance to
identify past and present industrial activities..,
June 28, 1983.)
P. 1000008- Hoja de Informacion del Superfondo, Vega Alta,
1000010 Pozos de Suministro Publico, Vega Alta, Puerto
Rico, Julio 95.(Note: This document is written in
Spanish.)
P. 1000011- Superfund Fact Sheet, Vega Alta Public Supply Well
1000013 Site, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, undated.
60
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site;
Site name: Vega Alta Public Supply Well Site
Site location: Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
MRS score (date of score): 42.24 (9-1-84)
EPA ID Number:PRD980763775
Record of Decisiont
Date signed: 9/30/97
Operable Unit: OU-2
Selected remedy: Soil Vapor extraction System
Estimated Construction Completion: Two years
Capital cost: (in 1997 dollars) $2,777,DOOM
Annual O & M cost: $502,900
Present-worth cost: $7,473,000 (5% discount rate for 10 years)
Lead;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement
Primary Contact: Adalbert© Bosque, (787) 729-6951 ext. 236
Secondary Contact: Melvin Hauptman, (212) 637-3952
Main PRPs: Dave Thompson , General Electric Co., (610)992-7890
David Martin, Unisys Corporation, (610)993-3039
Waste;
Waste type: Volatile Organics
Waste origin: Wastes generated during plant operation
Estimated waste quantity: not known
Contaminated medium: soil
------- |